id|nct_id|outcome_id|non_inferiority_type|non_inferiority_description|param_type|param_value|dispersion_type|dispersion_value|p_value_modifier|p_value|ci_n_sides|ci_percent|ci_lower_limit|ci_upper_limit|ci_upper_limit_na_comment|p_value_description|method|method_description|estimate_description|groups_description|other_analysis_description|ci_upper_limit_raw|ci_lower_limit_raw|p_value_raw
90828980|NCT01600326|181533073|OTHER|Pair-wise comparison at Time point 1 compared to baseline|||||<|0.0001||||||One way repeated measure analysis of variance for outcome of total pain score over time adjusted for treatment with post hoc Tukey correction to adjust for multiple comparison|Tukey|See comments on P value||||||<0.0001
90891392|NCT02943408|181647884|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.90
90891393|NCT02943408|181647885|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.99
90891394|NCT02943408|181647886|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.56
90891395|NCT02943408|181647887|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.85
90891396|NCT02943408|181647888|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.43
90891397|NCT02943408|181647889|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.82
90891398|NCT02943408|181647890|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.50
90891399|NCT02943408|181647891|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.56
90891400|NCT02943408|181647892|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.92
90828981|NCT01600326|181533073|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||One way repeated measure analysis of variance for outcome of total pain score over time adjusted for treatment with post hoc Tukey correction to adjust for multiple comparison|Tukey|||One way repeated measure analysis of variance for outcome of total pain score over time adjusted for treatment with post hoc Tukey correction to adjust for multiple comparison||||<0.0001
90891401|NCT02943408|181647893|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.65
90828982|NCT01600326|181533074|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>.99
90828983|NCT02849418|181533096|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.85|-0.19|||||The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline value, Baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|||-0.19|-5.85|
90828984|NCT01405768|181533176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.13
90891402|NCT02943408|181647894|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.35
90954174|NCT00503139|181786696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sample|A two-sided t-test was performed to test the hypothesis.||The null hypothesis was that mHAQ scores at 6 months, 1 year, 1.5 years, and 2 years were equal to the baseline score.||||<0.001
90828985|NCT01405768|181533178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.13
90954175|NCT00503139|181786697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sample|A two-sided t-test was performed to test the hypothesis.||The null hypothesis was that VAS Fatigue scores at 6 months, 1 year, 1.5 years, and 2 years were equal to the baseline score.||||<0.001
90828986|NCT00599872|181533191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.418|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|0.48|||ANCOVA|||||0.48|-1.15|<0.05
90891403|NCT01106833|181647896|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that the proportion of participants with treatment success at 6 months is equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.63
90891404|NCT01106833|181647896|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that the proportion of participants with treatment success at 24 months is equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.44
90891405|NCT01106833|181647897|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.205||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis is that the rate of overall survival during the first two years post-randomization is equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.205
90891406|NCT01106833|181647898|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.141||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis is that the rate of progression-free survival during the first two years post-randomization is equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.141
90891407|NCT01106833|181647899|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.775||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis is that the rate of failure-free survival during the first two years post-randomization is equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.775
90891408|NCT01106833|181647900|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.396||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|Gray's test|Death without relapse was treated as a competing risk||The null hypothesis is that the rate of relapse during the first two years post-randomization is equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.396
90891409|NCT01106833|181647901|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.219||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|Gray's test|Death without initiation of secondary therapy is considered a competing risk for this endpoint||The null hypothesis is that the rate of initiation of secondary immunosuppressive therapy for chronic GVHD during the first two years post-randomization is equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.219
90891410|NCT01106833|181647902|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.706||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|Gray's test|Death without discontinuation of systemic immunosuppressive therapy is considered a competing risk for this endpoint||The null hypothesis is that the rate of discontinuation of systemic immunosuppressive therapy during the first two years post-randomization is equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.706
90954176|NCT00091169|181786701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.57|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.57
91079220|NCT01153009|182044114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21||0.224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.86|0.91||Pre-specified sequential statistical testing procedure indicates that when p-value \>0.025, hierarchical testing stops for this dose and for subsequent endpoints in the sequence a nominal p-value is provided.|Mixed model for repeated measurements|MMRM ANCOVA with treatment, center, week, treatment-by-week interaction, baseline MADRS total score-by-week as fixed effects.||All statistical tests were 2-sided with the estimated P-values at the 5% level of significance. To control for multiplicity, a pre-specified sequential testing procedure was applied to compare 15 mg and 20 mg vortioxetine to placebo. Efficacy endpoints were tested for each dose in a sequential order at significance level 0.025; as soon as an endpoint was non-significant at 0.025, the testing procedure stopped for all subsequent endpoints.||0.91|-3.86|0.224
91079221|NCT01153009|182044114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.12|-0.38||Pre-specified sequential statistical testing procedure indicates that when p-value \<0.025, hierarchical testing continues for this dose.|Mixed model for repeated measurements|MMRM ANCOVA with treatment, center, week, treatment-by-week interaction, baseline MADRS total score-by-week as fixed effects.||||-0.38|-5.12|0.023
91079222|NCT01153009|182044114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.46|-1.69|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|MMRM ANCOVA with treatment, center, week, treatment-by-week interaction, baseline MADRS total score-by-week as fixed effects.||||-1.69|-6.46|<0.001
91079223|NCT01153009|182044115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.249||||0.348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.786|1.984|||Regression, Logistic|P-value is from logistic regression with explanatory variables for treatment and Baseline MADRS score.||||1.984|0.786|0.348
91079224|NCT01153009|182044115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.257||||0.332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.792|1.994||Pre-specified sequential statistical testing procedure indicates that when p-value \>0.025, hierarchical testing stops for this dose and for subsequent endpoints in the sequence a nominal p-value is provided.|Regression, Logistic|P-value is from logistic regression with explanatory variables for treatment and Baseline MADRS score.||||1.994|0.792|0.332
91079225|NCT01153009|182044115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.991||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|3.171|||Regression, Logistic|P-value is from logistic regression with explanatory variables for treatment and Baseline MADRS score.||||3.171|1.250|0.004
91079226|NCT01153009|182044116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.16|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|MMRM ANCOVA with treatment, center, week, treatment-by-week interaction, baseline CGI-S score-by-week as fixed effects.||||0.16|-0.39|0.400
90828987|NCT00599872|181533192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.36|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|0.63|||ANCOVA|||||0.63|-1.72|<0.05
90828988|NCT00387881|181533202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|18.0|||<|0.001||95.0|10.0|25.0||Endpoints were co-primary and both needed to have p-value of \<0.05 to be considered indicative of efficacy.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Analysis for Migraine Pain-Free at 2 hours Post-Dose|Pain-Free (2 hours)||25|10|<0.001
90828989|NCT00387881|181533202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|15.0|||<|0.001||95.0|8.0|22.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Analysis for Sustained Pain Free from 2-24 hours Post-dose|Sustained Pain-Free (2-24 hours)||22|8|<0.001
90828990|NCT00453154|181533212|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using a 1-sided significance level of 0.15, the study has approximately 89% power to reject the null hypothesis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.62||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|70.0|1.27|2.08||All randomization was done using a permuted-block scheme with a block size of 6, stratified by combination chemotherapy (cisplatin vs carboplatin) and number of combination chemotherapy cycles (\< 6 vs 6 cycles)|Log Rank|||||2.08|1.27|0.02
90859666|NCT01890746|181582592|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5281||||0.3224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1084|2.2086|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.2086|0.1084|0.3224
90859667|NCT01890746|181582594|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6942|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.6942
90859668|NCT01890746|181582595|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1151||||0.7397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5585|2.229|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.2290|0.5585|0.7397
91079227|NCT01153009|182044116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.139||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.08|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|MMRM ANCOVA with treatment, center, week, treatment-by-week interaction, baseline CGI-S score-by-week as fixed effects.||||0.08|-0.46|0.177
91079228|NCT01153009|182044116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.139||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.07|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|MMRM ANCOVA with treatment, center, week, treatment-by-week interaction, baseline CGI-S score-by-week as fixed effects.||||-0.07|-0.61|0.014
90891411|NCT01106833|181647903|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.127||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|Kruskal-Wallis|||The null hypothesis is that the median prednisone dose at baseline is equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.127
90891412|NCT01106833|181647903|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.562||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|Kruskal-Wallis|||The null hypothesis is that the median prednisone dose at 6 months post-randomization is equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.562
91079229|NCT01153009|182044117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.286||0.684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.58|5.45|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|MMRM ANCOVA with treatment, center, week, treatment-by-week interaction, baseline MADRS total score-by-week as fixed effects.||||5.45|-3.58|0.684
90954177|NCT00091169|181786702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.64|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.64
90954178|NCT00091169|181786703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.93|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.93
90954179|NCT00091169|181786704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.61|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.61
91016657|NCT02087865|181916659|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.59||0.273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.12|6.63|||ANCOVA|||We are reporting the difference in mean between the Donepezil HCL and Placebo groups.||6.63|-23.12|0.273
90859669|NCT01890746|181582596|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.46||||0.0781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|6.38|||Log Rank|||||6.38|0.95|0.0781
90891413|NCT01106833|181647903|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.129||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|Kruskal-Wallis|||The null hypothesis is that the median prednisone dose at 1 year post-randomization is equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.129
90954180|NCT00091169|181786705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1e-05|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.00001
90954181|NCT00091169|181786706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.677|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.677
90859670|NCT01890746|181582600|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8749||||0.7122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4023|1.8943|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.8943|0.4023|0.7122
90891414|NCT01106833|181647904|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.586||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|Kruskal-Wallis|||The null hypothesis is that the median change in prednisone dose from baseline to 6 months post-randomization is equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.586
90891415|NCT01106833|181647904|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|Kruskal-Wallis|||The null hypothesis is that the median change in prednisone dose from baseline to 1 year post-randomization is equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.140
90891416|NCT01106833|181647905|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.582||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|Kruskal-Wallis|||The null hypothesis is that the median serum creatinine level at baseline is equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.582
90891417|NCT01106833|181647905|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.208||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|Kruskal-Wallis|||The null hypothesis is that the median serum creatinine level at 6 months post-randomization is equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.208
90891418|NCT01106833|181647905|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.431||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|Kruskal-Wallis|||The null hypothesis is that the median serum creatinine level at 1 year post-randomization is equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.431
90891419|NCT01106833|181647906|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.147||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|Kruskal-Wallis|||The null hypothesis is that the median change in serum creatinine level from baseline to 6 months post-randomization is equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.147
90859671|NCT01890746|181582601|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.54||||0.0688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|2.47|||Log Rank|||||2.47|0.96|0.0688
90859672|NCT02477839|181582627|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.14|||ANCOVA|||Difference ratio in LS Mean was calculated as the exp \[LSMLCM-LSMplacebo\].||1.14|0.83|
90891420|NCT01106833|181647906|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.863||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|Kruskal-Wallis|||The null hypothesis is that the median change in serum creatinine level from baseline to 1 year post-randomization is equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.863
90891421|NCT01106833|181647907|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that the proportions of patients in the patient-reported severity and vital status categories considered at baseline are equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.620
90891422|NCT01106833|181647907|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.258||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that the proportions of patients in the patient-reported severity and vital status categories considered at 6 months post-randomization are equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.258
90954182|NCT04410523|181786744|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean|0.122|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0541||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.016|0.229|||MMRM||Treatment difference (CSJ117-placebo)|||0.229|0.016|0.025
90828991|NCT03629886|181533225|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with HPV-16 (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T), and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100 Person-years|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.23||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of HPV-16 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received HPV vaccine in that study (N=1963). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative and seronegative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||0.23|0.09|
90828992|NCT03629886|181533225|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with HPV-16 (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T), and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.05||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of HPV-16 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received placebo in that study (N=1917). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative and seronegative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||1.05|0.73|
90905028|NCT02886728|181677434|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|13.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.7|19.7||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52||19.7|6.7|<0.001
90828993|NCT03629886|181533225|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with HPV-18 (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T), and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.15||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of HPV-18 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received HPV vaccine in that study (N=2356). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative and seronegative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||0.15|0.05|
90828994|NCT03629886|181533225|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with HPV-18 (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T), and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.56||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of HPV-18 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received placebo in that study (N= 2357). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative and seronegative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||0.56|0.35|
90828995|NCT03629886|181533225|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with HPV-16 and/or HPV-18 (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T), and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100 Person-years|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.27||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of HPV-16/18 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received HPV vaccine in that study (N=2534). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative and seronegative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||0.27|0.14|
90859673|NCT02477839|181582627|OTHER||Percent reduction|3.19|||=|0.6895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.59|17.5|||ANCOVA|||Percent reduction over placebo was estimated as 100 x (1-exp \[LSMLCM-LSMPBO\]).||17.50|-13.59|=0.6895
90891423|NCT01106833|181647907|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that the proportions of patients in the patient-reported severity and vital status categories considered at 1 year post-randomization are equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.036
90891424|NCT01106833|181647907|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.369||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that the proportions of patients in the patient-reported severity and vital status categories considered at 2 years post-randomization are equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.369
90954183|NCT04410523|181786744|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean|0.058|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0542||0.286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.049|0.165|||MMRM||Treatment difference (CCSJ117-placebo)|||0.165|-0.049|0.286
90859674|NCT03711266|181582647|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|31.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.5|44.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||Thirty patients were included in the final analysis. The analysis strategy was intent-to-treat, and multiple imputation was used to impute missing follow-up data. We included auxiliary variables that were correlated with the missing variables at r \> 0.4 (Enders, 2010).||44.3|18.5|<.001
90891425|NCT01106833|181647908|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that the proportions of patients in the provider-reported severity and vital status categories considered at baseline are equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.450
90828996|NCT03629886|181533225|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with HPV-16 and/or HPV-18 (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T), and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100 Person-years|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.18||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of HPV-16/18 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received placebo in that study (N= 2547). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative and seronegative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||1.18|0.88|
90891426|NCT01106833|181647908|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.301||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that the proportions of patients in the provider-reported severity and vital status categories considered at 6 months post-randomization are equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.301
90891427|NCT01106833|181647908|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that the proportions of patients in the provider-reported severity and vital status categories considered at 1 year post-randomization are equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.750
90891428|NCT01106833|181647908|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.444||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that the proportions of patients in the provider-reported severity and vital status categories considered at 2 years post-randomization are equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.444
90891429|NCT01106833|181647909|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.238||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that the proportions of patients in the NIH Consensus Criteria severity and vital status categories considered at baseline are equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.238
90891430|NCT01106833|181647909|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.546||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that the proportions of patients in the NIH Consensus Criteria severity and vital status categories considered at 6 months post-randomization are equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.546
90891431|NCT01106833|181647909|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.756||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that the proportions of patients in the NIH Consensus Criteria severity and vital status categories considered at 1 year post-randomization are equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.756
90891432|NCT01106833|181647909|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.554||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that the proportions of patients in the NIH Consensus Criteria severity and vital status categories considered at 2 years post-randomization are equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.554
90891433|NCT01106833|181647910|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.685||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Independent samples t-test||The null hypothesis is that the mean PCS scores at baseline are equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.685
90954184|NCT04410523|181786744|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean|0.065|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0521||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.037|0.168|||MMRM||Treatment difference (CCSJ117-placebo)|||0.168|-0.037|0.212
90891434|NCT01106833|181647910|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.105||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Independent samples t-test||The null hypothesis is that the mean PCS scores at 2 months are equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.105
90891435|NCT01106833|181647910|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.039||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Independent samples t-test||The null hypothesis is that the mean PCS scores at 6 months are equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.039
90891436|NCT01106833|181647910|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.278||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Independent samples t-test||The null hypothesis is that the mean PCS scores at 1 year are equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.278
90891437|NCT01106833|181647910|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.804||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Independent samples t-test||The null hypothesis is that the mean PCS scores at 2 years are equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.804
90891438|NCT01106833|181647911|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.631||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Independent samples t-test||The null hypothesis is that the mean MCS scores at baseline are equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.631
90891439|NCT01106833|181647911|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.759||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Independent samples t-test||The null hypothesis is that the mean MCS scores at 2 months are equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.759
90891440|NCT01106833|181647911|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.391||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Independent samples t-test||The null hypothesis is that the mean MCS scores at 6 months are equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.391
90828997|NCT03629886|181533226|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with HPV-16 and/or HPV-18 (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T), and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.33||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of HPV-16/18 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received HPV vaccine in that study (N=2818). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||0.33|0.19|
90828998|NCT03629886|181533226|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with HPV-16 and/or HPV-18 (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T), and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.37||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of HPV-16/18 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received placebo in that study (N= 2815). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||1.37|1.06|
90859675|NCT03387683|181582651|OTHER||Difference in LSM|0.31121|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46184||0.504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.619|1.24141||Statistical significance was inferred at a (2-sided) 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|The LSM estimate and corresponding p-value were obtained from a linear model with treatment and baseline value of the endpoint as covariates.||Difference in LSM (Placebo-Dapagliflozin 10 mg)||1.24141|-0.61900|0.504
90891441|NCT01106833|181647911|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.222||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Independent samples t-test||The null hypothesis is that the mean MCS scores at 1 year are equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.222
90891442|NCT01106833|181647911|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.527||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Independent samples t-test||The null hypothesis is that the mean MCS scores at 2 years are equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.527
90891443|NCT01106833|181647912|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.763||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Independent samples t-test||The null hypothesis is that the mean FACT-BMT scores at baseline are equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.763
90891444|NCT01106833|181647912|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.133||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Independent samples t-test||The null hypothesis is that the mean FACT-BMT scores at 2 months are equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.133
90891445|NCT01106833|181647912|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.953||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Independent samples t-test||The null hypothesis is that the mean FACT-BMT scores at 6 months are equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.953
90891446|NCT01106833|181647912|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.398||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Independent samples t-test||The null hypothesis is that the mean FACT-BMT scores at 1 year are equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.398
90891447|NCT01106833|181647912|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.309||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Independent samples t-test||The null hypothesis is that the mean FACT-BMT scores at 2 years are equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.309
90891448|NCT04953390|181647925|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.004
91016658|NCT02087865|181916660|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.92||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.09|-5.73|||ANCOVA|||We are reporting the difference in mean between the Donepezil HCL and Placebo groups.||-5.73|-21.09|0.001
91079230|NCT01153009|182044117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.419||0.797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|4.15|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|MMRM ANCOVA with treatment, center, week, treatment-by-week interaction, baseline MADRS total score-by-week as fixed effects.||||4.15|-5.40|0.797
91016659|NCT02087865|181916661|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-8.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.48||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.33|2.14|||ANCOVA|||We are reporting the difference in mean between the Donepezil HCL and Placebo groups.||2.14|-19.33|0.115
91079231|NCT01153009|182044117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.278||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.54|0.45|||Mixed model for repeated mesurements|MMRM ANCOVA with treatment, center, week, treatment-by-week interaction, baseline MADRS total score-by-week as fixed effects.||||0.45|-8.54|0.078
90891449|NCT04953390|181647926|OTHER|||||||0.029|||||||ANOVA|||||||.029
90891450|NCT04953390|181647927|OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0002
90828999|NCT03629886|181533227|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with any oncogenic HPV type or combination of oncogenic HPV types (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n) in a group (assessed by detecting HPV DNA using PCR), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T) in the same group, and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.24||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of oncogenic HPV-16 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received HPV vaccine in that study (N=2718). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||0.24|0.11|
90829000|NCT03629886|181533227|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with any oncogenic HPV type or combination of oncogenic HPV types (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n) in a group (assessed by detecting HPV DNA using PCR), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T) in the same group, and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.99||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of oncogenic HPV-16 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received placebo in that study (N= 2722). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||0.99|0.72|
90829001|NCT03629886|181533227|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with any oncogenic HPV type or combination of oncogenic HPV types (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n) in a group (assessed by detecting HPV DNA using PCR), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T) in the same group, and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.15||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of oncogenic HPV-18 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received HPV vaccine in that study (N=2781). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||0.15|0.06|
90891451|NCT04953390|181647928|OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||t-test, 2 sided|T-test done on DIR2 and DIR3 results only, as the conditions were equal for these two settings. DIR1 was tested in a different condition.||All three DIR settings were tested, but only the DIR2 and DIR3 were compared in t-test. This is because DIR1 mic setting was tested in a different condition (i.e. softer noise).||||.14
90891452|NCT04953390|181647931|OTHER|||||||0.0003|||||||ANOVA|||||||.0003
91079232|NCT01153009|182044118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.053||||0.845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.625|1.775|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with explanatory variables for treatment and Baseline MADRS score.||||1.775|0.625|0.845
90891453|NCT03035292|181647935|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||This value of \<0.05 is the calculated p value where the a priori threshold for statistical significance is considered to be p=0.05.|McNemar|||Sample size was based on a cataract prevalence of 20% in the enriched population and a predicted difference of 15% sensitivity and specificity between tests.||||<0.05
90891454|NCT03035292|181647937|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The calculated p value was \<0.05. A priori threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05|Fisher Exact|||Evidence of superiority of intervention 2 over intervention 1 requires a significant difference in specificity of the intervention 1 and 2 between ethnicity groups.||||<0.05
90891455|NCT00447057|181647938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63||||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.438|0.897|||Log Rank|Log-rank test with 1-sided alpha of 0.20||||0.897|0.438|0.0047
90891456|NCT00447057|181647939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3909|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.3909
91016660|NCT02087865|181916662|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.09||0.941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.94|4.25|||ANCOVA|||We are reporting the difference in mean between the Donepezil HCL and Placebo groups.||4.25|-3.94|0.941
90891457|NCT00447057|181647940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1808|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1808
90891458|NCT00447057|181647941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.457|0.887||1-sided significance level of 0.20|Log Rank|||||0.887|0.457|0.0034
90891459|NCT00447057|181647942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.465|0.981||1-sided significance level of 0.20|Log Rank|||||0.981|0.465|0.0190
90905029|NCT02886728|181677434|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|11.7||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|19.6||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52||19.6|3.7|0.003
90905030|NCT02886728|181677434|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|13.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.1|20.8||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52||20.8|5.1|<0.001
90954185|NCT04410523|181786744|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean|0.009|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.076|0.094|||MMRM||Treatment difference (CCSJ117-placebo)|||0.094|-0.076|0.831
91079233|NCT01153009|182044118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.192||||0.503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.713|1.994|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with explanatory variables for treatment and Baseline MADRS score.||||1.994|0.713|0.503
90891460|NCT00677833|181647945|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) for the difference in ACPR (PCR corrected) proportions \[(AZ-CQ)-(AL)\] using the normal approximation to the binomial with continuity correction was constructed based on the estimated ACPR (PCR-corrected) proportions from the Kaplan-Meier curves and their standard errors estimated by the greenwood formula. The drug (AZ-CQ) was considered non-inferior with respect to this primary endpoint if the lower bound of this 95% CI was \>= -10% points.|ACPR percent difference|-9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.02|-2.18|||Kaplan-Meier curves|||Null hypothesis: proportion of participants with ACPR (PCR-corrected) of Azithromycin/Chloroquine (AZ-CQ) at Day 28 is less than that of Artemether/Lumefantrine (AL); Alternative hypothesis: proportion of participants with ACPR (PCR-corrected) of AZ-CQ at Day 28 is greater than or equal (non-inferior) to that of AL by a non-inferiority margin of -0.1.||-2.18|-16.02|
90891461|NCT00677833|181647946|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the difference in ACPR (PCR-corrected) proportions \[(AZ-CQ)-(AL)\] using the normal approximation to the binomial with continuity correction was constructed based on the estimated ACPR (PCR-corrected) proportions from the Kaplan-Meier curves and their standard errors estimated by the greenwood formula. The drug (AZ-CQ) was considered non-inferior with respect to this primary endpoint if the lower bound of this 95% CI was \>= -10% points.|ACPR percent difference|-6.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|-0.05|||Kaplan-Meier curves|||Null hypothesis: proportion of participants with ACPR (PCR-corrected) of AZ-CQ at Day 28 is less than that of AL; Alternative hypothesis: proportion of participants with ACPR (PCR-corrected) of AZ-CQ at Day 28 is greater than or equal (non-inferior) to that of AL by a non-inferiority margin of -0.1.||-0.05|-12.10|
90891462|NCT00677833|181647947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ACPR percent difference|-5.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.93|-0.15|||Kaplan-Meier curves|||A two-sided 95% CI for the difference in ACPR (PCR-corrected) proportions \[(AZ-CQ)-(AL)\] using the normal approximation to the binomial with continuity correction was constructed based on the estimated ACPR proportions from the Kaplan-Meier curves and their standard errors estimated by the greenwood formula. Estimates for Day 7.||-0.15|-9.93|
90891463|NCT00677833|181647947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ACPR percent difference|-6.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.15|-1.32|||Kaplan-Meier curves|||A two-sided 95% CI for the difference in ACPR (PCR-corrected) proportions \[(AZ-CQ)-(AL)\] using the normal approximation to the binomial with continuity correction was constructed based on the estimated ACPR proportions from the Kaplan-Meier curves and their standard errors estimated by the greenwood formula. Estimates for Day 14.||-1.32|-12.15|
90891464|NCT00677833|181647947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ACPR percent difference|-6.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.82|-0.75|||Kaplan-Meier curves|||A two-sided 95% CI for the difference in ACPR (PCR-corrected) proportions \[(AZ-CQ)-(AL)\] using the normal approximation to the binomial with continuity correction was constructed based on the estimated ACPR proportions from the Kaplan-Meier curves and their standard errors estimated by the greenwood formula. Estimates for Day 21.||-0.75|-12.82|
90891465|NCT00677833|181647947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ACPR percent difference|-6.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.59|0.76|||Kaplan-Meier curves|||A two-sided 95% CI for the difference in ACPR (PCR-corrected) proportions \[(AZ-CQ)-(AL)\] using the normal approximation to the binomial with continuity correction was constructed based on the estimated ACPR proportions from the Kaplan-Meier curves and their standard errors estimated by the greenwood formula. Estimates for Day 35.||0.76|-14.59|
90829002|NCT03629886|181533227|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with any oncogenic HPV type or combination of oncogenic HPV types (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n) in a group (assessed by detecting HPV DNA using PCR), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T) in the same group, and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|0.47||||||95.0|0.38|0.58||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of oncogenic HPV-18 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received placebo in that study (N= 2781). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||0.58|0.38|
90829003|NCT03629886|181533227|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with any oncogenic HPV type or combination of oncogenic HPV types (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n) in a group (assessed by detecting HPV DNA using PCR), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T) in the same group, and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.28||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of oncogenic HPV-31 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received HPV vaccine in that study (N=2786). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||0.28|0.15|
90859676|NCT03387683|181582652|OTHER||Difference in LSM|1.74969|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.18363||0.427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.64837|6.14775||Statistical significance was inferred at a (2-sided) 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|The LSM estimate and corresponding p-value were obtained from a linear model with treatment and baseline value of the endpoint as covariates.||Difference in LSM (Placebo - Dapagliflozin 10 mg)||6.14775|-2.64837|0.427
90954186|NCT04410523|181786744|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean|-0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0434||0.852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.094|0.077|||MMRM||Treatment difference (CCSJ117-placebo)|||0.077|-0.094|0.852
90954187|NCT04410523|181786745|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean|-1.568|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.363||0.508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.219|3.083|||MMRM||Treatment difference (CSJ117-placebo)|||3.083|-6.219|0.508
90954188|NCT04410523|181786745|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean|-3.998|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.384||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.691|0.695|||MMRM||Treatment difference (CCSJ117-placebo)|||0.695|-8.691|0.095
91016661|NCT02087865|181916663|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|46.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.4||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.14|76.53|||ANCOVA|||We are reporting the difference in mean between the Donepezil HCL and Placebo groups.||76.53|16.14|0.003
91079234|NCT01153009|182044118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.098||||0.728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.648|1.86|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with explanatory variables for treatment and Baseline MADRS score.||||1.860|0.648|0.728
91079235|NCT01153009|182044119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.111||0.962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.24|2.13|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|MMRM ANCOVA with treatment, center, week, treatment-by-week interaction, baseline SDS total score-by-week as fixed effects.||||2.13|-2.24|0.962
90829004|NCT03629886|181533227|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with any oncogenic HPV type or combination of oncogenic HPV types (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n) in a group (assessed by detecting HPV DNA using PCR), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T) in the same group, and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.59||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of oncogenic HPV-31 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received placebo in that study (N= 2782). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||0.59|0.39|
90829005|NCT03629886|181533227|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with any oncogenic HPV type or combination of oncogenic HPV types (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n) in a group (assessed by detecting HPV DNA using PCR), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T) in the same group, and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.33||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of oncogenic HPV-33 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received HPV vaccine in that study (N=2779). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||0.33|0.18|
90829006|NCT03629886|181533227|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with any oncogenic HPV type or combination of oncogenic HPV types (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n) in a group (assessed by detecting HPV DNA using PCR), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T) in the same group, and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.51||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of oncogenic HPV-33 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received placebo in that study (N= 2784). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||0.51|0.33|
90829007|NCT03629886|181533227|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with any oncogenic HPV type or combination of oncogenic HPV types (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n) in a group (assessed by detecting HPV DNA using PCR), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T) in the same group, and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.39||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of oncogenic HPV-35 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received HPV vaccine in that study (N=2806). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||0.39|0.23|
90859677|NCT00057876|181582681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.017|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||Log rank test is conducted for OS to see whether the two treatment arms are different in their overall survival probabilities.||||0.017
90859678|NCT00057876|181582682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.25|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.25
90891466|NCT00677833|181647947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ACPR percent difference|-8.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.08|-0.18|||Kaplan-Meier curves|||A two-sided 95% CI for the difference in ACPR (PCR-corrected) proportions \[(AZ-CQ)-(AL)\] using the normal approximation to the binomial with continuity correction was constructed based on the estimated ACPR proportions from the Kaplan-Meier curves and their standard errors estimated by the greenwood formula. Estimates for Day 42.||-0.18|-17.08|
90891467|NCT00677833|181647948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ACPR percent difference|-3.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|1.14|||Kaplan-Meier, curves|||A two-sided 95% CI for the difference in ACPR (PCR-corrected) proportions \[(AZ-CQ)-(AL)\] using the normal approximation to the binomial with continuity correction was constructed based on the estimated ACPR proportions from the Kaplan-Meier curves and their standard errors estimated by the greenwood formula. Estimates for Day 21.||1.14|-8.40|
90859679|NCT00057876|181582683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||Compare objective response rate (CR+PR) between two treatment groups||||0.99
90891468|NCT00677833|181647948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ACPR percent difference|-3.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.79|3.04|||Kaplan-Meier, curves|||A two-sided 95% CI for the difference in ACPR (PCR-corrected) proportions \[(AZ-CQ)-(AL)\] using the normal approximation to the binomial with continuity correction was constructed based on the estimated ACPR proportions from the Kaplan-Meier curves and their standard errors estimated by the greenwood formula. Estimates for Day 35.||3.04|-10.79|
90891469|NCT00677833|181647948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ACPR percent difference|-5.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.55|2.22|||Kaplan-Meier, curves|||A two-sided 95% CI for the difference in ACPR (PCR-corrected) proportions \[(AZ-CQ)-(AL)\] using the normal approximation to the binomial with continuity correction was constructed based on the estimated ACPR proportions from the Kaplan-Meier curves and their standard errors estimated by the greenwood formula. Estimates for Day 42.||2.22|-13.55|
90891470|NCT00677833|181647949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ACPR percent difference|-5.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.93|-0.15|||Kaplan-Meier curves|||A two-sided 95% CI for the difference in ACPR (PCR-uncorrected) proportions \[(AZ-CQ)-(AL)\] using the normal approximation to the binomial with continuity correction was constructed based on the estimated ACPR proportions from the Kaplan-Meier curves and their standard errors estimated by the greenwood formula. Estimates for Day 7.||-0.15|-9.93|
90905031|NCT02886728|181677435|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|10.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.2|13.9||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2||13.9|6.2|<0.001
90905032|NCT02886728|181677435|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|6.3||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|10.9||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2||10.9|1.7|0.001
90905033|NCT02886728|181677435|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|13.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|18.9||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2||18.9|7.7|<0.001
90829008|NCT03629886|181533227|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with any oncogenic HPV type or combination of oncogenic HPV types (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n) in a group (assessed by detecting HPV DNA using PCR), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T) in the same group, and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.46||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of oncogenic HPV-35 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received placebo in that study (N= 2803). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||0.46|0.28|
90829009|NCT03629886|181533227|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with any oncogenic HPV type or combination of oncogenic HPV types (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n) in a group (assessed by detecting HPV DNA using PCR), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T) in the same group, and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|0.88||||||95.0|0.75|1.02||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of oncogenic HPV-39 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received HPV vaccine in that study (N=2759). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||1.02|0.75|
90891471|NCT00677833|181647949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ACPR percent difference|-7.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.54|-0.88|||Kaplan-Meier curves|||A two-sided 95% CI for the difference in ACPR (PCR-uncorrected) proportions \[(AZ-CQ)-(AL)\] using the normal approximation to the binomial with continuity correction was constructed based on the estimated ACPR proportions from the Kaplan-Meier curves and their standard errors estimated by the greenwood formula. Estimates for Day 14.||-0.88|-14.54|
90891472|NCT00677833|181647949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ACPR percent difference|-15.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.24|-3.94|||Kaplan-Meier curves|||A two-sided 95% CI for the difference in ACPR (PCR-uncorrected) proportions \[(AZ-CQ)-(AL)\] using the normal approximation to the binomial with continuity correction was constructed based on the estimated ACPR proportions from the Kaplan-Meier curves and their standard errors estimated by the greenwood formula. Estimates for Day 21.||-3.94|-26.24|
90891473|NCT00677833|181647949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ACPR percent difference|-21.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.14|-9.39|||Kaplan-Meier curves|||A two-sided 95% CI for the difference in ACPR (PCR-uncorrected) proportions \[(AZ-CQ)-(AL)\] using the normal approximation to the binomial with continuity correction was constructed based on the estimated ACPR proportions from the Kaplan-Meier curves and their standard errors estimated by the greenwood formula. Estimates for Day 28.||-9.39|-34.14|
90891474|NCT00677833|181647949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ACPR percent difference|-18.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.05|-5.43|||Kaplan-Meier curves|||A two-sided 95% CI for the difference in ACPR (PCR-uncorrected) proportions \[(AZ-CQ)-(AL)\] using the normal approximation to the binomial with continuity correction was constructed based on the estimated ACPR proportions from the Kaplan-Meier curves and their standard errors estimated by the greenwood formula. Estimates for Day 35.||-5.43|-31.05|
90891475|NCT00677833|181647949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ACPR Percent difference|-18.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.33|-5.65|||Kaplan-Meier curves|||A two-sided 95% CI for the difference in ACPR (PCR-uncorrected) proportions \[(AZ-CQ)-(AL)\] using the normal approximation to the binomial with continuity correction was constructed based on the estimated ACPR proportions from the Kaplan-Meier curves and their standard errors estimated by the greenwood formula. Estimates for Day 42.||-5.65|-31.33|
90891476|NCT00677833|181647950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ACPR percent difference|-4.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|1.25|||Kaplan-Meier curves|||A two-sided 95% CI for the difference in ACPR (PCR-uncorrected) proportions \[(AZ-CQ)-(AL)\] using the normal approximation to the binomial with continuity correction was constructed based on the estimated ACPR proportions from the Kaplan-Meier curves and their standard errors estimated by the greenwood formula. Estimates for Day 14.||1.25|-10.60|
91079236|NCT01153009|182044119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.103||0.427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.05|1.29|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|MMRM ANCOVA with treatment, center, week, treatment-by-week interaction, baseline SDS total score-by-week as fixed effects.||||1.29|-3.05|0.427
90891477|NCT00677833|181647950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ACPR percent difference|-13.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.21|-1.92|||Kaplan-Meier curves|||A two-sided 95% CI for the difference in ACPR (PCR-uncorrected) proportions \[(AZ-CQ)-(AL)\] using the normal approximation to the binomial with continuity correction was constructed based on the estimated ACPR proportions from the Kaplan-Meier curves and their standard errors estimated by the greenwood formula. Estimates for Day 21.||-1.92|-24.21|
90891478|NCT00677833|181647950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ACPR percent difference|-19.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.16|-7.08|||Kaplan-Meier curves|||A two-sided 95% CI for the difference in ACPR (PCR-uncorrected) proportions \[(AZ-CQ)-(AL)\] using the normal approximation to the binomial with continuity correction was constructed based on the estimated ACPR proportions from the Kaplan-Meier curves and their standard errors estimated by the greenwood formula. Estimates for Day 28.||-7.08|-32.16|
90891479|NCT00677833|181647950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ACPR percent difference|-16.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.42|-3.33|||Kaplan-Meier curves|||A two-sided 95% CI for the difference in ACPR (PCR-uncorrected) proportions \[(AZ-CQ)-(AL)\] using the normal approximation to the binomial with continuity correction was constructed based on the estimated ACPR proportions from the Kaplan-Meier curves and their standard errors estimated by the greenwood formula. Estimates for Day 35.||-3.33|-29.42|
90891480|NCT00677833|181647950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ACPR Percent difference|-16.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.04|-3.83|||Kaplan-Meier curves|||A two-sided 95% CI for the difference in ACPR (PCR-uncorrected) proportions \[(AZ-CQ)- (AL)\] using the normal approximation to the binomial with continuity correction was constructed based on the estimated ACPR proportions from the Kaplan-Meier curves and their standard errors estimated by the Greenwood formula. Estimates for Day 42.||-3.83|-30.04|
90954189|NCT04410523|181786745|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean|-2.889|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2943||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.405|1.627|||MMRM||Treatment difference (CCSJ117-placebo)|||1.627|-7.405|0.209
90954190|NCT04410523|181786745|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean|-0.287|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8718||0.878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.971|3.398|||MMRM||Treatment difference (CCSJ117-placebo)|||3.398|-3.971|0.878
90829010|NCT03629886|181533227|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with any oncogenic HPV type or combination of oncogenic HPV types (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n) in a group (assessed by detecting HPV DNA using PCR), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T) in the same group, and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.93||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of oncogenic HPV-39 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received placebo in that study (N= 2773). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||0.93|0.67|
90859911|NCT01461980|181583137|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority criteria margin was 1.5-fold and statistical inference was based on the CIs of the GMC ratios. Non-inferiority was achieved when the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratios after vaccination 1 was greater than 0.67.|GMC Ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|0.98||||||Pertussis filamentous hemagglutinin: CIs for GMC ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (Group 1 - Group 2 for pertussis filamentous hemagglutinin antigens).||0.98|0.84|
90891481|NCT00677833|181647957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|-5.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.02|-0.75|||large sample approximation to binomial|||Day 7||-0.75|-11.02|
90891482|NCT00677833|181647957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|-7.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.14|-1.95|||large sample approximation to binomial|||Day 14||-1.95|-13.14|
90891483|NCT00677833|181647957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|-7.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.61|-1.6|||large sample approximation to binomial|||Day 21||-1.60|-13.61|
90891484|NCT00677833|181647957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|-9.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.64|-2.87|||Large sample approximation to binomial|||Day 28||-2.87|-15.64|
90891485|NCT00677833|181647957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|-7.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.45|-0.97|||Large sample approximation to binomial|||Day 35||-0.97|-14.45|
90891486|NCT00677833|181647957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|-8.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.43|-1.6|||Large sample approximation to binomial|||Day 42||-1.60|-15.43|
90891487|NCT00677833|181647958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|-9.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.27|-0.74|||Large sample approximation to binomial|||Day 7||-0.74|-18.27|
90891488|NCT00677833|181647958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|-10.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.23|-1.55|||Large sample approximation to binomial|||Day 14||-1.55|-19.23|
90891489|NCT00677833|181647958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|-12.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.45|-4.04|||Large sample approximation to binomial|||Day 21||-4.04|-21.45|
91016662|NCT02087865|181916664|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|61.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.32|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.25|87.46|||ANCOVA|||We are reporting the difference in mean between the Donepezil HCL and Placebo groups.||87.46|35.25|<0.001
91016663|NCT02087865|181916665|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.65|-1.04|||ANCOVA|||We are reporting the difference in mean between the Donepezil HCL and Placebo groups.||-1.04|-5.65|0.005
90891490|NCT00677833|181647958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|-11.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.62|-2.6|||Large sample approximation to binomial|||Day 28||-2.60|-19.62|
90891491|NCT00677833|181647958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|-10.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.97|-1.71|||Large sample approximation to binomial|||Day 35||-1.71|-18.97|
90891492|NCT00677833|181647958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|-11.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.14|-2.28|||Large sample approximation to binomial|||Day 42||-2.28|-20.14|
90891493|NCT00677833|181647959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2564|TWO_SIDED||||||Kaplan-Meier, log rank|||Time to event data was analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier curve.||||0.2564
90891494|NCT00677833|181647960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Kaplan-Meier, log rank|||Time to event data was analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier curve.||||<0.0001
90891495|NCT00677833|181647963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED||||||Kaplan-Meier, log rank|||Time to event data was analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier curve.||||0.0006
90891496|NCT00184548|181647966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.934||||||Two-sided significance level 5%|Regression, Logistic|||Test for Odds ratio=1, corresponding to a null hypothesis of no difference in mortality for patients who died between groups for Blunt Trauma. Odds-ratio is adjusted for baseline covariates: Age, Injury Severity Score (ISS), Glasgow Coma -Scale Score (GCS), International Normalized Ratio (INR) and acute lung injury (P/F \> 200). Missing covariates are imputed by the mean value.||||0.934
90891497|NCT00184548|181647966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18||||0.589||95.0|0.64|2.17||Two-sided significance level 5%|Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||Treatment groups are compared using a Cox Proportional Hazards model with treatment as factor and adjusting for age, Injury Severity Score (ISS), Glasgow Coma -Scale Score(GCS), International Normalized Ratio (INR) and acute lung injury.||2.17|0.64|0.589
90891498|NCT00184548|181647968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means|0.9||||0.308||95.0|-0.83|2.63|||ANCOVA|||Baseline covariates: Age, Injury Severity Score (ISS), Glasgow Coma -Scale Score (GCS), International Normalized Ratio (INR) and acute lung injury.||2.63|-0.83|0.308
90891499|NCT00184548|181647970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann shift estimate|1.0||||0.038||95.0|0.0|2.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||2|0|0.038
90891500|NCT00184548|181647971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.175||||0.384||95.0|0.817|1.69|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.690|0.817|0.384
91016664|NCT02087865|181916666|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.67||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.58|-1.02|||ANCOVA|||We are reporting the difference in mean between the Donepezil HCL and Placebo groups.||-1.02|-7.58|0.011
91016665|NCT01392469|181916667|SUPERIORITY||Ratio (Test/Reference)|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.03|1.33||||||||1.33|1.03|
90891501|NCT00184548|181647972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann shift estimate|2.0||||0.03||95.0|0.0|4.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||4|0|0.030
90891502|NCT02184611|181647977|OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.154|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.113|0.194||Analysis was performed using a MMRM model with covariates of treatment, Baseline, smoking status, country, Day, Day by Baseline and Day by treatment interactions.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||UMEC versus Placebo.||0.194|0.113|<0.001
90891503|NCT02184611|181647978|OTHER||Least square Mean difference|0.9||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.5||Analysis performed using a MMRM model with covariates of treatment, BDI focal score, smoking status, country, Day, Day by BDI focal score and Day by treatment interactions.|MMRM|||UMEC versus Placebo.||1.5|0.3|0.004
91016666|NCT01392469|181916667|SUPERIORITY||Ratio (Test/Reference)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.23|1.59||||||||1.59|1.23|
90891504|NCT02184611|181647979|OTHER||Least square Mean difference|0.125|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.103|0.147||Analysis performed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with covariates of treatment, baseline (mean of the two assessments made 30 min and 5 min pre-dose on Day 1), smoking status and country.|ANCOVA|||UMEC versus Placebo.||0.147|0.103|<0.001
90891505|NCT02184611|181647988|OTHER||Least sqaure mean difference|-4.39||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.21|-1.58||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, Baseline (score prior to dosing on Day 1), smoking status, country, Day, Day by Baseline and Day by treatment interactions.|MMRM|||Day 28, UMEC Vs Placebo.||-1.58|-7.21|0.002
90891506|NCT02184611|181647988|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-4.59||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.61|-1.57||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, Baseline (score prior to dosing on Day 1), smoking status, country, Day, Day by Baseline and Day by treatment interactions.|MMRM|||Day 84, UMEC Vs Placebo.||-1.57|-7.61|0.003
90891507|NCT02184611|181647988|OTHER||Least sqaure mean difference|-3.03||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.15|0.1||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, Baseline (score prior to dosing on Day 1), smoking status, country, Day, Day by Baseline and Day by treatment interactions.|MMRM|||Day 168, UMEC Vs Placebo.||0.10|-6.15|0.058
90891508|NCT02184611|181647989|OTHER||Least sqaure mean difference|-1.49||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.81|-0.17||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, Baseline (score prior to dosing on Day 1), smoking status, country, Day, Day by Baseline and Day by treatment interactions.|MMRM|||Day 28, UMEC Vs Placebo.||-0.17|-2.81|0.027
91016667|NCT01392469|181916668|SUPERIORITY||Ratio (Test/Reference)|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.14|1.62||||||||1.62|1.14|
91016668|NCT01392469|181916668|SUPERIORITY||Ratio (Test/Reference)|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.43|2.03||||||||2.03|1.43|
91016669|NCT01392469|181916669|SUPERIORITY||Ratio (Test/Reference)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.82|1.21||||||||1.21|0.82|
90891509|NCT02184611|181647989|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-2.1||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.51|-0.68||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, Baseline (score prior to dosing on Day 1), smoking status, country, Day, Day by Baseline and Day by treatment interactions.|MMRM|||Day 84, UMEC Vs Placebo.||-0.68|-3.51|0.004
90891510|NCT02184611|181647989|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.68||||0.386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|0.86||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, Baseline (score prior to dosing on Day 1), smoking status, country, Day, Day by Baseline and Day by treatment interactions.|MMRM|||Day 128, UMEC Vs Placebo.||0.86|-2.22|0.386
90891511|NCT05159622|181648001|EQUIVALENCE|A net effect of 6 fluid oz/day (SD=1) was hypothesized among adult parents, assuming two sided alpha=0.05, power = 80%, and a minimum sample size of 60 adults.|Median Difference (Final Values)|3.2||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05. P-value of the interaction between treatment group and change in beverage consumption (fl oz/day).|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.15
90891512|NCT05159622|181648002|EQUIVALENCE|This was an exploratory outcome.|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.98|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.98
90891513|NCT05159622|181648003|EQUIVALENCE|This was an exploratory outcome and therefore statistical power was not based on a hypothesis of this outcome.|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.64||||0.36|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.36
91016670|NCT01392469|181916669|SUPERIORITY||Ratio (Test/Reference)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.31||||||||1.31|0.88|
91016671|NCT01392469|181916670|SUPERIORITY||Ratio (Test/Reference)|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.03|1.61||||||||1.61|1.03|
90891514|NCT05159622|181648004|EQUIVALENCE|Exploratory outcome as for infants/toddlers based on parent-report|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.92|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.92
90891515|NCT05159622|181648005|EQUIVALENCE|Exploratory outcome|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.95||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
90891516|NCT03318523|181648010|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with placebo, 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value were based on a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) model, with change from baseline in MDS-UPDRS score as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, region, PD subtype, prior use of PD medication, baseline MDS-UPDRS score, baseline MDS-UPDRS by time interaction, baseline striatum SBR values and baseline striatum SBR value by time interaction.|Difference|-0.3||||0.8976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.888|4.287|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change From Baseline in MDS-UPDRS Total Score at Week 52||4.287|-4.888|0.8976
90891517|NCT03318523|181648010|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with placebo, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MDS-UPDRS score as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, region, PD subtype, prior use of PD medication, baseline MDS-UPDRS score, baseline MDS-UPDRS by time interaction, baseline striatum SBR values and baseline striatum SBR value by time interaction.|Difference|0.5||||0.796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.31|4.312|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change From Baseline in MDS-UPDRS Total Score at Week 52||4.312|-3.310|0.7960
90891518|NCT03318523|181648010|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with placebo, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MDS-UPDRS score as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, region, PD subtype, prior use of PD medication, baseline MDS-UPDRS score, baseline MDS-UPDRS by time interaction, baseline striatum SBR values and baseline striatum SBR value by time interaction.|Difference|0.08||||0.9695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.805|3.956|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change From Baseline in MDS-UPDRS Total Score at Week 52||3.956|-3.805|0.9695
90905034|NCT02886728|181677435|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|20.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.5|25.4||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4||25.4|14.5|<0.001
90905035|NCT02886728|181677435|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|11.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.8|18.0||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4||18.0|4.8|<0.001
91016672|NCT01392469|181916670|SUPERIORITY||Ratio (Test/Reference)|1.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.24|1.95||||||||1.95|1.24|
91016673|NCT03443973|181916676|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted mean|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.2998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline was calculated based on ANCOVA analysis model which included the following covariates and stratification factors =Treatment + Baseline (BL) + Geographic Region + Disease Stage + AD Medication at BL + Apolipoprotein E, Allele e4 (APOE e4) + Baseline ADAS COG13 + Baseline Alzheimer Disease Cooperative Study Group-Activities of Daily Living (ADCS-ADL).||0.17|-0.55|0.2998
91016674|NCT03443973|181916682|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted mean|-1.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.0273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|-0.14|||ANCOVA|||Change from BL was calculated based on ANCOVA analysis model which included the following covariates and stratification factors = Treatment + Baseline + Geographical Region + Disease Stage + AD Medication at BL + APOE e4||-0.14|-2.41|0.0273
90891519|NCT03318523|181648011|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with delayed start group, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MDS-UPDRS score as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, region, PD subtype, prior use of PD medication, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS score, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS by time interaction, baseline striatum SBR values and baseline striatum SBR value by time interaction.|Difference|-0.28||||0.9093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.035|4.483|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change From Baseline in MDS-UPDRS Total Score at Week 72||4.483|-5.035|0.9093
90891520|NCT03318523|181648011|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with delayed start group, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MDS-UPDRS score as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, region, PD subtype, prior use of PD medication, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS score, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS by time interaction, baseline striatum SBR values and baseline striatum SBR value by time interaction.|Difference|1.55||||0.4327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.336|5.44|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change From Baseline in MDS-UPDRS Total Score at Week 72||5.440|-2.336|0.4327
90891521|NCT03318523|181648011|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with delayed start group, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MDS-UPDRS score as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, region, PD subtype, prior use of PD medication, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS score, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS by time interaction, baseline striatum SBR values and baseline striatum SBR value by time interaction.|Difference|-0.17||||0.933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.051|3.719|||Mixed Model with repeated Measures|||Change From Baseline in MDS-UPDRS Total Score at Week 72||3.719|-4.051|0.9330
90891522|NCT03318523|181648013|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with delayed start group, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MDS-UPDRS score as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, region, PD subtype, prior use of PD medication, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS score, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS by time interaction, baseline striatum SBR values and baseline striatum SBR value by time interaction.|Difference|0.41||||0.8828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.013|5.825|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||5.825|-5.013|0.8828
90891523|NCT03318523|181648013|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with delayed start group, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MDS-UPDRS score as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, region, PD subtype, prior use of PD medication, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS score, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS by time interaction, baseline striatum SBR values and baseline striatum SBR value by time interaction.|Difference|0.84||||0.7019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.458|5.128|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measure|||||5.128|-3.458|0.7019
91016675|NCT03443973|181916683|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted mean|0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.2918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|2.34|||ANCOVA|||Change from BL was calculated based on ANCOVA analysis model which included the following covariates and stratification factors = Treatment + Baseline + Region + Disease Stage + AD Medication at BL + APOE e4||2.34|-0.70|0.2918
91079237|NCT01153009|182044119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.123||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.19|0.22|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|MMRM ANCOVA with treatment, center, week, treatment-by-week interaction, baseline SDS total score-by-week as fixed effects.||||0.22|-4.19|0.078
90891524|NCT03318523|181648013|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with delayed start group, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MDS-UPDRS score as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, region, PD subtype, prior use of PD medication, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS score, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS by time interaction, baseline striatum SBR values and baseline striatum SBR value by time interaction.|Difference|0.99||||0.6519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.323|5.301|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||5.301|-3.323|0.6519
90891525|NCT03318523|181648015|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with placebo, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MDS-UPDRS score as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, region, PD subtype, prior use of PD medication, baseline MDS-UPDRS score, baseline MDS-UPDRS by time interaction, baseline striatum SBR values and baseline striatum SBR value by time interaction.|Difference|-0.53||||0.4327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.851|0.794|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in MDS-UPDRS Subpart I Score at Week 52||0.794|-1.851|0.4327
90891526|NCT03318523|181648015|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with placebo, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MDS-UPDRS score as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, region, PD subtype, prior use of PD medication, baseline MDS-UPDRS score, baseline MDS-UPDRS by time interaction, baseline striatum SBR values and baseline striatum SBR value by time interaction.|Difference|0.13||||0.8155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.965|1.225|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in MDS-UPDRS Subpart I Score at Week 52||1.225|-0.965|0.8155
90954191|NCT04410523|181786745|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean|1.093|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8652||0.558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.578|4.765|||MMRM||Treatment difference (CCSJ117-placebo)|||4.765|-2.578|0.558
90954192|NCT04410523|181786748|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean|-0.042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1493||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.336|0.252|||MMRM||Treatment difference (CSJ117-placebo)|||0.252|-0.336|0.780
91103574|NCT01550965|182094095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.27|-8.16|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for mean change in WPAI-SHP: percentage of work time missed from week 0 to week 8.||-8.16|-16.27|<0.001
91103575|NCT01550965|182094095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.82|-7.4|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for mean change in WPAI-SHP: percentage of work time missed from week 0 to week 18. Efficacy assessments were not specified at week 18; missing data at week 18 were imputed using last observation carried forward (LOCF).||-7.40|-15.82|<0.001
91103576|NCT01550965|182094095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5|-7.35|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for mean change in WPAI-SHP: percentage of work time missed from week 0 to week 26.||-7.35|-15.50|<0.001
90891527|NCT03318523|181648015|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with placebo, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MDS-UPDRS score as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, region, PD subtype, prior use of PD medication, baseline MDS-UPDRS score, baseline MDS-UPDRS by time interaction, baseline striatum SBR values and baseline striatum SBR value by time interaction.|Difference|0.22||||0.7015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.899|1.334|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in MDS-UPDRS Subpart I Score at Week 52||1.334|-0.899|0.7015
90891528|NCT03318523|181648016|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with delayed start group, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MDS-UPDRS score as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, region, PD subtype, prior use of PD medication, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS score, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS by time interaction, baseline striatum SBR values and baseline striatum SBR value by time interaction.|Difference|-1.03||||0.1038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.276|0.213|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in MDS-UPDRS Subpart I Score at Week 72||0.213|-2.276|0.1038
90891529|NCT03318523|181648016|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with delayed start group, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MDS-UPDRS score as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, region, PD subtype, prior use of PD medication, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS score, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS by time interaction, baseline striatum SBR values and baseline striatum SBR value by time interaction.|Difference|0.09||||0.8689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.933|1.103|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in MDS-UPDRS Subpart I Score at Week 72||1.103|-0.933|0.8689
90891530|NCT03318523|181648016|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with delayed start group, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MDS-UPDRS score as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, region, PD subtype, prior use of PD medication, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS score, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS by time interaction, baseline striatum SBR values and baseline striatum SBR value by time interaction.|Difference|-0.01||||0.982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.026|1.003|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in MDS-UPDRS Subpart I Score at Week 72||1.003|-1.026|0.9820
90891531|NCT03318523|181648016|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with delayed start group, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MDS-UPDRS score as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, region, PD subtype, prior use of PD medication, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS score, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS by time interaction, baseline striatum SBR values and baseline striatum SBR value by time interaction.|Difference|-0.26||||0.693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.563|1.04|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in MDS-UPDRS Subpart I Score at Week 96||1.040|-1.563|0.6930
90891532|NCT03318523|181648016|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with delayed start group, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MDS-UPDRS score as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, region, PD subtype, prior use of PD medication, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS score, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS by time interaction, baseline striatum SBR values and baseline striatum SBR value by time interaction.|Difference|-0.03||||0.9606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.053|1.001|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in MDS-UPDRS Subpart I Score at Week 96||1.001|-1.053|0.9606
91016676|NCT03443973|181916684|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted mean|-0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.0438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||Change from BL was calculated based on ANCOVA analysis model which included the following covariates and stratification factors = Treatment + Baseline + Geographical Region + Disease Stage + AD Medication at BL + APOE e4.||-0.02|-1.70|0.0438
90891533|NCT03318523|181648016|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with delayed start group, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MDS-UPDRS score as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, region, PD subtype, prior use of PD medication, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS score, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS by time interaction, baseline striatum SBR values and baseline striatum SBR value by time interaction.|Difference|-0.24||||0.6512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.269|0.794|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in MDS-UPDRS Subpart I Score at Week 96||0.794|-1.269|0.6512
90891534|NCT03318523|181648017|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with placebo, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MDS-UPDRS score as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, region, PD subtype, prior use of PD medication, baseline MDS-UPDRS score, baseline MDS-UPDRS by time interaction, baseline striatum SBR values and baseline striatum SBR value by time interaction.|Difference|-0.44||||0.5497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.889|1.007|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in MDS-UPDRS Subpart II Score at Week 52||1.007|-1.889|0.5497
90905036|NCT02886728|181677435|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|16.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.4|23.2||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4||23.2|9.4|<0.001
91079238|NCT04494425|182044125|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.75|||Log Rank|The analysis was performed using the stratified log-rank test.|HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for prior cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK)4/6 inhibitor use (yes versus no) and HER2 IHC expression (IHC 1+ versus IHC 2+/ISH-) and ties handled by Efron approach.|||0.75|0.52|<0.0001
91079239|NCT02242019|182044162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90891535|NCT03318523|181648017|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with placebo, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MDS-UPDRS score as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, region, PD subtype, prior use of PD medication, baseline MDS-UPDRS score, baseline MDS-UPDRS by time interaction, baseline striatum SBR values and baseline striatum SBR value by time interaction.|Difference|0.0||||0.998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.197|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in MDS-UPDRS Subpart II Score at Week 52||1.197|-1.200|0.9980
90891536|NCT03318523|181648017|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with placebo, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MDS-UPDRS score as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, region, PD subtype, prior use of PD medication, baseline MDS-UPDRS score, baseline MDS-UPDRS by time interaction, baseline striatum SBR values and baseline striatum SBR value by time interaction.|Difference|-0.15||||0.8069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.374|1.07|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in MDS-UPDRS Subpart II Score at Week 52||1.070|-1.374|0.8069
90891537|NCT03318523|181648018|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with delayed start group, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MDS-UPDRS score as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, region, PD subtype, prior use of PD medication, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS score, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS by time interaction, baseline striatum SBR values and baseline striatum SBR value by time interaction.|Difference|-0.21||||0.7968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.786|1.372|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in MDS-UPDRS Subpart II Score at Week 72||1.372|-1.786|0.7968
90891538|NCT03318523|181648018|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with delayed start group, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MDS-UPDRS score as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, region, PD subtype, prior use of PD medication, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS score, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS by time interaction, baseline striatum SBR values and baseline striatum SBR value by time interaction.|Difference|0.53||||0.4211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.766|1.827|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in MDS-UPDRS Subpart II Score at Week 72||1.827|-0.766|0.4211
90891539|NCT03318523|181648018|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with delayed start group, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MDS-UPDRS score as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, region, PD subtype, prior use of PD medication, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS score, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS by time interaction, baseline striatum SBR values and baseline striatum SBR value by time interaction.|Difference|-0.15||||0.8166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.448|1.143|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in MDS-UPDRS Subpart II Score at Week 72||1.143|-1.448|0.8166
90891540|NCT03318523|181648018|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with delayed start group, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MDS-UPDRS score as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, region, PD subtype, prior use of PD medication, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS score, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS by time interaction, baseline striatum SBR values and baseline striatum SBR value by time interaction.|Difference|-0.53||||0.5535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.31|1.24|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in MDS-UPDRS Subpart II Score at Week 96||1.240|-2.310|0.5535
90891541|NCT03318523|181648018|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with delayed start group, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MDS-UPDRS score as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, region, PD subtype, prior use of PD medication, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS score, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS by time interaction, baseline striatum SBR values and baseline striatum SBR value by time interaction.|Difference|0.52||||0.4654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.881|1.922|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in MDS-UPDRS Subpart II Score at Week 96||1.922|-0.881|0.4654
90891542|NCT03318523|181648018|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with delayed start group, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MDS-UPDRS score as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, region, PD subtype, prior use of PD medication, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS score, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS by time interaction, baseline striatum SBR values and baseline striatum SBR value by time interaction.|Difference|0.36||||0.6184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.051|1.763|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in MDS-UPDRS Subpart II Score at Week 96||1.763|-1.051|0.6184
91079240|NCT02242019|182044163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90891543|NCT03318523|181648019|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with placebo, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MDS-UPDRS score as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, region, PD subtype, prior use of PD medication, baseline MDS-UPDRS score, baseline MDS-UPDRS by time interaction, baseline striatum SBR values and baseline striatum SBR value by time interaction.|Difference|0.59||||0.7274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.742|3.925|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in MDS-UPDRS Subpart III Score at Week 52||3.925|-2.742|0.7274
90954193|NCT04410523|181786748|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1489||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.713|-0.127|||MMRM||Treatment difference (CCSJ117-placebo)|||-0.127|-0.713|0.005
90954194|NCT04410523|181786748|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean|-0.289|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1446||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.573|0.004|||MMRM||Treatment difference (CCSJ117-placebo)|||0.004|-0.573|0.047
91079241|NCT03041467|182044185|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||One-sided Z-test|||||||<0.001
91079242|NCT03041467|182044186|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority p-values for the primary safety endpoint was based on the Farrington-Manning non-inferiority test with a margin of 7.5%.||||||0.002|||||||Farrington-Manning Test|||||||0.002
90891544|NCT03318523|181648019|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with placebo, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MDS-UPDRS score as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, region, PD subtype, prior use of PD medication, baseline MDS-UPDRS score, baseline MDS-UPDRS by time interaction, baseline striatum SBR values and baseline striatum SBR value by time interaction.|Difference|0.66||||0.6385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.094|3.411|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in MDS-UPDRS Subpart III Score at Week 52||3.411|-2.094|0.6385
90891545|NCT03318523|181648019|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with placebo, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MDS-UPDRS score as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, region, PD subtype, prior use of PD medication, baseline MDS-UPDRS score, baseline MDS-UPDRS by time interaction, baseline striatum SBR values and baseline striatum SBR value by time interaction.|Difference|0.1||||0.9467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.718|2.91|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in MDS-UPDRS Subpart III Score at Week 52||2.910|-2.718|0.9467
90891546|NCT03318523|181648020|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with delayed start group, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MDS-UPDRS score as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, region, PD subtype, prior use of PD medication, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS score, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS by time interaction, baseline striatum SBR values and baseline striatum SBR value by time interaction.|Difference|0.85||||0.6112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.423|4.114|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in MDS-UPDRS Subpart III Score at Week 72||4.114|-2.423|0.6112
90891547|NCT03318523|181648020|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with delayed start group, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MDS-UPDRS score as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, region, PD subtype, prior use of PD medication, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS score, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS by time interaction, baseline striatum SBR values and baseline striatum SBR value by time interaction.|Difference|0.86||||0.527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.806|3.52|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in MDS-UPDRS Subpart III Score at Week 72||3.520|-1.806|0.5270
90891548|NCT03318523|181648020|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with delayed start group, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MDS-UPDRS score as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, region, PD subtype, prior use of PD medication, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS score, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS by time interaction, baseline striatum SBR values and baseline striatum SBR value by time interaction.|Difference|0.06||||0.9673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.608|2.719|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in MDS-UPDRS Subpart III Score at Week 72||2.719|-2.608|0.9673
90891549|NCT03318523|181648020|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with delayed start group, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MDS-UPDRS score as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, region, PD subtype, prior use of PD medication, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS score, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS by time interaction, baseline striatum SBR values and baseline striatum SBR value by time interaction.|Difference|0.65||||0.7455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.274|4.569|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in MDS-UPDRS Subpart III Score at Week 96||4.569|-3.274|0.7455
90891550|NCT03318523|181648020|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with delayed start group, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MDS-UPDRS score as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, region, PD subtype, prior use of PD medication, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS score, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS by time interaction, baseline striatum SBR values and baseline striatum SBR value by time interaction.|Difference|-0.1||||0.9506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.192|2.997|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in MDS-UPDRS Subpart III Score at Week 96||2.997|-3.192|0.9506
90891551|NCT03318523|181648020|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with delayed start group, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MDS-UPDRS score as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, region, PD subtype, prior use of PD medication, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS score, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS by time interaction, baseline striatum SBR values and baseline striatum SBR value by time interaction.|Difference|0.69||||0.6643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.422|3.794|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in MDS-UPDRS Subpart III Score at Week 96||3.794|-2.422|0.6643
90891552|NCT03318523|181648021|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with placebo, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in DaT/SPECT parameter as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, region, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, baseline MDS-UPDRS part I+II+III total score, baseline MDS-UPDRS part I+II+III total score by time interaction, baseline DaT/SPECT values and baseline DaT/SPECT by time interaction.|Difference|-0.005||||0.8274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0548|0.0438|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.0438|-0.0548|0.8274
90891553|NCT03318523|181648021|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with placebo, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in DaT/SPECT parameter as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, region, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, baseline MDS-UPDRS part I+II+III total score, baseline MDS-UPDRS part I+II+III total score by time interaction, baseline DaT/SPECT values and baseline DaT/SPECT by time interaction.|Difference|-0.009||||0.6671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0504|0.0323|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.0323|-0.0504|0.6671
90954195|NCT04410523|181786748|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean|-0.017|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1182||0.887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.249|0.216|||MMRM||Treatment difference (CCSJ117-placebo)|||0.216|-0.249|0.887
90891554|NCT03318523|181648021|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with placebo, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in DaT/SPECT parameter as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, region, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, baseline MDS-UPDRS part I+II+III total score, baseline MDS-UPDRS part I+II+III total score by time interaction, baseline DaT/SPECT values and baseline DaT/SPECT by time interaction.|Difference|-0.033||||0.1313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0751|0.0098|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.0098|-0.0751|0.1313
90891555|NCT03318523|181648022|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with placebo, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in DaT/SPECT parameter as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, region, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, baseline MDS-UPDRS part I+II+III total score, baseline MDS-UPDRS part I+II+III total score by time interaction, baseline DaT/SPECT values and baseline DaT/SPECT by time interaction.|Difference|-0.009||||0.7079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0562|0.0382|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.0382|-0.0562|0.7079
90891556|NCT03318523|181648022|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with placebo, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in DaT/SPECT parameter as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, region, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, baseline MDS-UPDRS part I+II+III total score, baseline MDS-UPDRS part I+II+III total score by time interaction, baseline DaT/SPECT values and baseline DaT/SPECT by time interaction.|Difference|0.0||||0.9835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.0392|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.0392|-0.0400|0.9835
90891557|NCT03318523|181648022|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with placebo, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in DaT/SPECT parameter as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, region, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, baseline MDS-UPDRS part I+II+III total score, baseline MDS-UPDRS part I+II+III total score by time interaction, baseline DaT/SPECT values and baseline DaT/SPECT by time interaction.|Difference|-0.027||||0.1869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0682|0.0134|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.0134|-0.0682|0.1869
90891558|NCT03318523|181648023|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with placebo, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in DaT/SPECT parameter as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, region, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, baseline MDS-UPDRS part I+II+III total score, baseline MDS-UPDRS part I+II+III total score by time interaction, baseline DaT/SPECT values and baseline DaT/SPECT by time interaction.|Difference|-0.008||||0.7585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0625|0.0456|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.0456|-0.0625|0.7585
90891559|NCT03318523|181648023|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with placebo, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in DaT/SPECT parameter as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, region, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, baseline MDS-UPDRS part I+II+III total score, baseline MDS-UPDRS part I+II+III total score by time interaction, baseline DaT/SPECT values and baseline DaT/SPECT by time interaction.|Difference|0.006||||0.7808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0391|0.052|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.0520|-0.0391|0.7808
90891560|NCT03318523|181648023|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with placebo, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in DaT/SPECT parameter as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, region, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, baseline MDS-UPDRS part I+II+III total score, baseline MDS-UPDRS part I+II+III total score by time interaction, baseline DaT/SPECT values and baseline DaT/SPECT by time interaction.|Difference|-0.022||||0.3532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0691|0.0248|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.0248|-0.0691|0.3532
90891561|NCT02163733|181648025|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|90% CIs being within 70% to 143%.|Geometric mean ratio|106.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.82|118.6|||||Fed / Fasted ratio. Linear mixed-effects model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect. Least squares geometric mean ratio (LSGMR) Fed = 7847, Fasted = 7399.|Study sized so experiment-wise power for the 90% CIs of geometric mean ratios for both AUC and Cmax of AZD9291 being within 70-143% was 90% (95% for each parameter). Within patient CV assumed to be 34%. A 6% change in exposure was also assumed.||118.60|94.82|
91016677|NCT03443973|181916685|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted mean|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.0566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|1.06|||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline was calculated based on ANCOVA analysis model which included the following covariates and stratification factors =Treatment + Baseline + Geographic Region + Disease Stage + AD Medication at BL + APOE e4.||1.06|-0.01|0.0566
91016678|NCT03443973|181916686|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted mean|-1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.24|-0.14|||ANCOVA|||Change from BL was calculated based on ANCOVA analysis model which included the following covariates and stratification factors = Treatment + Baseline + Geographical Region + Disease Stage + AD Medication at BL + APOE e4.||-0.14|-2.24|0.0260
91016679|NCT03443973|181916687|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted mean|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.9086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.52|||ANCOVA|||Change from BL was calculated based on ANCOVA analysis model which included the following covariates and stratification factors = Treatment + Baseline + Geographical Region + Disease Stage + AD Medication at BL + APOE e4.||0.52|-0.59|0.9086
91016680|NCT03443973|181916688|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted mean|1.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.0629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|2.9|||ANCOVA|||Change from BL was calculated based on ANCOVA analysis model which included the following covariates and stratification factors = Treatment + Baseline + Geographical Region + Disease Stage + AD Medication at BL + APOE e4.||2.90|-0.08|0.0629
91016681|NCT03443973|181916689|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted mean|0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.2348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|2.09|||ANCOVA|||Change from BL was calculated based on ANCOVA analysis model which included the following covariates and stratification factors = Treatment + Baseline + Geographical Region + Disease Stage + AD Medication at BL + APOE e4.||2.09|-0.51|0.2348
90891562|NCT02163733|181648026|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|90% CIs being within 70% to 143%|Geometric mean ratio|92.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.4|105.68|||||Fed / Fasted ratio. Linear mixed-effects model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect. LSGMR Fed = 208.0, Fasted = 224.3.|Study sized so experiment-wise power for the 90% CIs of geometric mean ratios for both AUC and Cmax of AZD9291 being within 70-143% was 90% (95% for each parameter). Within patient CV assumed to be 34%. A 6% change in exposure was also assumed.||105.68|81.40|
91016682|NCT03443973|181916696|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted means|-56.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.976|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.36|-48.56|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from BL was calculated based on mixed-effect model of repeated measure which included the following covariates and stratification factors = Baseline + APOE e4 status + Type of Tracer + Analysis Visit + Treatment + Treatment\*Analysis Visit + Analysis Visit\*Baseline.||-48.56|-64.36|<.0001
91079243|NCT03041467|182044187|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||There is no planned hypothesis test other than at 6 months time point. P-value listed is at 6 months.|Log Rank|||Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate access circuit primary patency.||||<0.001
91079244|NCT03041467|182044188|OTHER|There is no planned hypothesis test other than at 6 months time point. P-value listed is at 6 months.|||||<|0.001||||||There is no planned hypothesis test other than at 6 months time point. P-value listed is at 6 months. Survival analysis was performed using Kaplan-Meier method.|Log Rank|||Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate target lesion primary patency.|Survival analysis was performed using Kaplan-Meier method.|||<0.001
91079245|NCT03041467|182044189|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||There is no planned hypothesis test other than at 6 months time point. P-value listed is at 6 months.|Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91079246|NCT03041467|182044193|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.999
91079247|NCT03041467|182044194|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.482|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.482
91079248|NCT03041467|182044195|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.999
91079249|NCT02330172|182044220|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
91079250|NCT02330172|182044221|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
90891563|NCT02163733|181648034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric mean ratio|81.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|57.86|113.83|||||Fed / Fasted ratio. No pre-specified margins for equivalence test for metabolites, but analysed for consistency with AZD9291 analysis. Linear mixed-effects model with treatment as fixed effect. LSGMR Fed = 497.6, Fasted = 613.2.|AZ5104||113.83|57.86|
91016683|NCT03443973|181916697|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted mean|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023||0.7816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.05|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Temporal Composite Region: Change from BL was calculated based on mixed-effect model of repeated measure which included the following covariates and stratification factors = Baseline + APOE e4 status + Study + Analysis Visit + Treatment + Treatment\*Analysis Visit + Analysis Visit\*Baseline.||0.05|-0.04|0.7816
91016684|NCT03443973|181916697|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted means|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018||0.6203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.05|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Medial Temporal Composite Region: Change from BL was calculated based on mixed-effect model of repeated measure which included the following covariates and stratification factors = Baseline + APOE e4 status + Study + Analysis Visit + Treatment + Treatment\*Analysis Visit + Analysis Visit\*Baseline.||0.05|-0.03|0.6203
91079251|NCT00734656|182044222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||null hypothesis - dutasteride does not affect blood alcohol following standardized dose of alcohol (0.8 gr/kg)||||0.28
91079252|NCT00734656|182044223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||null hypothesis: dutasteride pre-treatment does not reduce the sedative effect of alcohol||||0.010
91079253|NCT00734656|182044224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||null hypothesis: dutasteride pre-treatment does not reduce the stimulating effect of alcohol||||0.17
91079254|NCT00734656|182044225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||null hypothesis - A single 4 mg dose of dutasteride does not reduce serum 3a-androstanediol glucuronide levels||||<0.001
91079255|NCT03214679|182044227|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<.001
91079256|NCT01601067|182044232|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.002
91079257|NCT01601067|182044233|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91||||||heavy drinking days|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.91
91079258|NCT00135356|182044293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Means|0.03||||0.48||95.0|-0.06|0.12||P-value not adjusted for multiple testing, 2-sided 95% CI|t-test, 2 sided|||LOCF||0.12|-0.06|0.48
91079259|NCT00135356|182044293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Means|0.07||||0.57||95.0|-0.07|12.0||P-value not adjusted for multiple testing. 2-sided 95% CI|t-test, 2 sided|||OC||12.0|-0.07|0.57
91079260|NCT00135356|182044294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Means|0.02||||0.73||95.0|-0.1|0.14||P-value not adjusted for multiple testing, 2-sided 95% CI.|t-test, 2 sided|||LOCF||0.14|-0.10|0.73
91079261|NCT00135356|182044294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Means|-0.01||||0.91||95.0|-0.14|0.13||P-value not adjusted for multiple testing, 2-sided 95% CI.|t-test, 2 sided|||OC||0.13|-0.14|0.91
91079262|NCT00135356|182044295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Mean|5.2||||0.27||95.0|-3.9|15.1||P-value not adjusted for multiple testing, 2-sided 95% CI.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 48 VAT LOCF||15.1|-3.9|0.27
91079263|NCT00135356|182044295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Mean|1.8||||0.68||95.0|-6.7|11.2||P-value not adjusted for multiple testing, 2-sided 95% CI|t-test, 2 sided|||VAT, Week 96 LOCF||11.2|-6.7|0.68
91079264|NCT00135356|182044295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Means|4.4||||0.14||95.0|-1.4|10.6||P-value not adjusted for multiple testing, 2-sided 95% CI.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 48 Trunk Fat LOCF||10.6|-1.4|0.14
91079265|NCT00135356|182044295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Means|5.3||||0.14||95.0|-1.7|12.9||P-value not adjusted for multiple testing, 2-sided 95% CI.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 96 Trunk Fat LOCF||12.9|-1.7|0.14
91079266|NCT00135356|182044296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Means|4.0||||0.16||95.0|-1.6|10.0||P-value not adjusted for multiple testing, 2-sided 95% CI.|t-test, 2 sided|||SAT, Week 48, LOCF||10.0|-1.6|0.16
91079267|NCT00135356|182044296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Mean|6.8||||0.06||95.0|-0.2|14.2||P-value not adjusted for multiple testing, 2-sided 95% CI.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 96 SAT||14.2|-0.2|0.06
91079268|NCT00135356|182044296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Means|4.6||||0.15||95.0|-1.7|11.4||P-value not adjusted for multiple testing, 2-sided 95% CI.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 48, Limb Fat||11.4|-1.7|0.15
91079269|NCT00135356|182044296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Means|5.7||||0.17||95.0|-2.3|14.4||P-value not adjusted for multiple testing, 2-sided 95% CI|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 96, Limb Fat||14.4|-2.3|0.17
91079270|NCT00135356|182044297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||DIfference in Means|3.6||||0.19||95.0|-1.8|9.4||P-value not adjusted for multiple testing, 2-sided 95% CI.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 48 TAT||9.4|-1.8|0.19
91079271|NCT00135356|182044297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||DIfference in Means|4.3||||0.16||95.0|-1.7|10.7||P-value not adjusted for multiple testing, 2-sided 95% CI.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 96 TAT||10.7|-1.7|0.16
91079272|NCT00135356|182044297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Means|5.0||||0.0385||95.0|0.3|9.7||P-value not adjusted for multiple testing, 2-sided 95% CI.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 48 Total Body Fat||9.7|0.3|0.0385
91079273|NCT00135356|182044297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Means|5.9||||0.1||95.0|-1.0|13.2||P-value not adjusted for multiple testing, 2-sided 95% CI.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 96 Total Body Fat||13.2|-1.0|0.10
91079274|NCT00135356|182044309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.72||||||||3.72|0.3|
91079275|NCT02412878|182044311|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.485|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.716|3.598||Progression-free survival, overall response, and overall survival were tested using a fixed sequence hierarchical testing procedure to control the family-wise type I error rate below one-sided 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|One-sided p-value from CMH test stratified by the randomization factors (ISS stage at study entry, refractory to bortezomib treatment, and age).|Odds ratio (once weekly carfilzomib 20/70 mg/m²/ twice weekly carfilzomib 20/27 mg/m²) was calculated using the Mantel-Haenszel method stratified by the randomization stratification factors.|||3.598|1.716|< 0.0001
91079276|NCT02412878|182044311|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.466|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.707|3.563|||Fisher Exact||Odds ratio (once weekly carfilzomib 20/70 mg/m²/ twice weekly carfilzomib 20/27 mg/m²) was calculated using the Mantel-Haenszel method.|||3.563|1.707|<0.0001
91016685|NCT03443973|181916697|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted means|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015||0.7754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.03|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Frontal Lobe: Change from BL was calculated based on mixed-effect model of repeated measure which included the following covariates and stratification factors = Baseline + APOE e4 status + Study + Analysis Visit + Treatment + Treatment\*Analysis Visit + Analysis Visit\*Baseline.||0.03|-0.03|0.7754
91016686|NCT03443973|181916697|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted means|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.9022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.05|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Parietal Lobe: Change from BL was calculated based on mixed-effect model of repeated measure which included the following covariates and stratification factors = Baseline + APOE e4 status + Study + Analysis Visit + Treatment + Treatment\*Analysis Visit + Analysis Visit\*Baseline.||0.05|-0.05|0.9022
91016687|NCT03443973|181916698|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference in Geometric Mean|-13.2||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.51|-2.87|||ANCOVA|||||-2.87|-22.51|0.014
91016688|NCT03443973|181916699|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference in Geometric Mean|-14.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.88|-6.21|||ANCOVA|||||-6.21|-21.88|<0.001
91016689|NCT03443973|181916700|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference in Geometric Mean|-17.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.92|-10.11|||ANCOVA|||||-10.11|-24.92|<0.001
91016690|NCT03443973|181916701|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference in Geometric Mean|-21.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.29|-12.97|||ANCOVA|||||-12.97|-28.29|<0.001
91079277|NCT02412878|182044312|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.693||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.544|0.883||Progression-free survival, overall response rate, and overall survival were tested using a fixed sequence hierarchical testing procedure to control the family-wise type I error rate below one-sided 0.025 level.|Log Rank|One-sided stratified log-rank test, stratified by the randomization factors (ISS stage at study entry, refractory to bortezomib treatment, and age).|Hazard ratio (once weekly carfilzomib 20/70 mg/m²/ twice weekly carfilzomib 20/27 mg/m²) was estimated using a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by the randomization stratification factors.|To ensure proper control of type I error, analysis of PFS was performed under a group sequential design framework with the stopping boundaries constructed using the Lan-DeMets spending function with an O'Brien-Fleming approach. The inferential comparison between the 2 treatment groups for PFS used the 1-sided log-rank test stratified by the randomization stratification factors. A 1-sided p-value was compared against the prespecified adjusted alpha value of 0.011 to determine significance.||0.883|0.544|0.0014
91079278|NCT02412878|182044312|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.567|0.913|||Log Rank|One-sided unstratified log-rank test|Hazard ratio (once weekly carfilzomib 20/70 mg/m²/ twice weekly carfilzomib 20/27 mg/m²) was estimated using an unstratified Cox proportional hazards model.|||0.913|0.567|0.0033
91016691|NCT04662086|181916732|OTHER|||||||0.2||||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant.|Linear mixed-effects regression model|||A generalized linear mixed effects model with parameterization was utilized to capture the difference in change in viral shedding at day 10 between treatment arms. SARS-CoV2 viral RNA CT values were transformed using a standard Reference curve.||||0.20
91079279|NCT02412878|182044313|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.563|1.138||Progression-free survival, overall response, and overall survival were tested using a fixed sequence hierarchical testing procedure to control the family-wise type I error rate below one-sided 0.025 level.|Log Rank|One-sided stratified log-rank test, stratified by the randomization factors (ISS stage at study entry, refractory to bortezomib treatment, and age).|Hazard ratio (once weekly carfilzomib 20/70 mg/m²/ twice weekly carfilzomib 20/27 mg/m²) was estimated using a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by the randomization stratification factors.|||1.138|0.563|0.1070
91079280|NCT02412878|182044313|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.1326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.578|1.164|||Log Rank|One-sided unstratified log-rank test|Hazard ratio (once weekly carfilzomib 20/70 mg/m²/ twice weekly carfilzomib 20/27 mg/m²) was estimated using an unstratified Cox proportional hazards model.|||1.164|0.578|0.1326
91103577|NCT01550965|182094096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|-13.12|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for mean change in WPAI-SHP: percentage of impairment while working from week 0 to week 2.||-13.12|-20.00|<0.001
91103578|NCT01550965|182094096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.93|-18.97|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for mean change in WPAI-SHP: percentage of impairment while working from week 0 to week 8.||-18.97|-26.93|<0.001
91103579|NCT01550965|182094096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.69|-17.67|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for mean change in WPAI-SHP: percentage of impairment while working from week 0 to week 18. Efficacy assessments were not specified at week 18; missing data at week 18 were imputed using last observation carried forward (LOCF).||-17.67|-25.69|<0.001
90891564|NCT02163733|181648034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric mean ratio|88.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|65.21|119.32|||||Fed / Fasted ratio. No pre-specified margins for equivalence test for metabolites, but analysed for consistency with AZD9291 analysis. Linear mixed-effects model with treatment as fixed effect. LSGMR Fed = 235.0, Fasted = 266.4.|AZ7550||119.32|65.21|
90891565|NCT02163733|181648035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric mean ratio|76.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|55.31|106.32|||||Fed / Fasted ratio. No pre-specified margins for equivalence test for metabolites, but analysed for consistency with AZD9291 analysis. Linear mixed-effects model with treatment as fixed effect. LSGMR Fed = 9.163, Fasted = 11.95.|AZ5104||106.32|55.31|
90891566|NCT02163733|181648035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric mean ratio|82.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.99|112.74|||||Fed / Fasted ratio. No pre-specified margins for equivalence test for metabolites, but analysed for consistency with AZD9291 analysis. Linear mixed-effects model with treatment as fixed effect. LSGMR Fed = 4.236, Fasted = 5.109.|AZ7550||112.74|60.99|
90891567|NCT03232983|181648044|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.992|1.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Geometric Least Squares Means (LSMeans) were controlled for injection site, study period, and sequence as fixed effects, and subject within sequence as a random effect.||1.07|0.992|
90891568|NCT03232983|181648044|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.962|1.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Geometric LSMeans were controlled for injection site, study period, and sequence as fixed effects, and subject within sequence as a random effect.||1.04|0.962|
90891569|NCT03232983|181648045|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric LSMeans|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Geometric LSMeans were controlled for injection site, study period, and sequence as fixed effects, and subject within sequence as a random effect.||1.20|1.00|
91016692|NCT04662086|181916733|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.04||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant.|Cox proportional hazards model|Two-sided Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for age, sex, and receipt of baseline receipt of monoclonal antibodies.||A two-sided log rank test at the 0.04999 level of significance for the final analysis required 78 events (i.e., sustained symptom resolution) to provide 80% power to detect a hazard ratio of 1.91. Based on previous outpatient COVID-19 trials at Stanford, assumed placebo and treatment arm median time to symptom resolution of 10 and 5 days, respectively, for a total sample size of 120 patients. Participants with missing data lasting through Day 28 were censored on Day 28.||1.04|0.34|0.07
91016693|NCT04662086|181916735|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.01|||Linear mixed-effects regression model|||||1.01|0.38|0.05
91016694|NCT04662086|181916736|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.01||||||||1.01|0.34|
91016695|NCT04662086|181916737|OTHER|||||||0.21||||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant.|Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence of ED visits||||0.21
91016696|NCT04633434|181916739|EQUIVALENCE|Test of whether the pretest and posttest scores are significantly different from zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Estimation parameter based on paired t-test.|||||.690
91016697|NCT04633434|181916740|EQUIVALENCE|Test of whether pretest to posttest score change is greater than zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.647|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.308||0.052|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.052
91016698|NCT04633434|181916741|EQUIVALENCE|Test of whether pretest to posttest change is significantly different from zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.647|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.135|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.135
91016699|NCT04633434|181916742|EQUIVALENCE|Test of whether pretest to posttest change is significantly different from zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.14||0.026|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.026
91016700|NCT04633434|181916743|EQUIVALENCE|Test of whether pretest to posttest change is significantly different from zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
91016701|NCT04633434|181916744|EQUIVALENCE|Test of whether pretest to posttest change is significantly different from zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
91016702|NCT04633434|181916745|EQUIVALENCE|Test of whether pretest to posttest change is significantly different from zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.057|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.057
91016703|NCT04633434|181916746|EQUIVALENCE|Test of whether pretest to posttest change is significantly different from zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.89|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
91016704|NCT04633434|181916747|EQUIVALENCE|Test of whether pretest to posttest change is significantly different from zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.352|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.352
91016705|NCT04633434|181916748|EQUIVALENCE|Test of whether pretest to posttest change is significantly different from zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.104|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.104
91016706|NCT04633434|181916751|EQUIVALENCE|Test of whether pretest to posttest change is significantly different from zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.106|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.106
91016707|NCT04633434|181916752|EQUIVALENCE|Test of whether pretest to posttest change is significantly different from zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.005
91016708|NCT04633434|181916753|EQUIVALENCE|Test of whether pretest to posttest change is significantly different from zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.082|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.082
91103580|NCT01550965|182094096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.33|-20.58|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for mean change in WPAI-SHP: percentage of impairment while working from week 0 to week 26.||-20.58|-28.33|<0.001
91103581|NCT01550965|182094097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.1|-14.57|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for mean change in WPAI-SHP: overall work impairment percentage from week 0 to week 2.||-14.57|-22.10|<0.001
90891570|NCT03232983|181648045|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric LSMeans|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.04|1.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Geometric LSMeans were controlled for injection site, study period, and sequence as fixed effects, and subject within sequence as a random effect.||1.25|1.04|
90891571|NCT02633800|181648055|OTHER|Both Log-rank test and Cox regression analysis did not adjust stratification factors.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9291||||0.8342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4856|1.7778||Unstratified Log-rank p-value|Log Rank|||Heregulin-high population - Patritumab vs Placebo||1.7778|0.4856|0.8342
90891572|NCT05554237|181648115|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|83.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.67|93.29|||||Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect (for CTB 800 mg + AVP 1350 mg versus CTB 800mg only)|||93.29|74.67|
90891573|NCT05554237|181648117|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|89.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.24|92.23|||||Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect (for CTB 800 mg + AVP 1350 mg versus CTB 800mg only|||92.23|87.24|
90891574|NCT05554237|181648120|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|89.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.47|92.41|||||Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect (for CTB 800 mg + AVP 1350 mg versus CTB 800mg only|||92.41|87.47|
90891575|NCT05554237|181648140|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|104.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.94|128.5|||||Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect (fed vs fasted)|Cis-CTB Day 6 versus Day 7||128.50|84.94|
90891576|NCT05554237|181648140|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|129.54|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|119.37|140.58|||||Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect (fed vs fasted)|Cis-CTB Day 6 versus Day 7||140.58|119.37|
90891577|NCT05554237|181648140|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|101.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.68|116.08|||||Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect (fed vs fasted)|Cis-CTB Day 6 versus Day 7||116.08|88.68|
90891578|NCT05554237|181648140|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|86.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.48|101.59|||||Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect (fed vs fasted) for CTB 400 mg + AVP 1350 mg only|Trans-CTB Day 6 versus Day 7||101.59|74.48|
90891579|NCT05554237|181648142|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|102.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.67|117.8|||||Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect (fed vs fasted)|Cis-CTB Day 6 versus Day 7||117.80|88.67|
90891580|NCT05554237|181648142|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|133.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|119.84|149.36|||||Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect (fed vs fasted)|Cis-CTB Day 6 versus Day 7||149.36|119.84|
90891581|NCT05554237|181648142|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|99.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.7|110.1|||||Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect (fed vs fasted)|Cis-CTB Day 6 versus Day 7||110.10|90.70|
90891582|NCT05554237|181648142|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|89.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.27|105.63|||||Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect (fed vs fasted) for CTB 400 mg + AVP 1350 mg only|Trans-CTB Day 6 versus Day 7||105.63|75.27|
90891583|NCT05554237|181648148|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|93.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.37|112.02|||||Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect (fed vs fasted)|AVI- Day 6 versus Day 7||112.02|78.37|
90891584|NCT05554237|181648148|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|113.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.31|144.76|||||Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect (fed vs fasted)|AVI-CTB Day 6 versus Day 7||144.76|88.31|
90891585|NCT05554237|181648148|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|107.06||||||90.0|92.77|123.54|||||Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect (fed vs fasted)|AVI- Day 6 versus Day 7||123.54|92.77|
90891586|NCT05554237|181648148|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|80.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|68.32|95.27|||||Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect (fed vs fasted)|HPA- Day 6 versus Day 7||95.27|68.32|
90891587|NCT05554237|181648148|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|89.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|69.7|116.02|||||Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect (fed vs fasted)|HPA- Day 6 versus Day 7||116.02|69.70|
90891588|NCT05554237|181648148|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|97.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.08|113.41|||||Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect (fed vs fasted)|HPA- Day 6 versus Day 7||113.41|84.08|
90891589|NCT05554237|181648149|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|102.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.37|115.87|||||Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect (fed vs fasted)|AVI- Day 6 versus Day 7||115.87|90.37|
90891590|NCT05554237|181648149|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|117.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.61|138.0|||||Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect (fed vs fasted)|AVI- Day 6 versus Day 7||138.00|100.61|
90891591|NCT05554237|181648149|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|115.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|104.12|128.98|||||Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect (fed vs fasted)|AVI- Day 6 versus Day 7||128.98|104.12|
90891592|NCT05554237|181648149|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|85.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.37|103.32|||||Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect (fed vs fasted)|HPA- Day 6 versus Day 7||103.32|70.37|
90891593|NCT05554237|181648149|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|97.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.83|121.06|||||Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect (fed vs fasted)|HPA- Day 6 versus Day 7||121.06|78.83|
90891594|NCT05554237|181648149|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|102.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.8|111.58|||||Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect (fed vs fasted)|HPA- Day 6 versus Day 7||111.58|94.80|
90891595|NCT05554237|181648164|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|105.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.64|128.39|||||Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect (Japanese participants fed vs fasted and Chinese participants fed vs fasted)|AVI- Day 6 versus Day 7||128.39|86.64|
90891596|NCT05554237|181648164|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|134.24||||||90.0|51.81|347.81|||||Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect (Japanese participants fed vs fasted and Chinese participants fed vs fasted)|AVI- Day 6 versus Day 7||347.81|51.81|
90891597|NCT05554237|181648164|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|91.17||||||90.0|79.54|104.51|||||Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect (Japanese participants fed vs fasted and Chinese participants fed vs fasted)|HPA- Day 6 versus Day 7||104.51|79.54|
90891598|NCT05554237|181648164|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|115.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|71.46|185.9|||||Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect (Japanese participants fed vs fasted and Chinese participants fed vs fasted)|HPA- Day 6 versus Day 7||185.90|71.46|
90891599|NCT05554237|181648166|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|114.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.1|130.43|||||Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect (Japanese participants fed vs fasted and Chinese participants fed vs fasted)|AVI- Day 6 versus Day 7||130.43|101.10|
90891600|NCT05554237|181648166|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|140.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|104.17|189.34|||||Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect (Japanese participants fed vs fasted and Chinese participants fed vs fasted)|AVI- Day 6 versus Day 7||189.34|104.17|
90891601|NCT05554237|181648166|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|101.46||||||90.0|90.79|113.39|||||Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect (Japanese participants fed vs fasted and Chinese participants fed vs fasted)|HPA- Day 6 versus Day 7||113.39|90.79|
90891602|NCT05554237|181648166|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|123.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|110.25|137.67|||||Model is a mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect (Japanese participants fed vs fasted and Chinese participants fed vs fasted)|HPA- Day 6 versus Day 7||137.67|110.25|
91103582|NCT01550965|182094097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.08|-22.0|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for mean change in WPAI-SHP: overall work impairment percentage from week 0 to week 8.||-22.00|-31.08|<0.001
90891603|NCT02701985|181648200|OTHER||Difference in Response Rates|4.27||||0.7955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.55|29.08|||Chi-square with Schouten Correction|||The proportion of patients who have ≥ 3 point reduction from baseline in ESSDAI score after 12 weeks of treatment was compared between the two treatment arms using a Pearson Chi-square test (two sided p-values, alpha 0.05). The difference in proportions and corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) are provided. Patients with missing data at Week 12 will be treated as non-responders in the analysis.||29.08|-20.55|0.7955
91103583|NCT01550965|182094097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.97|-20.7|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for mean change in WPAI-SHP: overall work impairment percentage from week 0 to week 18. Efficacy assessments were not specified at week 18; missing data at week 18 were imputed using LOCF.||-20.70|-29.97|<0.001
90891604|NCT02701985|181648201|OTHER||Difference in Response Rates|1.14||||0.9877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.92|26.19|||Chi-square with Schouten Correction|||The proportion of patients who have ≥ 1 point reduction from baseline in ESSPRI score after 12 weeks of treatment was compared between the two treatment arms using a Pearson Chi-square test (two sided p-values, alpha 0.05). The difference in proportions and corresponding 95% CI are provided. Patients with missing data at Week 12 will be treated as non-responders in the analysis.||26.19|-23.92|0.9877
90891605|NCT02701985|181648202|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.13||||0.8905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|1.78|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||A Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach incorporating all observed data up to 12 weeks of treatment was used. The MMRM included the absolute change from baseline as the dependent variable.||1.78|-2.04|0.8905
90891606|NCT02701985|181648203|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.22||||0.6077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|0.64|||Mixed Model of Repeated Measures|||A Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach incorporating all observed data up to 12 weeks of treatment was used. The MMRM included the absolute change from baseline as the dependent variable.||0.64|-1.08|0.6077
90891607|NCT02701985|181648204|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-2.06||||0.2846||95.0|-5.87|1.75|||Mixed Model of Repeated Measures|||A Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach incorporating all observed data up to 12 weeks of treatment was used. The MMRM included the absolute change from baseline as the dependent variable||1.75|-5.87|0.2846
90891608|NCT02701985|181648205|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.33||||0.8134||95.0|-2.43|3.08|||Mixed Model of Repeated Measures|||A Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach incorporating all observed data up to 12 weeks of treatment was used. The MMRM included the absolute change from baseline as the dependent variable||3.08|-2.43|0.8134
90891609|NCT02701985|181648209|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.87||||0.4266||95.0|-1.3|3.03|||Mixed Model of Repeated Measures|||A Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach incorporating all observed data up to 12 weeks of treatment was used. The MMRM included the absolute change from baseline as the dependent variable.||3.03|-1.30|0.4266
90891610|NCT02701985|181648210|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.6429||95.0|-0.21|0.34|||Mixed Model of Repeated Measures|||A Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach incorporating all observed data up to 12 weeks of treatment was used. The MMRM included the absolute change from baseline as the dependent variable.||0.34|-0.21|0.6429
90891611|NCT01640808|181648228|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.124||A two-sided significance level was set at 0.05. Adjustment of multiplicity considering interim analysis is conducted by the Lan DeMets' method of α consumption function.|Log Rank|||||1.124|0.720|0.351
91016709|NCT00297882|181916771|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of AQ-AS compared to AL was assessed by constructing a one-sided, lower limit asymptotic 97.5% CI on the difference of polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-corrected cure rates of AQ-AS when compared to AL. Non-inferiority was declared if the lower limit of the CI was greater than -10% for AQ-AS.|||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Sample Size will be determined by N = {\[(Zα/2)/E\]\*2}pq where Where: n=sample size; Zα/2= Z value of a two-tailed test with 95% confidence level=1.96; p represents cure rate, q=1-p, which represents treatment failure rate of; E=precision of 5%||||>0.05
91016710|NCT00297882|181916772|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of AQ-AS compared to AL was assessed by constructing a one-sided, lower limit asymptotic 97.5% CI on the difference of polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-corrected cure rates of AQ-AS when compared to AL. Non-inferiority was declared if the lower limit of the CI was greater than -10% for AQ-AS.|||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Sample Size will be determined by N = {\[(Zα/2)/E\]\*2}pq where Where: n=sample size; Zα/2= Z value of a two-tailed test with 95% confidence level=1.96; p represents cure rate, q=1-p, which represents treatment failure rate of; E=precision of 5%||||>0.05
91016711|NCT04242264|181916773|SUPERIORITY|A two-sided Chi-squared test with alpha=0.05 was used to test the null hypothesis that the vaccine efficacy is zero, which is equivalent to testing that the relative risk of shigellosis is one.|Vaccine efficacy|0.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.96|||Chi-squared||Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk of shigellosis, where relative risk = probability of shigellosis in WRSs2 group / probability of shigellosis in placebo group. A Wilson (Score) CI was calculated for the vaccine efficacy estimate.|The null hypothesis is that the absolute vaccine efficacy (VE) of preventing shigellosis is zero. The alternative hypothesis is that the absolute VE is greater than zero.||0.96|0.71|<0.001
91103584|NCT01550965|182094097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.5|-24.93|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for mean change in WPAI-SHP: overall work impairment percentage from week 0 to week 26.||-24.93|-33.50|<0.001
90829011|NCT03629886|181533227|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with any oncogenic HPV type or combination of oncogenic HPV types (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n) in a group (assessed by detecting HPV DNA using PCR), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T) in the same group, and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.16||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of oncogenic HPV-45 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received HPV vaccine in that study (N=2794). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||0.16|0.07|
90891612|NCT01640808|181648229|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.875||||0.222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.706|1.085||A two-sided significance level was set at 0.05.|Log Rank|||||1.085|0.706|0.222
90891613|NCT01640808|181648230|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.882||||0.279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.703|1.108||A two-sided significance level was set at 0.05.|Log Rank|||||1.108|0.703|0.279
91103585|NCT01550965|182094098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.47|-15.85|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for mean change in WPAI-SHP: percentage of activity impairment from week 0 to week 2.||-15.85|-20.47|<0.001
90891614|NCT00989768|181648241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.36|<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||In this study the null hypothesis was that BoNT-A1 had the same effect (halus)than the BoNT-A2.||||<0.0001
90891615|NCT00989768|181648242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
90891616|NCT00989768|181648243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.61
90891617|NCT00989768|181648244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.36
90891618|NCT02192502|181648245|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority delta of a ratio of geometric means is 1.15.|Geometric mean ratio|0.91||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.44|||generalized linear model|This analysis used linear mixed model with repeated measurements with an unstructured correlation structure.||Assuming that NGAL values follow a log normal distribution as in previous studies with a coefficient of variation of 25%, we need 52 patients per group to have 90% power at the 0.025 significance level to be able to claim non-inferiority of HES to albumin using a non-inferiority delta of a ratio of geometric means of 1.15. After Adjusting for the interim monitoring and five potential dropouts and five pilot patients (which were not included in the analyses), we planned to enroll 140 patients||1.44|0.57|0.15
90891619|NCT02192502|181648246|NON_INFERIORITY|the delta for non-inferiority is 1.15|Risk Ratio (RR)|2.78||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|12.1|||Chi-squared|||||12.1|0.64|0.92
90891620|NCT02192502|181648247|NON_INFERIORITY|the non-inferiority delta was 1.15|geometric mean ratio|0.45||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|5.0|0.21|0.95|||Regression, Linear|IL-18 was log-transformed||||0.95|0.21|0.002
90891621|NCT02192502|181648248|NON_INFERIORITY|the delta for non-inferiority is 1.15|geometric mean ratio|0.98||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.1|||Regression, Linear|IL-18 was log-transformed||||2.10|0.45|0.31
90891622|NCT02192502|181648249|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority delta was 1.15|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.03|||Chi-squared|||||1.03|0.61|<0.001
90891623|NCT04818346|181648277|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-21.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.62||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.49|-8.32|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||-8.32|-34.49|0.0015
91079281|NCT01306214|182044323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.61|-0.27||Hierarchical testing to adjust for multiple comparisons within each dose level, alpha split equally between the doses (2.5%). Empagliflozin versus placebo change from baseline in HbA1c at week 18 was the first step in each hierarchical sequence.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model includes baseline HbA1c as a covariate and baseline eGFR, geographic region, baseline background medication, treatment as fixed effects.|Estimated value = Adjusted mean of Empagliflozin 10 mg - Adjusted mean of placebo.|"For the primary endpoint, the testing of the superiority hypothesis versus placebo was:~Hypothesis test:~H0: No difference in change from baseline to Week 18 in HbA1c (%) between Empagliflozin 10 mg and placebo Ha: A difference in change from baseline to Week 18 in HbA1c (%) between Empagliflozin 10 mg and placebo"||-0.27|-0.61|<0.0001
91079282|NCT01306214|182044323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.69|-0.35||Hierarchical testing to adjust for multiple comparisons within each dose level, alpha split equally between the doses (2.5%). Empagliflozin versus placebo change from baseline in HbA1c at week 18 was the first step in each hierarchical sequence.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model includes baseline HbA1c as a covariate and baseline eGFR, geographic region, baseline background medication, treatment as fixed effects.|Estimated value = Adjusted mean of Empagliflozin 25 mg - Adjusted mean of placebo|"For the primary endpoint, the testing of the superiority hypothesis versus placebo was:~H0: No difference in change from baseline to Week 18 in HbA1c (%) between Empagliflozin 25 mg and placebo Ha: A difference in change from baseline to Week 18 in HbA1c (%) between Empagliflozin 25 mg and placebo"||-0.35|-0.69|<0.0001
91079283|NCT01306214|182044324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-8.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.05||0.004|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-15.69|-1.97||Hierarchical testing adjusted for multiple comparisons within each dose level, alpha split equally between the doses (2.5%). Empagliflozin versus placebo change from baseline in insulin dose at week 52 was the second step in hierarchical sequence.|ANCOVA|Model - Covariates: baseline insulin daily dose,baseline HbA1c Fixed effects: baseline eGFR, region, baseline background medication, treatment|Estimated value = Adjusted mean of empagliflozin 10 mg - Adjusted mean of placebo|"Hypothesis test:~H0: No difference in change from baseline to Week 52 in insulin dose (IU/day) between Empagliflozin 10 mg and placebo Ha: A difference in change from baseline to Week 52 in insulin dose (IU/day) between Empagliflozin 10 mg and placebo"||-1.97|-15.69|0.004
91103586|NCT01550965|182094098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.3|-22.56|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for mean change in WPAI-SHP: percentage of activity impairment from week 0 to week 8.||-22.56|-28.30|<0.001
91103587|NCT01550965|182094098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.33|-21.5|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for mean change in WPAI-SHP: percentage of activity impairment from week 0 to week 18. Efficacy assessments were not specified at week 18; missing data at week 18 were imputed using last observation carried forward (LOCF).||-21.50|-27.33|<0.001
91103588|NCT01550965|182094098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.28|-24.16|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for mean change in WPAI-SHP: percentage of activity impairment from week 0 to week 26.||-24.16|-30.28|<0.001
90891624|NCT04818346|181648277|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-20.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.86||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.63|-6.51|||MMRM|||||-6.51|-33.63|0.0040
90891625|NCT04818346|181648277|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-18.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.77||0.0086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.4|-4.64|||MMRM|||||-4.64|-31.40|0.0086
90891626|NCT04818346|181648278|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.3||||0.3574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.398|220.998|||Wald test||Logistic regression: (response at Week 24 = treatment + stratification factor \[T-BSA involvement 8%-20%/\>20%\]).|||220.998|0.398|0.3574
91103589|NCT05155085|182094129|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.1||||0.4662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|19.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||19.8|-9.8|0.4662
90891627|NCT04818346|181648278|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.5||||0.1992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.573|273.479|||Wald test||Logistic regression: (response at Week 24 = treatment + stratification factor \[T-BSA involvement 8%-20%/\>20%\]).|||273.479|0.573|0.1992
90891628|NCT04818346|181648278|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1||||0.9913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.103|126.386|||Wald test||Logistic regression: (response at Week 24 = treatment + stratification factor \[T-BSA involvement 8%-20%/\>20%\]).|||126.386|0.103|0.9913
90891629|NCT02273141|181648303|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The confidence limits were adjusted for multiple comparisons (two alternative primary endpoints): To be declared non-inferior, the primary endpoint must show a difference in success rates of no greater than 10% in favor of SP+MS using lower 1-sided 97.5% confidence limits. Calculated using exact Clopper-Pearson confidence limits.|Difference in success rate|8.22||||0.038|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-0.5|||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons (2 alternative primary endpoints): To be declared superior, the primary endpoint must demonstrate non-inferiority with 1-sided p-value \<0.025, the threshold for statistical significance.|Fisher Exact|||The hypothesis was to demonstrate non-inferiority (NI) of NER1006 regimen to SP+MS (10% margin). Success rate was no. of patients with successful overall bowel cleansing as proportion of no. of patients in each group. Treatment effect was NER1006 success rate - SP+MS success rate. A Hochberg procedure was used to control Type I error since there were 2 alternative primary endpoints. An alpha level of 1.25% 1-sided was used. A closed testing procedure used to evaluate superiority if NI was met.|||-0.50|0.038
90905037|NCT02886728|181677435|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|24.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.1|31.5||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12||31.5|18.1|<0.001
91103590|NCT05155085|182094130|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference from Placebo|-9.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.4||0.3968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.2|12.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||12.9|-32.2|0.3968
91103591|NCT05155085|182094131|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.3||||0.7625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|21.6|||Fisher Exact|||||21.6|-15.2|0.7625
91079284|NCT01306214|182044324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-11.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.05||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-18.09|-4.36||Hierarchical testing adjusted for multiple comparisons within each dose level, alpha split equally between the doses (2.5%). Empagliflozin versus placebo change from baseline in insulin dose at week 52 was the second step in hierarchical sequence.|ANCOVA|Model - Covariates: baseline insulin daily dose,baseline HbA1c Fixed effects: baseline eGFR, region, baseline background medication, treatment|Estimated value = Adjusted mean of Empagliflozin 25 mg - Adjusted mean of placebo.|"Hypothesis test:~H0: No difference in change from baseline to Week 52 in insulin dose (IU/day) between Empagliflozin 25 mg and placebo Ha : A difference in change from baseline to Week 52 in insulin dose (IU/day) between Empagliflozin 25 mg and placebo"||-4.36|-18.09|0.0003
91079285|NCT01306214|182044325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.54|-1.24||Hierarchical testing adjusted for multiple comparisons within each dose level, alpha split equally between the doses (2.5%). Empagliflozin versus placebo change from baseline in body weight at week 52 was the third step in hierarchical sequence.|ANCOVA|Model includes baseline weight, baseline HbA1c as covariates and baseline eGFR, region, baseline background medication, treatment as fixed effects.|Estimated value = Adjusted mean of empagliflozin 10 mg - Adjusted mean of placebo|"Hypothesis test:~H0: No difference in change from baseline to Week 52 in body weight (kg) between Empagliflozin 10 mg and placebo Ha : A difference in change from baseline to Week 52 in body weight (kg) between Empagliflozin 10 mg and placebo"||-1.24|-3.54|<0.0001
91079286|NCT01306214|182044325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.63|-1.33||Hierarchical testing adjusted for multiple comparisons within each dose level, alpha split equally between the doses (2.5%). Empagliflozin versus placebo change from baseline in body weight at week 52 was the third step in hierarchical sequence.|ANCOVA|Model includes baseline weight, baseline HbA1c as covariates and baseline eGFR, region, baseline background medication, treatment as fixed effects.|Estimated value = Adjusted mean of empagliflozin 25 mg - Adjusted mean of placebo|hypothesis test: H0: No difference in change from baseline to Week 52 in body weight (kg) between Empagliflozin 25 mg and placebo Ha: A difference in change from baseline to Week 52 in body weight (kg) between Empagliflozin 25 mg and placebo||-1.33|-3.63|<0.0001
91079287|NCT01306214|182044326|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non- inferiority margin was 0.3%, one-sided.|Adjusted mean difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.62|-0.13||Hierarchical testing adjusted for multiple comparisons within each dose, alpha split between the doses (2.5%). Empagliflozin versus placebo change from baseline in HbA1c at week 52 was the 4th step (non-inferiority) and 5th step (superiority).|ANCOVA|Model includes baseline HbA1c as covariate and baseline eGFR, geographical region, baseline background medication, treatment as fixed effects.|Estimated value = Adjusted mean of empagliflozin 10 mg - Adjusted mean of placebo|H0: Difference in change from baseline to Week 52 in HbA1c (%) between empagliflozin 10 mg and placebo \>0.3 Ha: Difference in change from baseline to Week 52 in HbA1c (%) between empagliflozin 10 mg and placebo ≤0.3||-0.13|-0.62|<0.0001
91103592|NCT03460704|182094176|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean rate ratio|1.004||||0.97889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.747|1.349|||negative binomial model|||The number of NCFB pulmonary exacerbations was compared between treatment groups using a negative binomial model including treatment, country, and baseline use of stable concomitant therapy with oral macrolides as fixed effects and log-exposure time on treatment as an offset.||1.349|0.747|0.97889
90891630|NCT02273141|181648304|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The confidence limits were adjusted for multiple comparisons (two alternative primary endpoints): To be declared non-inferior the primary endpoint must show a difference in success rates of no greater than 10% in favor of SP+MS using lower 1-sided 97.5% confidence limits. Calculated using exact Clopper-Pearson confidence limits.|Difference in excellent plus good rate|3.2||||0.027|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-5.56|||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons (2 alternative primary endpoints): To be declared superior, primary endpoint must demonstrate non-inferiority with 1-sided p-value \<0.025, the threshold for statistical significance.|Fisher Exact|||Hypothesis was to demonstrate NI of NER1006 regimen to SP+MS (10% margin). Success rate was no. of patients with highly effective cleansing of the colon ascendens as proportion of no. of patients in each group. Treatment effect was NER1006 success rate - SP+MS success rate. A Hochberg procedure was used to control Type I error since there were 2 alternative primary endpoints. An alpha level of 1.25% 1-sided was used. A closed testing procedure used to evaluate superiority if NI was met.|||-5.56|0.027
90905038|NCT02886728|181677435|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|16.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|24.5||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12||24.5|7.7|<0.001
90905039|NCT02886728|181677435|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|17.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.0|25.7||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12||25.7|9.0|<0.001
91016712|NCT04242264|181916774|OTHER|Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk of shigellosis, where relative risk = probability of shigellosis in WRSs2 group / probability of shigellosis in placebo group. A Wilson (Score) CI was calculated for the vaccine efficacy estimate, but no formal hypothesis test was performed.|Vaccine efficacy|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.92||||||||0.92|0.44|
91103593|NCT01767857|182094185|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.613|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.613
91103594|NCT01767857|182094186|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.011
90905040|NCT02886728|181677435|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|15.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.9|22.8||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24||22.8|8.9|<0.001
91016713|NCT04242264|181916774|OTHER|Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk of shigellosis, where relative risk = probability of shigellosis in WRSs2 group / probability of shigellosis in placebo group. A Wilson (Score) CI was calculated for the vaccine efficacy estimate, but no formal hypothesis test was performed.|Vaccine efficacy|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.0||||||||1.00|0.78|
91103595|NCT01767857|182094187|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.541|||||||ANCOVA|||Statistical Analysis for Global Health Status/Qol||||0.541
91103596|NCT01767857|182094187|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||ANCOVA|||Statistical Analysis for Pain||||0.560
91103597|NCT01767857|182094187|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.603|||||||ANCOVA|||Statistical Analysis for Fatigue||||0.603
91079288|NCT01306214|182044326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.62|-0.13||Hierarchical testing adjusted for multiple comparisons within each dose, alpha split between the doses (2.5%). Empagliflozin versus placebo change from baseline in HbA1c at week 52 was the 4th step (non-inferiority) and 5th step (superiority).|ANCOVA|Model includes baseline HbA1c as covariate and baseline eGFR, geographical region, baseline background medication, treatment as fixed effects.|Estimated value = Adjusted mean of empagliflozin 10 mg - Adjusted mean of placebo|"Hypothesis test:~H0: No difference in change from baseline to Week 52 in HbA1c (%) between Empagliflozin 10 mg and placebo Ha : A difference in change from baseline to Week 52 in HbA1c (%) between Empagliflozin 10 mg and placebo"||-0.13|-0.62|0.0005
91079289|NCT01306214|182044326|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non- inferiority margin was 0.3%, one-sided.|Adjusted mean difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.7|-0.22||Hierarchical testing adjusted for multiple comparisons within each dose, alpha split between the doses (2.5%). Empagliflozin versus placebo change from baseline in HbA1c at week 52 was the 4th step (non-inferiority) and 5th step (superiority).|ANCOVA|Model includes baseline HbA1c as covariate and baseline eGFR, geographical region, baseline background medication, treatment as fixed effects.|Estimated value = Adjusted mean of empagliflozin 25 mg - Adjusted mean of placebo|H013: Difference in change from baseline to Week 52 in HbA1c (%) between empagliflozin 25 mg and placebo \>0.3 Ha13: Difference in change from baseline to Week 52 in HbA1c (%) between empagliflozin 25 mg and placebo ≤0.3||-0.22|-0.70|<0.0001
91079290|NCT01306214|182044326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.7|-0.22||Hierarchical testing adjusted for multiple comparisons within each dose, alpha split between the doses (2.5%). Empagliflozin versus placebo change from baseline in HbA1c at week 52 was the 4th step (non-inferiority) and 5th step (superiority).|ANCOVA|Model includes baseline HbA1c as covariate and baseline eGFR, geographical region, baseline background medication, treatment as fixed effects.|Estimated value = Adjusted mean of empagliflozin 25 mg - Adjusted mean of placebo|"Hypothesis test:~H0: No difference in change from baseline to Week 52 in HbA1c (%) between Empagliflozin 25 mg and placebo Ha : A difference in change from baseline to Week 52 in HbA1c (%) between Empagliflozin 25 mg and placebo"||-0.22|-0.70|<0.0001
91079291|NCT02686814|182044342|EQUIVALENCE|Each of the scales, for each follow-up time compared to baseline, the null hypothesis that the median paired difference is zero will be tested against the two-sided alternative that the median is not zero. Wilcoxon signed-rank test will be used.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.7646|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||3-6 Month compared to Baseline||||0.7646
91079292|NCT02686814|182044342|EQUIVALENCE|Each of the scales, for each follow-up time compared to baseline, the null hypothesis that the median paired difference is zero will be tested against the two-sided alternative that the median is not zero. Wilcoxon signed-rank test will be used.|Median Difference (Final Values)|3.9||||0.8984|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||1 Year compared to Baseline||||0.8984
91079293|NCT02686814|182044342|EQUIVALENCE|Each of the scales, for each follow-up time compared to baseline, the null hypothesis that the median paired difference is zero will be tested against the two-sided alternative that the median is not zero. Wilcoxon signed-rank test will be used.|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.8457|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||2 Year compared to Baseline||||0.8457
91103598|NCT01767857|182094187|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.485|||||||ANCOVA|||Statistical Analysis for Appetite Loss||||0.485
90829012|NCT03629886|181533227|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with any oncogenic HPV type or combination of oncogenic HPV types (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n) in a group (assessed by detecting HPV DNA using PCR), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T) in the same group, and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.28||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of oncogenic HPV-45 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received placebo in that study (N= 2802). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||0.28|0.15|
90905041|NCT02886728|181677435|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|11.3||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|20.0||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24||20.0|2.7|0.006
91016714|NCT04242264|181916774|OTHER|Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk of shigellosis, where relative risk = probability of shigellosis in WRSs2 group / probability of shigellosis in placebo group. A Wilson (Score) CI was calculated for the vaccine efficacy estimate, but no formal hypothesis test was performed.|Vaccine efficacy|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.0||||||||1.00|0.71|
91016715|NCT04221373|181916794|OTHER|Mixed-effects model|||||<|0.01||||||Main effect of time|Mixed Models Analysis|F(1, 26) = 117.78||SCIM Total Score||||<0.01
91016716|NCT04221373|181916794|OTHER|Mixed-effects model||||||0.03||||||treatment group by time interaction effects|Mixed Models Analysis|F(1,26) = 5.59||SCIM Total Score||||0.03
91016717|NCT04221373|181916794|OTHER|Mixed-effects model||||||0.01||||||treatment group by time interaction effects|Mixed Models Analysis|F(1,26) = 8.02||SCIM R \& S scores||||0.01
91016718|NCT04221373|181916794|OTHER|Mixed-effects model|||||<|0.01||||||Main effect of time|Mixed Models Analysis|F(1, 26) = 72.49||SCIM R \& S scores||||< 0.01
91016719|NCT04221373|181916795|OTHER|Mixed-effects model||||||0.02||||||Treatment group by time interaction effects|Mixed Models Analysis|F(1,26) = 5.82||LEMS||||0.02
91103599|NCT01767857|182094188|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.210
91103600|NCT01767857|182094189|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.768|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.768
90905042|NCT02886728|181677435|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|12.4||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|21.0||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24||21.0|3.9|0.002
90954196|NCT04410523|181786748|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean|-0.115|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1184||0.333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.348|0.118|||MMRM||Treatment difference (CCSJ117-placebo)|||0.118|-0.348|0.333
91079294|NCT02686814|182044342|EQUIVALENCE|Each of the scales, for each follow-up time compared to baseline, the null hypothesis that the median paired difference is zero will be tested against the two-sided alternative that the median is not zero. Wilcoxon signed-rank test will be used.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-7.7||||0.1309|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||3 Year compared to Baseline||||0.1309
91079295|NCT02686814|182044342|EQUIVALENCE|Each of the scales, for each follow-up time compared to baseline, the null hypothesis that the median paired difference is zero will be tested against the two-sided alternative that the median is not zero. Wilcoxon signed-rank test will be used.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-15.2||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||4 Year compared to Baseline||||0.5000
91079296|NCT02686814|182044343|EQUIVALENCE|Each of the scales, for each follow-up time compared to baseline, the null hypothesis that the median paired difference is zero will be tested against the two-sided alternative that the median is not zero. Wilcoxon signed-rank test will be used.|Median Difference (Final Values)|1.5||||0.2783|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||3-6 Month compared to Baseline||||0.2783
90891631|NCT02273141|181648305|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To be declared non-inferior, the key secondary endpoint must show a difference in rates of no greater than 10% in favor of SP+MS using lower 1-sided 97.5% confidence limits. Calculated using exact Clopper-Pearson confidence limits.|Difference in ADR|2.42||||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.35|11.12||To be declared superior, the key secondary endpoint must demonstrate non-inferiority and show a significant advantage for NER1006 relative to SP+MS with 1-sided p-value \<0.025, the threshold for statistical significance.|Fisher Exact|||If at least one of the alternative primary endpoints was met, then key secondary endpoints for the same colon region as met by the primary endpoint were evaluated hierarchically in a pre-specified order. The difference in ADR was calculated as NER1006 rate - SP+MS rate using 1-sided 97.5% confidence limits. Formal testing was to proceed in the hierarchy if preceding key secondary endpoint met non-inferiority. This procedure ensured overall Type I error control at 2.5% 1-sided.||11.12|-6.35|0.154
90891632|NCT02273141|181648306|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To be declared non-inferior, the key secondary endpoint must show a difference in rates of no greater than 10% in favor of SP+MS using lower 1-sided 97.5% confidence limits. Calculated using exact Clopper-Pearson confidence limits.|Difference in ADR|3.27||||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.56|11.91||To be declared superior, the key secondary endpoint must demonstrate non-inferiority and show a significant advantage for NER1006 relative to SP+MS with 1-sided p-value \<0.025, the threshold for statistical significance.|Fisher Exact|||If at least one of the alternative primary endpoints was met, then key secondary endpoints for the same colon region as met by the primary endpoint were evaluated hierarchically in a pre-specified order. The difference in ADR was calculated as NER1006 rate - SP+MS rate using 1-sided 97.5% confidence limits. Formal testing was to proceed in the hierarchy if preceding key secondary endpoint met non-inferiority. This procedure ensured overall Type I error control at 2.5% 1-sided.||11.91|-5.56|0.212
90891633|NCT02273141|181648307|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To be declared non-inferior, the key secondary endpoint must show a difference in rates of no greater than 10% in favor of SP+MS using lower 1-sided 97.5% confidence limits. Calculated using exact Clopper-Pearson confidence limits.|Difference in PDR|4.43||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.36|13.1||To be declared superior, the key secondary endpoint must demonstrate non-inferiority and show a significant advantage for NER1006 relative to SP+MS with 1-sided p-value \<0.025, the threshold for statistical significance.|Fisher Exact|||If at least one of the alternative primary endpoints was met, then key secondary endpoints for the same colon region as met by the primary endpoint were evaluated hierarchically in a pre-specified order. The difference in PDR was calculated as NER1006 rate - SP+MS rate using 1-sided 97.5% confidence limits. Formal testing was to proceed in the hierarchy if preceding key secondary endpoint met non-inferiority. This procedure ensured overall Type I error control at 2.5% 1-sided.||13.10|-4.36|0.064
90891634|NCT02273141|181648308|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To be declared non-inferior, the key secondary endpoint must show a difference in rates of no greater than 10% in favor of SP+MS using lower 1-sided 97.5% confidence limits. Calculated using exact Clopper-Pearson confidence limits.|Difference in PDR|2.95||||0.278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.96|11.51||To be declared superior, the key secondary endpoint must demonstrate non-inferiority and show a significant advantage for NER1006 relative to SP+MS with 1-sided p-value \<0.025, the threshold for statistical significance.|Fisher Exact|||If at least one of the alternative primary endpoints was met, then key secondary endpoints for the same colon region as met by the primary endpoint were evaluated hierarchically in a pre-specified order. The difference in PDR was calculated as NER1006 rate - SP+MS rate using 1-sided 97.5% confidence limits. Formal testing was to proceed in the hierarchy if preceding key secondary endpoint met non-inferiority. This procedure ensured overall Type I error control at 2.5% 1-sided.||11.51|-5.96|0.278
90954197|NCT04410523|181786749|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean|-0.097|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1485||0.515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.389|0.195|||MMRM||Treatment difference (CSJ117-placebo)|||0.195|-0.389|0.515
90954198|NCT04410523|181786749|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean|0.218|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1484||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.074|0.51|||MMRM||Treatment difference (CCSJ117-placebo)|||0.510|-0.074|0.143
91016720|NCT04221373|181916795|OTHER|Mixed-effects model|||||<|0.01||||||Main effect of time|Mixed Models Analysis|F(1, 26) = 33.29||LEMS||||<0.01
91016721|NCT04221373|181916795|OTHER|Mixed-effects model||||||0.04||||||Treatment group by time interaction effects|Mixed Models Analysis|F(1,26) = 4.58||UEMS||||0.04
91079297|NCT02686814|182044343|EQUIVALENCE|Each of the scales, for each follow-up time compared to baseline, the null hypothesis that the median paired difference is zero will be tested against the two-sided alternative that the median is not zero. Wilcoxon signed-rank test will be used.|Median Difference (Final Values)|6.4||||0.0674|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||1 Year compared to Baseline||||0.0674
91079298|NCT02686814|182044343|EQUIVALENCE|Each of the scales, for each follow-up time compared to baseline, the null hypothesis that the median paired difference is zero will be tested against the two-sided alternative that the median is not zero. Wilcoxon signed-rank test will be used.|Median Difference (Final Values)|6.4||||0.0371|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||2 Year compared to Baseline||||0.0371
91079299|NCT02686814|182044343|EQUIVALENCE|Each of the scales, for each follow-up time compared to baseline, the null hypothesis that the median paired difference is zero will be tested against the two-sided alternative that the median is not zero. Wilcoxon signed-rank test will be used.|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.6953|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||3 Year compared to Baseline||||0.6953
90891635|NCT00529399|181648312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.98|||||||ANCOVA|||"The calculation for the concentration of c-peptide is a weighted average of the 6 timed measurements of c-peptide in nano-moles/Liter. We try to distinguish this calculation from the AUC by referring to it as the AUC mean and may be expressed algebraically as the AUC/(120 min.); thus, the units are the same as the y-axis."||||0.98
90891636|NCT00529399|181648312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.51|||||||ANCOVA|||"The calculation for the concentration of c-peptide is a weighted average of the 6 timed measurements of c-peptide in nano-moles/Liter. We try to distinguish this calculation from the AUC by referring to it as the AUC mean and may be expressed algebraically as the AUC/(120 min.); thus, the units are the same as the y-axis."||||0.51
90891637|NCT01506193|181648330|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority with respect to seroconversion rates for measles was concluded if the lower limit of the 95% CI around the difference in seroconversion rates between groups would be \[-10%\] or higher.|Difference in percentage|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|2.78||||||"Immune response for anti-measles antibodies~Non-inferiority of Priorix-Tetra™ vaccine co-administered with Meningitec® conjugate vaccine compared to the first dose of Priorix-Tetra™ vaccine alone with respect to anti-measles seroconversion rates (SCRs) at Day 42 after dose 1."||2.78|-1.82|
90891638|NCT01506193|181648330|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority with respect to seroconversion rates for mumps was concluded if the lower limit of the 95% CI around the difference in seroconversion rates between groups would be \[-10%\] or higher.|Difference in percentage|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.04|6.67||||||"Immune response for anti-mumps antibodies~Non-inferiority of Priorix-Tetra™ vaccine co-administered with Meningitec® conjugate vaccine compared to the first dose of Priorix-Tetra™ vaccine alone with respect to anti-mumps seroconversion rates (SCRs) at Day 42 after dose 1."||6.67|-3.04|
90891639|NCT01506193|181648330|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority with respect to seroconversion rates for rubella was concluded if the lower limit of the 95% CI around the difference in seroconversion rates between groups would be \[-10%\] or higher.|Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|2.29||||||"Immune response for anti-rubella antibodies~Non-inferiority of Priorix-Tetra™ vaccine co-administered with Meningitec® conjugate vaccine compared to the first dose of Priorix-Tetra™ vaccine alone with respect to anti-rubella seroconversion rates (SCRs) at Day 42 after dose 1."||2.29|-1.23|
90891640|NCT01506193|181648330|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority with respect to seroconversion rates for varicella was concluded if the lower limit of the 95% CI around the difference in seroconversion rates between groups would be \[-10%\] or higher.|Difference in percentage|-0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|2.03||||||"Immune response for anti-varicella antibodies~Non-inferiority of Priorix-Tetra™ vaccine co-administered with Meningitec® conjugate vaccine compared to the first dose of Priorix-Tetra™ vaccine alone with respect to anti-varicella seroconversion rates (SCRs) at Day 42 after dose 1."||2.03|-1.87|
90891641|NCT01506193|181648331|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority with respect to seroresponse for rSBA-MenC was concluded if the lower limit of the 95% CI around the difference in seroprotection rates between groups would be \[-10%\] or higher.|Difference in percentage|-1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.39|2.24||||||"Immune response for rSBA-MenC antibodies~Non-inferiority of Meningitec® conjugate vaccine co-administered with Priorix-Tetra™ compared to Meningitec® conjugate vaccine alone with respect to rabbit complement serum bactericidal assay (rSBA-MenC) antibody seroprotection rates (SPRs) at Day 42 after vaccination."||2.24|-3.39|
90891642|NCT06242444|181648350|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|8.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.465||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.42|13.28|||Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test Dentifrice minus Placebo Control Dentifrice.|||13.28|3.42|0.0012
90891643|NCT06242444|181648351|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|37.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.217|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.9|43.76|||Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test Dentifrice minus Placebo Control Dentifrice.|||43.76|30.90|<.0001
90891644|NCT06242444|181648352|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|3.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.462||0.1138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|8.87|||Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test Dentifrice minus Reference Dentifrice.|||8.87|-0.97|0.1138
90891645|NCT06242444|181648354|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|2.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.213||0.493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.21|8.64|||Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test Dentifrice minus Reference Dentifrice.|||8.64|-4.21|0.4930
91079300|NCT02686814|182044343|EQUIVALENCE|Each of the scales, for each follow-up time compared to baseline, the null hypothesis that the median paired difference is zero will be tested against the two-sided alternative that the median is not zero. Wilcoxon signed-rank test will be used.|Median Difference (Final Values)|1.0|||>|0.9999|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||4 Year compared to Baseline||||>0.9999
90891646|NCT06242444|181648358|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.462||0.0789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|9.32|||Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Reference Dentifrice minus Placebo Control Dentifrice.|At 4 hours of intra-oral exposure||9.32|-0.52|0.0789
90891647|NCT06242444|181648358|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.408||0.2178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|7.81|||Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Reference Dentifrice minus Placebo Control Dentifrice.|At 12 hours of intra-oral exposure||7.81|-1.82|0.2178
90891648|NCT06242444|181648359|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|35.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.213|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.69|41.54|||Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Reference Dentifrice minus Placebo Control Dentifrice.|At 4 hours of intra-oral exposure||41.54|28.69|<.0001
90891649|NCT06242444|181648359|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|27.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.018|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.14|33.21|||Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Reference Dentifrice minus Placebo Control Dentifrice.|At 12 hours of intra-oral exposure||33.21|21.14|<.0001
91016722|NCT04221373|181916795|OTHER|Mixed-effects model|||||<|0.01||||||Main effect of time|Mixed Models Analysis|F(1, 26) = 15.34||UEMS||||<0.01
90891650|NCT06242444|181648360|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|1.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At 4 hours of intra-oral exposure||1.97|1.53|<.0001
90954199|NCT04410523|181786749|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean|0.078|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.207|0.364|||MMRM||Treatment difference (CCSJ117-placebo)|||0.364|-0.207|0.590
90954200|NCT04410523|181786749|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean|0.033|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.118||0.778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.199|0.265|||MMRM||Treatment difference (CCSJ117-placebo)|||0.265|-0.199|0.778
90891651|NCT06242444|181648360|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|1.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At 12 hours of intra-oral exposure||1.78|1.42|<.0001
90891652|NCT06242444|181648361|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.307|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0277|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.252|0.362|||Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Reference Dentifrice minus Placebo Control Dentifrice.|At 4 hours of intra-oral exposure||0.362|0.252|<.0001
90891653|NCT06242444|181648361|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.242|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0257|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.293|||Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Reference Dentifrice minus Placebo Control Dentifrice.|At 12 hours of intra-oral exposure||0.293|0.190|<.0001
90891654|NCT02046980|181648366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.39||||0.02839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|7.31|||Regression, Logistic|||||7.31|1.58|0.02839
91079301|NCT02081014|182044346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric means|||||<0.05
91079302|NCT02081014|182044346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric means|||||<0.05
91079303|NCT02081014|182044346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric means|||||<0.05
91079304|NCT02081014|182044347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric means|||||<0.05
91079305|NCT02081014|182044347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric means|||||<0.05
91016723|NCT04221373|181916795|OTHER|Mixed-effects model|||||<|0.01||||||Treatment group by time interaction effects|Mixed Models Analysis|F(1,26) = 8.06||TMS||||<0.01
91079306|NCT02081014|182044347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric means|||||<0.05
91079307|NCT02081014|182044348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point point ratio|0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric means|||||<0.05
91079308|NCT02081014|182044348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric means|||||<0.05
90891655|NCT02046980|181648366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.67||||0.0366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|5.67|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.67|1.25|0.0366
91016724|NCT04221373|181916795|OTHER|TMS|||||<|0.01||||||Main effect of time|Mixed Models Analysis|F(1,26) = 38.91||||||<0.01
91079309|NCT02081014|182044348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric means|||||<0.05
91079310|NCT02081014|182044349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric means|||||<0.05
91079311|NCT02081014|182044349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric means|||||<0.05
91079312|NCT02081014|182044349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric means|||||<0.05
91079313|NCT02081014|182044350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point esimate ratio|0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric means|||||>0.05
91079314|NCT02081014|182044350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric means|||||>0.05
90891656|NCT04575467|181648373|SUPERIORITY||Mean absolute fat thickness difference|-4.77|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.29|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.17|-2.37|||Paired t-test|||||-2.37|-7.17|<0.01
91016725|NCT04221373|181916795|OTHER|Mixed-effects model||||||0.02||||||Treatment group by time interaction effects|Mixed Models Analysis|F(1,21.7) = 6.23||TLTS||||0.02
91016726|NCT04221373|181916795|OTHER|Mixed-effects model||||||0.05||||||Main effect of time|Mixed Models Analysis|F(1 26)=4.14||TLTS||||0.05
91016727|NCT04221373|181916796|OTHER|Mixed-effects model||||||0.485||||||Treatment group-by-time interaction effect|Mixed Models Analysis|F(1, 21) = 0.51||Average worst pain intensity||||0.485
91016728|NCT04221373|181916796|OTHER|Mixed-effects model||||||0||||||Main effect of time|Mixed Models Analysis|F(1, 21) = 26.71||Average worst pain intensity||||0.000
91016729|NCT04221373|181916796|OTHER|Mixed-effects model||||||0.832||||||Treatment group-by-time interaction effect|Mixed Models Analysis|F(1, 21) = 0.05||Worst pain interference with day-to-day activities||||0.832
91079315|NCT02081014|182044350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric means|||||>0.05
91079316|NCT02081014|182044351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric means|||||>0.05
91079317|NCT02081014|182044351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric means|||||<0.05
91079318|NCT02081014|182044351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric means|||||>0.05
90891657|NCT04575467|181648373|SUPERIORITY||Mean absolute fat thickness difference|-4.85|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.02|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.97|-2.73|||Paired t-test|||||-2.73|-6.97|<0.01
90891658|NCT04575467|181648373|SUPERIORITY||Mean absolute fat thickness difference|-2.98|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.83|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.95|-0.01|||Paired t-test|||||-0.01|-5.95|<0.05
90891659|NCT04575467|181648374|SUPERIORITY||Mean absolute fat volume difference|-114.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|54.88|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-171.99|-56.81|||Paired t-test|||||-56.81|-171.99|<0.01
90891660|NCT04575467|181648374|SUPERIORITY||Mean absolute fat volume difference|-155.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|64.7|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-223.1|-87.3|||Paired t-test|||||-87.30|-223.10|<0.01
90891661|NCT04575467|181648374|SUPERIORITY||Mean absolute fat volume difference|-119.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|113.11|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-237.86|-0.47|||Paired t-test|||||-0.47|-237.86|<0.05
90891662|NCT03336619|181648406|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3765|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon|Analysis used a Gehan-Wilcoxon test stratified by time from symptom onset at enrollment and influenza vaccination status.||||||0.3765
90891663|NCT03336619|181648407|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6331|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon|Gehan-Wilcoxon test stratified by time from symptom onset at enrollment and influenza vaccination status.||||||0.6331
90891664|NCT03336619|181648408|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7382|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.7382
91079319|NCT02081014|182044352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric means|||||<0.05
91016730|NCT04221373|181916796|OTHER|Mixed-effects model||||||0.033||||||Main effect of time|Mixed Models Analysis|F(1, 21) = 5.21||Worst pain interference with day-to-day activities||||0.033
90891665|NCT03336619|181648409|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3236|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon|Gehan-Wilcoxon test stratified by time from symptom onset to enrollment and influenza vaccination status.||||||0.3236
90891666|NCT03336619|181648410|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0483|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon|Gehan-Wilcoxon test stratified by time from symptom onset at enrollment and influenza vaccination status.||||||0.0483
91016731|NCT04221373|181916796|OTHER|Mixed-effects model||||||0.692||||||Treatment group-by-time interaction effect|Mixed Models Analysis|F(1, 42) = 0.16||Worst pain interference with overall mood||||0.692
91016732|NCT04221373|181916796|OTHER|Mixed-effects model||||||0.005||||||Main effect of time|Mixed Models Analysis|F(1, 42) = 8.65||Worst pain interference with overall mood||||0.005
91016733|NCT04221373|181916796|OTHER|Mixed-effects model||||||0.946||||||Treatment group-by-time interaction effect|Mixed Models Analysis|F(1,21) = 0.01||Worst pain interfered with sleep||||0.946
91016734|NCT04221373|181916796|OTHER|Mixed-effects model||||||0.0002||||||Main effect of time|Mixed Models Analysis|F(1,21) = 11.94||Worst pain interference with sleep||||0.0002
91016735|NCT04221373|181916797|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.554|||||||Chi-squared|X\^2 (1, N = 23) = 0.35||Baseline||||0.554
91016736|NCT04221373|181916797|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.949|||||||Chi-squared|X\^2 (1, N = 23) = 0.004||discharge from acute inpatient rehabilitation (average 2-3 weeks)||||0.949
91016737|NCT00561600|181916816|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|non inferiority of proportion successful with 8% non inferiority margin at 24 months|percentage difference|0.139||||0.872|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.225|||Chi-squared||The upper confidence limit was a priori determined to be a secondary endpoint|A non-inferiority test of the proportion successful for each treatment group will be the primary test of efficacy in this investigation. The null hypothesis is Ho: Xc-Xt ≥ 0.08 and the alternative hypothesis is HA:Xc-Xt \< 0.08 Sample size of 126 per group was needed assuming 93% success rates, this was increased to 150 per group to account for attrition.||.225||0.872
91016738|NCT00561600|181916817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.167||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Satterthwaite||||||0.167
91016739|NCT00561600|181916820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.457|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.457
91016740|NCT00561600|181916821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.762|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.762
91016741|NCT00561600|181916822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.869|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.869
91016742|NCT00561600|181916823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.799|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.799
91016743|NCT00561600|181916824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||HO: Pinnacle=ASR-XL. The alternative hypothesis is HA: Pinnacle≠ASR-XL. Serum cobalt ions were expected to be lower in the ASR-XL group||||<0.001
91016744|NCT00561600|181916825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.032|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||HO: Pinnacle=ASR-XL. The alternative hypothesis is HA: Pinnacle≠ASR-XL. Serum chromium ions were expected to be lower in the ASR-XL group||||0.032
91016745|NCT00561600|181916826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||HO: Pinnacle=ASR-XL. The alternative hypothesis is HA: Pinnacle≠ASR-XL. Erythrocyte cobalt ions were expected to be lower in the ASR-XL group||||<0.001
90891667|NCT00765193|181648430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.36|||<|0.01||95.0|2.12|2.62|||Regression, Logistic|||The primary outcomes were the calculation of the absolute and relative risks of missing a skin cancer when TBSE is not performed, as well as the number of patients needed to examine by TBSE to find a skin cancer. The secondary outcome was to assess the magnitude of false-positive results obtained by TBSE||2.62|2.12|<0.01
90905043|NCT02886728|181677435|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|12.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.1|19.0||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36||19.0|5.1|<0.001
91016746|NCT00561600|181916827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.882|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||HO: Pinnacle=ASR-XL. The alternative hypothesis is HA: Pinnacle≠ASR-XL. Erythrocyte chromium ions were expected to be lower in the ASR-XL group||||0.882
91016747|NCT00561600|181916828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||HO: Pinnacle=ASR-XL. The alternative hypothesis is HA: Pinnacle≠ASR-XL. Serum cobalt ions were expected to be lower in the ASR-XL group||||0.005
91016748|NCT00561600|181916829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.237|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||HO: Pinnacle=ASR-XL. The alternative hypothesis is HA: Pinnacle≠ASR-XL. Serum chromium ions were expected to be lower in the ASR-XL group||||0.237
91016749|NCT00561600|181916830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||HO: Pinnacle=ASR-XL. The alternative hypothesis is HA: Pinnacle≠ASR-XL. Erythrocyte cobalt ions were expected to be lower in the ASR-XL group||||0.001
91016750|NCT00561600|181916831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.121|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||HO: Pinnacle=ASR-XL. The alternative hypothesis is HA: Pinnacle≠ASR-XL. Erythrocyte chromium ions were expected to be lower in the ASR-XL group||||0.121
91079320|NCT02081014|182044352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric means|||||<0.05
91079321|NCT02081014|182044352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric means|||||<0.05
91079322|NCT02081014|182044353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric means|||||>0.05
91079323|NCT02081014|182044353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric means|||||<0.05
91079324|NCT02081014|182044353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric means|||||>0.05
91079325|NCT02081014|182044354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3693.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1520.1|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
90829013|NCT03629886|181533227|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with any oncogenic HPV type or combination of oncogenic HPV types (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n) in a group (assessed by detecting HPV DNA using PCR), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T) in the same group, and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.18||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of oncogenic HPV-51 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received HPV vaccine in that study (N=2753). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||1.18|0.88|
90859912|NCT01461980|181583137|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority criteria margin was 1.5-fold and statistical inference was based on the CIs of the GMC ratios. Non-inferiority was achieved when the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratios after vaccination 1 was greater than 0.67.|GMC Ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.98||||||Pertussis pertactin: CIs for GMC ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (Group 1 - Group 2 for pertussis pertactin antigens).||0.98|0.80|
90891668|NCT04370054|181648435|NON_INFERIORITY|A repeated measures negative binomial regression model was used to test non-inferiority with non-inferiority margin = 3 bleeds/year at the one-sided alpha level = 0.025.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.49|||=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.06|-0.91||One-sided p-value is reported.|Generalized linear model (GLM)||Difference in mean = Mean PF-07055480 Total ABR - Mean FVIII Prophylaxis Total ABR.|A repeated measures GLM was used with bleeds as dependent variable in negative binomial distribution, an interaction of duration by treatment, and 'participant' as random and treatment \& duration of follow-up as fixed effect.||-0.91|-6.06|=0.0040
91016751|NCT00561600|181916832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||HO: Pinnacle=ASR-XL. The alternative hypothesis is HA: Pinnacle≠ASR-XL. Serum Cobalt ions were expected to be lower in the ASR-XL group||||0.012
91016752|NCT00561600|181916833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.103|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||HO: Pinnacle=ASR-XL. The alternative hypothesis is HA: Pinnacle≠ASR-XL. Serum chromium ions were expected to be lower in the ASR-XL group||||0.103
91016753|NCT00561600|181916834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||HO: Pinnacle=ASR-XL. The alternative hypothesis is HA: Pinnacle≠ASR-XL. Erythrocyte cobalt ions were expected to be lower in the ASR-XL group||||0.001
91016754|NCT00561600|181916835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||HO: Pinnacle=ASR-XL. The alternative hypothesis is HA: Pinnacle≠ASR-XL. Erythrocyte chromium ions were expected to be lower in the ASR-XL group||||0.300
91079326|NCT02081014|182044354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7548.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1542.93||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.05
91079327|NCT02081014|182044354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3854.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1533.95|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
91079328|NCT02081014|182044355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-144.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|741.24|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>0.05
91079329|NCT02081014|182044355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1665.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|696.97|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
91079330|NCT02081014|182044355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1520.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|700.92|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>0.05
91079331|NCT02081014|182044356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric means|||||>0.05
91079332|NCT02081014|182044356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric means|||||>0.05
91079333|NCT02081014|182044356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric means|||||>0.05
91079334|NCT02081014|182044357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric means|||||>0.05
91079335|NCT02081014|182044357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric means|||||>0.05
91079336|NCT02081014|182044357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|3.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.84|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Geometric means|||||>0.05
91016755|NCT00561600|181916836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.079|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||HO: Pinnacle=ASR-XL. The alternative hypothesis is HA: Pinnacle≠ASR-XL. Serum cobalt ions were expected to be lower in the ASR-XL group||||0.079
91016756|NCT00561600|181916837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.766|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||HO: Pinnacle=ASR-XL. The alternative hypothesis is HA: Pinnacle≠ASR-XL. Serum chromium ions were expected to be lower in the ASR-XL group||||0.766
91079337|NCT01026818|182044358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.06||The Type I error was controlled for multiplicity using a Bonferroni-Hommel procedure. First the largest p-value for the odds ratio to placebo was tested at the 5% level and in case of no rejection the second p-value was tested at the 2.5% level.|Regression, Logistic|The logistic regression model included terms for treatment group, country, and age group.||A sample size of 412 randomized participants provided 84% power to detect a 20% difference in the proportions for the 3 treatment groups. The sample size allowed for a 20% withdrawal during the study.||2.06|0.63|0.675
90829014|NCT03629886|181533227|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with any oncogenic HPV type or combination of oncogenic HPV types (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n) in a group (assessed by detecting HPV DNA using PCR), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T) in the same group, and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.34||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of oncogenic HPV-51 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received placebo in that study (N=2756). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||1.34|1.03|
90891669|NCT04370054|181648436|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0086||||||One-sided p-value is reported.|One-sided exact binomial proportion test|||||||=0.0086
90905044|NCT02886728|181677435|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|7.0||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|15.7||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36||15.7|-1.7|0.090
91016757|NCT00561600|181916838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||HO: Pinnacle=ASR-XL. The alternative hypothesis is HA: Pinnacle≠ASR-XL. Erythrocyte cobalt ions were expected to be lower in the ASR-XL group||||0.018
91016758|NCT00561600|181916839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.689|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||HO: Pinnacle=ASR-XL. The alternative hypothesis is HA: Pinnacle≠ASR-XL. Erythrocyte chromium ions were expected to be lower in the ASR-XL group||||0.689
91079338|NCT01026818|182044358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.65||The Type I error was controlled for multiplicity using a Bonferroni-Hommel procedure. First the largest p-value for the odds ratio to placebo was tested at the 5% level and in case of no rejection the second p-value was tested at the 2.5% level.|Regression, Logistic|The logistic regression model included terms for treatment group, country, and age group.||A sample size of 412 randomized participants provided 84% power to detect a 20% difference in the proportions for the 3 treatment groups. The sample size allowed for a 20% withdrawal during the study.||1.65|0.48|0.704
91079339|NCT01026818|182044359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.15||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|3.99||P-value is for Month 9.|Regression, Logistic|The logistic regression model included terms for treatment group, country, and age group.||||3.99|1.16|0.016
91079340|NCT01026818|182044359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.85||P-value is for Month 9.|Regression, Logistic|The logistic regression model included terms for treatment group, country, and age group.||||2.85|0.79|0.210
91079341|NCT01026818|182044359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.28||P-value is for Month 13.5.|Regression, Logistic|The logistic regression model included terms for treatment group, country, and age group.||||2.28|0.79|0.273
91079342|NCT01026818|182044359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.29||P-value is for Month 13.5.|Regression, Logistic|The logistic regression model included terms for treatment group, country, and age group.||||2.29|0.80|0.259
91079343|NCT01026818|182044360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|4.83||P-value is for Month 9.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||4.83|0.76|0.007
91079344|NCT01026818|182044360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean differences|1.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|3.6||P-value is for Month 9.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||3.60|-0.41|0.118
91079345|NCT01026818|182044360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.79|2.31||P-value is for Month 10.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||2.31|-1.79|0.802
91079346|NCT01026818|182044360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|1.79||P-value is for Month 10.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||1.79|-2.23|0.830
91016759|NCT00561600|181916840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||HO: Pinnacle=ASR-XL. The alternative hypothesis is HA: Pinnacle≠ASR-XL. Serum cobalt ions were expected to be lower in the ASR-XL group||||0.048
91016760|NCT00561600|181916841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.782|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||HO: Pinnacle=ASR-XL. The alternative hypothesis is HA: Pinnacle≠ASR-XL. Serum chromium ions were expected to be lower in the ASR-XL group||||0.782
91079347|NCT01026818|182044360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|1.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.22||0.184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|4.03||P-value is for Month 13.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||4.03|-0.78|0.184
91079348|NCT01026818|182044360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|3.16||P-value is for Month 13.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||3.16|-1.54|0.500
91079349|NCT01026818|182044361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.34||95.0|-0.39|1.14||P-value is for orgasmic function - Month 9.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||1.14|-0.39|0.340
90891670|NCT04370054|181648437|NON_INFERIORITY|A repeated measures negative binomial regression model was used to test non-inferiority with non-inferiority margin = 3 bleeds/year at the one-sided alpha level = 0.025.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.57|-2.45||One-sided p-value is reported.|Repeated measures GLM||Difference in mean = Mean PF-07055480 Total ABR - Mean FVIII Prophylaxis Total ABR.|A repeated measures GLM was used with bleeds as dependent variable in negative binomial distribution, an interaction of duration by treatment, and 'participant' as random and treatment \& duration of follow-up as fixed effect.||-2.45|-5.57|<0.0001
90891671|NCT04370054|181648438|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-124.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-139.47|108.89||One-sided p-value is reported.|Paired t-test||Treatment Difference = (PF-07055480 AIR - FVIII Prophylaxis AIR).|||108.89|-139.47|<0.0001
90891672|NCT04370054|181648440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4076.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4728.3|-3423.8||One-sided p-value is reported.|Paired t-test||Treatment Difference (FVIII Consumption post-IP Infusion - FVIII Consumption during FVIII Prophylaxis).|||-3423.8|-4728.3|<0.0001
90891673|NCT00710424|181648485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||estimated treatment effect|-0.12||||0.634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.36|||ANCOVA||A negative difference in treatment effect indicates an improvement in pain in favour of Sativex.|The model used for the analysis of the end of study value was an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline value as a covariate and treatment group and centre group as main effect. The test was performed at the 10% significance level as a possible indicator of an interactive effect. The null hypothesis was one of no difference between treatments.||0.36|-0.60|0.634
90891674|NCT00710424|181648486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.153||0.865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.87|4.61|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline in mean neuropathic pain scale scale score at the end of treatment was to be compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model was to include treatment and centre group as factors and baseline mean usage as a covariate.||4.61|-3.87|0.865
91016761|NCT00561600|181916842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.061|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||HO: Pinnacle=ASR-XL. The alternative hypothesis is HA: Pinnacle≠ASR-XL. Erythrocyte cobalt ions were expected to be lower in the ASR-XL group||||0.061
90891675|NCT00710424|181648487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.45||||0.139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|0.15|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline in mean sleep quality numerical rating scale score at the end of treatment was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment and centre group as factors and baseline mean usage as a covariate.||0.15|-1.04|0.139
91016762|NCT00561600|181916843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.957|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||HO: Pinnacle=ASR-XL. The alternative hypothesis is HA: Pinnacle≠ASR-XL. Erythrocyte chromium ions were expected to be lower in the ASR-XL group||||0.957
91016763|NCT04139642|181916849|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||A mixed-effects model with provider as a random effect and month as a fixed effect was used to test the main effect of arm.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The null hypothesis was that the rate of balance-related diagnosis as a percentage of total visits would be the same between the historical control period, the active control (weight-only), and the intervention (balance+weight), considering provider and month as co-variates.||||<0.0001
91079350|NCT01026818|182044361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.84||P-value is for orgasmic function - Month 9.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||0.84|-0.67|0.821
91079351|NCT01026818|182044361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|1.28||P-value is for orgasmic function - Month 10.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||1.28|-0.36|0.268
91079352|NCT01026818|182044361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.8||P-value is for orgasmic function - Month 10.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||0.80|-0.80|0.998
91079353|NCT01026818|182044361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.97||P-value is for orgasmic function - Month 13.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||0.97|-0.68|0.728
91079354|NCT01026818|182044361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|0.28||P-value is for orgasmic function - Month 13.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||0.28|-1.33|0.203
91079355|NCT01026818|182044361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.49||P-value is for sexual desire - Month 9.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||0.49|-0.46|0.950
90891676|NCT00710424|181648488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.301||||0.219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.855|1.981|||Regression, Logistic|||In the analysis of Subject Global Impression of Change, the two treatment groups were compared using ordinal logistic regression and the proportional odds model. The model incorporated centre group as a factor.||1.981|0.855|0.219
91079356|NCT01026818|182044361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.48||P-value is for sexual desire - Month 9.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||0.48|-0.45|0.950
91079357|NCT01026818|182044361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.51||P-value is for sexual desire - Month 10.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||0.51|-0.39|0.792
91079358|NCT01026818|182044361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.55||P-value is for sexual desire - Month 10.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||0.55|-0.34|0.631
91079359|NCT01026818|182044361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.58||P-value is for sexual desire - Month 13.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||0.58|-0.38|0.691
90891677|NCT00710424|181648489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||estimated mean treatment difference|-0.05||||0.841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.42|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline in mean brief pain inventory (short form) composite score at the end of treatment was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment and centre group as factors and baseline mean usage as a covariate.||0.42|-0.51|0.841
90891678|NCT00710424|181648490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021||0.523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.03|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline in weighted health state index score at the end of treatment was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment and centre group as factors and baseline symptom score as a covariate.||0.03|-0.06|0.523
91079360|NCT01026818|182044361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.41||P-value is for sexual desire - Month 13.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||0.41|-0.53|0.801
91079361|NCT01026818|182044361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|1.92||P-value is for intercourse satisfaction - Month 9.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||1.92|-0.06|0.065
91079362|NCT01026818|182044361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|1.51||P-value is for intercourse satisfaction - Month 9.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||1.51|-0.43|0.274
91079363|NCT01026818|182044361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|1.52||P-value is for intercourse satisfaction - Month 10.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||1.52|-0.55|0.359
91079364|NCT01026818|182044361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|1.11||P-value is for intercourse satisfaction - Month 10.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||1.11|-0.93|0.863
90829015|NCT03629886|181533227|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with any oncogenic HPV type or combination of oncogenic HPV types (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n) in a group (assessed by detecting HPV DNA using PCR), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T) in the same group, and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|1.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|1.87||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of oncogenic HPV-52 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received HPV vaccine in that study (N=2666). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||1.87|1.48|
90891679|NCT00710424|181648491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||estimated mean treatment difference|-0.17||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.24|||ANCOVA|||The model used for the analysis of the end of study value was ANCOVA with baseline value as a covariate and treatment group and centre group as main effect. The test was performed at the 10% significance level as a possible indicator of an interactive effect. The null hypothesis was one of no difference between treatments. A negative difference in adjusted means indicates an improvement in favour of Sativex.||0.24|-0.59|0.410
90891680|NCT00710424|181648494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.857||||0.521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.537|1.37|||Regression, Logistic|||The numbers of responders were to be analysed using the difference in proportions and the odds ratio comparing the treatment groups with the provision of 95% CIs for the difference and odds ratio.||1.370|0.537|0.521
91079365|NCT01026818|182044361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|1.66||P-value is for intercourse satisfaction - Month 13.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||1.66|-0.53|0.314
91079366|NCT01026818|182044361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|1.01||P-value is for intercourse satisfaction - Month 13.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||1.01|-1.13|0.910
91079367|NCT01026818|182044361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.78||P-value is for overall satisfaction - Month 9.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||0.78|-0.40|0.532
90829016|NCT03629886|181533227|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with any oncogenic HPV type or combination of oncogenic HPV types (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n) in a group (assessed by detecting HPV DNA using PCR), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T) in the same group, and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.61|2.0||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of oncogenic HPV-52 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received placebo in that study (N=2663). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||2.00|1.61|
90891681|NCT01986881|181648502|NON_INFERIORITY|1-sided p-value and the non-inferiority margin is a hazard ratio of 1.3.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.6|0.848|1.114||Model included treatment as an explanatory factor and cohort category as a stratification factor.|Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||||1.114|0.848|<0.001
90891682|NCT01986881|181648502|NON_INFERIORITY|1-sided p-value and the non-inferiority margin is a hazard ratio of 1.3.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.6|0.887|1.211|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Model included treatment as an explanatory factor and cohort category as a stratification factor.||||1.211|0.887|0.002
90891683|NCT01986881|181648502|NON_INFERIORITY|1-sided p-value and the non-inferiority margin is a hazard ratio of 1.3.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.6|0.773|1.065|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Model included treatment as an explanatory factor and cohort category as a stratification factor.||||1.065|0.773|<0.001
90891684|NCT01986881|181648504|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.51||"Constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR, stratum, and the interaction of time by treatment. The stratum was (insulin alone or insulin+metformin) and Time was a categorical variable."|cLDA Model|||||-0.51|-0.78|<0.001
91016764|NCT04139642|181916850|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.15||||||Mixed-effects model with provider as a random effect and month as a fixed effect. Statistical significance a priori threshold set at 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The null hypothesis was that the rate of balance-related referral as a percentage of total visits would be the same between the historical control period, the active control (weight-only), and the intervention (balance+weight), considering provider and month as co-variates.||||=0.15
91079368|NCT01026818|182044361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.73||P-value is for overall satisfaction - Month 9.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||0.73|-0.43|0.620
90891685|NCT01986881|181648504|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.44||"Constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR, stratum, and the interaction of time by treatment. The stratum was (insulin alone or insulin+metformin) and Time was a categorical variable."|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-0.44|-0.71|<0.001
90891686|NCT01986881|181648506|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.22||||0.247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.16||Constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR, and the interaction of time by treatment.|cLDA Model|||||0.16|-0.60|0.247
90891687|NCT01986881|181648506|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.35||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.02||Constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR, and the interaction of time by treatment.|cLDA model|||||0.02|-0.72|0.063
90891688|NCT01986881|181648508|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.53||Constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR, and the interaction of time by treatment.|cLDA Model|||||-0.53|-0.98|<0.001
91016765|NCT00577031|181916872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0076|||||||Signed-rank test|||Change from baseline to last visit||||0.0076
90829017|NCT03629886|181533227|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with any oncogenic HPV type or combination of oncogenic HPV types (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n) in a group (assessed by detecting HPV DNA using PCR), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T) in the same group, and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.73||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of oncogenic HPV-56 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received HPV vaccine in that study (N=2783). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||0.73|0.50|
90859913|NCT01461980|181583137|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority criteria margin was 1.5-fold and statistical inference was based on the CIs of the GMC ratios. Non-inferiority was achieved when the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratios after vaccination 1 was greater than 0.67.|GMC Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.08||||||Pertussis fimbriae agglutinogens types 2 + 3: CIs for GMC ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (Group 1 - Group 2 for pertussis fimbriae agglutinogens types 2 + 3 antigens).||1.08|0.74|
90891689|NCT01986881|181648508|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.43||Constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR, and the interaction of time by treatment.|cLDA model|||||-0.43|-0.89|<0.001
90954201|NCT04410523|181786749|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean|0.073|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.118||0.539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.305|||MMRM||Treatment difference (CCSJ117-placebo)|||0.305|-0.160|0.539
91079369|NCT01026818|182044361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.51||P-value is for overall satisfaction - Month 10.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||0.51|-0.67|0.792
90891690|NCT01986881|181648509|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.8|0.75|1.034|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Model included treatment as an explanatory factor and cohort category as a stratification factor.||||1.034|0.750|0.108
90891691|NCT01986881|181648509|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.8|0.725|1.057|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Model included treatment as an explanatory factor and cohort category as a stratification factor.||||1.057|0.725|0.150
90891692|NCT01986881|181648509|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.8|0.735|1.068|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Model included treatment as an explanatory factor and cohort category as a stratification factor.||||1.068|0.735|0.188
90891693|NCT01986881|181648510|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.385|TWO_SIDED|95.8|0.767|1.113|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Model included treatment as an explanatory factor and cohort category as a stratification factor.||||1.113|0.767|0.385
90891694|NCT01986881|181648510|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.417|TWO_SIDED|95.8|0.739|1.139|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Model included treatment as an explanatory factor and cohort category as a stratification factor.||||1.139|0.739|0.417
90829018|NCT03629886|181533227|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with any oncogenic HPV type or combination of oncogenic HPV types (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n) in a group (assessed by detecting HPV DNA using PCR), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T) in the same group, and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.76||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of oncogenic HPV-56 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received placebo in that study (N=2779). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||0.76|0.53|
90891695|NCT01986881|181648510|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.494|TWO_SIDED|95.8|0.75|1.154|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Model included treatment as an explanatory factor and cohort category as a stratification factor.||||1.154|0.750|0.494
90891696|NCT01986881|181648511|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.8|0.63|1.036|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Model included treatment as an explanatory factor and cohort category as a stratification factor.||||1.036|0.630|0.081
90891697|NCT01986881|181648511|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.258|TWO_SIDED|95.8|0.638|1.137|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model|"Model included treatment as an explanatory factor and cohort category as a stratification factor.~Renal"||||1.137|0.638|0.258
90891698|NCT01986881|181648511|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.8|0.568|1.028|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Model included treatment as an explanatory factor and cohort category as a stratification factor.||||1.028|0.568|0.065
90891699|NCT01986881|181648512|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.823|1.038||Hazard ratio, CI, and 2-sided p-value comparing All Ertugliflozin versus Placebo, based on the stratified Cox proportional hazards model that included treatment as an explanatory factor and cohort category as a stratification factor.|Cox proportional hazards model|||||1.038|0.823|0.183
90891700|NCT01986881|181648512|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.831|1.086|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Model included treatment as an explanatory factor and cohort category as a stratification factor.||||1.086|0.831|0.450
90891701|NCT01986881|181648512|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.785|1.029|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Model included treatment as an explanatory factor and cohort category as a stratification factor.||||1.029|0.785|0.123
90891702|NCT01986881|181648513|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.861|1.259|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Model included treatment as an explanatory factor and cohort category as a stratification factor.||||1.259|0.861|0.676
90829019|NCT03629886|181533227|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with any oncogenic HPV type or combination of oncogenic HPV types (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n) in a group (assessed by detecting HPV DNA using PCR), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T) in the same group, and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.62||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of oncogenic HPV-58 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received HPV vaccine in that study (N=2772). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||0.62|0.42|
90891703|NCT01986881|181648513|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.949|1.451|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Model included treatment as an explanatory factor and cohort category as a stratification factor.||||1.451|0.949|0.139
90891704|NCT01986881|181648513|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.727|1.141|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Model included treatment as an explanatory factor and cohort category as a stratification factor.||||1.141|0.727|0.416
91016766|NCT01569074|181916895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|0.23||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.07|0.39||Week 12|Mantel Haenszel|Treatment difference in proportion of responders, with a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data. Subjects who prematurely withdrew due to project closure have no imputation applied.||0.39|0.07|0.059
91016767|NCT01569074|181916895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|0.24||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.08|0.39||Week 12|Mantel Haenszel|Treatment difference in proportion of responders, with a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data. Subjects who prematurely withdrew due to project closure have no imputation applied||0.39|0.08|0.054
91016768|NCT01569074|181916895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|-0.06||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.2|0.08||Week 12|Mantel Haenszel|Treatment difference in proportion of responders, with a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data. Subjects who prematurely withdrew due to project closure have no imputation applied||0.08|-0.20|0.570
91016769|NCT01569074|181916895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|0.14||||0.262|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.02|0.29||Week 12|Mantel Haenszel|Treatment difference in proportion of responders, with a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data. Subjects who prematurely withdrew due to project closure have no imputation applied||0.29|-0.02|0.262
91079370|NCT01026818|182044361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.34||P-value is for overall satisfaction - Month 10.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||0.34|-0.82|0.410
91079371|NCT01026818|182044361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.955||95.0|-0.68|0.65||P-value is for overall satisfaction - Month 13.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||0.65|-0.68|0.955
91079372|NCT01026818|182044361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.7||P-value is for overall satisfaction - Month 13.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||0.70|-0.59|0.868
91079373|NCT01026818|182044362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.56||P-value is for Month 9.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included terms for treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||0.56|0.10|0.005
90859914|NCT01461980|181583138|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority criteria margin was 1.5-fold and statistical inference was based on the CIs of the GMT ratios. Non-inferiority was achieved when the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMT ratios after vaccination 1 was greater than 0.67|GMT Ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.01||||||Serogroup A: CIs for GMT ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (Group 1 - Group 2 for Serogroup A antigens).||1.01|0.82|
91016770|NCT01569074|181916896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|0.11||||0.172|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.01|0.21||Week 1|Mantel Haenszel|Treatment difference in proportion of responders, with a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data. Subjects who prematurely withdrew due to project closure have no imputation applied||0.21|0.01|0.172
91016771|NCT01569074|181916896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|0.06||||0.489|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.05|0.18||Week 1|Mantel Haenszel|Treatment difference in proportion of responders, with a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data. Subjects who prematurely withdrew due to project closure have no imputation applied||0.18|-0.05|0.489
91016772|NCT01569074|181916896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|0.03||||0.704|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.08|0.15||Week 1|Mantel Haenszel|Treatment difference in proportion of responders, with a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data. Subjects who prematurely withdrew due to project closure have no imputation applied||0.15|-0.08|0.704
91079374|NCT01026818|182044362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.45||P-value is for Month 9.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included terms for treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||0.45|0.01|0.041
91079375|NCT01026818|182044362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.035||95.0|0.02|0.54||P-value is for Month 13.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included terms for treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||0.54|0.02|0.035
91079376|NCT01026818|182044362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.38||P-value is for Month 13.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included terms for treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||0.38|-0.12|0.316
91079377|NCT01026818|182044363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|1.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|3.76||P-value is for sexual relationship - Month 9.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||3.76|-0.25|0.086
90829020|NCT03629886|181533227|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with any oncogenic HPV type or combination of oncogenic HPV types (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n) in a group (assessed by detecting HPV DNA using PCR), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T) in the same group, and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|0.65||||||95.0|0.55|0.77||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of oncogenic HPV-58 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received placebo in that study (N=2768). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||0.77|0.55|
90905045|NCT02886728|181677435|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|10.0||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|18.6||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36||18.6|1.4|0.014
91079378|NCT01026818|182044363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.45||P-value is for sexual relationship - Month 9.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||2.45|-1.50|0.637
90859915|NCT01461980|181583138|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority criteria margin was 1.5-fold and statistical inference was based on the CIs of the GMT ratios. Non-inferiority was achieved when the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMT ratios after vaccination 1 was greater than 0.67.|GMT Ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.15||||||Serogroup C: CIs for GMT ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (Group 1 - Group 2 for Serogroup C antigens).||1.15|0.90|
91032316|NCT01706926|181949180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|33.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.7|45.6|||Regression, Logistic||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using a test of treatment difference in proportion of responders using logistic regression with treatment as a factor. Differences greater than zero favored mavrilimumab.|The analysis reported DAS28 (CRP) low disease activity response.||45.6|20.7|<0.001
90829021|NCT03629886|181533227|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with any oncogenic HPV type or combination of oncogenic HPV types (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n) in a group (assessed by detecting HPV DNA using PCR), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T) in the same group, and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.4||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of oncogenic HPV-59 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received HPV vaccine in that study (N=2814). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||0.40|0.24|
90829022|NCT03629886|181533227|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with any oncogenic HPV type or combination of oncogenic HPV types (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n) in a group (assessed by detecting HPV DNA using PCR), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T) in the same group, and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.45||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of oncogenic HPV-59 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received placebo in that study (N=2797). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||0.45|0.28|
90829023|NCT03629886|181533227|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with any oncogenic HPV type or combination of oncogenic HPV types (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n) in a group (assessed by detecting HPV DNA using PCR), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T) in the same group, and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.74||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of oncogenic HPV-66 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received HPV vaccine in that study (N=2779). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||0.74|0.51|
90829024|NCT03629886|181533227|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with any oncogenic HPV type or combination of oncogenic HPV types (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n) in a group (assessed by detecting HPV DNA using PCR), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T) in the same group, and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.77||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of oncogenic HPV-66 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received placebo in that study (N=2763). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||0.77|0.54|
90905046|NCT02886728|181677435|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|13.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|20.9||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52||20.9|7.0|<0.001
91016773|NCT01569074|181916897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|0.17||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.03|0.31||Week 12|Mantel Haenszel|Treatment difference in proportion of responders, with a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data. Subjects who prematurely withdrew due to project closure have no imputation applied||0.31|0.03|0.114
91016774|NCT01569074|181916897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|0.21||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.08|0.34||Week 12|Mantel Haenszel|Treatment difference in proportion of responders, with a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data. Subjects who prematurely withdrew due to project closure have no imputation applied||0.34|0.08|0.035
91016775|NCT01569074|181916897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|-0.07||||0.334|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.17|0.02||Week 12|Mantel Haenszel|Treatment difference in proportion of responders, with a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data. Subjects who prematurely withdrew due to project closure have no imputation applied||0.02|-0.17|0.334
91016776|NCT01569074|181916897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|-0.04||||0.645|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.13|0.06||Week 12|Mantel Haenszel|Treatment difference in proportion of responders, with a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data. Subjects who prematurely withdrew due to project closure have no imputation applied||0.06|-0.13|0.645
91016777|NCT01569074|181916898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|0.12||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.05|0.19||Week 12|Mantel Haenszel|Treatment difference in proportion of responders, with a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data. Subjects who prematurely withdrew due to project closure have no imputation applied||0.19|0.05|0.028
91016778|NCT01569074|181916898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|0.14||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.06|0.22||Week 12|Mantel Haenszel|Treatment difference in proportion of responders, with a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data. Subjects who prematurely withdrew due to project closure have no imputation applied||0.22|0.06|0.021
91016779|NCT01569074|181916899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.073||||||As this is a non-parametric test, p-values alone are presented rather than an estimated treatment difference.|Van Elteren|P-value estimated using the Van Elteren method stratified by pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data. Subjects who prematurely withdrew due to project closure have no imputation applied||||0.073
91016780|NCT01569074|181916899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.065||||||As this is a non-parametric test, p-values alone are presented rather than an estimated treatment difference.|Van Elteren|P-value estimated using the Van Elteren test stratified by pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data. Subjects who prematurely withdrew due to project closure have no imputation applied||||0.065
91016781|NCT01569074|181916899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.317||||||As this is a non-parametric test, p-values alone are presented rather than an estimated treatment difference.|Van Elteren|P-value estimated using the Van Elteren method stratified by pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data. Subjects who prematurely withdrew due to project closure have no imputation applied||||0.317
91016782|NCT01569074|181916899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.263||||||As this is a non-parametric test, p-values alone are presented rather than an estimated treatment difference.|Van Elteren|P-value estimated using the Van Elteren method stratified by pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data. Subjects who prematurely withdrew due to project closure have no imputation applied||||0.263
90891705|NCT01986881|181648514|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.365||Hazard ratio, CI, and 2-sided p-value comparing All Ertugliflozin versus Placebo, based on the stratified Cox proportional hazards model that included treatment as an explanatory factor and cohort category as a stratification factor.|Cox proportional hazards model||Hazard ratio, CI, and 2-sided p-value comparing All Ertugliflozin versus Placebo, based on the stratified Cox proportional hazards model that included treatment as an explanatory factor and cohort category as a stratification factor.|||1.365|0.820|0.663
90891706|NCT01986881|181648514|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.845|1.505||A two-sided p-value compared Ertugliflozin vs Placebo, based on the stratified Cox proportional hazards model that included treatment as an explanatory factor and cohort category as a stratification factor.|Cox proportional hazards model|||Hazard ratio, confidence interval, and two-sided p-value comparing Ertugliflozin vs Placebo, based on the stratified Cox proportional hazards model that includes treatment as an explanatory factor and cohort category as a stratification factor.||1.505|0.845|0.415
90891707|NCT01986881|181648514|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.736|1.334||A two-sided p-value compared Ertugliflozin vs Placebo, based on the stratified Cox proportional hazards model that included treatment as an explanatory factor and cohort category as a stratification factor.|Cox proportional hazards model|||Hazard ratio, confidence interval, and two-sided p-value comparing Ertugliflozin vs Placebo, based on the stratified Cox proportional hazards model that includes treatment as an explanatory factor and cohort category as a stratification factor.||1.334|0.736|0.953
90891708|NCT01986881|181648515|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.539|0.902||Hazard ratio, CI, and 2-sided p-value comparing All Ertugliflozin versus Placebo, based on the stratified Cox proportional hazards model that included treatment as an explanatory factor and cohort category as a stratification factor.|Cox proportional hazards model|||||0.902|0.539|0.006
90891709|NCT01986881|181648515|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.502|0.932|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Hazards model that included treatment as an explanatory factor and cohort category as a stratification factor.||||0.932|0.502|0.016
91016783|NCT01569074|181916900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.3||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.94|14.31|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio and 80% confidence intervals are calculated using Logistic Regression with treatment and pooled country as factors.|An odds ratio of \>1 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data. Subjects who prematurely withdrew due to project closure have no imputation applied||14.31|1.94|0.033
91016784|NCT01569074|181916900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.1||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.92|13.61|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio and 80% confidence intervals are calculated using Logistic Regression with treatment and pooled country as factors.|An odds ratio of \>1 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data. Subjects who prematurely withdrew due to project closure have no imputation applied.||13.61|1.92|0.033
91016785|NCT01569074|181916900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.5||||0.257|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.89|6.89|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio and 80% confidence intervals are calculated using Logistic Regression with treatment and pooled country as factors.|An odds ratio of \>1 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data. Subjects who prematurely withdrew due to project closure have no imputation applied.||6.89|0.89|0.257
91016786|NCT01569074|181916900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.481|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.63|5.04|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio and 80% confidence intervals are calculated using Logistic Regression with treatment and pooled country as factors.|An odds ratio of \>1 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data. Subjects who prematurely withdrew due to project closure have no imputation applied.||5.04|0.63|0.481
91016787|NCT01569074|181916901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.17||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.12|4.2|||Proportional odds model|No response, moderate response and good response are included in the proportional odds model with treatment and pooled country as factors.|An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data. Subjects who prematurely withdrew due to project closure have no imputation applied.||4.20|1.12|0.131
91016788|NCT01569074|181916901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.423|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.79|2.82|||Proportional odds model|No response, moderate response and good response are included in the proportional odds model with treatment and pooled country as factors.|An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data. Subjects who prematurely withdrew due to project closure have no imputation applied.||2.82|0.79|0.423
90891710|NCT01986881|181648515|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.524|0.964|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Hazards model that included treatment as an explanatory factor and cohort category as a stratification factor.||||0.964|0.524|0.028
90891711|NCT01986881|181648516|SUPERIORITY|Hazard ratio, CI, and 2-sided p-value comparing Ertugliflozin vs Placebo, based on the stratified Cox proportional hazards model that included treatment as an explanatory factor and cohort category as a stratification factor. The on-study approach included confirmed events that occurred between the randomization date and the on-study censor date.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.797|1.081||Hazard ratio, CI, and 2-sided p-value comparing Ertugliflozin vs Placebo, based on the stratified Cox proportional hazards model that included treatment as an explanatory factor and cohort category as a stratification factor.|Cox proportional hazards model|||||1.081|0.797|0.340
91016789|NCT01569074|181916901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.781|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.45|1.67|||Proportional odds model|No response, moderate response and good response are included in the proportional odds model with treatment and country as factors.|An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data. Subjects who prematurely withdrew due to project closure have no imputation applied.||1.67|0.45|0.781
90891712|NCT01986881|181648516|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.784|1.117|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Model included treatment as an explanatory factor and cohort category as a stratification factor.||||1.117|0.784|0.463
90891713|NCT01986881|181648516|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.771|1.1|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Model included treatment as an explanatory factor and cohort category as a stratification factor.||||1.100|0.771|0.363
90891714|NCT01986881|181648517|SUPERIORITY|Ertugliflozin vs Placebo, based on the Andersen-Gill model for the recurrent events at the end of study. The on-study approach includes confirmed events that occurred between the randomization date and the on-study censor date.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.898|1.131||||||||1.131|0.898|
90891715|NCT01986881|181648517|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.937|1.219||||||||1.219|0.937|
90891716|NCT01986881|181648517|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.828|1.085||||||||1.085|0.828|
91016790|NCT01569074|181916901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.81||||0.239|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.95|3.44|||Proportional odds model|No response, moderate response and good response are included in the proportional odds model with treatment and country as factors.|An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data. Subjects who prematurely withdrew due to project closure have no imputation applied.||3.44|0.95|0.239
90829025|NCT03629886|181533227|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with any oncogenic HPV type or combination of oncogenic HPV types (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n) in a group (assessed by detecting HPV DNA using PCR), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T) in the same group, and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|0.56||||||95.0|0.46|0.68||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of oncogenic HPV-68 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received HPV vaccine in that study (N=2775). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||0.68|0.46|
90829026|NCT03629886|181533227|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with any oncogenic HPV type or combination of oncogenic HPV types (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n) in a group (assessed by detecting HPV DNA using PCR), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T) in the same group, and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.71||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of oncogenic HPV-68 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received placebo in that study (N=2785). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||0.71|0.49|
90891717|NCT01986881|181648518|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.716|0.945||||||Ertugliflozin vs Placebo, based on the Andersen-Gill model for the recurrent events at the end of study. The on-study approach included confirmed events that occurred between randomization date and the on-study censor date.||0.945|0.716|
90891718|NCT01986881|181648518|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.673|0.935|||||Ertugliflozin vs Placebo, based on the Andersen-Gill model for the recurrent events at the end of study.|||0.935|0.673|
90891719|NCT01986881|181648518|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.725|1.001|||||Ertugliflozin vs Placebo, based on the Andersen-Gill model for the recurrent events at the end of study.|||1.001|0.725|
90891720|NCT01986881|181648519|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.46|||cLDA Model|cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-0.46|-0.55|<0.001
90891721|NCT01986881|181648519|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.44|||cLDA model|cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-0.44|-0.53|<0.001
90891722|NCT01986881|181648520|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.43|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model included fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-0.43|-0.54|<0.001
90891723|NCT01986881|181648520|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.45|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model included fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-0.45|-0.55|<0.001
90891724|NCT01986881|181648521|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the least squares means|-0.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.3||Constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis||Ertugliflozin vs. Placebo|||-0.30|-0.45|<0.001
90954202|NCT00734591|181786769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Exact method|2.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|28.46|||||Incidence density ratio confidence interval derived from exact methods utilizing exact binomial limits and ratio of exposures.|||28.46|0.50|
90891725|NCT01986881|181648521|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.32||Constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|cLDA|Ertugliflozin vs. Placebo.||||-0.32|-0.46|<0.001
90891726|NCT01986881|181648523|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the least squares means|-0.31||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.21||Constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|cLDA|||||-0.21|-0.41|0.001
90891727|NCT01986881|181648523|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the least squares means|-0.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.26||Constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|cLDA model|||||-0.26|-0.46|<0.001
90891728|NCT01986881|181648538|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-17.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.49|-15.63|||CLDA|cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous), and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-15.63|-19.49|<0.001
90891729|NCT01986881|181648538|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-15.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.03|-13.17|||cLDA|cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous), and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-13.17|-17.03|<0.001
90891730|NCT01986881|181648545|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|Log-Rank Test for the comparison to Placebo was based on all data (including for those participants who never had the event).||||||<0.001
90891731|NCT01986881|181648545|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|Log-Rank Test for the comparison to Placebo was based on all data (including for those participants who never had the event).||||||<0.001
90891732|NCT01986881|181648546|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|Log-Rank Test for the comparison to Placebo was based on all data (including for those participants who never had the event).||||||<0.001
90891733|NCT01986881|181648546|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|Log-Rank Test for the comparison to Placebo was based on all data (including for those participants who never had the event).||||||<0.001
90891734|NCT01986881|181648554|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-2.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.45|-2.1|||cLDA|The model had fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-2.10|-3.45|<0.001
90891735|NCT01986881|181648554|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-2.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.21|-1.86|||cLDA|The model had fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-1.86|-3.21|<0.001
90891736|NCT01986881|181648555|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Mean|-3.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.85|-2.45|||cLDA|The model had fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-2.45|-3.85|<0.001
91079379|NCT01026818|182044363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|2.53||P-value is for sexual relationship - Month 13.5|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||2.53|-2.18|0.885
90891737|NCT01986881|181648555|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-2.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.28|-1.89|||cLDA|The model had fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-1.89|-3.28|<0.001
90891738|NCT01986881|181648556|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-2.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.57|-1.86|||cLDA|The model had fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-1.86|-3.57|<0.001
90891739|NCT01986881|181648556|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-2.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.56|-1.85|||cLDA|The model had fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-1.85|-3.56|<0.001
90891740|NCT01986881|181648558|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-2.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.68|-1.52|||cLDA|The model had fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-1.52|-3.68|<0.001
90891741|NCT01986881|181648558|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-2.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.87|-1.71|||cLDA|The model had fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-1.71|-3.87|<0.001
90891742|NCT01986881|181648561|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|-0.56|||cLDA|cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-0.56|-1.37|<0.001
90891743|NCT01986881|181648561|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Means Squares|-0.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|-0.47|||cLDA|cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-0.47|-1.28|<0.001
90891744|NCT01986881|181648562|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|-0.39|||cLDA|The model had fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-0.39|-1.22|<0.001
90891745|NCT01986881|181648562|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|-0.41|||cLDA|The model had fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-0.41|-1.24|<0.001
90891746|NCT01986881|181648563|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.67||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|-0.16|||cLDA|The model had fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-0.16|-1.19|0.010
90891747|NCT01986881|181648563|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.71||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|-0.2|||cLDA|The model had fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-0.20|-1.22|0.006
90891748|NCT01986881|181648565|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the least squares means|-0.78||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|-0.1||cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-0.10|-1.46|0.024
90891749|NCT01986881|181648565|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the least squares means|-0.81||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|-0.13||cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-0.13|-1.48|0.020
90891750|NCT01986881|181648568|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-1.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|-1.77|||cLDA|cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-1.77|-2.07|<0.001
90829027|NCT03629886|181533227|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with any oncogenic HPV type or combination of oncogenic HPV types (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n) in a group (assessed by detecting HPV DNA using PCR), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T) in the same group, and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.61||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of oncogenic HPV-31/33/45 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received HPV vaccine in that study (N=2823). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||0.61|0.41|
90829028|NCT03629886|181533227|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with any oncogenic HPV type or combination of oncogenic HPV types (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n) in a group (assessed by detecting HPV DNA using PCR), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T) in the same group, and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.12||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of oncogenic HPV-31/33/45 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received placebo in that study (N=2824). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||1.12|0.84|
90829029|NCT03629886|181533227|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with any oncogenic HPV type or combination of oncogenic HPV types (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n) in a group (assessed by detecting HPV DNA using PCR), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T) in the same group, and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.88||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of oncogenic HPV-16/18/33/31/45 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received HPV vaccine in that study (N=2823). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||0.88|0.63|
90829030|NCT03629886|181533227|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with any oncogenic HPV type or combination of oncogenic HPV types (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n) in a group (assessed by detecting HPV DNA using PCR), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T) in the same group, and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|2.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.91|2.33||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of oncogenic HPV-16/18/33/31/45 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received placebo in that study (N=2825). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||2.33|1.91|
90829031|NCT03629886|181533227|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with any oncogenic HPV type or combination of oncogenic HPV types (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n) in a group (assessed by detecting HPV DNA using PCR), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T) in the same group, and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|5.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.79|5.49||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of oncogenic HRW-HPV incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received HPV vaccine in that study (N=2823). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||5.49|4.79|
90829032|NCT03629886|181533227|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with any oncogenic HPV type or combination of oncogenic HPV types (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n) in a group (assessed by detecting HPV DNA using PCR), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T) in the same group, and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|5.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.36|6.1||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of oncogenic HRW-HPV incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received placebo in that study (N=2825). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||6.10|5.36|
90829033|NCT03629886|181533227|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with any oncogenic HPV type or combination of oncogenic HPV types (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n) in a group (assessed by detecting HPV DNA using PCR), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T) in the same group, and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|5.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.94|5.65||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of oncogenic HR-HPV incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received HPV vaccine in that study (N=2823). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||5.65|4.94|
90891751|NCT01986881|181648568|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-1.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|-1.47|||cLDA|cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-1.47|-1.78|<0.001
90891752|NCT01986881|181648569|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-2.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.67|-2.24|||cLDA|cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-2.24|-2.67|<0.001
90891753|NCT01986881|181648569|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-2.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28|-1.86|||cLDA|cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-1.86|-2.28|<0.001
90891754|NCT01986881|181648570|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-2.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.83|-2.22|||cLDA|cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-2.22|-2.83|<0.001
90829034|NCT03629886|181533227|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with any oncogenic HPV type or combination of oncogenic HPV types (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n) in a group (assessed by detecting HPV DNA using PCR), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T) in the same group, and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|6.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.91|6.69||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of oncogenic HR-HPV incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received placebo in that study (N=2825). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||6.69|5.91|
90829035|NCT00496015|181533296|SUPERIORITY|Superiority criteria: The lower limit (LL) of the standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference between groups (Synflorix PRE Group minus Synflorix I Group) was above 0%.|Difference in percentages|22.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.78|32.11||||||||32.11|11.78|
90829036|NCT05552027|181533353|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||At the completion of scenario A (a full child safety seat installation), the participants using the CCS app had significantly fewer errors present compared to the control group.|Chi-squared|||||||<.001
90829037|NCT05552027|181533353|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||At the end of scenario B (loose harness straps), participants using the CCS app had significantly fewer errors present compared to the control group.|Chi-squared|||||||<.01
90891755|NCT01986881|181648570|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-2.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.39|-1.83|||cLDA|cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-1.83|-2.39|<0.001
90891756|NCT01986881|181648572|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-2.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.97|-2.1|||cLDA|cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-2.10|-2.97|<0.001
90891757|NCT01986881|181648572|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-2.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|-1.68|||cLDA|cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-1.68|-2.52|<0.001
90891758|NCT01986881|181648575|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Lease Squares Means|-1.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|-1.15|||||||Based on cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|-1.15|-2.41|
90891759|NCT01986881|181648575|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|-0.56|||||||Based on cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|-0.56|-1.82|
90891760|NCT01986881|181648576|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Lease Squares Means|-0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|-0.18|||||||Based on cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|-0.18|-1.58|
90891761|NCT01986881|181648576|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.49|||||||Based on cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|0.49|-0.91|
90891762|NCT01986881|181648577|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the least squares means|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|1.08|||||Constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|||1.08|-0.59|
90891763|NCT01986881|181648577|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the least squares means|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.95|||||Constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|||1.95|0.28|
90891764|NCT01986881|181648579|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Lease Squares Means|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|2.66|||||||Based on cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|2.66|0.31|
90891765|NCT01986881|181648579|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|1.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|2.84|||||||Based on cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|2.84|0.49|
90891766|NCT01986881|181648603|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % vs Placebo|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|0.9|||||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method|0.9|-2.8|
90891767|NCT01986881|181648603|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % vs Placebo|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.1|||||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method|2.1|-1.6|
90891768|NCT01986881|181648604|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % vs Placebo|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|8.4|||||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method|8.4|-5.8|
90891769|NCT01986881|181648604|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % vs Placebo|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|5.4|||||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method|5.4|-9.2|
90891770|NCT01986881|181648605|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % vs Placebo|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|20.4|||||||Miettinen and Nurminen method|20.4|-17.7|
90891771|NCT01986881|181648605|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % vs Placebo|-19.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.5|-1.2|||||||Miettinen and Nurminen method|-1.2|-37.5|
90891772|NCT01986881|181648606|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % vs Placebo|7.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|20.5|||||||Based on Miettinen and Nurminen method|20.5|-5.1|
90891773|NCT01986881|181648606|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % vs Placebo|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|14.2|||||||Miettinen and Nurminen method|14.2|-12.3|
90891774|NCT01986881|181648608|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % vs Placebo|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|3.0|||||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method|3.0|-2.9|
90891775|NCT01986881|181648608|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % vs Placebo|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|1.6|||||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method|1.6|-4.0|
90891776|NCT01986881|181648611|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-25.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.84|-17.96|||CLDA|Model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR, stratum (insulin alone or insulin + metformin) and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-17.96|-32.84|<0.001
90829038|NCT05552027|181533353|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||At the end of scenario C (loose attachment at the base), like the other two scenarios, participants using the CCS app had significantly fewer errors present compared to the control group.|Chi-squared|||||||<.01
90829039|NCT02365649|181533390|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|9.9||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|20.1||Statistical significance was prespecified at α = 0.1. Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||20.1|-0.3|0.056
90829040|NCT02365649|181533390|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|7.4||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|16.4||Statistical significance was prespecified at α = 0.1. Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||16.4|-1.6|0.108
90829041|NCT02365649|181533390|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|7.7||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|16.8||Statistical significance was prespecified at α = 0.1. Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||16.8|-1.5|0.099
90829042|NCT02365649|181533390|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|21.0||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|35.2||Statistical significance was prespecified at α = 0.1. Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||35.2|6.8|0.004
90829043|NCT02365649|181533390|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|13.6||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|25.5||Statistical significance was prespecified at α = 0.1. Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||25.5|1.8|0.025
90829044|NCT02365649|181533391|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|2.5||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|17.3||Statistical significance was prespecified at α = 0.1. Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||17.3|-12.3|0.74
90829045|NCT02365649|181533391|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|16.2||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|34.3||Statistical significance was prespecified at α = 0.1. Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||34.3|-2.0|0.082
91016791|NCT01569074|181916902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2||||0.169|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.06|4.67||Week 12|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio and 80% confidence intervals are calculated using Logistic Regression with treatment and pooled country as factors.|An odds ration \>1 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data. Subjects who prematurely withdrew due to project closure have no imputation applied.||4.67|1.06|0.169
91016792|NCT01569074|181916902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.833|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.45|1.78||Week 12|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio and 80% confidence intervals are calculated using Logistic Regression with treatment and pooled country as factors.|An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data. Subjects who prematurely withdrew due to project closure have no imputation applied.||1.78|0.45|0.833
90829046|NCT02365649|181533391|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|0.5||||0.952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|15.0||Statistical significance was prespecified at α = 0.1. Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||15.0|-14.1|0.952
90829047|NCT02365649|181533391|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|11.2||||0.205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|28.5||Statistical significance was prespecified at α = 0.1. Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||28.5|-6.1|0.205
90829048|NCT02365649|181533391|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|4.1||||0.607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|19.6||Statistical significance was prespecified at α = 0.1. Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||19.6|-11.5|0.607
90829049|NCT02365649|181533392|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|5.2||||0.564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|22.9||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||22.9|-12.5|0.564
90829050|NCT02365649|181533392|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|12.0||||0.221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|31.2||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||31.2|-7.2|0.221
90829051|NCT02365649|181533392|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|22.2||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|43.0||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||43|1.4|0.036
90829052|NCT02365649|181533392|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|13.4||||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|33.1||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||33.1|-6.2|0.179
90829053|NCT02365649|181533392|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|3.9||||0.677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|22.0||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||22|-14.3|0.677
90829054|NCT02365649|181533393|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|10.4||||0.363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|32.9||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||32.9|-12|0.363
90829055|NCT02365649|181533393|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|17.3||||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|40.0||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||40|-5.5|0.137
90829056|NCT02365649|181533393|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|7.5||||0.512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|29.9||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||29.9|-14.9|0.512
90829057|NCT02365649|181533393|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|25.0||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|48.2||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||48.2|-1.8|0.035
90829058|NCT02365649|181533393|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|12.5||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|35.6||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||35.6|-10.7|0.29
90829059|NCT02365649|181533394|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|-0.9||||0.896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|13.1||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||13.1|-15.0|0.896
90829060|NCT02365649|181533394|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|18.6||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|37.3||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||37.3|0.0|0.05
90829061|NCT02365649|181533394|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|3.0||||0.702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|18.4||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||18.4|-12.4|0.702
90829062|NCT02365649|181533394|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|14.3||||0.117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|32.2||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||32.2|-3.6|0.117
90829063|NCT02365649|181533394|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|-2.4||||0.736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|11.6||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||11.6|-16.4|0.736
90829064|NCT02365649|181533395|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|2.9||||0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|8.1||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||8.1|-2.3|0.276
90829065|NCT02365649|181533395|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|4.9||||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|12.4||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||12.4|-2.5|0.195
90829066|NCT02365649|181533395|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|2.6||||0.355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|8.0||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||8.0|-2.9|0.355
91079380|NCT01026818|182044363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17||0.972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|2.25||P-value is for sexual relationship - Month 13.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||2.25|-2.34|0.972
90829067|NCT02365649|181533395|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|7.7||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|16.8||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||16.8|-1.5|0.099
90829068|NCT02365649|181533395|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|5.2||||0.185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|12.9||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||12.9|-2.5|0.185
90891777|NCT01986881|181648611|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-19.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.8|-11.68|||cLDA|Model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR, stratum (insulin alone or insulin + metformin) and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-11.68|-26.80|<0.001
91079381|NCT01026818|182044363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|1.36||P-value is for self-esteem - Month 9.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||1.36|-0.81|0.621
90829069|NCT02365649|181533396|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|13.2||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|26.5||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||26.5|0.0|0.05
90829070|NCT02365649|181533396|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|29.5||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.9|47.1||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||47.1|11.9|0.001
90829071|NCT02365649|181533396|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|25.2||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.5|42.0||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||42.0|8.5|0.003
90829072|NCT02365649|181533396|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|36.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.6|55.4||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||55.4|17.6|< 0.001
90829073|NCT02365649|181533396|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|32.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.9|50.2||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||50.2|13.9|< 0.001
90829074|NCT02365649|181533397|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|10.5||||0.243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|28.2||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||28.2|-7.2|0.243
90829075|NCT02365649|181533397|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|29.1||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.3|49.9||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||49.9|8.3|0.006
90829076|NCT02365649|181533397|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|24.2||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|44.1||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||44.1|4.4|0.017
90829077|NCT02365649|181533397|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|36.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.8|58.1||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||58.1|14.8|< 0.001
90829078|NCT02365649|181533397|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|36.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.2|58.3||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||58.3|15.2|< 0.001
90829079|NCT02365649|181533398|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|10.5||||0.353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|32.7||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||32.7|-11.7|0.353
90829080|NCT02365649|181533398|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|22.7||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|45.5||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||45.5|0.0|0.05
90829081|NCT02365649|181533398|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|12.5||||0.268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|34.6||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||34.6|-9.6|0.268
90829082|NCT02365649|181533398|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|28.0||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.8|51.2||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||51.2|4.8|0.018
90829083|NCT02365649|181533398|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|14.9||||0.204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|37.8||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||37.8|-8.1|0.204
90829084|NCT02365649|181533399|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|10.0||||0.421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|34.4||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||34.4|-14.4|0.421
90829085|NCT02365649|181533399|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|11.5||||0.371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|36.8||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||36.8|-13.8|0.371
90829086|NCT02365649|181533399|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|9.2||||0.445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|32.8||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||32.8|-14.4|0.445
90829087|NCT02365649|181533399|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|19.5||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|49.3||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||49.3|-10.2|0.198
90829088|NCT02365649|181533399|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|5.0||||0.654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|27.0||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||27.0|-17.0|0.654
90829089|NCT02365649|181533400|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|18.7||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|40.5||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||40.5|-3.1|0.093
90829090|NCT02365649|181533400|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|13.5||||0.176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|33.1||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||33.1|-6.1|0.176
91016793|NCT01569074|181916902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.614|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.37|1.54||Week 12|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio and 80% confidence intervals are calculated using Logistic Regression with treatment and pooled country as factors.|An odds ratio of \>1 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data. Subjects who prematurely withdrew due to project closure have no imputation applied.||1.54|0.37|0.614
91079382|NCT01026818|182044363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|1.35||P-value is for self-esteem - Month 9.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||1.35|-0.78|0.598
90829091|NCT02365649|181533400|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|35.9||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|65.5||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||65.5|6.3|0.017
90829092|NCT02365649|181533400|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|26.1||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|51.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||51.5|0.7|0.044
90891778|NCT01986881|181648612|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-1.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.37|-1.13|||cLDA|Model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR, stratum (insulin alone or insulin + metformin) and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-1.13|-2.37|<0.001
91079383|NCT01026818|182044363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.21||P-value is for self-esteem - Month 13.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||1.21|-1.10|0.923
91079384|NCT01026818|182044363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|1.24||P-value is for self-esteem - Month 13.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||1.24|-1.03|0.857
91079385|NCT01026818|182044374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|14.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.57||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.92|25.83||P-value is for Q1 - Month 9.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included terms for treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||25.83|3.92|0.008
90829093|NCT02365649|181533400|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|13.1||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|29.6||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||29.6|-3.5|0.121
90829094|NCT02365649|181533401|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|3.4||||0.564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|14.9||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||14.9|-8.1|0.564
90829095|NCT02365649|181533401|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|3.4||||0.584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|15.7||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||15.7|-8.8|0.584
90829096|NCT02365649|181533401|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|8.7||||0.326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|26.1||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||26.1|-8.7|0.326
90829097|NCT02365649|181533402|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|12.2||||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|30.7||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||30.7|-6.2|0.195
90829098|NCT02365649|181533402|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|17.9||||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|40.1||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||40.1|-4.4|0.116
90829099|NCT02365649|181533402|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|12.8||||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|31.5||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||31.5|-5.8|0.178
90829100|NCT02365649|181533402|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|30.4||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|58.0||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||58.0|2.8|0.031
90829101|NCT02365649|181533402|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|13.1||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|29.6||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||29.6|-3.5|0.121
90829102|NCT02365649|181533403|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|6.8||||0.392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|22.2||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||22.2|-8.7|0.392
90829103|NCT02365649|181533403|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|3.4||||0.584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|15.7||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||15.7|-8.8|0.584
90829104|NCT02365649|181533403|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|13.0||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|32.9||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||32.9|-6.8|0.199
90829105|NCT02365649|181533403|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|6.9||||0.439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|24.5||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||24.5|-10.6|0.439
90829106|NCT02365649|181533404|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-103.9||||0.788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-865.69|657.87||P value for test of difference using the repeated measure model including treatment, Baseline disease severity (SES-CD \< 15 and ≥ 15), week, Baseline, interaction of treatment and week.|mixed-effect model repeated measure|||Week 4||657.87|-865.69|0.788
90829107|NCT02365649|181533404|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-364.3||||0.325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1092.83|364.29||P value for test of difference using the repeated measure model including treatment, Baseline disease severity (SES-CD \< 15 and ≥ 15), week, Baseline, interaction of treatment and week.|mixed-effect model repeated measure|||Week 4||364.29|-1092.83|0.325
90829108|NCT02365649|181533404|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-926.2||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1672.78|-179.63||P value for test of difference using the repeated measure model including treatment, Baseline disease severity (SES-CD \< 15 and ≥ 15), week, Baseline, interaction of treatment and week.|mixed-effect model repeated measure|||||-179.63|-1672.78|0.015
90829109|NCT02365649|181533404|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-763.1||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1534.52|8.39||P value for test of difference using the repeated measure model including treatment, Baseline disease severity (SES-CD \< 15 and ≥ 15), week, Baseline, interaction of treatment and week.|mixed-effect model repeated measure|||Week 4||8.39|-1534.52|0.053
90829110|NCT02365649|181533404|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-359.5||||0.352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1119.52|400.56||P value for test of difference using the repeated measure model including treatment, Baseline disease severity (SES-CD \< 15 and ≥ 15), week, Baseline, interaction of treatment and week.|mixed-effect model repeated measure|||Week 4||400.56|-1119.52|0.352
90829111|NCT02365649|181533404|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-396.2||||0.503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1565.39|772.9||P value for test of difference using the repeated measure model including treatment, Baseline disease severity (SES-CD \< 15 and ≥ 15), week, Baseline, interaction of treatment and week.|mixed-effect model repeated measure|||Week 16||772.90|-1565.39|0.503
90829112|NCT02365649|181533404|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-364.3||||0.537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1531.04|802.44||P value for test of difference using the repeated measure model including treatment, Baseline disease severity (SES-CD \< 15 and ≥ 15), week, Baseline, interaction of treatment and week.|mixed-effect model repeated measure|||Week 16||802.44|-1531.04|0.537
90829113|NCT02365649|181533404|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-483.2||||0.425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1677.87|711.52||P value for test of difference using the repeated measure model including treatment, Baseline disease severity (SES-CD \< 15 and ≥ 15), week, Baseline, interaction of treatment and week.|mixed-effect model repeated measure|||Week 16||711.52|-1677.87|0.425
90829114|NCT02365649|181533404|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1025.6||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2373.24|322.08||P value for test of difference using the repeated measure model including treatment, Baseline disease severity (SES-CD \< 15 and ≥ 15), week, Baseline, interaction of treatment and week.|mixed-effect model repeated measure|||Week 16||322.08|-2373.24|0.134
90829115|NCT02365649|181533404|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-637.9||||0.293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1833.82|557.96||P value for test of difference using the repeated measure model including treatment, Baseline disease severity (SES-CD \< 15 and ≥ 15), week, Baseline, interaction of treatment and week.|mixed-effect model repeated measure|||Week 16||557.96|-1833.82|0.293
90891779|NCT01986881|181648612|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-1.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|-1.13|||cLDA model|Model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR, stratum (insulin alone or insulin + metformin) and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-1.13|-2.12|<0.001
90891780|NCT01986881|181648613|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Odds Ratio Relative to Placebo|2.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.61|3.83|||Regression, Logistic|Model fitted with fixed effects for treatment, stratum for insulin sub-study, covariates for baseline A1C and baseline eGFR (continuous).||Missing data imputed using the Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis (cLDA) model fitted with fixed effects as in the primary analysis.||3.83|1.61|<0.001
90891781|NCT01986881|181648613|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Odds Ratio Relative to Placebo|2.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.64|4.12|||Regression, Logistic|Model fitted with fixed effects for treatment, stratum for insulin sub-study, covariates for baseline A1C and baseline eGFR (continuous).||Missing data imputed using the Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis (cLDA) model fitted with fixed effects as in the primary analysis.||4.12|1.64|<0.001
90891782|NCT01986881|181648614|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-2.32||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.35|-0.3|||cLDA|Model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR, stratum (insulin alone or insulin + metformin), and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-0.30|-4.35|0.025
90891783|NCT01986881|181648614|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-2.88||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.94|-0.82|||cLDA|Model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR, stratum (insulin alone or insulin + metformin), and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-0.82|-4.94|0.006
90954203|NCT00734591|181786770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Exact method|2.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|24.01|||||Incidence density ratio confidence interval derived from exact methods utilizing exact binomial limits and ratio of exposures.|||24.01|0.37|
90829116|NCT02365649|181533405|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.5||||0.921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.02|9.97||P value for test of difference using the repeated measure model including treatment, Baseline disease severity (SES-CD \< 15 and ≥ 15), week, Baseline, interaction of treatment and week.|mixed-effect model repeated measure|||||9.97|-9.02|0.921
90829117|NCT02365649|181533405|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.6||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.19|8.08||P value for test of difference using the repeated measure model including treatment, Baseline disease severity (SES-CD \< 15 and ≥ 15), week, Baseline, interaction of treatment and week.|mixed-effect model repeated measure|||||8.08|-11.19|0.75
90829118|NCT02365649|181533405|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.9||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|7.87||P value for test of difference using the repeated measure model including treatment, Baseline disease severity (SES-CD \< 15 and ≥ 15), week, Baseline, interaction of treatment and week.|mixed-effect model repeated measure|||||7.87|-11.7|0.7
90829119|NCT02365649|181533405|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-11.4||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.38|-1.51||P value for test of difference using the repeated measure model including treatment, Baseline disease severity (SES-CD \< 15 and ≥ 15), week, Baseline, interaction of treatment and week.|mixed-effect model repeated measure|||||-1.51|-21.38|0.024
90829120|NCT02365649|181533405|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0||||0.845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.72|8.79||P value for test of difference using the repeated measure model including treatment, Baseline disease severity (SES-CD \< 15 and ≥ 15), week, Baseline, interaction of treatment and week.|mixed-effect model repeated measure|||||8.79|-10.72|0.845
90829121|NCT02365649|181533406|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.7||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|16.92||P value for test of difference using the repeated measure model including treatment, Baseline disease severity (SES-CD \< 15 and ≥ 15), week, Baseline, interaction of treatment and week.|mixed-effect model repeated measure|||Week 8||16.92|-13.60|0.830
90829122|NCT02365649|181533406|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|17.5||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.03|33.0||P value for test of difference using the repeated measure model including treatment, Baseline disease severity (SES-CD \< 15 and ≥ 15), week, Baseline, interaction of treatment and week.|mixed-effect model repeated measure|||Week 8||33.00|2.03|0.027
90829123|NCT02365649|181533406|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|8.9||||0.263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.72|24.47||P value for test of difference using the repeated measure model including treatment, Baseline disease severity (SES-CD \< 15 and ≥ 15), week, Baseline, interaction of treatment and week.|mixed-effect model repeated measure|||Week 8||24.47|-6.72|0.263
90829124|NCT02365649|181533406|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|21.6||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.68|37.52||P value for test of difference using the repeated measure model including treatment, Baseline disease severity (SES-CD \< 15 and ≥ 15), week, Baseline, interaction of treatment and week.|mixed-effect model repeated measure|||Week 8||37.52|5.68|0.008
90829125|NCT02365649|181533406|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|8.8||||0.269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.88|24.53||P value for test of difference using the repeated measure model including treatment, Baseline disease severity (SES-CD \< 15 and ≥ 15), week, Baseline, interaction of treatment and week.|mixed-effect model repeated measure|||Week 8||24.53|-6.88|0.269
90829126|NCT02365649|181533406|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|10.3||||0.231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.63|27.25||P value for test of difference using the repeated measure model including treatment, Baseline disease severity (SES-CD \< 15 and ≥ 15), week, Baseline, interaction of treatment and week.|mixed-effect model repeated measure|||Week 16||27.25|-6.63|0.231
90829127|NCT02365649|181533406|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|27.9||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.68|45.15||P value for test of difference using the repeated measure model including treatment, Baseline disease severity (SES-CD \< 15 and ≥ 15), week, Baseline, interaction of treatment and week.|mixed-effect model repeated measure|||||45.15|10.68|0.002
90829128|NCT02365649|181533406|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|17.1||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|34.72||P value for test of difference using the repeated measure model including treatment, Baseline disease severity (SES-CD \< 15 and ≥ 15), week, Baseline, interaction of treatment and week.|mixed-effect model repeated measure|||Week 16||34.72|-0.51|0.057
90829129|NCT02365649|181533406|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|28.8||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.12|46.56||P value for test of difference using the repeated measure model including treatment, Baseline disease severity (SES-CD \< 15 and ≥ 15), week, Baseline, interaction of treatment and week.|mixed-effect model repeated measure|||Week 16||46.56|11.12|0.002
90829130|NCT02365649|181533406|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|12.3||||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.12|29.72||P value for test of difference using the repeated measure model including treatment, Baseline disease severity (SES-CD \< 15 and ≥ 15), week, Baseline, interaction of treatment and week.|mixed-effect model repeated measure|||||29.72|-5.12|0.165
90891784|NCT01986881|181648615|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.38||||0.533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|0.81|||cLDA model|Model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR, stratum (insulin alone or insulin + metformin), and the interaction of time by treatment.||||0.81|-1.56|0.533
90891785|NCT01986881|181648615|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.6||||0.326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|0.6|||cLDA model|Model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR, stratum (insulin alone or insulin + metformin), and the interaction of time by treatment.||||0.60|-1.81|0.326
90891786|NCT01986881|181648618|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-12.22||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.03|2.06|||cLDA|cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous), and the interaction of time by treatment.||||2.06|-27.03|0.105
90891787|NCT01986881|181648618|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-13.53||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.06|1.0|||cLDA|cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous), and the interaction of time by treatment.||||1.00|-28.06|0.068
90954204|NCT00734591|181786771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.1||||||||1.10|0.60|
91079386|NCT01026818|182044374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|11.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.45||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|22.04||P-value is for Q1 - Month 9.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included terms for treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||22.04|0.63|0.038
90829131|NCT02365649|181533407|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|20.0||||0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|48.4||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||48.4|-8.4|0.167
90829132|NCT02365649|181533407|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|16.7||||0.221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|43.3||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||43.3|-10.0|0.221
90829133|NCT02365649|181533407|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|20.0||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|49.2||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||49.2|-9.2|0.18
90829134|NCT02365649|181533407|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|20.0||||0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|48.4||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||48.4|-8.4|0.167
90829135|NCT02365649|181533408|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|5.5||||0.607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5|26.5||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||26.5|-15.5|0.607
90829136|NCT02365649|181533408|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|12.2||||0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|33.9||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||33.9|-9.6|0.272
90829137|NCT02365649|181533408|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|15.9||||-0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|37.9||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||37.9|-6.1|-0.157
90829138|NCT02365649|181533408|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|27.7||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|50.6||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||50.6|4.9|0.017
90829139|NCT02365649|181533408|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|2.8||||0.798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.4|23.9||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||23.9|-18.4|0.798
90829140|NCT02365649|181533409|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|9.8||||0.119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|22.1||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||22.1|-2.5|0.119
90829141|NCT02365649|181533409|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|15.4||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|29.7||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||29.7|1.1|0.034
90829142|NCT02365649|181533409|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|23.2||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.3|39.2||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||39.2|7.3|0.004
91079387|NCT01026818|182044374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|8.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.15||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.18|21.0||P-value is for Q1 - Month 10.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included terms for treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||21.00|-3.18|0.148
91079388|NCT01026818|182044374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|5.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.03||0.373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.48|17.23||P-value is for Q1 - Month 10.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included terms for treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||17.23|-6.48|0.373
90829143|NCT02365649|181533409|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|32.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.2|50.5||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||50.5|14.2|< 0.001
90829144|NCT02365649|181533409|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|22.9|||<|0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.6|39.2||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||39.2|6.6|< 0.006
90829145|NCT02365649|181533410|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|3.9||||0.647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|20.5||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||20.5|-12.7|0.647
90829146|NCT02365649|181533410|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|17.1||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|37.1||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||37.1|-2.9|0.093
90829147|NCT02365649|181533410|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|13.6||||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|32.8||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||32.8|-5.6|0.165
90829148|NCT02365649|181533410|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|24.9||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|46.3||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||46.3|3.4|0.023
90891788|NCT01986881|181648619|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.52||||0.418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.79|0.75|||cLDA|Model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.||||0.75|-1.79|0.418
90891789|NCT01986881|181648619|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-1.07||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.32|0.18|||cLDA model|Model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.||||0.18|-2.32|0.092
91016794|NCT01569074|181916902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.748|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.42|1.69||Week 12|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio and 80% confidence intervals are calculated using Logistic Regression with treatment and pooled country as factors.|An odds ratio of \>1 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data. Subjects who prematurely withdrew due to project closure have no imputation applied.||1.69|0.42|0.748
91016795|NCT01569074|181916903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|3.01||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.76|5.26|||ANCOVA|Including terms for baseline as a continuous covariate and treatment and pooled country as factors.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data. Subjects who prematurely withdrew due to project closure have no imputation applied.||5.26|0.76|0.087
91016796|NCT01569074|181916903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.25||||0.881|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.91|2.41|||ANCOVA|Including terms for baseline as a continuous covariate and treatment and pooled country as factors.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data. Subjects who prematurely withdrew due to project closure have no imputation applied.||2.41|-1.91|0.881
90829149|NCT02365649|181533410|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|7.0||||0.448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|25.0||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||25.0|-11.0|0.448
90829150|NCT02365649|181533411|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|1.5||P value for test of difference using the repeated measure model including treatment, Baseline disease severity (SES-CD \< 15 and ≥ 15), week, Baseline, interaction of treatment and week.|mixed-effect model repeated measure|||||1.5|-0.62|0.412
90829151|NCT02365649|181533411|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.4||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.47|-0.34||P value for test of difference using the repeated measure model including treatment, Baseline disease severity (SES-CD \< 15 and ≥ 15), week, Baseline, interaction of treatment and week.|mixed-effect model repeated measure|||||-0.34|-2.47|0.01
90829152|NCT02365649|181533411|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|0.13||P value for test of difference using the repeated measure model including treatment, Baseline disease severity (SES-CD \< 15 and ≥ 15), week, Baseline, interaction of treatment and week.|mixed-effect model repeated measure|||||0.13|-2.13|0.082
90829153|NCT02365649|181533411|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.6||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.73|-0.52||P value for test of difference using the repeated measure model including treatment, Baseline disease severity (SES-CD \< 15 and ≥ 15), week, Baseline, interaction of treatment and week.|mixed-effect model repeated measure|||||-0.52|-2.73|0.004
90829154|NCT02365649|181533411|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|1.26||P value for test of difference using the repeated measure model including treatment, Baseline disease severity (SES-CD \< 15 and ≥ 15), week, Baseline, interaction of treatment and week.|mixed-effect model repeated measure|||||1.26|-0.93|0.766
90829155|NCT02365649|181533412|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|0.56||P value for test of difference using the repeated measure model including treatment, Baseline disease severity (SES-CD \< 15 and ≥ 15), week, Baseline, interaction of treatment and week.|mixed-effect model repeated measure|||||0.56|-1.75|0.314
90829156|NCT02365649|181533412|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.8||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.01|-0.68||P value for test of difference using the repeated measure model including treatment, Baseline disease severity (SES-CD \< 15 and ≥ 15), week, Baseline, interaction of treatment and week.|mixed-effect model repeated measure|||||-0.68|-3.01|0.002
90829157|NCT02365649|181533412|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7||||0.255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|0.52||P value for test of difference using the repeated measure model including treatment, Baseline disease severity (SES-CD \< 15 and ≥ 15), week, Baseline, interaction of treatment and week.|mixed-effect model repeated measure|||||0.52|-1.94|0.255
90829158|NCT02365649|181533412|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.4||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|-0.2||P value for test of difference using the repeated measure model including treatment, Baseline disease severity (SES-CD \< 15 and ≥ 15), week, Baseline, interaction of treatment and week.|mixed-effect model repeated measure|||||-0.2|-2.61|0.022
90829159|NCT02365649|181533412|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7||||0.239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.92|0.48||P value for test of difference using the repeated measure model including treatment, Baseline disease severity (SES-CD \< 15 and ≥ 15), week, Baseline, interaction of treatment and week.|mixed-effect model repeated measure|||||0.48|-1.92|0.239
90829160|NCT02365649|181533413|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.4|21.4||P value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders||21.4|-36.4|1.000
90829161|NCT02365649|181533413|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.5|32.5||P value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders||32.5|-22.5|1.000
90829162|NCT02365649|181533413|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-20.0||||0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.5|-2.5||P value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders||-2.5|-37.5|0.272
91079389|NCT01026818|182044374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|10.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.96||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|20.66||P-value is for Q1 - Month 13.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included terms for treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||20.66|1.14|0.029
90829163|NCT02365649|181533413|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.9||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|8.6||P value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders||8.6|-2.7|1.000
90829164|NCT02365649|181533413|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.0||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|26.8||P value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders||26.8|-0.7|0.068
90829165|NCT02365649|181533413|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.4||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.1|12.3||P value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical responders||12.3|-23.1|1.0000
90829166|NCT02365649|181533413|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.7|18.3||P value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical responders||18.3|-15.7|1.000
90829167|NCT02365649|181533413|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.7|23.3||P value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical responders||23.3|-16.7|1.000
90829168|NCT02365649|181533413|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.8||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|13.9||P value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical non-responders||13.9|-4.3|1.000
90905047|NCT02886728|181677435|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|11.1||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|19.7||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52||19.7|2.5|0.008
90829169|NCT02365649|181533414|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.5|35.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders||35.5|-35.5|1.000
90829170|NCT02365649|181533414|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.5||||0.483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.9|42.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders||42.9|-17.9|0.483
90829171|NCT02365649|181533414|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-15.0||||0.633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.6|11.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders||11.6|-41.6|0.633
90829172|NCT02365649|181533414|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.9||||0.424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|26.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders||26.4|-12.7|0.424
90829173|NCT02365649|181533414|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.7||||0.614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|17.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders||17.0|-5.6|0.614
90829174|NCT02365649|181533414|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.3||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|30.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders||30.9|-2.4|0.149
90829175|NCT02365649|181533414|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.8||||0.684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.1|30.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders||30.7|-19.1|0.684
90829176|NCT02365649|181533414|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.5||||0.404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|28.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders||28.5|-11.5|0.404
90829177|NCT02365649|181533414|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.7||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|34.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders||34.1|-12.8|0.470
90829178|NCT02365649|181533414|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|4.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders||4.6|-14.6|1.000
91016797|NCT01569074|181916903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.42||||0.806|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.64|1.8|||ANCOVA|Includes terms for baseline as a continuous covariate and treatment and pooled country as factors.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data. Subjects who prematurely withdrew due to project closure have no imputation applied.||1.80|-2.64|0.806
91079390|NCT01026818|182044374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|4.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.91||0.357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.12|14.17||P-value is for Q1 - Month 13.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included terms for treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||14.17|-5.12|0.357
90829179|NCT02365649|181533414|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|20.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders||20.3|-11.3|1.000
90829180|NCT02365649|181533414|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|4.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders||4.6|-14.6|1.000
90829181|NCT02365649|181533415|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-16.9||||0.624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.4|14.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders||14.6|-48.4|0.624
91079391|NCT01026818|182044374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|16.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.42||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.68|26.98||P-value is for Q2 - Month 9.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included terms for treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||26.98|5.68|0.003
90829182|NCT02365649|181533415|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.9||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.3|36.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders||36.1|-28.3|1.000
90829183|NCT02365649|181533415|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-19.4||||0.363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.0|9.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders||9.1|-48.0|0.363
90829184|NCT02365649|181533415|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.1||||0.495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|14.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders||14.2|-2.1|0.495
90829185|NCT02365649|181533415|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.0||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|30.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5). Prespecified significance at the 0.1 level.|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders||30.6|-0.6|0.066
90829186|NCT02365649|181533415|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.7||||0.645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.3|8.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders||8.9|-30.3|0.645
90829187|NCT02365649|181533415|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.4||||0.686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.8|25.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders||25.5|-16.8|0.686
90829188|NCT02365649|181533415|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.4||||0.721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.5|28.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders||28.2|-19.5|0.721
90829189|NCT02365649|181533415|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.8||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|13.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders||13.9|-4.3|1.000
90829190|NCT02365649|181533416|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.5|32.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 20||32.5|-47.5|1.000
90829191|NCT02365649|181533416|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.0||||0.765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.8|37.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 20||37.8|-27.8|0.765
90829192|NCT02365649|181533416|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.4|32.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 20||32.4|-42.4|1.000
90829193|NCT02365649|181533416|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.5|32.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 28||32.5|-47.5|1.000
90905048|NCT02886728|181677435|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|13.1||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.6|21.6||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52||21.6|4.6|0.001
91016798|NCT01569074|181916903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|1.03||||0.548|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.17|3.23|||ANCOVA|Includes terms for baseline as a continuous covariate and treatment and pooled country as factors.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data. Subjects who prematurely withdrew due to project closure have no imputation applied.||3.23|-1.17|0.548
91016799|NCT01569074|181916904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|3.12||||0.139|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.42|5.82|||ANCOVA|Including terms for baseline as a continuous covariate and treatment and pooled country as factors.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data. Subjects who prematurely withdrew due to project closure have no imputation applied.||5.82|0.42|0.139
91079392|NCT01026818|182044374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|6.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.3||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|17.04||P-value is for Q2 - Month 9.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included terms for treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||17.04|-3.80|0.212
90829194|NCT02365649|181533416|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.3||||0.502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.4|43.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 28||43.9|-21.4|0.502
90829195|NCT02365649|181533416|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.9|42.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 28||42.9|-32.9|1.000
90829196|NCT02365649|181533416|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.3|37.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 36||37.3|-42.3|1.000
90829197|NCT02365649|181533416|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|22.5||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|54.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 36||54.5|-9.5|0.180
90829198|NCT02365649|181533416|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.0||||0.702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.6|25.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 36||25.6|-45.6|0.702
90829199|NCT02365649|181533416|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-27.5||||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.9|3.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 44||3.9|-58.9|0.214
90829200|NCT02365649|181533416|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|28.8||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|60.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5). Prespecified statistical significance at the 0.1 level.|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 44||60.0|-2.5|0.086
91016800|NCT01569074|181916904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|2.47||||0.223|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.13|5.07|||ANCOVA|Including terms for baseline as a continuous covariate and treatment and pooled country as factors.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data. Subjects who prematurely withdrew due to project closure have no imputation applied.||5.07|-0.13|0.223
91016801|NCT01569074|181916904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-1.63||||0.432|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.3|1.04|||ANCOVA|Includes terms for baseline as a continuous covariate and treatment and pooled country as factors.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data. Subjects who prematurely withdrew due to project closure have no imputation applied.||1.04|-4.30|0.432
91079393|NCT01026818|182044374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|4.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.17||0.461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.58|16.68||P-value is for Q2 - Month 10.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included terms for treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||16.68|-7.58|0.461
91079394|NCT01026818|182044374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|-1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.05||0.835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.16|10.63||P-value is for Q2 - Month 10.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included terms for treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||10.63|-13.16|0.835
90829201|NCT02365649|181533416|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.2|37.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 44||37.2|-37.2|1.000
90829202|NCT02365649|181533416|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.6|46.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 52||46.6|-31.6|1.000
90829203|NCT02365649|181533416|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|32.5||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|63.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5). Prespecified statistical significance at the 0.1 level.|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 52||63.6|1.4|0.051
90829204|NCT02365649|181533416|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.8|34.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 52||34.8|-34.8|1.000
90829205|NCT02365649|181533416|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|27.5||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|60.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5). Prespecified statistical significance at the 0.1 level.|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 20||60.0|-5.0|0.075
90829206|NCT02365649|181533416|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.7||||0.705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.6|11.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 20||11.2|-18.6|0.705
90829207|NCT02365649|181533416|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.8||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|12.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 20||12.4|-20.0|1.000
90829208|NCT02365649|181533416|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|27.5||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|60.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5). Prespecified statistical significance at the 0.1 level.|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 28||60.0|-5.0|0.075
90829209|NCT02365649|181533416|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.7||||0.705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.6|11.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 28||11.2|-18.6|0.705
90829210|NCT02365649|181533416|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.4|18.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 28||18.5|-17.4|1.000
90829211|NCT02365649|181533416|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.6||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.5|21.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 36||21.8|-20.5|1.000
90829212|NCT02365649|181533416|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.4||||0.348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|5.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 36||5.2|-18.0|0.348
90829213|NCT02365649|181533416|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.7||||0.686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|20.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 36||20.7|-13.4|0.686
90829214|NCT02365649|181533416|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.5||||0.616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.8|34.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 44||34.8|-19.8|0.616
90829215|NCT02365649|181533416|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.6||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.5|7.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 44||7.3|-20.5|0.420
91016802|NCT01569074|181916904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|1.45||||0.481|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.19|4.09|||ANCOVA|Includes terms for baseline as a continuous covariate and treatment and pooled country as factors.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data. Subjects who prematurely withdrew due to project closure have no imputation applied.||4.09|-1.19|0.481
90829216|NCT02365649|181533416|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.8||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|12.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 44||12.4|-20.0|1.000
90829217|NCT02365649|181533416|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.6||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.5|21.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 52||21.8|-20.5|1.000
90891790|NCT01986881|181648620|SUPERIORITY||Odds ratio relative to placebo|1.48||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|4.17|||Regression, Logistic|Model fitted with fixed effects for treatment, covariates for baseline A1C and baseline eGFR (continuous).||Missing data imputed using the Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis (cLDA) model fitted with fixed effects as in the primary analysis.||4.17|0.52|0.460
91016803|NCT01139801|181916921|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|212.2||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.3|411.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||411.0|13.3|0.037
91016804|NCT00962013|181916928|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|non-inferiority margin is 7%||||||0.0136|||||||Exact Binomial|||This revision study will demonstrate a 5-year survivorship of the Restoration Modular system not seven percent worse than an expected 95% survival rate using a lower 95% one-sided confidence bound.||||0.0136
91016805|NCT00962013|181916930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from HHS pre-op to HHS 5 year||||<0.0001
91016806|NCT00962013|181916931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from SF-36 Role-Physical pre-op score to 2 and 5 year scores||||<0.0001
90829218|NCT02365649|181533416|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.6||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|13.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 52||13.3|-14.4|1.000
90829219|NCT02365649|181533416|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.7||||0.686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|20.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 52||20.7|-13.4|0.686
90829220|NCT02365649|181533416|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.4||||0.555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.9|40.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 20||40.6|-21.9|0.555
90829221|NCT02365649|181533416|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.7||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.2|21.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 20||21.8|-27.2|0.830
90829222|NCT02365649|181533416|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-9.0||||0.518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.0|17.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 20||17.9|-36.0|0.518
90829223|NCT02365649|181533416|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.5||||0.428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.6|43.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 28||43.6|-18.6|0.428
90829224|NCT02365649|181533416|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.9||||0.757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.7|28.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 28||28.4|-20.7|0.757
90829225|NCT02365649|181533416|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.6||||0.745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.2|32.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 28||32.4|-23.2|0.745
90829226|NCT02365649|181533416|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.8||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.6|23.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 36||23.0|-34.6|1.000
91016807|NCT00962013|181916933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Exact Binomial|||Post-surgery femoral stem crack/fracture rate compared to 21% (pre-specified in protocol based on literature rates) Femoral subsidence rate compared to 18% (pre-specified in protocol based on literature rates)||||<0.0001
91016808|NCT00530621|181916938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.544||95.0|0.77|1.65||P-value was stratified by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status and time since last chemotherapy.|Log Rank|||||1.65|0.77|0.544
90829227|NCT02365649|181533416|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.6||||0.773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.6|27.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 36||27.7|-20.6|0.773
90829228|NCT02365649|181533416|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.8||||0.838|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.4|23.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 36||23.8|-29.4|0.838
90829229|NCT02365649|181533416|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-12.9||||0.497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.0|14.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 44||14.1|-40.0|0.497
90891791|NCT01986881|181648620|SUPERIORITY||Odds ratio relative to placebo|1.62||||0.335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|4.35|||Regression, Logistic|Model fitted with fixed effects for treatment, covariates for baseline A1C and baseline eGFR (continuous).||Missing data imputed using the Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis (cLDA) model fitted with fixed effects as in the primary analysis.||4.35|0.61|0.335
91016809|NCT00530621|181916939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.171||95.0|0.42|1.17||P-value was stratified by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status and time since last chemotherapy.|Log Rank|||||1.17|0.42|0.171
91016810|NCT00530621|181916940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.11||||0.01||95.0|1.19|3.75|||Regression, Cox|||||3.75|1.19|0.010
91079395|NCT01026818|182044374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|13.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.15||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|25.46||P-value is for Q2 - Month13.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included terms for treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||25.46|1.27|0.030
90829230|NCT02365649|181533416|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.5||||0.404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|34.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 44||34.9|-14.0|0.404
90829231|NCT02365649|181533416|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.8||||0.838|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.4|23.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 44||23.8|-29.4|0.838
90829232|NCT02365649|181533416|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.6||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.4|31.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 52||31.6|-24.4|1.000
90829233|NCT02365649|181533416|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.4||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|39.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 52||39.8|-7.0|0.174
90829234|NCT02365649|181533416|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.6||||0.611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.1|32.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 52||32.3|-19.1|0.611
90829235|NCT02365649|181533416|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|4.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 28||4.6|-14.6|1.000
90829236|NCT02365649|181533416|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.0||||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|4.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 28||4.6|-14.6|0.488
90829237|NCT02365649|181533416|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|4.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 28||4.6|-14.6|1.000
90829238|NCT02365649|181533416|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|4.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 44||4.6|-14.6|1.000
90829239|NCT02365649|181533416|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.0||||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|4.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 44||4.6|-14.6|0.488
90829240|NCT02365649|181533416|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|4.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 44||4.6|-14.6|1.000
90829241|NCT02365649|181533416|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|4.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 52||4.6|-14.6|1.000
90829242|NCT02365649|181533416|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.2||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|13.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 52||13.0|-13.4|1.000
90829243|NCT02365649|181533416|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|4.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 52||4.6|-14.6|1.000
91016811|NCT00530621|181916941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.5||||0.194||95.0|0.81|2.77||P-value was stratified by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status score and time since last chemotherapy.|Log Rank|||||2.77|0.81|0.194
91016812|NCT00530621|181916942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.681|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.681
91079396|NCT01026818|182044374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|5.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.07||0.326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.97|17.89||P-value is for Q2 - Month13.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included terms for treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||17.89|-5.97|0.326
90829244|NCT02365649|181533417|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-13.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.2|45.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 20||45.5|-72.2|1.000
90829245|NCT02365649|181533417|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.6||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.2|33.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 20||33.1|-50.2|1.000
90829246|NCT02365649|181533417|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|44.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 20||44.8|-4.8|1.000
90829247|NCT02365649|181533417|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-23.3||||0.423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-79.8|33.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 28||33.2|-79.8|0.423
90829248|NCT02365649|181533417|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-32.9||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.0|8.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 28||8.2|-74.0|0.250
90829249|NCT02365649|181533417|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|28.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 28||28.6|-8.6|1.000
90829250|NCT02365649|181533417|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|44.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 36||44.8|-4.8|1.000
90829251|NCT02365649|181533417|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.6||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.2|33.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 36||33.1|-50.2|1.000
90829252|NCT02365649|181533417|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-13.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.2|45.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 36||45.5|-72.2|1.000
90829253|NCT02365649|181533417|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-46.7||||0.203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|12.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 44||12.2|-100.0|0.203
90829254|NCT02365649|181533417|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.6||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.2|33.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 44||33.1|-50.2|1.000
90829255|NCT02365649|181533417|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-13.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.2|45.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 44||45.5|-72.2|1.000
90829256|NCT02365649|181533417|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.7|68.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 52||68.0|-54.7|1.000
90829257|NCT02365649|181533417|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.4||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.8|56.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 52||56.6|-33.8|1.000
90829258|NCT02365649|181533417|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.7|68.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 52||68.0|-54.7|1.000
90891792|NCT01986881|181648621|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|2.73||||0.255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|7.45|||cLDA|The model had fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.||||7.45|-2.00|0.255
90829259|NCT02365649|181533417|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|33.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|86.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 20||86.7|-20.0|1.000
90829260|NCT02365649|181533417|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-16.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|70.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 20||70.8|-100.0|1.000
90829261|NCT02365649|181533417|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|33.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|86.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 20||86.7|-20.0|1.000
90829262|NCT02365649|181533417|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|33.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|86.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 28||86.7|-20.0|1.000
90829263|NCT02365649|181533417|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-16.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|70.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 28||70.8|-100.0|1.000
90829264|NCT02365649|181533417|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|33.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|86.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 28||86.7|-20.0|1.000
90829265|NCT02365649|181533417|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-33.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|42.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 36||42.1|-100.0|1.000
90829266|NCT02365649|181533417|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-16.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|70.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 36||70.8|-100.0|1.000
90829267|NCT02365649|181533417|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|33.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|86.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 36||86.7|-20.0|1.000
90829268|NCT02365649|181533417|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.4|75.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 44||75.4|-75.4|1.000
90829269|NCT02365649|181533417|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-16.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|70.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 44||70.8|-100.0|1.000
90829270|NCT02365649|181533417|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|33.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|86.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 44||86.7|-20.0|1.000
90829271|NCT02365649|181533417|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.4|75.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 52||75.4|-75.4|1.000
90829272|NCT02365649|181533417|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-33.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-86.7|20.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 52||20.0|-86.7|1.000
90829273|NCT02365649|181533417|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|66.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.3|100.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 52||100.0|13.3|1.000
90829274|NCT02365649|181533417|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.4||||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-31.2|44.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 20||44.0|-31.2|1.000
90829275|NCT02365649|181533417|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.3||||0.655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.6|28.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 20||28.1|-48.6|0.655
90829276|NCT02365649|181533417|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|23.1||||0.541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|46.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 20||46.0|0.2|0.541
90829277|NCT02365649|181533417|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.0|34.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 28||34.4|-37.0|1.000
90829278|NCT02365649|181533417|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-29.1||||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.0|8.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 28||8.9|-67.0|0.178
90829279|NCT02365649|181533417|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.4||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|35.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 28||35.0|-4.2|1.000
90829280|NCT02365649|181533417|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.4|33.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 36||33.9|-54.4|1.000
90829281|NCT02365649|181533417|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.3||||0.655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.6|28.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 36||28.1|-48.6|0.655
90829282|NCT02365649|181533417|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.9||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.1|46.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 36||46.3|-50.1|1.000
90829283|NCT02365649|181533417|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-26.9||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.0|19.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 44||19.2|-73.0|0.320
90829284|NCT02365649|181533417|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.3||||0.655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.6|28.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 44||28.1|-48.6|0.655
90829285|NCT02365649|181533417|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.9||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.1|46.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 44||46.3|-50.1|1.000
90829286|NCT02365649|181533417|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.8||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.2|44.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 52||44.5|-52.2|1.000
90829287|NCT02365649|181533417|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.6|44.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 52||44.0|-40.6|1.000
90829288|NCT02365649|181533417|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.2||||0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.2|71.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 52||71.5|-29.2|0.603
90829289|NCT02365649|181533418|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.4||||0.673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.6|56.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 20||56.5|-25.6|0.673
90829290|NCT02365649|181533418|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|19.6||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|53.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 20||53.3|-14.0|0.265
91016813|NCT01281475|181916946|SUPERIORITY|We modeled each outcome variable as a function of treatment (ie, levodopa versus placebo), visit (ie, baseline vs. 12-month follow-up) and the treatment-by-visit interaction; the interaction term tests whether the effect of levodopa treatment over time is significantly greater than that of the placebo group.||||||0.75||||||This was the calculated p value without correction for multiple comparisons|Generalized estimating equations|||We performed generalized estimating equations with an unstructured covariance matrix to account for inter-correlations within measurements on the same participant over time.||||0.75
91016814|NCT04611152|181916948|NON_INFERIORITY|The maximum clinically acceptable true difference between KSI-301 and aflibercept participants to be considered non-inferior is 4.5 ETDRS letters, i.e. the non-inferiority margin|Adjusted mean difference|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.4162|TWO_SIDED|95.04|-5.47|-2.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM model with treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization stratification factors, and continuous baseline BCVA and OCT CST.||||-2.17|-5.47|0.4162
91016815|NCT04611152|181916949|NON_INFERIORITY|"The maximum clinically acceptable non-inferiority margin between KSI-301 and aflibercept subjects is 10% to be considered non-inferior, i.e. the non-inferiority margin is 10%"|Difference of weighted percentages|0.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.04|-0.7|2.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haentzel test stratified by study identifier and randomization stratification variables.|Weighted percentages are based on weighted average of observed estimates across strata using CMH weights. The CI are based on the normal approximation to the binomial proportions.|||2|-0.7|<0.0001
91016816|NCT04611152|181916950|NON_INFERIORITY|"The maximum clinically acceptable non-inferiority margin between KSI-301 and aflibercept subjects is 10% to be considered non-inferior, i.e. the non-inferiority margin is 10%"|Difference of weighted percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.04|0.0|0.0|||||Weighted percentages are based on weighted average of observed estimates across strata using CMH weights. The CI are based on the normal approximation to the binomial proportions.|||0|0|
91016817|NCT02255422|181917048|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference (net)|-0.015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0446||0.7321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1051|0.0743||P-Value relates to difference in change in peak work from baseline relative to placebo for all doses pooled. Statistical significance was defined as p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Null hypothesis: wk 12 mean change from baseline (\[μ RTA 408\] - \[μ Placebo\]) in peak work = 0 w/kg. Positive change from baseline suggests improvement||Primary Objective: To evaluate the change in peak work during maximal exercise testing||0.0743|-0.1051|0.7321
91016818|NCT02255422|181917049|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference (net)|-33.448|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.6473||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.855|-10.042||P-value comparison is for difference in change in six minute walk distance from baseline within each dosage group relative to placebo. Statistical significance defined as p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The change from baseline in 6MWT was analyzed using the same MMRM model used for the primary efficacy endpoint. Analysis visits 0, 4, 8 and 12 used.||Secondary Objective: To evaluate the change in 6-minute walk test (6MWT) distance at Week 4||-10.042|-56.855|0.0060
91016819|NCT02255422|181917049|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference (net)|-3.963|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.53||0.7325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.133|19.207||Statistical significance was defined as p\<0.05. The p-value comparison is for the difference in change in 6MWD from baseline within each dosage group relative to placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|The change from baseline in 6MWT was analyzed using the same MMRM model used for the primary efficacy endpoint. Analysis visits 0, 4, 8 and 12 used.||Secondary Objective: To evaluate the change in 6-minute walk test (6MWT) distance at Week 8||19.207|-27.133|0.7325
90829291|NCT02365649|181533418|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.9||||0.695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.6|51.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 20||51.5|-25.6|0.695
90829292|NCT02365649|181533418|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-20.6||||0.394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.4|20.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 28||20.3|-61.4|0.394
90829293|NCT02365649|181533418|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.9||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.1|28.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 28||28.3|-36.1|1.000
90829294|NCT02365649|181533418|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.6||||0.683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.9|26.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 28||26.7|-47.9|0.683
90829295|NCT02365649|181533418|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|28.7||||0.205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|61.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 36||61.4|-4.1|0.205
90891793|NCT01986881|181648621|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|2.81||||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|7.48|||cLDA|The model had fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.||||7.48|-1.85|0.235
91016820|NCT02255422|181917049|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference (net)|-18.594|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.0004||0.221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.739|11.55||Statistical significance was defined as p\<0.05. The p-value comparison is for the difference in change in 6MWD from baseline within each dosage group relative to placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|The change from baseline in 6MWT was analyzed using the same MMRM model used for the primary efficacy endpoint. Analysis visits 0, 4, 8 and 12 used.||Secondary Objective: To evaluate the change in 6-minute walk test (6MWT) distance at Week 12||11.550|-48.739|0.2210
90829296|NCT02365649|181533418|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.5||||0.388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.9|46.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 36||46.9|-17.9|0.388
90829297|NCT02365649|181533418|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-28.8||||0.236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.6|8.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 36||8.0|-65.6|0.236
90829298|NCT02365649|181533418|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-9.6||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.6|31.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 44||31.5|-50.6|1.000
90829299|NCT02365649|181533418|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|26.3||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|58.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 44||58.9|-6.3|0.131
90829300|NCT02365649|181533418|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.1||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.6|31.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 44||31.5|-45.6|1.000
90829301|NCT02365649|181533418|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.3||||0.411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.6|62.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 52||62.2|-19.6|0.411
90829302|NCT02365649|181533418|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|32.2||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|64.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5). Prespecified statistical significance at the 0.1 level.|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 52||64.5|-0.2|0.067
90829303|NCT02365649|181533418|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.2||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.5|37.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 52||37.2|-39.5|1.000
90829304|NCT02365649|181533418|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|26.6||||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|62.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 20||62.0|-8.8|0.178
90829305|NCT02365649|181533418|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.7||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.8|12.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 20||12.3|-23.8|0.720
90829306|NCT02365649|181533418|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.9||||0.683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.2|11.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 20||11.5|-27.2|0.683
90891794|NCT01986881|181648622|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|1.98||||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|4.86|||cLDA model|Model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR, stratum (insulin alone or insulin + metformin), and the interaction of time by treatment.||||4.86|-0.91|0.178
91016821|NCT03222570|181917050|SUPERIORITY||Estimated mean difference|-0.88||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.56|4.7|||Regression, Linear||Mean difference estimated from fitting a linear regression model adjusting for baseline value of the measure.|||4.7|-6.56|0.76
91016822|NCT03222570|181917051|SUPERIORITY||Estimated mean difference|-2.52||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.42|2.3|||Regression, Linear||Mean difference estimated from fitting a linear regression model adjusting for baseline value of the measure.|||2.3|-7.42|0.32
91016823|NCT03179462|181917062|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91016824|NCT03743571|181917085|OTHER|We needed a total sample size of at least N = 24 to reach 80% power to detect a moderately large effect (Cohen's f = 0.3) for 2x2 interactions to determine whether scores differed across time (baseline vs follow up) for the two tDCS groups (anodal/active vs sham), and whether scores differed between audience type (matched vs unmatched) for the two tDCS groups (anodal/active vs sham).||||||0.42||||||Unadjusted. A priori threshold was set at p \< .05, two-tailed|ANOVA|tDCS (anodal vs sham) x Time (baseline vs follow-up) interaction: F(1,24) = 0.67, p = 0.42||We used a null hypothesis significance testing approach in our analyses. For performance on Behavioral Approach Tests (BATs), we completed 2 x 2 x 2 mixed factorial ANOVAs to evaluate the impact of tDCS groups (between-subjects variable; anodal/active vs sham), time (within subjects variable; baseline vs follow-up), and audience type (ethnicity primary matched vs unmatched to the participants' own identity) on outcome measures.||||.42
91079397|NCT01026818|182044374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|12.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.13||0.019||95.0|1.98|22.15||P-value is for Q3 - Month 9.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included terms for treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||22.15|1.98|0.019
91016825|NCT03743571|181917086|OTHER|We needed a total sample size of at least N = 24 to reach 80% power to detect a moderately large effect (Cohen's f = 0.3) for 2x2 interactions to determine whether scores differed across time (baseline vs follow up) for the two tDCS groups (anodal/active vs sham), and whether scores differed between audience type (matched vs unmatched) for the two tDCS groups (anodal/active vs sham).||||||0.88||||||Unadjusted. A priori threshold was set at p \< .05, two-tailed|ANOVA|tDCS (anodal vs sham) x Time (baseline vs follow-up) interaction: F(1,24) = 0.02, p = .88.||We used a null hypothesis significance testing approach in our analyses. For performance on Behavioral Approach Tests (BATs), we completed 2 x 2 x 2 mixed factorial ANOVAs to evaluate the impact of tDCS groups (between-subjects variable; anodal/active vs sham), time (within subjects variable; baseline vs follow-up), and audience type (ethnicity primary matched vs unmatched to the participants' own identity) on outcome measures.||||.88
91016826|NCT03743571|181917087|OTHER|We needed a total sample size of at least N = 24 to reach 80% power to detect a moderately large effect (Cohen's f = 0.3) for 2x2 interactions to determine whether scores differed across time (baseline vs follow up) for the two tDCS groups (anodal/active vs sham), and whether scores differed between audience type (matched vs unmatched) for the two tDCS groups (anodal/active vs sham).||||||0.17||||||Unadjusted. A priori threshold was set at p \< .05, two-tailed|ANOVA|tDCS (anodal vs sham) x Time (baseline vs follow-up) interaction: F(1,24) = 1.98, p = .17||We used a null hypothesis significance testing approach in our analyses. For performance on Behavioral Approach Tests (BATs), we completed 2 x 2 x 2 mixed factorial ANOVAs to evaluate the impact of tDCS groups (between-subjects variable; anodal/active vs sham), time (within subjects variable; baseline vs follow-up), and audience type (ethnicity primary matched vs unmatched to the participants' own identity) on outcome measures.||||.17
91016827|NCT03743571|181917088|OTHER|We needed a total sample size of at least N = 24 to reach 80% power to detect a moderately large effect (Cohen's f = 0.3) for 2x2 interactions to determine whether scores differed across time (baseline vs follow up) for the two tDCS groups (anodal/active vs sham), and whether scores differed between audience type (matched vs unmatched) for the two tDCS groups (anodal/active vs sham).||||||0.42||||||Unadjusted. A priori threshold was set at p \< .05, two-tailed|ANOVA|tDCS (anodal vs sham) x Time (baseline vs follow-up) interaction: F(1,24) = 0.67, p = 0.42.||We used a null hypothesis significance testing approach in our analyses. For performance on Behavioral Approach Tests (BATs), we completed 2 x 2 x 2 mixed factorial ANOVAs to evaluate the impact of tDCS groups (between-subjects variable; anodal/active vs sham), time (within subjects variable; baseline vs follow-up), and audience type (ethnicity primary matched vs unmatched to the participants' own identity) on outcome measures.||||.42
91016828|NCT03743571|181917089|OTHER|We needed a total sample size of at least N = 24 to reach 80% power to detect a moderately large effect (Cohen's f = 0.3) for 2x2 interactions to determine whether scores differed across time (baseline vs follow up) for the two tDCS groups (anodal/active vs sham), and whether scores differed between audience type (matched vs unmatched) for the two tDCS groups (anodal/active vs sham).||||||0.88||||||Unadjusted. A priori threshold was set at p \< .05, two-tailed|ANOVA|tDCS (anodal vs sham) x Time (baseline vs follow-up) interaction: F(1,24) = 0.02, p = .88.||We used a null hypothesis significance testing approach in our analyses. For performance on Behavioral Approach Tests (BATs), we completed 2 x 2 x 2 mixed factorial ANOVAs to evaluate the impact of tDCS groups (between-subjects variable; anodal/active vs sham), time (within subjects variable; baseline vs follow-up), and audience type (ethnicity primary matched vs unmatched to the participants' own identity) on outcome measures.||||.88
91016829|NCT03743571|181917090|OTHER|We needed a total sample size of at least N = 24 to reach 80% power to detect a moderately large effect (Cohen's f = 0.3) for 2x2 interactions to determine whether scores differed across time (baseline vs follow up) for the two tDCS groups (anodal/active vs sham), and whether scores differed between audience type (matched vs unmatched) for the two tDCS groups (anodal/active vs sham).||||||0.17||||||Unadjusted. A priori threshold was set at p \< .05, two-tailed|ANOVA|tDCS (anodal vs sham) x Time (baseline vs follow-up) interaction: F(1,24) = 1.98, p = .17.||We used a null hypothesis significance testing approach in our analyses. For performance on Behavioral Approach Tests (BATs), we completed 2 x 2 x 2 mixed factorial ANOVAs to evaluate the impact of tDCS groups (between-subjects variable; anodal/active vs sham), time (within subjects variable; baseline vs follow-up), and audience type (ethnicity primary matched vs unmatched to the participants' own identity) on outcome measures.||||.17
91016830|NCT03743571|181917091|OTHER|We needed a total sample size of at least N = 24 to reach 80% power to detect a moderately large effect (Cohen's f = 0.3) for 2x2 interactions to determine whether scores differed across time (baseline vs follow up) for the two tDCS groups (anodal/active vs sham).||||||0.67||||||Unadjusted. A priori threshold was set at p \< .05, two-tailed|ANOVA|tDCS (anodal vs sham) x Time (baseline vs follow-up) interaction: F(1,26) = 0.19, p = .67||We used a null hypothesis significance testing approach in our analyses. For performance on the questionnaires, we completed 2 x 2 mixed factorial ANOVAs to evaluate the impact of tDCS groups (between-subjects variable; anodal/active vs sham) and time (within subjects variable; baseline vs follow-up) on outcome measures.||||.67
91016831|NCT03743571|181917092|OTHER|We needed a total sample size of at least N = 24 to reach 80% power to detect a moderately large effect (Cohen's f = 0.3) for 2x2 interactions to determine whether scores differed across time (baseline vs follow up) for the two tDCS groups (anodal/active vs sham).||||||0.96||||||Unadjusted. A priori threshold was set at p \< .05, two-tailed|ANOVA|tDCS (anodal vs sham) x Time (baseline vs follow-up) interaction: F(1,26) \< .01, p = .96||We used a null hypothesis significance testing approach in our analyses. For performance on the questionnaires, we completed 2 x 2 mixed factorial ANOVAs to evaluate the impact of tDCS groups (between-subjects variable; anodal/active vs sham) and time (within subjects variable; baseline vs follow-up) on outcome measures.||||.96
91016832|NCT03743571|181917093|OTHER|We needed a total sample size of at least N = 24 to reach 80% power to detect a moderately large effect (Cohen's f = 0.3) for 2x2 interactions to determine whether scores differed across time (baseline vs follow up) for the two tDCS groups (anodal/active vs sham),||||||0.43||||||Unadjusted. A priori threshold was set at p \< .05, two-tailed|ANOVA|tDCS (anodal vs sham) x Time (baseline vs follow-up) interaction: F(1,26) = 0.65, p = .43||We used a null hypothesis significance testing approach in our analyses. For performance on the questionnaires, we completed 2 x 2 mixed factorial ANOVAs to evaluate the impact of tDCS groups (between-subjects variable; anodal/active vs sham) and time (within subjects variable; baseline vs follow-up) on outcome measures.||||.43
91016833|NCT04115488|181917099|EQUIVALENCE|Data was analyzed using a negative binomial model with a logarithmic link function and fixed effects for the treatment group and stratification factors. Equivalence was tested based 95% confidence interval.|Exponentiated Difference|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.397|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.613|0.944|||||Difference calculated as Tysabri minus PB006.|||0.944|-0.613|
91016834|NCT00972309|181917140|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.003
91016835|NCT05554471|181917177|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Hypothesis: the time to ambulation for the subjects using the MYNX CONTROL™ Venous VCD was significantly less than for those where manual compression was used.||||<0.001
91016836|NCT05554471|181917178|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hypothesis: the time to hemostasis for the MYNX CONTROL™ Venous VCD device is at least 5 minutes less than manual compression.||||<0.001
91016837|NCT05554471|181917180|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Hypothesis: The time to discharge eligibility for the subjects using the MYNX CONTROL™ Venous VCD was significantly less than for those where manual compression was used||||<0.001
90829307|NCT02365649|181533418|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|23.0||||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|58.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 28||58.9|-12.8|0.215
91016838|NCT00741026|181917190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0203|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-rank|||||||0.0203
91016839|NCT00741026|181917191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0105|||||||Wilcoxon Sign-rank|||||||0.0105
90829308|NCT02365649|181533418|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-12.3||||0.279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.4|5.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 28||5.8|-30.4|0.279
90829309|NCT02365649|181533418|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.4||||0.716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.2|15.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 28||15.4|-28.2|0.716
90829310|NCT02365649|181533418|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.2||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.5|21.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 36||21.1|-27.5|1.000
90829311|NCT02365649|181533418|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.2||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.5|7.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 36||7.1|-23.5|0.400
90829312|NCT02365649|181533418|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.6|21.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 36||21.0|-19.6|1.000
90829313|NCT02365649|181533418|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.9||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.2|38.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 44||38.0|-22.2|0.620
90891795|NCT01986881|181648622|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|1.73||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|4.58|||cLDA|Model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR, stratum (insulin alone or insulin + metformin), and the interaction of time by treatment.||||4.58|-1.11|0.230
91016840|NCT00741026|181917192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0166|||||||Wilcoxon Sign-rank|||||||0.0166
91016841|NCT00741026|181917193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0184|||||||Wilcoxon Sign-rank|||||||0.0184
91016842|NCT00741026|181917194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017|||||||Wilcoxon Sign-rank|||||||0.0170
91016843|NCT03309072|181917207|OTHER|To compare the old and new faces' hit rate, we calculated the true positive rate (TPR: the proportion of positives that are correctly identified as such). A repeated measures ANOVA was conducted with the TPR for both old and new faces as within-subjects variable and group (active vs sham) as between-subjects variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|10.66|||<|0.049|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA||Difference between active tDCS and sham tDCS|||||<.049
91016844|NCT01939834|181917254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91016845|NCT02712359|181917277|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference (Havrix 1 dose\_Year 8 Group minus Havrix 2 doses\_Year 8 Group) of percentage of subjects with anti-HAV antibody concentrations ≥ 15 mIU/mL was to be greater than or equal to the pre-defined clinical non-inferiority limit of -10%.|Difference in seropositivity rate|-23.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.78|-18.29|||Fisher Exact|||Difference in seropositivity rates for anti-HAV antibody: To demonstrate that 1-dose schedule of Havrix (Havrix 1 dose\_Year 8 Group) was non-inferior to the 2-dose schedule of Havrix (Havrix 2 doses\_Year 8 Group), in terms of seropositivity rates for anti-HAV antibody, measured by ELISA, approximately 8 years after the administration of the last vaccine dose.||-18.29|-28.78|<0.0001
91032317|NCT01706926|181949181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-5.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.237|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.12|-3.24|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including terms for treatment group, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|Analysis reported for change from baseline in swollen joint count at Day 169.||-3.24|-8.12|<0.001
91016846|NCT02712359|181917278|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference (Havrix 1 dose\_Year 10 Group minus Havrix 2 doses\_Year 10 Group) of percentage of subjects with anti-HAV antibody concentrations ≥ 15 mIU/mL was to be greater than or equal to the pre-defined clinical non-inferiority limit of -10%.|Difference in seropositivity rate|-24.43|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.11|-19.03|||Fisher Exact|||Difference in seropositivity rates for anti-HAV antibody: To demonstrate that 1-dose schedule of Havrix (Havrix 1 dose\_Year 10 Group) was non-inferior to the 2-dose schedule of Havrix (Havrix 2 doses\_Year 10 Group), in terms of seropositivity rates for anti-HAV antibody, measured by ELISA, approximately 10 years after the administration of the last vaccine dose.||-19.03|-30.11|<0.0001
91016847|NCT03126682|181917324|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.212||||||Threshold of \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.212
91016848|NCT01299272|181917332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.485|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.485
91016849|NCT00464308|181917361|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A sample size of 450 subjects per arm will give a 90% power (with a one-sided 95% confidence interval and a minimal clinically important difference of 9%) to demonstrate non-inferiority of rabeprazole 20mg to esomeprazole 40mg with respect to the number of patients with complete resolution of heartburn with or without regurgitation at week 4|Proportion difference|-0.11|||<|0.05||95.0||||Adjustment for multiple comparisons was not made. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. Tests were 2-sided except for the non-inferiority test which was 1-sided.|Non-inferiority||Assumed that the true resolution rates in the rab20 and eso40 groups would be 30% (0.3). Non inferiority was considered proven if the lower confidence interval of the one sided 95% CI of P(rab20)-P(e40) was above -9%|Primary endpoints were assessed using non-inferiority tests. See below.||||<0.05
91016850|NCT00464308|181917364|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size calculation was based upon the number of patients acheiveing complete resolution of HEARTBURN. A sample size of 450 subjects per arm will give a 90% power (with a one-sided 95% confidence interval and a minimal clinically important difference of 9%) to demonstrate non-inferiority of rabeprazole 20mg to esomeprazole 40mg with respect to the number of patients with complete resolution of heartburn with or without regurgitation at week 4|Proportion difference|-0.051|||<|0.05||95.0||||All statistical tests were interpreted at the 5% significance level (2-tailed).|non-inferiority||Non inferiority was considered proven if the lower confidence interval of the one sided 95% CI of P(rab20)-P(e40) was above -9%|Primary endpoints were assessed using non-inferiority tests. See below.||||<0.05
91016851|NCT00464308|181917365|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size calculation was based upon the number of patients acheiveing complete resolution of HEARTBURN. A sample size of 450 subjects per arm will give a 90% power (with a one-sided 95% confidence interval and a minimal clinically important difference of 9%) to demonstrate non-inferiority of rabeprazole 20mg to esomeprazole 40mg with respect to the number of patients with complete resolution of heartburn with or without regurgitation at week 4|Proportion difference|-0.053|||<|0.05||95.0||||Adjustment for multiple comparisons was not made. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. Tests were 2-sided except for the non-inferiority test which was 1-sided.|non-inferiority||Non inferiority was considered proven if the lower confidence interval of the one sided 95% CI of P(rab20)-P(e40) was above -9%|Primary endpoints were assessed using non-inferiority tests. See below.||||<0.05
91016852|NCT00464308|181917366|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size calculation was based upon the number of patients acheiveing complete resolution of HEARTBURN. A sample size of 450 subjects per arm will give a 90% power (with a one-sided 95% confidence interval and a minimal clinically important difference of 9%) to demonstrate non-inferiority of rabeprazole 20mg to esomeprazole 40mg with respect to the number of patients with complete resolution of heartburn with or without regurgitation at week 4|Proportion difference|-0.061|||<|0.05||95.0||||Adjustment for multiple comparisons was not made. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. Tests were 2-sided except for the non-inferiority test which was 1-sided.|non-inferiority||Non inferiority was considered proven if the lower confidence interval of the one sided 95% CI of P(rab20)-P(e40) was above -9%|Primary endpoints were assessed using non-inferiority tests. See below.||||<0.05
90829314|NCT02365649|181533418|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.2||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.5|7.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 44||7.1|-23.5|0.400
91016853|NCT03926728|181917388|OTHER|||||||1||||||Simple nonparametric statistical test.|Fisher Exact|||Comparison: Cohort A-C \[A1, A2, B1, B2, C1, C2\] vs D \[D1, D2\].||||1
91079398|NCT01026818|182044374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|2.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.02||0.621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.38|12.35||P-value is for Q3 - Month 9.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included terms for treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||12.35|-7.38|0.621
90829315|NCT02365649|181533418|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.7|14.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 44||14.2|-22.7|1.000
90829316|NCT02365649|181533418|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.7|26.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 52||26.6|-18.7|1.000
90829317|NCT02365649|181533418|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.0||||0.678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|19.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 52||19.6|-9.7|0.678
90891796|NCT01986881|181648623|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-31.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.68|-22.07|||CLDA|cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous), and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-22.07|-40.68|<0.001
91016854|NCT03926728|181917388|OTHER|||||||1||||||Simple nonparametric statistical test.|Fisher Exact|||Comparison: Cohort A-C \[A1, A2, B1, B2, C1, C2\] vs E \[E1, E2\].||||1
91016855|NCT03926728|181917388|OTHER|||||||0.0007|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison: Cohort A-C \[A1, A2, B1, B2, C1, C2\] vs F \[F1, F2\].||||0.0007
91016856|NCT03926728|181917391|OTHER|||||||1||||||Simple nonparametric statistical test.|Fisher Exact|||Comparison: Cohort B \[B1, B2\] vs A2.||||1
91016857|NCT03926728|181917391|OTHER|||||||0.3956|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison: Cohort B \[B1, B2\] vs F1.||||0.3956
91016858|NCT03926728|181917392|OTHER|||||||1||||||Simple nonparametric statistical test.|Fisher Exact|||Comparison: Cohort B \[B1, B2\] vs A2.||||1
91016859|NCT03926728|181917392|OTHER|||||||0.3956|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison: Cohort B \[B1, B2\] vs F1.||||0.3956
91016860|NCT03926728|181917394|OTHER|||||||1||||||Simple nonparametric statistical test.|Fisher Exact|||Comparison: Cohort A-C \[A1, A2, B1, B2, C1, C2\] vs D \[D1, D2\].||||1
91016861|NCT03926728|181917394|OTHER|||||||1||||||Simple nonparametric statistical test.|Fisher Exact|||Comparison: Cohort A-C \[A1, A2, B1, B2, C1, C2\] vs E \[E1, E2\].||||1
90829318|NCT02365649|181533418|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.9||||0.636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|26.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 52||26.2|-10.5|0.636
90829319|NCT02365649|181533418|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.4||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|52.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 20||52.5|-9.7|0.190
90829320|NCT02365649|181533418|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.0||||0.504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|35.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 20||35.3|-17.3|0.504
90829321|NCT02365649|181533418|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.6||||0.916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.8|31.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 20||31.0|-27.8|0.916
91016862|NCT03926728|181917394|OTHER|||||||0.3229|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison: Cohort A-C \[A1, A2, B1, B2, C1, C2\] vs F \[F1, F2\].||||0.3229
91016863|NCT01107834|181917416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test to detect differences between groups||||0.27
91016864|NCT01107834|181917417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test to detect differences between groups||||0.46
91016865|NCT01107834|181917418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test to detect differences between groups||||0.13
91016866|NCT01107834|181917419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test to detect differences between groups||||0.59
91016867|NCT01107834|181917420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test to detect differences between groups||||0.09
91016868|NCT01107834|181917421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test to detect differences between groups||||0.03
91016869|NCT03722849|181917422|OTHER||||||=|0.0028||||||No multiple comparisons as region of interest analysis defined a priori.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mann-Whitney U tests for non-parametric data||||=0.0028
91016870|NCT03722849|181917423|OTHER||||||=|0.007||||||No multiple comparisons as region of interest analysis defined a priori.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mann-Whitney U tests for non-parametric data||||=0.0070
91016871|NCT03722849|181917424|OTHER|Group comparisons (Cough versus healthy) for each measurement using repeated measures ANOVA.|||||=|0.0019|||||||ANOVA|with repeated measures||||||=0.0019
91016872|NCT03722849|181917426|OTHER|Group-wise comparisons using unpaired t-tests or one way ANOVA|||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91016873|NCT03993288|181917427|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was considered confirmed if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the mean value calculated by the least squares method did not exceed the predetermined boundary of non-inferiority of 5 g/L|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.24||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.86|4.38|||ANCOVA|||||4.38|-4.86|0.0032
91016874|NCT03533608|181917442|OTHER|Descriptive|Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.51|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91016875|NCT03533608|181917443|OTHER|Descriptive|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.04|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91016876|NCT00915473|181917444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.98
91016877|NCT00915473|181917445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Severe Migraine Frequency||||0.52
91016878|NCT00915473|181917445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||At least Moderate Migraine Frequency||||0.52
91016879|NCT00915473|181917445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||At Least Mild Migraine Frequency||||0.47
91016880|NCT00915473|181917446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.90
91016881|NCT00915473|181917447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.47
91016882|NCT01389024|181917448|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate ratio|0.216||||0.2914|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.009|1.66|||Poisson Regression||We calculated confidence intervals from exact Poisson regression.|||1.66|.009|0.2914
91016883|NCT00529802|181917477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.9||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|13.23|||t-test, 2 sided|Relative changes in tumor size were log-transformed to satisfy the normality assumption for the t-test.|Mean difference is the difference between Low and High SUV uptake groups in tumor size percent (%) change from baseline, and is reported on the raw scale. Tumor size changes were log-transformed for the t-test.|Relative changes in tumor size were log-transformed to satisfy the normality assumption.||13.23|-9.3|0.69
91079399|NCT01026818|182044374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.73||0.968||95.0|-11.03|11.49||P-value is for Q3 - Month 10.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included terms for treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||11.49|-11.03|0.968
91016884|NCT00529802|181917478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.0028|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00109||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.00063|0.004997|||Regression, Linear|Tumor size change (outcome variable) was log-transformed to satisfy the normality assumption.|Outcome was log(tumor size at 8 weeks/tumor size at baseline), and the predictor was the early change in aveSUVmax \[(aveSUVmax at 2 weeks - aveSUVmax at baseline)/aveSUVmax at baseline\] x 100%.|The relationship between early changes in SUV uptake (from baseline to 2 weeks) and tumor size changes (from baseline to 8 weeks) were examined using linear regression models. Tumor size change was log-transformed to satisfy the normality assumption.||0.004997|0.00063|0.013
91016885|NCT00367679|181917479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants with response|5.7||||||95.0|0.7|19.2|||||The estimated value given is the percentage of participants who had a response out of the total participants.|||19.2|0.7|
91016886|NCT00367679|181917480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants with response|8.6||||||95.0|1.8|23.1|||||The estimated value given is the percentage of participants who had a response out of the total participants.|||23.1|1.8|
91016887|NCT00367679|181917486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0028||95.0||||VEGF D|t-test, 2 sided|Post- versus pretreatment expression levels for each of the indicated genes in response to pazopanib treatment||||||0.0028
91016888|NCT00367679|181917486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0324||95.0||||VEGF A|t-test, 2 sided|Post- versus pretreatment expression levels for each of the indicated genes in response to pazopanib treatment||||||0.0324
91016889|NCT00367679|181917486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0082||95.0||||VEGFR-2|t-test, 2 sided|Post- versus pretreatment expression levels for each of the indicated genes in response to pazopanib treatment||||||0.0082
91016890|NCT00367679|181917486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0082||95.0||||c-KIT|t-test, 2 sided|Post- versus pretreatment expression levels for each of the indicated genes in response to pazopanib treatment||||||0.0082
91016891|NCT00367679|181917492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0||||Vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2 (VEGFR2)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Post- versus pretreatment change in levels of cytokines and angiogenic factors in response to pazopanib treatment||||||<0.01
91016892|NCT00367679|181917492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0||||Placental growth factor (PIGF)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Post- versus pretreatment change in levels of cytokines and angiogenic factors in response to pazopanib treatment||||||<0.01
91016893|NCT00367679|181917492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.00024||95.0||||Interferon-inducible cytokine (IP-10)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Post- versus pretreatment change in levels of cytokines and angiogenic factors in response to pazopanib treatment||||||0.00024
91016894|NCT00367679|181917492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0029||95.0||||Cutaneous T-cell attracting chemokine (CTACK)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Post- versus pretreatment change in levels of cytokines and angiogenic factors in response to pazopanib treatment||||||0.0029
91016895|NCT00367679|181917492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0062||95.0||||Stromal cell-derived factor 1 (SDF-1alpha)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Post- versus pretreatment change in levels of cytokines and angiogenic factors in response to pazopanib treatment||||||0.0062
91016896|NCT00367679|181917492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0069||95.0||||Monokine induced by interferon gamma (MIG)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Post- versus pretreatment change in levels of cytokines and angiogenic factors in response to pazopanib treatment||||||0.0069
91016897|NCT00367679|181917492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0093||95.0||||Tumor necrosis factor ligand (TRAIL)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Post- versus pretreatment change in levels of cytokines and angiogenic factors in response to pazopanib treatment||||||0.0093
91016898|NCT00367679|181917492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021||95.0||||Interferon alpha 2 (IFN-alpha2)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Post- versus pretreatment change in levels of cytokines and angiogenic factors in response to pazopanib treatment||||||0.021
91016899|NCT00367679|181917492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.326||95.0||||Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Post- versus pretreatment change in levels of cytokines and angiogenic factors in response to pazopanib treatment||||||0.326
91016900|NCT00366678|181917502|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-1.4|1.4||||||For Pertussis - PT the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at (≥5 EU/mL) threshold was calculated||1.4|-1.4|
91016901|NCT00366678|181917502|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|-0.7||||||95.0|-4.8|3.3||||||For Pertussis - PTf the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at (≥26.00 EU/mL) threshold was calculated||3.3|-4.8|
91016902|NCT00366678|181917502|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-1.4|1.4||||||For Pertussis - FHA the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at (≥5 EU/mL) threshold was calculated||1.4|-1.4|
91016903|NCT00366678|181917502|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|-2.3||||||95.0|-6.4|1.7||||||For Pertussis - FHAf the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at (≥36.00 EU/mL) threshold was calculated||1.7|-6.4|
91016904|NCT00366678|181917502|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-1.4|1.4||||||For Pertussis - FHA the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at (≥7.82 EU/mL) threshold was calculated||1.4|-1.4|
91016905|NCT00366678|181917502|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-1.7|2.7||||||For Pertussis - PT the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at (5 EU/mL) threshold was calculated||2.7|-1.7|
91016906|NCT00366678|181917502|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|2.1||||||95.0|-1.4|6.8||||||For Pertussis - PTf the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at (17.00 EU/mL) threshold was calculated||6.8|-1.4|
91016907|NCT00366678|181917502|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-1.7|2.7||||||For Pertussis - FHA the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at (5 EU/mL) threshold was calculated||2.7|-1.7|
91016908|NCT00366678|181917502|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-1.7|2.7||||||For Pertussis - FHA the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at (7.82 EU/mL) threshold was calculated||2.7|-1.7|
91016909|NCT00366678|181917502|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|-3.0||||||95.0|-8.0|2.5||||||For Pertussis - FHAf the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at (75.00 EU/mL) threshold was calculated||2.5|-8.0|
91016910|NCT00366678|181917502|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|-8.0||||||95.0|-14.9|-1.2||||||For Diphtheria the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.1 (IU/mL) threshold was calculated||-1.2|-14.9|
91016911|NCT00366678|181917502|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-1.4|1.4||||||For Diphtheria the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.01 (IU/mL) threshold was calculated||1.4|-1.4|
91016912|NCT00366678|181917502|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|2.7||||||95.0|-3.7|9.2||||||For Tetanus the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.1 (IU/mL) threshold was calculated||9.2|-3.7|
91016913|NCT00366678|181917502|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-1.5|1.5||||||For Tetanus the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.01 (IU/mL) threshold was calculated||1.5|-1.5|
91016914|NCT00366678|181917502|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|-0.8||||||95.0|-3.1|1.8||||||For Diphtheria the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.1 (IU/mL) threshold was calculated||1.8|-3.1|
91016915|NCT00366678|181917502|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-1.7|2.7||||||For Diphtheria the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.01 (IU/mL) threshold was calculated||2.7|-1.7|
91016916|NCT00366678|181917502|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|-2.3||||||95.0|-5.8|1.8||||||For Tetanus the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.1 (IU/mL) threshold was calculated||1.8|-5.8|
91016917|NCT00366678|181917502|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-1.7|2.7||||||For Tetanus the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.01 (IU/mL) threshold was calculated||2.7|-1.7|
91016918|NCT00366678|181917502|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|-2.3||||||95.0|-7.6|3.0||||||For Polio Type 1 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at (1:8) threshold was calculated||3.0|-7.6|
90829322|NCT02365649|181533418|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.7|31.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 28||31.7|-31.7|1.000
90891797|NCT01986881|181648623|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-30.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.23|-20.72|||cLDA|cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous), and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-20.72|-40.23|<0.001
91016919|NCT00366678|181917502|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|-4.3||||||95.0|-11.4|2.6||||||For Polio Type 2 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at (1:8) threshold was calculated||2.6|-11.4|
91016920|NCT00366678|181917502|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|-0.3||||||95.0|-5.0|4.3||||||For Polio Type 3 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at (1:8) threshold was calculated||4.3|-5.0|
91016921|NCT00366678|181917502|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|-0.5||||||95.0|-3.6|3.5||||||For Polio Type 1 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at (1:8) threshold was calculated||3.5|-3.6|
91016922|NCT00366678|181917502|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|-0.5||||||95.0|-3.1|3.0||||||For Polio Type 2 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at (1:8) threshold was calculated||3.0|-3.1|
91016923|NCT00366678|181917502|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|-0.8||||||95.0|-3.1|1.9||||||For Polio Type 3 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at (1:8) threshold was calculated||1.9|-3.1|
91016924|NCT00366678|181917502|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.9||||||95.0|-3.2|5.0||||||For Hib (PRP) the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.15 (μg/mL) threshold was calculated||5.0|-3.2|
91079400|NCT01026818|182044374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|-5.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.62||0.327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.55|5.54||P-value is for Q3 - Month 10.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included terms for treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||5.54|-16.55|0.327
91079401|NCT01026818|182044374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|11.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.32||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|24.09||P-value is for Q3 - Month 13.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included terms for treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||24.09|-0.76|0.066
91079402|NCT01026818|182044374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|5.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.23||0.415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.17|17.34||P-value is for Q3 - Month 13.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included terms for treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||17.34|-7.17|0.415
91079403|NCT01026818|182044374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|11.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.61||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.79|20.94||P-value is for Q4 - Month 9.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included terms for treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||20.94|2.79|0.011
91079404|NCT01026818|182044374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|3.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.51||0.394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.03|12.72||P-value is for Q4 - Month 9.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included terms for treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||12.72|-5.03|0.394
91079405|NCT01026818|182044374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|-1.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.75||0.684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.28|7.41||P-value is for Q4 - Month 10.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included terms for treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||7.41|-11.28|0.684
91079406|NCT01026818|182044374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|-7.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.66||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|2.02||P-value is for Q4 - Month 10.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included terms for treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||2.02|-16.30|0.126
91079407|NCT01026818|182044374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|11.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.13||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|23.57||P-value is for Q4 - Month 13.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included terms for treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||23.57|-0.53|0.061
90829323|NCT02365649|181533418|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-9.0||||0.504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.3|17.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 28||17.3|-35.3|0.504
90829324|NCT02365649|181533418|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.1||||0.635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.6|22.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 28||22.3|-36.6|0.635
90829325|NCT02365649|181533418|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.7||||0.513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.1|42.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 36||42.5|-21.1|0.513
90891798|NCT01986881|181648624|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-1.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.65|-1.24|||cLDA|Model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous), and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-1.24|-2.65|<0.001
90891799|NCT01986881|181648624|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-1.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.84|||cLDA|Model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous), and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-0.84|-2.30|<0.001
91079408|NCT01026818|182044374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|5.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.05||0.403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.83|16.95||P-value is for Q4 - Month13.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included terms for treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||16.95|-6.83|0.403
91079409|NCT01026818|182044374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|11.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.58||0.013||95.0|2.38|20.38||P-value is for Q5 - Month 9.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included terms for treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||20.38|2.38|0.013
91079410|NCT01026818|182044374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|3.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.47||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.11|12.49||P-value is for Q5 - Month 9.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included terms for treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||12.49|-5.11|0.410
91079411|NCT01026818|182044374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|-2.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.61||0.537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.92|6.22||P-value is for Q5 - Month 10.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included terms for treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||6.22|-11.92|0.537
91079412|NCT01026818|182044374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|-8.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.52||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.48|0.3||P-value is for Q5 - Month 10.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included terms for treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||0.30|-17.48|0.058
91079413|NCT01026818|182044374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|11.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.09||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|23.41||P-value is for Q5 - Month 13.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included terms for treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||23.41|-0.54|0.061
91079414|NCT01026818|182044374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|5.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.01||0.353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.23|17.4||P-value is for Q5 - Month 13.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included terms for treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||17.40|-6.23|0.353
91079415|NCT01026818|182044375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|-5.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.66||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.32|2.08|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included treatment, baseline, age group, and country.||||2.08|-12.32|0.162
91079416|NCT01026818|182044375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|-1.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.61||0.603||95.0|-8.99|5.24|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included treatment, baseline, age group, and country.||||5.24|-8.99|0.603
91079417|NCT01026818|182044379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|3.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7||0.196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|8.8||P-value is for Urinary Incontinence - Month 9.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||8.80|-1.82|0.196
91079418|NCT01026818|182044379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.65||0.841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.69|5.75||P-value is for Urinary Incontinence - Month 9.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||5.75|-4.69|0.841
91079419|NCT01026818|182044379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|1.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.76||0.474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.45|7.4||P-value is for Urinary Incontinence - Month 13.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||7.40|-3.45|0.474
91079420|NCT01026818|182044379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7||0.971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.21|5.41||P-value is for Urinary Incontinence - Month 13.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||5.41|-5.21|0.971
91079421|NCT01026818|182044379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|1.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32||0.236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|4.17||P-value is for Urinary Irritative/Obstructive - Month 9.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||4.17|-1.03|0.236
91079422|NCT01026818|182044379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29||0.429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|3.56||P-value is for Urinary Irritative/Obstructive - Month 9.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||3.56|-1.52|0.429
91079423|NCT01026818|182044379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|1.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36||0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|4.24||P-value is for Urinary Irritative/Obstructive - Month 13.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||4.24|-1.12|0.252
91079424|NCT01026818|182044379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|1.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|4.11||P-value is for Urinary Irritative/Obstructive - Month 13.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||4.11|-1.08|0.251
90829326|NCT02365649|181533418|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.7||||0.898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.7|28.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 36||28.1|-24.7|0.898
91079425|NCT01026818|182044379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.27||0.671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.03|1.95||P-value is for Bowel - Month 9.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||1.95|-3.03|0.671
91079426|NCT01026818|182044379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.24||0.868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.64|2.23||P-value is for Bowel - Month 9.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||2.23|-2.64|0.868
91079427|NCT01026818|182044379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25||0.938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.37|2.57||P-value is for Bowel - Month 13.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||2.57|-2.37|0.938
91079428|NCT01026818|182044379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.22||0.813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.69|2.12||P-value is for Bowel - Month 13.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||2.12|-2.69|0.813
91079429|NCT01026818|182044379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|9.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.28||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|15.99||P-value is for Sexual - Month 9.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||15.99|3.10|0.004
91079430|NCT01026818|182044379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|2.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.21||0.403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.63|9.0||P-value is for Sexual - Month 9.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||9.00|-3.63|0.403
91079431|NCT01026818|182044379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|3.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.82||0.406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.34|10.69||P-value is for Sexual - Month 13.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||10.69|-4.34|0.406
91079432|NCT01026818|182044379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.72||0.832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.11|6.53||P-value is for Sexual - Month 13.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||6.53|-8.11|0.832
91079433|NCT01026818|182044379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.47||0.197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|4.79||P-value is for Hormonal - Month 9.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||4.79|-0.99|0.197
91079434|NCT01026818|182044379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|2.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.44||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|5.72||P-value is for Hormonal - Month 9.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||5.72|0.06|0.045
91079435|NCT01026818|182044379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.34||0.692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.16|2.1||P-value is for Hormonal - Month 13.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||2.10|-3.16|0.692
91079436|NCT01026818|182044379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.65|2.46||P-value is for Hormonal - Month 13.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||2.46|-2.65|0.943
91079437|NCT01026818|182044380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.89||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|7.93||P-value is for length.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline, age group and country.||||7.93|0.47|0.028
91079438|NCT01026818|182044380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|-1.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.87||0.413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|2.14||P-value is for length.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline, age group and country.||||2.14|-5.20|0.413
91079439|NCT01026818|182044380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|2.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.49||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|5.3||P-value is for girth.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline, age group and country.||||5.30|-0.55|0.112
91079440|NCT01026818|182044380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|3.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.46||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|6.03||P-value is for girth.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline, age group and country.||||6.03|0.29|0.031
91079441|NCT00424593|182044384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0||||Model included treatment, non-steriodal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) use (Yes/No), investigator, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline pain severity, and baseline-by-visit interaction.|Repeated Measures Analysis|||||||0.004
91079442|NCT00424593|182044385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.014
91079443|NCT00424593|182044386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0||||P-value is for 13 Week Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.009
91079444|NCT00424593|182044387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-value for Average Pain Score Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.002
90829327|NCT02365649|181533418|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-13.1||||0.379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.7|15.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 36||15.5|-41.7|0.379
91079445|NCT00424593|182044387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014||95.0||||P-value for Worst Pain Score Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.014
91079446|NCT00424593|182044387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0||||P-value for Night Pain Score Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.007
91079447|NCT00424593|182044388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011||95.0||||P-value for Worst Pain Score Week 13 Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.011
91079448|NCT00424593|182044388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||P-value for Least Pain Score Week 13 Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.001
91079449|NCT00424593|182044388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019||95.0||||P-value for Average Pain Score Week 13 Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.019
91079450|NCT00424593|182044388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-value for Pain Right Now Score Week 13 Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.002
91079451|NCT00424593|182044388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.068||95.0||||P-value for General Activity Week 13 Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.068
91079452|NCT00424593|182044388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0||||P-value for Mood Week 13 Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.009
91079453|NCT00424593|182044388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0||||P-value for Walking Ability Week 13 Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.006
91079454|NCT00424593|182044388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024||95.0||||P-value for Normal Work Week 13 Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.024
91079455|NCT00424593|182044388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||P-value for Relations With People Week 13 Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.005
91079456|NCT00424593|182044388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.051||95.0||||P-value for Sleep Week 13 Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.051
91079457|NCT00424593|182044388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013||95.0||||P-value for Enjoyment of Life Week 13 Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.013
91079458|NCT00424593|182044388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||P-value for Average Interference Week 13 Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.005
91079459|NCT00424593|182044389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.092||95.0||||P-value for Week 13 Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.092
91079460|NCT00424593|182044390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.060
91079461|NCT00424593|182044391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.087||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.087
91079462|NCT00424593|182044392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.329||95.0||||P-value for Week 13 Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.329
91079463|NCT00424593|182044393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.051||95.0||||P-value for Mental Component Summary Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.051
91079464|NCT00424593|182044393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22||95.0||||P-value for Physical Component Summary Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.220
91079465|NCT00424593|182044393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038||95.0||||P-value for Bodily Pain Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.038
91079466|NCT00424593|182044393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.041||95.0||||P-value for General Health Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.041
91079467|NCT00424593|182044393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.093||95.0||||P-value for Mental Health Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.093
91079468|NCT00424593|182044393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21||95.0||||P-value for Physical Functioning Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.210
91079469|NCT00424593|182044393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17||95.0||||P-value for Role-Emotional Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.170
91079470|NCT00424593|182044393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.306||95.0||||P-value for Role-Physical Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.306
91079471|NCT00424593|182044393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.053||95.0||||P-value for Social Functioning Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.053
91079472|NCT00424593|182044393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0||||P-value for Vitality Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.040
91079473|NCT00424593|182044394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.117||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.117
91079474|NCT00424593|182044395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.063||95.0||||P-value for Absenteeism Week 13 Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.063
91079475|NCT00424593|182044395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.452||95.0||||P-value for Presenteeism Week 13 Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.452
91079476|NCT00424593|182044395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.736||95.0||||P-value for Work Productivity Loss Week 13 Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.736
91079477|NCT00424593|182044395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-value for Work Activity Impairment Week 13 Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.002
91079478|NCT00424593|182044396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.177||95.0||||P-value for Week 13 Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.177
91079479|NCT00424593|182044397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.122||95.0||||P-value for Anxiety Subscale Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.122
91079480|NCT00424593|182044397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.262||95.0||||P-value for Depression Subscale Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.262
91079481|NCT00424593|182044398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.046||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline.|ANOVA|ANOVA based on rank transformation.||||||0.046
90829328|NCT02365649|181533418|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.6||||0.822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.5|27.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 44||27.4|-34.5|0.822
90954205|NCT00734591|181786772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Exact method|3.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|20.68|||||Incidence density ratio confidence interval derived from exact methods utilizing exact binomial limits and ratio of exposures.|||20.68|1.01|
91079482|NCT00424593|182044399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline.|ANOVA|ANOVA based on rank transformation.||||||0.008
91079483|NCT00424593|182044400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028||95.0||||P-value for Week 13 Change from Baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.028
91079484|NCT00424593|182044401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.764||95.0||||P-value for SBP Week 13 Change from Baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.764
91079485|NCT00424593|182044401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.093||95.0||||P-value for DBP Week 13 Change from Baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.093
91079486|NCT00424593|182044402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0||||P-value for Week 13 Change from Baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.008
91079487|NCT00571103|182044438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Slope|-0.985|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.158||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.0|||Linear mixed effects|||||1|-1|0.05
91079488|NCT02368886|182044439|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.17||||0.0434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.34||1-sided|Fisher Exact|||||0.34|0.00|0.0434
91079489|NCT02368886|182044440|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.1241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.1|||Log Rank|||||1.10|0.47|0.1241
91079490|NCT02368886|182044441|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.3797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.24|||Log Rank|||||1.24|0.57|0.3797
91079491|NCT02368886|182044442|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.4614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.31|||Log Rank|||||1.31|0.55|0.4614
91079492|NCT02368886|182044447|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7319|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.7319
91079493|NCT04278924|182044458|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|43.59|||=|0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|73.35|||Barnard's test||95% confidence interval (CI) of the difference in percentage was calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen method.|||73.35|0.81|=0.056
91079494|NCT04278924|182044458|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|39.42|||=|0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.24|71.38|||Barnard's test||95% CI of the difference in percentage was calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen method.|||71.38|-4.24|=0.088
91079495|NCT04278924|182044458|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|67.83|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.21|87.29|||Barnard's test||95% CI of the difference in percentage was calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen method.|||87.29|29.21|=0.001
91079496|NCT04278924|182044459|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|55.56|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.11|81.51|||Barnard's test||95% CI of the difference in percentage was calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen method.|||81.51|25.11|=0.001
91079497|NCT04278924|182044459|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|50.0|||=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.63|78.95|||Barnard's test||95% CI of the difference in percentage was calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen method.|||78.95|19.63|=0.004
91079498|NCT04278924|182044459|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|81.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.24|94.99|||Barnard's test||95% CI of the difference in percentage was calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen method.|||94.99|51.24|<0.001
91079499|NCT04278924|182044460|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|35.9|||=|0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.22|67.75|||Barnard's test||95% CI of the difference in percentage was calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen method.|||67.75|-7.22|=0.120
91079500|NCT04278924|182044460|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|44.23|||=|0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|73.77|||Barnard's test||95% CI of the difference in percentage was calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen method.|||73.77|-0.83|=0.060
91079501|NCT04278924|182044460|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|60.14|||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.33|82.42|||Barnard's test||95% CI of the difference in percentage was calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen method.|||82.42|21.33|=0.003
91079502|NCT04278924|182044461|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|40.0|||=|0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.28|78.17|||Barnard's test||95% CI of the difference in percentage was calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen method.|||78.17|-16.28|=0.187
91079503|NCT04278924|182044461|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|25.0|||=|0.315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.85|71.78|||Barnard's test||95% CI of the difference in percentage was calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen method.|||71.78|-28.85|=0.315
91079504|NCT04278924|182044461|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|100.0|||=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.12|100.0|||Barnard's test||95% CI of the difference in percentage was calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen method.|||100.00|35.12|=0.004
91079505|NCT04767529|182044462|SUPERIORITY||percent difference|22.6||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|41.4||Threshold for significance set at p\<0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for stratification factors was used for comparison between the EFX 28 mg and placebo group|% difference from placebo (efruxifermin 28 mg - placebo)|Comparison between proportion of participants in efruxifermin 28 mg group who met the primary endpoint vs the placebo group||41.4|3.8|0.025
91079506|NCT04767529|182044462|SUPERIORITY||percent difference|22.5||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|43.3||Threshold for significance was p\<0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for stratification factors is used for comparison between the EFX 50 mg and placebo group|% difference from placebo (efruxifermin 50 mg - placebo)|Comparison between proportion of participants in efruxifermin 50 mg group who met the primary endpoint vs the placebo group||43.3|1.6|0.036
91079507|NCT04767529|182044463|SUPERIORITY||percent difference|21.8||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|45.0||Threshold for significance set at p\<0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for stratification factors was used for comparisons between the efruxifermin 28 mg and placebo group||||45.0|-1.3|0.070
91079508|NCT04767529|182044463|SUPERIORITY||percent difference|51.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.2|72.7||Threshold for significance set at p\<0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for stratification factors was used for comparisons between the efruxifermin 50 mg and placebo group||Week 96||72.7|31.2|<0.001
91079509|NCT04767529|182044464|SUPERIORITY||percent difference|31.9||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.9|50.9||Threshold for significance set at p\<0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for stratification factors was used for comparison between the efruxifermin 28 mg and placebo group||Week 24||50.9|12.9|0.002
91079510|NCT04767529|182044464|SUPERIORITY||percent difference|61.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.1|79.4||Threshold for significance set at p\<0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for stratification factors was used for comparisons between the efruxifermin 50 mg and placebo groups||Week 24||79.4|44.1|<0.001
91079511|NCT04767529|182044464|SUPERIORITY||percent difference|38.9||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.2|60.7||Threshold for significance set at p\<0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for stratification factors was used for comparisons between efruxifermin 28 mg and placebo groups||Week 96||60.7|17.2|0.002
91079512|NCT04767529|182044464|SUPERIORITY||percent difference|33.2||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.5|55.8||Threshold for significance set at p\<0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for stratification factors was used for comparisons between the efruxifermin 50 mg and placebo group||Week 96||55.8|10.5|0.006
91079513|NCT04767529|182044465|SUPERIORITY||percent difference|20.0||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|39.5||Threshold for significance set at p\<0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for stratification factors was used for comparisons between the efruxifermin 28 mg and placebo group||Week 24||39.5|0.4|0.053
90829329|NCT02365649|181533418|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.9||||0.508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|35.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 44||35.0|-17.3|0.508
91079514|NCT04767529|182044465|SUPERIORITY||percent difference|19.9||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|41.2||Threshold for statistical significance set at p\<0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for stratification factors was used for comparisons between the efruxifermin 50 mg and placebo groups||Week 24||41.2|-1.5|0.069
91079515|NCT04767529|182044465|SUPERIORITY||percent difference|19.0||||0.123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|42.8||Threshold for significance set at p\<0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for stratification factors was used for comparisons between the efruxifermin 28 mg and placebo groups||Week 96||42.8|-4.8|0.123
90905049|NCT02886728|181677436|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|2.4||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|4.5||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2||4.5|0.3|0.018
91079516|NCT04767529|182044465|SUPERIORITY||percent difference|49.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.7|70.2||Threshold for significance set at p\<0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for stratification factors was used for comparisons between the efruxifermin 50 mg and placebo groups||Week 96||70.2|27.7|<0.001
91079517|NCT04767529|182044466|SUPERIORITY|Week 24|Mean Difference (Net)|-6.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.09|-4.71||Threshold for significance set at p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM: fixed effects of treatment, stratification factors, post-baseline visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline as covariate for comparison||Percent change from baseline in hepatic fat fraction between the EFX 28 mg and placebo groups||-4.71|-9.09|<0.001
91079518|NCT04767529|182044466|SUPERIORITY|Week 24|Mean Difference (Net)|-9.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.47|-7.02||Threshold for significance set at p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM:fixed effects of treatment, stratification factors, post-baseline visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline as covariates for comparison||Percent change from baseline in hepatic fat fraction between the EFX 50 mg and placebo groups||-7.02|-11.47|<0.001
91079519|NCT04767529|182044466|SUPERIORITY|Week 96|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.31||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.39|-1.18||Threshold for significance set at p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM:fixed effects of treatment, stratification factors, post-baseline visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline as covariates for comparison||Percent change from baseline in hepatic fat fraction between the EFX 28 mg and placebo groups||-1.18|-6.39|0.005
91079520|NCT04767529|182044466|SUPERIORITY|Week 96|Mean Difference (Net)|-5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.38|-3.25||Threshold for significance set at p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM:fixed effects of treatment, stratification factors, post-baseline visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline as covariates for comparison||Percent change from baseline in hepatic fat fraction between the EFX 50 mg and placebo groups||-3.25|-8.38|<0.001
91079521|NCT04767529|182044467|SUPERIORITY|Week 24|Mean Difference (Net)|-51.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.86|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.17|-32.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment comparison of least squares (LS) mean change from baseline (EFX 28 mg - placebo) in triglycerides (mg/dL)||-32.11|-71.17|<0.001
91079522|NCT04767529|182044467|SUPERIORITY|Week 24|Mean Difference (Net)|-55.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.83|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.63|-35.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment comparison of least squares (LS) mean change from baseline (EFX 50 mg - placebo) in triglycerides (mg/dL)||-35.71|-74.63|<0.001
91079523|NCT04767529|182044467|SUPERIORITY|Week 96|Mean Difference (Net)|-43.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.48|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.73|-20.27||Threshold for significance set at p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||LS Means and differences, SEs, and p-values are from a MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, stratification factors, post-baseline visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline as a covariate for comparisons between the EFX and placebo group|Treatment comparison of least squares (LS) mean change from baseline (EFX 28 mg - placebo) in triglycerides (mg/dL)||-20.27|-65.73|<0.001
91079524|NCT04767529|182044467|SUPERIORITY|Week 96|Mean Difference (Net)|-47.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.39|-25.24||Threshold for significance set at p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||LS Means and differences, SEs, and p-values are from a MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, stratification factors, post-baseline visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline as a covariate for comparisons between the EFX and placebo group|Treatment comparison of LS mean change from baseline (EFX 50 mg - placebo) in triglycerides (mg/dL)||-25.24|-70.39|<0.001
91079525|NCT04767529|182044467|SUPERIORITY|Week 24|Mean Difference (Net)|11.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.58|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.92|14.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment comparison of LS mean change from baseline (EFX 28 mg - placebo) in HDL cholesterol (mg/dL)||14.17|7.92|<0.001
91079526|NCT04767529|182044467|SUPERIORITY|Week 24|Mean Difference (Net)|12.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.57|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.35|15.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment comparison of LS mean change from baseline (EFX 50 mg - placebo) in HDL cholesterol (mg/dL)||15.57|9.35|<0.001
91079527|NCT04767529|182044467|SUPERIORITY|Week 96|Mean Difference (Net)|6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.12||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.84|10.23||Threshold for significance set at p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||LS Means and differences, SEs, and p-values are from a MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, stratification factors, post-baseline visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline as a covariate for comparisons between the EFX and placebo group|Treatment comparison of LS mean change from baseline (EFX 28 mg - placebo) in HDL cholesterol (mg/dL)||10.23|1.84|0.005
91079528|NCT04767529|182044467|SUPERIORITY|Week 96|Mean Difference (Net)|9.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.11|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|13.65||Threshold for significance set at p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||LS Means and differences, SEs, and p-values are from a MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, stratification factors, post-baseline visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline as a covariate for comparisons between the EFX and placebo group|Treatment comparison of LS mean change from baseline (EFX 50 mg - placebo) in HDL cholesterol (mg/dL)||13.65|5.30|<0.001
91079529|NCT04767529|182044467|SUPERIORITY|Week 24|Mean Difference (Net)|-14.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.99||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.28|-4.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment comparison of change from baseline (EFX 28 mg - placebo) in LDL cholesterol (mg/dL)||-4.53|-24.28|0.005
91079530|NCT04767529|182044467|SUPERIORITY|Week 24|Median Difference (Net)|-13.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.98||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.5|-3.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment comparison of LS mean change from baseline (EFX 50 mg - placebo) in LDL cholesterol (mg/dL)||-3.76|-23.50|0.007
91016925|NCT00366678|181917502|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|-4.5||||||95.0|-13.2|4.4||||||For Hib (PRP) the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 1.0 (μg/mL) threshold was calculated||4.4|-13.2|
91016926|NCT00366678|181917502|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-1.7|2.8||||||For Hib (PRP) the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.15 (μg/mL) threshold was calculated||2.8|-1.7|
91016927|NCT00366678|181917502|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.2||||||95.0|-3.1|4.5||||||For Hib (PRP) the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 1.0 (μg/mL) threshold was calculated||4.5|-3.1|
91016928|NCT00366678|181917503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-1.7|2.9||||||For serotype 4 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC Infant Series / 13vPnC Toddler Dose - 7vPnC Infant Series / 7vPnC Toddler Dose) was calculated||2.9|-1.7|
91016929|NCT00366678|181917503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.9||||||95.0|-0.9|4.9||||||For serotype 4 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC Infant Series / 13vPnC Toddler Dose - 7vPnC Infant Series / 13vPnC Toddler Dose) was calculated||4.9|-0.9|
91016930|NCT00366678|181917503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-0.9||||||95.0|-4.9|2.1||||||For serotype 4 the difference in percentages between the two groups (7vPnC Infant Series / 13vPnC Toddler Dose - 7vPnC Infant Series / 7vPnC Toddler Dose) was calculated||2.1|-4.9|
91016931|NCT00366678|181917503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.4||||||95.0|-1.8|3.8||||||For serotype 6B the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC Infant Series / 13vPnC Toddler Dose - 7vPnC Infant Series / 7vPnC Toddler Dose) was calculated||3.8|-1.8|
91016932|NCT00366678|181917503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|1.4||||||95.0|-1.1|5.9||||||For serotype 6B the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC Infant Series / 13vPnC Toddler Dose - 7vPnC Infant Series / 13vPnC Toddler Dose) was calculated||5.9|-1.1|
91016933|NCT00366678|181917503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-1.1||||||95.0|-5.8|2.7||||||For serotype 6B the difference in percentages between the two groups (7vPnC Infant Series / 13vPnC Toddler Dose - 7vPnC Infant Series / 7vPnC Toddler Dose) was calculated||2.7|-5.8|
91016934|NCT00366678|181917503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-1.7|2.9||||||For serotype 9V the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC Infant Series / 13vPnC Toddler Dose - 7vPnC Infant Series / 7vPnC Toddler Dose) was calculated||2.9|-1.7|
91016935|NCT00366678|181917503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-1.8|3.3||||||For serotype 9V the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC Infant Series / 13vPnC Toddler Dose - 7vPnC Infant Series / 13vPnC Toddler Dose) was calculated||3.3|-1.8|
91079531|NCT04767529|182044467|SUPERIORITY|Week 96|Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.04||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.86|14.04||Threshold for significance set at p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||LS Means and differences, SEs, and p-values are from a MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, stratification factors, post-baseline visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline as a covariate for comparisons between the EFX and placebo group|Treatment comparison of change from baseline (EFX 28 mg - placebo) in LDL cholesterol (mg/dL)||14.04|-13.86|0.990
91079532|NCT04767529|182044467|SUPERIORITY|Week 96|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.01||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.07|13.71||Threshold for significance set at p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||LS Means and differences, SEs, and p-values are from a MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, stratification factors, post-baseline visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline as a covariate for comparisons between the EFX and placebo group|Treatment comparison of LS mean change from baseline (EFX 50 mg - placebo) in LDL cholesterol (mg/dL)||13.71|-14.07|0.980
91079533|NCT04767529|182044467|SUPERIORITY|Week 24|Mean Difference (Net)|-22.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.52|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.58|-11.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment comparison of LS mean change from baseline (EFX 28 mg - placebo) in non-HDL cholesterol (mg/dL)||-11.71|-33.58|<0.001
91079534|NCT04767529|182044467|SUPERIORITY|Week 24|Mean Difference (Net)|-22.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.51|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.56|-11.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment comparison of LS mean change from baseline (EFX 50mg - placebo) in non-HDL cholesterol (mg/dL)||-11.74|-33.56|<0.001
91079535|NCT04767529|182044467|SUPERIORITY|Week 96|Mean Difference (Net)|-6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.9||0.443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.72|9.56||Threshold for significance set at p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||LS Means and differences, SEs, and p-values are from a MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, stratification factors, post-baseline visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline as a covariate for comparisons between the EFX and placebo group|Treatment comparison of LS mean change from baseline (EFX 28 mg - placebo) in non-HDL cholesterol (mg/dL)||9.56|-21.72|0.443
91079536|NCT04767529|182044467|SUPERIORITY|Week 96|Mean Difference (Net)|-8.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.86||0.299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.77|7.36||Threshold for significance set at p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||LS Means and differences, SEs, and p-values are from a MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, stratification factors, post-baseline visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline as a covariate for comparisons between the EFX and placebo group|Treatment comparison of LS mean change from baseline (EFX 50 mg - placebo) in non-HDL cholesterol (mg/dL)||7.36|-23.77|0.299
91079537|NCT04767529|182044476|SUPERIORITY|Week 24|Mean Difference (Net)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|2.72||Threshold for significance set at p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment comparison of LS mean change from baseline (EFX 28 mg - placebo) in body weight (kg)||2.72|-1.96|0.750
91079538|NCT04767529|182044476|SUPERIORITY|Week 24|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.75|-0.09||Threshold for significance set at p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment comparison of LS mean change from baseline (EFX 50 mg - placebo) in body weight (kg)||-0.09|-4.75|0.042
91079539|NCT04767529|182044476|SUPERIORITY|Week 96|Mean Difference (Net)|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.07||0.564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|5.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment comparison of LS mean change from baseline (28 mg EFX - placebo) in body weight (kg)||5.29|-2.90|0.564
91079540|NCT04767529|182044476|SUPERIORITY|Week 96|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.06||0.348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.02|2.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment comparison of LS mean change from baseline (EFX 50 mg - placebo) in body weight (kg)||2.14|-6.02|0.348
91079541|NCT04767529|182044477|SUPERIORITY|Week 24|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.24||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment comparison of change from baseline (EFX 28 mg - placebo) in Liver Stiffness Measurement (kPa)||0.4|-4.5|0.102
91079542|NCT04767529|182044477|SUPERIORITY|Week 24|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|-0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment comparison of change from baseline (EFX 50 mg - placebo) in Liver Stiffness Measurement (kPa)||-0.8|-5.8|0.009
90829330|NCT02365649|181533418|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.0||||0.683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.3|22.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 44||22.4|-34.3|0.683
90829331|NCT02365649|181533418|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.3||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|45.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 52||45.1|-16.6|0.490
90891800|NCT01986881|181648625|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted odds ratio relative to placebo|4.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|8.42|||Regression, Logistic|Model fitted with fixed effects for treatment, covariates for baseline A1C and baseline eGFR (continuous).||Missing data imputed using the cLDA model fitted with fixed effects as in the primary analysis.||8.42|2.00|<0.001
91079543|NCT04767529|182044477|SUPERIORITY|Week 96|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.43||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|-0.5||Threshold for significance set at P\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||LS Means, SEs, and p-values are from a MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, stratification factors, post-baseline visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline as a covariate for comparisons between the EFX 28 mg and placebo group|Treatment comparison of change from baseline (EFX 28 mg - placebo) in Liver Stiffness Measurement (kPa)||-0.5|-6.2|0.021
91079544|NCT04767529|182044477|SUPERIORITY|Week 96|Mean Difference (Net)|-6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.43|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|-3.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||LS Means, SEs, and p-values are from a MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, stratification factors, post-baseline visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline as a covariate for comparisons between the EFX 50 mg and placebo group|Treatment comparison of change from baseline (EFX 50 mg - placebo) in Liver Stiffness Measurement (kPa)||-3.7|-9.4|<0.001
91079545|NCT04847232|182044478|OTHER|Test of HR = 1|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.26|||Regression, Cox||SZC relative to Placebo|||1.26|0.76|0.867
91079546|NCT04847232|182044479|OTHER|Test of OR = 1|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.36|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.64|4.26|||Regression, Logistic||SZC relative to Placebo|||4.26|2.64|<.0001
90829332|NCT02365649|181533418|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|23.3||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|48.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5). Prespecified statistical significance at the 0.1 level.|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 52||48.5|-1.9|0.078
90829333|NCT02365649|181533418|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.3||||0.466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|38.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 52||38.4|-17.7|0.466
90829334|NCT02365649|181533418|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.9||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|5.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 20||5.3|-17.1|1.000
90829335|NCT02365649|181533418|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.9||||0.447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|5.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 20||5.3|-17.1|0.447
90829336|NCT02365649|181533418|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.9||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|5.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 20||5.3|-17.1|1.000
90829337|NCT02365649|181533418|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-11.8||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.1|3.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 28||3.6|-27.1|1.000
90829338|NCT02365649|181533418|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-11.8||||0.193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.1|3.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 28||3.6|-27.1|0.193
90829339|NCT02365649|181533418|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-11.8||||0.498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.1|3.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 28||3.6|-27.1|0.498
90829340|NCT02365649|181533418|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.9||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|5.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 36||5.3|-17.1|1.000
90891801|NCT01986881|181648625|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted odds ratio relative to placebo|5.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.86|12.49|||Regression, Logistic|Model fitted with fixed effects for treatment, covariates for baseline A1C and baseline eGFR (continuous).||Missing data imputed using the cLDA model fitted with fixed effects as in the primary analysis.||12.49|2.86|<0.001
90891802|NCT01986881|181648626|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.85||||0.597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|2.3|||cLDA|The model had fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.||||2.30|-4.00|0.597
90891803|NCT01986881|181648626|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-1.57||||0.351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.87|1.73|||cLDA|The model had fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.||||1.73|-4.87|0.351
90891804|NCT01986881|181648627|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.68||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|1.25|||cLDA|Model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.||||1.25|-2.60|0.490
90891805|NCT01986881|181648627|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.05||||0.958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|1.96|||cLDA|Model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.||||1.96|-2.07|0.958
90891806|NCT01258608|181648634|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.192||||0.7382|ONE_SIDED|90.0||1.737||P-value for comparison of treatment groups obtained from stratified log-rank test-stratified by Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status.|Stratified log-rank test||Hazard ratio comparing mapatumumab to placebo obtained from Cox proportional hazards model with covariate adjustment for Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer and ECOG performance status.|||1.737||0.7382
90905050|NCT02886728|181677436|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|1.2||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|3.6||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2||3.6|-1.2|0.17
91079547|NCT04847232|182044480|OTHER|Test of HR = 1|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.56|||Regression, Cox||SZC relative to Placebo|||1.56|0.80|0.510
91079548|NCT06010732|182044513|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|5.4||No alpha-level adjustments for multiple comparisons adjustments were applied.|Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis of variance models (ANOVA) suitable for a crossover study, with random effect for subject and fixed effects for study period and product.|Difference calculated as Test-Positive Control|Based on previous studies we estimate the standard deviation of the differences between treatments in the crossover model to be 20 for % SMH recovery. With a sample size of 58 subjects completing the study, the study had 80% power to detect a difference between any two treatments of 7.5 for % SMH recovery, assuming two-sided tests each conducted at a 5% significance level.||5.4|-5.5|0.986
90891807|NCT01258608|181648635|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.922||||0.3156|ONE_SIDED|90.0||1.288||P-value for comparison of treatment groups obtained from stratified log-rank test-stratified by Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status.|Stratified log-rank test||Hazard ratio comparing mapatumumab to placebo obtained from Cox proportional hazards model with covariate adjustment for Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer and ECOG performance status.|||1.288||0.3156
90891808|NCT01258608|181648636|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.007||||0.6121|ONE_SIDED|90.0||1.346||P-value for comparison of treatment groups obtained from stratified log-rank test-stratified by Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer and ECOG performance status.|Stratified log-rank test||Hazard ratio comparing mapatumumab to placebo obtained from Cox proportional hazards model with covariate adjustment for Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer and ECOG performance status.|||1.346||0.6121
90891809|NCT01258608|181648637|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.066||||0.6925|ONE_SIDED|90.0||1.43||P-value for comparison of treatment groups obtained from stratified log-rank test - stratified by Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer and ECOG performance status.|Stratified log-rank test||Hazard ratio comparing Mapatumumab to placebo obtained from Cox proportional hazards model with covariate adjustment for Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer and ECOG performance status.|||1.430||0.6925
90891810|NCT01258608|181648638|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.909||||0.3088|ONE_SIDED|90.0||1.191||P-value for comparison of treatment groups obtained from stratified log-rank test - stratified by Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer and ECOG performance status.|Stratified log-rank test||Hazard ratio comparing Mapatumumab to placebo obtained from Cox proportional hazards model with covariate adjustment for Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer and ECOG performance status.|||1.191||0.3088
90891811|NCT01258608|181648639|OTHER||Response rate difference|5.4||||0.5458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.8|26.6||Nominal P-value for comparison of treatment groups obtained from Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||26.6|-16.8|0.5458
90891812|NCT01258608|181648640|OTHER||Response rate difference|6.7||||0.3479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|26.2||Nominal P-value for comparison of treatment groups obtained from Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||26.2|-13.4|0.3479
90891813|NCT01258608|181648641|OTHER||Disease control rate difference|-20.7||||0.0198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.8|1.8||Nominal P-value for comparison of treatment groups obtained from Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||1.8|-40.8|0.0198
90891814|NCT01258608|181648642|OTHER||Disease control rate difference|-5.8||||0.6558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.4|13.8||Nominal P-value for comparison of treatment groups obtained from Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||13.8|-25.4|0.6558
90891815|NCT04250727|181648662|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.601|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.601
90891816|NCT00160680|181648669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27|||=|0.667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|1.5|||ANCOVA|||||1.50|-0.96|=0.667
91079549|NCT06010732|182044513|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.7|32.6||No alpha-level adjustments for multiple comparisons adjustments were applied.|Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis of variance models (ANOVA) suitable for a crossover study, with random effect for subject and fixed effects for study period and product.|Difference calculated as Test-Placebo|Based on previous studies we estimate the standard deviation of the differences between treatments in the crossover model to be 20 for % SMH recovery. With a sample size of 58 subjects completing the study, the study had 80% power to detect a difference between any two treatments of 7.5 for % SMH recovery, assuming two-sided tests each conducted at a 5% significance level.||32.6|21.7|<0.001
90891817|NCT04493216|181648683|OTHER||Differences in percentage of participant|-9.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.0|5.7|||||Differences in percentage of participant = Percentage of participant in GSK3640254 100 mg+ Placebo+ ABC/3TC or FTC/TAF - Percentage of participant in DTG+ABC/3TC or FTC/TAF|||5.7|-24.0|
90891818|NCT04493216|181648683|OTHER||Differences in percentage of participant|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|11.6|||||Differences in percentage of participant = Percentage of participant in GSK3640254 150 mg+ ABC/3TC or FTC/TAF - Percentage of participant in DTG+ ABC/3TC or FTC/TAF|||11.6|-13.5|
90891819|NCT04493216|181648683|OTHER||Differences in percentage of participant|-15.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.2|0.3|||||Differences in percentage of participant = Percentage of participant in GSK3640254 200 mg+ Placebo+ ABC/3TC or FTC/TAF - Percentage of participant in DTG+ ABC/3TC or FTC/TAF|||0.3|-31.2|
90891820|NCT03595579|181648709|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.001
90891821|NCT03595579|181648710|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.013
90891822|NCT05090709|181648715|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA including all 5 time points in the analysis.||Stiffness values were analysed as a percentage change from baseline measurements to normalise group variances.||||> 0.05
90891823|NCT05090709|181648715|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA including all 5 time points in the analysis.||Stiffness values were analysed as a percentage change from baseline measurements to normalise group variances.||||> 0.05
90891824|NCT05090709|181648720|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||Including partial eta squared large effect size.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA including all 5 time points in the analysis.||||||< 0.05
90891825|NCT05090709|181648720|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||Including partial eta squared large effect size.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA including all 5 time points in the analysis.||||||< 0.05
90891826|NCT05090709|181648725|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA including all 5 time points in the analysis.||Sit-to-stand velocity values were analysed as a percentage change from baseline measurements to normalise group variances.||||> 0.05
90891827|NCT05090709|181648725|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA including all 5 time points in the analysis.||Sit-to-stand velocity values were analysed as a percentage change from baseline measurements to normalise group variances.||||> 0.05
90891828|NCT05090709|181648730|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA including all 5 time points in the analysis.||||||> 0.05
90891829|NCT05090709|181648730|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA including all 5 time points in the analysis.||||||> 0.05
90891830|NCT05090709|181648732|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||Including partial eta squared large effect size.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA including both time points in the analysis.||||||< 0.05
91079550|NCT06010732|182044513|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.7|32.7||No alpha-level adjustments for multiple comparisons adjustments were applied.|Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis of variance models (ANOVA) suitable for a crossover study, with random effect for subject and fixed effects for study period and product.|Difference calculated as Positive Control-Placebo|Based on previous studies we estimate the standard deviation of the differences between treatments in the crossover model to be 20 for % SMH recovery. With a sample size of 58 subjects completing the study, the study had 80% power to detect a difference between any two treatments of 7.5 for % SMH recovery, assuming two-sided tests each conducted at a 5% significance level.||32.7|21.7|<0.001
91079551|NCT06010732|182044514|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Means|1.11||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.32||No alpha-level adjustments for multiple comparisons adjustments were applied.|Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis of variance models (ANOVA) suitable for a crossover study, with random effect for subject and fixed effects for study period and product.|Ratio calculated as Test/Positive Control|analyzed as log(EFU)||1.32|0.93|0.230
91079552|NCT06010732|182044514|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Means|5.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.86|6.85||No alpha-level adjustments for multiple comparisons adjustments were applied.|Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis of variance models (ANOVA) suitable for a crossover study, with random effect for subject and fixed effects for study period and product.|Ratio calculated as Test/Placebo|analyzed as log(EFU)||6.85|4.86|<0.001
91079553|NCT06010732|182044514|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Means|5.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.37|6.18||No alpha-level adjustments for multiple comparisons adjustments were applied.|Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis of variance models (ANOVA) suitable for a crossover study, with random effect for subject and fixed effects for study period and product.|Ratio calculated as Positive Control/Placebo|analyzed as log(EFU)||6.18|4.37|<0.001
91079554|NCT06010732|182044515|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.1||||0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|8.6||No alpha-level adjustments for multiple comparisons adjustments were applied.|Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis of variance models (ANOVA) suitable for a crossover study, with random effect for subject and fixed effects for study period and product.|Difference calculated as Test-Positive Control|||8.6|-2.5|0.272
91079555|NCT06010732|182044515|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|34.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.3|40.3||No alpha-level adjustments for multiple comparisons adjustments were applied.|Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis of variance models (ANOVA) suitable for a crossover study, with random effect for subject and fixed effects for study period and product.|Difference calculated as Test-Placebo|||40.3|29.3|<0.001
91079556|NCT06010732|182044515|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|31.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.2|37.3||No alpha-level adjustments for multiple comparisons adjustments were applied.|Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis of variance models (ANOVA) suitable for a crossover study, with random effect for subject and fixed effects for study period and product.|Difference calculated as Positive Control-Placebo|||37.3|26.2|<0.001
91079557|NCT06010732|182044516|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Means|1.11||||0.191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.32||No alpha-level adjustments for multiple comparisons adjustments were applied.|Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis of variance models (ANOVA) suitable for a crossover study, with random effect for subject and fixed effects for study period and product.|Ratio calculated as Test/Positive Control|analyzed as log(%CAR+100)||1.32|0.93|0.191
91079558|NCT06010732|182044516|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Means|0.94||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|0.98||No alpha-level adjustments for multiple comparisons adjustments were applied.|Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis of variance models (ANOVA) suitable for a crossover study, with random effect for subject and fixed effects for study period and product.|Ratio calculated as Test/Placebo|analyzed as log(%CAR+100)||0.98|0.91|0.003
91079559|NCT06010732|182044516|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Means|0.97||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.01||No alpha-level adjustments for multiple comparisons adjustments were applied.|Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis of variance models (ANOVA) suitable for a crossover study, with random effect for subject and fixed effects for study period and product.|Ratio calculated as Positive Control/Placebo|analyzed as log(%CAR+100)||1.01|0.93|0.092
91079560|NCT06010732|182044517|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Means|1.01||||0.905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.13||No alpha-level adjustments for multiple comparisons adjustments were applied.|Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis of variance models (ANOVA) suitable for a crossover study, with random effect for subject and fixed effects for study period and product.|Ratio calculated as Test/Positive Control|analyzed as log(∆Z)||1.13|0.90|0.905
91079561|NCT06010732|182044517|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Means|0.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.8||No alpha-level adjustments for multiple comparisons adjustments were applied.|Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis of variance models (ANOVA) suitable for a crossover study, with random effect for subject and fixed effects for study period and product.|Ratio calculated as Test/Placebo|analyzed as log(∆Z)||0.80|0.63|<0.001
91079562|NCT06010732|182044517|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Means|0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.79||No alpha-level adjustments for multiple comparisons adjustments were applied.|Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis of variance models (ANOVA) suitable for a crossover study, with random effect for subject and fixed effects for study period and product.|Ratio calculated as Positive Control/Placebo|analyzed as log(∆Z)||0.79|0.63|<0.001
91079563|NCT06010732|182044518|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Means|0.98||||0.721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.09||No alpha-level adjustments for multiple comparisons adjustments were applied.|Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis of variance models (ANOVA) suitable for a crossover study, with random effect for subject and fixed effects for study period and product.|Ratio calculated as Test/Positive Control|analyzed as log(lesion depth)||1.09|0.88|0.721
91079564|NCT06010732|182044518|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Means|0.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.84||No alpha-level adjustments for multiple comparisons adjustments were applied.|Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis of variance models (ANOVA) suitable for a crossover study, with random effect for subject and fixed effects for study period and product.|Ratio calculated as Test/Placebo|analyzed as log(lesion depth)||0.84|0.68|<0.001
91079565|NCT06010732|182044518|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Means|0.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.86||No alpha-level adjustments for multiple comparisons adjustments were applied.|Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis of variance models (ANOVA) suitable for a crossover study, with random effect for subject and fixed effects for study period and product.|Ratio calculated as Positive Control/Placebo|analyzed as log(lesion depth)||0.86|0.69|<0.001
91079566|NCT06010732|182044519|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56||||0.647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.95|1.84||No alpha-level adjustments for multiple comparisons adjustments were applied.|Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis of variance models (ANOVA) suitable for a crossover study, with random effect for subject and fixed effects for study period and product.|Difference calculated as Test-Positive Control|||1.84|-2.95|0.647
91079567|NCT06010732|182044519|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.95|8.75||No alpha-level adjustments for multiple comparisons adjustments were applied.|Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis of variance models (ANOVA) suitable for a crossover study, with random effect for subject and fixed effects for study period and product.|Difference calculated as Test-Placebo|||8.75|3.95|<0.001
91079568|NCT06010732|182044519|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.49|9.31||No alpha-level adjustments for multiple comparisons adjustments were applied.|Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis of variance models (ANOVA) suitable for a crossover study, with random effect for subject and fixed effects for study period and product.|Difference calculated as Positive Control-Placebo|||9.31|4.49|<0.001
91079569|NCT00253370|182044524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||proportion of participants|0.409||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.284|0.544|||one-sample binomial test|||The study was designed to distinguish a response rate of 40% from 20%, the null hypothesis. With the planned sample size of 36 eligible patients, the study has 91% power based on a 0.09 level one-sided test.||0.544|0.284|0.0012
91079570|NCT02636699|182044555|OTHER||Difference in Response Rates (%)|21.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.4|29.8|||Wald|||Analysis of the difference in response rates between DBV712 250 μg group and Placebo group and 2-sided Newcombe 95% confidence interval (CI). P-value was obtained from a 2-sided 5% test to evaluate the null hypothesis of no difference in response rates between treatment groups using the Wald method. Clinical relevance was evaluated based on the lower bound of the Newcombe 95% CI of the difference in response rates ≥15%.||29.8|12.4|<0.001
91079571|NCT02636699|182044556|OTHER||Difference in Response Rates (%)|19.0||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|38.4|||Wald|||"Screening ED subgroup 1:~Analysis of the difference in response rates between DBV712 250 μg group and Placebo group and 2-sided Newcombe 95% CI. P-value was obtained from a 2-sided 5% test to evaluate the null hypothesis of no difference in response rates between treatment groups using the Wald method. Clinical relevance was evaluated based on the lower bound of the Newcombe 95% CI of the difference in response rates \>0."||38.4|-6.4|0.105
91079572|NCT02636699|182044556|OTHER||Difference in Response Rates (%)|22.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.1|30.8|||Wald|||"Screening ED subgroup 2:~Analysis of the difference in response rates between DBV712 250 μg group and Placebo group and 2-sided Newcombe 95% CI. P-value was obtained from a 2-sided 5% test to evaluate the null hypothesis of no difference in response rates between treatment groups using the Wald method. Clinical relevance was evaluated based on the lower bound of the Newcombe 95% CI of the difference in response rates \>0."||30.8|12.1|<0.001
91079573|NCT02636699|182044557|OTHER||Difference in Median CRD|297.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|130.0|317.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||The treatment effect was estimated using the Hodges-Lehmann estimate of the difference in median CRDs at Month 12.||317.0|130.0|<0.001
91079574|NCT03004924|182044640|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rate|7.7||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|16.9|||Fisher Exact|||||16.9|-1.6|0.127
91079575|NCT03004924|182044641|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rate|-3.5||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|5.9|||Fisher Exact|||||5.9|-12.8|0.500
91079576|NCT02867202|182044655|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Data analysis was performed with SPSS version 22.0, using two-sided test, and a p value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||<0.05
91079577|NCT05079230|182044692|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.178||||0.3276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.848|1.637|||stratified log-rank test|The 2-sided P-value was based on stratified log-rank test, stratified by stratification factors at randomization.|Stratified hazard ratio (HR) and its 95% CI were calculated using the stratified cox proportional hazards model.|||1.637|0.848|0.3276
91079578|NCT05079230|182044693|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Odds Ratio|0.826||||0.3616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.545|1.251|||Stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel||Stratified odds ratio and 2-sided 95% CI were calculated from stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel estimates adjusted for stratification factors.|||1.251|0.545|0.3616
91079579|NCT05079230|182044694|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Odds Ratio|0.856||||0.4679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.307|||Stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel||Stratified odds ratio and 2-sided 95% CI were calculated from stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel estimates adjusted for stratification factors.|||1.307|0.560|0.4679
91079580|NCT05079230|182044695|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio|0.946||||0.7903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.225|||Stratified Log Rank||The 2-sided P-value was based on stratified log-rank test, stratified by stratification factors at randomization.|||1.225|0.730|0.7903
91079581|NCT05079230|182044698|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Odds Ratio|1.189||||0.4873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.727|1.945|||Stratum-adjusted Mantel Haenszel||Stratified odds ratio and 2-sided 95% CI were calculated from stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel estimates adjusted for stratification factors.|||1.945|0.727|0.4873
91079582|NCT05079230|182044699|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Odds Ratio|1.154||||0.5842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.932|||Stratum-adjusted Mantel Haenszel||Stratified odds ratio and 2-sided 95% CI were calculated from stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel estimates adjusted for stratification factors.|||1.932|0.690|0.5842
91079583|NCT05079230|182044700|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Odds Ratio|0.783||||0.3003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.492|1.245|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The 2-sided P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method stratified by the stratification factors at randomization (age, genetic risk group, and geographic region).|||1.245|0.492|0.3003
91079584|NCT05079230|182044701|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Odds Ratio|1.21||||0.579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.36||The 2-sided P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method stratified by the stratification factors at randomization (age, genetic risk group, and geographic region).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.360|0.620|0.5790
91079585|NCT05079230|182044702|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio|1.09||||0.5796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.799|1.487|||Stratified Log Rank|The 2-sided P-value was based on stratified log-rank test, stratified by stratification factors at randomization.|Stratified hazard ratio (HR) and its 95% CI are calculated using the stratified cox proportional hazards model.|||1.487|0.799|0.5796
90891831|NCT05090709|181648732|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA including both time points in the analysis.||||||> 0.05
91079586|NCT05079230|182044703|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio|1.271||||0.1026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.948|1.704|||Stratified Log Rank|The 2-sided P-value was based on stratified log-rank test, stratified by stratification factors at randomization.|Stratified hazard ratio (HR) and its 95% CI were calculated using the stratified cox proportional hazards model.|||1.704|0.948|0.1026
91079587|NCT00207727|182044723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0||95.0||||The p-value was non estimable because the observed trend was in the opposite direction of that stated in the one sided alternative hypothesis|Jonckheere Terpstra|Jonckheere Terpstra nonparametric trend test procedure with 5% level of significance was be used to test for the monotonic trend.||Hypothesis: The null hypothesis of no effect among the treatment groups was tested against the alternative hypothesis that the cumulative number of newly Gd-enhancing T1-weighted lesions on cranial MRIs through Week 23 would decrease monotonically with dose at a significance level of 0.05.||||0.00
91079588|NCT00207727|182044724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.892||95.0|||||2-sided Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney|||||||0.892
91079589|NCT00207727|182044724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.599||95.0|||||2-sided Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney|||||||0.599
91079590|NCT00207727|182044724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.517||95.0|||||2-sided Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney|||||||0.517
91079591|NCT00207727|182044724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.967||95.0|||||2-sided Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney|||Hypothesis: The null hypothesis is no difference between any ustekinumab treatment groups and placebo at a significant level of 0.05 for comparison for each treatment group.||||0.967
91079592|NCT00207727|182044725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2-sided Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney test (α = 0.05) used for each comparison with placebo||||||0.720
91079593|NCT00207727|182044725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.152||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2-sided Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney test (α = 0.05) used for each comparison with placebo||||||0.152
91079594|NCT00207727|182044725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.431||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2-sided Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney test (α = 0.05) used for each comparison with placebo||||||0.431
91079595|NCT00207727|182044725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.292||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2-sided Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney test (α = 0.05) used for each comparison with placebo||Hypothesis: The null hypothesis is no difference between any ustekinumab treatment groups and placebo at a significant level of 0.05 for comparison for each treatment group with placebo..||||0.292
91079596|NCT03759366|182044726|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean|-5.8||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|-3.13|||Repeated Measures Model||The least square mean change from baseline in QMG total score at Week 26 was calculated.|The observed change in QMG was analyzed with baseline QMG score and visits as covariates.||-3.13|-8.40|0.0004
91079597|NCT03759366|182044740|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean|-4.3||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.93|-1.65|||Repeated Measures Model||The least square mean change from baseline in QMG total score at Week 52 was calculated.|The observed change in QMG was analyzed with baseline QMG score and visits as covariates.||-1.65|-6.93|0.0033
91079598|NCT03611582|182044741|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-10.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.97|-8.57|||ANCOVA|||Treatment policy estimand||-8.57|-11.97|<.0001
91079599|NCT03611582|182044741|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-12.67|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.34|-11.0|||MMRM (mixed model repeated measurement)|||Hypothetical estimand||-11.00|-14.34|<0.0001
91079600|NCT03611582|182044742|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.04|9.26|||Regression, Logistic|||Treatment policy estimand||9.26|4.04|<0.0001
91079601|NCT03611582|182044742|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.67|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.64|17.81|||MMRM (mixed model repeated measurement)|||Hypothetical estimand||17.81|7.64|<0.0001
91079602|NCT01653327|182044774|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3198|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3198
91079603|NCT01653327|182044775|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3522|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3522
91079604|NCT05206734|182044788|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.46|||||HR was calculated using a Cox Proportional Hazard model adjusted for age,sex,socioeconomic status, ethnicity and common childhood conditions. Reflects a comparison of the incidence rates between participants diagnosed with IBD and those without IBD.|||1.46|1.12|
91079605|NCT05206734|182044789|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|2.52|||||RR calculated using negative binomial model adjusted for age,sex,socioeconomic status,ethnicity,IBD type and comorbidities.Reflects a comparison of the incidence rate ratio between IBD participants diagnosed with and without mental health conditions.|||2.52|1.33|
91079606|NCT05206734|182044790|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|2.62|||||HR calculated using Cox regression models adjusted for age,sex,socioeconomic status,ethnicity,IBD type and comorbidities.Reflects a comparison of the incidence rate ratio between IBD participants diagnosed with and without mental health conditions.|||2.62|1.02|
91079607|NCT05206734|182044791|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.76|4.43|||||RR calculated using negative binomial model adjusted for age,sex,socioeconomic status,ethnicity,IBD type and comorbidities.Reflects a comparison of the incidence rate ratio between IBD participants diagnosed with and without mental health conditions.|||4.43|1.76|
91079608|NCT05206734|182044793|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.58|||||RR calculated using negative binomial model adjusted for age,sex,socioeconomic status,ethnicity,IBD type and comorbidities.Reflects a comparison of the incidence rate ratio between IBD participants diagnosed with and without mental health conditions.|||1.58|1.12|
91079609|NCT05206734|182044794|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|2.75|||||RR calculated using negative binomial model adjusted for age,sex,socioeconomic status,ethnicity,IBD type and comorbidities.Reflects a comparison of the incidence rate ratio between IBD participants diagnosed with and without mental health conditions.|||2.75|1.29|
91079610|NCT00762034|182044795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.94896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.16|||Log Rank|||||1.16|0.86|0.94896
91079611|NCT00762034|182044796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72997||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.72997
91079612|NCT00762034|182044797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.20892|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.20892
91079613|NCT00762034|182044798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.01206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.96|||Log Rank|||||0.96|0.71|0.01206
91079614|NCT00762034|182044799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.94|||Log Rank|||||0.94|0.67|0.006
91079615|NCT00762034|182044804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.667||95.0||||Mixed Model Analysis has treatment, baseline, time point, and treatment by timepoint interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.667
91079616|NCT00762034|182044805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.815||95.0||||p-value for FACT-L Total; Mixed Model Analysis has treatment, baseline, time point, and treatment by timepoint interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.815
91079617|NCT00762034|182044805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.978||95.0||||p-value for FACT-L TOI; Mixed Model Analysis has treatment, baseline, time point, and treatment by timepoint interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.978
91079618|NCT00762034|182044806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value for FACT/GOG-Ntx Total; Mixed Model Analysis has treatment, baseline, time point, and treatment by timepoint interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91079619|NCT00762034|182044806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value for FACT/GOG-Ntx TOI; Mixed Model Analysis has treatment, baseline, time point, and treatment by timepoint interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91079620|NCT00762034|182044820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.338|0.681||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox|||||0.681|0.338|<0.001
91079621|NCT00762034|182044821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.927||||0.673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.654|1.316||p-value is for TS Cytoplasm Positive (H score \> 0) comparing treatment arms and was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox|||||1.316|0.654|0.673
91079622|NCT00762034|182044821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.521||||0.287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.157|1.729||p-value is for TS Cytoplasm Negative (H score = 0) comparing treatment arms and was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox|||||1.729|0.157|0.287
91079623|NCT00762034|182044821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.759||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.498|1.157||p-value is for TS Nucleus Positive (H score \> 0) comparing treatment arms and was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox|||||1.157|0.498|0.2
91079624|NCT00762034|182044821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.969||||0.915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.738||p-value is for TS Nucleus Negative (H score = 0) comparing treatment arms and was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox|||||1.738|0.540|0.915
91079625|NCT00762034|182044822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.622|1.511||p-value for FR-α Cytoplasm Positive (H score \> 0) comparing treatment arms and was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox|||||1.511|0.622|0.891
91079626|NCT00762034|182044822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.592||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.342|1.023||p-value for FR-α Cytoplasm Negative (H score = 0) comparing treatment arms and was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox|||||1.023|0.342|0.060
91079627|NCT00762034|182044822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.88||p-value for FR-α Membrane Positive (H score \> 0) comparing treatment arms and was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox|||||1.880|0.490|0.905
91079628|NCT00762034|182044822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.859||||0.455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.575|1.281||p-value for FR-α Membrane Negative (H score = 0) comparing treatment arms and was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox|||||1.281|0.575|0.455
91079629|NCT02442206|182044825|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|10.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.209|14.331|||ANOVA|||||14.331|6.209|<0.0001
90891832|NCT05090709|181648737|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA including all 5 time points in the analysis.||Muscle tone values were analysed as a percentage change from baseline measurements to normalise group variances.||||> 0.05
91079630|NCT02442206|182044826|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.49|||ANOVA|||||0.49|0.36|<0.0001
91079631|NCT02442206|182044827|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.67|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.8|||ANOVA|||||0.80|0.55|<0.0001
91079632|NCT02442206|182044828|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.446|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.352|0.541|||ANOVA|||||0.541|0.352|<0.0001
91079633|NCT02442206|182044829|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.177||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.285|-0.07|||ANOVA|||||-0.070|-0.285|0.0017
91079634|NCT02442206|182044830|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.751|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.925|-0.577|||ANOVA|||||-0.577|-0.925|<0.0001
91079635|NCT02442206|182044831|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.639|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.945|-1.332|||ANOVA|||||-1.332|-1.945|<0.0001
91079636|NCT02442206|182044832|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.625|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.761|-0.489|||ANOVA|||||-0.489|-0.761|<0.0001
91079637|NCT02442206|182044833|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.209||||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.419|2.836|||ANOVA|||LV EF||2.836|-0.419|0.1420
91079638|NCT02442206|182044833|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.131||||0.1732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.512|2.774|||ANOVA|||RV EF||2.774|-0.512|0.1732
91079639|NCT02442206|182044834|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.241||||0.0437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.066|4.417|||ANOVA|||LV ESV||4.417|0.066|0.0437
91079640|NCT02442206|182044834|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.095||||0.1236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.591|4.782|||ANOVA|||RV ESV||4.782|-0.591|0.1236
91079641|NCT02442206|182044835|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|9.357||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.649|14.065|||ANOVA|||||14.065|4.649|0.0002
91079642|NCT02442206|182044836|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.337||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.118|0.555|||ANOVA|||LVCO||0.555|0.118|0.0032
91079643|NCT02442206|182044836|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.281||||0.0182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.512|||ANOVA|||RVCO||0.512|0.050|0.0182
91079644|NCT03300050|182044854|OTHER||GMT Ratio|2.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.73|4.29|||ANCOVA||GMT ratio computed after fitting an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the log10 transformed titers, including vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination titer as covariate.|Comparison of Anti-H1 HA-stalk IgG (Serum) Humoral Response: Adjusted Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) Ratio 28 Days Post-Boost Dose||4.29|1.73|<0.0001
91079645|NCT03300050|182044854|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.06||||0.9411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.66|||ANCOVA||GMT ratio computed after fitting an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the log10 transformed titers, including vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination titer as covariate.|Comparison of Anti-H1 HA-stalk IgG (Serum) Humoral Response: Adjusted GMT Ratio 28 Days Post-Boost Dose||1.66|0.68|0.9411
91079646|NCT03300050|182044854|OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.62|||ANCOVA||GMT ratio computed after fitting an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the log10 transformed titers, including vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination titer as covariate.|Comparison of Anti-H1 HA-stalk IgG (Serum) Humoral Response: Adjusted GMT Ratio 28 Days Post-Boost Dose||0.62|0.24|<0.0001
91079647|NCT03300050|182044855|OTHER||Difference|59.6||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.59|81.02|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Anti-H1 HA-stalk IgG (Serum) Humoral Response: Seroresponse (≥4-fold) Rate 28 Days Post-Boost Dose||81.02|23.59|0.0025
91079648|NCT03300050|182044855|OTHER||Difference|17.9||||0.4421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.24|49.0|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Anti-H1 HA-stalk IgG (Serum) Humoral Response: Seroresponse (≥4-fold) Rate 28 Days Post-Boost Dose||49.00|-16.24|0.4421
91079649|NCT03300050|182044855|OTHER||Difference|-41.8||||0.0461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.75|-4.8|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Anti-H1 HA-stalk IgG (Serum) Humoral Response: Seroresponse (≥4-fold) Rate 28 Days Post-Boost Dose||-4.80|-68.75|0.0461
91079650|NCT03300050|182044859|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.71||||0.1665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|3.48|||ANCOVA||GMT ratio computed after fitting an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the log10 transformed titers, including vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination titer as covariate.|Comparison of Anti-H1 HA-stalk IgA (Serum) Humoral Response: Adjusted GMT Ratio 28 Days Post-Boost Dose||3.48|0.84|0.1665
91079651|NCT03300050|182044859|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.1||||0.9377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|2.2|||ANCOVA||GMT ratio computed after fitting an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the log10 transformed titers, including vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination titer as covariate.|Comparison of Anti-H1 HA-stalk IgA (Serum) Humoral Response: Adjusted GMT Ratio 28 Days Post-Boost Dose||2.20|0.55|0.9377
91079652|NCT03300050|182044859|OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.64||||0.3088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.33|||ANCOVA||GMT ratio computed after fitting an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the log10 transformed titers, including vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination titer as covariate.|Comparison of Anti-H1 HA-stalk IgG (Serum) Humoral Response: Adjusted GMT Ratio 28 Days Post-Boost Dose||1.33|0.31|0.3088
91079653|NCT03300050|182044860|OTHER||Difference|16.3||||0.4667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.85|48.88|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Anti-H1 HA-stalk IgG (Serum) Humoral Response: Seroresponse (≥4-fold) Rate 28 Days Post-Boost Dose||48.88|-19.85|0.4667
91079654|NCT03300050|182044860|OTHER||Difference|-1.8|||>|0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.76|32.17|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Anti-H1 HA-stalk IgG (Serum) Humoral Response: Seroresponse (≥4-fold) Rate 28 Days Post-Boost Dose||32.17|-34.76|>0.9999
91079655|NCT03300050|182044860|OTHER||Difference|-18.1||||0.4495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.15|19.37|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Anti-H1 HA-stalk IgG (Serum) Humoral Response: Seroresponse (≥4-fold) Rate 28 Days Post-Boost Dose||19.37|-51.15|0.4495
91079656|NCT03300050|182044864|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.61||||0.0928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|2.77|||ANCOVA||GMT ratio computed after fitting an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the log10 transformed titers, including vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination titer as covariate.|Comparison of Anti-H1 HA-stalk MN (Serum) Assay: Adjusted GMT Ratio 28 Days Post-Boost Dose||2.77|0.94|0.0928
91079657|NCT03300050|182044864|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.32||||0.4198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.26|||ANCOVA||GMT ratio computed after fitting an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the log10 transformed titers, including vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination titer as covariate.|Comparison of Anti-H1 HA-stalk MN (Serum) Assay: Adjusted GMT Ratio 28 Days Post-Boost Dose||2.26|0.77|0.4198
91079658|NCT03300050|182044864|OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.82||||0.6754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.45|||ANCOVA||GMT ratio computed after fitting an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the log10 transformed titers, including vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination titer as covariate.|Comparison of Anti-H1 HA-stalk MN (Serum) Assay: Adjusted GMT Ratio 28 Days Post-Boost Dose||1.45|0.47|0.6754
91079659|NCT03300050|182044865|OTHER||Difference|19.2||||0.4515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.19|50.49|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Anti-H1 HA-stalk MN (Serum) Assay: Seroresponse (\>4-Fold) Rate 28 Days Post-Boost Dose||50.49|-17.19|0.4515
90891833|NCT05090709|181648737|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA including all 5 time points in the analysis.||Muscle tone values were analysed as a percentage change from baseline measurements to normalise group variances.||||> 0.05
90891834|NCT05090709|181648742|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA including all 5 time points in the analysis.||||||> 0.05
90891835|NCT05090709|181648742|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA including all 5 time points in the analysis.||||||> 0.05
90891836|NCT05090709|181648747|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA including all 5 time points in the analysis.||||||> 0.05
91079660|NCT03300050|182044865|OTHER||Difference|14.3||||0.4837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.22|46.19|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Anti-H1 HA-stalk MN (Serum) Assay: Seroresponse (\>4-Fold) Rate 28 Days Post-Boost Dose||46.19|-21.22|0.4837
91079661|NCT03300050|182044865|OTHER||Difference|-4.9|||>|0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.8|30.46|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Anti-H1 HA-stalk MN (Serum) Assay: Seroresponse (\>4-Fold) Rate 28 Days Post-Boost Dose||30.46|-38.80|>0.9999
91079662|NCT03300050|182044868|OTHER||Difference|2.93||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|7.49|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Based on log10 AUC, using the Hodges-Lehmann location parameter difference back-transformed to the original scale.|Comparison of Serum cH6/1 - ADCC Activity: AUC at 28 Days Post-Boost||7.49|1.56|0.0031
91079663|NCT03300050|182044868|OTHER||Difference|1.25||||0.2048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.23|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Based on log10 AUC, using the Hodges-Lehmann location parameter difference back-transformed to the original scale.|Comparison of Serum cH6/1 - ADCC Activity: AUC at 28 Days Post-Boost||2.23|0.73|0.2048
91079664|NCT03300050|182044868|OTHER||Difference|0.43||||0.0392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of Serum cH6/1 - ADCC Activity: AUC at 28 Days Post-Boost||1.00|0.18|0.0392
91079665|NCT03300050|182044869|OTHER||Difference|1.16||||0.8243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|4.95|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Based on the Hodges-Lehmann location parameter difference on the log scale then back-transformed to the original scale.|Comparison of Serum cH6/1 - ADCC Activity: Fold Increase in AUC at 28 Days Post-Boost||4.95|0.14|0.8243
91079666|NCT03300050|182044869|OTHER||Difference|1.74||||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|6.06|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Based on the Hodges-Lehmann location parameter difference on the log scale then back-transformed to the original scale.|Comparison of Serum cH6/1 - ADCC Activity: Fold Increase in AUC at 28 Days Post-Boost||6.06|0.67|0.2530
91079667|NCT03300050|182044869|OTHER||Difference|1.83||||0.5654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|39.92|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Based on the Hodges-Lehmann location parameter difference on the log scale then back-transformed to the original scale.|Comparison of Serum cH6/1 - ADCC Activity: Fold Increase in AUC at 28 Days Post-Boost||39.92|0.47|0.5654
91079668|NCT03300050|182044873|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.21||||0.883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|3.27|||ANCOVA||GMT ratio computed after fitting an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the log10 transformed titers, including vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination titer as covariate.|Comparison of Anti-H1 HA-stalk IgG (Saliva), Mucosal Response: Adjusted GMT Ratio 28 Days Post-Boost Dose||3.27|0.45|0.8830
91079669|NCT03300050|182044873|OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.86||||0.9238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|2.26|||ANCOVA||GMT ratio computed after fitting an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the log10 transformed titers, including vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination titer as covariate.|Comparison of Anti-H1 HA-stalk IgG (Saliva), Mucosal Response: Adjusted GMT Ratio 28 Days Post-Boost Dose||2.26|0.33|0.9238
91079670|NCT03300050|182044873|OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.71||||0.6926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.97|||ANCOVA||GMT ratio computed after fitting an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the log10 transformed titers, including vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination titer as covariate.|Comparison of Anti-H1 HA-stalk IgG (Saliva), Mucosal Response: Adjusted GMT Ratio 28 Days Post-Boost Dose||1.97|0.26|0.6926
91079671|NCT03300050|182044874|OTHER||Difference|11.7||||0.7036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.72|45.82|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Anti-H1 HA-stalk IgG (Saliva), Mucosal Response: Seroresponse (≥4-fold) Rate 28 Days Post-Boost Dose||45.82|-25.72|0.7036
91079672|NCT03300050|182044874|OTHER||Difference|-3.8|||>|0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.9|31.31|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Anti-H1 HA-stalk IgG (Saliva), Mucosal Response: Seroresponse (≥4-fold) Rate 28 Days Post-Boost Dose||31.31|-37.90|>0.9999
91079673|NCT03300050|182044874|OTHER||Difference|-15.5||||0.6951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.56|22.79|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Anti-H1 HA-stalk IgG (Saliva), Mucosal Response: Seroresponse (≥4-fold) Rate 28 Days Post-Boost Dose||22.79|-49.56|0.6951
91079674|NCT03300050|182044878|OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.65||||0.3203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.33|||ANCOVA||GMT ratio computed after fitting an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the log10 transformed titers, including vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination titer as covariate.|Comparison of Anti-H1 HA-stalk Secretory IgA (Saliva), Mucosal Response: Adjusted GMT Ratio 28 Days post-Boost Dose||1.33|0.32|0.3203
91079675|NCT03300050|182044878|OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.72||||0.5009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.47|||ANCOVA||GMT ratio computed after fitting an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the log10 transformed titers, including vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination titer as covariate.|Comparison of Anti-H1 HA-stalk Secretory IgA (Saliva), Mucosal Response: Adjusted GMT Ratio 28 Days post-Boost Dose||1.47|0.35|0.5009
91079676|NCT03300050|182044878|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.1||||0.9542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|2.37|||ANCOVA||GMT ratio computed after fitting an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the log10 transformed titers, including vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination titer as covariate.|Comparison of Anti-H1 HA-stalk Secretory IgA (Saliva), Mucosal Response: Adjusted GMT Ratio 28 Days post-Boost Dose||2.37|0.51|0.9542
91079677|NCT03300050|182044879|OTHER||Difference|-1.7|||>|0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.62|23.79|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Anti-H1 HA-stalk Secretory IgA (Saliva), Mucosal Response: Seroresponse (≥4-fold) Rate 28 Days post-Boost Dose||23.79|-30.62|>0.9999
91079678|NCT03300050|182044879|OTHER||Difference|6.7|||>|0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.24|30.34|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Anti-H1 HA-stalk Secretory IgA (Saliva), Mucosal Response: Seroresponse (≥4-fold) Rate 28 Days post-Boost Dose||30.34|-16.24|>0.9999
91079679|NCT03300050|182044879|OTHER||Difference|8.3||||0.4615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.94|36.04|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Anti-H1 HA-stalk Secretory IgA (Saliva), Mucosal Response: Seroresponse (≥4-fold) Rate 28 Days post-Boost Dose||36.04|-19.94|0.4615
91079680|NCT03300050|182044883|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.2||||0.9164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|3.8|||ANCOVA||GMT ratio computed after fitting an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the log10 transformed titers, including vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination titer as covariate.|Comparison of Anti-H1 HA-stalk Total IgA (Saliva), Mucosal Response: Adjusted GMT Ratio 28 Days Post-Boost Dose||3.80|0.38|0.9164
91079681|NCT03300050|182044883|OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.76||||0.8642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|2.79|||ANCOVA||GMT ratio computed after fitting an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the log10 transformed titers, including vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination titer as covariate.|Comparison of Anti-H1 HA-stalk Total IgA (Saliva), Mucosal Response: Adjusted GMT Ratio 28 Days Post-Boost Dose||2.79|0.21|0.8642
91079682|NCT03300050|182044883|OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.63||||0.6545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|2.27|||ANCOVA||GMT ratio computed after fitting an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the log10 transformed titers, including vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination titer as covariate.|Comparison of Anti-H1 HA-stalk Total IgA (Saliva), Mucosal Response: Adjusted GMT Ratio 28 Days Post-Boost Dose||2.27|0.18|0.6545
90829341|NCT02365649|181533418|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.9||||0.447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|5.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 36||5.3|-17.1|0.447
91079683|NCT03300050|182044884|OTHER||Difference|7.7|||>|0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.1|40.96|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Anti-H1 HA-stalk Total IgA (Saliva), Mucosal Response: Seroresponse (\>4-Fold) Rate 28 Days Post-Boost Dose||40.96|-27.10|>0.9999
91079684|NCT03300050|182044884|OTHER||Difference|30.8||||0.1045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|58.19|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Anti-H1 HA-stalk Total IgA (Saliva), Mucosal Response: Seroresponse (≥4-fold) Rate 28 Days Post-Boost Dose||58.19|-1.76|0.1045
91079685|NCT03300050|182044884|OTHER||Difference|23.1||||0.2292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.62|50.86|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Anti-H1 HA-stalk Total IgA (Saliva), Mucosal Response: Seroresponse (≥4-fold) Rate 28 Days Post-Boost Dose||50.86|-8.62|0.2292
91079686|NCT00564278|182044981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||GEE model Beta|17.46||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.61|51.53||All analyses presented are at 9 months.|t-test, 2 sided|t(193) = -1.14, p=.26||"We also conducted an analysis using a Generalized Estimating Equations model adjusting for a number of covariates.~We will conduct a three-part regression analysis assessing early/middle/late effects of MPT on retention. We will also conduct moderator analyses, as described in the original study grant, to determine whether there are specific patient groups for whom a significant difference in days in treatment is found."||51.53|-16.61|0.26
90891837|NCT05090709|181648747|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA including all 5 time points in the analysis.||||||> 0.05
91079687|NCT00564278|182044982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mixed Model Beta for MADT vs SADT|-0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|1.01||See Method of Estimation below.|||A Generalized Linear Mixed Model was used with random intercept for clinician adjusted for baseline depressive symptoms and time to assess the effect of MADT vs. SADT on mean depressive symptoms over follow-up.|||1.01|-1.57|
91079688|NCT00564278|182044983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Work - Mixed Model Beta for MADT vs SADT|0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.95||See under Method of Estimation, below|||A Generalized Linear Mixed Model was used with random intercept for clinician adjusted for baseline work-related disability score and time to assess the effect of MADT vs. SADT on mean disability score in the work domain over follow-up.|||0.95|-0.50|
91079689|NCT00564278|182044983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Social-Mixed Model Beta for MADT vs SADT|0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.92||See under Method of Estimation below.|||A Generalized Linear Mixed Model was used with random intercept for clinician adjusted for baseline social-related disability score and time to assess the effect of MADT vs. SADT on mean disability score in the social domain over follow-up.|||0.92|-0.49|
91079690|NCT00564278|182044983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Family-Mixed Model Beta for MADT vs SADT|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|1.18||See Method of Estimation below.|||A Generalized Linear Mixed Model was used with random intercept for clinician adjusted for baseline family-related disability score and time to assess the effect of MADT vs. SADT on mean disability score in the family domain over follow-up.|||1.18|-0.08|
91079691|NCT00564278|182044984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mixed Model Beta for MADT vs SADT|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.61|3.64||See Method of Estimation, below|||A Generalized Linear Mixed Model was used with random intercept for clinician adjusted for baseline QOL score and time to assess the effect of MADT vs. SADT on mean percent of quality of life over follow-up.|||3.64|-3.61|
91079692|NCT00564278|182044985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mixed Model Beta for MADT vs SADT|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.66||See Method of Estimation below.|||A Generalized Linear Mixed Model was used with random intercept for clinician adjusted for baseline patient satisfaction and time to assess the effect of MADT vs. SADT on mean patient satisfaction over follow-up.|||0.66|-0.74|
91079693|NCT00564278|182044986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mixed Model Beta for MADT vs SADT|9.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.71|15.57||See Method of Estimation below.|||A Generalized Linear Mixed Model was used with random intercept for clinician to model the effect of MPT vs. SADT on the mean proportion of fully adherent days over the study period. We used an exchangeable covariance structure.|||15.57|2.71|
91079694|NCT00560703|182044987|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Power calculation for this endpoint was driven by the assumptions made for the OSDI analysis||||||0.578||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.578
91079695|NCT00560703|182044988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.293||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||It was anticipated that the difference between the treatment groups in mean reduction from baseline in OSDI scores will be approximately 7 points. A pooled standard deviation of 9.0 for the mean change from baseline OSDI score is expected. Under those assumptions a total of approximately 63 evaluable patients (42 COL-101 patients and 21 placebo patients) is sufficient to provide 80% power. The planned enrolment should provide enough evaluable patients to meet these assumptions.||||0.293
91079696|NCT02095197|182044989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.23
91079697|NCT02095197|182044990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.47
91079698|NCT02095197|182044991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.30
91079699|NCT02095197|182044992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.41
90891838|NCT05090709|181648752|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||Including partial eta squared large effect size.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA including all 5 time points in the analysis.||||||< 0.05
91079700|NCT01618916|182045005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-49.92|||<|0.001||90.0|-63.84|-35.99|||Mixed Effects Model Analysis|P-value is for Day 43.||||-35.99|-63.84|<0.001
91079701|NCT01618916|182045005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-34.85|||<|0.001||90.0|-48.78|-20.93|||Mixed Effects Model Analysis|P-value is for Day 57.||||-20.93|-48.78|<0.001
91079702|NCT01618916|182045005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-47.72|||<|0.001||90.0|-62.1|-33.34|||Mixed Effects Model Analysis|P-value is for Day 43.||||-33.34|-62.10|<0.001
91079703|NCT01618916|182045005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-32.26|||<|0.001||90.0|-46.69|-17.82|||Mixed Effects Model Analysis|P-value is for Day 57.||||-17.82|-46.69|<0.001
91079704|NCT01618916|182045005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-45.36|||<|0.001||90.0|-60.07|-30.64|||Mixed Effects Model Analysis|P-value is for Day 43.||||-30.64|-60.07|<0.001
91079705|NCT01618916|182045005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-32.04|||<|0.001||90.0|-46.76|-17.32|||Mixed Effects Model Analysis|P-value is for Day 57.||||-17.32|-46.76|<0.001
91079706|NCT01618916|182045005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-46.8|||<|0.001||90.0|-61.12|-32.49|||Mixed Effects Model Analysis|P-value is for Day 43.||||-32.49|-61.12|<0.001
91079707|NCT01618916|182045005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-44.64|||<|0.001||90.0|-58.95|-30.32|||Mixed Effects Model Analysis|P-value is for Day 57.||||-30.32|-58.95|<0.001
90891839|NCT05090709|181648752|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA including all 5 time points in the analysis.||||||> 0.05
91079708|NCT01618916|182045005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.53||||0.44||90.0|-20.51|7.44|||Mixed Effect Model Analysis|P-value is for Day 127||||7.44|-20.51|0.440
91079709|NCT01618916|182045005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.1||||0.108||90.0|-28.53|0.33|||Mixed Effect Model Analysis|P-value is for Day 127.||||0.33|-28.53|0.108
91079710|NCT01618916|182045005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-22.41||||0.013||90.0|-37.13|-7.69|||Mixed Effect Model Analysis|P-value is for Day 127.||||-7.69|-37.13|0.013
91079711|NCT01618916|182045005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-17.93||||0.042||90.0|-32.42|-3.44|||Mixed Effect Model Analysis|P-value is for Day 127.||||-3.44|-32.42|0.042
91079712|NCT03292471|182045006|SUPERIORITY|Dependent variable: PNT T-score Fixed Effects: Group Assignment (A = Standard, B= Priming), Time point (Pre-treatment, Post-treatment) Random Effects: Participant (intercept and slope) Priors for slope and intercept were set as t-distributions (PNT raw score converted to T-score scale with m = 50, sd = 10 based on sample estimates from Fergadiotis, Hula, \& Kellough, 2015)|Highest Density Interval of Posterior Di|0.284|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|2.92|||||Direction of comparison: Group A (Standard Protocol) and post-treatment timepoint were set as reference values|Baysian Multivariate Analysis of Variance||2.92|-2.07|
91079713|NCT03292471|182045006|SUPERIORITY|Dependent variable: PNT T-score Fixed Effects: Group Assignment (A = Standard, B= Priming), Time point (Pre-treatment, Follow-up) Random Effects: Participant (intercept and slope) Priors for slope and intercept were set as t-distributions (PNT raw score converted to T-score scale with m = 50, sd = 10 based on sample estimates from Fergadiotis, Hula, \& Kellough, 2015)|Highest Density Interval of Posterior Di|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.38|2.46|||||Direction of comparison: Group A (Standard Protocol) and follow-up (2 months post-treatment) timepoint were set as reference values|Baysian Multivariate Analysis of Variance||2.46|-2.38|
91079714|NCT03292471|182045007|SUPERIORITY|Dependent variable: CAT Mean-modality T-score Fixed Effects: Group Assignment (A = Standard, B= Priming), Time point (Entry, Exit) Random Effects: Participant (intercept and slope) Priors for slope and intercept were set as t-distributions|Highest Density Interval of Posterior Di|0.997|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0719|2.25|||||Direction of comparison: Group A (Standard Protocol) and post-treatment timepoint were set as reference values|Baysian Multivariate Analysis of Variance||2.25|-0.0719|
91079715|NCT03292471|182045007|SUPERIORITY|Dependent variable: CAT Mean-modality T-score Fixed Effects: Group Assignment (A = Standard, B= Priming), Time-point (Pre-treatment, Post-treatment) Random Effects: Participant (intercept and slope) Priors for slope and intercept were set as t-distributions|Highest Density Interval of Posterior Di|0.443|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.596|1.58|||||Direction of comparison: Group A (Standard Protocol) and follow-up (2 months post-treatment) timepoint were set as reference values|Baysian Multivariate Analysis of Variance||1.58|-0.596|
91079716|NCT00911586|182045008|OTHER|Part 1 of piecewise linear regression model.|Slope|-4.077|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.02||0.806|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Part 1 of piecewise linear regression model.|Part 1 of piecewise linear regression model.|||||0.8060
91079717|NCT00911586|182045009|OTHER|Part 2 of piecewise linear regression model.|Slope|4.114|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.456||0.8286|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Part 2 of piecewise linear regression model.|Part 2 of piecewise linear regression model.|||||0.8286
91079718|NCT00938587|182045010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.291||0.0141|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.21|-0.24|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) was based on least squares (LS) mean difference using mixed-model repeated measure (MMRM) where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and compound symmetry (CS) as covariance structure.||-0.24|-1.21|0.0141
91079719|NCT00938587|182045010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.283|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.73|-0.79|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90 % CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||-0.79|-1.73|<0.0001
91079720|NCT00938587|182045011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.865||0.437|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.54|1.63|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||1.63|-4.54|0.4370
91079721|NCT00938587|182045011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.858||0.1802|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.58|0.57|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||0.57|-5.58|0.1802
91079722|NCT00938587|182045011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.832||0.6012|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.99|2.07|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||2.07|-3.99|0.6012
91079723|NCT00938587|182045011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-2.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.834||0.2753|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.04|1.03|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||1.03|-5.04|0.2753
91079724|NCT00938587|182045011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.844||0.7892|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.56|3.55|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||3.55|-2.56|0.7892
90891840|NCT05090709|181648757|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA including all 5 time points in the analysis.||||||> 0.05
90891841|NCT05090709|181648757|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||Including partial eta squared large effect size.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA including all 5 time points in the analysis.||||||< 0.05
90891842|NCT05090709|181648762|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA including all 5 time points in the analysis.||||||> 0.05
90891843|NCT05090709|181648762|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA including all 5 time points in the analysis.||||||> 0.05
90891844|NCT05090709|181648767|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||Including partial eta squared large effect size.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA including all 5 time points in the analysis.||||||< 0.05
90891845|NCT05090709|181648767|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||Including partial eta squared large effect size.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA including all 5 time points in the analysis.||||||< 0.05
90905051|NCT02886728|181677436|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|3.6||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|6.8||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2||6.8|0.3|0.004
90905052|NCT02886728|181677436|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|9.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.2|13.1||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4||13.1|5.2|<0.001
91079725|NCT00938587|182045011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.937||0.3765|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.92|1.49|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||1.49|-4.92|0.3765
91079726|NCT00938587|182045011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-3.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.873||0.0571|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.69|-0.49|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||-0.49|-6.69|0.0571
91079727|NCT00938587|182045011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.896||0.6553|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.99|2.29|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||2.29|-3.99|0.6553
91079728|NCT00938587|182045011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-2.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.847||0.1427|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.78|0.33|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||0.33|-5.78|0.1427
91079729|NCT00938587|182045011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.873||0.643|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.23|3.97|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||3.97|-2.23|0.6430
91079730|NCT00938587|182045011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.918||0.5868|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.13|4.22|||MMRM|||Day 42: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||4.22|-2.13|0.5868
90891846|NCT03775200|181648768|OTHER|For this primary analysis, a sample size of 216 randomised participants (72:72:72) will provide 90% power at the alpha = 0.05 level to detect a 6-point difference in average MADRS total score between the optimal therapeutic dose of COMP360 and COMP360 1 mg, assuming the common standard deviation (SD) is 11.0.|Least Mean Square Difference|-6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|-2.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|Hypothetical strategy estimand - missing not at random (MNAR) and missing at random (MAR) imputation for missing data.|LSM difference of COMP360 25 mg compared to COMP360 1 mg.|The primary analysis was the comparison between COMP360 (25 mg or 10 mg) versus COMP360 1 mg. The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in mean change from Baseline in MADRS total score at Week 3 for COMP360 25 mg or COMP360 10 mg versus COMP360 1 mg. The alternative hypothesis was that were was a difference in mean change from Baseline in MADRS total score at Week 3 for COMP360 25 mg or COMP360 10 mg versus COMP360 1 mg.||-2.9|-10.2|<0.05
91079731|NCT00938587|182045011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.873||0.586|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.12|2.08|||MMRM|||Day 42: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||2.08|-4.12|0.5860
91079732|NCT00938587|182045011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.879||0.3288|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.27|4.95|||MMRM|||Day 42: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||4.95|-1.27|0.3288
91079733|NCT00938587|182045011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.846||0.9027|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.28|2.83|||MMRM|||Day 42: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||2.83|-3.28|0.9027
91079734|NCT00938587|182045011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.871||0.671|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.3|3.89|||MMRM|||Day 42: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||3.89|-2.30|0.6710
91079735|NCT00938587|182045012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.123||0.837|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.63|2.09|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||2.09|-1.63|0.8370
91079736|NCT00938587|182045012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12||0.0819|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.81|-0.11|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||-0.11|-3.81|0.0819
91079737|NCT00938587|182045012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.106||0.8892|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.98|1.67|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||1.67|-1.98|0.8892
91079738|NCT00938587|182045012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-2.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.106||0.0353|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.17|-0.52|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||-0.52|-4.17|0.0353
91079739|NCT00938587|182045012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.108||0.7283|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.22|1.45|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||1.45|-2.22|0.7283
91079740|NCT00938587|182045012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.174||0.9083|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.81|2.08|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||2.08|-1.81|0.9083
91079741|NCT00938587|182045012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.132||0.1641|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.45|0.29|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||0.29|-3.45|0.1641
91079742|NCT00938587|182045012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.155||0.817|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.64|2.18|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||2.18|-1.64|0.8170
91079743|NCT00938587|182045012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.116||0.1958|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.29|0.4|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||0.40|-3.29|0.1958
91079744|NCT00938587|182045012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.13||0.907|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.74|2.0|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||2.00|-1.74|0.9070
91079745|NCT00938587|182045012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|3.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.67|5.5|||MMRM|||Day 42: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||5.50|1.67|0.0023
91079746|NCT00938587|182045012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.132||0.1531|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.25|3.49|||MMRM|||Day 42: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||3.49|-0.25|0.1531
91079747|NCT00938587|182045012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.141||0.1506|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.24|3.53|||MMRM|||Day 42: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||3.53|-0.24|0.1506
91079748|NCT00938587|182045012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.116||0.78|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.16|1.53|||MMRM|||Day 42: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||1.53|-2.16|0.7800
91079749|NCT00938587|182045012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.13||0.0883|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.8|-0.07|||MMRM|||Day 42: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||-0.07|-3.80|0.0883
91079750|NCT00938587|182045013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-8.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.48||0.0599|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.87|-1.07|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||-1.07|-15.87|0.0599
91079751|NCT00938587|182045013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-13.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.436||0.003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.61|-5.96|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||-5.96|-20.61|0.0030
91079752|NCT00938587|182045013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-12.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.483||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.03|-5.22|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||-5.22|-20.03|0.0053
91079753|NCT00938587|182045013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-17.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.445||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-24.78|-10.1|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||-10.10|-24.78|0.0001
91079754|NCT00938587|182045013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-4.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.427||0.3492|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.46|3.16|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||3.16|-11.46|0.3492
90954206|NCT00799981|181786799|OTHER|||||||0.8762|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The hypothesis that a 10 cm catheter provides equal emptying of the bladder as a 7 cm catheter was tested.||||0.8762
90954207|NCT00799981|181786800|OTHER|||||||0.7905|||||||McNemar|||||||0.7905
91079755|NCT00938587|182045013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-9.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.661||0.0389|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.38|-1.98|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure||-1.98|-17.38|0.0389
91079756|NCT00938587|182045013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-11.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.49||0.0142|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.51|-3.68|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||-3.68|-18.51|0.0142
91079757|NCT00938587|182045013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-13.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.612||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.13|-5.89|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||-5.89|-21.13|0.0037
91079758|NCT00938587|182045013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-14.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.447||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.27|-7.58|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||-7.58|-22.27|0.0009
91079759|NCT00938587|182045013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-3.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.484||0.3939|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.23|3.57|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||3.57|-11.23|0.3939
91079760|NCT00938587|182045013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|11.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.595||0.0127|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.95|19.13|||MMRM|||Day 42: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||19.13|3.95|0.0127
91079761|NCT00938587|182045013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.49||0.9425|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.09|7.74|||MMRM|||Day 42: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||7.74|-7.09|0.9425
91079762|NCT00938587|182045013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|11.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.544||0.0155|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.58|18.59|||MMRM|||Day 42: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||18.59|3.58|0.0155
91079763|NCT00938587|182045013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.447||0.9757|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.48|7.21|||MMRM|||Day 42: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||7.21|-7.48|0.9757
91079764|NCT00938587|182045013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.484||0.9184|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.86|6.94|||MMRM|||Day 42: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||6.94|-7.86|0.9184
91079765|NCT00938587|182045014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.135||0.2403|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.38|0.06|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||0.06|-0.38|0.2403
91079766|NCT00938587|182045014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.134||0.027|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.52|-0.08|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||-0.08|-0.52|0.0270
91079767|NCT00938587|182045014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.133||0.3139|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.36|0.09|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||0.09|-0.36|0.3139
91079768|NCT00938587|182045014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.134||0.0415|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|-0.05|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||-0.05|-0.50|0.0415
91079769|NCT00938587|182045014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.134||0.8585|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|0.25|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||0.25|-0.20|0.8585
90829342|NCT02365649|181533418|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.9||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|5.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 36||5.3|-17.1|1.000
91079770|NCT00938587|182045014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.138||0.7284|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.28|0.18|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||0.18|-0.28|0.7284
91079771|NCT00938587|182045014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.135||0.0171|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.55|-0.1|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||-0.10|-0.55|0.0171
91079772|NCT00938587|182045014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.135||0.2277|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.39|0.06|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||0.06|-0.39|0.2277
91079773|NCT00938587|182045014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.134||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.67|-0.22|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||-0.22|-0.67|0.0013
91079774|NCT00938587|182045014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.135||0.3908|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.34|0.11|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||0.11|-0.34|0.3908
91079775|NCT00938587|182045015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-3.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.093||0.6067|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.43|8.1|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||8.10|-15.43|0.6067
91079776|NCT00938587|182045015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-9.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.101||0.1816|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.32|2.23|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||2.23|-21.32|0.1816
91079777|NCT00938587|182045015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-2.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.029||0.6873|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.5|8.82|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||8.82|-14.50|0.6873
91079778|NCT00938587|182045015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-8.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.052||0.2188|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.42|2.98|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||2.98|-20.42|0.2188
91079779|NCT00938587|182045015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.024||0.9067|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.82|12.47|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||12.47|-10.82|0.9067
90891847|NCT03775200|181648769|OTHER||Least Mean Square Difference|-5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|-1.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|Hypothetical strategy estimand - MNAR and MAR imputation for missing data.||Sensitivity analysis of the primary endpoint using the per-protocol analysis set.||-1.8|-9.4|<0.05
91079780|NCT00938587|182045015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-4.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.254||0.5803|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.05|8.0|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||8.00|-16.05|0.5803
90891848|NCT04605978|181648770|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|5.49|||||Missing data and data post intercurrent event were imputed for the statistical analysis as specified in the statistical analysis plan.|||5.49|-0.61|
90891849|NCT01644734|181648783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: no change in the total CAT score between baseline and after 3 months.||||<0.001
90891850|NCT02216123|181648784|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.161|4.982|||||Confidence interval for the treatment difference was based on the Newcombe method. Percent treatment difference (TQ+CQ-PQ+CQ) has been presented.|||4.982|-4.161|
90954208|NCT00799981|181786801|OTHER|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||||||1.00
90954209|NCT00799981|181786804|OTHER|||||||0.0273|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||In the table 0=No and 1=Yes.||||0.0273
91079781|NCT00938587|182045015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-8.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.156||0.249|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.16|3.57|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||3.57|-20.16|0.2490
91079782|NCT00938587|182045015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-11.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.178||0.1081|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.52|0.28|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||0.28|-23.52|0.1081
91079783|NCT00938587|182045015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-15.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.098||0.0271|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.66|-4.12|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||-4.12|-27.66|0.0271
91079784|NCT00938587|182045015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.121||0.2881|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-19.41|4.21|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||4.21|-19.41|0.2881
91079785|NCT00938587|182045016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-6.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.059||0.3579|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.23|5.19|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||5.19|-18.23|0.3579
91079786|NCT00938587|182045016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-8.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.046||0.2274|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.24|3.14|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||3.14|-20.24|0.2274
91079787|NCT00938587|182045016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-10.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.973||0.1482|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.72|1.41|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||1.41|-21.72|0.1482
91079788|NCT00938587|182045016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-12.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.962||0.0828|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.74|-0.64|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||-0.64|-23.74|0.0828
91079789|NCT00938587|182045016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-3.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.953||0.6021|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.17|7.9|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||7.90|-15.17|0.6021
91079790|NCT00938587|182045016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-2.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.213||0.7528|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.24|9.68|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||9.68|-14.24|0.7528
91079791|NCT00938587|182045016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-8.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.1||0.2523|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-19.94|3.6|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||3.60|-19.94|0.2523
91079792|NCT00938587|182045016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-11.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.118||0.1049|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.43|0.17|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||0.17|-23.43|0.1049
91079793|NCT00938587|182045016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-17.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.006||0.0138|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-29.14|-5.91|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||-5.91|-29.14|0.0138
91079794|NCT00938587|182045016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-9.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.052||0.1873|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.05|2.34|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||2.34|-21.05|0.1873
90891851|NCT02216123|181648786|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.984||||||95.0|0.577|1.678|||||Hazards ratio was estimated from Cox Proportional Hazards Model with treatment and region as covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower chance of relapse with TQ+CQ compared to PQ+CQ.|||1.678|0.577|
91079795|NCT00938587|182045017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-3.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.339||0.509|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.4|5.32|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||5.32|-12.40|0.5090
91079796|NCT00938587|182045017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-8.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.354||0.0998|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.78|-0.01|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||-0.01|-17.78|0.0998
91079797|NCT00938587|182045017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.282||0.8866|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.52|8.01|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||8.01|-9.52|0.8866
90891852|NCT02216123|181648787|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.815|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.442|1.503|||||Hazard ratio was estimated from Cox Proportional Hazards Model with treatment and region as covariates. A hazard ratio\<1 indicates a lower chance of relapse with TQ+CQ compared to PQ+CQ.|||1.503|0.442|
91079798|NCT00938587|182045017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-6.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.28||0.2499|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.88|2.66|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||2.66|-14.88|0.2499
91079799|NCT00938587|182045017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.283||0.5995|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.99|11.55|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||11.55|-5.99|0.5995
91079800|NCT00938587|182045017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.429||0.9117|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.4|9.61|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||9.61|-8.40|0.9117
91079801|NCT00938587|182045017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-9.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.381||0.0684|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.84|-0.98|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||-0.98|-18.84|0.0684
91079802|NCT00938587|182045017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-6.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.366||0.2292|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.39|2.42|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||2.42|-15.39|0.2292
91079803|NCT00938587|182045017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-17.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.308||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-25.81|-8.19|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||-8.19|-25.81|0.0018
91079804|NCT00938587|182045017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-7.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.337||0.1867|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.95|1.76|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||1.76|-15.95|0.1867
91079805|NCT00938587|182045018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.708||0.9624|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.64|4.38|||ANCOVA|||Physical functioning at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||4.38|-4.64|0.9624
91079806|NCT00938587|182045018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.65||0.9493|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.24|4.58|||ANCOVA|||Physical functioning at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||4.58|-4.24|0.9493
91079807|NCT00938587|182045018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|3.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.738||0.21|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.1|8.02|||ANCOVA|||Physical functioning at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||8.02|-1.10|0.2100
91079808|NCT00938587|182045018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|3.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.651||0.1602|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.66|8.18|||ANCOVA|||Physical functioning at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||8.18|-0.66|0.1602
91079809|NCT00938587|182045018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|3.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.71||0.1892|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.92|8.1|||ANCOVA|||Physical functioning at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||8.10|-0.92|0.1892
91079810|NCT00938587|182045018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.781||0.7899|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.89|5.38|||ANCOVA|||Role physical at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||5.38|-3.89|0.7899
90829343|NCT02365649|181533418|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.9||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|5.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 44||5.3|-17.1|1.000
91079811|NCT00938587|182045018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|3.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.719||0.149|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.56|8.49|||ANCOVA|||Role physical at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||8.49|-0.56|0.1490
91079812|NCT00938587|182045018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.766||0.6238|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.97|3.24|||ANCOVA|||Role physical at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||3.24|-5.97|0.6238
91079813|NCT00938587|182045018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.699||0.4933|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.64|6.35|||ANCOVA|||Role physical at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||6.35|-2.64|0.4933
91079814|NCT00938587|182045018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-2.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.739||0.4445|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.67|2.46|||ANCOVA|||Role physical at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||2.46|-6.67|0.4445
91079815|NCT00938587|182045018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|3.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.897||0.2288|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.31|8.34|||ANCOVA|||Bodily pain at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||8.34|-1.31|0.2288
91079816|NCT00938587|182045018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|4.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.844||0.098|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.03|9.5|||ANCOVA|||Bodily pain at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate||9.50|0.03|0.0980
91079817|NCT00938587|182045018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|5.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.941||0.0637|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.64|10.43|||ANCOVA|||Bodily pain at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate||10.43|0.64|0.0637
91079818|NCT00938587|182045018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|6.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.831||0.019|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.07|11.5|||ANCOVA|||Bodily pain at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||11.50|2.07|0.0190
91079819|NCT00938587|182045018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.903||0.4886|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.81|6.86|||ANCOVA|||Bodily pain at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||6.86|-2.81|0.4886
91079820|NCT00938587|182045018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.879||0.9951|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.12|3.14|||ANCOVA|||General health at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||3.14|-3.12|0.9951
91079821|NCT00938587|182045018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.818||0.4721|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.71|4.34|||ANCOVA|||General health at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||4.34|-1.71|0.4721
91079822|NCT00938587|182045018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.879||0.6835|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.9|2.36|||ANCOVA|||General health at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||2.36|-3.90|0.6835
91079823|NCT00938587|182045018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.818||0.7701|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.49|3.56|||ANCOVA|||General health at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||3.56|-2.49|0.7701
91079824|NCT00938587|182045018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.831||0.671|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.83|2.27|||ANCOVA|||General health at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||2.27|-3.83|0.6710
91079825|NCT00938587|182045018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|3.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.827||0.2886|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.69|7.73|||ANCOVA|||Vitality at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||7.73|-1.69|0.2886
91079826|NCT00938587|182045018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|4.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.784||0.134|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.42|8.86|||ANCOVA|||Vitality at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||8.86|-0.42|0.1340
91079827|NCT00938587|182045018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|3.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.83||0.2563|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.48|7.95|||ANCOVA|||Vitality at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||7.95|-1.48|0.2563
91079828|NCT00938587|182045018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|4.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.771||0.1138|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.18|9.05|||ANCOVA|||Vitality at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||9.05|-0.18|0.1138
90829344|NCT02365649|181533418|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.9||||0.447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|5.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 44||5.3|-17.1|0.447
91079829|NCT00938587|182045018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.793||0.9386|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.44|4.87|||ANCOVA|||Vitality at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||4.87|-4.44|0.9386
91079830|NCT00938587|182045018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.701||0.8814|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.09|4.9|||ANCOVA|||Social functioning at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||4.90|-4.09|0.8814
91079831|NCT00938587|182045018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|3.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.64||0.1363|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.42|8.37|||ANCOVA|||Social functioning at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||8.37|-0.42|0.1363
91079832|NCT00938587|182045018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.682||0.7864|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.74|5.2|||ANCOVA|||Social functioning at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||5.20|-3.74|0.7864
90891853|NCT02858050|181648822|OTHER|||||||0.548306|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.548306
91079833|NCT00938587|182045018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.619||0.1048|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.06|8.66|||ANCOVA|||Social functioning at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||8.66|-0.06|0.1048
90954210|NCT03192475|181786805|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.01
91079834|NCT00938587|182045018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.643||0.9024|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.08|4.73|||ANCOVA|||Social functioning at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||4.73|-4.08|0.9024
91079835|NCT00938587|182045018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.819||0.4954|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.74|8.98|||ANCOVA|||Role emotional at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||8.98|-3.74|0.4954
91079836|NCT00938587|182045018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|5.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.735||0.1729|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.08|11.36|||ANCOVA|||Role emotional at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||11.36|-1.08|0.1729
91079837|NCT00938587|182045018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.82||0.565|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.15|8.57|||ANCOVA|||Role emotional at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||8.57|-4.15|0.5650
91079838|NCT00938587|182045018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|4.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.73||0.2087|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.48|10.94|||ANCOVA|||Role emotional at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||10.94|-1.48|0.2087
91079839|NCT00938587|182045018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.771||0.9139|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.69|5.87|||ANCOVA|||Role emotional at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||5.87|-6.69|0.9139
91079840|NCT00938587|182045018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.371||0.6559|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.11|7.12|||ANCOVA|||Mental health at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||7.12|-4.11|0.6559
91079841|NCT00938587|182045018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.315||0.7304|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.37|6.67|||ANCOVA|||Mental health at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||6.67|-4.37|0.7304
91079842|NCT00938587|182045018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|4.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.369||0.1729|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.98|10.25|||ANCOVA|||Mental health at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||10.25|-0.98|0.1729
91079843|NCT00938587|182045018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|4.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.335||0.2038|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.28|9.83|||ANCOVA|||Mental health at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||9.83|-1.28|0.2038
91079844|NCT00938587|182045018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|3.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.328||0.3503|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.41|8.67|||ANCOVA|||Mental health at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||8.67|-2.41|0.3503
91079845|NCT00938587|182045018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.01||0.8875|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.06|3.63|||ANCOVA|||Physical component at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||3.63|-3.06|0.8875
91079846|NCT00938587|182045018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.971||0.3203|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.31|5.25|||ANCOVA|||Physical component at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||5.25|-1.31|0.3203
91079847|NCT00938587|182045018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.046||0.5232|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.09|4.72|||ANCOVA|||Physical component at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||4.72|-2.09|0.5232
91079848|NCT00938587|182045018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.971||0.1324|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.28|6.28|||ANCOVA|||Physical component at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||6.28|-0.28|0.1324
91079849|NCT00938587|182045018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.024||0.6134|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.34|4.4|||ANCOVA|||Physical component at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||4.40|-2.34|0.6134
91079850|NCT00938587|182045018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.387||0.5059|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.38|7.91|||ANCOVA|||Mental component at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||7.91|-3.38|0.5059
91079851|NCT00938587|182045018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|3.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.329||0.3042|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.1|8.99|||ANCOVA|||Mental component at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||8.99|-2.10|0.3042
91079852|NCT00938587|182045018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|3.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.39||0.3519|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.47|8.82|||ANCOVA|||Mental component at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||8.82|-2.47|0.3519
91079853|NCT00938587|182045018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|4.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.342||0.1966|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.21|9.92|||ANCOVA|||Mental component at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||9.92|-1.21|0.1966
90954211|NCT03192475|181786806|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.15
91079854|NCT00938587|182045018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.345||0.786|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.66|6.48|||ANCOVA|||Mental component at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||6.48|-4.66|0.7860
91079855|NCT00938587|182045019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.286||0.109|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.93|0.01|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||0.01|-0.93|0.1090
91079856|NCT00938587|182045019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.282||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.38|-0.45|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||-0.45|-1.38|0.0014
91079857|NCT00938587|182045019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.284||0.0506|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.03|-0.09|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||-0.09|-1.03|0.0506
91079858|NCT00938587|182045019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.48|-0.55|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||-0.55|-1.48|0.0004
91079859|NCT00938587|182045019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.281||0.7272|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.56|0.37|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||0.37|-0.56|0.7272
91079860|NCT00938587|182045019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.296||0.0604|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.05|-0.07|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||-0.07|-1.05|0.0604
91079861|NCT00938587|182045019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.285||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.53|-0.59|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||-0.59|-1.53|0.0003
91079862|NCT00938587|182045019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.291||0.0377|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.09|-0.13|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||-0.13|-1.09|0.0377
91079863|NCT00938587|182045019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.57|-0.65|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||-0.65|-1.57|0.0001
91079864|NCT00938587|182045019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.284||0.8612|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.52|0.42|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||0.42|-0.52|0.8612
91079865|NCT00938587|182045019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.292||0.133|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.04|0.93|||MMRM|||Day 42: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||0.93|-0.04|0.1330
91079866|NCT00938587|182045019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.285||0.8542|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.52|0.42|||MMRM|||Day 42: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||0.42|-0.52|0.8542
90905053|NCT02886728|181677436|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|2.4||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|6.6||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4||6.6|-1.7|0.18
91079867|NCT00938587|182045019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.288||0.2339|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.13|0.82|||MMRM|||Day 42: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||0.82|-0.13|0.2339
91079868|NCT00938587|182045019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.5927|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.61|0.31|||MMRM|||Day 42: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||0.31|-0.61|0.5927
91079869|NCT00938587|182045019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.284||0.7304|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.57|0.37|||MMRM|||Day 42: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||0.37|-0.57|0.7304
91079870|NCT00938587|182045020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.0956|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.97|-0.01|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||-0.01|-0.97|0.0956
91079871|NCT00938587|182045020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.286||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.4|-0.45|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||-0.45|-1.40|0.0016
91079872|NCT00938587|182045020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.287||0.0258|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.13|-0.17|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||-0.17|-1.13|0.0258
91079873|NCT00938587|182045020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.283||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.56|-0.62|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||-0.62|-1.56|0.0002
91079874|NCT00938587|182045020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.284||0.5692||90.0|-0.63|0.31|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||0.31|-0.63|0.5692
91079875|NCT00938587|182045021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|14.29||||0.146|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.65|35.98|||Barnard exact test|||Day 7||35.98|-8.65|0.1460
91079876|NCT00938587|182045021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|38.1||||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|90.0|12.25|59.46|||Barnard exact test|||Day 7||59.46|12.25|0.0052
91079877|NCT00938587|182045021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|1.3||||0.5094|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.0|24.66|||Barnard exact test|||Day 7||24.66|-22.00|0.5094
91079878|NCT00938587|182045021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|25.11||||0.0551|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.69|48.34|||Barnard exact test|||Day 7||48.34|-0.69|0.0551
91079879|NCT00938587|182045021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-12.99||||0.9999|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-34.09|8.78|||Barnard exact test|||Day 7||8.78|-34.09|0.9999
90829345|NCT02365649|181533418|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.9||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|5.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 44||5.3|-17.1|1.000
90905054|NCT02886728|181677436|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|7.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|12.6||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4||12.6|2.5|<0.001
91079880|NCT00938587|182045021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|10.56||||0.3027|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.18|37.67|||Barnard-Exact test|||Day 14||37.67|-17.18|0.3027
91079881|NCT00938587|182045021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|21.67||||0.1074|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.24|46.16|||Barnard-Exact test|||Day 14||46.16|-6.24|0.1074
91079882|NCT00938587|182045021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|17.46||||0.234|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.08|43.7|||Barnard-Exact test|||Day 14||43.70|-10.08|0.2340
91079883|NCT00938587|182045021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|28.57||||0.0442|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|53.07|||Barnard-Exact test|||Day 14||53.07|0.91|0.0442
91079884|NCT00938587|182045021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|6.9||||0.3813|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-19.82|32.92|||Barnard-Exact test|||Day 14||32.92|-19.82|0.3813
91079885|NCT00938587|182045022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|9.52||||0.1017|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.9|27.09|||Barnard exact test|||Day 7||27.09|-3.90|0.1017
91079886|NCT00938587|182045022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|19.05||||0.0218|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.49|38.44|||Barnard exact test|||Day 7||38.44|4.49|0.0218
91079887|NCT00938587|182045022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|9.52||||0.1082|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.71|27.06|||Barnard exact test|||Day 7||27.06|-3.71|0.1082
91079888|NCT00938587|182045022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|19.05||||0.0166|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.81|38.44|||Barnard exact test|||Day 7||38.44|4.81|0.0166
91079889|NCT00938587|182045022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|2.22||||0.4776|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.61|25.87|||Barnard exact test|||Day 14||25.87|-21.61|0.4776
91079890|NCT00938587|182045022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|27.62||||0.0347|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.53|50.78|||Barnard exact test|||Day 14||50.78|2.53|0.0347
91079891|NCT00938587|182045022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|7.94||||0.3343|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.71|31.59|||Barnard exact test|||Day 14||31.59|-13.71|0.3343
91079892|NCT00938587|182045022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|33.33||||0.0117|TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.35|55.0|||Barnard exact test|||Day 14||55.00|8.35|0.0117
91079893|NCT00938587|182045022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|5.71||||0.372|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.86|27.04|||Barnard exact test|||Day 14||27.04|-15.86|0.3720
91079894|NCT00938587|182045023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|4.76||||0.263|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.61|20.67|||Barnard exact test|||Day 7||20.67|-8.61|0.2630
91079895|NCT00938587|182045023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|4.76||||0.263|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.61|20.67|||Barnard exact test|||Day 7||20.67|-8.61|0.2630
91079896|NCT00938587|182045023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|4.76||||0.2539|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.51|20.67|||Barnard exact test|||Day 7||20.67|-7.51|0.2539
91079897|NCT00938587|182045023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|4.76||||0.2539|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.51|20.67|||Barnard exact test|||Day 7||20.67|-7.51|0.2539
91079898|NCT00938587|182045023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|14.29||||0.0477|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.23|32.92|||Barnard exact test|||Day 14||32.92|0.23|0.0477
91079899|NCT00938587|182045023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|14.29||||0.0442|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.65|32.92|||Barnard exact test|||Day 14||32.92|0.65|0.0442
91079900|NCT00938587|182045026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.5403|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.34|0.75|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||0.75|-0.34|0.5403
91079901|NCT00938587|182045026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.8374|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.61|0.48|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||0.48|-0.61|0.8374
91079902|NCT00938587|182045026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.329||0.4305|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.28|0.8|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||0.80|-0.28|0.4305
91079903|NCT00938587|182045026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.325||0.9733|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.55|0.53|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||0.53|-0.55|0.9733
91079904|NCT00938587|182045026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.325||0.8613|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.48|0.6|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||0.60|-0.48|0.8613
91079905|NCT00938587|182045026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.341||0.5245|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.35|0.78|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||0.78|-0.35|0.5245
91079906|NCT00938587|182045026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.334||0.8917|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|0.51|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||0.51|-0.60|0.8917
91079907|NCT00938587|182045026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.339||0.1695|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.09|1.03|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||1.03|-0.09|0.1695
91079908|NCT00938587|182045026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.329||0.5339|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.34|0.75|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||0.75|-0.34|0.5339
91079909|NCT00938587|182045026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.332||0.452|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|0.8|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||0.80|-0.30|0.4520
90905055|NCT02886728|181677436|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|19.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.9|25.5||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12||25.5|13.9|<0.001
91079910|NCT01490697|182045068|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|16.0|||||Placebo plus Placebo - Mifepristone plus d-Cycloserine (DCS)|||16|-18|
91079911|NCT01490697|182045069|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|14.7|||||Placebo plus Placebo - Mifepristone plus d-Cycloserine (DCS)|||14.7|-6.9|
91079912|NCT00090584|182045070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in cumulative success rates|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.12|||Log Rank|||Kaplan Meier Lifetable analysis was used to compute the 8 month cumulative success rates.||0.12|-0.12|0.74
91079913|NCT00090584|182045071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|5.9||Mixed effect repeated measures analysis of variance controlling for study site.|ANOVA|||Test of hypothesis of no difference in change in episodes between the two groups.||5.9|-2.0|0.34
91079914|NCT00090584|182045072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.1||Repeated measures ANOVA controlling for clinical site.|ANOVA||Difference (group 1 - group 2) in change from baseline to follow-up in voids per day.|Null hypothesis of no difference between arms in change in number of voids per day from baseline to 10 weeks.||0.1|-1.7|0.08
91079915|NCT00090584|182045073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Other|0.0||||0.0006||95.0||||Repeated measures ANOVA|Mixed Models Analysis|Main hypothesis tested by F-test for treatment by time interaction (2 and 509 degrees of freedom). No parameters estimated.||Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between treatment groups in improvement in UDI over time||||0.0006
91079916|NCT00090584|182045074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Other|0.0||||0.0005||95.0||||P-value for test of time by treatment group interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for study site||Repeated measures analysis of difference in symptom bother over time by treatment group.||||0.0005
91079917|NCT00090584|182045075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.79||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|2.92|||Regression, Logistic|Controlling for clinical site and randomization stratum|Ratio of odds of complete satisfaction in Combination therapy arm to Drug only arm.|Null hypothesis: no difference in satisfaction at 10 weeks||2.92|1.09|0.02
91079918|NCT00090584|182045076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.03||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|3.7|||Regression, Logistic|Controlling for clinical site and randomization stratum|Ratio of odds of complete satisfaction in combination therapy group compared to drug only group.|Null hypothesis: No difference in satisfaction at 8 months post intervention||3.70|1.11|0.02
91079919|NCT00090584|182045077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.55||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|5.13||P-value from logistic regression analysis|Regression, Logistic|Controlling for clinical site and randomization stratum||Null hypothesis: No difference in perceived improvement between women in combination therapy group compared to those in drug only group||5.13|1.27|0.008
91079920|NCT00090584|182045078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.83|5.52|||Regression, Logistic|Controlling for clinical site and randomization stratum||Null hypothesis: No difference in perceived improvement at 8 months between women in combination therapy group compared to those in drug only group.||5.52|1.83|<0.0001
91079921|NCT00379808|182045079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.22|||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical power was calculated using G\*Power (Dusseldorf, Germany). Based on previously observed effects of statin drugs on hsCRP levels, 22 subjects provided 80% power to detect a moderate effect on hsCRP levels.||||0.22
91079922|NCT00379808|182045080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|3.8||||0.57|||||||Wilcoxon sign rank|||Null hypothesis is that montelukast does not affect HDL. Not powered for this endpoint||||0.57
91079923|NCT00379808|182045081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|7.4||||0.33|||||||wilcoxon sign rank|||The null hypothesis is that montelukast does not affect triglycerides. The study was not powered to this outcome measure.||||0.33
91079924|NCT00379808|182045082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|11.9||||0.12|||||||Wilcoxon|||null hypothesis is that montelukast does not affect MCP-1. Study not powered to the biomarker.||||0.12
91079925|NCT00379808|182045083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|13.3||||0.03|||||||wilcoxon sign rank test|||null hypothesis is that montelukast does not affect IL1ra.||||0.03
91079926|NCT00379808|182045084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|16.5||||0.09|||||||wilcoxon sign rank|||null hypothesis is that montelukast does not affect ENA-78. The study is not powered to this biomarker||||0.09
91079927|NCT03725033|182045100|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0028|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis applies to ∆ between baseline and after 12 weeks row.||||0.0028
90891854|NCT02157779|181648826|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.68||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.32|-1.01||Threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|ANCOVA|Method used: Hierarchical Linear Model (HLM) Repeated Measures Analysis of Covariance, Controlling for Baseline Score.|A negative difference means that the adjusted mean for CBI is numerically lower than that for SI.|All randomized participants with at least one post-baseline assessment (4wk, 8wk, end of treatment, 3 mo f/u, and/or 6 mo f/u) were used in the HLM analyses.||-1.01|-10.32|.017
90954212|NCT03192475|181786807|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.25
91079928|NCT03725033|182045101|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0805|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0805
91079929|NCT03725033|182045102|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis applies to ∆ between baseline and after 12 weeks row.||||0.99
91079930|NCT03725033|182045103|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis applies to ∆ between baseline and after 12 weeks row.||||0.79
91079931|NCT00508157|182045114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.14|-2.66|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: log of on-treatment to baseline ratio = log of baseline value, treatment, previous antipsychotic.|Relative difference of Aripiprazole vs. Control Group in terms of (mean % change from baseline/100)+1.|Null hypothesis: no difference in mean percent change from baseline in fasting non-HDLC between aripiprazole and the control group at Week 16||-2.66|-19.14|
91079932|NCT00508157|182045115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|A relative risk \< 1 favors Aripiprazole over Control Group.||null hypothesis: no difference between Aripiprazole and Control Group||1.06|0.54|
91079933|NCT01782352|182045204|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.27|||Regression, Cox|||||1.27|0.82|<0.05
91079934|NCT01782352|182045204|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.17|||Regression, Cox|||||1.17|0.76|<0.05
91079935|NCT01782352|182045205|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.21|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.7|||Regression, Cox|||||1.70|0.86|<0.05
91079936|NCT01782352|182045205|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.17|||Regression, Cox|||||1.17|0.59|<0.05
91079937|NCT01782352|182045206|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.23|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.84|||Regression, Cox|||||1.84|0.81|<0.05
91079938|NCT01782352|182045206|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.09|||Regression, Cox|||||1.09|0.48|<0.05
91079939|NCT01782352|182045207|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.37|||Regression, Cox|||||1.37|0.86|<0.05
91079940|NCT01782352|182045207|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.17|||Regression, Cox|||||1.17|0.73|<0.05
91079941|NCT01782352|182045208|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.21|||Regression, Cox|||||1.21|0.33|<0.05
91079942|NCT01782352|182045208|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.97|||Regression, Cox|||||1.97|0.56|<0.05
91079943|NCT01782352|182045209|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.25|||Regression, Cox|||||1.25|0.69|<0.05
91079944|NCT01782352|182045209|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.21|||Regression, Cox|||||1.21|0.67|<0.05
91079945|NCT00477607|182045210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|11.4|||Fisher Exact|No adjustments. Right one-sided p-value.||H0: pr(Hearing loss arm 1) = pr(Hearing loss arm 2)||11.4|0.4|0.89
91079946|NCT00477607|182045211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.195|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3999||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|0.64|||t-test, 2 sided|||H0: mean (MDA arm 1) = mean (MDA Arm 2)||0.64|-1.03|0.63
91079947|NCT00477607|182045212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|48.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|32.7||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.1|114.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||H0: mean(max dose arm 1) = mean(max dose arm 2)||114.6|-18.1|0.15
91079948|NCT00432276|182045213|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The analysis was conducted at the 1-sided 0.025 significance level. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper confidence limit for the LS mean difference was less than +0.3%.|LS mean difference|-0.47|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5||-0.35|||ANCOVA||Least squares means are from an ANCOVA model with treatment, study schedule, and geographic region as class variables, and baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c as covariates.|The analysis was conducted at the 1-sided 0.025 significance level. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper confidence limit for the LS mean difference was less than +0.3%.||-0.35||
91079949|NCT00432276|182045213|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The analysis was conducted at the 1-sided 0.025 significance level. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper confidence limit for the LS mean difference was less than +0.3%.|LS mean difference|-0.42|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5||-0.28|||ANCOVA||Least squares means are from an ANCOVA model with treatment, study schedule, and geographic region as class variables, and baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c as covariates.|Comparison of Change from Baseline at Week 52. The null hypothesis was that the average change from Baseline in HbA1c at Week 52 for the alogliptin 25 mg addition group is inferior to the average change for the pioglitazone titration group. The alternative hypothesis was that the change from Baseline in HbA1c for the alogliptin 25 mg addition group was non-inferior to the change for the pioglitazone titration group for at Week 52.||-0.28||
91079950|NCT00432276|182045214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.31||Statistical tests and resulting P-values are 2-sided and was evaluated at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, study schedule, and geographic region as class variables, and baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c as covariates.||Comparison of change from Baseline in HbA1c at Week 42.||-0.31|-0.57|<0.001
91079951|NCT00432276|182045222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-10.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|-5.7||Statistical test and resulting P-value are 2-sided and was evaluated at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, study schedule and geographic region as class variables, and baseline metformin dose and FPG as covariates.||Comparison of change from Baseline at Week 52.||-5.7|-16.2|<0.001
91079952|NCT00432276|182045223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical test and resulting P-value are 2-sided and was evaluated at the 0.05 significance level.|Extended Mantel Haenszel Test|Treatment comparison was performed using nonparametric, covariance-adjusted, extended Mantel-Haenszel test.||Comparison of incidence of marked hyperglycemia through Week 52.||||<0.001
91079953|NCT00432276|182045224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical test and resulting P-value are 2-sided and was evaluated at the 0.05 significance level.|Extended Mantel Haenszel Test|Treatment comparison was performed using nonparametric, covariance-adjusted, extended Mantel-Haenszel test.||Comparison of incidence of hyperglycemic rescue through Week 52.||||<0.001
91079954|NCT00432276|182045225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.6||||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|0.4||Statistical test and resulting P-value are 2-sided and was evaluated at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, study schedule and geographic region as class variables, and baseline metformin dose and proinsulin as covariates.||Comparison of change from Baseline at Week 52.||0.4|-3.7|0.116
91079955|NCT00432276|182045226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.73||||0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|2.04||Statistical test and resulting P-value are 2-sided and was evaluated at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, study schedule and geographic region as class variables, and baseline metformin dose and fasting insulin as covariates.||Comparison of change from Baseline at Week 52.||2.04|-0.58|0.276
91079956|NCT00432276|182045227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.041|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.063|-0.018||Statistical test and resulting P-value are 2-sided and was evaluated at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|Treatment, study schedule and geographic region as class variables, and baseline metformin dose and baseline proinsulin/insulin ratio as covariates.||Comparison of change from Baseline at Week 52.||-0.018|-0.063|<0.001
91079957|NCT00432276|182045228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.073||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.047|0.193||Statistical test and resulting P-value are 2-sided and was evaluated at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|Treatment, study schedule and geographic region as class variables, and baseline metformin dose and baseline fasting C-peptide as covariates.||Comparison of change from Baseline at Week 52.||0.193|-0.047|0.230
91079958|NCT00432276|182045229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.188||||0.567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.455||Statistical test and resulting P-value are 2-sided and was evaluated at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|Treatment, study schedule and geographic region as class variables, and baseline metformin dose and baseline HOMA insulin resistance as covariates.||Comparison of change from Baseline at Week 52.||0.455|-0.830|0.567
91079959|NCT00432276|182045230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|12.963|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.333|20.592||Statistical test and resulting P-value are 2-sided and was evaluated at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|Treatment, study schedule and geographic region as class variables, and baseline metformin dose and baseline HOMA beta cell function as covariates.||Comparison of change from Baseline at Week 52.||20.592|5.333|<0.001
91079960|NCT00432276|182045231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|0.04||Statistical test and resulting P-value are 2-sided and was evaluated at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|Treatment, study schedule and geographic region as class variables, and baseline metformin dose and baseline body weight as covariates.||Comparison of change from Baseline at Week 52.||0.04|-1.03|0.071
91079961|NCT00432276|182045232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.2||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|0.1||Statistical test and resulting P-value are 2-sided and was evaluated at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|Treatment, study schedule and geographic region as class variables, and baseline metformin dose and baseline total cholesterol as covariates.||Comparison of change from Baseline at Week 52.||0.1|-8.6|0.058
91079962|NCT00432276|182045233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.4||Statistical test and resulting P-value are 2-sided and was evaluated at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|Treatment, study schedule and geographic region as class variables, and baseline metformin dose and baseline HDL cholesterol as covariates.||Comparison of change from Baseline at Week 52.||0.4|-1.7|0.228
90829346|NCT02365649|181533418|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.9||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|5.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 52||5.3|-17.1|1.000
91079963|NCT00432276|182045234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.8||||0.132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|0.9||Statistical test and resulting P-value are 2-sided and was evaluated at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|Treatment, study schedule and geographic region as class variables, and baseline metformin dose and baseline LDL cholesterol as covariates.||Comparison of change from Baseline at Week 52.||0.9|-6.5|0.132
91079964|NCT00432276|182045235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-8.6||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.3|1.0||Statistical test and resulting P-value are 2-sided and was evaluated at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|Treatment, study schedule and geographic region as class variables, and baseline metformin dose and baseline triglycerides as covariates.||Comparison of change from Baseline at Week 52.||1.0|-18.3|0.080
91079965|NCT00432276|182045236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.0314||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.064|0.0012||Statistical test and resulting P-value are 2-sided and was evaluated at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|Treatment, study schedule and geographic region as class variables, and baseline metformin dose and baseline free fatty acid as covariates.||Comparison of change from Baseline at Week 52.||0.0012|-0.0640|0.059
91079966|NCT00432276|182045237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|2.6||Statistical test and resulting P-value are 2-sided and was evaluated at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|Treatment, study schedule and geographic region as class variables, and baseline metformin dose and baseline apolipoprotein A1 as covariates.||Comparison of change from Baseline at Week 52.||2.6|-2.9|0.934
91079967|NCT00432276|182045238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.1||Statistical test and resulting P-value are 2-sided and was evaluated at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|Treatment, study schedule and geographic region as class variables, and baseline metformin dose and baseline apolipoprotein A2 as covariates.||Comparison of change from Baseline at Week 52.||0.1|-1.3|0.070
91079968|NCT00432276|182045239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.9||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|0.2||Statistical test and resulting P-value are 2-sided and was evaluated at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|Treatment, study schedule and geographic region as class variables, and baseline metformin dose and baseline apolipoprotein B as covariates.||Comparison of change from Baseline at Week 52.||0.2|-5.9|0.064
91079969|NCT00432276|182045240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.1||Statistical test and resulting P-value are 2-sided and was evaluated at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|Treatment, study schedule and geographic region as class variables, and baseline metformin dose and baseline apolipoprotein C-III as covariates.||Comparison of change from Baseline at Week 52.||-0.1|-1.0|0.022
91079970|NCT00432276|182045241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.78||||0.308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|5.22||Statistical test and resulting P-value are 2-sided and was evaluated at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|Treatment, study schedule and geographic region as class variables, and baseline metformin dose and baseline PAI-1 as covariates.||Comparison of change from Baseline at Week 52.||5.22|-1.65|0.308
91079971|NCT00432276|182045242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.8209||||0.283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3209|0.679||Statistical test and resulting P-value are 2-sided and was evaluated at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|Treatment, study schedule and geographic region as class variables, and baseline metformin dose and baseline hsCRP as covariates.||Comparison of change from Baseline at Week 52.||0.6790|-2.3209|0.283
91079972|NCT00432276|182045243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.57|-1.27||Statistical test and resulting P-value are 2-sided and was evaluated at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|Treatment, study schedule and geographic region as class variables, and baseline metformin dose and baseline adiponectin as covariates.||Comparison of change from Baseline at Week 52.||-1.27|-4.57|<0.001
91079973|NCT00432276|182045244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.1||||0.197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|3.2||Statistical test and resulting P-value are 2-sided and was evaluated at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|||Comparison of change from Baseline at Week 52.||3.2|-15.4|0.197
91079974|NCT01093651|182045305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. The main effect analysis for CD4+ T-cell count over time and between the 2 groups did not achieve p\<0.05 (not statistically significant).|Mixed Models Analysis|Study subject was included in these models as a random variable to account for within-participant correlation.||The main effect analysis was applied to both rows (timepoint) and categories (groups). It used linear mixed models to simultaneously assess differences in CD4+ T-cell count between the DPP4 inhibitor and placebo groups (categories) over time (rows). Pairwise post-hoc contrasts were performed to assess the between and within group differences in outcome measures at each time point.||||>0.05
90905056|NCT02886728|181677436|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|13.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.6|21.1||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12||21.1|6.6|<0.001
91079975|NCT01093651|182045306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. The main effect analysis for plasma HIV RNA copy number/mL over time and between the 2 groups did not achieve p\<0.05 (not statistically significant).|Mixed Models Analysis|||The main effect analysis was applied to both rows (timepoint) and categories (groups). It used linear mixed models to simultaneously assess differences in plasma HIV RNA copy number/mL between the DPP4 inhibitor and placebo groups (categories) over time (rows). Pairwise post-hoc contrasts were performed to assess the between and within group differences in outcome measures at each time point.||||>0.05
90829347|NCT02365649|181533418|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.1||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5|13.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 52||13.3|-15.5|1.000
90954213|NCT03192475|181786808|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.11
90954214|NCT03192475|181786809|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.09
91079976|NCT01093651|182045307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. The main effect analysis for serum TNFR2 levels over time and between the 2 groups did not achieve p\<0.05 (not statistically significant).|Mixed Models Analysis|||The main effect analysis was applied to both rows (timepoint) and categories (groups). It used linear mixed models to simultaneously assess differences in serum TNFR2 levels between the DPP4 inhibitor and placebo groups (categories) over time (rows). Pairwise post-hoc contrasts were performed to assess the between and within group differences in outcome measures at each time point.||||>0.05
91079977|NCT01093651|182045308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0002||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. The main effect analysis for SDF1-alpha levels over time and between the 2 groups achieved p\<0.0002.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The main effect analysis was applied to both rows (timepoint) and categories (groups). It used linear mixed models to simultaneously assess differences in serum SDF1α levels between the DPP4 inhibitor and placebo groups (categories) over time (rows). Pairwise post-hoc contrasts were performed to assess the between and within group differences in outcome measures at each time point.||||<0.0002
91079978|NCT01093651|182045309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. The main effect analysis for serum RANTES levels over time and between the 2 groups did not achieve p\<0.05 (not statistically significant).|Mixed Models Analysis|||The main effect analysis was applied to both rows (timepoint) and categories (groups). It used linear mixed models to simultaneously assess differences in serum RANTES levels between the DPP4 inhibitor and placebo groups (categories) over time (rows). Pairwise post-hoc contrasts were performed to assess the between and within group differences in outcome measures at each time point.||||>0.05
91079979|NCT01093651|182045310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.04||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. The main effect analysis for area under the glucose tolerance curve over time and between the 2 groups achieved p\<0.04.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The main effect analysis was applied to both rows (timepoint) and categories (groups). It used linear mixed models to simultaneously assess differences in area under the glucose tolerance curves between the DPP4 inhibitor and placebo groups (categories) over time (rows). Pairwise post-hoc contrasts were performed to assess the between and within group differences in outcome measures at each time point.||||<0.04
91079980|NCT01093651|182045311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. The non-paramteric test for adverse event cummulative frequency between the 2 groups did not achieve p\<0.05 (not statistically significant)|Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis non-parametric test of cell frequencies||||>0.05
91079981|NCT02243046|182045328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.091|||||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.091
91079982|NCT02243046|182045329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||<0.001
91079983|NCT02243046|182045330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups||||< 0.001
90891855|NCT02157779|181648827|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.14||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.06||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.025|ANCOVA|Hierarchical Linear Model (HLM) Repeated Measures Analysis of Covariance, Controlling for Baseline Score.||Population Description: All randomized participants with at least one post-baseline assessment (4wk, 8wk, end of treatment, 3 mo f/u, and/or 6 mo f/u) were used in the statistical analysis. Data were winsorized and log10 transformed to counter high levels of skewness. Full Information Maximum Likelihood was used to account for missing data.|A negative difference means that the adjusted mean for CBI is numerically lower than that for SI.|0.06|-0.33|0.19
91079984|NCT02243046|182045331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.571|||||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups||||0.571
91079985|NCT02243046|182045332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups||||< 0.001
91079986|NCT02243046|182045333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups||||< 0.001
90829348|NCT02365649|181533418|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.9||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|5.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 52||5.3|-17.1|1.000
90954215|NCT03192475|181786810|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.53
91079987|NCT01687283|182045352|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the treatment difference (FP minus BUD) in the mean change from baseline in daily AM PEF averaged over the 12 week treatment period was greater than -12 L/min.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.8||||0.733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.19|8.59||Analysis performed using ANCOVA with covariates of baseline, center, sex, age and treatment|ANCOVA||The analysis only included participants who had at least 4 days of non-missing AM PEF data in the baseline week prior to randomization and at least 4 days of non-missing AM PEF data after randomization.|||8.59|-12.19|0.733
91079988|NCT01687283|182045353|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the treatment difference (FP minus BUD) in the mean change from baseline in daily AM PEF averaged over the 12 week treatment period was greater than -12 L/min.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.28||||0.674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.95|8.38|||ANCOVA|||||8.38|-12.95|0.674
91079989|NCT01687283|182045354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.77||||0.579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.57|7.04|||ANCOVA|||||7.04|-12.57|0.579
91079990|NCT01687283|182045355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.62||||0.854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|7.24|||ANCOVA|||||7.24|-6.00|0.854
91079991|NCT01687283|182045356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.123|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||This statistical analysis is for comparison of FP 1 mg BID and BUD 2 mg BID in median day-time symptom score||||0.123
91079992|NCT01687283|182045356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.949|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test.|||This statistical analysis is for comparison of FP 1 mg BID and BUD 2 mg BID in median night-time symptom score||||0.949
91079993|NCT01687283|182045357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.74||||0.204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.07|2.59|||ANCOVA|||||2.59|-12.07|0.204
91079994|NCT01687283|182045358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank sum|||||||0.170
91079995|NCT01687283|182045359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.039||||0.337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.118|0.041||Repeated Measures analysis adjusted for baseline, centre, sex, age, visit, treatment, visit by treatment interaction and visit by baseline interaction|ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis is for comparison of FP 1 mg BID and BUD 2 mg BID in Change of clinical lung function measurement FEV1 at Week 2||0.041|-0.118|0.337
91079996|NCT01687283|182045359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.008||||0.866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.101|0.085||Repeated Measures analysis adjusted for baseline, center, sex, age, visit, treatment, visit by treatment interaction and visit by baseline interaction.|ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis is for comparison of FP 1 mg BID and BUD 2 mg BID in Change of clinical lung function measurement FEV1 at Week 4||0.085|-0.101|0.866
91079997|NCT01687283|182045359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.025||||0.566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.113|0.062||Repeated Measures analysis adjusted for baseline, center, sex, age, visit, treatment, visit by treatment interaction and visit by baseline interaction|ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis is for comparison of FP 1 mg BID and BUD 2 mg BID in Change of clinical lung function measurement FEV1 at Week 8||0.062|-0.113|0.566
91079998|NCT01687283|182045359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.017||||0.727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.078|0.112||Repeated Measures analysis adjusted for baseline, center, sex, age, visit, treatment, visit by treatment interaction and visit by baseline interaction.|ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis is for comparison of FP 1 mg BID and BUD 2 mg BID in Change of clinical lung function measurement FEV1 at Week 12||0.112|-0.078|0.727
91079999|NCT00410072|182045374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.9||||0.0882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|14.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 96||14.9|-1.0|0.0882
91080000|NCT00410072|182045375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|24.8|||NC=F|||||24.8|2.3|
91080001|NCT00410072|182045375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|12.0|||NC=F|||||12.0|-7.7|
91080002|NCT00410072|182045375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.6||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|21.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.0|0.2|0.0460
91080003|NCT00410072|182045375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|9.5|||NC=F|||||9.5|-12.0|
90829349|NCT02365649|181533419|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.2|43.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 20||43.9|-57.2|1.000
91080004|NCT00410072|182045376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|16.0|||NC=F|||Analysis at week 48. The stratified analysis was based on HBeAg strata at randomization.||16.0|-1.8|
91080005|NCT00410072|182045376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|15.2|||NC=F|||Analysis at week 96. The stratified analysis was based on HBeAg strata at randomization.||15.2|-1.1|
91080006|NCT00410072|182045377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|17.1|||NC=F|||Analysis at Week 48. The stratified analysis was based on HBeAg strata at randomization.||17.1|-1.5|
91080007|NCT00410072|182045377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|17.3|||NC=F|||Analysis at Week 96. The stratified analysis was based on HBeAg strata at randomization.||17.3|-0.2|
91080008|NCT00410072|182045379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.8|-2.0|||NC+F|||Analysis at Week 48. The stratified analysis is based on HBeAg strata at randomization.||-2.0|-18.8|
91080009|NCT00410072|182045379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.5|-4.1|||NC=F|||Analysis at Week 96. The stratified analysis is based on HBeAg strata at randomization.||-4.1|-21.5|
91080010|NCT00410072|182045380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.9|4.2|||NC=F|||Analysis at Week 48||4.2|-15.9|
91080011|NCT00410072|182045380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.6|2.3|||NC=F|||Analysis at Week 96||2.3|-20.6|
91080012|NCT00410072|182045381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|5.6|||NC=F|||Analysis at Week 48||5.6|-13.8|
91080013|NCT00410072|182045381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.5|-0.1|||NC=F|||Analysis at Week 96||-0.1|-21.5|
91080014|NCT00410072|182045382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|1.9|||NC=F|||Analysis at Week 48||1.9|-5.3|
91080015|NCT00410072|182045382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|6.1|||NC=F|||Analysis at Week 96||6.1|-3.9|
91080016|NCT00410072|182045383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|2.0|||NC=F|||Analysis at Week 48||2.0|-2.2|
91080017|NCT00410072|182045383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|4.9|||NC=F|||Analysis at Week 96||4.9|-2.3|
91080018|NCT05025332|182045421|OTHER|||||||0.0039|||||||Wilcoxon Signed rank|null median = 4, not 0||Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the data. For total scores, waterfall plots and histograms/bar charts were created at the EOT visit with plots for all participants.||||.0039
91080019|NCT05025332|182045422|OTHER|||||||0.0234|||||||Wilcoxon Signed rank|null median = 4, not 0||Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the data. For total scores, waterfall plots, and histograms were created at the EOT visit with plots for all participants.||||0.0234
91080020|NCT05025332|182045423|OTHER|Change from baseline||||||0.0313|||||||Wilcoxon Signed rank|||Efficacy endpoints were analyzed using a Wilcoxon signed rank test on the paired participant data from baseline to EOT (Visit 16), when applicable. Baseline values were based on the average non-missing values of visits 1, 2, and 3 for assessments collected at more than one visit during the Screening/Baseline period.||||0.0313
91080021|NCT05025332|182045424|OTHER|Change from baseline||||||0.0039|||||||Wilcoxon Signed rank|||Efficacy endpoints were analyzed using a Wilcoxon signed rank test on the paired participant data from baseline to EOT (Visit 16), when applicable. Baseline values were based on the average non-missing values of visits 1, 2, and 3 for assessments collected at more than one visit during the Screening/Baseline period.||||0.0039
91080022|NCT05025332|182045425|OTHER|change from baseline||||||0.1934|||||||Wilcoxon Signed rank|||Efficacy endpoints were analyzed using a Wilcoxon signed rank test on the paired participant data from baseline to EOT (Visit 16), when applicable. Baseline values were based on the average non-missing values of visits 1, 2, and 3 for assessments collected at more than one visit during the Screening/Baseline period.||||0.1934
91080023|NCT05025332|182045426|OTHER|Change from baseline||||||0.748|||||||Wilcoxon Signed rank|||Efficacy endpoints were analyzed using a Wilcoxon signed rank test on the paired participant data from baseline to EOT (Visit 16), when applicable. Baseline values were based on the average non-missing values of visits 1, 2, and 3 for assessments collected at more than one visit during the Screening/Baseline period.||||0.7480
91080024|NCT05025332|182045427|OTHER|Change from baseline||||||0.3203|||||||Wilcoxon Signed rank|||Efficacy endpoints were analyzed using a Wilcoxon signed rank test on the paired participant data from baseline to EOT (Visit 16), when applicable. Baseline values were based on the average non-missing values of visits 1, 2, and 3 for assessments collected at more than one visit during the Screening/Baseline period.||||0.3203
91080025|NCT05025332|182045428|OTHER|change from baseline||||||0.3574|||||||Wilcoxon Signed rank|||Efficacy endpoints were analyzed using a Wilcoxon signed rank test on the paired participant data from baseline to EOT (Visit 16), when applicable. Baseline values were based on the average non-missing values of visits 1, 2, and 3 for assessments collected at more than one visit during the Screening/Baseline period.||||0.3574
91080026|NCT05025332|182045429|OTHER|Change from baseline||||||0.4131|||||||Wilcoxon Signed rank|||Efficacy endpoints were analyzed using a Wilcoxon signed rank test on the paired participant data from baseline to EOT (Visit 16), when applicable. Baseline values were based on the average non-missing values of visits 1, 2, and 3 for assessments collected at more than one visit during the Screening/Baseline period.||||0.4131
91080027|NCT05025332|182045430|OTHER|change from baseline||||||0.9063|||||||Wilcoxon Signed rank|||Efficacy endpoints were analyzed using a Wilcoxon signed rank test on the paired participant data from baseline to EOT (Visit 16), when applicable. Baseline values were based on the average non-missing values of visits 1, 2, and 3 for assessments collected at more than one visit during the Screening/Baseline period.||||0.9063
91080028|NCT05025332|182045431|OTHER|Change from baseline||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon Signed rank|||Efficacy endpoints were analyzed using a Wilcoxon signed rank test on the paired participant data from baseline to EOT (Visit 16), when applicable. Baseline values were based on the average non-missing values of visits 1, 2, and 3 for assessments collected at more than one visit during the Screening/Baseline period.||||1.00
91080029|NCT05025332|182045432|OTHER|Change from baseline||||||0.7002|||||||Wilcoxon Signed rank|||Efficacy endpoints were analyzed using a Wilcoxon signed rank test on the paired participant data from baseline to EOT (Visit 16), when applicable. Baseline values were based on the average non-missing values of visits 1, 2, and 3 for assessments collected at more than one visit during the Screening/Baseline period.||||0.7002
91080030|NCT05025332|182045433|OTHER|Change from baseline||||||0.375|||||||Wilcoxon Signed rank|||Efficacy endpoints were analyzed using a Wilcoxon signed rank test on the paired participant data from baseline to EOT (Visit 16), when applicable. Baseline values were based on the average non-missing values of visits 1, 2, and 3 for assessments collected at more than one visit during the Screening/Baseline period.||||0.3750
90905057|NCT02886728|181677436|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|15.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.5|23.1||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12||23.1|8.5|<0.001
91080031|NCT05025332|182045434|OTHER|||||||0.7695|||||||Wilcoxon Signed rank|||Efficacy endpoints were analyzed using a Wilcoxon signed rank test on the paired participant data from baseline to EOT (Visit 16), when applicable. Baseline values were based on the average non-missing values of visits 1, 2, and 3 for assessments collected at more than one visit during the Screening/Baseline period.||||0.7695
91080032|NCT05025332|182045435|OTHER|||||||0.2402|||||||Wilcoxon Signed rank|||Efficacy endpoints were analyzed using a Wilcoxon signed rank test on the paired participant data from baseline to EOT (Visit 16), when applicable. Baseline values were based on the average non-missing values of visits 1, 2, and 3 for assessments collected at more than one visit during the Screening/Baseline period.||||0.2402
91080033|NCT03077607|182045486|EQUIVALENCE|Sample size of 15 participants was selected based on the estimated within participant % coefficient of variation (CV) of 42% and precision/half width of 90% CI for Test Reference comparison on log scale of 0.259.|Geometric LS Mean Ratio|139.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|113.26|172.87||||||Confidence interval (CI): 90 percent (%) CI on geometric least squares (LS) mean ratio (Test/Reference), test is talazoparib in combination with itraconazole and reference is talazoparib alone. Statistical data was calculated by using analysis of variance (ANOVA)||172.87|113.26|
91080034|NCT03077607|182045487|EQUIVALENCE|Sample size of 15 participants was selected based on the estimated within participant %CV of 42% and precision/half width of 90% CI for Test Reference comparison on log scale of 0.259.|Geometric LS Mean Ratio|150.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|136.47|166.43||||||CI: 90% CI on geometric LS mean ratio (Test/Reference), test is talazoparib in combination with itraconazole and reference is talazoparib alone. Statistical data was calculated by using ANOVA.||166.43|136.47|
91080035|NCT03077607|182045488|EQUIVALENCE|Sample size of 15 participants was selected based on the estimated within participant %CV of 42% and precision/half width of 90% CI for Test Reference comparison on log scale of 0.259.|Geometric LS Mean Ratio|156.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|137.58|177.42||||||CI: 90% CI on geometric LS mean ratio (Test/Reference), test is talazoparib in combination with itraconazole and reference is talazoparib alone. Statistical data was calculated by using ANOVA.||177.42|137.58|
91080036|NCT03077607|182045489|EQUIVALENCE|Sample size of 15 participants was selected based on the estimated within participant %CV of 42% and precision/half width of 90% CI for Test Reference comparison on log scale of 0.259.|Geometric LS Mean Ratio|136.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.2|180.87||||||CI: 90% CI on geometric LS mean ratio (Test/Reference), test is talazoparib in combination with rifampin and reference is talazoparib alone. Statistical data was calculated by using ANOVA.||180.87|103.20|
91080037|NCT03077607|182045490|EQUIVALENCE|Sample size of 15 participants was selected based on the estimated within participant %CV of 42% and precision/half width of 90% CI for Test Reference comparison on log scale of 0.259.|Geometric LS Mean Ratio|105.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.04|113.24||||||CI: 90% CI on geometric LS mean ratio (Test/Reference), test is talazoparib in Combination with rifampin and reference is talazoparib alone. Statistical data was calculated by using ANOVA.||113.24|98.04|
91080038|NCT03077607|182045491|EQUIVALENCE|Sample size of 15 participants was selected based on the estimated within participant %CV of 42% and precision/half width of 90% CI for Test Reference comparison on log scale of 0.259.|Geometric LS Mean Ratio|102.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.02|110.74||||||CI: 90% CI on geometric LS mean ratio (Test/Reference), test is talazoparib in Combination with rifampin and reference is talazoparib alone. Statistical data was calculated by using ANOVA.||110.74|94.02|
91080039|NCT04401202|182045511|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.001
91080040|NCT02722746|182045569|SUPERIORITY||percent difference|20.8||||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|47.3|||Z-test for proportions|||||47.3|-8.9|0.165
91080041|NCT02722746|182045569|SUPERIORITY||percent difference|14.4||||0.353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.9|42.2|||Z-test for proportions|||||42.2|-15.9|0.353
91080042|NCT02722746|182045570|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||For PACU spread||||0.06
91080043|NCT02722746|182045570|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||For Pre-op spread||||0.22
91080044|NCT02722746|182045570|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||For POD 1||||0.74
91080045|NCT02722746|182045571|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.551|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.551
91080046|NCT02722746|182045572|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.349|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.349
91080047|NCT02722746|182045573|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||Fisher Exact|||For Pruritis||||0.18
90891856|NCT02157779|181648828|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.42||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.09||Threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|ANCOVA|Hierarchical Linear Model (HLM) Repeated Measures Analysis of Covariance, Controlling for Baseline Score||Population Description: All randomized participants with at least one post-baseline assessment were used in the statistical analysis process.|A negative difference means that the adjusted mean for CBI is numerically lower than that for SI.|-0.09|-0.75|.011
90954216|NCT03192475|181786811|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.21
90954217|NCT03192475|181786812|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.60
91080048|NCT02722746|182045573|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||Fisher Exact|||For Nausea/Vomiting||||0.44
91080049|NCT02722746|182045573|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||Fisher Exact|||For Respirartory Depression||||0.74
91080050|NCT02722746|182045577|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.524|||||||ANOVA|||For SBP||||0.524
91080051|NCT02722746|182045577|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.585|||||||ANOVA|||For DBP||||0.585
91080052|NCT02722746|182045577|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.199|||||||ANOVA|||For MAP||||0.199
91080053|NCT02722746|182045578|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.231|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.231
91080054|NCT02722746|182045579|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.016
91080055|NCT02722746|182045580|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.055|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.055
91080056|NCT02722746|182045581|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.567|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.567
91080057|NCT00703118|182045603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of response|46.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.8|56.7||Overall significance level was set at 5% (two-sided). Adjustment of significance level for multiple comparisons was carried out using the Hochberg procedure|Regression, Logistic|Included: treatment, type of prior response (relapser, partial responder, null-responder) and their interaction, and baseline HCV RNA as a covariate|Difference in percentage of response was estimated through the logistic regression model.|Null hypothesis: Assuming a 55% response rate in the groups receiving Treatment T12/PR48, a 29% response rate in the group receiving Treatment Pbo/PR48, a 2-sided continuity corrected Chi-squared test, with an overall significance level of 5% and a 2:2:1 randomization, a sample size of 140 patients receiving Treatment T12/PR48 and 70 patients in receiving Treatment Pbo/PR48 provided a power of approximately 90% to demonstrate a statistically significant difference.||56.7|36.8|<0.001
91080058|NCT00703118|182045603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of response|49.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.9|59.7||Overall significance level was set at 5% (two-sided). Adjustment of significance level for multiple comparisons was carried out using the Hochberg procedure|Regression, Logistic|Included: treatment, type of prior response (relapser, partial responder, null-responder) and their interaction, and baseline HCV RNA as a covariate|Difference in percentage of response was estimated through the logistic regression model.|Null hypothesis: Assuming a 55% response rate in the groups receiving Treatment T12/PR48 or T12(DS)/PR48, a 29% response rate in the group receiving Treatment Pbo/PR48, a 2-sided continuity corrected Chi-squared test, with an overall significance level of 5% and a 2:2:1 randomization, a sample size of 140 patients receiving Treatment T12(DS)/PR48 and 70 patients in receiving Treatment Pbo/PR48 provided a power of approximately 90% to demonstrate a statistically significant difference.||59.7|39.9|<0.001
91080059|NCT04165135|182045613|OTHER|||||||0.763|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Heart zone minutes: Comparison among the age groups was performed by means of a Kruskal-Wallis test.||||0.7630
91080060|NCT04165135|182045613|OTHER|||||||0.0913|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Active zone minutes: Comparison among age groups was performed using Kruskal-Wallis test.||||0.0913
91080061|NCT04165135|182045613|OTHER|||||||0.0956|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||MVPA minutes: Comparison among age groups was performed using Kruskal-Wallis test.||||0.0956
91080062|NCT04165135|182045614|OTHER|||||||0.0649|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0649
91080063|NCT04165135|182045615|OTHER|||||||0.0026|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0026
91080064|NCT04165135|182045616|OTHER|||||||0.9493|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Running: Comparison among age groups was performed using Kruskal-Wallis test.||||0.9493
91080065|NCT04165135|182045616|OTHER|||||||0.8305|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Swimming: Comparison among age groups was performed using Kruskal-Wallis test.||||0.8305
91080066|NCT04165135|182045616|OTHER|||||||0.8725|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Tapis Roulant: Comparison among age groups was performed using Kruskal-Wallis test.||||0.8725
91080067|NCT04165135|182045616|OTHER|||||||0.338|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Gym Weights: Comparison among age groups was performed using Kruskal-Wallis test.||||0.3380
91080068|NCT04165135|182045616|OTHER|||||||0.9706|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Exercises at Intervals: Comparison among age groups was performed using Kruskal-Wallis test.||||0.9706
91080069|NCT04165135|182045616|OTHER|||||||0.1727|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||General: Comparison among age groups was performed using Kruskal-Wallis test.||||0.1727
91080070|NCT04165135|182045616|OTHER|||||||0.0099|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Walk: Comparison among age groups was performed using Kruskal-Wallis test.||||0.0099
91080071|NCT04165135|182045617|OTHER|||||||0.6151|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Running: Comparison among age groups was performed using Kruskal-Wallis test.||||0.6151
91080072|NCT04165135|182045617|OTHER|||||||0.9332|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Swimming: Comparison among age groups was performed using Kruskal-Wallis test.||||0.9332
91080073|NCT04165135|182045617|OTHER|||||||0.4726|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Tapis Roulant: Comparison among age groups was performed using Kruskal-Wallis test.||||0.4726
91080074|NCT04165135|182045617|OTHER|||||||0.4111|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Gym Weights: Comparison among age groups was performed using Kruskal-Wallis test.||||0.4111
91080075|NCT04165135|182045617|OTHER|||||||0.0892|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Exercises at Intervals: Comparison among age groups was performed using Kruskal-Wallis test.||||0.0892
91080076|NCT04165135|182045617|OTHER|||||||0.1642|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||General: Comparison among age groups was performed using Kruskal-Wallis test.||||0.1642
91080077|NCT04165135|182045617|OTHER|||||||0.7256|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Walk: Comparison among age groups was performed using Kruskal-Wallis test.||||0.7256
91080078|NCT04165135|182045618|OTHER|||||||0.0745|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Running: Comparison among age groups was performed using Kruskal-Wallis test.||||0.0745
91080079|NCT04165135|182045618|OTHER|||||||0.2177|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Swimming: Comparison among age groups was performed using Kruskal-Wallis test.||||0.2177
91080080|NCT04165135|182045618|OTHER|||||||0.2121|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Tapis Roulant: Comparison among age groups was performed using Kruskal-Wallis test.||||0.2121
91080081|NCT04165135|182045618|OTHER|||||||0.2336|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Gym weights: Comparison among age groups was performed using Kruskal-Wallis test.||||0.2336
90891857|NCT02157779|181648829|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.26||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.11||Threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|ANCOVA|Hierarchical Linear Model (HLM) Repeated Measures Analysis of Covariance, Controlling for Baseline Score.|A negative difference means that the adjusted mean for CBI is numerically lower than that for SI.|All randomized participants with at least one post-baseline assessment (12 weeks (end of treatment, 3 month and/or 6 month follow-up) were included in the analyses.||0.11|-0.63|0.16
90905058|NCT02886728|181677436|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|17.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.2|24.4||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24||24.4|11.2|<0.001
90954218|NCT03192475|181786813|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.15
90954219|NCT03192475|181786814|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.96
91080082|NCT04165135|182045618|OTHER|||||||0.419|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Exercises at intervals: Comparison among age groups was performed using Kruskal-Wallis test.||||0.4190
91080083|NCT04165135|182045618|OTHER|||||||0.0252|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||General: Comparison among age groups was performed using Kruskal-Wallis test.||||0.0252
91080084|NCT04165135|182045618|OTHER|||||||0.2143|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Walk: Comparison among age groups was performed using Kruskal-Wallis test.||||0.2143
91080085|NCT04165135|182045619|OTHER|||||||0.0085|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Running: Comparison among age groups was performed using Kruskal-Wallis test.||||0.0085
91080086|NCT04165135|182045619|OTHER|||||||0.1098|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Swimming: Comparison among age groups was performed using Kruskal-Wallis test.||||0.1098
91080087|NCT04165135|182045619|OTHER|||||||0.2703|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Tapis Roulant: Comparison among age groups was performed using Kruskal-Wallis test.||||0.2703
91080088|NCT04165135|182045619|OTHER|||||||0.3366|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Gym Weights: Comparison among age groups was performed using Kruskal-Wallis test.||||0.3366
91080089|NCT04165135|182045619|OTHER|||||||0.0992|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Exercises at Intervals: Comparison among age groups was performed using Kruskal-Wallis test.||||0.0992
91080090|NCT04165135|182045619|OTHER|||||||0.1194|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||General: Comparison among age groups was performed using Kruskal-Wallis test.||||0.1194
91080091|NCT04165135|182045619|OTHER|||||||0.0549|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Walk: Comparison among age groups was performed using Kruskal-Wallis test.||||0.0549
91080092|NCT04165135|182045620|OTHER|||||||0.0088|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison among age groups was performed using Chi-squared test.||||0.0088
91080093|NCT03714776|182045687|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value of analysis of variance (ANOVA) with treatment and screening AGT concentration stratification factor was used for analysis.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91080094|NCT03714776|182045688|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.454||||||P-value of ANOVA with treatment and screening AGT concentration stratification factor was used for analysis.|ANOVA|||Day 3||||0.454
91080095|NCT03714776|182045688|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.909||||||P-value of ANOVA with treatment and screening AGT concentration stratification factor was used for analysis.|ANOVA|||Day 8||||0.909
91080096|NCT03714776|182045688|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.132||||||P-value of ANOVA with treatment and screening AGT concentration stratification factor was used for analysis.|ANOVA|||Day 15||||0.132
91080097|NCT03714776|182045688|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.659||||||P-value of ANOVA with treatment and screening AGT concentration stratification factor was used for analysis.|ANOVA|||Day 22||||0.659
91080098|NCT03714776|182045688|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.474||||||P-value of ANOVA with treatment and screening AGT concentration stratification factor was used for analysis.|ANOVA|||Day 29||||0.474
91080099|NCT03714776|182045688|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.483||||||P-value of ANOVA with treatment and screening AGT concentration stratification factor was used for analysis.|ANOVA|||Day 36||||0.483
91080100|NCT03714776|182045689|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.064||||||P-value of ANOVA with treatment and screening AGT concentration stratification factor was used for analysis.|ANOVA|||Day 3||||0.064
91080101|NCT03714776|182045689|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value of ANOVA with treatment and screening AGT concentration stratification factor was used for analysis.|ANOVA|||Day 8||||<0.001
91080102|NCT03714776|182045689|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value of ANOVA with treatment and screening AGT concentration stratification factor was used for analysis.|ANOVA|||Day 15||||<0.001
91080103|NCT03714776|182045689|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value of ANOVA with treatment and screening AGT concentration stratification factor was used for analysis.|ANOVA|||Day 22||||<0.001
91080104|NCT03714776|182045689|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value of ANOVA with treatment and screening AGT concentration stratification factor was used for analysis.|ANOVA|||Day 29||||<0.001
91080105|NCT03714776|182045689|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value of ANOVA with treatment and screening AGT concentration stratification factor was used for analysis.|ANOVA|||Day 36||||<0.001
91080106|NCT02005627|182045713|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||calculated|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91080107|NCT02005627|182045716|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91080108|NCT02005627|182045717|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||Null Hypothesis was no difference between Grazax and Placebo treatment at 12 months. 80% power to detect 30% difference in total nasal symptom score (TNSS) after nasal challenge|Comparison of nasal symptom score at 0-60 mins after nasal challenge after 12 months treatment with Grazax compared to Placebo treatment. Mixed model analysis. 80% power to detect a 30% difference at p\<0.05.|||
91103601|NCT01421459|182094192|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The primary treatment comparison was to compare LY2963016 versus Lantus at the non-inferiority margin of +0.4%. If the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval on the change from baseline to 24-week endpoint HbA1c for LY2963016 versus Lantus was below +0.4%, then LY2963016 would be declared non-inferior to Lantus.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.052||||0.403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.175|||ANCOVA|||||0.175|-0.070|0.403
90954220|NCT03192475|181786815|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.96
91103602|NCT01421459|182094194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.382||95.0||||P-value is for 4 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.382
91103603|NCT01421459|182094194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.91||95.0||||P-value is for 8 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.910
91080109|NCT04000360|182045718|SUPERIORITY||Difference in slopes.|-3.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|-1.85||This was the sole primary outcome. The test was conducted with a priori p-value threshold of α=0.05, with no multiple comparison adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Test of equality of slopes with time (change in points/year) between aerobic exercise (AE) and usual and customary care (UCC) treatment arms.|Higher MDS-UPDRS III score reflects worse Parkinson's symptoms; increases reflect PD progression. The reported effect is the estimated difference between annual rates of change in scores of AE and UCC patients.|Linear mixed model for baseline, 6 month, and 12 month data, with fixed effects of clinical site, treatment, and linear time nested in treatment arm, and AR(1) covariance structure, fit by residual pseudolikelihood maximization (RSPL) in SAS PROC GLIMMIX.||-1.85|-5.40|<0.0001
91080110|NCT04000360|182045719|SUPERIORITY|Equality of annual slopes in squared 10 Meter Walk Test Comfortable Pace Velocity for the AE and UCC groups.|Difference in squared velocity slopes|12.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.65||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|21.32||Family-wise error controlled at α=0.05 by Holm-Bonferroni adjustment for other motor domain secondary outcomes: 10 Meter Walk Test fast pace velocity, TUG duration \& turning velocity, Manual Dexterity Test.|Mixed Models Analysis||The reported effect is the difference in annual slope of meters\^2/second, in 100ths of meters\^2/second/year. The confidence interval is not multiple comparison adjusted. Parkinson's progression limits mobility; higher slope reflects less progression.|Linear mixed model for baseline, 6 month, and 12 month data, with fixed effects of clinical site, treatment, and linear time nested in treatment arm, and compound symmetry covariance structure, fit by residual pseudolikelihood maximization (RSPL) in SAS PROC GLIMMIX. To reduce skew and better meet modeling assumptions, test velocity was squared ((meters/second)\^2) for modeling. Study sample size was based on the primary outcome, and power was not calculated for this and other outcomes.||21.32|3.10|0.043
91080111|NCT04000360|182045720|SUPERIORITY|Equality of annual slopes in 10 Meter Walk Test Fast Pace Velocity for the AE and UCC groups.|Difference in slopes|3.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.68||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|8.42||Family-wise error controlled at α=0.05 by Holm-Bonferroni adjustment for other motor domain secondary outcomes: 10 meter walk test comfortable pace, Timed Up and Go Test duration and turning velocity, Manual Dexterity Test.|Mixed Models Analysis||The reported effect is the difference in annual slopes of the AE and UCC treatment arms, in 100ths of meters/second/year. The confidence interval is not multiple comparison adjusted. Higher slope reflects less Parkinson's disease progression.|Linear mixed model for baseline, 6 month, and 12 month data, with fixed effects of clinical site, treatment, and linear time nested in treatment arm, and heterogeneous compound symmetry covariance structure, fit by residual pseudolikelihood maximization (RSPL) in SAS PROC GLIMMIX.||8.42|-2.10|0.48
91080112|NCT04000360|182045721|SUPERIORITY|Equality of annual slopes of inverse Timed Up and Go Test duration, i.e., of TUG completions/second, the speed of completing the test.|Difference in slopes|4.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.96||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|7.89||Family-wise error controlled at α=0.05 by Holm-Bonferroni adjustment for other motor domain secondary outcomes: 10 meter walk test comfortable \& fast pace, Timed Up and Go Test turning velocity, and Manual Dexterity Test.|Mixed Models Analysis|Difference between estimated annual slopes in TUG completions/second/year for the AE and UCC groups.|Timed Up and Go test speed is expected to decline with Parkinson's progression. The reported effect is the difference between estimated annual slopes for the AE and UCC groups in 1000ths of a TUG completion/second/year.|Linear mixed model for baseline, 6 month, and 12 month data, with fixed effects of clinical site, treatment, and linear time nested in treatment arm, and compound symmetry covariance structure, fit by residual pseudolikelihood maximization (RSPL) in SAS PROC GLIMMIX. To reduce skew and better meet modeling assumptions, test duration was inverted to TUG completions/second. Sample size was based on the primary outcome, and power was not calculated for this and other outcomes.||7.89|0.20|0.16
90891858|NCT02157779|181648830|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-11.65||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.2|-1.09||Threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|ANCOVA|Hierarchical Linear Model (HLM) Repeated Measures Analysis of Covariance, Controlling for Baseline Score.|A negative difference means that the adjusted mean for CBI is numerically lower than that for SI.|All randomized participants with at least one post-baseline assessment (12 weeks (end of treatment), 3 month and/or 6 month follow-up) were included in the statistical analyses.||-1.09|-22.20|.031
90905059|NCT02886728|181677436|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|14.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.9|22.4||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24||22.4|5.9|<0.001
91080113|NCT04000360|182045722|SUPERIORITY|Test of equality of average turning velocities.|Difference in slopes.|1.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.54||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|4.88||Family-wise error controlled at α=0.05 by Holm-Bonferroni adjustment for other motor domain secondary outcomes: 10 meter walk test comfortable \& fast pace, Timed Up and Go Test duration, and Manual Dexterity Test.|Mixed Models Analysis||Timed Up and Go test speed is expected to decline with Parkinson's progression. The reported effect is the difference between estimated annual slopes of average turning velocity for the AE and UCC groups in degrees/second/year.|Linear mixed model for baseline, 6 month, and 12 month data, with fixed effects of clinical site, treatment, and linear time nested in treatment arm, and compound symmetry covariance structure, fit by residual pseudolikelihood maximization (RSPL) in SAS PROC GLIMMIX. Study sample size was based on the primary outcome, and power was not calculated for this and other outcomes.||4.88|-1.17|0.69
91080114|NCT04000360|182045723|SUPERIORITY|Test of equality of slopes of test performance speed (peg transfers/second/year) for AE and UCC groups.|Difference in slopes.|-3.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.23||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.68|16.45||Family-wise error controlled at α=0.05 by Holm-Bonferroni adjustment for other motor domain secondary outcomes: Timed Up and Go Test (TUG) duration \& turning velocity and 10 meter walk test comfortable \& fast pace.|Mixed Models Analysis||Manual dexterity expressed as peg transfers/second is expected to decline with Parkinson's progression. The reported effect is the difference between estimated annual slopes for the AE and UCC groups in 1000ths of a peg transfer/second/year.|Linear mixed model for baseline, 6 and 12 month data, with fixed effects of clinical site, treatment, and linear time nested in treatment arm, and compound symmetry covariance structure, fit by residual pseudolikelihood maximization (RSPL) in SAS PROC GLIMMIX. To reduce skew and better meet modeling assumptions, test duration was transformed for modeling to peg transfers/second (18/seconds). Sample size was based on the primary outcome, and power was not calculated for this and other outcomes.||16.45|-23.68|0.72
90891859|NCT02157779|181648831|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.56||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|2.6||Threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|ANCOVA|Hierarchical Linear Model (HLM) Repeated Measures Analysis of Covariance, Controlling for Baseline Score.||All randomized participants with at least one post-baseline assessment (week 12 (end of treatment), 3 month, and/or 6 month follow-up) were used in the statistical analysis.|A positive difference means that the adjusted mean for CBI is numerically higher than that for SI.|2.60|0.51|0.004
90891860|NCT02157779|181648832|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.15||||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.37|3.07||Threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|ANCOVA|Hierarchical Linear Model (HLM) Repeated Measures Analysis of Covariance, Controlling for Baseline Score|A negative difference means that the adjusted mean for CBI is numerically lower than that for SI|All randomized participants with at least one post-baseline assessment were used in the statistical analysis process.||3.07|-7.37|0.416
90891861|NCT02157779|181648833|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-13.72||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.94|-1.5||Threshold for significance was 0.025|ANCOVA|Hierarchical Linear Model (HLM) Repeated Measures Analysis of Covariance controlling for baseline score.|A negative difference means that the adjusted mean for CBI is numerically lower than that for SI.|All randomized participants with at least one post-baseline assessment were used in the analyses.||-1.50|-25.94|0.028
90891862|NCT02157779|181648834|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||ANOVA|GLM Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance of means grouped by sessions 1-4, 5-8, and 9-12||All randomized participants with at least one DAR completed in each time frame (sessions 1-4, 5-8, and 9-12) were included in the analyses. The mean DAR scores for sessions 1-4, 5-8, and 9-12 were calculated and used as outcome variables in the GLM repeated measures ANOVA.||||0.13
91103604|NCT01421459|182094194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.869||95.0||||P-value is for 12 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.869
91103605|NCT01421459|182094194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.345||95.0||||P-value is for 16 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.345
91103606|NCT01421459|182094194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.161||95.0||||P-value is for 20 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.161
91103607|NCT01421459|182094194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.097||95.0||||P-value is for 24 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.097
90891863|NCT02157779|181648835|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.82||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.578|-0.063||Threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|ANCOVA|Hierarchical Linear Model (HLM) Repeated Measures Analysis of Covariance, Controlling for Baseline Score|A negative difference means that the adjusted mean for CBI is numerically lower than that for SI.|All randomized participants with at least one post-baseline assessment (week 4, week 8, week 12 (end of treatment), 3 mo and/or 6 month follow-up) were included in the HLM analyses.||-0.063|-1.578|0.030
90891864|NCT02157779|181648836|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.085||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.158|-0.011||Threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|ANCOVA|Hierarchical Linear Model (HLM) Repeated Measures Analysis of Covariance, Controlling for Baseline Score|A negative difference means that the adjusted mean for CBI is numerically lower than that for SI.|"All randomized participants with at least one post-baseline assessment (4 week, 8 week, 12 week, 3 month and/or 6 month follow-up) were included in the HLM analysis.~Data were winsorized and log10 transformed to counter high levels of skewness. Full Information Maximum Likelihood was used to account for missing data."||-0.011|-0.158|0.021
91103608|NCT01421459|182094195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.837||95.0||||P-value is at Morning Pre-Meal at Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.837
91103609|NCT01421459|182094195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62||95.0||||P-value is for Morning 2 hrs PP Meal at Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.620
90891865|NCT02157779|181648837|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.283|0.073||Threshold for significance was 0.025|ANCOVA|Hierarchical Linear Model (HLM) Repeated Measures Analysis of Covariance, Controlling for Baseline Score.|A negative difference means that the adjusted mean for CBI is numerically lower than that for SI.|All randomized participants with at least one post-baseline assessment (4 week, 8 week, 12 week, 3 month and/or 6 month follow-up) were used in the HLM analysis. Data were winsorized and log10 transformed to counter high levels of skewness. Full Information Maximum Likelihood was used to account for missing data.||0.073|-0.283|0.246
90891866|NCT02157779|181648838|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.14||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|-0.01||Threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|ANCOVA|Hierarchical Linear Model (HLM) Repeated Measures Analysis of Covariance, Controlling for Baseline Score|A negative difference means that the adjusted mean for CBI is numerically lower than that for SI.|All randomized participants with at least one post-baseline assessment were used in the statistical analysis. Data were winsorized and log 10 transformed to counter high levels of skewness.||-0.01|-0.27|0.036
90891867|NCT02157779|181648839|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.026||||0.786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.213|0.1614||Threshold for statistical significance was 0.025|ANCOVA|Hierarchical Linear Model (HLM) Repeated Measures Analysis of Covariance, controlling for baseline score.|A negative difference means that the adjusted mean for CBI is numerically lower than that for SI.|"All randomized participants with at least one post-baseline assessment (4 week, 8 week, 12 week, 3 month and/or 6 month follow-up) were included in the HLM analysis.~Data were winsorized and log10 transformed to counter high levels of skewness. Full Information Maximum Likelihood was used to account for missing data."||0.1614|-0.213|0.786
90891868|NCT02157779|181648840|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.02||||0.744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.13||Threshold for significance was 0.025.|ANCOVA|Hierarchical Linear Model (HLM) Repeated Measures Analysis of Covariance, controlling for baseline score.|A negative difference means that the adjusted mean for CBI is numerically lower than that for SI.|"All randomized participants with at least one post-baseline assessment (4 week, 8 week, 12 week, 3 month and/or 6 month follow-up) were included in the HLM analysis.~Data were winsorized and log10 transformed to counter high levels of skewness. Full Information Maximum Likelihood was used to account for missing data."||0.13|-0.18|0.744
90891869|NCT02157779|181648841|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.85||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.038|-0.663||Threshold for significance was 0.025|ANCOVA|Hierarchical Linear Model (HLM) Repeated Measures Analysis of Covariance, controlling for baseline score.|A negative difference means that the adjusted mean for CBI is numerically lower than that for SI.|All randomized participants with at least one post-baseline assessment (4 week, 8 week, 12 week, 3 month and/or 6 month follow-up) were included in the HLM analysis. Full Information Maximum Likelihood was used to account for missing data.||-0.663|-3.038|0.002
90891870|NCT02157779|181648842|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.0||||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.518|0.524||Threshold for significance was 0.025|ANCOVA|Hierarchical Linear Model (HLM) Repeated Measures Analysis of Covariance, controlling for baseline score.|A negative difference means that the adjusted mean for CBI is numerically lower than that for SI.|All randomized participants with at least one post-baseline assessment (4wk, 8wk, 12 week (end of treatment), 3 mo and/or 6 mo follow-up) were included in the HLM analysis. Full Information Maximum Likelihood was used to account for missing data.||0.524|-2.518|0.186
90891871|NCT02157779|181648843|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.26||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|3.09||Threshold for significance was 0.025|ANCOVA|Hierarchical Linear Model (HLM) Repeated Measures Analysis of Covariance, controlling for baseline score.|A positive difference means that the adjusted mean for CBI is numerically higher than that for SI.|"All randomized participants with at least one post-baseline assessment (4wk, 8wk, 12 week (end of treatment), 3 mo and/or 6 mo follow-up) were included in the HLM analysis.~Full Information Maximum Likelihood was used to account for missing data."||3.09|-0.560|0.164
90891872|NCT02157779|181648844|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.33||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|2.92||Threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|ANCOVA|Hierarchical Linear Model (HLM) Repeated Measures Analysis of Covariance, Controlling for Baseline Score|A positive difference means that the adjusted mean for CBI is numerically higher than that for SI.|"All randomized participants with at least one post-baseline assessment (4wk, 8wk, 12 week (end of treatment), 3 mo and/or 6 mo follow-up) were included in the HLM analysis.~Full Information Maximum Likelihood was used to account for missing data."||2.92|-0.26|0.100
90891873|NCT02157779|181648845|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.29||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.85|0.27||Threshold for significance was 0.025|ANCOVA|Hierarchical Linear Model (HLM) Repeated Measures Analysis of Covariance, controlling for baseline score.||"All randomized participants with at least one post-baseline assessment (12 week (end of treatment), 3 mo and/or 6 mo follow-up) were included in the HLM analysis.~Full Information Maximum Likelihood was used to account for missing data."|A negative difference means that the adjusted mean for CBI is numerically lower than that for SI, indicating less symptomatic distress.|0.27|-12.85|0.060
90891874|NCT02157779|181648846|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.271||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.083|-0.458||Threshold for significance was 0.025|ANCOVA|Hierarchical Linear Model (HLM) Repeated Measures Analysis of Covariance, controlling for baseline score.|A negative difference means that the adjusted mean for CBI is numerically lower than that for SI.|"All randomized participants with at least one post-baseline assessment (12 week (end of treatment), 3 mo and/or 6 mo follow-up) were included in the HLM analysis.~Full Information Maximum Likelihood was used to account for missing data."||-0.458|-6.083|0.023
90891875|NCT02157779|181648847|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.28||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.39|0.82||Threshold for significance was 0.025|ANCOVA|Hierarchical Linear Model (HLM) Repeated Measures Analysis of Covariance, controlling for baseline score.|A negative difference means that the adjusted mean for CBI is numerically lower than that for SI.|"All randomized participants with at least one post-baseline assessment (12 week (end of treatment), 3 mo and/or 6 mo follow-up) were included in the HLM analysis.~Full Information Maximum Likelihood was used to account for missing data."||0.82|-3.39|0.23
90905060|NCT02886728|181677436|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|14.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.8|22.2||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24||22.2|5.8|<0.001
91103610|NCT01421459|182094195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.107||95.0||||P-value is for Midday Pre-Meal at Baseline|ANCOVA|||||||0.107
90891876|NCT02548455|181648848|EQUIVALENCE|Freedom from left ventricular lead-related complications through 3 months was estimated to be 96.0% with a 95% lower confidence bound of 92.6% based on the Promote Q IDE study (NCT00990665), and 98.3% with a 95% lower confidence bound of 97.7% based on data from the Quadripolar Post-Approval study (NCT01555619).|Kaplan-Meier Estimate|85.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||"The hypothesis for the endpoint is:~H0: Freedom from LV lead-related complications through 3 months (91 days) ≤ 85% H1: Freedom from LV lead-related complications through 3 months (91 days) \> 85%~A total of 85 subjects were required to have at least 80% power to reject the null hypothesis at the 5% significance level at three months (91 days) post-implant or attempted implant. After accounting for 9% attrition, the required sample size was 94 subjects."||||0.05
90891877|NCT00386880|181648852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59||||||Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||During the acute migraine attack, 90% of allodynic subjects and 75% of subjects without allodynia had phonophobia.||||0.59
90891878|NCT01362140|181648859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||Chi-squared|||"The primary hypothesis to be tested was that the percentage of participants with at least~1 RBC transfusion from week 5 to the EOTP was lower in the darbepoetin alfa group than in the placebo group. This hypothesis was confirmed if the incidence of RBC transfusion in the darbepoetin alfa group was lower and had a p-value \< 0.05 from a 2-sided Chi-square test."||||0.008
90891879|NCT01362140|181648860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The overall 2-sided CMH test with IPSS score as stratification factor.||If the primary hypothesis was confirmed, the secondary hypothesis to be tested was that the percentage of participants achieving an IWG erythroid response during the 24-week double-blind treatment period was greater in the darbepoetin alfa group than in the placebo group. This hypothesis was confirmed if erythroid response was higher in the darbepoetin alfa group and the p-value was \< 0.05 from a 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using the IPSS as a stratification factor.||||0.017
90891880|NCT03998618|181648908|SUPERIORITY||partial correlation|0.12||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.25||P-value for study group x time interaction. Two-tailed p-values \<.05 were considered statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|degrees of freedom = 234. multiply imputed data were used in analyses.||||0.25|-0.01|.018
90891881|NCT03998618|181648909|SUPERIORITY||partial correlation|0.11||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.24||P-value for study group x time interaction. Probabilities for the secondary outcomes were Sidak adjusted for correlated multiple outcomes (adjusted probability for significance = 0.0085).|Mixed Models Analysis|degrees of freedom = 234. Multiply imputed data were used.||||0.24|-0.02|.037
90891882|NCT03998618|181648910|SUPERIORITY||partial correlation|0.07||||0.355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.2||P-value for study group x time interaction. Probabilities for the secondary outcomes were Sidak adjusted for correlated multiple outcomes (adjusted probability for significance = 0.0085).|Mixed Models Analysis|degrees of freedom = 234. Multiply imputed data were used.||||0.20|-0.06|.355
90891883|NCT03998618|181648911|SUPERIORITY||partial correlation|0.08||||0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.21||P-value for study group x time interaction for physical quality of life. Probabilities for the secondary outcomes were Sidak adjusted for correlated multiple outcomes (adjusted probability for significance=0.0085).|Mixed Models Analysis|degrees of freedom = 234. Multiply imputed data were used.||||0.21|-0.04|.167
90891884|NCT03998618|181648911|SUPERIORITY||partial correlation|0.09||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.22||P-value for study group x time interaction for social/family quality of life. Probabilities for the six secondary outcomes were Sidak adjusted for correlated multiple outcomes (adjusted probability for significance=0.0085).|Mixed Models Analysis|degrees of freedom = 234. Multiply imputed data were used.||||0.22|-0.03|.105
90891885|NCT03998618|181648911|SUPERIORITY||partial correlation|0.09||||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.22||P-value for study group x time interaction for emotional quality of life. Probabilities for the six secondary outcomes were Sidak adjusted for correlated multiple outcomes (adjusted probability for significance=0.0085).|Mixed Models Analysis|degrees of freedom = 234. Multiply imputed data were used.||||0.22|-0.04|.142
90891886|NCT03998618|181648911|SUPERIORITY||partial correlation|0.13||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.26||P-value for study group x time interaction for functional quality of life. Probabilities for the six secondary outcomes were Sidak adjusted for correlated multiple outcomes (adjusted probability for significance=0.0085).|Mixed Models Analysis|degrees of freedom = 234. Multiply imputed data were used.||||0.26|0.01|.006
90891887|NCT02308748|181648922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.8||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.2|-14.3||Adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed according to the Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in QTc interval on the ECG measured in milliseconds when dofetilide is administered with mexiletine compared to when dofetilide is administered alone at evening dose on treatment day.||-14.3|-25.2|0.025
90891888|NCT02308748|181648922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.7||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.2|-14.1||Adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed according to the Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in QTc interval on the ECG measured in milliseconds when dofetilide is administered with lidocaine compared to when dofetilide is administered alone at evening dose on treatment day.||-14.1|-25.2|0.025
90954221|NCT03192475|181786816|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0009|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.0009
90891889|NCT02308748|181648922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.2||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.0|-18.3||Adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed according to the Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in J-Tpeakc interval on the ECG measured in milliseconds when dofetilide is administered with mexiletine compared to when dofetilide is administered alone at evening dose on treatment day.||-18.3|-28.0|0.025
90891890|NCT02308748|181648922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.5||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.5|-15.5||Adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed according to the Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in J-Tpeakc interval on the ECG measured in milliseconds when dofetilide is administered with lidocaine compared to when dofetilide is administered alone at evening dose on treatment day.||-15.5|-25.5|0.025
90891891|NCT02308748|181648923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.9||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|6.7||Adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed according to the Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.7|-1|0.025
90891892|NCT01994954|181648933|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.03||||||A two-sided P-value of 0.05 or less was interpreted as a statistically significant result.|t-test, 2 sided|||The trial was designed to have 97% power at a type I error rate of 5% to detect a 25% intervention effect with respect to the primary outcome. this was done using an independent sample t-test. P-value was calculated, and a p-value of 0.05 or less was interpreted as statistically significant result.||||<0.03
90891893|NCT01994954|181648934|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Power calculations were based on the primary analysis (t-test comparing changes). A sample size of 130 would have given 80% power, with 0.05 two sided type 1 error rate, to detect a 20% absolute difference in emotional role limitation on the PedsQL v2.0, which we considered to be statistically significant.||||0.38
90891894|NCT00449176|181648938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.001||95.0|-1.22|-0.47|||ANCOVA|||The primary null hypothesis to be tested for the study was that the tapentadol ER group was not different from the placebo group for the primary endpoint. Assuming the mean treatment group difference of 0.7 with an SD of 2.7, 314 subjects per treatment group were estimated to provide 90% power to show that the tapentadol ER group was statistically different from placebo at an alpha level of 0.05. The total number of subjects to be randomly assigned to a treatment group for the study was 942.||-0.47|-1.22|<0.001
90891895|NCT01967732|181648984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|77.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.69|95.63|||ANOVA|The model included terms for sequence, subject nested within sequence, period, and product as fixed effect factors.|LS mean ratio (THS 2.2 - Group 1:CC - Group 1)|The objective of this study was to determine the point estimate and precision of the nicotine bioavailability (ratio of THS 2.2:CC) for Cmax, therefore, there was no statistical hypothesis to be tested for this objective.||95.63|62.69|
90891896|NCT01967732|181648985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|74.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.52|90.14|||ANOVA|The model included terms for sequence, subject nested within sequence, period, and product as fixed effect factors.|LS mean ratio (THS 2.2 - Group 1:CC - Group 1)|The objective of this study was to determine the point estimate and precision of the nicotine bioavailability (ratio of THS 2.2:CC) for AUC(0-last), therefore, there was no statistical hypothesis to be tested for this objective.||90.14|61.52|
90891897|NCT05525494|181648986|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.01|||||Adjusted risk ratio. These results compare arms which received portal (any type) reminder/recall messages to the arm receiving no reminder/recall messages (control).|Comparing the risk of receiving an influenza vaccination||1.01|0.98|
90891898|NCT05525494|181648986|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.01|||||Adjusted risk ratio. These results compare arms which received text (any type) reminder/recall messages to the arm receiving no reminder/recall messages (control).|Comparing the risk of receiving an influenza vaccination||1.01|0.98|
90891899|NCT05525494|181648986|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.02|||||Adjusted risk ratio. These results compare arms which received pre-appointment reminder/recall messages (portal and text) to the arm receiving no reminder/recall messages (control).|Comparing the risk of receiving an influenza vaccination||1.02|1.00|
90891900|NCT05525494|181648986|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.01|||||Adjusted risk ratio. These results compare arms which received a tailored reminder/recall messages based on their responses to a pre-commitment questionnaire (any type) to the arm receiving no reminder/recall messages (control).|Comparing the risk of receiving an influenza vaccination||1.01|0.99|
90891901|NCT01988779|181648989|NON_INFERIORITY|Assuming that the non-inferiority limit of topical therapy is 20% of that for oral therapy.||||||0.505|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.505
91103611|NCT01421459|182094195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.258||95.0||||P-value is for Midday 2 hrs PP Meal at Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.258
91103612|NCT01421459|182094195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.161||95.0||||P-value is for Evening Pre-Meal at Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.161
91103613|NCT01421459|182094195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.725||95.0||||P-value is for Bed Time at Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.725
90891902|NCT01988779|181648991|NON_INFERIORITY|Assuming that the non-inferiority limit of topical therapy is 20% of that for oral therapy.||||||0.39|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.390
90891903|NCT01988779|181648992|NON_INFERIORITY|Assuming that the non-inferiority limit of topical therapy is 20% of that for oral therapy.||||||0.036|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.036
90891904|NCT00377403|181648994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significnace was p less than or equal to 0.05|ANOVA|Adjusted for disease severity at baseline||We used analysis of variance, controlling for disease severity at baseline to test the null hypothesis that there was no difference between study groups at this point in time.||||0.83
90891905|NCT02275065|181648995|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Comparison was made using the t-test at a 2-sided 0.05 significance level.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90891906|NCT02275065|181648995|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Comparison was made using the t-test at a 2-sided 0.05 significance level.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90891907|NCT02275065|181648995|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Comparison was made using the t-test at a 2-sided 0.05 significance level.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90891908|NCT02275065|181648995|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Comparison was made using the t-test at a 2-sided 0.05 significance level.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91103614|NCT01421459|182094195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.543||95.0||||P-value is for 0300 hrs at Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.543
91103615|NCT01421459|182094195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.265||95.0||||P-value is for Morning Pre-Meal at Endpoint, up to 24 wk.|ANCOVA|||||||0.265
90891909|NCT02275065|181648998|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Comparison was made using the t-test at a 2-sided 0.05 significance level.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90891910|NCT02275065|181648998|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Comparison was made using the t-test at a 2-sided 0.05 significance level.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90891911|NCT02275065|181648998|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Comparison was made using the t-test at a 2-sided 0.05 significance level.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90891912|NCT02275065|181648998|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Comparison was made using the t-test at a 2-sided 0.05 significance level.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90891913|NCT02275065|181648999|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Comparison was made using the t-test at a 2-sided 0.05 significance level.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90891914|NCT02275065|181648999|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Comparison was made using the t-test at a 2-sided 0.05 significance level.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90891915|NCT02275065|181648999|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Comparison was made using the t-test at a 2-sided 0.05 significance level.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90891916|NCT02275065|181648999|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Comparison was made using the t-test at a 2-sided 0.05 significance level.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90891917|NCT00417079|181649013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||A 2-sided significance level of 0.0452 was used for the final analysis based on an interim analysis performed after 307 events with an adjusted significance level of 0.016 based on the O'Brien-Fleming type 1 error spending function.|Log Rank|Analysis was performed by using a log-rank comparisons stratified according to disease measurability and ECOG performance status (0-1 versus 2)||The study required an estimated sample size of 720 patients (360 per arm) in order to detect a 25% reduction in the hazard ratio for death in the cabazitaxel group relative to the mitoxantrone group with 90% power. The final analysis was planned for when 511 deaths had occurred.||||<0.0001
90891918|NCT00417079|181649014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
90891919|NCT00417079|181649015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0005
90891920|NCT00417079|181649016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.76|||Log Rank|Log-rank comparisons stratified according to disease measurability and ECOG performance status.|Hazard ratio (HR) \< 1 favours the cabazitaxel group and \> 1 favours the mitoxantrone group.|||0.76|0.49|<0.0001
90891921|NCT00417079|181649017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.75||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.9|||Log Rank|Log-rank comparisons stratified according to disease measurability and ECOG performance status.|Hazard ratio (HR) \< 1 favours the cabazitaxel group and \> 1 favours the mitoxantrone group.|||0.90|0.63|0.0010
90891922|NCT00417079|181649018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0002
90891923|NCT00417079|181649019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.91||||0.5192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.19|||Log Rank|Log-rank comparisons stratified according to disease measurability and ECOG performance status.|Hazard ratio (HR) \< 1 favours the cabazitaxel group and \> 1 favours the mitoxantrone group.|||1.19|0.69|0.5192
90891924|NCT00417079|181649020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6286||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.6286
90891925|NCT00833638|181649021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.086||95.0||||P-value for day \<=4. A fixed-sequence test was used within each dose group at each time point (days 4, 3, 2, 1) and adjusted for multiple dose-placebo comparisons using the Bonferroni method. Testing started on day 4 and stopped when p\>.025.|Regression, Logistic|Model response = treatment + pooled site + severity of erectile dysfunction at baseline.||The null-hypothesis was tested that there is no statistically significant difference in the onset of efficacy between tadalafil 2.5 mg and placebo as determined by the earliest day on which the cumulative percentage of subjects achieving at least 1 successful intercourse (within 4 days of starting treatment) is statistically significantly different between active drug and placebo.||||0.086
90891926|NCT00833638|181649021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0||||P-value for day \<=4. A fixed-sequence test was used within each dose group at each time point (days 4, 3, 2, 1) and adjusted for multiple dose-placebo comparisons using the Bonferroni method. Testing started on day 4 and stopped when p\>.025.|Regression, Logistic|Model response = treatment + pooled site + severity of erectile dysfunction at baseline.||The null-hypothesis was tested that there is no statistically significant difference in the onset of efficacy between tadalafil 5 mg and placebo as determined by the earliest day on which the cumulative percentage of participants achieving at least 1 successful intercourse (within 4 days of starting treatment) is statistically significantly different between active drug and placebo.||||0.006
90891927|NCT00833638|181649021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019||95.0||||P-value for day \<=3. A fixed-sequence test was used within each dose group at each time point (days 4, 3, 2, 1) and adjusted for multiple dose-placebo comparisons using the Bonferroni method. Testing started on day 4 and stopped when p\>.025.|Regression, Logistic|Model response = treatment + pooled site + severity of erectile dysfunction at baseline.||The null-hypothesis was tested that there is no statistically significant difference in the onset of efficacy between tadalafil 5 mg and placebo as determined by the earliest day on which the cumulative percentage of participants achieving at least 1 successful intercourse (within 4 days of starting treatment) is statistically significantly different between active drug and placebo.||||0.019
90905061|NCT02886728|181677436|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|13.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|20.5||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36||20.5|6.9|<0.001
90954222|NCT03192475|181786817|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.18
90954223|NCT03192475|181786818|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.34
90891928|NCT00833638|181649021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022||95.0||||P-value for day \<=2. A fixed-sequence test was used within each dose group at each time point (days 4, 3, 2, 1) and adjusted for multiple dose-placebo comparisons using the Bonferroni method. Testing started on day 4 and stopped when p\>.025.|Regression, Logistic|Model response = treatment + pooled site + severity of erectile dysfunction at baseline.||The null-hypothesis was tested that there is no statistically significant difference in the onset of efficacy between tadalafil 5 mg and placebo as determined by the earliest day on which the cumulative percentage of participants achieving at least 1 successful intercourse (within 4 days of starting treatment) is statistically significantly different between active drug and placebo.||||0.022
90891929|NCT00833638|181649021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.573||95.0||||P-value for day \<=1. A fixed-sequence test was used within each dose group at each time point (days 4, 3, 2, 1) and adjusted for multiple dose-placebo comparisons using the Bonferroni method. Testing started on day 4 and stopped when p\>.025.|Regression, Logistic|||The null-hypothesis was tested that there is no statistically significant difference in the onset of efficacy between tadalafil 5 mg and placebo as determined by the earliest day on which the cumulative percentage of participants achieving at least 1 successful intercourse (within 4 days of starting treatment) is statistically significantly different between active drug and placebo.||||0.573
90891930|NCT00833638|181649022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.72|18.34||No adjustment for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Included were terms for baseline value of the efficacy variable, treatment, site, and the baseline-by-treatment interaction were included.||"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the percentages of participants who answered yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 1 exist between participants who received placebo and participants who received tadalafil 2.5 mg."||18.34|5.72|<0.001
90891931|NCT00833638|181649022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.48|19.12||No adjustment for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Terms for baseline value of the efficacy variable, treatment, site, and the baseline-by-treatment interaction were included.||"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the percentages of participants who answered yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 1 exist between participants who received placebo and participants who received tadalafil 5 mg."||19.12|6.48|<0.001
90891932|NCT00833638|181649023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.51|22.29||No adjustment for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Included were terms for baseline value of the efficacy variable, treatment, site, and the baseline-by-treatment interaction.||"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the percentages of participants who answered yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 2 exist between participants who received placebo and participants who received tadalafil 2.5 mg."||22.29|8.51|<0.001
90891933|NCT00833638|181649023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.5|27.31||No adjustment for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Included were terms for baseline value of the efficacy variable, treatment, site, and the baseline-by-treatment interaction.||"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the percentages of participants who answered yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 2 exist between participants who received placebo and participants who received tadalafil 5 mg."||27.31|13.50|<0.001
90891934|NCT00833638|181649024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.83|21.71||No adjustment for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Included were terms for baseline value of the efficacy variable, treatment, site, and the baseline-by-treatment interaction.||"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the percentages of participants who answered yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 3 exist between participants who received placebo and participants who received tadalafil 2.5 mg."||21.71|6.83|<0.001
90891935|NCT00833638|181649024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.07|28.01||No adjustment for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Included were terms for baseline value of the efficacy variable, treatment, site, and the baseline-by-treatment interaction.||"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the percentages of participants who answered yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 3 exist between participants who received placebo and participants who received tadalafil 5 mg."||28.01|13.07|<0.001
90891936|NCT00833638|181649025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.42|22.06||No adjustment for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Included were terms for baseline value of the efficacy variable, treatment, site, and the baseline-by-treatment interaction.||"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the percentages of participants who answered yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 4 exist between participants who received placebo and participants who received tadalafil 2.5 mg."||22.06|6.42|<0.001
90891937|NCT00833638|181649025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.94|29.67||No adjustment for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Included were terms for baseline value of the efficacy variable, treatment, site, and the baseline-by-treatment interaction.||"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the percentages of participants who answered yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 4 exist between participants who received placebo and participants who received tadalafil 5 mg."||29.67|13.94|<0.001
90891938|NCT00833638|181649026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|21.55||No adjustment for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Included were terms for baseline value of the efficacy variable, treatment, site, and the baseline-by-treatment interaction.||"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the percentages of participants who answered yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 5 exist between participants who received placebo and participants who received tadalafil 2.5 mg."||21.55|6.30|<0.001
90954224|NCT03192475|181786819|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.82
90891939|NCT00833638|181649026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.4|26.75||No adjustment for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Included were terms for baseline value of the efficacy variable, treatment, site, and the baseline-by-treatment interaction.||"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the percentages of participants who answered yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 5 exist between participants who received placebo and participants who received tadalafil 5 mg."||26.75|11.40|<0.001
90891940|NCT00833638|181649027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.301||95.0||||No adjustment for multiplicity.|Log Rank|||"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the time to onset of efficacy exists between participants who received placebo and participants who received tadalafil 2.5 mg, measured by a response of yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 3."||||0.301
90891941|NCT00833638|181649027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.046||95.0||||No adjustment for multiplicity.|Log Rank|||"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the time to onset of efficacy exists between participants who received placebo and participants who received tadalafil 5 mg, measured by a response of yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 3."||||0.046
90891942|NCT00833638|181649028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for day \<=14. No adjustment for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|Response = Treatment + Pooled Site + Severity of ED at Baseline.||"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the precentage of successful intercourse attempts exists between participants who received placebo and participants who received tadalafil 2.5 mg, measured by a response of yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 3."||||<0.001
90891943|NCT00833638|181649028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for day \<=13. No adjustment for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|Response = Treatment + Pooled Site + Severity of ED at Baseline.||"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the precentage of successful intercourse attempts exists between participants who received placebo and participants who received tadalafil 2.5 mg, measured by a response of yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 3."||||<0.001
90891944|NCT00833638|181649028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for day \<=12. No adjustment for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|Response = Treatment + Pooled Site + Severity of ED at Baseline.||"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the precentage of successful intercourse attempts exists between participants who received placebo and participants who received tadalafil 2.5 mg, measured by a response of yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 3."||||<0.001
90891945|NCT00833638|181649028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for day \<=11. No adjustment for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|Response = Treatment + Pooled Site + Severity of ED at Baseline.||"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the precentage of successful intercourse attempts exists between participants who received placebo and participants who received tadalafil 2.5 mg, measured by a response of yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 3."||||<0.001
90891946|NCT00833638|181649028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for day \<=10. No adjustment for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|Response = Treatment + Pooled Site + Severity of ED at Baseline.||"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the precentage of successful intercourse attempts exists between participants who received placebo and participants who received tadalafil 2.5 mg, measured by a response of yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 3."||||<0.001
91103616|NCT01421459|182094195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0||||P-value is for Morning 2 hrs PP Meal at Endpoint, up to 24 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.050
90891947|NCT00833638|181649028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for day \<=9. No adjustment for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|Response = Treatment + Pooled Site + Severity of ED at Baseline.||"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the precentage of successful intercourse attempts exists between participants who received placebo and participants who received tadalafil 2.5 mg, measured by a response of yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 3."||||<0.001
90891948|NCT00833638|181649028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-value for day \<=8. No adjustment for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|Response = Treatment + Pooled Site + Severity of ED at Baseline.||"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the precentage of successful intercourse attempts exists between participants who received placebo and participants who received tadalafil 2.5 mg, measured by a response of yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 3."||||0.002
90891949|NCT00833638|181649028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||P-value for day \<=7. No adjustment for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|Response = Treatment + Pooled Site + Severity of ED at Baseline.||"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the precentage of successful intercourse attempts exists between participants who received placebo and participants who received tadalafil 2.5 mg, measured by a response of yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 3."||||0.001
91103617|NCT01421459|182094195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0||||P-value is for Midday Pre-Meal at Endpoint, up to 24 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.040
91103618|NCT01421459|182094195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.366||95.0||||P-value is for Midday 2 hrs PP Meal at Endpoint, up to 24 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.366
91103619|NCT01421459|182094195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.485||95.0||||P-value is for Evening Pre-Meal at Endpoint, up to 24 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.485
90891950|NCT00833638|181649028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-value for day \<=6. No adjustment for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|Response = Treatment + Pooled Site + Severity of ED at Baseline.||"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the precentage of successful intercourse attempts exists between participants who received placebo and participants who received tadalafil 2.5 mg, measured by a response of yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 3."||||0.002
90891951|NCT00833638|181649028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-value for day \<=5. No adjustment for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|Response = Treatment + Pooled Site + Severity of ED at Baseline.||"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the precentage of successful intercourse attempts exists between participants who received placebo and participants who received tadalafil 2.5 mg, measured by a response of yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 3."||||0.002
90954225|NCT01404429|181786832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.54|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.54|-0.26|0.6
91103620|NCT01421459|182094195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.537||95.0||||P-value is for Bed Time at Endpoint, up to 24 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.537
91103621|NCT01421459|182094195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.878||95.0||||P-value is for 0300 hrs at Endpoint, up to 24 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.878
90891952|NCT00833638|181649028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-value for day \<=4. No adjustment for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|Response = Treatment + Pooled Site + Severity of ED at Baseline.||"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the precentage of successful intercourse attempts exists between participants who received placebo and participants who received tadalafil 2.5 mg, measured by a response of yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 3."||||0.002
90891953|NCT00833638|181649028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0||||P-value for day \<=3. No adjustment for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|Response = Treatment + Pooled Site + Severity of ED at Baseline.||"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the precentage of successful intercourse attempts exists between participants who received placebo and participants who received tadalafil 2.5 mg, measured by a response of yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 3."||||0.009
90891954|NCT00833638|181649028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038||95.0||||P-value for day \<=2. No adjustment for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|Response = Treatment + Pooled Site + Severity of ED at Baseline.||"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the precentage of successful intercourse attempts exists between participants who received placebo and participants who received tadalafil 2.5 mg, measured by a response of yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 3."||||0.038
90891955|NCT00833638|181649028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for day \<=14. No adjustment for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|Response = Treatment + Pooled Site + Severity of ED at Baseline.||"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the proportion of successful intercourse attempts exists between participants who received placebo and participants who received tadalafil 5 mg, measured by a response of yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 3."||||<0.001
90891956|NCT00833638|181649028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for day \<=13. No adjustment for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|Response = Treatment + Pooled Site + Severity of ED at Baseline.||"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the precentage of successful intercourse attempts exists between participants who received placebo and participants who received tadalafil 5 mg, measured by a response of yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 3."||||<0.001
90891957|NCT00833638|181649028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for day \<=12. No adjustment for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|Response = Treatment + Pooled Site + Severity of ED at Baseline.||"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the precentage of successful intercourse attempts exists between participants who received placebo and participants who received tadalafil 5 mg, measured by a response of yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 3."||||<0.001
90891958|NCT00833638|181649028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for day \<=11. No adjustment for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|Response = Treatment + Pooled Site + Severity of ED at Baseline.||"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the precentage of successful intercourse attempts exists between participants who received placebo and participants who received tadalafil 2.5 mg, measured by a response of yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 3."||||<0.001
90891959|NCT00833638|181649028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for day \<=10. No adjustment for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|Response = Treatment + Pooled Site + Severity of ED at Baseline.||"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the precentage of successful intercourse attempts exists between participants who received placebo and participants who received tadalafil 2.5 mg, measured by a response of yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 3."||||<0.001
90891960|NCT00833638|181649028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for day \<=9. No adjustment for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|Response = Treatment + Pooled Site + Severity of ED at Baseline.||"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the precentage of successful intercourse attempts exists between participants who received placebo and participants who received tadalafil 5 mg, measured by a response of yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 3."||||<0.001
90891961|NCT00833638|181649028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for day \<=8. No adjustment for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|Response = Treatment + Pooled Site + Severity of ED at Baseline.||"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the precentage of successful intercourse attempts exists between participants who received placebo and participants who received tadalafil 5 mg, measured by a response of yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 3."||||<0.001
90891962|NCT00833638|181649028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for day \<=7. No adjustment for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|Response = Treatment + Pooled Site + Severity of ED at Baseline.||"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the precentage of successful intercourse attempts exists between participants who received placebo and participants who received tadalafil 5 mg, measured by a response of yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 3."||||<0.001
90891963|NCT00833638|181649028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for day \<=6. No adjustment for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|Response = Treatment + Pooled Site + Severity of ED at Baseline.||"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the precentage of successful intercourse attempts exists between participants who received placebo and participants who received tadalafil 5 mg, measured by a response of yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 3."||||<0.001
90891964|NCT00833638|181649028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for day \<=5. No adjustment for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|Response = Treatment + Pooled Site + Severity of ED at Baseline.||"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the precentage of successful intercourse attempts exists between participants who received placebo and participants who received tadalafil 5 mg, measured by a response of yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 3."||||<0.001
90891965|NCT00833638|181649028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for day \<=4. No adjustment for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|Response = Treatment + Pooled Site + Severity of ED at Baseline.||"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the precentage of successful intercourse attempts exists between participants who received placebo and participants who received tadalafil 5 mg, measured by a response of yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 3."||||<0.001
90891966|NCT00833638|181649028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||P-value for day \<=3. No adjustment for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|Response = Treatment + Pooled Site + Severity of ED at Baseline.||"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the precentage of successful intercourse attempts exists between participants who received placebo and participants who received tadalafil 5 mg, measured by a response of yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 3."||||0.003
90891967|NCT00833638|181649028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0||||P-value for day \<=2. No adjustment for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|Response = Treatment + Pooled Site + Severity of ED at Baseline.||"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the precentage of successful intercourse attempts exists between participants who received placebo and participants who received tadalafil 5 mg, measured by a response of yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 3."||||0.008
90891968|NCT00833638|181649028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.246||95.0||||P-value for day \<=1. No adjustment for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|Response = Treatment + Pooled Site + Severity of ED at Baseline.||"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the precentage of successful intercourse attempts exists between participants who received placebo and participants who received tadalafil 5 mg, measured by a response of yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 3."||||0.246
90891969|NCT00833638|181649029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-36.05|||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided||the estimated mean difference shows changes in the double-blind treatment phase minus changes in the open label treatment phase|"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the proportion of successful intercourse attempts exist in patients who received placebo in the double-blind treatment period when comparing their proportion of succesful intercourse attempts between the double-blind treatment period (while receiving placebo) and the open-label treatment period (while receiving tadalafil 5 mg), measured by a response of yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 3."||||<0.001
90891970|NCT00833638|181649030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.22|||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided||the estimated mean difference shows changes in the double-blind treatment phase minus changes in the open label treatment phase|"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the proportion of successful intercourse attempts exist in patients who received tadalafil 2.5 mg in the double-blind treatment period when comparing their proportion of succesful intercourse attempts between the double-blind treatment period (while receiving tadalafil 2.5 mg) and the open-label treatment period (while receiving tadalafil 5 mg), measured by a response of yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 3."||||<0.001
90891971|NCT00833638|181649031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.16|||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided||the estimated mean difference shows changes in the double-blind treatment phase minus changes in the open label treatment phase|"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the proportion of successful intercourse attempts exist in patients who received tadalfil 5 mg in the double-blind treatment period when comparing their proportion of succesful intercourse attempts between the double-blind treatment period (while receiving tadalafil 5 mg) and the open-label treatment period (while receiving tadalafil 5 mg), measured by a response of yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 3."||||<0.001
90891972|NCT00833638|181649032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.11|||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided||the estimated mean difference shows changes in the double-blind treatment phase minus changes in the open label treatment phase|"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the percentages of successful intercourse attempts exist in participants who received tadalafil 2.5 mg in the double-blind treatment period and did not respond to treatment when comparing their percentage of succesful intercourse attempts between the double-blind treatment period and the open-label treatment period (while receiving tadalafil 5 mg), measured by a response of yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 3."||||<0.001
90891973|NCT04951336|181649043|SUPERIORITY||ratio of frequencies|0.04||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||1.000
90891974|NCT04951336|181649044|SUPERIORITY||ratio of frequencies|0.06||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||1.000
90891975|NCT04951336|181649045|SUPERIORITY||ratio of frequencies|0.7||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||1.000
90891976|NCT04951336|181649046|SUPERIORITY||ratio of frequencies|1.68||||0.359|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.359
90891977|NCT04951336|181649047|SUPERIORITY|age was included as a covariate||||||0.002||||||Differences were considered statistically significant for p-values \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|F(2,150)=6.374. The analysis was repeated using log-transformed values and the resultant p value was also \< 0.05||"The LME analysis compared antibodies between two grouping factors, (1) Treatment Group (FoTv vs. Placebo) and (2) Exposure Stratum (previously exposed vs. unexposed), across four time points (days 3, 14, 28, and 6 months). At baseline, participants with detectable anti-CoV-2 antibodies were deemed previously exposed and those with no or very low anti-CoV-2 Abs previously unexposed. Accordingly, all longitudinal analyses excluded baseline antibody data."||||0.002
90891978|NCT04951336|181649048|SUPERIORITY|age was included as a covariate||||||0.002||||||p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|F(2,157)=4.286. The analysis was repeated using log-transformed values and the resultant p value was also \< 0.05||"LME analysis compared antibodies between two grouping factors, (1) Treatment Group (FoTv vs. Placebo) and (2) Exposure Stratum (previously exposed vs. unexposed), across four time points (days 3, 14, 28, and 6 months). At baseline, participants with detectable anti-CoV-2 antibodies were deemed previously exposed and those with no or very low anti-CoV-2 Abs previously unexposed. Accordingly, all longitudinal analyses excluded baseline antibody data."||||0.002
90891979|NCT04951336|181649049|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|F(8,325)=1.898. Age was included as a covariate in this analysis.||LME analysis compared symptoms between two grouping factors, (1) Treatment Group (FoTv vs. Placebo) and (2) Exposure Stratum (previously exposed vs. unexposed), across 5 time points (days 1-5)||||0.060
90891980|NCT04951336|181649050|SUPERIORITY|LME analysis compared symptoms between two grouping factors, (1) Treatment Group (FoTv vs. Placebo) and (2) Exposure Stratum (previously exposed vs. unexposed), across 5 time points (days 1-5)||||||0.326|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|F(8,309)=1.156. Age was included as a covariate in this analysis.||||||0.326
90891981|NCT00127608|181649063|NON_INFERIORITY|The mean viral load between samples stored in liquid and samples stored dry was compared.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.33|||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|Tukey adjustments were made for all 2 by 2 comparisons.|The Geometric Mean Ratio of the viral load was calculated for dry over liquid storage condition.|||||<0.0001
90891982|NCT00127608|181649064|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Difference in mean viral load (in log10) (Papule swab minus Vesicle fluid)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4451||||0.0038||95.0|-0.769|-0.1213|||ANOVA|Tukey adjustments were made for the comparison.||||-0.1213|-0.7690|0.0038
90891983|NCT00127608|181649064|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Difference in mean viral load (in log10) (Papule swab minus Vesicle swab)|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.432||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7605|-0.1035|||ANOVA|Tukey adjustments were made for the comparison.||||-0.1035|-0.7605|0.0060
90891984|NCT00127608|181649064|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Difference in mean viral load (in log10) (Vesicle fluid minus Vesicle swab)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.00132||||0.9952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3171|0.3435|||ANOVA|Tukey adjustments were made for the comparison.||||0.3435|-0.3171|0.9952
90891985|NCT00127608|181649064|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Geometric mean ratio of viral load (Papule swab over Vesicle fluid)|Geometric mean ratio|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.76|||ANOVA|||Geometric mean ratio of viral load (Papule swab over Vesicle fluid)||0.76|0.17|
90891986|NCT00127608|181649064|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Geometric mean ratio of viral load (Papule swab over Vesicle swab)|Geometric mean Ratio|0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.79|||ANOVA|||Geometric mean ratio of viral load (Papule swab over Vesicle swab)||0.79|0.17|
90891987|NCT00127608|181649064|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Geometric mean ratio of viral load (Vesicle fluid over Vesicle swab)|Geometric mean Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|2.21|||ANOVA|||Geometric mean ratio of viral load (Vesicle fluid over Vesicle swab)||2.21|0.48|
90891988|NCT01712009|181649076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.7|4.1|||||Naproxen minus No Prophylaxis|||4.1|-16.7|
90891989|NCT01712009|181649076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|6.3|||||Loratadine minus No Prophylaxis|||6.3|-14.5|
90891990|NCT01712009|181649076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|12.4|||||Loratadine minus Naproxen|||12.4|-8.0|
90891991|NCT01712009|181649077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|6.0|||||Naproxen minus No Prophylaxis|Difference across all treatment cycles||6.0|-14.4|
90891992|NCT01712009|181649077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|7.8|||||Loratadine minus No Prophylaxis|Difference across all treatment cyces||7.8|-12.5|
90891993|NCT01712009|181649077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|12.0|||||Loratadine minus Naproxen|Dfference across all treatment cycles||12.0|-8.3|
90891994|NCT01712009|181649078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|3.2|||||Naproxen minus No Prophylaxis|Difference across all treatment cycles||3.2|-6.5|
90891995|NCT01712009|181649078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|3.6|||||Loratadine minus No Prophylaxis|Difference across all cycles||3.6|-6.1|
90891996|NCT01712009|181649078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|4.9|||||Loratadine minus Naproxen|Difference across all cycles||4.9|-4.1|
90891997|NCT01712009|181649079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.0|||ANOVA||Naproxen minus No Prophylaxis|Difference across all treatment cycles||0.0|-0.7|0.0881
90891998|NCT01712009|181649079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.2||0.0443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.0|||ANOVA||Loratadine minus No Prophylaxis|Difference across all treatment cycles||-0.0|-0.7|0.0443
90891999|NCT01712009|181649079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.8007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.3|||ANOVA||Loratadine minus Naproxen|Difference across all treatment cycles||0.3|-0.4|0.8007
90892000|NCT01712009|181649080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.1466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.2|||ANOVA||Naproxen minus No Prophylaxis|Difference across all treatment cycles||0.2|-1.1|0.1466
90892001|NCT01712009|181649080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.0411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.0|||ANOVA||Loratadine minus No Prophylaxis|Difference across all treatment cycles||-0.0|-1.3|0.0411
90892002|NCT01712009|181649080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.5689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.5|||ANOVA||Loratadine minus Naproxen|Difference across all treatment cycles||0.5|-0.8|0.5689
90892003|NCT01712009|181649081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.0775||95.0|-3.0|0.2|||ANOVA||Naproxen minus No Prophylaxis|Difference across all treatment cycles||0.2|-3.0|0.0775
90892004|NCT01712009|181649081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.0329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-0.1|||ANCOVA||Loratadine minus No Prophylaxis|Difference across all treatment cycles||-0.1|-3.1|0.0329
90892005|NCT01712009|181649081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.7572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.2|||ANOVA||Loratadine minus Naproxen|Difference across all treatment groups||1.2|-1.7|0.7572
90892006|NCT01111123|181649107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0||||CI of 95%|Log Rank|||Probabilities of PGA not worsening were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier product limit method with a comparison between treatment group survival curves evaluated by the log-rank test statistic. The Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate the hazard ratio for worsening of PGA (equivalent to a relative risk adjusted for follow-up time) and a corresponding 95-percent confidence interval.||||<0.05
90892007|NCT01111123|181649108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Secondary outcomes, including subject self-assessment and signs of psoriasis ratings, were analyzed as continuous dependent variables in these statistical models. Mixed modeling analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used to compare the relationships between psoriasis symptoms over time in the placebo and steroid treatment groups||||<0.05
90892008|NCT04333420|181649109|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|-16.4||||0.3677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.2|20.3|||Linear repeated measures model|||||20.3|-53.2|0.3677
90892009|NCT04333420|181649110|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.728||||0.0941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.502|1.056|||Regression, Cox|including stratification by site||Cox proportional hazards regression model with outcome 28-day all-cause mortality (censored time to event variable with event = Death) including stratification by site; 61 patients from sites with no events (no death) or from single patient sites with death factually make no contribution to the analysis outcome.||1.056|0.502|0.0941
90892010|NCT04333420|181649110|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.674||||0.0266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.476|0.955|||Regression, Cox|Without stratification by site||Cox proportional hazards regression model with outcome 28-day all-cause mortality (censored time to event variable with event = Death) without stratification by site; Post-hoc analysis||0.955|0.476|0.0266
90892011|NCT04333420|181649110|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.648||||0.0181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.453|0.929|||Regression, Cox|Including random effect for site (frailty model)||Cox proportional hazards regression model with outcome 28-day all-cause mortality (censored time to event variable with event = Death) including random effect for site (frailty model); Post-hoc analysis||0.929|0.453|0.0181
90892012|NCT04333420|181649110|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.613||||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.873|||Regression, Cox|Including stratification by country||Cox proportional hazards regression model with outcome 28-day all-cause mortality (censored time to event variable with event = Death) including stratification by country; Post-hoc analysis||0.873|0.430|0.0067
90892013|NCT04333420|181649110|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-11.0||||0.0293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.8|-1.2|||Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation of missing values|Risk difference and lower/upper limit of the Confidence Interval are given in percent|Sensitivity analysis; 369 patients were included in this analysis including the patient that was randomized in error and not treated. Missing values were imputed by multiple imputation.||-1.2|-20.8|0.0293
90892014|NCT04333420|181649110|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0407|||||||Log Rank|||Post-hoc analysis||||0.0407
90892015|NCT04333420|181649111|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.651||||0.6494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.103|4.135|||Regression, Cox|Covariate: Treatment (IFX-1 + BSC)||Cox proportional hazards regression model with outcome 28-day all-cause mortality (censored time to event variable with event = Death)||4.135|0.103|0.6494
90892016|NCT04333420|181649115|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.735||||0.0815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.519|1.039|||Regression, Cox|||Cox proportional hazards regression model with outcome 60-day all-cause mortality (censored time to event variable with event = Death); Covariate: Treatment (IFX-1 + SOC)||1.039|0.519|0.0815
90892017|NCT04333420|181649116|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.352||||0.1553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.762|17.465|||Regression, Logistic||Risk difference (IFX-1 - Placebo) of percentage of patients with an improvement in the 8-point ordinal scale; Risk difference and lower/upper limit of the CI are given in percent|At Day 15||17.465|-2.762|0.1553
90892018|NCT04333420|181649116|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.078||||0.1181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.968|18.125|||Regression, Logistic||Risk difference (IFX-1 - Placebo) of percentage of patients with an improvement in the 8-point ordinal scale; Risk difference and lower/upper limit of the CI are given in percent|At Day 28||18.125|-1.968|0.1181
90892019|NCT04333420|181649117|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.081||||0.4105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.949|2.787|||Regression, Logistic||Risk difference (IFX-1 - Placebo) of percentage of patients developing acute kidney failure; Risk difference and lower/upper limit of the CI are given in percent|||2.787|-6.949|0.4105
90892020|NCT04333420|181649118|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.539||||0.0422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.297|0.978||p-value refers to hazard ratio from cause-specific Cox proportional hazards model for first renal replacement therapy.|Regression, Cox|Covariate: Treatment (IFX-1 + SOC)||||0.978|0.297|0.0422
90892021|NCT01627327|181649124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.022||||0.201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.012|0.055|||ANCOVA|||||0.055|-0.012|0.201
90892022|NCT01175850|181649127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Z-test|Z-test of two proportions was used to compare treatment groups for all randomized subjects.||||||<0.001
90892023|NCT01175850|181649128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
90892024|NCT01175850|181649129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
90892025|NCT01175850|181649130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.926|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.926
90892026|NCT01175850|181649131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
90892027|NCT01175850|181649132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
90892028|NCT01175850|181649133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.859|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.859
90892029|NCT01175850|181649134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.999
90892030|NCT01175850|181649135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.096|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.096
90892031|NCT01175850|181649136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
90892032|NCT01175850|181649137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.121|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.121
90892033|NCT01175850|181649138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.001
90892034|NCT01175850|181649139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
90892035|NCT01175850|181649140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.095|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.095
90892036|NCT01175850|181649141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.590
90892037|NCT01175850|181649142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.302|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.302
90892038|NCT01175850|181649143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.111|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.111
91103622|NCT01421459|182094196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.779||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.779
90892039|NCT01175850|181649144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.103|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.103
90892040|NCT01175850|181649145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.049
90892041|NCT01137474|181649147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9251||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.87|-1.24||Endpoint tested following a sequential testing procedure at two-sided alpha=0.05 to control the family-wise Type I error rate related to primary and secondary efficacy endpoints. Test performed since previous tests were significant.|Longitudinal repeated measures analysis|Only Week 12 data are presented; data from all weeks in double-blind period were included in the longitudinal repeated measures model.||Change from baseline to week 12 calculated using a longitudinal repeated measures analysis using direct likelihood with fixed categorical effects of treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and randomization strata and continuous fixed covariates of baseline value and baseline value by week interaction. Data after rescue were not included in the analysis. With 253 patients per group, there is \>80% power to detect a difference of 3.5 mm Hg at alpha=0.05, assuming a common SD of 14 mm Hg.||-1.24|-4.87|0.0010
90892042|NCT01137474|181649148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0673|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.33||Endpoint tested following a sequential testing procedure at two-sided alpha=0.05 to control the family-wise Type I error rate related to primary and secondary efficacy endpoints. Test performed since previous tests were significant.|Longitudinal repeated measures analysis|Only Week 12 data are presented; data from all weeks in the double-blind treatment period were included in the longitudinal repeated measures model||Change from baseline to week 12 was calculated using a longitudinal repeated measures analysis using direct likelihood with fixed categorical effects of treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and randomization strata and continuous fixed covariates of baseline value and baseline value by week interaction. With 253 subjects per group, there is \>98% power to detect a difference of 0.4% at a=0.05, assuming a common SD of 1.1%.||-0.33|-0.59|<0.0001
90905062|NCT02886728|181677436|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|5.0||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|13.3||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36||13.3|-3.3|0.20
90892043|NCT01137474|181649149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0091||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.88|-0.91||Endpoint tested following a sequential testing procedure at 2-sided alpha=0.05 to control the family-wise Type I error rate related to primary and secondary efficacy endpoints. Test performed since previous tests were significant.|ANCOVA|Only Week 12 data are presented; data from all weeks in double-blind period were included in the longitudinal repeated measures model.||Change from baseline to week 12 LOCF was calculated using an ANCOVA model with treatment group as an effect and baseline value and randomization strata as covariate. Data after rescue are excluded from blood pressure analyses.||-0.91|-4.88|0.0043
90892044|NCT01137474|181649150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5811||0.0843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|0.14||Endpoint tested following a sequential testing procedure at two-sided alpha=0.05 to control the family-wise Type I error rate related to primary and secondary efficacy endpoints. Test performed since previous tests were significant.|Longitudinal repeated measures analysis|Only Week 12 data are presented; data from all weeks in double-blind period were included in the longitudinal repeated measures model.||Change from baseline to week 12 was calculated using a longitudinal repeated measures analysis using direct likelihood with fixed categorical effects of treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and randomization strata and continuous fixed covariates of baseline value and baseline value by week interaction. Data after rescue were not included in the analysis.||0.14|-2.15|0.0843
90892045|NCT01137474|181649151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6866|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|0.73||Endpoint tested following a sequential testing procedure at 2-sided alpha=0.05 to control the family-wise Type I error rate related to primary and secondary efficacy endpoints. Test not performed since previous tests were not significant.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline to week 12 LOCF was calculated using an ANCOVA model with treatment group as an effect and baseline value and randomization strata as covariate. Data after rescue are excluded from blood pressure analyses.||0.73|-1.96|
90892046|NCT01137474|181649152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0717|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.18||Endpoint tested following a sequential testing procedure at two-sided alpha=0.05 to control the family-wise Type I error rate related to primary and secondary efficacy endpoints. Test not performed since previous tests were not significant.|Longitudinal repeated measures analysis|Only Week 12 data are presented; data from all weeks in double-blind period were included in the longitudinal repeated measures model.||Change from baseline to week 12 was calculated using a longitudinal repeated measures analysis using direct likelihood with fixed categorical effects of treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and randomization strata and continuous fixed covariates of baseline value and baseline value by week interaction.||-0.18|-0.46|
90892047|NCT03901326|181649163|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Rate of ICA without obstructive CAD or intervention within 90 days||||0.05
90892048|NCT03901326|181649163|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||Rate of patients underwent revascularization||||<0.001
90892049|NCT03901326|181649164|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.3|||Regression, Cox|||||1.30|0.59|0.80
90892050|NCT03901326|181649165|OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.07
90892051|NCT03901326|181649166|OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.15
90892052|NCT00423176|181649168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.44||||||95.0|-1.14|0.25|||||For days 1-29|||0.25|-1.14|
90892053|NCT00423176|181649168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.82||||||95.0|-1.65|0.0|||||For follow-up days 30-43|||0.00|-1.65|
90892054|NCT00423176|181649169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|8.8||||||95.0|-0.5|18.2|||||Change from baseline to endpoint|||18.2|-0.5|
90892055|NCT00420992|181649191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0445||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance: P=0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons necessary.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment as factor and baseline pain score as covariate.||Null hypothesis: mean change from baseline is the same for ALO-01 and placebo.||||0.0445
90892056|NCT03712891|181649211|OTHER|t-test||||||0.12|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.12
90892057|NCT03492281|181649231|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.2||Hypothesis testing was performed for vibegron minus placebo.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||-0.2|-0.8|<0.001
90892058|NCT03492281|181649231|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|=|0.0988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.1||Comparisons between tolterodine ER and placebo are considered descriptive.|MMRM|||||0.1|-0.6|=0.0988
90892059|NCT03492281|181649232|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.3||Hypothesis testing was performed for vibegron minus placebo.|MMRM|||||-0.3|-0.9|<0.0001
90892060|NCT03492281|181649232|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|=|0.0123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.1||Comparisons between tolterodine ER and placebo are considered descriptive.|MMRM|||||-0.1|-0.7|=0.0123
90892061|NCT03492281|181649233|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.2||Hypothesis testing was performed for vibegron minus placebo.|MMRM|||||-0.2|-1.1|=0.0020
90892062|NCT03492281|181649233|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|=|0.0648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.0||Comparisons between tolterodine ER and placebo are considered descriptive.|MMRM|||||0.0|-0.9|=0.0648
90954226|NCT03653208|181786838|OTHER||Slope|1.01||||0.1075|TWO_SIDED|90.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.1075
90954227|NCT03653208|181786839|OTHER||Slope|1.2||||0.0548|TWO_SIDED|90.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0548
90892063|NCT03492281|181649234|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|16.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.7|23.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel risk difference estimate was stratified by sex (female/male), with weights proposed by Greenland and Robins.||||23.4|9.7|<0.0001
90892064|NCT03492281|181649234|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|9.4|||=|0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|16.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel risk difference estimate was stratified by sex (female/male), with weights proposed by Greenland and Robins.||||16.7|2.1|=0.0120
90892065|NCT03492281|181649235|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|6.3|||=|0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|12.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel risk difference estimate was stratified by sex (female/male), with weights proposed by Greenland and Robins.||||12.1|0.4|=0.0360
90892066|NCT03492281|181649235|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|1.9|||=|0.5447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|7.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel risk difference estimate was stratified by sex (female/male), with weights proposed by Greenland and Robins.||||7.8|-4.1|=0.5447
90892067|NCT03492281|181649236|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|6.8|||=|0.0235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|12.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel risk difference estimate was stratified by sex and OAB type (wet/dry), with weights proposed by Greenland and Robins.||||12.7|0.9|=0.0235
90892068|NCT03492281|181649236|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|3.7|||=|0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|10.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel risk difference estimate was stratified by sex and OAB type (wet/dry), with weights proposed by Greenland and Robins.||||10.0|-2.5|=0.2400
90892069|NCT03492281|181649237|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.4||Hypothesis testing was performed for vibegron minus placebo.|MMRM|||||-0.4|-1.0|<0.0001
90892070|NCT03492281|181649237|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|=|0.0074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.1||Comparisons between tolterodine ER and placebo are considered descriptive.|MMRM|||||-0.1|-0.8|=0.0074
90892071|NCT03492281|181649238|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.24|=|0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|6.0||Hypothesis testing was performed for vibegron minus placebo.|MMRM|||||6.0|1.2|=0.0039
90892072|NCT03492281|181649238|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32|=|0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|5.7||Comparisons between tolterodine ER and placebo are considered descriptive.|MMRM|||||5.7|0.5|=0.0210
90892073|NCT03492281|181649239|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|21.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.52|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.3|28.1||Hypothesis testing was performed for vibegron minus placebo.|MMRM|||||28.1|14.3|<0.0001
90892074|NCT03492281|181649239|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|13.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.76|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.9|20.7||Comparisons between tolterodine ER and placebo are considered descriptive.|MMRM|||||20.7|5.9|<0.001
91103623|NCT01421459|182094196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.788||95.0||||P-value is for Endpoint, up to 24 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.788
90892075|NCT03492281|181649240|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|5.8||Hypothesis testing was performed for vibegron minus placebo.|MMRM|||||5.8|1.7|<0.001
90892076|NCT03492281|181649240|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.13|=|0.0114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|5.1|||MMRM|||||5.1|0.6|=0.0114
90892077|NCT03492281|181649241|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|-4.6||Hypothesis testing was performed for vibegron minus placebo.|MMRM|||||-4.6|-9.2|<0.0001
90892078|NCT03492281|181649241|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|-2.2||Comparisons between tolterodine ER and placebo are considered descriptive.|MMRM|||||-2.2|-7.1|<0.001
90892079|NCT03492281|181649242|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|12.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.7|18.1||CMH=Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH risk difference estimate was stratified by OAB type (wet/dry) and sex (female/male), with weights proposed by Greenland and Robins.||||18.1|6.7|<0.0001
90892080|NCT03492281|181649242|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|6.9|||=|0.0236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|12.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH risk difference estimate was stratified by OAB type (wet/dry) and sex (female/male), with weights proposed by Greenland and Robins.||||12.8|0.9|=0.0236
90892081|NCT03492281|181649243|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|11.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|18.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel risk difference estimate was stratified by sex (female/male), with weights proposed by Greenland and Robins.||||18.6|4.7|<0.001
90892082|NCT03492281|181649243|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|11.5|||=|0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|18.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel risk difference estimate was stratified by sex (female/male), with weights proposed by Greenland and Robins.||||18.9|4.2|=0.0022
90892083|NCT03492281|181649244|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.1||Hypothesis testing was performed for vibegron minus placebo.|MMRM|||||-0.1|-0.3|<0.0001
90892084|NCT03492281|181649244|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|=|0.0055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.0||Hypothesis testing was performed for vibegron minus placebo.|MMRM|||||0.0|-0.2|=0.0055
90892085|NCT03492281|181649245|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.2||Hypothesis testing was performed for vibegron minus placebo.|MMRM|||||-0.2|-0.4|<0.0001
90892086|NCT03492281|181649245|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.1||Comparisons between tolterodine ER and placebo are considered descriptive.|MMRM|||||-0.1|-0.3|<0.001
90892087|NCT01570829|181649253|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0352|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0352
90892088|NCT01570829|181649254|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0001
91103624|NCT01421459|182094197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.687||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.687
90892089|NCT01570829|181649255|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0001
91103625|NCT01421459|182094197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036||95.0||||P-value is for change at 4 wks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.036
91103626|NCT01421459|182094197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.323||95.0||||P-value is for change at 8 wks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.323
91103627|NCT01421459|182094197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.368||95.0||||P-value is for change at 12 wks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.368
90892090|NCT01570829|181649256|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Breslow-Day test p-value is 0.98||||||0.0001
90892091|NCT01570829|181649257|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004||||||"The p-value associated with treatment\*visit interaction of changes from baseline to Week 4, 8, 12, 16 and 20 endpoint between Dietressa and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|ANOVA|||||||0.0004
90892092|NCT01570829|181649258|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004||||||"The p-value associated with treatment\*visit interaction of changes from baseline to Week 4, 8, 12, 16 and 20 endpoint between Dietressa and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|ANOVA|||||||0.0004
90892093|NCT01570829|181649259|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67||||||"The p-value associated with treatment\*visit interaction of changes from baseline to Week 4, 12, and 24 endpoint between Dietressa and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|ANOVA|||This analysis applies to rows with waist circumference data.||||0.67
90892094|NCT01570829|181649259|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26||||||"The p-value associated with treatment\*visit interaction of changes from baseline to Week 4, 12, and 24 endpoint between Dietressa and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|ANOVA|||This analysis applies to rows with hip circumference data.||||0.26
90892095|NCT01570829|181649260|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4||||||"The p-value associated with treatment\*visit interaction of changes from baseline to Week 4, 12, and 24 endpoint between Dietressa and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|ANOVA|||This analysis applies to rows with Physical Health domain data.||||0.40
90892096|NCT01570829|181649260|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34||||||"The p-value associated with treatment\*visit interaction of changes from baseline to Week 4, 12, and 24 endpoint between Dietressa and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|ANOVA|||This analysis applies to rows with Mental Health domain data.||||0.34
90892097|NCT00675766|181649261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|Range of z-scores at baseline: -1.69 to 1.38. Range of z-scores at Year 1 follow-up: -1.28 to 1.36.||Repeated Measures ANOVA with overall neurocognitive performance at baseline and follow-up, computed as z-scored derived composite score of 14 individual neuropsychological measures assessing attention, processing speed, visuospatial skills, language, memory, executive function and motor skills, across time as the within-group factor and HIV serostatus and age group as between-group factors.||||0.001
90892098|NCT00675766|181649261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|Range of z-scores at baseline: -2.96 to 1.89. Range of z-scores at Year 1 follow-up: -1.89 to 1.77.||Repeated Measures ANOVA with processing speed at baseline and follow-up, computed as z-scored derived composite score of multiple neuropsychological measures assessing speed of cognitive information processing, across time as the within-group factor and HIV serostatus and age group as between-group factors.||||<0.005
90892099|NCT00675766|181649261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|Range of z-scores at baseline: -2.30 to 2.44. Range of z-scores at Year 1 follow-up: -1.82 to 2.00.||Repeated Measures ANOVA with attention at baseline and follow-up, computed as z-scored derived composite score of multiple neuropsychological measures assessing attentional abilities, across time as the within-group factor and HIV serostatus and age group as between-group factors.||||< 0.01
90892100|NCT00675766|181649261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|Range of z-scores at baseline: -1.76 to 0.95. Range of z-scores at Year 1 follow-up: -1.18 to 0.84.||Repeated Measures ANOVA with executive function at baseline and follow-up, computed as z-scored derived composite score of multiple neuropsychological measures assessing working memory, set shifting, mental flexibility and problem solving, across time as the within-group factor and HIV serostatus and age group as between-group factors.||||<0.07
90892101|NCT00675766|181649261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|Range of z-scores at baseline: -2.30 to 1.94. Range of z-scores at Year 1 follow-up: -1.83 to 2.11.||Repeated Measures ANOVA with language at baseline and follow-up, computed as z-scored derived composite score of multiple neuropsychological measures assessing verbal fluency and naming skills, across time as the within-group factor and HIV serostatus and age group as between-group factors.||||0.09
90892102|NCT00675766|181649261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72|TWO_SIDED||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|Range of z-scores at baseline: -2.00 to 1.68. Range of z-scores at Year 1 follow-up: -2.33 to 1.90.||Repeated Measures ANOVA with memory at baseline and follow-up, computed as z-scored derived composite score of multiple neuropsychological measures assessing verbal and nonverbal learning and memory, across time as the within-group factor and HIV serostatus and age group as between-group factors.||||.72
90905063|NCT02886728|181677436|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|7.3||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|15.7||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36||15.7|-1.0|0.056
90892103|NCT00675766|181649261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65|TWO_SIDED||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|Range of z-scores at baseline: -2.04 to 2.51. Range of z-scores at Year 1 follow-up: -2.21 to 2.24.||Repeated Measures ANOVA with visuospatial skills at baseline and follow-up, computed as z-scored derived composite score of multiple neuropsychological measures assessing visuospatial and visuoconstructional abilities, across time as the within-group factor and HIV serostatus and age group as between-group factors.||||0.65
90892104|NCT00675766|181649261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79|TWO_SIDED||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|Range of z-scores at baseline: -4.04 to 1.33. Range of z-scores at Year 1 follow-up: -1.24 to 2.37.||Repeated Measures ANOVA with motor skills at baseline and follow-up, computed as z-scored derived composite score of multiple neuropsychological measures assessing fine motor speed and dexterity, across time as the within-group factor and HIV serostatus and age group as between-group factors.||||0.79
90892105|NCT00675766|181649261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.044|ONE_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|One-sided Fisher's exact test with 1 degree of freedom.||Fisher's exact test compared the frequency of older and younger HIV+ adults who converted from neurocognitively intact to neurocognitively impaired on memory over a one year time period. We hypothesized that the older group would exhibit a greater proportion of individuals who declined during this interim.||||.044
90892106|NCT01018394|181649290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|5.1||A one tailed P of less than 0.2 was considered sufficient evidence to warrant a larger study.|Fisher Exact|1 tailed||The percentage of participants who reduced tobacco use by greater or equal to 50% from baseline was compared between groups using Fisher's exact test. A one tailed P of less than 0.2 was considered sufficient evidence to warrant a larger study.||5.1|0.7|0.108
90892107|NCT00617344|181649309|OTHER|The associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the point estimates and the differences were calculated using normal approximation.|Difference in Percentage|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.44|2.84||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 1: Pre-injection 1 (Day 0)||2.84|-7.44|
91080115|NCT04000360|182045724|SUPERIORITY|Test of equality of slopes of squared match scores (matches\^2/year) between AE and UCC groups.|Difference in slopes.|-96.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|69.12||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-232.41|38.6||Family-wise error controlled at α=0.05 by Holm-Bonferroni adjustment for other non-motor domain secondary outcomes: Visual Memory Test and Trail Making Test B to A duration ratio.|Mixed Models Analysis||Processing speed is expected to decline with Parkinson's, hence duration of the test to increase. The reported effect is the difference in annual slopes (matches\^2/year) between the AE and UCC treatment arms.|Linear mixed model for baseline, 6 month, and 12 month data, with fixed effects of clinical site, treatment, and linear time nested in treatment arm, and heterogeneous compound symmetry covariance structure, fit by residual pseudolikelihood maximization (RSPL) in SAS PROC GLIMMIX. To reduce skew and better meet modeling assumptions, test duration was squared (matches\^2) for analysis. Study sample size was based on the primary outcome, and power was not calculated for this and other outcomes.||38.60|-232.41|0.48
90892108|NCT00617344|181649309|OTHER|The associated 95% CIs for the point estimates and the differences were calculated using normal approximation.|Difference in Percentage|-15.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.4|-2.0||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 1: 30 days post-injection 2||-2.00|-28.4|
90892109|NCT00617344|181649309|OTHER|The associated 95% CIs for the point estimates and the differences were calculated using normal approximation.|Difference in Percentage|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.44|2.84||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 2: Pre-injection 1 (Day 0)||2.84|-7.44|
90892110|NCT00617344|181649309|OTHER|The associated 95% CIs for the point estimates and the differences were calculated using normal approximation.|Difference in Percentage|-3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|8.75||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 2: 30 days post-injection 2||8.75|-15.0|
90892111|NCT00617344|181649309|OTHER|The associated 95% CIs for the point estimates and the differences were calculated using normal approximation.|Difference in Percentage|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.09|11.1||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 3: Pre-injection 1 (Day 0)||11.1|-9.09|
90892112|NCT00617344|181649309|OTHER|The associated 95% CIs for the point estimates and the differences were calculated using normal approximation.|Difference in Percentage|-5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.6|3.81||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 3: 30 days post-injection 2||3.81|-15.6|
90892113|NCT00617344|181649309|OTHER|The associated 95% CIs for the point estimates and the differences were calculated using normal approximation.|Difference in Percentage|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|2.49||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 4: Pre-injection 1 (Day 0)||2.49|-10.9|
90892114|NCT00617344|181649309|OTHER|The associated 95% CIs for the point estimates and the differences were calculated using normal approximation.|Difference in Percentage|31.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.2|43.2||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 4: 30 days post-injection 2||43.2|18.2|
90892115|NCT04184791|181649324|OTHER|A linear mixed-effects analysis of variance (LM-ANOVA) model was used to determine the effect of L-Dopa, frequency, the interaction of levodopa and frequency, and the interaction of frequency and contact pairs on gait parameters. The fixed effects were L-Dopa condition (ON vs. OFF), stimulation frequency (LFS;60 Hz vs. HFS;180 Hz), contact pairs \[1-(R)/1-(L); 2-(R)/2-(L); 3-(R)/3-(L); 4-(R)/4-(L)\], and assistive device (presence vs. absence) and the patient effect was considered random.|||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
90892116|NCT01669122|181649355|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Testing Bioequivalence|Treatment Ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|0.99||||||Null hypothesis considered no difference in the treatments being compared.||0.99|0.93|
90892117|NCT01669122|181649355|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Testing Bioequivalence|Treatment Ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|0.99||||||Null hypothesis considered no difference in the treatments being compared.||0.99|0.93|
90892118|NCT01669122|181649355|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Testing Bioequivalence|Treatment Ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|0.97||||||Null hypothesis considered no difference in the treatments being compared.||0.97|0.91|
90892119|NCT01669122|181649356|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Testing bioequivalence|Treatment Ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|1.02||||||Null hypothesis considered no difference in the treatments being compared.||1.02|0.93|
90892120|NCT01669122|181649356|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Testing Bioequivalence|Treatment Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|1.03||||||Null hypothesis considered no difference in the treatments being compared.||1.03|0.94|
91103628|NCT01421459|182094197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.089||95.0||||P-value is for change at 16 wks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.089
91103629|NCT01421459|182094197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.041||95.0||||P-value is for change at 20 wks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.041
91103630|NCT01421459|182094197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33||95.0||||P-value is for change at 24 wks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.330
91103631|NCT01421459|182094197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.334||95.0||||P-value is for change at Endpoint, up to 24 wks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.334
90892121|NCT01669122|181649356|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Testing Bioequivalence|Treatment Ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|0.96||||||Null hypothesis considered no difference in the treatments being compared.||0.96|0.88|
90892122|NCT01669122|181649357|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Testing bioequivalence|Treatment Ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|0.99||||||Null hypothesis considered no difference in the treatments being compared.||0.99|0.93|
90892123|NCT01669122|181649357|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Testing bioequivalence|Treatment Ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|0.99||||||Null hypothesis considered no difference in the treatments being compared.||0.99|0.93|
90892124|NCT01669122|181649357|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Testing bioequivalence|Treatment Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|0.96||||||Null hypothesis considered no difference in the treatments being compared.||0.96|0.90|
90892125|NCT01669122|181649358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.2208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.5|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Based on Hodges Lehmann estimate|Null hypothesis considered no difference in the treatments being compared.||0.50|0.00|0.2208
90892126|NCT01669122|181649358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.5695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.25|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Based on Hodges Lehmann estimate|Null hypothesis considered no difference in the treatments being compared.||0.25|-0.25|0.5695
90892127|NCT01669122|181649358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.5|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Based on Hodges Lehmann estimate|Null hypothesis considered no difference in the treatments being compared.||0.50|0.00|0.0063
90892128|NCT02962908|181649361|OTHER|Inequality test.||||||0.45|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the difference in median fold increase in number of CD4+ T cells positive for IFN-gamma from day 0 and to 42.||||0.45
90892129|NCT02962908|181649361|OTHER|inequality test|||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the difference in median fold increase in number of CD4+ T cells positive for IFN-gamma from day 0 and to 42.||||<0.001
90892130|NCT02962908|181649361|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.88|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the difference in median fold increase in number of CD4+ T cells positive for TNF-alpha from day 0 to day 42.||||0.88
90892131|NCT02962908|181649361|OTHER|inequality test|||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the difference in median fold increase in number of CD4+ T cells positive for TNF-alpha from day 0 to day 42.||||<0.001
90892132|NCT02962908|181649361|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.21|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the difference in median fold increase in number of CD4+ T cells positive for IL-2 from day 0 to day 42.||||0.21
90892133|NCT02962908|181649361|OTHER|inequality test|||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the difference in median fold increase in number of CD4+ T cells positive for IL-2 from day 0 to day 42.||||<0.001
90892134|NCT02962908|181649361|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.77|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the difference in median fold increase in number of CD4+ T cells positive for CD107a from day 0 to day 42.||||0.77
90892135|NCT02962908|181649361|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the difference in median fold increase in number of CD4+ T cells positive for CD107a from day 0 to day 42.||||0.004
90892136|NCT02962908|181649361|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.08|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the difference in median fold increase in number of CD8+ T cells positive for IFN-gamma from day 0 to day 42.||||0.08
90892137|NCT02962908|181649361|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.38|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the difference in median fold increase in number of CD8+ T cells positive for IFN-gamma from day 0 to day 42.||||0.38
90892138|NCT02962908|181649361|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.49|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the difference in median fold increase in number of CD8+ T cells positive for TNF-alpha from day 0 to day 42.||||0.49
90892139|NCT02962908|181649361|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.156|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the difference in median fold increase in number of CD8+ T cells positive for TNF-alpha from day 0 to day 42.||||0.156
90892140|NCT02962908|181649361|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.125|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the difference in median fold increase in number of CD8+ T cells positive for IL-2 from day 0 to day 42.||||0.125
90892141|NCT02962908|181649361|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.89|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.89
90892142|NCT02962908|181649361|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.72|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the difference in median fold increase in number of CD8+ T cells positive for CD107a from day 0 to day 42.||||0.72
90892143|NCT02962908|181649361|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.34|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the difference in median fold increase in number of CD8+ T cells positive for CD107a from day 0 to day 42.||||0.34
90892144|NCT02962908|181649362|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.62|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the difference in median fold increase in number of CD4+ T cells positive for IFN-gamma from day 0 to day 180.||||0.62
90892145|NCT02962908|181649362|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the difference in median fold increase in number of CD4+ T cells positive for IFN-gamma from day 0 to day 180.||||0.030
90892146|NCT02962908|181649362|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.87|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the difference in median fold increase in number of CD4+ T cells positive for TNF-alpha from day 0 to day 180.||||0.87
91103632|NCT01421459|182094198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.726||95.0||||P-value is for Behavior domain at 4 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.726
91103633|NCT01421459|182094198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.502||95.0||||P-value is for Behavior domain at 12 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.502
91103634|NCT01421459|182094198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.437||95.0||||P-value is for Behavior domain at Endpoint, up to 24 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.437
91103635|NCT01421459|182094198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.237||95.0||||P-value is for Worry domain at 4 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.237
90892147|NCT02962908|181649362|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.075|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the difference in median fold increase in number of CD4+ T cells positive for TNF-alpha from day 0 to day 180.||||0.075
90892148|NCT02962908|181649362|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.076|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the difference in median fold increase in number of CD4+ T cells positive for IL-2 from day 0 to day 180.||||0.076
91103636|NCT01421459|182094198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86||95.0||||P-value is for Worry domain at 12 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.860
91103637|NCT01421459|182094198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.966||95.0||||P-value is for Worry domain at Endpoint, up to 24 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.966
91103638|NCT01421459|182094198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.313||95.0||||P-value is for ALBSS Total Score at 4 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.313
90892149|NCT02962908|181649362|OTHER|inequality test|||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the difference in median fold increase in number of CD4+ T cells positive for IL-2 from day 0 to day 180.||||<0.001
90892150|NCT02962908|181649362|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.91|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the difference in median fold increase in number of CD4+ T cells positive for CD107a from day 0 to day 180.||||0.91
90892151|NCT02962908|181649362|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.91|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the difference in median fold increase in number of CD4+ T cells positive for CD107a from day 0 to day 180.||||0.91
90892152|NCT02962908|181649362|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.55|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the difference in median fold increase in number of CD8+ T cells positive for IFN-gamma from day 0 to day 180.||||0.55
90892153|NCT02962908|181649362|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.55|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the difference in median fold increase in number of CD8+ T cells positive for IFN-gamma from day 0 to day 180.||||0.55
90892154|NCT02962908|181649362|OTHER|inequality||||||0.91|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the difference in median fold increase in number of CD8+ T cells positive for TNF-alpha from day 0 to day 180.||||0.91
90892155|NCT02962908|181649362|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.91|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the difference in median fold increase in number of CD8+ T cells positive for TNF-alpha from day 0 to day 180.||||0.91
91080116|NCT04000360|182045725|SUPERIORITY|Test of equality of annual slopes of log(TMT B to TMT A duration ratio) for AE and UCC groups.|Difference in slopes|-3.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.06||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.31|8.46||Family-wise error controlled at α=0.05 by Holm-Bonferroni adjustment for other non-motor domain secondary outcomes: Processing Speed Test and Visual Memory Test.|Mixed Models Analysis||Visual attention and set switching speed decline with Parkinson's, hence duration of Trail Making Test B increases. The reported effect is the difference in annual slopes of (log TMT B/TMT A), i.e., change/year, between AE and UCC treatment arms.|Linear mixed model for baseline, 6 month, and 12 month data, with fixed effects of clinical site, treatment, and linear time nested in treatment arm, and compound symmetry covariance structure, fit by residual pseudolikelihood maximization (RSPL) in SAS PROC GLIMMIX. To reduce skew and better meet modeling assumptions, the ratios were transformed to their natural logarithms for modeling. Study sample size was based on the primary outcome, and power was not calculated for this and other outcomes.||8.46|-15.31|1.00
91080117|NCT04000360|182045726|SUPERIORITY|Test of equality of annual slopes of squared test score.|Difference in slopes|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.58|2.91||Family-wise error controlled at α=0.05 by Holm-Bonferroni adjustment for other non-motor domain secondary outcomes: Processing Speed Test and Trail Making Test Ratio.|Mixed Models Analysis||Visual memory declines with Parkinson's, hence the score declines. The reported effect is the difference in annual slopes, i.e., changes in mean score\^2/year, for AE and UCC treatment arms, shown in hundreds. Higher slope indicates slower decline.|Linear mixed model for baseline, 6 month, and 12 month data, with fixed effects of clinical site, treatment, and linear time nested in treatment arm, and compound symmetry covariance structure, fit by residual pseudolikelihood maximization (RSPL) in SAS PROC GLIMMIX. To reduce skew and better meet modeling assumptions, the score was squared for statistical modeling. Sample size was based on the primary outcome, and power was not calculated for this and other outcomes.||2.91|-2.58|0.91
91080118|NCT03763058|182045751|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.19||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Sign test|||||||0.012
90892156|NCT02962908|181649362|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.21|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the difference in median fold increase in number of CD8+ T cells positive for IL2 from day 0 to day 180.||||0.21
90892157|NCT02962908|181649362|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.48|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the difference in median fold increase in number of CD8+ T cells positive for IL2 from day 0 to day 180.||||0.48
90892158|NCT02962908|181649362|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.62|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the difference in median fold increase in number of CD8+ T cells positive for CD107a from day 0 to day 180.||||0.62
90892159|NCT02962908|181649362|OTHER|inequality||||||0.23|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the difference in median fold increase in number of CD8+ T cells positive for CD107a from day 0 to day 180.||||0.23
90892160|NCT02962908|181649363|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.8|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of CD4+ IFNgamma responders on day 42. Differences considered significant if p-value \<0.05.||||0.80
90892161|NCT02962908|181649363|OTHER|inequality test|||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of CD4+ IFNgamma responders on day 42. Differences considered significant if p-value \<0.05.||||<0.001
90892162|NCT02962908|181649363|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.23|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of CD4+ TNF alpha responders on day 42. Differences considered significant if p-value \<0.05.||||0.23
90892163|NCT02962908|181649363|OTHER|||||||0.056|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of CD4+ TNF alpha responders on day 42. Differences considered significant if p-value \<0.05.||||0.056
90892164|NCT02962908|181649363|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.74|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of CD4+ IL-2 responders on day 42. Differences considered significant if p-value \<0.05.||||0.74
90892165|NCT02962908|181649363|OTHER|inequality test|||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of CD4+ IL-2 responders on day 42. Differences considered significant if p-value \<0.05.||||<0.001
90892166|NCT02962908|181649363|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.34|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of CD4+ CD107a responders on day 42. Differences considered significant if p-value \<0.05.||||0.34
90892167|NCT02962908|181649363|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.01|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of CD4+ CD107a responders on day 42. Differences considered significant if p-value \<0.05.||||0.010
90892168|NCT02962908|181649363|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.096|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of CD4+ IFNgamma responders on day 180. Differences considered significant if p-value \<0.05.||||0.096
91103639|NCT01421459|182094198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.683||95.0||||P-value is for ALBSS Total Score at 12 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.683
91103640|NCT01421459|182094198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.765||95.0||||P-value is for ALBSS Total Score at Endpoint, up to 24 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.765
91103641|NCT01421459|182094199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.983||95.0||||P-value is for Inconvenience of Regimen at 4 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.983
91103642|NCT01421459|182094199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.371||95.0||||P-value is for Inconvenience of Regimen at 12 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.371
91103643|NCT01421459|182094199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.757||95.0||||P-value is for Inconvenience of Regimen at Endpoint, up to 24 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.757
91080119|NCT03763058|182045752|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.45|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.52||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Sign test|||||||0.002
91080120|NCT03763058|182045753|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.71||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Sign test|||||||0.045
91080121|NCT03763058|182045754|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.65|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.59|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Sign test|||||||<0.001
91080122|NCT03763058|182045755|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Sign test|||Total HAD score||||<0.001
91080123|NCT02759835|182045756|OTHER|||||||0.56|||||||Kaplan-Meier|||||||0.56
91080124|NCT02759835|182045758|OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||Kaplan-Meier|||||||0.40
91080125|NCT00055497|182045782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.142|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.142
91080126|NCT00055497|182045783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.029
91080127|NCT00055497|182045784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 24||||0.330
91080128|NCT00055497|182045784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 24||||0.001
91080129|NCT00055497|182045784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.508|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 56||||0.508
91080130|NCT00055497|182045784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.044|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 56||||0.044
91080131|NCT00055497|182045785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.191|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 24||||0.191
91080132|NCT00055497|182045785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Week 24||||0.003
91080133|NCT00055497|182045785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.508|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 56||||0.508
91080134|NCT00055497|182045785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 56||||0.004
91080135|NCT00055497|182045786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.001
91080136|NCT00048165|182045791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent mean difference|-12.0||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.9|-3.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-3.3|-20.9|0.007
91080137|NCT00048165|182045792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent mean difference|-8.6||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|0.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.5|-17.7|0.063
91080138|NCT00048165|182045795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of Daclizumab and Placebo for 6 months were presented||||0.0005
91080139|NCT00048165|182045795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0008|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of Daclizumab and Placebo for 12 months were presented||||0.0008
91080140|NCT00678470|182045820|OTHER||Correlation|1.0||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact||||Using Fisher's non-parametric test of associations, correlations were determined between the patients who were intralesional responders with their response at ‡70% change in PASI score.|||0.0003
91080141|NCT00862459|182045831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.59|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.49||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||2 sample t-test between the dose groups||||0.003
91080142|NCT00862459|182045831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.59||0.844|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.844
91080143|NCT00862459|182045832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.069|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.92||||95.0|-0.825|0.69|||confidence interval using t-distribution|||||0.69|-0.825|
91080144|NCT00862459|182045832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.18||||95.0|-0.9|0.79|||confidence interval using t-distribution|||||0.79|-0.90|
91080145|NCT00862459|182045833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.42||||95.0|-1.17|-0.42|||confidence interval using t-distribution|||||-0.42|-1.17|
91080146|NCT00862459|182045833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.57||||95.0|-0.44|0.41|||confidence interval using t-distribution|||||0.41|-0.44|
91080147|NCT00862459|182045834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.86||||95.0|-0.619|-0.17|||confidence interval using t-distribution|||||-0.17|-0.619|
91080148|NCT00862459|182045834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.01||||95.0|-0.25|0.22|||confidence interval using t-distribution|||||0.22|-0.25|
91080149|NCT00862459|182045835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.76||||95.0|-0.58|-0.18|||confidence interval using t-distribution|||||-0.18|-0.58|
91080150|NCT00862459|182045835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.76||||95.0|-0.1|0.31|||confidence interval using t-distribution|||||0.31|-0.10|
91080151|NCT00862459|182045836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.54|STANDARD_DEVIATION|76.45||||95.0|-37.11|2.02|||confidence interval using t-distribution|||difference in CNR between doses and confidence interval||2.02|-37.11|
91080152|NCT00862459|182045836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.74|STANDARD_DEVIATION|77.11||||95.0|-15.86|25.35|||confidence interval using t-distribution|||||25.35|-15.86|
91080153|NCT00862459|182045837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||accuracy difference|1.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.29||0.8||95.0|-10.93|14.24|||Chi-squared|Adjusted for clustering||||14.24|-10.93|0.80
91080154|NCT00862459|182045837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in accuracies|-10.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.83||0.13||95.0|-24.41|2.9|||Chi-squared|adjusted for clustering||||2.90|-24.41|0.13
91080155|NCT00862459|182045838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in accuracy|13.43||||0.03||95.0|1.53|25.33|||Chi-squared|adjusted for clustering||||25.33|1.53|0.03
91080156|NCT00862459|182045838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in accuracies|-13.58||||0.02||95.0|-25.07|-2.09|||Chi-squared|adjusted for clustering||||-2.09|-25.07|0.02
91080157|NCT00862459|182045839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in accuracy|-6.13||||0.11||95.0|-13.73|1.48|||Chi-squared|adjusted for clustering||||1.48|-13.73|0.11
91080158|NCT00862459|182045839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in accuracies|2.87||||0.55||95.0|-6.59|12.32|||Chi-squared|adjusted for clustering||||12.32|-6.59|0.55
91080159|NCT00862459|182045840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in accuracy|24.63||||0.02||95.0|5.39|43.86|||Chi-squared|adjusted for clustering||||43.86|5.39|0.02
91080160|NCT00862459|182045840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in accuracy|-10.75||||0.13||95.0|-24.41|2.9|||Chi-squared|adjusted for clustering||||2.90|-24.41|0.13
91080161|NCT00862459|182045841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in accuracy|12.91||||0.07||95.0|-1.44|27.26|||Chi-squared|adjusted for clustering||||27.26|-1.44|0.07
91080162|NCT00862459|182045841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in accuracy|-18.37||||0.02||95.0|-33.6|-1.35|||Chi-squared|adjusted for clustering||||-1.35|-33.60|0.02
91080163|NCT00862459|182045842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in accuracy|18.46||||0.02||95.0|3.15|33.77|||Chi-squared|adjusted for clustering||||33.77|3.15|0.02
91080164|NCT00862459|182045842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in accuracy|-5.29||||0.45||95.0|-18.83|8.24|||Chi-squared|adjusted for clustering||||8.24|-18.83|0.45
91080165|NCT02134353|182045884|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|54.0||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|100.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Missing data for withdrawals related to safety or efficacy imputed using BOCF (baseline observation carried forward). Data collected at 6, 14 and 26 weeks.|||100|8|0.020
91080166|NCT02134353|182045885|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|40.0||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|92.0||Missing data for withdrawals due to safety/efficacy imputed using BOCF. Data collected at 6,14 and 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis||Missing data for withdrawals related to safety or efficacy imputed using BOCF. Data collected at 6, 14 and 26 weeks.|||92|-12|0.128
91080167|NCT02134353|182045886|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.14||||0.629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.671|1.936|||Regression, Cox|||||1.936|0.671|0.629
91080168|NCT02134353|182045887|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.75||||0.673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.198|2.846|||Negative binomial model|||||2.846|0.198|0.673
91080169|NCT02134353|182045888|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|1.273||||0.735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.315|5.154|||Negative binomial model|||||5.154|0.315|0.735
91080170|NCT02134353|182045889|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|1.545||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|2.411|||Negative binomial model|||Patients withdrawing early without an exacerbation had rate imputed based on number of exacerbations in 12 months prior to screening.||2.411|0.990|0.055
90892169|NCT02962908|181649363|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.049|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of CD4+ IFNgamma responders on day 180.Differences considered significant if p-value \<0.05.||||0.049
91080171|NCT02134353|182045889|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|1.357||||0.246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.275|||Negative binomial model|||Sensitivity analysis with no imputation of missing data.||2.275|0.810|0.246
91080172|NCT02134353|182045890|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.009||||0.976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.555|1.836|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.836|0.555|0.976
91080173|NCT02134353|182045891|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.259||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.034|0.551|||Mixed Models Analysis|Missing values due to withdrawal related to safety/efficacy imputed using BOCF||||0.551|-0.034|0.083
91080174|NCT02134353|182045892|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.87||||0.453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.406|3.145|||Mixed Models Analysis||Missing values due to withdrawal related to safety/efficacy imputed using BOCF|||3.145|-1.406|0.453
91080175|NCT02134353|182045893|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|87.0||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.0|155.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Missing data due to withdrawals for reasons related to safety/efficacy imputed using BOCF|||155|20|0.012
91080176|NCT01953432|182045894|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Probability of 0.75 that the OR exceeded 1.00 (OR = 1.01, 95% CI = 0.98-1.05)|||||
91080177|NCT01953432|182045894|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Probability of 0.96 that the odds ratio exceeded 1.00 (OR = 1.03, 95% CI = 1.00-1.07)|||||
91080178|NCT03168919|182045898|OTHER|Comparison||||||||||||||||The baseline and the end of therapy MRI parameters are compared.|Due to very small accrual, the statistical analysis couln't be performed.|||
91080179|NCT01085136|182045903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.61||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.85||P-value is calculated from two-sided stratified log-rank test|stratified log-rank test|||Hazard ratio is calculated from Cox proportional hazard model with treatment as the only factor, stratified by gender and maximum duration of erlotinib or gefitinib (\<6 months vs \>=6 months).||0.85|0.44|0.0030
91080180|NCT01085136|182045905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.7905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.44|||Stratified log-rank test.|P-value is calculated from two-sided stratified log-rank test.||Hazard ratio was calculated from Cox proportional hazard model with treatment as the only factor, stratified by gender and maximum duration of erlotinib or gefitinib (\<6 months vs \>=6 months).||1.44|0.76|0.7905
91080181|NCT01085136|182045907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.98||||0.0065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.357|6.543|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) and p-value (two-sided) from logistic regression stratified for maximum treatment duration of prior erlotinib or gefitinib (\>=6 months vs \<6 months) and gender.||6.543|1.357|0.0065
91080182|NCT02993354|182045974|SUPERIORITY||Relative Rate|0.95||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.31|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.31|0.69|0.75
91080183|NCT01783821|182045976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Type 3 Wald Test|||Overall p-value of the day by treatment interaction from the random effects model using a type 3 Wald test.||||0.02
91080184|NCT01783821|182045977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between the two arms for the 3 categories.||||0.01
91080185|NCT01783821|182045978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.01
91080186|NCT01783821|182045979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.01
91080187|NCT01783821|182045980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Cox Proportional Hazard, Fine/Gray adj.|||||||0.02
91080188|NCT01783821|182045981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.01
91080189|NCT04459598|182045989|OTHER|Least squares (LS) means were calculated from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on log-transformed scale. The LS means for each treatment were back transformed from the log scale to provide estimates of the geometric means (GMS). The ratio (%) of GMS was calculated and 90% Confidence Intervals (CIs) for the ratio (%) of GMS were presented.|Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Mean|55.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|45.24|67.46|||||For the comparison, the Efavirenz + Quizartinib treatment group represents the numerator and Quizartinib only treatment group represents the denominator.|Statistical comparison was analyzed for Quizartinib.||67.46|45.24|
91103644|NCT01421459|182094199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89||95.0||||P-value is for Lifestyle Flexibility at 4 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.890
91103645|NCT01421459|182094199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.326||95.0||||P-value is for Lifestyle Flexibility at 12 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.326
91103646|NCT01421459|182094199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.831||95.0||||P-value is for Lifestyle Flexibility at Endpoint, up to 24 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.831
91103647|NCT01421459|182094199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.507||95.0||||P-value is for Hypoglycemic Control at 4 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.507
91103648|NCT01421459|182094199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69||95.0||||P-value is for Hypoglycemic Control at 12 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.690
91103649|NCT01421459|182094199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.307||95.0||||P-value is for Hypoglycemic Control at Endpoint, up to 24 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.307
91080190|NCT04459598|182045989|OTHER|Least squares (LS) means were calculated from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on log-transformed scale. The LS means for each treatment were back transformed from the log scale to provide estimates of the geometric means (GMS). The ratio (%) of GMS was calculated and 90% Confidence Intervals (CIs) for the ratio (%) of GMS were presented.|Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Mean|32.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|23.79|44.05|||||For the comparison, the Efavirenz + Quizartinib treatment group represents the numerator and Quizartinib only treatment group represents the denominator.|Statistical comparison was analyzed for AC886.||44.05|23.79|
91080191|NCT04459598|182045991|OTHER|Least squares (LS) means were calculated from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on log-transformed scale. The LS means for each treatment were back transformed from the log scale to provide estimates of the geometric means (GMS). The ratio (%) of GMS was calculated and 90% Confidence Intervals (CIs) for the ratio (%) of GMS were presented.|Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Mean|11.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.47|14.56|||||For the comparison, the Efavirenz + Quizartinib treatment group represents the numerator and Quizartinib only treatment group represents the denominator.|Statistical comparison was analyzed for Quizartinib.||14.56|8.47|
91080192|NCT04459598|182045991|OTHER|Least squares (LS) means were calculated from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on log-transformed scale. The LS means for each treatment were back transformed from the log scale to provide estimates of the geometric means (GMS). The ratio (%) of GMS was calculated and 90% Confidence Intervals (CIs) for the ratio (%) of GMS were presented.|Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Mean|3.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.47|5.45|||||For the comparison, the Efavirenz + Quizartinib treatment group represents the numerator and Quizartinib only treatment group represents the denominator.|Statistical comparison was analyzed for AC886.||5.45|2.47|
91080193|NCT04459598|182045992|OTHER|Least squares (LS) means were calculated from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on log-transformed scale. The LS means for each treatment were back transformed from the log scale to provide estimates of the geometric means (GMS). The ratio (%) of GMS was calculated and 90% Confidence Intervals (CIs) for the ratio (%) of GMS were presented.|Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Mean|10.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.73|13.7|||||For the comparison, the Efavirenz + Quizartinib treatment group represents the numerator and Quizartinib only treatment group represents the denominator.|Statistical comparison was analyzed for Quizartinib.||13.70|7.73|
91080194|NCT04459598|182045992|OTHER|Least squares (LS) means were calculated from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on log-transformed scale. The LS means for each treatment were back transformed from the log scale to provide estimates of the geometric means (GMS). The ratio (%) of GMS was calculated and 90% Confidence Intervals (CIs) for the ratio (%) of GMS were presented.|Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Mean|3.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.62|5.76|||||For the comparison, the Efavirenz + Quizartinib treatment group represents the numerator and Quizartinib only treatment group represents the denominator.|Statistical comparison was analyzed for AC886.||5.76|2.62|
91080195|NCT02440854|182046019|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 2-month post-baseline.||||0.002
91080196|NCT02440854|182046019|OTHER|||||||0.014|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 4-month post-baseline.||||0.014
91080197|NCT02440854|182046019|OTHER|||||||0.246|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 6-month post-baseline.||||0.246
91080198|NCT02440854|182046019|OTHER|||||||0.103|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 8-month post-baseline.||||0.103
90892170|NCT02962908|181649363|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.91|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of CD4+ TNF alpha responders on day 180. Differences considered significant if p-value \<0.05.||||0.91
90892171|NCT02962908|181649363|OTHER|||||||0.39|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of CD4+ TNF alpha responders on day 180. Differences considered significant if p-value \<0.05.||||0.39
91080199|NCT02440854|182046019|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 10-month post-baseline.||||0.004
91080200|NCT02440854|182046019|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 12-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
91080201|NCT02440854|182046019|OTHER|||||||0.012|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 18-month post-baseline.||||0.012
91080202|NCT02440854|182046019|OTHER|||||||0.024|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 24-month post-baseline.||||0.024
91080203|NCT02440854|182046019|OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 30-month post-baseline.||||0.009
91080204|NCT02440854|182046019|OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Baseline vs 36-month post-baseline.||||0.008
91080205|NCT02440854|182046020|OTHER|||||||0.027|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 2-month post-baseline.||||0.027
91080206|NCT02440854|182046020|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 4-month post-baseline.||||0.030
91080207|NCT02440854|182046020|OTHER|||||||0.351|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 6-month post-baseline.||||0.351
91080208|NCT02440854|182046020|OTHER|||||||0.143|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 8-month post-baseline.||||0.143
91080209|NCT02440854|182046020|OTHER|||||||0.163|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 10-month post-baseline.||||0.163
91080210|NCT02440854|182046020|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 12-month post-baseline.||||0.001
91080211|NCT02440854|182046020|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 18-month post-baseline.||||0.003
91080212|NCT02440854|182046020|OTHER|||||||0.036|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 24-month post-baseline.||||0.036
91080213|NCT02440854|182046020|OTHER|||||||0.043|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 30-month post-baseline.||||0.043
91080214|NCT02440854|182046020|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Baseline vs 36-month post-baseline.||||0.040
91080215|NCT02440854|182046021|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 2-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
91080216|NCT02440854|182046021|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 4-month post-baseline.||||0.003
91080217|NCT02440854|182046021|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 6-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
91080218|NCT02440854|182046021|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 8-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
91080219|NCT02440854|182046021|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 10-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
91080220|NCT02440854|182046021|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 12-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
91080221|NCT02440854|182046021|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 18-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
91080222|NCT02440854|182046021|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 24-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
91080223|NCT02440854|182046021|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 30-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
91080224|NCT02440854|182046021|OTHER|||||||0.163|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Baseline vs 36-month post-baseline.||||0.163
91080225|NCT02440854|182046022|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 2-month post-baseline.||||0.003
91080226|NCT02440854|182046022|OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 4-month post-baseline.||||0.009
91080227|NCT02440854|182046022|OTHER|||||||0.012|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 6-month post-baseline.||||0.012
91080228|NCT02440854|182046022|OTHER|||||||0.332|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 8-month post-baseline.||||0.332
91080229|NCT02440854|182046022|OTHER|||||||0.029|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 10-month post-baseline.||||0.029
91080230|NCT02440854|182046022|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 12-month post-baseline.||||0.001
91080231|NCT02440854|182046022|OTHER|||||||0.177|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 18-month post-baseline.||||0.177
91080232|NCT02440854|182046022|OTHER|||||||0.436|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 24-month post-baseline.||||0.436
91080233|NCT02440854|182046022|OTHER|||||||0.302|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 30-month post-baseline.||||0.302
91080234|NCT02440854|182046022|OTHER|||||||0.291|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Baseline vs 36-month post-baseline.||||0.291
91080235|NCT02440854|182046023|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 2-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
91080236|NCT02440854|182046023|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 4-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
91080237|NCT02440854|182046023|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 6-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
91080238|NCT02440854|182046023|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 8-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
91080239|NCT02440854|182046023|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 10-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
91080240|NCT02440854|182046023|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 12-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
91080241|NCT02440854|182046023|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 18-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
91080242|NCT02440854|182046023|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 24-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
91080243|NCT02440854|182046023|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 30-month post-baseline.||||0.002
91080244|NCT02440854|182046023|OTHER|||||||0.025|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Baseline vs 36-month post-baseline.||||0.025
91080245|NCT02440854|182046024|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 2-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
91080246|NCT02440854|182046024|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 4-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
91080247|NCT02440854|182046024|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 6-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
91080248|NCT02440854|182046024|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 8-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
91080249|NCT02440854|182046024|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 10-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
91080250|NCT02440854|182046024|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 12-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
91080251|NCT02440854|182046024|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 18-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
91080252|NCT02440854|182046024|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 24-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
91080253|NCT02440854|182046024|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 30-month post-baseline.||||0.003
91080254|NCT02440854|182046024|OTHER|||||||0.025|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Baseline vs 36-month post-baseline.||||0.025
91080255|NCT02440854|182046025|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 2-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
91080256|NCT02440854|182046025|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 4-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
91080257|NCT02440854|182046025|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 6-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
91080258|NCT02440854|182046025|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 8-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
91080259|NCT02440854|182046025|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 10-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
91080260|NCT02440854|182046025|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 12-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
91080261|NCT02440854|182046025|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 18-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
91080262|NCT02440854|182046025|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 24-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
91080263|NCT02440854|182046025|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 30-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
91080264|NCT02440854|182046025|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Baseline vs 36-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
91080265|NCT02440854|182046026|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 2-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
91080266|NCT02440854|182046026|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 4-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
91080267|NCT02440854|182046026|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 6-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
91080268|NCT02440854|182046026|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 8-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
91080269|NCT02440854|182046026|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 10-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
91080270|NCT02440854|182046026|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 12-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
91080271|NCT02440854|182046026|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 18-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
91080272|NCT02440854|182046026|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 24-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
91080273|NCT02440854|182046026|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 30-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
91080274|NCT02440854|182046026|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Baseline vs 36-month post-baseline.||||0.002
91080275|NCT02440854|182046027|OTHER|||||||0.022|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 2-month post-baseline.||||0.022
91080276|NCT02440854|182046027|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 4-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
91080277|NCT02440854|182046027|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 6-month post-baseline.||||0.004
91080278|NCT02440854|182046027|OTHER|||||||0.032|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 8-month post-baseline.||||0.032
91080279|NCT02440854|182046027|OTHER|||||||0.066|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 10-month post-baseline.||||0.066
91080280|NCT02440854|182046027|OTHER|||||||0.042|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 12-month post-baseline.||||0.042
91080281|NCT02440854|182046027|OTHER|||||||0.045|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 18-month post-baseline.||||0.045
91080282|NCT02440854|182046027|OTHER|||||||0.014|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 24-month post-baseline.||||0.014
91080283|NCT02440854|182046027|OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 30-month post-baseline.||||0.015
91080284|NCT02440854|182046027|OTHER|||||||0.462|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Baseline vs 36-month post-baseline.||||0.462
91080285|NCT02440854|182046028|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 2-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
91080286|NCT02440854|182046028|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 4-month post-baseline.||||0.004
91080287|NCT02440854|182046028|OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 6-month post-baseline.||||0.008
91080288|NCT02440854|182046028|OTHER|||||||0.315|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 8-month post-baseline.||||0.315
91080289|NCT02440854|182046028|OTHER|||||||0.237|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 10-month post-baseline.||||0.237
91080290|NCT02440854|182046028|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 12-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
91080291|NCT02440854|182046028|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 18-month post-baseline.||||0.002
91080292|NCT02440854|182046028|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 24-month post-baseline.||||0.004
91080293|NCT02440854|182046028|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 30-month post-baseline.||||0.010
91080294|NCT02440854|182046028|OTHER|||||||0.683|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Baseline vs 36-month post-baseline.||||0.683
91080295|NCT02440854|182046029|OTHER|||||||0.062|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 2-month post-baseline.||||0.062
91080296|NCT02440854|182046029|OTHER|||||||0.062|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 4-month post-baseline.||||0.062
91080297|NCT02440854|182046029|OTHER|||||||0.027|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 6-month post-baseline.||||0.027
91080298|NCT02440854|182046029|OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 8-month post-baseline.||||0.170
91080299|NCT02440854|182046029|OTHER|||||||0.271|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 10-month post-baseline.||||0.271
91080300|NCT02440854|182046029|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 12-month post-baseline.||||0.002
91080301|NCT02440854|182046029|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 18-month post-baseline.||||0.003
91080302|NCT02440854|182046029|OTHER|||||||0.157|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 24-month post-baseline.||||0.157
91080303|NCT02440854|182046029|OTHER|||||||0.064|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 30-month post-baseline.||||0.064
91080304|NCT02440854|182046029|OTHER|||||||0.439|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Baseline vs 36-month post-baseline.||||0.439
91080305|NCT02440854|182046030|OTHER|||||||0.388|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 2 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||0.388
91080306|NCT02440854|182046030|OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 4 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||0.006
91080307|NCT02440854|182046030|OTHER|||||||0.077|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 6 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||0.077
91080308|NCT02440854|182046030|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 8 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||>0.999
91080309|NCT02440854|182046030|OTHER|||||||0.508|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 10 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||0.508
91080310|NCT02440854|182046030|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 12 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||>0.999
91080311|NCT02440854|182046030|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 18 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||>0.999
91080312|NCT02440854|182046030|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 24 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||>0.999
91080313|NCT02440854|182046030|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 30 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||>0.999
91080314|NCT02440854|182046030|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 36 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||>0.999
91080315|NCT02440854|182046031|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 2 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||>0.999
91080316|NCT02440854|182046031|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 4 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||>0.999
91080317|NCT02440854|182046031|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 6 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||>0.999
91080318|NCT02440854|182046031|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 8 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||>0.999
91080319|NCT02440854|182046031|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 10 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||>0.999
91080320|NCT02440854|182046031|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 12 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||>0.999
91080321|NCT02440854|182046031|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 18 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||>0.999
91080322|NCT02440854|182046032|OTHER|||||||0.774|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 2 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||0.774
91080323|NCT02440854|182046032|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 4 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||>0.999
91080324|NCT02440854|182046032|OTHER|||||||0.607|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 6 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||0.607
91080325|NCT02440854|182046032|OTHER|||||||0.774|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 8 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||0.774
91080326|NCT02440854|182046032|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 10 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||>0.999
91080327|NCT02440854|182046032|OTHER|||||||0.453|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 12 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||0.453
91080328|NCT02440854|182046032|OTHER|||||||0.688|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 18 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||0.688
91080329|NCT02440854|182046032|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 24 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||>0.999
91080330|NCT02440854|182046032|OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 30 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||0.250
91080331|NCT02440854|182046032|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 36 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||>0.999
91080332|NCT02440854|182046033|OTHER|||||||0.077|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 2 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||0.077
91080333|NCT02440854|182046033|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 4 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||<0.001
91080334|NCT02440854|182046033|OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 6 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||0.006
91080335|NCT02440854|182046033|OTHER|||||||0.344|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 8 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||0.344
91080336|NCT02440854|182046033|OTHER|||||||0.146|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 10 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||0.146
91080337|NCT02440854|182046033|OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 12 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||0.180
91080338|NCT02440854|182046033|OTHER|||||||0.289|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 18 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||0.289
91080339|NCT02440854|182046033|OTHER|||||||0.125|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 24 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||0.125
91080340|NCT02440854|182046033|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 30 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||>0.999
91080341|NCT02440854|182046033|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 36 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||0.500
91080342|NCT02440854|182046034|OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 2 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||0.210
91080343|NCT02440854|182046034|OTHER|||||||0.263|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 4 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||0.263
91080344|NCT02440854|182046034|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 6 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||>0.999
91080345|NCT02440854|182046034|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 8 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||>0.999
91080346|NCT02440854|182046034|OTHER|||||||0.629|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 10 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||0.629
91080347|NCT02440854|182046034|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 12 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||>0.999
91080348|NCT02440854|182046034|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 18 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||>0.999
91080349|NCT02440854|182046034|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 24 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||>0.999
91080350|NCT02440854|182046034|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 30 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||>0.999
91080351|NCT02440854|182046034|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 36 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||>0.999
91080352|NCT02440854|182046035|OTHER|||||||0.098|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline vs 2-month post-baseline.||||0.098
91080353|NCT02440854|182046035|OTHER|||||||0.359|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline vs 4-month post-baseline.||||0.359
91080354|NCT02440854|182046035|OTHER|||||||0.393|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline vs 6-month post-baseline.||||0.393
91080355|NCT02440854|182046035|OTHER|||||||0.055|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline vs 8-month post-baseline.||||0.055
91080356|NCT02440854|182046035|OTHER|||||||0.124|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline vs 10-month post-baseline.||||0.124
91080357|NCT02440854|182046035|OTHER|||||||0.376|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline vs 12-month post-baseline.||||0.376
91080358|NCT02440854|182046035|OTHER|||||||0.033|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline vs 18-month post-baseline.||||0.033
91080359|NCT02440854|182046035|OTHER|||||||0.048|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline vs 24-month post-baseline.||||0.048
91080360|NCT02440854|182046035|OTHER|||||||0.071|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline vs 30-month post-baseline.||||0.071
91080361|NCT02440854|182046035|OTHER|||||||0.848|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline vs 36-month post-baseline.||||0.848
91080362|NCT02669082|182046048|OTHER|||||||0.2955|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Data at Baseline compared to the data at the end of the Treatment Period.||||0.2955
91080363|NCT02669082|182046049|OTHER|||||||0.1358|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Data at Baseline compared to the data at the end of the Treatment Period.||||0.1358
91080364|NCT02669082|182046050|OTHER||Median|||||0.1706|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Data at Baseline compared to the data at the end of the Treatment Period.||||0.1706
91080365|NCT02669082|182046051|OTHER|||||||0.1969|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Data at Baseline compared to the data at the end of the Treatment Period.||||0.1969
91080366|NCT02669082|182046052|OTHER|||||||0.0534|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Data at Baseline compared to the data at the end of the Treatment Period.||||0.0534
91080367|NCT02669082|182046053|OTHER|||||||0.4125|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Data at Baseline compared to the data at the end of the Treatment Period.||||0.4125
91080368|NCT02669082|182046054|OTHER|||||||0.022|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Data at Baseline compared to the data at the end of the Treatment Period.||||0.0220
91080369|NCT02669082|182046055|OTHER|||||||0.042|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Data at Baseline compared to the data at the end of the Treatment Period.||||0.0420
91080370|NCT02669082|182046056|OTHER|||||||0.8166|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Data at Baseline compared to the data at the end of the Treatment Period.||||0.8166
91080371|NCT02301039|182046057|SUPERIORITY|An objective response rate of 25% will be considered clinically meaningful and a response rate less than 10% will be considered lack of efficacy. The treatment will be considered a success if 8 or more of 40 enrolled patients have a PR or better by RECIST 1.1.|Binomial estimate of response rate of PR|17.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.3|32.8|||||Clopper-Pearson (Exact) Confidence Interval. Excluded from rate due to no response evaluation: Soft Tissue: 2; Bone: 2; Expansion: 7 patients|An objective response rate of 25% will be considered clinically meaningful and a response rate less than 10% will be considered lack of efficacy. The treatment will be considered a success if 8 or more of 40 enrolled patients have a PR or better by RECIST 1.1.||32.8|7.3|
91080372|NCT02301039|182046057|SUPERIORITY||Binomial estimate of response rate of PR|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|16.9|||||Clopper-Pearson exact confidence interval; Excluded from rate due to no response evaluation: Soft Tissue: 2; Bone: 2; Expansion: 7 patients|An objective response rate of 25% will be considered clinically meaningful and a response rate less than 10% will be considered lack of efficacy. The treatment will be considered a success if 8 or more of 40 enrolled patients have a PR or better by RECIST 1.1.||16.9|1.0|
91080373|NCT02301039|182046057|SUPERIORITY||Binomial estimate of response rate of PR|13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.5|25.3|||||Clopper-Pearson (Exact) Confidence Interval Excluded from rate due to no response evaluation: Soft Tissue: 2; Bone: 2; Expansion: 7 patients|An objective response rate of 25% will be considered clinically meaningful and a response rate less than 10% will be considered lack of efficacy. The treatment will be considered a success if 8 or more of 40 enrolled patients have a PR or better by RECIST 1.1.||25.3|5.5|
91080374|NCT00904917|182046068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.015
91080375|NCT00904917|182046070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.037|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.037
91080376|NCT00497146|182046072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.145||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model includes treatment, visit, gender, baseline RAAS inhibitor use, country, baseline value, and treatment by visit interaction.||||||0.145
91080377|NCT01031004|182046176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0466||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||The hypothesis is that narafilcon B is not statistically different from etafilcon A.||||0.0466
91080378|NCT01031004|182046177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1069||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||The hypothesis is that narafilcon B is not statistically different from etafilcon A.||||0.1069
91080379|NCT01031004|182046178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4605||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||The hypothesis is that narafilcon B is not statistically different from etafilcon A.||||0.4605
91080380|NCT01031004|182046179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5774||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||The hypothesis is that narafilcon B is not statistically different from etafilcon A.||||0.5774
91080381|NCT01031004|182046180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6403||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The hypothesis is that narafilcon B will not be statistically different from etafilcon A.||||0.6403
91080382|NCT01031004|182046181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7217||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The hypothesis is that narafilcon B is not statistically different from etafilcon A.||||0.7217
91080383|NCT04575584|182046182|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.45|||Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling|||1.45|0.68|0.5620
91080384|NCT04575584|182046182|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.3145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.65|||Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling|||1.65|0.78|0.3145
91080385|NCT04575584|182046182|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.4894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.47|||Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling|||1.47|0.69|0.4894
91080386|NCT04575584|182046185|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.1||||0.1642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|12.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen method||Miettinen and Nurminen method. Unknown Day 29 survival status treated as failure.|||12.1|-2.3|0.1642
91080387|NCT04575584|182046185|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.5||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|13.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen method||Miettinen and Nurminen method. Unknown Day 29 survival status treated as failure.|||13.9|-1.1|0.0900
91080388|NCT04575584|182046185|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.2||||0.1594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|12.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen method||Miettinen and Nurminen method. Unknown Day 29 survival status treated as failure.|||12.3|-2.3|0.1594
91080389|NCT04575584|182046186|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.3623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.35|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with Pulmonary score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. Confidence intervals (CIs) are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||2.35|0.73|0.3623
91080390|NCT04575584|182046186|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.5714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.12|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with Pulmonary score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||2.12|0.66|0.5714
91103650|NCT01421459|182094199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.902||95.0||||P-value is for Glycemic Control at 4 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.902
91080391|NCT04575584|182046186|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.9313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.75|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with Pulmonary score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||1.75|0.54|0.9313
91080392|NCT04575584|182046187|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.4398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.3|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with Pulmonary score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||2.30|0.70|0.4398
91080393|NCT04575584|182046187|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.6277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.57|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with Pulmonary score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||1.57|0.47|0.6277
91080394|NCT04575584|182046187|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.7069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.62|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with Pulmonary score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||1.62|0.49|0.7069
91080395|NCT04575584|182046188|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.2422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.85|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with Pulmonary score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||2.85|0.77|0.2422
91080396|NCT04575584|182046188|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.4789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.44|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with Pulmonary score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||2.44|0.66|0.4789
91080397|NCT04575584|182046188|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.6052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.59|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with Pulmonary score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||1.59|0.45|0.6052
91080398|NCT04575584|182046189|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.2644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.88|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with Pulmonary score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||2.88|0.75|0.2644
91080399|NCT04575584|182046189|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.2184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|3.14|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with Pulmonary score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||3.14|0.77|0.2184
90892172|NCT02962908|181649363|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.94|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of CD4+ IL-2 responders on day 180. Differences considered significant if p-value \<0.05.||||0.94
90892173|NCT02962908|181649363|OTHER|inequality test|||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of CD4+ IL-2 responders on day 180. Differences considered significant if p-value \<0.05.||||<0.001
91080400|NCT04575584|182046189|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.9771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.94|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with Pulmonary score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||1.94|0.53|0.9771
91080401|NCT04575584|182046190|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.9945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|2.06|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with Pulmonary score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||2.06|0.46|0.9945
91080402|NCT04575584|182046190|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.3227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|3.37|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with Pulmonary score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||3.37|0.67|0.3227
91080403|NCT04575584|182046190|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.61|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with Pulmonary score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||1.61|0.39|0.5200
91080404|NCT04575584|182046191|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.4472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.25|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with Pulmonary+ score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||2.25|0.70|0.4472
91080405|NCT04575584|182046191|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.5714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.12|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with Pulmonary+ score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||2.12|0.66|0.5714
91080406|NCT04575584|182046191|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.9313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.75|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with Pulmonary+ score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||1.75|0.54|0.9313
91080407|NCT04575584|182046192|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.5222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|2.21|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with Pulmonary+ score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||2.21|0.67|0.5222
91080408|NCT04575584|182046192|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.6277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.57|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with Pulmonary+ score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||1.57|0.47|0.6277
91080409|NCT04575584|182046192|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.7069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.62|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with Pulmonary+ score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||1.62|0.49|0.7069
91080410|NCT04575584|182046193|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46||||0.2627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.8|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with Pulmonary+ score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||2.80|0.75|0.2627
91103651|NCT01421459|182094199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.109||95.0||||P-value is for Glycemic Control at 12 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.109
91080411|NCT04575584|182046193|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.4789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.44|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with Pulmonary+ score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||2.44|0.66|0.4789
91080412|NCT04575584|182046193|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.5938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.58|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with Pulmonary+ score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||1.58|0.45|0.5938
91080413|NCT04575584|182046194|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.2644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.88|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with Pulmonary+ score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||2.88|0.75|0.2644
91080414|NCT04575584|182046194|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.2184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|3.14|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with Pulmonary+ score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||3.14|0.77|0.2184
91080415|NCT04575584|182046194|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.9771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.94|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with Pulmonary+ score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||1.94|0.53|0.9771
91080416|NCT04575584|182046195|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.9445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|2.06|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with Pulmonary+ score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||2.06|0.46|0.9445
91080417|NCT04575584|182046195|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.3227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|3.37|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with Pulmonary+ score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||3.37|0.67|0.3227
91080418|NCT04575584|182046195|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.61|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with Pulmonary+ score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||1.61|0.39|0.5200
91080419|NCT04575584|182046196|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.8732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|2.47|||Wald Chi-Square||Proportional odds model with National Early Warning Score (NEWS) categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||2.47|0.46|0.8732
91080420|NCT04575584|182046196|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.54||||0.1277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.19|||Wald Chi-square||Proportional odds model with NEWS categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||1.19|0.25|0.1277
91080421|NCT04575584|182046196|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73||||0.4326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.61|||Wald Chi-Square||Proportional odds model with NEWS categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||1.61|0.33|0.4326
91080422|NCT04575584|182046197|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.88|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with WHO-11 score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||2.88|0.50|0.6830
91080423|NCT04575584|182046197|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|2.39|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with WHO-11 score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||2.39|0.42|1.000
91080424|NCT04575584|182046197|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.8244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|2.2|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with WHO-11 score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||2.20|0.37|0.8244
91080425|NCT04575584|182046198|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77||||0.5022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.64|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with WHO-11 score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||1.64|0.36|0.5022
91080426|NCT04575584|182046198|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78||||0.5204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.64|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with WHO-11 score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||1.64|0.37|0.5204
91080427|NCT04575584|182046198|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.52||||0.0991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|1.13|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with WHO-11 score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||1.13|0.24|0.0991
91080428|NCT04575584|182046199|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.6346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.29|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with WHO-11 score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||2.29|0.60|0.6346
91080429|NCT04575584|182046199|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.7596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.75|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with WHO-11 score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||1.75|0.46|0.7596
91080430|NCT04575584|182046199|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.8879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.84|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with WHO-11 score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||1.84|0.49|0.8879
91080431|NCT04575584|182046200|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.6002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|2.82|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with WHO-11 score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||2.82|0.55|0.6002
91103652|NCT01421459|182094199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.754||95.0||||P-value is for Glycemic Control at Endpoint, up to 24 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.754
91080432|NCT04575584|182046200|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.4733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|3.21|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with WHO-11 score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||3.21|0.58|0.4733
91080433|NCT04575584|182046200|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.78|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with WHO-11 score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||1.78|0.38|0.6220
91080434|NCT04575584|182046201|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.7871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|2.6|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with WHO-11 score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||2.60|0.28|0.7871
91080435|NCT04575584|182046201|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.9598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|3.06|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with WHO-11 score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||3.06|0.31|0.9598
91080436|NCT04575584|182046201|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|2.31|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with WHO-11 score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||2.31|0.27|0.6670
91080437|NCT02634801|182046202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|4.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.46|6.77|||Fisher Exact|||||6.77|2.46|<.0001
91080438|NCT02634801|182046202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.29||||0.0137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.56|||Fisher Exact|||||1.56|1.06|0.0137
91080439|NCT02178358|182046276|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.776||||0.837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.434|1.226|||Bayesian exponential-likelihood model|||||1.226|0.434|0.837
91080440|NCT02178358|182046276|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.917||||0.704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.633|1.266|||Bayesian exponential-likelihood model|||||1.266|0.633|0.704
91080441|NCT05600036|182046328|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0025|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0025
90892174|NCT02962908|181649363|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.044|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of CD4+ CD107a responders on day 180. Differences considered significant if p-value \<0.05.||||0.044
90892175|NCT02962908|181649363|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.98|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of CD4+ CD107a responders on day 180. Differences considered significant if p-value \<0.05.||||0.98
91080442|NCT05600036|182046328|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0001
91080443|NCT05600036|182046328|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91080444|NCT05600036|182046328|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91080445|NCT05600036|182046328|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91080446|NCT01006590|182046340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.07|||ANCOVA|With baseline value as covariate and treatment group as factor; comparison of LSmeans for treatment||The null hypothesis H0: µt-µC=0, where μT denotes the mean absolute change in HbA1c from baseline to Week 24 in the group of patients treated with saxagliptin (test medication, T) and μC the mean absolute change in HbA1c from baseline to Week 24 in the group of patients with uptitration of metformin (comparator, C) A sample size of 120 randomized and treated patients per treatment group yielded 80% power under the assumption of a true treatment difference of 0.4% and a standard deviation of 1.1%||0.07|-0.26|0.26
91080447|NCT01006590|182046341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.79||0.3202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|17.1|||Regression, Logistic|||||17.1|-5.6|0.3202
91080448|NCT01006590|182046342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.58||0.6203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|11.3|||Regression, Logistic|||||11.3|-6.7|0.6203
91080449|NCT01006590|182046343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.7627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.52|||ANCOVA|||||0.52|-0.38|0.7627
91080450|NCT01006590|182046344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.19||0.7701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|2.7|||ANCOVA|||||2.7|-2.0|0.7701
91080451|NCT01006590|182046345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.34||0.5882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.22|10.93|||ANCOVA|||||10.93|-6.22|0.5882
91080452|NCT04942210|182046391|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was \>-5%|Difference in percentage of participants|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|3.2|||||95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson score method without continuity correction.|||3.2|-1.2|
91080453|NCT04348500|182046405|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1||||||P-value was not adjusted.|Chi-squared|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the use of clazakizumab as a treatment compared to placebo in reducing or eliminating the incidence of severe adverse events among patients with COVID-19.||||0.10
91080454|NCT04348500|182046411|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1||||||P-value was not adjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis is that there is no change in the need for mechanical ventilation and/or ECMO at 14 days after the first administered dose in comparison to placebo.||||0.10
91080455|NCT02776670|182046412|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was deemed established if the lower limit of the 95% CI (equivalent to the 1-sided 97.5% CI) for the adjusted estimate of the difference (Systane Balance-Refresh Optive Advanced/Optive Plus) was above the noninferiority margin of -1.0 second.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.341|0.601||p-value for testing noninferiority of Systane Balance with respect to Refresh Optive Advanced/Refresh Optive Plus is calculated for predefined noninferiority margin of -1.0 second.|Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|||||0.601|-0.341|<0.0001
91080456|NCT02776670|182046413|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.118||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.349|0.585|||MMRM|||||0.585|-0.349|0.310
91080457|NCT02776670|182046415|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|4.7|||MMRM|||||4.7|-6.4|0.618
91080458|NCT05460078|182046418|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|1.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.68|1.16|<0.001
91080459|NCT05460078|182046419|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|1.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.65|1.18|<0.001
91080460|NCT05460078|182046420|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|2.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.48|1.54|<0.001
91080461|NCT05460078|182046421|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|1.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.66|1.17|<0.001
91080462|NCT04006509|182046495|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.985|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.985
91080463|NCT04006509|182046496|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.539|||||||Marginal Two-Part Model|||||||0.539
91080464|NCT04006509|182046497|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.959|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.959
91080465|NCT04006509|182046498|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.743|||||||Marginal Two-Part Model|||||||0.743
91080466|NCT04006509|182046499|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.886|||||||Marginalized Two-Part Model|||||||0.886
91080467|NCT04006509|182046500|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.107|||||||Marginalized Two-Part Model|||||||0.107
91080468|NCT04006509|182046501|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.687|||||||Marginalized Two-Part Model|||||||0.687
91080469|NCT04006509|182046502|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.871|||||||Marginalized Two-Part Model|||||||0.871
90892176|NCT02962908|181649363|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.48|||||||Chi squared or Fisher's exact test|||Comparison of CD8+ IFN-gamma responders on day 42. Differences considered significant if p-value \<0.05.||||0.48
90892177|NCT02962908|181649363|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.28|||||||Chi squared or Fisher's exact test|||Comparison of CD8+ IFN-gamma responders on day 42. Differences considered significant if p-value \<0.05.||||0.28
91080470|NCT04006509|182046503|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.376|||||||Marginalized Two-Part Model|||||||0.376
91080471|NCT04006509|182046504|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||Marginalized Two-Part Model|||||||0.770
91080472|NCT04006509|182046505|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.237|||||||Marginalized Two-Part Model|||||||0.237
91080473|NCT01119846|182046538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.5782|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.523|0.6335|||||Dose Proportionality for GSK1292263 Using the Power Model.|||0.6335|0.5230|
91080474|NCT01119846|182046540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.5828|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5282|0.6375|||||Dose Proportionality for GSK1292263 Using the Power Model for AUC0-24.|||0.6375|0.5282|
91080475|NCT01119846|182046540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.5808|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5325|0.6291|||||Dose Proportionality for GSK1292263 Using the Power Model for AUC0-last.|||0.6291|0.5325|
91080476|NCT01119846|182046555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.036|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|1.1||||||||1.10|-1.17|
91080477|NCT01119846|182046555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.225|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.35||||||||1.35|-0.90|
91080478|NCT01119846|182046555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.046|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.19||||||||1.19|-1.10|
91080479|NCT01119846|182046555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.679|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.45||||||||0.45|-1.80|
91080480|NCT01119846|182046556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.265|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|2.33|||||Comparison of AUC(0-24)|||2.33|-1.80|
91080481|NCT01119846|182046556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.614|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|2.76|||||Comparison of AUC(0-24)|||2.76|-1.53|
91080482|NCT01119846|182046556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.451|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|2.54|||||Comparison of AUC(0-24)|||2.54|-1.64|
91080483|NCT01119846|182046556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.469|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|2.33|||||Comparison of AUC(0-24)|||2.33|-1.39|
91080484|NCT01119846|182046556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.53|1.95|||||Comparison of AUC(0-13)|||1.95|-2.53|
91080485|NCT01119846|182046556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.026|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|2.3|||||Comparison of AUC(0-13)|||2.30|-2.35|
91080486|NCT01119846|182046556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.163|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|2.15|||||Comparison of AUC(0-13)|||2.15|-2.48|
91080487|NCT01119846|182046556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.167|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|2.21|||||Comparison of AUC(0-13)|||2.21|-1.88|
91080488|NCT01119846|182046556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.352|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|0.87|||||Comparison of iAUC(0-13)|||0.87|-1.58|
91080489|NCT01119846|182046556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.136|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|1.13|||||Comparison of iAUC(0-13)|||1.13|-1.41|
91080490|NCT01119846|182046556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.091|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|1.18|||||Comparison of iAUC(0-13)|||1.18|-1.36|
91080491|NCT01119846|182046556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.206|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|0.91|||||Comparison of iAUC(0-13)|||0.91|-1.33|
91080492|NCT01119846|182046556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.499|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|0.68|||||Comparison of iAUC(0-24)|||0.68|-1.68|
91080493|NCT01119846|182046556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.017|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|1.21|||||Comparison of iAUC(0-24)|||1.21|-1.24|
91080494|NCT01119846|182046556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.247|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|0.95|||||Comparison of iAUC(0-24)|||0.95|-1.44|
91080495|NCT01119846|182046556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.661|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|0.4|||||Comparison of iAUC(0-24)|||0.40|-1.72|
91080496|NCT01119846|182046557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-49.898|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-479.74|379.94|||||Comparison of C-peptide, AUC 0-12|||379.94|-479.74|
91080497|NCT01119846|182046557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-61.642|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-507.32|384.04|||||Comparison of C-peptide, AUC 0-12|||384.04|-507.32|
91080498|NCT01119846|182046557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-85.849|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-530.07|358.37|||||Comparison of C-peptide, AUC 0-12|||358.37|-530.07|
91080499|NCT01119846|182046557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-101.422|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-494.09|291.25|||||Comparison of C-peptide, AUC 0-12|||291.25|-494.09|
91080500|NCT01119846|182046557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-39.239|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-340.32|261.85|||||Comparison of C-peptide, iAUC 0-12|||261.85|-340.32|
91080501|NCT01119846|182046557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-117.435|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-429.61|194.74|||||Comparison of C-peptide, iAUC 0-12|||194.74|-429.61|
91080502|NCT01119846|182046557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-121.982|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-433.14|189.18|||||Comparison of C-peptide, iAUC 0-12|||189.18|-433.14|
91080503|NCT01119846|182046557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-81.016|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-356.07|194.03|||||Comparison of C-peptide, iAUC 0-12|||194.03|-356.07|
91080504|NCT01119846|182046557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.812|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.08|13.7|||||Comparison of GIP total, AUC 0-12|||13.70|-8.08|
91080505|NCT01119846|182046557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.023|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.27|14.32|||||Comparison of GIP total, AUC 0-12|||14.32|-8.27|
91080506|NCT01119846|182046557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.483|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|22.74|||||Comparison of GIP total, AUC 0-12|||22.74|0.23|
91080507|NCT01119846|182046557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.093|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.04|2.86|||||Comparison of GIP total, AUC 0-12|||2.86|-17.04|
91080508|NCT01119846|182046557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.28|12.28|||||Comparison of GIP total, iAUC 0-12|||12.28|-7.28|
91080509|NCT01119846|182046557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.526|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.61|13.67|||||Comparison of GIP total, iAUC 0-12|||13.67|-6.61|
91080510|NCT01119846|182046557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.934|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.17|18.04|||||Comparison of GIP total, iAUC 0-12|||18.04|-2.17|
91080511|NCT01119846|182046557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.055|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.99|1.88|||||Comparison of GIP total, iAUC 0-12|||1.88|-15.99|
91080512|NCT01119846|182046557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.018|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.76|||||Comparison of GLP-1 active, AUC 0-12|||0.76|-0.79|
91080513|NCT01119846|182046557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.022|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.82|||||Comparison of GLP-1 active, AUC 0-12|||0.82|-0.78|
91080514|NCT01119846|182046557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.039|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.85|||||Comparison of GLP-1 active, AUC 0-12|||0.85|-0.78|
91080515|NCT01119846|182046557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.454|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.74|4.17|||||Comparison of GLP-1 active, AUC 0-12|||4.17|2.74|
91080516|NCT01119846|182046557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.015|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.75|||||Comparison of GLP-1 active, iAUC 0-12|||0.75|-0.78|
91080517|NCT01119846|182046557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.006|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.8|||||Comparison of GLP-1 active, iAUC 0-12|||0.80|-0.79|
91080518|NCT01119846|182046557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.018|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.83|||||Comparison of GLP-1 active, iAUC 0-12|||0.83|-0.79|
91080519|NCT01119846|182046557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.399|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.69|4.11|||||Comparison of GLP-1 active, iAUC 0-12|||4.11|2.69|
91080520|NCT01119846|182046557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.052|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|2.17|||||Comparison of GLP-1 total, AUC 0-12|||2.17|-2.06|
91080521|NCT01119846|182046557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.223|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.97|2.42|||||Comparison of GLP-1 total, AUC 0-12|||2.42|-1.97|
91080522|NCT01119846|182046557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.835|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|4.02|||||Comparison of GLP-1 total, AUC 0-12|||4.02|-0.35|
91080523|NCT01119846|182046557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.629|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.56|0.3|||||Comparison of GLP-1 total, AUC 0-12|||0.30|-3.56|
91080524|NCT01119846|182046557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.078|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.86|||||Comparison of GLP-1 total, iAUC 0-12|||1.86|-1.70|
91080525|NCT01119846|182046557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.286|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|2.13|||||Comparison of GLP-1 total, iAUC 0-12|||2.13|-1.56|
91080526|NCT01119846|182046557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.764|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|2.6|||||Comparison of GLP-1 total, iAUC 0-12|||2.60|-1.08|
91080527|NCT01119846|182046557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.336|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.96|0.29|||||Comparison of GLP-1 total, iAUC 0-12|||0.29|-2.96|
91080528|NCT01119846|182046557|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.962|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.26|6.18|||||Comparison of Glucagon, AUC 0-12|||6.18|-4.26|
91080529|NCT01119846|182046557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.067|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.56|8.69|||||Comparison of Glucagon, AUC 0-12|||8.69|-2.56|
91080530|NCT01119846|182046557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.517|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.98|8.01|||||Comparison of Glucagon, AUC 0-12|||8.01|-2.98|
91080531|NCT01119846|182046557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.714|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.56|4.13|||||Comparison of Glucagon, AUC 0-12|||4.13|-5.56|
91080532|NCT01119846|182046557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.866|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|0.67|||||Comparison of Glucagon, iAUC 0-12|||0.67|-6.40|
91080533|NCT01119846|182046557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.865|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.68|2.95|||||Comparison of Glucagon, iAUC 0-12|||2.95|-4.68|
91080534|NCT01119846|182046557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.436|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.16|3.29|||||Comparison of Glucagon, iAUC 0-12|||3.29|-4.16|
91080535|NCT01119846|182046557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.573|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.86|1.71|||||Comparison of Glucagon, iAUC 0-12|||1.71|-4.86|
91080536|NCT01119846|182046557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-168.38|118.9|||||Comparison of Insulin, AUC 0-13|||118.90|-168.38|
91080537|NCT01119846|182046557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.229|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-161.16|136.7|||||Comparison of Insulin, AUC 0-13|||136.70|-161.16|
91080538|NCT01119846|182046557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.628|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-158.07|138.81|||||Comparison of Insulin, AUC 0-13|||138.81|-158.07|
91080539|NCT01119846|182046557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-66.936|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-198.15|64.28|||||Comparison of Insulin, AUC 0-13|||64.28|-198.15|
91080540|NCT01119846|182046557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-36.042|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-150.57|78.48|||||Comparison of Insulin, iAUC 0-13|||78.48|-150.57|
91080541|NCT01119846|182046557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.525|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-141.27|96.22|||||Comparison of Insulin, iAUC 0-13|||96.22|-141.27|
91080542|NCT01119846|182046557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-140.36|96.36|||||Comparison of Insulin, iAUC 0-13|||96.36|-140.36|
91080543|NCT01119846|182046557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-66.324|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-170.95|38.3|||||Comparison of Insulin, iAUC 0-13|||38.30|-170.95|
91080544|NCT01119846|182046557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.982|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.66|14.62|||||Comparison of PYY total, AUC 0-12|||14.62|-2.66|
91080545|NCT01119846|182046557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.908|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|17.86|||||Comparison of PYY total, AUC 0-12|||17.86|-0.05|
91080546|NCT01119846|182046557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.317|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.39|23.24|||||Comparison of PYY total, AUC 0-12|||23.24|5.39|
91080547|NCT01119846|182046557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.33|2.45|||||Comparison of PYY total, AUC 0-12|||2.45|-13.33|
91080548|NCT01119846|182046557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.999|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|11.87|||||Comparison of PYY total, iAUC 0-12|||11.87|-1.87|
91080549|NCT01119846|182046557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.909|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|14.03|||||Comparison of PYY total, iAUC 0-12|||14.03|-0.22|
91080550|NCT01119846|182046557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.036|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.93|16.14|||||Comparison of PYY total, iAUC 0-12|||16.14|1.93|
91080551|NCT01119846|182046557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.67|-0.11|||||Comparison of PYY total, iAUC 0-12|||-0.11|-12.67|
91080552|NCT01119846|182046558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.564|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.69|1.56|||||Comparison of AUC 0-3|||1.56|-2.69|
91080553|NCT01119846|182046558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.846|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.05|1.36|||||Comparison of AUC 0-3|||1.36|-3.05|
91080554|NCT01119846|182046558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.175|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.37|1.02|||||Comparison of AUC 0-3|||1.02|-3.37|
91080555|NCT01119846|182046558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.617|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.56|1.33|||||Comparison of AUC 0-3|||1.33|-2.56|
91080556|NCT01119846|182046558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.626|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|0.39|||||Comparison of iAUC 0-3|||0.39|-1.64|
91080557|NCT01119846|182046558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.956|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.01|0.09|||||Comparison of iAUC 0-3|||0.09|-2.01|
91080558|NCT01119846|182046558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.103|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|-0.06|||||Comparison of iAUC 0-3|||-0.06|-2.15|
91080559|NCT01119846|182046558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|-0.07|||||Comparison of iAUC 0-3|||-0.07|-1.91|
91080560|NCT01119846|182046559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|152.962|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-200.57|506.49|||||Comparison of C-peptide, AUC 0-2|||506.49|-200.57|
91080561|NCT01119846|182046559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|113.866|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-252.69|480.42|||||Comparison of C-peptide, AUC 0-2|||480.42|-252.69|
91080562|NCT01119846|182046559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|114.474|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-250.89|479.83|||||Comparison of C-peptide, AUC 0-2|||479.83|-250.89|
91080563|NCT01119846|182046559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|136.638|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-186.32|459.6|||||Comparison of C-peptide, AUC 0-2|||459.60|-186.32|
91080564|NCT01119846|182046559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|163.622|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-127.31|454.55|||||Comparison of C-peptide, iAUC 0-2|||454.55|-127.31|
91080565|NCT01119846|182046559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|58.074|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-243.57|359.72|||||Comparison of C-peptide, iAUC 0-2|||359.72|-243.57|
91080566|NCT01119846|182046559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|78.341|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-222.32|379.0|||||Comparison of C-peptide, iAUC 0-2|||379.00|-222.32|
91080567|NCT01119846|182046559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|157.044|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-108.73|422.82|||||Comparison of C-peptide, iAUC 0-2|||422.82|-108.73|
91080568|NCT01119846|182046559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.539|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.79|17.87|||||Comparison of GIP total, AUC 0-2|||17.87|-4.79|
91080569|NCT01119846|182046559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.095|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.65|15.84|||||Comparison of GIP total, AUC 0-2|||15.84|-7.65|
91080570|NCT01119846|182046559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.033|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|24.74|||||Comparison of GIP total, AUC 0-2|||24.74|1.33|
91080571|NCT01119846|182046559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.824|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.17|7.52|||||Comparison of GIP total, AUC 0-2|||7.52|-13.17|
91080572|NCT01119846|182046559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.227|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.47|15.93|||||Comparison of GIP total, iAUC 0-2|||15.93|-3.47|
91080573|NCT01119846|182046559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.598|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.46|14.65|||||Comparison of GIP total, iAUC 0-2|||14.65|-5.46|
91080574|NCT01119846|182046559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.484|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|19.51|||||Comparison of GIP total, iAUC 0-2|||19.51|-0.54|
91080575|NCT01119846|182046559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.786|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.65|6.08|||||Comparison of GIP total, iAUC 0-2|||6.08|-11.65|
91080576|NCT01119846|182046559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.066|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.52|||||Comparison of GLP-1 active, AUC 0-2|||0.52|-0.38|
91080577|NCT01119846|182046559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.256|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.72|||||Comparison of GLP-1 active, AUC 0-2|||0.72|-0.21|
91080578|NCT01119846|182046559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.048|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.51|||||Comparison of GLP-1 active, AUC 0-2|||0.51|-0.42|
91080579|NCT01119846|182046559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.694|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.28|3.11|||||Comparison of GLP-1 active, AUC 0-2|||3.11|2.28|
91080580|NCT01119846|182046559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.071|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.5|||||Comparison of GLP-1 active, iAUC 0-2|||0.50|-0.36|
91080581|NCT01119846|182046559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.243|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.69|||||Comparison of GLP-1 active, iAUC 0-2|||0.69|-0.20|
91080582|NCT01119846|182046559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.031|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.47|||||Comparison of GLP-1 active, iAUC 0-2|||0.47|-0.41|
91080583|NCT01119846|182046559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.643|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.25|3.04|||||Comparison of GLP-1 active, iAUC 0-2|||3.04|2.25|
91080584|NCT01119846|182046559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.055|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|1.55|||||Comparison of GLP-1 total, AUC 0-2|||1.55|-1.44|
91080585|NCT01119846|182046559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.268|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|1.82|||||Comparison of GLP-1 total, AUC 0-2|||1.82|-1.28|
91080586|NCT01119846|182046559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.894|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|2.44|||||Comparison of GLP-1 total, AUC 0-2|||2.44|-0.65|
91080587|NCT01119846|182046559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.483|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.85|-0.12|||||Comparison of GLP-1 total, AUC 0-2|||-0.12|-2.85|
91080588|NCT01119846|182046559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.081|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|1.34|||||Comparison of GLP-1 total, iAUC 0-2|||1.34|-1.18|
91080589|NCT01119846|182046559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.331|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|1.63|||||Comparison of GLP-1 total, iAUC 0-2|||1.63|-0.97|
91080590|NCT01119846|182046559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.177|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|1.12|||||Comparison of GLP-1 total, iAUC 0-2|||1.12|-1.48|
91080591|NCT01119846|182046559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|-0.04|||||Comparison of GLP-1 total, iAUC 0-2|||-0.04|-2.34|
91080592|NCT01119846|182046559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.235|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|3.98|||||Comparison of Glucagon, AUC 0-2|||3.98|-1.51|
91080593|NCT01119846|182046559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.877|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|5.71|||||Comparison of Glucagon, AUC 0-2|||5.71|0.04|
91080594|NCT01119846|182046559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.473|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|4.16|||||Comparison of Glucagon, AUC 0-2|||4.16|-1.21|
91080595|NCT01119846|182046559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.274|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|2.74|||||Comparison of Glucagon, AUC 0-2|||2.74|-2.20|
91080596|NCT01119846|182046559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.177|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.92|0.56|||||Comparison of Glucagon, iAUC 0-2|||0.56|-4.92|
91080597|NCT01119846|182046559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.909|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.74|0.93|||||Comparison of Glucagon, iAUC 0-2|||0.93|-4.74|
91080598|NCT01119846|182046559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.053|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.74|1.63|||||Comparison of Glucagon, iAUC 0-2|||1.63|-3.74|
91080599|NCT01119846|182046559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.249|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.72|1.22|||||Comparison of Glucagon, iAUC 0-2|||1.22|-3.72|
90892178|NCT02962908|181649363|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.7|||||||Chi squared or Fisher's exact test|||Comparison of CD8+ TNF-alpha responders on day 42. Differences considered significant if p-value \<0.05.||||0.70
90892179|NCT02962908|181649363|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.175|||||||Chi squared or Fisher's exact test|||Comparison of CD8+ TNF-alpha responders on day 42. Differences considered significant if p-value \<0.05.||||0.175
90892180|NCT02962908|181649363|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.24|||||||Chi squared or Fisher's exact test|||Comparison of CD8+ IL2 responders on day 42. Differences considered significant if p-value \<0.05.||||0.24
90892181|NCT02962908|181649363|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.8|||||||Chi squared or Fisher's exact test|||Comparison of CD8+ IL2 responders on day 42. Differences considered significant if p-value \<0.05.||||0.80
91080600|NCT01119846|182046559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.389|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-95.82|122.59|||||Comparison of Insulin, AUC 0-3|||122.59|-95.82|
91080601|NCT01119846|182046559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-103.25|123.21|||||Comparison of Insulin, AUC 0-3|||123.21|-103.25|
91080602|NCT01119846|182046559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.426|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.43|145.28|||||Comparison of Insulin, AUC 0-3|||145.28|-80.43|
91080603|NCT01119846|182046559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.994|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.77|122.76|||||Comparison of Insulin, AUC 0-3|||122.76|-76.77|
91080604|NCT01119846|182046559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.088|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-86.79|90.97|||||Comparison of Insulin, iAUC 0-3|||90.97|-86.79|
91080605|NCT01119846|182046559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.316|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-92.47|91.84|||||Comparison of Insulin, iAUC 0-3|||91.84|-92.47|
91080606|NCT01119846|182046559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.053|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.8|111.91|||||Comparison of Insulin, iAUC 0-3|||111.91|-71.80|
91080607|NCT01119846|182046559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.606|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.59|104.8|||||Comparison of Insulin, iAUC 0-3|||104.80|-57.59|
91080608|NCT01119846|182046559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.506|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.13|10.14|||||Comparison of PYY total, AUC 0-2|||10.14|-3.13|
91080609|NCT01119846|182046559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.295|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|14.18|||||Comparison of PYY total, AUC 0-2|||14.18|0.41|
91080610|NCT01119846|182046559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.006|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|13.87|||||Comparison of PYY total, AUC 0-2|||13.87|0.15|
91080611|NCT01119846|182046559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.555|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.62|3.51|||||Comparison of PYY total, AUC 0-2|||3.51|-8.62|
91080612|NCT01119846|182046559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.523|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|7.17|||||Comparison of PYY total, iAUC 0-2|||7.17|-2.13|
91080613|NCT01119846|182046559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.296|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|10.12|||||Comparison of PYY total, iAUC 0-2|||10.12|0.47|
91080614|NCT01119846|182046559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.726|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.08|6.53|||||Comparison of PYY total, iAUC 0-2|||6.53|-3.08|
91080615|NCT01119846|182046559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.506|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.75|0.74|||||Comparison of PYY total, iAUC 0-2|||0.74|-7.75|
91080616|NCT01119846|182046560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.241|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|1.32||||||||1.32|-0.84|
91080617|NCT01119846|182046560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.523|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.64||||||||1.64|-0.60|
91080618|NCT01119846|182046560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.053|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|1.06||||||||1.06|-1.17|
91080619|NCT01119846|182046560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.172|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|1.16||||||||1.16|-0.81|
91080620|NCT01119846|182046561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.06|||||Comparison of G/I ratio|||0.06|-0.08|
91080621|NCT01119846|182046561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.002|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.07|||||Comparison of G/I ratio|||0.07|-0.07|
91080622|NCT01119846|182046561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.003|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.07|||||Comparison of G/I ratio|||0.07|-0.07|
91080623|NCT01119846|182046561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.017|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.08|||||Comparison of G/I ratio|||0.08|-0.04|
91080624|NCT01119846|182046561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.269|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.31|12.85|||||Comparison of I/G ratio|||12.85|-8.31|
91080625|NCT01119846|182046561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.959|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.01|13.93|||||Comparison of I/G ratio|||13.93|-8.01|
91080626|NCT01119846|182046561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.053|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.88|16.99|||||Comparison of I/G ratio|||16.99|-4.88|
91080627|NCT01119846|182046561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.017|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.65|13.68|||||Comparison of I/G ratio|||13.68|-5.65|
91080628|NCT01119846|182046562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.025|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.22|||||Comparison of insulin glucose index|||0.22|-0.28|
91080629|NCT01119846|182046562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.055|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.31|||||Comparison of insulin glucose index|||0.31|-0.20|
91080630|NCT01119846|182046562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.028|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.23|||||Comparison of insulin glucose index|||0.23|-0.29|
91080631|NCT01119846|182046562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.041|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.19|||||Comparison of insulin glucose index|||0.19|-0.27|
91080632|NCT01119846|182046563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.346|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|1.37||||||||1.37|-2.06|
91080633|NCT01119846|182046563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.045|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|1.73||||||||1.73|-1.82|
91080634|NCT01119846|182046563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.388|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|1.38||||||||1.38|-2.16|
90892182|NCT02962908|181649363|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.023|||||||Chi squared or Fisher's exact test|||Comparison of CD8+ CD107a responders on day 42. Differences considered significant if p-value \<0.05.||||0.023
91080635|NCT01119846|182046563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.133|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|1.7||||||||1.70|-1.43|
90892183|NCT02962908|181649363|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.015|||||||Chi squared or Fisher's exact test|||Comparison of CD8+ CD107a responders on day 42. Differences considered significant if p-value \<0.05.||||0.015
91080636|NCT01119846|182046564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.523|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.04|2.0|||||Comparison of Day 7, 1 Hour|||2.00|-3.04|
91080637|NCT01119846|182046564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.569|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.07|1.94|||||Comparison of Day 7, 1 Hour|||1.94|-3.07|
91080638|NCT01119846|182046564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.064|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|4.57|||||Comparison of Day 7, 1 Hour|||4.57|-0.45|
91080639|NCT01119846|182046564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.316|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.19|2.82|||||Comparison of Day 7, 1 Hour|||2.82|-2.19|
91080640|NCT01119846|182046564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.484|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.99|1.02|||||Comparison of Day 7, 1 Hour|||1.02|-3.99|
91080641|NCT01119846|182046564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.795|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.27|1.68|||||Comparison of Day 7, 2 Hours|||1.68|-3.27|
91080642|NCT01119846|182046564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.313|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|2.15|||||Comparison of Day 7, 2 Hours|||2.15|-2.78|
91080643|NCT01119846|182046564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.441|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|4.91|||||Comparison of Day 7, 2 Hours|||4.91|-0.03|
91080644|NCT01119846|182046564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.884|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|3.34|||||Comparison of Day 7, 2 Hours|||3.34|-1.58|
91080645|NCT01119846|182046564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.222|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.69|1.24|||||Comparison of Day 7, 2 Hours|||1.24|-3.69|
91080646|NCT01119846|182046564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.017|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|2.03|||||Comparison of Day 7, 4 Hours|||2.03|-2.06|
91080647|NCT01119846|182046564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.475|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|2.51|||||Comparison of Day 7, 4 Hours|||2.51|-1.56|
91080648|NCT01119846|182046564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.512|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|3.55|||||Comparison of Day 7, 4 Hours|||3.55|-0.53|
91080649|NCT01119846|182046564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.233|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|3.26|||||Comparison of Day 7, 4 Hours|||3.26|-0.80|
91080650|NCT01119846|182046564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.011|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.05|1.02|||||Comparison of Day 7, 4 Hours|||1.02|-3.05|
91080651|NCT01119846|182046564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.189|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.05|2.67|||||Comparison of Day 7, 6 Hours|||2.67|-3.05|
91080652|NCT01119846|182046564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.456|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.39|3.3|||||Comparison of Day 7, 6 Hours|||3.30|-2.39|
91080653|NCT01119846|182046564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.706|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|5.56|||||Comparison of Day 7, 6 Hours|||5.56|-0.14|
91080654|NCT01119846|182046564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.062|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|3.91|||||Comparison of Day 7, 6 Hours|||3.91|-1.78|
91080655|NCT01119846|182046564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.708|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.55|0.14|||||Comparison of Day 7, 6 Hours|||0.14|-5.55|
91080656|NCT01119846|182046564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.147|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|2.7|||||Comparison of Day 7, 10 Hours|||2.70|-2.41|
91080657|NCT01119846|182046564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.452|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|2.99|||||Comparison of Day 7, 10 Hours|||2.99|-2.09|
91080658|NCT01119846|182046564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.418|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|4.96|||||Comparison of Day 7, 10 Hours|||4.96|-0.13|
91080659|NCT01119846|182046564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.063|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|3.6|||||Comparison of Day 7, 10 Hours|||3.60|-1.47|
91080660|NCT01119846|182046564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.509|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.05|1.03|||||Comparison of Day 7, 10 Hours|||1.03|-4.05|
91080661|NCT01119846|182046564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|1.6|||||Comparison of Day 7, 12 Hours|||1.60|-4.20|
91080662|NCT01119846|182046564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.325|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.21|1.56|||||Comparison of Day 7, 12 Hours|||1.56|-4.21|
91080663|NCT01119846|182046564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|3.89|||||Comparison of Day 7, 12 Hours|||3.89|-1.89|
91080664|NCT01119846|182046564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.265|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.14|2.62|||||Comparison of Day 7, 12 Hours|||2.62|-3.14|
91080665|NCT01119846|182046564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.516|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|2.37|||||Comparison of Day 7, 12 Hours|||2.37|-3.40|
91080666|NCT01119846|182046564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.515|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|1.26|||||Comparison of Day 14, 24 Hours|||1.26|-2.29|
91080667|NCT01119846|182046564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.225|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|1.55|||||Comparison of Day 14, 24 Hours|||1.55|-1.99|
91080668|NCT01119846|182046564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.501|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|2.28|||||Comparison of Day 14, 24 Hours|||2.28|-1.28|
91080669|NCT01119846|182046564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.168|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|1.65|||||Comparison of Day 14, 24 Hours|||1.65|-1.98|
91080670|NCT01119846|182046564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.043|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.81|0.73|||||Comparison of Day 14, 24 Hours|||0.73|-2.81|
91080671|NCT01119846|182046565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-70.457|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-214.72|73.8|||||Day 7, 1 Hour|||73.80|-214.72|
91080672|NCT01119846|182046565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-151.722|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-295.98|-7.46|||||Day 7, 1 Hour|||-7.46|-295.98|
91080673|NCT01119846|182046565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-69.113|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-213.48|75.25|||||Day 7, 1 Hour|||75.25|-213.48|
91080674|NCT01119846|182046565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-104.468|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-248.72|39.78|||||Day 7, 1 Hour|||39.78|-248.72|
91080675|NCT01119846|182046565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-118.462|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-263.93|27.01|||||Day 7, 1 Hour|||27.01|-263.93|
91080676|NCT01119846|182046565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-114.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-264.78|36.1|||||Day 7, 2 Hours|||36.10|-264.78|
91080677|NCT01119846|182046565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-116.462|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-266.9|33.98|||||Day 7, 2 Hours|||33.98|-266.90|
91080678|NCT01119846|182046565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.201|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-154.75|146.35|||||Day 7, 2 Hours|||146.35|-154.75|
91080679|NCT01119846|182046565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-48.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-198.7|102.16|||||Day 7, 2 Hours|||102.16|-198.70|
91080680|NCT01119846|182046565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-50.605|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-202.31|101.1|||||Day 7, 2 Hours|||101.10|-202.31|
91080681|NCT01119846|182046565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.231|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.84|26.38|||||Day 7, 4 Hours|||26.38|-40.84|
91080682|NCT01119846|182046565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.025|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.63|28.58|||||Day 7, 4 Hours|||28.58|-38.63|
91080683|NCT01119846|182046565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.523|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.11|43.16|||||Day 7, 4 Hours|||43.16|-24.11|
91080684|NCT01119846|182046565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.618|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.22|30.99|||||Day 7, 4 Hours|||30.99|-36.22|
91080685|NCT01119846|182046565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|20.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.09|54.69|||||Day 7, 4 Hours|||54.69|-13.09|
91080686|NCT01119846|182046565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-58.864|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-156.11|38.38|||||Day 7, 6 Hours|||38.38|-156.11|
91080687|NCT01119846|182046565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-77.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-175.15|19.35|||||Day 7, 6 Hours|||19.35|-175.15|
91080688|NCT01119846|182046565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|28.323|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.0|125.65|||||Day 7, 6 Hours|||125.65|-69.00|
91080689|NCT01119846|182046565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-24.499|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-121.74|72.74|||||Day 7, 6 Hours|||72.74|-121.74|
91080690|NCT01119846|182046565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-59.755|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-157.82|38.31|||||Day 7, 6 Hours|||38.31|-157.82|
91080691|NCT01119846|182046565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.222|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.85|69.4|||||Day 7, 10 Hours|||69.40|-69.85|
91080692|NCT01119846|182046565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.222|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.28|61.98|||||Day 7, 10 Hours|||61.98|-77.28|
91080693|NCT01119846|182046565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.148|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.55|76.85|||||Day 7, 10 Hours|||76.85|-62.55|
91080694|NCT01119846|182046565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|32.734|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.89|102.36|||||Day 7, 10 Hours|||102.36|-36.89|
91080695|NCT01119846|182046565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-81.01|61.49|||||Day 7, 10 Hours|||61.49|-81.01|
91080696|NCT01119846|182046565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-19.594|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-123.36|84.18|||||Day 7, 12 Hours|||84.18|-123.36|
91080697|NCT01119846|182046565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-46.924|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-150.69|56.85|||||Day 7, 12 Hours|||56.85|-150.69|
91080698|NCT01119846|182046565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|24.715|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-79.16|128.59|||||Day 7, 12 Hours|||128.59|-79.16|
91080699|NCT01119846|182046565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.966|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-111.73|95.8|||||Day 7, 12 Hours|||95.80|-111.73|
91080700|NCT01119846|182046565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.108|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-103.08|109.29|||||Day 7, 12 Hours|||109.29|-103.08|
91080701|NCT01119846|182046565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.114|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.12|4.89|||||Day 14, 24 Hours|||4.89|-25.12|
91080702|NCT01119846|182046565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.718|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.71|6.28|||||Day 14, 24 Hours|||6.28|-23.71|
91080703|NCT01119846|182046565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.622|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.63|14.38|||||Day 14, 24 Hours|||14.38|-15.63|
91080704|NCT01119846|182046565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.454|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.78|2.88|||||Day 14, 24 Hours|||2.88|-27.78|
91080705|NCT01119846|182046565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.681|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.02|6.66|||||Day 14, 24 Hours|||6.66|-24.02|
91080706|NCT00048997|182046579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.2853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.38||One-sided significance level of 0.025.|Log Rank||Prophylactic cranial irradiation (PCI) is the reference arm for the hazard ratio.|This study was designed to detect a 20% relative improvement in hazard rate: null hypothesis (observation): MST (median survival time) = 23.5 mo.; alternative hypothesis (PCI): MST= 29.4 mo. A one-sided log-rank test at a significance level of 0.025 would have 80% power to detect this difference with a sample size of 1007 patients (527 deaths were required for the final analysis).||1.38|0.84|0.2853
91080707|NCT00048997|182046580|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Z-test, 2-sided|2-sided significance level = 0.05||||||0.01
91080708|NCT00048997|182046581|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||Z-test, 2-sided|Significance level = 0.05||||||0.008
91080709|NCT00048997|182046582|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Z-test, 2-sided|Significance level = 0.05||||||0.20
91080710|NCT00048997|182046583|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||Z-test, 2-sided|Significance level = 0.05||||||0.14
91080711|NCT00048997|182046584|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||Z-test, 2-sided|Significance level = 0.05||||||0.52
91080712|NCT00048997|182046585|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||Z-test, 2-sided|Significance level = 0.05||||||0.51
91080713|NCT00048997|182046586|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Other [Z-test, 2-sided]|Significance level = 0.05||||||0.11
91080714|NCT00048997|182046587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.52||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|4.8|||Regression, Logistic|2-sided significance level = 0.05|Reference level = PCI arm|The development of CNS metastases was assessed using logistic regression modeling comparing presence vs. absence of brain metastases at 1 year.||4.80|1.32|0.005
91080715|NCT00002525|182046588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.178||||||one-sided log-rank test p value|Log Rank|||||||0.178
91080716|NCT00002525|182046589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.847||||||two-sided log rank test|Log Rank|||||||0.847
91080717|NCT03304184|182046592|EQUIVALENCE|In this analysis, the null hypothesis was that there was no significant difference in global base changes scores between the two treatment groups (Photac and Biodentine)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA||The estimation values were from an average of all values in each arm.|Power was limited sample size between the groups a superiority analysis was not able to be completed, so an equivalence test was used.||||.0001
91080718|NCT03304184|182046592|EQUIVALENCE|In this analysis, the null hypothesis was that there was no significant difference in global base changes scores between the two treatment groups (Photac and Biodentine) over timepoints|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA||The estimation values were from an average of all values in each arm.|Power was limited sample size between the groups a superiority analysis was not able to be completed, so an equivalence test was used.||||.0005
91080719|NCT03304184|182046593|EQUIVALENCE|In this analysis, the null hypothesis was that there was no significant difference in 49 questions on oral health related quality of life scores between the two treatment groups (Photac and Biodentine).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Comparison between two groups for treatment|ANOVA||The estimation values were from an average of all values in each arm.|Power was limited sample size between the groups a superiority analysis was not able to be completed, so an equivalence test was used.||||.0910
91080720|NCT03304184|182046593|EQUIVALENCE|In this analysis, the null hypothesis was that there was no significant difference in 49 questions on oral health related quality of life scores between the two treatment groups (Photac and Biodentine) over time points|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0||||0.0262|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Comparison between the two arms for treatment time points with analysis|ANOVA||The estimation values were from an average of all values in each arm.|Power was limited sample size between the groups a superiority analysis was not able to be completed, so an equivalence test was used.||||.0262
91080721|NCT03304184|182046594|EQUIVALENCE|In this analysis, the null hypothesis was that there was no significant difference in brief pain inventory scores between the two treatment groups (Photac and Biodentine) over different time points.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0||||0.0289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA||The estimation values were from an average of all values in each arm.|Power was limited sample size between the groups a superiority analysis was not able to be completed, so an equivalence test was used.||||.0289
91080722|NCT01505179|182046595|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.47
91080723|NCT01505179|182046596|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.009
91080724|NCT01505179|182046597|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.74
91080725|NCT01505179|182046598|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.49
91080726|NCT02051335|182046634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.556||0.573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.8||P-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and participant nested within sequence as a random effect.|ANOVA|||||0.8|-1.4|0.573
91080727|NCT02051335|182046634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.4||P-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and participant nested within sequence as a random effect.|ANOVA|||||0.4|-1.8|0.210
91080728|NCT02051335|182046634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.547||0.821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.2||P-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and participant nested within sequence as a random effect.|ANOVA|||||1.2|-1.0|0.821
91080729|NCT02051335|182046634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.549||0.426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.5||P-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and participant nested within sequence as a random effect.|ANOVA|||||1.5|-0.7|0.426
91080730|NCT02051335|182046634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.9||P-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and participant nested within sequence as a random effect.|ANOVA|||||1.9|-0.2|0.126
91080731|NCT02051335|182046635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.992||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|3.9||P-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and participant nested within sequence as a random effect.|ANOVA|||||3.9|-0.1|0.057
91080732|NCT02051335|182046635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.981||0.394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|1.1||P-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and participant nested within sequence as a random effect.|ANOVA|||||1.1|-2.8|0.394
91080733|NCT02051335|182046635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.972||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|4.0||P-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and participant nested within sequence as a random effect.|ANOVA|||||4.0|0.1|0.042
91080734|NCT02051335|182046635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.974||0.928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|2.0||P-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and participant nested within sequence as a random effect.|ANOVA|||||2.0|-1.9|0.928
91080735|NCT02051335|182046635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.943||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|4.7||P-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and participant nested within sequence as a random effect.|ANOVA|||||4.7|1.0|0.004
91080736|NCT00187278|182046645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.926||||0.3492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.789|1.0088||adjusted p|Regression, Cox|||||1.0088|0.789|0.3492
90892184|NCT02962908|181649363|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.81|||||||Chi squared or Fisher's exact test|||Comparison of CD8+ IFN-gamma responders on day 180. Differences considered significant if p-value \<0.05.||||0.81
91080737|NCT00187278|182046646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.878||||0.0882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.756|1.02||adjusted p|Regression, Cox|||||1.020|0.756|0.0882
91080738|NCT00187278|182046647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.8215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.27|||Regression, Cox|||||1.27|0.74|0.8215
91080739|NCT01578499|182046662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|42.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.5|56.8||P-value was stratified by baseline disease diagnosis (pcALCL and MF).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Based on a two-sided Χ² test with a significance level of 0.05, and a 10% dropout rate, a sample size of approximately 124 participants was calculated to provide 90% power to detect a 30% improvement in ORR4 in the brentuximab vedotin group.||56.8|27.5|<0.001
91080740|NCT01578499|182046663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.6||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|33.0||P-value was stratified by baseline disease diagnosis (pcALCL and MF).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||33.0|-2.5|0.0002
91080741|NCT01578499|182046664|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.378|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.247|0.577|||Log Rank||||Hazard ratio brentuximab vedotin/ comparator (methotrexate or bexarotene) with the 95% CI from a stratified Cox regression model with treatment as the explanatory variable and baseline disease diagnosis (MF or pcALCL) as stratification factor.|0.577|0.247|<0.001
91080742|NCT01578499|182046665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimate of difference|-19.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.7|-11.4|||ANCOVA|||P-value is calculated using the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model controlling for baseline symptom domain score, eastern cooperative oncology group (ECOG) performance status score (=0 and ≥1), and disease diagnosis (pcALCL and MF) between the brentuximab vedotin and comparator (methotrexate or bexarotene) arms.||-11.4|-26.7|<0.001
91080743|NCT01421147|182046733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.108||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.002|0.219|||ANCOVA|||||0.219|-0.002|0.055
91080744|NCT01421147|182046734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.41||||0.205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|1.05||P-value is for change at 6 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||1.05|-0.23|0.205
91080745|NCT01421147|182046734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.4||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.21||P-value is for change at 12 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||1.21|-0.40|0.320
90892185|NCT02962908|181649363|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.34|||||||Chi squared or Fisher's exact test|||Comparison of CD8+ IFN-gamma responders on day 180. Differences considered significant if p-value \<0.05.||||0.34
90892186|NCT02962908|181649363|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.3|||||||Chi squared or Fisher's exact test|||Comparison of CD8+ TNF-alpha responders on day 180. Differences considered significant if p-value \<0.05.||||0.30
90892187|NCT02962908|181649363|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.105|||||||Chi squared or Fisher's exact test|||Comparison of CD8+ TNF-alpha responders on day 180. Differences considered significant if p-value \<0.05.||||0.105
91080746|NCT01421147|182046734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.37||||0.373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|1.21||P-value is for change at Endpoint, up to 24 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||1.21|-0.46|0.373
91080747|NCT01421147|182046734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.81||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|1.86||P-value is for change at Endpoint, up to 52 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||1.86|-0.25|0.131
91080748|NCT01421147|182046735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.007||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.087|0.072||P-value is for change at 6 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||0.072|-0.087|0.860
91080749|NCT01421147|182046735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.113||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.011|0.215||P-value is for change at 12 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||0.215|0.011|0.030
91080750|NCT01421147|182046735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.098||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.012|0.208||P-value is for change at 24 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||0.208|-0.012|0.080
91080751|NCT01421147|182046735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.06||||0.314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.057|0.177||P-value is for change at 36 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||0.177|-0.057|0.314
91080752|NCT01421147|182046735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.004||||0.948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.119|0.127||P-value is for change at 52 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||0.127|-0.119|0.948
91080753|NCT01421147|182046735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.02||||0.737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.099|0.14||P-value is for change at Endpoint, up to 52 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||0.140|-0.099|0.737
91080754|NCT01421147|182046736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.18||||0.489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.69||P-value is for Baseline-AM Pre-Meal.|ANCOVA|||||0.69|-0.33|0.489
91080755|NCT01421147|182046736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.48||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.03||P-value is for Baseline-AM 2 hrs PP.|ANCOVA|||||0.03|-1.00|0.066
91080756|NCT01421147|182046736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.28||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.16||P-value is for Baseline-MD Pre-Meal.|ANCOVA|||||0.16|-0.71|0.209
91080757|NCT01421147|182046736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.31||||0.232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.82||P-value is for Baseline-MD 2 hrs PP.|ANCOVA|||||0.82|-0.20|0.232
91080758|NCT01421147|182046736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.05||||0.856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.58||P-value is for Baseline-EV Pre-Meal.|ANCOVA|||||0.58|-0.49|0.856
91080759|NCT01421147|182046736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.11||||0.693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.44||P-value is for Baseline-Bed Time.|ANCOVA|||||0.44|-0.66|0.693
91080760|NCT01421147|182046736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.41||P-value is for Baseline-0300 hrs.|ANCOVA|||||0.41|-0.61|0.700
91080761|NCT01421147|182046736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.17||||0.399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.58||P-value is for Endpoint, up to 24 wk-AM Pre-Meal.|ANCOVA|||||0.58|-0.23|0.399
91080762|NCT01421147|182046736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.25||||0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.68||P-value is for Endpoint, up to 24 wk-AM 2 hrs PP.|ANCOVA|||||0.68|-0.18|0.248
91080763|NCT01421147|182046736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.03||||0.883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.38||P-value is for Endpoint, up to 24 wk-MD Pre-Meal.|ANCOVA|||||0.38|-0.44|0.883
91080764|NCT01421147|182046736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.09||||0.687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.52||P-value is for Endpoint, up to 24 wk-MD 2 hrs PP.|ANCOVA|||||0.52|-0.34|0.687
91080765|NCT01421147|182046736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.65||P-value is for Endpoint, up to 24 wk-EV Pre-Meal.|ANCOVA|||||0.65|-0.24|0.364
91080766|NCT01421147|182046736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.05||P-value is for Endpoint, up to 24 wk- Bed Time.|ANCOVA|||||-0.05|-0.95|0.030
91080767|NCT01421147|182046736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.45||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|-0.04||P-value is for Endpoint, up to 24 wk-0300 hrs.|ANCOVA|||||-0.04|-0.86|0.033
91080768|NCT01421147|182046736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.26||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.16||P-value is for Endpoint, up to 52 wk-AM Pre-Meal.|ANCOVA|||||0.16|-0.68|0.230
91080769|NCT01421147|182046736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.32||||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.11||P-value is for Endpoint, up to 52 wk-AM 2 hrs PP.|ANCOVA|||||0.11|-0.76|0.148
91080770|NCT01421147|182046736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.03||||0.866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.36||P-value is for Endpoint, up to 52 wk-MD Pre-Meal.|ANCOVA|||||0.36|-0.43|0.866
91080771|NCT01421147|182046736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.13||||0.545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.3||P-value is for Endpoint, up to 52 wk-MD 2 hrs PP.|ANCOVA|||||0.30|-0.56|0.545
91080772|NCT01421147|182046736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.01||||0.955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.42||P-value is for Endpoint, up to 52 wk-EV Pre-Meal.|ANCOVA|||||0.42|-0.44|0.955
91080773|NCT01421147|182046736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.48||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|-0.04||P-value is for Endpoint, up to 52 wk-Bed Time.|ANCOVA|||||-0.04|-0.92|0.031
91080774|NCT01421147|182046736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.21||||0.355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.23||P-vale is for Endpoint, up to 52 wk-0300 hrs.|ANCOVA|||||0.23|-0.65|0.355
91080775|NCT01421147|182046737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.17||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.17||P-value is for Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||0.17|-0.52|0.320
91080776|NCT01421147|182046737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.04||||0.781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.25||P-value is for Endpoint, up to 24 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||0.25|-0.33|0.781
91080777|NCT01421147|182046737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.26||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.01||P-value is for Endpoint, up to 52 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||0.01|-0.53|0.060
91080778|NCT01421147|182046738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.03||||0.823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.29||P-value is for change at 6 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||0.29|-0.23|0.823
91080779|NCT01421147|182046738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.11||||0.541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.47||P-value is for change at 12 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||0.47|-0.25|0.541
91080780|NCT01421147|182046738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.17||||0.435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.59||P-value is for change at 18 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||0.59|-0.25|0.435
91080781|NCT01421147|182046738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.24||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.71||P-value is for change at Endpoint, up to 24 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||0.71|-0.23|0.320
91080782|NCT01421147|182046738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.34||||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.93||P-value is for change at Endpoint, up to 52 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||0.93|-0.25|0.253
91080783|NCT01421147|182046739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.64||||0.401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|2.15||P-value is for Baseline-Behavior TS.|ANCOVA|||||2.15|-0.86|0.401
91080784|NCT01421147|182046739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|1.55||P-value is for 24 weeks-Behavior TS|ANCOVA|||||1.55|-1.16|0.778
91080785|NCT01421147|182046739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.16||||0.804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|1.45||P-value is for Endpoint, up to 52 weeks-Behavior TS.|ANCOVA|||||1.45|-1.12|0.804
91080786|NCT01421147|182046739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.21||||0.304||95.0|-1.1|3.51||P-value is for Baseline-Worry TS.|ANCOVA|||||3.51|-1.10|0.304
91080787|NCT01421147|182046739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.12||||0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|3.34||P-value is for 24 weeks-Worry TS.|ANCOVA|||||3.34|-1.10|0.323
91080788|NCT01421147|182046739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.25||||0.824||95.0|-1.92|2.41||P-value is for Endpoint, up to 52 weeks-Worry TS.|ANCOVA|||||2.41|-1.92|0.824
91080789|NCT01421147|182046740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.77||||0.681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.42|2.89||P-value is for IR-Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||2.89|-4.42|0.681
91080790|NCT01421147|182046740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.56||||0.744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.79|3.9||P-value is for IR-24 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||3.90|-2.79|0.744
91080791|NCT01421147|182046740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.94||||0.582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.29|2.41||P-value is for IR-Endpoint, up to 52 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||2.41|-4.29|0.582
91080792|NCT01421147|182046740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.82||||0.694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.26|4.89||P-value is for LF-Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||4.89|-3.26|0.694
91080793|NCT01421147|182046740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.84||||0.673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.08|4.77||P-value is for LF-24 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||4.77|-3.08|0.673
91080794|NCT01421147|182046740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.91||||0.645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.79|2.97||P-value is for LF-Endpoint, up to 52 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||2.97|-4.79|0.645
91080795|NCT01421147|182046740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.09||||0.961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.62|3.81||P-value is for GC-Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||3.81|-3.62|0.961
91080796|NCT01421147|182046740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.25||||0.463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|4.61||P-value is for GC-24 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||4.61|-2.10|0.463
91080797|NCT01421147|182046740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.91||||0.609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.59|4.41||P-value is for GC-Endpoint, up to 52 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||4.41|-2.59|0.609
91080798|NCT01421147|182046740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.61||||0.708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.81|2.59||P-value is for HC-Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||2.59|-3.81|0.708
91080799|NCT01421147|182046740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.03||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.09|2.03||P-value is for HC-24 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||2.03|-4.09|0.510
91080800|NCT01421147|182046740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.26||||0.422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.34|1.82||P-value is for HC-Endpoint, up to 52 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||1.82|-4.34|0.422
91080801|NCT01421147|182046740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.53||||0.367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.85|1.8||P-value is for IDD-Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||1.80|-4.85|0.367
91080802|NCT01421147|182046740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.41||||0.786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|3.35||P-value is for IDD-24 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||3.35|-2.54|0.786
91080803|NCT01421147|182046740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.29||||0.845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.16|2.59||P-value is for IDD-Endpoint, up to 52 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||2.59|-3.16|0.845
91080804|NCT01421147|182046740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.59||||0.676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.36|2.18||P-value is for ITSQ Total-Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||2.18|-3.36|0.676
91080805|NCT01421147|182046740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.23||||0.862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|2.78||P-value is for ITSQ Total-24 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||2.78|-2.33|0.862
91080806|NCT01421147|182046740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.54||||0.685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.15|2.07||P-value is for ITSQ Total-Endpoint, up to 52 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||2.07|-3.15|0.685
91080807|NCT01421147|182046741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.014||||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.009|0.036||P-value is for Endpoint, up to 24 wk-Basal Insulin.|ANCOVA|||||0.036|-0.009|0.235
91080808|NCT01421147|182046741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.006||||0.726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.026|0.038||P-value is for Endpoint, up to 24 wk-Bolus Insulin.|ANCOVA|||||0.038|-0.026|0.726
91080809|NCT01421147|182046741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.019||||0.377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.023|0.062||P-value is for Endpoint, up to 24 wk-Total Insulin.|ANCOVA|||||0.062|-0.023|0.377
91080810|NCT01421147|182046741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.018||||0.159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.007|0.042||P-value is for Endpoint, up to 52 wk-Basal Insulin.|ANCOVA|||||0.042|-0.007|0.159
91080811|NCT01421147|182046741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.001||||0.957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.034|0.032||P-value is for Endpoint, up to 52 wk-Bolus Insulin.|ANCOVA|||||0.032|-0.034|0.957
91080812|NCT01421147|182046741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.017||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.028|0.062||P-value is for Endpoint, up to 52 wk-Total Insulin.|ANCOVA|||||0.062|-0.028|0.450
91080813|NCT01421147|182046742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.724||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.308|3.755||P-value is for Endpoint, up to 24 wk-Basal Insulin.|ANCOVA|||||3.755|-0.308|0.096
91080814|NCT01421147|182046742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.267||||0.374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.531|4.065||P-value is for Endpoint, up to 24 wk-Bolus Insulin.|ANCOVA|||||4.065|-1.531|0.374
91080815|NCT01421147|182046742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.964||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.081|7.01||P-value is for Endpoint, up to 24 wk-Total Insulin.|ANCOVA|||||7.010|-1.081|0.151
91080816|NCT01421147|182046742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.059||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.187|4.305||P-value is for Endpoint, up to 52 wk-Basal Insulin.|ANCOVA|||||4.305|-0.187|0.072
91080817|NCT01421147|182046742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.702||||0.617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.058|3.462||P-value is for Endpoint, up to 52 wk-Bolus Insulin.|ANCOVA|||||3.462|-2.058|0.617
91080818|NCT01421147|182046742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.8||||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|6.971||P-value is for Endpoint, up to 52 wk-Total Insulin.|ANCOVA|||||6.971|-1.370|0.188
91080819|NCT01421147|182046743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015||||||P-value is for HbA1c- at Baseline \<7.0 %.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.015
91080820|NCT01421147|182046743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.606||||||P-value is for HbA1c- at Baseline ≤6.5%.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.606
91080821|NCT01421147|182046743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||||||P-value is for HbA1c- at 6 weeks \<7.0%.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.012
91080822|NCT01421147|182046743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.053||||||P-value is for HbA1c- at 6 weeks ≤6.5%.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.053
91080823|NCT01421147|182046743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.398||||||P-value is for HbA1c- at 12 weeks \<7.0%.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.398
91080824|NCT01421147|182046743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17||||||P-value is for HbA1c- at 12 weeks ≤6.5%.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.170
91080825|NCT01421147|182046743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.926||||||P-value is for HbA1c- at 24 weeks \<7.0%.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.926
91080826|NCT01421147|182046743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.824||||||P-value is for HbA1c- at 24 weeks ≤6.5%.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.824
91080827|NCT01421147|182046743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.385||||||P-value is for HbA1c- at 36 weeks \<7.0%.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.385
91080828|NCT01421147|182046743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.408||||||P-value is for HbA1c- at 36 weeks ≤6.5%.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.408
91080829|NCT01421147|182046743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.551||||||P-value is for HbA1c- at 52 weeks \<7.0%.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.551
91080830|NCT01421147|182046743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9||||||P-value is for HbA1c- at 52 weeks ≤6.5%.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.900
91080831|NCT01421147|182046743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.646||||||P-value is for HbA1c- Endpoint, up to 24 weeks \<7.0%.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.646
91080832|NCT01421147|182046743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.661||||||P-value is for HbA1c- Endpoint, up to 24 weeks ≤6.5%.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.661
91080833|NCT01421147|182046743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.209||||||P-value is for HbA1c- Endpoint, up to 52 weeks \<7.0%.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.209
91080834|NCT01421147|182046743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54||||||P-value is for HbA1c- Endpoint, up to 52 weeks ≤6.5%.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.540
91080835|NCT01421147|182046744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.703||||||P-value is for Total Events with BG ≤70 mg/dL,if available-24 wk.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.703
91080836|NCT01421147|182046744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.495||||||P-value is for Total Events with BG ≤70 mg/dL,if available-52-wk.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.495
91080837|NCT01421147|182046744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.174||||||P-value is for Severe Events-24 wk.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.174
91080838|NCT01421147|182046744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.828||||||P-value is for Severe Events-52 wk.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.828
91080839|NCT01421147|182046744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.661||||||P-value is for Nocturnal Events with BG ≤70 mg/dL-24 wk.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.661
91080840|NCT01421147|182046744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.606||||||P-value is for Nocturnal Events with BG ≤70 mg/dL-52 wk.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.606
91080841|NCT01421147|182046745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.717||||||P-value is for Total Events with BG ≤70 mg/dL, if available-24 wk.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.717
91080842|NCT01421147|182046745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.163||||||P-value is for Severe Events-24 wk.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.163
91080843|NCT01421147|182046745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.669||||||P-value is for Nocturnal Events with BG ≤70 mg/dL-24 wk.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.669
91080844|NCT01421147|182046745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.738||||||P-value is for Total Events with BG ≤70 mg/dL, if available-52 wk.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.738
91080845|NCT01421147|182046745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.826||||||P-value is for Severe Events-52 wk.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.826
91103653|NCT01421459|182094199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.088||95.0||||P-value is for Insulin Deliver Device at 4 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.088
91103654|NCT01421459|182094199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.456||95.0||||P-value is for Insulin Delivery Device at 12 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.456
91103655|NCT01421459|182094199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.531||95.0||||P-value is for Insulin Delivery Device at Endpoint, up to 24 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.531
91080846|NCT01421147|182046745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25||||||P-value is for Nocturnal Events with BG ≤70 mg/dL-52 wk.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.250
91080847|NCT04727528|182046759|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|56.2||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.6|563.6|||Wald Chi-Squared test||Logistic regression model included response status (response / non-response) as the dependent variable and randomized treatment as an independent factor.|||563.6|5.6|0.001
91080848|NCT04727528|182046760|SUPERIORITY||Least-squares mean|1.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.29|||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference between groups||3.29|-0.00|0.050
91080849|NCT04727528|182046761|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.2||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|15.8|||Wald Chi-Squared test|||Comparison between groups||15.8|0.6|0.153
91080850|NCT04727528|182046762|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|57008.6||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0||The upper limit of the 95% confidence interval = 13124060000000000000000000000||Wald Chi-Squared test|||Comparison between groups|||0.0|0.940
91080851|NCT04727528|182046763|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2||||0.271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|8.6|||Wald Chi-Squared test|||Comparison between groups||8.6|0.5|0.271
91080852|NCT04727528|182046764|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.8||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|102.8|||Wald Chi-Squared test|||Comparison between groups||102.8|1.1|0.039
91080853|NCT04727528|182046765|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|57008.6||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0||The upper limit of the 95% confidence interval = 13124060000000000000000000000||Wald Chi-Squared test|||Comparison between groups|||0.0|0.940
90892188|NCT02962908|181649363|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.38|||||||Chi squared or Fisher's exact test|||Comparison of CD8+ IL2 responders on day 180. Differences considered significant if p-value \<0.05.||||0.38
91080854|NCT04656301|182046767|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|degrees of freedom = 1.92||||||<0.001
91080855|NCT01964989|182046770|SUPERIORITY|Relative vaccine efficacy (rVE; ≥6 to \<72 months) rVE = (1-HR) is the relative vaccine efficacy of aQIV and HR is defined as hazard ratio between aQIV and non adjuvanted comparator.|Cox Proportional Hazard|-0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.81|15.41||||||||15.41|-19.81|
90892189|NCT02962908|181649363|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.44|||||||Chi squared or Fisher's exact test|||Comparison of CD8+ IL2 responders on day 180. Differences considered significant if p-value \<0.05.||||0.44
91080856|NCT01964989|182046777|SUPERIORITY|Superiority criterion: The lower bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the adjusted ratio of GMTs for HI antibody titer exceeds 1.|GMT ratio|1.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|2.0||||||GMT ratio (aQIV/Comparator \[TIV/QIV\]) for A/H1N1, D22/50 (Pooled Naïve \& Non-naïve). An adjusted analysis GMT model (log-transformed postvaccination HI titer = log-transformed prevaccination HI titer+treatment group+ age group, health status+ season + country) was used for analysis.||2.0|1.8|
91080857|NCT01964989|182046777|OTHER||GMT ratio|1.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|2.0||||||GMT ratio (aQIV/Comparator \[TIV/QIV\]) for A/H1N1, D181/209 (Pooled Naïve \& Non-naïve). An adjusted analysis GMT model (log-transformed postvaccination HI titer = log-transformed prevaccination HI titer+treatment group+ age group, health status+ season + country) was used for analysis.||2.0|1.7|
91080858|NCT01964989|182046777|SUPERIORITY|Superiority criterion: The lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI on the adjusted ratio of GMTs for HI antibody titer exceeds 1.|GMT ratio|1.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|1.8||||||GMT ratio (aQIV/Comparator \[TIV/QIV\]) for A/H3N2, D22/50 (Pooled Naïve \& Non-naïve). An adjusted analysis GMT model (log-transformed postvaccination HI titer = log-transformed prevaccination HI titer+treatment group+ age group, health status+ season + country) was used for analysis.||1.8|1.6|
91080859|NCT01964989|182046777|OTHER||GMT ratio|1.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|1.7||||||GMT ratio (aQIV/Comparator \[TIV/QIV\]) for A/H3N2, D181/209 (Pooled Naïve \& Non-naïve). An adjusted analysis GMT model (log-transformed postvaccination HI titer = log-transformed prevaccination HI titer+treatment group+ age group, health status+ season + country) was used for analysis.||1.7|1.4|
91080860|NCT01964989|182046777|SUPERIORITY|Superiority criterion: The lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI on the adjusted ratio of GMTs for HI antibody titer exceeds 1.|GMT ratio|2.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|2.4||||||GMT ratio (aQIV/Comparator \[TIV/QIV\]) for B/YAM, D22/50 (Pooled Naïve \& Non-naïve). An adjusted analysis GMT model (log-transformed postvaccination HI titer = log-transformed prevaccination HI titer+treatment group+ age group, health status+ season + country) was used for analysis.||2.4|2.0|
91080861|NCT01964989|182046777|OTHER||GMT ratio|1.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|2.0||||||GMT ratio (aQIV/Comparator \[TIV/QIV\]) for B/YAM, D181/209 (Pooled Naïve \& Non-naïve). An adjusted analysis GMT model (log-transformed postvaccination HI titer = log-transformed prevaccination HI titer+treatment group+ age group, health status+ season + country) was used for analysis.||2.0|1.7|
91080862|NCT01964989|182046777|SUPERIORITY|Superiority criterion: The lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI on the adjusted ratio of GMTs for HI antibody titer exceeds 1.|GMT ratio|2.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|2.6||||||GMT ratio (aQIV/Comparator \[TIV/QIV\]) for B/VIC, D22/50 (Pooled Naïve \& Non-naïve). An adjusted analysis GMT model (log-transformed postvaccination HI titer = log-transformed prevaccination HI titer+treatment group+ age group, health status+ season + country) was used for analysis.||2.6|2.0|
91080863|NCT01964989|182046777|OTHER||GMT ratio|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|2.1||||||GMT ratio (aQIV/Comparator \[TIV/QIV\]) for B/VIC, D181/209 (Pooled Naïve \& Non-naïve). An adjusted analysis GMT model (log-transformed postvaccination HI titer = log-transformed prevaccination HI titer+treatment group+ age group, health status+ season + country) was used for analysis.||2.1|1.6|
91080864|NCT01964989|182046779|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.0||||||aQIV GMT ratio (High risk/Healthy) for A/H1N1 at D22/50 (Pooled Naïve \& Non-naïve).||1.0|0.8|
91080865|NCT01964989|182046779|OTHER||GMT ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.1||||||aQIV GMT ratio (High risk/Healthy) for A/H3N2 at D22/50 (Pooled Naïve \& Non-naïve).||1.1|0.9|
91080866|NCT01964989|182046779|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.1||||||aQIV GMT ratio (High risk/Healthy) for B/YAM at D22/50 (Pooled Naïve \& Non-naïve).||1.1|0.8|
91080867|NCT01964989|182046779|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.1||||||aQIV GMT ratio (High risk/Healthy) for B/VIC at D22/50 (Pooled Naïve \& Non-naïve).||1.1|0.8|
91080868|NCT01964989|182046779|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.1||||||TIV/QIV GMT ratio (High risk/Healthy) for A/H1N1 at D22/50 (Pooled Naïve \& Non-naïve).||1.1|0.8|
91080869|NCT01964989|182046779|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.1||||||TIV/QIV GMT ratio (High risk/Healthy) for A/H3N2 at D22/50 (Pooled Naïve \& Non-naïve).||1.1|0.8|
91080870|NCT01964989|182046779|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.1||||||TIV/QIV GMT ratio (High risk/Healthy) for B/YAM at D22/50 (Pooled Naïve \& Non-naïve).||1.1|0.8|
91080871|NCT01964989|182046779|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.2||||||TIV/QIV GMT ratio (High risk/Healthy) for B/VIC at D22/50 (Pooled Naïve \& Non-naïve).||1.2|0.7|
91080872|NCT01964989|182046781|SUPERIORITY|Superiority criterion: The lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI on the unadjusted difference of percentages of subjects seroconverted for HI antibody exceeds 0%.|Seroconversion difference|8.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|11.3||||||Seroconversion difference (aQIV - Comparator \[TIV/QIV\]) for A/H1N1.||11.3|5.0|
91080873|NCT01964989|182046781|SUPERIORITY|Superiority criterion: The lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI on the unadjusted difference of percentages of subjects seroconverted for HI antibody exceeds 0%.|Seroconversion difference|5.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|8.4||||||Seroconversion difference (aQIV - Comparator \[TIV/QIV\]) for A/H3N2.||8.4|1.9|
91080874|NCT01964989|182046781|SUPERIORITY||Seroconversion difference|21.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.1|24.5||||||Seroconversion difference (aQIV - Comparator \[TIV/QIV\]) for B/YAM.||24.5|18.1|
91080875|NCT01964989|182046781|SUPERIORITY|Superiority criterion: The lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI on the unadjusted difference of percentages of subjects seroconverted for HI antibody exceeds 0%.|Seroconversion difference|13.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|17.3||||||Seroconversion difference (aQIV - Comparator \[TIV/QIV\]) for B/VIC.||17.3|10.0|
91080876|NCT01964989|182046782|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.4|13.7||||||Difference in HI titers ≥ 1:40 (aQIV - Comparator \[TIV/QIV\]) for A/H1N1.||13.7|9.4|
91080877|NCT01964989|182046782|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.1|9.7||||||Difference in HI titers ≥ 1:40 (aQIV - Comparator \[TIV/QIV\]) for A/H3N2.||9.7|6.1|
91080878|NCT01964989|182046782|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.1|25.6||||||Difference in HI titers ≥ 1:40 (aQIV - Comparator \[TIV/QIV\]) for B/YAM.||25.6|18.1|
91080879|NCT01964989|182046782|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.9|25.7||||||Difference in HI titers ≥ 1:40 (aQIV - Comparator \[TIV/QIV\]) for B/VIC.||25.7|15.9|
91080880|NCT01964989|182046783|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.9|9.7||||||Difference in HI titers ≥ 1:110 for A/H1N1 (aQIV - Comparator \[TIV/QIV\]) at Day 22/50.||9.7|5.9|
91080881|NCT01964989|182046783|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.8|11.9||||||Difference in HI Titers ≥ 1:151 for A/H1N1 (aQIV - Comparator \[TIV/QIV\]) at Day 22/50.||11.9|7.8|
91080882|NCT01964989|182046783|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.5|18.7||||||Difference in HI Titers ≥ 1:215 for A/H1N1 (aQIV - Comparator \[TIV/QIV\]) at Day 22/50.||18.7|13.5|
91080883|NCT01964989|182046783|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.8|26.4||||||Difference in HI Titers ≥ 1:330 for A/H1N1 (aQIV - Comparator \[TIV/QIV\]) at Day 22/50.||26.4|19.8|
91080884|NCT01964989|182046783|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.6|27.6||||||Difference in HI Titers ≥ 1:629 for A/H1N1 (aQIV - Comparator \[TIV/QIV\]) at Day 22/50.||27.6|20.6|
91080885|NCT01964989|182046783|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|7.5||||||Difference in HI Titers ≥ 1:110 for A/H3N2 (aQIV - Comparator \[TIV/QIV\]) at Day 22/50.||7.5|4.5|
91080886|NCT01964989|182046783|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.1|9.6||||||Difference in HI Titers ≥ 1:151 for A/H3N2 (aQIV - Comparator \[TIV/QIV\]) at Day 22/50.||9.6|6.1|
91080887|NCT01964989|182046783|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.6|13.9||||||Difference in HI Titers ≥ 1:215 for A/H3N2 (aQIV - Comparator \[TIV/QIV\]) at Day 22/50.||13.9|9.6|
91080888|NCT01964989|182046783|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.1|22.0||||||Difference in HI Titers ≥ 1:330 for A/H3N2 (aQIV - Comparator \[TIV/QIV\]) at Day 22/50.||22.0|16.1|
91080889|NCT01964989|182046783|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.8|24.3||||||Difference in HI Titers ≥ 1:629 for A/H3N2 (aQIV - Comparator \[TIV/QIV\]) at Day 22/50.||24.3|17.8|
91080890|NCT01964989|182046783|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.1|32.3||||||Difference in HI Titers ≥ 1:110 for B/YAM (aQIV - Comparator \[TIV/QIV\]) at Day 22/50.||32.3|25.1|
91080891|NCT01964989|182046783|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|26.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.6|29.9||||||Difference in HI Titers ≥ 1:151 for B/YAM (aQIV - Comparator \[TIV/QIV\]) at Day 22/50.||29.9|22.6|
91080892|NCT01964989|182046783|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.3|25.3||||||Difference in HI Titers ≥ 1:215 for B/YAM (aQIV - Comparator \[TIV/QIV\]) at Day 22/50.||25.3|18.3|
91080893|NCT01964989|182046783|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.6|14.5||||||Difference in HI Titers ≥ 1:330 for B/YAM (aQIV - Comparator \[TIV/QIV\]) at Day 22/50.||14.5|8.6|
91080894|NCT01964989|182046783|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|9.4||||||Difference in HI Titers ≥ 1:629 for B/YAM (aQIV - Comparator \[TIV/QIV\]) at Day 22/50.||9.4|4.3|
91080895|NCT02769312|182046794|OTHER||Effect size (cohen's d)|0.16||||0.46|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.46
91080896|NCT02769312|182046795|SUPERIORITY||Effect size (cohen's d)|0.12||||0.61|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.61
91080897|NCT02769312|182046796|SUPERIORITY||Effect size (cohen's d)|0.39||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||.04
91080898|NCT01579669|182046800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0269|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre-post comparison||||0.0269
91080899|NCT01579669|182046801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre-post intervention comparison||||<0.0001
91080900|NCT01579669|182046802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre-post intervention comparison||||0.016
91080901|NCT02131233|182046838|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Reformulated Raltegravir is concluded non-inferior to Raltegravir if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference in percent response is above -10 percentage points.|Estimated Difference|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.204|5.223|||||Reformulated Raltegravir minus Raltegravir|The 95% Confidence Interval (CI) for the treatment differences in percent response were calculated using stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method with the difference weighted by the harmonic mean of sample size per arm for each stratum (screening HIV-1 RNA \<=100,000 copies/mL or HIV-1 RNA \>100,000 copies/mL)||5.223|-4.204|
91080902|NCT02131233|182046839|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Reformulated Raltegravir is concluded non-inferior to Raltegravir if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference in percent response is above -10 percentage points.|Estimated Difference|1.449|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.41|7.308|||||Reformulated Raltegravir minus Raltegravir|The 95% Confidence Interval (CI) for the treatment differences in percent response were calculated using stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method with the difference weighted by the harmonic mean of sample size per arm for each stratum (screening HIV-1 RNA \<=100,000 copies/mL or HIV-1 RNA \>100,000 copies/mL)||7.308|-4.410|
91080903|NCT02131233|182046840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.9|26.7|||||Reformulated Raltegravir minus Raltegravir|The 95% CI for mean difference in CD4 change was based on t-distribution.||26.7|-30.9|
91080904|NCT02131233|182046841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.8|31.6|||||Reformulated Raltegravir minus Raltegravir|The 95% CI for mean difference in CD4 change was based on t-distribution.||31.6|-32.8|
91080905|NCT04677387|182046866|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.00325||||0.473|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Linear regression using a Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) model clustering on pharmacy.||||||0.473
91080906|NCT04677387|182046867|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Regression, Linear|Linear regression with Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) model.||||||.007
91080907|NCT04677387|182046868|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Regression, Linear|Linear regression with a Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) model.||||||.002
91080908|NCT04677387|182046869|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.169|||||||Regression, Linear|Linear regression with Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) model.||||||0.169
91080909|NCT00548249|182046875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.0||||0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.32||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Log Rank|||Hazard ratio with 95% confidence intervals comparing each SFP treatment group to placebo, and p-value from cox proportional hazards model||3.32|0.30|0.999
91080910|NCT00548249|182046875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.17||||0.807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|4.09|||Log Rank|||||4.09|0.33|0.807
91080911|NCT00548249|182046875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.8||||0.748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|3.02|||Log Rank|||||3.02|0.21|0.748
91080912|NCT00548249|182046875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.77||||0.299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|5.19|||Log Rank|||||5.19|0.60|0.299
91080913|NCT00548249|182046876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.234||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05|ANOVA|||Each dose was compared to placebo using an ANOVA model with treatment as the effect.||||0.234
91080914|NCT00548249|182046876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.049||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05|ANOVA|||Each dose was compared to placebo using an ANOVA model with treatment as the effect||||0.049
91080915|NCT00548249|182046876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.375||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05|ANOVA|||Each dose was compared to placebo using an ANOVA model with treatment as the effect||||0.375
91080916|NCT00548249|182046876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.625||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05|ANOVA|||Each dose was compared to placebo using an ANOVA model with treatment as the effect||||0.625
91080917|NCT00212264|182046891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.001
91080918|NCT00212264|182046892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|Note that the no-treatment control group completed the study after 2 months and was not included in this analysis of treatment effect durability.||||||.32
91080919|NCT04424914|182046920|OTHER|||||||0.3006|||||||Chi-squared|p-values for comparison of proportions of CLASS I+II vs CLASS III+IV were based on a Chi-square test.||||||0.3006
91080920|NCT04424914|182046921|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||<0.0001
91080921|NCT02195427|182046972|NON_INFERIORITY|"A WSRS change of 1 grade is considered to be clinically significant. A difference of ≤0.5 grade between the two treatment groups (i.e., half of the clinically significant difference) = non-inferiority margin.~The primary efficacy endpoint uses a paired-design and is analyzed by calculating two-sided confidence intervals of the mean difference between TEOSYAL® RHA Global Action and the control device, between the V1 enrollment visit (baseline) and V7 (24 weeks after baseline)."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.17|0.11|||||The decision is based on the upper limit of the 2-sided confidence interval for the difference for the change from baseline, between test and comparator treatment. For achieving non-inferiority, the upper confidence limit of a 97.5% CI must be ≤0.5|"Efficacy of TEOSYAL® RHA Global Action versus control is analyzed in a non-inferiority statistical model using the 5-grade Wrinkle Severity Rating Scale (WSRS) as rated by the Blinded Live Evaluator at 24 weeks after baseline.~The primary endpoint is the aesthetic improvement from pre-injection of the NLF at the side of the face treated with TEOSYAL® RHA Ultra Deep compared to the one at the side of the face treated with the control device, as assessed by the BLE at 24 weeks after baseline."||0.11|-0.17|
91080922|NCT02195427|182046972|NON_INFERIORITY|"A WSRS change of 1 grade is considered to be clinically significant. A difference of ≤0.5 grade between the two treatment groups (i.e., half of the clinically significant difference) = non-inferiority margin.~The primary efficacy endpoint uses a paired-design and is analyzed by calculating two-sided confidence intervals of the mean difference between TEOSYAL® RHA Deep Lines and the control device, between the V1 enrollment visit (baseline) and V7 (24 weeks after baseline)."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.25|0.06|||||The decision is based on the upper limit of the 2-sided confidence interval for the difference for the change from baseline, between test and comparator treatment. For achieving non-inferiority, the upper confidence limit of a 97.5% CI must be ≤0.5|"Efficacy of TEOSYAL® RHA Deep Lines versus control is analyzed in a non-inferiority statistical model using the 5-grade Wrinkle Severity Rating Scale (WSRS) as rated by the Blinded Live Evaluator at 24 weeks after baseline.~The primary endpoint is the aesthetic improvement from pre-injection of the NLF at the side of the face treated with TEOSYAL® RHA Deep Lines compared to the one at the side of the face treated with the control device, as assessed by the BLE at 24 weeks after baseline"||0.06|-0.25|
91080923|NCT00386425|182046986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011||95.0||||p-value is for change to Day 7|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.011
91080924|NCT00386425|182046987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047||95.0||||p-value is for the moderate Protein C Deficiency (difference in change of pc between alt and standard groups)|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.047
91080925|NCT00386425|182046987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.063||95.0||||p-value is for the severe Protein C Deficiency (difference in change of pc between alt and standard groups)|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.063
91080926|NCT00386425|182046988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0||||p-value is for Day 28 mortality|Fisher Exact|||||||0.030
91080927|NCT00386425|182046989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09||95.0||||p-value is for Day 90 mortality|Fisher Exact|||||||0.090
91080928|NCT00386425|182046990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19||95.0||||p-value is for total SOFA difference between alternative and standard therapy|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.190
91080929|NCT00386425|182046990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.268||95.0||||p-value is for difference in cardiovascular SOFA between alternative and standard therapy|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.268
91080930|NCT00386425|182046990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.082||95.0||||p-value is for difference in respiratory SOFA between alternative and standard therapy|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.082
91080931|NCT00386425|182046990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.367||95.0||||p-value is for difference in renal SOFA between alternative and standard therapy|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.367
91080932|NCT00386425|182046990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.274||95.0||||p-value is for difference in hematology SOFA between alternative and standard therapy|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.274
91080933|NCT00386425|182046990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.341||95.0||||p-value is for difference in liver SOFA between alternative and standard therapy|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.341
91080934|NCT00386425|182046992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||p-value is for difference between participants normalizing protein C and not normalizing protein C.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
91080935|NCT00386425|182046993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.622||95.0||||p-value is for 28-Day Mortality, Dead at Day 28 vs. Alive at Day 28|Pearson's chi-square test|||||||0.622
91080936|NCT00386425|182046993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.815||95.0||||p-value is for Hospital Mortality|Fisher Exact|||||||0.815
91080937|NCT03782974|182046996|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.104|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.37||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||It was calculated that 138 participants randomized in a 1:1 ratio between the 2 arms would have a least 90% power to detect a difference of a big effect size between Proglucamune Treatment and Placebo from baseline to week 12.||-0.37|-0.77|<0.0001
91080938|NCT03782974|182046997|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.59||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Chi-squared|||It was calculated that 138 participants randomized in a 1:1 ratio between the 2 arms would have a least 90% power to detect a difference of a big effect size between Proglucamune Treatment and Placebo from baseline to week 12.||0.59|0.10|<0.0001
90892190|NCT02962908|181649363|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.58|||||||Chi squared or Fisher's exact test|||Comparison of CD8+ CD107a responders on day 180. Differences considered significant if p-value \<0.05.||||0.58
90892191|NCT02962908|181649363|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.43|||||||Chi squared or Fisher's exact test|||Comparison of CD8+ CD107a responders on day 180. Differences considered significant if p-value \<0.05.||||0.43
91080939|NCT03782974|182046998|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|6.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.93|8.77||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||It was calculated that 138 participants randomized in a 1:1 ratio between the 2 arms would have a least 90% power to detect a difference of a big effect size between Proglucamune Treatment and Placebo from baseline to week 12.||8.77|3.93|<0.001
91080940|NCT03782974|182046999|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|4.049|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|7.01||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||It was calculated that 138 participants randomized in a 1:1 ratio between the 2 arms would have a least 90% power to detect a difference of a big effect size between Proglucamune Treatment and Placebo from baseline to week 12.||7.01|1.08|<0.05
91080941|NCT03782974|182047000|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.6
91080942|NCT03782974|182047001|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.054||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||It was calculated that 138 participants randomized in a 1:1 ratio between the 2 arms would have a least 90% power to detect a difference of a big effect size between Proglucamune Treatment and Placebo from baseline to week 12.||||0.054
91080943|NCT03782974|182047002|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||It was calculated that 138 participants randomized in a 1:1 ratio between the 2 arms would have a least 90% power to detect a difference of a big effect size between Proglucamune Treatment and Placebo from baseline to week 12.||||0.13
91080944|NCT03782974|182047003|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.102|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.56||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||It was calculated that 138 participants randomized in a 1:1 ratio between the 2 arms would have a least 90% power to detect a difference of a big effect size between Proglucamune Treatment and Placebo from baseline to week 12.||-0.56|-0.96|<0.0001
91080945|NCT01907217|182047004|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The prespecified noninferiority margin was no more than a -4 point difference at the end of treatment between the bilateral and unilateral groups.~The predicted difference at the end of treatment was 1.08 (95% confidence interval \[CI\] = -1.67 to 3.84."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.08|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|3.84||Primary statistical analysis was assessment of difference in HAM-D scores between arms at end-of-treatment, supplemented by 95% CIs and this interval compared with the pre-specified noninferiority threshold (-4 points). The p-value was calculated.|Regression, Linear|A regression model was fitted to end-of-treatment HAM-D measures, with baseline HAM-D scores, trial arm, randomization stratifiers as covariates.|The prespecified noninferiority margin was no more than a -4-point difference at the end of treatment between bitemporal and unilateral groups. The predicted difference at the end of treatment was 1.08 (95% confidence interval \[CI\]=-1.67 to 3.84).|Based on a large bitemporal ECT series, we estimated that 69 patients were required per group to have 80% power to demonstrate, using a one-sided equivalence t test at 5% level, that the mean reduction in the 24-item HAM-D score following high-dose unilateral ECT was no more than 4 points (i.e., equivalent to 3 points on the 17-item HAM-D, deemed to be clinically relevant \[30\]) less than that achieved using bitemporal ECT.||3.84|-1.67|<0.05
91080946|NCT01907217|182047005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.66||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.85||As above|generalized linear models with a binomia|||"The AMI-SF at end of treatment was analyzed using generalized linear models with a binomial distribution and logit-link. Post treatment AMI-SF measures provide the number of baseline items recalled after ECT; such number of items recalled variables were therefore modeled as arising from binomial distributions, with maximum number of possible recalls set to the number of items obtained at baseline."||0.85|0.51|0.001
91080947|NCT01907217|182047006|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.78|||Regression, Linear|Analyzed using a generalized linear models with a binomial distribution and logit-link.||||0.78|0.45|0.001
91080948|NCT01907217|182047007|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.79|||Regression, Linear|generalized linear models with a binomial distribution and logit-link||||0.79|0.45|0.001
91080949|NCT03704948|182047008|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.82|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
91080950|NCT04607980|182047011|EQUIVALENCE|Clinical equivalence of the primary endpoint was evaluated by comparing the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the mean difference of PASI percent improvement from Baseline to Week 12 between ABP 654 versus (vs) ustekinumab with an equivalence margin of (-15, +15).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.16|3.43||||||Multiple imputation was applied for the point estimate and CI of the mean difference between the 2 groups.||3.43|-3.16|
91080951|NCT04607980|182047012|EQUIVALENCE|The mean differences and 95% CIs of PASI percent improvement between the initial randomized groups (ABP 654 vs ustekinumab) at other scheduled visits was estimated using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model adjusted for baseline PASI value, and the stratification factors of prior biologic use for psoriasis, baseline BW group, and geographic region.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|5.94||||||"Week 4: Treatment Group A vs Treatment Group B.~LOCF imputation was used."||5.94|-2.05|
91080952|NCT04607980|182047012|EQUIVALENCE|The mean differences and 95% CIs of PASI percent improvement between the initial randomized groups (ABP 654 vs ustekinumab) at other scheduled visits was estimated using ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline PASI value, and the stratification factors of prior biologic use for psoriasis, baseline BW group, and geographic region.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.97|3.31||||||"Week 16: Treatment Group A vs Treatment Group B.~LOCF imputation was used."||3.31|-2.97|
91080953|NCT04607980|182047012|EQUIVALENCE|The mean differences and 95% CIs of PASI percent improvement between the initial randomized groups (ABP 654 vs ustekinumab) at other scheduled visits was estimated using ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline PASI value, and the stratification factors of prior biologic use for psoriasis, baseline BW group, and geographic region.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|4.07||||||"Week 28: Treatment Group A vs Treatment Group B.~LOCF imputation was used."||4.07|-1.39|
91080954|NCT04607980|182047012|EQUIVALENCE|The mean differences and 95% CIs of PASI percent improvement between the dose intensification groups (ABP 654 vs ustekinumab) at other scheduled visits was estimated using ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline PASI value, and the stratification factors of prior biologic use for psoriasis, baseline BW group, and geographic region.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.46|7.98||||||"Week 36: Treatment Group A vs Treatment Group B.~Observed data was used."||7.98|-5.46|
91080955|NCT04607980|182047012|EQUIVALENCE|The mean differences and 95% CIs of PASI percent improvement between the dose intensification groups (ABP 654 vs ustekinumab) at other scheduled visits was estimated using ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline PASI value, and the stratification factors of prior biologic use for psoriasis, baseline BW group, and geographic region.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.71|3.28||||||"Week 44: Treatment Group A vs Treatment Group B.~Observed data was used."||3.28|-10.71|
91080956|NCT04607980|182047012|EQUIVALENCE|The mean differences and 95% CIs of PASI percent improvement between the dose intensification groups (ABP 654 vs ustekinumab) at other scheduled visits was estimated using ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline PASI value, and the stratification factors of prior biologic use for psoriasis, baseline BW group, and geographic region.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.45|7.13||||||"Week 52: Treatment Group A vs Treatment Group B.~Observed data was used."||7.13|-8.45|
91080957|NCT04607980|182047012|EQUIVALENCE|The differences for the mean percent change from baseline and the corresponding CIs were for ABP 654/ABP 654 minus ustekinumab/ustekinumab. Estimated using ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline PASI value, and the stratification factors of prior biologic use for psoriasis, baseline BW group, and geographic region.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.42|0.59||||||"Week 40: ABP 654 vs Ustekinumab.~LOCF imputation was used."||0.59|-3.42|
90892192|NCT02962908|181649364|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.25|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of responders determined by MIMOSA analysis of CD4+ T-cell producing IFN-gamma at day 42||||0.25
90892193|NCT02962908|181649364|OTHER|inequality test||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of responders determined by MIMOSA analysis of CD4+ T-cell producing TNF-alpha at day 42||||1.0
90892194|NCT02962908|181649364|OTHER|inequality test||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of responders determined by MIMOSA analysis of CD4+ T-cell producing IL-2 at day 42||||1.00
90892195|NCT02962908|181649364|OTHER|inequality test||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of responders determined by MIMOSA analysis of CD4+ T-cell producing CD107a at day 42||||1.00
90892196|NCT02962908|181649364|OTHER|inequality test|||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of responders determined by MIMOSA analysis of CD4+ T-cell producing IFN-gamma at day 42||||<0.001
90892197|NCT02962908|181649364|OTHER|inequality test|||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of responders determined by MIMOSA analysis of CD4+ T-cell producing TNF-alpha at day 42||||<0.001
91080958|NCT04607980|182047012|EQUIVALENCE|The differences for the mean percent change from baseline and the corresponding CIs were for ustekinumab/ABP 654 minus ustekinumab/ustekinumab. Estimated using ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline PASI value, and the stratification factors of prior biologic use for psoriasis, baseline BW group, and geographic region.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.17|1.48||||||"Week 40: Ustekinumab/ABP 654 vs Ustekinumab.~LOCF imputation was used."||1.48|-3.17|
91080959|NCT04607980|182047012|EQUIVALENCE|The differences for the mean percent change from baseline and the corresponding CIs were for ABP 654/ABP 654 minus ustekinumab/ustekinumab. Estimated using ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline PASI value, and the stratification factors of prior biologic use for psoriasis, baseline BW group, and geographic region.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.29|2.17||||||"Week 52: ABP 654 vs Ustekinumab.~LOCF imputation was used."||2.17|-3.29|
91080960|NCT04607980|182047012|EQUIVALENCE|The differences for the mean percent change from baseline and the corresponding CIs were for ustekinumab/ABP 654 minus ustekinumab/ustekinumab. Estimated using ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline PASI value, and the stratification factors of prior biologic use for psoriasis, baseline BW group, and geographic region.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.46|3.86||||||"Week 52: Ustekinumab/ABP 654 vs Ustekinumab.~LOCF imputation was used."||3.86|-2.46|
91080961|NCT04607980|182047013|EQUIVALENCE|Response difference (ABP 654 - ustekinumab) was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate, and the 95% CIs were estimated by the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors of prior biologic use for psoriasis, baseline BW group, and geographic region.|Response difference|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.02|6.42||||||"Week 4: Treatment Group A vs Treatment Group B.~NRI was used."||6.42|-4.02|
91103656|NCT01421459|182094199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.393||95.0||||P-value is for ITSQ Total Score at 4 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.393
91103657|NCT01421459|182094199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.296||95.0||||P-value is for ITSQ Total Score at 12 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.296
91080962|NCT04607980|182047013|EQUIVALENCE|Response difference (ABP 654 - ustekinumab) was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate, and the 95% CIs were estimated by the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors of prior biologic use for psoriasis, baseline BW group, and geographic region.|Response difference|-0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.87|7.23||||||"Week 12: Treatment Group A vs Treatment Group B.~NRI was used."||7.23|-7.87|
91080963|NCT04607980|182047013|EQUIVALENCE|Response difference (ABP 654 - ustekinumab) was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate, and the 95% CIs were estimated by the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors of prior biologic use for psoriasis, baseline BW group, and geographic region.|Response difference|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.75|7.37||||||"Week 16: Treatment Group A vs Treatment Group B.~NRI was used."||7.37|-5.75|
91080964|NCT04607980|182047013|EQUIVALENCE|Response difference (ABP 654 - ustekinumab) was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate, and the 95% CIs were estimated by the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors of prior biologic use for psoriasis, baseline BW group, and geographic region.|Response difference|3.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.37|9.84||||||"Week 28: Treatment Group A vs Treatment Group B.~NRI was used."||9.84|-2.37|
91080965|NCT04607980|182047013|EQUIVALENCE|Response difference in dose intensification participants (ABP 654 - ustekinumab) was estimated by the generalized linear model adjusted for the baseline PASI and the stratification factors with an identity link was used to obtain the point estimate and 95% CI for the risk difference of PASI 75 response rate at each scheduled timepoint.|Response difference|-3.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.15|21.76||||||"Week 36: Treatment Group A vs Treatment Group B.~Observed data was used."||21.76|-28.15|
91080966|NCT04607980|182047013|EQUIVALENCE|Response difference (ABP 654/ABP 654 - ustekinumab/ustekinumab) was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate, and the 95% CIs were estimated by the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors of prior biologic use for psoriasis, baseline BW group, and geographic region.|Response difference|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.74|7.54||||||"Week 40: ABP 654 vs Ustekinumab.~NRI was used."||7.54|-3.74|
91080967|NCT04607980|182047013|EQUIVALENCE|Response difference (ustekinumab/ABP 654 - ustekinumab/ustekinumab) was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate, and the 95% CIs were estimated by the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors of prior biologic use for psoriasis, baseline BW group, and geographic region.|Response difference|1.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.89|8.39||||||"Week 40: Ustekinumab/ABP 654 vs Ustekinumab.~NRI was used."||8.39|-4.89|
91080968|NCT04607980|182047013|EQUIVALENCE|Response difference (ABP 654/ABP 654 - ustekinumab/ustekinumab) was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate, and the 95% CIs were estimated by the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors of prior biologic use for psoriasis, baseline BW group, and geographic region.|Response difference|-2.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.61|4.41||||||"Week 52: ABP 654 vs Ustekinumab.~NRI was used."||4.41|-8.61|
91080969|NCT04607980|182047013|EQUIVALENCE|Response difference (ustekinumab/ABP 654 - ustekinumab/ustekinumab) was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate, and the 95% CIs were estimated by the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors of prior biologic use for psoriasis, baseline BW group, and geographic region.|Response difference|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.32|7.43||||||"Week 52: Ustekinumab/ABP 654 vs Ustekinumab.~NRI was used."||7.43|-7.32|
91080970|NCT04607980|182047014|EQUIVALENCE|Response difference (ABP 654 - ustekinumab) was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate, and the 95% CIs were estimated by the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors of prior biologic use for psoriasis, baseline BW group, and geographic region.|Response difference|-0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.16|3.21||||||"Week 4: Treatment Group A vs Treatment Group B.~NRI was used."||3.21|-3.16|
91080971|NCT04607980|182047014|EQUIVALENCE|Response difference (ABP 654 - ustekinumab) was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate, and the 95% CIs were estimated by the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors of prior biologic use for psoriasis, baseline BW group, and geographic region.|Response difference|1.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.03|8.18||||||"Week 12: Treatment Group A vs Treatment Group B.~NRI was used."||8.18|-5.03|
91080972|NCT04607980|182047014|EQUIVALENCE|Response difference (ABP 654 - ustekinumab) was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate, and the 95% CIs were estimated by the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors of prior biologic use for psoriasis, baseline BW group, and geographic region.|Response difference|3.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.62|11.17||||||"Week 16: Treatment Group A vs Treatment Group B.~NRI was used."||11.17|-3.62|
91080973|NCT04607980|182047014|EQUIVALENCE|Response difference (ABP 654 - ustekinumab) was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate, and the 95% CIs were estimated by the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors of prior biologic use for psoriasis, baseline BW group, and geographic region.|Response difference|3.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.68|10.78||||||"Week 28: Treatment Group A vs Treatment Group B.~NRI was used."||10.78|-4.68|
91080974|NCT04607980|182047014|EQUIVALENCE|Response difference (ABP 654/ABP 654 - ustekinumab/ustekinumab) was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate, and the 95% CIs were estimated by the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors of prior biologic use for psoriasis, baseline BW group, and geographic region.|Response difference|-1.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.85|8.89||||||"Week 40: ABP 654 vs Ustekinumab.~NRI was used."||8.89|-12.85|
91080975|NCT04607980|182047014|EQUIVALENCE|Response difference (ustekinumab/ABP 654 - ustekinumab/ustekinumab) was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate, and the 95% CIs were estimated by the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors of prior biologic use for psoriasis, baseline BW group, and geographic region.|Response difference|-4.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.39|7.73||||||"Week 40: Ustekinumab/ABP 654 vs Ustekinumab.~NRI was used."||7.73|-17.39|
91080976|NCT04607980|182047014|EQUIVALENCE|Response difference (ABP 654/ABP 654 - ustekinumab/ustekinumab) was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate, and the 95% CIs were estimated by the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors of prior biologic use for psoriasis, baseline BW group, and geographic region.|Response difference|2.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.42|13.3||||||"Week 52: ABP 654 vs Ustekinumab.~NRI was used."||13.30|-8.42|
91080977|NCT04607980|182047014|EQUIVALENCE|Response difference (ustekinumab/ABP 654 - ustekinumab/ustekinumab) was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate, and the 95% CIs were estimated by the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors of prior biologic use for psoriasis, baseline BW group, and geographic region.|Response difference|-2.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.91|10.19||||||"Week 52: Ustekinumab/ABP 654 vs Ustekinumab.~NRI was used."||10.19|-14.91|
91080978|NCT04607980|182047015|EQUIVALENCE|Response difference (ABP 654 - ustekinumab) was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate, and the 95% CIs were estimated by the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors of prior biologic use for psoriasis, baseline BW group, and geographic region.|Response difference|2.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.65|10.71||||||"Week 12: Treatment Group A vs Treatment Group B.~NRI was used."||10.71|-5.65|
91080979|NCT04607980|182047015|EQUIVALENCE|Response difference (ABP 654/ABP 654 - ustekinumab/ustekinumab) was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate, and the 95% CIs were estimated by the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors of prior biologic use for psoriasis, baseline BW group, and geographic region.|Response difference|-6.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.41|3.29||||||"Week 52: ABP 654 vs Ustekinumab.~NRI was used."||3.29|-15.41|
91080980|NCT04607980|182047015|EQUIVALENCE|Response difference (ustekinumab/ABP 654 - ustekinumab/ustekinumab) was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate, and the 95% CIs were estimated by the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors of prior biologic use for psoriasis, baseline BW group, and geographic region.|Response difference|-7.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.41|3.74||||||"Week 52: ABP 654/Ustekinumab vs Ustekinumab.~NRI was used."||3.74|-18.41|
91080981|NCT04607980|182047016|EQUIVALENCE|Mean difference estimated for treatment group A and treatment group B using ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline BSA value, and the stratification factors of prior biologic use for psoriasis, baseline BW group, and geographic region.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|2.1||||||"Week 12: Treatment Group A vs Treatment Group B.~LOCF imputation was used."||2.10|-1.15|
91080982|NCT04607980|182047016|EQUIVALENCE|Mean difference estimated in dose intensification participants (treatment group A and treatment group B) using ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline BSA value, and the stratification factors of prior biologic use for psoriasis, baseline BW group, and geographic region.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|3.67||||||"Week 52: Treatment Group A vs Treatment Group B.~Observed data was used."||3.67|-0.90|
91080983|NCT04607980|182047016|EQUIVALENCE|Mean difference estimated for ABP 654/ ABP 654 and ustekinumab/ ustekinumab using ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline BSA value, and the stratification factors of prior biologic use for psoriasis, baseline BW group, and geographic region.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.74||||||"Week 52: ABP 654 vs Ustekinumab.~LOCF imputation was used."||0.74|-0.99|
91080984|NCT04607980|182047016|EQUIVALENCE|Mean difference estimated for ustekinumab/ABP 654 and ustekinumab/ ustekinumab using ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline BSA value, and the stratification factors of prior biologic use for psoriasis, baseline BW group, and geographic region.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.1||||||"Week 52: Ustekinumab/ABP 654 vs Ustekinumab.~LOCF imputation was used."||1.10|-0.90|
91080985|NCT00136214|182047027|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Within group comparison of IFN group for metabolites in basal ganglia Comparison on MR spectroscopy of Cho/Cr at time points 1,2 and 3||||0.08
91080986|NCT00136214|182047027|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Within group comparison of IFN group for metabolites in basal ganglia Comparison on MR spectroscopy of Mi/Cr at time points 1,2 and 3||||0.3
91080987|NCT00136214|182047027|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Within group comparison of IFN group for metabolites in basal ganglia Comparison on MR spectroscopy of NAA/Cr at time points 1,2 and 3||||0.9
90892198|NCT02962908|181649364|OTHER|inequality test|||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of responders determined by MIMOSA analysis of CD4+ T-cell producing IL2 at day 42||||<0.001
90892199|NCT02962908|181649364|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.31|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of responders determined by MIMOSA analysis of CD4+ T-cell producing CD107a at day 42||||0.31
91080988|NCT00136214|182047027|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Within group comparison of IFN group for metabolites in frontal cortex. Comparison on MR spectroscopy of Cho/Cr at time points 1,2 and 3||||0.7
91080989|NCT00136214|182047027|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Within group comparison of IFN group for metabolites in frontal cortex. Comparison on MR spectroscopy of MI/Cr at time points 1,2 and 3||||0.4
91080990|NCT00136214|182047027|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Within group comparison of IFN group for metabolites in frontal cortex. Comparison on MR spectroscopy of NAA/Cr at time points 1,2 and 3||||0.6
91080991|NCT00136214|182047027|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Within group comparison of IFN group for metabolites in DLPFC. Comparison on MR spectroscopy of Cho/Cr at time points 1,2 and 3||||0.3
91080992|NCT00136214|182047027|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Within group comparison of IFN group for metabolites in DLPFC. Comparison on MR spectroscopy ofMI/Cr at time points 1,2 and 3||||0.3
91080993|NCT00136214|182047027|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Within group comparison of IFN group for metabolites in DLPFC. Comparison on MR spectroscopy of NAA/Cr at time points 1,2 and 3||||0.3
91080994|NCT00136214|182047027|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Within group comparison of control group for metabolites in Basal ganglia. Comparison on MR spectroscopy of Cho/Cr at time points 1 and 2||||0.4
91080995|NCT00136214|182047027|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Within group comparison of control group for metabolites in Basal ganglia. Comparison on MR spectroscopy of MI/Cr at time points 1 and 2||||0.9
91080996|NCT00136214|182047027|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Within group comparison of control group for metabolites in Basal ganglia. Comparison on MR spectroscopy of NAA/Cr at time points 1 and 2||||0.6
91080997|NCT00136214|182047027|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Within group comparison of control group for metabolites in frontal cortex. Comparison on MR spectroscopy of Cho/Cr at time points 1 and 2||||0.7
91080998|NCT00136214|182047027|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Within group comparison of control group for metabolites in frontal cortex. Comparison on MR spectroscopy of MI/Cr at time points 1 and 2||||0.1
91080999|NCT00136214|182047027|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Within group comparison of control group for metabolites in frontal cortex. Comparison on MR spectroscopy of NAA/Cr at time points 1 and 2||||0.6
91081000|NCT00136214|182047027|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Within group comparison of control group for metabolites in DLPFC. Comparison on MR spectroscopy of Cho/Cr at time points 1 and 2||||0.5
91081001|NCT00136214|182047027|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Within group comparison of control group for metabolites in DLPFC. Comparison on MR spectroscopy of MI/Cr at time points 1 and 2||||0.4
91081002|NCT00136214|182047027|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Within group comparison of control group for metabolites in DLPFC. Comparison on MR spectroscopy of NAA/Crat time points 1 and 2||||0.9
91081003|NCT00136214|182047028|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between controls and IFN treated at time point 1 on change between scores for HVLT||||>0.05
91081004|NCT00136214|182047028|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between controls and IFN treated at time point 1 on change between scores for ROCF||||< 0.05
91081005|NCT00136214|182047028|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between controls and IFN treated at time point 2 on change between scores for HVLT||||>0.05
91081006|NCT00136214|182047028|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between controls and IFN treated at time point 2 on change between scores for ROCF||||>0.05
91081007|NCT04985942|182047029|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.38|-3.44|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|MMRM Analysis Based on Hypothetical Estimand Strategy||||-3.44|-6.38|<0.0001
91081008|NCT04985942|182047030|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.48|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|MMRM Analysis Based on Hypothetical Estimand Strategy||||-0.48|-0.85|<0.0001
91081009|NCT02757352|182047079|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.36||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|4.51|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.51|1.23|0.009
91081010|NCT02757352|182047079|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.78||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|5.25|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.25|1.48|0.002
91081011|NCT02757352|182047080|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.82||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|5.77|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.77|1.38|0.004
91081012|NCT02757352|182047080|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.85||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|5.77|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.77|1.40|0.004
90892200|NCT02962908|181649364|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.48|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of responders determined by MIMOSA analysis of CD4+ T-cell producing IFN-gamma at day 180||||0.48
90892201|NCT02962908|181649364|OTHER|inequality test||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of responders determined by MIMOSA analysis of CD4+ T-cell producing TNF-alpha at day 180||||1.00
90892202|NCT02962908|181649364|OTHER|inequality test||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of responders determined by MIMOSA analysis of CD4+ T-cell producing IL2 at day 180||||1.00
91081013|NCT02757352|182047081|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.28|-0.81|<0.001
91081014|NCT02757352|182047081|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.134|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.41|-0.94|<0.001
91081015|NCT02757352|182047082|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.179|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.26|-0.96|<0.001
91081016|NCT02757352|182047082|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.178|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.34|-1.05|<0.001
91081017|NCT02757352|182047084|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.8509|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.139||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6092|5.0926|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.0926|0.6092|0.013
91081018|NCT02757352|182047084|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.7497|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1278||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5299|4.9694|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.9694|0.5299|0.015
91081019|NCT02757352|182047085|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.2001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6467||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9525|7.4477|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.4477|0.9525|0.012
91081020|NCT02757352|182047085|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.6081|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6455||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3629|7.8533|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.8533|1.3629|0.006
91081021|NCT02757352|182047086|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.73||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|5.76|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.76|1.30|0.008
91081022|NCT02757352|182047086|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|7.08|||Regression, Logistic|||||7.08|1.66|<0.001
91081023|NCT02757352|182047087|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|10.41|||Regression, Logistic|||||10.41|2.02|<0.001
91081024|NCT02757352|182047087|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.76|9.05|||Regression, Logistic|||||9.05|1.76|<0.001
91081025|NCT02757352|182047088|SUPERIORITY||LS Means Square Difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.308||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|-0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.06|-1.28|0.031
91081026|NCT02757352|182047088|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.305||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|-0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.41|-1.61|0.001
91081027|NCT02757352|182047089|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.404||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.92|-0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.33|-1.92|0.006
91081028|NCT02757352|182047089|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.404||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.08|-0.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.49|-2.08|0.002
91081029|NCT02757352|182047090|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.764|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.58|-1.57|||ANCOVA|||||-1.57|-4.58|<0.001
91081030|NCT02757352|182047090|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.751|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.68|-2.72|||ANCOVA|||||-2.72|-5.68|<0.001
91081031|NCT02757352|182047091|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.621||0.849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|1.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.11|-1.35|0.849
91081032|NCT02757352|182047091|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.608||0.648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|0.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.93|-1.48|0.648
91081033|NCT02757352|182047092|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.443||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|-0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.18|-1.93|0.018
91081034|NCT02757352|182047092|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.442||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|-0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.31|-2.05|0.008
91081035|NCT02757352|182047093|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.33||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|96.0|1.47|19.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||19.40|1.47|0.0011
91081036|NCT02757352|182047093|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.22||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|15.66|||Regression, Logistic|||||15.66|1.14|0.031
91081037|NCT02757352|182047094|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.807|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8507||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.418|1.804|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.804|-9.418|0.183
91081038|NCT02757352|182047094|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.743|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8202||0.331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.294|2.807|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.807|-8.294|0.331
91081039|NCT02757352|182047095|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.148||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.10|-0.69|0.008
91081040|NCT02757352|182047095|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.148||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.02|-0.60|0.038
91081041|NCT02757352|182047096|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.325||0.871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.70|-0.59|0.871
91081042|NCT02757352|182047096|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.327||0.295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.99|-0.30|0.295
91081043|NCT02757352|182047097|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.406||0.257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.34|-1.26|0.257
91081044|NCT02757352|182047097|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.402||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.02|-1.56|0.057
91081045|NCT02757352|182047098|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.496||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.11|-1.85|0.082
91081046|NCT02757352|182047098|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.493||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.13|-1.82|0.088
91081047|NCT02757352|182047099|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.442||0.219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.66|1.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||TJC||1.09|-4.66|0.219
90892203|NCT02962908|181649364|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.59|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of responders determined by MIMOSA analysis of CD4+ T-cell producing CD107a at day 180||||0.59
90892204|NCT02962908|181649364|OTHER|inequality test|||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of responders determined by MIMOSA analysis of CD4+ T-cell producing IFN-gamma at day 180||||<0.001
90892205|NCT02962908|181649364|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.013|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of responders determined by MIMOSA analysis of CD4+ T-cell producing TNF-alpha at day 180||||0.013
91081048|NCT02757352|182047099|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.388||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|-0.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||TJC||-0.76|-6.30|0.013
91081049|NCT02757352|182047099|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.355||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|-0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||SJC||-0.26|-1.68|0.009
91081050|NCT02757352|182047099|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.348||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|-0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||SJC||-0.06|-1.46|0.034
91081051|NCT02757352|182047101|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.5|-1.5|0.325
91081052|NCT02757352|182047101|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.4|-1.6|0.206
91081053|NCT02757352|182047102|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.601||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.60|-1.77|0.330
91081054|NCT02757352|182047102|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.602||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.22|-2.15|0.110
91081055|NCT02757352|182047103|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.8|-2.4|0.348
91081056|NCT02757352|182047103|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.9|-2.3|0.386
91081057|NCT02757352|182047104|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-13.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.835||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.32|-4.2|||ANCOVA|||Overall Impairment Score||-4.20|-23.32|0.005
91081058|NCT02757352|182047104|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.697||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.58|3.0|||ANCOVA|||Overall Impairment Score||3.00|-15.58|0.183
91081059|NCT02757352|182047104|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.114||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.05|0.26|||ANCOVA|||Percentage of absenteeism||0.26|-12.05|0.060
91081060|NCT02757352|182047104|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.098||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.27|1.97|||ANCOVA|||Percentage of absenteeism||1.97|-10.27|0.182
91081061|NCT02757352|182047104|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-13.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.558||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.62|-4.6|||ANCOVA|||Percentage of presentism||-4.60|-22.62|0.003
91081062|NCT02757352|182047104|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.446||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|2.58|||ANCOVA|||Percentage of presentism||2.58|-15.00|0.164
91081063|NCT02757352|182047104|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-10.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.669||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.85|-3.41|||LS Mean Difference|||Percentage of Impairment in Activities Performed Outside of Work||-3.41|-17.85|0.004
91081064|NCT02757352|182047104|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.621||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.12|-2.86|||ANCOVA|||Percentage of Impairment in Activities Performed Outside of Work||-2.86|-17.12|0.006
91081065|NCT01212159|182047129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.391|TWO_SIDED|||||Comparison of mean reduction in LDL cholesterol between no monitor (control) and monitor (intervention) groups|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test analysis of 6 month change in LDL cholesterol for no monitor and self monitor groups Independent sample t-test to compare ldl change between groups||||0.391
91081066|NCT01088711|182047147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|90.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.7|99.37|||Difference in geometric means (GMs)|||||99.37|82.70|
91081067|NCT01088711|182047149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric least-squares means|1.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.55|2.38|||||GMR is ratio of active GLP-1 levels in omarigliptin:placebo groups.|||2.38|1.55|
91081068|NCT01088711|182047150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric least-squares means|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.72|1.17|||||GMR is ratio of total GLP-1 levels in omarigliptin:placebo groups.|||1.17|0.72|
91081069|NCT01240902|182047152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier|26.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.3|30.1|||z-test, 1 sided||Kaplan-Meier Event Rate Greenwood Standard Error|TAVR with the Medtronic CoreValve System meets the Performance Goal in the 12 month rate of all-cause mortality or major stroke H0: = πMCS TAVI ≥ 43.0% HA: = πMCS TAVI \< 43.0% In the above expressions πMCS TAVI denotes the rate of all-cause mortality or major stroke during a fixed follow-up of 1 year.||30.1|22.3|<0.0001
91081070|NCT01240902|182047152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier|39.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Kaplan-Meier Event Rate Greenwood Standard Error|No performance goal created, only descriptive statistics are provided.||||
91081071|NCT01240902|182047152|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The 12 month all-cause mortality estimated rate was 20% for each group with a noninferiority margin of 7.5 percentage points. Assuming a 1:1 ratio in the treatment assignments, we estimated that a total of 355 patients were required in each group for the study to have power of 80% at a one-sided alpha level of 0.05. Accounting for a 10% loss to follow-up, we calculated that we would need to enroll 790 patients.|||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||z-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
91081072|NCT01240902|182047153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1033|TWO_SIDED|||||Hierarchical test item #5, MACCE at 30 days or hospital discharge; whichever was longer. K-M rates TAVR 8.21%, SAVR 10.93%, Difference -2.73%, Standard Error 2.16%, and Upper 95% CI 1.5%.|Kaplan-Meier Point Estimate|Using Greenwood formula||"Powered Secondary Hypothesis: TAVR with the Medtronic CoreValve System was superior to SAVR in binary rate of MACCE at 30 days or hospital discharge, whichever was longer:~H0: πMCS TAVR = πSAVR HA: πMCS TAVR \< πSAVR In the above expression πMCS TAVR and πSAVR denoted rates of MACCE at 30 days or hospital discharge, whichever was longer.~Assumptions:~1:1 treatment allocation ratio One-sided alpha=0.025 SAVR = 20.0% MCS TAVI = 12.1% Power = \>80%"||||0.1033
91081073|NCT01240902|182047157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.9|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Hierarchical test item #3, change from baseline to 1 year.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change in NYHA classification from baseline to 1 year from secondary objective #5. The paired t-test will be used to test the null hypothesis that the mean paired difference is zero versus the two-sided alternative that the mean is not zero.||||<0.0001
91081074|NCT01240902|182047157|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority margin= 0.375. For subjects with NYHA categories at both baseline and 1 year visit, the NYHA classification improvements were calculated as NYHAbaseline - NYHA1year.|||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Hierarchical test item #3, change from baseline to 1 year.|t-test, 1 sided|||"Change in NYHA classification from baseline to 1 year: TAVR vs. SAVR from secondary objective #5. The one-sided two-sample t-test was used to test non-inferiority at a level 0.05 the hypotheses:~H0: µ MCS TAVR ≤ µ SAVR -0.375 HA: µ MCS TAVR \> µ SAVR -0.375 In the above expression µ MCS TAVR and µ SAVR denoted the mean number of classification improvements in NYHA from baseline to 1 year."||||<0.0001
91081075|NCT01240902|182047160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Hierarchical test item #4|t-test, 2 sided|||Change in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) score from baseline to 1 year from secondary objective #8. The paired t-test will be used to test the null hypothesis that the mean paired difference is zero versus the two-sided alternative that the mean is not zero.||||<0.0001
91081076|NCT01240902|182047160|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority margin 5||||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|||||Hierarchical test item #4|t-test, 1 sided|||"Change in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) score from baseline to 1 year: TAVR vs. SAVR from secondary objective #8. The one-sided two-sample t-test was used to test non-inferiority at a level 0.05 the hypotheses:~H0: µ MCS TAVR ≤ µ SAVR -5 HA: µ MCS TAVR \> µ SAVR -5 In the above expression µ MCS TAVR and µ SAVR denoted the mean improvements in the KCCQ score from baseline to 1 year."||||0.0063
91081077|NCT01240902|182047160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Hierarchical test item #6. Item #5 failed, therefore, item #6 also fails. Nominal p- value provided.|t-test, 2 sided|||"Change in SF-12 Physical Summary Scale from baseline to 30 days: TAVR vs. SAVR from secondary objective #8. The two-sided two-sample t-test was used to test at a level 0.05 the hypotheses:~H0: µ MCS TAVR = µ SAVR HA: µ MCS TAVR ≠ µ SAVR In the above expression µ MCS TAVR and µ SAVR denoted the mean improvements in the SF-12 Physical Summary Scale from baseline to 30 days."||||<0.0001
91081078|NCT01240902|182047161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Hierarchical test item #2|t-test, 2 sided|||"EOA:~Change in effective orifice area from Baseline to 1 year from secondary objective #9. The paired t-test will be used to test the null hypothesis that the mean paired difference is zero versus the two-sided alternative that the mean is not zero."||||<0.0001
91081079|NCT01240902|182047161|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority margin 0.375|||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Hierarchical test item #2|t-test, 1 sided|||"EOA:~Change in effective orifice area from Baseline to 1 year: TAVR vs.SAVR from secondary objective #9. The one-sided two-sample t-test was used to test non-inferiority at a level 0.05 the hypotheses:~H0: µ MCS TAVR ≤ µ SAVR -0.375 HA: µ MCS TAVR \> µ SAVR -0.375 In the above expression µ MCS TAVR and µ SAVR denoted the mean improvements in effective orifice area from Baseline to 1 year measured in cm2."||||<0.0001
90892206|NCT02962908|181649364|OTHER|inequality|||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of responders determined by MIMOSA analysis of CD4+ T-cell producing IL2 at day 180||||<0.001
90892207|NCT02962908|181649364|OTHER|inequality test||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of responders determined by MIMOSA analysis of CD4+ T-cell producing CD107a at day 180||||1.00
90892208|NCT02962908|181649364|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.55|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of responders determined by MIMOSA analysis of CD8+ T-cell producing IFN-gamma at day 42||||0.55
90892209|NCT02962908|181649364|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.55|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of responders determined by MIMOSA analysis of CD8+ T-cell producing IFN-gamma at day 42||||0.55
90892210|NCT02962908|181649364|OTHER|inequality test||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of responders determined by MIMOSA analysis of CD8+ T-cell producing TNF-alpha at day 42||||1.00
91081080|NCT01240902|182047162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Hierarchical test item #1|t-test, 2 sided|||"Transvalvular Mean Gradient:~Change in transvalvular mean gradient from baseline to 1 year from secondary objective #9. The paired t-test will be used to test the null hypothesis that the mean paired difference is zero versus the two-sided alternative that the mean is not zero."||||<0.0001
91081081|NCT01240902|182047162|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority margin 15|||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Hierarchical test item #1|t-test, 1 sided|||"Transvalvular Mean Gradient:~Change in transvalvular mean gradient from baseline to 1 year: TAVR vs.SAVR from secondary objective #9. The one-sided two-sample t-test was used to test non-inferiority at a level of 0.05 the hypotheses: H0: μ MCS TAVR ≤ μ SAVR -15 HA: μ MCS TAVR \> μ SAVR -15 In the above expression μ MCS TAVR and μ SAVR denoted the mean improvements in mean gradient from Baseline to 1 year measured in mmHg."||||<0.0001
91081082|NCT03543176|182047176|OTHER|||||||0.448||||||P-value for low impact of COPD is presented|Fisher Exact|||||||0.448
91081083|NCT03543176|182047176|OTHER|||||||0.033||||||P-value for medium impact of COPD is presented|Fisher Exact|||||||0.033
91081084|NCT03543176|182047176|OTHER|||||||0.172||||||P-value for high impact of COPD is presented|Fisher Exact|||||||0.172
91081085|NCT03543176|182047176|OTHER|||||||0.01||||||P-value for very high impact of COPD is presented|Fisher Exact|||||||0.010
91081086|NCT03543176|182047177|OTHER|||||||0.176||||||P-value for breathlessness reported in COPD assessed using mMRC is presented|Fisher Exact|||||||0.176
91081087|NCT03543176|182047178|OTHER|||||||0.732||||||P-value for Baseline comorbidity burden score was calculated.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.732
91081088|NCT03543176|182047179|OTHER|||||||0.013||||||P-value for count of unique medications was calculated.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.013
91081089|NCT03543176|182047180|OTHER|||||||0.178||||||P-value for total number of medications dispensing was calculated.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.178
91081090|NCT03543176|182047186|OTHER|||||||0.692||||||P-value for count of unique COPD medications was calculated|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.692
91081091|NCT03543176|182047187|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value for total number of COPD medications dispensing was calculated|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91081092|NCT01267929|182047195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.14||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|6.5||Statistical analysis was conducted using STATA. Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) was used to compare mean score of GMFM at the second month between two groups.|ANCOVA|||A sample size of 30 children, 15 for each group, was needed to obtain 80% power at 0.05 level of significance (two-sided) to test that the successful event rate (increasing GMFM scores at least 30% from baseline at the end of 2 months) in experimental group and control group of 0.3 and 0.8 respectively. The mean changes of GMFM total scores in the experimental group at the second month compared to those in the control group after adjusted for the baseline level.||6.5|-2.3|0.34
91081093|NCT01267929|182047195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|4.7||Statistical analysis was conducted using STATA. Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) was used to compare mean score of GMFM at the sixth month between two groups.|ANCOVA|||A sample size of 30 children, 15 for each group, was needed to obtain 80% power at 0.05 level of significance (two-sided) to test that the successful event rate (increasing GMFM scores at least 30% from baseline at the end of 2 months) in experimental group and control group of 0.3 and 0.8 respectively. The mean changes of GMFM total scores in the experimental group at the sixth month compared to those in the control group after adjusted for the baseline level.||4.7|-6.3|0.78
91081094|NCT02085070|182047222|SUPERIORITY|A response of \> 10% of patients was defined as superior.|% response|29.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.9|47.0||||||Each group was assessed individually. The primary goal of this study is to determine the efficacy of MK-3475 in patients with untreated brain metastases from NSCLC. The primary endpoint is the brain metastasis response rate (BMRR). A drug with minimal activity would be expected to have a BMRR of 10%.||47.0|15.9|
90892211|NCT02962908|181649364|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.29|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of responders determined by MIMOSA analysis of CD8+ T-cell producing IFN-gamma at day 180||||0.29
90892212|NCT02962908|181649364|OTHER|inequality test||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of responders determined by MIMOSA analysis of CD8+ T-cell producing TNF-alpha at day 180||||1.00
91081095|NCT02085070|182047222|SUPERIORITY|A response of \> 10% of patients was defined as superior.|% of patients|26.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|48.0||||||Each group was assessed individually. The primary goal of this study is to determine the efficacy of MK-3475 in patients with untreated brain metastases from melanoma. The primary endpoint is the brain metastasis response rate (BMRR). A drug with minimal activity would be expected to have a BMRR of 10%.||48.0|10.0|
91081096|NCT02815267|182047231|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|4.88|||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline in inflammatory lesion count was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model, which included treatment, Baseline inflammatory lesion count and pooled investigational site as a blocking factor.||4.88|0.72|0.0083
91081097|NCT02815267|182047232|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.48||0.1805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|8.19||P-value is for the null hypothesis that the combined risk difference equals 0.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||8.19|-1.54|0.1805
91081098|NCT02815267|182047233|SUPERIORITY|Percent change from baseline was analyzed using an ANCOVA model, which included treatment, baseline non-inflammatory lesion counts and pooled investigational site as a blocking factor. For the superiority comparison between FMX101 4% and vehicle.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.42||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.07|21.39|||ANCOVA|||||21.39|4.07|0.0040
91081099|NCT02815267|182047234|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline in inflammatory lesion count for Week 6 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model, which included treatment, baseline inflammatory lesion counts and pooled investigational site as a blocking factor.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.85|5.87|||ANCOVA|||||5.87|1.85|0.0002
91081100|NCT02815267|182047234|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline in inflammatory lesion count for Week 9 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model, which included treatment, baseline inflammatory lesion counts and pooled investigational site as a blocking factor.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.38|6.4|||ANCOVA|||||6.40|2.38|<.0001
91081101|NCT02815267|182047235|SUPERIORITY|P-value is for null hypothesis that the combined risk difference equals 0. Percentage of participants achieving IGA treatment success at Week 6|Risk Difference (RD)|2.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32||0.0395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|5.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.3|0.13|0.0395
91081102|NCT02815267|182047235|SUPERIORITY|P-value is for null hypothesis that the combined risk difference equals 0. Percentage of participants achieving IGA treatment success at Week 9.|Risk Difference (RD)|2.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.55||0.0748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|5.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.80|-0.28|0.0748
91081103|NCT03441685|182047259|OTHER|Accuracy identifying taught verbs in syntactic vs semantic condition (receptive)||||||0.73||||||Asymptotic p-value|Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||||||0.73
91081104|NCT03441685|182047259|OTHER|Accuracy identifying taught verbs in syntactic vs semantic condition (receptive)||||||0.69||||||Asymptotic p-value|Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||||||0.69
91081105|NCT03441685|182047259|OTHER|Accuracy identifying taught verbs in syntactic vs semantic condition (receptive)||||||0.79||||||Asymptotic p-value|Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||||||0.79
91081106|NCT03441685|182047259|OTHER|One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test with comparison value of 6.||||||0.002||||||Asymptotic p-value|One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.002
91081107|NCT03441685|182047259|OTHER|One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test with comparison value of 6.||||||0.049||||||Asymptotic p-value|One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.049
91081108|NCT03441685|182047259|OTHER|One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test with comparison value of 6.||||||0.016||||||Asymptotic p-value|One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.016
91081109|NCT03441685|182047260|OTHER|Accuracy identifying taught verbs in semantic vs combined condition (receptive)||||||0.76||||||Asymptotic p-value|Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||||||0.76
91081110|NCT03441685|182047260|OTHER|Accuracy identifying taught verbs in semantic vs combined condition (receptive)||||||0.79||||||Asymptotic p-value|Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||||||0.79
91081111|NCT03441685|182047260|OTHER|Accuracy identifying taught verbs in semantic vs combined condition (receptive)||||||1||||||Asymptotic p-value|Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||||||1.00
91081112|NCT03441685|182047260|OTHER|One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test with comparison value of 6.||||||0.003||||||Asymptotic p-value|One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.003
91081113|NCT03441685|182047260|OTHER|One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test with comparison value of 6.||||||0.029||||||Asymptotic p-value|One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.029
91081114|NCT03441685|182047260|OTHER|One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test with comparison value of 6.||||||0.027||||||Asymptotic p-value|One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.027
91081115|NCT03441685|182047261|OTHER|Accuracy identifying taught verbs in syntactic vs combined condition (receptive)||||||0.72||||||Asymptotic p-value|Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||||||0.72
91081116|NCT03441685|182047261|OTHER|Accuracy identifying taught verbs in syntactic vs combined condition (receptive)||||||0.46||||||Asymptotic p-value|Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||||||0.46
91081117|NCT03441685|182047261|OTHER|Accuracy identifying taught verbs in syntactic vs combined condition (receptive)||||||0.89||||||Asymptotic p-value|Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||||||0.89
91081118|NCT03441685|182047261|OTHER|One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test with comparison value of 6.|||||<|0.001||||||Asymptotic p-value|One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<.001
90892213|NCT02962908|181649364|OTHER|inequality test||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of responders determined by MIMOSA analysis of CD8+ T-cell producing IFN-gamma at day 180||||1.00
90892214|NCT02962908|181649364|OTHER|inequality test||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of responders determined by MIMOSA analysis of CD8+ T-cell producing TNF-alpha at day 180||||1.00
90892215|NCT02962908|181649364|OTHER|inequality test||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of responders determined by MIMOSA analysis of CD8+ T-cell producing CD107a at day 180||||1.00
90892216|NCT02962908|181649365|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.59|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of median fold-increase in IFN-gamma secretion as measured by ELISA on day 42. p\<0.05 considered statistically significant.||||0.59
91081119|NCT03441685|182047261|OTHER|One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test with comparison value of 6.||||||0.018||||||Asymptotic p-value|One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.018
91081120|NCT03441685|182047261|OTHER|One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test with comparison value of 6.||||||0.027||||||Asymptotic p-value|One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.027
91081121|NCT03441685|182047262|OTHER|Accuracy labeling taught verbs in syntactic vs semantic condition (expressive)||||||0.64||||||Asymptotic p-value|Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||||||0.64
91081122|NCT03441685|182047262|OTHER|Accuracy labeling taught verbs in syntactic vs semantic condition (expressive)||||||0.16||||||Asymptotic p-value|Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||||||0.16
91081123|NCT03441685|182047262|OTHER|Accuracy labeling taught verbs in syntactic vs semantic condition (expressive)||||||0.18||||||Asymptotic p-value|Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||||||0.18
91081124|NCT03441685|182047262|OTHER|One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test with comparison value of 0|||||<|0.001||||||Asymptotic p-value|One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<.001
91081125|NCT03441685|182047262|OTHER|One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test with comparison value of 0||||||0.034||||||Asymptotic p-value|One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.034
91081126|NCT03441685|182047262|OTHER|One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test with comparison value of 0||||||0.063||||||Asymptotic p-value|One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.063
91081127|NCT03441685|182047263|OTHER|Accuracy labeling taught verbs in semantic vs combined condition (expressive)||||||0.35||||||Asymptotic p-value|Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||||||0.35
91081128|NCT03441685|182047263|OTHER|Accuracy labeling taught verbs in semantic vs combined condition (expressive)||||||0.18||||||Asymptotic p-value|Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||||||0.18
91081129|NCT03441685|182047263|OTHER|Accuracy labeling taught verbs in semantic vs combined condition (expressive)||||||0.58|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||||||0.58
91081130|NCT03441685|182047263|OTHER|One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test with comparison value of 0||||||0.006||||||Asymptotic p-value|One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.006
91081131|NCT03441685|182047263|OTHER|One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test with comparison value of 0||||||0.02||||||Asymptotic p-value|One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.02
91081132|NCT03441685|182047263|OTHER|One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test with comparison value of 0||||||0.18||||||Asymptotic p-value|One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.18
91081133|NCT03441685|182047264|OTHER|Accuracy labeling taught verbs in syntactic vs combined condition (expressive)||||||0.56||||||Asymptotic p-value|Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||||||0.56
91081134|NCT03441685|182047264|OTHER|Accuracy labeling taught verbs in syntactic vs combined condition (expressive)||||||0.1||||||Asymptotic p-value|Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||||||0.10
91081135|NCT03441685|182047264|OTHER|Accuracy labeling taught verbs in syntactic vs combined condition (expressive)||||||0.71||||||Asymptotic p-value|Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||||||0.71
91081136|NCT03441685|182047264|OTHER|One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test with comparison value of 0|||||<|0.001||||||Asymptotic p-value|One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<.001
91081137|NCT03441685|182047264|OTHER|One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test with comparison value of 0||||||0.024||||||Asymptotic p-value|One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.024
91081138|NCT03441685|182047264|OTHER|One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test with comparison value of 0||||||0.1||||||Asymptotic p-value|One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.10
91081139|NCT00527124|182047268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.907|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2973||0.7428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.506|1.624|||Regression, Cox|||||1.624|0.506|0.7428
91081140|NCT00527124|182047268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.7425
91103658|NCT01421459|182094199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.662||95.0||||P-value is for ITSQ Total Score at Endpoint, up to 24 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.662
91103659|NCT01421459|182094200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.393||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.393
91103660|NCT01421459|182094201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.185||95.0||||P-value is for Insulin Dose at Endpoint, up to 24 weeks.|ANOVA|||||||0.185
91103661|NCT01421459|182094202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.661||95.0||||P-value is for HbA1c \<7% at Baseline.|Chi-squared|||||||0.661
91081141|NCT01796301|182047273|SUPERIORITY|A two-step, step-down, fixed-sequential testing procedure was used to test the primary and key secondary efficacy endpoints for the comparison of romosozumab to teriparatide in the order presented for multiplicity adjustment to maintain the overall significance level at 0.05. The Key Secondary Efficacy Endpoints are the first 8 secondary endpoints reported below.|Treatment difference|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|3.8|||Linear mixed effects repeated measures|||The primary analysis to assess the treatment difference (Romosozumab - Teriparatide) employed a linear mixed effects model for repeated measures. The model included main effects for treatment group, visit (categorical), baseline sCTX, baseline hip DXA BMD value, machine type (categorical), and machine type-by-baseline value interaction (to adjust for the effect of machine type on baseline DXA BMD value) as fixed main effects using an unstructured within-subject variance-covariance structure.||3.8|2.7|< 0.0001
91081142|NCT01796301|182047274|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|3.7|||Linear mixed effects repeated measures|||Treatment difference (Romosozumab - Teriparatide) was analyzed using a linear mixed effects model for repeated measures adjusting for treatment, visit, baseline serum type 1 collagen C-telopeptide value, baseline BMD value, machine type, baseline BMD value-by machine type interaction, treatment-by-visit interaction, and using an unstructured variance covariance structure.||3.7|2.5|< 0.0001
91081143|NCT01796301|182047275|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|4.0|||Linear mixed effects repeated measures|||Treatment difference (Romosozumab - Teriparatide) was analyzed using a linear mixed effects model for repeated measures adjusting for treatment, visit, baseline serum type 1 collagen C-telopeptide value, baseline BMD value, machine type, baseline BMD value-by machine type interaction, treatment-by-visit interaction, and using an unstructured variance covariance structure.||4.0|2.8|< 0.0001
91081144|NCT01796301|182047276|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|4.0|||Linear mixed effects repeated measures|||Treatment difference (Romosozumab - Teriparatide) was analyzed using a linear mixed effects model for repeated measures adjusting for treatment, visit, baseline serum type 1 collagen C-telopeptide value, parameter baseline value, treatment-by visit interaction, and using an unstructured variance covariance structure.||4.0|2.8|< 0.0001
91081145|NCT01796301|182047277|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|5.3|||Linear mixed effects repeated measures|||Treatment difference (Romosozumab - Teriparatide) was analyzed using a linear mixed effects model for repeated measures adjusting for treatment, visit, baseline serum type 1 collagen C-telopeptide value, parameter baseline value, treatment-by visit interaction, and using an unstructured variance covariance structure.||5.3|3.9|< 0.0001
91081146|NCT01796301|182047278|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|3.6|||Linear mixed effects repeated measures|||Treatment difference (Romosozumab - Teriparatide) was analyzed using a linear mixed effects model for repeated measures adjusting for treatment, visit, baseline serum type 1 collagen C-telopeptide value, parameter baseline value, treatment-by visit interaction, and using an unstructured variance covariance structure.||3.6|2.5|< 0.0001
91081147|NCT01796301|182047279|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|4.2|||Linear mixed effects repeated measures|||Treatment difference (Romosozumab - Teriparatide) was analyzed using a linear mixed effects model for repeated measures adjusting for treatment, visit, baseline serum type 1 collagen C-telopeptide value, parameter baseline value, treatment-by visit interaction, and using an unstructured variance covariance structure.||4.2|2.9|< 0.0001
91081148|NCT01796301|182047280|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|3.8|||Linear mixed effects repeated measures|||Treatment difference (Romosozumab - Teriparatide) was analyzed using a linear mixed effects model for repeated measures adjusting for treatment, visit, baseline serum type 1 collagen C-telopeptide value, parameter baseline value, treatment-by visit interaction, and using an unstructured variance covariance structure.||3.8|2.4|< 0.0001
91081149|NCT01796301|182047281|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|4.3|||Linear mixed effects repeated measures|||Treatment difference (Romosozumab - Teriparatide) was analyzed using a linear mixed effects model for repeated measures adjusting for treatment, visit, baseline serum type 1 collagen C-telopeptide value, parameter baseline value, treatment-by visit interaction, and using an unstructured variance covariance structure.||4.3|2.1|< 0.0001
90892217|NCT02962908|181649365|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of median fold-increase in IFN-gamma secretion as measured by ELISA on day 42. p\<0.05 considered statistically significant.||||0.001
90892218|NCT02962908|181649365|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.61|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of median fold-increase in IFN-gamma secretion as measured by ELISA on day 180. p\<0.05 considered statistically significant.||||0.61
90892219|NCT02962908|181649365|OTHER|inequality test|||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of median fold-increase in IFN-gamma secretion as measured by ELISA on day 180. p\<0.05 considered statistically significant.||||<0.001
90892220|NCT02962908|181649366|OTHER|||||||0.113|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Comparison of number of responders on day 42. A subject was considered a responder if an increase of secreted IFNgamma of at least two fold was observed from day 0 to day 42."||||0.113
91081150|NCT01796301|182047282|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|3.6|||Linear mixed effects repeated measures|||Treatment difference (Romosozumab - Teriparatide) was analyzed using a linear mixed effects model for repeated measures adjusting for treatment, visit, baseline serum type 1 collagen C-telopeptide value, parameter baseline value, treatment-by visit interaction, and using an unstructured variance covariance structure.||3.6|2.6|< 0.0001
91081151|NCT01796301|182047283|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|4.2|||Linear mixed effects repeated measures|||Treatment difference (Romosozumab - Teriparatide) was analyzed using a linear mixed effects model for repeated measures adjusting for treatment, visit, baseline serum type 1 collagen C-telopeptide value, parameter baseline value, treatment-by visit interaction, and using an unstructured variance covariance structure.||4.2|2.9|< 0.0001
91103662|NCT01421459|182094202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.394||95.0||||P-value is for HbA1c ≤ 6.5% at Baseline.|Chi-squared|||||||0.394
91103663|NCT01421459|182094202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.688||95.0||||P-value is for HbA1c \<7% at 4 weeks.|Chi-squared|||||||0.688
91081152|NCT01796301|182047284|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|3.9|||Linear mixed effects repeated measures|||Treatment difference (Romosozumab - Teriparatide) was analyzed using a linear mixed effects model for repeated measures adjusting for treatment, visit, baseline serum type 1 collagen C-telopeptide value, baseline BMD value, machine type, baseline BMD value-by machine type interaction, treatment-by-visit interaction, and using an unstructured variance covariance structure.||3.9|2.5|< 0.0001
91081153|NCT01796301|182047285|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|4.2|||Linear mixed effects repeated measures|||Treatment difference (Romosozumab - Teriparatide) was analyzed using a linear mixed effects model for repeated measures adjusting for treatment, visit, baseline serum type 1 collagen C-telopeptide value, baseline BMD value, machine type, baseline BMD value-by machine type interaction, treatment-by-visit interaction, and using an unstructured variance covariance structure.||4.2|2.6|< 0.0001
91081154|NCT01796301|182047286|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|4.6|||Linear mixed effects repeated measures|||Treatment difference (Romosozumab - Teriparatide) was analyzed using a linear mixed effects model for repeated measures adjusting for treatment, visit, baseline serum type 1 collagen C-telopeptide value, baseline BMD value, machine type, baseline BMD value-by machine type interaction, treatment-by-visit interaction, and using an unstructured variance covariance structure.||4.6|2.9|< 0.0001
91081155|NCT01796301|182047287|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|5.4|||Linear mixed effects repeated measures|||Treatment difference (Romosozumab - Teriparatide) was analyzed using a linear mixed effects model for repeated measures adjusting for treatment, visit, baseline serum type 1 collagen C-telopeptide value, baseline BMD value, machine type, baseline BMD value-by machine type interaction, treatment-by-visit interaction, and using an unstructured variance covariance structure.||5.4|3.4|< 0.0001
91081156|NCT02007278|182047348|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power=95%; significance level=5%, characteristic operation curves were used with a non-central F distribution for the calculation of the sample size||||||0.451|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4510
91081157|NCT04475718|182047365|OTHER|Preliminary Efficacy|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
91081158|NCT02651688|182047378|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7103|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.7103
91081159|NCT02651688|182047378|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4529|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.4529
91081160|NCT02651688|182047379|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9302|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.9302
90892221|NCT02962908|181649366|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||"Comparison of number of responders on day 42. A subject was considered a responder if an increase of secreted IFNgamma of at least two fold was observed from day 0 to day 42."||||<0.001
91081161|NCT02651688|182047379|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7509|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.7509
91081162|NCT02651688|182047380|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5095|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.5095
91081163|NCT02651688|182047380|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.623|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.6230
90892222|NCT02962908|181649366|OTHER|||||||0.399|||||||Chi-squared|||"Comparison of number of responders on day 180. A subject was considered a responder if an increase of secreted IFNgamma of at least two fold was observed from day 0 to day 180."||||0.399
91081164|NCT02651688|182047381|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.296|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.2960
91081165|NCT02651688|182047381|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2723|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.2723
91081166|NCT02651688|182047382|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0034|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.0034
91081167|NCT02651688|182047382|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0027|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.0027
91081168|NCT02651688|182047383|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0146|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.0146
91081169|NCT02651688|182047383|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0018|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.0018
91081170|NCT02651688|182047384|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1524|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.1524
91081171|NCT02651688|182047384|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0227|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.0227
91081172|NCT02651688|182047385|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5873|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.5873
91081173|NCT02651688|182047385|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9509|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.9509
91081174|NCT02651688|182047386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4341|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.4341
91081175|NCT02651688|182047386|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||1.0000
91081176|NCT02651688|182047387|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.0220
91081177|NCT02651688|182047387|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3677|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.3677
91081178|NCT02651688|182047388|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9074|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.9074
91081179|NCT02651688|182047388|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4517|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.4517
91081180|NCT02651688|182047389|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2962|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.2962
91081181|NCT02651688|182047389|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3261|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.3261
91081182|NCT02651688|182047390|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.045|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.0450
91081183|NCT02651688|182047390|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2235|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.2235
91081184|NCT02651688|182047391|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.826|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.8260
91081185|NCT02651688|182047391|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4183|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.4183
91081186|NCT02651688|182047392|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1144|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.1144
91081187|NCT02651688|182047392|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3263|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.3263
91081188|NCT02651688|182047393|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1546|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.1546
91081189|NCT02651688|182047393|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5732|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.5732
91081190|NCT02651688|182047394|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5581|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.5581
91081191|NCT02651688|182047394|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5833|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.5833
91081192|NCT02651688|182047395|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0168|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.0168
91081193|NCT02651688|182047395|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0364|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.0364
91081194|NCT02651688|182047396|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0992|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.0992
91081195|NCT02651688|182047396|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1333|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum|||||||0.1333
91081196|NCT02651688|182047397|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0139|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.0139
91081197|NCT02651688|182047397|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0225|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.0225
91081198|NCT03409120|182047406|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||linear mixed effects model|||We tested the equivalence of Burke-Fahn-Marsden scores over time (at baseline and at two time periods following DBS surgery) using a repeated measures ANOVA.||||<0.001
91081199|NCT02670382|182047423|SUPERIORITY||mean values, log transformed|||||0.33|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.33
91081200|NCT02670382|182047423|SUPERIORITY||mean difference, log transformed values|||||0.92|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.92
91081201|NCT02670382|182047423|SUPERIORITY||mean difference, log transformed values|||||0.44|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.44
91081202|NCT02670382|182047424|SUPERIORITY||mean difference, log transformed values|||||0.34|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.34
91081203|NCT02670382|182047424|SUPERIORITY||mean difference, log transformed values|||||0.5|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.50
91081204|NCT02670382|182047424|SUPERIORITY||mean differences, log transformed values|||||0.83|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.83
91081205|NCT02670382|182047425|EQUIVALENCE|primary hypothesis is that EPA will not differ from placebo|mean differences|||||0.1|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.10
91081206|NCT02670382|182047425|SUPERIORITY||mean difference|||||0.005|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.005
91081207|NCT02670382|182047425|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.17
91081208|NCT03244618|182047426|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.544|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.712|-0.377|||ANOVA|ANOVA model had treatment and gender as factors.|Difference is first named toothpaste minus second named toothpaste such that a negative difference favours first named toothpaste.|||-0.377|-0.712|<0.001
91081209|NCT03244618|182047427|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.5|14.0|||ANOVA|ANOVA model had treatment and gender as factors.|Difference is first names toothpaste minus second named toothpaste such that a positive difference favours the first named toothpaste.|||14.0|7.5|<0.001
91081210|NCT03244618|182047428|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|-5.5|||ANOVA|ANOVA model had treatment and gender as factors.|Difference is first named toothpaste minus second named toothpaste such that a negative difference favours the first named toothpaste.|||-5.5|-16.4|<0.001
91081211|NCT03244618|182047429|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.489|||ANOVA|ANOVA model had treatment and gender as factors.|Difference is first named toothpaste minus second named toothpaste such that a negative value favours the first named toothpaste.|||-0.489|-0.850|<0.001
91081212|NCT03244618|182047430|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.6|15.1|||ANOVA|ANOVA model had treatment and gender as factors.|Difference is first named toothpaste minus second named toothpaste such that a positive difference favours first named toothpaste|||15.1|8.6|<0.001
91081213|NCT03244618|182047431|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|-5.2|||ANOVA|ANOVA model had treatment and gender as factors.|Difference is first named toothpaste minus second named toothpaste such that a negative difference favours the first named toothpaste.|||-5.2|-16.6|<0.001
91081214|NCT03372382|182047483|EQUIVALENCE|We prespecified an equivalence margin of -10 to 10mm. We would consider non-opioid analgesia to be equivalent to opioid analgesia if the pain score mean difference between the groups and it's 95% confidence interval (CI) were within the prespecified margin. Pain score mean difference or 95% CI boundaries outside this range would be considered a clinically important difference between treatments|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|11.9|||||The upper boundary of the CI is out of pre-specified limits.|Sample size calculations were based on VAS pain score at 2-4 weeks, assuming a mean of 10mm and standard deviation (SD) of 20 mm in the opioid group Assuming a two-sided alpha level of 0.05 and 80% power to detect equivalence, a total of 138 participants would be needed. To account for a 25% expected attrition rate and crossover, a total of 170 participants would be needed.||11.9|-2.1|
91081215|NCT01128400|182047493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.05
91081216|NCT01128400|182047494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.05
91081217|NCT05725824|182047502|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Repeated Measure Analysis of Variance|||||||<0.05
91081218|NCT05725824|182047503|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Repeated Measure Analysis of Variance|||||||<0.05
91081219|NCT05725824|182047504|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||Arms/Groups were collapsed for RM-ANOVA to compare between various earmold types. A post-hoc paired t-test w/ Bonferroni correction was utilized to compare ear mold material types.|Repeated Measure Analysis of Variance|||||||<0.05
91081220|NCT05725824|182047505|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Repeated Measure Analysis of Variance|||||||<0.05
91081221|NCT03782571|182047506|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence is concluded if the upper limit is less than 10% and the lower limit is greater than -10%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.97|||TWO_SIDED|99.1|-4.0|7.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward and Roger method was used for denominator degrees of freedom. Adjustment was made using a simulation-based approach.|Test 1 - Control|Testing equivalence with respect to microsphere clearance rate.||7.4|-4.0|
91081222|NCT03782571|182047506|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence is concluded if the upper limit is less than 10% and the lower limit is greater than -10%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.01|||TWO_SIDED|99.1|-4.0|13.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward and Roger method was used for denominator degrees of freedom. Adjustment was made using a simulation-based approach.|Test 2 - Control|Testing equivalence with respect to microsphere clearance rate.||13.4|-4.0|
91081223|NCT03782571|182047506|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence is concluded if the upper limit is less than 10% and the lower limit is greater than -10%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.78|||TWO_SIDED|99.1|-2.7|19.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward and Roger method was used for denominator degrees of freedom. Adjustment was made using a simulation-based approach.|Test 3 - Control|Testing equivalence with respect to microsphere clearance rate.||19.1|-2.7|
91081224|NCT03782571|182047506|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence is concluded if the upper limit is less than 10% and the lower limit is greater than -10%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.12|||TWO_SIDED|99.1|-2.6|15.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward and Roger method was used for denominator degrees of freedom. Adjustment was made using a simulation-based approach.|Test 3 - Test 1|Testing equivalence with respect to microsphere clearance rate.||15.5|-2.6|
91081225|NCT03782571|182047506|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence is concluded if the upper limit is less than 10% and the lower limit is greater than -10%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.88|||TWO_SIDED|99.1|-2.0|8.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward and Roger method was used for denominator degrees of freedom. Adjustment was made using a simulation-based approach.|Test 3 - Test 2|Testing equivalence with respect to microsphere clearance rate.||8.9|-2.0|
91081226|NCT03782571|182047506|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence is concluded if the upper limit is less than 10% and the lower limit is greater than -10%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.54|||TWO_SIDED|99.1|-4.3|10.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward and Roger method was used for denominator degrees of freedom. Adjustment was made using a simulation-based approach.|Test 2 - Test 1|Testing equivalence with respect to microsphere clearance rate.||10.3|-4.3|
91081227|NCT03782571|182047507|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence is concluded if the upper limit is less than 10% and the lower limit is greater than -10%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.24|||TWO_SIDED|99.1|-1.0|17.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward and Roger method was used for denominator degrees of freedom. Adjustment was made using a simulation-based approach.|Test 1 - Control|Testing equivalence with respect to microsphere uptake rate.||17.8|-1.0|
91081228|NCT03782571|182047507|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence is concluded if the upper limit is less than 10% and the lower limit is greater than -10%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.95|||TWO_SIDED|99.1|-7.8|20.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward and Roger method was used for denominator degrees of freedom. Adjustment was made using a simulation-based approach.|Test 2 - Control|Testing equivalence with respect to microsphere uptake rate.||20.9|-7.8|
91081229|NCT03782571|182047507|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence is concluded if the upper limit is less than 10% and the lower limit is greater than -10%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.22|||TWO_SIDED|99.1|-15.1|20.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward and Roger method was used for denominator degrees of freedom. Adjustment was made using a simulation-based approach.|Test 3 - Control|Testing equivalence with respect to microsphere uptake rate.||20.9|-15.1|
91081230|NCT03782571|182047507|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence is concluded if the upper limit is less than 10% and the lower limit is greater than -10%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.13|||TWO_SIDED|99.1|-20.4|9.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward and Roger method was used for denominator degrees of freedom. Adjustment was made using a simulation-based approach.|Test 3 - Test 1|Testing equivalence with respect to microsphere uptake rate.||9.4|-20.4|
91081231|NCT03782571|182047507|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence is concluded if the upper limit is less than 10% and the lower limit is greater than -10%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1|||TWO_SIDED|99.1|-12.6|5.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward and Roger method was used for denominator degrees of freedom. Adjustment was made using a simulation-based approach.|Test 3 - Test 2|Testing equivalence with respect to microsphere uptake rate.||5.3|-12.6|
91081232|NCT03782571|182047507|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence is concluded if the upper limit is less than 10% and the lower limit is greater than -10%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.18|||TWO_SIDED|99.1|-13.9|10.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward and Roger method was used for denominator degrees of freedom. Adjustment was made using a simulation-based approach.|Test 2 - Test 1|Testing equivalence with respect to microsphere uptake rate.||10.3|-13.9|
91081233|NCT01884545|182047523|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1073|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.1073
90829350|NCT02365649|181533419|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|23.3||||0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|55.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 20||55.8|-9.2|0.323
90892223|NCT02962908|181649366|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||"Comparison of number of responders on day 180. A subject was considered a responder if an increase of secreted IFNgamma of at least two fold was observed from day 0 to day 180."||||<0.001
90892224|NCT02962908|181649368|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of geometric mean IgG titers specific to FLU-v antigens on day 42 post-vaccination.||||<0.001
90892225|NCT02962908|181649368|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of geometric mean IgG titers specific to FLU-v antigens on day 42.||||<0.001
90892226|NCT02962908|181649368|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of geometric mean IgG titers specific to FLU-v antigens on day 180.||||<0.001
90892227|NCT02962908|181649368|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of geometric mean IgG titers specific to FLU-v antigens on day 180.||||<0.001
90892228|NCT02962908|181649371|OTHER|||||||0.662|||||||Fisher Exact|||Differences in the infection rates against any of the strains tested between treatment group and corresponding placebo.||||0.662
91081234|NCT01884545|182047523|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0615|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.0615
91081235|NCT01884545|182047524|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6732|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.6732
91081236|NCT01884545|182047524|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3754|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.3754
91081237|NCT01884545|182047525|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.853||||0.0073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.326|6.139|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.139|1.326|0.0073
91081238|NCT01884545|182047525|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.045||||0.9068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.183|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.183|0.5|0.9068
91081239|NCT01884545|182047526|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.333||||0.7822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.173|10.254|||Regression, Logistic|||||10.254|0.173|0.7822
91081240|NCT01884545|182047526|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.333||||0.7822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.173|10.254|||Regression, Logistic|||||10.254|0.173|0.7822
91081241|NCT01884545|182047527|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7985|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.7985
91081242|NCT01884545|182047527|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1642|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.1642
91081243|NCT01884545|182047528|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8027|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.8027
91081244|NCT01884545|182047528|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7751|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.7751
91081245|NCT01884545|182047529|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5557|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.5557
91081246|NCT01884545|182047529|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7834|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.7834
91081247|NCT01884545|182047530|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1439|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.1439
91081248|NCT01884545|182047530|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2275|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.2275
91081249|NCT01884545|182047531|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7639|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.7639
91081250|NCT01884545|182047531|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9999|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.9999
91081251|NCT01884545|182047532|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4673|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.4673
91081252|NCT01884545|182047532|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2297|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.2297
91081253|NCT01884545|182047533|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2192|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.2192
91081254|NCT01884545|182047533|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9062|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.9062
91081255|NCT01884545|182047534|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1466|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.1466
91081256|NCT01884545|182047534|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.207|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.2070
91081257|NCT01884545|182047535|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6289|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.6289
91081258|NCT01884545|182047535|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9631|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.9631
91081259|NCT01884545|182047536|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2313|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.2313
91081260|NCT01884545|182047536|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8029|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.8029
90892229|NCT02962908|181649371|OTHER|||||||0.168|||||||Fisher Exact|||Differences in the infection rates against any of the strains tested between treatment group and corresponding placebo.||||0.168
90892230|NCT02962908|181649372|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||||The study was not powered to detected statistical significant differences in this outcome.|||>0.05
90892231|NCT02962908|181649372|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||||Study not powered to detect statistically significant differences|||>0.05
91081261|NCT01884545|182047537|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.071|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.0710
91081262|NCT01884545|182047537|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8069|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.8069
91081263|NCT01884545|182047538|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0512|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0512
91081264|NCT01884545|182047538|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4478|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.4478
91081265|NCT01884545|182047541|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7923|||||||Regression, Linear|||Perceived Risk for CHD, Consequences subscale||||0.7923
91081266|NCT01884545|182047541|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0636|||||||Regression, Linear|||Perceived Risk for CHD, Personal control||||0.0636
91081267|NCT01884545|182047541|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2063|||||||Regression, Linear|||Perceived Risk for CHD, Treatment control||||0.2063
91081268|NCT01884545|182047541|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2529|||||||Regression, Linear|||Perceived Risk for CHD, Emotional representations||||0.2529
91081269|NCT01884545|182047541|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1085|||||||Regression, Linear|||Perceived Risk for coronary heart disease (CHD), Consequences subscale||||0.1085
91081270|NCT01884545|182047541|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.337|||||||Regression, Linear|||Perceived Risk for coronary heart disease (CHD), personal control subscale||||0.3370
91081271|NCT01884545|182047541|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3483|||||||Regression, Linear|||Perceived Risk for coronary heart disease (CHD), treatment control subscale||||0.3483
91081272|NCT01884545|182047541|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5384|||||||Regression, Linear|||Perceived Risk for coronary heart disease (CHD), emotional representations||||0.5384
91081273|NCT01884545|182047542|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7447|||||||Regression, Linear|||Perceived Risk for T2D, Consequences subscale||||0.7447
91081274|NCT01884545|182047542|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6378|||||||Regression, Linear|||Perceived Risk for T2D, Personal control||||0.6378
91081275|NCT01884545|182047542|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3209|||||||Regression, Linear|||Perceived Risk for T2D, Treatment control||||0.3209
91081276|NCT01884545|182047542|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0058|||||||Regression, Linear|||Perceived Risk for T2D, Emotional representations||||0.0058
91081277|NCT01884545|182047542|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3769|||||||Regression, Linear|||Perceived Risk for type 2 diabetes (T2D), Consequences subscale||||0.3769
91081278|NCT01884545|182047542|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0872|||||||Regression, Linear|||Perceived Risk for type 2 diabetes (T2D), personal control||||0.0872
91081279|NCT01884545|182047542|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4302|||||||Regression, Linear|||Perceived Risk for type 2 diabetes (T2D), treatment control||||0.4302
91081280|NCT01884545|182047542|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4133|||||||Regression, Linear|||Perceived Risk for type 2 diabetes (T2D), emotional representations||||0.4133
91081281|NCT01884545|182047543|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3106|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.3106
91081282|NCT01884545|182047543|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7087|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.7087
91081283|NCT01884545|182047544|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.034||||0.9259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.511|2.094|||Regression, Logistic|||Stages of Change, Weight reduction||2.094|0.511|0.9259
91081284|NCT01884545|182047544|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.252||||0.0082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.234|4.111|||Regression, Logistic|||Stages of Change, Exercise behavior||4.111|1.234|0.0082
91081285|NCT01884545|182047544|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.423||||0.2954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.084|2.12|||Regression, Logistic|||Stages of Change, Smoking behavior||2.120|0.084|0.2954
91081286|NCT01884545|182047544|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.216||||0.5669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.622|2.376|||Regression, Logistic|||Stages of Change, Healthier eating behavior||2.376|0.622|0.5669
91081287|NCT01884545|182047544|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.622||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.341|1.134|||Regression, Logistic|||Stages of Change, Stress behavior||1.134|0.341|0.1210
91081288|NCT01884545|182047544|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.928||||0.8355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.461|1.872|||Regression, Logistic|||Weight reduction||1.872|0.461|0.8355
91081289|NCT01884545|182047544|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.83||||0.0459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.011|3.311|||Regression, Logistic|||Exercise behavior||3.311|1.011|0.0459
91081290|NCT01884545|182047544|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.563||||0.465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.121|2.629|||Regression, Logistic|||Smoking behavior||2.629|0.121|0.4650
91081291|NCT01884545|182047544|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.8303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.478|1.808|||Regression, Logistic|||Healthier eating behavior||1.808|0.478|0.8303
91081292|NCT01884545|182047544|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.347||||0.3254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.744|2.439|||Regression, Logistic|||Stress behavior||2.439|0.744|0.3254
91081293|NCT01884545|182047545|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0174|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.0174
91081294|NCT01884545|182047545|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8694|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.8694
91081295|NCT01884545|182047546|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4768|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.4768
91081296|NCT01884545|182047546|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8452|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.8452
91081297|NCT01884545|182047547|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.591||||0.5589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.335|7.544|||Regression, Logistic|||||7.544|0.335|0.5589
91081298|NCT01410240|182047548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.453|||||||one-sided, two-sample t-test|||||||0.453
91081299|NCT01410240|182047549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.708|||||||one-sided, two-sample t-test|||||||0.708
91081300|NCT01410240|182047550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.527|||||||one-sided, two-sample t-test|||||||0.527
91081301|NCT01410240|182047551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.561|||||||one-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.561
91081302|NCT01410240|182047552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.356|||||||one-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.356
91081303|NCT01410240|182047553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.533|||||||one-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.533
91081304|NCT01410240|182047554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.734|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.734
91081305|NCT01410240|182047557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.314|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.314
91081306|NCT01410240|182047558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.063|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.063
91081307|NCT01410240|182047561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.058|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.058
91081308|NCT01410240|182047562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.421|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.421
90892232|NCT02962908|181649373|OTHER|||||||0.513|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison in the duration of symptoms between treatment group and corresponding placebo.||||0.513
90892233|NCT02962908|181649373|OTHER|||||||0.578|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the duration of symptoms between treatment group and corresponding placebo.||||0.578
90892234|NCT02962908|181649373|OTHER|||||||0.513|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of total symptom score between treatment group and corresponding placebo.||||0.513
90892235|NCT02962908|181649373|OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the total symptom score between treatment group and corresponding placebo.||||0.200
90892236|NCT02962908|181649373|OTHER|||||||0.658|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the symptom peak between treatment group and corresponding placebo.||||0.658
91081309|NCT01410240|182047563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.161|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.161
91081310|NCT01410240|182047564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.016
91081311|NCT01410240|182047566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.534|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Day 3: Pain||||0.534
91081312|NCT01410240|182047566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.269|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Day 3: Stiffness||||0.269
91081313|NCT01410240|182047566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.693|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Day 3: Physical Functioning||||0.693
91081314|NCT01410240|182047566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.343|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Day 3: Average Score||||0.343
91081315|NCT01410240|182047566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.343|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Day 3: Total Score||||0.343
91081316|NCT01410240|182047566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.978|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 1: Pain||||0.978
91081317|NCT01410240|182047566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.709|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 1: Stiffness||||0.709
91081318|NCT01410240|182047566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.594|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 1: Physical Functioning||||0.594
91081319|NCT01410240|182047566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.501|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 1: Average Score||||0.501
91081320|NCT01410240|182047566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.501|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 1: Total Score||||0.501
91081321|NCT01410240|182047566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.171|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 2: Pain||||0.171
91081322|NCT01410240|182047566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.077|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 2: Stiffness||||0.077
91081323|NCT01410240|182047566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 2: Physical Functioning||||0.026
91081324|NCT01410240|182047566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 2: Average Score||||0.012
91081325|NCT01410240|182047566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 2: Total Score||||0.012
91081326|NCT01410240|182047566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.126|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 6: Pain||||0.126
91081327|NCT01410240|182047566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.044|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 6: Stiffness||||0.044
91081328|NCT01410240|182047566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.153||||||Change Week 6: Physical Functioning|two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.153
91081329|NCT01410240|182047566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.134|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 6: Average Score||||0.134
91081330|NCT01410240|182047566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.134|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 6: Total Score||||0.134
91081331|NCT01410240|182047568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.962|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 1: Physical Functioning||||0.962
91081332|NCT01410240|182047568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.714|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 1: Role-Physical||||0.714
91081333|NCT01410240|182047568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.668|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 1: Bodily Pain||||0.668
91081334|NCT01410240|182047568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.556|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 1: General Health||||0.556
91081335|NCT01410240|182047568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.705|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 1: Vitality||||0.705
91081336|NCT01410240|182047568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.122|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 1: Social Functioning||||0.122
91081337|NCT01410240|182047568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.254|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 1: Role-Emotional||||0.254
91081338|NCT01410240|182047568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 1: Mental Health||||0.500
91081339|NCT01410240|182047568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.849|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 1: Physical Component Summary||||0.849
91081340|NCT01410240|182047568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.959|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change Week 1: Mental Component Summary||||0.959
91081341|NCT01410240|182047568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.574|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 2: Physical Functioning||||0.574
91081342|NCT01410240|182047568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.524|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 2: Role-Physical||||0.524
91081343|NCT01410240|182047568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 2: Bodily Pain||||0.049
91081344|NCT01410240|182047568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.447|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 2: General Health||||0.447
91081345|NCT01410240|182047568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.823|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 2: Vitality||||0.823
91081346|NCT01410240|182047568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.661|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 2: Social Functioning||||0.661
91081347|NCT01410240|182047568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.086|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 2: Role-Emotional||||0.086
91081348|NCT01410240|182047568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.635|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 2: Mental Health||||0.635
91081349|NCT01410240|182047568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.481|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 2: Physical Component Summary||||0.481
91081350|NCT01410240|182047568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 2: Mental Component Summary||||0.140
91081351|NCT01410240|182047568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.107|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 6: Physical Functioning||||0.107
91081352|NCT01410240|182047568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.298|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 6: Role-Physical||||0.298
91081353|NCT01410240|182047568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.071|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 6: Bodily Pain||||0.071
91081354|NCT01410240|182047568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.94|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 6: General Health||||0.940
91081355|NCT01410240|182047568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.293|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 6: Vitality||||0.293
90892237|NCT02962908|181649373|OTHER|||||||0.64|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the symptom peak between treatment group and corresponding placebo.||||0.640
90892238|NCT02962908|181649373|OTHER|||||||0.127|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the average symptom score between treatment group and corresponding placebo.||||0.127
91081356|NCT01410240|182047568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.265|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 6: Social Functioning||||0.265
91081357|NCT01410240|182047568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 6: Role-Emotional||||0.036
91081358|NCT01410240|182047568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.307|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 6: Mental Health||||0.307
91081359|NCT01410240|182047568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.448|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 6: Physical Component Summary||||0.448
91081360|NCT01410240|182047568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.255|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 6: Mental Component Summary||||0.255
91081361|NCT01410240|182047570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.052|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.052
91081362|NCT02488018|182047585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|99.0|||||ANOVA|Degree of freedom for the model (treatment) was 8.||Hypothesis Ho: Honey plant origin does not affects the glycemic index of human subjects. Ha: Honey plant origin affects the glycemic index of human subjects.||||<0.01
91081363|NCT00482170|182047586|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority test was performed using the 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) of the difference of mean participant satisfaction (alpha = 2.5%). Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided CI is greater than -1.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.77||Statistical testing, one-sided, was done at 2.5% significance level.|ANOVA|||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) using mixed linear model with participant as random effect, treatment group, visit and the interaction between treatment group and visit as fixed factors and with an unstructured correlation was used for the analysis.||1.77|0.87|<0.001
91081364|NCT00482170|182047587|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority test was performed using the 95% CI of the difference of mean participant satisfaction (alpha = 2.5%). Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided CI is greater than -1.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.87||Statistical testing, one-sided, was done at 2.5% significance level.|ANOVA|||ANOVA using a mixed linear model with participant as random effect, treatment group, visit and the interaction between treatment group and visit as fixed factors and with an unstructured correlation was used for the analysis.||1.87|0.95|<0.001
91081365|NCT00482170|182047588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.12||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.05|126.9||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized estimating equations|||Baseline- after the training: Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) model, using a logit link, a binomial distribution and an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment group, visit and the interaction between treatment group and visit as fixed factors was used for the analysis.||126.9|2.05|0.008
91081366|NCT00482170|182047588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.25||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.44|51.83||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 4: GEE model, using a logit link, a binomial distribution and an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment group, visit and the interaction between treatment group and visit as fixed factors was used for the analysis.||51.83|2.44|0.002
91081367|NCT00482170|182047588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.88||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.26|27.44||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 12: GEE model, using a logit link, a binomial distribution and an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment group, visit and the interaction between treatment group and visit as fixed factors was used for the analysis.||27.44|2.26|0.001
91081368|NCT00482170|182047588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.59|29.47||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||Last observation: Logistic regression was used for the analysis.||29.47|2.59|<0.001
91081369|NCT00482170|182047589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|0.17||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.34||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Linear|||Statistical analysis was carried out between all categories, by 10 unit increment. Univariate model in which all continuous variables were considered continuous and mean centered was used.||0.34|0.00|0.045
91081370|NCT00482170|182047590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|-0.09||||0.707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.39||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Linear|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, female and male (reference).||0.39|-0.58|0.707
91081371|NCT00482170|182047591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|-0.38||||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.14||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Linear|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, high school or baccalaureate level and reading or writing capacity (reference).||0.14|-0.89|0.195
91103664|NCT01421459|182094202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999||95.0||||P-value is for HbA1c ≤ 6.5% at 4 weeks.|Chi-squared|||||||>0.999
91081372|NCT00482170|182047591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|-0.55||||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|0.11||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Linear|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, university level and reading or writing capacity (reference).||0.11|-1.21|0.195
91081373|NCT00482170|182047592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|-0.09||||0.493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.17||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Linear|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, HAD-A: =\< 4, HAD-A: \> 4 to 7, HAD-A: \> 7 to 10 and HAD-A: \> 10; by 5 unit increment. Univariate model in which all continuous variables were considered continuous and mean centered was used.||0.17|-0.36|0.493
91081374|NCT00482170|182047592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|-0.16||||0.287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.14||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Linear|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, HAD-D: =\< 3, HAD-D: \> 3 to 5, HAD-D: \> 5 to 8 and HAD-A: \> 8; by 5 unit increment. Univariate model in which all continuous variables were considered continuous and mean centered was used.||0.14|-0.46|0.287
91081375|NCT00482170|182047593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|0.13||||0.123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.3||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Linear|||Statistical analysis was carried out between all categories, by 10 unit increment. Univariate model in which all continuous variables were considered continuous and mean centered was used.||0.30|-0.04|0.123
91081376|NCT00482170|182047594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|-0.24||||0.359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.28||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Linear|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, yes and no (reference).||0.28|-0.76|0.359
91081377|NCT00482170|182047595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|0.02||||0.693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.12|||Regression, Linear|||Statistical analysis was carried out between all categories, by 5 unit increment. Univariate model in which all continuous variables were considered continuous and mean centered was used.||0.12|-0.08|0.693
91081378|NCT00482170|182047596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|0.22||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.53||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Linear|||Statistical analysis was carried out between all categories, by 1 unit increment. Univariate model in which all continuous variables were considered continuous and mean centered was used.||0.53|-0.09|0.170
91081379|NCT00482170|182047597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|0.02||||0.211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.04||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Linear|||Statistical analysis was carried out between all categories, by 1 unit increment. Univariate model in which all continuous variables were considered continuous and mean centered was used.||0.04|-0.01|0.211
90892239|NCT02962908|181649373|OTHER|||||||0.201|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the average symptom score between treatment group and corresponding placebo.||||0.201
90892240|NCT02962908|181649374|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.85|||||||Chi-squared|||comparison between groups on day 42||||0.85
90892241|NCT02962908|181649374|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.042|||||||Fisher Exact|||comparison between groups on day 42||||0.042
90892242|NCT02962908|181649374|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.69|||||||Fisher Exact|||comparison between groups on day 180||||0.69
90892243|NCT02962908|181649374|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.198|||||||Fisher Exact|||comparison between groups on day 180||||0.198
90892244|NCT02962908|181649374|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.092|||||||Chi-squared|||comparison between groups on day 42||||0.092
90892245|NCT02962908|181649374|OTHER|inequality test|||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||comparison of groups on day 42||||<0.001
90892246|NCT02962908|181649374|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.27|||||||Chi-squared|||comparison of groups on day 180||||0.27
91081380|NCT00482170|182047598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|0.09||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.18||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Linear|||Statistical analysis was carried out between all categories, by 10 unit increment. Univariate model in which all continuous variables were considered continuous and mean centered was used.||0.18|0.00|0.045
91081381|NCT00482170|182047599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|-0.01||||0.913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.11||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Linear|||Statistical analysis was carried out between all categories, by 10 unit increment. Univariate model in which all continuous variables were considered continuous and mean centered was used.||0.11|-0.12|0.913
91081382|NCT00482170|182047600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|0.0||||0.968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.17||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Linear|||Statistical analysis was carried out between all categories, by 5 unit increment. Univariate model in which all continuous variables were considered continuous and mean centered was used.||0.17|-0.17|0.968
91081383|NCT00482170|182047601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|-0.15||||0.531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.32||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Linear|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, current tobacco usage: yes and current tobacco usage: no (reference).||0.32|-0.61|0.531
91081384|NCT00482170|182047601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|0.44||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.9||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Linear|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, current alcohol usage: yes and current alcohol usage: no (reference).||0.90|-0.02|0.061
91081385|NCT00482170|182047602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|-0.73||||0.759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.37|3.92||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Linear|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, yes and no (reference).||3.92|-5.37|0.759
91081386|NCT00482170|182047603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|0.09||||0.713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.55||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Linear|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, yes and no (reference).||0.55|-0.37|0.713
91081387|NCT00482170|182047604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.63|3.49||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Baseline- after the training: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||3.49|1.63|<0.001
91103665|NCT01421459|182094202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.409||95.0||||P-value is for HbA1c \<7% at 8 weeks.|Chi-squared|||||||0.409
91081388|NCT00482170|182047604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.61|3.67||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 4:A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||3.67|1.61|<0.001
91081389|NCT00482170|182047604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|4.21||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 12: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||4.21|1.78|<0.001
91081390|NCT00482170|182047604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|3.8||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||Last observation: Logistic regression was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||3.80|1.66|<0.001
91081391|NCT00482170|182047605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.88||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|2.89||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized estimating equations|||Baseline- after the training: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||2.89|1.22|0.004
91081392|NCT00482170|182047605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.72||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 4: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||2.72|1.10|0.017
91081393|NCT00482170|182047605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|3.73||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 12: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||3.73|1.47|<0.001
91081394|NCT00482170|182047605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.06||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|3.21||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||Last observation: Logistic regression was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||3.21|1.32|0.001
91081395|NCT00482170|182047606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|2.64||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized estimating equations|||Baseline- after the training: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||2.64|1.07|0.025
91081396|NCT00482170|182047606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.64||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 4: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.64|0.63|0.936
90892247|NCT02962908|181649374|OTHER|inequality test|||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||comparisons between groups on day 180||||<0.001
90892248|NCT01420848|181649389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0||||It was used the Post Hoc and the statistical significance was p\<0.05.|ANOVA|||It was carried out the analysis of variance (ANOVA) among the groups at the 3rd (12 sessions) Hypothesis: there is at least one difference among the groups.||||0.006
90892249|NCT01420848|181649389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023||95.0||||The statistical significance was p\<0.05.|ANOVA|||"It was verified the normality of data distribution and the homogeneity of variance.~It was carried out the analysis of variance (ANOVA) among the groups at the follow-up (after 15 days)."||||0.023
91081397|NCT00482170|182047606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.99||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 12: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.99|0.75|0.420
91081398|NCT00482170|182047606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.79||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||Last observation: Logistic regression was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.79|0.71|0.625
91081399|NCT00482170|182047607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.94||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized estimating equations|||Baseline- after the training: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.94|0.86|0.210
91081400|NCT00482170|182047607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|2.03||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 4: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||2.03|0.85|0.227
91103666|NCT01421459|182094202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09||95.0||||P-value is for HbA1c ≤ 6.5% at 8 weeks.|Chi-squared|||||||0.090
91103667|NCT01421459|182094202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.319||95.0||||P-value is for HbA1c \<7% at 12 weeks.|Chi-squared|||||||0.319
91081401|NCT00482170|182047607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.08||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 12: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||2.08|0.84|0.220
91081402|NCT00482170|182047607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.0||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||Last observation: Logistic regression was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||2.00|0.84|0.249
91081403|NCT00482170|182047608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|3.21||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized estimating equations|||Baseline- after the training: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||3.21|1.48|<0.001
90892250|NCT01420848|181649390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||95.0||||After ANOVA it was performed Post Hoc Test and the statistical significance was p\<0.05.|ANOVA|||It was carried out the analysis of variance (ANOVA)of the medium difference among the groups in the 3rd (12 sessions) Hypothesis: there is at least one difference among the groups (State Anxiety)||||0.012
91081404|NCT00482170|182047608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.62|3.62||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 4: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||3.62|1.62|<0.001
91081405|NCT00482170|182047608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|3.51||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 12: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||3.51|1.58|<0.001
91081406|NCT00482170|182047608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.64|3.59||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||Last observation: Logistic regression was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||3.59|1.64|<0.001
91081407|NCT00482170|182047609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|3.65||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized estimating equations|||Baseline- after the training: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||3.65|1.50|<0.001
91081408|NCT00482170|182047609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.83|4.77||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 4: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||4.77|1.83|<0.001
91081409|NCT00482170|182047609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.62|4.12||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 12: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||4.12|1.62|<0.001
91081410|NCT00482170|182047609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|3.86||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||Last observation: Logistic regression was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||3.86|1.55|<0.001
91081411|NCT00482170|182047610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.62||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized estimating equations|||Baseline- after the training: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.62|0.73|0.681
91081412|NCT00482170|182047610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.54||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 4: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.54|0.67|0.947
91081413|NCT00482170|182047610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.36||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 12: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.36|0.59|0.604
91081414|NCT00482170|182047610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.27||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||Last observation: Logistic regression was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.27|0.57|0.430
91103668|NCT01421459|182094202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.463||95.0||||P-value is for HbA1c ≤6.5% at 12 weeks.|Chi-squared|||||||0.463
91103669|NCT01421459|182094202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.128||95.0||||P-value is for HbA1c \<7% at 16 weeks.|Chi-squared|||||||0.128
91103670|NCT01421459|182094202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.261||95.0||||P-value is for HbA1c ≤6.5% at 16 weeks.|Chi-squared|||||||0.261
91081415|NCT00482170|182047611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.03||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized estimating equations|||Baseline- after the training: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.03|0.48|0.072
91081416|NCT00482170|182047611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|2.03||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 4: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||2.03|0.86|0.205
91081417|NCT00482170|182047611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.78||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 12: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.78|0.78|0.434
91081418|NCT00482170|182047611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.55||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||Last observation: Logistic regression was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.55|0.69|0.857
91081419|NCT00482170|182047612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.56||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized estimating equations|||Baseline- after the training: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.56|0.70|0.837
91081420|NCT00482170|182047612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|2.15||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 4: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||2.15|0.87|0.172
91081421|NCT00482170|182047612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|2.24||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 12: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||2.24|0.94|0.096
91081422|NCT00482170|182047612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.08||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||Last observation: Logistic regression was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||2.08|0.88|0.164
91081423|NCT00482170|182047613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.69||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized estimating equations|||Baseline- after the training: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.69|0.83|0.356
90892251|NCT01420848|181649390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||After ANOVA, the Post Hoc Test was done and the statistical significance was p\<0.05.|ANOVA|||"It was carried out the analysis of variance (ANOVA) of the medium difference among the groups at the follow-up (after 15 days).~Hypothesis: there is at least one difference among the groups (State Anxiety)."||||0.005
90905064|NCT02886728|181677436|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|18.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.3|24.8||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52||24.8|11.3|<0.001
91081424|NCT00482170|182047613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.56||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 4: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.56|0.73|0.737
91081425|NCT00482170|182047613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.91||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 12: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.91|0.90|0.156
91081426|NCT00482170|182047613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.76||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||Last observation: Logistic regression was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.76|0.85|0.290
91081427|NCT00482170|182047614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.02||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized estimating equations|||Baseline- after the training: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.02|0.50|0.065
91103671|NCT01421459|182094202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.218||95.0||||P-value is for HbA1c \<7% at 20 weeks.|Chi-squared|||||||0.218
91103672|NCT01421459|182094202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.092||95.0||||P-value is for HbA1c ≤6.5% at 20 weeks.|Chi-squared|||||||0.092
91103673|NCT01421459|182094202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.186||95.0||||P-value is for HbA1c \<7%% at 24 weeks.|Chi-squared|||||||0.186
91081428|NCT00482170|182047614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.06||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 4: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.06|0.50|0.100
91081429|NCT00482170|182047614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.21||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 12: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.21|0.54|0.298
91081430|NCT00482170|182047614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.11||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||Last observation: Logistic regression was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.11|0.51|0.148
91081431|NCT00482170|182047615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|2.03||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized estimating equations|||Baseline- after the training: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||2.03|0.94|0.098
91081432|NCT00482170|182047615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.87||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 4: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.87|0.82|0.311
91081433|NCT00482170|182047615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.85||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 12: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.85|0.79|0.376
91081434|NCT00482170|182047615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.86||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||Last observation: Logistic regression was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.86|0.83|0.299
91081435|NCT00482170|182047616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.28||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized estimating equations|||Baseline- after the training: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.28|0.60|0.494
91081436|NCT00482170|182047616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.97||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 4: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||0.97|0.44|0.036
91081437|NCT00482170|182047616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.04||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 12: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.04|0.45|0.079
91081438|NCT00482170|182047616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.68||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.02||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||Last observation: Logistic regression was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.02|0.46|0.063
91081439|NCT00482170|182047617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.33||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized estimating equations|||Baseline- after the training: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.33|0.62|0.628
91081440|NCT00482170|182047617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77||||0.203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.15||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 4: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.15|0.51|0.203
91081441|NCT00482170|182047617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77||||0.222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.17||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 12: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.17|0.51|0.222
91081442|NCT00482170|182047617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.19||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||Last observation: Logistic regression was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.19|0.53|0.263
91103674|NCT01421459|182094202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.174||95.0||||P-value is for HbA1c ≤6.5% at 24 weeks.|Chi-squared|||||||0.174
91103675|NCT01421459|182094202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34||95.0||||P-value is for HbA1c \<7% at Endpoint, up to 24 weeks.|Chi-squared|||||||0.340
91081443|NCT00482170|182047618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.5||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized estimating equations|||Baseline- after the training: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.50|0.70|0.914
91081444|NCT00482170|182047618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.57||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 4: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.57|0.70|0.827
91081445|NCT00482170|182047618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.4||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 12: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.40|0.61|0.712
91081446|NCT00482170|182047618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.39||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||Last observation: Logistic regression was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.39|0.62|0.733
91081447|NCT00482170|182047619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.95||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized estimating equations|||Baseline- after the training: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.95|0.95|0.090
91081448|NCT00482170|182047619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.91||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 4: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.91|0.90|0.154
91081449|NCT00482170|182047619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|2.22||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 12: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||2.22|1.02|0.037
91081450|NCT00482170|182047619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|2.24||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||Last observation: Logistic regression was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||2.24|1.05|0.028
91081451|NCT00482170|182047620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.21||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized estimating equations|||Baseline- after the training: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||2.21|1.06|0.022
91081452|NCT00482170|182047620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|2.41||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 4: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||2.41|1.17|0.005
91081453|NCT00482170|182047620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|2.03||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 12: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||2.03|0.97|0.076
91081454|NCT00482170|182047620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.11||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||Last observation: Logistic regression was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||2.11|1.00|0.049
91081455|NCT00482170|182047621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|2.83||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized estimating equations|||Baseline- after the training: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||2.83|1.32|<0.001
91081456|NCT00482170|182047621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|3.87||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 4: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||3.87|1.78|<0.001
91081457|NCT00482170|182047621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|3.19||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 12: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||3.19|1.42|<0.001
91081458|NCT00482170|182047621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|3.39||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||Last observation: Logistic regression was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||3.39|1.52|<0.001
91081459|NCT00482170|182047622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|2.11||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized estimating equations|||Baseline- after the training: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||2.11|0.99|0.057
91081460|NCT00482170|182047622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.96||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 4: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.96|0.90|0.151
91081461|NCT00482170|182047622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.61||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.44||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 12: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||2.44|1.06|0.024
91081462|NCT00482170|182047622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.59||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.39||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||Last observation: Logistic regression was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||2.39|1.06|0.025
91081463|NCT00482170|182047623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.49||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized estimating equations|||Baseline- after the training: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||0.49|0.24|<0.001
91081464|NCT00482170|182047623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.37||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 4: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||0.37|0.18|<0.001
91081465|NCT00482170|182047623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.45||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 12: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||0.45|0.21|<0.001
91081466|NCT00482170|182047623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.47||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||Last observation: Logistic regression was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||0.47|0.23|<0.001
91081467|NCT00482170|182047624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.54||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized estimating equations|||Baseline- after the training: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||0.54|0.27|<0.001
91081468|NCT00482170|182047624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.46||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 4: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||0.46|0.21|<0.001
91081469|NCT00482170|182047624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.5||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 12: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||0.50|0.24|<0.001
90829351|NCT02365649|181533419|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|33.3||||0.516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.7|60.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 20||60.0|6.7|0.516
90829352|NCT02365649|181533419|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-31.7||||0.191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.4|14.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 28||14.0|-77.4|0.191
91016936|NCT00366678|181917503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-3.3|3.0||||||For serotype 9V the difference in percentages between the two groups (7vPnC Infant Series / 13vPnC Toddler Dose - 7vPnC Infant Series / 7vPnC Toddler Dose) was calculated||3.0|-3.3|
91081470|NCT00482170|182047624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.5||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||Last observation: Logistic regression was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||0.50|0.24|<0.001
91103676|NCT01421459|182094202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.293||95.0||||P-value is for HbA1c ≤6.5% at Endpoint, up to 24 weeks.|Chi-squared|||||||0.293
91081471|NCT00482170|182047625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.46||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized estimating equations|||Baseline- after the training: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||0.46|0.24|<0.001
91081472|NCT00482170|182047625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.46||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 4: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||0.46|0.22|<0.001
91081473|NCT00482170|182047625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.56||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 12: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||0.56|0.26|<0.001
91081474|NCT00482170|182047625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.58||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||Last observation: Logistic regression was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||0.58|0.28|<0.001
91081475|NCT00482170|182047626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.26||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized estimating equations|||Baseline- after the first injection: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.26|0.60|0.470
91081476|NCT00482170|182047626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.2||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 4: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.20|0.57|0.325
91081477|NCT00482170|182047626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.13||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 12: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.13|0.55|0.197
91081478|NCT00482170|182047626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.14||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||Last observation: Logistic regression was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.14|0.56|0.212
91081479|NCT00482170|182047627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.46||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||Baseline- after the training: Mixed linear model with participant as random effect, treatment group, visit and the interaction between treatment group and visit as fixed factors and with an auto-regressive correlation structure was used to calculate 95% CI.||0.46|-0.91|0.515
91081480|NCT00482170|182047627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.6||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||Week 4: Mixed linear model with participant as random effect, treatment group, visit and the interaction between treatment group and visit as fixed factors and with an unstructured correlation was used for the analysis.||0.60|-0.74|0.842
91081481|NCT00482170|182047627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.61||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||Week 12: Mixed linear model with participant as random effect, treatment group, visit and the interaction between treatment group and visit as fixed factors and with an unstructured correlation was used for the analysis.||0.61|-0.67|0.928
91081482|NCT00482170|182047627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.64||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||Last observation: ANOVA method was used for the analysis.||0.64|-0.62|0.974
91081483|NCT00482170|182047628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0|||||ANOVA|||p-value for statistical difference between all categories in the etanercept 50 mg auto-injector group was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.030
91081484|NCT00482170|182047628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||ANOVA|||p-value for statistical difference between all categories in the etanercept 50 mg prefilled syringe group was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.010
91081485|NCT00482170|182047629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.984||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||p-value for statistical difference between all categories in the etanercept 50 mg auto-injector group was calculated.||||0.984
91081486|NCT00482170|182047629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.549||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||p-value for statistical difference between all categories in the etanercept 50 mg prefilled syringe group was calculated.||||0.549
91081487|NCT00482170|182047630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.158||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||p-value for statistical difference between all categories in the etanercept 50 mg auto-injector group was calculated.||||0.158
91081488|NCT00482170|182047630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.808||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||p-value for statistical difference between all categories in the etanercept 50 mg prefilled syringe group was calculated.||||0.808
91081489|NCT00482170|182047631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||p-value for statistical difference between categories, very satisfied: HAD-A, satisfied: HAD-A and less satisfied: HAD-A, in the etanercept 50 mg auto-injector group was calculated.||||0.029
91081490|NCT00482170|182047631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||p-value for statistical difference between categories, very satisfied: HAD-A, satisfied: HAD-A and less satisfied: HAD-A, in the etanercept 50 mg prefilled syringe group was calculated.||||0.005
91081491|NCT00482170|182047631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.411||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||p-value for statistical difference between categories, very satisfied: HAD-D, satisfied: HAD-D and less satisfied: HAD-D, in the etanercept 50 mg auto-injector group was calculated.||||0.411
91081492|NCT00482170|182047631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||p-value for statistical difference between categories, very satisfied: HAD-D, satisfied: HAD-D and less satisfied: HAD-D, in the etanercept 50 mg prefilled syringe group was calculated.||||0.005
91081493|NCT00482170|182047632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.039||95.0|||||ANOVA|||p-value for statistical difference between all categories in the etanercept 50 mg auto-injector group was calculated.||||0.039
91081494|NCT00482170|182047632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0|||||ANOVA|||p-value for statistical difference between all categories in the etanercept 50 mg prefilled syringe group was calculated.||||0.006
91081495|NCT00482170|182047633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.752||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||p-value for statistical difference between all categories in the etanercept 50 mg auto-injector group was calculated.||||0.752
91081496|NCT00482170|182047633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||p-value for statistical difference between all categories in the etanercept 50 mg prefilled syringe group was calculated.||||0.700
91081497|NCT00482170|182047634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.697||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||p-value for statistical difference between all categories in the etanercept 50 mg auto-injector group was calculated.||||0.697
91081498|NCT00482170|182047634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.159||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||p-value for statistical difference between all categories in the etanercept 50 mg prefilled syringe group was calculated.||||0.159
91081499|NCT00482170|182047635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||ANOVA|||p-value for statistical difference between all categories in the etanercept 50 mg auto-injector group was calculated.||||0.004
91081500|NCT00482170|182047635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024||95.0|||||ANOVA|||p-value for statistical difference between all categories in the etanercept 50 mg prefilled syringe group was calculated.||||0.024
91081501|NCT00482170|182047636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.652||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||p-value for statistical difference between all categories in the etanercept 50 mg auto-injector group was calculated.||||0.652
91081502|NCT00482170|182047636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||p-value for statistical difference between all categories in the etanercept 50 mg prefilled syringe group was calculated.||||0.024
91081503|NCT00482170|182047637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.56||95.0|||||ANOVA|||p-value for statistical difference between all categories in the etanercept 50 mg auto-injector group was calculated.||||0.560
91081504|NCT00482170|182047637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.474||95.0|||||ANOVA|||p-value for statistical difference between all categories in the etanercept 50 mg prefilled syringe group was calculated.||||0.474
91081505|NCT00482170|182047638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023||95.0|||||ANOVA|||p-value for statistical difference between all categories in the etanercept 50 mg auto-injector group was calculated.||||0.023
91081506|NCT00482170|182047638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.089||95.0|||||ANOVA|||p-value for statistical difference between all categories in the etanercept 50 mg prefilled syringe group was calculated.||||0.089
91081507|NCT00482170|182047639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.494||95.0|||||ANOVA|||p-value for statistical difference between all categories in the etanercept 50 mg auto-injector group was calculated.||||0.494
91081508|NCT00482170|182047639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.782||95.0|||||ANOVA|||p-value for statistical difference between all categories in the etanercept 50 mg prefilled syringe group was calculated.||||0.782
91081509|NCT00482170|182047640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.444||95.0|||||ANOVA|||p-value for statistical difference between all categories in the etanercept 50 mg auto-injector group was calculated.||||0.444
91081510|NCT00482170|182047640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.947||95.0|||||ANOVA|||p-value for statistical difference between all categories in the etanercept 50 mg prefilled syringe group was calculated.||||0.947
91081511|NCT00482170|182047641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.787||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||p-value for statistical difference between categories, very satisfied: tobacco usage- yes, very satisfied: tobacco usage- no, satisfied: tobacco usage- yes, satisfied: tobacco usage- no, less satisfied: tobacco usage- yes and less satisfied: tobacco usage- no, in the etanercept 50 mg auto-injector group was calculated.||||0.787
91081512|NCT00482170|182047641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.379||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||p-value for statistical difference between categories, very satisfied: tobacco usage- yes, very satisfied: tobacco usage- no, satisfied: tobacco usage- yes, satisfied: tobacco usage- no, less satisfied: tobacco usage- yes and less satisfied: tobacco usage- no, in the etanercept 50 mg prefilled syringe group was calculated.||||0.379
91081513|NCT00482170|182047641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.098||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||p-value for statistical difference between categories, very satisfied: alcohol usage- yes, very satisfied: alcohol usage- no, satisfied: alcohol usage- yes, satisfied: alcohol usage- no, less satisfied: alcohol usage- yes and less satisfied: alcohol usage- no, in the etanercept 50 mg auto-injector group was calculated.||||0.098
91081514|NCT00482170|182047641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.166||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||p-value for statistical difference between categories, very satisfied: alcohol usage- yes, very satisfied: alcohol usage- no, satisfied: alcohol usage- yes, satisfied: alcohol usage- no, less satisfied: alcohol usage- yes and less satisfied: alcohol usage- no, in the etanercept 50 mg prefilled syringe group was calculated.||||0.166
91081515|NCT00482170|182047642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.535||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||p-value for statistical difference between all categories in the etanercept 50 mg prefilled syringe group was calculated.||||0.535
91081516|NCT00592592|182047656|OTHER||Cumulative incidence|10.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|18.0||||||||18.0|5.7|
91081517|NCT00592592|182047658|OTHER||% hypothalamus normal tissue spared|88.0|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||<0.01
91081518|NCT00592592|182047658|OTHER||% pituitary normal tissue spared|73.0|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||<0.01
91081519|NCT00592592|182047658|OTHER||% lens (contra) normal tissue spared|100.0|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||<0.01
91081520|NCT00592592|182047658|OTHER||% maxilla normal tissue spared|42.0||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.02
91081521|NCT00592592|182047659|OTHER||Percent Survival, Local Control|80.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|73.0|87.7||||||||87.7|73.0|
91081522|NCT01134263|182047660|EQUIVALENCE|Lot consistency for each pair of lots was demonstrated if, for each pair of lots and each serotype the lower limit of the 95% CI was \> -0.301 and the upper limit was \< 0.301.|Difference of Log10 GMT|0.055|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.067|0.178||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 1: Phase III Lot 1 vs Lot 2||0.178|-0.067|
91081523|NCT01134263|182047660|EQUIVALENCE|Lot consistency for each pair of lots was demonstrated if, for each pair of lots and each serotype the lower limit of the 95% CI was \> -0.301 and the upper limit was \< 0.301.|Difference of Log10 GMT|0.024|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.102|0.151||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 1: Phase III Lot 2 vs Lot 3||0.151|-0.102|
91081524|NCT01134263|182047660|EQUIVALENCE|Lot consistency for each pair of lots was demonstrated if, for each pair of lots and each serotype the lower limit of the 95% CI was \> -0.301 and the upper limit was \< 0.301.|Difference of Log10 GMT|-0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.204|0.045||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 1: Phase III Lot 3 vs Lot 1||0.045|-0.204|
91081525|NCT01134263|182047660|EQUIVALENCE|Lot consistency for each pair of lots was demonstrated if, for each pair of lots and each serotype the lower limit of the 95% CI was \> -0.301 and the upper limit was \< 0.301.|Difference of Log10 GMT|0.174|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.009|0.34||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 2: Phase III Lot 1 vs Lot 2||0.340|0.009|
91081526|NCT01134263|182047660|EQUIVALENCE|Lot consistency for each pair of lots was demonstrated if, for each pair of lots and each serotype the lower limit of the 95% CI was \> -0.301 and the upper limit was \< 0.301.|Difference of Log10 GMT|-0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.297|0.056||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 2: Phase III Lot 2 vs Lot 3||0.056|-0.297|
91081527|NCT01134263|182047660|EQUIVALENCE|Lot consistency for each pair of lots was demonstrated if, for each pair of lots and each serotype the lower limit of the 95% CI was \> -0.301 and the upper limit was \< 0.301.|Difference of Log10 GMT|-0.054|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.225|0.117||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 2: Phase III Lot 3 vs Lot 1||0.117|-0.225|
91081528|NCT01134263|182047660|EQUIVALENCE|Lot consistency for each pair of lots was demonstrated if, for each pair of lots and each serotype the lower limit of the 95% CI was \> -0.301 and the upper limit was \< 0.301.|Difference of Log10 GMT|0.058|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.068|0.184||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 3: Phase III Lot 1 vs Lot 2||0.184|-0.068|
91081529|NCT01134263|182047660|EQUIVALENCE|Lot consistency for each pair of lots was demonstrated if, for each pair of lots and each serotype the lower limit of the 95% CI was \> -0.301 and the upper limit was \< 0.301.|Difference of Log10 GMT|-0.042|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.167|0.082||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 3: Phase III Lot 2 vs Lot 3||0.082|-0.167|
91081530|NCT01134263|182047660|EQUIVALENCE|Lot consistency for each pair of lots was demonstrated if, for each pair of lots and each serotype the lower limit of the 95% CI was \> -0.301 and the upper limit was \< 0.301.|Difference of Log10 GMT|-0.016|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.144|0.113||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 3: Phase III Lot 3 vs Lot 1||0.113|-0.144|
91081531|NCT01134263|182047660|EQUIVALENCE|Lot consistency for each pair of lots was demonstrated if, for each pair of lots and each serotype the lower limit of the 95% CI was \> -0.301 and the upper limit was \< 0.301.|Difference of Log10 GMT|0.144|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.006|0.295||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 4: Phase III Lot 1 vs Lot 2||0.295|-0.006|
90905065|NCT02886728|181677436|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|10.3||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|18.6||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52||18.6|1.9|0.010
91081532|NCT01134263|182047660|EQUIVALENCE|Lot consistency for each pair of lots was demonstrated if, for each pair of lots and each serotype the lower limit of the 95% CI was \> -0.301 and the upper limit was \< 0.301.|Difference of Log10 GMT|-0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.207|0.088||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 4: Phase III Lot 2 vs Lot 3||0.088|-0.207|
91081533|NCT01134263|182047660|EQUIVALENCE|Lot consistency for each pair of lots was demonstrated if, for each pair of lots and each serotype the lower limit of the 95% CI was \> -0.301 and the upper limit was \< 0.301.|Difference of Log10 GMT|-0.085|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.242|0.073||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 4: Phase III Lot 3 vs Lot 1||0.073|-0.242|
91081534|NCT01134263|182047661|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between the pooled Phase III and Phase II was demonstrated if, for each serotype the lower limit of the 95%CI was \> -0.301 and the upper limit was \< 0.301.|Difference of Log10 GMT|0.091|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.009|0.192||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 1||0.192|-0.009|
91081535|NCT01134263|182047661|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between the pooled Phase III and Phase II was demonstrated if, for each serotype the lower limit of the 95%CI was \> -0.301 and the upper limit was \< 0.301.|Difference of Log10 GMT|0.334|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.202|0.466||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 2||0.466|0.202|
91081536|NCT01134263|182047661|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between the pooled Phase III and Phase II was demonstrated if, for each serotype the lower limit of the 95%CI was \> -0.301 and the upper limit was \< 0.301.|Difference of Log10 GMT|-0.076|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.173|0.021||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 3||0.021|-0.173|
91081537|NCT01134263|182047661|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between the pooled Phase III and Phase II was demonstrated if, for each serotype the lower limit of the 95%CI was \> -0.301 and the upper limit was \< 0.301.|Difference of Log10 GMT|-0.017|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.137|0.103||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 4||0.103|-0.137|
91081538|NCT00497055|182047706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.88||||0.41||95.0|0.66|1.16|||Generalized estimating equation|||||1.16|.66|.41
91081539|NCT00497055|182047707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.31
91081540|NCT00497055|182047708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>=|0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>=0.99
91081541|NCT02697734|182047711|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|43.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.06|343.19|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||343.19|7.06|<.0001
91081542|NCT02033200|182047769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.076|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.335||0.8216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.592|0.744|||ANCOVA|||The sample size had enough power to detect any meaningful difference between treatment groups in the right eye.||0.744|-0.592|0.8216
91081543|NCT02033200|182047769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|0.257|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.258||0.324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.258|0.771|||ANCOVA|||The sample size had adequate power to detect a meaningful difference between treatment groups in the left eye.||0.771|-0.258|0.324
91081544|NCT02033200|182047770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014||0.7864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.024|0.031|||ANCOVA|||The sample size provided enough power to detect any meaningful difference between the two treatment groups in the right eye.||0.031|-0.024|0.7864
91081545|NCT02033200|182047770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means difference|-0.022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017||0.1953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.056|0.012|||ANCOVA|||The sample size provided enough power to detect any meaningful difference between the two treatment groups in the left eye.||0.012|-0.056|0.1953
91081546|NCT02033200|182047771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|-0.039|||ANCOVA|||The sample size provided enough power to detect any meaningful difference between the two treatment groups in the right eye.||-0.039|-0.280|0.0101
91103677|NCT01421459|182094203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.594||95.0||||P-value is for Total Hypoglycemic with BG ≤70 mg/dL events.|Chi-squared|||||||0.594
91081547|NCT02033200|182047771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|-0.087|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061||0.1583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.209|0.035|||ANCOVA|||The sample size provided enough power to detect any meaningful difference between the two treatment groups in the left eye.||0.035|-0.209|0.1583
91081548|NCT02033200|182047772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|-0.031|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.359||0.9324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.746|0.685|||ANCOVA|||The sample size should provide approximately 90% power to detect a 1.6 mmHg difference in the mean change in Intraocular Pressure between the two treatment groups in the right eye.||0.685|-0.746|0.9324
91081549|NCT02033200|182047772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|0.751|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.348||0.0343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.057|1.44|||ANCOVA|||The sample size should provide approximately 90% power to detect a 1.6 mmHg difference in the mean change in intraocular pressure between the two treatment groups in the left eye.||1.44|0.057|0.0343
91081550|NCT02033200|182047773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means difference|0.017|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017||0.3139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.017|0.051|||ANCOVA|||The sample size had enough power to detect any meaningful difference between treatment groups in the right eye.||0.051|-0.017|0.3139
91081551|NCT02033200|182047773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|-0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022||0.9334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.045|0.042|||ANCOVA|||The sample size had enough power to detect any meaningful difference between treatment groups in the left eye.||0.042|-0.045|0.9334
91081552|NCT02033200|182047774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|0.016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055||0.7723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.093|0.125|||ANCOVA|||The sample size had enough power to detect any meaningful difference between treatment groups in the right eye.||0.125|-0.093|0.7723
91081553|NCT02033200|182047774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.058||0.9107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.109|0.122|||ANCOVA|||The sample size had enough power to detect any meaningful difference between treatment groups in the left eye.||0.122|-0.109|0.9107
91081554|NCT02033200|182047775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means difference|-0.078|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.278||0.7787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.632|0.475|||ANCOVA|||The sample size had enough power to detect any meaningful difference between treatment groups in the right eye.||0.475|-0.632|0.7787
91081555|NCT02033200|182047775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.344||0.6013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.865|0.504|||ANCOVA|||The sample size had enough power to detect any meaningful difference between treatment groups in the left eye.||0.504|-0.865|0.6013
91081556|NCT02033200|182047776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|0.091|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.8209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.705|0.887|||ANCOVA|||The sample size should provide approximately 90% power to detect a 1.6 mmHg difference in the mean change in IOP between the two treatment groups in the right eye.||0.887|-0.705|0.8209
91081557|NCT02033200|182047776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|0.227|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.4931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.884|||ANCOVA|||The sample size should provide approximately 90% power to detect a 1.6 mmHg difference in the mean change in IOP between the two treatment groups in the left eye.||0.884|-0.430|0.4931
91081558|NCT04333225|182047786|OTHER|Other: estimating risk reduction|Risk Ratio (RR)|2.0718||||0.0112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|3.72|||Chi-squared|||||3.72|1.15|0.0112
91081559|NCT04333225|182047787|OTHER|Other: Estimating hazard ratio|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.35||||0.0105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.75|||Log Rank|||||0.75|0.17|0.0105
91081560|NCT00822328|182047800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Bacterial colonies were counted for study group and placebo group on week 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. Significant differences between both experimental groups at the same time were determined with one-way ANOVA (significance level p = 0.05).||||<0.05
91081561|NCT00822328|182047802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Bacterial colonies were counted for study group and placebo group on week 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. Significant differences between both experimental groups at the same time were determined with one-way ANOVA (significance level p = 0.05).||||<0.05
91081562|NCT01215435|182047803|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was considered confirmed if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the mean HbA1c treatment difference was below or equal to 0.4%. This is equivalent to using a one-sided test of size 2.5%.|Estimated treatment difference, Mean|-0.14|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.4|0.13|||Regression, Linear|||H0: D \> 0.4% against H1: D ≤ 0.4% where D is the mean treatment difference for change in HbA1c (pre-breakfast OD minus pre-dinner OD)||0.13|-0.40|<0.001
91081563|NCT01215435|182047804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference, Mean|-3.14||||0.6215||95.0|-15.65|9.37|||Regression, Linear|||||9.37|-15.65|0.6215
91081564|NCT05811026|182047821|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|5.0||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was defined as a p-value \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Differece = (2-week interval group) - (4-week interval group)|||||0.075
91081565|NCT05811026|182047822|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.17||||0.4727|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was defined as a p-value \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Differece = (2-week interval group) - (4-week interval group)|||||0.4727
91081566|NCT05811026|182047823|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-1.5||||0.7326|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was defined as a p-value \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Differece = (2-week interval group) - (4-week interval group)|||||0.7326
91081567|NCT05811026|182047824|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.61||||0.0757|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was defined as a p-value \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Differece = (2-week interval group) - (4-week interval group)|||||0.0757
91081568|NCT05811026|182047825|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|37.75||||0.0376|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was defined as a p-value \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Differece = (2-week interval group) - (4-week interval group)|||||0.0376
91081569|NCT05811026|182047826|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.3123|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was defined as a p-value \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Differece = (2-week interval group) - (4-week interval group)|||||0.3123
91081570|NCT05811026|182047827|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.1009|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was defined as a p-value \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Differece = (2-week interval group) - (4-week interval group)|||||0.1009
91081571|NCT05811026|182047828|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.5||||0.0088|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was defined as a p-value \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Differece = (2-week interval group) - (4-week interval group)|||||0.0088
91081572|NCT05811026|182047829|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.03||||0.4274|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was defined as a p-value \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Differece = (2-week interval group) - (4-week interval group)|||||0.4274
91081573|NCT05811026|182047830|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.75||||0.6497|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was defined as a p-value \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Differece = (2-week interval group) - (4-week interval group)|||||0.6497
91081574|NCT05811026|182047831|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.54||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was defined as a p-value \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Differece = (2-week interval group) - (4-week interval group)|||||0.0006
91081575|NCT05811026|182047832|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|34.5||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was defined as a p-value \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Differece = (2-week interval group) - (4-week interval group)|||||0.0002
91081576|NCT05811026|182047833|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.6231|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was defined as a p-value \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Differece = (2-week interval group) - (4-week interval group)|||||0.6231
91081577|NCT05811026|182047834|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.3327|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was defined as a p-value \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Differece = (2-week interval group) - (4-week interval group)|||||0.3327
91081578|NCT05811026|182047835|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|7.25||||0.0752|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was defined as a p-value \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Differece = (2-week interval group) - (4-week interval group)|||||0.0752
91081579|NCT05811026|182047836|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.94||||0.0982|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was defined as a p-value \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Differece = (2-week interval group) - (4-week interval group)|||||0.0982
91081580|NCT05811026|182047837|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.8541|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was defined as a p-value \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Differece = (2-week interval group) - (4-week interval group)|||||0.8541
91081581|NCT05811026|182047838|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.63||||0.0758|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was defined as a p-value \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Differece = (2-week interval group) - (4-week interval group)|||||0.0758
91081582|NCT05811026|182047839|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|41.75||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was defined as a p-value \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Differece = (2-week interval group) - (4-week interval group)|||||0.066
91081583|NCT05811026|182047840|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.6961|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was defined as a p-value \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Differece = (2-week interval group) - (4-week interval group)|||||0.6961
91081584|NCT05811026|182047841|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was defined as a p-value \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Differece = (2-week interval group) - (4-week interval group)|||||0.0067
91081585|NCT02870205|182047843|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||GSP 301 NS vs GSP 301 placebo NS comparison for rTNSS was tested at 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91081586|NCT02870205|182047843|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.028
91081587|NCT02870205|182047843|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.019
91081588|NCT02870205|182047843|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91081589|NCT02870205|182047843|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.002
91081590|NCT02179749|182047865|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.51|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.51
91081591|NCT02179749|182047865|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.038|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Latent growth model includes one week on study drug and two weeks after the last dose of study drug. Principal predictors were drug plasma concentration and baseline treatment goal of abstinence or non abstinence. Arms were combined for this analysis.||||0.038
91081592|NCT02179749|182047866|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|36.7||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|411 and 102 degrees of freedom||||||0.50
91081593|NCT00435019|182047926|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis for the non-inferiority test was that the mean HbA1c with insulin detemir was greater than or equal to the mean HbA1c with NPH insulin plus 0.4%. A sample size of 344 subjects, in total, with a drop-out rate of 20 percent would yield 274 subjects for evaluation of HbA1c. This would give 85 percent power to detect a difference in means of HbA1c of 0.4 percentage points assuming that the standard deviation was 1.1 using a two-sided t-test with a 0.05 significance level.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||||95.0|-0.12|0.36|||ANCOVA|||||0.36|-0.12|
91081594|NCT00603382|182047944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.101||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.018|0.221|||ANCOVA|||||0.221|-0.018|0.095
91081595|NCT00603382|182047944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.129||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.011|0.247|||ANCOVA|||||0.247|0.011|0.033
91081596|NCT00603382|182047944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.204|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.089|0.319|||ANCOVA|||||0.319|0.089|<0.001
91081597|NCT00603382|182047944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.111|0.349|||ANCOVA|||||0.349|0.111|<0.001
91081598|NCT00603382|182047944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.106||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.223|||ANCOVA|||||0.223|-0.010|0.074
91081599|NCT01078298|182047971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.16|5.21|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds Ratios and p-values were obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment, pooled center and cohort.||5.21|2.16|<0.0001
91081600|NCT01078298|182047972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.53||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|4.1|||Regression, Logistic|||For Week 9 through 24, odds ratio and p-value were calculated from logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment, pooled center and cohort.||4.10|1.56|0.0001
91081601|NCT01078298|182047972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.36||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|3.98|||Regression, Logistic|||For Week 9 through 52, odds ratio and p-value were calculated from logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment, pooled center and cohort.||3.98|1.40|0.0011
91081602|NCT01078298|182047973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.53|5.78|||Regression, Logistic|||For Week 12, odds ratio and p-values were obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment, pooled center and cohort.||5.78|2.53|<0.0001
91081603|NCT01078298|182047973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.16||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|3.33|||Regression, Logistic|||For Week 24, odds ratio and p-values were obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment, pooled center and cohort.||3.33|1.40|0.0004
91081604|NCT01078298|182047973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.98||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|3.08|||Regression, Logistic|||For Week 52, odds ratio and p-values were obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment, pooled center and cohort.||3.08|1.28|0.0020
91081605|NCT01078298|182047974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.97||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|3.08|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds Ratios and p-values were obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment, pooled center and cohort.||3.08|1.26|0.0027
91081606|NCT01180049|182047993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.731|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.52|1.027||||||||1.027|0.520|
91081607|NCT01180049|182047994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.778|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.568|1.064||||||||1.064|0.568|
91081608|NCT01180049|182047995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in arms|6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.9|20.3||||||Independent assessment- Difference (%) TEMSR 175/75 mg - TEMSR 75 mg (80% CI)||20.3|-6.9|
91081609|NCT01180049|182047996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between arms|13.3|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.4|26.7||||||Investigator's assessment- Difference (%)TEMSR 175/75 mg - TEMSR 75 mg (80% CI)||26.7|-0.4|
91081610|NCT01180049|182047997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.646|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.453|0.922||||||||0.922|0.453|
91081611|NCT02379273|182048062|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|||A Friedman repeated-measures ANOVA on ranks was applied to the unilateral CNC data with follow-up pairwise comparisons based on the Tukey Test.||||<0.001
91081612|NCT02379273|182048062|SUPERIORITY|A Friedman repeated-measures ANOVA on ranks was applied to the bilateral CNC data with follow-up pairwise comparisons based on the Tukey Test.|||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91081613|NCT02379273|182048063|SUPERIORITY|A Friedman repeated-measures ANOVA on ranks was applied to the unilateral AzBio data with follow-up pairwise comparisons based on the Tukey Test.|||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91081614|NCT02379273|182048063|SUPERIORITY|A Friedman repeated-measures ANOVA on ranks was applied to the bilateral AzBio data with follow-up pairwise comparisons based on the Tukey Test.|||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91081615|NCT02379273|182048064|SUPERIORITY|A one-way repeated-measures analysis of variance was applied to the data, with follow-up pairwise comparisons based on the Holm-Sidak method.|||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91081616|NCT02379273|182048065|SUPERIORITY|A one-way repeated-measures analysis of variance was applied to the data, with follow-up pairwise comparisons based on the Holm-Sidak method.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.||||||<0.001
91081617|NCT02379273|182048066|SUPERIORITY|Pre- and postoperative mean scores were compared based on Friedman repeated-measures analysis of variance with follow-up pairwise comparisons based on the Tukey Test.|||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91081618|NCT02526160|182048070|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||From Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) testing for association between achieving mean serum phosphorus levels above lower limit of normal (LLN) and treatment group, adjusting for stratification of Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) Average Pain and region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||< 0.0001
91081619|NCT02526160|182048071|SUPERIORITY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.275||0.0919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.08||Prespecified significance level for test after Hochberg adjustment: 0.05|GEE model|||||0.08|-1.00|0.0919
91081620|NCT02526160|182048072|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-8.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.251||0.0106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.68|-1.94||Prespecified significance level for test after Hochberg adjustment: 0.0167|GEE model|||||-1.94|-14.68|0.0106
91081621|NCT02526160|182048073|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.479||0.0478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.76|-0.05||Prespecified significance level for test after Hochberg adjustment: 0.025|GEE model|||||-0.05|-9.76|0.0478
91081622|NCT04227405|182048104|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change between pre-test and post-test for the Positive Conflict Management subscale using multilevel modeling||||>.05
91081623|NCT04227405|182048104|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change between pre-test and post-test for the Positive Conflict Management subscale using multilevel modeling||||<.001
91081624|NCT04227405|182048104|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||The increase from pre-test to post-test in the intervention group is significantly different from the change from pre-test to post-test in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Post-test in the Positive Conflict Management subscale||||<.001
91081625|NCT04227405|182048104|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to post-test in Negative Conflict Management for the Control Group||||>.05
91081626|NCT04227405|182048104|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to post-test in the Negative Conflict Management subscale||||<.01
91103678|NCT01421459|182094203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.462||95.0||||P-value is for Nocturnal Hypoglycemic with BG ≤70 mg/dL events.|Chi-squared|||||||0.462
91081627|NCT04227405|182048104|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||The expected decrease from pre-test to post-test in the intervention group is significantly different from the change from pre-test to post-test in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Post-test in the Negative Conflict Management subscale||||<.01
91081628|NCT04227405|182048104|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes in the Relationship Quality subscale from Pre-test to post-test in the control group||||<.05
91081629|NCT04227405|182048104|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling|||Changes in the Relationship Quality Subscale from pretest to posttest in the intervention group|A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|||<.001
91081630|NCT04227405|182048104|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling|||Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Post-test in the Relationship Qualitty subscale|The expected increase from pre-test to post-test in the intervention group is significantly different from the change from pre-test to post-test in the control group|||<.05
91081631|NCT04227405|182048104|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to posttest in the Emotional Abuse subscale for the control group||||<.05
91081632|NCT04227405|182048104|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling|||Changes from pre-test to posttest in the Emotional Abuse subscale for the intervention group|A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|||<.001
91081633|NCT04227405|182048104|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling|||Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Post-test in the Emotional Abuse subscale|The expected decrease from pre-test to post-test in the intervention group is significantly different from the change from pre-test to post-test in the control group|||<.05
91081634|NCT04227405|182048104|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling|||Changes from pre-test to posttest in the Relationship Satisfaction subscale for the control group|A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|||>.05
91081635|NCT04227405|182048104|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||The expected increase from pre-test to post-test in the intervention group is significantly different from the change from pre-test to post-test in the control group|Changes from pre-test to posttest in the Relationship satisfaction subscale for the intervention group||||<.001
91081636|NCT04227405|182048104|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||The expected increase from pre-test to post-test in the intervention group is significantly different from the change from pre-test to post-test in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Post-test in the Relationship Satisfactionn subscale||||<.001
91081637|NCT04227405|182048104|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to posttest in the Relationship Commitment subscale for the control group||||>.05
91081638|NCT04227405|182048104|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to posttest in the Relationship Commitment subscale for the intervention group||||<.001
91103679|NCT01421459|182094204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.995||95.0||||P-value is for Total Hypoglycemia with BG ≤70 mg/dL events.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.995
91103680|NCT01421459|182094204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.686||95.0||||P-value is for Nocturnal Hypoglycemia with BG ≤70 mg/dL events.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.686
91103681|NCT01421459|182094205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.285||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline.|Chi-squared|||||||0.285
91081639|NCT04227405|182048104|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||The expected increase from pre-test to post-test in the intervention group is significantly different from the change from pre-test to post-test in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Post-test in the Relationship Commitment subscale||||<.001
91081640|NCT04227405|182048104|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment in p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to posttest in the Depression subscale for the control group||||<.001
91081641|NCT04227405|182048104|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment in p value|Multilevel modeling|||Changes from pre-test to posttest in the Depression subscale for the control group|A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|||<.001
91081642|NCT04227405|182048104|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment in p value|Multilevel modeling||Changes from pre-test to post-test in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from pre-test to post-test in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Post-test in the Depression subscale||||>.05
91081643|NCT04227405|182048104|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment in p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to posttest in the Anxiety subscale for the control group||||>.05
91081644|NCT04227405|182048104|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment in p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to posttest in the Anxiety subscale for the intervention group||||<.001
91081645|NCT04227405|182048104|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment in p value|Multilevel modeling||Changes from pre-test and post-test in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from pre-test and post-test in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Post-test in the Anxiety subscale||||>.05
91081646|NCT04227405|182048104|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to posttest in Budgeting subscale for the control group||||<.05
91081647|NCT04227405|182048104|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to posttest in the Budgeting subscale for the intervention group||||<.001
91081648|NCT04227405|182048104|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.1|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||Changes from pre-test to follow-up in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from pre-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Post-test in the Budgeting subscale||||<.10
91081649|NCT04227405|182048104|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.1|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment in p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to posttest in the Difficulties to Pay Bills subscale for the control group||||<.10
91081650|NCT04227405|182048104|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment in p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to posttest in the Difficulties to Pay Bills subscale for the intervention group||||<.001
91081651|NCT04227405|182048104|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment in p value|Multilevel modeling|||Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Post-test in the Difficulties to Pay Bills subscale|Changes from pre-test to post-test in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from pre-test to post-test in the control group|||>.05
91081652|NCT04227405|182048104|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment in p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to posttest in Time with Partner subscale for the control group||||>.05
91081653|NCT04227405|182048104|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment in p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to posttest in Time with Partner subscale for the intervention group||||<.05
91081654|NCT04227405|182048104|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment in p value|Multilevel modeling||Changes from pre-test to pos-test in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from pre-test to pos-test in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Post-test in Time with Partner subscale||||>.05
91081655|NCT04227405|182048104|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment in p value|Multilevel modeling||Positive values indicate an increase whereas a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to post-test in banking subscale for control group||||>.05
91081656|NCT04227405|182048104|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment in p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to post-test in banking subscale for the intervention group||||>.05
91081657|NCT04227405|182048104|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment in p value|Multilevel modeling|||Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Post-test in Banking subscale|Changes from pre-test to post-test in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from pre-test to pos-test in the control group|||>.05
91081658|NCT04227405|182048104|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment in p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to post-test in parenting stress subscale for the control group||||>.05
91081659|NCT04227405|182048104|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment in p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to post-test in parenting stress subscale for the intervention group||||>.05
91081660|NCT04227405|182048104|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment in p value|Multilevel modeling||Changes from pre-test to post-test in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from pre-test to pos-test in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Post-test in Parenting stresss subscale||||>.05
91081661|NCT04227405|182048104|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to post-test in conflict management satisfaction subscale for the control group||||<.001
91081662|NCT04227405|182048104|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to post-test in conflict management satisfaction subscale for the intervention group||||<.001
90905066|NCT02886728|181677436|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|15.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|23.8||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52||23.8|7.0|<0.001
91081663|NCT04227405|182048104|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||The increase from pre-test to post-test in the intervention group is significantly different from the change from pre-test to post-test in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Post-test in Conflict Management Satisfaction subscale||||<.001
91081664|NCT04227405|182048105|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to Follow-up in the Positive Conflict Management subscale for the control group||||>.05
91081665|NCT04227405|182048105|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to Follow-up in the Positive Conflict Management subscale for the intervention group||||<.001
91081666|NCT04227405|182048105|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Follow-up in the Positive Conflict Management subscale|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Follow-up n the Positive Conflict Management subscale||||<.01
91081667|NCT04227405|182048105|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to Follow-up in the Negative Conflict subscale for the control group||||>.05
91081668|NCT04227405|182048105|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling|||Changes from pre-test to Follow-up in the Negative Conflict Manageement subscale for the intervention group|A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|||<.001
91081669|NCT04227405|182048105|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||The expected decrease from pre-test to follow-i\[in the intervention group is significantly different from the change from pre-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Follow-up n the Negative Conflict Management subscale||||<.01
91081670|NCT04227405|182048105|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to Follow-up in the Relationship Quality subscale for the control group||||>.05
91081671|NCT04227405|182048105|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to Follow-up in the Relationship Quality subscale for the intervention group||||<.001
91081672|NCT04227405|182048105|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.1|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables. Pvalue set at \<.05|Multilevel modeling||The expected increase from pre-test to follow-up in the intervention group is not significantly (p \> .05) different from the change from pre-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Follow-up n the Relationship Quality subscale||||<.10
91081673|NCT04227405|182048105|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.1|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to Follow-up in the Emotional Abuse subscale for the control group||||<.10
91081674|NCT04227405|182048105|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to Follow-up in the Emotional Abuse subscale for the intervention group||||<.001
91081675|NCT04227405|182048105|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.1|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||The expected decrease from pre-test to follow-up in the intervention group is not significantly (p \> .05) different from the change from pre-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Follow-up in the Emotional Abuse subscale||||<.10
91081676|NCT04227405|182048105|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to Follow-up in the Relationship subscale for the control group||||>.05
91081677|NCT04227405|182048105|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to Follow-up in the Relationship Satisfaction subscale for the intervention group||||<.001
91081678|NCT04227405|182048105|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||The expected increase from pre-test to follow-up in the intervention group is significantly different from the change from pre-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Follow-up in the Relationship Satisfaction subscale||||<.001
91081679|NCT04227405|182048105|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to Follow-up in the Relationship Commitment subscale for the control group||||>.05
91081680|NCT04227405|182048105|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to Follow-up in the Relationship Commitment subscale for the intervention group||||<.001
91081681|NCT04227405|182048105|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||The expected increase from pre-test to follow-up in the intervention group is significantly different from the change from pre-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Follow-up in the Relationship Commitment subscale||||<.001
90954228|NCT00368927|181786840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||With a sample size of 60 evaluable participants per intervention arm, we would have 90% power to detect a bronchial dysplasia response rate of 54% and 82% power to detect a bronchial dysplasia response rate of\> 51% among participants assigned to receive active sulindac (2-sided chi-square test with continuity correction; alpha=0.05).||||0.85
91081682|NCT04227405|182048105|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from post-test to Follow-up in the Positive Conflict Management subscale for the control group||||>.05
91081683|NCT04227405|182048105|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from post-test to Follow-up in the Positive Conflict Management subscale for th eintervention group||||>.05
91103682|NCT01421459|182094205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047||95.0||||P-value is for 4 weeks.|Chi-squared|||||||0.047
91081684|NCT04227405|182048105|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||Changes from post-test to follow-up in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from post-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Post-test to Follow-up in the Positive Conflict Management subscale||||>.05
91081685|NCT04227405|182048105|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from post-test to Follow-up in the Negative Conflict Management subscale for the control group||||>.05
91081686|NCT04227405|182048105|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from post-test to Follow-up in the Negative Conflict Management subscale for the intervention group||||>.05
91081687|NCT04227405|182048105|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||Changes from post-test to follow-up in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from post-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Post-test to Follow-up in the Negative Conflict Management subscale||||>.05
91081688|NCT04227405|182048105|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from post-test to Follow-up in the Relationship Quality subscale for the control group||||>.05
91081689|NCT04227405|182048105|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from post-test to Follow-up in the Relationship Quality subscale for the intervention group||||>.05
91081690|NCT04227405|182048105|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||Changes from post-test to follow-up in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from post-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Post-test to Follow-up in the Relationship Quality subscale||||>.05
91081691|NCT04227405|182048105|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from post-test to Follow-up in the Emotional Abuse subscale for the control group||||>.05
91081692|NCT04227405|182048105|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Changes from post-test to Follow-up in the Emotional Abuse subscale for the control group|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from post-test to Follow-up in the Emotional Abuse subscale for the intervention group||||>.05
91081693|NCT04227405|182048105|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||Changes from post-test to follow-up in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from post-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Post-test to Follow-up in the Emotional Abuse subscale||||>.05
91081694|NCT04227405|182048105|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from post-test to Follow-up in the Relationship Satisfaction subscale for the control group||||>.05
91081695|NCT04227405|182048105|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from post-test to Follow-up in the Relationship Satisfaction subscale for the interventionn group||||>.05
91081696|NCT04227405|182048105|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||Changes from post-test to follow-up in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from post-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Post-test to Follow-up in the Relationship satisfaction subscale||||>.05
91103683|NCT01421459|182094205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.882||95.0||||P-value is for 12 weeks.|Chi-squared|||||||0.882
91081697|NCT04227405|182048105|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||Changes from post-test to Follow-up in the Emotional Abuse subscale for the control group|Changes from post-test to Follow-up in the Relationship Commitment subscale for the control group||||>.05
91081698|NCT04227405|182048105|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from post-test to Follow-up in the Relationship Commitment subscale for the intervention group||||>.05
91081699|NCT04227405|182048105|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||Changes from post-test to follow-up in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from post-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Post-test to Follow-up in the Relationship Commitment subscale||||>.05
91081700|NCT04227405|182048105|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to follow-up in banking subscale for the control group||||>.05
91081701|NCT04227405|182048105|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to follow-up in banking subscale for the intervention group||||>.05
91081702|NCT04227405|182048105|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||Changes from pre-test to follow-up in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from pre-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from pre-test to follow-up in Banking subscale||||>.05
91081703|NCT04227405|182048105|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from post-test to follow-up in banking subscale for the control group||||<.001
91081704|NCT04227405|182048105|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from post-test to follow-up in banking subscale for the intervention group||||<.001
91081705|NCT04227405|182048105|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.1|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling|||Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from post-test to follow-up in Banking subscale|Changes from post-test to follow-up in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from post-test to follow-up in the control group|||<.10
91081706|NCT04227405|182048105|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment in p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to follow-up in Difficulty to Pay Bills for the control group||||>.05
91081707|NCT04227405|182048105|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to follow-up in Difficulties to Pay Bills subscale for the intervention group||||<.05
91081708|NCT04227405|182048105|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||Changes from pre-test to follow-up in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from pre-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from pre-test to follow-up in Difficulties to pay bills subscale||||>.05
91081709|NCT04227405|182048105|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from post-test to follow-up in Difficulty to Pay Bills subscale for the control group||||>.05
91081710|NCT04227405|182048105|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from post-test to follow-up in Difficulties to Pay Bills subscale for the intervention group||||>.05
91081711|NCT04227405|182048105|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||Changes from post-test to follow-up in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from post-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from post-test to follow-up in Difficulty to Pay Bills subscale||||>.05
91081712|NCT04227405|182048105|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p vallue|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to follow-up in depression subscale for the control group||||<.001
91081713|NCT04227405|182048105|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to follow-up in depression subscale for the intervention group||||<.001
91081714|NCT04227405|182048105|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||Changes from pre-test to follow-up in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from pre-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from pre-test to follow-up in Depression subscale||||>.05
91081715|NCT04227405|182048105|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from post-test to follow-up in depression subscale for the control group||||>.05
91081716|NCT04227405|182048105|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from post-test to follow-up in depression subscale for the intervention group||||>.05
91081717|NCT04227405|182048105|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||Changes from post-test to follow-up in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from post-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from post-test to follow-up in depression subscale||||>.05
91081718|NCT04227405|182048105|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling|||Change from pre-test to follow-up in the Anxiety subscale for the control group|A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|||<.05
91081719|NCT04227405|182048105|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to follow-up in the Anxiety subscale for the intervention group||||<.05
91081720|NCT04227405|182048105|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||Changes from pre-test to follow-up in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from pre-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from pre-test to follow-up in Anxiety subscale||||>.05
91081721|NCT04227405|182048105|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from post-test to follow-up in anxiety subscale for the control group||||>.05
91081722|NCT04227405|182048105|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from post-test to follow-up in anxiety subscale for the control group||||>.05
91081723|NCT04227405|182048105|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||Changes from post-test to follow-up in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from post-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from post-test to follow-up in the Anxiety subscale||||>.05
91081724|NCT04227405|182048105|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to follow-up in parenting stress subscale for the control group||||>.05
90892252|NCT01962493|181649411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.155||0.1313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.1||Analysis based on square root transformation. Results back transformed for interpretation.|ANCOVA|Results were obtained from ANCOVA model with Site, Treatment, Treatment X Site, Smoking Status as fixed effects and baseline MLSI as a covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment. A negative difference favors the first named treatment|Null hypothesis stated that there was no difference between treatment groups||0.10|-0.51|0.1313
91081725|NCT04227405|182048105|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to follow-up in parenting stress subscale for the intervention group||||>.05
91081726|NCT04227405|182048105|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling|||Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from pre-test to follow-up in parenting stress subscale|Changes from pre-test to follow-up in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from pre-test to follow-up in the control group|||>.05
91081727|NCT04227405|182048105|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from post-test to follow-up in banking subscale for the control group||||<.05
91081728|NCT04227405|182048105|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from post-test to follow-up in parenting stress subscale for the control group||||>.05
91081729|NCT04227405|182048105|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||Changes from post-test to follow-up in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from post-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from post-test to follow-up in Parenting Stress subscale||||>.05
91081730|NCT04227405|182048105|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.1|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to follow-up in Time with Partner subscale for the control group||||<.10
91081731|NCT04227405|182048105|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to follow-up in Time with Parter subscale for the intervention group||||>.05
91081732|NCT04227405|182048105|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||Changes from pre-test to follow-up in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from pre-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from pre-test to follow-up inn Time with Partner subscale||||>.05
91081733|NCT04227405|182048105|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from post-test to follow-up in Time with Partner subscale for the control group||||<.001
91081734|NCT04227405|182048105|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from post-test to follow-up in Time with Partner subscale for the intervention group||||>.05
91081735|NCT04227405|182048105|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling|||Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from post-test to follow-up in Time with Partner subscale|Changes from post-test to follow-up in the intervention group were significantly different from the change from post-test to follow-up in the control group|||<.001
91081736|NCT04227405|182048105|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to follow-up in Conflict Management Satisfaction subscale for the control group||||<.05
91081737|NCT04227405|182048105|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to follow-up in Conflict Management Satisfaction subscale for the control group||||<.001
91081738|NCT04227405|182048105|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||Changes from pre-test to follow-up in the intervention group were significantly different from the change from pre-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from pre-test to follow-up in Conflict Management Satisfaction subscale||||<.05
91081739|NCT04227405|182048105|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from post-test to follow-up in Conflict Management Satisfaction subscale for the control group||||>.05
91081740|NCT04227405|182048105|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from post-test to follow-up in conflict management satisfaction subscale for the intervention group||||>.05
91081741|NCT04227405|182048105|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling|||Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from post-test to follow-up in Conflict Management Satisfaction subscale|Changes from post-test to follow-up in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from post-test to follow-up in the control group|||>.05
91081742|NCT04227405|182048105|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.1|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to follow-up in budgeting subscale for the control group||||<.10
91081743|NCT04227405|182048105|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to follow-up in Budgeting subscale for the intervention group||||<.05
91081744|NCT04227405|182048105|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling|||Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from pre-test to follow-up in Budgeting subscale|Changes from pre-test to follow-up in the intervention group were significantly different from the change from pre-test to follow-up in the control group|||<.01
91081745|NCT04227405|182048105|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from post-test to follow-up in budgeting subscale for the control group||||<.001
91081746|NCT04227405|182048105|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from post-test to follow-up in budgeting subscale for the intervention group||||<.001
91081747|NCT04227405|182048105|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling|||Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from pre-test to follow-up in Budgeting subscale|Changes from pre-test to follow-up in the intervention group were significantly different from the change from pre-test to follow-up in the control group|||<.001
91081748|NCT04227405|182048107|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to posttest in the Acceptance subscale for the control group||||<.05
91081749|NCT04227405|182048107|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to posttest in the Acceptance subscale for the intervention group||||<.05
91081750|NCT04227405|182048107|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||The expected increase from pre-test to post-test in the intervention group is significantly different from the change from pre-test to post-test in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Post-test in the Acceptance subscale||||<.001
91081751|NCT04227405|182048107|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to posttest in the Active Coping subscale for the control group||||<.05
91103684|NCT01421459|182094205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.179||95.0||||P-value is for 24 weeks.|Chi-squared|||||||0.179
91081752|NCT04227405|182048107|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to posttest in the Active Coping subscale for the intervention group||||<.05
91081753|NCT04227405|182048107|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling|||Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Post-test in the Active Coping subscale|The expected increase from pre-test to post-test in the intervention group is significantly different from the change from pre-test to post-test in the control group|||<.001
91081754|NCT04227405|182048107|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to posttest in the Planning subscale for the control group||||<.05
91081755|NCT04227405|182048107|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to posttest in the Planning subscale for the intervention group||||<.01
91081756|NCT04227405|182048107|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||The expected increase from pre-test to post-test in the intervention group is significantly different from the change from pre-test to post-test in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Post-test in the Planning subscale||||<.001
91081757|NCT04227405|182048107|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to posttest in the Instrumental Support subscale for the control group||||>.05
91081758|NCT04227405|182048107|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to posttest in the Instrumental Support subscale for the intervention group||||>.05
91081759|NCT04227405|182048107|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||Changes from pre-test to post-test in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from pre-test to post-test in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Post-test in the Instrumental Support subscale||||>.05
91081760|NCT04227405|182048108|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to Follow-up in the Acceptance subscale for the control group||||<.10
91081761|NCT04227405|182048108|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to Follow-up in the Acceptance subscale for the intervention group||||<.05
91081762|NCT04227405|182048108|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||The expected increase from pre-test to follow-up in the intervention group is significantly different from the change from pre-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Follow-up in the Aceptance subscale||||<.001
91081763|NCT04227405|182048108|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to Follow-up in the Active Coping subscale for the control group||||<.10
91081764|NCT04227405|182048108|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to Follow-up in the Active Coping subscale for the intervention group||||<.05
91081765|NCT04227405|182048108|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||The expected increase from pre-test to follow-up in the intervention group is significantly different from the change from pre-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Follow-up in the Active Coping subscale||||<.01
91081766|NCT04227405|182048108|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to Follow-up in the Planning subscale for the control group||||<.10
91081767|NCT04227405|182048108|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to Follow-up in the Planning subscale for the intervention group||||<.05
91081768|NCT04227405|182048108|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||The expected increase from pre-test to follow-up in the intervention group is significantly different from the change from pre-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Follow-up in the Planning subscale||||<.001
91081769|NCT04227405|182048108|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to Follow-up in the Instrumental Support subscale for the control group||||>.05
91081770|NCT04227405|182048108|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to Follow-up in the Instrumental Support subscale for the Intervention group||||>.05
91081771|NCT04227405|182048108|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||Changes from pre-test to follow-up in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from pre-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Follow-up in the Instrumental Support subscale||||>.05
91081772|NCT04227405|182048108|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from post-test to Follow-up in the Acceptance subscale for the control group||||>.05
91103685|NCT01421459|182094205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.314||95.0||||P-value is for Endpoint, up to 24 weeks.|Chi-squared|||||||0.314
91081773|NCT04227405|182048108|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from post-test to Follow-up in the Acceptance subscale for the intervention group||||>.05
91081774|NCT04227405|182048108|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||Changes from post-test to follow-up in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from post-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Post-test to Follow-up in the Positive Conflict Management subscale||||>.05
91081775|NCT04227405|182048108|SUPERIORITY|Changes from post-test to Follow-up in the Active Coping subscale for the control group|Slope|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|||||>.05
91081776|NCT04227405|182048108|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from post-test to Follow-up in the Active Coping subscale for the intervention group||||>.05
91081777|NCT04227405|182048108|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||Changes from post-test to follow-up in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from post-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Post-test to Follow-up in the Active Copinng subscale||||>.05
91081778|NCT04227405|182048108|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from post-test to Follow-up in the Plannning subscale for the control group||||>.05
91081779|NCT04227405|182048108|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from post-test to Follow-up in the Planning subscale for the intervention group||||<.10
91081780|NCT04227405|182048108|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||Changes from post-test to follow-up in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from post-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Post-test to Follow-up in the Planning subscale||||>.05
91081781|NCT04227405|182048108|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from post-test to Follow-up in the Instrumental Support subscale for the control group||||>.05
91081782|NCT04227405|182048108|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from post-test to Follow-up in the Instrumental Support subscale for the intervention group||||>.05
90829353|NCT02365649|181533419|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.0|22.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 28||22.6|-26.0|1.000
91081783|NCT04227405|182048108|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||Changes from post-test to follow-up in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from post-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Post-test to Follow-up in the Instrumental Support subscale||||>.05
91081784|NCT04227405|182048110|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||Changes from pre-test to Follow-up in the Emotional Abuse subscale for the control group|Changes from pre-test to posttest in the Acceptance subscale for the control group||||<.05
91081785|NCT04227405|182048110|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to posttest in the Emotional Abuse subscale for the control group||||<.01
91081786|NCT04227405|182048110|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||The expected increase from pre-test to post-test in the intervention group is significantly different from the change from pre-test to post-test in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Post-test in the Acceptance subscale||||<.001
91081787|NCT04227405|182048110|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to posttest in the Active Coping subscale for the control group||||>.05
91081788|NCT04227405|182048110|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to posttest in the Active Coping subscale for the intervention group||||<.10
91081789|NCT04227405|182048110|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||The expected increase from pre-test to post-test in the intervention group is significantly different from the change from pre-test to post-test in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Post-test in the Active Coping subscale||||<.05
91081790|NCT04227405|182048110|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to posttest in the Planning subscale for the control group||||<.05
91081791|NCT04227405|182048110|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to posttest in the Planning subscale for the Intervention group||||<.05
91103686|NCT01421459|182094205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline to 24 weeks (Overall).|Chi-squared|||||||0.100
90954229|NCT00368927|181786841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||A sample size of 60 participants per intervention arm would provide 90% power and 80% power to detect effect sizes of 60% and 52%, respectively, using a two-sample t-test(alpha=0.05).||||0.63
91081792|NCT04227405|182048110|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||The expected increase from pre-test to post-test in the intervention group is significantly different from the change from pre-test to post-test in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Post-test in the Planning subscale||||<.001
91081793|NCT04227405|182048110|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to posttest in the Instrumental Support subscale for the control group||||>.05
91081794|NCT04227405|182048110|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to posttest in the Instrumental Support subscale for the intervention group||||<.01
91081795|NCT04227405|182048110|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||The expected increase from pre-test to post-test in the intervention group is significantly different from the change from pre-test to post-test in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Post-test in the Instrumental Support subscale||||<.01
91081796|NCT04227405|182048111|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to Follow-up in the Acceptance subscale for the control group||||>.05
91081797|NCT04227405|182048111|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to Follow-up in the Acceptance subscale for the intervention group||||<.01
91081798|NCT04227405|182048111|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling|||Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Follow-up in the Acceptance subscale|The expected increase from pre-test to follow-up in the intervention group is significantly different from the change from pre-test to follow-up in the control group|||<.01
91081799|NCT04227405|182048111|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to Follow-up in the Active Coping subscale for the control group||||>.05
91081800|NCT04227405|182048111|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to Follow-up in the Active Coping subscale for the intervention group||||<.10
90892253|NCT01951625|181649419|OTHER||Log-Scale mean difference|-0.122|||=|0.1506|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.32|0.07|||t-test, 1 sided|||For the primary analysis, the three highest active treatment groups (BAY1021189 2.5mg, BAY1021189 2.5 to 5mg, BAY1021189 2.5 to 10mg) were pooled and compared to the assigned placebo treatment group with a one-sided two-sample t-test at the significance level of 5 percent (%). Results are reported including 90% confidence intervals (CI) for the difference of means. The difference between the pooled treatment group and the placebo group is difference of means on the log scale.||0.07|-0.32|= 0.1506
90892254|NCT01951625|181649419|OTHER||Log-Scale mean difference|-0.2494|||=|0.0483|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|0.0|||t-test, 1 sided|||In case of a significant result in the primary analysis of the primary endpoint, pairwise comparisons to Placebo were performed in a hierarchical manner (from BAY1021189 from 2.5 to 10mg dose arm to BAY1021189 1.25mg dose arm). In case of non-significance of the primary analyses, these secondary analyses were specified as exploratory only, since the primary analyses were not significant.||0|-0.5|= 0.0483
91081801|NCT04227405|182048111|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|<|0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||Changes from pre-test to follow-up in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from pre-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Follow-up in the Active Coping subscale||||<.10
91081802|NCT04227405|182048111|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to Follow-up in the Planning subscale for the control group||||<.10
91081803|NCT04227405|182048111|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to Follow-up in the Planning subscale for the intervention group||||<.05
91081804|NCT04227405|182048111|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||The expected increase from pre-test to follow-up in the intervention group is significantly different from the change from pre-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Follow-up in the Planning subscale||||<.01
91081805|NCT04227405|182048111|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to Follow-up in the Instrumental Support subscale for the control group||||>.05
91081806|NCT04227405|182048111|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to Follow-up in the Instrumental Support subscale for the intervention group||||<.01
91081807|NCT04227405|182048111|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||The expected increase from pre-test to follow-up in the intervention group is significantly different from the change from pre-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Follow-up in the Instrumental Support subscale||||<.01
91081808|NCT04227405|182048111|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from post-test to Follow-up in the Acceptance subscale for the control group||||>.05
91081809|NCT04227405|182048111|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from post-test to Follow-up in the Acceptance subscale for the interventionn group||||>.05
91081810|NCT04227405|182048111|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||Changes from post-test to follow-up in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from post-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Post-test to Follow-up in the Acceptance subscale||||>.05
91081811|NCT04227405|182048111|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from post-test to Follow-up in the Active Coping subscale for the control group||||>.05
91081812|NCT04227405|182048111|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from post-test to Follow-up in the Active Coping in the intervention group||||>.05
91081813|NCT04227405|182048111|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||Changes from post-test to follow-up in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from post-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Post-test to Follow-up in the Active Coping subscale||||>.05
91081814|NCT04227405|182048111|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from post-test to Follow-up in the Planning subscale for the control group||||>.05
91081815|NCT04227405|182048111|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from post-test to Follow-up in the Planning subscale for the intervention group||||>.05
91081816|NCT04227405|182048111|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||Changes from post-test to follow-up in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from post-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Post-test to Follow-up in Planning subscale||||>.05
91081817|NCT04227405|182048111|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from post-test to Follow-up in the Instrumental Support subscale for the control group||||>.05
91081818|NCT04227405|182048111|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from post-test to Follow-up in the Instrumental Support subscale for the intervention group||||<.10
91081819|NCT04227405|182048111|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||Changes from post-test to follow-up in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from post-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Post-test to Follow-up in the Instrumental Supportt subscale||||>.05
90892255|NCT01951625|181649419|OTHER||Log-Scale mean difference|-0.0731|||=|0.3042|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.31|0.16|||t-test, 1 sided|||In case of a significant result in the primary analysis of the primary endpoint, pairwise comparisons to Placebo were performed in a hierarchical manner (from BAY1021189 from 2.5 to 10mg dose arm to BAY1021189 1.25mg dose arm). In case of non-significance of the primary analyses, these secondary analyses were specified as exploratory only, since the primary analyses were not significant.||0.16|-0.31|= 0.3042
91081820|NCT04227405|182048113|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling|||Changes from pre-test to posttest for the control group|A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|||<.05
91081821|NCT04227405|182048113|SUPERIORITY||Slope|2.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to posttest for the intervention group||||<.01
91081822|NCT04227405|182048113|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||Changes from pre-test to post-test t in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from pre-test to post-test in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Post-test||||>.05
91081823|NCT04227405|182048114|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to Follow-up for the control group||||>.05
91081824|NCT04227405|182048114|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82|<|0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to Follow-up for the intervention group||||<.10
91081825|NCT04227405|182048114|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.01|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||Changes from pre-test to follow-up in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from pre-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Follow-up||||>.05
91081826|NCT04227405|182048114|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from post-test to Follow-up for the control group||||>.05
91081827|NCT04227405|182048114|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from post-test to Follow-up for the control group||||>.05
91081828|NCT04227405|182048114|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||Changes from post-test to follow-up in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from post-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Post-test to Follow-up||||>.05
91081829|NCT04227405|182048116|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment for p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to post-test in Difficulties in Emotion Regulation for the control group||||>.05
91103687|NCT01421459|182094206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.176||95.0||||P-value is for 4 weeks.|Chi-squared|||||||0.176
91103688|NCT01421459|182094206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.999||95.0||||P-value is for 12 weeks.|Chi-squared|||||||0.999
91081830|NCT04227405|182048116|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-3.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.51|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment for p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to post-test for the intervention group||||<.05
91081831|NCT04227405|182048116|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.85|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment in p value|Multilevel modeling||Changes from pre-test to post-test in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from pre-test to pos-test in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Post-test||||>.05
91081832|NCT04227405|182048117|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.41|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment in p value|Multilevel modeling|||Change from pre-test to follow-up for the control group|A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|||>.05
91081833|NCT04227405|182048117|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.79|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment in p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to follow-up for the control group||||>.05
91081834|NCT04227405|182048117|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.24|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment in p value|Multilevel modeling||Changes from pre-test to follow-up in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from pre-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from pre-test to follow-up||||>.05
91081835|NCT04227405|182048117|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment in p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from post-test to follow-up for the control group||||>.05
91081836|NCT04227405|182048117|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment in p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from post-test to follow-up for the control group||||>.05
91081837|NCT04227405|182048117|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment in p value|Multilevel modeling||Changes from post-test to follow-up in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from post-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from post-test to follow-up||||>.05
91081838|NCT04227405|182048119|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to post-test in psychological agggression subscale for the control group||||<.001
91081839|NCT04227405|182048119|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to post-test in psychological aggression subscale for the intervention group||||<.001
90892256|NCT01951625|181649419|OTHER||Log-Scale mean difference|-0.0396|||=|0.3841|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.26|0.18|||t-test, 1 sided|||In case of a significant result in the primary analysis of the primary endpoint, pairwise comparisons to Placebo were performed in a hierarchical manner (from BAY1021189 from 2.5 to 10mg dose arm to BAY1021189 1.25mg dose arm). In case of non-significance of the primary analyses, these secondary analyses were specified as exploratory only, since the primary analyses were not significant.||0.18|-0.26|= 0.3841
91081840|NCT04227405|182048119|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.1|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||Changes from pre-test to post-test in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from pre-test to pos-test in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Post-test in Psychological Aggression subscale||||<.10
91081841|NCT04227405|182048119|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling|||Change from pre-test to post-test in physical assault subscale for the control group|A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|||>.05
91103689|NCT01421459|182094206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.618||95.0||||P-value is for 24 weeks.|Chi-squared|||||||0.618
91103690|NCT01421459|182094206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.874||95.0||||P-value is for Endpoint (LOCF).|Chi-squared|||||||0.874
91103691|NCT01421459|182094206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.233||95.0||||P-value is for Overall (Baseline to 24 weeks).|Chi-squared|||||||>0.233
91103692|NCT00967499|182094209|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.401|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4010
91103693|NCT00967499|182094210|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5672|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.5672
91103694|NCT00967499|182094211|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.057|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0570
91103695|NCT00967499|182094212|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.515|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.5150
91103696|NCT00967499|182094213|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3601||||||P-values are based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test with gender adjustment for the ranks of the change from baseline values.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3601
91103697|NCT00967499|182094214|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3453|||||||Mann-Whitney Test|||24 hours postdose||||0.3453
91103698|NCT00967499|182094214|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7874|||||||Mann-Whitney Test|||48 hours postdose||||0.7874
91103699|NCT00967499|182094214|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8485|||||||Mann-Whitney Test|||72 Hours Postdose||||0.8485
91103700|NCT02899754|182094215|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Primary outcome assessed at 1 month post-intervention||||0.18
91103701|NCT02899754|182094217|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
91103702|NCT02899754|182094218|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
91103703|NCT02899754|182094219|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
91103704|NCT02899754|182094220|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.22
91103705|NCT02899754|182094221|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.18
91103706|NCT02899754|182094222|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||chi-square test||||0.01
91103707|NCT02899754|182094223|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.64
91103708|NCT02592655|182094267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||||||Significance thresh hold: 0.05.|McNemar|||"Null hypothesis is that one windlass tourniquet is just as likely to occlude arterial flow as the 10 cm wide tourniquet tape.~Participant count of 18 to accommodate for missing windlass tourniquet ultrasound data."||||0.002
91016937|NCT00366678|181917503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-0.4||||||95.0|-2.5|2.4||||||For serotype 14 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC Infant Series / 13vPnC Toddler Dose - 7vPnC Infant Series / 7vPnC Toddler Dose) was calculated||2.4|-2.5|
91081842|NCT04227405|182048119|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to post-test in the physical assault subscale for the intervention group||||<.001
91081843|NCT04227405|182048119|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||Changes from pre-test to post-test in the intervention group were significantly different from the change from pre-test to pos-test in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Post-test in Physical Assault subscale||||<.05
90892257|NCT01951625|181649419|OTHER||Log-Scale mean difference|0.0151|||=|0.5444|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.21|0.24|||t-test, 1 sided|||In case of a significant result in the primary analysis of the primary endpoint, pairwise comparisons to Placebo were performed in a hierarchical manner (from BAY1021189 from 2.5 to 10mg dose arm to BAY1021189 1.25mg dose arm). In case of non-significance of the primary analyses, these secondary analyses were specified as exploratory only.||0.24|-0.21|= 0.5444
90892258|NCT05338333|181649463|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority in distance VA was declared if the least squares means difference upper confidence limit was less than 0.05.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.006|||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.0||Since a noninferiority hypothesis is being tested, a p-value is not applicable. Confidence limit is being reported and compared to the noninferiority margin.|||LSM results based on mixed effects repeated measures model with both fixed (lens, visit, lens-by-visit interaction, period, sequence, and habitual lens stratum) and random (subject) effects. Difference = LID210464 minus AOHG MF.|||0.00||
91081844|NCT04227405|182048120|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to follow-up in the psychological aggression subscale for the control group||||<.001
91081845|NCT04227405|182048120|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to follow-up in the Psychological Aggression subscale for the intervention group||||<.001
91081846|NCT04227405|182048120|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||Changes from pre-test to follow-up in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from pre-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from pre-test to follow-up inn the psychological aggression subscale||||>.05
91081847|NCT04227405|182048120|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.1|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from post-test to follow-up for the control group in the psychological aggression subscale||||<.10
91081848|NCT04227405|182048120|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from post-test to follow-up for the intervention group for the psychological aggresssion subscale||||>.05
91081849|NCT04227405|182048120|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||Changes from post-test to follow-up in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from post-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from post-test to follow-up in the psychological aggression subscale||||>.05
91081850|NCT04227405|182048120|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to follow-up for the control group for the physical assault subscale||||>.05
91081851|NCT04227405|182048120|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to follow-up for the control group for the Physical Assault Subscale||||<.05
91081852|NCT04227405|182048120|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||Changes from pre-test to follow-up in the intervention group were significantly different from the change from pre-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from pre-test to follow-up for the Physical Assault subscale||||<.05
91081853|NCT04227405|182048120|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from post-test to follow-up for the control group for the Physical Assault subscale||||>.05
91081854|NCT04227405|182048120|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from post-test to follow-up for the intervention group for the Physical Assault subscale||||>.05
91081855|NCT04227405|182048120|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||Changes from post-test to follow-up in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from post-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from post-test to follow-up||||>.05
91081856|NCT04227405|182048122|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to post-test for the control group||||<.001
91081857|NCT04227405|182048122|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-4.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment in p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to post-test for the intervention group||||<.001
91081858|NCT04227405|182048122|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment in p value|Multilevel modeling||Changes from pre-test to post-test in the intervention group were significantly different from the change from pre-test to pos-test in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Post-test in Time||||<.05
91081859|NCT04227405|182048123|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment in p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to follow-up for the control group||||<.05
91081860|NCT04227405|182048123|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-4.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment in p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to follow-up for the intervention group||||<.001
91081861|NCT04227405|182048123|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment in p value|Multilevel modeling||Changes from pre-test to follow-up in the intervention group were significantly different from the change from pre-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from pre-test to follow-up||||<.05
91081862|NCT04227405|182048123|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from post-test to follow-up for the control group||||>.05
90892259|NCT00857207|181649468|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|dependent variable: post-treatment outcome; independent variables:pre-treatment measurement and group indicator.||Linear regression of change of cTOL time to first move in GMT versus BHW group||||0.0004
90892260|NCT00857207|181649468|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.92|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.55||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||total time will significantly improve 10 weeks from post||||0.012
91081863|NCT04227405|182048123|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from post-test to follow-up for the control group||||>.05
91081864|NCT04227405|182048123|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||Changes from post-test to follow-up in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from post-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from post-test to follow-up||||>.05
91081865|NCT04227405|182048125|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to post-test for the control group for Supportive Dyadic Coping subscale||||>.05
91081866|NCT04227405|182048125|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to post-test for the intervention group||||<.05
91081867|NCT04227405|182048125|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling|||Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Post-test in the Supportive Dyadic Coping subscale|Changes from pre-test to post-test in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from pre-test to post-test in the control group|||>.05
91081868|NCT04227405|182048125|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to post-test for the control group for the common dyadic coping subscale||||>.05
91081869|NCT04227405|182048125|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to post-test for the intervention group in the Common Dyadic Coping subscale||||<.01
91081870|NCT04227405|182048125|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47|<|0.1|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||Changes from pre-test to post-test in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from pre-test to post-test in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Post-test for the Common Dyadic Coping Subscale||||<.10
91081871|NCT04227405|182048125|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37|<|0.1|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment in p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to post-test for the control group in the Negative Dyadic Coping Subscale||||<.10
91081872|NCT04227405|182048125|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment in p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to post-test for the intervention group for the Negative Dyadic Coping subscale||||<.05
91081873|NCT04227405|182048125|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment in p value|Multilevel modeling||Changes from pre-test to post-test in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from pre-test to post-test in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Post-test inn the Negative Dyadic Coping Scale||||>.05
91081874|NCT04227405|182048126|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to follow-up for the control group for the Supportive Dyadic Coping Subscale||||>.05
91081875|NCT04227405|182048126|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to follow-up for the intervention group for the Supportive Dyadic Coping Subscale||||<.05
91081876|NCT04227405|182048126|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||Changes from pre-test to follow-up in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from pre-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from pre-test to follow-up for the Supportive Dyadic Coping Subscale||||>.05
90892261|NCT00857207|181649468|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.04||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Time to first move will significantly increase at 10 weeks from baseline to indicate better planning||||0.98
90892262|NCT00857207|181649469|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.64|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.42||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired T-test, Behavioral Regulation Index will improve at week 10 from baseline||||0.15
90892263|NCT00857207|181649469|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.79|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.4||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t-test of Metacognitive Index, MI will improve at 10 weeks compared to baseline.||||0.24
90892264|NCT00857207|181649470|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.09||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||optimal moves will significantly increase at 10 weeks from baseline||||0.30
90892265|NCT03014674|181649478|EQUIVALENCE|Interpretation of the comparability of the autoinjector and safety syringe with the reconstituted lyophilized drug product was guided by a two-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) for the ratio of the geometric mean of test treatment to reference treatment in the range (0.80, 1.25) for Cmax.|Ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|1.11|||||Ratio (autoinjector/lyophilized drug) for Cmax has been presented|||1.11|0.98|
90892266|NCT03014674|181649478|EQUIVALENCE|Interpretation of the comparability of the autoinjector and safety syringe with the reconstituted lyophilized drug product was guided by a two-sided 90% CI for the ratio of the geometric mean of test treatment to reference treatment in the range (0.80, 1.25) for Cmax.|Ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.99|1.12|||||Ratio (safety syringe/lyophilized drug) for Cmax has been presented|||1.12|0.99|
90892267|NCT03014674|181649479|EQUIVALENCE|Interpretation of the comparability of the autoinjector and safety syringe with the reconstituted lyophilized drug product was guided by a two-sided 90% CI for the ratio of the geometric mean of test treatment to reference treatment in the range (0.80, 1.25) for AUC (0-t)|Ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.01|1.15|||||Ratio (autoinjector/lyophilized drug) for AUC(0-t) has been presented|||1.15|1.01|
90892268|NCT03014674|181649479|EQUIVALENCE|Interpretation of the comparability of the autoinjector and safety syringe with the reconstituted lyophilized drug product was guided by a two-sided 90% CI for the ratio of the geometric mean of test treatment to reference treatment in the range (0.80, 1.25) for AUC (0-t).|Ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.12|||||Ratio (safety syringe/lyophilized drug) for AUC(0-t) has been presented|||1.12|0.97|
90892269|NCT03014674|181649479|EQUIVALENCE|Interpretation of the comparability of the autoinjector and safety syringe with the reconstituted lyophilized drug product was guided by a two-sided 90% CI for the ratio of the geometric mean of test treatment to reference treatment in the range (0.80, 1.25) for AUC (0-inf).|Ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.13|||||Ratio (autoinjector/lyophilized drug) for AUC(0-inf) has been presented|||1.13|1.00|
90892270|NCT03014674|181649479|EQUIVALENCE|Interpretation of the comparability of the autoinjector and safety syringe with the reconstituted lyophilized drug product was guided by a two-sided 90% CI for the ratio of the geometric mean of test treatment to reference treatment in the range (0.80, 1.25) for AUC (0-inf).|Ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|1.09|||||Ratio (safety syringe/lyophilized drug) for AUC(0-inf) has been presented|||1.09|0.95|
90892271|NCT03073148|181649564|EQUIVALENCE|alpha = 0.05||||||0.3577|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA comparing baseline, 1 day after treatment, and final assessment.||||||0.3577
90892272|NCT03073148|181649564|EQUIVALENCE|alpha = 0.05||||||0.9917|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA comparing baseline, 1 day after treatment, and final assessment.||||||0.9917
90892273|NCT03073148|181649565|EQUIVALENCE|alpha = 0.05||||||0.3239|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA comparing baseline, 1 day after treatment, and final assessment.||||||0.3239
91081877|NCT04227405|182048128|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to post-test for the control group in the Supportive Dyadic Coping Subcale||||>.05
90892274|NCT03073148|181649565|EQUIVALENCE|alpha = 0.05||||||0.8343|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA comparing baseline, 1 day after treatment, and final assessment.||||||0.8343
90892275|NCT03073148|181649566|EQUIVALENCE|alpha = 0.05||||||0.4134|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA comparing baseline, 1 day after treatment, and final assessment.||||||0.4134
90892276|NCT03073148|181649566|EQUIVALENCE|alpha = 0.05||||||0.1192|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA comparing baseline, 1 day after treatment, and final assessment.||||||0.1192
90892277|NCT03073148|181649568|EQUIVALENCE|alpha = 0.05||||||0.1753||||||Repeated measures ANOVA comparing baseline, 1 day after treatment, and final assessment.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA comparing baseline, 1 day after treatment, and final assessment.||||||0.1753
90892278|NCT03073148|181649568|EQUIVALENCE|alpha = 0.05||||||0.1843|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA comparing baseline, 1 day after treatment, and final assessment.||||||0.1843
90892279|NCT03073148|181649569|EQUIVALENCE|alpha = 0.05||||||0.0765|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA comparing baseline, 1 day after treatment, and final assessment.||||||0.0765
90892280|NCT03073148|181649569|EQUIVALENCE|alpha = 0.05||||||0.152|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA comparing baseline, 1 day after treatment, and final assessment.||||||0.1520
90892281|NCT00833560|181649592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants with response|85.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|81.5|88.8|||Two - sided binomial test|||||88.8|81.5|<0.0001
90892282|NCT00833560|181649593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants with response|87.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|83.6|91.0|||Two-sided binomial test|||||91.0|83.6|<0.0001
90954230|NCT01204710|181786842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.29||||0.2201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.9||Analysis was stratified by the randomization stratification factor: best overall response to prior docetaxel-based chemotherapy.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio is expressed as IMC-3G3 + Mitoxantrone / Mitoxantrone and estimated from Cox model.|||1.90|0.87|0.2201
90892283|NCT00414817|181649596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.018||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.006|0.03|||Regression, Linear|2-tailed p-value based on linear regression adjusted for site, age, sex, co-morbid COPD, baseline use of short acting beta agonists, and baseline mMPR|Estimated adherence was approximately 2 percentage points higher for intervention group than for usual care group.|In all of our analyses we used duration of follow-up as a weighting variable to reflect the fact that our adherence measure becomes more accurate and reliable with longer follow-up. This weighting is reflected both in the formal statistical analyses and in the presentation of means and standard deviations given above. Also, sensitivity analyses that included daily oral steroid users and those with fewer than 3 months of follow-up yielded similar results to those presented here.||.030|.006|.002
90892284|NCT00414817|181649597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.04|||Regression, Linear|2-tailed p-value adjusted for site, age, sex, co-morbid COPD, baseline use of short acting beta agonists, and baseline adherence.||In all of our analyses we used duration of follow-up as a weighting variable. This weighting is reflected both in the formal statistical analyses and in the presentation of means and standard deviations given above.||0.04|-0.23|0.175
90892285|NCT00414817|181649598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||0.852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.06||2-tailed p-value based on overdispersed Poisson regression adjusted for site, age, sex, co-morbid COPD, baseline use of short acting beta agonists, and baseline mMPR|overdispersed Poisson regression|||In all of our analyses we used duration of follow-up as a weighting variable. This weighting is reflected both in the formal statistical analyses and in the presentation of means and standard deviations given above.||1.06|0.96|0.852
90892286|NCT00440531|181649601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||single-group percentage|75.7||||||95.0|68.0|82.2||||||No hypothesis is being tested. The purpose of the primary analysis is to estimate the seroprotection rate (percentage of subjects with anti-HBs \>=10mIU/mL) in each group at 1 month post vaccination 3, among subjects who were seronegative at baseline.||82.20|68|
90892287|NCT00440531|181649601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||single-group percentage|68.0||||||95.0|59.8|75.5||||||No hypothesis is being tested. The purpose of the primary analysis is to estimate the seroprotection rate (percentage of subjects with anti-HBs \>=10mIU/mL) in each group at 1 month post vaccination 3, among subjects who were seronegative at baseline.||75.50|59.80|
91081878|NCT04227405|182048128|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to post-test for the intervention group in the Supportive Dyadic Coping Scale||||<.001
91081879|NCT04227405|182048128|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||Changes from pre-test to post-test in the intervention group were significantly different from the change from pre-test to post-test in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Post-test||||<.01
91081880|NCT04227405|182048128|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to post-test for the control group for the Common Dyadic Coping Subscale||||>.05
91081881|NCT04227405|182048128|SUPERIORITY||Slope|2.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to post-test for the intervention group in the Common Dyadic Coping Subscale||||<.001
91081882|NCT04227405|182048128|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||Changes from pre-test to post-test in the intervention group were significantly different from the change from pre-test to post-test in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Post-test inn the Common Dyadic Coping subscale||||<.01
91081883|NCT04227405|182048128|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment in p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to post-test for the control group for the Negative Dyadic Coping Scale||||>.05
91081884|NCT04227405|182048128|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53|<|0.1|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment in p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to post-test for the intervention group for the Negative Dyadic Coping Scale||||<.10
91081885|NCT04227405|182048128|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment in p value|Multilevel modeling||Changes from pre-test to post-test in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from pre-test to post-test in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Post-test for the Negative Dyadic Coping Subscale||||>.05
91081886|NCT03252145|182048208|OTHER|||||||0.096|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.096
91081887|NCT03252145|182048209|OTHER|||||||0.206|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.206
91081888|NCT03252145|182048210|OTHER|||||||0.096|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.096
91081889|NCT03252145|182048211|OTHER|||||||0.206|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.206
91081890|NCT03252145|182048212|OTHER|||||||0.552|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.552
91081891|NCT03252145|182048213|OTHER|||||||0.498|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.498
91081892|NCT03252145|182048214|OTHER|||||||0.264|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Affected Arm Only||||0.264
91081893|NCT03252145|182048214|OTHER|||||||0.224|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Unaffected arm||||0.224
91081894|NCT03252145|182048215|OTHER|||||||0.125|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Affected arm||||0.125
91081895|NCT03252145|182048215|OTHER|||||||0.241|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Unaffected arm||||0.241
91081896|NCT03252145|182048216|OTHER|||||||0.261|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Affected Arm||||0.261
91081897|NCT03252145|182048216|OTHER|||||||0.597|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Unaffected Arm||||0.597
91081898|NCT03252145|182048217|OTHER|||||||0.596|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Affected arm||||0.596
91081899|NCT03252145|182048217|OTHER|||||||0.219|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Unaffected arm||||0.219
91081900|NCT03252145|182048218|OTHER|||||||0.842|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.842
91081901|NCT03252145|182048219|OTHER|||||||0.772|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.772
91081902|NCT03252145|182048220|OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.300
91081903|NCT03252145|182048221|OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.300
91081904|NCT03252145|182048222|OTHER|||||||0.679|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.679
91081905|NCT03252145|182048223|OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.120
91081906|NCT03252145|182048224|OTHER|||||||0.138|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.138
91081907|NCT03252145|182048225|OTHER|||||||0.096|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.096
91081908|NCT03252145|182048226|OTHER|||||||0.206|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.206
91081909|NCT03252145|182048228|OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.080
91081910|NCT03252145|182048229|OTHER|||||||0.068|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Physical Function Domain||||0.068
91081911|NCT03252145|182048229|OTHER|||||||0.808|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Anxiety Domain||||0.808
91081912|NCT03252145|182048229|OTHER|||||||0.557|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Depression Domain||||0.557
91081913|NCT03252145|182048229|OTHER|||||||0.049|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Fatigue Domain||||0.049
91081914|NCT03252145|182048229|OTHER|||||||0.279|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Sleep Disturbance Domain||||0.279
91081915|NCT03252145|182048229|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Roles/Activity Domain||||0.020
91081916|NCT03252145|182048229|OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pain Interference Domain||||0.009
91081917|NCT03252145|182048230|OTHER|||||||0.038|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Physical Function Domain||||0.038
91081918|NCT03252145|182048230|OTHER|||||||0.108|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Anxiety Domain||||0.108
91081919|NCT03252145|182048230|OTHER|||||||0.467|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Depression Domain||||0.467
91081920|NCT03252145|182048230|OTHER|||||||0.078|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Fatigue Domain||||0.078
91081921|NCT03252145|182048230|OTHER|||||||0.147|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Sleep Disturbance Domain||||0.147
91081922|NCT03252145|182048230|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Roles/Activity Domain||||0.004
91081923|NCT03252145|182048230|OTHER|||||||0.032|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pain Interference Domain||||0.032
91081924|NCT03252145|182048231|OTHER|||||||0.938|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.938
91081925|NCT03252145|182048232|OTHER|||||||0.603|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.603
91081926|NCT03252145|182048233|OTHER|||||||0.837|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.837
91081927|NCT03252145|182048234|OTHER|||||||0.511|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.511
91081928|NCT03252145|182048235|OTHER|||||||0.326|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.326
91081929|NCT01763827|182048244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-57.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.03|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.14|-53.14||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|The null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-53.14|-61.14|<0.001
91081930|NCT01763827|182048244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-54.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.87|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.46|-51.1||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|The null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-51.10|-58.46|<0.001
91081931|NCT01763827|182048244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-39.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.03|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.28|-35.31||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Ezetimibe is the reference|The null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and ezetimibe, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-35.31|-43.28|<0.001
91081932|NCT01763827|182048244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-37.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.88|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.24|-33.86||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Ezetimibe is the reference|The null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and ezetimibe, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-33.86|-41.24|<0.001
91081933|NCT01763827|182048245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-56.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.76|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.95|-53.04||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|The null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from Baseline at the mean of Weeks 10 and 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-53.04|-59.95|<0.001
91081934|NCT01763827|182048245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-57.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.66|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.66|-54.14||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|The null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from Baseline at the mean of Weeks 10 and 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-54.14|-60.66|<0.001
91081935|NCT01763827|182048245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-39.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.76|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.87|-35.94||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Ezetimibe is the reference|The null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from Baseline at the mean of Weeks 10 and 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and ezetimibe, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-35.94|-42.87|<0.001
91103709|NCT02592655|182094267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||||||Significance thresh hold: 0.05.|McNemar|||"Null hypothesis is that one windlass tourniquet is just as likely to occlude arterial flow as two windlass tourniquets.~Participant count of 18 to accommodate for missing windlass tourniquet ultrasound data."||||0.008
90892288|NCT00440531|181649602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Single-Group Percentage|84.0||||||95.0|77.0|89.6||||||No hypothesis is being tested. The purpose of the secondary analysis is to estimate the seroprotection rate (percentage of subjects with anti-HBs \>=10mIU/mL) for ENGERIX-B™ at 1 month post vaccination 3, among subjects who were seronegative at baseline.||89.60|77|
90892289|NCT00420199|181649689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference from Placebo|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|0.76|||ANCOVA|||Comparison in the change from baseline of erosion score using the OMERACT 6 RA MRI score method between Abatacept and Placebo at Day 113 was based on a non-parametric analysis of covariance model (ANCOVA). Change from BL = Post-BL measurement-BL value. Adjustment was based on ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and BL value a covariate.||0.76|-1.77|
90892290|NCT00420199|181649690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.96||||0.103||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Comparison in change from baseline of wrist synovitis using OMERACT 6 rheumatoid arthritis magnetic resonance imaging score method between abatacept and placebo at Day 113 based on a nonparametric analysis of covariance model. Baseline and changes from baseline of the total wrist synovitis scores were ranked, and the model included the rank score for change from baseline as the dependent variable with treatment group as a main effect and the rank score for baseline as an additional covariate.||||0.103
90892291|NCT00420199|181649692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference from Placebo|-3.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|-0.96|||ANCOVA|||Comparison in the change from baseline of Edema/Osteitis score using the OMERACT 6 RA MRI score method between Abatacept and Placebo at Day 113 was based on a non-parametric analysis of covariance model (ANCOVA). Change from BL = Post-BL measurement-BL value. Adjustment was based on ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and BL value a covariate.||-0.96|-6.00|
90892292|NCT00420199|181649695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference from Placebo|-4.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|-1.42|||ANCOVA|||Comparison in the change from baseline of RAMRIS score using the OMERACT 6 RA MRI score method between Abatacept and Placebo at Day 113 was based on a non-parametric analysis of covariance model (ANCOVA). Change from BL = Post-BL measurement-BL value. Adjustment was based on ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and BL value a covariate.||-1.42|-8.00|
90892293|NCT00420199|181649709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.69||||0.078||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Comparison in change from baseline of wrist synovitis using OMERACT 6 rheumatoid arthritis magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) score method between ABA and PLA at Day 113 based on a parametric analysis of covariance model (ANCOVA). The model included the score change from baseline as the dependent variable, treatment group as a main effect and baseline score as an additional covariate.||||0.078
90892294|NCT02249819|181649731|EQUIVALENCE|Statistical analysis for mean change from baseline in naming accuracy in the anodal vs. sham tDCS conditions Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in mean change of naming accuracy between anodal and sham tDCS conditions. A significance level of 0.05 was used (two-sided).||||||0.694||||||The wilcoxon sign-ranked test was performed for this crossover design study in which subjects underwent measures across 2 study conditions (paired samples: mean change in anodal vs. sham condition). A significance level of 0.05 was used (two-sided).|wilcoxon sign-ranked test|Western Aphasia Battery used as a screening tool on admission only, to characterize level of severity. It was NOT an outcome measure.||||||0.694
90892295|NCT02570126|181649733|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for the Varilrix HSA-free vaccine as compared to Varilrix™ vaccine, the upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided standardised asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for the group difference (VAR\_HSA\_F minus VAR) in incidence of fever \> 39.0°C (\> 102.2°F) within 0-14 days after Dose 1 was to be equal to or below 5%|Difference in percentage between groups|-1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.72|1.08|||||Power obtained using PASS 2005 (Likelihood Score \[Miettinen and Nurminen approach\]), one-sided non-inferiority test for the difference of two independent proportions, under the alternative associated to the reference value \& alpha=2.5%|Non-inferiority of Varilrix HSA-free vaccine to Varilrix™ vaccine in terms of percentage of subjects reporting fever \> 39.0°C (\> 102.2°F) within 15-days (Days 0-14) after Dose 1 (VAR\_HSA\_F Group minus VAR Group)||1.08|-3.72|
90892296|NCT05224050|181649761|OTHER|A paired-samples t-test was conducted to examine differences in the DASS-21 total score from baseline to 2-weeks post-quit.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.54||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.98|2.89||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference represents the difference of the mean for the DASS-21 total scores at Baseline and at 2-weeks post-quit. The reported estimated value is based on data from the n=20 who attended their 2-weeks post-quit session|||2.89|-6.98|0.40
90892297|NCT05224050|181649761|OTHER|A paired-samples t-test was conducted to examine the difference in the DASS-21 total scores from 2-weeks post-quit to 1-month post-quit.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.43|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.15||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.84|1.98||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference represents the difference of mean DASS-21 total scores at 2-weeks post-quit and 1-month post-quit. The reported estimated value is based on data from the n=19 participants who attended their 1-month post-quit session.|||1.98|-6.84|0.26
90892298|NCT05224050|181649761|OTHER|A paired-samples t-test was conducted to examine the difference in the DASS-21 total scores from 1-month post-quit to 3-month follow up.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.49||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.21|0.71||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference represents the difference of mean DASS-21 total scores at 1-month post-quit and 3-month follow up. The reported estimated value is based on data from the n=16 participants who attended their 3-month follow up session.|||0.71|-6.21|0.11
90892299|NCT05224050|181649764|OTHER|A paired-samples t-test was conducted to compare changes in cigarettes smoked per day from Baseline to Quit Day.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.63|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.88|17.53||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference represents the average difference in cigarettes smoked per day from Baseline to Quit Date. The reported estimated value is based on data from the n=22 participants who attended their Quit Date session.|||17.53|9.88|<0.001
90892300|NCT05224050|181649764|OTHER|A paired-samples t-test was used to evaluate smoking reduction in participants from Quit Date to 2-weeks Post-Quit.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.02||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|1.06||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference represents the average difference in cigarettes smoked per day from Quit Date to 2-weeks Post-Quit. The reported estimated value is based on data from the n=20 participants who attended their 2-weeks post-quit session.|||1.06|-0.83|0.80
90892301|NCT05224050|181649764|OTHER|A paired-samples t-test was used to evaluate smoking reduction in participants from 2-weeks post-quit to 1=month post-quit.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.97||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|1.45||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference represents the average difference in cigarettes smoked per day from 2-weeks post-quit to 1-month post-quit. The reported estimated value is based on data from the n=19 participants who attended their 1-month post-quit session.|||1.45|-1.41|0.97
90892302|NCT05224050|181649764|OTHER|A paired-samples t-test was used to evaluate smoking reduction in participants from 1-month post-quit to 3-month follow-up.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.75||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.17|-0.17||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference represents the average difference in cigarettes smoked per day from 1-month post-quit to 3-month follow-up. The reported estimated value is based on data from the n=16 participants who attended their 3-month follow-up session.|||-0.17|-4.17|0.04
90892303|NCT00917579|181649765|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the two treatments was concluded if the 90% confidence intervals for the ratio of adjusted geometric means for both AUCinf and Cmax fell within (80%, 125%).|ratio of adjusted geometric means|95.34||||||90.0|91.33|99.52|||ANOVA|Values were back-transformed from the log scale.|Parameter estimate = ratio (%) (test/reference) of adjusted geometric means. AUClast + (Clast\*/kel), where Clast\* was the predicted plasma concentration at the last quantifiable time point estimated from the log-linear regression analysis.|Natural log transformed AUCinf was analyzed using a mixed effects model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect. Adjusted mean difference (Test-Ref) and 90% CI was obtained from the model and exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric mean and 90% CI for the ratio. Alternative hypothesis of bioequivalence: (H1: θL \<=µT - µR \<=θU); null hypothesis of inequivalence: (Ho: µT - µR \<θL or µT - µR \>θU).||99.52|91.33|
90892304|NCT00917579|181649766|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the two treatments was concluded if the 90% confidence intervals for the ratio of adjusted geometric means for both the AUCinf and Cmax fell within (80%, 125%). AUCinf method of determination includes AUC last calculated value.|ratio of adjusted geometric means|95.79||||||90.0|91.07|100.76|||ANOVA|Values have been back-transformed from the log scale.|Parameter estimate = ratio (%) (test/reference) of adjusted geometric means. Log-linear trapezoidal method.|Natural log transformed AUClast was analyzed using a mixed effects model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% confidence interval was obtained from the model and exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric mean (Test/Reference) and 90% confidence interval for the ratio.||100.76|91.07|
90892305|NCT00917579|181649767|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the two treatments was concluded if the 90% confidence intervals for the ratio of adjusted geometric means for both AUCinf and Cmax fell within (80%, 125%).|ratio of adjusted geometric means|91.41||||||90.0|83.39|100.2|||ANOVA|Values have been back-transformed from the log scale.|Parameter estimate = ratio (%) (test/reference) of adjusted geometric means.|Natural log transformed Cmax was analyzed using a mixed effects model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% confidence intervals were obtained from the model and exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric mean (Test/Reference) and 90% confidence interval for the ratio.||100.20|83.39|
90892306|NCT02161133|181649771|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.62||0.712|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.712
90892307|NCT02161133|181649772|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.48||0.013|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.013
90892308|NCT02161133|181649773|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.45||0.244|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.244
90892309|NCT02161133|181649774|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.95||0.057|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.057
90892310|NCT02161133|181649775|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.57||0.382|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.382
90892311|NCT02161133|181649776|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.703|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.703
90892312|NCT02161133|181649777|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36||0.168|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.168
90892313|NCT02161133|181649778|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.93||0.013|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.013
90892314|NCT01515410|181649779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-6.86||||0.0471||95.0|-13.62|-0.09||This p-value indicates statistical significance at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|No subjects early-terminated from the study.||"Percent OFF Time (%)"||-0.09|-13.62|0.0471
90892315|NCT00868439|181649784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
90892316|NCT00868439|181649785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.027|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||= 0.027
90892317|NCT00868439|181649786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.101|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||= 0.101
90892318|NCT00868439|181649787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.022|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.022
90892319|NCT00868439|181649788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.136|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||= 0.136
90892320|NCT00868439|181649789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.015|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||= 0.015
90892321|NCT04109703|181649791|OTHER|The hypothesis is that the high level pulsed heat group will show statistically more pain relief than the low level steady heat group.|||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|Linear regression was used to compare differences in primary outcome between treatment and control groups adjusting for initial pain level.||Demographic and clinical characteristics were tabulated by randomization group. The primary outcome was change in pain score from baseline to 30 minutes after treatment ended. Linear regression was used to compare differences in primary outcome between treatment and control groups adjusting for initial pain level. Unadjusted comparisons are also presented. Change in pain scores at each other post baseline time point were similarly analyzed.||||<0.05
90892322|NCT00338884|181649793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Objective Response Rate (ORR) (percent)|35.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.7|44.8|||||ORR=proportion of subjects with confirmed CR or PR, relative to total subjects who received at least 1 dose of study medication, had a baseline disease assessment, and had the correct histological cancer type.|||44.8|26.7|
90892323|NCT00338884|181649799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5581|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 1 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.5581
90892324|NCT00338884|181649799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7635|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 3 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.7635
90892325|NCT00338884|181649799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8366|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 5 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.8366
90892326|NCT00338884|181649799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0278|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 7 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.0278
90892327|NCT00338884|181649799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1988|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 9 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.1988
90892328|NCT00338884|181649799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2898|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 13 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.2898
90892329|NCT00338884|181649799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3567|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 17 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.3567
90892330|NCT00338884|181649799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4547|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 21 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.4547
90892331|NCT00338884|181649799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2809|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 25 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.2809
90892332|NCT00338884|181649799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3259|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 29 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.3259
90892333|NCT00338884|181649799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2702|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 33 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.2702
90892334|NCT00338884|181649800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7154|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 1 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.7154
90892335|NCT00338884|181649800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6263|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 3 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.6263
90892336|NCT00338884|181649800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9608|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 5 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.9608
90892337|NCT00338884|181649800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 7 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.0300
90892338|NCT00338884|181649800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0927|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 9 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.0927
90892339|NCT00338884|181649800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2873|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 13 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.2873
90892340|NCT00338884|181649800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3018|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 17 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.3018
90892341|NCT00338884|181649800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4161|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 21 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.4161
90892342|NCT00338884|181649800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3069|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 25 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.3069
90892343|NCT00338884|181649800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.292|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 29 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.2920
90892344|NCT00338884|181649800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2409|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 33 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.2409
90892345|NCT00338884|181649802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5784|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 1 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.5784
90892346|NCT00338884|181649802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6251|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 3 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.6251
90892347|NCT00338884|181649802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1639|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 5 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.1639
90892348|NCT00338884|181649802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2782|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 7 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.2782
90892349|NCT00338884|181649802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8627|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 9 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.8627
90892350|NCT00338884|181649802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.462|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 13 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.4620
90892351|NCT00338884|181649802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7575|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 17 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.7575
90892352|NCT00338884|181649802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3566|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 21 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.3566
90892353|NCT00338884|181649802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2809|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 25 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.2809
90892354|NCT00338884|181649802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8758|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 29 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.8758
90892355|NCT00338884|181649802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2702|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 33 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.2702
90892356|NCT00338884|181649803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7267|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 1 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.7267
90892357|NCT00338884|181649803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8555|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 3 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.8555
90892358|NCT00338884|181649803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2259|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 5 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.2259
90892359|NCT00338884|181649803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2074|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 7 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.2074
90892360|NCT00338884|181649803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4779|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 9 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.4779
90892361|NCT00338884|181649803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3628|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 13 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.3628
90892362|NCT00338884|181649803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.546|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 17 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.5460
90892363|NCT00338884|181649803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3637|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 21 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.3637
90892364|NCT00338884|181649803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2229|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 25 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.2229
90892365|NCT00338884|181649803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9759|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 29 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.9759
90892366|NCT00338884|181649803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2179|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 33 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.2179
90892367|NCT00338884|181649805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5784|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 1 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.5784
90892368|NCT00338884|181649805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9625|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 3 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.9625
90892369|NCT00338884|181649805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8519|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 5 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.8519
90892370|NCT00338884|181649805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||0.0513|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 7 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.0513
90892371|NCT00338884|181649805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4051|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 9 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.4051
90892372|NCT00338884|181649805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2548|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 13 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.2548
90892373|NCT00338884|181649805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5091|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 17 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.5091
90892374|NCT00338884|181649805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3133|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 21 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.3133
90892375|NCT00338884|181649805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9278|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 25 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.9278
90892376|NCT00338884|181649805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.407|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 29 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.4070
90892377|NCT00338884|181649805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2703|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 33 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.2703
90892378|NCT00338884|181649806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7267|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 1 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.7267
90892379|NCT00338884|181649806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8286|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 3 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.8286
90892380|NCT00338884|181649806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6867|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 5 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.6867
90892381|NCT00338884|181649806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.045|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 7 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.0450
90892382|NCT00338884|181649806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.174|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 9 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.1740
90892383|NCT00338884|181649806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2703|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 13 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.2703
90892384|NCT00338884|181649806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3659|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 17 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.3659
90892385|NCT00338884|181649806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3391|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 21 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.3391
90892386|NCT00338884|181649806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 25 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.9800
90892387|NCT00338884|181649806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.335|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 29 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.3350
90892388|NCT00338884|181649806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2179|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 33 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.2179
90892389|NCT00338884|181649809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.068|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||CR or PR Versus PD||||0.0680
90892390|NCT00338884|181649810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1159|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||CR or PR or (SD \> = 12 Weeks) Versus PD||||0.1159
90892391|NCT00338884|181649812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8519|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 3 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.8519
90892392|NCT00338884|181649812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5879|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 5 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.5879
90892393|NCT00338884|181649812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4757|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 7 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.4757
90892394|NCT00338884|181649812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1933|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 9 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.1933
90892395|NCT00338884|181649812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4187|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 13 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.4187
90892396|NCT00338884|181649812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3795|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 17 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.3795
90892397|NCT00338884|181649812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 21 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||1.0000
90892398|NCT00338884|181649812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6333|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 25 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.6333
90892399|NCT00338884|181649812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8679|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 29 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.8679
90892400|NCT00338884|181649812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.592|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 33 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.5920
90892401|NCT00338884|181649813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6939|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 3 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.6939
90892402|NCT00338884|181649813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5871|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 5 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.5871
90892403|NCT00338884|181649813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4572|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 7 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.4572
90892404|NCT00338884|181649813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.112|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 9 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.1120
90892405|NCT00338884|181649813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4896|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 13 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.4896
90892406|NCT00338884|181649813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2369|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 17 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.2369
90892407|NCT00338884|181649813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6709|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 21 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.6709
90892408|NCT00338884|181649813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6382|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 25 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.6382
90892409|NCT00338884|181649813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8481|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 29 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.8481
90892410|NCT00338884|181649813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3731|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 33 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.3731
90892411|NCT00338884|181649815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0292|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||CR or PR Versus PD||||0.0292
90892412|NCT00338884|181649816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1087|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||CR or PR or (SD \> = 12 Weeks) Versus PD||||0.1087
90892413|NCT00338884|181649818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3386|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 3 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.3386
90892414|NCT00338884|181649818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1949|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 5 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.1949
90892415|NCT00338884|181649818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7037|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 7 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.7037
90892416|NCT00338884|181649818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5748|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 9 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.5748
90892417|NCT00338884|181649818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.747|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 13 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.7470
90892418|NCT00338884|181649818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4703|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 17 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.4703
90892419|NCT00338884|181649818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8162|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 21 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.8162
90892420|NCT00338884|181649818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5465|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 25 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.5465
90892421|NCT00338884|181649818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3495|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 29 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.3495
90892422|NCT00338884|181649818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6397|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 33 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.6397
90892423|NCT00338884|181649819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4632|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 3 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.4632
90892424|NCT00338884|181649819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1701|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 5 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.1701
90892425|NCT00338884|181649819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8204|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 7 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.8204
90892426|NCT00338884|181649819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5162|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 9 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.5162
90892427|NCT00338884|181649819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9437|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 13 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.9437
90892428|NCT00338884|181649819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4013|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 17 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.4013
90892429|NCT00338884|181649819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9595|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 21 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.9595
90892430|NCT00338884|181649819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6249|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 25 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.6249
90892431|NCT00338884|181649819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3731|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 29 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.3731
90892432|NCT00338884|181649819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8263|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 33 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.8263
90892433|NCT05072080|181649839|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|96.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|95.0|97.5||p-value is from a two-sided chi-square test of equality of seroresponse percentages between groups. All 3 coprimary endpoints were required to be met for success, so no multiple comparisons were performed.|Chi-squared||Seroresponse rate difference is (PXVX0317 minus placebo).|Day 22||97.5|95.0|<0.0001
90892434|NCT05072080|181649841|SUPERIORITY||GMT Ratio|206.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|183.0|232.0||All 3 coprimary endpoints were required to be met for success, so no multiple comparisons were performed.|ANOVA|ANOVA model includes site and treatment group as fixed effects, assuming normality of log titers. p-value tests equivalence of group GMTs on log scale|Ratio of GMTs is (PXVX0317:placebo).|Day 22||232|183|<0.0001
90892435|NCT05072080|181649843|EQUIVALENCE|Success criterion was pairwise GMT ratios (104:105, 105:106, 104:106) each with a two-sided 95% CI within \[0.667; 1.5\].|GMT Ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.14|||||All 3 coprimary endpoints were required to be met for success, so no multiple comparisons were performed. GMT estimates and 95% CIs are derived from an ANOVA model that includes site and product lot as fixed effects assuming normality of log titers.|||1.14|0.85|
90892436|NCT05072080|181649843|EQUIVALENCE|Success criterion was pairwise GMT ratios (104:105, 105:106, 104:106) each with a two-sided 95% CI within \[0.667; 1.5\].|GMT Ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.12|||||All 3 coprimary endpoints were required to be met for success, so no multiple comparisons were performed. GMT estimates and 95% CIs are derived from an ANOVA model that includes site and product lot as fixed effects assuming normality of log titers.|||1.12|0.84|
90892437|NCT05072080|181649843|EQUIVALENCE|Success criterion was pairwise GMT ratios (104:105, 105:106, 104:106) each with a two-sided 95% CI within \[0.667; 1.5\].|GMT Ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.1|||||All 3 coprimary endpoints were required to be met for success, so no multiple comparisons were performed. GMT estimates and 95% CIs are derived from an ANOVA model that includes site and product lot as fixed effects assuming normality of log titers.|||1.10|0.82|
90892438|NCT05072080|181649845|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|96.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.3|96.8||Key secondary endpoints were tested hierarchically, such that each was only tested if all 3 coprimary endpoints and prior key secondary endpoints were met, so no multiple comparisons were performed.|Chi-squared|p-value is from a two-sided chi-square test of equality of seroresponse percentages between groups.|Seroresponse rate difference is (PXVX0317 minus placebo).|Day 15||96.8|94.3|<0.0001
90954231|NCT01204710|181786843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.7291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.61||Analysis was stratified by the randomization stratification factor: best overall response to prior docetaxel-based chemotherapy.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio is expressed as Olaratumab + Mitoxantrone / Mitoxantrone and estimated from Cox model.|||1.61|0.72|0.7291
90892439|NCT05072080|181649845|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|84.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|81.7|85.6||Key secondary endpoints were tested hierarchically, such that each was only tested if all 3 coprimary endpoints and prior key secondary endpoints were met, so no multiple comparisons were performed.|Chi-squared|p-value is from a two-sided chi-square test of equality of seroresponse percentages between groups.|Seroresponse rate difference is (PXVX0317 minus placebo).|Day 183||85.6|81.7|<0.0001
90892440|NCT05072080|181649845|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|46.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.8|48.1||Key secondary endpoints were tested hierarchically, such that each was only tested if all 3 coprimary endpoints and prior key secondary endpoints were met, so no multiple comparisons were performed.|Chi-squared|p-value is from a two-sided chi-square test of equality of seroresponse percentages between groups.|Seroresponse rate difference is (PXVX0317 minus placebo).|Day 8||48.1|43.8|<0.0001
90892441|NCT05072080|181649847|SUPERIORITY||GMT Ratio|13.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|14.0|||ANOVA|ANOVA model includes site and treatment group as fixed effects, assuming normality of log titers. p-value tests equivalence of group GMTs on log scale|Ratio of GMTs is (PXVX0317:placebo)|Day 8||14|11|<0.0001
90892442|NCT05072080|181649847|SUPERIORITY||GMT Ratio|144.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|128.0|162.0|||ANOVA|ANOVA model includes site and treatment group as fixed effects, assuming normality of log titers. p-value tests equivalence of group GMTs on log scale|Ratio of GMTs is (PXVX0317:placebo)|Day 15||162|128|<0.0001
90892443|NCT05072080|181649847|SUPERIORITY||GMT Ratio|41.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.0|46.0|||ANOVA|ANOVA model includes site and treatment group as fixed effects, assuming normality of log titers. p-value tests equivalence of group GMTs on log scale|Ratio of GMTs is (PXVX0317:placebo)|Day 183||46|37|<0.0001
90892444|NCT05072080|181649849|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||GMFI estimates and 95% CIs are based on t-statistics assuming a normal distribution of the log fold increase in titer. p-value tests equality of log fold increase in titer between groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Day 8||||<0.0001
90892445|NCT05072080|181649849|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||GMFI estimates and 95% CIs are based on t-statistics assuming a normal distribution of the log fold increase in titer. p-value tests equality of log fold increase in titer between groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Day 15||||<0.0001
90892446|NCT05072080|181649849|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||GMFI estimates and 95% CIs are based on t-statistics assuming a normal distribution of the log fold increase in titer. p-value tests equality of log fold increase in titer between groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Day 22||||<0.0001
90892447|NCT05072080|181649849|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||GMFI estimates and 95% CIs are based on t-statistics assuming a normal distribution of the log fold increase in titer. p-value tests equality of log fold increase in titer between groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Day 183||||<0.0001
90892448|NCT05072080|181649851|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|90.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|88.7|91.9|||Chi-squared|p-value is from a two-sided chi-square test of equality of seroresponse percentages between groups.|Seroresponse rate difference is (PXVX0317 minus placebo).|SNA titers ≥15 at Day 8||91.9|88.7|<0.0001
90892449|NCT05072080|181649851|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|98.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|97.2|99.3||p-value is from a two-sided chi-square test of equality of seroresponse percentages between groups.|Chi-squared||Seroresponse rate difference is (PXVX0317 minus placebo).|SNA titers ≥15 at Day 15||99.3|97.2|<0.0001
90892450|NCT05072080|181649851|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|97.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|95.8|98.5|||Chi-squared|p-value is from a two-sided chi-square test of equality of seroresponse percentages between groups.|Seroresponse rate difference is (PXVX0317 minus placebo).|SNA titers ≥15 at Day 22||98.5|95.8|<0.0001
90954232|NCT01204710|181786844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3465|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.3465
90954233|NCT01204710|181786845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6571|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6571
90892451|NCT05072080|181649851|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|96.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.8|97.9|||Chi-squared|p-value is from a two-sided chi-square test of equality of seroresponse percentages between groups.|Seroresponse rate difference is (PXVX0317 minus placebo).|SNA titers ≥15 at Day 183||97.9|94.8|<0.0001
90892452|NCT05072080|181649851|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|64.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.5|66.7|||Chi-squared|p-value is from a two-sided chi-square test of equality of seroresponse percentages between groups.|Seroresponse rate difference is (PXVX0317 minus placebo).|≥4-fold rise over baseline at Day 8||66.7|62.5|<0.0001
90892453|NCT05072080|181649851|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|97.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.3|98.4|||Chi-squared|p-value is from a two-sided chi-square test of equality of seroresponse percentages between groups.|Seroresponse rate difference is (PXVX0317 minus placebo).|≥4-fold rise over baseline at Day 15||98.4|96.3|<0.0001
90892454|NCT05072080|181649851|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|97.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|95.5|98.1|||Chi-squared|p-value is from a two-sided chi-square test of equality of seroresponse percentages between groups.|Seroresponse rate difference is (PXVX0317 minus placebo).|≥4-fold rise over baseline at Day 22||98.1|95.5|<0.0001
90892455|NCT05072080|181649851|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|91.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.4|92.7|||Chi-squared|p-value is from a two-sided chi-square test of equality of seroresponse percentages between groups.|Seroresponse rate difference is (PXVX0317 minus placebo).|≥4-fold rise over baseline at Day 183||92.7|89.4|<0.0001
90892456|NCT01569438|181649910|OTHER||Mean Difference|-0.7||||0.0734|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.6|0.2||one-sided|Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||MMRM approach was used to model the change from baseline as a function of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline score, and baseline score by week interaction.||0.2|-1.6|0.0734
90892457|NCT01569438|181649911|OTHER||Mean Difference|-1.0||||0.2726|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.9|1.8||one-sided|Mixed Model With Repeated Measures|||MMRM approach was used to model the change from baseline as a function of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline score, and baseline score by week interaction.||1.8|-3.9|0.2726
90892458|NCT01569438|181649912|OTHER||Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.3603|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.7|1.1||one-sided|ANCOVA|||The one-way ANCOVA model was used to calculate change from baseline as a function of treatment and baseline score.||1.1|-1.7|0.3603
90892459|NCT01569438|181649913|OTHER||Mean Difference|-1.5||||0.1183|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.5|0.6||one-sided|ANCOVA|||The one-way ANCOVA model was used to calculate change from baseline as a function of treatment and baseline score.||0.6|-3.5|0.1183
90892460|NCT00452387|181649915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||The test of association of PSA and imaging response tests the null hypothesis that the proportion of cases exhibiting PSA response is the same for patients with and without a favorable imaging response. A 2x2 table was constructed based on the number of the patients in imaging response (favorable and unfavorable) and PSA response (\>50% reduction and \<=50% reduction). The Fisher's exact test was used to test this hypothesis.||||0.55
90892461|NCT00579280|181649921|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<.05
90892462|NCT00579280|181649922|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
90892463|NCT00579280|181649923|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
90892464|NCT00579280|181649924|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<.05
90892465|NCT00579280|181649925|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
90892466|NCT00579280|181649926|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
90892467|NCT00579280|181649927|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|Differences in response (70% or greater improvement) and remission (50% or greater improvement) rates between the groups.||||||<0.05
90892468|NCT00579280|181649928|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
90892469|NCT00579280|181649929|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
90892470|NCT00579280|181649930|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
90892471|NCT00579280|181649931|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
90892472|NCT01693068|181649932|OTHER|A log-rank test stratified by baseline Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) (using the interactive voice response system \[IVRS\] value) will tested the null hypothesis of no difference between the Pimasertib (first line) and the Dacarbazine treatment groups at the 5% level.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.83|||Stratified Log Rank Test||The Hazard Ratio is obtained from the Cox Proportional Hazards model based on dacarbazine and pimasertib only stratified by baseline ECOG Performance Status.|||0.83|0.42|0.0022
90892473|NCT00736645|181649949|OTHER|||||||0.5137|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5137
90892474|NCT00736645|181649949|OTHER|||||||0.8994|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8994
90892475|NCT00736645|181649949|OTHER|||||||0.3463|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3463
90892476|NCT00736645|181649950|OTHER|||||||0.2609|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2609
90892477|NCT00736645|181649950|OTHER|||||||0.7504|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7504
90892478|NCT00736645|181649950|OTHER|||||||0.9727|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.9727
90892479|NCT01311674|181649953|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.96
90892480|NCT01311674|181649954|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.36
90892481|NCT01311674|181649955|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.84
90892482|NCT01311674|181649956|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.24
90892483|NCT01311674|181649957|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.27
90892484|NCT02959996|181649960|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.72
90892485|NCT02959996|181649961|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.14
90892486|NCT02959996|181649962|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.54
90892487|NCT01329029|181649998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.868|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0633||0.0529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.753|1.002||Level of significance: 5% 2-sided|Generalized Linear Regression|Poisson regression model (estimates of exacerbation rates using time in trial as model offset).|A rate ratio of \< 1 represents a favourable outcome for the test treatment.|||1.002|0.753|0.0529
90892488|NCT01329029|181649999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.056|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0089|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.038|0.073|||ANCOVA|Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) including treatment by time interaction.||||0.073|0.038|<0.0001
90892489|NCT01329029|181650000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.757|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0889||0.0175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.601|0.952|||Generalized Linear Regression|Analyzed using a negative binomial regression model excluding a correction for overdispersion.|A rate ratio of \< 1 represents a favourable outcome for the test treatment.|||0.952|0.601|0.0175
90892490|NCT01329029|181650001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.914|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0771||0.2875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.775|1.078||Level of significance: 5% 2-sided|Generalized Linear Regression|Poisson regression model (estimates of exacerbation rates using time in trial as model offset).|A rate ratio of \< 1 represents a favourable outcome for the test treatment.|Moderate COPD Exacerbations||1.078|0.775|0.2875
90892491|NCT01329029|181650001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.794|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0654||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.675|0.933||Level of significance: 5% 2-sided|Generalized Linear Regression|Poisson regression model (estimates of exacerbation rates using time in trial as model offset).|A rate ratio of \< 1 represents a favourable outcome for the test treatment.|Mild, Moderate or Severe COPD Exacerbations||0.933|0.675|0.0050
90892492|NCT01329029|181650001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.854|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0605||0.0262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.744|0.982||Level of significance: 5% 2-sided|Generalized Linear Regression|Poisson regression model (estimates of exacerbation rates using time in trial as model offset).|A rate ratio of \< 1 represents a favourable outcome for the test treatment.|COPD Exacerbations treated with Glucocorticosteroids and/or Antibiotics||0.982|0.744|0.0262
90892493|NCT01329029|181650001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.837|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0528||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.739|0.947||Level of significance: 5% 2-sided|Generalized Linear Regression|Poisson regression model (estimates of exacerbation rates using time in trial as model offset).|A rate ratio of \< 1 represents a favourable outcome for the test treatment.|Moderate or Severe COPD Exacerbations and/or treated with Antibiotics||0.947|0.739|0.0047
90892494|NCT01329029|181650001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.761|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0899||0.0209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.604|0.96||Level of significance: 5% 2-sided.|Generalized Linear Regression|Negative binomial regression model (estimates of exacerbation rates)|A rate ratio of \< 1 represents a favourable outcome for the test treatment.|Leading to Hospitalisation||0.960|0.604|0.0209
90892495|NCT01329029|181650003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.917|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0549||0.1461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.815|1.031||Level of significance: 5% 2-sided.|Cox proportional hazards model||A hazards ratio of \< 1 represents a lower hazard for the test treatment.|||1.031|0.815|0.1461
90892496|NCT01329029|181650004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0842||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.641|0.974||Level of significance: 5% 2-sided|Wei-Lin-Weissfeld Method||A hazard ratio of \<1 represents a favourable outcome for the test treatment|||0.974|0.641|0.0270
90892497|NCT01329029|181650005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.749|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1209||0.0731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.546|1.027||Level of significance: 5% 2-sided|Wei-Lin-Weissfeld Method||A hazard ratio of \<1 represents a favourable outcome for the test treatment.|||1.027|0.546|0.0731
90892498|NCT01329029|181650006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||NNTB|9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|31.0||||||||31|4|
90892499|NCT01329029|181650009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|0.092|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0159|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.061|0.124||Level of significance: 5% 2-sided.|Repeated measurement model|Unstructured covariance structure and restricted maximum likelihood (REML).||||0.124|0.061|<0.0001
90892500|NCT01329029|181650010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|0.025|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0062|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.013|0.038||Level of significance: 5% 2-sided.|Repeated measurement model|Unstructured covariance structure and REML.||||0.038|0.013|<0.0001
90892501|NCT01329029|181650011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|0.094|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0131|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.069|0.12||Level of significance: 5% 2-sided.|Repeated measurement model|Unstructured covariance structure and REML.||||0.120|0.069|<0.0001
90892502|NCT01329029|181650013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.283|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0941||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.467|-0.098||Level of significance: 5% 2-sided.|Repeated measurement model|Compound symmetry covariance structure and REML.||||-0.098|-0.467|0.0027
90892503|NCT01329029|181650014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0439||0.7392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.101|0.071||Level of significance: 5% 2-sided.|Repeated measurement model|Compound symmetry covariance structure and REML.||||0.071|-0.101|0.7392
90892504|NCT01329029|181650017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.285|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2175||0.1909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.711|0.142||Level of significance: 5% 2-sided.|Repeated measurement model|Unstructured covariance structure and REML.||||0.142|-0.711|0.1909
90892505|NCT01329029|181650019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.025|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3468||0.9414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.528|1.99||Level of significance: 5% 2-sided.|Cox-proportional hazards model||A hazards ratio of \< 1 represents a lower hazard for the test treatment.|||1.990|0.528|0.9414
90892506|NCT01329029|181650020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.078|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5765||0.8876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.378|3.075|||Cox-proportional hazards model|Level of significance: 5% 2-sided.|A hazards ratio of \< 1 represents a lower hazard for the test treatment.|||3.075|0.378|0.8876
90892507|NCT01329029|181650021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.529|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1463|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.268|1.845|||Cox-proportional hazards model|Level of significance: 5% 2-sided.|A hazards ratio of \< 1 represents a lower hazard for the test treatment.|||1.845|1.268|<0.0001
90892508|NCT01329029|181650022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.695|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2691||0.3477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.326|1.484||Level of significance: 5% 2-sided.|Cox-proportional hazards model||A hazards ratio of \< 1 represents a lower hazard for the test treatment.|||1.484|0.326|0.3477
90892509|NCT01329029|181650024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.083|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3832||0.8208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.542|2.167||Level of significance: 5% 2-sided.|Cox-proportional hazards model||A hazards ratio of \< 1 represents a lower hazard for the test treatment.|||2.167|0.542|0.8208
90892510|NCT01329029|181650026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.977|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0865||0.7943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.821|1.162||Level of significance: 5% 2-sided.|Cox-proportional hazards model|||||1.162|0.821|0.7943
90892511|NCT01077830|181650043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.09|||Regression, Cox||Hazard Ratio obtained by dividing the crude rate of death (any cause) reported in the Ezetimibe/Simvastatin 10/40 arm by the crude rate of death (any cause) in the Placebo arm|||2.09|0.84|
90954234|NCT01204710|181786846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4986|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4986
90892512|NCT01077830|181650044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|6.06|||||Hazard Ratio obtained by dividing the crude rate of death from cancer reported in the Ezetimibe/Simvastatin 10/40 arm by the crude rate of death from cancer in the Placebo arm|||6.06|0.30|
90892513|NCT01077830|181650045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.11|||||Hazard Ratio obtained by dividing the crude rate of new cancers reported in the Ezetimibe/Simvastatin 10/40 arm by the crude rate of newly diagnosed cancers in the the Placebo arm|||1.11|0.27|
90892514|NCT01194570|181650048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Relative Reduction (%)|29.337||||0.0404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.618|51.456||P-value from a ranked ANCOVA on Percent Change from BL adjusting for rank of BL 25-Foot Timed Walk (25-FTW), Geographical Region (US vs ROW) and Age (\<=45, \> 45 years); missing observations imputed with LOCF.|Ranked ANCOVA||Relative reduction was calculated as -Relative change = - (Ocrelizumab response-Placebo response)/Placebo response\*100%. The 95% CI for relative reduction was obtained using the Bootstrap method.|Estimates (back-transformed) based on mixed-effect model of repeated measures (MMRM) using unstructured covariance matrix: log(Post-baseline(BL)/BL) = log(BL 25-FTW) + Geographical Region (US vs. ROW) + Age (\<=45, \> 45 years) + Week + Treatment + Treatment\*Week (repeated values over Week) + log (BL 25-FTW)\*Week. Relative reduction was calculated as -Relative change = -(OCR response-Placebo response)/Placebo response\*100%. The 95% CI for relative reduction was obtained using the Bootstrap method.||51.456|-1.618|0.0404
90892515|NCT01194570|181650049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|0.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.876|0.924||P-value is from ranked ANCOVA on Percent Change from BL adjusting for rank of BL T2 lesion volume, Geographical Region (US vs ROW) and Age (\<=45, \> 45 years); missing observations imputed with LOCF.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Estimates (back-transformed) are based on mixed-effect model of repeated measures (MMRM) using unstructured covariance matrix: log(Post-BL/BL) = log(BL T2 lesion volume) + Geographical Region (US vs. ROW) + Age (\<=45, \> 45 years) + Week + Treatment + Treatment\*Week (repeated values over Week) + log (BL T2 lesion volume)\*Week.||0.924|0.876|< 0.0001
90892516|NCT01194570|181650050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Relative Reduction (%)|17.475||||0.0206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.206|29.251|||MMRM||Relative reduction was calculated as -Relative change = - (Ocrelizumab response-Placebo response)/Placebo response\*100%. The 95% CI for relative reduction was obtained using the Bootstrap method.|Estimates are from analysis based on MMRM using unstructured covariance matrix: Percentage Change = Brain Volume at Week 24 + Geographical Region (US vs. ROW) + Age (\<=45, \> 45 years) + Week + Treatment + Treatment\*Week (repeated values over Week) + Brain Volume at Week 24\*Week. Relative reduction was calculated as - Relative change = - (OCR response-Placebo response)/Placebo response\*100%. The 95% CI for relative reduction was obtained using Bootstrap method.||29.251|3.206|0.0206
90892517|NCT01194570|181650051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.377|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.725||0.6034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.048|1.802|||MMRM||Difference in adjusted mean was calculated as Ocrelizumab SF-36 Physical Component Summary Score - Placebo SF-36 Physical Component Summary Score.|Estimates are from analysis based on MMRM using unstructured covariance matrix: Change = Baseline PCS Score + Geographical Region (US vs. ROW) + Age (\<=45, \> 45 years) + Week + Treatment + Treatment\*Week (repeated values over Week) + Baseline PCS Score\*Week.||1.802|-1.048|0.6034
91081936|NCT01763827|182048245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-36.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.66|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.97|-36.42||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Ezetimibe is the reference|The null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from Baseline at the mean of Weeks 10 and 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and ezetimibe, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-36.42|-42.97|<0.001
90892518|NCT04171102|181650053|OTHER|||||||0.028||||||\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.028
90892519|NCT01751126|181650054|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.76||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.27||ANCOVA with treatment as well as the baseline CFS and the exposure to Vernal keratoconjunctivitis (VKC) seasons (Hochberg procedure).|t-test, 2 sided|||||1.27|0.26|0.007
90892520|NCT01751126|181650054|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.67||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.18|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as well as the baseline CFS and the exposure to Vernal keratoconjunctivitis (VKC) seasons (Hochberg procedure).||||1.18|0.16|0.010
90892521|NCT00876915|181650059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.695||||0.4795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.235|1.89|||stratified Cox|||||1.890|0.235|0.4795
90892522|NCT00876915|181650060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|7.019||||0.0252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.236|131.632|||stratified Cox|||||131.632|1.236|0.0252
90892523|NCT02673398|181650074|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.01|||t-test, 2 sided||Patients with higher risk scores were more likely to require a dose reduction. The lack of significance is most likely due to the small sample size.|Student's t-test was used to assess if geriatric risk score differed depending on whether or not a participant had a dose reduction (mean difference log2 risk = no dose modification - dose modification).||0.01|-0.82|0.05
90892524|NCT02673398|181650074|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.44||0.39|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression was used to assess whether log2 geriatric toxicity risk score was a risk factor for the number of course completed.||||0.39
90892525|NCT02673398|181650075|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.093|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0398||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||The older the participant the lower the steady state value.|Least squares regression was used to assess the relationship between steady state neratinib concentration and age||||0.03
90892526|NCT02673398|181650075|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.39||0.57|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Geriatric risk score was not predictive of steady state concentration.|Least squares regression was used to determine if geriatric toxicity risk score at baseline was predictive of steady state neratinib concentration.||||0.57
90892527|NCT05616962|181650095|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.473|||||||ANCOVA|Repeated measures ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate including the changes from Baseline to months 1, 2, and 3||||||0.473
90892528|NCT05616962|181650096|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03199|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.03199
90892529|NCT05616962|181650097|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.408|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate||||||0.408
90892530|NCT05616962|181650098|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||"Reported p-value was calculated, did not attempt to indicate threshold for statistical significance. Significance was evaluated at \<0.05. P-values were reported to the thousandths place and those less than 0.001 were reported as \<0.001."|ANCOVA|Repeated measures ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate including the changes from Baseline to months 1, 2, and 3||||||<0.001
90892531|NCT05616962|181650099|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||"Reported p-value was calculated, did not attempt to indicate threshold for statistical significance. Significance was evaluated at \<0.05. P-values were reported to the thousandths place and those less than 0.001 were reported as \<0.001."|ANCOVA|Repeated measures ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate including the changes from Baseline to months 1, 2, and 3||||||<0.001
90892532|NCT05616962|181650100|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||"Reported p-value was calculated, did not attempt to indicate threshold for statistical significance. Significance was evaluated at \<0.05. P-values were reported to the thousandths place and those less than 0.001 were reported as \<0.001."|ANCOVA|Repeated measures ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate including the changes from Baseline to months 1, 2, and 3||||||<0.001
90892533|NCT05616962|181650101|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||"Reported p-value was calculated, did not attempt to indicate threshold for statistical significance. Significance was evaluated at \<0.05. P-values were reported to the thousandths place and those less than 0.001 were reported as \<0.001."|ANCOVA|Repeated measures ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate including the changes from Baseline to months 1, 2, and 3||||||<0.001
90892534|NCT05616962|181650102|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||"Reported p-value was calculated, did not attempt to indicate threshold for statistical significance. Significance was evaluated at \<0.05. P-values were reported to the thousandths place and those less than 0.001 were reported as \<0.001."|ANCOVA|Repeated measures ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate including the changes from Baseline to months 1, 2, and 3||||||<0.001
90892535|NCT05616962|181650103|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||"Reported p-value was calculated, did not attempt to indicate threshold for statistical significance. Significance was evaluated at \<0.05. P-values were reported to the thousandths place and those less than 0.001 were reported as \<0.001."|ANCOVA|Repeated measures ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate including the changes from Baseline to months 1, 2, and 3||||||<0.001
90892536|NCT05616962|181650104|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||"Reported p-value was calculated, did not attempt to indicate threshold for statistical significance. Significance was evaluated at \<0.05. P-values were reported to the thousandths place and those less than 0.001 were reported as \<0.001."|ANCOVA|Repeated measures ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate including the changes from Baseline to months 1, 2, and 3||||||<0.001
90892537|NCT05616962|181650105|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||"Reported p-value was calculated, did not attempt to indicate threshold for statistical significance. Significance was evaluated at \<0.05. P-values were reported to the thousandths place and those less than 0.001 were reported as \<0.001."|ANCOVA|Repeated measures ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate including the changes from Baseline to months 1, 2, and 3||||||<0.001
90892538|NCT05616962|181650106|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||"Reported p-value was calculated, did not attempt to indicate threshold for statistical significance. Significance was evaluated at \<0.05. P-values were reported to the thousandths place and those less than 0.001 were reported as \<0.001."|ANCOVA|Repeated measures ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate including the changes from Baseline to months 1, 2, and 3||||||<0.001
90892539|NCT05616962|181650107|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||"Reported p-value was calculated, did not attempt to indicate threshold for statistical significance. Significance was evaluated at \<0.05. P-values were reported to the thousandths place and those less than 0.001 were reported as \<0.001."|ANCOVA|Repeated measures ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate including the changes from Baseline to months 1, 2, and 3||||||<0.001
90892540|NCT05616962|181650108|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||"Reported p-value was calculated, did not attempt to indicate threshold for statistical significance. Significance was evaluated at \<0.05. P-values were reported to the thousandths place and those less than 0.001 were reported as \<0.001."|ANCOVA|Repeated measures ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate including the changes from Baseline to months 1, 2, and 3||||||<0.001
90892541|NCT05616962|181650109|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||"Reported p-value was calculated, did not attempt to indicate threshold for statistical significance. Significance was evaluated at \<0.05. P-values were reported to the thousandths place and those less than 0.001 were reported as \<0.001."|ANCOVA|Repeated measures ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate including the changes from Baseline to months 1, 2, and 3||||||<0.001
90892542|NCT05616962|181650110|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||"Reported p-value was calculated, did not attempt to indicate threshold for statistical significance. Significance was evaluated at \<0.05. P-values were reported to the thousandths place and those less than 0.001 were reported as \<0.001."|ANCOVA|Repeated measures ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate including the changes from Baseline to months 1, 2, and 3||||||<0.001
90892543|NCT05616962|181650111|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||"Reported p-value was calculated, did not attempt to indicate threshold for statistical significance. Significance was evaluated at \<0.05. P-values were reported to the thousandths place and those less than 0.001 were reported as \<0.001."|ANCOVA|Repeated measures ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate including the changes from Baseline to months 1, 2, and 3||||||<0.001
90892544|NCT05616962|181650113|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.00463|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.00463
90892545|NCT05616962|181650114|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23077|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.23077
90892546|NCT05616962|181650115|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.00849|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.00849
90892547|NCT04098406|181650133|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.7||||0.4304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|27.3|||MMRM|||||27.3|-11.9|0.4304
90892548|NCT04098406|181650134|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.6||||0.6519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|19.7|||MMRM|||||19.7|-12.4|0.6519
90892549|NCT04098406|181650135|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.8||||0.6158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.4|94.0|||MMRM|||||94.0|-56.4|0.6158
90892550|NCT04098406|181650140|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.4249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|3.6|||MMRM|||||3.6|-1.6|0.4249
90892551|NCT04098406|181650141|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0350
90892552|NCT04098406|181650143|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.1||||0.2237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|23.9|||ANCOVA|||||23.9|-5.8|0.2237
90892553|NCT04098406|181650144|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.29||||0.0125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.103|0.815|||Log Rank|||||0.815|0.103|0.0125
90892554|NCT04098406|181650146|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.0177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.6|||MMRM|||||1.6|0.2|0.0177
90892555|NCT03382782|181650151|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.36||||0.025|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = (3, 172)||||||.025
90892556|NCT03382782|181650152|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.243||||0.784|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 2, 182||Intent-to-treat analyses||||0.784
90892557|NCT03382782|181650152|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.058||||0.81|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 1, 118||As-treated analyses||||0.810
90892558|NCT03382782|181650153|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.77||||0.174|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 2, 182||Intent-to-treat analyses||||0.174
90892559|NCT03382782|181650153|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.15||||0.286|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 1, 118||As-treated analyses||||0.286
90892560|NCT03382782|181650154|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.36||||0.261|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 2, 182||Intent-to-treat analyses||||0.261
90892561|NCT03382782|181650154|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.012||||0.912|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 1, 118||As-treated analyses||||0.912
90892562|NCT03382782|181650156|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.74||||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 3, 172||||||0.11
90892563|NCT03382782|181650157|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.18||||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 3, 156||Mean systolic blood pressure||||0.09
90892564|NCT03382782|181650157|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.63||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 3, 156||Mean diastolic blood pressure||||0.05
90892565|NCT03382782|181650159|SUPERIORITY|Intention-to-treat analyses. General Health subscale.|Mean Difference (Net)|2.14||||0.121|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 2, 182||||||0.121
90892566|NCT03382782|181650159|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.71||||0.193|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 1, 118||As-treated analyses. General Health subscale.||||0.193
90892567|NCT03382782|181650159|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.181||||0.835|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 2, 182||Intention-to-treat analyses. Bodily Pain subscale.||||0.835
90892568|NCT03382782|181650159|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.43||||0.513|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 1, 118||As-treated analyses, Bodily Pain subscale.||||0.513
90892569|NCT03382782|181650159|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.37||||0.097|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 2, 182||Intention-to-treat analyses, Physical Functioning subscale.||||0.097
90892570|NCT03382782|181650159|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04||||0.184|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 1, 118||As-treated analyses, Physical Functioning subscale.||||0.184
90892571|NCT03382782|181650159|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.06||||0.347|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 2, 182||Intention-to-treat analyses. Emotional Well-Being subscale.||||0.347
90892572|NCT03382782|181650159|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.361||||0.549|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 1, 118||As-treated analyses, Emotional Well-Being subscale.||||0.549
90892573|NCT03382782|181650160|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.157||||0.855|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Degrees of freedom = 2,182||Intention-to-treat analyses||||.855
90892574|NCT03382782|181650160|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.011||||0.915|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 1, 118||As-treated analyses||||0.915
90892575|NCT03382782|181650162|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.68||||0.508|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 2, 182||Intent-to-treat analyses||||0.508
90892576|NCT03382782|181650162|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.67||||0.198|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 1, 118||As-treated analyses||||0.198
90892577|NCT01316510|181650164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Primary outcome (percentage of bifidobacteria in the final stool specimen)||||<0.01
90892578|NCT01316510|181650165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Secondary outcome (length of hospital stay) for all 24 infants (this included two infants with intestinal atresia, both in the placebo group)||||0.44
90892579|NCT00428090|181650170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|0.2||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 2 mg in APOE e4 neg cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.2|-3.8|0.074
90892580|NCT00428090|181650170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|1.0||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 8 mg in APOE e4 neg cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||1.0|-3.0|0.338
90892581|NCT00428090|181650170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|2.1||Comparison between Placebo and Donepezil 10mg in APOE e4 neg cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||2.1|-3.5|0.602
90892582|NCT00428090|181650171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|0.4||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 2 mg in All except e4/e4's cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.4|-2.7|0.131
90892583|NCT00428090|181650171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.8||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 8 mg in All except e4/e4's cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.8|-2.4|0.315
90959038|NCT01620255|181798206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-1.27||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.016|-0.533|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with model terms: treatment group, baseline, status of anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) therapy experience.||PF-00547659 225 mg vs placebo, centrally read change||-0.533|-2.016|0.0049
90892584|NCT00428090|181650171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|0.3||Comparison between Placebo and Donepezil 10 mg in All except e4/e4's cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.3|-3.5|0.105
90892585|NCT00428090|181650172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.6||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 2 mg in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.6|-2.2|0.272
90892586|NCT00428090|181650172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.7||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 8 mg in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.7|-2.2|0.297
90892587|NCT00428090|181650172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|0.4||Comparison between Placebo and Donepezil 10 mg in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix||||0.4|-3.1|0.131
90892588|NCT00428090|181650173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.4||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 2 mg in APOE e4 neg cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.4|-0.3|0.663
90892589|NCT00428090|181650173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.3||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 8 mg in APOE e4 neg cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.3|-0.4|0.891
90892590|NCT00428090|181650173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.3||Comparison between Placebo and Donepezil 10 mg in APOE e4 neg cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|||0.3|-0.7|0.414
90892591|NCT00428090|181650174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 2 mg in All except e4/e4's cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix||||0.3|-0.3|0.913
90892592|NCT00428090|181650174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 8 mg in All except e4/e4's cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.1|-0.4|0.276
90892593|NCT00428090|181650174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.1||Comparison between Placebo and Donepezil 10 mg in All except e4/e4's cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||-0.1|-0.8|0.025
90892594|NCT00428090|181650175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.3||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 2 mg in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.3|-0.2|0.939
90892595|NCT00428090|181650175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 8 mg in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.1|-0.4|0.307
90892596|NCT00428090|181650175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.1||Comparison between Placebo and Donepezil 10 mg in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||-0.1|-0.8|0.009
90892597|NCT00428090|181650176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.2||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 2 mg at Week 8 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.2|-2.0|0.116
90892598|NCT00428090|181650176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.2||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 8 mg at Week 8 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||1.2|-0.9|0.816
90892599|NCT00428090|181650176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.7||Comparison between Placebo and Donepezil 10 mg at Week 8 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.7|-2.1|0.318
90892600|NCT00428090|181650176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.3||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 2 mg in at Week 16 Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||1.3|-1.1|0.839
90892601|NCT00428090|181650176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|2.0||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 8 mg at Week 16 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||2.0|-0.3|0.165
90892602|NCT00428090|181650176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|0.2||Comparison between Placebo and Donepezil 10 mg at Week 16 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.2|-3.4|0.073
90892603|NCT00428090|181650176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.6||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 2 mg at Week 24 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.6|-2.2|0.272
90892604|NCT00428090|181650176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.7||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 8 mg at Week 24 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.7|-2.2|0.297
90892605|NCT00428090|181650176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|0.4||Comparison between Placebo and Donepezil 10 mg at Week 24 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.4|-3.1|0.131
90892606|NCT00428090|181650177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.0||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 2 mg at Week 8 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.0|-0.3|0.133
90892607|NCT00428090|181650177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 8 mg at Week 8 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.2|-0.2|0.958
90954235|NCT03898167|181786854|OTHER||Relative Participation|2.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.99|2.8||95% CIs were calculated.||||Bivariable tables, Pearson chi-square and Kruskal-Wallis nonparametric tests were used to compare demographic/health care characteristics by study group. Log binomial regression was used to calculate screening proportion, participation difference, and relative participation (calculated as relative risk), with 95% CIs. Overall participation difference and relative participation for SC and SC with patient navigation vs TR were calculated by combining numerators and denominators from each group.||2.80|1.99|
90892608|NCT00428090|181650177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.0||Comparison between Placebo and Donepezil 10 mg at Week 8 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.0|-0.5|0.085
90892609|NCT00428090|181650177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.0||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 2 mg at Week 16 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.0|-0.4|0.102
90892610|NCT00428090|181650177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 8 mg at Week 16 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.1|-0.3|0.380
90892611|NCT00428090|181650177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.1||Comparison between Placebo and Donepezil 10 mg at Week 16 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||-0.1|-0.7|0.006
90892612|NCT00428090|181650177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.3||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 2 mg at Week 24 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.3|-0.2|0.939
90954236|NCT04696653|181786886|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1||||||||0.1|-0.2|
90892613|NCT00428090|181650177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 8 mg at Week 24 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.1|-0.4|0.307
90892614|NCT00428090|181650177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.1||Comparison between Placebo and Donepezil 10 mg at Week 24 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||-0.1|-0.8|0.009
90892615|NCT00428090|181650178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.5||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 2mg at Week 8 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||1.5|-1.6|0.957
90892616|NCT00428090|181650178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|2.2||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 8 mg at Week 8 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||2.2|-1.4|0.693
90892617|NCT00428090|181650178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.7||Comparison between Placebo and Donepezil 10 mg at Week 8 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||1.7|-2.2|0.798
90892618|NCT00428090|181650178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.8||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 2 mg at Week 16 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||1.8|-1.7|0.958
90892619|NCT00428090|181650178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.1||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 8 mg at Week 16 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||2.1|-2.1|0.998
90892620|NCT00428090|181650178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.639||95.0|-1.7|2.8||Comparison between Placebo and Donepezil 10 mg at Week 16 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||2.8|-1.7|0.639
90892621|NCT00428090|181650178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.7||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 2 mg at Week 24 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||2.7|-2.1|0.797
90892622|NCT00428090|181650178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|2.7||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 8 mg at Week 24 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||2.7|-2.9|0.942
90892623|NCT00428090|181650178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|1.1||Comparison between Placebo and Donepezil 10 mg at Week 24 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||1.1|-4.8|0.213
90892624|NCT00428090|181650179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.3||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 2 mg at Week 8 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||2.3|-2.1|0.919
90892625|NCT00428090|181650179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.4||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 8 mg at Week 8 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||2.4|-1.5|0.649
90892626|NCT00428090|181650179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|3.6||Comparison between Placebo and Donepezil 10 mg at Week 8 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||3.6|-1.1|0.279
90892627|NCT00428090|181650179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|3.6||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 2 mg at Week 16 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||3.6|-1.8|0.498
90954237|NCT04696653|181786887|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.8||||||hypertension||1.8|0.2|
90892628|NCT00428090|181650179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|3.6||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 8 mg in at Week 16 Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||3.6|-1.7|0.489
90892629|NCT00428090|181650179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.7||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|7.0||Comparison between Placebo and Donepezil 10 mg at Week 16 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||7.0|0.5|0.024
90892630|NCT00428090|181650179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|4.2||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 2 mg at Week 24 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||4.2|-1.6|0.385
90892631|NCT00428090|181650179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|2.8||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 8 mg at Week 24 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||2.8|-3.0|0.944
90892632|NCT00428090|181650179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.6||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|7.5||Comparison between Placebo and Donepezil 10 mg at Week 24 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||7.5|-0.4|0.078
90892633|NCT00428090|181650180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.5||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 2 mg at Week 8 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.5|-0.8|0.635
90892634|NCT00428090|181650180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.1||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 8 mg at Week 8 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||1.1|-0.2|0.194
90892635|NCT00428090|181650180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.4||Comparison between Placebo and Donepezil 10 mg at Week 8 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.4|-1.3|0.325
90892636|NCT00428090|181650180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.2||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 2 mg at Week 16 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||1.2|-0.1|0.109
90892637|NCT00428090|181650180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.4||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 8 mg at Week 16 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||1.4|0.1|0.032
90892638|NCT00428090|181650180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.3||Comparison between Placebo and Donepezil 10 mg at Week 16 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.3|-1.7|0.189
90892639|NCT00428090|181650180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.3||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 2 mg at Week 24 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.3|-1.1|0.288
90892640|NCT00428090|181650180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.6||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 8 mg at Week 24 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.6|-0.8|0.819
90892641|NCT00428090|181650180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.5||Comparison between Placebo and Donepezil 10 mg at Week 24 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.5|-1.5|0.306
90954238|NCT04696653|181786887|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.1||||||dyslipidemia||2.1|0.0|
90954239|NCT04696653|181786887|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.0||||||diabetes||2.0|0.1|
90892642|NCT00428090|181650181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.07||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 2 mg at Week 12 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.07|-0.01|0.199
90892643|NCT00428090|181650181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.08||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 8 mg at Week 12 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.08|-0.01|0.094
90892644|NCT00428090|181650181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.09||Comparison between Placebo and Donepezil 10 mg at Week 12 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.09|-0.02|0.187
90892645|NCT00428090|181650181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.07||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 2 mg at Week 24 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.07|-0.01|0.134
90892646|NCT00428090|181650181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.05||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 8 mg at Week 24 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.05|-0.05|0.958
90892647|NCT00428090|181650181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.07||Comparison between Placebo and Donepezil 10 mg at Week 24 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.07|-0.03|0.374
90892648|NCT00428090|181650182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|2.2||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 2 mg at Week 12 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||2.2|-4.6|0.493
90892649|NCT00428090|181650182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|3.7||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 8 mg at Week 12 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||3.7|-3.2|0.883
90892650|NCT00428090|181650182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|1.2||Comparison between Placebo and Donepezil 10 mg at Week 12 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||1.2|-9.3|0.130
90892651|NCT00428090|181650182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.6||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|1.4||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 2 mg at Week 24 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||1.4|-6.6|0.198
90892652|NCT00428090|181650182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|2.6||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 8 mg at Week 24 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||2.6|-5.9|0.441
90892653|NCT00428090|181650182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|5.1||Comparison between Placebo and Donepezil 10 mg at Week 24 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||5.1|-5.8|0.898
90892654|NCT00428090|181650184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.1||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 2 mg at Week 12 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||-0.1|-2.1|0.027
90892655|NCT00428090|181650184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.5||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 8 mg at Week 12 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.5|-1.6|0.278
90892656|NCT00428090|181650184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.1||Comparison between Placebo and Donepezil 10 mg at Week 12 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||1.1|-1.2|0.993
90954240|NCT04696653|181786888|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.1||||||Evidenced based practice||0.1|-0.6|
90892657|NCT00428090|181650184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.4||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 2 mg at Week 24 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.4|-2.0|0.196
90892658|NCT00428090|181650184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.7||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 8 mg at Week 24 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.7|-1.9|0.353
90892659|NCT00428090|181650184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.9||Comparison between Placebo and Donepezil 10 mg at Week 24 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.9|-2.2|0.427
90892660|NCT00428090|181650185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.6|||ANCOVA|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.6|-0.7|0.886
90892661|NCT00428090|181650185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.6|||ANCOVA|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.6|-0.8|0.710
90892662|NCT00428090|181650185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.8|||ANCOVA|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||1.8|0.1|0.030
90892663|NCT00428090|181650186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.2|||ANCOVA|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.2|-0.0|0.139
90892664|NCT00428090|181650186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||ANCOVA|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.1|-0.1|0.846
90892665|NCT00428090|181650186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2|||ANCOVA|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.2|-0.1|0.864
90892666|NCT00361140|181650206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||.007
90892667|NCT00361140|181650207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|6.27||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|42.48|||Gray|Gray RJ. A class of K-sample tests for comparing the cumulative incidence of a competing risk. Ann Stat. 1988;16:1141-1154.||Sample size: dependent on dose escalation. Once the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) is reached, a total of 30 patients will be accrued to that level. If maximally tolerated AUC is level 1, a total of 30 patients will be treated on this level using tacrolimus and methotrexate as GVHD prophylaxis. This will provide 95% confidence intervals for 100-day non-relapse mortality and non-fatal toxicities with ½ widths not exceeding 0.18. Hazard ratios were calculated per the method of Gray (reference given)||42.48|0.92|.07
90892668|NCT02623322|181650214|SUPERIORITY||Difference in event rates (Wald)|-3.03||||0.3031|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-12.25|6.19|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||6.19|-12.25|0.3031
90892669|NCT02623322|181650214|SUPERIORITY||Difference in event rates (Wald)|-3.03||||0.3324|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-12.82|6.76|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||6.76|-12.82|0.3324
90892670|NCT02623322|181650215|SUPERIORITY||Difference in event rates (Wald)|-3.03||||0.3031|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-12.25|6.19|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||6.19|-12.25|0.3031
90892671|NCT02623322|181650215|SUPERIORITY||Difference in event rates (Wald)|-3.03||||0.3324|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-12.82|6.76|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||6.76|-12.82|0.3324
90892672|NCT02623322|181650219|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.7858|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.62|1.37|||Wilcoxon|||Total Symptom Score of \<=1||1.37|0.62|0.7858
90892673|NCT02623322|181650219|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.517|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.59|1.36|||Wilcoxon|||Total Symptom Score of \<=1||1.36|0.59|0.5170
90892674|NCT02623322|181650219|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63||||0.0312|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.45|0.89|||Wilcoxon|||Total Symptom Score of \<=7||0.89|0.45|0.0312
90892675|NCT02623322|181650219|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.2044|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.53|1.04|||Wilcoxon|||Total Symptom Score of \<=7||1.04|0.53|0.2044
90892676|NCT02450331|181650239|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.892||||0.2446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.735|1.081|||Log Rank|||||1.081|0.735|0.2446
90892677|NCT02450331|181650240|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.897||||0.3172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.726|1.109|||Log Rank|||Stratified analysis based on PDL1 status, tumor stage after resection, and nodal status.||1.109|0.726|0.3172
90892678|NCT02450331|181650241|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.836||||0.2235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.626|1.116|||Log Rank|||||1.116|0.626|0.2235
90892679|NCT02450331|181650242|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.918||||0.4291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.743|1.134|||Log Rank|||||1.134|0.743|0.4291
90892680|NCT02450331|181650243|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.879||||0.1994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.722|1.07|||Log Rank|||||1.070|0.722|0.1994
90905067|NCT02886728|181677437|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|-0.17||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and subjects being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.17|-0.29|<0.001
90892681|NCT02080871|181650249|OTHER|This was a single-arm study designed to compare the primary outcome result to a performance goal based on published literature. The null hypothesis was the probability of a subject experiencing a Major Adverse Event (MAE) with use of study device is at least 17%. The alternate hypothesis was the probability of a subject experiencing a Major Adverse Event (MAE) with use of the study device is less than 17%.|||||<|0.001|||||||one-sided binomial exact test|||The sample size obtains over 90% power to statistically show the probability that a subject will experience an MAE with use of the study device is less than 17% when 12% or less of the subjects are lost to follow up prior to 9 months.||||<0.001
90892682|NCT03384173|181650346|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90892683|NCT03384173|181650347|OTHER|Correlation, Pearson r|Pearson r correlation|0.16||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.37|||Pearson r correlation|||||0.37|-0.07|0.17
90892684|NCT03384173|181650348|OTHER|Correlation, Pearson r|Pearson r correlation|0.12||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.33|||Pearson r correlation|||||0.33|-0.11|0.32
90892685|NCT03384173|181650350|OTHER|Mann Whitney U non parametric test|||||<|0.01||||||"A-priori threshold p\<0.05 for 'subgroup 20-29.99%' vs 'baseline value before caffeine dose'.~A-priori threshold p\<0.05 for 'subgroup 30-39.99%' vs 'baseline value before caffeine dose'."|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Control group is Secondary analysis #4, baseline values before caffeine dose.||||<0.01
90892686|NCT03384173|181650351|OTHER|Mann Whitney U non parametric test|||||<|0.001||||||A-priori threshold p\<0.05 for 'subgroup 20-29.99%' vs 'baseline value before caffeine dose'.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Control group is secondary outcome #4, baseline values before caffeine dose||||<0.001
90892687|NCT03384173|181650352|OTHER|Mann-Whitney U non parametric t test|||||<|0.01||||||"A-priori threshold p\<0.05 for 'subgroup 20-29.99%' vs 'baseline value before caffeine dose'.~A-priori threshold p\<0.05 for 'subgroup \>60% ' vs 'baseline value before caffeine dose'."|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison group is Secondary outcome #4, baseline caffeine values by subgroup||||<0.01
90892688|NCT03384173|181650353|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||A-priori threshold p\<0.05 for 'subgroup 20-29.99%' vs 'baseline value before caffeine dose'.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison group is secondary outcome #4, baseline values before caffeine dose||||<0.0001
90892689|NCT03384173|181650354|OTHER|Mann Whitney U non-parametric t-test|||||<|0.05||||||A-priori threshold p\<0.05 for 'subgroup 20-29.99%' vs 'baseline value before caffeine dose'.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison group is Secondary Outcome #4, baseline before dose of caffeine.||||<0.05
90892690|NCT03148470|181650355|OTHER|||||||0.932||||||This p-value refers to the effect of stimulation (cTBS vs iTBS).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.932
90892691|NCT03148470|181650356|OTHER|||||||0.642|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.642
90892692|NCT04493931|181650357|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|0.944|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.753|1.184||||||||1.184|0.753|
90892693|NCT04493931|181650358|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.75|0.742|||||The median difference and the 90% CI of the median difference were from Hodges-Lehmann estimate.|||0.742|-0.750|
90892694|NCT04493931|181650359|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.094|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.959|1.249||||||||1.249|0.959|
90892695|NCT04493931|181650360|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.157|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.059|1.265||||||||1.265|1.059|
90892696|NCT04493931|181650361|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.158|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.062|1.264||||||||1.264|1.062|
90892697|NCT04493931|181650362|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.635|0.84||||||||0.840|0.635|
90892698|NCT04493931|181650363|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.0|||||The median difference and the 90% CI of the median difference were from Hodges-Lehmann estimate.|||0.000|0.000|
90892699|NCT04493931|181650364|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.467|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|0.492|||||The median difference and the 90% CI of the median difference were from Hodges-Lehmann estimate|||0.492|-1.000|
90892700|NCT04493931|181650365|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|0.476|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.433|0.525||||||||0.525|0.433|
90892701|NCT04493931|181650366|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|0.478|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.435|0.526||||||||0.526|0.435|
90892702|NCT04493931|181650367|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS mean|1.533|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.274|1.845||||||||1.845|1.274|
90892703|NCT04493931|181650368|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.0|||||The median difference and the 90% CI of the median difference were from Hodges-Lehmann estimate.|||0.000|0.000|
90892704|NCT04493931|181650369|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|-0.233|||||The median difference and the 90% CI of the median difference were from Hodges-Lehmann estimate.|||-0.233|-1.000|
90892705|NCT04493931|181650370|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS mean|1.217|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.085|1.363||||||||1.363|1.085|
90892706|NCT04493931|181650371|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS mean|1.121|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.983|1.278||||||||1.278|0.983|
90892707|NCT04493931|181650372|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS mean|1.242|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.046|1.475||||||||1.475|1.046|
90892708|NCT04493931|181650373|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.0|||||The median difference and the 90% CI of the median difference were from Hodges-Lehmann estimate.|||0.000|0.000|
90892709|NCT04493931|181650374|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.25|0.8|||||The median difference and the 90% CI of the median difference were from Hodges-Lehmann estimate.|||0.800|-0.250|
90892710|NCT04493931|181650375|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS mean|1.923|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.622|2.278||||||||2.278|1.622|
90892711|NCT04493931|181650376|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS mean|1.902|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.619|2.234||||||||2.234|1.619|
90892712|NCT04493931|181650400|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS mean|1.051|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.824|1.34||||||||1.340|0.824|
90892713|NCT04493931|181650401|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.25|||||The median difference and the 90% CI of the median difference were from Hodges-Lehmann estimate.|||0.250|0.000|
90892714|NCT04493931|181650402|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|1.25|||||The median difference and the 90% CI of the median difference were from Hodges-Lehmann estimate.|||1.250|-0.500|
90892715|NCT04493931|181650403|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS mean|1.094|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.987|1.212||||||||1.212|0.987|
90892716|NCT04493931|181650404|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS mean|1.095|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.991|1.209||||||||1.209|0.991|
90892717|NCT04493931|181650407|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.25|0.0|||||The median difference and the 90% CI of the median difference were from Hodges-Lehmann estimate.|||0.000|-0.250|
90892718|NCT04493931|181650410|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS mean|1.214|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.473||||||||1.473|1.000|
90892719|NCT04493931|181650411|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS mean|1.097|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.948|1.27||||||||1.270|0.948|
90892720|NCT04493931|181650412|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS mean|1.071|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.939|1.221||||||||1.221|0.939|
90892721|NCT04493931|181650413|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS mean|1.096|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|1.292||||||||1.292|0.930|
90892722|NCT04493931|181650427|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS mean|0.499|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.441|0.565||||||||0.565|0.441|
90892723|NCT04493931|181650428|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS mean|0.439|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.37|0.521||||||||0.521|0.370|
90892724|NCT04493931|181650429|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS mean|0.438|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.372|0.516||||||||0.516|0.372|
90892725|NCT04493931|181650430|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS mean|1.036|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|1.129||||||||1.129|0.950|
90892726|NCT04493931|181650454|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS mean|1.755|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.304|2.363||||||||2.363|1.304|
90892727|NCT04493931|181650455|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS mean|0.833|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.769|0.902||||||||0.902|0.769|
90892728|NCT04493931|181650456|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS mean|0.745|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.653|0.85||||||||0.850|0.653|
90892729|NCT04493931|181650457|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS mean|0.892|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.782|1.018||||||||1.018|0.782|
90892730|NCT04493931|181650458|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS mean|1.157|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.876|1.528||||||||1.528|0.876|
90892731|NCT04493931|181650459|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS mean|1.142|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.016|1.283||||||||1.283|1.016|
90892732|NCT04493931|181650460|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS mean|0.603|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.521|0.699||||||||0.699|0.521|
91081937|NCT01763827|182048246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-79.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-85.0|-74.2||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-74.2|-85.0|<0.001
90892733|NCT04493931|181650461|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS mean|0.526|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.448|0.618||||||||0.618|0.448|
90892734|NCT00558428|181650508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64|<|0.0001||95.0|-4.9|-2.38|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline and country effect||||-2.38|-4.90|<0.0001
90892735|NCT00558428|181650508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64|<|0.0001||95.0|-6.18|-3.66|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline and country effect||||-3.66|-6.18|<0.0001
90892736|NCT00558428|181650508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||||95.0|-2.66|-0.14|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline and country effect||||-0.14|-2.66|
90892737|NCT00558428|181650508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||||95.0|-3.93|-1.43|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline and country effect||||-1.43|-3.93|
90892738|NCT00831779|181650539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.4685||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.75|36.1||Primary endpoint was tested at alpha=0.05|ANOVA|||||36.10|5.75|0.0059
90892739|NCT00831779|181650540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.4984||0.0598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|57.48||Secondary endpoint was tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05|ANOVA|||||57.48|-1.22|0.0598
90892740|NCT04020341|181650541|NON_INFERIORITY|The difference in success rate between treatment groups (gepotidacin - nitrofurantoin) was calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen Summary Score Method adjusted for age group and acute cystitis recurrence strata combinations. Criteria for non-inferiority is if the Z-statistic for non-inferiority is greater than the Z-statistic boundary (2.065).|Adjusted Difference in Percent|4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|12.1|||||||Observed Z statistic value for Noninferiority was 3.5554.|12.1|-3.6|
90892741|NCT04020341|181650541|SUPERIORITY|The difference in success rate between treatment groups (gepotidacin - nitrofurantoin) was calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen Summary Score Method adjusted for age group and acute cystitis recurrence strata combinations. Criteria for superiority is if the one-sided p-value is less than the 0.019 p-value boundary.|Adjusted difference of Percent|4.3||||0.1445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|12.1|||1-sided p-value for Test of Superiority|||||12.1|-3.6|0.1445
90892742|NCT01814371|181650592|NON_INFERIORITY|testing non-inferiority of individualized approach compared to household approach.||||||0.757|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.757
90892743|NCT01814371|181650593|NON_INFERIORITY|testing non-inferiority of individualized approach compared to household approach.||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
90892744|NCT01814371|181650594|NON_INFERIORITY|testing non-inferiority of individualized approach compared to household approach.||||||0.687|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.687
90892745|NCT01814371|181650595|NON_INFERIORITY|testing non-inferiority of individualized approach compared to household approach.||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
90892746|NCT01814371|181650596|NON_INFERIORITY|testing non-inferiority of individualized approach compared to household approach.||||||0.811|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.811
90892747|NCT01814371|181650597|NON_INFERIORITY|testing non-inferiority of individualized approach compared to household approach.||||||0.004|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.004
90892748|NCT01814371|181650598|NON_INFERIORITY|testing non-inferiority of individualized approach compared to household approach.||||||0.006|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.006
90892749|NCT01814371|181650599|NON_INFERIORITY|testing non-inferiority of individualized approach compared to household approach.||||||0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.050
90892750|NCT01814371|181650600|NON_INFERIORITY|testing non-inferiority of individualized approach compared to household approach.||||||0.007|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.007
90892751|NCT01814371|181650601|NON_INFERIORITY|testing non-inferiority of individualized approach compared to household approach.||||||0.005|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.005
90892752|NCT01814371|181650602|EQUIVALENCE|testing equivalence of individualized approach compared to household approach.||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
90892753|NCT01814371|181650603|EQUIVALENCE|testing equivalence of before and after decolonization protocol.||||||0.84|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.84
90892754|NCT01814371|181650605|NON_INFERIORITY|testing non-inferiority of individualized approach compared to household approach.||||||0.381|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.381
91103710|NCT02592655|182094267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5||||||Significance thresh hold: 0.05.|McNemar|||"Null hypothesis is that the 10 cm wide tourniquet tape is just as likely to occlude arterial flow as using two windlass tourniquets.~Participant count of 18 to accommodate for missing windlass tourniquet ultrasound data."||||0.5
91103711|NCT02592655|182094267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5||||||Significance thresh hold: 0.05.|McNemar|||"Null hypothesis is that using the pneumatic tourniquet is just as likely to occlude arterial flow as using two windlass tourniquets.~Participant count of 17 to accommodate for missing ultrasound data."||||0.5
91081938|NCT01763827|182048246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-81.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-87.0|-76.9||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-76.9|-87.0|<0.001
90892755|NCT01814371|181650606|EQUIVALENCE|testing equivalence of individualized approach compared to household approach.||||||0.143|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.143
90892756|NCT04683926|181650607|OTHER||AUC(0-36) Estimate (β1)|1.0227|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Analysis of dose proportionality following 10, 20 and 30 mg fasted using a mixed-effects model based on a power function: ln(dependent variable) = β1×ln(Dose) + ln(β0) + ε. Random slope and intercept. 90% CI of β1 acceptance range of 0.8-1.25 modified to account for ratio of dose levels in this study as follows: \[1+ln(0.8)/ln(3), 1+ln(1.25)/ln(3)\], giving acceptance range of \[0.7969, 1.2031\]. If the 90% CI of β1 is within \[0.7969, 1.2031\], dose-proportionality is proven for the PK parameter.||||
91081939|NCT01763827|182048246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-55.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.7|-49.9||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Ezetimibe is the reference|||-49.9|-60.7|<0.001
91081940|NCT01763827|182048246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-56.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.1|-51.0||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Ezetimibe is the reference|||-51.0|-61.1|<0.001
91081941|NCT01763827|182048247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-80.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-86.4|-74.3||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-74.3|-86.4|<0.001
91081942|NCT01763827|182048247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-77.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.4|-72.2||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-72.2|-83.4|<0.001
91081943|NCT01763827|182048247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-55.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.1|-49.0||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Ezetimibe was the reference|||-49.0|-61.1|<0.001
91081944|NCT01763827|182048247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-52.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.5|-47.3||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Ezetimibe was the reference|||-47.3|-58.5|<0.001
91081945|NCT01763827|182048248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|73.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.4|80.2||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on CMH test stratified by Baseline LDL-C level. For testing, non-achievement was imputed for participants with a missing value.||||80.2|64.4|<0.001
91081946|NCT01763827|182048248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|71.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.2|78.0||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on CMH test stratified by Baseline LDL-C level. For testing, non-achievement was imputed for participants with a missing value.||||78.0|62.2|<0.001
91081947|NCT01763827|182048248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|72.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.4|78.9||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on CMH test stratified by Baseline LDL-C level. For testing, non-achievement was imputed for participants with a missing value.||||78.9|62.4|<0.001
91081948|NCT01763827|182048248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|68.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.3|75.5||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on CMH test stratified by Baseline LDL-C level. For testing, non-achievement was imputed for participants with a missing value.||||75.5|58.3|<0.001
91081949|NCT01763827|182048249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|71.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.2|78.4||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on CMH test stratified by Baseline LDL-C level. For testing, non-achievement was imputed for participants with a missing value.||||78.4|61.2|<0.001
91081950|NCT01763827|182048249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|65.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.6|72.9||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on CMH test stratified by Baseline LDL-C level. For testing, non-achievement was imputed for participants with a missing value.||||72.9|55.6|<0.001
91081951|NCT01763827|182048249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|71.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.3|78.4||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on CMH test stratified by Baseline LDL-C level. For testing, non-achievement was imputed for participants with a missing value.||||78.4|61.3|<0.001
91081952|NCT01763827|182048249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|64.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.5|71.6||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on CMH test stratified by Baseline LDL-C level. For testing, non-achievement was imputed for participants with a missing value.||||71.6|53.5|<0.001
90829354|NCT02365649|181533419|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|24.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 28||24.0|-7.3|1.000
90829355|NCT02365649|181533419|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|33.3||||0.261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.7|60.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 36||60.0|6.7|0.261
91081953|NCT01763827|182048250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-48.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.01|-45.61||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-45.61|-52.01|<0.001
91081954|NCT01763827|182048250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-53.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.23|-50.33||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-50.33|-56.23|<0.001
91081955|NCT01763827|182048250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-35.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.79|-32.38||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Ezetimibe is the reference|||-32.38|-38.79|<0.001
91081956|NCT01763827|182048250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-35.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.44|-32.53||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Ezetimibe is the reference|||-32.53|-38.44|<0.001
91081957|NCT01763827|182048251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-49.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.79|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.34|-46.27||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-46.27|-53.34|<0.001
91081958|NCT01763827|182048251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-51.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.67|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.49|-47.9||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-47.90|-54.49|<0.001
91081959|NCT01763827|182048251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-35.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.78|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.74|-31.71||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Ezetimibe is the reference|||-31.71|-38.74|<0.001
91081960|NCT01763827|182048251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-33.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.68|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.51|-29.9||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Ezetimibe is the reference|||-29.90|-36.51|<0.001
91081961|NCT01763827|182048252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-47.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.82|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.67|-43.51||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-43.51|-50.67|<0.001
91081962|NCT01763827|182048252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-50.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.27|-47.59||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-47.59|-54.27|<0.001
91081963|NCT01763827|182048252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-33.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.82|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.15|-29.99||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Ezetimibe is the reference|||-29.99|-37.15|<0.001
91081964|NCT01763827|182048252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-34.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.71|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.99|-31.28||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Ezetimibe is the reference|||-31.28|-37.99|<0.001
91081965|NCT01763827|182048253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-47.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.56|-44.05||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-44.05|-51.56|<0.001
91081966|NCT01763827|182048253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-48.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.85|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.07|-44.79||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-44.79|-52.07|<0.001
90892757|NCT04683926|181650607|OTHER||AUC(inf) Estimate (β1)|1.0223|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Analysis of dose proportionality following 10, 20 and 30 mg fasted using a mixed-effects model based on a power function: ln(dependent variable) = β1×ln(Dose) + ln(β0) + ε. Random slope and intercept. 90% CI of β1 acceptance range of 0.8-1.25 modified to account for ratio of dose levels in this study as follows: \[1+ln(0.8)/ln(3), 1+ln(1.25)/ln(3)\], giving acceptance range of \[0.7969, 1.2031\]. If the 90% CI of β1 is within \[0.7969, 1.2031\], dose-proportionality is proven for the PK parameter.||||
90892758|NCT04683926|181650607|EQUIVALENCE|Absent food effect will be established if the 90% CI for the ratio of population geometric means between fed and fasted 30 mg doses, based on log-transformed data, is contained in the equivalence limits of 0.80-1.25 for AUC0-inf and Cmax.|AUC(0-inf) fed/fasted ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.05|1.12||||||Analysis of food effect on desmetramadol in the evaluable population using natural logarithm-transformed PK exposure parameters of desmetramadol enantiomers following administration of 30 mg desmetramadol in the fed and fasted states.||1.12|1.05|
90892759|NCT04683926|181650608|OTHER||Cmax Estimate (β1)|0.9899|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Analysis of dose proportionality following 10, 20 and 30 mg fasted using a mixed-effects model based on a power function: ln(dependent variable) = β1×ln(Dose) + ln(β0) + ε. Random slope and intercept. 90% CI of β1 acceptance range of 0.8-1.25 modified to account for ratio of dose levels in this study as follows: \[1+ln(0.8)/ln(3), 1+ln(1.25)/ln(3)\], giving acceptance range of \[0.7969, 1.2031\]. If the 90% CI of β1 is within \[0.7969, 1.2031\], dose-proportionality is proven for the PK parameter.||||
90892760|NCT04683926|181650608|EQUIVALENCE|Absent food effect will be established if the 90% CI for the ratio of population geometric means between fed and fasted 30 mg doses, based on log-transformed data, is contained in the equivalence limits of 0.80-1.25 for AUC0-inf and Cmax.|Cmax 90% fed/fasted ratio|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.08|1.28||||||Analysis of food effect on desmetramadol in the evaluable population using natural logarithm-transformed PK exposure parameters of desmetramadol enantiomers following administration of 30 mg desmetramadol in the fed and fasted states.||1.28|1.08|
90892761|NCT01692782|181650615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.7|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The 4 mg and 8 mg SEP 225289 groups were compared to placebo using a MMRM analysis. The MMRM model included treatment, visit (as a categorical variable), pooled center, baseline ADHD RS-IV with adult prompts score, and treatment-by-visit interaction. An unstructured covariance matrix was used for the within subject correlation.||||
90892762|NCT01692782|181650615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.38||||0.076|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|P-values of SEP 225289 4 mg versus placebo at Week 4 was adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Hochberg procedure.||The 4 mg SEP 225289 group was compared to placebo using a MMRM analysis. The MMRM model included treatment, visit (as a categorical variable), pooled center, baseline ADHD RS-IV with adult prompts score, and treatment-by-visit interaction. An unstructured covariance matrix was used for the within subject correlation.||||0.076
90892763|NCT01692782|181650615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.88||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value of SEP 225289 8 mg versus placebo at Week 4 was adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Hochberg procedure.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The 8 mg SEP 225289 group was compared to placebo using a MMRM analysis. The MMRM model included treatment, visit (as a categorical variable), pooled center, baseline ADHD RS-IV with adult prompts score, and treatment-by-visit interaction. An unstructured covariance matrix was used for the within subject correlation.||||0.019
90892764|NCT04341116|181650626|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.5||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|27.0|||Fisher Exact|||||27|-6.5|.28
90892765|NCT00952367|181650639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.641|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.247|2.159|||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom=1, Wald Chi-Square=12.514||Age of mother bearing, \<=30 years vs \>30 years||2.159|1.247|<0.001
90892766|NCT00952367|181650639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.793||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.622|1.01|||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom=1, Wald Chi-Square=3.529||Household register, local vs nonlocal||1.010|0.622|0.060
90892767|NCT00952367|181650639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.369||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.672|32.479|||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom=1, Wald Chi-Square=7.524||Mother's education level, illiteracy vs postgraduate or above||32.479|1.672|0.006
90892768|NCT00952367|181650639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.443||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.001|11.843|||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom=1, Wald Chi-Square=2.671||Mother's education level, elementary school vs postgraduate or above||11.843|1.001|0.102
90892769|NCT00952367|181650639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.064||||0.159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.933|10.067|||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom=1, Wald Chi-Square=1.984||Mother's education level, junior middle school vs postgraduate or above||10.067|0.933|0.159
90892770|NCT00952367|181650639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.321||||0.662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|7.589|||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom=1, Wald Chi-Square=0.191||Mother's education level, senior high school/vocational high school/technical secondary school vs postgraduate or above||7.589|0.710|0.662
90954241|NCT04696653|181786888|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.1||||||CUSP strategy||0.1|-0.6|
90892771|NCT00952367|181650639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.306|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.399|4.277|||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom=1, Wald Chi-Square=13.525||Mother's education level, college/university vs postgraduate or above||4.277|0.399|<0.001
90892772|NCT00952367|181650639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.217||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.719|6.831|||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom=1, Wald Chi-Square=4.095||Family monthly income per capita, \<=600 RMB vs \>=10000 RMB||6.831|0.719|0.043
90892773|NCT00952367|181650639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.089||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.739|5.906|||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom=1, Wald Chi-Square=6.549||Family monthly income per capita, 600 to 1999 RMB vs \>=10000 RMB||5.906|0.739|0.010
90892774|NCT00952367|181650639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.983||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.704|5.583|||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom=1, Wald Chi-Square=5.313||Family monthly income per capita, 2000 to 4999 RMB vs \>=10000 RMB||5.583|0.704|0.021
90892775|NCT00952367|181650639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.344|3.267|||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom=1, Wald Chi-Square=0.824||Family monthly income per capita, 5000 to 7999 RMB vs \>=10000 RMB||3.267|0.344|0.364
90892776|NCT00952367|181650639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.58||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|3.347|||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom=1, Wald Chi-Square=1.838||||3.347|0.100|0.175
90892777|NCT00952367|181650639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.516|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.666|||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom=1, Wald Chi-Square=25.960||Whether have brothers or sisters, no vs yes||0.666|0.400|<0.001
90892778|NCT00952367|181650640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.255||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.062|1.044|||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom=1, Wald Chi-Square=3.610||Birth information, preterm birth vs full-term birth||1.044|0.062|0.057
90892779|NCT00952367|181650640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.666||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.451|0.981|||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom=1, Wald Chi-Square=4.228||Household register, local vs nonlocal||0.981|0.451|0.040
90892780|NCT00952367|181650640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.182||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.758|1.844|||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom=1, Wald Chi-Square=4.074||Feeding manners within 6 months, pure breast feeding vs pure formula milk feeding||1.844|0.758|0.044
90892781|NCT00952367|181650640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.707||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.191|||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom=1, Wald Chi-Square=4.316||Feeding manners within 6 months, mixed feeding vs pure formula milk feeding||1.191|0.420|0.038
90892782|NCT00952367|181650640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|92.229||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.993|2130.5|||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom=1, Wald Chi-Square=7.438||Father's education level, illiteracy vs postgraduate or above||2130.500|3.993|0.006
90829356|NCT02365649|181533419|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|23.3||||0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|55.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 36||55.8|-9.2|0.323
90892783|NCT00952367|181650640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.671||||0.778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.537|40.608|||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom=1, Wald Chi-Square=0.079||Father's education level, elementary school vs postgraduate or above||40.608|0.537|0.778
90892784|NCT00952367|181650640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.83||||0.756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.649|35.956|||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom=1, Wald Chi-Square=0.096||Father's education level, junior high school vs postgraduate or above||35.956|0.649|0.756
90892785|NCT00952367|181650640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.513||||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.474|26.03|||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom=1, Wald Chi-Square=1.807||Father's education level, senior high school/vocational high school/technical secondary school vs postgraduate or above||26.030|0.474|0.179
90892786|NCT00952367|181650640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.029||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.412|22.292|||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom=1, Wald Chi-Square=3.131||Father's education level, college/university vs postgraduate or above||22.292|0.412|0.077
90892787|NCT00952367|181650640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.984||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.968|1.0|||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom=1, Wald Chi-Square=3.648||Living space per capita, continuous variables||1.000|0.968|0.056
90892788|NCT00952367|181650640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.729||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.522|1.018|||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom=1, Wald Chi-Square=3.432||Vaccination history of Hib, no vs yes||1.018|0.522|0.064
90892789|NCT00952367|181650641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.438||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.221|0.871|||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom=1, Wald Chi-Square=5.538||Birth information, preterm birth vs full-term birth||0.871|0.221|0.019
90892790|NCT00952367|181650641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.546|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.423|0.703|||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom=1, Wald Chi-Square=21.938||Household register, local vs nonlocal||0.703|0.423|<0.001
90892791|NCT00952367|181650641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.137||||0.559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.473|9.652|||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom=1, Wald Chi-Square=0.341||Mother's education level, illiteracy vs graduate or above||9.652|0.473|0.559
90892792|NCT00952367|181650641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.793||||0.626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.596|5.394|||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom=1, Wald Chi-Square=0.238||Mother's education level, elementary school vs graduate or above||5.394|0.596|0.626
90892793|NCT00952367|181650641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.972||||0.193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.699|5.562|||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom=1, Wald Chi-Square=1.691||Mother's education level, junior middle school vs graduate or above||5.562|0.699|0.193
90892794|NCT00952367|181650641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.907||||0.298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.679|5.353|||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom=1, Wald Chi-Square=1.081||Mother's education level, senior high school/vocational high school/technical secondary school vs postgraduate or above||5.353|0.679|0.298
90892795|NCT00952367|181650641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.233||||0.122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.439|3.464|||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom=1, Wald Chi-Square=2.395||Mother's education level, college/university vs postgraduate or above||3.464|0.439|0.122
90892796|NCT00952367|181650641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.666||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.855|||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom=1, Wald Chi-Square=10.233||Whether have brothers or sisters, no vs yes||0.855|0.520|0.001
90954242|NCT04696653|181786889|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.2||||||CUSP strategy||0.2|-0.6|
90954243|NCT04696653|181786889|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1||||||Evidenced based practice||0.1|-0.5|
90892797|NCT02300220|181650643|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.071||||0.764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.684|1.676|||Regression, Cox|||The primary endpoint was assessed using a Cox's proportional hazard model with pre-specified adjustment for patient's self-reported history of exacerbations over the previous year and with stratification for study centre. The onset of exacerbation will be monitored up to 90 days or at patient withdrawal.||1.676|0.684|0.764
90892798|NCT02300220|181650644|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.703|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.703
90892799|NCT02300220|181650646|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.239|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.239
90892800|NCT04322682|181650649|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.1|0.61|1.03|||Chi-squared|||||1.03|0.61|0.081
90892801|NCT04322682|181650650|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.56||||0.291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.67|||Chi-squared|||||1.67|0.19|0.291
90892802|NCT04322682|181650651|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.03|||Chi-squared|||||1.03|0.60|0.077
90892803|NCT04322682|181650652|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.53||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.09|||Chi-squared|||||1.09|0.25|0.080
90892804|NCT04322682|181650653|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.99||P-Value is for the comparison of the treatment group within patients with Covid-19 confirmed by PCR.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic-regression model including the treatment group, the PCR-confirmed Covid-19 subgroup factor (yes/no) and their interaction was performed.||||0.99|0.57|0.042
90892805|NCT02238379|181650661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||||||Main Effect of Emotion|ANOVA|Spray (Oxytocin, Placebo) by Face Type (Infant, Adult) by Emotion (Distress, Neutral) by Hemisphere (Left, Right) ANOVA||N170 Analysis||||.003
90892806|NCT02238379|181650661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034||||||Main Effect of Face Type|ANOVA|Spray (Oxytocin, Placebo) by Face Type (Infant, Adult) by Emotion (Distress, Neutral) by Hemisphere (Left, Right) ANOVA||N170 Analysis||||.034
90892807|NCT02238379|181650661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||||||Main Effect of Face Type|ANOVA|Spray Type (Oxytocin, Placebo) by Face Type (Infant, Adult) by Emotion (Distress, Neutral) ANOVA||P300 Analysis||||.03
90892808|NCT02238379|181650661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||||||Spray Type by Face Type Interaction|ANOVA|Spray Type (Oxytocin, Placebo) by Face Type (Infant, Adult) by Emotion (Distress, Neutral) ANOVA||P300 Analysis||||.03
90892809|NCT02238379|181650661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.22||||||No Main Effects or Interactions|ANOVA|Spray Type (Oxytocin, Placebo) by Face Type (Infant, Adult) by Emotion (Distress, Neutral) ANOVA||LPP Analysis||||>.22
90892810|NCT02238379|181650662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.14||||||No Main Effects or Interactions|ANOVA|Spray Type (Oxytocin, Placebo) and Hemisphere (left, right) ANOVA||N170 Analysis||||>.14
90892811|NCT02238379|181650662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.17||||||No difference between Spray Types|t-test, 2 sided|Paired samples t-test comparing Spray Type (Oxytocin vs Placebo)||P300 Analysis||||>.17
90892812|NCT02238379|181650662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.27||||||No difference between Spray Types|t-test, 2 sided|Paired samples t-test comparing Spray Type (Oxytocin vs Placebo)||LPP Analysis||||>.27
90892813|NCT02238379|181650663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||||||Main Effect of Emotion|ANOVA|Spray Type (Oxytocin, Placebo), Face Type (Infant, Adult), Emotion (Neutral, Distressed), and Hemisphere (left, right) ANOVA||Only relevant for N170||||.006
90892814|NCT02238379|181650663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||||||Main Effect of Hemisphere|ANOVA|Spray Type (Oxytocin, Placebo), Face Type (Infant, Adult), Emotion (Neutral, Distressed), and Hemisphere (left, right) ANOVA||Only relevant for N170||||.01
90892815|NCT02238379|181650664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||||||Main Effect of Spray|ANOVA|Spray (oxytocin, placebo) by Hemisphere (left, right) ANOVA||Only relevant for N170||||.03
90892816|NCT02238379|181650664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||||||Main Effect of Hemisphere|ANOVA|Spray (oxytocin, placebo) by Hemisphere (left, right) ANOVA||Only relevant for N170||||.008
90892817|NCT02238379|181650665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||correlation|||||||.05
90892818|NCT02238379|181650667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||correlation|||||||.05
90892819|NCT02238379|181650668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||correlation|||||||.05
90892820|NCT02238379|181650669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||correlation|||||||.05
90892821|NCT00605280|181650683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.38||||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|4.3||Adjusted for glycolated hemoglobin (HbA1c), systolic blood pressure (BP), diastolic BP, and baseline VA. Baseline values not carried forward for missing post-baseline data.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.30|1.32|0.0047
90892822|NCT00605280|181650684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46||||0.1904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|2.53|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for HbA1c, systolic BP, diastolic BP, and baseline VA. Baseline values were not carried forward for any missing post-baseline data.||||2.53|0.85|0.1904
90892823|NCT00605280|181650685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.57||||0.2466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|3.34|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for HbA1c, systolic BP, diastolic BP, and baseline VA. Baseline values were not carried forward for any missing post-baseline data.||||3.34|0.74|0.2466
90892824|NCT00605280|181650686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67||||0.1388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|3.26|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for HbA1c, systolic BP, diastolic BP, and baseline VA. Baseline values were not carried forward for any missing post-baseline data.||||3.26|0.86|0.1388
90892825|NCT00605280|181650687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.27||||0.0468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.99|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for HbA1c, systolic BP, diastolic BP, and baseline VA. Baseline values were not carried forward for any missing post-baseline data.||||0.99|0.07|0.0468
90892826|NCT00605280|181650688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.9||||0.1124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|11.55|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for HbA1c, systolic BP, diastolic BP, and baseline VA. Baseline values were not carried forward for any missing post-baseline data.||||11.55|0.73|0.1124
90892827|NCT00605280|181650689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.48||||0.1788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.42|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for HbA1c, systolic BP, diastolic BP, and baseline VA. Baseline values were not carried forward for any missing post-baseline data.||||1.42|0.16|0.1788
90892828|NCT00605280|181650690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.12||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|18.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for HbA1c, systolic BP, diastolic BP, and baseline VA. Baseline values were not carried forward for any missing post-baseline data.||||18.06|1.45|0.0048
90892829|NCT00605280|181650691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean|3.9||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|6.54|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for HbA1c, systolic BP, diastolic BP, and baseline VA. Baseline values were not carried forward for any missing post-baseline data.||||6.54|1.25|0.0040
90892830|NCT00605280|181650692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean|4.57||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.85|7.29|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for HbA1c, systolic BP, diastolic BP, and baseline VA. Baseline values were not carried forward for any missing post baseline data.||||7.29|1.85|0.0011
90892831|NCT00605280|181650693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.42||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.74|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for HbA1c, systolic BP, diastolic BP, and baseline VA. Baseline values were not carried forward for any missing post-baseline data.||||0.74|0.24|0.0023
90892832|NCT00605280|181650694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.69|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for HbA1c, systolic BP, diastolic BP, and baseline VA. Baseline values were not carried forward for any missing post-baseline data.||||0.69|0.23|0.0008
90892833|NCT01662882|181650695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0253||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher exact test comparing the proportion of amyloid positive subjects between clinical diagnosis groups.||||0.0253
90892834|NCT01662882|181650695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher exact test comparing the proportion of amyloid positive subjects between clinical diagnosis groups.||||0.0004
90892835|NCT01662882|181650695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4184||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher exact test comparing the proportion of amyloid positive subjects between clinical diagnosis groups.||||0.4184
90892836|NCT01662882|181650695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0008||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher exact test comparing the proportion of amyloid positive subjects between clinical diagnosis groups.||||0.0008
90892837|NCT01662882|181650696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0039||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance P value testing for an overall difference in the mean cortical SUVR between the clinical diagnostic groups.||||0.0039
90892838|NCT01662882|181650696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0357||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance contrast P value testing for difference in the mean cortical SUVR||||0.0357
90892839|NCT01662882|181650696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance contrast P value testing for difference in the mean cortical SUVR||||0.0010
90892840|NCT01662882|181650696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2118||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance contrast P value testing for difference in the mean cortical SUVR||||0.2118
90892841|NCT00518115|181650701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.2968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.59|||ANCOVA|||||0.59|-0.18|0.2968
90892842|NCT00518115|181650701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26||||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.12|||ANCOVA|||||0.12|-0.64|0.1860
90892843|NCT00518115|181650701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.22|||ANCOVA|||||-0.22|-1.03|0.0027
90892844|NCT00518115|181650701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22||||0.2766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.18|||ANCOVA|||||0.18|-0.62|0.2766
90892845|NCT00518115|181650701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55||||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.16|||ANCOVA|||||-0.16|-0.94|0.0057
90892846|NCT00518115|181650701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.19|||ANCOVA|||||-0.19|-0.96|0.0032
90892847|NCT00518115|181650701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0.0786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.04|||ANCOVA|||||0.04|-0.72|0.0786
90892848|NCT00518115|181650701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.22|||ANCOVA|||||-0.22|-0.99|0.0022
90892849|NCT04891419|181650720|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|91.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|83.7|95.9||P-value is based on the Fisher's Exact Test.|Fisher Exact||95% exact unconditional confidence interval for between-group difference in responder rate.|||95.9|83.7|<.0001
90892850|NCT04891419|181650721|SUPERIORITY||Control Difference|54.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.69|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.2|59.9||P-value estimated using mixed effects model.|Mixed Models Analysis||95% CI estimated using mixed effects model.|||59.9|49.2|<.0001
90892851|NCT04891419|181650722|SUPERIORITY||Control Difference|42.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.63|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.6|48.0||95% CI and p-value estimated using mixed effects model.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||48.0|37.6|<.0001
90892852|NCT04891419|181650723|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|93.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.1|97.2||P-value is based on Fisher's Exact Test.|Fisher Exact||95% exact unconditional confidence interval for between-group difference in responder rate.|||97.2|86.1|<.0001
90892853|NCT04891419|181650724|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|92.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|84.9|96.5||P-value is based on Fisher's Exact Test.|Fisher Exact||95% exact unconditional confidence interval for between-group difference in responder rate.|||96.5|84.9|<.0001
90892854|NCT02235493|181650725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0625|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value is based on a nonparametric sign test to determine whether the median of change from Baseline in MPOMA-G score differs from 0. No multiple comparisons or multiplicity adjustments were conducted.|Sign test|||Videos were reviewed and scored by 3 independent raters who were masked to patient identifiers and the clinic visits and dates when the videos were recorded. Each rater scored the individual components required for the calculation of the total MPOMA-G score for each evaluable patient video. The median of the scores across the 3 raters was obtained for each individual component and summed to generate the median MPOMA-G score used in the analyses.||||0.0625
90892855|NCT02235493|181650726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value is based on a nonparametric sign test to determine whether the median of change from Baseline in POMA-G score differs from 0. No multiple comparisons or multiplicity adjustments were conducted.|Sign test|||Videos were reviewed and scored by 3 independent raters who were masked to patient identifiers and the clinic visits and dates when the videos were recorded. Each rater scored the individual components required for the calculation of the total POMA-G score for each evaluable patient video. The median of the scores across the 3 raters was obtained for each individual component and summed to generate the median POMA-G score used in the analyses.||||0.1250
90892856|NCT01055769|181650727|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. Linezolid 600 mg oral suspension was the Test treatment, while linezolid 600 mg tablet was the Reference treatment.|Adjusted Geometric Means Ratio|97.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.11|102.75||||||Natural log transformed AUClast of linezolid was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||102.75|93.11|
90954244|NCT04696653|181786890|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1||||||evidenced based practice||0.1|-0.5|
90892857|NCT01055769|181650728|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. Linezolid 600 mg oral suspension was the Test treatment, while linezolid 600 mg tablet was the Reference treatment.|Adjusted Geometric Means Ratio|113.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|105.26|122.75||||||Natural log transformed Cmax of linezolid was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||122.75|105.26|
90892858|NCT01055769|181650729|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. Linezolid 600 mg oral suspension was the Test treatment, while linezolid 600 mg tablet was the Reference treatment.|Adjusted Geometric means ratio|97.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.92|102.63||||||Natural log transformed AUCinf of linezolid was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||102.63|92.92|
90892859|NCT00827918|181650732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|5.8|||Difference in the Least Squares Mean|||||5.8|-7.0|0.8590
90892860|NCT00827918|181650732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.3||||0.2534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|3.1|||Difference in the Least Squares Mean|||||3.1|-11.7|0.2534
90892861|NCT00827918|181650735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28||||0.4976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.64|||Generalized linear mixed analysis model|||||2.64|0.62|0.4976
90892862|NCT00827918|181650735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2||||0.0653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|5.09|||Generalized linear mixed analysis model|||||5.09|0.95|0.0653
90892863|NCT00827918|181650736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.8199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.3|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||0.3|-0.4|0.8199
90892864|NCT00827918|181650736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.9486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||0.4|-0.4|0.9486
90892865|NCT00827918|181650737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.9937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|2.0|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||2.0|-2.0|0.9937
90892866|NCT00827918|181650737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.2406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|0.9|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||0.9|-3.6|0.2406
90892867|NCT00827918|181650738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.5953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.2|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||1.2|-2.0|0.5953
90892868|NCT00827918|181650738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.8567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.6|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||1.6|-2.0|0.8567
90892869|NCT02979262|181650746|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.1|||||||Repeated Measures GLM|Time 2 at 16 weeks||||||>.10
90892870|NCT02979262|181650747|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||GEE|||||||<.01
90892871|NCT02979262|181650748|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.1|||||||GEE|||||||>.10
90892872|NCT02979262|181650749|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.1|||||||GEE|||||||>.10
90892873|NCT02979262|181650750|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.1|||||||GEE|||||||>.10
90892874|NCT02979262|181650751|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||GEE|||||||<.01
90892875|NCT05520138|181650842|SUPERIORITY|With a 2-sided Type I of 0.05 significance.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.16|||||A weighted Cox proportional hazard model with an independent variable for treatment group were fitted, using a robust variance estimator.|||1.16|1.04|
90892876|NCT05520138|181650843|SUPERIORITY|With a 2-sided Type I of 0.05 significance.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.27|||||A weighted Cox proportional hazard model with an independent variable for treatment group were fitted, using a robust variance estimator.|||1.27|1.06|
90892877|NCT05520138|181650844|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.1|||||A weighted Cox proportional hazard model with an independent variable for treatment group were fitted, using a robust variance estimator.|||1.10|0.99|
90892878|NCT05520138|181650845|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.22|||||A weighted Cox proportional hazard model with an independent variable for treatment group were fitted, using a robust variance estimator.|||1.22|1.06|
90892879|NCT02178059|181650865|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Approximately 34 healthy volunteers will be entered into the study in order to complete 30 evaluable volunteers. Based on the study SD-001-0268, a residual intra-individual standard deviation of 0.300/sqrt(2) = 0.212 can be expected on the natural log scale. With 30 completed volunteers there will be a 93% chance that the upper limits of two-sided 90% CI for Cmax and AUC ratios are \<1.25 provided that the true mean ratios are \<1.05.|Ratio of geometric means (%)|88.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.03|96.02|||||Comparison of Bricanyl Turbuhaler M3 (test) to Bricanyl Turbuhaler M2 (reference)|No increase in the exposure of plasma terbutaline after administration of Bricanyl Turbuhaler M3 will be concluded if the upper bound of the 90% CIs for the ratios of AUC and Cmax are both below 1.25||96.02|81.03|
90892880|NCT02178059|181650866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.8052|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.17|0.17|||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||0.17|-0.17|0.8052
90892881|NCT02178059|181650870|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Approximately 34 healthy volunteers will be entered into the study in order to complete 30 evaluable volunteers. Based on the study SD-001-0268, a residual intra-individual standard deviation of 0.300/sqrt(2) = 0.212 can be expected on the natural log scale. With 30 completed volunteers there will be a 93% chance that the upper limits of two-sided 90% CI for Cmax and AUC ratios are \<1.25 provided that the true mean ratios are \<1.05.|Ratio of geometric means (%)|91.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.82|98.58|||||Comparison of Bricanyl Turbuhaler M3 (test) to Bricanyl Turbuhaler M2 (reference)|No increase in the exposure of plasma terbutaline after administration of Bricanyl Turbuhaler M3 will be concluded if the upper bound of the 90% CIs for the ratios of AUC and Cmax are both below 1.25||98.58|84.82|
90892882|NCT04128293|181650871|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Mean|0.877|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7585|1.0152|||||Relative bioavailability between treatment A and B assessed using analysis of variance with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, participant as a random effect was performed on the natural log-transformed parameter of AUC(0-infinity).|||1.0152|0.7585|
90892883|NCT04128293|181650873|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Mean|0.892|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7778|1.0239|||||Relative bioavailability between treatment A and B assessed using analysis of variance with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, participant as a random effect was performed on the natural log-transformed parameter of AUC(0-t).|||1.0239|0.7778|
91103712|NCT03000166|182094274|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.22
90892884|NCT04128293|181650875|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Mean|0.946|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8594|1.0404|||||Relative bioavailability between treatment A and B assessed using analysis of variance with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, participant as a random effect was performed on the natural log-transformed parameter of Cmax.|||1.0404|0.8594|
90892885|NCT04128293|181650878|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.533||||0.4252|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|2.0||The p-value was assessed based on the Wilcoxon signed-rank test.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test||The median difference and the 90 percent (%) confidence interval of the median difference was estimated from Hodges-Lehmann estimate.|||2.0000|-1.0000|0.4252
90892886|NCT04128293|181650878|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.3125|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.75|5.25||The p-value was assessed based on the Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Wilcoxon rank sum test||The median difference and the 90% confidence interval of the median difference were estimated from Hodges-Lehmann estimate.|||5.2500|-0.7500|0.3125
90892887|NCT00514943|181650928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.49||||0.7606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.188|8.202||P-value obtained from fitting an ANCOVA model including treatment, stratification factor prior chemotherapy for recurrent/metastatic disease and the baseline sum of longest distance of target lesions.|ANCOVA|Receipt of prior chemotherapy for recurrent/metastatic disease and the baseline sum of longest distance for target lesions are covariates|Mean difference calculated is actually the adjusted mean difference.|||8.202|-11.188|0.7606
90892888|NCT00514943|181650941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.942||||0.764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.387|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio, 95% CI and p-value are calculated from the Cox proportional hazards model stratified by the number of prior chemotherapies for R/M setting (0 or \>=1)|||1.387|0.640|0.764
90892889|NCT00514943|181650942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.725||||0.219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.434|1.212|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio, 95% CI and p-value are calculated from the Cox proportional hazards model stratified by the number of prior chemotherapies for R/M setting (0 or \>=1)|||1.212|0.434|0.219
90892890|NCT00514943|181650943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.067||||0.758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.708|1.608|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio, 95% CI and p-value are calculated from the Cox proportional hazards model stratified by the number of prior chemotherapies for R/M setting (0 or \>=1)|||1.608|0.708|0.758
90892891|NCT05072457|181650956|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||"MANOVA analysis with independent variable being the intervention condition (type of microphone used) and dependent variable being the performance on lateralization task.~Null hypothesis: There will be no statistically significant difference in lateralization test scores between the Roger On and the Roger Select in the experimental group."||||<.05
90892892|NCT05072457|181650957|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Independent variable: intervention condition (type of microphone used), Dependent variable: performance on spatial hearing task. Null hypothesis: There will be no statistically significant difference in spatial hearing test scores between the Roger On and the Roger Select in the experimental group.||||>.05
90892893|NCT01786512|181650979|OTHER||Treatment difference|0.0112|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0033||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0047|0.0176|||Repeated Measures||Repeated measures model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, interaction of treatment with scheduled visit and the baseline value as covariates.|||0.0176|0.0047|0.0007
90892894|NCT01786512|181650979|OTHER||Treatment difference|0.025|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0033|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0184|0.0315|||Repeated Measures||Repeated measures model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, interaction of treatment with scheduled visit and the baseline value as covariates.|||0.0315|0.0184|<0.0001
90892895|NCT01786512|181650980|OTHER||Treatment difference|4.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.56||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|7.65|||Repeated Measures||Repeated measures model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, interaction of treatment with scheduled visit and the baseline value as covariates.|||7.65|1.50|0.0036
90892896|NCT01786512|181650980|OTHER||Treatment difference|3.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.57||0.0217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|6.72|||Repeated Measures||Repeated measures model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, interaction of treatment with scheduled visit and the baseline value as covariates.|||6.72|0.53|0.0217
90892897|NCT01786512|181650981|OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.079|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.058||0.1732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.194|0.035|||Repeated Measures||Repeated measures model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, interaction of treatment with scheduled visit and the baseline value as covariates.|||0.035|-0.194|0.1732
90892898|NCT01786512|181650981|OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.179|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.295|-0.062|||Repeated Measures||Repeated measures model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, interaction of treatment with scheduled visit and the baseline value as covariates.|||-0.062|-0.295|0.0027
90892899|NCT01786512|181650982|OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.067|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.051||0.1899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.166|0.033|||Repeated Measures||Repeated measures model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, interaction of treatment with scheduled visit and the baseline value as covariates.|||0.033|-0.166|0.1899
90892900|NCT01786512|181650982|OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.129|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.0128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.231|-0.028|||Repeated Measures||Repeated measures model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, interaction of treatment with scheduled visit and the baseline value as covariates.|||-0.028|-0.231|0.0128
90892901|NCT01786512|181650983|OTHER||Treatment difference|-1.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09||0.2177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.47|0.79|||Repeated Measures||Repeated measures model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, interaction of treatment with scheduled visit and the baseline value as covariates.|||0.79|-3.47|0.2177
90892902|NCT01786512|181650983|OTHER||Treatment difference|-2.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.12|-0.81|||Repeated Measures||Repeated measures model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, interaction of treatment with scheduled visit and the baseline value as covariates.|||-0.81|-5.12|0.0070
90892903|NCT01786512|181650984|OTHER||Treatment difference|-822.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|353.0||0.0205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1516.0|-127.0|||Repeated Measures||Repeated measures model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, interaction of treatment with scheduled visit and the baseline value as covariates.|||-127|-1516|0.0205
90954245|NCT04696653|181786890|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.2||||||CUSP strategy||0.2|-0.5|
90954246|NCT04696653|181786891|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.2||||||||2.2|0.9|
90892904|NCT01786512|181650984|OTHER||Treatment difference|-970.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|357.0||0.0069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1672.0|-268.0|||Repeated Measures||Repeated measures model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, interaction of treatment with scheduled visit and the baseline value as covariates.|||-268|-1672|0.0069
90892905|NCT00605293|181650987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4778|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4778
90892906|NCT00781391|181650996|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority analysis included the mITT and PP analysis sets for both the on treatment and overall study period, although mITT on-treatment was considered primary|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.632|0.985||Two stratification factor covariates: 1) CHADS2 score 2) dose-adjustment factor. If upper limit of CI of HR was below 1.38, then non-inferiority to warfarin was established for group.|Cox proportional hazards model|||The primary efficacy endpoint, time to the first occurrence of stroke/SEE, was first compared concurrently between each of the 2 edoxaban groups and warfarin group using the mITT Analysis Set in the on-treatment period for non-inferiority. In order to control the study-wise type-I error rate of two-sided α=0.05 for non-inferiority, each of these 2 comparisons were performed at the statistical significance level of two-sided α=0.025, respectively.||.985|.632|<.0001
90892907|NCT00781391|181650996|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority analysis included the mITT and PP analysis sets for both the on treatment and overall study period, although mITT on-treatment was considered primary|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.874|1.314||Two stratification factor covariates: 1) CHADS2 score 2) dose-adjustment factor. If upper limit of CI of HR was below 1.38, then non-inferiority to warfarin was established for group.|Cox proportional hazards model|||The primary efficacy endpoint, time to the first occurrence of stroke/SEE, was first compared concurrently between each of the 2 edoxaban groups and warfarin group using the mITT Analysis Set in the on-treatment period for non-inferiority. In order to control the study-wise type-I error rate of two-sided α=0.05 for non-inferiority, each of these 2 comparisons were performed at the statistical significance level of two-sided α=0.025, respectively.||1.314|.874|.0055
90892908|NCT00781391|181650997|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper limit of this CI of the hazard ratio was below 1.38, then non-inferiority to warfarin was considered established for the edoxaban treatment group.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.719|1.029|||Cox proportional hazards model|||Non-inferiority or equivalence analysis; Non-inferiority analysis. The non-inferiority analysis included the mITT and PP analysis sets for both the on treatment and overall study period, although mITT on-treatment was considered primary.||1.029|.719|<.0001
90892909|NCT00781391|181650997|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper limit of this CI of the hazard ratio was below 1.38, then non-inferiority to warfarin was considered established for the edoxaban treatment group.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.0074|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.955|1.336|||Cox proportional hazards model|||Non-inferiority or equivalence analysis; Non-inferiority analysis. The non-inferiority analysis included the mITT and PP analysis sets for both the on treatment and overall study period, although mITT on-treatment was considered primary.||1.336|.955|.0074
90892910|NCT00781391|181650998|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The primary efficacy endpoint, time to the first occurrence of stroke/SEE, was first compared concurrently between each of the 2 edoxaban groups and warfarin group using the mITT Analysis Set in the on-treatment period for non-inferiority. In order to control the study-wise type-I error rate of two-sided α=0.05 for non-inferiority, each of these 2 comparisons were performed at the statistical significance level of two-sided α=0.025, respectively|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.634|0.989|||Cox proportional hazards model|||The non-inferiority analysis included the mITT and PP analysis sets for both the on treatment and overall study period, although mITT on-treatment was considered primary.||.989|.634|<.0001
90892911|NCT00781391|181650998|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The primary efficacy endpoint, time to the first occurrence of stroke/SEE, was first compared concurrently between each of the 2 edoxaban groups and warfarin group using the mITT Analysis Set in the on-treatment period for non-inferiority. In order to control the study-wise type-I error rate of two-sided α=0.05 for non-inferiority, each of these 2 comparisons were performed at the statistical significance level of two-sided α=0.025, respectively.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.878|1.32|||Cox proportional hazards model|||The non-inferiority analysis included the mITT and PP analysis sets for both the on treatment and overall study period, although mITT on-treatment was considered primary.||1.32|.878|.0064
90892912|NCT00781391|181650999|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"In order to control the study-wise type-I error rate of two-sided α=0.05 for non-inferiority, each of these 2 comparisons were performed at the statistical significance level of two-sided α=0.025, respectively.~If the upper limit of this CI of the hazard ratio was below 1.38, then non-inferiority to warfarin was considered established for the edoxaban treatment group."|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.72|1.032|||Cox proportional hazards model|||The non-inferiority analysis included the mITT and PP analysis sets for both the on-treatment and overall study period, although mITT on-treatment was considered primary.||1.032|.720|<.0001
90892913|NCT00781391|181650999|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"In order to control the study-wise type-I error rate of two-sided α=0.05 for non-inferiority, each of these 2 comparisons were performed at the statistical significance level of two-sided α=0.025, respectively.~If the upper limit of this CI of the hazard ratio was below 1.38, then non-inferiority to warfarin was considered established for the edoxaban treatment group."|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.0084|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.958|1.34|||Cox proportional hazards model|||The non-inferiority analysis included the mITT and PP analysis sets for both the on-treatment and overall study period, although mITT on-treatment was considered primary.||1.34|.958|.0084
90892914|NCT00781391|181651000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.709|1.068|||Log Rank|||The superiority analysis included the ITT analysis set||1.068|.709|.081
90892915|NCT00781391|181651001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.786|0.959|||Log Rank|||the time to first event was estimated by a KM estimate and was compared between the edoxaban 60 mg group and the warfarin group using a log-rank test at a pairwise comparison significance level of α=0.01.||.959|.786|.0053
90892916|NCT00781391|181651002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.0109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.806|0.972|||Log Rank|||the time to first event was estimated by a KM estimate and was compared between the edoxaban 60 mg group and the warfarin group using a log-rank test at a pairwise comparison significance level of α=0.01.||.972|.806|.0109
90954247|NCT04696653|181786892|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.9||||||||1.9|1.1|
90892917|NCT00781391|181651003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.0168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.823|0.981|||Log Rank|||the time to first event was estimated by a KM estimate and was compared between the edoxaban 60 mg group and the warfarin group using a log-rank test at a pairwise comparison significance level of α=0.01.||.981|.823|.0168
90892918|NCT00781391|181651004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.8||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.707|0.914|||Regression, Cox|||All Major Adjudicated Bleeding Events, Safety Analysis Set On-treatment period||.914|.707|.0009
90892919|NCT00781391|181651004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.406|0.548|||Regression, Cox|||"All Major Adjudicated Bleeding Events, Safety Analysis Set On-treatment period.~The HR, two-sided CI, and p-value for pairwise comparisons versus Warfarin are based on the Cox regression model with counting process approach for on-treatment including treatment and the two stratification factors as covariates: the dichotomized CHADS2 score and the dichotomized dose-adjustment factor"||.548|.406|<.0001
90892920|NCT00781391|181651004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.918|||Regression, Cox|||Major or Clinically Relevant Non-Major, high dose vs. warfarin||.918|.800|<.0001
90892921|NCT00781391|181651004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.575|0.666|||Regression, Cox|||Major or Clinically Relevant Non-Major, low dose vs. warfarin||.666|.575|<.0001
90892922|NCT01984684|181651005|NON_INFERIORITY|A 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for noninferiority testing was computed based on the difference in responder rates for vancomycin + aztreonam and delafloxacin at the primary endpoint. If the upper limit (UL) of the CI was less than 0.10, delafloxacin would be considered noninferior to vancomycin + aztreonam.|Difference in Responder Rates|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|8.3||||||||8.3|-2.0|
90892923|NCT01984684|181651006|NON_INFERIORITY|Analysis of the investigator's assessment of response of signs and symptoms of infection (cure only) was performed using the Miettinen-Nurminen method without stratification for the ITT analysis set.|Difference in Cure Rates|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|4.6||||||||4.6|-8.6|
90892924|NCT01984684|181651007|NON_INFERIORITY|Analysis of the investigator's assessment of response (cure only) at the Late Follow-up Visit was assessed using the Miettinen-Nurminen method without stratification.|Difference in Cure Rates|-3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|3.1||||||||3.1|-9.3|
90892925|NCT04322604|181651008|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference from Placebo|80.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|70.1|87.9|||Fisher Exact|||||87.9|70.1|<0.0001
90892926|NCT04322604|181651009|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference from Placebo|1.5||||0.3427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|4.7|||ANCOVA|||||4.7|-1.6|0.3427
90892927|NCT04322604|181651010|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference from Placebo|-41.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.1|-34.2|||ANCOVA|||||-34.2|-48.1|<0.0001
90892928|NCT04322604|181651011|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference from Placebo|81.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.7|88.8|||Fisher Exact|||||88.8|71.7|<0.0001
91081967|NCT01763827|182048253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-34.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.78|-30.3||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Ezetimibe is the reference|||-30.30|-37.78|<0.001
91081968|NCT01763827|182048253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-32.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.85|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.21|-28.92||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Ezetimibe is the reference|||-28.92|-36.21|<0.001
90892929|NCT04322604|181651012|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference from Placebo|39.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.4|52.2|||Fisher Exact|||||52.2|25.4|<0.0001
90892930|NCT04322604|181651013|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference from Placebo|7.0||||0.3549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|21.6|||Fisher Exact|||||21.6|-7.4|0.3549
90892931|NCT04322604|181651014|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference from Placebo|8.3||||0.2262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|22.7|||Fisher Exact|||||22.7|-6.3|0.2262
90892932|NCT04322604|181651015|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference from Placebo|5.0||||0.3812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|16.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24 Percent Change from Baseline||16.0|-6.1|0.3812
90892933|NCT03923959|181651066|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.013|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.307||0.966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5597|1.834|||Regression, Logistic||||A two-sample proportion test was also completed; the test utilized an α \< 0.049 to account for the O'Brien-Fleming adjustment. The p-value for the two-sample proportion test was 0.966.|1.834|0.5597|0.966
90892934|NCT03923959|181651067|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.183||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was the standard α = 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.183
90892935|NCT03923959|181651068|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.729||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was the standard α = 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.729
90892936|NCT03923959|181651069|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.655||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was the standard α = 0.05|Chi-squared|||||||0.655
90892937|NCT03923959|181651070|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7832||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was the standard α = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7832
90892938|NCT04575051|181651101|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.43||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.96|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference in the adjusted means for the Consult model and HearCARE model.|The null hypothesis is that the HearCARE intervention does not improve satisfaction with social participation.||1.96|-1.10|0.58
90892939|NCT04575051|181651102|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||The estimated parameter represents the difference between the adjusted means for the Consult and HearCARE models.|The null hypothesis is that the HearCARE intervention does not improve hearing related quality of life.||1.10|-1.13|0.95
90892940|NCT04575051|181651103|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.14|||Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated Value represents the difference in the means for the Consult and HearCARE models.|||1.14|-1.20|0.96
90892941|NCT04575051|181651104|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.48|||Mixed Models Analysis||The Estimated Value is the difference between the means of the Consult and HearCARE models.|||0.48|-0.07|0.13
90892942|NCT00295022|181651114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.35|-1.88|||ANCOVA|||||-1.88|-4.35|<0.001
91103713|NCT03000166|182094275|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.40
90892943|NCT00295022|181651114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.93|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|0.18|||ANCOVA|||||0.18|-2.04|=0.001
90892944|NCT00295022|181651114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.43|-0.95|||ANCOVA|||||-0.95|-3.43|<0.001
90892945|NCT01239030|181651145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0046|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0046
90892946|NCT04403698|181651146|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||linear mixed models were used to compare bone turnover markers (CTX-I) between both treatment groups. These models were performed with an intention to treat approach, where drop-outs were considered as non-responders. The models accounted for repeated measures.||||<0.01
90892947|NCT04403698|181651147|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||linear mixed models were used to compare bone turnover markers (PINP) between both treatment groups. These models were performed with an intention to treat approach, where drop-outs were considered as non-responders. The models accounted for repeated measures.||||0.05
90892948|NCT04403698|181651148|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.042|||||||Fisher Exact|||A Fisher's exact test was used to assess differences in patient numbers exceeding reference ranges between both treatment groups at week 48||||0.042
90892949|NCT04403698|181651149|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.042|||||||Fisher Exact|||A Fisher's exact test was used to assess differences in patient numbers exceeding reference ranges between both treatment groups.||||0.042
90892950|NCT00977665|181651152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.603||||0.6984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.677|2.47||A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|repeated measures model|Fixed effects: categorical week in trial by treatment interaction, center, and baseline UMSARS score.||||2.470|-3.677|0.6984
90892951|NCT00977665|181651161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.189|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.646|2.186||||||||2.186|0.646|
90892952|NCT01022762|181651206|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority would be shown if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval was less than 0.4%. This corresponds to a one-sided test with a significance level of 2.5% of the hypothesis.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.014|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066||||95.0|-0.115|0.143||The p-value corresponds to one-sided hypotheses of superiority with a significance level of 2.5%.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model was with treatment, centre as explanatory variables and baseline HbA1c value as covariate.|If non-inferiority of repaglinide alone was shown, a test for superiority would be performed based on FAS. Superiority of repaglinide alone over gliclazide alone would be claimed if the upper limit of the 95% CI for the difference was lower than 0%.|H0: Change from baseline in HbA1c of repaglinide therapy at 16 weeks of treatment - change from baseline in HbA1c of gliclazide therapy at 16 weeks of treatment \>= 0.4%. H1: Change from baseline in HbA1c of repaglinide therapy at 16 weeks of treatment - change from baseline in HbA1c of gliclazide therapy at 16 weeks of treatment \< 0.4%. Sample size was calculated to achieve a power of at least 85%, assuming an equal change in HbA1c and a common standard deviation of 1.2%.||0.143|-0.115|
90892953|NCT00205348|181651220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0007|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The statistical significance of the difference between pre-and post-operative scores for Burden was tested with the Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||||0.0007
90892954|NCT00205348|181651220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The statistical significance of the difference between pre-and post-operative scores for Physical was tested with the Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||||<0.0001
90892955|NCT00205348|181651220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The statistical significance of the difference between pre-and post-operative scores for Mental was tested with the Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||||0.0002
90892956|NCT00205348|181651220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The statistical significance of the difference between pre-and post-operative scores for Fear was tested with the Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||||<0.0001
90892957|NCT00205348|181651220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0973|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The statistical significance of the difference between pre-and post-operative scores for Eating Desire was tested with the Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||||0.0973
90892958|NCT00205348|181651220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1772|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The statistical significance of the difference between pre-and post-operative scores for Eating Duration was tested with the Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||||0.1772
90892959|NCT00205348|181651220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0062|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The statistical significance of the difference between pre-and post-operative scores for Food Selection was tested with the Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||||0.0062
90892960|NCT00205348|181651220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The statistical significance of the difference between pre-and post-operative scores for Sleep was tested with the Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||||<0.0001
90892961|NCT00205348|181651220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The statistical significance of the difference between pre-and post-operative scores for Fatigue was tested with the Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||||0.0002
90892962|NCT00205348|181651220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2125|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The statistical significance of the difference between pre-and post-operative scores for Social was tested with the Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||||0.2125
90892963|NCT00205348|181651220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0332|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The statistical significance of the difference between pre-and post-operative scores for Communication was tested with the Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||||0.0332
90892964|NCT01565707|181651221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Mean Difference|12.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.0||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|24.0|||ANCOVA|From an ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) model including treatment, geographic region \& gender as fixed effects \& the baseline value as a covariate.||"The following hypotheses were tested at the 2-sided significance level 0.05:~* H0: Change from baseline to EoT in mean MVV per micturition is the same for placebo and solifenacin succinate oral suspension~* H1: Change from baseline to EoT in mean MVV per micturition is not the same for placebo and solifenacin succinate oral suspension"||24.0|0.2|0.046
90892965|NCT01565707|181651221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.7|27.4|||||From an ANCOVA model including treatment, geographic region \& gender as fixed effects \& the baseline value as a covariate.|||27.4|-36.7|
90892966|NCT01565707|181651222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Mean Difference|31.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.9||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|59.5|||ANCOVA|From an ANCOVA model including treatment, geographic region \& gender as fixed effects \& the baseline value as a covariate.||||59.5|4.3|0.024
90954248|NCT04696653|181786893|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.4||||||||1.4|0.7|
90892967|NCT01565707|181651222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-17.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|29.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.5|41.9|||||From an ANCOVA model including treatment, geographic region \& gender as fixed effects \& the baseline value as a covariate.|||41.9|-76.5|
90892968|NCT01565707|181651223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.4||P-value is from a rank ANCOVA analysis stratified by geographic region.|ANCOVA|From an ANCOVA model including treatment, geographic region \& gender as fixed effects \& the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.4|-0.3|0.763
90892969|NCT01565707|181651223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.0|||||From an ANCOVA model including treatment, geographic region \& gender as fixed effects \& the baseline value as a covariate.|||1.0|-0.8|
90892970|NCT01565707|181651224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.3||P-value is from a rank ANCOVA analysis stratified by geographic region.|ANCOVA|From an ANCOVA model including treatment, geographic region \& gender as fixed effects \& the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.3|-0.5|0.402
90892971|NCT01565707|181651224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.4|||||From an ANCOVA model including treatment, geographic region \& gender as fixed effects \& the baseline value as a covariate.|||0.4|-1.5|
90892972|NCT01565707|181651225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.2||P-value is from a rank ANCOVA analysis stratified by geographic region.|ANCOVA|From an ANCOVA model including treatment, geographic region \& gender as fixed effects \& the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.2|0.0|0.630
90892973|NCT01565707|181651225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2|||||From an ANCOVA model including treatment, geographic region \& gender as fixed effects \& the baseline value as a covariate..|||0.2|-0.2|
90892974|NCT01565707|181651226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.3||P-value is from a rank ANCOVA analysis stratified by geographic region.|ANCOVA|From an ANCOVA model including treatment, geographic region \& gender as fixed effects \& the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.3|-1.0|0.563
90892975|NCT01565707|181651226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.9|||||From an ANCOVA model including treatment, geographic region \& gender as fixed effects \& the baseline value as a covariate.|||1.9|-1.6|
90892976|NCT01565707|181651227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.3||P-value is from a rank ANCOVA analysis stratified by geographic region.|ANCOVA|From an ANCOVA model including treatment, geographic region \& gender as fixed effects \& the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.3|-0.9|0.770
90892977|NCT01565707|181651227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.3|||||From an ANCOVA model including treatment, geographic region \& gender as fixed effects \& the baseline value as a covariate.|||1.3|-0.4|
90892978|NCT01565707|181651228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.2||From an ANCOVA model including treatment, geographic region \& gender as fixed effects \& the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.2|-0.8|0.303
90892979|NCT01565707|181651228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.1|||||From an ANCOVA model including treatment, geographic region \& gender as fixed effects \& the baseline value as a covariate.|||1.1|-0.9|
90892980|NCT01565707|181651229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.5|||ANCOVA|From an ANCOVA model including treatment, geographic region \& gender as fixed effects \& the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.5|-0.8|0.640
90892981|NCT01565707|181651229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.4|||||From an ANCOVA model including treatment, geographic region \& gender as fixed effects \& the baseline value as a covariate.|||1.4|-0.9|
90892982|NCT01565707|181651230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1||P-value is from a rank ANCOVA analysis stratified by geographic region.|ANCOVA|From an ANCOVA model including treatment, geographic region \& gender as fixed effects \& the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.1|-0.3|0.846
90892983|NCT01565707|181651230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.5|||||From an ANCOVA model including treatment, geographic region \& gender as fixed effects \& the baseline value as a covariate.|||0.5|-1.0|
90892984|NCT01565707|181651231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.8|||||From an ANCOVA model including treatment, geographic region \& gender as fixed effects \& the baseline value as a covariate.|||0.8|-1.4|
90892985|NCT01371851|181651241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0529||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||The analysis was applied to urine data obtained at all time points during weeks 1-8.||||0.05
90892986|NCT00450411|181651242|OTHER|||||||||||||||||It was projected that ≤10% of patients would experience late treatment-related GI/GU AEs under the protocol treatment (alternative hypothesis). A rate of ≥20% was considered unacceptable (null hypothesis). With a one-sided significance level of 0.05, it was estimated that 87 analyzable patients were required to detect the above-mentioned effect size with an 85% statistical power using Fleming's multiple testing procedure with two interim analyses and one final analysis.|Stopping Rules for a Late GI/GU Adverse Event: For 44 patients, if ≤2 then reject H0, if ≥8 then reject HA; for 73 patients, if ≤7 then reject H0, if ≥10 then reject HA; for 87 patients, if ≤10 then reject H0, if ≥11 then reject HA.|||
90892987|NCT03969719|181651254|EQUIVALENCE|The comparisons of PF-06835919 to placebo was performed at a Type I error rate of 10%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.44||||0.0696|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.37|-1.25|||ANCOVA|||||-1.25|-22.37|0.0696
90892988|NCT03969719|181651254|EQUIVALENCE|The comparisons of PF-06835919 to placebo was performed at a Type I error rate of 10%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.64||||0.0288|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-24.18|-3.89|||ANCOVA|||||-3.89|-24.18|0.0288
90892989|NCT03969719|181651255|EQUIVALENCE|The comparisons of PF-06835919 to placebo was performed at a Type I error rate of 10%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.6336|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.36|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.20|-0.36|0.6336
90954249|NCT04696653|181786894|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.6||||||||2.6|1.2|
90892990|NCT03969719|181651255|EQUIVALENCE|The comparisons of PF-06835919 to placebo was performed at a Type I error rate of 10%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||0.1266|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.52|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.02|-0.52|0.1266
90892991|NCT02130193|181651286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.06||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.18||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FEV1, Day 28. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.18|-0.05|0.87
90892992|NCT02130193|181651286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.06||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.18||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.02 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FEV1, Day 28. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.18|-0.05|0.78
90892993|NCT02130193|181651286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.06||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.18||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.04 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FEV1, Day 28. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.18|-0.05|0.67
90892994|NCT02130193|181651286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.06||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.18||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.06 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FEV1, Day 28. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.18|-0.05|0.52
90892995|NCT02130193|181651286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.06||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.18||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.08 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FEV1, Day 28. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.18|-0.05|0.39
90892996|NCT02130193|181651286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.06||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.18||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.10 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FEV1, Day 28. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.18|-0.05|0.26
90892997|NCT02130193|181651286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.07||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.09||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FEV1, Day 56. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.09|-0.20|0.31
90892998|NCT02130193|181651286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.07||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.09||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.02 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FEV1, Day 56. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.09|-0.20|0.22
90892999|NCT02130193|181651286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.07||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.09||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.04 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FEV1, Day 56. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.09|-0.20|0.14
90893000|NCT02130193|181651286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.07||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.09||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.06 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FEV1, Day 56. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.09|-0.20|0.09
90893001|NCT02130193|181651286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.07||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.09||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.08 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FEV1, Day 56. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.09|-0.20|0.05
90893002|NCT02130193|181651286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.07||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.09||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.10 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FEV1, Day 56. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.09|-0.20|0.03
90893003|NCT02130193|181651286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.08||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.23||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FEV1, Day 112. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.23|-0.06|0.85
90893004|NCT02130193|181651286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.08||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.23||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.02 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FEV1, Day 112. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.23|-0.06|0.79
90893005|NCT02130193|181651286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.08||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.23||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.04 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FEV1, Day 112. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.23|-0.06|0.71
90893006|NCT02130193|181651286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.08||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.23||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.06 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FEV1, Day 112. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.23|-0.06|0.61
90893007|NCT02130193|181651286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.08||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.23||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.08 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FEV1, Day 112. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.23|-0.06|0.51
90893008|NCT02130193|181651286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.08||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.23||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.10 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FEV1, Day 112. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.23|-0.06|0.41
90829357|NCT02365649|181533419|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.8|58.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 36||58.5|-41.8|1.000
90829358|NCT02365649|181533419|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-26.7||||0.593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.2|23.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 44||23.9|-77.2|0.593
90829359|NCT02365649|181533419|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|23.3||||0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|55.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 44||55.8|-9.2|0.323
90829360|NCT02365649|181533419|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.8|58.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 44||58.5|-41.8|1.000
90829361|NCT02365649|181533419|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.7||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.1|66.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 52||66.5|-23.1|0.600
90829362|NCT02365649|181533419|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|31.7||||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|65.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 52||65.2|-1.9|0.162
90829363|NCT02365649|181533419|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.1|67.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 52||67.4|-34.1|1.000
90829364|NCT02365649|181533419|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.5|77.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 20||77.2|-50.5|1.000
90829365|NCT02365649|181533419|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-16.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|70.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 20||70.8|-100.0|1.000
90829366|NCT02365649|181533419|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|33.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|86.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 20||86.7|-20.0|1.000
90829367|NCT02365649|181533419|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-40.0||||0.464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-82.9|2.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 28||2.9|-82.9|0.464
90829368|NCT02365649|181533419|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-50.0||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|19.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 28||19.3|-100.0|0.400
90829369|NCT02365649|181533419|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-46.7||||0.464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|17.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 36||17.2|-100.0|0.464
90829370|NCT02365649|181533419|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-16.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|70.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 36||70.8|-100.0|1.000
90829371|NCT02365649|181533419|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|33.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|86.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 36||86.7|-20.0|1.000
90829372|NCT02365649|181533419|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-26.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-95.1|41.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 44||41.8|-95.1|1.000
90954250|NCT04696653|181786899|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.6||||||||1.6|1.0|
90893009|NCT02130193|181651286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.07||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.14||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FEV1, Day 168. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.14|-0.16|0.47
90893010|NCT02130193|181651286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.07||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.14||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.02 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FEV1, Day 168. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.14|-0.16|0.36
90893011|NCT02130193|181651286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.07||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.14||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.04 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FEV1, Day 168. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.14|-0.16|0.26
90893012|NCT02130193|181651286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.07||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.14||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.06 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FEV1, Day 168. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.14|-0.16|0.19
90893013|NCT02130193|181651286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.07||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.14||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.08 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FEV1, Day 168. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.14|-0.16|0.13
90893014|NCT02130193|181651286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.07||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.14||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.10 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FEV1, Day 168. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.14|-0.16|0.09
90893015|NCT02130193|181651286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.08||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.2||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FEV1, Day 280. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.20|-0.11|0.78
90893016|NCT02130193|181651286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.08||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.2||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.02 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FEV1, Day 280. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.20|-0.11|0.69
90893017|NCT02130193|181651286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.08||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.2||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.04 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FEV1, Day 280. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.20|-0.11|0.59
90893018|NCT02130193|181651286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.08||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.2||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.06 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FEV1, Day 280. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.20|-0.11|0.50
90893019|NCT02130193|181651286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.08||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.2||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.08 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FEV1, Day 280. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.20|-0.11|0.39
90893020|NCT02130193|181651286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.08||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.2||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.10 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FEV1, Day 280. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.20|-0.11|0.30
90893021|NCT02130193|181651286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.08||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.2||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FEV1, Day 364. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.20|-0.14|0.68
90893022|NCT02130193|181651286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.08||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.2||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.02 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FEV1, Day 364. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.20|-0.14|0.59
90893023|NCT02130193|181651286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.08||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.2||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.04 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FEV1, Day 364. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.20|-0.14|0.50
90893024|NCT02130193|181651286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.08||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.2||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.06 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FEV1, Day 364. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.20|-0.14|0.40
90893025|NCT02130193|181651286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.08||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.2||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.08 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FEV1, Day 364. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.20|-0.14|0.30
90893026|NCT02130193|181651286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.08||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.2||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.10 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FEV1, Day 364. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.20|-0.14|0.22
90893027|NCT02130193|181651286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.08||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.13||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FVC, Day 28. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.13|-0.19|0.41
90893028|NCT02130193|181651286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.08||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.13||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.02 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FVC, Day 28. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.13|-0.19|0.32
90893029|NCT02130193|181651286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.08||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.13||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.04 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FVC, Day 28. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.13|-0.19|0.24
90893030|NCT02130193|181651286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.08||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.13||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.06 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FVC, Day 28. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.13|-0.19|0.16
90893031|NCT02130193|181651286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.08||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.13||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.08 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FVC, Day 28. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.13|-0.19|0.11
90893032|NCT02130193|181651286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.08||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.13||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.10 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FVC, Day 28. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.13|-0.19|0.07
90893033|NCT02130193|181651286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.09||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.15||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FVC, Day 56. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.15|-0.20|0.41
90893034|NCT02130193|181651286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.09||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.15||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.02 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FVC, Day 56. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.15|-0.20|0.32
90893035|NCT02130193|181651286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.09||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.15||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.04 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FVC, Day 56. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.15|-0.20|0.25
90893036|NCT02130193|181651286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.09||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.15||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.06 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FVC, Day 56. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.15|-0.20|0.18
90893037|NCT02130193|181651286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.09||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.15||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.08 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FVC, Day 56. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.15|-0.20|0.12
90893038|NCT02130193|181651286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.09||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.15||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.10 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FVC, Day 56. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.15|-0.20|0.07
90893039|NCT02130193|181651286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.1||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.17||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FVC, Day 112. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.17|-0.20|0.45
90893040|NCT02130193|181651286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.1||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.17||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.02 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FVC, Day 112. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.17|-0.20|0.37
90893041|NCT02130193|181651286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.1||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.17||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.04 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FVC, Day 112. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.17|-0.20|0.30
90893042|NCT02130193|181651286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.1||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.17||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.06 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FVC, Day 112. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.17|-0.20|0.22
90893043|NCT02130193|181651286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.1||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.17||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.08 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FVC, Day 112. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.17|-0.20|0.17
90954251|NCT04696653|181786900|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1||||||||0.1|-0.2|
90954252|NCT04696653|181786901|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2||||||||0.2|-0.2|
90829373|NCT02365649|181533419|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-16.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|70.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 44||70.8|-100.0|1.000
90829374|NCT02365649|181533419|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|33.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|86.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 44||86.7|-20.0|1.000
90829375|NCT02365649|181533419|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-13.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.2|50.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 52||50.5|-77.2|1.000
90829376|NCT02365649|181533419|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.8|100.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 52||100.0|-70.8|1.000
90829377|NCT02365649|181533419|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|66.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.3|100.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 52||100.0|13.3|1.000
90829378|NCT02365649|181533419|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.8|40.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 20||40.4|-33.8|1.000
90829379|NCT02365649|181533419|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.7||||0.408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|48.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 20||48.5|-15.2|0.408
90829380|NCT02365649|181533419|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|33.3||||0.266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.5|57.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 20||57.2|9.5|0.266
90829381|NCT02365649|181533419|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-33.3||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.2|-0.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 28||-0.5|-66.2|0.121
90829382|NCT02365649|181533419|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.0||||-10|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.6|14.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 28||14.6|-34.6|-10.0
90829383|NCT02365649|181533419|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|19.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 28||19.3|-6.0|1.000
90829384|NCT02365649|181533419|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.3|31.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 36||31.9|-45.3|1.000
90829385|NCT02365649|181533419|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.7||||0.408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|48.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 36||48.5|-15.2|0.408
90829386|NCT02365649|181533419|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.1|55.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 36||55.7|-29.1|1.000
90954253|NCT04696653|181786902|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1||||||||0.1|-0.2|
90954254|NCT04696653|181786903|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2||||||||0.2|-0.2|
90893044|NCT02130193|181651286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.1||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.17||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.10 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FVC, Day 112. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.17|-0.20|0.12
90893045|NCT02130193|181651286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.09||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.24||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FVC, Day 168. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.24|-0.13|0.72
90829387|NCT02365649|181533419|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-26.7||||0.241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.3|11.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 44||11.9|-65.3|0.241
90829388|NCT02365649|181533419|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.7||||0.408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|48.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 44||48.5|-15.2|0.408
90829389|NCT02365649|181533419|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.1|55.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 44||55.7|-29.1|1.000
90829390|NCT02365649|181533419|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.3|36.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 52||36.6|-43.3|1.000
90829391|NCT02365649|181533419|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|30.0||||0.217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|62.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 52||62.9|-2.9|0.217
90829392|NCT02365649|181533419|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|26.7||||0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|69.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 52||69.9|-16.5|0.603
90829393|NCT02365649|181533420|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.5||||0.686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.6|52.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders||52.6|-27.6|0.686
90829394|NCT02365649|181533420|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.8||||0.257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|50.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders||50.3|-12.8|0.257
90829395|NCT02365649|181533420|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.0||||0.709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.4|27.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders||27.4|-47.4|0.709
90829396|NCT02365649|181533420|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|24.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders||24.1|-16.6|1.000
90829397|NCT02365649|181533420|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.5||||0.428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|23.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders||23.0|-6.1|0.428
90829398|NCT02365649|181533420|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.8||||0.639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|22.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders||22.9|-9.3|0.639
90829399|NCT02365649|181533420|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.5||||0.583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.2|39.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders||39.2|-22.2|0.583
90829400|NCT02365649|181533420|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.3||||0.171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|41.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders||41.9|-7.2|0.171
90954255|NCT04696653|181786904|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.0||||||||0.0|-0.3|
90954256|NCT04696653|181786905|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.0||||||||0.0|-0.3|
90893046|NCT02130193|181651286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.09||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.24||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.02 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FVC, Day 168. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.24|-0.13|0.65
90893047|NCT02130193|181651286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.09||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.24||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.04 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FVC, Day 168. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.24|-0.13|0.57
90893048|NCT02130193|181651286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.09||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.24||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.06 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FVC, Day 168. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.24|-0.13|0.48
90893049|NCT02130193|181651286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.09||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.24||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.08 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FVC, Day 168. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.24|-0.13|0.39
90893050|NCT02130193|181651286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.09||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.24||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.10 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FVC, Day 168. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.24|-0.13|0.30
90893051|NCT02130193|181651286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.12||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.32||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FVC, Day 280. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.32|-0.15|0.76
90893052|NCT02130193|181651286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.12||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.32||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.02 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FVC, Day 280. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.32|-0.15|0.71
90893053|NCT02130193|181651286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.12||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.32||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.04 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FVC, Day 280. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.32|-0.15|0.65
90893054|NCT02130193|181651286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.12||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.32||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.06 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FVC, Day 280. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.32|-0.15|0.59
90893055|NCT02130193|181651286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.12||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.32||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.08 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FVC, Day 280. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.32|-0.15|0.53
90893056|NCT02130193|181651286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.12||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.32||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.10 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FVC, Day 280. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.32|-0.15|0.46
91081969|NCT01763827|182048254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-38.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.56|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.0|-35.86||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-35.86|-42.00|<0.001
90829401|NCT02365649|181533420|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.5||||0.859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.8|29.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders||29.7|-24.8|0.859
90893057|NCT02130193|181651286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.11||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.28||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FVC, Day 364. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.28|-0.15|0.68
90893058|NCT02130193|181651286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.11||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.28||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.02 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FVC, Day 364. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.28|-0.15|0.61
90893059|NCT02130193|181651286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.11||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.28||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.04 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FVC, Day 364. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.28|-0.15|0.55
91103714|NCT03000166|182094276|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.17
90893060|NCT02130193|181651286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.11||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.28||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.06 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FVC, Day 364. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.28|-0.15|0.46
90893061|NCT02130193|181651286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.11||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.28||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.08 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FVC, Day 364. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.28|-0.15|0.40
90893062|NCT02130193|181651286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.11||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.28||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.10 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FVC, Day 364. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.28|-0.15|0.33
90893063|NCT02130193|181651290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|2.48|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.977||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|4.43||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 1.0 is presented.|Bayesian Cox analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||4.43|0.92|0.013
90893064|NCT02130193|181651290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|2.48|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.977||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|4.43||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0.9 is presented.|Bayesian Cox analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||4.43|0.92|0.006
90893065|NCT02130193|181651290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|2.48|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.977||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|4.43||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0.8 is presented.|Bayesian Cox analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||4.43|0.92|0.003
90893066|NCT02130193|181651290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|2.48|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.977||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|4.43||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0.7 is presented.|Bayesian Cox analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||4.43|0.92|0.001
90893067|NCT02130193|181651290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|2.48|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.977|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|4.43||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0.6 is presented.|Bayesian Cox analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||4.43|0.92|<0.001
90893068|NCT02130193|181651291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.36|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.29||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.81|2.17||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS, 1 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||2.17|-2.81|0.60
90893069|NCT02130193|181651291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.58|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.42||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.11|2.37||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS, 2 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||2.37|-3.11|0.65
90893070|NCT02130193|181651291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-1.46|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.52||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.43|1.45||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS, 3 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.45|-4.43|0.83
90893071|NCT02130193|181651291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-1.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.53||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.07|1.9||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS, 4 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.90|-4.07|0.78
90893072|NCT02130193|181651291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.96|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.56||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.82|2.28||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS, 5 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||2.28|-3.82|0.73
90893073|NCT02130193|181651291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.93|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.58||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.01|2.26||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS, 6 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||2.26|-4.01|0.72
90893074|NCT02130193|181651291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.58||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.15|2.09||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS, 7 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||2.09|-4.15|0.73
90893075|NCT02130193|181651291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-1.48|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.69||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.71|1.76||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS, 8 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.76|-4.71|0.81
90893076|NCT02130193|181651291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-1.23|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.75||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.66|2.22||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS, 9 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||2.22|-4.66|0.76
90893077|NCT02130193|181651291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-2.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.74||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.66|0.99||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS, 10 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.99|-5.66|0.91
90893078|NCT02130193|181651291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-1.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.73||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.73|2.13||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS, 11 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||2.13|-4.73|0.71
90893079|NCT02130193|181651291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-1.35|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.74||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.77|2.04||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS, 12 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||2.04|-4.77|0.78
90893080|NCT02130193|181651295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|1.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.242||0.278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.63||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 1.0 is presented.|Bayesian Cox analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.63|0.71|0.278
90893081|NCT02130193|181651295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|1.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.242||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.63||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0.9 is presented.|Bayesian Cox analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.63|0.71|0.138
90893082|NCT02130193|181651295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|1.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.242||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.63||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0.8 is presented.|Bayesian Cox analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.63|0.71|0.05
90893083|NCT02130193|181651295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|1.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.242||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.63||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0.7 is presented.|Bayesian Cox analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.63|0.71|0.011
90893084|NCT02130193|181651295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|1.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.242||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.63||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0.6 is presented.|Bayesian Cox analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.63|0.71|0.002
90893085|NCT02130193|181651296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.57|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.04||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.55|3.23||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 1 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||3.23|-4.55|0.62
90893086|NCT02130193|181651296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.72|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.21||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.03|3.6||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 2 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||3.60|-5.03|0.64
90893087|NCT02130193|181651296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-1.99|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.29||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|2.27||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 3 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||2.27|-6.60|0.81
90893088|NCT02130193|181651296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-1.64|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.31||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.92|3.07||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 4 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||3.07|-5.92|0.77
90893089|NCT02130193|181651296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.4||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|3.55||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 5 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||3.55|-5.70|0.71
91103715|NCT03000166|182094277|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.20
90829402|NCT02365649|181533420|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|4.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders||4.6|-14.6|1.000
90893090|NCT02130193|181651296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-1.31|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.42||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.46|3.05||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 6 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||3.05|-6.46|0.70
90893091|NCT02130193|181651296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-1.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.45||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.75|2.9||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 7 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||2.90|-6.75|0.74
90893092|NCT02130193|181651296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-2.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.63||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.93|3.3||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 8 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||3.30|-6.93|0.79
90893093|NCT02130193|181651296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-1.92|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.63||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.04|3.18||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 9 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||3.18|-7.04|0.77
90893094|NCT02130193|181651296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-3.44|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.72||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.74|1.87||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 10 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.87|-8.74|0.90
90893095|NCT02130193|181651296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-1.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.72||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|4.2||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 11 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||4.20|-6.20|0.66
91016938|NCT00366678|181917503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.5||||||95.0|-1.8|4.4||||||For serotype 14 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC Infant Series / 13vPnC Toddler Dose - 7vPnC Infant Series / 13vPnC Toddler Dose) was calculated||4.4|-1.8|
91016939|NCT00366678|181917503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-0.9||||||95.0|-4.9|2.1||||||For serotype 14 the difference in percentages between the two groups (7vPnC Infant Series / 13vPnC Toddler Dose - 7vPnC Infant Series / 7vPnC Toddler Dose) was calculated||2.1|-4.9|
91016940|NCT00366678|181917503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.4||||||95.0|-1.8|3.8||||||For serotype 18C the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC Infant Series / 13vPnC Toddler Dose - 7vPnC Infant Series / 7vPnC Toddler Dose) was calculated||3.8|-1.8|
91016941|NCT00366678|181917503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|1.3||||||95.0|-1.1|5.7||||||For serotype 18C the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC Infant Series / 13vPnC Toddler Dose - 7vPnC Infant Series / 13vPnC Toddler Dose) was calculated||5.7|-1.1|
91016942|NCT00366678|181917503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-1.0||||||95.0|-5.5|2.8||||||For serotype 18C the difference in percentages between the two groups (7vPnC Infant Series / 13vPnC Toddler Dose - 7vPnC Infant Series / 7vPnC Toddler Dose) was calculated||2.8|-5.5|
91016943|NCT00366678|181917503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.2||||||95.0|-3.1|4.7||||||For serotype 19F the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC Infant Series / 13vPnC Toddler Dose - 7vPnC Infant Series / 7vPnC Toddler Dose) was calculated||4.7|-3.1|
91016944|NCT00366678|181917503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.5||||||95.0|-2.9|5.4||||||For serotype 19F the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC Infant Series / 13vPnC Toddler Dose - 7vPnC Infant Series / 13vPnC Toddler Dose) was calculated||5.4|-2.9|
91016945|NCT00366678|181917503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-0.3||||||95.0|-5.5|4.4||||||For serotype 19F the difference in percentages between the two groups (7vPnC Infant Series / 13vPnC Toddler Dose - 7vPnC Infant Series / 7vPnC Toddler Dose) was calculated||4.4|-5.5|
90829403|NCT02365649|181533420|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.2||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|13.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders||13.0|-13.4|1.000
90829404|NCT02365649|181533420|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|4.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders||4.6|-14.6|1.000
90829405|NCT02365649|181533421|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.9|28.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders||28.9|-23.9|1.000
90829406|NCT02365649|181533421|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.3||||0.204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|47.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders||47.5|-5.0|0.204
90829407|NCT02365649|181533421|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.0||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.1|3.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders||3.1|-23.1|0.540
90954257|NCT04696653|181786906|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.3||||||||0.3|-0.1|
91016946|NCT00366678|181917503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.4||||||95.0|-1.8|3.9||||||For serotype 23F the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC Infant Series / 13vPnC Toddler Dose - 7vPnC Infant Series / 7vPnC Toddler Dose) was calculated||3.9|-1.8|
91016947|NCT00366678|181917503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.5||||||95.0|-1.9|4.4||||||For serotype 23F the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC Infant Series / 13vPnC Toddler Dose - 7vPnC Infant Series / 13vPnC Toddler Dose) was calculated||4.4|-1.9|
91016948|NCT00366678|181917503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-0.1||||||95.0|-4.1|3.7||||||For serotype 23F the difference in percentages between the two groups (7vPnC Infant Series / 13vPnC Toddler Dose - 7vPnC Infant Series / 7vPnC Toddler Dose) was calculated||3.7|-4.1|
91016949|NCT00366678|181917504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.87||||||95.0|0.73|1.03||||||For serotype 4 after the toddler dose the GMC ratio (13vPnC Infant Series/13vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose / 7vPnC Infant Series/7vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose) was calculated||1.03|0.73|
91016950|NCT00366678|181917504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.83||||||95.0|0.67|1.03||||||For serotype 4 after the toddler dose the GMC ratio (7vPnC Infant Series/13vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose / 7vPnC Infant Series/7vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose) was calculated||1.03|0.67|
91016951|NCT00366678|181917504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.04||||||95.0|0.86|1.26||||||For serotype 4 after the toddler dose the GMC ratio (13vPnC Infant Series/13vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose / 7vPnC Infant Series/13vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose) was calculated||1.26|0.86|
91016952|NCT00366678|181917504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.93||||||95.0|0.77|1.13||||||For serotype 6B after the toddler dose the GMC ratio (13vPnC Infant Series/13vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose / 7vPnC Infant Series/7vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose) was calculated||1.13|0.77|
91016953|NCT00366678|181917504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.07||||||95.0|0.82|1.4||||||For serotype 6B after the toddler dose the GMC ratio (7vPnC Infant Series/13vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose / 7vPnC Infant Series/7vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose) was calculated||1.40|0.82|
91016954|NCT00366678|181917504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.87||||||95.0|0.69|1.1||||||For serotype 6B after the toddler dose the GMC ratio (13vPnC Infant Series/13vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose / 7vPnC Infant Series/13vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose) was calculated||1.10|0.69|
91016955|NCT00366678|181917504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.8||||||95.0|0.68|0.94||||||For serotype 9V after the toddler dose the GMC ratio (13vPnC Infant Series/13vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose / 7vPnC Infant Series/7vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose) was calculated||0.94|0.68|
91016956|NCT00366678|181917504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.71||||||95.0|0.59|0.85||||||For serotype 9V after the toddler dose the GMC ratio (7vPnC Infant Series/13vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose / 7vPnC Infant Series/7vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose) was calculated||0.85|0.59|
91016957|NCT00366678|181917504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.13||||||95.0|0.95|1.33||||||For serotype 9V after the toddler dose the GMC ratio (13vPnC Infant Series/13vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose / 7vPnC Infant Series/13vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose) was calculated||1.33|0.95|
91016958|NCT00366678|181917504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.88||||||95.0|0.73|1.06||||||For serotype 14 after the toddler dose the GMC ratio (13vPnC Infant Series/13vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose / 7vPnC Infant Series/7vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose) was calculated||1.06|0.73|
91016959|NCT00366678|181917504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.72||||||95.0|0.58|0.9||||||For serotype 14 after the toddler dose the GMC ratio (7vPnC Infant Series/13vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose / 7vPnC Infant Series/7vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose) was calculated||0.90|0.58|
91016960|NCT00366678|181917504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.22||||||95.0|1.0|1.49||||||For serotype 14 after the toddler dose the GMC ratio (13vPnC Infant Series/13vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose / 7vPnC Infant Series/13vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose) was calculated||1.49|1.00|
91016961|NCT00366678|181917504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.82||||||95.0|0.69|0.97||||||For serotype 18C after the toddler dose the GMC ratio (13vPnC Infant Series/13vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose / 7vPnC Infant Series/7vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose) was calculated||0.97|0.69|
91016962|NCT00366678|181917504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.86||||||95.0|0.69|1.08||||||For serotype 18C after the toddler dose the GMC ratio (7vPnC Infant Series/13vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose / 7vPnC Infant Series/7vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose) was calculated||1.08|0.69|
91016963|NCT00366678|181917504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.95||||||95.0|0.78|1.15||||||For serotype 18C after the toddler dose the GMC ratio (13vPnC Infant Series/13vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose / 7vPnC Infant Series/13vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose) was calculated||1.15|0.78|
91016964|NCT00366678|181917504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.26||||||95.0|1.0|1.59||||||For serotype 19F after the toddler dose the GMC ratio (13vPnC Infant Series/13vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose / 7vPnC Infant Series/7vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose) was calculated||1.59|1.00|
91016965|NCT00366678|181917504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.91||||||95.0|0.68|1.2||||||For serotype 19F after the toddler dose the GMC ratio (7vPnC Infant Series/13vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose / 7vPnC Infant Series/7vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose) was calculated||1.20|0.68|
90829408|NCT02365649|181533421|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|2.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders||2.1|-14.6|1.000
91016966|NCT00366678|181917504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.39||||||95.0|1.08|1.79||||||For serotype 19F after the toddler dose the GMC ratio (13vPnC Infant Series/13vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose / 7vPnC Infant Series/13vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose) was calculated||1.79|1.08|
91016967|NCT00366678|181917504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.81||||||95.0|0.67|1.0||||||For serotype 23F after the toddler dose the GMC ratio (13vPnC Infant Series/13vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose / 7vPnC Infant Series/7vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose) was calculated||1.00|0.67|
91016968|NCT00366678|181917504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.85||||||95.0|0.67|1.07||||||For serotype 23F after the toddler dose the GMC ratio (7vPnC Infant Series/13vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose / 7vPnC Infant Series/7vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose) was calculated||1.07|0.67|
91016969|NCT00366678|181917504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.96||||||95.0|0.78|1.19||||||For serotype 23F after the toddler dose the GMC ratio (13vPnC Infant Series/13vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose / 7vPnC Infant Series/13vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose) was calculated||1.19|0.78|
91016970|NCT00366678|181917507|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.77||||||95.0|0.66|0.9||||||For Diphtheria the GMC ratio was calculated||0.90|0.66|
91016971|NCT00366678|181917507|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.94||||||95.0|0.82|1.08||||||For Tetanus the GMC ratio was calculated||1.08|0.82|
91016972|NCT00366678|181917507|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.8||||||95.0|0.67|0.97||||||For Diphtheria the GMC ratio was calculated||0.97|0.67|
91016973|NCT00366678|181917507|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.86||||||95.0|0.69|1.08||||||For Tetanus the GMC ratio was calculated||1.08|0.69|
91016974|NCT00366678|181917508|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.91||||||95.0|0.73|1.14||||||For Hib (PRP) the GMC ratio was calculated||1.14|0.73|
90954258|NCT04696653|181786907|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2||||||||0.2|-0.1|
90954259|NCT04696653|181786908|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2||||||||0.2|-0.2|
91016975|NCT00366678|181917508|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|1.04||||||95.0|0.82|1.32||||||For Hib (PRP) the GMC ratio was calculated||1.32|0.82|
91016976|NCT00366678|181917509|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.88||||||95.0|0.71|1.09||||||For Polio Type 1 the GMC ratio was calculated||1.09|0.71|
91016977|NCT00366678|181917509|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.82||||||95.0|0.66|1.03||||||For Polio Type 2 the GMC ratio was calculated||1.03|0.66|
91016978|NCT00366678|181917509|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.78||||||95.0|0.59|1.02||||||For Polio Type 3 the GMC ratio was calculated||1.02|0.59|
91016979|NCT00366678|181917509|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|1.01||||||95.0|0.72|1.41||||||For Polio Type 1 the GMC ratio was calculated||1.41|0.72|
91016980|NCT00366678|181917509|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.98||||||95.0|0.72|1.34||||||For Polio Type 2 the GMC ratio was calculated||1.34|0.72|
91016981|NCT00366678|181917509|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.84||||||95.0|0.6|1.17||||||For Polio Type 3 the GMC ratio was calculated||1.17|0.60|
91016982|NCT00366678|181917510|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.87||||||95.0|0.78|0.98||||||For Pertussis - FHA the GMC ratio was calculated||0.98|0.78|
91016983|NCT00366678|181917510|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.92||||||95.0|0.84|1.02||||||For Pertussis - PT the GMC ratio was calculated||1.02|0.84|
91016984|NCT00366678|181917510|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.85||||||95.0|0.72|1.0||||||For Pertussis - FHA the GMC ratio was calculated||1.00|0.72|
91016985|NCT00366678|181917510|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.99||||||95.0|0.86|1.14||||||For Pertussis - PT the GMC ratio was calculated||1.14|0.86|
90954260|NCT04696653|181786909|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.0||||||||0.0|-0.4|
90954261|NCT04696653|181786910|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|3.3||||||||3.3|1.0|
91016986|NCT01900392|181917515|OTHER||||||>|0.1|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||>0.1
91016987|NCT04253756|181917528|NON_INFERIORITY|The margin of non-inferiority (Delta) was 5g/dl|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.87|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.87
91016988|NCT04253756|181917529|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin (Delta) was 10 minutes of run time, no other key parameters|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.2||||0.32|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.32
91016989|NCT01005680|181917541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.39||HR adjusted for treatment, disease stage, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG PS), sex, and basis for initial pathological diagnosis.|Cox Proportional Hazard|||||1.39|0.77|0.822
91016990|NCT01005680|181917542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.37||HR adjusted for treatment, disease stage, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG PS), sex and basis for initial pathological diagnosis.|Cox Proportional Hazard|||||1.37|0.82|0.640
91016991|NCT01005680|181917543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.32||HR adjusted for treatment, disease stage, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG PS), sex and biases for initial pathological diagnosis.|Cox Proportional Hazard|||||1.32|0.78|0.928
91016992|NCT01005680|181917544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.79||HR adjusted for treatment, disease stage, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG PS), sex and basis for initial pathological diagnosis.|Cox Proportional Hazard|||||1.79|0.51|0.887
91016993|NCT01005680|181917545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.61||HR adjusted for treatment, disease stage, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG PS), sex and basis for initial pathological diagnosis.|Cox Proportional Hazard|||||1.61|0.67|0.861
91016994|NCT01005680|181917546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.451||95.0|||||two-sided Z test|||||||0.451
91016995|NCT01005680|181917548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.627||95.0|||||two-sided Z test|||||||0.627
91016996|NCT03731325|181917551|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.2|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA||This mean difference represents the main effect of time from baseline to 15 weeks, regardless of group|Change in parent BMI from baseline at 8,11 to 15 weeks||||<0.01
91016997|NCT03731325|181917552|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.5||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|||||main effect of time|ANOVA||This is the main effect of weight change at week 15, e.g. average weight change from baseline to week 15 in the entire sample of parents|repeated measures analysis of variance for time (0,8,11,15 weeks) for weight change (lbs)||||0.003
91016998|NCT03731325|181917553|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.6||||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA||average difference in BMI percentile for entire sample|Repeated measures ANOVA for child BMI percentile at 0, 8, 11 and 15 weeks||||0.06
91016999|NCT03731325|181917554|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA||average change in delay discounting measure area under the curve for all participants (parents and children) in both groups from baseline to week 15|repeated measures ANOVA, reporting repeated measures effect only||||0.07
91017000|NCT03731325|181917555|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8||||0.64|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA||Difference between weight at baseline and week 15 in lbs for all children, regardless of group|||||0.64
91017001|NCT02118896|181917559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier Method|0.9257|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.844|1.0||||||The two-sided 95% confidence interval for the estimated rate of freedom from BCAR at EOS was calculated using Greenwood's formula.||1.000|0.844|
91017002|NCT02118896|181917559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier Method|0.9321|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.858|1.0||||||The two-sided 95% confidence interval for the estimated rate of freedom from BCAR at EOS was calculated using Greenwood's formula.||1.000|0.858|
91017003|NCT02118896|181917559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier Method|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.0||||||The two-sided 95% confidence interval for the estimated rate of freedom from BCAR at EOS was calculated using Greenwood's formula.||1.0000|1.0000|
90893096|NCT02130193|181651296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-1.73|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.7||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.91|3.45||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 12 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||3.45|-6.91|0.74
90893097|NCT02130193|181651296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.57|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.04||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.55|3.23||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -1 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 1 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||3.23|-4.55|0.43
91017004|NCT02118896|181917559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier Method|0.8699|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.949||||||The two-sided 95% confidence interval for the estimated rate of freedom from BCAR at EOS was calculated using Greenwood's formula.||0.949|0.790|
91017005|NCT02118896|181917559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier Method|0.9607|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.927|0.995||||||The two-sided 95% confidence interval for the estimated rate of freedom from BCAR at EOS was calculated using Greenwood's formula.||0.995|0.927|
91017006|NCT02118896|181917559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier Method|0.9948|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.985|1.0||||||The two-sided 95% confidence interval for the estimated rate of freedom from BCAR at EOS was calculated using Greenwood's formula.||1.000|0.985|
91017007|NCT02118896|181917559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier Method|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.0||||||The two-sided 95% confidence interval for the estimated rate of freedom from BCAR at EOS was calculated using Greenwood's formula.||1.0000|1.0000|
90893098|NCT02130193|181651296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.72|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.21||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.03|3.6||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -1 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 2 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||3.60|-5.03|0.45
90893099|NCT02130193|181651296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-1.99|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.29||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|2.27||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -1 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 3 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||2.27|-6.60|0.67
91017008|NCT02118896|181917559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier Method|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.0||||||The two-sided 95% confidence interval for the estimated rate of freedom from BCAR at EOS was calculated using Greenwood's formula.||1.0000|1.0000|
90893100|NCT02130193|181651296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-1.64|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.31||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.92|3.07||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -1 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 4 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||3.07|-5.92|0.62
90893101|NCT02130193|181651296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.4||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|3.55||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -1 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 5 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||3.55|-5.70|0.55
90893102|NCT02130193|181651296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-1.31|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.42||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.46|3.05||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -1 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 6 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||3.05|-6.46|0.55
90893103|NCT02130193|181651296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-1.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.45||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.75|2.9||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -1 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 7 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||2.90|-6.75|0.59
91017009|NCT02118896|181917559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier Method|0.9773|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.933|1.0||||||The two-sided 95% confidence interval for the estimated rate of freedom from BCAR at EOS was calculated using Greenwood's formula.||1.000|0.933|
90893104|NCT02130193|181651296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-2.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.63||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.93|3.3||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -1 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 8 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||3.30|-6.93|0.65
90893105|NCT02130193|181651296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-1.92|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.63||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.04|3.18||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -1 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 9 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||3.18|-7.04|0.63
90893106|NCT02130193|181651296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-3.44|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.72||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.74|1.87||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -1 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 10 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.87|-8.74|0.81
90893107|NCT02130193|181651296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-1.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.72||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|4.2||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -1 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 11 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||4.20|-6.20|0.52
90893108|NCT02130193|181651296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-1.73|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.7||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.91|3.45||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -1 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 12 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||3.45|-6.91|0.60
90893109|NCT02130193|181651296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.57|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.04||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.55|3.23||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -2 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 1 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||3.23|-4.55|0.24
90893110|NCT02130193|181651296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.72|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.21||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.03|3.6||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -2 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 2 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||3.60|-5.03|0.28
90893111|NCT02130193|181651296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-1.99|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.29||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|2.27||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -2 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 3 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||2.27|-6.60|0.50
90893112|NCT02130193|181651296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-1.64|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.31||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.92|3.07||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -2 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 4 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||3.07|-5.92|0.43
91017010|NCT02118896|181917562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier Method|0.8391|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.729|0.949||||||The two-sided 95% confidence interval for the estimated rate of freedom from efficacy failure at EOS was calculated using Greenwood's formula.||0.949|0.729|
91017011|NCT02118896|181917562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier Method|0.8792|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.778|0.981||||||The two-sided 95% confidence interval for the estimated rate of freedom from efficacy failure at EOS was calculated using Greenwood's formula..||0.981|0.778|
91017012|NCT02118896|181917562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier Method|0.8816|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.782|0.981||||||The two-sided 95% confidence interval for the estimated rate of freedom from efficacy failure at EOS was calculated using Greenwood's formula.||0.981|0.782|
91017013|NCT02118896|181917562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier Method|0.7769|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.675|0.878||||||The two-sided 95% confidence interval for the estimated rate of freedom from efficacy failure at EOS was calculated using Greenwood's formula.||0.878|0.675|
90893113|NCT02130193|181651296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.4||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|3.55||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -2 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 5 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||3.55|-5.70|0.37
90893114|NCT02130193|181651296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-1.31|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.42||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.46|3.05||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -2 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 6 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||3.05|-6.46|0.38
90893115|NCT02130193|181651296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-1.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.45||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.75|2.9||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -2 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 7 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||2.90|-6.75|0.43
91017014|NCT02118896|181917562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier Method|0.8373|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.693|0.981||||||The two-sided 95% confidence interval for the estimated rate of freedom from efficacy failure at EOS was calculated using Greenwood's formula.||0.981|0.693|
90954262|NCT04348435|181786919|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.253|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.6113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.6113
90954263|NCT04348435|181786919|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.434|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.638||0.5039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.5039
91017015|NCT02118896|181917562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier Method|0.9419|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.883|1.0||||||The two-sided 95% confidence interval for the estimated rate of freedom from efficacy failure at EOS was calculated using Greenwood's formula.||1.000|0.883|
91017016|NCT02118896|181917562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier Method|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.0||||||The two-sided 95% confidence interval for the estimated rate of freedom from efficacy failure at EOS was calculated using Greenwood's formula.||1.000|1.000|
91017017|NCT02118896|181917562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier Method|0.9898|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.0||||||The two-sided 95% confidence interval for the estimated rate of freedom from efficacy failure at EOS was calculated using Greenwood's formula.||1.000|0.970|
90893116|NCT02130193|181651296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-2.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.63||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.93|3.3||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -2 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 8 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||3.30|-6.93|0.51
90893117|NCT02130193|181651296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-1.92|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.63||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.04|3.18||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -2 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 9 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||3.18|-7.04|0.50
90893118|NCT02130193|181651296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-3.44|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.72||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.74|1.87||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -2 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 10 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.87|-8.74|0.70
90893119|NCT02130193|181651296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-1.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.72||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|4.2||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -2 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 11 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||4.20|-6.20|0.38
90893120|NCT02130193|181651296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-1.73|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.7||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.91|3.45||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -2 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 12 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||3.45|-6.91|0.45
90893121|NCT02130193|181651296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.57|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.04||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.55|3.23||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -3 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 1 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||3.23|-4.55|0.11
90893122|NCT02130193|181651296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.72|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.21||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.03|3.6||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -3 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 2 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||3.60|-5.03|0.15
90893123|NCT02130193|181651296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-1.99|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.29||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|2.27||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -3 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 3 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||2.27|-6.60|0.32
90893124|NCT02130193|181651296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-1.64|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.31||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.92|3.07||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -3 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 4 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||3.07|-5.92|0.28
91017018|NCT02118896|181917562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier Method|0.9773|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.933|1.0||||||The two-sided 95% confidence interval for the estimated rate of freedom from efficacy failure at EOS was calculated using Greenwood's formula.||1.000|0.933|
91017019|NCT01040624|181917563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|One-sided binomial test of univariate probability distributions||||||<0.0001
91017020|NCT00539006|181917579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.001||95.0|-1.5|-0.6|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Mean Change in FFNS - Mean Change in Placebo|FFNS combined across treatment arms 1 \& 2 compared with Placebo FFNS combined across treatment arms 1 \& 2.||-0.6|-1.5|<0.001
91017021|NCT00539006|181917579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.004||95.0|-1.1|-0.2|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Mean Change in FPNS - Mean Change in Placebo|FPNS combined across treatment arms 1 \& 2 compared with Placebo FPNS combined across treatment arms 1 \& 2.||-0.2|-1.1|0.004
90893125|NCT02130193|181651296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.4||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|3.55||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -3 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 5 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||3.55|-5.70|0.23
90893126|NCT02130193|181651296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-1.31|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.42||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.46|3.05||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -3 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 6 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||3.05|-6.46|0.24
90893127|NCT02130193|181651296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-1.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.45||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.75|2.9||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -3 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 7 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||2.90|-6.75|0.29
90893128|NCT02130193|181651296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-2.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.63||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.93|3.3||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -3 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 8 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||3.30|-6.93|0.36
90954264|NCT04348435|181786919|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.077|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.555||0.8903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.8903
91017022|NCT00539006|181917580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel(CMH): stratified approximation to Prescotts test; variation of chi-square test for treatment sequence/subjects no preference.||Statistical analysis applies to FFNS and FPNS categories.||||<0.001
91017023|NCT03733301|181917584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.88||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|3.85|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.85|0.92|0.082
91017024|NCT03733301|181917584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.77||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|5.56|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.56|1.38|0.004
91017025|NCT03733301|181917585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.62||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|4.76|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.76|1.44|0.002
90893129|NCT02130193|181651296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-1.92|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.63||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.04|3.18||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -3 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 9 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||3.18|-7.04|0.35
90893130|NCT02130193|181651296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-3.44|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.72||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.74|1.87||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -3 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 10 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.87|-8.74|0.57
90893131|NCT02130193|181651296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-1.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.72||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|4.2||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -3 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 11 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||4.20|-6.20|0.25
90893132|NCT02130193|181651296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-1.73|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.7||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.91|3.45||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -3 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 12 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||3.45|-6.91|0.32
90893133|NCT02130193|181651297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.82||Posterior probability that the treatment ratio (DNX 75 mg/ placebo) is less than 1.0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.82|0.55|0.477
90893134|NCT02130193|181651297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.82||Posterior probability that the treatment ratio (DNX 75 mg/ placebo) is less than 0.9 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.82|0.55|0.343
90893135|NCT02130193|181651297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.82||Posterior probability that the treatment ratio (DNX 75 mg/ placebo) is less than 0.8 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.82|0.55|0.221
90893136|NCT02130193|181651297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.82||Posterior probability that the treatment ratio (DNX 75 mg/ placebo) is less than 0.7 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.82|0.55|0.116
90893137|NCT02130193|181651297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.82||Posterior probability that the treatment ratio (DNX 75 mg/ placebo) is less than 0.6 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.82|0.55|0.052
90893138|NCT02130193|181651298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.32||||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.11||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 1.0 is presented.|Bayesian Cox analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||2.11|0.73|0.212
90893139|NCT02130193|181651298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.32||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.11||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0.9 is presented.|Bayesian Cox analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||2.11|0.73|0.111
90893140|NCT02130193|181651298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.32||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.11||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0.8 is presented.|Bayesian Cox analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||2.11|0.73|0.049
90893141|NCT02130193|181651298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.32||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.11||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0.7 is presented.|Bayesian Cox analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||2.11|0.73|0.012
90893142|NCT02130193|181651298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.32||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.11||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0.6 is presented.|Bayesian Cox analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||2.11|0.73|0.001
90893143|NCT02130193|181651301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.23|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.72||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|1.25||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-breath, 1 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.25|-1.53|0.64
90893144|NCT02130193|181651301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.53|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.78||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|1.1||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-breath, 2 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.10|-1.91|0.75
90893145|NCT02130193|181651301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.8||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|0.98||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-breath, 3 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.98|-2.09|0.77
90893146|NCT02130193|181651301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.55|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.81||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|0.87||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-breath, 4 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.87|-2.23|0.74
90893147|NCT02130193|181651301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.36|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.83||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|1.27||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-breath, 5 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.27|-1.88|0.67
90954265|NCT04348435|181786920|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.247|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.056||0.8171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.8171
91081970|NCT01763827|182048254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-45.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.81|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.39|-42.27||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-42.27|-49.39|<0.001
90893148|NCT02130193|181651301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.43|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.86||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|1.26||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-breath, 6 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.26|-1.99|0.69
90893149|NCT02130193|181651301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.85||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.08||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-breath, 7 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.08|-2.10|0.72
90893150|NCT02130193|181651301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.87||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|1.14||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-breath, 8 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.14|-2.11|0.71
90893151|NCT02130193|181651301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.34|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.88||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.14|1.23||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-breath, 9 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.23|-2.14|0.66
90893152|NCT02130193|181651301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.89|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.89||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.71|0.69||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-breath, 10 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.69|-2.71|0.84
90893153|NCT02130193|181651301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.36|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.91||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|1.41||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-breath, 11 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.41|-2.15|0.65
90893154|NCT02130193|181651301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.49|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.9||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.36|1.13||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-breath, 12 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.13|-2.36|0.71
90893155|NCT02130193|181651301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.23|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.72||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|1.25||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -1 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-breath, 1 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.25|-1.53|0.13
90893156|NCT02130193|181651301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.53|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.78||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|1.1||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -1 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-breath, 2 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.10|-1.91|0.27
90893157|NCT02130193|181651301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.8||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|0.98||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -1 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-breath, 3 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.98|-2.09|0.31
90893158|NCT02130193|181651301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.55|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.81||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|0.87||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -1 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-breath, 4 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.87|-2.23|0.29
90893159|NCT02130193|181651301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.36|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.83||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|1.27||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -1 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-breath, 5 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.27|-1.88|0.23
90893160|NCT02130193|181651301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.43|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.86||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|1.26||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -1 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-breath, 6 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.26|-1.99|0.26
90893161|NCT02130193|181651301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.85||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.08||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -1 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-breath, 7 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.08|-2.10|0.28
90893162|NCT02130193|181651301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.87||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|1.14||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -1 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-breath, 8 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.14|-2.11|0.29
90954266|NCT04348435|181786920|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.913|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.342||0.5034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.5034
91081971|NCT01763827|182048254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-29.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.56|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.43|-26.28||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Ezetimibe is the reference|||-26.28|-32.43|<0.001
90893163|NCT02130193|181651301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.34|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.88||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.14|1.23||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -1 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-breath, 9 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.23|-2.14|0.23
90893164|NCT02130193|181651301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.89|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.89||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.71|0.69||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -1 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-breath, 10 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.69|-2.71|0.45
90893165|NCT02130193|181651301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.36|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.91||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|1.41||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -1 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-breath, 11 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.41|-2.15|0.24
90893166|NCT02130193|181651301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.49|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.9||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.36|1.13||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -1 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-breath, 12 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.13|-2.36|0.28
90893167|NCT02130193|181651301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.23|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.72||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|1.25||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -0.7 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-breath, 1 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.25|-1.53|0.26
90893168|NCT02130193|181651301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.53|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.78||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|1.1||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -0.7 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-breath, 2 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.10|-1.91|0.41
90893169|NCT02130193|181651301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.8||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|0.98||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -0.7 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-breath, 3 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.98|-2.09|0.46
90893170|NCT02130193|181651301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.55|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.81||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|0.87||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -0.7 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-breath, 4 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.87|-2.23|0.43
90893171|NCT02130193|181651301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.36|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.83||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|1.27||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -0.7 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-breath, 5 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.27|-1.88|0.36
90893172|NCT02130193|181651301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.43|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.86||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|1.26||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -0.7 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-breath, 6 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.26|-1.99|0.39
90893173|NCT02130193|181651301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.85||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.08||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -0.7 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-breath, 7 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.08|-2.10|0.42
90893174|NCT02130193|181651301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.87||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|1.14||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -1 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-breath, 8 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.14|-2.11|0.42
90893175|NCT02130193|181651301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.34|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.88||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.14|1.23||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -0.7 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-breath, 9 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.23|-2.14|0.35
90893176|NCT02130193|181651301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.89|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.89||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.71|0.69||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -0.7 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-breath, 10 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.69|-2.71|0.58
90893177|NCT02130193|181651301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.36|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.91||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|1.41||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -0.7 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-breath, 11 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.41|-2.15|0.36
90893178|NCT02130193|181651301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.49|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.9||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.36|1.13||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -0.7 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-breath, 12 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.13|-2.36|0.41
90893179|NCT02130193|181651301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.35||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.52||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-chest, 1 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.52|-0.84|0.66
90893180|NCT02130193|181651301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.39||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.55||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-chest, 2 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.55|-0.94|0.66
90893181|NCT02130193|181651301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.56|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.43||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|0.2||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-chest, 3 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.20|-1.46|0.91
90893182|NCT02130193|181651301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.32|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.41||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.44||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-chest, 4 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.44|-1.16|0.79
90893183|NCT02130193|181651301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.42||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|0.41||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-chest, 5 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.41|-1.24|0.84
91017026|NCT03733301|181917585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|5.97|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.97|1.80|< 0.001
91017027|NCT03733301|181917586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.62|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.62|0.59|0.574
91017028|NCT03733301|181917586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.07||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|4.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.20|1.02|0.045
91017029|NCT03733301|181917587|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.256||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.42|-2.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.73|-23.42|0.013
91017030|NCT03733301|181917587|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.259|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.48|-11.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-11.78|-32.48|<0.001
91017031|NCT03733301|181917588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53||||0.364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|3.81|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.81|0.61|0.364
91017032|NCT03733301|181917588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.7||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|6.34|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.34|1.15|0.022
91017033|NCT03733301|181917589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.88||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|5.61|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.61|1.48|0.002
91017034|NCT03733301|181917589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.98|7.46|||Regression, Logistic|||||7.46|1.98|<0.001
91017035|NCT03733301|181917590|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.209|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|-0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.41|-1.23|<0.001
91017036|NCT03733301|181917590|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.209|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.51|-1.33|<0.001
90893184|NCT02130193|181651301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.39|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.44||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|0.47||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-chest, 6 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.47|-1.23|0.81
90893185|NCT02130193|181651301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.32|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.44||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|0.56||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-chest, 7 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.56|-1.14|0.76
90954267|NCT04348435|181786920|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.193||0.9948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.9948
91017037|NCT03733301|181917591|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.319|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|-0.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.52|-1.78|<0.001
91017038|NCT03733301|181917591|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.322|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.30|-2.30|<0.001
91017039|NCT03733301|181917592|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|4.49|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.49|1.47|<0.001
91017040|NCT03733301|181917592|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|6.32|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.32|2.00|<0.001
91017041|NCT03733301|181917593|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|5.31|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.31|0.32|0.715
91017042|NCT03733301|181917593|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.02||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|10.56|||Regression, Logistic|||||10.56|0.86|0.083
91017043|NCT03733301|181917594|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.663||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.72|-3.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.24|-13.72|0.002
91017044|NCT03733301|181917594|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.662|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.62|-9.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-9.14|-19.62|<0.001
91017045|NCT03733301|181917595|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.21||||0.204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|19.37|||Regression, Logistic|||||19.37|0.53|0.204
91017046|NCT03733301|181917595|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.99||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|38.53|||Regression, Logistic|||||38.53|1.27|0.025
91017047|NCT03733301|181917596|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.591|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.07|-3.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.87|-14.07|<0.001
91017048|NCT03733301|181917596|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.584|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.78|-6.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-6.61|-16.78|<0.001
91017049|NCT03733301|181917597|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.721|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.721
91017050|NCT03733301|181917597|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
91017051|NCT03733301|181917598|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-65.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|24.149||0.0073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-112.87|-17.65|||ANOVA|||||-17.65|-112.87|0.0073
91017052|NCT03733301|181917598|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-91.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|24.038||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-138.43|-43.85|||ANOVA|||||-43.85|-138.43|0.0002
91017053|NCT03733301|181917599|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.658|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.6|-7.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-7.27|-25.60|< 0.001
91017054|NCT03733301|181917599|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.672|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.42|-15.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-15.03|-33.42|< 0.001
91017055|NCT03733301|181917600|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.046||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.96|-0.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.84|-4.96|0.006
90893186|NCT02130193|181651301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.48|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.48||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|0.43||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-chest, 8 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.43|-1.43|0.84
90893187|NCT02130193|181651301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.46|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.49||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|0.38||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-chest, 9 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.38|-1.49|0.83
90893188|NCT02130193|181651301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.73|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.49||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|0.2||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-chest, 10 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.20|-1.68|0.94
90893189|NCT02130193|181651301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.49|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.5||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|0.48||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-chest, 11 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.48|-1.45|0.84
90893190|NCT02130193|181651301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.43|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.5||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|0.55||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-chest, 12 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.55|-1.36|0.81
90893191|NCT02130193|181651301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.35||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.52||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -1 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-chest, 1 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.52|-0.84|0.01
90893192|NCT02130193|181651301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.39||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.55||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -1 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-chest, 2 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.55|-0.94|0.02
90893193|NCT02130193|181651301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.56|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.43||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|0.2||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -1 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-chest, 3 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.20|-1.46|0.15
90893194|NCT02130193|181651301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.32|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.41||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.44||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -1 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-chest, 4 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.44|-1.16|0.05
90893195|NCT02130193|181651301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.42||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|0.41||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -1 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-chest, 5 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.41|-1.24|0.08
90893196|NCT02130193|181651301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.39|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.44||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|0.47||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -1 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-chest, 6 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.47|-1.23|0.08
90893197|NCT02130193|181651301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.32|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.44||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|0.56||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -1 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-chest, 7 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.56|-1.14|0.06
90893198|NCT02130193|181651301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.48|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.48||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|0.43||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -1 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-chest, 8 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.43|-1.43|0.14
90893199|NCT02130193|181651301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.46|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.49||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|0.38||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -1 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-chest, 9 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.38|-1.49|0.14
90893200|NCT02130193|181651301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.73|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.49||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|0.2||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -1 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-chest, 10 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.20|-1.68|0.29
90893201|NCT02130193|181651301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.49|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.5||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|0.48||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -1 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-chest, 11 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.48|-1.45|0.15
90893202|NCT02130193|181651301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.43|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.5||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|0.55||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -1 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-chest, 12 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.55|-1.36|0.13
90893203|NCT02130193|181651301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.35||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.52||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -0.7 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-chest, 1 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.52|-0.84|0.06
90954268|NCT04348435|181786921|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.179|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.156||0.2641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2641
90829409|NCT02365649|181533421|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.6||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|15.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders||15.3|-10.1|1.000
90893204|NCT02130193|181651301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.39||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.55||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -0.7 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-chest, 2 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.55|-0.94|0.09
90893205|NCT02130193|181651301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.56|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.43||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|0.2||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -0.7 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-chest, 3 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.20|-1.46|0.37
90893206|NCT02130193|181651301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.32|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.41||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.44||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -0.7 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-chest, 4 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.44|-1.16|0.18
90893207|NCT02130193|181651301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.42||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|0.41||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -0.7 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-chest, 5 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.41|-1.24|0.24
90893208|NCT02130193|181651301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.39|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.44||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|0.47||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -0.7 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-chest, 6 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.47|-1.23|0.24
90893209|NCT02130193|181651301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.32|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.44||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|0.56||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -0.7 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-chest, 7 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.56|-1.14|0.19
90893210|NCT02130193|181651301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.48|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.48||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|0.43||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -0.7 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-chest, 8 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.43|-1.43|0.32
90893211|NCT02130193|181651301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.46|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.49||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|0.38||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -0.7 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-chest, 9 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.38|-1.49|0.32
90893212|NCT02130193|181651301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.73|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.49||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|0.2||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -0.7 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-chest, 10 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.20|-1.68|0.52
90893213|NCT02130193|181651301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.49|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.5||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|0.48||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -0.7 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-chest, 11 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.48|-1.45|0.33
90893214|NCT02130193|181651301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.43|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.5||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|0.55||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -0.7 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-chest, 12 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.55|-1.36|0.29
90893215|NCT02130193|181651301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.31||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.62||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-cough, 1 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.62|-0.59|0.43
90893216|NCT02130193|181651301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.19|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.35||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.85||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-cough, 2 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.85|-0.53|0.29
90893217|NCT02130193|181651301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.38||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.52||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-cough, 3 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.52|-0.94|0.70
90893218|NCT02130193|181651301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.37||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.5||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-cough, 4 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.50|-0.92|0.71
90893219|NCT02130193|181651301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.37||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.61||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-cough, 5 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.61|-0.82|0.61
91017056|NCT03733301|181917600|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.043|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.28|-3.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.18|-7.28|< 0.001
91017057|NCT03733301|181917601|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.12|-0.63|0.005
91017058|NCT03733301|181917601|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.24|-0.75|< 0.001
91017059|NCT03733301|181917602|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.425||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||HADS Depression||0.10|-1.57|0.083
91017060|NCT03733301|181917602|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.423||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|-0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||HADS Depression||-0.19|-1.85|0.016
91017061|NCT03733301|181917602|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.415||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||HADS Anxiety||0.00|-1.63|0.051
91017062|NCT03733301|181917602|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.413||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||HADS Anxiety||-0.10|-1.72|0.028
91017063|NCT03733301|181917603|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.832||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.56|-0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.28|-3.56|0.022
91017064|NCT03733301|181917603|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.829|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.94|-1.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.68|-4.94|< 0.001
91081972|NCT01763827|182048254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-27.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.81|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.08|-23.94||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Ezetimibe is the reference|||-23.94|-31.08|<0.001
91017065|NCT03733301|181917604|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.569||0.435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.06|7.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Absenteeism||7.08|-3.06|0.435
91017066|NCT03733301|181917604|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.569||0.706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|6.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Absenteeism||6.04|-4.10|0.706
91017067|NCT03733301|181917604|SUPERIORITY|Presenteeism|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.384||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.78|0.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.54|-16.78|0.066
91017068|NCT03733301|181917604|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.336||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.3|-2.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Presenteeism||-2.17|-19.30|0.014
91017069|NCT03733301|181917604|SUPERIORITY|Work Productivity Loss|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.511||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.84|0.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.99|-16.84|0.081
91017070|NCT03733301|181917604|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.473||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.55|1.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Work productivity Loss||1.88|-19.55|0.018
91017071|NCT03733301|181917604|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.511||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.71|-2.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Activity Impairment||-2.89|-16.71|0.006
91017072|NCT03733301|181917604|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.39|-3.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Activity Impairment||-3.61|-17.39|0.003
91017073|NCT03733301|181917605|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017||0.176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Health State Index US||0.06|-0.01|0.176
91017074|NCT03733301|181917605|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Health State Index US||0.09|0.02|0.004
91017075|NCT03733301|181917605|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||0.176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Health State Index UK||0.08|-0.01|0.176
91017076|NCT03733301|181917605|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Health State Index UK||0.12|0.02|0.003
91017077|NCT03733301|181917606|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.593||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|9.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.23|-0.98|0.113
91017078|NCT03733301|181917606|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.592||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|11.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.16|0.96|0.020
91017079|NCT03733301|181917607|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.36||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|18.36|||ANCOVA|||||18.36|1.46|0.022
91017080|NCT03733301|181917607|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.34|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.79|25.88|||ANCOVA|||||25.88|8.79|< 0.001
91017081|NCT03733301|181917608|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.83||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|10.03|||Regression, Logistic|||||10.03|1.46|0.006
91017082|NCT03733301|181917608|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.58||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|11.87|||Regression, Logistic|||||11.87|1.77|0.002
91017083|NCT01965431|181917609|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin is the maximum acceptable extent of statistical and clinical noninferiority of an experimental treatment. Non-inferiority margin for this trial is 10ms.|Mean Difference (Net)|7.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.37|10.43|||||Maximum mean difference to placebo is estimated. Adjusted means are based on a mixed model for repeated measures with 'global' \& 'period-global baseline' covariates. Toeplitz covariance model used for modelling the random and repeated effect.|||10.43|5.37|
90893220|NCT02130193|181651301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.36||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.69||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-cough, 6 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.69|-0.69|0.48
90893221|NCT02130193|181651301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.36||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.62||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-cough, 7 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.62|-0.79|0.58
90893222|NCT02130193|181651301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.39|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.4||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|0.43||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-cough, 8 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.43|-1.12|0.83
90893223|NCT02130193|181651301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.41||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|0.52||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-cough, 9 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.52|-1.07|0.74
90893224|NCT02130193|181651301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.53|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.43||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.29||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-cough, 10 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.29|-1.40|0.89
90893225|NCT02130193|181651301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.41||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.69||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-cough, 11 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.69|-0.89|0.59
90893226|NCT02130193|181651301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.42||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|0.54||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-cough, 12 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.54|-1.12|0.77
90893227|NCT02130193|181651301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.31||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.62||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -0.7 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-cough, 1 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.62|-0.59|0.01
90893228|NCT02130193|181651301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.19|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.35||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.85||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -0.7 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-cough, 2 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.85|-0.53|0.01
90893229|NCT02130193|181651301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.38||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.52||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -0.7 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-cough, 3 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.52|-0.94|0.09
90954269|NCT04348435|181786921|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.198||0.822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.8220
90893230|NCT02130193|181651301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.37||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.5||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -0.7 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-cough, 4 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.50|-0.92|0.09
90893231|NCT02130193|181651301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.37||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.61||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -0.7 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-cough, 5 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.61|-0.82|0.05
90893232|NCT02130193|181651301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.36||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.69||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -0.7 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-cough, 6 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.69|-0.69|0.02
90893233|NCT02130193|181651301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.36||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.62||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -0.7 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-cough, 7 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.62|-0.79|0.04
90893234|NCT02130193|181651301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.39|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.4||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|0.43||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -0.7 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-cough, 8 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.43|-1.12|0.22
90893235|NCT02130193|181651301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.41||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|0.52||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -0.7 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-cough, 9 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.52|-1.07|0.14
90954270|NCT04348435|181786921|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.178|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.171||0.3097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3097
91081973|NCT01763827|182048255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-39.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.69|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.97|-36.3||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-36.30|-42.97|<0.001
91081974|NCT01763827|182048255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-44.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.03|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.66|-40.68||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-40.68|-48.66|<0.001
91081975|NCT01763827|182048255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-28.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.68|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.73|-25.1||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Ezetimibe is the reference|||-25.10|-31.73|<0.001
90893236|NCT02130193|181651301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.53|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.43||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.29||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -0.7 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-cough, 10 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.29|-1.40|0.36
90893237|NCT02130193|181651301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.41||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.69||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -0.7 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-cough, 11 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.69|-0.89|0.07
90893238|NCT02130193|181651301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.42||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|0.54||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -0.7 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-cough, 12 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.54|-1.12|0.17
90893239|NCT01297959|181651306|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Regression, Logistic|p-value was based on a logistic regression (Chi-square test) model with treatment group as a factor, adjusting for the stratification factors.||||||0.39
90893240|NCT01297959|181651307|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Regression, Logistic|p-value was based on a logistic regression (Chi-square test) model with treatment group as a factor, adjusting for the stratification factors.||||||0.34
90893241|NCT01212770|181651328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|22.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.0|31.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for baseline disease modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) use and and ≥ 3% body surface area (BSA) psoriasis involvement at baseline.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata of baseline DMARD use by ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|The percentage of participants with an ACR20 response was compared using a Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel (CMH) test. The Hochberg procedure was used to maintain the Type 1 error at the 0.05 significance level. The results were considered statistically significant if both the 30 mg apremilast dose versus placebo comparison and the 20 mg versus placebo comparison were statistically significant at the 0.05 significance level, or one of the comparisons was statistically significant at the 0.025 level.||31.6|13.0|<0.0001
90893242|NCT01212770|181651328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|9.8||||0.0295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|18.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|2-sided p-value based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for baseline DMARD use and ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata of baseline DMARD use by ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|In order to maintain the Type 1 error at the 0.05 significance level, the Hochberg procedure was to be used. The results of the endpoint were to be considered statistically significant if both the 30 mg apremilast dose versus placebo comparison and the 20 mg versus placebo comparison were statistically significant at the 0.05 significance level, or one of the comparisons was statistically significant at the 0.025 level.||18.6|1.1|0.0295
90954271|NCT04348435|181786922|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||1.000
91081976|NCT01763827|182048255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-25.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.03|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.31|-21.31||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Ezetimibe is the reference|||-21.31|-29.31|<0.001
91081977|NCT01763827|182048256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-49.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.03|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.12|-45.12||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-45.12|-53.12|<0.001
91081978|NCT01763827|182048256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-54.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.12|-50.78||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-50.78|-59.12|<0.001
91081979|NCT01763827|182048256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-34.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.03|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.73|-30.73||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Ezetimibe is the reference|||-30.73|-38.73|<0.001
91081980|NCT01763827|182048256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-36.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.13|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.81|-32.42||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Ezetimibe is the reference|||-32.42|-40.81|<0.001
91081981|NCT01763827|182048257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-49.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.78|-45.36||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-45.36|-53.78|<0.001
90893243|NCT01212770|181651329|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.127||||0.0073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|-0.034|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline DMARD use and ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||Pairwise comparisons (30 mg vs placebo and 20 mg vs placebo) were conducted conditional on the primary endpoint results. If the primary endpoint was statistically significant for both apremilast dose groups, pairwise comparisons for the HAQ-DI were to be evaluated at the 0.05 level using the Hochberg procedure. If only one apremilast dose was statistically significant, then only the comparison between that apremilast dose and placebo was conducted for the HAQ-DI score, at the 0.025 level.||-0.034|-0.220|0.0073
90893244|NCT01212770|181651329|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.066||||0.1619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.158|0.027|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline DMARD use and ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||Pairwise comparisons (30 mg vs placebo and 20 mg vs placebo) were conducted conditional on the primary endpoint results. If the primary endpoint was statistically significant for both apremilast dose groups, pairwise comparisons for the HAQ-DI were to be evaluated at the 0.05 level using the Hochberg procedure. If only one apremilast dose was statistically significant, then only the comparison between that apremilast dose and placebo was conducted for the HAQ-DI score, at the 0.025 level.||0.027|-0.158|0.1619
90954272|NCT04348435|181786922|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.087||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||1.000
91081982|NCT01763827|182048257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-52.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.28|-48.26||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-48.26|-57.28|<0.001
91081983|NCT01763827|182048257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-35.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.13|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.95|-31.57||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Ezetimibe is the reference|||-31.57|-39.95|<0.001
91081984|NCT01763827|182048257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-33.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.48|-29.45||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Ezetimibe is the reference|||-29.45|-38.48|<0.001
91081985|NCT01763827|182048258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Treatment Difference|-18.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.28|-11.68||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Quade test|Adjusted for Baseline value|Median difference and 95% CI were obtained from McKean-Schrader algorithm.|||-11.68|-25.28|<0.001
91081986|NCT01763827|182048258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Treatment Difference|-19.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.2|-15.28||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Quade test|Adjusted for Baseline value|Median difference and 95% CI were obtained from McKean-Schrader algorithm.|||-15.28|-23.20|<0.001
91081987|NCT01763827|182048258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Treatment Difference|-18.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.39|-12.35||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Quade test|Adjusted for Baseline value|Median difference and 95% CI were obtained from McKean-Schrader algorithm.|||-12.35|-24.39|<0.001
91081988|NCT01763827|182048258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Treatment Difference|-17.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.23|-11.08||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Quade test|Adjusted for Baseline value|Median difference and 95% CI were obtained from McKean-Schrader algorithm.|||-11.08|-23.23|<0.001
90893245|NCT01212770|181651330|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|15.5||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.7|24.3||Secondary endpoints from the placebo-controlled period (Weeks 16 and 24) were analyzed in a hierarchical fashion to control the Type I error rate as described above.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Two-sided p-value based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusting for baseline DMARD use and ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata of baseline DMARD use by ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||24.3|6.7|0.0007
90893246|NCT01212770|181651330|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|11.1||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|19.5||Secondary endpoints from the placebo-controlled period (Weeks 16 and 24) were analyzed in a hierarchical fashion to control the Type I error rate as described above.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Two-sided p-value based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusting for baseline DMARD use and ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata of baseline DMARD use by ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||19.5|2.7|0.0110
91081989|NCT01763827|182048259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Treatment Difference|-20.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.76|-13.06||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Quade test|Adjusted for Baseline value|Median difference and 95% CI were obtained from McKean-Schrader algorithm.|||-13.06|-27.76|<0.001
91081990|NCT01763827|182048259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Treatment Difference|-17.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.51|-11.12||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Quade test|Adjusted for Baseline value|Median difference and 95% CI were obtained from McKean-Schrader algorithm.|||-11.12|-24.51|<0.001
91081991|NCT01763827|182048259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Treatment Difference|-20.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.13|-12.69||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Quade test|Adjusted for Baseline value|Median difference and 95% CI were obtained from McKean-Schrader algorithm.|||-12.69|-28.13|<0.001
91081992|NCT01763827|182048259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Treatment Difference|-15.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.39|-7.14||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Quade test|Adjusted for Baseline value|Median difference and 95% CI were obtained from McKean-Schrader algorithm.|||-7.14|-24.39|<0.001
91081993|NCT01763827|182048260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Treatment Difference|-5.27||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.27|2.73||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Quade test|Adjusted for Baseline value|Median difference and 95% CI were obtained from McKean-Schrader algorithm.|||2.73|-13.27|0.72
91081994|NCT01763827|182048260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Treatment Difference|-20.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.98|-10.2||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Quade test|Adjusted for Baseline value|Median difference and 95% CI were obtained from McKean-Schrader algorithm.|||-10.20|-30.98|<0.001
91081995|NCT01763827|182048260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Treatment Difference|-7.71||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.86|1.45||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Quade test|Adjusted for Baseline value|Median difference and 95% CI were obtained from McKean-Schrader algorithm.|||1.45|-16.86|0.027
90893247|NCT01212770|181651331|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.139||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.236|-0.042|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline DMARD use and ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||Secondary endpoints from the placebo-controlled period (Weeks 16 and 24) were analyzed in a hierarchical fashion to control the Type I error rate as described above.||-0.042|-0.236|0.0050
90893248|NCT01212770|181651331|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.084||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.181|0.012|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline DMARD use and ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||Secondary endpoints from the placebo-controlled period (Weeks 16 and 24) were analyzed in a hierarchical fashion to control the Type I error rate as described above.||0.012|-0.181|0.0860
90893249|NCT01212770|181651332|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.32||||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|3.95|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline DMARD use and ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||Secondary endpoints from the placebo-controlled period (Weeks 16 and 24) were analyzed in a hierarchical fashion to control the Type I error rate as described above.||3.95|0.69|0.0053
90893250|NCT01212770|181651332|SUPERIORITY||LS mean Difference|1.15||||0.1658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|2.77|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline DMARD use and ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||Secondary endpoints from the placebo-controlled period (Weeks 16 and 24) were analyzed in a hierarchical fashion to control the Type I error rate as described above.||2.77|-0.48|0.1658
90893251|NCT01212770|181651333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|25.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.5|35.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Two-sided p-value based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusting for baseline DMARD use and ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata of baseline DMARD use by ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|Secondary endpoints from the placebo-controlled period (Weeks 16 and 24) were analyzed in a hierarchical fashion to control the Type I error rate as described above.||35.3|15.5|<0.0001
90893252|NCT01212770|181651333|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|10.4||||0.0372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|20.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Two-sided p-value based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusting for baseline DMARD use and ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata of baseline DMARD use by ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|Secondary endpoints from the placebo-controlled period (Weeks 16 and 24) were analyzed in a hierarchical fashion to control the Type I error rate as described above.||20.0|0.8|0.0372
91081996|NCT01763827|182048260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Treatment Difference|-11.73||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.19|-2.27||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Quade test|Adjusted for Baseline value|Median difference and 95% CI were obtained from McKean-Schrader algorithm.|||-2.27|-21.19|0.044
91081997|NCT01763827|182048261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Treatment Difference|-6.23||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.41|3.95||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Quade test|Adjusted for Baseline value|Median difference and 95% CI were obtained from McKean-Schrader algorithm.|||3.95|-16.41|0.72
91081998|NCT01763827|182048261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Treatment Difference|-17.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.67|-8.63||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Quade test|Adjusted for Baseline value|Median difference and 95% CI were obtained from McKean-Schrader algorithm|||-8.63|-26.67|<0.001
91081999|NCT01763827|182048261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Treatment Difference|-8.14||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.54|1.26||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Quade test|Adjusted for Baseline value|Median difference and 95% CI were obtained from McKean-Schrader algorithm.|||1.26|-17.54|0.027
91082000|NCT01763827|182048261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Treatment Difference|-13.23||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.69|-4.77||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Quade test|Adjusted for Baseline value|Median difference and 95% CI were obtained from McKean-Schrader algorithm.|||-4.77|-21.69|0.044
91082001|NCT01763827|182048262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Treatment Difference|-4.59||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|2.12||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Quade test|Adjusted for Baseline value|Median difference and 95% CI were obtained from McKean-Schrader algorithm.|||2.12|-11.30|0.072
91082002|NCT01763827|182048262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Treatment Difference|-20.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.11|-10.68||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Quade test|Adjusted for Baseline value|Median difference and 95% CI were obtained from McKean-Schrader algorithm.|||-10.68|-30.11|<0.001
91082003|NCT01763827|182048262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Treatment Difference|-5.71||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.13|2.71||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Quade test|Adjusted for Baseline value|Median difference and 95% CI were obtained from McKean-Schrader algorithm.|||2.71|-14.13|0.082
91082004|NCT01763827|182048262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Treatment Difference|-12.84||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.14|-3.54||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Quade test|Adjusted for Baselie value|Median difference and 95% CI were obtained from McKean-Schrader algorithm.|||-3.54|-22.14|0.044
91082005|NCT01763827|182048263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Treatment Difference|-7.94||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.81|2.92||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Quade test|Adjusted for Baseline value|Median difference and 95% CI were obtained from McKean-Schrader algorithm.|||2.92|-18.81|0.72
91017084|NCT01965431|181917610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|12.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.02|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.32|16.08|||||Maximum mean difference to placebo is estimated. Adjusted means are based on a mixed model for repeated measures with 'global' \& 'period-global baseline' covariates. Toeplitz covariance model used for modelling the random and repeated effect.|No formal hypothesis testing was done.||16.08|9.32|
91082006|NCT01763827|182048263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Treatment Difference|-16.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.64|-7.02||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Quade test|Adjusted for Baseline value|Median difference and 95% CI were obtained from McKean-Schrader algorithm.|||-7.02|-25.64|<0.001
91082007|NCT01763827|182048263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Treatment Difference|-8.58||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.1|0.94||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Quade test|Adjusted for Baseline value|Median difference and 95% CI were obtained from McKean-Schrader algorithm.|||0.94|-18.10|0.082
91082008|NCT01763827|182048263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Treatment Difference|-12.72||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.89|-4.54||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Quade test|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Median difference and 95% CI were obtained from McKean-Schrader algorithm.|||-4.54|-20.89|0.044
91082009|NCT01763827|182048264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Treatment Difference|5.53||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.23|8.84||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Quade test|Adjusted for Baseline value|Median difference and 95% CI were obtained from McKean-Schrader algorithm.|||8.84|2.23|0.007
91082010|NCT01763827|182048264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Treatment Difference|8.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.53|11.43||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Quade test|Adjusted for Baseline value|Median difference and 95% CI were obtained from McKean-Schrader algorithm.|||11.43|5.53|<0.001
91082011|NCT01763827|182048264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Treatment Difference|4.81||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|8.78||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Quade test|Adjusted for Baseline value|Median difference and 95% CI were obtained from McKean-Schrader algorithm.|||8.78|0.85|0.013
91082012|NCT01763827|182048264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Treatment Difference|3.81||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|8.39||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Quade test|Adjusted for Baseline visit|Median difference and 95% CI were obtained from McKean-Schrader algorithm.|||8.39|-0.77|0.044
91082013|NCT01763827|182048265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Treatment Difference|5.91||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.67|10.16||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Quade test|Adjusted for Baseline value|Median difference and 95% CI were obtained from McKean-Schrader algorithm.|||10.16|1.67|0.007
91082014|NCT01763827|182048265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Treatment Difference|9.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.32|13.34||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Quade test|Adjusted for Baseline value|Median difference and 95% CI were obtained from McKean-Schrader algorithm.|||13.34|5.32|<0.001
91082015|NCT01763827|182048265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Treatment Difference|7.56||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.11|12.0||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Quade test|Adjusted for Baseline value|Median difference and 95% CI were obtained from McKean-Schrader algorithm.|||12.00|3.11|0.013
90954273|NCT04348435|181786922|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.112|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.079||0.1713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1713
91082016|NCT01763827|182048265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Treatment Difference|5.53||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.22|8.84||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Quade test|Adjusted for Baseline value|Median difference and 95% CI were obtained from McKean-Schrader algorithm.|||8.84|2.22|0.044
91082017|NCT02187029|182048273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-52.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-56.32|-48.78|||Bayesian ANCOVA|||||-48.780|-56.320|
91082018|NCT02187029|182048273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-66.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-71.31|-61.54|||Bayesian ANCOVA|||||-61.540|-71.310|
91082019|NCT02187029|182048278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||||90.0|-0.55|-0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1, Hour 1||-0.06|-0.55|
91082020|NCT02187029|182048278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.95|-0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1, Hour 2||-0.28|-0.95|
91082021|NCT02187029|182048278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.52|-1.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1, Hour 4||-1.16|-1.52|
91082022|NCT02187029|182048278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.38|-1.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1, Hour 8||-1.33|-2.38|
91082023|NCT02187029|182048278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.18|-1.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1, Hour 12||-1.48|-2.18|
91082024|NCT02187029|182048278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.11|-1.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1, Hour 24||-1.37|-2.11|
91082025|NCT02187029|182048278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.89|-2.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 3||-2.06|-2.89|
91082026|NCT02187029|182048278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.29|-2.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, pre-dose||-2.20|-3.29|
91082027|NCT02187029|182048278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.39|-2.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, Hour 1||-2.21|-3.39|
91082028|NCT02187029|182048278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.72|-2.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, Hour 2||-2.41|-3.72|
91082029|NCT02187029|182048278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.03|-2.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day7, Hour 4||-2.77|-4.03|
91082030|NCT02187029|182048278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.82|-2.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, Hour 8||-2.79|-3.82|
91082031|NCT02187029|182048278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.72|-2.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, Hour 12||-2.68|-3.72|
90893253|NCT01212770|181651334|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|14.6||||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|24.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Two-sided p-value based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusting for baseline DMARD use.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|Secondary endpoints from the placebo-controlled period (Weeks 16 and 24) were analyzed in a hierarchical fashion to control the Type I error rate as described above.||24.8|4.5|0.0062
91082032|NCT02187029|182048278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.3|-2.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, Hour 24||-2.32|-3.30|
91082033|NCT02187029|182048278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.19|-3.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 11||-3.92|-5.19|
91082034|NCT02187029|182048278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.75|-3.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, pre-dose||-3.88|-4.75|
91082035|NCT02187029|182048278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.02|-4.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, Hour 1||-4.08|-5.02|
91082036|NCT02187029|182048278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.47|-4.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, Hour 2||-4.47|-5.47|
91082037|NCT02187029|182048278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.83|-5.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, Hour 4||-5.02|-5.83|
91082038|NCT02187029|182048278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.08|-5.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, Hour 8||-5.05|-6.08|
91082039|NCT02187029|182048278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.86|-4.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, Hour 12||-4.82|-5.86|
91082040|NCT02187029|182048278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.12|-4.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, Hour 24||-4.18|-5.12|
91082041|NCT02187029|182048278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.97|0.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Follow-up, Day 25-29||0.79|-2.97|
91082042|NCT02187029|182048278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.92|-0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1, Hour 1||-0.32|-0.92|
91082043|NCT02187029|182048278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.61|-0.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1, Hour 2||-0.75|-1.61|
91082044|NCT02187029|182048278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.14|-2.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1, Hour 4||-2.69|-3.14|
91082045|NCT02187029|182048278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.36|-3.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1, Hour 8||-3.03|-4.36|
91082046|NCT02187029|182048278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.28|-3.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1, Hour 12||-3.40|-4.28|
91082047|NCT02187029|182048278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||||90.0|-3.94|-3.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1, Hour 24||-3.00|-3.94|
91082048|NCT02187029|182048278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.29|-4.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 3||-4.23|-5.29|
91082049|NCT02187029|182048278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.62|-5.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, pre-dose||-5.00|-6.62|
90954274|NCT04348435|181786923|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.091||0.3868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3868
91082050|NCT02187029|182048278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.72|-4.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, Hour 1||-4.95|-6.72|
91082051|NCT02187029|182048278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.17|-5.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, Hour 2||-5.19|-7.17|
91082052|NCT02187029|182048278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.46|-5.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, Hour 4||-5.55|-7.46|
91082053|NCT02187029|182048278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.07|-5.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, Hour 8||-5.51|-7.07|
91017085|NCT01965431|181917611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.38|1.73|||||Maximum mean difference to placebo is estimated. Adjusted means are based on a mixed model for repeated measures with 'global' \& 'period-global baseline' covariates. Toeplitz covariance model used for modelling the random and repeated effect.|No formal hypothesis testing was done.||1.73|-1.38|
91017086|NCT01965431|181917612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.98|-2.87|||||Minimum mean difference to placebo is estimated. Adjusted means are based on a mixed model for repeated measures with 'global' \& 'period-global baseline' covariates. Toeplitz covariance model used for modelling the random and repeated effect.|No formal hypothesis testing was done.||-2.87|-5.98|
91017087|NCT00943826|181917647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.74||Stratified by Region and Recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) Class|Log Rank||Stratified by Region and RPA Class.|||0.74|0.55|<0.0001
91017088|NCT00943826|181917648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.0987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.02|||Log Rank|Stratified by Region and RPA Class|Stratified by Region and RPA Class.|||1.02|0.76|0.0987
91017089|NCT00943826|181917649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.71||Stratified by Region and RPA Class.|Log Rank||Stratified by Region and RPA Class.|||0.71|0.53|<0.0001
91017090|NCT04764669|181917654|SUPERIORITY|Primary comparisons were: DLB without amyloid copathology versus DLB with amyloid copathology|Least squares mean difference|-20.022|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.635|37.591||||||||37.591|-77.635|
91017091|NCT04764669|181917654|SUPERIORITY|Primary comparisons were: PDD without amyloid copathology versus PDD with amyloid copathology.|Least squares mean difference|-175.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-287.407|-63.893||||||||-63.893|-287.407|
91017092|NCT00256217|181917662|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.9||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|8.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||8.0|1.8|0.004
91017093|NCT00256217|181917663|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.49|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.49|0.10|0.016
91017094|NCT01275170|181917672|OTHER|Geometric mean ratio (GMR) \[Renal Impairment/Healthy Control\]|GMR|1.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.12|2.39||||||||2.39|1.12|
91082054|NCT02187029|182048278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.03|-5.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, Hour 12||-5.44|-7.03|
91082055|NCT02187029|182048278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.5|-4.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, Hour 24||-4.99|-6.50|
91082056|NCT02187029|182048278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.59|-4.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 11||-4.65|-6.59|
91017095|NCT01275170|181917672|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|2.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.51|3.18||||||||3.18|1.51|
91017096|NCT01275170|181917672|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|4.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.37|7.04||||||||7.04|3.37|
91017097|NCT01275170|181917672|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|9.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.45|13.46||||||||13.46|6.45|
91017098|NCT01275170|181917672|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|1.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.2|2.58||||||||2.58|1.20|
91017099|NCT01275170|181917673|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.64|1.88||||||||1.88|0.64|
91082057|NCT02187029|182048278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.42|-5.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, pre-dose||-5.10|-6.42|
91082058|NCT02187029|182048278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.67|-5.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, Hour 1||-5.24|-6.67|
91082059|NCT02187029|182048278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.9|-5.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, Hour 2||-5.38|-6.90|
91082060|NCT02187029|182048278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.03|-5.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, Hour 4||-5.81|-7.03|
90954275|NCT04348435|181786923|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.115||0.9429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.9429
91017100|NCT01275170|181917673|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.62|1.77||||||||1.77|0.62|
91017101|NCT01275170|181917673|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.77|2.2||||||||2.20|0.77|
91017102|NCT01275170|181917673|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|2.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.39|3.96||||||||3.96|1.39|
91017103|NCT01275170|181917673|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|1.44||||||||1.44|0.50|
91017104|NCT01275170|181917674|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.42|0.9||||||||0.90|0.42|
91017105|NCT01275170|181917674|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.31|0.66||||||||0.66|0.31|
91017106|NCT01275170|181917674|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.14|0.3||||||||0.30|0.14|
91017107|NCT01275170|181917674|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.07|0.16||||||||0.16|0.07|
91017108|NCT01275170|181917674|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.39|0.84||||||||0.84|0.39|
91017109|NCT01275170|181917675|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.82|1.21||||||||1.21|0.82|
91017110|NCT01275170|181917675|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|1.22||||||||1.22|0.84|
91017111|NCT01275170|181917675|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.74|1.08||||||||1.08|0.74|
91017112|NCT01275170|181917675|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.79|1.16||||||||1.16|0.79|
91017113|NCT01275170|181917675|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|3.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.7|4.0||||||||4.00|2.70|
91017114|NCT01275170|181917678|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|1.41|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.07|1.84||||||||1.84|1.07|
91017115|NCT01275170|181917678|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|1.53|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.17|1.99||||||||1.99|1.17|
91017116|NCT01275170|181917678|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|2.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.93|3.26||||||||3.26|1.93|
91017117|NCT01275170|181917678|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.39|4.03||||||||4.03|2.39|
91017118|NCT01275170|181917678|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.76|1.29||||||||1.29|0.76|
91017119|NCT01275170|181917679|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.65|2.06||||||||2.06|0.65|
91017120|NCT01275170|181917679|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.61|1.89||||||||1.89|0.61|
91017121|NCT01275170|181917679|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.75|2.32||||||||2.32|0.75|
91017122|NCT01275170|181917679|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|2.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.4|4.33||||||||4.33|1.40|
91017123|NCT01275170|181917679|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.49|1.51||||||||1.51|0.49|
91017124|NCT01275170|181917680|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.54|0.93||||||||0.93|0.54|
91017125|NCT01275170|181917680|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|0.85||||||||0.85|0.50|
91017126|NCT01275170|181917680|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.31|0.52||||||||0.52|0.31|
91017127|NCT01275170|181917680|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.25|0.42||||||||0.42|0.25|
91017128|NCT01275170|181917680|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.78|1.31||||||||1.31|0.78|
91017129|NCT01275170|181917681|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.61|1.08||||||||1.08|0.61|
91017130|NCT01275170|181917681|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.72|1.26||||||||1.26|0.72|
91017131|NCT01275170|181917681|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.61|1.06||||||||1.06|0.61|
91017132|NCT01275170|181917681|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.63|1.09||||||||1.09|0.63|
91017133|NCT01275170|181917681|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|2.54|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.93|3.36||||||||3.36|1.93|
91017134|NCT01275170|181917684|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.03|2.49||||||||2.49|1.03|
91017135|NCT01275170|181917684|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|1.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.21|2.87||||||||2.87|1.21|
91017136|NCT01275170|181917684|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|5.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.64|8.59||||||||8.59|3.64|
91017137|NCT01275170|181917684|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|13.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.96|21.12||||||||21.12|8.96|
91017138|NCT01275170|181917684|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|3.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.32|5.69||||||||5.69|2.32|
91017139|NCT01275170|181917685|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.75|2.08||||||||2.08|0.75|
91017140|NCT01275170|181917685|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|1.87||||||||1.87|0.69|
91017141|NCT01275170|181917685|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|2.44||||||||2.44|0.90|
91017142|NCT01275170|181917685|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|2.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.51|4.09||||||||4.09|1.51|
91017143|NCT01275170|181917685|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.57|1.54||||||||1.54|0.57|
91017144|NCT01275170|181917686|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|0.97||||||||0.97|0.40|
91017145|NCT01275170|181917686|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.35|0.83||||||||0.83|0.35|
90954276|NCT04348435|181786923|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.103||0.9362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.9362
91017146|NCT01275170|181917686|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.12|0.27||||||||0.27|0.12|
91017147|NCT01275170|181917686|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.05|0.11||||||||0.11|0.05|
91017148|NCT01275170|181917686|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.18|0.43||||||||0.43|0.18|
91017149|NCT01275170|181917687|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.62|1.04||||||||1.04|0.62|
91017150|NCT01275170|181917687|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.71|1.17||||||||1.17|0.71|
91017151|NCT01275170|181917687|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.62|1.03||||||||1.03|0.62|
91017152|NCT01275170|181917687|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.59|0.97||||||||0.97|0.59|
91017153|NCT01275170|181917687|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|2.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.16|3.65||||||||3.65|2.16|
91017154|NCT01275170|181917693|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|1.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.07|2.15||||||||2.15|1.07|
91017155|NCT01275170|181917693|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.45|0.9||||||||0.90|0.45|
91017156|NCT01275170|181917693|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.47|0.94||||||||0.94|0.47|
91017157|NCT01275170|181917694|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.63|1.83||||||||1.83|0.63|
91017158|NCT01275170|181917694|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.35|1.01||||||||1.01|0.35|
91017159|NCT01275170|181917694|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.36|1.04||||||||1.04|0.36|
91017160|NCT01275170|181917695|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|1.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.63|3.4||||||||3.40|0.63|
91017161|NCT01275170|181917695|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.41|2.0||||||||2.00|0.41|
91017162|NCT01275170|181917695|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.37|1.78||||||||1.78|0.37|
91082061|NCT02187029|182048278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.41|-5.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, Hour 8||-5.87|-7.41|
91017163|NCT04636437|181917704|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.36||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.2|3.92||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry weight, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in percent change in body weight from entry to week 48.||3.92|-1.20|0.23
91017164|NCT04636437|181917704|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.89||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.34|1.57||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry weight, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in percent change in body weight from entry to week 48.||1.57|-3.34|0.41
91017165|NCT04636437|181917705|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.83||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.99|2.64||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry weight, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in percent change in body weight from entry to week 24.||2.64|-0.99|0.31
91017166|NCT04636437|181917705|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.99||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.76|-0.21||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry weight, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in percent change in body weight from entry to week 24.||-0.21|-3.76|0.012
91017167|NCT04636437|181917706|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.72||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.33|4.77||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry waist circumference, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in absolute change in waist circumference from entry to week 48.||4.77|-1.33|0.20
91017168|NCT04636437|181917706|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.49||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-4.43|1.44||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry waist circumference, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in absolute change in waist circumference from entry to week 48.||1.44|-4.43|0.25
91017169|NCT04636437|181917707|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.16||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.23|2.9||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry waist circumference, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in absolute change in waist circumference from entry to week 24.||2.90|-3.23|0.90
91017170|NCT04636437|181917707|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.48||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-4.47|1.51||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry waist circumference, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in absolute change in waist circumference from entry to week 24.||1.51|-4.47|0.26
91017171|NCT04636437|181917708|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.19||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-22.2|24.59||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry fasting triglycerides, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in absolute change in fasting triglycerides from entry to week 48.||24.59|-22.2|0.91
91017172|NCT04636437|181917708|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.1||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-29.7|15.47||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry fasting triglycerides, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in absolute change in fasting triglycerides from entry to week 48.||15.47|-29.7|0.48
91017173|NCT04636437|181917709|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-15.2||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-48.6|18.2||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry fasting triglycerides, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in absolute change in fasting triglycerides from entry to week 24.||18.20|-48.6|0.30
91017174|NCT04636437|181917709|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-18.5||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-51.8|14.76||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry fasting triglycerides, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in absolute change in fasting triglycerides from entry to week 24.||14.76|-51.8|0.21
91017175|NCT04636437|181917710|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.84||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-14.4|8.72||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry fasting LDL, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in absolute change in fasting LDL from entry to week 48.||8.72|-14.4|0.58
91017176|NCT04636437|181917710|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.88||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-18.0|4.2||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry fasting LDL, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in absolute change in fasting LDL from entry to week 48.||4.20|-18.0|0.16
91082062|NCT02187029|182048278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.18|-5.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, Hour 12||-5.63|-7.18|
91017177|NCT04636437|181917711|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.92||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-12.1|6.27||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry fasting LDL, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in absolute change in fasting LDL from entry to week 24.||6.27|-12.1|0.47
91017178|NCT04636437|181917711|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-15.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-24.2|-5.91||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry fasting LDL, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in absolute change in fasting LDL from entry to week 24.||-5.91|-24.2|<0.001
91017179|NCT04636437|181917712|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-6.17|7.77||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry fasting HDL, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in absolute change in fasting HDL from entry to week 48.||7.77|-6.17|0.79
91017180|NCT04636437|181917712|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.46||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-12.1|1.16||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry fasting HDL, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in absolute change in fasting HDL from entry to week 48.||1.16|-12.1|0.063
91017181|NCT04636437|181917713|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.38||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-4.21|1.45||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry fasting HDL, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in absolute change in fasting HDL from entry to week 24.||1.45|-4.21|0.27
91017182|NCT04636437|181917713|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-8.25|-2.66||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry fasting HDL, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in absolute change in fasting HDL from entry to week 24.||-2.66|-8.25|<0.001
91017183|NCT04636437|181917714|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.55||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-10.3|13.44||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry fasting glucose, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in absolute change in fasting glucose from entry to week 48.||13.44|-10.3|0.77
91017184|NCT04636437|181917714|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.23||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-16.7|6.2||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry fasting glucose, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in absolute change in fasting glucose from entry to week 48.||6.20|-16.7|0.30
91017185|NCT04636437|181917715|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.18||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-8.78|9.15||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry fasting glucose, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in absolute change in fasting glucose from entry to week 24.||9.15|-8.78|0.96
91017186|NCT04636437|181917715|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.32||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-15.2|2.55||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry fasting glucose, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in absolute change in fasting glucose from entry to week 24.||2.55|-15.2|0.11
91017187|NCT04636437|181917716|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|8.07||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-4.93|21.06||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry fasting insulin, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in absolute change in fasting insulin from entry to week 48.||21.06|-4.93|0.16
91017188|NCT04636437|181917716|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|8.89||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.37|21.15||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry fasting insulin, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in absolute change in fasting insulin from entry to week 48.||21.15|-3.37|0.10
91017189|NCT04636437|181917717|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.28||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-6.42|14.99||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry fasting insulin, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in absolute change in fasting insulin from entry to week 24.||14.99|-6.42|0.37
91017190|NCT04636437|181917717|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.37||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-10.0|10.77||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry fasting insulin, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in absolute change in fasting insulin from entry to week 24.||10.77|-10.0|0.94
91082063|NCT02187029|182048278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.47|-5.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, Hour 24||-5.07|-6.47|
91017191|NCT04636437|181917718|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.77||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.08|7.63||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry HOMA-IR, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in absolute change in HOMA-IR from entry to week 48.||7.63|-2.08|0.20
91017192|NCT04636437|181917718|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.21||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.44|6.87||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry HOMA-IR, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in absolute change in HOMA-IR from entry to week 48.||6.87|-2.44|0.28
91017193|NCT04636437|181917719|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.79||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.68|5.25||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry HOMA-IR, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in absolute change in HOMA-IR from entry to week 24.||5.25|-1.68|0.24
91017194|NCT04636437|181917719|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.57||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.91|2.78||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry HOMA-IR, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in absolute change in HOMA-IR from entry to week 24.||2.78|-3.91|0.70
91017195|NCT04636437|181917721|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43||||||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Fisher Exact|Fisher's Exact Mid P-Value||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in occurrence of Grade ≥3 AEs from entry to week 48.||||0.43
91017196|NCT04636437|181917721|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26||||||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Fisher Exact|Fisher's Exact Mid P-Value||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in occurrence of Grade ≥3 AEs from entry to week 48.||||0.26
91017197|NCT04636437|181917722|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008||||||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Fisher Exact|Fisher's Exact Mid P-Value||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in occurrence of \>10% reduction in CrCl from entry to week 48.||||0.008
91017198|NCT04636437|181917722|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.068||||||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Fisher Exact|Fisher's Exact Mid P-Value||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in occurrence of \>10% reduction in CrCl from entry to week 48.||||0.068
91017199|NCT04636437|181917723|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2||||||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Fisher Exact|Fisher's Exact Mid P-Value||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in occurrence of premature discontinuation of study treatment from entry to week 48.||||0.20
91017200|NCT04636437|181917723|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56||||||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Fisher Exact|Fisher's Exact Mid P-Value||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in occurrence of premature discontinuation of study treatment from entry to week 48.||||0.56
91017201|NCT04636437|181917724|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.43||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.62|8.47||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry total fat, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in percent change in total fat from entry to week 48.||8.47|-1.62|0.13
91017202|NCT04636437|181917724|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-4.89|4.72||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry total fat, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in percent change in total fat from entry to week 48.||4.72|-4.89|0.97
91017203|NCT04636437|181917725|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.31||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.18|2.8||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry lean mass, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in percent change in lean mass from entry to week 48.||2.80|-2.18|0.78
91017204|NCT04636437|181917725|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.24||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.11|3.59||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry lean mass, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in percent change in lean mass from entry to week 48.||3.59|-1.11|0.23
91017205|NCT04636437|181917726|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.71||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.48|9.9||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry trunk fat, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in percent change in trunk fat from entry to week 48.||9.90|-2.48|0.18
91017206|NCT04636437|181917726|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.35||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-7.23|4.53||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry trunk fat, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in percent change in trunk fat from entry to week 48.||4.53|-7.23|0.60
91082064|NCT02187029|182048278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.96|-0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Follow-up, Day 25-29||-0.35|-4.96|
91082065|NCT02187029|182048284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.0355|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0423|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1103|0.0394|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1, Hour 1||0.0394|-0.1103|
91017207|NCT04636437|181917727|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.19||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.45|9.83||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in percent change in limb fat from entry to week 48.|Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry limb fat, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|9.83|-1.45|0.094
91017208|NCT04636437|181917727|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.76||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.59|7.11||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in percent change in limb fat from entry to week 48.|Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry limb fat, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|7.11|-3.59|0.46
91017209|NCT04636437|181917728|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.19||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.19|6.56||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry appendicular lean mass, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in percent change in appendicular lean mass from entry to week 48.||6.56|-2.19|0.26
91017210|NCT04636437|181917728|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.15||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.96|7.25||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry appendicular lean mass, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in percent change in appendicular lean mass from entry to week 48.||7.25|-0.96|0.084
91017211|NCT04636437|181917729|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.78||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.57|2.13||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry hip bone mineral density, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in percent change in hip bone mineral density from entry to week 48.||2.13|-0.57|0.19
91017212|NCT04636437|181917729|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.64||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.93|0.66||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry hip bone mineral density, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in percent change in hip bone mineral density from entry to week 48.||0.66|-1.93|0.27
91017213|NCT04636437|181917730|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.57|2.58||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry lumbar spine bone mineral density, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in percent change in lumbar spine bone mineral density from entry to week 48.||2.58|-1.57|0.58
91017214|NCT04636437|181917730|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.93|2.03||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry lumbar spine bone mineral density, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in percent change in lumbar spine bone mineral density from entry to week 48.||2.03|-1.93|0.95
91017215|NCT01821391|181917743|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2665|||||||Paired Student's t test|||||||=0.2665
91017216|NCT01875731|181917750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.09||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|16.8|||Chi-squared|||||16.8|1.57|0.01
91017217|NCT01875731|181917751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|4.09|||Chi-squared|||||4.09|0.1|0.71
91017218|NCT03417102|181917752|SUPERIORITY||ABR ratio|0.092|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.044|0.192||P-value derived from NB regression model, accounted for different follow-up times during EP, with treatment arm and randomization strata of number of bleeds in 6 months prior to study (\<=10,\>10) as fixed effects. Significance threshold was 0.05.|Negative binomial regression model|||||0.192|0.044|<0.0001
91017219|NCT03417102|181917754|SUPERIORITY||ABR ratio|0.108|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.056|0.207||P-value derived from NB regression model, accounted for different follow-up times during TP, with treatment arm and randomization strata of number of bleeds in 6 months prior to study (\<=10,\>10) as fixed effects. Significance threshold was 0.05.|Negative binomial regression model|||||0.207|0.056|<0.0001
91017220|NCT03417102|181917756|SUPERIORITY||ABR ratio|0.056|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.026|0.121||P-value derived from NB regression model, accounted for different follow-up times during EP, with treatment arm and randomization strata of number of bleeds in 6 months prior to study (\<=10,\>10) as fixed effects. Significance threshold was 0.05.|Negative binomial regression model|||||0.121|0.026|<0.0001
91017221|NCT03417102|181917758|SUPERIORITY||ABR ratio|0.098|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.046|0.21||P-value derived from NB regression model, accounted for different follow-up times during EP, with treatment arm and randomization strata of number of bleeds in 6 months prior to study (\<=10,\>10) as fixed effects. Significance threshold was 0.05.|Negative binomial regression model|||||0.210|0.046|<0.0001
91017222|NCT03417102|181917760|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean difference|-28.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.07|-18.37||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model included treatment arm and randomization strata of number of bleeds (\<=10, \> 10) as fixed effects, Baseline score as a covariate. Significance threshold was at 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||-18.37|-39.07|<0.0001
91017223|NCT03417102|181917761|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-14.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.37|-8.33||ANCOVA model included treatment arm and randomization strata of number of bleeds (\<=10, \> 10) as fixed effects, Baseline score as a covariate. Significance threshold was at 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||-8.33|-21.37|<0.0001
91082066|NCT02187029|182048284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.0152|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0631|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1269|0.0966|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1, Hour 2||0.0966|-0.1269|
91082067|NCT02187029|182048284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.0331|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0422|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1078|0.0417|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1, Hour 4||0.0417|-0.1078|
91017224|NCT02062385|181917776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||1 - (Incidence V260 / Incidence Placebo)|69.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.5|79.7|||Clopper-Pearson|To calculate the confidence interval and associated p-value, an exact conditional method based on a Poisson distribution was used.||V260 will be considered efficacious if the lower bound of the two-sided confidence interval for efficacy is \>0% at the final analysis||79.7|54.5|<0.001
91017225|NCT06212544|181917786|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91017226|NCT00795210|181917793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis Test for overall difference between groups||||0.01
91017227|NCT00795210|181917794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.42
91017228|NCT01017731|181917801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0161||||||The p-value for QTc interval prolongation compared to baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0161
91017229|NCT02060526|181917846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference between proportions|0.286||||0.4615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.297|0.745|||Fisher Exact|||95% exact unconditional confidence interval of the difference in proportion between each of the treatment groups and the untreated control group was considered for the parameter estimation.||0.745|-0.297|0.4615
91017230|NCT02060526|181917846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference between proportions|0.143||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.423|0.647|||Fisher Exact|||95% exact unconditional confidence interval of the difference in proportion between each of the treatment groups and the untreated control group was considered for the parameter estimation.||0.647|-0.423|1.0000
91017231|NCT00798707|181917868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47||||0.452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|1.69||A Hochberg step-up procedure was used to control for the multiplicity associated with multiple active dose arms.|ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment and as a factor and the baseline HAM-D17 total score as a covariate was used to compare each DVS SR dose to placebo. The comparison was performed at the 0.05 level overall.||1.69|-0.75|0.452
91017232|NCT00798707|181917868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|2.72||A Hochberg step-up procedure was used to control for the multiplicity associated with multiple active dose arms.|ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment and as a factor and the baseline HAM-D17 total score as a covariate was used to compare each DVS SR dose to placebo. The comparison was performed at the 0.05 level overall.||2.72|0.28|0.016
91017233|NCT00798707|181917869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|||||In this case, multiplicity arising from testing key secondary hypotheses in both doses was controlled by a Hochberg step-up procedure. p-Value obtained for the alternative hypothesis of 'Row mean scores differences'.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Each DVS SR dose was separately compared to placebo. To control the study-wise type I error rate across the primary and the key secondary endpoints, as well as across the 2 active dose arms, testing of the key secondary hypothesis occurred only when both active doses were superior to placebo on the primary endpoint.||||0.160
91017234|NCT00798707|181917869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|||||In this case, multiplicity arising from testing key secondary hypotheses in both doses was controlled by a Hochberg step-up procedure.p-Value obtained for the alternative hypothesis of 'Row mean scores differences'.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Each DVS SR dose was separately compared to placebo. To control the study-wise type I error rate across the primary and the key secondary endpoints, as well as across the 2 active dose arms, testing of the key secondary hypothesis occurred only when both active doses were superior to placebo on the primary endpoint.||||0.028
91017235|NCT00798707|181917870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.39|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was conducted using ANCOVA on the change from baseline with treatment as a factor and corresponding baseline value as a covariate.||0.39|-0.01|0.066
90954277|NCT04348435|181786924|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.708|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.38||0.9333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Average Energy/Fatigue - Treatment Contrast||||0.9333
91017236|NCT00798707|181917870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.41|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was conducted using ANCOVA on the change from baseline with treatment as a factor and corresponding baseline value as a covariate.||0.41|0.01|0.038
91017237|NCT00798707|181917871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|2.68|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was conducted using ANCOVA on the change from baseline with treatment as a factor and corresponding baseline value as a covariate.||2.68|-0.68|0.242
91017238|NCT00798707|181917871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.06||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|3.73|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was conducted using ANCOVA on the change from baseline with treatment as a factor and corresponding baseline value as a covariate.||3.73|0.39|0.016
91017239|NCT00798707|181917872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was conducted using ANCOVA on the change from baseline with treatment as a factor and corresponding baseline value as a covariate.||0.80|-0.62|0.802
91017240|NCT00798707|181917872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.72||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|1.43|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was conducted using ANCOVA on the change from baseline with treatment as a factor and corresponding baseline value as a covariate.||1.43|0.01|0.048
91017241|NCT00798707|181917873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.363||||0.1099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.99|||Regression, Logistic|||Analysis was conducted using a logistic regression model with treatment as a factor and baseline HAM-D17 score as a covariate.||1.99|0.93|0.1099
91017242|NCT00798707|181917873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.591||||0.0154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|2.32|||Regression, Logistic|||Analysis was conducted using a logistic regression model with treatment as a factor and baseline HAM-D17 score as a covariate.||2.32|1.09|0.0154
91017243|NCT00798707|181917874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.878||||0.5929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.41|||Regression, Logistic|||Analysis was conducted using a logistic regression model with treatment as a factor and baseline HAM-D17 score as a covariate.||1.41|0.54|0.5929
91017244|NCT00798707|181917874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.474||||0.0852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.29|||Regression, Logistic|||Analysis was conducted using a logistic regression model with treatment as a factor and baseline HAM-D17 score as a covariate.||2.29|0.95|0.0852
91017245|NCT00798707|181917875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.277||||0.2232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.89|||Regression, Logistic|||Analysis was conducted with a logistic regression model with treatment as a factor and baseline MADRS score as a covariate.||1.89|0.86|0.2232
90954278|NCT04348435|181786924|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|8.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.483||0.3627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Average Energy/Fatigue - Treatment Contrast||||0.3627
91017246|NCT00798707|181917875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.827||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|2.69|||Regression, Logistic|||Analysis was conducted with a logistic regression model with treatment as a factor and baseline MADRS score as a covariate.||2.69|1.24|0.0022
91017247|NCT00798707|181917876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.158||||0.4313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.67|||Regression, Logistic|||Analysis was conducted with a logistic regression model with treatment as a factor.||1.67|0.80|0.4313
91017248|NCT00798707|181917876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.372||||0.0888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.97|||Regression, Logistic|||Analysis was conducted with a logistic regression model with treatment as a factor.||1.97|0.95|0.0888
91017249|NCT00798707|181917878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.09||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|2.29|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was conducted using ANCOVA on the change from baseline with treatment as a factor and corresponding baseline value as a covariate for total score.||2.29|-0.10|0.073
91017250|NCT00798707|181917878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.06||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|2.24|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was conducted using ANCOVA on the change from baseline with treatment as a factor and corresponding baseline value as a covariate for total score.||2.24|-0.12|0.078
91017251|NCT00798707|181917878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.73|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was conducted using ANCOVA on the change from baseline with treatment as a factor and corresponding baseline value as a covariate for work/studies component score.||0.73|-0.13|0.176
91017252|NCT00798707|181917878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.35||||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.77|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was conducted using ANCOVA on the change from baseline with treatment as a factor and corresponding baseline value as a covariate for work/studies component score.||0.77|-0.08|0.109
91017253|NCT00798707|181917878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.84|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was conducted using ANCOVA on the change from baseline with treatment as a factor and corresponding baseline value as a covariate for social life component score.||0.84|-0.02|0.064
91017254|NCT00798707|181917878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.35||||0.104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.78|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was conducted using ANCOVA on the change from baseline with treatment as a factor and corresponding baseline value as a covariate for social life component score.||0.78|-0.07|0.104
91017255|NCT00798707|181917878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.29||||0.538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.98|5.57|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was conducted using ANCOVA on the change from baseline with treatment as a factor and corresponding baseline value as a covariate for family life/home responsibilities component score.||5.57|-2.98|0.538
91017256|NCT00798707|181917878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.43||||0.689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|2.62|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was conducted using ANCOVA on the change from baseline with treatment as a factor and corresponding baseline value as a covariate for family life/home responsibilities component score||2.62|-1.76|0.689
91082068|NCT02187029|182048284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0035|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0443|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.075|0.082|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1, Hour 8||0.0820|-0.0750|
91017257|NCT00798707|181917879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.81||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was conducted using ANCOVA on the change from baseline with treatment as a factor and corresponding baseline value as a covariate.||0.05|-1.67|0.066
91017258|NCT00798707|181917879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.63||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|0.23|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was conducted using ANCOVA on the change from baseline with treatment as a factor and corresponding baseline value as a covariate.||0.23|-1.48|0.150
91017259|NCT00798707|181917880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.951||||0.8758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.78|||Regression, Logistic|||Analysis was conducted using a logistic regression model with treatment and gender as factors and baseline sexual dysfunction status as a covariate.||1.78|0.51|0.8758
91017260|NCT00798707|181917880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.165||||0.6397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|2.21|||Regression, Logistic|||Analysis was conducted using a logistic regression model with treatment and gender as factors and baseline sexual dysfunction status as a covariate.||2.21|0.61|0.6397
91017261|NCT00798707|181917882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.847|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To address the multiplicity effect inherent in these comparisons, adjusted p-values based on the false discovery rate were used at Week 8 (or ET).||||0.847
91017262|NCT00798707|181917882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.847|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To address the multiplicity effect inherent in these comparisons, adjusted p-values based on the false discovery rate were used at Week 8 (or ET).||||0.847
91017263|NCT00798707|181917882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To address the multiplicity effect inherent in these comparisons, adjusted p-values based on the false discovery rate were used at Week 9 (or ET + 1 week).||||0.720
91017264|NCT00798707|181917882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To address the multiplicity effect inherent in these comparisons, adjusted p-values based on the false discovery rate were used at Week 9 (or ET + 1 week).||||0.720
91017265|NCT00798707|181917882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To address the multiplicity effect inherent in these comparisons, adjusted p-values based on the false discovery rate were used at Week 10 (or ET + 2 weeks).||||0.720
91017266|NCT00798707|181917882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To address the multiplicity effect inherent in these comparisons, adjusted p-values based on the false discovery rate were used at Week 10 (or ET + 2 weeks).||||0.720
91017267|NCT01441401|181917901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.045|||||||Fisher Exact|||"The factor tested was baseline severity of epileptic seizure. The null hypothesis was that there was no association between the baseline severity of epileptic seizure (mild, moderate, and severe) and the number of participants who responded to the treatment with gabapentin."||||0.045
91082069|NCT02187029|182048284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.0502|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0367|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1153|0.0149|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1, Hour 12||0.0149|-0.1153|
91082070|NCT02187029|182048284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0553|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1058|0.0899|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1, Hour 24||0.0899|-0.1058|
91082071|NCT02187029|182048284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.0539|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0561|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1538|0.046|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, pre-dose||0.0460|-0.1538|
91017268|NCT01441401|181917901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.017|||||||Cochran-Armitage (EXACT)|||"The factor tested was baseline severity of epileptic seizure. The null hypothesis was that there was no ordinal trend in the number of responders to the treatment with gabapentin across the baseline severity of epileptic seizure (mild, moderate, and severe)."||||0.017
91017269|NCT01441401|181917902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.018|||||||Fisher Exact|||"The factor tested was baseline frequency of epileptic seizure. The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the baseline frequency of epileptic seizure and the number of participants who responded to the treatment with gabapentin."||||0.018
91017270|NCT01441401|181917903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.034|||||||Fisher Exact|||"The factor tested was number of concomitant antiepileptic drugs at baseline. The null hypothesis was that there was no association between the number of concomitant antiepileptic drugs at baseline and the number of participants who responded to the treatment with gabapentin."||||0.034
91017271|NCT01441401|181917903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.005|||||||Cochran-Armitage (EXACT)|||"The factor tested was number of concomitant antiepileptic drugs at baseline. The null hypothesis was that there was no ordinal trend in the number of responders to the treatment with gabapentin across the increasing number of concomitant antiepileptic drugs at baseline."||||0.005
91017272|NCT01441401|181917904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||"The factor tested was treatment period with gabapentin. The null hypothesis was that there was no association between the treatment period with gabapentin and the number of participants who responded to the treatment with gabapentin."||||<0.001
91017273|NCT01817764|181917930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.074|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.038|0.11|||ANCOVA|||||0.110|0.038|<0.001
91017274|NCT00315328|181917947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon rank sum tests were used to assess treatment group differences in the change in Randot Preschool stereoacuity levels ( from baseline to the outcome examination).||||0.96
91017275|NCT00315328|181917948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon rank sum tests used to assess treatment group differences in change in Randot Preschool stereoacuity levels ( from baseline to the outcome examination) among those with anisometropia only.||||0.78
91017276|NCT00315328|181917949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon rank sum tests were used to assess treatment group differences in the change in Randot Preschool stereoacuity levels ( from baseline to the outcome examination) among patients with strabismus or combined mechanism only.||||0.99
91017277|NCT00315328|181917950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||To evaluate WITHIN each treatment group whether stereoacuity changed from baseline to outcome a Wilcoxon sign-rank test was performed to evaluate whether the distribution of change from baseline was zero||||.04
91017278|NCT00315328|181917950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||To evaluate WITHIN each treatment group whether stereoacuity changed from baseline to outcome a Wilcoxon sign-rank test was performed to evaluate whether the distribution of change from baseline was zero||||0.003
91017279|NCT00315328|181917951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Positive mean favors atropine group.||Wilcoxon rank sum tests were used to assess treatment group differences in the parent questionnaire subscale scores at 17 weeks - Social Stigma subscale.||||<0.01
91017280|NCT00315328|181917952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Positive mean favors atropine group.||Wilcoxon rank sum tests were used to assess treatment group differences in the parent questionnaire subscale scores at 17 weeks - Compliance subscale.||||<0.01
91017281|NCT00315328|181917953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon rank sum tests were used to assess treatment group differences in the parent questionnaire subscale scores at 17 weeks - Adverse events subscale.||||0.70
91017282|NCT00315328|181917954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07||||||95.0|-0.03|0.17||||||95% confidence interval constructed on the treatment group difference in proportion with amblyopic eye visual acuity 20/25 or better at 17 weeks.||0.17|-0.03|
91017283|NCT00315328|181917956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.08||||||95.0|-0.02|0.18||||||95% confidence interval constructed on the treatment group difference of the proportion improving 15 or more letters from baseline to 17 weeks.||0.18|-0.02|
91017284|NCT00315328|181917957|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Treatment equivalence was to be declared if the ends of the 2 1-sided 95% confidence intervals constructed on the difference between adjusted mean visual acuity scores were completely contained within the designated equivalence interval of +/- 5 letters.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.2||||||95.0|-0.7|3.1|||ANCOVA|||The trial was designed to evaluate whether patching and atropine are equivalent treatments for amblyopia in children 7 to 12 years old. The sample size was computed based on a standard deviation of 17-week visual acuity scores of 10 letters, correlation between outcome and baseline visual acuity scores of 0.30 and 10% loss to follow up.||3.1|-0.7|
91017285|NCT00315328|181917960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.2|||ANCOVA|||95% confidence interval constructed on the treatment group difference of mean change in fellow eye visual acuity from baseline to 17 weeks, adjusted for baseline fellow eye visual acuity.||2.2|0.4|
91017286|NCT00826176|181917962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||upper limit of tolerance interval (min.)|6.4||||||95.0|||||||The tolerance interval (TI) refers to a fixed proportion (in this trial set to 95%) of the population with a stated confidence (in this trial, 95%). Efficacy was to be claimed in case the upper limit of TI was below the prespecified margin of 10 min.|||||
91017287|NCT00826176|181917962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||upper limit of tolerance interval (min.)|3.2||||||95.0|||||||The tolerance interval (TI) refers to a fixed proportion (in this trial set to 95%) of the population with a stated confidence (in this trial, 95%). Efficacy was to be claimed in case the upper limit of TI was below the prespecified margin of 10 min.|||||
91017288|NCT00826176|181917962|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between the two subject populations was to be claimed in the event that the two-sided 95% confidence interval was entirely within the interval ranging from -60 to +60 seconds.|median difference (seconds)|49.0||||||95.0|30.0|72.0|||||The estimated median difference (Chinese minus Caucasian) in time to recovery of the T4/T1 ratio to 0.9.|||72|30|
91017289|NCT00448630|181917965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Friedman|||We hypothesize that atypical antipsychotic therapy effects the metabolic syndrome parameters, particularly body mass index.||||<0.001
91017290|NCT00448630|181917966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.49||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Friedman|||Friedman's test was used to assess trends over time.||||0.490
91017291|NCT00448630|181917966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Friedman|||Friedman's test was used to assess trends over time.||||<0.001
91017292|NCT00448630|181917966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.006||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Friedman|||Friedman's test was used to assess trends over time.||||0.006
91017293|NCT00448630|181917966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Friedman|||Friedman's test was used to assess trends over time.||||<0.001
91017294|NCT00448630|181917966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.003||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Friedman|||Friedman's test was used to assess trends over time.||||0.003
91017295|NCT00448630|181917966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Friedman|||Friedman's test was used to assess trends over time.||||<0.001
91017296|NCT00448630|181917966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.05||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Friedman|||Friedman's test was used to assess trends over time.||||0.050
91017297|NCT00448630|181917966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0012||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0012
91017298|NCT00448630|181917966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0078||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0078
91017299|NCT00448630|181917966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0001
91017300|NCT00448630|181917966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0133||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0133
91017301|NCT00448630|181917966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0142||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0142
91017302|NCT00448630|181917966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0265||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0265
91017303|NCT00448630|181917966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1613||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1613
91017304|NCT00448630|181917966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2644||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2644
91017305|NCT00448630|181917966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||5e-06||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.000005
91017306|NCT00448630|181917966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7385||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7385
91017307|NCT00448630|181917966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.0000
91017308|NCT00448630|181917966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6813||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6813
91017309|NCT00448630|181917966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0024||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0024
91017310|NCT00448630|181917966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2237||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2237
91017311|NCT00448630|181917966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5774||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5774
91017312|NCT00448630|181917966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1e-06||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.000001
91017313|NCT00448630|181917966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2502||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2502
91017314|NCT00448630|181917966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5224||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5224
91017315|NCT00448630|181917966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0001
91017316|NCT00448630|181917966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0002||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0002
91017317|NCT00448630|181917966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8166||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8166
91017318|NCT00448630|181917967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Friedman|||We hypothesize that atypical antipsychotic therapy effects the metabolic syndrome parameters, particularly body mass index.||||<0.001
91017319|NCT00448630|181917968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Friedman|||Friedman's test was used to assess trends over time (Baseline, 1 month, 4 months).||||<0.001
91017320|NCT00448630|181917969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.544||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Friedman|||Friedman's test was used to assess trends over time (Baseline, 1 month, 4 months).||||0.544
91017321|NCT00448630|181917970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.245||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Friedman|||Friedman's test was used to assess trends over time (Baseline, 1 month, 4 months).||||0.245
91017322|NCT00448630|181917971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.362||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Friedman|||Friedman's test was used to assess trends over time (Baseline, 1 month, 4 months).||||0.362
91017323|NCT00448630|181917972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.176||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Friedman|||Friedman's test was used to assess trends over time (Baseline, 1 month, 4 months).||||0.176
91017324|NCT00448630|181917973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Friedman|||Friedman's test was used to assess trends over time (Baseline, 1 month, 4 months).||||<0.001
91017325|NCT00448630|181917974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.524||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Friedman|||Friedman's test was used to assess trends over time.||||0.524
91017326|NCT00448630|181917974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Friedman|||Friedman's test was used to assess trends over time.||||<0.001
91017327|NCT00448630|181917974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.005||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Friedman|||Friedman's test was used to assess trends over time.||||0.005
91017328|NCT00448630|181917974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Friedman|||Friedman's test was used to assess trends over time.||||<0.001
91017329|NCT00448630|181917974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.009||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Friedman|||Friedman's test was used to assess trends over time.||||0.009
91017330|NCT00448630|181917974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Friedman|||Friedman's test was used to assess trends over time.||||<0.001
91017331|NCT00448630|181917974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.047||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Friedman|||Friedman's test was used to assess trends over time.||||0.047
91017332|NCT00448630|181917974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0007||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0007
91017333|NCT00448630|181917974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0057||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0057
91017334|NCT00448630|181917974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||9e-05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.00009
91017335|NCT00448630|181917974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0201||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0201
91017336|NCT00448630|181917974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0095||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0095
91017337|NCT00448630|181917974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0386||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0386
91017338|NCT00448630|181917974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1976||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1976
91017339|NCT00448630|181917974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2383||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2383
91017340|NCT00448630|181917974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||2e-05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.00002
91017341|NCT00448630|181917974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8297||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8297
91017342|NCT00448630|181917974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9081||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.9081
91017343|NCT00448630|181917974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7386||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7386
91017344|NCT00448630|181917974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0024||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0024
91017345|NCT00448630|181917974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2587||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2587
91017346|NCT00448630|181917974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6263||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6263
91017347|NCT00448630|181917974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1e-06||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.000001
91017348|NCT00448630|181917974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2589||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2589
91017349|NCT00448630|181917974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5153||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5153
91017350|NCT00448630|181917974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0003||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0003
91017351|NCT00448630|181917974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0005||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0005
91017352|NCT00448630|181917974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8952||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8952
91017353|NCT00448630|181917975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.197||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Friedman|||Friedman's test was used to assess trends over time.||||0.197
91017354|NCT00448630|181917975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.01||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Friedman|||Friedman's test was used to assess trends over time.||||0.010
91017355|NCT00448630|181917975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.012||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Friedman|||Friedman's test was used to assess trends over time.||||0.012
91017356|NCT00448630|181917975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Friedman|||Friedman's test was used to assess trends over time.||||<0.001
91017357|NCT00448630|181917975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.282||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Friedman|||Friedman's test was used to assess trends over time.||||0.282
91017358|NCT00448630|181917975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.04||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Friedman|||Friedman's test was used to assess trends over time.||||0.040
91017359|NCT00448630|181917975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Friedman|||Friedman's test was used to assess trends over time.||||0.004
91017360|NCT00448630|181917975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0193||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0193
91017361|NCT00448630|181917975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0065||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0065
91017362|NCT00448630|181917975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0002||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0002
91017363|NCT00448630|181917975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3172||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3172
91017364|NCT00448630|181917975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0116||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0116
91017365|NCT00448630|181917975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0016||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0016
91017366|NCT00448630|181917975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.26||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2600
91017367|NCT00448630|181917975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2309||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2309
91017368|NCT00448630|181917975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0063||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0063
91017369|NCT00448630|181917975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8158||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8158
91017370|NCT00448630|181917975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3968||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3968
91017371|NCT00448630|181917975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7193||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7193
91017372|NCT00448630|181917975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0127||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0127
91017373|NCT00448630|181917975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2351||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2351
91017374|NCT00448630|181917975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5672||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5672
91017375|NCT00448630|181917975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||9e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.00009
91017376|NCT00448630|181917975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1774||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1774
91017377|NCT00448630|181917975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6082||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6082
91017378|NCT00448630|181917975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0079||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0079
91017379|NCT00448630|181917975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0014||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0014
91082072|NCT02187029|182048284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0109|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0506|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0793|0.101|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, Hour 1||0.1010|-0.0793|
91017380|NCT00448630|181917975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5587||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5587
91017381|NCT00448630|181917976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.077||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Friedman|||Friedman's test was used to assess trends over time.||||0.077
91017382|NCT00448630|181917976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.039||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Friedman|||Friedman's test was used to assess trends over time.||||0.039
91017383|NCT00448630|181917976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.978||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Friedman|||Friedman's test was used to assess trends over time.||||0.978
91082073|NCT02187029|182048284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.033|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0496|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0554|0.1213|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, Hour 2||0.1213|-0.0554|
91017384|NCT00448630|181917976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Friedman|||Friedman's test was used to assess trends over time.||||<0.001
91017385|NCT00448630|181917976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.593||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Friedman|||Friedman's test was used to assess trends over time.||||0.593
91017386|NCT00448630|181917976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.987||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Friedman|||Friedman's test was used to assess trends over time.||||0.987
91017387|NCT00448630|181917976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.174||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Friedman|||Friedman's test was used to assess trends over time.||||0.174
91017388|NCT01687400|181917977|OTHER|||||||0.035|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis #1 is for the genetic mutation TP53.||||0.035
91017389|NCT01687400|181917977|OTHER|||||||0.72|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis #2 is for ASXL1 genetic mutation||||0.72
91017390|NCT01687400|181917977|OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis #3 is for SRSF2 genetic mutation||||0.28
91017391|NCT01687400|181917977|OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis #4 is for IDH2 genetic mutation||||0.14
91017392|NCT01687400|181917977|OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis #5 is for DNMT3A genetic mutation||||0.3
91017393|NCT01687400|181917977|OTHER|||||||0.183|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis #6 is for SF3B1 genetic mutation||||0.183
91017394|NCT01687400|181917977|OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis #7 is for RUNX1 genetic mutation||||0.42
91017395|NCT01687400|181917977|OTHER|||||||0.36|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis #8 is for TET2 genetic mutation||||0.36
91017396|NCT01687400|181917977|OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis #9 is for IDH1 genetic mutation||||0.1
91017397|NCT01687400|181917977|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis #10 is for NPM1 genetic mutation||||1
91017398|NCT01687400|181917977|OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis #11 is for NRAS genetic mutation||||0.17
91017399|NCT01687400|181917977|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||-Statistical analysis #12 is for U2AF1 genetic mutation||||1
91017400|NCT01687400|181917977|OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis #13 is for MY05B genetic mutation||||0.6
91017401|NCT01687400|181917977|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis #14 is for WT1 genetic mutation||||1
91017402|NCT01687400|181917978|SUPERIORITY||Overall Response Rate-for current study|0.744|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.652|0.836|||Chi-squared|1-sample Chi-square test to compare the overall response rate (ORR) to historical control (with ORR=0.25)||-The historical control of a 5-day regimen (Cashen et al 2010 JCO = NCT00358644) showed 25% (14 out of 55 participants) in overall response rate||0.836|0.652|<0.0001
91017403|NCT01687400|181917978|SUPERIORITY||Complete response rate-for current study|0.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.538|0.741|||Chi-squared|1-sample Chi-square test to compare the complete response rate to historical control (with CR=0.24)||-The historical control of a 5-day regimen (Cashen et al 2010 JCO = NCT00358644) showed 24% (13 out of 55 participants) in complete response rate.||0.741|0.538|<0.0001
91017404|NCT00568776|181917982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.21|-0.14|0.71
91017405|NCT00568776|181917983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.33|1.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.22|-6.33|0.18
91017406|NCT00568776|181917984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.36|-0.06|0.17
91017407|NCT00568776|181917985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.03||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.41|2.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.62|-5.41|0.49
91017408|NCT00568776|181917986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.73|5.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.03|-3.73|0.77
91017409|NCT00568776|181917987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|1.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.21|-0.63|0.54
91017410|NCT00568776|181917988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.24||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.43|5.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.46|-3.43|0.65
91017411|NCT01598740|181918008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0662||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||One-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) common slopes model for a 2-period crossover design.||||0.0662
91017412|NCT01598740|181918009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1899||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||One-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) common slopes model for a 2-period crossover design.||||0.1899
91017413|NCT00877799|181918012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.057|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.057
91017414|NCT00877799|181918013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91017415|NCT00877799|181918014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
91017416|NCT01785472|181918032|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The statistical test was made at a one-sided significance level of 0.025.|least Square Means net difference|-2.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85|<|0.001||95.0|-4.0|-0.66|||ANCOVA|||||-0.66|-4.00|<0.001
91082074|NCT02187029|182048284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0086|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0459|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0733|0.0905|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, Hour 4||0.0905|-0.0733|
91082075|NCT02187029|182048284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.0244|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0349|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0865|0.0378|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, Hour 8||0.0378|-0.0865|
91017417|NCT01803464|181918055|OTHER||Cohen's d|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Cohen's d was calculated. The % change of the Botox plus low-magnitude vibration group minus the % change of the cerebral palsy control group was the numerator. The pooled Standard Deviation (SD) of the % change for the 2 groups was the denominator.|||||
91017418|NCT01803464|181918055|OTHER||Cohen's d|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Cohen's d was calculated. The % change of the Botox group minus the % change of the cerebral palsy control group was the numerator. The pooled SD of the % change for the 2 groups was the denominator.|||||
91017419|NCT01803464|181918055|OTHER||Cohen's d|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Cohen's d was calculated. The % change of the typically developing control group group minus the % change of the cerebral palsy control group was the numerator. The pooled SD of the % change for the 2 groups was the denominator.|||||
91017420|NCT01803464|181918056|OTHER||Cohen's d|0.45|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Cohen's d was calculated. The % change of the Botox plus low-magnitude vibration group minus the % change of the cerebral palsy control group was the numerator. The pooled SD of the % change for the 2 groups was the denominator|||||
91017421|NCT01803464|181918056|OTHER||Cohen's d|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Cohen's d was calculated. The % change of the Botox group minus the % change of the cerebral palsy control group was the numerator. The pooled SD of the % change for the 2 groups was the denominator.|||||
91017422|NCT01803464|181918056|OTHER||Cohen's d|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Cohen's d was calculated. The % change of the typically developing group minus the % change of the cerebral palsy control group was the numerator. The pooled SD of the % change for the 2 groups was the denominator|||||
91017423|NCT01803464|181918057|OTHER||Cohen's d|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Cohen's d was calculated. The % change of the Botox plus low-magnitude vibration group minus the % change of the cerebral palsy control group was the numerator. The pooled SD of the % change for the 2 groups was the denominator.|||||
91017424|NCT01803464|181918057|OTHER||Cohen's d|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Cohen's d was calculated. The % change of the Botox group minus the % change of the cerebral palsy control group was the numerator. The pooled SD of the % change for the 2 groups was the denominator.|||||
91017425|NCT01803464|181918057|OTHER||Cohen's d|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Cohen's d was calculated. The % change of the typically developing control group minus the % change of the cerebral palsy control group was the numerator. The pooled SD of the % change for the 2 groups was the denominator.|||||
91017426|NCT02424851|181918058|OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.006
91017427|NCT02424851|181918059|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.02
91017428|NCT02424851|181918060|OTHER||||||=|0.48|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis of SAEs.||||=0.48
91017429|NCT02424851|181918060|OTHER||||||=|0.25|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis of AEs||||=0.25
91017430|NCT02424851|181918061|OTHER||||||=|0.31|||||||Log Rank|||||||= 0.31
91017431|NCT02424851|181918062|OTHER||||||=|0.45|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||=0.45
91017432|NCT02424851|181918063|OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.33
91082076|NCT02187029|182048284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.0526|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0251|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0973|-0.0079|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, Hour 12||-0.0079|-0.0973|
91082077|NCT02187029|182048284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.0298|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0331|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0889|0.0292|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, Hour 24||0.0292|-0.0889|
91082078|NCT02187029|182048284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.0167|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0268|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0649|0.0315|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, pre-dose||0.0315|-0.0649|
91082079|NCT02187029|182048284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0616|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0337|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.001|0.1222|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, Hour 1||0.1222|0.0010|
91082080|NCT02187029|182048284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1025|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0512|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0104|0.1945|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, Hour 2||0.1945|0.0104|
91082081|NCT02187029|182048284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0062|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0495|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0827|0.0952|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, Hour 4||0.0952|-0.0827|
91082082|NCT02187029|182048284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0124|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0443|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0672|0.0919|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, Hour 8||0.0919|-0.0672|
90829410|NCT02365649|181533421|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.4||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|16.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders||16.7|-11.8|1.000
91017433|NCT02723786|181918078|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The proportion of participants with DGF was 0.57, highest Posterior Density (HPD) 95% Credible interval (CI) (0.25,0.90). The posterior probability for the proportion of participants with DGF \<30% was 0.07 (HPD 95% CI \[0.00,1.00\]). The posterior probability for the proportion of participants with DGF \<50% was 0.34 (HPD 95% CI \[0.00,1.00\]).|||
91017434|NCT03170271|181918097|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was that the exacerbation rate of benralizumab was equal to the exacerbation rate of placebo.|Rate ratio|0.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.65|||Negative binomial|||Comparison of annual exacerbation rates for benralizumab vs placebo (rate ratio). Treatment group, region, number of exacerbations in previous year and maintenance OCS use at baseline were included in the negative binomial model as covariates. The log of each patient's corresponding follow-up time was used as an offset variable in the model to adjust for patients having different follow-up times during which events occurred.||0.65|0.39|<0.0001
91017435|NCT03170271|181918098|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-8.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.41|-4.82|||Repeated measures analysis||Model: Change from baseline in SGRQ total score = Treatment + baseline SGRQ total score + region + number of exacerbations in previous year + maintenance OCS use at baseline + visit + treatment by visit.|Change from baseline in SGRQ total score at Week 24 was compared between the benralizumab group and placebo group using a restricted maximum likelihood based on a mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) analysis.||-4.82|-11.41|<0.0001
91017436|NCT03170271|181918099|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|0.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.23|||Repeated measures analysis||Model: Change from baseline in pre-BD FEV1 = Treatment + baseline pre-BD FEV1 + region + number of exacerbations in previous year + maintenance OCS use at baseline + gender + age + visit + treatment by visit.|Change from baseline in pre-BD FEV1 at Week 24 was compared between the benralizumab group and placebo group using a restricted maximum likelihood based on a MMRM analysis.||0.23|0.09|<0.0001
91017437|NCT03170271|181918100|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.46|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.27|||Repeated measures analysis||Model: Change from baseline in ACQ-6 score = Treatment + baseline ACQ-6 score + region + number of exacerbations in previous year + maintenance OCS use at baseline + visit + treatment by visit.|Change from baseline in ACQ-6 score at Week 24 was compared between the benralizumab group and placebo group using a restricted maximum likelihood based on a MMRM analysis.||-0.27|-0.65|<0.0001
91017438|NCT03170271|181918101|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.67|||Regression, Cox||A hazard ratio \< 1 favours benralizumab to be associated with a longer time from randomization to the first exacerbation than placebo.|Comparison of time to first asthma exacerbation for benralizumab vs placebo. Treatment group, region, number of exacerbations in previous year and maintenance OCS use at baseline were included in the Cox proportional hazard model as covariates.||0.67|0.40|<0.0001
91017439|NCT03170271|181918102|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|20.11||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.79|33.44|||Repeated measures analysis||Model: Change from baseline in PEF = Treatment + baseline PEF + region + number of exacerbations in previous year + maintenance OCS use at baseline + visit + treatment by visit.|Change from run-in baseline in morning PEF at Week 24 was compared between the benralizumab group and placebo group using a restricted maximum likelihood based on a MMRM analysis.||33.44|6.79|0.0031
91017440|NCT03170271|181918102|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|23.09||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.62|36.55|||Repeated measures analysis||Model: Change from baseline in PEF = Treatment + baseline PEF + region + number of exacerbations in previous year + maintenance OCS use at baseline + visit + treatment by visit.|Change from run-in baseline in evening PEF at Week 24 was compared between the benralizumab group and placebo group using a restricted maximum likelihood based on a MMRM analysis.||36.55|9.62|0.0008
91017441|NCT03170271|181918103|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|5.35||||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|9.28|||Repeated measures analysis||Model: Change from baseline in SF-36v2 score = Treatment + baseline SF-36v2 score + region + number of exacerbations in previous year + maintenance OCS use at baseline + visit + treatment by visit.|Change from baseline in SF-36v2 subscale score for physical functioning at Week 24 was compared between the benralizumab group and placebo group using a restricted maximum likelihood based on a MMRM analysis.||9.28|1.42|0.0077
91082083|NCT02187029|182048284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.0186|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0408|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0918|0.0547|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, Hour 12||0.0547|-0.0918|
91082084|NCT02187029|182048284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.0413|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0433|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1192|0.0365|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, Hour 24||0.0365|-0.1192|
91082085|NCT02187029|182048284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3916|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2968|1.099|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Follow-up, Day 25-29||1.0990|-0.2968|
91082086|NCT02187029|182048284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1175|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0537|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0223|0.2127|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1, Hour 1||0.2127|0.0223|
91082087|NCT02187029|182048284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3845|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0802|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.2424|0.5266|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1, Hour 2||0.5266|0.2424|
91082088|NCT02187029|182048284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3812|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0536|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.2862|0.4762|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1, Hour 4||0.4762|0.2862|
91082089|NCT02187029|182048284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2841|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0563|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.1843|0.3838|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1, Hour 8||0.3838|0.1843|
91082090|NCT02187029|182048284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1462|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0467|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0635|0.2289|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1, Hour 12||0.2289|0.0635|
91082091|NCT02187029|182048284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.168|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0702|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0436|0.2924|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1, Hour 24||0.2924|0.0436|
91082092|NCT02187029|182048284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1303|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.083|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0172|0.2778|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, pre-dose||0.2778|-0.0172|
91082093|NCT02187029|182048284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1953|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0747||||90.0|0.0625|0.3281|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, Hour 1||0.3281|0.0625|
91082094|NCT02187029|182048284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.5409|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0729|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.411|0.6707|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, Hour 2||0.6707|0.4110|
91082095|NCT02187029|182048284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.5235|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0675|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4032|0.6438|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, Hour 4||0.6438|0.4032|
91082096|NCT02187029|182048284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3857|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0512|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.2944|0.4769|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, Hour 8||0.4769|0.2944|
91082097|NCT02187029|182048284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0216|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0368|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0439|0.0872|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, Hour 12||0.0872|-0.0439|
91082098|NCT02187029|182048284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1708|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0486|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0841|0.2574|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, Hour 24||0.2574|0.0841|
91082099|NCT02187029|182048284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.166|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0377|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0982|0.2338|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, pre-dose||0.2338|0.0982|
91082100|NCT02187029|182048284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3524|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0477|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.2667|0.438|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, Hour 1||0.4380|0.2667|
91082101|NCT02187029|182048284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.5631|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0724|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.433|0.6932|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, Hour 2||0.6932|0.4330|
91082102|NCT02187029|182048284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.5807|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4549|0.7065|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, Hour 4||0.7065|0.4549|
91082103|NCT02187029|182048284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2814|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0627|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.1688|0.394|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, Hour 8||0.3940|0.1688|
91082104|NCT02187029|182048284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1982|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0577|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0945|0.3019|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, Hour 12||0.3019|0.0945|
91082105|NCT02187029|182048284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1465|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0615|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0361|0.2569|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, Hour 24||0.2569|0.0361|
91082106|NCT02187029|182048284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.8565|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4796|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0017|1.7112|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Follow-up, Day 25-29||1.7112|0.0017|
91082107|NCT02187029|182048285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.348|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.209|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.707|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1, Hour 1||0.010|-0.707|
91082108|NCT02187029|182048285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.179|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.205|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.533|0.175|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1, Hour 2||0.175|-0.533|
91082109|NCT02187029|182048285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.258|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.568|0.052|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1, Hour 4||0.052|-0.568|
91082110|NCT02187029|182048285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.046|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.201||||90.0|-0.39|0.298|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1, Hour 8||0.298|-0.390|
91082111|NCT02187029|182048285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.284|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.168||||90.0|-0.575|0.006|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1, Hour 12||0.006|-0.575|
91082112|NCT02187029|182048285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.166|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.235|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.569|0.237|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1, Hour 24||0.237|-0.569|
91082113|NCT02187029|182048285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.263|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.657|0.132|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, pre-dose||0.132|-0.657|
91082114|NCT02187029|182048285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.221|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.46|0.299|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, Hour 1||0.299|-0.460|
91082115|NCT02187029|182048285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.082|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.392|0.228|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, Hour 2||0.228|-0.392|
91082116|NCT02187029|182048285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.083|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.189|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.408|0.242|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, Hour 4||0.242|-0.408|
91082117|NCT02187029|182048285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.207|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.174|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.508|0.095|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, Hour 8||0.095|-0.508|
91082118|NCT02187029|182048285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.186|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.451|0.191|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, Hour 12||0.191|-0.451|
91082119|NCT02187029|182048285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.125|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.186|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.445|0.196|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, Hour 24||0.196|-0.445|
91082120|NCT02187029|182048285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.188|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.162|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.472|0.097|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, pre-dose||0.097|-0.472|
91082121|NCT02187029|182048285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.152|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.161|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.434|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, Hour 1||0.130|-0.434|
91082122|NCT02187029|182048285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.231|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.155|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.504|0.043|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, Hour 2||0.043|-0.504|
91082123|NCT02187029|182048285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.405|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.184|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.722|-0.088|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, Hour 4||-0.088|-0.722|
91082124|NCT02187029|182048285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.249|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.56|0.062|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, Hour 8||0.062|-0.560|
91082125|NCT02187029|182048285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.163|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.176|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.467|0.141|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, Hour 12||0.141|-0.467|
91082126|NCT02187029|182048285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.317|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.183|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.633|-0.002|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, Hour 24||-0.002|-0.633|
91082127|NCT02187029|182048285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.094|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.339|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.683|0.496|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Follow-up, Day 25-29||0.496|-0.683|
91082128|NCT02187029|182048285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.266|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.406|0.505|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1, Hour 1||0.505|-0.406|
91082129|NCT02187029|182048285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.257|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.193|0.707|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1, Hour 2||0.707|-0.193|
91082130|NCT02187029|182048285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.091|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.229|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.302|0.485|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1, Hour 4||0.485|-0.302|
91082131|NCT02187029|182048285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.256|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.107|0.768|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1, Hour 8||0.768|-0.107|
91082132|NCT02187029|182048285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.283|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.214|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.087|0.653|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1, Hour 12||0.653|-0.087|
91082133|NCT02187029|182048285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.488|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.299|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.024|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1, Hour 24||1.000|-0.024|
91082134|NCT02187029|182048285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.206|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.327|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.356|0.768|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, pre-dose||0.768|-0.356|
91082135|NCT02187029|182048285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.123|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.41|0.656|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, Hour 1||0.656|-0.410|
91082136|NCT02187029|182048285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.396|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.246|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.025|0.818|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, Hour 2||0.818|-0.025|
91082137|NCT02187029|182048285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.077|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.523|0.368|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, Hour 4||0.368|-0.523|
91082138|NCT02187029|182048285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.254|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.237|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.154|0.661|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, Hour 8||0.661|-0.154|
91082139|NCT02187029|182048285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.125|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.256|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.564|0.315|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, Hour 12||0.315|-0.564|
91082140|NCT02187029|182048285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.458|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.256|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.019|0.897|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, Hour 24||0.897|0.019|
91082141|NCT02187029|182048285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.418|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.215|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.043|0.792|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, pre-dose||0.792|0.043|
91082142|NCT02187029|182048285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.521|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.213|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.15|0.893|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, Hour 1||0.893|0.150|
91082143|NCT02187029|182048285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.204|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.172|0.888|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, Hour 2||0.888|0.172|
91082144|NCT02187029|182048285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.357|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.247|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.069|0.782|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, Hour 4||0.782|-0.069|
91082145|NCT02187029|182048285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.088|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.242|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.328|0.503|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, Hour 8||0.503|-0.328|
91082146|NCT02187029|182048285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.406|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.236|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.812|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, Hour 12||0.812|0.000|
91082147|NCT02187029|182048285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.377|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.247|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.047|0.802|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, Hour 24||0.802|-0.047|
91082148|NCT02187029|182048285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.223|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.418|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.949|0.502|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Follow-up, Day 25-29||0.502|-0.949|
91082149|NCT02187029|182048286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|316.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|166.57|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|21.91|611.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1||611.88|21.91|
91082150|NCT02187029|182048286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|61.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|88.27|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-94.87|218.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7||218.82|-94.87|
91082151|NCT02187029|182048286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|107.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|100.38|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-71.2|287.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14||287.11|-71.20|
91082152|NCT02187029|182048286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|433.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|211.71|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|58.3|808.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1||808.13|58.30|
91082153|NCT02187029|182048286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|13.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|125.47|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-208.07|234.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7||234.47|-208.07|
91082154|NCT02187029|182048286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-29.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|142.95|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-285.26|225.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14||225.60|-285.26|
91082155|NCT02187029|182048287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.57|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.71|6.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1||6.17|0.71|
91082156|NCT02187029|182048287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.97|5.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7||5.37|1.97|
91082157|NCT02187029|182048287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|8.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.24|9.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14||9.96|6.24|
91082158|NCT02187029|182048287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|13.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.65|16.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1||16.59|9.65|
91082159|NCT02187029|182048287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|27.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|25.49|30.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7||30.49|25.49|
91082160|NCT02187029|182048287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|28.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.48|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|26.14|31.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14||31.41|26.14|
91082161|NCT02187029|182048288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.31|3.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1||3.10|-1.31|
91082162|NCT02187029|182048288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.71|5.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7||5.11|0.71|
91082163|NCT02187029|182048288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.33|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.33|5.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14||5.85|1.33|
91082164|NCT02187029|182048288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.64|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.29|4.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1||4.31|-1.29|
91082165|NCT02187029|182048288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.57|10.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7||10.89|4.57|
91082166|NCT02187029|182048288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|9.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.91|12.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14||12.23|5.91|
91082167|NCT01537835|182048334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.17
91082168|NCT01535443|182048343|OTHER|||||||0.374|||||||Traza Pillai|The test was performed with degrees of freedom: 2||||||.374
91082169|NCT04957212|182048361|EQUIVALENCE|We used an equivalence margin of 0.2 for the primary endpoint.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.04||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.09|||Chi-squared|||||0.09|-0.16|0.54
91082170|NCT04957212|182048362|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.07||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.06|||Chi-squared|||||0.06|-0.21|0.26
91082171|NCT04957212|182048363|OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.99
91082172|NCT04957212|182048364|OTHER|||||||0.56|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.56
91082173|NCT03299101|182048406|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.872|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed models estimated overall, within-person change in grip strength across all 4 time points.||||0.872
91082174|NCT03299101|182048406|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.423|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in grip strength between baseline and day of surgery.||||0.423
91082175|NCT03299101|182048406|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.12||0.853|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in grip strength between baseline and 90 days postop.||||0.853
91017442|NCT03170271|181918103|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|6.8||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.45|11.14|||Repeated measures analysis||Model: Change from baseline in SF-36v2 score = Treatment + baseline SF-36v2 score + region + number of exacerbations in previous year + maintenance OCS use at baseline + visit + treatment by visit.|Change from baseline in SF-36v2 subscale score for role limitations due to physical health at Week 24 was compared between the benralizumab group and placebo group using a restricted maximum likelihood based on a MMRM analysis.||11.14|2.45|0.0022
91017443|NCT03170271|181918103|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.07||||0.1741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|7.5|||Repeated measures analysis||Model: Change from baseline in SF-36v2 score = Treatment + baseline SF-36v2 score + region + number of exacerbations in previous year + maintenance OCS use at baseline + visit + treatment by visit.|Change from baseline in SF-36v2 subscale score for bodily pain at Week 24 was compared between the benralizumab group and placebo group using a restricted maximum likelihood based on a MMRM analysis.||7.50|-1.36|0.1741
91017444|NCT03170271|181918103|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.62||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.32|8.92|||Repeated measures analysis||Model: Change from baseline in SF-36v2 score = Treatment + baseline SF-36v2 score + region + number of exacerbations in previous year + maintenance OCS use at baseline + visit + treatment by visit.|Change from baseline in SF-36v2 subscale score for general health perceptions at Week 24 was compared between the benralizumab group and placebo group using a restricted maximum likelihood based on a MMRM analysis.||8.92|2.32|0.0009
91017445|NCT03170271|181918103|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.51||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.95|9.08|||Repeated measures analysis||Model: Change from baseline in SF-36v2 score = Treatment + baseline SF-36v2 score + region + number of exacerbations in previous year + maintenance OCS use at baseline + visit + treatment by visit.|Change from baseline in SF-36v2 subscale score for vitality at Week 24 was compared between the benralizumab group and placebo group using a restricted maximum likelihood based on a MMRM analysis.||9.08|1.95|0.0025
91017446|NCT03170271|181918103|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.12||||0.1583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|7.46|||Repeated measures analysis||Model: Change from baseline in SF-36v2 score = Treatment + baseline SF-36v2 score + region + number of exacerbations in previous year + maintenance OCS use at baseline + visit + treatment by visit.|Change from baseline in SF-36v2 subscale score for social functioning at Week 24 was compared between the benralizumab group and placebo group using a restricted maximum likelihood based on a MMRM analysis.||7.46|-1.22|0.1583
91017447|NCT03170271|181918103|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.44||||0.2103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|6.27|||Repeated measures analysis||Model: Change from baseline in SF-36v2 score = Treatment + baseline SF-36v2 score + region + number of exacerbations in previous year + maintenance OCS use at baseline + visit + treatment by visit.|Change from baseline in SF-36v2 subscale score for role limitations due to emotional problems at Week 24 was compared between the benralizumab group and placebo group using a restricted maximum likelihood based on a MMRM analysis.||6.27|-1.38|0.2103
91017448|NCT03170271|181918103|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.68||||0.2581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|4.59|||Repeated measures analysis||Model: Change from baseline in SF-36v2 score = Treatment + baseline SF-36v2 score + region + number of exacerbations in previous year + maintenance OCS use at baseline + visit + treatment by visit.|Change from baseline in SF-36v2 subscale score for mental health at Week 24 was compared between the benralizumab group and placebo group using a restricted maximum likelihood based on a MMRM analysis.||4.59|-1.23|0.2581
91017449|NCT03170271|181918103|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.32||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|3.81|||Repeated measures analysis||Model: Change from baseline in SF-36v2 score = Treatment + baseline SF-36v2 score + region + number of exacerbations in previous year + maintenance OCS use at baseline + visit + treatment by visit.|Change from baseline in SF-36v2 physical health component summary score at Week 24 was compared between the benralizumab group and placebo group using a restricted maximum likelihood based on a MMRM analysis.||3.81|0.84|0.0022
91017450|NCT03170271|181918103|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.87||||0.2751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|2.44|||Repeated measures analysis||Model: Change from baseline in SF-36v2 score = Treatment + baseline SF-36v2 score + region + number of exacerbations in previous year + maintenance OCS use at baseline + visit + treatment by visit.|Change from baseline in SF-36v2 mental health component summary score at Week 24 was compared between the benralizumab group and placebo group using a restricted maximum likelihood based on a MMRM analysis.||2.44|-0.70|0.2751
91017451|NCT03170271|181918104|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.0233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.25|||Regression, Logistic||Model: ln (1/(1-p)) = Treatment + baseline score + region + number of exacerbations in previous year + maintenance OCS use at baseline, where p is the proportion of patients being a responder.|Estimate of the log odds of being a responder classified as type 'Improvement' at Week 24 in the benralizumab group compared to the placebo group using a logistic regression.||2.25|1.06|0.0233
91017452|NCT03170271|181918104|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.0401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|2.16|||Regression, Logistic||Model: ln (1/(1-p)) = Treatment + baseline score + region + number of exacerbations in previous year + maintenance OCS use at baseline, where p is the proportion of patients being a responder.|Estimate of the log odds of being a responder classified as type 'Important Improvement' at Week 24 in the benralizumab group compared to the placebo group using a logistic regression.||2.16|1.02|0.0401
91082176|NCT03299101|182048406|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.16||0.552|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in grip strength between day of surgery and 90 days postop.||||0.552
91082177|NCT03299101|182048407|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.256||||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed models estimated overall, within-person change in max MIP across all 4 time points.||||0.256
91082178|NCT03299101|182048407|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.78||0.091|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in maximum MIP between baseline and day of surgery.||||0.091
91082179|NCT03299101|182048407|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.69||0.066|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in maximum MIP between baseline and 90 days postop.||||0.066
91082180|NCT03299101|182048407|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.13||0.552|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in maximum MIP between day of surgery and 90 days postop.||||0.552
91082181|NCT03299101|182048408|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed models estimated overall, within-person change in mean MIP across all 4 time points.||||0.003
91082182|NCT03299101|182048408|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|7.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.48||0.003|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in mean MIP between baseline and day of surgery.||||0.003
91082183|NCT03299101|182048408|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|10.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.61||0.005|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in mean MIP between baseline and 90 days postop.||||0.005
91082184|NCT03299101|182048408|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.18||0.29|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in mean MIP between day of surgery and 90 days postop.||||0.290
90954279|NCT04348435|181786924|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.282|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.604||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Average Energy/Fatigue - Treatment Contrast||||0.4160
91082185|NCT03299101|182048409|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009||||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed models estimated overall, within-person change in maximal inspiratory pressure across all 4 time points.||||0.009
90954280|NCT04348435|181786924|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.32||0.8768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Average Social Functioning - Treatment Contrast||||0.8768
90954281|NCT04348435|181786924|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.719|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.344||0.0869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Average Social Functioning - Treatment Contrast||||0.0869
90954282|NCT04348435|181786924|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.434|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.514||0.6864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Average Social Functioning - Treatment Contrast||||0.6864
90954283|NCT04348435|181786924|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.571||0.2587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Avg. Role Limitations Due to Physical Health - Treatment Contrast||||0.2587
90954284|NCT04348435|181786924|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|8.417|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.316||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Avg. Role Limitations Due to Physical Health - Treatment Contrast||||0.1250
90954285|NCT04348435|181786924|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.104|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.732||0.978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Avg. Role Limitations Due to Physical Health - Treatment Contrast||||0.9780
90954286|NCT04348435|181786924|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.963|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.925||0.8721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Average General Health - Treatment Contrast||||0.8721
90954287|NCT04348435|181786924|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.735||0.6694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Average General Health - Treatment Contrast||||0.6694
90954288|NCT04348435|181786924|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.498|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.073||0.3733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Average General Health - Treatment Contrast||||0.3733
90954289|NCT04348435|181786924|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.433|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.116||0.5594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Average Physical Functioning - Treatment Contrast||||0.5594
90954290|NCT04348435|181786924|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.878|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.389||0.2127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Average Physical Functioning - Treatment Contrast||||0.2127
90954291|NCT04348435|181786924|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.303||0.4012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Average Physical Functioning - Treatment Contrast||||0.4012
90954292|NCT04348435|181786924|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|11.678|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.748||0.0521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Average Pain - Treatment Contrast||||0.0521
90954293|NCT04348435|181786924|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.635|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.696||0.4704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Average Pain - Treatment Contrast||||0.4704
90954294|NCT04348435|181786924|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|12.101|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.017||0.0544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Average Pain - Treatment Contrast||||0.0544
91082186|NCT03299101|182048409|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|12.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.57||0.006|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in maximum MEP between baseline and day of surgery.||||0.006
91082187|NCT03299101|182048409|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|12.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.25||0.015|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in maximum MEP between baseline and 90 days postop.||||0.015
91082188|NCT03299101|182048409|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.42||0.802|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in maximum MEP between day of surgery and 90 days postop.||||0.802
91082189|NCT03299101|182048410|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed models estimated overall, within-person change in Mean MEP across all 4 time points.||||0.010
91082190|NCT03299101|182048410|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|12.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.35||0.004|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in mean MEP between baseline and day of surgery.||||0.004
91082191|NCT03299101|182048410|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|9.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.9||0.042|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in mean MEP between baseline and 90 days postop.||||0.042
91082192|NCT03299101|182048410|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.08||0.221|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in mean MEP between day of surgery and 90 days postop.||||0.221
91082193|NCT03299101|182048411|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.814|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed models estimated overall, within-person change in max SMIP across all 4 time points.||||0.814
91082194|NCT03299101|182048411|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|10.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|30.91||0.734|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in maximum SMIP between baseline and day of surgery.||||0.734
91082195|NCT03299101|182048411|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|21.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.12||0.341|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in maximum SMIP between baseline and 90 days postop.||||0.341
91082196|NCT03299101|182048411|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|28.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|37.61||0.448|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in maximum SMIP between day of surgery and 90 days postop.||||0.448
90829411|NCT02365649|181533421|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.9||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|16.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders||16.8|-15.0|1.000
91082197|NCT03299101|182048412|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.419|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed models estimated overall, within-person change in mean SMIP across all 4 time points.||||0.419
91082198|NCT03299101|182048412|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|20.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|27.03||0.439|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in mean SMIP between baseline and day of surgery.||||0.439
91082199|NCT03299101|182048412|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|47.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|26.19||0.069|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in mean SMIP between baseline and 90 days postop.||||0.069
91082200|NCT03299101|182048412|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|37.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|37.96||0.328|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in mean SMIP between day of surgery and 90 days postop.||||0.328
91082201|NCT03299101|182048413|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.196|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed models estimated overall, within-person change in serum prealbumin across all 4 time points.||||0.196
90954295|NCT04348435|181786924|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.333|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.888||0.5535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Average Emotional Well Being - Treatment Contrast||||0.5535
91082202|NCT03299101|182048413|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.562|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in serum prealbumin between baseline and day of surgery.||||0.562
90954296|NCT04348435|181786924|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.689|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.969||0.4642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Average Emotional Well Being - Treatment Contrast||||0.4642
91082203|NCT03299101|182048413|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.087|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in serum prealbumin between baseline and 90 days postop.||||0.087
91082204|NCT03299101|182048413|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.226|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in serum prealbumin between day of surgery and 90 days postop.||||0.226
91082205|NCT03299101|182048414|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed models estimated overall, within-person change in gait speed across all 4 time points.||||0.001
91082206|NCT03299101|182048414|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in gait speed between baseline and day of surgery.||||0.001
91082207|NCT03299101|182048414|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in gait speed between baseline and 90 days postop.||||0.001
91082208|NCT03299101|182048414|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.874|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in gait speed between day of surgery and 90 days postop.||||0.874
91082209|NCT03299101|182048415|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.854|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed models estimated overall, within-person change in SPPB across all 4 time points.||||0.854
91082210|NCT03299101|182048415|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.298|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in SPPB between baseline and day of surgery.||||0.298
91082211|NCT03299101|182048415|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.684|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in SPPB between baseline and 90 days postop.||||0.684
91082212|NCT03299101|182048415|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.485|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in SPPB between day of surgery and 90 days postop.||||0.485
91082213|NCT03299101|182048416|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.067|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed models estimated overall, within-person change in RAI across all 4 time points.||||0.067
91082214|NCT03299101|182048416|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.22||0.089|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in RAI between baseline and day of surgery.||||0.089
91082215|NCT03299101|182048416|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.006|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in RAI between baseline and 90 days postop.||||0.006
91082216|NCT03299101|182048416|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.62||0.221|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in RAI between day of surgery and 90 days postop.||||0.221
91082217|NCT03299101|182048417|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed models estimated overall, within-person change in SGA across all 4 time points.||||0.860
91082218|NCT03299101|182048417|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.41|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in SGA between baseline and day of surgery.||||0.410
90829412|NCT02365649|181533421|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.4||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|31.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders||31.4|-2.5|0.135
91082219|NCT03299101|182048417|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.622|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in SGA between baseline and 90 days postop.||||0.622
91082220|NCT03299101|182048417|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.757|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in SGA between day of surgery and 90 days postop.||||0.757
91082221|NCT03299101|182048418|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.362|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed models estimated overall, within-person change in 6 Minute Walk Test across all 4 time points.||||0.362
91082222|NCT03299101|182048418|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|25.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.06||0.203|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in 6 Minute Walk Test between baseline and day of surgery.||||.203
91082223|NCT03299101|182048418|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|12.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.77||0.357|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in 6 Minute Walk Test between baseline and 90 days postop.||||0.357
91082224|NCT03299101|182048418|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|21.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.4||0.163|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in 6 Minute Walk Test between day of surgery and 90 days postop.||||0.163
91082225|NCT03299101|182048419|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.068|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed models estimated overall, within-person change across all 4 time points.||||0.068
91082226|NCT03299101|182048419|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.043|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change between baseline and day of surgery.||||0.043
90829413|NCT02365649|181533421|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.3||||0.623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|20.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders||20.4|-11.9|0.623
91082227|NCT03299101|182048419|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.092|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change between baseline and 90 days postop.||||0.092
91082228|NCT03299101|182048419|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.292|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in mean MEP between day of surgery and 90 days postop.||||0.292
91082229|NCT03299101|182048420|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.625|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed models estimated overall, within-person change across both time points.||||0.625
91082230|NCT03224624|182048438|EQUIVALENCE|Comparing baseline-\>12month SBP change (mean difference) between the two groups.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8||0.72|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.05 considered significant.|t-test, 2 sided||direction of comparison: (self-management change over 12 months) - (usual care change over 12 months) in SBP|t- tests were done to compare group mean differences between self-management and usual care and within groups Mean differences were calculated by subtracting 12-month blood pressure from baseline blood pressure for each participant. t-tests were done to compare mean differences between the two groups.||||0.72
91082231|NCT03224624|182048438|EQUIVALENCE|Comparing baseline-\>12month DBP change (mean difference) between the two groups.|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.55||0.15|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||direction of comparison: (self-management change over 12 months) - (usual care change over 12 months) in DBP|Mean differences were calculated by subtracting 12-month blood pressure from baseline blood pressure for each participant. t-tests were done to compare mean differences between the two groups.||||0.15
91082232|NCT03224624|182048438|EQUIVALENCE|Comparing baseline-\>12month SBP change within self-management group (null hypothesis no change).|Mean Difference (Net)|-6.95||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||(12-month SBP)-(baseline SBP) for self-management group (as given in table)|change in SBP from baseline to 12-months within self-management group.||||0.01
90954297|NCT04348435|181786924|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.268|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.936||0.5692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Average Emotional Well Being - Treatment Contrast||||0.5692
91082233|NCT03224624|182048438|EQUIVALENCE|Comparing baseline-\>12month SBP change within usual care group (null hypothesis no change).|Mean Difference (Net)|-5.59|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||(12-month SBP)-(baseline SBP) for usual care group (as given in table)|Comparing baseline-\>12month SBP change within usual care group.||||<0.05
91082234|NCT03224624|182048438|EQUIVALENCE|Comparing baseline-\>12month DBP change within self-management group (null hypothesis no change).|Mean Difference (Net)|-5.51|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||(12-month DBP)-(baseline DBP) for self-management group (as given in table)|change in DBP from baseline to 12-months within self-management group.||||<0.01
91082235|NCT03224624|182048438|EQUIVALENCE|change in DBP from baseline to 12-months within usual care group.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.76||||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||(12-month DBP)-(baseline DBP) for usual care group (as given in table)|||||0.34
91082236|NCT01424241|182048445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|300.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||None available.||||<0.05
91082237|NCT01424241|182048445|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.05
91082238|NCT03585712|182048459|OTHER|Is the overall mean change from baseline different from zero? Or did the infringement of schedule regardless the type of infringement lead to a change in mucus score?||||||0.26||||||P value from model testing intercept (does infringement change mucus score?) P-value from a repeated measures mixed model with the period, intervention, sequence and time (visit) as covariates. P-values ≤0.050 are considered significant|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Mixed model for repeated measures using as response delta to Day41, delta to Day42, delta to Day70 and delta to Day71.~Covariates: period, intervention (missed pill or delayed pill), sequence of intervention (missed pill then delayed pill and vice versa), time and subject.~Subject as random effect + time repeated effect within each combination subject\* period"||||0.26
91082239|NCT03585712|182048460|OTHER||||||>|0.999||||||p values \> 0.050 (Not Statistically significant)|McNemar|McNemar test comparing agreement in the missed and delayed periods||Absence of risk increase||||>0.999
91082240|NCT03585712|182048460|OTHER|||||||0.655||||||p values \> 0.050 (Not Statistically significant)|McNemar|McNemar test comparing agreement in the missed and delayed periods||Transient risk increase||||0.655
91082241|NCT03585712|182048460|OTHER|||||||0.317||||||p values \> 0.050 (Not Statistically significant)|McNemar|McNemar test comparing agreement in the missed and delayed periods||Prolonged risk increase||||0.317
91082242|NCT03585712|182048461|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Indicates significance at the 0.05 level (p-value ≤ 0.05)|McNemar|P-value from an exact kappa test comparing agreement of ovarian status vs the reported perfect use period||A stratified McNemar test (stratification on the site, AGREE option in SAS) was used to compare the distribution of ovarian activity classification in the perfect use period to the delayed and missed pill periods (pairwise vs perfect use). The worst (meaning most risk of ovulation) ovarian activity category in the period was used for the analyses.||||<0.001
91082243|NCT03585712|182048461|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Indicates significance at the 0.05 level (p-value ≤ 0.05)|McNemar|P-value from an exact kappa test comparing agreement of ovarian status vs the reported perfect use period.||A stratified McNemar test (stratification on the site, AGREE option in SAS) was used to compare the distribution of ovarian activity classification in the perfect use period to the delayed and missed pill periods (pairwise vs perfect use). The worst (meaning most risk of ovulation) ovarian activity category in the period was used for the analyses.||||<0.001
90954298|NCT04348435|181786924|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|2.667|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.592||0.4642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Avg. Role Limitations Due to Emotional Problems - Treatment Contrast||||0.4642
91082244|NCT03585712|182048462|OTHER|||||||0.127|||||||McNemar|P-value from an exact kappa test comparing agreement of cervical mucus score classification vs the reported perfect use period||Stratified McNemar test (stratification on the site, AGREE option in SAS) to compare the distribution of cervical mucus scores in the perfect use period to the delayed and missed pill periods (pairwise vs perfect use).||||0.127
91082245|NCT03585712|182048462|OTHER|||||||0.018||||||\* Indicates significance at the 0.05 level (p-value ≤ 0.05).|McNemar|P-value from an exact kappa test comparing agreement of cervical mucus score classification vs the reported perfect use period.||Stratified McNemar test (stratification on the site, AGREE option in SAS) to compare the distribution of cervical mucus scores in the perfect use period to the delayed and missed pill periods (pairwise vs perfect use).||||0.018
91082246|NCT03517449|182048465|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.66|||Log Rank||Regression, Cox method|||0.66|0.47|<0.0001
91082247|NCT03517449|182048466|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.75|||Log Rank||Regression, Cox method|||0.75|0.51|<0.0001
91082248|NCT03517449|182048467|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percent|17.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.5|22.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||22.9|11.5|<0.0001
91082249|NCT02259699|182048486|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.582|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference between arms at T1||||0.582
91082250|NCT02259699|182048486|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.053|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference between arms at T3||||0.053
91082251|NCT02259699|182048486|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.288|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference between arms at T4||||0.288
91082252|NCT02259699|182048487|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.087|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference between arms at T3||||0.087
91082253|NCT02259699|182048487|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference between arms at T4||||0.910
91082254|NCT02259699|182048488|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.807|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.807
91082255|NCT02259699|182048489|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.071|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference between arms at T3||||0.071
91082256|NCT02259699|182048489|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.332|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference between arms at T4||||0.332
91082257|NCT02259699|182048490|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.177|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference between arms at T3||||0.177
91082258|NCT02259699|182048490|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.745|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference between arms at T4||||0.745
91082259|NCT03230838|182048494|OTHER|The Miettinen \& Nurminen method was used.|Percentage Difference|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|17.9|||||Ceftolozane/Tazobactam (C/T) minus Meropenem (Mero)|Difference in Percentage (C/T minus Mero)||17.9|-19.7|
91082260|NCT03230838|182048495|OTHER|The Miettinen \& Nurminen method was used.|Percentage Difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|5.5|||||C/T minus Mero|Difference in Percentage (C/T minus Mero)||5.5|-9.5|
90954299|NCT04348435|181786924|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.444||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Avg. Role Limitations Due to Emotional Problems - Treatment Contrast||||1.0000
91082261|NCT03230838|182048496|OTHER|The Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by age group with Cochran- Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights was used. If there was a zero count in any class of the stratum, the groups with the lower count were pooled with its near age group stratum in the model.|Percentage Difference|-7.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.99|10.05|||||C/T minus Mero|Difference in Percentage (C/T minus Mero)||10.05|-17.99|
91082262|NCT03230838|182048497|OTHER|The Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by age group with Cochran- Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights was used. If there was a zero count in any class of the stratum, the groups with the lower count were pooled with its near age group stratum in the model.|Percentage Difference|-5.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.09|8.88|||||C/T minus Mero|Difference in Percentage (C/T minus Mero)||8.88|-14.09|
91082263|NCT03230838|182048498|OTHER|The Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by age group with Cochran- Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights was used. If there was a zero count in any class of the stratum, the groups with the lower count were pooled with its near age group stratum in the model.|Percentage Difference|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.13|17.4|||||C/T minus Mero|Difference in Percentage (C/T minus Mero)||17.40|-17.13|
91082264|NCT03230838|182048499|OTHER|The Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by age group with CMH weights was used. If there was a zero count in any class of the stratum, the groups with the lower count were pooled with its near age group stratum in the model.|Percentage Difference|-3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.67|13.41|||||C/T minus Mero|Difference in Percentage (C/T minus Mero)||13.41|-12.67|
91082265|NCT01124370|182048555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The test was conducted using a 0.05 level of significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis was that there would be no change in AHI from baseline.||||<.001
91082266|NCT01156051|182048591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: no difference in total sleep time (TST) from baseline to termination. ANOVA single measure, two-tailed, Type II analysis was completed using SPSS.||||0.005
91082267|NCT01156051|182048592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: no difference in ADHD Rating Scales - IV total scores from baseline to termination. ANOVA single measure, two-tailed, Type II analysis was completed using SPSS.||||<0.001
91082268|NCT01156051|182048593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.392|||||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: no difference in latency to persistent sleep (LPS) from baseline to termination. ANOVA single measure, two-tailed, Type II analysis was completed using SPSS.||||0.392
91082269|NCT01156051|182048594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.059|||||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: no difference in total sleep time (TST) from baseline to termination. ANOVA single measure, two-tailed, Type II analysis was completed using SPSS.||||0.059
91082270|NCT02620384|182048606|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2439.511|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|646.2707|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1160.8485|3718.1734|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3718.1734|1160.8485|<0.0001
91082271|NCT02620384|182048607|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2249.3294|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|608.2782|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3454.4999|-1044.1589|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-1044.1589|-3454.4999|<0.0001
91082272|NCT02620384|182048608|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.717121|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.586647|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8637732|-1.54651|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-1.546510|-3.8637732|<0.0001
91082273|NCT02620384|182048609|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6955|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2806||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2506|-0.1403||Represents BORG\_48\_hours|t-test, 2 sided||Method of estimation is for 48 hour measure.|||-.1403|-1.2506|.014
91082274|NCT02620384|182048610|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.6903|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|72.4074||0.959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1395694.0|147.1545|||t-test, 2 sided|||||147.1545|-1395694|.959
91082275|NCT02620384|182048611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.144|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.144
91082276|NCT02620384|182048612|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.171|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.171
91082277|NCT02620384|182048613|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.106|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.734||0.885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.346|1.558|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.558|-1.346|.885
91082278|NCT02620384|182048614|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.804|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.804
91082279|NCT02620384|182048615|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.403|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.403
91082280|NCT02620384|182048616|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.080
91082281|NCT02620384|182048617|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.559|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.559
91082282|NCT00094536|182048618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.271|||||||1-sided z-test|1-sided z-test with continuity correction (pooled)||||||.271
90954300|NCT04348435|181786924|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.526||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Avg. Role Limitations Due to Emotional Problems - Treatment Contrast||||1.0000
91082283|NCT01900431|182048626|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1||||0.2354|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|5.6||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Sarilumab 200 mg q2w vs Placebo|Analysis was performed using combined estimate for odds ratio obtained by combining the log-transformation of odds ratio from Cochran Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) analyses of the different imputed datasets, using Rubin's formulae, and then by back-transforming the combined estimate. The CMH analyses were adjusted for randomization stratification factor VH level (VH \>= 4 versus VH \<4).||5.6|0.8|0.2354
91082284|NCT01900431|182048627|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.0127|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.223|-0.262||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Sarilumab 200 mg q2w vs Placebo|Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment groups, visits and visit-by-treatment groups interaction as fixed categorical effects, as well as, fixed continuous covariate of baseline adjudicated VH.||-0.262|-1.223|0.0127
91082285|NCT01900431|182048628|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.11|6.093||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Sarilumab 200 mg q2w vs Placebo|Analysis was performed using common odds ratio which came from CMH analysis adjusted for randomization stratification factor VH level (VH \>=4 versus VH \<4).||6.093|0.11|1
90954301|NCT04348435|181786925|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.144|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.825||0.8628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.8628
90954302|NCT04348435|181786925|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.605|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94||0.5257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.5257
91082286|NCT01900431|182048629|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26||0.0153|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.99|9.67||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Sarilumab 200 mg q2w vs Placebo|Analysis was performed using MMRM model with treatment groups, randomization strata of VH level (\<4, \>=4), visits and visit-by-treatment groups interaction as fixed categorical effects, as well as, fixed continuous covariate of baseline BCVA.||9.67|1.99|0.0153
91082287|NCT01900431|182048630|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-26.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.2||0.0683|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-50.41|-2.68||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Sarilumab 200 mg q2w vs Placebo|Analysis was performed using MMRM model with treatment groups, randomization strata of VH level (\<4, \>=4), visits and visit-by-treatment groups interaction as fixed categorical effects, as well as, fixed continuous covariate of baseline CRT (Automatic measurement from SD-OCT).||-2.68|-50.41|0.0683
91082288|NCT01900431|182048631|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.55||0.0825|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.374|-0.35||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Sarilumab 200 mg q2w vs Placebo|Analysis was performed using MMRM model with treatment groups, randomization strata of VH level (\<4, \>=4), visits and visit-by-treatment groups interaction as fixed categorical effects, as well as, fixed continuous covariate of baseline CRT (Automatic measurement from SD-OCT).||-0.35|-12.374|0.0825
91082289|NCT01900431|182048634|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.306|3.845||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Sarilumab 200 mg q2w vs Placebo|Analysis was performed using common odds ratio which came from CMH analysis adjusted for randomization stratification factor VH level (VH \>=4 versus VH \<4).||3.845|0.306|1
91082290|NCT00398216|182048691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.003
91082291|NCT00398216|182048691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91082292|NCT00398216|182048691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91082293|NCT00398216|182048691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91082294|NCT00398216|182048694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.250
91082295|NCT00398216|182048694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.122|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.122
91082296|NCT00398216|182048694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.124|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.124
91082297|NCT00398216|182048694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.123|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.123
91082298|NCT01048944|182048695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||P values are adjusted for multiple comparisons except for specific a priori directional predictions.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-model repeated measures multivariate analyses of variance assessed Treatment x Day of abstinence (days 3, 24, 45, and 66) based on changes from pre-quit baseline to values of the four post-quit time points (days 3, 24, 45, and 66).||||<0.05
91082299|NCT01133704|182048703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.7|||Log Rank||Obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment group as the independent variable, stratified by bisphosphonate use (placebo/sipuleucel-T)|||1.70|0.69|0.719
91082300|NCT01133704|182048704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.27||||0.331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.07|||Log Rank||Obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as the independent variable, and stratified by bisphosphonate use (placebo/sipuleucel-T).|||2.07|0.78|0.331
91082301|NCT02207400|182048705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-11.612|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.191|-10.033|||ANCOVA||Difference is Sodium Bicarbonate and Sodium Fluoride Dentifrice minus Sodium Fluoride Dentifrice such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|||-10.033|-13.191|<0.0001
91082302|NCT02207400|182048706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.652|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.738|-0.566|||ANCOVA||Difference is Sodium Bicarbonate and Sodium Fluoride Dentifrice minus Sodium Fluoride Dentifrice such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|||-0.566|-0.738|<0.0001
91082303|NCT02849704|182048712|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||a priori threshold for significance: \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90954303|NCT04348435|181786925|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.403|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.659||0.5467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.5467
91082304|NCT02849704|182048713|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91082305|NCT02849704|182048714|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
91082306|NCT02849704|182048715|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91082307|NCT02849704|182048716|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91082308|NCT02849704|182048717|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91082309|NCT02771860|182048737|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.9||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|16.9|||GEE|||Comparison between groups was done by Generalized Estimation Equations at joint level, accounting for within-patient clustering and adjusted for baseline unbalances. Missing values were imputed according to a predefined imputation model, including randomization group, baseline value and values at other time points available, presence of baseline inflammation, baseline number of affected joints.||16.9|1.0|0.024
91082310|NCT02771860|182048738|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.5|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.50|0.11|<0.001
91082311|NCT02771860|182048739|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.3||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.6|24.0|||GEE|||Comparison between groups was done by Generalized Estimation Equations at joint level, accounting for within-patient clustering and adjusted for baseline unbalances. Missing values were imputed according to a predefined imputation model, including randomization group, baseline value and values at other time points available, presence of baseline inflammation, baseline number of affected joints.||24.0|4.6|0.003
91082312|NCT04304508|182048746|OTHER|Dose-response test by using multiple comparison procedures (MCP) Mod.||||||0.7976|||||||MCP Mod|||Dose-response test||||0.7976
91082313|NCT04304508|182048746|OTHER||Crude incidence ratio|1.044|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8105|1.3478||||||Comparison of the Asundexian 10 mg group versus Placebo group.||1.3478|0.8105|
91082314|NCT04304508|182048746|OTHER||Crude incidence ratio|1.1963|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9281|1.5428||||||Comparison of the Asundexian 20 mg group versus Placebo group.||1.5428|0.9281|
91082315|NCT04304508|182048746|OTHER||Crude incidence ratio|1.0485|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8082|1.3619||||||Comparison of the Asundexian 50 mg group versus Placebo group.||1.3619|0.8082|
91082316|NCT04304508|182048754|OTHER|Cause specific HRs were only calculated if at least 3 events occurred in 1 of the compared groups and at least 1 event in each of the compared treatment groups.|Cox Proportional Hazard|1.724|||=|0.1507|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.924|3.215|||Log Rank|||Comparison of the Asundexian 10 mg group versus Placebo group||3.215|0.924|= 0.1507
90954304|NCT05014568|181786954|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio, log|2.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|4.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Baseline vIGA-AD Score and Age Group|Adjusted logit-based estimate of the common relative risk of success (Tapinarof Cream 1%/Vehicle Cream) over all strata. Multiple imputation p-value is for null hypothesis that the log (Relative Risk) equals 0.|H0: The proportion of subjects who achieve a vIGA-AD score of clear (0) or almost clear (1) and at least a 2-grade reduction from Baseline at Week 8 is equal between tapinarof cream, 1% and vehicle cream; H1: The proportion of subjects who achieve a vIGA-AD score of clear (0) or almost clear (1) and at least a 2-grade reduction from Baseline at Week 8 is different between the tapinarof cream, 1% and vehicle cream.||4.09|1.66|<0.0001
91082317|NCT04304508|182048754|OTHER|Cause specific HRs were only calculated if at least 3 events occurred in 1 of the compared groups and at least 1 event in each of the compared treatment groups.|Cox Proportional Hazard|1.285|||=|0.5339|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.662|2.494|||Log Rank|||Comparison of the Asundexian 20 mg group versus Placebo group||2.494|0.662|= 0.5339
91082318|NCT04304508|182048754|OTHER|Cause specific HRs were only calculated if at least 3 events occurred in 1 of the compared groups and at least 1 event in each of the compared treatment groups.|Cox Proportional Hazard|1.749|||=|0.1401|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.938|3.262|||Log Rank|||Comparison of the Asundexian 50 mg group versus Placebo group||3.262|0.938|= 0.1401
91082319|NCT04304508|182048754|OTHER|Cause specific HRs were only calculated if at least 3 events occurred in 1 of the compared groups and at least 1 event in each of the compared treatment groups.|Cox Proportional Hazard|1.585|||=|0.1653|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.918|2.736|||Log Rank|||Comparison of the Total Asundexian group versus Placebo group||2.736|0.918|= 0.1653
91082320|NCT00885378|182048763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.162||0.1248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.68|2.66|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: post - pre = pretreatment.|Estimate = adjusted mean change for Saxagliptin - adjusted mean change for Placebo.|||2.66|-21.68|0.1248
91082321|NCT00885378|182048764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|25.4|||||Adjusted for baseline.|||25.4|1.1|
91082322|NCT00885378|182048765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|24.7|||||Adjusted for baseline.|||24.7|3.0|
91082323|NCT00885378|182048772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standard Error of the Mean|-0.34||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|-0.1||Between-group comparisons significant at alpha = 0.05, significance testing based on hierarchical testing.|ANCOVA|Adjusted mean difference for saxagliptin groups vs placebo at Week 12(LOCF) was adjusted for baseline.|difference between week t value - baseline value = baseline value + treatment.|||-0.10|-0.58|0.0063
91082324|NCT01393522|182048779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1
91082325|NCT01393522|182048779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.88|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.88
91082326|NCT01393522|182048780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.33|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.33
91082327|NCT01393522|182048781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.75|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.75
91082328|NCT01393522|182048781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.24|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.24
91082329|NCT01393522|182048782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.16
91082330|NCT01393522|182048783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.41|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.41
91082331|NCT01393522|182048784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.09
91082332|NCT01393522|182048785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.78|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.78
91082333|NCT02872909|182048788|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.37|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.54||calculated as \<0.05 for 85% power|t-test, 2 sided|Analysed on log transformed data||Sample size requirement estimation - Preliminary data showed pain scores of 1.25 with ambulatory PDT (n=12) and 5.26 (SD 2.38) for conventional PDT (n=50). Estimated that for 85% power to detect as significant at 5% level a difference in mean pain score in one group of 2cm compared with 4 cm in the other group, assuming two-sided testing, a minimum of 45 subjects needed. We aimed for 50 subjects, with an allocation ratio of 2 (twice as many randomised to ambulatory PDT as conventional PDT)||2.54|0.71|<0.05
91082334|NCT02872909|182048791|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91082335|NCT02187861|182048817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rates|3.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.38|21.23||||||||21.23|-13.38|
91082336|NCT02187861|182048818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rates|1.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.89|19.81||||||||19.81|-15.89|
91082337|NCT02187861|182048819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rates|1.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.07|20.99||||||||20.99|-17.07|
91082338|NCT02187861|182048820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rates|-7.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.01|11.32||||||||11.32|-27.01|
91082339|NCT02187861|182048821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rates|13.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.24|31.69||||||At 6-8 weeks after Cycle 6 Day 1||31.69|-4.24|
91082340|NCT02187861|182048821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rates|3.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.98|20.82||||||At Year 1||20.82|-12.98|
91082341|NCT02187861|182048822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rates|-15.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.87|0.49||||||At 4-10 weeks after Cycle 6 Day 1||0.49|-31.87|
91082342|NCT02187861|182048822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rates|-7.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.56|6.87||||||At Year 1||6.87|-22.56|
91082343|NCT02187861|182048828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.27|||||HR was calculated using Cox regression.|Stratified Analysis: Strata were disease burden and DOR of prior cancer therapy.||1.27|0.38|
91082344|NCT02187861|182048828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.4|||||HR was calculated using Cox regression.|Unstratified Analysis||1.40|0.43|
91082345|NCT02187861|182048830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.24|||||HR was calculated using Cox regression.|Stratified Analysis: Strata were disease burden and PFS of prior cancer therapy.||1.24|0.38|
91082346|NCT02187861|182048830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.36|||||HR was calculated using Cox regression.|Unstratified Analysis||1.36|0.43|
91082347|NCT02187861|182048832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.24|||||HR was calculated using Cox regression.|Stratified Analysis: Strata were disease burden and EFS of prior cancer therapy.||1.24|0.38|
91082348|NCT02187861|182048832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.36|||||HR was calculated using Cox regression.|Unstratified Analysis||1.36|0.43|
91082349|NCT02187861|182048834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|5.37|||||HR was calculated using Cox regression.|Stratified Analysis: Strata were disease burden and OS of prior cancer therapy.||5.37|0.04|
91082350|NCT02187861|182048834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|5.63|||||HR was calculated using Cox regression.|Unstratified Analysis||5.63|0.05|
91082351|NCT00264290|182048853|OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.007
91082352|NCT04472494|182048858|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.9297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|4.49|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Chi-Square test|||||4.49|0.26|0.9297
90954305|NCT05014568|181786955|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio, log|2.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|3.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by vIGA-AD score at Baseline (vIGA-AD scores of 3 or 4) and age group (2-6 yrs, 7-11 yrs, 12-17 yrs, 18+ yrs)|Adjusted logit-based estimate of the common relative risk of success (Tapinarof Cream 1%/Vehicle Cream) over all strata. Multiple imputation p-value is for null hypothesis that the log (Relative Risk) equals 0.|||3.00|1.57|<0.0001
91082353|NCT04472494|182048859|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference from Placebo|0.64||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|1.82|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.82|-0.55|0.7400
90954306|NCT05014568|181786956|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-6.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.657|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.69|-4.66|||ANCOVA|age\*vIGA cohort and treatment as categorical covariates, and baseline %BSA as a continuous covariate||||-4.66|-7.69|<0.0001
91082354|NCT04472494|182048860|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of Difference|-0.1||||0.9684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.55|20.34|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Chi-Square test||Estimate of Difference is based on minimum risk weights|||20.34|-20.55|0.9684
91082355|NCT04472494|182048861|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.8504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|3.97|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.97|0.18|0.8504
91082356|NCT04472494|182048862|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.29||||0.2724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|9.82|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||9.82|0.53|0.2724
91082357|NCT04472494|182048862|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of difference|12.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.61|36.17|||||||Estimate of difference is based on minimum risk weights|36.17|-10.61|
91082358|NCT04472494|182048863|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.03||||0.4734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|12.64|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||12.64|0.33|0.4734
91082359|NCT04472494|182048863|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of difference|5.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.71|27.57|||||Estimate of difference is based on minimum risk weights|||27.57|-16.71|
91082360|NCT02087943|182048936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-15.01||||0.1308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.52|4.5||Based on an analysis of covariance model with the percentage change from baseline as the response variable and the treatment group and Baseline EASI score stratification (≤ 20, \> 20) as factors.|ANCOVA|||||4.50|-34.52|0.1308
91082361|NCT02087943|182048936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-20.6||||0.0347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.7|-1.5||Based on an analysis of covariance model with the percentage change from Baseline as the response variable and the treatment group and Baseline EASI score stratification (≤ 20, \> 20) as factors.|ANCOVA|||||-1.50|-39.70|0.0347
91082362|NCT02087943|182048937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference in Proportion|-2.7||||0.4938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|4.8||Adjusted treatment differences in proportions using the weighted average of the treatment differences across the stratum of baseline EASI score stratification (≤ 20, \> 20) with, Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||2-sided 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||4.8|-10.2|0.4938
91082363|NCT02087943|182048937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference in Proportion|8.0||||0.1368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|18.2||Adjusted treatment differences in proportions using the weighted average of the treatment differences across the stratum of baseline EASI score stratification (≤ 20, \> 20) with, CMH weights.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||2-sided 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||18.2|-2.3|0.1368
91082364|NCT02087943|182048938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference in Proportion|-1.5||||0.8589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|14.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Adjusted differences in proportions was the weighted average of the treatment differences across the stratum of baseline EASI score stratification (≤ 20, \> 20) with the CMH weights.|||14.9|-18.0|0.8589
91082365|NCT02087943|182048938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference in Proportion|9.9||||0.2476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|26.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Adjusted differences in proportions was the weighted average of the treatment differences across the stratum of baseline EASI score stratification (≤ 20, \> 20) with the CMH weights.|||26.6|-6.7|0.2476
91082366|NCT02087943|182048939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-5.17||||0.5286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.34|10.99|||ANCOVA||Based on an analysis of covariance model with the percentage change from baseline as the response variable, treatment group and baseline EASI stratification (≤ 20, \> 20) as factors, and the baseline average weekly pruritus NRS score as a covariate.|||10.99|-21.34|0.5286
91082367|NCT02087943|182048939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-4.17||||0.6092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.22|11.88|||ANCOVA||Based on an analysis of covariance model with the percentage change from baseline as the response variable, treatment group and baseline EASI stratification (≤ 20, \> 20) as factors, and the baseline average weekly pruritus NRS score as a covariate.|||11.88|-20.22|0.6092
91082368|NCT01690299|182048942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|27.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.9|40.1||The two-sided p-value is from a CMH test stratified by the BMI at screening.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The confidence interval (CI) is weighted using CMH weights according to the number of participants in the two strata.|||40.1|14.9|< 0.0001
91082369|NCT01690299|182048943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|35.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.3|48.5||The two-sided p-value is from a CMH test stratified by the BMI at screening.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The confidence interval (CI) is weighted using CMH weights according to the number of participants in the two strata.|||48.5|23.3|<0.0001
91082370|NCT01690299|182048944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|18.0||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.4|27.7||The p-value is from a CMH test stratified by the BMI (Body Mass Index) at screening.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The p-value is from a CMH test stratified by the BMI at screening.|The Confidence Interval (CI) was weighted using CMH weights according to the number of participants in the two strata.|||27.7|8.4|0.0005
91082371|NCT01690299|182048944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|25.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.8|35.5||The p-value is from a CMH test stratified by the BMI (Body Mass Index) at screening.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Confidence Interval (CI) was weighted using CMH weights according to the number of participants in the two strata.||||35.5|14.8|<0.0001
91082372|NCT01690299|182048945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Mean|-31.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.33|-19.46|||ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA model with treatment and screening BMI category as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||||-19.46|-43.33|<0.0001
91082373|NCT01690299|182048945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Mean|-39.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.78|-27.92|||ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA model with treatment and screening BMI category as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||||-27.92|-51.78|<0.0001
91082374|NCT01690299|182048946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|29.4||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.9|43.9||The two-sided p-value is from a CMH test stratified by the BMI at screening.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The confidence interval (CI) is weighted using CMH weights according to the number of participants in the two strata.|||43.9|14.9|0.0002
91082375|NCT01690299|182048946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|49.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.9|62.7||The two-sided p-value is from a CMH test stratified by the BMI at screening.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The confidence interval (CI) is weighted using CMH weights according to the number of participants in the two strata.|||62.7|36.9|<0.0001
91082376|NCT01690299|182048947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Mean|-4.48|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.82|-2.14|||ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA model with treatment and screening BMI category as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||||-2.14|-6.82|<0.0001
91082377|NCT01690299|182048947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Mean|-3.94||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.27|-1.6|||ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA model with treatment and screening BMI category as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||||-1.60|-6.27|0.0004
91082378|NCT01690299|182048948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Mean|0.93||||0.7112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|3.9|||ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA model with treatment and screening BMI category as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||||3.90|-2.05|0.7112
91082379|NCT01690299|182048948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Mean|2.22||||0.1719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|5.19|||ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA model with treatment and screening BMI category as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||||5.19|-0.75|0.1719
91082380|NCT01690299|182048949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|18.1||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.6|28.6||The two-sided p-value is from a CMH test stratified by the BMI at screening.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The confidence interval (CI) is weighted using CMH weights according to the number of participants in the two strata.|||28.6|7.6|0.0011
91082381|NCT01690299|182048949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|16.7||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|26.9||The two-sided p-value is from a CMH test stratified by the BMI at screening.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The confidence interval (CI) is weighted using CMH weights according to the number of participants in the two strata.|||26.9|6.5|0.0021
91082382|NCT01882803|182048983|OTHER||||||<=|0.0001||||||'\<=' represents '≤'|Exact Binomial Test|The p-value was calculated by 1-sided exact binomial test with the null hypothesis that ORR ≤30%.||ORR was tested against the null (≤30%) by 1-sided exact binomial test at 0.025 level.||||<=0.0001
91082383|NCT03066778|182048996|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.00069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.88|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by platinum chemotherapy, ECOG, and LDH|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by platinum chemotherapy, ECOG, and LDH|||0.88|0.60|0.00069
91082384|NCT03066778|182048997|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.01643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.98|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by platinum chemotherapy, ECOG, and LDH|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by platinum chemotherapy, ECOG, and LDH|||0.98|0.64|0.01643
91082385|NCT03066778|182048998|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|8.9||||0.0227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|17.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen|One-sided p-value for testing. H0: difference in percent = 0 versus H1: difference in percent \> 0.|Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by platinum chemotherapy, ECOG, and LDH. Cisplatin, ECOG 0, LDH ≤ULN and Cisplatin, ECOG 0, LDH \>ULN were combined into one stratum because of small sample size|||17.4|0.2|0.02270
91082386|NCT03066778|182049003|OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|4.43||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|8.66|||Log Rank|||||8.66|0.21|0.040
91082387|NCT03066778|182049006|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.14|||Log Rank|Two-sided p-value based on stratified log-rank test|Based on Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by platinum chemotherapy ECOG, and LDH. Cisplatin, ECOG 0, LDH ≤ULN and Cisplatin, ECOG 0, LDH \>ULN were combined into one stratum because of small sample size|||1.14|0.56|0.208
91082388|NCT00551525|182049008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Significance level 0.05, two-sided test|binomial proportion|||||||<0.001
91082389|NCT00551525|182049011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.984|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.063||||||Modeling the association of age with the occurrence of any acute radiotherapy-related adverse event, adjusting for clinical T-stage (pT2 vs. pT3 \[reference level\]), baseline PSA, and Gleason score (\<8 vs. 8-10\[reference level\]).||1.063|0.910|
91082390|NCT00551525|182049011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.169||||||Modeling the association of baseline PSA with the occurrence of any acute radiotherapy-related adverse event, adjusting for clinical T-stage (pT2 vs. pT3 \[reference level\]), Gleason score (\<8 vs. 8-10\[reference level\]), and age.||1.169|0.890|
90893254|NCT01212770|181651334|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|13.0||||0.0134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|23.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Two-sided p-value based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusting for baseline DMARD use.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|Secondary endpoints from the placebo-controlled period (Weeks 16 and 24) were analyzed in a hierarchical fashion to control the Type I error rate as described above.||23.1|3.0|0.0134
90954307|NCT05014568|181786957|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio, log|3.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.98|7.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Baseline vIGA-AD Score and Age Group|Adjusted logit-based estimate of the common relative risk of success (Tapinarof Cream 1%/Vehicle Cream) over all strata. Multiple imputation p-value is for null hypothesis that the log (Relative Risk) equals 0.|||7.09|1.98|<0.0001
91082391|NCT00551525|182049011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.307|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.364|4.697||||||Modeling the association of clinical T-stage (pT2 vs. pT3 \[reference level\]) with the occurrence of any acute radiotherapy-related adverse event, adjusting for baseline PSA, Gleason score (\<8 vs. 8-10\[reference level\]), and age.||4.697|0.364|
91082392|NCT00551525|182049011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.659|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.217|2.006||||||Modeling the association of Gleason score (\<8 vs. 8-10\[reference level\]) with the occurrence of any acute radiotherapy-related adverse event, adjusting for clinical T-stage (pT2 vs. pT3 \[reference level\]), baseline PSA, and age.||2.006|0.217|
91082393|NCT00519584|182049013|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.39|||Log Rank||Ropivacaine/dex vs. Ropivacaine/saline|||0.39|0.08|<0.001
91082394|NCT00519584|182049013|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.83|||Log Rank||bupivacaine/dex vs. bupivacaine/Saline|||0.83|0.23|<0.001
91082395|NCT00519584|182049014|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.001
91082396|NCT00519584|182049014|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.001
91082397|NCT00519584|182049015|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||adjusted significance level is 0.025|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91082398|NCT00519584|182049015|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.005
91082399|NCT00519584|182049016|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29||||||adjusted significance level = 0.025|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.29
91082400|NCT00519584|182049016|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15||||||adjusted significance level = 0.025|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.15
91082401|NCT05259917|182049038|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Gehan score transformation test|||"Gehan score transformation test:~KVD900 300 mg vs Placebo"||||<0.0001
91082402|NCT05259917|182049038|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0013|||||||Gehan score transformation test|||"Gehan score transformation test:~KVD900 600 mg vs Placebo"||||0.0013
91082403|NCT05259917|182049039|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0036|||||||Gehan score transformation test|||"Gehan score transformation test:~KVD900 300 mg vs Placebo"||||0.0036
91082404|NCT05259917|182049039|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0032|||||||Gehan score transformation test|||"Gehan score transformation test:~KVD900 600 mg vs Placebo"||||0.0032
91082405|NCT05259917|182049040|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0022|||||||Gehan score transformation test|||"Gehan score transformation test:~KVD900 300 mg vs Placebo"||||0.0022
91082406|NCT05259917|182049040|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Gehan score transformation test|||"Gehan score transformation test:~KVD900 600 mg vs Placebo"||||<0.0001
91082407|NCT00856843|182049066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in success rates|8.8||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|16.8|||Chi-squared|||||16.8|0.9|0.038
91082408|NCT00856843|182049067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.010
91082409|NCT00856843|182049068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.020
91082410|NCT00856843|182049069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.644|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.644
91082411|NCT00856843|182049070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.763|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.763
91082412|NCT00856843|182049071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.173|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.173
91082413|NCT00856843|182049072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.004
91082414|NCT00856843|182049073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91082415|NCT00856843|182049074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.005
91082416|NCT00856843|182049075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.013
91082417|NCT00856843|182049076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.283|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.283
91082418|NCT01738191|182049084|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25||||||two sided|Global Statistical Test|df=28||The primary comparison between ATM and placebo used O'Brien's Global Statistical Test (GST) to analyze change from baseline to 10 weeks for the set of neuropsychological measures included in the primary efficacy outcome.||||0.25
91082419|NCT02798354|182049096|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|5.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||Fitted by generalized mixed-effects model with potential clustering effects of practices and months taken into account; adjusted for age, sex, insurance, and wave|||5.3|2.4|<0.0001
91082420|NCT02798354|182049097|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.3|20.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Fitted by generalized mixed-effects model with potential clustering effects of practices and months taken into account; adjusted for age, sex, insurance, and wave|||20|12.3|<0.0001
91082421|NCT02798354|182049098|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.1||||0.302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|3.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Fitted by generalized mixed-effects model with potential clustering effects of practices and months taken into account; adjusted for age, sex, insurance, lab test sent, and wave|||3.1|-1.0|0.302
91082422|NCT02798354|182049099|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|26.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.4|30.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||Fitted by generalized mixed-effects model with potential clustering effects of practices and months taken into account; adjusted for age, sex, insurance, and wave|||30.7|22.4|<0.0001
91082423|NCT02798354|182049100|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.2|24.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Fitted by generalized mixed-effects model with potential clustering effects of practices and months taken into account; adjusted for age, sex, insurance, and wave|||24.1|16.2|<0.0001
91082424|NCT02798354|182049101|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.3|17.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||Fitted by generalized mixed-effects model with potential clustering effects of practices and months taken into account; adjusted for age, sex, insurance, and wave|||17.7|10.3|<0.0001
91082425|NCT02798354|182049102|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.1||||0.922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||Fitted by generalized mixed-effects model with potential clustering effects of practices and months taken into account; adjusted for age, sex, insurance, lab test sent, and wave|||1.9|-1.8|0.922
91082426|NCT00350779|182049113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.72|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.87|<|0.001||95.0|-0.95|-0.49|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment; baseline; prior anti-hyperglycemic therapy||||-0.49|-0.95|<0.001
91082427|NCT00350779|182049114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-19.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|31.3|<|0.001||95.0|-27.2|-10.9|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment; baseline; prior anti-hyperglycemic therapy||||-10.9|-27.2|<0.001
91082428|NCT00350779|182049115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-37.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|43.7|<|0.001||95.0|-50.2|-25.5|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment; baseline; prior anti-hyperglycemic therapy||||-25.5|-50.2|<0.001
91082429|NCT00350779|182049116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.77|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.04|<|0.001||95.0|-1.04|-0.5|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment; baseline; prior anti-hyperglycemic therapy||||-0.50|-1.04|<0.001
91082430|NCT00350779|182049117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-17.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|34.6|<|0.001||95.0|-26.4|-8.4|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment; baseline; prior anti-hyperglycemic therapy||||-8.4|-26.4|<0.001
91082431|NCT00350779|182049118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-34.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|51.0|<|0.001||95.0|-48.4|-19.9|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment; baseline; prior anti-hyperglycemic therapy||||-19.9|-48.4|<0.001
91082432|NCT00528372|182049119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1522||0.0207||||||Tested at alpha=0.019, applying the Dunnett adjustment|ANCOVA|||||||0.0207
91082433|NCT00528372|182049119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1541||0.0005||||||Tested at alpha=0.019, applying the Dunnett adjustment|ANCOVA|||||||0.0005
91082434|NCT00528372|182049119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1518|<|0.0001||||||Tested at alpha=0.019, applying the Dunnett adjustment|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91082435|NCT00528372|182049119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from placebo|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1536|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.3||||||||-0.30|-0.91|
91082436|NCT00528372|182049119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from placebo|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1527|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|-0.26||||||||-0.26|-0.86|
91082437|NCT00528372|182049119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from placebo|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1474|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.27||||||||-0.27|-0.85|
91082438|NCT00528372|182049120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.734||||||||Sequential testing procedures were used, and no test was performed for this comparison due to the fact that the previous comparison was not significant.|||Week 24|||||
91082439|NCT00528372|182049120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.806||0.0007||||||Statistically significant according to hierarchical testing procedure (p\<0.05)|ANCOVA||Week 24|||||0.0007
91082440|NCT00528372|182049120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.626|<|0.0001||||||Statistically significant according to hierarchical testing procedure (p\<0.05)|ANCOVA||Week 24|||||<0.0001
91082441|NCT00528372|182049120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from placebo|-21.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.686|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.6|-10.3||||||||-10.3|-32.6|
91082442|NCT00528372|182049120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from placebo|-23.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.711|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.4|-12.0||||||||-12.0|-34.4|
91082443|NCT00528372|182049120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from placebo|-25.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.567|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.4|-14.5||||||||-14.5|-36.4|
91082444|NCT00528372|182049122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6307||||||||Sequential testing procedures were used, and no test was performed for this comparison due to the fact that the previous comparison was not significant.||||||||
90959039|NCT01620255|181798206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.94||||0.0543|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.737|-0.137|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with model terms: treatment group, baseline, status of anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) therapy experience.||PF-00547659 7.5 mg vs placebo, locally read change||-0.137|-1.737|0.0543
91082445|NCT00528372|182049122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6388||0.3101||||||Tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05.|ANCOVA|||||||0.3101
91082446|NCT00528372|182049122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6223||0.1189||||||Tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05.|ANCOVA|||||||0.1189
91082447|NCT00528372|182049122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from placebo|-1.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6254|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.86|-0.41||||||||-0.41|-2.86|
91082448|NCT00528372|182049122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from placebo|-1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6279|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-0.13||||||||-0.13|-2.60|
91082449|NCT00528372|182049122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from placebo|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6103|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|0.33||||||||0.33|-2.06|
91082450|NCT00528372|182049124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.324||||||||||||||||
91082451|NCT00528372|182049124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.342||||||||||||||||
91082452|NCT00528372|182049124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.176||||||||||||||||
91082453|NCT00528372|182049124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from placebo|-12.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.223|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.3|-3.7||||||||-3.7|-20.3|
91082454|NCT00528372|182049124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from placebo|-16.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.321|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.7|-7.7||||||||-7.7|-24.7|
91082455|NCT00528372|182049124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from placebo|-17.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.228|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.2|-9.5||||||||-9.5|-26.2|
91082456|NCT00528372|182049126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage difference|9.7||||||||||||||||||
91082457|NCT00528372|182049126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage difference|12.6||||||||||||||||||
91082458|NCT00528372|182049126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage difference|19.2||||||||||||||||||
91082459|NCT00528372|182049126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from placebo|19.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|34.7||||||||34.7|4.9|
91082460|NCT00528372|182049126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from placebo|12.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|27.3||||||||27.3|-2.5|
91082461|NCT00528372|182049126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from placebo|19.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|34.5||||||||34.5|5.3|
91082462|NCT00528372|182049127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6979||||||||||||||||
91082463|NCT00528372|182049127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6828||||||||||||||||
91082464|NCT00528372|182049127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6404||||||||||||||||
91082465|NCT00528372|182049127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from placebo|-1.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7394|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.33|-0.42||||||||-0.42|-3.33|
91082466|NCT00528372|182049127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from placebo|-1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7257|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.69|0.16||||||||0.16|-2.69|
91082467|NCT00528372|182049127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from placebo|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6103|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|0.33||||||||0.33|-2.06|
91082468|NCT00528372|182049128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.175||||||||||||||||
91082469|NCT00528372|182049128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.175||||||||||||||||
91082470|NCT00528372|182049128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1708||||||||||||||||
91082471|NCT00528372|182049128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from placebo|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1798|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.25||||||||-0.25|-0.95|
91082472|NCT00528372|182049128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from placebo|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1741|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.21||||||||-0.21|-0.89|
91082473|NCT00528372|182049128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from placebo|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1704|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|-0.25||||||||-0.25|-0.92|
91082474|NCT00528372|182049129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.526||||||||||||||||
91082475|NCT00528372|182049129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.761||||||||||||||||
91082476|NCT00528372|182049129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.334||||||||||||||||
91082477|NCT00528372|182049129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from placebo|18.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.5|32.1||||||||32.1|5.5|
91082478|NCT00528372|182049129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from placebo|11.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|24.4||||||||24.4|-1.8|
91082479|NCT00528372|182049129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from placebo|11.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|23.9||||||||23.9|-1.0|
91082480|NCT00528372|182049130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.736||||||||||||||||
91082481|NCT00528372|182049130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7371||||||||||||||||
91082482|NCT00528372|182049130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7078||||||||||||||||
91082483|NCT00528372|182049130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from placebo|-1.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7394|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.33|-0.42||||||||-0.42|-3.33|
91082484|NCT00528372|182049130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from placebo|-1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7257|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.69|0.16||||||||0.16|-2.69|
91082485|NCT00528372|182049130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from placebo|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7135||||95.0|-2.37|0.44||||||||0.44|-2.37|
91082486|NCT01289574|182049136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1919|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) row mean score statistics, adjusting for investigational site||||||0.1919
91082487|NCT01289574|182049137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.061|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0610
91082488|NCT01289574|182049138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0857|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0857
91082489|NCT02432144|182049140|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-62.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.946|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.98|-52.59||P-values are from generalized estimating equation (GEE) model including baseline value and visit (in this study) as a categorical variable. The covariance structure within subjects is assumed to be exchangeable.|GEE model|||Week 0||-52.59|-71.98|< 0.0001
91082490|NCT02432144|182049140|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-67.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.224|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.49|-60.86||P-values are from a GEE model including baseline value and visit (in this study) as a categorical variable. The covariance structure within subjects is assumed to be exchangeable.|GEE model|||Week 12||-60.86|-73.49|< 0.0001
91082491|NCT02432144|182049140|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-64.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.016|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.99|-56.24||P-values are from a GEE model including baseline value and visit (in this study) as a categorical variable. The covariance structure within subjects is assumed to be exchangeable.|GEE model|||Week 24||-56.24|-71.99|< 0.0001
91082492|NCT02432144|182049140|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-60.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.992|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.54|-49.06||P-values are from a GEE model including baseline value and visit (in this study) as a categorical variable. The covariance structure within subjects is assumed to be exchangeable.|GEE model|||Week 36||-49.06|-72.54|< 0.0001
91082493|NCT02432144|182049140|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-57.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.87|-43.82||P-values are from a GEE model including baseline value and visit (in this study) as a categorical variable. The covariance structure within subjects is assumed to be exchangeable.|GEE model|||Week 48||-43.82|-71.87|< 0.0001
91082494|NCT01451554|182049163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0||||2 tailed t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||Data were compared between groups using the 2 sample T-test.||||0.06
91082495|NCT01451554|182049164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Data were compared between groups using a 2 sample T-test.||||0.31
91082496|NCT02371668|182049188|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.31
91082497|NCT02371668|182049189|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.114|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.114
91082498|NCT02371668|182049190|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4989|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4989
91082499|NCT02371668|182049191|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1412|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1412
91082500|NCT02371668|182049192|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.137|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.137
91082501|NCT02371668|182049193|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2445|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2445
91082502|NCT02371668|182049194|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.045|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.045
91082503|NCT02371668|182049195|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.230
91082504|NCT02371668|182049196|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.646|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.646
91082505|NCT02362425|182049199|SUPERIORITY|An a priori power calculation, with power at 80% and a two-sided α of 0·05, determined that n=76 participants (n=38 per group) would be required to detect a statistically significant post-intervention difference in plasma glutathione (GSH) concentration between NAC and placebo groups. After the primary endpoint was changed, re-evaluation of the sample size determined that a larger sample (total n=182) would be required. As per protocol, the study was completed at this time.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.6|||Regression, Linear|Model comparing 12 m corrected 15-F2t-isoprostane conc. controlling for pre-intervention value. Investigated covariates: smoking and drinking status.||Null Hypothesis: In RYR1-RM myopathy patients, there will be no statistically significant difference in corrected 15-F2t-isoprostane concentration and/or corrected 15=f2t-Isop:PGR2alpha ratio between NAC and placebo groups at month 12, after controlling for established a priori confounders.||1.6|-1.4|0.88
91082506|NCT02362425|182049200|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.9||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|53.4||Model controlled for six-month(pre-intervention) distance and treatment group. Investigated covariates: height|Regression, Linear|||In RYR1-RM myopathy patients, there will be no statistically significant difference in 6MWT (six minute walk test) total distance between NAC and placebo groups at month 12, after controlling for established a priori confounders.||53.4|-5.5|.11
90893255|NCT01212770|181651335|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.8||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|-2.9|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline DMARD use and ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||Secondary endpoints from the placebo-controlled period (Weeks 16 and 24) were analyzed in a hierarchical fashion to control the Type I error rate as described above.||-2.9|-12.8|0.0021
91082507|NCT02362425|182049201|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|0.7|||Regression, Linear|||||0.7|-3.6|0.14
91082508|NCT02362425|182049202|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.3|-0.5|0.62
91082509|NCT02362425|182049203|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.0|-1.1|0.05
91082510|NCT02362425|182049204|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.6|-2.1|0.25
91082511|NCT02362425|182049205|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.0|-2.1|0.05
91082512|NCT02362425|182049206|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.4||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|7.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||7.3|-0.6|0.09
91082513|NCT02362425|182049207|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|2.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.0|-1.3|0.69
91082514|NCT02362425|182049208|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|1.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.1|-3.5|0.31
91082515|NCT02362425|182049209|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|3.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.0|-0.8|0.22
91082516|NCT02362425|182049210|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|2.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.4|-2.6|0.93
91082517|NCT02362425|182049211|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.8|-1.3|0.66
91082518|NCT02362425|182049212|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|4.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.6|-0.4|0.09
91082519|NCT02362425|182049213|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.2||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|9.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||9.0|-0.7|0.09
91082520|NCT02362425|182049214|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.5||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|2.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.4|-13.4|0.15
91082521|NCT02362425|182049215|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.4||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|1.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.0|-13.7|0.08
91082522|NCT02362425|182049216|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.27||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.1|47.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||47.5|-80.1|0.39
91082523|NCT02362425|182049217|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.0||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.5|39.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||39.5|-59.5|0.57
91082524|NCT02362425|182049218|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|0.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.6|-5.0|0.12
91082525|NCT02362425|182049219|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|2.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.7|-3.6|0.76
91082526|NCT02362425|182049220|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|3.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.5|-2.5|0.72
91082527|NCT02362425|182049221|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|2.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.7|-1.8|0.70
91082528|NCT02362425|182049222|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|3.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.3|-2.8|0.88
91082529|NCT02362425|182049223|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|15.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||||15.2|-10.3|0.61
91082530|NCT02362425|182049224|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|8.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||8.5|-7.4|0.87
91082531|NCT02362425|182049225|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.5||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.9|13.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||||13.9|-38.9|0.28
91082532|NCT02688764|182049268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1465||||||0.05 level of significance|t-test, 2 sided|||Results are obtained from a linear mixed model which includes change in serum phosphorus levels from baseline to the end of Stage 1 as dependent variable and treatment, baseline serum phosphorus, age (in categories) at randomisation, region (Non-US/US) and gender as fixed effects.||||0.1465
91082533|NCT02688764|182049271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0872||||||0.05 level of significance|t-test, 2 sided|||Results are obtained from a linear mixed model which includes change in serum phosphorus levels from baseline to the end of Stage 1 as dependent variable and treatment, baseline serum phosphorus, age (in categories) at randomisation, region (Non-US/US) and gender as fixed effects||||0.0872
91082534|NCT02688764|182049272|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6207||||||0.05 level of significance|t-test, 2 sided|||Results are obtained from a linear mixed model which includes change in serum phosphorus levels from baseline to the end of Stage 2 as dependent variable and treatment, baseline serum phosphorus, age (in categories) at randomisation, region (Non-US/US) and gender as fixed effects.||||0.6207
91082535|NCT02688764|182049272|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3226||||||0.05 level of significance|t-test, 2 sided|||Results are obtained from a linear mixed model which includes change in serum phosphorus levels from baseline to the end of Stage 2 as dependent variable and treatment, baseline serum phosphorus, age (in categories) at randomisation, region (Non-US/US) and gender as fixed effects.||||0.3226
91082536|NCT02688764|182049290|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5682||||||0.05 level of significance|t-test, 2 sided|||"Age group of \>=2 years to \<6 years~Results are obtained from a linear mixed model which includes change in serum phosphorus levels from baseline to the end of Stage 1 as dependent variable and treatment, baseline serum phosphorus, age (in categories) at randomisation, region (Non-US/US) and gender as fixed effects."||||0.5682
91082537|NCT02688764|182049290|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2271||||||0.05 level of significance|t-test, 2 sided|||"Age group of \>=6 years to \<12 years~Results are obtained from a linear mixed model which includes change in serum phosphorus levels from baseline to the end of Stage 1 as dependent variable and treatment, baseline serum phosphorus, age (in categories) at randomisation, region (Non-US/US) and gender as fixed effects."||||0.2271
91082538|NCT02688764|182049290|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022||||||0.05 level of significance|t-test, 2 sided|||"Age group of \>=12 years to \<=18 years~Results are obtained from a linear mixed model which includes change in serum phosphorus levels from baseline to the end of Stage 1 as dependent variable and treatment, baseline serum phosphorus, age (in categories) at randomisation, region (Non-US/US) and gender as fixed effects."||||0.0220
91082539|NCT02688764|182049291|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0058||||||0.05 level of significance|t-test, 2 sided|||"Group of SP at baseline above Age Related Normal Range~Results are obtained from a linear mixed model which includes change in serum phosphorus levels from baseline to the end of Stage 1 as dependent variable and treatment, baseline serum phosphorus, age (in categories) at randomisation, region (Non-US/US) and gender as fixed effects."||||0.0058
91082540|NCT02688764|182049291|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5801||||||0.05 level of significance|t-test, 2 sided|||"Group of SP at baseline below or within Age Related Normal Range~Results are obtained from a linear mixed model which includes change in serum phosphorus levels from baseline to the end of Stage 1 as dependent variable and treatment, baseline serum phosphorus, age (in categories) at randomisation, region (Non-US/US) and gender as fixed effects."||||0.5801
91082541|NCT02579382|182049292|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.107||||0.227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.067|0.282||MMRM model included treatment, baseline ALT level, HBeAg baseline status, baseline HBsAg, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect and visit as repeated measurement.|MMRM|||||0.282|-0.067|0.227
91082542|NCT02579382|182049292|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.018||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.156|0.191||MMRM model included treatment, baseline ALT level, HBeAg baseline status, baseline HBsAg, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect and visit as repeated measurement.|MMRM|||||0.191|-0.156|0.840
91082543|NCT02579382|182049292|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.127||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.047|0.301||MMRM model included treatment, baseline ALT level, HBeAg baseline status, baseline HBsAg, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect and visit as repeated measurement.|MMRM|||||0.301|-0.047|0.151
91082544|NCT03026283|182049315|OTHER|||||||1||||||In order to evaluate the significance of sensitivity and specificity findings, we implement McNemar's test comparing sensitivity and specificity for CCTA alone and FFR-CT, assuming conditional dependence.|Chi-squared|||Reference test is positive (test of sensitivity).||||1.00
91082545|NCT03026283|182049315|OTHER||||||<|0.0047||||||In order to evaluate the significance of sensitivity and specificity findings, we implement Mcnemar's test comparing sensitive and pscificity for CCTA and FFR-CT assuming dependence.|Chi-squared|McNemar's chi-squared = 8.00||Reference test is Negative||||<0.0047
91082546|NCT03746405|182049349|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.15|||=|0.03|TWO_SIDED|||||Give the limited sample size, this p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The threshold for statistical significant was p \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Hypothesis: Active rTMS applied over the node in the medial prefrontal cortex the most strongly negatively connected to the right amygdala will decrease amygdala BOLD activation compared to sham rTMS||||= 0.03
91082547|NCT03479008|182049350|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical significance level was set at p \<0.05 for all tests.|ANOVA|||This presents the p value for the thigh comparison baseline to during stimulation||||<0.0001
91082548|NCT03479008|182049350|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical significance level was set at p \< 0.05 for all tests.|ANOVA|||This presents the p value for the calf comparisons between baseline and during stimulation.||||<0.0001
91082549|NCT03479008|182049350|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance level was set at p \< 0.05 for all tests.|ANOVA|||This statistical analysis presents the data for the biceps comparisons between baseline and during stimulation.||||<0.001
91082550|NCT03479008|182049351|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||post-hoc analysis|with Bonferroni correction||The P value below applies to the VO2||||<0.0001
91082551|NCT03479008|182049351|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||post-hoc analysis|with Bonferroni correction||This p value applies to the VCO2||||<0.001
91082552|NCT03479008|182049352|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||post-hoc analysis|with Bonferroni correction||||||<0.0001
91082553|NCT03479008|182049353|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||post-hoc analysis|with Bonferroni correction||||||<0.0001
91082554|NCT03479008|182049354|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.094|||||||post-hoc analysis|with Bonferroni correction||||||0.094
91082555|NCT03479008|182049355|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011||||||Statistical significance level was set at p \<0.05 for all tests.|ANOVA|||Comparison of Vibration to Baseline for Muscle bellies of Soleus (SO)||||0.011
91082556|NCT03479008|182049355|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||ANOVA|Statistical significance level was set at p \< 0.05 for all tests.||Comparison of Vibration to Baseline for tibialis anterior (TA)||||0.012
91082557|NCT03479008|182049355|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||Statistical significance level was set at p \< 0.05 for all tests.|ANOVA|||Comparison of Vibration to Baseline for gastrocnemius lateralis (GL)||||0.003
91082558|NCT03479008|182049355|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance level was set at p \< 0.05 for all tests.|ANOVA|||Comparison of Vibration to Baseline for vastus medialis (VM)||||<0.001
91082559|NCT03479008|182049355|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical significance level was set at p \< 0.05 for all tests.|ANOVA|||Comparison of Vibration to Baseline for vastus lateralis (VL)||||<0.0001
91082560|NCT03479008|182049355|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59||||||Statistical significance level was set at p \<0.05 for all tests.|ANOVA|||Comparison of Vibration to Baseline for rectus femoris (RF)||||0.59
91082561|NCT03479008|182049355|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86||||||Statistical significance level was set at p \< 0.05 for all tests.|ANOVA|||Comparison of Vibration to Baseline for semitendinosus (ST)||||0.86
91082562|NCT03479008|182049355|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006||||||Statistical significance level was set at p \< 0.05 for all tests.|ANOVA|||Comparison of Vibration to Baseline for deltoideus medius||||0.006
91082563|NCT00412932|182049356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments|one-sample t-test|||The sample size of this study was not based on the statistical power consideration and was considered as sufficient for the evaluation of the efficacy and safety of the proposed olmesartan medoxomil-based treatment regimen.||||<0.0001
91082564|NCT00412932|182049357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||One-sample t-test|||||||<0.0001
91082565|NCT00412932|182049358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments. This P-Value applies to both the daytime and nighttime periods.|one-sample t-test|||||||<0.0001
91082566|NCT00412932|182049359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments. The P-Value of \<0.0001 applies to both daytime and nighttime periods.|one-sample t-test|||||||<0.0001
91082567|NCT00929994|182049369|OTHER||||||=|0.06||||||A Bonferroni correction for multiple testing was used for post hoc contrasts. Assumption of sphericity was met for all analyses determined by the Mauchley test of sphericity (all \>.05).|ANOVA|||With 1 group and 3 test times, a repeated measures analysis of variance of 6MWD, was utilized between the 3 test times 0, 3, and 6 months). A Bonferroni correction for multiple testing was used for post hoc contrasts.||||=0.06
91082568|NCT00929994|182049369|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.06
91082569|NCT00929994|182049370|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
91082570|NCT00929994|182049371|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||A Bonferroni correction for multiple testing was used for post-hoc contrasts.|ANOVA|||With 1 group and 3 test times, a repeated measures analysis of variance with pairwise comparisons of CES-D was utilized between the 3 test times baseline, 3 and 6 months.||||0.04
91082571|NCT00929994|182049372|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||A Bonferroni correction for multiple testing was used for post-hoc contrasts|ANOVA|||With 1 group and 3 test times, a repeated measures analysis of variance with pairwise comparisons of MoCA was utilized between the 3 test times (-3, 0 and 6 months). A Bonferroni correction for multiple testing was used for post-hoc contrasts.||||>0.05
91082572|NCT03258645|182049374|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|||Univariate linear regression with the continuous dependent variable of time-to-initiation for dabigatran in days and independent variable of National Institute of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score at index date was applied.||||< 0.001
91082573|NCT03258645|182049375|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Regression, Linear|||Univariate linear regression with the continuous dependent variable of time-to-initiation for dabigatran in days and independent variable of Modified Rankin Scale (mRS) at index date was applied.||||0.01
91082574|NCT03258645|182049376|OTHER|CHA2DS2-VASc is the Congestive heart failure, Hypertension, Age (\> 75), Diabetes mellitus, Stroke/TIA, Vascular disease, Age 65-74, Sex Category score. HAS-BLED is the Hypertension, Abnormal renal and liver function, Stroke (1 point), Bleeding history or predisposition, Labile INR, Elderly (\>65 years), Drugs and Alcohol Score.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.25|||Regression, Linear|Relation between age and dabigatran initiation time was reported.||Multivariate linear regression with the continuous dependent variable of time-to-initiation for dabigatran in days and independent variable of age, Diastolic blood pressure (DBP), CHA2DS2-VASc, HAS-BLED, and History/Predisposition To Bleeding at index date was applied.||1.25|1.02|0.016
91082575|NCT03258645|182049377|OTHER|CHA2DS2-VASc is the Congestive heart failure, Hypertension, Age (\> 75), Diabetes mellitus, Stroke/TIA, Vascular disease, Age 65-74, Sex Category score. HAS-BLED is the Hypertension, Abnormal renal and liver function, Stroke (1 point), Bleeding history or predisposition, Labile INR, Elderly (\>65 years), Drugs and Alcohol Score.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.21|||Regression, Linear|Relation between Diastolic blood pressure (DBP) and dabigatran initiation time was reported.||Multivariate linear regression with the continuous dependent variable of time-to-initiation for dabigatran in days and independent variable of age, Diastolic blood pressure (DBP), CHA2DS2-VASc, HAS-BLED, and History/Predisposition To Bleeding at index date was applied.||1.21|1.04|0.002
91082576|NCT03258645|182049378|OTHER|CHA2DS2-VASc is the Congestive heart failure, Hypertension, Age (\> 75), Diabetes mellitus, Stroke/TIA, Vascular disease, Age 65-74, Sex Category score. HAS-BLED is the Hypertension, Abnormal renal and liver function, Stroke (1 point), Bleeding history or predisposition, Labile INR, Elderly (\>65 years), Drugs and Alcohol Score.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.21|||Regression, Linear|Relation between CHA2DS2-VASc and dabigatran initiation time was reported.||Multivariate linear regression with the continuous dependent variable of time-to-initiation for dabigatran in days and independent variable of age, Diastolic blood pressure (DBP), CHA2DS2-VASc, HAS-BLED, and History/Predisposition To Bleeding at index date was applied.||1.21|1.00|0.04
91082577|NCT03258645|182049379|OTHER|CHA2DS2-VASc is the Congestive heart failure, Hypertension, Age (\> 75), Diabetes mellitus, Stroke/TIA, Vascular disease, Age 65-74, Sex Category score. HAS-BLED is the Hypertension, Abnormal renal and liver function, Stroke (1 point), Bleeding history or predisposition, Labile INR, Elderly (\>65 years), Drugs and Alcohol Score.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.0|||Regression, Linear|Relation between HAS-BLED and dabigatran initiation time was reported.||Multivariate linear regression with the continuous dependent variable of time-to-initiation for dabigatran in days and independent variable of age, Diastolic blood pressure (DBP), CHA2DS2-VASc, HAS-BLED, and History/Predisposition To Bleeding at index date was applied.||1.00|0.45|0.051
91082578|NCT03258645|182049380|OTHER|CHA2DS2-VASc is the Congestive heart failure, Hypertension, Age (\> 75), Diabetes mellitus, Stroke/TIA, Vascular disease, Age 65-74, Sex Category score. HAS-BLED is the Hypertension, Abnormal renal and liver function, Stroke (1 point), Bleeding history or predisposition, Labile INR, Elderly (\>65 years), Drugs and Alcohol Score.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|0.93|||Regression, Linear|Relation between History/Predisposition To Bleeding and dabigatran initiation time was reported.||Multivariate linear regression with the continuous dependent variable of time-to-initiation for dabigatran in days and independent variable of age, Diastolic blood pressure (DBP), CHA2DS2-VASc, HAS-BLED, and History/Predisposition To Bleeding at index date was applied.||0.93|0.9|0.026
91082579|NCT02384538|182049461|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.52||||0.386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.944|4.99||P-value for test of difference in change from baseline between ABT-981 dose group and placebo is from an ANCOVA model with treatment group and country as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||4.990|-1.944|0.386
91082580|NCT02384538|182049463|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.55||||0.383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.214|8.308||P-value for test of difference in change from baseline between ABT-981 dose group and placebo is from an ANCOVA model with treatment group and country as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||8.308|-3.214|0.383
91082581|NCT02384538|182049464|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.15||||0.719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.677|0.979||P-value for test of difference in change from baseline between ABT-981 dose group and placebo is from an ANCOVA model with treatment group and country as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||0.979|-0.677|0.719
91082582|NCT02384538|182049465|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.25||||0.387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.448|13.945||P-value for test of difference in change from baseline between ABT-981 dose group and placebo is from an ANCOVA model with treatment group and country as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||13.945|-5.448|0.387
91082583|NCT02384538|182049466|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.45||||0.281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.373|1.272||P-value for test of difference in change from baseline between ABT-981 dose group and placebo is from an ANCOVA model with treatment group and country as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||1.272|-0.373|0.281
91082584|NCT02384538|182049467|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.52||||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.336||P-value for test of difference in change from baseline between ABT-981 dose group and placebo is from an ANCOVA model with treatment group and country as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||1.336|-0.300|0.212
91082585|NCT01301079|182049468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.113|TWO_SIDED||||||Mann-Whitney|||||||0.113
91082586|NCT01301079|182049469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.946|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.946
91082587|NCT01301079|182049470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.999|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999
91082588|NCT01301079|182049471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.019
91082589|NCT01301079|182049472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.652|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.652
91082590|NCT01301079|182049473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.221|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.221
91082591|NCT01301079|182049474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.325|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.325
91082592|NCT01301079|182049475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.386|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.386
91082593|NCT01301079|182049476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.499|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.499
91082594|NCT01301079|182049477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.909|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.909
91082595|NCT01301079|182049478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.737|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.737
91082596|NCT01301079|182049479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.872|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.872
91082597|NCT01301079|182049480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.598|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.598
91082598|NCT01301079|182049481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.485
91082599|NCT01301079|182049482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.744|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.744
91082600|NCT01301079|182049483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.540
91082601|NCT01301079|182049484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.673|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.673
91082602|NCT01301079|182049485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.586|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.586
91082603|NCT01301079|182049486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.077|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.077
91082604|NCT01301079|182049487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.677|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.677
91082605|NCT01301079|182049488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.545|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.545
91082606|NCT01301079|182049489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.650
91082607|NCT01301079|182049490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.593|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.593
91082608|NCT01301079|182049491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.313|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.313
91082609|NCT01301079|182049492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.313|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.313
91082610|NCT01301079|182049493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.313|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.313
91082611|NCT01301079|182049494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.611|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.611
91082612|NCT01301079|182049495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.312|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.312
91082613|NCT01301079|182049496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.676|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.676
91082614|NCT01301079|182049497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.938|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.938
91082615|NCT01301079|182049498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.385|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.385
91082616|NCT01301079|182049499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.422|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.422
91082617|NCT01301079|182049500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.500
91082618|NCT01301079|182049501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.435|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.435
91082619|NCT01301079|182049502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.745|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.745
91082620|NCT01301079|182049503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.557|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.557
91082621|NCT02144077|182049541|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority margin of -15%|Difference in Percentage|1.6|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-6.5||||Farrington and Manning Test|Difference of proportions|||||-6.5|<0.0001
91082622|NCT00368459|182049559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||For this pilot trial, we did not anticipate power to detect significant, clinically-meaningful between-group differences of the magnitude provided by FDA-approved AD therapies over a 12 month treatment period, but we specified that we would report trends (alpha \<0.1) as a guide to future effectiveness studies.||||>0.1
91082623|NCT00368459|182049560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.1
91082624|NCT00368459|182049561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.1
91082625|NCT00368459|182049562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.1
91082626|NCT00368459|182049563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.1
91082627|NCT00368459|182049564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.1
91082628|NCT00368459|182049565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.1
91082629|NCT00368459|182049566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||Favoring placebo, unadjusted for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|||||||<0.01
91082630|NCT00368459|182049567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.1
91082631|NCT00368459|182049568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.1
91082632|NCT02620683|182049569|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-15.0||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.6|-5.86|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||for a cross over design difference in blood level was calculate buffered lidocaine minus non-buffered lidocaine|The difference between injection type- 95% confidence intervals for the difference between injection types was calculated. For the outcome variable, an assessment of treatment difference by subject, calculated as 1% Buffered minus 2% Non-Buffered, was performed using Wilcoxon signed rank tests (SAS v 9.3). Statistical significance was set as P \< 0.05 for all outcomes.||-5.86|-34.6|0.006
91082633|NCT02620683|182049570|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|0.13|||t-test, 2 sided|||The difference between injection type- 95% confidence intervals for the difference between injection types was calculated. For the outcome variable, an assessment of treatment difference by subject, calculated as 1% Buffered minus 2% Non-Buffered, was performed using ProcTTEST (SAS v 9.3). Statistical significance was set as P \< 0.05 for all outcomes.||0.13|-1.46|0.096
91082634|NCT02620683|182049571|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The difference between injection type- 95% confidence intervals for the difference between injection types was calculated. For the outcome variable, an assessment of treatment difference by subject, calculated as 1% Buffered minus 2% Non-Buffered, was performed using Wilcoxon signed rank tests (SAS v 9.3). Statistical significance was set as P \< 0.05 for all outcomes.||1|-4|0.23
91082635|NCT02081001|182049638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|2.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.19||0.23|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.74|5.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.75|0.74|0.23
91082636|NCT02081001|182049638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.52|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|2.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.28|0.69|0.52
91082637|NCT02081001|182049638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.49|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.59|1.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.25|0.59|0.49
91082638|NCT02081001|182049639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|1.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.23|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|2.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.12|0.88|0.23
91082639|NCT02081001|182049639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.09|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.01|1.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.65|1.01|0.09
91082640|NCT02081001|182049639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.02|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.11|1.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.67|1.11|0.02
91082641|NCT02081001|182049640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.15|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.64|0.97|0.15
91082642|NCT02081001|182049640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.24|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.84|0.90|0.24
91082643|NCT02081001|182049640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.31|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6|1.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.14|0.60|0.31
91082644|NCT02081001|182049641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.09|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.01|1.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.39|1.01|0.09
91082645|NCT02081001|182049641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.29|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|1.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.35|0.93|0.29
91082646|NCT02081001|182049641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.24|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.28|0.96|0.24
91082647|NCT02081001|182049642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.7|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6|1.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.38|0.60|0.70
91082648|NCT02081001|182049642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.19|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|1.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.68|0.94|0.19
91082649|NCT02081001|182049642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estmate ratio|1.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.052|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.07|1.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.98|1.07|0.052
91082650|NCT02081001|182049643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|2.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.16|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|4.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.66|0.87|0.16
91082651|NCT02081001|182049643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.48|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.68|2.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.54|0.68|0.48
91082652|NCT02081001|182049643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.28|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.57|1.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.13|0.57|0.28
91082653|NCT02081001|182049644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.61|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.30|0.87|0.61
91082654|NCT02081001|182049644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.22|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.5|0.94|0.22
91082655|NCT02081001|182049644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.26|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.66|1.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.09|0.66|0.26
91082656|NCT02081001|182049645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.19|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.46|0.96|0.19
91082657|NCT02081001|182049645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.21|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|1.38|||Regression, Cox|||||1.38|0.95|0.21
91082658|NCT02081001|182049645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.19|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.31|0.97|0.19
91082659|NCT02081001|182049646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|4.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.3|-17.1|0.24
91082660|NCT02081001|182049646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.1|-8.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.7|-30.1|0.0005
91082661|NCT02081001|182049646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-23.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.0|-12.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-12.6|-34.0|<0.0001
91082662|NCT02081001|182049647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.2|-5.1|0.22
91082663|NCT02081001|182049647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.3|-4.0|0.58
91082664|NCT02081001|182049647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.4|-6.7|0.03
91082665|NCT02937636|182049648|OTHER||Least square (LS) mean difference|-0.09|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|-0.07|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA with treatment, gender, smoking status and baseline MGI stratification as factors and baseline as covariate.|Difference is the first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|||-0.07|-0.12|<.0001
91082666|NCT04208412|182049654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon Test (Gehan's Generalized)|||||||0.0010
91082667|NCT04208412|182049655|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0045|||||||Prescott's Test|||||||0.0045
91082668|NCT04208412|182049656|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Test (Gehan's Generalized)|||"Gehan's Generalized Wilcoxon Test:~600 mg KVD900 vs Placebo"||||<0.0001
91082669|NCT04208412|182049657|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Test (Gehan's Generalized)|||||||<0.0001
91082670|NCT04208412|182049658|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Test (Gehan's Generalized)|||||||<0.0001
91082671|NCT00795769|182049664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||18% n=9 of the patients vomited compared to the FHCRC historic rate of 28%. p=0.03. PMID: 21372706 reference for historical data at FHCRC.||||0.03
91082672|NCT00795769|182049664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Twelve patients (24%) had a greater than two-point increase in MAT score for nausea from baseline by the end of their infusion. That rate compares to the FHCRC historic rate of 58% (p \<0.0001). PMID: 21372706 reference for historical data at FHCRC||||<0.0001
91082673|NCT00435188|182049666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Omnibus p value for group difference between groups at the end of the study and group by time interaction|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91082674|NCT00435188|182049669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Omnibus P value reporting overall differences between groups for group and group by time interaction with two degrees of freedom||||0.47
91082675|NCT00435188|182049672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Omnibus P value for overall difference between groups at the end of the study and group by time interaction on two degrees of freedom||||0.04
91082676|NCT00435188|182049673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Omnibus P value provides the overall differences between groups at the end of the study||||<0.001
91082677|NCT00435188|182049676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Omnibus P value provides the overall difference between groups at the end of the study||||0.29
91082678|NCT00435188|182049679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||P value provides overall differences between groups at the end of the study||||0.35
91082679|NCT00435188|182049682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||P value provides the overall differences between groups at the end of the study||||0.08
91082680|NCT00073008|182049702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Kaplan-Meier estimate|34.5||||||95.0|13.7|55.4|||||Percentage of surviving participants who were progression free 4 months after the date of randomization|||55.4|13.7|
91082681|NCT00073008|182049702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Kaplan-Meier estimate|19.7||||||95.0|2.9|36.4|||||Percentage of surviving participants who were progression free 4 months after the date of randomization|||36.4|2.9|
91082682|NCT00073008|182049703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Kaplan-Meier estimate|27.1||||||95.0|11.9|42.3|||||Percentage of surviving participants who were progression free 4 months after the date of randomization|||42.3|11.9|
91082683|NCT00073008|182049703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Kaplan-Meier estimate|18.3||||||95.0|3.9|32.6|||||Percentage of surviving participants who were progression free 4 months after the date of randomization|||32.6|3.9|
91082684|NCT00808470|182049719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||15 minutes after exposure||||0.58
91082685|NCT00808470|182049719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||1 hour and 15 minutes after exposure||||0.39
91082686|NCT00808470|182049719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||2 Hours 15 minutes after exposure||||.51
91082687|NCT00808470|182049719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||3 hours, 15 minutes after exposure||||.36
91082688|NCT00808470|182049719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||1 day after exposure||||.86
90893256|NCT01212770|181651335|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.6||||0.1482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|1.3|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline DMARD use and ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||Secondary endpoints from the placebo-controlled period (Weeks 16 and 24) were analyzed in a hierarchical fashion to control the Type I error rate as described above.||1.3|-8.6|0.1482
91082689|NCT00808470|182049719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||1 week after exposure||||.24
91082690|NCT01778751|182049727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison at 3 months||-0.2|-1.7|0.012
91082691|NCT01778751|182049727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison at 6 months||-0.0|-2.0|0.050
91082692|NCT01778751|182049728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.9||||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|8.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison at 3 months, Scale is 0-100 where a higher score is a better outcome.||8.4|-2.7|0.303
91082693|NCT01778751|182049728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.7||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|14.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison at 6 months, Scale is 0-100 where a higher score is a better outcome.||14.4|0.9|0.027
91082694|NCT01778751|182049729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|2.34|||Generalized estimating equation (GEE)|||||2.34|0.35|0.830
91082695|NCT01778751|182049729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|3.19|||Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)|||Comparison at 6 months||3.19|0.33|0.970
91082696|NCT01778751|182049730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9||||0.428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison at 3 months. Scale is 0-27 where a lower score is a better outcome, values were dichotomized to indicate whether or not the patient was depressed.||1.4|-3.3|0.428
91082697|NCT01778751|182049730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.1||||0.397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|3.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison at 6 months. Scale is 0-27 where a lower score is a better outcome, values were dichotomized to indicate whether or not the patient was depressed.||3.6|-1.4|0.397
91082698|NCT01420016|182049762|EQUIVALENCE|The analysis used a time-by-condition mixed model to estimate the annual rate of change in post-index CV risk values by treatment group. The models included fixed effects for study arm (CDS vs. UC), time (years since index), and study-arm-by-time comparing the rate of change in CDS versus UC and a random clinic intercept. The intervention effect was the difference in rate of change in CDS versus UC clinics, with the study-arm-by-time interaction assessing statistical significance (P\<0.05).|Slope Difference (Net)|-2.25|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.45|-1.04||A priori power analysis (power=.80, α2=.05) estimated detectable group difference in CVR at 1 year of \~2-3%, assuming 18 clinics, 1000 patients per clinic (actual 400), 3 CVR per patient (actual 2.3), and ICC=.01-03 (actual .019). p-value calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis||The intervention effect was the difference in annualized rates of change (slope) in CV risk in CDS versus UC clinics, with the study-arm-by-time interaction assessing statistical significance (P\<0.05).|||-1.04|-3.45|<0.05
91082699|NCT01945294|182049763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in SVR12 percentage|-11.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.2|0.4||||||||0.4|-23.2|
91082700|NCT01454414|182049771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Protective effectiveness= 1 - rate ratio|0.646||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.288|0.824|||Poisson regression|||Protective effectiveness (1 - the incidence rate ratio) and 95% CIs for comparing reported tick bites between the treatment and control groups were calculated using a GEE model with a Poisson distribution and log link, and included terms for treatment, year of follow-up, and the interaction of treatment and year of follow-up, with an offset variable for log outdoor work hours.||0.824|0.288|0.004
91082701|NCT03403621|182049824|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline versus 2 weeks||||0.42
91082702|NCT03403621|182049824|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline versus 4 weeks||||0.72
91082703|NCT03403621|182049824|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline versus 2 weeks||||0.51
91082704|NCT03403621|182049824|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline versus 4 weeks||||0.58
91082705|NCT03403621|182049825|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline versus 2 weeks||||0.03
91082706|NCT03403621|182049825|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline versus 4 weeks||||0.08
91082707|NCT03403621|182049825|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline versus 2 weeks||||0.02
91082708|NCT03403621|182049825|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline versus 4 weeks||||0.007
91082709|NCT03403621|182049826|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline versus 2 weeks||||0.21
91082710|NCT03403621|182049826|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline versus 4 weeks||||0.18
91082711|NCT03403621|182049826|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline versus 2 weeks||||0.33
91082712|NCT03403621|182049826|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline versus 4 weeks||||0.5
91082713|NCT03951753|182049863|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.107|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.29|||ANCOVA|Data were analysed with ANCOVA in log transformed data.|Data were analysed with ANCOVA in log transformed data. Results were converted back to original scale.|||1.29|0.87|<0.001
91082714|NCT03951753|182049863|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.166|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|2.24|||ANCOVA|Data were analysed with ANCOVA in log transformed data.|Data were analysed with ANCOVA in log transformed data. Results were converted back to original scale.|||2.24|1.59|<0.001
91082715|NCT03951753|182049863|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.192|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.21|||ANCOVA|Data were analysed with ANCOVA in log transformed data.|Data were analysed with ANCOVA in log transformed data. Results were converted back to original scale.|||1.21|0.46|<0.001
91082716|NCT03951753|182049864|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-38.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.4|-30.7|||ANCOVA|||||-30.7|-45.4|<0.001
91082717|NCT03951753|182049864|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-47.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.6|-39.5|||ANCOVA|||||-39.5|-54.6|<0.001
91082718|NCT03951753|182049864|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.0||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|-2.6|||ANCOVA|||||-2.6|-15.4|0.006
90893257|NCT01212770|181651336|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.5349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.5|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline DMARD use and ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.5|-1.0|0.5349
90959040|NCT01620255|181798206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-1.6||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.372|-0.819|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with model terms: treatment group, baseline, status of anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) therapy experience.||PF-00547659 22.5 mg vs placebo, locally read change||-0.819|-2.372|0.0008
91082719|NCT03951753|182049865|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-14696.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17045.0|-12347.3|||ANCOVA|||||-12347.3|-17045.0|<0.001
91082720|NCT03951753|182049865|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-17873.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20239.0|-15507.4|||ANCOVA|||||-15507.4|-20239.0|<0.001
91082721|NCT03951753|182049865|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3177.1||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5194.3|-1159.8|||ANCOVA|||||-1159.8|-5194.3|0.002
91082722|NCT03951753|182049866|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|-1.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.67|-2.18|<0.001
91082723|NCT03951753|182049866|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.58|-2.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.08|-2.58|<0.001
91082724|NCT03951753|182049866|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.19|-0.63|<0.001
91082725|NCT03951753|182049867|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|279.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.366|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|245.1|313.18|||ANCOVA|Data were analysed with ANCOVA in log transformed data.|Data were analysed with ANCOVA in log transformed data. Results were converted back to original scale.|||313.18|245.10|<0.001
91082726|NCT03951753|182049867|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|381.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.399|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|339.29|423.17|||ANCOVA|Data were analysed with ANCOVA in log transformed data.|Data were analysed with ANCOVA in log transformed data. Results were converted back to original scale.|||423.17|339.29|<0.001
91082727|NCT03951753|182049867|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|102.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|25.635|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.84|152.33|||ANCOVA|Data were analysed with ANCOVA in log transformed data.|Data were analysed with ANCOVA in log transformed data. Results were converted back to original scale.|||152.33|51.84|<0.001
91082728|NCT03951753|182049868|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|11.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|17.7|||ANCOVA|||||17.7|4.9|<0.001
91082729|NCT03951753|182049868|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|19.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.4|26.1|||ANCOVA|||||26.1|13.4|<0.001
91082730|NCT03951753|182049868|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|8.5||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|14.0|||ANCOVA|||||14.0|3.0|0.003
91082731|NCT03951753|182049869|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|-1.8|||ANCOVA|||||-1.8|-5.5|<0.001
91082732|NCT03951753|182049869|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|-2.6|||ANCOVA|||||-2.6|-6.3|<0.001
91082733|NCT03951753|182049869|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.8||||0.277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.7|||ANCOVA|||||0.7|-2.4|0.277
91082734|NCT03951753|182049870|OTHER||Slope|-296.1||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-584.8|-7.5|||ANCOVA|||||-7.5|-584.8|0.044
91082735|NCT03951753|182049870|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-637.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-925.2|-350.2|||ANCOVA|||||-350.2|-925.2|<0.001
91082736|NCT03951753|182049870|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-341.6||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-585.2|-97.9|||ANCOVA|||||-97.9|-585.2|0.006
91082737|NCT03951753|182049871|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-245.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-357.7|-133.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-133.3|-357.7|<0.001
91082738|NCT03951753|182049871|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-309.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-423.0|-196.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-196.6|-423.0|<0.001
91082739|NCT03951753|182049871|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-64.3||||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-160.3|31.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||31.7|-160.3|0.187
91082740|NCT04633291|182049872|NON_INFERIORITY|Based on previous studies, the weighted average VAS discomfort level in healthy subjects using SpeediCath®Standard Male was estimated at 2.3 cm, with 50% increase in VAS was considered clinically relevant. The mean difference non-inferiority margin between catheter coatings was therefore set to 1.2 cm, and non-inferiority was demonstrated if the mean difference was not above 1.2 cm.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.58||The threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: 'Subject'. Fixed effect: 'Visit' (Visit 1 and 2) and 'Treatment' (original coating and novel coating). Age was included as covariate.||At a 85% power level, the sample size needed to demonstrate non-inferiority of the novel coating to the original the coating was 18 subjects (participants). This was based on a standard deviation of 1.6 cm, a within subject correlation of 0.5 cm, and an assumption of same VAS distribution for the investigational device as for the comparator. With an expected drop-out rate of 20%, 22 subjects were included.||0.58|-0.50|0.88
91082741|NCT04633291|182049873|NON_INFERIORITY|Based on previous studies, the weighted average VAS discomfort level in healthy subjects using SpeediCath®Standard male was estimated at 2.3 cm, with 50% increase in VAS was considered clinically relevant. The mean difference non-inferiority margin between catheter coatings was therefore set to 1.2 cm, and non-inferiority was demonstrated if the mean difference was not above 1.2 cm.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.44||The threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: 'Subject'. Fixed effect: 'Visit' (Visit 1 and 2) and 'Treatment' (original coating and novel coating). Age was included as covariate.||At a 85% power level, the sample size needed to demonstrate non-inferiority of the novel coating to the original the coating was 18 subjects (participants). This was based on a standard deviation of 1.6 cm, a within subject correlation of 0.5 cm, and an assumption of same VAS distribution for the investigational device as for the comparator. With an expected drop-out rate of 20%, 22 subjects were included.||0.44|-0.72|0.62
91103716|NCT05259722|182094323|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.28|-8.86|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline was analysed using an ANCOVA model with effects of treatment group, hyperkeratotic/non-hyperkeratotic subtype and baseline value of the score. Missing data was imputed with WOCF. Data after initiation of rescue treatment or permanent discontinuation of IMP was treated as missing.||-8.86|-23.28|<0.001
91103717|NCT05259722|182094324|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.6|||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.34|20.78|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The difference in response rates was analysed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by hyperkeratotic/non-hyperkeratotic subtype. Missing data was imputed as non-response. Data after initiation of rescue treatment or permanent discontinuation of IMP was treated as missing.||20.78|4.34|=0.003
91103718|NCT05259722|182094325|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.6|||=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.31|17.87|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The difference in response rates was analysed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by hyperkeratotic/non-hyperkeratotic subtype. Missing data was imputed as non-response. Data after initiation of rescue treatment or permanent discontinuation of IMP was treated as missing.||17.87|3.31|=0.004
90829414|NCT02365649|181533421|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.1|3.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders||3.1|-23.1|1.000
90893258|NCT01212770|181651336|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.8231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.9|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline DMARD use and ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.9|-0.7|0.8231
91103719|NCT05259722|182094326|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7|||=|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline was analysed using an ANCOVA model with effects of treatment group, hyperkeratotic/non-hyperkeratotic subtype and baseline value of the score. Missing data was imputed with WOCF. Data after initiation of rescue treatment or permanent discontinuation of IMP was treated as missing.||-0.20|-1.12|=0.005
91103720|NCT05259722|182094327|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6|||=|0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline was analysed using an ANCOVA model with effects of treatment group, hyperkeratotic/non-hyperkeratotic subtype and baseline value of the score. Missing data was imputed with WOCF. Data after initiation of rescue treatment or permanent discontinuation of IMP was treated as missing.||-0.10|-1.08|=0.018
91103721|NCT05259722|182094328|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|14.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.81|22.86|||ANCOVA|||The AUC was analysed using a robust ANCOVA model with effects of treatment group, hyperkeratotic/non-hyperkeratotic subtype and baseline value of the score. Missing data was imputed as non-response. Data after initiation of rescue treatment or permanent discontinuation of IMP was treated as missing.||22.86|5.81|<0.001
91103722|NCT05259722|182094329|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|334.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|195.69|472.26|||ANCOVA|||The AUC was analysed using a robust ANCOVA model with effects of treatment group, hyperkeratotic/non-hyperkeratotic subtype and baseline value of the score. Missing data was imputed with WOCF. Data after initiation of rescue treatment or permanent discontinuation of IMP was treated as missing.||472.26|195.69|<0.001
91103723|NCT05259722|182094330|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-24.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.55|-16.36|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline was analysed using an ANCOVA model with effects of treatment group, hyperkeratotic/non-hyperkeratotic subtype and baseline value of the score. Missing data was imputed with WOCF. Data after initiation of rescue treatment or permanent discontinuation of IMP was treated as missing.||-16.36|-32.55|<0.001
91103724|NCT00420056|182094338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4854|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.4854
91103725|NCT00420056|182094339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.709|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.7090
91103726|NCT00420056|182094342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Kappa|0.0638|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0449|0.1726||||||FLT-PET response versus Objective response||0.1726|-0.0449|
91103727|NCT00420056|182094342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Kappa|0.1864|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2316|0.6045||||||FDG-PET response versus Objective response||0.6045|-0.2316|
91103728|NCT00420056|182094356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5954|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Concentration versus Ki-67||||0.5954
91103729|NCT00420056|182094356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1286|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Concentration versus Cyclin D1||||0.1286
91103730|NCT00420056|182094356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0956|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Concentration versus phospho-Rb||||0.0956
91103731|NCT00420056|182094356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Concentration versus FLT-PET SUVmax||||0.2800
91103732|NCT00420056|182094356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4921|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Concentration versus FDG-PET SUVmax||||0.4921
91103733|NCT03072875|182094364|OTHER|Descriptive statistic.|||||||||||||||||Quantitative data (descriptive statistic) from the USAQ were used to determine feasibility. Specifically, we established an a priori mean score of 3.5 or greater on the USAQ to determine feasibility.|||
91103734|NCT00907088|182094390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.42
91103735|NCT02301793|182094398|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The reported p-values were calculated by reiterating the multiple outputation procedure 1000 times, we estimated the odds ratios (ORs) and their 95% confidence intervals conditional on the floor and nurse.|Regression, Logistic|||The hypothesis comparing the different educational arms was evaluated using an intention-to-treat approach (i.e. all nurses were included regardless of training completion) accounting for clustering in the data and comparing rates of VTE prophylaxis dose non-administration at baseline and during the Post-Education period. Two per-protocol sensitivity analyses were performed. They compared the Baseline vs. Post-Education periods for nurses who received training and nurses who completed training.||||0.05
91103736|NCT02301793|182094402|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The reported p-values were calculated by reiterating the multiple outputation procedure 1000 times, we estimated the odds ratios (ORs) and their 95% confidence intervals conditional on the floor and nurse.|Regression, Logistic|||The hypothesis comparing the different educational arms was evaluated using an intention-to-treat approach (i.e. all nurses were included regardless of training completion) accounting for clustering in the data and comparing rates of VTE prophylaxis dose non-administration at baseline and during the Post-Education period. Two per-protocol sensitivity analyses were performed. They compared the Baseline vs. Post-Education periods for nurses who received training and nurses who completed training.||||0.05
91103737|NCT03726879|182094405|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67||||0.1846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.21||The threshold for statistical significance was a p-value =0.048|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.21|0.37|0.1846
91103738|NCT03726879|182094406|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.9551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.46||The threshold for statistical significance was a p-value =0.002|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.46|0.67|0.9551
91103739|NCT03726879|182094409|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.59|||Log Rank|||All Participants||1.59|0.50|
91103740|NCT03726879|182094409|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|4.32|||Log Rank|||PD-L1 IC1/2/3||4.32|0.65|
91082742|NCT04633291|182049874|NON_INFERIORITY|Based on previous studies, the weighted average VAS discomfort level in healthy subjects using SpeediCath®Standard male was estimated at 2.3 cm, with 50% increase in VAS was considered clinically relevant. The mean difference non-inferiority margin between catheter coatings was therefore set to 1.2 cm, and non-inferiority was demonstrated if the mean difference was not above 1.2 cm.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.57||The threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: 'Subject'. Fixed effect: 'Visit' (Visit 1 and 2) and 'Treatment' (original coating and novel coating). Age was included as covariate.||At a 85% power level, the sample size needed to demonstrate non-inferiority of the novel coating to the original the coating was 18 subjects (participants). This was based on a standard deviation of 1.6 cm, a within subject correlation of 0.5 cm, and an assumption of same VAS distribution for the investigational device as for the comparator. With an expected drop-out rate of 20%, 22 subjects were included.||0.57|-0.36|0.63
91082743|NCT04633291|182049875|NON_INFERIORITY|Based on previous studies, the weighted average VAS discomfort level in healthy subjects using SpeediCath®Standard male was estimated at 2.3 cm, with 50% increase in VAS was considered clinically relevant. The mean difference non-inferiority margin between catheter coatings was therefore set to 1.2 cm, and non-inferiority was demonstrated if the mean difference was not above 1.2 cm.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.08||The threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: 'Subject'. Fixed effect: 'Visit' (Visit 1 and 2) and 'Treatment' (original coating and novel coating). Age was included as covariate.||At a 85% power level, the sample size needed to demonstrate non-inferiority of the novel coating to the original the coating was 18 subjects (participants). This was based on a standard deviation of 1.6 cm, a within subject correlation of 0.5 cm, and an assumption of same VAS distribution for the investigational device as for the comparator. With an expected drop-out rate of 20%, 22 subjects were included.||0.08|-0.38|0.19
91082744|NCT04633291|182049876|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76||||0.381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|6.6||The threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Proportional odds model|Random effect: 'Subject'. Fixed effect: 'Visit' (Visit 1 and 2) and 'Treatment' (original coating and novel coating). Age was included as covariate.|OR=1 corresponds to exact equality. OR \>1 means that the investigational device is evaluated easier than the comparator. OR \<1 means that the comparator device is evaluated easier than the investigational device.|Null hypothesis: No difference between the devices.||6.60|0.47|0.381
91082745|NCT04633291|182049877|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.8||||0.541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.4|34.0||The threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Proportional odds model|Random effect: 'Subject'. Fixed effect: 'Visit' (Visit 1 and 2) and 'Treatment' (original coating and novel coating). Age was included as covariate.|"OR=1 corresponds to exact equality. OR \>1 means that the investigational device is evaluated easier than the comparator. OR \<1 means that the comparator device is evaluated easier than the investigational device.~Of note: Log transformed estimates."|Null hypothesis: No difference between the devices.||34.00|-18.40|0.541
91082746|NCT04633291|182049878|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.17||||0.269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|265.95||The threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Random effect: 'Subject'. Fixed effect: 'Visit' (Visit 1 and 2) and 'Treatment' (original coating and novel coating). Age was included as covariate.|OR=1 corresponds to exact equality. OR \>1 means that the investigational device is in favor compared to the comparator. OR \<1 means that the comparator device is in favor compared to the investigational device.|Null hypothesis: No difference between the devices.||265.95|0.19|0.269
91082747|NCT04633291|182049879|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|64.83||The threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Random effect: 'Subject'. Fixed effect: 'Visit' (Visit 1 and 2) and 'Treatment' (original coating and novel coating). Age was included as covariate.|OR=1 corresponds to exact equality. OR \>1 means that the investigational device is in favor compared to the comparator. OR \<1 means that the comparator device is in favor compared to the investigational device.|Null hypothesis: No difference between the devices.||64.83|0.02|1.0
91082748|NCT04633291|182049880|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|12.87||The threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Random effect: 'Subject'. Fixed effect: 'Visit' (Visit 1 and 2) and 'Treatment' (original coating and novel coating). Age was included as covariate.|OR=1 corresponds to exact equality. OR \>1 means that the investigational device is in favor compared to the comparator. OR \<1 means that the comparator device is in favor compared to the investigational device.|Null hypothesis: No difference between the devices.||12.87|0.08|1.0
91082749|NCT01483599|182049906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|||p-value was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by baseline weight (less than or equal to (\<=) 90 kilogram (kg), greater than (\>) 90 kg).||||0.002
91082750|NCT01483599|182049906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|||p-value was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by baseline weight (\<=90 kg, \>90 kg).||||< 0.001
91082751|NCT01483599|182049906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|||p-value was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by baseline weight (\<=90 kg, \>90 kg).||||< 0.001
91082752|NCT01483599|182049906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|||p-value was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by baseline weight (\<=90 kg, \>90 kg).||||< 0.001
90954308|NCT05014568|181786958|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio, log|1.54||||0.0366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.31|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Baseline vIGA-AD Score and Age Group|Adjusted logit-based estimate of the common relative risk of success (Tapinarof Cream 1%/Vehicle Cream) over all strata. Multiple imputation p-value is for null hypothesis that the log (Relative Risk) equals 0.|||2.31|1.03|0.0366
91082753|NCT01483599|182049906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|||p-value was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by baseline weight (\<=90 kg, \>90 kg).||||< 0.001
91082754|NCT01483599|182049906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|||p-value was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by baseline weight (\<=90 kg, \>90 kg).||||< 0.001
91082755|NCT01483599|182049907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|||p-value was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by baseline weight (\<=90 kg, \>90 kg).||||< 0.001
91082756|NCT01483599|182049907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|||p-value was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by baseline weight (\<=90 kg, \>90 kg).||||< 0.001
91082757|NCT01483599|182049907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|||p-value was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by baseline weight (\<=90 kg, \>90 kg).||||< 0.001
91082758|NCT01483599|182049907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|||p-value was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by baseline weight (\<=90 kg, \>90 kg).||||< 0.001
91082759|NCT01483599|182049907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|||p-value was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by baseline weight (\<=90 kg, \>90 kg).||||< 0.001
91082760|NCT01483599|182049907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|||p-value was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by baseline weight (\<=90 kg, \>90 kg).||||< 0.001
91082761|NCT01483599|182049908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-24.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.0|-4.0||||||The difference in percentage was calculated as the percentage of CNTO 1959 participants achieving a PGA score of cleared (0) or minimal (1) minus percentage of adalimumab participants achieving a PGA score of cleared (0) or minimal (1).||-4.0|-44.0|
91082762|NCT01483599|182049908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.9|23.5||||||The difference in percentage was calculated as the percentage of CNTO 1959 participants achieving a PGA score of cleared (0) or minimal (1) minus percentage of adalimumab participants achieving a PGA score of cleared (0) or minimal (1).||23.5|-17.9|
91082763|NCT01483599|182049908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|20.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|39.3||||||The difference in percentage was calculated as the percentage of CNTO 1959 participants achieving a PGA score of cleared (0) or minimal (1) minus percentage of adalimumab participants achieving a PGA score of cleared (0) or minimal (1).||39.3|1.5|
91082764|NCT01483599|182049908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|27.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.8|45.6||||||The difference in percentage was calculated as the percentage of CNTO 1959 participants achieving a PGA score of cleared (0) or minimal (1) minus percentage of adalimumab participants achieving a PGA score of cleared (0) or minimal (1).||45.6|9.8|
91082765|NCT01483599|182049908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|25.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.2|43.6||||||||43.6|7.2|
91082766|NCT01483599|182049909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-15.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.7|6.9||||||The difference in percentage was calculated as the percentage of CNTO 1959 participants achieving a PGA score of cleared (0) or minimal (1) minus percentage of adalimumab participants achieving a PGA score of cleared (0) or minimal (1).||6.9|-37.7|
91082767|NCT01483599|182049909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|32.4||||||The difference in percentage was calculated as the percentage of CNTO 1959 participants achieving a PGA score of cleared (0) or minimal (1) minus percentage of adalimumab participants achieving a PGA score of cleared (0) or minimal (1).||32.4|-10.7|
91082768|NCT01483599|182049909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|22.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|43.6||||||The difference in percentage was calculated as the percentage of CNTO 1959 participants achieving a PGA score of cleared (0) or minimal (1) minus percentage of adalimumab participants achieving a PGA score of cleared (0) or minimal (1).||43.6|1.8|
91082769|NCT01483599|182049909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|28.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.5|49.0||||||The difference in percentage was calculated as the percentage of CNTO 1959 participants achieving a PGA score of cleared (0) or minimal (1) minus percentage of adalimumab participants achieving a PGA score of cleared (0) or minimal (1).||49.0|8.5|
91082770|NCT01483599|182049909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|32.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.0|52.8||||||The difference in percentage was calculated as the percentage of CNTO 1959 participants achieving a PGA score of cleared (0) or minimal (1) minus percentage of adalimumab participants achieving a PGA score of cleared (0) or minimal (1).||52.8|13.0|
91082771|NCT01483599|182049910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||ANOVA on the van Der Waerden score|||||||0.008
91082772|NCT01483599|182049910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA on the van Der Waerden score|||||||< 0.001
91082773|NCT01483599|182049910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA on the van Der Waerden score|||||||< 0.001
91082774|NCT01483599|182049910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA on the van Der Waerden score|||||||< 0.001
91082775|NCT01483599|182049910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA on the van Der Waerden score|||||||< 0.001
91082776|NCT01483599|182049910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA on the van Der Waerden score|||||||< 0.001
91082777|NCT01037816|182049941|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.137|||||||ANCOVA|||The treatment effect of the FS-67 patch was estimated by computing the difference in LS means of the FS-67 and placebo patches from the ANCOVA model||||0.137
91082778|NCT01037816|182049942|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.044|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.044
91082779|NCT00727090|182049943|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Equivalence|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null Hypothesis: Change in serum sodium from baseline is not different between groups||||<0.05
91082780|NCT04378569|182049964|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.5788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|2.53|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA score with multiple imputation used to handle missing data|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA score with multiple imputation used to handle missing data|||2.53|0.49|0.5788
91082781|NCT04378569|182049964|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.6488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|2.17|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA score with multiple imputation used to handle missing data|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA score with multiple imputation used to handle missing data|||2.17|0.33|0.6488
91103741|NCT03726879|182094409|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.22|||Log Rank|||PD-L1 IC0 Participants||1.22|0.27|
91082782|NCT04378569|182049964|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.5653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|2.25|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA score with multiple imputation used to handle missing data|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA score with multiple imputation used to handle missing data|||2.25|0.32|0.5653
91082783|NCT04378569|182049965|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.5033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|2.78|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA score with multiple imputation to handle missing data|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA score with multiple imputation to handle missing data|||2.78|0.25|0.5033
91082784|NCT04378569|182049965|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.4975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|2.79|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA score with multiple imputation to handle missing data|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA score with multiple imputation to handle missing data|||2.79|0.25|0.4975
91082785|NCT04378569|182049965|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|2.55||P value was not evaluable|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA score with multiple imputation to handle missing data|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA score with multiple imputation to handle missing data|||2.55|0.04|
91082786|NCT04378569|182049966|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.7237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|2.44|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA score, with multiple imputation of missing data|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA score, with multiple imputation of missing data|||2.44|0.23|0.7237
91082787|NCT04378569|182049966|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59||||0.838|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|2.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA score, with multiple imputation of missing data|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA score, with multiple imputation of missing data|||2.10|0.17|0.8380
91082788|NCT04378569|182049966|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|2.55||p-value was unevaluable||Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA score, with multiple imputation of missing data|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA score, with multiple imputation of missing data|||2.55|0.04|
91082789|NCT04378569|182049967|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.9604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|3.07|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA score, with multiple imputation of missing data|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA score, with multiple imputation of missing data|Week 2||3.07|0.31|0.9604
91082790|NCT04378569|182049967|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.9752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|3.25|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA score, with multiple imputation of missing data|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA score, with multiple imputation of missing data|Week 2||3.25|0.32|0.9752
91082791|NCT04378569|182049967|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.57||||0.5077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|3.03|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA score, with multiple imputation of missing data|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA score, with multiple imputation of missing data|Week 2||3.03|0.11|0.5077
91082792|NCT04378569|182049967|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.5916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|2.15|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA score, with multiple imputation of missing data|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA score, with multiple imputation of missing data|Week 4||2.15|0.26|0.5916
91082793|NCT04378569|182049967|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65||||0.332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.57|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA score, with multiple imputation of missing data|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA score, with multiple imputation of missing data|Week 4||1.57|0.27|0.3320
91082794|NCT04378569|182049967|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.47||||0.1922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|1.57|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA score, with multiple imputation of missing data|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA score, with multiple imputation of missing data|Week 4||1.57|0.14|0.1922
91082795|NCT04378569|182049967|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65||||0.4188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.81|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA score, with multiple imputation of missing data|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA score, with multiple imputation of missing data|Week 8||1.81|0.23|0.4188
91082796|NCT04378569|182049967|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.92|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA score, with multiple imputation of missing data|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA score, with multiple imputation of missing data|Week 8||1.92|0.29|0.5520
91082797|NCT04378569|182049967|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|2.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA score, with multiple imputation of missing data|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA score, with multiple imputation of missing data|Week 8||2.20|0.21|0.69
91082798|NCT04378569|182049968|SUPERIORITY|Week 2|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06||||0.6464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.21|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables, with multiple imputation of missing data|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables, with multiple imputation of missing data|||0.21|-0.33|0.6464
91082799|NCT04378569|182049968|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.8881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.25|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables, with multiple imputation of missing data|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables, with multiple imputation of missing data|Week 2||0.25|-0.29|0.8881
91082800|NCT04378569|182049968|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.46|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables, with multiple imputation of missing data|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables, with multiple imputation of missing data|Week 2||0.46|-0.20|0.4360
91103742|NCT03726879|182094409|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.82|||Log Rank|||ER/PgR Negative Participants||2.82|0.58|
90954309|NCT00660543|181787037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Differences between groups were assessed by using the Student paired t test and were graphed by using Bland-Altman plots.||||||.003
90954310|NCT00660543|181787037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Differences between groups were assessed by using the Student paired t test and were graphed by using Bland-Altman plots.||||||.008
90954311|NCT03651622|181787219|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.98
90954312|NCT03651622|181787220|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.85
90893259|NCT01212770|181651337|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.8||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.1|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline DMARD use and ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.1|-1.7|0.0720
90954313|NCT03651622|181787221|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.40
91082801|NCT04378569|182049968|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.8196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.36|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables, with multiple imputation of missing data|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables, with multiple imputation of missing data|Week 4||0.36|-0.29|0.8196
91082802|NCT04378569|182049968|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.9217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.34|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables, with multiple imputation of missing data|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables, with multiple imputation of missing data|Week 4||0.34|-0.31|0.9217
90954314|NCT03651622|181787222|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.02
90954315|NCT03651622|181787223|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.38
91082803|NCT04378569|182049968|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.4783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.53|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables, with multiple imputation of missing data|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables, with multiple imputation of missing data|||0.53|-0.25|0.4783
91082804|NCT04378569|182049968|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.7725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.43|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables, with multiple imputation of missing data|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables, with multiple imputation of missing data|Week 8||0.43|-0.32|0.7725
91082805|NCT04378569|182049968|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.7861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.33|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables, with multiple imputation of missing data|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables, with multiple imputation of missing data|Week 8||0.33|-0.43|0.7861
91082806|NCT04378569|182049968|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22||||0.3521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.68|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables, with multiple imputation of missing data|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables, with multiple imputation of missing data|Week 8||0.68|-0.24|0.3521
91082807|NCT04378569|182049968|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.2166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.14|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables, with multiple imputation of missing data|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables, with multiple imputation of missing data|Week 12||0.14|-0.62|0.2166
91082808|NCT04378569|182049968|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.5262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.27|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables, with multiple imputation of missing data|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables, with multiple imputation of missing data|Week 12||0.27|-0.52|0.5262
91082809|NCT04378569|182049968|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.7575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.54|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables, with multiple imputation of missing data|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables, with multiple imputation of missing data|Week 12||0.54|-0.39|0.7575
91082810|NCT04378569|182049970|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73||||0.2662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|4.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified|Stratified|Week 2||4.70|0.64|0.2662
91082811|NCT04378569|182049970|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.54||||0.3798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|4.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||4.00|0.59|0.3798
91082812|NCT04378569|182049970|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.18||||0.0611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|11.17|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||11.17|0.90|0.0611
91082813|NCT04378569|182049970|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.58||||0.3129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|3.93|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||3.93|0.64|0.3129
91082814|NCT04378569|182049970|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.9586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|2.74|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||2.74|0.35|0.9586
91082815|NCT04378569|182049970|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.65||||0.0643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|15.29|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||15.29|0.87|0.0643
91082816|NCT04378569|182049970|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.41||||0.0932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|6.88|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||6.88|0.84|0.0932
91082817|NCT04378569|182049970|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|4.59|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||4.59|0.44|0.5730
91082818|NCT04378569|182049970|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.96||||0.0389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|25.66|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||25.66|0.96|0.0389
91082819|NCT04378569|182049970|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.82||||0.2813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|5.53|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||5.53|0.60|0.2813
91082820|NCT04378569|182049970|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72||||0.6841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|3.03|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||3.03|0.17|0.6841
91082821|NCT04378569|182049970|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.13||||0.3113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|9.21|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||9.21|0.49|0.3113
91082822|NCT04378569|182049973|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.21||||0.2674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|10.67|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA grade|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA grade|Week 2||10.67|0.46|0.2674
91082823|NCT04378569|182049973|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.78||||0.285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|17.54|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA grade|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA grade|Week 2||17.54|0.44|0.2850
91082824|NCT04378569|182049973|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.63||||0.3086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|16.52|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA grade|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA grade|Week 2||16.52|0.42|0.3086
91082825|NCT04378569|182049973|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.33||||0.1655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|40.83|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA grade|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA grade|Week 4||40.83|0.46|0.1655
91082826|NCT04378569|182049973|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.7154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|7.67|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA grade|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA grade|Week 4||7.67|0.26|0.7154
91082827|NCT04378569|182049973|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.5371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|14.64|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA grade|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA grade|Week 4||14.64|0.27|0.5371
91082828|NCT04378569|182049973|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.0||||0.217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|57.83|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA grade|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA grade|Week 8||57.83|0.43|0.2170
91082829|NCT04378569|182049973|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.74||||0.3408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|18.22|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA grade|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA grade|Week 8||18.22|0.41|0.3408
91082830|NCT04378569|182049973|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.4||||0.327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|14.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA grade|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA grade|Week 8||14.20|0.41|0.3270
91082831|NCT04378569|182049973|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0719|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA grade||Week 12||||0.0719
91082832|NCT04378569|182049973|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78||||0.8527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|8.43|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA grade||Week 12||8.43|0.07|0.8527
91082833|NCT04378569|182049973|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2||||0.3545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|13.11|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA grade||Week 12||13.11|0.37|0.3545
91082834|NCT04378569|182049974|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.4||||0.0725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|0.4|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables|Week 2||0.4|-9.2|0.0725
91082835|NCT04378569|182049974|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.8||||0.0183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|-1.0|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables|Week 2||-1.0|-10.7|0.0183
91082836|NCT04378569|182049974|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.5701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|4.3|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables||Week 2||4.3|-7.7|0.5701
91082837|NCT04378569|182049974|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0||||0.2116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|2.3|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables|Week 4||2.3|-10.4|0.2116
91082838|NCT04378569|182049974|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.1||||0.1235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|1.4|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables|Week 4||1.4|-11.5|0.1235
91082839|NCT04378569|182049974|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||0.6334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|5.9|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables|Week 4||5.9|-9.7|0.6334
91082840|NCT04378569|182049974|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.6||||0.1788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|2.1|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables|Week 8||2.1|-11.4|0.1788
91082841|NCT04378569|182049974|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.6||||0.0292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|-0.8|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables|Week 8||-0.8|-14.4|0.0292
91082842|NCT04378569|182049974|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.8||||0.0371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|-0.5|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables|Week 8||-0.5|-17.1|0.0371
91082843|NCT04378569|182049974|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.9||||0.2971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|3.5|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables|Week 12||3.5|-11.3|0.2971
91082844|NCT04378569|182049974|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.5||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.2|-1.9|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables|Week 12||-1.9|-17.2|0.0150
91082845|NCT04378569|182049974|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.0||||0.1245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.8|1.9|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables|Week 12||1.9|-15.8|0.1245
91082846|NCT04378569|182049974|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.3||||0.1591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|2.1|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables|Week 13||2.1|-12.7|0.1591
91082847|NCT04378569|182049974|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.3||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|0.3|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables|Week 13||0.3|-14.8|0.0600
91082848|NCT04378569|182049974|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.3||||0.464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|5.5|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables|Week 13||5.5|-12.0|0.4640
90954316|NCT03651622|181787224|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.18
90954317|NCT03651622|181787225|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.79
91082849|NCT04378569|182049975|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.066||||0.3184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.196|0.064|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, pooled site group, baseline IGA grade, and baseline % BSA were independent variables|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables|Week 2||0.064|-0.196|0.3184
91082850|NCT04378569|182049975|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.013||||0.8514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.149|0.123|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, pooled site group, baseline IGA grade, and baseline % BSA were independent variables|Treatment group, pooled site group, baseline IGA grade, and baseline % BSA were independent variables|Week 2||0.123|-0.149|0.8514
90959041|NCT01620255|181798206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-1.07||||0.0255|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.858|-0.284|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with model terms: treatment group, baseline, status of anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) therapy experience.||PF-00547659 75 mg vs placebo, locally read change||-0.284|-1.858|0.0255
90893260|NCT01212770|181651337|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.3641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.5|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline DMARD use and ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.5|-1.3|0.3641
91082851|NCT04378569|182049975|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.091||||0.2603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.068|0.249|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, pooled site group, baseline IGA grade, and baseline % BSA were independent variables|Treatment group, pooled site group, baseline IGA grade, and baseline % BSA were independent variables|Week 2||0.249|-0.068|0.2603
91082852|NCT04378569|182049975|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.171||||0.0273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.323|-0.019|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, pooled site group, baseline IGA grade, and baseline % BSA were independent variables|Treatment group, pooled site group, baseline IGA grade, and baseline % BSA were independent variables|Week 4||-0.019|-0.323|0.0273
91082853|NCT04378569|182049975|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.0266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.339|-0.021|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, pooled site group, baseline IGA grade, and baseline % BSA were independent variables|Treatment group, pooled site group, baseline IGA grade, and baseline % BSA were independent variables|Week 4||-0.021|-0.339|0.0266
91082854|NCT04378569|182049975|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.012||||0.9023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.196|0.173|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, pooled site group, baseline IGA grade, and baseline % BSA were independent variables|Treatment group, pooled site group, baseline IGA grade, and baseline % BSA were independent variables|Week 4||0.173|-0.196|0.9023
91082855|NCT04378569|182049975|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.096||||0.3298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.291|0.098|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, pooled site group, baseline IGA grade, and baseline % BSA were independent variables|Treatment group, pooled site group, baseline IGA grade, and baseline % BSA were independent variables|Week 8||0.098|-0.291|0.3298
91082856|NCT04378569|182049975|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.6205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.251|0.15|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, pooled site group, baseline IGA grade, and baseline % BSA were independent variables|Treatment group, pooled site group, baseline IGA grade, and baseline % BSA were independent variables|Week 8||0.150|-0.251|0.6205
91082857|NCT04378569|182049975|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.018||||0.8817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.253|0.217|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, pooled site group, baseline IGA grade, and baseline % BSA were independent variables|Treatment group, pooled site group, baseline IGA grade, and baseline % BSA were independent variables|Week 8||0.217|-0.253|0.8817
91082858|NCT04378569|182049975|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.122||||0.1837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.302|0.058|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, pooled site group, baseline IGA grade, and baseline % BSA were independent variables|Treatment group, pooled site group, baseline IGA grade, and baseline % BSA were independent variables|Week 12||0.058|-0.302|0.1837
91082859|NCT04378569|182049975|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.102||||0.2896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.293|0.088|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, pooled site group, baseline IGA grade, and baseline % BSA were independent variables|Treatment group, pooled site group, baseline IGA grade, and baseline % BSA were independent variables|||0.088|-0.293|0.2896
91082860|NCT04378569|182049975|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.031||||0.919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.205|0.227|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, pooled site group, baseline IGA grade, and baseline % BSA were independent variables|Treatment group, pooled site group, baseline IGA grade, and baseline % BSA were independent variables|Week 12||0.227|-0.205|0.9190
91082861|NCT02576977|182049990|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.5||||0.99324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|2.08|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on Stratified log-rank test.|Based on Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by disease status (refractory vs. sensitive to Lenalidomide) and Lines of previous treatments (two vs. three or more).|||2.08|1.08|0.99324
91082862|NCT02576977|182049991|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.84||||0.99989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|2.55|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on Stratified log-rank test.|||The Hazard Ratio and 95% confidence intervals were based on Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by disease status (refractory vs. sensitive to Lenalidomide) and Lines of previous treatments (two vs. three or more).|2.55|1.32|0.99989
91082863|NCT02576977|182049992|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % vs. SOC|-5.2||||0.79921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|6.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen method||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by disease status (refractory vs. sensitive to Lenalidomide) and Lines of previous treatments (two vs. three or more); If there were no participants in one of the treatment groups involved in a comparison for a particular stratum, then that stratum was excluded from the treatment comparison.|6.9|-17.1|0.79921
91082864|NCT01441245|182050007|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size used was preliminarily calculated from each co-primary endpoint. We included the following assumptions: (1) a 30 % or more effect size in the difference between mean paired changes in continuous co-primary endpoints (eGFR, creatinine, BNP and diuresis); standard variation of each group data not exceeding 20 %; (2) alpha = 0.05 two-tailed and (3) power (1-beta) = 80 %.||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Continuous variables are expressed as mean ± standard deviation (SD) and compared with t test for independent groups. p values \<0.05 were considered significant.||||0.04
91082865|NCT01441245|182050008|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size used was preliminarily calculated from each co-primary endpoint. We included the following assumptions: (1) a 30 % or more effect size in the difference between mean paired changes in continuous co-primary endpoints (eGFR, creatinine, BNP and diuresis); standard variation of each group data not exceeding 20 %; (2) alpha = 0.05 two-tailed and (3) power (1-beta) = 80 %.|||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Qualitative variables are expressed as percentage and compared with chi-square test. p values \<0.05 were considered significant.||||<0.01
91082866|NCT01441245|182050009|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size used was preliminarily calculated from each co-primary endpoint. We included the following assumptions: (1) a 30 % or more effect size in the difference between mean paired changes in continuous co-primary endpoints (eGFR, creatinine, BNP and diuresis); standard variation of each group data not exceeding 20 %; (2) alpha = 0.05 two-tailed and (3) power (1-beta) = 80 %.||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
91103743|NCT03726879|182094409|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|1.36|||Log Rank|||ER/PgR Positive Participants||1.36|0.24|
91103744|NCT03726879|182094410|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.32|||Log Rank|||All Participants||1.32|0.38|
90893261|NCT01212770|181651338|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.94||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.34|-2.53|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline DMARD use and ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||||-2.53|-7.34|0.0001
91082867|NCT01441245|182050010|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size used was preliminarily calculated from each co-primary endpoint. We included the following assumptions: (1) a 30 % or more effect size in the difference between mean paired changes in continuous co-primary endpoints (eGFR, creatinine, BNP and diuresis); standard variation of each group data not exceeding 20 %; (2) alpha = 0.05 two-tailed and (3) power (1-beta) = 80 %.||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
91082868|NCT01441245|182050011|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size used was preliminarily calculated from each co-primary endpoint. We included the following assumptions: (1) a 30 % or more effect size in the difference between mean paired changes in continuous co-primary endpoints (eGFR, creatinine, BNP and diuresis); standard variation of each group data not exceeding 20 %; (2) alpha = 0.05 two-tailed and (3) power (1-beta) = 80 %.||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04
91082869|NCT01441245|182050011|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size used was preliminarily calculated from each co-primary endpoint. We included the following assumptions: (1) a 30 % or more effect size in the difference between mean paired changes in continuous co-primary endpoints (eGFR, creatinine, BNP and diuresis); standard variation of each group data not exceeding 20 %; (2) alpha = 0.05 two-tailed and (3) power (1-beta) = 80 %.|Risk Ratio (RR)|2.06||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|2.57|||Regression, Linear||BNP levels at discharge \>500 pg/ml (RR: 2.06 \[1.65-2.57\];).|||2.57|1.65|0.01
91082870|NCT01441245|182050012|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size used was preliminarily calculated from each co-primary endpoint. We included the following assumptions: (1) a 30 % or more effect size in the difference between mean paired changes in continuous co-primary endpoints (eGFR, creatinine, BNP and diuresis); standard variation of each group data not exceeding 20 %; (2) alpha = 0.05 two-tailed and (3) power (1-beta) = 80 %.||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Continuous variables are expressed as mean ± standard deviation (SD) and compared with t test for independent groups. p values \<0.05 were considered significant.||||0.03
91082871|NCT01441245|182050013|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size used was preliminarily calculated from each co-primary endpoint. We included the following assumptions: (1) a 30 % or more effect size in the difference between mean paired changes in continuous co-primary endpoints (eGFR, creatinine, BNP and diuresis); standard variation of each group data not exceeding 20 %; (2) alpha = 0.05 two-tailed and (3) power (1-beta) = 80 %.||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Continuous variables are expressed as mean ± standard deviation (SD) and compared with t test for independent groups. p values \<0.05 were considered significant.||||0.01
91082872|NCT01441245|182050014|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size used was preliminarily calculated from each co-primary endpoint. We included the following assumptions: (1) a 30 % or more effect size in the difference between mean paired changes in continuous co-primary endpoints (eGFR, creatinine, BNP and diuresis); standard variation of each group data not exceeding 20 %; (2) alpha = 0.05 two-tailed and (3) power (1-beta) = 80 %.||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Continuous variables are expressed as mean ± standard deviation (SD) and compared with t test for independent groups. p values \<0.05 were considered significant||||0.05
91082873|NCT01441245|182050015|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size used was preliminarily calculated from each co-primary endpoint. We included the following assumptions: (1) a 30 % or more effect size in the difference between mean paired changes in continuous co-primary endpoints (eGFR, creatinine, BNP and diuresis); standard variation of each group data not exceeding 20 %; (2) alpha = 0.05 two-tailed and (3) power (1-beta) = 80 %.|||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Qualitative variables are expressed as percentage of partecipants and compared with chi-square test. p-value equal or lower than 0.05 are considered statistically significant.||||<0.01
91082874|NCT03188523|182050016|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-1.03|||||||||||||Posterior Probability (PP) of true mean difference in the plasma HIV-1 RNA change from baseline between MK-8504 and placebo at least 0.5 log10 copies/mL was \>98%|Adjusted by Placebo data pooled from historical placebo data from recent monotherapy studies in HIV-1 infected participants (NCT00100048, NCT01466985, NCT01152255, and NCT01353898) and fitted with a longitudinal data analysis (LDA) model containing fixed effects for study and time, and a random effect for participants. LS mean (95% confidence interval) for change from baseline at 168 hours post dose of pooled historical placebo was -0.03 log10 copies/mL (-0.14, 0.09).||||
91082875|NCT03188523|182050016|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.92|||||||||||||Posterior Probability (PP) of true mean difference in the plasma HIV-1 RNA change from baseline between MK-8504 and placebo at least 0.5 log10 copies/mL was \>95%|Adjusted by Placebo data pooled from historical placebo data from recent monotherapy studies in HIV-1 infected participants (NCT00100048, NCT01466985, NCT01152255, and NCT01353898) and fitted with a longitudinal data analysis (LDA) model containing fixed effects for study and time, and a random effect for participants. LS mean (95% confidence interval) for change from baseline at 168 hours post dose of pooled historical placebo was -0.03 log10 copies/mL (-0.14, 0.09).||||
91082876|NCT03188523|182050032|OTHER||Posterior Probability (percentage)|99.0|||||||||||||Posterior Probability (percentage) of true geometric mean (GM) C168hr TFV-DP level in PBMCs ≥0.1 μM|PBMC TFV-DP C168hr values pooled, natural log transformed and analyzed based on a linear model containing a fixed effect for dose level. The posterior probability that the true GM of PBMC TFV-DP C168hr level was ≥0.1 μM was calculated for the dose level using flat priors under a normal likelihood assumption. An 80% posterior probability for a dose level that also exhibits acceptable safety and tolerability would satisfy the secondary PK hypothesis.||||
91103745|NCT03726879|182094410|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|3.69|||Log Rank|||PD-L1 IC1/2/3||3.69|0.51|
91103746|NCT03726879|182094410|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.02|||Log Rank|||PD-L1 IC0||1.02|0.19|
91103747|NCT03726879|182094411|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.0|||Log Rank|||All Participants||2.00|0.40|
91103748|NCT03726879|182094411|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|7.33|||Log Rank|||PD-L1 IC1/2/3||7.33|0.42|
91103749|NCT03726879|182094411|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.59|||Log Rank|||PD-L1 IC0||1.59|0.21|
91103750|NCT03726879|182094425|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|26.42|||Regression, Cox|||PIK3CA-Missing||26.42|0.22|
91103751|NCT03726879|182094425|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.9|||Regression, Cox|||PIK3CA-Mutated||1.90|0.23|
91103752|NCT03726879|182094425|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.87|||Regression, Cox|||PIK3CA-Wildtype||1.87|0.45|
91103753|NCT03726879|182094426|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|18.91|||Regression, Cox|||PIK3CA-Missing||18.91|0.07|
91103754|NCT03726879|182094426|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.92||||||PIK3CA-Mutated||1.92|0.19|
91103755|NCT03726879|182094426|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.55|||Regression, Cox|||PIK3CA-Wildtype||1.55|0.33|
91103756|NCT03726879|182094427|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|999.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0||Upper limit of the CI was not evaluable due to low number of events||Regression, Cox||The estimated value is \>999.99|PIK3CA-Missing|||0.00|
91103757|NCT03726879|182094427|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|3.53|||Regression, Cox|||PIK3CA-Mutated||3.53|0.10|
91103758|NCT03726879|182094427|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|2.09|||Regression, Cox|||PIK3CA-Wildtype||2.09|0.33|
91103759|NCT00761137|182094428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||"Primary outcome was analyzed by a mixed-effects ANOVA model employing subject as a random factor as well as visit and treatment as fixed factors. Intention-to-treat (ITT) sample was analyzed. Unweighted means and their 95% Confidence Interval (CI) are reported, which represent treatment group means adjusted for the effect of visit and removing the intra-subject variability. For all analyses, significance level was set at 5%."||||0.6
91103760|NCT02496156|182094430|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.39||||||This is a computed p-value.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Missing data treatment was done using multiple imputation methods when data were determined to be Missing Completely at Random or Missing at Random. Assumptions underlying each statistical test were evaluated before proceeding with specific analyses.|For each outcome, a linear mixed effects model was fit; with the exception of the Knowledge test where a linear model was fit. Separate models were fit for Parents and adolescents except for HbA1C. The predictor variable is treatment group (SMDM vs. UCP). Covariates are gender, age, social economic status, and family structure as determined by (number of siblings and of caregivers in the home). A random intercept was fit for each subject across the longitudinal data. To accommodate missing values multiple imputation methodology was applied to the data, resulting in five imputed datasets. For each imputed dataset, a linear mixed effects model (or linear model for Knowledge Test) was fit; the resulting five models were pooled into a final model and summary statistics are presented. A two-sided Wald's t test determined significance of covariates. The significance level was 0.05. Appropriate model diagnostics were performed to assess model fit.|||<0.39
91103761|NCT02496156|182094431|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Computed p-value exceeded the .05 level of significance.|Mixed Models Analysis||||For each outcome, a linear mixed effects model was fit; with the exception of the Knowledge test where a linear model was fit. Separate models were fit for Parents and adolescents except for HbA1C. The predictor variable is treatment group (SMDM vs. UCP). Covariates are gender, age, social economic status, and family structure as determined by (number of siblings and of caregivers in the home). A random intercept was fit for each subject across the longitudinal data. To accommodate missing values multiple imputation methodology was applied to the data, resulting in five imputed datasets. For each imputed dataset, a linear mixed effects model (or linear model for Knowledge Test) was fit; the resulting five models were pooled into a final model and summary statistics are presented. A two-sided Wald's t test determined significance of covariates. The significance level was 0.05. Appropriate model diagnostics were performed to assess model fit.|||>0.05
91103762|NCT02496156|182094432|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||This is a computed p-value.|Mixed Models Analysis|||See description of analysis below.|For each outcome, a linear mixed effects model was fit; with the exception of the Knowledge test where a linear model was fit. Separate models were fit for Parents and adolescents except for HbA1C. The predictor variable is treatment group (SMDM vs. UCP). Covariates are gender, age, social economic status, and family structure as determined by (number of siblings and of caregivers in the home). A random intercept was fit for each subject across the longitudinal data. To accommodate missing values multiple imputation methodology was applied to the data, resulting in five imputed datasets. For each imputed dataset, a linear mixed effects model (or linear model for Knowledge Test) was fit; the resulting five models were pooled into a final model and summary statistics are presented. A two-sided Wald's t test determined significance of covariates. The significance level was 0.05. Appropriate model diagnostics were performed to assess model fit.|||>0.05
91103763|NCT02496156|182094433|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Computed p-value|ANCOVA|Difference in post-test scores with baseline Knowledge test score as the covariate.||||||>0.05
91103764|NCT02496156|182094435|SUPERIORITY|See analysis description below.|||||>|0.05||||||Computed p-value|ANOVA||||For each outcome, a linear mixed effects model was fit; with the exception of the Knowledge test where a linear model was fit. Separate models were fit for Parents and adolescents except for HbA1C. The predictor variable is treatment group (SMDM vs. UCP). Covariates are gender, age, social economic status, and family structure as determined by (number of siblings and of caregivers in the home). A random intercept was fit for each subject across the longitudinal data. To accommodate missing values multiple imputation methodology was applied to the data, resulting in five imputed datasets. For each imputed dataset, a linear mixed effects model (or linear model for Knowledge Test) was fit; the resulting five models were pooled into a final model and summary statistics are presented. A two-sided Wald's t test determined significance of covariates. The significance level was 0.05. Appropriate model diagnostics were performed to assess model fit.|||>0.05
91103765|NCT00507507|182094436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016||||||A Fisher exact test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level was used.|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the proportion of subjects with HBV DNA \< 400 copies/mL at Week 192 between the Tenofovir DF and FTC+Tenofovir DF groups; the alternative hypothesis was that there was a difference. The sample size provided at least 85% power to detect a difference of 30% between the groups, assuming response rates of 30% and 60% in the Tenofovir DF and FTC+Tenofovir DF groups, respectively.||||0.016
91103766|NCT00507507|182094437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||||||A Fisher exact test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level was used.|Fisher Exact|||Analysis at Week 48: the null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the proportion of subjects with HBV DNA \< 400 copies/mL at Week 48 between the Tenofovir DF and FTC+Tenofovir DF groups; the alternative hypothesis was that there was a difference.||||0.050
91103767|NCT00507507|182094437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||||||A Fisher exact test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level was used.|Fisher Exact|||Analysis at Week 96: the null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the proportion of subjects with HBV DNA \< 400 copies/mL at Week 96 between the Tenofovir DF and FTC+Tenofovir DF groups; the alternative hypothesis was that there was a difference.||||0.009
90829415|NCT02365649|181533421|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.7|17.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders||17.7|-18.7|1.000
90893262|NCT01212770|181651338|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.85||||0.1325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.27|0.56|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline DMARD use and ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.56|-4.27|0.1325
90893263|NCT01212770|181651339|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.47||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.24|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline DMARD use and ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||||-0.24|-0.70|0.0001
91103768|NCT00507507|182094437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||||||A Fisher exact test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level was used.|Fisher Exact|||Analysis at Week 144: the null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the proportion of subjects with HBV DNA \< 400 copies/mL at Week 144 between the Tenofovir DF and FTC+Tenofovir DF groups; the alternative hypothesis was that there was a difference.||||0.030
91103769|NCT00507507|182094438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.703||||||A Fisher exact test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level was used.|Fisher Exact|||Analysis at Week 48: the null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the proportion of subjects with HBV DNA \< 169 copies/mL at Week 48 between the Tenofovir DF and FTC+Tenofovir DF groups; the alternative hypothesis was that there was a difference.||||0.703
91103770|NCT00507507|182094438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034||||||A Fisher exact test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level was used.|Fisher Exact|||Analysis at Week 96: the null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the proportion of subjects with HBV DNA \< 169 copies/mL at Week 96 between the Tenofovir DF and FTC+Tenofovir DF groups; the alternative hypothesis was that there was a difference.||||0.034
91103771|NCT00507507|182094438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011||||||A Fisher exact test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level was used.|Fisher Exact|||Analysis at Week 144: the null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the proportion of subjects with HBV DNA \< 169 copies/mL at Week 144 between the Tenofovir DF and FTC+Tenofovir DF groups; the alternative hypothesis was that there was a difference.||||0.011
91103772|NCT00507507|182094438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||||||A Fisher exact test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level was used.|Fisher Exact|||Analysis at Week 192: the null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the proportion of subjects with HBV DNA \< 169 copies/mL at Week 192 between the Tenofovir DF and FTC+Tenofovir DF groups; the alternative hypothesis was that there was a difference.||||0.007
91103773|NCT00507507|182094439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||||||A Wilcoxon rank-sum (2-sided) test was used, with no adjustments for covariates.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference of change in HBV DNA from baseline between the Tenofovir DF and FTC+Tenofovir DF groups; the alternative hypothesis was that there was a difference.||||0.010
91103774|NCT00507507|182094440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019||||||A Wilcoxon rank-sum (2-sided) test was used, with no adjustments for covariates.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference of change in HBV DNA from baseline between the Tenofovir DF and FTC+Tenofovir DF groups; the alternative hypothesis was that there was a difference.||||0.019
91103775|NCT00507507|182094441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.186||||||A Wilcoxon rank-sum (2-sided) test was used, with no adjustments for covariates.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference of change in HBV DNA from baseline between the Tenofovir DF and FTC+Tenofovir DF groups; the alternative hypothesis was that there was a difference.||||0.186
91103776|NCT00507507|182094442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07||||||A Wilcoxon rank-sum (2-sided) test was used, with no adjustments for covariates.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference of change in HBV DNA from baseline between the Tenofovir DF and FTC+Tenofovir DF groups; the alternative hypothesis was that there was a difference.||||0.070
91103777|NCT00507507|182094443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.467||||||A Fisher exact test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level was used, with no adjustments for covariates.|Fisher Exact|||Analysis at Week 48: the null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the proportion of subjects with normal ALT at Week 48 between the Tenofovir DF and FTC+Tenofovir DF groups; the alternative hypothesis was that there was a difference.||||0.467
91103778|NCT00507507|182094443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||A Fisher exact test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level was used, with no adjustments for covariates.|Fisher Exact|||Analysis at Week 96: the null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the proportion of subjects with normal ALT at Week 96 between the Tenofovir DF and FTC+Tenofovir DF groups; the alternative hypothesis was that there was a difference.||||1.000
91103779|NCT00507507|182094443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.529||||||A Fisher exact test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level was used, with no adjustments for covariates.|Fisher Exact|||Analysis at Week 144: the null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the proportion of subjects with normal ALT at Week 144 between the Tenofovir DF and FTC+Tenofovir DF groups; the alternative hypothesis was that there was a difference.||||0.529
91103780|NCT00507507|182094443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.451||||||A Fisher exact test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level was used, with no adjustments for covariates.|Fisher Exact|||Analysis at Week 192: the null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the proportion of subjects with normal ALT at Week 192 between the Tenofovir DF and FTC+Tenofovir DF groups; the alternative hypothesis was that there was a difference.||||0.451
91103781|NCT00507507|182094444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.496||||||A Fisher exact test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level was used.|Fisher Exact|||Analysis at Week 96: the null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the proportion of subjects with HBeAg loss between the Tenofovir DF and FTC+Tenofovir DF groups; the alternative hypothesis was that there was a difference.||||0.496
91103782|NCT00507507|182094444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.119||||||A Fisher exact test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level was used.|Fisher Exact|||Analysis at Week 144: the null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the proportion of subjects with HBeAg loss between the Tenofovir DF and FTC+Tenofovir DF groups; the alternative hypothesis was that there was a difference.||||0.119
90893264|NCT01212770|181651339|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27||||0.0237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.04|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline DMARD use and ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||||-0.04|-0.50|0.0237
91082877|NCT03188523|182050032|OTHER||Posterior Probability (percentage)|99.0|||||||||||||Posterior Probability (percentage) of true geometric mean (GM) C168hr TFV-DP level in PBMCs ≥0.1 μM|PBMC TFV-DP C168hr values pooled, natural log transformed and analyzed based on a linear model containing a fixed effect for dose level. The posterior probability that the true GM of PBMC TFV-DP C168hr level was ≥0.1 μM was calculated for the dose level using flat priors under a normal likelihood assumption. An 80% posterior probability for a dose level that also exhibits acceptable safety and tolerability would satisfy the secondary PK hypothesis.||||
91082878|NCT04560868|182050039|EQUIVALENCE|The point null hypothesis was a difference in expected number of log ins of exactly 0.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.73|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.41|19.05|||Regression, Linear||mean difference=experimental-control|Based on a priori power calculations we had 80% power to detect an average increase of 3.8 log ins in the experimental relative to the control arm.||19.05|6.41|<0.01
90893265|NCT01212770|181651340|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.54||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|4.3|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline DMARD use and ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||||4.30|0.77|0.0049
91082879|NCT04560868|182050040|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was a point null of relative risk equal to exactly 1.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.85|||Regression, Poisson||relative risk=experimental/control|Based on a priori power calculations, we had 80% power to detect a 33% - 35% increase in the proportion of experimental participants who successfully quit smoking for at least 24 hours relative to controls.||1.85|0.55|0.98
91082880|NCT04560868|182050041|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was a point null of exactly 0 risk difference between arms.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.08||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.24|||Regression, Linear||Risk difference = experimental - control.|Based on a priori power calculations, we had 80% power to detect a 28% - 33% increase in 7-day smoking abstinence in the experimental arm relative to the control arm at 3 months.||0.24|-0.08|0.35
91082881|NCT04560868|182050042|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was a point null of exactly 0 difference in expected score between arms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.87|||Regression, Linear||mean difference=experimental-control|||0.87|-0.35|0.40
91082882|NCT04560868|182050043|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was a point null of exactly 0 difference in expected score between arms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.6|||Regression, Linear||mean difference=experimental-control|||0.60|-0.68|0.90
91082883|NCT04560868|182050044|EQUIVALENCE|The tested hypothesis was a point null of 0 difference in expected average helpfulness score between arms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.4|||Regression, Linear||mean difference=experimental-control|||1.4|-0.5|0.39
91082884|NCT04560868|182050045|EQUIVALENCE|The tested hypothesis was for a point null of 0 difference in expected average helpfulness score between arms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.3|||Regression, Linear||mean difference=experimental-control|||1.3|-0.1|0.11
91082885|NCT04560868|182050047|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was a point null of exactly 0 difference in expected number of badges earned in each arm by 3 months post-baseline.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.2|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|6.65|||Regression, Linear||mean difference=experimental-control|||6.65|1.72|<0.01
91082886|NCT04560868|182050048|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was a point null of exactly 0 difference in expected score between arms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|1.18|||Regression, Linear||mean difference=experimental-control|||1.18|-1.02|0.96
91082887|NCT04560868|182050049|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was a point null hypothesis of exactly 0 difference in expected score between the arms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|0.66|||Regression, Linear||mean difference=experimental-control|||0.66|-1.55|0.31
91082888|NCT04560868|182050053|EQUIVALENCE|The point null hypothesis was of the exact same proportion of control and experimental subjects requesting NRT.|Risk Ratio (RR)|3.9||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|16.9|||Regression, Poisson||RR=experimental/control|||16.9|0.9|0.06
91082889|NCT04560868|182050054|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was a point null of exactly 0 difference in probability of the outcome between arms.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|2.65|||Regression, Poisson||risk ratio=experimental/control|||2.65|0.38|0.99
91082890|NCT04560868|182050055|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was a point null of exactly 0 difference in expected change from baseline in number of cigarettes smoked per day between arms.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.39||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|3.99|||Regression, Linear||treatment difference=experimental-control, where the outcome for each individual is (one month)-baseline.|||3.99|-1.21|0.30
91082891|NCT04560868|182050056|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was a point null of exactly 0 difference in expected change in daily cigarette usage between arms.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.5||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|5.5|||Regression, Linear||treatment effect=experimental-control, where the outcome for each individual is (three month)-baseline.|||5.5|-2.51|0.47
91082892|NCT04560868|182050057|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was risk difference of exactly 0.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.04||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.11|||Regression, Linear||risk difference=experimental-control|||0.11|-0.03|0.30
91082893|NCT01649362|182050058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.63
91082894|NCT01649362|182050059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.36
91082895|NCT01649362|182050060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.02
91082896|NCT01473940|182050118|OTHER|||||||||||||P-Value not used||||A 3 + 3 enrollment design was adopted to monitor safety and determine the MTD based on DLTs obsesved. The MTD is the highest dose at which 0 of 3 or 1 of 6 DLTs are detected. The MTD is exceeded if 2 of 3 or 2 of 6 DLTs are detected. There will be no dose escalation within a cohort.|The number of DLTs seen at each cohort were used to determine the MTD for the expansion cohort. The MTD was determined to be Gemcitabine - 1,000 mg/m2, Ipilimumab 3 mg/kg|||
90959042|NCT01620255|181798206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-1.29||||0.0079|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.082|-0.493|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with model terms: treatment group, baseline, status of anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) therapy experience.||PF-00547659 225 mg vs placebo, locally read change||-0.493|-2.082|0.0079
91082897|NCT00534248|182050125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||point estimate|0.698|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.541|0.806|||Conditional Exact Method||The point estimate was for vaccine efficacy with respect to incidence of HZ.|Vaccine efficacy with respect to HZ was defined as the relative reduction in incidence rate of HZ point estimate (95% CI) calculated as 1 minus the ratio of the estimated incidence rates of HZ in the zoster vaccine group and the placebo group.||.806|.541|<.001
91082898|NCT00534248|182050126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean titre ratio|2.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|2.4|||linear mixed longitudinal analysis model|||||2.4|2.2|<.001
91082899|NCT00534248|182050127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|1.133|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.805|1.595||||||Analysis of proportion of participants reporting one or more serious adverse experiences reported within 42 days postvaccination.||1.595|.805|
91082900|NCT01704755|182050142|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The noninferiority of the rate of sustained virologic response for the ABT-450/r/ABT-333 plus ribavirin 12-week treatment group as compared with the historical rate for telaprevir plus peginterferon-ribavirin. The lower confidence bound of the 2-sided 97.5% CI for the percentage of participants with sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment must have exceeded 43% to achieve noninferiority.|Percentage of Participants|91.8|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|87.6|96.1||||||The study planned to enroll 380 subjects to a 12- or 24-week treatment arm. The primary efficacy endpoint (SVR12) was assessed for each arm. With a total sample size of 380 and assuming that 68% of the subjects in each arm would achieve SVR12, the study had greater than 90% power to demonstrate non-inferiority and superiority with a 2-sided 97.5% lower confidence bound greater than 43% and 54%, respectively, based on the normal approximation of a single binomial proportion.||96.1|87.6|
91082901|NCT01704755|182050142|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The superiority of the rate of sustained virologic response for the ABT-450/r/ABT-333 plus ribavirin 12-week treatment group as compared with the historical rate for telaprevir plus peginterferon-ribavirin. The lower confidence bound of the 2-sided 97.5% CI for the percentage of participants with sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment must have exceeded 54% to achieve superiority.|Percentage of Participants|91.8|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|87.6|96.1||||||The primary efficacy endpoints were the SVR12 rates in each arm. The overall 2-sided significance level of 0.05 was split between the arms using a Bonferroni correction of 0.025. A 2-sided 97.5% CI of the SVR12 rate per arm was computed using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution. A gatekeeping testing procedure was used to control the Type I error rate at 0.05, and the primary endpoints for Arm A were tested separately from Arm B in a pre-specified order.||96.1|87.6|
91082902|NCT01704755|182050142|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The noninferiority of the rate of sustained virologic response for the ABT-450/r/ABT-333 plus ribavirin 24-week treatment group as compared with the historical rate for telaprevir plus peginterferon-ribavirin. The lower confidence bound of the 2-sided 97.5% CI for the percentage of participants with sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment must have exceeded 43% to achieve noninferiority.|Percentage of Participants|96.5|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|93.4|99.7||||||||99.7|93.4|
91082903|NCT01704755|182050142|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The superiority of the rate of sustained virologic response for the ABT-450/r/ABT-333 plus ribavirin 24-week treatment group as compared with the historical rate for telaprevir plus peginterferon-ribavirin. The lower confidence bound of the 2-sided 97.5% CI for the percentage of participants with sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment must have exceeded 54% to achieve superiority.|Percentage of Participants|96.5|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|93.4|99.7||||||||99.7|93.4|
91082904|NCT01704755|182050143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.051|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||To test the hypothesis that the percentages of participants who achieved sustained virologic response 12 weeks after treatment was different between the two treatment groups, the percentages were compared using a logistic regression model with treatment group, baseline log(subscript)10(subscript) HCV RNA level, HCV subgenotype (1a, non-1a), IL28B genotype (CC, non CC), and peginterferon-ribavirin treatment history (treatment-naïve or treatment-experienced) as predictors.||||0.051
91082905|NCT01400906|182050146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.172|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.037|0.38|||||The estimated value is an adjusted mean difference. Data were adjusted for the following covariates: period, smoking status, treatment, participant-level Baseline, period-level Baseline, and treatment by smoking status interaction.|||0.380|-0.037|
91082906|NCT01400906|182050146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.161|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.047|0.37|||||The estimated value is an adjusted mean difference. Data were adjusted for the following covariates: period, smoking status, treatment, participant-level Baseline, period-level Baseline, and treatment by smoking status interaction.|||0.370|-0.047|
91082907|NCT01400906|182050151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.638|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.836|||||The estimated value is an adjusted mean difference. Data were adjusted for the following covariates: period, smoking status, treatment, participant-level Baseline, period-level Baseline, and treatment by smoking status interaction.|||0.836|0.440|
91082908|NCT01400906|182050151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.661|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.463|0.859|||||The estimated value is an adjusted mean difference. Data were adjusted for the following covariates: period, smoking status, treatment, participant-level Baseline, period-level Baseline, and treatment by smoking status interaction.|||0.859|0.463|
91082909|NCT01400906|182050152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.175|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.018|0.333|||||The estimated value is an adjusted mean difference. Data were adjusted for the following covariates: period, smoking status, treatment, participant-level Baseline, period-level Baseline, and treatment by smoking status interaction.|||0.333|0.018|
91082910|NCT01400906|182050152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.165|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.008|0.323|||||The estimated value is an adjusted mean difference. Data were adjusted for the following covariates: period, smoking status, treatment, participant-level Baseline, period-level Baseline, and treatment by smoking status interaction.|||0.323|0.008|
91082911|NCT01400906|182050153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.476|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.326|0.627|||||The estimated value is an adjusted mean difference. Data were adjusted for the following covariates: period, smoking status, treatment, participant-level Baseline, period-level Baseline, and treatment by smoking status interaction.|||0.627|0.326|
90959043|NCT01620255|181798207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.25||||0.1016|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.511|0.001|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear Mixed Model (LMM) with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 7.5 mg vs placebo, Stool Frequency, W4||0.001|-0.511|0.1016
91082912|NCT01400906|182050153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.68|||||The estimated value is an adjusted mean difference. Data were adjusted for the following covariates: period, smoking status, treatment, participant-level Baseline, period-level Baseline, and treatment by smoking status interaction.|||0.680|0.380|
91082913|NCT02821416|182050156|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-5.81||||0.0208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.69|-0.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes covariates of treatment, time post-allergen challenge , treatment\*time post-allergen challenge, allergen induced at screening||||-0.94|-10.69|0.0208
91082914|NCT02821416|182050157|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.535||||0.363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.045|8.116|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes covariates of treatment, maximum percent decrease in FEV1 late asthma response||||8.116|-3.045|0.3630
91082915|NCT01763203|182050163|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.73
91082916|NCT01763203|182050164|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.77
91082917|NCT01763203|182050166|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.002
91082918|NCT01763203|182050167|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.86
91082919|NCT01763203|182050168|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.10
91082920|NCT01763203|182050169|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.46
91082921|NCT01763203|182050170|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.011
91082922|NCT01763203|182050171|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.47
91082923|NCT01763203|182050172|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.58
91082924|NCT01763203|182050173|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.74
91082925|NCT01763203|182050174|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0021|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0021
91082926|NCT01763203|182050175|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.07
91082927|NCT01763203|182050176|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.32
91082928|NCT01763203|182050177|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.77
91082929|NCT01763203|182050178|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.20
91082930|NCT01763203|182050179|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.45
91082931|NCT01763203|182050180|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.93
91082932|NCT01763203|182050181|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.80
91082933|NCT01763203|182050182|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.25
91082934|NCT02256917|182050183|OTHER|Confirmative one-sided one-sample Poisson-test.|ABR|4.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.06|5.79||A respective confirmative one-sided one-sample Poisson-test was used to demonstrate if the mean ABR in patients with individually tailored prophylaxis is at least 50% below the mean ABR rate in the GENA-01 trial.|one-sided one-sample Poisson-test||A confidence interval of 97.5% for confirmative analysis was also used - the respective upper and lower limit CIs were 3.96-5.93|||5.79|4.06|
91082935|NCT02256917|182050183|OTHER|Reduction of the annualized total bleeding rate (ABR) observed in the GENA-01 study vs. GENA-21B analyzed with a Negative Binomial regression model including a correction for overdispersion.|Rate ratio|11.89|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.5|18.86|||Negative binomial regression model|||||18.86|7.50|<0.0001
91082936|NCT02256917|182050183|OTHER|Reduction of the annualized total bleeding rate (ABR) observed in the GENA-01 study vs. GENA-21B analyzed with a Poisson regression model including a correction for overdispersion.|Rate ratio|10.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.12|16.8|||Poisson regression model|||||16.80|6.12|<0.0001
91082937|NCT02256917|182050184|OTHER|A respective confirmative one-sided one-sample Poisson-test was used to demonstrate if the mean spontaneous ABR in patients with individually tailored prophylaxis is at least 50% below the mean ABR rate in the GENA-01 trial.|ABR|3.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.48|3.87|||One-sided one-sample Poisso|||||3.87|2.48|
91082938|NCT02256917|182050185|OTHER|A respective confirmative one-sided one-sample Poisson-test was used to demonstrate if the mean ABR in patients with 2x/week prophylaxis or less with individually tailored prophylaxis is at least 50% below the mean ABR rate in the GENA-01 trial.|ABR|5.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|6.39|||One-sided one-sample Poisson-test||A confidence interval of 97.5% for confirmative analysis was also used - the respective upper and lower limit CIs were 3.76-6.60|||6.39|3.90|
90959044|NCT01620255|181798207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.28||||0.0654|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.529|-0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 22.5 mg vs placebo, Stool Frequency, W4||-0.030|-0.529|0.0654
90959045|NCT01620255|181798207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.22||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.472|0.031|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 75 mg vs placebo, Stool Frequency, W4||0.031|-0.472|0.1500
91103783|NCT00507507|182094444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.365||||||A Fisher exact test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level was used.|Fisher Exact|||Analysis at Week 192: the null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the proportion of subjects with HBeAg loss between the Tenofovir DF and FTC+Tenofovir DF groups; the alternative hypothesis was that there was a difference.||||0.365
91103784|NCT00507507|182094445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.496||||||A Fisher exact test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level was used.|Fisher Exact|||Analysis at Week 96: the null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the proportion of subjects with seroconversion to anti-HBe between the Tenofovir DF and FTC+Tenofovir DF groups; the alternative hypothesis was that there was a difference.||||0.496
91103785|NCT00507507|182094445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.119||||||A Fisher exact test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level was used.|Fisher Exact|||Analysis at Week 144: the null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the proportion of subjects with seroconversion to anti-HBe between the Tenofovir DF and FTC+Tenofovir DF groups; the alternative hypothesis was that there was a difference.||||0.119
91103786|NCT00507507|182094445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.244||||||A Fisher exact test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level was used.|Fisher Exact|||Analysis at Week 192: the null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the proportion of subjects with seroconversion to anti-HBe between the Tenofovir DF and FTC+Tenofovir DF groups; the alternative hypothesis was that there was a difference.||||0.244
91103787|NCT00289900|182094452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-13.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.8|-9.6|||ANCOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate||||-9.6|-16.8|<0.001
91103788|NCT00289900|182094452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-10.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|-7.8|||ANCOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate||||-7.8|-13.8|<0.001
91103789|NCT00289900|182094452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-5.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|-2.1|||ANCOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate||||-2.1|-8.1|<0.001
91103790|NCT00289900|182094452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-4.2||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|-1.2|||ANCOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate||||-1.2|-7.2|0.007
91103791|NCT00289900|182094453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|19.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.2|22.6|||ANCOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate||||22.6|17.2|<0.001
91103792|NCT00289900|182094453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|21.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.0|23.6|||ANCOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate||||23.6|19.0|<0.001
91103793|NCT00289900|182094453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|22.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.8|24.4|||ANCOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate||||24.4|19.8|<0.001
91103794|NCT00289900|182094453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|23.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.7|25.3|||ANCOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate||||25.3|20.7|<0.001
91103795|NCT00289900|182094454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-17.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.2|-13.3|||Non-parametric ANOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate|Hodges-Lehmann estimate of the difference between treatments with a corresponding distribution-free confidence interval (CI) based on Wilcoxon's rank sum test|||-13.3|-21.2|<0.001
91103796|NCT00289900|182094454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-15.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.1|-11.9|||Non-parametric ANOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate|Hodges-Lehmann estimate of the difference between treatments with a corresponding distribution-free CI based on Wilcoxon's rank sum test|||-11.9|-19.1|<0.001
91103797|NCT00289900|182094454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-10.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|-7.0|||Non-parametric ANOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate|Hodges-Lehmann estimate of the difference between treatments with a corresponding distribution-free CI based on Wilcoxon's rank sum test|||-7.0|-13.7|<0.001
91103798|NCT00289900|182094454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-6.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|-3.4|||Non-parametric ANOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate|Hodges-Lehmann estimate of the difference between treatments with a corresponding distribution-free CI based on Wilcoxon's rank sum test|||-3.4|-10.2|<0.001
91103799|NCT00289900|182094455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-9.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|-6.0|||ANCOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate||||-6.0|-12.1|<0.001
91103800|NCT00289900|182094455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-5.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|-2.9|||ANCOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate||||-2.9|-8.0|<0.001
91103801|NCT00289900|182094455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|0.4||||0.771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|2.9|||ANCOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate||||2.9|-2.2|0.771
91103802|NCT00289900|182094455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|2.4||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|5.0|||ANCOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate||||5.0|-0.2|0.065
91103803|NCT00289900|182094456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least Squares Mean|-6.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|-3.5|||ANCOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate||||-3.5|-10.2|<0.001
91103804|NCT00289900|182094456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-3.0||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|-0.2|||ANCOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate||||-0.2|-5.8|0.037
91103805|NCT00289900|182094456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|2.8||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|5.6|||ANCOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate||||5.6|0.0|0.047
91103806|NCT00289900|182094456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Sqaures Mean|4.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|7.5|||ANCOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate||||7.5|2.0|<0.001
91103807|NCT00289900|182094457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-9.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|-6.3|||ANCOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate||||-6.3|-12.1|<0.001
91103808|NCT00289900|182094457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-5.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|-2.8|||ANCOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate||||-2.8|-7.7|<0.001
91103809|NCT00289900|182094457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.9||||0.476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|1.5|||ANCOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate||||1.5|-3.3|0.476
91103810|NCT00289900|182094457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|0.2||||0.845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|2.7|||ANCOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate||||2.7|-2.2|0.845
91103811|NCT00289900|182094458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|9.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.6|11.4|||ANCOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate||||11.4|6.6|<0.001
91103812|NCT00289900|182094458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|7.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.8|9.7|||ANCOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate||||9.7|5.8|<0.001
91103813|NCT00289900|182094458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|9.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|10.9|||ANCOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate||||10.9|7.0|<0.001
91103814|NCT00289900|182094458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|10.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.7|12.7|||ANCOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate||||12.7|8.7|<0.001
91082939|NCT01639703|182050204|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.2476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.21|||Regression, Logistic||Odds-ratio is the risk to move from one immunochemistry category to the below one (among 0%, 1-10%, 10-50% and \>50%) considering an increase of 5 units for Blood Volume|Multinomial logistic regression analyses were performed with each off-site CT perfusion parameters as explicative variables taken alone and each off-site immunohistochemistry categorized parameters as dependent variables.||1.21|0.47|0.2476
91103815|NCT00289900|182094459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-3.6||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|-1.2|||ANCOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate||||-1.2|-6.0|0.003
91103816|NCT00289900|182094459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.5||||0.595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.5|||ANCOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate||||1.5|-2.5|0.595
91103817|NCT00289900|182094459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|4.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|6.2|||ANCOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate||||6.2|2.2|<0.001
91103818|NCT00289900|182094459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|6.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|8.1|||ANCOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate||||8.1|4.1|<0.001
91103819|NCT00289900|182094460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-18.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.2|-14.2|||Non-parametric ANOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate|Hodges-Lehmann estimate of the difference between treatments with a corresponding distribution-free CI based on Wilcoxon's rank sum test|||-14.2|-24.2|<0.001
91103820|NCT00289900|182094460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-20.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.0|-16.6|||Non-parametric ANOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate|Hodges-Lehmann estimate of the difference between treatments with a corresponding distribution-free CI based on Wilcoxon's rank sum test|||-16.6|-25.0|<0.001
91103821|NCT00289900|182094460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-23.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.8|-19.4|||Non-parametric ANOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate|Hodges-Lehmann estimate of the difference between treatments with a corresponding distribution-free CI based on Wilcoxon's rank sum test|||-19.4|-27.8|<0.001
91103822|NCT00289900|182094460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-24.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.6|-20.0|||Non-parametric ANOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate|Hodges-Lehmann estimate of the difference between treatments with a corresponding distribution-free CI based on Wilcoxon's rank sum test|||-20.0|-28.6|<0.001
91103823|NCT00289900|182094461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|7.5|||Non-parametric ANOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate|Hodges-Lehmann estimate of the difference between treatments with a corresponding distribution-free CI based on Wilcoxon's rank sum test|||7.5|-9.6|0.500
91103824|NCT00289900|182094461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|6.9||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|13.8|||Non-parametric ANOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate|Hodges-Lehmann estimate of the difference between treatments with a corresponding distribution-free CI based on Wilcoxon's rank sum test|||13.8|0.0|0.083
91103825|NCT00289900|182094461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|11.9||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.2|18.8|||Non-parametric ANOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate|Hodges-Lehmann estimate of the difference between treatments with a corresponding distribution-free CI based on Wilcoxon's rank sum test|||18.8|5.2|0.005
91103826|NCT00289900|182094461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|16.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.8|22.8|||Non-parametric ANOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate|Hodges-Lehmann estimate of the difference between treatments with a corresponding distribution-free CI based on Wilcoxon's rank sum test|||22.8|9.8|<0.001
91103827|NCT00289900|182094462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-12.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.6|-9.9|||ANCOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate||||-9.9|-15.6|<0.001
91103828|NCT00289900|182094462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-10.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|-8.4|||ANCOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate||||-8.4|-13.2|<0.001
91103829|NCT00289900|182094462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-6.4||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|-4.0|||ANCOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate||||-4.0|-8.8|0.001
91103830|NCT00289900|182094462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-5.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|-3.2|||ANCOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate||||-3.2|-8.0|<0.001
91103831|NCT00289900|182094463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportion|-1.4||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||-0.5|-2.3|0.008
91103832|NCT00289900|182094464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportion|-0.7||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||-0.0|-1.4|0.042
91103833|NCT00289900|182094465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportion|-0.1||||0.346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||0.4|-0.5|0.346
91103834|NCT00289900|182094466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportion|0.1||||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||0.7|-0.2|0.556
91103835|NCT00289900|182094467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportion|0.1||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||0.8|-0.1|0.134
90893266|NCT01212770|181651340|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.68||||0.4505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|2.44|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline DMARD use and ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||||2.44|-1.09|0.4505
90893267|NCT01212770|181651341|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.34||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|3.94|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline DMARD use and ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||||3.94|0.74|0.0043
90893268|NCT01212770|181651341|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.67||||0.0404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|3.27|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline DMARD use and ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||||3.27|0.07|0.0404
90893269|NCT01212770|181651342|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|21.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.5|30.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use and and involvement of \>= 3% BSA with psoriasis at baseline.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata of baseline DMARD use by ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||30.9|11.5|< 0.0001
90893270|NCT01212770|181651342|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|8.7||||0.0661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|18.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use involvement of \>= 3% BSA with psoriasis at baseline.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata of baseline DMARD use by ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||18.0|-0.5|0.0661
90893271|NCT01212770|181651343|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|14.8||||0.0099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|25.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||25.7|3.8|0.0099
90893272|NCT01212770|181651343|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|10.8||||0.0515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|21.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||21.4|0.1|0.0515
90893273|NCT01212770|181651344|SUPERIORITY||LS mean Difference|-6.6||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|-1.7|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline DMARD use and ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||||-1.7|-11.4|0.0080
90893274|NCT01212770|181651344|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.8||||0.1218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|1.0|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline DMARD use and ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||||1.0|-8.6|0.1218
90893275|NCT01212770|181651345|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.2761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.4|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline DMARD use and ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.4|-1.3|0.2761
90893276|NCT01212770|181651345|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.5012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.6|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline DMARD use and ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.6|-1.1|0.5012
90893277|NCT01212770|181651346|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0||||0.0399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.0|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline DMARD use and ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||||-0.0|-1.9|0.0399
90893278|NCT01212770|181651346|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.4413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.6|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline DMARD use and ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.6|-1.3|0.4413
90893279|NCT01212770|181651347|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.73|-2.82|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline DMARD use and ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||||-2.82|-7.73|< 0.0001
90893280|NCT01212770|181651347|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.65||||0.0349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.11|-0.19|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline DMARD use and ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||||-0.19|-5.11|0.0349
90893281|NCT01212770|181651348|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.48||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.24|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline DMARD use and ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||||-0.24|-0.72|0.0001
90893282|NCT01212770|181651348|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.0147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.06|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline DMARD use and ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||||-0.06|-0.54|0.0147
90893283|NCT01212770|181651349|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.44||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|4.24|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline DMARD use and ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||||4.24|0.64|0.0078
90893284|NCT01212770|181651349|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.19||||0.1936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|2.98|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline DMARD use and ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||||2.98|-0.61|0.1936
90893285|NCT01212770|181651350|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|2.1||||0.7585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|15.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use and involvement of \>= 3% BSA with psoriasis at baseline.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata of baseline DMARD use by ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||15.0|-10.9|0.7585
90893286|NCT01212770|181651350|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-3.9||||0.5808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.4|9.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use involvement of \>= 3% BSA with psoriasis at baseline.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata of baseline DMARD use by ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||9.7|-17.4|0.5808
91103836|NCT00289900|182094468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportion|0.1||||0.134||95.0|-0.1|0.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||0.8|-0.1|0.134
91103837|NCT00289900|182094469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.1||||0.5625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||0.9|-0.3|0.5625
91103838|NCT00289900|182094470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.7||||0.0233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||1.7|0.1|0.0233
91103839|NCT00289900|182094471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-0.1||||0.7858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||0.6|-0.4|0.7858
91103840|NCT00289900|182094472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|13.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.4|18.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||18.0|9.4|
91103841|NCT00289900|182094473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|1.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||1.4|-2.6|
91103842|NCT00289900|182094474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|11.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.9|14.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||14.7|8.9|
91103843|NCT00289900|182094475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||0.9|-0.8|
91103844|NCT00289900|182094476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-0.1||||0.4997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||0.5|-0.4|0.4997
91103845|NCT02656173|182094479|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|-0.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.21|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) was used for analysis, including treatment group and region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.||-0.21|-0.82|<0.001
91103846|NCT02656173|182094480|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|-0.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.17|||mixed model repeated measure|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure (MMRM) was used for analysis, which included the baseline as a covariate, treatment group, analysis visits and region as a fixed effect, subject as random effect and including interaction of \[treatment group x visit\] for FAS.||-0.17|-0.78|<0.001
91103847|NCT02656173|182094481|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|-0.28||||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) was used for analysis including treatment group and region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.||0.07|-0.63|0.112
91103848|NCT02656173|182094482|SUPERIORITY||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Statistics|1.75||||0.186|||||||Stratified Rank Analysis of Covariance|||Stratified Rank Analysis of Covariance (RANCOVA), including the rank score for change from Baseline to End of Treatment stratified by region as the dependent variable, treatment group and region as fixed factors and the rank score for baseline stratified by region as a covariate for FAS.||||0.186
91103849|NCT02656173|182094483|SUPERIORITY||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Statistics|0.09||||0.76|||||||Stratified Rank Analysis of Covariance|||Stratified Rank Analysis of Covariance (RANCOVA), including the rank score for change from Baseline to End of Treatment stratified by region as the dependent variable, treatment group and region as fixed factors and the rank score for baseline stratified by region as a covariate for FAS.||||0.760
91103850|NCT02656173|182094484|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.03||||0.646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) was used for analysis including treatment group and region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.||0.11|-0.18|0.646
91103851|NCT02656173|182094485|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|12.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.33|17.84|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) was used for analysis including treatment group and region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.||17.84|6.33|<0.001
91103852|NCT02656173|182094486|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.65||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|-0.26|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) was used for analysis including treatment group and region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.||-0.26|-1.04|0.001
91103853|NCT02656173|182094487|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.11||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||Subscale: Daytime Frequency. Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) was used for analysis including treatment group and region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.||-0.03|-0.19|0.006
91103854|NCT02656173|182094487|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.08||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Subscale: Nighttime Frequency. ANCOVA was used for analysis including treatment group and region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.||0.03|-0.19|0.174
91103855|NCT02656173|182094487|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.26||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||Subscale: Urgency. ANCOVA was used for analysis including treatment group and region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.||-0.02|-0.50|0.037
91103856|NCT02656173|182094487|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.18||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||Subscale: Urgency Incontinence. ANCOVA was used for analysis including treatment group and region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.||-0.04|-0.32|0.014
91103857|NCT02656173|182094488|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-1.19||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|-0.44|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) was used for analysis including treatment group and region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.||-0.44|-1.94|0.002
91103858|NCT02656173|182094489|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|-0.43|||ANCOVA|||Subscale: Storage Subscale. Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) was used for analysis including treatment group and region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.||-0.43|-1.13|<0.001
91103859|NCT02656173|182094489|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.3||||0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.13|||ANCOVA|||Subscale: Voiding Subscale-1. ANCOVA was used for analysis including treatment group and region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.||0.13|-0.72|0.167
90893287|NCT01212770|181651351|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|12.0||||0.1303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|27.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD useinvolvement of \>= 3% BSA with psoriasis at baseline..|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata of baseline DMARD use by ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||27.0|-3.1|0.1303
90893288|NCT01212770|181651351|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|7.5||||0.361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|23.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use involvement of \>= 3% BSA with psoriasis at baseline.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata of baseline DMARD use by ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||23.2|-8.3|0.3610
90893289|NCT01212770|181651352|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|22.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.4|32.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use involvement of \>= 3% BSA with psoriasis at baseline.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata of baseline DMARD use by ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||32.6|12.4|< 0.0001
90893290|NCT01212770|181651352|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|11.0||||0.0309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|20.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use involvement of \>= 3% BSA with psoriasis at baseline.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata of baseline DMARD use by ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||20.9|1.2|0.0309
90893291|NCT01212770|181651353|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|3.8||||0.5731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|16.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use involvement of \>= 3% BSA with psoriasis at baseline.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata of baseline DMARD use by ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||16.7|-9.1|0.5731
90893292|NCT01212770|181651353|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|1.0||||0.8876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|14.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use involvement of \>= 3% BSA with psoriasis at baseline.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata of baseline DMARD use by ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||14.6|-12.6|0.8876
90893293|NCT01212770|181651354|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|12.2||||0.1172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|26.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use involvement of \>= 3% BSA with psoriasis at baseline.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata of baseline DMARD use by ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||26.9|-2.5|0.1172
90893294|NCT01212770|181651354|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|7.2||||0.3695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|22.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use involvement of \>= 3% BSA with psoriasis at baseline.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata of baseline DMARD use by ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||22.6|-8.2|0.3695
90893295|NCT01212770|181651355|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|22.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.0|32.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use involvement of \>= 3% BSA with psoriasis at baseline.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata of baseline DMARD use by ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||32.1|13.0|< 0.0001
90893296|NCT01212770|181651355|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|11.7||||0.0123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|20.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use involvement of \>= 3% BSA with psoriasis at baseline.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata of baseline DMARD use by ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||20.7|2.7|0.0123
90893297|NCT01212770|181651356|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|6.8||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|13.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use involvement of \>= 3% BSA with psoriasis at baseline.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata of baseline DMARD use by ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||13.5|0.0|0.0520
91103860|NCT02656173|182094489|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.42||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.09|||ANCOVA|||Subscale: Voiding Subscale-2. ANCOVA was used for analysis including treatment group and region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.||0.09|-0.93|0.103
90893298|NCT01212770|181651356|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|4.2||||0.2052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|10.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use involvement of \>= 3% BSA with psoriasis at baseline.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata of baseline DMARD use by ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||10.6|-2.2|0.2052
90959046|NCT01620255|181798207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.38||||0.0132|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.637|-0.129|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 225 mg vs placebo, Stool Frequency, W4||-0.129|-0.637|0.0132
90959047|NCT01620255|181798207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.3||||0.0526|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.555|-0.046|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 7.5 mg vs placebo, Stool Frequency, W8||-0.046|-0.555|0.0526
90893299|NCT01212770|181651357|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|1.2||||0.5154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|4.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use involvement of \>= 3% BSA with psoriasis at baseline.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata of baseline DMARD use by ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||4.8|-2.4|0.5154
90893300|NCT01212770|181651357|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|2.3||||0.2527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|6.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use involvement of \>= 3% BSA with psoriasis at baseline.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata of baseline DMARD use by ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||6.2|-1.5|0.2527
90893301|NCT01212770|181651358|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|8.3||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|15.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use involvement of \>= 3% BSA with psoriasis at baseline.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata of baseline DMARD use by ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||15.1|1.6|0.0180
90893302|NCT01212770|181651358|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|5.8||||0.0807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|12.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use involvement of \>= 3% BSA with psoriasis at baseline.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata of baseline DMARD use by ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||12.3|-0.6|0.0807
90893303|NCT01212770|181651359|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|1.8||||0.423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|6.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use involvement of \>= 3% BSA with psoriasis at baseline.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata of baseline DMARD use by ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||6.2|-2.6|0.4230
90893304|NCT01212770|181651359|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.6||||0.787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|4.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use involvement of \>= 3% BSA with psoriasis at baseline.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata of baseline DMARD use by ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||4.6|-3.5|0.7870
90893305|NCT01212770|181651360|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-4.1||||0.4707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|6.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use involvement of \>= 3% BSA with psoriasis at baseline.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata of baseline DMARD use by ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||6.5|-14.8|0.4707
90954318|NCT03651622|181787226|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||ANOVA|||The proposed sample size of n=72 was sufficient to ensure 60% power to detect a moderate effect size (Cohen h=0.68) and 80% to detect a large effect size (Cohen h=0.85) at a significance level of 0.10 for comparing difference in change among the 3 diets. By design, our primary goal for this pilot work is to inform the final efficacy design of a fully powered SMART, and the pilot SMART was therefore not designed to be fully powered for all analyses.||||0.39
90893306|NCT01212770|181651360|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-5.4||||0.3547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|5.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use involvement of \>= 3% BSA with psoriasis at baseline.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata of baseline DMARD use by ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||5.7|-16.6|0.3547
90893307|NCT01212770|181651361|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|6.6||||0.4175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|21.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use involvement of \>= 3% BSA with psoriasis at baseline.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata of baseline DMARD use by ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||21.8|-8.6|0.4175
90893308|NCT01212770|181651361|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|6.4||||0.437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|21.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use involvement of \>= 3% BSA with psoriasis at baseline.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata of baseline DMARD use by ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||21.8|-9.1|0.4370
90954319|NCT03651622|181787227|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.75
90893309|NCT01212770|181651362|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.4||||0.9463|TWO_SIDED|195.0|-12.1|11.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use involvement of \>= 3% BSA with psoriasis at baseline.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata of baseline DMARD use by ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||11.3|-12.1|0.9463
90893310|NCT01212770|181651362|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-7.7||||0.2032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.3|3.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use involvement of \>= 3% BSA with psoriasis at baseline.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata of baseline DMARD use by ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||3.8|-19.3|0.2032
90893311|NCT01212770|181651363|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|9.8||||0.2321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|25.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use involvement of \>= 3% BSA with psoriasis at baseline.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata of baseline DMARD use by ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||25.4|-5.8|0.2321
90893312|NCT01212770|181651363|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|9.6||||0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|25.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use involvement of \>= 3% BSA with psoriasis at baseline.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata of baseline DMARD use by ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||25.3|-6.2|0.2520
90893313|NCT00829387|181651387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.39||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|0.69|||Linear mixed model|||||0.69|-1.47|0.47
90893314|NCT00829387|181651388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|0.47|||linear mixed model|||baseline to 36 weeks post-baseline||0.47|-1.15|0.40
90893315|NCT00829387|181651389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.35||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.02|2.32|||Linear mixed model|||baseline to 12 weeks post-baseline||2.32|-7.02|0.31
90893316|NCT00829387|181651390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|1.06|||linear mixed model|||baseline to 12 weeks comparison||1.06|-1.03|0.98
90893317|NCT00829387|181651391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.92||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|-0.07|||linear mixed model|||baseline to 36 weeks post-baseline||-0.07|-1.76|0.03
90893318|NCT00829387|181651392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.16||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.86|1.55|||linear mixed model|||baseline to 36 weeks post-baseline||1.55|-9.86|0.15
90893319|NCT00707031|181651393|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the difference between lixisenatide and exenatide on mITT population was \<=0.4%.|Least squares (LS) mean difference|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.033|0.297||Statistical testing: 2-sided at significance level=0.05. Analysis of co-variance (ANCOVA) included treatment arms, randomization strata of screening HbA1c (\<8.0, \>=8.0%), BMI (\<30, \>=30 kg/m\^2), country as fixed effects, baseline HbA1c as covariate.||||To detect that upper confidence limit of 2-sided 95% confidence interval for least square (LS) mean difference between the 2 arms do not exceed 0.4% HbA1c, 300 patients per group would provide 96% power assuming a standard deviation of 1.3 and true difference in HbA1c between the 2 arms as 0.||0.297|0.033|
90893320|NCT02460692|181651472|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78||||||The average pain change at the treatment period (weeks 5-8) from baseline were compared between the two arms using an unstructured covariance model, excluding main group effect.|unstructured covariance model|||This is the primary comparison.||||0.78
91103861|NCT02656173|182094489|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.29||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.07|||ANCOVA|||Subscale: Quality of Life (QoL) Item. ANCOVA was used for analysis including treatment group and region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.||-0.07|-0.51|0.009
90893321|NCT02460692|181651472|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07||||||The average pain change at the treatment period (weeks 5-8) from baseline were compared between the two arms using an unstructured covariance model, excluding main group effect.|Unstructured covariance model|||This is the secondary comparison.||||0.070
90893322|NCT02460692|181651472|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.044||||||The average pain change at the treatment period (weeks 5-8) from baseline were compared between the two arms using an unstructured covariance model, excluding main group effect.|Unstructured covariance model|||This is an exploratory comparison||||0.044
90893323|NCT02460692|181651473|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27||||||The average change of impact scores at the treatment period (weeks 5-8) from baseline were compared between the two arms using an unstructured covariance model, excluding main group effect|unstructured covariance model|||||||0.27
90893324|NCT02460692|181651473|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96||||||The average change of impact scores at the treatment period (weeks 5-8) from baseline were compared between the arms using an unstructured covariance model, excluding main group effect.|unstructured covariance model|||||||0.96
90893325|NCT02460692|181651473|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3||||||The average change of impact scores at the treatment period (weeks 5-8) from baseline were compared between the two arms using an unstructured covariance model, excluding main group effect|unstructured covariance model|||||||0.30
90893326|NCT02460692|181651474|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44||||||The average NPS change at the treatment period (weeks 5-8) from baseline were compared between the two arms using an unstructured covariance model, excluding main group effect|unstructured covariance model|||||||0.44
90893327|NCT02460692|181651474|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53||||||The average pain change at the treatment period (weeks 5-8) from baseline were compared between the two arms using an unstructured covariance model, excluding main group effect|Unstructured covariance model|||||||0.53
90893328|NCT02460692|181651474|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18||||||The average NPS change at the treatment period (weeks 5-8) from baseline were compared between the two arms using an unstructured covariance model, excluding main group effect|Unstructured covariance model|||||||0.18
90893329|NCT02460692|181651475|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95||||||The average change of learning scores at the treatment period (weeks 5-8) from baseline were compared between the arms using an unstructured covariance model, excluding main group effect|unstructured covariance model|||||||0.95
90893330|NCT02460692|181651475|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94||||||The average change of learning scores at the treatment period (weeks 5-8) from baseline were compared between the arms using an unstructured covariance model, excluding main group effect|unstructured covariance model|||||||0.94
90893331|NCT02460692|181651475|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9||||||The average change of learning score at the treatment period (weeks 5-8) from baseline were compared between the arms using an unstructured covariance model, excluding main group effect|unstructured covariance model|||||||.90
90893332|NCT02460692|181651476|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93||||||The average change of total time completing task in grooved pegboard test on dominant hand (weeks 5-8 at the treatment period) from baseline were compared between the two arms using an unstructured covariance model|unstructured covariance model|||||||0.93
90893333|NCT02460692|181651476|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92||||||The average change of total time completing task in grooved pegboard test on dominant hand (weeks 5-8, at the treatment period) from baseline were compared between the two arms using an unstructured covariance model|unstructured covariance model|||||||0.92
90893334|NCT02460692|181651476|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85||||||The average change of total time completing task in grooved pegboard test on dominant hand (weeks 5-8, at the treatment period) from baseline were compared between the two arms using an unstructured covariance model|unstructured covariance model|||||||0.85
90893335|NCT02460692|181651477|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89||||||The average change in Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS)-III test score (weeks 5-8, at the treatment period) from baseline were compared between the two arms using an unstructured covariance model.|Unstructured covariance model|||||||0.89
90893336|NCT02460692|181651477|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13||||||The average change in WAIS-III test score (weeks 5-8, at the treatment period) from baseline were compared between the two arms using an unstructured covariance model|unstructured covariance model|||||||0.13
90893337|NCT02460692|181651477|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14||||||The average change in WAIS-III test score (weeks 5-8, at the treatment period) from baseline were compared between the two arms using an unstructured covariance model|unstructured covariance model|||||||0.14
90893338|NCT02460692|181651478|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1||||||The average change of total mood disturbance scores (weeks 5-8, at the treatment period) from baseline were compared between the two arms using an unstructured covariance model, excluding main group effect.|Unstructured covariance model|||||||0.10
90893339|NCT02460692|181651478|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67||||||The average change of total mood disturbance scores (weeks 5-8, at the treatment period) from baseline were compared between the two arms using an unstructured covariance model, excluding main group effect.|unstructured covariance model|||||||0.67
90829416|NCT02365649|181533421|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.0||||0.501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.1|3.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders||3.1|-23.1|0.501
90893340|NCT02460692|181651478|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25||||||The average change of total mood disturbance scores (weeks 5-8, at the treatment period) from baseline were compared between the two arms using an unstructured covariance model, excluding main group effect.|unstructured covariance model|||||||0.25
90893341|NCT02460692|181651479|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84||||||The average change of beck score (weeks 5-8 at the treatment period) from baseline were compared between the arms using an unstructured covariance model, excluding main group effect|unstructured covariance model|||||||0.84
90893342|NCT02460692|181651479|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91||||||The average change of beck score (weeks 5-8 at the treatment period) from baseline were compared between the arms using an unstructured covariance model, excluding main group effect|unstructured covariance model|||||||0.91
90893343|NCT02460692|181651479|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75||||||The average change of beck score (weeks 5-8 at the treatment period) from baseline were compared between the arms using an unstructured covariance model, excluding main group effect|unstructured covariance model|||||||0.75
90893344|NCT02460692|181651480|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24||||||Area under the time concentration curve (AUC) was calculated as the aggregate effect of response and compared between the arms.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.24
90893345|NCT02460692|181651480|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08||||||Area under the time concentration curve (AUC) was calculated as the aggregate effect of response and compared between the arms.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.080
90893346|NCT02460692|181651480|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||Area under the time concentration curve (AUC) was calculated as the aggregate effect of response and compared between the arms.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.005
90893347|NCT02460692|181651481|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||unstructured covariance model|||||||0.60
90893348|NCT02460692|181651481|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||unstructured covariance model|||||||0.40
90893349|NCT02460692|181651481|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||unstructured covariance model|||||||0.72
90893350|NCT02460692|181651482|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19||||||The average change of pain sensitivity (weeks 5-8 at the treatment period) from baseline were compared between the arms using an unstructured covariance model.|unstructured covariance model|||||||0.19
90893351|NCT02460692|181651482|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7||||||The average change of pain sensitivity (weeks 5-8 at the treatment period) from baseline were compared between the arms using an unstructured covariance model.|unstructured covariance model|||||||0.70
90893352|NCT02460692|181651482|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36||||||The average change of pain sensitivity (weeks 5-8 at the treatment period) from baseline were compared between the arms using an unstructured covariance model|unstructured covariance model|||||||0.36
90893353|NCT02460692|181651483|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||Regression, Linear|||Change in withdrawal intensity from week 8 to week 10 was compared between the two arms.||||.14
90893354|NCT02460692|181651483|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Regression, Linear|||Change in withdrawal intensity from week 8 to week 10 was compared between the two arms.||||.60
90893355|NCT02460692|181651483|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Regression, Linear|||Change in withdrawal intensity from week 8 to week 10 was compared between the two arms.||||.34
90893356|NCT02460692|181651484|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||unstructured covariance model|||||||0.34
90893357|NCT02460692|181651484|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||unstructured covariance model|||||||0.007
90893358|NCT02460692|181651484|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.055|||||||unstructured covariance model|||||||0.055
90893359|NCT02460692|181651485|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||unstructured covariance model|||||||0.69
90893360|NCT02460692|181651485|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||unstructured covariance model|||||||0.79
90893361|NCT02460692|181651485|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||unstructured covariance model|||||||0.97
90893362|NCT02460692|181651486|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21||||||Area under the time concentration curve (AUC) was calculated as the aggregate effect of response and compared between the arms.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.21
90893363|NCT02460692|181651486|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029||||||Area under the time concentration curve (AUC) was calculated as the aggregate effect of response and compared between the arms.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.029
90893364|NCT02460692|181651486|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||Area under the time concentration curve (AUC) was calculated as the aggregate effect of response and compared between the arms.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.001
90893365|NCT02460692|181651487|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.084|||||||Regression, Linear|||Change in negative impact of withdrawal from week 8 to week 10 was compared between the two arms.||||0.084
90893366|NCT02460692|181651487|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||Regression, Linear|||Change in negative impact of withdrawal from week 8 to week 10 was compared between the two arms.||||0.98
90893367|NCT02460692|181651487|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.085|||||||Regression, Linear|||Change in negative impact of withdrawal from week 8 to week 10 was compared between the two arms.||||0.085
90893368|NCT02460692|181651488|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95||||||The average change of pain tolerance (weeks 5-8 at the treatment period) from baseline were compared between the arms using an unstructured covariance model|unstructured covariance model|||||||0.95
90893369|NCT02460692|181651488|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78||||||The average change of pain tolerance (weeks 5-8 at the treatment period) from baseline were compared between the arms using an unstructured covariance model.|unstructured covariance model|||||||0.78
90893370|NCT02460692|181651488|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99||||||The average change of pain tolerance (weeks 5-8 at the treatment period) from baseline were compared between the arms using an unstructured covariance model.|unstructured covariance model|||||||0.99
90893371|NCT02048072|181651489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.02
90893372|NCT05540522|181651529|OTHER||RVE|34.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|53.9||||||||53.9|7.4|
90893373|NCT05540522|181651530|OTHER||RVE|-5.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.2|23.8||||||||23.8|-47.2|
90893374|NCT05540522|181651551|OTHER||GMR|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.38||||||A/H3N2||1.38|1.10|
90893375|NCT05540522|181651551|OTHER||GMR|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.39||||||A/H1N1||1.39|1.10|
90893376|NCT05540522|181651551|OTHER||GMR|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.8||||||B/Yamagata||0.80|0.67|
90893377|NCT05540522|181651551|OTHER||GMR|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.35||||||B/Victoria||0.35|0.26|
90893378|NCT05540522|181651552|OTHER||GMR|1.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|1.84||||||A/H3N2||1.84|1.47|
90893379|NCT05540522|181651552|OTHER||GMR|1.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|1.92||||||A/H1N1||1.92|1.51|
90893380|NCT05540522|181651552|OTHER||GMR|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.14||||||B/Yamagata||1.14|0.95|
90893381|NCT05540522|181651552|OTHER||GMR|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.69||||||B/Victoria||0.69|0.54|
90893382|NCT05540522|181651553|OTHER||Difference in percentage|11.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.4|16.4||||||A/H3N2: 2-Sided CI, difference in percents (qIRV - Licensed QIV), expressed as a percentage.||16.4|6.4|
90893383|NCT05540522|181651553|OTHER||Difference in percentage|13.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.6|18.6||||||A/H1N1: 2-Sided CI, difference in percents (qIRV - Licensed QIV), expressed as a percentage.||18.6|8.6|
90893384|NCT05540522|181651553|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-15.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.5|-11.2||||||B/Yamagata: 2-Sided CI, difference in percents (qIRV - Licensed QIV), expressed as a percentage.||-11.2|-19.5|
90893385|NCT05540522|181651553|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-40.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.7|-36.1||||||B/Victoria: 2-Sided CI, difference in percents (qIRV - Licensed QIV), expressed as a percentage.||-36.1|-44.7|
90893386|NCT05540522|181651554|OTHER||Difference in percentage|21.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.7|26.5||||||A/H3N2: 2-Sided CI, difference in percents (qIRV - Licensed QIV), expressed as a percentage.||26.5|16.7|
90893387|NCT05540522|181651554|OTHER||Difference in percentage|25.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.9|30.4||||||A/H1N1: 2-Sided CI, difference in percents (qIRV - Licensed QIV), expressed as a percentage.||30.4|20.9|
90893388|NCT05540522|181651554|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|0.6||||||B/Yamagata: 2-Sided CI, difference in percents (qIRV - Licensed QIV), expressed as a percentage.||0.6|-4.8|
90893389|NCT05540522|181651554|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-22.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.7|-18.5||||||B/Victoria: 2-Sided CI, difference in percents (qIRV - Licensed QIV), expressed as a percentage.||-18.5|-26.7|
90893390|NCT05540522|181651555|OTHER||GMR|1.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|2.07||||||A/H3N2||2.07|1.78|
90893391|NCT05540522|181651555|OTHER||GMR|1.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|1.82||||||A/H1N1||1.82|1.55|
90893392|NCT05540522|181651555|OTHER||GMR|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|0.94||||||B/Yamagata||0.94|0.82|
90893393|NCT05540522|181651555|OTHER||GMR|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.63||||||B/Victoria||0.63|0.53|
90893394|NCT05540522|181651556|OTHER||GMR|2.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.23|2.54||||||A/H3N2||2.54|2.23|
90893395|NCT05540522|181651556|OTHER||GMR|2.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.22|2.54||||||A/H1N1||2.54|2.22|
90893396|NCT05540522|181651556|OTHER||GMR|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|1.43||||||B/Yamagata||1.43|1.29|
90893397|NCT05540522|181651556|OTHER||GMR|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.81||||||B/Victoria||0.81|0.71|
90893398|NCT05540522|181651557|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|26.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.7|29.9||||||A/H3N2: 2-Sided CI, difference in percents (qIRV - Licensed QIV), expressed as a percentage.||29.9|23.7|
90893399|NCT05540522|181651557|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|26.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.9|29.8||||||A/H1N1: 2-Sided CI, difference in percents (qIRV - Licensed QIV), expressed as a percentage.||29.8|23.9|
90893400|NCT05540522|181651557|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|-0.6||||||B/Yamagata: 2-Sided CI, difference in percents (qIRV - Licensed QIV), expressed as a percentage.||-0.6|-6.6|
90893401|NCT05540522|181651557|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-19.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.9|-16.6||||||B/Victoria: 2-Sided CI, difference in percents (qIRV - Licensed QIV), expressed as a percentage.||-16.6|-21.9|
90893402|NCT05540522|181651558|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|37.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.2|40.5||||||A/H3N2: 2-Sided CI, difference in percents (qIRV - Licensed QIV), expressed as a percentage.||40.5|35.2|
90893403|NCT05540522|181651558|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|44.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.4|47.4||||||A/H1N1: 2-Sided CI, difference in percents (qIRV - Licensed QIV), expressed as a percentage.||47.4|42.4|
90893404|NCT05540522|181651558|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|10.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.5|12.8||||||B/Yamagata: 2-Sided CI, difference in percents (qIRV - Licensed QIV), expressed as a percentage.||12.8|8.5|
90893405|NCT05540522|181651558|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-13.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|-11.3||||||B/Victoria: 2-Sided CI, difference in percents (qIRV - Licensed QIV), expressed as a percentage.||-11.3|-16.3|
90893406|NCT00789815|181651602|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A preliminary study was performed to determine the sample size before this trial. 15 and 15 patients undergoing FB received BIS-guided propofol sedation and clinical-judged midazolam sedation, respectively. The incidences of hypoxemia were 0.33 and 0.20, respectively. The selected sample size of 225 in each group will yield 90% power for detecting a clinically meaningful difference of 0.13 at the 5.0% level of significance. To allow for 10% missing data, we recruited 250 patients per group.||||||0.05||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||"The null hypothesis: the incidence of hypoxemia occured during FB with BIS-guided propofol infusion is higher than that with clinical-judged midazolam administration.~Power calculation is described below."||||0.05
90893407|NCT00789815|181651603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||The null hypothesis: the incidence of hypotension during FB in patients of study group is higher than that in the control group.||||0.05
90893408|NCT00789815|181651604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.05
90893409|NCT00789815|181651605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.05
90893410|NCT00789815|181651606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
90893411|NCT00789815|181651607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis: the global tolerance of patients in study is worse than that in the control group.||||0.05
90954320|NCT03651622|181787228|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.66
90893412|NCT00789815|181651608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
90893413|NCT00789815|181651609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.05
90893414|NCT01321554|181651610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.14|0.31||||||||0.31|0.14|
90893415|NCT04186780|181651630|SUPERIORITY|"The differences between Shiitake and placebo groups were analyzed by the Chi-square test, Exact of Fisher test and Student's t-test.~Descriptions of all biochemical parameters were expressed as mean ± standard deviation. To investigate the differences in biochemical parameters between the groups, Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) with repeated measurements was applied. All results of biochemical parameters were normalized to logarithmic scale."|Mean Difference (Net)|2.5||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||P \< 0.05 was accepted as statistically significant.|ANOVA||Difference between T0 and T66 in the placebo group and intervention group in total cholesterol.|||||0.59
90893416|NCT04186780|181651631|SUPERIORITY|"The differences between Shiitake and placebo groups were analyzed by the Chi-square test, Exact of Fisher test and Student's t-test.~Descriptions of all biochemical and oxidative stress parameters were expressed as mean ± standard deviation. To investigate the differences in biochemical parameters between the groups, Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) with repeated measurements was applied. All results of biochemical parameters and oxidative stress were normalized to logarithmic scale."|Mean Difference (Net)|0.4||||0.8284|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||P \< 0.05 was accepted as statistically significant.|ANOVA||Difference between T0 and T66 in the placebo group and intervention group.|||||0.8284
90893417|NCT04186780|181651632|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||P \< 0.05 was accepted as statistically significant.|ANOVA||Difference between T0 and T66 in the placebo group compared to the intervention group.|||||0.0058
90893418|NCT04186780|181651633|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.8||||0.0384|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||P \< 0.05 was accepted as statistically significant.|ANOVA||Reduced difference in TBARS in the placebo group compared to the intervention group at T66.|||||0.0384
90893419|NCT04186780|181651634|SUPERIORITY|"The differences between Shiitake and placebo groups were analyzed by the Chi-square test, Exact of Fisher test and Student's t-test.~Descriptions of all biochemical and oxidative stress parameters were expressed as mean ± standard deviation. To investigate the differences in biochemical parameters between the groups, Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) with repeated measurements was applied. All results of biochemical parameters and oxidative stress were normalized to logarithmic scale."|Mean Difference (Net)|47.0||||0.0352|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||P \< 0.05 was accepted as statistically significant.|ANOVA||Difference between placebo group and intervention group of T66.|||||0.0352
90893420|NCT03563716|181651645|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|6.14|||||95% CI for odds ratio was constructed using the Wald method.|Stratified analysis based on PD-L1 immunohistochemistry (IHC) 22C3 pharmDx, tumor histology status, and tobacco history.||6.14|1.07|
90893421|NCT03563716|181651646|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.9|||||Hazard ratios were estimated by Cox regression.|Stratified analysis based on PD-L1 IHC 22C3 pharmDx, tumor histology status, and tobacco history.||0.90|0.37|
90893422|NCT00772590|181651655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
91082940|NCT01639703|182050205|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.5354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.66|||Regression, Logistic||Odds-ratio is the risk to move from one immunochemistry category to the below one (among 0%, 1-10%, 10-50% and \>50%) considering an increase of 5 units for Blood Volume|Multinomial logistic regression analyses were performed with each off-site CT perfusion parameters as explicative variables taken alone and each off-site immunohistochemistry categorized parameters as dependent variables.||1.66|0.77|0.5354
90893423|NCT03813238|181651670|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.2||||0.335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.49|1.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The LS mean of the change in MDCRS part II total score from baseline to Week 15 was compared (TEV-50717 arm versus placebo) using a 1-sided test for superiority at a nominal significance level of α=0.025.||1.19|-3.49|0.335
90893424|NCT02066402|181651699|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority (NI) hypothesis test is a 1-sided hypothesis test performed at the 2.5% level of significance. Predefined margin for non-inferiority is -10%.|Difference of responder rate|-4.6||||0.2027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|2.2|||Fisher Exact|||||2.2|-11.2|0.2027
90893425|NCT02066402|181651700|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority (NI) hypothesis test is a 1-sided hypothesis test performed at the 2.5% level of significance.|Difference of responder rate|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|3.8||||||||3.8|-8.3|
90893426|NCT02066402|181651701|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority (NI) hypothesis test is a 1-sided hypothesis test performed at the 2.5% level of significance.|Difference of responder rate|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|3.2||||||||3.2|-7.4|
90893427|NCT02066402|181651702|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority (NI) hypothesis test is a 1-sided hypothesis test performed at the 2.5% level of significance.|Difference of responder rate|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|4.1||||||||4.1|-8.6|
90893428|NCT02066402|181651703|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority (NI) hypothesis test is a 1-sided hypothesis test performed at the 2.5% level of significance.|Difference of responder rate|-3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|2.0||||||||2.0|-8.4|
90954321|NCT03651622|181787229|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.96
91082941|NCT01639703|182050206|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.3487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.13|||Regression, Logistic||Odds-ratio is the risk to move from one immunochemistry category to the below one (among 0%, 1-10%, 10-50% and \>50%) considering an increase of 10 units for Blood Flow|Multinomial logistic regression analyses were performed with each off-site CT perfusion parameters as explicative variables taken alone and each off-site immunohistochemistry categorized parameters as dependent variables.||1.13|0.71|0.3487
91082942|NCT01639703|182050207|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.4195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.29|||Regression, Logistic||Odds-ratio is the risk to move from one immunochemistry category to the below one (among 0%, 1-10%, 10-50% and \>50%) considering an increase of 10 units for Blood Flow|Multinomial logistic regression analyses were performed with each off-site CT perfusion parameters as explicative variables taken alone and each off-site immunohistochemistry categorized parameters as dependent variables.||1.29|0.90|0.4195
91082943|NCT01639703|182050208|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.7127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.54|||Regression, Logistic||Odds-ratio is the risk to move from one immunochemistry category to the below one (among 0%, 1-10%, 10-50% and \>50%) considering an increase of 10 units for Permeability Surface|Multinomial logistic regression analyses were performed with each off-site CT perfusion parameters as explicative variables taken alone and each off-site immunohistochemistry categorized parameters as dependent variables.||1.54|0.53|0.7127
90893429|NCT00152464|181651710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.002|||=|0.991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.338|||Regression, Cox|||||1.338|0.750|=0.991
90893430|NCT03581981|181651768|SUPERIORITY|see statistical plan|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.6||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|3.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.6|-10.7|0.33
90893431|NCT03581981|181651769|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.61||||0.89|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.89
90893432|NCT03581981|181651770|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.61||||0.89|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.89
90893433|NCT03581981|181651771|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|3.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.6|-3.6|0.99
90893434|NCT03581981|181651772|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|3.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.7|-7.3|0.52
90893435|NCT03581981|181651773|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|2.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.9|-1.4|0.50
90893436|NCT03581981|181651774|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.99
90893437|NCT03581981|181651775|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.99
90893438|NCT03581981|181651776|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.45||||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.69
90893439|NCT03581981|181651777|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.45||||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.69
91082944|NCT01639703|182050209|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.1753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|2.31|||Regression, Logistic||Odds-ratio is the risk to move from one immunochemistry category to the below one (among 0%, 1-10%, 10-50% and \>50%) considering an increase of 10 units for Permeability Surface|Multinomial logistic regression analyses were performed with each off-site CT perfusion parameters as explicative variables taken alone and each off-site immunohistochemistry categorized parameters as dependent variables.||2.31|0.86|0.1753
91082945|NCT01753115|182050215|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Equivalence margin is 0.80 - 1.25.|Ratio of AUC|0.887|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.831|0.948||||||Analysis of Ciprofloxacin Area Under the Curve at Day 5 and Day 44.||0.948|0.831|
91082946|NCT01753115|182050215|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Equivalence margin is 0.80 - 1.25.|Ratio of Cmax|0.944|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.852|1.046||||||Analysis of Cmax at Day 5 and Day 44||1.046|0.852|
91082947|NCT01753115|182050216|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority margin is 0.67.|Ratio of GMT|1.267|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.898|1.787||||||||1.787|0.898|
91082948|NCT01188668|182050233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted means|105.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.39|110.76|||||Values have been back-transformed from the log scale.|DVS SR 100 mg + Aripiprazole 5 mg (test) versus Aripiprazole 5 mg (reference)||110.76|101.39|
91082949|NCT01188668|182050234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted means|101.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.94|109.87|||||Values have been back-transformed from the log scale.|DVS SR 100 mg + Aripiprazole 5 mg (test) versus Aripiprazole 5 mg (reference)||109.87|92.94|
91082950|NCT01188668|182050239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted means|102.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.21|112.46|||||Values have been back-transformed from the log scale.|DVS SR 100 mg + Aripiprazole 5 mg (test) versus Aripiprazole 5 mg (reference)||112.46|94.21|
91082951|NCT01188668|182050240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted means|106.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.97|111.85|||||Values have been back-transformed from the log scale.|DVS SR 100 mg + Aripiprazole 5 mg (test) versus Aripiprazole 5 mg (reference)||111.85|100.97|
91082952|NCT00351936|182050247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.003
91082953|NCT00351936|182050248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.003
91082954|NCT00351936|182050249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.747||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.747
91082955|NCT00351936|182050250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.208||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.208
91082956|NCT00351936|182050251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.665||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.665
91082957|NCT00351936|182050252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.999||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.999
91082958|NCT00351936|182050253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.001
91082959|NCT00583011|182050258|EQUIVALENCE||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.02|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91082960|NCT03658642|182050262|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|2.43|||GEE|Obtained from a GEE model accounting for clustering by site and multiple covariates.||||2.43|0.61|0.58
91082961|NCT03658642|182050263|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|2.47|||GEE|Obtained from a GEE model accounting for clustering by site.||||2.47|0.43|0.95
91082962|NCT03658642|182050265|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|2.16|||GEE|Obtained from a GEE model accounting for clustering by site.||||2.16|1.11|0.01
91082963|NCT03658642|182050266|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.57|||GEE|Obtained from a GEE model accounting for clustering by site.||||1.57|0.91|0.48
91082964|NCT03658642|182050267|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.14|||GEE|Obtained from a GEE model accounting for clustering by site.||||2.14|0.81|0.27
91082965|NCT04811664|182050300|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy, (1-HR) *100%|52.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|80.3|||||"Immediate Vaccination compared to Standard of care (reference). Wald 95% CI."|Cox model on the calendar time scale, stratified by site and adjusted for sex, residence, team sport participation, mask wearing and SARS-CoV-2 exposure risk score. Outside vaccination censoring.||80.3|-14.1|
91082966|NCT04811664|182050303|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy, (1-HR) *100%|71.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|92.3|||||"Immediate Vaccination compared to Standard of care (reference). Wald 95% CI."|Cox model on the calendar time scale, stratified by site and adjusted for sex, residence, team sport participation, mask wearing and SARS-CoV-2 exposure risk score. Outside vaccination censoring.||92.3|-9.5|
91082967|NCT04811664|182050304|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy, (1-HR) *100%|41.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.7|74.9|||||"Immediate Vaccination compared to Standard of care (reference). Wald 95% CI."|Cox model on the calendar time scale, stratified by site and adjusted for sex, residence, team sport participation, mask wearing and SARS-CoV-2 exposure risk score. Outside vaccination censoring.||74.9|-37.7|
91082968|NCT02717442|182050318|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.658|||=|0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.453|0.957||Study week was based on each 4-week interval and was modeled as a categorical variable, and an offset for the log of the number of diary entries recorded for each 4-week interval post-baseline was included for each subject.|Regression, Linear|||The primary efficacy endpoint was compared between OTO-104 and placebo at the 2-tailed 0.05 alpha level using a generalized Poisson linear mixed model. The model included fixed effects for randomized treatment group, sex, study week, a treatment group by study week interaction, and the count of lead-in period DVD standardized to 28 days as a covariate.||0.957|0.453|=0.029
91082969|NCT02717442|182050319|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.59|||=|0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.388|0.896|||Regression, Linear|||The primary efficacy endpoint was compared between OTO-104 and placebo at the 2-tailed 0.05 alpha level using a generalized Poisson linear mixed model. The model included fixed effects for randomized treatment group, sex, study week, a treatment group by study week interaction, and the count of lead-in period DVD standardized to 28 days as a covariate.||0.896|0.388|=0.014
91082970|NCT02774005|182050329|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.286||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.352|3.884|||Wald Chi-square|||||3.884|1.352|0.0021
91082971|NCT02774005|182050330|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.646||||0.0873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.929|2.918|||Waldi-Chi-Square|||||2.918|0.929|0.0873
91082972|NCT02774005|182050331|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.323||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.339|25.912|||Waldi-Chi-Square|||||25.912|2.339|0.0005
91103862|NCT02656173|182094490|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-4.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.91|-2.13|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) was used for analysis including treatment group and region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.||-2.13|-6.91|<0.001
90893440|NCT03581981|181651778|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.87||||0.41|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.41
90893441|NCT03581981|181651779|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.87||||0.41|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.41
90954322|NCT03651622|181787230|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.34
90893442|NCT00863655|181651808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.43|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.54|||Log Rank|||||0.54|0.35|<0.0001
90893443|NCT02606903|181651832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (%)|110.19|STANDARD_DEVIATION|33.603|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.8|125.44|||ANOVA||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the ratio (AI/PFS) of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually inter-individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the log scale was used including treatment and body mass index (BMI) group as fixed effects||125.44|96.80|
90893444|NCT02606903|181651833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (%)|100.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|42.354|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.15|117.76|||ANOVA||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the ratio (AI/PFS) of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually inter-individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the log scale was used including treatment and BMI group as fixed effects||117.76|85.15|
90954323|NCT03651622|181787231|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.58
90954324|NCT03651622|181787232|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.95
90954325|NCT03651622|181787233|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.08
90959048|NCT01620255|181798207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.31||||0.0422|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.554|-0.058|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 22.5 mg vs placebo, Stool Frequency, W8||-0.058|-0.554|0.0422
90893445|NCT02606903|181651834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (%)|100.22|STANDARD_DEVIATION|53.137|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.13|122.29|||ANOVA||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the ratio (AI/PFS) of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually inter-individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the log scale was used including treatment and BMI group as fixed effects||122.29|82.13|
90959049|NCT01620255|181798207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.39||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.637|-0.137|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 75 mg vs placebo, Stool Frequency, W8||-0.137|-0.637|0.0110
90893446|NCT00716092|181651864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0|<|0.0001||95.0|-28.0|-11.9||There was no adjustment for multiple primary endpoints, however a hierarchy approach to control for the Type-I error was used. If the endpoint WMG was not successful, any analysis of the GLP-1 (AUEC 0-24h) was to be considered descriptive.|ANCOVA|The primary analyses are based upon a model containing only BI1356 and Placebo. Sitagliptin values come from a different model containing all 3 groups||BI1356 minus Placebo||-11.9|-28.0|<0.0001
90959050|NCT01620255|181798207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.5||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.755|-0.254|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 225 mg vs placebo, Stool Frequency, W8||-0.254|-0.755|0.0010
90959051|NCT01620255|181798207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.22||||0.1611|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.475|0.038|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 7.5 mg vs placebo, Stool Frequency, W12||0.038|-0.475|0.1611
91082973|NCT03275389|182050381|EQUIVALENCE|The use of the adjuvant (AS03) is to be considered justified if the lower limit of the 94.46% CI of the GMC ratio (adjuvanted vs non-adjuvanted) is \> 1.50|GMC ratio|2.47|||||TWO_SIDED|94.46|2.06|2.95|||Dunnett's t test|Comparison performed using a 2-sided alpha=0.1 and Dunnett adjustment for multiple comparisons,||To evaluate the adjuvant effect of AS03 (Pooling of results at Day 29 of D-SUIV Adjuvant Group 1, at Day 29 of D-SUIV Adjuvant Group 2 and Day 85 of D-SUIV Adjuvant Group 3) on the humoral immune response for anti-H1 stalk antibody by ELISA at Day 29 and Day 85 (i.e. 28 days post-vaccination) when compared to the non-adjuvanted formulations (Pooling of results at Day 29 of D-SUIV Unadjuvanted Group 1, at Day 29 of D-SUIV Unadjuvanted Group 2 and Day 85 of D-SUIV Unadjuvanted Group 3).||2.95|2.06|
90893447|NCT00716092|181651865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9|<|0.0001||95.0|12.4|23.9||There was no adjustment for multiple primary endpoints, however a hierarchy approach to control for the Type-I error was used. If the endpoint WMG was not successful, any analysis of the GLP-1 (AUEC 0-24h) will be considered descriptive.|ANCOVA|The primary analyses are based upon a model containing only BI1356 and Placebo. Sitagliptin values come from a different model containing all 3 groups||BI1356 minus Placebo||23.9|12.4|<0.0001
90893448|NCT00716092|181651866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.8||0.0283||95.0|-20.4|-1.2|||ANCOVA|The primary analyses are based upon a model containing only BI1356 and Placebo. Sitagliptin values come from a different model containing all 3 groups||BI1356 minus Placebo||-1.2|-20.4|0.0283
90893449|NCT00716092|181651867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-106.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.3|<|0.0001||95.0|-147.0|-66.0|||ANCOVA|The primary analyses are based upon a model containing only BI1356 and Placebo. Sitagliptin values come from a different model containing all 3 groups||BI1356 minus Placebo||-66.0|-147.0|<0.0001
90893450|NCT00716092|181651868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9||0.1274||95.0|-1.7|13.8|||ANCOVA|These measured values and statistical analysis come from a mixed model containing all three treatment groups, and adjusted as already described.||BI 1356 minus Sitagliptin. This analysis comparing BI1356 to Sitagliptin was conducted as an exploratory analysis at the time of analysing the study data. The study was not powered for such a comparison.||13.8|-1.7|0.1274
90893451|NCT00716092|181651869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7||0.313||95.0|-2.7|8.2|||ANCOVA|These measured values and statistical analysis come from a mixed model containing all three treatment groups, and adjusted as already described.||BI 1356 minus Sitagliptin. This analysis comparing BI1356 to Sitagliptin was conducted as an exploratory analysis at the time of analysing the study data. The study was not powered for such a comparison.||8.2|-2.7|0.3130
90893452|NCT00716092|181651870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3||0.2281||95.0|-3.3|13.8|||ANCOVA|These measured values and statistical analysis come from a mixed model containing all three treatment groups, and adjusted as already described.||BI 1356 minus Sitagliptin. This analysis comparing BI1356 to Sitagliptin was conducted as an exploratory analysis at the time of analysing the study data. The study was not powered for such a comparison.||13.8|-3.3|0.2281
90893453|NCT00716092|181651871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.6||0.223||95.0|-14.0|59.5|||ANCOVA|These measured values and statistical analysis come from a mixed model containing all three treatment groups, and adjusted as already described.||BI 1356 minus Sitagliptin. This analysis comparing BI1356 to Sitagliptin was conducted as an exploratory analysis at the time of analysing the study data. The study was not powered for such a comparison.||59.5|-14.0|0.2230
90893454|NCT02436330|181651872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0615||||0.0967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1344|0.0115||We checked the distribution of bmiz changes between baseline and 6 months, and there is one subject from control group had bigger changes than others. After excluding this subject, the results are still similar with previous.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.0115|-0.1344|0.0967
90959052|NCT01620255|181798207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.36||||0.0186|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.608|-0.108|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 22.5 mg vs placebo, Stool Frequency, W12||-0.108|-0.608|0.0186
90893455|NCT02436330|181651873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0775||||0.0335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1485|-0.00652|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.00652|-0.1485|0.0335
90893456|NCT02436330|181651874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|5.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.1|-5.2|0.991
90893457|NCT02436330|181651875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0||||0.851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|11.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||11|-9|0.851
90893458|NCT02436330|181651876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.9||||0.501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|5.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.8|-11.7|0.501
90893459|NCT02436330|181651877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2971||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0224|0.5718|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.5718|0.0224|0.035
90893460|NCT02436330|181651878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9464||||0.2207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4954|0.6025|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.6025|-2.4954|0.2207
90893461|NCT02436330|181651879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0491||||0.4164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6407|1.5425|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.5425|-3.6407|0.4164
90893462|NCT02436330|181651880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2433.7||||0.812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18579.7|23447.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||||23447.2|-18579.7|0.812
90893463|NCT02436330|181651881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2837||||0.3326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3037|0.8711|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.8711|-0.3037|0.3326
90893464|NCT02436330|181651882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2995||||0.1856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2051|0.8041|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.8041|-0.2051|0.1856
90893465|NCT02436330|181651883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-247.9||||0.0849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-531.7|35.8686|||t-test, 2 sided|||||35.8686|-531.7|0.0849
90893466|NCT02436330|181651884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.2048||||0.176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3835|1.974|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.9740|-10.3835|0.176
90893467|NCT02436330|181651885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.2151||||0.0247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.973|13.457|||t-test, 2 sided|||||13.457|0.973|0.0247
90893468|NCT02436330|181651886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8169||||0.2764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4147|0.7808|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.7808|-2.4147|0.2764
90893469|NCT02436330|181651887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7958||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.235|-0.3566|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.3566|-1.2350|0.0008
90893470|NCT02436330|181651888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.7024||||0.6974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9377|4.3425|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.3425|-2.9377|0.6974
90893471|NCT02436330|181651890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2122|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2122
90893472|NCT02436330|181651891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.61||||0.1265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|8.33|||t-test, 2 sided|||||8.33|-1.15|0.1265
90893473|NCT02436330|181651892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3671|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3671
90893474|NCT02436330|181651893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4892|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4892
90893475|NCT00677235|181651908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.449|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.449
90893476|NCT05120115|181651919|EQUIVALENCE|Examined differences between conditions||||||0.05||||||Used Tukey Honestly Significant Difference post-hoc test|ANOVA|||||||0.05
90893477|NCT05120115|181651920|EQUIVALENCE|Differences between conditions||||||0.05||||||Used Tukey Honestly Significant Difference post-hoc test|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.05
90893478|NCT05120115|181651921|EQUIVALENCE|Differences between conditions||||||0.05||||||Used Tukey Honestly Significant Difference post-hoc test|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.05
90954326|NCT00307684|181787274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.89||||0.2586||95.0|-2.2055|7.9774||No adjustment for multiplicity was performed. threshold for significance: 0.05 (2-sided)|ANCOVA|treatment, sex and country as factors, age and baseline sum of inattention and hyperactivity/impulsivity scores as covariate||Based on preliminary results of a controlled study in adults with MPH, the mean (SD=9) change in CAARS total score from randomization to the 4 week post-randomization endpoint was estimated as +2.5 for PR OROS MPH and +14 for placebo. slightly more conservative, a mean change of 3 in the PR OROS MPH group and a mean increase of 10 in the placebo group were expected. With a two-sided type-I error of 5% and a power of 90%, 37 eligible subjects per group were required.||7.9774|-2.2055|0.2586
91017453|NCT03170271|181918105|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|2.86|||Regression, Logistic||Model: ln (1/(1-p)) = Treatment + region + number of exacerbations in previous year + maintenance OCS use at baseline, where p is the proportion of patients being a responder.|Estimate of the log odds of being a CGI-C responder classified as type 'Much improved' at Week 24 in the benralizumab group compared to the placebo group using a logistic regression.||2.86|1.47|<0.0001
90893479|NCT00995501|181651922|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|99.6|0.45|2.0|||Regression, Logistic|||Compare 4 arms with intensive glucose control vs. 4 arms with conventional glucose control||2|0.45|0.86
90893480|NCT00995501|181651922|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|99.6|0.45|2.0|||Regression, Logistic|||Compare 4 arms with Dexamethasone vs. 4 arms with Placebo||2|0.45|0.87
90893481|NCT00995501|181651922|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|99.6|0.49|2.2|||Regression, Logistic|||Compare 4 arms with light anesthesia vs. 4 arms with deep anesthesia||2.2|0.49|0.90
91017454|NCT03170271|181918105|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.45||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|6.7|||Regression, Logistic||Model: ln (1/(1-p)) = Treatment + region + number of exacerbations in previous year + maintenance OCS use at baseline, where p is the proportion of patients being a responder.|Estimate of the log odds of being a CGI-C responder classified as type 'Very much improved' at Week 24 in the benralizumab group compared to the placebo group using a logistic regression.||6.70|1.77|0.0003
91017455|NCT03170271|181918105|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|2.87|||Regression, Logistic||Model: ln (1/(1-p)) = Treatment + region + number of exacerbations in previous year + maintenance OCS use at baseline, where p is the proportion of patients being a responder.|Estimate of the log odds of being a PGI-C responder classified as type 'Much improved' at Week 24 in the benralizumab group compared to the placebo group using a logistic regression.||2.87|1.48|<0.0001
91017456|NCT03170271|181918105|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|4.51|||Regression, Logistic||Model: ln (1/(1-p)) = Treatment + region + number of exacerbations in previous year + maintenance OCS use at baseline, where p is the proportion of patients being a responder.|Estimate of the log odds of being a PGI-C responder classified as type 'Very much improved' at Week 24 in the benralizumab group compared to the placebo group using a logistic regression.||4.51|2.02|<0.0001
91103863|NCT02656173|182094491|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|2.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|4.44|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) was used for analysis including treatment group and region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.||4.44|1.13|<0.001
90893482|NCT00995501|181651923|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|99.6|0.37|2.3|||Regression, Logistic|||Compare 4 arms with intensive glucose control vs. 4 arms with conventional glucose control||2.3|0.37|0.8
90893483|NCT00995501|181651923|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|99.6|0.43|2.7|||Regression, Logistic|||Compare 4 arms with Dexamethasone vs. 4 arms with Placebo||2.7|0.43|0.84
90893484|NCT00995501|181651923|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|99.6|0.42|2.7|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.7|0.42|0.87
90893485|NCT03871595|181651924|OTHER|Relative bioavailability|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio T/R [%]|99.51|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.36|103.83|||||The Adjusted Geometric Mean is adjusted by treatment. The standard deviation is actually the intraindividual geometric Coefficient of Variation \[%\].|Exploratory trial, no formal hypotheses were tested. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale was used which included effects accounting for sources of variation: 'sequence' (fixed effect), 'subjects within sequences' (random effect), 'period' (fixed effect) and 'treatment' (fixed effect).||103.83|95.36|
90893486|NCT03871595|181651925|OTHER|Relative bioavailability|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio T/R [%]|70.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.8|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|62.67|78.44|||||The Adjusted Geometric Mean is adjusted by treatment. The standard deviation is actually the intraindividual geometric Coefficient of Variation \[%\].|Exploratory trial, no formal hypotheses were tested. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale was used which included effects accounting for sources of variation: 'sequence' (fixed effect), 'subjects within sequences' (random effect), 'period' (fixed effect) and 'treatment' (fixed effect).||78.44|62.67|
90893487|NCT03871595|181651926|OTHER|Relative bioavailability|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio T/R [%]|99.78|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.64|104.11|||||The Adjusted Geometric Mean is adjusted by treatment. The standard deviation is actually the intraindividual geometric Coefficient of Variation \[%\].|Exploratory trial, no formal hypotheses were tested. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale was used which included effects accounting for sources of variation: 'sequence' (fixed effect), 'subjects within sequences' (random effect), 'period' (fixed effect) and 'treatment' (fixed effect).||104.11|95.64|
90893488|NCT00951483|181651950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized test statistic (z-score)|-2.65||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis is that C-reactive protein (CRP) is no different between the experimental and healthy control cohorts at 12 weeks.||||.001
90893489|NCT00951483|181651951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||z-score|-4.544|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the intervention cohort's baseline HAM-D-7 score and end of treatment (i.e., 12 week) HAM-D-7 score.||||<.001
90893490|NCT00951483|181651952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||z-score|-4.627|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the intervention cohort's baseline HAMD-17 score and end of treatment (i.e., 12 week) HAMD-17 score.||||<.001
90893491|NCT00951483|181651953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||z-score|-4.624|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the intervention cohort's baseline HAMD-21 score and end of treatment (i.e., 12 week) HAMD-21 score.||||<.001
90893492|NCT00951483|181651954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||z-score|-4.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the intervention cohort's baseline HAM-A score and end of treatment (i.e., 12 week) HAM-A score.||||<.001
90893493|NCT00951483|181651955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||z-score|-4.435|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the intervention cohort's baseline BDI score and end of treatment (i.e., 12 week) BDI score.||||<.001
90893494|NCT00951483|181651956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||z-score|-3.911|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the intervention cohort's baseline PSS-14 score and end of treatment (i.e., 12 week) PSS-14 score.||||<.001
90893495|NCT03565887|181651957|SUPERIORITY|The primary efficacy endpoints were tested sequentially. The Day 1 Hour 6 time point was tested first and if P\<0.05, the Day 14 Hour 2 time point was tested at a significance level of 0.05. If the Day 1 Hour 6 endpoint is statistically significant (at the 0.05 level) but Day 14 Hour 2 was not statistically significant (at the 0.05 level), the study will still be considered positive.|||||<|0.0001||||||If both primary endpoints (LPFT) are significant at 0.05 significance level, then the secondary efficacy endpoints (MRD) were also tested sequentially. Testing stopped if a P≥ 0.05 for a comparison.|ANCOVA|2 sided t-test with treatment as fixed factor and baseline as covariate.||A two group t-test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level had 90% power to detect a difference in LPFT means of 3.50 assuming that the common standard deviation was 6.0, when the sample sizes in the 2 groups were 94 and 47, respectively (a total sample size of 141).||||<0.0001
90893496|NCT03565887|181651958|SUPERIORITY|If both primary endpoints (LPFT) are significant at 0.05 significance level, then the secondary efficacy endpoints (MRD) were also tested sequentially. Testing stopped if a P≥ 0.05 for a comparison.|||||<|0.0151|||||||ANCOVA|||A two group t-test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level had 90% power to detect a difference in LPFT means of 3.50 assuming that the common standard deviation was 6.0, when the sample sizes in the 2 groups were 94 and 47, respectively (a total sample size of 141).||||<0.0151
91017457|NCT03170271|181918106|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-1.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|-0.68|||Repeated measures analysis||Model: Change from baseline in average PSIA score (top 3 ranked) =Treatment + baseline average PSIA score (top 3 ranked) + region + number of exacerbations in previous year + maintenance OCS use at baseline + visit + treatment by visit.|Change from baseline in PSIA severity score for the average of top 3 ranked symptoms/impairments at Week 24 was compared between the benralizumab group and placebo group using a restricted maximum likelihood based on a MMRM analysis.||-0.68|-1.62|<0.0001
90893497|NCT00689221|181651959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.021||||0.8623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.808|1.291||P-value is not adjusted for multiple testing.|Log Rank|||||1.291|0.808|0.8623
90893498|NCT01292239|181651971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||(see comment)|27.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.38|40.56||The p-value was based on the asymptomatic distribution of the generalized Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) statistic controlling for stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was adjusted for stratification factors (age and IL28B genotype).|The parameter estimated was the difference of stratum adjusted proportion between groups.|||40.56|14.38|<0.0001
90893499|NCT01292239|181651972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||(see comment)|32.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.75|45.4||The p-value was based on the asymptomatic distribution of the generalized Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) statistic controlling for stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was adjusted for stratification factors (age and IL28B genotype).|The parameter estimated was the difference of stratum adjusted proportion between groups.|||45.40|19.75|<0.0001
90893500|NCT00765388|181651985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96|||||||Regression, Logistic|An ordinal logistic regression model. The null hypothesis tested is that there is no difference in the multinomial distributions defined by products||||||0.96
90893501|NCT00765388|181651987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92|||||||Regression, Logistic|An ordinal logistic regression model. The null hypothesis tested is that there is no difference in the multinomial distributions defined by products||||||0.92
90893502|NCT00765388|181651989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4||0.0|||||Regression, Logistic|An ordinal logistic regression model. The null hypothesis tested is that there is no difference inthe multinomial distributions defined by products||||||0.40
90893503|NCT00765388|181651990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64|||||||Regression, Logistic|An ordinal logistic regression model. The null hypothesis tested is that there is no difference inthe multinomial distributions defined by products||||||0.64
90893504|NCT00765388|181651991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55|||||||Regression, Logistic|An ordinal logistic regression model. The null hypothesis tested is that there is no difference inthe multinomial distributions defined by products||||||0.55
90893505|NCT00765388|181651992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||Regression, Logistic|An ordinal logistic regression model. The null hypothesis tested is that there is no difference inthe multinomial distributions defined by products||||||0.48
90893506|NCT03923933|181651996|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|anova repeated measures||||||<0.001
90893507|NCT03923933|181651997|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||ANOVA|Repeated Measures||||||0.006
90893508|NCT03923933|181651998|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.371|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.371
90893509|NCT03923933|181651999|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90893510|NCT03923933|181652001|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.028
90893511|NCT03923933|181652002|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.018
90893512|NCT01995461|181652003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0252|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||||0.0252
90893513|NCT01995461|181652004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0154|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||||0.0154
90893514|NCT01995461|181652005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1349|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||||0.1349
90893515|NCT01939548|181652014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean (LSM) Difference|3.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.409||0.1991|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.01|6.21||Primary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.2 significance level. No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|Mixed Models Analysis||The estimation method used was restricted maximum likelihood.|Linear mixed-effect repeated measures model used. Fixed effects: treatment, time (visit), PANSS Total baseline value, investigator site; random effect: participant. Also included effects for treatment by time interaction and baseline value of PANSS Total by treatment interaction and background antipsychotics.||6.21|0.01|0.1991
90893516|NCT01939548|181652014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.445||0.3488|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.85|5.45||Primary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.2 significance level. No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|Mixed Models Analysis||The estimation method used was restricted maximum likelihood.|Linear mixed-effect repeated measures model used. Fixed effects: treatment, time (visit), PANSS Total baseline value, investigator site; random effect: participant. Also included effects for treatment by time interaction and baseline value of PANSS Total by treatment interaction and background antipsychotics.||5.45|-0.85|0.3488
90893517|NCT01939548|181652015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.476||0.8786|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.13|1.67||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.2 significance level. No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|Mixed Models Analysis||The estimation method used was restricted maximum likelihood.|Analysis of change at Week 12. Linear mixed-effect repeated measures model used. Fixed effects: treatment, time (visit), baseline value, investigator site; random effect: participant. Also included effects for treatment by time interaction and baseline value by treatment interaction and background antipsychotics.||1.67|-2.13|0.8786
90893518|NCT01939548|181652015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|-1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.502||0.4483|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.08|0.79||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.2 significance level. No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|Mixed Models Analysis||The estimation method used was restricted maximum likelihood.|Analysis of change at Week 12. Linear mixed-effect repeated measures model used. Fixed effects: treatment, time (visit), baseline value, investigator site; random effect: participant. Also included effects for treatment by time interaction and baseline value by treatment interaction and background antipsychotics.||0.79|-3.08|0.4483
90893519|NCT01939548|181652016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.809||0.3201|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.23|1.85||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.2 significance level. No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|Mixed Models Analysis||The estimation method used was restricted maximum likelihood.|Positive Subscale Score comparison of change at Week 12. Linear mixed-effect repeated measures model used. Fixed effects: treatment, time (visit), baseline value, investigator site; random effect: participant. Also included effects for treatment by time interaction and baseline value by treatment interaction and background antipsychotics.||1.85|-0.23|0.3201
90893520|NCT01939548|181652016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.813||0.2961|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.19|1.9||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.2 significance level. No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|Mixed Models Analysis||The estimation method used was restricted maximum likelihood.|Positive Subscale Score comparison of change at Week 12. Linear mixed-effect repeated measures model used. Fixed effects: treatment, time (visit), baseline value, investigator site; random effect: participant. Also included effects for treatment by time interaction and baseline value by treatment interaction and background antipsychotics.||1.90|-0.19|0.2961
90893521|NCT01939548|181652016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.743||0.6015|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.57|1.35||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.2 significance level. No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|Mixed Models Analysis||The estimation method used was restricted maximum likelihood.|Negative Subscale Score comparison of change at Week 12. Linear mixed-effect repeated measures model used. Fixed effects: treatment, time (visit), baseline value, investigator site; random effect: participant. Also included effects for treatment by time interaction and baseline value by treatment interaction and background antipsychotics.||1.35|-0.57|0.6015
90893522|NCT01939548|181652016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.761||0.7787|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.77|1.19||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.2 significance level. No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|Mixed Models Analysis||The estimation method used was restricted maximum likelihood.|Negative Subscale Score comparison of change at Week 12. Linear mixed-effect repeated measures model used. Fixed effects: treatment, time (visit), baseline value, investigator site; random effect: participant. Also included effects for treatment by time interaction and baseline value by treatment interaction and background antipsychotics.||1.19|-0.77|0.7787
90954327|NCT00307684|181787277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.3942||||0.2616||95.0|-12.1928|3.4044||No adjustment for multiplicity was performed.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the ranks with sex, treatment and country as factors and age and baseline score as a covariate||||3.4044|-12.1928|0.2616
90954328|NCT00307684|181787278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.39||||0.5458||95.0|-5.5469|10.3213|||ANCOVA|treatment and country as factors baseline score as covariate||||10.3213|-5.5469|0.5458
90954329|NCT03921723|181787353|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence is established when the 90 percent (%) confidence interval of the ratio for AUC (0 to t) between treatment formulations (Prototype A versus DTG Reference Treatment) are within the range of 0.80 to 1.25|Ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.03||||||||1.03|0.91|
90954330|NCT03921723|181787353|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence is established when the 90% confidence interval of the ratio for AUC (0 to t) between treatment formulations (Prototype B versus DTG Reference Treatment) are within the range of 0.80 to 1.25|Ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.05|1.2||||||||1.20|1.05|
90954331|NCT03921723|181787372|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence is established when the 90% confidence interval of the ratio for AUC (0 to inf) between treatment formulations (Prototype A versus DTG Reference Treatment) are within the range of 0.80 to 1.25|Ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.03||||||||1.03|0.91|
90954332|NCT03921723|181787372|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence is established when the 90% confidence interval of the ratio for AUC (0 to inf) between treatment formulations (Prototype B versus DTG Reference Treatment) are within the range of 0.80 to 1.25|Ratio|1.13||||||90.0|1.06|1.2||||||||1.20|1.06|
90954333|NCT03921723|181787373|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence is established when the 90% confidence interval of the ratio for Cmax between treatment formulations (Prototype A versus DTG Reference Treatment) are within the range of 0.80 to 1.25|Ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.01|1.19||||||||1.19|1.01|
90954334|NCT03921723|181787373|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence is established when the 90% confidence interval of the ratio for Cmax between treatment formulations (Prototype B versus DTG Reference Treatment) are within the range of 0.80 to 1.25|Ratio|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.13|1.33||||||||1.33|1.13|
90954335|NCT04091061|181787396|OTHER|90% Confidence Intervals (CIs) for the ratios of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference): Analysis 1: Mild Hepatic Impairment = Test, Without Hepatic Impairment = Reference|Ratio (%)|156.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.14|296.44|||||90% CIs for the ratios of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference): Analysis 1: Mild Hepatic Impairment = Test, Without Hepatic Impairment = Reference.|||296.44|83.14|
90954336|NCT04091061|181787396|OTHER|90% CIs for the ratios of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference): Analysis 2: Moderate Hepatic Impairment = Test, Without Hepatic Impairment = Reference|Ratio (%)|125.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|66.51|237.13|||||90% CIs for the ratios of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference): Analysis 2: Moderate Hepatic Impairment = Test, Without Hepatic Impairment = Reference|||237.13|66.51|
90954337|NCT04091061|181787396|OTHER|90% CIs for the ratios of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference): Analysis 3: Severe Hepatic Impairment = Test, Without Hepatic Impairment = Reference|Ratio (%)|123.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|65.54|233.68|||||90% CIs for the ratios of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference): Analysis 3: Severe Hepatic Impairment = Test, Without Hepatic Impairment = Reference|||233.68|65.54|
90954338|NCT04091061|181787397|OTHER|90% CIs for the ratios of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference): Analysis 1: Mild Hepatic Impairment = Test, Without Hepatic Impairment = Reference|Ratio (%)|156.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.07|301.16|||||90% CIs for the ratios of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference): Analysis 1: Mild Hepatic Impairment = Test, Without Hepatic Impairment = Reference|||301.16|81.07|
90954339|NCT04091061|181787397|OTHER|90% CIs for the ratios of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference): Analysis 2: Moderate Hepatic Impairment = Test, Without Hepatic Impairment = Reference|Ratio (%)|165.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.95|319.29|||||90% CIs for the ratios of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference): Analysis 2: Moderate Hepatic Impairment = Test, Without Hepatic Impairment = Reference|||319.29|85.95|
90954340|NCT04091061|181787397|OTHER|90% CIs for the ratios of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference): Analysis 3: Severe Hepatic Impairment = Test, Without Hepatic Impairment = Reference|Ratio (%)|152.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.96|293.32|||||90% CIs for the ratios of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference): Analysis 3: Severe Hepatic Impairment = Test, Without Hepatic Impairment = Reference|||293.32|78.96|
90954341|NCT04091061|181787398|OTHER|90% CIs for the ratios of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference): Analysis 1: Mild Hepatic Impairment = Test, Without Hepatic Impairment = Reference|Ratio (%)|156.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.95|300.6|||||90% CIs for the ratios of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference): Analysis 1: Mild Hepatic Impairment = Test, Without Hepatic Impairment = Reference|||300.60|80.95|
90954342|NCT04091061|181787398|OTHER|90% CIs for the ratios of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference): Analysis 2: Moderate Hepatic Impairment = Test, Without Hepatic Impairment = Reference|Ratio (%)|165.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.82|318.67|||||90% CIs for the ratios of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference): Analysis 2: Moderate Hepatic Impairment = Test, Without Hepatic Impairment = Reference|||318.67|85.82|
90954343|NCT04091061|181787398|OTHER|90% CIs for the ratios of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference): Analysis 3: Severe Hepatic Impairment = Test, Without Hepatic Impairment = Reference|Ratio (%)|152.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.99|293.29|||||90% CIs for the ratios of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference): Analysis 3: Severe Hepatic Impairment = Test, Without Hepatic Impairment = Reference|||293.29|78.99|
90954344|NCT00406692|181787403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5|<|0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Null Hypothesis: No difference in the mean daily standard drinks consumed for the baseline period and the zonisamide treatment weeks|Mixed Models Analysis|||Null Hypothesis: No difference in the mean daily standard drinks consumed between the baseline period and the zonisamide treatment weeks.||||<0.0003
90954345|NCT00406692|181787404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9|<|0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null Hypothesis: No significant change in the mean number of words produced during phonetic portion of the Controlled Word Association Test between the baseline period and the treatment weeks.||||<0.22
90954346|NCT00406692|181787405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0|<|0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null Hypothesis: No significant difference for mean scores obtained for baseline, week 4 and week 12.||||< 0.55
90954347|NCT04488770|181787454|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Mean|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.61|0.93|||||Mixed Effect Model has been used to assess Food Effect for the log transformed parameter AUC(0-24). Treatment in the fed/fasted state is fitted as Fixed Effect. Participant is fitted as Random Effect. Unstructured covariance structure is used.|||0.93|0.61|
90954348|NCT04488770|181787455|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Mean|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.65|0.98|||||Mixed Effect Model was used to assess Food Effect for the log transformed parameter AUC(0-t). Treatment in the fed/fasted state was fitted as Fixed Effect. Participant was fitted as Random Effect. Unstructured covariance structure was used.|||0.98|0.65|
90954349|NCT04488770|181787456|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Mean|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.65|0.98|||||Mixed Effect Model was used to assess Food Effect for log transformed parameter AUC(0-infinity). Treatment in the fed/fasted state was fitted as Fixed Effect. Participant was fitted as Random Effect. Unstructured covariance structure was used.|||0.98|0.65|
90954350|NCT04488770|181787457|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Mean|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.46|0.75|||||Mixed Effect Model was used to assess Food Effect for the log transformed parameter Cmax. Treatment in the fed/fasted state was fitted as Fixed Effect. Participant was fitted as Random Effect. Unstructured covariance structure was used.|||0.75|0.46|
90954351|NCT04488770|181787458|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Mean|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.74|1.11|||||Mixed Effect Model was used to assess Food Effect for the log transformed parameter C24h. Treatment in the fed/fasted state was fitted as Fixed Effect. Participant was fitted as Random Effect. Unstructured covariance structure was used.|||1.11|0.74|
90954352|NCT04488770|181787459|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|2.0|||||Wilcoxon matched pair test was used to assess Food Effect for the parameter Tmax.|||2.000|0.000|
90954353|NCT04488770|181787460|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.25|||||Wilcoxon matched pair test was used to assess Food Effect for the parameter Tlag.|||0.250|0.000|
90954354|NCT03547739|181787461|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|4.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.88|6.18|||Chi-squared||Generalized Estimating Equation model with robust standard errors used. Risk Ratios reported were adjusted for baseline education level, wealth index, length of couple relationship, previous couple testing at baseline, and couple age disparity.|Home visits as compared to Standard Care||6.18|2.88|<0.001
90954355|NCT03547739|181787461|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|3.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|5.45|||Chi-squared||Generalized Estimating Equation model with robust standard errors used. Risk Ratios reported were adjusted for baseline education level, wealth index, length of couple relationship, previous couple testing at baseline, and couple age disparity.|HIV Self-testing as compared to Standard Care||5.45|2.50|<0.001
90954356|NCT03547739|181787462|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.21||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.31|||Chi-squared||Generalized Estimating Equation model with robust standard errors used. Risk Ratios reported were adjusted for baseline education level, wealth index, length of couple relationship, previous couple testing at baseline, and and couple age disparity.|Comparison of the Home Visit arm with Standard Care||1.31|1.12|.001
90954357|NCT03547739|181787462|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.26||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|1.36|||Chi-squared||Generalized Estimating Equation model with robust standard errors used. Risk Ratios reported were adjusted for baseline education level, wealth index, length of couple relationship, previous couple testing at baseline, and and couple age disparity.|Comparison of HIVST arm with Standard Care arm||1.36|1.17|.001
90954358|NCT03547739|181787476|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.08||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.12|||Chi-squared||Generalized Estimating Equation model (binomial family and log link) with robust standard errors used. Risk Ratios reported were adjusted for baseline education level, wealth, length of couple relationship, and couple age disparity.|Comparison of the Home Visit arm with Standard Care||1.12|1.03|.011
90954359|NCT03547739|181787476|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.02||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.08|||Chi-squared||Generalized Estimating Equation model (binomial family and log link) with robust standard errors used. Risk Ratios reported were adjusted for baseline education level, wealth, length of couple relationship, and couple age disparity.|Comparison of the HIVST arm with Standard Care||1.08|0.97|0.011
90954360|NCT03547739|181787477|OTHER||Kaplan Meier estimates|0.92||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|0.95|||Log Rank|||||0.95|0.86|0.087
90954361|NCT03547739|181787477|OTHER||Kaplan Meier estimates|0.96||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|0.98|||Log Rank|||||0.98|0.91|0.087
90954362|NCT03547739|181787477|OTHER||Kaplan Meier estimates|0.98||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|0.99|||Log Rank|||||0.99|0.93|0.087
90954363|NCT01696955|181787480|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.99
90954364|NCT01696955|181787483|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.47
90954365|NCT01696955|181787484|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.99
90954366|NCT01696955|181787485|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.58
90954367|NCT03980808|181787491|EQUIVALENCE|A priori significance levels were set to 0.05. As this was a pilot study on a demonstration intervention, power analysis were not performed.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.95|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Total degrees of freedom (dof) = 17, with between groups dof = 1 and within groups dof = 16.||Composite scores were calculated for the knowledge based tests. Differences in the pre and post test composite scores were compared using ANOVA. We tested the null hypothesis that score changes in the intervention group and control group were the same.||||0.95
90954368|NCT03980808|181787492|EQUIVALENCE|A priori significance levels were set to 0.05. As this was a pilot study on a demonstration intervention, power analysis were not performed.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5376||0.093|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Composite scores were calculated for the behavioral self-report tests tests. Differences in the pre and post test composite scores were compared using ANOVA. We tested the null hypothesis that score changes in the intervention group and control group were the same.||||0.093
90954369|NCT00573859|181787530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||A 2 (ADHD medication versus Placebo) repeated measure ANOVA||||<0.05
90954370|NCT00573859|181787531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Four-way repeated measure ANOVA||||<0.05
90954371|NCT00573859|181787532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||Friedman's two analysis of ranks|||Friedman's two-way analysis of variance by ranks.||||<0.05
90954372|NCT02729831|181787551|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|9.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|12.0|||Regression, Linear|||The comparison groups were: Interactive decision versus Video decision aid.||12|6|<0.001
90959053|NCT01620255|181798207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.21||||0.1647|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.465|0.039|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 75 mg vs placebo, Stool Frequency, W12||0.039|-0.465|0.1647
90954373|NCT02729831|181787552|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.44|||Regression, Logistic|General Estimating Equations accounted for clustering of patients within surgeons and controlling for baseline EQ-5D, BMI, joint and education.||We tested for interaction effects. Comparison groups were: MD Usual Care vs. MD Provider report.||1.44|0.74|0.86
90954374|NCT02729831|181787552|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.47|||Regression, Logistic|General Estimating Equations accounted for clustering of patients within surgeons and controlling for baseline EQ-5D, BMI, joint and education.||We tested for interaction effects. Comparison groups are: Interactive decision versus Video decision aid||1.47|0.76|0.75
90954375|NCT02729831|181787553|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.8|24.5|||Chi-squared|Compared patients who reported using all of the DA compared to everyone else.||Comparison groups were: patients who reported using all of the DA versus everyone else.||24.5|12.8|<0.001
90954376|NCT02729831|181787554|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.016|0.065|||Regression, Linear|Generalized Estimating Equation accounting for clustering within surgeons. Model included treatment, sex, age, education, site and joint.||We included all 4 study groups, but the comparison group was: informed, patient centered decision yes vs. no.||0.065|0.016|<0.001
90954377|NCT02729831|181787555|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|25.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.5|40.1|||Regression, Logistic|General estimating equations were used to account for clustering of patients within surgeons.||We included all 4 study groups, but the comparison group was: informed, patient centered (IPC) decision yes vs. no. We excluded those who did not provide information to calculate the IPC variable.||40.1|16.5|<0.001
90954378|NCT00864253|181787556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.792||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.1|0.631|0.992||An interim safety review was performed by DMC. An alpha spending function was utilized to preserve the overall Type 1 error at 0.050. The spending function allocated alpha of 0.001 and 0.049 to the interim and final analyses of PFS, respectively.|Log Rank|The treatment difference was tested using the stratified log-rank test, stratified by metastatic stage, region, and baseline LDH.||Two hundred fifty-seven (257) patients were to be randomized to each treatment group for a total of 514 patients. This sample size was chosen to provide at least 80% power for the final analysis (with a two-sided type I error of 0.049) to reject the null hypothesis that the ABI 007/dacarbazine hazard ratio (HR) for PFS is equal to 1.0. This sample size calculation was based on estimates of HR = 0.750. Proportional hazards were assumed.||0.992|0.631|0.044
90954379|NCT00864253|181787557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.831||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|99.9|0.578|1.196||At the time of the final PFS analysis, an interim analysis of survival was reported. The spending function allocated an alpha of 0.001 and 0.049 for the interim and final analysis, respectively, to preserve the overall Type I error at 0.050.|Log Rank|The treatment difference was tested using the stratified log-rank test, stratified by metastatic stage, region, and baseline LDH.||For the participant survival, at the time at least 417 events are recorded, this sample size provides at least 80% power with a two-sided Type 1 error of 0.049 to reject the null hypothesis that the ABI-007/dacarbazine hazard ratio is equal to 1.0. This was based on a HR = 0.760. Proportional hazards were assumed.||1.196|0.578|0.094
90954380|NCT00864253|181787558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.845||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.696|1.025|||Log Rank|The treatment difference was tested using the stratified log-rank test, stratified by metastatic stage, region, and baseline LDH.||||1.025|0.696|0.086
90954381|NCT00864253|181787559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Response Rate Ratio|1.305||||0.239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.837|2.035|||Chi-squared|||||2.035|0.837|0.239
90954382|NCT00864253|181787560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Response Rate Ratio|1.442||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.123|1.582|||Chi-squared|||||1.582|1.123|0.004
90954383|NCT00864253|181787561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.201||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.959|5.053|||Log Rank|||||5.053|0.959|0.057
90954384|NCT01747551|181787588|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.72
90954385|NCT05384938|181787647|OTHER|Single group|Median time to response|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.0|160.0|||||Estimate for Time to Response using Kaplan-Meier method|Estimate for Time to Response (Days)||160.0|65.00|
90954386|NCT05384938|181787651|OTHER|Parametric Test|||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||Week 4 (Visit 2)||||<0.0001
90954387|NCT05384938|181787651|OTHER|Parametric Test|||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||Week 16 (Visit 4)||||<0.0001
90954388|NCT05384938|181787651|OTHER|Parametric Test|||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||Week 24 (Visit 5)||||<0.0001
90954389|NCT02626455|181787653|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of PFS|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.125|||=|0.827974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.881|1.437||Significance level is 0.025.|Log Rank|PFS was evaluated with a one-sided stratified log- rank test. HR and 95% CI are based on the stratified Cox regression model.||||1.437|0.881|= 0.827974
90954390|NCT02626455|181787656|SUPERIORITY|ORR of Copa+R-B/R-CHOP minus ORR of Pbo+R-B/R-CHOP|Difference|-1.25|||=|0.658652|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.25|4.75||Significance level is 0.025. P-values are descriptive (nominal) due to multiplicity testing.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Point estimate and 95% CI are based on Mantel-Haenszel weighted treatment difference.||||4.75|-7.25|= 0.658652
90954391|NCT02626455|181787657|SUPERIORITY|ORR of Copa+R-B/R-CHOP minus ORR of Pbo+R-B/R-CHOP|Difference|-0.8|||=|0.605183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.64|5.05||Significance level is 0.025. P-value is descriptive (nominal) due to multiplicity testing.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Point estimate and 95% CI are based on Mantel-Haenszel weighted treatment difference.||||5.05|-6.64|=0.605183
90954392|NCT02626455|181787658|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of DOR|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.145|||=|0.846204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.883|1.484||Significance level is 0.025, P-value is descriptive (nominal) due to multiplicity testing.|Log Rank|DOR was evaluated with a one-sided stratified log-rank test. HR and its 95% CI were based on the stratified Cox regression model.||||1.484|0.883|= 0.846204
90954393|NCT02626455|181787659|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of DOR|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.117|||=|0.801735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.865|1.443||Significance level is 0.025, P-value is descriptive (nominal) due to multiplicity testing.|Log Rank|DOR was evaluated with a one-sided stratified log-rank test. HR and its 95% CI were based on the stratified Cox regression model.||||1.443|0.865|= 0.801735
90954394|NCT02626455|181787660|SUPERIORITY|CRR of Copa+R-B/R-CHOP minus CRR of Pbo+R-B/R-CHOP|Difference|-2.74|||=|0.741153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.06|5.57||Significance level is 0.025. P-value is descriptive (nominal) due to multiplicity testing.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Point estimate and 95% CI are based on Mantel-Haenszel weighted treatment difference.||||5.57|-11.06|= 0.741153
90954395|NCT02626455|181787661|SUPERIORITY|CRR of Copa+R-B/R-CHOP minus CRR of Pbo+R-B/R-CHOP|Difference|-2.21|||=|0.696482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.62|6.2||Significance level is 0.025. P-value is descriptive (nominal) due to multiplicity testing.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Point estimate and 95% CI are based on Mantel-Haenszel weighted treatment difference.||||6.20|-10.62|= 0.696482
90954396|NCT02626455|181787662|SUPERIORITY|DCR of Copa+R-B/R-CHOP minus DCR of Pbo+R-B/R-CHOP|Difference|-3.95|||=|0.936009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.04|1.14||Significance level is 0.025. P-value is descriptive (nominal) due to multiplicity testing.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Point estimate and 95% CI are based on Mantel-Haenszel weighted treatment difference||||1.14|-9.04|= 0.936009
90954397|NCT02626455|181787663|SUPERIORITY|DCR of Copa+R-B/R-CHOP minus DCR of Pbo+R-B/R-CHOP|Difference|-3.89|||=|0.944242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.68|0.9||Significance level is 0.025. P-value is descriptive (nominal) due to multiplicity testing.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Point estimate and 95% CI are based on Mantel-Haenszel weighted treatment difference||||0.90|-8.68|= 0.944242
90954398|NCT02626455|181787664|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of TTP|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.006|||=|0.517849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.777|1.303||Significance level is 0.025. P-value is descriptive (nominal) due to multiplicity testing.|Log Rank|TTP was evaluated with a one-sided stratified log-rank test. HR and its 95% CI are based on the stratified Cox regression model.||||1.303|0.777|= 0.517849
90954399|NCT02626455|181787665|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of TTP|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.971|||=|0.411398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.257||Significance level is 0.025. P-value is descriptive (nominal) due to multiplicity testing.|Log Rank|TTP was evaluated with a one-sided stratified log-rank test. HR and its 95% CI are based on the stratified Cox regression model.||||1.257|0.750|= 0.411398
90954400|NCT02626455|181787666|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of TTNT|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.289|||=|0.955865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.962|1.728||Significance level IS 0.025. P-value is descriptive (nominal) due to multiplicity testing.|Log Rank|TTNT was evaluated with a one-sided stratified log-rank test. HR and its 95% CI are based on the stratified Cox regression model.||||1.728|0.962|= 0.955865
90954401|NCT02626455|181787667|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of OS|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.132|||=|0.758563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.603||Significance level is 0.025. P-value is descriptive (nominal) due to multiplicity testing.|Log Rank|OS was evaluated with a one-sided stratified log-rank test. HR and 95% CI are based on the stratified Cox regression model.||||1.603|0.800|= 0.758563
90954402|NCT02626455|181787668|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of time to deterioration in DRS-P|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.394|||=|0.999695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.149|1.691||Significance level IS 0.025. P-value is descriptive (nominal) due to multiplicity testing.|Log Rank|Time to deterioration in DRS-P was evaluated with one-sided stratified log-rank test.HR and its 95% CI are based on stratified Cox regression model.||||1.691|1.149|= 0.999695
90954403|NCT02626455|181787669|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of time to improvement in DRS-P|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81|||=|0.965639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.642|1.02||Significance level is 0.025. P-value is descriptive (nominal) due to multiplicity testing.|Log Rank|Time to improvement in DRS-P was evaluated with one-sided stratified log-rank test.HR and its 95% CI are based on the stratified Cox regression model.||||1.020|0.642|= 0.965639
90954404|NCT01200290|181787732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.324|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 8.|Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||||0.324
90954405|NCT01200290|181787732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 16.|Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||||0.031
90954406|NCT01200290|181787732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 24.|Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||||0.076
90954407|NCT01200290|181787732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 36.|Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||||0.013
90954408|NCT01200290|181787732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.553|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 52.|Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||||0.553
90954409|NCT01200290|181787732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.132|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 64.|Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||||0.132
90954410|NCT01200290|181787732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 76.|Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||||0.230
90954411|NCT01200290|181787733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.335|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 8.|Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||||0.335
90954412|NCT01200290|181787733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 16.|Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||||0.043
90954413|NCT01200290|181787733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 24.|Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||||0.073
90954414|NCT01200290|181787733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 36.|Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||||0.004
90954415|NCT01200290|181787733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.699|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 52.|Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||||0.699
90954416|NCT01200290|181787733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 64.|Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||||0.095
90954417|NCT01200290|181787733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 76.|Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||||0.082
90954418|NCT00775463|181787777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann Estimate of Treatment Eff|0.0||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A Cochran-Mantel Haenszel mean score test was used on the standardized reverse mid-ranks (overall reverse ranks divided by the number of ranks +1, or modified ridit scores; largely negative changes had ranks near 1 and largely positive changes had ranks near 0)of the residuals from an ordinary least squares regression with change in net ulcer burden at Week 20 as a linear function of Baseline PDEI or prostacyclin use (binary variable:Yes/No) and net ulcer burden at Baseline(continuous variable).||0.0|-1.0|0.20
90954419|NCT00775463|181787778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann Estimate of Treatment Eff|-0.4||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.4||Analyses of secondary endpoints were descriptive in nature, no adjustments for multiplicity were made. P-values are for the purpose of describing the random imbalance between treatment groups and not to test formal hypotheses.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The difference between treatment groups for the change from Baseline was tested using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||0.40|-1.40|0.31
90954420|NCT00775463|181787779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann Estimate of Treatment Eff|-9.3||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.3|2.7||Analyses of secondary endpoints were descriptive in nature, no adjustments for multiplicity were made. P-values are for the purpose of describing the random imbalance between treatment groups and not to test formal hypotheses.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The VAS-global assessments were recorded in centimeters, with possible values ranging from 0.0 to 15.0. The recorded value was divided by 15, then multiplied by 100 to convert it to the VAS-Global scale, with values ranging from 0 (no disease activity) to 100 (very severe disease). The difference between treatment groups for the change from Baseline was tested using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||2.7|-21.3|0.12
90954421|NCT00775463|181787780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann Estimate of Treatment Eff|-9.3||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|0.0||Analyses of secondary endpoints were descriptive in nature, no adjustments for multiplicity were made. P-values are for the purpose of describing the random imbalance between treatment groups and not to test formal hypotheses.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The VAS-global assessments were recorded in centimeters, with possible values ranging from 0.0 to 15.0. The recorded value was divided by 15, then multiplied by 100 to convert it to the VAS-Global scale, with values ranging from 0 (no disease activity) to 100 (very severe disease). The difference between treatment groups for the change from Baseline was tested using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||0.0|-18.0|0.04
90954422|NCT00775463|181787781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann Estimate of Treatment Eff|-1.0||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|2.0||Analyses of secondary endpoints were descriptive in nature, no adjustments for multiplicity were made. P-values are for the purpose of describing the random imbalance between treatment groups and not to test formal hypotheses.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The difference between treatment groups for the change from Baseline in CHFS Score were tested using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||2.0|-4.0|0.47
90954423|NCT00775463|181787783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann Estimate of Treatment Eff|0.0||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||he difference between treatment groups for the change from Baseline and at Week 20 in the mRSS was tested using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||1.0|0.0|0.68
90954424|NCT00775463|181787784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann Estimate of Treatment Eff|-1.0||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|2.0||P value for Total Pain Rating Index Score|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||P value for Total Pain Rating Index Score||2.0|-3.0|0.54
90954425|NCT00775463|181787784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann Estimate of Treatment Ef|-0.6||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.3||P value for Pain VAS|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||P value for Pain VAS||0.3|-1.6|0.18
90954426|NCT00775463|181787784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann Estimate of Treatment Eff|0.0||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||P value for Total Pain Rating Index Score|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||P value for Total Pain Rating Index Score||0.0|-1.0|0.10
90954427|NCT04032613|181787793|OTHER|Paired sample t-test||||||0.2||||||Statistically significant p-value is \<0.05|Paired sample t-test|||||||0.20
90954428|NCT04032613|181787794|OTHER|Paired sample t-test||||||0.05||||||Statistically significant p-value is \<0.05|Paired sample t-test|||||||0.05
90954429|NCT04032613|181787795|OTHER|Paired sample t-test||||||0.004||||||Statistically significant p-value is \<0.05|Paired sample t-test|||||||0.004
90954430|NCT04032613|181787796|OTHER|Paired sample t-test||||||0.14||||||Statistically significant p-value is \<0.05|Paired sample t-test|||||||0.14
90954431|NCT01141647|181787799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.8|7.07||||||||7.07|1.80|
90954432|NCT01744392|181787814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.2||||0.73|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference between percentages. Increases in value indicate improvement in adherence.||||.73
90954433|NCT01417104|181787874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.16|||<|0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|9.47|||t-test, 2 sided|||||9.47|0.85|<0.031
90954434|NCT01417104|181787875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.4||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|4.36|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.36|0.44|0.041
90954435|NCT02946853|181787911|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|7.21|||Regression, Logistic|||||7.21|0.14|1.00
90954436|NCT02946853|181787912|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.974|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.974
90954437|NCT02946853|181787913|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Some patients did not undergo 6 month echocardiogram due to restrictions related to COVID-19.||||1.00
90954438|NCT02946853|181787914|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|84.4|||Fisher Exact|||||84.4|0.1|1.00
90954439|NCT02946853|181787915|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
90954440|NCT02946853|181787916|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|42.0|||Fisher Exact|||||42.00|0.00|1.00
90954441|NCT02946853|181787917|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.6||||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.005
90954442|NCT02946853|181787918|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|23.7||||0.565|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.565
90954443|NCT02946853|181787919|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|42.0|||Fisher Exact|||||42.0|0.0|1.00
90954444|NCT02369068|181787921|OTHER|||||||0.072|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|This test was selected since the distribution of the change in pain was not normal nor approximately symmetric.||The null hypothesis assumed there were no differences in the pain score change between groups. Significance level was set at 0.05.||||0.072
90954445|NCT02369068|181787922|OTHER|||||||0.624|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The null hypothesis assumed there were no differences in the median change pain severity between the groups. Significance level was set at 0.05||||0.624
90954446|NCT02369068|181787923|OTHER|||||||0.571|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The null hypothesis assumed that there is no difference in the change in pain interference between the groups. Statistical significance was set at 0.05||||0.571
90954447|NCT02369068|181787924|OTHER|||||||0.285|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The null hypothesis assumed that there was no difference in the distribution between the groups. Significance level was set at 0.05||||0.285
90954448|NCT00403767|181787938|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Alternative hypothesis of non-inferiority (NI) by a NI margin of 1.46 in hazard ratio (HR) based on on-treatment data from the per protocol population. The required number of primary efficacy endpoint events was determined based on the following assumptions: NI margin of 1.46, 1-sided alpha of 0.025, power of \>95% when true HR is 1, and exponential distributions. The margin was selected based on clinical appropriateness and quantitative analysis of relevant studies in Hart et al.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.96||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The alpha threshold for statistical significance is 0.025 (1-sided).|Cox Proportional Hazards model|(non-stratified) Cox Proportional Hazards model with treatment as covariate||||0.96|0.66|<0.001
90954449|NCT00403767|181787939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.95||The p-value Is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The alpha threshold for statistical significance is 0.05 (2-sided).|Cox Proportional Hazards model|(non-stratified) Cox Proportional Hazards model with treatment as covariate||Alternative hypothesis of superiority based on on-treatment data from the safety population.||0.95|0.65|0.015
90954450|NCT00403767|181787940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.11||The p-value is not adjusted for mulitple comparisons. The alpha threshold for statistical significance is 0.05 (2-sided).|Cox Proportional Hazards model|(non-stratified) Cox Proportional Hazards model with treatment as a covariate||Alternate hypothesis of superiority based on on-treatment data from the safety population.||1.11|0.96|0.442
90954451|NCT00403767|181787941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.99||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The alpha threshold for statistical significance is 0.05 (2-sided).|Cox Proportional Hazards model|(non-stratified) Cox Proportional Hazards model with treatment as covariate||Alternative hypothesis of superiority based on on-treatment data from the safety population.||0.99|0.74|0.034
90954452|NCT00403767|181787942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.96||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The alpha threshold for statistical significance is 0.05 (2-sided).|Cox Proportional Hazards model|(non-stratified) Cox Proportional Hazards model with treatment as covariate||Alternative hypothesis of superiority based on on-treatment data from the safety population.||0.96|0.74|0.010
90954453|NCT00403767|181787943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.03||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The alpha threshold for statistical significance is 0.05 (2-sided).|Cox Proportional Hazards model|(non-stratified) Cox Proportional Hazards model with treatment as a covariate||Alternative hypothesis of superiority based on on-treatment data from the safety population.||1.03|0.70|0.092
90954454|NCT00403767|181787944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.23||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.61||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The alpha threshold for statistical significance is 0.05 (2-sided).|Cox Proportional Hazards model|(non-stratified) Cox Proportional Hazards model with treatment as covariate||Alternative hypothesis of superiority based on on-treatment data from the safety population.||0.61|0.09|0.003
90954455|NCT00403767|181787945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.06||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The alpha threshold for statistical significance is 0.05 (2-sided).|Cox Proportional Hazards model|(non-stratified) Cox Proportional Hazards model with treatment as a covariate||Alternative hypothesis of superiority based on on-treatment data from the safety population.||1.06|0.63|0.121
90954456|NCT00403767|181787946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.1||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The alpha threshold for statistical significance is 0.05 (2-sided).|Cox Proportional Hazards model|(non-stratified) Cox Proportional Hazards model with treatment as a covariate||Alternative hypothesis of superiority based on on-treatment data from the safety population.||1.10|0.73|0.289
90954457|NCT00403767|181787947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.02||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The alpha threshold for statistical significance is 0.05 (2-sided).|Cox Proportional Hazards model|(non-stratified) Cox Proportional Hazards model with treatment as covariate||Alternative hypothesis of superiority based on on-treatment data from the safety population.||1.02|0.70|0.073
90954458|NCT05319912|181787956|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|75.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|52.23|110.02||||||Analysis was performed using analysis of variance (ANOVA).||110.02|52.23|
90954459|NCT05319912|181787956|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|25.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|17.21|36.89||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA.||36.89|17.21|
90954460|NCT05319912|181787957|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|82.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|63.91|106.9||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA.||106.90|63.91|
90954461|NCT05319912|181787957|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|40.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|31.12|52.68||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA.||52.68|31.12|
90954462|NCT02229851|181787973|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-1.53|||=|0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.68|-0.38|||ANCOVA||Somapacitan-Placebo|Changes in truncal fat percentage from baseline to the 34 week's measurements was analysed using an analysis of covariance model with treatment, growth hormone deficiency (GHD) onset type, sex, region, diabetes mellitus (DM) and sex by region by DM interaction as factors and baseline as a covariate. The analysis was conducted using a multiple imputation technique where trajectory after a withdrawn subjects last observation was imputed based on data from the placebo arm.||-0.38|-2.68|=0.0090
90954463|NCT01489891|181788142|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Beta 0.1; Alpha 0.05|Median Difference (Final Values)|30.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|42.1|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
90954464|NCT02045875|181788162|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046||||||Effect of interaction of time and treatment group|ANOVA|||||||0.046
90954465|NCT02045875|181788163|OTHER||correlation coefficient|-0.508|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||correlation of asthma control and adherence|||||
90954466|NCT01276379|181788200|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.01||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|3.29|||Log Rank|||||3.29|1.23|0.004
90954467|NCT01276379|181788201|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|3.96|||Log Rank|||||3.96|1.33|<0.0001
90954468|NCT05745701|181788213|OTHER||test/reference ratios|195.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|162.13|236.71||||||Natural loge transformed Cmax of PF-07081532 administered without cyclosporine (Reference) or coadministered with cyclosporine (Test) were analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test/Reference) and corresponding 90% CIs was obtained from the models. The ratios (and 90% CIs) were expressed as percentages.||236.71|162.13|
90954469|NCT05745701|181788213|OTHER||test/reference ratios|282.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|258.81|307.55||||||Natural loge transformed Cmax of PF-07081532 administered without itraconazole (Reference) or coadministered with itraconazole (Test) were analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test/Reference) and corresponding 90% CIs was obtained from the models. The ratios (and 90% CIs) were expressed as percentages.||307.55|258.81|
90954470|NCT01133418|181788232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05|General Linear Model|||||||.36
90954471|NCT01133418|181788233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86|||||||General Linear Model|||||||.86
90954472|NCT01133418|181788234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79|||||||General Linear Model|||||||.79
90954473|NCT01133418|181788235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77|||||||General Linear Model|||||||.77
90954474|NCT04150068|181788237|SUPERIORITY|The difference in percentage between 2 treatment groups was compared using an unconditional exact method using 2 invert 1-sided tests with an alpha level at 0.05 to evaluate superiority.|Percentage Difference|70.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.9|90.0||The P value and 95% confidence interval (CI) for the point estimate of treatment difference in proportions was estimated and constructed using the Chan and Zhang method.|Chan & Zhang method|||||90.0|34.9|< 0.0001
90954475|NCT05316701|181788246|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.26|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.47|||Log Rank|||Log-rank test was stratified by randomization stratification factors.||0.47|0.14|<0.00001
90954476|NCT05316701|181788247|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.19||||2e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.43|||Gray's test|||Gray's test was stratified by randomization stratification factors.||0.43|0.08|0.00002
90954477|NCT05316701|181788248|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.49||||0.11823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.22|||Log Rank|||Log-rank test was stratified by randomization stratification factors.||1.22|0.20|0.11823
90954478|NCT05316701|181788249|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.37||||3e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.6|||Log Rank|||Log-rank test was stratified by randomization stratification factors.||0.60|0.23|0.00003
90954479|NCT04679935|181788255|OTHER|Analysis was purely descriptive.|Difference|-3.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.84|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.47|-0.01|||MMRM model|||Week 40||-0.01|-7.47|
90954480|NCT04679935|181788255|OTHER|Analysis was purely descriptive.|Difference|-4.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.78|-0.48|||MMRM model|||Week 44||-0.48|-8.78|
90954481|NCT04679935|181788255|OTHER|Analysis was purely descriptive.|Difference|-5.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.38|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.13|-0.58|||MMRM model|||Week 48||-0.58|-10.13|
91017458|NCT03170271|181918106|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-1.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|-0.66|||Repeated measures analysis||Model: Change from baseline in PSIA score (top ranked) =Treatment + baseline PSIA score (top ranked) + region + number of exacerbations in previous year + maintenance OCS use at baseline + visit + treatment by visit.|Change from baseline in PSIA severity score of top ranked symptom/impairment at Week 24 was compared between the benralizumab group and placebo group using a restricted maximum likelihood based on a MMRM analysis.||-0.66|-1.64|<0.0001
90954482|NCT04679935|181788255|OTHER|Analysis was purely descriptive.|Difference|-4.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.28|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.77|0.39|||MMRM model|||Week 52||0.39|-8.77|
90954483|NCT04679935|181788255|OTHER|Analysis was purely descriptive.|Difference|-4.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.09|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.56|-0.16|||MMRM model|||Mean of Week 40 to Week 52||-0.16|-8.56|
90954484|NCT04679935|181788263|OTHER|Analysis was purely descriptive.|Difference|-4.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.28|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.77|-0.39|||MMRM model|||Week 52||-0.39|-8.77|
90954485|NCT02980731|181788279|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.004||||||P-value is derived from a paired t-test of H0: mean difference (Week 48 - baseline) ≤ 5 versus H1: mean difference (Week 48 - baseline) \> 5|t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.004
90954486|NCT02075476|181788312|EQUIVALENCE|Normality in sample distribution was tested using the Kolmororov-Smirnov test and graphic models. For descriptive variables we use Pearson's Chi-square, and for the study of numerical variables over time we use a mixed linear test.||||||0.048|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.048
90954487|NCT02075476|181788313|EQUIVALENCE|Normality in sample distribution was tested using the Kolmororov-Smirnov test and graphic models. For descriptive variables we use Pearson's Chi-square, and for the study of numerical variables over time we use a mixed linear test.||||||0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.001
90954488|NCT02075476|181788314|EQUIVALENCE|Normality in sample distribution was tested using the Kolmororov-Smirnov test and graphic models. For descriptive variables we use Pearson's Chi-square, and for the study of numerical variables over time we use a mixed linear test.||||||0.011|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.011
90954489|NCT01850446|181788315|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin was prespecified as 20% (on each day). Type I error (alpha) level of 0.025 was prospectively planned for this analysis. Power of this analysis was planned to be greater than 0.8|Z-value|8.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Global test statistics (GTS) was constructed in accordance with O'Brien Procedures for Comparing Samples with Multiple Endpoints.|Z-test for Global test statistics|||Individual day analyses were combined into Global Test Statistics (patient diary analysis)||||<0.0001
90954490|NCT01850446|181788315|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin was prespecified as 20% (on each day). Type I error (alpha) level of 0.025 was prospectievely planned for this analysis. Power of this analysis was planned to be greater than 0.8|Z-value|7.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Global test statistics (GTS) was constructed in accordance with O'Brien, P. (1984). Procedures for Comparing Samples with Multiple Endpoints. Biometrics, 40(4), 1079-1087. doi:10.2307/2531158|Z-test for Global test statistics|||Individual day analyses were combined into Global Test Statistics (physician's examination analysis)||||<0.0001
90954491|NCT01850446|181788316|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin was prespecified as 1.2 degree\*day|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44||||0.027|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-0.23||||t-test, 1 sided|||Severity of fever was measured as area under curve (body temperature-time)|||-0.23|0.027
90954492|NCT01850446|181788317|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority magrin was prespecified as 20% of comparator duration|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23||||0.02|ONE_SIDED|97.5||0.63|||t-test, 1 sided|mean survival time estimates obtained from survival analysis were compared by means of t-test with infinite degrees of freedom||||0.63||0.02
90954493|NCT01850446|181788318|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin was prespecified as 20% (on each day)|Z-value|6.95|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Global test statistics (GTS) was constructed in accordance with O'Brien, P. (1984). Procedures for Comparing Samples with Multiple Endpoints. Biometrics, 40(4), 1079-1087. doi:10.2307/2531158|Z-test for Global test statistics|||Individual day analyses were combined into Global Test Statistics||||<0.0001
90954494|NCT01850446|181788319|NON_INFERIORITY|N.I. margin was prespecified as 20% of comparator (with respect to timeframe)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5||1.33|||t-test, 1 sided|||Severity of influenza symptoms (day1 morning)||1.33||<0.001
90954495|NCT01850446|181788319|NON_INFERIORITY|N.I. margin was prespecified as 20% of comparator (with respect to timeframe)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.56||||0.013|ONE_SIDED|97.5||2.59|||t-test, 1 sided|||Severity of influenza symptoms (day2 morning)||2.59||0.013
90954496|NCT01850446|181788319|NON_INFERIORITY|N.I. margin was prespecified as 20% of comparator (with respect to timeframe)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.82||||0.084|ONE_SIDED|97.5||2.66|||t-test, 1 sided|||Severity of influenza symptoms (day3 morning)||2.66||0.084
90954497|NCT01850446|181788319|NON_INFERIORITY|N.I. margin was prespecified as 20% of comparator (with respect to timeframe)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.62||||0.22|ONE_SIDED|97.5||2.2|||t-test, 1 sided|||Severity of influenza symptoms (day4 morning)||2.2||0.22
90954498|NCT01850446|181788319|NON_INFERIORITY|N.I. margin was prespecified as 20% of comparator (with respect to timeframe)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27||||0.04|ONE_SIDED|97.5||1.07|||t-test, 1 sided|||Severity of influenza symptoms (day5 morning)||1.07||0.04
90954499|NCT01850446|181788319|NON_INFERIORITY|N.I. margin was prespecified as 20% of comparator (with respect to timeframe)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.13|ONE_SIDED|97.5||0.98|||t-test, 1 sided|||Severity of influenza symptoms (day6 morning)||0.98||0.13
90954500|NCT01850446|181788319|NON_INFERIORITY|N.I. margin was prespecified as 20% of comparator (with respect to timeframe)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||0.135|ONE_SIDED|97.5||0.74|||t-test, 1 sided|||severity of influenza symptoms (day1 morning)||0.74||0.135
90954501|NCT01850446|181788319|NON_INFERIORITY|N.I. margin was prespecified as 20% of comparator (with respect to timeframe)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.64||||0.004|ONE_SIDED|97.5||2.67|||t-test, 1 sided|||Severity of influenza symptoms (day1 evening)||2.67||0.004
90954502|NCT01850446|181788319|NON_INFERIORITY|N.I. margin was prespecified as 20% of comparator (with respect to timeframe)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.05|ONE_SIDED|97.5||2.94|||t-test, 1 sided|||Severity of influenza symptoms (day2 evening)||2.94||0.05
90954503|NCT01850446|181788319|NON_INFERIORITY|N.I. margin was prespecified as 20% of comparator (with respect to timeframe)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.34||||0.447|ONE_SIDED|97.5||3.08|||t-test, 1 sided|||Severity of influenza symptoms (day3 evening)||3.08||0.447
90954504|NCT01850446|181788319|NON_INFERIORITY|N.I. margin was prespecified as 20% of comparator (with respect to timeframe)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.042|ONE_SIDED|97.5||1.4|||t-test, 1 sided|||Severity of influenza symptoms (day4 evening)||1.4||0.042
90954505|NCT01850446|181788319|NON_INFERIORITY|N.I. margin was prespecified as 20% of comparator (with respect to timeframe)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29||||0.313|ONE_SIDED|97.5||1.53|||t-test, 1 sided|||Severity of influenza symptoms (day5 evening)||1.53||0.313
90954506|NCT01850446|181788319|NON_INFERIORITY|N.I. margin was prespecified as 20% of comparator (with respect to timeframe)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27||||0.087|ONE_SIDED|97.5||0.77|||t-test, 1 sided|||Severity of influenza symptoms (day6 evening)||0.77||0.087
90954507|NCT01850446|181788319|NON_INFERIORITY|N.I. margin was prespecified as 20% of comparator (with respect to timeframe)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5||1.41|||t-test, 1 sided|||Severity of influenza symptoms (day1 physician's objective examination)||1.41||<0.001
90954508|NCT01850446|181788319|NON_INFERIORITY|N.I. margin was prespecified as 20% of comparator (with respect to timeframe)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.34||||0.305|ONE_SIDED|97.5||3.11|||t-test, 1 sided|||Severity of influenza symptoms (day3 physician's objective examination)||3.11||0.305
90954509|NCT01850446|181788320|NON_INFERIORITY|N.I. margin was prespecified as 20% of comparator (with respect to timeframe)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.02|ONE_SIDED|97.5||0.5|||t-test, 1 sided|||Fever duration||0.5||0.02
90954510|NCT01850446|181788320|NON_INFERIORITY|N.I. margin was prespecified as 20% of comparator (with respect to timeframe)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5||0.14|||t-test, 1 sided|||Non-specific symptoms duration||0.14||<0.001
90954511|NCT01850446|181788320|NON_INFERIORITY|N.I. margin was prespecified as 20% of comparator (with respect to timeframe)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5||0.11|||t-test, 1 sided|||Nasal/ throat/ chest symptoms duration||0.11||<0.001
90959054|NCT01620255|181798207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.35||||0.0231|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.607|-0.097|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 225 mg vs placebo, Stool Frequency, W12||-0.097|-0.607|0.0231
90954512|NCT01850446|181788321|NON_INFERIORITY|N.I. margin was prespecified as 20% (AUC ratio supposed to be less than 1.2)|AUC ratio|1.04||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.17||bootstrap (100000 rep) confidence limits were constructed for AUC ratio|one-sample Z-test|AUC ratio was compared with N.I. margin||Severity of influenza was measured as area under curve (symptoms score-time)||1.17|0.9|0.015
90954513|NCT01850446|181788322|NON_INFERIORITY|N.I. margin was prespecified as 20%|Risk Difference (RD)|0.05||||0.036|ONE_SIDED|97.5||0.19|||Z test for proportions|||Percentage difference of Patients, Who Used Antipyretics (day1)||0.19||0.036
90954514|NCT01850446|181788322|NON_INFERIORITY|N.I. margin was prespecified as 20%|Risk Difference (RD)|0.01||||0.009|ONE_SIDED|97.5||0.15|||Z test for proportions|||Percentage difference of Patients, Who Used Antipyretics (day2)||0.15||0.009
90954515|NCT01850446|181788322|NON_INFERIORITY|N.I. margin was prespecified as 20%|Risk Difference (RD)|0.03|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5||0.13|||Z test for proportions|||Percentage difference of Patients, Who Used Antipyretics (day3)||0.13||<0.001
90954516|NCT01850446|181788322|NON_INFERIORITY|N.I. margin was prespecified as 20%|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.02|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5||0.13|||Z test for proportions|||Percentage difference of Patients, Who Used Antipyretics (day4)||0.13||<0.001
90954517|NCT01850446|181788322|NON_INFERIORITY|N.I. margin was prespecified as 20%|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.02|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5||0.01|||Z test for proportions|||Percentage difference of Patients, Who Used Antipyretics (day5)||0.01||<0.001
90954518|NCT01850446|181788323|NON_INFERIORITY|N.I. margin was prespecified as 20%|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5||0.03|||Z test for proportions|||Percentage of Patients Requiring Antibiotics Administration||0.03||<0.001
90954519|NCT01850446|181788324|NON_INFERIORITY|N.I. margin was prespecified as 20%|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.01||||0.014|ONE_SIDED|97.5||0.15|||Z test for proportions|||Proportion difference of Patients With Negative Results (day3)||0.15||0.014
90954520|NCT01850446|181788324|NON_INFERIORITY|N.I. margin was prespecified as 20%|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.08||||0.037|ONE_SIDED|97.5||0.03|||Z test for proportions|||Proportion difference of Patients With Negative Results (day5)||0.03||0.037
90954521|NCT01850446|181788324|NON_INFERIORITY|N.I. margin was prespecified as 20%|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.03|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5||0.03|||Z test for proportions|||Proportion difference of Patients With Negative Results (day7)||0.03||<0.001
90954522|NCT01850446|181788325|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.89||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|3.59||P-value IL2 provided for between-group comparisson of difference from days 3 to day 1.|t-test, 2 sided|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 3 (IL-2)||3.59|0.19|0.03
90954523|NCT01850446|181788325|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.23||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|3.12||P-value IL2 provided for between-group comparisson of difference from day 7 to day 1.|t-test, 2 sided|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 7 (IL-2)||3.12|-0.64|0.19
90829417|NCT02365649|181533422|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.9|28.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders||28.9|-23.9|1.000
90954524|NCT01850446|181788325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 3 (IFN-γ)||||0.012
90954525|NCT01850446|181788325|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 7 (IFN-γ)||||<0.0001
90954526|NCT01850446|181788325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.795|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 3 (IL-18)||||0.795
90954527|NCT01850446|181788325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.992|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 7 (IL-18)||||0.992
90954528|NCT01850446|181788325|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.92|||t-test, 2 sided|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 3 (IL-4)||0.92|0.02|0.04
90954529|NCT01850446|181788325|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.37||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.79|||t-test, 2 sided|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 7 (IL-4)||0.79|-0.04|0.08
90954530|NCT01850446|181788325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.062|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 3 (IL-16)||||0.062
90954531|NCT01850446|181788325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.638|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 7 (IL-16)||||0.638
90954532|NCT01850446|181788326|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.065|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 3 (Spontaneous IFN-α)||||0.065
90954533|NCT01850446|181788326|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.404|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 3 (Spontaneous IFN-α)||||0.404
90954534|NCT01850446|181788326|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.204|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 3 (Induced IFN-α)||||0.204
90954535|NCT01850446|181788326|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.386|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 7 (Induced IFN-α)||||0.386
90954536|NCT01850446|181788326|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.592|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 3 (Spontaneous IFN-γ)||||0.592
90954537|NCT01850446|181788326|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.356|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 7 (Spontaneous IFN-γ)||||0.356
90954538|NCT01850446|181788326|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.475|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 3 (Induced IFN-γ)||||0.475
90954539|NCT01850446|181788326|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 7 (Induced IFN-γ)||||>0.99
90954540|NCT01850446|181788327|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.364|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 3 (leukocytes)||||0.364
90954541|NCT01850446|181788327|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 7 (leukocytes)||||0.07
90954542|NCT01850446|181788327|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.607|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day1 to day 3 (neutrophils)||||0.607
90954543|NCT01850446|181788327|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 7 (neutrophils)||||0.028
90954544|NCT01850446|181788327|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.759|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 3 (lymphocytes)||||0.759
90954545|NCT01850446|181788327|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.777|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 7 (lymphocytes)||||0.777
90954546|NCT01850446|181788327|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 3 (monocytes)||||0.02
90954547|NCT01850446|181788327|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.343|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 7 (lymphocytes)||||0.343
90954548|NCT01850446|181788327|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.575|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 3 (eosinophils)||||0.575
90954549|NCT01850446|181788327|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.912|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 7 (eosinophils)||||0.912
90954550|NCT01850446|181788327|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.242|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 3 (basophils)||||0.242
90954551|NCT01850446|181788327|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.102|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 7 (basophils)||||0.102
90954552|NCT01850446|181788327|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.429|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 3 (CD3+)||||0.429
90954553|NCT01850446|181788327|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.783|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 7 (CD3+)||||0.783
90954554|NCT01850446|181788327|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.466|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 3 (CD3+CD4+)||||0.466
90954555|NCT01850446|181788327|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.945|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 7 (CD3+CD4+)||||0.945
90954556|NCT01850446|181788327|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.335|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 3 (CD3+CD8+)||||0.335
90954557|NCT01850446|181788327|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 7 (CD3+CD8+)||||0.66
90954558|NCT01850446|181788327|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 3 (CD3+CD16+CD56+)||||0.01
90954559|NCT01850446|181788327|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.573|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 7 (CD3+CD16+CD56+)||||0.573
90954560|NCT01850446|181788327|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.472|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 3 (CD3-CD16+CD56+)||||0.472
90954561|NCT01850446|181788327|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 7 (CD3-CD16+CD56+)||||0.69
90954562|NCT01850446|181788327|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.727|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 3 (CD3-CD8+)||||0.727
90954563|NCT01850446|181788327|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.554|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 7 (CD3-CD8+)||||0.554
90829418|NCT02365649|181533422|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.3||||0.204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|47.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders||47.5|-5.0|0.204
90954564|NCT01850446|181788327|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.837|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 3 (CD19+CD3-)||||0.837
90954565|NCT01850446|181788327|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.967|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 7 (CD19+CD3-)||||0.967
90954566|NCT01850446|181788327|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.473|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 3 (CD3+CD119+)||||0.473
90954567|NCT01850446|181788327|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.736|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 7 (CD3+CD119+)||||0.736
90954568|NCT01850446|181788328|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.282|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 3 (RC of neutrophils)||||0.282
90954569|NCT01850446|181788328|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.071|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 7 (RC of neutrophils)||||0.071
90954570|NCT01850446|181788328|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 3 (RC of lymphocytes)||||0.45
90954571|NCT01850446|181788328|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 7 (RC of lymphocytes)||||0.58
90954572|NCT01850446|181788328|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 3 (RC of monocytes)||||0.017
90954573|NCT01850446|181788328|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 7 (RC of monocytes)||||0.019
90954574|NCT01850446|181788328|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.424|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 3 (RC of eosinophils)||||0.424
90954575|NCT01850446|181788328|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.666|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 7 (RC of eosinophils)||||0.666
90954576|NCT01850446|181788328|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.268|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 3 (RC of basophils)||||0.268
90954577|NCT01850446|181788328|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.031|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 7 (RC of basophils)||||0.031
90954578|NCT01850446|181788328|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.361|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 3 (RC of CD3+)||||0.361
90954579|NCT01850446|181788328|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.699|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 7 (RC of CD3+)||||0.699
90954580|NCT01850446|181788328|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.418|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 3 (RC of CD3+CD4+)||||0.418
90954581|NCT01850446|181788328|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 7 (RC of CD3+CD4+)||||>0.99
90954582|NCT01850446|181788328|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.172|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 3 (RC of CD3+CD8+)||||0.172
90954583|NCT01850446|181788328|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.904|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 7 (RC of CD3+CD8+)||||0.904
90954584|NCT01850446|181788328|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.148|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 3 (RC of CD3+CD16+CD56+)||||0.148
90954585|NCT01850446|181788328|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.821|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 7 (RC of CD3+CD16+CD56+)||||0.821
90954586|NCT01850446|181788328|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 3 (RC of CD3-CD16+CD56+)||||0.31
90954587|NCT01850446|181788328|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 7 (RC of CD3-CD16+CD56+)||||>0.99
90954588|NCT01850446|181788328|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 3 (RC of CD3-CD8+)||||0.43
90954589|NCT01850446|181788328|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.821|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 7 (RC of CD3-CD8+)||||0.821
90954590|NCT01850446|181788328|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.943|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 3 (RC of CD19+CD3-)||||0.943
90954591|NCT01850446|181788328|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.841|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 7 (RC of CD19+CD3-)||||0.841
90954592|NCT00591721|181788329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.53|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.47|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.47|10.41|||t-test, 2 sided|Each baseline subscale score was subtracted from 7 week subscale score; t-tests assessed mean individual differences between groups.||Hypothesis: Individuals who participate in the program will report significantly reduced fatigue impact immediately post-intervention compared to individuals allocated to the wait-list control group.||10.41|-15.47|<0.05
90954593|NCT03527550|181788346|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||ANOVA|Repeated-measures ANOVA. P-value reflects the significance of the interaction term (condition x time).||A 2 (condition: TAU, TAU + cognitive training) x 2 (time) repeated-measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used to test change in negative urgency at time 1 (admission) and time 2 (discharge), and whether participants differ in their average change in negative urgency as a function of condition (interaction of condition X time; reported below).||||0.95
90954594|NCT03527550|181788347|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||ANOVA|Repeated-measures ANOVA. P-value reflects the significance of the interaction term (condition x time).||A 2 (condition: TAU, TAU + cognitive training) x 2 (time) repeated-measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used to test change in positive urgency at time 1 (admission) and time 2 (discharge), and whether participants differ in their average change in positive urgency as a function of condition (interaction of condition X time; reported below).||||0.64
90954595|NCT03527550|181788348|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91||||||Repeated-measures ANOVA. P-value reflects the significance of the interaction term (condition x time).|ANOVA|||A 2 (condition: TAU, TAU + cognitive training) x 2 (time) repeated-measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used to test change in stop-signal reaction time at time 1 (admission) and time 2 (discharge), and whether participants differ in their average change in stop-signal reaction time as a function of condition (interaction of condition X time; reported below).||||0.91
90954596|NCT03527550|181788352|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||ANOVA|Repeated-measures ANOVA. P-value reflects the significance of the interaction term (condition x time).||A 2 (condition: TAU, TAU + cognitive training) x 2 (time) repeated-measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used to test change in distress intolerance at time 1 (admission) and time 2 (discharge), and whether participants differ in their average change in distress intolerance as a function of condition (interaction of condition X time; reported below).||||.24
90954597|NCT01232738|181788361|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.02|||Chi-squared|||Difference in slope of decline||0.02|-0.53|0.07
90954598|NCT01232738|181788362|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.58
90954599|NCT02503852|181788371|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.032|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.032
90954600|NCT02503852|181788371|OTHER|||||||0.0318||||||P value cited is the difference in non-vellus hair count between the low-dose ADRC NW3 group and the no-fat saline control at week 24|ANCOVA|||Non-vellus hair count in the low-dose ADRC group in the NW3 subgroup beginning at Week 6 (mean change from baseline persisting through weeks 12 , 24, and 52.||||0.0318
90954601|NCT01480219|181788421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.74||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|2.96|||Regression, Cox|||Crude hazard ratio (HR) and corresponding 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) were calculated using an unadjusted Cox proportional hazards regression model.||2.96|1.02|0.042
91017459|NCT03170271|181918107|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-8.91||||0.0204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.42|-1.4|||Repeated measures analysis||Model: Change from baseline in SNOT-22 total score = Treatment + baseline SNOT-22 total score + region + number of exacerbations in previous year + maintenance OCS use at baseline + visit + treatment by visit.|Change from baseline in SNOT-22 total score at Week 24 was compared between the benralizumab group and placebo group using a restricted maximum likelihood based on a MMRM analysis.||-1.40|-16.42|0.0204
90954602|NCT01480219|181788421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.23||||0.453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.14|||Regression, Cox|||HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated using a parsimoniously adjusted Cox proportional hazards regression model.||2.14|0.71|0.453
90954603|NCT00548262|181788443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|59.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.6|73.6|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Success at EOT||73.6|44.6|
90954604|NCT00548262|181788444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|59.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.6|73.6|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|EIVT Success||73.6|44.6|
90954605|NCT00548262|181788444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|47.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.0|62.5|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Week 2 Follow-up Success||62.5|33.0|
90954606|NCT00548262|181788445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|52.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.0|73.7|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Candida albicans: Success||73.7|31.0|
90954607|NCT00548262|181788445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|100.0|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Candida famata: Success||100.0|0.0|
90954608|NCT00548262|181788445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|66.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.3|100.0|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Candida glabrata: Success||100.0|13.3|
90954609|NCT00548262|181788445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|66.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.3|100.0|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Candida krusei: Success||100.0|13.3|
90954610|NCT00548262|181788445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|16.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|46.5|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Candida parapsilosis: Success||46.5|0.0|
90954611|NCT00548262|181788445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|80.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.2|100.0|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Candida tropicalis: Success||100.0|55.2|
90954612|NCT00548262|181788445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|57.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.5|93.8|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Unidentifiable: Success||93.8|20.5|
91017460|NCT00703261|181918108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0|||||cLDA|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA)||||0.006
90954613|NCT00548262|181788446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|52.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.0|73.7|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Candida albicans: Success||73.7|31.0|
90954614|NCT00548262|181788446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|66.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.3|100.0|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Candida glabrata: Success||100.0|13.3|
90954615|NCT00548262|181788446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|66.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.3|100.0|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Candida krusei: Success||100.0|13.3|
90954616|NCT00548262|181788446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|16.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|46.5|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Candida parapsilosis: Success||46.5|0.0|
90954617|NCT00548262|181788446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|80.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.2|100.0|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Candida tropicalis: Success||100.0|55.2|
90954618|NCT00548262|181788446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|57.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.5|93.8|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Unidentifiable: Success||93.8|20.5|
90954619|NCT00548262|181788447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|47.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.3|69.0|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Candida albicans: Success||69.0|26.3|
90954620|NCT00548262|181788447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|66.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.3|100.0|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Candida krusei: Success||100.0|13.3|
90954621|NCT00548262|181788447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|70.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.6|98.4|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Candida tropicalis: Success||98.4|41.6|
90954622|NCT00548262|181788447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|28.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|62.0|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Unidentifiable: Success||62.0|0.0|
90954623|NCT00548262|181788448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|56.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.1|73.4|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|ICU stay ≥ 4 days (Yes): Success||73.4|39.1|
90954624|NCT00548262|181788448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|66.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.0|93.3|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|ICU stay ≥ 4 days (No): Success||93.3|40.0|
90954625|NCT00548262|181788448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|54.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.6|71.5|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Mechanical ventilation (Yes): Success||71.5|37.6|
90954626|NCT00548262|181788448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|72.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.4|99.0|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Mechanical ventilation (No): Success||99.0|46.4|
90954627|NCT00548262|181788448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|56.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.8|72.0|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Antibiotics (Yes): Success||72.0|40.8|
90954628|NCT00548262|181788448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|80.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.9|100.0|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Antibiotics (No): Success||100.0|44.9|
90954629|NCT00548262|181788448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|55.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.5|71.1|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|CV Catheter (Yes): Success||71.1|39.5|
90954630|NCT00548262|181788448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|83.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.5|100.0|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|CV Catheter (No): Success||100.0|53.5|
90954631|NCT00548262|181788448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|38.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|64.9|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|TPN (Yes): Success||64.9|12.0|
90954632|NCT00548262|181788448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|67.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.3|84.2|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|TPN (No): Success||84.2|51.3|
90954633|NCT00548262|181788448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|42.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.2|79.5|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Dialysis (Yes): Success||79.5|6.2|
90954634|NCT00548262|181788448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|62.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.5|77.8|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Dialysis (No): Success||77.8|46.5|
90954635|NCT00548262|181788448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|57.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.7|80.1|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Abdominal surgery (Yes): Success||80.1|35.7|
90954636|NCT00548262|181788448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|60.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.8|79.2|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Abdominal surgery (No): Success||79.2|40.8|
90954637|NCT00548262|181788448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|59.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.6|73.6|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Solid organ transplant (No): Success||73.6|44.6|
90954638|NCT00548262|181788448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|42.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.2|79.5|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Renal insufficiency (Yes): Success||79.5|6.2|
90954639|NCT00548262|181788448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|62.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.5|77.8|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Renal insufficiency (No): Success||77.8|46.5|
90954640|NCT00548262|181788448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|58.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.4|72.9|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Chemotherapy (No): Success||72.9|43.4|
90954641|NCT00548262|181788448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|55.1|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Pancreatitis (Yes): Success||55.1|0.0|
90954642|NCT00548262|181788448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|64.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.0|79.2|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Pancreatitis (No): Success||79.2|49.0|
91017461|NCT00703261|181918108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.277||95.0|||||cLDA|||||||0.277
90893523|NCT01939548|181652016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|1.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.285||0.2068|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.02|3.29||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.2 significance level. No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|Mixed Models Analysis||The estimation method used was restricted maximum likelihood.|General Subscale Score comparison of change at Week 12. Linear mixed-effect repeated measures model used. Fixed effects: treatment, time (visit), baseline value, investigator site; random effect: participant. Also included effects for treatment by time interaction and baseline value by treatment interaction and background antipsychotics.||3.29|-0.02|0.2068
90954643|NCT00548262|181788448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.7|78.3|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Systemic steroids/immunos (Yes): Success||78.3|21.7|
90954644|NCT00548262|181788448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|62.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.7|79.3|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Systemic steroids/immunos (No): Success||79.3|45.7|
91017462|NCT00703261|181918108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Reduction|4.5||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|9.6|||cLDA|||||9.6|-1.0|0.088
91017463|NCT00703261|181918109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.195||95.0|||||cLDA|||||||0.195
90954645|NCT00548262|181788448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|66.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.3|100.0|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Neutropenic: Success||100.0|13.3|
90954646|NCT00548262|181788448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|62.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.4|79.7|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Non-neutropenic: Success||79.7|44.4|
90954647|NCT00548262|181788449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|56.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.1|73.4|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|ICU stay ≥ 4 days (Yes): Success||73.4|39.1|
90954648|NCT00548262|181788449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|66.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.0|93.3|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|ICU stay ≥ 4 days (No): Success||93.3|40.0|
90954649|NCT00548262|181788449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|54.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.6|71.5|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Mechanical ventilation (Yes): Success||71.5|37.6|
90954650|NCT00548262|181788449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|72.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.4|99.0|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Mechanical ventilation (No): Success||99.0|46.4|
90954651|NCT00548262|181788449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|56.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.8|72.0|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Antibiotics (Yes): Success||72.0|40.8|
90954652|NCT00548262|181788449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|80.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.9|100.0|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Antibiotics (No): Success||100.0|44.9|
90954653|NCT00548262|181788449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|55.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.5|71.1|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|CV Catheter (Yes): Success||71.1|39.5|
90954654|NCT00548262|181788449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|83.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.5|100.0|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|CV Catheter (No): Success||100.0|53.5|
90954655|NCT00548262|181788449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|46.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.1|73.3|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|TPN (Yes): Success||73.3|19.1|
90954656|NCT00548262|181788449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|64.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.7|81.4|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|TPN (No): Success||81.4|47.7|
90954657|NCT00548262|181788449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|42.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.2|79.5|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Dialysis (Yes): Success||79.5|6.2|
90954658|NCT00548262|181788449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|62.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.5|77.8|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Dialysis (No): Success||77.8|46.5|
90954659|NCT00548262|181788449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|63.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.5|84.8|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Abdominal surgery (Yes): Success||84.8|41.5|
90954660|NCT00548262|181788449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|56.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.5|75.5|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Abdominal surgery (No): Success||75.5|36.5|
90954661|NCT00548262|181788449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|59.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.6|73.6|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Solid organ transplant (No): Success||73.6|44.6|
90954662|NCT00548262|181788449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|42.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.2|79.5|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Renal insufficiency (Yes): Success||79.5|6.2|
90954663|NCT00548262|181788449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|62.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.5|77.8|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Renal insufficiency (No): Success||77.8|46.5|
90954664|NCT00548262|181788449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|58.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.4|72.9|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Chemotherapy (No): Success||72.9|43.4|
90954665|NCT00548262|181788449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|40.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|82.9|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Pancreatitis (Yes): Success||82.9|0.0|
90954666|NCT00548262|181788449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|61.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.3|76.8|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Pancreatitis (No): Success||76.8|46.3|
90954667|NCT00548262|181788449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|58.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.4|86.2|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Systemic steroids/immunos (Yes): Success||86.2|30.4|
90954668|NCT00548262|181788449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|59.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.4|76.4|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Systemic steroids/immunos (No): Success||76.4|42.4|
90954669|NCT00548262|181788449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|66.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.3|100.0|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Neutropenic: Success||100.0|13.3|
90954670|NCT00548262|181788449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|62.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.4|79.7|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Non-neutropenic: Success||79.7|44.4|
90954671|NCT00548262|181788450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|37.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.7|54.3|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|ICU stay ≥ 4 days (Yes): Success||54.3|20.7|
90954672|NCT00548262|181788450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|75.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.5|99.5|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|ICU stay ≥ 4 days (No): Success||99.5|50.5|
90954673|NCT00548262|181788450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|39.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.7|56.1|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Mechanical ventilation (Yes): Success||56.1|22.7|
90954674|NCT00548262|181788450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|72.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.4|99.0|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Mechanical ventilation (No): Success||99.0|46.4|
90954675|NCT00548262|181788450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|48.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.0|64.4|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Antibiotics (Yes): Success||64.4|33.0|
90954676|NCT00548262|181788450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|40.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|82.9|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Antibiotics (No): Success||82.9|0.0|
90954677|NCT00548262|181788450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|47.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.5|63.2|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|CV Catheter (Yes): Success||63.2|31.5|
90954678|NCT00548262|181788450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|90.0|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|CV Catheter (No): Success||90.0|10.0|
90954679|NCT00548262|181788450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|38.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|64.9|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|TPN (Yes): Success||64.9|12.0|
90954680|NCT00548262|181788450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|51.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.0|69.2|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|TPN (No): Success||69.2|34.0|
90954681|NCT00548262|181788450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|14.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|40.2|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Dialysis (Yes): Success||40.2|0.0|
90954682|NCT00548262|181788450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|54.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.0|70.1|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Dialysis (No): Success||70.1|38.0|
90954683|NCT00548262|181788450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|42.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.9|64.3|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Abdominal surgery (Yes): Success||64.3|19.9|
90954684|NCT00548262|181788450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|52.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.4|71.6|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Abdominal surgery (No): Success||71.6|32.4|
90954685|NCT00548262|181788450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|47.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.0|62.5|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Solid organ transplant (No): Success||62.5|33.0|
90954686|NCT00548262|181788450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|14.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|40.2|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Renal insufficiency (Yes): Success||40.2|0.0|
90954687|NCT00548262|181788450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|54.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.0|70.1|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Renal insufficiency (No): Success||70.1|38.0|
90954688|NCT00548262|181788450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|46.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.6|61.4|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Chemotherapy (No): Success||61.4|31.6|
90954689|NCT00548262|181788450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|40.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|82.9|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Pancreatitis (Yes): Success||82.9|0.0|
90954690|NCT00548262|181788450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|48.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.0|64.4|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Pancreatitis (No): Success||64.4|33.0|
91103864|NCT03449147|182094499|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Relative Reduction (%)|-1.14||||0.875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.27|14.02||Comparison based on a longitudinal ANCOVA model that included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, region, log-transformed baseline value, and log-transformed baseline value-by-visit as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Estimated relative reduction (ERR) relative to Placebo (i.e. estimated percent change difference) was calculated by 100 (e\*\*DIFF -1), where e = exponent of difference; and DIFF= treatment difference in change from baseline at Week 24 based on log transformed data.||14.02|-14.27|0.875
90954691|NCT00548262|181788450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|41.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.8|69.6|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Systemic steroids/immunos (Yes): Success||69.6|13.8|
90954692|NCT00548262|181788450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.7|67.3|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Systemic steroids/immunos (No): Success||67.3|32.7|
90954693|NCT00548262|181788450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|66.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.3|100.0|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Neutropenic: Success||100.0|13.3|
90954694|NCT00548262|181788450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|51.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.5|69.9|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Non-neutropenic: Success||69.9|33.5|
90954695|NCT00548262|181788451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|68.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.2|84.0|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|APACHE \<20 (EIVT): Success||84.0|53.2|
90954696|NCT00548262|181788451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|22.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|49.4|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|APACHE ≥20 (EIVT): Success||49.4|0.0|
90954697|NCT00548262|181788451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|71.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.5|86.4|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|APACHE \<20 (EOT): Success||86.4|56.5|
90954698|NCT00548262|181788451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|11.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|31.6|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|APACHE ≥20 (EOT): Success||31.6|0.0|
90954699|NCT00548262|181788451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|57.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.7|73.5|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|APACHE \<20 (Week 2 F/U): Success||73.5|40.7|
90954700|NCT00548262|181788451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|11.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|31.6|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|APACHE ≥20 (Week 2 F/U): Success||31.6|0.0|
90954701|NCT02285153|181788465|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.434|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.225||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.039|4.792||Due to the low number of participants, the results of the statistical tests must be interpreted with caution!|Chi-squared|||||4.792|0.039|0.57
90954702|NCT02285153|181788466|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.057|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.057
90954703|NCT02285153|181788467|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1
90954704|NCT02285153|181788468|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.467|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.467
90954705|NCT02270515|181788489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||||||This is the PCS KDQOL Subscale p-value for change in 0-6 months shown in Primary Outcome table 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"PCS:~From random-intercept linear mixed models with an AR(1) covariance pattern in the residual, adjusted for baseline age, sex, race (AA, all other), interview language, dialysis vintage (months), site, education (not HS grad, HS grad), marital status (married or living with partner, other), self-reported diabetes at baseline, PCP at baseline, urea reduction ratio (URR), hemoglobin (g/dL), and albumin (g/dL). The 3 lab values are time-varying covariates."||||0.002
90954706|NCT02270515|181788489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23||||||This is the MCS KDQOL Subscale p-value for change in 0-6 months shown in Primary Outcome table 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"MCS:~From random-intercept linear mixed models with an AR(1) covariance pattern in the residual, adjusted for baseline age, sex, race (AA, all other), interview language, dialysis vintage (months), site, education (not HS grad, HS grad), marital status (married or living with partner, other), self-reported diabetes at baseline, PCP at baseline, urea reduction ratio (URR), hemoglobin (g/dL), and albumin (g/dL). The 3 lab values are time-varying covariates."||||0.23
91017464|NCT01125358|181918110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|-2.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.37|0.0|||Multiple Comparisons with The Best (MCB)|LS mean difference = LS mean of 10 mg LY2140023 - LS mean of 80 mg LY2140023.||||0.00|-3.37|
90954707|NCT02270515|181788489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||||||This is the Burden KDQOL Subscale p-value for change in 0-6 months shown in Primary Outcome table 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Burden:~From random-intercept linear mixed models with an AR(1) covariance pattern in the residual, adjusted for baseline age, sex, race (AA, all other), interview language, dialysis vintage (months), site, education (not HS grad, HS grad), marital status (married or living with partner, other), self-reported diabetes at baseline, PCP at baseline, urea reduction ratio (URR), hemoglobin (g/dL), and albumin (g/dL). The 3 lab values are time-varying covariates."||||0.18
90954708|NCT02270515|181788489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||||||This is the Symptoms KDQOL Subscale p-value for change in 0-6 months shown in Primary Outcome table 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Symptoms:~From random-intercept linear mixed models with an AR(1) covariance pattern in the residual, adjusted for baseline age, sex, race (AA, all other), interview language, dialysis vintage (months), site, education (not HS grad, HS grad), marital status (married or living with partner, other), self-reported diabetes at baseline, PCP at baseline, urea reduction ratio (URR), hemoglobin (g/dL), and albumin (g/dL). The 3 lab values are time-varying covariates."||||0.02
90954709|NCT02270515|181788489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||||||This is the Effects KDQOL Subscale p-value for change in 0-6 months shown in Primary Outcome table 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Effects:~From random-intercept linear mixed models with an AR(1) covariance pattern in the residual, adjusted for baseline age, sex, race (AA, all other), interview language, dialysis vintage (months), site, education (not HS grad, HS grad), marital status (married or living with partner, other), self-reported diabetes at baseline, PCP at baseline, urea reduction ratio (URR), hemoglobin (g/dL), and albumin (g/dL). The 3 lab values are time-varying covariates."||||0.004
90954710|NCT02270515|181788489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||||||This is the PCS KDQOL Subscale p-value for change in 6-12 months shown in Primary Outcome table 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"PCS:~From random-intercept linear mixed models with an AR(1) covariance pattern in the residual, adjusted for baseline age, sex, race (AA, all other), interview language, dialysis vintage (months), site, education (not HS grad, HS grad), marital status (married or living with partner, other), self-reported diabetes at baseline, PCP at baseline, urea reduction ratio (URR), hemoglobin (g/dL), and albumin (g/dL). The 3 lab values are time-varying covariates."||||0.01
90954711|NCT02270515|181788489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21||||||This is the MCS KDQOL Subscale p-value for change in 6-12 months shown in Primary Outcome table 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"MCS:~From random-intercept linear mixed models with an AR(1) covariance pattern in the residual, adjusted for baseline age, sex, race (AA, all other), interview language, dialysis vintage (months), site, education (not HS grad, HS grad), marital status (married or living with partner, other), self-reported diabetes at baseline, PCP at baseline, urea reduction ratio (URR), hemoglobin (g/dL), and albumin (g/dL). The 3 lab values are time-varying covariates."||||0.21
90954712|NCT02270515|181788489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77||||||This is the Burden KDQOL Subscale p-value for change in 6-12 months shown in Primary Outcome table 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Burden:~From random-intercept linear mixed models with an AR(1) covariance pattern in the residual, adjusted for baseline age, sex, race (AA, all other), interview language, dialysis vintage (months), site, education (not HS grad, HS grad), marital status (married or living with partner, other), self-reported diabetes at baseline, PCP at baseline, urea reduction ratio (URR), hemoglobin (g/dL), and albumin (g/dL). The 3 lab values are time-varying covariates."||||0.77
90954713|NCT02270515|181788489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77||||||This is the Symptoms KDQOL Subscale p-value for change in 6-12 months shown in Primary Outcome table 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Symptoms:~From random-intercept linear mixed models with an AR(1) covariance pattern in the residual, adjusted for baseline age, sex, race (AA, all other), interview language, dialysis vintage (months), site, education (not HS grad, HS grad), marital status (married or living with partner, other), self-reported diabetes at baseline, PCP at baseline, urea reduction ratio (URR), hemoglobin (g/dL), and albumin (g/dL). The 3 lab values are time-varying covariates."||||0.77
90954714|NCT02270515|181788489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14||||||This is the Effects KDQOL Subscale p-value for change in 6-12 months shown in Primary Outcome table 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Effects:~From random-intercept linear mixed models with an AR(1) covariance pattern in the residual, adjusted for baseline age, sex, race (AA, all other), interview language, dialysis vintage (months), site, education (not HS grad, HS grad), marital status (married or living with partner, other), self-reported diabetes at baseline, PCP at baseline, urea reduction ratio (URR), hemoglobin (g/dL), and albumin (g/dL). The 3 lab values are time-varying covariates."||||0.14
90954715|NCT02270515|181788489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45||||||This is the PCS KDQOL Subscale p-value for change in 12-18 months shown in Primary Outcome table 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"PCS:~From random-intercept linear mixed models with an AR(1) covariance pattern in the residual, adjusted for baseline age, sex, race (AA, all other), interview language, dialysis vintage (months), site, education (not HS grad, HS grad), marital status (married or living with partner, other), self-reported diabetes at baseline, PCP at baseline, urea reduction ratio (URR), hemoglobin (g/dL), and albumin (g/dL). The 3 lab values are time-varying covariates."||||0.45
90954716|NCT02270515|181788489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79||||||This is the MCS KDQOL Subscale p-value for change in 12-18 months shown in Primary Outcome table 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"MCS:~From random-intercept linear mixed models with an AR(1) covariance pattern in the residual, adjusted for baseline age, sex, race (AA, all other), interview language, dialysis vintage (months), site, education (not HS grad, HS grad), marital status (married or living with partner, other), self-reported diabetes at baseline, PCP at baseline, urea reduction ratio (URR), hemoglobin (g/dL), and albumin (g/dL). The 3 lab values are time-varying covariates."||||0.79
90958878|NCT01052103|181797805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.851||95.0|||||Type 3 Sums of Squares|||Changes from baseline to all post-baseline visits were analyzed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based MMRM. Model terms included fixed class effects for visit, investigative site, treatment, SOC type, baseline positive symptom stratum, and treatment-by-visit interaction as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline measurement and baseline-by-visit interaction.||||0.851
90954717|NCT02270515|181788489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77||||||This is the Burden KDQOL Subscale p-value for change in 12-18 months shown in Primary Outcome table 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Burden:~From random-intercept linear mixed models with an AR(1) covariance pattern in the residual, adjusted for baseline age, sex, race (AA, all other), interview language, dialysis vintage (months), site, education (not HS grad, HS grad), marital status (married or living with partner, other), self-reported diabetes at baseline, PCP at baseline, urea reduction ratio (URR), hemoglobin (g/dL), and albumin (g/dL). The 3 lab values are time-varying covariates."||||0.77
90954718|NCT02270515|181788489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||||||This is the Symptoms KDQOL Subscale p-value for change in 12-18 months shown in Primary Outcome table 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Symptoms:~From random-intercept linear mixed models with an AR(1) covariance pattern in the residual, adjusted for baseline age, sex, race (AA, all other), interview language, dialysis vintage (months), site, education (not HS grad, HS grad), marital status (married or living with partner, other), self-reported diabetes at baseline, PCP at baseline, urea reduction ratio (URR), hemoglobin (g/dL), and albumin (g/dL). The 3 lab values are time-varying covariates."||||0.03
90954719|NCT02270515|181788489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12||||||This is the Effects KDQOL Subscale p-value for change in 12-18 months shown in Primary Outcome table 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Effects:~From random-intercept linear mixed models with an AR(1) covariance pattern in the residual, adjusted for baseline age, sex, race (AA, all other), interview language, dialysis vintage (months), site, education (not HS grad, HS grad), marital status (married or living with partner, other), self-reported diabetes at baseline, PCP at baseline, urea reduction ratio (URR), hemoglobin (g/dL), and albumin (g/dL). The 3 lab values are time-varying covariates."||||0.12
90954720|NCT02270515|181788489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29||||||This is the PCS KDQOL Subscale p-value for change in 0-18 months shown in Primary Outcome table 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"PCS:~From random-intercept linear mixed models with an AR(1) covariance pattern in the residual, adjusted for baseline age, sex, race (AA, all other), interview language, dialysis vintage (months), site, education (not HS grad, HS grad), marital status (married or living with partner, other), self-reported diabetes at baseline, PCP at baseline, urea reduction ratio (URR), hemoglobin (g/dL), and albumin (g/dL). The 3 lab values are time-varying covariates."||||0.29
90954721|NCT02270515|181788489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||||||This is the MCS KDQOL Subscale p-value for change in 0-18 months shown in Primary Outcome table 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"MCS:~From random-intercept linear mixed models with an AR(1) covariance pattern in the residual, adjusted for baseline age, sex, race (AA, all other), interview language, dialysis vintage (months), site, education (not HS grad, HS grad), marital status (married or living with partner, other), self-reported diabetes at baseline, PCP at baseline, urea reduction ratio (URR), hemoglobin (g/dL), and albumin (g/dL). The 3 lab values are time-varying covariates."||||0.01
90954722|NCT02270515|181788489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08||||||This is the Burden KDQOL Subscale p-value for change in 0-18 months shown in Primary Outcome table 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Burden:~From random-intercept linear mixed models with an AR(1) covariance pattern in the residual, adjusted for baseline age, sex, race (AA, all other), interview language, dialysis vintage (months), site, education (not HS grad, HS grad), marital status (married or living with partner, other), self-reported diabetes at baseline, PCP at baseline, urea reduction ratio (URR), hemoglobin (g/dL), and albumin (g/dL). The 3 lab values are time-varying covariates."||||0.08
90954723|NCT02270515|181788489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61||||||This is the Symptoms KDQOL Subscale p-value for change in 0-18 months shown in Primary Outcome table 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Symptoms:~From random-intercept linear mixed models with an AR(1) covariance pattern in the residual, adjusted for baseline age, sex, race (AA, all other), interview language, dialysis vintage (months), site, education (not HS grad, HS grad), marital status (married or living with partner, other), self-reported diabetes at baseline, PCP at baseline, urea reduction ratio (URR), hemoglobin (g/dL), and albumin (g/dL). The 3 lab values are time-varying covariates."||||0.61
90954724|NCT02270515|181788489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||||||This is the Effects KDQOL Subscale p-value for change in 0-18 months shown in Primary Outcome table 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Effects:~From random-intercept linear mixed models with an AR(1) covariance pattern in the residual, adjusted for baseline age, sex, race (AA, all other), interview language, dialysis vintage (months), site, education (not HS grad, HS grad), marital status (married or living with partner, other), self-reported diabetes at baseline, PCP at baseline, urea reduction ratio (URR), hemoglobin (g/dL), and albumin (g/dL). The 3 lab values are time-varying covariates."||||0.02
90954725|NCT01607476|181788495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90954726|NCT01607476|181788495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90954727|NCT01607476|181788495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90954728|NCT01607476|181788496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90954729|NCT01607476|181788496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90954730|NCT01607476|181788496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90954731|NCT01821352|181788534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|5e-05|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.00005
90954732|NCT01821352|181788535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
90954733|NCT01821352|181788536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90954734|NCT05260021|181788558|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-1.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|-1.25|||ANCOVA|||||-1.25|-2.35|<0.001
90954735|NCT05260021|181788559|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-1.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.31|-1.02|||ANCOVA|||||-1.02|-2.31|<0.001
90954736|NCT05260021|181788559|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-1.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.57|-1.29|||ANCOVA|||||-1.29|-2.57|<0.001
90954737|NCT05260021|181788560|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|40.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.6|61.7|||Regression, Logistic|||||61.7|18.6|<0.001
90954738|NCT05260021|181788560|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|51.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.1|72.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||72.2|31.1|<0.001
90954739|NCT05260021|181788560|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|45.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.5|64.1|||Regression, Logistic|||||64.1|27.5|<0.001
90954740|NCT05260021|181788561|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.16|||ANCOVA|||||-0.16|-0.55|< 0.001
90954741|NCT05260021|181788561|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|-0.47|||ANCOVA|||||-0.47|-0.86|<0.001
90954742|NCT05260021|181788561|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.34|||ANCOVA|||||-0.34|-0.68|< 0.001
90954743|NCT05260021|181788562|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-28.9||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.7|-8.0|||ANCOVA|||||-8.0|-49.7|0.007
90954744|NCT05260021|181788562|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-44.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.3|-23.6|||ANCOVA|||||-23.6|-64.3|< 0.001
90954745|NCT05260021|181788562|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-36.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.2|-18.6|||ANCOVA|||||-18.6|-54.2|< 0.001
90954746|NCT05260021|181788563|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-6.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.31|-3.05|||ANCOVA|||||-3.05|-9.31|< 0.001
90954747|NCT05260021|181788563|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-10.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.67|-7.38|||ANCOVA|||||-7.38|-13.67|< 0.001
90954748|NCT05260021|181788563|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-8.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.05|-5.66|||ANCOVA|||||-5.66|-11.05|< 0.001
90954749|NCT05260021|181788564|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|29.5||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.6|50.3|||Regression, Logistic|||||50.3|8.6|0.006
90954750|NCT05260021|181788564|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|39.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.8|60.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||60.2|18.8|< 0.001
90954751|NCT05260021|181788564|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|34.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.0|52.1|||Regression, Logistic|||||52.1|17|< 0.001
90954752|NCT05260021|181788565|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|43.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.3|64.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||64.4|22.3|< 0.001
90954753|NCT05260021|181788565|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|47.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.4|67.7|||Regression, Logistic|||||67.7|26.4|< 0.001
90954754|NCT05260021|181788565|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|45.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.3|64.1|||Regression, Logistic|||||64.1|26.3|< 0.001
90954755|NCT05260021|181788567|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|0.014||||0.708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.061|0.089|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.089|-0.061|0.708
90954756|NCT05260021|181788567|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.001||||0.976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.076|0.074|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.074|-0.076|0.976
90954757|NCT05260021|181788567|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|0.007||||0.841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.058|0.071|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.071|-0.058|0.841
90954758|NCT05260021|181788568|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.12|-0.45|< 0.001
90954759|NCT05260021|181788568|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.24|-0.57|< 0.001
90954760|NCT05260021|181788568|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.2|-0.49|< 0.001
90954761|NCT01241604|181788594|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalent non-parametric tests||||||0.753|||||||Wilcoxon signed ranks test|||||||.753
90954762|NCT02914275|181788653|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority criterion for the GMT ratio (adjusted analysis) was that the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the GMT ratio for the Comparator QIV GMT, divided by the Seqirus QIV GMT, should not exceed 1.5|Geometric Mean Titer Ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.88||||||Non-inferiority of immune responses to A/H1N1 vaccine strain measured in terms of Geometric Mean Titer ratios 28 days after the last vaccination||0.88|0.72|
90954763|NCT02914275|181788653|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority criterion for the GMT ratio (adjusted analysis) was that the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio for the Comparator QIV GMT, divided by the Seqirus QIV GMT, should not exceed 1.5|Geometric Mean Titer Ratio|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|1.42||||||Non-inferiority of immune responses to A/H3N2 vaccine strain measured in terms of Geometric Mean Titer ratios 28 days after the last vaccination||1.42|1.15|
90954764|NCT02914275|181788653|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority criterion for the GMT ratio (adjusted analysis) was that the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio for the Comparator QIV GMT, divided by the Seqirus QIV GMT, should not exceed 1.5|Geometric Mean Titer Ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.24||||||Non-inferiority of immune responses to B/YAM vaccine strain measured in terms of Geometric Mean Titer ratios 28 days after the last vaccination||1.24|1.01|
90954765|NCT02914275|181788653|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority criterion for the GMT ratio (adjusted analysis) was that the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio for the Comparator QIV GMT, divided by the Seqirus QIV GMT, should not exceed 1.5|Geometric Mean Titer Ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.09||||||Non-inferiority of immune responses to B/VIC vaccine strain measured in terms of Geometric Mean Titer ratios 28 days after the last vaccination||1.09|0.86|
90954766|NCT02914275|181788654|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority criterion for the SCR difference was that the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI on the difference between SCRs for Comparator QIV minus the Seqirus QIV SCR should not exceed 10%.|Seroconversion Rate Difference|-10.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|-5.1||||||Non-inferiority of immune responses to A/H1N1 vaccine strain measured in terms of Seroconversion Rate Difference 28 days after the last vaccination||-5.1|-15.4|
90954767|NCT02914275|181788654|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority criterion for the SCR difference was that the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI on the difference between SCRs for Comparator QIV minus the Seqirus QIV SCR should not exceed 10%.|Seroconversion Rate Difference|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|7.8||||||Non-inferiority of immune responses to A/H3N2 vaccine strain measured in terms of Seroconversion Rate Difference 28 days after the last vaccination||7.8|-2.54|
90954768|NCT02914275|181788654|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority criterion for the SCR difference was that the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI on the difference between SCRs for Comparator QIV minus the Seqirus QIV SCR should not exceed 10%.|Seroconversion Rate Difference|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|8.2||||||Non-inferiority of immune responses to B/YAM vaccine strain measured in terms of Seroconversion Rate Difference 28 days after the last vaccination||8.2|-2.1|
91017465|NCT01125358|181918110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|-1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.42|0.32|||Multiple Comparison with The Best (MCB)|LS mean difference = LS mean of 160 mg LY2140023 - LS mean of 80 mg LY2140023.||||0.32|-2.42|
90954769|NCT02914275|181788654|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority criterion for the SCR difference was that the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI on the difference between SCRs for Comparator QIV minus the Seqirus QIV SCR should not exceed 10%.|Seroconversion Rate Difference|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|6.1||||||Non-inferiority of immune responses to B/VIC vaccine strain measured in terms of Seroconversion Rate Difference 28 days after the last vaccination||6.1|-4.2|
90954770|NCT02731690|181788669|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5303||||||Analyzed using a repeated measure GEE model, which includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, visit as a fixed factor, and the baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry is used as the covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 12||||0.5303
90954771|NCT02731690|181788669|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1646||||||Analyzed using a repeated measure GEE model, which includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, visit as a fixed factor, and the baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry is used as the covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 24||||0.1646
90954772|NCT02731690|181788669|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1189||||||Analyzed using a repeated measure GEE model, which includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, visit as a fixed factor, and the baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry is used as the covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 36||||0.1189
90954773|NCT02731690|181788669|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0706||||||Analyzed using a repeated measure GEE model, which includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, visit as a fixed factor, and the baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry is used as the covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 48||||0.0706
90954774|NCT02731690|181788670|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0715||||||Analyzed using a repeated measure GEE model, which includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, visit as a fixed factor, and the baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry is used as the covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 12||||0.0715
90954775|NCT02731690|181788670|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1697||||||Analyzed using a repeated measure GEE model, which includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, visit as a fixed factor, and the baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry is used as the covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 24||||0.1697
90954776|NCT02731690|181788670|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3428||||||Analyzed using a repeated measure GEE model, which includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, visit as a fixed factor, and the baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry is used as the covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 36||||0.3428
90954777|NCT02731690|181788670|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0642||||||Analyzed using a repeated measure GEE model, which includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, visit as a fixed factor, and the baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry is used as the covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 48||||0.0642
90954778|NCT02731690|181788671|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0568||||||Analyzed using a repeated measure GEE model, which includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, visit as a fixed factor, and the baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry is used as the covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 12||||0.0568
90954779|NCT02731690|181788671|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0533||||||Analyzed using a repeated measure GEE model, which includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, visit as a fixed factor, and the baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry is used as the covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 24||||0.0533
90954780|NCT02731690|181788671|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0459||||||Analyzed using a repeated measure GEE model, which includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, visit as a fixed factor, and the baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry is used as the covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 36||||0.0459
90954781|NCT02731690|181788671|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5678||||||Analyzed using a repeated measure GEE model, which includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, visit as a fixed factor, and the baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry is used as the covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 48||||0.5678
90954782|NCT02731690|181788672|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.581||||||Analyzed using a repeated measure GEE model, which includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, visit as a fixed factor, and the baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry is used as the covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 12||||0.5810
90954783|NCT02731690|181788672|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0465||||||Analyzed using a repeated measure GEE model, which includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, visit as a fixed factor, and the baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry is used as the covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 24||||0.0465
90954784|NCT02731690|181788672|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1047||||||Analyzed using a repeated measure GEE model, which includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, visit as a fixed factor, and the baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry is used as the covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 36||||0.1047
90954785|NCT02731690|181788672|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0661||||||Analyzed using a repeated measure GEE model, which includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, visit as a fixed factor, and the baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry is used as the covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 48||||0.0661
90954786|NCT02731690|181788673|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1615||||||Analyzed using a repeated measure GEE model, which includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, visit as a fixed factor, and the baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry is used as the covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 12||||0.1615
90954787|NCT02731690|181788673|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6201||||||Analyzed using a repeated measure GEE model, which includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, visit as a fixed factor, and the baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry is used as the covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 24||||0.6201
90954788|NCT02731690|181788673|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9229||||||Analyzed using a repeated measure GEE model, which includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, visit as a fixed factor, and the baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry is used as the covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 36||||0.9229
90954789|NCT02731690|181788673|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6307||||||Analyzed using a repeated measure GEE model, which includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, visit as a fixed factor, and the baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry is used as the covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 48||||0.6307
90954790|NCT02731690|181788674|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0088||||||Analyzed using a repeated measure GEE model, which includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, visit as a fixed factor, and the baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry is used as the covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 12||||0.0088
90954791|NCT02731690|181788674|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2213||||||Analyzed using a repeated measure GEE model, which includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, visit as a fixed factor, and the baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry is used as the covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 24||||0.2213
90954792|NCT02731690|181788674|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018||||||Analyzed using a repeated measure GEE model, which includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, visit as a fixed factor, and the baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry is used as the covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 36||||0.0180
90954793|NCT02731690|181788674|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.197||||||Analyzed using a repeated measure GEE model, which includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, visit as a fixed factor, and the baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry is used as the covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 48||||0.1970
90954794|NCT02731690|181788675|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0752||||||Analyzed using a repeated measure GEE model, which includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, visit as a fixed factor, and the baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry is used as the covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 12||||0.0752
90954795|NCT02731690|181788675|SUPERIORITY|Analyzed using a repeated measure GEE model, which includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, visit as a fixed factor, and the baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry is used as the covariance structure.||||||0.6403||||||Analyzed using a repeated measure GEE model, which includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, visit as a fixed factor, and the baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry is used as the covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 24||||0.6403
90954796|NCT02731690|181788675|SUPERIORITY|Analyzed using a repeated measure GEE model, which includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, visit as a fixed factor, and the baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry is used as the covariance structure.||||||0.2316||||||Analyzed using a repeated measure GEE model, which includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, visit as a fixed factor, and the baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry is used as the covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 36||||0.2316
90954797|NCT02731690|181788675|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7635||||||Analyzed using a repeated measure GEE model, which includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, visit as a fixed factor, and the baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry is used as the covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 48||||0.7635
90954798|NCT02731690|181788676|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0872||||||Analyzed using a repeated measure GEE model, which includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, visit as a fixed factor, and the baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry is used as the covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 12||||0.0872
90954799|NCT02731690|181788676|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0073||||||Analyzed using a repeated measure GEE model, which includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, visit as a fixed factor, and the baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry is used as the covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 24||||0.0073
90954800|NCT02731690|181788676|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0086||||||Analyzed using a repeated measure GEE model, which includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, visit as a fixed factor, and the baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry is used as the covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 36||||0.0086
90954801|NCT02731690|181788676|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0489||||||Analyzed using a repeated measure GEE model, which includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, visit as a fixed factor, and the baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry is used as the covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 48||||0.0489
90954802|NCT00872989|181788678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.79|1.26|||Regression, Cox|||||1.26|0.79|0.49
90954803|NCT00872989|181788680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.25||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.93|1.68|||Regression, Cox|||||1.68|0.93|0.83
90954804|NCT00923260|181788714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.79
90954805|NCT00923260|181788715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.49
90954806|NCT00923260|181788716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.96
90954807|NCT00923260|181788717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.86
90954808|NCT00923260|181788718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.60
90954809|NCT00923260|181788719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.76
90954810|NCT00923260|181788720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.45
90954811|NCT00923260|181788721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.81
90954812|NCT00923260|181788722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.92
90954813|NCT00923260|181788723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
90954814|NCT00923260|181788724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.15
90954815|NCT00923260|181788725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.20
90954816|NCT00923260|181788726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.64
90954817|NCT00923260|181788727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.92
90954818|NCT00923260|181788728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
90954819|NCT00923260|181788729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.21
90954820|NCT00923260|181788730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.65
90954821|NCT00923260|181788731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.33
90954822|NCT00923260|181788732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.39
90954823|NCT00923260|181788733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.47
90954824|NCT00923260|181788734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.75
90954825|NCT00923260|181788735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.94||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.94
90954826|NCT00923260|181788736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.74
90954827|NCT00923260|181788737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.72
90954828|NCT00923260|181788738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.67
90954829|NCT00923260|181788739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.64
90954830|NCT00923260|181788740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.038
90954831|NCT00923260|181788741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.14
90954832|NCT00923260|181788742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.21
90954833|NCT00923260|181788743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.42
90954834|NCT00923260|181788744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.18
90954835|NCT00923260|181788745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.10
90954836|NCT00923260|181788746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.16
90954837|NCT00923260|181788747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.18
90954838|NCT00923260|181788748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.40
90954839|NCT00923260|181788749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.44
90954840|NCT00923260|181788750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.035
90954841|NCT00923260|181788751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.07
90954842|NCT00923260|181788752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.99
90954843|NCT00923260|181788753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.96
90954844|NCT00923260|181788754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.44
90954845|NCT00923260|181788755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.97
90954846|NCT00923260|181788756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.85
90954847|NCT00923260|181788757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.61
90954848|NCT00923260|181788758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.55
90954849|NCT00923260|181788759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.65
90954850|NCT00923260|181788760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.74
90954851|NCT00923260|181788761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.57
90954852|NCT00923260|181788762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.87
90954853|NCT00923260|181788763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.28
90954854|NCT00923260|181788764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.64
90954855|NCT00923260|181788765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.42
90954856|NCT00923260|181788766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.72
90954857|NCT00923260|181788767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.68
90954858|NCT00923260|181788768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.08
90954859|NCT00923260|181788769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.71
90954860|NCT00923260|181788770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.32
90954861|NCT00923260|181788771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.64
90954862|NCT00923260|181788772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.52
90954863|NCT00923260|181788773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.59
90954864|NCT00923260|181788774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.57
90954865|NCT00923260|181788775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.43
90954866|NCT00923260|181788776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.72
90954867|NCT00923260|181788777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.56||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.56
90954868|NCT03573583|181788793|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.29||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|4.36||No formal adjustment for type I error due to the pilot nature of the study. All significance tests were 2-tailed and an alpha level of 0.05 was required for significance.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline score.||Continuous variables were expressed as mean (SD) and categorical variables were as frequencies and percentages. A 2-sided independent-sample t test was used to compare group differences in change scores. Change scores were calculated as Week 16 measurements minus baseline measurements. Statistical analyses were done by a blinded statistician without knowledge of group membership.||4.36|0.22|0.03
90954869|NCT03573583|181788794|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.04||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.77|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline score.||||1.77|0.31|0.009
90954870|NCT03573583|181788795|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.29||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|2.67|||ANCOVA|Baseline as covariate||||2.67|-0.10|0.07
90954871|NCT03573583|181788796|OTHER|Pearson's correlation coefficients, along with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs)|Pearson's Correlation coefficient|0.19||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.64|||Pearson's Correlation coefficient|||||0.64|-0.35|0.49
90954872|NCT02915302|181788820|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the difference in fever rate was \<5%.|Difference in Fever Rate|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|3.8|||||Fever rate: Fluzone Quadrivalent vaccine (0.5-mL vs. 0.25-mL)|Difference in fever rate was defined as the fever rate following a 0.5-mL dose of Fluzone Quadrivalent vaccine minus the fever rate following a 0.25-mL dose of Fluzone Quadrivalent vaccine.||3.80|-2.13|
90954873|NCT02915302|181788821|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs was \>0.667.|GMTs Ratio (A/H1N1)|1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|1.77|||||A/H1N1 strain: Fluzone Quadrivalent Vaccine (0.5-mL vs. 0.25-mL)|For A/H1N1 strain, GMT ratio was defined as the GMT after 0.5 mL dose(s) of Fluzone Quadrivalent vaccine divided by the GMT after 0.25 mL dose(s) of Fluzone Quadrivalent vaccine.||1.77|1.19|
90954874|NCT02915302|181788821|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs was \>0.667.|GMTs Ratio (A/H3N2)|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|1.83|||||A/H3N2 strain: Fluzone Quadrivalent Vaccine (0.5-mL vs. 0.25-mL)|For A/H3N2 strain, GMT ratio was defined as the GMT after 0.5 mL dose(s) of Fluzone Quadrivalent vaccine divided by the GMT after 0.25 mL dose(s) of Fluzone Quadrivalent vaccine.||1.83|1.23|
90959055|NCT01620255|181798207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.46||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.658|-0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 7.5 mg vs placebo, Rectal Bleeding, W4||-0.260|-0.658|0.0002
90954875|NCT02915302|181788821|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs was \>0.667.|GMTs Ratio (B Victoria lineage)|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.62|||||B Victoria lineage strain: Fluzone Quadrivalent Vaccine (0.5-mL vs. 0.25-mL)|For B Victoria lineage strain, GMT ratio was defined as the GMT after 0.5 mL dose(s) of Fluzone Quadrivalent vaccine divided by the GMT after 0.25 mL dose(s) of Fluzone Quadrivalent vaccine.||1.62|1.10|
90954876|NCT02915302|181788821|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs was \>0.667.|GMTs Ratio (B Yamagata lineage)|1.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|1.73|||||B Yamagata lineage strain: Fluzone Quadrivalent Vaccine (0.5-mL vs. 0.25-mL)|For B Yamagata lineage strain, GMT ratio was defined as the GMT after 0.5 mL dose(s) of Fluzone Quadrivalent vaccine divided by the GMT after 0.25 mL dose(s) of Fluzone Quadrivalent vaccine.||1.73|1.20|
90954877|NCT02915302|181788822|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference in SCRs was \>-10%.|Difference in SCR (A/H1N1)|5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.189|10.0|||||A/H1N1 strain: Fluzone Quadrivalent Vaccine (0.5-mL vs. 0.25-mL)|For A/H1N1 strain, difference in SCR was defined as SCR after 0.5-mL dose(s) of Fluzone Quadrivalent Vaccine minus SCR after 0.25-mL dose(s) of Fluzone Quadrivalent Vaccine.||10.0|0.189|
90954878|NCT02915302|181788822|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference in SCRs was \>-10%.|Difference in SCR (A/H3N2)|4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.283|8.99|||||A/H3N2 strain: Fluzone Quadrivalent Vaccine (0.5-mL vs. 0.25-mL)|For A/H3N2 strain, difference in SCR was defined as SCR after 0.5-mL dose(s) of Fluzone Quadrivalent Vaccine minus SCR after 0.25-mL dose(s) of Fluzone Quadrivalent Vaccine.||8.99|-0.283|
90954879|NCT02915302|181788822|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference in SCRs was \>-10%.|Difference in SCR (B Victoria lineage)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|5.56|||||B Victoria lineage strain: Fluzone Quadrivalent Vaccine (0.5-mL vs. 0.25-mL)|For B Victoria lineage strain, difference in SCR was defined as SCR after 0.5-mL dose(s) of Fluzone Quadrivalent Vaccine minus SCR after 0.25-mL dose(s) of Fluzone Quadrivalent Vaccine.||5.56|-2.78|
90954880|NCT02915302|181788822|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference in SCRs was \>-10%.|Difference in SCR (B Yamagata lineage)|3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.465|7.36|||||B Yamagata lineage strain: Fluzone Quadrivalent Vaccine (0.5-mL vs. 0.25-mL)|For B Yamagata lineage strain, difference in SCR was defined as SCR after 0.5-mL dose(s) of Fluzone Quadrivalent Vaccine minus SCR after 0.25-mL dose(s) of Fluzone Quadrivalent Vaccine.||7.36|-0.465|
90954881|NCT01639495|181788846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of subjects|60.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.9|68.8|||||The 2-sided 95% confidence intervals are based on exact binomial|||68.8|51.9|
90954882|NCT01639495|181788848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of subjects with primary AEs|17.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.6|24.6|||||The 2-sided 95% confidence interval is exact binomial|||24.6|11.6|
90954883|NCT01639495|181788849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of subjects|97.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|95.6|98.2|||||The 2-sided 95% confidence intervals are exact binomial|||98.2|95.6|
90954884|NCT03507777|181788851|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Linear mixed model|||||||<0.0001
90954885|NCT03507777|181788852|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2487|||||||A Cox regression model|||||||0.2487
90954886|NCT03507777|181788853|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2952|||||||A Cox regression model|||||||0.2952
90954887|NCT02366468|181788859|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin: -4 letters|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.04|1.27|||ANCOVA|including study treatment (DI, PRN) and center as factors and baseline BCVA as continuous covariate.||The primary objective was to demonstrate that the mean visit-averaged change from baseline of BCVA over month 1 to treatment completion for the DI arm was non-inferior to the PRN arm.||1.27|-3.04|0.002
90954888|NCT02366468|181788863|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.7||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|28.56|||ANCOVA|containing the baseline values of the dependent variables as continuous covariates, and center and treatment as categorical covariates||||28.56|-17.10|0.620
90954889|NCT02366468|181788864|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.66|30.59|||ANCOVA|containing the baseline values of the dependent variables as continuous covariates, and center and treatment as categorical covariates||||30.59|-33.66|0.925
90954890|NCT00359216|181788875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9219||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The p-value is obtained by F-test in ANCOVA to assess the treatment group difference in changes from baseline, adjusted for baseline.||||0.9219
90954891|NCT05540717|181788876|SUPERIORITY||relative difference (%)|-20.25||||0.00048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.0|-9.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model using treatment group as fixed effect and pooled geographical region as random effect||-9.49|-31.0|0.00048
90954892|NCT05540717|181788877|SUPERIORITY||relative difference (%)|-20.2||||0.00032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.13|-10.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model using treatment group as fixed effect and pooled geographical region as random effect||Linear mixed model using treatment group as fixed effect and pooled geographical region as random effect||-10.27|-30.13|0.00032
90954893|NCT05540717|181788878|SUPERIORITY|Linear mixed model using treatment group as fixed effect and pooled geographical region as random effect|relative difference (%)|-26.54||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.15|-11.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of dMS of CSMS on peak GPS||-11.94|-41.15|0.00080
90954894|NCT05540717|181788878|SUPERIORITY|Linear mixed model using treatment group as fixed effect and pooled geographical region as random effect.|relative difference (%)|-26.6||||0.00031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.49|-12.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of dMS of CSMS on entire GPS||-12.72|-40.49|0.00031
90954895|NCT05540717|181788879|SUPERIORITY|Linear mixed model using treatment group as fixed effect and pooled geographical region as random effect|relative difference (%)|-16.35||||0.00223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.27|-6.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of dSS of CSMS on peak GPS||-6.44|-26.27|0.00223
90954896|NCT05540717|181788879|SUPERIORITY|Linear mixed model using treatment group as fixed effect and pooled geographical region as random effect|relative difference (%)|-16.58||||0.00076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of dSS of CSMS on entire GPS||||0.00076
90954897|NCT05540717|181788880|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49||||0.00032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model using treatment group as fixed effect, Baseline total RQLQ score as covariate and pooled geographical region as random effect||Average Total RQLQ Score During Peak GPS||-0.23|-0.76|0.00032
90954898|NCT05540717|181788881|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.99|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.28|4.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Visit 7 of serum grass-specific IgG4 \[mg/L\]||4.7|3.28|<0.00001
90954899|NCT05540717|181788882|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.254||||0.10846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.951|1.652|||Regression, Logistic|The probability of a well day was calculated using a generalized estimating equation (GEE) or similar approaches as appropriate.||Probability of Well Days During Peak (truncated) GPS||1.652|0.951|0.10846
90954900|NCT01144052|181788899|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No statistical hypothesis tests for efficacy were performed as this was a pilot study serving to generate first data and hypotheses.||||||0.125||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.125
90954901|NCT01144052|181788900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.447||95.0|||||non-parametric|||||||0.447
90954902|NCT01144052|181788901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.447|||||||non-parametric|||||||0.447
90954903|NCT01144052|181788902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.206|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.206
90954904|NCT01144052|181788904|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No statistical hypothesis tests for efficacy were performed, as this was pilot study serving to generate first data and hypotheses.||||||0.234||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p-value refers to nT2L at month 12||||||0.234
90954905|NCT00105001|181788907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|||||Overall test of homogeneity among arms, reflecting events over the entire period of follow-up|Regression, Cox|||||||0.09
90954906|NCT00105001|181788907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.1|||Regression, Cox||HR for Arm II relative to Arm I, reflecting events over the entire period of follow-u\[|||1.1|0.4|0.10
90954907|NCT00105001|181788907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.0|||Regression, Cox||HR for Arm III relative to Arm I, reflecting events over the entire period of follow-up|||1.0|0.6|0.04
90954908|NCT00105001|181788908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|||||Overall test of homogeneity among arms, reflecting events over the entire period of follow-up|Regression, Cox|||||||0.55
90954909|NCT00105001|181788909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|||||Overall test of homogeneity among arms, reflecting events over the entire period of follow-up|Regression, Cox|||||||0.009
90954910|NCT00105001|181788909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.4|||Regression, Cox||HR for Arm II relative to Arm I, reflecting events over the entire period of follow-up|||1.4|0.5|0.51
90954911|NCT00105001|181788909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.47||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.8|||Regression, Cox||HR for Arm III relative to Arm I, reflecting events over the entire period of follow-up|||0.8|0.3|0.004
90954912|NCT00105001|181788910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|||||Overall test of homogeneity among arms, reflecting events over the entire period of follow-up|Regression, Cox|||||||0.93
90954913|NCT00105001|181788911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|||||Overall test of homogeneity among arms, reflecting events over the entire period of follow-up|Regression, Cox|||||||0.96
90954914|NCT00037830|181788950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis for Phase I was that at week 24, there is no difference between UPDRS motor scores in placebo vs. GM1-treated subjects.||||<0.0001
90954915|NCT00037830|181788951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0368|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis for Phase II is that long-term use of GM1 does not affect the progression of PD symptoms and that there is no benefit to early start of GM1 use.||||0.0368
90954916|NCT00037830|181788952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1903|||||||estimate of slope of change over time|random intercept model and a variance components covariance structure||||||0.1903
90954917|NCT00037830|181788952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0063||95.0|||||estimate slope of change over time|random intercept model and a variance components covariance structure||||||0.0063
90954918|NCT00037830|181788953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0502|||||||estimate of slope of change over time|random intercept model and a variance components covariance structure||||||0.0502
90954919|NCT00037830|181788953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003||95.0|||||estimate slope of change over time|random intercept model and a variance components covariance structure||||||0.0003
90954920|NCT00037830|181788954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90954921|NCT00037830|181788955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.131|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1310
90954922|NCT00037830|181788956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis was paired sample t-test on change from baseline.||||<0.05
90954923|NCT00037830|181788957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
90954924|NCT00037830|181788958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
90954925|NCT00037830|181788959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
90954926|NCT00127205|181788960|OTHER|||||||0.49|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.49
90954927|NCT00127205|181788960|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.26|||Regression, Cox|||||1.26|0.94|0.24
90954928|NCT00127205|181788960|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.24|||Regression, Cox|||||1.24|0.90|0.50
90954929|NCT00127205|181788961|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.50
90954930|NCT00127205|181788962|OTHER|||||||0.93|||||||Log Rank|||Statistical analysis for recurrence to bone||||0.93
90954931|NCT03377699|181788987|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was considered confirmed if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for mean treatment difference in HbA1c is strictly below 0.4%.|Mean treatment difference|-0.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Primary Estimand. Imputation of missing data was done within two groups of participants defined by randomised treatment arm based on a multiple imputation approach (x1000). For each of the 1000 imputed datasets last planned HbA1c prior to delivery after GW 16 was analysed using an ANCOVA with treatment, region and the stratification factor as categorical fixed effects and a pregnancy status at randomisation-by-baseline HbA1c interaction.||0.08|-0.31|<0.0001
90954932|NCT03377699|181788987|EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was considered confirmed if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for mean treatment difference in HbA1c is strictly below 0.4%.|Mean treatment difference|-0.08||||0.3881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Secondary Estimand. Imputation of missing data was done within two groups of participants defined by randomised treatment arm based on a multiple imputation approach (x1000). For each of the 1000 imputed datasets last planned HbA1c prior to delivery after GW 16 was analysed using an ANCOVA with treatment, region and the stratification factor as categorical fixed effects and a pregnancy status at randomisation-by-baseline HbA1c interaction.||0.11|-0.27|0.3881
90954933|NCT02580305|181789011|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41||||||Threshold for statistical significance was p≤0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical Method: Mixed model for repeated measures||||||0.41
90954934|NCT02580305|181789011|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9||||||Threshold for statistical significance was p≤0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical Method: Mixed model for repeated measures||||||0.90
90954935|NCT02580305|181789012|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46||||||Threshold for statistical significance was p≤0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical Method: Mixed model for repeated measures||||||0.46
90954936|NCT02580305|181789012|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48||||||Threshold for statistical significance was p≤0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical Method: Mixed model for repeated measures||||||0.48
90954937|NCT02580305|181789013|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83||||||Threshold for statistical significance was p≤0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical Method: Mixed model for repeated measures||||||0.83
90954938|NCT02580305|181789013|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24||||||Threshold for statistical significance was p≤0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical Method: Mixed model for repeated measures||||||0.24
90954939|NCT02580305|181789014|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17||||||Threshold for statistical significance was p≤0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical Method: Mixed model for repeated measures||||||0.17
90954940|NCT02580305|181789014|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14||||||Threshold for statistical significance was p≤0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical Method: Mixed model for repeated measures||||||0.14
90954941|NCT02580305|181789015|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79||||||Threshold for statistical significance was p≤0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical Method: Mixed model for repeated measures||||||0.79
90954942|NCT02580305|181789015|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92||||||Threshold for statistical significance was p≤0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical Method: Mixed model for repeated measures||||||0.92
90954943|NCT03582943|181789016|SUPERIORITY|A priori power analyses was designed to detect at least a 3 second difference in change in balance scores between groups.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.74||||0.984|TWO_SIDED|||||Test of differences between groups.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.984
90954944|NCT03582943|181789016|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.023||||0.455|TWO_SIDED|||||Test of interaction between age and RLIC vs. sham|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.455
90954945|NCT03582943|181789016|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.803|TWO_SIDED|||||Test of interaction between sex and RLIC vs. sham conditioning|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.803
90954946|NCT03582943|181789016|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.25||||0.233|TWO_SIDED|||||Test of interaction between BMI and RLIC vs. sham conditioning|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.233
90954947|NCT03582943|181789016|SUPERIORITY|Test of interaction between presence of co-morbidities and RLIC vs. sham conditioning|Mean Difference (Net)|4.12||||0.29|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.29
90954948|NCT01177800|181789075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
90954949|NCT01177800|181789076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Non parametric ANOVA by van der Waerden|||Change at Week 10: p-value was calculated by Non parametric ANOVA by van der Waerden method.||||<0.001
90954950|NCT01177800|181789077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
90954951|NCT01177800|181789078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Non parametric ANOVA by van der Waerden|||Change at Week 26: p-value was calculated by Non parametric ANOVA by van der Waerden method.||||<0.001
90954952|NCT04587752|181789090|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.047|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.047
90954953|NCT04587752|181789091|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.01
90954954|NCT04587752|181789092|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
90954955|NCT03231800|181789108|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.059|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.351|-3.137|||ANCOVA|||Least squares means, SEs, 95% CIs, and p-values were generated using an ANCOVA model, with treatment (dasotraline/placebo), mean SKAMP-CS at baseline, and site as fixed effects.||-3.137|-7.351|<0.001
90954956|NCT03231800|181789111|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.612||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.694|25.017|||ANCOVA|||||25.017|2.694|0.016
90954957|NCT03231800|181789112|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.508||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.105|23.017|||ANCOVA|||||23.017|1.105|0.031
90954958|NCT04075994|181789134|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Proportion of days covered assessed as a continuous measure (range 0-1) at 12 months between study arms adjusted for trial stratification factors (type of anticoagulant treatment). We determined that a sample size of 120 in the intervention group and 120 in the control group enables us to detect a minimum difference in PDC as small as 12.6% with 90% power. Power calculations assume use of 2-sided tests with 0.05 significance level.||||0.22
90954959|NCT01247285|181789140|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|107.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.37|119.38|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||119.38|97.37|
90954960|NCT01247285|181789141|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|100.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.9|109.14|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||109.14|92.90|
90954961|NCT01247285|181789142|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|100.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.53|108.56|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||108.56|93.53|
91017466|NCT01125358|181918111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|-9.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.96||0.222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.8|6.12||P-value is for PANSS Total Score.|MMRM|||||6.12|-25.80|0.222
90954962|NCT01247285|181789143|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|104.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.53|111.64|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||111.64|98.53|
90954963|NCT01247285|181789144|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|105.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.97|111.56|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||111.56|99.97|
90954964|NCT01247285|181789145|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|101.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.76|107.77|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||107.77|94.76|
90954965|NCT01416389|181789230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.344|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||This measure is compared between two treatment arms using a one-sided t-test. This measure followed a normal distribution.||||0.344
90954966|NCT01416389|181789231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.608|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.608
90954967|NCT01416389|181789233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.365|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.365
90954968|NCT00688870|181789262|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Exact, unconditional, 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|3.3|||Chan and Zhang|||Common serotypes - serotype 4||3.3|-6.8|
90954969|NCT00688870|181789262|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Exact, unconditional, 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|4.3|||Chan and Zhang|||Common serotypes - serotype 6B||4.3|-4.6|
90954970|NCT00688870|181789262|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Exact, unconditional, 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|3.3|||Chan and Zhang|||Common serotypes - serotype 9V||3.3|-6.8|
90954971|NCT00688870|181789262|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Exact, unconditional, 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|4.3|||Chan and Zhang|||Common serotypes - serotype 14||4.3|-4.6|
90954972|NCT00688870|181789262|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Exact, unconditional, 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|4.3|||Chan and Zhang|||Common serotypes - serotype 18C||4.3|-4.6|
90954973|NCT00688870|181789262|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Exact, unconditional, 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|3.3|||Chan and Zhang|||Common serotypes - serotype 19F||3.3|-6.8|
90954974|NCT00688870|181789262|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Exact, unconditional, 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|-5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|-0.3|||Chan and Zhang|||Common serotypes - serotype 23F||-0.3|-12.3|
90954975|NCT00688870|181789262|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Exact, unconditional, 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|96.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.4|99.2|||Chan and Zhang|||Additional serotypes - serotype 1||99.2|89.4|
90954976|NCT00688870|181789262|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Exact, unconditional, 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|95.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|87.7|98.6|||Chan and Zhang|||Additional serotypes - serotype 3||98.6|87.7|
90954977|NCT00688870|181789262|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Exact, unconditional, 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|37.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.2|48.9|||Chan and Zhang|||Additional serotypes - serotype 5||48.9|26.2|
90954978|NCT00688870|181789262|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Exact, unconditional, 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|22.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.4|33.4|||Chan and Zhang|||Additional serotypes - serotype 6A||33.4|14.4|
90954979|NCT00688870|181789262|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Exact, unconditional, 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|97.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.6|99.7|||Chan and Zhang|||Additional serotypes - serotype 7F||99.7|91.6|
90954980|NCT00688870|181789262|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Exact, unconditional, 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|4.5|||Chan and Zhang|||Additional serotypes - serotype 19A||4.5|-4.6|
90954981|NCT00688870|181789263|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Exact, unconditional, 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|3.1|||Chan and Zhang|||Common serotypes - serotype 4||3.1|-6.9|
90954982|NCT00688870|181789263|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Exact, unconditional, 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|4.4|||Chan and Zhang|||Common serotypes - serotype 6B||4.4|-4.6|
90954983|NCT00688870|181789263|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Exact, unconditional, 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|3.1|||Chan and Zhang|||Common serotypes - serotype 9V||3.1|-6.9|
90954984|NCT00688870|181789263|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Exact, unconditional, 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|4.4|||Chan and Zhang|||Common serotypes - serotype 14||4.4|-4.6|
90954985|NCT00688870|181789263|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Exact, unconditional, 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|4.4|||Chan and Zhang|||Common serotypes - serotype 18C||4.4|-4.6|
90954986|NCT00688870|181789263|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Exact, unconditional, 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|3.1|||Chan and Zhang|||Common serotypes - serotype 19F||3.1|-6.9|
90954987|NCT00688870|181789263|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Exact, unconditional, 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|4.4|||Chan and Zhang|||Common serotypes - serotype 23F||4.4|-4.6|
90954988|NCT00688870|181789263|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Exact, unconditional, 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|95.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|87.7|98.6|||Chan and Zhang|||Additional serotypes - serotype 1||98.6|87.7|
90954989|NCT00688870|181789263|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Exact, unconditional, 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|82.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|72.0|90.1|||Chan and Zhang|||Additional serotypes - serotype 3||90.1|72.0|
90954990|NCT00688870|181789263|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Exact, unconditional, 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|9.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|18.1|||Chan and Zhang|||Additional serotypes - serotype 5||18.1|3.8|
90954991|NCT00688870|181789263|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Exact, unconditional, 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|4.4|||Chan and Zhang|||Additional serotypes - serotype 6A||4.4|-4.6|
90954992|NCT00688870|181789263|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Exact, unconditional, 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|93.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.0|97.9|||Chan and Zhang|||Additional serotypes - serotype 7F||97.9|86.0|
90954993|NCT00688870|181789263|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Exact, unconditional, 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|6.5|||Chan and Zhang|||Additional serotypes - serotype 19A||6.5|-3.4|
90954994|NCT00688870|181789264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio of GMCs|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.78|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC-7vPnC reference).|Common serotypes - serotype 4||0.78|0.50|
90954995|NCT00688870|181789264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio of GMCs|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.17|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC-7vPnC reference).|Common serotypes - serotype 6B||1.17|0.70|
90954996|NCT00688870|181789264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio of GMCs|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.82|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC-7vPnC reference).|Common serotypes - serotype 9V||0.82|0.55|
90954997|NCT00688870|181789264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio of GMCs|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.06|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC-7vPnC reference).|Common serotypes - serotype 14||1.06|0.67|
90954998|NCT00688870|181789264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio of GMCs|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.97|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC-7vPnC reference).|Common serotypes - serotype 18C||0.97|0.63|
90954999|NCT00688870|181789264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio of GMCs|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.94|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC-7vPnC reference).|Common serotypes - serotype 19F||0.94|0.60|
90955000|NCT00688870|181789264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio of GMCs|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.77|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC-7vPnC reference).|Common serotypes - serotype 23F||0.77|0.46|
90955001|NCT00688870|181789264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio of GMCs|202.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|157.04|261.32|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC-7vPnC reference).|Additional serotypes - serotype 1||261.32|157.04|
91017467|NCT01125358|181918111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|-11.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.22||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.42|2.6||P-value is for PANSS Total Score.|MMRM|||||2.60|-26.42|0.105
90893524|NCT01939548|181652016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.326||0.4611|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.73|2.69||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.2 significance level. No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|Mixed Models Analysis||The estimation method used was restricted maximum likelihood.|General Subscale Score comparison of change at Week 12. Linear mixed-effect repeated measures model used. Fixed effects: treatment, time (visit), baseline value, investigator site; random effect: participant. Also included effects for treatment by time interaction and baseline value by treatment interaction and background antipsychotics.||2.69|-0.73|0.4611
90893525|NCT01939548|181652017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.591||0.1083|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.19|1.72||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.2 significance level. No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|Mixed Models Analysis||The estimation method used was restricted maximum likelihood.|Anxiety/depression symptom score comparison of change at Week 12. Linear mixed-effect repeated measures model used. Fixed effects: treatment, time (visit), baseline value, investigator site; random effect: participant. Also included effects for treatment by time interaction and baseline value by treatment interaction and background antipsychotics.||1.72|0.19|0.1083
90893526|NCT01939548|181652017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.611||0.0869|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.27|1.84||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.2 significance level. No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|Mixed Models Analysis||The estimation method used was restricted maximum likelihood.|Anxiety/depression symptom score comparison of change at Week 12. Linear mixed-effect repeated measures model used. Fixed effects: treatment, time (visit), baseline value, investigator site; random effect: participant. Also included effects for treatment by time interaction and baseline value by treatment interaction and background antipsychotics.||1.84|0.27|0.0869
90893527|NCT01939548|181652017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.575||0.8601|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.84|0.64||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.2 significance level. No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|Mixed Models Analysis||The estimation method used was restricted maximum likelihood.|Disorganized thought symptom score comparison of change at Week 12. Linear mixed-effect repeated measures model used. Fixed effects: treatment, time (visit), baseline value, investigator site; random effect: participant. Also included effects for treatment by time interaction and baseline value by treatment interaction and background antipsychotics.||0.64|-0.84|0.8601
90893528|NCT01939548|181652017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.593||0.3454|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.33|0.2||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.2 significance level. No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|Mixed Models Analysis||The estimation method used was restricted maximum likelihood.|Disorganized thought symptom score comparison of change at Week 12. Linear mixed-effect repeated measures model used. Fixed effects: treatment, time (visit), baseline value, investigator site; random effect: participant. Also included effects for treatment by time interaction and baseline value by treatment interaction and background antipsychotics.||0.20|-1.33|0.3454
90893529|NCT01939548|181652017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.789||0.3273|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.24|1.79||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.2 significance level. No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|Mixed Models Analysis||The estimation method used was restricted maximum likelihood.|Negative symptom score comparison of change at Week 12. Linear mixed-effect repeated measures model used. Fixed effects: treatment, time (visit), baseline value, investigator site; random effect: participant. Also included effects for treatment by time interaction and baseline value by treatment interaction and background antipsychotics.||1.79|-0.24|0.3273
90893530|NCT01939548|181652017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.806||0.3963|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.35|1.72||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.2 significance level. No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|Mixed Models Analysis||The estimation method used was restricted maximum likelihood.|Negative symptom score comparison of change at Week 12. Linear mixed-effect repeated measures model used. Fixed effects: treatment, time (visit), baseline value, investigator site; random effect: participant. Also included effects for treatment by time interaction and baseline value by treatment interaction and background antipsychotics.||1.72|-0.35|0.3963
90893531|NCT01939548|181652017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.888||0.4713|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.5|1.78||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.2 significance level. No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|Mixed Models Analysis||The estimation method used was restricted maximum likelihood.|Positive symptom score comparison of change at Week 12. Linear mixed-effect repeated measures model used. Fixed effects: treatment, time (visit), baseline value, investigator site; random effect: participant. Also included effects for treatment by time interaction and baseline value by treatment interaction and background antipsychotics.||1.78|-0.50|0.4713
90893532|NCT01939548|181652017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.895||0.1787|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.06|2.36||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.2 significance level. No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|Mixed Models Analysis||The estimation method used was restricted maximum likelihood.|Positive symptom score comparison of change at Week 12. Linear mixed-effect repeated measures model used. Fixed effects: treatment, time (visit), baseline value, investigator site; random effect: participant. Also included effects for treatment by time interaction and baseline value by treatment interaction and background antipsychotics.||2.36|0.06|0.1787
90893533|NCT01939548|181652017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.426||0.4123|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.2|0.9||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.2 significance level. No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|Mixed Models Analysis||The estimation method used was restricted maximum likelihood.|Uncontrolled hostility/excitement symptom score comparison of change at Week 12. Linear mixed-effect repeated measures model used. Fixed effects: treatment, time (visit), baseline value, investigator site; random effect: participant. Also included effects for treatment by time interaction and baseline value by treatment interaction and background antipsychotics.||0.90|-0.20|0.4123
90955002|NCT00688870|181789264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio of GMCs|24.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.46|31.49|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC-7vPnC reference).|Additional serotypes - serotype 3||31.49|18.46|
90955003|NCT00688870|181789264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio of GMCs|5.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.37|7.41|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC-7vPnC reference).|Additional serotypes - serotype 5||7.41|4.37|
90955004|NCT00688870|181789264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio of GMCs|5.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.42|7.67|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC-7vPnC reference).|Additional serotypes - serotype 6A||7.67|4.42|
90955005|NCT00688870|181789264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio of GMCs|96.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|75.6|122.17|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC-7vPnC reference).|Additional serotypes - serotype 7F||122.17|75.60|
90955006|NCT00688870|181789264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio of GMCs|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|1.83|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC-7vPnC reference).|Additional serotypes - serotype 19A||1.83|1.23|
90955007|NCT00688870|181789265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio of GMC|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.84|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC-7vPnC reference).|Common serotypes - serotype 4||0.84|0.49|
90955008|NCT00688870|181789265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio of GMCs|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.36|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC-7vPnC reference).|Common serotypes - serotype 6B||1.36|0.77|
90955009|NCT00688870|181789265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio of GMCs|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.05|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC-7vPnC reference).|Common serotypes - serotype 9V||1.05|0.64|
90955010|NCT00688870|181789265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio of GMCs|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.91|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC-7vPnC reference).|Common serotypes - serotype 14||0.91|0.51|
90955011|NCT00688870|181789265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio of GMCs|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.99|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC-7vPnC reference).|Common serotypes - serotype 18C||0.99|0.57|
90955012|NCT00688870|181789265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio of GMCs|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.43|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC-7vPnC reference).|Common serotypes - serotype 19F||1.43|0.83|
90955013|NCT00688870|181789265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio of GMCs|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.92|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC-7vPnC reference).|Common serotypes - serotype 23F||0.92|0.52|
90955014|NCT00688870|181789265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio of GMCs|303.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|213.63|431.83|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC-7vPnC reference).|Additional serotypes - serotype 1||431.83|213.63|
90955015|NCT00688870|181789265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio of GMCs|10.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.77|14.62|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC-7vPnC reference).|Additional serotypes - serotype 3||14.62|7.77|
90955016|NCT00688870|181789265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio of GMCs|4.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.78|6.08|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC-7vPnC reference).|Additional serotypes - serotype 5||6.08|3.78|
90955017|NCT00688870|181789265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio of GMCs|3.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.28|4.08|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC-7vPnC reference).|Additional serotypes - serotype 6A||4.08|2.28|
90955018|NCT00688870|181789265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio of GMCs|105.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|75.6|145.84|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC-7vPnC reference).|Additional serotypes - serotype 7F||145.84|75.60|
90955019|NCT00688870|181789265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio of GMCs|4.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.54|5.6|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC-7vPnC reference).|Additional serotypes - serotype 19A||5.60|3.54|
90955020|NCT00688870|181789266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.735||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Tenderness - Any, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.735
90955021|NCT00688870|181789266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.533||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Tenderness - Significant, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.533
90955022|NCT00688870|181789266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.039||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Swelling - Any, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.039
90955023|NCT00688870|181789266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.059||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Swelling - Mild, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.059
90955024|NCT00688870|181789266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Swelling - Moderate, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||>0.99
90955025|NCT00688870|181789266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Redness - Any, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||>0.99
90955026|NCT00688870|181789266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Redness - Mild, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||>0.99
90955027|NCT00688870|181789266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.275||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Redness - Moderate, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.275
90955028|NCT00688870|181789267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Tenderness - Any, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||>0.99
90955029|NCT00688870|181789267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.617||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Tenderness - Significant, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.617
90955030|NCT00688870|181789267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.81||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Swelling - Any, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.810
90955031|NCT00688870|181789267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.81||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Swelling - Mild, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.810
90955032|NCT00688870|181789267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.674||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Redness - Any, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.674
90955033|NCT00688870|181789267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Redness - Mild, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||>0.99
90955034|NCT00688870|181789267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.497||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Redness - Moderate, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.497
90955035|NCT00688870|181789268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Tenderness - Any, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||>0.99
90955036|NCT00688870|181789268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Tenderness - Significant, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||>0.99
90955037|NCT00688870|181789268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.044||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Swelling - Any, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.044
90955038|NCT00688870|181789268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.076||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Swelling - Mild, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.076
90955039|NCT00688870|181789268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.496||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Swelling - Moderate, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.496
90955040|NCT00688870|181789268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.361||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Redness - Any, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.361
90955041|NCT00688870|181789268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.635||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Redness - Mild, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.635
90955042|NCT00688870|181789268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.244||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Redness - Moderate, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.244
90955043|NCT00688870|181789269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.076||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Tenderness - Any, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.076
90955044|NCT00688870|181789269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.735||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Swelling - Any, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.735
90955045|NCT00688870|181789269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Swelling - Mild, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||>0.99
90955046|NCT00688870|181789269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.477||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Swelling - Moderate, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.477
90955047|NCT00688870|181789269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.805||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Redness - Any, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.805
90955048|NCT00688870|181789269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Redness - Mild, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||>0.99
90955049|NCT00688870|181789269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.477||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Redness - Moderate, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.477
90955050|NCT00688870|181789270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.633||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Fever \>=38 but \<=39 degrees C, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.633
90955051|NCT00688870|181789270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Fever \>39 but \<=40 degrees C, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||>0.99
90955052|NCT00688870|181789270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.527||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Decreased appetite, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.527
90955053|NCT00688870|181789270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.613||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Irritability, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.613
90955054|NCT00688870|181789270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.753||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Increased sleep, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.753
90955055|NCT00688870|181789270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.748||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Decreased sleep, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.748
90955056|NCT00688870|181789271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.327||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Fever \>=38 but \<=39 degrees C, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.327
90955057|NCT00688870|181789271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Fever \>39 but \<=40 degrees C, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||>0.99
90955058|NCT00688870|181789271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.522||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Decreased appetite, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.522
90955059|NCT00688870|181789271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.872||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Irritability, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.872
90955060|NCT00688870|181789271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.868||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Increased sleep, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.868
90955061|NCT00688870|181789271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.237||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Decreased sleep, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.237
90955062|NCT00688870|181789272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.329||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Fever \>=38 but \<=39 degrees C, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.329
90955063|NCT00688870|181789272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.492||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Fever \>39 but \<=40 degrees C, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.492
90955064|NCT00688870|181789272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.496||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Fever \>40 degrees C, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.496
90955065|NCT00688870|181789272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.322||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Decreased appetite, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.322
90955066|NCT00688870|181789272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.61||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Irritability, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.610
90955067|NCT00688870|181789272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.726||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Increased sleep, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.726
90955068|NCT00688870|181789272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.855||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Decreased sleep, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.855
90955069|NCT00688870|181789273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.326||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Fever \>=38 but \<=39 degrees C, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.326
90955070|NCT00688870|181789273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Fever \>39 but \<=40 degrees C, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||>0.99
90955071|NCT00688870|181789273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.714||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Decreased appetite, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.714
90955072|NCT00688870|181789273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Irritability, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||>0.99
90955073|NCT00688870|181789273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Increased sleep, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||>0.99
90955074|NCT00688870|181789273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.525||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Decreased sleep, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.525
90955075|NCT01151410|181789274|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Indicates statistical significance at 0.025 level for one sided non-inferiority testing at 4mmHg margin.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.31||||0.004|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-2.4||||ANCOVA||||||-2.40|0.0040
90955076|NCT01253018|181789277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Sample size and power calculations were performed based on the difference in the FM score between the two groups with an assumed within group SD of 15.9, the correlation of 0.5 among repeated measures. 30 subjects enrolled in each arm of the study would give 80% power for detecting a difference of 8 points on the FM.~Two sample t-tests were conducted to compare changes in FM between the two interventions groups at final training (12 week)."||||<0.05
90955077|NCT01253018|181789277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Two sample t-tests were conducted to compare changes in FM between the two interventions groups at retention (24 weeks).||||<0.05
90955078|NCT01253018|181789279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Two sample t-tests were conducted to compare changes in WMFT between the two interventions groups at final training 12 week.||||<0.05
90955079|NCT01253018|181789279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Two sample t-tests were conducted to compare changes in WMFT between the two interventions groups at retention 24 weeks.||||<0.05
90955080|NCT01253018|181789280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Two sample t-tests were conducted to compare changes in SIS Hand between the two interventions groups at final training week 12.||||<0.05
90955081|NCT01253018|181789280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Two sample t-tests were conducted to compare changes in SIS Hand between the two interventions groups at retention week 24.||||<0.05
90955082|NCT00969709|181789285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-3.23||||0.0186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.92|-0.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures.||||-0.54|-5.92|0.0186
90955083|NCT00969709|181789285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-3.99||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.69|-1.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures.||||-1.29|-6.69|0.0038
90955084|NCT00969709|181789285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-4.86||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.59|-2.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures.||||-2.12|-7.59|0.0005
90955085|NCT00969709|181789286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-1.41||||0.1687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.42|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures.||||0.60|-3.42|0.1687
90955086|NCT00969709|181789286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean difference|-2.51||||0.0151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.54|-0.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures.||||-0.49|-4.54|0.0151
90955087|NCT00969709|181789286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-2.57||||0.0141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.62|-0.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures.||||-0.52|-4.62|0.0141
90955088|NCT02516332|181789287|OTHER|||||||0.038|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.038
90955089|NCT02516332|181789287|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.002
90955090|NCT02516332|181789292|OTHER|||||||0.011|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.011
90955091|NCT02516332|181789292|OTHER|||||||0.036|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.036
90955092|NCT02217332|181789308|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test comparing baseline to month 6 on log scale within the dexpramipexole treatment group.||Null hypothesis is the ratio of Month 6 to Baseline within the dexpramipexole group equals '1'.||||< 0.001
90955093|NCT02217332|181789309|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.885||||||Month 6/LOCF was used for the analysis of change from Baseline to Month 6 within the dexpramipexole group.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.885
90955094|NCT02217332|181789313|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test comparing baseline to month 3 on log scale within the dexpramipexole treatment group.||Null hypothesis is the ratio of Month 3 to Baseline within the dexpramipexole group equals '1'.||||<.001
90955095|NCT02217332|181789314|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Month 3/LOCF was used for the analysis of change from Baseline to Month 3 within the dexpramipexole group.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test comparing baseline to month 3 within the dexpramipexole treatment group||||||1.0
90955096|NCT02217332|181789315|SUPERIORITY||log scale|||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test (paired)|||Null hypothesis is the ratio of Month 6 to Baseline within the dexpramipexole group equals '1'; 68% confidence interval is equal to plus/minus 1 standard error||||0.001
90955097|NCT03828747|181789328|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.849||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.56|-1.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from Baseline at Week 49||-1.21|-4.56|0.0008
90955098|NCT03828747|181789328|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.287||0.0351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.31|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from Baseline at Week 61||-0.20|-5.31|0.0351
90955099|NCT03828747|181789329|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.295||0.5207||95.0|-3.39|1.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from Baseline at Week 49||1.72|-3.39|0.5207
90955100|NCT03828747|181789329|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.911||0.3704||95.0|-5.5|2.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from Baseline at Week 61||2.07|-5.50|0.3704
90955101|NCT03828747|181789330|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.282||0.3501||95.0|-0.29|0.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from Baseline at Week 49||0.82|-0.29|0.3501
90955102|NCT03828747|181789330|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.525||0.7431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|1.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from Baseline at Week 61||1.22|-0.87|0.7431
90955103|NCT03828747|181789331|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.429||0.5366||95.0|-0.58|1.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from Baseline at Week 49||1.11|-0.58|0.5366
90955104|NCT03828747|181789331|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.618||0.0851||95.0|-0.15|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from Baseline at Week 61||2.30|-0.15|0.0851
90955105|NCT04187989|181789359|OTHER|Two-sided test of the null hypothesis of no difference between groups|Cohen's D|-0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.239||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.478|0.466|||t-test, 2 sided|The p-value is for the coefficient of the treatment/control indicator in the above mixed model|The effect size used is the adjusted Cohen's D, calculated from the coefficient for treatment group in the mixed model, divided by total pooled SD (the square root of the sum of the residual variance+the variance of the group-level random effects).|We fixed linear mixed effects models adjusted for baseline values, balancing factors (age, sex, recreational cannabis), and included a random intercept for group because this is an individually randomized group treatment trial. We tested for treatment effects with a two-sided test of the coefficient for the treatment/control indicator, and estimated Cohen's D (mean difference between the 2 groups at follow-up divided by the total variation not captured by the fixed effects) along with 95% CIs.||.466|-.478|.980
90955106|NCT04187989|181789360|OTHER|Two-sided test of the null hypothesis of no difference between groups|Cohen's D|0.265|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.092|0.621||The p-value is for the coefficient of the treatment/control indicator in the above mixed model|t-test, 2 sided||The effect size used is the adjusted Cohen's D, calculated from the coefficient for treatment group in the mixed model, divided by total pooled SD (the square root of the sum of the residual variance+the variance of the group-level random effects).|We fixed linear mixed effects models adjusted for baseline values, balancing factors (age, sex, recreational cannabis), and included a random intercept for group because this is an individually randomized group treatment trial. We tested for treatment effects with a two-sided test of the coefficient for the treatment/control indicator, and estimated Cohen's D (mean difference between the 2 groups at follow-up divided by the total variation not captured by the fixed effects) along with 95% CIs.||.621|-.092|.140
90955107|NCT04187989|181789362|OTHER|Two-sided test of the null hypothesis of no difference between groups|Cohen's D|0.064|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.181||0.724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.294|0.421||Two-sided test of the null hypothesis of no difference between groups|t-test, 2 sided|The p-value is for the coefficient of the treatment/control indicator in the above mixed model|The effect size used is the adjusted Cohen's D, calculated from the coefficient for treatment group in the mixed model, divided by total pooled SD (the square root of the sum of the residual variance+the variance of the group-level random effects).|We fixed linear mixed effects models adjusted for baseline values, balancing factors (age, sex, recreational cannabis), and included a random intercept for group because this is an individually randomized group treatment trial. We tested for treatment effects with a two-sided test of the coefficient for the treatment/control indicator, and estimated Cohen's D (mean difference between the 2 groups at follow-up divided by the total variation not captured by the fixed effects) along with 95% CIs.||.421|-.294|.724
90955108|NCT04187989|181789363|OTHER|Two-sided test of the null hypothesis of no difference between groups|Cohen's D|-0.078|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.175||0.656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.425|0.269|||t-test, 2 sided|The p-value is for the coefficient of the treatment/control indicator in the above mixed model|The effect size used is the adjusted Cohen's D, calculated from the coefficient for treatment group in the mixed model, divided by total pooled SD (the square root of the sum of the residual variance+the variance of the group-level random effects).|We fixed linear mixed effects models adjusted for baseline values, balancing factors (age, sex, recreational cannabis), and included a random intercept for group because this is an individually randomized group treatment trial. We tested for treatment effects with a two-sided test of the coefficient for the treatment/control indicator, and estimated Cohen's D (mean difference between the 2 groups at follow-up divided by the total variation not captured by the fixed effects) along with 95% CIs.||.269|-.425|.656
90955109|NCT04187989|181789364|OTHER|Two-sided test of the null hypothesis of no difference between groups|Cohen's D|-0.339|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.205||0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.746|0.067||The p-value is for the coefficient of the treatment/control indicator in the above mixed model|t-test, 2 sided||The effect size used is the adjusted Cohen's D, calculated from the coefficient for treatment group in the mixed model, divided by total pooled SD (the square root of the sum of the residual variance+the variance of the group-level random effects).|||0.067|-.746|.158
90955110|NCT04187989|181789365|OTHER|Two-sided test of the null hypothesis of no difference between groups|Cohen's D|0.143|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.178||0.422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.495|||t-test, 2 sided|The p-value is for the coefficient of the treatment/control indicator in the above mixed model|The effect size used is the adjusted Cohen's D, calculated from the coefficient for treatment group in the mixed model, divided by total pooled SD (the square root of the sum of the residual variance+the variance of the group-level random effects).|We fixed linear mixed effects models adjusted for baseline values, balancing factors (age, sex, recreational cannabis), and included a random intercept for group because this is an individually randomized group treatment trial. We tested for treatment effects with a two-sided test of the coefficient for the treatment/control indicator, and estimated Cohen's D (mean difference between the 2 groups at follow-up divided by the total variation not captured by the fixed effects) along with 95% CIs.||.495|-.210|.422
90955111|NCT04187989|181789366|OTHER|Two-sided test of the null hypothesis of no difference between groups|Cohen's D|0.027|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.179||0.882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.328|0.381|||t-test, 2 sided||The effect size used is the adjusted Cohen's D, calculated from the coefficient for treatment group in the mixed model, divided by total pooled SD (the square root of the sum of the residual variance+the variance of the group-level random effects).|We fixed linear mixed effects models adjusted for baseline values, balancing factors (age, sex, recreational cannabis), and included a random intercept for group because this is an individually randomized group treatment trial. We tested for treatment effects with a two-sided test of the coefficient for the treatment/control indicator, and estimated Cohen's D (mean difference between the 2 groups at follow-up divided by the total variation not captured by the fixed effects) along with 95% CIs||.381|-.328|.882
90955112|NCT04187989|181789367|OTHER|Two-sided test of the null hypothesis of no difference between groups|Cohen's D|-0.197|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.268||0.497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.728|0.334||The p-value is for the coefficient of the treatment/control indicator in the above mixed model|t-test, 2 sided||The effect size used is the adjusted Cohen's D, calculated from the coefficient for treatment group in the mixed model, divided by total pooled SD (the square root of the sum of the residual variance+the variance of the group-level random effects).|We fixed linear mixed effects models adjusted for baseline values, balancing factors (age, sex, recreational cannabis), and included a random intercept for group because this is an individually randomized group treatment trial. We tested for treatment effects with a two-sided test of the coefficient for the treatment/control indicator, and estimated Cohen's D (mean difference between the 2 groups at follow-up divided by the total variation not captured by the fixed effects) along with 95% CIs.||.334|-.728|.497
90955113|NCT04187989|181789368|OTHER|Two-sided test of the null hypothesis of no difference between groups|Cohen's D|-0.042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.398|0.313||The p-value is for the coefficient of the treatment/control indicator in the above mixed model|t-test, 2 sided||The effect size used is the adjusted Cohen's D, calculated from the coefficient for treatment group in the mixed model, divided by total pooled SD (the square root of the sum of the residual variance+the variance of the group-level random effects).|We fixed linear mixed effects models adjusted for baseline values, balancing factors (age, sex, recreational cannabis), and included a random intercept for group because this is an individually randomized group treatment trial. We tested for treatment effects with a two-sided test of the coefficient for the treatment/control indicator, and estimated Cohen's D (mean difference between the 2 groups at follow-up divided by the total variation not captured by the fixed effects) along with 95% CIs.||.313|-.398|.813
90955114|NCT04187989|181789369|OTHER|Two-sided test of the null hypothesis of no difference between groups|Cohen's D|-0.034|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.176||0.849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.381|0.314||The p-value is for the coefficient of the treatment/control indicator in the above mixed model|t-test, 2 sided||The effect size used is the adjusted Cohen's D, calculated from the coefficient for treatment group in the mixed model, divided by total pooled SD (the square root of the sum of the residual variance+the variance of the group-level random effects).|We fixed linear mixed effects models adjusted for baseline values, balancing factors (age, sex, recreational cannabis), and included a random intercept for group because this is an individually randomized group treatment trial. We tested for treatment effects with a two-sided test of the coefficient for the treatment/control indicator, and estimated Cohen's D (mean difference between the 2 groups at follow-up divided by the total variation not captured by the fixed effects) along with 95% CIs.||.314|-.381|.849
90955115|NCT04187989|181789370|OTHER|Two-sided test of the null hypothesis of no difference between groups|Cohen's D|-0.118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.247||0.667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.607|0.371||The p-value is for the coefficient of the treatment/control indicator in the above mixed model|t-test, 2 sided||The effect size used is the adjusted Cohen's D, calculated from the coefficient for treatment group in the mixed model, divided by total pooled SD (the square root of the sum of the residual variance+the variance of the group-level random effects|We fixed linear mixed effects models adjusted for baseline values, balancing factors (age, sex, recreational cannabis), and included a random intercept for group because this is an individually randomized group treatment trial. We tested for treatment effects with a two-sided test of the coefficient for the treatment/control indicator, and estimated Cohen's D (mean difference between the 2 groups at follow-up divided by the total variation not captured by the fixed effects) along with 95% CIs.||.371|-.607|.667
90955116|NCT04187989|181789371|OTHER|Two-sided test of the null hypothesis of no difference between groups|Cohen's D|-0.342|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.175||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.689|0.005|||t-test, 2 sided|The p-value is for the coefficient of the treatment/control indicator in the above mixed model|The effect size used is the adjusted Cohen's D, calculated from the coefficient for treatment group in the mixed model, divided by total pooled SD (the square root of the sum of the residual variance+the variance of the group-level random effects|We fixed linear mixed effects models adjusted for baseline values, balancing factors (age, sex, recreational cannabis), and included a random intercept for group because this is an individually randomized group treatment trial. We tested for treatment effects with a two-sided test of the coefficient for the treatment/control indicator, and estimated Cohen's D (mean difference between the 2 groups at follow-up divided by the total variation not captured by the fixed effects) along with 95% CIs||.005|-.689|.051
90955117|NCT04187989|181789372|OTHER|Two-sided test of the null hypothesis of no difference between groups|Cohen's D|-0.064|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.176||0.714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.412|0.284|||t-test, 2 sided|The p-value is for the coefficient of the treatment/control indicator in the above mixed model||We fixed linear mixed effects models adjusted for baseline values, balancing factors (age, sex, recreational cannabis), and included a random intercept for group because this is an individually randomized group treatment trial. We tested for treatment effects with a two-sided test of the coefficient for the treatment/control indicator, and estimated Cohen's D (mean difference between the 2 groups at follow-up divided by the total variation not captured by the fixed effects) along with 95% CIs.|The effect size used is the adjusted Cohen's D, calculated from the coefficient for treatment group in the mixed model, divided by total pooled SD (the square root of the sum of the residual variance+the variance of the group-level random effects).|.284|-.412|.714
90959056|NCT01620255|181798207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.71|-0.322|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 22.5 mg vs placebo, Rectal Bleeding, W4||-0.322|-0.710|<0.0001
90955118|NCT04187989|181789373|OTHER|Two-sided test of the null hypothesis of no difference between groups|Cohen's D|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.212||0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.531|0.311|||t-test, 2 sided|The p-value is for the coefficient of the treatment/control indicator in the above mixed model|The effect size used is the adjusted Cohen's D, calculated from the coefficient for treatment group in the mixed model, divided by total pooled SD (the square root of the sum of the residual variance+the variance of the group-level random effects).|: We fixed linear mixed effects models adjusted for baseline values, balancing factors (age, sex, recreational cannabis), and included a random intercept for group because this is an individually randomized group treatment trial. We tested for treatment effects with a two-sided test of the coefficient for the treatment/control indicator, and estimated Cohen's D (mean difference between the 2 groups at follow-up divided by the total variation not captured by the fixed effects) along with 95% CIs.||.311|-.531|.603
90955119|NCT04187989|181789374|OTHER|Two-sided test of the null hypothesis of no difference between groups|Cohen's D|0.162|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.219||0.457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.273|0.597|||Cohen's D|The p-value is for the coefficient of the treatment/control indicator in the above mixed model|The effect size used is the adjusted Cohen's D, calculated from the coefficient for treatment group in the mixed model, divided by total pooled SD (the square root of the sum of the residual variance+the variance of the group-level random effects)|We fixed linear mixed effects models adjusted for baseline values, balancing factors (age, sex, recreational cannabis), and included a random intercept for group because this is an individually randomized group treatment trial. We tested for treatment effects with a two-sided test of the coefficient for the treatment/control indicator, and estimated Cohen's D (mean difference between the 2 groups at follow-up divided by the total variation not captured by the fixed effects) along with 95% CIs.||.597|-.273|.457
90955120|NCT04187989|181789375|OTHER|Two-sided test of the null hypothesis of no difference between groups|Cohen's D|-0.265|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.212||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.686|0.156|||t-test, 2 sided|The p-value is for the coefficient of the treatment/control indicator in the above mixed model|The effect size used is the adjusted Cohen's D, calculated from the coefficient for treatment group in the mixed model, divided by total pooled SD (the square root of the sum of the residual variance+the variance of the group-level random effects).|We fixed linear mixed effects models adjusted for baseline values, balancing factors (age, sex, recreational cannabis), and included a random intercept for group because this is an individually randomized group treatment trial. We tested for treatment effects with a two-sided test of the coefficient for the treatment/control indicator, and estimated Cohen's D (mean difference between the 2 groups at follow-up divided by the total variation not captured by the fixed effects) along with 95% CIs.||.156|-.686|.209
90955121|NCT04187989|181789376|OTHER|Two-sided test of the null hypothesis of no difference between groups|Cohen's D|-0.107|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.219||0.623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.541|0.328|||t-test, 2 sided|The p-value is for the coefficient of the treatment/control indicator in the above mixed model|The effect size used is the adjusted Cohen's D, calculated from the coefficient for treatment group in the mixed model, divided by total pooled SD (the square root of the sum of the residual variance+the variance of the group-level random effects)|We fixed linear mixed effects models adjusted for baseline values, balancing factors (age, sex, recreational cannabis), and included a random intercept for group because this is an individually randomized group treatment trial. We tested for treatment effects with a two-sided test of the coefficient for the treatment/control indicator, and estimated Cohen's D (mean difference between the 2 groups at follow-up divided by the total variation not captured by the fixed effects) along with 95% CIs.||.328|-.541|.623
90955122|NCT02245737|181789384|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.447|0.594|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.594|-2.447|0.232
90955123|NCT02245737|181789384|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.124|1.947|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.947|-1.124|0.599
90955124|NCT02245737|181789385|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.609|1.669|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.669|-1.609|0.971
90955125|NCT02245737|181789385|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|1.743|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.743|-1.580|0.923
90955126|NCT02245737|181789386|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.172|0.899|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.899|-1.172|0.796
90955127|NCT02245737|181789386|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.437|1.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.660|-0.437|0.252
90955128|NCT02245737|181789387|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.637|3.852|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.852|-1.637|0.428
90955129|NCT02245737|181789387|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.42||0.926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.918|2.655|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.655|-2.918|0.926
90955130|NCT02245737|181789388|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.322|0.622|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.622|-0.322|0.533
90955131|NCT02245737|181789388|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.328|0.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.630|-0.328|0.537
90955132|NCT02245737|181789390|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.13||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.441|3.986|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.986|-0.441|0.116
90955133|NCT02245737|181789390|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15||0.208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.808|3.704|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.704|-0.808|0.208
90955134|NCT02245737|181789391|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.391|1.027|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.027|-0.391|0.379
90955135|NCT02245737|181789391|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.714|0.721|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.721|-0.714|0.992
90955136|NCT02245737|181789392|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-51.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.89|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.963|-45.578|||ANCOVA|||||-45.578|-56.963|<0.001
90955137|NCT02245737|181789392|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-65.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.77|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.947|-60.022|||ANCOVA|||||-60.022|-70.947|<0.001
90955138|NCT02245737|181789393|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-57.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.47|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.865|-53.108|||ANCOVA|||||-53.108|-62.865|<0.001
90955139|NCT02245737|181789393|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-73.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.37|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.926|-68.575|||ANCOVA|||||-68.575|-77.926|<0.001
90955140|NCT02245737|181789394|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.33||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.21|2.464|||ANCOVA|||||2.464|-42.210|0.081
90955141|NCT02245737|181789394|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.78||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.555|5.938|||ANCOVA|||||5.938|-36.555|0.157
90955142|NCT02245737|181789395|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.33||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.243|-0.002|||ANCOVA|||||-0.002|-5.243|0.050
90955143|NCT02245737|181789395|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.27||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.618|0.373|||ANCOVA|||||0.373|-4.618|0.095
90955144|NCT02245737|181789396|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.785|-8.574|||ANCOVA|||||-8.574|-18.785|<0.001
90955145|NCT02245737|181789396|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.66|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.887|-12.428|||ANCOVA|||||-12.428|-22.887|<0.001
90955146|NCT02245737|181789397|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.033|0.014|||ANCOVA|||||0.014|-0.033|0.426
90955147|NCT02245737|181789397|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.029|0.018|||ANCOVA|||||0.018|-0.029|0.660
90955148|NCT02245737|181789398|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.015|0.003|||ANCOVA|||||0.003|-0.015|0.210
90955149|NCT02245737|181789398|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0.568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.013|0.007|||ANCOVA|||||0.007|-0.013|0.568
90955150|NCT02245737|181789399|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.258|-1.413|||ANCOVA|||||-1.413|-3.258|<0.001
90955151|NCT02245737|181789399|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.118|-2.247|||ANCOVA|||||-2.247|-4.118|<0.001
90955152|NCT01639560|181789413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|18.1|||Regression, Logistic|||||18.1|2.5|<0.001
90955153|NCT01639560|181789414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.33||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|24.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||24.0|2.2|0.001
90955154|NCT01639560|181789415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.5||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|6.3|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.3|1.0|0.047
90955155|NCT01639560|181789416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.0||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|16.5|||Regression, Logistic|||||16.5|1.5|0.009
90955156|NCT00774930|181789434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0165|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|This analysis does not include any imputation for the early roll over subjects||||||0.0165
90955157|NCT00774930|181789435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2544|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment group and 2 stratification variables at randomisation as factors and average frequency of diarrhoea per day during Screening||||||0.2544
90955158|NCT03292432|181789484|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.5||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.8|15.2|||Fisher Exact||Risk difference reflects percentage of participants achieving HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL in TERA arm minus SOC arm|||15.2|-21.8|0.80
90955159|NCT03292432|181789485|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.7|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.9|19.6|||Fisher Exact||Risk difference reflects percentage of participants achieving HIV-1 RNA \< 200 copies/ml in TERA arm minus SOC arm|||19.6|-20.9|>0.99
90955160|NCT03292432|181789486|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-13.1||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.1|7.2|||Fisher Exact||Risk difference reflects percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL at Week 24 in TERA arm minus SOC arm|Comparison of percentages at Week 24||7.2|-32.1|0.24
90955161|NCT03292432|181789486|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.8||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|22.6|||Fisher Exact||Risk difference reflects percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL at Week 36 in TERA arm minus SOC arm|Comparison of percentages at Week 36||22.6|-16.0|0.76
90955162|NCT03292432|181789486|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.6|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.8|27.4|||Fisher Exact||Risk difference reflects percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL at Week 48 in TERA arm minus SOC arm|Comparison of percentages at Week 48||27.4|-21.8|>0.99
90955163|NCT03292432|181789487|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-13.0||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.7|7.3|||Fisher Exact||Risk difference reflects percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 200 copies/mL at Week 24 in TERA arm minus SOC arm|Comparison of percentages at Week 24||7.3|-32.7|0.26
90955164|NCT03292432|181789487|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.5||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|32.8|||Fisher Exact||Risk difference reflects percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 200 copies/mL at Week 36 in TERA arm minus SOC arm|Comparison of percentages at Week 36||32.8|-11.2|0.42
90955165|NCT03292432|181789487|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.4||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.5|20.7|||Fisher Exact||Risk difference reflects percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 200 copies/mL at Week 48 in TERA arm minus SOC arm|Comparison of percentages at Week 48||20.7|-29.5|0.77
90955166|NCT03292432|181789488|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.8||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|25.3|||Fisher Exact||Risk difference reflects percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 200 copies/mL at Week 12 and maintained to Week 48 in TERA arm minus SOC arm|||25.3|-14.6|0.67
90955167|NCT03292432|181789489|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of percentages of doses taken from Weeks 0 -12||||<0.001
90955168|NCT03292432|181789489|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of percentage of doses taken from Weeks \>12 to 24||||<0.001
90955169|NCT03292432|181789489|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of percentage of doses taken from Weeks \>24 to 36||||0.06
90955170|NCT03292432|181789489|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of percentage of doses taken from Weeks \>36 to 48||||0.50
90955171|NCT03292432|181789490|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of percentage of doses taken on time from Weeks 0 - 12||||<0.001
90955172|NCT03292432|181789490|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of percentage of doses taken on time from Weeks \>12 - 24||||<0.001
90955173|NCT03292432|181789490|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||p-value equal to a priori threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of percentages of doses taken on time from Weeks \>24 - 36||||0.05
90955174|NCT03292432|181789490|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of doses taken on time from Weeks \>36 - 48||||0.49
90955175|NCT03292432|181789491|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|3.33|||Chi-squared|Pearson Chi-square test from generalized linear model with Poisson link|Risk ratio for SOC arm relative to TERA arm|Comparison of incidence rates from Weeks 0 - 12||3.33|1.90|<0.001
90955176|NCT03292432|181789491|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|1.89|||Chi-squared|Pearson Chi-square test from generalized linear model with Poisson link|Risk ratio for SOC arm relative to TERA arm|Comparison of incidence rates from Weeks \>12 - 24||1.89|1.29|<0.001
90955177|NCT03292432|181789491|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.23||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.47|||Chi-squared|Pearson Chi-square test from generalized linear model with Poisson link|P-value from Pearson Chi-square test from generalized linear model with Poisson link|Comparison of incidence rates from Weeks \>24 - 36||1.47|1.03|0.020
90955178|NCT03292432|181789491|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.08||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.3|||Chi-squared|Pearson Chi-square test from generalized linear model with Poisson link|Risk ratio for SOC arm relative to TERA arm|Comparison of incidence rates from Weeks \>36 - 48||1.30|0.90|0.39
90955179|NCT03292432|181789492|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.3|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|21.1|||Fisher Exact||Risk difference reflects percentage of participants achieving HIV-1 RNA \< 200 copies/mL in TERA arm minus SOC arm|||21.1|-16.4|>0.99
90955180|NCT03292432|181789493|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.7||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|19.4|||Fisher Exact||Risk difference reflects percentage of participants achieving sustained virologic control in TERA arm minus SOC arm|||19.4|-9.0|0.71
90955181|NCT00911937|181789495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.08||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at alpha = 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||-0.08|-0.37|0.0030
90955182|NCT00911937|181789496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.0772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.01||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at alpha = 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||0.01|-0.27|0.0772
90955183|NCT00911937|181789497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at alpha = 0.05 level.|Ranked ANCOVA|Testing for percent change from baseline was only carried out for given endpoint if corresponding numeric change result was statistically significant.||Change at Week 12: Ranked ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with ranked baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||||0.0001
90955184|NCT00911937|181789499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.0827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.01||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at alpha = 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||0.01|-0.25|0.0827
90955185|NCT00911937|181789499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares mean difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.0112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|-0.04||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at alpha = 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||-0.04|-0.33|0.0112
90955186|NCT00911937|181789500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at alpha = 0.05 level.|Ranked ANCOVA|Testing for percent change from baseline was only carried out for given endpoint if corresponding numeric change result was statistically significant.||Change at Week 12: Ranked ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with ranked baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||||0.0023
90955187|NCT00911937|181789502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.16||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at alpha = 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||-0.16|-0.74|0.0026
90955188|NCT00911937|181789502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.22||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at alpha = 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||-0.22|-0.90|0.0014
90955189|NCT00911937|181789503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at alpha = 0.05 level.|Ranked ANCOVA|Testing for percent change from baseline was only carried out for given endpoint if corresponding numeric change result was statistically significant.||Change at Week 4: Ranked ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with ranked baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||||0.0016
90955190|NCT00911937|181789503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at alpha = 0.05 level.|Ranked ANCOVA|Testing for percent change from baseline was only carried out for given endpoint if corresponding numeric change result was statistically significant.||Change at Week 12: Ranked ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with ranked baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||||0.0004
90955191|NCT00911937|181789505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.16||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at alpha = 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||-0.16|-1.03|0.0072
90955192|NCT00911937|181789505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|-0.32||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at alpha = 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||-0.32|-1.25|0.0009
90955193|NCT00911937|181789506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at alpha = 0.05 level.|Ranked ANCOVA|Testing for percent change from baseline was only carried out for given endpoint if corresponding numeric change result was statistically significant.||Change at Week 4: Ranked ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with ranked baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||||0.0041
90955194|NCT00911937|181789506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at alpha = 0.05 level.|Ranked ANCOVA|Testing for percent change from baseline was only carried out for given endpoint if corresponding numeric change result was statistically significant.||Change at Week 4: Ranked ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with ranked baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||||<0.0001
90955195|NCT00911937|181789508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.3954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.19||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at alpha = 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||0.19|-0.47|0.3954
90955196|NCT00911937|181789508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.2166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.11||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at alpha = 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||0.11|-0.48|0.2166
90955197|NCT00911937|181789511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.1018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.08||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at alpha = 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||0.08|-0.85|0.1018
90955198|NCT00911937|181789511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.25||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at alpha = 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||-0.25|-1.20|0.0027
90955199|NCT00911937|181789513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-1.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.0131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.79|-0.33||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at alpha = 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||-0.33|-2.79|0.0131
90955200|NCT00911937|181789513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-2.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.78|-1.08||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at alpha = 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||-1.08|-3.78|0.0004
90955201|NCT00911937|181789515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|1.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.2||0.8547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.82|15.46||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at alpha = 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||15.46|-12.82|0.8547
90955202|NCT00911937|181789517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.22||0.8396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.14|7.44||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at alpha = 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||7.44|-9.14|0.8396
90955203|NCT00911937|181789519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-4.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.84|-1.89||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at alpha = 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||-1.89|-6.84|0.0006
90955204|NCT00911937|181789521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|3.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.34||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|6.05||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at alpha = 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Concern domain- ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||6.05|0.79|0.0110
90955205|NCT00911937|181789521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|3.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.35||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|5.79||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at alpha = 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Coping domain- ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||5.79|0.50|0.0200
90955206|NCT00911937|181789521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|3.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.51||0.0218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|6.45||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at alpha = 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Sleep domain- ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||6.45|0.51|0.0218
90955207|NCT00911937|181789521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|1.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93||0.0458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|3.68||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at alpha = 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Social interaction domain- ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||3.68|0.03|0.0458
90955208|NCT00911937|181789521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|3.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|5.32||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at alpha = 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Total- ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||5.32|0.72|0.0100
90955209|NCT01498679|181789522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|51.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.2|59.7|||ANCOVA|||||59.7|42.2|<0.001
90955210|NCT00700427|181789527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.001
90955211|NCT00700427|181789529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.002
90955212|NCT00700427|181789530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for ADHD Imputed (Attributed) Index Score.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90955213|NCT00700427|181789530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-value for Hyperactivity/Impulsivity Subscale Imputed Score.|ANCOVA|||||||0.002
90955214|NCT00700427|181789530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0||||P-value for Inattention Subscale Imputed Score.|ANCOVA|||||||0.009
90955215|NCT00700427|181789530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||P-value for Total ADHD Symptom Imputed Score.|ANCOVA|||||||0.003
90955216|NCT00700427|181789531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for ADHD Imputed (Attributed) Index Score.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90955217|NCT00700427|181789531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Hyperactivity/Impulsivity Subscale Imputed Score.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90955218|NCT00700427|181789531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Inattention Subscale Imputed Score.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90955219|NCT00700427|181789531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Total ADHD Symptom Imputed Score.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90955220|NCT00700427|181789532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.006
90955221|NCT00700427|181789533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.006
90955222|NCT00355199|181789548|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.48|||Regression, Cox||HR refers to R-HDS (R-CHOP is the reference level)|||1.48|0.66|<0.05
90955223|NCT00355199|181789550|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.21|||Regression, Cox||HR refers to R-HDS (R-CHOP is the reference level)|||1.21|0.29|<0.05
90955224|NCT00355199|181789551|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.52|||Regression, Cox||HR refers to R-HDS (R-CHOP is the reference level)|||1.52|0.57|<0.05
90955225|NCT02071290|181789556|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.56
90955226|NCT02071290|181789557|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.287|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.287
90955227|NCT02071290|181789558|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.597|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.597
90955228|NCT02071290|181789559|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.307|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.307
90955229|NCT02071290|181789560|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.646|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.646
90955230|NCT02071290|181789561|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.757|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.757
90955231|NCT02071290|181789562|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.075|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.075
90955232|NCT02071290|181789563|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.967|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.967
90955233|NCT02071290|181789564|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.637|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.637
90955234|NCT02071290|181789565|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.664|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.664
90955235|NCT02071290|181789566|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.661|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.661
90955236|NCT02071290|181789567|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.916|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.916
90955237|NCT02071290|181789568|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.437|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.437
90955238|NCT02071290|181789569|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.353|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.353
90955239|NCT02071290|181789570|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.99
90955240|NCT02071290|181789571|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.085|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.085
90955241|NCT02071290|181789572|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.371|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.371
90955242|NCT02071290|181789573|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.106|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.106
90955243|NCT02071290|181789574|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.829|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.829
90955244|NCT02071290|181789575|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.323|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.323
90955245|NCT02071290|181789576|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.287|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.287
90955246|NCT02071290|181789577|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.151|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.151
90955247|NCT02071290|181789578|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.510
90955248|NCT02071290|181789579|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.348|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.348
90955249|NCT02071290|181789580|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.911|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.911
90955250|NCT05126563|181789581|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|0.054|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.738||0.9416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|1.53|||ANCOVA||The value described represents the difference value of the mean change from baseline between HB-adMSC and Placebo groups|The null hypothesis is that the difference in change from baseline to Weeks 26 in Visual Analog Scale of Neurological Symptoms - Extreme fatigue scale score between treatment groups (HB-adMSCs - Placebo) is equal to zero.||1.53|-1.42|0.9416
90955251|NCT05126563|181789582|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-0.172|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.685||0.8021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|1.2|||ANCOVA||The value described represents the difference value of the mean change from baseline between HB-adMSC and Placebo groups|The null hypothesis is that the difference in change from baseline to Weeks 26 in Visual Analog Scale of Neurological Symptoms - Brain fog scale score between treatment groups (HB-adMSCs - Placebo) is equal to zero.||1.20|-1.54|0.8021
90955252|NCT05126563|181789583|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|0.399|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.515||0.4417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|1.43|||ANCOVA||The value described represents the difference value of the mean change from baseline between HB-adMSC and Placebo groups|The null hypothesis is that the difference in change from baseline to Weeks 26 in Visual Analog Scale of Neurological Symptoms. - Headache scale score between treatment groups (HB-adMSCs - Placebo) is equal to zero.||1.43|-0.63|0.4417
90955253|NCT05126563|181789584|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.542|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.721||0.455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.98|||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis is that the difference in change from baseline to Weeks 26 in Visual Analog Scale of Neurological Symptoms - Sleep disturbances scale score between treatment groups (HB-adMSCs - Placebo) is equal to zero.||1.98|-0.90|0.4550
90955254|NCT05126563|181789585|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-0.047|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.466||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.89|||ANCOVA||The value described represents the difference value of the mean change from baseline between HB-adMSC and Placebo groups|The null hypothesis is that the difference in change from baseline to Weeks 26 in Visual Analog Scale of Neurological Symptoms - Loss of taste scale score between treatment groups (HB-adMSCs - Placebo) is equal to zero.||0.89|-0.98|0.9200
90955255|NCT05126563|181789586|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.6589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.56|||ANCOVA||The value described represents the difference value of the mean change from baseline between HB-adMSC and Placebo groups|The null hypothesis is that the difference in change from baseline to Weeks 26 in PHQ-9 scale score between treatment groups (HB-adMSCs - Placebo) is equal to zero.||0.56|-0.88|0.6589
90955256|NCT05126563|181789587|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|0.162|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.725||0.824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|1.61|||RMA||The value described represents the difference value of the mean change from baseline between HB-adMSC and Placebo groups|The null hypothesis is that the difference in change from baseline to Weeks 26 in Visual Analog Scale of Neurological Symptoms Extreme Fatigue scale score between treatment groups (HB-adMSCs - Placebo) is equal to zero.||1.61|-1.29|0.8240
90959057|NCT01620255|181798207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.686|-0.295|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 75 mg vs placebo, Rectal Bleeding, W4||-0.295|-0.686|<0.0001
90955257|NCT05126563|181789588|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-0.009|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.686||0.9892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|1.36|||RMA||The value described represents the difference value of the mean change from baseline between HB-adMSC and Placebo groups|The null hypothesis is that the difference in change from baseline to Weeks 26 in Visual Analog Scale of Neurological Symptoms - Brain Fog scale score between treatment groups (HB-adMSCs - Placebo) is equal to zero.||1.36|-1.38|0.9892
90955258|NCT05126563|181789589|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|0.439|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.513||0.3952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|1.47|||RMA||The value described represents the difference value of the mean change from baseline between HB-adMSC and Placebo groups|The null hypothesis is that the difference in change from baseline to Weeks 26 in Visual Analog Scale of Neurological Symptoms - Headache scale score between treatment groups (HB-adMSCs - Placebo) is equal to zero.||1.47|-0.59|0.3952
90955259|NCT05126563|181789590|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|0.535|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.704||0.4504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|1.94|||RMA||The value described represents the difference value of the mean change from baseline between HB-adMSC and Placebo groups|The null hypothesis is that the difference in change from baseline to Weeks 26 in Visual Analog Scale of Neurological Symptoms - Sleep Disturbances scale score between treatment groups (HB-adMSCs - Placebo) is equal to zero.||1.94|-0.87|0.4504
90955260|NCT05126563|181789591|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-0.161|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.469||0.7318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.78|||RMA||The value described represents the difference value of the mean change from baseline between HB-adMSC and Placebo groups|The null hypothesis is that the difference in change from baseline to Weeks 26 in Visual Analog Scale of Neurological Symptoms - Loss of Taste scale score between treatment groups (HB-adMSCs - Placebo) is equal to zero.||0.78|-1.10|0.7318
90955261|NCT05126563|181789592|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-0.215|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.357||0.5485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.5|||RMA||The value described represents the difference value of the mean change from baseline between HB-adMSC and Placebo groups|The null hypothesis is that the difference in change from baseline to Weeks 26 in Visual Analog Scale of Neurological Symptoms - Loss of Smell scale score between treatment groups (HB-adMSCs - Placebo) is equal to zero.||0.50|-0.93|0.5485
90955262|NCT05126563|181789623|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-0.377|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.407||0.3577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|0.44|||ANCOVA||The value described represents the difference value of the mean change from baseline between HB-adMSC and Placebo groups|The null hypothesis is that the difference in change from baseline to Weeks 26 in Visual Analog Scale of Non-Neurological Symptoms. - Dyspnea at rest scale score between treatment groups (HB-adMSCs - Placebo) is equal to zero.||0.44|-1.19|0.3577
90955263|NCT05126563|181789624|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-0.203|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.563||0.7196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|0.92|||ANCOVA||The value described represents the difference value of the mean change from baseline between HB-adMSC and Placebo groups|The null hypothesis is that the difference in change from baseline to Weeks 26 in Visual Analog Scale of Non-Neurological Symptoms. - Dyspnea during activity scale score between treatment groups (HB-adMSCs - Placebo) is equal to zero.||0.92|-1.33|0.7196
90955264|NCT05126563|181789625|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-0.306|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.435||0.4847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|0.56|||ANCOVA||The value described represents the difference value of the mean change from baseline between HB-adMSC and Placebo groups|The null hypothesis is that the difference in change from baseline to Weeks 26 in Visual Analog Scale of Non-Neurological Symptoms. - Cough scale score between treatment groups (HB-adMSCs - Placebo) is equal to zero.||0.56|-1.18|0.4847
90955265|NCT05126563|181789626|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|0.619|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.661||0.3535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|1.94|||ANCOVA||The value described represents the difference value of the mean change from baseline between HB-adMSC and Placebo groups|The null hypothesis is that the difference in change from baseline to Weeks 26 in Visual Analog Scale of Non-Neurological Symptoms. - Body aches scale score between treatment groups (HB-adMSCs - Placebo) is equal to zero.||1.94|-0.71|0.3535
90955266|NCT05126563|181789627|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|0.472|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.655||0.4746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|1.78|||ANCOVA||The value described represents the difference value of the mean change from baseline between HB-adMSC and Placebo groups|The null hypothesis is that the difference in change from baseline to Weeks 26 in Visual Analog Scale of Non-Neurological Symptoms. - Joint Pain scale score between treatment groups (HB-adMSCs - Placebo) is equal to zero.||1.78|-0.84|0.4746
90955267|NCT05126563|181789628|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-1.433|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.141||0.5059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.72|2.85|||ANCOVA||The value described represents the difference value of the mean change from baseline between HB-adMSC and Placebo groups|The null hypothesis is that the difference in change from baseline to Weeks 26 in Subject's energy - Fatigue Assessment form scale score between treatment groups (HB-adMSCs - Placebo) is equal to zero.||2.85|-5.72|0.5059
90955268|NCT05126563|181789629|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-6.095|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.99||0.2269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.08|3.89|||ANCOVA||The value described represents the difference value of the mean change from baseline between HB-adMSC and Placebo groups.|The null hypothesis is that the difference in change from baseline to Weeks 26 in Short Form 36 Health Survey Questionnaire (General Health) between treatment groups (HB-adMSCs - Placebo) is equal to zero.||3.89|-16.08|0.2269
90955269|NCT05126563|181789630|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-0.122|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.392||0.8735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.91|2.66|||ANCOVA||The value described represents the difference value of the mean change from baseline between HB-adMSC and Placebo groups|The null hypothesis is that the difference in change from baseline to Weeks 26 in PHQ-9 scale score between treatment groups (HB-adMSCs - Placebo) is equal to zero.||2.66|-2.91|0.8735
90955270|NCT05126563|181789631|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-3.424|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.82||0.4802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.07|6.22|||ANCOVA||The value described represents the difference value of the mean change from baseline between HB-adMSC and Placebo groups|The null hypothesis is that the difference in change from baseline to Weeks 26 in PHQ-9 scale score between treatment groups (HB-adMSCs - Placebo) is equal to zero.||6.22|-13.07|0.4802
90955271|NCT06612255|181789632|OTHER|Ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means with comparison presented as test (powder)/reference (tablet).|Fixed Effect Analysis|51.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|45.71|58.43||||||Results obtained from mixed effects model of natural log transformed pharmacokinetic parameters including terms for regimen, period and sequence fitted as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence fitted as a random effect.||58.43|45.71|
90955272|NCT00964886|181789636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||ANCOVA|||In an intent-to-treat analysis of all randomized participants assigned to experimental drug (desipramine) or active placebo (benztropine) an analysis of variance compared mean Descriptor Differential Scale scores at 12 weeks (or last observation carried forward) adjusted fro mean baseline score ( = ).||||0.7
90955273|NCT00964886|181789637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84|||||||ANCOVA|Means are adjusted for baseline Roland and Morris scores.||In the intent-to-treat sample of all randomized participants assigned to experimental drug (desipramine) or active placebo (benztropine) an analysis of variance (ANOVA) compared mean Roland and Morris scores at 12 weeks adjusted for mean baseline scores.||||0.84
90955274|NCT00964886|181789638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.6
90955275|NCT00964886|181789639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||ANCOVA|||This analysis compares outcomes for participants assigned at baseline to receive cognitive behavioral therapy or not to receive cognitive behavioral therapy (behavioral effect)||||0.8
90955276|NCT01941719|181789641|EQUIVALENCE|This trial aims to show the enhanced education is no better and no worse than the standard education|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1212||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|||||significance level set at 0.05|ANCOVA|At each follow-up point, multivariate ANCOVA models were used to test for significant changes from the baseline||A mixed-effect model with repeated measures is used to compare the difference of group over time.||||0.0770
90955277|NCT01941719|181789642|EQUIVALENCE|This trial aims to show the new treatment is no better and no worse||||||0.6638||||||The threshold of significance level set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.6638
90955278|NCT01941719|181789643|EQUIVALENCE|The test will compare the number of complications between the two groups|||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||< 0.05
90955279|NCT01167452|181789644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.74|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.19||0.0004|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Multivariate adaptive regression spline (MARS) analysis||We conducted a linear regression analysis of the log transformed elimination rate constant vs. the log transformed weight for each participant.||||0.0004
90955280|NCT01167452|181789644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.56|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Multiple Adaptive Regression Spline (MARS)||We conducted a linear regression analysis of the log transformed elimination rate constant vs. the log transformed body mass index for each participant.||||<0.0001
90955281|NCT00858364|181789670|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was declared if the upper confidence limit for the hazard ratio (darbepoetin alfa to placebo) was less than 1.15 using a 1-sided significance level of 0.025.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.01|||||A hazard ratio \< 1.0 indicates a lower risk of death for darbepoetin alfa relative to placebo.|The primary analysis used the Cox Proportional Hazard Model stratified by the randomization stratification factors (geographic region, histology, and screening hemoglobin), with treatment group as the only covariate.||1.01|0.83|
90955282|NCT00858364|181789670|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was declared if the upper confidence limit for the hazard ratio (darbepoetin alfa to placebo) was less than 1.15 using a 1-sided significance level of 0.025.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.0|||||A hazard ratio \< 1.0 indicates a lower risk of death for darbepoetin alfa relative to placebo.|As a sensitivity analysis, an unstratified Cox Proportional Hazard Model with treatment group as the only covariate was conducted.||1.00|0.83|
90955283|NCT00858364|181789670|SUPERIORITY|If non-inferiority was demonstrated for both OS and PFS and superiority was demonstrated for the transfusion endpoint, superiority was then tested for both OS and PFS using the Hochberg procedure to adjust for multiplicity.||||||0.07|||||||Stratified log-rank test|Stratified by the randomization stratification factors (geographic region, histology, screening hemoglobin)||||||0.070
90955284|NCT00858364|181789670|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.047|||||||Log Rank|Unstratified log rank test||||||0.047
90955285|NCT00858364|181789670|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.02||||||To evaluate the potential effect of cross-in (participants in the placebo group who began treatment with an erythropoiesis-stimulating agent (ESA) at any point after randomization), a sensitivity analysis was conducted that included ESA use as a time-dependent covariate in a Cox regression model stratified by the randomization stratification factors (geographic region, histology, and screening hemoglobin).||1.02|0.84|
90955286|NCT00858364|181789671|NON_INFERIORITY|If non-inferiority was declared for OS, non-inferiority would be declared for PFS if the upper confidence limit for the hazard ratio was less than 1.15 using a 1-sided significance level of 0.025.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.04|||||A hazard ratio \< 1.0 indicates a lower risk of death or progression for darbepoetin alfa relative to placebo.|The primary analysis of PFS used a Cox Proportional Hazard Model stratified by the randomization stratification factors (geographic region, histology, and screening hemoglobin), with treatment group as the only covariate.||1.04|0.87|
90955287|NCT00858364|181789671|NON_INFERIORITY|If non-inferiority was declared for OS, non-inferiority would be declared for PFS if the upper confidence limit for the hazard ratio was less than 1.15 using a 1-sided significance level of 0.025.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.04|||||A hazard ratio \< 1.0 indicates a lower risk of death or progression for darbepoetin alfa relative to placebo.|As a sensitivity analysis, an unstratified Cox Proportional Hazard Model with treatment group as the only covariate was conducted.||1.04|0.87|
90955288|NCT00858364|181789671|SUPERIORITY|If non-inferiority was demonstrated for both OS and PFS and superiority was demonstrated for the transfusion endpoint, superiority was then tested for both OS and PFS using the Hochberg procedure to adjust for multiplicity.||||||0.31|||||||Stratified log-rank test|Stratified by the randomization stratification factors (geographic region, histology, screening hemoglobin).||||||0.31
90955289|NCT00858364|181789671|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||Log Rank|Unstratified log rank test||||||0.27
90955290|NCT00858364|181789671|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.05||||||To evaluate the potential effect of cross-in (participants in the placebo group who began treatment with an erythropoiesis-stimulating agent (ESA) at any point after randomization), a sensitivity analysis was conducted that included ESA use as a time-dependent covariate in a Cox regression model stratified by the randomization stratification factors (geographic region, histology, and screening hemoglobin).||1.05|0.88|
90955291|NCT00858364|181789672|SUPERIORITY|If non-inferiority was declared for OS and PFS, superiority would be declared for the transfusion endpoint if the p-value from a two-sided test of significance using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method was less than 0.05 in favor of the darbepoetin alfa group.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.704|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.573|0.864|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||An odds ratio \< 1.0 indicates a lower event rate for darbepoetin alfa relative to placebo.|The primary analysis of the incidence of a transfusion or hemoglobin ≤ 8.0 g/dL from day 29 to EOETP was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method to test for treatment group differences while adjusting for the randomization stratification factors (geographic region, histology, and screening hemoglobin).||0.864|0.573|< 0.001
90955292|NCT00858364|181789672|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.705|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.574|0.866|||Regression, Logistic||An odds ratio \< 1.0 indicates a lower event rate for darbepoetin alfa relative to placebo.|As a sensitivity analysis a logistic regression analysis was conducted, stratified by the randomization stratification factors (geographic region, histology, screening hemoglobin).||0.866|0.574|< 0.001
90955293|NCT00858364|181789674|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.173||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.983|1.401|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method adjusted for the randomization stratification factors (geographic region, histology, screening hemoglobin).|An odds ratio \< 1.0 indicates a lower event rate for darbepoetin alfa relative to placebo.|||1.401|0.983|0.076
90955294|NCT00858364|181789674|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.173||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.982|1.401|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Unstratified analysis||||1.401|0.982|0.078
90955295|NCT00858364|181789676|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.741||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.901|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method adjusted for the randomization stratification factors (geographic region, histology, screening hemoglobin).|An odds ratio \< 1.0 indicates a lower event rate for darbepoetin alfa relative to placebo.|||0.901|0.610|0.003
90955296|NCT00858364|181789676|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.758||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.913|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Unstratified analysis||||0.913|0.630|0.003
90955297|NCT01655693|181789682|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||>|0.991|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Treatment comparison of DT pooled with BCS used non-stratified Log-rank test at significance level p=0.05.|Log Rank|Log rank test is used after checking the proportional hazards (PH) assumption is valid. The Wilcoxon test is used when the PH assumption fails.|The hazard ratio was controlled for the overall type I error rate at 5% (2-sided) corresponding to 95% confidence interval (CI) and type II error rate as 15%.|Initial 24 month assessment: the primary aim was to demonstrate the superiority of DT pooled (20 mg/m2 and 30 mg/m2) compared to BSC treatment and not individual DT groups per protocol. OS was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. The comparison of treatment groups (pooled DT groups versus BSC group) was performed using a non-stratified log-rank test as the primary analysis. The Cox model and Wilcoxon test was used for sensitivity analysis.||||>0.991
90955298|NCT01655693|181789682|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.796|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Treatment comparison of DT pooled with BCS used non-stratified Log-rank test at significance level p=0.05.|Log Rank|Log rank test is used after checking the proportional hazards (PH) assumption is valid. The Wilcoxon test is used when the PH assumption fails.|The hazard ratio was controlled for the overall type I error rate at 5% (2-sided) corresponding to 95% confidence interval (CI) and type II error rate as 15%.|Follow-up 45 month assessment: the primary aim was to demonstrate the superiority of DT pooled (20 mg/m2 and 30 mg/m2) compared to BSC treatment and not individual DT groups per protocol. OS was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. The comparison of treatment groups (pooled DT groups versus BSC group) was performed using a non-stratified log-rank test as the primary analysis. The Cox model and Wilcoxon test was used for sensitivity analysis.||||0.796
90955299|NCT01655693|181789683|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Treatment comparison with BCS using non-stratified Log-rank test at significance level p=0.05.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio for treatment variable was determined by Cox model. The hazard ratio was controlled for the overall type I error rate at 5% (2-sided) and type II error rate as 15%.|PFS was estimated using Kaplan-Meier methods and plotted as curves by treatment group. For comparison between treatment groups (pooled DT 20 mg/m2 and 30 mg/m2 versus BSC) used Log-rank test as primary analysis. Hazard ratio, mean, and mean PFS rate were given with corresponding 95% CI.||||0.7
90955300|NCT01655693|181789684|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Treatment comparison with BCS using Fisher's exact test at significance level p=0.05.|Fisher Exact|||The comparisons between groups (pooled DT 20 mg/m2 and 30mg/m2 versus BSC) used Fisher's exact test.||||1.0
90955301|NCT01163292|181789732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.144||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||Week 0||||0.144
90955302|NCT01163292|181789732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||Week 26||||0.004
90955303|NCT01163292|181789732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||Week 52||||0.006
90955304|NCT01163292|181789733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Week 0||||0.290
90955305|NCT01163292|181789733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Week 26||||1.000
90955306|NCT01163292|181789733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Week 52||||0.001
90955307|NCT01163292|181789734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.335||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||||0.335
90955308|NCT01163292|181789735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.266||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||Week 0||||0.266
90955309|NCT01163292|181789735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||Week 26||||0.440
90955310|NCT01163292|181789735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.609||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||Week 52||||0.609
90955311|NCT02643472|181789746|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||Generalized Estimating Equations|In analyzing predicted means, results of Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) modeling controlled for time from baseline at each assessment.||||||0.73
90955312|NCT02643472|181789747|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Generalized Estimating Equations|In analyzing predicted means, results of Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) modeling controlled for time from baseline at each assessment.||STAI Y-1 data was used in these statistical analyses.||||0.12
90955313|NCT02643472|181789748|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Generalized Estimating Equations|In analyzing predicted means, results of Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) modeling controlled for time from baseline at each assessment.||||||0.03
90955314|NCT02643472|181789751|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Generalized Estimating Equations|In analyzing predicted means, results of Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) modeling controlled for time from baseline at each assessment.||||||0.06
90955315|NCT02643472|181789752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.43
90955316|NCT02643472|181789753|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.64
90955317|NCT02643472|181789754|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.60
90955318|NCT02643472|181789755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Infant development status was evaluated with Bayley subscales. Cognitive subscale.||||0.92
90955319|NCT02643472|181789755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Infant development status was evaluated with Bayley subscales. Language subscale.||||0.58
90955320|NCT02643472|181789755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Infant development status was evaluated with Bayley subscales. Motor subscale.||||0.87
90955321|NCT02310100|181789775|OTHER|This is a one-group comparison to a performance goal.|binomial proportion|0.673||||0.0008|ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.608||||Exact binomial|||H0: PE ≤ 54.9% Ha: PE \> 54.9% Where PE is the primary effectiveness endpoint rate.|||0.608|0.0008
90955322|NCT02310100|181789776|OTHER|One group comparison to a performance goal.|binomial proportion|0.081||||0.0013|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.124|||Exact binomial|||H0: PS ≥ 16.2% Ha: PS \< 16.2% where PS is the primary safety endpoint rate||0.124||0.0013
90955323|NCT00673400|181789777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.134||95.0||||based on 28 pairwise matches|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|matched pair test, two-sided, exact method||Lifestyle (LS)||||0.1340
90955324|NCT00673400|181789777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.088||95.0||||based on 29 matched pairs|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|matched pair test, two-sided, exact method||Coping/behavior (C/B)||||0.088
90955325|NCT00673400|181789777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0012||95.0||||based on 30 matched pairs|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|matched pair test, two-sided, exact method||Depression/self-perception (D/S)||||0.0012
90955326|NCT00673400|181789777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0074||95.0||||based on 30 matched pairs|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|matched pair test, two-sided, exact method||Embarrassment (E)||||0.0074
90955327|NCT00673400|181789780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-07||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|two-sided, paired test, exact method||||||<0.0000001
90955328|NCT00673400|181789780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-07||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|two-sided, paired test, exact method||||||<0.0000001
90955329|NCT00673400|181789780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-07||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|two-sided, paired test, exact method||||||<0.0000001
90955330|NCT00673400|181789781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-07||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|two-sided, paired test, exact method||||||<0.0000001
90955331|NCT00673400|181789781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-07||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|two-sided, paired test, exact method||||||<0.0000001
90955332|NCT00673400|181789781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-07||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|two-sided, paired test, exact method||||||<0.0000001
90955333|NCT00673400|181789782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65||95.0||||based on 28 pairwise matches|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|matched pair test, two-sided, exact method||Physical component summary (PCS)||||0.65
90955334|NCT00673400|181789782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0||||based on 28 pairwise matches|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|matched pair test, two-sided, exact method||Mental component summary (MCS)||||0.010
90955335|NCT01680640|181789783|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.8|=|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Regression, Linear|||A total sample size of 100 participants, with a 14% drop out during the study and 43 participants in each group completing the study provided 85% power to detect a difference of 40% in liver fat (in the treatment arm compared with the placebo), using a power calculation test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level. For change in liver fat percentage (and other secondary outcomes), ANCOVA will also be undertaken to assess effect sizes in the intervention group and placebo.||||=0.05
90955336|NCT01680640|181789783|SUPERIORITY|For each primary outcome, a change variable was calculated as the difference between end of study and baseline measurements. Multiple regression analysis was used to assess the effect of synbiotic treatment on each of the change variables of interest.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.001
90955337|NCT01680640|181789784|SUPERIORITY|For each primary outcome, a change variable was calculated as the difference between end-of study and baseline measurements. Multiple regression analysis was used to assess the effect of synbiotic treatment on each of the change variables of interest.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||1.00
90955338|NCT01680640|181789785|SUPERIORITY|For each primary outcome, a change variable was calculated as the difference between end of study and baseline measurements. Multiple regression analysis was used to assess the effect of synbiotic treatment on each of the change variables of interest.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.80
90955339|NCT01680640|181789786|SUPERIORITY|For each primary outcome, a change variable was calculated as the difference between end of study and baseline measurements. Multiple regression analysis was used to assess the effect of synbiotic treatment on each of the change variables of interest.|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Beta-diversity indexes|Beta-diversity indexes were first visualized through a Principal Coordinates Analysis (PCoA)||||||<0.001
90955340|NCT03592745|181789799|EQUIVALENCE|Statistical analysis of the median absolute change in bicep peak sEMG amplitude from baseline to DC immediately following 3 weeks of training was measured in the active vs. sham tVNS conditions. Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in median absolute change in bicep peak sEMG amplitude between the active and sham tVNS conditions. A significance level of 0.05 was used (two-tailed).|U value|32.0||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||The Mann-Whitney Wilcoxon test was performed to compare median absolute change in bicep peak sEMG amplitude from baseline to 3 weeks (discharge) across two separate study conditions (active vs. sham tVNS).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
90955341|NCT03592745|181789799|EQUIVALENCE|Statistical analysis of the median absolute change in tricep peak sEMG amplitude from baseline to DC immediately following 3 weeks of training was measured in the active vs. sham tVNS conditions. Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in median absolute change in bicep peak sEMG amplitude between the active and sham tVNS conditions. A significance level of 0.05 was used (two-tailed).|U value|87.0||||0.445|TWO_SIDED|||||The Mann-Whitney Wilcoxon test was performed to compare median absolute change in tricep peak sEMG amplitude from baseline to 3 weeks (discharge) across two separate study conditions (active vs. sham tVNS).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.445
90955342|NCT03592745|181789799|EQUIVALENCE|Statistical analysis of the median absolute change in bicep peak sEMG amplitude from baseline to week 16 (3 month follow-up after training) was measured in the active vs. sham tVNS conditions. Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in median absolute change in bicep peak sEMG amplitude between the active and sham tVNS conditions. A significance level of 0.05 was used (two-tailed).|U value|95.0||||0.678|TWO_SIDED|||||The Mann-Whitney Wilcoxon test was performed to compare the median absolute change in bicep peak sEMG from baseline to 16 weeks (follow-up) across two separate study conditions (active vs. sham tVNS).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.678
90959058|NCT01620255|181798207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.39||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.587|-0.192|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 225 mg vs placebo, Rectal Bleeding, W4||-0.192|-0.587|0.0012
90955343|NCT03592745|181789799|EQUIVALENCE|Statistical analysis of the median absolute change in tricep peak sEMG amplitude from baseline to week 16 (3 month follow-up after training) was measured in the active vs. sham tVNS conditions. Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in median absolute change in bicep peak sEMG amplitude between the active and sham tVNS conditions. A significance level of 0.05 was used (two-tailed).|U value|98.0||||0.777|TWO_SIDED|||||The Mann-Whitney Wilcoxon test was performed to compare the median absolute change in tricep peak sEMG from baseline to 16 weeks (follow-up) across two separate study conditions (active vs. sham tVNS).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.777
90955344|NCT03592745|181789800|EQUIVALENCE|Statistical analysis of median change from baseline to DC immediately following 3 weeks of training was assessed with the upper extremity fugl meyer score in the active vs. sham tDCS conditions. Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in median change in upper extremity fugl meyer score between the active and sham tDCS conditions. A significance level of 0.05 was used (two-tailed).|U value|112.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||The Mann-Whitney Wilcoxon test was performed to compare median change in Upper Extremity Fugl Meyer score from baseline to 3 weeks (discharge) across two separate study conditions (active vs. sham tVNS).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.000
90955345|NCT03592745|181789800|EQUIVALENCE|Statistical analysis of median change from baseline to week 16 (3 month follow-up) was assessed with the Upper Extremity Fugl Meyer score in the active vs. sham tVNS conditions. Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in median change in Upper Extremity Fugl Meyer score between the active and sham tVNS conditions. A significance level of 0.05 was used (two-tailed).|U value|110.5||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|||||The Mann-Whitney Wilcoxon test was performed to compare median change in Upper Extremity Fugl Meyer score from baseline to 16 weeks (follow-up) across two separate study conditions (active vs. sham tVNS).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.950
90955346|NCT00293059|181789801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||inverting 2 one-sided tests|||||||< 0.0001
90955347|NCT04362189|181789873|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.93|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Slope represents beta coefficient for arm \* time interaction.|Analyses relied on Bayesian inference for test of superiority via generalized linear mixed model.||||
90955348|NCT04362189|181789874|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.31|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Slope represents beta coefficient for arm \* time interaction.|||||
90955349|NCT04362189|181789875|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Slope represents beta coefficient for arm \* time interaction.|Analyses relied on Bayesian inference for test of superiority via generalized linear mixed model.||||
90955350|NCT04362189|181789876|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Slope represents beta coefficient for arm \* time interaction.|Analyses relied on Bayesian inference for test of superiority via generalized linear mixed model.||||
90955351|NCT04362189|181789877|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.15|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Slope represents beta coefficient for arm \* time interaction.|Analyses relied on Bayesian inference for test of superiority via generalized linear mixed model.||||
90955352|NCT04362189|181789878|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||HB-adMSCs represents Numerator and Placebo represents Denominator.|Analyses relied on Bayesian inference for test of superiority via generalized linear mixed model.||||
90955353|NCT04362189|181789885|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.17|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Slope represents beta coefficient for arm \* time interaction.|Analyses relied on Bayesian inference for test of superiority via generalized linear mixed model.||||
90955354|NCT04362189|181789886|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Slope represents beta coefficient for arm \* time interaction.|Analyses relied on Bayesian inference for test of superiority via generalized linear mixed model.||||
90955355|NCT04362189|181789887|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.26|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Slope represents beta coefficient for arm \* time interaction.|Analyses relied on Bayesian inference for test of superiority via generalized linear mixed model.||||
90955356|NCT04362189|181789888|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Slope represents beta coefficient for arm \* time interaction.|Analyses relied on Bayesian inference for test of superiority via generalized linear mixed model.||||
90955357|NCT05116540|181789953|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.121|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.616||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.282|31.959|||ANCOVA|||||31.959|12.282|0.0002
90955358|NCT05116540|181789954|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.764|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.844||0.0166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.307|28.221|||ANCOVA|||||28.221|3.307|0.0166
90955359|NCT05116540|181789955|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.137|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.962||0.9905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.361|32.006|||ANCOVA|||||32.006|12.361|0.9905
90955360|NCT05116540|181789956|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.747|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.274||0.8292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.329|28.177|||ANCOVA|||||28.177|3.329|0.8292
90955361|NCT05116540|181789957|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.554|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.638||0.0278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.914|-0.195|||ANCOVA|||||-0.195|-2.914|0.0278
90955362|NCT05116540|181789958|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.453|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.757||0.0666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.424|11.33|||ANCOVA|||||11.330|-0.424|0.0666
90955363|NCT05116540|181789959|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.112|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.508||0.0863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.629|21.853|||ANCOVA|||||21.853|-1.629|0.0863
90955364|NCT05116540|181789960|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.977|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.633||0.5588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.504|4.457|||ANCOVA|||||4.457|-2.504|0.5588
90955365|NCT05116540|181789961|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.593|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.023||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.773|-2.413|||ANCOVA|||||-2.413|-6.773|0.0004
90955366|NCT03809429|181790009|OTHER||Difference|1.31||||0.0185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|2.4|||Negative binomial regression|Negative binomial regression model with treatment, age strata, and AMH group as factors.||||2.40|0.22|0.0185
90955367|NCT03809429|181790012|OTHER||Difference|1.14||||0.0281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|2.15|||Negative binomial regression|Negative binomial regression model with treatment, age strata, and AMH group as factors.||\>=10 mm at end of stimulation||2.15|0.12|0.0281
90955368|NCT03809429|181790012|OTHER||Difference|0.99||||0.0258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|1.86|||Negative binomial regression|Negative binomial regression model with treatment, age strata, and AMH group as factors.||\>=12 mm at end of stimulation||1.86|0.12|0.0258
90955369|NCT03809429|181790012|OTHER||Difference|0.58||||0.0672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|1.2|||Negative binomial regression|Negative binomial regression model with treatment, age strata, and AMH group as factors.||\>=15 mm at end of stimulation||1.20|-0.04|0.0672
90955370|NCT03809429|181790012|OTHER||Difference|0.21||||0.339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.63|||Negative binomial regression|Negative binomial regression model with treatment, age strata, and AMH group as factors.||\>=17 mm at end of stimulation||0.63|-0.22|0.3390
90955371|NCT03809429|181790014|OTHER||Difference|1.11||||0.0962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|2.41|||Negative binomial regression|Negative binomial regression model with treatment, age strata, and AMH group as factors.||||2.41|-0.20|0.0962
90955372|NCT03809429|181790016|OTHER||Difference|0.51||||0.1894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|1.27|||Negative binomial regression|Negative binomial regression model with treatment, age strata, and AMH group as factors.||Number of embryos||1.27|-0.25|0.1894
90955373|NCT03809429|181790016|OTHER||Difference|-0.03||||0.9361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.63|||Negative binomial regression|Negative binomial regression model with treatment, age strata, and AMH group as factors.||Number of Good-quality embryos||0.63|-0.68|0.9361
90955374|NCT03809429|181790017|OTHER||Difference|0.37||||0.2025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.94|||Negative binomial regression|Negative binomial regression model with treatment, age strata, and AMH group as factors.||Total number of blastocysts||0.94|-0.20|0.2025
90955375|NCT03809429|181790017|OTHER||Difference|0.12||||0.5946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.54|||Negative binomial regression|Negative binomial regression model with treatment, age strata, and AMH group as factors.||Number of good-quality blastocysts||0.54|-0.31|0.5946
90955376|NCT03809429|181790023|OTHER||Difference|16.94|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.13|21.74|||ANOVA|ANOVA model with treatment, age strata, and AMH group as factors.||||21.74|12.13|<0.0001
90955377|NCT03809429|181790024|OTHER||Difference|1.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|1.92|||ANOVA|ANOVA model with treatment, age strata, and AMH group as factors.||||1.92|1.19|<0.0001
90955378|NCT03809429|181790025|OTHER||Difference|6.99||||0.1579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.71|16.7|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with treatment, age strata, and AMH group as factors.||||16.70|-2.71|0.1579
90955379|NCT03809429|181790027|OTHER||Difference|7.66||||0.1134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|17.14|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with treatment, age strata, and AMH group as factors.||||17.14|-1.82|0.1134
90955380|NCT03809429|181790028|OTHER||Difference|8.81||||0.0642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|18.14|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with treatment, age strata, and AMH group as factors.||||18.14|-0.52|0.0642
90955381|NCT03809429|181790029|OTHER||Difference|7.74||||0.1002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|16.97|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with treatment, age strata, and AMH group as factors.||||16.97|-1.49|0.1002
90955382|NCT02929329|181790051|SUPERIORITY|"The overall type I error was 0.05 for 2-sided testing across primary and secondary outcomes.~Control for multiple comparisons was achieved using the following testing algorithm: if the primary outcome met the P-value threshold of 0.05, the alpha error would be divided unequally between cardiovascular death (96% of the overall alpha error, or 0.048) and change from baseline to week 24 in the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire total symptom score (4% of the overall alpha error, or 0.002)."|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.0252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|0.99|||Regression, Cox|Stratified by randomization setting and region, including terms for baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and treatment group.|Cox proportional-hazards model with baseline hazards stratified according to the randomization setting and geographic region and with the treatment group and baseline eGFR as covariates.|||0.99|0.86|0.0252
91103865|NCT03449147|182094499|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Relative Reduction (%)|-14.64||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.07|-1.43||Comparison based on a longitudinal ANCOVA model that included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, region, log-transformed baseline value, and log-transformed baseline value-by-visit as covariates.|ANCOVA|||ERR relative to Placebo (i.e. estimated percent change difference) was calculated by 100 (e\*\*DIFF -1), where e = exponent of difference; and DIFF= treatment difference in change from baseline at Week 24 based on log transformed data.||-1.43|-26.07|0.031
90955383|NCT02929329|181790051|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0211|||||||Stratified log-rank test|Log-rank test stratified by randomization setting and region.||||||0.0211
90955384|NCT02929329|181790051|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|0.99|||||Cox proportional-hazards model with baseline hazards stratified according to the randomization setting and geographic region and with the treatment group and baseline eGFR as covariates.|Competing risk subdistribution hazard ratio and associated 95% confidence intervals for treatment were computed. Deaths not included in the endpoint were considered as the competing risk.||0.99|0.86|
90955385|NCT02929329|181790052|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.8555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.11||If significance for the primary outcome was determined, cardiovascular death was tested against an alpha of 0.048.|Regression, Cox|Stratified by randomization setting and region, including terms for baseline eGFR and treatment group.|Cox proportional-hazards model with baseline hazards stratified according to the randomization setting and geographic region and with the treatment group and baseline eGFR as covariates.|||1.11|0.92|0.8555
90955386|NCT02929329|181790052|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.11|||||Cox proportional-hazards model with baseline hazards stratified according to the randomization setting and geographic region and with the treatment group and baseline eGFR as covariates.|Competing risk subdistribution hazard ratio and associated 95% confidence intervals for treatment were computed. Deaths not included in the endpoint were considered as the competing risk.||1.11|0.92|
90955387|NCT02929329|181790053|OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.48|||||Treatment difference = Omecamtiv mecarbil - Placebo|||0.48|-1.40|
90955388|NCT02929329|181790053|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|4.46|||||Treatment difference = Omecamtiv mecarbil - Placebo|||4.46|0.54|
90955389|NCT02929329|181790053|SUPERIORITY|If significance for the primary outcome was determined, change from baseline in the KCCQ total symptom score was tested against an alpha of 0.002.||||||0.0278|||||||Omnibus F-test|||||||0.0278
90955390|NCT02929329|181790053|OTHER||Pooled treatment difference|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.55|4.51|||||Overall pooled estimate of treatment difference (Omecamtiv mecarbil - Placebo) using random effects meta-analysis approach.|||4.51|-2.55|
90959059|NCT01620255|181798207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.28||||0.0207|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.475|-0.081|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 7.5 mg vs placebo, Rectal Bleeding, W8||-0.081|-0.475|0.0207
90955391|NCT02929329|181790053|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|0.2|||||Treatment difference = Omecamtiv mecarbil - Placebo|As a sensitivity for missing data due to death, joint longitudinal and survival models were fit using KCCQ TSS observed values with random subject slopes and intercepts for the longitudinal models with terms for baseline eGFR, region, and treatment by slope. The survival models were fit for all-cause death with baseline eGFR and treatment in the proportional hazard part of the models, KCCQ TSS modeled values as the shared parameterization, stratified by region with Weibull baseline functions.||0.20|-1.62|
90955392|NCT02929329|181790053|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|3.82|||||Treatment difference = Omecamtiv mecarbil - Placebo|As a sensitivity for missing data due to death, joint longitudinal and survival models were fit using KCCQ TSS observed values with random subject slopes and intercepts for the longitudinal models with terms for baseline eGFR, region, and treatment by slope. The survival models were fit for all-cause death with baseline eGFR and treatment in the proportional hazard part of the models, KCCQ TSS modeled values as the shared parameterization, stratified by region with Weibull baseline functions.||3.82|0.80|
90955393|NCT02929329|181790054|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.1902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.03||If statistical significance was achieved for both the time to CV death and change from baseline in the KCCQ TSS, time to first heart failure hospitalization was to be tested at the full alpha.|Regression, Cox|Stratified by randomization setting and region, including terms for baseline eGFR and treatment group.|Cox proportional-hazards model with baseline hazards stratified according to the randomization setting and geographic region and with the trial group and the baseline eGFR as covariates.|||1.03|0.87|0.1902
90955394|NCT02929329|181790054|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.04|||||Cox proportional-hazards model with baseline hazards stratified according to the randomization setting and geographic region and with the trial group and the baseline eGFR as covariates.|Competing risk subdistribution hazard ratio and associated 95% confidence intervals for treatment were computed. Deaths not included in the endpoint are considered as the competing risk.||1.04|0.88|
90955395|NCT02929329|181790055|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.9633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.09||If time to first heart failure hospitalization was statistically significant, time to all-cause death was to be tested with the same alpha as time to first heart failure hospitalization.|Regression, Cox||Cox proportional-hazards model with baseline hazards stratified according to the randomization setting and geographic region and with the trial group and the baseline eGFR as covariates.|||1.09|0.92|0.9633
90955396|NCT01871805|181790122|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0056||||||Tests null hypothesis that the response rate is equal to 35% versus the alternative hypothesis that the response rate is not equal to 35%.|Exact Clopper-Pearson CI, 2 sided|||||||0.0056
90955397|NCT01871805|181790123|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0251||||||Tests null hypothesis that the response rate is equal to 35% versus the alternative hypothesis that the response rate is not equal to 35%.|Exact Clopper-Pearson CI, 2 sided|||||||0.0251
90955398|NCT01871805|181790123|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0203||||||Tests null hypothesis that the response rate is equal to 35% versus the alternative hypothesis that the response rate is not equal to 35%.|Exact Clopper-Pearson CI, 2 sided|||||||0.0203
90955399|NCT01871805|181790125|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||Tests null hypothesis that the response rate is equal to 35% versus the alternative hypothesis that the response rate is not equal to 35%.|Exact Clopper-Pearson CI, 2 sided|||||||0.0010
90955400|NCT03535597|181790176|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99||||0.906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.11|||Chi-squared|||||1.11|0.89|0.906
90955401|NCT03535597|181790176|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.27||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.53|||Chi-squared|||||1.53|1.09|0.002
90955402|NCT03535597|181790176|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.97||||0.613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.09|||Chi-squared|||||1.09|0.86|0.613
90955403|NCT03535597|181790177|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-98.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90955404|NCT03535597|181790177|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-120.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||< 0.001
90955405|NCT03535597|181790177|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-94.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||< 0.001
90955406|NCT03535597|181790178|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.77||||0.744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|2.57|||Fisher Exact|||||2.57|0.23|0.744
90955407|NCT03535597|181790178|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.02|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|3.41|||Fisher Exact|||||3.41|0.31|>0.999
90955408|NCT03535597|181790178|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.67||||0.724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|2.46|||Fisher Exact|||||2.46|0.18|0.724
90955409|NCT03535597|181790179|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.44||||0.594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|3.76|||Fisher Exact|||||3.76|0.56|0.594
90955410|NCT03535597|181790179|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|3.26|||Fisher Exact|||||3.26|0.37|>0.999
90955411|NCT03535597|181790179|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.45||||0.581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|3.88|||Fisher Exact|||||3.88|0.55|0.581
90955412|NCT03535597|181790180|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.92||||0.284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|5.22|||Fisher Exact|||||5.22|0.71|0.284
90955413|NCT03535597|181790180|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.1||||0.243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|5.9|||Fisher Exact|||||5.9|0.75|0.243
90955414|NCT03535597|181790180|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.01||||0.266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|5.54|||Fisher Exact|||||5.54|0.74|0.266
90955415|NCT03484273|181790181|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|Repeated Measures ANOVA||Repeated Measured ANOVA was used to compare the 4 compression garment configurations.||||<0.001
90955416|NCT03484273|181790182|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90955417|NCT03484273|181790183|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90955418|NCT03484273|181790184|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.01
90955419|NCT03484273|181790185|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90955420|NCT03484273|181790186|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.001
90955421|NCT03484273|181790187|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.04
90955422|NCT03097484|181790189|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
90955423|NCT03097484|181790190|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||0.05 is the calculated p-value (not the threshold for statistical significance)|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
90955424|NCT00468104|181790192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||A univariate analysis was done to identify possible predictors of successful resolution of symptoms. The chi-square analysis was used to compare the percent successful.||||<0.001
90955425|NCT00294515|181790202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4|||<=|0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.66|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Center Pools||||0.66|0.25|<=0.0002
90955426|NCT00294515|181790203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.2|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.11|0.37|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Center Pools||||0.37|0.11|<0.0001
90955427|NCT00294515|181790204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.37||||0.0001||95.0|0.22|0.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Center Pools||||0.60|0.22|0.0001
90955428|NCT00294515|181790205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.56||||0.0126||95.0|0.35|0.88|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Center Pools||||0.88|0.35|0.0126
90955429|NCT00294515|181790206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.55||||0.01||95.0|0.34|0.86|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Center Pools||||0.86|0.34|0.0100
90955430|NCT01670760|181790238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.69||||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.69
90955431|NCT00291642|181790263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.61|-2.09|||ANCOVA|||||-2.09|-4.61|<0.001
90955432|NCT00291642|181790263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.637|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|-2.0|||ANCOVA|||||-2.00|-4.50|<0.001
90955433|NCT00291642|181790263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.637|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.38|-2.88|||ANCOVA|||||-2.88|-5.38|<0.001
90955434|NCT00291642|181790263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.637|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.99|-2.49|||ANCOVA|||||-2.49|-4.99|<0.001
90955435|NCT01472549|181790329|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.55||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.9|||Chi-squared|||||0.90|0.34|0.02
90955436|NCT01472549|181790330|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.24
90955437|NCT01472549|181790331|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.76||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.37|||Chi-squared|||||1.37|0.43|0.37
90955438|NCT01472549|181790332|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.73||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.8|||Chi-squared|||||1.80|0.30|0.49
90955439|NCT01472549|181790333|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.08
90955440|NCT01472549|181790334|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.02||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|22.11|||Fisher Exact|||||22.11|0.18|0.56
90955441|NCT03001076|181790337|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-28.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.022|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.376|-22.531|||ANCOVA|||||-22.531|-34.376|<0.001
90955442|NCT03001076|181790338|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-23.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.777|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.005|-18.121|||ANCOVA|||||-18.121|-29.005|<0.001
90955443|NCT03001076|181790339|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-17.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.018|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.94|-14.03|||ANCOVA|||||-14.030|-21.940|<0.001
90955444|NCT03001076|181790340|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-19.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.341|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.908|-14.732|||ANCOVA|||||-14.732|-23.908|<0.001
90955445|NCT03001076|181790341|SUPERIORITY||Location shift|-31.045|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.761|-17.401|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test||The location shift and asymptotic 95% confidence interval are based on Hodges-Lehman estimation.|||-17.401|-44.761|<0.001
90955446|NCT03001076|181790342|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-4.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.24|=|0.388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.877|5.812|||ANCOVA|||||5.812|-14.877|=0.388
90955447|NCT03001076|181790343|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-5.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.845|=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.528|-2.25|||ANCOVA|||||-2.250|-9.528|=0.002
90955448|NCT03001076|181790345|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-31.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.238|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.498|-26.682|||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 4||-26.682|-35.498|<0.001
90955449|NCT03001076|181790345|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-29.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.513|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.074|-24.168|||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 8||-24.168|-34.074|<0.001
90955450|NCT03001076|181790346|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-25.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.004|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.204|-21.308|||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 4||-21.308|-29.204|<0.001
90955451|NCT03001076|181790346|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-23.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.268|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.219|-19.276|||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 8||-19.276|-28.219|<0.001
90955452|NCT03001076|181790347|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-20.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.513|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.39|-17.43|||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 4||-17.430|-23.390|<0.001
90955453|NCT03001076|181790347|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-18.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.651|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.71|-15.206|||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 8||-15.206|-21.710|<0.001
90955454|NCT03001076|181790348|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.99|=|0.873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.663|9.059|||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 4||9.059|-10.663|=0.873
90955455|NCT03001076|181790348|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.131|=|0.988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.215|10.055|||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 8||10.055|-10.215|=0.988
90955456|NCT03001076|181790349|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-8.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.619|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.778|-5.394|||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 4||-5.394|-11.778|<0.001
90955457|NCT03001076|181790349|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-6.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.712|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.798|-3.049|||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 8||-3.049|-9.798|<0.001
90955458|NCT02327351|181790351|SUPERIORITY||survival distribution function|86.0||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|79.0|94.0|||Gray test|||||94|79|0.95
90955459|NCT02327351|181790357|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.35
90955460|NCT04602221|181790358|OTHER||Difference of adjusted means|-0.339|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8242||0.9296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.975|7.297|||ANCOVA||The difference was calculated as treatment group minus placebo group.|A linear mixed effects model, i.e. analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) was used for analysis of the primary endpoint. This model included effects for sequence, subject within sequence, period, baseline values (pre-ketamine baseline and on-ketamine baseline) and treatment. The effect 'subject within sequence' were considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||7.297|-7.975|0.9296
90959060|NCT01620255|181798207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.24||||0.0402|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.432|-0.048|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 22.5 mg vs placebo, Rectal Bleeding, W8||-0.048|-0.432|0.0402
90955461|NCT04602221|181790358|OTHER||Difference of adjusted means|4.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8224||0.299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.631|11.634|||ANCOVA||The difference was calculated as treatment group minus placebo group.|A linear mixed effects model, i.e. analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) was used for analysis of the primary endpoint. This model included effects for sequence, subject within sequence, period, baseline values (pre-ketamine baseline and on-ketamine baseline) and treatment. The effect 'subject within sequence' were considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||11.634|-3.631|0.2990
90955462|NCT04602221|181790358|OTHER||Difference of adjusted means|-1.258|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6608||0.7322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.565|6.05|||ANCOVA||The difference was calculated as treatment group minus placebo group.|A linear mixed effects model, i.e. analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) was used for analysis of the primary endpoint. This model included effects for sequence, subject within sequence, period, baseline values (pre-ketamine baseline and on-ketamine baseline) and treatment. The effect 'subject within sequence' were considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||6.050|-8.565|0.7322
90955463|NCT04602221|181790359|OTHER||Difference of adjusted means|0.347|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.563||0.8249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.776|3.471|||ANCOVA||The difference was calculated as treatment group minus placebo group.|A linear mixed effects model, i.e. analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) was used for analysis of the secondary endpoint. This model included effects for sequence, subject within sequence, period, baseline values (pre-ketamine baseline and on-ketamine baseline) and treatment. The effect 'subject within sequence' were considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||3.471|-2.776|0.8249
90955464|NCT04602221|181790359|OTHER||Difference of adjusted means|-1.085|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5889||0.4973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.26|2.091|||ANCOVA||The difference was calculated as treatment group minus placebo group.|A linear mixed effects model, i.e. analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) was used for analysis of the secondary endpoint. This model included effects for sequence, subject within sequence, period, baseline values (pre-ketamine baseline and on-ketamine baseline) and treatment. The effect 'subject within sequence' were considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||2.091|-4.260|0.4973
90955465|NCT04602221|181790359|OTHER||Difference of adjusted means|-2.858|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5266||0.0658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.909|0.192|||ANCOVA||The difference was calculated as treatment group minus placebo group.|A linear mixed effects model, i.e. analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) was used for analysis of the secondary endpoint. This model included effects for sequence, subject within sequence, period, baseline values (pre-ketamine baseline and on-ketamine baseline) and treatment. The effect 'subject within sequence' were considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||0.192|-5.909|0.0658
90955466|NCT04602221|181790360|OTHER||Difference of adjusted means|0.0053|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00798||0.5081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0106|0.0213|||ANCOVA||The difference was calculated as treatment group minus placebo group.|A linear mixed effects model, i.e. analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) was used for analysis of the secondary endpoint. This model included effects for sequence, subject within sequence, period, baseline values (pre-ketamine baseline and on-ketamine baseline) and treatment. The effect 'subject within sequence' were considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||0.0213|-0.0106|0.5081
90955467|NCT04602221|181790360|OTHER||Difference of adjusted means|0.0058|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00798||0.4723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0102|0.0217|||ANCOVA||The difference was calculated as treatment group minus placebo group.|A linear mixed effects model, i.e. analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) was used for analysis of the secondary endpoint. This model included effects for sequence, subject within sequence, period, baseline values (pre-ketamine baseline and on-ketamine baseline) and treatment. The effect 'subject within sequence' were considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||0.0217|-0.0102|0.4723
90955468|NCT04602221|181790360|OTHER||Difference of adjusted means|0.0333|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00767|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.018|0.0486|||ANCOVA||The difference was calculated as treatment group minus placebo group.|A linear mixed effects model, i.e. analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) was used for analysis of the secondary endpoint. This model included effects for sequence, subject within sequence, period, baseline values (pre-ketamine baseline and on-ketamine baseline) and treatment. The effect 'subject within sequence' were considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||0.0486|0.0180|< .0001
90955469|NCT02576587|181790442|OTHER|Conditional logistic regression was used to assess the relationship of PAF and AHI on matched pairs of case and control.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.007||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.0|||Conditional logistic regression|||||1.00|0.97|0.054
90955470|NCT02576587|181790442|OTHER|Conditional logistic regression was used to assess the relationship of PAF and LA volume on matched pairs of case and control.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.007||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.03|||Conditional logistic regression|N = 270 (135 cases and 135 controls)||||1.03|1.00|0.014
90955471|NCT02576587|181790442|OTHER|Conditional logistic regression was used to assess the relationship of PAF and LA volume index on matched pairs of case and control.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.06|||Conditional logistic regression|N=268 (134 cases and 134 controls)||||1.06|1.00|0.030
90955472|NCT02576587|181790442|OTHER|Conditional logistic regression was used to assess the relationship of PAF and LA systolic strain apical four-chamber (A4C) on matched pairs of case and control.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.01|||Conditional logistic regression|N=214 (107 cases and 107 controls)||||1.01|0.96|0.39
90955473|NCT02576587|181790442|OTHER|Conditional logistic regression was used to assess the relationship of PAF and LA systolic strain apical two-chamber (A2C) on matched pairs of case and control.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.02|||Conditional logistic regression|N=212 (106 cases and 106 controls)||||1.02|0.97|0.49
90955474|NCT02576587|181790443|OTHER||median of change|3.4||||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to compare pre- and post- treatment outcomes.|||Inter-Quartile Range of the change (post minus pre) is (-7.0, 13.7).|||0.16
90955475|NCT02576587|181790444|OTHER||median of change|1.8||||0.088|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to compare pre- and post- treatment outcomes.|Inter-quartile range of the change (post minus pre) is (-2.0, 6.0).|||||0.088
90955476|NCT02576587|181790445|OTHER||median of change|-3.7||||0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to compare pre- and post- treatment outcomes.|Inter-quartile range of the change (post minus pre) is (-8.0, -0.57).|||||0.006
90955477|NCT02576587|181790446|OTHER||median of change|-0.7||||0.59|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to compare pre- and post- treatment outcomes.|Inter-quartile range of the change (post minus pre) is (-6.2, 10.7).|||||0.59
90955478|NCT02576587|181790447|OTHER||mean of change|0.62|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.2||0.65|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t test was used to compare pre- and post- treatment outcomes.||||||0.65
90955479|NCT02576587|181790448|OTHER||mean of change|-1.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.2||0.65|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t test was used to compare pre- and post- treatment outcomes.||||||0.65
90955480|NCT01056718|181790452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Nebivolol treatment group refers to 50 patients that completed 10 weeks of open label nebivolol treatment. Results were compared using paired T-tests in a pre - post study design before and after 10 weeks of treatment. Each subject served as his/her own control.||||<0.05
90955481|NCT01056718|181790453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Nebivolol treatment group refers to 50 patients that completed 10 weeks of open label nebivolol treatment. Results were compared using paired T-tests in a pre - post study design before and after 10 weeks of his/her treatment. Each subject served as own control.||||<0.05
90955482|NCT01056718|181790454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Nebivolol treatment group refers to 50 patients that completed 10 weeks of open label nebivolol treatment. Results were compared using paired T-tests in a pre - post study design before and after 10 weeks of his/her treatment. Each subject served as own control.||||<0.05
90955483|NCT01056718|181790455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.078|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Nebivolol treatment group refers to 50 patients that completed 10 weeks of open label nebivolol treatment. Results were compared using paired T-tests in a pre - post study design before and after 10 weeks of his/her treatment. Each subject served as own control.||||=.078
90955484|NCT01056718|181790456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.186|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Nebivolol treatment group refers to 50 patients that completed 10 weeks of open label nebivolol treatment. Results were compared using paired T-tests in a pre - post study design before and after 10 weeks of his/her treatment. Each subject served as own control.||||=.186
90955485|NCT01056718|181790457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Nebivolol treatment group refers to 50 patients that completed 10 weeks of open label nebivolol treatment. Results were compared using paired T-tests in a pre - post study design before and after 10 weeks of his/her treatment. Each subject served as own control.||||<0.05
90955486|NCT01056718|181790458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Nebivolol treatment group refers to 50 patients that completed 10 weeks of open label nebivolol treatment. Results were compared using paired T-tests in a pre - post study design before and after 10 weeks of his/her treatment. Each subject served as own control.||||<0.05
90955487|NCT01056718|181790459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Nebivolol treatment group refers to 50 patients that completed 10 weeks of open label nebivolol treatment. Results were compared using paired T-tests in a pre - post study design before and after 10 weeks of his/her treatment. Each subject served as own control.||||=0.06
90955488|NCT01056718|181790460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Nebivolol treatment group refers to 50 patients that completed 10 weeks of open label nebivolol treatment. Results were compared using paired T-tests in a pre - post study design before and after 10 weeks of his/her treatment. Each subject served as own control.||||<0.05
90955489|NCT01056718|181790461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Nebivolol treatment group refers to 50 patients that completed 10 weeks of open label nebivolol treatment. Results were compared using paired T-tests in a pre - post study design before and after 10 weeks of his/her treatment. Each subject served as own control.||||<0.05
90955490|NCT01056718|181790462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.85|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Nebivolol treatment group refers to 50 patients that completed 10 weeks of open label nebivolol treatment. Results were compared using paired T-tests in a pre - post study design before and after 10 weeks of his/her treatment. Each subject served as own control.||||=0.85
90955491|NCT01056718|181790463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Nebivolol treatment group refers to 50 patients that completed 10 weeks of open label nebivolol treatment. Results were compared using paired T-tests in a pre - post study design before and after 10 weeks of his/her treatment. Each subject served as own control.||||=0.40
90955492|NCT01056718|181790464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.64|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Nebivolol treatment group refers to 50 patients that completed 10 weeks of open label nebivolol treatment. Results were compared using paired T-tests in a pre - post study design before and after 10 weeks of his/her treatment. Each subject served as own control.||||=0.64
90955493|NCT01056718|181790465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Nebivolol treatment group refers to 50 patients that completed 10 weeks of open label nebivolol treatment. Results were compared using paired T-tests in a pre - post study design before and after 10 weeks of his/her treatment. Each subject served as own control.||||=0.49
90955494|NCT01056718|181790466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.47|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Nebivolol treatment group refers to 50 patients that completed 10 weeks of open label nebivolol treatment. Results were compared using paired T-tests in a pre - post study design before and after 10 weeks of his/her treatment. Each subject served as own control.||||=0.47
90955495|NCT01056718|181790467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.55|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Nebivolol treatment group refers to 50 patients that completed 10 weeks of open label nebivolol treatment. Results were compared using paired T-tests in a pre - post study design before and after 10 weeks of his/her treatment. Each subject served as own control.||||=0.55
90955496|NCT01056718|181790468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.64|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Nebivolol treatment group refers to 50 patients that completed 10 weeks of open label nebivolol treatment. Results were compared using paired T-tests in a pre - post study design before and after 10 weeks of his/her treatment. Each subject served as own control.||||=0.64
91017468|NCT01125358|181918111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|-7.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.73||0.308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.46|7.55||P-value is for PANSS Total Score.|MMRM|||||7.55|-23.46|0.308
90893534|NCT01939548|181652017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.441||0.3202|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.01|0.13||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.2 significance level. No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|Mixed Models Analysis||The estimation method used was restricted maximum likelihood.|Uncontrolled hostility/excitement symptom score comparison of change at Week 12. Linear mixed-effect repeated measures model used. Fixed effects: treatment, time (visit), baseline value, investigator site; random effect: participant. Also included effects for treatment by time interaction and baseline value by treatment interaction and background antipsychotics.||0.13|-1.01|0.3202
90893535|NCT01939548|181652018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.119||0.7399|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.11|0.19||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.2 significance level. No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|Mixed Models Analysis||The estimation method used was restricted maximum likelihood.|Analysis of change at Week 12. Linear mixed-effect repeated measures model used. Fixed effects: treatment, time (visit), baseline value, investigator site; random effect: participant. Also included effects for treatment by time interaction and baseline value by treatment interaction and background antipsychotics.||0.19|-0.11|0.7399
90893536|NCT01939548|181652018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.122||0.2747|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.02|0.29||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.2 significance level. No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|Mixed Models Analysis||The estimation method used was restricted maximum likelihood.|Analysis of change at Week 12. Linear mixed-effect repeated measures model used. Fixed effects: treatment, time (visit), baseline value, investigator site; random effect: participant. Also included effects for treatment by time interaction and baseline value by treatment interaction and background antipsychotics.||0.29|-0.02|0.2747
90893537|NCT01939548|181652019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.188||0.7219|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.17|0.31||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.2 significance level. No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|ANOVA|||Analysis of change at Week 12. Mixed effect repeated measures model used. Fixed effects: treatment, time (visit), baseline value, investigator site, visit and visit-by-treatment interaction; random effect: participant.||0.31|-0.17|0.7219
90893538|NCT01939548|181652019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.192||0.9315|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.26|0.23||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.2 significance level. No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|ANOVA|||Analysis of change at Week 12. Mixed effect repeated measures model used. Fixed effects: treatment, time (visit), baseline value, investigator site, visit and visit-by-treatment interaction; random effect: participant.||0.23|-0.26|0.9315
90893539|NCT01302119|181652051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90893540|NCT01302119|181652052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90893541|NCT01302119|181652053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90893542|NCT01302119|181652054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90893543|NCT05725317|181652091|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority in distance visual acuity was declared if the upper confidence limit was less than 0.05.|LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.004|||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.0||Since a noninferiority hypothesis is being tested, a p-value is not applicable. Confidence limit is being reported and compared to the noninferiority margin.|||LSM results based on mixed effects repeated measures model with both fixed (lens, visit, lens-by-visit interaction and sequence) and random (subject) effects. Difference = LID220365 minus LID006961. Sign is retained with the rounded value.|||0.00||
90893544|NCT02085252|181652092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0318||||||A 2-sided significance level of 5% was used. There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Chi-squared|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the two treatment strategies.||||0.0318
90893545|NCT00251745|181652123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05||||||The overall 0.0025 level of significance for the multiple comparisons of each dexlansoprazole MR dose to placebo was controlled using Hochberg's method.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The comparison between the two treatment groups was made using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||||<0.00001
90893546|NCT00251745|181652123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05||||||The overall 0.0025 level of significance for the multiple comparisons of each dexlansoprazole MR dose to placebo was controlled using Hochberg's method.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The comparison between the two treatment groups was made using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||||<0.00001
90893547|NCT00251745|181652123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15505||||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.0025 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The comparison between the two treatment groups was made using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||||0.15505
90893548|NCT00251745|181652125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1e-05||||||The overall 0.0025 level of significance for the multiple comparisons of each dexlansoprazole MR dose to placebo was controlled using Hochberg's method.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The comparison between the two treatment groups was made using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||||0.00001
90893549|NCT00251745|181652125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05||||||The overall 0.0025 level of significance for the multiple comparisons of each dexlansoprazole MR dose to placebo was controlled using Hochberg's method.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The comparison between the two treatment groups was made using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||||<0.00001
90893550|NCT00251745|181652125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3874||||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.0025 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The comparison between the two treatment groups was made using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||||0.38740
90893551|NCT00636649|181652131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.993|||||||ANCOVA|||CISS-TASK||||0.993
90893552|NCT00636649|181652131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.185|||||||ANCOVA|||CISS-EMOT||||0.185
90893553|NCT00636649|181652131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.196|||||||ANCOVA|||CISS-DIS||||0.196
90893554|NCT00636649|181652131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.759|||||||ANCOVA|||CISS-AVD||||0.759
90893555|NCT00636649|181652131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.396|||||||ANCOVA|||CISS-SOC||||0.396
90893556|NCT00636649|181652132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.579|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.579
90893557|NCT00636649|181652133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.225|||||||ANCOVA|||TFEQ-RES||||0.225
90893558|NCT00636649|181652133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.498|||||||ANCOVA|||TFEQ-DIS||||0.498
90955497|NCT01056718|181790469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Nebivolol treatment group refers to 50 patients that completed 10 weeks of open label nebivolol treatment. Results were compared using paired T-tests in a pre - post study design before and after 10 weeks of his/her treatment. Each subject served as own control.||||<0.05
90955498|NCT01056718|181790470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.526|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Nebivolol treatment group refers to 50 patients that completed 10 weeks of open label nebivolol treatment. Results were compared using paired T-tests in a pre - post study design before and after 10 weeks of his/her treatment. Each subject served as own control.||||=.526
90955499|NCT01056718|181790471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Nebivolol treatment group refers to 50 patients that completed 10 weeks of open label nebivolol treatment. Results were compared using paired T-tests in a pre - post study design before and after 10 weeks of his/her treatment. Each subject served as own control.||||<0.05
90955500|NCT01056718|181790472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.925|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Nebivolol treatment group refers to 50 patients that completed 10 weeks of open label nebivolol treatment. Results were compared using paired T-tests in a pre - post study design before and after 10 weeks of his/her treatment. Each subject served as own control.||||=.925
90893559|NCT00636649|181652133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.724|||||||ANCOVA|||TFEQ-HUN||||0.724
90893560|NCT04508699|181652141|OTHER|||||||0.36|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.36
90893561|NCT04508699|181652142|OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||reported p-value was calculated, is not indicating the threshold for statistical significance.|ANOVA|||||||<0.05
90893562|NCT04508699|181652143|OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||reported p-value was calculated, is not indicating the threshold for statistical significance.|ANOVA|||||||<0.05
90893563|NCT04508699|181652144|OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||reported p-value was calculated, is not indicating the threshold for statistical significance.|ANOVA|||||||<0.05
90893564|NCT04508699|181652145|OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||reported p-value was calculated, is not indicating the threshold for statistical significance.|ANOVA|||||||<0.05
90893565|NCT04508699|181652146|OTHER||||||<|1e-05||||||reported p-value was calculated, is not indicating the threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.00001
90893566|NCT04508699|181652147|OTHER||||||<|1e-05||||||reported p-value was calculated, is not indicating the threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.00001
90893567|NCT04508699|181652148|OTHER||||||<|1e-05||||||reported p-value was calculated, is not indicating the threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.00001
90893568|NCT02586025|181652161|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|17.45||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.89|28.01||Two-sided significance level of 5%|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by disease category (early-stage and locally advanced) and hormone-receptor status (positive for ER and/or PgR or negative for both)|Pertuzumab, Trastuzumab, Docetaxel arm minus Placebo, Trastuzumab, Docetaxel arm. Approximate 95% CI for difference of two rates using Hauck-Anderson method.|||28.01|6.89|0.0014
90893569|NCT02586025|181652162|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|18.36||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.89|28.83||Two-sided significance level of 5%|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by disease category (early-stage and locally advanced) and hormone-receptor status (positive for ER and/or PgR or negative for both)|Pertuzumab, Trastuzumab, Docetaxel arm minus Placebo, Trastuzumab, Docetaxel arm. Approximate 95% CI for difference of two rates using Hauck-Anderson method.|||28.83|7.89|0.0008
90893570|NCT02586025|181652163|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|18.37||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.6|29.15||Two-sided significance level of 5%|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by disease category (early-stage and locally advanced) and hormone-receptor status (positive for ER and/or PgR or negative for both)|Pertuzumab, Trastuzumab, Docetaxel arm minus Placebo, Trastuzumab, Docetaxel arm. Approximate 95% CI for difference of two rates using Hauck-Anderson method.|||29.15|7.60|0.0010
90893571|NCT02586025|181652164|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|18.83||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.14|29.51||Two-sided significance level of 5%|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by disease category (early-stage and locally advanced) and hormone-receptor status (positive for ER and/or PgR or negative for both)|Pertuzumab, Trastuzumab, Docetaxel arm minus Placebo, Trastuzumab, Docetaxel arm. Approximate 95% CI for difference of two rates using Hauck-Anderson method.|||29.51|8.14|0.0006
90893572|NCT02586025|181652166|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|10.4||||0.0125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|19.69||Two-sided significance level of 5%|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by disease category (early-stage and locally advanced) and hormone-receptor status (positive for ER and/or PgR or negative for both)|Pertuzumab, Trastuzumab, Docetaxel arm minus Placebo, Trastuzumab, Docetaxel arm|||19.69|1.12|0.0125
90893573|NCT02586025|181652167|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.89|||Stratified log-rank|Two-sided log-rank test used, stratified by disease category (early-stage/locally advanced) \& hormone-receptor status (ER+ \&/or PgR+ or ER- \& PgR-)|The hazard ratio was calculated by stratified Cox proportional hazards model.|Hazard Ratio for EFS Event in the Pertuzumab arm vs. Placebo arm||0.89|0.32|0.0140
90893574|NCT02586025|181652167|SUPERIORITY||Difference in EFS Event-Free Rates|-8.16||||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|-2.32|||Z-test||The difference in EFS event-free rates was calculated as the Placebo arm minus the Pertuzumab arm.|Difference in EFS Event-Free Rates at 1 year||-2.32|-14.00|0.0062
90893575|NCT02586025|181652167|SUPERIORITY||Difference in EFS Event-Free Rates|-9.17||||0.0429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.05|-0.29|||Z-test||The difference in EFS event-free rates was calculated as the Placebo arm minus the Pertuzumab arm.|Difference in EFS Event-Free Rates at 3 years||-0.29|-18.05|0.0429
90893576|NCT02586025|181652167|SUPERIORITY||Difference in EFS Event-Free Rates|-11.1||||0.0274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.95|-1.24|||Z-test||The difference in EFS event-free rates was calculated as the Placebo arm minus the Pertuzumab arm.|Difference in EFS Event-Free Rates at 5 Years||-1.24|-20.95|0.0274
90893577|NCT02586025|181652168|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.88|||Stratified log-rank|Two-sided log-rank test used, stratified by disease category (early-stage/locally advanced) \& hormone-receptor status (ER+ \&/or PgR+ or ER- \& PgR-)|The hazard ratio was calculated by stratified Cox proportional hazards model.|Hazard Ratio for DFS Event in the Pertuzumab arm vs. Placebo arm||0.88|0.30|0.0140
90893578|NCT02586025|181652168|SUPERIORITY||Difference in DFS Event-Free Rates|-5.47||||0.0592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.15|0.21|||Z-test||The difference in DFS event-free rates was calculated as the Placebo arm minus the Pertuzumab arm.|Difference in DFS Event-Free Rates at 1 year||0.21|-11.15|0.0592
90955501|NCT01056718|181790473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Nebivolol treatment group refers to 50 patients that completed 10 weeks of open label nebivolol treatment. Results were compared using paired T-tests in a pre - post study design before and after 10 weeks of his/her treatment. Each subject served as own control.||||<0.05
90955502|NCT01056718|181790474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.458|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Nebivolol treatment group refers to 50 patients that completed 10 weeks of open label nebivolol treatment. Results were compared using paired T-tests in a pre - post study design before and after 10 weeks of his/her treatment. Each subject served as own control.||||=.458
90955503|NCT01056718|181790475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.561|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Nebivolol treatment group refers to 50 patients that completed 10 weeks of open label nebivolol treatment. Results were compared using paired T-tests in a pre - post study design before and after 10 weeks of his/her treatment. Each subject served as own control.||||=.561
90955504|NCT01056718|181790476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.734|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Nebivolol treatment group refers to 50 patients that completed 10 weeks of open label nebivolol treatment. Results were compared using paired T-tests in a pre - post study design before and after 10 weeks of his/her treatment. Each subject served as own control.||||=.734
90955505|NCT01056718|181790477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.129|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Nebivolol treatment group refers to 50 patients that completed 10 weeks of open label nebivolol treatment. Results were compared using paired T-tests in a pre - post study design before and after 10 weeks of his/her treatment. Each subject served as own control.||||=.129
90955506|NCT00738894|181790486|SUPERIORITY|This is the first of two primary outcomes for this study. Assumptions for power calculations: expected event free for medical management 92% at 24 months; expected event free for device closure 96.4% at 24 months (55% risk reduction); 664 subjects randomly assigned 2:1 to device closure or medical management provides 80% power with 15% attrition (over 5 years) and 1-sided alpha = 0.024 to allow for interim analysis (interim analysis later rescinded from plan).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.23||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.62||1-sided p-value was adjusted for multiplicity with 2nd primary outcome using Dubey and Armitage-Parmer (D/AP) procedure.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio (test/control) obtained from Cox proportional hazards model with treatment arm as sole explanatory variable, the exponentiated coefficient of which provided the hazard ratio. Unadjusted for multiplicity.|"Test null hypothesis of equal or lower recurrent stroke-free survivorship for device closure compared to medical management.~H0: Sd(t) ≤ Sm(t) for all t, versus H1: Sd(t) \> Sm(t) for all t, where Sd(t) and Sm(t) are true Kaplan-Meier product-limit survivor functions for the device closure and medical management arms and t is time from randomization to event or censoring.~Event-free subjects were censored at time of last follow-up. Significance threshold (1-sided alpha) = 0.025."||0.62|0.09|0.001
90955507|NCT00738894|181790487|SUPERIORITY|This is the second of two primary outcomes for this study. Assumptions for power calculations: expected proportion of brain infarct is 3-7 times the clinical stroke rate; expected brain infarct proportion for medical management 14.5% (2.9% clinical stroke x 5); expected brain infarct for device closure 6.5% (55% risk reduction); 597 subjects (10% attrition from 664) provides 73% power with 1-sided alpha = 0.0125 (based conservatively on a Bonferroni adjustment of alpha/2).|Risk Difference (RD)|0.056||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.003|0.108||1-sided p-value was adjusted for multiplicity with 1st primary outcome using Dubey and Armitage-Parmer (D/AP) procedure.|z-test, 1-sided||Unadjusted for multiplicity.|"Test null hypothesis of equal or higher proportion with brain infarct for device closure compared to medical management.~H0: Pm - Pd ≤ 0, versus H1: Pm - Pd \> 0, where Pd and Pm are true proportions of subjects with brain infarct for the device closure and medical management arms.~Significance threshold (1-sided alpha) = 0.025."||0.108|0.003|0.024
90955508|NCT02656329|181790491|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of AdreView™ group over SoC group was demonstrated if upper bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the hazard ratio (HR) (AdreView™ group / SoC) was equal to 1.20.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.047||||0.8459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.295|3.719||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Log Rank||AdreView™ vs. Standard of Care|Analysis was performed using the Cox proportional hazards model stratified by country, with method of treatment guidance (SoC vs AdreView™ group) as the only covariate.||3.719|0.295|0.8459
90955509|NCT00719329|181790513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Prevalence Rate Ratio|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.81|||Binomial Regression, Log Link|General Estimating Equations (GEE) to account for clustered allocation|Prevalence Rate Ratio - Comparing Single CHX Cleansing to Dry Cord Care|Comparison of colonization prevalence, relative to dry cord care group||0.81|0.70|
90955510|NCT00719329|181790513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Prevalence Rate Ratio|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.77|||Binomial Regression, Log Link|General Estimating Equations (GEE) to account for clustered allocation|Prevalence Rate Ratio - Comparing Multiple CHX Cleansing to Dry Cord Care|Comparison of colonization prevalence, relative to dry cord care group||0.77|0.66|
90955511|NCT00719329|181790514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Prevalence Rate Ratio|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.82|||Binomial Regression, Log Link|Generalized Estimating Equations to account for clustered allocation|Prevalence Ratio Ratio - Comparing Single Cleansing to Dry Cord Care|Comparison of colonization prevalence, relative to dry cord care group||0.82|0.74|
90955512|NCT00719329|181790514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Prevalence Rate Ratio|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.65|||Binomial Regression, Log Link|Generalized Estimating Equations to account for clustered allocation|Prevalence Rate Ratio - Comparing Multiple Cleansing to Dry Cord Care|Comparison of colonization prevalence, relative to dry cord care group||0.65|0.57|
90955513|NCT00719329|181790515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Prevalence Rate Ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|0.96|||Binomial Regression, Log Link|General Estimating Equations to adjust for clustered allocation|Prevalence Rate Ratio - Comparing Single Cleansing to Dry Cord Care|Comparison of colonization prevalence, relative to dry cord care group||0.96|0.89|
90955514|NCT00719329|181790515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Prevalence Rate Ratio|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.63|||Binomial Regression, Log Link|General Estimating Equations to account for clustered allocation|Prevalence Ratio Ratio - Comparing Multiple Cleansing to Dry Cord Care|Comparison of colonization prevalence, relative to dry cord care group||0.63|0.53|
90955515|NCT02186600|181790563|OTHER|Hierarchical linear modeling for intent-to-treat analysis to analyze time X group interactions, adjusted for baseline total body lean mass and height.||||||0.7|||||||hierarchical linear modeling|controlled for total lean mass and height||||||0.7
90955516|NCT02186600|181790564|OTHER|hierarchical linear modeling||||||0.01|||||||hierarchical linear modeling|||||||0.01
90955517|NCT02186600|181790565|OTHER|Hierarchical linear modeling|||||<|0.007|||||||hierarchical linear modeling|||||||<0.007
90955518|NCT03026075|181790566|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||McNemar|||"The primary objective of the study is to evaluate the effectiveness of MCS in cleansing a poorly prepared colon.~A sample size of 47 patients is required as per a McNemar test to determine that the paired discordant proportions are significantly different under the followings assumptions:~Probability of Type I Error (α) = 0.05, Power (1 - β) = 0.8 Proportion switching from + to - = 0, Proportion switching from - to + = 0.6 Potential of dropout 10% (i.e. 4 cases)"||||<0.01
90955519|NCT02001064|181790601|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3||||0.32|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.32
90955520|NCT02001064|181790602|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.073||||||Cohen's d (ranks) = -.049|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.073
90955521|NCT02001064|181790603|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24||||||Cohen's d=0.31|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.24
90955522|NCT01011153|181790606|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample sizes computed based on data from smaller studies provided 90% power for the comparison of sensitivity. Under the alternative hypothesis that the biopsy sensitivity of MelaFind would be 0.10 greater than the average biopsy/referral sensitivity of physicians (combined or separate), the probability that a 95% CI lies entirely above zero will be at least 90% when the standard error of the estimated difference is at most 0.0308.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.32|||ANOVA|||Using True Positives/All Positives, sensitivity values were calculated for MelaFind as well as the average of the 110 dermatologists.||0.32|0.18|<0.0001
90955523|NCT01011153|181790607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.34|||ANOVA|||Sensitivity||0.34|0.19|<0.0001
90955524|NCT01011153|181790607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.31|||ANOVA|||Sensitivity||0.31|0.16|<0.0001
90955525|NCT01011153|181790607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.33|||ANOVA|||Sensitivity||0.33|0.19|<0.0001
90955526|NCT01011153|181790607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.25|||ANOVA|||Specificity||-0.25|-0.46|<0.0001
90955527|NCT01011153|181790607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.31|||ANOVA|||Specificity||-0.31|-0.53|<0.0001
90955528|NCT01011153|181790607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.3|||ANOVA|||Specificity||-0.30|-0.51|<0.0001
90955529|NCT01011153|181790608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Kappa|0.313|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.003||||0.0||||No comparison is being made.|ANOVA||There is no threshold level-this is a measurement of variability among responses provided by the participants.|||||
90955530|NCT01011153|181790608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Kappa|0.276|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.002||||0.0||||No comparison is being made|ANOVA||There is no threshold level-this is a measurement of variability among responses provided by the participants.|||||
90955531|NCT01011153|181790608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Kappa|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.003||||0.0||||No comparison is being made|ANOVA||There is no threshold level-this is a measurement of variability among responses provided by the participants.|||||
90955532|NCT01011153|181790608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Kappa|0.256|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001||||0.0||||N/A - No comparison is being made|ANOVA||There is no threshold level-this is a measurement of variability among responses provided by the participants.|||||
90955533|NCT03014479|181790617|SUPERIORITY||Differences of Least Square Means|2.418||||0.2305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.546|6.382|||ANCOVA||Trelagliptin - Daily DPP-4 inhibitors|||6.382|-1.546|0.2305
90955534|NCT03014479|181790618|SUPERIORITY||Differences of Least Square Means|1.938||||0.4536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.15|7.027|||ANCOVA||Trelagliptin - Daily DPP-4 inhibitors|||7.027|-3.150|0.4536
90955535|NCT03014479|181790619|SUPERIORITY||Differences of Least Square Means|4.16||||0.0896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.649|8.968|||ANCOVA||Trelagliptin - Daily DPP-4 inhibitors|||8.968|-0.649|0.0896
90955536|NCT03014479|181790620|SUPERIORITY||Differences of Least Square Means|-0.563||||0.8506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.448|5.323|||ANCOVA||Trelagliptin - Daily DPP-4 inhibitors|||5.323|-6.448|0.8506
90955537|NCT03014479|181790621|SUPERIORITY||Differences of Least Square Means|2.696||||0.3533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.018|8.41|||ANCOVA||Trelagliptin - Daily DPP-4 inhibitors|||8.410|-3.018|0.3533
90955538|NCT03014479|181790623|SUPERIORITY||Differences of Least Square Means|0.613||||0.5451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|2.605|||ANCOVA||Trelagliptin - Daily DPP-4 inhibitors|||2.605|-1.380|0.5451
90955539|NCT01081132|181790648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.026|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.865|-3.187|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||||-3.187|-8.865|<0.001
90955540|NCT01081132|181790649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.01|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.010
90955541|NCT01081132|181790650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.115||||0.104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.254|0.024|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||||0.024|-0.254|0.104
90955542|NCT01081132|181790651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.057||||0.408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.192|0.078|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||||0.078|-0.192|0.408
90955543|NCT01081132|181790652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.083||||0.176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.203|0.037|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||||0.037|-0.203|0.176
90955544|NCT01081132|181790653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.136|-0.036|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||||-0.036|-0.136|0.253
90955545|NCT01081132|181790654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.004||||0.912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.061|0.068|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||||0.068|-0.061|0.912
90955546|NCT01081132|181790655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.029||||0.606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.139|0.081|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||||0.081|-0.139|0.606
90955547|NCT01081132|181790656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.102||||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.064|0.268|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||||0.268|-0.064|0.228
90955548|NCT01081132|181790657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.047||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.159|0.065|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||||0.065|-0.159|0.410
90955549|NCT01081132|181790658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.208||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.443|0.026|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||||0.026|-0.443|0.082
90955550|NCT01081132|181790659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90955551|NCT01081132|181790660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|0.7|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||Global Executive Composite||0.7|-5.3|0.134
90955552|NCT01081132|181790660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|2.3|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||Behavioral Regulation Index||2.3|-4.0|0.579
90955553|NCT01081132|181790660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|0.2|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||Metacognition Index||0.2|-5.6|0.072
90955554|NCT01081132|181790661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.8|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||||0.8|-1.8|0.465
90955555|NCT03973931|181790682|NON_INFERIORITY|Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) model with an identity link and independence with unequal variances for the covariance structure of the 12 observations|||||<|0.05|||||||GEE|To account for multiple treatment comparisons significance levels of 0.05/3||||||<0.05
90955556|NCT03973931|181790683|NON_INFERIORITY|Analysis of the longitudinal data (12 observations per patient) and estimated absolute differences in PDC between treatment group and usual care was analyzed using Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) model with an identity link and independence with unequal variances for the covariance structure was used.|||||<|0.05||||||To account for multiple treatment comparisons significance levels of 0.05/3, and if any test was significant, a significance level of (R/3)\*(0.05/3) using the Holm method was used for the 3 pairwise comparisons, R=number of significant stage 1 tests.|GEE|||||||<0.05
90955557|NCT00452426|181790687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.028
90955558|NCT00452426|181790689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.007
90955559|NCT00452426|181790690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90955560|NCT03541174|181790692|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference to placebo|-3.79||||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-6.76|-0.82||Mixed effects model for Repeated Measures: Change from baseline in SiSBP = baseline SiSBP + treatment + visit + treatment x visit + baseline x visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.82|-6.76|0.0042
90955561|NCT03541174|181790692|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference to placebo|-3.73||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-6.67|-0.78||Mixed effects model for Repeated Measures: Change from baseline in SiSBP = baseline SiSBP + treatment + visit + treatment x visit + baseline x visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.78|-6.67|0.0046
91017469|NCT01125358|181918111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.06||0.441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.74|2.54||P-value is for PANSS Positive Subscore.|MMRM|||||2.54|-5.74|0.441
90955562|NCT03541174|181790693|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference to placebo.|-5.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.94|-3.71||Mixed effects model for Repeated Measures: Change from DB-WD baseline in SiSBP = DB-WD baseline SiSBP + stratum (randomized treatment in DB part) + treatment + visit + treatment x visit + DB-WD baseline x visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.71|-7.94|<0.0001
90955563|NCT03541174|181790694|OTHER||LS Mean difference to placebo|-3.94|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.57|-2.31||Mixed effects model for Repeated Measures: Change from baseline in SiDBP = baseline SiDBP + treatment + visit + treatment x visit + baseline x visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.31|-5.57|<0.0001
90955564|NCT03541174|181790694|OTHER||LS Mean difference to placebo|-4.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.09|-2.85||Mixed effects model for Repeated Measures: Change from baseline in SiDBP = baseline SiDBP + treatment + visit + treatment x visit + baseline x visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.85|-6.09|<0.0001
90955565|NCT03541174|181790695|OTHER||LS Mean difference to placebo|-4.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.25|-2.12|||ANCOVA|||24-hour mean systolic (SBP)||-2.12|-6.25|<0.0001
90955566|NCT03541174|181790695|OTHER||LS Mean difference to placebo|-5.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.94|-3.85|||ANCOVA|||24-hour mean systolic (SBP)||-3.85|-7.94|<0.0001
90955567|NCT03541174|181790695|OTHER||LS Mean difference to placebo|-4.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.66|-2.98|||ANCOVA|||24-hour mean diastolic (DBP)||-2.98|-5.66|<0.0001
90955568|NCT03541174|181790695|OTHER||LS Mean|-5.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.14|-4.49|||ANCOVA|||24-hour mean diastolic (DBP)||-4.49|-7.14|<0.0001
90955569|NCT03541174|181790696|OTHER||LS Mean difference to placebo|-5.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.62|-3.76||Mixed effects model for Repeated Measures: Change from DB-WD baseline in SiDBP = Double-blind withdrawal baseline SiDBP + stratum (randomized treatment in DB part) + treatment + visit + treatment x visit + Double-blind withdrawal baseline x visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.76|-6.62|<0.0001
90955570|NCT03541174|181790697|OTHER||LS Mean difference to placebo|-6.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|-4.56|||ANCOVA|||24-hour mean systolic (SBP)||-4.56|-8.50|<0.0001
90955571|NCT03541174|181790697|OTHER||LSM Mean difference to placebo|-6.75|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.98|-5.52|||ANCOVA|||24-hour mean diastolic (DBP)||-5.52|-7.98|<0.0001
90955572|NCT00605215|181790698|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.823|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.664|1.02||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Negative Binomial Regression|||Analysis was performed using baseline-adjusted negative binomial regression, where a participant's number of relapses during the double-blind, placebo-controlled phase served as the response variable and an offset based on the log of participant's exposure in years was employed to adjust for variability of treatment exposure. The model included baseline EDSS score, log of (prior 2-year number of relapses+1) and CGR as covariates.||1.020|0.664|0.0746
90959061|NCT01620255|181798207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.32||||0.0071|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.511|-0.124|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 75 mg vs placebo, Rectal Bleeding, W8||-0.124|-0.511|0.0071
91017470|NCT01125358|181918111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|-4.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.88||0.03||95.0|-8.01|-0.44||P-value is for PANSS Positive Subscore.|MMRM|||||-0.44|-8.01|0.030
91017471|NCT01125358|181918111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|-1.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.98||0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.96|2.01||P-value is for PANSS Positive Subscore.|MMRM|||||2.01|-5.96|0.323
90955573|NCT00605215|181790698|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.741|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.082||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.596|0.92|||Negative Binomial Regression|||Analysis was performed using baseline-adjusted negative binomial regression, where a participant's number of relapses during the double-blind, placebo-controlled phase served as the response variable and an offset based on the log of participant's exposure in years was employed to adjust for variability of treatment exposure. The model included baseline EDSS score, log of (prior 2-year number of relapses+1) and CGR as covariates.||0.920|0.596|0.0067
90955574|NCT00275262|181790714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.125|||||||ANOVA|The statistical method used for a 1-way ANOVA between treatment groups.||The final on treatment values were included in the analysis.||||0.125
90955575|NCT00275262|181790715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.299|||||||ANOVA|The statistical method used for a 1-way ANOVA between treatment groups.||The final on treatment values were included in the analysis.||||0.299
90955576|NCT01131182|181790829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0005||95.0||||Assessed for relative risk using prior therapy (monotherapy or combination therapy) as a stratification factor.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0005
90955577|NCT05086276|181790838|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|3.73||P value for statistical significance is \<0.05|Chi-squared|||||3.73|0.51|0.525
90955578|NCT05086276|181790838|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.6||||0.525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.52|14.71||P value for statistical significance is \<0.05|Chi-squared|||||14.71|-7.52|0.525
90955579|NCT05086276|181790839|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.491||0.973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.954|0.987||P value for statistical significance is \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.987|-0.954|0.973
90955580|NCT05086276|181790841|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.34||P value for statistical significance is \<0.05|ANCOVA|||||0.34|-0.06|0.160
90955581|NCT05086276|181790842|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.41||P value for statistical significance is \<0.05|ANCOVA|||||0.41|0.03|0.027
90955582|NCT00777088|181790843|NON_INFERIORITY|The cumulative rate of ipsilateral stroke or neurologic death is not ≥ 20% at 180-day clinical follow-up and the cumulative rate of ipsilateral stroke or neurovascular death is not ≥ 25% at 5-year clinical follow-up|||||<|0.001|||||||Bayesian|||||||<.001
90955583|NCT00777088|181790844|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The rate of complete IA occlusion without major parent artery stenosis exceeds 50% with a posterior probability \>0.975.|||||<|0.001|||||||Bayesian|||||||<0.001
90955584|NCT00633880|181790852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.509||||||Statistical analysis plan involved a hierarchical assessment of secondary endpoints to prevent inflation of type I errors. As the primary endpoint was not positive, statistical analysis was not performed on secondary endpoints.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.509
90955585|NCT00633880|181790857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.026
90955586|NCT04927247|181790886|OTHER||Difference in percentage|7.9||||0.6302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.8|31.7|||Exact Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test|||||31.7|-15.8|0.6302
90955587|NCT04927247|181790887|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.9382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|2.16|||Stratified log-rank test|||||2.16|0.43|0.9382
90955588|NCT04927247|181790888|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-16.8||||0.1143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.4|0.8|||Exact Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test|||||0.8|-34.4|0.1143
90955589|NCT04927247|181790889|OTHER||Rate ratio|1.09||||0.7549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.89|||Negative binomial model|||||1.89|0.63|0.7549
90955590|NCT00878826|181790893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||at 14-18 weeks gestational age||||0.4
90955591|NCT00878826|181790893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||at 24-28 weeks gestational age||||0.9
90955592|NCT00878826|181790893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||at 32-34 weeks gestational age||||0.3
90955593|NCT01468181|181790899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|-1.67|||t-test, 2 sided|p-values are from within-group change t-test at the level of 0.05||HbA1c at 26 Weeks||-1.67|-1.87|<0.001
90955594|NCT01468181|181790899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|-1.55|||t-test, 2 sided|p-values are from within-group change t-test at the level of 0.05||HbA1c at 52 Weeks||-1.55|-1.75|<0.001
90955595|NCT01468181|181790901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-43.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.8|-40.0|||t-test, 2 sided|p-values are from within-group change t-test at the level of 0.05||FBG at 26 Weeks||-40.0|-47.8|<0.001
90955596|NCT01468181|181790901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-42.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.4|-38.7|||t-test, 2 sided|p-values are from within-group change t-test at the level of 0.05||FBG at 52 Weeks||-38.7|-46.4|<0.001
90955597|NCT01468181|181790902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-42.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.55|-38.29|||t-test, 2 sided|p-values are from within-group change t-test at the level of 0.05||Pre-morning meal at 26 Weeks||-38.29|-46.55|<0.001
90955598|NCT01468181|181790902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-42.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.44|-38.76|||t-test, 2 sided|p-values are from within-group change t-test at the level of 0.05||Pre-morning meal at 52 Weeks||-38.76|-46.44|<0.001
90955599|NCT01468181|181790902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-68.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.18|-62.79|||t-test, 2 sided|p-values are from within-group change t-test at the level of 0.05||2 hours post-morning meal at 26 Weeks||-62.79|-74.18|<0.001
90955600|NCT01468181|181790902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-66.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.12|-60.04|||t-test, 2 sided|p-values are from within-group change t-test at the level of 0.05||2 hours post-morning meal at 52 Weeks||-60.04|-72.12|<0.001
90955601|NCT01468181|181790902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-48.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.32|-43.09|||t-test, 2 sided|p-values are from within-group change t-test at the level of 0.05||Pre-midday meal at 26 Weeks||-43.09|-53.32|<0.001
90955602|NCT01468181|181790902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-47.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.77|-42.24|||t-test, 2 sided|p-values are from within-group change t-test at the level of 0.05||Pre-midday meal at 52 Weeks||-42.24|-52.77|<0.001
90955603|NCT01468181|181790902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-67.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.02|-61.11|||t-test, 2 sided|p-values are from within-group change t-test at the level of 0.05||2 hours post-midday meal at 26 Weeks||-61.11|-73.02|<0.001
90955604|NCT01468181|181790902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-63.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.16|-57.18|||t-test, 2 sided|p-values are from within-group change t-test at the level of 0.05||2 hours post-midday meal at 52 Weeks||-57.18|-69.16|<0.001
90955605|NCT01468181|181790902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-44.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.67|-38.34|||t-test, 2 sided|p-values are from within-group change t-test at the level of 0.05||Pre-evening meal at 26 Weeks||-38.34|-49.67|<0.001
90955606|NCT01468181|181790902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-43.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.55|-38.21|||t-test, 2 sided|p-values are from within-group change t-test at the level of 0.05||Pre-evening meal at 52 Weeks||-38.21|-49.55|<0.001
90955607|NCT01468181|181790902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-62.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.32|-56.5|||t-test, 2 sided|p-values are from within-group change t-test at the level of 0.05||2 hours post-evening meal at 26 Weeks||-56.50|-69.32|<0.001
90955608|NCT01468181|181790902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-60.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.95|-54.74|||t-test, 2 sided|p-values are from within-group change t-test at the level of 0.05||2 hours post-evening meal at 52 Weeks||-54.74|-66.95|<0.001
90955609|NCT01468181|181790902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-61.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.93|-55.37|||t-test, 2 sided|p-values are from within-group change t-test at the level of 0.05||Bedtime meal at 26 Weeks||-55.37|-66.93|<0.001
90955610|NCT01468181|181790902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-60.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.07|-54.25|||t-test, 2 sided|p-values are from within-group change t-test at the level of 0.05||Bedtime meal at 52 Weeks||-54.25|-66.07|<0.001
90955611|NCT01468181|181790903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|||<|0.277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.12|||t-test, 2 sided|p-values are from within-group change t-test at the level of 0.05||Body weight at 26 Weeks||0.12|-0.40|<0.277
90955612|NCT01468181|181790903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.16|||t-test, 2 sided|p-values are from within-group change t-test at the level of 0.05||Body weight at 52 Weeks||0.16|-0.42|0.382
90955613|NCT01468181|181790904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.0|31.18|||t-test, 2 sided|p-values are from within-group change t-test at the level of 0.05||HOMA2-B% at 26 Weeks||31.18|26.00|<0.001
90955614|NCT01468181|181790904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.73|30.41|||t-test, 2 sided|p-values are from within-group change t-test at the level of 0.05||HOMA2-B% at 52 Weeks||30.41|24.73|<0.001
90955615|NCT01468181|181790904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.57||||0.194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.46|1.32|||t-test, 2 sided|p-values are from within-group change t-test at the level of 0.05||HOMA2-S% at 26 Weeks||1.32|-6.46|0.194
90955616|NCT01468181|181790904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|65.0|-5.68|2.27|||t-test, 2 sided|p-values are from within-group change t-test at the level of 0.05||HOMA2-S% at 52 Weeks||2.27|-5.68|0.400
90955617|NCT00513305|181790905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.425|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The p-value is from the Pearson chi-square test for testing the equality of two binomial proportions, assuming normal approximation of the binomial proportions.|Chi-squared|There were no adjustments for covariates. Since the primary endpoint was prespecified, no adjustment for multiplicity of endpoints was introduced||The hypothesis of equal complete remission rates between the two treatment groups was tested using a 2-sided, normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions test with two-sided alpha equal to 0.05.||||0.425
90955618|NCT00513305|181790906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.027||||0.829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.535|1.973|||Log Rank|||||1.973|0.535|0.829
90955619|NCT00513305|181790907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|2.31||||0.527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|33.343|||Log Rank||Estimate based on Cox Proportional Hazards Model adjusting for age, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) status, white blood count and presence of antecedent hematologic disorder.|||33.343|0.160|0.527
90955620|NCT00513305|181790910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.027||||0.8289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.535|1.973|||Log Rank||Estimate based on Cox Proportional Hazards Model adjusting for age, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) status, white blood count and presence of antecedent hematologic disorder.|||1.973|0.535|0.8289
90955621|NCT02489968|181790922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.67|||REML based MMRM|Model including baseline HbA1c, treatment, baseline renal function, prior use of antidiabetic drug, visit, and visit by treatment interaction.|Adjusted mean difference: Change in HbA1c in (empagliflozin 10 mg + linagliptin 5 mg) - change in HbA1c in (empagliflozin 10 mg + placebo)|||-0.67|-0.97|<0.0001
90955622|NCT02489968|181790922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.45|||REML based MMRM|Model including baseline HbA1c, treatment, baseline renal function, prior use of antidiabetic drug, visit, and visit by treatment interaction.|Adjusted mean difference: Change in HbA1c in (empagliflozin 25 mg + linagliptin 5 mg) - change in HbA1c in (empagliflozin 25 mg + placebo)|||-0.45|-0.73|<0.0001
90955623|NCT01846494|181790949|OTHER|||||||0.6173|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.6173
90955624|NCT01865747|181790960|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.74|||Log Rank|The Log-Rank Test was stratified by the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) group and number of prior VEGFR TKIs.||||0.74|0.45|<0.0001
90955625|NCT01865747|181790961|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.83|||Log Rank|The Log-Rank test was stratified by the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) risk group and number of prior VEGFR TKIs.||||0.83|0.53|0.0003
90955626|NCT01865747|181790962|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
90955627|NCT00611975|181790978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.8|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Blood draws were scheduled for early follicular, ovulatory and luteal phases. Menstrual phase for blood samples were re-assigned to phase based on time to onset of next menstrual period. Early follicular(35-21 days before next menstrual period (NMP)), Ovulatory (16-12 before NMP) luteal (11-3 days before NMP).||||>0.8
90955628|NCT00611975|181790978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.4|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||This secondary analysis examined main effect of menstrual cycle phase on hormone levels||||>0.4
90955629|NCT00611975|181790979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.6|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Asex questionnaires were scheduled for early follicular, ovulatory and luteal phases. Menstrual phase for ASEX scores were re-assigned to phase based on time to onset of next menstrual period. Follicular(35-21 days before next menstrual period (NMP)), Ovulatory (16-12 before NMP) luteal (11-2 days before NMP).||||>0.6
90955630|NCT00611975|181790979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.6|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||This secondary analysis examined main effect of menstrual cycle phase on ASEX scores||||>0.6
90955631|NCT00611975|181790980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Blood draws were scheduled for early follicular, ovulatory and luteal phases. Menstrual phase for blood samples were re-assigned to phase based on time to onset of next menstrual period. Early follicular(35-21 days before next menstrual period (NMP)), Ovulatory (16-12 before NMP) luteal (11-3 days before NMP).||||<.01
90955632|NCT00611975|181790980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||This secondary analysis examined main effect of menstrual cycle phase on hormone levels||||<0.01
90955633|NCT00611975|181790981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.4|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Blood draws were scheduled for early follicular, ovulatory and luteal phases. Menstrual phase for blood samples were re-assigned to phase based on time to onset of next menstrual period. Early follicular(35-21 days before next menstrual period (NMP)), Ovulatory (16-12 before NMP) luteal (11-3 days before NMP).||||>0.4
90955634|NCT00611975|181790981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||This secondary analysis examined main effect of menstrual cycle phase on hormone levels||||<.0001
90955635|NCT00611975|181790982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.7|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Blood draws were scheduled for early follicular, ovulatory and luteal phases. Menstrual phase for blood samples were re-assigned to phase based on time to onset of next menstrual period. Early follicular(35-21 days before next menstrual period (NMP)), Ovulatory (16-12 before NMP) luteal (11-3 days before NMP).||||>0.7
90955636|NCT00611975|181790982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||This secondary analysis examined main effect of menstrual cycle phase on hormone levels||||<.0001
90955637|NCT00611975|181790983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.9|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Blood draws were scheduled for early follicular, ovulatory and luteal phases. Menstrual phase for blood samples were re-assigned to phase based on time to onset of next menstrual period. Early follicular(35-21 days before next menstrual period (NMP)), Ovulatory (16-12 before NMP) luteal (11-3 days before NMP).||||>0.9
90955638|NCT00611975|181790983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||This secondary analysis examined main effect of menstrual cycle phase on hormone levels||||<.0001
90955639|NCT00611975|181790984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.9|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Blood draws were scheduled for early follicular, ovulatory and luteal phases. Menstrual phase for blood samples were re-assigned to phase based on time to onset of next menstrual period. Early follicular(35-21 days before next menstrual period (NMP)), Ovulatory (16-12 before NMP) luteal (11-3 days before NMP).||||>0.9
90955640|NCT00611975|181790984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.9|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||This secondary analysis examined main effect of menstrual cycle phase on hormone levels||||>0.9
90955641|NCT00611975|181790985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.1|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Blood draws were scheduled for early follicular, ovulatory and luteal phases. Menstrual phase for blood samples were re-assigned to phase based on time to onset of next menstrual period. Early follicular(35-21 days before next menstrual period (NMP)), Ovulatory (16-12 before NMP) luteal (11-3 days before NMP).||||>0.1
90955642|NCT00611975|181790985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.7|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||This secondary analysis examined main effect of menstrual cycle phase on hormone levels||||>0.7
90955643|NCT01982448|181790997|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|23.68|||||Association between HRD status and pathologic response was measured by the odds ratio (OR).|In the Cisplatin treated patients, the relationship between HRD status and pathologic response was conducted by arm using a univariate logistic regression model and a likelihood ratio test with a one-sided type I error of alpha 0.05. Assuming 12.5% unevaluable, prevalence of HR deficiency 60%, 70 evaluable patients per in a given arm, there is \~80% power to detect a response rate of 52% in HR-deficient patients vs a 16% in HR non-deficient patients, corresponding to the Odds Ratio 5.7.||23.68|0.39|
90955644|NCT01982448|181790997|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|4.95||||||In the Paclitaxel treated patients, the relationship between HRD status and pathologic response was conducted by arm using a univariate logistic regression model and a likelihood ratio test with a one-sided type I error of alpha 0.05. Assuming 12.5% unevaluable, prevalence of HR deficiency 60%, 70 evaluable patients per in a given arm, there is \~80% power to detect a response rate of 37% in HR-deficient patients vs a 16% in HR non-deficient patients, corresponding to the Odds Ratio 0.62.||4.95|0.19|
90955645|NCT01982448|181790998|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|118.07||||||||118.07|0.23|
90955646|NCT01982448|181790998|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|4.14||||||||4.14|0.09|
90955647|NCT00432666|181791002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.49|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|8.3|||Regression, Logistic|||The null hypothesis was equality of the chance (OR = 1) for a clinically relevant treatment effect between incobotulinumtoxinA (Xeomin) and placebo at Week 4 for wrist flexors. Responders were defined as subjects with an improvement of at least 1 point in the Ashworth score compared with Baseline. The dependent variable was the response to treatment, the independent variables were treatment, Ashworth score at the Baseline Visit, pre-treated patient status, gender, age, BMI, and pooled sites.||8.30|1.90|<0.001
90955648|NCT00705679|181791138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.21||The two-sided test a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05 against an alternative of 0% effectiveness for estimated effectiveness levels between 33.3% and 50.0%.|Regression, Cox|The Cox proportional-hazards model was stratified by site.|A ratio less than 1 indicates a lower rate of HIV infection in the active arm compared to the placebo arm. A ratio more than 1 indicates a higher rate of HIV infection in the active arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis is that the active product will be no more than 25% effective. The trial was designed so that 94 events per pairwise comparison are needed to detect 55% effectiveness while ruling out a lower effectiveness of 25% with 90% power and a false-positive error rate of 0.0025.||1.21|0.61|0.37
91017472|NCT01125358|181918111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|-2.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.28||0.285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.05|2.12||P-value is for PANSS Negative Subscore.|MMRM|||||2.12|-7.05|0.285
91017473|NCT01125358|181918111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|-2.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.07||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|1.26||P-value is for PANSS Negative Subscore.|MMRM|||||1.26|-7.10|0.166
91017474|NCT01125358|181918111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|-2.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2||0.286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.79|2.05||P-value is for PANSS Negative Subscore.|MMRM|||||2.05|-6.79|0.286
91017475|NCT01125358|181918111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|-5.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.14||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.96|2.63||P-value is for PANSS General Psychopathology Subscore.|MMRM|||||2.63|-13.96|0.177
91017476|NCT01125358|181918111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|-5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.74||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|2.4||P-value is for PANSS General Psychopathology Subscore.|MMRM|||||2.40|-12.60|0.178
91017477|NCT01125358|181918111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|-3.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.05||0.377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.72|4.51||P-value is for PANSS General Psychopathology Subscore.|MMRM|||||4.51|-11.72|0.377
91017478|NCT01125358|181918112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.83|||MMRM|||||1.83|-0.10|0.077
91017479|NCT01125358|181918112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|0.65|||MMRM|||||0.65|-1.12|0.592
91017480|NCT01125358|181918112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|1.32|||MMRM|||||1.32|-0.53|0.395
91017481|NCT01125358|181918113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|4.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.49||0.306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.37|13.65|||MMRM|||||13.65|-4.37|0.306
91017482|NCT01125358|181918113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.26||0.849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.74|9.38|||MMRM|||||9.38|-7.74|0.849
91017483|NCT01125358|181918113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|-5.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.46||0.259||95.0|-14.05|3.86|||MMRM|||||3.86|-14.05|0.259
91017484|NCT01125358|181918115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.354||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.354
91017485|NCT01125358|181918115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.181||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.181
91017486|NCT01125358|181918115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.999||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
91017487|NCT02115373|181918132|OTHER||Median|2.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.446|7.195|||||TTP in months was calculated for Phase 1b: Tepotinib 300 mg and Phase 1b: Tepotinib 500 mg combined.|||7.195|1.446|
91017488|NCT02115373|181918132|OTHER||Median|3.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.858|4.238|||||TTP in months was calculated for Phase 2: Tepotinib 500 mg.|||4.238|2.858|
91017489|NCT02115373|181918133|OTHER||Median|1.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.413|3.68|||||PFS time in months was calculated for Phase 1b: Tepotinib 300 mg and Phase 1b: Tepotinib 500 mg combined.|||3.680|1.413|
91017490|NCT02115373|181918133|OTHER||Median|3.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.03|16.53|||||PFS time in months was calculated for Phase 2: Tepotinib 500 mg.|||16.53|0.03|
91017491|NCT02115373|181918134|OTHER||Median|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.413|3.844|||||PFS time in months was calculated for Phase 1b: Tepotinib 300 mg and Phase 1b: Tepotinib 500 mg combined.|||3.844|1.413|
91017492|NCT02115373|181918134|OTHER||Median|3.35|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.76|4.172|||||PFS time in months was was calculated for Phase 2: Tepotinib 500 mg.|||4.172|2.760|
91017493|NCT02115373|181918136|OTHER||Median|7.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.68|10.119|||||Overall Survival time in months was calculated for Phase 1b: Tepotinib 300 mg and Phase 1b: Tepotinib 500 mg combined.|||10.119|3.680|
91017494|NCT02115373|181918136|OTHER||Median|5.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.092|8.181|||||Overall Survival time in months was calculated for Phase 2: Tepotinib 500 mg.|||8.181|5.092|
91017495|NCT04007406|181918178|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The threshold value for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
91017496|NCT04007406|181918179|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The threshold for significance was p \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
91017497|NCT04007406|181918180|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The threshold for significance was p \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
91017498|NCT04007406|181918181|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The threshold for significance was p \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
91017499|NCT04007406|181918182|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The statistical threshold was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
91017500|NCT03159611|181918183|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.002
91017501|NCT03159611|181918184|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.005
91017502|NCT03159611|181918185|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.50
91017503|NCT03159611|181918186|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.20
91017504|NCT03159611|181918187|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.19
91017505|NCT01984229|181918190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|118.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.0|137.0|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratios (Period 3/Period 1) and confidence intervals (CIs).||137|102|
90955649|NCT00705679|181791141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.49||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|2.29||The two-sided test a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05 against an alternative of 0% effectiveness for estimated effectiveness levels between 33.3% and 50.0%.|Regression, Cox|The Cox proportional-hazards model was stratified by site.|A ratio less than 1 indicates a lower rate of HIV infection in the active arm compared to the placebo arm. A ratio more than 1 indicates a higher rate of HIV infection in the active arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis is that the active product will be no more than 25% effective. The trial was designed so that 94 events per pairwise comparison are needed to detect 55% effectiveness while ruling out a lower effectiveness of 25% with 90% power and a false-positive error rate of 0.0025.||2.29|0.97|0.07
90955650|NCT00705679|181791144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.49||The two-sided test a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05 against an alternative of 0% effectiveness for estimated effectiveness levels between 33.3% and 50.0%.|Regression, Cox|The Cox proportional-hazards model was stratified by site.|A ratio less than 1 indicates a lower rate of HIV infection in the active arm compared to the placebo arm. A ratio more than 1 indicates a higher rate of HIV infection in the active arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis is that the active product will be no more than 25% effective. The trial was designed so that 94 events per pairwise comparison are needed to detect 55% effectiveness while ruling out a lower effectiveness of 25% with 90% power and a false-positive error rate of 0.0025.||1.49|0.73|0.81
90955651|NCT00705679|181791145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|Two-sided Fisher's Exact Test.||||||0.004
90955652|NCT03527173|181791146|NON_INFERIORITY|VE in reduction of shigellosis is demonstrated if lower limit (LL) of 90% CI of VE estimated with Miettinen-Nurminen (M-N) method is above 0. This estimated CI was complemented with Barnard test. The LL of the 90% CI for VE calculated with M-N method is above 0 if the p-value of the one-sided Barnard test is below 5%.|Vaccine efficacy rate|-9.4||||0.4266|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-96.7|33.7|||1-sided Barnard Unconditional Exact Test|||To demonstrate the efficacy of two vaccinations with 25 µg of S. sonnei vaccine in healthy adults compared to placebo in preventing shigellosis, fulfilling the protocol primary case definition, after challenge with S. sonnei 53G strain. Vaccine efficacy (VE) rate was assessed as 1-Risk Ratio(RR) with RR = ratio of proportion of subjects with shigellosis in the vaccinated group on the proportion of subjects with shigellosis in the placebo group.||33.7|-96.7|0.4266
90955653|NCT02704754|181791165|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.05
90955654|NCT03730480|181791178|OTHER|count of number of results within 15% of reference analyzer||||||||||||||||count of number of responses|The number of results that are within 15% of reference analyzer is reported.|||
90955655|NCT01248780|181791180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90955656|NCT01248780|181791181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90955657|NCT01248780|181791182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90955658|NCT01248780|181791183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90955659|NCT00107120|181791186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Means Difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.458||0.022||95.0|-6.2|-0.5||Two-sided at 5% level of significance p \< 0.05 considered significant|ANCOVA|The model included study center and treatment as factors and baseline core as covariate|Differences are Escitalopram-Placebo|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the Change from Baseline to Week 8 in CDRS-R total score between treatment groups. The power calculation was based on the change from baseline to Week 8 in CDRS-R total score (LOCF approach). Assuming an effect size (treatment group difference relative to standard deviation) of 0.325, a sample size of approximately 150 patients per treatment group was used to provide at least 80% power at a significance level of 0.05 using a two-sided test.||-0.5|-6.2|0.022
90955660|NCT00107120|181791187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Means Difference|-0.344|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1128||0.008||95.0|-0.595|0.092||Two-sided at 5% level of significance|ANCOVA|The model included treatment and center as factors and baseline CGI-Severity score as covariate.|Differences are Escitalopram-Placebo|Missing values were imputed using the LOCF approach.||0.092|-0.595|0.008
90955661|NCT00107120|181791188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Means Difference|2.169|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.324||0.103||95.0|-0.439|4.777||Two-sided at 5% level of significance|ANCOVA||Differences are Escitalopram-Placebo|ANCOVA on the Change from Baseline to Week 8 in CGAS score. The model included treatment and center as factors and baseline score as covariate. Missing values were imputed using the LOCF approach.||4.777|-0.439|0.103
90955662|NCT00896051|181791193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Means Ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.55|1.22|||Linear mixed effects model|A linear mixed effects model was used controlling for treatment as fixed effect, and participant as a random effect.||Parameter: minimum plasma concentration (Cmin)||1.22|0.55|
90955663|NCT00896051|181791193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|1.16|||Linear mixed effects model|A linear mixed effects model was used controlling for treatment as fixed effect, and participant as a random effect.||Parameter: maximum plasma concentration (Cmax)||1.16|0.80|
90955664|NCT00896051|181791194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Means Ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.76|1.22|||Linear mixed effects model|linear mixed effects model was used controlling for treatment as fixed effect, and participant as a random effect.||Parameter: area under the plasma concentration-time curve from time of intake to 24 hours after dosing (AUC24hr)||1.22|0.76|
90955665|NCT00896051|181791195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Means Ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.63|1.33|||Linear mixed effects model|A linear mixed effects model was used controlling for treatment as fixed effect, and participant as a random effect.||Parameter: Minimum plasma concentration (Cmin)||1.33|0.63|
90955666|NCT00896051|181791195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Means Ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.86|1.27|||Linear mixed effects model|A linear mixed effects model was used controlling for treatment as fixed effect, and participant as a random effect.||Parameter: maximum plasma concentration (Cmax)||1.27|0.86|
90955667|NCT00896051|181791196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Means Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|1.21|||Llinear mixed effects model|A linear mixed effects model was used controlling for treatment as fixed effect, and participant as a random effect.||Parameter: area under the plasma concentration-time curve from time of intake to 24 hours after dosing (AUC24hr)||1.21|0.81|
90955668|NCT00210470|181791218|EQUIVALENCE|The correlation of each of the above variables at biopsy/Day 1, surgery/Day 21, and change with percent change in the longest diameter (LD) of the primary tumor was calculated using Spearman rank correlations (183 correlations). Due to outliers in the distribution of percent change in the longest diameter, it was felt that the Spearman rank correlations would be more appropriate than Pearson correlations.|||||<|0.1|||||||Spearman Rank|||||||<0.10
90955669|NCT00007345|181791257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||An exact Cochran-Armitage trend test was used to compare the distributions. In view of the large number of tests performed, we only refer to those with P-values \<0.01 as statistically significant, with those for which 0.01 \<P\< 0.05 considered trends.|Cochran-Armitage trend test|||||||<0.01
90955670|NCT04433585|181791262|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46||||0.309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|3.04|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.04|0.70|0.309
90955671|NCT04433585|181791262|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|2.03|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.03|0.47|0.944
90955672|NCT04433585|181791262|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.78|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.78|0.40|0.649
90955673|NCT04433585|181791263|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.89||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|4.3|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.30|0.83|0.131
90955674|NCT04433585|181791263|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|2.5|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.50|0.47|0.844
90955675|NCT04433585|181791263|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.57||||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|1.39|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.39|0.24|0.218
90955676|NCT04433585|181791264|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|2.03|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.03|0.47|0.944
90955677|NCT04433585|181791264|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46||||0.309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|3.04|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.04|0.70|0.309
90955678|NCT04433585|181791264|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.78|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.78|0.40|0.649
90955679|NCT04433585|181791265|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.91||||0.203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|5.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.20|0.71|0.203
90955680|NCT04433585|181791265|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|3.16|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.16|0.38|0.865
90955681|NCT04433585|181791265|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|3.05|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.05|0.38|0.896
90955682|NCT00704379|181791278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.6|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|16.2|||Log Rank|||||16.2|1.1|<0.05
90955683|NCT02015455|181791291|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference in Median|-0.7||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for site, clinic size, age, sex, image modality, comorbidity, and site time trends. Random effects for clinic and provider.|Percent difference in median of the intervention group with respect to the control group.|||1.5|-2.9|0.54
90955684|NCT02015455|181791292|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.0||A p-value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for site, clinic size, age, sex, image modality, comorbidity, prior opioid use, site time trends. Random effects for clinic and provider.|Odds ratio is for the intervention group with respect to the control group.|||1.00|0.91|0.04
90955685|NCT02015455|181791293|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|0.99||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for site, clinic size, age, sex, image modality, comorbidity, prior opioid use, site time trends. Random effects for clinic and provider.|Odds ratio is for the intervention group with respect to the control group.|||0.99|0.90|0.02
90955686|NCT02015455|181791294|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|0.99||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for site, clinic size, age, sex, image modality, comorbidity, prior opioid use, site time trends. Random effects for clinic and provider.|Odds ratio is for the intervention group with respect to the control group.|||0.99|0.91|0.02
90955687|NCT02015455|181791298|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.07||Statistical significance defined as P\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for site, clinic size, age, sex, image modality, comorbidity, site time trends. Random effects for clinic and provider.|Odds ratio is for the intervention group with respect to the control group.|||1.07|0.91|0.74
90955688|NCT00741390|181791324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|99.59||||||95.0|98.09|99.59||||||||99.59|98.09|
90955689|NCT00741390|181791324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|100.0||||||95.0|98.79|100.0||||||||100|98.79|
90955690|NCT00741390|181791324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|100.0||||||95.0|97.61|100.0||||||||100|97.61|
90955691|NCT00741390|181791324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|100.0||||||95.0|95.36|100.0||||||||100|95.36|
90955692|NCT00741390|181791324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|100.0||||||95.0|95.13|100.0||||||||100|95.13|
90955693|NCT00741390|181791325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|10.84|||<|0.001||95.0|6.8|10.84|||ANOVA|A general linear model with subject as a random effect and order within a pair as a fixed effect was fit to each study group.||||10.84|6.80|<0.001
90955694|NCT00741390|181791325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.55||||0.003||95.0|3.63|8.55|||ANOVA|A general linear model with subject as a random effect and order within a pair as a fixed effect was fit to each study group.||||8.55|3.63|0.003
90955695|NCT00741390|181791325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.23||||0.46||95.0|-3.57|0.23|||ANOVA|A general linear model with subject as a random effect and order within a pair as a fixed effect was fit to each study group.||||0.23|-3.57|0.460
90955696|NCT00741390|181791326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.9||||0.017||95.0|1.14|4.9|||ANOVA|A general linear model with subject as a random effect and order within a pair as a fixed effect was fit to each study group.||||4.90|1.14|0.017
90955697|NCT00741390|181791327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|One proportion two-sided test; p=50%||Analysis consisted of a one proportion test for the 1st device in the lancing pair being preferred, out of the total number of times that a preference was stated. Note: lancing pairs in which no preference was stated or where data were missing were excluded from analysis. The null hypothesis for the one proportion test was that the 1st device in the lancing pair was preferred 50% of the times.||||0.001
90955698|NCT00741390|181791327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|One proportion two-sided test; p=50%||Analysis consisted of a one proportion test for the 1st device in the lancing pair being preferred, out of the total number of times that a preference was stated. Note: lancing pairs in which no preference was stated or where data were missing were excluded from analysis. The null hypothesis for the one proportion test was that the 1st device in the lancing pair was preferred 50% of the times.||||0.002
90955699|NCT00741390|181791327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.761||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|One proportion two-sided test; p=50%||Analysis consisted of a one proportion test for the 1st device in the lancing pair being preferred, out of the total number of times that a preference was stated. Note: lancing pairs in which no preference was stated or where data were missing were excluded from analysis. The null hypothesis for the one proportion test was that the 1st device in the lancing pair was preferred 50% of the times.||||0.761
90955700|NCT00741390|181791327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|One proportion two-sided test; p=50%||Analysis consisted of a one proportion test for the 1st device in the lancing pair being preferred, out of the total number of times that a preference was stated. Note: lancing pairs in which no preference was stated or where data were missing were excluded from analysis. The null hypothesis for the one proportion test was that the 1st device in the lancing pair was preferred 50% of the times.||||0.004
90955701|NCT00620282|181791330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|7.43||||0.0549||95.0|-0.164|15.025||2-sided significance level of 5%.|ANCOVA|||Change in Ach-mediated FBF from baseline to end of treatment at 12 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline FBF as a covariate.||15.025|-0.164|0.0549
90955702|NCT00620282|181791330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|2.08||||0.5681||95.0|-5.215|9.375||2-sided significance level of 5%.|ANCOVA|||Change in Ach-mediated FBF from baseline to end of treatment at 12 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline FBF as a covariate.||9.375|-5.215|0.5681
90955703|NCT00620282|181791330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|5.35||||0.1668||95.0|-2.323|13.024||2-sided significance level of 5%.|ANCOVA|||Change in Ach-mediated FBF from baseline to end of treatment at 12 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline FBF as a covariate.||13.024|-2.323|0.1668
90955704|NCT00620282|181791331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|4.499||||0.2648||95.0|-3.535|12.534||2-sided significance level of 5%.|ANCOVA|||Change in SNP-mediated FBF from baseline to end of treatment at 12 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline FBF as a covariate.||12.534|-3.535|0.2648
90955705|NCT00620282|181791331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|0.709||||0.8518||95.0|-6.904|8.322||2-sided significance level of 5%.|ANCOVA|||Change in SNP-mediated FBF from baseline to end of treatment at 12 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline FBF as a covariate.||8.322|-6.904|0.8518
90955706|NCT00620282|181791331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|3.79||||0.3435||95.0|-4.194|11.774||2-sided significance level of 5%.|ANCOVA|||Change in SNP-mediated FBF from baseline to end of treatment at 12 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline FBF as a covariate.||11.774|-4.194|0.3435
90955707|NCT00620282|181791332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|-0.536||||0.0023||95.0|-0.868|-0.203||2-sided significance level of 5%.|ANCOVA|||Change in HbA1c from baseline to end of treatment at 12 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||-0.203|-0.868|0.0023
90955708|NCT00620282|181791332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|-0.077||||0.6207||95.0|-0.391|0.236||2-sided significance level of 5%.|ANCOVA|||Change in HbA1c from baseline to end of treatment at 12 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||0.236|-0.391|0.6207
90955709|NCT00620282|181791332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|-0.458||||0.0098||95.0|-0.8|-0.116||2-sided significance level of 5%.|ANCOVA|||Change in HbA1c from baseline to end of treatment at 12 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||-0.116|-0.8|0.0098
90955710|NCT00620282|181791333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|-35.605||||||95.0|-46.797|-24.413||2-sided significance level of 5%.|ANCOVA|||Change in FPG from baseline to end of treatment at 12 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline FPG as a covariate.||-24.413|-46.797|
90955711|NCT00620282|181791333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|-9.653||||0.0677||95.0|-20.041|0.736||2-sided significance level of 5%.|ANCOVA|||Change in FPG from baseline to end of treatment at 12 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline FPG as a covariate.||0.736|-20.041|0.0677
90955712|NCT00620282|181791333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|-25.952||||||95.0|-37.429|-14.475||2-sided significance level of 5%.|ANCOVA|||Change in FPG from baseline to end of treatment at 12 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline FPG as a covariate.||-14.475|-37.429|
90955713|NCT00620282|181791334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|-11.871||||0.4121||95.0|-40.943|17.201||2-sided significance level of 5%.|ANCOVA|||Change in PPG from baseline to end of treatment at 12 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline PPG as a covariate.||17.201|-40.943|0.4121
90955714|NCT00620282|181791334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|3.815||||0.7622||95.0|-21.618|29.247||2-sided significance level of 5%|ANCOVA|||Change in PPG from baseline to end of treatment at 12 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline PPG as a covariate.||29.247|-21.618|0.7622
90955715|NCT00620282|181791334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|-15.686||||0.2651||95.0|-43.838|12.466||2-sided significance level of 5%.|ANCOVA|||Change in PPG from baseline to end of treatment at 12 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline PPG as a covariate.||12.466|-43.838|0.2651
90893579|NCT02586025|181652168|SUPERIORITY||Difference in DFS Event-Free Rates|-9.0||||0.0426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.69|-0.3|||Z-test||The difference in DFS event-free rates was calculated as the Placebo arm minus the Pertuzumab arm.|Difference in DFS Event-Free Rates at 3 years||-0.30|-17.69|0.0426
91017506|NCT01984229|181918191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|177.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|159.0|198.0|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratios (Period 3/Period 1) and CIs.||198|159|
90893580|NCT02586025|181652168|SUPERIORITY||Difference in DFS Event-Free Rates|-10.97||||0.0276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.73|-1.21|||Z-test||The difference in DFS event-free rates was calculated as the Placebo arm minus the Pertuzumab arm.|Difference in DFS Event-Free Rates at 5 years||-1.21|-20.73|0.0276
90893581|NCT02586025|181652169|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53||||0.1181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.19|||Stratified log-rank|Two-sided log-rank test used, stratified by disease category (early-stage/locally advanced) \& hormone-receptor status (ER+ \&/or PgR+ or ER- \& PgR-)|The hazard ratio was calculated by stratified Cox proportional hazards model.|Hazard Ratio for OS Event in the Pertuzumab arm vs. Placebo arm||1.19|0.23|0.1181
90893582|NCT02586025|181652169|SUPERIORITY||Difference in OS Event-Free Rates|0.46||||0.3162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|1.36|||Z-test||The difference in OS event-free rates was calculated as the Placebo arm minus the Pertuzumab arm.|Difference in OS Event-Free Rates at 1 year||1.36|-0.44|0.3162
90893583|NCT02586025|181652169|SUPERIORITY||Difference in OS Event-Free Rates|-6.02||||0.0529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.11|0.08|||Z-test||The difference in OS event-free rates was calculated as the Placebo arm minus the Pertuzumab arm.|Difference in OS Event-Free Rates at 3 years||0.08|-12.11|0.0529
90893584|NCT02586025|181652169|SUPERIORITY||Difference in OS Event-Free Rates|-3.89||||0.2616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.69|2.9|||Z-test||The difference in OS event-free rates was calculated as the Placebo arm minus the Pertuzumab arm.|Difference in OS Event-Free Rates at 5 years||2.90|-10.69|0.2616
90893585|NCT02586025|181652175|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|0.93|||||Pertuzumab, Trastuzumab, Docetaxel arm minus Placebo, Trastuzumab, Docetaxel arm|||0.93|-1.62|
90893586|NCT00175825|181652187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent reduction over Placebo|9.8|||=|0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|24.0|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA with baseline seizure frequency per week and each of the stratification factors as independent variables.||24.0|-7.2|=0.240
90893587|NCT00175825|181652187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent reduction over Placebo|14.9|||=|0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|28.2|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA with baseline seizure frequency per week and each of the stratification factors as independent variables.||28.2|-0.8|=0.062
90893588|NCT00175825|181652187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent reduction over Placebo|22.1|||=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.6|34.3|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA with baseline seizure frequency per week and each of the stratification factors as independent variables.||34.3|7.6|=0.004
90893589|NCT00415610|181652255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||The repeated measure analysis of the hourly average SBP was calculated with and without adjusting for baseline NIHSS and age.|repeated measure|Adjusted for initial deficit severity of using baseline NIHSS instead of GCS to better discriminate among patients with GCS score \> 8.||The hourly average (of maximum and minimum) SBP measurements were graphed with box-and-whiskers plot. In addition, a repeated measures analysis of the 25 average SBP (baseline and subsequent 24 hourly measures) was conducted with a mixed effects model (assuming autoregressive covariance structure in SAS version 9.1 PROC MIXED) to determine statistically the effect of treatment intensity (tier) on the average SBP over the 24 hrs with and without adjustment for baseline NIHSS score and age.||||< 0.01
90893590|NCT00415610|181652256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.5|TWO_SIDED|||||Observed average SBP change at 2 hrs after treatment initiation between subjects who did or did not have neurologic deterioration within 24 hrs.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|Mean decrease measured for subjects with neurological deterioration and subjects without neurological deterioration.||Done as a surrogate to evaluate the relationship between early SBP reduction and safety events.||||< .5
90893591|NCT02298361|181652291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|1.93|||Generalized estimating equation|GEE model clustered by clinic, adjusted for demographics, number of visits, new/established patient at first visit, and household factors.|Adjusted odds of gaining Medicaid: intervention patients (numerator) relative to within-clinic comparison patients (denominator)|||1.93|1.60|
90893592|NCT02298361|181652291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.91|2.72|||Generalized estimating equation|GEE model clustered by clinic, adjusted for demographics, number of visits, new/established patient at first visit, and household factors.|Adjusted odds of gaining Medicaid: intervention patients (numerator) relative to control clinic comparison patients (denominator)|||2.72|1.91|
90893593|NCT02298361|181652292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.94|||Generalized estimating equation|GEE model clustered by clinic, adjusted for demographics, number of visits, new/established patient at first visit, and household factors.|Adjusted odds of losing Medicaid: intervention patients (numerator) relative to within-clinic comparison patients (denominator)|||0.94|0.53|
90893594|NCT02298361|181652292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.67|||Generalized estimating equation|GEE model clustered by clinic, adjusted for demographics, number of visits, new/established patient at first visit, and household factors.|Adjusted odds of losing Medicaid: intervention patients (numerator) relative to control clinic comparison patients (denominator)|||0.67|0.45|
90893595|NCT01490502|181652327|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.60
90893596|NCT01490502|181652327|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|2.05|||Regression, Cox|||||2.05|0.67|0.57
90893597|NCT01490502|181652328|OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||Andersen Gill model for recurrent events|||||||0.07
90893598|NCT01490502|181652329|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|1.8||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|3.45|||Negative Binomial Model|||||3.45|0.94|0.07
90893599|NCT01490502|181652330|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|1.47||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.46|||Negative Binomial Model|||||2.46|0.88|0.14
90893600|NCT01490502|181652331|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.60
90893601|NCT01490502|181652332|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The average rate of change in MSFC Z-score over time was analyzed using a linear mixed-effects model with unstructured covariance structure and random intercepts. The p-value is a test of whether there is a difference in the rate of change in the MSFC Z-score between treatment arms.||||0.20
90955716|NCT00620282|181791335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|-1.528||||0.0268||95.0|-2.873|-0.184||2-sided significance level of 5%.|ANCOVA|||Change in body weight from baseline to end of treatment at 12 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline body weight as a covariate.||-0.184|-2.873|0.0268
90955717|NCT00620282|181791335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|-2.859||||||95.0|-4.139|-1.579||2-sided significance level of 5%.|ANCOVA|||Change in body weight from baseline to end of treatment at 12 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline body weight as a covariate.||-1.579|-4.139|
90955718|NCT00620282|181791335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|1.331||||0.0486||95.0|0.009|2.653||2-sided significance level of 5%.|ANCOVA|||Change in body weight from baseline to end of treatment at 12 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline body weight as a covariate.||2.653|0.0090|0.0486
90955719|NCT00620282|181791336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|-2.237||||0.7736||95.0|-17.829|13.354||2-sided significance level of 5%.|ANCOVA|||Change in TC from baseline to end of treatment at 12 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline TC as a covariate.||13.354|-17.829|0.7736
90955720|NCT00620282|181791336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|1.912||||0.7993||95.0|-13.168|16.991||2-sided significance level of 5%.|ANCOVA|||Change in TC from baseline to end of treatment at 12 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline TC as a covariate.||16.991|-13.168|0.7993
90955721|NCT00620282|181791336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|-4.149||||0.5903||95.0|-19.582|11.284||2-sided significance level of 5%.|ANCOVA|||Change in TC from baseline to end of treatment at 12 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline TC as a covariate.||11.284|-19.582|0.5903
90955722|NCT00620282|181791337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|3.702||||0.5583||95.0|-8.96|16.365||2-sided significance level of 5%.|ANCOVA|||Change in LDL-C from baseline to end of treatment at 12 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline LDL-C as a covariate.||16.365|-8.96|0.5583
90955723|NCT00620282|181791337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|2.773||||0.6517||95.0|-9.537|15.082||2-sided significance level of 5%.|ANCOVA|||Change in LDL-C from baseline to end of treatment at 12 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline LDL-C as a covariate.||15.082|-9.537|0.6517
90955724|NCT00620282|181791337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|0.929||||0.8822||95.0|-11.646|13.505||2-sided significance level of 5%.|ANCOVA|||Change in LDL-C from baseline to end of treatment at 12 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline LDL-C as a covariate.||13.505|-11.646|0.8822
90955725|NCT00620282|181791338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|-0.169||||0.9131||95.0|-3.273|2.935||2-sided significance level of 5%.|ANCOVA|||Change in HDL-C from baseline to end of treatment at 12 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HDL-C as a covariate.||2.935|-3.273|0.9131
90955726|NCT00620282|181791338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|-0.723||||0.6362||95.0|-3.785|2.339||2-sided significance level of 5%.|ANCOVA|||Change in HDL-C from baseline to end of treatment at 12 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HDL-C as a covariate.||2.339|-3.785|0.6362
90955727|NCT00620282|181791338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|0.554||||0.7283||95.0|-2.643|3.751||2-sided significance level of 5%.|ANCOVA|||Change in HDL-C from baseline to end of treatment at 12 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HDL-C as a covariate.||3.751|-2.643|0.7283
90829419|NCT02365649|181533422|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.0||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.1|3.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders||3.1|-23.1|0.540
90829420|NCT02365649|181533422|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.1||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|2.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders||2.9|-9.2|1.000
90955728|NCT00620282|181791339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|-36.709||||0.0694||95.0|-76.467|3.048||2-sided significance level of 5%.|ANCOVA|||Change in TG from baseline to end of treatment at 12 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline TG as a covariate.||3.048|-76.467|0.0694
90955729|NCT00620282|181791339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|-3.786||||0.844||95.0|-42.373|34.801||2-sided significance level of 5%.|ANCOVA|||Change in TG from baseline to end of treatment at 12 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline TG as a covariate.||34.801|-42.373|0.844
90955730|NCT00620282|181791339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|-32.923||||0.0994||95.0|-72.353|6.507||2-sided significance level of 5%.|ANCOVA|||Change in TG from baseline to end of treatment at 12 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline TG as a covariate.||6.507|-72.353|0.0994
90955731|NCT00620282|181791340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|-0.42||||0.2282||95.0|-1.118|0.278||2-sided significance level of 5%.|ANCOVA|||Change in TNF-alpha from baseline to end of treatment at 12 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline TNF-alpha as a covariate.||0.278|-1.118|0.2282
90955732|NCT00620282|181791340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|-0.018||||0.9569||95.0|-0.697|0.661||2-sided significance level of 5%.|ANCOVA|||Change in TNF-alpha from baseline to end of treatment at 12 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline TNF-alpha as a covariate.||0.661|-0.697|0.9569
90893602|NCT01490502|181652333|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Rate of change in 2.5% low-contrast acuity was analyzed using a linear mixed effects model with unstructured covariance structure and random intercepts. The p-value is a test of whether there is a difference in the rate of change in low-contrast acuity between treatment arms.||||0.67
90893603|NCT01490502|181652334|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Rate of change in quality of life was analyzed using a linear mixed effects model with unstructured covariance structure and random intercepts. The p-value is a test of whether there is a difference in the rate of change in health-related quality of life between treatment arms.||||0.21
90893604|NCT01490502|181652335|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.13
90893605|NCT01490502|181652336|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.08
90893606|NCT00430248|181652345|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of febuxostat 40 mg to allopurinol was declared if the value of the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval for the difference was greater than -10%.|Difference in percentage|3.1||||||95.0|-1.9|8.1||||||The primary comparison was between febuxostat 40 mg and allopurinol treatment groups.||8.1|-1.9|
90893607|NCT00430248|181652345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.233||95.0||||The test for superiority was performed using Fisher's exact test (two-tailed 0.05 significance level).|Fisher Exact|||||||0.233
90893608|NCT00430248|181652345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|24.9|||<|0.001||95.0|20.1|29.8||Comparisons between treatment groups were performed using Fisher's exact test (two-tailed 0.05 significance level).|Fisher Exact|||||29.8|20.1|<0.001
90893609|NCT00430248|181652345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|21.9|||<|0.001||95.0|17.0|26.8||Comparisons between treatment groups were performed using Fisher's exact test (two-tailed 0.05 significance level).|Fisher Exact|||||26.8|17.0|<0.001
90893610|NCT00430248|181652346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two-tailed).|Fisher Exact|||||||0.021
90893611|NCT00430248|181652346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two-tailed).|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
90893612|NCT00430248|181652346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two-tailed).|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
90893613|NCT00430248|181652347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two-tailed).|Fisher Exact|||||||0.031
90893614|NCT00430248|181652347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two-tailed).|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
90893615|NCT00430248|181652347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two-tailed).|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
90893616|NCT00430248|181652348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.578||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two-tailed).|Fisher Exact|||||||0.578
90893617|NCT00430248|181652348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two-tailed).|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
90893618|NCT00430248|181652348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two-tailed).|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
90893619|NCT00430248|181652349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.426||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two-tailed).|Fisher Exact|||||||0.426
90893620|NCT00430248|181652349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two-tailed).|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
90893621|NCT00430248|181652349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two-tailed).|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
90893622|NCT00430248|181652350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two-tailed).|Fisher Exact|||||||0.050
90893623|NCT00430248|181652350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two-tailed).|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
90893624|NCT00430248|181652350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two-tailed).|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
90893625|NCT00430248|181652351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.428||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two-tailed).|Fisher Exact|||||||0.428
90893626|NCT00430248|181652351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two-tailed).|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
90893627|NCT00430248|181652351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two-tailed).|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
90893628|NCT00430248|181652352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.041||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two-tailed).|Fisher Exact|||||||0.041
90893629|NCT00430248|181652352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two-tailed).|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
90893630|NCT00430248|181652352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two-tailed).|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
90893631|NCT00430248|181652353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.083||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two-tailed).|Fisher Exact|||||||0.083
90893632|NCT00430248|181652353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two-tailed).|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
90893633|NCT00430248|181652353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two-tailed).|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
90893634|NCT00430248|181652354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.421||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two-tailed).|Fisher Exact|||||||0.421
90893635|NCT00430248|181652354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two-tailed).|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
90893636|NCT00430248|181652354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two-tailed).|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
90893637|NCT00430248|181652355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two-tailed).|Fisher Exact|||||||0.520
90893638|NCT00430248|181652355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two-tailed).|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
90893639|NCT00430248|181652355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two-tailed).|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91017507|NCT01984229|181918192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|175.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|157.0|195.0|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratios (Period 3/Period 1) and CIs.||195|157|
91017508|NCT01984229|181918196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|28.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|23.1|35.5|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratios (Period 3/Period 1) and CIs.||35.5|23.1|
91017509|NCT01984229|181918197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|66.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|56.7|77.4|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratios (Period 3/Period 1) and CIs.||77.4|56.7|
91017510|NCT01984229|181918198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|75.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|64.4|87.7|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratios (Period 3/Period 1) and CIs.||87.7|64.4|
91017511|NCT02072174|181918209|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0242|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0242
91017512|NCT02072174|181918210|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0026|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||patient diary data||||0.0026
91017513|NCT02072174|181918210|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0127|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||doctor's examination data||||0.0127
91017514|NCT02072174|181918211|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0394||||||"The p-value associated with treatment factor of variable on day 2, 3, 4 and 5 between Anaferon for Children and Placebo. Model includes treatment, visit, treatment\*visit interaction, Day 1 covariate. Treatment\*visit interaction p-value is 0.3220."|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0394
91017515|NCT02072174|181918211|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.322||||||"The p-value associated with treatment\*visit interaction factor of variable on day 2, 3, 4 and 5 between Anaferon for Children and Placebo. Model includes treatment, visit, treatment\*visit interaction, Day 1 covariate."|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.3220
91017516|NCT02072174|181918212|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0043|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0043
91017517|NCT02072174|181918213|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0104||||||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Kruskal-Wallis|||Day 2 (patient diary data)||||0.0104
91017518|NCT02072174|181918213|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0041||||||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Kruskal-Wallis|||Day 3 (patient diary data)||||0.0041
91017519|NCT02072174|181918213|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0484||||||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Kruskal-Wallis|||Day 4 (patient diary data)||||0.0484
91017520|NCT02072174|181918213|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0603||||||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Kruskal-Wallis|||Day 5 (patient diary data)||||0.0603
91017521|NCT02072174|181918213|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0056||||||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Kruskal-Wallis|||Day 3 (doctor's examination)||||0.0056
91017522|NCT02072174|181918213|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0994||||||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Kruskal-Wallis|||Day 5 (doctor's examination)||||0.0994
91017523|NCT02072174|181918214|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0084|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Days 1-7 (patient diary data)||||0.0084
91017524|NCT02072174|181918214|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0233|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Days 1, 3, 5 and 7 (doctor's examination)||||0.0233
91017525|NCT02072174|181918215|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0721|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0721
91017526|NCT02072174|181918216|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0001
91017527|NCT02072174|181918217|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3383|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.3383
91017528|NCT02587117|181918218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mann Whitney test|||||||0.004
91017529|NCT02587117|181918219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mann Whitney test|||||||0.224
91017530|NCT00929201|181918269|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The FMI sitagliptin/metformin 50/500 mg FDC tablet and coadministration of corresponding doses of sitagliptin and metformin as individual tablets after consumption of a standard high-fat breakfast will be bioequivalent for metformin based on assessment of the AUC0-∞ for metformin \[i.e., the true metformin AUC0-∞GMR (sitagliptin/metformin 50/500 mg FDC tablet/co-administration of sitagliptin and metformin as individual tablets will be contained within (0.80, 1.25)\].|Least-Squares Mean Ratio|0.97||||||90.0|0.95|1.0||||||Least-Squares Mean Ratio calculated as Sitagliptin/Metformin 50/500 mg FDC tablet divided by Sitagliptin 50 mg and metformin 500 mg individual tablets||1.00|0.95|
91017531|NCT00929201|181918270|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The FMI sitagliptin/metformin 50/500 mg FDC tablet and co-administration of corresponding doses of sitagliptin and metformin as individual tablets after consumption of a standard high-fat breakfast will be bioequivalent for metformin based on assessment of the Cmax for metformin \[i.e., the true metformin Cmax GMR (sitagliptin/metformin 50/500 mg FDC tablet/ co-administration of sitagliptin and metformin as individual tablets will be contained within (0.80, 1.25)\].|Least-Squares Mean Ratio|0.95||||||90.0|0.93|0.98||||||Least-Squares Mean Ratio calculated as Sitagliptin/Metformin 50/500 mg FDC tablet divided by Sitagliptin 50 mg and metformin 500 mg individual tablets||0.98|0.93|
91017532|NCT00566969|181918271|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|A hierarchical linear model was used to account for unequal variance and covariance structures across time.||||||0.1|||||||ANOVA|||||||.10
91017533|NCT00388674|181918274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.3553|TWO_SIDED|95.03|0.8|1.084|||Cox proportional hazards model||Hazard Ratio of ETV : Non-ETV Analyses are stratified by geographic region and prior HBV nucleoside/tide experience|||1.084|0.800|0.3553
91017534|NCT00388674|181918275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.0676|TWO_SIDED|95.03|0.713|1.012|||Cox proportional hazards model||Hazard Ratio of ETV : Non-ETV Analyses are stratified by geographic region and prior HBV nucleoside/tide experience|||1.012|0.713|0.0676
91017535|NCT00388674|181918276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.1182|TWO_SIDED|95.03|0.769|1.03|||Cox proportional hazards model||Hazard Ratio of ETV : Non-ETV Analyses are stratified by geographic region and prior HBV nucleoside/tide experience|||1.030|0.769|0.1182
91017536|NCT00388674|181918277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.817|1.478|||||Hazard Ratio of ETV : Non-ETV Analyses are stratified by geographic region and prior HBV nucleoside/tide experience|||1.478|0.817|
90893640|NCT00430248|181652356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.195||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two-tailed).|Fisher Exact|||||||0.195
91017537|NCT00388674|181918278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.727|1.032|||||Hazard Ratio of ETV : Non-ETV Analyses are stratified by geographic region and prior HBV nucleoside/tide experience|||1.032|0.727|
91017538|NCT00388674|181918279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.608|1.365|||||Hazard Ratio of ETV : Non-ETV Analyses are stratified by geographic region and prior HBV nucleoside/tide experience|||1.365|0.608|
91017539|NCT01563029|181918291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.6|22.4|||ANCOVA|Gate-keeper analysis||||22.4|9.6|<0.001
91017540|NCT01563029|181918291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.1|19.8|||ANCOVA||Inference for FF 100 μg versus (vs) placebo and FF 50 ug versus placebo was dependent upon statistical significance (SS) having first been achieved for the average of the higher two doses of FF (FF 100 ug and 50 ug ) versus placebo comparison.|||19.8|5.1|<0.001
91017541|NCT01563029|181918291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.1|26.9|||ANCOVA||Inference for FF 100 µg versus (vs) placebo and FF 50 ug versus placebo was dependent upon statistical significance (SS) having first been achieved for the average of the higher two doses of FF (FF 100 ug and 50 ug ) versus placebo comparsion.|||26.9|12.1|<0.001
91017542|NCT01563029|181918291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.3|26.0|||ANCOVA||Inference for FF 25 ug versus placebo was dependent upon statistical significance (SS) having first been achieved for both the FF 100 ug versus placebo comparison and the FF 50 ug versus placebocomparison.|||26.0|11.3|<0.001
91017543|NCT01563029|181918291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|14.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.7|21.4|||ANCOVA|||||21.4|6.7|<0.001
91017544|NCT01563029|181918292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.126|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.051|0.201|||ANCOVA|||||0.201|0.051|<0.001
91017545|NCT01563029|181918292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.022||||0.551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.094|||ANCOVA|||||0.094|-0.050|0.551
91017546|NCT01563029|181918292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.033||||0.379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.041|0.108|||ANCOVA|||||0.108|-0.041|0.379
91017547|NCT01563029|181918292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.064||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.137|||ANCOVA|||||0.137|-0.010|0.089
91017548|NCT01563029|181918293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.4||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|16.9|||ANCOVA|||||16.9|0.0|0.050
91017549|NCT01563029|181918293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.8||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|18.2|||ANCOVA|||||18.2|1.3|0.023
91017550|NCT01563029|181918293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.2||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|20.5|||ANCOVA|||||20.5|3.8|0.004
91017551|NCT01563029|181918293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.2||||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|14.6|||ANCOVA|||||14.6|-2.1|0.143
91017552|NCT01563029|181918294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.2||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|19.0|||ANCOVA|||||19.0|3.4|0.005
91017553|NCT01563029|181918294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|21.1|||ANCOVA|||||21.1|5.7|<0.001
91017554|NCT01563029|181918294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.4|||<|0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|16.1|||ANCOVA|||||16.1|0.7|<0.033
91017555|NCT01563029|181918294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.0||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|15.7|||ANCOVA|||||15.7|0.3|0.042
91017556|NCT01563029|181918295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.2||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|21.7|||ANCOVA|||||21.7|0.7|0.037
91017557|NCT01563029|181918295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.1||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|23.6|||ANCOVA|||||23.6|2.6|0.014
91017558|NCT01563029|181918295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.9||||0.266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|16.3|||ANCOVA|||||16.3|-4.5|0.266
91017559|NCT01563029|181918295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.2||||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|16.6|||ANCOVA|||||16.6|-4.2|0.242
91017560|NCT01563029|181918296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|31.3|||ANCOVA|||||31.3|10.0|<0.001
91017561|NCT01563029|181918296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.9||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.2|28.6|||ANCOVA|||||28.6|7.2|0.001
91017562|NCT01563029|181918296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.5||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|22.1|||ANCOVA|||||22.1|0.9|0.033
91017563|NCT01563029|181918296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.7||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|27.3|||ANCOVA|||||27.3|6.0|0.002
91017564|NCT01563029|181918297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1||||0.619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|10.2|||ANCOVA|||||10.2|-6.1|0.619
91017565|NCT01563029|181918297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.8||||0.161||95.0|-2.3|13.9|||ANCOVA|||||13.9|-2.3|0.161
91017566|NCT01563029|181918297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.9||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|12.0|||ANCOVA|||||12.0|-4.1|0.340
91017567|NCT01563029|181918297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0||||0.459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|11.1|||ANCOVA|||||11.1|-5.0|0.459
91017568|NCT01563029|181918298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91017569|NCT01563029|181918298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.006
91017570|NCT01563029|181918298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.003
91017571|NCT01563029|181918298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91017572|NCT02780115|181918302|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Diff|1.96||||0.1663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|4.74|||ANCOVA|||||4.74|-0.83|0.1663
91017573|NCT02780115|181918302|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Diff|4.77||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.98|7.56|||ANCOVA|||||7.56|1.98|0.0009
91017574|NCT02780115|181918302|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Diff|4.54||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.79|7.29|||ANCOVA|||||7.29|1.79|0.0014
91017575|NCT02780115|181918302|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Diff|4.81||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.03|7.58|||ANCOVA|||||7.58|2.03|0.0008
91017576|NCT00769132|181918304|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Two treatments are comparable if the geometric mean ratio is contained within the interval \[0.50-2.00\].|Geometric least-squares mean ratio|1.12||||||90.0|0.9|1.38||||||The endpoint is the urine levels of 11-dTxB2 on Day 7 following a 7 day course of daily dosing in the overall 24 hour collection interval. The point estimate and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) \[Treatment A/B\] of the urine levels of 11-dTxB2 on Day 7.||1.38|0.9|
91017577|NCT00769132|181918304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.87||||||90.0|0.71|1.07||||||||1.07|0.71|
91017578|NCT00769132|181918304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.8||||||90.0|0.65|0.98||||||||0.98|0.65|
91017579|NCT00769132|181918304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.89||||||90.0|0.72|1.09||||||||1.09|0.72|
91017580|NCT00769132|181918304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.91||||||90.0|0.74|1.12||||||||1.12|0.74|
91017581|NCT00769132|181918304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|1.02||||||90.0|0.83|1.25||||||||1.25|0.83|
91017582|NCT00769132|181918305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|1.04||||||90.0|0.92|1.17||||||||1.17|0.92|
91017583|NCT00769132|181918305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.9||||||90.0|0.8|1.01||||||||1.01|0.8|
91017584|NCT00769132|181918305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.56||||||90.0|0.49|0.63||||||||0.63|0.49|
91017585|NCT00769132|181918305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.58||||||90.0|0.51|0.65||||||||0.65|0.51|
91017586|NCT00769132|181918305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.62||||||90.0|0.55|0.7||||||||0.7|0.55|
91017587|NCT00769132|181918305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.64||||||90.0|0.57|0.72||||||||0.72|0.57|
91017588|NCT00127192|181918317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-squares Mean Difference|-3.6|||<|0.001||95.0|-4.3|-3.0||Multiplicity among pairwise comparisons of sitagliptin groups against placebo was adjusted by Bonferroni method in post-hoc manner.|Pairwise comparison based on ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment, prior antihyperglycemic medication status and baseline was used for pairwise comparison|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment, prior antihyperglycemic medication status and baseline was used to estimate difference of two groups and its 95% confidence interval|||-3.0|-4.3|<0.001
91017589|NCT00127192|181918317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-squares Mean Difference|-3.2|||<|0.001||95.0|-3.9|-2.6||Multiplicity among pairwise comparisons of sitagliptin groups against placebo was adjusted by Bonferroni method in post-hoc manner.|Pairwise comparison based on ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment, prior antihyperglycemic medication status and baseline was used for pairwise comparison|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment, prior antihyperglycemic medication status and baseline was used to estimate difference of two groups and its 95% confidence interval|||-2.6|-3.9|<0.001
91017590|NCT00127192|181918317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-squares Mean Difference|-3.3|||<|0.001||95.0|-3.9|-2.7||Multiplicity among pairwise comparisons of sitagliptin groups against placebo was adjusted by Bonferroni method in post-hoc manner.|Pairwise comparison based on ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment, prior antihyperglycemic medication status and baseline was used for pairwise comparison|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment, prior antihyperglycemic medication status and baseline was used to estimate difference of two groups and its 95% confidence interval|||-2.7|-3.9|<0.001
91017591|NCT00127192|181918317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-squares Mean Difference|-2.6|||<|0.001||95.0|-3.2|-2.0||Multiplicity among pairwise comparisons of sitagliptin groups against placebo was adjusted by Bonferroni method in post-hoc manner.|Pairwise comparison based on ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment, prior antihyperglycemic medication status and baseline was used for pairwise comparison|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment, prior antihyperglycemic medication status and baseline was used to estimate difference of two groups and its 95% confidence interval|||-2.0|-3.2|<0.001
91017592|NCT00127192|181918318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Tukeys linear trend test based on ANCOVA|Linear contrast including all groups was tested using ANCOVA model with terms of treatment, prior antihyperglycemic medication status and baseline||||||<0.001
91017593|NCT00127192|181918318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-squares Mean Difference|-1.04|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.21|-0.86||No multiplicity adjustment was done between trend test of primary analysis and pairwise comparisons, but the multiplicity among pairwise comparisons of sitagliptin groups against placebo was adjusted by Bonferroni method in post-hoc manner.|Pairwise comparison based on ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment, prior antihyperglycemic medication status and baseline was used for pairwise comparison|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment, prior antihyperglycemic medication status and baseline was used to estimate difference of two groups and its 95% confidence interval|||-0.86|-1.21|<0.001
91017594|NCT00127192|181918318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.96|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.14|-0.79||No multiplicity adjustment was done between trend test of primary analysis and pairwise comparisons, the multiplicity among pairwise comparisons of sitagliptin groups against placebo was adjusted by Bonferroni method in post-hoc manner.|Pairwise comparison based on ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment, prior antihyperglycemic medication status and baseline was used for pairwise comparison|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment, prior antihyperglycemic medication status and baseline was used to estimate difference of two groups and its 95% confidence interval|||-0.79|-1.14|<0.001
91017595|NCT00127192|181918318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.99|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.16|-0.82||No multiplicity adjustment was done between trend test of primary analysis and pairwise comparisons, the multiplicity among pairwise comparisons of sitagliptin groups against placebo was adjusted by Bonferroni method in post-hoc manner.|Pairwise comparison based on ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment, prior antihyperglycemic medication status and baseline was used for pairwise comparison|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment, prior antihyperglycemic medication status and baseline was used to estimate difference of two groups and its 95% confidence interval|||-0.82|-1.16|<0.001
91017596|NCT00127192|181918318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.69|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.85|-0.52||No multiplicity adjustment was done between trend test of primary analysis and pairwise comparisons, the multiplicity among pairwise comparisons of sitagliptin groups against placebo was adjusted by Bonferroni method in post-hoc manner.|Pairwise comparison based on ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment, prior antihyperglycemic medication status and baseline was used for pairwise comparison|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment, prior antihyperglycemic medication status and baseline was used to estimate difference of two groups and its 95% confidence interval|||-0.52|-0.85|<0.001
91017597|NCT00127192|181918319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-squares Mean Difference|-23.2|||<|0.001||95.0|-29.8|-16.6||Multiplicity among pairwise comparisons of sitagliptin groups against placebo was adjusted by Bonferroni method in post-hoc manner.|Pairwise comparison based on ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment, prior antihyperglycemic medication status and baseline was used for pairwise comparison|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment, prior antihyperglycemic medication status and baseline was used to estimate difference of two groups and its 95% confidence interval|||-16.6|-29.8|<0.001
91017598|NCT00127192|181918319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-squares Mean Difference|-20.8|||<|0.001||95.0|-27.4|-14.3||Multiplicity among pairwise comparisons of sitagliptin groups against placebo was adjusted by Bonferroni method in post-hoc manner.|Pairwise comparison based on ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment, prior antihyperglycemic medication status and baseline was used for pairwise comparison|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment, prior antihyperglycemic medication status and baseline was used to estimate difference of two groups and its 95% confidence interval|||-14.3|-27.4|<0.001
91017599|NCT00127192|181918319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-squares Mean Difference|-17.7|||<|0.001||95.0|-24.2|-11.2||Multiplicity among pairwise comparisons of sitagliptin groups against placebo was adjusted by Bonferroni method in post-hoc manner.|Pairwise comparison based on ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment, prior antihyperglycemic medication status and baseline was used for pairwise comparison|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment, prior antihyperglycemic medication status and baseline was used to estimate difference of two groups and its 95% confidence interval|||-11.2|-24.2|<0.001
91017600|NCT00127192|181918319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-squares Mean Difference|-15.9|||<|0.001||95.0|-22.3|-9.6||Multiplicity among pairwise comparisons of sitagliptin groups against placebo was adjusted by Bonferroni method in post-hoc manner.|Pairwise comparison based on ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment, prior antihyperglycemic medication status and baseline was used for pairwise comparison|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment, prior antihyperglycemic medication status and baseline was used to estimate difference of two groups and its 95% confidence interval|||-9.6|-22.3|<0.001
91017601|NCT02701049|181918339|OTHER|Among 109,994 patients who entered the ED during Mode 1, 19,742 had SOGI collected (18%). Among 88,143 patients who entered the ED during Mode 2, 3,630 had SOGI collected (4%).||||||||||||||||Historical controls included all patients entering participating EDs as identified by the Electronic Health Record.|Results were compared to historical control population from an electronic health record database, no other data were collected for these participants.|||
91017602|NCT01612780|181918357|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Values of p \<0.05 were deemed statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||Study sample size was established to test the hypothesis that the mean SNOT-20 score is reduced by at least 0.8 points from baseline to 1 year post procedure. Using this delta, a 1-sided alpha of 0.25, and 90% power, a sample size of 19 participants was adequate to test the hypothesis.||||<0.0001
91017603|NCT03466060|181918360|SUPERIORITY||Posterior mean difference|-2.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.23|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|2.3||95% credible intervals are used to determine whether Test and Control solutions are statistically significantly different at each time point.|bayesian multivariate hierarachical||Posterior mean difference was calculated as Test-Control.|1-Minute Follow-up Analysis||2.3|-6.4|
91017604|NCT03466060|181918360|SUPERIORITY||Posertior Mean Difference|-2.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|1.7||95% credible intervals are used to determine whether Test and Control solutions are statistically significantly different at each time point.|Bayesian Multivariate Hierarchical Model||Posterior mean difference was calculated as Test-Control.|5-minute Follow-up Analysis||1.7|-6.8|
91017605|NCT03466060|181918360|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-2.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|1.5||95% credible intervals are used to determine whether Test and Control solutions are statistically significantly different at each time point.|Bayesian multivariate hierarchical model||Posterior mean difference was calculated as Test-Control.|45-Minute Follolw-up Analysis||1.5|-6.9|
91017606|NCT03466060|181918360|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-2.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.01|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|1.4|||Bayesian Multivariate Heirarchical Model||Posterior mean difference was calculated as Test-Control.|2-Hour Follow-up Analysis||1.4|-6.5|
91017607|NCT03466060|181918360|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.28|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|3.1|||Bayesian Multivariate Heirarchical Model||Posterior mean difference was calculated as Test-Control.|1-Minute Follow-up Analysis||3.1|-5.8|
91017608|NCT03466060|181918360|SUPERIORITY|95% credible intervals are used to determine whether Test and Control solutions are statistically significantly different at each time point.|Posterior Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|3.6|||Bayesian Multivariate Heirarchical Model||Posterior mean difference was calculated as Test-Control.|5-Minute Follow-up Analysis||3.6|-5.0|
91017609|NCT03466060|181918360|NON_INFERIORITY|95% credible intervals are used to determine whether Test and Control solutions are statistically significantly different at each time point.|Posterior Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|2.3|||Bayesian Multivariate Hierarchical Model||Posterior mean difference was calculated as Test-Control.|45-Minute Follow-up Analysis||2.3|-6.4|
91017610|NCT03466060|181918360|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-1.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|2.5||95% credible intervals are used to determine whether Test and Control solutions are statistically significantly different at each time point.|Bayesian Mutlivariate Hiearachical Model||Posterior mean difference was calculated as Test-Control.|2-Hour Follow-up Analysis||2.5|-5.8|
91017611|NCT01610284|181918389|OTHER|Comparison of progression-free survival (PFS) (based on local investigator assessment) between the two treatment groups using a stratified log-rank test at one-sided 2.5% level of significance|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.89|||Log Rank|||FAS-Full population||0.89|0.67|<0.001
91017612|NCT01610284|181918389|OTHER|Comparison of progression-free survival (PFS) (based on local investigator assessment) between the two treatment groups using a stratified log-rank test at one-sided 2.5% level of significance|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.94|||Log Rank|||FAS-Main cohort||0.94|0.68|0.003
91017613|NCT01610284|181918389|OTHER|Comparison of progression-free survival (PFS) (based on local investigator assessment) between the two treatment groups using a stratified log-rank test at one-sided 2.5% level of significance|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.97|||Log Rank|||FAS-PI3K pathway activated||0.97|0.60|0.015
90893641|NCT00430248|181652356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two-tailed).|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91017614|NCT01610284|181918389|OTHER|Comparison of progression-free survival (PFS) (based on local investigator assessment) between the two treatment groups using a stratified log-rank test at one-sided 2.5% level of significance|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.03||||||FAS-PI3K pathway non-activated||1.03|0.67|
91017615|NCT01610284|181918389|OTHER|Comparison of progression-free survival (PFS) (based on local investigator assessment) between the two treatment groups using a stratified log-rank test at one-sided 2.5% level of significance|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.94||||||FAS-PI3K pathway unknown||0.94|0.52|
91017616|NCT01610284|181918390|OTHER|Comparison of overall survival (OS) (based on local investigator assessment) between the two treatment groups using a stratified log-rank test at one-sided 2.5% level of significance|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.02|||Log Rank|||FAS-Full population||1.02|0.74|0.045
91017617|NCT01610284|181918390|OTHER|Comparison of overall survival (OS) (based on local investigator assessment) between the two treatment groups using a stratified log-rank test at one-sided 2.5% level of significance|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.09|||Log Rank|||FAS-Main cohort||1.09|0.75|0.144
91017618|NCT01610284|181918390|OTHER|Comparison of overall survival (OS) (based on local investigator assessment) between the two treatment groups using a stratified log-rank test at one-sided 2.5% level of significance|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.08||||||FAS-PI3K pathway activated||1.08|0.61|
91017619|NCT01610284|181918390|OTHER|Comparison of overall survival (OS) (based on local investigator assessment) between the two treatment groups using a stratified log-rank test at one-sided 2.5% level of significance|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.24||||||FAS-PI3K pathway non-activated||1.24|0.77|
91017620|NCT01610284|181918390|OTHER|Comparison of overall survival (OS) (based on local investigator assessment) between the two treatment groups using a stratified log-rank test at one-sided 2.5% level of significance|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.06||||||FAS-PI3K pathway unknown||1.06|0.52|
91017621|NCT01856257|181918401|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.512||||0.544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.999|15.024|||Mixed Models Analysis||The p-value, estimate of the treatment group difference, and estimated 95% confidence interval result from a repeated measures mixed model using available eGFR data from weeks 4, 12, 28, 36, and 52 to compare Group 2 to Group 1.|||15.024|-7.999|0.544
91017622|NCT01856257|181918401|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.82||||0.531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.481|20.121|||Mixed Models Analysis||P-value estimate of the treatment group difference, and estimated 95% confidence interval result from a repeated measures mixed model using available eGFR data from weeks 4, 12, 28, 36, and 52 to compare Group 3 to Group 1.|||20.121|-10.481|0.531
91017623|NCT00442338|181918432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.01||||0.871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.08|||ANCOVA|The model included a factor for treatment and used the baseline FEV1 as a covariate.||Treatment difference in change from Baseline in FEV1 within the first 60 minutes after study drug administration was assessed as the difference in the least square (LS) means of time weighted average change FEV1 (0-60 min) using an Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model.||0.08|-0.07|0.871
91017624|NCT00442338|181918432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.01||||0.794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.06|||ANCOVA|The model included a factor for treatment and used the baseline FEV1 as a covariate.||Treatment difference in change from Baseline in FEV1 within the first 60 minutes after study drug administration was assessed as the difference in the LS means of time weighted average change FEV1 (0-60 min) using an ANCOVA model.||0.06|-0.08|0.794
91017625|NCT00442338|181918432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.02||||0.675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.09|||ANCOVA|The model included a factor for treatment and used the baseline FEV1 as a covariate.||Treatment difference in change from Baseline in FEV1 within the first 60 minutes after study drug administration was assessed as the difference in the LS means of time weighted average change FEV1 (0-60 min) using an ANCOVA model.||0.09|-0.06|0.675
90893642|NCT00430248|181652356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two-tailed).|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91017626|NCT05674721|181918450|EQUIVALENCE|The bioequivalence between Treatment A (test) and Treatment B (reference) under fasted conditions would be declared as per Food and Drug Administration (FDA) requirements if the 90 percent (%) confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means of Cmax were between 80% and 125%.|Ratio of Geometric Least Square Mean|95.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.31|102.47||||||||102.47|88.31|
91017627|NCT05674721|181918451|EQUIVALENCE|The bioequivalence between Treatment A (test) and Treatment B (reference) under fasted conditions would be declared as per FDA if the 90% CIs for the ratio of the geometric means of Cmax were between 80% and 125%.|Ratio of Geometric Least Square Mean|102.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.54|112.35||||||||112.35|93.54|
91017628|NCT05674721|181918452|EQUIVALENCE|The bioequivalence between Treatment A (test) and Treatment B (reference) under fasted conditions would be declared as per FDA if the 90% CIs for the ratio of the geometric means of AUC0-t were between 80% and 125%.|Ratio of Geometric Least Square Mean|99.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.76|101.61||||||||101.61|96.76|
91017629|NCT05674721|181918453|EQUIVALENCE|The bioequivalence between Treatment A (test) and Treatment B (reference) under fasted conditions would be declared as per FDA if the 90% CIs for the ratio of the geometric means of AUC0-t were between 80% and 125%.|Ratio of Geometric Least Square Mean|102.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.15|107.3||||||||107.30|98.15|
91017630|NCT05674721|181918454|EQUIVALENCE|The bioequivalence between Treatment A (test) and Treatment B (reference) under fasted conditions would be declared as per FDA if the 90% CIs for the ratio of the geometric means of AUC0-inf were between 80% and 125%.|Ratio of Geometric Least Square Mean|99.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.82|101.63||||||||101.63|96.82|
91103866|NCT03449147|182094502|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Relative Reduction (%)|-3.03||||0.677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.14|12.12||Comparison based on a longitudinal ANCOVA model that included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, region, log-transformed baseline value, and log-transformed baseline value-by-visit as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Estimated relative reduction (ERR) relative to Placebo (i.e. estimated percent change difference) was calculated by 100 (e\*\*DIFF -1), where e = exponent of difference; and DIFF= treatment difference in change from baseline at Week 24 based on log transformed data.||12.12|-16.14|0.677
90893643|NCT00430248|181652357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.196||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two-tailed).|Fisher Exact|||||||0.196
90893644|NCT00430248|181652357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two-tailed).|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91017631|NCT05674721|181918455|EQUIVALENCE|The bioequivalence between Treatment A (test) and Treatment B (reference) under fasted conditions would be declared as per FDA if the 90% CIs for the ratio of the geometric means of AUC0-inf were between 80% and 125%.|Ratio of Geometric Least Square Mean|102.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.31|107.34||||||||107.34|98.31|
91017632|NCT04466956|181918480|OTHER|Statistical analysis was by intention-to-treat including all randomised participants, using Stata-12 software. Continuous data were summarised as mean and standard deviation, and categorical data as counts and percentages. Between group differences were reported with 95% confidence intervals, and p-values, using t-test to compare normally distributed data and chi-squared tests to compare categorical data.|||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Between group differences were reported with 95% confidence intervals, and p-values, using t-test to compare normally distributed data and chi-squared tests to compare categorical data.|t-test, 1 sided|||Mean worst pain scores were 5.98 and 6.88 in the standard care and VR groups respectively, with difference in means -0.9 (95% CI -2.1 - 0.28), p value 0.13. Mean anxiety scores at the end of the procedure were 3.94 and 4.4 in the standard care and VR groups respectively, with difference in means -0.46 (95% CI -2.1, 1.1), p value 0.57.||||<0.01
91017633|NCT00091507|181918481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.13|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.13|0.66|0.28
91017634|NCT00091507|181918482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.56||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.07|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.07|0.30|0.08
91017635|NCT00091507|181918483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.23|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.23|0.43|0.24
91017636|NCT00091507|181918484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.29|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.29|0.40|0.27
91017637|NCT00091507|181918485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.48||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.85|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.85|0.27|0.01
91017638|NCT00203931|181918488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.11
91017639|NCT00203931|181918489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.91|||||||Wilcoxon-Gehan test|||||||0.91
91017640|NCT00203931|181918490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.24
91017641|NCT00203931|181918491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.046|||||||Wilcoxon-Gehan test|||||||0.046
91017642|NCT00203931|181918492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.029
90893645|NCT00430248|181652357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two-tailed).|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91017643|NCT03506425|181918493|OTHER|||||||0.32|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.32
91017644|NCT03506425|181918494|OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.08
91017645|NCT03506425|181918495|OTHER|||||||0.83|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.83
91017646|NCT00118209|181918502|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.6519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.27|||Log Rank|||||1.27|0.68|0.6519
90893646|NCT00430248|181652358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.079||95.0||||P-value is from contrast within the framework of the ANOVA with significance at the 0.05 level.|ANOVA|||||||0.079
90893647|NCT00430248|181652358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is from contrast within the framework of the ANOVA with significance at the 0.05 level.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90893648|NCT00430248|181652358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is from contrast within the framework of the ANOVA with significance at the 0.05 level.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91017647|NCT00118209|181918503|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.67
91017648|NCT00118209|181918504|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.6414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.59|||Log Rank|||||1.59|0.75|0.6414
91017649|NCT01418365|181918514|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|If the 90% Confidence Intervals of the geometric mean ratio are wholly contained within the interval (0.80, 1.25), then the hypothesis of a drug interaction will be rejected.|Geometric Mean ratio|0.979|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.961|0.998|||ANOVA|||||0.998|0.961|
91017650|NCT01418365|181918515|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|If the 90% Confidence Intervals of the geometric mean ratio are wholly contained within the interval (0.80, 1.25), then the hypothesis of a drug interaction will be rejected.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.993|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.951|1.04|||ANOVA|||||1.04|0.951|
91017651|NCT02181075|181918518|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|95% confidence interval (CI)||A paired t-test was used for Part I (Arm 1) only. Analysis only applies to Part I (Arm 1) because only this study arm has matched Post-LTLD (i.e. post-drug alone) and Post-LTLD+FUS biopsy samples obtained from the same liver tumours before and after targeted drug delivery. In Part II of the study design in which drug delivery occurred completely non-invasively, no Post-LTLD tissue sample is obtained and only a single tumour biopsy is obtained following drug delivery (Post-LTLD+FUS).||||0.024
91017652|NCT04150107|181918527|OTHER|Treatment least squares means and change from baseline estimates will be derived using this linear model.|Least mean squares||||<|0.9223|||||||ANCOVA|||Information collected in the daily diaries or via the Continuous Glucose Monitor (CGM) on the final 10 days of treatment will be analyzed using a Repeated Measures Analysis of Covariance with subject as a random effect with each of the 10 days being a single measurement. When analyzing the exogenous insulin variables, the CGM parameters (mean 24 hour glucose value and 24 hour time within 70-180 mg/dL range) and the patient reported carbohydrate intake will be included as covariates.||||<0.9223
91017653|NCT04150107|181918528|OTHER|Treatment least squares means and change from baseline estimates will be derived using this linear model.|||||<|0.8871|||||||ANCOVA|||Information collected in the daily diaries or via the Continuous Glucose Monitor (CGM) on the final 10 days of treatment will be analyzed using a Repeated Measures Analysis of Covariance with subject as a random effect with each of the 10 days being a single measurement. When analyzing the exogenous insulin variables, the CGM parameters (mean 24 hour glucose value and 24 hour time within 70-180 mg/dL range) and the patient reported carbohydrate intake will be included as covariates.||||<0.8871
91017654|NCT04150107|181918529|OTHER|Treatment least squares means and change from baseline estimates will be derived using this linear model.|||||<|0.9641|||||||ANCOVA|||Information collected in the daily diaries or via the Continuous Glucose Monitor (CGM) on the final 10 days of treatment will be analyzed using a Repeated Measures Analysis of Covariance with subject as a random effect with each of the 10 days being a single measurement. When analyzing the exogenous insulin variables, the CGM parameters (mean 24 hour glucose value and 24 hour time within 70-180 mg/dL range) and the patient reported carbohydrate intake will be included as covariates.||||<0.9641
91017655|NCT04150107|181918530|OTHER|Treatment least squares means and change from baseline estimates will be derived using this linear model.|||||<|0.7922|||||||ANCOVA|||Information collected in the daily diaries or via the Continuous Glucose Monitor (CGM) on the final 10 days of treatment will be analyzed using a Repeated Measures Analysis of Covariance with subject as a random effect with each of the 10 days being a single measurement. When analyzing the exogenous insulin variables, the CGM parameters (mean 24 hour glucose value and 24 hour time within 70-180 mg/dL range) and the patient reported carbohydrate intake will be included as covariates.||||<0.7922
91017656|NCT04150107|181918531|OTHER|Treatment least squares means and change from baseline estimates will be derived using this linear model.|||||<|0.9898|||||||ANCOVA|||Information collected in the daily diaries or via the Continuous Glucose Monitor (CGM) on the final 10 days of treatment will be analyzed using a Repeated Measures Analysis of Covariance with subject as a random effect with each of the 10 days being a single measurement. When analyzing the exogenous insulin variables, the CGM parameters (mean 24 hour glucose value and 24 hour time within 70-180 mg/dL range) and the patient reported carbohydrate intake will be included as covariates.||||<0.9898
91017657|NCT04150107|181918532|OTHER|Treatment least squares means and change from baseline estimates will be derived using this linear model.|||||<|0.5165|||||||ANCOVA|||Information collected in the daily diaries or via the Continuous Glucose Monitor (CGM) on the final 10 days of treatment will be analyzed using a Repeated Measures Analysis of Covariance with subject as a random effect with each of the 10 days being a single measurement. When analyzing the exogenous insulin variables, the CGM parameters (mean 24 hour glucose value and 24 hour time within 70-180 mg/dL range) and the patient reported carbohydrate intake will be included as covariates.||||<0.5165
91017658|NCT00440193|181918534|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assuming equal efficacy, a total of 88 events was calculated to give a power of 90% to prove that rivaroxaban is at least as effective as the comparator, considering a non-inferiority upper CI margin for the hazard ratio of 2.0 (two-sided α=0.05). A mean incidence for the primary efficacy outcome of 3% was expected and at least 1465 participants per group were determined to be necessary. This number was to be adjusted based on the observed overall incidence of symptomatic recurrent VTE.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2179|<|0.0001||95.0|0.44|1.04|||Regression, Cox|Stratified by intend treatment duration, adjusted for presence of active malignancy at baseline|The standard error of the log hazard ratio was estimated.|The rivaroxaban to comparator hazard ratio was computed with a 95% CI (confidence interval) (two-sided testing). Based on this model, rivaroxaban would be considered at least as effective as the comparator if the upper limit of the CI was less than 2.0.||1.04|0.44|< 0.0001
91017659|NCT00440193|181918535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1616||0.044||95.0|0.53|0.99||Nominal p-value|Regression, Cox|Stratified by intend treatment duration, adjusted for presence of active malignancy at baseline.|The standard error of the log hazard ratio was estimated.|||0.99|0.53|0.044
91017660|NCT00440193|181918536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1828||0.027||95.0|0.47|0.95||Nominal p-value|Regression, Cox|Stratified by intend treatment duration, adjusted for presence of active malignancy at baseline.|The standard error of the log hazard ratio was estimated.|||0.95|0.47|0.027
91017661|NCT00440193|181918538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1204||0.77||95.0|0.76|1.22||Nominal p-value|Regression, Cox|Stratified by intend treatment duration, adjusted for presence of active malignancy at baseline.|The standard error of the log hazard ratio was estimated.|||1.22|0.76|0.77
91017662|NCT03409328|181918599|OTHER||F|38.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA controlled for baseline levels of the outcome.||||||<.001
91017663|NCT03409328|181918600|OTHER||F|6.69||||0.013|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA controlled for baseline levels of the outcome.||||||.013
91017664|NCT03409328|181918601|OTHER||F|5.07||||0.029|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA controlled for baseline levels of the outcome.||||||.029
91017665|NCT03409328|181918602|OTHER||F|0.38||||0.542|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA controlled for baseline levels of the outcome.||||||.542
91017666|NCT03409328|181918603|OTHER||F|3.12||||0.084|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA controlled for baseline levels of the outcome.||The outcome for this analysis is internalized stigma.||||.084
91017667|NCT03409328|181918603|OTHER||F|0.67||||0.417|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA controlled for baseline levels of the outcome.||The outcome for this analysis is identity affirmation.||||.417
91017668|NCT03701516|181918624|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority will be established if the lower bound of the credible interval of the mean difference between Test and Control is greater than -5.|Posterior Mean Difference|-0.38|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.781|||TWO_SIDED|98.0|-4.53|3.85|||Bayesian repeated measurement model|Results were reported as regression coefficient mean estimates with credible intervals (CrI)|Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|||3.85|-4.53|
91017669|NCT03701516|181918625|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority will be established if the lower bound of the credible interval of the mean difference between Test and Control is greater than -5.|Posterior Mean Difference|-2.34|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.263|||TWO_SIDED|98.0|-5.36|0.61|||Bayesian repeated measurement model|Results were reported as regression coefficient mean estimates with credible intervals (CrI)|Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|||0.61|-5.36|
91017670|NCT03701516|181918626|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority will be established if the lower bound of the credible interval of the mean difference between Test and Control is greater than -1.|Posterior Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.083|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.1|||Bayesian repeated measurement model|Results were reported as regression coefficient mean estimates with credible intervals (CrI)|Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|||0.10|-0.22|
90893649|NCT00430248|181652359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.685||95.0||||P-value is from contrast within the framework of the ANOVA with significance at the 0.05 level.|ANOVA|||||||0.685
91017671|NCT03701516|181918627|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority will be established if the upper bound of the credible interval of the mean difference between Test and Control is less than 0.05.|Posterior Mean Difference|0.001|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0028|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|0.006|||Bayesian repeated measurement random-eff|Results were reported as regression coefficient mean estimates with credible intervals (CrI)|Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|||0.006|-0.005|
91017672|NCT03701516|181918628|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority will be established if the upper bound of the credible interval of the mean difference between Test and Control is less than 0.05.|Posterior Mean Difference|-0.003|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0029|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.009|0.002|||Bayesian repeated measurement model|Results were reported as regression coefficient mean estimates with credible intervals (CrI)|Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|||0.002|-0.009|
91017673|NCT03930615|181918631|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-16.1||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.8|-6.5||A one-sided p-value ≤0.0249 was used for declaring statistical significance|Mantel Haenszel|Stratum adjusted|Letermovir minus placebo|It was hypothesized that LET is superior to placebo in the prevention of clinically significant CMV infection.|95% CIs for the treatment differences in percent response were calculated using stratum adjusted Mantel Haenszel method with the difference weighted by the harmonic mean of sample size per arm for each stratum (haploidentical donor yes or no).|-6.5|-25.8|0.0005
91017674|NCT03930615|181918632|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|4.7|||||Letermovir minus Placebo||Miettinen \& Nurminen method|4.7|-11.8|
91017675|NCT03930615|181918633|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|8.6|||||Letermovir minus Placebo||Miettinen \& Nurminen method|8.6|-2.7|
91017676|NCT03930615|181918634|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-5.7||||0.1591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.8|5.4|||Mantel Haenszel|Stratum adjusted|Letermovir minus placebo||95% CIs for the treatment differences in percent response were calculated using stratum adjusted Mantel Haenszel method with the difference weighted by the harmonic mean of sample size per arm for each stratum (haploidentical donor yes or no).|5.4|-16.8|0.1591
91017677|NCT03930615|181918635|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-5.7||||0.1591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.8|5.4|||Mantel Haenszel|Stratum adjusted|Letermovir minus placebo||95% CIs for the treatment differences in percent response were calculated using stratum adjusted Mantel Haenszel method with the difference weighted by the harmonic mean of sample size per arm for each stratum (haploidentical donor yes or no).|5.4|-16.8|0.1591
91017678|NCT03930615|181918638|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-14.1||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.3|-5.0|||Mantel Haenszel|Stratum adjusted|Letermovir minus placebo||95% CIs for the treatment differences in percent response were calculated using stratum adjusted Mantel Haenszel method with the difference weighted by the harmonic mean of sample size per arm for each stratum (haploidentical donor yes or no).|-5.0|-23.3|0.0012
91017679|NCT03930615|181918639|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-5.7||||0.1494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|5.1|||Mantel Haenszel|Stratum adjusted|Letermovir minus placebo||95% CIs for the treatment differences in percent response were calculated using stratum adjusted Mantel Haenszel method with the difference weighted by the harmonic mean of sample size per arm for each stratum (haploidentical donor yes or no).|5.1|-16.5|0.1494
91017680|NCT03930615|181918640|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|0.7||||0.6244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|5.3|||Mantel Haenszel|Stratum adjusted|Letermovir minus placebo||95% CIs for the treatment differences in percent response were calculated using stratum adjusted Mantel Haenszel method with the difference weighted by the harmonic mean of sample size per arm for each stratum (haploidentical donor yes or no).|5.3|-3.8|0.6244
91017681|NCT03930615|181918641|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.3||||0.5264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|8.4|||Mantel Haenszel|Stratum adjusted|Letermovir minus placebo||95% CIs for the treatment differences in percent response were calculated using stratum adjusted Mantel Haenszel method with the difference weighted by the harmonic mean of sample size per arm for each stratum (haploidentical donor yes or no).|8.4|-7.9|0.5264
91017682|NCT02864953|181918644|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17|||=|0.415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.71||P-value was analyzed by ordinal logistic regression adjusting for covariates: region, and IRT stratification factors including rtPA usage (yes/no), thrombectomy usage (yes/no), use of ASPECTS for screening (yes/no), baseline NIHSS (\<=20 vs. \>20).|Regression, Logistic|||||1.71|0.80|=0.4150
90893650|NCT00430248|181652359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is from contrast within the framework of the ANOVA with significance at the 0.05 level.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91017683|NCT02864953|181918646|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07|||=|0.7413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.6||A logistic regression model was used to estimate an odds ratio (and 95% CI) of improvement on the mRS dichotomized as 0-4 vs. 5-6 at Day 90.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.60|0.72|=0.7413
91017684|NCT02864953|181918647|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.82|||=|0.1242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|1.87||Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used to compare the two study arms to assess the treatment effects on midline shift.|ANOVA|||||1.87|-0.23|=0.1242
91017685|NCT00981019|181918654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||"Study was exploratory, thus no hypotheses had been formalized beforehand.~To analyze repeated measures outcomes (e.g., effect of the four different statistic scenarios on doctors' recommendation of screening, their judgment of screening's effectiveness, etc.), we used the McNemar chi-square test and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test.~To test for order effects (scenarios were randomly presented)Pearson's chi-square test and the Mann-Whitney U test were used."||||<0.05
91017686|NCT00865306|181918656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<.05
91017687|NCT00865306|181918657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<.01
91017688|NCT00684645|181918722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.395|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.257|0.609|||Cox proportional hazard|||Time to PFS was analyzed using survival analysis methodology. Model was fitted with sunitinib-induced hypertension included as a time-dependent covariate (presence versus absence of hypertension).||0.609|0.257|<0.0001
91017689|NCT00684645|181918723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.361||||0.0221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.151|0.864|||Cox proportional hazard|||Time to OS was analyzed using survival analysis methodology. Model was fitted with sunitinib-induced hypertension included as a time-dependent covariate (presence versus absence of hypertension).||0.864|0.151|0.0221
90893651|NCT00430248|181652359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is from contrast within the framework of the ANOVA with significance at the 0.05 level.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90893652|NCT00430248|181652360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.153||95.0||||P-value is from contrast within the framework of the ANOVA with significance at the 0.05 level.|ANOVA|||||||0.153
91017690|NCT02513095|181918730|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.0||||0.396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|76.8|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||76.8|0.6|0.396
91017691|NCT00391092|181918759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.0775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.02|||Log Rank (unstratified)|||||1.02|0.65|0.0775
91017692|NCT00391092|181918760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.9543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.38|||Log Rank|||||1.38|0.74|0.9543
91017693|NCT00391092|181918761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Response rates|4.43||||0.3492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|14.0|||Chi-squared||95% CI for the difference in response rates using Hauck-Anderson method.|||14.0|-5.2|0.3492
91017694|NCT00391092|181918762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.98||||||||0.98|0.56|
91017695|NCT00391092|181918763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.5392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.15|||Log Rank|||||1.15|0.76|0.5392
91017696|NCT00467038|181918766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|\<0.004 p value was common for all time points.||||||<0.004
91017697|NCT00467038|181918767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher's LSD post-hoc, trend level|||||||0.08
91017698|NCT02545868|181918777|SUPERIORITY||normal distribution approximation|-30.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.5|-10.8||||||Difference in positive response, Group A minus Group B||-10.8|-50.5|
91017699|NCT02545868|181918778|SUPERIORITY||normal distribution approximation|-36.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.0|-16.7||||||Difference in positive response, Group A minus Group B||-16.7|-56.0|
91017700|NCT02545868|181918779|SUPERIORITY||normal distribution approximation|-47.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.2|-30.7||||||Difference in positive response, Group A minus Group B||-30.7|-63.2|
91017701|NCT02545868|181918783|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-50.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.7|-38.8||||||Serotype 1||-38.8|-62.7|
91017702|NCT02545868|181918783|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-43.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.5|-30.1||||||Serotype 2||-30.1|-56.5|
91017703|NCT02545868|181918783|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-48.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.2|-30.9||||||Serotype 3||-30.9|-65.2|
91017704|NCT02545868|181918783|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-62.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.2|-48.4||||||Serotype 4||-48.4|-77.2|
91017705|NCT02545868|181918783|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-53.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.0|-39.7||||||Serotype 5||-39.7|-68.0|
91017706|NCT02545868|181918783|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-37.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.4|-20.7||||||Serotype 6B||-20.7|-54.4|
91017707|NCT02545868|181918783|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-58.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.1|-43.6||||||Serotype 7F||-43.6|-73.1|
91017708|NCT02545868|181918783|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-32.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.7|-20.1||||||Serotype 8||-20.1|-45.7|
91017709|NCT02545868|181918783|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-46.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.5|-30.4||||||Serotype 9N||-30.4|-62.5|
91017710|NCT02545868|181918783|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-40.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.7|-25.1||||||Serotype 9V||-25.1|-55.7|
91017711|NCT02545868|181918783|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-62.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.2|-48.4||||||Serotype 10A||-48.4|-77.2|
91017712|NCT02545868|181918783|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-52.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.4|-35.6||||||Serotype 11A||-35.6|-69.4|
91017713|NCT02545868|181918783|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-55.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.8|-38.3||||||Serotype 12F||-38.3|-72.8|
91017714|NCT02545868|181918783|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-25.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.4|-9.7||||||Serotype 14||-9.7|-41.4|
91017715|NCT02545868|181918783|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-47.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.9|-32.0||||||Serotype 15B||-32.0|-63.9|
91017716|NCT02545868|181918783|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-56.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.4|-41.4||||||Serotype 17F||-41.4|-72.4|
91017717|NCT02545868|181918783|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-52.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.4|-37.3||||||Serotype 18C||-37.3|-67.4|
91017718|NCT02545868|181918783|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-46.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.5|-30.4||||||Serotype 19A||-30.4|-62.5|
91017719|NCT02545868|181918783|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-52.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.8|-36.1||||||Serotype 19F||-36.1|-68.8|
91017720|NCT02545868|181918783|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-61.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.5|-45.4||||||Serotype 20||-45.4|-77.5|
91017721|NCT02545868|181918783|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-56.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.7|-42.0||||||Serotype 22F||-42.0|-71.7|
91017722|NCT02545868|181918783|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-33.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.7|-14.6||||||Serotype 23F||-14.6|-51.7|
91017723|NCT02545868|181918783|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-47.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.2|-33.5||||||Serotype 33F||-33.5|-62.2|
91017724|NCT02545868|181918784|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-13.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.6|-5.3||||||||-5.3|-21.6|
91017725|NCT02545868|181918785|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-59.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.6|-46.8||||||||-46.8|-72.6|
91017726|NCT02545868|181918787|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-45.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.7|-27.6||||||Serotype 1- Difference in positive response, Group A1 minus Group B||-27.6|-62.7|
91017727|NCT02545868|181918787|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-42.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.6|-23.8||||||Serotype 2- Difference in positive response, Group A1 minus Group B||-23.8|-60.6|
91017728|NCT02545868|181918787|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-49.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.4|-29.2||||||Serotype 3- Difference in positive response, Group A1 minus Group B||-29.2|-70.4|
91017729|NCT02545868|181918787|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-56.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.7|-36.3||||||Serotype 4- Difference in positive response, Group A1 minus Group B||-36.3|-75.7|
91017730|NCT02545868|181918787|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-58.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.4|-40.3||||||Serotype 5- Difference in positive response, Group A1 minus Group B||-40.3|-76.4|
91017731|NCT02545868|181918787|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-34.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.7|-12.2||||||Serotype 6B- Difference in positive response, Group A1 minus Group B||-12.2|-55.7|
91017732|NCT02545868|181918787|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-42.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.8|-23.2||||||Serotype 7F- Difference in positive response, Group A1 minus Group B||-23.2|-61.8|
91017733|NCT02545868|181918787|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-42.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.6|-23.8||||||Serotype 8- Difference in positive response, Group A1 minus Group B||-23.8|-60.6|
91017734|NCT02545868|181918787|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-37.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.9|-15.5||||||Serotype 9N- Difference in positive response, Group A1 minus Group B||-15.5|-58.9|
91017735|NCT02545868|181918787|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-36.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.3|-16.0||||||Serotype 9V- Difference in positive response, Group A1 minus Group B||-16.0|-57.3|
91017736|NCT02545868|181918787|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-62.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.8|-43.5||||||Serotype 10A- Difference in positive response, Group A1 minus Group B||-43.5|-80.8|
91017737|NCT02545868|181918787|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-50.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.0|-29.2||||||Serotype 11A- Difference in positive response, Group A1 minus Group B||-29.2|-71.0|
91017738|NCT02545868|181918787|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-56.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.9|-36.8||||||Serotype 12F- Difference in positive response, Group A1 minus Group B||-36.8|-76.9|
91017739|NCT02545868|181918787|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-20.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.4|-0.2||||||Serotype 14- Difference in positive response, Group A1 minus Group B||-0.2|-41.4|
91017740|NCT02545868|181918787|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-52.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.8|-32.7||||||Serotype 15B- Difference in positive response, Group A1 minus Group B||-32.7|-72.8|
91017741|NCT02545868|181918787|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-46.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.8|-25.8||||||Serotype 17F- Difference in positive response, Group A1 minus Group B||-25.8|-66.8|
91017742|NCT02545868|181918787|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-42.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.8|-23.2||||||Serotype 18C- Difference in positive response, Group A1 minus Group B||-23.2|-61.8|
91017743|NCT02545868|181918787|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-30.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.6|-9.7||||||Serotype 19A- Difference in positive response, Group A1 minus Group B||-9.7|-50.6|
91017744|NCT02545868|181918787|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-46.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.8|-25.8||||||Serotype 19F- Difference in positive response, Group A1 minus Group B||-25.8|-66.8|
91017745|NCT02545868|181918787|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-59.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-79.0|-40.0||||||Serotype 20- Difference in positive response, Group A1 minus Group B||-40.0|-79.0|
91017746|NCT02545868|181918787|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-52.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.1|-32.8||||||Serotype 22F- Difference in positive response, Group A1 minus Group B||-32.8|-72.1|
91017747|NCT02545868|181918787|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-28.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.7|-5.4||||||Serotype 23F- Difference in positive response, Group A1 minus Group B||-5.4|-50.7|
91017748|NCT02545868|181918787|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-49.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.2|-29.7||||||Serotype 33F- Difference in positive response, Group A1 minus Group B||-29.7|-68.2|
91017749|NCT02545868|181918787|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-61.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.1|-45.4||||||Serotype 1- Difference in positive response, Group A2 minus Group B||-45.4|-78.1|
91017750|NCT02545868|181918787|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-52.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.6|-35.3||||||Serotype 2- Difference in positive response, Group A2 minus Group B||-35.3|-70.6|
91017751|NCT02545868|181918787|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-55.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.3|-36.5||||||Serotype 3- Difference in positive response, Group A2 minus Group B||-36.5|-75.3|
91017752|NCT02545868|181918787|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-64.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-82.6|-46.8||||||Serotype 4- Difference in positive response, Group A2 minus Group B||-46.8|-82.6|
91017753|NCT02545868|181918787|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-52.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.6|-35.3||||||Serotype 5- Difference in positive response, Group A2 minus Group B||-35.3|-70.6|
91017754|NCT02545868|181918787|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-38.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.3|-17.2||||||Serotype 6B- Difference in positive response, Group A2 minus Group B||-17.2|-59.3|
91017755|NCT02545868|181918787|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-58.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.7|-40.9||||||Serotype 7F- Difference in positive response, Group A2 minus Group B||-40.9|-76.7|
91017756|NCT02545868|181918787|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-29.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.1|-12.7||||||Serotype 8- Difference in positive response, Group A2 minus Group B||-12.7|-46.1|
91017757|NCT02545868|181918787|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-35.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.4|-14.2||||||Serotype 9N- Difference in positive response, Group A2 minus Group B||-14.2|-56.4|
91017758|NCT02545868|181918787|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-38.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.2|-18.2||||||Serotype 9V- Difference in positive response, Group A2 minus Group B||-18.2|-58.2|
91017759|NCT02545868|181918787|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-61.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-79.8|-43.7||||||Serotype 10A- Difference in positive response, Group A2 minus Group B||-43.7|-79.8|
91017760|NCT02545868|181918787|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-38.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.3|-17.2||||||Serotype 11A- Difference in positive response, Group A2 minus Group B||-17.2|-59.3|
91017761|NCT02545868|181918787|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-58.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.0|-39.6||||||Serotype 12F- Difference in positive response, Group A2 minus Group B||-39.6|-78.0|
91017762|NCT02545868|181918787|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-17.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.4|2.1||||||Serotype 14- Difference in positive response, Group A2 minus Group B||2.1|-37.4|
91017763|NCT02545868|181918787|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.6|-30.4||||||Serotype 15B- Difference in positive response, Group A2 minus Group B||-30.4|-69.6|
91017764|NCT02545868|181918787|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-44.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.0|-24.2||||||Serotype 17F- Difference in positive response, Group A2 minus Group B||-24.2|-64.0|
91017765|NCT02545868|181918787|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-61.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-79.4|-44.2||||||Serotype 18C- Difference in positive response, Group A2 minus Group B||-44.2|-79.4|
91017766|NCT02545868|181918787|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-52.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.3|-33.6||||||Serotype 19A- Difference in positive response, Group A2 minus Group B||-33.6|-72.3|
91017767|NCT02545868|181918787|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-58.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.6|-40.1||||||Serotype 19F- Difference in positive response, Group A2 minus Group B||-40.1|-77.6|
91017768|NCT02545868|181918787|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-70.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-87.4|-53.8||||||Serotype 20- Difference in positive response, Group A2 minus Group B||-53.8|-87.4|
91017769|NCT02545868|181918787|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-67.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.8|-50.5||||||Serotype 22F- Difference in positive response, Group A2 minus Group B||-50.5|-84.8|
91017770|NCT02545868|181918787|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-47.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.0|-26.1||||||Serotype 23F- Difference in positive response, Group A2 minus Group B||-26.1|-68.0|
91017771|NCT02545868|181918787|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.5|-31.5||||||Serotype 33F- Difference in positive response, Group A2 minus Group B||-31.5|-68.5|
90955733|NCT00620282|181791340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|-0.402||||0.2465||95.0|-1.097|0.293||2-sided significance level of 5%.|ANCOVA|||Change in TNF-alpha from baseline to end of treatment at 12 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline TNF-alpha as a covariate.||0.293|-1.097|0.2465
90955734|NCT02217475|181791344|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.816||||0.5194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.439|1.516|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model was used for analysis. Randomized treatment group, NAS score at screening and fibrosis stage were the factors.||||1.516|0.439|0.5194
90955735|NCT02217475|181791345|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.934||||0.0388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.035|3.614|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model was used for analysis. Randomized treatment group, NAS score at screening and fibrosis stage were the factors.||||3.614|1.035|0.0388
90955736|NCT02217475|181791346|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.249||||0.592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.553|2.821|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model was used for analysis. Randomized treatment group, NAS score at screening and fibrosis stage were the factors.||||2.821|0.553|0.5920
90955737|NCT02217475|181791347|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.396||||0.4941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.537|3.628|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model was used for analysis. Randomized treatment group, NAS score at screening and fibrosis stage were the factors.||||3.628|0.537|0.4941
90955738|NCT02217475|181791348|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.142||||0.8434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.305|4.277|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model was used for analysis. Randomized treatment group, NAS score at screening and fibrosis stage were the factors.||||4.277|0.305|0.8434
90955739|NCT02217475|181791349|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.201||||0.0234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.113|4.352|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model was used for analysis. Randomized treatment group, NAS score at screening and fibrosis stage were the factors.||||4.352|1.113|0.0234
90955740|NCT02217475|181791350|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.154||||0.7474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.484|2.752|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model was used for analysis. Randomized treatment group, NAS score at screening and fibrosis stage were the factors.||||2.752|0.484|0.7474
90955741|NCT01237587|181791414|SUPERIORITY||LS mean change difference|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.0|||Repeated Measures|||||0.00|-1.30|0.052
90955742|NCT01237587|181791415|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Worst Pain||0.03|-1.40|.059
90955743|NCT01237587|181791415|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.319||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Least Pain||0.02|-1.24|0.059
90955744|NCT01237587|181791415|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.365||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pain Right Now||0.21|-1.23|.165
90955745|NCT01237587|181791415|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.344||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||General Activity||-0.30|-1.65|0.005
90955746|NCT01237587|181791415|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.356||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mood||0.16|-1.25|.128
90955747|NCT01237587|181791415|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.352||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Walking ability||0.49|-0.90|.560
90955748|NCT01237587|181791415|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.371||0.448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|0.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Normal Work||0.45|-1.01|0.448
90955749|NCT01237587|181791415|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.312||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|-0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Relations With Other||-0.19|-1.42|.011
90955750|NCT01237587|181791415|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.454||0.443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|0.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sleep||0.55|-1.25|.443
90955751|NCT01237587|181791415|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.338||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Enjoyment of Life||0.38|-0.96|.390
90955752|NCT01237587|181791415|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.424||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||School Work||0.24|-1.44|.160
90955753|NCT01237587|181791417|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.051|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.051
91017772|NCT02545868|181918789|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-25.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.6|-9.5||||||Strain = H1N1CA09 (Group A2 minus Group B)||-9.5|-41.6|
90955754|NCT01237587|181791418|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.038
90955755|NCT01237587|181791419|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.62||||0.669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|5.86|||ANCOVA|||Average Pain Score||5.86|-9.10|.669
90955756|NCT01237587|181791419|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.9||||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.32|2.53|||ANCOVA|||Worst Pain Score||2.53|-14.32|.169
90955757|NCT01237587|181791419|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.79||||0.647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.53|5.94|||ANCOVA|||Pain Score Right Now||5.94|-9.53|.647
90955758|NCT01237587|181791420|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22||||0.146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.08|||ANCOVA|||||0.08|-0.52|.146
90955759|NCT01237587|181791421|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.21|||ANCOVA|||||0.21|-0.23|.927
90955760|NCT01237587|181791422|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.03||||0.431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|3.59|||ANCOVA|||||3.59|-1.54|.431
90955761|NCT01237587|181791423|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.92||||0.529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|3.79|||ANCOVA|||||3.79|-1.95|.529
90955762|NCT01237587|181791424|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.83||||0.335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|0.86|||ANCOVA|||||0.86|-2.52|.335
90955763|NCT01237587|181791425|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|1.68|||ANCOVA|||Physical Symptoms Score||1.68|-1.59|.955
90955764|NCT01237587|181791425|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56||||0.381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Harm Avoidance||0.70|-1.82|.381
90955765|NCT01237587|181791425|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43||||0.486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|0.79|||ANCOVA|||Social Anxiety||0.79|-1.66|.486
91017773|NCT02545868|181918789|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-14.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.2|7.3||||||Strain = BPHU13 (Group A2 minus Group B)||7.3|-35.2|
91017774|NCT02545868|181918789|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-25.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.5|-6.4||||||Strain = H3N2SW13 (Group A2 minus Group B)||-6.4|-45.5|
91017775|NCT02545868|181918789|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-19.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.7|11.8||||||Strain = BBRIS08 (Group A2 minus Group B)||11.8|-50.7|
91017776|NCT02545868|181918789|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.4|42.7||||||Strain = AHK4801 (Group A2 minus Group B)||42.7|-49.4|
91017777|NCT02545868|181918790|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-41.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.9|-21.7||||||Strain = H1N1CA09 (Group A2 minus Group B)||-21.7|-61.9|
91017778|NCT02545868|181918790|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-37.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.7|-15.5||||||Strain = BPHU13 (Group A2 minus Group B)||-15.5|-59.7|
91017779|NCT02545868|181918790|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-59.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.2|-40.7||||||Strain = H3N2SW13 (Group A2 minus Group B)||-40.7|-78.2|
91017780|NCT02545868|181918790|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-45.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.0|-15.1||||||Strain = BBRIS08 (Group A2 minus Group B)||-15.1|-76.0|
91017781|NCT02545868|181918790|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.4|42.7||||||Strain = AHK4801 (Group A2 minus Group B)||42.7|-49.4|
91017782|NCT02545868|181918791|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-61.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.2|-42.3||||||Strain = H1N1CA09 - Difference in at least 4-fold response, Group A2 minus Group B||-42.3|-80.2|
91017783|NCT02545868|181918791|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-54.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.3|-34.4||||||Strain = BPHU13 - Difference in at least 4-fold response, Group A2 minus Group B||-34.4|-75.3|
91017784|NCT02545868|181918791|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-82.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-97.1|-67.5||||||Strain = H3N2SW13 - Difference in at least 4-fold response, Group A2 minus Group B||-67.5|-97.1|
91017785|NCT02545868|181918791|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-36.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.2|-6.1||||||Strain = BBRIS08 - Difference in at least 4-fold response, Group A2 minus Group B||-6.1|-67.2|
91017786|NCT02545868|181918791|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.8|50.5||||||Strain = AHK4801 - Difference in at least 4-fold response, Group A2 minus Group B||50.5|-63.8|
91017787|NCT02545868|181918792|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-61.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.2|-42.3||||||Strain = H1N1CA09 (Group A2 minus Group B) \[FDA\]||-42.3|-80.2|
91017788|NCT02545868|181918792|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-46.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-88.0|-4.0||||||Strain = H1N1CA09 (Group A2 minus Group B) \[Protocol\]||-4.0|-88.0|
91017789|NCT02545868|181918792|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-57.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.7|-38.1||||||Strain = BPHU13 (Group A2 minus Group B) \[FDA\]||-38.1|-77.7|
91017790|NCT02545868|181918792|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-55.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-88.0|-23.1||||||Strain = BPHU13 (Group A2 minus Group B) \[Protocol\]||-23.1|-88.0|
91017791|NCT02545868|181918792|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-78.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-94.8|-62.2||||||Strain = H3N2SW13 (Group A2 minus Group B) \[FDA\]||-62.2|-94.8|
91017792|NCT02545868|181918792|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-57.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|-13.4||||||Strain = H3N2SW13 (Group A2 minus Group B) \[Protocol\]||-13.4|-100.0|
91017793|NCT02545868|181918792|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-36.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.2|-6.1||||||Strain = BBRIS08 (Group A2 minus Group B) \[FDA\]||-6.1|-67.2|
91017794|NCT02545868|181918792|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.4|17.4||||||Strain = BBRIS08 (Group A2 minus Group B) \[Protocol\]||17.4|-67.4|
91017795|NCT02545868|181918792|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.8|50.5||||||Strain = AHK4801 (Group A2 minus Group B) \[FDA\]||50.5|-63.8|
91017796|NCT01777191|181918818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.248|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.248
91017797|NCT01932801|181918821|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.461||||||Denotes exact fit for the omnibus model|Chi-squared|Complete omnibus model stats: χ2(18, N=308) = 17.93, CFI = 1.00, RMSEA \< .001, SRMR = .07||"We used piecewise growth modeling to test various treatment arm effects on this outcome. Because there is currently no appropriate way to report on piecewise growth models in clinicaltrials.gov reporting tables, we are reporting the omnibus model statistics on this page called analysis 1 and select parameters representing certain treatment arm effects on subsequent analysis pages. However, we note these do not constitute separate analyses, but various parameters within a single SEM model."||||.461
91017798|NCT01932801|181918821|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.48||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.18||Linear effects of HaRT-A+XR-NTX compared to services-as usual control during treatment period|z score for parameters||Linear effects of HaRT-A+XR-NTX compared to services-as usual control (one of three dummy-coded variables)|"These are select parameters for treatment arm effects that are subordinate to the omnibus model statistics in the table called analysis 1. These are not separate analyses, but select parameters within a single SEM model. For more familiar formats, please see the related publications page, especially see https://doi.org/10.1016/s2215-0366(20)30489-2"||-.18|-.79|.01
91017799|NCT01932801|181918821|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.41||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.15|||z||Linear effects of HaRT-A+XR-NTX compared to services-as usual control (one of three dummy-coded variables) during treatment period|"These are select parameters for treatment arm effects that are subordinate to the omnibus model statistics in the table called analysis 1. These are not separate analyses, but select parameters within a single SEM model. For more familiar formats, please see the related publications page, especially see https://doi.org/10.1016/s2215-0366(20)30489-2"||-.15|-.67|.01
91017800|NCT01932801|181918821|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.23||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.06|||z||Linear effects of HaRT-A+XR-NTX compared to services-as usual control (one of three dummy-coded variables) during treatment period|"These are select parameters for treatment arm effects that are subordinate to the omnibus model statistics in the table called analysis 1. These are not separate analyses, but select parameters within a single SEM model. For more familiar formats, please see the related publications page, especially see https://doi.org/10.1016/s2215-0366(20)30489-2"||.06|-.52|.19
91017801|NCT01932801|181918822|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.347||||||Denotes exact fit for the omnibus model|Chi-squared|complete omnibus model statistics: χ2(20, N=308) = 21.89, CFI = 1.00, RMSEA = .02, SRMR = .03||"We used piecewise growth modeling to test various treatment arm effects on this outcome. Because there is currently no appropriate way to report on piecewise growth models in clinicaltrials.gov reporting tables, we are reporting the omnibus model statistics on this page called analysis 1 and select parameters representing certain treatment arm effects on subsequent analysis pages. However, we note these do not constitute separate analyses, but various parameters within a single SEM model."||||.347
91017802|NCT01932801|181918822|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.22||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.39|-1.06||Linear effects of HaRT-A+XR-NTX compared to services-as usual control during treatment period (one of three dummy-coded variables)|z||Linear effects of HaRT-A+XR-NTX compared to services-as usual control during treatment period (one of three dummy-coded variables)|"These are select parameters for treatment arm effects that are subordinate to the omnibus model statistics in the table called analysis 1. These are not separate analyses, but select parameters within a single SEM model. For more familiar formats, please see the related publications page, especially see https://doi.org/10.1016/s2215-0366(20)30489-2"||-1.06|-3.39|.002
91017803|NCT01932801|181918822|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.82||||0.208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|0.25||Linear effects of HaRT-A+placebo compared to services-as usual control during treatment period (one of three dummy-coded variables)|z||Linear effects of HaRT-A+placebo compared to services-as usual control during treatment period (one of three dummy-coded variables)|"These are select parameters for treatment arm effects that are subordinate to the omnibus model statistics in the table called analysis 1. These are not separate analyses, but select parameters within a single SEM model. For more familiar formats, please see the related publications page, especially see https://doi.org/10.1016/s2215-0366(20)30489-2"||.25|-1.89|.208
91017804|NCT01932801|181918822|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.58||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.73|-0.42||Linear effects of HaRT-A only compared to services-as usual control during treatment period (one of three dummy-coded variables)|z||Linear effects of HaRT-A only compared to services-as usual control during treatment period (one of three dummy-coded variables)|"These are select parameters for treatment arm effects that are subordinate to the omnibus model statistics in the table called analysis 1. These are not separate analyses, but select parameters within a single SEM model. For more familiar formats, please see the related publications page, especially see https://doi.org/10.1016/s2215-0366(20)30489-2"||-.42|-2.73|.025
91017805|NCT01932801|181918823|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028||||||"p value reflects omnibus model close fit"|Chi-squared|χ2(13, N=308) = 24.34, CFI = .98, RMSEA = .05, SRMR = .03||"We used piecewise growth modeling to test various treatment arm effects on this outcome. Because there is currently no appropriate way to report on piecewise growth models in clinicaltrials.gov reporting tables, we are reporting the omnibus model statistics on this page called analysis 1 and select parameters representing certain treatment arm effects on subsequent analysis pages. However, we note these do not constitute separate analyses, but various parameters within a single SEM model."||||.028
91017806|NCT01932801|181918823|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-4.42||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.09|-0.76||Linear effects of HaRT-A+XR-NTX compared to services-as usual control during treatment period (one of three dummy-coded variables)|z||Linear effects of HaRT-A+XR-NTX compared to services-as usual control during treatment period (one of three dummy-coded variables)|"These are select parameters for treatment arm effects that are subordinate to the omnibus model statistics in the table called analysis 1. These are not separate analyses, but select parameters within a single SEM model. For more familiar formats, please see the related publications page, especially see https://doi.org/10.1016/s2215-0366(20)30489-2"||-.76|-8.09|.047
91017807|NCT01932801|181918823|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-5.95||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.72|-2.19||Linear effects of HaRT-A+placebo compared to services-as usual control during treatment period (one of three dummy-coded variables)|z||Linear effects of HaRT-A+placebo compared to services-as usual control during treatment period (one of three dummy-coded variables)|"These are select parameters for treatment arm effects that are subordinate to the omnibus model statistics in the table called analysis 1. These are not separate analyses, but select parameters within a single SEM model. For more familiar formats, please see the related publications page, especially see https://doi.org/10.1016/s2215-0366(20)30489-2"||-2.19|-9.72|.009
91017808|NCT01932801|181918823|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-4.12||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.88|-0.36||Linear effects of HaRT-A only compared to services-as usual control during treatment period (one of three dummy-coded variables)|z||Linear effects of HaRT-A only compared to services-as usual control during treatment period (one of three dummy-coded variables)|"These are select parameters for treatment arm effects that are subordinate to the omnibus model statistics in the table called analysis 1. These are not separate analyses, but select parameters within a single SEM model. For more familiar formats, please see the related publications page, especially see https://doi.org/10.1016/s2215-0366(20)30489-2"||-.36|-7.88|.072
91017809|NCT01932801|181918824|OTHER|Mediation tested using the product of coefficients (a\*b) approach (MacKinnon et al, 2002).|Slope|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||z||We used growth modeling to test mediators of the treatment effect, truncated for during-treatment effects. This analysis entails all four treatment arms; however, this specific contrast is for the XR-NTX vs control group effects on alcohol frequency.|This was a mediation analysis (i.e., multiplication of regression coefficients for the regression of readiness for change slope on group (a-paths) and for the regression of alcohol outcome slopes on readiness (b-paths), where a\*b is considered the mediated effect) for during-treatment effects (baseline to week 12).||||.6
91017810|NCT01932801|181918824|OTHER|Mediation tested using the product of coefficients (a\*b) approach (MacKinnon et al, 2002).|Slope|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.83|TWO_SIDED||||||z||We used growth modeling to test mediators of the treatment effect, truncated for during-treatment effects. This analysis entails all four treatment arms; however, this specific contrast is for the XR-NTX vs control group effects on alcohol frequency.|This was a mediation analysis (i.e., multiplication of regression coefficients for the regression of readiness for change slope on group (a-paths) and for the regression of alcohol outcome slopes on readiness (b-paths), where a\*b is considered the mediated effect) for during-treatment effects (baseline to week 12).||||.83
91082974|NCT03275389|182050381|EQUIVALENCE|The use of the adjuvant (AS01) is to be considered justified if the lower limit of the 94.46% CI of the GMC ratio (adjuvanted vs non-adjuvanted) is \> 1.50|GMC ratio|1.75|||||TWO_SIDED|94.46|1.46|2.1|||Dunnett's t test|Comparison performed using a 2-sided alpha=0.1 and Dunnett adjustment for multiple comparisons,||To evaluate the adjuvant effect of AS01 (Pooling of results at Day 29 of D-SUIV Adjuvant Group 4, at Day 29 of D-SUIV Adjuvant Group 5 and Day 85 of D-SUIV Adjuvant Group 6) on the humoral immune response for anti-H1 stalk antibody by ELISA at Day 29 and Day 85 (i.e. 28 days post-vaccination) when compared to the non-adjuvanted formulations (Pooling of results at Day 29 of D-SUIV Unadjuvanted Group 1, at Day 29 of D-SUIV Unadjuvanted Group 2 and Day 85 of D-SUIV Unadjuvanted Group 3).||2.1|1.46|
91082975|NCT00978341|182050407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.462||0.6797||95.0|-0.83|1.22|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline), Day 1: 0.5 hours post-dose.||1.22|-0.83|0.6797
91017811|NCT01932801|181918824|OTHER|Mediation tested using the product of coefficients (a\*b) approach (MacKinnon et al, 2002).|Slope|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.89|TWO_SIDED||||||z||We used growth modeling to test mediators of the treatment effect, truncated for during-treatment effects. This analysis entails all four treatment arms; however, this specific contrast is for the HaRT-A vs control group effects on alcohol frequency.|This was a mediation analysis (i.e., multiplication of regression coefficients for the regression of readiness for change slope on group (a-paths) and for the regression of alcohol outcome slopes on readiness (b-paths), where a\*b is considered the mediated effect) for during-treatment effects (baseline to week 12).||||.89
91017812|NCT01932801|181918824|OTHER|Mediation tested using the product of coefficients (a\*b) approach (MacKinnon et al, 2002).|Slope|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.65|TWO_SIDED||||||z||We used growth modeling to test mediators of the treatment effect, truncated for during-treatment effects. This analysis entails all four treatment arms; however, this specific contrast is for the XR-NTX vs control group effects on alcohol quantity.|This was a mediation analysis (i.e., multiplication of regression coefficients for the regression of readiness for change slope on group (a-paths) and for the regression of alcohol outcome slopes on readiness (b-paths), where a\*b is considered the mediated effect) for during-treatment effects (baseline to week 12).||||.65
91017813|NCT01932801|181918824|OTHER|Mediation tested using the product of coefficients (a\*b) approach (MacKinnon et al, 2002).|Slope|-0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.87|TWO_SIDED||||||z||We used growth modeling to test mediators of the treatment effect, truncated for during-treatment effects. This analysis entails all four treatment arms; however, this specific contrast is for the placebo vs control group effects on alcohol quantity.|This was a mediation analysis (i.e., multiplication of regression coefficients for the regression of readiness for change slope on group (a-paths) and for the regression of alcohol outcome slopes on readiness (b-paths), where a\*b is considered the mediated effect) for during-treatment effects (baseline to week 12).||||.87
91017814|NCT01932801|181918824|OTHER|Mediation tested using the product of coefficients (a\*b) approach (MacKinnon et al, 2002).|Slope|-0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.91|TWO_SIDED||||||z||We used growth modeling to test mediators of the treatment effect, truncated for during-treatment effects. This analysis entails all four treatment arms; however, this specific contrast is for the HaRT-A vs control group effects on alcohol quantity.|This was a mediation analysis (i.e., multiplication of regression coefficients for the regression of readiness for change slope on group (a-paths) and for the regression of alcohol outcome slopes on readiness (b-paths), where a\*b is considered the mediated effect) for during-treatment effects (baseline to week 12).||||.91
91017815|NCT01932801|181918824|OTHER|Mediation tested using the product of coefficients (a\*b) approach (MacKinnon et al, 2002).|Slope|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.54|TWO_SIDED||||||z||We used growth modeling to test mediators of the treatment effect, truncated for during-treatment effects. This analysis entails all 4 treatment arms; however, this specific contrast is for the XR-NTX vs control group effects on alcohol related harm.|This was a mediation analysis (i.e., multiplication of regression coefficients for the regression of readiness for change slope on group (a-paths) and for the regression of alcohol outcome slopes on readiness (b-paths), where a\*b is considered the mediated effect) for during-treatment effects (baseline to week 12).||||.54
91017816|NCT01932801|181918824|OTHER|Mediation tested using the product of coefficients (a\*b) approach (MacKinnon et al, 2002).|Slope|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.84|TWO_SIDED||||||z||We used growth modeling to test mediators of the treatment effect, truncated for during-treatment effects. This analysis entails all 4 treatment arms; however, this specific contrast is for the placebo vs control effects on alcohol-related harm.|This was a mediation analysis (i.e., multiplication of regression coefficients for the regression of readiness for change slope on group (a-paths) and for the regression of alcohol outcome slopes on readiness (b-paths), where a\*b is considered the mediated effect) for during-treatment effects (baseline to week 12).||||.84
91017817|NCT01932801|181918824|OTHER|Mediation tested using the product of coefficients (a\*b) approach (MacKinnon et al, 2002).|Slope|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.84|TWO_SIDED||||||z||We used growth modeling to test mediators of the treatment effect, truncated for during-treatment effects. This analysis entails all 4 treatment arms; however, this specific contrast is for the HaRT-A vs control group effects on alcohol related harm|This was a mediation analysis (i.e., multiplication of regression coefficients for the regression of readiness for change slope on group (a-paths) and for the regression of alcohol outcome slopes on readiness (b-paths), where a\*b is considered the mediated effect) for during-treatment effects (baseline to week 12).||||.84
91017818|NCT01932801|181918825|OTHER|Mediation tested using the product of coefficients (a\*b) approach (MacKinnon et al, 2002).|Slope|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.65|TWO_SIDED||||||z||We used growth modeling to test mediators of the treatment effect, truncated for during-treatment effects. This analysis entails two treatment arms: XR-NTX vs placebo effects on alcohol frequency and alcohol craving (PACS).|This was a mediation analysis (i.e., multiplication of regression coefficients for the regression of the craving (PACS) slope on group (a-paths) and for the regression of alcohol outcome slopes on readiness (b-paths), where a\*b is considered the mediated effect) for during-treatment effects (baseline to week 12).||||.65
91032318|NCT01706926|181949181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-6.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.211|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|-3.82|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including terms for treatment group, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|Analysis reported for change from baseline in swollen joint count at Day 169.||-3.82|-8.60|<0.001
91032319|NCT01706926|181949181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.219|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|-4.59|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including terms for treatment group, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|Analysis reported for change from baseline in swollen joint count at Day 169.||-4.59|-9.40|<0.001
91032320|NCT01706926|181949181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-7.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.922|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.02|-3.45|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including terms for treatment group, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|Analysis reported for change from baseline in tender joint count at Day 169.||-3.45|-11.02|<0.001
90893653|NCT00430248|181652360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is from contrast within the framework of the ANOVA with significance at the 0.05 level.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91017819|NCT01932801|181918825|OTHER|Mediation tested using the product of coefficients (a\*b) approach (MacKinnon et al, 2002).|Slope|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.46|TWO_SIDED||||||z||We used growth modeling to test mediators of the treatment effect, truncated for during-treatment effects. This analysis entails 2 treatment arms: XR-NTX vs placebo effects on craving and alcohol quantity.|This was a mediation analysis (i.e., multiplication of regression coefficients for the regression of the alcohol craving (PACS) slope on group (a-paths) and for the regression of alcohol outcome slopes on readiness (b-paths), where a\*b is considered the mediated effect) for during-treatment effects (baseline to week 12).||||.46
91017820|NCT01932801|181918825|OTHER|Mediation tested using the product of coefficients (a\*b) approach (MacKinnon et al, 2002).|Slope|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.45|TWO_SIDED||||||z||We used growth modeling to test mediators of the treatment effect, truncated for during-treatment effects. This analysis entails two treatment arms: XR-NTX vs placebo effects on craving and alcohol-related harm|This was a mediation analysis (i.e., multiplication of regression coefficients for the regression of alcohol craving (PACS) slope on group (a-paths) and for the regression of alcohol outcome slopes on readiness (b-paths), where a\*b is considered the mediated effect) for during-treatment effects (baseline to week 12).||||.45
91017821|NCT01932801|181918826|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95||||||Denotes exact fit for the omnibus model|Chi-squared|Complete omnibus model : χ2(12, N=308) = .75, CFI = 1.00, RMSEA \< .001, SRMR = .008||"We used piecewise growth modeling to test various treatment arm effects on this outcome. Because there is currently no appropriate way to report on piecewise growth models in clinicaltrials.gov reporting tables, we are reporting the omnibus model statistics on this page called analysis 1 and select parameters representing certain treatment arm effects on subsequent analysis pages. However, we note these do not constitute separate analyses, but various parameters within a single SEM model."||||.95
91017822|NCT01932801|181918826|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.04||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.16||Linear effects of HaRT-A+XR-NTX compared to services-as usual control during treatment period (one of three dummy-coded variables)|Chi-squared|||"These are select parameters for treatment arm effects that are subordinate to the omnibus model statistics in the table called analysis 1. These are not separate analyses, but select parameters within a single SEM model."||.16|-.24|.75
91017823|NCT01932801|181918826|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.15||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.04|||Chi-squared|Linear effects of HaRT-A+placebo compared to services-as usual control during treatment period (one of three dummy-coded variables)||"These are select parameters for treatment arm effects that are subordinate to the omnibus model statistics in the table called analysis 1. These are not separate analyses, but select parameters within a single SEM model."||.04|-.34|.20
91017824|NCT01932801|181918826|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.1||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.29|||Chi-squared|Linear effects of HaRT-A compared to services-as usual control during treatment period (one of three dummy-coded variables)||"These are select parameters for treatment arm effects that are subordinate to the omnibus model statistics in the table called analysis 1. These are not separate analyses, but select parameters within a single SEM model."||.29|-.09|.39
91017825|NCT01932801|181918827|SUPERIORITY||incident rate ratio|0.98|||>|0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.16|||z|||We conducted a generalized estimating equations analysis (negative binomial distribution, log link) to test whether number of adverse events reported increased from baseline to the follow-ups differentially across placebo and XR-NTX groups||1.16|.83|>.84
91017826|NCT01461369|181918880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-11.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.806||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.17|-4.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.19|-19.17|0.0024
91017827|NCT01461369|181918880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-6.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.739||0.0795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.94|0.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.78|-13.94|0.0795
91017828|NCT01461369|181918881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-15.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.552|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.82|-8.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.83|-22.82|<0.0001
91017829|NCT01461369|181918881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-9.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.481||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.66|-2.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.95|-16.66|0.0052
91017830|NCT01461369|181918882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-12.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.776||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.87|-4.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.99|-19.87|0.0011
90893654|NCT00430248|181652360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is from contrast within the framework of the ANOVA with significance at the 0.05 level.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90955766|NCT01237587|181791425|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|0.79|||ANCOVA|||Separation/Panic||0.79|-1.17|.700
91017831|NCT01461369|181918882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-5.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.707||0.1349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.86|1.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.74|-12.86|0.1349
91017832|NCT01461369|181918883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-13.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.377||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.89|-6.59|||ANCOVA|||||-6.59|-19.89|0.0001
91017833|NCT01461369|181918883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-7.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.313||0.0248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|-0.96|||ANCOVA|||||-0.96|-14.00|0.0248
91017834|NCT01461369|181918884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-12.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.396||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.32|-5.94|||ANCOVA|||||-5.94|-19.32|0.0002
91017835|NCT01461369|181918884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-7.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.339||0.0363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|-0.45|||ANCOVA|||||-0.45|-13.60|0.0363
91017836|NCT01461369|181918885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-10.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.441||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.16|-3.6|||ANCOVA|||||-3.60|-17.16|0.0028
91017837|NCT01461369|181918885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-5.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.385||0.1081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.13|1.21|||ANCOVA|||||1.21|-12.13|0.1081
91032321|NCT01706926|181949181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-8.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.884|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.16|-4.74|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including terms for treatment group, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|Analysis reported for change from baseline in tender joint count at Day 169.||-4.74|-12.16|<0.001
91017838|NCT03692078|181918904|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|6.116|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.976|6.255|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)"||6.255|5.976|<.0001
91017839|NCT03692078|181918904|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|6.073|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.963|6.183|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)"||6.183|5.963|<.0001
91017840|NCT03692078|181918904|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|5.736|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.605|5.868|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)"||5.868|5.605|<.0001
91017841|NCT03692078|181918904|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|5.792|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.687|5.897|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)"||5.897|5.687|<.0001
91017842|NCT03692078|181918904|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|5.835|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.701|5.969|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)"||5.969|5.701|<.0001
91017843|NCT03692078|181918904|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|5.799|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.694|5.904|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)"||5.904|5.694|<.0001
91017844|NCT03692078|181918904|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|4.881|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.713|5.048|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)"||5.048|4.713|<.0001
91017845|NCT03692078|181918904|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|4.844|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.711|4.977|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)"||4.977|4.711|<.0001
91017846|NCT03692078|181918904|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|5.185|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.021|5.35|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)"||5.350|5.021|<.0001
91017847|NCT03692078|181918904|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|4.933|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.801|5.066|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)"||5.066|4.801|<.0001
91017848|NCT03692078|181918904|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|5.014|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.852|5.175|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)"||5.175|4.852|<.0001
91017849|NCT03692078|181918904|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|4.892|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.763|5.02|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)"||5.020|4.763|<.0001
91017850|NCT03692078|181918904|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.379||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.646|-0.112|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)"||-0.112|-0.646|0.0013
91017851|NCT03692078|181918904|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.281||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.496|-0.065|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)"||-0.065|-0.496|0.0034
91017852|NCT03692078|181918904|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.281||||0.0354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.549|-0.012|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)"||-0.012|-0.549|0.0354
91032322|NCT01706926|181949181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-10.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.901|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.17|-6.67|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including terms for treatment group, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|Analysis reported for change from baseline in tender joint count at Day 169.||-6.67|-14.17|<0.001
90893655|NCT00430248|181652361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0||||P-value is from contrast within the framework of the ANOVA with significance at the 0.05 level.|ANOVA|||||||0.050
90955767|NCT01237587|181791425|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.21||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.12|2.69|||ANCOVA|||Total Score||2.69|-5.12|.540
90955768|NCT01139580|181791435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90955769|NCT01139580|181791438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.001
90893656|NCT00430248|181652361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is from contrast within the framework of the ANOVA with significance at the 0.05 level.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90893657|NCT00430248|181652361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is from contrast within the framework of the ANOVA with significance at the 0.05 level.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90893658|NCT01624948|181652362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.53
90893659|NCT01624948|181652364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference in p70S6 kinase phosphorylation as measured by mean fluorescence intensity (MFI) between those patients who reached the primary endpoint and those who did not||||0.67
90893660|NCT01624948|181652365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.01
90893661|NCT01624948|181652367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.49
90893662|NCT03466086|181652368|SUPERIORITY|This was a pilot study and the sample size was not based on any empirical power calculation.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.238|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|2.59||Superiority will be declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% credible interval of the difference between Test and Control is greater than 0.|Multivariate Bayesian Model|The correlation between measurements across periods were modeled using unstructured variance-covariance matrix.|Mean Difference was calculated as Test minus Control.|||2.59|-2.35|
90955770|NCT01285609|181791441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.907||||0.2517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.767|1.072|||Log Rank|p-value based on an unstratified 2-sided log rank test|Hazard of Ipilimumab over Hazard of Placebo with 2-sided 95% confidence intervals are based on an unstratified Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as the single covariate|Hazard ratio = Ipilimumab with Paclitaxel/Carboplatin over Placebo with Paclitaxel/Carboplatin||1.072|0.767|0.2517
90955771|NCT01285609|181791442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.917||||0.2421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.792|1.061||p-value based on stratified 2-sided log-rank test|Log Rank||Hazard of Ipilimumab over Placebo with 2-sided 95% confidence intervals based on a stratified Cox proportional hazards model with several stratification factors and treatment as the single covariate|Hazard ratio = Ipilimumab with Paclitaxel/Carboplatin over Placebo with Paclitaxel/Carboplatin||1.061|0.792|0.2421
90955772|NCT01285609|181791443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.869||||0.0678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.749|1.009|||Log Rank|p-value based on an unstratified 2-sided log rank test|Hazard of Ipilimumab over Hazard of Placebo with 2-sided 95% confidence intervals are based on an unstratified Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as the single covariate|Hazard ratio = Ipilimumab with Paclitaxel/Carboplatin over Placebo with Paclitaxel/Carboplatin||1.009|0.749|0.0678
90955773|NCT01142115|181791444|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The estimated difference VAS(Monza) minus VAS(SpeediCath)(i.e. the upper confidence limit) shall be less than 1cm to demonstrate non-inferiority.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.052||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.412|1.692|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.692|0.412|0.0018
90955774|NCT01142115|181791445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.805|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.604|12.939|||Regression, Logistic|||||12.939|2.604|<0.0001
90955775|NCT01142115|181791446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.822||||0.616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.382|1.767|||Proportional odds regression model|||||1.767|0.382|0.6160
90955776|NCT01142115|181791447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.117||||0.8014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.472|2.646|||Proportional odds regression model|||||2.646|0.472|0.8014
90955777|NCT01142115|181791448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.503||||0.3085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.314|39.106|||Regression, Logistic|||||39.106|0.314|0.3085
90955778|NCT01142115|181791449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.398||||0.4324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.606|3.225|||Proportional odds regression model|||||3.225|0.606|0.4324
90955779|NCT04828837|181791468|SUPERIORITY|The intervention effect was evaluated using the generalized estimating equation (GEE) statistical method. Two-tailed tests were conducted, and p-values less than .05 were considered statistically significant.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.39|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||We used Mann-Whitney U test for independent samples, and Fisher's exact tests when more than 20% of cells have expected frequencies \<5 or less than 10 observations to examine the homogeneity between groups based on demographic characteristics.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Descriptive statistics, including count, percentage, mean, and standard deviation, were used to summarize the data.||||<0.05
90955780|NCT04828837|181791469|SUPERIORITY|The intervention effect was evaluated using the generalized estimating equation (GEE) statistical method. Two-tailed tests were conducted, and p-values less than .05 were considered statistically significant.|||||<|0.05||||||We used Mann-Whitney U test for independent samples, and Fisher's exact tests when more than 20% of cells have expected frequencies \<5 or less than 10 observations to examine the homogeneity between groups based on demographic characteristics.|The generalized estimating equation (GEE|||Descriptive statistics, including count, percentage, mean, and standard deviation, were used to summarize the data.||||<0.05
90955781|NCT04828837|181791470|SUPERIORITY|The intervention effect was evaluated using the generalized estimating equation (GEE) statistical method. Two-tailed tests were conducted, and p-values less than .05 were considered statistically significant.|||||<|0.05||||||We used Mann-Whitney U test for independent samples, and Fisher's exact tests when more than 20% of cells have expected frequencies \<5 or less than 10 observations to examine the homogeneity between groups based on demographic characteristics.|The generalized estimating equation (GEE|||Descriptive statistics, including count, percentage, mean, and standard deviation, were used to summarize the data.||||<0.05
90955782|NCT04828837|181791471|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
90955783|NCT01397422|181791472|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-11.3||||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.1|-3.5|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline is a dependent variable, treatment group is a factor, and the baseline value is a covariate.||20 subjects per treatment arm provided 80% power using a 2-sided 2-sample test at 5% significance. The null hypothesis for the primary endpoint was that the response of the ADS-5102 340 mg group was equal to that of the placebo group.||-3.5|-19.1|0.0051
90955784|NCT01397422|181791472|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-10.0||||0.0131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|-2.2|||ANCOVA|||||-2.2|-17.8|0.0131
90955785|NCT01397422|181791472|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.6||||0.1595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|2.2|||ANCOVA|||||2.2|-13.4|0.1595
90955786|NCT01397422|181791473|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.4314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.5|||ANCOVA|||||0.5|-1.1|0.4314
90955787|NCT01397422|181791473|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.3||||0.5223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.0|||ANCOVA|||||1.0|-0.5|0.5223
90955788|NCT01397422|181791473|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.2||||0.6298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.0|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline is a dependent variable, treatment group is a factor, baseline value is a covariate||||1.0|-0.6|0.6298
90955789|NCT01397422|181791474|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.2||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|-1.7|||ANCOVA|||||-1.7|-8.7|0.0038
90955790|NCT01397422|181791474|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.4||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|-2.9|||ANCOVA|||||-2.9|-9.8|0.0004
90955791|NCT01397422|181791474|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.5||||0.1469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|0.9|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline is a dependent variable, treatment group is a factor, and the baseline value is a covariate.||||0.9|-6.0|0.1469
90955792|NCT01397422|181791475|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.0||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|5.2|||ANCOVA|||||5.2|0.8|0.0078
90955793|NCT01397422|181791475|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.7||||0.0179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|5.0|||ANCOVA|||||5.0|0.5|0.0179
90955794|NCT01397422|181791475|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.3||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|5.5|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline is a dependent variable, treatment group is a factor, and the baseline value is a covariate||||5.5|1.1|0.0040
90955795|NCT01397422|181791476|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.2||||0.6355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|6.9|||ANCOVA|||||6.9|-11.2|0.6355
91032323|NCT01706926|181949182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-7.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.95||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.72|-0.17|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including terms for treatment group, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|||-0.17|-15.72|0.045
90955796|NCT01397422|181791476|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.7||||0.7053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|10.6|||ANCOVA|||||10.6|-7.2|0.7053
90955797|NCT01397422|181791476|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.2||||0.7862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|10.1|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline is a dependent variable, treatment group is a factor, and the baseline value is a covariate||||10.1|-7.7|0.7862
90955798|NCT01397422|181791477|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0036|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0036
90955799|NCT01397422|181791477|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2158|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2158
90955800|NCT01397422|181791477|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1042|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Equally spaced scores||||||0.1042
90955801|NCT03762200|181791495|OTHER|Confidence Interval|percentage of sucesses|87.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|79.4|93.1||||||||93.1|79.4|
90955802|NCT03762200|181791496|OTHER|Confidence Interval|Percentage of Successes|77.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.4|85.3||||||||85.3|68.4|
90955803|NCT03762200|181791497|OTHER|Confidence Interval|Percentage of Successes|92.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|85.3|96.6||||||||96.6|85.3|
90955804|NCT00715962|181791517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|Fisher's exact test used as the rate of falling was low.||||||<.05
90955805|NCT00715962|181791518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<.05
90955806|NCT00266227|181791520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0195|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0195
90955807|NCT00266227|181791522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||||95.0|-0.7|-0.1|||ANOVA|Adjusted mean for Arm A (Rituxan) is -1.9 and adjusted mean for Arm B (Placebo) is -1.5.||Assessed using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model, with retreatment group, baseline DAS28-ESR score, baseline RF status, and ≥20% improvement in both SJC and TJC at Week 24 from baseline (yes/no) as explanatory terms in the model.||-0.1|-0.7|
90955808|NCT02716818|181791580|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.069|||=|0.5521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.299|0.161|||ANCOVA|||The primary efficacy variable was the natural logarithm of the mean of the 24-hour SDS profile for the natural logarithm of 17-OHP. The SDS profile was calculated as the SDS of log transformed 17-OHP concentration unsigned. The mean of the 24-hour SDS profile for each visit was the arithmetic mean of all the SDSs, with the first and last (13th) weighted one half relative to the intermediate SDSs.||0.161|-0.299|=0.5521
90955809|NCT02716818|181791581|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.047|||=|0.7405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.234|0.329|||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to 24 Weeks in A4 Using an ANCOVA Model - The analysis conducted for the primary endpoint variable analysis of 17-OHP was repeated for A4.||0.329|-0.234|=0.7405
90955810|NCT02716818|181791582|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.037|||=|0.8186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.354|0.281|||ANCOVA|||||0.281|-0.354|=0.8186
90955811|NCT02716818|181791582|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.135|||=|0.4655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.508|0.237|||ANCOVA|||||0.237|-0.508|=0.4655
90955812|NCT02716818|181791582|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.065|||=|0.9081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|1.451|||ANCOVA|||||1.451|-1.32|=0.9081
90955813|NCT02716818|181791582|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.092|||=|0.6729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.343|0.527|||ANCOVA|||||0.527|-0.343|=0.6729
90955814|NCT02716818|181791582|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.116|||=|0.5322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.257|0.489|||ANCOVA|||||0.489|-0.257|=0.5322
90955815|NCT02716818|181791582|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.568|||=|0.2885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.799|0.662|||ANCOVA|||||0.662|-1.799|=0.2885
90955816|NCT02716818|181791583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99|||=|0.9877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.19|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.19|0.45|=0.9877
90955817|NCT02716818|181791583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93|||=|0.8498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|2.02|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.02|0.43|=0.8498
90955818|NCT02716818|181791584|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.96|||=|0.156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.294|0.374|||ANCOVA|||German subjects have been excluded from this analysis group as DEXA scans are not performed at German sites.||0.374|-2.294|=0.156
90955819|NCT02716818|181791584|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.425|||=|0.3392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.455|1.305|||ANCOVA|||German subjects have been excluded from this analysis group as DEXA scans are not performed at German sites.||1.305|-0.455|=0.3392
90955820|NCT02716818|181791585|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.009|||=|0.2614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.007|0.025|||ANCOVA|||||0.025|-0.007|=0.2614
90955821|NCT02074553|181791616|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|100.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.14|108.44|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% confidence interval (CI).||108.44|93.14|
90955822|NCT02074553|181791616|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|97.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.71|105.48|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||105.48|90.71|
90955823|NCT02074553|181791616|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|86.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.32|93.5|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||93.5|80.32|
91017853|NCT03692078|181918904|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.274||||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.489|-0.059|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)"||-0.059|-0.489|0.0044
91017854|NCT03692078|181918904|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.235|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.539|-0.93|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)"||-0.930|-1.539|<.0001
91017855|NCT03692078|181918904|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.229|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.475|-0.983|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)"||-0.983|-1.475|<.0001
91017856|NCT03692078|181918904|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.93|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|-0.63|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)"||-0.630|-1.230|<.0001
91017857|NCT03692078|181918904|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.383|-0.896|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)"||-0.896|-1.383|<.0001
91017858|NCT03692078|181918904|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|0.723|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.436|1.009|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)"||1.009|0.436|<.0001
91017859|NCT03692078|181918904|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|0.901|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.667|1.134|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)"||1.134|0.667|<.0001
91017860|NCT03692078|181918904|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|0.821|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.533|1.109|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)"||1.109|0.533|<.0001
91032324|NCT01706926|181949182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-8.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.876||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.73|-0.48|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including terms for treatment group, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|||-0.48|-15.73|0.037
90893663|NCT03466086|181652369|SUPERIORITY|Superiority will be declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% credible interval of the difference between Test and Control is less than 0.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.49|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.951|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|3.37|||Multivariate Bayesian Analysis|The correlation between measurements across periods were modeled using unstructured variance-covariance matrix.||This was a pilot study and the sample size was not based on any empirical power calculation.|Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|3.37|-0.40|
91017861|NCT03692078|181918904|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|0.907|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.675|1.14|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)"||1.140|.675|<.0001
91017862|NCT03692078|181918904|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.133||||0.8291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.453|0.188|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)"||0.188|-0.453|.8291
91017863|NCT03692078|181918904|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.048||||0.9997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.308|0.213|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)"||0.213|-0.308|0.9997
91017864|NCT03692078|181918904|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|0.172||||0.5755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.145|0.488|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)"||0.488|-0.145|0.5755
91017865|NCT03692078|181918904|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|0.042||||0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.217|0.301|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)"||0.301|-0.217|0.9999
91017866|NCT03692078|181918906|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|2.629|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.317|2.94|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)"||2.940|2.317|<.0001
91017867|NCT03692078|181918906|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|2.632|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.321|2.943|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)"||2.943|2.321|<.0001
91017868|NCT03692078|181918906|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|2.006|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.714|2.298|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)"||2.298|1.714|<.0001
91032325|NCT01706926|181949182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-11.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.899||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|-3.65|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including terms for treatment group, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|||-3.65|-19.00|0.004
90893664|NCT02219048|181652399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0719|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0909|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2243|0.0805|||Longitudinal Analysis of Covariance|LANCOVA model contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment/baseline by week interaction, baseline value, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline at Week 1||0.0805|-0.2243|
90893665|NCT02219048|181652399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.092|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.086|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2362|0.0523|||Longitudinal Analysis of Covariance|LANCOVA model contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment/baseline by week interaction, baseline value, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline at Week 2||0.0523|-0.2362|
91017869|NCT03692078|181918906|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|2.143|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.847|2.44|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)"||2.440|1.847|<.0001
91017870|NCT03692078|181918906|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|1.987|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.69|2.284|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)"||2.284|1.690|<.0001
91017871|NCT03692078|181918906|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|2.261|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.964|2.559|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)"||2.559|1.964|<.0001
91017872|NCT03692078|181918906|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.263||||0.1658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.635|0.109|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)"||0.109|-0.635|0.1658
91017873|NCT03692078|181918906|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.659||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.036|-0.282|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)"||-0.282|-1.036|0.0007
91017874|NCT03692078|181918906|NON_INFERIORITY|"Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.302||||0.1055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.667|0.064|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)"||0.064|-0.667|0.1055
91017875|NCT03692078|181918906|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.243||||0.204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.617|0.132|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)"||0.132|-0.617|0.2040
91017876|NCT03692078|181918906|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.244||||0.1829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.603|0.116|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)"||0.116|-0.603|0.1829
91032326|NCT01706926|181949183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.137||0.837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.99|7.29|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including terms for treatment group, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|||7.29|-8.99|0.837
90893666|NCT02219048|181652399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1131|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0837|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2536|0.0274|||Longitudinal Analysis of Covariance|LANCOVA model contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment/baseline by week interaction, baseline value, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline at Week 3||0.0274|-0.2536|
90893667|NCT02219048|181652399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.058|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0829|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1971|0.0812|||Longitudinal Analysis of Covariance|LANCOVA model contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment/baseline by week interaction, baseline value, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline at Week 4||0.0812|-0.1971|
91017877|NCT03692078|181918906|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.248||||0.1801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.612|0.115|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)"||0.115|-0.612|0.1801
91017878|NCT03692078|181918906|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.622||||0.0391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.225|-0.019|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.019|-1.225|0.0391
91017879|NCT03692078|181918906|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.489||||0.1864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.096|0.119|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.119|-1.096|0.1864
91017880|NCT03692078|181918906|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.642||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.246|-0.037|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.037|-1.246|0.0310
91017881|NCT03692078|181918906|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.642||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.246|-0.037|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)"||-0.037|-1.246|0.0310
91017882|NCT03692078|181918906|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.891|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.58|-2.202|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-2.202|-3.580|<.0001
91017883|NCT03692078|181918906|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.291|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.985|-2.597|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-2.597|-3.985|<.0001
91017884|NCT03692078|181918906|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.93|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.605|-2.255|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-2.255|-3.605|<.0001
91017885|NCT03692078|181918906|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.875|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.559|-2.19|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-2.190|-3.559|<.0001
90893668|NCT02219048|181652399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.0837|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0742|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2081|0.0406|||Longitudinal Analysis of Covariance|LANCOVA model contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment/baseline by week interaction, baseline value, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline Over Week 1 to 4||0.0406|-0.2081|
90955824|NCT02074553|181791616|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|88.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.15|92.24|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||92.24|85.15|
90955825|NCT02074553|181791616|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|80.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.08|83.39|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||83.39|77.08|
90955826|NCT02074553|181791616|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|79.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.84|83.19|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||83.19|76.84|
90955827|NCT02074553|181791617|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|99.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.83|106.99|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||106.99|91.83|
90955828|NCT02074553|181791617|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|93.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.94|101.17|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||101.17|86.94|
90955829|NCT02074553|181791617|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|80.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.41|86.7|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||86.7|74.41|
90955830|NCT02074553|181791617|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|87.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.92|91.07|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||91.07|83.92|
90955831|NCT02074553|181791617|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|78.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.76|82.11|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||82.11|75.76|
90955832|NCT02074553|181791617|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|78.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.53|81.92|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||81.92|75.53|
90955833|NCT02074553|181791618|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|90.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.33|99.12|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||99.12|82.33|
90955834|NCT02074553|181791618|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|66.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.45|72.68|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||72.68|60.45|
90955835|NCT02074553|181791618|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|41.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|37.4|45.03|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||45.03|37.40|
90955836|NCT02074553|181791618|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|86.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.77|91.09|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||91.09|81.77|
91017886|NCT03692078|181918906|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.604|2.896|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||2.896|1.604|<.0001
91017887|NCT03692078|181918906|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.391|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.737|3.046|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||3.046|1.737|<.0001
91017888|NCT03692078|181918906|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.231|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.582|2.879|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||2.879|1.582|<.0001
91017889|NCT03692078|181918906|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.509|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.857|3.162|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||3.162|1.857|<.0001
91017890|NCT03692078|181918906|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.019||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.743|0.705|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.705|-0.743|1.0000
91017891|NCT03692078|181918906|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.411||||0.5639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.142|0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.320|-1.142|0.5639
91017892|NCT03692078|181918906|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.058||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.771|0.656|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.656|-0.771|1.0000
91017893|NCT03692078|181918906|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.006||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.721|0.732|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.732|-0.721|1.0000
91017894|NCT03692078|181918908|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.691|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.519|2.863|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||2.863|2.519|<.0001
91032327|NCT01706926|181949183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.058||0.589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.18|5.79|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including terms for treatment group, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|||5.79|-10.18|0.589
91082976|NCT00978341|182050407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.528||0.4811||95.0|-1.54|0.77|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline), Day 1: 1 hour post-dose.||0.77|-1.54|0.4811
91017895|NCT03692078|181918908|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.718|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.546|2.89|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||2.890|2.546|<.0001
91017896|NCT03692078|181918908|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.415|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.252|2.577|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||2.577|2.252|<.0001
91017897|NCT03692078|181918908|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.276|2.603|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||2.603|2.276|<.0001
91017898|NCT03692078|181918908|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.583|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.417|2.748|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||2.748|2.417|<.0001
91017899|NCT03692078|181918908|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.591|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.426|2.757|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||2.757|2.426|<.0001
91017900|NCT03692078|181918908|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.107|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.901|1.314|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||1.314|0.901|<.0001
91017901|NCT03692078|181918908|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.017|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.225|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||1.225|0.810|<.0001
91017902|NCT03692078|181918908|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.828|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.624|2.031|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||2.031|1.624|<.0001
91082977|NCT00978341|182050407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.454||0.1693||95.0|-1.67|0.33|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline), Day 1: 2 hours post-dose.||0.33|-1.67|0.1693
91082978|NCT00978341|182050407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.487||0.4034||95.0|-1.78|0.87|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline) , Day 1: 3 hours post-dose.||0.87|-1.78|0.4034
90893669|NCT02219048|181652402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.285|0.106|||Longitudinal Analysis of Covariance|LANCOVA model contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment/baseline by week interaction, baseline value, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline Averaged Over Week 1 to 4||0.106|-0.285|
91017903|NCT03692078|181918908|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.782|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.577|1.988|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||1.988|1.577|<.0001
91017904|NCT03692078|181918908|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.350|-0.750|<.0001
91017905|NCT03692078|181918908|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.051|-0.65|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.650|-1.051|<.0001
91017906|NCT03692078|181918908|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.276||||0.1608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.609|0.057|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.057|-0.609|0.1608
91017907|NCT03692078|181918908|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.278||||0.1575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.613|0.056|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.056|-0.613|0.1575
91017908|NCT03692078|181918908|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.108||||0.9728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.442|0.226|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.226|-0.442|0.9728
91017909|NCT03692078|181918908|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.127||||0.9262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.461|0.208|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.208|-0.461|0.9262
91017910|NCT03692078|181918908|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.584|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.963|-1.204|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-1.204|-1.963|<.0001
90955837|NCT02074553|181791618|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|77.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|73.01|81.2|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||81.20|73.01|
90955838|NCT02074553|181791618|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|75.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|71.71|79.82|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||79.82|71.71|
90955839|NCT02074553|181791620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|91.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.34|102.05|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||102.05|82.34|
90955840|NCT02074553|181791620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|67.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.44|74.79|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||74.79|60.44|
90955841|NCT02074553|181791620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|34.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|30.83|38.21|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||38.21|30.83|
90955842|NCT02074553|181791620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|95.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.1|101.62|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||101.62|89.10|
90955843|NCT02074553|181791620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|73.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|68.67|78.16|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||78.16|68.67|
90955844|NCT02074553|181791620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|67.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|63.48|72.33|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||72.33|63.48|
90955845|NCT02074553|181791622|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|95.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.54|104.79|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||104.79|87.54|
90955846|NCT02074553|181791622|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|78.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|71.97|86.04|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||86.04|71.97|
90955847|NCT02074553|181791622|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|53.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|49.27|58.98|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||58.98|49.27|
90955848|NCT02074553|181791622|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|90.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.14|94.37|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||94.37|86.14|
90955849|NCT02074553|181791622|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|73.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.52|77.15|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||77.15|70.52|
90955850|NCT02074553|181791622|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|70.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|67.8|74.22|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||74.22|67.80|
90955851|NCT02074553|181791623|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|93.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.24|102.78|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||102.78|84.24|
90955852|NCT02074553|181791623|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|74.35|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|67.37|82.06|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||82.06|67.37|
90955853|NCT02074553|181791623|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|43.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|39.78|48.53|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||48.53|39.78|
90955854|NCT02074553|181791623|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|90.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.12|94.49|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||94.49|86.12|
90955855|NCT02074553|181791623|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|72.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|69.48|76.12|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||76.12|69.48|
90955856|NCT02074553|181791623|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|69.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|66.23|72.61|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||72.61|66.23|
90955857|NCT02074553|181791626|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|98.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.25|106.95|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||106.95|91.25|
90955858|NCT02074553|181791626|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|91.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.65|99.08|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||99.08|84.65|
90955859|NCT02074553|181791626|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|73.41|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|67.81|79.47|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||79.47|67.81|
90955860|NCT02074553|181791626|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|88.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.62|92.13|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||92.13|85.62|
90955861|NCT02074553|181791626|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|77.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.99|80.6|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||80.60|74.99|
90955862|NCT02074553|181791626|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|76.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|73.92|79.49|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||79.49|73.92|
91082979|NCT00978341|182050407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.694||0.1935||95.0|-2.36|0.5|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline), Day 1: 4 hours post-dose.||0.50|-2.36|0.1935
90829421|NCT02365649|181533422|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.7||||0.614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|17.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders||17.0|-5.6|0.614
90829422|NCT02365649|181533422|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.2||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|11.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders||11.5|-9.1|1.000
90829423|NCT02365649|181533422|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.9||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|16.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders||16.8|-15.0|1.000
90829424|NCT02365649|181533422|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.4||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|31.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders||31.4|-2.5|0.135
90829425|NCT02365649|181533422|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|12.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders||12.1|-14.1|1.000
91082980|NCT00978341|182050407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.715||0.0694||95.0|-2.83|0.12|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline), Day 1: 5 hours post-dose.||0.12|-2.83|0.0694
91082981|NCT00978341|182050407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.713||0.0396||95.0|-3.02|-0.08|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline), Day 1: 6 hours post-dose.||-0.08|-3.02|0.0396
91082982|NCT00978341|182050407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.319||0.1531||95.0|-1.25|0.24|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline), Day 1: 8 hours post-dose.||0.24|-1.25|0.1531
91082983|NCT00978341|182050407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.637||0.0951||95.0|-2.79|0.29|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline), Day 1: 10 hours post-dose.||0.29|-2.79|0.0951
91082984|NCT00978341|182050407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.615||0.0614||95.0|-2.84|0.09|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline), Day 1: 12 hours post-dose.||0.09|-2.84|0.0614
91082985|NCT00978341|182050407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.619||0.1946||95.0|-2.29|0.54|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline), Day 8: pre-dose.||0.54|-2.29|0.1946
91082986|NCT00978341|182050407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.553||0.2843||95.0|-2.2|0.84|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline), Day 8: 0.5 hours post-dose.||0.84|-2.20|0.2843
91082987|NCT00978341|182050407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.215||95.0|-2.75|0.65|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline), Day 8: 1 hour post-dose.||0.65|-2.75|0.2150
91082988|NCT00978341|182050407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.189||0.9601||95.0|-0.44|0.42|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline), Day 8: 2 hours post-dose.||0.42|-0.44|0.9601
91082989|NCT00978341|182050407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.311||0.867||95.0|-0.64|0.74|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including baseline), Day 8: 3 hours post-dose.||0.74|-0.64|0.8670
91082990|NCT00978341|182050407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.393||0.9024||95.0|-0.94|0.84|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including baseline), Day 8: 4 hours post-dose.||0.84|-0.94|0.9024
91082991|NCT00978341|182050407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.293||0.9708||95.0|-0.67|0.65|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline), Day 8: 5 hours post-dose.||0.65|-0.67|0.9708
91082992|NCT00978341|182050407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.395||0.1078||95.0|-1.62|0.19|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline), Day 8: 6 hours post-dose.||0.19|-1.62|0.1078
91082993|NCT00978341|182050407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.419||0.446||95.0|-1.28|0.61|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline), Day 8: 8 hours post-dose.||0.61|-1.28|0.4460
91082994|NCT00978341|182050407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.394||0.5266||95.0|-1.13|0.62|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline), Day 8: 10 hours post-dose.||0.62|-1.13|0.5266
91082995|NCT00978341|182050407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.273||0.029||95.0|-1.29|-0.08|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline), Day 8: 12 hours post-dose.||-0.08|-1.29|0.0290
91082996|NCT00978341|182050407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.531||0.183||95.0|-2.01|0.45|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline), Day 8: 24 hours post-dose.||0.45|-2.01|0.1830
91082997|NCT00978341|182050407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.406||0.9884||95.0|-0.9|0.91|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline), Day 8: 36 hours post-dose.||0.91|-0.90|0.9884
91082998|NCT00978341|182050407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.354||0.8082||95.0|-0.87|0.69|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline), Day 8: 48 hours post-dose.||0.69|-0.87|0.8082
91017911|NCT03692078|181918908|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.701|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.081|-1.32|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-1.320|-2.081|<.0001
91017912|NCT03692078|181918908|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.863|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.237|-0.489|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.489|-1.237|<.0001
91017913|NCT03692078|181918908|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.936|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.312|-0.56|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.560|-1.312|<.0001
91017914|NCT03692078|181918910|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|3.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.31|3.63|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||3.630|3.310|<.0001
91017915|NCT03692078|181918910|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|3.508|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.348|3.668|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||3.668|3.348|<.0001
91017916|NCT03692078|181918910|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.891|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.741|3.042|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||3.042|2.741|<.0001
91017917|NCT03692078|181918910|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.873|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.719|3.027|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||3.027|2.719|<.0001
91017918|NCT03692078|181918910|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.928|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.775|3.082|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||3.082|2.775|<.0001
91017919|NCT03692078|181918910|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.896|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.742|3.049|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||3.049|2.742|<.0001
91017920|NCT03692078|181918910|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.864|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.672|1.055|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||1.055|0.672|<.0001
91017921|NCT03692078|181918910|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.786|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.592|0.981|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.981|0.592|<.0001
91017922|NCT03692078|181918910|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.641|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.452|0.829|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.829|0.452|<.0001
91017923|NCT03692078|181918910|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.485|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.68|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.680|0.290|<.0001
91017924|NCT03692078|181918910|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.747|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.562|0.932|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.932|0.562|<.0001
91017925|NCT03692078|181918910|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.833|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.645|1.021|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||1.021|0.645|<.0001
91017926|NCT03692078|181918910|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.579|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.889|-0.268|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.268|-0.889|<.0001
91017927|NCT03692078|181918910|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.635|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.949|-0.321|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.321|-0.949|<.0001
91082999|NCT00978341|182050408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.714||0.2101||95.0|-2.39|0.55|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including baseline); Day 2. Combined analysis: values for the two patient groups were analyzed together using ANOVA and/or mixed models.||0.55|-2.39|0.2101
91083000|NCT00978341|182050408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.623||0.1065||95.0|-2.33|0.24|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including baseline); Day 3.||0.24|-2.33|0.1065
91083001|NCT00978341|182050408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.254||0.0697||95.0|-1.11|0.05|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including baseline); Day 4.||0.05|-1.11|0.0697
91017928|NCT03692078|181918910|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.542|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.853|-0.231|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.231|-0.853|<.0001
91017929|NCT03692078|181918910|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.613|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.924|-0.301|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.301|-0.924|<.0001
91017930|NCT03692078|181918910|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.606|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.959|-2.253|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-2.253|-2.959|<.0001
91017931|NCT03692078|181918910|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.722|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.078|-2.366|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-2.366|-3.078|<.0001
91017932|NCT03692078|181918910|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.829|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.177|-2.481|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-2.481|-3.177|<.0001
91017933|NCT03692078|181918910|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.024|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.378|-2.669|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-2.669|-3.378|<.0001
91017934|NCT03692078|181918910|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.144|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.811|2.478|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||2.478|1.811|<.0001
91032328|NCT01706926|181949183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-5.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.083||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.52|2.55|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including terms for treatment group, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|||2.55|-13.52|0.180
91032329|NCT01706926|181949184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.397|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.63|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including terms for treatment group, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|||-0.63|-2.20|<0.001
91032330|NCT01706926|181949184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.389|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|-0.69|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including terms for treatment group, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|||-0.69|-2.23|<0.001
91083002|NCT00978341|182050408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.4589||95.0|-1.83|0.85|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo; Day 5.||0.85|-1.83|0.4589
90893670|NCT02219048|181652404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.017|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.003|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.76|22.794|||Longitudinal Analysis of Covariance|LANCOVA model contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment/baseline by week interaction, baseline value, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Morning PEF: CFB at Week 1||22.794|-10.760|
91083003|NCT00978341|182050408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.742||0.1326||95.0|-2.69|0.38|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo; Day 6.||0.38|-2.69|0.1326
91083004|NCT00978341|182050408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.638||0.282||95.0|-2.45|0.9|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including baseline); Day 7.||0.90|-2.45|0.2820
91083005|NCT00978341|182050408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.356||0.0108||95.0|-2.21|-0.44|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including baseline); Day 8.||-0.44|-2.21|0.0108
90893671|NCT02219048|181652404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.591|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.228|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.926|27.108|||Longitudinal Analysis of Covariance|LANCOVA model contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment/baseline by week interaction, baseline value, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Morning PEF: CFB at Week 2||27.108|-13.926|
90893672|NCT02219048|181652404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.954|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.673|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.644|20.552|||Longitudinal Analysis of Covariance|LANCOVA model contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment/baseline by week interaction, baseline value, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Morning PEF: CFB at Week 3||20.552|-18.644|
90893673|NCT02219048|181652404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.368|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.92|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-26.069|17.333|||Longitudinal Analysis of Covariance|LANCOVA model contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment/baseline by week interaction, baseline value, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Morning PEF: CFB at Week 4||17.333|-26.069|
90893674|NCT02219048|181652404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.299|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.503|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.323|19.92|||Longitudinal Analysis of Covariance|LANCOVA model contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment/baseline by week interaction, baseline value, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Morning PEF: CFB Averaged Over 4 Weeks||19.920|-15.323|
90893675|NCT02219048|181652404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.135|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.961|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.248|19.519|||Longitudinal Analysis of Covariance|LANCOVA model contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment/baseline by week interaction, baseline value, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Evening PEF: CFB at Week 1||19.519|-17.248|
90893676|NCT02219048|181652404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.834|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.956|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.871|19.54|||Longitudinal Analysis of Covariance|LANCOVA model contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment/baseline by week interaction, baseline value, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Evening PEF: CFB at Week 2||19.540|-13.871|
90893677|NCT02219048|181652404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.374|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.652|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.933|11.185|||Longitudinal Analysis of Covariance|LANCOVA model contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment/baseline by week interaction, baseline value, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Evening PEF: CFB at Week 3||11.185|-27.933|
90893678|NCT02219048|181652404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.445|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.573|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.245|22.356|||Longitudinal Analysis of Covariance|LANCOVA model contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment/baseline by week interaction, baseline value, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Evening PEF: CFB at Week 4||22.356|-23.245|
90893679|NCT02219048|181652404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.212|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.317|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.52|16.096|||Longitudinal Analysis of Covariance|LANCOVA model contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment/baseline by week interaction, baseline value, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Evening PEF: CFB Averaged Over 4 Weeks||16.096|-18.520|
90893680|NCT01274182|181652410|EQUIVALENCE|The PK parameters were transformed prior to analysis using a logarithmic transformation. An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to analyze the transformed data including treatment group only as a factor in the model. The confidence interval for the difference between the two products on the transformed scale was obtained from the ANOVA model, which was then be back-transformed (exp base e) to obtain the confidence interval for the ratio on the original scale.|Geometric mean ratio|1.106|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.01|1.21|||||GP2013 arm is the numerator and MabThera arm is the denominator|PK bioequivalence is defined as AUC(0-inf) of the drugs being comparable, i.e. the two-sided 90% CI for the ratio of the geometric means (GP2013/MabThera) is within the predefined bioequivalence limits of 0.8 to 1.25.||1.210|1.010|
90893681|NCT01274182|181652410|EQUIVALENCE|The PK parameters were transformed prior to analysis using a logarithmic transformation. An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to analyze the transformed data including treatment group only as a factor in the model. The confidence interval for the difference between the two products on the transformed scale was obtained from the ANOVA model, which was then be back-transformed (exp base e) to obtain the confidence interval for the ratio on the original scale.|Geometric mean ratio|1.012|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.925|1.108|||||GP2013 arm is the numerator and Rituxan arm is the denominator|PK bioequivalence is defined as AUC(0-inf) of the drugs being comparable, i.e. the two-sided 90% CI for the ratio of the geometric means (GP2013/MabThera) is within the predefined bioequivalence limits of 0.8 to 1.25.||1.108|0.925|
90893682|NCT01274182|181652410|EQUIVALENCE|The PK parameters were transformed prior to analysis using a logarithmic transformation. An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to analyze the transformed data including treatment group only as a factor in the model. The confidence interval for the difference between the two products on the transformed scale was obtained from the ANOVA model, which was then be back-transformed (exp base e) to obtain the confidence interval for the ratio on the original scale.|Geometric mean ratio|1.093|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.989|1.208|||||Rituxan arm is the numerator and MabThera arm is the denominator|PK bioequivalence is defined as AUC(0-inf) of the drugs being comparable, i.e. the two-sided 90% CI for the ratio of the geometric means (GP2013/MabThera) is within the predefined bioequivalence limits of 0.8 to 1.25.||1.208|0.989|
90893683|NCT01274182|181652411|EQUIVALENCE|The PK parameters were transformed prior to analysis using a logarithmic transformation. An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to analyze the transformed data including treatment group only as a factor in the model. The confidence interval for the difference between the two products on the transformed scale was obtained from the ANOVA model, which was then be back-transformed (exp base e) to obtain the confidence interval for the ratio on the original scale.|Geometric mean ratio|1.076|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.979|1.184|||||GP2013 arm is the numerator and Rituxan arm is the denominator|To conclude bioequivalence the 90% CI must be entirely within the standard equivalence limits of 0.8-1.25.||1.184|0.979|
90955863|NCT02074553|181791627|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|89.41|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.7|97.84|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||97.84|81.7|
90955864|NCT02074553|181791627|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|66.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|61.12|73.1|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||73.1|61.12|
90955865|NCT02074553|181791627|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|42.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|38.68|46.32|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||46.32|38.68|
90955866|NCT02074553|181791627|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|88.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.21|93.56|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||93.56|84.21|
90955867|NCT02074553|181791627|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|75.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|71.99|79.86|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||79.86|71.99|
90955868|NCT02074553|181791627|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|73.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|69.53|77.19|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||77.19|69.53|
90955869|NCT02074553|181791628|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|97.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.85|105.21|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||105.21|89.85|
90955870|NCT02074553|181791628|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|87.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.59|94.26|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||94.26|80.59|
90955871|NCT02074553|181791628|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|67.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|62.71|73.43|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||73.43|62.71|
90955872|NCT02074553|181791628|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|88.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.06|91.63|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||91.63|85.06|
90955873|NCT02074553|181791628|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|76.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.03|79.65|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||79.65|74.03|
90955874|NCT02074553|181791628|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|75.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|72.7|78.27|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||78.27|72.70|
90955875|NCT02342743|181791637|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90955876|NCT02342743|181791638|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90955877|NCT02342743|181791639|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90955878|NCT02342743|181791640|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91017935|NCT03692078|181918910|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.701|2.379|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||2.379|1.701|<.0001
91017936|NCT03692078|181918910|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.181|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.846|2.516|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||2.516|1.846|<.0001
91017937|NCT03692078|181918910|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.063|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.725|2.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||2.400|1.725|<.0001
91017938|NCT03692078|181918910|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.117||||0.9705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.256|0.49|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.490|-0.256|0.9705
91017939|NCT03692078|181918910|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.047||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.425|0.332|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.332|-0.425|1.0000
91017940|NCT03692078|181918910|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.106||||0.9835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.475|0.263|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.263|-0.475|0.9835
91032331|NCT01706926|181949184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.391|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|-0.79|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including terms for treatment group, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|||-0.79|-2.33|<0.001
91032332|NCT01706926|181949185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.108||0.479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.14|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including terms for treatment group, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|||0.14|-0.29|0.479
91032333|NCT01706926|181949185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.106||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.04|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including terms for treatment group, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|||0.04|-0.37|0.124
91032334|NCT01706926|181949185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.107||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.05|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including terms for treatment group, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|||-0.05|-0.47|0.017
90829426|NCT02365649|181533422|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|4.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders||4.6|-14.6|1.000
90829427|NCT02365649|181533422|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|20.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders||20.3|-11.3|1.000
90955879|NCT02342743|181791641|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012||||||Threshold for statistical significance set to 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.012
90955880|NCT02342743|181791642|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90955881|NCT02342743|181791644|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||Threshold for statistical significance set to 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.030
90955882|NCT00686725|181791648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.183||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.183
90955883|NCT00686725|181791649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.35
90955884|NCT00686725|181791652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.648||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.648
90955885|NCT00686725|181791653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.915||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.915
90955886|NCT00092495|181791661|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The difference in seroconversion rates (girls - women) must be greater than -5%.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Miettinen and Nurminen|"Miettinen and Nurminen method for difference in proportions~Miettinen and Nurminen, Stat Med 1985;4:213-26"||||||<0.001
90955887|NCT00092495|181791661|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The difference in seroconversion rates (boys - women) must be greater than -5%.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Miettinen and Nurminen|"Miettinen and Nurminen method for difference in proportions~Miettinen and Nurminen, Stat Med 1985;4:213-26"||||||<0.001
90955888|NCT00092495|181791662|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ratio of GMTs (girls/women) must be greater than 0.5.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA on natural log titer with fixed effects for region and comparison group.||||||<0.001
90955889|NCT00092495|181791662|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ratio of GMTs (boys/women) must be greater than 0.5.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA on natural log titer with fixed effects for region and comparison group.||||||<0.001
90955890|NCT00092495|181791663|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The difference in seroconversion rates (partial dose - full dose) must be greater than -5%.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Miettinen and Nurminen|"Miettinen and Nurminen method for difference in proportions~Miettinen and Nurminen, Stat Med 1985;4:213-26"||||||<0.001
90955891|NCT00092495|181791663|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The difference in seroconversion rates (partial dose - full dose) must be greater than -5%.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Miettinen and Nurminen|"Miettinen and Nurminen method for difference in proportions~Miettinen and Nurminen, Stat Med 1985;4:213-26"||||||<0.001
90955892|NCT00092495|181791663|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The difference in seroconversion rates (partial dose - full dose) must be greater than -5%.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Miettinen and Nurminen|"Miettinen and Nurminen method for difference in proportions~Miettinen and Nurminen, Stat Med 1985;4:213-26"||||||<0.001
90955893|NCT00092495|181791664|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ratio of GMTs (partial dose/full dose) must be greater than 0.5.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA on natural log titer with fixed effects for region and comparison group.||||||<0.001
90955894|NCT00092495|181791664|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ratio of GMTs (partial dose/full dose) must be greater than 0.5.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA on natural log titer with fixed effects for region and comparison group.||||||<0.001
90955895|NCT00092495|181791664|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ratio of GMTs (partial dose/full dose) must be greater than 0.5.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA on natural log titer with fixed effects for region and comparison group.||||||<0.001
90955896|NCT00092495|181791665|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The difference in seroconversion rates (girls - women) must be greater than -5%.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Miettinen and Nurminen|"Miettinen and Nurminen method for difference in proportions~Miettinen and Nurminen, Stat Med 1985;4:213-26"||||||<0.001
90955897|NCT00092495|181791665|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The difference in seroconversion rates (boys - women) must be greater than -5%.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Miettinen and Nurminen|"Miettinen and Nurminen method for difference in proportions~Miettinen and Nurminen, Stat Med 1985;4:213-26"||||||<0.001
90955898|NCT00092495|181791666|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ratio of GMTs (girls/women) must be greater than 0.5.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA on natural log titer with fixed effects for region and comparison group||||||<0.001
90955899|NCT00092495|181791666|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ratio of GMTs (boys/women) must be greater than 0.5.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA on natural log titer with fixed effects for region and comparison group||||||<0.001
90955900|NCT00092495|181791667|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The difference in seroconversion rates (partial dose - full dose) must be greater than -5%.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Miettinen and Nurminen|"Miettinen and Nurminen method for difference in proportions~Miettinen and Nurminen, Stat Med 1985;4:213-26"||||||<0.001
90955901|NCT00092495|181791667|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The difference in seroconversion rates (partial dose - full dose) must be greater than -5%.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Miettinen and Nurminen|"Miettinen and Nurminen method for difference in proportions~Miettinen and Nurminen, Stat Med 1985;4:213-26"||||||<0.001
90955902|NCT00092495|181791667|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The difference in seroconversion rates (partial dose - full dose) must be greater than -5%.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Miettinen and Nurminen|"Miettinen and Nurminen method for difference in proportions~Miettinen and Nurminen, Stat Med 1985;4:213-26"||||||<0.001
90955903|NCT00092495|181791668|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ratio of GMTs (partial dose/full dose) must be greater than 0.5.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA on natural log titer with fixed effects for region and comparison group.||||||<0.001
90955904|NCT00092495|181791668|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ratio of GMTs (partial dose/full dose) must be greater than 0.5.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA on natural log titer with fixed effects for region and comparison group||||||<0.001
90955905|NCT00092495|181791668|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ratio of GMTs (partial dose/full dose) must be greater than 0.5.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA on natural log titer with fixed effects for region and comparison group.||||||<0.001
90955906|NCT00092495|181791669|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The difference in seroconversion rates (girls - women) must be greater than -5%.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Miettinen and Nurminen|"Miettinen and Nurminen method for difference in proportions~Miettinen and Nurminen, Stat Med 1985;4:213-26"||||||<0.001
90955907|NCT00092495|181791669|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The difference in seroconversion rates (boys - women) must be greater than -5%.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Miettinen and Nurminen|"Miettinen and Nurminen method for difference in proportions~Miettinen and Nurminen, Stat Med 1985;4:213-26"||||||<0.001
90955908|NCT00092495|181791670|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ratio of GMTs (girls/women) must be greater than 0.5.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA on natural log titer with fixed effects for region and comparison group.||||||<0.001
90955909|NCT00092495|181791670|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ratio of GMTs (boys/women) must be greater than 0.5.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA on natural log titer with fixed effects for region and comparison group.||||||<0.001
91017941|NCT03692078|181918910|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.348||||0.0854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.725|0.029|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.029|-0.725|0.0854
91017942|NCT03692078|181918912|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|3.028|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.901|3.154|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||3.154|2.901|<.0001
91017943|NCT03692078|181918912|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|3.034|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.927|3.141|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||3.141|2.927|<.0001
91017944|NCT03692078|181918912|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.603|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.483|2.722|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||2.722|2.483|<.0001
91017945|NCT03692078|181918912|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.567|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.465|2.67|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||2.670|2.465|<.0001
91017946|NCT03692078|181918912|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.716|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.595|2.838|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||2.838|2.595|<.0001
91017947|NCT03692078|181918912|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.643|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.541|2.746|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||2.746|2.541|<.0001
91017948|NCT03692078|181918912|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.235|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.083|1.386|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||1.386|1.083|<.0001
91017949|NCT03692078|181918912|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.174|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.045|1.304|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||1.304|1.045|<.0001
90955910|NCT00092495|181791671|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The difference in seroconversion rates (partial dose - full dose) must be greater than -5%.|||||<|0.01||95.0|||||Miettinen and Nurminen|"Miettinen and Nurminen method for difference in proportions~Miettinen and Nurminen, Stat Med 1985;4:213-26"||||||<0.01
90955911|NCT00092495|181791671|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The difference in seroconversion rates (partial dose - full dose) must be greater than -5%.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Miettinen and Nurminen|"Miettinen and Nurminen method for difference in proportions~Miettinen and Nurminen, Stat Med 1985;4:213-26"||||||<0.001
90955912|NCT00092495|181791671|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The difference in seroconversion rates (partial dose - full dose) must be greater than -5%.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Miettinen and Nurminen|"Miettinen and Nurminen method for difference in proportions~Miettinen and Nurminen, Stat Med 1985;4:213-26"||||||<0.001
90955913|NCT00092495|181791672|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ratio of GMTs (partial dose/full dose) must be greater than 0.5.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA on natural log titer with fixed effects for region and comparison group.||||||<0.001
90955914|NCT00092495|181791672|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ratio of GMTs (partial dose/full dose) must be greater than 0.5.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA on natural log titer with fixed effects for region and comparison group.||||||<0.001
90955915|NCT00092495|181791672|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ratio of GMTs (partial dose/full dose) must be greater than 0.5.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA on natural log titer with fixed effects for region and comparison group.||||||<0.001
90955916|NCT00092495|181791673|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The difference in seroconversion rates (girls - women) must be greater than -5%.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Miettinen and Nurminen|"Miettinen and Nurminen method for difference in proportions~Miettinen and Nurminen, Stat Med 1985;4:213-26"||||||<0.001
90955917|NCT00092495|181791673|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The difference in seroconversion rates (boys - women) must be greater than -5%.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Miettinen and Nurminen|"Miettinen and Nurminen method for difference in proportions~Miettinen and Nurminen, Stat Med 1985;4:213-26"||||||<0.001
90955918|NCT00092495|181791674|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ratio of GMTs (girls/women) must be greater than 0.5.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA on natural log titer with fixed effects for region and comparison group.||||||<0.001
90955919|NCT00092495|181791674|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ratio of GMTs (boys/women) must be greater than 0.5.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA on natural log titer with fixed effects for region and comparison group.||||||<0.001
90955920|NCT00092495|181791675|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The difference in seroconversion rates (partial dose - full dose) must be greater than -5%.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Miettinen and Nurminen|"Miettinen and Nurminen method for difference in proportions~Miettinen and Nurminen, Stat Med 1985;4:213-26"||||||<0.001
90955921|NCT00092495|181791675|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The difference in seroconversion rates (partial dose - full dose) must be greater than -5%.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Miettinen and Nurminen|"Miettinen and Nurminen method for difference in proportions~Miettinen and Nurminen, Stat Med 1985;4:213-26"||||||<0.001
90955922|NCT00092495|181791675|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The difference in seroconversion rates (partial dose - full dose) must be greater than -5%.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Miettinen and Nurminen|"Miettinen and Nurminen method for difference in proportions~Miettinen and Nurminen, Stat Med 1985;4:213-26"||||||<0.001
90955923|NCT00092495|181791676|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ratio of GMTs (partial dose/full dose) must be greater than 0.5.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA on natural log titer with fixed effects for region and comparison group.||||||<0.001
90955924|NCT00092495|181791676|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ratio of GMTs (partial dose/full dose) must be greater than 0.5.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA on natural log titer with fixed effects for region and comparison group.||||||<0.001
90955925|NCT00092495|181791676|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ratio of GMTs (partial dose/full dose) must be greater than 0.5.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA on natural log titer with fixed effects for region and comparison group.||||||<0.001
90955926|NCT00618618|181791685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.2|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the main effect and baseline SMF Rating Scale score as a covariate.||||-0.2|-1.0|0.005
90955927|NCT00618618|181791685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.9||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.4|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline SMF Rating Scale score as a covariate.||||-0.4|-1.4|0.001
90955928|NCT00618618|181791685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.0|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline SMF Rating Scale score as a covariate.||||0.0|-0.8|0.069
90955929|NCT00618618|181791686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.8||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.0|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline SMF Rating Scale score as a covariate.||||3.0|0.6|0.005
90955930|NCT00618618|181791686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.5||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|4.0|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline SMF Rating Scale score as a covariate.||||4.0|1.0|0.001
90955931|NCT00618618|181791686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.0||||0.122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|2.2|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline SMF Rating Scale score as a covariate.||||2.2|-0.3|0.122
90955932|NCT00618618|181791687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from Placebo|38.3||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|65.7|||Fisher Exact|||||65.7|11.0|0.008
90955933|NCT00618618|181791687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from Placebo|32.9||||0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|64.8|||Fisher Exact|||||64.8|1.0|0.172
90955934|NCT00618618|181791687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from Placebo|22.9||||0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|54.2|||Fisher Exact|||||54.2|-8.4|0.252
90955935|NCT00618618|181791688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from Placebo|46.1||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.3|75.9|||Fisher Exact|||||75.9|16.3|0.011
90955936|NCT00618618|181791688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from Placebo|54.3||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.0|85.5|||Fisher Exact|||||85.5|23.0|0.013
90955937|NCT00618618|181791688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from Placebo|24.3||||0.296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|57.3|||Fisher Exact|||||57.3|-8.7|0.296
90955938|NCT00618618|181791689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.2|||Repeated Measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 4||0.2|-0.5|0.460
90955939|NCT00618618|181791689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.4|||Repeated Measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 4||0.4|-0.5|0.906
91017950|NCT03692078|181918912|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.219|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.368|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||1.368|1.070|<.0001
91017951|NCT03692078|181918912|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.176|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.046|1.306|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||1.306|1.046|<.0001
91017952|NCT03692078|181918912|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.176|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.029|1.322|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||1.322|1.029|<.0001
91017953|NCT03692078|181918912|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.174|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.049|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||1.300|1.049|<.0001
91017954|NCT03692078|181918912|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.425|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.669|-0.181|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.181|-0.669|<.0001
91017955|NCT03692078|181918912|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.467|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.677|-0.256|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.256|-0.677|<.0001
91017956|NCT03692078|181918912|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.311||||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.556|-0.066|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.066|-0.556|0.0052
91017957|NCT03692078|181918912|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.391|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.182|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.182|-0.600|<.0001
91017958|NCT03692078|181918912|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.793|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|-1.516|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-1.516|-2.070|<.0001
91017959|NCT03692078|181918912|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.859|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.098|-1.621|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-1.621|-2.098|<.0001
91017960|NCT03692078|181918912|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.809|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.082|-1.535|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-1.535|-2.082|<.0001
91017961|NCT03692078|181918912|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.858|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.096|-1.621|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-1.621|-2.096|<.0001
91017962|NCT03692078|181918912|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.427|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.166|1.688|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||1.688|1.166|<.0001
91017963|NCT03692078|181918912|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.393|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.166|1.62|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||1.620|1.166|<.0001
91017964|NCT03692078|181918912|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.541|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.278|1.803|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||1.803|1.278|<.0001
91017965|NCT03692078|181918912|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.469|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.243|1.695|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||1.695|1.243|<.0001
91083006|NCT00978341|182050409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.06||0.9068||95.0|-41.78|37.27|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo; Day 1: 4 hours post-dose (including Baseline).||37.27|-41.78|0.9068
91083007|NCT00978341|182050409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.813||0.7807||95.0|-30.53|39.57|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo; Day 8: pre-dose (including Baseline).||39.57|-30.53|0.7807
90893684|NCT01274182|181652411|EQUIVALENCE|The PK parameters were transformed prior to analysis using a logarithmic transformation. An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to analyze the transformed data including treatment group only as a factor in the model. The confidence interval for the difference between the two products on the transformed scale was obtained from the ANOVA model, which was then be back-transformed (exp base e) to obtain the confidence interval for the ratio on the original scale.|Geometric mean ratio|1.131|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.027|1.244|||||GP2013 arm is the numerator and MabThera arm is the denominator|To conclude bioequivalence the 90% CI must be entirely within the standard equivalence limits of 0.8-1.25||1.244|1.027|
90893685|NCT01274182|181652411|EQUIVALENCE|The PK parameters were transformed prior to analysis using a logarithmic transformation. An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to analyze the transformed data including treatment group only as a factor in the model. The confidence interval for the difference between the two products on the transformed scale was obtained from the ANOVA model, which was then be back-transformed (exp base e) to obtain the confidence interval for the ratio on the original scale.|Geometric mean ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.946|1.167|||||Rituxan arm is the numerator and MabThera arm is the denominator|To conclude bioequivalence the 90% CI must be entirely within the standard equivalence limits of 0.8-1.25.||1.167|0.946|
90829428|NCT02365649|181533422|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|4.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders||4.6|-14.6|1.000
90893686|NCT01274182|181652412|EQUIVALENCE|Ratio of geometric means and 95% confidence interval were estimated by an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on log-transformed PD parameter with treatment as the factor. Results were then back-transformed to the original scale.|Geometric mean ratio|0.989|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.974|1.004|||||GP2013 arm is the numerator and Rituxan arm is the denominator|To conclude equivalence the 95% CI must be entirely within the standard equivalencelimits of 0.8-1.25||1.004|0.974|
90893687|NCT01274182|181652412|EQUIVALENCE|Ratio of geometric means and 95% confidence interval were estimated by an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on log-transformed PD parameter with treatment as the factor. Results were then back-transformed to the original scale.|Geometric mean ratio|1.021|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.003|1.04|||||GP2013 arm is the numerator and MabThera arm is the denominator|To conclude equivalence the 95% CI must be entirely within the standard equivalencelimits of 0.8-1.25||1.040|1.003|
90893688|NCT01274182|181652412|EQUIVALENCE|Ratio of geometric means and 95% confidence interval were estimated by an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on log-transformed PD parameter with treatment as the factor. Results were then back-transformed to the original scale.|Geometric mean ratio|1.033|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.016|1.05|||||Rituxan arm is the numerator and MabThera arm is the denominator|To conclude equivalence the 95% CI must be entirely within the standard equivalence limits of 0.8-1.25||1.050|1.016|
90893689|NCT01274182|181652413|NON_INFERIORITY|"The non-inferiority margin is further justified by the EULAR criteria which define no response as change from baseline being \< 0.6.~LS means, standard errors and 95% CI were estimated by a repeated measures mixed model with treatment, time and treatment\*time interaction term as categorical variables and baseline DAS28 as a continuous variable.~A negative change from baseline represents an improvement in assessment of rheumatoid arthritis."|LS Mean difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.162|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.397|0.24|||||The direction of comparison is LS mean of GP2013 - LS mean of Rituxan|To conclude non-inferiority the upper 95% CI should be less than or equal to 0.6. This margin was statistically justified by the results of the REFLEX (Randomized Evaluation of Long-Term Efficacy of Rituximab in RA) trial (Cohen et al 2006) providing a 95% CI for the mean difference between rituximab/MTX and MTX alone of (-1.74;-1.25). The margin of 0.6 was determined by retaining more than 50% of the reference treatment effect which was considered clinically acceptable.||0.240|-0.397|
90893690|NCT01274182|181652413|NON_INFERIORITY|"The non-inferiority margin is further justified by the EULAR criteria which define no response as change from baseline being \< 0.6. LS means, standard errors and 95% CI were estimated by a repeated measures mixed model with treatment, time and treatment\*time interaction term as categorical variables and baseline DAS28 as a continuous variable.~A negative change from baseline represents an improvement in assessment of rheumatoid arthritis."|LS Mean difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.201|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.328|0.462|||||The direction of comparison is LS mean of GP2013 Part I - LS mean of MabThera|To conclude non-inferiority the upper 95% CI should be less than or equal to 0.6. This margin was statistically justified by the results of the REFLEX (Randomized Evaluation of Long-Term Efficacy of Rituximab in RA) trial (Cohen et al 2006) providing a 95% CI for the mean difference between rituximab/MTX and MTX alone of (-1.74;-1.25). The margin of 0.6 was determined by retaining more than 50% of the reference treatment effect which was considered clinically acceptable.||0.462|-0.328|
90893691|NCT01274182|181652414|NON_INFERIORITY|The predefined noninferiority margin of 0.15 for ACR20 is based on the historical placebo-controlled phase III study to evaluate the response rate benefit of adding rituximab to the conventional small molecule-based treatment of patients with RA (Cohen et al. 2006).|Response rate difference (%)|9.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.79|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.54|23.08|||||The direction of comparison is response rate of GP2013 - response rate of Rituxan|To conclude non-inferiority the lower 95% CI should be greater than -15.0%.||23.08|-3.54|
90955940|NCT00618618|181791689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.2|||Repeated Measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 4||0.2|-0.6|0.404
91083008|NCT00978341|182050409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.526||0.2293||95.0|-61.79|16.78|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo; Day 8: 4 hours post-dose (including Baseline).||16.78|-61.79|0.2293
90829429|NCT02365649|181533423|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.0||||0.669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.9|51.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders||51.9|-21.9|0.669
90829430|NCT02365649|181533423|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.0||||0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|45.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders||45.2|-15.2|0.343
90829431|NCT02365649|181533423|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-20.0||||0.442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.2|17.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders||17.2|-57.2|0.442
90829432|NCT02365649|181533423|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.4||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.4|32.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders||32.2|-23.4|1.000
90893692|NCT01274182|181652414|NON_INFERIORITY|The predefined noninferiority margin of 0.15 for ACR20 is based on the historical placebo-controlled phase III study to evaluate the response rate benefit of adding rituximab to the conventional small molecule-based treatment of patients with RA (Cohen et al. 2006).|Response rate difference (%)|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.23|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.74|13.6|||||The direction of comparison is response rate of GP2013 Part I - response rate of MabThera|To conclude non-inferiority the lower 95% CI should be greater than -15.0%.||13.60|-14.74|
90893693|NCT01970982|181652419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|23.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.41|28.95||The primary endpoints were tested using a multiple testing procedure to preserve the overall alpha level by simultaneously testing the endpoints using a closed procedure with each test performed at an alpha level of 2.5% one sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on MHBMA levels with product, sex, cigarette consumption, and baseline value as covariates.|LS mean ratio THS 2.2:CC|"The hypothesis to be tested is that the geometric mean level on Day 5 of the biomarker of exposure for THS 2.2 is lower relative to CC.~Analysis of the BoExp was conducted on the natural log scale in order to test the following hypothesis (one sided test with 2.5% type I error probability):~* Null hypothesis (H0): m1≥m2~* Alternative hypothesis (H1): m1\<m2 Where m1 and m2 are the geometric means of the BoExp levels on Day 5 for THS 2.2 and CC respectively."||28.95|18.41|<0.001
90893694|NCT01970982|181652420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|52.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.67|61.17||The primary endpoints were tested using a multiple testing procedure to preserve the overall alpha level by simultaneously testing the endpoints using a closed procedure with each test performed at an alpha level of 2.5% one sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on 3-HPMA levels with product, sex, cigarette consumption, and baseline value as covariates.|LS mean ratio THS 2.2:CC|"The hypothesis to be tested is that the geometric mean level on Day 5 of the biomarker of exposure for THS 2.2 is lower relative to CC.~Analysis of the BoExp was conducted on the natural log scale in order to test the following hypothesis (one sided test with 2.5% type I error probability):~* Null hypothesis (H0): m1≥m2~* Alternative hypothesis (H1): m1\<m2 Where m1 and m2 are the geometric means of the BoExp levels on Day 5 for THS 2.2 and CC respectively."||61.17|45.67|<0.001
91017966|NCT03692078|181918912|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.059||||0.9987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.233|0.351|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.351|-0.233|0.9987
91017967|NCT03692078|181918912|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.253|0.254|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.254|-0.253|1.0000
91017968|NCT03692078|181918912|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.043||||0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.246|0.332|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.332|-0.246|0.9999
91017969|NCT03692078|181918912|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.002||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.251|0.254|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.254|-0.251|1.0000
91017970|NCT03692078|181918914|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.407|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.283|2.531|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||2.531|2.283|<.0001
90829433|NCT02365649|181533423|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.0||||0.601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|23.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders||23.5|-13.6|0.601
90955941|NCT00618618|181791689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.791|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.3|||Repeated Measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 8||0.3|-0.5|0.791
90955942|NCT00618618|181791689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.6|||Repeated Measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 8||0.6|-0.3|0.410
90955943|NCT00618618|181791689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.5|||Repeated Measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 8||0.5|-0.3|0.733
90955944|NCT00618618|181791689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.5|||Repeated Measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 12||0.5|-0.3|0.542
90955945|NCT00618618|181791689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.5|||Repeated Measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 12||0.5|-0.4|0.882
90955946|NCT00618618|181791689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4|||Repeated Measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 12||0.4|-0.4|0.934
91017971|NCT03692078|181918914|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.398|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.253|2.543|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||2.543|2.253|<.0001
91017972|NCT03692078|181918914|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.303|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.187|2.42|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||2.420|2.187|<.0001
91017973|NCT03692078|181918914|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.112|2.389|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||2.389|2.112|<.0001
91017974|NCT03692078|181918914|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.285|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.166|2.404|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||2.404|2.166|<.0001
91017975|NCT03692078|181918914|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.272|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.133|2.412|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||2.412|2.133|<.0001
91017976|NCT03692078|181918914|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.992|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.844|2.14|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||2.140|1.844|<.0001
91017977|NCT03692078|181918914|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.894|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.719|2.069|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||2.069|1.719|<.0001
90829434|NCT02365649|181533423|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.8||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.2|21.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders||21.7|-18.2|1.000
91017978|NCT03692078|181918914|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.102|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.955|2.248|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||2.248|1.955|<.0001
90905068|NCT02886728|181677437|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|-0.13||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and subjects being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.13|-0.28|<0.001
90955947|NCT00618618|181791689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.838|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4|||Repeated Measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 16||0.4|-0.4|0.838
90955948|NCT00618618|181791689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.4|||Repeated Measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 16||0.4|-0.5|0.777
90955949|NCT00618618|181791689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.5|||Repeated Measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 16||0.5|-0.4|0.795
90955950|NCT00618618|181791689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean Difference|0.0||||0.852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4|||Repeated Measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 24||0.4|-0.4|0.852
90955951|NCT00618618|181791689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.3|||Repeated Measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 24||0.3|-0.6|0.444
90955952|NCT00618618|181791689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.5|||Repeated Measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 24||0.5|-0.3|0.724
90955953|NCT00618618|181791690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4|||Repeated Measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 4||0.4|-0.4|0.934
90955954|NCT00618618|181791690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.2|||Repeated Measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 4||0.2|-0.7|0.286
90955955|NCT00618618|181791690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.7|||Repeated Measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 4||0.7|-0.1|0.190
90955956|NCT00618618|181791690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.2|||Repeated Measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 8||0.2|-0.5|0.402
90955957|NCT00618618|181791690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.2|||Repeated Measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 8||0.2|-0.7|0.290
90955958|NCT00618618|181791690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4|||Repeated Measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 8||0.4|-0.4|0.863
90955959|NCT00618618|181791690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.1|||Repeated Measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 12||0.1|-0.7|0.128
90955960|NCT00618618|181791690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.1|||Repeated Measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 12||-0.1|-0.9|0.018
90955961|NCT00618618|181791690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.3|||Repeated Measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 12||0.3|-0.5|0.489
90955962|NCT00618618|181791690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.1|||Repeated Measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 16||-0.1|-0.9|0.007
90955963|NCT00618618|181791690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.4|||Repeated Measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 16||-0.4|-1.3|<0.001
90955964|NCT00618618|181791690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.1|||Repeated Measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 16||0.1|-0.7|0.122
90955965|NCT00618618|181791690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.2|||Repeated Measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 24||-0.2|-0.9|0.005
90955966|NCT00618618|181791690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.3|||Repeated Measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 24||-0.3|-1.2|<0.001
90955967|NCT00618618|181791690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.2|||Repeated Measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 24||-0.2|-1.0|0.007
90955968|NCT00618618|181791692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.9||||0.573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|4.8|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline SMF Rating Scale score as a covariate.||||4.8|-8.6|0.573
90955969|NCT00618618|181791692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.8||||0.653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|9.9|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline SMF Rating Scale score as a covariate.||||9.9|-6.3|0.653
90955970|NCT00618618|181791692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.4||||0.688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|8.1|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline SMF Rating Scale score as a covariate.||||8.1|-5.4|0.688
90955971|NCT01236365|181791700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Change in LDL-C between Atorvastatin and Placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
91017979|NCT03692078|181918914|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.075|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|2.25|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||2.250|1.900|<.0001
90829435|NCT02365649|181533423|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.5||||0.301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|47.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders||47.5|-14.5|0.301
90829436|NCT02365649|181533423|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.5||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|39.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders||39.4|-10.3|0.256
91017980|NCT03692078|181918914|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.89|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.746|2.033|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||2.033|1.746|<.0001
91032335|NCT01706926|181949186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|0.64||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.92|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model including terms for baseline as a continuous covariate and treatment as a factor was used for the analysis. Ratio \<1 favored mavrilimumab.|||0.92|0.45|0.017
91017981|NCT03692078|181918914|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.944|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.775|2.114|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||2.114|1.775|<.0001
91017982|NCT03692078|181918914|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.104||||0.8674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.345|0.137|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.137|-0.345|0.8674
91017983|NCT03692078|181918914|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.148||||0.6519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.429|0.133|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.133|-0.429|0.6519
91017984|NCT03692078|181918914|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.122||||0.7301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.363|0.119|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.119|-0.363|0.7301
91017985|NCT03692078|181918914|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.126||||0.8076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.405|0.154|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.154|-0.405|0.8076
91083009|NCT00978341|182050410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.386||0.3774||95.0|-0.54|1.27|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline); Day 1: 0.5 hours post-dose.||1.27|-0.54|0.3774
91083010|NCT00978341|182050410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.215||0.4153||95.0|-0.33|0.7|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline); Day 1: 1 hour post-dose.||0.70|-0.33|0.4153
90829437|NCT02365649|181533423|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.5||||0.917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.5|29.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders||29.5|-26.5|0.917
90955972|NCT01236365|181791701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.913|TWO_SIDED|||||Change in hsCRP (6months minus 0months) between Atorvastatin and Placebo|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.913
90955973|NCT01236365|181791704|OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.09
90955974|NCT00955253|181791705|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||between the placebo and guanfacine conditions||||0.013
90955975|NCT00560560|181791709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The final analysis was intended to be a binomial test (death prior to 6 months, yes or no). However, 2 participants in the 30/kg mg group were censored prior to 6 months, so the six month Kaplan and Meier estimates were used for each group instead.|Test of probability of 6 month survival|p-Value \>0.05 applies to each group (20 mg/kg and 30 mg/kg). Greenwood's formula was used for standard deviation.||The hypotheses for each group were H0:p=0.45 vs H1:p\>0.45. There was one interim analysis for futility for each group based on the method of Case and Morgan. The futility boundary was not crossed for 20/kg mg group, but was crossed for the 30/kg mg group. It was recommended to investigators that participants be discontinued from treatment with 30 mg/kg of figitumumab.||||>0.05
90955976|NCT00006011|181791717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.17||||||"Primary outcome is measured as a treatment hazard ratio stratified by stage and assuming proportional hazards.~Recurrence-free survival hazard ratio: Arm 2 is relative to Arm 1."||1.17|0.69|
90955977|NCT02029872|181791749|OTHER|The study was powered for enrollment of 100 subjects with MRSA colonization at baseline. Despite substantial screening, we were unable to enroll enough subjects to meet the necessary sample size.||||||||||||||||Due to low enrollment in the intervention, statistical analysis was not possible.|The study was powered for enrollment of 100 subjects with MRSA colonization at baseline. Despite substantial screening, we were unable to enroll enough subjects to meet the necessary sample size.|||
90955978|NCT03699085|181791768|EQUIVALENCE|A p value of \< 0.05 suggests the groups are different.||||||0.38||||||A p value of \< 0.05 suggests the groups are different.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test is used, which ranks the values in each group, sums the ranks and determines the probability that they are the same. The probability p-value is reported.||||0.38
91017986|NCT03692078|181918914|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.415||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.689|-0.142|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.142|-0.689|0.0004
91017987|NCT03692078|181918914|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.504||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.822|-0.185|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.185|-0.822|0.0002
91017988|NCT03692078|181918914|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.306||||0.0183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.578|-0.034|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.034|-0.578|0.0183
91017989|NCT03692078|181918914|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.323||||0.0443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.641|-0.005|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.005|-0.641|0.0443
91017990|NCT03692078|181918914|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.414||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.155|0.672|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.672|0.155|0.0002
91017991|NCT03692078|181918914|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.306||||0.0454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|0.608|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.608|0.004|0.0454
91017992|NCT03692078|181918914|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.396||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.136|0.655|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.655|0.136|0.0004
90905069|NCT02886728|181677437|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|-0.09||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and subjects being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.09|-0.24|<0.001
91017993|NCT03692078|181918914|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.328||||0.0261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.026|0.63|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.630|0.026|0.0261
91032336|NCT01706926|181949186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|0.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.66|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model including terms for baseline as a continuous covariate and treatment as a factor was used for the analysis. Ratio \<1 favored mavrilimumab.|||0.66|0.32|<0.001
91083011|NCT00978341|182050410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.48||||0.147||95.0|-0.23|1.2|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline); Day 1: 2 hours post-dose.||1.20|-0.23|0.1470
91017994|NCT03692078|181918914|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.102||||0.9455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.187|0.392|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.392|-0.187|0.9455
91017995|NCT03692078|181918914|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05||||0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.387|0.287|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.287|-0.387|0.9999
91017996|NCT03692078|181918914|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.212||||0.2633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.074|0.498|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.498|-0.074|0.2633
91017997|NCT03692078|181918914|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.13||||0.8769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.205|0.465|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.465|-0.205|0.8769
91017998|NCT03692078|181918916|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (PP Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|5.417|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.315|5.52|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (PP Population)||5.520|5.315|<.0001
91017999|NCT03692078|181918916|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (PP Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|5.436|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.324|5.548|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (PP Population)||5.548|5.324|<.0001
91018000|NCT03692078|181918916|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (PP Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|4.957|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.86|5.053|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (PP Population)||5.053|4.860|<.0001
91018001|NCT03692078|181918916|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (PP Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|4.974|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.867|5.081|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (PP Population)||5.081|4.867|<.0001
91018002|NCT03692078|181918916|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (PP Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|4.984|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.886|5.082|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (PP Population)||5.082|4.886|<.0001
91018003|NCT03692078|181918916|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (PP Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|4.975|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.868|5.082|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (PP Population)||5.082|4.868|<.0001
91018004|NCT03692078|181918916|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (PP Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|3.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.367|3.612|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (PP Population)||3.612|3.367|<.0001
91018005|NCT03692078|181918916|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (PP Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|3.347|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.212|3.483|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (PP Population)||3.483|3.212|<.0001
91018006|NCT03692078|181918916|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (PP Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|3.539|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.418|3.66|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (PP Population)||3.660|3.418|<.0001
91018007|NCT03692078|181918916|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (PP Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|3.419|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.284|3.554|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (PP Population)||3.554|3.284|<.0001
91018008|NCT03692078|181918916|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (PP Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|3.492|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.373|3.611|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (PP Population)||3.611|3.373|<.0001
91018009|NCT03692078|181918916|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (PP Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|3.437|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.306|3.568|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (PP Population)||3.568|3.306|<.0001
91018010|NCT03692078|181918916|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (PP Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.461|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.262|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (PP Population)||-0.262|-0.660|<.0001
91018011|NCT03692078|181918916|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (PP Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.462|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.679|-0.244|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (PP Population)||-0.244|-0.679|<.0001
91032337|NCT01706926|181949186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|0.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.63|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model including terms for baseline as a continuous covariate and treatment as a factor was used for the analysis. Ratio \<1 favored mavrilimumab.|||0.63|0.31|<0.001
90829438|NCT02365649|181533423|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-20.2||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.5|-2.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders||-2.5|-37.5|1.000
90955979|NCT03699085|181791769|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mixed effects regression models were used to determine whether patients in the intervention and control group manifested different patterns of change in days of heroin use in the past 30 days in terms of incidence-rate ratio. We applied a negative binomial distribution to help account for overdispersion of outcome data.|Incidence rate ratio|1.29||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|4.37||A p value of \< 0.05 suggests the groups are different.|Regression, Cox||A number greater than 1.0 indicates a higher incidence rate of heroin use in past 30 days for intervention group compared to control group|Comparison of control and intervention populations based on substance use measured utilizing a time-line follow back (TLFB) calendar administered by the research assistant to for past 30-day heroin use. This is a covariate-adjusted mixed effects regression model at TLFB timepoint of 6 months. A number greater than 1.0 indicates a higher incidence of heroin use in the past 30 days at the 6 month timepoint for intervention group compared to control group.||4.37|0.38|0.68
90955980|NCT00158860|181791771|SUPERIORITY||Kaplan-Meier estimates|27.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.0|38.6|||Log Rank|||||38.6|16.0|<0.001
90955981|NCT00158860|181791771|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.401|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.282|0.57|||Log Rank|||||0.570|0.282|<0.001
91083012|NCT00978341|182050410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.1862||95.0|-1.18|0.29|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline); Day 1: 3 hours post-dose.||0.29|-1.18|0.1862
90955982|NCT00158860|181791772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||<0.001
90955983|NCT00371683|181791803|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Two criteria were to be met to demonstrate non-inferiority: the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the Relative Risk should be \< 1.25, and the upper bound of the 95% CI for the risk difference should be \< 5.6%.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.02||||0.0635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.32||If p-value is less than 0.025, it is statistically significant.|t-test, 1 sided|||||1.32|0.78|0.0635
90955984|NCT00371683|181791803|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Two criteria were to be met to demonstrate non-inferiority: the upper bound of the 95% CI for the relative risk should be \< 1.25, and the upper bound of the 95% CI for the risk difference should be \< 5.6%.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|2.44||If p-value is less than 0.025, it is statistically significant.|t-test, 1 sided|||||2.44|-2.22|<0.0001
90955985|NCT00371683|181791804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.23|||||If the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the Relative Risk was \< 1 then superiority for the key secondary efficacy endpoint was demonstrated.|||2.23|0.70|
91083013|NCT00978341|182050410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.8321||95.0|-0.45|0.55|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline); Day 1: 4 hours post-dose.||0.55|-0.45|0.8321
90955986|NCT00371683|181791804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|1.4||||||||1.40|-0.68|
91083014|NCT00978341|182050410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.269||0.4251||95.0|-0.42|0.88|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline); Day 1: 5 hours post-dose.||0.88|-0.42|0.4251
91018012|NCT03692078|181918916|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (PP Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.433|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.633|-0.233|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (PP Population)||-0.233|-0.633|<.0001
91018013|NCT03692078|181918916|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (PP Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.461|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.678|-0.244|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (PP Population)||-0.244|-0.678|<.0001
91018014|NCT03692078|181918916|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (PP Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.928|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.154|-1.701|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (PP Population)||-1.701|-2.154|<.0001
91018015|NCT03692078|181918916|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (PP Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.089|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.336|-1.842|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (PP Population)||-1.842|-2.336|<.0001
91018016|NCT03692078|181918916|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (PP Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.879|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.102|-1.656|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (PP Population)||-1.656|-2.102|<.0001
91018017|NCT03692078|181918916|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (PP Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.017|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.262|-1.772|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (PP Population)||-1.772|-2.262|<.0001
91018018|NCT03692078|181918916|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (PP Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.465|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|1.679|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (PP Population)||1.679|1.250|<.0001
91018019|NCT03692078|181918916|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (PP Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.537|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.303|1.772|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (PP Population)||1.772|1.303|<.0001
90829439|NCT02365649|181533423|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.7||||0.697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.8|17.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders||17.3|-28.8|0.697
91083015|NCT00978341|182050410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.269||0.6394||95.0|-0.53|0.8|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline); Day 1: 6 hours post-dose.||0.80|-0.53|0.6394
91083016|NCT00978341|182050410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.302||0.9964||95.0|-0.68|0.68|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline); Day 8: pre-dose.||0.68|-0.68|0.9964
90955987|NCT00371683|181791804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7779|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.7779
90955988|NCT00371683|181791805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.35||||||||1.35|0.80|
90955989|NCT00371683|181791805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|2.59||||||||2.59|-2.04|
90955990|NCT00371683|181791805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7754|TWO_SIDED|||||For descriptive purposes only, p-values were presented for the test of equality of event rates|test of equality|||||||0.7754
90955991|NCT00371683|181791806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.6||||||||2.60|0.77|
90955992|NCT00371683|181791806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|1.52||||||||1.52|-0.47|
90955993|NCT00371683|181791806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2626|TWO_SIDED|||||For descriptive purposes only, p-values were presented for the test of equality of event rates|test of equality|||||||0.2626
90955994|NCT00371683|181791807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.87||||||||1.87|0.63|
90955995|NCT00371683|181791807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|1.21||||||||1.21|-0.99|
90955996|NCT00371683|181791807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|||||For descriptive purposes only, p-values were presented for the test of equality of event rates|test of equality|||||||0.7700
90955997|NCT00371683|181791808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|2.11||||||||2.11|0.68|
90955998|NCT00371683|181791808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|1.33||||||||1.33|-0.78|
90955999|NCT00371683|181791808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5443|TWO_SIDED||||||test of equality|For descriptive purposes only, p-values were presented for the test of equality of event rates||||||0.5443
90956000|NCT00371683|181791809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|4.93||||||||4.93|0.20|
90956001|NCT00371683|181791809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3||||||||0.30|-0.30|
90956002|NCT00371683|181791809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9975|TWO_SIDED|||||For descriptive purposes only, p-values were presented for the test of equality of event rates|test of equality|||||||0.9975
90956003|NCT00371683|181791810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.3||||||||0.30|-0.05|
90956004|NCT00371683|181791810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1578|TWO_SIDED|||||For descriptive purposes only, p-values were presented for the test of equality of event rates|test of equality|||||||0.1578
90956005|NCT00371683|181791811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|2.4||||||||2.40|0.65|
90956006|NCT00371683|181791811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.98||||||||0.98|-0.47|
90956007|NCT00371683|181791812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.95||||||||2.95|0.72|
90956008|NCT00371683|181791812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.06||||||||1.06|-0.30|
90956009|NCT00371683|181791812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2873|TWO_SIDED|||||For descriptive purposes only, p-values were presented for the test of equality of event rates|test of equality|||||||0.2873
90956010|NCT00371683|181791813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.2||||||||1.20|0.74|
90956011|NCT00371683|181791813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|1.63||||||||1.63|-3.30|
90956012|NCT00371683|181791813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6145|TWO_SIDED|||||For descriptive purposes only, p-values were presented for the test of equality of event rates|test of equality|||||||0.6145
90956013|NCT00371683|181791816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.05||||||Adjusted difference of event rates of MI/Stroke. Type of surgery was taken into consideration as a stratification factor.||0.05|-0.55|
90956014|NCT00371683|181791816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.09||||||Adjusted difference of event rates of MI. Type of surgery was taken into consideration as a stratification factor.||0.09|-0.46|
90956015|NCT00371683|181791816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.05||||||Adjusted difference of event rates of Stroke. Type of surgery was taken into consideration as a stratification factor.||0.05|-0.30|
90956016|NCT00371683|181791816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.05||||||Adjusted difference of event rates of thrombocytopenia. Type of surgery was taken into consideration as a stratification factor.||0.05|-0.30|
90956017|NCT00371683|181791817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|-0.14||||||Adjusted difference of event rates of Major Bleeding. Type of surgery was taken into consideration as a stratification factor.||-0.14|-1.49|
90956018|NCT00371683|181791817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0533|TWO_SIDED|||||For descriptive purposes only, p-values were presented for the test of equality of event rates|test of equality|||Major Bleeding Endpoint||||0.0533
90956019|NCT00371683|181791817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|0.33||||||Adjusted difference of event rates of Clinically Relevant Non-Major Bleeding. Type of surgery was taken into consideration as a stratification factor.||0.33|-1.87|
90956020|NCT00371683|181791817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1709|TWO_SIDED|||||For descriptive purposes only, p-values were presented for the test of equality of event rates|test of equality|||Clinically relevant Non-Major Bleeding endpoint||||0.1709
90956021|NCT00371683|181791817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.75|-0.17||||||Adjusted difference of event rates of Major or Clinically Relevant Non-Major Bleeding. Type of surgery was taken into consideration as a stratification factor.||-0.17|-2.75|
90956022|NCT00371683|181791817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0338|TWO_SIDED||||||test of equality|For descriptive purposes only, p-values were presented for the test of equality of event rates||Major or Clinically Relevant Non-Major Bleeding endpoint.||||0.0338
90956023|NCT00371683|181791817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.18|0.13||||||Adjusted difference of event rates of Any Bleeding. Type of surgery was taken into consideration as a stratification factor.||0.13|-3.18|
90956024|NCT00371683|181791817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0816|TWO_SIDED|||||For descriptive purposes only, p-values were presented for the test of equality of event rates|test of equality|||Any Bleeding Endpoint.||||0.0816
90956025|NCT03208036|181791832|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.69|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effect, repeated measure ANOVA to assess change between baseline, 4-month, and 5.5 month assessments. Test for a Group x Time interaction.||||= .69
90956026|NCT03208036|181791832|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.74|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effect, repeated measure ANOVA to assess change between baseline, 4-month, and 5.5 month assessments. Test for a Main Effect of Time.||||= .74
90956027|NCT03208036|181791833|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.62|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effect, repeated measure ANOVA to assess change between baseline, 4-month, and 5.5 month assessments. Test for a Group x Time interaction.||||= .62
90956028|NCT03208036|181791833|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.24|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effect, repeated measure ANOVA to assess change between baseline, 4-month, and 5.5 month assessments. Test for a Main Effect of Time.||||= .24
90956029|NCT03208036|181791834|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.47|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effect, repeated measure ANOVA to assess change between baseline, 4-month, and 5.5 month assessments. Test for a Group x Time interaction.||||= .47
90956030|NCT03208036|181791834|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.09|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effect, repeated measure ANOVA to assess change between baseline, 4-month, and 5.5 month assessments. Test for a Main Effect of Time.||||= .09
90956031|NCT03208036|181791834|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group change assessed between baseline and 4-month assessment.||||= .02
90956032|NCT03208036|181791834|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.48|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group change assessed between baseline and the 5.5 month assessment.||||= .48
90956033|NCT03208036|181791834|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.66|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group change assessed between baseline and 4-month assessment.||||= .66
90956034|NCT03208036|181791834|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.46|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group change assessed between baseline and 5.5 month assessment.||||= .46
90956035|NCT03208036|181791835|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.68|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effect, repeated measure ANOVA to assess change between baseline, 4-month, and 5.5 month assessments. Test for a Group x Time interaction.||||= .68
90956036|NCT03208036|181791835|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.45|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effect, repeated measure ANOVA to assess change between baseline, 4-month, and 5.5 month assessments. Test for a Main Effect of Time.||||= .45
90956037|NCT03208036|181791836|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.81|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effect, repeated measure ANOVA to assess change between baseline, 4-month, and 5.5 month assessments. Test for a Group x Time interaction.||||= .81
90956038|NCT03208036|181791836|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.31|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effect, repeated measure ANOVA to assess change between baseline, 4-month, and 5.5 month assessments. Test for a Main Effect of Time.||||= .31
90956039|NCT03208036|181791837|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.79|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effect, repeated measure ANOVA to assess change between baseline, 4-month, and 5.5 month assessments. Test for a Group x Time interaction.||||= .79
90956040|NCT03208036|181791837|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effect, repeated measure ANOVA to assess change between baseline, 4-month, and 5.5 month assessments. Test for a Main Effect of Time.||||= .50
90956041|NCT03208036|181791838|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.47|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effect, repeated measure ANOVA to assess change between baseline, 4-month, and 5.5 month assessments. Test for a Group x Time interaction.||||= .47
90956042|NCT03208036|181791838|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.09|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effect, repeated measure ANOVA to assess change between baseline, 4-month, and 5.5 month assessments. Test for a Main Effect of Time.||||= .09
90956043|NCT03208036|181791838|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group change assessed between baseline and 4-month assessment.||||= .02
90956044|NCT03208036|181791838|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.48|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group change assessed between baseline and the 5.5 month assessment.||||= .48
90956045|NCT03208036|181791838|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.66|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group change assessed between baseline and 4-month assessment.||||= .66
90956046|NCT03208036|181791838|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.46|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group change assessed between baseline and the 5.5 month assessment.||||= .46
90956047|NCT03208036|181791839|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.99|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effect, repeated measure ANOVA to assess change between baseline, 4-month, and 5.5 month assessments. Test for a Group x Time interaction.||||= .99
90956048|NCT03208036|181791839|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.84|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effect, repeated measure ANOVA to assess change between baseline, 4-month, and 5.5 month assessments. Test for a Main Effect of Time.||||= .84
90956049|NCT03208036|181791840|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.25|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effect, repeated measure ANOVA to assess change between baseline, 4-month, and 5.5 month assessments. Test for a Group x Time interaction.||||= .25
90956050|NCT03208036|181791840|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.08|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effect, repeated measure ANOVA to assess change between baseline, 4-month, and 5.5 month assessments. Test for a Main Effect of Time.||||= .08
90956051|NCT03208036|181791840|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.14|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group change assessed between baseline and 4-month assessment.||||= .14
90956052|NCT03208036|181791840|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group change assessed between baseline and 5.5-month assessment.||||= .02
90956053|NCT03208036|181791840|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.24|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group change assessed between baseline and 4-month assessment.||||= .24
90956054|NCT03208036|181791840|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.93|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group change assessed between baseline and 5.5-month assessment.||||= .93
90956055|NCT03208036|181791841|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.98|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effect, repeated measure ANOVA to assess change between baseline, 4-month, and 5.5 month assessments. Test for a Group x Time interaction.||||= .98
90956056|NCT03208036|181791841|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.08|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effect, repeated measure ANOVA to assess change between baseline, 4-month, and 5.5 month assessments. Test for a Main Effect of Time.||||= .08
90956057|NCT03208036|181791841|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group change assessed between baseline and 4-month assessment.||||= .08
90956058|NCT03208036|181791841|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group change assessed between baseline and 5.5-month assessment.||||= .06
90956059|NCT03208036|181791841|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.28|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group change assessed between baseline and 4-month assessment.||||= .28
90956060|NCT03208036|181791841|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.23|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group change assessed between baseline and 5.5-month assessment.||||= .23
90956061|NCT00350103|181791849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45|||=|0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.02|||ANCOVA||Estimated value is the difference of Least Square Means.|Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF) procedure was applied for missing daily diary entries between start of trial medication and Visit 8 or last intake of trial medication in the case of discontinuation during the Titration or Maintenance Phase.||-0.02|-0.88|=0.0410
90956062|NCT00350103|181791849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|||=|0.2902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.2|||ANCOVA||Estimated value is the difference of Least Square Means.|Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF) procedure was applied for missing daily diary entries between start of trial medication and Visit 8 or last intake of trial medication in the case of discontinuation during the Titration or Maintenance Phase.||0.20|-0.65|=0.2902
90956063|NCT02559895|181791895|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.4||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|-0.54|||ANCOVA|||||-0.54|-1.68|0.0001
90956064|NCT02559895|181791895|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.4||0.0182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|-0.12|||ANCOVA|||||-0.12|-1.25|0.0182
90956065|NCT02559895|181791895|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.82|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.4||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|-0.25|||ANCOVA|||||-0.25|-1.39|0.0046
90956066|NCT02559895|181791896|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.5||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.8|21.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.2|5.8|0.0007
90956067|NCT02559895|181791896|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.0||||0.1126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|13.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||13.3|-1.4|0.1126
90956068|NCT02559895|181791896|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.4||||0.0272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|15.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||15.9|1.0|0.0272
90956069|NCT02559895|181791897|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.3||||0.0066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|19.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||19.3|3.2|0.0066
90956070|NCT02559895|181791897|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.5||||0.0112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|18.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||18.6|2.4|0.0112
90956071|NCT02559895|181791897|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.8||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|17.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||17.8|1.8|0.0170
90956072|NCT02559895|181791898|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.9||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.8|28.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||28.0|9.8|0.0001
90956073|NCT02559895|181791898|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.4||||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|21.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.5|3.2|0.0085
90956074|NCT02559895|181791898|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.8||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|22.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||22.0|3.7|0.0064
90956075|NCT02559895|181791899|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0159|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0159
90956076|NCT02559895|181791899|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0312|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0312
90956077|NCT02559895|181791899|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1539|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1539
90956078|NCT00760474|181791925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.157||0.083||||||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference between the pre-dose (baseline) and post-dose values calculated as post-dose minus pre-dose (post minus pre).|Glu/Cr posterior insula||||0.083
90956079|NCT00760474|181791925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.436||95.0||||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Glu/Cr posterior insula||||0.436
90956080|NCT00760474|181791925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.306||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Significance was set at p \<0.05.||Gln/Cr posterior insula||||0.306
90956081|NCT00760474|181791925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.809||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Significance was set at p \<0.05.||Gln/Cr posterior insula||||0.809
90956082|NCT00760474|181791925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.116|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.177||0.016|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Significance was set at p \<0.05.|Mean difference between the pre-dose (baseline) and post-dose values calculated as post-dose minus pre-dose (post minus pre).|Glx/Cr posterior insula||||0.016
90956083|NCT00760474|181791925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.029|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.308||0.708||||||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference between the pre-dose (baseline) and post-dose values calculated as post-dose minus pre-dose (post minus pre).|Glx/Cr posterior insula||||0.708
90956084|NCT00760474|181791925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.809||95.0||||Significance was set at p \<0.050.|t-test, 2 sided|||Glu/Cr anterior insula||||0.809
90956085|NCT00760474|181791925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.154||95.0||||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Glu/Cr anterior insula||||0.154
90956086|NCT00760474|181791925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.96||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Significance was set at p \<0.05.||Gln/Cr anterior insula||||0.960
90956087|NCT00760474|181791925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.937||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Significance was set at p \<0.05.||Gln/Cr anterior insula||||0.937
90956088|NCT00760474|181791925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.897||95.0||||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Glx/Cr anterior insula||||0.897
90956089|NCT00760474|181791925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.309||95.0||||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Glx/Cr anterior insula||||0.309
90956090|NCT00760474|181791926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|0.032||||0.6347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1081|0.1714||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect repeated measure model included participant as a random effect; treatment, visit as fixed effects.||Anterior Cingulate||0.1714|-0.1081|0.6347
90956091|NCT00760474|181791926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|-0.079||||0.5181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3356|0.1771||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect repeated measure model included participant as a random effect; treatment, visit as fixed effects.||BA22||0.1771|-0.3356|0.5181
90956092|NCT00760474|181791926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|-0.072||||0.2987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2161|0.0714||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect repeated measure model included participant as a random effect; treatment, visit as fixed effects.||BA40||0.0714|-0.2161|0.2987
90956093|NCT00760474|181791926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|0.029||||0.5151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.064|0.1219||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect repeated measure model included participant as a random effect; treatment, visit as fixed effects.||L\_anIns||0.1219|-0.0640|0.5151
90956094|NCT00760474|181791926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|-0.081||||0.2369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2228|0.0599||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect repeated measure model included participant as a random effect; treatment, visit as fixed effects.||L\_Amygdala||0.0599|-0.2228|0.2369
90956095|NCT00760474|181791926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|-0.077||||0.0758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1642|0.0092||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect repeated measure model included participant as a random effect; treatment, visit as fixed effects.||L\_Cerebellum||0.0092|-0.1642|0.0758
91032338|NCT01706926|181949187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|0.72||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.89|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model including terms for baseline as a continuous covariate and treatment as a factor was used for the analysis. Ratio \<1 favored mavrilimumab.|||0.89|0.58|0.003
90956096|NCT00760474|181791926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|-0.025||||0.4609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0947|0.0452||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect repeated measure model included participant as a random effect; treatment, visit as fixed effects.||L\_DLPFC||0.0452|-0.0947|0.4609
90956097|NCT00760474|181791926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|-0.111||||0.3813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3745|0.1524||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect repeated measure model included participant as a random effect; treatment, visit as fixed effects.||L\_Mid Insula||0.1524|-0.3745|0.3813
90956098|NCT00760474|181791926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|0.02||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0964|0.1361||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect repeated measure model included participant as a random effect; treatment, visit as fixed effects.||L\_Mid Temporal Pole||0.1361|-0.0964|0.7200
91032339|NCT01706926|181949187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|0.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.84|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model including terms for baseline as a continuous covariate and treatment as a factor was used for the analysis. Ratio \<1 favored mavrilimumab.|||0.84|0.55|<0.001
91032340|NCT01706926|181949187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|0.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.75|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model including terms for baseline as a continuous covariate and treatment as a factor was used for the analysis. Ratio \<1 favored mavrilimumab.|||0.75|0.49|<0.001
90956099|NCT00760474|181791926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|0.168||||0.2099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1065|0.4434||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect repeated measure model included participant as a random effect; treatment, visit as fixed effects.||L\_Orbito Front||0.4434|-0.1065|0.2099
90956100|NCT00760474|181791926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|-0.003||||0.9551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1047|0.0992||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect repeated measure model included participant as a random effect; treatment, visit as fixed effects.||PAG||0.0992|-0.1047|0.9551
90956101|NCT00760474|181791926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|0.0||||0.994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0855|0.0848||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect repeated measure model included participant as a random effect; treatment, visit as fixed effects.||Posterior Insula||0.0848|-0.0855|0.9940
90956102|NCT00760474|181791926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|-0.049||||0.4291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1792|0.0806||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect repeated measure model included participant as a random effect; treatment, visit as fixed effects.||L\_Posterior Cingulate||0.0806|-0.1792|0.4291
90956103|NCT00760474|181791926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|0.027||||0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0496|0.1028||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect repeated measure model included participant as a random effect; treatment, visit as fixed effects.||L\_Precuneus||0.1028|-0.0496|0.4670
90956104|NCT00760474|181791926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|0.044||||0.4443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0752|0.1624||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect repeated measure model included participant as a random effect; treatment, visit as fixed effects.||L\_Putamen||0.1624|-0.0752|0.4443
90956105|NCT00760474|181791926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|-0.127||||0.2823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3704|0.1165||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect repeated measure model included participant as a random effect; treatment, visit as fixed effects.||L\_S2||0.1165|-0.3704|0.2823
90956106|NCT00760474|181791926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|-0.105||||0.1369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2481|0.0378||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect repeated measure model included participant as a random effect; treatment, visit as fixed effects.||R\_DLPFC||0.0378|-0.2481|0.1369
90956107|NCT00760474|181791926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|0.078||||0.2376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0573|0.2127||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect repeated measure model included participant as a random effect; treatment, visit as fixed effects.||R\_anIns||0.2127|-0.0573|0.2376
90956108|NCT00760474|181791926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|-0.153||||0.0968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3365|0.0313||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect repeated measure model included participant as a random effect; treatment, visit as fixed effects.||R\_Amygdala||0.0313|-0.3365|0.0968
90956109|NCT00760474|181791926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|0.023||||0.572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.061|0.1062||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect repeated measure model included participant as a random effect; treatment, visit as fixed effects.||R\_BA23\_base||0.1062|-0.0610|0.5720
90956110|NCT00760474|181791926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|-0.027||||0.5822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1303|0.0761||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect repeated measure model included participant as a random effect; treatment, visit as fixed effects.||R\_IPL\_base||0.0761|-0.1303|0.5822
90956111|NCT00760474|181791926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|-0.044||||0.6851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2697|0.1824||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect repeated measure model included participant as a random effect; treatment, visit as fixed effects.||R\_Insula\_base||0.1824|-0.2697|0.6851
90956112|NCT00760474|181791926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|-0.013||||0.8656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1699|0.1446||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect repeated measure model included participant as a random effect; treatment, visit as fixed effects.||R\_Mid Insula||0.1446|-0.1699|0.8656
90956113|NCT00760474|181791926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|-0.094||||0.1562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2296|0.0407||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect repeated measure model included participant as a random effect; treatment, visit as fixed effects.||R\_Mid Front\_DLPFC||0.0407|-0.2296|0.1562
90956114|NCT00760474|181791926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|-0.012||||0.7752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0991|0.0754||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect repeated measure model included participant as a random effect; treatment, visit as fixed effects.||R\_Mid Temporal Pole||0.0754|-0.0991|0.7752
90956115|NCT00760474|181791926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|0.01||||0.9182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1912|0.2109||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect repeated measure model included participant as a random effect; treatment, visit as fixed effects.||R\_Orbito Front||0.2109|-0.1912|0.9182
91032341|NCT01706926|181949188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|4.9||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|10.7|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the model of logit (response) with treatment as a factor. Differences \>0 favored mavrilimumab.|||10.7|-0.8|0.210
90956116|NCT00760474|181791926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|0.022||||0.6544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0829|0.1278||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect repeated measure model included participant as a random effect; treatment, visit as fixed effects.||L\_PAG||0.1278|-0.0829|0.6544
90956117|NCT00760474|181791926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|0.087||||0.0813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0123|0.1863||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect repeated measure model included participant as a random effect; treatment, visit as fixed effects.||R\_pIns||0.1863|-0.0123|0.0813
90956118|NCT00760474|181791926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|0.052||||0.4605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0956|0.2004||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect repeated measure model included participant as a random effect; treatment, visit as fixed effects.||R\_pIns||0.2004|-0.0956|0.4605
90956119|NCT00760474|181791926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|-0.081||||0.3136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2484|0.0856||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect repeated measure model included participant as a random effect; treatment, visit as fixed effects.||R\_Posterior Cingulate||0.0856|-0.2484|0.3136
90956120|NCT00760474|181791926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|0.0||||0.9929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0885|0.0893||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect repeated measure model included participant as a random effect; treatment, visit as fixed effects.||R\_Precuneus||0.0893|-0.0885|0.9929
90956121|NCT00760474|181791926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|-0.002||||0.949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0815|0.0767||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect repeated measure model included participant as a random effect; treatment, visit as fixed effects.||R\_Precuneus\_base||0.0767|-0.0815|0.9490
90956122|NCT00760474|181791926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|-0.065||||0.5668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3019|0.1722||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect repeated measure model included participant as a random effect; treatment, visit as fixed effects.||Superior Temporal||0.1722|-0.3019|0.5668
90956123|NCT00760474|181791926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|0.0||||0.9958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1398|0.1391||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect repeated measure model included participant as a random effect; treatment, visit as fixed effects.||R\_Premotor||0.1391|-0.1398|0.9958
90956124|NCT00760474|181791926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|0.057||||0.3379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0659|0.1795||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect repeated measure model included participant as a random effect; treatment, visit as fixed effects.||R\_Putamen||0.1795|-0.0659|0.3379
90956125|NCT00760474|181791926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|-0.085||||0.2186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2262|0.0565||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect repeated measure model included participant as a random effect; treatment, visit as fixed effects.||R\_S1||0.0565|-0.2262|0.2186
90956126|NCT00760474|181791926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|-0.008||||0.8191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0843|0.0678||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect repeated measure model included participant as a random effect; treatment, visit as fixed effects.||R\_Thalamus||0.0678|-0.0843|0.8191
90956127|NCT00760474|181791926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|0.012||||0.7647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0698|0.093||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect repeated measure model included participant as a random effect; treatment, visit as fixed effects.||Precuneus||0.0930|-0.0698|0.7647
90956128|NCT04664400|181791942|OTHER|Paired t test, testing whether the within participant difference is larger than 0.||||||0.043|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.043
90956129|NCT04664400|181791943|OTHER|Paired t test, testing whether the within participant difference is larger than 0.||||||0.036|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.036
91032342|NCT01706926|181949188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|1.1||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|5.1|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the model of logit (response) with treatment as a factor. Differences \>0 favored mavrilimumab.|||5.1|-2.9|1.000
91032343|NCT01706926|181949188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|3.8||||0.207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|9.2|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the model of logit (response) with treatment as a factor. Differences \>0 favored mavrilimumab.|||9.2|-1.6|0.207
91032344|NCT01706926|181949189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|4.9||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|10.7|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the model of logit (response) with treatment as a factor. Differences \>0 favored mavrilimumab.|||10.7|-0.8|0.210
90956130|NCT04664400|181791944|OTHER|Paired t test, testing whether the within participant difference is larger than 0.||||||0.012|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.012
90956131|NCT04664400|181791945|OTHER|Paired t test, testing whether the within participant difference is larger than 0.||||||0.835|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.835
90956132|NCT01781078|181791951|NON_INFERIORITY|The difference in the success rate between the 2 randomized groups was compared to 10% using a one-sided Farrington-Manning score test for non-inferiority at a significance level of 0.05.|difference|-0.3|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||3.9|||Farrington-Manning score test|||||3.9||<0.0001
90956133|NCT01781078|181791952|NON_INFERIORITY|The difference in the success rate between the 2 randomized groups was compared to 10% using a one-sided Farrington-Manning score test for non-inferiority at a significance level of 0.05.|difference|-0.1||||0.0006|ONE_SIDED|95.0||5.0|||Farrington-Manning score test|||||5.0||0.0006
90956134|NCT01781078|181791952|NON_INFERIORITY|The difference in the success rate between the 2 randomized groups was compared to 10% using a one-sided Farrington-Manning score test for non-inferiority at a significance level of 0.05.|difference|0.0||||0.0002|ONE_SIDED|95.0||4.7|||Farrington-Manning score test|||||4.7||0.0002
90956135|NCT02217501|181791965|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6595||||||Alpha of 0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.6595
90956136|NCT03748992|181791972|OTHER|Since no hypothesis testing was planned, no power analysis was required||||||||||||Non Applicable||Non Applicable||This was a single arm trial. there is no comparator group.|The overall response rates were calculated, and exact binomial confidence intervals was constructed.|||
90956137|NCT03748992|181791974|OTHER|Since no hypothesis testing was planned, no power analysis was required||||||||||||||||This was a single arm trial. there is no comparator group.|The overall response rates were calculated, and exact binomial confidence intervals was constructed.|||
90956138|NCT03924765|181791975|OTHER|A one-way repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on different exoskeleton assistance strategies (including the baseline of not wearing the exoskeleton) on the subject's overground self-selected walking speed by setting an alpha value to 0.05.||||||5e-06|||||||ANOVA|||Primary Outcome Measure - Arm/Group 1||||0.000005
90956139|NCT03924765|181791976|OTHER|A one-way repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on different exoskeleton assistance strategies (including the baseline of not wearing the exoskeleton) on the subject's step length asymmetry by setting an alpha value to 0.05.||||||0.131|||||||ANOVA|||Secondary Outcome Measure - Arm/Group 1||||0.131
90956140|NCT03691909|181791978|OTHER|||||||0.743|||||||Wilcoxon-signed rank test|Effect Size: 0.09||||||0.743
90956141|NCT03691909|181791979|OTHER|||||||0.714|||||||Wilcoxon-signed rank test|Effect Size: 0.10||||||0.714
90956142|NCT03691909|181791980|OTHER|||||||0.183|||||||Wilcoxon-signed rank test|Effect Size: 0.37||||||0.183
90956143|NCT03691909|181791981|OTHER|||||||0.775|||||||Wilcoxon-signed rank test|Effect Size: 0.05||||||0.775
90956144|NCT03691909|181791982|OTHER|||||||0.0008|||||||Wilcoxon-signed rank test|Effect Size: 0.93||Tender Joint Count||||0.0008
90956145|NCT03691909|181791982|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon-signed rank test|Effect Size: 0.83||Swollen Joint Count||||0.003
91032345|NCT01706926|181949189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|2.3||||0.621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|6.9|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the model of logit (response) with treatment as a factor. Differences \>0 favored mavrilimumab.|||6.9|-2.3|0.621
90956146|NCT05038163|181791991|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-0.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.39|||Regression, Linear|||||-0.39|-0.63|<0.001
90956147|NCT05038163|181791991|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-0.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.33|||Regression, Linear|||||-0.33|-0.57|<0.001
90956148|NCT05038163|181791991|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-0.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.24|||Regression, Linear|||||-0.24|-0.44|<0.001
90956149|NCT05038163|181791992|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-0.33||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.11|||Regression, Linear|||||-0.11|-0.55|0.003
90956150|NCT05038163|181791992|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-0.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.35|||Regression, Linear|||||-0.35|-0.87|<0.001
90956151|NCT05038163|181791992|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-0.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.17|||Regression, Linear|||||-0.17|-0.48|<0.001
90956152|NCT05038163|181791993|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.32|||Regression, Linear||Unit: $ per 12-pack|Gender subgroup: Female or other||-0.32|-0.67|<0.001
90956153|NCT05038163|181791993|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-0.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.36|||Regression, Linear||Unit: $ per 12-pack|Gender subgroup: Male||-0.36|-0.70|<0.001
90956154|NCT05038163|181791993|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-0.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.25|||Regression, Linear||Unit: $ per 12-pack|Gender subgroup: Female or other||-0.25|-0.57|<0.001
90956155|NCT05038163|181791993|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-0.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.32|||Regression, Linear||Unit: $ per 12-pack|Gender subgroup: Male||-0.32|-0.65|<0.001
90956156|NCT05038163|181791993|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-0.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.14|||Regression, Linear||Unit: $ per 12-pack|Gender subgroup: Female or other||-0.14|-0.42|<0.001
90956157|NCT05038163|181791993|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-0.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.27|||Regression, Linear|||Gender subgroup: Male|Unit: $ per 12-pack|-0.27|-0.57|<0.001
90956158|NCT05038163|181791993|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-2.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.34|-1.12|||Regression, Linear||Unit: $ per 12-pack|Race subgroup: American Indian or Alaska Native||-1.12|-3.34|<0.001
90956159|NCT05038163|181791993|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-0.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|-0.23|||Regression, Linear||Unit: $ per 12-pack|Race subgroup: Asian||-0.23|-1.15|<0.001
90956160|NCT05038163|181791993|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.8|||Regression, Linear||Unit: $ per 12-pack|Race subgroup: Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander||0.80|0.80|<0.001
90956161|NCT05038163|181791993|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|0.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|1.14|||Regression, Linear||Unit: $ per 12-pack|Race subgroup: Black or African American||1.14|-0.24|<0.001
90956162|NCT05038163|181791993|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.37|||Regression, Linear||Unit: $ per 12-pack|Race subgroup: White||-0.37|-0.63|<0.001
90956163|NCT05038163|181791993|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-0.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|-0.25|||Regression, Linear||Unit: $ per 12-pack|Race subgroup: More Than One Race||-0.25|-1.67|<0.001
90956164|NCT05038163|181791993|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-0.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.4|||Regression, Linear||Unit: $ per 12-pack|Race subgroup: Unknown or Not Reported||0.40|-1.16|<0.001
90956165|NCT05038163|181791993|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-0.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|0.19|||Regression, Linear||Unit: $ per 12-pack|Race subgroup: American Indian or Alaska Native||0.19|-1.07|<0.001
90956166|NCT05038163|181791993|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-0.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.17|||Regression, Linear||Unit: $ per 12-pack|Race subgroup: Asian||-0.17|-0.91|<0.001
90956167|NCT05038163|181791993|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Regression, Linear||Unit: $ per 12-pack|Race subgroup: Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander||0.00|0.00|<0.001
90956168|NCT05038163|181791993|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|0.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.68|||Regression, Linear||Unit: $ per 12-pack|Race subgroup: Black or African American||0.68|-0.36|<0.001
90956169|NCT05038163|181791993|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-0.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.31|||Regression, Linear||Unit: $ per 12-pack|Race subgroup: white||-0.31|-0.57|<0.001
90956170|NCT05038163|181791993|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-1.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|-0.32|||Regression, Linear||Unit: $ per 12-pack|Race subgroup: More Than One Race||-0.32|-2.04|<0.001
90956171|NCT05038163|181791993|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-0.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.14|||Regression, Linear||Unit: $ per 12-pack|Race subgroup: Unknown or Not Reported||0.14|-0.90|<0.001
90956172|NCT05038163|181791993|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-0.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|-0.04|||Regression, Linear||Unit: $ per 12-pack|Race subgroup: American Indian or Alaska Native||-0.04|-1.54|<0.001
90956173|NCT05038163|181791993|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-0.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.12|||Regression, Linear||Unit: $ per 12-pack|Race subgroup: Asian||-0.12|-0.90|<0.001
90956174|NCT05038163|181791993|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.8|||Regression, Logistic||Unit: $ per 12-pack|Race subgroup: Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander||0.80|0.80|<0.001
90956175|NCT05038163|181791993|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-0.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.71|||Regression, Linear||Unit: $ per 12-pack|Race subgroup: Black or African American||0.71|-0.79|<0.001
90956176|NCT05038163|181791993|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-0.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.22|||Regression, Linear||Unit: $ per 12-pack|Race subgroup: White||-0.22|-0.44|<0.001
90956177|NCT05038163|181791993|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-0.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.06|||Regression, Linear||Unit: $ per 12-pack|Race subgroup: More Than One Race||-0.06|-0.76|<0.001
90956178|NCT05038163|181791993|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-0.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.31|||Regression, Linear||Unit: $ per 12-pack|Race subgroup: Unknown or Not Reported||0.31|-0.85|<0.001
90956179|NCT05038163|181791993|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|0.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.91|||Regression, Linear||Unit: $ per 12-pack|Ethnicity subgroup: Hispanic||0.91|-0.45|<0.001
90956180|NCT05038163|181791993|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-0.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.39|||Regression, Linear||Unit: $ per 12-pack|Ethnicity subgroup: Not Hispanic||-0.39|-0.65|<0.001
90956181|NCT05038163|181791993|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-0.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|-0.38|||Regression, Linear||Unit: $ per 12-pack|Ethnicity subgroup: Other or Prefer Not to Say||-0.38|-1.48|<0.001
90956182|NCT05038163|181791993|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-0.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.38|||Regression, Linear||Unit: $ per 12-pack|Ethnicity subgroup: Hispanic||0.38|-0.70|<0.001
90956183|NCT05038163|181791993|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-0.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.33|||Regression, Linear||Unit: $ per 12-pack|Ethnicity subgroup: Not Hispanic||-0.33|-0.57|<0.001
90956184|NCT05038163|181791993|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-0.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|-0.16|||Regression, Linear||Unit: $ per 12-pack|Ethnicity subgroup: Other or Prefer Not to Say||-0.16|-1.42|<0.001
91018020|NCT03692078|181918916|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (PP Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.492|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.277|1.707|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (PP Population)||1.707|1.277|<.0001
91018021|NCT03692078|181918916|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (PP Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.538|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.304|1.772|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (PP Population)||1.772|1.304|<.0001
91018022|NCT03692078|181918916|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (PP Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.003||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.242|0.237|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (PP Population)||0.237|-0.242|1.0000
91018023|NCT03692078|181918916|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (PP Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09||||0.9399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.351|0.172|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (PP Population)||0.172|-0.351|0.9399
91018024|NCT03692078|181918916|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (PP Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.047||||0.9993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.283|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (PP Population)||0.283|-0.190|0.9993
91018025|NCT03692078|181918916|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (PP Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.018||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.278|0.242|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (PP Population)||0.242|-0.278|1.0000
91018026|NCT03692078|181918918|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.805|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.639|1.971|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||1.971|1.639|<.0001
91018027|NCT03692078|181918918|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.788|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.622|1.954|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||1.954|1.622|<.0001
90956185|NCT05038163|181791993|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|0.01||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.41|||Regression, Linear||Unit: $ per 12-pack|Ethnicity subgroup: Hispanic||0.41|-0.40|0.980
90956186|NCT05038163|181791993|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-0.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.25|||Regression, Linear||Unit: $ per 12-pack|Ethnicity subgroup: Not Hispanic||-0.25|-0.47|<0.001
90956187|NCT05038163|181791993|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-0.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|0.25|||Regression, Linear||Unit: $ per 12-pack|Ethnicity Subgroup: Other or Prefer Not to Say||0.25|-1.03|<0.001
90956188|NCT05453201|181791995|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||paired t-test|||This analysis uses the functional disability subscale from pre- to post-intervention.||||.06
90956189|NCT05453201|181791995|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||paired t-test|||This analysis uses the symptom severity subscale from pre- to post-intervention.||||.004
90956190|NCT05453201|181791995|OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||paired t-test|||This analysis uses the perceived overall health now subscale (1 item) from pre- to post-intervention.||||.10
90956191|NCT05453201|181791996|OTHER|||||||0.46|||||||paired t-test|||This analysis uses domain 1 from pre- to post-intervention.||||.46
90956192|NCT05453201|181791996|OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||paired t-test|||This analysis uses domain 2 from pre- to post-intervention.||||.20
90956193|NCT05453201|181791996|OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||paired t-test|||This analysis uses domain 3 from pre- to post-intervention.||||.42
90956194|NCT05453201|181791996|OTHER|||||||0.84|||||||paired t-test|||This analysis uses domain 4 from pre- to post-intervention.||||.84
90956195|NCT05453201|181791996|OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||paired t-test|||This analysis uses domain 5 (part 1) from pre- to post-intervention.||||.25
90956196|NCT05453201|181791996|OTHER|||||||0.26|||||||paired t-test|||This analysis uses domain 6 from pre- to post-intervention.||||.26
90956197|NCT05453201|181791997|OTHER|||||||0.89|||||||Wilcoxon test|||This analysis uses the SBQ-R total score from pre- to post-intervention.||||.89
90956198|NCT05453201|181791998|OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||paired t-test|||This analysis uses the MOCS (part A) from pre- to post-intervention.||||.80
90956199|NCT05453201|181791999|OTHER|||||||0.92|||||||paired t-test|||This analysis uses the FSCQ score (all items) from pre- to post-intervention.||||.92
90956200|NCT05453201|181791999|OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||Wilcoxon test (paired)|||This analysis uses the FSCQ similarity subscale from pre- to post-intervention.||||.90
90956201|NCT05453201|181791999|OTHER|||||||0.74|||||||paired t-test|||This analysis uses the FSCQ vividness subscale from pre- to post-intervention.||||.74
90956202|NCT05453201|181791999|OTHER|||||||0.44|||||||paired t-test|||This analysis uses the FSCQ positivity subscale from pre- to post-intervention.||||.44
90956203|NCT05453201|181792000|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||paired t-test|||This analysis uses the PHQ-9 from pre- to post-intervention.||||.003
91032346|NCT01706926|181949189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|6.4||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|12.7|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the model of logit (response) with treatment as a factor. Differences \>0 favored mavrilimumab.|||12.7|0.0|0.062
91083017|NCT00978341|182050410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.324||0.3638||95.0|-0.47|1.11|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline); Day 8: 0.5 hours post-dose.||1.11|-0.47|0.3638
90956204|NCT05453201|181792001|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||paired t-test|||This analysis uses the GAD-7 from pre- to post-intervention.||||.01
90956205|NCT05453201|181792002|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||paired t-test|||This analysis uses the QOLS from pre- to post-intervention.||||.04
90956206|NCT05453201|181792003|OTHER|"The AIM measures an intervention's acceptability. Therefore, the goal is not change over time, the goal is to assess, descriptively, post-intervention acceptability. Because we assessed this measure at baseline (with expectations of the future treatment), we provide a paired t-test with the AIM at pre- and post-intervention."||||||0.24|||||||Paired t-test|||||||.24
90956207|NCT05453201|181792003|OTHER|"The IAM measures an intervention's appropriateness. Therefore, the goal is not change over time, the goal is to assess, descriptively, post-intervention appropriateness. Because we assessed this measure at baseline (with expectations of the future treatment), we provide a paired t-test with the IAM at pre- and post-intervention."||||||0.82|||||||Paired t-test|||||||.82
90956208|NCT05453201|181792003|OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||Paired t-test|||"The FIM measures an intervention's feasibility. Therefore, the goal is not change over time, the goal is to assess, descriptively, post-intervention feasibility. Because we assessed this measure at baseline (with expectations of the future treatment), we provide a paired t-test with the FIM at pre- and post-intervention."||||.38
90956209|NCT04688320|181792032|NON_INFERIORITY|The margin of the non-inferiority was established as a difference in the primary efficacy endpoints between compared groups|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|4.52|||Welch's t-test|||||4.52|0.11|<0.05
90956210|NCT00383110|181792046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.648|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.648
90956211|NCT00383110|181792047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.14
90956212|NCT00383110|181792048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.675|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.675
90956213|NCT00383110|181792049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.03
90956214|NCT00383110|181792050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90956215|NCT00383110|181792051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90956216|NCT02233543|181792084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.44||||0.2419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.32|-1.21|0.2419
90956217|NCT02233543|181792085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.79||||0.2016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.51|20.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||20.08|-4.51|0.2016
90956218|NCT01302067|181792086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|-0.66||Primary comparison was 8 mg VS. 4 mg (closed-testing method). Treatment effect of 8 mg VS. placebo was tested 1st. Treatment difference of 8 mg VS. 4 mg was tested if a statistically significant difference between 8 mg and placebo was shown.|ANCOVA|Using a closed testing procedure, no adjustments of α-level was needed at each stage of testing. Each was done at the 0.05 significance level.|Note- Standard Error of the Mean in the table refers to Standard Error of the Least Squares Mean.|Comparisons were done with 2-sided test at 5% significance level. Null hypothesis: mean change from BL in the number of UUI episodes per 24 hours in the 8mg group was same as 4mg group at Week 12. ANCOVA was used to compare 8mg and 4mg arms for numeric change from BL - Week 12. This included terms for treatment, country, centered BL value and centered BL by treatment interaction, in which centered BL (BL - mean BL) was used to ensure that treatment effect was estimated at mean covariate value.||-0.66|-1.16|<0.0001
91018028|NCT03692078|181918918|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.145|1.462|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||1.462|1.145|<.0001
91018029|NCT03692078|181918918|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.304|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.134|1.447|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||1.447|1.134|<.0001
91018030|NCT03692078|181918918|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.353|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.194|1.513|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||1.513|1.194|<.0001
91018031|NCT03692078|181918918|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.313|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.153|1.472|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||1.472|1.153|<.0001
91018032|NCT03692078|181918918|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.956|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.155|-0.756|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.756|-1.155|<.0001
91018033|NCT03692078|181918918|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.114|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.315|-0.913|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.913|-1.315|<.0001
91018034|NCT03692078|181918918|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.999|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.195|-0.803|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.803|-1.195|<.0001
91018035|NCT03692078|181918918|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.164|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.364|-0.964|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.964|-1.364|<.0001
91018036|NCT03692078|181918918|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.775|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.969|-0.582|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.582|-0.969|<.0001
91032347|NCT01706926|181949190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|3.7||||0.245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|7.8|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the model of logit (response) with treatment as a factor. Differences \>0 favored mavrilimumab.|||7.8|-0.4|0.245
90956219|NCT01302067|181792086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.06||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA||Note- Standard Error of the Mean in the table refers to Standard Error of the Least Squares Mean.|Treatment comparisons were performed with a two-sided test at the 5% significance level.||-0.06|-0.48|0.0109
90956220|NCT01302067|181792086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.39||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA||Note- Standard Error of the Mean in the table refers to Standard Error of the Least Squares Mean.|Treatment comparisons were performed with a two-sided test at the 5% significance level.||-0.39|-0.89|<0.0001
90956221|NCT01302067|181792087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|-0.79||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA||Note- Standard Error of the Mean in the table refers to Standard Error of the Least Squares Mean.|P-value was based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, pooled country, and centered baseline value.||-0.79|-1.48|<0.0001
90956222|NCT01302067|181792087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.1||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA||Note- Standard Error of the Mean in the table refers to Standard Error of the Least Squares Mean.|P-value was based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, pooled country, and centered baseline value.||-0.10|-0.67|0.0082
90956223|NCT01302067|181792087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.41||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA||Note- Standard Error of the Mean in the table refers to Standard Error of the Least Squares Mean.|P-value was based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, pooled country, and centered baseline value.||-0.41|-1.10|<0.0001
90956224|NCT01302067|181792088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|-1.03||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA||Note- Standard Error of the Mean in the table refers to Standard Error of the Least Squares Mean.|P-value was based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, pooled country, and centered baseline value.||-1.03|-1.76|<0.0001
90956225|NCT01302067|181792088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.23||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA||Note- Standard Error of the Mean in the table refers to Standard Error of the Least Squares Mean.|P-value was based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, pooled country, and centered baseline value.||-0.23|-0.83|0.0006
90956226|NCT01302067|181792088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|-0.51||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA||Note- Standard Error of the Mean in the table refers to Standard Error of the Least Squares Mean.|P-value was based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, pooled country, and centered baseline value.||-0.51|-1.23|<0.0001
90956227|NCT01302067|181792089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA|Testing for percent change from baseline was only carried out for given endpoint if corresponding numeric change result was statistically significant.||P-value was based on a RANKED ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and pooled country with ranked baseline value as a covariate.||||<0.0001
90956228|NCT01302067|181792089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|||||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA|Testing for percent change from baseline was only carried out for given endpoint if corresponding numeric change result was statistically significant.||P-value was based on a RANKED ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and pooled country with ranked baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0040
90956229|NCT01302067|181792089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA|Testing for percent change from baseline was only carried out for given endpoint if corresponding numeric change result was statistically significant.||P-value was based on a RANKED ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and pooled country with ranked baseline value as a covariate.||||<0.0001
90956230|NCT01302067|181792090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA|Testing for percent change from baseline was only carried out for given endpoint if corresponding numeric change result was statistically significant.||P-value was based on a RANKED ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and pooled country with ranked baseline value as a covariate.||||<0.0001
91032348|NCT01706926|181949190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|1.2||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|3.5|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the model of logit (response) with treatment as a factor. Differences \>0 favored mavrilimumab.|||3.5|-1.1|1.000
90956231|NCT01302067|181792090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA|Testing for percent change from baseline was only carried out for given endpoint if corresponding numeric change result was statistically significant.||P-value was based on a RANKED ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and pooled country with ranked baseline value as a covariate.||||<0.0001
90956232|NCT01302067|181792090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA|Testing for percent change from baseline was only carried out for given endpoint if corresponding numeric change result was statistically significant.||P-value was based on a RANKED ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and pooled country with ranked baseline value as a covariate.||||<0.0001
90956233|NCT01302067|181792091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.5||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA||Note- Standard Error of the Mean in the table refers to Standard Error of the Least Squares Mean.|P-value was based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, pooled country, centered baseline value and centered baseline by treatment interaction.||-0.50|-1.02|<0.0001
90956234|NCT01302067|181792091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.01||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA||Note- Standard Error of the Mean in the table refers to Standard Error of the Least Squares Mean.|P-value was based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, pooled country, centered baseline value and centered baseline by treatment interaction.||0.01|-0.41|0.0662
90956235|NCT01302067|181792091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.3||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA||Note- Standard Error of the Mean in the table refers to Standard Error of the Least Squares Mean.|P-value was based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, pooled country, centered baseline value and centered baseline by treatment interaction.||-0.30|-0.82|<0.0001
90956236|NCT01302067|181792092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA|Testing for percent change from baseline was only carried out for given endpoint if corresponding numeric change result was statistically significant||P-value was based on a RANKED ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and pooled country with ranked baseline value as a covariate.||||<0.0001
90956237|NCT01302067|181792092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA|Testing for percent change from baseline was only carried out for given endpoint if corresponding numeric change result was statistically significant||P-value was based on a RANKED ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and pooled country with ranked baseline value as a covariate.||||<0.0001
90956238|NCT01302067|181792093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA|Testing for percent change from baseline was only carried out for given endpoint if corresponding numeric change result was statistically significant||P-value was based on a RANKED ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and pooled country with ranked baseline value as a covariate.||||<0.0001
90956239|NCT01302067|181792093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|||||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA|Testing for percent change from baseline was only carried out for given endpoint if corresponding numeric change result was statistically significant||P-value was based on a RANKED ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and pooled country with ranked baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0006
90956240|NCT01302067|181792093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA|Testing for percent change from baseline was only carried out for given endpoint if corresponding numeric change result was statistically significant||P-value was based on a RANKED ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and pooled country with ranked baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0001
90956241|NCT01302067|181792094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-1.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|-1.06||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA||Note- Standard Error of the Mean in the table refers to Standard Error of the Least Squares Mean.|P-value was based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, pooled country, and centered baseline value.||-1.06|-2.04|<0.0001
90956242|NCT01302067|181792094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|-0.11||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA||Note- Standard Error of the Mean in the table refers to Standard Error of the Least Squares Mean.|P-value was based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, pooled country, and centered baseline value.||-0.11|-0.92|0.0121
90956243|NCT01302067|181792094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|-0.55||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA||Note- Standard Error of the Mean in the table refers to Standard Error of the Least Squares Mean.|P-value was based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, pooled country, and centered baseline value.||-0.55|-1.52|<0.0001
90956244|NCT01302067|181792095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-2.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.55|-1.49||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA||Note- Standard Error of the Mean in the table refers to Standard Error of the Least Squares Mean.|P-value was based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, pooled country, and centered baseline value.||-1.49|-2.55|<0.0001
90956245|NCT01302067|181792095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|-0.34||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA||Note- Standard Error of the Mean in the table refers to Standard Error of the Least Squares Mean.|P-value was based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, pooled country, and centered baseline value.||-0.34|-1.22|0.0005
90956246|NCT01302067|181792095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-1.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|-0.71||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA||Note- Standard Error of the Mean in the table refers to Standard Error of the Least Squares Mean.|P-value was based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, pooled country, and centered baseline value.||-0.71|-1.77|<0.0001
90956247|NCT01302067|181792096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA|Testing for percent change from baseline was only carried out for given endpoint if corresponding numeric change result was statistically significant.||P-value was based on a RANKED ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and pooled country with ranked baseline value as a covariate.||||<0.0001
90956248|NCT01302067|181792096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0348|TWO_SIDED|||||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA|Testing for percent change from baseline was only carried out for given endpoint if corresponding numeric change result was statistically significant.||P-value was based on a RANKED ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and pooled country with ranked baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0348
90959062|NCT01620255|181798207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.664|-0.275|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 225 mg vs placebo, Rectal Bleeding, W8||-0.275|-0.664|<0.0001
91083018|NCT00978341|182050410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.223||0.1202||95.0|-0.15|0.99|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline); Day 8: 1 hour post-dose.||0.99|-0.15|0.1202
90956249|NCT01302067|181792096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|||||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA|Testing for percent change from baseline was only carried out for given endpoint if corresponding numeric change result was statistically significant.||P-value was based on a RANKED ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and pooled country with ranked baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0003
90956250|NCT01302067|181792097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA|Testing for percent change from baseline was only carried out for given endpoint if corresponding numeric change result was statistically significant.||P-value was based on a RANKED ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and pooled country with ranked baseline value as a covariate.||||<0.0001
90956251|NCT01302067|181792097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|||||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA|Testing for percent change from baseline was only carried out for given endpoint if corresponding numeric change result was statistically significant.||P-value was based on a RANKED ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and pooled country with ranked baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0002
90956252|NCT01302067|181792097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA|Testing for percent change from baseline was only carried out for given endpoint if corresponding numeric change result was statistically significant.||P-value was based on a RANKED ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and pooled country with ranked baseline value as a covariate.||||<0.0001
90956253|NCT01302067|181792098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Change at Week 12- deterioration, no change, minor improvement and major improvement: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with modified ridit scoring controlling for country was used to calculate p-value.||||<0.0001
90956254|NCT01302067|181792098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|||||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Change at Week 12- deterioration, no change, minor improvement and major improvement: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with modified ridit scoring controlling for country was used to calculate p-value.||||0.0057
90956255|NCT01302067|181792098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|||||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Change at Week 12- deterioration, no change, minor improvement and major improvement: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with modified ridit scoring controlling for country was used to calculate p-value.||||0.0008
90956256|NCT01302067|181792099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|||||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Change at Week 12- deterioration, no change, minor improvement and major improvement: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with modified ridit scoring controlling for country was used to calculate p-value.||||0.0007
90956257|NCT01302067|181792099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|||||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Change at Week 12- deterioration, no change, minor improvement and major improvement: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with modified ridit scoring controlling for country was used to calculate p-value.||||0.0091
90956258|NCT01302067|181792099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3901|TWO_SIDED|||||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Change at Week 12- deterioration, no change, minor improvement and major improvement: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with modified ridit scoring controlling for country was used to calculate p-value.||||0.3901
90956259|NCT01302067|181792100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-12.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.54|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.49|-9.45||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA||Note- Standard Error of the Mean in the table refers to Standard Error of the Least Squares Mean.|Change at Week 12- ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, pooled country, centered baseline value and centered baseline by treatment interaction was used to calculate p-value.||-9.45|-15.49|<0.0001
90956260|NCT01302067|181792100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-4.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.15|-2.22||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA||Note- Standard Error of the Mean in the table refers to Standard Error of the Least Squares Mean.|Change at Week 12- ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, pooled country, centered baseline value and centered baseline by treatment interaction was used to calculate p-value.||-2.22|-7.15|0.0002
90956261|NCT01302067|181792100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-7.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.53|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.78|-4.78||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA||Note- Standard Error of the Mean in the table refers to Standard Error of the Least Squares Mean.|Change at Week 12- ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, pooled country, centered baseline value and centered baseline by treatment interaction was used to calculate p-value.||-4.78|-10.78|<0.0001
90956262|NCT01302067|181792101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|10.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.67|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.2|13.73||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA||Note- Standard Error of the Mean in the table refers to Standard Error of the Least Squares Mean.|P-value was based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, pooled country, centered baseline value and centered baseline by treatment interaction.||13.73|7.20|<0.0001
90956263|NCT01302067|181792101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|4.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.01|7.36||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA||Note- Standard Error of the Mean in the table refers to Standard Error of the Least Squares Mean.|P-value was based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, pooled country, centered baseline value and centered baseline by treatment interaction.||7.36|2.01|0.0006
90956264|NCT01302067|181792101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|5.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.66||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.53|9.03||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA||Note- Standard Error of the Mean in the table refers to Standard Error of the Least Squares Mean.|P-value was based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, pooled country, centered baseline value and centered baseline by treatment interaction.||9.03|2.53|0.0005
90959063|NCT01620255|181798207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.25||||0.0395|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.449|-0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 7.5 mg vs placebo, Rectal Bleeding, W12||-0.050|-0.449|0.0395
91018037|NCT03692078|181918918|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.795|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.600|-0.990|<.0001
91018038|NCT03692078|181918918|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.514||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.836|-0.193|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.193|-0.836|0.0002
91018039|NCT03692078|181918918|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.484||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.808|-0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.160|-0.808|0.0005
91018040|NCT03692078|181918918|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.452||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.775|-0.128|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.128|-0.775|0.0014
91018041|NCT03692078|181918918|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.475||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.799|-0.152|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.152|-0.799|0.0007
91018042|NCT03692078|181918918|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.127|-2.394|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-2.394|-3.127|<.0001
91018043|NCT03692078|181918918|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.902|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.271|-2.533|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-2.533|-3.271|<.0001
91018044|NCT03692078|181918918|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.804|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.165|-2.443|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-2.443|-3.165|<.0001
91032349|NCT01706926|181949190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|1.3||||0.494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|3.7|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the model of logit (response) with treatment as a factor. Differences \>0 favored mavrilimumab.|||3.7|-1.2|0.494
91083019|NCT00978341|182050410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.355||0.1204||95.0|-0.19|1.39|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline); Day 8: 2 hours post-dose.||1.39|-0.19|0.1204
91083020|NCT00978341|182050410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.289||0.4213||95.0|-0.44|0.93|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline); Day 8: 3 hours post-dose.||0.93|-0.44|0.4213
91083021|NCT00978341|182050410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.205||0.6028||95.0|-0.34|0.56|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline); Day 8: 4 hours post-dose.||0.56|-0.34|0.6028
90956265|NCT01302067|181792102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|10.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.62|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.73|14.09||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA||Note- Standard Error of the Mean in the table refers to Standard Error of the Least Squares Mean.|P-value was based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, pooled country, centered baseline value and centered baseline by treatment interaction.||14.09|7.73|<0.0001
90956266|NCT01302067|181792102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|4.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.33||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.76|6.96||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA||Note- Standard Error of the Mean in the table refers to Standard Error of the Least Squares Mean.|P-value was based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, pooled country, centered baseline value and centered baseline by treatment interaction.||6.96|1.76|0.0010
90956267|NCT01302067|181792102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|6.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.61|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.39|9.72||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA||Note- Standard Error of the Mean in the table refers to Standard Error of the Least Squares Mean.|P-value was based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, pooled country, centered baseline value and centered baseline by treatment interaction.||9.72|3.39|<0.0001
90956268|NCT01302067|181792103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|7.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.56|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|10.51||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA||Note- Standard Error of the Mean in the table refers to Standard Error of the Least Squares Mean.|P-value was based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, pooled country, centered baseline value and centered baseline by treatment interaction.||10.51|4.40|<0.0001
90956269|NCT01302067|181792103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|3.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.27||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|6.23||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA||Note- Standard Error of the Mean in the table refers to Standard Error of the Least Squares Mean.|P-value was based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, pooled country, centered baseline value and centered baseline by treatment interaction.||6.23|1.24|0.0034
90956270|NCT01302067|181792103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|3.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.55||0.0164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|6.76||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA||Note- Standard Error of the Mean in the table refers to Standard Error of the Least Squares Mean.|P-value was based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, pooled country, centered baseline value and centered baseline by treatment interaction.||6.76|0.68|0.0164
90956271|NCT01302067|181792104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|7.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.03|9.97||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA||Note- Standard Error of the Mean in the table refers to Standard Error of the Least Squares Mean.|P-value was based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, pooled country, centered baseline value and centered baseline by treatment interaction.||9.97|5.03|<0.0001
90956272|NCT01302067|181792104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|3.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|5.7||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA||Note- Standard Error of the Mean in the table refers to Standard Error of the Least Squares Mean.|P-value was based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, pooled country, centered baseline value and centered baseline by treatment interaction.||5.70|1.65|0.0004
90956273|NCT01302067|181792104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|3.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|6.28||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA||Note- Standard Error of the Mean in the table refers to Standard Error of the Least Squares Mean.|P-value was based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, pooled country, centered baseline value and centered baseline by treatment interaction.||6.28|1.36|0.0023
90956274|NCT01302067|181792105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|9.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.43|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.56|12.18||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA||Note- Standard Error of the Mean in the table refers to Standard Error of the Least Squares Mean.|P-value was based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, pooled country, centered baseline value and centered baseline by treatment interaction.||12.18|6.56|<0.0001
90956275|NCT01302067|181792105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|4.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.93|6.53||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA||Note- Standard Error of the Mean in the table refers to Standard Error of the Least Squares Mean.|P-value was based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, pooled country, centered baseline value and centered baseline by treatment interaction.||6.53|1.93|0.0003
90956276|NCT01302067|181792105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|5.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.43||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.34|7.94||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA||Note- Standard Error of the Mean in the table refers to Standard Error of the Least Squares Mean.|P-value was based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, pooled country, centered baseline value and centered baseline by treatment interaction.||7.94|2.34|0.0003
90956277|NCT01302067|181792106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|||||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) general association test stratified by country.||||0.0016
90956278|NCT01302067|181792106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8121|TWO_SIDED|||||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) general association test stratified by country.||||0.8121
90956279|NCT01302067|181792106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|||||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) general association test stratified by country.||||0.0015
90956280|NCT01302067|181792107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) general association test stratified by country.||||<0.0001
90956281|NCT01302067|181792107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|||||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) general association test stratified by country.||||0.0006
90956282|NCT01302067|181792107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|||||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) general association test stratified by country.||||0.0027
90956283|NCT02480153|181792116|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Confidence interval (CIs) calculated by the score statistic method were used for the inference of the equivalence for ACR20 at Week 12. Therapeutic equivalence could be established if the 2-sided 95% CI fell within (-14%, 14%). Non-responder imputation was applied. Comparisons between treatments were computed as PF-06410293 versus Adalimumab-EU.|Week 12 ACR20 response rate difference|-2.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.38|4.44||||||||4.44|-10.38|
90956284|NCT02480153|181792116|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Confidence interval (CIs) calculated by the score statistic method were used for the inference of the equivalence for ACR20 at Week 12. Therapeutic equivalence could be established if 2-sided 90% CI fell within (-12%, 15%). Non-responder imputation was applied. Comparisons between treatments were computed as PF-06410293 versus Adalimumab-EU.|Week 12 ACR20 response rate difference|-2.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.25|3.28||||||||3.28|-9.25|
90956285|NCT03241225|181792184|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.59||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|8.61|||t-test, 2 sided||Mean change in EM/PROTECT group not significantly different from mean change in EM/MH group, at week 12.|Week 12||8.61|-1.43|0.16
90956286|NCT03241225|181792185|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|1.05|||t-test, 2 sided|||Domain #1, Week 12||1.05|-1.37|0.79
90956287|NCT03241225|181792185|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.38||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|3.46|||t-test, 2 sided|||Domain #2, Week 12||3.46|-0.70|0.19
90956288|NCT03241225|181792185|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.53||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.99|5.93|||t-test, 2 sided|||Domain #3, Week 12||5.93|-14.99|0.37
90956289|NCT03241225|181792185|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.24||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.75|-0.73|||t-test, 2 sided|||Domain #4, Week 12||-0.73|-9.75|0.026
90956290|NCT03241225|181792185|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.51|2.27|||t-test, 2 sided|||Domain #5, Week 12||2.27|-3.51|0.66
90956291|NCT03241225|181792186|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|1.66|||t-test, 2 sided|||Domain #1, Week 12||1.66|-0.26|0.14
90956292|NCT03241225|181792186|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.78||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.011|1.55||Domain #2|t-test, 2 sided|||Domain #2, Week 12||1.55|0.011|0.047
90829440|NCT02365649|181533423|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-20.0||||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.5|-2.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders||-2.5|-37.5|0.126
90956293|NCT03241225|181792186|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.65||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|1.64|||t-test, 2 sided|||Domain #3, Week 12||1.64|-0.34|0.18
90956294|NCT00852540|181792187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|56.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.5|68.4|||||The estimated value is the percentage of participants achieving clinical response. Confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity.|||68.4|45.5|
90956295|NCT00852540|181792187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|84.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|72.6|95.8|||||The estimated value is the percentage of participants achieving clinical response. Confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity.|||95.8|72.6|
90956296|NCT00435591|181792205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.83||||||"Aggregated data were used to determine differences between groups. Statistical analysis is relevant to the aggregated data of all rows except the no assessment row."||0.83|-0.37|
90956297|NCT01346475|181792274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incident Risk Ratio|0.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.66|||Incident risk ratio|The model is adjusted for period effects.||This study had 80% power to detect a 50% reduction in HSV genital shedding rates for high-dose valacyclovir compared to standard dose valacyclovir.||0.66|0.44|<0.001
90956298|NCT00558259|181792281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001||95.0|0.02|0.25|||Regression, Cox|||Dabigatran vs placebo||0.25|0.02|<0.0001
90956299|NCT00558259|181792282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001||95.0|0.03|0.27|||Regression, Cox|||Dabigatran vs placebo||0.27|0.03|<0.0001
90956300|NCT00558259|181792283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.0001
90956301|NCT00558259|181792283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants with events|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|1.06|||||The confidence interval (Clopper-Pearson method) was calculated for the percentage of participants experiencing DVT in Dabigatran group.|||1.06|0.04|
90956302|NCT00558259|181792283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants with events|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.21|5.17|||||The confidence interval (Clopper-Pearson method) was calculated for the percentage of participants experiencing DVT in placebo group.|||5.17|2.21|
90956303|NCT00558259|181792284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004|||||||Fisher Exact|||Dabigatran vs. Placebo||||0.0004
91083022|NCT00978341|182050410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.491||0.3624||95.0|-0.68|1.64|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline); Day 8: 5 hours post-dose.||1.64|-0.68|0.3624
91083023|NCT00978341|182050410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.461||0.3163||95.0|-0.52|1.49|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline); Day 8: 6 hours post-dose.||1.49|-0.52|0.3163
91083024|NCT00978341|182050411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.738||0.5919||95.0|-16.26|27.04|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline); Day 1.||27.04|-16.26|0.5919
91083025|NCT00978341|182050411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.603||0.3981||95.0|-17.7|42.87|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline); Day 8: pre-dose.||42.87|-17.70|0.3981
91083026|NCT00978341|182050411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.123||0.8314||95.0|-24.0|29.28|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline); Day 8: 4 hours post-dose.||29.28|-24.00|0.8314
91083027|NCT00978341|182050412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054||0.7569||95.0|-0.14|0.1|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline); Day 1: 2 hours post-dose.||0.10|-0.14|0.7569
91083028|NCT00978341|182050412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.4814||95.0|-0.26|0.13|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline); Day 1: 4 hours post-dose.||0.13|-0.26|0.4814
91083029|NCT00978341|182050412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.143||0.6222||95.0|-0.37|0.23|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline); Day 1: 6 hours post-dose.||0.23|-0.37|0.6222
91083030|NCT00978341|182050412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.113||0.3035||95.0|-0.35|0.12|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline); Day 8: pre-dose.||0.12|-0.35|0.3035
91083031|NCT00978341|182050412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.122||0.1881||95.0|-0.42|0.09|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline); Day 8: 2 hours post-dose.||0.09|-0.42|0.1881
91083032|NCT00978341|182050412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.072||0.3159||95.0|-0.09|0.24|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline); Day 8: 4 hours post-dose.||0.24|-0.09|0.3159
91083033|NCT00978341|182050412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.103||0.8203||95.0|-0.22|0.27|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline); Day 8: 6 hours post-dose.||0.27|-0.22|0.8203
91083034|NCT03035916|182050415|OTHER|||||||0.454|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of norepinephrine(NE) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control. This Statistical Analysis applied to Baseline row."||||0.454
91083035|NCT03035916|182050415|OTHER|||||||0.402|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of norepinephrine(NE) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control. This Statistical Analysis applied to Baseline row."||||0.402
91083036|NCT03035916|182050415|OTHER|||||||0.901|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of norepinephrine(NE) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control. This Statistical Analysis applied to Baseline row."||||0.901
91083037|NCT03035916|182050415|OTHER|||||||0.54|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of norepinephrine(NE) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control. This Statistical Analysis applied to 0 hour after surgery row."||||0.540
91083038|NCT03035916|182050415|OTHER|||||||0.523|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of norepinephrine(NE) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control. This Statistical Analysis applied to 0 hour after surgery row."||||0.523
91083039|NCT03035916|182050415|OTHER|||||||0.26|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of norepinephrine(NE) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control. This Statistical Analysis applied to 0 hour after surgery row."||||0.260
91083040|NCT03035916|182050415|OTHER|||||||0.139|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of norepinephrine(NE) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control. This Statistical Analysis applied to 6 hours after surgery row."||||0.139
91083041|NCT03035916|182050415|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of norepinephrine(NE) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control. This Statistical Analysis applied to 6 hours after surgery row."||||0.001
91083042|NCT03035916|182050415|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of norepinephrine(NE) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control. This Statistical Analysis applied to 6 hours after surgery row."||||0.001
91083043|NCT03035916|182050415|OTHER|||||||0.464|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of norepinephrine(NE) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control. This Statistical Analysis applied to 24 hours after surgery row."||||0.464
91083044|NCT03035916|182050415|OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of norepinephrine(NE) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control. This Statistical Analysis applied to 24 hours after surgery row."||||0.007
91083045|NCT03035916|182050415|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of norepinephrine(NE) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control. This Statistical Analysis applied to 24 hours after surgery row."||||0.001
91083046|NCT03035916|182050415|OTHER|||||||0.411|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of norepinephrine(NE) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control. This Statistical Analysis applied to 48 hours after surgery row."||||0.411
91083047|NCT03035916|182050415|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of norepinephrine(NE) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control. This Statistical Analysis applied to 48 hours after surgery row."||||0.001
90956304|NCT00558259|181792284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants with events|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.82|||||The confidence interval (Clopper-Pearson method) was calculated for the percentage of participants experiencing PE in Dabigatran group.|||0.82|0.00|
90956305|NCT00558259|181792284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants with events|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|3.52|||||The confidence interval (Clopper-Pearson method) was calculated for the percentage of participants experiencing PE in placebo group.|||3.52|1.16|
91083048|NCT03035916|182050415|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of norepinephrine(NE) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control. This Statistical Analysis applied to 48 hours after surgery row."||||0.001
90956306|NCT00558259|181792285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2428|||||||Fisher Exact|||Dabigatran vs. Placebo||||0.2428
90956307|NCT00558259|181792285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants with events|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.54|||||The confidence interval (Clopper-Pearson method) was calculated for the percentage of participants with unexplained death in Dabigatran group.|||0.54|0.00|
90956308|NCT00558259|181792285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants with events|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|1.09|||||The confidence interval (Clopper-Pearson method) was calculated for the percentage of participants with unexplained death in placebo group.|||1.09|0.04|
90956309|NCT00558259|181792286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4998||||||As the Cox model did not converge due to too few events, hazard ratios are not estimable.|Fisher Exact|||Dabigatran vs. Placebo - Analysis of time to first occurrence of an MBE during the treatment period - FAS - as treated.||||0.4998
90956310|NCT00558259|181792286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants with events|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|1.05|||||The confidence interval (Clopper-Pearson method) was calculated for the percentage of participants experiencing MBE in Dabigatran group.|||1.05|0.04|
90956311|NCT00558259|181792286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants with events|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.56|||||The confidence interval (Clopper-Pearson method) was calculated for the percentage of participants experiencing MBE in placebo group.|||0.56|0.00|
90956312|NCT00558259|181792286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|5.6|||Regression, Cox|||Dabigatran vs. Placebo- Analysis of time to first occurrence of a MBE or CRBE during the treatment period - FAS - as treated.||5.60|1.52|0.0013
90956313|NCT00558259|181792286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|2.68|||Regression, Cox|||Dabigatran vs. Placebo- Analysis of time to first occurrence of any bleeding event during the treatment period - FAS - as treated||2.68|1.23|0.0027
90956314|NCT00682890|181792399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||ANOVA|||P value on change at 3 months for placebo group||||0.63
90956315|NCT00682890|181792399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.42
90956316|NCT00682890|181792400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.51
90956317|NCT00682890|181792400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.03
90956318|NCT03028220|181792401|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.01
91083049|NCT03035916|182050416|OTHER|||||||0.412|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of epinephrine (E) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control. This Statistical Analysis applied to Baseline row."||||0.412
91083050|NCT03035916|182050416|OTHER|||||||0.592|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of epinephrine (E) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control. This Statistical Analysis applied to Baseline row."||||0.592
90956319|NCT03028220|181792402|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
90956320|NCT03028220|181792403|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
90956321|NCT03028220|181792404|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.00
90956322|NCT03028220|181792405|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1
90956323|NCT03028220|181792406|OTHER|||||||0.82|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.820
90956324|NCT03028220|181792407|OTHER|||||||0.82|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.820
90956325|NCT03028220|181792408|OTHER|||||||0.57|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.570
90956326|NCT03028220|181792409|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
90956327|NCT03028220|181792410|OTHER|||||||0.91|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.910
90956328|NCT03028220|181792411|OTHER|||||||0.46|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.460
90956329|NCT03028220|181792412|OTHER|||||||0.191|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.191
90956330|NCT00141219|181792413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.115||||0.289||95.0|0.785|1.583||All statistical testing was 2-sided and was conducted at the 5% level of significance.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value in above table was from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test comparing Pregabalin and Placebo adjusted for center.|RR estimates relative responder rate between Pregabalin and Placebo (the ratio of the former responder rate to the latter). Estimated RR was center-adjusted ie, assumed common RR in all centers, then a weighted average of center specific RRs computed|Null hypothesis of no treatment difference in each of the centers.||1.583|0.785|0.289
90956331|NCT00141219|181792414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.644||||0.041||95.0|0.915|2.954||All statistical testing was 2-sided and was conducted at the 5% level of significance.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value in above table was from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test comparing Pregabalin and Placebo adjusted for center.|RR estimates relative responder rate between Pregabalin and Placebo (the ratio of the former responder rate to the latter). Estimated RR was center-adjusted ie, assumed common RR in all centers, then a weighted average of center specific RRs computed|Null hypothesis of no treatment difference in each of the centers.||2.954|0.915|0.041
90958879|NCT01052103|181797809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|0.0||||0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|4.3||P-value is for standing systolic BP.|Type 3 Sums of Squares|||Changes from baseline to all post-baseline visits were analyzed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based MMRM. Model terms included fixed class effects for visit, investigative site, treatment, SOC type, baseline positive symptom stratum, and treatment-by-visit interaction as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline measurement and baseline-by-visit interaction.||4.3|-4.3|0.999
91083051|NCT03035916|182050416|OTHER|||||||0.796|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of epinephrine (E) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control. This Statistical Analysis applied to Baseline row."||||0.796
90956332|NCT00141219|181792415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.252||0.049||95.0|-1.0|0.0||All statistical testing was 2-sided and was conducted at the 5% level of significance.|General Linear Model|Estimated from the general linear model with treatment and center fitted as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||Null hypotheses stated there was no difference in pregabalin and placebo in the primary endpoint versus the alternative that there was. The target sample size was 234 subjects (156 and 78 respectively pregabalin vs placebo using a 2:1 ratio). The calculations assumed a 2-sided comparison at 0.05 alpha, 80% power and 3% dropout. Also, a treatment difference of 1 point and a standard deviation for endpoint mean pain scores of 2.5 were assumed based on previous studies.||-0.00|-1.00|0.049
90956333|NCT00141219|181792415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.729||95.0||||Interaction p-value based on adding interaction term to the main model.|General Linear Model|"In supportive model 1, a treatment by center independent variable added to the main model."||This was a supportive analysis of the primary endpoint to determine if the main results were generalizable across centers.||||0.729
90956334|NCT00141219|181792415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.979||95.0||||Interaction p-value based on adding interaction term to the main model.|General Linear Model|"In supportive model 2, a treatment by baseline mean pain independent variable added to the main model."||This was a supportive analysis of the primary endpoint to determine if the main results were generalizable across different baseline values.||||0.979
90956335|NCT00141219|181792416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.267||0.077||95.0|-1.0|0.05||All statistical testing was 2-sided and was conducted at the 5% level of significance.|General Linear Model|Estimated from general linear model with treatment and center fitted as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||"Endpoint Mean Pain Score~Pregabalin minus Placebo"||0.05|-1.00|0.077
90956336|NCT00141219|181792417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.186||0.042||95.0|-0.75|-0.01||All statistical testing was 2-sided and was conducted at the 5% level of significance.|Linear Mixed Model|Estimated from a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center, and treatment by week interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||"Mean Pain Score Weeks 1 to 8~Overall Comparison (8-week average)~Pregabalin minus Placebo"||-0.01|-0.75|0.042
90956337|NCT00141219|181792417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.071||95.0|-0.79|0.03||All statistical testing was 2-sided and was conducted at the 5% level of significance.|Linear Mixed Model|Estimated from a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center and treatment by week interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||"Week 1 Mean Pain Score~Pregabalin minus Placebo"||0.03|-0.79|0.071
90956338|NCT00141219|181792417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.212||0.149||95.0|-0.72|0.11||All statistical testing was 2-sided and was conducted at the 5% level of significance.|Linear Mixed Model|Estimated from a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center and treatment by week interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||"Week 2 Mean Pain Score~Pregabalin minus Placebo"||0.11|-0.72|0.149
90956339|NCT00141219|181792417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.213||0.057||95.0|-0.82|0.01||All statistical testing was 2-sided and was conducted at the 5% level of significance.|Linear Mixed Model|Estimated from a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center and treatment by week interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||"Week 3 Mean Pain Score~Pregabalin minus Placebo"||0.01|-0.82|0.057
90956340|NCT00141219|181792417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.215||0.044||95.0|-0.85|-0.01||All statistical testing was 2-sided and was conducted at the 5% level of significance.|Linear Mixed Model|Estimated from a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center and treatment by week interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||"Week 4 Mean Pain Score~Pregabalin minus Placebo"||-0.01|-0.85|0.044
90956341|NCT00141219|181792417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.216||0.051||95.0|-0.85|0.0||All statistical testing was 2-sided and was conducted at the 5% level of significance.|Linear Mixed Model|Estimated from a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center and treatment by week interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||"Week 5 Mean Pain Score~Pregabalin minus Placebo"||0.00|-0.85|0.051
90956342|NCT00141219|181792417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.216||0.178||95.0|-0.72|0.13||All statistical testing was 2-sided and was conducted at the 5% level of significance.|Linear Mixed Model|Estimated from a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center and treatment by week interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||"Week 6 Mean Pain Score~Pregabalin minus Placebo"||0.13|-0.72|0.178
90956343|NCT00141219|181792417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.218||0.104||95.0|-0.78|0.07||All statistical testing was 2-sided and was conducted at the 5% level of significance.|Linear Mixed Model|Estimated from a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center and treatment by week interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||"Week 7 Mean Pain Score~Pregabalin minus Placebo"||0.07|-0.78|0.104
90956344|NCT00141219|181792417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.218||0.039||95.0|-0.88|-0.02||All statistical testing was 2-sided and was conducted at the 5% level of significance.|Linear Mixed Model|Estimated from a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center and treatment by week interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||"Week 8 Mean Pain Score~Pregabalin minus Placebo"||-0.02|-0.88|0.039
90959064|NCT01620255|181798207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.32||||0.0073|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.511|-0.123|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 22.5 mg vs placebo, Rectal Bleeding, W12||-0.123|-0.511|0.0073
91032350|NCT01706926|181949191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.608||0.463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|4.35|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including terms for treatment group, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Differences \>0 favored mavrilimumab.|||4.35|-1.99|0.463
91083052|NCT03035916|182050416|OTHER|||||||0.576|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of epinephrine (E) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control. This Statistical Analysis applied to 0 hour after surgery row."||||0.576
91018045|NCT03692078|181918918|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.952|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.317|-2.587|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-2.587|-3.317|<.0001
91018046|NCT03692078|181918918|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.066|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.719|2.413|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||2.413|1.719|<.0001
91018047|NCT03692078|181918918|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.099|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.748|2.449|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||2.449|1.748|<.0001
91018048|NCT03692078|181918918|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.129|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.779|2.478|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||2.478|1.779|<.0001
91018049|NCT03692078|181918918|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.107|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.756|2.459|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||2.459|1.756|<.0001
91018050|NCT03692078|181918918|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.18||||0.7678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.569|0.209|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.209|-0.569|0.7678
91018051|NCT03692078|181918918|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.319||||0.1691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.711|0.073|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.073|-0.711|0.1691
91018052|NCT03692078|181918918|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.224||||0.5178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.606|0.158|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.158|-0.606|0.5178
91032351|NCT01706926|181949191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|2.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.574||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|5.37|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including terms for treatment group, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Differences \>0 favored mavrilimumab.|||5.37|-0.83|0.151
91032352|NCT01706926|181949191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|3.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.578||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|7.02|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including terms for treatment group, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Differences \>0 favored mavrilimumab.|||7.02|0.81|0.014
91018053|NCT03692078|181918918|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.369||||0.0699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.757|0.018|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.018|-0.757|0.0699
91018054|NCT03692078|181918920|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|6.177|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.062|6.292|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||6.292|6.062|<.0001
91018055|NCT03692078|181918920|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|6.197|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.082|6.312|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||6.312|6.082|<.0001
91018056|NCT03692078|181918920|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|5.798|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.69|5.906|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||5.906|5.690|<.0001
91018057|NCT03692078|181918920|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|5.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.71|5.93|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||5.930|5.710|<.0001
91018058|NCT03692078|181918920|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|5.863|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.753|5.974|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||5.974|5.753|<.0001
91018059|NCT03692078|181918920|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|5.816|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.706|5.927|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||5.927|5.706|<.0001
91018060|NCT03692078|181918920|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|4.947|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.809|5.084|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||5.084|4.809|<.0001
91032353|NCT00722124|181949197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.615||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|1 sided||Data were compared between treatment groups using Fisher's Exact test.||||0.615
91032354|NCT00722124|181949197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.826||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|1 sided||Data were compared between treatment groups using Fisher's Exact test.||||0.826
91083053|NCT03035916|182050416|OTHER|||||||0.427|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of epinephrine (E) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control. This Statistical Analysis applied to 0 hour after surgery row."||||0.427
91083054|NCT03035916|182050416|OTHER|||||||0.201|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of epinephrine (E) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control. This Statistical Analysis applied to 0 hour after surgery row."||||0.201
91018061|NCT03692078|181918920|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|4.913|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.774|5.052|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||5.052|4.774|<.0001
91018062|NCT03692078|181918920|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|4.862|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.727|4.998|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||4.998|4.727|<.0001
91018063|NCT03692078|181918920|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|4.938|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.799|5.076|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||5.076|4.799|<.0001
91018064|NCT03692078|181918920|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|4.826|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.693|4.959|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||4.959|4.693|<.0001
91018065|NCT03692078|181918920|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|4.902|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.767|5.037|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||5.037|4.767|<.0001
91018066|NCT03692078|181918920|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.379|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.602|-0.156|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.156|-0.602|<.0001
91018067|NCT03692078|181918920|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.376|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.601|-0.152|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.152|-0.601|<.0001
91018068|NCT03692078|181918920|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.314||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.537|-0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.090|-0.537|0.0014
91018069|NCT03692078|181918920|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.381|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.604|-0.157|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.157|-0.604|<.0001
91018070|NCT03692078|181918920|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.484|-0.977|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.977|-1.484|<.0001
91018071|NCT03692078|181918920|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.284|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.539|-1.029|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-1.029|-1.539|<.0001
91018072|NCT03692078|181918920|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.315|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.564|-1.065|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-1.065|-1.564|<.0001
91018073|NCT03692078|181918920|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.259|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.512|-1.006|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-1.006|-1.512|<.0001
91018074|NCT03692078|181918920|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.972|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.732|1.211|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||1.211|0.732|<.0001
91018075|NCT03692078|181918920|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.918|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.676|1.161|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||1.161|0.676|<.0001
91018076|NCT03692078|181918920|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.037|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.797|1.278|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||1.278|0.797|<.0001
91018077|NCT03692078|181918920|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.914|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.672|1.156|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||1.156|0.672|<.0001
91083055|NCT03035916|182050416|OTHER|||||||0.872|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of epinephrine (E) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control. This Statistical Analysis applied to 6 hours after surgery row."||||0.872
91083056|NCT03035916|182050416|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of epinephrine (E) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control. This Statistical Analysis applied to 6 hours after surgery row."||||0.001
91083057|NCT03035916|182050416|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of epinephrine (E) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control. This Statistical Analysis applied to 6 hours after surgery row."||||0.001
91083058|NCT03035916|182050416|OTHER|||||||0.165|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of epinephrine (E) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control. This Statistical Analysis applied to 24 hours after surgery row."||||0.165
90959065|NCT01620255|181798207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.24||||0.0413|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.439|-0.047|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 75 mg vs placebo, Rectal Bleeding, W12||-0.047|-0.439|0.0413
90959066|NCT01620255|181798207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.4||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.602|-0.206|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 225 mg vs placebo, Rectal Bleeding, W12||-0.206|-0.602|0.0008
90959067|NCT01620255|181798207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.19||||0.1862|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.421|0.046|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 7.5 mg vs placebo, PGA, W4||0.046|-0.421|0.1862
90959068|NCT01620255|181798207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.23||||0.0998|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.455|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 22.5 mg vs placebo, PGA, W4||-0.000|-0.455|0.0998
90959069|NCT01620255|181798207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.22||||0.1085|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.453|0.006|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 75 mg vs placebo, PGA, W4||0.006|-0.453|0.1085
90959070|NCT01620255|181798207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.14||||0.3161|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.372|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 225 mg vs placebo, PGA, W4||0.090|-0.372|0.3161
90959071|NCT01620255|181798207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.1||||0.4962|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.328|0.136|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 7.5 mg vs placebo, PGA, W8||0.136|-0.328|0.4962
90959072|NCT01620255|181798207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.29||||0.0371|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.512|-0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 22.5 mg vs placebo, PGA, W8||-0.060|-0.512|0.0371
90959073|NCT01620255|181798207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.21||||0.1212|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.441|0.013|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 75 mg vs placebo, PGA, W8||0.013|-0.441|0.1212
90959074|NCT01620255|181798207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.18||||0.187|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.41|0.045|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 225 mg vs placebo, PGA, W8||0.045|-0.410|0.1870
90959075|NCT01620255|181798207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.23||||0.1133|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.459|0.009|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 7.5 mg vs placebo, PGA, W12||0.009|-0.459|0.1133
90959076|NCT01620255|181798207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.43||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.653|-0.198|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 22.5 mg vs placebo, PGA, W12||-0.198|-0.653|0.0022
90959077|NCT01620255|181798207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.25||||0.0788|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.475|-0.016|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 75 mg vs placebo, PGA, W12||-0.016|-0.475|0.0788
90959078|NCT01620255|181798207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.25||||0.0717|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.485|-0.022|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 225 mg vs placebo, PGA, W12||-0.022|-0.485|0.0717
90959079|NCT01620255|181798208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.08||||0.5406|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.286|0.131|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with model terms: treatment group, baseline, status of anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 7.5 mg vs placebo||0.131|-0.286|0.5406
90959080|NCT01620255|181798208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.42||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.628|-0.221|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with model terms: treatment group, baseline, status of anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 22.5 mg vs placebo||-0.221|-0.628|0.0007
90959081|NCT01620255|181798208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.34||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.549|-0.137|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with model terms: treatment group, baseline, status of anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 75 mg vs placebo||-0.137|-0.549|0.0063
90959082|NCT01620255|181798208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.23||||0.0748|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.436|-0.018|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with model terms: treatment group, baseline, status of anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 225 mg vs placebo||-0.018|-0.436|0.0748
90959083|NCT01620255|181798209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-1.9||||0.9744|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-101.0|97.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 7.5 mg vs placebo, Week 4||97.14|-101.00|0.9744
90959084|NCT01620255|181798209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|74.9||||0.2023|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.77|171.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 22.5 mg vs placebo, Week 4||171.66|-21.77|0.2023
90959085|NCT01620255|181798209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|32.9||||0.5808|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-65.09|130.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 75 mg vs placebo, Week 4||130.79|-65.09|0.5808
90959086|NCT01620255|181798209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|37.6||||0.5388|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-63.12|138.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 225 mg vs placebo, Week 4||138.34|-63.12|0.5388
91018078|NCT03692078|181918920|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.121||||0.7939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.147|0.388|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.388|-0.147|0.7939
91018079|NCT03692078|181918920|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.011||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.281|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.281|-0.260|1.0000
91018080|NCT03692078|181918920|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.036||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.228|0.301|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.301|-0.228|1.0000
91018081|NCT03692078|181918920|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.036||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.233|0.305|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.305|-0.233|1.0000
91018082|NCT03692078|181918922|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|7.367|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.25|7.485|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||7.485|7.250|<.0001
91018083|NCT03692078|181918922|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|7.368|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.251|7.485|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||7.485|7.251|<.0001
91018084|NCT03692078|181918922|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|6.883|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.773|6.994|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||6.994|6.773|<.0001
91018085|NCT03692078|181918922|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|6.892|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.78|7.004|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||7.004|6.780|<.0001
91018086|NCT03692078|181918922|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|6.942|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.829|7.054|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||7.054|6.829|<.0001
91083059|NCT03035916|182050416|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of epinephrine (E) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control. This Statistical Analysis applied to 24 hours after surgery row."||||0.001
91018087|NCT03692078|181918922|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|6.896|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.784|7.008|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||7.008|6.784|<.0001
91018088|NCT03692078|181918922|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|5.879|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.739|6.019|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||6.019|5.739|<.0001
91018089|NCT03692078|181918922|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|5.804|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.662|5.946|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||5.946|5.662|<.0001
91018090|NCT03692078|181918922|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|5.916|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.778|6.054|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||6.054|5.778|<.0001
91018091|NCT03692078|181918922|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|5.917|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.775|6.058|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||6.058|5.775|<.0001
91018092|NCT03692078|181918922|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|6.017|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.881|6.153|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||6.153|5.881|<.0001
91018093|NCT03692078|181918922|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|6.012|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.874|6.149|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||6.149|5.874|<.0001
91018094|NCT03692078|181918922|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.484|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.711|-0.257|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.257|-0.711|<.0001
91032355|NCT02653664|181949245|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39||||||Statistical significance was set at p=.05|ANOVA|||Based on our prior work comparing similar interventions, assuming decreases in average pain intensity of 0.3 points (on a 0-10 scale) for ED, between 0.8 to 1.4 points for HYP, and between 0.6 to 1 for MM, with standard deviations (SD) ranging from 0.15 to 1, significance level of 0.05, and using ANOVA as the statistical method, we calculated that 80 participants per arm at immediate post-treatment would provide at least 80% power to detect between-groups differences as specified.||||.39
91032356|NCT02653664|181949246|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||Statistical significance was set at p=.05.|ANOVA|||||||.05
90829441|NCT02365649|181533424|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.0||||0.691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.8|50.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders||50.8|-30.8|0.691
91018095|NCT03692078|181918922|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.476|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.705|-0.248|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.248|-0.705|<.0001
91018096|NCT03692078|181918922|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.426|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.654|-0.198|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.198|-0.654|<.0001
91018097|NCT03692078|181918922|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.472|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.701|-0.244|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.244|-0.701|<.0001
91018098|NCT03692078|181918922|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.489|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.747|-1.23|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-1.230|-1.747|<.0001
91018099|NCT03692078|181918922|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.564|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.825|-1.304|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-1.304|-1.825|<.0001
91018100|NCT03692078|181918922|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.451|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.706|-1.197|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-1.197|-1.706|<.0001
91018101|NCT03692078|181918922|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.452|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|-1.193|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-1.193|-1.710|<.0001
91018102|NCT03692078|181918922|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.866|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.622|1.11|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||1.110|0.622|<.0001
91032357|NCT02653664|181949247|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance was set at p= .05|ANOVA|||||||<.001
91032358|NCT00485472|181949249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.36||||0.5438||95.0|-5.3|10.02|||ANCOVA|||The ANCOVA analysis includes treatment and pooled site as factors and baseline score as covariate.||10.02|-5.30|0.5438
91018103|NCT03692078|181918922|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.88|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.633|1.128|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||1.128|0.633|<.0001
91018104|NCT03692078|181918922|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.924|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.169|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||1.169|0.680|<.0001
91018105|NCT03692078|181918922|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.884|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.638|1.131|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||1.131|0.638|<.0001
91018106|NCT03692078|181918922|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.138||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.411|0.134|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.134|-0.411|0.6800
91018107|NCT03692078|181918922|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.208||||0.2371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.483|0.068|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.068|-0.483|0.2371
91018108|NCT03692078|181918922|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.101||||0.9133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.371|0.169|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.169|-0.371|0.9133
91018109|NCT03692078|181918922|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.095||||0.9432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.180|-0.370|0.9432
91018110|NCT03692078|181918924|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|4.513|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.383|4.643|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||4.643|4.383|<.0001
91032359|NCT00485472|181949250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.83||||0.2022||95.0|-2.62|12.28|||ANCOVA|||The ANCOVA analysis includes treatment and pooled site as factors and baseline score as covariate.||12.28|-2.62|0.2022
91032360|NCT00485472|181949251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.79||||0.665||95.0|-6.36|9.93|||ANCOVA|||The ANCOVA analysis includes treatment and pooled site as factors and baseline score as covariate.||9.93|-6.36|0.6650
91018111|NCT03692078|181918924|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|4.491|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.371|4.61|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||4.610|4.371|<.0001
91018112|NCT03692078|181918924|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|4.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.027|4.272|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||4.272|4.027|<.0001
91018113|NCT03692078|181918924|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|4.128|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.014|4.242|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||4.242|4.014|<.0001
91018114|NCT03692078|181918924|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|4.176|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.051|4.301|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||4.301|4.051|<.0001
91018115|NCT03692078|181918924|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|4.139|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.024|4.254|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||4.254|4.024|<.0001
91018116|NCT03692078|181918924|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.997|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.842|3.153|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||3.153|2.842|<.0001
91018117|NCT03692078|181918924|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.994|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.849|3.138|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||3.138|2.849|<.0001
91018118|NCT03692078|181918924|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|3.317|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.164|3.47|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||3.470|3.164|<.0001
91018119|NCT03692078|181918924|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|3.342|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.199|3.486|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||3.486|3.199|<.0001
91032361|NCT00485472|181949252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|10.74||||0.3445||95.0|-11.65|33.13|||ANCOVA|||The ANCOVA analysis includes treatment and pooled site as factors and baseline score as covariate.||33.13|-11.65|0.3445
91018120|NCT03692078|181918924|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|3.036|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.886|3.187|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||3.187|2.886|<.0001
91018121|NCT03692078|181918924|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|3.159|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.019|3.299|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||3.299|3.019|<.0001
91018122|NCT03692078|181918924|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.363||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.613|-0.113|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.113|-0.613|0.0008
91018123|NCT03692078|181918924|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.362||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.595|-0.129|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.129|-0.595|0.0003
91018124|NCT03692078|181918924|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.337||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.588|-0.085|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.085|-0.588|0.0026
91018125|NCT03692078|181918924|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.351||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.584|-0.118|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.118|-0.584|0.0004
91018126|NCT03692078|181918924|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.515|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-1.23|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-1.230|-1.800|<.0001
91018127|NCT03692078|181918924|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.497|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.762|-1.231|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-1.231|-1.762|<.0001
91032362|NCT00485472|181949254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.488||||0.0418||95.0|0.245|0.974|||Likelihood ratio test|||Analysis of 'response' based on a likelihood ratio test with treatment and pooled site as factors.||0.974|0.245|0.0418
91032363|NCT02055963|181949262|OTHER|||||||0.98|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.98
91032364|NCT01297348|181949307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|2.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|3.29||||||Incidence rate ratio (Lybrel/EE-20) along with corresponding 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) was reported for current users.||3.29|1.23|
91032365|NCT01297348|181949307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|2.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|22.8||||||Incidence rate ratio (Lybrel/EE-20) along with corresponding 95% CI was reported for past users.||22.80|0.39|
91032366|NCT01297348|181949307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|3.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|6.02||||||Incidence rate ratio (Lybrel/Levo-20) along with corresponding 95% CI was reported for current users.||6.02|2.02|
91032367|NCT01297348|181949307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|3.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|27.47||||||Incidence rate ratio (Lybrel/Levo-20) along with corresponding 95% CI was reported for past users.||27.47|0.34|
90959087|NCT01620255|181798209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-8.2||||0.8902|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-106.24|89.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 7.5 mg vs placebo, Week 8||89.81|-106.24|0.8902
90959088|NCT01620255|181798209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|10.2||||0.8616|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-86.14|106.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 22.5 mg vs placebo, Week 8||106.54|-86.14|0.8616
90959089|NCT01620255|181798209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-34.3||||0.5684|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-133.49|64.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 75 mg vs placebo, Week 8||64.79|-133.49|0.5684
90959090|NCT01620255|181798209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|33.8||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-64.2|131.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 225 mg vs placebo, Week 8||131.86|-64.20|0.5700
90959091|NCT01620255|181798209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-30.0||||0.6234|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-130.56|70.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 7.5 mg vs placebo, Week 12||70.57|-130.56|0.6234
90959092|NCT01620255|181798209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|36.0||||0.5474|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-62.44|134.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 22.5 mg vs placebo, Week 12||134.38|-62.44|0.5474
90959093|NCT01620255|181798209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|78.5||||0.1918|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.48|177.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 75 mg vs placebo,Week 12||177.56|-20.48|0.1918
90959094|NCT01620255|181798209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-3.0||||0.9615|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-104.88|98.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 225 mg vs placebo, Week 12||98.91|-104.88|0.9615
90959095|NCT01620255|181798210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|6.4||||0.9328|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-118.6|131.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 7.5 mg vs placebo, Week 4||131.41|-118.60|0.9328
90959096|NCT01620255|181798210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-9.8||||0.8962|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-132.91|113.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 22.5 mg vs placebo, Week 4||113.39|-132.91|0.8962
90959097|NCT01620255|181798210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|11.5||||0.8775|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-110.83|133.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 75 mg vs placebo, Week 4||133.74|-110.83|0.8775
90959098|NCT01620255|181798210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-17.0||||0.8224|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-142.02|107.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 225 mg vs placebo, Week 4||107.94|-142.02|0.8224
90959099|NCT01620255|181798210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-52.7||||0.4831|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-176.48|71.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 7.5 mg vs placebo, Week 8||71.02|-176.48|0.4831
90959100|NCT01620255|181798210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-115.2||||0.1183|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-236.63|6.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 22.5 mg vs placebo, Week 8||6.13|-236.63|0.1183
90959101|NCT01620255|181798210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-115.8||||0.1139|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-236.29|4.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 75 mg vs placebo, Week 8||4.69|-236.29|0.1139
90959102|NCT01620255|181798210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-96.4||||0.1931|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-218.17|25.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 225 mg vs placebo, Week 8||25.46|-218.17|0.1931
90959103|NCT01620255|181798210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-119.7||||0.1182|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-245.66|6.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 7.5 mg vs placebo, Week 12||6.32|-245.66|0.1182
90959104|NCT01620255|181798210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-41.7||||0.5784|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-165.34|81.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 22.5 mg vs placebo, Week 12||81.87|-165.34|0.5784
90959105|NCT01620255|181798210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-163.6||||0.0279|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-285.84|-41.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 75 mg vs placebo,Week 12||-41.29|-285.84|0.0279
90959106|NCT01620255|181798210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-123.5||||0.1053|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-249.0|1.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 225 mg vs placebo, Week 12||1.93|-249.00|0.1053
90959107|NCT01620255|181798211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-1.1||||0.8302|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.507|7.317|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 7.5 mg vs placebo, change from BL at W12||7.317|-9.507|0.8302
90959108|NCT01620255|181798211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|12.33||||0.0141|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.084|20.567|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 22.5 mg vs placebo, change from BL at W12||20.567|4.084|0.0141
91018128|NCT03692078|181918924|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.196|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.477|-0.915|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.915|-1.477|<.0001
91083060|NCT03035916|182050416|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of epinephrine (E) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control. This Statistical Analysis applied to 24 hours after surgery row."||||0.001
91083061|NCT03035916|182050416|OTHER|||||||0.305|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of epinephrine (E) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control. This Statistical Analysis applied to 48 hours after surgery row."||||0.305
90905070|NCT02886728|181677437|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.22||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and subjects being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.22|-0.35|<0.001
91018129|NCT03692078|181918924|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.148|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|-0.886|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.886|-1.410|<.0001
91018130|NCT03692078|181918924|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.113|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.844|1.382|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||1.382|0.844|<.0001
91018131|NCT03692078|181918924|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.969|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.717|1.221|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||1.221|0.717|<.0001
91018132|NCT03692078|181918924|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.139|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.869|1.41|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||1.410|0.869|<.0001
91018133|NCT03692078|181918924|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.728|1.231|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||1.231|0.728|<.0001
91018134|NCT03692078|181918924|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.039||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.262|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.262|-0.340|1.0000
91083062|NCT03035916|182050416|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of epinephrine (E) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control. This Statistical Analysis applied to 48 hours after surgery row."||||0.001
91083063|NCT03035916|182050416|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of epinephrine (E) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control. This Statistical Analysis applied to 48 hours after surgery row."||||0.001
91018135|NCT03692078|181918924|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.166||||0.5184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.447|0.115|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.115|-0.447|0.5184
91018136|NCT03692078|181918924|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.28||||0.0743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.017|0.578|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.578|-0.017|0.0743
91018137|NCT03692078|181918924|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.183||||0.3889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.095|0.462|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.462|-0.095|0.3889
91018138|NCT03692078|181918926|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|5.264|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.155|5.373|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||5.373|5.155|<.0001
91018139|NCT03692078|181918926|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|5.204|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.106|5.302|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||5.302|5.106|<.0001
91018140|NCT03692078|181918926|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|5.005|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.902|5.108|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||5.108|4.902|<.0001
91018141|NCT03692078|181918926|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|4.958|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.864|5.051|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||5.051|4.864|<.0001
91018142|NCT03692078|181918926|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|5.114|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.009|5.219|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||5.219|5.009|<.0001
91018143|NCT03692078|181918926|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|5.052|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.958|5.146|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||5.146|4.958|<.0001
91032368|NCT01297348|181949308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|2.67||||||Current user, case and matched control: Odds ratio (Lybrel/EE-20) and 95% CI were estimated using conditional logistic regression, conditional on matching factors (age, calendar time, exposure status and database).||2.67|0.85|
91083064|NCT03035916|182050417|OTHER|||||||0.673|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of cortisol (Cor) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Baseline row."||||0.673
91083065|NCT03035916|182050417|OTHER|||||||0.824|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of cortisol (Cor) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Baseline row."||||0.824
91083066|NCT03035916|182050417|OTHER|||||||0.547|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of cortisol (Cor) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Baseline row."||||0.547
91083067|NCT03035916|182050417|OTHER|||||||0.303|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of cortisol (Cor) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 0 hour after surgery row."||||0.303
91083068|NCT03035916|182050417|OTHER|||||||0.026|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of cortisol (Cor) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 0 hour after surgery row."||||0.026
91083069|NCT03035916|182050417|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of cortisol (Cor) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 0 hour after surgery row."||||0.002
91083070|NCT03035916|182050417|OTHER|||||||0.057|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of cortisol (Cor) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 6 hours after surgery row."||||0.057
91018144|NCT03692078|181918926|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|4.539|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.407|4.671|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||4.671|4.407|<.0001
91018145|NCT03692078|181918926|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|4.415|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.295|4.534|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||4.534|4.295|<.0001
91083071|NCT03035916|182050417|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of cortisol (Cor) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 6 hours after surgery row."||||0.001
91083072|NCT03035916|182050417|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of cortisol (Cor) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 6 hours after surgery row."||||0.001
91083073|NCT03035916|182050417|OTHER|||||||0.069|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of cortisol (Cor) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 24 hours after surgery row."||||0.069
91083074|NCT03035916|182050417|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of cortisol (Cor) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 24 hours after surgery row."||||0.001
91083075|NCT03035916|182050417|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of cortisol (Cor) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 24 hours after surgery row."||||0.001
91083076|NCT03035916|182050417|OTHER|||||||0.561|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of cortisol (Cor) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 48 hours after surgery row."||||0.561
91083077|NCT03035916|182050417|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of cortisol (Cor) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 48 hours after surgery row."||||0.001
91083078|NCT03035916|182050417|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of cortisol (Cor) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 48 hours after surgery row."||||0.001
91083079|NCT03035916|182050418|OTHER|||||||0.249|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of glucose (Glu) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Baseline row."||||0.249
91083080|NCT03035916|182050418|OTHER|||||||0.091|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of glucose (Glu) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Baseline row."||||0.091
91018146|NCT03692078|181918926|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|4.431|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.302|4.56|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||4.560|4.302|<.0001
91018147|NCT03692078|181918926|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|4.361|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.243|4.48|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||4.480|4.243|<.0001
91018148|NCT03692078|181918926|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|4.486|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.359|4.612|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||4.612|4.359|<.0001
91018149|NCT03692078|181918926|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|4.588|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.473|4.703|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||4.703|4.473|<.0001
91018150|NCT03692078|181918926|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.259||||0.0073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.469|-0.049|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.049|-0.469|0.0073
91018151|NCT03692078|181918926|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.246||||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.438|-0.055|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.055|-0.438|0.0041
91018152|NCT03692078|181918926|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15||||0.308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.361|0.061|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.061|-0.361|0.3080
91018153|NCT03692078|181918926|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.152||||0.1982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.343|0.039|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.039|-0.343|0.1982
91032369|NCT01297348|181949308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|6.54||||||Current user, case and matched control: Odds ratio (Lybrel/Levo-20) and 95% CI were estimated using conditional logistic regression, conditional on matching factors (age, calendar time, exposure status and database).||6.54|0.98|
91032370|NCT02495857|181949309|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|36.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.25|62.11||||||||62.11|10.25|
91032371|NCT02495857|181949310|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|36.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.25|62.11||||||||62.11|10.25|
91018154|NCT03692078|181918926|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.725|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.965|-0.486|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.486|-0.965|<.0001
91018155|NCT03692078|181918926|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.008|-0.571|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.571|-1.008|<.0001
91018156|NCT03692078|181918926|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.833|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.069|-0.597|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.597|-1.069|<.0001
91018157|NCT03692078|181918926|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.843|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.059|-0.627|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.627|-1.059|<.0001
91018158|NCT03692078|181918926|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.294|0.745|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.745|0.294|<.0001
91018159|NCT03692078|181918926|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.163|0.577|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.577|0.163|<.0001
91018160|NCT03692078|181918926|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.628|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.402|0.855|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.855|0.402|<.0001
91018161|NCT03692078|181918926|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.464|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.257|0.67|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.670|0.257|<.0001
91032372|NCT02495857|181949311|EQUIVALENCE|From baseline to week 26 visit, change in the WOMAC stiffness score was evaluated.|Mean Difference (Net)|5.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.61|8.49||||||||8.49|-13.61|
91032373|NCT01375660|181949353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.026
91032374|NCT01375660|181949354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.6
91032375|NCT01375660|181949355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.389|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.389
91032376|NCT01375660|181949356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|||||P Value for Insulinogenic Index-30 = 0.34|ANOVA|||||||0.34
90956345|NCT00141219|181792418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.186||0.044||95.0|-0.74|-0.01||All statistical testing was 2-sided and was conducted at the 5% level of significance.|General Linear Model|Estimated from general linear model with treatment and center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||"Duration Adjusted Average Change (DAAC)~Pregabalin minus Placebo"||-0.01|-0.74|0.044
90956346|NCT00141219|181792419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.272||0.018||95.0|-1.19|-0.11||All statistical testing was 2-sided and was conducted at the 5% level of significance.|General Linear Model|Estimated from general linear model with treatment and center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||"Endpoint Sleep Interference Score~Pregabalin minus Placebo"||-0.11|-1.19|0.018
90956347|NCT00141219|181792420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.226||0.024||95.0|-0.96|-0.07||All statistical testing was 2-sided and was conducted at the 5% level of significance.|Linear Mixed Model|Estimated from a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center and treatment by week interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||"Weeks 1 to 8 Mean Sleep Score~Overall Comparison (8-week average)~Pregabalin minus Placebo"||-0.07|-0.96|0.024
90956348|NCT00141219|181792420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.245||0.12||95.0|-0.86|0.1||All statistical testing was 2-sided and was conducted at the 5% level of significance.|Linear Mixed Model|Estimated from a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center and treatment by week interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||"Week 1 Sleep Interference Score~Pregabalin minus Placebo"||0.10|-0.86|0.120
90956349|NCT00141219|181792420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.246||0.041||95.0|-0.99|-0.02||All statistical testing was 2-sided and was conducted at the 5% level of significance.|Linear Mixed Model|Estimated from a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center and treatment by week interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||"Week 2 Sleep Interference Score~Pregabalin minus Placebo"||-0.02|-0.99|0.041
90956350|NCT00141219|181792420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.248||0.017||95.0|-1.07|-0.1||All statistical testing was 2-sided and was conducted at the 5% level of significance.|Linear Mixed Model|Estimated from a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center and treatment by week interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||"Week 3 Sleep Interference Score~Pregabalin minus Placebo"||-0.10|-1.07|0.017
90956351|NCT00141219|181792420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.249||0.033||95.0|-1.02|-0.04||All statistical testing was 2-sided and was conducted at the 5% level of significance.|Linear Mixed Model|Estimated from a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center and treatment by week interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||"Week 4 Sleep Interference Score~Pregabalin minus Placebo"||-0.04|-1.02|0.033
90956352|NCT00141219|181792420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.078||95.0|-0.93|0.05||All statistical testing was 2-sided and was conducted at the 5% level of significance.|Linear Mixed Model|Estimated from a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center and treatment by week interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||"Week 5 Sleep Interference Score~Pregabalin minus Placebo"||0.05|-0.93|0.078
90956353|NCT00141219|181792420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.038||95.0|-1.01|-0.03||All statistical testing was 2-sided and was conducted at the 5% level of significance.|Linear Mixed Model|Estimated from a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center and treatment by week interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||"Week 6 Sleep Interference Score~Pregabalin minus Placebo"||-0.03|-1.01|0.038
90956354|NCT00141219|181792420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.252||0.037||95.0|-1.02|-0.03||All statistical testing was 2-sided and was conducted at the 5% level of significance.|Linear Mixed Model|Estimated from a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center and treatment by week interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||"Week 7 Sleep Interference Score~Pregabalin minus Placebo"||-0.03|-1.02|0.037
90956355|NCT00141219|181792420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.252||0.015||95.0|-1.11|-0.12||All statistical testing was 2-sided and was conducted at the 5% level of significance.|Linear Mixed Model|Estimated from a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center and treatment by week interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||"Week 8 Sleep Interference Score~Pregabalin minus Placebo"||-0.12|-1.11|0.015
90956356|NCT00141219|181792421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.639||0.034||95.0|-10.82|-0.42||All statistical testing was 2-sided and was conducted at the 5% level of significance.|General Linear Model|Estimated from general linear model with treatment and center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||"Week 8 Sleep Disturbance~Pregabalin minus Placebo"||-0.42|-10.82|0.034
90956357|NCT00141219|181792422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.309||0.128||95.0|-1.47|11.58||All statistical testing was 2-sided and was conducted at the 5% level of significance.|General Linear Model|Estimated from general linear model with treatment and center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||"Week 8 Snoring Score~Pregabalin minus Placebo"||11.58|-1.47|0.128
90956358|NCT00141219|181792423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.887||0.103||95.0|-6.81|0.63||All statistical testing was 2-sided and was conducted at the 5% level of significance.|General Linear Model|Estimated from general linear model with treatment and center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||"Week 8 Awaken Short of Breath or Headache~Pregabalin minus Placebo"||0.63|-6.81|0.103
90956359|NCT00141219|181792424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.182||0.018||95.0|0.08|0.8||All statistical testing was 2-sided and was conducted at the 5% level of significance.|General Linear Model|Estimated from general linear model with treatment and center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||"Week 8 Sleep Quantity~Pregabalin minus Placebo"||0.80|0.08|0.018
90956360|NCT00141219|181792425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.504||95.0|0.67|2.24||All statistical testing was 2-sided and was conducted at the 5% level of significance.|Regression, Logistic|OR estimated from model with Optimal sleep status (Yes/No) as response variable, and treatment, baseline Optimal sleep status as explanatory variables|"The OR estimates ratio of Odds of optimal sleep between Pregabalin and Placebo (ie, the former to the latter). Odds of optimal sleep in treatment group is ratio of Probability of having optimal sleep vs Probability of Not having optimal sleep"|"Week 8 Optimal Sleep~Optimal Sleep is a binary outcome derived from Sleep Quantity (SQ): the response is YES (or 1) if SQ = 7 or 8 hours per night.~Odds ratio measured the odds of optimal sleep in pregabalin to that in placebo.~Standard Error of the Mean equals Standard Error of the Odds Ratio (OR)."||2.24|0.67|.504
90956361|NCT00141219|181792426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.796||0.571||95.0|-5.33|9.63||All statistical testing was 2-sided and was conducted at the 5% level of significance.|General Linear model|Estimated from general linear model with treatment and center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||"Week 8 Sleep Adequacy~Pregabalin minus Placebo"||9.63|-5.33|0.571
90956362|NCT00141219|181792427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.349||0.046||95.0|0.08|9.34||All statistical testing was 2-sided and was conducted at the 5% level of significance.|General Linear Model|Estimated from general linear model with treatment and center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||"Week 8 Somnolence~Pregabalin minus Placebo"||9.34|0.08|0.046
90956363|NCT00141219|181792428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.044||0.3||95.0|-6.15|1.91||All statistical testing was 2-sided and was conducted at the 5% level of significance.|General Linear Model|Estimated from general linear model with treatment and center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||"Week 8 Overall Sleep Problem~Pregabalin minus Placebo"||1.91|-6.15|0.300
90956364|NCT00141219|181792429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.026|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0325||0.429||95.0|-0.038|0.09||All statistical testing was 2-sided and was conducted at the 5% level of significance.|General Linear Model|Estimated from general linear model with treatment and center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||"Endpoint Utility Score~Pregabalin minus Placebo"||0.090|-0.038|0.429
90956365|NCT00141219|181792430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.375||0.142||95.0|-1.18|8.18||All statistical testing was 2-sided and was conducted at the 5% level of significance.|General Linear Model|Estimated from general linear model with treatment and center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||"Endpoint VAS Score~Pregabalin minus Placebo"||8.18|-1.18|0.142
90956366|NCT00141219|181792431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.409||0.038||95.0|-1.66|-0.05||All statistical testing was 2-sided and was conducted at the 5% level of significance.|General Linear Model|Estimated from general linear model with treatment and center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||"Endpoint Anxiety Score~Pregabalin minus Placebo"||-0.05|-1.66|0.038
90956367|NCT00141219|181792432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.438||0.664||95.0|-1.05|0.67||All statistical testing was 2-sided and was conducted at the 5% level of significance.|General Linear Model|Estimated from general linear model with treatment and center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||"Endpoint Depression Score~Pregabalin minus Placebo"||0.67|-1.05|0.664
90956368|NCT00141219|181792433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.473||95.0||||All statistical testing was 2-sided and was conducted at the 5% level of significance. p-value is from comparing Pregabalin versus Placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|"To apply CMH, each category is given a numerical score; the method of modified rdit used to assign numeric scores."||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test on the null hypothesis of no treatment difference in all centers. CMH test comparing Pregabalin to Placebo adjusted for center.||||0.473
90956369|NCT00141219|181792434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.119||95.0||||All statistical testing was 2-sided and was conducted at the 5% level of significance.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|"To apply CMH, each category is given a numerical score; the method of modified rdit used to assign numeric scores."||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test on the null hypothesis of no treatment difference in all centers. CMH test comparing Pregabalin to Placebo adjusted for center.||||0.119
90956370|NCT00662818|181792463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.62||||0.329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|4.25|||Regression, Logistic|Computed using a logistic regression model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age.||||4.25|0.62|0.329
90956371|NCT00662818|181792464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|3.5|||Regression, Logistic|Computed using a logistic regression model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age.||||3.50|0.59|0.420
90956372|NCT00662818|181792468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|2.85|||Regression, Logistic|Computed using a logistic regression model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age.||||2.85|0.52|0.648
90956373|NCT00662818|181792469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|2.07|||Regression, Logistic|Computed using a logistic regression model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age.||||2.07|0.31|0.647
90956374|NCT00662818|181792470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.83||||0.201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|4.6|||Regression, Logistic|Computed using a logistic regression model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age.||||4.60|0.73|0.201
90956375|NCT00662818|181792471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|3.85|||Regression, Logistic|Computed using a logistic regression model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age.||||3.85|0.47|0.579
91083081|NCT03035916|182050418|OTHER|||||||0.493|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of glucose (Glu) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Baseline row."||||0.493
90956376|NCT02842151|181792509|EQUIVALENCE|Difference in A-Constant is manifest refraction minus autorefraction. The criteria for equivalence (based on paired difference t-test) was established if the bounds of the 90% two-sided confidence interval (CI) on the difference was contained within the equivalence range (-0.15, 0.15).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.346|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.03|0.13||||||To demonstrate equivalency at Site 1, A-constant with manifest refraction was compared to A-constant with autorefraction.||0.13|-0.03|
90956377|NCT02842151|181792509|EQUIVALENCE|Difference in A-Constant is manifest refraction minus autorefraction. The criteria for equivalence (based on paired difference t-test) was established if the bounds of the 90% two-sided confidence interval (CI) on the difference was contained within the equivalence range (-0.15, 0.15).|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.595|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.21|0.07||||||To demonstrate equivalency at Site 2, A-constant with manifest refraction was compared to A-constant with autorefraction.||0.07|-0.21|
90959109|NCT01620255|181798211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|11.7||||0.0182|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.564|19.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 75 mg vs placebo, change from BL at W12||19.840|3.564|0.0182
90956378|NCT02842151|181792509|EQUIVALENCE|Difference in A-Constant is manifest refraction minus autorefraction. The criteria for equivalence (based on paired difference t-test) was established if the bounds of the 90% two-sided confidence interval (CI) on the difference was contained within the equivalence range (-0.15, 0.15).|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.34|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.22|-0.04||||||To demonstrate equivalency at Site 3, A-constant with manifest refraction was compared to A-constant with autorefraction.||-0.04|-0.22|
90956379|NCT05121246|181792567|EQUIVALENCE|CI 90% of least squares geometric means must be entirely contained within the range \[80%-125%\].||||||||||||||||PK parameters will be determined using a non-compartmental analysis method. Bioequivalence between MB05 and EU-Synagis®, between MB05 and US-Synagis® and between EU-Synagis® and US-Synagis® will be established by analysis of variance for the PK parameters AUC0-inf, and Cmax.|PK parameters for each participant will be listed and summarised by treatment using descriptive statistics.|||
90956380|NCT05121246|181792568|EQUIVALENCE|CI 90% of least squares geometric means must be entirely contained within the range \[80%-125%\].||||||||||||||||PK parameters will be determined using a non-compartmental analysis method. Bioequivalence between MB05 and EU-Synagis®, between MB05 and US-Synagis® and between EU-Synagis® and US-Synagis® will be established by analysis of variance for the PK parameters AUC0-inf, and Cmax.|PK parameters for each participant will be listed and summarised by treatment using descriptive statistics.|||
90956381|NCT00935818|181792582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|2.12|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression with covariate included for study site.||2.12|1.05|0.03
90956382|NCT00935818|181792583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.52||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|2.22|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic Regression - adjusting for study site||2.22|1.04|0.03
90956383|NCT00935818|181792584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||< 0.001
90956384|NCT00935818|181792585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.93|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression adjusted for study site||1.93|0.95|0.09
90956385|NCT00935818|181792586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.91|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic Regression adjusting for study site||1.91|0.91|0.14
90956386|NCT00935818|181792587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|2.07|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic Regression - adjusting for study site||2.07|0.93|0.11
90956387|NCT00935818|181792588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|2.05|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic Regression - adjusting for site||2.05|0.96|0.08
90956388|NCT00604825|181792630|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.75||||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|1.93||Analysis included the terms for: Treatment + Baseline + country + uterine strata.|General linear model|||Placebo vs. GSK232802 25 mg||1.93|-0.44|0.215
90956389|NCT00604825|181792630|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.21||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|2.37||Analysis included the terms for: Treatment + Baseline + country + uterine strata.|General linear model|||Placebo vs. GSK232802 75 mg||2.37|0.05|0.041
90956390|NCT00604825|181792630|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-0.92||Analysis included the terms for: Treatment + Baseline + country + uterine strata.|General linear model|||Placebo vs. Premarin 0.3 mg||-0.92|-3.20|<0.001
90956391|NCT00604825|181792631|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.15||||0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.38||Analysis included the terms for: Treatment + Baseline + country + uterine strata.|General linear model|||Placebo vs. GSK232802 25 mg||0.38|-0.08|0.202
90956392|NCT00604825|181792631|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.31||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.54||Analysis included the terms for: Treatment + Baseline + country + uterine strata.|General linear model|||Placebo vs. GSK232802 75 mg||0.54|0.08|0.008
90956393|NCT00604825|181792631|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.3||Analysis included the terms for: Treatment + Baseline + country + uterine strata.|General linear model|||Placebo vs. Premarin 0.3 mg||-0.30|-0.75|<0.001
90956394|NCT03465904|181792674|SUPERIORITY|Our power analysis indicated that a minimum of 239 patients per group was needed to provide 90% power to detect a 13.4% difference in the primary outcome, pain freedom at 2 h. Accounting for an estimated attrition rate of 20%, we aimed to enroll 299 patients per group.|||||<|0.05||||||All analyses were performed using SPSS, version 26.0 with two-sided levels of statistical significance established at p \< 0.05|Chi-squared|A Chi-square test of independent proportions was used to compare primary and secondary efficacy outcomes between groups.||Identical statistical analyses were performed for the intent-to-treat (ITT) and the per protocol (PP) populations. The ITT population consisted of all randomized patients, who received any duration of sham or verum treatment and returned completed study materials. The PP population consisted of patients who strictly met inclusion criteria and completed at least 60 min of treatment.||||<0.05
90956395|NCT05593445|181792675|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|2.41|||Chi-squared|||||2.41|0.29|0.737
90956396|NCT05593445|181792675|SUPERIORITY||response rate difference|-4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.73|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.2|20.7|||||The 95% confidence interval for the response rate difference was constructed from approximately normal distribution.|||20.7|-29.2|
90956397|NCT05593445|181792676|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean difference|-2.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14||0.0188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.05|-0.47|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||-0.47|-5.05|0.0188
90956398|NCT05593445|181792677|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean difference|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.4674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|0.91|||MMRM|||||0.91|-1.96|0.4674
90956399|NCT05593445|181792678|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.9072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.503|1.869|||Log Rank||Cox regression model was conducted to compare the difference in hazard rate.|||1.869|0.503|0.9072
90956400|NCT00910689|181792712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||Post tests consisted of 6 pair wise contrasts: The first 3 contrasts compared each of the 3 additive treatments (Trial Arms 2, 3, 4) to OAT + PL (Trial arm 1); 3 additional contrasts compared the 3 additive treatments to one another.|Mixed Models Analysis|A Bonferoni procedure was used to control the family-wise type I error for the 6 post test contrasts at .05. Adjusted p =.0083.||Omnibus Test: A mixed model with fixed effects for treatment,natural time(defined as natural log of months) and treatment-by-time interaction was used to obtain maximum likelihood estimates of missing values and to evaluate treatment effects(using the PROC MIXED procedure in SAS statistical software,version 9;www.sas.com). A significant treatment by time interaction(p \< .05, 2-tailed) was followed by post-tests (see below). Details of significant post tests are reported as separate analyses.||||< .01
90956401|NCT00910689|181792712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.57|<|0.001||95.0||||Bonferoni adjusted critical value p = .0083.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 1 and 122.||Post-test contrast. Mean difference in change.||||< .001
90956402|NCT00910689|181792712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.68|>|0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Bonferoni adjusted critical value p = .0083.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 1 and 108.||Post-test contrast. Mean difference in change.||||> .25
90956403|NCT00910689|181792712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.59|>|0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Bonferoni adjusted critical value p = .0083.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 1 and 106.||Post-test contrast. Mean difference in change.||||> .98
90956404|NCT00910689|181792712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.69|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Bonferoni adjusted critical value p = .0083.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 1 and 122.||Post-test contrast. Mean difference in change.||||< .001
90956405|NCT00910689|181792712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.61|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Bonferoni adjusted critical value p = .0083.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 1 and 120.||Post-test contrast. Mean difference in change.||||<.001
90956406|NCT00910689|181792712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.72|>|0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Bonferoni adjusted critical value p = .0083.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 1 and 106.||Post-test contrast. Mean difference in change.||||>.29
90956407|NCT00910689|181792713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||6 pair wise contrasts were conducted: The first 3 contrasts compared each of the 3 additive treatments to OAT + PL. The 3 additional contrasts compared the 3 additive treatments to one another.|Mixed Models Analysis|A Bonferoni procedure was used to control the family wise type I error for the 6 post test contrasts at .05. Adjusted p =.0083.||Omnibus test:A mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, time (defined as the natural log of months), and the treatment-by-time interaction was used to obtain maximum likelihood estimates of missing values and to evaluate treatment effects (PROC MIXED, SAS 9).When the treatment by time interaction was significant (p \< .05, 2-tailed)post-tests were conducted (see below).Details of significant post tests are reported as separate analyses.||||< .03
90956408|NCT00910689|181792713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.03|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Bonferoni adjusted critical value p = .0083.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 1 and 122.||Post-test contrast. Mean difference in change.||||< .001
90956409|NCT00910689|181792713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Bonferoni adjusted critical value p = .0083.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 1 and 122.||Post-test contrast. Mean difference in change.||||< .001
90956410|NCT00910689|181792713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Bonferoni adjusted critical value p = .0083.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 1 and 122.||Post-test contrast. Mean difference in change.||||< .001
90956411|NCT00910689|181792713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.2|>|0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Bonferoni adjusted critical value p = .0083.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 1 and 106.||Post-test contrast. Mean difference in change.||||> .02
90956412|NCT00910689|181792713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.35|>|0.79||95.0||||Bonferoni adjusted critical value p = .0083.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 1 and 108.||Post-test contrast. Mean difference in change.||||>.79
90956413|NCT00910689|181792713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.43|>|0.02||95.0||||Bonferoni adjusted critical value p = .0083.|t-test, 2 sided|||Post-test contrast. Mean difference in change.||||>.02
90956414|NCT00910689|181792714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Post tests consisted of 6 pair wise contrasts: The first 3 contrasts compared each of the 3 additive treatments (Trial Arms 2, 3, 4) to OAT + PL (Trial arm 1); three additional contrasts compared the 3 additive treatments to one another.|Mixed Models Analysis|A Bonferoni procedure controlled the familywise type I error for the 6 contrasts at .05. Adjusted p=.0083.||Omnibus test:A mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, time (defined as the natural log of months), and the treatment-by-time interaction and pretreatment Migraine Specific Quality of Life scores as covariate was used to obtain maximum likelihood estimates of missing values and to evaluate treatment effects (using the PROC MIXED procedure in SAS statistical software, version 9; www. sas.com).A significant treatment by time interaction (p \< .05, 2-tailed) was followed by post-tests||||<.005
90956415|NCT00910689|181792714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Bonferoni adjusted critical value p = .0083.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 1 and 108.||Post-test contrast. Mean difference in change.||||< .001
90956416|NCT00910689|181792714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.41|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Bonferoni adjusted critical value p = .0083.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 1 and 122.||Post-test contrast. Mean difference in change.||||< .001
90956417|NCT00910689|181792714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.67|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Bonferoni adjusted critical value p = .0083.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 1 and 106.||Post-test contrast. Mean difference in change.||||< .001
90956418|NCT00910689|181792714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.03|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Bonferoni adjusted critical value p = .0083.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 1 and 120.||Post-test contrast. Mean difference in change.||||<.001
90956419|NCT00910689|181792714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.83|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Bonferoni adjusted critical value p = .0083.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 1 and 122.||Post-test contrast. Mean difference in change.||||< .001
90956420|NCT00910689|181792714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.38|>|0.87||95.0||||Bonferoni adjusted critical value p = .0083.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 1 and 106.||Post-test contrast. Mean difference in change.||||>.87
90956421|NCT00910689|181792715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.77|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Bonferoni adjusted critical value p = .0083.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 1 and 122.||Post-test contrast. Mean difference in change.||||<.001
90956422|NCT00910689|181792715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.79|>|0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Bonferoni adjusted critical value p = .0083.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 1 and 106.||Post-test contrast. Mean difference in change.||||> .83
91032377|NCT01375660|181949357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.22
90956423|NCT00910689|181792715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.67|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Bonferoni adjusted critical value p = .0083.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 1 and 108.||Post-test contrast. Mean difference in change.||||> .05
90956424|NCT00910689|181792715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.86|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Bonferoni adjusted critical value p = .0083.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 1 and 122.||Significant post-test contrast. Mean difference in change.||||< .001
90956425|NCT00910689|181792715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.95|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Bonferoni adjusted critical value p = .0083.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 1 and 120.||Post-test contrast. Mean difference in change.||||<.001
90956426|NCT00910689|181792715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.89|>|0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Bonferoni adjusted critical value p = .0083.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 1 and 106.||Post-test contrast. Mean difference in change.||||> .20
90956427|NCT00910689|181792716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Bonferoni adjusted critical value p = .0083.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 1 and 122.||Post-test contrast. Mean difference in change.||||<.001
90956428|NCT00910689|181792716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.96|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Bonferoni adjusted critical value p = .0083.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 1 and 120.||Post-test contrast. Mean difference in change.||||<.001
90956429|NCT00910689|181792716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.69|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Bonferoni adjusted critical value p = .0083.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 1 and 122.||Post-test contrast. Mean difference in change.||||< .001
90956430|NCT00910689|181792716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.69|>|0.04||95.0||||Bonferoni adjusted critical value p = .0083.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 1 and 106.||Post-test contrast. Mean difference in change.||||>.04
90956431|NCT00910689|181792716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.34|>|0.33||95.0||||Bonerfoni adjusted critical value p = .0083.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 1 and 108.||Post-test contrast. Mean difference in change.||||>0.33
90956432|NCT00910689|181792716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.68|>|0.21||95.0||||Bonferoni adjusted critical value p = .0083.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 1 and 106.||Post-test contrast. Mean difference in change.||||>0.21
90956433|NCT00910689|181792717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Bonferoni adjusted critical value p = .0083.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 1 and 122.||Post-test contrast. Mean difference in change.||||< .001
90956434|NCT00910689|181792717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Bonferoni adjusted critical value p = .0083.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 1 and 122.||Post-test contrast. Mean difference in change.||||< .001
90956435|NCT00910689|181792717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.99|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Bonferoni adjusted critical value p = .0083.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 1 and 122.||Post-test contrast. Mean difference in change.||||< .001
90956436|NCT00910689|181792717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.85|>|0.56||95.0||||Bonferoni adjusted critical value p = .0083.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 1 and 106.||Post-test contrast. Mean difference in change.||||>0.56
90956437|NCT00910689|181792717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.45|>|0.08||95.0||||Bonferoni adjusted critical value p = .0083.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 1 and 108.||Post-test contrast. Mean difference in change.||||>0.08
90956438|NCT00910689|181792717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.83|>|0.03||95.0||||Bonferoni adjusted critical value p = .0083.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 1 and 106.||Post-test contrast. Mean difference in change.||||>0.03
90956439|NCT00645801|181792742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||A 2-sided 2 sample t test was used to compare the overall cleanliness score between the 2 treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Based on the assumption that 70% of patients using PEG plus placebo (group 2) will have good results, by allocating 100 cases in each group, we will have 84% power to detect a difference of 18% or more in the effectiveness of PEG plus lubiprostone combination (group 1) (eg, 70% in group 2 vs. 88% in group 1) at the alpha level of significancelevel of significance.||||0.05
90956440|NCT00645801|181792743|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||2 sided Cochran-Armitage trend test|||||||<0.05
90956441|NCT00645801|181792744|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
90956442|NCT00759915|181792745|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 90% confidence intervals for the ratios (test/reference) of the least squares means of the non-transformed parameters Cmax, AUClast, AUCinf, Tmax, λz, and T1/2, were calculated.|mean ratio|109.98||||||90.0|100.1|120.8|||ANOVA|log-transformation||||120.8|100.1|
90956443|NCT00759915|181792747|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 90% confidence intervals for the ratios (test/reference) of the least squares means of the non-transformed parameters Cmax, AUClast, AUCinf, Tmax, λz, and T1/2, were calculated.|mean ratio|100.91||||||90.0|96.96|105.0|||ANOVA|log-transformation||||105.0|96.96|
90956444|NCT00759915|181792748|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 90% confidence intervals for the ratios (test/reference) of the least squares means of the non-transformed parameters Cmax, AUClast, AUCinf, Tmax, λz, and T1/2, were calculated.|mean ratio|96.5||||||90.0|92.3|100.97|||ANOVA|log-transformation||||100.97|92.3|
90956445|NCT00932113|181792757|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
90956446|NCT03310268|181792770|OTHER||Difference of Least Square mean|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094||0.0476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.002|0.374|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline Schiff score as covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|||0.374|0.002|0.0476
90956447|NCT03310268|181792770|OTHER||Difference of Least Square mean|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.093||0.8411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.202|0.164|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline Schiff score as covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|||0.164|-0.202|0.8411
90956448|NCT03310268|181792770|OTHER||Difference of Least Square mean|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094||0.0298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.393|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline Schiff score as covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|||0.393|0.020|0.0298
91083082|NCT03035916|182050418|OTHER|||||||0.067|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of glucose (Glu) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 0 hour after surgery row."||||0.067
91083083|NCT03035916|182050418|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of glucose (Glu) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 0 hour after surgery row."||||0.001
91083084|NCT03035916|182050418|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of glucose (Glu) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 0 hour after surgery row."||||0.001
91083085|NCT03035916|182050418|OTHER|||||||0.079|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of glucose (Glu) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 6 hours after surgery row."||||0.079
91083086|NCT03035916|182050418|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of glucose (Glu) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 6 hours after surgery row."||||0.001
91083087|NCT03035916|182050418|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of glucose (Glu) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 6 hours after surgery row."||||0.001
91083088|NCT03035916|182050418|OTHER|||||||0.314||||||"The plasma level of glucose (Glu) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 24 hours after surgery row."|t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of glucose (Glu) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 24 hours after surgery row."||||0.314
91083089|NCT03035916|182050418|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of glucose (Glu) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 24 hours after surgery row."||||0.001
91083090|NCT03035916|182050418|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of glucose (Glu) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 24 hours after surgery row."||||0.001
91083091|NCT03035916|182050418|OTHER|||||||0.087|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of glucose (Glu) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 48 hours after surgery row."||||0.087
91083092|NCT03035916|182050418|OTHER|||||||0.023|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of glucose (Glu) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 48 hours after surgery row."||||0.023
91083093|NCT03035916|182050418|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of glucose (Glu) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 48 hours after surgery row."||||0.001
91083094|NCT03035916|182050419|OTHER|||||||0.384|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The Heart rate was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Baseline row."||||0.384
91083095|NCT03035916|182050419|OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The Heart rate was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Baseline row."||||0.530
91083096|NCT03035916|182050419|OTHER|||||||0.819|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The Heart rate was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Baseline row."||||0.819
91083097|NCT03035916|182050419|OTHER|||||||0.108|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The Heart rate was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Before induction row."||||0.108
91083098|NCT03035916|182050419|OTHER|||||||0.667|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The Heart rate was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Before induction row."||||0.667
91083099|NCT03035916|182050419|OTHER|||||||0.046|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The Heart rate was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Before induction row."||||0.046
91083100|NCT03035916|182050419|OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The Heart rate was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Induction row."||||0.006
91083101|NCT03035916|182050419|OTHER|||||||0.406|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The Heart rate was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Induction row."||||0.406
91083102|NCT03035916|182050419|OTHER|||||||0.042|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The Heart rate was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Induction row."||||0.042
91083103|NCT03035916|182050419|OTHER|||||||0.655|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The Heart rate was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Intubation row."||||0.655
91083104|NCT03035916|182050419|OTHER|||||||0.262|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The Heart rate was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Intubation row."||||0.262
91083105|NCT03035916|182050419|OTHER|||||||0.143|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The Heart rate was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Intubation row."||||0.143
91018162|NCT03692078|181918926|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.053||||0.9984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.306|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.306|-0.200|0.9984
91018163|NCT03692078|181918926|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.173||||0.2491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.405|0.058|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.058|-0.405|0.2491
91018164|NCT03692078|181918926|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.054||||0.9977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.304|0.195|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.195|-0.304|0.9977
91018165|NCT03692078|181918926|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.227||||0.0554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.456|0.003|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.003|-0.456|0.0554
91018166|NCT03692078|181918928|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|3.294|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.208|3.379|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||3.379|3.208|<.0001
91018167|NCT03692078|181918928|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|3.262|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.176|3.348|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||3.348|3.176|<.0001
91018168|NCT03692078|181918928|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|3.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.039|3.202|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||3.202|3.039|<.0001
91018169|NCT03692078|181918928|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|3.099|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.017|3.181|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||3.181|3.017|<.0001
91032378|NCT01375660|181949358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.13
91032379|NCT01375660|181949359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.869|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.869
91032380|NCT02058498|181949361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.27
91083106|NCT03035916|182050419|OTHER|||||||0.494|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The Heart rate was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Incision row."||||0.494
91083107|NCT03035916|182050419|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The Heart rate was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Incision row."||||0.001
91083108|NCT03035916|182050419|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The Heart rate was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Incision row."||||0.001
91083109|NCT03035916|182050419|OTHER|||||||0.555|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The Heart rate was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Extubation row."||||0.555
91083110|NCT03035916|182050419|OTHER|||||||0.411|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The Heart rate was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Extubation row."||||0.411
91083111|NCT03035916|182050419|OTHER|||||||0.167|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The Heart rate was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Extubation row."||||0.167
91083112|NCT03035916|182050419|OTHER|||||||0.445|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The Heart rate was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 6 hours after surgery row."||||0.445
91083113|NCT03035916|182050419|OTHER|||||||0.489|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The Heart rate was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 6 hours after surgery row."||||0.489
91083114|NCT03035916|182050419|OTHER|||||||0.159|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The Heart rate was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 6 hours after surgery row."||||0.159
91083115|NCT03035916|182050419|OTHER|||||||0.72|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The Heart rate was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 24 hours after surgery row."||||0.720
91083116|NCT03035916|182050419|OTHER|||||||0.026|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The Heart rate was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 24 hours after surgery row."||||0.026
91083117|NCT03035916|182050419|OTHER|||||||0.011|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The Heart rate was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 24 hours after surgery row."||||0.011
91083118|NCT03035916|182050419|OTHER|||||||0.763|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The Heart rate was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 48 hours after surgery row."||||0.763
91083119|NCT03035916|182050419|OTHER|||||||0.187|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The Heart rate was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 48 hours after surgery row."||||0.187
91083120|NCT03035916|182050419|OTHER|||||||0.112|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The Heart rate was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 48 hours after surgery row."||||0.112
91083121|NCT03035916|182050420|OTHER|||||||0.645|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The mean arterial pressure(MAP) was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Baseline row."||||0.645
91083122|NCT03035916|182050420|OTHER|||||||0.645|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The mean arterial pressure(MAP) was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Baseline row."||||0.645
91083123|NCT03035916|182050420|OTHER|||||||0.314|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The mean arterial pressure(MAP) was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Baseline row."||||0.314
91083124|NCT03035916|182050420|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The mean arterial pressure(MAP) was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Before induction row."||||0.003
91083125|NCT03035916|182050420|OTHER|||||||0.367|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The mean arterial pressure(MAP) was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Before induction row."||||0.367
91083126|NCT03035916|182050420|OTHER|||||||0.031|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The mean arterial pressure(MAP) was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Before induction row."||||0.031
91083127|NCT03035916|182050420|OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The mean arterial pressure(MAP) was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Induction row."||||0.009
91083128|NCT03035916|182050420|OTHER|||||||0.873|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The mean arterial pressure(MAP) was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Induction row."||||0.873
91083129|NCT03035916|182050420|OTHER|||||||0.026|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The mean arterial pressure(MAP) was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Induction row."||||0.026
91083130|NCT03035916|182050420|OTHER|||||||0.411|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The mean arterial pressure(MAP) was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Intubation row."||||0.411
91083131|NCT03035916|182050420|OTHER|||||||0.787|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The mean arterial pressure(MAP) was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Intubation row."||||0.787
91083132|NCT03035916|182050420|OTHER|||||||0.306|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The mean arterial pressure(MAP) was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Intubation row."||||0.306
91083133|NCT03035916|182050420|OTHER|||||||0.921|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The mean arterial pressure(MAP) was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Incision row."||||0.921
91083134|NCT03035916|182050420|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The mean arterial pressure(MAP) was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Incision row."||||0.001
90956449|NCT03310268|181792771|OTHER||Difference of Least Square mean|-7.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.649||0.1232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.376|1.975|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline Schiff stratification as factors and baseline tactile threshold as a covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|||1.975|-16.376|0.1232
90956450|NCT03310268|181792771|OTHER||Difference of Least Square mean|-4.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.588||0.3793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.099|5.011|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline Schiff stratification as factors and baseline tactile threshold as a covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|||5.011|-13.099|0.3793
90956451|NCT03310268|181792771|OTHER||Difference of Least Square mean|-3.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.648||0.4979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.33|6.017|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline Schiff stratification as factors and baseline tactile threshold as a covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|||6.017|-12.330|0.4979
90956452|NCT04797650|181792772|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.37||P-value was calculated by Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||||0.37|0.25|<0.0001
90956453|NCT04797650|181792772|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.45||P-value was calculated by Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||||0.45|0.27|<0.0001
90956454|NCT04797650|181792773|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.46||P-value was calculated by Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 12||0.46|0.31|<0.0001
90956455|NCT04797650|181792773|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.45||P-value was calculated by Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 12||0.45|0.26|<0.0001
90956456|NCT04797650|181792773|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.45||P-value was calculated by Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 16||0.45|0.30|<0.0001
90956457|NCT04797650|181792773|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.5||P-value was calculated by Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 16||0.50|0.31|<0.0001
90956458|NCT04797650|181792773|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.46||P-value was calculated by Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 20||0.46|0.32|<0.0001
90956459|NCT04797650|181792773|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.59||P-value was calculated by Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 20||0.59|0.41|<0.0001
90956460|NCT04797650|181792773|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.52||P-value was calculated by Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 24||0.52|0.38|<0.0001
90956461|NCT04797650|181792773|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.58||P-value was calculated by Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 24||0.58|0.40|<0.0001
90956462|NCT04797650|181792774|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.004||0.3175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.01||P-value was calculated by Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 4||0.01|-0.00|0.3175
90956463|NCT04797650|181792774|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.05||P-value was calculated by Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 8||0.05|-0.00|0.1020
90956464|NCT04797650|181792774|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016||0.3103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.05||P-value was calculated by Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 8||0.05|-0.01|0.3103
90956465|NCT04797650|181792774|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.14||P-value was calculated by Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 12||0.14|0.06|<0.0001
90956466|NCT04797650|181792774|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.17||P-value was calculated by Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 12||0.17|0.06|<0.0001
90956467|NCT04797650|181792774|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.24||P-value was calculated by Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 16||0.24|0.14|<0.0001
91032381|NCT04605094|181949365|OTHER||Difference in response rate|-8.62||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.94|0.71|||Regression, Logistic|||"Treatment difference in IGA responders~Estimates were from a logistic regression model that included treatment group, age as recorded on electronic case report form (eCRF) at screening (\>=12 to \<18 years; \>=18 years), blood eosinophils as recorded on eCRF at screening (\<300 cells/microliters \[μL\]; \>=300 cells/μL) and baseline value of IGA score."||0.71|-17.94|0.080
91018170|NCT03692078|181918928|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|3.182|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|3.264|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||3.264|3.100|<.0001
91018171|NCT03692078|181918928|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|3.149|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.066|3.231|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||3.231|3.066|<.0001
91018172|NCT03692078|181918928|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.777|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.673|2.881|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||2.881|2.673|<.0001
91018173|NCT03692078|181918928|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.651|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.546|2.756|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||2.756|2.546|<.0001
91018174|NCT03692078|181918928|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.618|2.823|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||2.823|2.618|<.0001
91018175|NCT03692078|181918928|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.649|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.544|2.753|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||2.753|2.544|<.0001
91018176|NCT03692078|181918928|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.751|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.651|2.851|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||2.851|2.651|<.0001
91018177|NCT03692078|181918928|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.819|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.718|2.919|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||2.919|2.718|<.0001
91018178|NCT03692078|181918928|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.173||||0.0377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|-0.006|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.006|-0.340|0.0377
91083135|NCT03035916|182050420|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The mean arterial pressure(MAP) was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Incision row."||||0.001
91018179|NCT03692078|181918928|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.163||||0.0643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.331|0.006|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.006|-0.331|0.0643
91018180|NCT03692078|181918928|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.112||||0.3875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.279|0.056|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.056|-0.279|0.3875
91018181|NCT03692078|181918928|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.113||||0.3725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.054|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.054|-0.280|0.3725
91018182|NCT03692078|181918928|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.516|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.706|-0.327|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.327|-0.706|<.0001
91018183|NCT03692078|181918928|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.611|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.802|-0.42|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.420|-0.802|<.0001
91018184|NCT03692078|181918928|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.573|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.386|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.386|-0.760|<.0001
91018185|NCT03692078|181918928|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.613|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.803|-0.423|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.423|-0.803|<.0001
91018186|NCT03692078|181918928|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.369|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.548|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.548|0.190|<.0001
91018187|NCT03692078|181918928|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.28||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.099|0.462|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.462|0.099|0.0003
91083136|NCT03035916|182050420|OTHER|||||||0.555|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The mean arterial pressure(MAP) was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Extubation row."||||0.555
91018188|NCT03692078|181918928|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.431|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.251|0.611|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.611|0.251|<.0001
91018189|NCT03692078|181918928|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.149|0.511|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.511|0.149|<.0001
91018190|NCT03692078|181918928|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.026||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.176|0.228|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.228|-0.176|1.0000
91018191|NCT03692078|181918928|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.168||||0.1589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.371|0.036|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.036|-0.371|0.1589
91018192|NCT03692078|181918928|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.031||||0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.168|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.168|-0.230|0.9999
91018193|NCT03692078|181918928|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17||||0.1453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.372|0.032|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.032|-0.372|0.1453
91018194|NCT03692078|181918930|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.085|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.788|1.382|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||1.382|0.788|<.0001
91018195|NCT03692078|181918930|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.104|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.807|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||1.400|0.807|<.0001
91083137|NCT03035916|182050420|OTHER|||||||0.058|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The mean arterial pressure(MAP) was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Extubation row."||||0.058
91083138|NCT03035916|182050420|OTHER|||||||0.166|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The mean arterial pressure(MAP) was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Extubation row."||||0.166
91083139|NCT03035916|182050420|OTHER|||||||0.288|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The mean arterial pressure(MAP) was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 6 hours after surgery row."||||0.288
91083140|NCT03035916|182050420|OTHER|||||||0.299|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The mean arterial pressure(MAP) was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 6 hours after surgery row."||||0.299
91018196|NCT03692078|181918930|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.606|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.326|0.886|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.886|0.326|<.0001
91018197|NCT03692078|181918930|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.476||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.192|0.76|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.760|0.192|0.0011
91018198|NCT03692078|181918930|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.505||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.219|0.79|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.790|0.219|0.0006
91018199|NCT03692078|181918930|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.775|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.06|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||1.060|0.490|<.0001
91018200|NCT03692078|181918930|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.116|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.472|-1.761|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-1.761|-2.472|<.0001
91018201|NCT03692078|181918930|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.016|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.376|-1.656|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-1.656|-2.376|<.0001
91018202|NCT03692078|181918930|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.605|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.958|-1.253|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-1.253|-1.958|<.0001
91018203|NCT03692078|181918930|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.642|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.003|-1.282|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-1.282|-2.003|<.0001
91018204|NCT03692078|181918930|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.578|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.922|-1.234|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-1.234|-1.922|<.0001
91083141|NCT03035916|182050420|OTHER|||||||0.051|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The mean arterial pressure(MAP) was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 6 hours after surgery row."||||0.051
91018205|NCT03692078|181918930|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.726|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.074|-1.378|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-1.378|-2.074|<.0001
91018206|NCT03692078|181918930|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.479||||0.1579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.054|0.097|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.097|-1.054|0.1579
91018207|NCT03692078|181918930|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.628||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.207|-0.048|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.048|-1.207|0.0260
91018208|NCT03692078|181918930|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.58||||0.0483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.158|-0.003|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.003|-1.158|0.0483
91018209|NCT03692078|181918930|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.329||||0.5842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.906|0.249|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.249|-0.906|0.5842
91018210|NCT03692078|181918930|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.201|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.856|-2.546|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-2.546|-3.856|<.0001
91018211|NCT03692078|181918930|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.119|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.779|-2.46|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-2.460|-3.779|<.0001
91018212|NCT03692078|181918930|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.338|-2.043|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-2.043|-3.338|<.0001
91018213|NCT03692078|181918930|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.746|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.402|-2.09|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-2.090|-3.402|<.0001
91083142|NCT03035916|182050420|OTHER|||||||0.186|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The mean arterial pressure(MAP) was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 24 hours after surgery row."||||0.186
91018214|NCT03692078|181918930|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.184|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.565|2.803|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||2.803|1.565|<.0001
91018215|NCT03692078|181918930|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.202|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.576|2.828|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||2.828|1.576|<.0001
91018216|NCT03692078|181918930|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.083|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.461|2.704|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||2.704|1.461|<.0001
91018217|NCT03692078|181918930|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.501|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.876|3.126|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||3.126|1.876|<.0001
91018218|NCT03692078|181918930|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.538||||0.2085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.231|0.154|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.154|-1.231|0.2085
91018219|NCT03692078|181918930|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.289||||0.8557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.988|0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.410|-0.988|0.8557
91018220|NCT03692078|181918930|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.027||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.713|0.658|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.658|-0.713|1.0000
91018221|NCT03692078|181918930|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.084||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.612|0.78|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.780|-0.612|1.0000
91018222|NCT03692078|181918932|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.081|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.679|1.484|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||1.484|0.679|<.0001
91083143|NCT03035916|182050420|OTHER|||||||0.555|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The mean arterial pressure(MAP) was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 24 hours after surgery row."||||0.555
91018223|NCT03692078|181918932|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.309|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.902|1.716|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||1.716|0.902|<.0001
91018224|NCT03692078|181918932|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.996|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.615|1.377|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||1.377|0.615|<.0001
91018225|NCT03692078|181918932|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.728||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.339|1.116|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||1.116|0.339|0.0003
91018226|NCT03692078|181918932|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.987|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.593|1.381|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||1.381|0.593|<.0001
91018227|NCT03692078|181918932|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.865|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.475|1.254|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||1.254|0.475|<.0001
91018228|NCT03692078|181918932|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.436||||0.0768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.047|0.92|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.920|-0.047|0.0768
91018229|NCT03692078|181918932|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.091||||0.7155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.583|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.583|-0.400|0.7155
91018230|NCT03692078|181918932|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.237||||0.3282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.239|0.713|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.713|-0.239|0.3282
91018231|NCT03692078|181918932|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.23||||0.3578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.722|0.262|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.262|-0.722|0.3578
91083144|NCT03035916|182050420|OTHER|||||||0.065|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The mean arterial pressure(MAP) was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 24 hours after surgery row."||||0.065
91018232|NCT03692078|181918932|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.338||||0.1638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.138|0.814|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.814|-0.138|0.1638
91018233|NCT03692078|181918932|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05||||0.8384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.533|0.433|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.433|-0.533|0.8384
91018234|NCT03692078|181918932|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.086||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.869|0.698|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.698|-0.869|1.0000
91018235|NCT03692078|181918932|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.581||||0.2808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.377|0.214|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.214|-1.377|0.2808
91018236|NCT03692078|181918932|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.095||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.887|0.698|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.698|-0.887|1.0000
91018237|NCT03692078|181918932|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.444||||0.6018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.237|0.349|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.349|-1.237|0.6018
91018238|NCT03692078|181918932|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.645||||0.2935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.536|0.246|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.246|-1.536|0.2935
91018239|NCT03692078|181918932|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.218||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|-0.315|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.315|-2.120|0.0023
91018240|NCT03692078|181918932|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.844||||0.0669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.723|0.035|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.035|-1.723|0.0669
91083145|NCT03035916|182050420|OTHER|||||||0.168|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The mean arterial pressure(MAP) was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 48 hours after surgery row."||||0.168
91083146|NCT03035916|182050420|OTHER|||||||0.739|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The mean arterial pressure(MAP) was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 48 hours after surgery row."||||0.739
91083147|NCT03035916|182050420|OTHER|||||||0.079|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The mean arterial pressure(MAP) was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 48 hours after surgery row."||||0.079
91083148|NCT03035916|182050421|OTHER|||||||0.056|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.056
91083149|NCT03035916|182050421|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
91083150|NCT03035916|182050421|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
91083151|NCT03035916|182050422|OTHER|||||||0.056||||||p\<0.05 indicates that the data difference is statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||"The pain score were measured from 1 hour to 48hours after surgery. This Statistical Analysis applied to 1 hour after surgery row."||||0.056
91083152|NCT03035916|182050422|OTHER|||||||0.009||||||p\<0.05 indicates that the data difference is statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||"The pain score were measured from 1 hour to 48hours after surgery. This Statistical Analysis applied to 1 hour after surgery row."||||0.009
91083153|NCT03035916|182050422|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||p\<0.05 indicates that the data difference is statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||"The pain score were measured from 1 hour to 48hours after surgery. This Statistical Analysis applied to 1 hour after surgery row."||||0.001
91083154|NCT03035916|182050422|OTHER|||||||0.198|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The pain score were measured from 1 hour to 48hours after surgery. This Statistical Analysis applied to 6 hours after surgery row."||||0.198
91083155|NCT03035916|182050422|OTHER|||||||0.047|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The pain score were measured from 1 hour to 48hours after surgery. This Statistical Analysis applied to 6 hours after surgery row."||||0.047
91083156|NCT03035916|182050422|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The pain score were measured from 1 hour to 48hours after surgery. This Statistical Analysis applied to 6 hours after surgery row."||||0.002
91083157|NCT03035916|182050422|OTHER|||||||0.102|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The pain score were measured from 1 hour to 48hours after surgery. This Statistical Analysis applied to 12 hours after surgery row."||||0.102
91083158|NCT03035916|182050422|OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The pain score were measured from 1 hour to 48hours after surgery. This Statistical Analysis applied to 12 hours after surgery row."||||0.005
91083159|NCT03035916|182050422|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The pain score were measured from 1 hour to 48hours after surgery. This Statistical Analysis applied to 12 hours after surgery row."||||0.001
91083160|NCT03035916|182050422|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The pain score were measured from 1 hour to 48hours after surgery. This Statistical Analysis applied to 24 hours after surgery row."||||0.001
91083161|NCT03035916|182050422|OTHER|||||||0.023|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The pain score were measured from 1 hour to 48hours after surgery. This Statistical Analysis applied to 24 hours after surgery row."||||0.023
91083162|NCT03035916|182050422|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The pain score were measured from 1 hour to 48hours after surgery. This Statistical Analysis applied to 24 hours after surgery row."||||0.001
91083163|NCT03035916|182050422|OTHER|||||||0.425|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The pain score were measured from 1 hour to 48hours after surgery. This Statistical Analysis applied to 48 hours after surgery row."||||0.425
91083164|NCT03035916|182050422|OTHER|||||||0.124|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The pain score were measured from 1 hour to 48hours after surgery. This Statistical Analysis applied to 48 hours after surgery row."||||0.124
91083165|NCT03035916|182050422|OTHER|||||||0.052|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The pain score were measured from 1 hour to 48hours after surgery. This Statistical Analysis applied to 48 hours after surgery row."||||0.052
91083166|NCT03035916|182050423|OTHER|||||||0.176||||||p\<0.05 indicates that the data difference is statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||"The pain score were measured from 1 hour to 48hours after surgery. This Statistical Analysis applied to 1 hour after surgery row."||||0.176
91083167|NCT03035916|182050423|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||p\<0.05 indicates that the data difference is statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||"The pain score were measured from 1 hour to 48hours after surgery. This Statistical Analysis applied to 1 hour after surgery row."||||0.001
91083168|NCT03035916|182050423|OTHER|||||||0.228|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The pain score were measured from 1 hour to 48hours after surgery. This Statistical Analysis applied to 6 hours after surgery row."||||0.228
91083169|NCT03035916|182050423|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The pain score were measured from 1 hour to 48hours after surgery. This Statistical Analysis applied to 6 hours after surgery row."||||0.001
91083170|NCT03035916|182050423|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The pain score were measured from 1 hour to 48hours after surgery. This Statistical Analysis applied to 6 hours after surgery row."||||0.001
91083171|NCT03035916|182050423|OTHER|||||||0.057|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The pain score were measured from 1 hour to 48hours after surgery. This Statistical Analysis applied to 12 hours after surgery row."||||0.057
91083172|NCT03035916|182050423|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The pain score were measured from 1 hour to 48hours after surgery. This Statistical Analysis applied to 12 hours after surgery row."||||0.001
91083173|NCT03035916|182050423|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The pain score were measured from 1 hour to 48hours after surgery. This Statistical Analysis applied to 12 hours after surgery row."||||0.001
91083174|NCT03035916|182050423|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The pain score were measured from 1 hour to 48hours after surgery. This Statistical Analysis applied to 24 hours after surgery row."||||0.004
91083175|NCT03035916|182050423|OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The pain score were measured from 1 hour to 48hours after surgery. This Statistical Analysis applied to 24 hours after surgery row."||||0.005
91083176|NCT03035916|182050423|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The pain score were measured from 1 hour to 48hours after surgery. This Statistical Analysis applied to 24 hours after surgery row."||||0.001
91083177|NCT03035916|182050423|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The pain score were measured from 1 hour to 48hours after surgery. This Statistical Analysis applied to 48 hours after surgery row."||||0.002
91083178|NCT03035916|182050423|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The pain score were measured from 1 hour to 48hours after surgery. This Statistical Analysis applied to 48 hours after surgery row."||||0.002
91018241|NCT03692078|181918932|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.539|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.438|-0.64|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.640|-2.438|<.0001
91018242|NCT03692078|181918932|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.658||||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.192|1.509|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||1.509|-0.192|0.2120
91018243|NCT03692078|181918932|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.778||||0.0993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.087|1.642|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||1.642|-0.087|0.0993
91018244|NCT03692078|181918932|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.649||||0.2347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.211|1.509|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||1.509|-0.211|0.2347
91018245|NCT03692078|181918932|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.915||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.052|1.778|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||1.778|0.052|0.0320
91018246|NCT03692078|181918932|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.099||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.849|1.047|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||1.047|-0.849|1.0000
91018247|NCT03692078|181918932|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.141||||0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|1.103|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||1.103|-0.820|0.9999
91018248|NCT03692078|181918932|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.101||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.038|0.837|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.837|-1.038|1.0000
91032382|NCT04605094|181949366|OTHER||Difference in response rate|-5.15||||0.384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.67|6.36|||Regression, Logistic|||"Treatment difference in EASI-75 responders~Estimates were from a logistic regression model that included treatment group, age as recorded on eCRF at screening (\>=12 to \< 18 years; \>=18 years), blood eosinophils as recorded on eCRF at screening (\<300 cells/μL; \>=300 cells/μL) and baseline EASI total score."||6.36|-16.67|0.384
91083179|NCT03035916|182050423|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The pain score were measured from 1 hour to 48hours after surgery. This Statistical Analysis applied to 48 hours after surgery row."||||0.001
91083180|NCT03035916|182050424|OTHER|||||||0.585|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.585
90956468|NCT04797650|181792774|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.27||P-value was calculated by Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 16||0.27|0.13|<0.0001
91083181|NCT03035916|182050424|OTHER|||||||0.071|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.071
91083182|NCT03035916|182050424|OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.13
91083183|NCT03035916|182050425|OTHER|||||||0.644|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.644
91083184|NCT03035916|182050425|OTHER|||||||0.045|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.045
91083185|NCT03035916|182050425|OTHER|||||||0.031|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.031
91083186|NCT03035916|182050426|OTHER|||||||0.421|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.421
91083187|NCT03035916|182050426|OTHER|||||||0.046|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.046
91083188|NCT03035916|182050426|OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.007
91083189|NCT03035916|182050427|OTHER|||||||0.91|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.910
91083190|NCT03035916|182050427|OTHER|||||||0.864|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.864
91083191|NCT03035916|182050427|OTHER|||||||0.785|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.785
91083192|NCT03035916|182050428|OTHER|||||||0.972|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.972
91083193|NCT03035916|182050428|OTHER|||||||0.987|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.987
91083194|NCT03035916|182050428|OTHER|||||||0.518|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.518
91083195|NCT01402986|182050435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.94||||0.709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.31|||Poisson regression|||The 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 versus \[vs\] more than \[\>\] 2 but less than or equal to \[=\<\] 6), atopic asthma status (atopic/non-atopic), chronic oral corticosteroid (OCS) use (presence vs absence) and geographical region as the covariates.||1.31|0.67|0.709
91083196|NCT01402986|182050435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.02||||0.904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.46|||Poisson regression|||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \> 2 but =\< 6), atopic asthma status (atopic/non-atopic), chronic OCS use (presence vs absence) and geographical region as the covariates.||1.46|0.71|0.904
91083197|NCT01402986|182050452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.62||||0.293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.51|||Poisson regression|||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status (atopic/non-atopic), chronic OCS use (presence vs absence) and geographical region as the covariates.||1.51|0.26|0.293
91083198|NCT01402986|182050452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.62||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.44|||Poisson regression|||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status (atopic/non-atopic), chronic OCS use (presence vs absence) and geographical region as the covariates.||1.44|0.27|0.270
91083199|NCT01402986|182050453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.16|||Regression, Cox|||||1.16|0.57|0.257
91083200|NCT01402986|182050453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.15|||Regression, Cox|||||1.15|0.56|0.225
91083201|NCT01402986|182050454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.68|||Regression, Cox|||||1.68|0.37|0.538
91083202|NCT01402986|182050454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.71|||Regression, Cox|||||1.71|0.37|0.561
91083203|NCT01402986|182050455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.73||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.17|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline serum periostin \>= median||1.17|0.46|0.190
91083204|NCT01402986|182050455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.95||||0.856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.61|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline serum periostin \>= median||1.61|0.56|0.856
91083205|NCT01402986|182050455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.13||||0.602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.81|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline serum periostin \< median||1.81|0.71|0.602
91083206|NCT01402986|182050455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.91||||0.703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.5|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline serum periostin \< median||1.50|0.55|0.703
91083207|NCT01402986|182050455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.86||||0.455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.28|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline serum periostin \>= 25th Percentile||1.28|0.58|0.455
91083208|NCT01402986|182050455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.02||||0.929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.57|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline serum periostin \>= 25th Percentile||1.57|0.66|0.929
91083209|NCT01402986|182050455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.26||||0.507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.51|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline serum periostin \< 25th Percentile||2.51|0.63|0.507
91083210|NCT01402986|182050455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.91||||0.805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.89|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline serum periostin \< 25th Percentile||1.89|0.44|0.805
91018249|NCT03692078|181918932|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.18||||0.9995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.139|0.779|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.779|-1.139|0.9995
91018250|NCT03692078|181918934|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|3.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.964|3.276|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||3.276|2.964|<.0001
91018251|NCT03692078|181918934|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|3.141|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.953|3.328|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||3.328|2.953|<.0001
91018252|NCT03692078|181918934|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.658|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.511|2.806|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||2.806|2.511|<.0001
91018253|NCT03692078|181918934|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.638|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.458|2.817|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||2.817|2.458|<.0001
91018254|NCT03692078|181918934|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.754|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.604|2.903|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||2.903|2.604|<.0001
91018255|NCT03692078|181918934|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.652|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.471|2.832|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||2.832|2.471|<.0001
91018256|NCT03692078|181918934|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.703|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.517|1.889|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||1.889|1.517|<.0001
91018257|NCT03692078|181918934|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.637|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|1.865|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||1.865|1.410|<.0001
91083211|NCT01402986|182050455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.88||||0.716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.75|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline serum periostin \>= 75th Percentile||1.75|0.44|0.716
91083212|NCT01402986|182050455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.51||||0.328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|3.43|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline serum periostin \>= 75th Percentile||3.43|0.66|0.328
91083213|NCT01402986|182050455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.95||||0.804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.41|||Poission regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline serum periostin \< 75th Percentile||1.41|0.64|0.804
91083214|NCT01402986|182050455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.7||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.05|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline serum periostin \< 75th Percentile||1.05|0.47|0.088
91083215|NCT01402986|182050456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.8||||0.365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.29|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Th2 high||1.29|0.50|0.365
91083216|NCT01402986|182050456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.97||||0.922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.68|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Th2 high||1.68|0.56|0.922
91083217|NCT01402986|182050456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.11||||0.685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.84|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Th2 Low||1.84|0.67|0.685
91083218|NCT01402986|182050456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.06||||0.813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.7|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Th2 Low||1.70|0.66|0.813
91083219|NCT01402986|182050457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.82||||0.335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.22|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline eosinophil count \>=150 cells/mcgL||1.22|0.56|0.335
91083220|NCT01402986|182050457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.88||||0.586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.41|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline eosinophil count \>=150 cells/mcgL||1.41|0.54|0.586
91083221|NCT01402986|182050457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.36||||0.331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.52|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline eosinophil count \<150 cells/mcgL||2.52|0.73|0.331
91083222|NCT01402986|182050457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.41||||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.71|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline eosinophil count \<150 cells/mcgL||2.71|0.73|0.311
91083223|NCT01402986|182050457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.81||||0.414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.35|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline eosinophil count \>=300 cells/mcgL||1.35|0.48|0.414
91083224|NCT01402986|182050457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.26||||0.463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|2.36|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline eosinophil count \>=300 cells/mcgL||2.36|0.68|0.463
91083225|NCT01402986|182050457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.06||||0.793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.68|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline eosinophil count \<300 cells/mcgL||1.68|0.67|0.793
91083226|NCT01402986|182050457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.77||||0.264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.22|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline eosinophil count \<300 cells/mcgL||1.22|0.49|0.264
91083227|NCT01402986|182050458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.66||||0.245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.32|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline FEV1 reversibility \>=12%||1.32|0.33|0.245
91018258|NCT03692078|181918934|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.656|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.472|1.839|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||1.839|1.472|<.0001
91018259|NCT03692078|181918934|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.485|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.259|1.711|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||1.711|1.259|<.0001
91018260|NCT03692078|181918934|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.713|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.532|1.895|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||1.895|1.532|<.0001
91018261|NCT03692078|181918934|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.617|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.397|1.837|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||1.837|1.397|<.0001
91018262|NCT03692078|181918934|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.462||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.766|-0.158|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.158|-0.766|0.0003
91018263|NCT03692078|181918934|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.503||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.867|-0.139|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.139|-0.867|0.0018
91018264|NCT03692078|181918934|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.366||||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.062|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.062|-0.670|0.0089
91018265|NCT03692078|181918934|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.489||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.851|-0.126|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.126|-0.851|0.0025
91018266|NCT03692078|181918934|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.417|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.762|-1.072|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-1.072|-1.762|<.0001
91018267|NCT03692078|181918934|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.504|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.916|-1.091|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-1.091|-1.916|<.0001
91018268|NCT03692078|181918934|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.464|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.804|-1.125|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-1.125|-1.804|<.0001
91018269|NCT03692078|181918934|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.656|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.065|-1.247|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-1.247|-2.065|<.0001
91018270|NCT03692078|181918934|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.945|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.617|1.273|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||1.273|0.617|<.0001
91018271|NCT03692078|181918934|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.021|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.628|1.413|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||1.413|0.628|<.0001
91018272|NCT03692078|181918934|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.041|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.712|1.369|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||1.369|0.712|<.0001
91018273|NCT03692078|181918934|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.035|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.644|1.426|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||1.426|0.644|<.0001
91018274|NCT03692078|181918934|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.376|0.355|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.355|-0.376|1.0000
91018275|NCT03692078|181918934|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.02||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.417|0.457|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.457|-0.417|1.0000
91083228|NCT01402986|182050458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.76||||0.438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.54|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline FEV1 reversibility \>=12%||1.54|0.37|0.438
91083229|NCT01402986|182050458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.01||||0.947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.57|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline FEV1 reversibility \<12%||1.57|0.66|0.947
91083230|NCT01402986|182050458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.97||||0.916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.59|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline FEV1 reversibility \<12%||1.59|0.59|0.916
91083231|NCT01402986|182050459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.91||||0.723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.56|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline FEV1% predicted \<=60%||1.56|0.52|0.723
91018276|NCT03692078|181918934|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.058||||0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.418|0.303|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.303|-0.418|0.9999
91018277|NCT03692078|181918934|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.132||||0.9669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.566|0.301|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.301|-0.566|0.9669
91018278|NCT03692078|181918936|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.442|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.604|-1.279|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-1.279|-1.604|<.0001
91018279|NCT03692078|181918936|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.413|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.576|-1.251|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-1.251|-1.576|<.0001
91018280|NCT03692078|181918936|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.754|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.907|-1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-1.600|-1.907|<.0001
91018281|NCT03692078|181918936|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.816|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.972|-1.659|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-1.659|-1.972|<.0001
91083232|NCT01402986|182050459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.06||||0.852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.86|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline FEV1% predicted \<=60%||1.86|0.60|0.852
91083233|NCT01402986|182050459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.86||||0.409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.23|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline FEV1% predicted \<=80%||1.23|0.60|0.409
91018282|NCT03692078|181918936|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.654|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|-1.498|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-1.498|-1.810|<.0001
91018283|NCT03692078|181918936|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.829|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.986|-1.673|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-1.673|-1.986|<.0001
91018284|NCT03692078|181918936|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.184|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.379|-1.989|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-1.989|-2.379|<.0001
91018285|NCT03692078|181918936|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.468|-2.071|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-2.071|-2.468|<.0001
91018286|NCT03692078|181918936|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.413|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.607|-2.219|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-2.219|-2.607|<.0001
91018287|NCT03692078|181918936|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.349|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.549|-2.149|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-2.149|-2.549|<.0001
91018288|NCT03692078|181918936|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.227|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.416|-2.038|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-2.038|-2.416|<.0001
91032383|NCT04605094|181949367|OTHER||Difference in response rate|-8.18||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.94|0.59|||Regression, Logistic|||"Treatment difference in EASI-90 responders~Estimates were from a logistic regression model that included treatment group, age as recorded on eCRF at screening (\>=12 to \< 18 years; \>=18 years), blood eosinophils as recorded on eCRF at screening (\<300 cells/μL; \>=300 cells/μL) and baseline EASI total score."||0.59|-16.94|0.078
91032384|NCT04605094|181949368|OTHER||Difference in response rate|0.69||||0.889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.93|10.32|||Regression, Logistic|||"Treatment difference in Peak Pruritus NRS~Estimates were from a logistic regression model that included treatment group, age as recorded on eCRF at screening (\>=12 to \< 18 years; \>=18 years), blood eosinophils as recorded on eCRF at screening (\<300 cells/μL; \>=300 cells/μL) and baseline Peak Pruritus score."||10.32|-8.93|0.889
90956469|NCT04797650|181792774|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.29||P-value was calculated by Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 20||0.29|0.18|<0.0001
91083234|NCT01402986|182050459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.07||||0.744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.58|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline FEV1% predicted \<=80%||1.58|0.72|0.744
91083235|NCT01402986|182050460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.94||||0.802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.52|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|2 asthma exacerbations in the past year||1.52|0.58|0.802
91083236|NCT01402986|182050460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.6||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.0|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|2 asthma exacerbations in the past year||1.00|0.36|0.050
91083237|NCT01402986|182050460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.93||||0.792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.56|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|\> 2 but \< 6 asthma exacerbations in the past year||1.56|0.56|0.792
91083238|NCT01402986|182050460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.39||||0.231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.38|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|\> 2 but \< 6 asthma exacerbations in the past year||2.38|0.81|0.231
91083239|NCT01402986|182050461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.25||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.98|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline Serum Periostin \>=Median||0.98|0.06|0.046
91083240|NCT01402986|182050461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.47||||0.197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.48|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline Serum Periostin \>=Median||1.48|0.15|0.197
91083241|NCT01402986|182050461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.18||||0.708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.79|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline Serum Periostin \< Median||2.79|0.50|0.708
91083242|NCT01402986|182050461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.31||||0.594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|3.57|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline Serum Periostin \< Median||3.57|0.48|0.594
91083243|NCT01402986|182050462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.03||||0.975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|7.67|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline FEV1 reversibility \>=12%||7.67|0.14|0.975
91083244|NCT01402986|182050462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.66||||0.473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|6.67|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline FEV1 reversibility \>=12%||6.67|0.41|0.473
91083245|NCT01402986|182050462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.49||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.14|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline FEV1 reversibility \<12%||1.14|0.21|0.099
91083246|NCT01402986|182050462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.42||||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.36|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline FEV1 reversibility \<12%||1.36|0.13|0.148
91083247|NCT01402986|182050463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.82||||0.698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|2.19|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Th2 high||2.19|0.31|0.698
91083248|NCT01402986|182050463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.55||||0.299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.7|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Th2 high||1.70|0.18|0.299
91083249|NCT01402986|182050463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.25||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|1.34|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Th2 Low||1.34|0.05|0.105
91083250|NCT01402986|182050463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.7||||0.576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.47|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Th2 Low||2.47|0.20|0.576
91083251|NCT01402986|182050464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.48||||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.25|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline eosinophil count \>=300 cells/mcgL||1.25|0.19|0.133
91018289|NCT03692078|181918936|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.154|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.345|-1.962|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-1.962|-2.345|<.0001
91018290|NCT03692078|181918936|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.312||||0.0552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.628|0.004|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.004|-0.628|0.0552
91018291|NCT03692078|181918936|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.402||||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.722|-0.083|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.083|-0.722|0.0055
91018292|NCT03692078|181918936|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.212||||0.3834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.105|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.105|-0.530|0.3834
91018293|NCT03692078|181918936|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.416||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.734|-0.099|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.099|-0.734|0.0033
91018294|NCT03692078|181918936|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.743|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.103|-0.382|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.382|-1.103|<.0001
91018295|NCT03692078|181918936|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.857|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|-0.493|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.493|-1.220|<.0001
91018296|NCT03692078|181918936|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.971|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.327|-0.616|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.616|-1.327|<.0001
91032385|NCT01212874|181949390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.21
91032386|NCT01212874|181949391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04
91032387|NCT01941030|181949460|OTHER|No pre-specified hypothesis test or power calculation specified in protocol.||||||0.022|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Data failed to meet the assumption for normality per the Shapiro-Wilk test.||Null hypothesis: no difference in populations for post-balloon angioplasty reduction of calcium out of lumen gain.||||0.0220
91032388|NCT01941030|181949461|OTHER|No pre-specified hypothesis test or power calculation specified in protocol.||||||0.6228|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: no difference in populations for post-balloon angioplasty minimum lumen area stenosis.||||0.6228
91083252|NCT01402986|182050464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.46||||0.241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.67|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline eosinophil count \>=300 cells/mcgL||1.67|0.13|0.241
91083253|NCT01402986|182050464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.59||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|2.84|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline eosinophil count \<300 cells/mcgL||2.84|0.12|0.510
91083254|NCT01402986|182050464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.74||||0.661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|2.85|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline eosinophil count \<300 cells/mcgL||2.85|0.19|0.661
91083255|NCT01402986|182050465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|6.79||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|13.79|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline serum periostin \>= median||13.79|-0.21|0.057
91083256|NCT01402986|182050465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|0.57||||0.874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.54|7.68|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline serum periostin \>= median||7.68|-6.54|0.874
91083257|NCT01402986|182050465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|7.37||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|13.95|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline serum periostin \< median||13.95|0.80|0.028
91083258|NCT01402986|182050465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|1.09||||0.745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.48|7.66|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline serum periostin \< median||7.66|-5.48|0.745
91083259|NCT01402986|182050465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|7.12||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|12.58|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline serum periostin \>= 25th percentile||12.58|1.66|0.011
91083260|NCT01402986|182050465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.48||||0.863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.93|4.97|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline serum periostin \>= 25th percentile||4.97|-5.93|0.863
91083261|NCT01402986|182050465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|6.24||||0.221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|16.27|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline serum periostin \< 25th percentile||16.27|-3.80|0.221
91083262|NCT01402986|182050465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|8.58||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|19.07|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline serum periostin \< 25th percentile||19.07|-1.91|0.108
91083263|NCT01402986|182050465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|9.89||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|21.35|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline serum periostin \>= 75th percentile||21.35|-1.57|0.090
91083264|NCT01402986|182050465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|0.7||||0.908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.19|12.59|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline serum periostin \>= 75th percentile||12.59|-11.19|0.908
91083265|NCT01402986|182050465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|6.52||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|11.64|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline serum periostin \< 75th percentile||11.64|1.41|0.013
91083266|NCT01402986|182050465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|1.23||||0.635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.84|6.29|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline serum periostin \< 75th percentile||6.29|-3.84|0.635
91083267|NCT01402986|182050465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|8.89||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.84|15.94|||Repeated measure model|||Th2 high||15.94|1.84|0.014
91083268|NCT01402986|182050465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|3.91||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.19|11.02|||Repeated measure model|||Th2 high||11.02|-3.19|0.280
91083269|NCT01402986|182050465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|3.22||||0.292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|9.22|||Repeated measure model|||Th2 low||9.22|-2.78|0.292
91083270|NCT01402986|182050465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-1.18||||0.691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.99|4.64|||Repeated measure model|||Th2 low||4.64|-6.99|0.691
91083271|NCT01402986|182050465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|8.83||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.85|14.81|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline peripheral blood eosinophil count \>= 150 cells/μL||14.81|2.85|0.004
91083272|NCT01402986|182050465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|4.25||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.92|10.43|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline peripheral blood eosinophil count \>= 150 cells/μL||10.43|-1.92|0.177
91083273|NCT01402986|182050465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|6.05||||0.159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.39|14.5|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline peripheral blood eosinophil count \< 150 cells/μL||14.50|-2.39|0.159
91083274|NCT01402986|182050465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.72||||0.857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.63|7.18|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline peripheral blood eosinophil count \< 150 cells/μL||7.18|-8.63|0.857
91083275|NCT01402986|182050465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|13.75||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.28|22.22|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline peripheral blood eosinophil count \>= 300 cells/μL||22.22|5.28|0.002
91083276|NCT01402986|182050465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|5.23||||0.243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.56|14.02|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline peripheral blood eosinophil count \>= 300 cells/μL||14.02|-3.56|0.243
91083277|NCT01402986|182050465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|4.37||||0.144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|10.24|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline peripheral blood eosinophil count \< 300 cells/μL||10.24|-1.50|0.144
91083278|NCT01402986|182050465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|0.72||||0.804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.01|6.46|||Baseline peripheral blood eosinophil cou|||Baseline peripheral blood eosinophil count \< 300 cells/μ||6.46|-5.01|0.804
91083279|NCT01402986|182050465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|11.19||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|21.23|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline FEV1 reversibility \>= 12%||21.23|1.15|0.029
91083280|NCT01402986|182050465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|0.72||||0.887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.19|10.62|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline FEV1 reversibility \>= 12%||10.62|-9.19|0.887
91083281|NCT01402986|182050465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|7.67||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.76|12.59|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline FEV1 reversibility \< 12%||12.59|2.76|0.002
91083282|NCT01402986|182050465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|2.79||||0.268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|7.74|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline FEV1 reversibility \< 12%||7.74|-2.15|0.268
91083283|NCT01402986|182050465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|7.82||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.64|13.01|||Repeated measure model|||2 asthma exacerbations in the past year||13.01|2.64|0.003
91083284|NCT01402986|182050465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|2.42||||0.361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|7.62|||Repeated measure model|||2 asthma exacerbations in the past year||7.62|-2.78|0.361
91083285|NCT01402986|182050465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|6.34||||0.185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.06|15.75|||Repeated measure model|||\> 2 but \< 6 asthma exacerbations in the past year||15.75|-3.06|0.185
91083286|NCT01402986|182050465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.08||||0.986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|9.34|||Repeated measure model|||\> 2 but \< 6 asthma exacerbations in the past year||9.34|-9.50|0.986
91083287|NCT01402986|182050465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|0.87||||0.912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|16.44|||Repeated measure model|||Chronic OCS use||16.44|-14.70|0.912
91083288|NCT01402986|182050465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-1.46||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.76|14.84|||Repeated measure model|||Chronic OCS use||14.84|-17.76|0.860
91083289|NCT01402986|182050465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|7.56||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.76|12.36|||Repeated measure model|||Without chronic OCS use||12.36|2.76|0.002
91083290|NCT01402986|182050465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|1.28||||0.601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.51|6.06|||Repeated measure model|||Without chronic OCS use||6.06|-3.51|0.601
91083291|NCT01402986|182050466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.24||||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.08|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline serum periostin \>= median||0.08|-0.57|0.145
91083292|NCT01402986|182050466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|0.05||||0.759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.38|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline serum periostin \>= median||0.38|-0.28|0.759
91083293|NCT01402986|182050466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.01||||0.936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.35|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline serum periostin \< median||0.35|-0.38|0.936
91083294|NCT01402986|182050466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.28||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.08|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline serum periostin \< median||0.08|-0.64|0.127
91083295|NCT01402986|182050466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.13||||0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.14|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline serum periostin\>= 25th percentile||0.14|-0.41|0.343
91083296|NCT01402986|182050466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.01||||0.928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.27|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline serum periostin\>= 25th percentile||0.27|-0.29|0.928
91083297|NCT01402986|182050466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.23||||0.374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.28|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline serum periostin \< 25th percentile||0.28|-0.74|0.374
91083298|NCT01402986|182050466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.29||||0.259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.22|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline serum periostin \< 25th percentile||0.22|-0.81|0.259
91083299|NCT01402986|182050466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.37||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.11|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline serum periostin \>= 75th percentile||0.11|-0.84|0.127
91083300|NCT01402986|182050466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.07||||0.775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.42|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline serum periostin \>= 75th percentile||0.42|-0.56|0.775
91083301|NCT01402986|182050466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.1||||0.512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.19|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline serum periostin \< 75th percentile||0.19|-0.38|0.512
91083302|NCT01402986|182050466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.12||||0.404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.16|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline serum periostin \< 75th percentile||0.16|-0.40|0.404
91083303|NCT01402986|182050466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.24||||0.181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.11|||Repeated measure model|||Th2 high||0.11|-0.59|0.181
91083304|NCT01402986|182050466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.25||||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.1|||Repeated measure model|||Th2 high||0.10|-0.60|0.161
91083305|NCT01402986|182050466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.11||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.25|||Repeated measure model|||Th2 low||0.25|-0.47|0.540
91083306|NCT01402986|182050466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.07||||0.674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.27|||Repeated measure model|||Th2 low||0.27|-0.42|0.674
91083307|NCT01402986|182050466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.22||||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.08|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline peripheral blood eosinophil count \>= 150 cells/μL||0.08|-0.52|0.154
91083308|NCT01402986|182050466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.17||||0.271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.13|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline peripheral blood eosinophil count \>= 150 cells/μ||0.13|-0.48|0.271
91083309|NCT01402986|182050466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.08||||0.725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.36|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline peripheral blood eosinophil count \< 150 cells/μL||0.36|-0.51|0.725
91083310|NCT01402986|182050466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.12||||0.559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.28|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline peripheral blood eosinophil count \< 150 cells/μL||0.28|-0.53|0.559
91083311|NCT01402986|182050466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.47||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.08|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline peripheral blood eosinophil count \>= 300 cells/μL||-0.08|-0.87|0.019
91083312|NCT01402986|182050466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.2||||0.348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.21|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline peripheral blood eosinophil count \>= 300 cells/μL||0.21|-0.61|0.348
91083313|NCT01402986|182050466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.03||||0.855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.29|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline peripheral blood eosinophil count \< 300 cells/μL||0.29|-0.35|0.855
91083314|NCT01402986|182050466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.2||||0.203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.11|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline peripheral blood eosinophil count \< 300 cells/μL||0.11|-0.50|0.203
91083315|NCT01402986|182050466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.44||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.01|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline FEV1 reversibility \>= 12%||0.01|-0.89|0.055
91083316|NCT01402986|182050466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.37||||0.104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.08|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline FEV1 reversibility \>= 12%||0.08|-0.82|0.104
91083317|NCT01402986|182050466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.07||||0.652|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.23|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline FEV1 reversibility \< 12%||0.23|-0.37|0.652
91083318|NCT01402986|182050466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|0.02||||0.905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.32|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline FEV1 reversibility \< 12%||0.32|-0.28|0.905
91083319|NCT01402986|182050466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.19||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.1|||Repeated measure model|||2 asthma exacerbations in the past year||0.10|-0.49|0.198
90956470|NCT04797650|181792774|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.35||P-value was calculated by Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 20||0.35|0.19|<0.0001
90956471|NCT04797650|181792775|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|-0.9||P-value was calculated by mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value.|MMRM|||Week 4||-0.9|-4.7|0.0039
90956472|NCT04797650|181792775|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|-1.2||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value.|MMRM|||Week 4||-1.2|-5.6|0.0027
90956473|NCT04797650|181792775|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|-5.1||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value.|MMRM|||Week 8||-5.1|-13.6|<0.0001
90956474|NCT04797650|181792775|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-14.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.47|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|-9.3||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value.|MMRM|||Week 8||-9.3|-19|<0.0001
90956475|NCT04797650|181792775|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-23.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.92|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.8|-17.3||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value.|MMRM|||Week 12||-17.3|-28.8|<0.0001
90956476|NCT04797650|181792775|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-29.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.36|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.9|-22.7||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value.|MMRM|||Week 12||-22.7|-35.9|< 0.0001
90956477|NCT04797650|181792775|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-34.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.37|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.4|-28.2||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value.|MMRM|||Week 16||-28.2|-41.4|< 0.0001
90956478|NCT04797650|181792775|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-40.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.86|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.8|-32.6||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value.|MMRM|||Week 16||-32.6|-47.8|< 0.0001
90956479|NCT04797650|181792775|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-38.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.63|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.9|-31.6||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value.|MMRM|||Week 20||-31.6|-45.9|< 0.0001
91083320|NCT01402986|182050466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.18||||0.226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.11|||Repeated measure model|||2 asthma exacerbations in the past year||0.11|-0.47|0.226
90956480|NCT04797650|181792775|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-46.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.8|-38.4||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value.|MMRM|||Week 20||-38.4|-54.8|< 0.0001
90956481|NCT04797650|181792775|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-45.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.4|-38.5||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value.|MMRM|||Week 24||-38.5|-53.4|< 0.0001
90956482|NCT04797650|181792775|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-52.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.36|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.4|-44.2|||MMRM|||Week 24||-44.2|-61.4|< 0.0001
90956483|NCT04797650|181792776|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated by cochran mantel haenszel (CMH) test stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for responders in each treatment group compared to placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||||< 0.0001
90956484|NCT04797650|181792776|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated by CMH test stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for responders in each treatment group compared to placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||||< 0.0001
90956485|NCT04797650|181792776|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated by CMH test stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for responders in each treatment group compared to placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||||< 0.0001
90956486|NCT04797650|181792776|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated by CMH test stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for responders in each treatment group compared to placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||||< 0.0001
90956487|NCT04797650|181792776|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated by CMH test stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for responders in each treatment group compared to placebo|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||||< 0.0001
90956488|NCT04797650|181792776|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated by CMH test stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for responders in each treatment group compared to placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||||< 0.0001
90956489|NCT04797650|181792776|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated by CMH test stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for responders in each treatment group compared to placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||||< 0.0001
90956490|NCT04797650|181792776|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated by CMH test stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for responders in each treatment group compared to placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||||< 0.0001
90956491|NCT04797650|181792777|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated by CMH test stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for responders in each treatment group compared to placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||||< 0.0001
90956492|NCT04797650|181792777|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated by CMH test stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for responders in each treatment group compared to placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||||< 0.0001
90956493|NCT04797650|181792777|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated by CMH test stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for responders in each treatment group compared to placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||||< 0.0001
90956494|NCT04797650|181792777|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated by CMH test stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for responders in each treatment group compared to placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||||< 0.0001
91018297|NCT03692078|181918936|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.936|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.298|-0.574|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.574|-1.298|<.0001
91018298|NCT03692078|181918936|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.473||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.133|0.813|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.813|0.133|0.0016
91018299|NCT03692078|181918936|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.338||||0.0582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.007|0.683|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.683|-0.007|0.0582
91018300|NCT03692078|181918936|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.573|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.232|0.914|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.914|0.232|<.0001
91018301|NCT03692078|181918936|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.324||||0.0745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.668|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.668|-0.020|0.0745
91018302|NCT03692078|181918936|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.043||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.337|0.422|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.422|-0.337|1.0000
91018303|NCT03692078|181918936|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.116||||0.9759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.501|0.268|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.268|-0.501|0.9759
91018304|NCT03692078|181918936|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.186||||0.7128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.565|0.192|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.192|-0.565|0.7128
91018305|NCT03692078|181918936|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.195||||0.6816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.582|0.192|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.192|-0.582|0.6816
91083321|NCT01402986|182050466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.14||||0.513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.28|||Repeated measure model|||\> 2 but \< 6 asthma exacerbations in the past year||0.28|-0.56|0.513
91018306|NCT03692078|181918938|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.948|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.146|-0.75|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.750|-1.146|<.0001
91018307|NCT03692078|181918938|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.019|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.242|-0.796|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.796|-1.242|<.0001
91018308|NCT03692078|181918938|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.172|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.358|-0.986|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.986|-1.358|<.0001
91018309|NCT03692078|181918938|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.196|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.409|-0.983|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.983|-1.409|<.0001
91018310|NCT03692078|181918938|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.049|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.239|-0.859|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.859|-1.239|<.0001
91018311|NCT03692078|181918938|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.414|-0.986|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.986|-1.414|<.0001
91018312|NCT03692078|181918938|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.337|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.574|-1.099|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-1.099|-1.574|<.0001
91018313|NCT03692078|181918938|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.345|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.616|-1.075|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-1.075|-1.616|<.0001
91018314|NCT03692078|181918938|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.452|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.685|-1.219|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-1.219|-1.685|<.0001
91083322|NCT01402986|182050466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.01||||0.974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.42|||Repeated measure model|||\> 2 but \< 6 asthma exacerbations in the past year||0.42|-0.43|0.974
91083323|NCT01402986|182050466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.37||||0.226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|0.23|||Repeated measure model|||Chronic OCS use||0.23|-0.97|0.226
91018315|NCT03692078|181918938|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.339|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.608|-1.071|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-1.071|-1.608|<.0001
91018316|NCT03692078|181918938|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.348|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.577|-1.118|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-1.118|-1.577|<.0001
91018317|NCT03692078|181918938|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.227|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.488|-0.966|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.966|-1.488|<.0001
91018318|NCT03692078|181918938|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.224||||0.5646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.607|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.160|-0.607|0.5646
91018319|NCT03692078|181918938|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.177||||0.8765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.609|0.254|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.254|-0.609|0.8765
91018320|NCT03692078|181918938|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.101||||0.9954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.488|0.287|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.287|-0.488|0.9954
91018321|NCT03692078|181918938|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.181||||0.8665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.613|0.252|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.252|-0.613|0.8665
91018322|NCT03692078|181918938|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.389||||0.1165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.829|0.052|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.052|-0.829|0.1165
91018323|NCT03692078|181918938|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.326||||0.3896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.821|0.168|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.168|-0.821|0.3896
91083324|NCT01402986|182050466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|0.15||||0.613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.75|||Repeated measure model|||Chronic OCS use||0.75|-0.44|0.613
91083325|NCT01402986|182050466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.17||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.09|||Repeated measure model|||Without chronic OCS use||0.09|-0.43|0.198
91083326|NCT01402986|182050466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.19||||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.08|||Repeated measure model|||Without chronic OCS use||0.08|-0.45|0.165
91083327|NCT01402986|182050467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|0.23||||0.211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.6|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline serum periostin \>= median||0.60|-0.13|0.211
91083328|NCT01402986|182050467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|0.16||||0.397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.53|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline serum periostin \>= median||0.53|-0.21|0.397
91083329|NCT01402986|182050467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|0.19||||0.315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.56|||Repeated Measure Model|||Baseline serum periostin \< median||0.56|-0.18|0.315
91083330|NCT01402986|182050467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|0.26||||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.63|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline serum periostin \< median||0.63|-0.11|0.166
91083331|NCT01402986|182050467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|0.17||||0.262||95.0|-0.13|0.47|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline serum periostin \>= 25th percentile||0.47|-0.13|0.262
91018324|NCT03692078|181918938|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.504||||0.0122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.934|-0.074|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.074|-0.934|0.0122
91018325|NCT03692078|181918938|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.32||||0.3938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.807|0.167|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.167|-0.807|0.3938
91018326|NCT03692078|181918938|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.176||||0.8501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.237|0.589|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.589|-0.237|0.8501
91018327|NCT03692078|181918938|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.031||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.435|0.496|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.496|-0.435|1.0000
91083332|NCT01402986|182050467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|0.14||||0.379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.44|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline serum periostin \>= 25th percentile||0.44|-0.17|0.379
91083333|NCT01402986|182050467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|0.25||||0.387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.81|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline serum periostin \< 25th percentile||0.81|-0.32|0.387
91083334|NCT01402986|182050467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|0.29||||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.84|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline serum periostin \< 25th percentile||0.84|-0.26|0.303
91083335|NCT01402986|182050467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.37||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.11|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline serum periostin \>=75th percentile||0.11|-0.84|0.127
91083336|NCT01402986|182050467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.07||||0.775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.42|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline serum periostin \>=75th percentile||0.42|-0.56|0.775
91083337|NCT01402986|182050467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.1||||0.512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.19|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline serum periostin \< 75th percentile||0.19|-0.38|0.512
91083338|NCT01402986|182050467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.12||||0.404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.16|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline serum periostin \< 75th percentile||0.16|-0.40|0.404
91083339|NCT01402986|182050467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|0.31||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.69|||Repeated measure model|||Th2 high||0.69|-0.06|0.102
91083340|NCT01402986|182050467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|0.3||||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.68|||Repeated measure model|||Th2 high||0.68|-0.08|0.116
91083341|NCT01402986|182050467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.11||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.25|||Repeated measure model|||Th2 low||0.25|-0.47|0.540
91083342|NCT01402986|182050467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.07||||0.674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.27|||Repeated measure model|||Th2 low||0.27|-0.42|0.674
91083343|NCT01402986|182050467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|0.17||||0.295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.49|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline peripheral blood eosinophil count \>=150 cells/μL||0.49|-0.15|0.295
91083344|NCT01402986|182050467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|0.16||||0.342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.49|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline peripheral blood eosinophil count \>=150 cells/μL||0.49|-0.17|0.342
91083345|NCT01402986|182050467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|0.18||||0.406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.6|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline peripheral blood eosinophil count \< 150 cells/μL||0.60|-0.24|0.406
91083346|NCT01402986|182050467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|0.38||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.79|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline peripheral blood eosinophil count \< 150 cells/μL||0.79|-0.03|0.069
91018328|NCT03692078|181918938|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.299||||0.2928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.117|0.715|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.715|-0.117|0.2928
91018329|NCT03692078|181918938|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.027||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.439|0.493|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.493|-0.439|1.0000
91018330|NCT03692078|181918938|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.011||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.453|0.475|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.475|-0.453|1.0000
91018331|NCT03692078|181918938|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.118||||0.9966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.403|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.403|-0.640|0.9966
91018332|NCT03692078|181918938|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.104||||0.9976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.352|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.352|-0.560|0.9976
91018333|NCT03692078|181918938|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.112||||0.9976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.628|0.404|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.404|-0.628|0.9976
91018334|NCT03692078|181918940|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|180.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|164.9|195.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||195.2|164.9|<.0001
91018335|NCT03692078|181918940|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|181.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|165.9|196.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||196.2|165.9|<.0001
91083347|NCT01402986|182050467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|0.19||||0.371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.62|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline peripheral blood eosinophil count \>= 300 cells/μL||0.62|-0.23|0.371
91083348|NCT01402986|182050467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|0.07||||0.766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.51|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline peripheral blood eosinophil count \>= 300 cells/μL||0.51|-0.37|0.766
91083349|NCT01402986|182050467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|0.24||||0.147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.57|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline peripheral blood eosinophil count \< 300 cells/μL||0.57|-0.09|0.147
91083350|NCT01402986|182050467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|0.35||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.68|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline peripheral blood eosinophil count \< 300 cells/μL||0.68|0.03|0.031
91083351|NCT01402986|182050467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|0.59||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.09|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline FEV1 reversibility \>= 12%||1.09|0.10|0.020
90905071|NCT02886728|181677437|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|-0.06||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and subjects being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.06|-0.23|<0.001
91018336|NCT03692078|181918940|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|132.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|117.2|147.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||147.5|117.2|<.0001
91083352|NCT01402986|182050467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|0.29||||0.226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.77|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline FEV1 reversibility \>= 12%||0.77|-0.18|0.226
91083353|NCT01402986|182050467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|0.01||||0.964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.33|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline FEV1 reversibility \< 12%||0.33|-0.31|0.964
91083354|NCT01402986|182050467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|0.1||||0.533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.42|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline FEV1 reversibility \< 12%||0.42|-0.22|0.533
91083355|NCT01402986|182050467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|0.17||||0.292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.5|||Repeated measure model|||2 asthma exacerbations in the past year||0.50|-0.15|0.292
91083356|NCT01402986|182050467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|0.27||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.59|||Repeated measure model|||2 asthma exacerbations in the past year||0.59|-0.05|0.097
91083357|NCT01402986|182050467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|0.24||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.67|||Repeated measure model|||\> 2 but \< 6 asthma exacerbations in the past year||0.67|-0.18|0.260
91083358|NCT01402986|182050467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|0.1||||0.648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.53|||Repeated measure model|||\> 2 but \< 6 asthma exacerbations in the past year||0.53|-0.33|0.648
91083359|NCT01402986|182050467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|0.28||||0.398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.93|||Repeated measure model|||Chronic OCS use||0.93|-0.37|0.398
91083360|NCT01402986|182050467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.32||||0.327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.32|||Repeated measure model|||Chronic OCS use||0.32|-0.95|0.327
91083361|NCT01402986|182050467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|0.23||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.52|||Repeated measure model|||Without chronic OCS use||0.52|-0.05|0.105
91083362|NCT01402986|182050467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|0.31||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.6|||Repeated measure model|||Without chronic OCS use||0.60|0.03|0.030
91083363|NCT01402986|182050468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.95||||0.803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.44|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Atopic asthma||1.44|0.62|0.803
91083364|NCT01402986|182050468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.83||||0.457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.35|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Atopic asthma||1.35|0.52|0.457
91083365|NCT01402986|182050468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.71||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.27|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Non-atopic asthma||1.27|0.40|0.250
91083366|NCT01402986|182050468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.07||||0.794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.74|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Non-atopic asthma||1.74|0.66|0.794
91083367|NCT01402986|182050469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.2||||0.614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.46|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|With chronic OCS use||2.46|0.59|0.614
91083368|NCT01402986|182050469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.29||||0.506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|2.74|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|With chronic OCS use||2.74|0.61|0.506
91083369|NCT01402986|182050469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.79||||0.243||95.0|0.53|1.18|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Without chronic OCS use||1.18|0.53|0.243
91083370|NCT01402986|182050469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.87||||0.531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.34|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Without chronic OCS use||1.34|0.57|0.531
91083371|NCT03749109|182050481|OTHER||Difference in LS mean|1.74||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.45|13.94|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for baseline lesion size.||Endometrioma||13.94|-10.45|0.78
91083372|NCT03749109|182050481|OTHER||Difference in LS mean|3.35||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.89|9.59|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for baseline lesion size.||DIE||9.59|-2.89|0.29
91083373|NCT03749109|182050481|OTHER||Difference in LS mean|0.33||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.33|10.99|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for baseline lesion size.||Adenomyosis||10.99|-10.33|0.95
91018337|NCT03692078|181918940|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|137.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|122.1|152.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||152.5|122.1|<.0001
91018338|NCT03692078|181918940|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|136.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|122.0|151.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||151.7|122.0|<.0001
91018339|NCT03692078|181918940|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|150.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|136.0|165.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||165.7|136.0|<.0001
91018340|NCT03692078|181918940|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|43.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.1|61.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||61.4|25.1|<.0001
91018341|NCT03692078|181918940|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|61.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.2|80.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||80.1|43.2|<.0001
91018342|NCT03692078|181918940|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|36.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.6|55.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||55.1|18.6|<.0001
91018343|NCT03692078|181918940|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|35.5||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.7|54.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||54.3|16.7|0.0002
91018344|NCT03692078|181918940|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|38.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.9|57.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||57.6|19.9|<.0001
91083374|NCT03749109|182050482|OTHER||Difference in LS mean|-6.99||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.8|22.82|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for baseline lesion size.||Endometrioma||22.82|-36.80|0.65
91083375|NCT03749109|182050482|OTHER||Difference in LS mean|-1.13||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.77|20.51|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for baseline lesion size.||DIE||20.51|-22.77|0.92
91083376|NCT03749109|182050482|OTHER||Difference in LS mean|-5.92||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.94|29.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for baseline lesion size.||||29.10|-40.94|0.74
91083377|NCT03749109|182050483|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|2.82|||Regression, Logistic|||Endometrioma||2.82|0.38|0.95
91083378|NCT03749109|182050483|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.55||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|2.17|||Regression, Logistic|||Adenomyosis||2.17|0.14|0.39
91083379|NCT03749109|182050484|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|2.65|||Regression, Logistic|||Endometrioma||2.65|0.19|0.60
91018345|NCT03692078|181918940|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|44.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.0|63.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||63.8|26.0|<.0001
91018346|NCT03692078|181918940|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-47.7||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.0|-17.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-17.4|-78.0|0.0002
91018347|NCT03692078|181918940|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-43.8||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.1|-13.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-13.4|-74.1|0.0009
91018348|NCT03692078|181918940|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-43.2||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.2|-13.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-13.3|-73.2|0.0009
91018349|NCT03692078|181918940|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-30.2||||0.0466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.2|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.3|-60.2|0.0466
91018350|NCT03692078|181918940|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-136.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-170.4|-103.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-103.3|-170.4|<.0001
91018351|NCT03692078|181918940|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-119.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-153.3|-85.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-85.5|-153.3|<.0001
91018352|NCT03692078|181918940|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-143.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-176.6|-109.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-109.7|-176.6|<.0001
91032389|NCT01941030|181949462|OTHER|No pre-specified hypothesis test or power calculation specified in protocol.||||||0.4528|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Data failed to meet the assumption for normality per the Shapiro-Wilk test.||Null hypothesis: no difference in populations for post-balloon angioplasty plaque area.||||0.4528
91032390|NCT01941030|181949463|OTHER|No pre-specified hypothesis test or power calculation specified in protocol.||||||0.3573|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Data failed to meet the assumption for normality per the Shapiro-Wilk test.||Null hypothesis: no difference in populations for post-balloon angioplasty dense calcium area.||||0.3573
91032391|NCT01941030|181949464|OTHER|No pre-specified hypothesis test or power calculation specified in protocol.||||||0.6073|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Data failed to meet the assumption for normality per the Shapiro-Wilk test.||Null hypothesis: no difference in populations for post-balloon angioplasty necrotic core area.||||0.6073
91018353|NCT03692078|181918940|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-145.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-179.7|-111.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-111.4|-179.7|<.0001
91018354|NCT03692078|181918940|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|93.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.0|127.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||127.2|60.0|<.0001
91018355|NCT03692078|181918940|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|92.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.8|126.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||126.1|58.8|<.0001
91018356|NCT03692078|181918940|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|98.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.6|131.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||131.5|64.6|<.0001
91018357|NCT03692078|181918940|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|106.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|72.5|139.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||139.4|72.5|<.0001
91018358|NCT03692078|181918940|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|4.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.0|40.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||40.9|-32.0|1.0000
91018359|NCT03692078|181918940|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|16.8||||0.7714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|53.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||53.5|-20.0|0.7714
91018360|NCT03692078|181918940|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.9||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.3|34.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||34.5|-38.3|1.0000
91032392|NCT01941030|181949465|OTHER|No pre-specified hypothesis test or power calculation specified in protocol.||||||0.2149|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Data failed to meet the assumption for normality per the Shapiro-Wilk test.||Null hypothesis: no difference in populations for post-balloon angioplasty fibrous plaque area.||||0.2149
91032393|NCT01941030|181949466|OTHER|No pre-specified hypothesis test or power calculation specified in protocol.||||||0.0579|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Data failed to meet the assumption for normality per the Shapiro-Wilk test.||Null hypothesis: no difference in populations for post-balloon angioplasty fibrofatty plaque area.||||0.0579
91032394|NCT01941030|181949467|OTHER|No pre-specified hypothesis test or power calculation specified in protocol.||||||0.076|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: no difference in populations for post-final balloon FFR value with 600 mcg adenosine.||||0.076
91018361|NCT03692078|181918940|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-9.4||||0.9926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.4|27.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||27.6|-46.4|0.9926
91018362|NCT03692078|181918942|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.872|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.81|1.935|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||1.935|1.810|<.0001
91018363|NCT03692078|181918942|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.913|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.851|1.976|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||1.976|1.851|<.0001
91018364|NCT03692078|181918942|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.467|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.408|1.525|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||1.525|1.408|<.0001
91018365|NCT03692078|181918942|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.493|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.434|1.551|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||1.551|1.434|<.0001
91018366|NCT03692078|181918942|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.49|1.609|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||1.609|1.490|<.0001
91018367|NCT03692078|181918942|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.594|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.533|1.654|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||1.654|1.533|<.0001
91018368|NCT03692078|181918942|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.557|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.482|0.631|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.631|0.482|<.0001
91032395|NCT01941030|181949467|OTHER|No pre-specified hypothesis test or power calculation specified in protocol.||||||0.205|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: no difference in populations for post-final balloon FFR value with 1200 mcg adenosine.||||0.205
91032396|NCT02781727|181949478|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority comparison with a non-inferiority margin of 2 cm/year, followed by a test of superiority if non-inferiority is established.||||||0.0088||||||P-value is based on a test of superiority|ANCOVA with multiple imputation|two-sided||ANCOVA model with multiple imputation. For each imputed data set, an ANCOVA model with by visit AHV as the dependent variable; treatment and gender as factors; and baseline age, baseline peak GH levels (log transformed) at stimulation test, and baseline height SDS - average parental height SDS as covariates were fitted.||||0.0088
91032397|NCT00113425|181949484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||paired t-test, 2-sided|||Null Hypothesis = There is no difference between change from baseline in papule acne lesions for the treated side of the face compared to the change from baseline for the untreated side of the face in all patients||||0.01
91018369|NCT03692078|181918942|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.589|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.514|0.665|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.665|0.514|<.0001
91018370|NCT03692078|181918942|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.533|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.461|0.605|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.605|0.461|<.0001
91018371|NCT03692078|181918942|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.588|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.514|0.662|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.662|0.514|<.0001
91018372|NCT03692078|181918942|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.508|0.652|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.652|0.508|<.0001
91018373|NCT03692078|181918942|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.507|0.653|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.653|0.507|<.0001
91018374|NCT03692078|181918942|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.406|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.526|-0.285|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.285|-0.526|<.0001
91018375|NCT03692078|181918942|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.421|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.541|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.300|-0.541|<.0001
91018376|NCT03692078|181918942|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.323|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.444|-0.201|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.201|-0.444|<.0001
91018377|NCT03692078|181918942|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.442|-0.198|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.198|-0.442|<.0001
91032398|NCT00113425|181949485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|||||||paired t-test, 2-sided|||Null Hypothesis = There is no difference between change from baseline in pustule acne lesions for the treated side of the face compared to the change from baseline for the untreated side of the face in all patients||||0.43
91083380|NCT03749109|182050484|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.35||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.79|||Regression, Logistic|||Adenomyosis||1.79|0.07|0.21
91083381|NCT03749109|182050485|OTHER||Rate Ratio|2.53||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|8.39|||Negative-binomial regression|||Endometrioma - Disappearing Lesions||8.39|0.76|0.13
91018378|NCT03692078|181918942|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.315|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.453|-1.178|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-1.178|-1.453|<.0001
91018379|NCT03692078|181918942|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.324|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.463|-1.186|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-1.186|-1.463|<.0001
91018380|NCT03692078|181918942|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.339|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.473|-1.205|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-1.205|-1.473|<.0001
91018381|NCT03692078|181918942|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.325|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.461|-1.19|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-1.190|-1.461|<.0001
91018382|NCT03692078|181918942|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.887|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.757|1.016|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||1.016|0.757|<.0001
91018383|NCT03692078|181918942|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.912|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.782|1.043|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||1.043|0.782|<.0001
91018384|NCT03692078|181918942|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.97|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.839|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||1.100|0.839|<.0001
91018385|NCT03692078|181918942|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.013|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.882|1.145|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||1.145|0.882|<.0001
91018386|NCT03692078|181918942|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.023||||0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.168|0.122|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.122|-0.168|0.9999
91083382|NCT03749109|182050485|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.49||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|5.41|||Negative-binomial regression|||Adenomyosis - Disappearing Lesions||5.41|0.04|0.56
91083383|NCT03749109|182050486|OTHER||Difference in LS mean|0.23||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.78|13.23|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for baseline lesion size.||Endometrioma||13.23|-12.78|0.97
91083384|NCT03749109|182050486|OTHER||Difference in LS mean|0.72||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.63|5.07|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for baseline lesion size.||DIE||5.07|-3.63|0.74
91083385|NCT03749109|182050487|OTHER||Difference in LS mean|10.13||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.74|35.0|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for baseline lesion size.||||35.00|-14.74|0.42
91083386|NCT03749109|182050488|OTHER||Difference in LS mean|1.09||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|2.38|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for baseline lesion size.||Endometrioma||2.38|-0.20|0.10
91083387|NCT03749109|182050488|OTHER||Difference in LS mean|0.28||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|1.58|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for baseline lesion size.||DIE||1.58|-1.02|0.67
91083388|NCT03749109|182050488|OTHER||Difference in LS mean|0.32||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|1.71|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for baseline lesion size.||Adenomyosis||1.71|-1.06|0.64
91083389|NCT03749109|182050489|OTHER||Difference in LS mean|0.21||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|1.44|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for baseline lesion size.||Endometrioma at cycle 1||1.44|-1.02|0.73
91083390|NCT03749109|182050489|OTHER||Difference in LS mean|0.42||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|1.82|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for baseline lesion size.||Endometrioma at cycle 2||1.82|-0.97|0.54
91083391|NCT03749109|182050489|OTHER||Difference in LS mean|-0.5||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|0.85|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for baseline lesion size.||Endometrioma at cycle 3||0.85|-1.86|0.46
91083392|NCT03749109|182050489|OTHER||Difference in LS mean|0.53||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|2.05|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for baseline lesion size.||Endometrioma at cycle 4||2.05|-0.99|0.49
91083393|NCT03749109|182050489|OTHER||Difference in LS mean|-0.01||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|1.3|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for baseline lesion size.||DIE at cycle 1||1.30|-1.32|0.99
91083394|NCT03749109|182050489|OTHER||Difference in LS mean|0.17||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|1.71|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for baseline lesion size.||DIE at cycle 2||1.71|-1.38|0.83
91083395|NCT03749109|182050489|OTHER||Difference in LS mean|-0.74||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|0.63|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for baseline lesion size.||DIE at cycle 3||0.63|-2.11|0.28
91083396|NCT03749109|182050489|OTHER||Difference in LS mean|0.75||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|2.07|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for baseline lesion size.||DIE at cycle 4||2.07|-0.57|0.26
91083397|NCT03749109|182050489|OTHER||Difference in LS mean|0.91||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|2.31|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for baseline lesion size.||Adenomyosis at cycle 1||2.31|-0.49|0.19
91083398|NCT03749109|182050489|OTHER||Difference in LS mean|0.07||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|1.58|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for baseline lesion size.||Adenomyosis at cycle 2||1.58|-1.45|0.93
91083399|NCT03749109|182050489|OTHER||Difference in LS mean|-0.13||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|1.32|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for baseline lesion size.||Adenomyosis at cycle 3||1.32|-1.58|0.85
91083400|NCT03749109|182050489|OTHER||Difference in LS mean|0.01||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|1.69|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for baseline lesion size.||Adenomyosis at cycle 4||1.69|-1.68|0.99
91083401|NCT03749109|182050490|OTHER||Difference in LS mean|-7.35||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.97|39.27|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for baseline lesion size.||Endometrioma at cycle 2||39.27|-53.97|0.75
91083402|NCT03749109|182050490|OTHER||Difference in LS mean|17.31||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.41|60.04|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for baseline lesion size.||Endometrioma at cycle 4||60.04|-25.41|0.42
91083403|NCT03749109|182050490|OTHER||Difference in LS mean|-17.66||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.3|30.98|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for baseline lesion size.||DIE at cycle 2||30.98|-66.30|0.47
91083404|NCT03749109|182050490|OTHER||Difference in LS mean|25.61||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.05|72.27|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for baseline lesion size.||DIE at cycle 4||72.27|-21.05|0.27
91083405|NCT03749109|182050490|OTHER||Difference in LS mean|-20.95||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.83|29.92|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for baseline lesion size.||Adenomyosis at cycle 2||29.92|-71.83|0.41
91083406|NCT03749109|182050490|OTHER||Difference in LS mean|2.25||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.57|54.06|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for baseline lesion size.||Adenomyosis at cycle 4||54.06|-49.57|0.93
91083407|NCT00076258|182050540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Remission rate|29.5|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|Both unadjusted and adjusted rates (for significant covariates) were reported||||||<0.05
91083408|NCT00076258|182050540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Remission Rate|28.3|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||For the covariate adjusted GLMM the remission rates were 15.5 for the LD and 28.3 for the PHD with a p \< 0.06 and the NNT of 7.8 for the PHD versus the LD.||||<0.05
91083409|NCT04530838|182050570|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC (SC) is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC SC - 13vPnC SC) was greater than -10%.|Percentage Difference|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|1.3||||||Serotype 1: 2-Sided 95% CIs are calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage.||1.3|-4.4|
91083410|NCT04530838|182050570|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC (SC) is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC SC - 13vPnC SC) was greater than -10%.|Percentage Difference|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|0.1||||||Serotype 3: 2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.||0.1|-6.2|
91083411|NCT04530838|182050570|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC (SC) is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC SC - 13vPnC SC) was greater than -10%.|Percentage Difference|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|0.5||||||Serotype 4: 2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.||0.5|-5.6|
91083412|NCT04530838|182050570|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC (SC) is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC SC - 13vPnC SC) was greater than -10%.|Percentage Difference|-5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|-0.9||||||Serotype 5: 2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.||-0.9|-9.6|
91083413|NCT04530838|182050570|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC (SC) is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC SC - 13vPnC SC) was greater than -10%.|Percentage Difference|-8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|-4.0||||||Serotype 6A: 2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.||-4.0|-13.0|
91018387|NCT03692078|181918942|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.009||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.138|0.155|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.155|-0.138|1.0000
91018388|NCT03692078|181918942|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.047||||0.9577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.189|0.095|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.095|-0.189|0.9577
91018389|NCT03692078|181918942|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.008||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.136|0.152|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.152|-0.136|1.0000
91018390|NCT01339858|181918952|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.32
91018391|NCT00996632|181918960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||null hypothesis is that drainage volumes are not different||||<0.05
91018392|NCT00996632|181918961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||null hypothesis is that Stay in Hospital Days are not different||||0.05
91083414|NCT04530838|182050570|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC (SC) is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC SC - 13vPnC SC) was greater than -10%.|Percentage Difference|-8.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|-3.7||||||Serotype 6B: 2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.||-3.7|-14.0|
91083415|NCT04530838|182050570|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC (SC) is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC SC - 13vPnC SC) was greater than -10%.|Percentage Difference|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|-0.3||||||Serotype 7F: 2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.||-0.3|-6.8|
91018393|NCT02861534|181918971|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.06|||Cox proportional hazard model|||||1.06|0.81|0.269
91018394|NCT02861534|181918972|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.0|||Cox proportional hazard model|||||1.00|0.81|0.048
91083416|NCT04530838|182050570|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC (SC) is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC SC - 13vPnC SC) was greater than -10%.|Percentage Difference|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|0.4||||||Serotype 9V: 2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.||0.4|-6.4|
91018395|NCT02861534|181918973|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|0.98|||Cox proportional hazard model|||||0.98|0.82|0.019
91018396|NCT02861534|181918974|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|0.99|||Andersen-Gill model|||||0.99|0.84|0.023
91018397|NCT02861534|181918975|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|0.98|||Cox proportional hazard model|||||0.98|0.83|0.021
91018398|NCT02861534|181918976|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.07|||Cox proportional hazard model|||||1.07|0.84|0.377
91018399|NCT02861534|181918979|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|1.2||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|2.8|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||2.8|-0.3|0.121
91018400|NCT02861534|181918980|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.6||||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||1.6|-0.5|0.303
91018401|NCT01211873|181919030|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
91018402|NCT01211873|181919031|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
91018403|NCT01211873|181919031|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
91018404|NCT01211873|181919032|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
91018405|NCT01211873|181919032|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
91018406|NCT01393626|181919058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.86||||0.3249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.64|21.36|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Tofacitinib-Placebo||21.36|-7.64|0.3249
91018407|NCT01393626|181919058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.36||||0.3916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.09|20.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Tofacitinib-Placebo||20.80|-8.09|0.3916
91018408|NCT02426125|181919078|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.757||||0.0118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.607|0.943||Stratified|Log Rank||Stratified|||0.943|0.607|0.0118
91018409|NCT02426125|181919079|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.887||||0.2461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.724|1.086||Stratified|Log Rank||Stratified|||1.086|0.724|0.2461
91018410|NCT02426125|181919082|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.473|1.158|||Log Rank|||||1.158|0.473|0.189
91083417|NCT04530838|182050570|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC (SC) is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC SC - 13vPnC SC) was greater than -10%.|Percentage Difference|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|2.4||||||Serotype 14: 2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.||2.4|-4.4|
91083418|NCT04530838|182050570|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC (SC) is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC SC - 13vPnC SC) was greater than -10%.|Percentage Difference|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|0.5||||||Serotype 18C: 2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.||0.5|-5.6|
91083419|NCT04530838|182050570|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC (SC) is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC SC - 13vPnC SC) was greater than -10%.|Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.1||||||Serotype 19A: 2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.||2.1|-2.1|
91083420|NCT04530838|182050570|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC (SC) is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC SC - 13vPnC SC) was greater than -10%.|Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.7||||||Serotype 19F: 2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.||1.7|-1.7|
91083421|NCT04530838|182050570|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC (SC) is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC SC - 13vPnC SC) was greater than -10%.|Percentage Difference|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|1.2||||||Serotype 23F: 2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.||1.2|-9.5|
91083422|NCT04530838|182050570|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 23F (13vPnC \[SC\] serotype with the lowest percentage, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC SC - lowest 13vPnC SC) was greater than -10%.|Percentage Difference|5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|10.0||||||Serotype 8: 2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.||10.0|3.0|
91083423|NCT04530838|182050570|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 23F (13vPnC \[SC\] serotype with the lowest percentage, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC SC - lowest 13vPnC SC) was greater than -10%.|Percentage Difference|-33.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.7|-26.2||||||Serotype 10A: 2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.||-26.2|-40.7|
91083424|NCT04530838|182050570|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 23F (13vPnC \[SC\] serotype with the lowest percentage, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC SC - lowest 13vPnC SC) was greater than -10%.|Percentage Difference|6.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|10.4||||||Serotype 11A: 2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.||10.4|3.8|
91083425|NCT04530838|182050570|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 23F (13vPnC \[SC\] serotype with the lowest percentage, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC SC - lowest 13vPnC SC) was greater than -10%.|Percentage Difference|-19.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.7|-12.5||||||Serotype 12F: 2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.||-12.5|-25.7|
91083426|NCT04530838|182050570|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 23F (13vPnC \[SC\] serotype with the lowest percentage, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC SC - lowest 13vPnC SC) was greater than -10%.|Percentage Difference|5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|9.6||||||Serotype 15B: 2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.||9.6|2.2|
91083427|NCT04530838|182050570|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 23F (13vPnC \[SC\] serotype with the lowest percentage, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC SC - lowest 13vPnC SC) was greater than -10%.|Percentage Difference|6.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|10.4||||||Serotype 22F: 2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.||10.4|3.8|
90956495|NCT04797650|181792777|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated by CMH test stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for responders in each treatment group compared to placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||||< 0.0001
91018411|NCT02426125|181919083|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.879||||0.357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.663|1.167||Stratified|Log Rank||Stratified|Global health status/QoL||1.167|0.663|0.357
91018412|NCT00956813|181919103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.29
91018413|NCT00956813|181919105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.93
91083428|NCT04530838|182050570|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 23F (13vPnC \[SC\] serotype with the lowest percentage, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC SC - lowest 13vPnC SC) was greater than -10%.|Percentage Difference|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|6.0||||||Serotype 33F: 2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.||6.0|-3.2|
91083429|NCT04530838|182050570|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|-1.7||||||Serotype 1: 2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.||-1.7|-10.4|
91083430|NCT04530838|182050570|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|2.9||||||Serotype 3: 2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.||2.9|-5.2|
91083431|NCT04530838|182050570|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|1.9||||||Serotype 4: 2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.||1.9|-6.2|
91083432|NCT04530838|182050570|OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|5.8||||||Serotype 5: 2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.||5.8|-4.5|
91083433|NCT04530838|182050570|OTHER||Percentage Difference|4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|10.0||||||Serotype 6A: 2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.||10.0|-0.2|
91083434|NCT04530838|182050570|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-5.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|1.1||||||Serotype 6B: 2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.||1.1|-12.5|
91083435|NCT04530838|182050570|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|3.1||||||Serotype 7F: 2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.||3.1|-5.4|
91083436|NCT04530838|182050570|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|1.4||||||Serotype 9V: 2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.||1.4|-7.7|
91083437|NCT04530838|182050570|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|3.2||||||Serotype 14: 2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.||3.2|-4.4|
91083438|NCT04530838|182050570|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|1.9||||||Serotype 18C: 2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.||1.9|-6.2|
91083439|NCT04530838|182050570|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|1.7||||||Serotype 19A: 2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.||1.7|-3.0|
91083440|NCT04530838|182050570|OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.7||||||Serotype 19F: 2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.||1.7|-1.8|
91083441|NCT04530838|182050570|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|5.1||||||Serotype 23F: 2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.||5.1|-6.9|
91083442|NCT04530838|182050570|OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|2.1||||||Serotype 8: 2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.||2.1|-2.2|
91083443|NCT04530838|182050570|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|8.6||||||Serotype 10A: 2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.||8.6|-9.8|
91083444|NCT04530838|182050570|OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.7||||||Serotype 11A: 2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.||1.7|-1.8|
91083445|NCT04530838|182050570|OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|8.2||||||Serotype 12F: 2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.||8.2|-8.2|
91083446|NCT04530838|182050570|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|2.0||||||Serotype 15B: 2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.||2.0|-3.3|
91083447|NCT04530838|182050570|OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.7||||||Serotype 22F: 2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.||1.7|-1.8|
91083448|NCT04530838|182050570|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|2.2||||||Serotype 33F: 2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.||2.2|-7.5|
91083449|NCT04530838|182050571|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC (SC) is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC \[SC\]/13vPnC \[SC\]) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMR|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.72||||||Serotype 1: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||0.72|0.54|
91083450|NCT04530838|182050571|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC (SC) is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC \[SC\]/13vPnC \[SC\]) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMR|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.81||||||Serotype 3: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||0.81|0.63|
91083451|NCT04530838|182050571|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC (SC) is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC \[SC\]/13vPnC \[SC\]) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMR|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.7||||||Serotype 4: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||0.70|0.51|
91083452|NCT04530838|182050571|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC (SC) is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC \[SC\]/13vPnC \[SC\]) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMR|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.71||||||Serotype 5: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||0.71|0.49|
91083453|NCT04530838|182050571|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC (SC) is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC \[SC\]/13vPnC \[SC\]) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMR|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.7||||||Serotype 6A: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||0.70|0.50|
91083454|NCT04530838|182050571|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC (SC) is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC \[SC\]/13vPnC \[SC\]) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMR|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.64||||||Serotype 6B: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||0.64|0.40|
91083455|NCT04530838|182050571|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC (SC) is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC \[SC\]/13vPnC \[SC\]) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMR|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.84||||||Serotype 7F: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||0.84|0.62|
91083456|NCT04530838|182050571|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC (SC) is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC \[SC\]/13vPnC \[SC\]) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMR|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.8||||||Serotype 9V: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||0.80|0.60|
91018414|NCT00956813|181919106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Testing the change in score from baseline to treatment completion for vasomotor-related questions in the MENQOL form.||||0.19
91083457|NCT04530838|182050571|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC (SC) is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC \[SC\]/13vPnC \[SC\]) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMR|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.01||||||Serotype 14: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||1.01|0.70|
91083458|NCT04530838|182050571|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC (SC) is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC \[SC\]/13vPnC \[SC\]) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMR|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.77||||||Serotype 18C: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||0.77|0.57|
91083459|NCT04530838|182050571|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC (SC) is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC \[SC\]/13vPnC \[SC\]) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMR|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.87||||||Serotype 19A: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||0.87|0.65|
91083460|NCT04530838|182050571|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC (SC) is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC \[SC\]/13vPnC \[SC\]) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMR|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.85||||||Serotype 19F: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||0.85|0.67|
91083461|NCT04530838|182050571|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC (SC) is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC \[SC\]/13vPnC \[SC\]) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMR|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.78||||||Serotype 23F: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||0.78|0.53|
91083462|NCT04530838|182050571|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 6B (13vPnC \[SC\] serotype with the lowest GMC, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC \[SC\]/lowest 13vPnC \[SC\]) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMR|4.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.36|4.79||||||Serotype 8: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||4.79|3.36|
91018415|NCT00956813|181919106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Testing the change in score from baseline to treatment completion for Psychosocial-related questions in the MENQOL form.||||0.78
91018416|NCT00956813|181919106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.238|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Testing the change in score from baseline to treatment completion for Physical-related questions in the MENQOL form.||||0.238
91018417|NCT00956813|181919106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.497|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Testing the change in score from baseline to treatment completion for Sexually-related questions in the MENQOL form.||||0.497
91018418|NCT00956813|181919107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.089|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.089
91018419|NCT00903409|181919113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The difference between Non-switchers and Switchers in the percent change in non-HDL-C level from the end of the OM6 double-blind study (average of Weeks 6 and 8 for the statistical analysis) to 4 months of OM6X open-label treatment (Month 4).|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
91018420|NCT03539952|181919132|NON_INFERIORITY|The primary efficacy analysis utilized the serum NCC values from all study visits that were analyzed using a restricted maximum likelihood based general linear model for correlated data. The correlation due to repeated measures was modeled by specifying the variance covariance matrix. Considering a comparison of means in both treatment arms (D-penicillamine minus TETA 4HCl) at the 1-sided 2.5% level of Type 1 error, a non-inferiority margin of 50 μg/L was used.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.49|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||The primary endpoint was the assessment of the non-inferiority of TETA 4HCl in relation to D-penicillamine. The non-inferiority assessment was made on the basis of the mean serum NCC level at Week 36.||||
91018421|NCT01371006|181919143|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing)|Geometric Mean Ratio|105.61|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.81|122.82|||ANOVA||the standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|relative bioavailability comparison (50 mg Efavirenz+240 mg Faldaprevir : 50 mg Efavirenz) of Efavirenz||122.82|90.81|
91018422|NCT01371006|181919144|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing)|Geometric Mean Ratio|116.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|18.8|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.87|132.35|||ANOVA||the standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|relative bioavailability comparison (50 mg Efavirenz+240 mg Faldaprevir : 50 mg Efavirenz) of Efavirenz||132.35|101.87|
91018423|NCT01371006|181919145|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing)|Geometric Mean Ratio|71.83|STANDARD_DEVIATION|23.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|61.46|83.95|||ANOVA||the standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|relative bioavailability comparison (7.5 mg Midazolam+240 mg Faldaprevir+600 mg Efavirenz : 7.5 mg Midazolam+240 mg Faldaprevir) of Faldaprevir||83.95|61.46|
91018424|NCT01371006|181919146|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing)|Geometric Mean Ratio|64.97|STANDARD_DEVIATION|30.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|53.32|79.16|||ANOVA||the standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|relative bioavailability comparison (7.5 mg Midazolam+240 mg Faldaprevir+600 mg Efavirenz : 7.5 mg Midazolam+240 mg Faldaprevir) of Faldaprevir||79.16|53.32|
91018425|NCT01371006|181919147|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing)|Geometric Mean Ratio|54.31|STANDARD_DEVIATION|44.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|40.47|72.88|||ANOVA||the standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|relative bioavailability comparison (7.5 mg Midazolam+240 mg Faldaprevir+600 mg Efavirenz : 7.5 mg Midazolam+240 mg Faldaprevir) of Faldaprevir||72.88|40.47|
91018426|NCT03256526|181919160|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|11.45||||0.1654|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.19|25.09|||ANCOVA|||||25.09|-2.19|0.1654
91018427|NCT03256526|181919160|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-18.73||||0.0395|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-33.55|-3.9|||ANCOVA|||||-3.90|-33.55|0.0395
91018428|NCT01186744|181919168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0008
91018429|NCT01186744|181919168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
91018430|NCT01186744|181919169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0027
91018431|NCT01186744|181919169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
91018432|NCT03515837|181919308|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.0122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.97|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by PD-L1 expression; treatment history; geographic region of the enrolling site.|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by PD-L1 expression; treatment history; geographic region of the enrolling site.|||0.97|0.65|0.0122
91018433|NCT03515837|181919309|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.0362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.02|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by PD-L1 expression; treatment history; geographic region of the enrolling site.|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by PD-L1 expression; treatment history; geographic region of the enrolling site.|||1.02|0.69|0.0362
91018434|NCT03515837|181919310|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|9.9|||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by PD-L1 expression; treatment history; geographic region of the enrolling site.|||9.9|-6.0|
91018435|NCT03515837|181919312|OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|5.1|||||Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors PD-L1 expression, treatment history, and geographic region of the enrolling site as covariates.|||5.10|-1.93|
91083463|NCT04530838|182050571|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 6B (13vPnC \[SC\] serotype with the lowest GMC, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC \[SC\]/lowest 13vPnC \[SC\]) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMR|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.76||||||Serotype 10A: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||0.76|0.48|
91018436|NCT03515837|181919313|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||||95.0|0.68|1.27|||||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by PD-L1 expression; treatment history; geographic region of the enrolling site.|||1.27|0.68|
91018437|NCT01856686|181919321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.56593|||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.56593
91018438|NCT01856686|181919321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.44929|||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 3 month data||||0.44929
91018439|NCT01856686|181919321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.81844|||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 3 month data||||0.81844
91018440|NCT01856686|181919322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.71152|||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.71152
91018441|NCT01856686|181919322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.27795|||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 3 month data||||0.27795
91018442|NCT01856686|181919322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.47616|||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 3 month data||||0.47616
91018443|NCT01856686|181919323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.10036|||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.10036
91018444|NCT01856686|181919323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0082|||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group changes||||0.00820
91018445|NCT01856686|181919323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1|||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 3 month data||||1.00000
91018446|NCT01856686|181919324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.92193|||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.92193
91018447|NCT01856686|181919324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.50704|||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 3 month data||||0.50704
91018448|NCT01856686|181919324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.42314|||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 3 month data||||0.42314
91018449|NCT01856686|181919325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.08946|||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.08946
91018450|NCT01856686|181919325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.27795|||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 3 month data||||0.27795
91018451|NCT01856686|181919325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0109|||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 3 month data||||0.01090
91018452|NCT01856686|181919326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.73209|||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.73209
91018453|NCT01856686|181919326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.07965|||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 3 month data||||0.07965
91018454|NCT01856686|181919326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.61613|||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 3 month data||||0.61613
91018455|NCT01856686|181919327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.33027|||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.33027
91018456|NCT01856686|181919327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.00013|||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 3 month data||||0.00013
91018457|NCT01856686|181919327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.28019|||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 3 month data||||0.28019
91018458|NCT01856686|181919328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.94449|||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.94449
91018459|NCT01856686|181919328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.94574|||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 3 month data||||0.94574
91018460|NCT01856686|181919328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.85428|||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 3 month data||||0.85428
91018461|NCT01856686|181919329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.83929|||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.83929
91018462|NCT01856686|181919329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.97213|||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 3 month data||||0.97213
91018463|NCT01856686|181919329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.58323|||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 3 month data||||0.58323
91018464|NCT01856686|181919330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.05158|||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.05158
91018465|NCT01856686|181919330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.94574|||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 3 month data||||0.94574
91018466|NCT01856686|181919330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.09331|||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 3 month data||||0.09331
91018467|NCT01856686|181919331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.17383|||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.17383
91018468|NCT01856686|181919331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.00092|||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 3 month data||||0.00092
91018469|NCT01856686|181919331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.15544|||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 3 month data||||0.15544
91018470|NCT01856686|181919332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.39707|||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.39707
91018471|NCT01856686|181919332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.27945|||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 3 month data||||0.27945
91018472|NCT01856686|181919332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.19739|||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 3 month data||||0.19739
91018473|NCT01856686|181919333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.50964|||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.50964
91018474|NCT01856686|181919333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0071|||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 3 month data||||0.00710
91018475|NCT01856686|181919333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.00595|||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 3 month data||||0.00595
91018476|NCT01856686|181919334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.48336|||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.48336
91018477|NCT01856686|181919334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.08739|||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 3 month data||||0.08739
91018478|NCT01856686|181919334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.37046|||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 3 month data||||0.37046
91018479|NCT01856686|181919336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.45013|||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.45013
91018480|NCT01856686|181919336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.17374|||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 3 month data||||0.17374
91018481|NCT01856686|181919336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.07548|||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 3 month data||||0.07548
91018482|NCT01856686|181919337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.23226|||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.23226
91018483|NCT01856686|181919337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.08812|||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 3 month data||||0.08812
91018484|NCT01856686|181919337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.00776|||||||Pairedt-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 3 month data||||0.00776
91018485|NCT01856686|181919338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.90843|||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.90843
91018486|NCT01856686|181919338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.00413|||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 3 month data||||0.00413
91083464|NCT04530838|182050571|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 6B (13vPnC \[SC\] serotype with the lowest GMC, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC \[SC\]/lowest 13vPnC \[SC\]) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMR|6.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.69|8.13||||||Serotype 11A: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||8.13|5.69|
91083465|NCT04530838|182050571|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 6B (13vPnC \[SC\] serotype with the lowest GMC, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC \[SC\]/lowest 13vPnC \[SC\]) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMR|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.2||||||Serotype 12F: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||1.20|0.76|
91083466|NCT04530838|182050571|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 6B (13vPnC \[SC\] serotype with the lowest GMC, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC \[SC\]/lowest 13vPnC \[SC\]) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMR|8.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.75|9.92||||||Serotype 15B: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||9.92|6.75|
91083467|NCT04530838|182050571|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 6B (13vPnC \[SC\] serotype with the lowest GMC, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC \[SC\]/lowest 13vPnC \[SC\]) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMR|5.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|7.12||||||Serotype 22F: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||7.12|5.00|
91083468|NCT04530838|182050571|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 6B (13vPnC \[SC\] serotype with the lowest GMC, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC \[SC\]/lowest 13vPnC \[SC\]) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMR|2.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.69|2.51||||||Serotype 33F: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||2.51|1.69|
91083469|NCT04530838|182050571|OTHER||GMR|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.99||||||Serotype 1: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||0.99|0.73|
91083470|NCT04530838|182050571|OTHER||GMR|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.98||||||Serotype 3: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||0.98|0.74|
91083471|NCT04530838|182050571|OTHER||GMR|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.16||||||Serotype 4: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||1.16|0.83|
91083472|NCT04530838|182050571|OTHER||GMR|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.19||||||Serotype 5: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||1.19|0.81|
91083473|NCT04530838|182050571|OTHER||GMR|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.44||||||Serotype 6A: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||1.44|0.98|
91083474|NCT04530838|182050571|OTHER||GMR|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.21||||||Serotype 6B: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||1.21|0.72|
91083475|NCT04530838|182050571|OTHER||GMR|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.12||||||Serotype 7F: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||1.12|0.82|
91083476|NCT04530838|182050571|OTHER||GMR|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.16||||||Serotype 9V: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||1.16|0.85|
91083477|NCT04530838|182050571|OTHER||GMR|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.04||||||Serotype 14: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||1.04|0.72|
91083478|NCT04530838|182050571|OTHER||GMR|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.07||||||Serotype 18C: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||1.07|0.79|
91083479|NCT04530838|182050571|OTHER||GMR|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.13||||||Serotype 19A: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||1.13|0.84|
91083480|NCT04530838|182050571|OTHER||GMR|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.1||||||Serotype 19F: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||1.10|0.87|
91018487|NCT01856686|181919338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.00775|||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 3 month data||||0.00775
91083481|NCT04530838|182050571|OTHER||GMR|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.19||||||Serotype 23F: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||1.19|0.81|
91018488|NCT04101721|181919345|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin is 5%|Adjusted difference|1.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.1|-15.71|19.33||||||Difference with confidence interval (CI) is calculated using Mantel-Haenszel weighting scheme adjusted by baseline ROP status.||19.33|-15.71|
91018489|NCT04101721|181919346|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference|-3.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.1|-19.86|12.54||||||Difference with confidence interval (CI) is calculated using Mantel-Haenszel weighting scheme adjusted by baseline ROP status.||12.54|-19.86|
91018490|NCT04101721|181919347|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference|10.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.1|-9.83|30.02||||||Difference with confidence interval (CI) is calculated using Mantel-Haenszel weighting scheme adjusted by baseline ROP status||30.02|-9.83|
91018491|NCT01215955|181919350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.22|||||No imputation was performed. Participants without a 24-week value were handled by the statistical model.|||0.22|-0.15|
91018492|NCT01215955|181919350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.24|||||No imputation was performed. Participants without a 24-week value were handled by the statistical model.|||0.24|-0.12|
91018493|NCT01215955|181919351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.09||P-value is for HbA1c ≤7.0% at endpoint (LOCF). Logistic regression included treatment and effects for baseline stratification variables: baseline HbA1c (≤8% or \>8%), country and sulfonylurea/meglitinide use. Comparison calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.09|0.520|0.128
91018494|NCT01215955|181919351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.39||P-value is for HbA1c ≤6.5% at endpoint (LOCF). Logistic regression included treatment and effects for baseline stratification variables: baseline HbA1c (≤8% or \>8%), country and sulfonylurea/meglitinide use. Comparison calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.39|0.580|0.625
91083482|NCT04530838|182050571|OTHER||GMR|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.13||||||Serotype 8: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||1.13|0.87|
91018495|NCT01215955|181919351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77||||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.11||P-value is for HbA1c ≤7.0% at endpoint (LOCF). Logistic regression included treatment and effects for baseline stratification variables: baseline HbA1c (≤8% or \>8%), country and sulfonylurea/meglitinide use. Comparison calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.11|0.53|0.162
91018496|NCT01215955|181919351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.4||P-value is for HbA1c ≤6.5% at endpoint (LOCF). Logistic regression included treatment and effects for baseline stratification variables: baseline HbA1c (≤8% or \>8%), country and sulfonylurea/meglitinide use. Comparison calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Regression, Linear|||||1.40|0.61|0.723
91018497|NCT01215955|181919352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|2.67||P-value is for HbA1c ≤7.0% at endpoint (LOCF). Logistic regression included treatment and effects for baseline stratification variables: baseline HbA1c (≤8% or \>8%), country and sulfonylurea/meglitinide use. Comparison calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.67|0.520|0.701
91018498|NCT01215955|181919352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.62||||0.249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|3.7||P-value is for HbA1c ≤6.5% at endpoint (LOCF). Logistic regression included treatment and effects for baseline stratification variables: baseline HbA1c (≤8% or \>8%), country and sulfonylurea/meglitinide use. Comparison calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Regression, Logistic|||||3.70|0.710|0.249
91018499|NCT01215955|181919352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.32||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.8||P-value is for HbA1c ≤7% at endpoint (LOCF). Logistic regression included treatment and effects for baseline stratification variables: baseline HbA1c (≤8% or \>8%), country and sulfonylurea/meglitinide use. Comparison calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Regression, Logistic|Included treatment and effects for baseline stratification variables: Baseline HbA1c (≤8% or \>8%), country and sulfonylurea/meglitinide use.||||0.80|0.13|0.015
91018500|NCT01215955|181919352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.43||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.1||P-value is for HbA1c ≤6.5% at endpoint (LOCF). Logistic regression included treatment and effects for baseline stratification variables: baseline HbA1c (≤8% or \>8%), country and sulfonylurea/meglitinide use. Comparison calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.10|0.17|0.078
91018501|NCT01215955|181919353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|0.81||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.46||No imputation was performed. Participants without a 24-week value were handled by the statistical model. Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.46|0.17|0.014
91018502|NCT01215955|181919353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|-0.5||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|0.11||No imputation was performed. Participants without a 24-week value were handled by the statistical model. Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.11|-1.12|0.108
91018503|NCT01215955|181919354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.11||Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Regression, Cox|Cox Regression model with effects for treatment and baseline stratification variables (HbA1c, country, sulfonylurea/meglitinide use) was used.||||1.11|0.57|0.182
91018504|NCT01215955|181919354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.22||Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Regression, Cox|Cox Regression model with effects for treatment and baseline stratification variables (HbA1c, country, sulfonylurea/meglitinide use) was used.||||1.22|0.65|0.460
91018505|NCT01215955|181919355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.77|||||No imputation was performed. Participants without a 24-week value were handled by the statistical model. Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|||0.77|-0.19|
91018506|NCT01215955|181919355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.31|||||No imputation was performed. Participants without a 24-week value were handled by the statistical model. Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|||1.31|0.30|
91018507|NCT01215955|181919356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|0.59||||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.58||Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Mixed Models Analysis||No imputation was performed. Participants without a 24-week value were handled by the statistical model.|||1.58|-0.40|0.242
91083483|NCT04530838|182050571|OTHER||GMR|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.2||||||Serotype 10A: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||1.20|0.73|
91083484|NCT04530838|182050571|OTHER||GMR|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.06||||||Serotype 11A: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||1.06|0.81|
91083485|NCT04530838|182050571|OTHER||GMR|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.15||||||Serotype 12F: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||1.15|0.71|
91083486|NCT04530838|182050571|OTHER||GMR|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.18||||||Serotype 15B: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||1.18|0.85|
91083487|NCT04530838|182050571|OTHER||GMR|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.02||||||Serotype 22F: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||1.02|0.78|
91083488|NCT04530838|182050571|OTHER||GMR|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.15||||||Serotype 33F: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||1.15|0.79|
91083489|NCT02672176|182050578|EQUIVALENCE|Information included in Statistical Analysis||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
91083490|NCT02672176|182050579|EQUIVALENCE|See Statistical Analysis||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
91083491|NCT02672176|182050580|EQUIVALENCE|See Statistical Analysis||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
91083492|NCT02672176|182050581|EQUIVALENCE|See Statistical Analysis||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
91083493|NCT02672176|182050582|EQUIVALENCE|See Statistical Analysis||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
91083494|NCT02672176|182050583|EQUIVALENCE|See Statistical Analysis||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
91083495|NCT02672176|182050584|EQUIVALENCE|See Statistical Analysis||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
91083496|NCT02672176|182050585|EQUIVALENCE|Information in Statistical Analysis||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
91083497|NCT02672176|182050586|EQUIVALENCE|Information included in Statistical Analysis||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
91083498|NCT02501161|182050608|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Stratified log-rank test|||Test for no treatment difference was based on using a stratified log-rank test where treatment, baseline HbA1c group and pre-trial OAD treatment group were included as strata in the model.||||<.0001
91083499|NCT02501161|182050609|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Stratified log-rank test|||Test for no treatment difference was based on using a stratified log-rank test where treatment, baseline HbA1c group and pre-trial OAD treatment group were included as strata in the model.||||<.0001
91083500|NCT04336475|182050662|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.564||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05. p value stands for the comparison of final oral aperture measurements between two groups. (after 2 months' period)|ANOVA|Repeated Measures ANOVA||||||0.564
91083501|NCT02179047|182050666|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.002
91083502|NCT02179047|182050667|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.005||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.002
91083503|NCT02179047|182050668|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.39|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.005||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.001
91083504|NCT01563198|182050688|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||Change in Non-completion Rate of MRI Scans From Baseline at Average of One Year (All Schedule Patients)||||<0.0001
91083505|NCT01563198|182050689|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
91083506|NCT01563198|182050690|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
91083507|NCT01703169|182050693|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The proportion of platelet response in a previous study (PMID:22762314) was 0.36 (9/25). The null hypothesis of no difference between the platelet response rate in this study and that of the previous study was tested using a two-sided exact test of binomial proportions. A p-value of 0.40 was obtained. The threshold for significance was 0.05.|||
91083508|NCT00905567|182050699|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA was performed on ln-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-72h, and Cmax. All analyses were performed according to FDA's guidleines.|Ratio of the Least Squares Mean|93.01||||||90.0|||||||Bioequivalence is established when Ratio of the Least Squares Mean (test/reference x 100) falls within 80-125.|||||
91083509|NCT00905567|182050700|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA was performed on ln-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-72h, and Cmax. All analyses were performed according to FDA's guidleines.|Ratio of the Least Squares Mean|96.62||||||90.0|||||||Bioequivalence is established when the Ratio of the Least Squares Mean (test/reference x 100) falls within 80-125.|||||
91083510|NCT00905567|182050701|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA was performed on ln-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-72h, and Cmax. All analyses were performed according to FDA's guidleines.|Ratio of the Least Squares Mean|96.43||||||90.0|||||||Bioequivalence is established when the Ratio of the Least Squares Mean (test/reference x 100) falls within 80-125.|||||
91083511|NCT02362191|182050705|OTHER|||||||0.758||||||The threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.758
91083512|NCT02362191|182050706|OTHER|||||||0.4||||||The threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.40
91083513|NCT02259400|182050720|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For the calculation of sample size we used the duration of ventilation as the main primary outcome. As no basic data are available for this population, we were able to retrieve from the database of our two NICUs the duration of ventilation on NIV. We assumed a difference of 24-h between the two groups in the duration of NIV as clinically relevant. We used a confidence level α=0.05; the power level desired was 0.80 and consequently we needed 62 patients for each group.|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||< 0.05
91083514|NCT03498313|182050741|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.082||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|This is the p-value for the Treatment X Cycle Phase Interaction. Kenward-Roger Method was utilized for degrees of freedom.|Placebo represents the reference treatment.|Fixed interaction effect of treatment (0=Placebo, 1=E2) by cycle phase (0=Lower-Risk Early Luteal Baseline, 1=Higher-Risk Perimenstrual Phase) predicting SI severity in a multilevel model (with daily observations nested within conditions nested within participants over time).||-.08|-.41|.002
91018508|NCT01215955|181919356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|1.13||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|2.41||Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Mixed Models Analysis||No imputation was performed. Participants without 24-week values were handled by the statistical model.|||2.41|-0.15|0.082
91018509|NCT01215955|181919357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|-0.15||||0.723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.66||Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Mixed Models Analysis||No imputation was performed. Participants without a 24-week value were handled by the statistical model|||0.66|-0.95|0.723
91018510|NCT01215955|181919357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|-0.28||||0.495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|0.52||Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Mixed Models Analysis||No imputation was performed. Participants without a 24-week value were handled by the statistical model|||0.52|-1.08|0.495
91018511|NCT01215955|181919358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.32||||0.245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28|8.93||P-value is for Morning Pre-meal. No imputation was performed. Participants without a 24-week value were handled by the statistical model. Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.93|-2.28|0.245
91018512|NCT01215955|181919358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.71||||0.842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.71|6.29||P-value is for Morning 2-HR PP. No imputation was performed. Participants without a 24-week value were handled by the statistical model. Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.29|-7.71|0.842
91018513|NCT01215955|181919358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.42||||0.626||95.0|-4.32|7.16||P-value is for Midday Pre-Meal. No imputation was performed. Participants without a 24-week value were handled by the statistical model. Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.16|-4.32|0.626
91018514|NCT01215955|181919358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.48||||0.358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.91|3.95||P-value is for Midday 2-Hr PP. No imputation was performed. Participants without a 24-week value were handled by the statistical model. Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.95|-10.91|0.358
91018515|NCT01215955|181919358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.38||||0.322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.32|10.07||P-value is for Evening Pre-meal. No imputation was performed. Participants without a 24-week value were handled by the statistical model. Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||10.07|-3.32|0.322
91018516|NCT01215955|181919358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.25||||0.617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.08|6.58||P-value is for Bed Time. No imputation was performed. Participants without a 24-week value were handled by the statistical model. Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.58|-11.08|0.617
91018517|NCT01215955|181919358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.37||||0.519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.86|9.6||P-value is for 0300 hours. No imputation was performed. Participants without a 24-week value were handled by the statistical model. Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.60|-4.86|0.519
91018518|NCT01215955|181919358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.1||||0.415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.96|7.15||P-value is for Morning Pre-meal. No imputation was performed. Participants without a 24-week value were handled by the statistical model. Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.15|-2.96|0.415
91018519|NCT01215955|181919358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.38||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|11.06||P-value is for Morning 2-hr PP. No imputation was performed. Participants without a 24-week value were handled by the statistical model. Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.06|-2.30|0.198
91018520|NCT01215955|181919358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.22||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|12.29||P-value is for Midday Pre-Meal. No imputation was performed. Participants without a 24-week value were handled by the statistical model. Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||12.29|0.14|0.045
91018521|NCT01215955|181919358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.07||||0.426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|10.64||P-value is for Midday 2-hr PP. No imputation was performed. Participants without a 24-week value were handled by the statistical model. Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||10.64|-4.50|0.426
91018522|NCT01215955|181919358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.66||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|13.17||P-value is for Evening Pre-Meal. No imputation was performed. Participants without a 24-week value were handled by the statistical model. Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||13.17|-1.86|0.140
91018523|NCT01215955|181919358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|11.18||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.74|20.63||P-value is for Bed Time. No imputation was performed. Participants without a 24-week value were handled by the statistical model. Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||20.63|1.74|0.020
91018524|NCT01215955|181919358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|9.01||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|17.49||P-value is for 0300 hours. No imputation was performed. Participants without a 24-week value were handled by the statistical model. Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||17.49|0.53|0.037
91018525|NCT01215955|181919359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.15||||0.543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.55|4.84||P-value is for basal insulin dose. No imputation was performed. Participants without a 24-week value were handled by the statistical model. Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.84|-2.55|0.543
91018526|NCT01215955|181919359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.72||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|14.6||P-value is for bolus insulin dose. No imputation was performed. Participants without a 24-week value were handled by the statistical model. Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||14.60|-1.17|0.095
91018527|NCT01215955|181919359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|8.86||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|18.06||P-value is for total insulin dose. No imputation was performed. Participants without a 24-week value were handled by the statistical model. Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||18.06|-0.35|0.059
91018528|NCT01215955|181919359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.09||||0.497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|4.23||P-value is for basal insulin dose. No imputation was performed. Participants without a 24-week value were handled by the statistical model. Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.23|-2.05|0.497
91018529|NCT01215955|181919359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.37||||0.156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|12.79||P-value is for bolus insulin dose. No imputation was performed. Participants without a 24-week value were handled by the statistical model. Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||12.79|-2.06|0.156
91018530|NCT01215955|181919359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.05||||0.222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.67|15.76||P-value of for total insulin dose. No imputation was performed. Participants without a 24-week value were handled by the statistical model. Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||15.76|-3.67|0.222
91018531|NCT01215955|181919360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.05||P-value is for basal insulin dose. No imputation was performed. Participants without a 24-week value were handled by the statistical model. Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|LS Mean Difference|||||0.05|-0.02|0.442
91018532|NCT01215955|181919360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.07||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.14||P-value is for bolus insulin dose. No imputation was performed. Participants without a 24-week value were handled by the statistical model. Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.14|0.00|0.037
91018533|NCT01215955|181919360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.16||P-value is for total insulin dose. No imputation was performed. Participants without a 24-week value were handled by the statistical model. Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.16|0.05|<0.001
91018534|NCT01215955|181919360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.02||||0.275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.05||P-value is for basal insulin dose. No imputation was performed. Participants without a 24-week value were handled by the statistical model. Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|LS Mean Difference|||||0.05|-0.01|0.275
91018535|NCT01215955|181919360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.03||||0.194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.08||P-value is for bolus insulin dose. No imputation was performed. Participants without a 24-week value were handled by the statistical model. Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.08|-0.02|0.194
91018536|NCT01215955|181919360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.06||||0.245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.15||P-value is for total insulin dose. No imputation was performed. Participants without a 24-week value were handled by the statistical model. Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.15|-0.04|0.245
91018537|NCT01215955|181919361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.435||95.0||||Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.435
91018538|NCT01215955|181919361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.351||95.0||||Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.351
91018539|NCT01215955|181919362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.802||95.0||||Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.802
91018540|NCT01215955|181919362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.205||95.0||||Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.205
91018541|NCT01215955|181919363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Q3D vs Q1D Ratio of Negative Binomial|1.06||||0.586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.3||Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Negative Binomial Regression|||||1.30|0.86|0.586
91018542|NCT01215955|181919363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Q3D vs Q1D Ratio Negative Binomial|1.05||||0.689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.3||Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Negative Binomial|||||1.30|0.84|0.689
91018543|NCT01215955|181919364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.258||95.0||||Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.258
91018544|NCT01215955|181919364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.856||95.0||||Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.856
91018545|NCT02643394|181919394|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.252|TWO_SIDED|80.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.252
91018546|NCT02643394|181919395|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.402|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.402
91018547|NCT00077766|181919411|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority with 90% power assuming that the true difference between the RO0503821 group and darbepoetin was not larger than 0.3 g/dL.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1162|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.049|0.408||The p-value for the non-inferiority test was derived using ANCOVA.|ANCOVA, CI for difference between groups|Degrees of Freedom : 246|Difference between groups based on the adjusted means derived from the ANCOVA model.|RO0503821 group was compared to darbepoetin alfa group, using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with the independent variable as treatment group and Hb at baseline and geographical region as covariates. The test for non-inferiority was based on the lower limit of 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for difference in adjusted mean between 2 groups. If this lower limit was \> or = to -0.75 g/dL, the RO0503821 group was regarded as clinically non-inferior to darbepoetin alfa group, with 90% power.||0.408|-0.049|< 0.0001
91032399|NCT00113425|181949486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79|||||||paired t-test, 2-sided|||Null Hypothesis = There is no difference between change from baseline in cysts for the treated side of the face compared to the change from baseline for the untreated side of the face in all patients||||0.79
91032400|NCT00113425|181949487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||paired t-test, 2-sided|||Null Hypothesis = There is no difference between change from baseline in closed comedones for the treated side of the face compared to the change from baseline for the untreated side of the face in all patients||||0.10
91032401|NCT00113425|181949488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73|||||||paired t-test, 2-sided|||Null Hypothesis = There is no difference between change from baseline in open comedones for the treated side of the face compared to the change from baseline for the untreated side of the face in all patients||||0.73
91032402|NCT00113425|181949489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||paired t-test, 2-sided|||Null Hypothesis = There is no difference between change from baseline in erythematous macules for the treated side of the face compared to the change from baseline for the untreated side of the face in all patients||||0.02
91032403|NCT00113425|181949490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||paired t-test, 2-sided|||Null Hypothesis = There is no difference between change from baseline in acne severity for the treated side of the face compared to the change from baseline for the untreated side of the face in all patients||||0.003
91032404|NCT00113425|181949491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62|||||||paired t-test, 2-sided|||Null Hypothesis = There is no difference between change from baseline in papule acne lesions for the treated side of the face compared to the change from baseline for the untreated side of the face in all patients||||0.62
91018548|NCT03226366|181919461|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.9||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.4|6.1|||Regression, Linear||Change in emergency department door-to-antibiotic time (minutes) based on adjusted differences-in-differences analysis|Differences-in-differences analysis using multivariable regression to estimate the change in emergency department (ED) door-to-antibiotic time after versus before intervention implementation at the intervention site adjusted for the change observed over the same time period at the control sites and for subject's age, sex, Elixhauser Comorbidity Score, initial systolic blood pressure, initial Glasgow Coma Scale score \<14. initial temperature, ED triage acuity score, and ED arrival via ambulance.||6.1|-20.4|0.29
91018549|NCT03226366|181919462|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|2.61|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio for hospital mortality after versus before intervention implementation based on adjusted differences-in-differences analysis|Differences-in-differences analysis using multivariable regression to estimate the change in odds of hospital mortality after versus before implementation at the intervention site with adjustment for observed change in outcome over the same time period at the control sites as well as for subject's age, sex, Elixhauser Comorbidity Score, initial systolic blood pressure, an initial Glasgow Coma Scale score \<14. initial temperature, ED triage acuity score, and arrival to the ED via ambulance.||2.61|0.25|0.72
91018550|NCT03226366|181919463|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.5||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.9|7.0|||Regression, Linear||Change in emergency department length of stay (minutes) after versus before intervention implementation based on adjusted differences-in-differences analysis|Differences-in-differences analysis using multivariable regression to estimate the change in emergency department length of stay after versus before implementation at the intervention site with adjustment for the change observed over the same time period at the control sites as well as for subject's age, sex, Elixhauser Comorbidity Score, initial systolic blood pressure, an initial Glasgow Coma Scale score \<14. initial temperature, ED triage acuity score, and arrival to the ED via ambulance.||7.0|-25.9|0.26
91018551|NCT03226366|181919464|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|1.8|||Regression, Linear||Estimated change in emergency department door-to-physician evaluation time (minutes) after versus before intervention implementation based on adjusted differences-in-differences analysis|Differences-in-differences analysis using multivariable regression to estimate the change in emergency department (ED) door-to-physician evaluation time after versus before implementation at the intervention site adjusted for the change observed over the same time period at the control sites and for subject's age, sex, Elixhauser Comorbidity Score, initial systolic blood pressure, initial Glasgow Coma Scale score \<14. initial temperature, ED triage acuity score, and ED arrival via ambulance.||1.8|-3.3|0.55
91018552|NCT02180659|181919475|NON_INFERIORITY|"For the primary efficacy variable, a test of non-inferiority of Probuphine (active) versus SL BPN (control) responders was conducted. A non-inferiority margin of 20% was employed to define noninferiority.~A Confidence Interval (CI) for the difference in proportions was calculated, and non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference of proportions (Probuphine - SL BPN) was greater than -0.20."|Difference in Response Rate|0.088|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.009|0.167|||Chi-squared|||||0.167|0.009|<.001
91018553|NCT02180659|181919476|SUPERIORITY|At month 6 comparing those subject with no illicit drug use.||||||0.306|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.306
91018554|NCT02180659|181919477|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.037|||||||Log Rank|||||||.037
91083515|NCT03498313|182050741|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.083||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|This is the p-value for the Treatment X Cycle Phase Interaction. Kenward-Roger Method was utilized for degrees of freedom.|Placebo Represents the Reference Condition.|Fixed interaction effect of treatment (0=Placebo, 1=P4) by cycle phase (0=Lower-Risk Early Luteal Baseline, 1=Higher-Risk Perimenstrual Phase) predicting SI severity in a multilevel model (with daily observations nested within conditions nested within participants over time).||.10|-.22|.46
91018555|NCT02180659|181919479|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.832|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Comparing change in baseline to week 24 between the two groups.||||0.832
91018556|NCT02180659|181919480|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.922|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.922
91018557|NCT02180659|181919481|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.425|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.425
91018558|NCT02180659|181919482|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.505|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Comparing change in baseline to week 24 between the two groups.||||0.505
91018559|NCT01154673|181919483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.006|0.4||"The estimated difference in mean change from baseline to 48 weeks was calculated as the log DNA copies/106 CD4+ T cells in Intensive HAART minus the log DNA copies/106 CD4+ T cells in Placebo Arm"|Regression, Linear||"The estimated difference in mean change from baseline to 48 weeks was calculated as the log DNA copies/106 CD4+ T cells in Intensive HAART minus the log DNA copies/106 CD4+ T cells in Placebo Arm"|||0.4|-.006|0.056
91018560|NCT00518011|181919484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.842||||0.3644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.483|7.027|||Log Rank|||||7.027|0.483|0.3644
91018561|NCT00518011|181919488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.278||||0.7165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.339|4.824|||Log Rank|||||4.824|0.339|0.7165
91018562|NCT00090259|181919492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.899||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.818|0.988|||Regression, Cox|Model terms: treatment, region and β-blocker use at randomization|Direction of the Comparison: Hazard Ratio of experiencing the endpoint on Losartan 150 mg compared to Losartan 50 mg|||0.988|0.818|0.027
91018563|NCT00090259|181919493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.924||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.848|1.006|||Regression, Cox|Model terms: treatment, region and β-blocker use at randomization|Direction of the Comparison: Hazard Ratio of experiencing the endpoint on Losartan 150 mg compared to Losartan 50 mg|||1.006|0.848|0.068
90956496|NCT04797650|181792777|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated by CMH test stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for responders in each treatment group compared to placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||||< 0.0001
91018564|NCT00090259|181919494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.936||||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.044|||Regression, Cox|Model terms: treatment, region and β-blocker use at randomization|Direction of the Comparison: Hazard Ratio of experiencing the endpoint on Losartan 150 mg compared to Losartan 50 mg|||1.044|0.840|0.235
91083516|NCT00112918|182050742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2024||95.0|||||Closed test procedure|||Adjustments for multiplicity was done using a closed test procedure which tests for differences between all three treatment groups at the 5% alpha level first. Only in case of a significant result, the pair-wise comparison between the control arm and each of the bevacizumab arm will be tested, again at the 5% alpha level.||||0.2024
91083517|NCT00828061|182050761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Fold Difference|0.25||||0.002||95.0|0.12|0.54||1-sided, alpha = 0.05|ANOVA|Analysis performed on log-transformed fold change from baseline and results were back-transformed for reporting.||||0.54|0.12|0.002
91083518|NCT00828061|182050761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Fold Difference|0.07|||<|0.001||95.0|0.03|0.15||1-sided, alpha = 0.05|ANOVA|Analysis performed on log-transformed fold change from baseline and results were back-transformed for reporting.||||0.15|0.03|<0.001
91083519|NCT00828061|182050762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.89||||0.537||95.0|-15.48|17.26||1-sided, alpha = 0.05|ANOVA|||||17.26|-15.48|0.537
91083520|NCT02756819|182050773|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was reported for Change at Month 6 relative to Baseline.|Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.001
91083521|NCT02756819|182050774|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was reported for Change at Month 6 relative to Baseline.|Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.001
91083522|NCT02756819|182050777|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was reported for Change from baseline at Month 6 (Overweight)|Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.001
91083523|NCT02756819|182050777|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was reported for Change from baseline at Month 6 (Obesity class I)|Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.001
91083524|NCT02756819|182050777|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was reported for Change from baseline at Month 6 (Obesity class II)|Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.001
91083525|NCT02756819|182050777|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was reported for Change from baseline at Month 6 (Obesity class III)|Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.001
91083526|NCT02756819|182050777|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon test|P-value was reported for Change from baseline at Month 6 (Normal glucose metabolism)||||||<0.001
91083527|NCT02756819|182050777|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was reported for Change from baseline at Month 6 (Impaired glucose tolerance)|Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.001
91083528|NCT02756819|182050777|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was reported for Change from baseline at Month 6 (Diabetes Mellitus - No)|Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.001
91083529|NCT02756819|182050777|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was reported for Change from baseline at Month 6 (Diabetes Mellitus - Yes)|Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.001
91083530|NCT02756819|182050777|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was reported for Change from baseline at Month 6 (Neither diabetes mellitus nor metabolic syndrome)|Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.001
91083531|NCT02756819|182050777|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was reported for Change from baseline at Month 6 (Metabolic syndrome)|Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.001
91083532|NCT02756819|182050778|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was reported for Change from baseline at Month 6 (Overweight)|Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.001
91083533|NCT02756819|182050778|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was reported for Change from baseline at Month 6 (Obesity class I)|Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.001
91083534|NCT02756819|182050778|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was reported for Change from baseline at Month 6 (Obesity class II)|Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.001
91083535|NCT02756819|182050778|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was reported for Change from baseline at Month 6 (Obesity class III)|Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.001
91083536|NCT02756819|182050778|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was reported for Change from baseline at Month 6 (Normal glucose metabolism)|Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.001
91018565|NCT00090259|181919495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.865||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.762|0.982|||Regression, Cox|Model terms: treatment, region and β-blocker use at randomization|Direction of the Comparison: Hazard Ratio of experiencing the endpoint on Losartan 150 mg compared to Losartan 50 mg|||0.982|0.762|0.025
91083537|NCT02756819|182050778|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was reported for Change from baseline at Month 6 (Impaired glucose tolerance)|Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.001
91083538|NCT02756819|182050778|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was reported for Change from baseline at Month 6 (Diabetes Mellitus - No)|Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.001
91083539|NCT02756819|182050778|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was reported for Change from baseline at Month 6 (Diabetes Mellitus - Yes)|Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.001
91083540|NCT02756819|182050778|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was reported for Change from baseline at Month 6 (Neither diabetes mellitus nor metabolic syndrome)|Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.001
91083541|NCT02756819|182050778|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was reported for Change from baseline at Month 6 (Metabolic syndrome)|Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.001
91083542|NCT01462305|182050807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74||||||interaction effect and week of treatment condition|ANOVA|||To test the hypothesis that depressed SAD patients would demonstrate greater antidepressant therapeutic benefit from the \~465nm (shorter wavelength) source compared with the \~595nm (longer wavelength) source, we conducted a repeated-measures ANOVA using PROC MIXED in SAS 9.3 with treatment (\~465nm vs. \~595nm) as a between-subject factor and time (treatment visit 1, treatment visit 2, treatment visit 3, phone assessment 1, phone assessment 2, and treatment visit 4) as a within-subject factor.||||0.74
91083543|NCT01462305|182050807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9||||||A repeated-measures ANOVA on the 29 subjects revealed no significant effect or interaction effect|ANOVA|||||||0.9
91083544|NCT01462305|182050807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||A repeated-measures ANOVA on the 29 subjects revealed significant effect of treatment week|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91083545|NCT01462305|182050809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.20
91083546|NCT00169104|182050818|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||t=-0.29|t-test, 2 sided|df=15||T test||||>0.05
91083547|NCT02020889|182050834|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.68|13.03|||Proportional odds regression model|Proportional odds regression model with covariates including treatment group, Baseline prednisolone/prednisone daily dose, Baseline BVAS score, region|Mepolizumab 300mg/Placebo|||13.03|2.68|<0.001
91083548|NCT02020889|182050835|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.61|77.56|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with covariates including treatment group, Baseline prednisolone/prednisone daily dose, Baseline BVAS score and region|Mepolizumab 300mg/Placebo|||77.56|3.61|<0.001
91083549|NCT02020889|182050836|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.322|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.206|0.502|||Cox Proportional Hazard regression|Cox proportional hazards model with covariates of treatment group, Baseline prednisolone/prednisone daily dose, Baseline BVAS score and region|Mepolizumab 300mg/Placebo|||0.502|0.206|<0.001
91083550|NCT02020889|182050837|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.41|||Proportional odds regression model|Proportional odds regression model with covariates including treatment group, Baseline prednisolone/prednisone daily dose, Baseline BVAS score, region|Mepolizumab 300mg/Placebo|||0.41|0.09|<0.001
91018566|NCT00090259|181919496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.892||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.808|0.984|||Regression, Cox|Model terms: treatment, region and β-blocker use at randomization|Direction of the Comparison: Hazard Ratio of experiencing the endpoint on Losartan 150 mg compared to Losartan 50 mg|||0.984|0.808|0.023
91018567|NCT03083639|181919533|EQUIVALENCE|The bioequivalence between esomeprazole capsules (Regimen A) and esomeprazole tablets (Regimen B) was assessed for the natural logarithms of AUC∞ using analysis of variance (ANOVA) models. The models included regimen, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant nested within sequence as a random effect. Within ANOVA framework, point estimates and their 90 percent (%) confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of AUC central values between esomeprazole capsules and tablets are presented.|Point estimate|1.018|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.969|1.07||||||||1.070|0.969|
91018568|NCT03083639|181919534|EQUIVALENCE|The bioequivalence between esomeprazole capsules (Regimen A) and esomeprazole tablets (Regimen B) was assessed for the natural logarithms of AUCt using ANOVA models. The models included regimen, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant nested within sequence as a random effect. Within ANOVA framework, point estimates and their 90% CIs for the ratio of AUC central values between esomeprazole capsules and tablets are presented.|Point estimate|0.993|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.939|1.05||||||||1.050|0.939|
91018569|NCT03083639|181919535|EQUIVALENCE|The bioequivalence between esomeprazole capsules (Regimen A) and esomeprazole tablets (Regimen B) was assessed for the natural logarithms of Cmax using ANOVA models. The models included regimen, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant nested within sequence as a random effect. Within ANOVA framework, point estimates and their 90% CIs for the ratio of Cmax central values between esomeprazole capsules and tablets are presented.|Point estimate|0.942|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.009||||||||1.009|0.880|
91018570|NCT03611751|181919551|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.54|17.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||17.00|6.54|<0.0001
91018571|NCT03611751|181919552|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.65|16.55|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||16.55|6.65|<0.0001
91018572|NCT03611751|181919553|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.45|23.93|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||23.93|5.45|<0.0001
91018573|NCT03611751|181919553|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|2.56|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.56|1.18|0.0046
91018574|NCT03611751|181919554|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.89|29.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||29.40|2.89|<0.001
91018575|NCT03611751|181919554|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.55||||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|5.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.00|1.30|0.0051
91018576|NCT03611751|181919555|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.62|45.11|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||45.11|4.62|<0.0001
91018577|NCT03611751|181919555|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.85||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.61|5.03|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.03|1.61|0.0002
91018578|NCT03611751|181919556|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-23.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.67|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.9|-20.3|||ANCOVA|||||-20.3|-26.9|<0.0001
91018579|NCT03611751|181919556|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.68|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|-3.9|||ANCOVA|||||-3.9|-10.5|<0.0001
91018580|NCT03611751|181919557|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.4||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.94|21.15|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.15|1.94|0.0005
91018581|NCT03611751|181919557|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.82||||0.0928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|3.71|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.71|0.89|0.0928
91018582|NCT03611751|181919558|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.34|10.81|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.81|4.34|<0.0001
91018583|NCT03611751|181919558|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|3.91|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.91|1.77|<0.0001
91018584|NCT03611751|181919559|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.42|8.47|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||8.47|3.42|<0.0001
91018585|NCT03611751|181919560|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.21||||0.0621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|11.79|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||11.79|0.88|0.0621
91018586|NCT03611751|181919561|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.64||||0.6692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|7.46|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||7.46|0.06|0.6692
91018587|NCT03611751|181919561|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.32||||0.3793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|5.56|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.56|0.02|0.3793
91018588|NCT03611751|181919562|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|2.41|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.41|1.29|0.0004
91018589|NCT03611751|181919563|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|2.78|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.78|1.45|<0.0001
91018590|NCT03611751|181919564|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
91018591|NCT03611751|181919565|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|3.43|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.43|1.78|<0.0001
91018592|NCT03611751|181919566|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|3.36|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.36|1.78|<0.0001
91018593|NCT03611751|181919567|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.07||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|3.01|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.01|1.43|0.0001
91018594|NCT03728257|181919574|SUPERIORITY|Change in average steps per day between baseline and 3 months was compared between the two groups.||||||0.8793||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8793
91018595|NCT03728257|181919575|SUPERIORITY|Change in average steps per day between baseline and 6 months was compared between the two groups.||||||0.9597||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.9597
91018596|NCT03728257|181919576|SUPERIORITY|Change in Berg balance between baseline and 3 months was compared between the two groups.||||||0.3||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.30
91018597|NCT03728257|181919577|SUPERIORITY|Change in Berg balance between baseline and 3 months was compared between the two groups.||||||0.81||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.81
91083551|NCT02020889|182050838|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|19.65||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|167.93|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with covariates including treatment group, Baseline prednisolone/prednisone daily dose, Baseline BVAS score and region|Mepolizumab 300mg/Placebo|||167.93|2.30|0.007
91083552|NCT02020889|182050839|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.63|10.74|||Proportional odds regression model|Proportional odds regression model with covariates including treatment group, Baseline prednisolone/prednisone daily dose, Baseline BVAS score, region|Mepolizumab 300mg/Placebo|||10.74|2.63|<0.001
91083553|NCT02020889|182050840|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|19.87|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with covariates including treatment group, Baseline prednisolone/prednisone daily dose, Baseline BVAS score and region|Mepolizumab 300mg/Placebo|||19.87|2.60|<0.001
91083554|NCT02020889|182050841|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.39||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.35|55.24|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with covariates including treatment group, Baseline prednisolone/prednisone daily dose, Baseline BVAS score and region.|Mepolizumab 300mg/Placebo|||55.24|2.35|0.003
91083555|NCT00809094|182050861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.21||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.48|||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: there will be no difference in the change in human neutrophil activity measured from baseline to end of the study (24 weeks)||0.48|-0.07|0.14
91083556|NCT01461473|182050891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2067|||||||Analysis of covariance (GLM)|||These data were analyzed using an analysis of covariance via general linear model (GLM). The GLM has an indicator variable for PAP vs. OA plus covariates for baseline apnea-hypopnea index, gender, site and baseline NMAP. The primary hypothesis tested is that the 2-month means differ between study arms, after adjustment for the above covariates. A Wald statistic was constructed for hypothesis testing.||||0.2067
91083557|NCT01461473|182050892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3902|||||||GLMM|||Generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) was fit in which the outcome was regressed on an indicator variable for PAP vs. OA, baseline apnea-hypopnea index, gender, site and baseline value of the outcome. A Wald statistic was constructed for hypothesis testing.||||0.3902
91083558|NCT01461473|182050893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9319|||||||GLMM|||A GLMM was fit in which the outcome was regressed on an indicator variable for PAP vs. OA, baseline apnea-hypopnea index, gender, site and baseline value of the outcome. A Wald statistic was constructed for hypothesis testing.||||0.9319
91083559|NCT01461473|182050894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3895|||||||GLMM|||A GLMM was fit in which the outcome was regressed on an indicator variable for PAP vs. OA, baseline apnea-hypopnea index, gender, site and baseline value of the outcome. A Wald statistic was constructed for hypothesis testing.||||0.3895
91083560|NCT01461473|182050895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3449|||||||see Comments|Analysis of covariance with robust MM regression due to extreme residuals from initial fit showing strong departure from normal distribution.||Using analysis of covariance (robust MM regression), the outcome was regressed on an indicator variable for PAP vs. OA, baseline outcome, baseline apnea-hypopnea index, gender, site, baseline brachial-artery diameter, body mass index, age, and the interaction of gender and study arm. The latter allows for the possibility that treatment effect may differ between males and females. A Wald statistic was constructed for hypothesis testing.||||0.3449
91083561|NCT01461473|182050896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1531|||||||see Comments|Analysis of covariance with robust MM regression due to extreme residuals from initial fit showing strong departure from normal distribution.||Using analysis of covariance (robust MM regression), the outcome was regressed on an indicator variable for PAP vs. OA, baseline outcome, baseline apnea-hypopnea index, gender, site, baseline brachial-artery diameter, body mass index, age, and the interaction of gender and study arm. The latter allows for the possibility that treatment effect may differ between males and females. A Wald statistic was constructed for hypothesis testing.||||0.1531
91083562|NCT00435461|182050907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.7|||ANCOVA|||||-0.7|-1.2|<0.001
91083563|NCT00435461|182050907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.7|||ANCOVA|||||-0.7|-1.2|<0.001
91083564|NCT00435461|182050907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.2|||ANCOVA|||||0.2|-0.3|0.816
91083565|NCT00435461|182050908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.9|||ANCOVA|||||-0.9|-1.6|<0.001
91083566|NCT00435461|182050908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.7|||ANCOVA|||||-0.7|-1.4|<0.001
91083567|NCT00435461|182050908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.6|0.136
91083568|NCT00435461|182050909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.7|||ANCOVA|||||-0.7|-1.5|<0.001
91083569|NCT00435461|182050909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||||-0.4|-1.2|<0.001
91083570|NCT00435461|182050909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.7|0.136
91083571|NCT00435461|182050910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.8|||ANCOVA|||||-0.8|-1.6|<0.001
91083572|NCT00435461|182050910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.6|||ANCOVA|||||-0.6|-1.3|<0.001
91083573|NCT00435461|182050910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.6|0.136
91083574|NCT00435461|182050911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||||-0.2|-0.8|0.001
91083575|NCT00435461|182050911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0|-0.6|0.106
91083576|NCT00435461|182050911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.5|0.286
91083577|NCT00435461|182050912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||||-0.1|-0.7|0.007
91083578|NCT00435461|182050912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.5|0.286
91083579|NCT00435461|182050912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.5|0.106
91083580|NCT00435461|182050913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||||-0.2|-0.7|0.003
91083581|NCT00435461|182050913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.5|0.286
91083582|NCT00435461|182050913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0|-0.6|0.106
91083583|NCT00435461|182050914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-1.0|||ANCOVA|||Pre-dose iTNSS||-1|-1.7|<0.001
91083584|NCT00435461|182050914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.7|||ANCOVA|||Pre-dose iTNSS||-0.7|-1.4|<0.001
91083585|NCT00435461|182050914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Pre-dose iTNSS||0.1|-0.6|0.193
91083586|NCT00435461|182050914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||Pre-dose iTOSS||-0.2|-0.8|<0.001
91083587|NCT00435461|182050914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Pre-dose iTOSS||0|-0.6|0.058
91083588|NCT00435461|182050914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Pre-dose iTOSS||0|-0.5|0.16
91083589|NCT00435461|182050915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.59|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|11.9|||ANCOVA|||Morning assessment||11.9|5.7|<0.001
91083590|NCT00435461|182050915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.59|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|11.5|||ANCOVA|||Morning assessment||11.5|5.3|<0.001
91083591|NCT00435461|182050915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.59||0.779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|2.7|||ANCOVA|||Morning assessment||2.7|-3.6|0.779
91083592|NCT00435461|182050915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.65|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|9.6|||ANCOVA|||Evening assessment||9.6|3.1|<0.001
91083593|NCT00435461|182050915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.65|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|10.3|||ANCOVA|||Evening assessment||10.3|3.8|<0.001
91083594|NCT00435461|182050915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.65||0.662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|4.0|||ANCOVA|||Evening assessment||4|-2.5|0.662
91083595|NCT00435461|182050916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||||-0.3|-0.7|<0.001
91083596|NCT00435461|182050916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.4|0.203
91083597|NCT00435461|182050916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||||-0.4|-0.8|<0.001
91083598|NCT04676724|182050951|OTHER||Difference in SVR Rate|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.0|11.0|||||The point estimate of SVR and its 95% highest posterior density Credible Interval (CI) are estimated from a Bayesian model that incorporates the analysis stratification factors and treatment arm.|||11|-29|
91083599|NCT01515696|182050965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|1.0||||0.61||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.61
91083600|NCT01515696|182050966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|7.5||||0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
91083601|NCT01515696|182050967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
91083602|NCT01129804|182051026|SUPERIORITY|Longitudinal Linear mixed modeling|Slope|0.1|||<|0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||Tested the null hypothesis that slopes of PDA over time would not differ between treatment conditions, as indicated by the significance of the Treatment main effect and Treatment X Time interaction effect, at the level of p \< .05.|Mixed Models Analysis||||Multilevel longitudinal modeling (MLM) with random effects and maximum likelihood estimation (Proc MIXED; SAS Institute, 1999) was used to evaluate the effects of treatment over time for each of the continuously scaled outcome variables described above. The MLM approach was used because it employs maximum likelihood estimation of covariance matrices rather than raw data, allowing us to take advantage of all data collected for anyone randomized to treatment. Each repeated dependent variable was analyzed as a unction of treatment condition, time since intake (in months), and the interaction of treatment condition by time.|||<.04
91018598|NCT03728257|181919578|SUPERIORITY|Change in 30 Second Sit-to-Stand Test between baseline and 3 months was compared between the two groups.||||||0.2262||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance is p \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2262
91083603|NCT00524680|182051057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline in Serum 25(OH) D3 Levels at 1-Month for dose level 4000 IU. Statistical analysis was done using one sample t-test.||||<.0001
91083604|NCT00524680|182051057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline in Serum 25(OH) D3 Levels at 3-Month for dose level 4000 IU. Statistical analysis was done using one sample t-test.||||<.0001
91083605|NCT00524680|182051057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline in Serum 25(OH) D3 Levels at 6-Month for dose level 4000 IU. Statistical analysis was done using one sample t-test.||||<.0001
91083606|NCT00524680|182051057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline in Serum 25(OH) D3 Levels at 1-Month for dose level 6000 IU. Statistical analysis was done using one sample t-test.||||<.0001
91083607|NCT00524680|182051057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline in Serum 25(OH) D3 Levels at 3-Month for dose level 6000 IU. Statistical analysis was done using one sample t-test.||||<.0001
91083608|NCT00524680|182051057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline in Serum 25(OH) D3 Levels at 6-Month for dose level 6000 IU. Statistical analysis was done using one sample t-test.||||<.0001
91083609|NCT00524680|182051057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline in Serum 25(OH) D3 Levels at 1-Month for dose level 8000 IU. Statistical analysis was done using one sample t-test.||||<.0001
91083610|NCT00524680|182051057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline in Serum 25(OH) D3 Levels at 3-Month for dose level 8000 IU. Statistical analysis was done using one sample t-test.||||<.0001
91083611|NCT00524680|182051057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline in Serum 25(OH) D3 Levels at 6-Month for dose level 8000 IU. Statistical analysis was done using one sample t-test.||||<.0001
91083612|NCT00524680|182051057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline in Serum 25(OH) D3 Levels at 1-Month for dose level 10000 IU. Statistical analysis was done using one sample t-test.||||<.0001
91083613|NCT00524680|182051057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline in Serum 25(OH) D3 Levels at 3-Month for dose level 10000 IU. Statistical analysis was done using one sample t-test.||||<.0001
91083614|NCT00524680|182051057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline in Serum 25(OH) D3 Levels at 6-Month for dose level 10000 IU. Statistical analysis was done using one sample t-test.||||<.0001
91083615|NCT00524680|182051058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8244|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline in PTH Levels at 1-month for 4000 IU. Statistical analysis was done using one sample t-test.||||0.8244
91083616|NCT00524680|182051058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1025|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline in PTH Levels at 3-month for 4000 IU. Statistical analysis was done using one sample t-test.||||0.1025
91083617|NCT00524680|182051058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1744|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline in PTH Levels at 6-Month for dose level 4000 IU.||||0.1744
91083618|NCT00524680|182051058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1281|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline in PTH Levels at 1-month for 6000 IU. Statistical analysis was done using one sample t-test.||||0.1281
91083619|NCT00524680|182051058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9688|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline in PTH Levels at 3-month for 6000 IU. Statistical analysis was done using one sample t-test.||||0.9688
91083620|NCT00524680|182051058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline in PTH Levels at 6-month for 6000 IU. Statistical analysis was done using one sample t-test.||||<0.0001
91083621|NCT00524680|182051058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8241|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline in PTH Levels at 1-month for 8000 IU. Statistical analysis was done using one sample t-test.||||0.8241
91083622|NCT00524680|182051058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1828|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline in PTH Levels at 3-month for 8000 IU. Statistical analysis was done using one sample t-test.||||0.1828
91083623|NCT00524680|182051058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1348|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline in PTH Levels at 6-month for 8000 IU. Statistical analysis was done using one sample t-test.||||0.1348
91083624|NCT00524680|182051058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2214|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline in PTH Levels at 1-month for 10000 IU. Statistical analysis was done using one sample t-test.||||0.2214
91083625|NCT00524680|182051058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0079|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline in PTH Levels at 3-month for 10000 IU. Statistical analysis was done using one sample t-test.||||0.0079
91083626|NCT00524680|182051058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0631|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline in PTH Levels at 6-month for 10000 IU. Statistical analysis was done using one sample t-test.||||0.0631
91083627|NCT01096680|182051079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|10.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||10.9|5.0|<0.0001
91083628|NCT01096680|182051079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.2|15.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||15.0|10.2|<0.0001
91083629|NCT01096680|182051079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.7|16.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||16.2|11.7|<0.0001
91083630|NCT01096680|182051079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.9|14.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||14.7|9.9|<0.0001
91083631|NCT01096680|182051079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.3||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|-1.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.8|-6.9|0.0014
91083632|NCT01096680|182051079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.7601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.1|-1.5|0.7601
91018599|NCT03728257|181919579|SUPERIORITY|Change in 30 Second Sit-to-Stand Test between baseline and 6 months was compared between the two groups.||||||0.59||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.59
91083633|NCT01096680|182051079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7||||0.0351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|3.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.2|0.1|0.0351
91083634|NCT01096680|182051080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.1123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.1|-1.1|0.1123
91083635|NCT01096680|182051080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.6|-1.8|0.0002
91083636|NCT01096680|182051080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.0|-2.2|<0.0001
91083637|NCT01096680|182051080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.0947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.1|-1.1|0.0947
91083638|NCT01096680|182051080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.9393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.6|-0.6|0.9393
91083639|NCT01096680|182051080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.0297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.1|-1.3|0.0297
91083640|NCT01096680|182051080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.5|-1.7|0.0004
91083641|NCT01096680|182051081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.7758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||7:50pm||0.6|-0.5|0.7758
91083642|NCT01096680|182051081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.1798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||7:50pm||0.9|-0.2|0.1798
91018600|NCT03728257|181919580|SUPERIORITY|Change in SGRQ between baseline and 3 months was compared between the two groups.||||||0.26||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.26
91018601|NCT03728257|181919581|SUPERIORITY|Change in SGRQ between baseline and 6 months was compared between the two groups.||||||0.78||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.78
91018602|NCT03728257|181919582|SUPERIORITY|Change in MVPA between baseline and 3 months was compared between the two groups.||||||0.7073||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7073
91018603|NCT03728257|181919583|SUPERIORITY|Change in MVPA between baseline and 6 months was compared between the two groups.||||||0.313||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.313
91018604|NCT03728257|181919584|SUPERIORITY|Change in count of participants with the same or improved stage of hypertension between baseline and 6 months.||||||0.91||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05|Chi-squared|||||||0.91
91018605|NCT03728257|181919585|SUPERIORITY|Change in count of participants with the same or improved stage of hypertension between baseline and 6 months.||||||0.72||||||a priori threshold of statistical significance p \< 0.05|Chi-squared|||||||0.72
91018606|NCT03940742|181919586|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares mean|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.879|1.32||||||||1.32|0.879|
91018607|NCT03940742|181919586|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares mean|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.79|1.17||||||||1.17|0.790|
91018608|NCT03940742|181919586|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares mean|0.852|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.699|1.04||||||||1.04|0.699|
91018609|NCT03940742|181919587|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares mean|0.916|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.726|1.16||||||||1.16|0.726|
91018610|NCT03940742|181919587|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares mean|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.802|1.25||||||||1.25|0.802|
91018611|NCT03940742|181919587|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares mean|0.972|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.784|1.21||||||||1.21|0.784|
91018612|NCT01516684|181919596|OTHER|||||||0.036|||||||T-test and chi-square|||Raw mean total dose administered and raw percentage of times additional propofol was administered will be presented by sedation group treating each event (sedation with lumbar puncture) as the unit. T-test and chi-square tests will be performed as appropriate for the outcome. GEE methods will be used when analyzing the percentage of times additional propofol was administered. Mixed model regression methods will be used when analyzing the total dose administered.||||0.036
91018613|NCT01516684|181919598|OTHER|Marginal mixed model (GEE type)||||||0.094|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.094
91018614|NCT01516684|181919599|OTHER|||||||0.382|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.382
91083643|NCT01096680|182051081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||7:50pm||0.7|-0.4|0.6090
91083644|NCT01096680|182051081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.1169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||7:50pm||1.0|-0.1|0.1169
91018615|NCT01516684|181919600|OTHER|Marginal mixed model (GEE type)||||||0.426|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.426
91018616|NCT01977482|181919680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||E0 (g/dL)|-0.664|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.387|||||Posterior median and 95% credibility intervals were estimated using Bayesian methods.|||-0.387|-0.960|
91018617|NCT01977482|181919680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ED50 (milligrams[mg])|33.531|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.566|48.948|||||Posterior median and 95% credibility intervals were estimated using Bayesian methods.|||48.948|15.566|
91018618|NCT01977482|181919680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Emax (g/dL)|5.234||||||95.0|2.691|7.94|||||Posterior median and 95% credibility intervals were estimated using Bayesian methods.|||7.940|2.691|
91018619|NCT01977482|181919680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Gamma|1.145|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.748|1.738|||||Posterior median and 95% credibility intervals were estimated using Bayesian methods.|||1.738|0.748|
91018620|NCT01977482|181919680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Var|1.012|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.234|||||Posterior median and 95% credibility intervals were estimated using Bayesian methods.|||1.234|0.840|
91018621|NCT01977482|181919680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Alpha|-0.206|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.397|-0.014|||||Posterior median and 95% credibility intervals were estimated using Bayesian methods.|||-0.014|-0.397|
91018622|NCT01977482|181919680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Minimally Effective Dose (MED) (mg)|0.418|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.342|||||Posterior median and 95% credibility intervals were estimated using Bayesian methods.|||2.342|0.000|
91018623|NCT01977482|181919680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Dose that achieves a change of -0.25g/dL|2.423|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|4.15|||||Posterior median and 95% credibility intervals were estimated using Bayesian methods.|||4.150|0.000|
91018624|NCT01977482|181919680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Target Dose (TD) (mg)|4.406|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.544|5.995|||||Posterior median and 95% credibility intervals were estimated using Bayesian methods.|||5.995|2.544|
91018625|NCT01977482|181919680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Dose that achieves a change of 0.25 g/dL|6.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.698|8.01|||||Posterior median and 95% credibility intervals were estimated using Bayesian methods.|||8.010|4.698|
91018626|NCT01977482|181919680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Dose that achieves a change of 0.5 g/dL|8.542|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.931|10.523|||||Posterior median and 95% credibility intervals were estimated using Bayesian methods.|||10.523|6.931|
91018627|NCT01977482|181919680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Dose that achieves a change of 0.75 g/dL|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.024|14.004|||||Posterior median and 95% credibility intervals were estimated using Bayesian methods.|||14.004|9.024|
91018628|NCT01977482|181919680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Dose that achieves a change of 1 g/dL|13.248|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.891|18.916|||||Posterior median and 95% credibility intervals were estimated using Bayesian methods.|||18.916|10.891|
91018629|NCT02547779|181919718|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.05
91018630|NCT02547779|181919719|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.05
91083645|NCT01096680|182051081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.3028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||7:50pm||0.3|-0.8|0.3028
91083646|NCT01096680|182051081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.9831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||7:50pm||0.5|-0.5|0.9831
91083647|NCT01096680|182051081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.2887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||7:50pm||0.2|-0.8|0.2887
91018631|NCT02957682|181919743|NON_INFERIORITY|Upper confidence interval (CI) limit was compared to the noninferiority margin, which was 0.2%, and noninferiority was declared if the upper CI limit was below the noninferiority margin.|Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-0.02||||0.6055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.094|0.055||P-value was taken from mixed-effect model with repeated measures (MMRM) analysis.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures||Model: fixed categorical effects of treatment group, randomization strata as per IVRS, time point, treatment-by-time point, strata-by-time point, continuous fixed covariates of baseline SWMS raw score value, baseline value by time-point interaction.|Change at Week 96||0.055|-0.094|0.6055
91018632|NCT02953262|181919756|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.057||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.057
91018633|NCT02953262|181919756|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.753||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.753
91018634|NCT02953262|181919756|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.613||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.613
91018635|NCT02953262|181919757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.308||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.308
91018636|NCT02953262|181919757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.154||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.154
91018637|NCT02953262|181919757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.025||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.025
91018638|NCT02953262|181919758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.102||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.102
91018639|NCT02953262|181919758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.023||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.023
91018640|NCT02953262|181919758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.439||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.439
91018641|NCT02953262|181919759|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.982||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.982
91018642|NCT02953262|181919759|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.559||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.559
91018643|NCT02953262|181919759|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.032||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.032
91018644|NCT02367729|181919783|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3947||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|2.93|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||2.93|1.37|0.003
91018645|NCT00759174|181919789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.15||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|4.34|||Conditional logistic regression|||Conditional logistic regression was stratified by participant.||4.34|1.06|0.033
91018646|NCT00759174|181919790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.36||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|4.19|||Conditional logistic regression|||Conditional logistic regression was stratified by participant.||4.19|1.33|0.003
91018647|NCT00759174|181919791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|7.69|||Conditional logistic regression|||Conditional logistic regression was stratified by participant.||7.69|1.70|<0.001
91083648|NCT01096680|182051081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.4395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||8:50pm||0.3|-0.8|0.4395
91018648|NCT01890109|181919792|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Geometric Mean Ratio|1.1||||0.723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.83|||Repeated Measures Analysis of Covariance|||Repeated measures analysis of covariance was performed on the log transformed ratio to baseline of the number of daily moderate to severe hot flashes. Independent variables included treatment, week, and the treatment-by-week interaction; subject served as a random effect; and the log transformed baseline number of daily moderate to severe hot flashes was used as a covariate.||1.83|0.66|0.723
91018649|NCT01890109|181919793|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Geometric Mean Ratio|1.14||||0.551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.74|||Repeated Measures Analysis of Covariance|||Repeated measures analysis of covariance was performed on the log transformed ratio to baseline of the daily hot flash severity score. Independent variables included treatment, week, and the treatment-by-week interaction; subject served as a random effect; and the log transformed baseline daily hot flash severity score was used as a covariate.||1.74|0.74|0.551
91018650|NCT00203892|181919874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.028
91018651|NCT00203892|181919875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.99
91018652|NCT03359473|181919896|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.53|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.3|10.36|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and Baseline leg press strength, with Day as the repeated factor.|||10.36|-1.30|
91018653|NCT03359473|181919896|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|14.76|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and Baseline leg press strength, with Day as the repeated factor.|||14.76|0.83|
91018654|NCT03359473|181919897|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|16.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.86|23.56|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and Baseline leg press strength, with Day as the repeated factor.|||23.56|9.86|
91018655|NCT03359473|181919897|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.35|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.09|14.78|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and Baseline leg press strength, with Day as the repeated factor.|||14.78|-4.09|
91018656|NCT03359473|181919898|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.67|15.01|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and Baseline leg press strength, with Day as the repeated factor.|||15.01|-4.67|
91018657|NCT03359473|181919898|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.46|13.58|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and Baseline leg press strength, with Day as the repeated factor.|||13.58|0.46|
91083649|NCT01096680|182051081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.9019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||8:50pm||0.6|-0.5|0.9019
91083650|NCT01096680|182051081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.3419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||8:50pm||0.3|-0.8|0.3419
91083651|NCT01096680|182051081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.9581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||8:50pm||0.5|-0.6|0.9581
91083652|NCT01096680|182051081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.2572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||8:50pm||0.2|-0.9|0.2572
91018658|NCT03359473|181919899|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.4|13.2|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and Baseline leg press strength, with Day as the repeated factor.|||13.2|-1.4|
91018659|NCT03359473|181919899|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.6|25.5|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and Baseline leg press strength, with Day as the repeated factor.|||25.5|1.6|
91018660|NCT03359473|181919900|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|20.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|10.1|31.2|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and Baseline leg press strength, with Day as the repeated factor.|||31.2|10.1|
91018661|NCT03359473|181919900|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.1|25.8|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and Baseline leg press strength, with Day as the repeated factor.|||25.8|-11.1|
91018662|NCT03359473|181919901|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.5|18.4|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and Baseline leg press strength, with Day as the repeated factor.|||18.4|-2.5|
91018663|NCT03359473|181919901|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|11.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|24.0|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and Baseline leg press strength, with Day as the repeated factor.|||24.0|-0.5|
91018664|NCT03359473|181919902|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.882|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.643|1.121|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and Baseline appendicular lean mass, with Day as the repeated factor.|||1.121|0.643|
91018665|NCT03359473|181919902|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.291|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.156|0.738|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and Baseline appendicular lean mass, with Day as the repeated factor.|||0.738|-0.156|
91018666|NCT03359473|181919903|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.982|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.629|1.334|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and Baseline appendicular lean mass, with Day as the repeated factor.|||1.334|0.629|
91018667|NCT03359473|181919903|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.127|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.682|1.571|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and Baseline appendicular lean mass, with Day as the repeated factor.|||1.571|0.682|
91018668|NCT03359473|181919904|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.964|1.795|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and Baseline appendicular lean mass, with Day as the repeated factor.|||1.795|0.964|
91018669|NCT03359473|181919904|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.124|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.594|1.654|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and Baseline appendicular lean mass, with Day as the repeated factor.|||1.654|0.594|
91018670|NCT03359473|181919905|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.167|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.677|1.658|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and Baseline total lean mass, with Day as the repeated factor.|||1.658|0.677|
91018671|NCT03359473|181919905|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.923|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.222|1.623|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and Baseline total lean mass, with Day as the repeated factor.|||1.623|0.222|
91018672|NCT03359473|181919906|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.085|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.493|2.678|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and Baseline total lean mass, with Day as the repeated factor.|||2.678|1.493|
91018673|NCT03359473|181919906|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.801|2.6|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and Baseline total lean mass, with Day as the repeated factor.|||2.600|0.801|
91018674|NCT03359473|181919907|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.108|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.271|2.945|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and Baseline total lean mass, with Day as the repeated factor.|||2.945|1.271|
91018675|NCT03359473|181919907|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.113|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.949|3.277|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and Baseline total lean mass, with Day as the repeated factor.|||3.277|0.949|
91018676|NCT03359473|181919908|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|0.6|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and Baseline SPPB total score, with Day as the repeated factor.|||0.6|-0.6|
91018677|NCT03359473|181919908|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|0.5|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and Baseline SPPB total score, with Day as the repeated factor.|||0.5|-0.4|
91018678|NCT03359473|181919909|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|0.6|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and Baseline SPPB total score, with Day as the repeated factor.|||0.6|-0.6|
91018679|NCT03359473|181919909|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|0.9|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and Baseline SPPB total score, with Day as the repeated factor.|||0.9|-0.2|
91018680|NCT03359473|181919910|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|0.9|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and Baseline SPPB total score, with Day as the repeated factor.|||0.9|-0.4|
91018681|NCT03359473|181919910|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|0.6|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and Baseline SPPB total score, with Day as the repeated factor.|||0.6|-0.5|
91018682|NCT03359473|181919911|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.553|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.082|0.977|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and corresponding Baseline time for chair rise, with Day as the repeated factor.|||0.977|-2.082|
91083653|NCT01096680|182051081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.8085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||8:50pm||0.5|-0.6|0.8085
91018683|NCT03359473|181919911|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.073|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.977|0.832|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and corresponding Baseline time for chair rise, with Day as the repeated factor.|||0.832|-0.977|
91018684|NCT03359473|181919912|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.816|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.252|0.619|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and corresponding Baseline time for chair rise, with Day as the repeated factor.|||0.619|-2.252|
91018685|NCT03359473|181919912|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.163|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.096|1.422|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and corresponding Baseline time for chair rise, with Day as the repeated factor.|||1.422|-1.096|
91018686|NCT03359473|181919913|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.668|0.748|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and corresponding Baseline time for chair rise, with Day as the repeated factor.|||0.748|-2.668|
91018687|NCT03359473|181919913|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.937|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.208|1.333|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and corresponding Baseline time for chair rise, with Day as the repeated factor.|||1.333|-5.208|
91018688|NCT03359473|181919914|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.314|0.233|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and corresponding Baseline Time for fastest walk for 4 meter, with Day as the repeated factor.|||0.233|-0.314|
91018689|NCT03359473|181919914|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.058|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.209|0.324|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and corresponding Baseline Time for fastest walk for 4 meter, with Day as the repeated factor.|||0.324|-0.209|
91018690|NCT03359473|181919915|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.287|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.65|0.077|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and corresponding Baseline Time for fastest walk for 4 meter, with Day as the repeated factor.|||0.077|-0.650|
91018691|NCT03359473|181919915|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.191|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.534|0.152|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and corresponding Baseline Time for fastest walk for 4 meter, with Day as the repeated factor.|||0.152|-0.534|
91018692|NCT03359473|181919916|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.012|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.555|0.532|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and corresponding Baseline Time for fastest walk for 4 meter, with Day as the repeated factor.|||0.532|-0.555|
91018693|NCT03359473|181919916|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.231|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.541|0.08|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and corresponding Baseline Time for fastest walk for 4 meter, with Day as the repeated factor.|||0.080|-0.541|
91018694|NCT03359473|181919917|OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|11.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-57.1|79.2|||||Analysis was performed by ANCOVA model with Baseline CWR duration as the covariate adjusting for the treatment.|||79.2|-57.1|
91018695|NCT03359473|181919917|OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|-149.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-280.6|-18.1|||||Analysis was performed by ANCOVA model with Baseline CWR duration as the covariate adjusting for the treatment.|||-18.1|-280.6|
91018696|NCT03359473|181919918|OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|-6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-42.7|29.2|||||Analysis was performed by ANCOVA model with Baseline peak performance as the covariate adjusting for the treatment.|||29.2|-42.7|
91018697|NCT03359473|181919918|OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|-34.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-72.0|2.4|||||Analysis was performed by ANCOVA model with Baseline peak performance as the covariate adjusting for the treatment.|||2.4|-72.0|
91018698|NCT03359473|181919919|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.6|1.9|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and Baseline CAT score, with Day as the repeated factor.|||1.9|-2.6|
91018699|NCT03359473|181919919|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.4|2.1|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and Baseline CAT score, with Day as the repeated factor.|||2.1|-3.4|
91018700|NCT03359473|181919920|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.9|1.1|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and Baseline CAT score, with Day as the repeated factor.|||1.1|-2.9|
91018701|NCT03359473|181919920|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|4.5|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and Baseline CAT score, with Day as the repeated factor.|||4.5|0.0|
91018702|NCT03359473|181919921|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.9|-0.6|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and corresponding Baseline difficulty scores, with Day as the repeated factor.|||-0.6|-8.9|
91018703|NCT03359473|181919921|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.2|3.1|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and corresponding Baseline difficulty scores, with Day as the repeated factor.|||3.1|-7.2|
91018704|NCT03359473|181919922|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.5|-0.4|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and corresponding Baseline difficulty scores, with Day as the repeated factor.|||-0.4|-9.5|
91018705|NCT03359473|181919922|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.3|2.2|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and corresponding Baseline difficulty scores, with Day as the repeated factor.|||2.2|-10.3|
91018706|NCT03359473|181919923|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.9|-0.3|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and corresponding Baseline amount scores, with Day as the repeated factor.|||-0.3|-5.9|
91018707|NCT03359473|181919923|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.6|4.2|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and corresponding Baseline amount scores, with Day as the repeated factor.|||4.2|-4.6|
91083654|NCT01096680|182051081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.3678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||8:50pm||0.3|-0.8|0.3678
91083655|NCT01096680|182051081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.3732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||9:50pm||0.4|-0.9|0.3732
91083656|NCT01096680|182051081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.4924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||9:50pm||0.4|-0.9|0.4924
91083657|NCT01096680|182051081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.9798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||9:50pm||0.6|-0.7|0.9798
91083658|NCT01096680|182051081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.8557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||9:50pm||0.7|-0.6|0.8557
91083659|NCT01096680|182051081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.0998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||9:50pm||0.1|-1.2|0.0998
91083660|NCT01096680|182051081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.1479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||9:50pm||0.2|-1.1|0.1479
91083661|NCT01096680|182051081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.8358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||9:50pm||0.6|-0.7|0.8358
91083662|NCT01096680|182051081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.0199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||10:50pm||-0.1|-1.6|0.0199
91083663|NCT01096680|182051081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.7625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||10:50pm||0.6|-0.9|0.7625
91083664|NCT01096680|182051081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.1936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||10:50pm||0.3|-1.2|0.1936
91083665|NCT01096680|182051081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.4534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||10:50pm||1.0|-0.5|0.4534
91083666|NCT01096680|182051081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||10:50pm||-0.5|-2.0|0.0012
91083667|NCT01096680|182051081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.2072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||10:50pm||0.3|-1.2|0.2072
91083668|NCT01096680|182051081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.0413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||10:50pm||0.0|-1.5|0.0413
91083669|NCT01096680|182051081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.1086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||11:50pm||0.1|-1.5|0.1086
91018708|NCT03359473|181919924|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8|8.8|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and corresponding Baseline amount scores, with Day as the repeated factor.|||8.8|-0.8|
91083670|NCT01096680|182051081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.5843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||11:50pm||0.6|-1.0|0.5843
91083671|NCT01096680|182051081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.0571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||11:50pm||0.0|-1.6|0.0571
91083672|NCT01096680|182051081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.3965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||11:50pm||0.5|-1.2|0.3965
91083673|NCT01096680|182051081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||11:50pm||-0.6|-2.2|0.0009
91083674|NCT01096680|182051081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.0211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||11:50pm||-0.1|-1.8|0.0211
91083675|NCT01096680|182051081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.2863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||11:50pm||0.4|-1.2|0.2863
91083676|NCT01096680|182051081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.0428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||12:50am||0.0|-1.7|0.0428
91083677|NCT01096680|182051081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.3757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||12:50am||1.2|-0.5|0.3757
91083678|NCT01096680|182051081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||12:50am||-0.8|-2.4|0.0002
91083679|NCT01096680|182051081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.3535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||12:50am||0.4|-1.2|0.3535
91083680|NCT01096680|182051081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||12:50am||-1.1|-2.7|<0.0001
91083681|NCT01096680|182051081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.1131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||12:50am||0.2|-1.5|0.1131
91083682|NCT01096680|182051081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||12:50am||-0.4|-2.0|0.0039
91083683|NCT01096680|182051081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.1302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1:50am||0.2|-1.5|0.1302
91083684|NCT01096680|182051081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.6138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1:50am||1.1|-0.6|0.6138
91083685|NCT01096680|182051081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1:50am||-0.6|-2.3|0.0008
91083686|NCT01096680|182051081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.1643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1:50am||0.3|-1.5|0.1643
91083687|NCT01096680|182051081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1:50am||-0.8|-2.5|0.0002
91083688|NCT01096680|182051081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.0782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1:50am||0.1|-1.6|0.0782
91083689|NCT01096680|182051081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.0441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1:50am||0.0|-1.7|0.0441
91083690|NCT01096680|182051081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.0193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2:50am||-0.2|-2.2|0.0193
91083691|NCT01096680|182051081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.7071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2:50am||0.8|-1.2|0.7071
91018709|NCT03359473|181919924|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.3|9.4|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and corresponding Baseline amount scores, with Day as the repeated factor.|||9.4|-2.3|
91018710|NCT03359473|181919925|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.5|-1.9|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates; treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and corresponding Baseline total scores, with Day as the repeated factor.|||-1.9|-6.5|
91018711|NCT03359473|181919925|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.1|1.1|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates; treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and corresponding Baseline total scores, with Day as the repeated factor.|||1.1|-4.1|
91018712|NCT03359473|181919926|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.8|1.8|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates; treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and corresponding Baseline total scores, with Day as the repeated factor.|||1.8|-3.8|
91018713|NCT03359473|181919926|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.6|3.2|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates; treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and corresponding Baseline total scores, with Day as the repeated factor.|||3.2|-4.6|
91018714|NCT03359473|181919931|OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.4|7.4|||||Analysis was performed by ANCOVA model with Baseline total score as the covariate adjusting for the treatment.|||7.4|-1.4|
91018715|NCT03359473|181919931|OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.3|6.5|||||Analysis was performed by ANCOVA model with Baseline total score as the covariate adjusting for the treatment.|||6.5|-2.3|
91018716|NCT03359473|181919932|OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.0|10.1|||||Analysis was performed by ANCOVA model with Baseline symptoms score as the covariate adjusting for the treatment.|||10.1|-5.0|
91018717|NCT03359473|181919932|OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.4|7.5|||||Analysis was performed by ANCOVA model with Baseline symptoms score as the covariate adjusting for the treatment.|||7.5|-8.4|
91018718|NCT03359473|181919933|OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.2|7.1|||||Analysis was performed by ANCOVA model with Baseline activity score as the covariate adjusting for the treatment.|||7.1|-3.2|
91018719|NCT03359473|181919933|OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.6|6.5|||||Analysis was performed by ANCOVA model with Baseline activity score as the covariate adjusting for the treatment.|||6.5|-5.6|
91018720|NCT03359473|181919934|OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.7|8.6|||||Analysis was performed by ANCOVA model with Baseline impact score as the covariate adjusting for the treatment.|||8.6|-1.7|
91018721|NCT03359473|181919934|OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|7.7|||||Analysis was performed by ANCOVA model with Baseline impact score as the covariate adjusting for the treatment.|||7.7|-0.7|
91018722|NCT02964910|181919943|NON_INFERIORITY|The criteria of the immunogenicity non-inferiority between CHB group and healthy adults group were: the lower limit of 95% CI of the seroconversion rate difference was not less than -10%.|the seroconversion rate difference(%)|-2.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.23|0.22||||||||0.22|-5.23|
91018723|NCT02964910|181919944|NON_INFERIORITY|The criteria of the immunogenicity non-inferiority between CHB group and healthy adults group were: the lower limit of 95%CI of the GMC ratio was not lower than 0.5.|GMC ratio|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.85||||||||0.85|0.55|
91018724|NCT02964910|181919948|OTHER|The differences in incidence rate of ADR\\AE between the two groups were compared.||||||0.778|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.778
91018725|NCT02964910|181919949|OTHER|The differences in incidence rate of ADR\\AE between the two groups were compared.||||||0.728|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.728
91018726|NCT02964910|181919950|OTHER|The differences in incidence rate of ADR\\AE between the two groups were compared.||||||0.949|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.949
91018727|NCT02964910|181919951|OTHER|The differences in incidence rate of ADR\\AE between the two groups were compared.||||||0.614|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.614
91018728|NCT02964910|181919952|OTHER|The differences in incidence rate of ADR\\AE between the two groups were compared.||||||0.956|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.956
91018729|NCT03829462|181919956|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18||||0.5334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.98||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Log Rank|||To show an increase of median overall survival from 7 to 15 months (30% to 57% rates, respectively), with a HR=0.47 and a power of 80% and alpha=5%, 55 events are required for the 78 patients to be randomized considering 15% additional patients for lost to follow-up.||1.98|0.7|0.5334
91018730|NCT03829462|181919956|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.8894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.82|||Chi-squared|||||1.82|0.59|0.8894
91018731|NCT03829462|181919957|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.1104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.11|||Log Rank|The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05||||1.11|0.4|0.1104
91018732|NCT03829462|181919957|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.1165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.11|||Chi-squared|||||1.11|0.4|0.1165
91018733|NCT03829462|181919958|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61||||0.2425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.42||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Log Rank|||||1.42|0.26|0.2425
91018734|NCT03829462|181919958|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61||||0.2519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.42|||Chi-squared|||||1.42|0.26|0.2519
91018735|NCT03829462|181919959|SUPERIORITY||Percent difference|46.5||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.001
91018736|NCT03829462|181919960|SUPERIORITY||Percent difference|7.4||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.001
91018737|NCT04193033|181919963|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Linear Growth Curve Model|||||||0.001
91018738|NCT04193033|181919964|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.012
91018739|NCT04193033|181919965|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.66
91018740|NCT04193033|181919967|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||Linear Growth Curve Model|Time was included as a fixed effect and both time and intercept were included as random effects.||||||.49
91018741|NCT04193033|181919969|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06||||||Paired t-test, alpha = .05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.06
91032405|NCT00113425|181949492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85|||||||paired t-test, 2-sided|||Null Hypothesis = There is no difference between change from baseline in pustule acne lesions for the treated side of the face compared to the change from baseline for the untreated side of the face in all patients||||0.85
91083692|NCT01096680|182051081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2:50am||-0.9|-2.9|0.0002
91018742|NCT03000075|181919982|OTHER|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata: weight (≤ 90 kg vs \> 90 kg) and concomitant psoriatic arthritis (PsA) at Baseline (YES: DIAGNOSED or SUSPECTED vs NO). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Adjusted percentage difference|73.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.2|85.0||P-value was calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% confidence interval (CI) for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|||85.0|62.2|< 0.001
91018743|NCT03000075|181919982|OTHER|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata: weight (≤ 90 kg vs \> 90 kg) and concomitant PsA at Baseline (YES: DIAGNOSED or SUSPECTED vs NO). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Adjusted percentage difference|72.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.6|84.1||P-value was calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|||84.1|60.6|< 0.001
91018744|NCT03000075|181919984|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|75.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.8|86.2||P-value was calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata: weight (≤ 90 kg vs \> 90 kg) and concomitant PsA at Baseline (YES: DIAGNOSED or SUSPECTED vs NO). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.||86.2|63.8|< 0.001
91018745|NCT03000075|181919984|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|82.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|72.2|92.6||P-value was calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata: weight (≤ 90 kg vs \> 90 kg) and concomitant PsA at Baseline (YES: DIAGNOSED or SUSPECTED vs NO). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.||92.6|72.2|< 0.001
91018746|NCT03000075|181919986|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|80.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|70.1|90.4||P-value was calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata: weight (≤ 90 kg vs \> 90 kg) and concomitant PsA at Baseline (YES: DIAGNOSED or SUSPECTED vs NO). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.||90.4|70.1|< 0.001
91018747|NCT03000075|181919986|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|86.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|76.8|95.1||P-value was calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata: weight (≤ 90 kg vs \> 90 kg) and concomitant PsA at Baseline (YES: DIAGNOSED or SUSPECTED vs NO). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.||95.1|76.8|< 0.001
91018748|NCT03000075|181919988|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|22.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.8|33.4||P-value was calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata: weight (≤ 90 kg vs \> 90 kg) and concomitant PsA at Baseline (YES: DIAGNOSED or SUSPECTED vs NO). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.||33.4|11.8|< 0.001
91018749|NCT03000075|181919988|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|32.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.0|45.0||P-value was calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata: weight (≤ 90 kg vs \> 90 kg) and concomitant PsA at Baseline (YES: DIAGNOSED or SUSPECTED vs NO). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.||45.0|20.0|< 0.001
91018750|NCT03000075|181919990|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|39.2||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|90.1||P-value was calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata: weight (≤ 90 kg vs \> 90 kg) and concomitant PsA at Baseline (YES: DIAGNOSED or SUSPECTED vs NO). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.||90.1|-11.6|0.131
91032406|NCT00113425|181949493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49|||||||paired t-test, 2-sided|||Null Hypothesis = There is no difference between change from baseline in cysts for the treated side of the face compared to the change from baseline for the untreated side of the face in all patients||||0.49
91032407|NCT00113425|181949494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||paired t-test, 2-sided|||Null Hypothesis = There is no difference between change from baseline in closed comedones for the treated side of the face compared to the change from baseline for the untreated side of the face in all patients||||0.21
91032408|NCT00113425|181949495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||paired t-test, 2-sided|||Null Hypothesis = There is no difference between change from baseline in open comedones for the treated side of the face compared to the change from baseline for the untreated side of the face in all patients||||0.27
91018751|NCT03000075|181919990|OTHER|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata: weight (≤ 90 kg vs \> 90 kg) and concomitant PsA at Baseline (YES: DIAGNOSED or SUSPECTED vs NO). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Adjusted percentage difference|31.3||||0.269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.2|86.7||P-value was calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|||86.7|-24.2|0.269
91018752|NCT00111007|181919992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.906||||0.492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.627|1.31|||log rank test|||||1.310|0.627|0.492
91018753|NCT00111007|181919993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.996||||0.979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.744|1.333|||log rank test|||||1.333|0.744|0.979
91018754|NCT00111007|181919994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.863||||0.331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.641|1.162|||log rank test|||||1.162|0.641|0.331
91018755|NCT00111007|181919995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.398||||0.146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|1.437|||log rank test|||||1.437|0.110|0.146
91018756|NCT00111007|181919996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.389||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.389
91018757|NCT00929864|181920037|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Analysis tested for non-inferiority. Abatacept will be considered non-inferior to adalimumab if the upper limit of the 95% two-sided CI of difference in ACR20 response rates between the adalimumab arm and the abatacept arm is smaller than or equal to 12%. Estimate and 95% confidence interval (CI) for difference based on minimum risk weights method with randomization stratification of screening Disease Activity Score-28 (DAS28) c-reactive protein (CRP).|Difference from adalimumab at Day 365|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|9.2|||minimum risk weights method|adjusted for randomization stratification of screening Disease Activity Score-28 (DAS28) c-reactive protein (CRP).||The null and alternative hypotheses are H0: T - C\<= δ vs. Ha:T - C \> δ, where T is the treatment effect of abatacept, C is the effect of active control (adalimumab),and δ is non-inferiority margin. Abatacept is defined as δ non-inferior to adalimumab when H0 is rejected. More specifically, if the lower bound of the 95% two-sided confidence interval for C-T is greater than δ,, then that Abatacept is δ non-inferior to adalimumab can be claimed.||9.2|-5.6|
91018758|NCT00929864|181920038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|-5.37||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.13|-1.62|||Chi-squared|||Analysis is p-value of difference in proportions. n=number of participants with event, N=number of participants at risk. Proportion = n/N. In order to maintain the overall type I error rate of 0.05 for testing both the primary non-inferiority hypothesis and the key secondary local injection site reaction (LISR) hypothesis, the LISR hypothesis was tested at the 5% significance level only after the primary non-inferiority hypothesis is established at the 5% level.||-1.62|-9.13|0.006
91018759|NCT00929864|181920039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from adalimumab|-4.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.55|-1.72||||||Analysis of incidence rate at 24 months. Point estimate and 95% CI. Poisson distribution was used to construct the 95% CIs.||-1.72|-6.55|
91018760|NCT00929864|181920040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from adalimumab at Day 365|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|3.9|||minimum risk weights method|Adjusted for randomization stratification of screening Disease Activity Score-28 (DAS28) c-reactive protein (CRP).||This analysis is for Day 365.||3.9|-6.5|
91018761|NCT00929864|181920040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from adalimumab at Day 729|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|7.3|||minimum risk weights method|Adjusted for randomization stratification of screening Disease Activity Score-28 (DAS28) c-reactive protein (CRP).||This analysis is for Day 729.||7.3|-5.5|
91018762|NCT00929864|181920041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from adalimumab|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.51|6.11||||||Analysis for incidence rate of SAE at 12 months. Point estimate and 95% CI for treatment difference. Poisson distribution was used to construct the 95% CIs.||6.11|-4.51|
91018763|NCT00929864|181920041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from adalimumab|-0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.27|1.94||||||Analysis for incidence rate of Serious Infections and Infestations at 12 months. Point estimate and 95% CI for treatment difference. Poisson distribution was used to construct the 95% CIs.||1.94|-3.27|
91018764|NCT00929864|181920041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from adalimumab|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.91||||||Analysis for incidence rate of Opportunistic Infections at 12 months. Point estimate and 95% CI for treatment difference. Poisson distribution was used to construct the 95% CIs.||0.91|-0.92|
91018765|NCT00929864|181920041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from adalimumab|-5.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.06|1.41||||||Analysis for incidence rate of discontinuation for any cause at 12 months. Point estimate and 95% CI for treatment difference. Poisson distribution was used to construct the 95% CIs.||1.41|-12.06|
91018766|NCT00929864|181920042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from adalimumab|-1.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.43|1.61||||||Analysis for incidence rate of SAE at 24 months. Point estimate and 95% CI for treatment difference. Poisson distribution was used to construct the 95% CIs.||1.61|-5.43|
91018767|NCT00929864|181920042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from adalimumab|-1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.12|0.63||||||Analysis for incidence rate of Serious infections and infestations Adverse Events at 24 months. Point estimate and 95% CI for treatment difference. Poisson distribution was used to construct the 95% CIs.||0.63|-3.12|
91018768|NCT00929864|181920042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from adalimumab|-0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|0.36|||minimum risk weights method|||Analysis for incidence rate of opportunistic infections at 24 months. Point estimate and 95% CI for treatment difference. Poisson distribution was used to construct the 95% CIs.||0.36|-1.39|
91083693|NCT01096680|182051081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.0611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2:50am||0.0|-1.9|0.0611
91018769|NCT00929864|181920042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from adalimumab|-3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.13|0.92||||||Analysis for incidence rate of discontinuations (all cause) at 24 months. Point estimate and 95% CI for treatment difference. Poisson distribution was used to construct the 95% CIs.||0.92|-7.13|
91018770|NCT00929864|181920043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from adalimumab|-8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|-2.2||||||Analysis for ANA at Day 365. Point estimate and 95% CI for treatment difference.||-2.2|-13.9|
91018771|NCT00929864|181920043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from adalimumab|-8.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.3|-1.5||||||Analysis for ANA at Day 729. Point estimate and 95% CI for treatment difference||-1.5|-15.3|
91018772|NCT00929864|181920043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from adalimumab|-9.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|-5.7||||||Analysis for dsDNA at Day 365. Point estimate and 95% CI for treatment difference.||-5.7|-13.4|
91083694|NCT01096680|182051081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2:50am||-1.2|-3.2|<0.0001
91018773|NCT00929864|181920043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from adalimumab|-12.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.9|-7.6||||||Analysis for dsDNA at Day 729. Point estimate and 95% CI for treatment difference.||-7.6|-16.9|
91018774|NCT03428217|181920051|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.6528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.21|||Log Rank|||Stratified Analysis 1: Stratified by prior programmed cell death protein 1/programmed cell death protein ligand 1 (PD-1/PDL1) inhibitor therapy (yes vs no) and International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database (IMDC) prognostic risk group (favorable vs intermediate vs poor).||1.21|0.74|0.6528
91018775|NCT03428217|181920051|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.8193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.24|||Log Rank|||Stratified Analysis 2: Stratified by prior PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor therapy \[yes vs. no\] and IMDC prognostic risk group \[favorable vs. intermediate/poor\].||1.24|0.76|0.8193
91018776|NCT03428217|181920051|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.8345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.25|||Log Rank|||Stratified Analysis 3: Stratified by the number of prior anti-angio cancer therapy \[0 vs. \>=1\].||1.25|0.76|0.8345
91018777|NCT03428217|181920051|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.9479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.27|||Log Rank|||Unstratified Analysis||1.27|0.78|0.9479
91018778|NCT03428217|181920052|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||0.3867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.6|||Log Rank|||Stratified Analysis 1: Stratified by prior PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor therapy \[yes vs. no\] and IMDC prognostic risk group \[favorable vs. intermediate vs. poor\].||1.6|0.83|0.3867
91018779|NCT03428217|181920052|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.3367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.62|||Log Rank|||Stratified Analysis 2: Stratified by prior PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor therapy \[yes vs. no\] and IMDC prognostic risk group \[favorable vs. intermediate/poor\].||1.62|0.85|0.3367
91018780|NCT03428217|181920052|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.22||||0.2416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.69|||Log Rank|||Stratified Analysis 3: Stratified by prior PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor therapy \[yes vs. no\] and IMDC prognostic risk group \[favorable vs. intermediate/poor\].||1.69|0.88|0.2416
91018781|NCT03428217|181920052|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19||||0.3043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.64|||Log Rank|||Unstratified Analysis||1.64|0.86|0.3043
91018782|NCT03428217|181920053|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.9692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.25|||Log Rank|||Stratified Analysis 1: Stratified by prior PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor therapy \[yes vs. no\] and IMDC prognostic risk group \[favorable vs. intermediate vs. poor\].||1.25|0.79|0.9692
91018783|NCT03428217|181920053|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.9235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.27|||Log Rank|||Stratified Analysis 2: Stratified by prior PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor therapy \[yes vs. no\] and IMDC prognostic risk group \[favorable vs. intermediate/poor\].||1.27|0.8|0.9235
91018784|NCT03428217|181920053|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.9549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.26|||Log Rank|||Stratified Analysis 3: Stratified by the number of prior anti-angio cancer therapy \[0 vs. \>=1\].||1.26|0.8|0.9549
91018785|NCT03428217|181920053|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.8193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.29|||Log Rank|||Unstratified Analysis||1.29|0.82|0.8193
91018786|NCT03252015|181920119|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.182|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.412|0.049||||||Day 7||0.049|-0.412|
91018787|NCT03252015|181920119|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.071|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.081|0.224||||||Day 7||0.224|-0.081|
91018788|NCT03252015|181920119|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||||||Day 21||0.000|0.000|
91083695|NCT01096680|182051081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2:50am||-0.2|-2.2|0.0160
91083696|NCT01096680|182051081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2:50am||0.0|-2.0|0.0480
91018789|NCT03252015|181920119|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||||||Day 21||0.000|0.000|
91018790|NCT03252015|181920120|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.145|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.05||||||Day 7||0.050|-0.340|
91018791|NCT03252015|181920120|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.071|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.081|0.224||||||||0.224|-0.081|
91018792|NCT03252015|181920120|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.071|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.151|0.294||||||Day 21||0.294|-0.151|
91018793|NCT03252015|181920120|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||||||Day 21||0.000|0.000|
91018794|NCT02262507|181920146|OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91018795|NCT00526227|181920164|OTHER|An exact one-sided 97% upper confidence bound or a p-value will be calculated based on the observed percentage of subjects with an USADE within the first month post-implant. This rate will be considered acceptable if the one-sided 97% upper confidence bound is less than 10% or, equivalently, if the p-value is less than 0.0304.|Percentage|7.7|||||ONE_SIDED|97.0|||||||The CI was calculated based on 44 patients at interim analysis: 0 USADE were reported within 1-month post implant, ie 0% of subjects experienced a USADE. The one-sided 97% exact binomial upper confidence bound was 7.7% which is lower than 10%.|"H 0 (null hypothesis): P ≥ 10%; H A (alternative hypothesis): P \< 10%, where P is the percentage of subjects experiencing a USADE through the 1-month post implant.~An upper limit of the confidence interval of the percentage subjects with USADE not greater than or equal to 10% at the 1-month follow-up visit provides a reasonably-sized clinical study with sufficient power to detect USADEs."||||
91018796|NCT00858234|181920172|OTHER|Accumulation Ratio (Day 11 AUC0-24hr/Day 1 AUC0-24hr)|Accumulation ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|1.45|||||Back-transformed least squares mean difference and 90% confidence interval from mixed effects model performed on natural log-transformed values.|||1.45|0.80|
91018797|NCT02253654|181920223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.53||0.46|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-6.58||||t-test, 1 sided|||The difference between treatment groups for the percent of hemoglobin measurements within 10.0 to 11.0 g/dL during the evaluation period was tested using a 1-sided t-test with a significance level of 0.025.|||-6.58|0.46
91018798|NCT00149669|181920243|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.67|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.24|17.73|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||17.73|4.24|<0.01
91083697|NCT01096680|182051081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.0234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3:50am||-0.2|-2.2|0.0234
91083698|NCT01096680|182051081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.5624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3:50am||0.7|-1.3|0.5624
91018799|NCT00149669|181920244|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.95|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||1.95|.43|0.82
91018800|NCT00149669|181920245|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.61|||=|0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.26|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||1.26|0.29|=0.19
91018801|NCT02458365|181920250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.75|||Regression, Logistic|Hierarchical logistic regression using random intercepts for school to account for the clustered study design||||.75|.51|<.0001
91018802|NCT02458365|181920250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.68|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted model that controls for potential confounds and covariates, including variables that predicted non-response and the primary outcomes.||||.68|.45|<.0001
91018803|NCT02458365|181920251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.84|||Regression, Logistic|Hierarchical logistic regression using random intercepts for school to account for the clustered study design||||.84|.57|<.001
91018804|NCT02458365|181920251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.75|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted model that controls for potential confounds and covariates, including variables that predicted non-response and the primary outcomes.||||.75|.50|<.0001
91018805|NCT02458365|181920252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.67|||Regression, Logistic|Hierarchical logistic regression using random intercepts for school to account for the clustered study design||||.67|.43|<.0001
91018806|NCT02458365|181920252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.56|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted model that controls for potential confounds and covariates, including variables that predicted non-response and the primary outcomes.||||.56|.36|<.0001
91018807|NCT02458365|181920253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.62|||Regression, Logistic|Hierarchical logistic regression using random intercepts for school to account for the clustered study design||||.62|.41|<.0001
91018808|NCT02458365|181920253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.54|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted model that controls for potential confounds and covariates, including variables that predicted non-response and the primary outcomes.||||.54|.35|<.0001
91018809|NCT02458365|181920254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.55||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.78|||Regression, Logistic|Hierarchical logistic regression using random intercepts for school to account for the clustered study design||||.78|.38|.001
91018810|NCT02458365|181920254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.9|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted model that controls for potential confounds and covariates, including variables that predicted non-response and the primary outcomes.||||.90|.40|.013
91018811|NCT02458365|181920255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.76|||Regression, Logistic|Hierarchical logistic regression using random intercepts for school to account for the clustered study design||||.76|.37|<.001
91018812|NCT02458365|181920255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.54||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.82|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted model that controls for potential confounds and covariates, including variables that predicted non-response and the primary outcomes.||||.82|.35|.004
91018813|NCT02458365|181920256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.53||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.78|||Regression, Logistic|Hierarchical logistic regression using random intercepts for school to account for the clustered study design||||.78|.35|.002
91018814|NCT02458365|181920256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.81|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted model that controls for potential confounds and covariates, including variables that predicted non-response and the primary outcomes.||||.81|.31|.005
91018815|NCT02458365|181920257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.43|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.64|||Regression, Logistic|Hierarchical logistic regression using random intercepts for school to account for the clustered study design||||.64|.29|<.0001
91018816|NCT02458365|181920257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.47||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.77|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted model that controls for potential confounds and covariates, including variables that predicted non-response and the primary outcomes.||||.77|.29|.003
91018817|NCT00468312|181920290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) extracted sources of variation due to treatment, variable specific baseline, and site.||||||<0.001
91018818|NCT00468312|181920291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.026||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) extracted sources of variation due to treatment, variable specific baseline, and site.||||||0.026
91018819|NCT00468312|181920292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) extracted sources of variation due to treatment, variable specific baseline, and site.||||||<0.001
91018820|NCT00468312|181920293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) extracted sources of variation due to treatment, variable specific baseline, and site.||||||<0.001
91018821|NCT00468312|181920294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.269||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) extracted sources of variation due to treatment, variable specific baseline, and site.||||||0.269
91018822|NCT01052038|181920295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
91018823|NCT01052038|181920295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||2|0|<0.001
91018824|NCT01052038|181920295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||2|0|<0.001
91018825|NCT01052038|181920296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|Dunn's post hoc-test corrected for 12 comparisons.||||||<0.001
91018826|NCT01052038|181920296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|22.0||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.0|29.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||29|14|0.005
91018827|NCT01052038|181920296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|14.0||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|22.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||22|7|0.004
91018828|NCT01052038|181920297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.004
91018829|NCT01052038|181920298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|Post hoc test using Dunn's test corrected for 12 comparisons||||||0.01
91018830|NCT01052038|181920298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|10.0||||0.003||95.0|0.0|20.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||20|0|0.003
91018831|NCT01052038|181920299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.04
91018832|NCT03349437|181920300|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||This p-value is in reference to the total Modified 6MWT Distance|Wilcoxon Signed Rank|||||||0.02
91018833|NCT00602641|181920400|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Presuming the control over the experimental arm (MPT-T/mPR-R), the inferiority of mPR-R was defined as a PFS treatment hazard ratio (HR) of less than or equal to 0.82 corresponding to median PFS on the mPR-R arm of 20.5 months (mos) vs. 25 mos on the MPT-T arm. With 304 patients and 221 PFS events, there was 86% power to detect non-inferiority of mPR-R at a 1-sided 0.05 significance level assuming a superiority alternative of HR=1.2 corresponding to median PFS on the mPR-R arm of 30 mos.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.67|1.045|||||Analysis based on stratified cox regression by ISS stage (I-II vs. III) and age (\< 65y vs. ≥ 65y). The fact that the lower-bound was less than 0.82 and the upper bound was above 1.0 indicates that results were inconclusive for the primary objective.|Since mPR-R was expected to be considerably less toxic and to confer slightly longer PFS, a non-inferiority design with superiority alternative was used.||1.045|0.67|
91018834|NCT00602641|181920401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.476|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|Analysis was based on stratified cox regression by ISS stage (I-II vs. III) and age (\< 65y vs. ≥ 65y).||||||0.476
91018835|NCT00602641|181920402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.204|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.204
91018836|NCT00602641|181920403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.007
91018837|NCT03901339|181920404|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.653||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.526|0.812||Stratified log-rank test and stratified Cox regression adjusted for stratification factors: prior chemotherapy regimens for metastatic disease, presence of visceral metastasis and endocrine therapy in the metastatic setting for at least 6 months.|Log Rank|||||0.812|0.526|0.0001
91018838|NCT03901339|181920405|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.788||||0.0133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.652|0.952||Stratified log-rank test and stratified Cox regression adjusted for stratification factors: prior chemotherapy regimens for metastatic disease, presence of visceral metastasis, and endocrine therapy in the metastatic setting for at least 6 months.|Log Rank|||||0.952|0.652|0.0133
91018839|NCT03901339|181920406|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.662||||0.0268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.058|2.609|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||ORR by BICR Assessment||2.609|1.058|0.0268
91018840|NCT03901339|181920406|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.989||||0.0098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.174|3.369|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||ORR by LIR Assessment||3.369|1.174|0.0098
91018841|NCT03901339|181920408|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.796||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.227|2.628|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CBR by BICR Assessment||2.628|1.227|0.0025
91018842|NCT03901339|181920408|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.834||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.237|2.717|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CBR by LIR Assessment||2.717|1.237|0.0024
91018843|NCT03901339|181920409|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.728||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.602|0.881||Stratified log-rank test and stratified Cox regression adjusted for stratification factors: prior chemotherapy regimens for metastatic disease, presence of visceral metastasis, and endocrine therapy in the metastatic setting for at least 6 months.|Log Rank|||||0.881|0.602|0.0010
91018844|NCT03901339|181920410|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.751||||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.612|0.922||Stratified log-rank test and stratified Cox regression adjusted for stratification factors: prior chemotherapy regimens for metastatic disease, presence of visceral metastasis, and endocrine therapy in the metastatic setting for at least 6 months.|Log Rank|||||0.922|0.612|0.0059
91018845|NCT03901339|181920411|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.918||||0.4151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.748|1.126||Stratified log-rank test and stratified Cox regression adjusted for stratification factors: prior chemotherapy regimens for metastatic disease, presence of visceral metastasis, and endocrine therapy in the metastatic setting for at least 6 months.|Log Rank|||||1.126|0.748|0.4151
91018846|NCT03901339|181920412|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.732||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.598|0.894||Stratified log-rank test and stratified Cox regression adjusted for stratification factors: prior chemotherapy regimens for metastatic disease, presence of visceral metastasis, and endocrine therapy in the metastatic setting for at least 6 months.|Log Rank|||||0.894|0.598|0.0021
91018847|NCT01294709|181920426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-6.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.66|3.86|||mixed effects model|mixed effects model with MK-0974 pooled over doses||Telcagepant minus Placebo Treatment Difference||3.86|-17.66|
91018848|NCT01294709|181920427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least squares meand|-0.056|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.19|0.076|||mixed effects model|mixed effects model with MK-0974 pooled over doses||Telcagepant minus Placebo Treatment Difference||0.076|-0.19|
91018849|NCT01294709|181920428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-7.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.03|7.74|||mixed effects model|mixed effects model with MK-0974 pooled over doses||Telcagepant minus Placebo Treatment Difference||7.74|-22.03|
91018850|NCT00110084|181920457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion of confirmed responses (%)|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.0|64.0|||||95% Confidence intervals were calculated for the true confirmed response rate using properties of the binomial distribution.|Proportion of confirmed responses was estimated by the number of patients who achieved a confirmed response divided by the total number of assessable patients.||64|36|
91018851|NCT02446496|181920461|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125%.|Point estimate percent|95.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.67|107.37||||||||107.37|85.67|
91018852|NCT02446496|181920462|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125%.|Point estimate percent|102.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.46|115.7|||||Comparison of AUC (0-t) between Treatment A and Treatment B|||115.70|90.46|
91018853|NCT02446496|181920462|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125%.|Point estimate percent|103.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.19|116.62|||||Comparison of AUC(0-infinity) between Treatment A and Treatment B|||116.62|91.19|
91018854|NCT02446496|181920463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.267||95.0|||||Wilcoxon's Signed-Rank Test|Comparison of T-max between Treatment A and Treatment B.||||||0.2670
91018855|NCT04854707|181920465|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91018856|NCT04854707|181920465|OTHER|||||||0.032|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.032
91018857|NCT04854707|181920466|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.017||||0.314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0161|0.0501|||Chi-squared|z-value = 1||95% Confidence intervals (CIs) of point estimates were calculated using the exact binominal distribution (Clopper-Pearson method) for proportions||0.0501|-0.0161|0.314
91083699|NCT01096680|182051081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3:50am||-1.5|-3.5|<0.0001
91083700|NCT01096680|182051081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3:50am||-0.6|-2.6|0.0022
91018858|NCT04854707|181920466|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0207||||0.482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0369|0.0782|||Chi-squared|||95% Confidence intervals (CIs) of point estimates were calculated using the exact binominal distribution (Clopper-Pearson method) for proportions||0.0782|-0.0369|0.482
91018859|NCT04854707|181920467|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91018860|NCT04854707|181920467|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91018861|NCT04854707|181920468|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91018862|NCT04854707|181920469|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91018863|NCT04854707|181920469|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91018864|NCT05302414|181920487|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|12.75|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||For the pretest at week 0.||||<0.05
91018865|NCT05302414|181920487|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||For posttest right after intervention at the 4 weeks.||||0.05
91018866|NCT05302414|181920487|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|6.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||For follow-up test at the 16 weeks.||||0.05
91018867|NCT05302414|181920488|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||For pretest at the 0 week||||<0.05
91018868|NCT05302414|181920488|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||For posttest right after intervention at the 4 weeks.||||0.05
91018869|NCT05302414|181920488|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||For follow-up test at the 16 weeks.||||0.05
91018870|NCT05302414|181920489|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|40.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||For the pretest at week 0.||||<0.05
91018871|NCT05302414|181920489|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|45.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||For posttest right after intervention at the 4 weeks.||||0.05
91018872|NCT05302414|181920489|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|43.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||For follow-up test at the 16 weeks.||||0.05
91018873|NCT05302414|181920490|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||For the pretest at week 0.||||<0.05
91018874|NCT05302414|181920490|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||For posttest right after intervention at the 4 weeks.||||0.05
91018875|NCT05302414|181920490|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.5||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||For follow-up test at the 16 weeks.||||0.05
91018876|NCT05302414|181920491|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|6.75|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||For the pretest at week 0.||||<0.05
91018877|NCT05302414|181920491|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.25||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||For posttest right after intervention at the 4 weeks.||||0.05
91083701|NCT01096680|182051081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|-1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3:50am||-1.6|-3.7|<0.0001
91083702|NCT01096680|182051081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3:50am||-0.8|-2.8|0.0008
91018878|NCT05302414|181920491|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||For follow-up test at the 16 weeks.||||0.05
91018879|NCT05302414|181920492|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|22.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||For posttest right after intervention at the 4 weeks.||||<0.05
91018880|NCT00742859|181920493|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.14||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.017|1.14|||Log Rank|||Betrixaban 40mg compared to Warfarin||1.14|0.017|0.035
91018881|NCT00742859|181920493|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.711||||0.546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.225|2.24|||Log Rank|||Betrixaban 60mg compared to Warfarin||2.24|0.225|0.546
91018882|NCT00742859|181920493|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.755||||0.712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.239|2.39|||Log Rank|||Betrixaban 80mg compared to Warfarin||2.39|0.239|0.712
91018883|NCT00742859|181920494|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.508||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.301|0.856|||Log Rank|||Betrixaban 40mg compared to Warfarin||0.856|0.301|0.011
91018884|NCT00742859|181920494|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.767||||0.308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.481|1.22|||Log Rank|||Betrixaban 60mg compared to Warfarin||1.22|0.481|0.308
90956497|NCT04797650|181792777|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated by CMH test stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for responders in each treatment group compared to placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||||< 0.0001
91018885|NCT00742859|181920494|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.551||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.332|0.914|||Log Rank|||Betrixaban 80mg compared to Warfarin||0.914|0.332|0.022
91018886|NCT00956709|181920495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.56||||||Two patients in each group had incomplete block before sugery.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.56
91018887|NCT00956709|181920497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3354|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3354
91018888|NCT00956709|181920498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0445|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0445
91018889|NCT03972709|181920522|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.188||0.1206||95.0|-0.08|0.66|||MMRM|||||0.66|-0.08|0.1206
91018890|NCT03972709|181920522|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.231||0.6127||95.0|-0.34|0.57|||MMRM|||||0.57|-0.34|0.6127
91018891|NCT03972709|181920529|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.901||0.8388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.14|3.36|||MMRM|||||3.36|-4.14|0.8388
91018892|NCT03972709|181920529|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.384||0.8412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.18|4.23|||MMRM|||||4.23|-5.18|0.8412
91018893|NCT03972709|181920530|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.052||0.6865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.22|4.88|||MMRM|||||4.88|-3.22|0.6865
91018894|NCT03972709|181920530|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.9355||95.0|-4.73|5.13|||MMRM|||||5.13|-4.73|0.9355
91083703|NCT01096680|182051081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.0883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3:50am||0.1|-1.9|0.0883
91083704|NCT01096680|182051081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.3093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||4:50am||0.5|-1.5|0.3093
91083705|NCT01096680|182051081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.8871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||4:50am||1.1|-0.9|0.8871
91018895|NCT00728988|181920536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.9237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|9.3|||Chi-squared, Corrected||95% confidence interval for the true difference in the incidence of MACE between the two treatment groups. Difference of incidence = usual care minus atorvastatin.|Total MACE: treatment difference. Null hypothesis = no difference between the incidence rates in the two groups. A 5% two-sided continuity adjusted Chi-square test was applied.||9.3|-7.3|0.9237
91018896|NCT00728988|181920536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|10.7|||Fisher Exact||Confidence limits were calculated by the exact unconditional inference. Difference of incidence = usual care minus atorvastatin.|Death: treatment difference. Null hypothesis = no difference between the incidence rates in two groups. Fisher's exact test was applied because the expected frequency of events was less than 5.||10.7|-10.7|1.0000
91018897|NCT00728988|181920536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.9158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|9.2|||Chi-squared, Corrected||Difference of incidence = usual care minus atorvastatin.|Myocardial Infarction: treatment difference. Null hypothesis = no difference between the incidence rates in the two groups. A 5% two-sided continuity adjusted Chi-square test was applied.||9.2|-7.2|0.9158
91018898|NCT00728988|181920536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5104|1.6846|||Regression, Logistic|||Unadjusted odds ratio and 95% confidence interval calculated by including treatment group as the only covariate in the logistic regression model. Reference group = usual care.||1.6846|0.5104|0.80
91018899|NCT00728988|181920536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4887|1.8836|||Regression, Logistic|||Adjusted odds ratio: model includes treatment group and potential confounding covariates age, gender, country, non-ST elevation myocardial infarction, LVEF \<=40, and use of beta-blockers, ACE-inhibitors, angiotension receptor blockers, calcium channel antagonists, and diuretics. Reference group = usual care.||1.8836|0.4887|0.90
91018900|NCT00728988|181920536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8494|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|Survival analysis: Kaplan-Meier log rank test.||MACE-free survival up to Day 30. A censoring variable with a value of 1 denoted that the subject had the event and 0 indicated that the subject was censored. A log-rank test was applied to investigate any differences on the survival distribution function between two treatment groups.||||0.8494
91018901|NCT00728988|181920537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|6.3|||Chi-squared, Corrected||Difference of incidence = atorvastatin minus usual care.|Treatment difference (%). Null hypothesis = no difference between the incidence rates in the two groups. A 5% two-sided continuity adjusted Chi-square test was applied.||6.3|-5.6|1.0000
91018902|NCT00728988|181920538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6||||0.7896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|6.5|||Chi-squared, Corrected||Difference of incidence = atorvastatin minus usual care .|Treatment difference (%). Null hypothesis = no difference between the incidence rates in the two groups. A 5% two-sided continuity adjusted Chi-square test was applied.||6.5|-9.7|0.7896
91018903|NCT00728988|181920539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4||||0.631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|5.4|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||8 hours post-PCI: difference (%) in proportions. Null hypothesis = no difference in proportions of the two groups. A 5% two-sided continuity adjusted Chi-square test was applied.||5.4|-10.1|0.631
91018904|NCT00728988|181920539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.3||||0.518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|5.5|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||24 hours post-PCI: difference (%) in proportions. Null hypothesis = no difference in proportions of the two groups. A 5% two-sided continuity adjusted Chi-square test was applied.||5.5|-12.1|0.518
91018905|NCT00728988|181920539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|12.0|||Fisher Exact|||30 days post-PCI: difference (%) in proportions. Null hypothesis = no difference in proportions of the two groups. Fisher's exact test was applied because the expected frequency of biomarker elevation was less than 5.||12.0|-9.6|0.236
91018906|NCT00728988|181920540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.9||||0.425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|15.9|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||8 hours post-PCI: difference (%) in proportions. Null hypothesis = no difference in proportions of the two groups. A 5% two-sided continuity adjusted Chi-square test was applied.||15.9|-6.2|0.425
91018907|NCT00728988|181920540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.3||||0.392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|16.7|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||24 hours post-PCI: difference (%) in proportions. Null hypothesis = no difference in proportions of the two groups. A 5% two-sided continuity adjusted Chi-square test was applied.||16.7|-6.1|0.392
91018908|NCT00728988|181920540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|10.9|||Fisher Exact|||30 days post-PCI: difference (%) in proportions. Null hypothesis = no difference in proportions of the two groups. Fisher's exact test was applied because the expected frequency of biomarker elevation was less than 5.||10.9|-10.7|1.000
91018909|NCT00728988|181920541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7||||0.529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|4.3|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||8 hours post-PCI: difference (%) in proportions. Null hypothesis = no difference in proportions of the two groups. A 5% two-sided continuity adjusted Chi-square test was applied.||4.3|-9.6|0.529
91018910|NCT00728988|181920541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|3.6|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||24 hours post-PCI: difference (%) in proportions. Null hypothesis = no difference in proportions of the two groups. A 5% two-sided continuity adjusted Chi-square test was applied.||3.6|-5.8|0.827
91018911|NCT00728988|181920541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|11.5|||Fisher Exact|||30 days post-PCI: difference (%) in proportions. Null hypothesis = no difference in proportions of the two groups. Fisher's exact test was applied because the expected frequency of biomarker elevation was less than 5.||11.5|-10.3|0.616
91083706|NCT01096680|182051081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||4:50am||-1.2|-3.2|<0.0001
91083707|NCT01096680|182051081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||4:50am||-0.6|-2.6|0.0022
91083708|NCT01096680|182051081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||4:50am||-1.4|-3.4|<0.0001
91018912|NCT00728988|181920542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.53||||0.7554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-215.87|156.81|||ANOVA|||8 hours post-PCI: difference (% change).||156.81|-215.87|0.7554
91018913|NCT00728988|181920542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|50.58||||0.7436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-253.42|354.58|||ANOVA|||24 hours post-PCI: difference (% change).||354.58|-253.42|0.7436
91018914|NCT00728988|181920542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-58.22||||0.4741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-218.12|101.68|||ANOVA|||30 days post-PCI: difference (% change).||101.68|-218.12|0.4741
91018915|NCT00116207|181920543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|||||p values were computed using a general linear model (ANOVA) adjusted at baseline for age, sex, HbA1c.|ANOVA|||BASELINE||||0.32
91018916|NCT00116207|181920543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|||||p values were computed using a general linear model (ANOVA) adjusted at baseline for age, sex, HbA1c.|ANOVA|||24-MONTH||||0.045
91018917|NCT00116207|181920544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|||||p values were computed using a general linear model (ANOVA) adjusted at baseline for age, sex, HbA1c.|ANOVA|||BASELINE||||0.52
91018918|NCT00116207|181920544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|||||p values were computed using a general linear model (ANOVA) adjusted at baseline for age, sex, HbA1c.|ANOVA|||24 MONTH||||0.82
91018919|NCT00116207|181920545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|||||p values were computed using a general linear model adjusted at baseline for age, sex, HbA1c.|ANOVA|||24 MONTH||||0.24
91018920|NCT00116207|181920546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|||||p values were computed using a general linear model (ANOVA) adjusted at baseline for age, sex, HbA1c.|ANOVA|||24 MONTH||||0.83
91018921|NCT00345969|181920627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.01
91018922|NCT00345969|181920628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.55
91018923|NCT00345969|181920629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.23
91018924|NCT00345969|181920630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.43
91018925|NCT00345969|181920631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.33
91018926|NCT00345969|181920632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.93
91018927|NCT00345969|181920633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.24
91018928|NCT00345969|181920634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.49
91018929|NCT00345969|181920635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.19
91018930|NCT00345969|181920636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.71
91018931|NCT00345969|181920637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.44
91018932|NCT00345969|181920638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.89
91018933|NCT00345969|181920639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.13
91018934|NCT03332212|181920640|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.247|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.164||0.1418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.582|0.087|||ANOVA|||ANOVA on the PCr/ATP ratio absolute change using treatment (empagliflozin vs. placebo), history of diabetes (yes vs, no) and history of atrial fibrillation (yes vs no) as between subjects factor.||0.087|-0.582|0.1418
91018935|NCT03332212|181920640|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.159|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.213||0.465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.604|0.286|||ANOVA|||ANOVA on the PCr/ATP ratio absolute change using treatment (empagliflozin vs. placebo), history of diabetes (yes vs, no) and history of atrial fibrillation (yes vs no) as between subjects factor.||0.286|-0.604|0.4650
91018936|NCT00975000|181920692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-Square test statistic|66.437|||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by baseline corrected total serum calcium level (≤ 11.2 mg/dL and \> 11.2 mg/dL)||The primary endpoint was tested at a significance level of 0.05.||||<0.001
91018937|NCT00975000|181920692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|91.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.76|445.41|||||Odds ratio of Cinacalcet/Placebo|||445.41|18.76|
91018938|NCT00975000|181920692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|75.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.83|87.05|||||Difference = Cinacalcet-Placebo|||87.05|63.83|
91018939|NCT00975000|181920693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|1.41||||0.266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|3.93|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with Baseline corrected total serum calcium group as a covariate.|Least square estimate for the difference in the percent change in BMD between the 2 treatment groups (cinacalcet - placebo)|||3.93|-1.10|0.266
91018940|NCT00975000|181920694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.64|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with Baseline corrected total serum calcium group as a covariate.|Least square estimate for the difference in the absolute change in mean serum phosphorus between the 2 treatment groups (cinacalcet - placebo)|||0.64|0.26|<0.001
91018941|NCT00975000|181920695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-0.4||||0.842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.37|3.57|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with Baseline corrected total serum calcium group as a covariate.|Least square estimate for the difference in the absolute change in mean eGFR between the 2 treatment groups (cinacalcet - placebo)|||3.57|-4.37|0.842
91018942|NCT00975000|181920696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-1.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|-1.16|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with Baseline corrected total serum calcium group as a covariate.|Least square estimate for the difference in the absolute change in corrected total calcium between the 2 treatment groups (cinacalcet - placebo)|||-1.16|-1.62|<0.001
91018943|NCT00975000|181920697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-117.21||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-189.88|-44.55|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with Baseline corrected total serum calcium group as a covariate.|Least square estimate for the difference in the absolute change in iPTH between the 2 treatment groups (cinacalcet - placebo)|||-44.55|-189.88|0.002
91018944|NCT00975000|181920698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-1.42||||0.846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.91|13.06|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with Baseline corrected total serum calcium group as a covariate.|Least square estimate for the difference in the absolute change in urine phosphorus between the 2 treatment groups (cinacalcet - placebo)|||13.06|-15.91|0.846
91032409|NCT00113425|181949496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||paired t-test, 2-sided|||Null Hypothesis = There is no difference between change from baseline in erythematous macules for the treated side of the face compared to the change from baseline for the untreated side of the face in all patients||||0.04
91032410|NCT00113425|181949497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||paired t-test, 2-sided|||Null Hypothesis = There is no difference between change from baseline in acne severity for the treated side of the face compared to the change from baseline for the untreated side of the face in all patients||||0.01
91018945|NCT00902486|181920716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.17||||0.0619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|6.15|||Cochran-Armitage trend test||LOGISTIC regression model for odds ratio estimates : LOGIT(Response 0/1) = Treatment + Biologics|The prespecified primary analysis for ACR 20 was the Cochran-Armitage trend test looking for a dose-response relationship. The treatment effect was also assessed using a logistic regression model including background therapy (more than 8 weeks of biologics or not) and treatment.||6.15|0.77|0.0619
91018946|NCT00902486|181920716|OTHER|||||||0.1978|||||||Fisher Exact|||Sensitivity analysis for pairwise comparisons of 4 mg QD versus placebo.||||0.1978
91018947|NCT00902486|181920716|OTHER|||||||0.0437|||||||Fisher Exact|||Sensitivity analysis for pairwise comparisons of 7 mg QD versus placebo.||||0.0437
91018948|NCT00902486|181920716|OTHER|||||||0.1236|||||||Fisher Exact|||Sensitivity analysis for pairwise comparisons of 10 mg QD versus placebo.||||0.1236
91018949|NCT05257109|181920786|OTHER|Mixed effects models with water concentration as the within subject factor and irritation as outcome. Outcome analyses will be intent-to-treat and using mixed-effects models. If model assumptions will appear to be violated, we will transform the data or fit more flexible generalized linear or nonparametric mixed models. A significant main effect of condition will be considered supportive of our hypothesis. Formal power analyses were not conducted for this pilot study.|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.67||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|||||Significant p-value set at \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0014
91018950|NCT05257109|181920787|OTHER|Mixed effects models with water concentration as the within subject factor and LHS as outcome. Outcome analyses will be intent-to-treat and using mixed-effects models. If model assumptions will appear to be violated, we will transform the data or fit more flexible generalized linear or nonparametric mixed models. A significant main effect of condition will be considered supportive of our hypothesis. Formal power analyses were not conducted for this pilot study.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.55|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.05
91018951|NCT05257109|181920788|OTHER|Mixed effects models with water concentration as the within subject factor and DEQ as outcome. Outcome analyses will be intent-to-treat and using mixed-effects models. If model assumptions will appear to be violated, we will transform the data or fit more flexible generalized linear or nonparametric mixed models. A significant main effect of condition will be considered supportive of our hypothesis. Formal power analyses were not conducted for this pilot study.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.28|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.05
91018952|NCT00584831|181920789|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is 0.05|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.16||0.02||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Hypothesis is that visual acuity is the same for all lens types.||||0.02
91018953|NCT00584831|181920789|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is 0.05|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.18||0.02||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Hyposthesis is that visual acuity is the same for all lens types.||||0.02
91018954|NCT00584831|181920789|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is 0.05|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.2||0.02||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Hypothesis is that visual acuity is the same for all lens types.||||0.02
91018955|NCT00584831|181920789|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is 0.05|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.17||0.02||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Hypothesis is that visual acuity is the same for all lens types.||||0.02
91018956|NCT00584831|181920789|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is 0.05|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.18||0.02||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Hypothesis is that visual acuity is the same for all lens types.||||0.02
91018957|NCT00584831|181920789|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is 0.05|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.18||0.02||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Hypothesis is that visual acuity is the same for all lens types.||||0.02
91018958|NCT00584831|181920790|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is 0.05|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.16||0.02||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Hypothesis is that visual acuity is the same for all lens types.||||0.02
91018959|NCT00584831|181920790|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is 0.05|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.17||0.02||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Hypothesis is that visual acuity is the same for all lens types.||||0.02
91018960|NCT00584831|181920790|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is 0.05|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.17||0.02||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Hypothesis is that visual acuity is the same for all lens types.||||0.02
91018961|NCT00584831|181920790|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is 0.05|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.19||0.02||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Hypothesis is that visual acuity is the same for all lens types.||||0.02
91018962|NCT00584831|181920790|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is 0.05|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.2||0.02||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Hypothesis is that visual acuity is the same for all lens types.||||0.02
91018963|NCT00584831|181920790|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is 0.05|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.17||0.02||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Hypothesis is that visual acuity is the same for all lens types.||||0.02
91018964|NCT00584831|181920791|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is 0.05|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.13||0.02||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Hypothesis is that visual acuity is the same for all lens types.||||0.02
91018965|NCT00584831|181920791|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is 0.05|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.15||0.02||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Hypothesis is that visual acuity is the same for all lens types.||||0.02
91018966|NCT00584831|181920791|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is 0.05|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.17||0.02||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Hypothesis is that visual acuity is the same for all lens types.||||0.02
91018967|NCT00584831|181920791|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is 0.05|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.15||0.02||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Hypothesis is that visual acuity is the same for all lens types.||||0.02
91018968|NCT00584831|181920791|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is 0.05|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.17||0.02||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Hypothesis is that visual acuity is the same for all lens types.||||0.02
91018969|NCT00584831|181920791|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is 0.05|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.18||0.02||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Hypothesis is that visual acuity is the same for all lens types.||||0.02
91018970|NCT00584831|181920792|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is 0.05|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.17||0.02||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Hypothesis is that visual acuity is the same for all lens types.||||0.02
91018971|NCT00584831|181920792|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is 0.05|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.19||0.02||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Hypothesis is that visual acuity is the same for all lens types.||||0.02
91018972|NCT00584831|181920792|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is 0.05|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.2||0.02||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Hypothesis is that visual acuity is the same for all lens types.||||0.02
91018973|NCT00584831|181920792|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is 0.05|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.15||0.02||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Hypothesis is that visual acuity is the same for all lens types.||||0.02
91018974|NCT00584831|181920792|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is 0.05|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.18||0.02||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Hypothesis is that visual acuity is the same for all lens types.||||0.02
91018975|NCT00584831|181920792|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is 0.05|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.18||0.02||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Hypothesis is that visual acuity is the same for all lens types.||||0.02
91018976|NCT01607398|181920793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-8.05||||0.5146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.5|7.6|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|The analysis was done using the Van Elteren extension to the Wilcoxon rank sum test.|From Van-Elteren extension to the Wilcoxon Rank Sum test, adjusted for smoking status strata and Hodges-Lehmann estimator of the 95% CI, not stratified and unadjusted for multiplicity.|||7.600|-20.500|0.5146
91018977|NCT00069160|181920815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>.05
91018978|NCT02576054|181920832|NON_INFERIORITY|The statistical criterion for success requires that the lower bound of two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of GMT ratio between boys enrolled in V501-200 and men enrolled in the Phase III study V501-122 be greater than 0.5% for each HPV type|GMT Ratio|1.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.57|||ANOVA|Log-transformed data using an analysis of variance model with a term for age-group|GMT Ratio= GMT PN200 divided by GMT PN122|Anti-HPV 6||1.57|1.00|<0.001
91018979|NCT02576054|181920832|NON_INFERIORITY|The statistical criterion for success requires that the lower bound of two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of GMT ratio between boys enrolled in V501-200 and men enrolled in the Phase III study V501-122 be greater than 0.5% for each HPV type|GMT Ratio|2.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.89|2.78|||ANOVA|Log-transformed data using an analysis of variance model with a term for age-group|GMT Ratio = GMT PN200 divided by GMT PN122|Anti-HPV 11||2.78|1.89|<0.001
91018980|NCT02576054|181920832|NON_INFERIORITY|The statistical criterion for success requires that the lower bound of two-sided 95% CI of GMT ratio between boys enrolled in V501-200 and men enrolled in the Phase III study V501-122 be greater than 0.5% for each HPV type|GMT Ratio|1.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|2.11|||ANOVA|Log-transformed data using an analysis of variance model with a term for age-group|GMT Ratio= GMT PN200 divided by GMT PN122|Anti-HPV 16||2.11|1.35|<0.001
91018981|NCT02576054|181920832|NON_INFERIORITY|The statistical criterion for success requires that the lower bound of two-sided 95% CI of GMT ratio between boys enrolled in V501-200 and men enrolled in the Phase III study V501-122 be greater than 0.5% for each HPV type|GMT Ratio|3.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.33|3.99|||ANOVA|Log-transformed data using an analysis of variance model with a term for age-group|GMT Ratio= GMT PN200 divided by GMT PN122|Anti-HPV 18||3.99|2.33|<0.001
91018982|NCT01818414|181920858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.17
91018983|NCT01818414|181920859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.052|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.052
91018984|NCT00450177|181920872|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.03
91018985|NCT01227954|181920908|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||To detect a minimum relative 50% improvement leading to an absolute 15% mean relative decline (MRD) in HVLT-R DR, 51 analyzable patients were required to ensure 80% statistical power with 0.05 alpha. Assuming a death rate of 40% before 4 months (based on trial NCT00003563) and a 10% nonevaluable rate, the target sample size was 102. The target MRD was determined from NCT00003563 which demonstrated 30% MRD in HVLT-R DR score from baseline to 4 months, with a standard deviation of 41%.||||<0.001
91018986|NCT01227954|181920911|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable in the final model is reported separately.||A general linear fixed effects model was run with FACT-Br total score (baseline, 2, 4, 6 mo. from end of treatment) as outcome of interest. Explanatory variables: Age (\>= 60 vs. \<60), primary site (lung,breast,colon each vs. other), neurologic function status (no vs. some symptoms), and recursive partitioning analysis class (RPA) (I vs. II). Explanatory variables are reported separately and only if in the final model (p\< 0.10, except time forced in the model.). Intercept is reported here.||||<0.0001
91018987|NCT01227954|181920911|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1961|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable in the final model is reported separately.||A general linear fixed effects model was run with FACT-Br total score (baseline, 2, 4, 6 mo. from end of treatment) as outcome of interest. Explanatory variables in the model: Age (\>= 60 vs. \<60), primary site (lung,breast,colon each vs. other), neurologic function status (no vs. some symptoms), and RPA class(I vs. II). Explanatory variables are reported separately and only if they are in the final model (p\< 0.10, except time forced in the model.). Time is reported here.||||0.1961
91018988|NCT01227954|181920911|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0715|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable in the final model is reported separately.||A general linear fixed effects model was run with FACT-Br total score (baseline, 2, 4, 6 mo. from end of treatment) as outcome of interest. Explanatory variables in the model: Age (\>= 60 vs. \<60), primary site (lung,breast,colon each vs. other), neurologic function status (no vs. some symptoms), and RPA class(I vs. II). Explanatory variables are reported separately and only if they are in the final model (p\< 0.10, except time forced in the model.). Primary site (lung) is reported here.||||0.0715
91083709|NCT01096680|182051081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||4:50am||-0.8|-2.8|0.0006
90956498|NCT04797650|181792777|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated by CMH test stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for responders in each treatment group compared to placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||||< 0.0001
91083710|NCT01096680|182051081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.2462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||4:50am||0.4|-1.6|0.2462
91083711|NCT01096680|182051081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.4427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||5:50am||0.6|-1.4|0.4427
91083712|NCT01096680|182051081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.4405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||5:50am||1.4|-0.6|0.4405
91083713|NCT01096680|182051081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||5:50am||-0.9|-3.0|0.0003
91083714|NCT01096680|182051081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.0279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||5:50am||-0.1|-2.2|0.0279
91083715|NCT01096680|182051081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||5:50am||-1.5|-3.5|<0.0001
91083716|NCT01096680|182051081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||5:50am||-0.7|-2.7|0.0015
91083717|NCT01096680|182051081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.1246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||5:50am||0.2|-1.8|0.1246
91083718|NCT01096680|182051081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.3067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||6:50am||0.5|-1.6|0.3067
91018989|NCT01227954|181920911|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0554|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable in the final model is reported separately.||A general linear fixed effects model with FACT-Br total score (baseline, 2, 4, 6 mo. from end of treatment) as outcome of interest. Explanatory variables in the model: Age (\>= 60 vs. \<60), primary site (lung,breast,colon each vs. other), neurologic function status (no vs. some symptoms), and RPA class(I vs. II). Explanatory variables are reported separately and only if they are in the final model (p\< 0.10, except time forced in the model.). Neurologic status (no symptoms) is reported here.||||0.0554
91018990|NCT01227954|181920912|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable in the final model is reported separately.||A general linear fixed effects model was run with ADL (baseline, 2, 4, 6 mo. from end of treatment) as outcome of interest. Explanatory variables in the model: Age (\>= 60 vs. \<60), primary site (lung,breast,colon each vs. other), neurologic function status (no vs. some symptoms), and RPA class(I vs. II). Explanatory variables are reported separately and only if they are in the final model (p\< 0.10, except time forced in the model.). Intercept is reported here.||||<0.0001
91018991|NCT01227954|181920912|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1579|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable in the final model is reported separately.||A general linear fixed effects model was run with ADL (baseline, 2, 4, 6 mo. from end of treatment) as outcome of interest. Explanatory variables in the model: Age (\>= 60 vs. \<60), primary site (lung,breast,colon each vs. other), neurologic function status (no vs. some symptoms), and RPA class(I vs. II). Explanatory variables are reported separately and only if they are in the final model (p\< 0.10, except time forced in the model.). Time is reported here.||||0.1579
91018992|NCT01227954|181920912|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0559|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable in the final model is reported separately.||A general linear fixed effects model was run with ADL (baseline, 2, 4, 6 mo. from end of treatment) as outcome of interest. Explanatory variables in the model: Age (\>= 60 vs. \<60), primary site (lung,breast,colon each vs. other), neurologic function status (no vs. some symptoms), and RPA class(I vs. II). Explanatory variables are reported separately and only if they are in the final model (p\< 0.10, except time forced in the model.). Neurologic function status (some symptoms) is reported here.||||0.0559
91018993|NCT01227954|181920912|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0749|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable in the final model is reported separately.||A general linear fixed effects model was run with ADL (baseline, 2, 4, 6 mo. from end of treatment) as outcome of interest. Explanatory variables in the model: Age (\>= 60 vs. \<60), primary site (lung,breast,colon each vs. other), neurologic function status (no vs. some symptoms), and RPA class(I vs. II). Explanatory variables are reported separately and only if they are in the final model (p\< 0.10, except time forced in the model.). Age (\>= 60) is reported here.||||0.0749
91018994|NCT03901352|181920921|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LSM vs placebo|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.187||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.34|||ANCOVA||"The multiple imputation (MI) was based on a nonfuture dependence model using the pattern mixture model (PMM) approach with shifting parameters under the missing not at random (MNAR0 mechanism for the missing weekly ADPS."|||-0.34|-1.08|0.0001
91083719|NCT01096680|182051081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||6:50am||1.1|-1.0|0.8940
91083720|NCT01096680|182051081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||6:50am||-0.5|-2.7|0.0034
91083721|NCT01096680|182051081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.0708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||6:50am||0.1|-2.0|0.0708
91083722|NCT01096680|182051081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|-1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||6:50am||-1.4|-3.6|<0.0001
91083723|NCT01096680|182051081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||6:50am||-0.8|-2.9|0.0006
91083724|NCT01096680|182051081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.2476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||6:50am||0.4|-1.7|0.2476
91083725|NCT01096680|182051081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||7:50am||0.4|-1.8|0.2310
91083726|NCT01096680|182051081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.8369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||7:50am||1.0|-1.2|0.8369
91083727|NCT01096680|182051081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||7:50am||-0.5|-2.7|0.0035
91083728|NCT01096680|182051081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.0498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||7:50am||0.0|-2.2|0.0498
91083729|NCT01096680|182051081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|-1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||7:50am||-1.4|-3.6|<0.0001
91083730|NCT01096680|182051081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||7:50am||-0.8|-3.0|0.0007
91083731|NCT01096680|182051081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.3198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||7:50am||0.5|-1.6|0.3198
91018995|NCT02742818|181920989|OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||Generalized Estimation Equations (GEE)|Model assuming Gaussian distribution and AR-1 correlation structure, considering repeated measures in time.|||Through inference, changes in body temperature and proportional occurrence of hypothermia during surgery were evaluated using general models of estimating equations (GEE, Liang e Zeger, 1986). Binominal and normal distributions were taken into account, respectively, and assumptions for errors normalities were verified using residual plot graphs and fitted values. The significance of other associated factors and probable outcomes were verified, including gender, age, surgery type and total surgery duration, in minutes. Since analyses were longitudinal, AR-1 working correlation matrix was created.|||0.190
91018996|NCT02742818|181920990|OTHER|||||||0.82|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.820
91018997|NCT02742818|181920991|OTHER|||||||0.529|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.529
91018998|NCT02742818|181920992|OTHER|||||||0.999|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.999
91018999|NCT02742818|181920993|OTHER|||||||0.462|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.462
91019000|NCT03706209|181921009|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.12||||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|35.97|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||35.97|0.47|0.161
91019001|NCT03706209|181921009|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.52||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|55.43|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||55.43|0.55|0.111
91019002|NCT03706209|181921010|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73||||0.222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|4.25|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.25|0.71|0.222
91019003|NCT03706209|181921010|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.91||||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|4.91|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.91|0.75|0.182
91019004|NCT03706209|181921011|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.91||||0.294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|25.39|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||25.39|0.33|0.294
91019005|NCT03706209|181921011|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.06||||0.291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|53.14|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||53.14|0.31|0.291
91019006|NCT03706209|181921012|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|3.77|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.77|0.45|0.617
91019007|NCT03706209|181921012|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73||||0.319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|5.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5|0.6|0.319
91019008|NCT03706209|181921013|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|4.52|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.52|0.5|0.47
91019009|NCT03706209|181921013|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.44||||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|7.82|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||7.82|0.76|0.136
91019010|NCT03706209|181921014|SUPERIORITY||least square means|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|3.0|||ANCOVA|||||3|-2.6|0.894
91019011|NCT03706209|181921014|SUPERIORITY||least square means|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|1.7|||ANCOVA|||Estimates and treatment comparison of least square means using an ANCOVA model, with treatment arm and (pooled) analysis center as factors and baseline outcome as covariate.||1.7|-3.8|0.456
91019012|NCT03706209|181921016|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.572|||||||Log Rank|Kaplan-Meier estimate of the median time (day) to reach the PASI 75 criterion was not computed since data were too sparse.||||||0.572
91019013|NCT03706209|181921016|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4494|||||||Log Rank|Kaplan-Meier estimate of the median time (day) to reach the PASI 75 criterion was not computed since data were too sparse.||||||0.4494
91019014|NCT03706209|181921017|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7922|||||||Log Rank|Kaplan-Meier estimate of the median time (day) to reach the PASI 50 criterion was not computed since data were too sparse.||||||0.7922
91019015|NCT03706209|181921017|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1425|||||||Log Rank|Kaplan-Meier estimate of the median time (day) to reach the PASI 50 criterion was not computed since data were too sparse.||||||0.1425
91019016|NCT03706209|181921018|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann using location shift|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0.992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0|0|0.992
91019017|NCT03706209|181921018|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann using location shift|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0|0|0.143
91019018|NCT03706209|181921021|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.178
91019019|NCT03706209|181921021|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.63||||0.718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|7.48|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||7.48|0.05|0.718
91019020|NCT03706209|181921022|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.4||||0.474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|28.05|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||28.05|0.21|0.474
91019021|NCT03706209|181921022|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|19.05|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||19.05|0.08|0.867
91019022|NCT03706209|181921023|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2||||0.375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|12.84|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||12.84|0.38|0.375
91019023|NCT03706209|181921023|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.24||||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|27.08|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||27.08|0.66|0.116
91019024|NCT03706209|181921024|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.41||||0.287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|2.27|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.27|0.08|0.287
91019025|NCT03706209|181921024|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.85||||0.332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|6.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||6.4|0.53|0.332
91019026|NCT03706209|181921025|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|2.63|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.63|0.25|0.719
91019027|NCT03706209|181921025|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72||||0.357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|5.32|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.32|0.55|0.357
91019028|NCT03706209|181921026|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.75||||0.355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|5.72|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.72|0.53|0.355
91019029|NCT03706209|181921026|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.22||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|7.37|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||7.37|0.67|0.198
91019030|NCT03706209|181921027|SUPERIORITY||least square means|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|2.3|||ANCOVA|||Estimates and treatment comparison of least square means using an ANCOVA model, with treatment arm and (pooled) analysis center as factors and baseline outcome as covariate.||2.3|-1.7|0.757
91019031|NCT03706209|181921027|SUPERIORITY||least square means|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|0.9|||ANCOVA|||Estimates and treatment comparison of least square means using an ANCOVA model, with treatment arm and (pooled) analysis center as factors and baseline outcome as covariate.||0.9|-3.1|0.267
91019032|NCT03706209|181921028|SUPERIORITY||least square means|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|3.4|||ANCOVA|||Estimates and treatment comparison of least square means using an ANCOVA model, with treatment arm and (pooled) analysis center as factors and baseline outcome as covariate.||3.4|-1.4|0.412
91019033|NCT03706209|181921028|SUPERIORITY||least square means|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|1.4|||ANCOVA|||Estimates and treatment comparison of least square means using an ANCOVA model, with treatment arm and (pooled) analysis center as factors and baseline outcome as covariate.||1.4|-3.5|0.401
91019034|NCT03706209|181921029|SUPERIORITY||least square means|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|3.9|||ANCOVA|||Estimates and treatment comparison of least square means using an ANCOVA model, with treatment arm and (pooled) analysis center as factors and baseline outcome as covariate.||3.9|-3|0.801
91019035|NCT03706209|181921029|SUPERIORITY||least square means|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|3.3|||ANCOVA|||Estimates and treatment comparison of least square means using an ANCOVA model, with treatment arm and (pooled) analysis center as factors and baseline outcome as covariate.||3.3|-3.4|0.957
91019036|NCT03706209|181921033|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|3.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.8|0.55|0.45
91019037|NCT03706209|181921033|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.97||||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|5.26|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.26|0.74|0.186
91019038|NCT03706209|181921034|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|2.18|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.18|0.41|0.884
91019039|NCT03706209|181921034|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|3.64|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.64|0.61|0.384
91019040|NCT03706209|181921035|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.64||||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|4.26|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.26|0.63|0.311
91019041|NCT03706209|181921035|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|3.17|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.17|0.47|0.699
91019042|NCT03706209|181921036|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann using location shift|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0.671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0|0|0.671
91019043|NCT03706209|181921036|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann using location shift|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0|0|0.183
91019044|NCT03706209|181921037|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann using location shift|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0.542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0|0|0.542
91019045|NCT03706209|181921037|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann using location shift|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0.328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0|0|0.328
91019046|NCT03706209|181921038|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann using location shift|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0.921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0|0|0.921
91019047|NCT03706209|181921038|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann using location shift|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0|0|0.488
91019048|NCT03706209|181921049|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1193|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1193
91019049|NCT03706209|181921049|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0054|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0054
91019050|NCT03706209|181921050|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2439|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2439
91019051|NCT03706209|181921050|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2461|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2461
91019052|NCT03706209|181921051|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4395|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4395
91019053|NCT03706209|181921051|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0593|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0593
91019054|NCT03706209|181921053|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0507|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0507
91019055|NCT03706209|181921053|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0005
91019056|NCT03706209|181921054|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0504|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0504
91019057|NCT03706209|181921054|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0013|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0013
91019058|NCT03706209|181921055|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.098|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.098
91019059|NCT03706209|181921055|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0032|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0032
91019060|NCT00038467|181921064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||3e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.82|||Log Rank|||||0.82|0.58|0.00003
91019061|NCT00038467|181921065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.913||||0.15737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.806|1.036|||Log Rank|||||1.036|0.806|0.15737
91019062|NCT00038467|181921067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.43|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.63|3.23|||t-test, 2 sided|||6 months on-treatment (lumbar spine): p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||3.23|1.63|<0.0001
91019063|NCT00038467|181921067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.18||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.79|||t-test, 2 sided|||6 months on-treatment (total hip): p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||1.79|0.57|0.0002
91019064|NCT00038467|181921067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|3.81|||t-test, 2 sided|||12 months on-treatment (lumbar spine): p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||3.81|1.77|<0.0001
91019065|NCT00038467|181921067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|2.46|||t-test, 2 sided|||12 months on-treatment (total hip): p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||2.46|1.12|<0.0001
91019066|NCT00038467|181921067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|4.35|||t-test, 2 sided|||24 months on-treatment (lumbar spine): p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||4.35|2.10|<0.0001
91019067|NCT00038467|181921067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.69|||t-test, 2 sided|||24 months on-treatment (total hip): p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||2.69|1.10|<0.0001
91019068|NCT00038467|181921076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|0.86|||t-test, 2 sided|||3 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.86|-1.76|0.500
91019069|NCT00038467|181921076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.67|-0.52|||t-test, 2 sided|||6 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||-0.52|-3.67|0.009
91019070|NCT00038467|181921076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.35||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.86|0.16|||t-test, 2 sided|||9 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.16|-2.86|0.079
91019071|NCT00038467|181921076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27||||0.729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|1.77|||t-test, 2 sided|||12 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||1.77|-1.24|0.729
91019072|NCT00038467|181921076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.84||||0.302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.43|0.75|||t-test, 2 sided|||18 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.75|-2.43|0.302
91019073|NCT00038467|181921076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.11||||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.76|0.54|||t-test, 2 sided|||24 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.54|-2.76|0.187
91019074|NCT00038467|181921077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.65||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.49|||t-test, 2 sided|||3 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.49|-1.80|0.260
91019075|NCT00038467|181921077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.79||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|0.44|||t-test, 2 sided|||6 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.44|-2.02|0.209
91019076|NCT00038467|181921077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0.698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|0.92|||t-test, 2 sided|||9 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.92|-1.38|0.698
91019077|NCT00038467|181921077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.83||||0.192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|2.09|||t-test, 2 sided|||12 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||2.09|-0.42|0.192
91019078|NCT00038467|181921077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16||||0.813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|1.15|||t-test, 2 sided|||18 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||1.15|-1.46|0.813
91019079|NCT00038467|181921077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.42||||0.537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|1.75|||t-test, 2 sided|||24 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||1.75|-0.91|0.537
91019080|NCT00038467|181921078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52||||0.727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.46|2.42|||t-test, 2 sided|||3 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||2.42|-3.46|0.727
91019081|NCT00038467|181921078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.08||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.12|-0.05|||t-test, 2 sided|||6 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||-0.05|-6.12|0.047
91019082|NCT00038467|181921078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.88|2.08|||t-test, 2 sided|||9 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||2.08|-3.88|0.553
91019083|NCT00038467|181921078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.91||||0.563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.17|3.99|||t-test, 2 sided|||12 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||3.99|-2.17|0.563
91019084|NCT00038467|181921078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.73||||0.643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.83|2.36|||t-test, 2 sided|||18 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||2.36|-3.83|0.643
91019085|NCT00038467|181921078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.91||||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.63|0.82|||t-test, 2 sided|||24 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.82|-6.63|0.126
91019086|NCT00038467|181921079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.23|||t-test, 2 sided|||3 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.23|-0.83|0.265
91019087|NCT00038467|181921079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.21||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|-0.57|||t-test, 2 sided|||6 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||-0.57|-1.84|0.0002
91019088|NCT00038467|181921079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44||||0.132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.13|||t-test, 2 sided|||9 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.13|-1.00|0.132
91019089|NCT00038467|181921079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.43|||t-test, 2 sided|||12 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.43|-0.70|0.635
91019090|NCT00038467|181921079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21||||0.449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.33|||t-test, 2 sided|||18 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.33|-0.75|0.449
91019091|NCT00038467|181921079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22||||0.454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.36|||t-test, 2 sided|||24 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.36|-0.81|0.454
91019092|NCT00038467|181921080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.335|||t-test, 2 sided|||3 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.335|-0.53|0.712
91019093|NCT00038467|181921080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.356|||t-test, 2 sided|||6 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.356|-0.65|0.899
91019094|NCT00038467|181921080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.359|||t-test, 2 sided|||9 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.359|-0.76|0.882
91019095|NCT00038467|181921080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19||||0.604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.37|||t-test, 2 sided|||18 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.37|-0.54|0.604
91019096|NCT00038467|181921080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26||||0.562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.454|||t-test, 2 sided|||24 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.454|-1.16|0.562
91019097|NCT00038467|181921081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.18|||t-test, 2 sided|||3 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.18|-0.20|0.892
91019098|NCT00038467|181921081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.24|||t-test, 2 sided|||6 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.24|-0.21|0.881
91019099|NCT00038467|181921081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.21|||t-test, 2 sided|||9 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.21|-0.18|0.883
91019100|NCT00038467|181921081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.27|||t-test, 2 sided|||12 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.27|-0.16|0.604
91019101|NCT00038467|181921081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.41|||t-test, 2 sided|||18 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.41|-0.05|0.118
91019102|NCT00038467|181921081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.34|||t-test, 2 sided|||24 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.34|-0.11|0.307
91019103|NCT00038467|181921082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.56|||t-test, 2 sided|||3 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.56|-0.42|0.792
91019104|NCT00038467|181921082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0.405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.31|||t-test, 2 sided|||6 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.31|-0.76|0.405
91019105|NCT00038467|181921082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.36|||t-test, 2 sided|||9 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.36|-0.75|0.484
91019106|NCT00038467|181921082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||12 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.80|-0.19|0.229
91019107|NCT00038467|181921082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26||||0.381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.32|||t-test, 2 sided|||18 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.32|-0.84|0.381
91019108|NCT00038467|181921082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.33|||t-test, 2 sided|||24 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.33|-0.82|0.405
91019109|NCT00038467|181921083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.48|||t-test, 2 sided|||3 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.48|-0.77|0.648
91019110|NCT00038467|181921083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0.366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|0.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||6 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.40|-1.08|0.366
91019111|NCT00038467|181921083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.65||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|0.03|||t-test, 2 sided|||9 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.03|-1.33|0.062
91019112|NCT00038467|181921083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24||||0.545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|1.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||12 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||1.00|-0.53|0.545
91019113|NCT00038467|181921083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||18 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.70|-0.77|0.932
91019114|NCT00038467|181921083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46||||0.244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|0.32|||t-test, 2 sided|||24 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.32|-1.24|0.244
91019115|NCT00038467|181921084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.73|||t-test, 2 sided|||3 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.73|-0.62|0.876
91019116|NCT00038467|181921084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|0.26|||t-test, 2 sided|||6 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.26|-1.25|0.195
91019117|NCT00038467|181921084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.55|||t-test, 2 sided|||9 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.55|-0.92|0.630
91019118|NCT00038467|181921084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.98|||t-test, 2 sided|||12 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.98|-0.50|0.530
91019119|NCT00038467|181921084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61||||0.147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|0.21|||t-test, 2 sided|||18 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.21|-1.43|0.147
91019120|NCT00038467|181921084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36||||0.389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|0.46|||t-test, 2 sided|||24 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.46|-1.18|0.389
91019121|NCT00038467|181921086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0174|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||6 months: p-value for percentage of participants with an endometrial thickness of \>=5 mm was analyzed using Chi-squared test.||||0.0174
91019122|NCT00038467|181921086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0059|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||12 months: p-value for percentage of participants with an endometrial thickness of \>=5 mm was analyzed using Chi-squared test.||||0.0059
91083732|NCT01096680|182051081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||8:50am||1.7|-0.6|0.3750
91083733|NCT01096680|182051081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.7978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||8:50am||1.0|-1.3|0.7978
91019123|NCT00038467|181921086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||24 months: p-value for percentage of participants with an endometrial thickness of \>=5 mm was analyzed using Chi-squared test.||||0.0037
91019124|NCT00038467|181921086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8084|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||12 months post-treatment: p-value for percentage of participants with an endometrial thickness of \>=5 mm was analyzed using Chi-squared test.||||0.8084
91019125|NCT00038467|181921086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6449|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||24 months post-treatment: p-value for percentage of participants with an endometrial thickness of \>=5 mm was analyzed using Chi-squared test.||||0.6449
91019126|NCT01523301|181921092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-1.12|||=|0.1286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.56|0.33||The null hypothesis was assessed with a 2-sided test and not rejected at p≤0.05.|ANCOVA|||The change from Baseline to the end of the Maintenance period in the score of the HAM-D of rotigotine-treated subjects has been compared with those subjects on placebo in the EES. The null hypothesis (H0) was that there was no difference in the change of the HAM-D score between the active treatment and the placebo group. The alternative hypothesis (H1) was that there was a difference in the change of HAM-D score between the rotigotine and the placebo arm.||0.33|-2.56|=0.1286
91019127|NCT00609115|181921102|SUPERIORITY||Effect size|0.65||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|97.5|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.010
91019128|NCT00609115|181921102|SUPERIORITY||Effect|0.71||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.003
91019129|NCT00609115|181921103|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The reported p-value was calculated.|ANCOVA|||||||1.00
91019130|NCT00609115|181921103|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size|-0.29||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.06
91019131|NCT00609115|181921104|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size|0.33||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.17
91019132|NCT00609115|181921104|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size|0.4||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.17
91019133|NCT00609115|181921105|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size|0.05||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.83
91019134|NCT00609115|181921105|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size|-0.27||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.83
91019135|NCT00609115|181921106|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size|0.25||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.28
91019136|NCT00609115|181921106|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size|0.38||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.09
91019137|NCT00609115|181921107|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size|0.23||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.18
91083734|NCT01096680|182051081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.5197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||8:50am||0.8|-1.5|0.5197
90956499|NCT04797650|181792778|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-1.0||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 12||-1|-1.5|< 0.0001
90956500|NCT04797650|181792778|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-1.1||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 12||-1.1|-1.7|< 0.0001
90956501|NCT04797650|181792778|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-1.3||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 16||-1.3|-1.9|< 0.0001
90956502|NCT04797650|181792778|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-1.5||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 16||-1.5|-2.2|< 0.0001
90956503|NCT04797650|181792778|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-1.3||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 20||-1.3|-2|< 0.0001
90956504|NCT04797650|181792778|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-1.7||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 20||-1.7|-2.5|< 0.0001
90956505|NCT04797650|181792778|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-1.8||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 24||-1.8|-2.5|< 0.0001
90956506|NCT04797650|181792778|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-2.0||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 24||-2|-2.8|< 0.0001
90956507|NCT04797650|181792779|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-1.0||P-value was calculated by MMRM with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 12||-1|-1.8|< 0.0001
90956508|NCT04797650|181792779|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-1.1||P-value was calculated by MMRM with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 12||-1.1|-2|< 0.0001
90956509|NCT04797650|181792779|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-1.2||P-value was calculated by MMRM with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 16||-1.2|-2|< 0.0001
90956510|NCT04797650|181792779|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-1.4||P-value was calculated by MMRM with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 16||-1.4|-2.3|< 0.0001
90956511|NCT04797650|181792779|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-1.3||P-value was calculated by MMRM with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 20||-1.3|-2.2|< 0.0001
90956512|NCT04797650|181792779|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-1.5||P-value was calculated by MMRM with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 20||-1.5|-2.4|< 0.0001
90956513|NCT04797650|181792779|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-1.7||P-value was calculated by MMRM with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 24||-1.7|-2.5|< 0.0001
90956514|NCT04797650|181792779|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-1.8||P-value was calculated by MMRM with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 24||-1.8|-2.8|< 0.0001
90956515|NCT04797650|181792780|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.12||P-value was calculated by mantel-haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||75% Relative Reduction: Week 12||0.12|0.05|< 0.0001
90956516|NCT04797650|181792780|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.17||P-value was calculated by mantel-haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||75% Relative Reduction: Week 12||0.17|0.06|< 0.0001
90956517|NCT04797650|181792780|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.38||P-value was calculated by mantel-haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||75% Relative Reduction: Week 24||0.38|0.27|< 0.0001
90956518|NCT04797650|181792780|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.45||P-value was calculated by mantel-haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||75% Relative Reduction: Week 24||0.45|0.28|< 0.0001
90956519|NCT04797650|181792780|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.009||0.0409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.03||P-value was calculated by mantel-haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||90% Relative Reduction: Week 12||0.03|0.00|0.0409
90956520|NCT04797650|181792780|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.09||P-value was calculated by mantel-haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||90% Relative Reduction: Week 12||0.09|0.01|0.012
91019138|NCT00609115|181921107|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size|0.37||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.10
91019139|NCT00609115|181921108|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size|0.18||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.45
90956521|NCT04797650|181792780|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.26||P-value was calculated by mantel-haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||90% Relative Reduction: Week 24||0.26|0.16|< 0.0001
91083735|NCT01096680|182051081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.0751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||8:50am||0.1|-2.2|0.0751
90956522|NCT04797650|181792780|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.31||P-value was calculated by mantel-haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||90% Relative Reduction: Week 24||0.31|0.16|< 0.0001
90956523|NCT04797650|181792781|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.4||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 12||1.4|0.7|< 0.0001
90956524|NCT04797650|181792781|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.5||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 12||1.5|0.7|< 0.0001
90956525|NCT04797650|181792781|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.8||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 24||1.8|1.1|< 0.0001
90956526|NCT04797650|181792781|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.2||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 24||2.2|1.3|< 0.0001
90956527|NCT04797650|181792782|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.5||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 12||1.5|0.7|< 0.0001
90956528|NCT04797650|181792782|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.6||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 12||1.6|0.7|< 0.0001
90956529|NCT04797650|181792782|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.0||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 24||2|1|< 0.0001
90956530|NCT04797650|181792782|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.1||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 24||2.1|1|< 0.0001
90956531|NCT04797650|181792783|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.9||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value.|MMRM|||Week 12||-0.9|-1.4|< 0.0001
90956532|NCT04797650|181792783|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.9||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value.|MMRM|||Week 12||-0.9|-1.5|< 0.0001
91083736|NCT01096680|182051081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.1079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||8:50am||0.2|-2.1|0.1079
90956533|NCT04797650|181792783|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-1.1||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value.|MMRM|||Week 16||-1.1|-1.6|< 0.0001
90956534|NCT04797650|181792783|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-1.2||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value.|MMRM|||Week 16||-1.2|-1.8|< 0.0001
90956535|NCT04797650|181792783|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-1.1||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value.|MMRM|||Week 20||-1.1|-1.6|< 0.0001
90956536|NCT04797650|181792783|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-1.4||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value.|MMRM|||Week 20||-1.4|-2|< 0.0001
90956537|NCT04797650|181792783|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-1.3||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value.|MMRM|||Week 24||-1.3|-1.8|< 0.0001
90956538|NCT04797650|181792783|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-1.4||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value.|MMRM|||Week 24||-1.4|-2.1|< 0.0001
90956539|NCT04797650|181792784|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.046|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.43||P-value was calculated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 12||0.43|0.25|< 0.0001
90956540|NCT04797650|181792784|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.54||P-value was calculated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 12||0.54|0.33|< 0.0001
90956541|NCT04797650|181792784|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.042|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.51||P-value was calculated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 16||0.51|0.35|< 0.0001
91019140|NCT00609115|181921108|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size|0.71||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.003
91083737|NCT01096680|182051081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6||||0.0065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||8:50am||-0.5|-2.8|0.0065
90956542|NCT04797650|181792784|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.57||P-value was calculated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 16||0.57|0.37|< 0.0001
90956543|NCT04797650|181792784|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.5||P-value was calculated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 20||0.5|0.34|< 0.0001
91019141|NCT00609115|181921109|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size|-0.17||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.47
90956544|NCT04797650|181792784|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.63||P-value was calculated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 20||0.63|0.44|< 0.0001
90956545|NCT04797650|181792784|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.52||P-value was calculated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 24||0.52|0.36|< 0.0001
90956546|NCT04797650|181792784|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.051|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.62||P-value was calculated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 24||0.62|0.42|< 0.0001
90956547|NCT04797650|181792785|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.8||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Satisfied Thickness Hair Coverage: Week 12||-0.8|-1.2|< 0.0001
90956548|NCT04797650|181792785|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.8||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Satisfied Thickness Hair Coverage: Week 12||-0.8|-1.4|< 0.0001
90956549|NCT04797650|181792785|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.9||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Satisfied Thickness Hair Coverage: Week 16||-0.9|-1.3|< 0.0001
90956550|NCT04797650|181792785|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-1.1||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Satisfied Thickness Hair Coverage: Week 16||-1.1|-1.6|< 0.0001
90956551|NCT04797650|181792785|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-1.0||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Satisfied Thickness Hair Coverage: Week 20||-1|-1.5|< 0.0001
91083738|NCT01096680|182051081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.2529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||8:50am||1.8|-0.5|0.2529
90956552|NCT04797650|181792785|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-1.3||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Satisfied Thickness Hair Coverage: Week 20||-1.3|-1.9|< 0.0001
90956553|NCT04797650|181792785|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-1.1||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Satisfied Thickness Hair Coverage: Week 24||-1.1|-1.6|< 0.0001
90956554|NCT04797650|181792785|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-1.2||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Satisfied Thickness Hair Coverage: Week 24||-1.2|-1.8|< 0.0001
90956555|NCT04797650|181792785|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.7||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Satisfied evenness hair coverage: Week 12||-0.7|-1.1|< 0.0001
90956556|NCT04797650|181792785|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.8||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Satisfied evenness hair coverage: Week 12||-0.8|-1.3|< 0.0001
90956557|NCT04797650|181792785|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.7||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Satisfied evenness hair coverage: Week 16||-0.7|-1.2|< 0.0001
90956558|NCT04797650|181792785|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.9||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Satisfied evenness hair coverage: Week 16||-0.9|-1.4|< 0.0001
91019142|NCT00609115|181921109|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size|0.77||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.015
91019143|NCT00609115|181921110|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size|0.48||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.05
91019144|NCT00609115|181921110|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size|0.56||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.002
91019145|NCT00609115|181921111|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size|0.26||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.27
91019146|NCT00609115|181921111|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size|0.45||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.045
91019147|NCT03889197|181921112|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.162|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.162
91019148|NCT03889197|181921113|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.242|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.242
91019149|NCT03889197|181921114|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.956|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.956
91019150|NCT03889197|181921115|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.132|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.132
91083739|NCT01096680|182051081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.6364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||9:50am||0.8|-1.3|0.6364
91019151|NCT03889197|181921116|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.445|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.445
91019152|NCT03889197|181921117|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.746|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.746
91019153|NCT03889197|181921118|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.979|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.979
91019154|NCT03889197|181921119|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.289|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.289
91019155|NCT03889197|181921120|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.940
91019156|NCT03889197|181921121|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.126|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.126
91019157|NCT03889197|181921122|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.738|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.738
91019158|NCT03889197|181921123|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.676|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.676
91019159|NCT03889197|181921124|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.996|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.996
91083740|NCT01096680|182051081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.9417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||9:50am||1.0|-1.1|0.9417
91083741|NCT01096680|182051081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||9:50am||-0.2|-2.3|0.0200
91083742|NCT01096680|182051081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.0527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||9:50am||0.0|-2.1|0.0527
91083743|NCT01096680|182051081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0.0107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||9:50am||-0.3|-2.5|0.0107
91019160|NCT03889197|181921125|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.095|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.095
91019161|NCT03193190|181921141|SUPERIORITY||Difference in ORR|18.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.6|61.71||||||||61.71|-25.60|
91019162|NCT03193190|181921141|SUPERIORITY||Difference in ORR|10.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.85|39.85||||||||39.85|-18.85|
91019163|NCT03193190|181921141|SUPERIORITY||Difference in ORR|-10.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.7|22.03||||||||22.03|-43.70|
91019164|NCT03193190|181921141|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Overall Response Rates|-5.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.58|18.99||||||||18.99|-30.58|
91019165|NCT03193190|181921141|SUPERIORITY||Difference in ORR|-7.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.19|19.19||||||||19.19|-34.19|
91019166|NCT03193190|181921141|SUPERIORITY||Difference in ORR|-8.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.96|8.57||||||||8.57|-25.96|
91019167|NCT03193190|181921141|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Overall Response Rates|-8.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.96|8.57||||||||8.57|-25.96|
91019168|NCT03193190|181921141|SUPERIORITY||Difference in ORR|-2.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.44|13.17||||||||13.17|-18.44|
91019169|NCT03193190|181921141|SUPERIORITY||Difference in ORR|-8.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.72|8.33||||||||8.33|-25.72|
91019170|NCT03193190|181921141|SUPERIORITY||Difference in ORR|-1.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.04|21.93||||||||21.93|-25.04|
91019171|NCT03193190|181921143|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|2.64||||||||2.64|0.48|
91019172|NCT03193190|181921143|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.08||||||||2.08|0.66|
91019173|NCT03193190|181921143|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.23||||||||1.23|0.29|
91019174|NCT03193190|181921143|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.89||||||||1.89|0.67|
91019175|NCT03193190|181921143|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.87||||||||1.87|0.61|
91019176|NCT03193190|181921143|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|4.75||||||||4.75|0.96|
91019177|NCT03193190|181921143|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|8.57||||||||8.57|1.54|
91019178|NCT03193190|181921143|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.92||||||||1.92|0.68|
91019179|NCT03193190|181921143|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|3.05||||||||3.05|0.72|
91019180|NCT03193190|181921143|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|3.06||||||||3.06|0.84|
91019181|NCT03193190|181921144|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|3.0||||||||3.00|0.59|
91019182|NCT03193190|181921144|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.29||||||||2.29|0.71|
91019183|NCT03193190|181921144|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.74||||||||1.74|0.45|
91019184|NCT03193190|181921144|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.68||||||||1.68|0.58|
91019185|NCT03193190|181921144|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.84||||||||1.84|0.59|
91019186|NCT03193190|181921144|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|4.77||||||||4.77|0.87|
91019187|NCT03193190|181921144|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.94||||||||2.94|0.60|
91019188|NCT03193190|181921144|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.6||||||||1.60|0.48|
91019189|NCT03193190|181921144|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|3.36||||||||3.36|0.68|
91019190|NCT03193190|181921144|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|2.02||||||||2.02|0.44|
91019191|NCT03193190|181921145|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|-31.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.07|3.04||||||||3.04|-66.07|
91019192|NCT03193190|181921145|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|-3.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.55|15.37||||||||15.37|-22.55|
91019193|NCT03193190|181921145|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|-7.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.52|16.38||||||||16.38|-30.52|
91019194|NCT03193190|181921145|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|-14.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.72|3.68||||||||3.68|-32.72|
91019195|NCT03193190|181921145|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.38|16.57||||||||16.57|-17.38|
91019196|NCT03193190|181921145|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|-50.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.51|-18.46||||||||-18.46|-83.51|
91019197|NCT03193190|181921145|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|-36.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.43|-3.18||||||||-3.18|-70.43|
91019198|NCT03193190|181921145|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|-26.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.39|-4.2||||||||-4.20|-49.39|
91019199|NCT03193190|181921145|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|-35.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.44|-3.42||||||||-3.42|-67.44|
91019200|NCT03193190|181921145|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|-28.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.94|3.42||||||||3.42|-60.94|
91019201|NCT03193190|181921146|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|3.51||||||||3.51|0.24|
91083744|NCT01096680|182051081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.0303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||9:50am||-0.1|-2.2|0.0303
91083745|NCT01096680|182051081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.6889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||9:50am||0.8|-1.3|0.6889
91019202|NCT03193190|181921146|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.6||||||||1.60|0.23|
91019203|NCT03193190|181921146|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|5.47||||||||5.47|0.44|
91019204|NCT03193190|181921146|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|2.44||||||||2.44|0.35|
91019205|NCT03193190|181921146|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|1.93||||||||1.93|0.24|
91019206|NCT05004181|181921177|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMR was greater than 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio|13.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.14|15.45|||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were based on the analysis of logarithmically transformed neutralizing titers using a linear regression model with terms of age, sex, and group.|||15.45|11.14|
91019207|NCT05004181|181921178|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the difference of percentages was greater than -10%.|Difference in Percentages|-4.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.04|0.83|||||Adjusted difference in percentages were estimated using minimum risk weights and stratified by sex and age group.|||0.83|-10.04|
91019208|NCT05004181|181921180|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|36.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.21|51.17|||||Adjusted difference was estimated using the minimum risk weights and stratified by sex and age group.|||51.17|19.21|
91019209|NCT03229941|181921227|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.27|||Chi-squared||Liberal vs. restrictive arm comparison.|||1.27|0.62|0.515
91083746|NCT01096680|182051081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.9552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||10:50am||1.1|-1.2|0.9552
91083747|NCT01096680|182051081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.7558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||10:50am||1.3|-1.0|0.7558
91019210|NCT03229941|181921228|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.587|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.73|1.61|||Chi-squared||Liberal vs. Restrictive arm comparison|||1.61|0.73|0.587
91019211|NCT03229941|181921229|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.57||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.33|0.98|||Chi-squared||Liberal vs. Restrictive arm comparison|||0.98|0.33|0.007
91019212|NCT03229941|181921230|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.634|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.63|1.38|||Chi-squared||Liberal vs. Restrictive arm comparison|||1.38|0.63|0.634
91019213|NCT03229941|181921231|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.212|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.41|1.37|||Chi-squared||Liberal vs. Restrictive arm comparison|||1.37|0.41|0.212
91019214|NCT03229941|181921232|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.786|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.786
91019215|NCT01211613|181921233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.0||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The p value above relates to the comparison of differences in baseline/4-week Oswestry change scores between manual and mechanical manipulation methods (primary hypothesis). A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Linear regression model was adjusted for these covariates: baseline Oswestry score, age, and treatment expectancy.||||||0.009
91019216|NCT01211613|181921234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||The p value above relates to the comparison of differences in baseline/4-week Numeric pain change scores between manual and mechanical manipulation methods (secondary hypothesis). A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Linear regression model was adjusted for these covariates: baseline Numeric pain score, age, and treatment expectancy.||||||0.002
91019217|NCT03853213|181921235|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference (in change score)|2.54||||0.698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.62|16.71|||t-test, 2 sided|The p-value is adjusted using the Satterthwaite correction due to unequal variances between the two groups.|A higher value of the estimation parameter of mean difference in change score indicates a greater reduction in the measure for the intervention group relative to the attention control group.|||16.71|-11.62|0.698
91019218|NCT03853213|181921236|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.88||||0.123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|1.24|||t-test, 2 sided||A lower value of the estimation parameter of mean difference indicates lower extent of medication nonadherence for the intervention relative to the control group.|Note that the measure of extent of medication nonadherence used the older 5-item version of the scale rather than the newer 3-item version of the scale because the IRB modification to change the measure took effect after the majority of participants who provided data for Visit 2 had completed the measure.||1.24|-9.00|0.123
91019219|NCT03853213|181921237|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference (in change score)|66.29||||0.965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3081.7|3214.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3214.3|-3081.7|0.965
91019220|NCT03853213|181921238|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference (in change score)|-6.17||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.15|5.81|||t-test, 2 sided||A higher value of the estimation parameter of mean difference in change score indicates a greater increase in context sensitivity for the intervention group relative to the attention control group.|||5.81|-18.15|0.290
91019221|NCT03853213|181921239|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference (in change score)|-5.07||||0.434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.51|8.38|||t-test, 2 sided||A higher value of the estimation parameter of mean difference in change score indicates a greater increase in future time perspective for the intervention group relative to the attention control group.|||8.38|-18.51|0.434
91019222|NCT03853213|181921240|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.05||||0.293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.07|53.17|||t-test, 2 sided||A higher value of the estimation parameter of mean difference indicates a lower extent of objectively measured medication adherence for the intervention relative to the control group.|||53.17|-19.07|0.293
91019223|NCT02239692|181921241|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is assessed by examining whether the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval is less than the specified non-inferiority margin of 1.5 points.|Adjusted estimated mean difference|-3.93|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.99|-2.87||p-value corresponds to a two-sided test of superiority.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment, country and time of colonoscopy (AM/PM) as factors.|Treatment difference in mean total Ottawa Scale score was calculated as PICOPREP tailored dosing schedule minus PICOPREP day-before dosing schedule.|Null hypothesis was no treatment difference between the two dosing schedules.||-2.87|-4.99|<0.0001
91083748|NCT01096680|182051081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.1824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||10:50am||0.4|-1.9|0.1824
91083749|NCT01096680|182051081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.3323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||10:50am||0.6|-1.7|0.3323
91083750|NCT01096680|182051081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.0413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||10:50am||0.0|-2.4|0.0413
91083751|NCT01096680|182051081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.0925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||10:50am||0.2|-2.2|0.0925
91083752|NCT01096680|182051081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.7133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||10:50am||0.9|-1.4|0.7133
91083753|NCT01096680|182051082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.6|-16.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-16.5|-36.6|<0.0001
91083754|NCT01096680|182051082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-35.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.5|-25.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-25.4|-45.5|<0.0001
91083755|NCT01096680|182051082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.7|-16.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-16.6|-36.7|<0.0001
91083756|NCT01096680|182051082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.6|-16.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-16.5|-36.6|<0.0001
91083757|NCT01096680|182051082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.9945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|10.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||10.0|-10.1|0.9945
91083758|NCT01096680|182051082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.9||||0.0814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.1|-18.9|0.0814
91083759|NCT01096680|182051082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.9743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|9.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.9|-10.2|0.9743
91083760|NCT01096680|182051083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.6||||0.0544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||9:15pm||0.2|-19.4|0.0544
91083761|NCT01096680|182051083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.8||||0.441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|6.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||9:15pm||6.0|-13.6|0.4410
91083762|NCT01096680|182051083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.1||||0.1046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.9|1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||9:15pm||1.7|-17.9|0.1046
91083763|NCT01096680|182051083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3||||0.6467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|7.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||9:15pm||7.5|-12.0|0.6467
91083764|NCT01096680|182051083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.4||||0.1971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|3.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||9:15pm||3.4|-16.2|0.1971
91083765|NCT01096680|182051083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.9052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|9.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||9:15pm||9.2|-10.4|0.9052
91083766|NCT01096680|182051083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.8||||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.6|4.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||9:15pm||4.0|-15.6|0.2420
91083767|NCT01096680|182051083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.7||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.1|-8.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||11:15pm||-8.3|-25.1|0.0001
91083768|NCT01096680|182051083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.3||||0.4321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|11.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||11:15pm||11.6|-5.0|0.4321
91083769|NCT01096680|182051083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.7|-10.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||11:15pm||-10.1|-26.7|<0.0001
91083770|NCT01096680|182051083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6||||0.6999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|9.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||11:15pm||9.9|-6.7|0.6999
91083771|NCT01096680|182051083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.4|-9.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||11:15pm||-9.8|-26.4|<0.0001
91083772|NCT01096680|182051083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9||||0.6566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|10.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||11:15pm||10.2|-6.4|0.6566
91083773|NCT01096680|182051083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.3|-11.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||11:15pm||-11.7|-28.3|<0.0001
91083774|NCT01096680|182051083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.1|-14.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1:15am||-14.3|-36.1|<0.0001
91083775|NCT01096680|182051083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.7824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|9.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1:15am||9.4|-12.4|0.7824
91083776|NCT01096680|182051083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.0|-14.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1:15am||-14.3|-36.0|<0.0001
91083777|NCT01096680|182051083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.7867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|9.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1:15am||9.4|-12.4|0.7867
91083778|NCT01096680|182051083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.4|-15.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1:15am||-15.6|-37.4|<0.0001
91083779|NCT01096680|182051083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.9||||0.6029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|8.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1:15am||8.0|-13.7|0.6029
91083780|NCT01096680|182051083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.5|-12.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1:15am||-12.8|-34.5|<0.0001
91083781|NCT01096680|182051083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-37.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.1|-24.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3:15am||-24.1|-50.1|<0.0001
91083782|NCT01096680|182051083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.8684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|14.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3:15am||14.1|-11.9|0.8684
91083783|NCT01096680|182051083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-53.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.3|-40.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3:15am||-40.3|-66.3|<0.0001
91083784|NCT01096680|182051083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.1||||0.0228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.1|-2.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3:15am||-2.1|-28.1|0.0228
91083785|NCT01096680|182051083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-40.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.0|-27.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3:15am||-27.0|-53.0|<0.0001
91083786|NCT01096680|182051083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.7852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|11.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3:15am||11.2|-14.8|0.7852
91019224|NCT02239692|181921242|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is assessed by examining whether the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval is less than the specified non-inferiority margin of 1.5 points.|Adjusted estimated mean difference|-4.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.34|-3.41||p-value corresponds to a two-sided test of superiority.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment, country and time of colonoscopy (AM/PM) as factors.|Treatment difference in mean total Ottawa Scale score was calculated as PICOPREP tailored dosing schedule minus PICOPREP day-before dosing schedule.|Null hypothesis was no treatment difference between the two dosing schedules.||-3.41|-5.34|<0.0001
91019225|NCT02239692|181921243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted estimated odds ratio|9.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.36|19.32||p-value corresponds to a two-sided test of superiority.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with the failure/success status as dependent variable, and treatment, country and timing of colonoscopy as factors.|The estimated odds ratio compares the odds of being a responder in the PICOPREP tailored dosing schedule vs. the PICOPREP day-before dosing schedule.|Null hypothesis was no treatment difference between the two dosing schedules.||19.32|4.36|<0.0001
91019226|NCT01901146|181921247|EQUIVALENCE|The clinical equivalence between ABP 980 and trastuzumab was first evaluated by comparing the 2-sided 90% CI of the risk difference of pCR between ABP 980 and trastuzumab with a fixed margin of (-13%, 13%).|Risk Difference (RD)|7.3||||0.0508|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.2|13.4|||Generalized linear model|Generalized linear model adjusted for the randomization stratification factors.||The clinical equivalence between ABP 980 and trastuzumab was first evaluated by comparing the 2-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) of the Risk Difference (RD; ABP 980 - Trastuzumab) of pCR between ABP 980 and trastuzumab with a fixed margin of (-13%, 13%), estimated using a generalized linear model adjusted for stratification factors tumor (T)-stage, nodal status, hormone receptor status, planned paclitaxel dosing schedule, and geographic region.||13.4|1.2|0.0508
91019227|NCT01901146|181921247|EQUIVALENCE|If the test of equivalence on the RD of pCR was successful, then equivalence was tested on the risk ratio of pCR at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05 by comparing the 2-sided 90% CI of the RR of pCR between ABP 980 and trastuzumab estimated using a generalized linear model adjusted for stratification factors, with the margin of (0.7586, 1/0.7586). If the test of equivalence on the RD was not successful, the RR of pCR and 90% CI were considered to be descriptive.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1877||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0327|1.366|||Generalized linear model|Generalized linear model adjusted for the randomization stratification factors.||If the test of equivalence on the RD of pCR was successful, then equivalence was tested on the Risk Ratio (RR; ABP 980 / Trastuzumab) of pCR at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05 by comparing the 2-sided 90% CI of the RR of pCR between ABP 980 and trastuzumab, estimated using a generalized linear model adjusted for stratification factors: tumor (T)-stage, nodal status, hormone receptor status, planned paclitaxel dosing schedule, and geographic region.||1.3660|1.0327|0.0430
91019228|NCT01901146|181921248|OTHER|Analyses of secondary endpoints were prespecified to be considered descriptive only.|Risk Difference (RD)|6.0||||0.1086|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|12.2|||Generalized linear model|Generalized linear model adjusted for the randomization stratification factors.||The analysis of risk difference (ABP 980 - Trastuzumab) estimated using a generalized linear model adjusted for the randomization stratification factors T-stage, node status, hormone receptor status, planned paclitaxel dosing schedule, and geographic region.||12.2|-0.2|0.1086
91019229|NCT01901146|181921248|OTHER|Analyses of secondary endpoints were prespecified to be considered descriptive only.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1463||||0.0807|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.008|1.3035|||Generalized linear model|Generalized linear model adjusted for the randomization stratification factors.||The analysis of risk ratio (ABP 980 / Trastuzumab) estimated using a generalized linear model adjusted for the randomization stratification factors T-stage, node status, hormone receptor status, planned paclitaxel dosing schedule, and geographic region.||1.3035|1.0080|0.0807
91019230|NCT01901146|181921249|OTHER|Analyses of secondary endpoints were prespecified to be considered descriptive only.|Risk Difference (RD)|8.0||||0.0253|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.1|13.9|||Generalized linear model|Generalized linear model adjusted for the randomization stratification factors.||The analysis of risk difference (ABP 980 - Trastuzumab) estimated using a generalized linear model adjusted for the randomization stratification factors T-stage, node status, hormone receptor status, planned paclitaxel dosing schedule, and geographic region.||13.9|2.1|0.0253
91019231|NCT01901146|181921249|OTHER|Analyses of secondary endpoints were prespecified to be considered descriptive only.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.2746||||0.0245|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0673|1.5222|||Generalized linear model|Generalized linear model adjusted for the randomization stratification factors.||The analysis of risk ratio (ABP 980 / Trastuzumab) estimated using a generalized linear model adjusted for the randomization stratification factors T-stage, node status, hormone receptor status, planned paclitaxel dosing schedule, and geographic region.||1.5222|1.0673|0.0245
91019232|NCT00297492|181921250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined by a two-sided p value less than 0.05.|Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom = 2||"Null hypothesis: prolonged abstinence from smoking is the same for the three groups at 6 month follow-up~Sample size was based on an assumption of 6 month abstinence of 25% in the gradual group, 15% in the abrupt group, and 10% in the minimal group. Sample sizes of 300, 300, and 150 for gradual, abrupt, and minimal provides 97% to detect a difference between the groups, with 2-sided alpha = 0.05."||||0.30
91019233|NCT00297492|181921250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.22|||||The reported odds ratio represents the odds of 6 month prolonged abstinence in the gradual reduction group divided by the odds of 6 month prolonged abstinence in the abrupt cessation group.|||1.22|0.28|
91083787|NCT01096680|182051083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-38.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.2|-25.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3:15am||-25.2|-51.2|<0.0001
91083788|NCT01096680|182051083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-38.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.3|-25.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||5:15am||-25.1|-51.3|<0.0001
91083789|NCT01096680|182051083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.9||||0.5528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|17.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||5:15am||17.0|-9.1|0.5528
91083790|NCT01096680|182051083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-53.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.0|-40.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||5:15am||-40.9|-67.0|<0.0001
91083791|NCT01096680|182051083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.8||||0.0747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.9|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||5:15am||1.2|-24.9|0.0747
91083792|NCT01096680|182051083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-49.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.2|-36.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||5:15am||-36.1|-62.2|<0.0001
91019234|NCT02675426|181921251|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure.|Response Rate Difference|28.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.1|37.0||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of prior biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatoid drug use.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||37.0|19.1|<0.001
91019235|NCT02675426|181921251|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure.|Response Rate Difference|30.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.6|39.4||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of prior biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatoid drug use.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||39.4|21.6|<0.001
91019236|NCT02675426|181921252|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure.|Response Rate Difference|31.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.0|39.5||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of prior biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatoid drug use.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||39.5|23.0|<0.001
91019237|NCT02675426|181921252|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure.|Response Rate Difference|30.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.5|39.0||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of prior biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatoid drug use.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||39.0|22.5|<0.001
91019238|NCT02675426|181921253|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure.|Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-1.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|-0.94||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, prior bDMARD use and Baseline value as covariates.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-0.94|-1.42|<0.001
91019239|NCT02675426|181921253|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure.|LS Mean Difference|-1.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|-1.08||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, prior bDMARD use and Baseline value as covariates.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-1.08|-1.56|<0.001
91019240|NCT02675426|181921254|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure.|LS Mean Difference|-0.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.24||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, prior bDMARD use and Baseline value as covariates.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-0.24|-0.43|<0.001
91019241|NCT02675426|181921254|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure.|LS Mean Difference|-0.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.18||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, prior bDMARD use and Baseline value as covariates.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-0.18|-0.38|<0.001
91019242|NCT02675426|181921255|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure.|LS Mean Difference|4.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.13|5.98||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, previous bDMARD use, and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||5.98|3.13|<0.001
91019243|NCT02675426|181921255|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure.|LS Mean Difference|4.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.54|6.42||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, previous bDMARD use, and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||6.42|3.54|<0.001
91019244|NCT02675426|181921256|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure.|Response Rate Difference|20.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.6|28.1||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of prior biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatoid drug use.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||28.1|13.6|<0.001
91083793|NCT01096680|182051083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.1||||0.2868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.1|6.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||5:15am||6.0|-20.1|0.2868
91083794|NCT01096680|182051083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-42.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.2|-29.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||5:15am||-29.1|-55.2|<0.0001
91083795|NCT01096680|182051083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-37.6||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.1|-16.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||7:15am||-16.2|-59.1|0.0007
91083796|NCT01096680|182051083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.9089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.7|20.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||7:15am||20.2|-22.7|0.9089
91019245|NCT02675426|181921256|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure.|Response Rate Difference|18.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.2|25.5||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of prior biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatoid drug use.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||25.5|11.2|<0.001
91019246|NCT02675426|181921257|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure.|Response Rate Difference|21.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.0|29.5||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of prior biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatoid drug use.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||29.5|13.0|<0.001
91019247|NCT02675426|181921257|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure.|Response Rate Difference|23.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.7|31.3||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of prior biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatoid drug use.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||31.3|14.7|<0.001
91019248|NCT02675426|181921258|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure.|LS Mean Difference|-51.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.14|-23.87||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, previous bDMARD use, and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-23.87|-78.14|<0.001
91019249|NCT02675426|181921258|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure.|LS Mean Difference|-50.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.19|-23.53||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, previous bDMARD use, and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-23.53|-78.19|<0.001
91019250|NCT02675426|181921259|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure.|LS Mean Difference|4.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.31|6.6||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, previous bDMARD use, and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||6.60|3.31|<0.001
91077920|NCT02913105|182041137|OTHER|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.93||||0.2199|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|1.02|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||LDL Cholesterol Friedwald: Day 42||1.02|0.85|0.2199
91083797|NCT01096680|182051083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-52.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.3|-31.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||7:15am||-31.4|-74.3|<0.0001
91083798|NCT01096680|182051083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.5||||0.1307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.9|5.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||7:15am||5.0|-37.9|0.1307
91083799|NCT01096680|182051083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-36.3||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.7|-14.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||7:15am||-14.8|-57.7|0.0011
91083800|NCT01096680|182051083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.9903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.3|21.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||7:15am||21.6|-21.3|0.9903
91083801|NCT01096680|182051083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-36.4||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.8|-14.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||7:15am||-14.9|-57.8|0.0010
91083802|NCT01096680|182051083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.4||||0.1655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.7|9.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||9:15am||9.0|-51.7|0.1655
91083803|NCT01096680|182051083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.8975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.4|28.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||9:15am||28.5|-32.4|0.8975
91083804|NCT01096680|182051083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-36.2||||0.0199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.5|-5.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||9:15am||-5.8|-66.5|0.0199
91083805|NCT01096680|182051083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.8||||0.2785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.2|13.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||9:15am||13.7|-47.2|0.2785
91083806|NCT01096680|182051083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.3||||0.5048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.6|20.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||9:15am||20.1|-40.6|0.5048
91083807|NCT01096680|182051083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.1||||0.5533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.3|39.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||9:15am||39.6|-21.3|0.5533
91083808|NCT01096680|182051083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.4||||0.2098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.9|11.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||9:15am||11.1|-49.9|0.2098
91083809|NCT03078127|182051154|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.615||||||ANOVA was performed (with multiple comparisons to compare each intervention to baseline) to assess for difference in MCC with each ACT. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set to 0.05|ANOVA|||No comparable preliminary data exists on mucociliary clearance (MCC) in response to airway clearance therapy methods (ACTs) for a power calculation. However, prior studies of medication effect on MCC gave a baseline mean change of Ave270 clr of 27.7% (std dev of 15.1%). Thus, the investigators estimated a mean change of 20% for effective ACT with the same estimate for variability (Std Dev of 15.1%). Using a paired 2-tailed test to compare means, 7 subjects were estimated to be needed.||||0.615
90956559|NCT04797650|181792785|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.9||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Satisfied evenness hair coverage: Week 20||-0.9|-1.3|< 0.0001
91019251|NCT02675426|181921259|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure.|LS Mean Difference|4.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.12|6.44||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, previous bDMARD use, and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||6.44|3.12|<0.001
91019252|NCT02675426|181921260|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|23.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.1|31.0||Unadjusted p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of prior biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatoid drug use.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||31.0|15.1|<0.001
91019253|NCT02675426|181921260|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|28.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.4|36.5||Unadjusted p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of prior biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatoid drug use.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||36.5|20.4|<0.001
91019254|NCT02675426|181921261|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|14.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.7|21.1||Unadjusted p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of prior biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatoid drug use.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||21.1|8.7|<0.001
91019255|NCT02675426|181921261|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|20.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.0|27.2||Unadjusted p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of prior biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatoid drug use.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||27.2|14.0|<0.001
91019256|NCT02675426|181921262|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|13.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|20.2||Unadjusted p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of prior biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatoid drug use.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||20.2|7.0|<0.001
91019257|NCT02675426|181921262|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|19.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.7|26.7||Unadjusted p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of prior biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatoid drug use|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||26.7|12.7|<0.001
91019258|NCT00080288|181921272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.7|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.67|3.69|||ANCOVA|||Assumption: both primary treatment comparisons would be with a 2 sided test at an alpha level of 0.05.||3.69|1.67|<0.0001
91019259|NCT00080288|181921273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The p value for each treatment group is for the comparison of that treatment group to the placebo treatment group. Adjusted for country.||Assumption: both primary treatment comparisons would be with a 2 sided test at an alpha level of 0.05.||||0.0010
91019260|NCT04256759|181921359|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 12||||0.018
91019261|NCT04256759|181921359|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.021|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 18||||0.021
91019262|NCT04256759|181921360|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.13
91019263|NCT04256759|181921361|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.006
91019264|NCT04971226|181921397|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.59|28.17|||Mantel Haenszel||The Estimate Value is a percentage.||The Confidence Interval are percentages.|28.17|9.59|<0.001
91019265|NCT04971226|181921429|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|29.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.91|42.18|||Mantel Haenszel||The Estimate Value is a percentage.||The Confidence Interval are percentages.|42.18|16.91|<0.001
91083810|NCT03078127|182051155|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.696||||||ANOVA was performed (with multiple comparisons to compare each intervention to baseline) to assess for difference in MCC with each ACT. The a priori threshold for significance was \< 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.696
91083811|NCT03078127|182051157|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||The a priori threshold of statistical significance was p = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||The investigators compared FENO before and after ACT in a pooled manner (i.e., grouping each of the comparisons together), as the study was not powered for FENO comparisons within each ACT type.||||0.001
91083812|NCT03078127|182051157|OTHER|A linear regression was performed between change in FENO and Ave90Clr||||||0.692||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance (i.e., slope different than zero) between MCC and FENO was 0.05|Regression, Linear|||if the difference between pre and post-ACT FENO was significant (defined as p\<0.05), it was investigated whether change in FENO correlated with MCC (as represented by Ave90Clr)||||0.692
91019269|NCT00644228|181921481|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.712||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|96.0|0.56|0.906||The p-value is from a one-sided, stratified log-rank test. Stratification factors include those factors by which patients were randomized: intent to transplant (yes vs no) and ISS Stage (I vs II vs III).|Log Rank||The hazard ratio compares Bortezomib/Lenalidomide/Dexamethasone against Lenalidomide/Dexamethasone.|With four years of patient accrual and two and a half years of follow-up, 220 patients per arm yields 87% power to detect an increase of PFS of 50%, from a median of 3 years to 4.5 years, which corresponds to a hazard ratio of 1.5. These calculations are based on a one-sided stratified log-rank test at level 0.025 with two interim analyses. The final analysis will be carried out at the 0.02 significance level to allow for two interim analyses at the 0.0025 significance level.||0.906|0.560|0.0018
91019270|NCT00644228|181921482|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.709||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.524|0.959||The p-value is based on a two-sided, stratified log rank test. Stratification factors include those factors by which patients were randomized: intent to transplant (yes vs no) and ISS Stage (I vs II vs III).|Log Rank||The hazard ratio compares Bortezomib/Lenalidomide/Dexamethasone against Lenalidomide/Dexamethasone.|Overall survival will be compared between the two treatment arms using a stratified log-rank test.||0.959|0.524|0.0250
91019271|NCT00644228|181921483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2||||||The p-value is based on a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test. Stratification factors include those factors by which patients were randomized: intent to transplant (yes vs no) and ISS Stage (I vs II vs III).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.20
91019272|NCT05734014|181921600|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Qualitative Analysis of arts-based reflections. Thematic analysis and count of whether the participant drew or mentioned Crow stories related to relationality.|||
91019273|NCT00379821|181921613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0413|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1746||0.8097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7497|1.4463||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05/3.|Poisson regression|No adjustments|The denominator for the risk ratio is the CQ Monotherapy arm.|Number of clinical malaria episodes per PYAR was compared using Poisson regression assuming null hypothesis that the number of malaria episodes are the same in both groups.||1.4463|0.7497|0.8097
91019274|NCT00379821|181921613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1623|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1973||0.3767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8333|1.6211||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05/3.|Poisson regression|No adjustments.|The denominator for the risk ratio is the CQ Monotherapy arm.|Number of clinical malaria episodes per PYAR was compared using Poisson regression assuming null hypothesis that the number of malaria episodes are the same in both groups.||1.6211|0.8333|0.3767
91019275|NCT00379821|181921613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0707|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1795||0.6277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7708|1.4872||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05/3.|Poisson regression|No adjustments.|The denominator for the risk ratio is the CQ Monotherapy arm.|Number of clinical malaria episodes per PYAR was compared using Poisson regression assuming null hypothesis that the number of malaria episodes are the same in both groups.||1.4872|0.7708|0.6277
91019276|NCT00379821|181921647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.34||Not adjusted, 0.05|Regression, Cox|There are no adjustments.|The reference category is those who did not travel.|||1.34|0.68|0.79
91019277|NCT00633217|181921651|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval for the mean difference in 2-hour post-dose FEV1 change from baseline fell above -75 mL, then HFA MDI could be deemed non-inferior to DISKUS treatment response.||||||0.021||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.021
91019278|NCT05838755|181921654|OTHER|Analysis performed using a Bayesian mixed model repeated measures adjusting for treatment, week, baseline, region and the treatment by week and baseline by week interactions using vague priors.|Posterior Mean Difference|-0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|0.18|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported using Bayesian mixed model repeated measures analysis.|||0.18|-1.47|
91019279|NCT05838755|181921654|OTHER|Analysis performed using a Bayesian mixed model repeated measures adjusting for treatment, week, baseline, region and the treatment by week and baseline by week interactions using vague priors.|Posterior Mean Difference|-0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|0.61|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported using Bayesian mixed model repeated measures analysis.|||0.61|-1.04|
91019280|NCT02044094|181921703|NON_INFERIORITY|Blockade was achieved if the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval was \<= the non-inferiority margin of 11.|LSM difference|3.656|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.85|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.032|7.344|||||Hydromorphone - Placebo|"Week 1~Complete hydromorphone blockade was claimed for RBP-6000 if blockade was achieved for both hydromorphone doses (6 mg and 18 mg) during each week of testing for the 4 weeks after the first dose of RBP-6000. Each test was performed at a 2-sided α = 0.05."||7.344|-0.032|
91019281|NCT02044094|181921703|NON_INFERIORITY|Blockade was achieved if the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval was \<= the non-inferiority margin of 11.|LSM difference|6.927|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.848|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.243|10.612|||||Hydromorphone - Placebo|Week 1 Complete hydromorphone blockade was claimed for RBP-6000 if blockade was achieved for both hydromorphone doses (6 mg and 18 mg) during each week of testing for the 4 weeks after the first dose of RBP-6000. Each test was performed at a 2-sided α = 0.05.||10.612|3.243|
91019282|NCT02044094|181921703|NON_INFERIORITY|Blockade was achieved if the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval was \<= the non-inferiority margin of 11.|LSM difference|0.586|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.283|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.977|3.149|||||Hydromorphone - Placebo|"Week 2~Complete hydromorphone blockade was claimed for RBP-6000 if blockade was achieved for both hydromorphone doses (6 mg and 18 mg) during each week of testing for the 4 weeks after the first dose of RBP-6000. Each test was performed at a 2-sided α = 0.05."||3.149|-1.977|
91083813|NCT03078127|182051158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.146||||||Non-parametric test used due to lack of data normality. The a prior threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||The study was not designed or powered to assess for inter-group differences between the types of ACT, and for analytical purposes, these were pooled, with the analysis being a paired comparison within subjects to pre- to post-ACT.||||0.146
91083814|NCT03078127|182051159|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.041||||||Non-parametric test used due to lack of data normality. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||The study was not designed or powered to assess for inter-group differences between the types of ACT, and for analytical purposes, these were pooled, with the analysis being a paired comparison within subjects to pre- to post-ACT.||||0.041
91083815|NCT03078127|182051159|OTHER|A linear regression was performed between change in pre and post-ACT adenosine (purine) in EBC and Ave90Clr||||||0.047||||||The a priori threshold of statistical significance was p = 0.05|Regression, Linear|||If the difference between pre and post-ACT adenosine (purine) in EBC was significant (defined as p\<0.05), the correlation between change in adenosine concentration and MCC (as represented by Ave90Clr) was investigated.||||0.047
91083816|NCT03078127|182051160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07||||||Non-parametric test used due to lack of data normality. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||The study was not designed or powered to assess for inter-group differences between the types of ACT, and for analytical purposes, these were pooled, with the analysis being a paired comparison within subjects to pre- to post-ACT.||||0.070
91083817|NCT05052697|182051217|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|2.2|||||GMRs and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean logarithm of the difference (qIRV group minus QIV group) and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student t distribution).|Strain: A1||2.20|0.34|
91083818|NCT05052697|182051217|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|2.7|||||GMRs and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean logarithm of the difference (qIRV group minus QIV group) and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student t distribution).|Strain: A2||2.70|0.86|
91083819|NCT05052697|182051217|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.28|||||GMRs and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean logarithm of the difference (qIRV group minus QIV group) and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student t distribution).|Strain: B1||2.28|0.40|
91083820|NCT05052697|182051217|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.18|||||GMRs and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean logarithm of the difference (qIRV group minus QIV group) and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student t distribution).|Strain: B2||1.18|0.25|
91083821|NCT05052697|182051218|OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|26.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|53.5|||||Difference in percentage of participants achieving seroconversion, qIRV group - Licensed QIV group as reference, expressed as a percentage.|Strain: A1||53.5|-4.5|
91083822|NCT05052697|182051218|OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|17.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.2|49.4|||||Difference in percentage of participants achieving seroconversion, qIRV group - Licensed QIV group as reference, expressed as a percentage.|Strain: A2||49.4|-19.2|
91083823|NCT05052697|182051218|OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|-12.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.7|19.1|||||Difference in percentage of participants achieving seroconversion, qIRV group - Licensed QIV group as reference, expressed as a percentage.|Strain: B1||19.1|-41.7|
91083824|NCT05052697|182051218|OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.2|32.5|||||Difference in percentage of participants achieving seroconversion, qIRV group - Licensed QIV group as reference, expressed as a percentage.|Strain: B2||32.5|-29.2|
91083825|NCT01249833|182051237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-30.4||||0.0492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.7|-0.1|||ANCOVA||The LS means for Standard of Care Alone was subtracted from that of Oseltamivir.|||-0.1|-60.7|.0492
91083826|NCT01249833|182051238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|3.8||||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|6.42|||ANCOVA||The LS means for Standard of Care Alone was subtracted from that of Oseltamivir.|||6.42|1.14|0.0054
91083827|NCT01249833|182051239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|3.9||||0.9685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-190.1|197.9|||ANCOVA||The LS means for Standard of Care Alone was subtracted from that of Oseltamivir.|||197.9|-190.1|.9685
91083828|NCT01249833|182051240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|1.9||||0.3195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|5.7|||ANCOVA||The LS means for Standard of Care Alone was subtracted from that of Oseltamivir.|Alertness: the higher the value, the greater the alertness.||5.7|-1.9|.3195
91083829|NCT01249833|182051240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-0.6||||0.7219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|2.9|||ANCOVA||The LS means for Standard of Care AL one was subtracted from that of Oseltamivir.|Calmness: the higher the value, the greater the calmness.||2.9|-4.1|.7219
91083830|NCT01249833|182051240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|3.3||||0.1162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|7.4|||ANCOVA||The LS means of Standard of Care Alone was subtracted from that of Oseltamivir.|Contentedness: the higher the value, the greater the contentedness.||7.4|-.8|.1162
91083831|NCT03796676|182051241|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of difference|16.7||||0.0147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|29.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Estimate of the difference in percentages of response at Week 12 was calculated by PF-04965842 100 mg minus placebo|||29.9|3.5|0.0147
91083832|NCT03796676|182051241|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of difference|20.6||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.3|33.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Estimate of the difference in percentages of response at Week 12 was calculated by PF-04965842 200 mg minus placebo|||33.9|7.3|0.0030
91083833|NCT03796676|182051242|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of difference|26.5||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.1|39.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Estimate of the difference in percentages of response at Week 12 was calculated by PF-04965842 100 mg minus placebo|||39.8|13.1|0.0002
91083834|NCT03796676|182051242|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of difference|29.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.3|42.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Estimate of the difference in percentages of response at Week 12 was calculated by PF-04965842 200 mg minus placebo|||42.5|16.3|<0.0001
91019283|NCT02044094|181921703|NON_INFERIORITY|Blockade was achieved if the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval was \<= the non-inferiority margin of 11.|LSM difference|2.899|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.285|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.333|5.465|||||Hydromorphone - Placebo|"Week 2~Complete hydromorphone blockade was claimed for RBP-6000 if blockade was achieved for both hydromorphone doses (6 mg and 18 mg) during each week of testing for the 4 weeks after the first dose of RBP-6000. Each test was performed at a 2-sided α = 0.05."||5.465|0.333|
91019284|NCT02044094|181921703|NON_INFERIORITY|Blockade was achieved if the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval was \<= the non-inferiority margin of 11.|LSM difference|0.863|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.959|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.053|4.778|||||Hydromorphone - Placebo|"Week 3~Complete hydromorphone blockade was claimed for RBP-6000 if blockade was achieved for both hydromorphone doses (6 mg and 18 mg) during each week of testing for the 4 weeks after the first dose of RBP-6000. Each test was performed at a 2-sided α = 0.05."||4.778|-3.053|
91019285|NCT02044094|181921703|NON_INFERIORITY|Blockade was achieved if the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval was \<= the non-inferiority margin of 11.|LSM difference|4.926|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.956|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.016|8.837|||||Hydromorphone - Placebo|"Week 3~Complete hydromorphone blockade was claimed for RBP-6000 if blockade was achieved for both hydromorphone doses (6 mg and 18 mg) during each week of testing for the 4 weeks after the first dose of RBP-6000. Each test was performed at a 2-sided α = 0.05."||8.837|1.016|
91019286|NCT02044094|181921703|NON_INFERIORITY|Blockade was achieved if the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval was \<= the non-inferiority margin of 11.|LSM difference|3.316|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.367|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.425|8.025|||||Hydromorphone - Placebo|"Week 4~Complete hydromorphone blockade was claimed for RBP-6000 if blockade was achieved for both hydromorphone doses (6 mg and 18 mg) during each week of testing for the 4 weeks after the first dose of RBP-6000. Each test was performed at a 2-sided α = 0.05."||8.025|-1.425|
91019287|NCT02044094|181921703|NON_INFERIORITY|Blockade was achieved if the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval was \<= the non-inferiority margin of 11.|LSM difference|6.677|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.367|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.936|11.418|||||Hydromorphone - Placebo|"Week 4~Complete hydromorphone blockade was claimed for RBP-6000 if blockade was achieved for both hydromorphone doses (6 mg and 18 mg) during each week of testing for the 4 weeks after the first dose of RBP-6000. Each test was performed at a 2-sided α = 0.05."||11.418|1.936|
91019288|NCT03205163|181921734|OTHER||GMR|1.35||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.77|||ANOVA|||Comparison of Advate and BIVV001 was obtained through analyzing log transformed PK parameters using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model containing participant and treatment as factors. Geometric mean, 95% confidence interval of geometric mean, and geometric mean ratio (GMR) were the exponentiated mean, 95% confidence interval, and difference of means, respectively.||1.77|1.04|0.032
91019289|NCT03205163|181921735|OTHER||GMR|1.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.25|||ANOVA|||Comparison of Advate and BIVV001 was obtained through analyzing log transformed PK parameters using an ANOVA model containing participant and treatment as factors. Geometric mean, 95% confidence interval of geometric mean, and GMR were the exponentiated mean, 95% confidence interval, and difference of means, respectively.||1.25|1.09|<0.001
91019290|NCT03205163|181921736|OTHER||GMR|4.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.94|5.79|||ANOVA|||Comparison of Advate and BIVV001 was obtained through analyzing log transformed PK parameters using an ANOVA model containing participant and treatment as factors. Geometric mean, 95% confidence interval of geometric mean, and GMR were the exponentiated mean, 95% confidence interval, and difference of means, respectively.||5.79|2.94|<0.001
91019291|NCT03205163|181921737|OTHER||GMR|3.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.76|3.79|||ANOVA|||Comparison of Advate and BIVV001 was obtained through analyzing log transformed PK parameters using an ANOVA model containing participant and treatment as factors. Geometric mean, 95% confidence interval of geometric mean, and GMR were the exponentiated mean, 95% confidence interval, and difference of means, respectively.||3.79|2.76|<0.001
91019292|NCT03205163|181921738|OTHER||GMR|0.143|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.118|0.172|||ANOVA|||Comparison of Advate and BIVV001 was obtained through analyzing log transformed PK parameters using an ANOVA model containing participant and treatment as factors. Geometric mean, 95% confidence interval of geometric mean, and GMR were the exponentiated mean, 95% confidence interval, and difference of means, respectively.||0.172|0.118|<0.001
91019293|NCT03205163|181921739|OTHER||GMR|0.153|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.138|0.17|||ANOVA|||Comparison of Advate and BIVV001 was obtained through analyzing log transformed PK parameters using an ANOVA model containing participant and treatment as factors. Geometric mean, 95% confidence interval of geometric mean, and GMR were the exponentiated mean, 95% confidence interval, and difference of means, respectively.||0.170|0.138|<0.001
91019294|NCT03205163|181921740|OTHER||GMR|0.622||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.492|0.786|||ANOVA|||Comparison of Advate and BIVV001 was obtained through analyzing log transformed PK parameters using an ANOVA model containing participant and treatment as factors. Geometric mean, 95% confidence interval of geometric mean, and GMR were the exponentiated mean, 95% confidence interval, and difference of means, respectively.||0.786|0.492|0.003
91019295|NCT03205163|181921741|OTHER||GMR|0.599|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.525|0.684|||ANOVA|||Comparison of Advate and BIVV001 was obtained through analyzing log transformed PK parameters using an ANOVA model containing participant and treatment as factors. Geometric mean, 95% confidence interval of geometric mean, and GMR were the exponentiated mean, 95% confidence interval, and difference of means, respectively.||0.684|0.525|<0.001
91019296|NCT03205163|181921742|OTHER||GMR|7.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.78|8.48|||ANOVA|||Comparison of Advate and BIVV001 was obtained through analyzing log transformed PK parameters using an ANOVA model containing participant and treatment as factors. Geometric mean, 95% confidence interval of geometric mean, and GMR were the exponentiated mean, 95% confidence interval, and difference of means, respectively.||8.48|5.78|<0.001
91019297|NCT03205163|181921743|OTHER||GMR|6.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.89|7.27|||ANOVA|||Comparison of Advate and BIVV001 was obtained through analyzing log transformed PK parameters using an ANOVA model containing participant and treatment as factors. Geometric mean, 95% confidence interval of geometric mean, and GMR were the exponentiated mean, 95% confidence interval, and difference of means, respectively.||7.27|5.89|<0.001
91019298|NCT03205163|181921744|OTHER||GMR|4.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.64|5.66|||ANOVA|||Comparison of Advate and BIVV001 was obtained through analyzing log transformed PK parameters using an ANOVA model containing participant and treatment as factors. Geometric mean, 95% confidence interval of geometric mean, and GMR were the exponentiated mean, 95% confidence interval, and difference of means, respectively.||5.66|3.64|<0.001
91083835|NCT03796676|182051243|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of difference|14.7||||0.0119||95.0|3.5|25.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Estimate of the difference in percentages of response at Week 2 was calculated by PF-04965842 100 mg minus placebo|||25.9|3.5|0.0119
91083836|NCT03796676|182051243|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of difference|26.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.9|38.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Estimate of the difference in percentages of response at Week 2 was calculated by PF-04965842 200 mg minus placebo|||38.3|13.9|<0.0001
91083837|NCT03796676|182051243|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of difference|10.9||||0.0971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|23.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Estimate of the difference in percentages of response at Week 4 was calculated by PF-04965842 100 mg minus placebo|||23.6|-1.8|0.0971
91083838|NCT03796676|182051243|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of difference|29.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.0|42.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Estimate of the difference in percentages of response at Week 4 was calculated by PF-04965842 200 mg minus placebo|||42.9|16.0|<0.0001
91083839|NCT03796676|182051243|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of difference|22.8||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|37.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Estimate of the difference in percentages of response at Week 12 was calculated by PF-04965842 100 mg minus placebo|||37.7|8.0|0.0035
91083840|NCT03796676|182051243|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of difference|25.6||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.6|40.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Estimate of the difference in percentages of response at Week 12 was calculated by PF-04965842 200 mg minus placebo|||40.6|10.6|0.0013
91083841|NCT03796676|182051244|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.0664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||The least squares mean difference at Week 12 was calculated by PF-04965842 100 mg minus placebo|||0.0|-1.1|0.0664
91083842|NCT03796676|182051244|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.0142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||The least squares mean difference at Week 12 was calculated by PF-04965842 200 mg minus placebo|||-0.1|-1.3|0.0142
91083843|NCT02724410|182051283|OTHER|Chi Square test of independence||||||0.7188|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7188
91083844|NCT02724410|182051284|OTHER|Chi Square test of independence||||||0.5933|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.5933
91019299|NCT03205163|181921745|OTHER||GMR|4.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.96|4.72|||ANOVA|||Comparison of Advate and BIVV001 was obtained through analyzing log transformed PK parameters using an ANOVA model containing participant and treatment as factors. Geometric mean, 95% confidence interval of geometric mean, and GMR were the exponentiated mean, 95% confidence interval, and difference of means, respectively.||4.72|3.96|<0.001
91019300|NCT03205163|181921746|OTHER||GMR|1.36||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.978|1.89|||ANOVA|||Comparison of Advate and BIVV001 was obtained through analyzing log transformed PK parameters using an ANOVA model containing participant and treatment as factors. Geometric mean, 95% confidence interval of geometric mean, and GMR were the exponentiated mean, 95% confidence interval, and difference of means, respectively.||1.89|0.978|0.063
91019301|NCT03205163|181921747|OTHER||GMR|1.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.26|||ANOVA|||Comparison of Advate and BIVV001 was obtained through analyzing log transformed PK parameters using an ANOVA model containing participant and treatment as factors. Geometric mean, 95% confidence interval of geometric mean, and GMR were the exponentiated mean, 95% confidence interval, and difference of means, respectively.||1.26|1.10|<0.001
91019302|NCT03205163|181921748|OTHER||GMR|4.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|5.23|||ANOVA|||Comparison of Advate and BIVV001 was obtained through analyzing log transformed PK parameters using an ANOVA model containing participant and treatment as factors. Geometric mean, 95% confidence interval of geometric mean, and GMR were the exponentiated mean, 95% confidence interval, and difference of means, respectively.||5.23|4.00|<0.001
91019303|NCT03205163|181921749|OTHER||GMR|4.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.16|4.79|||ANOVA|||Comparison of Advate and BIVV001 was obtained through analyzing log transformed PK parameters using an ANOVA model containing participant and treatment as factors. Geometric mean, 95% confidence interval of geometric mean, and GMR were the exponentiated mean, 95% confidence interval, and difference of means, respectively.||4.79|4.16|<0.001
91019304|NCT01238172|181921752|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.24|||Log Rank|||||1.24|0.75|0.76
91083845|NCT02724410|182051285|OTHER|Chi Square test of independence|||||>|0.99|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>.99
91083846|NCT02724410|182051286|OTHER|T-test for difference between groups|||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<.0001
91083847|NCT00803712|182051328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Hypothesis to be tested: the proportion of participants achieving the specified PTH target of ≥ 30% reduction in PTH from baseline will be greater in the cinacalcet plus low dose active vitamin D group than in the control group during the efficacy assessment phase at month 6 (weeks 22 to 26).||||<0.0001
91083848|NCT00803712|182051329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||||||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is presented, adjusted using the Dubey and Armitage-Parmer method|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0002
91019305|NCT01238172|181921753|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.41||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|8.41|||Log Rank|||||8.41|0.23|0.71
91019306|NCT01238172|181921754|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.995|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.995
91019307|NCT01238172|181921755|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Two-sided||||||<0.001
91019308|NCT01020773|181921772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
91083849|NCT00803712|182051330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0139||||||Adjusted p-value is presented. P-value is adjusted using Dubey and Armitage-Parmer method of adjusting for multiple comparisons|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0139
91083850|NCT00803712|182051331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2386||||||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is presented, adjusted using the Dubey and Armitage-Parmer method|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2386
91083851|NCT00803712|182051332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0875|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0875
91083852|NCT00803712|182051333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4304|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4304
91083853|NCT00803712|182051334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.091|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0910
91083854|NCT00803712|182051335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.952|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.9520
91083855|NCT00803712|182051336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0003
91083856|NCT00803712|182051337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0611|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0611
91083857|NCT00803712|182051338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3298|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3298
91083858|NCT00803712|182051339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4436|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4436
91019309|NCT03302299|181921775|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.59|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|2.71||global p-value for 3-category alcohol use variable in a multivariable generalized estimating equation logistic regression model of sub-optimal INH adherence.|Regression, Logistic||OR for participants with moderate alcohol use in the prior 3 months, compared to those with no alcohol use in the prior 3 months.|||2.71|0.94|<0.01
91019310|NCT03302299|181921775|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.78|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.62|4.76||global p-value for 3-category alcohol use variable in a multivariable generalized estimating equation logistic regression model of sub-optimal INH adherence.|Regression, Logistic||OR is for participants with unhealthy alcohol use in the prior 3 months, compared to those with no alcohol use in the prior 3 months.|||4.76|1.62|<0.01
91019311|NCT01788163|181921821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Wald Chi Square Statistic|81.1237||||0.0001||||||Histology: Adenocarcinoma vs Non-adenocarcinoma|Regression stepwise|10% significance level for entry criteria||||||0.0001
91019312|NCT01788163|181921821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.973||||0.0001||||||Histology: Adenocarcinoma vs Non-adenocarcinoma|Regression stepwise|10% significance level for model entry||||||0.0001
91019313|NCT01788163|181921821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Wald Chi Square Statistic|7.1526||||0.0075||||||Gender: Male vs. Female|Regression Stepwise|10% significance level for entry criteria||||||0.0075
91019314|NCT01788163|181921821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.409||||0.0075||||||Gender: Male vs. Female|Regression Stepwise|10% Significance Level for model entry||||||0.0075
91019315|NCT01788163|181921821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Wald Chi Square Statistic|51.8456||||0.0001||||||Smoking Status: Never-smoker vs. Ever-smoker|Regression Stepwise|10% significance level for entry criteria||||||0.0001
91019316|NCT01788163|181921821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.515||||0.0001||||||Smoking Status: Never-smoker vs. Ever-smoker|Regression Stepwise|10% Significance Level for model entry||||||0.0001
91019317|NCT01788163|181921821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Wald Chi Square Statistic|98.1065||||0.0001||||||Region: Asia Pacific vs. Russia|Regression Stepwise|10% Significance Level for entry criteria||||||0.0001
91019318|NCT01788163|181921821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.929||||0.0001||||||Region: Asia Pacific vs. Russia|Regression Stepwise|10% Significance Level for model entry||||||0.0001
91019319|NCT01788163|181921821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Wald Chi Square Statistic|2.8589||||0.0909||||||Number of organs with metastasis|Regression Stepwise|10% significance level for entry criteria||||||0.0909
91019320|NCT01788163|181921821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.086||||0.0909||||||Number of organs with metastasis|Regression Stepwise|10% significance level for model entry||||||0.0909
91019321|NCT01788163|181921824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Wald Chi Square Statistic|11.106||||0.0009||||||Age: \<=65 vs. \>65|Regression Stepwise|10% Significance Level for entry criteria||||||0.0009
91019322|NCT01788163|181921824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.561||||0.0009||||||Age: \<=65 vs. \>65|Regression Stepwise|10% Significance Level for model entry||||||0.0009
91019323|NCT01788163|181921824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Wald Chi Square Statistic|34.1075||||0.0001||||||Number of Organs with Metastisis|Regression Stepwise|10% Significance Level for entry criteria||||||0.0001
91019324|NCT01788163|181921824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.386||||0.0001||||||Number of Organs with Metastisis|Regression Stepwise|10% significance level for model entry||||||0.0001
91019325|NCT01788163|181921824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Wald Chi Square Statistic|14.0806||||0.0002||||||Histology: Adenocarcinoma vs. Non-adenocarcinoma|Regression Stepwise|10% Significance Level for entry criteria||||||0.0002
91019326|NCT01788163|181921824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.955||||0.0002||||||Histology: Adenocarcinoma vs. Non-adenocarcinoma|Regression Stepwise|10% Significance Level for model entry||||||0.0002
91019327|NCT01788163|181921824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Wald Chi Square Statistic|33.8574||||0.0001||||||Smoking Status: Never-smoker vs. Ever-smoker|Regression Stepwise|10% Significance Level for entry criteria||||||0.0001
91019328|NCT01788163|181921824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.077||||0.0001||||||Smoking Status: Never-smoker vs. Ever-smoker|Regression Stepwise|10% Significance Level for model entry||||||0.0001
91019329|NCT01788163|181921824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Wald Chi Square Statistic|21.2537||||0.0001||||||Region: Asia Pacific vs. Russia|Regression Stepwise|10% Significance Level for entry criteria||||||0.0001
91019330|NCT01788163|181921824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.084||||0.0001||||||Region: Asia Pacific vs. Russia|Regression Stepwise|10% Significance Level for model entry||||||0.0001
91019331|NCT03610646|181921829|EQUIVALENCE|An equivalence margin of \[-3, 3\] letters was used to demonstrate equivalence for the difference of mean change in BCVA, from baseline to Week 8.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.16|1.24||||||||1.24|-1.16|
91019332|NCT04318535|181921846|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was to be determined if the 90% confidence interval of the geometric least square mean ratio of Cmax falls within the 0.80-1.25 range.|Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.157|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.103|1.213|||||T1 versus R was the primary interest of comparison for this outcome measure.|||1.213|1.103|
91019333|NCT04318535|181921847|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was to be determined if the 90% confidence interval of the geometric least square mean ratio of AUC(0-t) falls within the 0.80-1.25 range.|Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.032|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.974|1.094|||||T1 versus R was the primary interest of comparison for this outcome measure.|||1.094|0.974|
91019334|NCT04318535|181921848|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was to be determined if the 90% confidence interval of the geometric least square mean ratio of AUC(0-inf) falls within the 0.80-1.25 range.|Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.971|1.093|||||T1 versus R was the primary interest of comparison for this outcome measure.|||1.093|0.971|
91019335|NCT02007369|181921886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.21||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.89|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.89|0.05|0.033
91019336|NCT02007369|181921886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|3.01|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.01|0.36|0.934
91019337|NCT02007369|181921887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.002
91019338|NCT02007369|181921887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.199|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.199
91019339|NCT02007369|181921888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.61||||0.285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.5|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.50|0.25|0.285
91019340|NCT02007369|181921888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78||||0.597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.97|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.97|0.31|0.597
91019341|NCT02007369|181921889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.023
91019342|NCT02007369|181921889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.527|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.527
91019343|NCT01875991|181921994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.501|||||||Van Elteren test|P-value for 'All subjects' from Van Elteren test adjusting for strata (RA or PsO)||||||0.501
91019344|NCT02617446|181922014|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.68|-0.32||Alpha set at 0.05.|ANOVA|Treatment term included in the model||Null hypothesis: No difference in E/Ea ratio between istaroxime and placebo||-0.32|-5.68|0.029
91019345|NCT02617446|181922014|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.08||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.61|-0.55||Alpha set at 0.05.|ANOVA|Treatment term included in the model||Null hypothesis: No difference in E/Ea ratio between istaroxime and placebo||-0.55|-3.61|0.009
91019346|NCT02617446|181922015|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7632||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2751|3.8014||Alpha set at 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|Treatment term included in the model||Null hypothesis: No difference in LVEF % between istaroxime and placebo participants.||3.8014|-0.2751|0.089
91019347|NCT02617446|181922015|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9848||||0.423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4668|3.4365||Alpha set at 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|Treatment term included in the model||Null hypothesis: No difference in LVEF % between istaroxime and placebo participants.||3.4365|-1.4668|0.423
91019348|NCT02617446|181922016|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.684||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.285|7.083||Alpha set at 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|Treatment term is in the model.||Null hypothesis: No difference in SVI between istaroxime and placebo participants.||7.083|0.285|0.034
91019349|NCT02617446|181922016|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.31||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.373|4.992||Alpha set at 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|Treatment term is in the model||Null hypothesis: No difference in E to A ratio between istaroxime and placebo participants.||4.992|-0.373|0.090
91019350|NCT02617446|181922017|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.777||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.522|-0.032||Alpha set at 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|Treatment term is included in the model||Null hypothesis: No difference in E to A ratio between istaroxime and placebo participants.||-0.032|-1.522|0.042
91019351|NCT02617446|181922017|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.829||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.568|-0.091||Alpha set at 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|Treatment term is in the model||Null hypothesis: No difference in E to A ratio between istaroxime and placebo participants.||-0.091|-1.568|0.029
91019352|NCT02617446|181922018|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.368||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.999|1.262||Alpha set at 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|Treatment term is in the model||Null hypothesis: No difference in LVESV between istaroxime and placebo participants.||1.262|-11.999|0.110
91019353|NCT02617446|181922018|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.439||||0.931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.735|10.614||Alpha set at 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|Treatment term is in the model||Null hypothesis: No difference in LVEDV between istaroxime and placebo participants.||10.614|-9.735|0.931
91019354|NCT02617446|181922019|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.657||||0.589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.777|4.461||Alpha set at 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|Treatment term in the model||Null hypothesis: No difference in E to A ratio between istaroxime and placebo participants.||4.461|-7.777|0.589
91019355|NCT02617446|181922019|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.944||||0.424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.886|13.774||Alpha set at 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|Treatment term is in the model.||Null hypothesis: No difference in E to A ratio between istaroxime and placebo participants.||13.774|-5.886|0.424
91019356|NCT02617446|181922020|SUPERIORITY|Linear mixed model with treatment, center, timepoint, gender, baseline cTnT value, atrial fibrillation, and treatment\*timepoint interaction included in the model.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.041||||0.987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.216|5.133||Unadjusted alpha of 0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger adjustment used for the degrees of freedom.||Null hypothesis: no difference between treatment groups||5.133|-5.216|0.987
91019357|NCT02617446|181922020|SUPERIORITY|Linear mixed model with treatment, center, timepoint, gender, baseline cTnT value, atrial fibrillation, and treatment\*timepoint interaction included in the model.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.015||||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.168|8.198||Unadjusted alpha of 0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger adjustment used for the degrees of freedom.||Null hypothesis: no difference between treatment groups.||8.198|-2.168|0.251
91019358|NCT00417859|181922073|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||FB group was designated the control group. We determined a sample size based in clinical criteria. Using an α of 0.05 and β of 0.8, the required sample size was calculated to be 24 patients in each group to achieve a power of 80%. Descriptive analysis was completed on demographic information and clinical and radiological outcomes. Nonparametric tests (Wilcoxon's signed ranks or rank sum tests) were used for comparison of scores. The chi-squared test was used for dichotomous variables.||||0.05
91019359|NCT04223193|181922128|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-9.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.31|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|-6.5||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and CI's are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, treatment by visit interaction and MAO-B inhibitor use with the baseline value as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||||-6.5|-11.7|<0.0001
91019360|NCT04223193|181922129|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.6||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and CI's are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, treatment by visit interaction and MAO-B inhibitor use with the baseline value as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||||-0.6|-2.4|0.0007
91019361|NCT04223193|181922130|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.942|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.209|7.037|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.037|2.209|<0.0001
91019362|NCT04223193|181922131|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-9.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.31|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|-6.5||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and CI's are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, treatment by visit interaction and MAO-B inhibitor use with the baseline value as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 26||-6.5|-11.7|<0.0001
91083859|NCT00803712|182051340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Analysis was adjusted for randomization strata. Due to distributional properties of the data, analysis was performed on log-transformed data||||||<0.0001
91083860|NCT00803712|182051341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Analysis was adjusted for randomization strata.||||||<0.0001
91019363|NCT04223193|181922132|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-8.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|-5.3||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and CI's are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, treatment by visit interaction and MAO-B inhibitor use with the baseline value as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 26||-5.3|-11.3|<0.0001
91019364|NCT04223193|181922133|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.0766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.6||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and CI's are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, treatment by visit interaction and MAO-B inhibitor use with the baseline value as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Part I: Week 26||1.6|-0.1|0.0766
91019365|NCT04223193|181922133|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.6||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and CI's are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, treatment by visit interaction and MAO-B inhibitor use with the baseline value as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Part II: Week 26||-0.6|-2.4|0.0007
91019366|NCT04223193|181922133|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|-5.6||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and CI's are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, treatment by visit interaction and MAO-B inhibitor use with the baseline value as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Part III: Week 26||-5.6|-9.7|<0.0001
91019367|NCT04223193|181922134|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.2||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and CI's are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, treatment by visit interaction and MAO-B inhibitor use with the baseline value as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Wek 26||-0.2|-0.5|<0.0001
91019368|NCT04223193|181922135|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.7||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and CI's are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, treatment by visit interaction and MAO-B inhibitor use with the baseline value as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 26||-0.7|-1.3|<0.0001
91019369|NCT04223193|181922136|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.7||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and CI's are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, treatment by visit interaction and MAO-B inhibitor use with the baseline value as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 26||-0.7|-1.3|<0.0001
91019370|NCT04223193|181922137|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.9795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.6||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and CI's are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, treatment by visit interaction and MAO-B inhibitor use with the baseline value as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 26||0.6|-0.6|0.9795
91019371|NCT04223193|181922138|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.8916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.8||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and CI's are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, treatment by visit interaction and MAO-B inhibitor use with the baseline value as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 26||0.8|-0.9|0.8916
91019372|NCT03594175|181922141|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference of proportions, Wald|29.51||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.76|48.26|||2-sample Z test for proportions|||CUSA-081 vs Placebo Dwell Time Up To 90 Min -- FAS||48.26|10.76|0.003
91019373|NCT03594175|181922142|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was assessed based on the constructed 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in the rate of treatment success between CUSA-081 vs alteplase, with non-inferiority considered as demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference in rate of success is greater than -10%.|Mean difference of proportions, Wald|-10.31||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.38|-1.24|||2-sample Z test for proportions|||||-1.24|-19.38|0.030
91019374|NCT03594175|181922143|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference of proportions, Wald|24.13||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.84|42.41|||2-sample Z test for proportions|||||42.41|5.84|0.017
91083861|NCT00803712|182051342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||ANCOVA|Analysis was adjusted for randomization strata. Due to distributional properties of the data, analysis was performed on log-transformed data||||||0.0040
91019375|NCT03594175|181922144|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference of proportions, Wald|41.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.94|60.21|||2-sample Z test for proportions|||||60.21|21.94|<0.001
91019376|NCT03594175|181922145|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference of proportions, Wald|-10.96||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.89|-2.04|||2-sample Z test for proportions|||||-2.04|-19.89|0.019
91019377|NCT03594175|181922146|SUPERIORITY||Probability Re-Occlusion Free at Day 30|0.948|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.126|7.121||||||Time to first re-occlusion.||7.121|0.126|
91019378|NCT03594175|181922146|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.654|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.337|1.27||||||Time to first re-occlusion.||1.270|0.337|
91019379|NCT03594175|181922146|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.448|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.193|10.848||||||Time to first re-occlusion.||10.848|0.193|
91019380|NCT03732677|181922149|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.227|2.084|||Regression, Logistic|Strata adjusted odds ratio by the logistic regression method adjusting for stratification factors: renal function , tumor stage and PDL1 status .||||2.084|1.227|0.0005
91019381|NCT03732677|181922150|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.877|0.554|824.0||Stratified by renal function(adequate vs borderline),tumor stage(T2N0 vs \>T2N0), PDL1 status(high vs low/negative)|Log Rank||The HR and CI were estimated from a stratified Cox proportional hazard model adjusting for renal function (adequate vs borderline), tumor stage (T2N0 vs \>T2N0) and PDL1 status (high vs low/negative)||95% CI for hazard ratio: 0.558 - 0.817|0824|0.554|<0.0001
91019382|NCT03732677|181922151|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.9|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on a chi-squared test with one degree of freedom.|The HR and CI were estimated from a stratified Cox proportional hazard model adjusting for renal function (adequate vs borderline), tumor stage (T2N0 vs \>T2N0) and PDL1 status (high vs low/negative)|||0.90|0.62|0.0021
91083862|NCT00803712|182051343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Analysis was adjusted for randomization strata.||||||<0.0001
91019383|NCT03732677|181922152|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.0265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.047|2.095|||Regression, Logistic|Stratified by renal function(adequate vs borderline),tumor stage(T2N0 vs \>T2N0), PDL1 status(high vs low/negative)|Strata adjusted odds ratio by the logistic regression method. Stratified by adjusting for renal function (adequate vs borderline), tumor stage (T2N0 vs \>T2N0) and PDL1 status (high vs low/negative).|||2.095|1.047|0.0265
91019384|NCT03732677|181922153|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.0106|TWO_SIDED|98.457|0.563|0.985|||Log Rank|Stratified by renal function (adequate vs borderline),tumor stage(T2N0vs \>T2N0), PDL1 status(high vs low/negative)|||95% CI: 0.594 to 0.934|0.985|0.563|0.0106
91019385|NCT03732677|181922154|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.541|0.826|||Log Rank|Stratified by renal function(adequate vs borderline),tumor stage(T2N0 vs \>T2N0), PDL1 status(high vs low/negative)|The HR and CI were estimated from a stratified Cox proportional hazard model adjusting for renal function (adequate vs borderline), tumor stage (T2N0 vs \>T2N0) and PDL1 status (high vs low/negative)|||0.826|0.541|0.0002
91019386|NCT03732677|181922155|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.516|0.907|||Log Rank|Stratified by renal function(adequate vs borderline),tumor stage(T2N0 vs \>T2N0), PDL1 status(high vs low/negative)|The HR and CI were estimated from a stratified Cox proportional hazard model adjusting for renal function (adequate vs borderline), tumor stage (T2N0 vs \>T2N0) and PDL1 status (high vs low/negative)|||0.907|0.516|0.0081
91019387|NCT03131817|181922170|OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.007
91019388|NCT03131817|181922171|OTHER|||||||0.018|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.018
91019389|NCT03131817|181922172|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||"This statistical analysis corresponds to the first outcome row, Reward magnitude effect (higher reward, higher acceptance). The generalized linear mixed model examined the effect of reward magnitude on the probability of accepting offers."||||<0.0001
91019390|NCT03131817|181922172|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||"This statistical analysis corresponds to the second outcome row, Effort cost effect (higher effort, lower acceptance). The generalized linear mixed model examined the effect of effort cost on the probability of accepting offers."||||<0.0001
91019391|NCT01500434|181922238|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Study had 85% statistical power to demonstrate that the 12-month rate for TLF (accounting for an expected 1-year attrition rate of 5%) is less than the performance goal, assuming a 1-year TLF rate of 9.0%.|Target Lesion Failure Rate|3.2|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||7.96|||One-group exact binomial test|||A one-group exact binomial test was used to test the hypothesis that the primary endpoint rate in the PROMUS Element cohort is less than the predefined performance goal of 19.4%.||7.96||<0.0001
91019392|NCT03353415|181922371|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.04
91019393|NCT03353415|181922372|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
91019394|NCT03353415|181922373|OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.14
91083863|NCT00803712|182051344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Analysis was adjusted for randomization strata and baseline corrected serum calcium||||||<0.0001
91019395|NCT03353415|181922374|OTHER|||||||0.45|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.45
91019396|NCT03353415|181922375|OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.35
91019397|NCT03353415|181922376|OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.53
91019398|NCT03353415|181922377|OTHER|||||||0.47|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.47
91019399|NCT03353415|181922378|OTHER|||||||0.65|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.65
91019400|NCT03353415|181922379|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.004
91019401|NCT03353415|181922380|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
91019402|NCT03353415|181922381|OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.22
91019403|NCT03353415|181922382|OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.09
91019404|NCT03353415|181922383|OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.25
91019405|NCT03353415|181922384|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.04
91019406|NCT03353415|181922385|OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.15
91019407|NCT03353415|181922386|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
91019408|NCT03353415|181922387|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.04
91019409|NCT03353415|181922388|OTHER|||||||0.32|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.32
91019410|NCT03353415|181922389|OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.41
91019411|NCT03353415|181922390|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.04
91019412|NCT03353415|181922391|OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.08
91019413|NCT04647253|181922407|SUPERIORITY||Rate difference between treatment groups|-10.8||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.4|-3.3||a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.025|z-test with unpooled variance|||||-3.3|-18.4|0.0025
91019414|NCT01209234|181922408|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.96|||Regression, Cox||This is the estimated standard error of the log hazard ratio|||0.96|0.52|0.026
91019415|NCT01209234|181922409|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.009||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.01||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Cox||CDC-defined all-cause infection secondary outcome This is the estimated standard error of the log hazard ratio|||1.01|0.70|0.061
91019416|NCT01209234|181922409|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.008||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.99||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Cox||Clinical criteria for all-cause infection This is the estimated standard error of the log hazard ratio|||0.99|0.70|0.035
91019417|NCT04502862|181922414|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.107||0.512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.14||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle primary and first 2 secondary endpoints (reported sequentially) analyses at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|MMRM|||The MMRM model included study intervention, age, body mass index (BMI), region (Eastern Europe, rest of world \[ROW\]), inhaled corticosteroids \[ICS\] dose level at baseline (ICS dose level medium, ICS dose level high), visit (up to Week 12), study intervention-by-visit interaction, baseline asthma control questionnaire (ACQ-5), baseline sleep disturbance score and baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates.||0.14|-0.28|0.512
91083864|NCT00803712|182051345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Analysis was adjusted for randomization strata and baseline corrected serum calcium.||||||<0.0001
91083865|NCT00803712|182051346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Analysis was adjusted for randomization strata and baseline corrected serum calcium.||||||<0.0001
91019418|NCT04502862|181922415|OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.22||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle primary and first 2 secondary endpoints (reported sequentially) analyses at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|MMRM|||The MMRM model included study intervention, age, BMI, region (Eastern Europe, ROW), ICS dose level at baseline (ICS dose level medium, ICS dose level high), visit (up to Week 12), study intervention-by-visit interaction, baseline ACQ-5, baseline number of nocturnal awakenings and baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates.||0.22|-0.21|0.967
91019419|NCT04502862|181922416|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.865||0.422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.01||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle primary and first 2 secondary endpoints (reported sequentially) analyses at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05|MMRM|||The MMRM model included study intervention, age, BMI, region (Eastern Europe, ROW), ICS dose level at baseline (ICS dose level medium, ICS dose level high), visit (up to Week 12), study intervention-by-visit interaction, baseline ACQ-5, baseline PROMIS total score and baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates.||1.01|-2.40|0.422
91019420|NCT02038959|181922427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
91019421|NCT02038959|181922432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91019422|NCT00819091|181922459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.7|-0.24|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment and number of prior oral anti-diabetic drug as fixed classification effects and baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate||Linagliptin 5.0 mg versus placebo||-0.24|-0.70|< 0.0001
91019423|NCT00819091|181922460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.5||0.2406||95.0|-17.2|4.3|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment and number of prior oral anti-diabetic drug as fixed classification effects and baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate||Linagliptin 5.0 mg versus placebo||4.3|-17.2|0.2406
91019424|NCT00819091|181922461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.466||||0.0065||95.0|1.684|24.825|||Regression, Logistic|||Linagliptin 5.0 mg versus placebo||24.825|1.684|0.0065
91019425|NCT00819091|181922462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.653||||0.2431||95.0|0.515|13.652|||Regression, Logistic|||Linagliptin 5.0 mg versus placebo||13.652|0.515|0.2431
91019426|NCT00819091|181922463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.125||||0.0001||95.0|2.747|9.562|||Regression, Logistic|||Linagliptin 5.0 mg versus placebo||9.562|2.747|0.0001
91019427|NCT00819091|181922464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.41|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.585|-0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with treatment, number oral anti-diabetic drugs, week within patients, week-treatment interaction and baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate.||Linagliptin 5.0 mg versus placebo||-0.230|-0.585|<0.0001
91019428|NCT00819091|181922465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.5|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.72|-0.276|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with treatment, number oral anti-diabetic drugs, week within patients, week-treatment interaction and baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate.||Linagliptin 5.0 mg versus placebo||-0.276|-0.720|<0.0001
91019429|NCT00819091|181922466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.47||||0.0002||95.0|-0.716|-0.226|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with treatment, number oral anti-diabetic drugs, week within patients, week-treatment interaction and baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate.||Linagliptin 5.0 mg versus placebo||-0.226|-0.716|0.0002
91019430|NCT00819091|181922467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.6||0.197||95.0|-14.9|3.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment and number of prior oral anti-diabetic drug as fixed classification effects and baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate||Linagliptin 5.0 mg versus placebo||3.1|-14.9|0.197
91019431|NCT00819091|181922468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-14.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.6||0.0105||95.0|-25.5|-3.4|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment and number of prior oral anti-diabetic drug as fixed classification effects and baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate||Linagliptin 5.0 mg versus placebo||-3.4|-25.5|0.0105
91019432|NCT00545441|181922469|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Alpha = 0.05 and power = 0.8, a non-inferiority margin of 10%.||||||0.59|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.59
91019433|NCT04071366|181922485|SUPERIORITY||Difference in CRS rate|-0.39||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6463|-0.1363|||One-sided Z-test|||||-0.1363|-0.6463|0.0030
91019434|NCT04071366|181922485|OTHER||Difference in CRS rate|-0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6073|-0.1231||||||||-0.1231|-0.6073|
91019435|NCT04071366|181922485|OTHER||Difference in CRS rate|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1778|0.2299||||||||0.2299|-0.1778|
91019436|NCT01336608|181922503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.01||||0.969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM)||||0.74|-0.71|0.969
91019437|NCT01336608|181922503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.22||||0.568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM)||||0.96|-0.53|0.568
91019438|NCT01336608|181922503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.2||||0.566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM)||||0.89|-0.49|0.566
91019439|NCT01336608|181922504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.082||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.023|0.141||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.141|0.023|0.007
91019440|NCT01336608|181922504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.155|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.095|0.215||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.215|0.095|<0.001
91019441|NCT01336608|181922504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.074||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.016|0.131||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.131|0.016|0.012
91019442|NCT01336608|181922505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.22||Nominal p-value|ANCOVA|||||-0.22|-0.72|<0.001
91019443|NCT01336608|181922505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.24||Nominal p-value|ANCOVA|||||-0.24|-0.76|<0.001
91019444|NCT01336608|181922505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.03||||0.803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.22|||ANCOVA|||||0.22|-0.29|0.803
91083866|NCT00803712|182051347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Analysis was adjusted for randomization strata and baseline corrected serum calcium.||||||<0.0001
91083867|NCT00803712|182051348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0085|||||||ANCOVA|Analysis was adjusted for randomization strata and baseline serum phosphorus.||||||0.0085
91019445|NCT02437890|181922520|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.526||||||Threshold for statistical significance: p = 0.05|Multiple Contrast Test|||"A multiple contrast test was used to establish evidence of a drug effect by testing for a statistically significant dose-response signal for clinical endpoint and patient population investigated in the study. Candidate dose-response models were selected amongst the following types of parametric models: linear model, Emax model, logistic model, a 1st Beta model, and a 2nd Beta model.~Model tested: linear model"||||= 0.526
91019446|NCT02437890|181922520|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.504||||||Threshold for statistical significance: p = 0.05|Multiple Contrast Test|||"A multiple contrast test was used to establish evidence of a drug effect by testing for a statistically significant dose-response signal for clinical endpoint and patient population investigated in the study. Candidate dose-response models were selected amongst the following types of parametric models: linear model, Emax model, logistic model, a 1st Beta model, and a 2nd Beta model.~Model tested: Emax model"||||= 0.504
91019447|NCT02437890|181922520|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.548||||||Threshold for statistical significance: p = 0.05|Multiple Contrast Test|||"A multiple contrast test was used to establish evidence of a drug effect by testing for a statistically significant dose-response signal for clinical endpoint and patient population investigated in the study. Candidate dose-response models were selected amongst the following types of parametric models: linear model, Emax model, logistic model, a 1st Beta model, and a 2nd Beta model.~Model tested: logistic model"||||= 0.548
91019448|NCT02437890|181922520|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.985||||||Threshold for statistical significance: p = 0.05|Multiple Contrast Test|||"A multiple contrast test was used to establish evidence of a drug effect by testing for a statistically significant dose-response signal for clinical endpoint and patient population investigated in the study. Candidate dose-response models were selected amongst the following types of parametric models: linear model, Emax model, logistic model, a 1st Beta model, and a 2nd Beta model.~Model tested: 1st Beta model"||||= 0.985
91019449|NCT02437890|181922520|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.524||||||Threshold for statistical significance: p = 0.05|Multiple Contrast Test|||"A multiple contrast test was used to establish evidence of a drug effect by testing for a statistically significant dose-response signal for clinical endpoint and patient population investigated in the study. Candidate dose-response models were selected amongst the following types of parametric models: linear model, Emax model, logistic model, a 1st Beta model, and a 2nd Beta model.~Model tested: 2nd Beta model"||||= 0.524
91019450|NCT04604496|181922611|OTHER|The adjusted ratio and 90% confidence interval from the analysis of variance (ANOVA) model were expressed as percentages.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|133.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.97|216.37||||||Test: the mild hepatic impairment group; Reference: the without hepatic impairment group||216.37|81.97|
91019451|NCT04604496|181922611|OTHER|The adjusted ratio and 90% confidence interval from the analysis of variance (ANOVA) model were expressed as percentages.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|219.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|135.39|357.41||||||Test: the moderate hepatic impairment Group; Reference: the without hepatic impairment group||357.41|135.39|
91019452|NCT04604496|181922611|OTHER|The adjusted ratio and 90% confidence interval from the analysis of variance (ANOVA) model were expressed as percentages.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|334.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|205.7|543.0||||||Test: the severe hepatic impairment group; Reference: the without hepatic impairment group||543.00|205.70|
91019453|NCT04604496|181922612|OTHER|The adjusted ratio and 90% confidence interval from the analysis of variance (ANOVA) model were expressed as percentages.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|122.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|61.33|245.49||||||Test: the mild hepatic impairment group; Reference: the without hepatic impairment group||245.49|61.33|
91019454|NCT04604496|181922612|OTHER|The adjusted ratio and 90% confidence interval from the analysis of variance (ANOVA) model were expressed as percentages.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|282.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|141.32|565.66||||||Test: the moderate hepatic impairment Group; Reference: the without hepatic impairment group||565.66|141.32|
91019455|NCT04604496|181922612|OTHER|The adjusted ratio and 90% confidence interval from the analysis of variance (ANOVA) model were expressed as percentages.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|640.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|320.27|1282.0||||||Test: the severe hepatic impairment group; Reference: the without hepatic impairment group||1282.00|320.27|
91019456|NCT04604496|181922613|OTHER|The adjusted ratio and 90% confidence interval from the analysis of variance (ANOVA) model were expressed as percentages.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|122.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|61.51|245.51||||||Test: the mild hepatic impairment group; Reference: the without hepatic impairment group||245.51|61.51|
91019457|NCT04604496|181922613|OTHER|The adjusted ratio and 90% confidence interval from the analysis of variance (ANOVA) model were expressed as percentages.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|283.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|142.1|567.13||||||Test: the moderate hepatic impairment Group; Reference: the without hepatic impairment group||567.13|142.10|
91019458|NCT04604496|181922613|OTHER|The adjusted ratio and 90% confidence interval from the analysis of variance (ANOVA) model were expressed as percentages.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|636.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|318.51|1271.24||||||Test: the severe hepatic impairment group; Reference: the without hepatic impairment group||1271.24|318.51|
91083868|NCT00803712|182051349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.071|||||||ANCOVA|Analysis was adjusted for randomization strata and baseline serum phosphorus.||||||0.0710
91019459|NCT04604496|181922614|OTHER|The adjusted ratio and 90% confidence interval from the analysis of variance (ANOVA) model were expressed as percentages.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|85.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|63.6|114.1||||||Test: the mild hepatic impairment group; Reference: the without hepatic impairment group||114.10|63.60|
91083869|NCT00803712|182051350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3546|||||||ANCOVA|Analysis was adjusted for randomization strata and baseline serum phosphorus.||||||0.3546
91083870|NCT00803712|182051351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7518|||||||ANCOVA|Analysis was adjusted for randomization strata and baseline serum phosphorus.||||||0.7518
91083871|NCT01490840|182051366|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A sample size of 90 in each group would have 80% power to detect a difference in means of 3.8, assuming that the common standard deviation is 9.05, using a two group t-test with a 0.05 2-sided significance level.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.47||||0.4579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.39|2.44|||ANCOVA|||||2.44|-5.39|0.4579
91019460|NCT04604496|181922614|OTHER|The adjusted ratio and 90% confidence interval from the analysis of variance (ANOVA) model were expressed as percentages.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|96.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|71.95|129.07||||||Test: the moderate hepatic impairment Group; Reference: the without hepatic impairment group||129.07|71.95|
91019461|NCT04604496|181922614|OTHER|The adjusted ratio and 90% confidence interval from the analysis of variance (ANOVA) model were expressed as percentages.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|135.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.94|181.1||||||Test: the severe hepatic impairment group; Reference: the without hepatic impairment group||181.10|100.94|
91019462|NCT00883740|181922622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.69|-11.61||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||||-11.61|-26.69|<0.0001
91019463|NCT00883740|181922623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.29|-11.8||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||||-11.80|-23.29|<0.0001
91019464|NCT00883740|181922624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.81||||0.3841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.92|2.3||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||||2.30|-5.92|0.3841
91019465|NCT00883740|181922625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.48|33.61||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||||33.61|17.48|<0.0001
91019466|NCT00883740|181922626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.74|7.11||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||||7.11|3.74|<0.0001
91019467|NCT00883740|181922627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.41||||0.0135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.31|-0.51||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||||-0.51|-4.31|0.0135
91019468|NCT00883740|181922628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.53||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|-0.66||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||||-0.66|-2.41|0.0008
91019469|NCT00883740|181922629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.18||||0.0447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.18|-0.17||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||||-0.17|-14.18|0.0447
91019470|NCT00883740|181922630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0.3613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|0.39||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||Hour 1||0.39|-1.07|0.3613
91019471|NCT00883740|181922630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.0686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|0.09||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||Hour 2||0.09|-2.29|0.0686
91019472|NCT00883740|181922630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.44||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.85|-1.03||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||Hour 3||-1.03|-3.85|0.0009
91019473|NCT00883740|181922630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.52||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.33|-1.71||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||Hour 4||-1.71|-5.33|0.0002
91019474|NCT00883740|181922630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.01||||0.0065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.16|-0.86||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||Hour 5||-0.86|-5.16|0.0065
91019475|NCT00883740|181922630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.89||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.36|-1.41||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||Hour 6||-1.41|-6.36|0.0024
91019476|NCT00883740|181922630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.59||||0.0366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.01|-0.16||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||Hour 7||-0.16|-5.01|0.0366
91019477|NCT00883740|181922630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.85||||0.0593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.82|0.11||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||Hour 8||0.11|-5.82|0.0593
91083872|NCT02700425|182051377|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test was two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using SAS version 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc, Cary, NC) and STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|Sign test|Wilcoxon signed rank test||The sample size was estimated based on the primary endpoint of echocardiographic response to test the hypothesis that an absolute 10% greater improvement in LVEF would be observed with His Bundle Pacing compared to Coronary Sinus Pacing, with a significance level of 0.05 and a power of 0.80. Primary outcome was presented at baseline and 6-months as median (interquartile range) based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with the Wilcoxon signed rank test.||||<0.001
91019478|NCT00883740|181922631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.25||||0.1106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.79|0.29||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||Quarter 1||0.29|-2.79|0.1106
91019479|NCT00883740|181922631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.49|-3.51||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||Quarter 2||-3.51|-8.49|<0.0001
91019480|NCT00883740|181922631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.83||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.53|-3.13||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||Quarter 3||-3.13|-10.53|0.0004
91019481|NCT00883740|181922631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.44||||0.0199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|-0.88||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||Quarter 4||-0.88|-10.00|0.0199
91019482|NCT00883740|181922632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.14||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|3.5||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||||3.50|0.78|0.0024
91019483|NCT00883740|181922633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.13||||0.0591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.59|0.32||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||Week 5||0.32|-16.59|0.0591
91019484|NCT00883740|181922633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.43|-10.2||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||Week 11||-10.20|-27.43|<0.0001
91019485|NCT00883740|181922634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.47||||0.1101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|1.26||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||Week 5||1.26|-12.20|0.1101
91019486|NCT00883740|181922634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.39||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.36|-6.42||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||Week 11||-6.42|-20.36|0.0002
91019487|NCT00883740|181922635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.91|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.24||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||Week 1||1.24|0.58|<0.0001
91019488|NCT00883740|181922635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.53||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||Week 2||1.53|0.76|<0.0001
91019489|NCT00883740|181922635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.28||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||Week 3||1.28|0.46|<0.0001
91083873|NCT02700425|182051377|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test was two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using SAS version 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc, Cary, NC) and STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|Sign test|Wilcoxon signed rank test||The sample size was estimated based on the primary endpoint of echocardiographic response to test the hypothesis that an absolute 10% greater improvement in LVEF would be observed with His Bundle Pacing compared to Coronary Sinus Pacing, with a significance level of 0.05 and a power of 0.80. Primary outcome was presented at baseline and 6-months as median (interquartile range) based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with the Wilcoxon signed rank test.||||<0.001
91019490|NCT00883740|181922635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.89|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.26||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||Week 4||1.26|0.51|<0.0001
90956560|NCT04797650|181792785|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-1.1||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Satisfied evenness hair coverage: Week 20||-1.1|-1.6|< 0.0001
91019491|NCT00883740|181922636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.66||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.44|-3.89||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||Week 1||-3.89|-11.44|0.0001
91019492|NCT00883740|181922636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.67||||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.27|-2.07||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||Week 2||-2.07|-13.27|0.0077
91019493|NCT00883740|181922636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.68||||0.2196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.81|3.44||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||Week 3||3.44|-14.81|0.2196
91019494|NCT00883740|181922636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.18||||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.73|-1.64||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||Week 4||-1.64|-10.73|0.0081
91019495|NCT00883740|181922637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.37||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||Week 1||-0.37|-1.02|<0.0001
91019496|NCT00883740|181922637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.36||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||Week 2||-0.36|-1.06|0.0001
91019497|NCT00883740|181922637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.24||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||Week 3||-0.24|-0.95|0.0014
91019498|NCT00883740|181922637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52||||0.0084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.14||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||Week 4||-0.14|-0.90|0.0084
91019499|NCT00883740|181922638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.02|-9.52||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||Week 1||-9.52|-27.02|<0.0001
91019500|NCT00883740|181922638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.06||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.24|-7.87||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||Week 2||-7.87|-24.24|0.0002
91019501|NCT00883740|181922638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.23||||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.01|-3.46||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||Week 3||-3.46|-23.01|0.0085
91019502|NCT00883740|181922638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.25||||0.0102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.01|-2.48||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||Week 4||-2.48|-18.01|0.0102
91019503|NCT00883740|181922639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.25|36.4||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||Week 1||36.40|13.25|<0.0001
91019504|NCT00883740|181922639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|29.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.59|40.21||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||Week 2||40.21|18.59|<0.0001
91019505|NCT00883740|181922639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|26.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.37|38.21||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||Week 3||38.21|15.37|<0.0001
91019506|NCT00883740|181922639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.03|35.86||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||Week 4||35.86|15.03|<0.0001
91019507|NCT04840901|181922643|EQUIVALENCE|PK parameters were powered to test equivalence with a power of 90% that the 90% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean ratio fall within 0.8 to 1.25 equivalence margin.|Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.03|1.16|||ANCOVA|||||1.16|1.03|
91019508|NCT04840901|181922644|EQUIVALENCE|PK parameters were powered to test equivalence with a power of 90% that the 90% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean ratio fall within 0.8 to 1.25 equivalence margin.|Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.02|1.14|||ANCOVA|||||1.14|1.02|
91019509|NCT04840901|181922645|EQUIVALENCE|PK parameters were powered to test equivalence with a power of 90% that the 90% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean ratio fall within 0.8 to 1.25 equivalence margin.|Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.03|1.14|||ANCOVA|||||1.14|1.03|
91019510|NCT00396981|181922664|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This study used a non-inferiority design to demonstrate that the Matrix Coil is non-inferior to the GDC Coil, with a clinically acceptable non-inferiority margin set at 10%. Non-inferiority was used to establish the baseline estimate, which future superiority studies could be conducted. Non-inferiority was shown with a one-sided 95% CI of the difference less than the pre-specified 10% margin||||||0.76|||||||Log Rank|||Intent-to-Treat, All Subjects (N=626) GDC (N=315) Matrix (N=311) All Subjects (N=626) Subjects Who Met Primary Endpoint 35 (11.1%) 34 (10.9%) 69 (11.0%)||||0.76
91019511|NCT02494583|181922671|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.03918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.02||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test with stratification.|Regression, Cox||Since stratified analyses could be based on collapsing strata with insufficient number of participants or events, strata were pooled in some cases based on clinical judgement and actual counts.|PFS in CPS ≥1 participants of the pembro combo arm was compared to PFS in CPS ≥1 participants of the SOC arm to address the first primary hypothesis (superiority to SOC). The comparison was based on a Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate with stratification according to geographic region, disease status, and fluoropyrimidine treatment.||1.02|0.70|0.03918
91019512|NCT02494583|181922672|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.04611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.03||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test with stratification.|Regression, Cox||Since stratified analyses could be based on collapsing strata with insufficient number of participants or events, strata were pooled in some cases based on clinical judgement and actual counts.|OS in CPS ≥1 participants of the pembro combo arm was compared to OS in CPS ≥1 participants of the SOC arm to address the second primary hypothesis (superiority to SOC). The comparison was based on a Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate with stratification according to geographic region, disease status, and Fluoropyrimidine treatment.||1.03|0.70|0.04611
91019513|NCT02494583|181922673|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.15804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.17||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test with stratification.|Regression, Cox||Since stratified analyses could be based on collapsing strata with insufficient number of participants or events, strata were pooled in some cases based on clinical judgement and actual counts.|OS in CPS ≥10 participants of the pembro combo arm was compared to OS in CPS ≥10 participants of the SOC arm to address the third primary hypothesis (superiority to SOC). The comparison was based on a Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate with stratification according to geographic region, disease status, and Fluoropyrimidine treatment.||1.17|0.62|0.15804
91019514|NCT02494583|181922674|NON_INFERIORITY|Pre-specified non-inferiority margin: if the upper bound of the confidence interval (based on the alpha level allocated to the analysis) for the hazard ratio (\[HR\], pembro mono arm vs SOC) is \< 1.2, the pembro mono arm could be considered as non-inferior to the SOC arm in terms of OS.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|99.2|0.69|1.18|||||Since stratified analyses could be based on collapsing strata with insufficient number of participants or events, strata were pooled in some cases based on clinical judgement and actual counts.|OS in CPS ≥1 participants of the pembro mono arm was compared to OS in CPS ≥1 participants of the SOC arm to address the fourth primary hypothesis (non-inferiority to SOC). The comparison was based on a Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate with stratification according to geographic region, disease status, and Fluoropyrimidine treatment.||1.18|0.69|
91019515|NCT02494583|181922674|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.16205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.1||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test with stratification.|Regression, Cox||Since stratified analyses could be based on collapsing strata with insufficient number of participants or events, strata were pooled in some cases based on clinical judgement and actual counts.|OS in CPS ≥1 participants of the pembro mono arm was compared to OS in CPS ≥1 participants of the SOC arm to address the fifth primary hypothesis (superiority to SOC). The comparison was based on a Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate with stratification according to geographic region, disease status, and Fluoropyrimidine treatment.||1.10|0.74|0.16205
91019516|NCT02494583|181922675|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||0.01491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.97||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test with stratification.|Regression, Cox||Since stratified analyses could be based on collapsing strata with insufficient number of participants or events, strata were pooled in some cases based on clinical judgement and actual counts.|OS in CPS ≥10 participants of the pembro mono arm was compared to OS in CPS ≥10 participants of the SOC arm to address the sixth primary hypothesis (superiority to SOC). The comparison was based on a Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate with stratification according to geographic region, disease status, and Fluoropyrimidine treatment.||0.97|0.49|0.01491
91019517|NCT02494583|181922676|OTHER||Difference in ORR Percentage|11.5||||0.00447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|20.0||No formal hypothesis testing performed; nominal p-value provided for treatment comparison.|Miettinen & Nurminen method||Since stratified analyses could be based on collapsing strata with insufficient number of participants or events, strata were pooled in some cases based on clinical judgement and actual counts.|ORR in CPS ≥1 participants of the pembro combo arm was compared to ORR in CPS ≥1 participants of the SOC arm based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by geographic region, disease status, and Fluoropyrimidine treatment.||20.0|2.9|0.00447
91019518|NCT02494583|181922678|OTHER||Difference in ORR Percentage|-22.3|||>|0.99999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.6|-14.9||No formal hypothesis testing performed; nominal p-value provided for treatment comparison.|Miettinen & Nurminen method||Since stratified analyses could be based on collapsing strata with insufficient number of participants or events, strata were pooled in some cases based on clinical judgement and actual counts.|ORR in CPS ≥1 participants of the pembro mono arm was compared to ORR in CPS ≥1 participants of the SOC arm based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by geographic region, disease status, and Fluoropyrimidine treatment.||-14.9|-29.6|>0.99999
91019519|NCT02494583|181922680|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.64||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|1.98||No formal hypothesis testing performed; nominal p-value provided for treatment comparison.|Regression, Cox||Since stratified analyses could be based on collapsing strata with insufficient number of participants or events, strata were pooled in some cases based on clinical judgement and actual counts.|PFS in CPS ≥1 participants of the pembro mono arm was compared to PFS in CPS ≥1 participants of the SOC arm based on a Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate with stratification according to geographic region, disease status, and fluoropyrimidine treatment.||1.98|1.36|1.00000
91019520|NCT02494583|181922681|OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.16||||0.948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.01|4.69||No formal hypothesis testing performed; nominal p-value provided for treatment comparison.|cLDA||Stratified analyses could be based on collapsing strata with insufficient number of participants or events; strata were pooled in some cases based on clinical judgement and actual counts.|Change from baseline to Week 18 in EORTC-QLQ-C30 GHS/QoL combined score was compared between all participants of the pembro mono arm and the SOC arm. Comparison based on constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model with GHS/QoL score as response variable and treatment by visit interaction and stratification factors (geographic region, disease status, and fluoropyrimidine treatment) as covariates.||4.69|-5.01|0.948
91083874|NCT02700425|182051378|OTHER|paired t-test||||||0.002||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|t-test, 2 sided|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline and 1-year as means +/- standard deviations based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with paired t-tests.||||0.002
91083875|NCT02700425|182051378|OTHER|paired t-test||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Primary outcome of His Bundle Pacing was presented at baseline and 1-year as means +/- standard deviations based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with paired t-tests.||||0.002
91083876|NCT02700425|182051379|OTHER|Log rank test of a survival analysis||||||0.62||||||P-value did not need to be adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|Log Rank|||Primary outcome of time to first cardiovascular hospitalization or death by His Bundle Pacing compared to Coronary Sinus Pacing presented median and interquartile range in years based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with a log rank test.||||0.62
91083877|NCT02700425|182051380|OTHER|||||||0.09||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|Sign test|Wilcoxon sign rank test||NYHA functional class of Coronary Sinus Pacing arm was presented at baseline as medians (interquartile ranges) based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with a Wilcoxon sign rank test.||||0.09
91083878|NCT02700425|182051380|OTHER|||||||0.32||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|Sign test|Wilcoxon sign rank test||NYHA functional class of the His Bundle Pacing arm was presented at baseline and 12 months as medians (interquartile ranges) based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with Wilcoxon sign rank test.||||0.32
91083879|NCT02700425|182051381|OTHER|||||||0.35||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|Sign test|||Quality of Life was presented at baseline and 1-year as medians (interquartile range) for patients with His Bundle Pacing based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||||0.35
91083880|NCT02700425|182051381|OTHER|||||||0.07||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|Sign test|||Quality of Life was presented at baseline and 1-year as medians (interquartile range) for patients with Coronary Sinus Pacing based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||||0.07
91083881|NCT02700425|182051382|OTHER|Log rank test of a survival analysis||||||0.14||||||P-value did not need to be adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|Log Rank|||Primary outcome of time to first cardiovascular rehospitalization by His Bundle Pacing compared to Coronary Sinus Pacing presented median and interquartile range in years based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with a log rank test.||||0.14
91083882|NCT02700425|182051383|OTHER|Log rank test of a survival analysis||||||0.14||||||P-value did not need to be adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|Log Rank|||Primary outcome of time to first treated VT/VF by His Bundle Pacing compared to Coronary Sinus Pacing presented median and interquartile range in years based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with a log rank test.||||0.14
91083883|NCT04819438|182051408|EQUIVALENCE|Acceptance criterion for bioequivalence analysis was that the 90% confidence interval for the Test/Reference ratio of Cmax geometric means was within the 80.00-125.00 range.|Geometric Mean Ratio|117.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|110.43|124.06|||ANOVA|||||124.06|110.43|<0.0001
91083884|NCT04819438|182051409|EQUIVALENCE|Acceptance criterion for bioequivalence analysis was that the 90% confidence interval for the Test/Reference ratio of AUC0-t geometric means was within the 80.00-125.00 range.|Geometric Mean Ratio|111.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|108.25|115.5|||ANOVA|||||115.50|108.25|<0.0001
91083885|NCT04819438|182051411|EQUIVALENCE|Acceptance criterion for bioequivalence analysis was that the 90% confidence interval for the Test/Reference ratio of AUC0-∞ geometric means was within the 80.00-125.00 range.|Geometric Mean Ratio|111.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|108.19|115.29|||ANOVA|||||115.29|108.19|<0.0001
91083886|NCT03836209|182051417|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference|-0.071||||0.366|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.205|0.062||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.10.|Fisher Exact||Treatment Difference = Arm A - Arm B|||0.062|-0.205|0.366
91083887|NCT03836209|182051418|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference|-0.059||||0.446|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.191|0.073||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.10.|Fisher Exact||Treatment Difference = Arm A - Arm B|||0.073|-0.191|0.446
91083888|NCT03836209|182051419|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference|0.047||||0.539|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.084|0.178||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.10.|Fisher Exact||Treatment Difference = Arm A - Arm B|||0.178|-0.084|0.539
91083889|NCT03836209|182051420|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference|0.131||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.02|0.242||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.10.|Fisher Exact||Treatment Difference = Arm A - Arm B|||0.242|0.020|0.042
91083890|NCT01768559|182051433|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 0.4%.|Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.064|||ANCOVA||Lixisenatide vs Insulin Glulisine QD|Analysis was performed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment groups, strata of Week -1 HbA1c (\<8.0, ≥8.0%), randomization strata of metformin use, and country as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c value as a covariate. The non-inferiority was assessed using upper bound of 2-sided 95% Confidence Interval (CI).||0.064|-0.17|
91083891|NCT01768559|182051433|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 0.4%.|LS Mean Difference|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.095|0.328|||ANCOVA||Lixisenatide vs Insulin Glulisine TID|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model as described above. Hochberg procedure was used to control type 1 error at significance level = 0.025 (1-sided) for comparison between Lixisenatide vs Insulin glulisine TID in HbA1c and body weight. If both comparisons were met, then both would be declared significant. Otherwise, if only one was met, then the one met should be tested at α=0.0125 (1-sided).||0.328|0.095|
91019521|NCT02494583|181922682|OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.98||||0.368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|6.31||No formal hypothesis testing performed; nominal p-value provided for treatment comparison.|cLDA||Since stratified analyses could be based on collapsing strata with insufficient number of participants or events, strata were pooled in some cases based on clinical judgement and actual counts.|Change from baseline to Week 18 in EORTC-QLQ-C30 GHS/QoL combined score was compared between all participants of the pembro combo arm and the SOC arm. Comparison based on cLDA model with GHS/QoL score as response variable and treatment by visit interaction and stratification factors (geographic region, disease status, and fluoropyrimidine treatment) as covariates.||6.31|-2.34|0.368
91019522|NCT02494583|181922683|OTHER||Difference in LS Means|2.35||||0.308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|6.89||No formal hypothesis testing performed; nominal p-value provided for treatment comparison.|cLDA||Since stratified analyses could be based on collapsing strata with insufficient number of participants or events, strata were pooled in some cases based on clinical judgement and actual counts.|Change from baseline to Week 18 in EORTC-QLQ-STO22 Pain symptom subscale score was compared between all participants of the pembro mono arm and the SOC arm. Comparison based on cLDA model with GHS/QoL score as response variable and treatment by visit interaction and stratification factors (geographic region, disease status, and fluoropyrimidine treatment) as covariates.||6.89|-2.18|0.308
91019523|NCT02494583|181922684|OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-6.56||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.55|-2.58||No formal hypothesis testing performed; nominal p-value provided for treatment comparison.|cLDA||Since stratified analyses could be based on collapsing strata with insufficient number of participants or events, strata were pooled in some cases based on clinical judgement and actual counts.|Change from baseline to Week 18 in EORTC-QLQ-STO22 Pain symptom subscale score was compared between all participants of the pembro combo arm and the SOC arm. Comparison based on cLDA model with GHS/QoL score as response variable and treatment by visit interaction and stratification factors (geographic region, disease status, and fluoropyrimidine treatment) as covariates.||-2.58|-10.55|0.001
91019524|NCT02328404|181922750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Chi-squared|Fisher Exact test was used||The participants in the treatment and placebo groups will be classified into two categories of prognosis (improved and not improved) and will be analyzed using Chi-square test, if Chi-square is higher than 3.84 (df=1) it will be statistically significant (p-value\</= 0.05)||||0.001
91019525|NCT02328404|181922751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0||||||A P-value \< 0.05 would be considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||Both arms where evaluated at which paired t-test for the mean difference in the two arm was calculated . where the serum 25-OH Vit D3 was measured at 0 day time and after the end of the study. after that a paired t-test where applied for the difference for the 25-OH VitD3 levels between the two time points||||<0.000
91019526|NCT02328404|181922752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.67
91019527|NCT02328404|181922753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.51
91019528|NCT02328404|181922754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.08
91019529|NCT02328404|181922755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
91019530|NCT02328404|181922756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.001
91019531|NCT02328404|181922757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.89
91019532|NCT02328404|181922758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.60
91019533|NCT02328404|181922759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
91019534|NCT02328404|181922760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.35
91019535|NCT02328404|181922761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.65
91019536|NCT02328404|181922762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.25
91019537|NCT02328404|181922763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.04
91019538|NCT02328404|181922764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.02
91019539|NCT00285012|181922781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.4|||<|0.0001||95.0|4.99|14.14||p-value obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment and pooled center|Regression, Logistic||odds ratio obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment and pooled center|Primary endpoint was based on a CO confirmed 4-week CQR (weeks 4 through 12 inclusive). Intent was to evaluate the alternative hypothesis that varenicline is superior to placebo for smoking cessation after 12 weeks of treatment in subjects with mild to moderate COPD.||14.14|4.99|<0.0001
91019540|NCT00285012|181922782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.88|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.75|8.65||p-value obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment and pooled center|Regression, Logistic||odds ratio obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment and pooled center|Varenicline versus (vs) placebo at Week 24||8.65|2.75|<0.0001
91019541|NCT00285012|181922782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.04|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.13|7.67||p-value obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment and pooled center|Regression, Logistic||odds ratio obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment and pooled center|Varenicline vs placebo at Week 52||7.67|2.13|<0.0001
91019542|NCT00285012|181922783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.17|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.96|9.02||p-value obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment and pooled center|Regression, Logistic||odds ratio obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment and pooled center|Varenicline vs placebo at Week 24||9.02|2.96|<0.0001
91019543|NCT00285012|181922783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.92|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.18|7.07||p-value obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment and pooled center|Regression, Logistic||odds ratio obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment and pooled center|Varenicline vs placebo at Week 52||7.07|2.18|<0.0001
91019544|NCT00285012|181922784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.99|||<|0.0001||95.0|4.39|11.11||p-value obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment and pooled center|Regression, Logistic||odds ratio obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment and pooled center|Varenicline vs placebo at Week 12||11.11|4.39|<0.0001
91019545|NCT00285012|181922784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.85|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.79|4.54|||Regression, Logistic|p-value obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment and pooled center|odds ratio obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment and pooled center|Varenicline vs placebo at Week 24||4.54|1.79|<0.0001
91019546|NCT00285012|181922784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.19||||0.0008||95.0|1.37|3.48||p-value obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment and pooled center|Regression, Logistic||odds ratio obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment and pooled center|Varenicline vs placebo at Week 52||3.48|1.37|0.0008
91019547|NCT00285012|181922785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.45||||0.0002||95.0|1.52|3.95||p-value obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment and pooled center|Regression, Logistic||odds ratio obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment and pooled center|Varenicline vs placebo at Week 52||3.95|1.52|0.0002
91019548|NCT00285012|181922786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14||95.0|||||ANCOVA|p-value based on ANCOVA model with treatment and center as factors and baseline value as covariate.||Varenicline vs placebo at Week 12 \[LOCF\] pre-bronchodilator||||0.140
91019549|NCT00285012|181922786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0|||||ANCOVA|p-value based on ANCOVA model with treatment and center as factors and baseline value as covariate.||Varenicline vs placebo at Week 12 \[LOCF\] post-bronchodilator||||0.007
91019550|NCT00285012|181922786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.684||95.0|||||ANCOVA|p-value based on ANCOVA model with treatment and center as factors and baseline value as covariate.||Varenicline vs placebo at Week 52 \[LOCF\] pre-bronchodilator||||0.684
91019551|NCT00285012|181922786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.901||95.0|||||ANCOVA|p-value based on ANCOVA model with treatment and center as factors and baseline value as covariate.||Varenicline vs placebo at Week 52 \[LOCF\] post-bronchodilator||||0.901
91019552|NCT00285012|181922787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.078||95.0|||||ANCOVA|p-value obtained from ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for center and treatment, and baseline score as a covariate.||Week 12 Mental State||||0.078
91019553|NCT00285012|181922787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.109||95.0|||||ANCOVA|p-value obtained from ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for center and treatment, and baseline score as a covariate.||Week 24 Mental State||||0.109
91019554|NCT00285012|181922787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.281||95.0|||||ANCOVA|p-value obtained from ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for center and treatment, and baseline score as a covariate.||Week 52 Mental State||||0.281
91019555|NCT00285012|181922787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.581||95.0|||||ANCOVA|p-value obtained from ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for center and treatment, and baseline score as a covariate.||Week 12 Functional State||||0.581
91019556|NCT00285012|181922787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29||95.0|||||ANCOVA|p-value obtained from ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for center and treatment, and baseline score as a covariate.||Week 24 Functional State||||0.290
91019557|NCT00285012|181922787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.063||95.0|||||ANCOVA|p-value obtained from ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for center and treatment, and baseline score as a covariate.||Week 52 Functional State||||0.063
91019558|NCT00285012|181922787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||ANCOVA|p-value obtained from ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for center and treatment, and baseline score as a covariate.||Week 12 Respiratory Symptoms||||0.002
91019559|NCT00285012|181922787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.081||95.0|||||ANCOVA|p-value obtained from ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for center and treatment, and baseline score as a covariate.||Week 24 Respiratory Symptoms||||0.081
91019560|NCT00285012|181922787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016||95.0|||||ANCOVA|p-value obtained from ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for center and treatment, and baseline score as a covariate.||Week 52 Respiratory Symptoms||||0.016
91019561|NCT00285012|181922787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033||95.0|||||ANCOVA|p-value obtained from ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for center and treatment, and baseline score as a covariate.||Week 12 Total Score||||0.033
91019562|NCT00285012|181922787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.078||95.0|||||ANCOVA|p-value obtained from ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for center and treatment, and baseline score as a covariate.||Week 24 Total Score||||0.078
91019563|NCT00285012|181922787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023||95.0|||||ANCOVA|p-value obtained from ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for center and treatment, and baseline score as a covariate.||Week 52 Total Score||||0.023
91019564|NCT05631093|181922818|NON_INFERIORITY|Doravirine/Islatravir (DOR/ISL) - Baseline Antiretroviral Therapy (ART). Non-inferiority was concluded if the upper bound of the 2-sided multiplicity-adjusted 95% CI was less than 4 percentage points.|Estimated difference|-3.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.81|-0.77|||Miettinen and Nurminen|The Miettinen and Nurminen method was stratified by corrected baseline ART regimen with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights.||||-0.77|-7.81|<0.001
91019565|NCT05631093|181922819|OTHER|Difference in percentage versus Baseline Antiretroviral Therapy (ART). Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated difference|-4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|2.8|||||Difference in percentage versus (vs) Baseline ART was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||2.8|-10.7|
91019566|NCT05631093|181922820|OTHER|Difference in percentage versus Baseline Antiretroviral Therapy (ART). Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated difference|-1.6||||||95.0|-4.9|0.2|||||Difference in percentage versus (vs) Baseline ART was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||0.2|-4.9|
91019567|NCT05631093|181922821|OTHER|Difference in percentage versus Baseline Antiretroviral Therapy (ART). Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated difference|-0.08||||||95.0|-3.49|4.21|||||Difference in percentage versus (vs) Baseline ART was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||4.21|-3.49|
91019568|NCT05631093|181922822|OTHER|Difference in percentage versus Baseline Antiretroviral Therapy (ART). Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated difference|3.75||||||95.0|-0.31|8.89|||||Difference in percentage versus (vs) Baseline ART was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||8.89|-0.31|
91019569|NCT05631093|181922829|OTHER|Difference in mean change from baseline versus Baseline Antiretroviral Therapy (ART)|Estimated difference|-15.43||||||95.0|-46.32|15.47|||||Difference in percentage versus (vs) Baseline ART was based on a cDLA model.|||15.47|-46.32|
91019570|NCT05631093|181922835|SUPERIORITY|Treatment difference versus baseline ART|Estimated Difference|-2.21||||0.834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.91|20.49|||ANCOVA||The multiplicity adjusted 95% CIs for treatment difference were calculated from ANCOVA models with terms for baseline measurement and treatment.|PI-containing regimens (including PI- + InSTI-containing regimens)||20.49|-24.91|0.8340
91019571|NCT05631093|181922835|SUPERIORITY|Treatment difference versus baseline ART|Estimated Difference|3.44||||0.425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.08|11.97|||ANCOVA||The multiplicity adjusted 95% CIs for treatment difference were calculated from ANCOVA models with terms for baseline measurement and treatment.|non-PI- and non-InSTI-containing regimens||11.97|-5.08|0.4250
91019572|NCT05631093|181922835|SUPERIORITY|Treatment difference versus baseline ART|Estimated Difference|3.72||||0.1618||95.0|-1.5|8.95|||ANCOVA||The multiplicity adjusted 95% CIs for treatment difference were calculated from ANCOVA models with terms for baseline measurement and treatment.|InSTI-containing regimens (non-PI-containing regimens)||8.95|-1.50|0.1618
91019573|NCT05631093|181922836|SUPERIORITY|Treatment difference versus baseline ART|Estimated Difference|-7.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.8|15.77|||||The multiplicity adjusted 95% CIs for treatment difference were calculated from ANCOVA models with terms for baseline measurement and treatment.|PI-containing regimens (including PI- + InSTI-containing regimens)||15.77|-29.80|
91019574|NCT05631093|181922836|SUPERIORITY|Treatment difference versus baseline ART|Estimated Difference|3.99||||||95.0|-5.22|13.21|||||The multiplicity adjusted 95% CIs for treatment difference were calculated from ANCOVA models with terms for baseline measurement and treatment.|non-PI- and non-InSTI-containing regimens||13.21|-5.22|
91019575|NCT05631093|181922836|SUPERIORITY|Treatment difference versus baseline ART|Estimated Difference|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.83|8.87|||||The multiplicity adjusted 95% CIs for treatment difference were calculated from ANCOVA models with terms for baseline measurement and treatment.|InSTI-containing regimens (non-PI-containing regimens)||8.87|-6.83|
91019576|NCT02873195|181922845|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.725||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.491|1.07|||Log Rank|||||1.07|0.491|0.051
91019577|NCT02873195|181922846|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.56|||Log Rank|||||1.56|0.56|0.40
91019578|NCT02873195|181922847|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4876|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4876
91019579|NCT01190098|181922980|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: there is a non-inferiority region of 4 points.||||||0.027|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.027
91083892|NCT01768559|182051434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.305|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.593|-1.396||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA|The superiority was assessed by comparing the P-value at significance level = 0.025 or 0.0125.|Lixisenatide vs Insulin Glulisine TID|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model as described above. Hochberg procedure was used to control type 1 error at α = 0.025 (1-sided) for comparison between lixisenatide vs insulin glulisine TID in HbA1c and body weight. If both comparisons were met, then both would be declared significant. Otherwise, if only one was met, then the one met should be tested at α=0.0125 (1-sided).||-1.396|-2.593|< 0.0001
91083893|NCT00237692|182051449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. % of Patients with controlled SBP|59.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.7|63.9|||||Joint National Committee 7 blood pressure control: \< 140/90 mmHg for non-diabetics; \<130/80 mmHg for diabetics|Estimated % of participants with controlled Systolic BP at Baseline||63.9|55.7|
91019580|NCT01190098|181922981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.7||||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.23
91019581|NCT01190098|181922982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.84|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.84
91019582|NCT01190098|181922983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8||||0.37|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.37
91019583|NCT01190098|181922984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.8||||0.33|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.33
91019584|NCT01190098|181922985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.92|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.92
91019585|NCT01190098|181922986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.69
91019586|NCT01190098|181922987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.95|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.95
91019587|NCT00606801|181923001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.006|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed-effect, repeated-measures model using main effect terms of treatment (placebo or galantine) and time (day of measurement). Interaction of main effects were also analyzed, with a random effect for participant. Given the hypothesis generating nature of the study, values of p\<0.05 were considered statistically significant based on two-tailed tests. Significant interactions were followed by Bonferroni post hoc pairwise comparisons.||||0.006
91019588|NCT00606801|181923002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.04|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed-effect, repeated-measures model using main effect terms of treatment (placebo or galantine) and time (day of measurement). Interaction of main effects were also analyzed, with a random effect for participant. Given the hypothesis generating nature of the study, values of p\<0.05 were considered statistically significant based on two-tailed tests. Significant interactions were followed by Bonferroni post hoc pairwise comparisons.||||0.04
91019589|NCT00606801|181923003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.02|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed-effect, repeated-measures model using main effect terms of treatment (placebo or galantine) and time (day of measurement). Interaction of main effects were also analyzed, with a random effect for participant. Given the hypothesis generating nature of the study, values of p\<0.05 were considered statistically significant based on two-tailed tests. Significant interactions were followed by Bonferroni post hoc pairwise comparisons.||||0.02
91019590|NCT00606801|181923004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.03|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed-effect, repeated-measures model using main effect terms of treatment (placebo or galantine) and time (day of measurement). Interaction of main effects were also analyzed, with a random effect for participant. Given the hypothesis generating nature of the study, values of p\<0.05 were considered statistically significant based on two-tailed tests. Significant interactions were followed by Bonferroni post hoc pairwise comparisons.||||0.03
91019591|NCT00606801|181923005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed-effect, repeated-measures model using main effect terms of treatment (placebo or galantine) and time (day of measurement). Interaction of main effects were also analyzed, with a random effect for participant. Given the hypothesis generating nature of the study, values of p\<0.05 were considered statistically significant based on two-tailed tests. Significant interactions were followed by Bonferroni post hoc pairwise comparisons.||||0.5
91019592|NCT00606801|181923006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed-effect, repeated-measures model using main effect terms of treatment (placebo or galantine) and time (day of measurement). Interaction of main effects were also analyzed, with a random effect for participant. Given the hypothesis generating nature of the study, values of p\<0.05 were considered statistically significant based on two-tailed tests. Significant interactions were followed by Bonferroni post hoc pairwise comparisons.||||0.7
91019593|NCT00606801|181923007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed-effect, repeated-measures model using main effect terms of treatment (placebo or galantine) and time (day of measurement). Interaction of main effects were also analyzed, with a random effect for participant. Given the hypothesis generating nature of the study, values of p\<0.05 were considered statistically significant based on two-tailed tests. Significant interactions were followed by Bonferroni post hoc pairwise comparisons.||||0.3
91019594|NCT00606801|181923008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed-effect, repeated-measures model using main effect terms of treatment (placebo or galantine) and time (day of measurement). Interaction of main effects were also analyzed, with a random effect for participant. Given the hypothesis generating nature of the study, values of p\<0.05 were considered statistically significant based on two-tailed tests. Significant interactions were followed by Bonferroni post hoc pairwise comparisons.||||0.3
91019595|NCT00606801|181923009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed-effect, repeated-measures model using main effect terms of treatment (placebo or galantine) and time (day of measurement). Interaction of main effects were also analyzed, with a random effect for participant. Given the hypothesis generating nature of the study, values of p\<0.05 were considered statistically significant based on two-tailed tests. Significant interactions were followed by Bonferroni post hoc pairwise comparisons.||||0.3
91019596|NCT00606801|181923010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed-effect, repeated-measures model using main effect terms of treatment (placebo or galantine) and time (day of measurement). Interaction of main effects were also analyzed, with a random effect for participant. Given the hypothesis generating nature of the study, values of p\<0.05 were considered statistically significant based on two-tailed tests. Significant interactions were followed by Bonferroni post hoc pairwise comparisons.||||0.9
91019597|NCT00606801|181923011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed-effect, repeated-measures model using main effect terms of treatment (placebo or galantine) and time (day of measurement). Interaction of main effects were also analyzed, with a random effect for participant. Given the hypothesis generating nature of the study, values of p\<0.05 were considered statistically significant based on two-tailed tests. Significant interactions were followed by Bonferroni post hoc pairwise comparisons.||||0.8
91019598|NCT00606801|181923012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed-effect, repeated-measures model using main effect terms of treatment (placebo or galantine) and time (day of measurement). Interaction of main effects were also analyzed, with a random effect for participant. Given the hypothesis generating nature of the study, values of p\<0.05 were considered statistically significant based on two-tailed tests. Significant interactions were followed by Bonferroni post hoc pairwise comparisons.||||0.5
91019599|NCT00606801|181923013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed-effect, repeated-measures model using main effect terms of treatment (placebo or galantine) and time (day of measurement). Interaction of main effects were also analyzed, with a random effect for participant. Given the hypothesis generating nature of the study, values of p\<0.05 were considered statistically significant based on two-tailed tests. Significant interactions were followed by Bonferroni post hoc pairwise comparisons.||||0.01
91019600|NCT00606801|181923014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed-effect, repeated-measures model using main effect terms of treatment (placebo or galantine) and time (day of measurement). Interaction of main effects were also analyzed, with a random effect for participant. Given the hypothesis generating nature of the study, values of p\<0.05 were considered statistically significant based on two-tailed tests. Significant interactions were followed by Bonferroni post hoc pairwise comparisons.||||0.60
91019601|NCT00606801|181923015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed-effect, repeated-measures model using main effect terms of treatment (placebo or galantine) and time (day of measurement). Interaction of main effects were also analyzed, with a random effect for participant. Given the hypothesis generating nature of the study, values of p\<0.05 were considered statistically significant based on two-tailed tests. Significant interactions were followed by Bonferroni post hoc pairwise comparisons.||||0.50
91019602|NCT01143272|181923018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.9|||Regression, Cox|||||1.90|0.55|0.94
91083894|NCT00237692|182051449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. % of patients with controled SBP|59.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.7|64.0|||||Joint National Committee 7 blood pressure control: \< 140/90 mmHg for non-diabetics; \<130/80 mmHg for diabetics|Estimated % of participants with controlled Systolic BP at Baseline||64.0|55.7|
91083895|NCT00237692|182051449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. % of patinets with controlled SBP|59.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.6|63.9|||||Joint National Committee 7 blood pressure control: \< 140/90 mmHg for non-diabetics; \<130/80 mmHg for diabetics|Estimated % of participants with controlled BP at Baseline||63.9|55.6|
91019603|NCT01143272|181923018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.25
91019604|NCT01143272|181923018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.87
91019605|NCT01143272|181923020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.73|||Regression, Cox|||||1.73|0.49|0.80
91019606|NCT01143272|181923020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|2.03||adjusting for age, sex, CRP, leukocyte count, duration of antibiotic treatment, and administration of antibiotics|Regression, Cox|||||2.03|0.53|0.93
91019607|NCT01143272|181923021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.08||Association between initial leukocyte count and incidence of AAD|Regression, Logistic|||||1.08|0.96|0.6
91019608|NCT01143272|181923021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.01||Association between the initial C-reactive protein and incidence of AAD|Regression, Logistic|||||1.01|1.00|0.653
91019609|NCT00545181|181923048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75||95.0|||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.75
91019610|NCT02533505|181923057|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.114||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.943|17.286||All p-values ≤ 0.05 after rounding will be considered statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||17.286|2.943|0.007
91019611|NCT02533505|181923058|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.087||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.021|0.196|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.196|-0.021|0.111
91019612|NCT02533505|181923059|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.35||||0.609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.018|1.719|||Mixed Models Analysis|||ΔHR||1.719|-1.018|0.609
91019613|NCT02533505|181923060|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.191|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.233|||Mixed Models Analysis|||ΔFEV1||0.233|0.150|<0.001
91019614|NCT02533505|181923060|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.312|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.236|0.388|||Mixed Models Analysis|||ΔFVC||0.388|0.236|<0.001
91019615|NCT02533505|181923060|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.218|0.342|||Mixed Models Analysis|||ΔIC||0.342|0.218|<0.001
91019616|NCT02533505|181923061|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.315||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.723|42.907|||Mixed Models Analysis|||ΔVT/Ti||42.907|3.723|0.021
91019617|NCT02533505|181923062|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.204||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.454|0.045|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.045|-0.454|0.106
91019618|NCT02533505|181923063|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.245||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.469|18.021|||Mixed Models Analysis|||ΔVCO2||18.021|2.469|0.011
91019619|NCT02533505|181923064|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.242||||0.333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.255|0.738|||Mixed Models Analysis|||ΔSaO2||0.738|-0.255|0.333
91083896|NCT00237692|182051449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. % of Patients with controlled SBP|59.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.6|63.9|||||Joint National Committee 7 blood pressure control: \< 140/90 mmHg for non-diabetics; \<130/80 mmHg for diabetics|Estimated % of participants with controlled Systolic BP at Baseline||63.9|55.6|
91083897|NCT00237692|182051450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. % of Patients with controlled SBP|58.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.3|66.7|||||Joint National Committee 7 blood pressure control: \< 140/90 mmHg for non-diabetics; \<130/80 mmHg for diabetics|Estimated % of participants with controlled Systolic BP at 6 months.||66.7|49.3|
91019620|NCT02533505|181923065|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.237||||0.484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.439|0.913|||Mixed Models Analysis|||ΔRR||0.913|-0.439|0.484
91019621|NCT02533505|181923066|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.016||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.036|||Mixed Models Analysis|||ΔTi/Ttot||0.036|-0.004|0.113
91019622|NCT02533505|181923067|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|57.624|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.701|85.546|||Mixed Models Analysis|||ΔVt||85.546|29.701|<0.001
91083898|NCT00237692|182051450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. % of Patients with controlled SBP|60.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.5|69.3|||||Joint National Committee 7 blood pressure control: \< 140/90 mmHg for non-diabetics; \<130/80 mmHg for diabetics|Estimated % of participants with controlled systolic BP at 6 months.||69.3|52.5|
91019623|NCT02533505|181923068|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|862.157|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|439.817|1284.496|||Mixed Models Analysis|||ΔVe||1284.496|439.817|<0.001
91019624|NCT02533505|181923069|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.019||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.005|0.033|||Mixed Models Analysis|||ΔFEV1/FVC||0.033|0.005|0.007
91019625|NCT02320838|181923074|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance. p\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91019626|NCT02320838|181923075|OTHER|||||||0.04||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance. p\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.04
91019627|NCT02320838|181923076|OTHER|||||||0.9||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance. p\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.9
91019628|NCT02320838|181923077|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance. p\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.001
91019629|NCT02320838|181923078|OTHER|||||||0.003||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance. p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
91019630|NCT02320838|181923079|OTHER|||||||0.023||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance. p\<0.05|Chi-squared|||||||0.023
91019631|NCT02320838|181923080|OTHER|||||||0.003||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance. p\<0,05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
91019632|NCT02320838|181923081|OTHER|||||||0.8||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance. p\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.8
91019633|NCT02320838|181923082|OTHER|||||||0.02||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance. p\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.02
91019634|NCT02320838|181923083|OTHER|||||||0.4||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance. p\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.4
91019635|NCT02320838|181923084|OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.8
91019636|NCT02320838|181923085|OTHER|||||||1||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance. p\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||1.0
91019637|NCT02320838|181923086|OTHER|||||||0.4||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance. p\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.4
91019638|NCT02320838|181923087|OTHER|||||||0.1||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance. p\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.1
91019639|NCT02320838|181923088|OTHER|||||||0.9||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance. p\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.9
91019640|NCT02320838|181923089|OTHER|||||||0.9||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance. p\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.9
91019641|NCT02320838|181923090|OTHER|||||||0.5||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance. p\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.5
91019642|NCT02320838|181923091|OTHER|||||||0.6||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance. p\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.6
91019643|NCT02320838|181923092|OTHER|||||||0.1||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance. p\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.1
91019644|NCT02320838|181923093|OTHER|||||||0.2||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance. p\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.2
91019645|NCT02320838|181923094|OTHER|||||||1||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance. p\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||1.0
91019646|NCT03231709|181923107|OTHER|||||||0.0141|||||||Mainland-Gart Test|||||||0.0141
91019647|NCT02609178|181923111|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Using G\*power 3.1.7, setting α at 0.05, (1- β) at 0.8, the number of the subjects enrolled could reach the actual power as 0.8.||||||0.003||||||Alpha value was set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.003
91019648|NCT02609178|181923111|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|stated above in statistical analysis 1||||||0.366||||||Alpha value was set at 0.05.|Tukey's multiple comparison test|||||||0.366
91019649|NCT02609178|181923111|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Stated above in statistical analysis 1.||||||0.002||||||Alpha value was set at 0.05.|Tukey's multiple comparison test|||||||0.002
91083899|NCT00237692|182051450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. % of Patients with controlled SBP|65.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.9|73.1|||||Joint National Committee 7 blood pressure control: \< 140/90 mmHg for non-diabetics; \<130/80 mmHg for diabetics|Estimated % of participants with controlled systolic BP at 6 months.||73.1|56.9|
91083900|NCT00237692|182051450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. % of Patients with controlled SBP|63.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.6|72.0|||||Joint National Committee 7 blood pressure control: \< 140/90 mmHg for non-diabetics; \<130/80 mmHg for diabetics|Estimated % of participants with controlled systolic BP at 6 months.||72.0|55.6|
91019650|NCT02609178|181923111|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Stated above in statistical analysis 1.||||||0.054||||||Alpha value was set at 0.05.|Tukey's multiple comparison test|||||||0.054
91019651|NCT02609178|181923112|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Using G\*power 3.1.7, setting α at 0.05, (1- β) at 0.8, the number of the subjects enrolled could reach the actual power as 0.8.||||||0.006||||||alpha value was set at 0.05|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.006
91019652|NCT02609178|181923112|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Stated above in statistic analysis 1.||||||0.739||||||Alpha value was set at 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.739
91019653|NCT02609178|181923112|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Stated above in statistical analysis 1.||||||0.03||||||Alpha value was set at 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
91019654|NCT02609178|181923112|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Stated above in statistical analysis 1.||||||0.009||||||Alpha value was set at 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.009
91019655|NCT02609178|181923113|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Using G\*power 3.1.7, setting α at 0.05, (1- β) at 0.8, the number of the subjects enrolled could reach the actual power as 0.8.||||||0.001||||||alpha value was set at 0.05|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.001
91019656|NCT02609178|181923113|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Stated above in statistical analysis 1.||||||0.579||||||Alpha value was set at 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.579
91019657|NCT02609178|181923113|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Stated above in statistical analysis 1.||||||0.001||||||Alpha value was set at 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
91019658|NCT02609178|181923113|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Stated above in statistical analysis 1.||||||0.002||||||Alpha value was set at 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
91019659|NCT02609178|181923114|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Using G\*power 3.1.7, setting α at 0.05, (1- β) at 0.8, the number of the subjects enrolled could reach the actual power as 0.8.||||||0.007||||||alpha value was set at 0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.007
91083901|NCT00237692|182051450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% diff|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|14.9|||||Joint National Committee 7 blood pressure control: \< 140/90 mmHg for non-diabetics; \<130/80 mmHg for diabetics|Estimated Difference in Percentage of Patients with Controlled Systolic Blood pressure between Intervention Arm 2 - Nurse Behavioral and Arm 1 - Control at 6months.||14.9|-9.0|
91083902|NCT00237692|182051450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Diff|6.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|18.7|||||Joint National Committee 7 blood pressure control: \< 140/90 mmHg for non-diabetics; \<130/80 mmHg for diabetics|Estimated Difference in Percentage of Patients with Controlled Systolic Blood pressure between Intervention Arm 2 - Nurse Med Management and Arm 1 - Control at 6months.||18.7|-4.7|
91019660|NCT02609178|181923114|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Stated above in statistical analysis 1.||||||0.308||||||Alpha value was set at 0.05.|Tukey's multiple comparison test|||||||0.308
91019661|NCT02609178|181923114|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Stated above in statistical analysis 1.||||||0.005||||||Alpha value was set at 0.05.|Tukey's multiple comparison test|||||||0.005
91019662|NCT02609178|181923114|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Stated above in statistical analysis 1.||||||0.141||||||Alpha value was set at 0.05.|Tukey's multiple comparison test|||||||0.141
91083903|NCT00237692|182051450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Diff|5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|17.6||||||Estimated Difference in Percentage of Patients with Controlled Systolic Blood pressure between Intervention Arm 2 - Combined Behavioral \& Med Mgmt and Arm 1 - Control at 6months.||17.6|-6.0|
91083904|NCT00237692|182051451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. % of Patients with controlled SBP|59.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.4|68.3|||||Joint National Committee 7 blood pressure control: \< 140/90 mmHg for non-diabetics; \<130/80 mmHg for diabetics|Estimated % of participants with controlled systolic BP at 12 months.||68.3|51.4|
91019663|NCT04075292|181923142|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.18|||Log Rank|The analysis was performed using the unstratified log-rank test.|HR was calculated using an unstratified Cox model with treatment as the only covariate. The CI for HR was calculated using the profile likelihood method.|||0.18|0.03|<0.0001
91019664|NCT03583931|181923151|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.61
91019665|NCT03583931|181923152|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.84
91019666|NCT03583931|181923157|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.48
91019667|NCT03583931|181923158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.25
91019668|NCT03583931|181923159|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.45
91019669|NCT03583931|181923160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.87
91019670|NCT05016765|181923180|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||||<0.001
91019671|NCT05016765|181923180|OTHER|Pearson correlation test|Pearson's R|0.21||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.56|||Regression, Linear|Pearson's R||Correlation of this Outcome measure (change in tic frequency with stimulation during this study) with the change in tic frequency (measured as the number of 10-second tic-free intervals) during active, rhythmic stimulation in the randomized, controlled trial of MNS that all participants had previously completed.||0.56|-0.22|0.33
91019672|NCT05016765|181923181|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Paired Samples Wilcoxon Test||||||<0.001
91019673|NCT05016765|181923181|OTHER|Pearson's R|Pearson's R|0.36||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.66|||Regression, Linear|Pearson's R||Correlation of this Outcome measure (change in tic intensity during this study) with change in tic intensity during active, rhythmic stimulation during the randomized, controlled trial that all participants had previously completed.||0.66|-0.05|0.08
91019674|NCT05016765|181923186|OTHER|Traditional comparative||||||0.84|||||||Paired Sample t-Test, 2-Sided|||||||0.84
91019675|NCT00068770|181923188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.0||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|5.5||not adjusted|t-test, 2 sided|||two independent group comparisons||5.5|1.5|0.82
91019676|NCT00068770|181923189|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|equivalence analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.8||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|6.3|||Log Rank|||||6.3|1.1|0.11
91019677|NCT01988493|181923192|EQUIVALENCE|Sample size required 100 TTP events to ensure 80% power with a two-sided significance level of 10% for rejecting the null hypothesis of equal treatment effect between treatment arms.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.46||||0.0087|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.28|0.76|||Log Rank|||||0.76|0.28|0.0087
91019678|NCT01988493|181923193|EQUIVALENCE|Sample size required 100 TTP events to ensure 80% power with a two-sided significance level of 10% for rejecting the null hypothesis of equal treatment effect between treatment arms.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53||||0.0229||90.0|0.33|0.84|||Log Rank|||||0.84|0.33|0.0229
91019679|NCT01988493|181923194|EQUIVALENCE|Sample size required 100 TTP events to ensure 80% power with a two-sided significance level of 10% for rejecting the null hypothesis of equal treatment effect between treatment arms.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.2333||90.0|0.45|1.14|||Log Rank|||||1.14|0.45|0.2333
91019680|NCT01988493|181923195|EQUIVALENCE|Sample size required 100 TTP events to ensure 80% power with a two-sided significance level of 10% for rejecting the null hypothesis of equal treatment effect between treatment arms.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.45||||0.0059||90.0|0.28|0.73|||Log Rank|||||0.73|0.28|0.0059
91019681|NCT01988493|181923208|EQUIVALENCE|Sample size required 100 TTP events to ensure 80% power with a two-sided significance level of 10% for rejecting the null hypothesis of equal treatment effect between treatment arms.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.8915||90.0|0.62|1.77|||Log Rank|||||1.77|0.62|0.8915
91019682|NCT01988493|181923209|EQUIVALENCE|Sample size required 100 TTP events to ensure 80% power with a two-sided significance level of 10% for rejecting the null hypothesis of equal treatment effect between treatment arms.||||||0.0438|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0438
91019683|NCT01988493|181923211|EQUIVALENCE|Sample size required 100 TTP events to ensure 80% power with a two-sided significance level of 10% for rejecting the null hypothesis of equal treatment effect between treatment arms.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59||||0.0496|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.38|0.92|||Log Rank|||||0.92|0.38|0.0496
91019684|NCT01988493|181923212|EQUIVALENCE|Sample size required 100 TTP events to ensure 80% power with a two-sided significance level of 10% for rejecting the null hypothesis of equal treatment effect between treatment arms.||||||0.0527|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0527
91019685|NCT00535301|181923214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.24|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.0||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.6|||Chi-squared|||Sample size was calculated based on previously-published anatomic success rates of standard anterior colporrhaphy (50%) and polypropylene mesh-reinforced anterior vaginal repair (85%) (1-10). Assuming a 2-sided hypothesis test with 5% type I error and 80% power, 33 patients in each group would be required to detect an absolute difference of 35% or more in recurrent stage II prolapse. Assuming a 15% drop-out rate, we sought to enroll 76 patients into the clinical trial.||0.6|0.1|0.005
91019686|NCT00535301|181923215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5
91019687|NCT00535301|181923216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
91019688|NCT05144477|181923232|OTHER|Proportion of referrals who provided consent and enrolled into the study was calculated.|Proportion|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.425|0.82||||||||0.820|0.425|
91019689|NCT05144477|181923233|OTHER|Proportion of enrolled participants who remained in the study at 30 days after the end of hospital care was calculated.|Proportion|0.875|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.617|0.985||||||||0.985|0.617|
91019690|NCT05144477|181923234|OTHER|Proportion of participants randomized to the FAID Fear Diary Intervention who wrote in the diary at least twice per week up until the end of hospital care was calculated.|Proportion|0.636|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.308|0.891||||||||0.891|0.308|
91019691|NCT05144477|181923235|OTHER|Proportion of enrolled participants who provided complete data for at least 90% of all study assessments was calculated.|Proportion|0.875|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.617|0.985||||||||0.985|0.617|
91019692|NCT05144477|181923236|OTHER|Proportion of intervention participants who agreed that the ICU diary was acceptable for reducing fear about their loved one's heart was calculated.|Proportion|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.444|0.975||||||||0.975|0.444|
91019693|NCT05144477|181923237|OTHER|Proportion of intervention participants who agreed that the ICU diary was feasible for reducing fear about their loved one's heart was calculated.|Proportion|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.555|0.998||||||||0.998|0.555|
91019694|NCT05144477|181923238|OTHER|Proportion of intervention participants who agreed that the ICU diary was appropriate for reducing fear about their loved one's heart was calculated.|Proportion|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.348|0.933||||||||0.933|0.348|
91019695|NCT05144477|181923239|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|1.32|||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome analysis at the end of hospital care.||1.32|-0.83|.63
91019696|NCT05144477|181923239|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|1.08|||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome analysis for 30 days after the end of hospital care.||1.08|-0.92|.86
91083905|NCT00237692|182051451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. % of Patients with controlled SBP|73.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.6|80.7|||||Joint National Committee 7 blood pressure control: \< 140/90 mmHg for non-diabetics; \<130/80 mmHg for diabetics|Estimated % of participants with controlled systolic BP at 12 months||80.7|65.6|
90956561|NCT04797650|181792785|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-1.0||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Satisfied evenness hair coverage: Week 24||-1.0|-1.5|< 0.0001
90956562|NCT04797650|181792785|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-1.2||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Satisfied evenness hair coverage: Week 24||-1.2|-1.8|< 0.0001
91019697|NCT05144477|181923240|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|1.21|||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome analysis for the end of hospital care.||1.21|-1.43|.86
91019698|NCT05144477|181923240|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.58|||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome analysis for 30 days after the end of hospital care.||1.58|-1.10|.75
91019699|NCT05144477|181923241|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.7||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.26|5.86|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.86|-23.26|.22
91019700|NCT05144477|181923241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||||χ2(1) = 1.29|||.26
91019701|NCT05144477|181923241|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||A Fisher's Exact Test was conducted to compare the number of participants with a positive screen for PTSD symptoms (score \>=33) to those who did not have a positive screen for PTSD symptoms (score \< 33).||||1.00
91083906|NCT00237692|182051451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. % of Patients with controlled SBP|73.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|66.1|80.7|||||Joint National Committee 7 blood pressure control: \< 140/90 mmHg for non-diabetics; \<130/80 mmHg for diabetics|Estimated % of participants with controlled systolic BP at 12 months.||80.7|66.1|
91019702|NCT00639158|181923242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The treatment group comparisons for both primary efficacy variables must have demonstrated superiority of ABT-335 + atorvastatin + ezetimibe to declare this arm successful. Thus, no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A sample size of 212 per arm provided 90% power and \> 99% power with a 2-sided alpha = 0.05 level to detect differences between treatment arms of 6% and 17% in the percent change in HDL-C and TG, respectively, assuming an SD of 19% and 30%, respectively. This sample size provided an overall power of approximately 90% for the 2 primary comparisons. If a loss to follow-up rate of 8% was assumed, the sample size needed to be increased to 230 per arm to maintain the above power.||||< 0.001
91019703|NCT00639158|181923243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Corresponding baseline lipid value as the covariate and with effect for treatment group.||Secondary endpoints were tested in fixed sequence. If superiority of ABT-335 + atorvastatin + ezetimibe treatment was demonstrated for primary endpoints, secondary endpoints were tested in ranked order of apoA1, VLDL-C, apoC3, non-HDL-C, apoB, and hsCRP at alpha = 0.05 level until 1 secondary endpoint failed to reach statistical significance.||||0.004
91019704|NCT00639158|181923244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The treatment group comparisons for both primary efficacy variables must have demonstrated superiority of ABT-335 + atorvastatin + ezetimibe to declare this arm successful. Thus, no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Corresponding baseline lipid value as the covariate and with effect for treatment group.||A sample size of 212 per arm provided 90% power and \> 99% power with a 2-sided alpha = 0.05 level to detect differences between treatment arms of 6% and 17% in the percent change in HDL-C and TG, respectively, assuming an SD of 19% and 30%, respectively. This sample size provided an overall power of approximately 90% for the 2 primary comparisons. If a loss to follow-up rate of 8% was assumed, the sample size needed to be increased to 230 per arm to maintain the above power.||||< 0.001
91019705|NCT00639158|181923245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Corresponding baseline lipid value as the covariate and with effect for treatment group.||Secondary endpoints were tested in fixed sequence. If superiority of ABT-335 + atorvastatin + ezetimibe treatment was demonstrated for primary endpoints, secondary endpoints were tested in ranked order of apoA1, VLDL-C, apoC3, non-HDL-C, apoB, and hsCRP at alpha = 0.05 level until 1 secondary endpoint failed to reach statistical significance.||||< 0.001
91019706|NCT00639158|181923246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Corresponding lipid value as the covariate and with effect for treatment group.||Secondary endpoints were tested in fixed sequence. If superiority of ABT-335 + atorvastatin + ezetimibe treatment was demonstrated for primary endpoints, secondary endpoints were tested in ranked order of apoA1, VLDL-C, apoC3, non-HDL-C, apoB, and hsCRP at alpha = 0.05 level until 1 secondary endpoint failed to reach statistical significance.||||< 0.001
91019707|NCT00639158|181923247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Corresponding baseline lipid value as the covariate and with effect for treatment group.||Secondary endpoints were tested in fixed sequence. If superiority of ABT-335 + atorvastatin + ezetimibe treatment was demonstrated for primary endpoints, secondary endpoints were tested in ranked order of apoA1, VLDL-C, apoC3, non-HDL-C, apoB, and hsCRP at alpha = 0.05 level until 1 secondary endpoint failed to reach statistical significance.||||< 0.001
91019708|NCT00639158|181923248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Corresponding baseline lipid value as the covariate and with effect for treatment group.||Secondary endpoints were tested in fixed sequence. If superiority of ABT-335 + atorvastatin + ezetimibe treatment was demonstrated for primary endpoints, secondary endpoints were tested in ranked order of apoA1, VLDL-C, apoC3, non-HDL-C, apoB, and hsCRP at alpha = 0.05 level until 1 secondary endpoint failed to reach statistical significance.||||< 0.001
91019709|NCT00639158|181923249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Rank-sum test||Secondary endpoints were tested in fixed sequence. If superiority of ABT-335 + atorvastatin + ezetimibe treatment was demonstrated for primary endpoints, secondary endpoints were tested in ranked order of apoA1, VLDL-C, apoC3, non-HDL-C, apoB, and hsCRP at alpha = 0.05 level until 1 secondary endpoint failed to reach statistical significance.||||< 0.001
91019710|NCT01787188|181923250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-10.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.097||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.93|-4.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.75|-16.93|0.0005
91019711|NCT01787188|181923250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-8.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.154||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.94|-2.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.53|-14.94|0.0059
91019712|NCT01787188|181923251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-9.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.641||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|-4.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.42|-14.80|0.0003
91083907|NCT00237692|182051451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. % of Patients with controlled SBP|68.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.5|76.6|||||Joint National Committee 7 blood pressure control: \< 140/90 mmHg for non-diabetics; \<130/80 mmHg for diabetics|Estimated % of participants with controlled Systolic BP at 12 months.||76.6|60.5|
91083908|NCT00237692|182051451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Diff|13.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|24.4||||||Estimated Difference in Percentage of Patients with Controlled Systolic Blood pressure between Intervention Arm 2 - Nurse Behavioral and Arm 1 - Control at 12 months.||24.4|2.0|
91083909|NCT00237692|182051451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Diff|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|24.6||||||Estimated Difference in Percentage of Patients with Controlled Systolic Blood pressure between Intervention Arm 3 - Nurse Med Management and Arm 1 - Control at 12 months.||24.6|2.4|
90956563|NCT04797650|181792785|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.8||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||How satisfied with your eyebrows: Week 12||-0.8|-1.3|< 0.0001
91019713|NCT01787188|181923251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.696||0.1486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.40|-9.20|0.1486
91019714|NCT01787188|181923252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-10.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.865||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.97|-4.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.70|-15.97|0.0004
91019715|NCT01787188|181923252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-9.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.917||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.58|-4.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.10|-15.58|0.0008
90956564|NCT04797650|181792785|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.8||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||How satisfied with your eyebrows: Week 12||-0.8|-1.4|< 0.0001
91019716|NCT01787188|181923253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-10.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.521|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|-5.48|||ANCOVA|||||-5.48|-15.40|<0.0001
91019717|NCT01787188|181923253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-7.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.561||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.85|-2.78|||ANCOVA|||||-2.78|-12.85|0.0024
91019718|NCT01787188|181923254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-10.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.623|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.49|-5.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.18|-15.49|<0.0001
91019719|NCT01787188|181923254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-4.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.662||0.0997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.63|0.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.84|-9.63|0.0997
91019720|NCT01787188|181923255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-9.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.905||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.54|-4.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.11|-15.54|0.0008
91019721|NCT01787188|181923255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-9.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.951||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.22|-3.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.62|-15.22|0.0015
91019722|NCT01787188|181923256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-10.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.147||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.32|-3.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.94|-16.32|0.0014
91019723|NCT01787188|181923256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-9.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.198||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.27|-3.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.69|-16.27|0.0019
91019724|NCT01787188|181923257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-10.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.593|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.57|-5.37|||ANCOVA|||||-5.37|-15.57|<0.0001
91019725|NCT01787188|181923257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-8.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.627||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.33|-2.99|||ANCOVA|||||-2.99|-13.33|0.0020
91019726|NCT01787188|181923258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-10.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.686||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.73|-5.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.17|-15.73|0.0001
91019727|NCT01787188|181923258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-4.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.725||0.1065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.77|0.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.95|-9.77|0.1065
91019728|NCT01787188|181923259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-9.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.961||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5|-3.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.85|-15.50|0.0012
91019729|NCT01787188|181923259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-9.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.006||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.56|-3.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.74|-15.56|0.0014
90956565|NCT04797650|181792785|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.8||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||How satisfied with your eyebrows: Week 16||-0.8|-1.3|< 0.0001
91019730|NCT01787188|181923260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-10.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.194||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.54|-3.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.97|-16.54|0.0014
91019731|NCT01787188|181923260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-10.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.24||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.82|-4.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.08|-16.82|0.0014
91019732|NCT01787188|181923261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-10.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.646|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.72|-5.31|||ANCOVA|||||-5.31|-15.72|<0.0001
91019733|NCT01787188|181923261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-8.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.68||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.71|-3.17|||ANCOVA|||||-3.17|-13.71|0.0018
91019734|NCT01787188|181923262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-10.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.831||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.55|-5.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.41|-16.55|0.0001
91019735|NCT01787188|181923262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-6.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.89||0.0379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.71|-0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.34|-11.71|0.0379
91019736|NCT01787188|181923263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-12.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.152||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.42|-6.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-6.02|-18.42|0.0001
91019737|NCT01787188|181923263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-9.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.21||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.41|-2.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.78|-15.41|0.0049
91019738|NCT01787188|181923264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-10.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.359||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.55|-4.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.33|-17.55|0.0012
91019739|NCT01787188|181923264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-9.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.422||0.0066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.09|-2.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.63|-16.09|0.0066
91019740|NCT01787188|181923265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-11.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.751|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.08|-6.26|||ANCOVA|||||-6.26|-17.08|<0.0001
91019741|NCT01787188|181923265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-8.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.795||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.74|-2.74|||ANCOVA|||||-2.74|-13.74|0.0034
91019742|NCT00854607|181923266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28||||0.166|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|0.77||One-Sided P-value|t-test, 1 sided|||Mean Difference between Non-Responders and Responders||0.77|-0.20|0.166
91019743|NCT00854607|181923267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.269|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.65|0.3||One-Sided P-value|t-test, 1 sided|||Mean Difference between Non-Responders and Responders||0.30|-0.65|0.269
91019744|NCT00854607|181923268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19||||0.101|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.06|0.44||One-Sided P-Value|t-test, 1 sided|||Mean Difference between Non-Responders and Responders||0.44|-0.06|0.101
91019745|NCT00854607|181923269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.457|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.42|0.47||One-Sided P-Value|t-test, 1 sided|||Mean Difference Between Non-Responders and Responders||0.47|-0.42|0.457
91019746|NCT00854607|181923270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.87|0.23||One-Sided P-Value|t-test, 1 sided|||Mean Difference between Non-Responders and Responders||0.23|-0.87|0.168
91083910|NCT00237692|182051451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% diff|8.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|20.2||||||Estimated Difference in Percentage of Patients with Controlled Systolic Blood pressure between Intervention Arm 4 - Combined Behavioral \& Med Mgmt and Arm 1 - Control at 12 months.||20.2|-2.9|
91083911|NCT00237692|182051452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. % of Patients with controlled SBP|61.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.0|70.6|||||Joint National Committee 7 blood pressure control: \< 140/90 mmHg for non-diabetics; \<130/80 mmHg for diabetics|Estimated % of participants with controlled Systolic BP at 18 months||70.6|53.0|
91083912|NCT00237692|182051452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. % of Patients with controlled SBP|59.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.8|67.9|||||Joint National Committee 7 blood pressure control: \< 140/90 mmHg for non-diabetics; \<130/80 mmHg for diabetics|Estimated % of participants with controlled BP at 18 months||67.9|50.8|
91083913|NCT00237692|182051452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. % of Patients with controlled SBP|63.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.1|72.0|||||Joint National Committee 7 blood pressure control: \< 140/90 mmHg for non-diabetics; \<130/80 mmHg for diabetics|Estimated % of participants with controlled systolic BP at 18 months.||72.0|55.1|
91019747|NCT00854607|181923271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.09|0.46||One-Sided P-Value|t-test, 1 sided|||Mean Difference between Non-Responders and Responders||0.46|-0.09|0.127
91019748|NCT00854607|181923272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.01|0.96||One-Sided P-Value|t-test, 1 sided|||Mean Difference between Non-Responders and Responders||0.96|-0.01|0.054
91019749|NCT00854607|181923273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||0.285|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.41|0.83||One-Sided P-Value|t-test, 1 sided|||Mean Difference between Non-Responders and Responders||0.83|-0.41|0.285
91019750|NCT00854607|181923274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41||||0.159|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.27|1.08||One-Sided P-Value|t-test, 1 sided|||Mean Difference between Non-Responders and Responders||1.08|-0.27|0.159
91019751|NCT00854607|181923275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.02|0.32||One-Sided P-Value|t-test, 1 sided|||Mean Difference between Non-Responders and Responders||0.32|-0.02|0.071
91019752|NCT00854607|181923276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.03|0.38||One-Sided P-Value|t-test, 1 sided|||Mean Difference between Non-Responders and Responders||0.38|-0.03|0.078
91019753|NCT00854607|181923277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.39||||0.109|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.13|0.91||One-Sided P-Value|t-test, 1 sided|||Mean Difference between Non-Responders and Responders||0.91|-0.13|0.109
91019754|NCT00854607|181923278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.65||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.09|1.22||One-Sided P-Value|t-test, 1 sided|||Mean Difference between Non-Responders and Responders||1.22|0.09|0.030
91019755|NCT00854607|181923279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16||||0.293|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.63|0.32||One-Sided P-value|t-test, 1 sided|||Mean Difference between Non-Responders and Responders||0.32|-0.63|0.293
91019756|NCT00854607|181923280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27||||0.213|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.83|0.29||One-Sided P-Value|t-test, 1 sided|||Mean Difference between Non-Responders and Responders||0.29|-0.83|0.213
91019757|NCT01783483|181923283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of mean CT scan scores.||||<0.0001
91019758|NCT01783483|181923284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0007
91083914|NCT00237692|182051452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. % of Patients with controlled SBP|71.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.7|79.5|||||Joint National Committee 7 blood pressure control: \< 140/90 mmHg for non-diabetics; \<130/80 mmHg for diabetics|Estimated % of participants with controlled systolic BP at 18 months||79.5|63.7|
91083915|NCT00237692|182051452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Diff|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|9.7||||||Estimated Difference in Percentage of Patients with Controlled Systolic Blood pressure between Intervention Arm 2 - Nurse Behavioral and Arm 1 - Control at 18 months.||9.7|-14.6|
91083916|NCT00237692|182051452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Diff|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|13.8||||||Estimated Difference in Percentage of Patients with Controlled Systolic Blood pressure between Intervention Arm 3 - Nurse Med Management and Arm 1 - Control at 18 months.||13.8|-10.3|
91019759|NCT01783483|181923285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0539|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||At Rest||||0.0539
91019760|NCT01783483|181923285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0015|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||After Forced Coughing||||0.0015
91019761|NCT01783483|181923286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2125|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||At Rest||||0.2125
91019762|NCT01783483|181923286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0014|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||After Forced Coughing||||0.0014
91019763|NCT01783483|181923287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0049|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||At Rest||||0.0049
91019764|NCT01783483|181923287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0183|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||After Forced Coughing||||0.0183
91019765|NCT01783483|181923288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6653|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||At Rest||||0.6653
91019766|NCT01783483|181923288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2295|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||After Forced Coughing||||0.2295
91019767|NCT01783483|181923290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Index (Day 0 to Hospital Discharge)||||0.370
91019768|NCT01783483|181923291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.778|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||From Hospital Discharge to 3-week||||0.778
91019769|NCT01783483|181923292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.055|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||From 3-week to 6-week post-op||||0.055
91019770|NCT01783483|181923294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.113|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||From 3 month to 6-month post op||||0.113
91019771|NCT02268045|181923295|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The RR, with the corresponding 95% CI, was calculated for each treatment arm and compared using Fisher's exact test at a one-sided 0.025 type I error rate. A non-inferiority margin of 13% was assumed with ≥ 80% power to detect treatment differences. Non-inferiority was concluded if the one-sided 95% CI was above the -13% margin set for the study.|Percentage difference|0.7|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|-13.0||||||For the ITT population||||-13|
91019772|NCT02268045|181923295|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The RR, with the corresponding 95% CI, was calculated for each treatment arm and compared using Fisher's exact test at a one-sided 0.025 type I error rate. A non-inferiority margin of 13% was assumed with ≥ 80% power to detect treatment differences. Non-inferiority was concluded if the one-sided 95% CI was above the -13% margin set for the study.|percentage difference|3.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|-13.0||||||For the PP population||||-13|
91019773|NCT02268045|181923296|EQUIVALENCE|Two treatments are judged not to be different from one another if the 90% CI of the ratio of a log-transformed exposure measure (AUC) falls completely within the range 80%-125%.|ratio RTXM83 to Mabthera|99.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.6|105.0|||||For the ratio: RTXM83 represents the numerator and Mabthera the denominator|||105|93.6|
91019774|NCT02268045|181923297|EQUIVALENCE|Two treatments are judged not to be different from one another if the 90% CI of the ratio of a log-transformed exposure measure (AUC) falls completely within the range 80%-125%.|ratio RTXM83 to Mabthera|103.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.5|107.0|||||For the ratio: RTXM83 represents the numerator and Mabthera the denominator|||107|98.5|
91019775|NCT02268045|181923298|EQUIVALENCE|Two treatments are judged not to be different from one another if the 90% CI of the ratio of a log-transformed exposure measure (AUC) falls completely within the range 80%-125%.|ratio RTXM83 to Mabthera|99.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.9|105.0|||||For the ratio: RTXM83 represents the numerator and Mabthera the denominator|||105|93.9|
91019776|NCT02268045|181923299|EQUIVALENCE|Two treatments are judged not to be different from one another if the 90% CI of the ratio of a log-transformed exposure measure (AUC) falls completely within the range 80%-125%.|ratio RTXM83 to Mabthera|104.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.5|109.0|||||For the ratio: RTXM83 represents the numerator and Mabthera the denominator|||109|99.5|
91019777|NCT02268045|181923303|OTHER|||||||0.457|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.4570
91019778|NCT01556490|181923317|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.4552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.31|||Log Rank|||||1.31|0.89|0.4552
91019779|NCT01556490|181923318|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.0626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.01|||Log Rank|||||1.01|0.61|0.0626
91019780|NCT01556490|181923319|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.0227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.96|||Log Rank|||||.96|.59|0.0227
91019781|NCT01556490|181923320|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.89|||Log Rank|||||.89|.52|0.0043
91019782|NCT01556490|181923321|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.5||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.6|22.3|||2 sided calculated using continuity|2 sided calculated using continuity adjusted Wald Approach||||22.3|8.6|0.0001
91019783|NCT02058368|181923324|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.79||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|1.65||Change from Baseline = Treatment + Country + Baseline Value. P-values for Dut 0.5 mg + Tam 0.2 mg versus Placebo + Tam 0.2mg are based on t-tests from the general linear model. Reported means are model based adjusted means.|General linear model||Estimates are based on adjusted means from the general linear model. The adjusted mean difference was based on combination minus tamsulosin monotherapy for Month 3.|||1.65|-0.06|0.069
91019784|NCT02058368|181923324|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|1.29||Change from Baseline = Treatment + Country + Baseline Value. P-values for Dut 0.5 mg + Tam 0.2 mg versus Placebo + Tam 0.2 mg are based on t-tests from the general linear model. Reported means are model based adjusted means.|General linear model||Estimates are based on adjusted means from the general linear model. The adjusted mean difference was based on combination minus tamsulosin monotherapy for Month 6.|||1.29|-0.55|0.43
91019785|NCT02058368|181923324|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|0.77||Change from Baseline = Treatment + Country + Baseline Value. P-values for Dut 0.5 mg + Tam 0.2 mg versus Placebo + Tam 0.2 mg are based on t-tests from the general linear model. Reported means are model based adjusted means.|General linear model||Estimates are based on adjusted means from the general linear model. The adjusted mean difference was based on combination minus tamsulosin monotherapy for Month 9.|||0.77|-1.05|0.76
91019786|NCT02058368|181923324|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|0.53||Change from Baseline = Treatment + Country + Baseline Value. P-values for Dut 0.5 mg + Tam 0.2 mg versus Placebo + Tam 0.2 mg are based on t-tests from the general linear model. Reported means are model based adjusted means|General linear model||Estimates are based on adjusted means from the general linear model. The adjusted mean difference was based on combination minus tamsulosin monotherapy for Month 12.|||0.53|-1.27|0.41
91019787|NCT02058368|181923324|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.95||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|-0.05||Change from Baseline = Treatment + Country + Baseline Value. P-values for Dut 0.5 mg+Tam 0.2 mg versus Placebo+ Tam 0.2 mg are based on t-tests from the general linear model. Reported means are model based adjusted means|General linear model||Estimates are based on adjusted means from the general linear model. The adjusted mean difference was based on combination minus tamsulosin monotherapy for Month 15.|||-0.05|-1.85|0.039
91019788|NCT02058368|181923324|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|0.26||Change from Baseline = Treatment + Country + Baseline Value. P-values for Dut 0.5 mg+Tam 0.2 mg versus Placebo+ Tam 0.2 mg are based on t-tests from the general linear model. Reported means are model based adjusted means|General linear model||Estimates are based on adjusted means from the general linear model. The adjusted mean difference was based on combination minus tamsulosin monotherapy for Month 18.|||0.26|-1.65|0.15
91019789|NCT02058368|181923324|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.72||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|0.25||Change from Baseline = Treatment + Country + Baseline Value. P-values for Dut 0.5 mg+Tam 0.2 mg versus Placebo+ Tam 0.2 mg are based on t-tests from the general linear model. Reported means are model based adjusted means|General linear model||Estimates are based on adjusted means from the general linear model. The adjusted mean difference was based on combination minus tamsulosin monotherapy for Month 21.|||0.25|-1.68|0.15
91019790|NCT02058368|181923324|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.43||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.46||Change from Baseline = Treatment + Country + Baseline Value. P-values for Dut 0.5 mg+Tam 0.2 mg versus Placebo+ Tam 0.2 mg are based on t-tests from the general linear model. Reported means are model based adjusted means|General linear model||Estimates are based on adjusted means from the general linear model. The adjusted mean difference was based on combination minus tamsulosin monotherapy for Month 24.|||-0.46|-2.40|0.004
91083917|NCT00237692|182051452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Diff|9.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|21.4||||||Estimated Difference in Percentage of Patients with Controlled Systolic Blood pressure between Intervention Arm 4 - Combined Behavioral \& Med Mgmt and Arm 1 - Control at 18 months.||21.4|-1.9|
91083918|NCT00237692|182051454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. % Diff in Patient w/Controlled SBP|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|7.1|||||Systolic blood pressure estimates are based on the longitudinal data model with an unstructured covariance matrix. Negative differences reflect improvement compared to usual care, and positive differences reflect worsening compared to usual care.|Estimated differences in systolic blood pressure at 12months between Arm 1 - Control and Arm 2 - Nurse Behavioral||7.1|-3.1|
91019791|NCT02058368|181923325|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.48|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.9|-20.1||Estimates are based on the adjusted means from the general linear model: Log(Post-Baseline Prostate Volume / Baseline Prostate Volume) = Log(Baseline Prostate Volume) + Treatment + Country. P-values are based on t-tests from the general linear model.|General linear model||The adjusted mean estimates, adjusted mean differences, and confidence intervals are expressed in terms of percentage change from Baseline for Month 12.|||-20.1|-25.9|<.001
91019792|NCT02058368|181923325|SUPERIORITY|Estimates are based on the adjusted means from the general linear model: Log(Post-Baseline Prostate Volume / Baseline Prostate Volume) = Log(Baseline Prostate Volume) + Treatment + Country. P-values are based on t-tests from the general linear model.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-28.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.65|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.7|-25.2|||General linear model||The adjusted mean estimates, adjusted mean differences, and confidence intervals are expressed in terms of percentage change from Baseline for Month 24|||-25.2|-31.7|<.001
91019793|NCT02058368|181923326|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91||||||P-value for IPSS improvement \>= 3 units has been presented for Month 3|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.91
91019794|NCT02058368|181923326|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31||||||P-value for IPSS improvement \>= 2 units has been presented for Month 3|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.31
91019795|NCT02058368|181923326|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42||||||P-value for IPSS improvement \>= 25 percent has been presented for Month 3|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.42
91019796|NCT02058368|181923326|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92||||||P-value for IPSS improvement \>= 3 units has been presented for Month 6|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.92
91019797|NCT02058368|181923326|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89||||||P-value for IPSS improvement \>= 2 units has been presented for Month 6|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.89
91019798|NCT02058368|181923326|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81||||||P-value for IPSS improvement \>= 25 percent has been presented for Month 6|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.81
91019799|NCT02058368|181923326|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08||||||P-value for IPSS improvement \>= 3 units has been presented for Month 9|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.080
91019800|NCT02058368|181923326|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42||||||P-value for IPSS improvement \>= 2 units has been presented for Month 9|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.42
91019801|NCT02058368|181923326|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06||||||P-value for IPSS improvement \>= 25 percent has been presented for Month 9|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.060
91019802|NCT02058368|181923326|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14||||||P-value for IPSS improvement \>= 3 units has been presented for Month 12|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.14
91019803|NCT02058368|181923326|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26||||||P-value for IPSS improvement \>= 2 units has been presented for Month 12|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.26
91019804|NCT02058368|181923326|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.048||||||P-value for IPSS improvement \>= 25 percent has been presented for Month 12|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.048
91019805|NCT02058368|181923326|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17||||||P-value for IPSS improvement \>= 3 units has been presented for Month 15|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.17
91019806|NCT02058368|181923326|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11||||||P-value for IPSS improvement \>= 2 units has been presented for Month 15|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.11
91019807|NCT02058368|181923326|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022||||||P-value for IPSS improvement \>= 25 percent has been presented for Month 15|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.022
91019808|NCT02058368|181923326|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18||||||P-value for IPSS improvement \>= 3 units has been presented for Month 18|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.18
91019809|NCT02058368|181923326|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19||||||P-value for IPSS improvement \>= 2 units has been presented for Month 18|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.19
91019810|NCT02058368|181923326|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28||||||P-value for IPSS improvement \>= 25 percent has been presented for Month 18|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.28
91019811|NCT02058368|181923326|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39||||||P-value for IPSS improvement \>= 3 units has been presented for Month 21|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.39
91019812|NCT02058368|181923326|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42||||||P-value for IPSS improvement \>= 2 units has been presented for Month 21|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.42
91019813|NCT02058368|181923326|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.084||||||P-value for IPSS improvement \>= 25 percent has been presented for Month 21|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.084
91019814|NCT02058368|181923326|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016||||||P-value for IPSS improvement \>= 3 units has been presented for Month 24|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.016
91019815|NCT02058368|181923326|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.047||||||P-value for IPSS improvement \>= 2 units has been presented for Month 24|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.047
91019816|NCT02058368|181923326|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007||||||P-value for IPSS improvement \>= 25 percent has been presented for Month 24|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.007
91019817|NCT02058368|181923327|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.56||Estimates are based on the adjusted means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Country + Baseline Value for Month 6|General linear model||The adjusted mean difference was based on Dut+Tam minus Tam|||1.56|0.26|0.006
91019818|NCT02058368|181923327|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.69||Estimates are based on the adjusted means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Country + Baseline Value for Month 12|General linear model||The adjusted mean difference was based on Dut+Tam minus Tam|||1.69|0.30|0.005
91019819|NCT02058368|181923327|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.29||Estimates are based on the adjusted means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Country + Baseline Value for Month 18|General linear model||The adjusted mean difference was based on Dut+Tam minus Tam|||2.29|0.63|<.001
91019820|NCT02058368|181923327|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|2.15||Estimates are based on the adjusted means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Country + Baseline Value for Month 24|General linear model||The adjusted mean difference was based on Dut+Tam minus Tam|||2.15|0.54|0.001
91019821|NCT02058368|181923328|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13||||||P-value for Dut+Tam vs. Tam is based on a Mantel-Haenszel test controlling for country for \>= 3 mL/sec for Month 6|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.13
91019822|NCT02058368|181923328|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15||||||P-value for Dut+Tam vs. Tam is based on a Mantel-Haenszel test controlling for country for \>= 30 % for Month 6|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.15
91019823|NCT02058368|181923328|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value for Dut+Tam vs. Tam is based on a Mantel-Haenszel test controlling for country for \>= 3 mL/sec for Month 12|Mantel Haenszel|||||||<.001
91019824|NCT02058368|181923328|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||P-value for Dut+Tam vs. Tam is based on a Mantel-Haenszel test controlling for country for \>= 30 % for Month 12|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.003
91019825|NCT02058368|181923328|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||P-value for Dut+Tam vs. Tam is based on a Mantel-Haenszel test controlling for country for \>= 3 mL/sec for Month 18|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.002
91019826|NCT02058368|181923328|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009||||||P-value for Dut+Tam vs. Tam is based on a Mantel-Haenszel test controlling for country for \>= 30 % for Month 18|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.009
91019827|NCT02058368|181923328|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value for Dut+Tam vs. Tam is based on a Mantel-Haenszel test controlling for country for \>= 3 mL/sec for Month 24|Mantel Haenszel|||||||<.001
91019828|NCT02058368|181923328|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value for Dut+Tam vs. Tam is based on a Mantel-Haenszel test controlling for country for \>= 30 % for Month 24|Mantel Haenszel|||||||<.001
91019829|NCT02058368|181923329|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.27||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.81||Relative Risk (hazard ratio) for Dut+Tam vs. Tam is based on the Cox Proportional Hazards Model with stratification by country.|Log Rank|||||0.81|0.09|0.012
91019830|NCT02058368|181923330|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.15||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.68||Relative Risk (hazard ratio) for Dut+Tam vs. Tam is based on the Cox Proportional Hazards Model with stratification by country.|Log Rank|||||0.68|0.03|0.005
91019831|NCT02058368|181923331|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.69||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|4.11||Relative Risk (hazard ratio) for Dut+Tam vs. Tam is based on the Cox Proportional Hazards Model with stratification by country.|Log Rank|||||4.11|0.11|0.68
91019832|NCT02058368|181923332|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.21||Estimates are based on the adjusted means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline =Treatment + Country + Baseline Value for Month 3|General linear model||The adjusted mean difference was based on Dut+Tam minus Tam|||0.21|-0.17|0.83
91019833|NCT02058368|181923332|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.36||Estimates are based on the adjusted means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline =Treatment + Country + Baseline Value for Month 6|General linear model||The adjusted mean difference was based on Dut+Tam minus Tam|||0.36|-0.04|0.11
91019834|NCT02058368|181923332|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.34||Estimates are based on the adjusted means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline =Treatment + Country + Baseline Value for Month 9|General linear model||The adjusted mean difference was based on Dut+Tam minus Tam|||0.34|-0.07|0.21
91019835|NCT02058368|181923332|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.18||Estimates are based on the adjusted means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline =Treatment + Country + Baseline Value for Month 12|General linear model||The adjusted mean difference was based on Dut+Tam minus Tam|||0.18|-0.23|0.80
91019836|NCT02058368|181923332|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.11||Estimates are based on the adjusted means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Country + Baseline Value for Month 15|General linear model||The adjusted mean difference was based on Dut+Tam minus Tam|||0.11|-0.30|0.37
91019837|NCT02058368|181923332|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.13||Estimates are based on the adjusted means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Country + Baseline Value for Month 18|General linear model||The adjusted mean difference was based on Dut+Tam minus Tam|||0.13|-0.30|0.44
91019838|NCT02058368|181923332|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.28||Estimates are based on the adjusted means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Country + Baseline Value for Month 21|General linear model||The adjusted mean difference was based on Dut+Tam minus Tam|||0.28|-0.16|0.60
91019839|NCT02058368|181923332|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.06||Estimates are based on the adjusted means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Country + Baseline Value for Month 24|General linear model||The adjusted mean difference was based on Dut+Tam minus Tam|||0.06|-0.37|0.16
91019840|NCT02058368|181923333|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.62||Estimates are based on the adjusted means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Country + Baseline Value. P-values for Dut+Tam versus Tam are based on t-tests from the general linear model.|General linear model||The adjusted mean difference was based on Dut+Tam minus Tam for Month 3|||0.62|-0.11|0.17
91019841|NCT02058368|181923333|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.59||Estimates are based on the adjusted means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Country + Baseline Value. P-values for Dut+Tam versus Tam are based on t-tests from the general linear model.|General linear model||The adjusted mean difference was based on Dut+Tam minus Tam for Month 6|||0.59|-0.20|0.33
91019842|NCT02058368|181923333|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.68||Estimates are based on the adjusted means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Country + Baseline Value. P-values for Dut+Tam versus Tam are based on t-tests from the general linear model.|General linear model||The adjusted mean difference was based on Dut+Tam minus Tam for Month 9|||0.68|-0.10|0.15
91019843|NCT02058368|181923333|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.55||Estimates are based on the adjusted means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Country + Baseline Value. P-values for Dut+Tam versus Tam are based on t-tests from the general linear model.|General linear model||The adjusted mean difference was based on Dut+Tam minus Tam for Month 12|||0.55|-0.25|0.46
91083919|NCT00237692|182051454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. Dif in Patient w/Controlled DBP|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|3.8|||||Diastolic blood pressure estimates are based on the longitudinal data model with an unstructured covariance matrix. Negative differences reflect improvement compared to usual care, and positive differences reflect worsening compared to usual care.|Estimated differences in diastolic blood pressure at 12months between Arm 1 - Control and Arm 2 - Nurse Behavioral||3.8|-2.7|
91083920|NCT00237692|182051454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. % Diff in Patient w/Controlled SBP|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|5.5|||||Systolic blood pressure estimates are based on the longitudinal data model with an unstructured covariance matrix. Negative differences reflect improvement compared to usual care, and positive differences reflect worsening compared to usual care.|Estimated differences in systolic blood pressure at 12months between Arm 1 - Control and Arm 3 - Nurse Med Management.||5.5|-4.8|
91083921|NCT00237692|182051454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. % Diff in Patient w/Controlled DBP|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|4.0|||||Diastolic blood pressure estimates are based on the longitudinal data model with an unstructured covariance matrix. Negative differences reflect improvement compared to usual care, and positive differences reflect worsening compared to usual care.|Estimated differences in diastolic blood pressure at 12months between Arm 1 - Control and Arm 3 - Nuse Med Management||4.0|-2.6|
91083922|NCT00237692|182051454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. % Diff in Patient w/Controlled SBP|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|6.6|||||Systolic blood pressure estimates are based on the longitudinal data model with an unstructured covariance matrix. Negative differences reflect improvement compared to usual care, and positive differences reflect worsening compared to usual care.|Estimated differences in systolic blood pressure at 12months between Arm 1 - Control and Arm 4 - Combined Behaviorial and Med Management||6.6|-3.3|
91083923|NCT00237692|182051454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. % Diff in Patient w/Controlled DBP|3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|6.6|||||Diastolic blood pressure estimates are based on the longitudinal data model with an unstructured covariance matrix. Negative differences reflect improvement compared to usual care, and positive differences reflect worsening compared to usual care.|Estimated differences in diastolic blood pressure at 12months between Arm 1 - Control and Arm 4 - Combined Behaviorial and Med Management||6.6|0.3|
91083924|NCT00685360|182051455|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio Mean|1.534|||=|0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.107|2.124|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was derived using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by randomization strata (cavitation).||||2.124|1.107|=0.0083
90956566|NCT04797650|181792785|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-1.0||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||How satisfied with your eyebrows: Week 16||-1|-1.6|< 0.0001
91083925|NCT00685360|182051455|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio Mean|1.416|||=|0.0393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.012|1.98||P-value was derived using CMH test stratified by randomization strata (cavitation).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.980|1.012|=0.0393
91083926|NCT00685360|182051467|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio Mean|1.599|||=|0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.175|2.177|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was derived using CMH test stratified by randomization strata (cavitation).||||2.177|1.175|=0.0021
91083927|NCT00685360|182051467|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio Mean|1.939|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.449|2.595|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.595|1.449|<.0001
91083928|NCT00685360|182051468|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2419|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Pairwise comparison was derived from analysis of covariance(ANCOVA)model with factors of treatment, baseline cavitation status and covariate baseline.||||||=0.2419
91083929|NCT00685360|182051468|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2239|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Pairwise comparison is derived from ANCOVA model with factors of treatment, baseline cavitation status and covariate baseline.||||||=0.2239
91083930|NCT00685360|182051468|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.9544|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Pairwise comparison is derived from ANCOVA model with factors of treatment, baseline cavitation status and covariate baseline.||||||=0.9544
91083931|NCT00685360|182051469|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0246|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Pairwise comparison was derived from ANCOVA model with factors of treatment, baseline cavitation status and covariate baseline.||||||=0.0246
91083932|NCT00685360|182051469|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0529|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Pairwise comparison was derived from ANCOVA model with factors of treatment, baseline cavitation status and covariate baseline.||||||=0.0529
91083933|NCT00685360|182051469|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.7508|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Pairwise comparison was derived from ANCOVA model with factors of treatment, baseline cavitation status and covariate baseline.||||||=0.7508
91083934|NCT00685360|182051470|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio Mean|1.272|||=|0.0518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.995|1.627|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was derived using CMH test stratified by randomization strata (cavitation).||||1.627|0.995|=0.0518
91083935|NCT00685360|182051470|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio Mean|1.203|||=|0.1506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.934|1.55|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was derived using CMH test stratified by randomization strata (cavitation).||||1.550|0.934|=0.1506
91083936|NCT00685360|182051471|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio Mean|1.234|||=|0.1201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.945|1.612|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was derived using CMH test stratified by randomization strata (cavitation).||||1.612|0.945|=0.1201
91083937|NCT00685360|182051471|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio Mean|1.099|||=|0.5112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.829|1.456|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was derived using CMH test stratified by randomization strata (cavitation).||||1.456|0.829|=0.5112
91083938|NCT00685360|182051472|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio Mean|1.323|||=|0.0141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.053|1.661|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was derived using CMH test stratified by randomization strata (cavitation).||||1.661|1.053|=0.0141
91083939|NCT00685360|182051472|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio Mean|1.438|||=|0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.155|1.791|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was derived using CMH test stratified by randomization strata (cavitation).||||1.791|1.155|=0.0008
91083940|NCT00685360|182051473|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio Mean|1.341|||=|0.0196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.044|1.722|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was derived using CMH test stratified by randomization strata (cavitation).||||1.722|1.044|=0.0196
91083941|NCT00685360|182051473|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio Mean|1.503|||=|0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.183|1.909|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was derived using CMH test stratified by randomization strata (cavitation).||||1.909|1.183|=0.0006
90956567|NCT04797650|181792785|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-1.0||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||How satisfied with your eyebrows: Week 20||-1.0|-1.5|< 0.0001
91083942|NCT00685360|182051474|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0468|||||||Cochran-Armitage Linear Trend Test|Cochran-Armitage test was performed for dose response with the treatment group ordered as placebo, delamanid 100 mg BID, and delamanid 200 mg BID.||||||=0.0468
91083943|NCT00685360|182051475|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.856|||=|0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.255|2.745|||Stratified Log-Rank Test|p-value was derived from log-rank test with SAS Proc lifetest for comparisons with placebo.|Hazard ratio computed with SAS PROC PHREG for comparisons with placebo.|||2.745|1.255|=0.0011
91083944|NCT00685360|182051475|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.849|||=|0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.246|2.743|||Stratified Log-Rank Test|p-value was derived from log-rank test with SAS Proc lifetest for comparisons with placebo.|Hazard ratio computed with SAS PROC PHREG for comparisons with placebo.|||2.743|1.246|=0.0013
91083945|NCT00685360|182051476|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.926|||=|0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.315|2.82|||Stratified Log-Rank Test|P-value was derived from Log-rank test with SAS PROC LIFETEST for comparisons with placebo.|Hazard ratio computed with SAS PROC PHREG for comparisons with placebo.|||2.820|1.315|=0.0004
91083946|NCT00685360|182051476|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.504|3.189|||Stratified Log-Rank Test|||||3.189|1.504|<.0001
91083947|NCT00685360|182051477|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.727|||=|0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.152|2.591|||Stratified Log-Rank Test|P-value was derived from Log-rank test with SAS PROC LIFETEST for comparisons with placebo.|Hazard ratio computed with SAS PROC PHREG for comparisons with placebo.|||2.591|1.152|=0.0056
91083948|NCT00685360|182051477|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.585|||=|0.0232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.048|2.399|||Stratified Log-Rank Test|P-value was derived from Log-rank test with SAS PROC LIFETEST for comparisons with placebo.|Hazard ratio computed with SAS PROC PHREG for comparisons with placebo.|||2.399|1.048|=0.0232
91083949|NCT00685360|182051478|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.846|||=|0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.235|2.759|||Stratified Log-Rank Test|P-value was derived from log-rank test with SAS PROC LIFETEST for comparisons with placebo.|Hazard ratio computed with SAS PROC PHREG for comparisons with placebo.|||2.759|1.235|=0.0016
91083950|NCT00685360|182051478|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.301|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.555|3.405|||Stratified Log-Rank Test|P-value was derived from Log-rank test with SAS PROC LIFETEST for comparisons with placebo.|Hazard ratio computed with SAS PROC PHREG for comparisons with placebo.|||3.405|1.555|<.0001
91083951|NCT04274075|182051494|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.945|1.12|||||The geometric mean ratio was calculated as Treatment B versus Treatment A.|The sample size chosen for this study was based upon precedent set by other PK studies of similar nature and was not based on power calculations.||1.12|0.945|
91083952|NCT04274075|182051494|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.726|0.859|||||The geometric mean ratio was calculated as Treatment C versus Treatment B.|The sample size chosen for this study was based upon precedent set by other PK studies of similar nature and was not based on power calculations.||0.859|0.726|
91083953|NCT04274075|182051495|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.525|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.225|1.5|||||The Hodges-Lehmann estimate of median difference was calculated as Treatment B versus Treatment A.|The sample size chosen for this study was based upon precedent set by other PK studies of similar nature and was not based on power calculations.||1.50|-0.225|
91083954|NCT04274075|182051495|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|1.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.26|2.45|||||The Hodges-Lehmann estimate of median difference was calculated as Treatment C versus Treatment B.|The sample size chosen for this study was based upon precedent set by other PK studies of similar nature and was not based on power calculations.||2.45|1.26|
91083955|NCT04274075|182051498|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.971|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.903|1.04|||||The geometric mean ratio was calculated as Treatment B versus Treatment A.|The sample size chosen for this study was based upon precedent set by other PK studies of similar nature and was not based on power calculations.||1.04|0.903|
91083956|NCT04274075|182051498|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.919|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.855|0.988|||||The geometric mean ratio was calculated as Treatment C versus Treatment B.|The sample size chosen for this study was based upon precedent set by other PK studies of similar nature and was not based on power calculations.||0.988|0.855|
91083957|NCT04274075|182051499|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.975|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.908|1.05|||||The geometric mean ratio was calculated as Treatment B versus Treatment A.|The sample size chosen for this study was based upon precedent set by other PK studies of similar nature and was not based on power calculations.||1.05|0.908|
91083958|NCT04274075|182051499|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.918|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.856|0.985|||||The geometric mean ratio was calculated as Treatment C versus Treatment B.|The sample size chosen for this study was based upon precedent set by other PK studies of similar nature and was not based on power calculations.||0.985|0.856|
91083959|NCT01386944|182051514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann Estimate|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.5||||||||-0.5|-1.0|
91083960|NCT01386944|182051515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann Estimate|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-1.0||||||||-1.0|-1.5|
91083961|NCT01386944|182051516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann Estimate|-2.0||||||95.0|-2.0|-1.5||||||||-1.5|-2.0|
91083962|NCT01386944|182051517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann Estimate|-2.0||||||95.0|-2.5|-1.5||||||||-1.5|-2.5|
91083963|NCT01386944|182051518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann Estimate|-2.0||||||95.0|-2.5|-1.5||||||||-1.5|-2.5|
91083964|NCT01386944|182051519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann Estimate|-2.0||||||95.0|-2.0|-1.5||||||||-1.5|-2.0|
91083965|NCT03883477|182051521|OTHER|The trial was powered to detect a difference in POSAS score of 10, deemed to be clinically significant by the investigators. To detect a mean difference in POSAS score of 10 points (SD = 8) with a two-sided significance level of 5% and power of 80% with equal allocation to two arms required 12 patients in each arm of the trial.||||||0.013||||||1 week P-value|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.013
91083966|NCT03883477|182051521|OTHER|||||||0.007||||||1 month P-value|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The trial was powered to detect a difference in POSAS score of 10, deemed to be clinically significant by the investigators. To detect a mean difference in POSAS score of 10 points (SD = 8) with a two-sided significance level of 5% and power of 80% with equal allocation to two arms required 12 patients in each arm of the trial.||||0.007
91083967|NCT03883477|182051521|OTHER|||||||0.804||||||6 month P-value|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The trial was powered to detect a difference in POSAS score of 10, deemed to be clinically significant by the investigators. To detect a mean difference in POSAS score of 10 points (SD = 8) with a two-sided significance level of 5% and power of 80% with equal allocation to two arms required 12 patients in each arm of the trial.||||0.804
91083968|NCT03883477|182051522|OTHER|||||||0.142|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.142
91019844|NCT02058368|181923333|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.29||Estimates are based on the adjusted means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Country + Baseline Value. P-values for Dut+Tam versus Tam are based on t-tests from the general linear model.|General linear model||The adjusted mean difference was based on Dut+Tam minus Tam for Month 15|||0.29|-0.51|0.59
91019845|NCT02058368|181923333|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.28||Estimates are based on the adjusted means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Country + Baseline Value. P-values for Dut+Tam versus Tam are based on t-tests from the general linear model.|General linear model||The adjusted mean difference was based on Dut+Tam minus Tam for Month 18|||0.28|-0.52|0.56
91019846|NCT02058368|181923333|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.28||Estimates are based on the adjusted means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Country + Baseline Value. P-values for Dut+Tam versus Tam are based on t-tests from the general linear model.|General linear model||The adjusted mean difference was based on Dut+Tam minus Tam for Month 21|||0.28|-0.56|0.51
91019847|NCT02058368|181923333|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.03||Estimates are based on the adjusted means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Country + Baseline Value. P-values for Dut+Tam versus Tam are based on t-tests from the general linear model.|General linear model||The adjusted mean difference was based on Dut+Tam minus Tam for Month 24|||-0.03|-0.88|0.034
91019848|NCT02058368|181923334|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|-0.5||Estimates are based on the adjusted means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline =Treatment + Country + Baseline Value.P-values for Dut+Tam versus Tam are based on t-tests from the general linear model for Month 12|General linear model||The adjusted mean difference was based on Dut+Tam minus Tam.|||-0.50|-1.54|<.001
91019849|NCT02058368|181923334|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|-0.18||Estimates are based on the adjusted means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Country + Baseline Value. P-values for Dut+Tam versus Tam are based on t-tests from the general linear model for Month 24|General linear model||The adjusted mean difference was based on Dut+Tam minus Tam.|||-0.18|-1.23|0.009
91019850|NCT02058368|181923339|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-1.6||Estimates are based on the adjusted means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Baseline Value for Month 6|General linear model||The adjusted mean difference was based on Dut+Tam minus Tam.|||-1.6|-2.1|<.001
91019851|NCT02058368|181923339|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-1.9||Estimates are based on the adjusted means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Baseline Value for Month 12|General linear model||The adjusted mean difference was based on Dut+Tam minus Tam.|||-1.9|-2.3|<.001
91019852|NCT02058368|181923339|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-2.2||Estimates are based on the adjusted means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline =Treatment + Baseline Value for Month 24|General linear model||The adjusted mean difference was based on Dut+Tam minus Tam.|||-2.2|-3.1|<.001
91019853|NCT02058368|181923341|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77||||||P-value for Dut+Tam vs. Tam is based on a van Elteren test with stratification by country for Month 6|Van Elteren test|||||||0.77
91019854|NCT02058368|181923341|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84||||||P-value for Dut+Tam vs. Tam is based on a van Elteren test with stratification by country for Month 12|Van Elteren test|||||||0.84
91019855|NCT02058368|181923341|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98||||||P-value for Dut+Tam vs. Tam is based on a van Elteren test with stratification by country for Month 18|Van Elteren test|||||||0.98
91019856|NCT02058368|181923341|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28||||||P-value for Dut+Tam vs. Tam is based on a van Elteren test with stratification by country for Month 24|Van Elteren test|||||||0.28
91019857|NCT01652872|181923364|OTHER||Treatment Difference|-0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.39|5.85|||||Difference is fixed dose - titration.|||5.85|-6.39|
91019858|NCT01652872|181923364|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.998|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.776|1.285|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by RBC transfusion received within 12 months prior to randomization (yes/no) and site practice setting (nephrology/non-nephrology).|A risk ratio \< 1.0 indicates a lower event rate for the fixed dose group relative to Hb-based titration group.|||1.285|0.776|
91019859|NCT01652872|181923365|OTHER|Stratified by RBC transfusion received within 12 months prior to randomization (yes/no) and site practice setting (nephrology/non-nephrology) and accounting for participant exposure time.|Least Squares Mean (LSM) Ratio|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.05|||Negative binomial regression model||Least Squares Mean (LSM) ratio is fixed dose relative to titration.|||2.05|0.81|
91019860|NCT01652872|181923366|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.35|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model|Stratified by RBC transfusion received within 12 months prior to randomization (yes/no) and site practice setting (nephrology/non-nephrology).|Hazard ratio is fixed dose relative to titration.|||1.35|0.76|
91019861|NCT01652872|181923367|OTHER||Median of the difference|-0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.22|||Hodges-Lehmann estimate||Difference is fixed dose - titration.||The 2-sided 95% confidence intervals were obtained using a non-parametric Wilcoxon rank-sum statistic.|-0.22|-0.46|
91019862|NCT01652872|181923368|OTHER||Median of the difference|-22.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.1|-18.1|||Hodges-Lehmann estimate||Difference is fixed dose - titration.||The 2-sided 95% confidence intervals were obtained using a non-parametric Wilcoxon rank-sum statistic.|-18.1|-26.1|
91019863|NCT03985293|181923391|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.47||||0.0071|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.76|-0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-0.18|-0.76|0.0071
91019864|NCT03985293|181923391|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.18|-0.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-0.62|-1.18|<.0001
91019865|NCT03985293|181923391|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-1.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.3|-0.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-0.73|-1.30|<.0001
91019866|NCT03985293|181923391|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.94|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.24|-0.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-0.65|-1.24|<.0001
90956568|NCT04797650|181792785|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-1.1||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||How satisfied with your eyebrows: Week 20||-1.1|-1.7|< 0.0001
91019867|NCT03985293|181923391|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-1.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.47|-0.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-0.86|-1.47|<.0001
91019868|NCT03985293|181923392|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.84|14.18|||Regression, Logistic||The Odds ratio model included multiple imputation. PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||14.18|1.84|
91019869|NCT03985293|181923392|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.18|45.93|||Regression, Logistic||The Odds ratio model included multiple imputation. PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||45.93|6.18|
91019870|NCT03985293|181923392|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|18.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.03|50.21|||Regression, Logistic||The Odds ratio model included multiple imputation. PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||50.21|7.03|
91019871|NCT03985293|181923392|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|23.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.66|66.39|||Regression, Logistic||The Odds ratio model included multiple imputation. PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||66.39|8.66|
91019872|NCT03985293|181923392|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|24.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.72|68.57|||Regression, Logistic||The Odds ratio model included multiple imputation. PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||68.57|8.72|
91019873|NCT03985293|181923393|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.09||||0.1578|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.19|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||0.01|-0.19|0.1578
91019874|NCT03985293|181923393|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.22||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.32|-0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-0.12|-0.32|0.0003
91019875|NCT03985293|181923393|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.2||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-0.10|-0.30|0.0013
91019876|NCT03985293|181923393|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.24||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.34|-0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-0.14|-0.34|0.0001
91019877|NCT03985293|181923393|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.36|-0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-0.16|-0.36|<.0001
91019878|NCT03985293|181923394|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.3||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.46|-0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-0.15|-0.46|0.0013
91019879|NCT03985293|181923394|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.43|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.58|-0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-0.28|-0.58|<.0001
91019880|NCT03985293|181923394|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-0.40|-0.70|<.0001
91019881|NCT03985293|181923394|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.66|-0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-0.35|-0.66|<.0001
91019882|NCT03985293|181923394|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.71|-0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-0.41|-0.71|<.0001
91019883|NCT03985293|181923395|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.4||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.59|-0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-0.22|-0.59|0.0004
91019884|NCT03985293|181923395|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.81|-0.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-0.46|-0.81|<.0001
91019885|NCT03985293|181923395|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.77|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.95|-0.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-0.59|-0.95|<.0001
91019886|NCT03985293|181923395|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.91|-0.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-0.53|-0.91|<.0001
91019887|NCT03985293|181923395|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.77|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.95|-0.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-0.59|-0.95|<.0001
91019888|NCT03985293|181923396|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.37||||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.59|-0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-0.15|-0.59|0.0054
91019889|NCT03985293|181923396|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.86|-0.44|||Mixed Models Analysis||PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-0.44|-0.86|<.0001
91019890|NCT03985293|181923396|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.84|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.06|-0.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-0.63|-1.06|<.0001
91019891|NCT03985293|181923396|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.02|-0.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-0.57|-1.02|<.0001
91019892|NCT03985293|181923396|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.89|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.11|-0.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-0.67|-1.11|<.0001
91019893|NCT03985293|181923397|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.44||||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.71|-0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-0.18|-0.71|0.0061
91019894|NCT03985293|181923397|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.05|-0.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-0.54|-1.05|<.0001
91019895|NCT03985293|181923397|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.24|-0.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-0.72|-1.24|<.0001
91019896|NCT03985293|181923397|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.1|-0.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-0.56|-1.10|<.0001
91019897|NCT03985293|181923397|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-1.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.3|-0.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-0.75|-1.30|<.0001
91083969|NCT03883477|182051523|OTHER|||||||0.561|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.561
91083970|NCT03883477|182051524|OTHER|||||||0.748|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.748
91083971|NCT03883477|182051525|OTHER|||||||0.184|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.184
91083972|NCT03883477|182051526|OTHER|||||||0.382|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.382
91083973|NCT03883477|182051527|OTHER|||||||0.382|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.382
91083974|NCT02432209|182051530|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.81||||0.404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.34|||Chi-squared|||||1.34|0.48|0.404
91083975|NCT00305565|182051537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.34||||0.803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|3.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The primary analysis consisted of contrasts comparing High Dose vs. Low Dose and Medium Dose vs. Low Dose averaged over the 4 Acute Phase visits using the Hochberg approach to adjust for multiplicity. If both comparisons involving the Low Dose were significant, then a test of High Dose vs. Medium Dose was evaluated at the P≤0.05 level. The pivotal analysis was performed on the ITT population using the last-observation-carried-forward (LOCF) approach to impute missing data.||3.02|-2.34|0.803
91083976|NCT00305565|182051537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.33||||0.813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.39|3.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The primary analysis consisted of contrasts comparing High Dose vs. Low Dose and Medium Dose vs. Low Dose averaged over the 4 Acute Phase visits using the Hochberg approach to adjust for multiplicity. If both comparisons involving the Low Dose were significant, then a test of High Dose vs. Medium Dose was evaluated at the P≤0.05 level. The pivotal analysis was performed on the ITT population using the last-observation-carried-forward (LOCF) approach to impute missing data.||3.05|-2.39|0.813
91083977|NCT03124537|182051584|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Controlling for age, sex, condition, education, and health||Tested whether weekly steps increased from the baseline week in both conditions (main effect of time).||||< .001
91083978|NCT03124537|182051584|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.846||||||Controlling for age, sex, education, and health.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Tested whether weekly step increases from the baseline week differed between the two conditions (time by condition interaction).||||.846
91083979|NCT03124537|182051585|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.571||||||Controlling for age, sex, condition, education, and health.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Tested whether exercise self-efficacy increased from the baseline week to the end of the intervention in both conditions (main effect of time).||||.571
91083980|NCT03124537|182051585|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.361|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Controlling for age, sex, education, and health.||Tested whether exercise self efficacy increases from the baseline to the end of the intervention differed between the two conditions (time by condition interaction).||||.361
91083981|NCT03124537|182051586|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.564|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Controlling for age, sex, condition, education, and health.||Tested whether exercise control increased from the baseline week to the end of the intervention in both conditions (main effect of time).||||.564
91083982|NCT03124537|182051586|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.641|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Controlling for age, sex, education, and health.||Tested whether exercise control belief increases from the baseline to the end of the intervention differed between the two conditions (time by condition interaction).||||.641
91083983|NCT03124537|182051588|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Controlling for age, sex, condition, education, health, and average steps.||Tested whether daily walking was related to mood within-persons.||||< .001
91083984|NCT03124537|182051588|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Controlling for age, condition, education, health, and average steps.||Tested whether daily walking was related to energy within-persons.||||.003
91083985|NCT03124537|182051588|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Controlling for age, sex, condition, education, health, and average steps.||Tested whether the relationship between daily walking and mood differed between males and females (steps by sex interaction).||||< .001
91083986|NCT03124537|182051588|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Controlling for age, condition, education, health, and average steps.||Tested whether the relationship between daily walking and energy differed between males and females (steps by sex interaction).||||< .001
91083987|NCT03124537|182051589|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Controlling for age, sex, condition, education, and health.||Tested whether self-reported vigorous physical activity increased from the baseline week to the end of the intervention in both conditions (main effect of time).||||.011
91083988|NCT03124537|182051589|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.232|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Controlling for age, sex, education, and health.||Tested whether self-reported vigorous physical activity increases from the baseline to the end of the intervention differed between the two conditions (time by condition interaction).||||.232
91083989|NCT03124537|182051590|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Controlling for age, sex, condition, education, and health.||Tested whether self-reported moderate physical activity increased from the baseline week to the end of the intervention in both conditions (main effect of time).||||.530
91083990|NCT03124537|182051590|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.831|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Controlling for age, sex, education, and health.||Tested whether self-reported moderate physical activity increases from the baseline to the end of the intervention differed between the two conditions (time by condition interaction).||||.831
91083991|NCT03124537|182051591|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.199|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Controlling for age, sex, condition, education, and health.||Tested whether self-reported light physical activity increased from the baseline week to the end of the intervention in both conditions (main effect of time).||||.199
91083992|NCT03124537|182051591|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.203|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Controlling for age, sex, education, and health.||Tested whether self-reported light physical activity increases from the baseline to the end of the intervention differed between the two conditions (time by condition interaction).||||.203
91083993|NCT04485637|182051638|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67|||=|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.79|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for respondent characteristics as described in statistical analysis plan.||Enhanced table \> Basic table||2.79|1.00|=0.05
91083994|NCT04485637|182051638|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.66|||=|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.76|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for respondent characteristics as described in statistical analysis plan.||Enhanced graph \> Basic table||2.76|1.00|=0.05
91083995|NCT04485637|182051639|SUPERIORITY|Enhanced table \> Basic table|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.52|||=|0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|3.26|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for respondent characteristics as described in statistical analysis plan.||||3.26|0.71|=0.29
91083996|NCT04485637|182051639|SUPERIORITY|Enhanced graph \> Basic table|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96|||=|0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.93|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for respondent characteristics as described in statistical analysis plan.||||1.93|0.48|=0.90
91083997|NCT04485637|182051640|SUPERIORITY||Unst|-0.14|||=|0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.04|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for respondent characteristics as described in statistical analysis plan.||Enhanced table \> Basic table||0.04|-0.32|=0.13
91083998|NCT04485637|182051640|SUPERIORITY||Unstandardized B|-0.14|||=|0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.04|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for respondent characteristics as described in statistical analysis plan.||Enhanced graph \> Basic table||0.04|-0.32|=0.12
91083999|NCT04485637|182051641|SUPERIORITY|Enhanced table \> Basic table|Unstandardized B|-0.08|||=|0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.08|||Regression, Linear|||||0.08|-0.25|=0.33
91084000|NCT04485637|182051641|SUPERIORITY||Unstandardized B|-0.09|||=|0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.08|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for respondent characteristics as described in statistical analysis plan.||||0.08|-0.26|=0.29
91084001|NCT02182830|182051642|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical multiple testing procedure was used to evaluate superiority of the primary endpoint|Adjusted mean difference|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|-0.38|||Mixed Models Analysis||Empagliflozin minus Placebo|"MMRM model : HbA1c baseline, treatment, renal function, pre-treatment with metformin, visit, visit by treatment interaction, and HbA1c baseline by treatment interaction. Treatment, renal function, pre-treatment with metformin, visit, and visit by treatment interaction were fixed classification effects, and HbA1c baseline was a linear covariate. The interaction visit by HbA1c baseline interaction was based on the linear covariate HbA1c baseline."||-0.38|-1.18|0.0002
91084002|NCT02182830|182051643|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical multiple testing procedure was used to evaluate superiority of the endpoint|Adjusted mean difference|-5.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04||0.0117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.24|-1.18|||ANCOVA||Empagliflozin minus Placebo|"change from baseline in mean 24-hour ambulatory SBP at 12 weeks of treatment was evaluated by using an Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model.~The respective model included treatment, renal function, pretreatment with metformin, continuous baseline HbA1c, and continuous baseline of the endpoint."||-1.18|-9.24|0.0117
91084003|NCT02182830|182051644|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical multiple testing procedure was used to evaluate superiority of the endpoint|Adjusted mean difference|-5.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.62||0.0237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.16|-0.81|||ANCOVA||Empagliflozin minus Placebo|"ANCOVA mode:~The respective model included treatment, renal function, pretreatment with metformin, continuous baseline HbA1c, and continuous baseline of the endpoint."||-0.81|-11.16|0.0237
91084004|NCT02182830|182051645|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical multiple testing procedure was used to evaluate superiority of the endpoint|Adjusted mean difference|-1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.0382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.39|-0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis||Empagliflozin minus Placebo|MMRM models modelling the key secondary endpoint with continuous baseline HbA1c, continuous baseline key secondary endpoint, treatment, renal function, pretreatment with metformin, visit, visit by treatment interaction, visit by continuous baseline HbA1c interaction, visit by continuous baseline key secondary endpoint.||-0.07|-2.39|0.0382
91084005|NCT02182830|182051646|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical multiple testing procedure was used to evaluate superiority of the endpoint|Adjusted mean difference|-4.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.59||0.1215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.16|1.09|||Mixed Models Analysis||Empagliflozin minus Placebo|MMRM models modelling the key secondary endpoint with continuous baseline HbA1c, continuous baseline key secondary endpoint, treatment, renal function, pretreatment with metformin, visit, visit by treatment interaction, visit by continuous baseline HbA1c interaction, visit by continuous baseline key secondary endpoint.||1.09|-9.16|0.1215
91084006|NCT02182830|182051647|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-8.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.69||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.74|-3.04|||Mixed Models Analysis||Empagliflozin minus Placebo|MMRM models modelling the secondary endpoint with continuous baseline HbA1c, continuous baseline secondary endpoint, treatment, renal function, pretreatment with metformin, visit, visit by treatment interaction, visit by continuous baseline HbA1c interaction, visit by continuous baseline secondary endpoint.||-3.04|-13.74|0.0025
91084007|NCT02182830|182051648|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-3.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25||0.0069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|-0.96|||ANCOVA||Empagliflozin minus Placebo|The respective ANCOVA model includes treatment, renal function, pretreatment with metformin, continuous baseline HbA1c, and continuous baseline of the respective secondary endpoint.||-0.96|-5.90|0.0069
91084008|NCT02182830|182051649|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-4.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.74||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.35|-1.46|||Mixed Models Analysis||Empagliflozin minus Placebo|MMRM models modelling the secondary endpoint with continuous baseline HbA1c, continuous baseline secondary endpoint, treatment, renal function, pretreatment with metformin, visit, visit by treatment interaction, visit by continuous baseline HbA1c interaction, visit by continuous baseline secondary endpoint.||-1.46|-8.35|0.0058
91084009|NCT02182830|182051650|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-7.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.37|-2.48|||Mixed Models Analysis||Empagliflozin minus Placebo|MMRM models modelling the secondary endpoint with continuous baseline HbA1c, continuous baseline secondary endpoint, treatment, renal function, pretreatment with metformin, visit, visit by treatment interaction, visit by continuous baseline HbA1c interaction, visit by continuous baseline secondary endpoint.||-2.48|-12.37|0.0036
91084010|NCT02182830|182051651|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-1.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.56||0.2402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.93|1.25|||Mixed Models Analysis||Empagliflozin minus Placebo|MMRM models modelling the secondary endpoint with continuous baseline HbA1c, continuous baseline secondary endpoint, treatment, renal function, pretreatment with metformin, visit, visit by treatment interaction, visit by continuous baseline HbA1c interaction, visit by continuous baseline secondary endpoint.||1.25|-4.93|0.2402
91084011|NCT02182830|182051652|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-4.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.49||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.21|-1.29|||Mixed Models Analysis||Empagliflozin minus Placebo|MMRM models modelling the secondary endpoint with continuous baseline HbA1c, continuous baseline secondary endpoint, treatment, renal function, pretreatment with metformin, visit, visit by treatment interaction, visit by continuous baseline HbA1c interaction, visit by continuous baseline secondary endpoint.||-1.29|-7.21|0.0053
91019898|NCT03985293|181923398|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-17.13||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-25.94|-8.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-8.33|-25.94|0.0014
91084012|NCT04399538|182051653|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square (LS) mean|-52.36|||<|0.0001||80.0|-60.07|-43.17|||ANCOVA|||Natural log-transformed individual relative change (RC) from baseline to Week 6 was analyzed using the ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect, natural log-transformed baseline % liver fat by MRI-PDFF as covariate. Values were back-transformed from the log scale.||-43.17|-60.07|<0.0001
91084013|NCT04399538|182051653|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-56.58|||<|0.0001||80.0|-63.88|-47.8|||ANCOVA|||Natural log-transformed individual relative change (RC) from baseline to Week 6 was analyzed using the ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect, natural log-transformed baseline % liver fat by MRI-PDFF as covariate. Values were back-transformed from the log scale.||-47.80|-63.88|<0.0001
91084014|NCT04399538|182051653|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-58.8|||<|0.0001||80.0|-65.66|-50.57|||ANCOVA|||Natural log-transformed individual relative change (RC) from baseline to Week 6 was analyzed using the ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect, natural log-transformed baseline % liver fat by MRI-PDFF as covariate. Values were back-transformed from the log scale. Relative change was converted to percent change as follows: Percent change = 100\*(RC-1). 80% CI was calculated based on difference in LS mean between groups.||-50.57|-65.66|<0.0001
91084015|NCT04399538|182051653|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-45.8||||0.0003||80.0|-55.86|-33.46|||ANCOVA|||Natural log-transformed individual relative change (RC) from baseline to Week 6 was analyzed using the ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect, natural log-transformed baseline % liver fat by MRI-PDFF as covariate. Values were back-transformed from the log scale.||-33.46|-55.86|0.0003
91084016|NCT03268005|182051680|NON_INFERIORITY|The upper limit of the 95% confidence interval for the difference between faster aspart and NovoRapid was compared to a non-inferiority margin of 0.4%. If it was below or equal to 0.4% non-inferiority was considered established and effect demonstrated.|Treatment difference|-0.04||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.03|||ANOVA||Faster aspart-NovoRapid|Change from baseline in HbA1c was analysed using an analysis of variance model after multiple imputation assuming treatment according to randomisation. The model included treatment, region and metformin use at baseline (Yes/No) as factors, and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||0.03|-0.11|0.310
91084017|NCT00492232|182051742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.71||||0.484||95.0|0.27|1.85||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|Log odds of achieving response were estimated using the logistic regression analysis adjusted for effects of treatment and pooled center.||||1.85|0.27|0.484
91084018|NCT00492232|182051743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.946||95.0|-6.23|5.81||P-values are from t-tests of the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model for the difference in least squares (LS) means between treatments. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with baseline zolpidem dosage (≤10 mg vs \>10 mg) and pooled center as covariates.||||5.81|-6.23|0.946
91084019|NCT00492232|182051744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.901||95.0|-5.31|6.03||P-values are from t-tests of the ANCOVA model for the difference in LS means between treatments. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with baseline zolpidem dosage (≤10 mg vs \>10 mg) and pooled center as covariates.||||6.03|-5.31|0.901
91084020|NCT00492232|182051745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.538||95.0|-4.32|8.23||P-values are from t-tests of the ANCOVA model for the difference in LS means between treatments. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with baseline zolpidem dosage (≤10 mg vs \>10 mg) and pooled center as covariates.||||8.23|-4.32|0.538
91084021|NCT00492232|182051746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2||||0.517||95.0|-9.09|4.6||P-values are from t-tests of the ANCOVA model for the difference in LS means between treatments. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with baseline zolpidem dosage (≤10 mg vs \>10 mg) and pooled center as covariates.||||4.60|-9.09|0.517
91084022|NCT00492232|182051747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.965||95.0|-6.28|6.56||P-values are from t-tests of the ANCOVA model for the difference in LS means between treatments. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with baseline zolpidem dosage (≤10 mg vs \>10 mg) and pooled center as covariates.||||6.56|-6.28|0.965
91084023|NCT00492232|182051748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.617||95.0|-0.27|0.45||P-values are from t-tests of the ANCOVA model for the difference in LS means between treatments. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with baseline zolpidem dosage (≤10 mg vs \>10 mg), baseline zolpidem frequency, and pooled center as covariates.||||0.45|-0.27|0.617
91084024|NCT00492232|182051749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17||||0.541||95.0|-0.39|0.74||P-values are from t-tests of the ANCOVA model for the difference in LS means between treatments. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with baseline zolpidem dosage (≤10 mg vs \>10 mg), baseline zolpidem frequency, and pooled center as covariates.||||0.74|-0.39|0.541
91084025|NCT00492232|182051750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.55||||0.163||95.0|-0.23|1.33||P-values are from t-tests of the ANCOVA model for the difference in LS means between treatments. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with baseline zolpidem dosage (≤10 mg vs \>10 mg), baseline zolpidem frequency, and pooled center as covariates.||||1.33|-0.23|0.163
91084026|NCT00492232|182051751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.757||95.0|-0.79|1.08||P-values are from t-tests of the ANCOVA model for the difference in LS means between treatments. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with baseline zolpidem dosage (≤10 mg vs \>10 mg), baseline zolpidem frequency, and pooled center as covariates.||||1.08|-0.79|0.757
91084027|NCT00492232|182051752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.82||95.0|-0.93|1.17||P-values are from t-tests of the ANCOVA model for the difference in LS means between treatments. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with baseline zolpidem dosage (≤10 mg vs \>10 mg), baseline zolpidem frequency, and pooled center as covariates.||||1.17|-0.93|0.820
91084028|NCT00492232|182051754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|2.01||||0.284||95.0|0.55|7.34||P-values are from Chi-square tests of the log-regression model for the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|Log odds of achieving response were estimated using logistic regression analysis adjusted for effects of baseline zolpidem dosage (≤10 mg vs \>10 mg).||||7.34|0.55|0.284
91084029|NCT00492232|182051755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.42||||0.389||95.0|0.64|3.13||P-values are from Chi-square tests of the log-regression model for the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|Log odds of achieving response were estimated using logistic regression analysis adjusted for effects of baseline zolpidem dosage (≤10 mg vs \>10 mg).||||3.13|0.64|0.389
91084030|NCT02029274|182051786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.551|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.5519||0.9621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.447|23.549|||Repeated measures analysis|||||23.549|-22.447|0.9621
91084031|NCT02029274|182051786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-15.368|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.9297||0.1637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.128|6.391|||Repeated measures analysis|||||6.391|-37.128|0.1637
91084032|NCT02029274|182051786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.709|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.6016||0.2409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.806|9.388|||Repeated measures|||||9.388|-36.806|0.2409
91084033|NCT02685072|182051803|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5818||||0.3253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1968|1.7202|||Chi-squared|degrees of freedom =1|Odds ratio represents odds of smoking abstinence in TPN + progesterone group versus TPN + placebo group|||1.7202|0.1968|0.3253
91084034|NCT02685072|182051804|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0781||||0.8944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.355|3.2744|||Chi-squared|degrees of freedom = 1|Odds ratio represents odds of CO \< 10 (negative for smoking) in TPN + progesterone versus TPN + placebo groups|||3.2744|0.3550|0.8944
91084035|NCT02685072|182051805|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7619||||0.662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2247|2.5838|||Chi-squared|degrees of freedom = 1|Odds ratio represents odds of CO \< 10 ppm (negative for smoking) in TPN + progesterone versus TPN + placebo.|||2.5838|0.2247|0.6620
91084036|NCT02685072|182051806|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.913||||0.8661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3171|2.6287|||Chi-squared|degrees of freedom = 1|Odds ratio represents odds of CO \< 10 ppm (negative for smoking) in TPN + progesterone versus TPN + placebo.|||2.6287|0.3171|0.8661
91084037|NCT02685072|182051807|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|31.7||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.1|9.0|||t-test, 2 sided||(Placebo + TPN) - (Progesterone + TPN)|||9.0|-27.1|0.31
91084038|NCT02685072|182051808|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.148||||0.791|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9747|1.2707|||t-test, 2 sided||(placebo + TPN) - (progesterone + TPN)|||1.2707|-0.9747|0.7910
91084039|NCT02685072|182051809|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.26||||0.0065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.71|15.81|||t-test, 2 sided|||||15.81|2.71|0.0065
91084040|NCT02685072|182051820|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7172||||0.6449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1738|2.9594|||Chi-squared|degrees of freedom = 1|Odds ratio represents odds of CO \< 10 ppm (negative for smoking) in TPN + progesterone versus TPN + placebo.|||2.9594|0.1738|.6449
91084041|NCT02685072|182051821|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7172||||0.6449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1738|2.9594|||Chi-squared|degrees of freedom = 1|Odds ratio represents odds of prolonged abstinence in TPN + progesterone versus TPN + placebo.|||2.9594|0.1738|0.6449
91084042|NCT03597139|182051823|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.6||||0.1491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|10.9|||ANCOVA|||||10.9|-1.7|0.1491
91084043|NCT03597139|182051824|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.1||||0.1187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|13.9|||ANCOVA|||||13.9|-1.6|0.1187
91084044|NCT03597139|182051825|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.4||||0.2128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|16.5|||ANCOVA|||||16.5|-3.7|0.2128
91084045|NCT03597139|182051826|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.8408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|9.6|||ANCOVA|||||9.6|-11.8|0.8408
91084046|NCT03597139|182051827|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8||||0.5356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|11.6|||ANCOVA|||||11.6|-6.1|0.5356
91084047|NCT03597139|182051828|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.7||||0.1787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|14.1|||ANCOVA|||||14.1|-2.7|0.1787
91084048|NCT03597139|182051829|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6||||0.7666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|9.3|||ANCOVA|||||9.3|-12.6|0.7666
91084049|NCT03597139|182051830|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.8082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|8.4|||ANCOVA|||||8.4|-10.7|0.8082
91084050|NCT03597139|182051831|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.6||||0.6362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.0|60.3|||ANCOVA|||||60.3|-37|0.6362
91084051|NCT03597139|182051832|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.6||||0.0961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|20.9||Frequency|ANCOVA|||Frequency||20.9|-1.7|0.0961
91084052|NCT03597139|182051832|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.7||||0.1722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|18.7|||ANCOVA|||Severity||18.7|-3.4|0.1722
91084053|NCT03597139|182051833|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.2||||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|8.9||Left Eye|ANCOVA|||Left Eye||8.9|1.6|0.0051
91084054|NCT03597139|182051833|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.8||||0.0104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|8.4||Right Eye|ANCOVA|||Right Eye||8.4|1.1|0.0104
91084055|NCT03597139|182051834|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-1.0||Left Eye|ANCOVA||Add in RE LE info|Left Eye||-1.0|-3.2|0.0003
91084056|NCT03597139|182051834|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-0.5||Right Eye|ANCOVA|||Right Eye||-0.5|-2.6|0.0038
91084057|NCT04679948|182051860|OTHER||Ratio of GLSMs [%]|112.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.02|124.3|||||"Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means (GLSMs) was calculated as (GLSM of BI 730357 + caffeine/GLSM of caffeine). Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\]) =16.2."|The statistical model used for the analysis of the primary endpoints was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. That is, the PK endpoints were logtransformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale to provide the point estimate and 90% CIs for each endpoint. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: subjects (random effect) and treatment (fixed effect).||124.30|101.02|
91019899|NCT03985293|181923398|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-16.38||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-25.08|-7.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Difference in LS Mean|||-7.67|-25.08|0.0021
91019900|NCT03985293|181923398|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-22.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-30.88|-13.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-13.53|-30.88|<.0001
91019901|NCT03985293|181923398|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-18.59||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.43|-9.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-9.76|-27.43|0.0006
91019902|NCT03985293|181923398|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-25.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-34.0|-16.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-16.67|-34.00|<.0001
91019903|NCT03985293|181923399|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-11.79||||0.0468|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.55|-2.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-2.04|-21.55|0.0468
91019904|NCT03985293|181923399|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-18.68||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-28.12|-9.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-9.25|-28.12|0.0012
91019905|NCT03985293|181923399|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-27.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-37.03|-17.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-17.85|-37.03|<.0001
91019906|NCT03985293|181923399|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-27.36|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-37.22|-17.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-17.51|-37.22|<.0001
91019907|NCT03985293|181923399|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-28.09|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-37.72|-18.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-18.45|-37.72|<.0001
91019908|NCT03985293|181923400|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-15.9||||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-25.9|-5.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-5.90|-25.90|0.0091
91019909|NCT03985293|181923400|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-25.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-35.18|-15.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-15.89|-35.18|<.0001
91019910|NCT03985293|181923400|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-30.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-39.8|-20.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-20.21|-39.80|<.0001
91019911|NCT03985293|181923400|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-27.48|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-37.63|-17.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-17.33|-37.63|<.0001
91019912|NCT03985293|181923400|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-31.77|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-41.77|-21.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-21.78|-41.77|<.0001
91019913|NCT03985293|181923401|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-3.63||||0.5449|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.51|6.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||6.25|-13.51|0.5449
91019914|NCT03985293|181923401|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-17.12||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-26.62|-7.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-7.63|-26.62|0.0031
91019915|NCT03985293|181923401|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-20.64||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-30.31|-10.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-10.96|-30.31|0.0005
91019916|NCT03985293|181923401|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-24.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-34.2|-14.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-14.04|-34.20|<.0001
91019917|NCT03985293|181923401|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-25.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-35.44|-14.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-14.97|-35.44|<.0001
91019918|NCT03985293|181923402|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-7.7||||0.294|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-19.78|4.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||4.38|-19.78|0.2940
91019919|NCT03985293|181923402|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-23.77||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-35.37|-12.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-12.17|-35.37|0.0008
91019920|NCT03985293|181923402|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-33.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-45.05|-21.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-21.40|-45.05|<.0001
91019921|NCT03985293|181923402|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-31.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-44.14|-19.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-19.19|-44.14|<.0001
91019922|NCT03985293|181923402|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-33.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-46.67|-20.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-20.51|-46.67|<.0001
91019923|NCT03985293|181923403|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-14.12||||0.0464|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-25.77|-2.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-2.47|-25.77|0.0464
91019924|NCT03985293|181923403|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-25.84||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-37.05|-14.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-14.62|-37.05|0.0002
91019925|NCT03985293|181923403|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-31.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-43.2|-20.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-20.35|-43.20|<.0001
91019926|NCT03985293|181923403|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-27.02||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-39.03|-15.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-15.01|-39.03|0.0002
91019927|NCT03985293|181923403|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-33.24|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-45.63|-20.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-20.84|-45.63|<.0001
91084058|NCT04679948|182051861|OTHER||Ratio of GLSMs [%]|96.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.55|102.23|||||"Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means (GLSMs) was calculated as (GLSM of BI 730357 + caffeine/GLSM of caffeine). Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\]) = 8.6."|The statistical model used for the analysis of the primary endpoints was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. That is, the PK endpoints were logtransformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale to provide the point estimate and 90% CIs for each endpoint. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: subjects (random effect) and treatment (fixed effect).||102.23|91.55|
91084059|NCT04679948|182051862|OTHER||Ratio of GLSMs [%]|110.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|107.15|113.71|||||"Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means (GLSMs) was calculated as (GLSM of BI 730357 + warfarin/GLSM of Warfarin). Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\]) =4.8."|The statistical model used for the analysis of the primary endpoints was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. That is, the PK endpoints were logtransformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale to provide the point estimate and 90% CIs for each endpoint. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: subjects (random effect) and treatment (fixed effect).||113.71|107.15|
91084060|NCT04679948|182051863|OTHER||Ratio of GLSMs [%]|108.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|104.11|113.01|||||"Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means (GLSMs) was calculated as (GLSM of BI 730357 + warfarin/GLSM of Warfarin). Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\]) = 6.6."|The statistical model used for the analysis of the primary endpoints was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. That is, the PK endpoints were logtransformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale to provide the point estimate and 90% CIs for each endpoint. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: subjects (random effect) and treatment (fixed effect).||113.01|104.11|
91084061|NCT04679948|182051864|OTHER||Ratio of GLSM [%]|99.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.66|110.95|||||"Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means (GLSM) was calculated as (GLSM of BI 730357 + omeprazole/GLSM of Omeprazole). Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\]) =12.3."|The statistical model used for the analysis of the primary endpoints was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. That is, the PK endpoints were logtransformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale to provide the point estimate and 90% CIs for each endpoint. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: subjects (random effect) and treatment (fixed effect).||110.95|89.66|
91084062|NCT04679948|182051865|OTHER||Ratio of GLSMs [%]|71.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|44.64|113.96|||||"Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means (GLSMs) was calculated as (GLSM of BI 730357 + omeprazole/GLSM of Omeprazole). Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\]) =87.8."|The statistical model used for the analysis of the primary endpoints was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. That is, the PK endpoints were logtransformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale to provide the point estimate and 90% CIs for each endpoint. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: subjects (random effect) and treatment (fixed effect).||113.96|44.64|
91084063|NCT04679948|182051866|OTHER||Ratio of GLSMs [%]|126.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|119.15|135.05|||||"Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means (GLSMs) was calculated as (GLSM of BI 730357 + midazolam/GLSM of Midazolam). Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\]) =10.1."|The statistical model used for the analysis of the primary endpoints was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. That is, the PK endpoints were logtransformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale to provide the point estimate and 90% CIs for each endpoint. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: subjects (random effect) and treatment (fixed effect).||135.05|119.15|
91084064|NCT04679948|182051867|OTHER||Ratio of GLSMs [%]|130.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|121.25|139.92|||||"Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means (GLSMs) was calculated as (GLSM of BI 730357 + midazolam/GLSM of Midazolam). Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\]) =11.6."|The statistical model used for the analysis of the primary endpoints was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. That is, the PK endpoints were logtransformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale to provide the point estimate and 90% CIs for each endpoint. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: subjects (random effect) and treatment (fixed effect).||139.92|121.25|
91084065|NCT02636439|182051868|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|44.0||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.0|112.0|||ANCOVA|adjusted for baseline value, age, and sex.||||112|-25|0.21
91084066|NCT02636439|182051869|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.8|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline value, age, and sex.||||0.8|-1.0|0.86
91084067|NCT02636439|182051870|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|3.8|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline value, age, and sex.||||3.8|-2.8|0.77
91084068|NCT02636439|182051871|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.2|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline value, age, and sex.||||0.2|-0.3|0.85
91084069|NCT02636439|182051872|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.4||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|12.9|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline value, age, and sex.||||12.9|-0.1|0.053
91084070|NCT02636439|182051873|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.13|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline value, age, and sex.||||0.13|0.00|0.043
91084071|NCT02636439|182051874|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.0||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|0.0|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline value, age, and sex.||||0|-10|0.07
91084072|NCT02636439|182051875|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|3.3|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline value, age, and sex.||||3.3|-4.4|0.79
91084073|NCT02494401|182051878|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87||||||p value of baseline comparison.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.87
91084074|NCT02494401|182051878|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32||||||p value for 16 week comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.32
91019928|NCT03985293|181923404|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.06||||0.8011|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.33|0.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||0.44|-0.33|0.8011
91019929|NCT03985293|181923404|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.02||||0.9149|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.35|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||0.40|-0.35|0.9149
91019930|NCT03985293|181923404|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.08||||0.7216|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.46|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||0.30|-0.46|0.7216
91019931|NCT03985293|181923404|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.42||||0.0758|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8|-0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-0.03|-0.80|0.0758
91019932|NCT03985293|181923404|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.4||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.77|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-0.02|-0.77|0.0860
91019933|NCT03985293|181923405|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.08||||0.7898|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.59|0.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||0.42|-0.59|0.7898
91019934|NCT03985293|181923405|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.16||||0.5829|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.33|0.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||0.66|-0.33|0.5829
91019935|NCT03985293|181923405|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.52||||0.0827|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.02|-0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-0.03|-1.02|0.0827
91019936|NCT03985293|181923405|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.8||||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.31|-0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-0.29|-1.31|0.0101
91019937|NCT03985293|181923405|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-1.09||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.59|-0.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-0.59|-1.59|0.0004
91019938|NCT03985293|181923406|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.1||||0.7985|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.75|0.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||0.55|-0.75|0.7985
91019939|NCT03985293|181923406|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.23||||0.5484|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.86|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||0.40|-0.86|0.5484
91019940|NCT03985293|181923406|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.75||||0.0541|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.38|-0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-0.11|-1.38|0.0541
91019941|NCT03985293|181923406|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-1.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.26|-0.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-0.95|-2.26|<.0001
91019942|NCT03985293|181923406|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-2.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.9|-1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-1.60|-2.90|<.0001
91019943|NCT03985293|181923407|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.31||||0.4692|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|1.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||1.03|-0.40|0.4692
91019944|NCT03985293|181923407|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.09||||0.8274|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|0.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||0.78|-0.60|0.8274
91019945|NCT03985293|181923407|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.72||||0.0887|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.42|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-0.02|-1.42|0.0887
91019946|NCT03985293|181923407|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-1.61||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.33|-0.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-0.88|-2.33|0.0003
91019947|NCT03985293|181923407|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-2.95|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.67|-2.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-2.22|-3.67|<.0001
91019948|NCT03985293|181923408|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.15||||0.7758|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|0.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||0.99|-0.70|0.7758
91019949|NCT03985293|181923408|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.23||||0.6367|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.58|1.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||1.05|-0.58|0.6367
91019950|NCT03985293|181923408|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.81||||0.1082|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.63|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||0.02|-1.63|0.1082
91019951|NCT03985293|181923408|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-2.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.14|-1.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-1.42|-3.14|<.0001
91019952|NCT03985293|181923408|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-3.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.44|-2.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-2.70|-4.44|<.0001
91019953|NCT03985293|181923409|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.45||||0.4325|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|1.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||1.41|-0.50|0.4325
91019954|NCT03985293|181923409|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.38||||0.4978|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.54|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||1.30|-0.54|0.4978
91019955|NCT03985293|181923409|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.73||||0.197|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.66|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||0.20|-1.66|0.1970
91019956|NCT03985293|181923409|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-2.04||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.01|-1.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-1.07|-3.01|0.0006
91019957|NCT03985293|181923409|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-4.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.15|-3.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-3.18|-5.15|<.0001
91019958|NCT01236053|181923457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.24|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)"|||1.24|1.07|0.0002
91019959|NCT01236053|181923457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.0976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.15|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||1.15|0.99|0.0976
91084075|NCT02494401|182051878|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3||||||p value for 6 month comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3
91019960|NCT01236053|181923457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|1.36|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)"|||1.36|1.23|<0.0001
91019961|NCT01236053|181923457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|1.26|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||1.26|1.13|<0.0001
91019962|NCT01236053|181923458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.1468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.23|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||1.23|0.97|0.1468
91019963|NCT01236053|181923458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.8545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.14|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||1.14|0.90|0.8545
91019964|NCT01236053|181923458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|1.48|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||1.48|1.27|<0.0001
91019965|NCT01236053|181923458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|1.37|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||1.37|1.18|<0.0001
91019966|NCT01236053|181923458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.43|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||1.43|1.07|0.0033
91019967|NCT01236053|181923458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.0474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.33|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||1.33|1.00|0.0474
91019968|NCT01236053|181923458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|1.43|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||1.43|1.16|<0.0001
91019969|NCT01236053|181923458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.32|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||1.32|1.08|0.0008
91019970|NCT01236053|181923458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.33|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||1.33|1.03|0.0190
91019971|NCT01236053|181923458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.3366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.21|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||1.21|0.94|0.3366
91019972|NCT01236053|181923458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.31|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||1.31|1.09|0.0001
91019973|NCT01236053|181923458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.0464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.2|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||1.20|1.00|0.0464
91019974|NCT01236053|181923459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.1194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.26|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||1.26|0.97|0.1194
91019975|NCT01236053|181923459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.7004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.17|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||1.17|0.90|0.7004
91019976|NCT01236053|181923459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|1.49|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||1.49|1.26|<0.0001
91019977|NCT01236053|181923459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|1.38|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||1.38|1.16|<0.0001
91019978|NCT01236053|181923459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.0134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.34|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||1.34|1.03|0.0134
91019979|NCT01236053|181923459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.1592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.25|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||1.25|0.96|0.1592
91019980|NCT01236053|181923459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|1.47|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||1.47|1.24|<0.0001
91019981|NCT01236053|181923459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.36|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||1.36|1.14|<0.0001
91019982|NCT01236053|181923459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.0131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.33|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||1.33|1.03|0.0131
91019983|NCT01236053|181923459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.2731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.22|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||1.22|0.95|0.2731
91019984|NCT01236053|181923459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.28|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||1.28|1.06|0.0012
91019985|NCT01236053|181923459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.1477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.17|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||1.17|0.98|0.1477
91019986|NCT01236053|181923460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.0369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.41|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: \> 1 year (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||1.41|1.01|0.0369
91019987|NCT01236053|181923460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.3132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.29|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: \> 1 year (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||1.29|0.92|0.3132
91019988|NCT01236053|181923460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.0762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.26|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: \> 1 year (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||1.26|0.99|0.0762
91019989|NCT01236053|181923460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.7243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.15|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: \> 1 year (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||1.15|0.91|0.7243
91019990|NCT01236053|181923460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.0775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.65|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: \> 2 years (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||1.65|0.97|0.0775
91019991|NCT01236053|181923460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.2649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.52|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: \> 2 years (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||1.52|0.89|0.2649
91019992|NCT01236053|181923460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.0257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.43|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: \> 2 years (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||1.43|1.02|0.0257
91019993|NCT01236053|181923460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.3|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: \> 2 years (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||1.30|0.93|0.2540
91019994|NCT01236053|181923460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.5141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.75|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: \> 3 years (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||1.75|0.76|0.5141
91019995|NCT01236053|181923460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.8208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.6|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: \> 3 years (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||1.60|0.69|0.8208
91019996|NCT01236053|181923460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.0562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.62|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: \> 3 years (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||1.62|0.99|0.0562
91019997|NCT01236053|181923460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.2596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.47|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: \> 3 years (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||1.47|0.90|0.2596
91019998|NCT01236053|181923461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.0709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.28|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||1.28|0.99|0.0709
91019999|NCT01236053|181923461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.4996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.19|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||1.19|0.92|0.4996
91020000|NCT01236053|181923461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|1.45|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||1.45|1.23|<0.0001
91020001|NCT01236053|181923461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.35|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||1.35|1.14|<0.0001
91020002|NCT01236053|181923461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.36|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||1.36|1.05|0.0062
91020003|NCT01236053|181923461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.1144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.26|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||1.26|0.98|0.1144
91020004|NCT01236053|181923461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|1.55|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||1.55|1.30|<0.0001
91020005|NCT01236053|181923461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|1.43|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||1.43|1.20|<0.0001
91020006|NCT01236053|181923461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.0469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.29|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||1.29|1.00|0.0469
91020007|NCT01236053|181923461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.5169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.19|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||1.19|0.92|0.5169
91020008|NCT01236053|181923461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.0103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.24|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||1.24|1.03|0.0103
91020009|NCT01236053|181923461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.4182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.14|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||1.14|0.95|0.4182
91084076|NCT02494401|182051879|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08||||||p value of baseline comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.08
90956569|NCT04797650|181792785|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-1.0||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||How satisfied with your eyebrows: Week 24||-1.0|-1.5|< 0.0001
91020010|NCT01236053|181923462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|0.65||||0.3597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.62|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||1.62|0.26|0.3597
91020011|NCT01236053|181923462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.54||||0.1845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.34|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, upper GI disorder, acid-suppressing drugs."|||1.34|0.21|0.1845
91020012|NCT01236053|181923462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.9142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.84|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||1.84|0.58|0.9142
91020013|NCT01236053|181923462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.6524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.57|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, upper GI disorder, acid-suppressing drugs."|||1.57|0.49|0.6524
91020014|NCT01236053|181923463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.53||||0.2875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.7|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||1.70|0.17|0.2875
91020015|NCT01236053|181923463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.47||||0.2042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.51|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, upper GI disorder, acid-suppressing drugs."|||1.51|0.15|0.2042
91020016|NCT01236053|181923463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.75||||0.4733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|8.06|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||8.06|0.38|0.4733
91020017|NCT01236053|181923463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.7867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|5.85|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, upper GI disorder, acid-suppressing drugs."|||5.85|0.26|0.7867
91020018|NCT01236053|181923463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.53||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|8.5|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||8.50|1.47|0.0049
91020019|NCT01236053|181923463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.87||||0.0218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|7.08|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, upper GI disorder, acid-suppressing drugs."|||7.08|1.17|0.0218
91020020|NCT01236053|181923463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|2.92|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||2.92|0.27|0.8490
91020021|NCT01236053|181923463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.6263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|2.46|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, upper GI disorder, acid-suppressing drugs."|||2.46|0.22|0.6263
91020022|NCT01236053|181923463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.61||||0.4122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.97|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||1.97|0.19|0.4122
91020023|NCT01236053|181923463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.51||||0.2642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.66|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, upper GI disorder, acid-suppressing drugs."|||1.66|0.16|0.2642
91020024|NCT01236053|181923464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.7891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|2.43|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||2.43|0.31|0.7891
91020025|NCT01236053|181923464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77||||0.6216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|2.17|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, upper GI disorder, acid-suppressing drugs."|||2.17|0.27|0.6216
91020026|NCT01236053|181923464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.6893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|5.96|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||5.96|0.31|0.6893
91020027|NCT01236053|181923464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.9273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|4.84|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, upper GI disorder, acid-suppressing drugs."|||4.84|0.24|0.9273
91020028|NCT01236053|181923464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|3.78|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||3.78|0.47|0.5980
91020029|NCT01236053|181923464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.8572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|3.18|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, upper GI disorder, acid-suppressing drugs."|||3.18|0.38|0.8572
91020030|NCT01236053|181923464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.7807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|2.77|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||2.77|0.26|0.7807
91084077|NCT02494401|182051879|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||p value 16 week comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
91084078|NCT02494401|182051879|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008||||||p value 6 month comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.008
91084079|NCT02494401|182051880|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68||||||p value baseline comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.68
91084080|NCT02494401|182051880|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83||||||p value of 16 week comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.83
91020031|NCT01236053|181923464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.5579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|2.32|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, upper GI disorder, acid-suppressing drugs."|||2.32|0.21|0.5579
91020032|NCT01236053|181923464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.9932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.53|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||2.53|0.40|0.9932
91020033|NCT01236053|181923464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.6901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|2.11|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, upper GI disorder, acid-suppressing drugs."|||2.11|0.32|0.6901
91020034|NCT01236053|181923466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.62||||0.431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|2.01|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||2.01|0.19|0.4310
91020035|NCT01236053|181923466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.55||||0.3226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.79|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, upper GI disorder, acid-suppressing drugs."|||1.79|0.17|0.3226
91020036|NCT01236053|181923466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.6206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|4.59|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||4.59|0.40|0.6206
91020037|NCT01236053|181923466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.8557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|3.84|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, upper GI disorder, acid-suppressing drugs."|||3.84|0.33|0.8557
91020038|NCT01236053|181923466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.91||||0.1498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|4.62|||Unadjusted Odds Ratio||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||4.62|0.79|0.1498
91020039|NCT01236053|181923466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.66||||0.2645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|4.07|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, upper GI disorder, acid-suppressing drugs."|||4.07|0.68|0.2645
91020040|NCT01236053|181923466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.66||||0.5728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|2.79|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||2.79|0.16|0.5728
91020041|NCT01236053|181923466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.52||||0.3727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|2.21|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, upper GI disorder, acid-suppressing drugs."|||2.21|0.12|0.3727
91020042|NCT01236053|181923466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.7743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|2.4|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||2.40|0.31|0.7743
91020043|NCT01236053|181923466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||0.4775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|1.94|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, upper GI disorder, acid-suppressing drugs."|||1.94|0.24|0.4775
91020044|NCT01236053|181923467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.33||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.95|27.56|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||27.56|1.95|0.0032
91020045|NCT01236053|181923467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.39||||0.1251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|16.17|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, HIV, HPV (genital)."|||16.17|0.71|0.1251
91020046|NCT01236053|181923467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.22||||0.0261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|9.01|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||9.01|1.15|0.0261
91020047|NCT01236053|181923467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.16||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|7.17|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, HIV, HPV (genital)."|||7.17|0.65|0.2090
91020048|NCT01236053|181923468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|20.0||||0.0144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.81|220.5|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||220.5|1.81|0.0144
91020049|NCT01236053|181923468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|21.47||||0.0158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|258.8|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, HIV, HPV (genital)."|||258.8|1.78|0.0158
91020050|NCT01236053|181923468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.86||||0.0524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|15.14|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||15.14|0.99|0.0524
91020051|NCT01236053|181923468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.21||||0.0269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|22.51|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, HIV, HPV (genital)."|||22.51|1.21|0.0269
91020052|NCT01236053|181923468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.0||||0.1888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|55.14|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||55.14|0.45|0.1888
91020053|NCT01236053|181923468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|32.21|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, HIV, HPV (genital)."|||32.21|0.03|0.9990
91020054|NCT01236053|181923468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.75||||0.2885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|43.08|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||43.08|0.33|0.2885
91084081|NCT02494401|182051880|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.23
91020055|NCT01236053|181923468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.9608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|13.87|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, HIV, HPV (genital)."|||13.87|0.06|0.9608
91020056|NCT01236053|181923468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.33||||0.0944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|24.07|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||24.07|0.78|0.0944
91020057|NCT01236053|181923468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.9253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|7.82|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, HIV, HPV (genital)."|||7.82|0.10|0.9253
91020058|NCT01236053|181923469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|20.0||||0.0144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.81|220.5|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||220.5|1.81|0.0144
91020059|NCT01236053|181923469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|21.47||||0.0158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|258.8|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, HIV, HPV (genital)."|||258.8|1.78|0.0158
91020060|NCT01236053|181923469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.0||||0.0141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|25.11|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||25.11|1.43|0.0141
91020061|NCT01236053|181923469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.56||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.83|40.02|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, HIV, HPV (genital)."|||40.02|1.83|0.0063
91020062|NCT01236053|181923469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.0||||0.1888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|55.14|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||55.14|0.45|0.1888
91020063|NCT01236053|181923469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|32.21|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, HIV, HPV (genital)."|||32.21|0.03|0.9990
91020064|NCT01236053|181923469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.75||||0.2885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|43.08|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||43.08|0.33|0.2885
91020065|NCT01236053|181923469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.9608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|13.87|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, HIV, HPV (genital)."|||13.87|0.06|0.9608
91020066|NCT01236053|181923469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.33||||0.0944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|24.07|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||24.07|0.78|0.0944
91020067|NCT01236053|181923469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.9381||95.0|0.11|7.97|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, HIV, HPV (genital)."|||7.97|0.11|0.9381
91020068|NCT01236053|181923471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|20.0||||0.0144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.81|220.5|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||220.5|1.81|0.0144
91020069|NCT01236053|181923471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|21.55||||0.0157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|260.2|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, HIV, HPV (genital)."|||260.2|1.78|0.0157
91020070|NCT01236053|181923471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.86||||0.0524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|15.14|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||15.14|0.99|0.0524
91020071|NCT01236053|181923471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.8||||0.0333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|20.31|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, HIV, HPV (genital)."|||20.31|1.13|0.0333
91020072|NCT01236053|181923471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.34||||0.2966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|32.06|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||32.06|0.35|0.2966
91020073|NCT01236053|181923471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.62||||0.751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|12.31|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, HIV, HPV (genital)."|||12.31|0.03|0.7510
91020074|NCT01236053|181923471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.71||||0.1868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|113.4|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||113.4|0.40|0.1868
91020075|NCT01236053|181923471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.66||||0.7558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|40.61|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, HIV, HPV (genital)."|||40.61|0.07|0.7558
91020076|NCT01236053|181923471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.33||||0.0944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|24.07|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||24.07|0.78|0.0944
91020077|NCT01236053|181923471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.9244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|7.81|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, HIV, HPV (genital)."|||7.81|0.10|0.9244
91020078|NCT01236053|181923472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.0963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.7|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||1.70|0.96|0.0963
91020079|NCT01236053|181923472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.27|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, COPD."|||1.27|0.69|0.6710
91084082|NCT02494401|182051881|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96||||||p value of baseline comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.96
91020080|NCT01236053|181923472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.84|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|2.2|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||2.20|1.54|<0.0001
91020081|NCT01236053|181923472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|1.81|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, COPD."|||1.81|1.24|<0.0001
91020082|NCT01236053|181923473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.1184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.18|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||2.18|0.92|0.1184
91020083|NCT01236053|181923473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.8016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.5|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, COPD."|||1.50|0.59|0.8016
91020084|NCT01236053|181923473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|2.91|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||2.91|1.77|<0.0001
91020085|NCT01236053|181923473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.97|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|2.58|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, COPD."|||2.58|1.51|<0.0001
91020086|NCT01236053|181923473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.6105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|2.08|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||2.08|0.65|0.6105
91020087|NCT01236053|181923473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.6797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.09|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, COPD."|||2.09|0.62|0.6797
91020088|NCT01236053|181923473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.64||||0.0103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|2.39|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||2.39|1.12|0.0103
91020089|NCT01236053|181923473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.1629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|2.0|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, COPD."|||2.00|0.89|0.1629
91020090|NCT01236053|181923473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.4713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.97|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||1.97|0.73|0.4713
91020091|NCT01236053|181923473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.4505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.38|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, COPD."|||1.38|0.49|0.4505
91020092|NCT01236053|181923473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.0284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|2.01|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||2.01|1.04|0.0284
91020093|NCT01236053|181923473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.6262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.54|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, COPD."|||1.54|0.77|0.6262
91020094|NCT01236053|181923474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.52||||0.0798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.41|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||2.41|0.95|0.0798
91084083|NCT02494401|182051881|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69||||||p value of 16 week comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.69
91020095|NCT01236053|181923474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.8357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.73|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, COPD."|||1.73|0.64|0.8357
91020096|NCT01236053|181923474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.75|3.01|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||3.01|1.75|<0.0001
91020097|NCT01236053|181923474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|2.76|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, COPD."|||2.76|1.53|<0.0001
91020098|NCT01236053|181923474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.7794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.85|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||1.85|0.63|0.7794
91020099|NCT01236053|181923474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.8075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.66|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, COPD."|||1.66|0.52|0.8075
91020100|NCT01236053|181923474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.84||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|2.52|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||2.52|1.35|0.0001
91020101|NCT01236053|181923474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.0161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|2.12|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, COPD."|||2.12|1.08|0.0161
91020102|NCT01236053|181923474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.3972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.0|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||2.00|0.76|0.3972
91084084|NCT02494401|182051881|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6||||||p value of 6 month comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6
91084085|NCT02494401|182051882|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89||||||p value baseline comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.89
91084086|NCT02494401|182051882|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.32
91084087|NCT02494401|182051882|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56||||||p value for 6 month comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.56
91020103|NCT01236053|181923474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.39|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, COPD."|||1.39|0.50|0.4950
91020104|NCT01236053|181923474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.0601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.94|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||1.94|0.99|0.0601
91020105|NCT01236053|181923474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.9286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.45|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, COPD."|||1.45|0.71|0.9286
91020106|NCT01236053|181923475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.5394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.39|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: \> 1 year (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||2.39|0.63|0.5394
91020107|NCT01236053|181923475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.58|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: \> 1 year (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, COPD."|||1.58|0.39|0.5070
91020108|NCT01236053|181923475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.5426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.83|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: \> 1 year (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||1.83|0.73|0.5426
91020109|NCT01236053|181923475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.38|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: \> 1 year (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, COPD."|||1.38|0.52|0.5150
91020110|NCT01236053|181923475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53||||0.435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|4.42|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: \> 2 years (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||4.42|0.53|0.4350
91020111|NCT01236053|181923475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.8276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|3.43|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: \> 2 years (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, COPD."|||3.43|0.37|0.8276
91020112|NCT01236053|181923475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.4022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|2.5|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: \> 2 years (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||2.50|0.69|0.4022
91020113|NCT01236053|181923475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.8681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.86|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: \> 2 years (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, COPD."|||1.86|0.48|0.8681
91020114|NCT01236053|181923475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67||||0.6326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|13.86|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: \> 3 years (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||13.86|0.20|0.6326
91020115|NCT01236053|181923475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.87||||0.577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|16.86|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: \> 3 years (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, COPD."|||16.86|0.21|0.5770
91020116|NCT01236053|181923475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.8087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.21|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: \> 3 years (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||3.21|0.40|0.8087
91020117|NCT01236053|181923475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.8497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|2.64|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: \> 3 years (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, COPD."|||2.64|0.31|0.8497
91020118|NCT01236053|181923476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.1528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.24|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||2.24|0.88|0.1528
91020119|NCT01236053|181923476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.9625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.65|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, COPD."|||1.65|0.62|0.9625
91020120|NCT01236053|181923476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.96|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|2.59|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||2.59|1.48|<0.0001
91020121|NCT01236053|181923476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|2.29|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, COPD."|||2.29|1.25|0.0006
91020122|NCT01236053|181923476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28||||0.3515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.16|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||2.16|0.76|0.3515
91020123|NCT01236053|181923476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.9069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.82|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, COPD."|||1.82|0.59|0.9069
91020124|NCT01236053|181923476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|3.21|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||3.21|1.78|<0.0001
91020125|NCT01236053|181923476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|2.81|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, COPD."|||2.81|1.48|<0.0001
91020126|NCT01236053|181923476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.5948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.88|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||1.88|0.70|0.5948
91020127|NCT01236053|181923476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.3984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.35|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, COPD."|||1.35|0.47|0.3984
91020128|NCT01236053|181923476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.1872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.79|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||1.79|0.89|0.1872
91020129|NCT01236053|181923476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.6772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.34|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, COPD."|||1.34|0.64|0.6772
91020130|NCT01236053|181923477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.49||||0.4933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|3.72|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||3.72|0.07|0.4933
91020131|NCT01236053|181923477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.43||||0.4147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|3.27|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||3.27|0.06|0.4147
91020132|NCT01236053|181923478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.8257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|10.38|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||10.38|0.15|0.8257
91020133|NCT01236053|181923478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.9467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|9.02|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||9.02|0.13|0.9467
91020134|NCT01236053|181923478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||0.9859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||0.00|0.00|0.9859
91020135|NCT01236053|181923478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||0.9857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||0.00|0.00|0.9857
91020136|NCT01236053|181923478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||0.986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||0.00|0.00|0.9860
91020137|NCT01236053|181923478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||0.9858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||0.00|0.00|0.9858
91020138|NCT01236053|181923478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||0.9798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||0.00|0.00|0.9798
91020139|NCT01236053|181923478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||0.9796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||0.00|0.00|0.9796
91020140|NCT01236053|181923479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.6252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|14.84|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||14.84|0.20|0.6252
91020141|NCT01236053|181923479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.7208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|13.28|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||13.28|0.17|0.7208
91020142|NCT01236053|181923481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.9141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|9.03|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||9.03|0.14|0.9141
91020143|NCT01236053|181923481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.9613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|7.78|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||7.78|0.12|0.9613
91020144|NCT01236053|181923482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.0323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.57|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||1.57|1.02|0.0323
91020145|NCT01236053|181923482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.0682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.52|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hysterectomy, current estrogen, prior estrogen, benign breast disease."|||1.52|0.99|0.0682
91020146|NCT01236053|181923482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.0326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.4|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||1.40|1.01|0.0326
91020147|NCT01236053|181923482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.0699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.36|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hysterectomy, current estrogen, prior estrogen, benign breast disease."|||1.36|0.99|0.0699
91020148|NCT01236053|181923483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.2893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.69|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||1.69|0.86|0.2893
91020149|NCT01236053|181923483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.4301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.61|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hysterectomy, current estrogen, prior estrogen, benign breast disease."|||1.61|0.82|0.4301
91020150|NCT01236053|181923483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.0806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.58|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||1.58|0.97|0.0806
91020151|NCT01236053|181923483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.1226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.55|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hysterectomy, current estrogen, prior estrogen, benign breast disease."|||1.55|0.95|0.1226
91020152|NCT01236053|181923483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.3502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.89|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||1.89|0.80|0.3502
91020153|NCT01236053|181923483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.4654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.81|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hysterectomy, current estrogen, prior estrogen, benign breast disease."|||1.81|0.76|0.4654
91020154|NCT01236053|181923483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.3987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.23|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||1.23|0.59|0.3987
91020155|NCT01236053|181923483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.3349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.2|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hysterectomy, current estrogen, prior estrogen, benign breast disease."|||1.20|0.58|0.3349
91020156|NCT01236053|181923483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.0827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.98|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||1.98|0.96|0.0827
91020157|NCT01236053|181923483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.0932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.96|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hysterectomy, current estrogen, prior estrogen, benign breast disease."|||1.96|0.95|0.0932
91020158|NCT01236053|181923483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.8|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||1.80|1.07|0.0130
91020159|NCT01236053|181923483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.0241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.75|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hysterectomy, current estrogen, prior estrogen, benign breast disease."|||1.75|1.04|0.0241
91020160|NCT01236053|181923484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.5043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.68|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||1.68|0.77|0.5043
91020161|NCT01236053|181923484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.7129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.59|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hysterectomy, current estrogen, prior estrogen, benign breast disease."|||1.59|0.73|0.7129
91020162|NCT01236053|181923484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.2055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.57|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||1.57|0.91|0.2055
91020163|NCT01236053|181923484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.3005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.52|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hysterectomy, current estrogen, prior estrogen, benign breast disease."|||1.52|0.88|0.3005
91020164|NCT01236053|181923484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.2849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.77|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||1.77|0.84|0.2849
91020165|NCT01236053|181923484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.72|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hysterectomy, current estrogen, prior estrogen, benign breast disease."|||1.72|0.82|0.3650
91020166|NCT01236053|181923484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.7559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.4|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||1.40|0.78|0.7559
91020167|NCT01236053|181923484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.37|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hysterectomy, current estrogen, prior estrogen, benign breast disease."|||1.37|0.77|0.8520
91020168|NCT01236053|181923484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.0459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|2.06|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||2.06|1.01|0.0459
91020169|NCT01236053|181923484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.0542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|2.04|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hysterectomy, current estrogen, prior estrogen, benign breast disease."|||2.04|0.99|0.0542
91020170|NCT01236053|181923484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.0312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.74|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||1.74|1.03|0.0312
91084088|NCT02494401|182051883|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69||||||p value for baseline comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.69
91020171|NCT01236053|181923484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.0508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.7|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hysterectomy, current estrogen, prior estrogen, benign breast disease."|||1.70|1.00|0.0508
91020172|NCT01236053|181923485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.0892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|2.42|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: \> 1 year (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||2.42|0.94|0.0892
91020173|NCT01236053|181923485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.1043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.39|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: \> 1 year (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hysterectomy, current estrogen, prior estrogen, benign breast disease."|||2.39|0.92|0.1043
91084089|NCT02494401|182051883|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29||||||p value for 16 week comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.29
91084090|NCT02494401|182051883|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07||||||p value for 6 month comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.07
91020174|NCT01236053|181923485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.06|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: \> 1 year (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||2.06|1.10|0.0101
91020175|NCT01236053|181923485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46||||0.0186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|2.0|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: \> 1 year (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hysterectomy, current estrogen, prior estrogen, benign breast disease."|||2.00|1.07|0.0186
91020176|NCT01236053|181923485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.69||||0.1458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|3.43|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: \> 2 years (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||3.43|0.83|0.1458
91020177|NCT01236053|181923485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.62||||0.1859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|3.29|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: \> 2 years (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hysterectomy, current estrogen, prior estrogen, benign breast disease."|||3.29|0.79|0.1859
91020178|NCT01236053|181923485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.75||||0.0122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|2.72|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: \> 2 years (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||2.72|1.13|0.0122
91020179|NCT01236053|181923485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72||||0.0162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.67|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: \> 2 years (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hysterectomy, current estrogen, prior estrogen, benign breast disease."|||2.67|1.10|0.0162
91020180|NCT01236053|181923485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.7573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|3.36|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: \> 3 years (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||3.36|0.19|0.7573
91020181|NCT01236053|181923485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.7088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|3.21|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: \> 3 years (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hysterectomy, current estrogen, prior estrogen, benign breast disease."|||3.21|0.18|0.7088
91020182|NCT01236053|181923485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.84||||0.0787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|3.64|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: \> 3 years (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||3.64|0.93|0.0787
91020183|NCT01236053|181923485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.81||||0.0873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|3.58|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: \> 3 years (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hysterectomy, current estrogen, prior estrogen, benign breast disease."|||3.58|0.92|0.0873
91020184|NCT01236053|181923486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.4233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.7|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||1.70|0.80|0.4233
91020185|NCT01236053|181923486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.5908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.62|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hysterectomy, current estrogen, prior estrogen, benign breast disease."|||1.62|0.76|0.5908
91020186|NCT01236053|181923486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.67|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||1.67|1.00|0.0540
91020187|NCT01236053|181923486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.0939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.62|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hysterectomy, current estrogen, prior estrogen, benign breast disease."|||1.62|0.96|0.0939
91020188|NCT01236053|181923486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.87|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||1.87|0.87|0.2140
91020189|NCT01236053|181923486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.8|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hysterectomy, current estrogen, prior estrogen, benign breast disease."|||1.80|0.84|0.2940
91020190|NCT01236053|181923486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.8352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.32|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||1.32|0.71|0.8352
90956570|NCT04797650|181792785|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-1.2||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||How satisfied with your eyebrows: Week 24||-1.2|-1.8|< 0.0001
91020191|NCT01236053|181923486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.7809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.31|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hysterectomy, current estrogen, prior estrogen, benign breast disease."|||1.31|0.70|0.7809
91020192|NCT01236053|181923486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.0921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.94|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||1.94|0.95|0.0921
91020193|NCT01236053|181923486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.1091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.92|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hysterectomy, current estrogen, prior estrogen, benign breast disease."|||1.92|0.94|0.1091
91020194|NCT01236053|181923486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.0564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.68|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||1.68|0.99|0.0564
91084091|NCT02494401|182051884|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28||||||p value for baseline comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.28
91084092|NCT02494401|182051884|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16||||||p value for 16 week comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.16
91084093|NCT02494401|182051884|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23||||||p value for 6 month comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.23
91084094|NCT02494401|182051885|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93||||||p value of baseline comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.93
91084095|NCT02494401|182051885|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54||||||p value of 16 week comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.54
91084096|NCT02494401|182051885|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33||||||p value of 6 month comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.33
91084097|NCT02494401|182051886|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59||||||p value of baseline comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.59
91084098|NCT02494401|182051886|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25||||||p value of 16 week comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.25
91084099|NCT02494401|182051886|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12||||||p value of 6 month comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.12
91084100|NCT02494401|182051887|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51||||||p value of baseline comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.51
91084101|NCT02494401|182051887|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93||||||p value of 16 week comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.93
91084102|NCT02494401|182051887|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84||||||p value of 6 month comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.84
91084103|NCT02494401|182051888|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83||||||p value of baseline comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.83
91084104|NCT02494401|182051888|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27||||||p value of 16 week comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.27
91084105|NCT02494401|182051888|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18||||||p value of 6 month comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.18
91084106|NCT02494401|182051889|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64||||||p value of baseline comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.64
91084107|NCT02494401|182051889|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8||||||p value of 16 week comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8
91084108|NCT02494401|182051889|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09||||||p value of 6 month comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.09
91084109|NCT02494401|182051890|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73||||||p value of baseline comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.73
91084110|NCT02494401|182051890|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82||||||p value of 16 week comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.82
91084111|NCT02494401|182051890|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||p value of 6 month comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.04
91084112|NCT02494401|182051891|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95||||||p value of baseline comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.95
91084113|NCT02494401|182051891|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87||||||p value of 16 week comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.87
91084114|NCT02494401|182051891|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63||||||p value of 6 month comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.63
91084115|NCT02494401|182051892|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||p value of baseline comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
91084116|NCT02494401|182051892|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62||||||p value of 16 week comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.62
91084117|NCT02494401|182051892|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7||||||p value of 6 month comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7
91084118|NCT02494401|182051893|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29||||||p value of baseline comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.29
91084119|NCT02494401|182051893|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58||||||p value of 16 week comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.58
91084120|NCT02494401|182051893|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49||||||p value of 6 month comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.49
91084121|NCT02494401|182051894|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87||||||p value of baseline comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.87
91084122|NCT02494401|182051894|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89||||||p value of 16 week comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.89
91084123|NCT02494401|182051894|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82||||||p value of 6 month comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.82
91084124|NCT00802672|182051923|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|For the primary efficacy analysis, a 90% confidence interval was constructed for the difference in the Therapeutic Success rates between the Test Product and Reference Product at Visit 4/Week 6 (Follow-Up). The interval was calculated using Wald's method with Yates' continuity correction. Therapeutic equivalence (bioequivalence) was established if this 90% confidence interval was contained within the interval -0.20 to +0.20 (-0.20% to +0.20%)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.61|2.45|||Wald's method with Yates' continuity|||||2.45|-17.61|
91084125|NCT03159299|182051943|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|||<|0.15|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.15
91084126|NCT01990573|182051974|OTHER|ANOVA|F statistic|0.002||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.002
91084127|NCT01990573|182051975|OTHER|ANOVA|F statistic|0.962||||0.962|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.962
91084128|NCT00947310|182052038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.45||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.85|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard ratios (HR) were calculated to compare Arm A vs Arm B. Null Hypothesis was that HR = 1||0.85|0.24|0.01
91084129|NCT00947310|182052038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.02|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard ratios (HR) were calculated to compare Arm A vs Arm C. Null Hypothesis was that HR = 1||1.02|0.30|0.06
91084130|NCT00947310|182052039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.32||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.47|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard ratios (HR) were calculated to compare Arm A vs Arm B. Null Hypothesis was that HR = 1||2.47|0.71|0.39
91084131|NCT00947310|182052039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.05|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard ratios (HR) were calculated to compare Arm A vs Arm C. Null Hypothesis was that HR = 1||2.05|0.58|0.80
91084132|NCT00947310|182052040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.34|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard ratios (HR) were calculated to compare Arm A vs Arm B. Null Hypothesis was that HR = 1||0.34|0.13|<0.001
91084133|NCT00947310|182052040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.4|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard ratios (HR) were calculated to compare Arm A vs Arm C. Null Hypothesis was that HR = 1||0.40|0.15|<0.001
91084134|NCT00547248|182052041|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the difference in terms of incidence of post-immunization febrile reactions (rectal temperature \> 39.0°C) in Synflorix™ vaccine minus Prevenar™ did not exceed the pre-defined clinically acceptable threshold of 5% + half the incidence in Prevenar.|Difference in percentage|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.82|5.59|||Philips' statistical test|||||5.59|-4.82|
91084135|NCT05133323|182052076|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89||0.0106|ONE_SIDED|90.0||-0.6|||ANCOVA|||||-0.6||0.0106
90956571|NCT04797650|181792785|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.7||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||How satisfied with your eyelashes: Week 12||-0.7|-1.1|< 0.0001
90956572|NCT04797650|181792785|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.7||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||How satisfied with your eyelashes: Week 12||-0.7|-1.2|< 0.0001
90956573|NCT04797650|181792785|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.7||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||How satisfied with your eyelashes: Week 16||-0.7|-1.2|< 0.0001
90956574|NCT04797650|181792785|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.8||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||How satisfied with your eyelashes: Week 16||-0.8|-1.3|< 0.0001
90956575|NCT04797650|181792785|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.8||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||How satisfied with your eyelashes: Week 20||-0.8|-1.3|< 0.0001
90956576|NCT04797650|181792785|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-1.0||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||How satisfied with your eyelashes: Week 20||-1.0|-1.5|< 0.0001
90956577|NCT04797650|181792785|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.9||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||How satisfied with your eyelashes: Week 24||-0.9|-1.4|< 0.0001
90956578|NCT04797650|181792785|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-1.1||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||How satisfied with your eyelashes: Week 24||-1.1|-1.6|< 0.0001
90956579|NCT04797650|181792786|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.1206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.0||P-value was calculated by analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) analysis with effects for treatment, visit, baseline SALT score, and baseline HADS value.|ANCOVA|||Anxiety||1.0|-0.1|0.1206
90956580|NCT04797650|181792786|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.5367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.9||P-value was calculated by ANCOVA analysis with effects for treatment, visit, baseline SALT score, and baseline HADS value.|ANCOVA|||Anxiety||0.9|-0.5|0.5367
90956581|NCT04797650|181792786|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.3||P-value was calculated by ANCOVA analysis with effects for treatment, visit, baseline SALT score, and baseline HADS value.|ANCOVA|||Depression||1.3|0.2|0.0064
90956582|NCT04797650|181792786|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.7||P-value was calculated by ANCOVA analysis with effects for treatment, visit, baseline SALT score, and baseline HADS value.|ANCOVA|||Depression||1.7|0.4|0.0011
90956583|NCT04797650|181792787|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.3||P-value was calculated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||||0.3|0.19|< 0.0001
90956584|NCT04797650|181792787|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.33||P-value was calculated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||||0.33|0.18|< 0.0001
90956585|NCT02937454|181792804|OTHER||Annualised event rate ratio (RR)|0.79||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.01|||Negative binomial model|Negative binomial model adjusted for baseline covariates: sex, age, HF aetiology, HF duration, and country.||Full Analysis Set (FAS)||1.01|0.62|0.059
90956586|NCT02937454|181792804|OTHER||Annualised event rate ratio (RR)|0.75||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.96|||Negative binomial model|Negative binomial model adjusted for baseline covariates: sex, age, HF aetiology, HF duration, and country.||Covid-19 Sensitivity Analysis||0.96|0.59|0.024
90956587|NCT02937454|181792805|OTHER||Annualised event rate ratio (RR)|0.8||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.0|||Negative binomial model|Negative binomial model adjusted for baseline covariates: sex, age, HF aetiology, HF duration, and country.||Full Analysis Set (FAS)||1.0|0.64|0.050
90956588|NCT02937454|181792805|OTHER||Annualised event rate ratio (RR)|0.77||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.97|||Negative binomial model|Negative binomial model adjusted for baseline covariates: sex, age, HF aetiology, HF duration, and country.||COVID-19 sensitivity analyses||0.97|0.62|0.024
90956589|NCT02937454|181792806|OTHER||Annualised event rate ratio (RR)|0.74||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.94|||Negative binomial model|Negative binomial model adjusted for baseline covariates: sex, age, HF aetiology, HF duration, and country.||Full Analysis Set (FAS)||0.94|0.58|0.013
90956590|NCT02937454|181792806|OTHER||Annualised event rate ratio (RR)|0.7||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.9|||Negative binomial model|Negative binomial model adjusted for baseline covariates: sex, age, HF aetiology, HF duration, and country.||COVID-19 sensitivity analyses||0.90|0.55|0.005
90956591|NCT02937454|181792807|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.32|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression adjusted for sex, age, HF aetiology, HF duration, and country at baseline.||Full Analysis Set (FAS)||1.32|0.70|0.809
90956592|NCT02937454|181792807|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.29|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression adjusted for sex, age, HF aetiology, HF duration, and country at baseline||Covid-19 Sensitivity Analysis||1.29|0.68|0.687
90956593|NCT02937454|181792808|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.98|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression adjusted for sex, age, HF aetiology, HF duration, and country at baseline||Full Analysis Set (FAS)||0.98|0.66|0.030
91084136|NCT00909220|182052080|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.49|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA comparing groups (HEA v MDD), controlling for baseline depression (IDS-C score at week 0) to estimate depression at the end of treatment (IDS-C score at week 16).||0.49|0.27|0.05
91084137|NCT00909220|182052081|SUPERIORITY|ANCOVA|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.59|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA comparing groups (HEA v MDD), controlling for baseline depression (IDS-SR score at week 0) to estimate depression at the end of treatment (IDS-SR score at week 16).||0.59|0.31|<0.05
91084138|NCT00909220|182052082|OTHER|Multiple regression analyses|beta|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.75||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||p \<0.05 a priori threshold for statistical significance.|Regression, Linear|||||||.02
91084139|NCT00909220|182052083|OTHER|Hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) , an ordinary least square (OLS) regression-based analysis.|Slope|2.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|2.77||The variation of slopes among participants for each variable were calculated. If significant, a second level of analysis focused on predictors of the variation was conducted.|Regression, Logistic|df = 31||A two-level hierarchical linear model assessing the effects of negativity bias and positivity offset at pre-treatment on the rate of depression severity (IDS-SR) over 16 weeks of treatment (time). First level units were 'weeks in BA treatment', with participants limited to those who attended five or more therapy sessions, resulting in a total of 421 treatment weeks for analysis. Second-level units were the 'subjects entering BA treatment'.||2.77|1.22|<0.05
91084140|NCT04152083|182052089|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.54||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|1.98||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Likelihood ratio test|||The median estimate for each treatment group, hazard ratio, and its 95% confidence interval (CI) were based on the stratified Cox model with Efron's method of tie handling. The analysis was censored at the time point of first rescue medication. The stratification factors were concomitant migraine preventive treatment use and region.||1.98|1.20|0.0006
91084141|NCT04152083|182052090|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.75|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|2.19||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Likelihood ratio test|||The median estimate for each treatment group, hazard ratio, and its 95% CI were based on the stratified Cox model with Efron's method of tie handling. The analysis was censored at the time point of first rescue medication. The stratification factors were concomitant migraine preventive treatment use and region.||2.19|1.41|<0.0001
91084142|NCT04152083|182052091|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.27||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|3.72||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio and 95% CI were based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the study's stratification factors of concomitant migraine preventive treatment use and region.||3.72|1.39|0.0009
91084143|NCT04152083|182052092|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|3.25||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio and 95% CI were based on CMH test adjusted for the study's stratification factors of concomitant migraine preventive treatment use and region.||3.25|1.55|<0.0001
91084144|NCT03318003|182052105|SUPERIORITY||Pearson Chi Square|0.76||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|||||no adjustments made|Chi-squared|||||||0.92
91084145|NCT00614874|182052116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048||95.0||||Comparison is between baseline and week 12|ANOVA|||||||0.048
91084146|NCT00614874|182052117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|35.0||0.183||95.0||||comparison was at baseline and week 12|Friedman|||||||0.183
91084147|NCT00614874|182052118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.95||0.398||95.0||||Comparison was at baseline and week 12|Friedman|||||||0.398
91084148|NCT04607135|182052140|OTHER|||||||0.0003||||||F-statistic = 11.71|Welch's ANOVA|||||||0.0003
90956594|NCT02937454|181792808|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.97|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression adjusted for sex, age, HF aetiology, HF duration, and country at baseline||Covid-19 Sensitivity Analysis||0.97|0.65|0.023
91084149|NCT04607135|182052140|OTHER|||||||0.002||||||q-statistic = 6.74|Games-Howell post-hoc test|||||||0.002
91084150|NCT04607135|182052140|OTHER|||||||0.24||||||q-statistic = 2.34|Games-Howell post-hoc test|||||||0.24
91084151|NCT04607135|182052140|OTHER|||||||0.35||||||q-statistic = 2.04|Games-Howell post-hoc test|||||||0.35
91084152|NCT04607135|182052141|OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.99
91084153|NCT04607135|182052142|OTHER|||||||0.74|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.74
91084154|NCT00705341|182052168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Log-linear generalized estimating equation (GEE) models were used to assess the dose effect on PC20.||||0.65
91084155|NCT00205660|182052170|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance in this planned primary test was p\<0.05.|ANCOVA|||A repeated measures ANCOVA was used to test for a time by treatment condition interaction that would indicate differences between groups in change over time in the primary outcome. The null hypothesis was that there were no differences between groups in the change over time (time x treatment condition).||||0.03
91084156|NCT00205660|182052171|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance in this planned primary test was p\<0.05.|ANCOVA|||A repeated measures ANCOVA was used to test for a time by treatment condition interaction that would indicate differences between groups in change over time in the primary outcome. The null hypothesis was that there were no differences between groups in the change over time (time x treatment condition).||||0.01
91084157|NCT03173456|182052172|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. The plan was to only do individual comparisons between means if the overall test of the analysis of variance (AVOVA) was statistically significant|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis is that all means are equal. The alternate hypothesis is that one or more mean is less than or more than another.||||0.69
91084158|NCT03173456|182052173|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85||||||Threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. The plan was to only compare means if the overall test of AVOVA was statistically significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.85
91084159|NCT03173456|182052174|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99||||||Threshold for statistical significance = 0.05|Chi-squared|||||||0.99
90956595|NCT02937454|181792809|OTHER||Annualised event rate ratio (RR)|0.67||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.97|||Negative binomial model|Negative binomial model adjusted for baseline covariates: sex, age, HF aetiology, HF duration, and country.||Full Analysis Set (FAS)||0.97|0.47|0.035
90956596|NCT02937454|181792809|OTHER||Annualised event rate ratio (RR)|0.61||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.88|||Negative binomial model|Negative binomial model adjusted for baseline covariates: sex, age, HF aetiology, HF duration, and country||Covid-19 Sensitivity Analysis||0.88|0.42|0.009
90956597|NCT02937454|181792810|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.92|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression adjusted for sex, age, HF aetiology, HF duration, and country at baseline.||Full Analysis Set (FAS)||0.92|0.59|0.006
90956598|NCT02937454|181792811|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.94|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression adjusted for sex, age, HF aetiology, HF duration, and country at baseline.||Full Analysis Set (FAS)||0.94|0.63|0.009
90956599|NCT02937454|181792812|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.31|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression adjusted for sex, age, HF aetiology, HF duration, and country at baseline||Full Analysis Set (FAS)||1.31|0.75|0.944
90956600|NCT02937454|181792813|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.39|||Generalised Estimating Equations (GEE)|The following variables are included in the GEE model: treatment, visit, baseline NYHA class, sex, age, HF aetiology, HF duration, and country||Full Analysis Set (FAS)||1.39|0.93|0.196
90956601|NCT02937454|181792814|OTHER|||||||0.208|||||||Mixed-effect model of repeated measures|MMRM using unstructured covariance matrix: Change score = Baseline score + Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Baseline covariates.||Week 6||||0.208
90956602|NCT02937454|181792814|OTHER|||||||0.408|||||||Mixed-effect model of repeated measures|MMRM using unstructured covariance matrix: Change score = Baseline score + Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Baseline covariates.||Week 24||||0.408
90956603|NCT02937454|181792814|OTHER|||||||0.999|||||||Mixed-effect model of repeated measures|MMRM using unstructured covariance matrix: Change score = Baseline score + Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Baseline covariates.||Week 52||||0.999
90956604|NCT02937454|181792815|OTHER|||||||0.227|||||||Mixed-effect model of repeated measures|MMRM using unstructured covariance matrix: Change score = Baseline score + Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Baseline covariates.||Week 2||||0.227
90956605|NCT02937454|181792815|OTHER|||||||0.018|||||||Mixed-effect model of repeated measures|MMRM using unstructured covariance matrix: Change score = Baseline score + Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Baseline covariates.||Week 4||||0.018
90956606|NCT02937454|181792815|OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Mixed-effect model of repeated measures|MMRM using unstructured covariance matrix: Change score = Baseline score + Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Baseline covariates.||Week 6||||0.005
90956607|NCT02937454|181792815|OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Mixed-effect model of repeated measures|MMRM using unstructured covariance matrix: Change score = Baseline score + Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Baseline covariates.||Week 12||||0.006
90956608|NCT02937454|181792815|OTHER|||||||0.028|||||||Mixed-effect model of repeated measures|MMRM using unstructured covariance matrix: Change score = Baseline score + Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Baseline covariates.||Week 24||||0.028
90956609|NCT02937454|181792815|OTHER|||||||0.136|||||||Mixed-effect model of repeated measures|MMRM using unstructured covariance matrix: Change score = Baseline score + Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Baseline covariates.||Week 36||||0.136
90956610|NCT02937454|181792815|OTHER|||||||0.329|||||||Mixed-effect model of repeated measures|MMRM using unstructured covariance matrix: Change score = Baseline score + Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Baseline covariates.||Week 52||||0.329
90956611|NCT04601870|181792823|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.4137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.566|3.973|||Chi-squared|Chi squared equals 0.668 with 1 degrees of freedom|Odds ratio for completing counseling in $50 arm vs. $0 arm|||3.973|.566|0.4137
90956612|NCT04601870|181792823|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.4137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.566|3.973|||Chi-squared|Chi squared equals 0.668 with 1 degrees of freedom|Odds ratio for completing counseling in $100 arm vs. $0 arm|||3.973|.566|0.4137
90956613|NCT04601870|181792823|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.3383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.653|3.446|||Chi-squared|Chi squared equals 0.917 with 1 degrees of freedom|Odds ratio for completing counseling in $50 or $100 arm vs. $0 arm|$0 vs. $50 or $100||3.446|.653|.3383
90956614|NCT04601870|181792824|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.333||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|10.6751|||Chi-squared|Chi squared equals 1.243 with 1 degrees of freedom|Odds ratio for achieving confirmed abstinence at 6 months post-tqd in $50 arm vs. $0 arm|||10.6751|.5100|.2650
90956615|NCT04601870|181792824|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8333||||0.8472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1301|5.3369|||Chi-squared|Chi squared equals 0.037 with 1 degrees of freedom|Odds ratio for achieving confirmed abstinence at 6 months post-tqd in $100 arm vs. $0 arm|||5.3369|.1301|.8472
90956616|NCT04601870|181792824|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.541||||0.5478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3731|6.364|||Chi-squared|Chi squared equals 0.361 with 1 degrees of freedom|Odds ratio for achieving confirmed abstinence at 6 months post-tqd in $50 or $100 arms vs. $0 arm|$0 vs. $50 or $100||6.3640|.3731|.5478
90956617|NCT04601870|181792824|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.3571||||0.2276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06355|2.007|||Chi-squared|Chi squared equals 1.456 with 1 degrees of freedom|Odds ratio for achieving confirmed abstinence at 6 months post-tqd in $100 arm vs. $50 arm|||2.0070|.06355|.2276
90956618|NCT01534689|181792831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90956619|NCT01534689|181792832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||results at 12 weeks compared to baseline||||<0.0001
90956620|NCT01160289|181792841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5||95.0||||The p-value was 1-sided and adjusted for multiple comparisons. The level of significance was 1-sided of 0.04.|ANCOVA|Treatment group (tx grp), baseline IIEF EF domain score, baseline testosterone level, tx grp\*baseline IIEF, tx grp\*testosterone level interactions.||Only the treatment effects of 1 mg LY2452473 and 5 mg tadalafil versus 5 mg tadalafil and the treatment effects of 5 mg LY2452473 and 5 mg tadalafil versus 5 mg tadalafil were analyzed.||||0.5
90956621|NCT01160289|181792841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.498||95.0||||The p-value was 1-sided and adjusted for multiple comparisons. The level of significance was 1-sided of 0.04.|ANCOVA|The model included tx grp, baseline IIEF EF domain score, baseline testosterone level, tx grp\*baseline IIEF, tx grp\*testosterone level interactions.||Only the treatment effects of the treatment effects of 5 mg LY2452473 and 5 mg tadalafil versus 5 mg tadalafil and 1 mg LY2452473 and 5 mg tadalafil versus 5 mg tadalafil were analyzed.||||0.498
91084160|NCT03173456|182052176|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.46
91084161|NCT03173456|182052177|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0501||||||0.05 was the a priori threshold for statistical significance|Chi-squared|||||||0.0501
91020195|NCT01236053|181923486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.0939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.63|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hysterectomy, current estrogen, prior estrogen, benign breast disease."|||1.63|0.96|0.0939
91020196|NCT01236053|181923487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.58||||0.3082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|41.71|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||41.71|0.31|0.3082
91020197|NCT01236053|181923487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.9||||0.3999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|34.69|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, HIV, HPV (genital), phimosis/balanitis."|||34.69|0.24|0.3999
91020198|NCT01236053|181923487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.7509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|12.52|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||12.52|0.16|0.7509
91020199|NCT01236053|181923487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.75||||0.6303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|17.07|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, HIV, HPV (genital), phimosis/balanitis."|||17.07|0.18|0.6303
91020200|NCT01236053|181923488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.32||||0.2038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|108.8|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||108.8|0.37|0.2038
91020201|NCT01236053|181923488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.63||||0.2866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|77.51|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, HIV, HPV (genital), phimosis/balanitis."|||77.51|0.28|0.2866
91020202|NCT01236053|181923488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.32||||0.2038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|108.8|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||108.8|0.37|0.2038
91084162|NCT01733121|182052178|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|-1.6|||ANCOVA|||||-1.6|-4.5|<.0001
91020203|NCT01236053|181923488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|20.4||||0.1118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|839.0|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, HIV, HPV (genital), phimosis/balanitis."|||839.0|0.50|0.1118
91020204|NCT01236053|181923489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.32||||0.2038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|108.8|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||108.8|0.37|0.2038
91020205|NCT01236053|181923489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.63||||0.2866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|77.51|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, HIV, HPV (genital), phimosis/balanitis."|||77.51|0.28|0.2866
91020206|NCT01236053|181923489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.32||||0.2038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|108.8|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||108.8|0.37|0.2038
91020207|NCT01236053|181923489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|20.4||||0.1118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|839.0|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, HIV, HPV (genital), phimosis/balanitis."|||839.0|0.50|0.1118
91020208|NCT01236053|181923491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.32||||0.2038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|108.8|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||108.8|0.37|0.2038
91084163|NCT01733121|182052179|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.4|||ANOVA|||||-0.4|-1.2|<0.0001
91020209|NCT01236053|181923491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.63||||0.2866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|77.51|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, HIV, HPV (genital), phimosis/balanitis."|||77.51|0.28|0.2866
91020210|NCT01236053|181923491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.32||||0.2038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|108.8|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||108.8|0.37|0.2038
91020211|NCT01236053|181923491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|20.4||||0.1118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|839.0|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, HIV, HPV (genital), phimosis/balanitis."|||839.0|0.5|0.1118
91020212|NCT01236053|181923492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.9614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.69|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||1.69|0.58|0.9614
91020213|NCT01236053|181923492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.5179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.44|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||1.44|0.49|0.5179
91020214|NCT01236053|181923492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.8856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.48|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||1.48|0.71|0.8856
91084164|NCT01733121|182052180|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|-1.1|||ANCOVA|||||-1.1|-3.7|0.0005
91084165|NCT01733121|182052181|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.5|||ANOVA|||||-0.5|-1.2|<.0001
91084166|NCT05446142|182052234|OTHER||Reference/Test Ratio|95.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.82|99.9||||||Natural log transformed encorafenib AUCinf was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences (eMCC relative to CAP) and corresponding 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (eMCC relative to CAP) and 90% CIs for the ratios. The geometric mean ratios are presented as percentages.||99.90|90.82|
91020215|NCT01236053|181923492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.5078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.28|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||1.28|0.61|0.5078
91020216|NCT01236053|181923493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.6888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.95|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||1.95|0.36|0.6888
91020217|NCT01236053|181923493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.5024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.75|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||1.75|0.32|0.5024
91020218|NCT01236053|181923493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.6164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.53|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||1.53|0.49|0.6164
91020219|NCT01236053|181923493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78||||0.4002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.39|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||1.39|0.44|0.4002
91020220|NCT01236053|181923493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.7329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|2.66|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||2.66|0.25|0.7329
91020221|NCT01236053|181923493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71||||0.5731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|2.33|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||2.33|0.22|0.5731
91020222|NCT01236053|181923493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.3762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|2.63|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||2.63|0.69|0.3762
91020223|NCT01236053|181923493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.36|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||2.36|0.62|0.5820
91084167|NCT05446142|182052234|OTHER||Reference/Test Ratio|96.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.71|101.12||||||Natural log transformed encorafenib AUCinf was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences (eMCCL relative to CAP) and corresponding 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (eMCCL relative to CAP) and 90% CIs for the ratios. The geometric mean ratios are presented as percentages.||101.12|91.71|
91020224|NCT01236053|181923493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.4782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|3.23|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||3.23|0.58|0.4782
91020225|NCT01236053|181923493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.8998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|2.52|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||2.52|0.44|0.8998
91020226|NCT01236053|181923493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.9308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.99|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||1.99|0.53|0.9308
91020227|NCT01236053|181923493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.5125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.56|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||1.56|0.41|0.5125
91020228|NCT01236053|181923494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.8655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|2.33|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||2.33|0.37|0.8655
91020229|NCT01236053|181923494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.6482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|2.05|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||2.05|0.32|0.6482
91020230|NCT01236053|181923494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.9003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.76|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||1.76|0.53|0.9003
91020231|NCT01236053|181923494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.56|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||1.56|0.46|0.6000
91020232|NCT01236053|181923494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|2.06|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||2.06|0.27|0.5670
91020233|NCT01236053|181923494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67||||0.4353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|1.85|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||1.85|0.24|0.4353
91020234|NCT01236053|181923494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.8922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.95|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||1.95|0.56|0.8922
91020235|NCT01236053|181923494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.8591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.77|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||1.77|0.50|0.8591
91020236|NCT01236053|181923494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.4779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|3.23|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||3.23|0.58|0.4779
91020237|NCT01236053|181923494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.8994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|2.52|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||2.52|0.44|0.8994
91020238|NCT01236053|181923494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|2.12|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||2.12|0.57|0.7800
91020239|NCT01236053|181923494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.6577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.67|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||1.67|0.44|0.6577
91020240|NCT01236053|181923496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.8111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|2.59|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||2.59|0.48|0.8111
91020241|NCT01236053|181923496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.9104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.46|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||2.46|0.45|0.9104
91020242|NCT01236053|181923496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.5592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|2.07|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||2.07|0.68|0.5592
91020243|NCT01236053|181923496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.8521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.85|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||1.85|0.60|0.8521
91020244|NCT01236053|181923496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73||||0.5529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|2.04|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||2.04|0.26|0.5529
91020245|NCT01236053|181923496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.6||||0.3275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.68|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||1.68|0.21|0.3275
91020246|NCT01236053|181923496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.72|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||1.72|0.46|0.7300
91084168|NCT05446142|182052234|OTHER||Reference/Test Ratio|96.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.91|112.47||||||Natural log transformed encorafenib AUCinf was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and sequence as a fixed effect and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences (eMCC relative to eMCC with rabeprazole) and corresponding 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (eMCC relative to eMCC with rabeprazole) and 90% CIs for the ratios. The geometric mean ratios are presented as percentages.||112.47|82.91|
91020247|NCT01236053|181923496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.4831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.53|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||1.53|0.41|0.4831
91020248|NCT01236053|181923496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.7693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.92|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||2.92|0.45|0.7693
91020249|NCT01236053|181923496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.8189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|2.3|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||2.30|0.35|0.8189
91020250|NCT01236053|181923496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.98|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||1.98|0.50|0.9800
91020251|NCT01236053|181923496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78||||0.4944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.58|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||1.58|0.39|0.4944
91020252|NCT01236053|181923497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|20.0||||0.0144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.81|220.5|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||220.5|1.81|0.0144
91020253|NCT01236053|181923497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.79||||0.0743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|147.0|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||147.0|0.79|0.0743
91020254|NCT01236053|181923498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|10.0||||0.1035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|159.9|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||159.9|0.63|0.1035
91020255|NCT01236053|181923498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.1||||0.3799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|95.82|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||95.82|0.18|0.3799
91020256|NCT01236053|181923499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.0||||0.1035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|159.9|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||159.9|0.63|0.1035
91020257|NCT01236053|181923499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.1||||0.3799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|95.82|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||95.82|0.18|0.3799
91020258|NCT01236053|181923501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.0||||0.1035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|159.9|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||159.9|0.63|0.1035
91020259|NCT01236053|181923501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.1||||0.3799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|95.82|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||95.82|0.18|0.3799
91020260|NCT01236053|181923502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.01||||0.0066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|3.32|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||3.32|1.21|0.0066
91020261|NCT01236053|181923502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68||||0.0494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.82|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, chronic pancreatitis."|||2.82|1.00|0.0494
91020262|NCT01236053|181923502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.93||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|2.82|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||2.82|1.33|0.0006
91020263|NCT01236053|181923502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.0138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|2.41|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, chronic pancreatitis."|||2.41|1.11|0.0138
91020264|NCT01236053|181923503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.29||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|6.53|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||6.53|1.66|0.0006
91020265|NCT01236053|181923503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.01||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|6.05|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, chronic pancreatitis."|||6.05|1.50|0.0020
91020266|NCT01236053|181923503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.49||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|4.34|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||4.34|1.43|0.0013
91020267|NCT01236053|181923503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.16||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|3.8|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, chronic pancreatitis."|||3.80|1.22|0.0080
91020268|NCT01236053|181923503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.8165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|3.61|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||3.61|0.20|0.8165
91020269|NCT01236053|181923503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72||||0.6624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|3.12|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, chronic pancreatitis."|||3.12|0.17|0.6624
91020270|NCT01236053|181923503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.6316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|3.68|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||3.68|0.45|0.6316
91020271|NCT01236053|181923503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|3.22|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, chronic pancreatitis."|||3.22|0.35|0.9060
91020272|NCT01236053|181923503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.3731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|3.74|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||3.74|0.61|0.3731
91020273|NCT01236053|181923503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.8266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|2.87|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, chronic pancreatitis."|||2.87|0.43|0.8266
91020274|NCT01236053|181923503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73||||0.0712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|3.13|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||3.13|0.95|0.0712
91020275|NCT01236053|181923503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.2674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.6|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, chronic pancreatitis."|||2.60|0.77|0.2674
91020276|NCT01236053|181923504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.61||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.75|7.46|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||7.46|1.75|0.0005
91020277|NCT01236053|181923504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.25||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|6.83|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, chronic pancreatitis."|||6.83|1.55|0.0019
90956622|NCT01160289|181792842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|1.178|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.312||0.722||95.0||||"The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the percentage of Yes responses on the SEP diary, Q1; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity."|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.722
91020278|NCT01236053|181923504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.51||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|4.55|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||4.55|1.39|0.0024
91020279|NCT01236053|181923504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.18||||0.0115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|4.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, chronic pancreatitis."|||4.00|1.19|0.0115
91020280|NCT01236053|181923504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.6281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|2.96|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||2.96|0.17|0.6281
91020281|NCT01236053|181923504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.61||||0.5103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|2.62|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, chronic pancreatitis."|||2.62|0.14|0.5103
91020282|NCT01236053|181923504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|1.15||||0.7733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.9|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||2.90|0.45|0.7733
91020283|NCT01236053|181923504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|2.81|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, chronic pancreatitis."|||2.81|0.43|0.8370
91020284|NCT01236053|181923504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.75||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|4.1|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||4.10|0.75|0.1980
91084169|NCT05446142|182052234|OTHER||Reference/Test Ratio|88.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.59|94.95||||||Natural log transformed encorafenib AUCinf was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and sequence as a fixed effect and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences (eMCCL relative to eMCCL with rabeprazole) and corresponding 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (eMCCL relative to eMCCL with rabeprazole) and 90% CIs for the ratios. The geometric mean ratios are presented as percentages.||94.95|82.59|
91020285|NCT01236053|181923504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.5391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|3.21|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, chronic pancreatitis."|||3.21|0.54|0.5391
91020286|NCT01236053|181923504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.97||||0.0224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|3.53|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||3.53|1.10|0.0224
91020287|NCT01236053|181923504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.1815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|2.77|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, chronic pancreatitis."|||2.77|0.82|0.1815
91020288|NCT01236053|181923506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.38||||0.0248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|5.09|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||5.09|1.12|0.0248
91020289|NCT01236053|181923506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.16||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|4.7|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, chronic pancreatitis."|||4.70|0.99|0.0520
91020290|NCT01236053|181923506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.33||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|4.2|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||4.20|1.30|0.0046
91020291|NCT01236053|181923506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.05||||0.0193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|3.72|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, chronic pancreatitis."|||3.72|1.12|0.0193
91020292|NCT01236053|181923506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.75||||0.0309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|6.88|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||6.88|1.10|0.0309
91084170|NCT05446142|182052235|OTHER||Reference/Test Ratio|104.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.4|119.04||||||Natural log transformed encorafenib Cmax was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences (eMCC relative to CAP) and corresponding 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (eMCC relative to CAP) and 90% CIs for the ratios. The geometric mean ratios are presented as percentages.||119.04|91.40|
91084171|NCT05446142|182052235|OTHER||Reference/Test Ratio|90.35|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.17|103.12||||||Natural log transformed encorafenib Cmax was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences (eMCCL relative to CAP) and corresponding 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (eMCCL relative to CAP) and 90% CIs for the ratios. The geometric mean ratios are presented as percentages.||103.12|79.17|
91020293|NCT01236053|181923506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.11||||0.1285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|5.51|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, chronic pancreatitis."|||5.51|0.81|0.1285
91084172|NCT05446142|182052235|OTHER||Reference/Test Ratio|79.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|58.7|108.08||||||Natural log transformed encorafenib Cmax was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and sequence as a fixed effect and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences (eMCC relative to eMCC with rabeprazole) and corresponding 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (eMCC relative to eMCC with rabeprazole) and 90% CIs for the ratios. The geometric mean ratios are presented as percentages.||108.08|58.70|
91020294|NCT01236053|181923506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.1257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|3.83|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||3.83|0.85|0.1257
91020295|NCT01236053|181923506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.52||||0.2944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|3.31|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, chronic pancreatitis."|||3.31|0.70|0.2944
91020296|NCT01236053|181923506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.7032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|3.21|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||3.21|0.45|0.7032
91020297|NCT01236053|181923506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.9922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|2.69|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, chronic pancreatitis."|||2.69|0.37|0.9922
91020298|NCT01236053|181923506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.66||||0.1227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|3.16|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||3.16|0.87|0.1227
91020299|NCT01236053|181923506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.3809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|2.61|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, chronic pancreatitis."|||2.61|0.69|0.3809
91020300|NCT01236053|181923507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.64||||0.1757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|3.34|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||3.34|0.80|0.1757
91020301|NCT01236053|181923507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.4405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|2.75|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hypertension, diuretic use."|||2.75|0.64|0.4405
91084173|NCT05446142|182052235|OTHER||Reference/Test Ratio|80.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|64.82|100.68||||||Natural log transformed encorafenib Cmax was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and sequence as a fixed effect and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences (eMCCL relative to eMCCL with rabeprazole) and corresponding 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (eMCCL relative to eMCCL with rabeprazole) and 90% CIs for the ratios. The geometric mean ratios are presented as percentages.||100.68|64.82|
91020302|NCT01236053|181923507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.16|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||2.16|0.71|0.4420
91020303|NCT01236053|181923507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.9034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.82|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hypertension, diuretic use."|||1.82|0.59|0.9034
91020304|NCT01236053|181923508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.91||||0.2395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|5.6|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||5.60|0.65|0.2395
91020305|NCT01236053|181923508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.64||||0.3764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|4.93|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hypertension, diuretic use."|||4.93|0.55|0.3764
91020306|NCT01236053|181923508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.7599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|2.71|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||2.71|0.48|0.7599
91020307|NCT01236053|181923508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.9502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|2.46|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hypertension, diuretic use."|||2.46|0.43|0.9502
91020308|NCT01236053|181923508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.7164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|5.75|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||5.75|0.30|0.7164
91020309|NCT01236053|181923508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.9345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|4.73|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hypertension, diuretic use."|||4.73|0.24|0.9345
91020310|NCT01236053|181923508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.8833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|3.02|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||3.02|0.28|0.8833
91020311|NCT01236053|181923508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.6178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|2.46|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hypertension, diuretic use."|||2.46|0.22|0.6178
90956623|NCT01160289|181792842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-1.552|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.253||0.634||95.0||||"The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the percentage of Yes responses on the SEP diary, Q1; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity."|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.634
91020312|NCT01236053|181923508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6||||0.4556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|5.53|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||5.53|0.46|0.4556
91020313|NCT01236053|181923508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.7478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|4.29|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hypertension, diuretic use."|||4.29|0.35|0.7478
91020314|NCT01236053|181923508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|4.13|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||4.13|0.71|0.2350
91020315|NCT01236053|181923508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.5428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|3.24|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hypertension, diuretic use."|||3.24|0.54|0.5428
91020316|NCT01236053|181923509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.3123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|6.59|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||6.59|0.55|0.3123
91020317|NCT01236053|181923509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73||||0.3951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|6.15|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hypertension, diuretic use."|||6.15|0.49|0.3951
91020318|NCT01236053|181923509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.4388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|3.75|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||3.75|0.56|0.4388
91020319|NCT01236053|181923509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.5535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|3.47|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hypertension, diuretic use."|||3.47|0.51|0.5535
91020320|NCT01236053|181923509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.6332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|4.48|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||4.48|0.40|0.6332
91020321|NCT01236053|181923509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.8743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|3.75|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hypertension, diuretic use."|||3.75|0.32|0.8743
91020322|NCT01236053|181923509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77||||0.6132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|2.15|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||2.15|0.27|0.6132
91084174|NCT05446142|182052236|OTHER||Reference/Test Ratio|95.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.37|100.59||||||Natural log transformed encorafenib AUClast was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences (eMCC relative to CAP) and corresponding 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (eMCC relative to CAP) and 90% CIs for the ratios. The geometric mean ratios are presented as percentages.||100.59|90.37|
91084175|NCT05446142|182052236|OTHER||Reference/Test Ratio|94.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.73|99.88||||||Natural log transformed encorafenib AUClast was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences (eMCCL relative to CAP) and corresponding 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (eMCCL relative to CAP) and 90% CIs for the ratios. The geometric mean ratios are presented as percentages.||99.88|89.73|
91084176|NCT05446142|182052236|OTHER||Reference/Test Ratio|95.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.1|109.04||||||Natural log transformed encorafenib AUClast was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and sequence as a fixed effect and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences (eMCC relative to eMCC with rabeprazole) and corresponding 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (eMCC relative to eMCC with rabeprazole) and 90% CIs for the ratios. The geometric mean ratios are presented as percentages.||109.04|84.10|
91084177|NCT05446142|182052236|OTHER||Reference/Test Ratio|88.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.36|94.7||||||Natural log transformed encorafenib AUClast was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and sequence as a fixed effect and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences (eMCCL relative to eMCCL with rabeprazole) and corresponding 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (eMCCL relative to eMCCL with rabeprazole) and 90% CIs for the ratios. The geometric mean ratios are presented as percentages.||94.70|82.36|
91084178|NCT00547157|182052248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.07|||||difference is PRT - CRT|||0.07|-0.26|
91084179|NCT00547157|182052249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.613||||0.0601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|2.656|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio is presented as panitumumab plus radiotherapy:chemoradiotherapy.|||2.656|0.980|0.0601
91084180|NCT00547157|182052250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.731||||0.0259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.068|2.806|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio is presented as panitumumab plus radiotherapy:chemoradiotherapy.|||2.806|1.068|0.0259
91084181|NCT00547157|182052251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.593||||0.1039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.909|2.793|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio is presented as panitumumab plus radiotherapy:chemoradiotherapy|||2.793|0.909|0.1039
91084182|NCT00547157|182052252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.791||||0.5744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.342|1.785|||Regression, Logistic||The odd ratio is defined as the odds of having an objective response in the panitumumab plus radiotherapy arm relative to the odds in the chemoradiotherapy arm.|||1.785|0.342|0.5744
91084183|NCT00547157|182052252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in objective response rate|-0.044|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.187|0.112|||||Difference is objective response rate in the panitumumab plus radiotherapy arm minus the rate in the chemoradiotherapy arm.|||0.112|-0.187|
91084184|NCT00547157|182052253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.278||||0.807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.438|4.043|||Regression, Logistic||The odd ratio is defined as the odds of having an objective response in the panitumumab plus radiotherapy arm relative to the odds in the chemoradiotherapy arm.|||4.043|0.438|0.8070
91084185|NCT00547157|182052253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in complete response rate|0.029|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.103|0.141|||||Difference is objective response rate in the panitumumab plus radiotherapy arm minus the rate in the chemoradiotherapy arm.|||0.141|-0.103|
91084186|NCT01990768|182052258|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.1809|ONE_SIDED|||||Based on an interim futility analysis, a one-sided P-value less than .1028 was required to declare benefit.|Regression, Logistic|Analysis was adjusted for regional site. Missing outcomes were multiply imputed.|Odds ratio for unfavorable GOS-E (\<=4) for the Combined TXA Arms (numerator) vs. Placebo (denominator)|This study was designed with an asymmetric boundary for tests for treatment harm and benefit. The conventional 0.025 level was used to test for harm while a 0.1 level was used to determine benefit for this Phase II trial. Statistical significance for the primary analysis was conducted under a group-sequential design that included a single, interim futility analysis using a Wang-Tsiatis boundary with parameter 0.8 based on outcome data from the first 200 subjects.||||.1809
91084187|NCT02756364|182052291|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.26|||Log Rank||HR obtained by stratified Cox proportional hazard model with treatment arm, original interactive response technology (IRT) stratification factors as covariates. A hazard ratio of \<1 was considered statistically significant.|||1.26|0.47|0.537
91084188|NCT02756364|182052291|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.45|||Log Rank||HR obtained by stratified Cox proportional hazard model with treatment arm, original IRT stratification factors as covariates. A hazard ratio of \<1 was considered statistically significant.|||1.45|0.53|0.849
91084189|NCT02756364|182052292|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.4|||Log Rank||HR obtained by stratified Cox proportional hazard model with treatment arm, original IRT stratification factors as covariates. A hazard ratio of \<1 was considered statistically significant.|||1.40|0.36|0.276
91084190|NCT02756364|182052292|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.68|||Log Rank||HR obtained by stratified Cox proportional hazard model with treatment arm, original IRT stratification factors as covariates. A hazard ratio of \<1 was considered statistically significant.|||1.68|0.47|0.470
91084191|NCT02756364|182052293|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.25|||Log Rank||HR obtained by stratified Cox proportional hazard model with treatment arm, original IRT stratification factors as covariates. A hazard ratio of \<1 was considered statistically significant.|||1.25|0.46|0.495
91084192|NCT02756364|182052293|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.38|||Log Rank||HR obtained by stratified Cox proportional hazard model with treatment arm, original IRT stratification factors as covariates. A hazard ratio of \<1 was considered statistically significant.|||1.38|0.49|0.646
90956624|NCT01160289|181792842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-4.674|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.218||0.147||95.0||||"The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the percentage of Yes responses on the SEP diary, Q1; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity."|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.147
91084193|NCT02756364|182052294|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|7.29|||||The odds ratio and 95% CIs were obtained using a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel model with the original IRT stratification factors (visceral metastases, previous sensitivity to hormonal therapy, and previous exposure to CDK4/6 inhibitors).|||7.29|0.68|
91084194|NCT02756364|182052294|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|4.39|||||The odds ratio and 95% CIs were obtained using a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel model with the original IRT stratification factors (visceral metastases, previous sensitivity to hormonal therapy, and previous exposure to CDK4/6 inhibitors).|||4.39|0.34|
91084195|NCT02756364|182052295|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|6.94|||||The odds ratio and 95% CIs were obtained using a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel model with the original IRT stratification factors (visceral metastases, previous sensitivity to hormonal therapy, and previous exposure to CDK4/6 inhibitors).|||6.94|0.94|
91084196|NCT02756364|182052295|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|4.44|||||The odds ratio and 95% CIs were obtained using a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel model with the original IRT stratification factors (visceral metastases, previous sensitivity to hormonal therapy, and previous exposure to CDK4/6 inhibitors).|||4.44|0.69|
91084197|NCT02223364|182052297|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.144|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.144
91084198|NCT02223364|182052297|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.016
91084199|NCT02223364|182052297|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.196|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.196
91084200|NCT02223364|182052298|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.003
91084201|NCT02223364|182052298|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91084202|NCT02223364|182052298|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.021|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.021
91084203|NCT02223364|182052299|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91084204|NCT02223364|182052299|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91084205|NCT02223364|182052299|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.257|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.257
91084206|NCT02223364|182052300|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.059|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.059
91084207|NCT02223364|182052300|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.005
91084208|NCT02223364|182052300|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.214|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.214
91084209|NCT02223364|182052301|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.189|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.189
91084210|NCT02223364|182052301|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.043|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.043
91084211|NCT02223364|182052301|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.357|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.357
91084212|NCT02223364|182052302|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.958|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.958
91084213|NCT02223364|182052302|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.203|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.203
91084214|NCT02223364|182052302|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.132|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.132
91084215|NCT02223364|182052303|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.493|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.493
91084216|NCT02223364|182052303|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.299|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.299
91084217|NCT02223364|182052303|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.797|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.797
91084218|NCT02223364|182052304|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.571|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.571
91084219|NCT02223364|182052304|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.991|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.991
91084220|NCT02223364|182052304|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.496|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.496
91084221|NCT02223364|182052305|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.807|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.807
91084222|NCT02223364|182052305|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.171|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.171
91084223|NCT02223364|182052305|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.104|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.104
91084224|NCT02223364|182052307|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.012
91084225|NCT02223364|182052307|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91084226|NCT02223364|182052307|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.293|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.293
91084227|NCT02223364|182052308|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.202|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.202
91084228|NCT02223364|182052308|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.007
91084229|NCT02223364|182052308|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.148|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.148
91084230|NCT02223364|182052309|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.933|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.933
91084231|NCT02223364|182052309|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.169|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.169
91084232|NCT02223364|182052309|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.126|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.126
91084233|NCT02223364|182052310|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.768|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.768
91084234|NCT02223364|182052311|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.623|||||||Regression, Cox|||Within group comparison of baseline and 3 months (approximately 12 weeks)||||0.623
91084235|NCT02223364|182052311|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Regression, Cox|||Within group comparison of baseline and 3 months (approximately 12 weeks)||||0.001
91084236|NCT02223364|182052311|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.048|||||||Regression, Cox|||Within group comparison of baseline and three months (approximately 12 weeks)||||0.048
91084237|NCT01677182|182052343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Differences|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98||0.783|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.4|3.0||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) model with baseline by week interaction, pooled center, week, treatment, baseline, and week by treatment interaction as factors was used for the analysis.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||3.0|-1.4|0.783
91084238|NCT01677182|182052343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||0.329|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.6|1.7||MMRM model with baseline by week interaction, pooled center, week, treatment, baseline, and week by treatment interaction as factors was used for the analysis.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||1.7|-2.6|0.329
91084239|NCT01677182|182052344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.088|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.1|1.1||MMRM model with baseline by week interaction, pooled center, week, treatment, baseline, and week by treatment interaction as factors was used for the analysis.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||1.1|-0.1|0.088
91084240|NCT01677182|182052344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.642|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.7|0.5||MMRM model with baseline by week interaction, pooled center, week, treatment, baseline, and week by treatment interaction as factors was used for the analysis.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||0.5|-0.7|0.642
91084241|NCT01677182|182052345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.792|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.2|0.3||MMRM model with baseline by week interaction, pooled center, week, treatment, baseline, and week by treatment interaction as factors was used for the analysis.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||0.3|-0.2|0.792
91084242|NCT01677182|182052345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.171|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.4|0.1||MMRM model with baseline by week interaction, pooled center, week, treatment, baseline, and week by treatment interaction as factors was used for the analysis.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||0.1|-0.4|0.171
91084243|NCT01677182|182052346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.653|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.2|0.3||MMRM model with baseline by week interaction, pooled center, week, treatment, baseline, and week by treatment interaction as factors was used for the analysis.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||0.3|-0.2|0.653
91084244|NCT01677182|182052346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.673|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.3|0.2||MMRM model with baseline by week interaction, pooled center, week, treatment, baseline, and week by treatment interaction as factors was used for the analysis.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||0.2|-0.3|0.673
91084245|NCT01677182|182052347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.119|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.4|2.0||MMRM model with baseline by week interaction, pooled center, week, treatment, baseline, and week by treatment interaction as factors was used for the analysis.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||2.0|-0.4|0.119
91084246|NCT01677182|182052347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.791|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.3|1.0||MMRM model with baseline by week interaction, pooled center, week, treatment, baseline, and week by treatment interaction as factors was used for the analysis.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||1.0|-1.3|0.791
91084247|NCT01677182|182052348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.422|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.0|2.1||MMRM model with baseline by week interaction, pooled center, week, treatment, baseline, and week by treatment interaction as factors was used for the analysis.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||2.1|-1.0|0.422
91084248|NCT01677182|182052348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.655|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.3|1.9||MMRM model with baseline by week interaction, pooled center, week, treatment, baseline, and week by treatment interaction as factors was used for the analysis.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||1.9|-1.3|0.655
91020323|NCT01236053|181923509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.63||||0.3821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.78|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hypertension, diuretic use."|||1.78|0.22|0.3821
91020324|NCT01236053|181923509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.3591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|6.28|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||6.28|0.51|0.3591
91084249|NCT01677182|182052349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.64||0.696|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-4.5|2.8||MMRM model with baseline by week interaction, pooled center, week, treatment, baseline, and week by treatment interaction as factors was used for the analysis.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||2.8|-4.5|0.696
91084250|NCT01677182|182052349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63||0.472|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.6|3.8||MMRM model with baseline by week interaction, pooled center, week, treatment, baseline, and week by treatment interaction as factors was used for the analysis.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||3.8|-3.6|0.472
91084251|NCT01677182|182052350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.998||||0.994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.651|1.53||Odds ratio, 95% confidence intervals and p-values are analyzed from logistic regression with explanatory variables for treatment and baseline MADRS total score.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.530|0.651|0.994
91084252|NCT01677182|182052350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.886||||0.575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.352||Odds ratio, 95% confidence intervals and p-values are analyzed from logistic regression with explanatory variables for treatment and baseline MADRS total score.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.352|0.580|0.575
91084253|NCT01677182|182052351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.978||||0.927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.606|1.577||Odds ratio, 95% confidence intervals and p-values are analyzed from logistic regression with explanatory variables for treatment and baseline MADRS total score.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.577|0.606|0.927
91084254|NCT01677182|182052351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.865||||0.553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.536|1.397||Odds ratio, 95% confidence intervals and p-values are analyzed from logistic regression with explanatory variables for treatment and baseline MADRS total score.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.397|0.536|0.553
91084255|NCT00995722|182052353|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|N=80, (40 per group), 80% power to detect a group difference of 30%-35% and 5% significance level.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|2.8|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA used to compare mean values adjusting for the baseline value|QMG Score ranges from 0-15, where 0 is normal and a reduction in score represents imrovement.|Mean Ocular QMG Changes from Baseline to Week 16 . 95% CI and p-values obtained from the analysis of covariance model to adjust for the baseline value of the outcome variable.||2.8|-7.20|0.37
91020325|NCT01236053|181923509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.6899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|4.58|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hypertension, diuretic use."|||4.58|0.37|0.6899
91020326|NCT01236053|181923509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.78||||0.2031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|4.3|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||4.30|0.73|0.2031
91020327|NCT01236053|181923509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.4932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|3.37|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hypertension, diuretic use."|||3.37|0.56|0.4932
91020328|NCT01236053|181923511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.64||||0.0843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|7.96|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||7.96|0.88|0.0843
91020329|NCT01236053|181923511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.71||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|8.28|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hypertension, diuretic use."|||8.28|0.88|0.0810
91020330|NCT01236053|181923511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.4583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|3.7|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||3.70|0.55|0.4583
91020331|NCT01236053|181923511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.4622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|3.73|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hypertension, diuretic use."|||3.73|0.55|0.4622
91020332|NCT01236053|181923511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.5512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|4.95|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||4.95|0.43|0.5512
91020333|NCT01236053|181923511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.9277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|3.67|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hypertension, diuretic use."|||3.67|0.31|0.9277
91020334|NCT01236053|181923511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.6402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|2.95|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||2.95|0.51|0.6402
91020335|NCT01236053|181923511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.9256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.32|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hypertension, diuretic use."|||2.32|0.40|0.9256
91020336|NCT01236053|181923511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.9514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|4.5|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||4.50|0.24|0.9514
91020337|NCT01236053|181923511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.7543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|3.44|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hypertension, diuretic use."|||3.44|0.18|0.7543
91020338|NCT01236053|181923511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.8781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|3.07|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||3.07|0.38|0.8781
91020339|NCT01236053|181923511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.7429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|2.4|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hypertension, diuretic use."|||2.40|0.29|0.7429
91020340|NCT03078192|181923525|OTHER|Detecting pre-capillary PH was tested with a cohort of 32 patients. True PH status was based on RHC. A diagnosis of PH was established from mPAP \>20mmHg, while pre-capillary PH required PCWP ≤ 15mmHg and PVR ≥ 3 Woods Units, and post capillary PH required PCWP \> 15mmH and PVR \< 3 Woods Units \[21\]. Patients with both high PVR and PCWP \> 15mmHg were classified as combined pre- and post-capillary PH (CpcPH). Subjects with CpcPH were treated as positive for both pre- and post-capillary PH.|positive predictive value|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|||||Positive predictive value for Precapillary Pulmonary Hypertension: 86%|calculation of PPV|||||||
91020341|NCT03958071|181923536|OTHER||Absolute standardized differences (ASD)|-0.1027||||0.281|||||||t-test, 2 sided||ASD=(X1-X2)/sqrt((s1\^2+s2\^2)/2). Where X denotes sample means in each cohort, and s denotes sample variances.|||||0.2810
91020342|NCT03958071|181923536|OTHER||Absolute standardized differences (ASD)|-0.078||||0.1421|||||||t-test, 2 sided||ASD=(X1-X2)/sqrt((s1\^2+s2\^2)/2). Where X denotes sample means in each cohort, and s denotes sample variances.|||||0.1421
91020343|NCT03958071|181923536|OTHER||Absolute standardized differences (ASD)|0.0159||||0.0048|||||||t-test, 2 sided||ASD=(X1-X2)/sqrt((s1\^2+s2\^2)/2). Where X denotes sample means in each cohort, and s denotes sample variances.|||||0.0048
91020344|NCT03958071|181923538|OTHER||Absolute standardized differences (ASD)|0.0214||||0.7681|||||||Chi-squared||ASD=(p1-p2)/(sqrt(p1\^(1-p1)+p2(1-p2))/2). Where p denotes proportion of a binary variable in each cohort.|||||0.7681
91020345|NCT03958071|181923538|OTHER||Absolute standardized differences (ASD)|0.371|||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared||ASD=(p1-p2)/(sqrt(p1\^(1-p1)+p2(1-p2))/2). Where p denotes proportion of a binary variable in each cohort.|||||<.0001
91020346|NCT03958071|181923538|OTHER||Absolute standardized differences (ASD)|0.349|||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared||ASD=(p1-p2)/(sqrt(p1\^(1-p1)+p2(1-p2))/2). Where p denotes proportion of a binary variable in each cohort.|||||<.0001
91020347|NCT03958071|181923539|OTHER||Absolute standardized differences (ASD)|-0.1257||||0.1659|||||||t-test, 2 sided||ASD=(X1-X2)/sqrt((s1\^2+s2\^2)/2). Where X denotes sample means in each cohort, and s denotes sample variances.|||||0.1659
91020348|NCT03958071|181923539|OTHER||Absolute standardized differences (ASD)|0.1566||||0.0112|||||||t-test, 2 sided||ASD=(X1-X2)/sqrt((s1\^2+s2\^2)/2). Where X denotes sample means in each cohort, and s denotes sample variances.|||||0.0112
91020349|NCT03958071|181923539|OTHER||Absolute standardized differences (ASD)|0.3019|||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided||ASD=(X1-X2)/sqrt((s1\^2+s2\^2)/2). Where X denotes sample means in each cohort, and s denotes sample variances.|||||<.0001
91020350|NCT03958071|181923540|OTHER||Absolute standardized differences (ASD)|-0.0209||||0.326|||||||t-test, 2 sided||ASD=(X1-X2)/sqrt((s1\^2+s2\^2)/2). Where X denotes sample means in each cohort, and s denotes sample variances.|||||0.3260
91020351|NCT03958071|181923540|OTHER||Absolute standardized differences (ASD)|-0.2694|||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided||ASD=(X1-X2)/sqrt((s1\^2+s2\^2)/2). Where X denotes sample means in each cohort, and s denotes sample variances.|||||<.0001
91020352|NCT03958071|181923540|OTHER||Absolute standardized differences (ASD)|-0.2352|||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided||ASD=(X1-X2)/sqrt((s1\^2+s2\^2)/2). Where X denotes sample means in each cohort, and s denotes sample variances.|||||<.0001
91020353|NCT03958071|181923541|OTHER||Absolute standardized differences (ASD)|0.09||||0.2042|||||||Chi-squared||ASD=(p1-p2)/(sqrt(p1\^(1-p1)+p2(1-p2))/2). Where p denotes proportion of a binary variable in each cohort.|||||0.2042
91020354|NCT03958071|181923541|OTHER||Absolute standardized differences (ASD)|0.21|||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared||ASD=(p1-p2)/(sqrt(p1\^(1-p1)+p2(1-p2))/2). Where p denotes proportion of a binary variable in each cohort.|||||<.0001
91020355|NCT03958071|181923541|OTHER||Absolute standardized differences (ASD)|0.11||||0.02|||||||Chi-squared||ASD=(p1-p2)/(sqrt(p1\^(1-p1)+p2(1-p2))/2). Where p denotes proportion of a binary variable in each cohort.|||||0.02
91020356|NCT03958071|181923542|OTHER||Absolute standardized differences (ASD)|0.0241||||0.7395|||||||Chi-squared||ASD=(p1-p2)/(sqrt(p1\^(1-p1)+p2(1-p2))/2). Where p denotes proportion of a binary variable in each cohort.|||||0.7395
91020357|NCT03958071|181923542|OTHER||Absolute standardized differences (ASD)|0.1644||||0.0017|||||||Chi-squared||ASD=(p1-p2)/(sqrt(p1\^(1-p1)+p2(1-p2))/2). Where p denotes proportion of a binary variable in each cohort.|||||0.0017
91020358|NCT03958071|181923542|OTHER||Absolute standardized differences (ASD)|0.1403||||0.0034|||||||Chi-squared||ASD=(p1-p2)/(sqrt(p1\^(1-p1)+p2(1-p2))/2). Where p denotes proportion of a binary variable in each cohort.|||||0.0034
91020359|NCT01142466|181923543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1384|||||||Log Rank|||Two-sided log rank test with alpha equal to 0.05 was used as the appropriate nonparametric method to compare the two groups.||||0.1384
91020360|NCT01142466|181923544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2635||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2635
91020361|NCT02414854|181923550|SUPERIORITY|Hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error rate at 0.05 level. The procedure included the 2 primary outcome measures and the first 13 secondary outcome measures reported and considered 2 pair-wise comparisons: Dupilumab 200 mg q2w vs Placebo (for Dupilumab 200 mg) q2w and Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo (for Dupilumab 300 mg) q2w. Testing order is specified in analysis description.|Relative risk|0.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.68||Hierarchical testing sequence performed continued only when previous outcome measures was statistically significant at 0.05. Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Negative binomial regression model||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo (for Dupilumab 300 mg) q2w|Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with total number of events onset from randomization up to Week 52 or last contact date (whichever comes earlier) as response variable; with 4 treatment groups, age, region, baseline eosinophil strata, baseline ICS dose level, number of severe exacerbation events within 1 year prior to study as covariates; and log transformed standardized observation duration as an offset variable. Here, it is test no. 1 of testing order.||0.68|0.43|<0.0001
91020362|NCT02414854|181923550|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (performed only if previous outcome measures were statistically significant).|Relative risk|0.523|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.413|0.662||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Negative binomial regression model||Dupilumab 200 mg q2w vs Placebo (for Dupilumab 200 mg) q2w|Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with total number of events onset from randomization up to Week 52 or last contact date (whichever comes earlier) as response variable; with 4 treatment groups, age, region, baseline eosinophil strata, baseline ICS dose level, number of severe exacerbation events within 1 year prior to study as covariates; and log transformed standardized observation duration as an offset variable. Here, it is test no. 3 of testing order.||0.662|0.413|<0.0001
91084256|NCT00995722|182052354|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean Change in quality of life as measured by the NEI-VFQ-25 at the end of Double- Blinded Treatment|Mean Difference (Net)|6.56||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.59|15.71|||ANCOVA||Scores ranges fro 0-100 , where 100 is normal and an increase in score represents an improvement|Mean Change in quality of life as measured by the NEI-VFQ-25 at the end of Double- Blinded Treatment. 95% CI and p-values obtained from the analysis of covariance model to adjust for the baseline value of the outcome variable.||15.71|-2.59|0.13
91020363|NCT02414854|181923551|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (performed only if previous outcome measures were statistically significant).|Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|0.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.18||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo (for Dupilumab 300 mg) q2w|Analysis was performed using mixed-effect model with repeated measures (MMRM) model with change from baseline in FEV1 values up to Week 12 as response variable; and treatment, age, sex, baseline height, region, baseline eosinophil strata, baseline ICS dose level, visit, treatment by-visit interaction, baseline FEV1 value and baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates. Here, it is test no. 2 of testing order.||0.18|0.08|<0.0001
91020364|NCT02414854|181923551|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (performed only if previous outcome measures were statistically significant).|LS Mean Difference|0.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.19||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab 200 mg q2w vs Placebo (for Dupilumab 200 mg) q2w|Analysis was performed using MMRM model with change from baseline in FEV1 values up to Week 12 as response variable; and treatment, age, sex, baseline height, region, baseline eosinophil strata, baseline ICS dose level, visit, treatment by-visit interaction, baseline FEV1 value and baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates. Here, it is test no. 4 of testing order.||0.19|0.08|<0.0001
91020365|NCT02414854|181923552|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (performed only if previous outcome measures were statistically significant).|LS Mean Difference|9.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.74|13.07||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo (for Dupilumab 300 mg) q2w|Analysis performed using MMRM model(n=954 for 300 vs placebo)with percent change from baseline in FEV1 values up to Week 12 as response variable; \& treatment, age, sex, baseline height, region, baseline eosinophil strata, baseline ICS dose level, visit, treatment by-visit interaction, baseline FEV1 value \& baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates. Hierarchical testing procedure used to control type I error \& handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Here, it is test no. 5 of testing order.||13.07|5.74|<0.0001
91020366|NCT02414854|181923553|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (performed only if previous outcome measures were statistically significant).|Relative risk|0.402|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.307|0.526||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Negative binomial regression model||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo (for Dupilumab 300 mg) q2w|Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with total number of events onset from randomization up to Week 52 or last contact date (whichever comes earlier) as response variable; with 4 treatment groups, age, region, baseline eosinophil strata, baseline ICS dose level, number of severe exacerbation events within 1 year prior to study as covariates; and log transformed standardized observation duration as an offset variable. Here, it is test no. 6 of testing order.||0.526|0.307|<0.0001
91020367|NCT02414854|181923554|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (performed only if previous outcome measures were statistically significant).|LS Mean Difference|0.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.21||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo (for Dupilumab 300 mg) q2w|Analysis was performed using MMRM model with change from baseline in FEV1 values up to Week 12 as response variable; and treatment, age, sex, baseline height, region, baseline eosinophil strata, baseline ICS dose level, visit, treatment by-visit interaction, baseline FEV1 value and baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates. Here, it is test no. 7 of testing order.||0.21|0.09|<0.0001
91020368|NCT02414854|181923555|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (performed only if previous outcome measures were statistically significant).|Relative risk|0.326|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.234|0.454||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Negative binomial regression model||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo (for Dupilumab 300 mg) q2w|Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with total number of events onset from randomization up to Week 52 or last contact date (whichever comes earlier) as response variable; with 4 treatment groups, age, region, baseline eosinophil strata, baseline ICS dose level, number of severe exacerbation events within 1 year prior to study as covariates; and log transformed standardized observation duration as an offset variable. Here, it is test no. 8 of testing order.||0.454|0.234|<0.0001
91020369|NCT02414854|181923556|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (performed only if previous outcome measures were statistically significant).|LS Mean Difference|0.24|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.32||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo (for Dupilumab 300 mg) q2w|Analysis was performed using MMRM model with change from baseline in FEV1 values up to Week 12 as response variable; and treatment, age, sex, baseline height, region, baseline eosinophil strata, baseline ICS dose level, visit, treatment by-visit interaction, baseline FEV1 value and baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates. Here, it is test no. 9 of testing order.||0.32|0.16|<0.0001
91020370|NCT02414854|181923557|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (performed only if previous outcome measures were statistically significant).|Relative risk|0.834||||0.2599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.608|1.144||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Negative binomial regression model||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo (for Dupilumab 300 mg) q2w|Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with total number of events onset from randomization up to Week 52 or last contact date (whichever comes earlier) as response variable; with 4 treatment groups, age, region, baseline eosinophil strata, baseline ICS dose level, number of severe exacerbation events within 1 year prior to study as covariates; and log transformed standardized observation duration as an offset variable. Here, it is test no. 10 of testing order.||1.144|0.608|0.2599
91020371|NCT01355523|181923589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.008
91020372|NCT01355523|181923589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Number need to treat|2.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.703|11.024||||||||11.024|1.703|
91020373|NCT01355523|181923589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.076|0.797||||||||0.797|0.076|
91020374|NCT01355523|181923590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.125||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.125
91020375|NCT01355523|181923591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.460
91020376|NCT01355523|181923592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.002
90956625|NCT01160289|181792842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-7.404|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.157||0.02||95.0||||"The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the percentage of Yes responses on the SEP diary, Q1; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity."|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.020
91020377|NCT01355523|181923593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.264||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.264
91020378|NCT01355523|181923594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.351||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.351
91020379|NCT01355523|181923595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.446||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.446
91020380|NCT01355523|181923596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.122||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.122
91020381|NCT01355523|181923597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.907||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.907
91020382|NCT01355523|181923598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.555||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.555
91020383|NCT01355523|181923599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.930
91020384|NCT01355523|181923600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.386||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.386
91020385|NCT01355523|181923601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.241||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.241
91020386|NCT01355523|181923602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.339||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.339
91020387|NCT01355523|181923603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.578||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.578
91020388|NCT01355523|181923604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.000
91020389|NCT02625207|181923624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|116.73||||0.1318|TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.55|138.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||138.26|98.55|0.1318
91020390|NCT02625207|181923624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|85.85||||0.1369|TWO_SIDED|90.0|72.48|101.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||101.68|72.48|0.1369
91020391|NCT02625207|181923624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|63.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|53.51|75.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||75.07|53.51|< 0.0001
91020392|NCT02625207|181923624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|73.83||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|90.0|62.57|87.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||87.13|62.57|0.0036
91020393|NCT02625207|181923624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean ratio|73.99||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|90.0|62.7|87.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||87.31|62.70|0.0038
91020394|NCT02625207|181923625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|82.59||||0.0531|TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.33|96.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||96.98|70.33|0.0531
91020395|NCT02625207|181923626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|137.07||||0.0106|TWO_SIDED|90.0|112.4|167.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of PF -6857639 was estimated and reported.||167.15|112.40|0.0106
91020396|NCT02625207|181923626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|164.06||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|134.54|200.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of PF -6857639 was estimated and reported.||200.06|134.54|0.0001
91020397|NCT02625207|181923626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|198.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|162.77|242.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of PF -6857639 was estimated and reported.||242.05|162.77|< 0.0001
91020398|NCT02625207|181923626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|120.99||||0.1061|TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.65|146.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of PF -6857639 was estimated and reported.||146.90|99.65|0.1061
91020399|NCT02625207|181923626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|272.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|224.08|330.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of PF -6857639 was estimated and reported.||330.33|224.08|<0.0001
91020400|NCT02625207|181923626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|110.22||||0.3081|TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.05|129.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of PF -6857640 was estimated and reported.||129.18|94.05|0.3081
91020401|NCT02625207|181923626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|101.71||||0.8583|TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.79|119.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of PF -6857640 was estimated and reported.||119.20|86.79|0.8583
91020402|NCT02625207|181923626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|108.52||||0.3913|TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.6|127.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of PF -6857640 was estimated and reported.||127.17|92.60|0.3913
91020403|NCT02625207|181923626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|106.69||||0.4866|TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.36|124.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of PF -6857640 was estimated and reported.||124.60|91.36|0.4866
91020404|NCT02625207|181923626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|119.61||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.42|139.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of PF -6857640 was estimated and reported.||139.69|102.42|0.0590
91020405|NCT02625207|181923626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|99.7||||0.9816|TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.47|123.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of PF -06927572 was estimated and reported.||123.53|80.47|0.9816
91020406|NCT02625207|181923626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|105.12||||0.6974|TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.84|130.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of PF -06927572 was estimated and reported.||130.24|84.84|0.6974
91020407|NCT02625207|181923626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|101.03||||0.9363|TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.54|125.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of PF -06927572 was estimated and reported.||125.18|81.54|0.9363
91020408|NCT02625207|181923626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|96.11||||0.752|TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.94|118.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of PF -06927572 was estimated and reported.||118.52|77.94|0.7520
91020409|NCT02625207|181923626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|100.73||||0.9536|TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.69|124.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of PF -06927572 was estimated and reported.||124.22|81.69|0.9536
91020410|NCT02625207|181923626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|97.6||||0.8241|TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.28|117.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of PF -06927573 was estimated and reported.||117.18|81.28|0.8241
91020411|NCT02625207|181923626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|118.5||||0.1261|TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.69|142.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of PF -06927573 was estimated and reported.||142.28|98.69|0.1261
90959110|NCT01620255|181798211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|15.48||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.056|23.907|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 225 mg vs placebo, change from BL at W12||23.907|7.056|0.0026
91020412|NCT02625207|181923626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|99.6||||0.9708|TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.95|119.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of PF -06927573 was estimated and reported.||119.59|82.95|0.9708
91020413|NCT02625207|181923626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|84.05||||0.1099|TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.29|100.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of PF -06927573 was estimated and reported.||100.52|70.29|0.1099
91020414|NCT02625207|181923626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|97.21||||0.7913|TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.29|116.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of PF -06927573 was estimated and reported.||116.25|81.29|0.7913
91020415|NCT02625207|181923627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|116.65||||0.1338|TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.47|138.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||138.18|98.47|0.1338
91020416|NCT02625207|181923627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|85.84||||0.137|TWO_SIDED|90.0|72.46|101.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||101.68|72.46|0.1370
91020417|NCT02625207|181923627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|63.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|53.47|75.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||75.04|53.47|< 0.0001
91020418|NCT02625207|181923627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean ratio|73.79||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|90.0|62.53|87.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||87.09|62.53|0.0036
91020419|NCT02625207|181923627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|73.89||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|90.0|62.61|87.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||87.20|62.61|0.0037
91020420|NCT02625207|181923628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|82.42||||0.0507|TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.2|96.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||96.77|70.20|0.0507
91020421|NCT02625207|181923629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|118.19||||0.1997|TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.26|146.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||146.63|95.26|0.1997
91020422|NCT02625207|181923629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|87.28||||0.2947|TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.34|108.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||108.28|70.34|0.2947
91020423|NCT02625207|181923629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|61.23||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|49.35|75.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||75.97|49.35|0.0004
91020424|NCT02625207|181923629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|70.16||||0.0071|TWO_SIDED|90.0|56.81|86.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||86.63|56.81|0.0071
91020425|NCT02625207|181923629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|72.37||||0.0135|TWO_SIDED|90.0|58.6|89.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||89.36|58.60|0.0135
91020426|NCT02625207|181923630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|68.32||||0.0505|TWO_SIDED|90.0|49.81|93.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||93.71|49.81|0.0505
91020427|NCT02625207|181923631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|94.83||||0.6761|TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.7|117.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||117.24|76.70|0.6761
91020428|NCT02625207|181923631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|105.43||||0.6771||90.0|85.28|130.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||130.35|85.28|0.6771
90956626|NCT01160289|181792842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.658||0.775||95.0||||"The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the percentage of Yes responses on the SEP diary, Q2; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity."|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.775
90956627|NCT01160289|181792842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|1.844|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.573||0.687||95.0||||"The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the percentage of Yes responses on the SEP diary, Q2; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity."|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.687
90956628|NCT01160289|181792842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-7.092|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.535||0.119||95.0||||"The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the percentage of Yes responses on the SEP diary, Q2; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity."|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.119
90956629|NCT01160289|181792842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-6.578|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.45||0.14||95.0||||"The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the percentage of Yes responses on the SEP diary, Q2; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity."|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.140
90956630|NCT01160289|181792842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|6.703|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.302||0.207||95.0||||"The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the percentage of Yes responses on the SEP diary, Q3; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity."|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.207
90956631|NCT01160289|181792842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|9.159|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.206||0.079||95.0||||"The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the percentage of Yes responses on the SEP diary, Q3; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity."|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.079
90956632|NCT01160289|181792842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-5.349|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.165||0.301||95.0||||"The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the percentage of Yes responses on the SEP diary, Q3; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity."|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.301
90956633|NCT01160289|181792842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-2.893|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.067||0.568||95.0||||"The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the percentage of Yes responses on the SEP diary, Q3; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity."|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.568
90956634|NCT01160289|181792842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|4.079|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.566||0.464||95.0||||"The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the percentage of Yes responses on the SEP diary, Q4; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity."|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.464
90956635|NCT01160289|181792842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|5.054|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.463||0.356||95.0||||"The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the percentage of Yes responses on the SEP diary, Q4; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity."|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.356
90956636|NCT01160289|181792842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-11.266|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.418||0.038||95.0||||"The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the percentage of Yes responses on the SEP diary, Q4; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity."|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.038
90956637|NCT01160289|181792842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-10.292|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.312||0.054||95.0||||"The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the percentage of Yes responses on the SEP diary, Q4; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity."|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.054
90956638|NCT01160289|181792842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|4.202|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.603||0.454||95.0||||"The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the percentage of Yes responses on the SEP diary, Q5; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity."|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.454
90956639|NCT01160289|181792842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|5.796|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.499||0.293||95.0||||"The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the percentage of Yes responses on the SEP diary, Q5; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity."|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.293
90956640|NCT01160289|181792842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-8.808|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.457||0.107||95.0||||"The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the percentage of Yes responses on the SEP diary, Q5; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity."|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.107
90956641|NCT01160289|181792842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-7.214|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.349||0.178||95.0||||"The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the percentage of Yes responses on the SEP diary, Q5; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity."|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.178
90956642|NCT01160289|181792843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-0.079|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.472||0.867||95.0||||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the IIEF IS domain score; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.867
90956643|NCT01160289|181792843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-0.039|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.458||0.931||95.0||||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the IIEF IS domain score; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.931
91020429|NCT02625207|181923631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|75.74||||0.0331|TWO_SIDED|90.0|61.26|93.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||93.64|61.26|0.0331
91020430|NCT02625207|181923631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|71.84||||0.0104|TWO_SIDED|90.0|58.38|88.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||88.40|58.38|0.0104
91020431|NCT02625207|181923631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|71.82||||0.0104|TWO_SIDED|90.0|58.37|88.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||88.39|58.37|0.0104
91020432|NCT02625207|181923632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|99.62||||0.9713|TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.07|119.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||119.45|83.07|0.9713
91084257|NCT00995722|182052355|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean Change in quality if life as measured by the MG-QOL-15 score at the end of Double- Blinded Treatment|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.81||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.37|1.75|||ANCOVA||Ranges from 0-60, where 0 is Normal and a reduction in score represents improvement.|Mean Change in quality if life as measured by the MG-QOL-15 score at the end of Double- Blinded Treatment. 95% CI and p-values obtained from the analysis of covariance model to adjust for the baseline value of the outcome variable.||1.75|-9.37|0.15
91084258|NCT00995722|182052356|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean Change NEI-VFQ-25 10 item neuro-opthtalmological supplement score baseline to week 16.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.98||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.22|43.17|||ANCOVA||Ranges 0-100, where 100 is normal and an increase in score represents an improvement.|Mean Change NEI-VFQ-25 10 item neuro-opthtalmological supplement score baseline to week 16. 95% CI and p-values obtained from the analysis of covariance model to adjust for the baseline value of the outcome variable.||43.17|-9.22|0.16
91084259|NCT02542397|182052376|SUPERIORITY|"It has been reported that, based on the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS) pain scale, about 30% of cancer patients receiving standard of care pain management experienced \>= 2-point improvement in pain score between visits \[Ref\].~Ref: Scharpf, J., et al., The role of pain in head and neck cancer recurrence and survivorship. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg, 2009. 135(8): p. 789-94."|Exact binomial proportion|0.5556|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.414|0.6908||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was alpha = 0.10.|Exact binomial test of proportions|||A single-stage design was used to test the hypothesis that the pain improvement rate, assessed by the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale, is \<= 0.30. Our study targeted enrollment of 71 evaluable subjects for the final analysis; 54 subjects met the criteria at study closure. Assuming a one-sided alpha=0.10 significance level, 71 evaluable subjects would provide approximately 90% power to reject the null hypothesis (based on an exact binomial test) assuming the true pain improvement rate is 0.45.||.6908|.4140|<0.0001
91084260|NCT00320242|182052420|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.0152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|2.23|||t-test, 2 sided|two-tailed paired t-test||||2.23|0.26|0.0152
91084261|NCT00320242|182052421|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|50.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.7||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.9|76.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||76.1|23.9|0.005
91084262|NCT00320242|182052422|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.31||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|two-tailed Wilcoxan signed-rank sum test||two-tailed Wilcoxan signed-rank sum test||||0.02
91084263|NCT00320242|182052423|OTHER|The percentage change in falls was analyzed using a two-tailed one-sample t-test with a hypothesized mean of 0||||||0.002||||||Two-tailed one-sample t-test with a hypothesized mean of 0. This analysis was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||The percentage change in falls was analyzed using a two-tailed one-sample t-test with a hypothesized mean of 0||||0.002
91084264|NCT00105989|182052445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons. The primary efficacy analysis compared the time to recurrence during the maintenance phase between all duloxetine and placebo patients using the log-rank test, stratified by country at α=.05.|Log Rank|The log rank method provides a single p-value comparing time to depressive recurrence for placebo and duloxetine.||A total of 257 randomized patients (randomly assigned with equal probability to the two treatment groups) were needed to have 90% power to detect 40% versus 20% recurrence rates over 52 weeks, using a log rank test at a two-sided significance level of .05.||||<0.001
91084265|NCT00105989|182052446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Frequencies are analyzed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel controlling for investigator||||||<0.001
91084266|NCT00105989|182052447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||Log Rank|The log rank method provides a single p-value comparing time to depressive recurrence for placebo and duloxetine.||||||0.003
90956644|NCT01160289|181792843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-0.652|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.158||95.0||||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the IIEF IS domain score; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.158
91084267|NCT00105989|182052448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Frequencies were analyzed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel controlling for investigator.||||||0.003
91084268|NCT00105989|182052449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<0.001
91084269|NCT00105989|182052449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.016
91084270|NCT00105989|182052450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91084271|NCT00105989|182052451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<0.001
91084272|NCT00105989|182052451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.153||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.153
91084273|NCT00105989|182052452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90956645|NCT01160289|181792843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-0.612|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.447||0.172||95.0||||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the IIEF IS domain score; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.172
90956646|NCT01160289|181792843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-0.223|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.401||0.579||95.0||||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the IIEF OF domain score; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.579
91020433|NCT02016755|181923675|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.331|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Overall (LOCF)||||0.331
91020434|NCT02016755|181923675|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.362|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Activity (LOCF)||||0.362
91084274|NCT00105989|182052453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean value at endpoint is significant from 4.||||||<0.001
91084275|NCT00105989|182052453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean value at endpoint is significant from 4.||||||<0.001
91084276|NCT00105989|182052454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91020435|NCT02016755|181923675|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.159|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Emotional (LOCF)||||0.159
91020436|NCT02016755|181923675|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.468|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pain (LOCF)||||0.468
91020437|NCT02016755|181923675|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.197|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Social (LOCF)||||0.197
91020438|NCT02016755|181923675|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.448|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Symptom (LOCF)||||0.448
91020439|NCT02016755|181923676|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.939|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline at Month 3||||0.939
91020440|NCT02016755|181923676|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.508|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline at Month 6||||0.508
91020441|NCT02016755|181923676|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.474|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline at Month 9||||0.474
91020442|NCT02016755|181923676|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.361|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline at Month 12||||0.361
91020443|NCT02016755|181923676|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.258|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline at Month 15||||0.258
91020444|NCT02016755|181923676|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.059|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline at Month 18||||0.059
91020445|NCT02016755|181923676|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.023|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline at LOCF||||0.023
91020446|NCT02016755|181923677|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.655|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline at Month 3 (Dorsalis pedis)||||0.655
91020447|NCT02016755|181923677|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline at Month 6 (Dorsalis pedis)||||0.310
91020448|NCT02016755|181923677|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.348|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline at Month 9 (Dorsalis pedis)||||0.348
91020449|NCT02016755|181923677|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.501|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline at Month 12 (Dorsalis pedis)||||0.501
91084277|NCT00105989|182052455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values for Change from Baseline to Endpoint for all Subscales during Acute phase were \<0.001.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<0.001
91020450|NCT02016755|181923677|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.536|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline at Month 15 (Dorsalis pedis)||||0.536
91020451|NCT02016755|181923677|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline at Month 18 (Dorsalis pedis)||||0.140
91020452|NCT02016755|181923677|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline at LOCF (Dorsalis pedis)||||0.018
91020453|NCT02016755|181923677|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.716|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline at Month 3 (Posterior tibial)||||0.716
91020454|NCT02016755|181923677|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.641|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline at Month 6 (Posterior tibial)||||0.641
91020455|NCT02016755|181923677|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.514|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline at Month 9 (Posterior tibial)||||0.514
91020456|NCT02016755|181923677|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.808|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline at Month 12 (Posterior tibial)||||0.808
91020457|NCT02016755|181923677|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.396|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline at Month 15 (Posterior tibial)||||0.396
91020458|NCT02016755|181923677|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.162|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline at Month 18 (Posterior tibial)||||0.162
91020459|NCT02016755|181923677|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.259|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline at LOCF (Posterior tibial)||||0.259
91020460|NCT02016755|181923678|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.671|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline at Month 3||||0.671
91020461|NCT02016755|181923678|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.925|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline at Month 6||||0.925
91020462|NCT02016755|181923678|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.514|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline at Month 9||||0.514
91020463|NCT02016755|181923678|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.302|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline at Month 12||||0.302
91020464|NCT02016755|181923678|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.373|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline at Month 15||||0.373
91020465|NCT02016755|181923678|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.505|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline at Month 18||||0.505
91020466|NCT02016755|181923678|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.135|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline at LOCF||||0.135
91020467|NCT02016755|181923678|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.175|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline at month 3 (Left)||||0.175
91020468|NCT02016755|181923678|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.393|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline at month 6 (Left)||||0.393
91020469|NCT02016755|181923678|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.928|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline at month 9 (Left)||||0.928
91020470|NCT02016755|181923678|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.429|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline at month 12 (Left)||||0.429
91020471|NCT02016755|181923678|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.907|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline at month 15 (Left)||||0.907
91020472|NCT02016755|181923678|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline at month 18 (Left)||||0.300
91020473|NCT02016755|181923678|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.214|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline at LOCF (Left)||||0.214
91020474|NCT02016755|181923679|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.655|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline at Month 3||||0.655
91020475|NCT02016755|181923679|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.226|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline at Month 6||||0.226
91020476|NCT02016755|181923679|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline at Month 9||||0.380
91020477|NCT02016755|181923679|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.187|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline at Month 12||||0.187
91020478|NCT02016755|181923679|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.203|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline at Month 15||||0.203
91020479|NCT02016755|181923679|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.074|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline at Month 18||||0.074
91020480|NCT02016755|181923679|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline at LOCF||||0.038
91020481|NCT02016755|181923680|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.246|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline at Month 3||||0.246
91020482|NCT02016755|181923680|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.474|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline at Month 6||||0.474
91020483|NCT02016755|181923680|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.395|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline at Month 9||||0.395
91020484|NCT02016755|181923680|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline at Month 12||||0.220
91020485|NCT02016755|181923680|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.454|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline at Month 15||||0.454
91020486|NCT02016755|181923680|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.167|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline at Month 18||||0.167
91020487|NCT02016755|181923680|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline at LOCF||||0.015
90956647|NCT01160289|181792843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-0.616|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.115||95.0||||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the IIEF OF domain score; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.115
90956648|NCT01160289|181792843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-0.168|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.392||0.668||95.0||||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the IIEF OF domain score; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.668
90956649|NCT01160289|181792843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-0.561|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.141||95.0||||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the IIEF OF domain score; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.141
90956650|NCT01160289|181792843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-0.088|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.258||0.734||95.0||||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the IIEF SD domain score; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.734
90956651|NCT01160289|181792843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-0.179|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.251||0.477||95.0||||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the IIEF SD domain score; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.477
90956652|NCT01160289|181792843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.252||0.235||95.0||||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the IIEF SD domain score; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.235
90956653|NCT01160289|181792843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-0.391|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.245||0.111||95.0||||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the IIEF SD domain score; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.111
90956654|NCT01160289|181792843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-0.349|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.343||0.31||95.0||||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the IIEF OS domain score; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.310
90956655|NCT01160289|181792843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-0.568|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.334||0.09||95.0||||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the IIEF OS domain score; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.090
90956656|NCT01160289|181792843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-0.729|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.335||0.03||95.0||||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the IIEF OS domain score; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.030
90956657|NCT01160289|181792843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-0.948|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.326||0.004||95.0||||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the IIEF OS domain score; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.004
90956658|NCT01160289|181792845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.656||||||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the IIEF EF domain scores reported by optimal testosterone level \<340 ng/dL; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||||0.656
90956659|NCT01160289|181792845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46||||||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the IIEF EF domain scores reported by optimal testosterone level \<340 ng/dL; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||||0.460
90956660|NCT01160289|181792845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.198||95.0||||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the IIEF EF domain scores reported by optimal testosterone level \<340 ng/dL; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||||0.198
90956661|NCT01160289|181792845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0||||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the IIEF EF domain scores reported by optimal testosterone level ≥340 ng/dL; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||||0.009
90956662|NCT01160289|181792845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.671||||||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the IIEF EF domain scores reported by optimal testosterone level ≥340 ng/dL; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||||0.671
90956663|NCT01160289|181792845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.259||||||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the IIEF EF domain scores reported by optimal testosterone level ≥340 ng/dL; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||||0.259
90956664|NCT01160289|181792845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.441||95.0||||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the IIEF EF domain scores reported by optimal testosterone level ≥340 ng/dL; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||||0.441
90956665|NCT01160289|181792845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.433||95.0||||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the IIEF EF domain scores reported by optimal testosterone level ≥340 ng/dL; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||||0.433
90956666|NCT01160289|181792846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|0.13||||0.423||95.0||||Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.423
90956667|NCT01160289|181792846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-0.12||||0.443||95.0||||Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.443
90956668|NCT01160289|181792846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-0.084||||0.599||95.0||||Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.599
90956669|NCT01160289|181792846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-0.334||||0.029||95.0||||Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.029
91084278|NCT00105989|182052455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.334||95.0||||P-value for Anxiety Change from Baseline to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.334
91084279|NCT00105989|182052455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019||95.0||||P-value for Core Change from Baseline to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.019
91084280|NCT00105989|182052455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.046||95.0||||P-value for Maier Change from Baseline to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assessses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.046
91084281|NCT00105989|182052455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Retardation Change from Baseline to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assessses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<0.001
91084282|NCT00105989|182052455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.319||95.0||||P-value for Sleep Change from Baseline to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assessses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.319
91084283|NCT00105989|182052455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.275||95.0||||P-value for Depressed Mood Change from Baseline to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assessses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.275
91084284|NCT00105989|182052456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Pairwise comparison of Least Squares Means for Anxiety Subscale Change from Baseline to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91084285|NCT00105989|182052456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-value for Pairwise comparison of Least Squares Means for Core Subscale Change from Baseline to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.002
91084286|NCT00105989|182052456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-value for Pairwise comparison of Least Squares Means for Maier Subscale Change from Baseline to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.002
91084287|NCT00105989|182052456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||P-value for Pairwise comparison of Least Squares Means for Retardation Subscale Change from Baseline to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
91084288|NCT00105989|182052456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||P-value for Pairwise comparison of Least Squares Means for Sleep Subscale Change from Baseline to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
91084289|NCT00105989|182052456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||P-value for Pairwise comparison of Least Squares Means for Depressed Mood Subscale Change from Baseline to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
91084290|NCT00105989|182052457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for all Change from Baseline to Endpoint measures in the Acute Phase were \<0.001.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<0.001
91084291|NCT00105989|182052457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.273||95.0||||P-value for Overall Pain Change from Baseline to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.273
91084292|NCT00105989|182052457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.968||95.0||||P-value for Headache Change from Baseline to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.968
90905072|NCT02886728|181677437|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.042|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|-0.12||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and subjects being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.12|-0.29|<0.001
90956670|NCT01160289|181792847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean of treatment difference|-0.152||||0.148||95.0||||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in total cholesterol; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.148
91084293|NCT00105989|182052457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.998||95.0||||P-value for Back Pain Change from Baseline to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.998
91084294|NCT00105989|182052457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.703||95.0||||P-value for Shoulder Pain Change from Baseline to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.703
91084295|NCT00105989|182052457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.346||95.0||||P-value for Interference with Daily Activities Change from Baseline to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.346
91084296|NCT00105989|182052457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.963||95.0||||P-value for Pain While Awake Change from Baseline to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.963
91084297|NCT00105989|182052458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.792||95.0||||P-value for pairwise comparison of Least Squares Means for Overall Pain Change from Baseline to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.792
91084298|NCT00105989|182052458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.407||95.0||||P-value for pairwise comparison of Least Squares Means for Headache Change from Baseline to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.407
91084299|NCT00105989|182052458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.475||95.0||||P-value for pairwise comparison of Least Squares Means for Back Pain Change from Baseline to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.475
91084300|NCT00105989|182052458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.241||95.0||||P-value for pairwise comparison of Least Squares Means for Shoulder Pain Change from Baseline to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.241
91084301|NCT00105989|182052458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.885||95.0||||P-value for pairwise comparison of Least Squares Means for Interference with Daily Activities Change from Baseline to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.885
91084302|NCT00105989|182052458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.717||95.0||||P-value for pairwise comparison of Least Squares Means for Pain While Awake Change from Baseline to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.717
91084303|NCT00105989|182052459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<0.001
91084304|NCT00105989|182052459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.157||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.157
91084305|NCT00105989|182052460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.979||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.979
91084306|NCT00105989|182052461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline to Endpoint in all SDS items in Acute Phase were \<0.001.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<0.001
91084307|NCT00105989|182052461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline to Endpoint in all SDS items in the Continuation Phase were \<0.001.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<0.001
91084308|NCT00105989|182052462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029||95.0||||P-value for pairwise comparison of Least Squares Means for Change from Baseline to Endpoint in Global Score|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.029
91084309|NCT00105989|182052462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022||95.0||||P-value for pairwise comparison of Least Squares Means for Change from Baseline to Endpoint in Work/School.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.022
91084310|NCT00105989|182052462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11||95.0||||P-value for pairwise comparison of Least Squares Means for Change from Baseline to Endpoint in Social Life.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.110
91084311|NCT00105989|182052462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021||95.0||||P-value for pairwise comparison of Least Squares Means for Change from Baseline to Endpoint in Family Life/Home Responsibilities.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.021
91084312|NCT00105989|182052463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values for Change from Baseline to Endpoint in all SF-36 subscales in the Acute Phase were \<0.001|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<0.001
91084313|NCT00105989|182052463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.947||95.0||||P-value for Physical Component Summary Change to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.947
91084314|NCT00105989|182052463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Mental Component Summary Change to Endpoint|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<0.001
91084315|NCT00105989|182052463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.118||95.0||||P-value for Physical Functioning Change to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.118
91084316|NCT00105989|182052463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55||95.0||||P-value for Bodily Pain Change from Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.550
91084317|NCT00105989|182052463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029||95.0||||P-value for Role Limitations Due to Physical Change to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.029
91084318|NCT00105989|182052463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Role Limitations Due to Emotional Problems Change to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<0.001
91084319|NCT00105989|182052463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-value for General Health Perceptions Change to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.002
91084320|NCT00105989|182052463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Mental Health Change from Baseline to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<0.001
91084321|NCT00105989|182052463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Social Function Change from Baseline to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<0.001
91084322|NCT00105989|182052463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Vitality Change from Baseline to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<0.001
91084323|NCT00105989|182052463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.815||95.0||||P-value for Rate Current Health Change from Baseline to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.815
91084324|NCT00105989|182052463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Health Compared to a Year Ago Change to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<0.001
91084325|NCT00105989|182052464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.415||95.0||||P-value is pairwise comparison of Least Squares Means for Change from Baseline-Physical Component Summary.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.415
90956671|NCT01160289|181792847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-0.216||||0.033||95.0||||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in total cholesterol; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.033
91084326|NCT00105989|182052464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-value is pairwise comparison of Least Squares Means for Change from Baseline-Mental Component Summary.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.002
91084327|NCT00105989|182052464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.731||95.0||||P-value is pairwise comparison of Least Squares Means for Change from Baseline-Physical Functioning.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.731
91084328|NCT00105989|182052464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.438||95.0||||P-value is pairwise comparison of Least Squares Means for Change from Baseline-Bodily Pain.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.438
91084329|NCT00105989|182052464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029||95.0||||P-value is pairwise comparison of Least Squares Means for Change from Baseline-Role Limitations Due to Physical.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.029
91084330|NCT00105989|182052464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||P-value is pairwise comparison of Least Squares Means for Change from Baseline-Role Limitations Due to Emotional problems.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
91084331|NCT00105989|182052464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.391||95.0||||P-value is pairwise comparison of Least Squares Means for Change from Baseline-General Health Perceptions.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.391
91084332|NCT00105989|182052464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||P-value is pairwise comparison of Least Squares Means for Change from Baseline-Mental Health.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
91020488|NCT02613416|181923697|OTHER|||||||0.026||||||The p value was calculated.|Blyth-Still Casella Confidence Interval|||The primary hypothesis for this early phase study was that at least 30% of women would experience a \>5% relative decrease in their breast density after 6 months of treatment with denosumab 120 mg subcutaneous dose once a month.||||0.026
91020489|NCT00390949|181923701|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The p-value reported above is not simply a statement of the threshold for significance used in the study. The p-value for this comparison was calculated at the time of the study and was found to be less than 0.5.|Regression, Logistic|Adjustments for community pair, age-group and value of variable at baseline||||||<0.05
91020490|NCT00390949|181923702|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The p-value reported above is not simply a statement of the threshold for significance used in the study. The p-value for this comparison was calculated at the time of the study and was found to be less than 0.5.|Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for community pair, age-group and value of variable at baseline||||||<0.05
91020491|NCT00390949|181923703|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The p-value reported above is not simply a statement of the threshold for significance used in the study. The p-value for this comparison was calculated at the time of the study and was found to be less than 0.5.|Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.05
91020492|NCT00390949|181923704|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The p-value reported above is not simply a statement of the threshold for significance used in the study. The p-value for this comparison was calculated at the time of the study and was found to be less than 0.5.|Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for community pair, age-group and value at baseline||||||<0.05
91020493|NCT00390949|181923705|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The p-value reported above is not simply a statement of the threshold for significance used in the study. The p-value for this comparison was calculated at the time of the study and was found to be less than 0.5.|Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for community pair and age-group||||||<0.05
91020494|NCT00390949|181923706|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The p-value reported above is not simply a statement of the threshold for significance used in the study. The p-value for this comparison was calculated at the time of the study and was found to be less than 0.5.|Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for community pair, age-group and value at baseline||||||<0.05
91020495|NCT01398982|181923721|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Based on our published prospective, nonrandomized study using TAP block in abdominally-based autologous tissue breast reconstruction, 40 patients per group would achieve 85% power to detect a 65% reduction in mean total opioid consumption between the control and study groups (significance level alpha = 0.05; using a two-sided Wilcoxon rank-sum test).||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.02
91020496|NCT04440163|181923740|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was calculated based on Miettinen and Nurminen. If the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was greater than (\>) minus (-)10 percent (%), the non-inferiority was concluded.|Difference in percentage of participants|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|6.0|||Based on Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||MenA||6.0|-0.2|
91020497|NCT04440163|181923740|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was calculated based on Miettinen and Nurminen. If the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was \> -10%, the non-inferiority was concluded.|Difference in percentage of participants|41.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.4|47.5||||||MenC||47.5|34.4|
91020498|NCT04440163|181923740|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was calculated based on Miettinen and Nurminen. If the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was \> -10%, the non-inferiority was concluded.|Difference in percentage of participants|24.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.8|30.4||||||MenW||30.4|18.8|
91020499|NCT04440163|181923740|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was calculated based on Miettinen and Nurminen. If the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was \> -10%, the non-inferiority was concluded.|Difference in percentage of participants|23.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.0|30.1||||||MenY||30.1|18.0|
90956672|NCT01160289|181792847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-0.124||||0.224||95.0||||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in total cholesterol; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.224
91020500|NCT04440163|181923741|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was calculated based on Miettinen and Nurminen. If the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was \> -10%, the non-inferiority was concluded.|Difference in percentage of participants|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|0.5||||||MenA||0.5|-6.5|
91020501|NCT04440163|181923741|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was calculated based on Miettinen and Nurminen. If the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was \> -10%, the non-inferiority was concluded.|Difference in percentage of participants|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|3.3||||||MenC||3.3|-4.6|
91020502|NCT04440163|181923741|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was calculated based on Miettinen and Nurminen. If the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was \> -10%, the non-inferiority was concluded.|Difference in percentage of participants|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|4.3||||||MenW||4.3|-2.2|
91020503|NCT04440163|181923741|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was calculated based on Miettinen and Nurminen. If the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was \> -10%, the non-inferiority was concluded.|Difference in percentage of participants|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|3.8||||||MenY||3.8|-4.6|
91020504|NCT04440163|181923742|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was calculated based on Miettinen and Nurminen. If the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was \> -10%, the non-inferiority was concluded.|Difference in percentage of participants|9.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|15.2||||||||15.2|4.2|
91020505|NCT04440163|181923743|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was calculated based on Miettinen and Nurminen. If the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was \> -10%, the non-inferiority was concluded.|Difference in percentage of participants|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|8.9||||||A22||8.9|-0.7|
91020506|NCT04440163|181923743|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was calculated based on Miettinen and Nurminen. If the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was \> -10%, the non-inferiority was concluded.|Difference in percentage of participants|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|4.3||||||A56||4.3|-1.0|
91020507|NCT04440163|181923743|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was calculated based on Miettinen and Nurminen. If the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was \> -10%, the non-inferiority was concluded.|Difference in percentage of participants|10.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.2|16.6||||||B24||16.6|5.2|
91020508|NCT04440163|181923743|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was calculated based on Miettinen and Nurminen. If the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was \> -10%, the non-inferiority was concluded.|Difference in percentage|7.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|11.9||||||B44||11.9|2.9|
91020509|NCT04440163|181923775|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was calculated based on Miettinen and Nurminen. If the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was \> -10%, the non-inferiority was concluded.|Difference in percentage of participants|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|5.3||||||MenA||5.3|-1.0|
91020510|NCT04440163|181923775|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was calculated based on Miettinen and Nurminen. If the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was \> -10%, the non-inferiority was concluded.|Difference in percentage of participants|10.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|17.9||||||MenC||17.9|3.0|
91020511|NCT04440163|181923775|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was calculated based on Miettinen and Nurminen. If the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was \> -10%, the non-inferiority was concluded.|Difference in percentage of participants|6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|13.1||||||MenW||13.1|-0.1|
91020512|NCT04440163|181923775|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was calculated based on Miettinen and Nurminen. If the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was \> -10%, the non-inferiority was concluded.|Difference in percentage of participants|11.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|18.2||||||MenY||18.2|5.0|
91020513|NCT04440163|181923776|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was calculated based on Miettinen and Nurminen. If the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was \> -10%, the non-inferiority was concluded.|Difference in percentage of participants|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|1.4||||||MenA||1.4|-5.2|
91020514|NCT04440163|181923776|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was calculated based on Miettinen and Nurminen. If the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was \> -10%, the non-inferiority was concluded.|Difference in percentage of participants|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|2.9||||||MenC||2.9|-4.9|
91020515|NCT04440163|181923776|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was calculated based on Miettinen and Nurminen. If the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was \> -10%, the non-inferiority was concluded.|Difference in percentage of participants|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|4.6||||||MenW||4.6|-1.6|
91020516|NCT04440163|181923776|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was calculated based on Miettinen and Nurminen. If the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was \> -10%, the non-inferiority was concluded.|Difference in percentage of participants|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|5.0||||||MenY||5.0|-3.0|
91020517|NCT02229487|181923777|OTHER|||||||0.209|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.209
91020518|NCT00589693|181923783|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority will be established if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% Confidence Interval (CI) of the difference in clinical cure rate (doripenem minus imipenem-cilastatin) is greater than 15%|Difference of 2 binomial proportions|-11.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.3|3.8|||Normal approximation of 2 proportions|||Null Hypothesis: The clinical cure rate of doripenem assessed at the EOT visit is more than 15% inferior to that of imipenem-cilastatin||3.8|-26.3|
91020519|NCT00589693|181923784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of 2 binomial proportions|-18.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.2|19.5|||Normal approximation of 2 proportions|||||19.5|-57.2|
91084333|NCT00105989|182052464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.142||95.0||||P-value is pairwise comparison of Least Squares Means for Change from Baseline-Social Functioning.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.142
91084334|NCT00105989|182052464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24||95.0||||P-value is pairwise comparison of Least Squares Means for Change from Baseline-Vitality.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.240
91084335|NCT00105989|182052464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.615||95.0||||P-value is pairwise comparison of Least Squares Means for Change from Baseline-Rate General Health.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.615
91020520|NCT00589693|181923785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of 2 binomial proportions|-5.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.0|11.7|||Normal approximation of 2 proportions|||||11.7|-23.0|
91020521|NCT00589693|181923786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.14
91020522|NCT00589693|181923787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of 2 binomial proportions|6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|18.5|||Normal approximation of 2 proportions|||||18.5|-5.0|
91020523|NCT01128153|181923788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|-0.47|||ANCOVA||Adjusted mean treatment difference from the ANCOVA model (Saxagliptin - Placebo)|||-0.47|-0.86|<0.0001
91020524|NCT01128153|181923789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.667||0.0301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.85|-1.62|||ANCOVA||Adjusted mean treatment difference from the ANCOVA model (Saxagliptin - Placebo)|||-1.62|-31.85|0.0301
91020525|NCT01128153|181923790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.426||0.0301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|-0.09|||ANCOVA||Adjusted mean treatment difference from the ANCOVA model (Saxagliptin - Placebo)|||-0.09|-1.77|0.0301
91020526|NCT01128153|181923791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.595||0.0868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.96|1.15|||ANCOVA||Adjusted mean treatment difference from the ANCOVA model (Saxagliptin - Placebo)|||1.15|-16.96|0.0868
91020527|NCT01128153|181923792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.255||0.0868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.06|||ANCOVA||Adjusted mean treatment difference from the ANCOVA model (Saxagliptin - Placebo)|||0.06|-0.94|0.0868
91084336|NCT00105989|182052464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.218||95.0||||P-value is pairwise comparison of Least Squares Means for Change from Baseline-Health Compared to a Year Ago.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.218
91084337|NCT00105989|182052465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.838||95.0||||P-value for change in number of Primary Health Care Provider Visits in Acute Phase|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.838
91020528|NCT01128153|181923793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.006|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.852|21.05|||ANCOVA||Estimated Odds Ratio from the logistic regression model (Saxa/Placebo)|||21.05|3.852|<0.0001
91020529|NCT01954082|181923794|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.41||||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.83||A-priori threshold for statistical significance at 0.05 was specified.|Robust Poisson|Model adjusted for strata defined by center and gestational age.|In the risk ratio, the numerator represents the Inositol arm and the denominator represents the placebo arm. (RR\>1 implies that the risk of mortality and/or severe ROP is greater in the Inositol group compared to the Placebo group).|The null hypothesis is there is no treatment effect on the development of severe ROP and mortality.||1.83|1.08|0.0095
91020530|NCT01954082|181923795|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03||||0.6599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.16||A-priori threshold for statistical significance at 0.05 was specified.|Robust Poisson regression|Model adjusted for strata defined by center and gestational age.|In the risk ratio, the numerator represents the Inositol arm and the denominator represents the placebo arm. (RR\>1 implies that the risk of BPD is greater in the Inositol group compared to the Placebo group).|The null hypothesis is there is no treatment effect on the incidence of BPD.||1.16|0.91|0.6599
91020531|NCT01954082|181923796|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.05||||0.3883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.17||A-priori threshold for statistical significance at 0.05 was specified.|Robust Poisson regression|Model adjusted for strata defined by center and gestational age.||The null hypothesis is there is no treatment effect on the incidence of BPD or on mortality due to BDP.||1.17|0.94|0.3883
91020532|NCT01954082|181923797|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.53||||0.0306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.25||A-priori threshold for statistical significance at 0.05 was specified.|Robust Poisson regression|Model adjusted for strata defined by center and gestational age.|In the risk ratio, the numerator represents the Inositol arm and the denominator represents the placebo arm. (RR\>1 implies that the risk of mortality prior to ROP endpoint is greater in the Inositol group compared to the Placebo group).|The null hypothesis is there is no treatment effect on survival to ROP endpoint.||2.25|1.03|0.0306
91020533|NCT01954082|181923798|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.02||||0.7464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.14||A-priori threshold for statistical significance at 0.05 was specified.|Robust Poisson regression|Model adjusted for strata defined by center and gestational age.||The null hypothesis is there is no treatment effect on the incidence of ROP||1.14|0.91|0.7464
91020534|NCT01954082|181923799|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98||||0.7598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.14||A-priori threshold for statistical significance at 0.05 was specified.|Robust Poisson regression|Model adjusted for strata defined by center and gestational age.|In the risk ratio, the numerator represents the Inositol arm and the denominator represents the placebo arm. (RR\>1 implies that the risk of Type 2 ROP or more severe ROP is greater in the Inositol group compared to the Placebo group).|The null hypothesis is there is no treatment effect on the incidence of Type 2 ROP or more severe ROP.||1.14|0.83|0.7598
91020535|NCT01954082|181923800|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.04||||0.8133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.48||A-priori threshold for statistical significance at 0.05 was specified.|Robust Poisson regression|Model adjusted for strata defined by center and gestational age.|In the risk ratio, the numerator represents the Inositol arm and the denominator represents the placebo arm. (RR\>1 implies that the risk of severe IVH is greater in the Inositol group compared to the Placebo group).|The null hypothesis is there is no treatment effect on the incidence severe IVH.||1.48|0.74|0.8133
91020536|NCT01682512|181923815|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence for the change in DAS28 (ESR) was evaluated based on the two-sided 90% Confidence Interval (CI) for the treatment difference with respect to the mean change in the DAS28(ESR) score compared to baseline. Null hypothesis of non-equivalence was to be rejected if the 90% CI is fully contained within the interval of \[-0.5, 0.5\].|Adjusted mean difference|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.83|-0.03||Model analyzed was: DAS28(ESR) change from Baseline at Week 24 = overall mean + treatment + DAS28(ESR) Baseline score + visit + visit by treatment interaction + baseline-by-visit interaction + random error.|Mixed Models Analysis|A restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure (MMRM) approach was used.|Adjusted mean difference was calculated as: BI 695500 - Rituxan®|||-0.03|-0.83|
91020537|NCT01682512|181923816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted ratio of gMeans (%)|102.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|107.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.5|115.76|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on logarithmic scale: Ln(AUC0-tz)=overall mean+treatment effect+random error|Adjusted ratio of gMeans: BI 695500 versus Rituxan®; standard error is geometric standard error|The similarity of AUC(o- tz) was compared between treatment groups BI 695500 and Rituxan.||115.76|90.50|
91020538|NCT01682512|181923816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted ratio of gMeans (%)|88.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|107.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.24|99.46|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on logarithmic scale: Ln(AUC0-tz)=overall mean+treatment effect+random error|Adjusted ratio of gMeans: BI 695500 versus MabThera®; standard error is geometric standard error|The similarity of AUC(o- tz) was compared between treatment groups BI 695500 and MabThera.||99.46|78.24|
91020539|NCT01682512|181923816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted ratio of gMeans (%)|86.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|107.449|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.5|97.09|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on logarithmic scale: Ln(AUC0-tz)=overall mean+treatment effect+random error|Adjusted ratio of gMeans: Rituxan® versus MabThera®; standard error is geometric standard error|The similarity of AUC(o- tz) was compared between treatment groups Rituxan and MabThera.||97.09|76.50|
91020540|NCT01682512|181923817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted ratio of gMeans (%)|102.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|107.939|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.26|116.3|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on logarithmic scale: Ln(AUC0-inf pred)=overall mean+treatment effect+random error|Adjusted ratio of gMeans: BI 695500 versus Rituxan®; standard error is geometric standard error|The similarity of AUC(o-inf pred) was compared between treatment groups BI 695500 and Rituxan.||116.30|90.26|
91084338|NCT00105989|182052465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for change in number of Psychiatrist visits in Acute Phase|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<0.001
90905073|NCT02886728|181677437|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.2||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and subjects being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.20|-0.35|<0.001
91020541|NCT01682512|181923817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted ratio of gMeans (%)|86.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|107.404|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.38|96.82|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on logarithmic scale: Ln(AUC0-inf pred)=overall mean+treatment effect+random error|Adjusted ratio of gMeans: BI 695500 versus MabThera®; standard error is geometric standard error|The similarity of AUC(o-inf pred) was compared between treatment groups BI 695500 and MabThera.||96.82|76.38|
91020542|NCT01682512|181923817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted ratio of gMeans (%)|83.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|107.386|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.57|94.47|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on logarithmic scale: Ln(AUC0-inf pred)=overall mean+treatment effect+random error|Adjusted ratio of gMeans: Rituxan® versus MabThera®; standard error is geometric standard error|The similarity of AUC(o-inf pred) was compared between treatment groups Rituxan and MabThera.||94.47|74.57|
91020543|NCT01682512|181923818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted ratio of gMeans (%)|95.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|106.608|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.21|106.62|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on logarithmic scale: Ln(AUC0-336)=overall mean+treatment effect+random error|Adjusted ratio of gMeans: BI 695500 versus Rituxan®; standard error is geometric standard error|The similarity of AUC(0-336) was compared between treatment groups BI 695500 and Rituxan.||106.62|86.21|
91020544|NCT01682512|181923818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted ratio of gMeans (%)|89.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|106.775|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.23|99.74|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on logarithmic scale: Ln(AUC0-336)=overall mean+treatment effect+random error|Adjusted ratio of gMeans: BI 695500 versus MabThera®; standard error is geometric standard error|The similarity of AUC(0-336) was compared between treatment groups BI 695500 and MabThera.||99.74|80.23|
91020545|NCT01682512|181923818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted ratio of gMeans (%)|93.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|105.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.11|102.29|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on logarithmic scale: Ln(AUC0-336)=overall mean+treatment effect+random error|Adjusted ratio of gMeans: Rituxan® versus MabThera®; standard error is geometric standard error|The similarity of AUC(0-336) was compared between treatment groups Rituxan and MabThera.||102.29|85.11|
91020546|NCT01682512|181923819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted ratio of gMeans (%)|93.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|105.995|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.32|103.5|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on logarithmic scale: Ln(Cmax)=overall mean+treatment effect+random error|Adjusted ratio of gMeans: BI 695500 versus Rituxan®; standard error is geometric standard error|The similarity of observed Cmax was compared between treatment groups BI 695500 and Rituxan.||103.50|85.32|
91020547|NCT01682512|181923819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted ratio of gMeans (%)|89.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|105.657|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.51|97.83|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on logarithmic scale: Ln(Cmax)=overall mean+treatment effect+random error|Adjusted ratio of gMeans: BI 695500 versus MabThera®; standard error is geometric standard error|The similarity of observed Cmax was compared between treatment groups BI 695500 and MabThera.||97.83|81.51|
91020548|NCT01682512|181923819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted ratio of gMeans (%)|95.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|105.744|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.62|104.25|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on logarithmic scale: Ln(Cmax)=overall mean+treatment effect+random error|Adjusted ratio of gMeans: Rituxan® versus MabThera®; standard error is geometric standard error|The similarity of observed Cmax was compared between treatment groups Rituxan and MabThera.||104.25|86.62|
91020549|NCT01682512|181923821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted ratio of gMeans (%)|104.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|108.044|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.92|118.78|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on logarithmic scale: Ln(AUC0-inf, ppk)=overall mean+treatment effect+random error|Adjusted ratio of gMeans: BI 695500 versus Rituxan®; standard error is geometric standard error|The similarity of AUC(0-inf, ppk) was compared between treatment groups BI 695500 and Rituxan.||118.78|91.92|
91020550|NCT01682512|181923821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted ratio of gMeans (%)|91.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|107.253|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.38|102.64|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on logarithmic scale: Ln(AUC0-inf, ppk)=overall mean+treatment effect+random error|Adjusted ratio of gMeans: BI 695500 versus MabThera®; standard error is geometric standard error|The similarity of AUC(0-inf, ppk) was compared between treatment groups BI 695500 and MabThera.||102.64|81.38|
91020551|NCT01682512|181923821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted ratio of gMeans (%)|87.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|107.896|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.12|99.21|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on logarithmic scale: Ln(AUC0-inf, ppk)=overall mean+treatment effect+random error|Adjusted ratio of gMeans: Rituxan® versus MabThera®; standard error is geometric standard error|The similarity of AUC(0-inf, ppk) was compared between treatment groups Rituxan and MabThera.||99.21|77.12|
91020552|NCT00417027|181923826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Bonferroni corrected for 6 comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
91020553|NCT00417027|181923826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||Bonferroni corrected for 6 comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.005
91020554|NCT00417027|181923826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0||||Bonferroni corrected for 6 comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.02
91020555|NCT00417027|181923827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.54
91020556|NCT00417027|181923828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.32
91020557|NCT00417027|181923829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.69
91020558|NCT00417027|181923830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72||95.0||||Analysis applies to all rows.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||Analysis apply to all rows. Only 1 comparison was made between the groups in distribution of number of bolus doses.||||0.72
91020559|NCT00417027|181923831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.41
91020560|NCT00417027|181923832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.85
91020561|NCT03137082|181923833|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.03|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.03
91020562|NCT03137082|181923834|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1
91020563|NCT03137082|181923836|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.01
91020564|NCT03137082|181923837|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.001
91020565|NCT03137082|181923838|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.5
91020566|NCT03137082|181923839|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.03|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.03
90956673|NCT01160289|181792847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-0.189||||0.056||95.0||||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in total cholesterol; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.056
90956674|NCT01160289|181792847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-0.211||||0.031||95.0||||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in triglycerides; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.031
90956675|NCT01160289|181792847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-0.227||||0.017||95.0||||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in triglycerides; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.017
90956676|NCT01160289|181792847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-0.016||||0.866||95.0||||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in triglycerides; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.866
91020567|NCT03137082|181923840|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1
91020568|NCT03137082|181923841|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.3|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.3
91020569|NCT03137082|181923842|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.04
91020570|NCT03137082|181923843|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.4
91020571|NCT03137082|181923844|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.08
90956677|NCT01160289|181792847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-0.032||||0.726||95.0||||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in triglycerides; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.726
90956678|NCT01160289|181792848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean of treatment difference|-9.014|||<|0.001||95.0||||The p-value is for the percent change from baseline to Week 12 in HDL-C; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||<0.001
90956679|NCT01160289|181792848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-18.547|||<|0.001||95.0||||The p-value is for the percent change from baseline to Week 12 in HDL-C; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||<0.001
90956680|NCT01160289|181792848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-9.216|||<|0.001||95.0||||The p-value is for the percent change from baseline to Week 12 in HDL-C; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||<0.001
90956681|NCT01160289|181792848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-18.75|||<|0.001||95.0||||The p-value is for the percent change from baseline to Week 12 in HDL-C; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||<0.001
90956682|NCT01160289|181792848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-0.977||||0.776||95.0||||The p-value is for the percent change from baseline to Week 12 in LDL-C; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.776
90956683|NCT01160289|181792848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|0.78||||0.814||95.0||||The p-value is for the percent change from baseline to Week 12 in LDL-C; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.814
90956684|NCT01160289|181792848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-1.629||||0.627||95.0||||The p-value is for the percent change from baseline to Week 12 in LDL-C; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.627
90956685|NCT01160289|181792848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|0.128||||0.968||95.0||||The p-value is for the percent change from baseline to Week 12 in LDL-C; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.968
90956686|NCT01160289|181792849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean of treatment difference|-0.006||||0.984||95.0||||Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.984
90956687|NCT01160289|181792849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-0.465||||0.076||95.0||||Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.076
90956688|NCT01160289|181792849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|0.387||||0.142||95.0||||Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.142
90956689|NCT01160289|181792849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-0.072||||0.776||95.0||||Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.776
91020572|NCT03137082|181923845|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2
90956690|NCT01160289|181792850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean of treatment difference|5.031||||0.103||95.0||||Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.103
91020573|NCT03111407|181923849|EQUIVALENCE|Data analyzed with SAS Enterprise Guided (version 7.15 HF3, SAS lnstitute lnc., Cary, NC). Significance level set with q = 0.05. Continuous data (e.g. age, weight, EQ-5D) were summarized using mean, standard deviation, minimum, median, maximum and number of observations. Comparison between continuous baseline and patient visits were performed using standard statistical tests (e.g., a t-test, Wilcoxon test, or one-way ANOVA (as appropriate) were performed as required to evaluate the difference).||||||0.2342|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Hip Knee Angle value 1 year post surgery: Mean+/- SD (N)(Min, Max) 95%C.I (lower, upper)~iAssist group: 179.9 +/-2.9 (44) (171, 185.3)~Conventional group: 178.9 +/-3.9 (26) (167, 185)"||||0.2342
91020574|NCT03111407|181923850|EQUIVALENCE|Data analyzed with SAS Enterprise Guided (version 7.15 HF3, SAS lnstitute lnc., Cary, NC). Significance level set with q = 0.05. Continuous data (e.g. age, weight, EQ-5D) were summarized using mean, standard deviation, minimum, median, maximum and number of observations. Comparison between continuous baseline and patient visits were performed using standard statistical tests (e.g., a t-test, Wilcoxon test, or one-way ANOVA (as appropriate) were performed as required to evaluate the difference).||||||0.4427|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Knee Society Score Assessment 1 year post surgery: Mean+/- SD (N)(Min, Max) 95%C.I (lower, upper)~iAssist group: 74.7 +/- 12.5 \[44\] (30.2, 78.0, 89.5), 95% C.I. (70.9, 78.5)~Conventional group: 72.4 +/- 11.6 \[26\] (45.0, 75.2, 90.1), 95% C.I. (67.7, 77.1)"||||0.4427
91084339|NCT00105989|182052465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.236||95.0||||P-value for change in number of Psychologist/Therapist visits in Acute Phase|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.236
91084340|NCT00105989|182052465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.145||95.0||||P-value for change in number of Other Specialist Physician visits in Acute Phase|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.145
91084341|NCT00105989|182052465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.423||95.0||||P-value for change in number of Other (Specified by Patient) visits in Acute Phase|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.423
91084342|NCT00105989|182052465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.325||95.0||||P-value for change in number of Primary Health Care Provider visits in Continuation Phase|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.325
91084343|NCT00105989|182052465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for change in number of Psychiatrist visits in Continuation Phase|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<0.001
91084344|NCT00105989|182052465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.915||95.0||||P-value for change in number of Psychologist/Therapist visits in Continuation Phase|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.915
91084345|NCT00105989|182052465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.223||95.0||||P-value for change in number of Other Specialist Physician visits in Continuation Phase|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.223
91084346|NCT00105989|182052465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.362||95.0||||P-value for change in number of Other (Specified by Patient) visits in Continuation Phase|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.362
91084347|NCT00105989|182052466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.462||95.0||||P-value for pairwise comparison of means for change from baseline to endpoint in Primary Health Care Provider visits.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.462
91084348|NCT00105989|182052466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.668||95.0||||P-value for pairwise comparison of means for change from baseline to endpoint in Psychiatrist visits.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.668
91084349|NCT00105989|182052466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.746||95.0||||P-value for pairwise comparison of means for change from baseline to endpoint in Psychologist/Therapist visits.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.746
91084350|NCT00105989|182052466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.511||95.0||||P-value for pairwise comparison of means for change from baseline to endpoint in Other Specialist Physician visits.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.511
91084351|NCT00105989|182052466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.271||95.0||||P-value for pairwise comparison of means for change from baseline to endpoint in Other (Specified by Patient) Provider visits.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.271
91084352|NCT00105989|182052467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.506||95.0||||P-value for Change in Average Number of Hours Worked In a Week in Acute Phase|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.506
91084353|NCT00105989|182052467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.057||95.0||||P-value for Change in Average Number of Hours Worked In a Week in Continuation Phase|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.057
91084354|NCT00105989|182052468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.826||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.826
91084355|NCT00105989|182052469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.105||95.0||||P-value for Change in Number of Missed Paid Work Hours in Acute Phase|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.105
91084356|NCT00105989|182052469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.174||95.0||||P-value for Change in Number of Missed Paid Work Hours in Continuation Phase|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.174
91084357|NCT00105989|182052470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.037||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.037
91084358|NCT00105989|182052471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.785||95.0||||P-value for Sum Items 1 to 5 Change to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.785
91084359|NCT00105989|182052471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.354||95.0||||P-value for Sum Items 1\&2 Change to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.354
91084360|NCT00105989|182052471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17||95.0||||P-value for Item 1-Sex Drive Change to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.170
91084361|NCT00105989|182052471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.825||95.0||||P-value for Item 2-Arousal Change to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.825
91084362|NCT00105989|182052471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.877||95.0||||P-value for Item 3-Vaginal Lubrication/Penile Erection Change to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.877
91084363|NCT00105989|182052471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0||||P-value for Item 4-Orgasm Change to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.009
91084364|NCT00105989|182052471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67||95.0||||P-value for Item 5-Satisfaction Change to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.670
91084365|NCT00105989|182052471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1||95.0||||P-value for Sum Items 1 to 5 Change to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.100
91084366|NCT00105989|182052471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021||95.0||||P-value for Sum Items 1\&2 Change to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.021
91084367|NCT00105989|182052471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047||95.0||||P-value for Item 1-Sex Drive Change to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.047
91020575|NCT03111407|181923851|EQUIVALENCE|Data analyzed with SAS Enterprise Guided (version 7.15 HF3, SAS lnstitute lnc., Cary, NC). Significance level set with q = 0.05. Continuous data (e.g. age, weight, EQ-5D) were summarized using mean, standard deviation, minimum, median, maximum and number of observations. Comparison between continuous baseline and patient visits were performed using standard statistical tests (e.g., a t-test, Wilcoxon test, or one-way ANOVA (as appropriate) were performed as required to evaluate the difference).||||||0.6154|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Knee Soceity Score Function 1 year post surgery: Mean+/- SD (N)(Min, Max) 95%C.I (lower, upper) iAssist group: 80.5 +/- 13.8 \[44\] (55.0, 80.0, 100.0), 95% C.I. (76.2, 84.7) Conventional group: 78.5 +/- 19.1 \[26\] (40.0, 80.0, 100.0),95% C.I. (70.8, 86.2)||||0.6154
91020576|NCT03111407|181923852|EQUIVALENCE|Data analyzed with SAS Enterprise Guided (version 7.15 HF3, SAS lnstitute lnc., Cary, NC). Significance level set with q = 0.05. Continuous data (e.g. age, weight, EQ-5D) were summarized using mean, standard deviation, minimum, median, maximum and number of observations. Comparison between continuous baseline and patient visits were performed using standard statistical tests (e.g., a t-test, Wilcoxon test, or one-way ANOVA (as appropriate) were performed as required to evaluate the difference).||||||0.4549|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||EQ-5D score 1 year post surgery: Mean+/- SD (N)(Min, Max) 95%C.I (lower, upper) iAssist group: 0.8 +/- 0.2 \[29\] (0.0, 1.0, 1.0), 95% C.I. (0.7, 0.9) Conventional group: 0.8 +/- 0.3 \[20\] (0.1, 0.8, 1.0), 95% C.I. (0.7, 0.9)||||0.4549
91020577|NCT02756078|181923857|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of -5 points was used. This margin is based on a 10% shift in the distribution of CLUE score.|Posterior Mean Difference|5.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.796|||TWO_SIDED|98.0|1.3|8.73|||Bayesian hierarchical model|A 98% credible interval for the posterior mean difference was used to demonstrate non-inferiority between the senofilcon A and samfilcon A lenses.|Mean difference was calculated as Test (senofilcon A) minus Control (samfilcon A)|||8.73|1.30|
91020578|NCT02756078|181923858|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of -5 points was used. This margin is based on a 10% shift in the distribution of CLUE score.|Posterior Mean Difference|13.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.701|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.34|17.05|||Bayesian hierarchical model|A 95% credible interval for the posterior mean difference was used to demonstrate non-inferiority between the senofilcon A and samfilcon A lenses.|Mean difference was calculated as Test (senofilcon A) minus Control (samfilcon A)|||17.05|10.34|
91020579|NCT02756078|181923859|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of -2 hour was used.|Posterior mean difference|-0.37|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.313|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.25|||Bayesian hierarchical model|A 95% credible interval for the posterior mean difference was used to demonstrate non-inferiority between the senofilcon A and samfilcon A lenses.|||Mean difference was calculated as senofilcon A minus samfilcon A.|0.25|-1.00|
91020580|NCT02756078|181923860|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of -2 hour was used.|Posterior mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.107|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.16|||Bayesian hierarchical model|A 95% credible interval for the posterior mean difference was used to demonstrate non-inferiority between the senofilcon A and samfilcon A lenses.|Mean difference was calculated as senofilcon A minus samfilcon A|||0.16|-0.27|
91020581|NCT02756078|181923861|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of -2 hour was used.|Posterior mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.261|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.57|||Bayesian hierarchical model|A 95% credible interval for the posterior mean difference was used to demonstrate non-inferiority between the senofilcon A and samfilcon A lenses.|Mean difference was calculated as senofilcon A minus samfilcon A|||0.57|-0.47|
91020582|NCT02756078|181923862|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of -2 hour was used.|Posterior mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.159|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.26|||Bayesian hierarchical model|A 95% credible interval for the posterior mean difference was used to demonstrate non-inferiority between the senofilcon A and samfilcon A lenses.|Mean difference was calculated as senofilcon A minus samfilcon A.|||0.26|-0.36|
91020583|NCT02756078|181923863|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 0.67 was used.|Posterior odds ratio|1.35|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.203|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.79|||Bayesian multinomial model|A 95% credible interval for the posterior odds ratio was used to demonstrate non-inferiority between the senofilcon A and samfilcon A lenses.|Odds ratio was calculated as senofilcon A over samfilcon A.|||1.79|0.99|
91020584|NCT00810615|181923865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||ANCOVA|A repeated measures model was designed so as to incorporate the adjust for the repeated (dependent) measures within individuals over time.||ANCOVA, baseline measurement was considered as a covariate and group (sham or 2.4 ATA), treatment (15 treatments, 30 treatments, and 6 weeks) as well as the interaction between group and treatment were considered as the independent variables.||||0.05
91020585|NCT00810615|181923877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.5455||||||||||||||Relative Risk of Improvement in 2.4 ATA group vs. Sham in subjects with one significant event (blast or impact resulting in concussion symptoms) per Concussion History. PCL-M with significant improvement defined as a score decrease 10 or more.||||
91020586|NCT00810615|181923878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1||||||||||||||Relative Risk of Improvement in 2.4 ATA group vs. Sham in subjects with two significant events (blast or impact resulting in concussion symptoms) per Concussion History. PCL-M with significant improvement defined as a score decrease 10 or more.||||
91020587|NCT00810615|181923879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1111||||||||||||||Relative Risk of Improvement in 2.4 ATA group vs. Sham in subjects with three significant events (blast or impact resulting in concussion symptoms) per Concussion History. PCL-M with significant improvement defined as a score decrease 10 or more.||||
91020588|NCT00810615|181923880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||||||||||||Relative Risk of Improvement in 2.4 ATA group vs. Sham in subjects with four or more significant events (blast or impact resulting in concussion symptoms) per Concussion History. PCL-M with significant improvement defined as a score decrease 10 or more.||||
91020589|NCT01766310|181923886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.68|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.3||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|1.44|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.44|-0.09|0.05
91020590|NCT02125734|181923911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.081||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.031|0.13|||ANCOVA|||||0.130|0.031|0.0017
91084368|NCT00105989|182052471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023||95.0||||P-value for Item 2-Arousal Change to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.023
91084369|NCT00105989|182052471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.668||95.0||||P-value for Item 3-Vaginal Lubrication/Penile Erection Change to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.668
91020591|NCT02618772|181923916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.026
91020592|NCT02618772|181923917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.036
91020593|NCT02618772|181923918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.151||||||This is in reference to the baseline measure.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.151
91020594|NCT02618772|181923918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||||||This is in reference to the intervention measure.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.020
91020595|NCT02618772|181923918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.198||||||This is in reference to the lidocaine measure.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.198
91020596|NCT02618772|181923918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||||||This is in reference to the difference between the suturing and baseline measures.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.006
91020597|NCT02618772|181923919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.185||||||This is in reference to the baseline measure.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.185
91020598|NCT02618772|181923919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011||||||This is in reference to the intervention measure.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.011
91020599|NCT02618772|181923919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.191||||||This is in reference to the lidocaine measure.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.191
91020600|NCT02618772|181923919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||||||This is in reference to the difference between the suturing and baseline measures.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.008
91020601|NCT02618772|181923920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||||||This p value is a t-test of the Post STAI minus Pre STAI variable.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004
91020602|NCT02618772|181923921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015||||||This p value is in reference to the t-test performed for STAI Post Minus STAI Pre.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.015
91020603|NCT02618772|181923922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.080
91020604|NCT02618772|181923923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.086|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.086
91020605|NCT02618772|181923924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91020606|NCT02618772|181923925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91020607|NCT01488071|181923930|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM), using all available data, with a freely varying mean and covariance structures and with treatment, week, and site group as fixed factors and the baseline score as a covariate. The model also included interaction between week and baseline score, as well as interaction between week and treatment.~Non-inferiority, upper limit of Confidence Interval should not exceed 2."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.51|-0.81||Under established non-inferiority the p-value is not adjusted.|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM||||-0.81|-3.51|0.0018
91020608|NCT01488071|181923931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.45|-0.6||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|The same MMRM methodology as for the primary endpoint was used.||||-0.60|-3.45|0.0054
91020609|NCT01488071|181923932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.98|-0.8||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|The same MMRM methodology as for the primary endpoint was used.||||-0.80|-2.98|0.0008
91020610|NCT01488071|181923933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.04|-0.81||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|The same MMRM methodology as for the primary endpoint was used.||||-0.81|-3.04|0.0007
91020611|NCT01488071|181923934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.11||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|The same MMRM methodology as for the primary endpoint was used.||||-0.11|-0.48|0.0023
91020612|NCT01488071|181923935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.07||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|The same MMRM methodology as for the primary endpoint was used.||||-0.07|-0.47|0.0075
91020613|NCT01488071|181923936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.08||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|The same MMRM methodology as for the primary endpoint was used.||||-0.08|-0.42|0.0048
91020614|NCT01488071|181923937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.07||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|The same MMRM methodology as for the primary endpoint was used.||||-0.07|-0.42|0.0055
91020615|NCT01488071|181923938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.81||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|2.6||Wald's Test. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.60|1.26|0.0012
91020616|NCT01488071|181923939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.83||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|2.65||Wald's Test. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.65|1.26|0.0014
91020617|NCT01488071|181923940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72||||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|2.52||Wald's Test. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.52|1.17|0.0054
91020618|NCT01488071|181923941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.01||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|2.9||Wald's Test. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.90|1.39|0.0002
91020619|NCT01488071|181923942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.63|-0.81||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|The same MMRM methodology as for the primary endpoint was used.||||-0.81|-3.63|0.0021
91020620|NCT01488071|181923943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.0209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.23|-0.27||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|The same MMRM methodology as for the primary endpoint was used.||||-0.27|-3.23|0.0209
91020621|NCT02139306|181923944|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.597|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.957||0.5336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2881|2.4813|||Mixed-model, repeated-measures|||||2.4813|-1.2881|0.5336
91020622|NCT02139306|181923945|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.8567|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1577||0.4008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5973|1.2288|||Negative binomial regression|||||1.2288|0.5973|0.4008
90956691|NCT01160289|181792850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean treatment difference|-3.225||||0.277||95.0||||Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.277
91020623|NCT02139306|181923946|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.272|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93||0.8881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5292|4.0731|||Mixed-model, repeated measures|||||4.0731|-3.5292|0.8881
91020624|NCT02139306|181923947|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.065|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1312||0.6208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3233|0.1934|||Mixed-model, repeated measures|||||0.1934|-0.3233|0.6208
91020625|NCT02278952|181923965|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation-adjusted linear models||||||0.33|||||||GEE-adjusted models|||||||0.33
91020626|NCT02278952|181923966|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation-adjusted linear model|||||<|0.0001|||||||GEE-adjusted linear model|||||||< 0.0001
91020627|NCT02278952|181923967|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation-adjusted linear models||||||0.049|||||||GEE-adjusted linear models|||||||0.049
91020628|NCT02278952|181923968|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation-adjusted linear models||||||0.114|||||||GEE-adjusted linear models|||||||0.114
91020629|NCT02278952|181923969|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation-adjusted linear models||||||0.47|||||||GEE-adjusted linear models|||P-value of tacrolimus dose||||0.470
91020630|NCT02278952|181923969|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation-adjusted linear models||||||0.037|||||||GEE-adjusted linear models|||P-value of Prednisone dose||||0.037
91020631|NCT02278952|181923969|OTHER|Generalized-estimating equation-adjusted linear models||||||0.456|||||||GEE-adjusted linear models|||P-value of mycophenolate mofetil dose||||0.456
91020632|NCT02913261|181923998|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|4.22|||Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.22|1.65|<.0001
91020633|NCT02913261|181923999|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.38||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|3.94|||Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.94|1.43|0.0005
91020634|NCT02913261|181924000|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.98||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|3.17|||Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.17|1.24|0.0029
91020635|NCT02913261|181924012|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|5.25|||Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.25|1.80|<.0001
91020636|NCT02304302|181924027|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.34||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|1.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.67|-0.98|0.61
91020637|NCT02304302|181924028|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.32||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.80|-1.43|0.57
91020638|NCT02304302|181924029|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.04||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.66|-0.74|0.91
91020639|NCT02304302|181924030|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|0.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.91|-1.91|0.48
91020640|NCT02304302|181924031|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.31||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.14|2.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.53|-5.14|0.50
91020641|NCT02304302|181924032|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.32|-0.52|0.62
91020642|NCT02304302|181924033|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.94||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.32|31.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||31.20|-25.32|0.84
91020643|NCT02304302|181924034|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.04||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||QTc interval duration was the independent variable, treatment and time were the categorical factors.||||0.24
91020644|NCT02304302|181924035|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.91||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|5.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.39|-1.57|0.28
91020645|NCT02304302|181924036|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.61|-0.80|0.51
91020646|NCT02304302|181924037|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.17||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|5.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.94|-3.6|0.63
91020647|NCT02304302|181924038|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.65||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.91|1.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.61|-8.91|0.17
91020648|NCT01311505|181924051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|98.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.98|105.2||||||20 participants (10 per sequence) provided at least 98% power that 90% confidence interval (CI) for ratio of test to reference for AUC(0-t) of rifampicin lie within acceptance region of 80%-125%. Intra-participant coefficient of variation (CV) estimate of approximately 13.48% for AUC(0-t) was used for this power calculation. Natural log transformed AUC(0-t) was analyzed using mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as random effect.||105.20|92.98|
91020649|NCT01311505|181924052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|98.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.77|109.97||||||20 participants (10 per sequence) provided at least 94% power that 90% CI for ratio of test to reference for Cmax of rifampicin lie within acceptance region of 80%-125%. Intra-participant CV estimate of approximately 16.43% for Cmax was used for this power calculation. Natural log transformed Cmax was analyzed using mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as random effect.||109.97|87.77|
91020650|NCT01311505|181924054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|100.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.44|106.41||||||Natural log transformed AUC(0-∞) of rifampicin was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||106.41|94.44|
91020651|NCT00532779|181924063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.67|||<|0.001||95.0|-4.5|-2.85|||ANCOVA|||||-2.85|-4.50|<0.001
91020652|NCT00532779|181924063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.63|-3.99|||ANCOVA|||||-3.99|-5.63|<0.001
91020653|NCT00532779|181924064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.42|||<|0.001||95.0|2.52|4.63|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.63|2.52|<0.001
91020654|NCT00532779|181924064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.86|||<|0.001||95.0|3.6|6.57|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.57|3.60|<0.001
91020655|NCT00532779|181924065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.14|4.81|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.81|2.14|<0.001
91020656|NCT00532779|181924065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.82|6.23|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.23|2.82|<0.001
91020657|NCT00532779|181924066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.74|-1.43|||ANCOVA|||||-1.43|-3.74|<0.001
91020658|NCT00532779|181924066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.93|-2.64|||ANCOVA|||||-2.64|-4.93|<0.001
91020659|NCT00532779|181924067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.17|4.66|||ANCOVA|||||4.66|2.17|<0.001
91020660|NCT00532779|181924067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.26|4.7|||ANCOVA|||||4.70|2.26|<0.001
91020661|NCT00532779|181924068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.88|||=|0.046|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.046
91020662|NCT00532779|181924068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91020663|NCT00532779|181924069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|4.54|||ANCOVA|||||4.54|1.72|<0.001
91020664|NCT00532779|181924069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.73|5.56|||ANCOVA|||||5.56|2.73|<0.001
91020665|NCT00532779|181924070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.36|||=|0.016|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.016
91020666|NCT00532779|181924070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.32|||=|0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.008
91020667|NCT00532779|181924071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.27|||=|0.063|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.063
91020668|NCT00532779|181924071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91084370|NCT00105989|182052471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.136||95.0||||P-value for Item 4-Orgasm Change to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.136
91020669|NCT00532779|181924072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.42||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||0.42|-2.60|
91020670|NCT00532779|181924072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.94|||=|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.42|-0.46|||ANCOVA|||||-0.46|-3.42|=0.010
91020671|NCT00532779|181924073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.43|||||TWO_SIDED|||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||
91020672|NCT00532779|181924073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91020673|NCT00532779|181924074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.68|-0.94||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||-0.94|-6.68|
91084371|NCT00105989|182052471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.152||95.0||||P-value for Item 5-Satisfaction Change to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.152
91020674|NCT00532779|181924074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.71|-2.98|||ANCOVA|||||-2.98|-8.71|<0.001
91020675|NCT00532779|181924075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.62|2.84||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||2.84|-3.62|
91020676|NCT00532779|181924075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.13||||0.484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.29|2.04|||ANCOVA|||||2.04|-4.29|0.484
91020677|NCT00532779|181924076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|3.3||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||3.30|1.16|
91020678|NCT00532779|181924076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.9||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||2.90|0.76|
91020679|NCT00532779|181924077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.73||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||1.73|0.19|
91020680|NCT00532779|181924077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.67||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||1.67|0.13|
91020681|NCT00532779|181924078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.28||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||1.28|0.19|
91020682|NCT00532779|181924078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|1.0||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||1.00|-0.09|
91020683|NCT00532779|181924079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|1.23||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||1.23|0.14|
91020684|NCT00532779|181924079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.69||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||0.69|-0.40|
91084372|NCT00105989|182052472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Sum Items 1 to 5 Change to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<0.001
91020685|NCT00532779|181924080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.53||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||0.53|-0.53|
91084373|NCT00105989|182052472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Sum Items 1\&2 Change to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<0.001
91084374|NCT00105989|182052472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Item 1-Sex Drive Change to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<0.001
91084375|NCT00105989|182052472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Item 2-Arousal Change to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<0.001
91084376|NCT00105989|182052472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||P-value for Item 3-Vaginal Lubrication/Penile Erection Change to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.005
91084377|NCT00105989|182052472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0||||P-value for Item 4-Orgasm Change to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.050
91084378|NCT00105989|182052472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022||95.0||||P-value for Item 5-Satisfaction Change to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.022
91084379|NCT00105989|182052472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-value for Sum Items 1 to 5 Change to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.002
91084380|NCT00105989|182052472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Sum Items 1\&2 Change to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<0.001
91084381|NCT00105989|182052472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Item 1-Sex Drive Change to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<0.001
91084382|NCT00105989|182052472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Item 2-Arousal Change to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<0.001
91084383|NCT00105989|182052472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.186||95.0||||P-value for Item 3-Vaginal Lubrication/Penile Erection Change to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.186
91084384|NCT00105989|182052472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Item 4-Orgasm Change to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<0.001
91084385|NCT00105989|182052472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.308||95.0||||P-value for Item 5-Satisfaction Change to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.308
91084386|NCT00105989|182052473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.773||95.0||||P-value for pairwise comparison Least Squares Mean change from baseline for the Sum of Items 1 to 5.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.773
91084387|NCT00105989|182052473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.405||95.0||||P-value for pairwise comparison Least Squares Mean change from baseline for the Sum of Items 1 and 2.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.405
91084388|NCT00105989|182052473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.443||95.0||||P-value for pairwise comparison Least Squares Mean change from baseline for Item 1-Sex Drive.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.443
90956692|NCT01160289|181792850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|7.056||||0.019||95.0||||Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.019
91084389|NCT00105989|182052473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.384||95.0||||P-value for pairwise comparison Least Squares Mean change from baseline for Item 2-Arousal.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.384
91084390|NCT00105989|182052473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.268||95.0||||P-value for pairwise comparison Least Squares Mean change from baseline for Item 3-Vaginal Lubrication/Penile Erection.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.268
91084391|NCT00105989|182052473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.093||95.0||||P-value for pairwise comparison Least Squares Mean change from baseline for Item 4-Orgasm.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.093
91084392|NCT00105989|182052473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.566||95.0||||P-value for pairwise comparison Least Squares Mean change from baseline for Item 5-Satisfaction.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.566
91084393|NCT00105989|182052474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.979||95.0||||P-value for pairwise comparison Least Squares Mean change from baseline for the Sum of Items 1 to 5.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.979
91084394|NCT00105989|182052474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.132||95.0||||P-value for pairwise comparison Least Squares Mean change from baseline for the Sum of Items 1 and 2.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.132
91084395|NCT00105989|182052474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||95.0||||P-value for pairwise comparison Least Squares Mean change from baseline for Item 1-Sex Drive.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.180
90956693|NCT01160289|181792850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-1.201||||0.676||95.0||||Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.676
91084396|NCT00105989|182052474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.163||95.0||||P-value for pairwise comparison Least Squares Mean change from baseline for Item 2-Arousal.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.163
91084397|NCT00105989|182052474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.844||95.0||||P-value for pairwise comparison Least Squares Mean change from baseline for Item 3-Vaginal Lubrication/Penile Erection.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.844
91084398|NCT00105989|182052474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.609||95.0||||P-value for pairwise comparison Least Squares Mean change from baseline for Item 4-Orgasm.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.609
91084399|NCT00105989|182052474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.071||95.0||||P-value for pairwise comparison Least Squares Mean change from baseline for Item 5-Satisfaction.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.071
91084400|NCT00105989|182052475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Weight Change from Baseline to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<0.001
91084401|NCT00105989|182052475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Weight Change from Baseline to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<0.001
91084402|NCT00105989|182052476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.314||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.314
91084403|NCT00105989|182052477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Pulse Change from Baseline to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<0.001
91020686|NCT00532779|181924080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.27||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||0.27|-0.80|
91020687|NCT00828516|181924135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.51|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.96|<|0.001||95.0||||This was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|t-test, 2 sided||"MYMOP uses a 7-point scale, from 0 to 6, with 0 as good as it can be, and 6 as bad as it can be. Higher values represent a worse outcome."|There will be no improvement in MYMOP profile score after 6 acupuncture treatments.||||<0.001
91020688|NCT00828516|181924136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.32|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.94|<|0.001||95.0||||There will be no improvement in MYMOP profile score after 12 treatments|t-test, 2 sided||"MYMOP uses a 7-point scale, from 0 to 6, with 0 as good as it can be, and 6 as bad as it can be. Higher values represent a worse outcome."|||||<0.001
91020689|NCT00689273|181924137|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.39|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.23|0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Results were obtained from a mixed effect repeated measure model using unstructured covariance matrix. The model included random-effect terms for participant, and fixed-effect terms for baseline response, treatment group, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and country effect. One-sided alpha of 0.1 was used for the analysis.||0.24|-1.23|0.39
91020690|NCT00689273|181924138|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.63|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.92|0.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Results were obtained from a mixed effect repeated measure model using unstructured covariance matrix. The model included random-effect terms for participant, and fixed-effect terms for baseline response, treatment group, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and country effect.||0.42|-0.92|0.63
91020691|NCT00689273|181924139|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.54|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.51|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Results were obtained from a mixed effect repeated measure model using unstructured covariance matrix. The model included random-effect terms for participant, and fixed-effect terms for baseline response, treatment group, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and country effect.||0.18|-0.51|0.54
91020692|NCT00689273|181924139|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.6|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.51|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Results were obtained from a mixed effect repeated measure model using unstructured covariance matrix. The model included random-effect terms for participant, and fixed-effect terms for baseline response, treatment group, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and country effect.||0.21|-0.51|0.60
91020693|NCT00689273|181924140|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.44|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.69|0.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Results were obtained from a mixed effect repeated measure model using unstructured covariance matrix. The model included random-effect terms for participant, and fixed-effect terms for baseline response, treatment group, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and country effect.||0.94|-3.69|0.44
91020694|NCT00689273|181924140|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.23|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.0|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Results were obtained from a mixed effect repeated measure model using unstructured covariance matrix. The model included random-effect terms for participant, and fixed-effect terms for baseline response, treatment group, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and country effect.||0.16|-5.00|0.23
91020695|NCT00689273|181924141|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.46||0.48|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.94|1.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Results were obtained from a mixed effect repeated measure model using unstructured covariance matrix. The model included random-effect terms for participant, and fixed-effect terms for baseline response, treatment group, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and country effect.||1.41|-4.94|0.48
91020696|NCT00689273|181924141|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.79||0.28|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.61|0.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Results were obtained from a mixed effect repeated measure model using unstructured covariance matrix. The model included random-effect terms for participant, and fixed-effect terms for baseline response, treatment group, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and country effect.||0.57|-6.61|0.28
91020697|NCT00689273|181924142|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91||0.48|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.81|0.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Results were obtained from a mixed effect repeated measure model using unstructured covariance matrix. The model included random-effect terms for participant, and fixed-effect terms for baseline response, treatment group, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and country effect.||0.52|-1.81|0.48
91020698|NCT00689273|181924142|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.28|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.45|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Results were obtained from a mixed effect repeated measure model using unstructured covariance matrix. The model included random-effect terms for participant, and fixed-effect terms for baseline response, treatment group, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and country effect.||0.20|-2.45|0.28
91020699|NCT00689273|181924143|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.28|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.46|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Results were obtained from a mixed effect repeated measure model using unstructured covariance matrix. The model included random-effect terms for participant, and fixed-effect terms for baseline response, treatment group, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and country effect.||0.04|-0.46|0.28
91020700|NCT00689273|181924143|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.14|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.78|-0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Results were obtained from a mixed effect repeated measure model using unstructured covariance matrix. The model included random-effect terms for participant, and fixed-effect terms for baseline response, treatment group, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and country effect.||-0.06|-0.78|0.14
91020701|NCT00689273|181924144|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.55|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.52|0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1: Results were obtained from a mixed effect repeated measure model using compound symmetry covariance matrix. The model included random-effect terms for participant, and fixed-effect terms for baseline response, treatment group, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and country effect.||0.19|-0.52|0.55
91084404|NCT00105989|182052477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Pulse Change from Baseline to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<0.001
91084405|NCT00105989|182052478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.891||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.891
91020702|NCT00689273|181924144|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.11|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.81|-0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 2: Results were obtained from a mixed effect repeated measure model using compound symmetry covariance matrix. The model included random-effect terms for participant, and fixed-effect terms for baseline response, treatment group, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and country effect.||-0.09|-0.81|0.11
91020703|NCT00689273|181924144|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.2|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.71|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 3: Results were obtained from a mixed effect repeated measure model using compound symmetry covariance matrix. The model included random-effect terms for participant, and fixed-effect terms for baseline response, treatment group, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and country effect.||0.00|-0.71|0.20
91020704|NCT00689273|181924144|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.23|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.69|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 4: Results were obtained from a mixed effect repeated measure model using compound symmetry covariance matrix. The model included random-effect terms for participant, and fixed-effect terms for baseline response, treatment group, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and country effect.||0.02|-0.69|0.23
91020705|NCT00689273|181924144|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.28||0.41|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.58|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 5: Results were obtained from a mixed effect repeated measure model using compound symmetry covariance matrix. The model included random-effect terms for participant, and fixed-effect terms for baseline response, treatment group, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and country effect.||0.13|-0.58|0.41
91020706|NCT00689273|181924144|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.62|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.49|0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 6: Results were obtained from a mixed effect repeated measure model using compound symmetry covariance matrix. The model included random-effect terms for participant, and fixed-effect terms for baseline response, treatment group, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and country effect.||0.22|-0.49|0.62
91020707|NCT00689273|181924144|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.49|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.55|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7: Results were obtained from a mixed effect repeated measure model using compound symmetry covariance matrix. The model included random-effect terms for participant, and fixed-effect terms for baseline response, treatment group, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and country effect.||0.16|-0.55|0.49
91020708|NCT00689273|181924144|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.46|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.28||0.1|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.81|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 8: Results were obtained from a mixed effect repeated measure model using compound symmetry covariance matrix. The model included random-effect terms for participant, and fixed-effect terms for baseline response, treatment group, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and country effect.||-0.10|-0.81|0.10
91020709|NCT00689273|181924144|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.24|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.69|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 9: Results were obtained from a mixed effect repeated measure model using compound symmetry covariance matrix. The model included random-effect terms for participant, and fixed-effect terms for baseline response, treatment group, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and country effect.||0.03|-0.69|0.24
91020710|NCT00689273|181924144|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.02|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.01|-0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 10: Results were obtained from a mixed effect repeated measure model using compound symmetry covariance matrix. The model included random-effect terms for participant, and fixed-effect terms for baseline response, treatment group, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and country effect.||-0.28|-1.01|0.02
91020711|NCT00689273|181924144|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.04|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.93|-0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 11: Results were obtained from a mixed effect repeated measure model using compound symmetry covariance matrix. The model included random-effect terms for participant, and fixed-effect terms for baseline response, treatment group, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and country effect.||-0.21|-0.93|0.04
91020712|NCT00689273|181924144|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.04|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.95|-0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 12: Results were obtained from a mixed effect repeated measure model using compound symmetry covariance matrix. The model included random-effect terms for participant, and fixed-effect terms for baseline response, treatment group, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and country effect.||-0.23|-0.95|0.04
91020713|NCT00689273|181924144|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.24|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.7|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 13: Results were obtained from a mixed effect repeated measure model using compound symmetry covariance matrix. The model included random-effect terms for participant, and fixed-effect terms for baseline response, treatment group, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and country effect.||0.03|-0.70|0.24
91020714|NCT00689273|181924144|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.11|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.82|-0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14: Results were obtained from a mixed effect repeated measure model using compound symmetry covariance matrix. The model included random-effect terms for participant, and fixed-effect terms for baseline response, treatment group, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and country effect.||-0.09|-0.82|0.11
91020715|NCT00689273|181924145|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||30% Reduction||||0.22
91020716|NCT00689273|181924145|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||50% Reduction||||0.38
91020717|NCT00689273|181924146|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.45|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.27|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Results were obtained from a mixed effect repeated measure model using unstructured covariance matrix. The model included random-effect terms for participant, and fixed-effect terms for baseline response, treatment group, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and country effect.||0.07|-0.27|0.45
91020718|NCT00689273|181924146|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.37|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.29|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Results were obtained from a mixed effect repeated measure model using unstructured covariance matrix. The model included random-effect terms for participant, and fixed-effect terms for baseline response, treatment group, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and country effect.||0.05|-0.29|0.37
91020719|NCT02787746|181924169|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.988||||0.9744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.466|2.095|||Regression, Logistic|||Age (\>75y vs ≤75y）||2.095|0.466|0.9744
91020720|NCT02787746|181924169|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.42||||0.3288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|40.354|||Regression, Logistic|||APOE ɛ4 (carrier vs non-carrier)||40.354|0.290|0.3288
91020721|NCT02787746|181924169|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.107||||0.5732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.158|28.171|||Regression, Logistic|||Concomitant medication：Gastrointestinal drugs||28.171|0.158|0.5732
91020722|NCT02787746|181924169|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.976||||0.9694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.281|3.387|||Regression, Logistic|||Concomitant medication：Hypoglycemic drugs||3.387|0.281|0.9694
91020723|NCT02787746|181924169|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.221||||0.0396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.039|4.748|||Regression, Logistic|||Concomitant medication：Cardiovascular and Cerebrovascular drugs||4.748|1.039|0.0396
91020724|NCT02787746|181924169|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.056||||0.5889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.151|28.074|||Regression, Logistic|||Concomitant medication：Hepatology drugs||28.074|0.151|0.5889
91020725|NCT02787746|181924169|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.004||||0.1181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.999|1.008|||Regression, Logistic|||Duration of previous donepezil 5mg/d therapy (day)||1.008|0.999|0.1181
91020726|NCT03703297|181924179|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.01608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.606|0.95|||Log Rank|The analysis was performed using the stratified log-rank test.|Hazard ratio and CI calculated using stratified Cox proportional hazards model,adjusting for tumor,node and metastasis(TNM) stage, receipt of prophylactic cranial irradiation(PCI),with treatment as only covariate and ties handled by Efron approach.|||0.950|0.606|0.01608
91020727|NCT03703297|181924180|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.01042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.569|0.928|||Log Rank|The analysis was performed using the stratified log-rank test.|Hazard ratio and CI were calculated using stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for receipt of PCI, with treatment as only covariate and ties handled by Efron approach.|||0.928|0.569|0.01042
91020728|NCT04084028|181924204|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.91
91020729|NCT04084028|181924205|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.03
91020730|NCT04084028|181924206|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.91
91020731|NCT04084028|181924207|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.19
91020732|NCT04084028|181924208|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.77
91020733|NCT04084028|181924209|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.06
91020734|NCT01160198|181924228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Baseline Hb vs. Hb at Week 8 for Ferrous bisglycinate chelate 60 mg 1 once-daily||||<0.0001
91020735|NCT01160198|181924228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Baseline Hb vs. Hb at Week 8 for Ferrous bisglycinate chelate 60 mg 1 twice-daily||||<0.0001
91020736|NCT01160198|181924230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.788|||||||Chi-squared|||Ferrous bisglycinate chelate 60 mg 1 once-daily vs. Ferrous bisglycinate chelate 60 mg 1 twice-daily||||0.788
91020737|NCT01160198|181924230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.911|||||||Chi-squared|||Ferrous bisglycinate chelate 60 mg 1 once-daily vs. Ferrous ascorbate 100mg 1 once-daily||||0.911
91020738|NCT01160198|181924230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||Chi-squared|||Ferrous bisglycinate chelate 60 mg 1 twice-daily vs. Ferrous ascorbate 100mg 1 once-daily||||0.700
91020739|NCT01160198|181924231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.17|||Repeated Measure ANOVA model|||Ferrous bisglycinate chelate 60 mg 1 once-daily vs. Ferrous bisglycinate chelate 60 mg 1 twice-daily at Week 2||0.17|-0.29|1
91020740|NCT01160198|181924231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||1||95.0|-0.57|0.31|||Repeated Measure ANOVA model|||Ferrous bisglycinate chelate 60 mg 1 once-daily vs. Ferrous bisglycinate chelate 60 mg 1 twice-daily at Week 4||0.31|-0.57|1
91020741|NCT01160198|181924231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.46|||Repeated Measure ANOVA model|||Ferrous bisglycinate chelate 60 mg 1 once-daily vs. Ferrous bisglycinate chelate 60 mg 1 twice-daily at Week 6||0.46|-0.75|1
91020742|NCT01160198|181924231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|0.53|||Repeated Measure ANOVA model|||Ferrous bisglycinate chelate 60 mg 1 once-daily vs. Ferrous bisglycinate chelate 60 mg 1 twice-daily at Week 8||0.53|-1.05|1
90956694|NCT01156792|181792859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.026|||=|0.268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.07|-0.02|=0.268
91020743|NCT01160198|181924231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.09|||Repeated Measure ANOVA model|||Ferrous bisglycinate chelate 60 mg 1 once-daily vs. Ferrous ascorbate 100mg 1 once-daily at Week 2||0.09|-0.35|0.490
91020744|NCT01160198|181924231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.29|||Repeated Measure ANOVA model|||Ferrous bisglycinate chelate 60 mg 1 once-daily vs. Ferrous ascorbate 100 mg 1 once-daily at Week 4||0.29|-0.58|1
91020745|NCT01160198|181924231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.51|||Repeated Measure ANOVA model|||Ferrous bisglycinate chelate 60 mg 1 once-daily vs. Ferrous ascorbate 100 mg 1 once-daily at Week 6||0.51|-0.68|1
91020746|NCT01160198|181924231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.72|||Repeated Measure ANOVA model|||Ferrous bisglycinate chelate 60 mg 1 once-daily vs. Ferrous ascorbate 100 mg 1 once-daily at Week 8||0.72|-0.84|1
91020747|NCT01160198|181924231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.15|||Repeated Measure ANOVA model|||Ferrous bisglycinate chelate 60 mg 1 twice-daily vs. Ferrous ascorbate 100mg 1 once-daily at Week 2||0.15|-0.29|1
91020748|NCT01160198|181924231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.42|||Repeated Measure ANOVA model|||Ferrous bisglycinate chelate 60 mg 1 twice-daily vs. Ferrous ascorbate 100 mg 1 once-daily at Week 4||0.42|-0.45|1
91020749|NCT01160198|181924231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.65|||Repeated Measure ANOVA model|||Ferrous bisglycinate chelate 60 mg 1 twice-daily vs. Ferrous ascorbate 100 mg 1 once-daily at Week 6||0.65|-0.53|1
91020750|NCT01160198|181924231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.98|||Repeated Measure ANOVA model|||Ferrous bisglycinate chelate 60 mg 1 twice-daily vs. Ferrous ascorbate 100 mg 1 once-daily at Week 8||0.98|-0.58|1
91020751|NCT00802529|181924233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.271||||||P-value for Drug x Time interaction.|ANOVA|Time: 2 degrees of freedom (Baseline vs 18-24 months) Drug: 2 degrees of freedom (Gentamicin vs steroid)||||||0.271
91020752|NCT00802529|181924234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.964||||||P-value for Drug x Time interaction.|ANOVA|Time: 6 degrees of freedom (Baseline, 1, 2, 6, 12, 18 and 24 months) Drug: 2 degrees of freedom (Gentamicin vs steroid)||||||0.964
91020753|NCT00802529|181924235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.128||||||P-value for Drug x Time interaction.|ANOVA|Time: 5 degrees of freedom (Baseline, 1, 2, 6, 12 and 24 months) Drug: 2 degrees of freedom (Gentamicin vs steroid)||||||0.128
91020754|NCT02413879|181924236|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||McNemar|||||||<0.001
91020755|NCT02413879|181924238|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||McNemar|||||||<0.001
91020756|NCT00337129|181924268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response probability|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.17|||two-stage binomial|||Null hypothesis: response probability \< 5%; alternative hypothesis: response probability \> 20%. A two-stage design was used. If no responses among the first 20 patients, the study would be terminated with the conclusion that E7389 is inactive. However, if at least one response was seen then an additional 20 patients would be accrued. Five or more responses out of 40 would be considered evidence that E7389 warranted further study. This design had a significance level of 5% and a power of 92%.||0.17|0.01|
91020757|NCT03870737|181924324|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F = 24.81, df = 1/40.||Outcomes fitted via a mixed effects model with time as predictor.||||<.0001
91020758|NCT03870737|181924326|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F = 5.78, df = 1/39.||Outcome was fitted using a mixed model with time as predictor.||||.02
91020759|NCT03870737|181924327|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F = 14.28, df = 1/39.||Outcome was fitted using a mixed model with time as predictor.||||.0005
91020760|NCT03870737|181924328|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F = .19, df = 1/39.||Outcome was fitted using a mixed model with time as predictor.||||.67
91020761|NCT03870737|181924329|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F = .08, df = 1/39.||Outcome was fitted using a mixed model with time as predictor.||||.76
91020762|NCT03870737|181924330|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F = .06, df = 1/39.||Outcome was fitted using a mixed model with time as predictor.||||.80
91020763|NCT04936334|181924353|SUPERIORITY||McNemar|0.03|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||McNemar|||||||<0.05
91020764|NCT02787785|181924356|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.49||||0.354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|2.2|||Regression, Cox|||||2.20|0.11|0.354
91020765|NCT02787785|181924358|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.37||||0.479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|5.88|||Regression, Cox|||||5.88|0.02|0.479
91020766|NCT01347879|181924380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least square means|-7.35||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|-2.2|||ANCOVA|Lesion count at baseline and center as covariates||||-2.2|-12.5|0.006
91020767|NCT01347879|181924381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least square means|-0.6||||0.8527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|5.5|||ANCOVA|Lesion count at baseline and center as covariates||||5.5|-6.6|0.8527
91020768|NCT01347879|181924382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least square means|-20.0||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.2|-6.8|||ANCOVA|Lesion count at baseline and center as covariates||||-6.8|-33.2|0.0032
91020769|NCT01347879|181924383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0125||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.0125
91020770|NCT01347879|181924388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least square means|-2.56||||0.7161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|11.3|||ANCOVA|Lesion count at baseline and center as covariate||||11.3|-16.5|0.7161
91020771|NCT03747939|181924394|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in proportions|18.5||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.9|28.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Two-sided p-value adjusted for prior/concomitant use of csDMARD and baseline glucocorticosteroid use, normalized via Wilson-Hilferty transformation.|Apremilast - Placebo|Adjusted difference in proportions is the weighted average of the treatment differences across strata formed by two stratification factors, prior/concomitant use of csDMARD and baseline glucocorticosteroid use per Interactive Web Response System (IWRS) data, using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. Two-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.||28.1|8.9|0.0008
91020772|NCT03747939|181924395|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in proportions|18.6||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|30.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Two-sided p-value adjusted for prior/concomitant use of csDMARD and baseline glucocorticosteroid use, normalized via Wilson-Hilferty transformation.|Apremilast - Placebo|Adjusted difference in proportions is the weighted average of the treatment differences across strata formed by two stratification factors, prior/concomitant use of csDMARD and baseline glucocorticosteroid use per IWRS data, using CMH weights. Two-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.||30.2|7.0|0.0017
91020773|NCT03747939|181924396|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in proportions|5.1||||0.3539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|16.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Two-sided p-value adjusted for prior/concomitant use of csDMARD and baseline glucocorticosteroid use, normalized via Wilson-Hilferty transformation.|Apremilast - Placebo|Adjusted difference in proportions is the weighted average of the treatment differences across strata formed by two stratification factors, prior/concomitant use of csDMARD and baseline glucocorticosteroid use per IWRS data, using CMH weights. Two-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.||16.0|-5.8|0.3539
91084406|NCT00105989|182052479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.659||95.0||||P-value for systolic blood pressure change to endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.659
91084407|NCT00105989|182052479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.064||95.0||||P-value for diastolic blood pressure change to endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.064
91084408|NCT00105989|182052479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.224||95.0||||P-value for systolic blood pressure change to endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.224
91084409|NCT00105989|182052479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21||95.0||||P-value for diastolic blood pressure change to endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.210
91084410|NCT00105989|182052480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.134||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline: systolic blood pressure.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.134
91084411|NCT00105989|182052480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.816||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline: diastolic blood pressure.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.816
91084412|NCT00105989|182052481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<.001
91084413|NCT00105989|182052482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||.007
91020774|NCT03747939|181924397|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in proportions|22.1||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.4|33.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Two-sided p-value adjusted for prior/concomitant use of csDMARD and baseline glucocorticosteroid use, normalized via Wilson-Hilferty transformation.|Apremilast - Placebo|Adjusted difference in proportions is the weighted average of the treatment differences across strata formed by two stratification factors, prior/concomitant use of csDMARD and baseline glucocorticosteroid use per IWRS data, using CMH weights. Two-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.||33.7|10.4|0.0003
91020775|NCT03747939|181924398|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in proportions|11.8||||0.0286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|22.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Two-sided p-value adjusted for prior/concomitant use of csDMARD and baseline glucocorticosteroid use, normalized via Wilson-Hilferty transformation.|Apremilast - Placebo|Adjusted difference in proportions is the weighted average of the treatment differences across strata formed by two stratification factors, prior/concomitant use of csDMARD and baseline glucocorticosteroid use per IWRS data, using CMH weights. Two-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.||22.0|1.7|0.0286
91020776|NCT03747939|181924399|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in proportions|16.3||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|25.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Two-sided p-value adjusted for prior/concomitant use of csDMARD and baseline glucocorticosteroid use, normalized via Wilson-Hilferty transformation.|Apremilast - Placebo|Adjusted difference in proportions is the weighted average of the treatment differences across strata formed by two stratification factors, prior/concomitant use of csDMARD and baseline glucocorticosteroid use per IWRS data, using CMH weights. Two-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.||25.8|6.9|0.0022
91020777|NCT03747939|181924400|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS means|-1.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|-0.59|||MMRM||Apremilast - Placebo|Difference in LS means is based MMRM of the change from baseline.||-0.59|-1.48|<0.0001
91020778|NCT03747939|181924401|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in proportions|17.7||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|29.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Two-sided p-value adjusted for prior/concomitant use of csDMARD and baseline glucocorticosteroid use, normalized via Wilson-Hilferty transformation.|Apremilast - Placebo|Adjusted difference in proportions is the weighted average of the treatment differences across strata formed by two stratification factors, prior/concomitant use of csDMARD and baseline glucocorticosteroid use per IWRS data, using CMH weights. Two-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.||29.7|5.7|0.0043
91020779|NCT01447628|181924408|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6039|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.6039
91020780|NCT01447628|181924409|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0747|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0747
91020781|NCT01447628|181924409|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.799|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7990
91020782|NCT01447628|181924409|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2111|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is a combination of the p-values from the separate analyses of each data set.||||0.2111
91020783|NCT01447628|181924410|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6583|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.6583
91020784|NCT01447628|181924410|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9166|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.9166
91020785|NCT01447628|181924410|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6631|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.6631
91020786|NCT01447628|181924411|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4039|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.4039
91020787|NCT01447628|181924411|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9144|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.9144
91020788|NCT01447628|181924411|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9959|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.9959
91020789|NCT01447628|181924412|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1788|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1788
91020790|NCT01447628|181924412|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7795|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7795
91020791|NCT01447628|181924412|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.414|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.414
91020792|NCT01447628|181924413|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8688|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8688
91020793|NCT01447628|181924413|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9999|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.9999
91020794|NCT01447628|181924413|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.991|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.991
91020795|NCT01447628|181924414|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5465|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.5465
91020796|NCT01447628|181924414|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4298|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.4298
91020797|NCT01447628|181924414|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5451|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.5451
91020798|NCT01447628|181924415|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6241|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Note that Endurance CPET was not done in China, hence only European data provided.||||0.6241
91020799|NCT01447628|181924416|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4758|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.4758
91020800|NCT01447628|181924417|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.205|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2050
91020801|NCT01447628|181924417|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1993|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1993
91020802|NCT01447628|181924417|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1993|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1993
91020803|NCT01447628|181924418|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.061|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0610
91020804|NCT01447628|181924418|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0641|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0641
91020805|NCT01447628|181924419|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0003
91020806|NCT01447628|181924419|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0001
91020807|NCT01447628|181924419|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
91020808|NCT01447628|181924420|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
91020809|NCT01447628|181924421|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8093|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8093
91020810|NCT01447628|181924421|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.6300
91020811|NCT01447628|181924421|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8533|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8533
91020812|NCT01447628|181924422|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0725|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0725
91020813|NCT01447628|181924422|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8572|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8572
91020814|NCT01447628|181924422|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2348|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2348
91020815|NCT01447628|181924423|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1115|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1115
91020816|NCT01447628|181924424|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.979|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.9790
91020817|NCT01447628|181924425|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7702|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7702
91020818|NCT01447628|181924426|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2219|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2219
91020819|NCT01447628|181924427|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1777|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1777
91020820|NCT01447628|181924427|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7889|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7889
91020821|NCT01447628|181924427|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4156|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.4156
91020822|NCT01447628|181924428|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7625|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7625
91020823|NCT01447628|181924428|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2262|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2262
91020824|NCT01447628|181924428|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4756|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.4756
91020825|NCT01447628|181924429|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7711|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7711
91020826|NCT01447628|181924429|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7806|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7806
91020827|NCT01447628|181924429|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9074|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.9074
91020828|NCT01447628|181924430|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9504|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.9504
91020829|NCT01447628|181924430|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8666|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8666
91020830|NCT01447628|181924430|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8104|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8104
91020831|NCT01447628|181924431|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4478|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.4478
91020832|NCT01447628|181924432|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.459|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.4590
91020833|NCT01447628|181924433|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8086|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8086
91020834|NCT01447628|181924434|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6944|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.6944
90956695|NCT01156792|181792859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.042|||=|0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.09|-0.00|=0.080
91020835|NCT01447628|181924435|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.585|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.585
91020836|NCT01447628|181924436|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4619|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.4619
91020837|NCT01447628|181924437|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7721|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7721
91020838|NCT01447628|181924438|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8332|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8332
91020839|NCT01447628|181924439|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2651|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2651
91020840|NCT01029769|181924441|OTHER|"a logistic regression model with remission as the dependent variable and switch of treatment (yes/no) and PANSS-total score at visit 3 as independent variables was used. Multiple imputation (based upon 20 imputations, primary analysis), last observation carried forward and completers only analyses were performed."|||||=|0.01||||||Multiple imputation was performed separately for the switch and non-switch arms and the imputation model included the PANSS total score from all visits from phase II baseline (visit 2) onwards, remission at visit 7 and phase I arm allocation|Regression, Logistic|||Irrespective of the initially assigned antipsychotic treatment in period 1 of the trial (2-week-phase), the patients showing little improvement over the two weeks of treatment in period 1 now switched from the initial treatment in period 2 of the trial (6-week-phase) were grouped together as well as the patients non-switched from their initial treatment.||||=0.01
91020841|NCT03496207|181924446|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-151.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|49.53||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-249.59|-52.63|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA was used to compare change from baseline values with randomization stratification factor (WHO functional class) and baseline PVR as covariate.||Analysis based on calculated LS means.||-52.63|-249.59|0.0030
91020842|NCT03496207|181924446|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-269.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|48.48|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-365.81|-173.03|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA was used to compare change from baseline values with randomization stratification factor (WHO functional class) and baseline PVR as covariate.||Analysis based on calculated LS means.||-173.03|-365.81|<.0001
91020843|NCT03496207|181924447|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-13.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|50.95||0.7851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-113.85|86.06|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA was used to compare change from baseline values with randomization stratification factor (WHO functional class) and baseline PVR as covariate.||Analysis based on calculated LS means.||86.06|-113.85|0.7851
91020844|NCT03496207|181924448|SUPERIORITY||Multiple Imputation Mean Difference|-223.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|57.45|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-335.83|-110.49||Comparison of baseline and final value|ANCOVA||Standard multiple imputations are done with imputed values that are within the range of the minimum and maximum observed values using linear regression including baseline measurements.|||-110.49|-335.83|<.0001
91020845|NCT01289990|181924499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.64||Model includes baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||statistical analysis at week 52||-0.64|-0.94|<0.0001
91020846|NCT01289990|181924499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.76||Model includes baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||statistical analysis at week 52||-0.76|-1.06|<0.0001
91020847|NCT01289990|181924499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.52||Model includes baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||statistical analysis at week 52||-0.52|-0.82|<0.0001
91020848|NCT01289990|181924499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.1245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.03||Model includes baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||statistical analysis at week 52||0.03|-0.27|0.1245
91020849|NCT01289990|181924499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|-0.09||Model includes baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||statistical analysis at week 52||-0.09|-0.39|0.0022
91020850|NCT01289990|181924499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.41||Model includes baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.41|-0.79|<0.0001
91020851|NCT01289990|181924499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.49||Model includes baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.49|-0.87|<0.0001
91020852|NCT01289990|181924499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.48||Model includes baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.48|-0.75|<0.0001
91020853|NCT01289990|181924499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.55||Model includes baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.55|-0.83|<0.0001
91020854|NCT01289990|181924499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.59||Model includes baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.59|-0.89|<0.0001
91020855|NCT01289990|181924499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.55||Model includes baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.55|-0.85|<0.0001
91020856|NCT01289990|181924500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|-0.61||Model includes baseline HbA1c as a covariate, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), geographic region, visit, treatment as fixed effects, and visit by treatment interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.61|-1.04|<0.0001
91020857|NCT01289990|181924500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.69||Model includes baseline HbA1c as a covariate, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), geographic region, visit, treatment as fixed effects, and visit by treatment interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.69|-1.11|<0.0001
91020858|NCT01289990|181924500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.02||Model includes baseline HbA1c as a covariate, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), geographic region, visit, treatment as fixed effects, and visit by treatment interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.02|-0.41|0.0322
91020859|NCT01289990|181924500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.09||Model includes baseline HbA1c as a covariate, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), geographic region, visit, treatment as fixed effects, and visit by treatment interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.09|-0.48|0.0038
91020860|NCT01289990|181924500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.4||Model includes baseline HbA1c as a covariate, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), geographic region, visit, treatment as fixed effects, and visit by treatment interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.40|-0.83|<0.0001
91084414|NCT00105989|182052483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||.035
91084415|NCT00105989|182052484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||.021
91020861|NCT01289990|181924500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.33||Model includes baseline HbA1c as a covariate, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), geographic region, visit, treatment as fixed effects, and visit by treatment interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.33|-0.90|<0.0001
91020862|NCT01289990|181924500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.44||Model includes baseline HbA1c as a covariate, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), geographic region, visit, treatment as fixed effects, and visit by treatment interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.44|-1.00|<0.0001
91020863|NCT01289990|181924500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.47||Model includes baseline HbA1c as a covariate, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), geographic region, visit, treatment as fixed effects, and visit by treatment interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.47|-0.87|<0.0001
91020864|NCT01289990|181924500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|-0.63||Model includes baseline HbA1c as a covariate, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), geographic region, visit, treatment as fixed effects, and visit by treatment interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.63|-1.04|<0.0001
91020865|NCT01289990|181924500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|-0.57||Model includes baseline HbA1c as a covariate, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), geographic region, visit, treatment as fixed effects, and visit by treatment interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.57|-1.04|<0.0001
91020866|NCT01289990|181924500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|-0.56||Model includes baseline HbA1c as a covariate, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), geographic region, visit, treatment as fixed effects, and visit by treatment interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.56|-1.04|<0.0001
91020867|NCT01289990|181924501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|-2.5||Model includes baseline sys blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-2.5|-6.8|<0.0001
91020868|NCT01289990|181924501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|-2.1||Model includes baseline sys blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-2.1|-6.4|0.0001
91020869|NCT01289990|181924501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.2107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|0.8||Model includes baseline sys blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||0.8|-3.5|0.2107
91084416|NCT00105989|182052485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<.001
91020870|NCT01289990|181924501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|-1.1||Model includes baseline sys blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-1.1|-5.4|0.0033
91020871|NCT01289990|181924501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.0105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|-0.7||Model includes baseline sys blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.7|-5.0|0.0105
91020872|NCT01289990|181924501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.0543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|0.0||Model includes baseline sys blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||0.0|-4.9|0.0543
91020873|NCT01289990|181924501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|-1.5||Model includes baseline sys blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-1.5|-6.4|0.0019
91020874|NCT01289990|181924501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|-0.9||Model includes baseline sys blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.9|-5.0|0.0045
91020875|NCT01289990|181924501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|-2.5||Model includes baseline sys blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-2.5|-6.6|<0.0001
91020876|NCT01289990|181924501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|-1.0||Model includes baseline sys blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-1.0|-4.8|0.0031
91020877|NCT01289990|181924501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.0096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|-0.6||Model includes baseline sys blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.6|-4.4|0.0096
91020878|NCT01289990|181924502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.63||Model includes baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.63|-0.94|<0.0001
91020879|NCT01289990|181924502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|-0.73||Model includes baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.73|-1.04|<0.0001
91020880|NCT01289990|181924502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.51||Model includes baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.51|-0.82|<0.0001
91020881|NCT01289990|181924502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.04||Model includes baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||0.04|-0.28|0.1310
91020882|NCT01289990|181924502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.07||Model includes baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.07|-0.38|0.0050
91020883|NCT01289990|181924502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.4||Model includes baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.40|-0.79|<0.0001
91020884|NCT01289990|181924502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.5||Model includes baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.50|-0.88|<0.0001
91084417|NCT00105989|182052486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019||95.0||||The mean change to endpoint of -0.00 indicates that on average, endpoint score decreased from baseline score by less than 0.005 units.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||.019
90956696|NCT01156792|181792859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.056|||=|0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.10|0.01|=0.017
91020885|NCT01289990|181924502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.46||Model includes baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.46|-0.75|<0.0001
91020886|NCT01289990|181924502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.58||Model includes baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.58|-0.88|<0.0001
91020887|NCT01289990|181924502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.56|||ANCOVA|||||-0.56|-0.87|<0.0001
91020888|NCT01289990|181924502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.53||Model includes baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.53|-0.85|<0.0001
91020889|NCT01289990|181924503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|-1.2||Model includes baseline sys blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-1.2|-5.5|0.0025
91020890|NCT01289990|181924503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|-1.2||Model includes baseline sys blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-1.2|-5.6|0.0021
91084418|NCT00105989|182052487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||.005
91020891|NCT01289990|181924503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.7241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|2.6||Model includes baseline sys blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||2.6|-1.8|0.7241
91020892|NCT01289990|181924503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|-1.6||Model includes baseline sys blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-1.6|-5.9|0.0008
91020893|NCT01289990|181924503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|-1.6||Model includes baseline sys blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-1.6|-6.0|0.0007
91020894|NCT01289990|181924503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.0987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|0.4||Model includes baseline sys blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||0.4|-4.5|0.0987
91020895|NCT01289990|181924503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|-1.3||Model includes baseline sys blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-1.3|-6.1|0.0028
91020896|NCT01289990|181924503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|-2.3||Model includes baseline sys blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-2.3|-6.6|<0.0001
91020897|NCT01289990|181924503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|-1.5||Model includes baseline sys blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-1.5|-5.9|0.0008
91020898|NCT01289990|181924503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.0213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|-0.3||Model includes baseline sys blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.3|-4.1|0.0213
91020899|NCT01289990|181924503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.0288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|-0.2||Model includes baseline sys blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.2|-4.1|0.0288
91020900|NCT01289990|181924504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.1058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.2||Model includes baseline diastolic blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||0.2|-2.4|0.1058
91020901|NCT01289990|181924504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.0109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-0.4||Model includes baseline diastolic blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.4|-3.1|0.0109
91020902|NCT01289990|181924504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.8259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.2||Model includes baseline diastolic blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||1.2|-1.5|0.8259
91020903|NCT01289990|181924504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.4||Model includes baseline diastolic blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||0.4|-2.3|0.1660
91020904|NCT01289990|181924504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.0212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-0.2||Model includes baseline diastolic blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.2|-2.9|0.0212
91020905|NCT01289990|181924504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.0076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-0.5||Model includes baseline diastolic blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.5|-3.4|0.0076
91020906|NCT01289990|181924504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|-1.2||Model includes baseline diastolic blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-1.2|-4.1|0.0003
91020907|NCT01289990|181924504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-0.3||Model includes baseline diastolic blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.3|-3.2|0.0170
90956697|NCT01156792|181792859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.074|||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.12|0.03|=0.002
91020908|NCT01289990|181924504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.0236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-0.2||Model includes baseline diastolic blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.2|-3.1|0.0236
91020909|NCT01289990|181924504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.2523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.5||Model includes baseline diastolic blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||0.5|-2.0|0.2523
91020910|NCT01289990|181924504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.3494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.7||Model includes baseline diastolic blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||0.7|-1.9|0.3494
91020911|NCT01289990|181924505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.1568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.4||Model includes baseline diastolic blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||0.4|-2.3|0.1568
91020912|NCT01289990|181924505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.1323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.3||Model includes baseline diastolic blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||0.3|-2.4|0.1323
91084419|NCT00105989|182052488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||.031
91020913|NCT01289990|181924505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.4327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.9||Model includes baseline diastolic blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||1.9|-0.8|0.4327
91020914|NCT01289990|181924505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.0289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-0.2||Model includes baseline diastolic blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.2|-2.8|0.0289
91020915|NCT01289990|181924505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.0231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-0.2||Model includes baseline diastolic blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.2|-2.9|0.0231
91020916|NCT01289990|181924505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.0513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|0.0||Model includes baseline diastolic blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||0.0|-3.0|0.0513
91020917|NCT01289990|181924505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|-0.7||Model includes baseline diastolic blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.7|-3.7|0.0038
91020918|NCT01289990|181924505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.0084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-0.5||Model includes baseline diastolic blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.5|-3.4|0.0084
91020919|NCT01289990|181924505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.0677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|0.1||Model includes baseline diastolic blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||0.1|-2.8|0.0677
91020920|NCT01289990|181924505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.0814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.1||Model includes baseline diastolic blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||0.1|-2.4|0.0814
91020921|NCT01289990|181924505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.1785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.4||Model includes baseline diastolic blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||0.4|-2.2|0.1785
91020922|NCT01289990|181924506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.75|-1.69||Model includes baseline weight, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-1.69|-2.75|<0.0001
91020923|NCT01289990|181924506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.66|-1.61||Model includes baseline weight, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-1.61|-2.66|<0.0001
91020924|NCT01289990|181924506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.0223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.14||Model includes baseline weight, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||1.14|0.09|0.0223
91020925|NCT01289990|181924506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.37|-2.31||Model includes baseline weight, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-2.31|-3.37|<0.0001
91020926|NCT01289990|181924506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.28|-2.22|||ANCOVA|||||-2.22|-3.28|<0.0001
91020927|NCT01289990|181924506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.76|-1.41||Model includes baseline weight, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-1.41|-2.76|<0.0001
91020928|NCT01289990|181924506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.66|-1.32||Model includes baseline weight, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-1.32|-2.66|<0.0001
91020929|NCT01289990|181924506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.27|-1.19||Model includes baseline weight, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-1.19|-2.27|<0.0001
91020930|NCT01289990|181924506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.85|-1.76||Model includes baseline weight, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-1.76|-2.85|<0.0001
90956698|NCT01156792|181792860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.946|||=|0.751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.91|6.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.81|-4.91|=0.751
91020931|NCT01289990|181924506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|-1.47||Model includes baseline weight, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-1.47|-2.48|<0.0001
91020932|NCT01289990|181924506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|-1.5||Model includes baseline weight, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-1.50|-2.52|<0.0001
91020933|NCT01289990|181924507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|-1.26||Model includes baseline weight, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-1.26|-2.35|<0.0001
91020934|NCT01289990|181924507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.56|-1.48||Model includes baseline weight, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-1.48|-2.56|<0.0001
91020935|NCT01289990|181924507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.0546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|1.08||Model includes baseline weight, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||1.08|-0.01|0.0546
91020936|NCT01289990|181924507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.89|-1.8||Model includes baseline weight, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-1.80|-2.89|<0.0001
91020937|NCT01289990|181924507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-2.01||Model includes baseline weight, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-2.01|-3.10|<0.0001
91020938|NCT01289990|181924507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.69|-1.24||Model includes baseline weight, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-1.24|-2.69|<0.0001
91020939|NCT01289990|181924507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.43|-0.99||Model includes baseline weight, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.99|-2.43|<0.0001
91020940|NCT01289990|181924507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|-1.34||Model includes baseline weight, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-1.34|-2.52|<0.0001
91020941|NCT01289990|181924507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.79|-1.6||Model includes baseline weight, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-1.60|-2.79|<0.0001
91020942|NCT01289990|181924507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|-1.27||Model includes baseline weight, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-1.27|-2.34|<0.0001
91020943|NCT01289990|181924507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|-1.11||Model includes baseline weight, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-1.11|-2.18|<0.0001
91020944|NCT01289990|181924508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-1.0||Model includes baseline waist circumference, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-1.0|-3.1|0.0001
91020945|NCT01289990|181924508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-0.7||Model includes baseline waist circumference, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.7|-2.8|0.0015
91020946|NCT01289990|181924508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.5052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.4||Model includes baseline waist circumference, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||1.4|-0.7|0.5052
91020947|NCT01289990|181924508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-1.4||Model includes baseline waist circumference, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-1.4|-3.5|<0.0001
91020948|NCT01289990|181924508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-1.0||Model includes baseline waist circumference, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-1.0|-3.1|0.0001
91020949|NCT01289990|181924508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-0.4||Model includes baseline waist circumference, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.4|-2.6|0.0064
91020950|NCT01289990|181924508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.0642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.1||Model includes baseline waist circumference, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||0.1|-2.1|0.0642
91020951|NCT01289990|181924508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.3||Model includes baseline waist circumference, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.3|-1.8|0.0053
91020952|NCT01289990|181924508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.9|||ANCOVA|||||-0.9|-2.3|<0.0001
91020953|NCT01289990|181924508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.6||Model includes baseline waist circumference, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.6|-2.1|0.0010
90956699|NCT01156792|181792860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.771|||=|0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|11.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.51|0.03|=0.049
91020954|NCT01289990|181924508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.5||Model includes baseline waist circumference, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.5|-2.1|0.0015
91020955|NCT01289990|181924509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.6||Model includes baseline waist circumference, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.6|-2.7|0.0028
91020956|NCT01289990|181924509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-0.6||Model includes baseline waist circumference, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.6|-2.8|0.0019
91020957|NCT01289990|181924509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.5044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.5||Model includes baseline waist circumference, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||1.5|-0.7|0.5044
91020958|NCT01289990|181924509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-0.9||Model includes baseline waist circumference, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.9|-3.1|0.0003
91020959|NCT01289990|181924509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-1.0||Model includes baseline waist circumference, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-1.0|-3.2|0.0002
91020960|NCT01289990|181924509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.0109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-0.3||Model includes baseline waist circumference, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.3|-2.5|0.0109
91020961|NCT01289990|181924509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.1238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.2||Model includes baseline waist circumference, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||0.2|-1.9|0.1238
91020962|NCT01289990|181924509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.8||Model includes baseline waist circumference, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.8|-2.4|<0.0001
91020963|NCT01289990|181924509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.0076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.3||Model includes baseline waist circumference, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.3|-1.9|0.0076
91020964|NCT01289990|181924509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.4||Model includes baseline waist circumference, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.4|-2.1|0.0049
91020965|NCT01289990|181924509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.0178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.2||Model includes baseline waist circumference, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.2|-1.9|0.0178
91020966|NCT01289990|181924510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-32.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.8|-26.7||Model includes baseline fasting plasma glucose, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-26.7|-37.8|<0.0001
91020967|NCT01289990|181924510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-37.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.8|-31.7||Model includes baseline fasting plasma glucose, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-31.7|-42.8|<0.0001
91020968|NCT01289990|181924510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-17.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.9|-11.7||Model includes baseline fasting plasma glucose, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-11.7|-22.9|<0.0001
91020969|NCT01289990|181924510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-15.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.6|-9.4||Model includes baseline fasting plasma glucose, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-9.4|-20.6|<0.0001
91020970|NCT01289990|181924510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-19.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.5|-14.4||Model includes baseline fasting plasma glucose, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-14.4|-25.5|<0.0001
91020971|NCT01289990|181924510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-27.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.0|-19.2||Model includes baseline fasting plasma glucose, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-19.2|-35.0|<0.0001
91020972|NCT01289990|181924510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-31.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.9|-23.2||Model includes baseline fasting plasma glucose, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-23.2|-38.9|<0.0001
91020973|NCT01289990|181924510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-24.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.7|-18.9||Model includes baseline fasting plasma glucose, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-18.9|-29.7|<0.0001
91020974|NCT01289990|181924510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-27.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.7|-21.9||Model includes baseline fasting plasma glucose, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-21.9|-32.7|<0.0001
91020975|NCT01289990|181924510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-27.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.6|-22.0||Model includes baseline fasting plasma glucose, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-22.0|-33.6|<0.0001
91020976|NCT01289990|181924510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-28.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.5|-22.8||Model includes baseline fasting plasma glucose, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-22.8|-34.5|<0.0001
91020977|NCT01289990|181924511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-31.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.4|-25.9||Model includes baseline fasting plasma glucose, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-25.9|-37.4|<0.0001
91020978|NCT01289990|181924511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-34.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.7|-29.1||Model includes baseline fasting plasma glucose, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-29.1|-40.7|<0.0001
91020979|NCT01289990|181924511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-16.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.1|-10.5||Model includes baseline fasting plasma glucose, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-10.5|-22.1|<0.0001
91084420|NCT00105989|182052489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<.001
91084421|NCT00105989|182052490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<.001
91020980|NCT01289990|181924511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-15.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.2|-9.6||Model includes baseline fasting plasma glucose, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-9.6|-21.2|<0.0001
91020981|NCT01289990|181924511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-18.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.5|-12.8||Model includes baseline fasting plasma glucose, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-12.8|-24.5|<0.0001
91020982|NCT01289990|181924511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-23.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.4|-15.3||Model includes baseline fasting plasma glucose, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-15.3|-31.4|<0.0001
91020983|NCT01289990|181924511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-27.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.4|-19.4||Model includes baseline fasting plasma glucose, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-19.4|-35.4|<0.0001
91020984|NCT01289990|181924511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-25.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.5|-19.6||Model includes baseline fasting plasma glucose, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-19.6|-30.5|<0.0001
91020985|NCT01289990|181924511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-31.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.9|-25.9||Model includes baseline fasting plasma glucose, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-25.9|-36.9|<0.0001
91020986|NCT01289990|181924511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-31.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.0|-24.9||Model includes baseline fasting plasma glucose, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-24.9|-37.0|<0.0001
91020987|NCT01289990|181924511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-31.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.9|-25.7||Model includes baseline fasting plasma glucose, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-25.7|-37.9|<0.0001
91020988|NCT02441179|181924512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.006
91020989|NCT02441179|181924513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.012
91020990|NCT02441179|181924514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.16
91020991|NCT02441179|181924515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.57
91020992|NCT02441179|181924516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.14
91020993|NCT02441179|181924517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.43
91020994|NCT02441179|181924518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.55
91020995|NCT01892020|181924586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001||95.0|-1.66|-0.58||The 2-h PPG increment was analyzed using a normal linear mixed model with period and treatment as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Let D be the treatment difference (BIAsp 50 BID + metformin minus BHI 50 BID + metformin) of 2-h PPG increment after a 4-week treatment. The null hypothesis was D = 0 mmol/L. The alternative hypothesis was D ≠ 0 mmol/L. Sample size was determined using a two-sided one sample t-test at a = 0.05 under the assumption of 0.8 mmol/L mean treatment different and 80% power.||-0.58|-1.66|< 0.001
91020996|NCT02508649|181924597|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|0.55||||0.3015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|2.43|||van Elteren test|||The primary endpoint was analyzed using a van Elteren test. The analysis included a test of superiority using a two-sided 5% significance level.||2.43|-1.34|0.3015
91020997|NCT02508649|181924598|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.049||||0.7694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.762|1.445|||Regression, Logistic||An odds ratio \< 1 in proportion of subjects dying indicates lower mortality in the selepressin group.|Mortality was analyzed using a logistic regression model with the individual sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) scores and age as covariates and treatment arm as factor.||1.445|0.762|0.7694
91020998|NCT02508649|181924599|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|0.29||||0.8458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|2.65|||van Elteren test|||This endpoint was analyzed using a van Elteren test. The analysis was a test of superiority using a two-sided 5% significance level.||2.65|-2.07|0.8458
91020999|NCT02508649|181924600|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|0.49||||0.4124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|2.19|||van Elteren test|||This endpoint was analyzed using a van Elteren test. The analysis was a test of superiority using a two-sided 5% significance level.||2.19|-1.22|0.4124
91021000|NCT02508649|181924607|OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.51||||0.2009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.27|||ANCOVA|||Overall score using a modified version of the SOFA on Day 1||0.27|-1.30|0.2009
91021001|NCT02508649|181924607|OTHER||Treatment difference|0.11||||0.7894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.9|||ANCOVA|||Overall score using a modified version of the SOFA on Day 3||0.90|-0.68|0.7894
91021002|NCT02508649|181924607|OTHER||Treatment difference|0.55||||0.1888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|1.37|||ANCOVA|||Overall score using a modified version of the SOFA on Day 7||1.37|-0.27|0.1888
91021003|NCT02508649|181924607|OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.08||||0.2997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Individual organ (respiratory) score using a modified version of the SOFA on Day 1||0.07|-0.24|0.2997
91021004|NCT02508649|181924607|OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.03||||0.6796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.12|||ANCOVA|||Individual organ (respiratory) score using a modified version of the SOFA on Day 3||0.12|-0.19|0.6796
90956700|NCT01156792|181792860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.983|||=|0.123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|11.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.32|-1.35|=0.123
90956701|NCT01156792|181792860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.93|18.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||18.35|5.93|<0.001
90956702|NCT01156792|181792861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.651|||=|0.563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.97|7.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.27|-3.97|=0.563
90956703|NCT01156792|181792861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.1|||=|0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|10.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||10.67|-0.47|=0.072
90956704|NCT01156792|181792861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.822|||=|0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|11.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.02|-1.37|=0.126
90956705|NCT01156792|181792861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.292|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.21|16.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||16.38|4.21|=0.001
90956706|NCT01156792|181792862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.154|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.36|1.06||||||||1.06|-9.36|
90956707|NCT01156792|181792862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.364|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.22|5.5||||||||5.50|-6.22|
90956708|NCT01156792|181792863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.005|||=|0.957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.17|-0.18|=0.957
90956709|NCT01156792|181792863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.108|||=|0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.06|-0.28|=0.213
90956710|NCT01156792|181792863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.038|||=|0.647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.12|-0.20|=0.647
90956711|NCT01156792|181792863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.011|||=|0.894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.15|-0.17|=0.894
90956712|NCT01156792|181792864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.025|||=|0.811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.18|-0.23|=0.811
90956713|NCT01156792|181792864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.133|||=|0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.07|-0.34|=0.200
90956714|NCT01156792|181792864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.076|||=|0.415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.11|-0.26|=0.415
90956715|NCT01156792|181792864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.084|||=|0.358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.10|-0.26|=0.358
90956716|NCT01156792|181792865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.666|||=|0.285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.24|7.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.57|-2.24|=0.285
91021005|NCT02508649|181924607|OTHER||Treatment difference|0.03||||0.7467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Individual organ (respiratory) score using a modified version of the SOFA on Day 7||0.19|-0.14|0.7467
90956717|NCT01156792|181792865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.3|||=|0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|10.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||10.22|0.38|=0.035
90956718|NCT01156792|181792865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.036|||=|0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|8.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.70|-0.63|=0.090
90956719|NCT01156792|181792865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.602|||=|0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|9.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.14|0.06|=0.047
90956720|NCT01156792|181792866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.014|||=|0.668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.64|5.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.67|-3.64|=0.668
90956721|NCT01156792|181792866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.349|||=|0.156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|7.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.98|-1.29|=0.156
90956722|NCT01156792|181792866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.496|||=|0.822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.83|4.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.82|-3.83|=0.822
91021006|NCT02508649|181924607|OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.42||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.19|||ANCOVA|||Individual organ (cardiovascular) score using a modified version of the SOFA on Day 1||-0.19|-0.65|0.0003
90956723|NCT01156792|181792866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.26|||=|0.555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.94|5.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.46|-2.94|=0.555
90956724|NCT01156792|181792867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.992|||=|0.367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|6.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.33|-2.35|=0.367
90956725|NCT01156792|181792867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.147|||=|0.332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|6.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.49|-2.20|=0.332
90956726|NCT01156792|181792867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.331|||=|0.277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|6.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.55|-1.88|=0.277
90956727|NCT01156792|181792867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.521|||=|0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.59|5.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.63|-2.59|=0.467
90956728|NCT01156792|181792868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.575|||=|0.789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.65|4.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.80|-3.65|=0.789
90956729|NCT01156792|181792868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.669|||=|0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|7.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.87|-0.54|=0.087
90956730|NCT01156792|181792868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||=|0.923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.84|4.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.24|-3.84|=0.923
90956731|NCT01156792|181792868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.137|||=|0.571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.08|2.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.81|-5.08|=0.571
90956732|NCT01156792|181792869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.014|||=|0.668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.64|5.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.67|-3.64|=0.668
90956733|NCT01156792|181792869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.349|||=|0.156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|7.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.98|-1.29|=0.156
90956734|NCT01156792|181792869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.496|||=|0.822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.83|4.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.82|-3.83|=0.822
90956735|NCT01156792|181792869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.26|||=|0.555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.94|5.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.46|-2.94|=0.555
90956736|NCT01156792|181792870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.408||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||=0.408
90956737|NCT01156792|181792870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.138||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||=0.138
90956738|NCT01156792|181792870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.797||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||=0.797
90956739|NCT01156792|181792870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.408||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||=0.408
91084422|NCT00105989|182052491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<.001
91084423|NCT00105989|182052492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<.001
91084424|NCT00105989|182052493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<.001
91084425|NCT00105989|182052494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||.004
91084426|NCT00105989|182052495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||.010
91084427|NCT00105989|182052496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||.003
91084428|NCT00105989|182052497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<.001
91084429|NCT00105989|182052498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||.015
91084430|NCT00105989|182052499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021||95.0||||The mean change to endpoint of -0.00 indicates that on average, endpoint score decreased from baseline score by less than 0.005 units.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||.021
91084431|NCT00105989|182052500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<.001
91084432|NCT00105989|182052501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.032||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||.032
91084433|NCT00105989|182052502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<.001
91084434|NCT00105989|182052503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<.001
91084435|NCT00105989|182052504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||.028
91084436|NCT00105989|182052505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||.008
91084437|NCT00105989|182052506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.046||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||.046
91084438|NCT00105989|182052507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035||95.0||||P-value for Change to Endpoint.|ANOVA|Type II Sums of Squares from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the Ranks: Model = Pooled Investigator and Therapy.||||||0.035
91084439|NCT00105989|182052508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011||95.0||||P-value for Change to Endpoint.|ANOVA|Type II Sums of Squares from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the Ranks: Model = Pooled Investigator and Therapy.||||||0.011
91084440|NCT00105989|182052509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.744||95.0||||P-value for fasting glucose change from baseline to endpoint|ANOVA|Type II Sums of Squares from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the Ranks: Model = Pooled Investigator and Therapy.||||||0.744
91084441|NCT00105989|182052509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0||||P-value for non-fasting glucose change from baseline to endpoint.|ANOVA|Type II Sums of Squares from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the Ranks: Model = Pooled Investigator and Therapy.||||||0.030
91084442|NCT00411450|182052512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|21.0|||||Difference = Wild type - Mutant|Difference at Week 17||21|-11|
91084443|NCT00411450|182052512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|23.0||||||Difference at Week 25||23|-9|
91084444|NCT00411450|182052514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|23.0|||||Difference = Wild type - Mutant|||23|-11|
91084445|NCT00411450|182052515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|12.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|31.4|||||Difference = Wild type - Mutant|Difference at Week 17||31.4|-6.3|
91084446|NCT00411450|182052515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|10.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|30.2||||||Difference at Week 25||30.2|-8.4|
91084447|NCT00411450|182052516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.1|||||Hazard ratio estimated from a Cox Proportional Hazards regression model with only KRAS effect (Wild type vs. Mutant).|||1.1|0.5|
91084448|NCT00411450|182052517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|25.0|||||Difference = Wild type - Mutant|Difference at Week 17||25|-14|
91084449|NCT00411450|182052517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|25.0||||||Difference at Week 25||25|-14|
91084450|NCT00411450|182052518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.0|||||Hazard ratio estimated from a Cox Proportional Hazards regression model with only KRAS effect (Wild type vs. Mutant).|||2.0|0.2|
91084451|NCT00411450|182052519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.9|||||Hazard ratio estimated from a Cox Proportional Hazards regression model with only KRAS effect (Wild type vs. Mutant).|||0.9|0.4|
91084452|NCT00411450|182052520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.1|||||Hazard ratio estimated from a Cox Proportional Hazards regression model with only KRAS effect (Wild type vs. Mutant).|||1.1|0.5|
91084453|NCT00411450|182052521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.2|||||Hazard ratio estimated from a Cox Proportional Hazards regression model with only KRAS effect (Wild type vs. Mutant).|||1.2|0.5|
91103867|NCT03449147|182094502|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Relative Reduction (%)|-15.79||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.27|-2.5||Comparison based on a longitudinal ANCOVA model that included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, region, log-transformed baseline value, and log-transformed baseline value-by-visit as covariates.|ANCOVA|||ERR relative to Placebo (i.e. estimated percent change difference) was calculated by 100 (e\*\*DIFF -1), where e = exponent of difference; and DIFF= treatment difference in change from baseline at Week 24 based on log transformed data.||-2.50|-27.27|0.022
91084454|NCT02258217|182052539|EQUIVALENCE|"We created a difference in ADL score variable. This was calculated as follows:~ADL score (new relapse) - ADL score (after treatment of current relapse)~This difference score was tested for equivalence to 0 or not."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.03||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-0.66|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||"We compared the two ADL scores measured in the same arm at different timepoints (new \& after treatment).~Null Hypothesis = Difference in means is = 0 Alternate Hypothesis = Difference in means is not = 0~We used the Paired t-test to compare the pre - post ADL scores."||-0.66|-2.9|0.003
91084455|NCT02258217|182052540|EQUIVALENCE|"We created a difference in ADL score variable. This was calculated as follows:~ADL score (new relapse) - ADL score (after treatment of current relapse) This difference score was tested for equivalence to 0 or not."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.09||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|1.22|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||"We compared the two RSH scores measured in the same arm at different time points (new \& after treatment).~Null Hypothesis = Difference in means is = 0 Alternate Hypothesis = Difference in means is not = 0 We used the Paired t-test to compare the pre - post RSH scores."||1.22|-1.22|0.99
91084456|NCT02258217|182052542|EQUIVALENCE|"We created a difference in PCS score variable. This was calculated as follows:~PCS score (new relapse) - PCS score (after treatment of current relapse). This difference score was tested for equivalence to 0 or not."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.42||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.67|-0.18|||Paired t-test, two sided|||"We compared the two PCS scores measured in the same arm at different timepoints (new \& after treatment).~Null Hypothesis = Difference in means is = 0 Alternate Hypothesis = Difference in means is not = 0 We used the Paired t-test to compare the pre - post PCS scores."||-0.18|-3.67|0.03
91084457|NCT02258217|182052543|EQUIVALENCE|"We created a difference in MSIS physical score variable. This was calculated as follows:~MSIS physical score (new relapse) - MSIS physical score (after treatment of current relapse)~This difference score was tested for equivalence to 0 or not."|Median Difference (Final Values)|2.5||||0.19|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||"We compared the two MSIS physical scores measured in the same arm at different timepoints (new relapse \& after treatment of relapse).~Null Hypothesis = Difference in medians is = 0 Alternate Hypothesis = Difference in medians is not = 0~We used the Wilcoxon Signed rank test to compare the pre - post MSIS physical scores."||||0.19
91084458|NCT02258217|182052544|EQUIVALENCE|"We created a difference in MSIS psychological score variable. This was calculated as follows:~MSIS psychological score (new relapse) - MSIS psychological score (after treatment of current relapse)~This difference score was tested for equivalence to 0 or not."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.3||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|5.45|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||"We compared the two MSIS psychological scores measured in the same arm at different timepoints (new relapse \& after treatment of relapse).~Null Hypothesis = Difference in means is = 0 Alternate Hypothesis = Difference in means is not = 0~We used the Paired t-test to compare the pre - post MSIS psychological scores."||5.45|0.74|0.01
91084459|NCT02258217|182052545|EQUIVALENCE|"We created a difference in EDSS score variable. This was calculated as follows:~EDSS score (new relapse) - EDSS score (after treatment of current relapse)~This difference score was tested for equivalence to 0 or not."|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test||The interquartile range for the median difference in EDSS scores is 0.0 to 0.5|"We compared the two EDSS scores measured in the same arm at different timepoints (new relapse \& after treatment of relapse).~Null Hypothesis = Difference in medians is = 0 Alternate Hypothesis = Difference in medians is not = 0~We used the Wilcoxon Signed rank test to compare the pre - post EDSS scores."||||0.23
91084460|NCT02258217|182052546|EQUIVALENCE|"We created a difference in SAGE score variable. This was calculated as follows:~SAGE score (new relapse) - SAGE score (after treatment of current relapse)~This difference score was tested for equivalence to 0 or not."|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.44|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test||The interquartile range for the difference in medians is -1 to 0.|"We compared the two SAGE scores measured in the same arm at different time points (new relapse \& after treatment of relapse).~Null Hypothesis = Difference in medians is = 0 Alternate Hypothesis = Difference in medians is not = 0~We used the Wilcoxon Signed rank test to compare the pre - post SAGE scores."||||0.44
91084461|NCT01806168|182052549|OTHER|||||||0.046|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.046
91084462|NCT01806168|182052549|EQUIVALENCE|a \< 0.05||||||0.021|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.021
91084463|NCT01806168|182052549|EQUIVALENCE|a \< 0.05||||||0.65|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.65
91084464|NCT01806168|182052550|OTHER|||||||0.93|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||To test primary and secondary outcomes, we utilized intention to treat data and linear mixed models with a group random effect. Significance was set to a \< 0.05.||||0.93
91084465|NCT01806168|182052551|OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.18
90956740|NCT00768079|181792871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.312|||||||Fisher Exact|||Non-adjudicated exacerbations: Fisher's exact test was used for statistical analysis.||||0.312
91084466|NCT01806168|182052552|OTHER|||||||0.54|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.54
91084467|NCT01806168|182052553|OTHER|||||||0.86|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.86
91084468|NCT01806168|182052554|OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.4
91084469|NCT01100723|182052564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||McNemar|||Number of subjects meeting targets were compared to the same subjects baseline values using the McNemar test for paired longitudinal data. For the 1 year analysis, the proportion of subjects with PTH values in the target range was calculated at 1 year and that was compared to the proportion of the same subjects who were in target at baseline.||||< 0.05
91084470|NCT01100723|182052565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||McNemar|||Number of subjects meeting targets were compared to the same subjects baseline values using the McNemar test for paired longitudinal data. For the 1 year analysis, the proportion of subjects with phosphorus values in the target range was calculated at 1 year and that was compared to the proportion of the same subjects who were in target at baseline.||||<0.05
90956741|NCT00768079|181792871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Non-adjudicated exacerbations: Fisher's exact test was used for statistical analysis.||||1.000
90956742|NCT00768079|181792871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.312|||||||Fisher Exact|||Adjudicated exacerbations: Fisher's exact test was used for statistical analysis.||||0.312
90956743|NCT00768079|181792871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Adjudicated exacerbations: Fisher's exact test was used for statistical analysis.||||1.000
90956744|NCT00768079|181792873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.343|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 4, non-adjudicated exacerbations: Fisher's exact test was used for statistical analysis.||||0.343
90956745|NCT00768079|181792873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 4, non-adjudicated exacerbations: Fisher's exact test was used for statistical analysis.||||1.000
90956746|NCT00768079|181792873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.343|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 4, adjudicated exacerbations: Fisher's exact test was used for statistical analysis.||||0.343
90956747|NCT00768079|181792873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 4, adjudicated exacerbations: Fisher's exact test was used for statistical analysis.||||1.000
90956748|NCT00768079|181792873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.474|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 24, non-adjudicated exacerbations: Fisher's exact test was used for statistical analysis.||||0.474
90956749|NCT00768079|181792873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 24, non-adjudicated exacerbations: Fisher's exact test was used for statistical analysis.||||1.000
90956750|NCT00768079|181792873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.474|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 24, adjudicated exacerbations: Fisher's exact test was used for statistical analysis.||||0.474
90956751|NCT00768079|181792873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 24, adjudicated exacerbations: Fisher's exact test was used for statistical analysis.||||1.000
90956752|NCT02585232|181792945|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.483|||||||ANCOVA|Caregiver education, cognitive status of the person with dementia, and baseline caregiver burden scores were included in the model as covariates.||||||.483
90956753|NCT02585232|181792946|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.169|||||||ANCOVA|Caregiver education, cognitive status of the person with dementia, and baseline Dyadic Adjustment Scale scores were included as covariates.||Only caregivers that were currently or previously in a romantic relationship (e.g., spouses, partners) with the person with dementia reported on the Dyadic Adjustment Scale (i.e., N = 20, n = 9 in CC group and n = 11 in CC+C group).||||0.169
90956754|NCT02585232|181792947|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.763|||||||ANCOVA|Baseline quality of life scores, education, and cognitive status were included as covariates in the model.||||||0.763
90956755|NCT02585232|181792948|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||ANCOVA|Baseline depression scores, cognitive status scores (i.e., MoCA), and education were included in the model as covariates.||||||0.780
90956756|NCT02318992|181792950|OTHER|||||||0.157|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.157
90956757|NCT02318992|181792951|OTHER|||||||0.041|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.041
90956758|NCT02313233|181792954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.05
90956759|NCT02313233|181792955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.05
90956760|NCT02313233|181792958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.05
90956761|NCT02313233|181792959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.05
91021007|NCT02508649|181924607|OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.25||||0.0349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||Individual organ (cardiovascular) score using a modified version of the SOFA on Day 3||-0.02|-0.49|0.0349
91021008|NCT02508649|181924607|OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.14||||0.2787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Individual organ (cardiovascular) score using a modified version of the SOFA on Day 7||0.11|-0.39|0.2787
91021009|NCT02508649|181924607|OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.05||||0.6476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.16|||ANCOVA|||Individual organ (renal) score using a modified version of the SOFA on Day 1||0.16|-0.26|0.6476
90956762|NCT03618823|181792967|EQUIVALENCE|All pain scores were included due to the sample size. Alpha =.05 Power = .80 Desired effect size of 0.30 Size of n=145 in each group was determined, however this was not reached for sufficient power.||||||0.912|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Two-way mixed-model analysis of variance||There will be no difference in pain scores between opioid and non-opioid groups from before medication to after while controlling for total duration of mediation use (duration mean=10.11 days).||||.912
90956763|NCT03618823|181792968|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.311||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.494|3.478|||Fisher Exact|||There will be no difference in ED (Emergency Department) or urgent care visits between opioid and non-opioid pain control groups.||3.478|.494|.630
90956764|NCT05383508|181792981|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio (%)|17.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.69|27.19||95% confidence intervals are provided for this analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|The model included terms for sequence, period, and product exposure as fixed effects and subject as a categorical random effect.|Analysis was performed on log transformed data with Kenward Roger degrees of freedom approximation. Ratio and related 95% CI were derived by exponentiating the estimates obtained on the log scale.|The objective of this study was to determine the Cmax ratio of P4M3 variants:Cigarettes along with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals||27.19|10.69|
90956765|NCT05383508|181792981|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio (%)|19.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.89|31.87||95% confidence intervals are provided for this analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|The model included terms for sequence, period, and product exposure as fixed effects and subject as a categorical random effect.|Analysis was performed on log transformed data with Kenward Roger degrees of freedom approximation. Ratio and related 95% CI were derived by exponentiating the estimates obtained on the log scale.|The objective of this study was to determine the Cmax ratio of P4M3 variants:Cigarettes along with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals||31.87|11.89|
90956766|NCT05383508|181792982|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|11.0||95% confidence intervals are provided for this analysis.|Wilcoxon signed rank test||Hodges-Lehmann estimator of location shift and Moses 95% CI|The objective of this study was to determine the Tmax difference of P4M3 variants:Cigarettes along with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals||11.00|0.00|
90956767|NCT05383508|181792982|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|4.0||95% confidence intervals are provided for this analysis.|Wilcoxon signed rank test||Hodges-Lehmann estimator of location shift and Moses 95% CI|The objective of this study was to determine the Tmax difference of P4M3 variants:Cigarettes along with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals||4.00|0.00|
90959111|NCT01620255|181798212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.73||||0.6862|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.689|2.235|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 7.5 mg vs placebo, bowel fx change from BL at W12||2.235|-3.689|0.6862
90959112|NCT01620255|181798212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|4.37||||0.0135|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.467|7.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 22.5 mg vs placebo, bowel fx change from BL at W12||7.280|1.467|0.0135
91021010|NCT02508649|181924607|OTHER||Treatment difference|0.08||||0.4313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.29|||ANCOVA|||Individual organ (renal) score using a modified version of the SOFA on Day 3||0.29|-0.13|0.4313
91021011|NCT02508649|181924607|OTHER||Treatment difference|0.17||||0.1334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.39|||ANCOVA|||Individual organ (renal) score using a modified version of the SOFA on Day 7||0.39|-0.05|0.1334
91021012|NCT02508649|181924607|OTHER||Treatment difference|0.12||||0.2126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Individual organ (coagulation) score using a modified version of the SOFA on Day 1||0.30|-0.07|0.2126
91021013|NCT02508649|181924607|OTHER||Treatment Difference|0.23||||0.0174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.41|||ANCOVA|||Individual organ (coagulation) score using a modified version of the SOFA on Day 3||0.41|0.04|0.0174
91021014|NCT02508649|181924607|OTHER||Treatment difference|0.23||||0.0194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.43|||ANCOVA|||Individual organ (coagulation) score using a modified version of the SOFA on Day 7||0.43|0.04|0.0194
91021015|NCT02508649|181924607|OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.15||||0.1284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.04|||ANCOVA|||Individual organ (liver) score using a modified version of the SOFA on Day 1||0.04|-0.35|0.1284
91021016|NCT02508649|181924607|OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.05||||0.6542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.15|||ANCOVA|||Individual organ (liver) score using a modified version of the SOFA on Day 3||0.15|-0.25|0.6542
91021017|NCT02508649|181924607|OTHER||Treatment difference|0.17||||0.1079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.38|||ANCOVA|||Individual organ (liver) score using a modified version of the SOFA on Day 7||0.38|-0.04|0.1079
91021018|NCT02508649|181924608|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|2.0|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio is equal to Selepressin pooled/Placebo.|Percentage of subjects with new organ dysfunction up to Day 7||2.00|0.98|0.0630
91021019|NCT02508649|181924608|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28||||0.1875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.86|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio is equal to Selepressin pooled/Placebo.|Percentage of subjects with new organ dysfunction up to Day 30||1.86|0.89|0.1875
91021020|NCT02508649|181924608|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.4382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.58|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio is equal to Selepressin pooled/Placebo.|Percentage of subjects with new organ failure up to Day 7||1.58|0.82|0.4382
91021021|NCT02508649|181924608|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.9529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.39|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio is equal to Selepressin pooled/Placebo.|Percentage of subjects with new organ failure up to Day 30||1.39|0.73|0.9529
91021022|NCT00446134|181924617|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The study will have 70% to detect non-inferiority of taribavirin versus ribavirin using a non-inferiority margin of 12%.|Other|12.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.0||0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.65|29.15|||Fisher Exact|||||29.15|-3.65|0.167
91021023|NCT00446134|181924617|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The study will have 70% to detect non-inferiority of taribavirin versus ribavirin using a non-inferiority margin of 12%.|Difference of Proportion|5.71|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.0||0.611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.76|22.19|||Fisher Exact|||||22.19|-10.76|0.611
91021024|NCT00446134|181924617|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The study will have 70% to detect non-inferiority of taribavirin versus ribavirin using a non-inferiority margin of 12%.|Difference of Proportion|2.98|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.0||0.736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.67|19.63|||Fisher Exact|||||19.63|-13.67|0.736
91021025|NCT00446134|181924617|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The study will have 70% to detect non-inferiority of taribavirin versus taribavirin using a non-inferiority margin of 12%.|Difference of Proportion|7.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.0||0.485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.28|23.35|||Fisher Exact|||||23.35|-9.28|0.485
91021026|NCT00446134|181924617|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The study will have 70% to detect non-inferiority of taribavirin versus taribavirin using a non-inferiority margin of 12%.|Difference of Proportion|9.77|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.0||0.295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.72|26.26|||Fisher Exact|||||26.26|-6.72|0.295
91021027|NCT00446134|181924617|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The study will have 70% to detect non-inferiority of taribavirin versus taribavirin using a non-inferiority margin of 12%.|Difference of Proportion|2.73|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.0||0.864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.84|19.3|||Fisher Exact|||||19.3|-13.84|0.864
91021028|NCT00446134|181924618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.0||0.0304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.31|30.57|||Chi-squared|||||30.57|2.31|0.0304
91021029|NCT00446134|181924618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.0||0.0293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.22|31.06|||Chi-squared|||||31.06|3.22|0.0293
91021030|NCT00446134|181924618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.0||0.5816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.41|20.24|||Chi-squared|||||20.24|-10.41|0.5816
91021031|NCT00446134|181924619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.22|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.0||0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.78|16.22|||Fisher Exact|||||16.22|-13.78|0.9999
91021032|NCT00446134|181924619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.0||0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.73|14.73|||Fisher Exact|||||14.73|-14.73|0.9999
91021033|NCT00446134|181924619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.0||0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.11|15.71|||Fisher Exact|||||15.71|-14.11|0.9999
91021034|NCT00446134|181924619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.22|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.0||0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.78|16.22|||Fisher Exact|||||16.22|-13.78|0.9999
91021035|NCT00446134|181924619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.42|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.0||0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.76|15.59|||Fisher Exact|||||15.59|-14.76|0.9999
91021036|NCT00446134|181924619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.0||0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.71|14.11|||Fisher Exact|||||14.11|-15.71|0.9999
91021037|NCT02524665|181924727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.67|STANDARD_DEVIATION|61.97||0.0769||95.0||||The assumption of normality was verified using a Shapiro-Wilk Test. If the assumption of normality was rejected (at the 0.01 level), a non-parametric method (Wilcoxon signed-rank test) was used|Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of inflammatory lesion counts between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 8.|||||0.0769
91103868|NCT03449147|182094503|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.85||Comparison based on logistic regression model that included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, region, baseline LCQ total score, and the interaction of baseline LCQ total score by visit as covariates.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.85|0.97|0.077
91084471|NCT01100723|182052566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||McNemar|||Number of subjects meeting targets were compared to the same subjects baseline values using the McNemar test for paired longitudinal data. For the 1 year analysis, the proportion of subjects with PTH values in the target range was calculated at 1 year and that was compared to the proportion of the same subjects who were in target at baseline.||||< 0.05
91084472|NCT01100723|182052567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||McNemar|||Number of subjects meeting targets were compared to the same subjects baseline values using the McNemar test for paired longitudinal data. For the 1 year analysis, the proportion of subjects with phosphorus values in the target range was calculated at 1 year and that was compared to the proportion of the same subjects who were in target at baseline.||||< 0.05
91084473|NCT01100723|182052568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||McNemar|||Number of subjects meeting targets were compared to the same subjects baseline values using the McNemar test for paired longitudinal data. For the 1 year analysis, the proportion of subjects with Ca values in the target range was calculated at 1 year and that was compared to the proportion of the same subjects who were in target at baseline.||||< 0.05
91084474|NCT01100723|182052569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||McNemar|||Proportion of subjects on specified medications were compared to the same subjects baseline values using the McNemar test for paired longitudinal data. For the 1 year analysis, the proportion of subjects on the specified medications was calculated at 1 year and that was compared to the proportion of the same subjects who were in target at baseline.||||< 0.05
91084475|NCT01151345|182052590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric means ratio|88.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.23|96.75||||||Natural-log transformed AUC (0-t) was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||96.75|81.23|
91084476|NCT01151345|182052591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric means ratio|91.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.83|99.34||||||Natural-log transformed AUC (0-∞) was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||99.34|83.83|
91084477|NCT01151345|182052592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric means ratio|83.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|67.08|103.31||||||Natural-log transformed Cmax was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||103.31|67.08|
91084478|NCT01765569|182052595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.63|2.02||||||||2.02|1.63|
91084479|NCT01765569|182052599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.3|1.65||||||||1.65|1.3|
91084480|NCT05415462|182052603|NON_INFERIORITY|The endpoint was tested for noninferiority of mRNA-1010 vs Fluarix for Influenza A H1N1 strain at a 2-sided 0.025 level.|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.952|1.071||||||GMR (mRNA-1010 vs Fluarix) for Influenza A H1N1 Antibody||1.071|0.952|
91084481|NCT05415462|182052603|NON_INFERIORITY|The endpoint was tested for noninferiority of mRNA-1010 vs Fluarix for Influenza A H3N2 strain at a 2-sided 0.025 level.|GMR|1.657|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.562|1.757||||||GMR (mRNA-1010 vs Fluarix) for Influenza A H3N2 Antibody||1.757|1.562|
91084482|NCT05415462|182052603|NON_INFERIORITY|The endpoint was tested for noninferiority of mRNA-1010 vs Fluarix for Influenza B Victoria-lineage strain at a 2-sided 0.025 level.|GMR|0.665|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.63|0.702||||||GMR (mRNA-1010 vs Fluarix) for Influenza B/ Victoria Lineage||0.702|0.630|
90959113|NCT01620255|181798212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|4.16||||0.0171|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.293|7.023|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 75 mg vs placebo, bowel fx change from BL at W12||7.023|1.293|0.0171
91084483|NCT05415462|182052603|NON_INFERIORITY|The endpoint was tested for noninferiority of mRNA-1010 vs Fluarix for Influenza B Yamagata-lineage strain at a 2-sided 0.025 level.|GMR|0.661|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.63|0.693||||||GMR (mRNA-1010 vs Fluarix) for Influenza B/ Yamagata Lineage||0.693|0.630|
91084484|NCT05415462|182052604|NON_INFERIORITY|The endpoint was tested for noninferiority of mRNA-1010 vs Fluarix for Influenza A H1N1 strain at a 2-sided 0.025 level.|Percentage Difference|5.75|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|3.12|8.38||||||Percentage Difference (mRNA-1010 vs Fluarix) for Influenza A H1N1 Antibody||8.38|3.12|
91084485|NCT05415462|182052604|NON_INFERIORITY|The endpoint was tested for noninferiority of mRNA-1010 vs Fluarix for Influenza A H3N2 strain at a 2-sided 0.025 level.|Percentage Difference|16.91|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|14.27|19.54||||||Percentage Difference (mRNA-1010 vs Fluarix) for Influenza A H3N2 Antibody||19.54|14.27|
91084486|NCT05415462|182052604|NON_INFERIORITY|The endpoint was tested for noninferiority of mRNA-1010 vs Fluarix for Influenza B Victoria-lineage strain at a 2-sided 0.025 level.|Percentage Difference|-17.34|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-20.22|-14.43||||||Percentage Difference (mRNA-1010 vs Fluarix) for Influenza B/Victoria Lineage||-14.43|-20.22|
91084487|NCT05415462|182052604|NON_INFERIORITY|The endpoint was tested for noninferiority of mRNA-1010 vs Fluarix for Influenza B Yamagata-lineage strain at a 2-sided 0.025 level.|Percentage Difference|-15.68|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-18.57|-12.76||||||Percentage Difference (mRNA-1010 vs Fluarix) for Influenza B/Yamagata Lineage||-12.76|-18.57|
91084488|NCT00423813|182052637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Overall Comparison||||0.001
91084489|NCT00423813|182052637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Pairwise comparison of Xyrem 4.5g and placebo||||<0.001
91084490|NCT00423813|182052637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Pairwise comparison of Xyrem 6.0g and placebo||||0.001
91084491|NCT01904032|182052651|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7982|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0537||0.6982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2691|4.8656|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the CES-D change score between women who received high dose Vitamin D therapy versus low dose Vitamin D therapy.||4.8656|-3.2691|.6982
91084492|NCT01904032|182052652|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0424|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6619||0.9908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2946|7.2097|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the PAID change score between women who received high dose Vitamin D therapy versus low dose Vitamin D therapy.||7.2097|-7.2946|.9908
91084493|NCT01904032|182052653|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4966|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1474||0.8749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7366|6.7298|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the change in systolic blood pressure between women who received high dose Vitamin D therapy versus low dose Vitamin D therapy.||6.7298|-5.7366|.8749
91021038|NCT02524665|181924727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.77|STANDARD_DEVIATION|33.73||0.6698||95.0||||The assumption of normality was verified using a Shapiro-Wilk Test. If the assumption of normality was rejected (at the 0.01 level), a non-parametric method (Wilcoxon signed-rank test) was used.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of non-inflammatory lesion counts between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 8.|||||0.6698
91021039|NCT02524665|181924727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.66|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.59||0.6854||95.0||||Percent change from baseline were analyzed using the individual differences between both sides of the face at an alpha level of 0.05 using paired t-tests.|t-test, 2 sided||Comparison of total lesion counts between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 8.|||||0.6854
91021040|NCT02524665|181924728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|74.55||0.5031||95.0||||The assumption of normality was verified using a Shapiro-Wilk Test. If the assumption of normality was rejected (at the 0.01 level), a non-parametric method (Wilcoxon signed-rank test) was used.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of percent change inflammatory lesion counts between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 1.|||||0.5031
91021041|NCT02524665|181924728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|99.76||0.2464||95.0||||Percent change from baseline were analyzed using the individual differences between both sides of the face at an alpha level of 0.05 using paired t-tests.|t-test, 2 sided||Comparison of percent change inflammatory lesion counts between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 2.|||||0.2464
91021042|NCT02524665|181924728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|65.22||0.8894||95.0||||The assumption of normality was verified using a Shapiro-Wilk Test. If the assumption of normality was rejected (at the 0.01 level), a non-parametric method (Wilcoxon signed-rank test) was used.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of percent change inflammatory lesion counts between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 4.|||||0.8894
91021043|NCT02524665|181924728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|46.04||0.6722||95.0||||The assumption of normality was verified using a Shapiro-Wilk Test. If the assumption of normality was rejected (at the 0.01 level), a non-parametric method (Wilcoxon signed-rank test) was used.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of percent change non-inflammatory lesion counts between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 1.|||||0.6722
91021044|NCT02524665|181924728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.99|STANDARD_DEVIATION|39.59||0.3352||95.0||||Percent change from baseline were analyzed using the individual differences between both sides of the face at an alpha level of 0.05 using paired t-tests.|t-test, 2 sided||Comparison of percent change non-inflammatory lesion counts between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 2.|||||0.3352
91021045|NCT02524665|181924728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.41|STANDARD_DEVIATION|35.46||0.9323||95.0||||The assumption of normality was verified using a Shapiro-Wilk Test. If the assumption of normality was rejected (at the 0.01 level), a non-parametric method (Wilcoxon signed-rank test) was used.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of percent change non-inflammatory lesion counts between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 4.|||||0.9323
90959114|NCT01620255|181798212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|5.2||||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.232|8.172|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 225 mg vs placebo, bowel fx change from BL at W12||8.172|2.232|0.0041
91021046|NCT02524665|181924728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.72|STANDARD_DEVIATION|26.05||0.3513||95.0||||Percent change from baseline were analyzed using the individual differences between both sides of the face at an alpha level of 0.05 using paired t-tests.|t-test, 2 sided||Comparison of percent change total lesion counts between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 1.|||||0.3513
91021047|NCT02524665|181924728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.22|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.97||0.8199||95.0||||Percent change from baseline were analyzed using the individual differences between both sides of the face at an alpha level of 0.05 using paired t-tests.|t-test, 2 sided||Comparison of percent change total lesion counts between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 2.|||||0.8199
91021048|NCT02524665|181924728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.83||0.9616||95.0||||Percent change from baseline were analyzed using the individual differences between both sides of the face at an alpha level of 0.05 using paired t-tests.|t-test, 2 sided||Comparison of percent change total lesion counts between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 4.|||||0.9616
91021049|NCT02524665|181924729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.23||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of ISGA score between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 1|||||1.0000
91021050|NCT02524665|181924729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.66||0.75||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of ISGA score between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 2.|||||0.7500
91021051|NCT02524665|181924729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.74||0.7539||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of ISGA score between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 4.|||||0.7539
91021052|NCT02524665|181924729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.87||0.3071||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of ISGA score between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 8|||||0.3071
91084494|NCT01904032|182052654|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5125|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8636||0.4187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1784|5.2033|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the change in diastolic blood pressure between women who received high dose Vitamin D therapy versus low dose Vitamin D therapy.||5.2033|-2.1784|.4187
91021053|NCT02524665|181924730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.5||0.5||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of Erythema score between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 1.|||||0.5000
91021054|NCT02524665|181924730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.52||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of Erythema score between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 2.|||||1.0000
91021055|NCT02524665|181924730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.23||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of Erythema score between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 4.|||||1.0000
91084495|NCT01087203|182052662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) mean difference|-1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28|-0.16|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as main effect, baseline value as covariate, and study site as a random effect was used.||-0.16|-2.28|0.025
91084496|NCT01087203|182052663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.32|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: ANCOVA model with treatment as main effect, baseline value as covariate, and study site as a random effect was used.||0.32|-0.92|0.332
91084497|NCT01087203|182052663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|0.36|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA model with treatment as main effect, baseline value as covariate, and study site as a random effect was used.||0.36|-1.15|0.297
91084498|NCT01087203|182052663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA model with treatment as main effect, baseline value as covariate, and study site as a random effect was used.||-0.10|-1.81|0.029
91084499|NCT01087203|182052663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.17|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||Week 6: ANCOVA model with treatment as main effect, baseline value as covariate, and study site as a random effect was used.||-0.30|-2.17|0.010
91084500|NCT01087203|182052663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.34|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA model with treatment as main effect, baseline value as covariate, and study site as a random effect was used.||-0.34|-2.30|0.009
91084501|NCT01087203|182052663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.36|-0.27|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA model with treatment as main effect, baseline value as covariate, and study site as a random effect was used.||-0.27|-2.36|0.015
91084502|NCT03790865|182052722|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.0|||<|0.025|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.025
91084503|NCT00502853|182052726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1776|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline to Week 4||||0.1776
91084504|NCT00502853|182052726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1215|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline to Week 24||||0.1215
91084505|NCT00502853|182052726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.1606|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1231||0.2246|||||||Random coefficient model|||Trend over time||||0.2246
91084506|NCT00502853|182052727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8989|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline to Week 4||||0.8989
91021056|NCT02524665|181924730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0||0||95.0||||The value is mentioned as '0', as no P-value generated.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of Erythema score between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 8.|||||0
91084507|NCT00502853|182052727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8834|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline to Week 24||||0.8834
91084508|NCT00502853|182052727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.1357|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9051||0.8841|||||||Random coefficient model|||Trend over time||||0.8841
91084509|NCT00502853|182052728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5911|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline to Week 4||||0.5911
91084510|NCT00502853|182052728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1475|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline to Week 24||||0.1475
91084511|NCT00502853|182052728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.1786|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1123||0.1463|||||||Random coefficient model|||Trend over time||||0.1463
91084512|NCT00502853|182052729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1101|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 4||||0.1101
91084513|NCT00502853|182052729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||||0.0003
91021057|NCT02524665|181924730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.74||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of Dryness score between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 1.|||||1.0000
91021058|NCT02524665|181924730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0||0||95.0||||The value is mentioned as '0', as no P-value generated.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of Dryness score between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 2.|||||0
91021059|NCT02524665|181924730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0||0||95.0||||The value is mentioned as '0', as no P-value generated.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of Dryness score between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 4.|||||0
91021060|NCT02524665|181924730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.23||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of Dryness score between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 8.|||||1.0000
91021061|NCT02524665|181924730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.69||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of Peeling score between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 1.|||||1.0000
91021062|NCT02524665|181924730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0||0||95.0||||The value is mentioned as '0', as no P-value generated.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of Peeling score between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 2.|||||0
91021063|NCT02524665|181924730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0||0||95.0||||The value is mentioned as '0', as no P-value generated.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of Peeling score between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 4.|||||0
91084514|NCT00502853|182052729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0018|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 24||||0.0018
91084515|NCT00502853|182052729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-2.0857|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4965||0.0023|||||||Random coefficient model|||Trend over time||||0.0023
91084516|NCT00502853|182052730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3358|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 4||||0.3358
91084517|NCT00502853|182052730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9158|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 24||||0.9158
91084518|NCT00502853|182052730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.003418|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02345||0.8877|||||||Random coefficient model|||Trend over time||||0.8877
91084519|NCT00502853|182052731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7624|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 4||||0.7624
91084520|NCT00502853|182052731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0212|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 24||||0.0212
91084521|NCT00502853|182052731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-4.2681|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0529||0.0712|||||||Random coefficient model|||Trend over time||||0.0712
91084522|NCT00502853|182052732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 4||||0.0240
91021064|NCT02524665|181924730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.23||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of Peeling score between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 8.|||||1.0000
91021065|NCT02524665|181924731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.63||0.5||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of Redness score between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 1.|||||0.5000
91021066|NCT02524665|181924731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.5||0.5||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of Redness score between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 2.|||||0.5000
91021067|NCT02524665|181924731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.92||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of Redness score between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 4.|||||1.0000
91021068|NCT02524665|181924731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.69||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of Redness score between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 8.|||||1.0000
91021069|NCT02524665|181924731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.88||0.8125||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of Dryness score between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 1.|||||0.8125
91021070|NCT02524665|181924731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.94||0.5742||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of Dryness score between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 2.|||||0.5742
91021071|NCT02524665|181924731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.93||0.5||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of Dryness score between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 4.|||||0.5000
91021072|NCT02524665|181924731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.82||0.25||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of Dryness score between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 8.|||||0.2500
91021073|NCT02524665|181924731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.62||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of Burning score between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 1.|||||1.0000
91021074|NCT02524665|181924731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.74||0.75||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of Burning score between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 2.|||||0.7500
91021075|NCT02524665|181924731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.98||0.75||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of Burning score between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 4.|||||0.7500
91021076|NCT02524665|181924731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.73||0.25||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of Burning score between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 8.|||||0.2500
91021077|NCT02524665|181924731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.54||0.25||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of Itching score between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 1.|||||0.2500
91021078|NCT02524665|181924731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.74||0.75||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of Itching score between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 2.|||||0.7500
91021079|NCT02524665|181924731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.01||0.25||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of Itching score between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 4.|||||0.2500
91021080|NCT02524665|181924731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.82||0.25||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of Itching score between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 8.|||||0.2500
91021081|NCT02524665|181924731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.5||0.5||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of Scaling score between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 1.|||||0.5000
91021082|NCT02524665|181924731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0||0||95.0||||The value is mentioned as '0', as no P-value generated.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of Scaling score between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 2.|||||0
91021083|NCT02524665|181924731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.93||0.5||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of Scaling score between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 4.|||||0.5000
91021084|NCT02524665|181924731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.81||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of Scaling score between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 8.|||||1.0000
91021085|NCT02524665|181924732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||Comparison of one or more grade improvement between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 1.|McNemar|||||||1.0000
91021086|NCT02524665|181924732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0||95.0||||The value is mentioned as '0', as no P-value generated. Comparison of two or more grade improvement between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 1.|McNemar|||||||0
91021087|NCT02524665|181924732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5637||95.0||||Comparison of one or more grade improvement between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 2.|McNemar|||||||0.5637
91021088|NCT02524665|181924732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||Comparison of two or more grade improvement between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 2.|McNemar|||||||1.0000
91021089|NCT02524665|181924732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4795||95.0||||Comparison of one or more grade improvement between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 4.|McNemar|||||||0.4795
91021090|NCT02524665|181924732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||Comparison of two or more grade improvement between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 4.|McNemar|||||||1.0000
91021091|NCT02524665|181924732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3173||95.0||||Comparison of one or more grade improvement between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 8.|McNemar|||||||0.3173
91021092|NCT02524665|181924732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1573||95.0||||Comparison of two or more grade improvement between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 8.|McNemar|||||||0.1573
91084523|NCT00502853|182052732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0045|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||||0.0045
91084524|NCT00502853|182052732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0018|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 24||||0.0018
91084525|NCT00502853|182052732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.1964|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04524||0.0019|||||||Random Coefficient Model|||Trend over time||||0.0019
91084526|NCT00502853|182052733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-6.6294|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8623||0.0074|||||||Random Coefficient Model|||Trend over time||||0.0074
91084527|NCT00502853|182052733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1273|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 4||||0.1273
91084528|NCT00502853|182052733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0132|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||||0.0132
91084529|NCT00502853|182052733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1542|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 24||||0.1542
91084530|NCT00502853|182052734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1396|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 4||||0.1396
91084531|NCT00502853|182052734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||||0.0050
91084532|NCT00502853|182052734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 24||||0.0050
91084533|NCT00502853|182052734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.2902|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07966||0.0054|||||||Random coefficient model|||Trend over time||||0.0054
91084534|NCT00502853|182052735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0254|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 4||||0.0254
91084535|NCT00502853|182052735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0384|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||||0.0384
91084536|NCT00502853|182052735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0271|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 24||||0.0271
91084537|NCT00502853|182052735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-4.7586|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5278||0.0124|||||||Random coefficient model|||Trend over time||||0.0124
91084538|NCT00502853|182052736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7376|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 4||||0.7376
91084539|NCT00502853|182052736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1631|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||||0.1631
90956768|NCT05383508|181792983|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio (%)|28.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.0|50.04||95% confidence intervals are provided for this analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|The model included terms for sequence, period, and product exposure as fixed effects and subject as a categorical random effect.|Analysis was performed on log transformed data with Kenward Roger degrees of freedom approximation. Ratio and related 95% CI were derived by exponentiating the estimates obtained on the log scale.|The objective of this study was to determine the AUC0-infinity ratio of P4M3 variants:Cigarettes along with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals||50.04|16.00|
91084540|NCT00502853|182052736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8816|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 24||||0.8816
91084541|NCT00502853|182052736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.2927|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9408||0.8835|||||||Random coefficient model|||Trend over time||||0.8835
91084542|NCT00502853|182052737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1312|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 4||||0.1312
90956769|NCT05383508|181792983|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio (%)|26.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.74|53.69||95% confidence intervals are provided for this analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|The model included terms for sequence, period, and product exposure as fixed effects and subject as a categorical random effect.|Analysis was performed on log transformed data with Kenward Roger degrees of freedom approximation. Ratio and related 95% CI were derived by exponentiating the estimates obtained on the log scale.|The objective of this study was to determine the AUC0-infinity ratio of P4M3 variants:Cigarettes along with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals||53.69|12.74|
91084543|NCT00502853|182052737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0662|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||||0.0662
91084544|NCT00502853|182052737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4133|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 24||||0.4133
91084545|NCT00502853|182052737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|8.8196|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.4534||0.6049|||||||Random coefficient model|||Trend over time||||0.6049
91084546|NCT00502853|182052738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1725|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 4||||0.1725
91084547|NCT00502853|182052738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0832|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||||0.0832
91084548|NCT00502853|182052738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1685|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 24||||0.1685
91084549|NCT00502853|182052738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-55.4458|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|33.5821||0.1331|||||||Random coefficient model|||Trend over time||||0.1331
91084550|NCT00502853|182052739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2938|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 4||||0.2938
91084551|NCT00502853|182052739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2216|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||||0.2216
91084552|NCT00502853|182052739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.567|TWO_SIDED||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 24||||0.5670
91084553|NCT00502853|182052740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0934|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 4||||0.0934
91084554|NCT00502853|182052740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4047|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||||0.4047
91084555|NCT00502853|182052740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2101|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 24||||0.2101
91084556|NCT00502853|182052740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.3997|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2506||0.1451|||||||Random coefficient model|||Trend over time||||0.1451
91084557|NCT00502853|182052741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4963|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 4||||0.4963
91084558|NCT00502853|182052741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2198|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||||0.2198
91084559|NCT00502853|182052741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6773|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 24||||0.6773
91084560|NCT00502853|182052741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.3688|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5987||0.5531|||||||Random coefficient model|||Trend over time||||0.5531
91084561|NCT00502853|182052742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5002|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 24||||0.5002
91084562|NCT00502853|182052743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 24||||1.0000
91084563|NCT00502853|182052744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7002|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 24||||0.7002
91084564|NCT00502853|182052745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3132|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 24||||0.3132
91084565|NCT00502853|182052746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8597|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 24||||0.8597
91084566|NCT00502853|182052747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3617|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 24||||0.3617
91084567|NCT03162328|182052775|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.363|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||||||0.363
91084568|NCT03162328|182052776|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.291|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||||||0.291
91084569|NCT03479944|182052788|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.505|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|-1.289|||t-test based on MMRM|MMRM: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Least Squares Mean Difference from a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||-1.289|-1.720|<0.0001
91084570|NCT03479944|182052789|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.2||||0.2602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|3.3|||t-test based on MMRM|MMRM: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Least Squares Mean Difference from a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||3.3|-0.9|0.2602
91021093|NCT01083901|181924733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||ANCOVA|Changes from baseline to 16 weeks were regressed on the baseline measurement.||The null hypothesis was that the changes in total body fat-free mass in response to resistance exercise training would not be different among the groups. The expected difference in fat-free mass between the Acetaminophen and Placebo groups was 1.8 +/- 1.0% with a 3.6 +/1 1.0% increase in fat-free mass in the Placebo group. The study was designed to achieve 96% power at the 0.05 level with 10 men in the acetaminophen and placebo groups.||||0.38
91021094|NCT01083901|181924734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||ANCOVA|The change in fat mass was regressed on the baseline measure.||||||0.23
91021095|NCT01083901|181924735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||ANCOVA|Change in strength was regressed on baseline measures.||||||0.30
91021096|NCT01083901|181924736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||ANCOVA|Changes in strength were regressed on the baseline measure.||||||0.37
91021097|NCT02499406|181924765|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.016||||||a priori threshold for significance adjusted to p = .016 for multiple comparisons|paired sample t-test|df=14||Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between baseline assessment and this 3-month assessment.||||>0.016
91021098|NCT02499406|181924766|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.016||||||p value was calculated and found to be below the a priori threshold for significance, which was adjusted to p = .016 for multiple comparisons|paired sample t-test|df=11||Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between baseline assessment and this 6-month assessment.||||<0.016
91021099|NCT02499406|181924767|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.016||||||a priori threshold for significance adjusted to p = .016 for multiple comparisons|paired sample t-test|df=11||Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between baseline assessment and this 9-month assessment.||||<0.016
91021100|NCT02499406|181924768|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.016||||||a priori threshold for significance adjusted to p = .016 for multiple comparisons|paired samples t test|df=14||Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in paired samples between baseline and 3-month assessment||||<0.016
91021101|NCT02499406|181924769|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.016||||||a priori threshold for significance adjusted to p = .016 for multiple comparisons|paired samples t test|df=10||Null hypothesis is no difference between baseline and this 6-month assessment.||||<0.016
91021102|NCT02499406|181924770|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.016||||||a priori threshold for significance adjusted to p = .016 for multiple comparisons|paired samples t test|df=11||Null hypothesis is no difference between baseline and this 9-month assessment.||||<0.016
91021103|NCT02499406|181924771|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.016||||||a priori threshold for significance adjusted to p = .016 for multiple comparisons|paired sample t test|df=14||Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between baseline assessment and this 3-month assessment.||||> 0.016
91021104|NCT02499406|181924772|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.016||||||a priori threshold for significance adjusted to p = .016 for multiple comparisons|paired sample t-test|df=10||Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between baseline assessment and this 6-month assessment.||||=.016
91021105|NCT02499406|181924773|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.016||||||a priori threshold for significance adjusted to p = .016 for multiple comparisons|paired sample t-test|df=11||Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between baseline assessment and this 9-month assessment.||||<0.016
91021106|NCT00563524|181924801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5237|||||||ANCOVA|||Baseline: Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with pre-dose as the baseline covariate and treatment as a factor was used for the analysis.||||0.5237
91021107|NCT00563524|181924801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8463|||||||ANCOVA|||Day 14: ANCOVA with pre-dose as the baseline covariate and treatment as a factor was used for the analysis.||||0.8463
91021108|NCT00563524|181924801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4596|||||||ANCOVA|||Day 28: ANCOVA with pre-dose as the baseline covariate and treatment as a factor was used for the analysis.||||0.4596
91021109|NCT00563524|181924801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6345|||||||ANCOVA|||Day 42: ANCOVA with pre-dose as the baseline covariate and treatment as a factor was used for the analysis.||||0.6345
91021110|NCT00563524|181924801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6235|||||||ANCOVA|||Day 56: ANCOVA with pre-dose as the baseline covariate and treatment as a factor was used for the analysis.||||0.6235
91021111|NCT00563524|181924802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3833|||||||ANCOVA|||Baseline: ANCOVA with pre-dose as the baseline covariate and treatment as a factor was used for the analysis.||||0.3833
91021112|NCT00563524|181924802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4909|||||||ANCOVA|||Day 14: ANCOVA with pre-dose as the baseline covariate and treatment as a factor was used for the analysis.||||0.4909
91021113|NCT00563524|181924802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.22|||||||ANCOVA|||Day 28: ANCOVA with pre-dose as the baseline covariate and treatment as a factor was used for the analysis.||||0.2200
91021114|NCT00563524|181924802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4183|||||||ANCOVA|||Day 42: ANCOVA with pre-dose as the baseline covariate and treatment as a factor was used for the analysis.||||0.4183
91021115|NCT00563524|181924802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.465|||||||ANCOVA|||Day 56: ANCOVA with pre-dose as the baseline covariate and treatment as a factor was used for the analysis.||||0.4650
91021116|NCT00563524|181924803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7051|||||||ANCOVA|||Baseline: ANCOVA with pre-dose as the baseline covariate and treatment as a factor was used for the analysis.||||0.7051
91021117|NCT00563524|181924803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1072|||||||ANCOVA|||Day 14: ANCOVA with pre-dose as the baseline covariate and treatment as a factor was used for the analysis.||||0.1072
91021118|NCT00563524|181924803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|||||||ANCOVA|||Day 28: ANCOVA with pre-dose as the baseline covariate and treatment as a factor was used for the analysis.||||0.0020
91021119|NCT00563524|181924803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0079|||||||ANCOVA|||Day 42: ANCOVA with pre-dose as the baseline covariate and treatment as a factor was used for the analysis.||||0.0079
91021120|NCT00563524|181924803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0308|||||||ANCOVA|||Day 56: ANCOVA with pre-dose as the baseline covariate and treatment as a factor was used for the analysis.||||0.0308
91021121|NCT01467570|181924811|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The differences between study groups were considered significant when the p value was \<0.05 or when the 95% CI for RD or MD did not include 0 (equivalent to p \< 0.05).||||||0.28|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.28
91021122|NCT03712137|181924821|SUPERIORITY||Responder Rate Difference|30.9||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.33|46.54|||Multiple Imputation|The procedure used to perform Multiple Imputation is PROC MIANALYZE in SAS with normal approximation||||46.54|15.33|0.0001
91021123|NCT03712137|181924824|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|45.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.45|51.28|||Paired T-test|||||51.28|40.45|<0.0001
91084571|NCT03479944|182052790|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-11.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.87|-7.18|||||Least Squares Mean Difference from a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||-7.18|-15.87|
91084572|NCT01680653|182052806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.106||||||In analyzing prolonged events on remote monitoring versus control, we used x squared analysis or Fisher's exact test to analyze data on 2 x 2 contingency tables. Significance was defined as P\<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The study was a feasibility and preliminary safety study. As such, the sample size was not statistically derived and the protocol was not powered to provide for definitive conclusions. The study was limited to 20 participants at each camp session. A hypoglycemic event was defined as at least two consecutive CGM readings (10 mins) below the hypoglycemic threshold of \<70 mg/dL. Recovery from a hypoglycemic event required readings above threshold for \> or = 25 minutes.||||0.106
91084573|NCT01680653|182052807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.078|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.078
91084574|NCT01680653|182052808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Fisher's exact test|||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This is the P value for the number of events \<70 mg/dL longer than one hour||||0.003
91084575|NCT01680653|182052808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher's exact test|||This is the p value for the number of events \<70 mg/dL that were greater than 2 hours||||0.010
91084576|NCT01680653|182052808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher's exact test|||This is the p value for the number of events that were \<50 mg/dL for \> 30 minutes||||0.021
91084577|NCT01680653|182052808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.077|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher's exact|||This is the P value for the number of events \<50 mg/dL that were \>1 hr||||0.077
91084578|NCT03373461|182052809|OTHER|||||||0.038|||||||Multiple Comparison Procedure-Modeling|||||||0.038
91084579|NCT03373461|182052809|OTHER||Ratio to placebo (of ratio to baseline)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.86|1.0||||||||1.00|0.86|
91084580|NCT03373461|182052809|OTHER||Ratio to placebo (of ratio to baseline)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.76|0.98||||||||0.98|0.76|
91021124|NCT02580318|181924838|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||the separate paired sample t-tests were conducted to compare the baseline BrAC to the BrAC after the manipulation (poor effort)|t-test, 2 sided|||this p value is calculated for poor effort||||<0.0001
91021125|NCT02580318|181924838|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||the separate paired sample t-tests were conducted to compare the baseline BrAC to the BrAC after the manipulation (hyperventilation - immediate)|t-test, 2 sided|||p value calculated for hyperventilation (immediate)||||<0.0001
91021126|NCT02580318|181924838|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||the separate paired sample t-tests were conducted to compare the baseline BrAC to the BrAC after the manipulation (5 minutes after hyperventilation)|t-test, 2 sided|||p value calculated for hyperventilation (after 5 minutes)||||<0.0001
91021127|NCT02580318|181924838|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||the separate paired sample t-tests were conducted to compare the baseline BrAC to the BrAC after the manipulation (10 minutes after hyperventilation)|t-test, 2 sided|||p value calculated for hyperventilation (after 10 minutes)||||<0.0001
91021128|NCT02580318|181924838|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||the separate paired sample t-tests were conducted to compare the baseline BrAC to the BrAC after the manipulation (immediately after drinking water)|t-test, 2 sided|||p value calculated for drinking water (immediate)||||<0.0001
91021129|NCT02580318|181924838|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||the separate paired sample t-tests were conducted to compare the baseline BrAC to the BrAC after the manipulation (5 minutes after drinking water)|t-test, 2 sided|||p value calculated for drinking water (5 minutes)||||<0.0001
91021130|NCT01222715|181924854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||The event free survival distributions of patients in Regimen A and Regimen B were compared using the log-rank test.||||0.0124
91021131|NCT00763269|181924974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91021132|NCT00763269|181924975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91021133|NCT00763269|181924976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91084581|NCT03373461|182052809|OTHER||Ratio to placebo (of ratio to baseline)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.72|0.96||||||||0.96|0.72|
91084582|NCT03373461|182052809|OTHER||Ratio to placebo (of ratio to baseline)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.66|0.92||||||||0.92|0.66|
91084583|NCT03373461|182052810|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.28|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.21|6.344||||||||6.344|0.210|
91084584|NCT03373461|182052810|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.83|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|2.642|9.01||||||||9.010|2.642|
91084585|NCT03373461|182052810|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.56|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.427|6.7||||||||6.700|0.427|
91084586|NCT03373461|182052810|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.76|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|2.882|8.638||||||||8.638|2.882|
91084587|NCT03373461|182052811|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.2|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-15.253|-3.145||||||||-3.145|-15.253|
91084588|NCT03373461|182052811|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.25|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-15.499|-3.0||||||||-3.000|-15.499|
91084589|NCT03373461|182052811|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.89|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-12.04|0.26||||||||0.260|-12.040|
91084590|NCT03373461|182052811|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.12|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-15.763|-4.471||||||||-4.471|-15.763|
91084591|NCT03373461|182052813|OTHER||Ratio to placebo (of ratio to baseline)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.742|1.222||||||||1.222|0.742|
91084592|NCT03373461|182052813|OTHER||Ratio to placebo (of ratio to baseline)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.83|1.356||||||||1.356|0.830|
91084593|NCT03373461|182052813|OTHER||Ratio to placebo (of ratio to baseline)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.569|0.928||||||||0.928|0.569|
91084594|NCT03373461|182052813|OTHER||Ratio to placebo (of ratio to baseline)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.669|1.05||||||||1.050|0.669|
91084595|NCT03373461|182052814|OTHER||Ratio to placebo (of ratio to baseline)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.741|1.25||||||||1.250|0.741|
91084596|NCT03373461|182052814|OTHER||Ratio to placebo (of ratio to baseline)|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.872|1.458||||||||1.458|0.872|
91084597|NCT03373461|182052814|OTHER||Ratio to placebo (of ratio to baseline)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.574|0.957||||||||0.957|0.574|
91021134|NCT00763269|181924977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91021135|NCT03964220|181924989|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.427|0.99|||Regression, Cox|||The time to first exacerbation was analysis using Cox Proportional Hazards model with group status as the only independent variable assessing the risk of exacerbation across Tio and NonTio groups.||0.990|0.427|0.044
91021136|NCT03964220|181924990|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Negative binomial regression|||Analysis for the rate of exacerbation between Tio and NonTio groups within 6 months of follow-up.||||< 0.0001
91021137|NCT03964220|181924990|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Negative binomial regression|||Analysis for the rate of exacerbation between Tio and NonTio groups within 1 year of follow-up.||||< 0.0001
91021138|NCT00467818|181925043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||1.0
91021139|NCT00467818|181925044|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.10
91021140|NCT00467818|181925046|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|||<|0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.5
91021141|NCT00467818|181925047|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.5
91021142|NCT02216214|181925062|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean (LSM) Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.33||P-value compares the Mirabegron group to the placebo group.|ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<75, \>=75 years) and country as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.33|-1.05|<0.001
91021143|NCT02216214|181925063|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.27||P-value compares the Mirabegron group to the placebo group.|ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<75, \>=75 years) and country as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.27|-0.82|<0.001
91021144|NCT02216214|181925064|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|13.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.45||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.95|22.42||P-value compares the Mirabegron group to the placebo group.|stratified rank ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the stratified rank ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<75, \>=75 years) and country as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||22.42|4.95|0.002
91021145|NCT02216214|181925065|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-5.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.37|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.84|-2.46||P-value compares the Mirabegron group to the placebo group.|ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<75, \>=75 years) and country as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-2.46|-7.84|<0.001
91021146|NCT02216214|181925066|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|2.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.07||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|4.83||P-value compares the Mirabegron group to the placebo group.|ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<75, \>=75 years) and country as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||4.83|0.62|0.011
91021147|NCT02216214|181925067|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.16||P-value compares the Mirabegron group to the placebo group.|ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<75, \>=75 years) and country as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.16|-0.46|<0.001
91021148|NCT02216214|181925068|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value compares the Mirabegron group to the placebo group.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91021149|NCT02216214|181925069|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.68|||<|0.001||||||P-value compares the Mirabegron group to the placebo group.|Negative Binomial Regression Model|||The rate ratio for the number of urgency incontinence episodes reported during 3-day diary prior to each visit between mirabegron total group vs placebo group was calculated from a negative binomial regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<75, \>=75 years) and country as fixed factors and number of valid diary days as the offset variable.||||<0.001
91021150|NCT02216214|181925070|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.84||||0.432||||||P-value compares the Mirabegron group to the placebo group.|Negative Binomial Regression Model|||The rate ratio for the number of nocturia episodes reported during 3-day diary prior to each visit between mirabegron total group vs placebo group is calculated from a negative binomial regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<75, \>=75 years) and country as fixed factors and number of valid diary days as the offset variable.||||0.432
91021151|NCT02216214|181925071|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.317||||||P-value compares the Mirabegron group to the placebo group.|ANCOVA|||||||0.317
91021152|NCT02216214|181925072|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.165||||||P-value compares the Mirabegron group to the placebo group.|ANCOVA|||||||0.165
91021153|NCT02216214|181925073|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value compares the Mirabegron group to the placebo group.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91021154|NCT02216214|181925074|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019||||||P-value compares the Mirabegron group to the placebo group.|ANCOVA|||Coping Subscale Score||||0.019
91021155|NCT02216214|181925074|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||P-value compares the Mirabegron group to the placebo group.|ANCOVA|||Concern Subscale Score||||0.010
91021156|NCT02216214|181925074|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006||||||P-value compares the Mirabegron group to the placebo group.|ANCOVA|||Sleep Subscale Score||||0.006
91021157|NCT02216214|181925074|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.614||||||P-value compares the Mirabegron group to the placebo group.|ANCOVA|||Social Subscale Score||||0.614
91021158|NCT02216214|181925075|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||P-value compares the Mirabegron group to the placebo group.|ANCOVA|||||||0.002
91021159|NCT02216214|181925076|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.755||||||P-value compares the Mirabegron group to the placebo group.|ANCOVA|||||||0.755
91021160|NCT02216214|181925077|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.8||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.96||P-value compares the Mirabegron group to the placebo group.|Negative Binomial Regression Model|||Week 4: Rate ratio for the number of incontinence episodes reported during 3-day diary prior to each visit between mirabegron group vs placebo group is calculated from a negative binomial regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<75, \>=75 years) and country as factors and number of valid diary days as the offset variable.||0.96|0.67|0.014
91021161|NCT02216214|181925077|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.81||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.99||P-value compares the Mirabegron group to the placebo group.|Negative Binomial Regression Model|||Week 8: Rate ratio for the number of incontinence episodes reported during 3-day diary prior to each visit between mirabegron group vs placebo group is calculated from a negative binomial regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<75, \>=75 years) and country as factors and number of valid diary days as the offset variable.||0.99|0.66|0.043
91021162|NCT02216214|181925077|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.69||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.87||P-value compares the Mirabegron group to the placebo group.|Negative Binomial Regression Model|||EOT: Rate ratio for the number of incontinence episodes reported during 3-day diary prior to each visit between mirabegron group vs placebo group is calculated from a negative binomial regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<75, \>=75 years) and country as factors and number of valid diary days as the offset variable.||0.87|0.54|0.002
91021163|NCT02216214|181925079|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.005||||||P-value compares the Mirabegron group to the placebo group.|Regression, Logistic|||Odds Ratio: Logistic regression was performed with treatment group, sex, age group (\<75, \>=75 years), and country as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||||0.005
91021164|NCT02216214|181925080|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.775|||<|0.001||||||P-value compares the Mirabegron group to the placebo group.|Regression, Logistic|||Odds Ratio: Logistic regression was performed with treatment group, sex, age group (\<75, \>=75 years), and country as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||||<0.001
91021165|NCT02216214|181925081|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.501||||0.012||||||P-value compares the Mirabegron group to the placebo group.|Regression, Logistic|||Odds Ratio: Logistic regression was performed with treatment group, sex, age group (\<75, \>=75 years), and country as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||||0.012
91021166|NCT02216214|181925082|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.034||||||P-value compares the Mirabegron group to the placebo group.|Regression, Logistic|||HRQL Subscale - Coping. Odds Ratio: Logistic regression was performed with treatment group, sex, age group (\<75, \>=75 years), and country as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||||0.034
91021167|NCT02216214|181925082|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.327||||0.07||||||P-value compares the Mirabegron group to the placebo group.|Regression, Logistic|||HRQL Subscale - Concern. Odds Ratio: Logistic regression was performed with treatment group, sex, age group (\<75, \>=75 years), and country as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||||0.070
91021168|NCT02216214|181925082|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.452||||0.012||||||P-value compares the Mirabegron group to the placebo group.|Regression, Logistic|||HRQL Subscale - Sleep. Odds Ratio: Logistic regression was performed with treatment group, sex, age group (\<75, \>=75 years), and country as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||||0.012
91021169|NCT02216214|181925082|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.116||||0.602||||||P-value compares the Mirabegron group to the placebo group.|Regression, Logistic|||HRQL Subscale - Social. Odds Ratio: Logistic regression was performed with treatment group, sex, age group (\<75, \>=75 years), and country as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||||0.602
91021170|NCT02216214|181925083|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.634||||0.001||||||P-value compares the Mirabegron group to the placebo group.|Regression, Logistic|||Odds Ratio: Logistic regression was performed with treatment group, sex, age group (\<75, \>=75 years), and country as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||||0.001
91021171|NCT02216214|181925084|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.597||||0.003||||||P-value compares the Mirabegron group to the placebo group.|Regression, Logistic|||Odds Ratio: Logistic regression was performed with treatment group, sex, age group (\<75, \>=75 years), and country as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||||0.003
91021172|NCT02216214|181925086|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.471||||||P-value compares the Mirabegron group to the placebo group.|ANCOVA|||||||0.471
91021173|NCT05354206|181925092|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.405|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.285|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values have not been adjusted for multiple comparisons|t-test, 2 sided||Difference of RST from 1 for hip range of motion task without stimulation.|"Reticulospinal tract (RST) contribution computed as RST = (visual - startle)/(visual - auditory) reaction times, where a RST value greater than 1 would indicate a significant contribution of the reticulospinal tract for a given task.~A one sample t-test (or Wilcoxon signed-rank test for non-normally distributed data) was used to test the hypothesis that the RST contribution for a given movement was significantly greater than 1."||||<0.05
91021174|NCT00713830|181925093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.867|-0.621||Statistical testing: 2-sided at significance level=0.05. Analysis of co-variance (ANCOVA) included treatment arms, randomization strata of screening HbA1c (\<8.0, \>=8.0%), metformin use (yes, no), country as fixed effects, baseline HbA1c as covariate.|ANCOVA|||To detect a difference of 0.5% (or 0.4%) in change from baseline to Week 24 in HbA1c between lixisenatide and placebo, 570 patients in lixisenatide arm and 285 in placebo arm would provide a power of 99% (or 98%) assuming common standard deviation of 1.3% with a 2-sided test at 5% significance level.||-0.621|-0.867|<0.0001
91021175|NCT02209272|181925109|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.82
91021176|NCT02209272|181925110|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.21
91021177|NCT02209272|181925111|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.57
91021178|NCT03398928|181925112|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91084598|NCT03373461|182052814|OTHER||Ratio to placebo (of ratio to baseline)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.706|1.132||||||||1.132|0.706|
91084599|NCT03373461|182052815|OTHER||Ratio to placebo (of ratio to baseline)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.794|1.214||||||||1.214|0.794|
91084600|NCT03373461|182052815|OTHER||Ratio to placebo (of ratio to baseline)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.835|1.269||||||||1.269|0.835|
91084601|NCT03373461|182052815|OTHER||Ratio to placebo (of ratio to baseline)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.616|0.942||||||||0.942|0.616|
91084602|NCT03373461|182052815|OTHER||Ratio to placebo (of ratio to baseline)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.704|1.027||||||||1.027|0.704|
91084603|NCT03373461|182052816|OTHER||Ratio to placebo (of ratio to baseline)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.723|1.172||||||||1.172|0.723|
90959115|NCT01620255|181798212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|0.22||||0.9072|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.897|3.339|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 7.5 mg vs placebo, emotional fx change from BL at W12||3.339|-2.897|0.9072
91084604|NCT03373461|182052816|OTHER||Ratio to placebo (of ratio to baseline)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.767|1.249||||||||1.249|0.767|
91084605|NCT03373461|182052816|OTHER||Ratio to placebo (of ratio to baseline)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.577|0.937||||||||0.937|0.577|
91021179|NCT03398928|181925113|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.001
91021180|NCT03398928|181925116|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||The statistical analysis applies to all the rows|Chi-squared|||||||0.002
91021181|NCT03398928|181925117|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.253|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.253
91021182|NCT01494649|181925125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.1||||0.2294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.06||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|The model included treatment as a fixed factor and basline Schiff score as a covariate.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 0.454% stannous fluoride toothpaste minus 0.76% sodium fluoride toothpaste. Negative difference favoured stannous fluoride toothpaste.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments. Tests were 2-sided.||0.06|-0.26|0.2294
91021183|NCT01494649|181925126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.12||||0.1792||95.0|-0.3|0.06||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed factor and baseline Schiff Sensitivity Score was a covariate.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 0.454% stannous fluoride toothpaste minus 0.76% sodium fluoride toothpaste. Negative difference favored stannous fluoride toothpaste.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments. Tests were 2-sided.||0.06|-0.30|0.1792
91021184|NCT01494649|181925127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.3||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed factor and baseline Schiff Sensitivity Score was a covariate.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 0.454% stannous fluoride toothpaste minus 0.76% sodium fluoride toothpaste. Negative difference favored stannous fluoride toothpaste.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments. Tests were 2-sided.||-0.30|-0.74|<0.0001
91021185|NCT01494649|181925128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean adjusted difference|-0.08||||0.9445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.49|2.32||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed factor and baseline Tactile Threshold score was a covariate.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 0.454% stannous fluoride toothpaste minus 0.76% sodium fluoride toothpaste. Negative difference favored stannous fluoride toothpaste.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments. Tests were 2-sided.||2.32|-2.49|0.9445
91084606|NCT03373461|182052816|OTHER||Ratio to placebo (of ratio to baseline)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.678|1.052||||||||1.052|0.678|
90959116|NCT01620255|181798212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|4.47||||0.0161|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.42|7.522|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 22.5 mg vs placebo, emotional fx change from BL at W12||7.522|1.420|0.0161
91021186|NCT01494649|181925129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean|-2.07||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.38|1.25||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed factor and baseline tactile threshold score was a covariate.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 0.454% stannous fluoride toothpaste minus 0.76% sodium fluoride toothpaste. Negative difference favored stannous fluoride toothpaste.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments. Tests were 2-sided.||1.25|-5.38|0.220
91021187|NCT01494649|181925130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean adjusted difference|8.69||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.96|13.43||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed factor and baseline tactile threshold score was a covariate.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 0.454% stannous fluoride toothpaste minus 0.76% sodium fluoride toothpaste. Negative difference favored stannous fluoride toothpaste.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments. Tests were 2-sided.||13.43|3.96|0.0004
91021188|NCT00363129|181925134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.43
91021189|NCT00363129|181925135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.49
91021190|NCT00363129|181925136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
91021191|NCT01345058|181925144|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.65|||Chi-squared||Hazard ratio for seizure occurrence for polytherapy relative to monotherapy.|||1.65|0.35|0.49
91021192|NCT03162354|181925150|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.64||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.11||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Chi-squared||The direction of the comparison is from intervention sites to control sites.|We powered this hypothesis to detect a 17% increase (from 73% to 90%) in higher risk patients evaluated thoroughly for abuse at intervention sites, compared to baseline in prior PediBIRN studies. Generalized linear mixed-effects models were adopted to analyze 1,000 Monte Carlo datasets from simulation. For the target sample size of 304 higher risk patients (152 in each arm), the proportion of simulated datasets that yielded a statistically significant result for the primary hypothesis was 95.7%.||1.11|0.37|0.11
91021193|NCT03162354|181925151|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|1.98||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Chi-squared||The direction of the comparison is from intervention sites to control sites.|||1.98|0.24|0.49
91021194|NCT03162354|181925152|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.88||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|5.13||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Chi-squared||The direction of the comparison is from intervention sites to control sites.|||5.13|0.69|0.22
91021195|NCT03162354|181925153|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.48||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.85||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Chi-squared||The direction of the comparison is from intervention sites to control sites.|||0.85|0.27|0.01
91021196|NCT03162354|181925154|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|2.6||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Chi-squared||The direction of the comparison is from intervention sites to control sites.|||2.60|0.46|0.84
91084607|NCT03373461|182052825|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.95|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.42|7.472||||||||7.472|0.420|
91084608|NCT03373461|182052825|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.747|4.39||||||||4.390|-2.747|
91084609|NCT03373461|182052825|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.745|3.262||||||||3.262|-2.745|
91084610|NCT03373461|182052825|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.98|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.368|5.337||||||||5.337|-1.368|
91084611|NCT03373461|182052826|OTHER||Ratio to placebo (of ratio to baseline)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.68|1.579||||||||1.579|0.680|
91021197|NCT03162354|181925155|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.84||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|3.38||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Chi-squared||The direction of the comparison is from intervention sites to control sites.|||3.38|1.00|0.05
91021198|NCT03162354|181925156|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|3.49||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Chi-squared||The direction of the comparison is from intervention sites to control sites.|||3.49|0.43|0.71
91021199|NCT03162354|181925157|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.53||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Chi-squared||The direction of the comparison is from intervention sites to control sites.|||1.53|0.70|0.86
91021200|NCT03162354|181925158|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.02||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|3.52||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Chi-squared||The direction of the comparison is from baseline prior studies to the cluster randomized trial|||3.52|1.16|0.01
91021201|NCT03162354|181925159|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.67||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Chi-squared||The direction of the comparison is from baseline in prior studies to the cluster randomized trial.|||0.67|0.26|<.001
91021202|NCT03162354|181925160|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.46||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.31||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Chi-squared||The direction of the comparison is from baseline in prior PediBIRN studies to the clinical trial.|||1.31|0.16|0.14
91021203|NCT03162354|181925162|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|2.05||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Chi-squared||The direction of the comparison is from intervention sites to control sites.|||2.05|0.27|0.57
91021204|NCT03162354|181925163|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.63||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.99||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Chi-squared||The direction of the comparison is from intervention sites to control sites.|||0.99|0.40|0.04
91021205|NCT02149199|181925168|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.3|||Regression, Logistic|Repeated measures logistic regression, with treatment, pre-study treatment, region and study week as fixed effects.|An odds ratio greater than 1 favours Symbicort 'as needed'|||1.30|1.00|0.046
90956770|NCT05383508|181792984|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio (%)|10.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.57|21.1||95% confidence intervals are provided for this analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|The model included terms for sequence, period, and product exposure as fixed effects and subject as a categorical random effect.|Analysis was performed on log transformed data with Kenward Roger degrees of freedom approximation. Ratio and related 95% CI were derived by exponentiating the estimates obtained on the log scale.|The objective of this study was to determine the maximum ratio of background-corrected concentration over time of P4M3 variants:Cigarettes along with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals||21.10|5.57|
91021206|NCT02149199|181925168|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority analysis based on CI instead of p-value, hence no p-value calculated for this analysis. Lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI \>=0.8 indicates Symbicort 'as needed' is non-inferior to Pulmicort bid.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.73|||Regression, Logistic|Repeated measures logistic regression with treatment, pre-study treatment, region and study week as fixed effects.||||0.73|0.57|
91021207|NCT02149199|181925169|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.435|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.328|0.577|||Regression, Cox|Cox-regression model with randomised treatment, pre-study treatment, severe exacerbations in the last 12 months (0, \>=1) and region as covariates.|A hazard ratio less than 1 indicates that Symbicort 'as needed' prolongs the time to first severe exacerbation.|||0.577|0.328|<0.001
91021208|NCT02149199|181925169|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.901||||0.524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.653|1.242|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression model with randomised treatment, pre-study treatment, severe exacerbations in the last 12 months (0,\>=1) and region as covariates.|A hazard ratio less than 1 indicates that Symbicort 'as needed' prolongs the time to first severe exacerbation.|||1.242|0.653|0.524
91021209|NCT02149199|181925170|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.429|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.348|0.528|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression model with randomised treatment, pre-study treatment, severe exacerbations in the last 12 months (0,\>=1) and region as covariates.|A hazard ratio less than 1 indicates that Symbicort 'as needed' prolongs the time to first moderate or severe exacerbation.|||0.528|0.348|<0.001
91021210|NCT02149199|181925170|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.718|1.153|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression model with randomised treatment, pre-study treatment, severe exacerbations in the last 12 months (0,\>=1) and region as covariates.|A hazard ratio less than 1 indicates that Symbicort 'as needed' prolongs the time to first moderate or severe exacerbation.|||1.153|0.718|0.436
91021211|NCT02149199|181925171|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|53.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.1|78.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with treatment, pre-study treatment, region, visit and (treatment x visit) as fixed, patient as random and baseline FEV1 as continuous covariate.|Mean difference greater than 0 favours Symbicort 'as needed'. This is the estimate across all treatment visits.|||78.5|29.1|<0.001
91021212|NCT02149199|181925171|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-54.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.8|-29.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with treatment, pre-study treatment, region, visit and (treatment x visit) as fixed, patient as random and baseline FEV1 as continuous covariate.|Mean difference greater than 0 favours Symbicort 'as needed'. This is the estimate across all treatment visits.|||-29.8|-78.8|<0.001
91021213|NCT02149199|181925172|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|11.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.89|16.0|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with randomised treatment, pre-study treatment and region as factors and baseline PEF as a continuous covariate.|Mean difference greater than 0 favours Symbicort 'as needed'.|||16.00|7.89|<0.001
91021214|NCT02149199|181925172|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.03|-5.93|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with randomised treatment, pre-study treatment and region as factors and baseline PEF as a continuous covariate.|Mean difference greater than 0 favours Symbicort 'as needed'.|||-5.93|-14.03|<0.001
91021215|NCT02149199|181925173|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|10.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.99|14.9|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with randomised treatment, pre-study treatment and region as factors and baseline PEF as a continuous covariate.|Mean difference greater than 0 favours Symbicort 'as needed'.|||14.90|6.99|<0.001
91021216|NCT02149199|181925173|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.23||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.18|-2.29|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with randomised treatment, pre-study treatment and region as factors and baseline PEF as a continuous covariate.|Mean difference greater than 0 favours Symbicort 'as needed'.|||-2.29|-10.18|0.002
90956771|NCT05383508|181792984|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio (%)|16.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.93|28.53||95% confidence intervals are provided for this analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|The model included terms for sequence, period, and product exposure as fixed effects and subject as a categorical random effect.|Analysis was performed on log transformed data with Kenward Roger degrees of freedom approximation. Ratio and related 95% CI were derived by exponentiating the estimates obtained on the log scale.|The objective of this study was to determine the maximum ratio of background-corrected concentration over time of P4M3 variants:Cigarettes along with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals||28.53|9.93|
90956772|NCT01859988|181792992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square (LS) mean difference|-55.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.74|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.9|-42.4||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs Placebo|LS mean and standard error were obtained using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment and randomization strata (moderate vs severe;Japan vs rest of world) and relevant baseline values as covariates. Multiplicity was controlled using hierarchical testing procedure:highest dose vs. placebo was tested first. Comparison order was 300 mg qw,300 mg q2w,200 mg q2w,300 mg q4w \& 100 mg q4w, vs placebo respectively. Testing continues only if previous comparison was statistically significant.||-42.4|-68.9|<0.0001
90956773|NCT01859988|181792992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-50.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.67|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.3|-37.0||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-37.0|-63.3|<0.0001
90956774|NCT01859988|181792992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-47.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.76|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.6|-34.1||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 200 mg q2w vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-34.1|-60.6|<0.0001
90956775|NCT01859988|181792992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-45.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.66|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.5|-32.3||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q4w vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-32.3|-58.5|<0.0001
90956776|NCT01859988|181792992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-26.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.65|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.8|-13.7||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 100 mg q4w vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-13.7|-39.8|<0.0001
90956777|NCT00652327|181793011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0026|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||.0026
90956778|NCT01506609|181793053|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.789||||0.227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.536|1.162|||Log Rank|||||1.162|0.536|0.227
90956779|NCT01506609|181793053|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.858||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.278|2.702|||Log Rank|||||2.702|1.278|0.001
90956780|NCT01506609|181793054|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.848||||0.368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.218|||Log Rank|||||1.218|0.590|0.368
91021217|NCT02149199|181925175|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|-0.06|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with randomised treatment, pre-study treatment and region as factors and baseline asthma symptom score as a continuous covariate.|Mean difference less than 0 favours Symbicort 'as needed'.|||-0.06|-0.18|<0.001
91021218|NCT02149199|181925175|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.09||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.15|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with randomised treatment, pre-study treatment and region as factors and baseline asthma symptom score as a continuous covariate.|Mean difference less than 0 favours Symbicort 'as needed'.|||0.15|0.03|0.004
90956781|NCT01506609|181793054|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.512||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.074|2.127|||Log Rank|||||2.127|1.074|0.017
90956782|NCT01506609|181793055|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.434||||||P-value is from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by estrogen receptor/progesterone receptor status and prior cytotoxic therapy use.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.434
90956783|NCT01506609|181793055|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019||||||P-value is from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by estrogen receptor/progesterone receptor status and prior cytotoxic therapy use.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.019
90956784|NCT01506609|181793056|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027||||||P-value is from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by estrogen receptor/progesterone receptor status and prior cytotoxic therapy use.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.027
90956785|NCT01506609|181793056|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value is from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by estrogen receptor/progesterone receptor status and prior cytotoxic therapy use.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||< 0.001
90956786|NCT01506609|181793057|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean of Difference|-2.302|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.476||0.354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|2.6||ANCOVA with treatment arm and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||2.60|-7.20|0.354
90956787|NCT00577473|181793068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0455||||0.4411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.01|16.11||4.8 g/day compared to 2.4 g/day|Chi-squared|||It was assumed that the true rate of improvement for the 2.4 g/day treatment group is 40% and for the 4.8 g/day group is 60%. To detect a true difference of 20% between these 2 groups with a 2-sided test, type I error of 0.05 (α = 0.05), and power of 90%, 140 patients were required per group to complete the study. To account for a 10% dropout/withdrawal rate, approximately 308 patients were to be enrolled in the study.||16.11|-7.01|0.4411
90956788|NCT00577473|181793069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.0331||||0.5677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.67|8.04|||Chi-squared|||It was assumed that the true rate of improvement for the 2.4 g/day treatment group is 40% and for the 4.8 g/day group is 60%. To detect a true difference of 20% between these 2 groups with a 2-sided test, type I error of 0.05 (α = 0.05), and power of 90%, 140 patients were required per group to complete the study. To account for a 10% dropout/withdrawal rate, approximately 308 patients were to be enrolled in the study.||8.04|-14.67|0.5677
91021219|NCT02149199|181925182|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.413|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.343|0.497|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression model with randomised treatment, pre-study treatment and region as covariates.|A hazard ratio less than 1 indicates that Symbicort 'as needed' prolongs the time to first additional steroids.|||0.497|0.343|<0.001
91021220|NCT02149199|181925182|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.865||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.701|1.067|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression model with randomised treatment, pre-study treatment and region as covariates.|A hazard ratio less than 1 indicates that Symbicort 'as needed' prolongs the time to first additional steroids.|||1.067|0.701|0.175
91084612|NCT03373461|182052826|OTHER||Ratio to placebo (of ratio to baseline)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.607|1.39||||||||1.390|0.607|
91084613|NCT03373461|182052826|OTHER||Ratio to placebo (of ratio to baseline)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.558|1.153||||||||1.153|0.558|
91084614|NCT03373461|182052826|OTHER||Ratio to placebo (of ratio to baseline)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.614|1.362||||||||1.362|0.614|
91084615|NCT03373461|182052828|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.792|1.692||||||||1.692|0.792|
91084616|NCT03373461|182052828|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.446|0.945||||||||0.945|0.446|
91084617|NCT03373461|182052828|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.518|0.997||||||||0.997|0.518|
91084618|NCT03373461|182052828|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.558|1.146||||||||1.146|0.558|
91084619|NCT03373461|182052829|OTHER||Ratio to placebo (of ratio to baseline)|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.765|1.699||||||||1.699|0.765|
91084620|NCT03373461|182052829|OTHER||Ratio to placebo (of ratio to baseline)|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.446|0.984||||||||0.984|0.446|
91084621|NCT03373461|182052829|OTHER||Ratio to placebo (of ratio to baseline)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.501|0.995||||||||0.995|0.501|
91084622|NCT03373461|182052829|OTHER||Ratio to placebo (of ratio to baseline)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.52|1.107||||||||1.107|0.520|
91084623|NCT01554163|182052842|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Etoricoxib 30 mg will be considered non-inferior to celecoxib 200 mg if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval of the betweentreatment difference in LS mean time-weighted average change from baseline over 12 weeks in WOMAC Pain Subscale (VAS) is no greater than 10 mm (non-inferiority margin).|Difference in LS Mean Change|-1.63||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.37|2.1|||ANCOVA|||||2.10|-5.37|0.390
91084624|NCT01554163|182052843|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Etoricoxib 30 mg will be considered non-inferior to celecoxib 200 mg if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval of the between-treatment difference in LS means (etoricoxib minus celecoxib) is no greater than 10 mm.|Difference in LS Mean Change|-1.32||||0.464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.88|2.23|||ANCOVA|||||2.23|-4.88|0.464
91084625|NCT01554163|182052844|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Etoricoxib 30 mg will be considered non-inferior to celecoxib 200 mg if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval of the between-treatment difference in LS means (etoricoxib minus celecoxib) is no greater than 10 mm.|Difference in LS Mean Change|-1.09||||0.624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.48|3.3|||ANCOVA|||||3.30|-5.48|0.624
91084626|NCT01554163|182052845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Mean Change|-0.08||||0.369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.10|-0.26|0.369
91084627|NCT01554163|182052846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Mean Change|-0.09||||0.294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.08|||ANCOVA|||||0.08|-0.25|0.294
91084628|NCT01554163|182052847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Mean Change|-0.86||||0.679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.96|3.24|||ANCOVA|||||3.24|-4.96|0.679
91084629|NCT01554163|182052848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Mean Change|-0.1||||0.314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.10|-0.30|0.314
91084630|NCT02634983|182052860|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment as fixed factors and patient as random factor.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.11||0.0254|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.4|8.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||Global Ventilated Lung Volume||8.60|1.40|0.0254
91084631|NCT02634983|182052861|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment as fixed factors and patient as random factor.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.15||0.035|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.11|8.44|||t-test, 2 sided|||Lung, Left Ventilation||8.44|1.11|0.0350
91084632|NCT02634983|182052861|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment as fixed factors and patient as random factor.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.86||0.0946|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.08|9.84|||t-test, 2 sided|||Lung, Left Lower Lobe Ventilation||9.84|0.08|0.0946
91084633|NCT02634983|182052861|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment as fixed factors and patient as random factor.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.41||0.0486|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|9.07|||t-test, 2 sided|||Lung, Left Upper Lobe Ventilation||9.07|0.87|0.0486
91084634|NCT02634983|182052861|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment as fixed factors and patient as random factor.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.33||0.0286|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.42|9.35|||t-test, 2 sided|||Lung, Right Ventilation||9.35|1.42|0.0286
91084635|NCT02634983|182052861|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment as fixed factors and patient as random factor.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.29||0.165|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.63|7.17|||t-test, 2 sided|||Lung, Right Lower Lobe Ventilation||7.17|-0.63|0.1650
91084636|NCT02634983|182052861|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment as fixed factors and patient as random factor.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.71||0.1421|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.71|11.94|||t-test, 2 sided|||Lung, Right Middle Lobe Ventilation||11.94|-0.71|0.1421
91084637|NCT02634983|182052861|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment as fixed factors and patient as random factor.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.78||0.0099|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.98|12.47|||t-test, 2 sided|||Lung, Right Upper Lobe Ventilation||12.47|2.98|0.0099
91084638|NCT02634983|182052862|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment as fixed factors and patient as random factor.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.92||0.323|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.64|2.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||Lung Perfusion||2.50|-0.64|0.3230
91084639|NCT02634983|182052862|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment as fixed factors and patient as random factor.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.1717|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.29|2.97|||t-test, 2 sided|||Lung, Left Perfusion||2.97|-0.29|0.1717
91084640|NCT02634983|182052862|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment as fixed factors and patient as random factor.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02||0.5031|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.05|2.43|||t-test, 2 sided|||Lung, Left Lower Lobe Perfusion||2.43|-1.05|0.5031
91084641|NCT02634983|182052862|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment as fixed factors and patient as random factor.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.076|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.15|3.65|||t-test, 2 sided|||Lung, Left Upper Lobe Perfusion||3.65|0.15|0.0760
91084642|NCT02634983|182052862|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment as fixed factors and patient as random factor.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93||0.5465|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.02|2.16|||t-test, 2 sided|||Lung, Right Perfusion||2.16|-1.02|0.5465
91084643|NCT02634983|182052862|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment as fixed factors and patient as random factor.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08||0.9913|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.85|1.87|||t-test, 2 sided|||Lung, Right Lower Lobe Perfusion||1.87|-1.85|0.9913
91084644|NCT02634983|182052862|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment as fixed factors and patient as random factor.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.3837|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.39|4.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||Lung, Right Middle Lobe Perfusion||4.40|-1.39|0.3837
91084645|NCT02634983|182052862|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment as fixed factors and patient as random factor.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94||0.3624|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.73|2.48|||t-test, 2 sided|||Lung, Right Upper Lobe Perfusion||2.48|-0.73|0.3624
91084646|NCT02634983|182052863|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment, time and treatment\*Day\*time interaction term as fixed factors and patient factor as random factor. Day\*time was repeated within each patient\*period interaction and subject average baseline and period adjusted baseline were included as covariates.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.11|0.18|||t-test, 2 sided|||FEV1 Day 1 (0.25 hrs post-dose)||0.18|0.11|<0.0001
91084647|NCT02634983|182052863|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment, time and treatment\*Day\*time interaction term as fixed factors and patient factor as random factor. Day\*time was repeated within each patient\*period interaction and subject average baseline and period adjusted baseline were included as covariates.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.15|0.25|||t-test, 2 sided|||FEV1 Day 1 (1 hrs post-dose)||0.25|0.15|<0.0001
91084648|NCT02634983|182052863|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment, time and treatment\*Day\*time interaction term as fixed factors and patient factor as random factor. Day\*time was repeated within each patient\*period interaction and subject average baseline and period adjusted baseline were included as covariates.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.13|0.24|||t-test, 2 sided|||FEV1 Day 1 (2 hrs post-dose)||0.24|0.13|<0.0001
91084649|NCT02634983|182052863|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment, time and treatment\*Day\*time interaction term as fixed factors and patient factor as random factor. Day\*time was repeated within each patient\*period interaction and subject average baseline and period adjusted baseline were included as covariates.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.16|0.27|||t-test, 2 sided|||FEV1 Day 8 (-0.75 hrs post-dose)||0.27|0.16|<0.0001
91084650|NCT02634983|182052863|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment, time and treatment\*Day\*time interaction term as fixed factors and patient factor as random factor. Day\*time was repeated within each patient\*period interaction and subject average baseline and period adjusted baseline were included as covariates.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.16|0.28|||t-test, 2 sided|||FEV1 Day 8 (-0.25 hrs post-dose)||0.28|0.16|<0.0001
91021221|NCT02149199|181925183|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.154|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.203|-0.105|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with treatment, pre-study treatment, region, visit and (treatment x visit) as fixed, patient as random and baseline ACQ-5 as continuous covariate|Mean difference less than 0 favours Symbicort 'as needed'.|||-0.105|-0.203|<0.001
91021222|NCT02149199|181925183|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.149|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.101|0.198|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with treatment, pre-study treatment, region, visit and (treatment x visit) as fixed, patient as random and baseline ACQ-5 as continuous covariate|Mean difference less than 0 favours Symbicort 'as needed'.|||0.198|0.101|<0.001
91084651|NCT02634983|182052863|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment, time and treatment\*Day\*time interaction term as fixed factors and patient factor as random factor. Day\*time was repeated within each patient\*period interaction and subject average baseline and period adjusted baseline were included as covariates.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.23|0.33|||t-test, 2 sided|||FEV1 Day 8 (0.25 hrs post-dose)||0.33|0.23|<0.0001
91084652|NCT02634983|182052863|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment, time and treatment\*Day\*time interaction term as fixed factors and patient factor as random factor. Day\*time was repeated within each patient\*period interaction and subject average baseline and period adjusted baseline were included as covariates.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.26|0.37|||t-test, 2 sided|||FEV1 Day 8 (1 hrs post-dose)||0.37|0.26|<0.0001
90959117|NCT01620255|181798212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|4.06||||0.0271|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.042|7.071|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 75 mg vs placebo, emotional fx change from BL at W12||7.071|1.042|0.0271
91103869|NCT03449147|182094503|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.96||Comparison based on logistic regression model that included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, region, baseline LCQ total score, and the interaction of baseline LCQ total score by visit as covariates.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.96|1.02|0.040
91021223|NCT02149199|181925184|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.127|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.074|0.181|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with treatment, pre-study treatment, region, visit and treatment x visit as fixed, patient as random and baseline AQLQ(S) as continuous covariate|Mean difference greater than 0 favours Symbicort 'as needed'.|||0.181|0.074|<0.001
91084653|NCT02634983|182052863|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment, time and treatment\*Day\*time interaction term as fixed factors and patient factor as random factor. Day\*time was repeated within each patient\*period interaction and subject average baseline and period adjusted baseline were included as covariates.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.26|0.38|||t-test, 2 sided|||FEV1 Day 8 (2 hrs post-dose)||0.38|0.26|<0.0001
91084654|NCT02634983|182052864|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment, time and treatment\*Day\*time interaction term as fixed factors and patient factor as random factor. Day\*time was repeated within each patient\*period interaction and subject average baseline and period adjusted baseline were included as covariates.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.15|0.33|||t-test, 2 sided|||FVC Day 1 (0.25 hrs post-dose)||0.33|0.15|<0.0001
91084655|NCT02634983|182052864|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment, time and treatment\*Day\*time interaction term as fixed factors and patient factor as random factor. Day\*time was repeated within each patient\*period interaction and subject average baseline and period adjusted baseline were included as covariates.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.25|0.45|||t-test, 2 sided|||FVC Day 1 (1 hrs post-dose)||0.45|0.25|<0.0001
91084656|NCT02634983|182052864|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment, time and treatment\*Day\*time interaction term as fixed factors and patient factor as random factor. Day\*time was repeated within each patient\*period interaction and subject average baseline and period adjusted baseline were included as covariates.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.2|0.42|||t-test, 2 sided|||FVC Day 1 (2 hrs post-dose)||0.42|0.20|<0.0001
91084657|NCT02634983|182052864|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment, time and treatment\*Day\*time interaction term as fixed factors and patient factor as random factor. Day\*time was repeated within each patient\*period interaction and subject average baseline and period adjusted baseline were included as covariates.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.25|0.45|||t-test, 2 sided|||FVC Day 8 (-0.75 hrs post-dose)||0.45|0.25|<0.001
91084658|NCT02634983|182052864|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment, time and treatment\*Day\*time interaction term as fixed factors and patient factor as random factor. Day\*time was repeated within each patient\*period interaction and subject average baseline and period adjusted baseline were included as covariates.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.19|0.37|||t-test, 2 sided|||FVC Day 8 (-0.25 hrs post-dose)||0.37|0.19|<0.0001
91084659|NCT02634983|182052864|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment, time and treatment\*Day\*time interaction term as fixed factors and patient factor as random factor. Day\*time was repeated within each patient\*period interaction and subject average baseline and period adjusted baseline were included as covariates.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.33|0.53|||t-test, 2 sided|||FVC Day 8 (0.25 hrs post-dose)||0.53|0.33|<0.0001
91084660|NCT02634983|182052864|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment, time and treatment\*Day\*time interaction term as fixed factors and patient factor as random factor. Day\*time was repeated within each patient\*period interaction and subject average baseline and period adjusted baseline were included as covariates.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.36|0.54|||t-test, 2 sided|||FVC Day 8 (1 hrs post-dose)||0.54|0.36|<0.0001
91084661|NCT02634983|182052864|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment, time and treatment\*Day\*time interaction term as fixed factors and patient factor as random factor. Day\*time was repeated within each patient\*period interaction and subject average baseline and period adjusted baseline were included as covariates.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.33|0.55|||t-test, 2 sided|||FVC Day 8 (2 hrs post-dose)||0.55|0.33|<0.0001
91084662|NCT02634983|182052865|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment, time and treatment\*Day\*time interaction term as fixed factors and patient factor as random factor. Day\*time was repeated within each patient\*period interaction and subject average baseline and period adjusted baseline were included as covariates.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.21|3.12|||t-test, 2 sided|||FEV1/FVC Day 1 (0.25 hrs post-dose)||3.12|1.21|0.0006
91084663|NCT02634983|182052865|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment, time and treatment\*Day\*time interaction term as fixed factors and patient factor as random factor. Day\*time was repeated within each patient\*period interaction and subject average baseline and period adjusted baseline were included as covariates.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.0106|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.78|3.33|||t-test, 2 sided|||FEV1/FVC Day 1 (1 hrs post-dose)||3.33|0.78|0.0106
91084664|NCT02634983|182052865|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment, time and treatment\*Day\*time interaction term as fixed factors and patient factor as random factor. Day\*time was repeated within each patient\*period interaction and subject average baseline and period adjusted baseline were included as covariates.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.2|3.44|||t-test, 2 sided|||FEV1/FVC Day 1 (2 hrs post-dose)||3.44|1.20|0.0013
91084665|NCT02634983|182052865|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment, time and treatment\*Day\*time interaction term as fixed factors and patient factor as random factor. Day\*time was repeated within each patient\*period interaction and subject average baseline and period adjusted baseline were included as covariates.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.41|4.23|||t-test, 2 sided|||FEV1/FVC Day 8 (-0.75 hrs post-dose)||4.23|1.41|0.0017
90959118|NCT01620255|181798212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|5.9||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.778|9.026|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 225 mg vs placebo, emotional fx change from BL at W12||9.026|2.778|0.0020
91084666|NCT02634983|182052865|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment, time and treatment\*Day\*time interaction term as fixed factors and patient factor as random factor. Day\*time was repeated within each patient\*period interaction and subject average baseline and period adjusted baseline were included as covariates.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.51|5.09|||t-test, 2 sided|||FEV1/FVC Day 8 (-0.25 hrs post-dose)||5.09|2.51|<0.0001
91084667|NCT02634983|182052865|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment, time and treatment\*Day\*time interaction term as fixed factors and patient factor as random factor. Day\*time was repeated within each patient\*period interaction and subject average baseline and period adjusted baseline were included as covariates.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.45|5.02|||t-test, 2 sided|||FEV1/FVC Day 8 (0.25 hrs post-dose)||5.02|2.45|<0.0001
91084668|NCT02634983|182052865|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment, time and treatment\*Day\*time interaction term as fixed factors and patient factor as random factor. Day\*time was repeated within each patient\*period interaction and subject average baseline and period adjusted baseline were included as covariates.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.16|6.03|||t-test, 2 sided|||FEV1/FVC Day 8 (1 hrs post-dose)||6.03|3.16|<0.0001
91084669|NCT02634983|182052865|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment, time and treatment\*Day\*time interaction term as fixed factors and patient factor as random factor. Day\*time was repeated within each patient\*period interaction and subject average baseline and period adjusted baseline were included as covariates.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.56|6.39|||t-test, 2 sided|||FEV1/FVC Day 8 (2 hrs post-dose)||6.39|3.56|<0.0001
91084670|NCT02634983|182052866|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment as fixed factors and patient as random factor.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.982|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.62|0.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||Lung Clearance Index||0.60|-0.62|0.9820
91084671|NCT02634983|182052867|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment as fixed factors and patient as random factor.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.0821|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.04|1.27|||t-test, 2 sided|||Diffusion Capacity of Lung for CO||1.27|0.04|0.0821
91084672|NCT01431313|182052921|OTHER|Mixed effects model across all time points.||||||0.002|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.002
91084673|NCT01431313|182052921|OTHER|Mixed effects model across all time points.||||||0.003|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.003
91084674|NCT01431313|182052921|OTHER|Mixed effects model across all time points.||||||0.66|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.66
91084675|NCT01431313|182052923|OTHER|Mixed effects model across all time points.|||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91084676|NCT01431313|182052923|OTHER|Mixed effects model across all time points.|||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91084677|NCT01431313|182052923|OTHER|Mixed effects model across all time points.|||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91084678|NCT01431313|182052924|OTHER|Mixed effects model across all time points.||||||0.8|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8
91084679|NCT01431313|182052924|OTHER|Mixed effects model across all time points.||||||0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.01
91084680|NCT01431313|182052924|OTHER|Mixed effects model across all time points.||||||0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.01
91084681|NCT01431313|182052925|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5
91084682|NCT01431313|182052925|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.04
91084683|NCT01431313|182052925|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.17
91084684|NCT01431313|182052926|OTHER|Mixed effects model of concentrations measured at Pre-dose, 15 minutes post 45mg dose and 15 minutes post 90mg dose.|||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
91084685|NCT01431313|182052926|OTHER|Mixed effects model of concentrations measured at Pre-dose, 15 minutes post 45mg dose and 15 minutes post 90mg dose.|||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
91084686|NCT01431313|182052926|OTHER|Mixed effects model of concentrations measured at Pre-dose, 15 minutes post 45mg dose and 15 minutes post 90mg dose.|||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
91084687|NCT01431313|182052927|OTHER|Mixed effects model of concentrations measured at Pre-dose, 15 minutes post 45mg dose and 15 minutes post 90mg dose.|||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
91084688|NCT01431313|182052927|OTHER|Mixed effects model of concentrations measured at Pre-dose, 15 minutes post 45mg dose and 15 minutes post 90mg dose.|||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91084689|NCT01431313|182052928|OTHER|Mixed effects model across all doses.|||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91084690|NCT01431313|182052928|OTHER|Mixed effects model across all doses.||||||0.21|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.21
91084691|NCT01431313|182052928|OTHER|Mixed effects model across all doses.||||||0.59|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.59
91084692|NCT00762762|182052929|OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||Means and standard deviations. 1 factor ANOVA to balance treatment groups to show no difference between groups. The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91084693|NCT00762762|182052930|OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||Means and standard deviations. 1 factor ANOVA to balance treatment groups to show no difference between groups. The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91084694|NCT00762762|182052931|OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||Means and standard deviations. 1 factor ANOVA to balance treatment groups to show no difference between groups. The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91084695|NCT00762762|182052932|OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||Means and standard deviations. 1 factor ANOVA to balance treatment groups to show no difference between groups. The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91084696|NCT00762762|182052933|OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||Means and standard deviations. 1 factor ANOVA to balance treatment groups to show no difference between groups. The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91084697|NCT00762762|182052934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91084698|NCT00762762|182052935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91084699|NCT00762762|182052936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91084700|NCT00762762|182052937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91084701|NCT00762762|182052938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91084702|NCT02964338|182052953|OTHER||Least square (LS) mean difference|3.5||||0.2741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|9.82||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||9.82|-2.80|0.2741
91084703|NCT02964338|182052953|OTHER||LS mean difference|-3.3||||0.3047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.59|3.01||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||3.01|-9.59|0.3047
91084704|NCT02609386|182052970|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.102||||0.6176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.1|||Log Rank|||||2.1|0.6|0.6176
91084705|NCT02609386|182052971|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.009||||0.3889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.2|||Log Rank|||||2.2|0.5|0.3889
91084706|NCT02609386|182052972|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.009||||0.5091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.2|||Log Rank|||||2.2|0.5|0.5091
91084707|NCT01029262|182052988|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|10.616|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.639|42.702|||Fisher Exact|p-value is from Fisher's exact test to compare lenalidomide treatment group to placebo group||||42.702|2.639|<0.001
91084708|NCT01029262|182052989|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|p-value is from Fisher's exact test to compare lenalidomide treatment group to placebo group.||||||1.000
91084709|NCT01029262|182052990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0||NA for risk ratio is due to 0 responder in placebo group.|P-value is from Fisher's exact test to compare the lenalidomide arm to the placebo arm.|Fisher Exact||||||0|< 0.001
91084710|NCT01029262|182052991|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.639|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|p-value from log-rank test to compare lenalidomide and placebo.||||||0.639
91084711|NCT01029262|182052992|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.276||||0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.867|1.877||p-value is from Fisher's exact test to compare the lenalidomide arm to the placebo arm.|Fisher Exact|||||1.877|0.867|0.252
91084712|NCT01029262|182052994|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.864|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value from log-rank test to compare lenalidomide and placebo.|Log Rank|||||||0.864
91084713|NCT01029262|182052995|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98||||||p-value from log-rank test to compare lenalidomide and placebo.|Log Rank|||||||0.980
91084714|NCT01029262|182052997|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.823|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|The p-values are calculated based on the Fisher exact test||Baseline||||0.823
91084715|NCT01029262|182052997|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.371|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|The p-values are calculated based on the Fisher exact test||Week 12 (±3 days)||||0.371
91084716|NCT01029262|182052997|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.391|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|The p-values are calculated based on the Fisher exact test||Week 24 (±3 days)||||0.391
91084717|NCT01029262|182052997|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|The p-values are calculated based on the Fisher exact test||Week 36 (±3 days)||||1.000
91084718|NCT01029262|182052997|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.508|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|The p-values are calculated based on the Fisher exact test||Week 48 (±3 days)||||0.508
91084719|NCT01029262|182052998|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.323|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|P-value from ANOVA comparison for change from baseline between lenalidomide and placebo adjusted with baseline score.||Week 12||||0.323
91084720|NCT01029262|182052998|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value from ANOVA comparison for change from baseline between lenalidomide and placebo adjusted with baseline score.|ANOVA|||Week 24||||0.071
91084721|NCT01029262|182052999|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value from ANOVA comparison for change from baseline between lenalidomide and placebo adjusted with baseline score|ANOVA|||Week 12||||0.760
91084722|NCT01029262|182052999|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.251|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value from ANOVA comparison for change from baseline between lenalidomide and placebo adjusted with baseline score.|ANOVA|||Week 24||||0.251
91084723|NCT01029262|182053000|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.424|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value from ANOVA comparison for change from baseline between lenalidomide and placebo adjusted with baseline score.|ANOVA|||Week 12||||0.424
91084724|NCT01029262|182053000|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.116|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value from ANOVA comparison for change from baseline between lenalidomide and placebo adjusted with baseline score.|ANOVA|||Week 24||||0.116
91084725|NCT01029262|182053001|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.746|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value from ANOVA comparison for change from baseline between lenalidomide and placebo adjusted with baseline score.|ANOVA|||Week 12||||0.746
91084726|NCT01029262|182053001|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value from ANOVA comparison for change from baseline between lenalidomide and placebo adjusted with baseline score.|ANOVA|||||||0.460
91084727|NCT01029262|182053002|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value from ANOVA comparison for change from baseline between lenalidomide and placebo adjusted with baseline score.|ANOVA|||Week 12||||0.265
91084728|NCT01029262|182053002|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|||||3\]: P-value from ANOVA comparison for change from baseline between lenalidomide and placebo adjusted with baseline score.|ANOVA|||Week 24||||0.047
91084729|NCT01029262|182053003|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2909|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is based on a two-sample t-test comparing the difference between treatments.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12||||0.2909
91084730|NCT01029262|182053003|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0759|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is based on a two-sample t-test comparing the difference between treatments.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24||||0.0759
91084731|NCT01029262|182053004|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6957|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is based on a two-sample t-test comparing the difference between treatments|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12||||0.6957
91084732|NCT01029262|182053004|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1729|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is based on a two-sample t-test comparing the difference between treatments|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24||||0.1729
91084733|NCT01029262|182053005|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3975|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value is based on a two-sample t-test comparing the difference between treatments.||Week 12||||0.3975
91084734|NCT01029262|182053005|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1714|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is based on a two-sample t-test comparing the difference between treatments.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24||||0.1714
91084735|NCT01029262|182053006|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6408|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is based on a two-sample t-test comparing the difference between treatments.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12||||0.6408
91021224|NCT02149199|181925184|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.102|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.155|-0.049|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with treatment, pre-study treatment, region, visit and treatment x visit as fixed, patient as random and baseline AQLQ(S) as continuous covariate|Mean difference greater than 0 favours Symbicort 'as needed'.|||-0.049|-0.155|<0.001
91021225|NCT02149199|181925186|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.49|||Negative binomial model|Negative binomial model with treatment, pre-study treatment, severe exacerbations in the last 12 months (0,\>=1) and region as covariates|A rate ratio less than 1 indicates a lower rate of severe exacerbations in the Symbicort 'as needed' treatment group.|||0.49|0.27|<0.001
91021226|NCT02149199|181925186|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.83||||0.279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.16|||Negative binomial model|Negative binomial model with treatment, pre-study treatment, severe exacerbations in the last 12 months (0,\>=1) and region as covariates|A rate ratio less than 1 indicates a lower rate of severe exacerbations in the Symbicort 'as needed' treatment group.|||1.16|0.59|0.279
91021227|NCT02149199|181925187|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.49|||Negative binomial model|Negative binomial model with treatment, pre-study treatment, severe exacerbations in the last 12 months (0,\>=1) and region as covariates|A rate ratio less than 1 indicates a lower rate of moderate or severe exacerbations in the Symbicort 'as needed' treatment group.|||0.49|0.32|<0.001
91021228|NCT02149199|181925187|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.95||||0.663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.21|||Negative binomial model|Negative binomial model with treatment, pre-study treatment, severe exacerbations in the last 12 months (0,\>=1) and region as covariates|A rate ratio less than 1 indicates a lower rate of moderate or severe exacerbations in the Symbicort 'as needed' treatment group.|||1.21|0.74|0.663
91021229|NCT02989610|181925189|SUPERIORITY|Superiority hypothesis was that 95% lower confidence bound on proportion exceeded a threshold of 60%.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Clopper-Pearson method|||Proportion with wider therapeutic window using directional stimulation was compared to a performance goal of 60%.||||<0.0001
91021230|NCT02989610|181925190|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority hypothesis was that 95% lower confidence bound on proportion exceeded a threshold of 40%.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Clopper-Pearson method|||Proportion with wider therapeutic window using directional stimulation was compared to a performance goal of 60%.||||<0.0001
91021231|NCT02989610|181925191|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Paired t-test.||"Comparison of UPDRS part III on medication from 3 months using omnidirectional stimulation to 6 months using directional stimulation.~The p-value presented is calculated and does not represent the threshold. The statistical test used for this endpoint is single sided, and the observed difference was in the opposite direction of the tested difference, leading to a p-value that is equivalent to 1 within the significance of the statistical software used."||||1.0000
91084736|NCT01029262|182053006|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.575|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is based on a two-sample t-test comparing the difference between treatments.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24||||0.5750
91084737|NCT01029262|182053007|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2848|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value is based on a two-sample t-test comparing the difference between treatments||Week 12||||0.2848
91084738|NCT01029262|182053007|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1053|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is based on a two-sample t-test comparing the difference between treatments|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 24||||0.1053
90959119|NCT01620255|181798212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.26||||0.7711|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.756|1.229|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 7.5 mg vs placebo, systemic symptoms change from BL at W12||1.229|-1.756|0.7711
91021232|NCT01966107|181925198|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.65||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.89|||Negative Binomial Regression model||||A rate ratio \<1 represents a favorable outcome for aclidinium bromide 400 μg.|0.89|0.48|0.006
91021233|NCT01966107|181925200|NON_INFERIORITY|Estimate of the hazard ratio and its 95% CI for comparing aclidinium bromide 400 μg versus placebo were derived using the Cox proportional hazard model. A hazard ratio \<1 represents a favorable outcome for aclidinium bromide 400 μg.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.23||||||Composite MACE||1.23|0.64|
91021234|NCT02200614|181925201|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.413|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.341|0.5|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio and 95% Confidence Interval (CI) was based on Cox Regression Model, stratified by Prostate-specific antigen doubling time (PSADT) (≤ 6 months vs. \> 6 months) and use of osteoclast-targeted therapy (No, Yes).|||0.500|0.341|<0.000001
91021235|NCT02200614|181925202|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.706||||0.04521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.501|0.994|||Log Rank||The hazard ratio and its 95% CI were based on Cox Regression Model, stratified by Prostate-specific antigen doubling time (PSADT) (≤ 6 months vs. \> 6 months) and use of osteoclast-targeted therapy (No, Yes).|||0.994|0.501|0.045210
91021236|NCT02200614|181925203|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.647||||8e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.533|0.785|||Log Rank||The hazard ratio and its 95% CI were based on Cox Regression Model, stratified by Prostate-specific antigen doubling time (PSADT) (≤ 6 months vs. \> 6 months) and use of osteoclast-targeted therapy (No, Yes).|||0.785|0.533|0.000008
91021237|NCT02200614|181925204|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.433|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.314|0.595|||Log Rank||The hazard ratio and its 95% CI were based on Cox Regression Model, stratified by Prostate-specific antigen doubling time (PSADT) (≤ 6 months vs. \> 6 months) and use of osteoclast-targeted therapy (No, Yes).|||0.595|0.314|<0.000001
91021238|NCT02200614|181925205|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.428||||0.011262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.218|0.842|||Log Rank||The hazard ratio and its 95% CI were based on Cox Regression Model, stratified by Prostate-specific antigen doubling time (PSADT) (≤ 6 months vs. \> 6 months) and use of osteoclast-targeted therapy (No, Yes).|||0.842|0.218|0.011262
91021239|NCT02200614|181925206|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.685||||0.003048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.533|0.881|||Log Rank||The hazard ratio and its 95% CI were based on Cox Regression Model, stratified by Prostate-specific antigen doubling time (PSADT) (≤ 6 months vs. \> 6 months) and use of osteoclast-targeted therapy (No, Yes).|||0.881|0.533|0.003048
91021240|NCT02200614|181925207|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.647||||8e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.533|0.785|||Log Rank||The hazard ratio and its 95% CI were based on Cox Regression Model, stratified by Prostate-specific antigen doubling time (PSADT) (≤ 6 months vs. \> 6 months) and use of osteoclast-targeted therapy (No, Yes).|||0.785|0.533|0.000008
91021241|NCT02200614|181925208|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.579||||4.4e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.444|0.755|||Log Rank||The hazard ratio and its 95% CI were based on Cox Regression Model, stratified by Prostate-specific antigen doubling time (PSADT) (≤ 6 months vs. \> 6 months) and use of osteoclast-targeted therapy (No, Yes).|||0.755|0.444|0.000044
91021242|NCT02200614|181925209|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.484||||0.005294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.287|0.815|||Log Rank||The hazard ratio and its 95% CI were based on Cox Regression Model, stratified by Prostate-specific antigen doubling time (PSADT) (≤ 6 months vs. \> 6 months) and use of osteoclast-targeted therapy (No, Yes).|||0.815|0.287|0.005294
91021243|NCT00759759|181925256|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 90% confidence intervals for the ratios (test/reference) of the least squares means of the non-transformed parameters Cmax, AUClast, AUCinf, Tmax, λz, and T1/2, were calculated.|mean ratio|90.46||||||90.0|82.9|98.7|||ANOVA|||ANOVA of ln-transformed plasma morphine Cmax||98.7|82.9|
91021244|NCT00759759|181925258|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA performed on the ratio of geometric means|mean ratio|101.1||||||90.0|96.9|105.4|||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis of ln-transformed plasma morphine AUClast||105.4|96.9|
91021245|NCT00759759|181925259|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 90% confidence intervals for the ratios (test/reference) of the least squares means of the non-transformed parameters Cmax, AUClast, AUCinf, Tmax, λz, and T1/2, were calculated.|mean ratio|101.3||||||90.0|96.2|106.7|||ANOVA|||||106.7|96.2|
91021246|NCT01556165|181925272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32||0.0254|TWO_SIDED|75.0|-4.53|-1.47||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|ANCOVA|||This study was designed to show a trend, that is, to show a clinical difference in the primary efficacy analysis, at a two-sided significance level of 0.25. Assuming a difference between rasagiline and placebo of a 3-point change in the UPDRS total score and a standard deviation on the change from baseline of 7 points, a sample size of 60 patients per treatment group gave an 88% probability of showing a trend. LOCF (last observation carried forward) was used.||-1.47|-4.53|0.0254
91021247|NCT01556165|181925273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.21|||ANCOVA|The same ANCOVA methodology as for the primary endpoint was used.||LOCF (last observation carried forward) was used.||-0.21|-1.03|0.0032
91021248|NCT01556165|181925274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.1963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.35|||ANCOVA|The same ANCOVA methodology as for the primary endpoint was used.||LOCF (last observation carried forward) was used.||0.35|-1.70|0.1963
91021249|NCT01556165|181925275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91||0.0641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.52|0.1|||ANCOVA|The same ANCOVA methodology as for the primary endpoint was used.||LOCF (last observation carried forward) was used.||0.10|-3.52|0.0641
91021250|NCT02395536|181925337|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 5% was chosen since the inability to rule out a 5% increase in untoward event rate associated with moving the Reveal LINQ procedure in-office may suggest that in-office procedures would too high of a complication rate compared procedures performed in the traditional office setting.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.001|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.029||P-value for non-inferiority versus a 5% non-inferiority margin.|Farrington-Manning test||The estimated value and its associated confidence interval are for the in-office minus traditional hospital setting difference in the untoward event rates. The point estimate is negative since the in-office rate was lower than the hospital rate.|The null hypothesis was that Reveal LINQ insertions performed in-office would have a higher untoward event rate than insertions performed in the traditional hospital setting. A sample size of 476 subjects was estimated to provide at least 90% power at a 1-sided alpha level of 2.5% and 5% non-inferiority margin. For the sample size calculation, an event rate of 2.0% was assumed in both arms. The Farrington-Manning test of two indepent proportions was used to compare study arms.||0.029|-0.030|<0.001
91021251|NCT04876482|181925363|OTHER|The Overall Number of Participants Analyzed do not appear to be equal, so we used linear regrssion to compare the mean difference among three groups.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.76|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||"We hypothesized that the improvements in the AHI would be higher in patients who underwent TORS combined with OPR than in those who underwent only TORS and those who received conservative treatment (controls).~."||||<0.05
91021252|NCT04876482|181925364|OTHER|The Overall Number of Participants Analyzed do not appear to be equal, so we used linear regrssion to compare the mean difference among three groups.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.05|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||We hypothesized that the improvements in the upper airway volume would be higher in patients who underwent TORS combined with OPR than in those who underwent only TORS and those who received conservative treatment (controls).||||<0.05
91021253|NCT04876482|181925365|OTHER|The Overall Number of Participants Analyzed do not appear to be equal, so we used linear regrssion to compare the mean difference among three groups.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.275|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||We hypothesized that the improvements in the minimal area on the tip of epiglottis would be more in patients who underwent TORS combined with OPR than in those who underwent only TORS and those who received conservative treatment (controls)||||<0.05
91021254|NCT04876482|181925366|OTHER|The Overall Number of Participants Analyzed do not appear to be equal, so we used linear regrssion to compare the mean difference among three groups.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||We hypothesized that the improvements in the anteror to posterior distance on the tip of epiglottis would be more in patients who underwent TORS combined with OPR than in those who underwent only TORS and those who received conservative treatment (controls).||||<0.05
91021255|NCT04876482|181925367|OTHER|The Overall Number of Participants Analyzed do not appear to be equal, so we used linear regrssion to compare the mean difference among three groups.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||We hypothesized that the improvements in the lateral distance on the tip of epiglottis would be more in patients who underwent TORS combined with OPR than in those who underwent only TORS and those who received conservative treatment (controls).||||<0.05
91084739|NCT01029262|182053008|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-values are calculated based on Fisher exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Week 12||||0.042
91021256|NCT04876482|181925368|OTHER|Baseline characteristics among the study groups were compared using Fisher exact test for categorical variables. McNemar chi-square test used for within-group analysis.|Number and percentage|0.05|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||We hypothesized that TORS followed by OPR would improve upper airway obstruction more compared with TORS alone and conservative treatment (control).||||<0.05
91084740|NCT01029262|182053008|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.448|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-values are calculated based on Fisher exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Week 24||||0.448
91084741|NCT01029262|182053009|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.825|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-values are calculated based on Fisher exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Week 12||||0.825
91021257|NCT04876482|181925369|OTHER|The Overall Number of Participants Analyzed do not appear to be equal, so we used linear regrssion to compare the mean difference among three groups.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.23|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||We hypothesized that the improvements in the jaw opening muscle strength would be more in patients who underwent TORS combined with OPR than in those who underwent only TORS and those who received conservative treatment (controls).||||<0.05
91021258|NCT04876482|181925370|OTHER|The Overall Number of Participants Analyzed do not appear to be equal, so we used linear regrssion to compare the mean difference among three groups.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.45|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||We hypothesized that the improvements in the tongue protrusion muscle strength would be more in patients who underwent TORS combined with OPR than in those who underwent only TORS and those who received conservative treatment (controls).||||<0.05
91021259|NCT04876482|181925371|OTHER|The Overall Number of Participants Analyzed do not appear to be equal, so we used linear regrssion to compare the mean difference among three groups.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.81|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||We hypothesized that the improvements in the tongue elevation muscle strength would be more in patients who underwent TORS combined with OPR than in those who underwent only TORS and those who received conservative treatment (controls).||||<0.05
91021260|NCT04876482|181925372|OTHER|The Overall Number of Participants Analyzed do not appear to be equal, so we used linear regrssion to compare the mean difference among three groups.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.01|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||We hypothesized that the improvements in the tongue depression muscle strength would be more in patients who underwent TORS combined with OPR than in those who underwent only TORS and those who received conservative treatment (controls).||||<0.05
91021261|NCT04876482|181925373|OTHER|The Overall Number of Participants Analyzed do not appear to be equal, so we used linear regrssion to compare the mean difference among three groups.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.67|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||We hypothesized that the improvements in the tongue lateralization muscle strength would be more in patients who underwent TORS combined with OPR than in those who underwent only TORS and those who received conservative treatment (controls).||||<0.05
91021262|NCT00948025|181925433|OTHER|Mann-Whitney U test was used to derive p-values.||||||0.0433||||||"1. a priori threshold for statistical significance set at p\<0.05.~2. the p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons."|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"1. P-value comparing static 2-point discrimination per visit derived from mixed linear modeling of longitudinal data.~2. P-Value is based on Mann-Whitney U test."||||0.0433
91021263|NCT02292433|181925477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-19.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.841||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-28.93|-10.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period, dose, and baseline as fixed effects and participants within sequence as a random effect.||-10.98|-28.93|0.0032
91021264|NCT02292433|181925477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-41.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.172|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-46.77|-35.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period, dose, and baseline as fixed effects and participants within sequence as a random effect.||-35.35|-46.77|<0.0001
91021265|NCT02292433|181925478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-12.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.851||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.16|-7.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period, dose, and baseline as fixed effects and participants within sequence as a random effect.||-7.21|-17.16|0.0006
91021266|NCT02292433|181925478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-25.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.821|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-30.73|-20.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period, dose, and baseline as fixed effects and participants within sequence as a random effect.||-20.88|-30.73|<0.0001
91021267|NCT02292433|181925479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.521|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7237||0.0447|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.752|-0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis for pre-breakfast. Analysis was done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period, dose, and baseline as fixed effects and participants within sequence as a random effect.||-0.290|-2.752|0.0447
91021268|NCT02292433|181925479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.949|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7249||0.0119|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.183|-0.716|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis for pre-breakfast. Analysis was done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period, dose, and baseline as fixed effects and participants within sequence as a random effect.||-0.716|-3.183|0.0119
91021269|NCT02292433|181925479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.967|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3324||0.6873|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.195|3.261|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis for pre-lunch. Analysis was done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period, dose, and baseline as fixed effects and participants within sequence as a random effect.||3.261|-5.195|0.6873
91021270|NCT02292433|181925479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.439|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9533||0.0659|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.502|-0.377|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis for pre-lunch. Analysis was done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period, dose, and baseline as fixed effects and participants within sequence as a random effect.||-0.377|-4.502|0.0659
91021271|NCT02292433|181925479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.358|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5994||0.4031|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.079|1.363|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis for pre-dinner. Analysis was done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period, dose, and baseline as fixed effects and participants within sequence as a random effect.||1.363|-4.079|0.4031
91021272|NCT02292433|181925479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.766|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5951||0.0254|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.479|-1.052|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis for pre-dinner. Analysis was done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period, dose, and baseline as fixed effects and participants within sequence as a random effect.||-1.052|-6.479|0.0254
91021273|NCT02292433|181925480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.069||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.33|-0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis for pre-breakfast. Analysis was done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period, dose, and baseline as fixed effects and participants within sequence as a random effect.||-0.09|-0.33|0.0067
91084742|NCT01029262|182053009|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.568|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-values are calculated based on Fisher exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Week 24||||0.568
91084743|NCT01029262|182053010|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.119|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-values are calculated based on Fisher exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Week 12||||0.119
91084744|NCT01029262|182053010|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.172|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-values are calculated based on Fisher exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Week 24||||0.172
91021274|NCT02292433|181925480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.071||0.0282|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.29|-0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis for pre-breakfast. Analysis was done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period, dose, and baseline as fixed effects and participants within sequence as a random effect.||-0.05|-0.29|0.0282
91021275|NCT02292433|181925480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.118||0.7877|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.18|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis for pre-lunch. Analysis was done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period, dose, and baseline as fixed effects and participants within sequence as a random effect.||0.25|-0.18|0.7877
91021276|NCT02292433|181925480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.156||0.5064|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.17|0.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis for pre-lunch. Analysis was done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period, dose, and baseline as fixed effects and participants within sequence as a random effect.||0.39|-0.17|0.5064
91021277|NCT02292433|181925480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.293||0.4072|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.75|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis for pre-dinner. Analysis was done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period, dose, and baseline as fixed effects and participants within sequence as a random effect.||0.25|-0.75|0.4072
91021278|NCT02292433|181925480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.295||0.1422|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.95|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis for pre-dinner. Analysis was done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period, dose, and baseline as fixed effects and participants within sequence as a random effect.||0.06|-0.95|0.1422
91021279|NCT03555890|181925488|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90 percent (%) confidence interval of the geometric mean ratio (Levocetirizine ODT/ Levocetirizine IRT) was within the acceptable range of 0.80 to 1.25 then Levocetirizine ODT was to be considered bioequivalent to the Levocetirizine IRT.|Ratio of geometric mean|0.975|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.948|1.003||||||||1.003|0.948|
91021280|NCT03555890|181925489|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90 percent (%) confidence interval of the geometric mean ratio (Levocetirizine ODT/ Levocetirizine IRT) was within the acceptable range of 0.80 to 1.25 then Levocetirizine ODT was to be considered bioequivalent to the Levocetirizine IRT.|Ratio of geometric mean|0.978|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.958|0.998||||||||0.998|0.958|
91021281|NCT03555890|181925490|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90 percent (%) confidence interval of the geometric mean ratio (Levocetirizine ODT/ Levocetirizine IRT) was within the acceptable range of 0.80 to 1.25 then Levocetirizine ODT was to be considered bioequivalent to the Levocetirizine IRT.|Ratio of geometric mean|0.934|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.875|0.998||||||||0.998|0.875|
91021282|NCT03555890|181925491|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90 percent (%) confidence interval of the geometric mean ratio (Levocetirizine ODT/ Levocetirizine IRT) was within the acceptable range of 0.80 to 1.25 then Levocetirizine ODT was to be considered bioequivalent to the Levocetirizine IRT.|Ratio of geometric mean|0.857|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.815|0.902||||||||0.902|0.815|
91021283|NCT03372369|181925552|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The Bonferroni correction is used to account for multiple comparisons. In this analysis, p\<0.01 is the threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the change in the contraceptive knowledge score for the CDC poster between baseline and followup is 0.||||<0.0001
91021284|NCT03372369|181925552|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The Bonferroni correction is used to account for multiple comparisons. In this analysis, p\<0.01 is the threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the change in the contraceptive knowledge score for the patient-centered poster between baseline and followup is 0.||||<0.0001
91021285|NCT03372369|181925552|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The Bonferroni correction is used to account for multiple comparisons. In this analysis, p\<0.01 is the threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the patient-centered poster does not produce a larger increase in the contraceptive knowledge score between baseline and followup than the CDC poster.||||<0.0001
91021286|NCT03372369|181925553|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The Bonferroni correction is used to account for multiple comparisons. In this analysis, p\<0.01 is the threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the change in the effective contraception preference score for the CDC poster between baseline and followup is 0.||||<0.001
91021287|NCT03372369|181925553|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||The Bonferroni correction is used to account for multiple comparisons. In this analysis, p\<0.01 is the threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the change in the effective contraception preference score for the patient-centered poster between baseline and followup is 0.||||<0.01
91021288|NCT03372369|181925553|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.01||||||The Bonferroni correction is used to account for multiple comparisons. In this analysis, p\<0.01 is the threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the patient-centered poster does not produce a larger increase in the effective contraception preference score between baseline and followup than the CDC poster.||||>0.01
91021289|NCT03372369|181925554|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.01||||||The Bonferroni correction is used to account for multiple comparisons. In this analysis, p\<0.01 is the threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the change in the perceived pregnancy risk score for the CDC poster between baseline and followup is 0.||||>0.01
91021290|NCT03372369|181925554|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.01||||||The Bonferroni correction is used to account for multiple comparisons. In this analysis, p\<0.01 is the threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the change in the perceived pregnancy risk score for the patient-centered poster between baseline and followup is 0.||||>0.01
91021291|NCT03372369|181925554|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.01||||||The Bonferroni correction is used to account for multiple comparisons. In this analysis, p\<0.01 is the threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the patient-centered poster does not produce a larger increase in the perceived pregnancy risk score between baseline and followup than the CDC poster.||||>0.01
91084745|NCT01029262|182053011|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.792|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-values were calculated based on Fisher exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Week 12||||0.792
91084746|NCT01029262|182053011|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.279|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-values are calculated based on Fisher exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Week 24||||0.279
91084747|NCT01029262|182053012|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.476|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-values are calculated based on Fisher exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Week 12||||0.476
91084748|NCT01029262|182053012|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-values are calculated based on Fisher exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Week 24||||0.052
91084749|NCT01029262|182053013|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.759||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.083|2.856||p-value is from Fisher's exact test to compare lenalidomide treatment group to placebo group.|Fisher Exact|||||2.856|1.083|0.017
91084750|NCT01468454|182053017|OTHER||Specificity|89.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|75.2|97.1||||||||97.1|75.2|
91084751|NCT01468454|182053017|OTHER||Sensitivity|83.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|72.3|92.0||||||||92|72.3|
91084752|NCT03060291|182053037|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.549|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference in slope with the wait-list control as the reference group.|||||.549
91084753|NCT03060291|182053037|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.854|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference in slope with the wait-list control as the reference group.|||||.854
91084754|NCT03060291|182053037|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.469|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference in slope with the web/mobile only as the reference group.|||||.469
91084755|NCT03060291|182053038|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.535|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference in slope with the wait-list control as the reference group.|||||.535
91084756|NCT03060291|182053038|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.081|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference in slope with the wait-list control as the reference group.|||||.081
91084757|NCT03060291|182053038|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.295|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference in slope with the web/mobile only as the reference group.|||||.295
91084758|NCT03060291|182053039|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.149|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference in slope with the wait-list control as the reference group.|||||.149
91021292|NCT03372369|181925555|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.01||||||The Bonferroni correction is used to account for multiple comparisons. In this analysis, p\<0.01 is the threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the change in the accuracy of perceived pregnancy risk score for the CDC poster between baseline and followup is 0.||||>0.01
91021293|NCT03372369|181925555|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.01||||||The Bonferroni correction is used to account for multiple comparisons. In this analysis, p\<0.01 is the threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the change in the accuracy of perceived pregnancy risk score for the patient-centered poster between baseline and followup is 0.||||>0.01
91021294|NCT03372369|181925555|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.01||||||The Bonferroni correction is used to account for multiple comparisons. In this analysis, p\<0.01 is the threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the patient-centered poster does not produce a larger increase in the accuracy of perceived pregnancy risk score between baseline and followup than the CDC poster.||||>0.01
91021295|NCT02239601|181925556|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.41||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.01|0.17|0.053
91021296|NCT01791127|181925565|SUPERIORITY|The primary endpoint 1 hypothesis was evaluated by performing an exact, binomial test comparing a binomial proportion (AEFR at 12 months) to 94.0%, with Type I error (alpha) or 0.025 and power of 80%.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Exact, binomial|||||||<0.0001
91021297|NCT01791127|181925566|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Exact, binomial|||The primary endpoint 2 hypothesis was evaluated by performing an exact, binomial test comparing a binomial proportion (AEFR at 12 months) to 94.0%, with Type I error (alpha) or 0.025 and power of 80%.||||<0.0001
91021298|NCT01791127|181925567|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Exact, binomial|||The primary endpoint 3 hypothesis was evaluated by performing an exact, binomial test comparing a binomial proportion (successful sensing and pacing rate at 12 months) to 97.0%, with Type I error (alpha) or 0.025 and power of 80%.||||<0.0001
91021299|NCT01791127|181925568|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||The primary endpoint 4 hypothesis was evaluated by performing an exact, binomial test comparing a binomial proportion (AEFR at 5 years) to 92.5%, with Type I error (alpha) or 0.025 and power of 80%.|On April 15, 2019, BIOTRONIK received FDA approval to transition the ongoing SIELLO Post Approval Registry to a new EP PASSION real-world data methodology. As of study closure, the number of subjects with complete data required to perform the hypothesis test was not met. Therefore, this outcome measure was not analyzed.|||
91021300|NCT01017029|181925616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.482||||0.1043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.922|2.383|||Regression, Cox|||||2.383|0.922|0.1043
91084759|NCT03060291|182053039|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.207|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference in slope with the wait-list control as the reference group.|||||.207
91084760|NCT03060291|182053039|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.871|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference in slope with the web/mobile only as the reference group.|||||.871
91084761|NCT03060291|182053040|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.547|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference in slope with the wait-list control as the reference group.|||||.547
91084762|NCT03060291|182053040|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.575|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference in slope with the wait-list control as the reference group.|||||.575
91084763|NCT03060291|182053040|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.964|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference in slope with the web/mobile only as the reference group.|||||.964
91084764|NCT03060291|182053041|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.236|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference in slope with the wait-list control as the reference group.|||||.236
91021301|NCT01017029|181925618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.847||||0.0398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.029|3.315|||Regression, Cox|||||3.315|1.029|0.0398
91021302|NCT01017029|181925620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0234|||||||Fisher Exact|||CMV infections||||0.0234
91021303|NCT01017029|181925621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.403||||0.1966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.839|2.347|||Regression, Cox|||||2.347|0.839|0.1966
91084765|NCT03060291|182053041|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.142|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference in slope with the wait-list control as the reference group.|||||.142
91084766|NCT03060291|182053041|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.81|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference in slope with the web/mobile only as the reference group.|||||.810
91084767|NCT03060291|182053042|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.599|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference in slope with the wait-list control as the reference group.|||||.599
91084768|NCT03060291|182053042|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22||||0.523|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference in slope with the wait-list control as the reference group.|||||.523
91021304|NCT01676311|181925651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38||||||For each permutation of the data, relevant result was saved and the corresponding p-value represents the proportion of results at least as extreme as observed in the original data.|Regression, Linear|||Regression analysis was run incorporating group, CVLT-II-total learning score at baseline and week 12, and covariates (Beck Depression Index \[BDI\], time post-injury, British Columbia Postconcussion Symptom Inventory \[BC-PSI\]). Regression analyses were repeated, permuting data observations for each outcome. The BDI and BC-PSI are covariates in the regression model and not pre-specified Primary and Secondary Outcome Measures.||||0.38
91021305|NCT01676311|181925651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38||||||For each permutation of the data, relevant result was saved and the corresponding p-value represents the proportion of results at least as extreme as observed in the original data.|Regression, Linear|||Regression analysis was run incorporating group (Huperzine A, placebo), baseline CVLT-II-short delay free recall (SDFR) score, outcome (CVLT-II-SDFR at week 12) and covariates (Beck Depression Index, time post-injury, British Columbia Postconcussion Symptom Inventory). Regression analyses were repeated, permuting data observations for each outcome i.e. we permuted the labels (Huperzine A or placebo) among the data observations and re-ran the regression.||||0.38
91021306|NCT01676311|181925651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42||||||For each permutation of the data, relevant result was saved and the corresponding p-value represents the proportion of results at least as extreme as observed in the original data.|Regression, Linear|||Regression analysis was run incorporating group (Huperzine A, placebo), baseline CVLT-II-long delay free recall (LDFR) score, outcome (CVLT-II-LDFR at week 12) and covariates (Beck Depression Index, time post-injury, British Columbia Postconcussion Symptom Inventory). Regression analyses were repeated, permuting data observations for each outcome i.e. we permuted the labels (Huperzine A or placebo) among the data observations and re-ran the regression.||||0.42
91021307|NCT01676311|181925654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48||||||A chi-square test with factors of group (Huperzine A, placebo) and occurrence of seizure (yes, no) was performed. A permutation test was the used to assess the effect of Huperzine A on the prevalence of seizures.|Chi-squared test and permutation test|||||||0.48
91021308|NCT01676311|181925655|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44||||||A chi-squared test with factors of group (Huperzine A, placebo) and occurrence of behavioral side effects (yes, no) were performed. A permutation test was used to assess the effect of Huperzine A on the incidence of behavioral side effects.|Chi-squared test and permutation test|||Behavioral side effects statistical analysis||||0.44
91021309|NCT01676311|181925655|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81||||||A chi-squared test with factors of group (Huperzine A, placebo) and occurrence of cardiac-respiratory side effects (yes, no) were performed. A permutation test was used to assess the effect of Huperzine A on the incidence of these side effects.|Chi-squared test and permutation test|||Cardiac-respiratory side effects statistical analysis||||0.81
91021310|NCT01676311|181925655|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81||||||A chi-squared test with factors of group (Huperzine A, placebo) and occurrence of dermatological side effects (yes, no) were performed. A permutation test was used to assess the effect of Huperzine A on the incidence of dermatological side effects.|Chi-squared test and permutation test|||Dermatological side effects statistical analysis||||0.81
91021311|NCT01676311|181925655|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73||||||A chi-squared test with factors of group (Huperzine A, placebo) and occurrence of gastrointestinal side effects (yes, no) were performed. A permutation test was used to assess the effect of Huperzine A on the incidence of these side effects.|Chi-squared test and permutation test|||Gastrointestinal side effects statistical analysis||||0.73
91021312|NCT01676311|181925655|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54||||||A chi-squared test with factors of group (Huperzine A, placebo) and occurrence of genitourinary/neurological side effects (yes, no) were performed. A permutation test was used to assess the effect of Huperzine A on the incidence of these side effects|Chi-squared test and permutation test|||Genitourinary/neurological side effects statistical analysis||||0.54
91021313|NCT01676311|181925655|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27||||||A chi-squared test with factors of group (Huperzine A, placebo) and occurrence of hematological side effects (yes, no) were performed. A permutation test was used to assess the effect of Huperzine A on the incidence of these side effects.|Chi-squared test and permutation test|||Hematological side effects statistical analysis||||0.27
91021314|NCT01676311|181925655|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41||||||A chi-squared test with factors of group (Huperzine A, placebo) and occurrence of musculoskeletal side effects (yes, no) were performed. A permutation test was used to assess the effect of Huperzine A on the incidence of these side effects.|Chi-squared test and permutation test|||Musculoskeletal side effects statistical analysis||||0.41
91021315|NCT01676311|181925655|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||A chi-squared test with factors of group (Huperzine A, placebo) and occurrence of neurological side effects (yes, no) were performed. A permutation test was used to assess the effect of Huperzine A on the incidence of these side effects.|Chi-squared test and permutation test|||Neurological side effects statistical analysis||||1.00
91021316|NCT00663039|181925676|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.758|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of Overall Affect Scores between Oxytocin and Placebo Arms||||0.758
91021317|NCT00663039|181925676|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.779|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of Overall Social Skill scores between Oxytocin and Placebo arms||||0.779
90959120|NCT01620255|181798212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|1.69||||0.0582|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.223|3.147|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 22.5 mg vs placebo, systemic symptoms change from BL at W12||3.147|0.223|0.0582
91021318|NCT00663039|181925677|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.578|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of HVLT Trial 1 scores between Oxytocin and Placebo Arms||||0.578
91021319|NCT00663039|181925677|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of HVLT Trial 2 scores between Oxytocin and Placebo Arms||||0.28
91021320|NCT00663039|181925677|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.707|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of HVLT Trial 3 scores between Oxytocin and Placebo Arms||||0.707
91021321|NCT00663039|181925678|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.391|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the total amount of money offered during the trust game between the Oxytocin and Placebo arms||||0.391
91021322|NCT00663039|181925679|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.559|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of RVIP Practice Mean Target Reaction Time between Oxytocin and Placebo arms.||||0.559
91021323|NCT00663039|181925679|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.858|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of RVIP First Half Mean Target Reaction Time between Oxytocin and Placebo arms.||||0.858
91084769|NCT03060291|182053042|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.36||||0.252|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference in slope with the web/mobile only as the reference group.|||||.252
91084770|NCT03060291|182053043|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.867|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference in slope with the wait-list control as the reference group.|||||.867
91084771|NCT03060291|182053043|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47||||0.127|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference in slope with the wait-list control as the reference group.|||||.127
91084772|NCT03060291|182053043|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51||||0.101|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||||Mean difference in slope with the web/mobile only as the reference group.|||.101
91021324|NCT00663039|181925679|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.514|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of RVIP Practice Mean False Alarms Reaction Time between Oxytocin and Placebo arms||||0.514
91021325|NCT00663039|181925679|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.088|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of RVIP First Half Mean False Alarms Reaction Time between Oxytocin and Placebo arms||||0.088
91021326|NCT00663039|181925680|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.296|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of RVIP Practice Mean Target Hits between Oxytocin and Placebo arms.||||0.296
91021327|NCT00663039|181925680|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.136|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of RVIP First Half Mean Target Hits between Oxytocin and Placebo arms.||||0.136
91021328|NCT00663039|181925680|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of RVIP Practice Mean False Alarms between Oxytocin and Placebo arms.||||0.47
91021329|NCT00663039|181925680|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.702|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of RVIP First Half Mean Target Hits between Oxytocin and Placebo arms.||||0.702
91021330|NCT00663039|181925681|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.451|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of Brief Assessments of Cognition for Schizophrenia scores between the Oxytocin and Placebo arms.||||0.451
91084773|NCT00718094|182053044|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.03
91021331|NCT00663039|181925682|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.9
91021332|NCT00663039|181925683|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.946|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of Reading the Mind in the Eyes total scores between Oxytocin and Placebo arms||||0.946
91021333|NCT00663039|181925684|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison the Facial Affect Recognition Total scores between Oxytocin and Placebo arms||||0.016
91021334|NCT00663039|181925684|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.185|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison the Facial Affect Recognition Hits between Oxytocin and Placebo arms||||0.185
91021335|NCT00663039|181925684|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.404|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison the Facial Affect Recognition False Alarms between Oxytocin and Placebo arms||||0.404
91021336|NCT00323271|181925686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.108||||0.911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.106|1.888|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.888|-2.106|.911
90959121|NCT01620255|181798212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|1.68||||0.0558|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.235|3.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 75 mg vs placebo, systemic symptoms change from BL at W12||3.120|0.235|0.0558
91021337|NCT00323271|181925687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.644||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.058|2.345||Multiple imputation used to account for missing variables; pre-treatment rating and years of MS pain were covariates|ANCOVA|||||2.345|-1.058|0.320
91021338|NCT04333199|181925688|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.9903891|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2805876|3.9211066||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05.|Regression, Logistic|||||3.9211066|2.2805876|<0.001
91021339|NCT04333199|181925689|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1781659||||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9404654|1.4759445||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.4759445|0.9404654|0.154
91021340|NCT04333199|181925690|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9575636||||0.571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8242111|1.1124918||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.1124918|0.8242111|0.571
91021341|NCT04333199|181925691|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8562672|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5692523|2.1957769||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.1957769|1.5692523|<0.001
91021342|NCT04333199|181925693|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8542767|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5220654|2.2589975||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.2589975|1.5220654|<0.001
91021343|NCT00709735|181925694|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.0|4.0|||||Non-Reactivation Propranolol (NRP) - Reactivation Propranolol (RP)|||4.0|-30.0|
91021344|NCT00709735|181925695|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.4|1.9|||||Non-Reactivation Propranolol (NRP) - Reactivation Propranolol (RP)|||1.9|-27.4|
91021345|NCT02981602|181925743|OTHER|||||||0.116||||||Baseline was the covariate and treatment group as a factor for the comparison between GSK3228836 and placebo group|ANCOVA|||||||0.116
91021346|NCT02981602|181925743|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Baseline was the covariate and treatment group as a factor for the comparison between GSK3228836 and placebo group|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91021347|NCT02981602|181925743|OTHER|||||||0.573||||||Baseline was the covariate and treatment group as a factor for the comparison between GSK3228836 and placebo group|ANCOVA|||||||0.573
91021348|NCT02981602|181925744|OTHER|||||||0.609||||||Baseline was the covariate and treatment group as a factor for the comparison between GSK3228836 and placebo group|ANCOVA|||||||0.609
91021349|NCT02981602|181925744|OTHER|||||||0.141||||||Baseline was the covariate and treatment group as a factor for the comparison between GSK3228836 and placebo group|ANCOVA|||||||0.141
91084774|NCT03665077|182053051|OTHER|Linear mixed-effect model of log-transformed oxylipin level, with time (date) as a continuous variable, adjusted for batch and clustered on participant||||||0.684|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed-effect model of log-transformed oxylipin level: time (date) as a continuous variable, adjusted for batch and clustered on participant||||||0.684
91084775|NCT03665077|182053052|OTHER|Linear mixed-effect model of log-transformed oxylipin level, with time (date) as a continuous variable, adjusted for batch and clustered on participant||||||0.02|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed-effect model of log-transformed oxylipin level: time (date) as a continuous variable, adjusted for batch and clustered on participant||||||0.02
91084776|NCT03665077|182053053|OTHER|Linear mixed-effect model of log-transformed oxylipin level: time (date) as a continuous variable, adjusted for batch and clustered on participant||||||0.058|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed-effect model of log-transformed oxylipin level: time (date) as a continuous variable, adjusted for batch and clustered on participant||||||0.058
90956789|NCT00577473|181793070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.0445||||0.473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|7.7|||Chi-squared|||It was assumed that the true rate of improvement for the 2.4 g/day treatment group is 40% and for the 4.8 g/day group is 60%. To detect a true difference of 20% between these 2 groups with a 2-sided test, type I error of 0.05 (α = 0.05), and power of 90%, 140 patients were required per group to complete the study. To account for a 10% dropout/withdrawal rate, approximately 308 patients were to be enrolled in the study.||7.7|-16.6|0.4730
90956790|NCT00577473|181793071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0339||||0.5761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.48|15.26|||Chi-squared|||It was assumed that the true rate of improvement for the 2.4 g/day treatment group is 40% and for the 4.8 g/day group is 60%. To detect a true difference of 20% between these 2 groups with a 2-sided test, type I error of 0.05 (α = 0.05), and power of 90%, 140 patients were required per group to complete the study. To account for a 10% dropout/withdrawal rate, approximately 308 patients were to be enrolled in the study.||15.26|-8.48|0.5761
91021350|NCT02981602|181925745|OTHER|Baseline was the covariate and treatment group as a factor for the comparison between GSK3228836 and placebo group||||||0.245|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.245
91021351|NCT02981602|181925745|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||Baseline was the covariate and treatment group as a factor for the comparison between GSK3228836 and placebo group|ANCOVA|||||||0.001
91021352|NCT02981602|181925745|OTHER|||||||0.762||||||Baseline was the covariate and treatment group as a factor for the comparison between GSK3228836 and placebo group|ANCOVA|||||||0.762
91021353|NCT02981602|181925746|OTHER|||||||0.141||||||Baseline was the covariate and treatment group as a factor for the comparison between GSK3228836 and placebo group|ANCOVA|||||||0.141
91021354|NCT02981602|181925746|OTHER|||||||0.081||||||Baseline was the covariate and treatment group as a factor for the comparison between GSK3228836 and placebo group|ANCOVA|||||||0.081
91021355|NCT02981602|181925746|OTHER|||||||0.616||||||Baseline was the covariate and treatment group as a factor for the comparison between GSK3228836 and placebo group|ANCOVA|||||||0.616
91021356|NCT02981602|181925749|OTHER|||||||0.763||||||Baseline was the covariate and treatment group as a factor for the comparison between GSK3228836 and placebo group|ANCOVA|||||||0.763
91021357|NCT02981602|181925749|OTHER|||||||0.804||||||Baseline was the covariate and treatment group as a factor for the comparison between GSK3228836 and placebo group|ANCOVA|||||||0.804
91021358|NCT02981602|181925750|OTHER|||||||0.372||||||Baseline was the covariate and treatment group as a factor for the comparison between GSK3228836 and placebo group|ANCOVA|||||||0.372
91021359|NCT02981602|181925750|OTHER|||||||0.954||||||Baseline was the covariate and treatment group as a factor for the comparison between GSK3228836 and placebo group|ANCOVA|||||||0.954
91021360|NCT00666718|181925752|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Assuming a drop-out rate after randomization of approximately 15%, the remaining 160 patients in each treatment group should allow confirmation of noninferiority with no true treatment difference and a noninferiority limit of 0.4% using the upper limit of a 2-sided 95% confidence interval (insulin lispro protamine suspension + insulin lispro minus insulin glargine+insulin lispro) at a significance level of 0.025 with 90% power."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.31|||ANCOVA|||||0.31|-0.11|
91021361|NCT00666718|181925753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.458||95.0||||p-value is for Week 12 Change.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change from baseline=Treatment+country+baseline HbA1c+week+treatment\*country+treatment\*week+baseline HbA1c\*treatment (unstructured covariance used).||||||0.4580
91021362|NCT00666718|181925753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.107||95.0||||p-value is for Week 24 Change.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change from baseline=Treatment+country+baseline HbA1c+week+treatment\*country+treatment\*week+baseline HbA1c\*treatment (unstructured covariance used).||||||0.1070
91021363|NCT00666718|181925754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1333||95.0||||p-value is for HbA1c \<7.0%.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.1333
91021364|NCT00666718|181925754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1213||95.0||||p-value is for HbA1c \<=6.5%|Fisher Exact|||||||0.1213
91021365|NCT00666718|181925755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|1.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|Morning Pre-Meal measurement = Treatment+country+week+treatment\*country + treatment\*week (unstructured covariance was used)||||1.17|-0.43|
91021366|NCT00666718|181925755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|1.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|Morning Postprandial measurement = Treatment +country+week+treatment\*country + treatment\*week (unstructured covariance was used)||||1.19|-0.66|
91021367|NCT00666718|181925755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|0.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|Midday Pre-Meal measurement = Treatment +country + week +treatment\*country + treatment\*week (unstructured covariance was used).||||0.57|-1.15|
91021368|NCT00666718|181925755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Midday Postprandial measurement = Treatment+country+week+treatment\*country + treatment\*week (unstructured covariance was used).||||1.40|-0.46|
91021369|NCT00666718|181925755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|Evening Pre-Meal measurement = Treatment +country+week+treatment\*country + treatment\*week (unstructured covariance was used).||||0.83|-0.93|
91021370|NCT00666718|181925755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|1.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|Evening Postprandial measurement = Treatment+country+week +treatment\*country + treatment\*week (unstructured covariance was used).||||1.34|-0.41|
91021371|NCT00666718|181925755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|0300 Hours measurement = Treatment+country+week+treatment\*country+treatment\*week (unstructured covariance was used).||||0.96|-0.67|
91103870|NCT03449147|182094504|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.4||Comparison based on a logistic regression model that included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, region, baseline 24-hour coughs per hour and the interaction of baseline 24-hour coughs per hour as covariates.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.40|0.75|0.872
91021372|NCT00666718|181925756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5568||95.0||||p-value is for Fasting.|ANCOVA|Glycemic variability = Treatment+country grouping (Mediterranean, rest of Europe)+treatment\*country (Mediterranean, rest of Europe)||||||0.5568
91021373|NCT00666718|181925756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7523||95.0||||p-value is for Post-breakfast.|ANCOVA|Glycemic variability = Treatment+country grouping (Mediterranean, rest of Europe)+treatment\*country (Mediterranean, rest of Europe)||||||0.7523
91021374|NCT00666718|181925756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6448||95.0||||p-value is for Post-lunch.|ANCOVA|Glycemic variability = Treatment+country grouping (Mediterranean, rest of Europe)+treatment\*country (Mediterranean, rest of Europe)||||||0.6448
91084777|NCT02504320|182053068|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence of Febuxostat formulation 1, 2, and 3 to Febuxostat formulation 4 was declared if the 90% confidence intervals for the ratios of central values were within the pre-specified interval of 0.80 to 1.25.|Point Estimate|1.0848|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9528|1.235|||||Point estimate and 90% CI were obtained from the exponentiated results of analysis of the natural log (ln)-transformed parameters was performed with regimen, sequence, period, and participants nested within sequence as fixed effects.|Relative bioavailability of a single dose of Febuxostat XR 80 mg in test (Regimen A) and reference (Regimen D).||1.2350|0.9528|
91084778|NCT02504320|182053068|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence of Febuxostat formulation 1, 2, and 3 to Febuxostat formulation 4 was declared if the 90% confidence intervals for the ratios of central values were within the pre-specified interval of 0.80 to 1.25.|Point Estimate|0.7709|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6767|0.8782|||||Point estimate and 90% CI were obtained from the exponentiated results of analysis of the natural log (ln)-transformed parameters was performed with regimen, sequence, period, and participants nested within sequence as fixed effects.|Relative bioavailability of a single dose of Febuxostat XR 80 mg in test (Regimen B) and reference (Regimen D).||0.8782|0.6767|
91084779|NCT02504320|182053068|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence of Febuxostat formulation 1, 2, and 3 to Febuxostat formulation 4 was declared if the 90% confidence intervals for the ratios of central values were within the pre-specified interval of 0.80 to 1.25.|Point Estimate|0.9389|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8246|1.0689|||||Point estimate and 90% CI were obtained from the exponentiated results of analysis of the natural log (ln)-transformed parameters was performed with regimen, sequence, period, and participants nested within sequence as fixed effects.|Relative bioavailability of a single dose of Febuxostat XR 80 mg in test (Regimen C) and reference (Regimen D).||1.0689|0.8246|
91084780|NCT02504320|182053069|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence of Febuxostat formulation 1, 2, and 3 to Febuxostat formulation 4 was declared if the 90% confidence intervals for the ratios of central values were within the pre-specified interval of 0.80 to 1.25.|Point Estimate|1.0435|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.984|1.1066|||||Point estimate and 90% CI were obtained from the exponentiated results of analysis of the natural log (ln)-transformed parameters was performed with regimen, sequence, period, and participants nested within sequence as fixed effects.|Relative bioavailability of a single dose of Febuxostat XR 80 mg in test (Regimen A) and reference (Regimen D).||1.1066|0.9840|
91084781|NCT02504320|182053069|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence of Febuxostat formulation 1, 2, and 3 to Febuxostat formulation 4 was declared if the 90% confidence intervals for the ratios of central values were within the pre-specified interval of 0.80 to 1.25.|Point Estimate|0.8777|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8274|0.9311|||||Point estimate and 90% CI were obtained from the exponentiated results of analysis of the natural log (ln)-transformed parameters was performed with regimen, sequence, period, and participants nested within sequence as fixed effects.|Relative bioavailability of a single dose of Febuxostat XR 80 mg in test (Regimen B) and reference (Regimen D).||0.9311|0.8274|
91084782|NCT02504320|182053069|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence of Febuxostat formulation 1, 2, and 3 to Febuxostat formulation 4 was declared if the 90% confidence intervals for the ratios of central values were within the pre-specified interval of 0.80 to 1.25.|Point Estimate|0.954|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8996|1.0117|||||Point estimate and 90% CI were obtained from the exponentiated results of analysis of the natural log (ln)-transformed parameters was performed with regimen, sequence, period, and participants nested within sequence as fixed effects.|Relative bioavailability of a single dose of Febuxostat XR 80 mg in test (Regimen A) and reference (Regimen D).||1.0117|0.8996|
91084783|NCT02504320|182053070|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence of Febuxostat formulation 1, 2, and 3 to Febuxostat formulation 4 was declared if the 90% confidence intervals for the ratios of central values were within the pre-specified interval of 0.80 to 1.25.|Point Estimate|1.0283|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9691|1.0911|||||Point estimate and 90% CI were obtained from the exponentiated results of analysis of the natural log (ln)-transformed parameters was performed with regimen, sequence, period, and participants nested within sequence as fixed effects.|Relative bioavailability of a single dose of Febuxostat XR 80 mg in test (Regimen A) and reference (Regimen D).||1.0911|0.9691|
91084784|NCT02504320|182053070|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence of Febuxostat formulation 1, 2, and 3 to Febuxostat formulation 4 was declared if the 90% confidence intervals for the ratios of central values were within the pre-specified interval of 0.80 to 1.25.|Point Estimate|0.9056|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8516|0.963|||||Point estimate and 90% CI were obtained from the exponentiated results of analysis of the natural log (ln)-transformed parameters was performed with regimen, sequence, period, and participants nested within sequence as fixed effects.|Relative bioavailability of a single dose of Febuxostat XR 80 mg in test (Regimen B) and reference (Regimen D).||0.9630|0.8516|
91084785|NCT02504320|182053070|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence of Febuxostat formulation 1, 2, and 3 to Febuxostat formulation 4 was declared if the 90% confidence intervals for the ratios of central values were within the pre-specified interval of 0.80 to 1.25.|Point Estimates|0.9463|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8909|1.0051|||||Point estimate and 90% CI were obtained from the exponentiated results of analysis of the natural log (ln)-transformed parameters was performed with regimen, sequence, period, and participants nested within sequence as fixed effects.|Relative bioavailability of a single dose of Febuxostat XR 80 mg in test (Regimen C) and reference (Regimen D).||1.0051|0.8909|
91084786|NCT02420262|182053074|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for IDegLira vs basal-bolus (IGlar + IAsp) was considered confirmed if the upper boundary of the two-sided 95% confidence interval was strictly below 0.30% or equivalent for non-inferiority using one-sided test for null hypothesis (H0): D ≥0.30% against alternative hypothesis (HA): D \<0.30% was less than or equal to 2.5%, where D is the mean treatment difference (IDegLira minus basal-bolus).|Treatment contrast|-0.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline in HbA1c was analysed using a mixed model for repeated measurements with an unstructured covariance matrix. The model included treatment, visit and region as fixed factors and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Interactions between visit and all factors and the covariate were also included in the model.||0.12|-0.16|<0.0001
91021375|NCT00666718|181925756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9122||95.0||||p-value is for Post-dinner.|ANCOVA|Glycemic variability = Treatment+country grouping (Mediterranean, rest of Europe)+ treatment\*country (Mediterranean, rest of Europe)||||||0.9122
91084787|NCT02420262|182053075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment ratio|0.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.17|||Negative binomial regression model||Superiority for IDegLira vs basal-bolus was considered confirmed if the 95% confidence interval for the treatment rate ratio was entirely below 1.0.|Hypoglycaemic episodes were analysed using a negative binomial regression. The model included treatment and region as fixed factors and logarithm of the time period in which a hypoglycaemic episode considered treatment emergent as offset. The test for superiority of the confirmatory secondary endpoints was carried out only if non-inferiority of IDegLira vs basal-bolus for primary endpoint was confirmed.||0.17|0.08|<0.0001
91084788|NCT02420262|182053076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-3.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.19|-2.95|||Mixed Models Analysis||Superiority for IDegLira vs basal-bolus was considered confirmed if the 95% confidence interval for the treatment difference was below 0 or equal to zero.|Body weight measurements were analysed using a linear mixed model with an unstructured covariance matrix. The model included treatment, visit and region as fixed factors and baseline bodyweight as covariate. Interactions between visit and all factors and the covariate were also included in the model. The test for superiority of the confirmatory secondary endpoints was carried out only if non-inferiority of IDegLira vs basal-bolus for primary endpoint was confirmed.||-2.95|-4.19|<0.0001
91084789|NCT00941304|182053084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.34||||0.4739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.94|12.62|||ANCOVA|||||12.62|-5.94|.4739
91084790|NCT00941304|182053084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.26||||0.2183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.81|16.34|||ANCOVA|||||16.34|-3.81|.2183
91084791|NCT00941304|182053084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|8.74||||0.0809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|18.56|||ANCOVA|||||18.56|-1.11|.0809
91084792|NCT03293394|182053095|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.001
91084793|NCT03293394|182053096|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.011
91084794|NCT03293394|182053097|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.190
91084795|NCT03293394|182053098|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.652|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.652
91084796|NCT03293394|182053099|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.190
91084797|NCT03293394|182053100|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.011
91084798|NCT03293394|182053101|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.003
91084799|NCT03293394|182053102|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.001
91084800|NCT02497404|182053103|OTHER|Clopper-Pearson (exact) 95% confidence interval provided for the survival proportion.|Proportion (percent)|46.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.1|62.8||||||||62.8|30.1|
91084801|NCT02497404|182053104|OTHER|Clopper-Pearson (exact) 95% confidence interval provided for the survival proportion.|Proportion (percent)|64.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.2|78.8||||||||78.8|47.2|
90959122|NCT01620255|181798212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|1.66||||0.0686|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.161|3.153|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 225 mg vs placebo, systemic symptoms change from BL at W12||3.153|0.161|0.0686
91084802|NCT02497404|182053105|OTHER|Clopper-Pearson (exact) 95% confidence interval provided for the survival proportion.|Proportion (percent)|33.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.1|50.2||||||||50.2|19.1|
91021376|NCT00666718|181925757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|Hypoglycemia rate per 30 days = Treatment+Country+Week+Treatment\*Country+Treatment\*Week (unstructured covariance structure was used)||||0.12|-1.19|
91084803|NCT02497404|182053106|OTHER|Clopper-Pearson (exact) 95% confidence interval provided for the survival proportion.|Proportion (percent)|89.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|75.8|97.1||||||||97.1|75.8|
91084804|NCT02497404|182053107|OTHER|Clopper-Pearson (exact) 95% confidence interval provided for the survival proportion.|Proportion (percent)|64.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.2|78.8||||||||78.8|47.2|
91084805|NCT02497404|182053108|OTHER||Proportion (percent)|38.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.4|55.4||||||Clopper-Pearson (exact) 95% confidence interval provided for the survival proportion.||55.4|23.4|
91084806|NCT02497404|182053109|OTHER|Clopper-Pearson (exact) 95% confidence interval provided for the graft failure proportion.|Proportion (percent)|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|13.5||||||||13.5|0.07|
91084807|NCT02497404|182053110|OTHER|Clopper-Pearson (exact) 95% confidence interval provided for the GVHD proportion.|Proportion (percent)|33.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.1|50.2||||||||50.2|19.1|
91084808|NCT02497404|182053111|OTHER|Clopper-Pearson (exact) 95% confidence interval provided for the high-risk extensive chronic graft-versus-host-disease proportion.|Proportion (percent)|5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|15.3||||||||15.3|0.63|
91084809|NCT01408901|182053112|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.7||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.1|52.3||The P value is a Hochberg-adjusted P value.|t-test, 2 sided|||||52.3|5.1|0.052
91084810|NCT01408901|182053112|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.3||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.2|17.6||The P value is a Hochberg-adjusted P value.|t-test, 2 sided|||||17.6|-30.2|0.91
91084811|NCT01408901|182053112|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.2|22.4||The P value is a Hochberg-adjusted P value.|t-test, 2 sided|||||22.4|-25.2|0.91
91084812|NCT01408901|182053112|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.6||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.4|57.7||The P value is a Hochberg-adjusted P value.|t-test, 2 sided|||||57.7|9.4|0.02
91084813|NCT01408901|182053113|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.61||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|0.44||The P value is a Hochberg-adjusted P value.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.44|-1.67|0.49
91084814|NCT01408901|182053113|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.67||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|0.51||The P value is a Hochberg-adjusted P value.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.51|-1.84|0.49
91084815|NCT01408901|182053113|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|0.36||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|1.38||The P value is a Hochberg-adjusted P value.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.38|-0.66|0.49
91084816|NCT01408901|182053113|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|0.48||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|1.59||The P value is a Hochberg-adjusted P value.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.59|-0.64|0.49
91084817|NCT01408901|182053114|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.6|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|5.0||The P value is a Hochberg-adjusted P value.|t-test, 2 sided|||||5.0|2.1|<0.01
91084818|NCT01408901|182053114|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.8||The P value is a Hochberg-adjusted P value.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.8|-2.1|0.44
91021377|NCT00666718|181925757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|Hypoglycemia rate per 30 days = Treatment+Country+Week+Treatment\*Country+Treatment\*Week (unstructured covariance structure was used)||||0.11|-0.20|
91021378|NCT00666718|181925757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|Hypoglycemia rate per 30 days = Treatment+Country+Week+Treatment\*Country+Treatment\*Week (unstructured covariance structure was used)||||0.16|-1.06|
91084819|NCT01408901|182053114|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.9||The P value is a Hochberg-adjusted P value.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.9|-2.1|0.44
91084820|NCT01408901|182053114|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.7|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|5.2||The P value is a Hochberg-adjusted P value.|t-test, 2 sided|||||5.2|2.2|<0.01
91084821|NCT01408901|182053115|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.006||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.012|0.001|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.001|-0.012|0.09
91021379|NCT00666718|181925757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|Hypoglycemia rate per 30 days = Treatment+Country+Week+Treatment\*Country+Treatment\*Week (unstructured covariance structure was used)||||0.06|-0.86|
91021380|NCT00666718|181925757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|Hypoglycemia rate per 30 days=Treatment+Country+Week+Treatment\*Country+Treatment\*Week (unstructured covariance structure was used)||||0.12|-0.14|
91021381|NCT00666718|181925758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1701||95.0||||p-value is for \>=1 hypoglycemic episode.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.1701
91021382|NCT00666718|181925758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1727||95.0||||p-value is for \>=1 nocturnal hypoglycemic episode.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.1727
91084822|NCT01408901|182053116|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.005||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|-0.001|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.001|-0.010|0.03
91084823|NCT01408901|182053117|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.005||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.012|0.001|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.001|-0.012|0.09
91084824|NCT01408901|182053118|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.004||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.009|0.002|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.002|-0.009|0.17
91021383|NCT00666718|181925758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2094||95.0||||p-value is for \>=1 non-nocturnal hypoglycemic episode.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.2094
91021384|NCT00666718|181925758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.623||95.0||||p-value is for \>=1 severe hypoglycemic episode.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.6230
91021385|NCT00666718|181925760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.55|||ANCOVA|weight change from baseline = Treatment + country + baseline Hb1Ac + baseline weight + treatment\*HbA1c baseline value||||0.55|-0.86|
91021386|NCT00666718|181925761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.33|12.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|Total daily insulin dose=Treatment+country+week+treatment\*country+ treatment\*week (unstructured covariance was used).||||12.68|-8.33|
91021387|NCT01032330|181925765|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.054||||0.004|ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.02||||One-sided Barnard's Test||||||0.020|0.004
91021388|NCT01032330|181925766|OTHER||cumulative probability|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.22|||||Kaplan-Meier estimate of cumulative probability of deterioration by 3 years|||.22|.10|
91021389|NCT01032330|181925767|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.024||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.038|0.094|||One-sided Barnard's Test|||||0.094|-0.038|0.27
91021390|NCT01032330|181925769|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value for the change between baseline and 3 years. Two-sided p values for comparisons of continuous outcomes are from analysis of covariance models adjusting for the baseline level of the outcome.||||<.001
91084825|NCT02098395|182053133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Superiority of liraglutide 1.8 mg versus placebo was planned to be concluded if and only if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the estimated difference in HbA1c was less than zero.||-0.2|-0.5|< 0.0001
91084826|NCT02098395|182053133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|||=|0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Superiority of liraglutide 1.2 mg was planned to be evaluated only if superiority for liraglutide 1.8 mg was concluded.||-0.08|-0.38|= 0.0021
91084827|NCT02098395|182053133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|||=|0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Superiority of liraglutide 0.6 mg versus placebo was planned to be evaluated only if superiority of liraglutide 1.2 mg was concluded.||-0.1|-0.39|= 0.0011
91084828|NCT01509612|182053174|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.397|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.397
91084829|NCT01509612|182053175|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Chi-squared|||Only those groups were compared who received an intervention||||0.02
91021391|NCT01032330|181925770|OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||ANCOVA|||Two-sided p values for comparisons of continuous outcomes are from analysis of covariance models adjusting for the baseline level of the outcome; P values for comparisons of binary outcomes are from logistic regression models adjusting for the baseline level of the outcome.||||0.38
91021392|NCT01032330|181925771|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value for the change between baseline and 3 years. Two-sided p values for comparisons of continuous outcomes are from analysis of covariance models adjusting for the baseline level of the outcome.||||<.001
91021393|NCT01032330|181925772|OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value for the change between baseline and 6 months in the Older cohort. Two-sided p values for comparisons of continuous outcomes are from analysis of covariance models adjusting for the baseline level of the outcome.||||0.09
91021394|NCT01032330|181925772|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value for the change between baseline and 6 months in the Younger cohort. Two-sided p values for comparisons of continuous outcomes are from analysis of covariance models adjusting for the baseline level of the outcome.||||0.02
91021395|NCT01032330|181925773|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value for the change between baseline and 3 Years in the Older cohort. Two-sided p values for comparisons of continuous outcomes are from analysis of covariance models adjusting for the baseline level of the outcome.||||<.001
91084830|NCT02373137|182053246|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient|-1.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-1.0|||Regression, Linear|Multiple linear regression model with a covariate for baseline visual acuity.|Coefficient reported in lines, comparing DMEK to UT-DSAEK. Compared to UT-DSAEK, DMEK had 1.8 lines better vision at 6 months.|||-1.0|-2.8|<0.001
90959123|NCT01620255|181798212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.33||||0.7561|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.094|1.429|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 7.5 mg vs placebo, social fx change from BL at W12||1.429|-2.094|0.7561
91021396|NCT01032330|181925773|OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value for the change between baseline and 3 Years in the Younger cohort. Two-sided p values for comparisons of continuous outcomes are from analysis of covariance models adjusting for the baseline level of the outcome.||||0.33
91021397|NCT01032330|181925774|OTHER|||||||0.013|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value for the change between baseline and 6 months in the Older cohort. Two-sided p values for comparisons of continuous outcomes are from analysis of covariance models adjusting for the baseline level of the outcome.||||0.013
91021398|NCT01032330|181925774|OTHER|||||||0.26|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value for the change between baseline and 6 months in the Younger cohort. Two-sided p values for comparisons of continuous outcomes are from analysis of covariance models adjusting for the baseline level of the outcome.||||0.26
91021399|NCT01032330|181925775|OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value for the change between baseline and 3 Years in the Older cohort. Two-sided p values for comparisons of continuous outcomes are from analysis of covariance models adjusting for the baseline level of the outcome.||||0.42
91021400|NCT01032330|181925775|OTHER|||||||0.61|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value for the change between baseline and 3 Years in the Younger cohort. Two-sided p values for comparisons of continuous outcomes are from analysis of covariance models adjusting for the baseline level of the outcome.||||0.61
91021401|NCT01032330|181925776|OTHER|||||||0.012|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value for the change between baseline and 6 months in the Older cohort. Two-sided p values for comparisons of continuous outcomes are from analysis of covariance models adjusting for the baseline level of the outcome.||||0.012
91021402|NCT01032330|181925776|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value for the change between baseline and 6 months in the Younger cohort. Two-sided p values for comparisons of continuous outcomes are from analysis of covariance models adjusting for the baseline level of the outcome.||||0.02
91021403|NCT01032330|181925777|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value for the change between baseline and 3 Years in the Older cohort. Two-sided p values for comparisons of continuous outcomes are from analysis of covariance models adjusting for the baseline level of the outcome.||||.002
91021404|NCT01032330|181925777|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value for the change between baseline and 3 Years in the Younger cohort. Two-sided p values for comparisons of continuous outcomes are from analysis of covariance models adjusting for the baseline level of the outcome.||||0.01
91021405|NCT01032330|181925778|OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value for the change between baseline and 6 months in the Older cohort. Two-sided p values for comparisons of continuous outcomes are from analysis of covariance models adjusting for the baseline level of the outcome.||||0.11
91021406|NCT01032330|181925778|OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value for the change between baseline and 6 months in the Younger cohort. Two-sided p values for comparisons of continuous outcomes are from analysis of covariance models adjusting for the baseline level of the outcome.||||0.10
91021407|NCT01032330|181925779|OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value for the change between baseline and 3 Years in the Older cohort. Two-sided p values for comparisons of continuous outcomes are from analysis of covariance models adjusting for the baseline level of the outcome.||||0.60
91021408|NCT01032330|181925779|OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value for the change between baseline and 3 Years in the Younger cohort. Two-sided p values for comparisons of continuous outcomes are from analysis of covariance models adjusting for the baseline level of the outcome.||||0.09
91021409|NCT02567266|181925787|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.2||Threshold: p \< .05|Mixed Models Analysis||A negative value for the mean difference indicates that the lower numbered Group has a lower mean than the higher numbered group.|DV = CGI-I at Post-Treatment||.20|-.58|.338
91021410|NCT02567266|181925787|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.57||Threshold: p \<.05|Mixed Models Analysis||A negative value for the mean difference indicates that the lower numbered Group has a lower mean than the higher numbered group.|DV = CGI-I at Post Treatment||0.57|-0.24|0.425
91021411|NCT02567266|181925787|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.06||Threshold: p \< .05|Mixed Models Analysis||A negative value for the mean difference indicates that the lower numbered Group has a lower mean than the higher numbered group.|DV = CGI-I at Post||0.06|-0.77|0.09
91021412|NCT02567266|181925787|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.09||Threshold: p \< .05|Mixed Models Analysis||A negative value for the mean difference indicates that the lower numbered Group has a lower mean than the higher numbered group.|DV = CGI-I at Follow-Up||0.09|-0.72|0.126
91021413|NCT02567266|181925787|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.19||Threshold: p \< .05|Mixed Models Analysis||A negative value for the mean difference indicates that the lower numbered Group has a lower mean than the higher numbered group.|DV = CGI-I at Follow-Up||0.19|-0.65|0.28
91021414|NCT02567266|181925787|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.34||Threshold: p \< .05|Mixed Models Analysis||A negative value for the mean difference indicates that the lower numbered Group has a lower mean than the higher numbered group.|DV = CGI-I at Follow-Up||0.34|-0.51|0.697
91021415|NCT02567266|181925788|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.45||Threshold: p \< .05|Mixed Models Analysis||A negative value for the mean difference indicates that the lower numbered Group has a lower mean than the higher numbered group.|DV = CGI-S at Follow-Up||0.45|-0.6|0.779
91021416|NCT02567266|181925788|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.67||Threshold: p \< .05|Mixed Models Analysis||A negative value for the mean difference indicates that the lower numbered Group has a lower mean than the higher numbered group.|DV = CGI-S at Follow-Up||0.67|-0.42|0.66
91021417|NCT02567266|181925788|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.31||Threshold: p \< .05|Mixed Models Analysis||A negative value for the mean difference indicates that the lower numbered Group has a lower mean than the higher numbered group.|DV = CGI-S at Post||0.31|-0.51|0.629
91021418|NCT02567266|181925788|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.38||Threshold: p \< .05|Mixed Models Analysis||A negative value for the mean difference indicates that the lower numbered Group has a lower mean than the higher numbered group.|DV = CGI-S at Post||0.38|-0.41|0.938
91021419|NCT02567266|181925788|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.49||Threshold: p \< .05|Mixed Models Analysis||A negative value for the mean difference indicates that the lower numbered Group has a lower mean than the higher numbered group.|DV = CGI-S at Post||0.49|-0.32|0.68
91021420|NCT02567266|181925788|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.35||Threshold: p \< .05|Mixed Models Analysis||A negative value for the mean difference indicates that the lower numbered Group has a lower mean than the higher numbered group.|DV = CGI-S at Follow-Up||0.35|-0.75|0.479
91021421|NCT02567266|181925789|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.58||0.852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.85|3.45||Threshold: p \< .05|Mixed Models Analysis||A negative value for the mean difference indicates that the lower numbered Group has a lower mean than the higher numbered group.|DV = CGAS at Post||3.45|-2.85|0.852
91021422|NCT02567266|181925789|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.62||0.917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.41|3.07||Threshold: p \< .05|Mixed Models Analysis||A negative value for the mean difference indicates that the lower numbered Group has a lower mean than the higher numbered group.|DV = CGAS at Post||3.07|-3.41|0.917
91021423|NCT02567266|181925789|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.66||0.778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.81|3.74||Threshold: p \< .05|Mixed Models Analysis||A negative value for the mean difference indicates that the lower numbered Group has a lower mean than the higher numbered group.|DV = CGAS at Post||3.74|-2.81|0.778
91021424|NCT02567266|181925789|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.12||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|5.19||Threshold: p \< .05|Mixed Models Analysis||A negative value for the mean difference indicates that the lower numbered Group has a lower mean than the higher numbered group.|DV = CGAS at Follow-Up||5.19|-3.3|0.66
91021425|NCT02567266|181925789|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.19||0.935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.55|4.19||Threshold: p \< .05|Mixed Models Analysis||A negative value for the mean difference indicates that the lower numbered Group has a lower mean than the higher numbered group.|DV = CGAS at Follow-Up||4.19|-4.55|0.935
91021426|NCT02567266|181925789|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.21||0.615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.29|5.55||Threshold: p \< .05|Mixed Models Analysis||A negative value for the mean difference indicates that the lower numbered Group has a lower mean than the higher numbered group.|DV = CGAS at Follow-Up||5.55|-3.29|0.615
91021427|NCT02020785|181925817|SUPERIORITY|Main analyses were intention-to-treat using mixed effects models allowing intercepts to vary for each individual. Carryover effects were examined by using treatment by assignment-order interaction terms. Pre-specified sensitivity analyses were conducted excluding patients who were non-compliant, prior to data analysis: 1st, noncompliance based on missing product pickups and follow-up visits; 2nd, suspected poor compliance (\< 250 mg difference between the higher and lower period).\]|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.143||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.025|0.34||For each outcome, a p value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimate (14.3%, 95% CI: -2.5%, 34.0%) is the estimated difference between end of higher phosphorus period and end of lower phosphorus period from mixed effects analyses for log-transformed 24-hour urine albumin excretion|Sample size for this study was calculated using the xsampsi module in STATA, based on a previous study with repeat 24-hour urine collections (standard deviation, 1.04). At an α level of 0.05, we anticipated that a sample size of 30 participants with mean albuminuria of 100 mg/d would result in \>80% power to detect a 13% difference in log- transformed albuminuria between the higher and lower phosphorus additive periods.||0.34|-0.025|0.05
91021428|NCT02020785|181925818|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.034||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.059|0.136||For each outcome, a p value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimate (3.4%, 95% CI: -5.9%, 13.6%) is the estimated difference between end of higher phosphorus period and end of lower phosphorus period from mixed effects analyses for log-transformed fibroblast growth factor 23|||0.136|-0.059|0.05
91021429|NCT02020785|181925819|SUPERIORITY||mean difference (during each period)|-1.1||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|1.9||For each outcome, a p value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.9|-4.1|0.05
91021430|NCT02020785|181925820|SUPERIORITY||mean difference (during each period)|-0.8||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|1.0||For each outcome, a p value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.0|-2.7|0.05
91021431|NCT02164539|181925821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.103||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.014|0.193|||Final step dose response model|||||0.193|0.014|0.024
91021432|NCT02164539|181925821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.103||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.014|0.193|||Final step dose response model|||||0.193|0.014|0.024
91021433|NCT02164539|181925821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.103||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.014|0.193|||Final step dose response model|||||0.193|0.014|0.024
91021434|NCT02164539|181925821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.103||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.014|0.193|||Final step dose response model|||||0.193|0.014|0.024
91021435|NCT02164539|181925821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.073||||0.152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.027|0.172|||Final dose response model|||||0.172|-0.027|0.152
91021436|NCT02164539|181925822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||||-0.2|-1.7|0.010
91021437|NCT02164539|181925822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.4|||ANCOVA||Statistical analysis presented for daily rescue medication use.|||-0.4|-1.9|0.004
91021438|NCT02164539|181925822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.1|||ANCOVA||Statistical analysis presented for daily rescue medication use.|||0.1|-1.4|0.083
91021439|NCT02164539|181925822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.2|||ANCOVA||Statistical analysis presented for daily rescue medication use.|||-0.2|-1.5|0.014
91021440|NCT02164539|181925822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.1|||ANCOVA||Statistical analysis presented for daily rescue medication use.|||-0.1|-1.4|0.031
91021441|NCT02164539|181925823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|-1.7|||ANCOVA|||||-1.7|-4.6|<0.001
91021442|NCT02164539|181925823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|-1.6|||ANCOVA|||||-1.6|-4.5|<0.001
91021443|NCT02164539|181925823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.0||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-0.6|||ANCOVA|||||-0.6|-3.4|0.007
91021444|NCT02164539|181925823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.0||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-0.7|||ANCOVA|||||-0.7|-3.2|0.002
91021445|NCT02164539|181925823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.7||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||||-0.4|-2.9|0.009
91021446|NCT02164539|181925824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|18.1||||0.004||95.0|5.9|30.3|||ANCOVA|||||30.3|5.9|0.004
91021447|NCT02164539|181925824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|21.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.4|34.1|||ANCOVA|||||34.1|9.4|<0.001
91021448|NCT02164539|181925824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|19.7||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|31.7|||ANCOVA|||||31.7|7.7|0.001
91021449|NCT02164539|181925824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|24.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.1|35.4|||ANCOVA|||||35.4|14.1|<0.001
91021450|NCT02164539|181925824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|18.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|29.1|||ANCOVA|||||29.1|8.0|<0.001
91021451|NCT02164539|181925825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.045||||0.264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.034|0.125|||ANCOVA|||||0.125|-0.034|0.264
91021452|NCT02164539|181925825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04||||0.328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.041|0.121|||ANCOVA|||||0.121|-0.041|0.328
91021453|NCT02164539|181925825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.025||||0.534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.054|0.103|||ANCOVA|||||0.103|-0.054|0.534
91021454|NCT02164539|181925825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.005||||0.895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.065|0.075|||ANCOVA|||||0.075|-0.065|0.895
91021455|NCT02164539|181925825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.076||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.007|0.146|||ANCOVA|||||0.146|0.007|0.031
91021456|NCT02164539|181925826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.088||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.162|-0.014|||ANCOVA|||||-0.014|-0.162|0.019
91021457|NCT02164539|181925826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.091||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.165|-0.016|||ANCOVA|||||-0.016|-0.165|0.017
91021458|NCT02164539|181925826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.089||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.162|-0.016|||ANCOVA|||||-0.016|-0.162|0.017
91021459|NCT02164539|181925826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.124|0.004|||ANCOVA|||||0.004|-0.124|0.066
91021460|NCT02164539|181925826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.163|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.227|-0.099|||ANCOVA|||||-0.099|-0.227|<0.001
91021461|NCT01255722|181925827|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The clinical non-inferiority margin was set to -10% maximum difference with the best comparator (i.e. iopromide).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.033||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.088|0.021|||Chi-squared|||Iobitridol was compared to the best of the two comparators. The two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the difference between both proportions (Iobitridol - Comparator) was computed and the lower limit of the CI compared to the clinical non-inferiority limit in the study. The non-inferiority of iobitridol over the best comparator was established if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI was equal to or higher than the clinical non-inferiority limit.||0.021|-0.088|0.05
91021462|NCT01255722|181925828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.750
91021463|NCT01255722|181925830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.001
91021464|NCT01255722|181925831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.109|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.109
91021465|NCT01255722|181925832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.09
91021466|NCT00701935|181925833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.432||0.8252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.92|7.95||p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes terms of treatment, gender, investigator and baseline abdominal visceral fat.||"The power calculation is based on a two-sided t-test and significance level of 0.05.~Hypotheses for sample size:~Power: 80% Drop-out rate: 20% Difference in the percentage change in abdominal visceral fat from baseline to 6 months between exenatide and placebo: 10% Common standard deviation: 15%~94 patients are needed to attain the 37 patients randomized and analyzed in each group."||7.95|-9.92|0.8252
91021467|NCT00701935|181925834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.193||0.5207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.53|4.39||p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes terms of treatment, gender, investigator and baseline total abdominal fat.||||4.39|-8.53|0.5207
91021468|NCT00701935|181925835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.687||0.1755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.15|1.73||p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes terms of treatment, gender, investigator and baseline subcutaneous abdominal fat.||||1.73|-9.15|0.1755
91021469|NCT00701935|181925836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.155|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|-0.57||p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis included the following factors: treatment, gender, investigator and baseline HbA1c||||-0.57|-1.19|<0.0001
91021470|NCT00701935|181925838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.491||0.0073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.38|-0.4||p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes terms of treatment, gender, investigator and baseline fasting plasma glucose.||||-0.40|-2.38|0.0073
91021471|NCT00701935|181925839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.725||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.66|-0.76||p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes terms of treatment, gender, investigator and baseline body weight.||||-0.76|-3.66|0.0035
91021472|NCT00701935|181925842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.248||0.4145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.3||p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes terms of treatment, gender, investigator and baseline total cholesterol||||0.30|-0.71|0.4145
91021473|NCT00701935|181925843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.279||0.4007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.33||p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes terms of treatment, gender, investigator and baseline triglycerides||||0.33|-0.80|0.4007
91084831|NCT02373137|182053247|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient|-1.5||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-0.6|||Regression, Linear|Multiple linear regression model with a covariate for baseline visual acuity|Coefficient reported in lines, comparing DMEK to UT-DSAEK. Compared to UT-DSAEK, DMEK had 1.5 lines better vision at 3 months.|Comparison of 3-Month Visual Acuity Between Groups||-0.6|-2.5|0.002
91084832|NCT02373137|182053247|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient|-1.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.7|||Regression, Linear|Multiple linear regression model with a covariate for baseline visual acuity|Coefficient reported in lines, comparing DMEK to UT-DSAEK. Compared to UT-DSAEK, DMEK had 1.4 lines better vision at 12 months.|Comparison of 12 Month Visual Acuity Between Groups||-0.7|-2.2|<0.001
91084833|NCT02373137|182053249|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient|-77.0||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-326.0|172.0|||t-test, 2 sided||Comparing DMEK to UT-DSAEK at 3 months.|||172|-326|0.53
91084834|NCT02373137|182053249|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient|-150.0||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-356.0|66.0|||t-test, 2 sided||Comparing DMEK to UT-DSAEK at 6 months.|||66|-356|0.17
91084835|NCT02373137|182053249|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient|-215.0||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-430.0|-0.4|||t-test, 2 sided||Comparing DMEK to UT-DSAEK at 12 months.|||-0.4|-430|0.051
91084836|NCT02373137|182053255|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.70
91084837|NCT02559570|182053299|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.149||0.7789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.335|0.252|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model estimates/t-tests comparing specified treatment groups, controlling for age group and baseline value.|ANCOVA model was applied with treatment arm groups (linaclotide doses A, B, and C, and placebo) and age group (6 to 11 years of age and 12 to 17 years of age) as factors and baseline value as covariate.|||0.252|-0.335|0.7789
91084838|NCT02559570|182053299|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.143||0.993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.282|0.284|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model estimates/t-tests comparing specified treatment groups, controlling for age group and baseline value.|ANCOVA model was applied with treatment arm groups (linaclotide doses A, B, and C, and placebo) and age group (6 to 11 years of age and 12 to 17 years of age) as factors and baseline value as covariate.|||0.284|-0.282|0.9930
91084839|NCT02559570|182053299|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.146||0.4107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.167|0.408|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model estimates/t-tests comparing specified treatment groups, controlling for age group and baseline value.|ANCOVA model was applied with treatment arm groups (linaclotide doses A, B, and C, and placebo) and age group (6 to 11 years of age and 12 to 17 years of age) as factors and baseline value as covariate.|||0.408|-0.167|0.4107
91084840|NCT02559570|182053300|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.588|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.577||0.3097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.729|0.552|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model estimates/t-tests comparing specified treatment groups, controlling for age group and baseline value.|ANCOVA model was applied with treatment arm groups (linaclotide doses A, B, and C, and placebo) and age group (6 to 11 years of age and 12 to 17 years of age) as factors and baseline value as covariate.|||0.552|-1.729|0.3097
91084841|NCT02559570|182053300|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.186|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.557||0.7384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.286|0.913|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model estimates/t-tests comparing specified treatment groups, controlling for age group and baseline value.|ANCOVA model was applied with treatment arm groups (linaclotide doses A, B, and C, and placebo) and age group (6 to 11 years of age and 12 to 17 years of age) as factors and baseline value as covariate.|||0.913|-1.286|0.7384
91084842|NCT02559570|182053300|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.364|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.563||0.5188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.748|1.477|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model estimates/t-tests comparing specified treatment groups, controlling for age group and baseline value.|ANCOVA model was applied with treatment arm groups (linaclotide doses A, B, and C, and placebo) and age group (6 to 11 years of age and 12 to 17 years of age) as factors and baseline value as covariate.|||1.477|-0.748|0.5188
91084843|NCT02559570|182053301|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.249||0.8426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.543|0.444|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model estimates/t-tests comparing specified treatment groups, controlling for age group and baseline value.|ANCOVA model was applied with treatment arm groups (linaclotide doses A, B, and C, and placebo) and age group (6 to 11 years of age and 12 to 17 years of age) as factors and baseline value as covariate.|Adult derivation||0.444|-0.543|0.8426
91084844|NCT02559570|182053301|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.038|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.246||0.877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.525|0.448|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model estimates/t-tests comparing specified treatment groups, controlling for age group and baseline value.|ANCOVA model was applied with treatment arm groups (linaclotide doses A, B, and C, and placebo) and age group (6 to 11 years of age and 12 to 17 years of age) as factors and baseline value as covariate.|Adult derivation||0.448|-0.525|0.8770
91084845|NCT02559570|182053301|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.356|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.246||0.1502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.131|0.842|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model estimates/t-tests comparing specified treatment groups, controlling for age group and baseline value.|ANCOVA model was applied with treatment arm groups (linaclotide doses A, B, and C, and placebo) and age group (6 to 11 years of age and 12 to 17 years of age) as factors and baseline value as covariate.|Adult derivation||0.842|-0.131|0.1502
91084846|NCT02559570|182053301|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.062|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.239||0.7949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.535|0.41|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model estimates/t-tests comparing specified treatment groups, controlling for age group and baseline value.|ANCOVA model was applied with treatment arm groups (linaclotide doses A, B, and C, and placebo) and age group (6 to 11 years of age and 12 to 17 years of age) as factors and baseline value as covariate.|Weighted average||0.410|-0.535|0.7949
91084847|NCT02559570|182053301|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.074|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.235||0.7543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.392|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model estimates/t-tests comparing specified treatment groups, controlling for age group and baseline value.|ANCOVA model was applied with treatment arm groups (linaclotide doses A, B, and C, and placebo) and age group (6 to 11 years of age and 12 to 17 years of age) as factors and baseline value as covariate.|Weighted average||0.392|-0.540|0.7543
91084848|NCT02559570|182053301|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.262|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.235||0.2676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.204|0.728|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model estimates/t-tests comparing specified treatment groups, controlling for age group and baseline value.|ANCOVA model was applied with treatment arm groups (linaclotide doses A, B, and C, and placebo) and age group (6 to 11 years of age and 12 to 17 years of age) as factors and baseline value as covariate.|Weighted average||0.728|-0.204|0.2676
91084849|NCT02559570|182053302|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.053|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.208||0.7997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.465|0.359|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model estimates/t-tests comparing specified treatment groups, controlling for age group and baseline value.|ANCOVA model was applied with treatment arm groups (linaclotide doses A, B, and C, and placebo) and age group (6 to 11 years of age and 12 to 17 years of age) as factors and baseline value as covariate.|Adult derivation||0.359|-0.465|0.7997
91084850|NCT02559570|182053302|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.121|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.207||0.5602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.288|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model estimates/t-tests comparing specified treatment groups, controlling for age group and baseline value.|ANCOVA model was applied with treatment arm groups (linaclotide doses A, B, and C, and placebo) and age group (6 to 11 years of age and 12 to 17 years of age) as factors and baseline value as covariate.|Adult derivation||0.288|-0.530|0.5602
91084851|NCT02559570|182053302|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.236|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.205||0.2529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.641|0.17|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model estimates/t-tests comparing specified treatment groups, controlling for age group and baseline value.|ANCOVA model was applied with treatment arm groups (linaclotide doses A, B, and C, and placebo) and age group (6 to 11 years of age and 12 to 17 years of age) as factors and baseline value as covariate.|Adult derivation||0.170|-0.641|0.2529
90956791|NCT00577473|181793072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0766||||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.41|19.74|||Chi-squared|||It was assumed that the true rate of improvement for the 2.4 g/day treatment group is 40% and for the 4.8 g/day group is 60%. To detect a true difference of 20% between these 2 groups with a 2-sided test, type I error of 0.05 (α = 0.05), and power of 90%, 140 patients were required per group to complete the study. To account for a 10% dropout/withdrawal rate, approximately 308 patients were to be enrolled in the study.||19.74|-4.41|0.2150
90956792|NCT00577473|181793073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0351||||0.5569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.18|15.2|||Chi-squared|||It was assumed that the true rate of improvement for the 2.4 g/day treatment group is 40% and for the 4.8 g/day group is 60%. To detect a true difference of 20% between these 2 groups with a 2-sided test, type I error of 0.05 (α = 0.05), and power of 90%, 140 patients were required per group to complete the study. To account for a 10% dropout/withdrawal rate, approximately 308 patients were to be enrolled in the study.||15.20|-8.18|0.5569
90956793|NCT00577473|181793074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.1091||||0.0769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|22.91|||Chi-squared|||It was assumed that the true rate of improvement for the 2.4 g/day treatment group is 40% and for the 4.8 g/day group is 60%. To detect a true difference of 20% between these 2 groups with a 2-sided test, type I error of 0.05 (α = 0.05), and power of 90%, 140 patients were required per group to complete the study. To account for a 10% dropout/withdrawal rate, approximately 308 patients were to be enrolled in the study.||22.91|-1.10|0.0769
91084852|NCT02559570|182053302|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.054|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.206||0.7923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.461|0.352|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model estimates/t-tests comparing specified treatment groups, controlling for age group and baseline value.|ANCOVA model was applied with treatment arm groups (linaclotide doses A, B, and C, and placebo) and age group (6 to 11 years of age and 12 to 17 years of age) as factors and baseline value as covariate.|Weighted average||0.352|-0.461|0.7923
90956794|NCT00577473|181793075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.1139||||0.0551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|22.92|||Chi-squared|||It was assumed that the true rate of improvement for the 2.4 g/day treatment group is 40% and for the 4.8 g/day group is 60%. To detect a true difference of 20% between these 2 groups with a 2-sided test, type I error of 0.05 (α = 0.05), and power of 90%, 140 patients were required per group to complete the study. To account for a 10% dropout/withdrawal rate, approximately 308 patients were to be enrolled in the study.||22.92|-0.13|0.0551
90956795|NCT00577473|181793076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0738||||0.2306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.66|19.43|||Chi-squared|||It was assumed that the true rate of improvement for the 2.4 g/day treatment group is 40% and for the 4.8 g/day group is 60%. To detect a true difference of 20% between these 2 groups with a 2-sided test, type I error of 0.05 (α = 0.05), and power of 90%, 140 patients were required per group to complete the study. To account for a 10% dropout/withdrawal rate, approximately 308 patients were to be enrolled in the study.||19.43|-4.66|0.2306
90956796|NCT00577473|181793077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0652||||0.2931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|18.64|||Chi-squared|||It was assumed that the true rate of improvement for the 2.4 g/day treatment group is 40% and for the 4.8 g/day group is 60%. To detect a true difference of 20% between these 2 groups with a 2-sided test, type I error of 0.05 (α = 0.05), and power of 90%, 140 patients were required per group to complete the study. To account for a 10% dropout/withdrawal rate, approximately 308 patients were to be enrolled in the study.||18.64|-5.60|0.2931
90956797|NCT00577473|181793078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0051||||0.9349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.67|12.69|||Chi-squared|||It was assumed that the true rate of improvement for the 2.4 g/day treatment group is 40% and for the 4.8 g/day group is 60%. To detect a true difference of 20% between these 2 groups with a 2-sided test, type I error of 0.05 (α = 0.05), and power of 90%, 140 patients were required per group to complete the study. To account for a 10% dropout/withdrawal rate, approximately 308 patients were to be enrolled in the study.||12.69|-11.67|0.9349
90956798|NCT00577473|181793079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.065||||0.2583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.72|17.73|||Chi-squared|||It was assumed that the true rate of improvement for the 2.4 g/day treatment group is 40% and for the 4.8 g/day group is 60%. To detect a true difference of 20% between these 2 groups with a 2-sided test, type I error of 0.05 (α = 0.05), and power of 90%, 140 patients were required per group to complete the study. To account for a 10% dropout/withdrawal rate, approximately 308 patients were to be enrolled in the study.||17.73|-4.72|0.2583
90956799|NCT02595073|181793083|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3353|||||||z-test, 2-tailed|||||||0.3353
90956800|NCT02595073|181793084|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.619|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.6190
90956801|NCT02884908|181793111|SUPERIORITY|Based on randomization to treatment condition, the model assumed no differences at baseline (any difference was assumed due to random sampling error).||||||0.8|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.80
91084853|NCT02559570|182053302|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.113|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.204||0.5802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.517|0.29|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model estimates/t-tests comparing specified treatment groups, controlling for age group and baseline value.|ANCOVA model was applied with treatment arm groups (linaclotide doses A, B, and C, and placebo) and age group (6 to 11 years of age and 12 to 17 years of age) as factors and baseline value as covariate.|Weighted average||0.290|-0.517|0.5802
91084854|NCT02559570|182053302|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.199|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.202||0.3263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.201|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model estimates/t-tests comparing specified treatment groups, controlling for age group and baseline value.|ANCOVA model was applied with treatment arm groups (linaclotide doses A, B, and C, and placebo) and age group (6 to 11 years of age and 12 to 17 years of age) as factors and baseline value as covariate.|Weighted average||0.201|-0.600|0.3263
91084855|NCT02559570|182053303|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.152||0.7507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.252|0.349|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model estimates/t-tests comparing specified treatment groups, controlling for age group and baseline value.|ANCOVA model was applied with treatment arm groups (linaclotide doses A, B, and C, and placebo) and age group (6 to 11 years of age and 12 to 17 years of age) as factors and baseline value as covariate.|||0.349|-0.252|0.7507
91021474|NCT00701935|181925844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.7915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.11||p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes terms of treatment, gender, investigator and baseline HDL cholesterol||||0.11|-0.08|0.7915
91021475|NCT00701935|181925845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|3.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.63||0.1388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|15.77||p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Generalized linear model was used with the assumption of an underlying Poisson distribution and the logarithm of exposure (years) as offset variable.||Event rate per subject year was calculated for each subject : (number of events observed from a subject/exposure from a subject)\*365.25 where exposure = last post-baseline visit date - baseline visit date.||15.77|0.68|0.1388
91021476|NCT00947518|181925855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.99
91021477|NCT00947518|181925856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.46
91021478|NCT00947518|181925857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.06
91021479|NCT00947518|181925858|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared||||For comparison of categorical variables among the three groups, Chi2 test followed by Bonferroni's correction was used.|||<0.05
91021480|NCT02065791|181925859|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.82|||Cox Proportional Hazard|||Comparison for canagliflozin versus placebo is reported here.||0.82|0.59|< 0.0001
91021481|NCT02065791|181925860|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69|||=|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.83|||Cox proportional hazard|||Comparison for canagliflozin versus placebo is reported here.||0.83|0.57|=0.0001
91021482|NCT02065791|181925861|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||=|0.0121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.95|||Cox proportional hazard|||Comparison for canagliflozin versus placebo is reported here.||0.95|0.67|=0.0121
91021483|NCT02065791|181925862|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61|||=|0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.8|||Cox proportional hazards|||Comparison for canagliflozin versus placebo is reported here.||0.80|0.47|=0.0003
91021484|NCT02065791|181925863|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.81|||Cox proportional hazards|||Comparison for canagliflozin versus placebo is reported here.||0.81|0.53|<0.0001
91021485|NCT02065791|181925864|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|||=|0.0502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.0|||Cox proportional hazards|||Comparison for canagliflozin versus placebo is reported here.||1.00|0.61|=0.0502
91021486|NCT02065791|181925865|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83|||=|0.0727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.02|||Cox proportional hazard|||Comparison for canagliflozin versus placebo is reported here.||1.02|0.68|= 0.0727
91021487|NCT02065791|181925866|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.86|||Cox proportional hazards|||Comparison for canagliflozin versus placebo is reported here.||0.86|0.63|0.0001
91021488|NCT04529096|181925867|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.14|||Bayesian Mixed Model Analysis|||||1.14|-0.10|
91021489|NCT04529096|181925868|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|2.56|||Bayesian Mixed Model Analysis|||||2.56|-0.46|
91021490|NCT04529096|181925869|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.58|||Bayesian Mixed Model Analysis|||||0.58|-0.25|
91021491|NCT04529096|181925870|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|1.17|||Bayesian Mixed Model Analysis|||||1.17|-0.19|
91021492|NCT04529096|181925871|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|4.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.51|12.59|||Bayesian Mixed Model Analysis|||||12.59|-3.51|
91021493|NCT04529096|181925872|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.51|||Bayesian Mixed Model Analysis|||||0.51|-0.40|
91021494|NCT04529096|181925873|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-15.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-206.43|175.8|||Bayesian Mixed Model Analysis|||||175.80|-206.43|
91021495|NCT04529096|181925874|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.01|||Bayesian Mixed Model Analysis|||||0.01|-0.11|
91021496|NCT04529499|181925875|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.67
91021497|NCT04529499|181925875|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.991|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.767|1.28|||||Favipiravir + supportive care in numerator and Placebo+ Supportive care in denominator for CPH ratio analysis|||1.280|0.767|
91021498|NCT04529499|181925876|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.34
91021499|NCT03467971|181925898|EQUIVALENCE|Bio-equivalence Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90% Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.0% - 125.0%.|Ratio of mean values|175.6652|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|153.779|200.6664||||||Statistical Analysis for Metformin||200.6664|153.7790|
91021500|NCT03467971|181925898|EQUIVALENCE|Bio-equivalence Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90% Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.0% - 125.0%.|Ratio of mean values|104.457|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.766|111.606||||||Statistical Analysis for Gliclazide||111.6060|97.7660|
91021501|NCT03467971|181925899|EQUIVALENCE|Bio-equivalence Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90% Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.0% - 125.0%.|Ratio of mean values|180.7734|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|157.0135|208.1287||||||Statistical Analysis for Metformin||208.1287|157.0135|
91021502|NCT03467971|181925899|EQUIVALENCE|Bio-equivalence Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90% Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.0% - 125.0%.|Ratio of mean values|105.0818|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.0047|112.6699||||||Statistical Analysis for Gliclazide||112.6699|98.0047|
91021503|NCT03467971|181925900|EQUIVALENCE|Bio-equivalence Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90% Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.0% - 125.0%.|Ratio of mean values|127.7779|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|110.2732|148.0612||||||Statistical Analysis for Metformin||148.0612|110.2732|
91021504|NCT03467971|181925900|EQUIVALENCE|Bio-equivalence Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90% Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.0% - 125.0%.|Ratio of mean values|105.4183|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.5723|117.5081||||||Statistical Analysis for Gliclazide||117.5081|94.5723|
91021505|NCT04179474|181925968|EQUIVALENCE|"No effect of co-administration with erenumab on the PK of ubrogepant was concluded if the 90% CIs for the geometric mean ratios of ubrogepant PK parameters for test study intervention (ubrogepant in combination with erenumab) versus reference study intervention (ubrogepant alone) were within the limits of 80% to 125%."|Ratio of Geometric Mean Percentage|105.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.21|115.79|||||Ratio of Geometric Mean Percentage=Ubrogepant in Combination with Erenumab/Ubrogepant Alone \* 100|A linear mixed-effects model with study intervention as fixed effect and participant as a random effect was used to determine the Geometric Means.||115.79|96.21|
91021506|NCT04179474|181925969|EQUIVALENCE|"No effect of co-administration with galcanezumab on the PK of ubrogepant was concluded if the 90% CIs for the geometric mean ratios of ubrogepant PK parameters for test study intervention (ubrogepant in combination with galcanezumab) versus reference study intervention (ubrogepant alone) were within the limits of 80% to 125%."|Ratio of Geometric Mean Percentage|105.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.55|123.19|||||Ratio of Geometric Mean Percentage=Ubrogepant in Combination with Galcanezumab/Ubrogepant Alone \* 100|A linear mixed-effects model with study intervention as fixed effect and participant as a random effect was used to determine the Geometric Means.||123.19|89.55|
91021507|NCT04179474|181925970|EQUIVALENCE|"No effect of co-administration with erenumab on the PK of ubrogepant was concluded if the 90% CIs for the geometric mean ratios of ubrogepant PK parameters for test study intervention (ubrogepant in combination with erenumab) versus reference study intervention (ubrogepant alone) were within the limits of 80% to 125%."|Ratio of Geometric Mean Percentage|105.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.19|115.45|||||Ratio of Geometric Mean Percentage=Ubrogepant in Combination with Erenumab/Ubrogepant Alone \* 100|A linear mixed-effects model with study intervention as fixed effect and participant as a random effect was used to determine the Geometric Means.||115.45|96.19|
91021508|NCT04179474|181925971|EQUIVALENCE|"No effect of co-administration with galcanezumab on the PK of ubrogepant was concluded if the 90% CIs for the geometric mean ratios of ubrogepant PK parameters for test study intervention (ubrogepant in combination with galcanezumab) versus reference study intervention (ubrogepant alone) were within the limits of 80% to 125%."|Ratio of Geometric Mean Percentage|104.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.68|122.38|||||Ratio of Geometric Mean Percentage=Ubrogepant in Combination with Galcanezumab/Ubrogepant Alone \* 100|A linear mixed-effects model with study intervention as fixed effect and participant as a random effect was used to determine the Geometric Means.||122.38|89.68|
91021509|NCT04179474|181925972|EQUIVALENCE|"No effect of co-administration with erenumab on the PK of ubrogepant was concluded if the 90% CIs for the geometric mean ratios of ubrogepant PK parameters for test study intervention (ubrogepant in combination with erenumab) versus reference study intervention (ubrogepant alone) were within the limits of 80% to 125%."|Ratio of Geometric Mean Percentage|103.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.01|115.98|||||Ratio of Geometric Mean Percentage=Ubrogepant in Combination with Erenumab/Ubrogepant Alone \* 100|A linear mixed-effects model with study intervention as fixed effect and participant as a random effect was used to determine the Geometric Means||115.98|93.01|
91103871|NCT03449147|182094504|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.83||Comparison based on a logistic regression model that included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, region, baseline 24-hour coughs per hour and the interaction of baseline 24-hour coughs per hour as covariates.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.83|0.96|0.082
90956802|NCT02884908|181793112|SUPERIORITY|Based on randomization to treatment condition, the model assumed no differences at baseline (any difference was assumed due to random sampling error).||||||0.9|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.90
91021510|NCT04179474|181925973|EQUIVALENCE|"No effect of co-administration with galcanezumab on the PK of ubrogepant was concluded if the 90% CIs for the geometric mean ratios of ubrogepant PK parameters for test study intervention (ubrogepant in combination with galcanezumab) versus reference study intervention (ubrogepant alone) were within the limits of 80% to 125%."|Ratio of Geometric Mean Percentage|99.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.27|120.45|||||Ratio of Geometric Mean Percentage=Ubrogepant in Combination with Galcanezumab/Ubrogepant Alone \* 100|A linear mixed-effects model with study intervention as fixed effect and participant as a random effect was used to determine the Geometric Means.||120.45|82.27|
91021511|NCT04508621|181926002|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.1|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Multiple imputation used for missing data.|Treatment difference = TNX-102 SL - Placebo|||0.1|-0.6|0.115
91021512|NCT04508621|181926003|SUPERIORITY|Patients with missing data considered non-responders.|Difference in Proportions|8.0||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|15.5|||Pearson Chi-Squared|||||15.5|0.5|0.038
91021513|NCT04508621|181926004|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.55||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|-0.3|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Multiple imputation used for missing data.|Treatment difference = TNX-102 SL - Placebo|||-0.3|-6.4|0.030
91021514|NCT04508621|181926005|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.46||0.797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|2.5|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Multiple imputation used for missing data.|Treatment Difference = TNX-102 SL - Placebo|||2.5|-3.2|0.797
91103872|NCT03449147|182094505|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.83||||||Comparison based on a logistic regression model that included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, region, baseline mean weekly CSD total score, and the interaction of baseline mean weekly CSD total score by visit as covariates.||1.83|0.96|
91103873|NCT03449147|182094505|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|2.09||||||Comparison based on a logistic regression model that included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, region, baseline mean weekly CSD total score, and the interaction of baseline mean weekly CSD total score by visit as covariates.||2.09|1.08|
91084856|NCT02559570|182053303|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.028|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.146||0.8505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.262|0.317|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model estimates/t-tests comparing specified treatment groups, controlling for age group and baseline value.|ANCOVA model was applied with treatment arm groups (linaclotide doses A, B, and C, and placebo) and age group (6 to 11 years of age and 12 to 17 years of age) as factors and baseline value as covariate.|||0.317|-0.262|0.8505
91084857|NCT02559570|182053303|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.039|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.149||0.7933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.254|0.332|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model estimates/t-tests comparing specified treatment groups, controlling for age group and baseline value.|ANCOVA model was applied with treatment arm groups (linaclotide doses A, B, and C, and placebo) and age group (6 to 11 years of age and 12 to 17 years of age) as factors and baseline value as covariate.|||0.332|-0.254|0.7933
91084858|NCT02559570|182053304|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.425|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.3461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.313|0.463|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model estimates/t-tests comparing specified treatment groups, controlling for age group and baseline value.|ANCOVA model was applied with treatment arm groups (linaclotide doses A, B, and C, and placebo) and age group (6 to 11 years of age and 12 to 17 years of age) as factors and baseline value as covariate.|||0.463|-1.313|0.3461
91084859|NCT02559570|182053304|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.235|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.435||0.5892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.095|0.624|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model estimates/t-tests comparing specified treatment groups, controlling for age group and baseline value.|ANCOVA model was applied with treatment arm groups (linaclotide doses A, B, and C, and placebo) and age group (6 to 11 years of age and 12 to 17 years of age) as factors and baseline value as covariate.|||0.624|-1.095|0.5892
91084860|NCT02559570|182053304|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.789|0.949|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model estimates/t-tests comparing specified treatment groups, controlling for age group and baseline value.|ANCOVA model was applied with treatment arm groups (linaclotide doses A, B, and C, and placebo) and age group (6 to 11 years of age and 12 to 17 years of age) as factors and baseline value as covariate.|||0.949|-0.789|0.8560
91084861|NCT01903993|182053331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69|||=|0.0106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.92|||Log rank (Stratified)|||Hazard ratios (HR) were estimated by a Cox regression model.||0.92|0.52|= 0.0106
91084862|NCT01903993|182053332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Response Rates|0.59|||=|0.8884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.67|8.85|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||8.85|-7.67|= 0.8884
91084863|NCT01903993|182053333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92|||=|0.5563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.2|||Log rank (Stratified)|||HR were estimated by a Cox regression model. The two treatment comparison was based on a stratified log-rank test.||1.20|0.71|=0.5563
91084864|NCT01903993|182053334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.32|||=|0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.7|||Log rank (unstratified)|||HR were estimated by a unstratified Cox regression model.||0.70|0.15|= 0.0028
91084865|NCT04672044|182053398|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.896|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.896
91084866|NCT02453256|182053399|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square means|-1.73||||0.0983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.78|0.32|||Repeated Measure|||Difference in least square means between the TCZ group and the Placebo group at week 48. Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the TCZ group and the placebo group in mean change in mRSS from baseline to Week 48.||0.32|-3.78|0.0983
91084867|NCT02453256|182053400|SUPERIORITY||Weighted difference|21.91||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.2|34.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||This statistical analysis applies to participants with ≥ 20% improvement in mRSS.||34.6|9.2|0.0007
91084868|NCT02453256|182053400|SUPERIORITY||Weighted difference|4.32||||0.5139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|17.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||This statistical analysis applies to participants with ≥ 40% improvement in mRSS.||17.3|-8.7|0.5139
91084869|NCT02453256|182053400|SUPERIORITY||Weighted difference|-5.41||||0.3276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|5.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||This statistical analysis applies to participants with ≥ 60% improvement in mRSS.||5.4|-16.2|0.3276
91084870|NCT02453256|182053401|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0015||||||P-value from Van Elteren analysis stratified by IL-6 level (\<10; \>=10 pg/mL) at screening.|Van Elteren|||||||0.0015
91084871|NCT02453256|182053402|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square means|0.167||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.083|0.25|||Repeated Measure|||||0.250|0.083|0.0001
91084872|NCT02453256|182053403|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square means|-0.053||||0.4489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.192|0.085|||Repeated Measure|||||0.085|-0.192|0.4489
90956803|NCT02884908|181793113|SUPERIORITY|Based on randomization to treatment condition, the model assumed no differences at baseline (any difference was assumed due to random sampling error).||||||0.38|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.38
91084873|NCT02453256|182053404|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square means|-2.44||||0.4339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.57|3.7|||Repeated Measure|||||3.70|-8.57|0.4339
90956804|NCT00925353|181793213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Actual lab results shown|1.0|||<|0.05||95.0|||||non-compartmental pharmacokinetic|The planned analysis was to estimate pharmacokinetic parameters. There were too few detectable values to be able to perform this analysis.||Null Hypothesis: Application of 4% lidocaine gel on the breasts and chest wall of healthy women occluded for one hour does not result in systemically toxic plasma concentrations of lidocaine or its principal metabolite, monoethylglycinexyliidie (MEGX), electrocardiogram changes, or adverse events.||||<0.05
91084874|NCT02453256|182053405|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square means|-2.46||||0.4378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.72|3.79|||Repeated Measure|||||3.79|-8.72|0.4378
91084875|NCT02453256|182053406|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63||||0.0821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.06|||Cox-proportional hazards model|||||1.06|0.37|0.0821
91084876|NCT01243177|182053450|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|"The hypothesis was as follows:~H0: \[S(t)LCM\] - \[S(t)CBZ-CR\] ≤ -12 % versus HA: \[S(t)LCM\] - \[S(t)CBZ-CR\] \> -12 %, where S(t) (t= 182 days) is the cumulative rate of subjects remaining seizure free for 6 months following stabilization at the last evaluated dose (also known as the survivorship function), and -12 % represents the noninferiority margin based on absolute difference."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|2.8|||Mantel Haenszel|The analysis was stratified based on the number of seizures in the 3 months preceding enrollment (≤ 2 and \>2).|The lower limit of the confidence interval was \>-12 %, noninferiority of LCM to CBZ-CR was demonstrated. Additionally, the lower confidence limit relative to the CBZ-CR seizure freedom rate was \>- 20 %.|This was a noninferiority assessment of Lacosamide versus Carbamazepine-CR for the proportion of subjects remaining seizure free for 6 months at the last evaluated dose.||2.8|-5.5|
91084877|NCT01243177|182053451|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|"The hypothesis was as follows:~H0: \[S(t)LCM\] - \[S(t)CBZ-CR\] ≤ -12 % versus HA: \[S(t)LCM\] - \[S(t)CBZ-CR\] \> -12 %, where S(t) (t= 182 days) is the cumulative rate of subjects remaining seizure free for 6 months following stabilization at the last evaluated dose (also known as the survivorship function), and -12 % represents the noninferiority margin based on absolute difference."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|2.7|||Mantel Haenszel|The analysis was stratified based on the number of seizures in the 3 months preceding enrollment (≤ 2 and \>2).|The lower limit of the confidence interval was \>-12 %, noninferiority of LCM to CBZ-CR was demonstrated. Additionally, the lower confidence limit relative to the CBZ-CR seizure freedom rate was \>- 20 %.|This was a noninferiority assessment of Lacosamide versus Carbamazepine-CR for the proportion of subjects remaining seizure free for 6 months at the last evaluated dose.||2.7|-5.3|
91084878|NCT03020550|182053456|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.034|||||||ANOVA|Adjusted for baseline GERD symptom severity.||The outcome measure was calculated using a general linear model with average daily post GERD symptom severity as the dependent variable with the following independent variables: baseline average GERD symptom severity and change in GSR (galvanic skin response). No term for visit type assignment was included in the model.||||0.034
90956805|NCT00153062|181793278|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The pre-defined non-inferiority margin of 1.075|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.11|||Cox Proportional Hazard model|Cox proportional hazards model with age, baseline diabetes status, baseline ACE-I use, and baseline modified Rankin score as covariates||ASA+ER-DP vs clopidogrel||1.11|0.92|0.7830
91021515|NCT04508621|181926006|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|-0.7|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Multiple imputation used for missing data.|Treatment Difference = TNX-102 SL - Placebo|||-0.7|-3.8|0.004
91021516|NCT04508621|181926007|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|0.2|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Multiple imputation used for missing data.|Treatment Difference = TNX-102 SL - Placebo|||0.2|-2.7|0.101
91021517|NCT04508621|181926008|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.0|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Multiple imputation used for missing data.|Treatment Difference = TNX-102 SL - Placebo|||0.0|-0.6|0.094
91021518|NCT00752895|181926022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.295|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Negative binomial regression|||||||0.295
91021519|NCT00752895|181926023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Negative binomial regression|||||||0.820
91021520|NCT00883129|181926083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24||||||The threshold for statistical significance was a P-Value of \</=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A modified intention-to-treat inferential joint model combined a mixed-effects model for longitudinal outcomes and a survival model to handle non-ignorable missing data due to study dropout, treatment failure, or death, to assess the course over time, from baseline to 24 months, for the change in the FVC %-predicted. Covariates were %-predicted FVC, HRCT-defined extent of lung fibrosis in the lobe of maximum involvement, and terms for time-trend, treatment and treatment-time trend interactions.||||0.24
91084879|NCT03020550|182053457|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||ANOVA|Adjusted for baseline GERD symptom severity||The outcome measure was calculated using a general linear model with average daily post GERD symptom severity as the dependent variable with the following independent variables: baseline average GERD symptom severity and change in RMSSD (high frequency HRV). No term for visit type assignment was included in the model.||||0.56
91084880|NCT03020550|182053458|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Pearson's correlation test|||The outcome measure was calculated using a Pearson correlation to compare the session index representing the amount of concordance in GSR between patient and physician and the percent change in patients' GERD symptoms. Visit type assignment was not included in the analysis.||||0.80
91103874|NCT03449147|182094506|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.69||||||Comparison based on a logistic regression model that included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, region, baseline mean weekly CSD total score, and the interaction of baseline mean weekly CSD total score by visit as covariates.||1.69|0.93|
90956806|NCT00153062|181793279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.8292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.07|||Cox Proportional Hazard model|Cox proportional hazards model with age, baseline diabetes status, baseline ACE-I use, and baseline modified Rankin score as covariates||ASA+ER-DP vs Clopidogrel||1.07|0.92|0.8292
91021521|NCT00883129|181926083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||The threshold for statistical significance was a P-Value of \</=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The inferential joint model, as described for the primary analysis, was used to estimate the change from baseline to 24 months for the FVC %-predicted for each treatment arm independently.||||<0.05
91021522|NCT00883129|181926083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55||||||The threshold for statistical significance was a P-Value of \</=0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Based on the absolute difference between the value of FVC %-predicted at baseline and at 24 months for each subject who returned for a 24-month assessment, a frequency distributions was prepared, stratified by treatment arm, to assess the relative distribution of subjects who either had improvements or worsening in the FVC %-predicted.||||0.55
91021523|NCT00883129|181926084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for statistical significance was a P-Value of \</=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A modified intention-to-treat inferential joint model combined a mixed-effects model for longitudinal outcomes and a survival model to handle non-ignorable missing data due to study dropout, treatment failure, or death, to assess the course over time, from baseline to 24 months, for the change in the TLC %-predicted.||||>0.05
91021524|NCT00883129|181926085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was a P-Value of \</=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A modified intention-to-treat inferential joint model combined a mixed-effects model for longitudinal outcomes and a survival model to handle non-ignorable missing data due to study dropout, treatment failure, or death, to assess the course over time, from baseline to 24 months, for the change in the DLCO %-predicted.||||<0.001
91021525|NCT00883129|181926085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for statistical significance was a P-Value of \</=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The inferential joint model, as described for the primary analysis, was used to estimate the change from baseline to 24 months for the DLCO %-predicted for each treatment arm independently.||||>0.05
91084881|NCT00913081|182053469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The null hypothesis is that quercetin, at any dose, does not attenuate niacin-induced increases in dermal blood flow. Because quercetin has not been used to inhibit flushing from niacin in humans, sample size could not be determined statistically. A sample size of 8 men and 8 women was expected to allow separate estimates of effect size, variability, and shape of distribution for men and women.||||0.5
91084882|NCT00913081|182053469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The null hypothesis is that quercetin, at any dose, does not attenuate niacin-induced increases in dermal blood flow.||||0.8
91084883|NCT00913081|182053469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The null hypothesis is that quercetin, at any dose, does not attenuate niacin-induced increases in dermal blood flow.||||0.5
91084884|NCT02861664|182053528|OTHER||Least square (LS) mean difference|-0.6|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.8|-0.4||From ANCOVA model with change from baseline in Schiff Sensitivity Score as response and treatment and baseline Schiff sensitivity score as covariates.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named dentifrice minus second named dentifrice such that a negative difference favours first named dentifrice.|||-0.4|-0.8|<.0001
91084885|NCT01000974|182053552|NON_INFERIORITY|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of Test Hib to Control Hib, each co-administered with DTPa-HBV-IPV, 13Pn and HRV vaccines, following 3 primary vaccine doses in terms of anti-PRP antibody concentration ≥ 1.0 μg/mL.|difference in percentage|-8.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.28|-4.07|||Non-inferiority analysis|||Non-inferiority Anti-PRP concentration ≥ 1.0 μg/mL||-4.07|-12.28|
91084886|NCT01000974|182053552|NON_INFERIORITY|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of Test Hib to Control Hib, each co-administered with DTPa-HBVIPV, 13Pn and HRV vaccines, following 3 primary vaccine doses in terms of anti-PRP antibody concentrations ≥ 0.15 μg/mL.|Difference in percentage|-0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|2.82|||Non-inferiority analysis|||Non-inferiority Anti-PRP concentration≥ 0.15 μg/mL||2.82|-1.98|
91084887|NCT01000974|182053553|NON_INFERIORITY|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of DTPa-HBV-IPV co-administered with Test Hib, 13Pn and HRV to DTPa-HBV-IPV co-administered with Control Hib, 13Pn and HRV, following 3 primary vaccine doses in terms of immune response to diphtheria (Anti-D).|Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|1.81|||Non-inferiority analysis|||Non-inferiority Anti-D antibody concentrations||1.81|-1.26|
91084888|NCT01000974|182053553|NON_INFERIORITY|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of DTPa-HBV-IPV co-administered with Test Hib, 13Pn and HRV to DTPa-HBV-IPV co-administered with Control Hib, 13Pn and HRV, following 3 primary vaccine doses in terms of immune response to tetanus (Anti-T).|Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|1.8|||Non-inferiority analysis|||Non-inferiority Anti-T antibody concentrations||1.8|-1.26|
91084889|NCT01000974|182053555|NON_INFERIORITY|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of DTPa-HBV-IPV co-administered with Test Hib, 13Pn and HRV to DTPa-HBV-IPV co-administered with Control Hib, 13Pn and HRV, following 3 primary vaccine doses in terms of immune response to pertussis toxoid \[PT\].|GMC ratio|1.017|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.918|1.127|||Non-inferiority analysis|||Non-inferiority GMC ratio anti-PT||1.127|0.918|
91084890|NCT01000974|182053555|NON_INFERIORITY|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of DTPa-HBV-IPV co-administered with Test Hib, 13Pn and HRV to DTPa-HBV-IPV co-administered with Control Hib, 13Pn and HRV, following 3 primary vaccine doses in terms of immune response to filamentous hemagglutinin \[FHA\].|GMC ratio|1.088|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.983|1.204|||Non-inferiority analysis|||Non-inferiority GMC ratio anti-FHA||1.204|0.983|
91084891|NCT01000974|182053555|NON_INFERIORITY|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of DTPa-HBV-IPV co-administered with Test Hib, 13Pn and HRV to DTPa-HBV-IPV co-administered with Control Hib, 13Pn and HRV, following 3 primary vaccine doses in terms of immune response to pertactin \[PRN\]|GMC ratio|1.193|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.03|1.382|||Non-inferiority analysis|||Non-inferiority GMC ratio anti-PRN||1.382|1.03|
91084892|NCT01000974|182053556|NON_INFERIORITY|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of a 3-dose primary vaccination course of 13Pn co-administered with Test Hib, HRV and DTPa-HBV-IPV compared to that of 13Pn co-administered with Control Hib, HRV and DTPa-HBV-IPV in terms of Streptococcus pneumoniae (S.pneumoniae) GMCs|GMC ratio|1.006|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.873|1.159|||Non-inferiority analysis|||Non-inferiority Anti-Pneumoniae 1 concentrations||1.159|0.873|
91084893|NCT01000974|182053556|NON_INFERIORITY|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of a 3-dose primary vaccination course of 13Pn co-administered with Test Hib, HRV and DTPa-HBV-IPV compared to that of 13Pn co-administered with Control Hib, HRV and DTPa-HBV-IPV in terms of Streptococcus pneumoniae (S.pneumoniae) GMCs.|GMC ratio|1.048|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.921|1.192|||Non-inferiority analysis|||Non-inferiority Anti-Pneumoniae 3 concentrations||1.192|0.921|
91084894|NCT01000974|182053556|NON_INFERIORITY|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of a 3-dose primary vaccination course of 13Pn co-administered with Test Hib, HRV and DTPa-HBV-IPV compared to that of 13Pn co-administered with Control Hib, HRV and DTPa-HBV-IPV in terms of Streptococcus pneumoniae (S.pneumoniae) GMCs.|GMC ratio|1.001|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.886|1.13|||Non-inferiority analysis|||Non-inferiority Anti-Pneumoniae 4 concentrations||1.13|0.886|
91084895|NCT01000974|182053556|NON_INFERIORITY|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of a 3-dose primary vaccination course of 13Pn co-administered with Test Hib, HRV and DTPa-HBV-IPV compared to that of 13Pn co-administered with Control Hib, HRV and DTPa-HBV-IPV in terms of Streptococcus pneumoniae (S.pneumoniae) GMCs.|GMC ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.874|1.19|||Non-inferiority analysis|||Non-inferiority Anti-Pneumoniae 5 concentrations||1.19|0.874|
91084896|NCT01000974|182053556|NON_INFERIORITY|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of a 3-dose primary vaccination course of 13Pn co-administered with Test Hib, HRV and DTPa-HBV-IPV compared to that of 13Pn co-administered with Control Hib, HRV and DTPa-HBV-IPV in terms of Streptococcus pneumoniae (S.pneumoniae) GMCs|GMC ratio|1.031|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.894|1.188|||Non-inferiority analysis|||Non-inferiority Anti-Pneumoniae 6A concentrations||1.188|0.894|
91084897|NCT01000974|182053556|NON_INFERIORITY|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of a 3-dose primary vaccination course of 13Pn co-administered with Test Hib, HRV and DTPa-HBV-IPV compared to that of 13Pn co-administered with Control Hib, HRV and DTPa-HBV-IPV in terms of Streptococcus pneumoniae (S.pneumoniae) GMCs|GMC ratio|1.072|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.871|1.32|||Non-inferiority analysis|||Non-inferiority Anti-Pneumoniae 6B concentrations||1.32|0.871|
91084898|NCT01000974|182053556|NON_INFERIORITY|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of a 3-dose primary vaccination course of 13Pn co-administered with Test Hib, HRV and DTPa-HBV-IPV compared to that of 13Pn co-administered with Control Hib, HRV and DTPa-HBV-IPV in terms of Streptococcus pneumoniae (S.pneumoniae) GMCs.|GMC ratio|1.098|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.964|1.251|||Non-inferiority analysis|||Non-inferiority Anti-Pneumoniae 7F concentrations||1.251|0.964|
91021526|NCT00883129|181926086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for statistical significance was a P-Value of \</=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A modified intention-to-treat inferential joint model combined a mixed-effects model for longitudinal outcomes and a survival model to handle non-ignorable missing data due to study dropout, treatment failure, or death, to assess the course over time, from baseline to 24 months, for the change in the Quantitative Lung Fibrosis Score for the whole lung (QLF-WL).||||>0.05
91021527|NCT00883129|181926087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for statistical significance was a P-Value of \</=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A modified intention-to-treat inferential joint model combined a mixed-effects model for longitudinal outcomes and a survival model to handle non-ignorable missing data due to study dropout, treatment failure, or death, to assess the course over time, from baseline to 24 months, for the change in dyspnea as measured by the Transitional Dyspnea Index Score.||||>0.05
91021528|NCT00883129|181926087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||The threshold for statistical significance was a P-Value of \</=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The inferential joint model, as described for the primary analysis, was used to estimate the change from baseline to 24 months for dyspnea using the Transitional Dyspnea Index Score for each treatment arm independently.||||<0.05
91021529|NCT00883129|181926089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for statistical significance was a P-Value of \</=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A modified intention-to-treat inferential joint model combined a mixed-effects model for longitudinal outcomes and a survival model to handle non-ignorable missing data due to study dropout, treatment failure, or death, to assess the course over time, from baseline to 24 months, for the change in modified Rodnan Skin Score (mRSS).||||>0.05
91021530|NCT00883129|181926089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||The threshold for statistical significance was a P-Value of \</=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The inferential joint model, as described for the primary analysis, was used to estimate the change from baseline to 24 months for the modified Rodnan Skin Score for each treatment arm independently.||||<0.05
91021531|NCT00883129|181926089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for statistical significance was a P-Value of \</=0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Based on the absolute difference between the value of the mRSS at baseline and at 24 months for each subject who returned for a 24-month assessment, a frequency distributions was prepared, stratified by treatment arm, to assess the relative distribution of subjects who either had improvements or worsening in the mRSS.||||>0.05
91021532|NCT00883129|181926090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||The threshold for statistical significance was a P-Value of \</=0.05.|Fisher Exact|The threshold for statistical significance was met only for the frequency of leukopenia and thrombocytopenia, but not for total SAE or death.||Fisher's Exact Test was utilized to compare the number of participants with a protocol-defined adverse event of interest, SAE or death between the MMF and CYC treatment arms.||||<0.05
91021533|NCT00883129|181926091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019||||||The threshold for statistical significance was a P-Value of \</=0.05.|Log Rank|||A log-rank test was utilized to assess differences between the MMF and CYC treatment arms with respect to the time to withdrawal from study drug or meeting protocol-defined criteria for treatment failure.||||0.019
91021534|NCT03273257|181926092|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.139|||||||2-sample Wilcoxon rank sum test|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the treatment groups in percent change from baseline in PVR immediately before PEA.||||0.139
91021535|NCT02464059|181926169|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-65.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|207.8||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-172.4|41.3||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||41.3|-172.4|0.21
91021536|NCT02464059|181926170|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.6||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.02|5.91||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||5.91|-7.02|0.86
91021537|NCT04682639|181926204|OTHER||LS mean difference|-18.54||||0.0103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.6|-4.49|||ANCOVA||Estimates were from ANCOVA model for rank score of percent change from baseline in esophageal PEC.|||-4.49|-32.60|0.0103
91021538|NCT04682639|181926204|OTHER||LS mean difference|-7.53||||0.2861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.48|6.42|||ANCOVA||Estimates were from ANCOVA model for rank score of percent change from baseline in esophageal PEC.|||6.42|-21.48|0.2861
91021539|NCT04682639|181926205|OTHER||LS mean difference|2.38||||0.4894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.43|9.19|||Linear mixed effects model|||||9.19|-4.43|0.4894
91021540|NCT04682639|181926205|OTHER||LS mean difference|4.7||||0.1671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|11.41|||Linear mixed effects model|||||11.41|-2.00|0.1671
91021541|NCT04682639|181926206|OTHER||LS mean difference|-54.53||||0.0565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-110.59|1.54|||ANCOVA|||||1.54|-110.59|0.0565
91021542|NCT04682639|181926206|OTHER||LS mean difference|-13.95||||0.6193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.61|41.71|||ANCOVA|||||41.71|-69.61|0.6193
91021543|NCT04682639|181926207|OTHER||Adjusted difference from placebo|21.9||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.23|34.57|||Mantel Haenszel|||||34.57|9.23|0.0007
91021544|NCT04682639|181926207|OTHER||Adjusted difference from placebo|13.85||||0.0121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.03|24.66|||Mantel Haenszel|||||24.66|3.03|0.0121
91021545|NCT04682639|181926208|OTHER||Adjusted difference from placebo|12.15||||0.0173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.15|22.16|||Mantel Haenszel|||||22.16|2.15|0.0173
91021546|NCT04682639|181926208|OTHER||Adjusted difference from placebo|8.37||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|17.07|||Mantel Haenszel|||||17.07|-0.32|0.0590
91021547|NCT02143947|181926278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||> .10
91021548|NCT02143947|181926279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.036|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||= .036
91021549|NCT02143947|181926280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||> .10
91021550|NCT02143947|181926281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< .05
91021551|NCT02660385|181926285|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size|-0.6||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED||||||Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLMM)|GLMM with random intercepts and unstructured covariances with changes within groups and time-group interactions to compare the intervention effects.||||||0.0002
91021552|NCT02660385|181926286|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0723||||||GLMM with random intercepts and unstructured covariances with changes within groups and time-group interactions to compare the intervention effects.|GLMM|||||||0.0723
91021553|NCT02660385|181926287|SUPERIORITY||effect size|0.42||||0.011|TWO_SIDED||||||GLMM|GLMM with random intercepts and unstructured covariances with changes within groups and time-group interactions to compare the intervention effects.||||||0.0110
91021554|NCT02660385|181926288|SUPERIORITY||effect size|-0.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||GLMM with random intercepts and unstructured covariances with changes within groups and time-group interactions to compare the intervention effects.|GLMM|||||||<0.0001
91021555|NCT02660385|181926289|SUPERIORITY||effect size|-0.12||||0.4356|TWO_SIDED|||||GLMM with random intercepts and unstructured covariances with changes within groups and time-group interactions to compare the intervention effects.|GLMM|||||||0.4356
91021556|NCT02660385|181926290|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0148||||||The p value is from the group X time interaction adjusted at 12 months based on the false discovery rate|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0148
91021557|NCT02660385|181926291|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013||||||The p value is from the group X time interaction adjusted at 12 months based on the false discovery rate|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0130
91021558|NCT02660385|181926292|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013||||||The p value is from the group X time interaction adjusted at 12 months based on the false discovery rate|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0130
91021559|NCT02660385|181926293|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013||||||The p value is from the group X time interaction adjusted at 12 months based on the false discovery rate|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0130
91021560|NCT02660385|181926294|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6358||||||The p value is from the group X time interaction adjusted at 12 months based on the false discovery rate|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.6358
91021561|NCT02660385|181926295|SUPERIORITY||effect size|0.35||||0.0318|TWO_SIDED|||||GLMM with random intercepts and unstructured covariances with changes within groups and time-group interactions to compare the intervention effects.|GLMM|||||||0.0318
91021562|NCT02660385|181926296|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2722||||||The p value is from the group X time interaction adjusted at 12 months based on the false discovery rate|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2722
90956807|NCT00153062|181793280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.1073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.01|||Cox Proportional Hazard model|Cox proportional hazards model with age, baseline diabetes status, baseline ACE-I use, and baseline modified Rankin score as covariates.||Telmisartan vs Placebo||1.01|0.87|0.1073
91021563|NCT02660385|181926297|SUPERIORITY||effect size|-0.27||||0.0954|TWO_SIDED|||||GLMM with random intercepts and unstructured covariances with changes within groups and time-group interactions to compare the intervention effects.|GLMM|||||||0.0954
91021564|NCT02660385|181926298|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4222||||||The p value is from the group X time interaction adjusted at 12 months based on the false discovery rate|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.4222
91021565|NCT02660385|181926299|SUPERIORITY||effect size|0.09||||0.5781|TWO_SIDED|||||GLMM with random intercepts and unstructured covariances with changes within groups and time-group interactions to compare the intervention effects.|GLMM|||||||0.5781
91021566|NCT02660385|181926300|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1238||||||The p value is from the group X time interaction adjusted at 12 months based on the false discovery rate|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1238
91021567|NCT02660385|181926301|SUPERIORITY||effect size|-0.3||||0.0558|TWO_SIDED|||||GLMM with random intercepts and unstructured covariances with changes within groups and time-group interactions to compare the intervention effects.|GLMM|||||||0.0558
91021568|NCT02660385|181926302|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.023||||||The p value is from the group X time interaction adjusted at 12 months based on the false discovery rate|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0230
91021569|NCT02660385|181926303|SUPERIORITY||effect size|0.06||||0.4597|TWO_SIDED|||||GLMM with random intercepts and unstructured covariances with changes within groups and time-group interactions to compare the intervention effects.|GLMM|||||||0.4597
91021570|NCT02660385|181926304|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1943||||||The p value is from the group X time interaction adjusted at 12 months based on the false discovery rate|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1943
91021571|NCT02660385|181926305|SUPERIORITY||effect size|-0.23||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|||||GLMM with random intercepts and unstructured covariances with changes within groups and time-group interactions to compare the intervention effects.|GLMM|||||||0.0027
91021572|NCT02660385|181926306|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0792||||||The p value is from the group X time interaction adjusted at 12 months based on the false discovery rate|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0792
91021573|NCT02660385|181926307|SUPERIORITY||effect size|0.13||||0.0656|TWO_SIDED|||||GLMM with random intercepts and unstructured covariances with changes within groups and time-group interactions to compare the intervention effects.|GLMM|||||||0.0656
91021574|NCT02660385|181926308|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2174||||||The p value is from the group X time interaction adjusted at 12 months based on the false discovery rate|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2174
91021575|NCT02660385|181926309|SUPERIORITY||effect size|0.07||||0.7028|TWO_SIDED|||||GLMM with random intercepts and unstructured covariances with changes within groups and time-group interactions to compare the intervention effects.|GLMM|||||||0.7028
91021576|NCT02660385|181926310|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0509||||||The p value is from the group X time interaction adjusted at 12 months based on the false discovery rate|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0509
91021577|NCT02660385|181926311|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|275.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1525.0||0.955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3288.0|2739.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2739|-3288|0.955
91021578|NCT02660385|181926312|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013||||||The p value is from the group X time interaction adjusted at 12 months based on the false discovery rate|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0130
91021579|NCT02660385|181926313|SUPERIORITY||effect size|-0.05||||0.7496|TWO_SIDED|||||GLMM with random intercepts and unstructured covariances with changes within groups and time-group interactions to compare the intervention effects.|GLMM|||||||0.7496
91021580|NCT02660385|181926314|SUPERIORITY||effect size|0.06||||0.3821|TWO_SIDED|||||GLMM with random intercepts and unstructured covariances with changes within groups and time-group interactions to compare the intervention effects.|GLMM|||||||0.3821
91021581|NCT02660385|181926315|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7204||||||The p value is from the group X time interaction adjusted at 12 months based on the false discovery rate|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7204
91021582|NCT05180630|181926412|OTHER|||||||0.012||||||When p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons, the level of statistical significance must be \</= to 0.01666667 (.05/3). Comparisons were total mean scores for Open dome condition, Vented dome condition, and Custom earmolds with dynamic venting|ANOVA|||Treatment order was not analyzed. A repeated measures ANOVA was performed to compare the effect of the coupling conditions on sound quality ratings for streamed music, but there was no analysis between groups.||||0.012
91103875|NCT03449147|182094506|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|2.39||||||Comparison based on a logistic regression model that included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, region, baseline mean weekly CSD total score, and the interaction of baseline mean weekly CSD total score by visit as covariates.||2.39|1.31|
91084899|NCT01000974|182053556|NON_INFERIORITY|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of a 3-dose primary vaccination course of 13Pn co-administered with Test Hib, HRV and DTPa-HBV-IPV compared to that of 13Pn co-administered with Control Hib, HRV and DTPa-HBV-IPV in terms of Streptococcus pneumoniae (S.pneumoniae) GMCs.|GMC ratio|1.035|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.89|1.204|||Non-inferiority analysis|||Non-inferiority Anti-Pneumoniae 9V concentrations||1.204|0.89|
91084900|NCT01000974|182053556|NON_INFERIORITY|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of a 3-dose primary vaccination course of 13Pn co-administered with Test Hib, HRV and DTPa-HBV-IPV compared to that of 13Pn co-administered with Control Hib, HRV and DTPa-HBV-IPV in terms of Streptococcus pneumoniae (S.pneumoniae) GMCs.|GMC ratio|1.096|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.929|1.294|||Non-inferiority analysis|||Non-inferiority Anti-Pneumoniae 14 concentrations||1.294|0.929|
91084901|NCT01000974|182053556|NON_INFERIORITY|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of a 3-dose primary vaccination course of 13Pn co-administered with Test Hib, HRV and DTPa-HBV-IPV compared to that of 13Pn co-administered with Control Hib, HRV and DTPa-HBV-IPV in terms of Streptococcus pneumoniae (S.pneumoniae) GMCs.|GMC ratio|1.042|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.9|1.207|||Non-inferiority analysis|||Non-inferiority Anti-Pneumoniae 18C concentrations||1.207|0.9|
91084902|NCT01000974|182053556|NON_INFERIORITY|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of a 3-dose primary vaccination course of 13Pn co-administered with Test Hib, HRV and DTPa-HBV-IPV compared to that of 13Pn co-administered with Control Hib, HRV and DTPa-HBV-IPV in terms of Streptococcus pneumoniae (S.pneumoniae) GMCs.|GMC ratio|1.001|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.859|1.167|||Non-inferiority analysis|||Non-inferiority Anti-Pneumoniae 19A concentrations||1.167|0.859|
91084903|NCT01000974|182053556|NON_INFERIORITY|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of a 3-dose primary vaccination course of 13Pn co-administered with Test Hib, HRV and DTPa-HBV-IPV compared to that of 13Pn co-administered with Control Hib, HRV and DTPa-HBV-IPV in terms of Streptococcus pneumoniae (S.pneumoniae) GMCs.|GMC ratio|0.969|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.855|1.098|||Non-inferiority analysis|||Non-inferiority Anti-Pneumoniae 19F concentrations||1.098|0.855|
91084904|NCT01000974|182053556|NON_INFERIORITY|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of a 3-dose primary vaccination course of 13Pn co-administered with Test Hib, HRV and DTPa-HBV-IPV compared to that of 13Pn co-administered with Control Hib, HRV and DTPa-HBV-IPV in terms of Streptococcus pneumoniae (S.pneumoniae) GMCs.|GMC ratio|1.031|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.862|1.232|||Non-inferiority analysis|||Non-inferiority Anti-Pneumoniae 23F concentrations||1.232|0.862|
91084905|NCT01000974|182053557|OTHER|To rule out 10% decrease in seroresponse to FHA in subjects receiving DTPa-HBV-IPV coadministered with Test Hib,13Pn \& HRV vaccines compared to subjects receiving DTPa-HBV-IPV co-administered with Control Hib, 13Pn \&HRV vaccines,following 3 primary vaccine doses where seroresponse wasdefined as percentage of subjects showing aconcentration above a threshold that led to 95% seroresponse in control|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|P-value is computed by integrating on the p-values of one-sided test with alpha=0.025 \& the posterior probability of the cut-off in the control group||Difference in seroresponse Anti-FHA||||<0.0001
91084906|NCT01000974|182053557|OTHER|To rule out 10% decrease in seroresponse to PT in subjects receiving DTPa-HBV-IPV coadministered with Test Hib,13Pn \& HRV vaccines compared to subjects receiving DTPa-HBV-IPV co-administered with Control Hib, 13Pn \&HRV vaccines,following 3 primary vaccine doses where seroresponse wasdefined as percentage of subjects showing aconcentration above a threshold that led to 95% seroresponse in control|||||<|0.0001||||||P-value is computed by integrating on the p-values of one-sided test with alpha=0.025 and the posterior probability of the cut-off in the control group|t-test, 1 sided|||Difference in seroresponse Anti-PT||||<0.0001
91084907|NCT01000974|182053557|OTHER|To rule out 10% decrease in seroresponse to PRN in subjects receiving DTPa-HBV-IPV coadministered with Test Hib,13Pn \& HRV vaccines compared to subjects receiving DTPa-HBV-IPV co-administered with Control Hib, 13Pn \&HRV vaccines,following 3 primary vaccine doses where seroresponse wasdefined as percentage of subjects showing aconcentration above a threshold that led to 95% seroresponse in control|||||<|0.0001||||||P-value is computed by integrating on the p-values of one-sided test with alpha=0.025 and the posterior probability of the cut-off in the control group|t-test, 1 sided|||Difference in seroresponse Anti-PRN||||<0.0001
91084908|NCT01000974|182053558|NON_INFERIORITY|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of DTPa-HBV-IPV co-administered with Test Hib, 13Pn and HRV to DTPa-HBV-IPV co-administered with Control Hib, 13Pn and HRV, following 3 primary vaccine doses in terms of immune response to poliovirus 1.|Difference in percentage|-0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.24|0.87|||Non-inferiority analysis|||Non-inferiority Anti-Polio 1 concentrations||0.87|-2.24|
91021583|NCT05180630|181926413|OTHER|||||||0.154||||||When p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons, the level of statistical significance must be \</= to 0.01666667 (.05/3).|ANOVA|||Treatment order was not analyzed. A repeated measures ANOVA was performed to compare the effect of the coupling conditions on sound quality ratings for own voice, but there was no analysis between groups.||||0.154
91084909|NCT01000974|182053558|NON_INFERIORITY|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of DTPa-HBV-IPV co-administered with Test Hib, 13Pn and HRV to DTPa-HBV-IPV co-administered with Control Hib, 13Pn and HRV, following 3 primary vaccine doses in terms of immune response to poliovirus 2.|Difference in percentage|0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.45|2.91|||Non-inferiority analysis|||Non-inferiority Anti-Polio 2 concentration||2.91|-1.45|
91084910|NCT01000974|182053558|NON_INFERIORITY|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of DTPa-HBV-IPV co-administered with Test Hib, 13Pn and HRV to DTPa-HBV-IPV co-administered with Control Hib, 13Pn and HRV, following 3 primary vaccine doses in terms of immune response to poliovirus 3.|Difference in percentage|-0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.2|0.88|||Non-inferiority analysis|||Non-inferiority Anti-Polio 3 concentration||0.88|-2.2|
91084911|NCT03365934|182053594|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.071225|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.071225
91021584|NCT00190684|181926567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value is for systolic BP|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Change = endpoint-baseline||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no statistically significant difference between baseline and endpoint.||||<0.001
90956808|NCT00153062|181793281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.1007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.04|||Cox Proportional Hazard model|Cox proportional hazards model with age, baseline ACE-I use, and baseline modified Rankin score as covariates||Telmisartan vs Placebo||1.04|0.65|0.1007
91084912|NCT03365934|182053594|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.092027|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.092027
91084913|NCT03365934|182053594|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.601716|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.601716
91021585|NCT00190684|181926567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value is for diastolic BP|Wilcoxon sign-rank test|Change = endpoint-baseline||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no statistically significant difference between baseline and endpoint.||||<0.001
91084914|NCT03365934|182053594|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.639911|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.639911
91084915|NCT03365934|182053594|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.842476|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.842476
91084916|NCT03365934|182053594|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999941|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999941
91084917|NCT03365934|182053594|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.883479|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.883479
91021586|NCT00190684|181926568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value is for pulse|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no statistically significant difference between baseline and endpoint.||||<0.001
91021587|NCT00190684|181926569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value is for weight|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no statistically significant difference between baseline and endpoint.||||<0.001
91084918|NCT03365934|182053594|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.782208|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.782208
91084919|NCT03365934|182053594|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.607134|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.607134
91084920|NCT03365934|182053594|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.939549|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.939549
91084921|NCT03365934|182053594|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86475|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.86475
91084922|NCT03365934|182053594|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.704759|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.704759
91021588|NCT00190684|181926570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value is for height|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no statistically significant difference between baseline and endpoint.||||<0.001
91084923|NCT03365934|182053594|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999989|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999989
91084924|NCT03365934|182053594|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.997568|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.997568
91021589|NCT00190684|181926571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value is for weight 0 to 25th percentile|paired t-test|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no statistically significant difference between baseline and endpoint.||||<0.001
91021590|NCT00190684|181926571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value is for weight 25th to 50th percentile|paired t-test|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no statistically significant difference between baseline and endpoint.||||<0.001
91021591|NCT00190684|181926571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.644||95.0||||p-value is for weight 50th to 75th percentile|paired t-test|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no statistically significant difference between baseline and endpoint.||||0.644
91084925|NCT03365934|182053594|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999518|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999518
91084926|NCT03365934|182053595|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.985332|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.985332
91084927|NCT03365934|182053595|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||1
91084928|NCT03365934|182053595|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.870459|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.870459
91084929|NCT03365934|182053595|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004963|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004963
91084930|NCT03365934|182053595|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.071935|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.071935
91084931|NCT03365934|182053595|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.988995|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.988995
91084932|NCT03365934|182053595|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.545378|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.545378
91084933|NCT03365934|182053595|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.000649|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.000649
91084934|NCT03365934|182053595|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0146|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.014600
91084935|NCT03365934|182053595|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.854566|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.854566
91084936|NCT03365934|182053595|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004322|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004322
91084937|NCT03365934|182053595|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0651|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0651
91084938|NCT03365934|182053595|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.300536|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.300536
91084939|NCT03365934|182053595|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.753883|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.753883
91084940|NCT03365934|182053595|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97621|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.97621
91084941|NCT03365934|182053596|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027774|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.027774
91084942|NCT03365934|182053596|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08431|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.08431
91084943|NCT03365934|182053596|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.049247|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.049247
91084944|NCT03365934|182053596|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.000126|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.000126
91084945|NCT03365934|182053596|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.010829|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.010829
91084946|NCT03365934|182053596|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91084947|NCT03365934|182053596|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91084948|NCT03365934|182053596|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91084949|NCT03365934|182053596|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91084950|NCT03365934|182053596|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999533|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999533
91084951|NCT03365934|182053596|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4205363|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4205363
91084952|NCT03365934|182053596|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9802252|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9802252
91084953|NCT03365934|182053596|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6845362|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6845362
91084954|NCT03365934|182053596|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9992002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9992002
91084955|NCT03365934|182053596|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8562779|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.8562779
91084956|NCT03365934|182053597|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0403539|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0403539
91084957|NCT03365934|182053597|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2953049|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2953049
91084958|NCT03365934|182053597|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.290551|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.290551
91084959|NCT03365934|182053597|SUPERIORITY|||||||2.47e-05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0000247
91084960|NCT03365934|182053597|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0133001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0133001
90956809|NCT00153062|181793282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.2312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.04|||Cox Proportional Hazard model|Cox proportional hazards model with age, baseline diabetes status, baseline ACE-I use, and baseline Modified Rankin score as covariates||Telmisartan vs placebo||1.04|0.86|0.2312
91021592|NCT00190684|181926571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value is for weight 75th to 100th percentile|paired t-test|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no statistically significant difference between baseline and endpoint.||||<0.001
91021593|NCT00190684|181926571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value is for height 0 to 25th percentile|paired t-test|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no statistically significant difference between baseline and endpoint.||||<0.001
91021594|NCT00190684|181926571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||p-value is for height 25th to 50th percentile|paired t-test|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no statistically significant difference between baseline and endpoint.||||0.001
91021595|NCT00190684|181926571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.044||95.0||||p-value is for height 50th to 75th percentile|paired t-test|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no statistically significant difference between baseline and endpoint.||||0.044
91021596|NCT00190684|181926571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value is for height 75th to 100th percentile|paired t-test|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no statistically significant difference between baseline and endpoint.||||<0.001
91021597|NCT00190684|181926571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value is for BMI 0 to 25th percentile|paired t-test|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no statistically significant difference between baseline and endpoint.||||<0.001
91021598|NCT00190684|181926571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.032||95.0||||p-value is for BMI 25th to 50th percentile|paired t-test|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no statistically significant difference between baseline and endpoint.||||0.032
91021599|NCT00190684|181926571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.351||95.0||||p-value is for BMI 50th to 75th percentile|paired t-test|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no statistically significant difference between baseline and endpoint.||||0.351
91021600|NCT00190684|181926571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value is for BMI 75th to 100th percentile|paired t-test|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no statistically significant difference between baseline and endpoint.||||<0.001
90893695|NCT01970982|181652421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|15.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.09|18.78||The primary endpoints were tested using a multiple testing procedure to preserve the overall alpha level by simultaneously testing the endpoints using a closed procedure with each test performed at an alpha level of 2.5% one sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on S-PMA levels with product, sex, cigarette consumption, and baseline value as covariates.|LS mean ratio THS 2.2:CC|"The hypothesis to be tested is that the geometric mean level on Day 5 of the biomarker of exposure for THS 2.2 is lower relative to CC.~Analysis of the BoExp was conducted on the natural log scale in order to test the following hypothesis (one sided test with 2.5% type I error probability):~* Null hypothesis (H0): m1≥m2~* Alternative hypothesis (H1): m1\<m2 Where m1 and m2 are the geometric means of the BoExp levels on Day 5 for THS 2.2 and CC respectively."||18.78|13.09|<0.001
91021601|NCT00190684|181926572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value is for RR interval|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no statistically significant difference between baseline and endpoint.||||<0.001
91021602|NCT00190684|181926572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value is for QRS Interval|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no statistically significant difference between baseline and endpoint.||||<0.001
91021603|NCT00190684|181926572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value is for QT Bazett Correction|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no statistically significant difference between baseline and endpoint.||||<0.001
91021604|NCT00190684|181926572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31||95.0||||p-value is for QT Data Correction|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no statistically significant difference between baseline and endpoint.||||0.310
90959124|NCT01620255|181798212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|2.17||||0.0384|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.447|3.891|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 22.5 mg vs placebo, social fx change from BL at W12||3.891|0.447|0.0384
91021605|NCT00190684|181926572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.632||95.0||||p-value is for QT Fridericia Correction|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no statistically significant difference between baseline and endpoint.||||0.632
91021606|NCT00190684|181926573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value is for HR.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no statistically significant difference between baseline and endpoint.||||<0.001
91021607|NCT00190684|181926575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||p<|0||95.0||||p-value is for Total Score|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no statistically significant difference between baseline and endpoint.||||p<0.001
91021608|NCT00190684|181926575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value is for Inattentive Subscale Score|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no statistically significant difference between baseline and endpoint.||||<0.001
91021609|NCT00190684|181926575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||p<|0||95.0||||p-value is for Hyperactive Subscale Score|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no statistically significant difference between baseline and endpoint.||||p<0.001
91021610|NCT00190684|181926576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value is for CGI ADHD Severity within group|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|This test is for a significance of a location shift from zero of the change from baseline within a treatment group.||||||<0.001
91021611|NCT00190684|181926577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value is for CPRS ADHD Index Subscale within group|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|This test is for a significance of a location shift from zero of the change from baseline within a treatment group.||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no statistically significant difference between baseline and endpoint.||||<0.001
91021612|NCT00190684|181926577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||p<|0||95.0||||p-value is for CPRS Cognitive Subscale|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|This test is for a significance of a location shift from zero of the change from baseline within a treatment group.||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no statistically significant difference between baseline and endpoint.||||p<0.001
91021613|NCT00190684|181926577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026||95.0||||p-value is for CPRS Hyperactive Subscale|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|This test is for a significance of a location shift from zero of the change from baseline within a treatment group.||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no statistically significant difference between baseline and endpoint.||||0.026
91084961|NCT03365934|182053597|SUPERIORITY|||||||1.67e-05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0000167
91084962|NCT03365934|182053597|SUPERIORITY|||||||2.12e-05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0000212
91084963|NCT03365934|182053597|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91084964|NCT03365934|182053597|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90959125|NCT01620255|181798212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|1.86||||0.0729|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.154|3.557|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 75 mg vs placebo, social fx change from BL at W12||3.557|0.154|0.0729
91084965|NCT03365934|182053597|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99999995|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.99999995
91084966|NCT03365934|182053597|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0792013|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0792013
91084967|NCT03365934|182053597|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.870163|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.870163
91084968|NCT03365934|182053597|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.103828|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.103828
91084969|NCT03365934|182053597|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.900265|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.900265
91084970|NCT03365934|182053597|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.570015|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.570015
91084971|NCT03365934|182053598|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.882449|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.882449
91084972|NCT03365934|182053598|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.088558|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.088558
91084973|NCT03365934|182053598|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.081846|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.081846
91084974|NCT03365934|182053598|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91084975|NCT03365934|182053598|SUPERIORITY|||||||3.03e-05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0000303
91021614|NCT00190684|181926577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value is for CPRS Oppositional Subscale|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|This test is for a significance of a location shift from zero of the change from baseline within a treatment group.||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no statistically significant difference between baseline and endpoint.||||<0.001
91021615|NCT02354976|181926599|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio for difference|0.92||||0.407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.12|0.76|0.407
91021616|NCT02354976|181926600|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio for difference|0.84||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.02|0.70|0.077
91084976|NCT03365934|182053598|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001817|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001817
91084977|NCT03365934|182053598|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001825|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001825
91084978|NCT03365934|182053598|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91084979|NCT03365934|182053598|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91084980|NCT03365934|182053598|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999999|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999999
91084981|NCT03365934|182053598|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038836|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.038836
91084982|NCT03365934|182053598|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.184508|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.184508
91084983|NCT03365934|182053598|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.062829|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.062829
91084984|NCT03365934|182053598|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.253458|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.253458
91084985|NCT03365934|182053598|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.987798|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.987798
91084986|NCT03365934|182053599|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.516068|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.516068
91084987|NCT03365934|182053599|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.358412|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.358412
91084988|NCT03365934|182053599|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.834145|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.834145
91084989|NCT03365934|182053599|SUPERIORITY|||||||3.5e-05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.000035
91084990|NCT03365934|182053599|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.000843|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.000843
91084991|NCT03365934|182053599|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002997|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.002997
91084992|NCT03365934|182053599|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.051717|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.051717
91084993|NCT03365934|182053599|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91084994|NCT03365934|182053599|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91084995|NCT03365934|182053599|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.985602|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.985602
91084996|NCT03365934|182053599|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046422|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.046422
91084997|NCT03365934|182053599|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28061|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.28061
91084998|NCT03365934|182053599|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011015|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.011015
91084999|NCT03365934|182053599|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.089156|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.089156
91085000|NCT03365934|182053599|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.963882|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.963882
91085001|NCT03365934|182053600|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.00526|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.00526
91085002|NCT03365934|182053600|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||1
91085003|NCT03365934|182053600|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.914409|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.914409
91085004|NCT03365934|182053600|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.013004
91085005|NCT03365934|182053600|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028517|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.028517
91085006|NCT03365934|182053600|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001356|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001356
91085007|NCT03365934|182053600|SUPERIORITY|||||||5.9e-05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.000059
91085008|NCT03365934|182053600|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91085009|NCT03365934|182053600|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91085010|NCT03365934|182053600|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.859272|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.859272
91085011|NCT03365934|182053600|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002821|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.002821
91085012|NCT03365934|182053600|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007492|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.007492
91085013|NCT03365934|182053600|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.208803|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.208803
91085014|NCT03365934|182053600|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.341884|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.341884
91085015|NCT03365934|182053600|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999531|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999531
91085016|NCT03365934|182053601|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.066788|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.066788
91085017|NCT03365934|182053601|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.942653|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.942653
91085018|NCT03365934|182053601|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.893545|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.893545
91021617|NCT00068445|181926603|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.56
91021618|NCT00068445|181926604|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.36
91021619|NCT00068445|181926605|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.25
91021620|NCT00068445|181926606|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.34
91021621|NCT00068445|181926607|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.53
91021622|NCT00068445|181926608|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.22
91021623|NCT00068445|181926609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.33
91021624|NCT00068445|181926610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.07
91021625|NCT00068445|181926611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.91
91021626|NCT00068445|181926612|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.68
91021627|NCT01155284|181926613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|||||The p value between treatment groups of C-peptide log (AUC+1) with covariate analysis adjusted for age, sex, baseline C-peptide concentration and duration of diabetes.|ANCOVA|||||||0.81
91021628|NCT01155284|181926614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.869|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.869
91085019|NCT03365934|182053601|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.165225|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.165225
91021629|NCT00123487|181926623|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of the QD schedule relative to the BID schedule was claimed if the lower bound of the 95% CI for difference (QD - BD) was ≥ -12%.|Percent Difference|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|8.1||||||Primary endpoint was to be assessed at 6-Months: Assuming a 45% MaHR rate in the 70 mg BID participants, the primary efficacy analysis required a total of 540 participants, approximately 270 in each dosing schedule, giving at least 80% power to deduce non-inferiority of the QD schedule relative to the BID schedule if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference in MaHR rates (MaHRRQD - MaHRRBID) is greater than -12%.||8.1|-7.8|
91021630|NCT00423488|181926641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||least-squares means|-11.5||||0.005||95.0|-19.4|-3.5|||ANOVA|The analysis of variance (ANOVA) model included term of treatment effect. If more than one basal value was available, the latest was used.||||-3.5|-19.4|0.005
91021631|NCT03118765|181926642|OTHER|ANOVA|LS mean ratio (%)|29.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|21.14|41.0|||||Relative Bioavailability (%) based on CmaxSS for of GSP304 in comparison to SPIRIVA RESPIMAT|GSP 304 vs SPIRIVA RESPIMAT 5 μg comparison for relative bioavailability data based on CmaxSS was tested and the estimated treatment ratios for the treatment comparisons was presented.||41.00|21.14|
91021632|NCT03118765|181926642|OTHER|ANOVA|LS mean ratio (%)|57.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|41.37|78.46|||||Relative Bioavailability (%) based on CmaxSS for of GSP304 in comparison to SPIRIVA RESPIMAT|GSP 304 vs SPIRIVA RESPIMAT 5 μg comparison for relative bioavailability data based on CmaxSS was tested and the estimated treatment ratios for the treatment comparisons was presented.||78.46|41.37|
91021633|NCT03118765|181926642|OTHER|ANOVA|LS mean ratio (%)|155.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|111.88|216.99|||||Relative Bioavailability (%) based on CmaxSS for of GSP304 in comparison to SPIRIVA RESPIMAT|GSP 304 vs SPIRIVA RESPIMAT 5 μg comparison for relative bioavailability data based on CmaxSS was tested and the estimated treatment ratios for the treatment comparisons was presented.||216.99|111.88|
91021634|NCT03118765|181926643|OTHER|ANOVA|LS mean ratio (%)|39.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|29.79|52.87|||||Relative Bioavailability (%) based on AUC0-tauSS for of GSP304 in comparison to SPIRIVA RESPIMAT|GSP 304 vs SPIRIVA RESPIMAT 5 μg comparison for relative bioavailability data based on AUC0-tauSS was tested and the estimated treatment ratios for the treatment comparisons was presented.||52.87|29.79|
91021635|NCT03118765|181926643|OTHER|ANOVA|LS mean ratio (%)|85.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|64.43|112.64|||||Relative Bioavailability (%) based on AUC0-tauSS for of GSP304 in comparison to SPIRIVA RESPIMAT|GSP 304 vs SPIRIVA RESPIMAT 5 μg comparison for relative bioavailability data based on AUC0-tauSS was tested and the estimated treatment ratios for the treatment comparisons was presented.||112.64|64.43|
91021636|NCT03118765|181926643|OTHER|ANOVA|LS mean ratio (%)|211.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|158.8|281.8|||||Relative Bioavailability (%) based on AUC0-tauSS for of GSP304 in comparison to SPIRIVA RESPIMAT|GSP 304 vs SPIRIVA RESPIMAT 5 μg comparison for relative bioavailability data based on AUC0-tauSS was tested and the estimated treatment ratios for the treatment comparisons was presented.||281.80|158.80|
91021637|NCT03118765|181926644|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.17|||MMRM|||GSP 304 vs Placebo comparison for change from baseline in trough FEV1 was tested at 0.05 significance level.||0.17|-0.04|0.228
91021638|NCT03118765|181926644|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02||||0.655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.13|||MMRM|||GSP 304 vs Placebo comparison for change from baseline in trough FEV1 was tested at 0.05 significance level.||0.13|-0.08|0.655
91021639|NCT03118765|181926644|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.11|||MMRM|||GSP 304 vs Placebo comparison for change from baseline in trough FEV1 was tested at 0.05 significance level.||0.11|-0.10|0.894
91021640|NCT03118765|181926644|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.16|||MMRM|||SPIRIVA RESPIMAT 5 μg vs Placebo comparison for change from baseline in trough FEV1 was tested at 0.05 significance level.||0.16|-0.04|0.260
91021641|NCT03118765|181926645|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The mean amount of tiotropium excreted in urine over the dosing interval on Day 1 for GSP304 10 μg was (Geo mean: 108200 pg) and for SPIRIVA RESPIMAT 5 μg was (Geo mean: 120300 pg).|||
91085020|NCT03365934|182053601|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.140475|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.140475
91085021|NCT03365934|182053601|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002026|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.002026
91085022|NCT03365934|182053601|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001916|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001916
91085023|NCT03365934|182053601|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91085024|NCT03365934|182053601|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91085025|NCT03365934|182053601|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999957|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999957
91085026|NCT03365934|182053601|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.672573|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.672573
91021642|NCT03118765|181926645|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The mean amount of tiotropium excreted in urine over the dosing interval on Day 1 for GSP304 20 μg was (Geo mean: 263100 pg) and for SPIRIVA RESPIMAT 5 μg was (Geo mean: 120300 pg).|||
91085027|NCT03365934|182053601|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.630145|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.630145
91021643|NCT03118765|181926645|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The mean amount of tiotropium excreted in urine over the dosing interval on Day 1 for GSP304 40 μg was (Geo mean: 438300 pg) and for SPIRIVA RESPIMAT 5 μg was (Geo mean: 120300 pg).|||
91021644|NCT03118765|181926646|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The mean amount of tiotropium excreted in urine over the dosing interval on Day 21 for GSP304 10 μg was (Geo mean: 293700 pg) and for SPIRIVA RESPIMAT 5 μg was (Geo mean: 620200 pg).|||
91021645|NCT03118765|181926646|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The mean amount of tiotropium excreted in urine over the dosing interval on Day 21 for GSP304 20 μg was (Geo mean: 436500 pg) and for SPIRIVA RESPIMAT 5 μg was (Geo mean: 620200 pg).|||
91021646|NCT03118765|181926646|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The mean amount of tiotropium excreted in urine over the dosing interval on Day 21 for GSP304 40 μg was (Geo mean: 1249000 pg) and for SPIRIVA RESPIMAT 5 μg was (Geo mean: 620200 pg).|||
91021647|NCT03118765|181926647|OTHER||||||||||||||||||For GSP304 10 μg, the geometric mean Fe (%) eliminated in urine was 1.082% on Day 1 and for SPIRIVA RESPIMAT 5 μg, the geometric mean Fe (%) eliminated in urine was 2.407% on Day 1|||
91021648|NCT03118765|181926647|OTHER||||||||||||||||||For GSP304 20 μg, the geometric mean Fe (%) eliminated in urine was 1.316% on Day 1 and for SPIRIVA RESPIMAT 5 μg, the geometric mean Fe (%) eliminated in urine was 2.407% on Day 1|||
91021649|NCT03118765|181926647|OTHER||||||||||||||||||For GSP304 40 μg, the geometric mean Fe (%) eliminated in urine was 1.096% on Day 1 and for SPIRIVA RESPIMAT 5 μg, the geometric mean Fe (%) eliminated in urine was 2.407% on Day 1|||
91021650|NCT03118765|181926648|OTHER||||||||||||||||||For GSP304 10 μg, the geometric mean Fe (%) eliminated in urine was 2.937% on Day 21 and for SPIRIVA RESPIMAT 5 μg, the geometric mean Fe (%) eliminated in urine was 12.4% on Day 21|||
91021651|NCT03118765|181926648|OTHER||||||||||||||||||For GSP304 20 μg, the geometric mean Fe (%) eliminated in urine was 2.183% on Day 21 and for SPIRIVA RESPIMAT 5 μg, the geometric mean Fe (%) eliminated in urine was 12.4% on Day 21|||
91021652|NCT03118765|181926648|OTHER||||||||||||||||||For GSP304 40 μg, the geometric mean Fe (%) eliminated in urine was 3.123% on Day 21 and for SPIRIVA RESPIMAT 5 μg, the geometric mean Fe (%) eliminated in urine was 12.4% on Day 21|||
91021653|NCT03118765|181926649|OTHER||||||||||||||||||For GSP304 10 μg, geometric mean Cmax of tiotropium was 2.191 pg/mL and for SPIRIVA RESPIMAT 5 μg, geometric mean Cmax of tiotropium was 7.327 pg/mL on Day 1.|||
91021654|NCT03118765|181926649|OTHER||||||||||||||||||For GSP304 20 μg, geometric mean Cmax of tiotropium was 4.796 pg/mL and for SPIRIVA RESPIMAT 5 μg, geometric mean Cmax of tiotropium was 7.327 pg/mL on Day 1.|||
91021655|NCT03118765|181926649|OTHER||||||||||||||||||For GSP304 40 μg, geometric mean Cmax of tiotropium was 10.2 pg/mL and for SPIRIVA RESPIMAT 5 μg, geometric mean Cmax of tiotropium was 7.327 pg/mL on Day 1.|||
91021656|NCT03118765|181926650|OTHER||||||||||||||||||For GSP304 10 μg, geometric mean AUC0-tau of tiotropium was 8.597 pg\*h/mL and for SPIRIVA RESPIMAT 5 μg, geometric mean AUC0-tau of tiotropium was 19.59 pg\*h/mL on Day 1.|||
91021657|NCT03118765|181926650|OTHER||||||||||||||||||For GSP304 20 μg, geometric mean AUC0-tau of tiotropium was 18.00 pg\*h/mL and for SPIRIVA RESPIMAT 5 μg, geometric mean AUC0-tau of tiotropium was 19.59 pg\*h/mL on Day 1.|||
91021658|NCT03118765|181926650|OTHER||||||||||||||||||For GSP304 40 μg, geometric mean AUC0-tau of tiotropium was 42.69 pg\*h/mL and for SPIRIVA RESPIMAT 5 μg, geometric mean AUC0-tau of tiotropium was 19.59 pg\*h/mL on Day 1.|||
91021659|NCT03118765|181926653|OTHER||||||||||||||||||For GSP304 10 μg, the geometric mean CavSS was 0.9536 pg/mL on Day 21 and for SPIRIVA RESPIMAT 5 μg, the CavSS was 2.403 pg/mL on Day 21|||
91021660|NCT03118765|181926653|OTHER||||||||||||||||||For GSP304 20 μg, the geometric mean CavSS was 1.998 pg/mL on Day 21 and for SPIRIVA RESPIMAT 5 μg, the CavSS was 2.403 pg/mL on Day 21|||
91021661|NCT03118765|181926653|OTHER||||||||||||||||||For GSP304 40 μg, the geometric mean CavSS was 5.083 pg/mL on Day 21 and for SPIRIVA RESPIMAT 5 μg, the CavSS was 2.403 pg/mL on Day 21|||
91021662|NCT03118765|181926654|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Upon repeat dosing, tiotropium had accumulated by Day 21 with a geometric mean accumulation ratio (Rac) based on AUC of 2.617 for GSP304 10 μg and 2.815 for SPIRIVA RESPIMAT 5 μg.|||
91021663|NCT03118765|181926654|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Upon repeat dosing, tiotropium had accumulated by Day 21 with a geometric mean accumulation ratio (Rac) based on AUC of 2.522 for GSP304 20 μg and 2.815 for SPIRIVA RESPIMAT 5 μg.|||
91021664|NCT03118765|181926654|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Upon repeat dosing, tiotropium had accumulated by Day 21 with a geometric mean accumulation ratio (Rac) based on AUC of 2.926 for GSP304 40 μg and 2.815 for SPIRIVA RESPIMAT 5 μg.|||
91021665|NCT03118765|181926655|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Upon repeat dosing, tiotropium had accumulated by Day 21 with a geometric mean accumulation ratio (Rac) based on Cmax of 1.944 for GSP304 10 μg and 1.929 for SPIRIVA RESPIMAT 5 μg.|||
91021666|NCT03118765|181926655|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Upon repeat dosing, tiotropium had accumulated by Day 21 with a geometric mean accumulation ratio (Rac) based on Cmax of 1.808 for GSP304 20 μg and 1.929 for SPIRIVA RESPIMAT 5 μg.|||
91021667|NCT03118765|181926655|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Upon repeat dosing, tiotropium had accumulated by Day 21 with a geometric mean accumulation ratio (Rac) based on Cmax of 2.125 for GSP304 40 μg and 1.929 for SPIRIVA RESPIMAT 5 μg.|||
91021668|NCT03118765|181926656|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.21|0.04|0.004
91021669|NCT03118765|181926656|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.26|0.08|<0.001
91085028|NCT03365934|182053601|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.832757|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.832757
91085029|NCT03365934|182053601|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.803277|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.803277
91085030|NCT03365934|182053601|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||1
91085031|NCT03365934|182053602|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.943522|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.943522
91085032|NCT03365934|182053602|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002376|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.002376
91085033|NCT03365934|182053602|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91085034|NCT03365934|182053602|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91085035|NCT03365934|182053602|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91085036|NCT03365934|182053602|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.061015|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.061015
91085037|NCT03365934|182053602|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.000211|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.000211
91085038|NCT03365934|182053602|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91085039|NCT03365934|182053602|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91085040|NCT03365934|182053602|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.412626|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.412626
91085041|NCT03365934|182053602|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.104388|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.104388
91085042|NCT03365934|182053602|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.197791|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.197791
91085043|NCT03365934|182053602|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.994413|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.994413
91085044|NCT03365934|182053602|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999851|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999851
91085045|NCT03365934|182053602|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999621|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999621
91085046|NCT03365934|182053603|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.193667|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.193667
91085047|NCT03365934|182053603|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.526573|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.526573
91085048|NCT03365934|182053603|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.898749|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.898749
91085049|NCT03365934|182053603|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.975044|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.975044
91085050|NCT03365934|182053603|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.760706|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.760706
91085051|NCT03365934|182053603|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.985237|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.985237
91085052|NCT03365934|182053603|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.837995|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.837995
91085053|NCT03365934|182053603|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.592697|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.592697
91085054|NCT03365934|182053603|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.912495|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.912495
91085055|NCT03365934|182053603|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99245|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.99245
91021670|NCT03118765|181926656|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.21|0.03|0.007
91021671|NCT03118765|181926656|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.26|0.08|<0.001
91021672|NCT03118765|181926657|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.28|0.08|0.001
91021673|NCT03118765|181926657|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.25|0.05|0.005
91021674|NCT03118765|181926657|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.21|0.01|0.032
91021675|NCT03118765|181926657|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.27|0.07|0.001
91021676|NCT03118765|181926658|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.21|-0.04|0.166
91021677|NCT03118765|181926658|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.21|-0.04|0.182
91021678|NCT03118765|181926658|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.17|-0.07|0.401
91021679|NCT03118765|181926658|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.16|-0.09|0.574
91021680|NCT03118765|181926659|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.21|-0.10|0.493
91021681|NCT03118765|181926659|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.14|-0.17|0.864
91021682|NCT03118765|181926659|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.15|-0.16|0.978
91021683|NCT03118765|181926659|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.20|-0.10|0.500
91021684|NCT03118765|181926660|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.20|0.04|0.003
91021685|NCT03118765|181926660|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.22|0.06|0.001
91021686|NCT03118765|181926660|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.21|0.06|0.001
91021687|NCT03118765|181926660|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.23|0.08|<0.001
91021688|NCT03118765|181926661|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.24|0.06|0.002
91021689|NCT03118765|181926661|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.18|-0.00|0.061
91021690|NCT03118765|181926661|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.16|-0.02|0.140
91021691|NCT03118765|181926661|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.24|0.06|0.002
91085056|NCT03365934|182053603|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.925553|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.925553
91085057|NCT03365934|182053603|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999171|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999171
91085058|NCT03365934|182053603|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999324|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999324
91085059|NCT03365934|182053603|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999913|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999913
91085060|NCT03365934|182053603|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.990516|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.990516
91085061|NCT03365934|182053604|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92106|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.92106
91085062|NCT03365934|182053604|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.976812|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.976812
91085063|NCT03365934|182053604|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.233992|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.233992
91085064|NCT03365934|182053604|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007591|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.007591
91085065|NCT03365934|182053604|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038958|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.038958
91085066|NCT03365934|182053604|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99809|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.99809
91085067|NCT03365934|182053604|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.773028|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.773028
91085068|NCT03365934|182053604|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.135805|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.135805
91085069|NCT03365934|182053604|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.350556|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.350556
91085070|NCT03365934|182053604|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61046|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.61046
91085071|NCT03365934|182053604|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.062163|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.062163
91085072|NCT03365934|182053604|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.203418|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.203418
91085073|NCT03365934|182053604|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.942304|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.942304
91085074|NCT03365934|182053604|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.995238|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.995238
91085075|NCT03365934|182053604|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99858|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.99858
91085076|NCT03365934|182053605|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.998949|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.998949
91085077|NCT03365934|182053605|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.111084|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.111084
91085078|NCT03365934|182053605|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.456846|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.456846
91085079|NCT03365934|182053605|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.00062|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.00062
91085080|NCT03365934|182053605|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006871|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.006871
91085081|NCT03365934|182053605|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.039407|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.039407
91085082|NCT03365934|182053605|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.245375|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.245375
91085083|NCT03365934|182053605|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.000113|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.000113
91085084|NCT03365934|182053605|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001612|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001612
91085085|NCT03365934|182053605|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.988067|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.988067
91085086|NCT03365934|182053605|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.599171|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.599171
91085087|NCT03365934|182053605|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.928722|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.928722
91085088|NCT03365934|182053605|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.256079|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.256079
91085089|NCT03365934|182053605|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.626498|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.626498
91085090|NCT03365934|182053605|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.988693|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.988693
90956810|NCT00189488|181793308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference (%)|-17.9||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.4|-2.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for the stratification factors (TBI use, matched donor type, and source of donor cells) using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|The difference between treatment groups in the percentage of participants with Grade 2 to 4 acute GVHD, adjusted for the stratification factors (TBI use, matched donor type, and source of donor cells) using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|||-2.4|-33.4|0.034
91085091|NCT03365934|182053606|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99916|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.99916
91085092|NCT03365934|182053606|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016246|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.016246
91085093|NCT03365934|182053606|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.289112|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.289112
91085094|NCT03365934|182053606|SUPERIORITY|||||||3.8e-05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.000038
91085095|NCT03365934|182053606|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014558|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.014558
91085096|NCT03365934|182053606|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03731|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03731
91085097|NCT03365934|182053606|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.465745|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.465745
91085098|NCT03365934|182053606|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.000112|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.000112
91085099|NCT03365934|182053606|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.034575|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.034575
91085100|NCT03365934|182053606|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.889597|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.889597
91085101|NCT03365934|182053606|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.726932|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.726932
91085102|NCT03365934|182053606|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999998|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999998
91085103|NCT03365934|182053606|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.130235|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.130235
91085104|NCT03365934|182053606|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.910989|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.910989
91085105|NCT03365934|182053606|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.616933|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.616933
91085106|NCT03365934|182053607|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999952|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999952
91085107|NCT03365934|182053607|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.421347|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.421347
91085108|NCT03365934|182053607|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.598141|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.598141
91085109|NCT03365934|182053607|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.000197|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.000197
91085110|NCT03365934|182053607|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.000115|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.000115
91085111|NCT03365934|182053607|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.511155|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.511155
91085112|NCT03365934|182053607|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.693868|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.693868
91085113|NCT03365934|182053607|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.000232|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.000232
91085114|NCT03365934|182053607|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.000133|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.000133
91085115|NCT03365934|182053607|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999894|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999894
91085116|NCT03365934|182053607|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.078046|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.078046
91085117|NCT03365934|182053607|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.054975|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.054975
91085118|NCT03365934|182053607|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.050132|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.050132
91085119|NCT03365934|182053607|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.034793|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.034793
91085120|NCT03365934|182053607|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999993|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999993
91085121|NCT03365934|182053608|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.997406|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.997406
91085122|NCT03365934|182053608|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.354187|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.354187
91085123|NCT03365934|182053608|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.883222|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.883222
91085124|NCT03365934|182053608|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.000412|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.000412
91085125|NCT03365934|182053608|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.000332|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.000332
91085126|NCT03365934|182053608|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.626878|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.626878
91085127|NCT03365934|182053608|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.984465|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.984465
91085128|NCT03365934|182053608|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001845|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001845
91085129|NCT03365934|182053608|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001507|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001507
91085130|NCT03365934|182053608|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.970029|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.970029
91085131|NCT03365934|182053608|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19886|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.19886
91085132|NCT03365934|182053608|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.177549|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.177549
91085133|NCT03365934|182053608|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.041698|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.041698
91085134|NCT03365934|182053608|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036131|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.036131
91085135|NCT03365934|182053608|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||1
91085136|NCT03365934|182053609|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||1
91085137|NCT03365934|182053609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.317315|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.317315
91085138|NCT03365934|182053609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.829352|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.829352
91085139|NCT03365934|182053609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.010561|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.010561
91085140|NCT03365934|182053609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001099|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001099
91085141|NCT03365934|182053609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.175148|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.175148
91085142|NCT03365934|182053609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.728796|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.728796
91085143|NCT03365934|182053609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001992|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001992
91085144|NCT03365934|182053609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.000113|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.000113
91085145|NCT03365934|182053609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.974567|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.974567
91085146|NCT03365934|182053609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.668933|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.668933
91085147|NCT03365934|182053609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.239446|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.239446
91085148|NCT03365934|182053609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.283848|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.283848
91085149|NCT03365934|182053609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06829|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.06829
91085150|NCT03365934|182053609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.979516|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.979516
91085151|NCT03365934|182053610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.996522|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.996522
91085152|NCT03365934|182053610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.875832|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.875832
91085153|NCT03365934|182053610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.938|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.938
91085154|NCT03365934|182053610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038527|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.038527
91085155|NCT03365934|182053610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018334|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.018334
91085156|NCT03365934|182053610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.512209|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.512209
91085157|NCT03365934|182053610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.665529|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.665529
91085158|NCT03365934|182053610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002257|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.002257
91085159|NCT03365934|182053610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.000728|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.000728
91085160|NCT03365934|182053610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999993|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999993
91085161|NCT03365934|182053610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.417914|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.417914
91085162|NCT03365934|182053610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.277469|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.277469
91085163|NCT03365934|182053610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.385419|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.385419
91085164|NCT03365934|182053610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.257647|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.257647
91085165|NCT03365934|182053610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999897|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999897
91085166|NCT03365934|182053611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.862516|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.862516
91085167|NCT03365934|182053611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.00473|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.00473
91085168|NCT03365934|182053611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.085238|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.085238
91085169|NCT03365934|182053611|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91085170|NCT03365934|182053611|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91085171|NCT03365934|182053611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.168409|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.168409
91085172|NCT03365934|182053611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.652654|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.652654
91085173|NCT03365934|182053611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001436|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001436
91085174|NCT03365934|182053611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.000235|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.000235
91085175|NCT03365934|182053611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.974842|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.974842
91085176|NCT03365934|182053611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.557877|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.557877
91085177|NCT03365934|182053611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.277244|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.277244
91085178|NCT03365934|182053611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.195527|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.195527
91085179|NCT03365934|182053611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.070843|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.070843
91085180|NCT03365934|182053611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.997565|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.997565
91085181|NCT03365934|182053612|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016628|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.016628
91085182|NCT03365934|182053612|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.217862|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.217862
91085183|NCT03365934|182053612|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.812915|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.812915
91085184|NCT03365934|182053612|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999971|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999971
91085185|NCT03365934|182053612|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.275557|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.275557
91085186|NCT03365934|182053612|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.870124|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.870124
91085187|NCT03365934|182053612|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.380144|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.380144
91085188|NCT03365934|182053612|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029518|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.029518
91085189|NCT03365934|182053612|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.815476|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.815476
91085190|NCT03365934|182053612|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.944307|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.944307
91085191|NCT03365934|182053612|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.313389|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.313389
91085192|NCT03365934|182053612|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999996|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999996
91085193|NCT03365934|182053612|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.894272|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.894272
91085194|NCT03365934|182053612|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.969093|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.969093
91085195|NCT03365934|182053612|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.383434|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.383434
91085196|NCT03365934|182053613|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.393119|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.393119
91085197|NCT03365934|182053613|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.890335|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.890335
91085198|NCT03365934|182053613|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.021978|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.021978
91085199|NCT03365934|182053613|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.000983|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.000983
91085200|NCT03365934|182053613|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006615|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.006615
91085201|NCT03365934|182053613|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.951883|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.951883
91085202|NCT03365934|182053613|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.692455|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.692455
91085203|NCT03365934|182053613|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.257254|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.257254
91085204|NCT03365934|182053613|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.530181|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.530181
91085205|NCT03365934|182053613|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.219274|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.219274
91085206|NCT03365934|182053613|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029675|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.029675
91085207|NCT03365934|182053613|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.111454|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.111454
91085208|NCT03365934|182053613|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.995849|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.995849
91085209|NCT03365934|182053613|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999994|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999994
91085210|NCT03365934|182053613|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.998744|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.998744
91085211|NCT03365934|182053614|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999858|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999858
91085212|NCT03365934|182053614|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.215132|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.215132
91085213|NCT03365934|182053614|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.958812|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.958812
91085214|NCT03365934|182053614|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.00622|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.00622
91085215|NCT03365934|182053614|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017733|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.017733
91085216|NCT03365934|182053614|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.330576|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.330576
91085217|NCT03365934|182053614|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.990334|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.990334
91085218|NCT03365934|182053614|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013025|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.013025
91085219|NCT03365934|182053614|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.034707|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.034707
91085220|NCT03365934|182053614|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.771698|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.771698
91085221|NCT03365934|182053614|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.790117|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.790117
91085222|NCT03365934|182053614|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.923224|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.923224
90959126|NCT01620255|181798212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|2.95||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.19|4.715|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 225 mg vs placebo, social fx change from BL at W12||4.715|1.190|0.0060
91085223|NCT03365934|182053614|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.112245|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.112245
91085224|NCT03365934|182053614|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.216229|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.216229
91085225|NCT03365934|182053614|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999663|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999663
91085226|NCT03365934|182053615|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91874|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.91874
91085227|NCT03365934|182053615|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013582|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.013582
91085228|NCT03365934|182053615|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.523284|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.523284
91085229|NCT03365934|182053615|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.000315|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.000315
91085230|NCT03365934|182053615|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.059485|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.059485
91085231|NCT03365934|182053615|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15037|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.15037
91085232|NCT03365934|182053615|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.967277|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.967277
91085233|NCT03365934|182053615|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008729|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.008729
91085234|NCT03365934|182053615|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.421603|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.421603
91085235|NCT03365934|182053615|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.647267|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.647267
91085236|NCT03365934|182053615|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.953645|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.953645
91085237|NCT03365934|182053615|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.987387|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.987387
91085238|NCT03365934|182053615|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.147361|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.147361
91085239|NCT03365934|182053615|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.930371|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.930371
91085240|NCT03365934|182053615|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6094|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6094
91085241|NCT03365934|182053616|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99253|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.99253
91085242|NCT03365934|182053616|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.795279|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.795279
91085243|NCT03365934|182053616|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.855067|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.855067
91085244|NCT03365934|182053616|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003915|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003915
91085245|NCT03365934|182053616|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.000221|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.000221
91085246|NCT03365934|182053616|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97816|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.97816
91085247|NCT03365934|182053616|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98972|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.98972
91085248|NCT03365934|182053616|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01764|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01764
91085249|NCT03365934|182053616|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001185|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001185
91085250|NCT03365934|182053616|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999999|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999999
91085251|NCT03365934|182053616|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.119961|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.119961
91085252|NCT03365934|182053616|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013468|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.013468
91085253|NCT03365934|182053616|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.112192|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.112192
91085254|NCT03365934|182053616|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013135|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.013135
91085255|NCT03365934|182053616|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.965966|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.965966
91085256|NCT03365934|182053617|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.968005|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.968005
91085257|NCT03365934|182053617|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.526293|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.526293
91085258|NCT03365934|182053617|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.994384|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.994384
91085259|NCT03365934|182053617|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004967|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004967
91085260|NCT03365934|182053617|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.000948|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.000948
91085261|NCT03365934|182053617|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.936394|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.936394
91085262|NCT03365934|182053617|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999945|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999945
91085263|NCT03365934|182053617|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.050032|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.050032
91085264|NCT03365934|182053617|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01256|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01256
91085265|NCT03365934|182053617|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.886978|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.886978
91085266|NCT03365934|182053617|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.391295|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.391295
91021692|NCT03070431|181926664|SUPERIORITY|It was assumed that radiotherapy with 5x4 Gy results in 6-month LPFS of 67% and an increase by 20% is clinically relevant when using 5x5 Gy. For comparison of 5x5 Gy and a historical control (5x4 Gy), it was assumed that it can be performed with a simple Pearson-Chi-Square test (2-sided significance level of 5%, power of 79%) if 40 patients treated with 5x5 Gy and 400 patients of the control group qualified for Propensity-Score adjusted comparison, assuming 6-month LPFS rates of 87% and 67%.|Risk Difference (RD)|20.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||historical control group treated with 5 x 4 Gy|"In a prospective study, 6-month LPFS rates were 86% after longer-course (mainly 3Gyx10) and 67% after short-course radiotherapy (mainly 4Gyx5) \[Rades D, et al., Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2009;73:228-34.\]. For sample size calculations, it was assumed that conventional radiotherapy with 4Gyx5 results in 6-month LPFS of 67% and that an increase by 20% is clinically relevant and realistic with 5Gyx5. A sample size of 40 eligible patients was required for the phase 2 trial assuming that that 6-month LPFS would be 87% and estimated with a precision of +/-20% expressed as the half length of the associated two-sided confidence interval (95%), and power of \>=80%.~For comparison of phase 2 cohort and historical control group, it was assumed that this could be performed with a simple Pearson-Chi-Square test using a two-sided significance level of 5% (10%) and a power of 79% (86%) if 40 patients received 5Gyx5 and N=400 of the control group qualified for Propensity-Score adjusted comparison."|||<0.05
91021693|NCT02450760|181926701|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.29
91021694|NCT02450760|181926702|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.95
91021695|NCT02450760|181926706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.15
91021696|NCT02450760|181926707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.83
91021697|NCT02450760|181926708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.26
91021698|NCT01246973|181926711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6555|TWO_SIDED||||||F-test|||||||0.6555
91021699|NCT01246973|181926712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3504|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3504
91021700|NCT00581386|181926716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.125||||0.013||95.0|1.27|7.67|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression Number of obs = 217, LR chi2(2)=10.89, Prob\>chi2=0.0043,Log likelihood = -112.87788, Pseudo R2=0.0460|this is a simple odds ratio|||7.67|1.27|0.013
91021701|NCT00581386|181926716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.81||||0.003||95.0|1.57|9.29|||Odds ratio|||||9.29|1.57|0.003
90956811|NCT00189488|181793309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference (%)|0.5||||0.929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|12.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for the stratification factors (TBI use, matched donor type, and source of donor cells) using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|The difference between treatment groups in the percentage of participants with severe GVHD, adjusted for the stratification factors (TBI use, matched donor type, and source of donor cells) using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|||12.1|-11.0|0.929
91021702|NCT00581386|181926717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.006||||0.006||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.006
91021703|NCT00581386|181926718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.088||||0.003||95.0|1.728|14.99|||Regression, Logistic|||||14.99|1.728|0.003
91021704|NCT00581386|181926718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.22||||0.0004||95.0|2.419|21.527|||Regression, Logistic|||||21.527|2.419|0.0004
91021705|NCT00681824|181926720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7159||95.0|||||likelihood ratio of chi squared test|||||||0.7159
91021706|NCT03101293|181926762|EQUIVALENCE|A linear mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed parameters was performed with regimen, sequence and period as fixed effects and participant nested within sequence as a random effect. The least squares means and difference of least squares means for the log-transformed parameters were exponentiated to obtain the point estimates of the food effect and 90% confidence intervals (CIs).|LS Mean Ratio|1.343||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.146|1.574|||ANOVA|||||1.574|1.146|0.0058
91021707|NCT03101293|181926763|EQUIVALENCE|A linear mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed parameters was performed with regimen, sequence and period as fixed effects and participant nested within sequence as a random effect. The least squares means and difference of least squares means for the log-transformed parameters were exponentiated to obtain the point estimates of the food effect and 90% CIs.|LS Mean Ratio|1.121||||0.1763|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.969|1.298|||ANOVA|||||1.298|0.969|0.1763
91021708|NCT03101293|181926764|EQUIVALENCE|A linear mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed parameters was performed with regimen, sequence and period as fixed effects and participant nested within sequence as a random effect. The least squares means and difference of least squares means for the log-transformed parameters were exponentiated to obtain the point estimates of the food effect and 90% CIs.|LS Mean Ratio|1.154||||0.2745|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.929|1.433|||ANOVA|||||1.433|0.929|0.2745
91021709|NCT03471182|181926824|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035||||||Primary hypothesis of a group difference (i.e., CUD vs HHC-PET participants) in mGluR5 availability was assessed as the significance level of the fixed-effect of group at a threshold of p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Outcome Measure Data were tested using a single linear mixed effects model. The 9 regions of interest (i.e., all 9 Rows of the Outcome Measure Data) were included in the model as a within-subjects factor for the fixed-effect of region. Group (i.e., CUD, HHC-PET) was included in the model as a between-subjects factor for the fixed-effect of group. The model also included the region-by-group interaction term and a factor to model the random-effect of participant.||||0.035
91032411|NCT01874951|181949504|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|An initial power analysis at the time of protocol development suggested that with 6 patients in each treatment group, we could expect a 79% chance of achieving significance (2-sided p \< 0.05) if the true response rate to low-dose naltrexone (LDN) was 80% and the true placebo response rate was 20%.||||||0.55||||||Threshold of statistical significance is 0.05.|Chi-squared|Chi-squared value was 1.5.||Response rates were based on attaining a reduction in the HAM-D-17 scale of 50% or greater compared to baseline. We hypothesized that naltrexone would produce a significantly greater response rate than placebo.||||0.55
91032412|NCT01569152|181949506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of percentages|43.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.52|63.28|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||63.28|24.52|<0.001
91032413|NCT01569152|181949507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|-0.43|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||-0.43|-1.53|<0.001
91085267|NCT03365934|182053617|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.163678|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.163678
91085268|NCT03365934|182053617|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.047937|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.047937
91085269|NCT03365934|182053617|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013231|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.013231
91085270|NCT03365934|182053617|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.996358|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.996358
91085271|NCT03365934|182053618|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.995862|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.995862
91085272|NCT03365934|182053618|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.223341|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.223341
91085273|NCT03365934|182053618|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.834338|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.834338
91085274|NCT03365934|182053618|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.030267|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.030267
91085275|NCT03365934|182053618|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.00104|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.00104
91085276|NCT03365934|182053618|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.377217|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.377217
91085277|NCT03365934|182053618|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.965547|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.965547
91085278|NCT03365934|182053618|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.052284|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.052284
91085279|NCT03365934|182053618|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001348|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001348
91032414|NCT01569152|181949508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|-0.6|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||-0.60|-1.62|<0.001
91032415|NCT01569152|181949509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|14.63||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|28.44|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||28.44|0.83|0.044
91032416|NCT01569152|181949512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|31.71||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.29|52.13|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||52.13|11.29|0.004
91032417|NCT01569152|181949513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|29.27||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.9|49.63|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||49.63|8.90|0.007
91032418|NCT01569152|181949514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|9.76||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|18.84|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||18.84|0.67|0.039
91032419|NCT01569152|181949515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|12.2||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.18|22.21|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||22.21|2.18|0.018
91032420|NCT01569152|181949518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-4.75||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.99|-0.52|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||-0.52|-8.99|0.028
91032421|NCT01569152|181949519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.65||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.91|0.62|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||0.62|-5.91|0.110
91032422|NCT01569152|181949520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-10.56||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.97|-4.15|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||-4.15|-16.97|0.002
91032423|NCT01569152|181949523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-20.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.98|-11.71|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||-11.71|-29.98|<0.001
91032424|NCT01569152|181949524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-19.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.69|-9.28|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||-9.28|-29.69|<0.001
91032425|NCT01569152|181949525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-20.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.29|-10.09|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||-10.09|-31.29|<0.001
91032426|NCT01569152|181949526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.4|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||-0.40|-0.84|< 0.001
91032427|NCT01569152|181949527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.59||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.73|-0.45|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||-0.45|-2.73|0.007
91032428|NCT01569152|181949528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-4.9||||0.315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.54|4.74|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||4.74|-14.54|0.315
91032429|NCT01569152|181949530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|31.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.56|47.86|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||47.86|15.56|<0.001
91032430|NCT00743197|181949537|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|0|Other|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0||||||||0||||0||||
91032431|NCT02158936|181949547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.37||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.65||One sided p value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Interactive Voice Response System (IVRS) stratification factors||||0.65|0.21|1.000
91032432|NCT02158936|181949548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.42||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|2.08|||Log Rank|||Confidence Intervals estimated using the Brookmeyer-Crowley method. Hazard ratios are estimated using the Pike estimator. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with eltrombopag compared with Placebo. Log-rank test stratified by IVRS stratification factors||2.08|0.97|0.164
91032433|NCT02158936|181949565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.99|1.74|||ANOVA|||||1.74|0.990|
91032434|NCT02158936|181949566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.99|||ANOVA|||||1.99|0.970|
91032435|NCT00963482|181949573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.111||95.0||||not adjusted for multiple comparisons due to only two groups p\<.05, two-tailed|Chi-squared|||"H0: EG is equal in smoking quit rates compared to CG. H1: EG is superior in smoking quit rates compared to CG"||||=.111
91032436|NCT03247556|181949586|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93||0.0082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|-1.3|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||-1.3|-8.9|0.0082
91032437|NCT03247556|181949586|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93||0.0712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|0.3|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.3|-7.3|0.0712
91032438|NCT03247556|181949587|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with baseline Clinical Global Impression-Severity of Illness (CGI-S) score and treatment as fixed independent variables.||||-0.1|-0.8|0.0051
91032439|NCT03247556|181949587|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with baseline Clinical Global Impression-Severity of Illness (CGI-S) score and treatment as fixed independent variables.||||0.1|-0.6|0.0995
91032440|NCT03247556|181949588|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26||0.1377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|0.6|||ANCOVA|||||0.6|-4.3|0.1377
91032441|NCT03247556|181949588|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25||0.313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|1.2|||ANCOVA|||||1.2|-3.7|0.3130
91032442|NCT03247556|181949589|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049||0.0698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.01|||ANCOVA|||||0.01|-0.19|0.0698
91021710|NCT03471182|181926825|SUPERIORITY|Outcome Measure Data were tested using a single linear mixed effects model. The 4 brain networks of interest (i.e., all 4 Rows of the Outcome Measure Data) were included in the model as a within-subjects factor for the fixed-effect of network. Group (i.e., CUD, HC-MRI) was included in the model as a between-subjects factor for the fixed-effect of group. The model also included the network-by-group interaction term and a factor to model the random-effect of participant.||||||0.024||||||Primary hypothesis of group differences (i.e., CUD vs HC-MRI participants) in functional brain network engagement was assessed as the significance level of the fixed-effect of group at a threshold of p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.024
91021711|NCT03471182|181926826|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87||||||Primary hypothesis of group differences (i.e., CUD vs HC-MRI participants) in fALFF was assessed as the significance level of the fixed-effect of group at a threshold of p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Outcome Measure Data were tested using a single linear mixed effects model. The 5 brain networks of interest (i.e., all 5 Rows of the Outcome Measure Data) were included in the model as a within-subjects factor for the fixed-effect of network. Group (i.e., CUD, HC-MRI) was included in the model as a between-subjects factor for the fixed-effect of group. The model also included the network-by-group interaction term and a factor to model the random-effect of participant.||||0.870
91021712|NCT00331773|181926835|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|This trial was designed to establish with 90% power and a two-sided significance level of 0.05 that Arm 2 (Hypofractionated 3D-CRT) results in a 5-year DFS that is not lower than Arm 1 by more than 7.65% (hazard ratio \[HR\] , 1.52). Patients analyzed according to assignment, with time-to event duration originating at random assignment. DFS distributions calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Treatment efficacy for DFS was tested by comparing cause-specific hazards with the log-rank statistic.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.14|||Log Rank||Reference arm = Conventional 3D-CRT|||1.14|0.64|<0.001
91021713|NCT00331773|181926838|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Patients who died without biochemical failure were considered as competing risk at the time of death. Patients alive without biochemical failure at last follow-up were censored at that date. Estimates were calculated using cumulative risk and non-inferiority was assessed against a HR of 1.67. The log-rank test was used with a two-sided p-value of 0.05.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.17|||Log Rank||Reference arm = Conventional 3D-CRT|||1.17|0.51|< 0.001
91021714|NCT00331773|181926839|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was assessed against a HR of 1.54, translated from a 5% difference in overall survival with 90% overall survival in the Conventional 3D-CRT arm. The log-rank test was used with a two-sided p-value of 0.05.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.41|||Log Rank||Reference arm = Conventional 3D-CRT|||1.41|0.64|0.008
91021715|NCT00331773|181926840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.46||2-sided|Regression, Logistic||Reference arm = Conventional 3D-CRT|Acute GI toxicity rates were tabulated and dichotomized as \< grade 2 vs ≥ grade 2. To evaluate the differences by treatment arm, 2 X 2 subtables were formed and relative risk (RR) estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were computed.||1.46|0.73|0.85
91021716|NCT00331773|181926840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.31||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|5.81||2-sided|Regression, Logistic||Reference arm = Conventional 3D-CRT|Acute GI toxicity rates were tabulated and dichotomized as \< grade 3 vs ≥ grade 3. To evaluate the differences by treatment arm, 2 X 2 subtables were formed and relative risk (RR) estimates with 95% CIs were computed.||5.81|0.29|0.72
91021717|NCT00331773|181926840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.21||2-sided|Regression, Logistic||Reference Arm = Conventional 3D-CRT|Acute GU toxicity rates were tabulated and dichotomized as \< grade 2 vs ≥ grade 2. To evaluate the differences by treatment arm, 2 X 2 subtables were formed and relative risk (RR) estimates with 95% CIs were computed.||1.21|0.82|0.95
91021718|NCT00331773|181926840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.36||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|2.74||2-sided|Regression, Logistic||Reference arm = Conventional 3D-CRT|Acute GU toxicity rates were tabulated and dichotomized as \< grade 3 vs ≥ grade 3. To evaluate the differences by treatment arm, 2 X 2 subtables were formed and relative risk (RR) estimates with 95% CIs were computed.||2.74|0.67|0.39
91021719|NCT00331773|181926840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.59||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|2.06||2-sided|Regression, Logistic||Reference arm = Conventional 3D-CRT|Late GI toxicity rates were tabulated and dichotomized as \< grade 2 vs ≥ grade 2. To evaluate the differences by treatment arm, 2 X 2 subtables were formed and relative risk (RR) estimates with 95% CIs were computed.||2.06|1.22|0.005
91021720|NCT00331773|181926840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.55||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.99||2-sided|Regression, Logistic||Reference arm = Conventional 3D-CRT|Late GI toxicity rates were tabulated and dichotomized as \< grade 3 vs ≥ grade 3. To evaluate the differences by treatment arm, 2 X 2 subtables were formed and relative risk (RR) estimates with 95% CIs were computed.||2.99|0.80|0.19
91021721|NCT00331773|181926840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.31||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.61||2-sided|Regression, Logistic||Reference arm = Conventional 3D-CRT|Late GU toxicity rates were tabulated and dichotomized as \< grade 2 vs ≥ grade 2. To evaluate the differences by treatment arm, 2 X 2 subtables were formed and relative risk (RR) estimates with 95% CIs were computed.||1.61|1.07|0.009
90893696|NCT01970982|181652422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|47.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.3|50.08||The primary endpoints were tested using a multiple testing procedure to preserve the overall alpha level by simultaneously testing the endpoints using a closed procedure with each test performed at an alpha level of 2.5% one sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on COHb levels with product, sex, cigarette consumption, and baseline value as covariates.|LS mean ratio THS 2.2:CC|"The hypothesis to be tested is that the geometric mean level on Day 5 of the biomarker of exposure for THS 2.2 is lower relative to CC.~Analysis of the BoExp was conducted on the natural log scale in order to test the following hypothesis (one sided test with 2.5% type I error probability):~* Null hypothesis (H0): m1≥m2~* Alternative hypothesis (H1): m1\<m2 Where m1 and m2 are the geometric means of the BoExp levels on Day 5 for THS 2.2 and CC respectively."||50.08|44.30|<0.001
90893697|NCT03364751|181652459|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.068||||0.297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.196|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6: Difference between Cigarette and IQOS||0.196|-0.060|0.297
90893698|NCT03364751|181652459|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.064||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.273|0.146|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6: Difference between Cigarette and Dual Use||0.146|-0.273|0.550
91021722|NCT00331773|181926840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.56||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|3.18||2-sided|Regression, Logistic||Reference arm = Conventional 3D-CRT|Late GU toxicity rates were tabulated and dichotomized as \< grade 3 vs ≥ grade 3. To evaluate the differences by treatment arm, 2 X 2 subtables were formed and relative risk (RR) estimates with 95% CIs were computed.||3.18|0.76|0.22
91021723|NCT00331773|181926841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.72|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EPIC Bowel Domain at 6 months||||0.72
91021724|NCT00331773|181926841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.056|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EPIC Urinary Domain at 6 months||||0.056
91021725|NCT00331773|181926841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.99|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EPIC Sexual Domain at 6 months||||0.99
91021726|NCT00331773|181926841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.49|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EPIC Hormonal Domain at 6 months||||0.49
91021727|NCT00331773|181926841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0037|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EPIC Bowel Domain at 12 months||||0.0037
91021728|NCT00331773|181926841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.062|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EPIC Urinary Domain at 12 months||||0.062
91021729|NCT00331773|181926841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.94|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EPIC Sexual Domain at 12 months||||0.94
91021730|NCT00331773|181926841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.93|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EPIC Hormonal Domain at 12 months||||0.93
91021731|NCT00331773|181926841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.12|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EPIC Bowel Domain at 24 months||||0.12
91021732|NCT00331773|181926841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.81|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EPIC Urinary Domain at 24 months||||0.81
91021733|NCT00331773|181926841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.69|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EPIC Sexual Domain at 24 months||||0.69
91021734|NCT00331773|181926841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.68|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EPIC Hormonal Domain at 24 months||||0.68
91021735|NCT00331773|181926841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.071|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EPIC Bowel Domain at 60 months||||0.071
91021736|NCT00331773|181926841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.047|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EPIC Urinary Domain at 60 months||||0.047
91021737|NCT00331773|181926841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EPIC Sexual Domain at 60 months||||0.4
91021738|NCT00331773|181926841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.91|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EPIC Hormonal Domain at 60 months||||0.91
91021739|NCT00331773|181926843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.55|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of HSCL-25 at 6 months was calculated, and Wilcoxon test statistics were used to test the null hypothesis that responses are the same across the two treatment arms versus the alternative hypothesis that they are different. Significance level = 0.0125, two-sided test.||||0.55
91021740|NCT00331773|181926843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.29|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of HSCL-25 at 12 months was calculated, and Wilcoxon test statistics were used to test the null hypothesis that responses are the same across the two treatment arms versus the alternative hypothesis that they are different. Significance level = 0.0125, two-sided test.||||0.29
91021741|NCT00331773|181926843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.23|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of HSCL-25 at 24 months was calculated, and Wilcoxon test statistics were used to test the null hypothesis that responses are the same across the two treatment arms versus the alternative hypothesis that they are different. Significance level = 0.0125, two-sided test.||||0.23
91021742|NCT00331773|181926843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.028|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of HSCL-25 at 60 months (5 years) was calculated, and Wilcoxon test statistics were used to test the null hypothesis that responses are the same across the two treatment arms versus the alternative hypothesis that they are different. Significance level = 0.0125, two-sided test.||||0.028
91021743|NCT00331773|181926844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.037|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Two-sided significance level = 0.05||Baseline VAS score||||0.037
91021744|NCT00331773|181926844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.12||||||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline index score||||0.12
91021745|NCT00331773|181926844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7||||||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||6-month VAS score||||0.70
91021746|NCT00331773|181926844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2||||||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||6-month index score||||0.20
91021747|NCT00331773|181926844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.31||||||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||12-month VAS score||||0.31
91021748|NCT00331773|181926844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.19||||||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||12-month index score||||0.19
91021749|NCT00331773|181926844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.86||||||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||24-month VAS score||||0.86
91021750|NCT00331773|181926844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.45||||||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||24-month index score||||0.45
91021751|NCT00331773|181926844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.39||||||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||60-month VAS score||||0.39
91021752|NCT00331773|181926844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.56||||||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||60-month index score||||0.56
91021753|NCT00289731|181926849|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was defined as the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference between the two treatment groups (Twinrix Group minus Engerix-B+Havrix Group), in terms of seropositivity rates for anti-HAV antibody, being - 10%.|Difference in seropositivity rate|-1.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.34|1.48||||||Difference in seropositivity rates against hepatitis A virus (HAV) antigen: To demonstrate that the immunogenicity of Twinrix vaccine (Twinrix Group) administered at Months 0, 1 and 6 was non-inferior to that of separately administered monovalent vaccines Engerix-B at Months 0, 1 and 6 and Havrix at Months 0 and 6 (Engerix-B+Havrix Group), in terms of anti-HAV seropositivity rates, at Month 7.||1.48|-5.34|
91021754|NCT00289731|181926849|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was defined as the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference between the two treatment groups (Twinrix Group minus HB VAX PRO+Vaqta Group), in terms of seropositivity rates for anti-HAV antibody, being - 10%.|Difference in seropositivity rate|-1.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.31|1.6||||||Difference in seropositivity rates against hepatitis A virus (HAV) antigen: To demonstrate that the immunogenicity of Twinrix vaccine (Twinrix Group) administered at Months 0, 1 and 6 was non-inferior to that of separately administered monovalent vaccines HB VAX PRO at Months 0, 1 and 6 and Vaqta at Months 0 and 6 (HB VAX PRO+Vaqta Group), in terms of anti-HAV seropositivity rates, at Month 7.||1.60|-5.31|
91021755|NCT00289731|181926850|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was defined as the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference between the two treatment groups (Twinrix Group minus Engerix-B+Havrix Group), in terms of seroprotection rates for anti-HBs antibody, being - 10%.|Difference in seroprotection rate|12.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.97|19.35||||||Difference in seroprotection rates against hepatitis B surface (HBs) antigen: To demonstrate that the immunogenicity of Twinrix vaccine (Twinrix Group) administered at Months 0, 1 and 6 was non-inferior to that of separately administered monovalent vaccines Engerix-B at Months 0, 1 and 6 and Havrix at Months 0 and 6 (Engerix-B+Havrix Group), in terms of anti-HBs seroprotection rates, at Month 7.||19.35|4.97|
91021756|NCT00289731|181926850|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was defined as the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference between the two treatment groups (Twinrix Group minus HB VAX PRO+Vaqta Group), in terms of seroprotection rates for anti-HBs antibody, being - 15%.|Difference in seroprotection rates|20.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.92|28.62||||||Difference in seropositivity rates against hepatitis B surface (HBs) antigen: To demonstrate that the immunogenicity of Twinrix vaccine (Twinrix Group) administered at Months 0, 1 and 6 was non-inferior to that of separately administered monovalent vaccines HB VAX PRO at Months 0, 1 and 6 and Vaqta at Months 0 and 6 (HB VAX PRO+Vaqta Group), in terms of anti-HBs seroprotection rates, at Month 7.||28.62|12.92|
91021757|NCT01430182|181926906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||t-test, 1 sided|unpaired||||||0.37
91021758|NCT00775983|181926936|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power: We assumed a standard deviation of five minutes based on historical clinic data for surgical abortions during this gestational duration range, a non-inferiority margin of five minutes, and a 10% potential attrition rate to power the study for a non-inferiority hypothesis. Thirty participants in each arm gave us 95% power to conclude non-inferiority of same day Dilapan-S compared to overnight laminaria with respect to procedure time of surgical abortions between 14-18 weeks gestation.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.3|4.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||Null Hypothesis: A surgical abortion performed between 14-18 weeks gestation performed after the cervix has been prepared with same-day Dilapan-S is inferior with respect to procedure time, which is specifically outside a five minute margin of non-inferiority, when compared to procedures during the same gestational duration range performed after the cervix has been prepared overnight with laminaria.||4.5|-0.3|
91021759|NCT00661674|181926938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||||||p-value represents comparison between OOWS scores at T=180 and the baseline measurements at T=-30.|Friedman Test|||"Null Hypothesis: There will be no difference in OOWS scores when comparing treatment groups (Palonosetron \& Palonosetron + Hydroxyzine) with placebo.~Analysis of the data obtained in our prior study indicated that analysis of 10 individuals would provide 90% power to detect a treatment effect. Therefore, we examined the effect of three different pretreatments on naloxone-induced opiate withdrawal signs in 10 healthy individuals."||||0.0001
91021760|NCT00661674|181926939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2244||||||p-value represents comparison between SOWS scores at T=180 and the baseline measurements at T=-30.|Friedman Test|||"Null Hypothesis: There will be no difference in SOWS scores when comparing the 2 treatment groups (Palonosetron \& Palonosetron + Hydroxyzine) with placebo.~Analysis of the data obtained in our prior study indicated that analysis of 10 individuals would provide 90% power to detect a treatment effect. Therefore, we examined the effect of three different pretreatments on naloxone-induced opiate withdrawal signs in 10 healthy individuals."||||0.2244
91021761|NCT00660790|181926942|OTHER|||||||0.021|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The paired student's t-test or the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to compare the measurements before and after multifactorial treatment, as appropriate, depending on the distribution of the data.||||0.021
91021762|NCT02643966|181926977|OTHER|We compared DBT cancer yield per 1,000 for first observer (usual care) vs DBT and WBUS cancer yield per 1,000 for first observer for Year/Screen 1.|simple proportions|1.3||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.1||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|nonparametric bootstrap approach|The 95% CIs for differences were estimated using nonparametric bootstrap approach on the basis of 10,000 replicates with women as resampling units||The primary unit of analysis was the screening examination. A sample size of 16,700 screens (6,200 women, estimating 8%-10% loss to follow-up each year) was expected to provide 82% power to identify an added cancer detection rate (CDR) from US of 1.1/1,000. Screens were included for analysis if the patient was diagnosed with breast cancer or at least 10.5-month imaging or clinical follow-up (ie, at end of study participation) showed no evidence of breast cancer.||2.1|0.3|0.005
91021763|NCT02643966|181926977|OTHER|We compared DBT cancer yield per 1,000 for first observer (usual care) vs DBT and WBUS cancer yield per 1,000 for first observer for Years/Screens 2 \& 3.|simple proportions|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.5||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|nonparametric bootstrap approach|The 95% CIs for differences were estimated using nonparametric bootstrap approach on the basis of 10,000 replicates with women as resampling units||The primary unit of analysis was the screening examination. A sample size of 16,700 screens (6,200 women, estimating 8%-10% loss to follow-up each year) was expected to provide 82% power to identify an added cancer detection rate (CDR) from US of 1.1/1,000. Screens were included for analysis if the patient was diagnosed with breast cancer or at least 10.5-month imaging or clinical follow-up (ie, at end of study participation) showed no evidence of breast cancer.||1.5|0.4|<0.001
90893699|NCT03364751|181652460|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.043||||0.502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.084|0.171|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3: Difference between Cigarette and IQOS||0.171|-0.084|0.502
90893700|NCT03364751|181652460|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.02||||0.851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.229|0.189|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3: Difference between Cigarette and Dual Use||0.189|-0.229|0.851
90893701|NCT03364751|181652461|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.07||||0.376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.085|0.224|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3: Difference between Cigarette and IQOS||0.224|-0.085|0.376
90956812|NCT00189488|181793310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference (%)|-6.5||||0.352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|6.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for the stratification factors (TBI use, matched donor type, and source of donor cells) using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|The difference between treatment groups in the percentage of participants with Day 11 Methotrexate GVHD, adjusted for the stratification factors (TBI use, matched donor type, and source of donor cells) using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|||6.4|-19.4|0.352
91085280|NCT03365934|182053618|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.927936|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.927936
91085281|NCT03365934|182053618|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.946487|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.946487
91085282|NCT03365934|182053618|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.327918|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.327918
90893702|NCT03364751|181652461|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.025||||0.848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.229|0.279|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3: Difference between Cigarette and DualUse||0.279|-0.229|0.848
90893703|NCT03364751|181652461|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.092||||0.246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.064|0.247|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6: Difference between Cigarette and IQOS||0.247|-0.064|0.246
91085283|NCT03365934|182053618|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.475038|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.475038
90893704|NCT03364751|181652461|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.105||||0.417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.359|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6: Difference between Cigarette and Dual Use||0.150|-0.359|0.417
90893705|NCT02413580|181652477|OTHER|The hypothesis test is to test the null hypothesis: H0: μd = 0 versus alternative hypothesis Ha: μd ≠ 0 where μd is the mean change from Baseline to Day 14. The Shapiro-Wilk test is used to test the normality. If the assumptions for parametric test are met, a paired t-test (comparison between the pre- and post-treatment) is used to test for the treatment effect. Otherwise, a non-parametric test (Wilcoxon signed rank test) is used.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.957|-4.787|||Paired t-test|||||-4.787|-7.957|<0.001
90893706|NCT02342886|181652481|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was assessed using the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference between the percentage of patients who are classified as having an unfavourable status on the intervention (6 months moxifloxacin + 200 mg PA-824 + pyrazinamide) and the control regimen (2 months HRZE/ 4 months HR). The intervention was considered to be non-inferior to the control arm if the upper bound 95% CI was \< 12%.|Treatment difference: unfavourable rate|9.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.13|23.89|||||(DS-TB: 6 Months Moxifloxacin + PA-824 (200 mg) + Pyrazinamide) - (DS-TB: 2 Months HRZE/ 4 Months HR).|||23.89|-4.13|
91032443|NCT03247556|181949589|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.9756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.10|-0.10|0.9756
91032444|NCT03247556|181949590|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.3||||0.0349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|29.3|||Regression, Logistic|||||29.3|1.3|0.0349
91032445|NCT03247556|181949590|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.1||||0.0698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|27.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||27.0|-0.9|0.0698
91032446|NCT03247556|181949591|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-7.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.76||0.1259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|2.0|||ANCOVA|||||2.0|-16.6|0.1259
91032447|NCT03247556|181949591|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.78||0.7417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|10.9|||ANCOVA|||||10.9|-7.8|0.7417
91085284|NCT03365934|182053618|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.060057|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.060057
91085285|NCT03365934|182053618|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.857177|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.857177
91085286|NCT03365934|182053619|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999997|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999997
91085287|NCT03365934|182053619|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.938793|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.938793
91085288|NCT03365934|182053619|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.965993|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.965993
91085289|NCT03365934|182053619|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.057803|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.057803
91085290|NCT03365934|182053619|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022816|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.022816
91085291|NCT03365934|182053619|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.945179|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.945179
91085292|NCT03365934|182053619|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.972522|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.972522
91085293|NCT03365934|182053619|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.033704|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.033704
91085294|NCT03365934|182053619|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.010747|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.010747
91085295|NCT03365934|182053619|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999999|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999999
91085296|NCT03365934|182053619|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.385474|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.385474
91085297|NCT03365934|182053619|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.213798|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.213798
91085298|NCT03365934|182053619|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.388682|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.388682
91085299|NCT03365934|182053619|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22386|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.22386
91085300|NCT03365934|182053619|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999494|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999494
91085301|NCT03365934|182053620|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.891244|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.891244
91085302|NCT03365934|182053620|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022659|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.022659
91085303|NCT03365934|182053620|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.693615|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.693615
91085304|NCT03365934|182053620|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.000237|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.000237
91085305|NCT03365934|182053620|SUPERIORITY|||||||5e-06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.000005
91085306|NCT03365934|182053620|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.352008|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.352008
91085307|NCT03365934|182053620|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.998761|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.998761
91085308|NCT03365934|182053620|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017832|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.017832
91085309|NCT03365934|182053620|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.000974|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.000974
91085310|NCT03365934|182053620|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.638238|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.638238
91085311|NCT03365934|182053620|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.777423|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.777423
91085312|NCT03365934|182053620|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.249909|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.249909
90956813|NCT00189488|181793311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference (%)|-2.6||||0.675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.2|9.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for the stratification factors (TBI use, matched donor type, and source of donor cells) using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|Difference between treatment groups in the percentage of participants with severe oral mucositis, adjusted for the stratification factors (TBI use, matched donor type, and source of donor cells) using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|"Participants with Unknown incidence are treated as Yes when constructing the differences, 95% confidence intervals and p-value."||9.0|-14.2|0.675
91085313|NCT03365934|182053620|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.068196|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.068196
91085314|NCT03365934|182053620|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005786|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.005786
91085315|NCT03365934|182053620|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.954163|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.954163
91085316|NCT03365934|182053622|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.851||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1279|-1.8688|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #1 group based on the change from baseline at Day 1||-1.8688|-13.1279|0.009
90956814|NCT00189488|181793312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference|0.5||||0.953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for the stratification factors (TBI use, matched donor type, and source of donor cells) using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|Adjusted for the stratification factors (TBI use, matched donor type, and source of donor cells) using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|||2.5|-1.5|0.953
90956815|NCT00189488|181793313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference (%)|2.0||||0.797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|16.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for the stratification factors (TBI use, matched donor type, and source of donor cells) using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|Difference between treatment groups in the percentage of participants with opioid analgesic use, adjusted for the stratification factors (TBI use, matched donor type, and source of donor cells) using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|||16.5|-12.5|0.797
90956816|NCT00189488|181793314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference|-5.5||||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|1.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for the stratification factors (TBI use, matched donor type, and source of donor cells) using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|Adjusted for the stratification factors (TBI use, matched donor type, and source of donor cells) using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|||1.8|-12.7|0.186
90956817|NCT00189488|181793315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference|-4.1||||0.219|TWO_SIDED|5.0|-12.2|4.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for the stratification factors (TBI use, matched donor type, and source of donor cells) using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|Adjusted for the stratification factors (TBI use, matched donor type, and source of donor cells) using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|||4.0|-12.2|0.219
90956818|NCT02349425|181793316|SUPERIORITY||Estimated percent change|-41.222||||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.294|-15.127|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model which uses log-transformation|Percent change difference between Gefapixant and placebo was estimated by 100 x \[e\^diff - 1\] where e=exponent of difference; and diff = the treatment mean difference from mixed model of change from baseline based on log-transformed data.|||-15.127|-59.294|0.0055
90956819|NCT02349425|181793316|SUPERIORITY||Estimated percent change|-51.973||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.23|-27.397|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model which uses log-transformation.|Percent change difference between Gefapixant and placebo was estimated by 100 x \[e\^diff - 1\] where e=exponent of difference; and diff = the treatment mean difference from mixed model of change from baseline based on log-transformed data.|||-27.397|-68.230|0.0008
90956820|NCT02349425|181793316|SUPERIORITY||Estimated percent change|-46.853||||0.0075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.291|-16.206|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model which uses log-transformation.|Percent change difference between Gefapixant and placebo was estimated by 100 x \[e\^diff - 1\] where e=exponent of difference; and diff = the treatment mean difference from mixed model of change from baseline based on log-transformed data.|||-16.206|-66.291|0.0075
90956821|NCT02349425|181793316|SUPERIORITY||Estimated percent change|-57.067||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.375|-30.771|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model which uses log-transformation.|Percent change difference between Gefapixant and placebo was estimated by 100 x \[e\^diff - 1\] where e=exponent of difference; and diff = the treatment mean difference from mixed model of change from baseline based on log-transformed data.|||-30.771|-73.375|0.0009
91085317|NCT03365934|182053622|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.851||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7083|0.5508|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #2 group based on the change from baseline at Day 1||0.5508|-10.7083|0.077
91085318|NCT03365934|182053622|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.851||0.399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0399|3.2192|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #3 group based on the change from baseline at Day 1||3.2192|-8.0399|0.399
91085319|NCT03365934|182053622|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.851||0.802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9144|6.3446|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #4 group based on the change from baseline at Day 1||6.3446|-4.9144|0.802
91085320|NCT03365934|182053623|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.038|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3738|-5.3723|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #1 group based on the change from baseline at Day 2||-5.3723|-17.3738|<0.001
91085321|NCT03365934|182053623|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.038|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.6789|-6.6775|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #2 group based on the change from baseline at Day 2||-6.6775|-18.6789|<0.001
91085322|NCT03365934|182053623|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.038||0.521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9571|4.0444|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #3 group based on the change from baseline at Day 2||4.0444|-7.9571|0.521
91085323|NCT03365934|182053623|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|8.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.038||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3925|14.394|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #4 group based on the change from baseline at Day 2||14.3940|2.3925|0.006
91021764|NCT02643966|181926978|OTHER|We compared DBT true positive findings for first observer (usual care) vs DBT and WBUS true positive findings for first observer for Year/Screen 1.|simple proportions|17.8||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|31.1||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|nonparametric bootstrap approach|The 95% CIs for differences were estimated using nonparametric bootstrap approach on the basis of 10,000 replicates with women as resampling units||The primary unit of analysis was the screening examination. A sample size of 16,700 screens (6,200 women, estimating 8%-10% loss to follow-up each year) was expected to provide 82% power to identify an added cancer detection rate (CDR) from US of 1.1/1,000. Screens were included for analysis if the patient was diagnosed with breast cancer or at least 10.5-month imaging or clinical follow-up (ie, at end of study participation) showed no evidence of breast cancer.||31.1|4.4|0.005
91021765|NCT02643966|181926978|OTHER|We compared DBT true positive findings for first observer (usual care) vs DBT and WBUS true positive findings for first observer for Years/Screens 2 and 3.|simple proportions|13.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|22.3||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|nonparametric bootstrap approach|The 95% CIs for differences were estimated using nonparametric bootstrap approach on the basis of 10,000 replicates with women as resampling units||The primary unit of analysis was the screening examination. A sample size of 16,700 screens (6,200 women, estimating 8%-10% loss to follow-up each year) was expected to provide 82% power to identify an added CDR from US of 1.1/1,000.Screens were included for analysis if the patient was diagnosed with breast cancer or at least 10.5-month imaging or clinical follow-up (ie, at end of study participation) showed no evidence of breast cancer.||22.3|4.9|< 0.001
91021766|NCT02643966|181926980|OTHER|We compared DBT false positive findings for first observer (usual care) vs DBT and WBUS false positive findings for first observer for Year/Screen 1.|Slope|4.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|5.1||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|nonparametric bootstrap approach|The 95% CIs for differences were estimated using nonparametric bootstrap approach on the basis of 10,000 replicates with women as resampling units||||5.1|3.8|< 0.001
91021767|NCT02643966|181926980|OTHER|We compared DBT false positive findings for first observer (usual care) vs DBT and WBUS false positive findings for first observer for Years/Screens 2 \& 3.|simple proportions|3.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|4.1||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|nonparametric bootstrap approach|The 95% CIs for differences were estimated using nonparametric bootstrap approach on the basis of 10,000 replicates with women as resampling units||||4.1|3.3|< 0.001
91021768|NCT01493531|181926981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.41|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.41|0.23|<0.0001
91021769|NCT01493531|181926981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.52|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.52|0.34|<0.0001
91021770|NCT01493531|181926982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.88||||0.5716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.37|||Negative Binomial Regression|||||1.37|0.57|0.5716
91021771|NCT01493531|181926982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.93||||0.7454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.45|||Negative Binomial Regression|||||1.45|0.60|0.7454
91021772|NCT01493531|181926983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.02||||0.8466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.2|-0.24|0.8466
91021773|NCT01493531|181926983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.06||||0.6301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.17|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.17|-0.29|0.6301
91021774|NCT00370396|181927007|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference \[Synflorix-Synflorix minus Prevenar-Prevenar\] in terms of percentages of subjects reporting rectal fever \>39.0°C was computed.|Difference in percentage|-4.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.85|-0.21||||||Analysis aimed at demonstrating the non-inferiority of Synflorix™ vs Prevenar™ vaccine, both co-administered with Infanrix hexa™ vaccine, in terms of post-immunization febrile reactions with rectal fever \> 39.0°C.||-0.21|-11.85|
91021775|NCT02340078|181927069|SUPERIORITY||Subjects % with difference in VAS ≥ 10mm|0.9516|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|0.99||||||||0.99|0.87|
91021776|NCT00204932|181927070|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power analysis was based on test-retest variance of body fat mass measure by DEXA|||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance to test CLA not equal to placebo||||<0.05
91021777|NCT00204932|181927070|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Pre- post treatment comparison o fat oxidation found that fat oxidation increased in CLA (4 +/- 8 g) and decreased in placebo (-7 +/- 11 g) groups during sleep. after 6 mo of supplementation.||||<0.05
91021778|NCT02731833|181927073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-0.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.505|-0.3|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline in Schiff Sensitivity Score as response, treatment as factor and baseline Schiff sensitivity score as a covariate.|Difference is first named dentifrice minus second named dentifrice such that a negative difference favours first named dentifrice.|Statistical analyses was conducted under the null hypothesis (H0) of no difference between treatments versus the alternate hypothesis (H1) of a difference between treatments.||-0.300|-0.505|<0.0001
91021779|NCT05788237|181927092|OTHER||GMR|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.662|1.062||||||GMR for RSV A: RSVpreF + qIRV combination to RSVpreF alone.||1.062|0.662|
91021780|NCT05788237|181927092|OTHER||GMR|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.614|1.013||||||GMR for RSV B: RSVpreF + qIRV combination to RSVpreF alone.||1.013|0.614|
91021781|NCT05788237|181927093|OTHER||GMR|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.632|1.044||||||GMR for HAI: H1N1 A/Wisconsin: RSVpreF + qIRV combination to RSVpreF alone.||1.044|0.632|
91021782|NCT05788237|181927093|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.567|0.957||||||GMR for HAI: H3N2 A/Darwin: RSVpreF + qIRV combination to RSVpreF alone.||0.957|0.567|
91021783|NCT05788237|181927093|OTHER||GMR|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.741|1.181||||||GMR for HAI: B/Austria: RSVpreF + qIRV combination to RSVpreF alone.||1.181|0.741|
91021784|NCT05788237|181927093|OTHER||GMR|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.707|1.174||||||GMR for HAI: B/Phuket: RSVpreF + qIRV combination to RSVpreF alone.||1.174|0.707|
91021785|NCT05788237|181927094|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.339||||||GMR for RSV A: RSVpreF + qIRV 1.0 mL (Group 1) combination to RSVpreF + qIRV 0.5 mL (Group 2)||1.339|0.820|
91085324|NCT03365934|182053624|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-31.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.847|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.3967|-22.2538|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #1 group based on the change from baseline at Day 3||-22.2538|-41.3967|<0.001
91085325|NCT03365934|182053624|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-27.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.847|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.8727|-17.7298|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #2 group based on the change from baseline at Day 3||-17.7298|-36.8727|<0.001
91085326|NCT03365934|182053624|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.847||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.2784|-4.1355|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #3 group based on the change from baseline at Day 3||-4.1355|-23.2784|0.005
91085327|NCT03365934|182053624|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|10.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.847||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4969|19.6398|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #4 group based on the change from baseline at Day 3||19.6398|0.4969|0.039
91085328|NCT03365934|182053625|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-40.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.39|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.0324|-29.7496|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #1 group based on the change from baseline at Day 4||-29.7496|-51.0324|<0.001
91085329|NCT03365934|182053625|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-37.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.39|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.4787|-27.1959|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #2 group based on the change from baseline at Day 4||-27.1959|-48.4787|<0.001
91085330|NCT03365934|182053625|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-20.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.39|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.6336|-10.3508|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #3 group based on the change from baseline at Day 4||-10.3508|-31.6336|<0.001
91085331|NCT03365934|182053625|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|8.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.39||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8871|19.3957|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #4 group based on the change from baseline at Day 4||19.3957|-1.8871|0.106
91085332|NCT03365934|182053626|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-32.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.276|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.3249|-22.4838|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #1 group based on the change from baseline at Day 5||-22.4838|-43.3249|<0.001
91085333|NCT03365934|182053626|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-27.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.276|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.7279|-16.8868|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #2 group based on the change from baseline at Day 5||-16.8868|-37.7279|<0.001
90956822|NCT02349425|181793317|SUPERIORITY||Estimated percent change|-14.691||||0.2542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.307|12.493|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model which uses log-transformation.|Percent change difference between Gefapixant and placebo was estimated by 100 x \[e\^diff - 1\] where e=exponent of difference; and diff = the treatment mean difference from mixed model of change from baseline based on log-transformed data.|||12.493|-35.307|0.2542
91085334|NCT03365934|182053626|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-18.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.276|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.1785|-8.3374|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #3 group based on the change from baseline at Day 5||-8.3374|-29.1785|<0.001
91085335|NCT03365934|182053626|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.276||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6303|17.2107|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #4 group based on the change from baseline at Day 5||17.2107|-3.6303|0.200
91085336|NCT03365934|182053627|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-30.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.371|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.5325|-22.265|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #1 group based on the change from baseline at Day 6||-22.2650|-39.5325|<0.001
91085337|NCT03365934|182053627|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-25.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.371|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.9669|-16.6993|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #2 group based on the change from baseline at Day 6||-16.6993|-33.9669|<0.001
91085338|NCT03365934|182053627|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-20.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.371|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.2588|-11.9912|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #3 group based on the change from baseline at Day 6||-11.9912|-29.2588|<0.001
91085339|NCT03365934|182053627|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.371||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.362|12.9055|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #4 group based on the change from baseline at Day 6||12.9055|-4.3620|0.330
91085340|NCT03365934|182053628|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.754|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.368|-6.5419|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #1 group based on the change from baseline at Day 7||-6.5419|-21.3680|<0.001
91085341|NCT03365934|182053628|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.754||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9563|-4.1302|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #2 group based on the change from baseline at Day 7||-4.1302|-18.9563|0.002
91085342|NCT03365934|182053628|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.754||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.4867|-2.6606|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #3 group based on the change from baseline at Day 7||-2.6606|-17.4867|0.008
91085343|NCT03365934|182053628|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.754||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5447|14.2814|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #4 group based on the change from baseline at Day 7||14.2814|-0.5447|0.069
91085344|NCT03365934|182053629|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.244||0.397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1631|3.6504|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #1 group based on the change from baseline at Day 14||3.6504|-9.1631|0.397
91085345|NCT03365934|182053629|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.244||0.804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6006|7.2129|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #2 group based on the change from baseline at Day 14||7.2129|-5.6006|0.804
91085346|NCT03365934|182053629|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.244||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.7231|-2.9096|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #3 group based on the change from baseline at Day 14||-2.9096|-15.7231|0.005
91085347|NCT03365934|182053629|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.244||0.985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3452|6.4683|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #4 group based on the change from baseline at Day 14||6.4683|-6.3452|0.985
91085348|NCT03365934|182053631|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044||0.348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.129|0.0458|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #1 group based on the change from baseline at Day 1||0.0458|-0.1290|0.348
91085349|NCT03365934|182053631|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1904|-0.0178|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #2 group based on the change from baseline at Day 1||-0.0178|-0.1904|0.019
91085350|NCT03365934|182053631|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1437|0.0278|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #3 group based on the change from baseline at Day 1||0.0278|-0.1437|0.183
91085351|NCT03365934|182053631|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044||0.736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0725|0.1023|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #4 group based on the change from baseline at Day 1||0.1023|-0.0725|0.736
91085352|NCT03365934|182053632|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.136|0.0687|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #1 group based on the change from baseline at Day 2||0.0687|-0.1360|0.516
91085353|NCT03365934|182053632|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2459|-0.0412|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #2 group based on the change from baseline at Day 2||-0.0412|-0.2459|0.006
91085354|NCT03365934|182053632|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.051||0.671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1235|0.0798|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #3 group based on the change from baseline at Day 2||0.0798|-0.1235|0.671
91085355|NCT03365934|182053632|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0504|0.2578|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #4 group based on the change from baseline at Day 2||0.2578|0.0504|0.004
91085356|NCT03365934|182053633|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062||0.292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1896|0.0579|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #1 group based on the change from baseline at Day 3||0.0579|-0.1896|0.292
91085357|NCT03365934|182053633|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2773|-0.0297|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #2 group based on the change from baseline at Day 3||-0.0297|-0.2773|0.016
91085358|NCT03365934|182053633|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062||0.538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1622|0.0853|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #3 group based on the change from baseline at Day 3||0.0853|-0.1622|0.538
91085359|NCT03365934|182053633|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.065||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0059|0.2515|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #4 group based on the change from baseline at Day 3||0.2515|-0.0059|0.061
91085360|NCT03365934|182053634|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3265|-0.0895|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #1 group based on the change from baseline at Day 4||-0.0895|-0.3265|0.001
91085361|NCT03365934|182053634|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3614|-0.1243|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #2 group based on the change from baseline at Day 4||-0.1243|-0.3614|<0.001
91085362|NCT03365934|182053634|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1899|0.0471|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #3 group based on the change from baseline at Day 4||0.0471|-0.1899|0.236
91085363|NCT03365934|182053634|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061||0.627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0902|0.1492|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #4 group based on the change from baseline at Day 4||0.1492|-0.0902|0.627
91085364|NCT03365934|182053635|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.051|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3331|-0.1305|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #1 group based on the change from baseline at Day 5||-0.1305|-0.3331|<0.001
91021786|NCT05788237|181927094|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.833|1.352||||||GMR for RSV B: RSVpreF + qIRV 1.0 mL (Group 1) to RSVpreF + qIRV 0.5 mL (Group 2)||1.352|0.833|
91021787|NCT05788237|181927095|OTHER||GMR|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.875|1.614||||||GMR for HAI: H1N1 A/Sydney: RSVpreF + qIRV 1.0 mL (Group 1) to RSVpreF + qIRV 0.5 mL (Group 2)||1.614|0.875|
91021788|NCT05788237|181927095|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.867|1.473||||||GMR for HAI: H3N2 A/Darwin: RSVpreF + qIRV 1.0 mL (Group 1) to RSVpreF + qIRV 0.5 mL (Group 2)||1.473|0.867|
91021789|NCT05788237|181927095|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.849|1.383||||||GMR for HAI: B/Austria: RSVpreF + qIRV 1.0 mL (Group 1) to RSVpreF + qIRV 0.5 mL (Group 2)||1.383|0.849|
91021790|NCT05788237|181927095|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.866|1.392||||||GMR for HAI: B/Phuket: RSVpreF + qIRV 1.0 mL (Group 1) to RSVpreF + qIRV 0.5 mL (Group 2)||1.392|0.866|
91021791|NCT03182920|181927105|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric least squares means|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.962|1.52||||||||1.52|0.962|
91021792|NCT03182920|181927106|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric least squares means|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.03|1.55||||||||1.55|1.03|
91021793|NCT00361257|181927108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.064|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.164||0.651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.258|0.386||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|The model was adjusted for stratification variables, the CNS penetration score, and the baseline NPZ-8 score.|The total number used for the statistical analysis was 107 (52 in the minocycline arm and 55 in the placebo arm).|The null hypothesis was that the 24-week change of NPZ-8 in the minocycline group was the same as the one in the placebo group.||0.386|-0.258|0.651
91021794|NCT00361257|181927109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.091|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116||0.434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.323||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|The model was adjusted for stratification variables, the CNS penetration score, and the baseline GDS score.||The null hypothesis was that the 24-week changes in Global Deficit Score (GDS) between the minocycline and placebo groups are the same.||0.323|-0.140|0.434
91021795|NCT00361257|181927110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.569|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.469||0.337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.625|3.936||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cumulative Logistic|The model was adjusted for the stratification variables and the CNS penetration score.||The null hypothesis is that the 24 week changes of participants' clinical status in the minocycline group were the same as the ones in the placebo group based on ICGIS.||3.936|0.625|0.337
91021796|NCT00361257|181927111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.502|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.428||0.243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.349|1.354||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|The model was adjusted for the stratification variables, the CNS penetration score, and the baseline cognitive gross motor function domain score.||The null hypothesis is that the 24 week change in the cognitive gross motor function domain score in the minocycline group is the same as the one in the placebo group.||1.354|-0.349|0.243
91021797|NCT00361257|181927112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.293|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.153||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.011|0.596||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|The model was adjusted for the stratification variables, the CNS penetration score, and the baseline fine motor function domain score.||The null hypothesis was that the 24 week change in fine motor function domain score in the minocycline group was the same as the one in the placebo group.||0.596|-0.011|0.059
91021798|NCT00361257|181927113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.083|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.147||0.572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.375|0.209||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|The model was adjusted for stratified variables, the baseline CNS penetration score, and the baseline psychomotor function domain score.||The null hypothesis was that the 24 change of psychomotor function domain score in the minocycline group is the same as in the placebo group.||0.209|-0.375|0.572
91021799|NCT00361257|181927114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.086|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.182||0.637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.449|0.276||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|The model was adjusted for the stratification variables, the CNS penetration score, and the baseline fine motor/nonverbal function domain score.||The null hypothesis was that the 24 week change of fine motor/nonverbal function domain score in the minocycline group was the same as in the placebo group.||0.276|-0.449|0.637
91021800|NCT00361257|181927115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.074|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.236||0.754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.544|0.396||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|The model was adjusted for the stratification variables, the CNS penetration score, and the baseline information processing function domain score.||The null hypothesis was that the 24 week change of information processing function domain score in the minocycline group was the same as the one in the placebo group.||0.396|-0.544|0.754
91021801|NCT00361257|181927116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.145|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.207||0.484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.266|0.558||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|The model was adjusted for the stratification variables, the baseline CNS penetration score, and the baseline verbal memory domain score.||The null hypothesis was that the 24 week change of verbal memory domain score in the minocycline group was the same as the one in the placebo group.||0.558|-0.266|0.484
91021802|NCT00361257|181927117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.126|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.172||0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.467|0.216||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|The model was adjusted for the stratification variables, the baseline CNS penetration score, and the baseline frontal systems function domain score.||The null hypothesis was that the 24 week change of frontal systems function domain score in the minocycline group was the same as the one in the placebo group.||0.216|-0.467|0.467
91021803|NCT00361257|181927118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.476|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.048||0.234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.575|10.668||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|The model was adjusted for the CNS penetration score. The stratification variables could not be included in the model since the model fit was poor.||"The null hypothesis was that the proportion of being better at 24 weeks in minocycline group was the same as in the placebo group."||10.668|0.575|0.234
91021804|NCT00361257|181927119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|19.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|33.75||0.574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.26|86.44||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|The model was adjusted for stratification variables, the baseline CNS score, and the baseline CD4 cell count.||The null hypothesis was that the 24 week change in CD4 cell counts in the minocycline group was the same as the one in the placebo group.||86.44|-48.26|0.574
91021805|NCT00361257|181927120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|40.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|59.91||0.502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-79.12|159.97||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|The model was adjusted for the stratification variables, the baseline CNS penetration score, and the baseline CD8 cell counts.||The null hypothesis was that the 24 week change in CD8 cell count in the minocycline group was the same as the one in the placebo group.||159.97|-79.12|0.502
91021806|NCT00361257|181927121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.967||95.0|||||Log Rank|||The null hypothesis was that the time to Grade 2 or higher toxicity and/or signs and symptoms in the minocycline group was the same as the one in the placebo group.||||0.967
91021807|NCT00361257|181927123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.071|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.497||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.405|2.837||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Logistic|The model was adjusted for the stratification variables and the baseline CNS penetration score.||The null hypothesis was that the proportion of participants who got better at week 24 compared to baseline in the minocycline group was the same as the one in the placebo group.||2.837|0.405|0.890
91021808|NCT00361257|181927124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.405|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.391||0.304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.182|0.373||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|The model was adjusted for the stratification variables, the baseline CNS penetration score, and the baseline medication management score.||The null hypothesis was that the 24 change of medication management test score in the minocycline group was the same as the one in the placebo group.||0.373|-1.182|0.304
91021809|NCT00361257|181927129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.097|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.146||0.506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.388|0.193||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|The model was adjusted for the stratification variables, the baseline CNS penetration score, and the baseline alternate psychomotor function score.||The null hypothesis was that the 24 week change in alternate psychomotor function score in the minocycline group was the same as the one in the placebo group.||0.193|-0.388|0.506
91021810|NCT00361257|181927130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.146|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.207||0.484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.266|0.558||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|The model was adjusted for stratification variables, baseline CNS penetration score, and the baseline alternate verbal memory score.||The null hypothesis was that the 24 week change in the alternate verbal memory score in the minocycline group was the same as the one in the placebo group.||0.558|-0.266|0.484
91021811|NCT00361257|181927131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.055|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.217|0.327||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|The model was adjusted for stratification variables, baseline CNS penetration score, and the baseline alternate frontal systems score.||The null hypothesis was the 24 week change of alternate frontal systems score in the minocycline group was the same as the one in the placebo group.||0.327|-0.217|0.690
91021812|NCT02314520|181927137|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.271||||||0.05 is the threshold for significance for this primary outcome.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.271
91021813|NCT04991311|181927232|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|398.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|581.6|=|0.0585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6|814.4|||Paired t-test (2-sided, alpha=0.05)|||The participants in both comparison groups are the same.||814.4|-17.6|= 0.0585
91021814|NCT00054275|181927260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||proportion of pts with partial response|0.39||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.58|||confidence interval for partial response|Confidence interval for partial response rate using Wilson's Method||||0.58|0.23|0.95
91021815|NCT03944707|181927284|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0698||0.6643|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.06|0.119||Probability LOU064 better than placebo|Bayesian model for repeated measures||Posterior mean difference (LOU064 - placebo) and 80% credible interval are presented.|||0.119|-0.060|0.6643
91021816|NCT03944707|181927288|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.21||0.6609|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.35|0.18||Probability LOU064 better than placebo|Bayesian model for repeated measures||Posterior mean difference (LOU064 - placebo) and 80% credible interval are presented.|||0.18|-0.35|0.6609
91021817|NCT03944707|181927289|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.13||0.5107|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-9.0|9.1||Probability LOU064 better than placebo|Bayesian model for repeated measures||Posterior mean difference (LOU064 - placebo) and 80% credible interval are presented.|Change from baseline in mean morning PEF||9.1|-9.0|0.5107
91021818|NCT03944707|181927289|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.15||0.3611|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-15.2|8.1||Probability LOU064 better than placebo|Bayesian model for repeated measures||Posterior mean difference (LOU064 - placebo) and 80% credible interval are presented.|Change from baseline in mean evening PEF||8.1|-15.2|0.3611
91021819|NCT03944707|181927290|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.133|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.1588||0.8022|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.336|0.071||Probability LOU064 better than placebo|Bayesian model||Posterior mean difference (LOU064 - placebo) and 80% credible interval are presented.|||0.071|-0.336|0.8022
91085365|NCT03365934|182053635|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3091|-0.1092|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #2 group based on the change from baseline at Day 5||-0.1092|-0.3091|<0.001
91085366|NCT03365934|182053635|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2439|-0.0457|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #3 group based on the change from baseline at Day 5||-0.0457|-0.2439|0.005
91085367|NCT03365934|182053635|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0197|0.2252|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #4 group based on the change from baseline at Day 5||0.2252|0.0197|0.020
91085368|NCT03365934|182053636|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4019|-0.2044|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #1 group based on the change from baseline at Day 6||-0.2044|-0.4019|<0.001
91085369|NCT03365934|182053636|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3655|-0.1679|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #2 group based on the change from baseline at Day 6||-0.1679|-0.3655|<0.001
91085370|NCT03365934|182053636|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3338|-0.1377|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #3 group based on the change from baseline at Day 6||-0.1377|-0.3338|<0.001
91085371|NCT03365934|182053636|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0767|0.1231|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #4 group based on the change from baseline at Day 6||0.1231|-0.0767|0.646
91085372|NCT03365934|182053637|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2254|-0.0384|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #1 group based on the change from baseline at Day 7||-0.0384|-0.2254|0.006
91085373|NCT03365934|182053637|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2444|-0.0574|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #2 group based on the change from baseline at Day 7||-0.0574|-0.2444|0.002
91085374|NCT03365934|182053637|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2541|-0.0682|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #3 group based on the change from baseline at Day 7||-0.0682|-0.2541|0.001
91085375|NCT03365934|182053637|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0891|0.0998|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #4 group based on the change from baseline at Day 7||0.0998|-0.0891|0.911
91085376|NCT03365934|182053638|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0818|0.0755|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #1 group based on the change from baseline at Day 14||0.0755|-0.0818|0.937
91085377|NCT03365934|182053638|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1663|-0.0108|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #2 group based on the change from baseline at Day 14||-0.0108|-0.1663|0.026
91085378|NCT03365934|182053638|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1562|-0.0017|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #3 group based on the change from baseline at Day 14||-0.0017|-0.1562|0.045
91085379|NCT03365934|182053638|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0799|0.0755|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #4 group based on the change from baseline at Day 14||0.0755|-0.0799|0.956
91085380|NCT05076604|182053666|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.354|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Intraoperative packed red blood cell transfusion||||0.354
91085381|NCT05076604|182053666|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.314|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Postoperative red blood cell transfusion||||0.314
91085382|NCT04611542|182053667|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91085383|NCT04611542|182053668|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
91085384|NCT04611542|182053669|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Investigators tested whether pretest to posttest change was significantly greater than 0 at P \< 0.05.|||||<0.001
91085385|NCT02291029|182053670|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.41||||0.397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|2.89||One-sided p-value|Repeated measures model|with time (as nominal study week), the interaction between time and treatment (all as fixed effects) and with baseline as a covariate||||2.89|-3.70|0.397
91085386|NCT02291029|182053670|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.21||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.46|-0.96||One-sided p-value|Repeated measures model|with time (as nominal study week), the interaction between time and treatment (all as fixed effects) and with baseline as a covariate.||||-0.96|-9.46|0.009
91021820|NCT03944707|181927291|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.1573||0.6312|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.251|0.149||Probability LOU064 better than placebo|Bayesian model for repeated measures||Posterior mean difference (LOU064 - placebo) and 80% credible interval are presented.|Change from baseline in daytime asthma symptom score||0.149|-0.251|0.6312
91021821|NCT03944707|181927291|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.075|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0819||0.1752|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.028|0.18||Probability LOU064 better than placebo|Bayesian model for repeated measures||Posterior mean difference (LOU064 - placebo) and 80% credible interval are presented.|Change from baseline in nighttime asthma symptom score||0.180|-0.028|0.1752
91021822|NCT02444182|181927299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.28|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.21||0.015|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Null hypothesis was no difference in Gingival index between probiotics and control groups||||0.015
91021823|NCT02444182|181927300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.09||0.909|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Null hypothesis was no difference in plaque index between probiotics and control groups||||0.909
91021824|NCT01453374|181927301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.05
91021825|NCT01453374|181927302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.05
91021826|NCT01453374|181927303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
91021827|NCT01453374|181927309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.10
91021828|NCT00996918|181927321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.29|1.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from base study baseline in ADAS-Cog score at Week 13.~Results are from a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with change from base study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||1.68|-4.29|0.390
91021829|NCT00996918|181927321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8||||0.264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|4.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from base study baseline in ADAS-Cog score at Week 13.~Results are from a REML-based MMRM with change from base study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||4.97|-1.37|0.264
91021830|NCT00996918|181927321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.51||||0.357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.74|1.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from base study baseline in ADAS-Cog score at Week 26.~Results are from a REML-based MMRM with change from base study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||1.72|-4.74|0.357
91021831|NCT00996918|181927321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|3.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from base study baseline in ADAS-Cog score at Week 26.~Results are from a REML-based MMRM with change from base study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||3.42|-3.50|0.981
91021832|NCT00996918|181927321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.95||||0.584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.37|2.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from base study baseline in ADAS-Cog score at Week 39.~Results are from a REML-based MMRM with change from base study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||2.47|-4.37|0.584
91021833|NCT00996918|181927321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.58||||0.392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|5.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from base study baseline in ADAS-Cog score at Week 39.~Results are from a REML-based MMRM with change from base study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||5.20|-2.05|0.392
91021834|NCT00996918|181927321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.05||||0.345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.34|2.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from base study baseline in ADAS-Cog score at Week 52.~Results are from a REML-based MMRM with change from base study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||2.24|-6.34|0.345
91021835|NCT00996918|181927321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22||||0.922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.73|4.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from base study baseline in ADAS-Cog score at Week 52.~Results are from a REML-based MMRM with change from base study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||4.28|-4.73|0.922
91021836|NCT00996918|181927321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.44||||0.384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.97|3.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from base study baseline in ADAS-Cog score at Week 78.~Results are from a REML-based MMRM with change from base study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||3.10|-7.97|0.384
91021837|NCT00996918|181927321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.08|5.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from base study baseline in ADAS-Cog score at Week 78.~Results are from a REML-based MMRM with change from base study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||5.78|-6.08|0.961
91021838|NCT00996918|181927322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22||||0.837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|2.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from extension study baseline in ADAS-Cog score at Week 13.~Results are from a REML based MMRM with change from extension study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||2.35|-1.91|0.837
91021839|NCT00996918|181927322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.14||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|4.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from extension study baseline in ADAS-Cog score at Week 13.~Results are from a REML based MMRM with change from extension study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||4.41|-0.13|0.064
91021840|NCT00996918|181927322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.32|2.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from extension study baseline in ADAS-Cog score at Week 26.~Results are from a REML based MMRM with change from extension study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||2.35|-2.32|0.990
91021841|NCT00996918|181927322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|2.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from extension study baseline in ADAS-Cog score at Week 26.~Results are from a REML based MMRM with change from extension study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||2.82|-2.22|0.817
91021842|NCT00996918|181927322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|3.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from extension study baseline in ADAS-Cog score at Week 39.~Results are from a REML based MMRM with change from extension study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||3.05|-2.04|0.697
91021843|NCT00996918|181927322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.93||||0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|4.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from extension study baseline in ADAS-Cog score at Week 39.~Results are from a REML based MMRM with change from extension study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||4.63|-0.76|0.158
91021844|NCT00996918|181927322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.06|3.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from extension study baseline in ADAS-Cog score at Week 52.~Results are from a REML based MMRM with change from extension study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||3.26|-4.06|0.829
91021845|NCT00996918|181927322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.69|3.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from extension study baseline in ADAS-Cog score at Week 52.~Results are from a REML based MMRM with change from extension study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||3.93|-3.69|0.950
91021846|NCT00996918|181927322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56||||0.816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.35|4.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from extension study baseline in ADAS-Cog score at Week 78.~Results are from a REML based MMRM with change from extension study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||4.23|-5.35|0.816
91021847|NCT00996918|181927322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.82||||0.751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.32|5.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from extension study baseline in ADAS-Cog score at Week 78.~Results are from a REML based MMRM with change from extension study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||5.96|-4.32|0.751
91021848|NCT00996918|181927323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16||||0.967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.22|7.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from base study baseline in DAD score at Week 13.~Results are from a REML-based MMRM with change from base study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||7.53|-7.22|0.967
91021849|NCT00996918|181927323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.13||||0.593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.72|9.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from base study baseline in DAD score at Week 13.~Results are from a REML-based MMRM with change from base study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||9.98|-5.72|0.593
91021850|NCT00996918|181927323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.32|7.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from base study baseline in DAD score at Week 26.~Results are from a REML-based MMRM with change from base study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||7.62|-7.32|0.968
91021851|NCT00996918|181927323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.92||||0.473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.92|5.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from base study baseline in DAD score at Week 26.~Results are from a REML-based MMRM with change from base study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||5.08|-10.92|0.473
91021852|NCT00996918|181927323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.95||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.91|6.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from base study baseline in DAD score at Week 39.~Results are from a REML-based MMRM with change from base study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||6.02|-9.91|0.630
91021853|NCT00996918|181927323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.53||||0.293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.02|3.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from base study baseline in DAD score at Week 39.~Results are from a REML-based MMRM with change from base study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||3.95|-13.02|0.293
91021854|NCT00996918|181927323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.53||||0.733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.28|10.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from base study baseline in DAD score at Week 52.~Results are from a REML-based MMRM with change from base study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||10.33|-7.28|0.733
91021855|NCT00996918|181927323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.81||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.06|6.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from base study baseline in DAD score at Week 52.~Results are from a REML-based MMRM with change from base study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||6.45|-12.06|0.550
91021856|NCT00996918|181927323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.73||||0.902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.04|12.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from base study baseline in DAD score at Week 78.~Results are from a REML-based MMRM with change from base study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||12.50|-11.04|0.902
91021857|NCT00996918|181927323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.07||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.75|7.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from base study baseline in DAD score at Week 78.~Results are from a REML-based MMRM with change from base study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||7.61|-17.75|0.430
91021858|NCT00996918|181927324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.03||||0.683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.01|3.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from extension study baseline in DAD score at Week 13.~Results are from a REML based MMRM with change from extension study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||3.95|-6.01|0.683
91032448|NCT03247556|181949592|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||0.0484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|0.0|||ANCOVA|||This analysis pertains to the Hyperactivity/Impulsivity subscale score||-0.0|-3.8|0.0484
91085387|NCT02291029|182053670|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.34||||0.344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|7.45||two-sided p-value|Repeated measures model|with time (as nominal study week), the interaction between time and treatment (all as fixed effects) and with baseline as a covariate.||||7.45|-2.78|0.344
91085388|NCT02291029|182053671|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.09||||0.205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.97|0.8|||Repeated measures model|with time (as nominal study week), the interaction between time and treatment (all as fixed effects) and with baseline as a covariate||||0.80|-2.97|0.205
91085389|NCT02291029|182053671|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.95||||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|0.5|||Repeated measures model|with time (as nominal study week), the interaction between time and treatment (all as fixed effects) and with baseline as a covariate||||0.50|-2.41|0.188
91085390|NCT02291029|182053671|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.37||||0.663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.08|1.35|||Repeated measures model|with time (as nominal study week), the interaction between time and treatment (all as fixed effects) and with baseline as a covariate||||1.35|-2.08|0.663
91085391|NCT02291029|182053672|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-15.26||||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.9|7.38|||Repeated measures model|with time (as nominal study week), the interaction between time and treatment (all as fixed effects) and with baseline as a covariate||||7.38|-37.90|0.161
91085392|NCT02291029|182053672|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.16||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.94|-2.38|||Repeated measures model|with time (as nominal study week), the interaction between time and treatment (all as fixed effects) and with baseline as a covariate||||-2.38|-21.94|0.017
91085393|NCT02291029|182053673|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.45||||0.456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.2|17.3|||Repeated measures model|with time (as nominal study week), the interaction between time and treatment (all as fixed effects) and with baseline as a covariate||||17.30|-36.20|0.456
91085394|NCT02291029|182053673|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.14||||0.376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.67|10.39|||Repeated measures model|with time (as nominal study week), the interaction between time and treatment (all as fixed effects) and with baseline as a covariate||||10.39|-26.67|0.376
91085395|NCT02291029|182053674|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.5||||0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.91|2.91|||Repeated measures model|with time (as nominal study week), the interaction between time and treatment (all as fixed effects) and with baseline as a covariate||||2.91|-13.91|0.172
91085396|NCT02291029|182053674|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.83||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|9.48|||Repeated measures model|with time (as nominal study week), the interaction between time and treatment (all as fixed effects) and with baseline as a covariate||||9.48|-1.81|0.175
91085397|NCT02291029|182053675|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07||||0.986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.49|8.35|||Repeated measures model|with time (as nominal study week), the interaction between time and treatment (all as fixed effects) and with baseline as a covariate||||8.35|-8.49|0.986
91085398|NCT02291029|182053675|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.83||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|9.48|||Repeated measures model|with time (as nominal study week), the interaction between time and treatment (all as fixed effects) and with baseline as a covariate||||9.48|-1.81|0.175
91085399|NCT02291029|182053676|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.34||||0.807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.48|13.15|||Repeated measures model|with time (as nominal study week), the interaction between time and treatment (all as fixed effects) and with baseline as a covariate||||13.15|-10.48|0.807
91085400|NCT02291029|182053676|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.83||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.66|1.01|||Repeated measures model|with time (as nominal study week), the interaction between time and treatment (all as fixed effects) and with baseline as a covariate||||1.01|-20.66|0.074
91085401|NCT02171429|182053677|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Remission Rates|7.2||||0.1729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.83|16.12||The threshold for statistical significance was a p-value \<0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL.|Difference in remission rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis (H0): the percentage of participants achieving remission at Week 10 was the same in both the placebo and etrolizumab arms. The alternative hypothesis (H1): the percentage of participants achieving remission at Week 10 was not the same in the placebo and etrolizumab arms.||16.12|-3.83|0.1729
91085402|NCT02171429|182053678|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Remission Rates|-6.8||||0.1458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.26|2.73||Nominal p-value; it has not been adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL.|Difference in remission rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the adalimumab arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. Please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details. This comparison was not considered a key secondary outcome measure and was not part of the multiple testing procedure for statistical significance.||2.73|-16.26|0.1458
91103876|NCT03449147|182094507|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|2.05||||||Comparison based on a logistic regression model that included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, region, baseline mean weekly VAS score, and the interaction of baseline mean weekly VAS score by visit as covariates.||2.05|1.14|
91103877|NCT03449147|182094507|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.65||||||95.0|1.23|2.22||||||Comparison based on a logistic regression model that included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, region, baseline mean weekly VAS score, and the interaction of baseline mean weekly VAS score by visit as covariates.||2.22|1.23|
91103878|NCT00954538|182094513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
91103879|NCT00954538|182094514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.04|0.27|||Linear Fixed Effects Model||Difference = AD group value - HE group value|A 90% confidence interval was calculated for the group difference (AD - HE) using the model results. As prespecified by the analysis plan, if the lower bound of the 90% confidence interval is above 0, then the hypothesis that \[18F\]MK-3328 can discriminate between AD patients and cognitively normal elderly controls as measured by regional tracer uptake following single IV doses of \[18F\]MK-3328 is supported.||0.27|-0.04|
91021859|NCT00996918|181927324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.69||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|9.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from extension study baseline in DAD score at Week 13.~Results are from a REML based MMRM with change from extension study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||9.06|-1.68|0.177
91021860|NCT00996918|181927324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.89||||0.734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.03|4.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from extension study baseline in DAD score at Week 26.~Results are from a REML based MMRM with change from extension study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||4.25|-6.03|0.734
91021861|NCT00996918|181927324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.06|4.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from extension study baseline in DAD score at Week 26.~Results are from a REML based MMRM with change from extension study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||4.05|-7.06|0.595
91021862|NCT00996918|181927324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.35||||0.409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.95|3.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from extension study baseline in DAD score at Week 39.~Results are from a REML based MMRM with change from extension study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||3.24|-7.95|0.409
91021863|NCT00996918|181927324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.74||||0.368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.73|3.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from extension study baseline in DAD score at Week 39.~Results are from a REML based MMRM with change from extension study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||3.24|-8.73|0.368
91021864|NCT00996918|181927324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.44||||0.458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.01|8.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from extension study baseline in DAD score at Week 52.~Results are from a REML based MMRM with change from extension study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||8.89|-4.01|0.458
91021865|NCT00996918|181927324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.04||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.77|5.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from extension study baseline in DAD score at Week 52.~Results are from a REML based MMRM with change from extension study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||5.68|-7.77|0.760
91021866|NCT00996918|181927324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.09||||0.597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.67|9.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from extension study baseline in DAD score at Week 78.~Results are from a REML based MMRM with change from extension study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||9.86|-5.67|0.597
91021867|NCT00996918|181927324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.87||||0.501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.24|5.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from extension study baseline in DAD score at Week 78.~Results are from a REML based MMRM with change from extension study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||5.50|-11.24|0.501
91021868|NCT00996918|181927325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.6||||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.91|1.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from base study baseline in NPI score at Week 26.~Results are from a REML-based MMRM with change from base study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||1.71|-8.91|0.183
91021869|NCT00996918|181927325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.92|5.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from base study baseline in NPI score at Week 26.~Results are from a REML-based MMRM with change from base study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||5.35|-5.92|0.920
91021870|NCT00996918|181927325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.99||||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.52|1.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from base study baseline in NPI score at Week 52.~Results are from a REML-based MMRM with change from base study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||1.53|-11.52|0.133
91021871|NCT00996918|181927325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.34||||0.505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.55|9.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from base study baseline in NPI score at Week 52.~Results are from a REML-based MMRM with change from base study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||9.22|-4.55|0.505
91021872|NCT00996918|181927325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.86||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.46|-4.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from base study baseline in NPI score at Week 78.~Results are from a REML-based MMRM with change from base study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||-4.25|-21.46|0.003
91021873|NCT00996918|181927325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.47||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.95|10.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from base study baseline in NPI score at Week 78.~Results are from a REML-based MMRM with change from base study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||10.88|-7.95|0.760
91021874|NCT00996918|181927326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.08||||0.373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.68|2.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from extension study baseline in NPI score at Week 26.~Results are from a REML based MMRM with change from extension study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||2.52|-6.68|0.373
91021875|NCT00996918|181927326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.03||||0.677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.92|3.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from extension study baseline in NPI score at Week 26.~Results are from a REML based MMRM with change from extension study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||3.86|-5.92|0.677
91021876|NCT00996918|181927326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.4||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.61|2.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from extension study baseline in NPI score at Week 52.~Results are from a REML based MMRM with change from extension study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||2.80|-9.61|0.280
91021877|NCT00996918|181927326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.34|6.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from extension study baseline in NPI score at Week 52.~Results are from a REML based MMRM with change from extension study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||6.76|-6.34|0.950
91021878|NCT00996918|181927326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.06||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.16|3.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from extension study baseline in NPI score at Week 78.~Results are from a REML based MMRM with change from extension study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||3.05|-23.16|0.130
91021879|NCT00996918|181927326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.48||||0.732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.97|16.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from extension study baseline in NPI score at Week 78.~Results are from a REML based MMRM with change from extension study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||16.94|-11.97|0.732
91021880|NCT00996918|181927327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|1.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from base study baseline in MMSE score at Week 6.~Results are from a REML-based MMRM with change from base study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||1.21|-1.12|0.938
91021881|NCT00996918|181927327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|1.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from base study baseline in MMSE score at Week 6.~Results are from a REML-based MMRM with change from base study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||1.04|-1.43|0.753
91021882|NCT00996918|181927327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|1.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from base study baseline in MMSE score at Week 19.~Results are from a REML-based MMRM with change from base study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||1.33|-1.04|0.809
91021883|NCT00996918|181927327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52||||0.421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from base study baseline in MMSE score at Week 19.~Results are from a REML-based MMRM with change from base study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||0.75|-1.80|0.421
90959127|NCT01620255|181798213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.002||||0.5201|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.145|0.142||1-sided p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|PF-00547659 7.5 mg vs placebo||0.142|-0.145|0.5201
91021884|NCT00996918|181927327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.39||||0.535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|1.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from base study baseline in MMSE score at Week 32.~Results are from a REML-based MMRM with change from base study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||1.63|-0.85|0.535
91021885|NCT00996918|181927327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.52||||0.445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|1.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from base study baseline in MMSE score at Week 32.~Results are from a REML-based MMRM with change from base study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||1.86|-0.82|0.445
91021886|NCT00996918|181927327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.73||||0.309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|2.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from base study baseline in MMSE score at Week 45.~Results are from a REML-based MMRM with change from base study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||2.12|-0.67|0.309
91021887|NCT00996918|181927327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|1.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from base study baseline in MMSE score at Week 45.~Results are from a REML-based MMRM with change from base study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||1.57|-1.34|0.872
91021888|NCT00996918|181927327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.52||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|4.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from base study baseline in MMSE score at Week 78.~Results are from a REML-based MMRM with change from base study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||4.26|0.79|0.004
91021889|NCT00996918|181927327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.09||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|3.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from base study baseline in MMSE score at Week 78.~Results are from a REML-based MMRM with change from base study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||3.93|0.25|0.026
91021890|NCT00996918|181927328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|1.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from extension study baseline in MMSE score at Week 6.~Results are from a REML based MMRM with change from extension study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||1.57|-0.77|0.504
91021891|NCT00996918|181927328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0.592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from extension study baseline in MMSE score at Week 6.~Results are from a REML based MMRM with change from extension study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||0.90|-1.58|0.592
91021892|NCT00996918|181927328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47||||0.441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|1.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from extension study baseline in MMSE score at Week 19.~Results are from a REML based MMRM with change from extension study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||1.65|-0.72|0.441
91021893|NCT00996918|181927328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69||||0.288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.97|0.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from extension study baseline in MMSE score at Week 19.~Results are from a REML based MMRM with change from extension study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||0.59|-1.97|0.288
91021894|NCT00996918|181927328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.66||||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|1.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from extension study baseline in MMSE score at Week 32.~Results are from a REML based MMRM with change from extension study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||1.90|-0.59|0.303
91032449|NCT03247556|181949592|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96||0.2084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|0.7|||ANCOVA|||This analysis pertains to the Hyperactivity/Impulsivity subscale score||0.7|-3.1|0.2084
90956823|NCT02349425|181793317|SUPERIORITY||Estimated percent change|-25.165||||0.0267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.014|-3.421|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model which uses log-transformation.|Percent change difference between Gefapixant and placebo was estimated by 100 x \[e\^diff - 1\] where e=exponent of difference; and diff = the treatment mean difference from mixed model of change from baseline based on log-transformed data.|||-3.4210|-42.014|0.0267
90956824|NCT02349425|181793317|SUPERIORITY||Estimated percent change|-37.146||||0.0198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.345|-7.3821|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model which uses log-transformation.|Percent change difference between Gefapixant and placebo was estimated by 100 x \[e\^diff - 1\] where e=exponent of difference; and diff = the treatment mean difference from mixed model of change from baseline based on log-transformed data.|||-7.3821|-57.345|0.0198
91021895|NCT00996918|181927328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25||||0.713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from extension study baseline in MMSE score at Week 32.~Results are from a REML based MMRM with change from extension study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||1.60|-1.09|0.713
91021896|NCT00996918|181927328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.93||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|2.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from extension study baseline in MMSE score at Week 45.~Results are from a REML based MMRM with change from extension study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||2.34|-0.49|0.198
91021897|NCT00996918|181927328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0.756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from extension study baseline in MMSE score at Week 45.~Results are from a REML based MMRM with change from extension study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||1.24|-1.70|0.756
91021898|NCT00996918|181927328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.45||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|4.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from extension study baseline in MMSE score at Week 78.~Results are from a REML based MMRM with change from extension study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||4.22|0.69|0.006
91021899|NCT00996918|181927328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.75||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|3.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from extension study baseline in MMSE score at Week 78.~Results are from a REML based MMRM with change from extension study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||3.62|-0.12|0.066
91021900|NCT01965535|181927330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|8.6|||||The 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the difference in SVR12 rates between the 2 treatment groups was constructed based on stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel (MH) proportions.|A sample size of 75 subjects in each treatment group would provide 80% power to detect a difference of 15% in SVR12 rates (80% vs 95%) between the 2 treatment groups.||8.6|-5.9|
91021901|NCT01946282|181927360|EQUIVALENCE|Assuming a FIT return rate of 29% for the outreach only group at an a=0.05, we estimated more than 90% power to detect an absolute difference greater than 5% when using a chi-square test of proportions to compare patients who received any incentive ($5 or $10) compared with patients who received outreach only.||||||0.59|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.59
91021902|NCT01946282|181927360|EQUIVALENCE|Assuming a FIT return rate of 29% for the outreach only group at an a=0.05, we estimated more than 90% power to detect an absolute difference greater than 5% when using a chi-square test of proportions to compare patients who received any incentive ($5 or $10) compared with patients who received outreach only.||||||0.75|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.75
91021903|NCT01946282|181927360|EQUIVALENCE|Assuming a FIT return rate of 29% for the outreach only group at an a=0.05, we estimated more than 90% power to detect an absolute difference greater than 5% when using a chi-square test of proportions to compare patients who received any incentive ($5 or $10) compared with patients who received outreach only.||||||0.08|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.080
91021904|NCT01946282|181927361|EQUIVALENCE|Based on design, at a significance level of 0.05 group size was set to detect an minimum absolute difference in return rate of 10%, while maintaining more than 90% power. Baseline return rates were projected per group using prior study data: 29% for the outreach only group, 45% in the $5 incentive group, and 53% in the $10 incentive group.||||||0.07|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.070
91021905|NCT01946282|181927361|EQUIVALENCE|Based on design, at a significance level of 0.05 group size was set to detect an minimum absolute difference in return rate of 10%, while maintaining more than 90% power. Baseline return rates were projected per group using prior study data: 29% for the outreach only group, 45% in the $5 incentive group, and 53% in the $10 incentive group.||||||0.8|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.80
91021906|NCT01946282|181927361|EQUIVALENCE|Based on design, at a significance level of 0.05 group size was set to detect an minimum absolute difference in return rate of 10%, while maintaining more than 90% power. Baseline return rates were projected per group using prior study data: 29% for the outreach only group, 45% in the $5 incentive group, and 53% in the $10 incentive group.||||||0.6|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.60
91032450|NCT03247556|181949592|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|-1.0|||ANCOVA|||This analysis pertains to the Inattention subscale score||-1.0|-5.1|0.0042
91085403|NCT02171429|182053679|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Remission Rates|-5.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.66|1.75||p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL.|Difference in remission rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the adalimumab arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. This comparison was part of Family 3 of the testing procedure; please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details.||1.75|-11.66|1
91085404|NCT02171429|182053680|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|14.0||||0.1729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|27.19||p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL.|Difference in response rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the placebo arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. This comparison was part of Family 1 of the testing procedure; please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details.||27.19|-0.12|0.1729
91085405|NCT02171429|182053680|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|-2.5||||0.6726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.83|9.01||Nominal p-value; it has not been adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL.|Difference in response rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the adalimumab arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. Please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details. This comparison was not considered a key secondary outcome measure and was not part of the multiple testing procedure for statistical significance.||9.01|-13.83|0.6726
91085406|NCT02171429|182053681|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|1.2||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.98|9.26||p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL.|Difference in response rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the adalimumab arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. This comparison was part of Family 3 of the testing procedure; please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details.||9.26|-6.98|1
91085407|NCT02171429|182053682|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|9.4||||0.2372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.31|21.95||p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL.|Difference in response rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the placebo arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. This comparison was part of Family 1 of the testing procedure; please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details.||21.95|-4.31|0.2372
91085408|NCT02171429|182053682|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|-3.5||||0.5341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.76|7.82||Nominal p-value; it has not been adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL.|Difference in response rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the adalimumab arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. Please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details. This comparison was not considered a key secondary outcome measure and was not part of the multiple testing procedure for statistical significance.||7.82|-14.76|0.5341
91085409|NCT02171429|182053683|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|1.9||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.04|9.88||p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL.|Difference in response rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the adalimumab arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. This comparison was part of Family 3 of the testing procedure; please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details.||9.88|-6.04|1
91021907|NCT01946282|181927361|EQUIVALENCE|Based on design, at a significance level of 0.05 group size was set to detect an minimum absolute difference in return rate of 10%, while maintaining more than 90% power. Baseline return rates were projected per group using prior study data: 29% for the outreach only group, 45% in the $5 incentive group, and 53% in the $10 incentive group.||||||0.31|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.31
91021908|NCT01946282|181927361|EQUIVALENCE|Based on design, at a significance level of 0.05 group size was set to detect an minimum absolute difference in return rate of 10%, while maintaining more than 90% power. Baseline return rates were projected per group using prior study data: 29% for the outreach only group, 45% in the $5 incentive group, and 53% in the $10 incentive group.||||||0.82|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.82
91021909|NCT01946282|181927361|EQUIVALENCE|Based on design, at a significance level of 0.05 group size was set to detect an minimum absolute difference in return rate of 10%, while maintaining more than 90% power. Baseline return rates were projected per group using prior study data: 29% for the outreach only group, 45% in the $5 incentive group, and 53% in the $10 incentive group.||||||0.033|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.033
91021910|NCT01946282|181927361|EQUIVALENCE|We estimated needing 545 observations per incentive group to achieve power necessary to detect at least a 10% absolute difference in FIT return rate between patients who received the $5 incentive versus patients who received the $10 incentive, with assumed rates of 45% in the $5 incentive group and 53% in the $10 incentive group, a=0.05, and power=90%.||||||0.033|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.033
91021911|NCT01946282|181927361|EQUIVALENCE||||||>|0.99|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.99
91021912|NCT01946282|181927361|EQUIVALENCE|||||||0.184|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.184
91021913|NCT00078819|181927362|SUPERIORITY|The significance levels for primary and secondary efficacy end points were controlled at 0.05 with the use of a sequential testing scheme in this order: PASI 75, PASI 50, a physician's global assessment of clear or almost clear, percentage improvement from baseline in CDLQI, and PASI 90.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Two-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group||||||<0.0001
91021914|NCT00078819|181927363|SUPERIORITY|The significance levels for primary and secondary efficacy end points were controlled at 0.05 with the use of a sequential testing scheme in this order: PASI 75, PASI 50, a physician's global assessment of clear or almost clear, percentage improvement from baseline in CDLQI, and PASI 90.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Two-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group||||||<0.0001
91021915|NCT00078819|181927364|SUPERIORITY|The significance levels for primary and secondary efficacy end points were controlled at 0.05 with the use of a sequential testing scheme in this order: PASI 75, PASI 50, a physician's global assessment of clear or almost clear, percentage improvement from baseline in CDLQI, and PASI 90.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Two-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group||||||<0.0001
91021916|NCT00078819|181927365|SUPERIORITY|The significance levels for primary and secondary efficacy end points were controlled at 0.05 with the use of a sequential testing scheme in this order: PASI 75, PASI 50, a physician's global assessment of clear or almost clear, percentage improvement from baseline in CDLQI, and PASI 90.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Van Elteren test|Two-sided van Elteren's test stratified by age group||||||<0.0001
91021917|NCT00078819|181927366|SUPERIORITY|The significance levels for primary and secondary efficacy end points were controlled at 0.05 with the use of a sequential testing scheme in this order: PASI 75, PASI 50, a physician's global assessment of clear or almost clear, percentage improvement from baseline in CDLQI, and PASI 90.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Two-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group||||||<0.0001
91021918|NCT01749033|181927422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.76|||||||Chi-squared|||We planned a sample size of 429 to achieve a 80% power to detect an effect size difference of w=0.15 using 2 degrees of freedom chi-square test with a significance level (alpha) of .05.||||.76
91021919|NCT01749033|181927424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared||The reported p value was calculated.|We planned a sample size of 429 to achieve a 80% power to detect an effect size difference of w=0.15 using 2 degrees of freedom chi-square test with a significance level (alpha) of .05.||||.05
91021920|NCT01039584|181927431|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The primary efficacy measure was the proportion of subjects with therapeutic cure at Visit 3/Test-of-Cure. Therapeutic cure was defined as having both a mycological cure and a clinical cure.|Yates continuity correction|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.1|12.3|||Wald's method|||||12.3|-9.1|
91021921|NCT01039584|181927432|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The efficacy measure was the proportion of subjects with clinicl cure at Visit 3/Test-of-Cure.|Yates continuity correction|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.3|12.8|||Wald's method|||||12.8|-7.3|
91021922|NCT01039584|181927433|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The efficacy measure was the proportion of subjects with mycological cure at Visit 3/Test-of-Cure|Yates continuity correction|1.5||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.7|9.4|||Wald's method|||||9.4|-11.7|0.05
91021923|NCT03550794|181927457|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|0.04||"Mixed model controlling for repeated measures within patients used to get a mean difference in creatinine between the thiamine and placebo groups at 72 hours.~Missing creatinine imputed using a penalty (20pc increase) as described in SAP."|Mixed Models Analysis|P-value is for the comparison at 72 hours from the mixed model (i.e, not a global p-value)||||0.04|-1.18|0.07
91021924|NCT03550794|181927458|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.58||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.74||P-value from odds ratio from logistic regression model controlling for site, with outcome of receiving renal replacement therapy.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.74|0.18|0.34
91021925|NCT03550794|181927459|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|22.0||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|36.6||P-value from quantile regression model controlling for site.|Quantile regression|||||36.6|7.4|0.002
91021926|NCT03550794|181927460|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.18||P-value from Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for site.|Regression, Cox|||||1.18|0.32|0.14
91021927|NCT03550794|181927461|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.43||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.06||P-value from logistic regression model controlling for site|Regression, Logistic|||||1.06|0.17|0.07
91021928|NCT03550794|181927462|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.96||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.3||"Mixed model controlling for repeated measures within patients used to get a mean difference in lactate between the thiamine and placebo groups at 72 hours.~Missing lactate imputed using a penalty (20pc increase) as described in SAP."|Mixed Models Analysis|P-value is for the comparison at 72 hours from the mixed model (i.e, not a global p-value)||||1.30|0.71|0.79
91021929|NCT03550794|181927464|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.53||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.63|0.58||"Mixed model controlling for repeated measures within patients used to get a mean difference in SOFA scores between the thiamine and placebo groups at 72 hours.~Missing SOFA imputed using a penalty (20pc increase) as described in SAP."|Mixed Models Analysis|P-value is for the comparison at 72 hours from the mixed model (i.e, not a global p-value)||||0.58|-3.63|0.16
91021930|NCT01864525|181927466|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0216||||||Statistical results for Magnitude of acoustic amplitude tremor. A priori significance threshold was set at P\<0.05 for each of the two hypothesis-driven acoustic variables.|Mixed Models Analysis|This statistical test did not use the baseline scores as a covariate when comparing post-test scores between placebo and octanoic acid conditions.||Separate measures for magnitude of amplitude tremor and magnitude of frequency tremor were analyzed as these variables can respond differently to treatment and may be differentially affected in essential voice tremor. Statistical modeling tested for post-treatment drug differences, with testing session as a repeated factor. Models were run with and without inclusion of baseline averages as a covariate per recommendations for cross-over treatment studies (Fleiss, Wallenstein \& Rosenfeld, 1985).||||0.0216
91021931|NCT01864525|181927466|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0499||||||Statistical results for Magnitude of acoustic amplitude tremor. A priori significance threshold was set at P\<0.05 for each of the two hypothesis-driven acoustic variables.|Mixed Models Analysis|This statistical test used the baseline scores as a covariate when comparing post-test scores between placebo and octanoic acid conditions.||Separate measures for magnitude of amplitude tremor and magnitude of frequency tremor were analyzed as these variables can respond differently to treatment and may be differentially affected in essential voice tremor. Statistical modeling tested for post-treatment drug differences, with testing session as a repeated factor. Models were run with and without inclusion of baseline averages as a covariate per recommendations for cross-over treatment studies (Fleiss, Wallenstein \& Rosenfeld, 1985).||||0.0499
91021932|NCT01864525|181927466|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0339||||||Statistical results for Magnitude of acoustic frequency tremor. A priori significance threshold was set at P\<0.05 for each of the two hypothesis-driven acoustic variables.|Mixed Models Analysis|This statistical test did not use the baseline scores as a covariate when comparing post-test scores between placebo and octanoic acid conditions.||Separate measures for magnitude of amplitude tremor and magnitude of frequency tremor were analyzed as these variables can respond differently to treatment and may be differentially affected in essential voice tremor. Statistical modeling tested for post-treatment drug differences, with testing session as a repeated factor. Models were run with and without inclusion of baseline averages as a covariate per recommendations for cross-over treatment studies (Fleiss, Wallenstein \& Rosenfeld, 1985).||||0.0339
91021933|NCT01864525|181927466|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.045||||||Statistical results for Magnitude of acoustic frequency tremor. A priori significance threshold was set at P\<0.05 for each of the two hypothesis-driven acoustic variables.|Mixed Models Analysis|This statistical test used the baseline scores as a covariate when comparing post-test scores between placebo and octanoic acid conditions.||Separate measures for magnitude of amplitude tremor and magnitude of frequency tremor were analyzed as these variables can respond differently to treatment and may be differentially affected in essential voice tremor. Statistical modeling tested for post-treatment drug differences, with testing session as a repeated factor. Models were run with and without inclusion of baseline averages as a covariate per recommendations for cross-over treatment studies (Fleiss, Wallenstein \& Rosenfeld, 1985).||||0.0450
91021934|NCT01864525|181927467|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7172||||||A priori significance was set at P\<0.05 for this hypothesis-driven auditory-perceptual variable. Main effect for drug is given above. For the main task effect, P=0.9602. For the interaction effect of drug\*task, P=0.1699.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical modeling tested for main effects of auditory-perceptual ratings for drug and task (sustained vowel and sentence-level ratings), and interaction effects of these variables. The summed scores, averaged across all participants, are provided separately for the sustained vowel and sentence-level ratings. Values range from 0 (no difference between baseline and post-test) to 3 (all three raters indicated that post-test sample was better (less tremor severity).||||0.7172
91021935|NCT01890785|181927468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of geometric least squares means|0.708|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.655|0.766||||||||0.766|0.655|
91021936|NCT01890785|181927468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of geometric least squares means|0.918|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.849|0.992||||||||0.992|0.849|
91021937|NCT01890785|181927469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of geometric least squares means|0.641|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.582|0.707||||||||0.707|0.582|
91021938|NCT01890785|181927469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of geometric least squares means|0.828|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.752|0.912||||||||0.912|0.752|
91021939|NCT01890785|181927470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of geometric least squares means|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.937|1.004||||||||1.004|0.937|
91021940|NCT01890785|181927470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of geometric least squares means|0.944|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.912|0.977||||||||0.977|0.912|
91021941|NCT01890785|181927471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of geometric least squares means|0.971|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.945|0.998||||||||0.998|0.945|
91021942|NCT01890785|181927471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of geometric least squares means|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.944|0.997||||||||0.997|0.944|
91021943|NCT00065065|181927482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.0||||0.005||95.0|1.5|10.5|||Regression, Logistic|||||10.5|1.5|.005
91021944|NCT02392559|181927506|SUPERIORITY||treatment difference|-38.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.66|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.54|-31.06|||repeated measures model||Treatment difference uses placebo as the reference.|||-31.06|-45.54|< 0.0001
91021945|NCT02392559|181927506|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Adjusted p-value based on a combination of sequential testing and the Hochberg procedure to control the overall significance level for all primary and secondary endpoints.|sequential testing/Hochberg procedure|Adjusted p-value is compared to 0.05 to determine statistical significance.||||||< 0.0001
91085410|NCT02171429|182053684|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Remission Rates|11.2||||0.2372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|19.76||p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL.|Difference in remission rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the placebo arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. This comparison was part of Family 2 of the testing procedure; please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details.||19.76|0.59|0.2372
91085411|NCT02171429|182053684|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Remission Rates|-7.5||||0.1192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.2|2.33||Nominal p-value; it has not been adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL.|Difference in remission rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the adalimumab arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. Please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details. This comparison was not considered a key secondary outcome measure and was not part of the multiple testing procedure for statistical significance.||2.33|-17.20|0.1192
91085412|NCT02171429|182053685|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Remission Rates|-3.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.27|3.3||p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL.|Difference in remission rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the adalimumab arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. This comparison was part of Family 5 of the testing procedure; please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details.||3.30|-10.27|1
91085413|NCT02171429|182053686|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Remission Rates|9.6||||0.2729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.71|22.02||p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL.|Difference in remission rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the placebo arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. This comparison was part of Family 2 of the testing procedure; please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details.||22.02|-4.71|0.2729
91085414|NCT02171429|182053686|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Remission Rates|-14.8||||0.0215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.97|-2.04||Nominal p-value; it has not been adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL.|Difference in remission rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the adalimumab arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. Please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details. This comparison was not considered a key secondary outcome measure and was not part of the multiple testing procedure for statistical significance.||-2.04|-26.97|0.0215
91085415|NCT02171429|182053687|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Remission Rates|-0.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.13|8.45||p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL.|Difference in remission rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the adalimumab arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. This comparison was part of Family 5 of the testing procedure; please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details.||8.45|-9.13|1
91085416|NCT02171429|182053688|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1729||||||p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.|Rank ANCOVA|Model adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL), MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL, and RB score at BL.||Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. This comparison was part of Family 2 of the testing procedure; please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details.||||0.1729
91085417|NCT02171429|182053688|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2864||||||Nominal p-value; it has not been adjusted for multiplicity.|Rank ANCOVA|Model adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL), MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL, and RB score at BL.||Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. Please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details. This comparison was not considered a key secondary outcome measure and was not part of the multiple testing procedure for statistical significance.||||0.2864
91085418|NCT02171429|182053689|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.|Rank ANCOVA|Model adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL), MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL, and RB score at BL.||Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. This comparison was part of Family 5 of the testing procedure; please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details.||||1
91085419|NCT02171429|182053690|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1729||||||p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.|Rank ANCOVA|Model adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL), MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL, and SF score at BL.||Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. This comparison was part of Family 2 of the testing procedure; please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details.||||0.1729
91085420|NCT02171429|182053690|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4174||||||Nominal p-value; it has not been adjusted for multiplicity.|Rank ANCOVA|Model adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL), MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL, and SF score at BL.||Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. Please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details. This comparison was not considered a key secondary outcome measure and was not part of the multiple testing procedure for statistical significance.||||0.4174
91085421|NCT02171429|182053691|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.|Rank ANCOVA|Model adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL), MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL, and SF score at BL.||Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. This comparison was part of Family 5 of the testing procedure; please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details.||||1
91021946|NCT02392559|181927507|SUPERIORITY||treatment difference|-42.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.34|-35.83|||repeated measures model||Treatment difference uses placebo as the reference.|||-35.83|-48.34|< 0.0001
91021947|NCT02392559|181927507|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Adjusted p-value based on a combination of sequential testing and the Hochberg procedure to control the overall significance level for all primary and secondary endpoints.|sequential testing/Hochberg procedure|Adjusted p-value is compared to 0.05 to determine statistical significance.||||||< 0.0001
91021948|NCT02392559|181927508|SUPERIORITY||treatment difference|-68.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.1|-54.0||Treatment difference uses placebo as the reference.|repeated measures model|||||-54.0|-83.1|< 0.0001
91021949|NCT02392559|181927508|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Adjusted p-value based on a combination of sequential testing and the Hochberg procedure to control the overall significance level for all primary and secondary endpoints.|sequential testing/Hochberg procedure|Adjusted p-value is compared to 0.05 to determine statistical significance.||||||< 0.0001
91021950|NCT02392559|181927509|SUPERIORITY||treatment difference|-35.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.41|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.79|-28.3|||repeated measures model||Treatment difference uses placebo as the reference.|||-28.30|-41.79|< 0.0001
91021951|NCT02392559|181927509|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Adjusted p-value based on a combination of sequential testing and the Hochberg procedure to control the overall significance level for all primary and secondary endpoints.|sequential testing/Hochberg procedure|Adjusted p-value is compared to 0.05 to determine statistical significance.||||||< 0.0001
91021952|NCT02392559|181927510|SUPERIORITY||treatment difference|-32.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.21|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.82|-26.13|||repeated measures model||Treatment difference uses placebo as the reference.|||-26.13|-38.82|< 0.0001
91021953|NCT02392559|181927510|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Adjusted p-value based on a combination of sequential testing and the Hochberg procedure to control the overall significance level for all primary and secondary endpoints.|sequential testing/Hochberg procedure|Adjusted p-value is compared to 0.05 to determine statistical significance.||||||< 0.0001
91021954|NCT02392559|181927511|SUPERIORITY||treatment difference|-30.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.4|-24.21|||repeated measures model||Treatment difference uses placebo as the reference.|||-24.21|-36.40|< 0.0001
91021955|NCT02392559|181927511|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Adjusted p-value based on a combination of sequential testing and the Hochberg procedure to control the overall significance level for all primary and secondary endpoints.|sequential testing/Hochberg procedure|Adjusted p-value is compared to 0.05 to determine statistical significance.||||||< 0.0001
91021956|NCT02392559|181927512|SUPERIORITY||treatment difference|-36.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.33|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.97|-29.8|||repeated measures model||Treatment difference uses placebo as the reference.|||-29.80|-42.97|< 0.0001
91021957|NCT02392559|181927512|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Adjusted p-value based on a combination of sequential testing and the Hochberg procedure to control the overall significance level for all primary and secondary endpoints.|sequential testing/Hochberg procedure|Adjusted p-value is compared to 0.05 to determine statistical significance.||||||< 0.0001
91021958|NCT03125915|181927525|SUPERIORITY||Beta|-3.62||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.78|-0.46||A multi-level latent growth curve (LGC) with a intercept and linear slope was specified. The main effects of SUM and CT video were modeled at level 2 in addition to their interaction. Drug use was specified as a binomial distribution.|multi-leve latent growth curve||For 1-Month Follow-Up, substance use module (SUM) among those who did not view CT Video|||-0.46|-6.78|.03
91021959|NCT03125915|181927525|SUPERIORITY||Beta|-1.67||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|0.76||A multi-level latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The main effects of SUM and CT video were modeled at level 2 in addition to their interaction. Drug use was specified as a binomial distribution.|multi-level latent growth curve||1-month follow-up, effect of SUM among those who did view the CT video.|||0.76|-4.10|.18
91021960|NCT03125915|181927525|SUPERIORITY||Beta|-0.35||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.8||A multi-level latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The main effects of SUM and CT video were modeled at level 2 in addition to their interaction. Drug use was specified as a binomial distribution.|multi-level latent growth curve||1-month follow up, effect of CT video among those who completed the SUM.|||1.80|-2.50|0.75
90829442|NCT02365649|181533424|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|28.8||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|60.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5). Prespecified statistical significance at the 0.1 level.|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders||60.0|-2.5|0.086
90829443|NCT02365649|181533424|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.0||||0.702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.6|25.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders||25.6|-45.6|0.702
90829444|NCT02365649|181533424|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-12.5||||0.557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.0|-1.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders||-1.0|-24.0|0.557
90829445|NCT02365649|181533424|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|15.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders||15.0|-16.5|1.000
90829446|NCT02365649|181533424|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.9||||0.707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|24.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders||24.2|-14.4|0.707
91032451|NCT03247556|181949592|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06||0.1392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|0.5|||ANCOVA|||This analysis pertains to the Inattention subscale score||0.5|-3.6|0.1392
91021961|NCT03125915|181927525|SUPERIORITY||Beta|-2.3||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.37|0.77||A multi-level latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The main effects of SUM and CT video were modeled at level 2 in addition to their interaction. Drug use was specified as a binomial distribution.|multi-level latent growth curve||1-Month follow up, effect of CT video among those who did not complete SUM.|||0.77|-5.37|0.14
91021962|NCT03125915|181927525|SUPERIORITY||Beta|-2.79||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|-0.58||A multi-level latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The main effects of SUM and CT video were modeled at level 2 in addition to their interaction. Drug use was specified as a binomial distribution.|multi-level latent growth curve||3-Month follow up, effect of SUM among those who viewed the CT video.|||-0.58|-5.00|0.013
91021963|NCT03125915|181927525|SUPERIORITY||Beta|-2.09||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.56|0.38||A multi-level latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The main effects of SUM and CT video were modeled at level 2 in addition to their interaction. Drug use was specified as a binomial distribution.|multi-level latent growth curve||3-Month follow up, effect of SUM among those who did not view CT video|||0.38|-4.56|0.10
91021964|NCT03125915|181927525|SUPERIORITY||Beta|0.4||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|3.16||A multi-level latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The main effects of SUM and CT video were modeled at level 2 in addition to their interaction. Drug use was specified as a binomial distribution.|multi-level latent growth curve||3-month follow-up, effect of CT Video among those who completed the SUM|A multi-level latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The main effects of SUM and CT video were modeled at level 2 in addition to their interaction. Drug use was specified as a binomial distribution.||3.16|-2.35|0.78
91021965|NCT03125915|181927525|SUPERIORITY||Beta|-0.3||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|1.53||A multi-level latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The main effects of SUM and CT video were modeled at level 2 in addition to their interaction. Drug use was specified as a binomial distribution.|multi-level latent growth curve||3-month follow-up, effect of CT video among those who did not complete SUM.|||1.53|-2.12|0.75
91021966|NCT03125915|181927525|SUPERIORITY||Beta|-3.93||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.06|-0.81||A multi-level latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The main effects of SUM and CT video were modeled at level 2 in addition to their interaction. Drug use was specified as a binomial distribution.|multi-level latent growth curve||6-month follow-up, effects of SUM among those who viewed the CT video.|||-0.81|-7.06|0.014
91021967|NCT03125915|181927525|SUPERIORITY||Beta|-0.57||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.16|2.03||A multi-level latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The main effects of SUM and CT video were modeled at level 2 in addition to their interaction. Drug use was specified as a binomial distribution.|multi-level latent growth curve||6-month follow up, effect of SUM among those who did not view CT video.|||2.03|-3.16|0.67
91021968|NCT03125915|181927525|SUPERIORITY||Beta|-0.24||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.39|1.91||A multi-level latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The main effects of SUM and CT video were modeled at level 2 in addition to their interaction. Drug use was specified as a binomial distribution.|multi-level latent growth curve||6-month follow up, effect of CT video among those who completed the SUM.|||1.91|-2.39|0.83
91021969|NCT03125915|181927525|SUPERIORITY||Beta|3.13||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|6.25||A multi-level latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The main effects of SUM and CT video were modeled at level 2 in addition to their interaction. Drug use was specified as a binomial distribution.|multi-level latent growth curve||6-month follow-up, effects of CT video among those who did not complete SUM.|||6.25|-0.004|0.05
91021970|NCT03125915|181927526|SUPERIORITY||Beta|0.05||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|2.41||A multi-level latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The main effects of SUM and CT video were modeled at level 2 in addition to their interaction. Drug use was specified as a binomial distribution.|multi-level latent growth curve||Effect of SUM on the latent intercept factor among those who did not view CT videos|||2.41|-2.30|0.90
91021971|NCT03125915|181927526|SUPERIORITY||Beta|0.26||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|2.75||A multi-level latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The main effects of SUM and CT video were modeled at level 2 in addition to their interaction. Drug use was specified as a binomial distribution.|multi-level latent growth curve||Effects of CT video on the latent intercept factor among those who did not view SUM.|||2.75|-2.23|0.78
91021972|NCT03125915|181927526|SUPERIORITY||Beta|-1.18||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.86|2.51||A multi-level latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The main effects of SUM and CT video were modeled at level 2 in addition to their interaction. Drug use was specified as a binomial distribution.|multi-level latent growth curve||Effects of the interaction between SUM and CT video on the latent intercept.|||2.51|-4.86|0.53
91021973|NCT03125915|181927526|SUPERIORITY||Beta|1.83||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|4.29||A multi-level latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The main effects of SUM and CT video were modeled at level 2 in addition to their interaction. Drug use was specified as a binomial distribution.|multi-level latent growth curve||Effect of SUM on the latent slope factor among those who did not view CT Videos.|||4.29|-0.62|0.14
91021974|NCT03125915|181927526|SUPERIORITY||Beta|0.35||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|2.72||A multi-level latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The main effects of SUM and CT video were modeled at level 2 in addition to their interaction. Drug use was specified as a binomial distribution.|multi-level latent growth curve||Effects of CT Video on latent slope factor among those who did not complete the SUM.|||2.72|-2.02|0.76
91021975|NCT03125915|181927526|SUPERIORITY||Beta|-1.28||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.62|2.06||A multi-level latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The main effects of SUM and CT video were modeled at level 2 in addition to their interaction. Drug use was specified as a binomial distribution.|multi-level latent growth curve||Effects of the interaction between SUM and CT videos in the prediction of the latent slope factor.|||2.06|-4.62|0.45
90959128|NCT01620255|181798213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.183||||0.0217|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.039|0.328||1-sided p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|PF-00547659 22.5 mg vs placebo||0.328|0.039|0.0217
91021976|NCT03125915|181927527|SUPERIORITY||Beta|-0.75||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|-0.11||A multi-level latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The main effects of SUM and CT video were modeled at level 2 in addition to their interaction. Drug use was specified as a binomial distribution.|multi-level latent growth curve||1-month follow-up, effect of SUM among those who viewed CT videos.|||-0.11|-1.39|0.02
91021977|NCT03125915|181927527|SUPERIORITY||Beta|-0.49||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|0.09||A multi-level latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The main effects of SUM and CT video were modeled at level 2 in addition to their interaction. Drug use was specified as a binomial distribution.|multi-level latent growth curve||1-month follow-up, effect of SUM among those who did not view CT videos.|||0.09|-1.07|0.10
91021978|NCT03125915|181927527|SUPERIORITY||Beta|-0.15||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.47||A multi-level latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The main effects of SUM and CT video were modeled at level 2 in addition to their interaction. Drug use was specified as a binomial distribution.|multi-level latent growth curve||1-month follow-up, effects of CT video among those who completed SUM.|||0.47|-0.77|0.63
91021979|NCT03125915|181927527|SUPERIORITY||Beta|-0.41||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|0.2||A multi-level latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The main effects of SUM and CT video were modeled at level 2 in addition to their interaction. Drug use was specified as a binomial distribution.|multi-level latent growth curve||1-month follow-up, effects of CT video among those who did not complete SUM.|||0.20|-1.01|0.19
91021980|NCT03125915|181927527|SUPERIORITY||Beta|-0.64||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|-0.15||A multi-level latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The main effects of SUM and CT video were modeled at level 2 in addition to their interaction. Drug use was specified as a binomial distribution.|multi-level latent growth curve||3-month follow-up, effect of SUM among those who completed the CT video.|||-0.15|-1.13|0.01
91021981|NCT03125915|181927527|SUPERIORITY||Beta|-0.49||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|0.12||A multi-level latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The main effects of SUM and CT video were modeled at level 2 in addition to their interaction. Drug use was specified as a binomial distribution.|multi-level latent growth curve||3-month follow-up, effects of SUM among those who did not complete CT video.|||0.12|-1.11|0.12
91021982|NCT03125915|181927527|SUPERIORITY||Beta|-0.34||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.21||A multi-level latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The main effects of SUM and CT video were modeled at level 2 in addition to their interaction. Drug use was specified as a binomial distribution.|multi-level latent growth curve||3-month follow-up, effects of CT video among those who completed SUM.|||0.21|-0.89|0.23
91021983|NCT03125915|181927527|SUPERIORITY||Beta|-0.19||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.38||A multi-level latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The main effects of SUM and CT video were modeled at level 2 in addition to their interaction. Drug use was specified as a binomial distribution.|multi-level latent growth curve||3-month follow-up, effect of CT video among those who did not complete SUM.|||0.38|-0.76|0.51
91021984|NCT03125915|181927527|SUPERIORITY||Beta|-0.79||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|-0.27||A multi-level latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The main effects of SUM and CT video were modeled at level 2 in addition to their interaction. Drug use was specified as a binomial distribution.|multi-level latent growth curve||6-month follow-up, effects of SUM among those who viewed CT videos.|||-0.27|-1.32|0.003
91021985|NCT03125915|181927527|SUPERIORITY||Beta|-0.25||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.46||A multi-level latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The main effects of SUM and CT video were modeled at level 2 in addition to their interaction. Drug use was specified as a binomial distribution.|multi-level latent growth curve||6-month follow-up, effect of SUM among those who did not view the CT video.|||0.46|-0.96|0.49
91021986|NCT03125915|181927527|SUPERIORITY||Beta|-0.53||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.11||A multi-level latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The main effects of SUM and CT video were modeled at level 2 in addition to their interaction. Drug use was specified as a binomial distribution.|multi-level latent growth curve||6-month follow-up, effect of CT video among those who completed SUM.|||0.11|-1.16|0.10
91021987|NCT03125915|181927527|SUPERIORITY||Beta|-0.02||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.64||A multi-level latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The main effects of SUM and CT video were modeled at level 2 in addition to their interaction. Drug use was specified as a binomial distribution.|multi-level latent growth curve||6-month follow-up, effect of CT video among those who did not complete SUM.|||0.64|-0.60|0.96
91021988|NCT04542330|181927540|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Andersen-Gill Cox|||Acute infection was analysed as recurrent events using an Andersen-Gill Cox proportional hazards regression model with time since inclusion as underlying time scale. The analysis was done for the composite outcome and for all subcomponents separately, presenting Hazard Ratios (HR) with 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) for each. For all recurrent outcomes, a wash-out period of 14 days was used to define new events.||||< 0.05
91021989|NCT04542330|181927541|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Cox|||Verified SARS-CoV-2 infection (first event) and all-cause hospitalisation (first event) was analysed using standard Cox proportional hazards models, but otherwise as described for primary outcome.||||< 0.05
91021990|NCT04542330|181927542|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Andersen-Gill Cox|||The secondary outcome, self-reported respiratory symptoms, was analysed the same way as the primary outcome (recurrent events).||||< 0.05
91021991|NCT04542330|181927543|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Cox|||Verified SARS-CoV-2 infection (first event) and all-cause hospitalisation (first event) was analysed using standard Cox proportional hazards models, but otherwise as described for the primary outcome.||||< 0.05
91021992|NCT02176642|181927547|NON_INFERIORITY|We estimated that women in the placebo group would have mean reduction of 3 UUI episodes per day. Assuming 50% improvement in UUI episodes per day is a clinically significant improvement, we estimated the experimental group would have a mean reduction of 4.5 UUI episodes per day with a SD of 1.5 UUI episodes per day. To detect such a difference with 80% power and alpha 0.05, we would need 88 participants for our analysis. To allow for a 12% dropout rate, our goal was to enroll 100 women.||||||0.2|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2
91085422|NCT02171429|182053692|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1||||0.1659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|0.5||Nominal p-value; it has not been adjusted for multiplicity.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Model adjusted for treatment, visit, stratification factors, treatment-by-visit, baseline UC-PRO/SS domain, and baseline UC-PRO/SS domain-by-visit.|Mean difference was calculated as etrolizumab arm minus placebo arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. Please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details. This comparison was not considered a key secondary outcome measure and was not part of the multiple testing procedure for statistical significance.||0.5|-2.8|0.1659
91085423|NCT02171429|182053692|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.9182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.4||Nominal p-value; it has not been adjusted for multiplicity.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Model adjusted for treatment, visit, stratification factors, treatment-by-visit, baseline UC-PRO/SS domain, and baseline UC-PRO/SS domain-by-visit.|Mean difference was calculated as etrolizumab arm minus adalimumab arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. Please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details. This comparison was not considered a key secondary outcome measure and was not part of the multiple testing procedure for statistical significance.||1.4|-1.3|0.9182
91085424|NCT02171429|182053693|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.2||p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Model adjusted for treatment, visit, stratification factors, treatment-by-visit, baseline UC-PRO/SS domain, and baseline UC-PRO/SS domain-by-visit.|Mean difference was calculated as etrolizumab arm minus placebo arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. This comparison was part of Family 4 of the testing procedure; please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details.||0.2|-2.1|1
91085425|NCT02171429|182053693|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.7||p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Model adjusted for treatment, visit, stratification factors, treatment-by-visit, baseline UC-PRO/SS domain, and baseline UC-PRO/SS domain-by-visit.|Mean difference was calculated as etrolizumab arm minus adalimumab arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. This comparison was part of Family 6 of the testing procedure; please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details.||0.7|-1.2|1
91085426|NCT02171429|182053694|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.0116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.2||Nominal p-value; it has not been adjusted for multiplicity.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Model adjusted for treatment, visit, stratification factors, treatment-by-visit, baseline UC-PRO/SS domain, and baseline UC-PRO/SS domain-by-visit.|Mean difference was calculated as etrolizumab arm minus placebo arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. Please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details. This comparison was not considered a key secondary outcome measure and was not part of the multiple testing procedure for statistical significance.||-0.2|-1.7|0.0116
91085427|NCT02171429|182053694|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.6771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.5||Nominal p-value; it has not been adjusted for multiplicity.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Model adjusted for treatment, visit, stratification factors, treatment-by-visit, baseline UC-PRO/SS domain, and baseline UC-PRO/SS domain-by-visit.|Mean difference was calculated as etrolizumab arm minus adalimumab arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. Please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details. This comparison was not considered a key secondary outcome measure and was not part of the multiple testing procedure for statistical significance.||0.5|-0.8|0.6771
90829447|NCT02365649|181533424|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.4||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.9|28.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders||28.8|-27.9|1.000
91021993|NCT02176642|181927548|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4
90829448|NCT02365649|181533424|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.7||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|40.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders||40.6|-7.2|0.175
91021994|NCT02176642|181927549|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.48
91021995|NCT02176642|181927550|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.26
91021996|NCT02176642|181927551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.06
91021997|NCT02176642|181927552|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
91021998|NCT02176642|181927553|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.44
91021999|NCT02176642|181927554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.73
91022000|NCT02176642|181927555|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.94
91022001|NCT00295620|181927560|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.11|||Log Rank|||Arm A: Anastrozole for 2 yerars Arm B: Anastrozole for 5 years Null hypothesis: there is no difference between the two treatment arms in the probability of a DFS event||1.11|0.79|0.425
91022002|NCT00295620|181927561|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.25|||Log Rank|||Arm A: Anastrozole for 2 yerars Arm B: Anastrozole for 5 years Null hypothesis: there is no difference between the two treatment arms in the probability of a death event||1.25|0.83|0.867
91022003|NCT00295620|181927562|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.35||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.84|||Log Rank|||Arm A: Anastrozole for 2 yerars Arm B: Anastrozole for 5 years Null hypothesis: there is no difference between the two treatment arms in the probability of a fracture||1.84|1.00|0.052
91022004|NCT00295620|181927563|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.38|||Log Rank|||Arm A: Anastrozole for 2 yerars Arm B: Anastrozole for 5 years Null hypothesis: there is no difference between the two treatment arms in the probability of the occurrence of secondary carcinoma||1.38|0.81|0.678
91022005|NCT00295620|181927564|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||0.531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.77|||Log Rank|||Arm A: Anastrozole for 2 years Arm B: Anastrozole for 5 years Null hypothesis: there is no difference between the two treatment arms in the probability of the occurrence of contralateral mammacarcinoma||1.77|0.75|0.531
91022006|NCT01625286|181927612|SUPERIORITY|A hazard ratio \< 1 favours AZD5363|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.308|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.6|1.06||2-sided p-value|Regression, Cox|Cox PH model including treatment and PIK3CA status as factors/covariates||||1.06|0.60|0.308
91022007|NCT01625286|181927613|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.9||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-17.1|-0.8||1-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||||-0.8|-17.1|0.081
91022008|NCT01625286|181927619|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53||||0.139|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.93|2.54||1-sided p-value|Regression, Logistic|including treatment and PIK3CA status as factors/covariates||||2.54|0.93|0.139
91022009|NCT01625286|181927620|SUPERIORITY|A hazard ratio \< 1 favours AZD5363|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.482|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.48|1.24||2-sided p-value|Log Rank|Cox PH model including treatment and PIK3CA status as factors/covariates||||1.24|0.48|0.482
91022010|NCT04355767|181927621|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||Analysis is of patients with a disease-progression event. The trial required a sample size of 900 patients to detect an absolute between-group difference of 10 percentage points (the minimum difference that we considered to be clinically important) with a power of 85%.|A Bayesian framework was used to calculate a risk difference of 1.9 percentage points (placebo group minus convalescent-plasma group) with a 95% credible interval of -6.0 to 9.8. The posterior probability of superiority was calculated to be 0.68. Efficacy was defined as a posterior probability of 0.975 or more that the proportion of patients with outcome events was higher in the placebo group.|||
90829449|NCT02365649|181533424|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.7||||0.517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|35.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders||35.4|-18.0|0.517
90829450|NCT02365649|181533424|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-15.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.6|0.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders||0.6|-30.6|1.000
90829451|NCT02365649|181533424|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.5||||0.663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.5|14.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders||14.6|-25.5|0.663
91022011|NCT04355767|181927621|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|10.4|||||Risk difference after adjustment for age, sex, symptom duration.|Analysis is of patients with a disease-progression event.||10.4|-5.9|
91022012|NCT04355767|181927622|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||Analysis is of patients with a disease-progression event.|A Bayesian framework was used to calculate a risk difference of 3.0 percentage points (placebo group minus convalescent-plasma group) with a 95% credible interval of -4.9 to 10.8. The posterior probability of superiority was calculated to be 0.76. Efficacy was defined as a posterior probability of 0.975 or more that the proportion of patients with outcome events was higher in the placebo group.|||
91022013|NCT04355767|181927624|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.17||||||||1.17|0.69|
91022014|NCT04355767|181927625|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.1||||||||1.1|-0.4|
90829452|NCT02365649|181533424|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-15.0||||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.6|0.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders||0.6|-30.6|0.251
90829453|NCT02365649|181533425|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.0|41.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders||41.0|-41.0|1.000
90829454|NCT02365649|181533425|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.8||||0.257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|50.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders||50.3|-12.8|0.257
90829455|NCT02365649|181533425|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-20.0||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.9|15.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders||15.9|-55.9|0.440
90829456|NCT02365649|181533425|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.3|19.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders||19.3|-24.3|1.000
90829457|NCT02365649|181533425|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|15.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders||15.0|-16.5|1.000
90829458|NCT02365649|181533425|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-20.0||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.9|15.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders||15.9|-55.9|0.440
90829459|NCT02365649|181533425|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.7|31.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders||31.4|-28.7|1.000
90829460|NCT02365649|181533425|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.5||||0.404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|34.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders||34.9|-14.0|0.404
90829461|NCT02365649|181533425|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.5||||0.859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.8|29.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders||29.7|-24.8|0.859
90829462|NCT02365649|181533425|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-15.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.6|0.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders||0.6|-30.6|1.000
90829463|NCT02365649|181533425|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.5||||0.663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.5|14.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders||14.6|-25.5|0.663
90829464|NCT02365649|181533425|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-15.0||||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.6|0.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders||0.6|-30.6|0.251
90829465|NCT02365649|181533426|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.0||||0.606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.8|43.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders||43.8|-23.8|0.606
90829466|NCT02365649|181533426|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|35.0||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.9|64.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5). Prespecified significant at the 0.5 level.|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders||64.1|5.9|0.034
90829467|NCT02365649|181533426|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-15.0||||0.532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.6|0.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders||0.6|-30.6|0.532
91022015|NCT04523831|181927640|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.53|||<|0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.96|||Regression, Linear|||||0.96|0.30|<0.03
91085428|NCT02171429|182053695|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Model adjusted for treatment, visit, stratification factors, treatment-by-visit, baseline UC-PRO/SS domain, and baseline UC-PRO/SS domain-by-visit.|Mean difference was calculated as etrolizumab arm minus placebo arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. This comparison was part of Family 4 of the testing procedure; please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details.||0.0|-1.0|1
91085429|NCT02171429|182053695|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.1||p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Model adjusted for treatment, visit, stratification factors, treatment-by-visit, baseline UC-PRO/SS domain, and baseline UC-PRO/SS domain-by-visit.|Mean difference was calculated as etrolizumab arm minus adalimumab arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. This comparison was part of Family 6 of the testing procedure; please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details.||0.1|-0.7|1
91085430|NCT02171429|182053696|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Remission Rates|7.9||||0.1382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.19|16.87||Nominal p-value; it has not been adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL.|Difference in remission rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the placebo arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. Please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details. This comparison was not considered a key secondary outcome measure and was not part of the multiple testing procedure for statistical significance.||16.87|-3.19|0.1382
91085431|NCT02171429|182053696|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Remission Rates|-7.5||||0.1163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|2.22||Nominal p-value; it has not been adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL.|Difference in remission rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the adalimumab arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. Please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details. This comparison was not considered a key secondary outcome measure and was not part of the multiple testing procedure for statistical significance.||2.22|-17.10|0.1163
91085432|NCT02171429|182053697|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Remission Rates|2.9||||0.4772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.47|10.14||Nominal p-value; it has not been adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL.|Difference in remission rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the placebo arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. Please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details. This comparison was not considered a key secondary outcome measure and was not part of the multiple testing procedure for statistical significance.||10.14|-6.47|0.4772
91085433|NCT02171429|182053697|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Remission Rates|-5.2||||0.1801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.95|2.63||Nominal p-value; it has not been adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL.|Difference in remission rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the adalimumab arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. Please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details. This comparison was not considered a key secondary outcome measure and was not part of the multiple testing procedure for statistical significance.||2.63|-12.95|0.1801
91085434|NCT02171429|182053698|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|4.0||||0.4833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|15.2||Nominal p-value; it has not been adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Model adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL), MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL, and IBDQ score at BL.|Mean difference was calculated as etrolizumab arm minus placebo arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. Please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details. This comparison was not considered a key secondary outcome measure and was not part of the multiple testing procedure for statistical significance.||15.2|-7.2|0.4833
90829468|NCT02365649|181533426|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.6||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.5|21.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders||21.8|-20.5|1.000
90893707|NCT02342886|181652482|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was assessed using the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference between the percentage of patients who are classified as having an unfavourable status on the intervention (6 months moxifloxacin + 200 mg PA-824 + pyrazinamide) and the control regimen (2 months HRZE/ 4 months HR). The intervention was considered to be non-inferior to the control arm if the upper bound 95% CI was \< 12%.|Treatment difference: unfavourable rate|6.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|15.4|||||(DS-TB: 6 Months Moxifloxacin + PA-824 (200 mg) + Pyrazinamide) - (DS-TB: 2 Months HRZE/ 4 Months HR).|||15.40|-2.15|
90893708|NCT03015402|181652499|SUPERIORITY|Pre-randomization characteristics of 2 groups will be presented using the median (IQR) or frequency tables at each study sequence. The difference of mPAP during submax exercise compared between placebo and nitrite at 10 weeks (i.e. week 10 RHC of placebo vs week 10 RHC of nitrite) using parametric PK-cross analysis (i.e. ANOVA to determine the sequence, period, carryover, \& treatment effects). Post-exercise values before \& after crossover will be compared between 2 groups using similar approach.||||||0.2|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.20
90893709|NCT01163097|181652529|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence of the treatments was assessed using the 90% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean ratio for Ki67. The lower bound of the CI needed to be greater than 0.70 and the upper bound needed to be below 1.43 for the treatments to be considered equivalent.|Geometric mean ratio|0.863|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.759|0.982|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA was used to estimate the treatment effect and the Schuirmann's two one-sided test was used to test for statistical equivalence.||H0: mean ratio\<0.7 or mean ratio\>1.43; H1: 0.7\< mean ratio \<1.43 Sample size calculation assumed change in Ki67 expression following palifermin administration would not be affected by co-administration of heparin. With n=26 (13 + 13), an approx. 80% probability that the 90% CI of the ratio of geometric means of Ki67 for palifermin when co-administered with heparin compared to palifermin alone would fall in the interval (0.7, 1.43). This assumed a Coefficient of Variation (CV) for Ki67 of 31%.||0.982|0.759|
90893710|NCT01163097|181652531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean|0.737|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.614|0.885|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA (with dependent variable:natural log of the ratio to baseline, independent variable:treatment, covariate:natural log of the baseline value)||80% power achieved for detecting a 20% increase (or 17% reduction) when Treatment A was compared to Treatment B; assuming that the coefficient of variation of amylase would be 14% (as observed in other study)||0.885|0.614|
91022016|NCT04523831|181927641|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.51|||<|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.8|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.80|0.32|<0.004
91022017|NCT04523831|181927642|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.45|||<|0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.85|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.85|0.23|<0.013
90893711|NCT01163097|181652532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean|0.373|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.216|0.645|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA (with dependent variable:natural log of the ratio to baseline, independent variable:treatment, covariate:natural log of the baseline value)||80% power achieved for detecting a 70% increase (or 41% reduction) when Treatment A was compared to Treatment B; assuming that the coefficient of variation of lipase would be 49% (as observed in other study)||0.645|0.216|
90893712|NCT01163097|181652533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean|0.972|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.768|1.231|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA (with dependent variable:natural log of the ratio to baseline, independent variable:treatment, covariate:natural log of the baseline value)||80% power achieved for detecting a 140% increase with 13 and 6 subjects (respectively) when Treatment B was compared to Treatment C; assuming that the coefficient of variation of the protein/creatinine ratio would be 67% (Ginsberg et al 1983)||1.231|0.768|
90893713|NCT01163097|181652534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||90.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
90893714|NCT01163097|181652535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||90.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
90893715|NCT01163097|181652536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||90.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
90893716|NCT01163097|181652537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||90.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
90893717|NCT01163097|181652538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4123||90.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.4123
90893718|NCT01163097|181652539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9944||90.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.9944
90893719|NCT01163097|181652540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||90.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
90893720|NCT01163097|181652541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||90.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
90893721|NCT02510144|181652558|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Negative cultures were compared on the treated side vs the non-treated side||||0.68
90893722|NCT02510144|181652558|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Negative cultures were compared on the treated side versus the non-treated side||||<0.01
90893723|NCT00541450|181652575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||ANCOVA|For Least Squares Mean, the ANCOVA model included a term for treatment and the baseline value as a covariate.||||||0.002
90893724|NCT00541450|181652576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|For Least Squares Mean, the ANCOVA model included a term for treatment and the baseline value as a covariate.||||||0.001
90893725|NCT00541450|181652577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.16||||||95.0|-0.37|0.05|||ANCOVA|For Least Squares Mean, the ANCOVA model included a term for treatment and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.05|-0.37|
90893726|NCT00541450|181652579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0|||||ANCOVA|For Least Squares Mean, the ANCOVA model included a term for treatment and the baseline value as a covariate.||||||0.030
90893727|NCT02816138|181652581|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|For change in depression severity (MADRS) over time, we used a linear mixed effects model with autoregressive of order 1 (AR(1)) temporal process.||||||<0.001
90893728|NCT02816138|181652582|OTHER|||||||0.761|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed-rank test||||||0.761
90893729|NCT02816138|181652583|OTHER|||||||0.084|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon signed-rank test assessing for change from baseline to 12-weeks||||0.084
90893730|NCT02816138|181652584|OTHER|||||||0.073|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon signed-rank test assessing for change from baseline to 12-weeks||||0.073
90893731|NCT02816138|181652585|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed-rank test||||||0.002
90893732|NCT02816138|181652586|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed rank test||||||<0.001
91022018|NCT04523831|181927643|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.81|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.81|0.44|<0.001
91022019|NCT03154333|181927673|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01||||0.9666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.62|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Log transformation normalized the Risk Ratio (RR) estimates; the Standard Error (SE) of the estimate was obtained from confidence limits for the RR.||||1.62|0.63|0.9666
91022020|NCT03154333|181927674|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.53||||0.2861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|3.28|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Log transformation normalized the Risk Ratio (RR) estimates; the Standard Error (SE) of the estimate was obtained from confidence limits for the RR.||||3.28|0.41|0.2861
91022021|NCT00747747|181927698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Frequency|0.0|||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Null hypothesis: no difference among groups.||||<0.05
91022022|NCT00747747|181927703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Frequency|0.0|||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Null hypotheis: no difference among the groups.||||<0.05
91022023|NCT02919475|181927711|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.842|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.842
91022024|NCT02919475|181927711|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.841|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.841
91022025|NCT02919475|181927711|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.842|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.842
91022026|NCT02919475|181927711|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
91022027|NCT02919475|181927712|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
91022028|NCT02919475|181927712|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.832|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.832
91022029|NCT02919475|181927712|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.682|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.682
90893733|NCT02816138|181652587|OTHER|||||||0.049|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed-rank test||||||0.049
90893734|NCT02816138|181652588|OTHER|||||||0.502|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed rank test||||||0.502
91022030|NCT02919475|181927712|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.665|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.665
91022031|NCT02919475|181927713|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
91022032|NCT02919475|181927713|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.627|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.627
90893735|NCT02816138|181652589|OTHER|||||||0.049|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed rank test||||||0.049
91022033|NCT02919475|181927713|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.794|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.794
91022034|NCT02919475|181927713|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.453|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.453
91022035|NCT02919475|181927714|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.113|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.113
91022036|NCT02919475|181927714|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.024
91022037|NCT02919475|181927714|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.056|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.056
91022038|NCT02919475|181927714|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.035
91022039|NCT01872689|181927742|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.98111|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.31064||0.4555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|3.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed Linear model comparing Lebrikizumab to Placebo, with assessment as the outcome variable; assessment time by treatment as fixed effects; and participant baseline FVC (\<50%, 50 to 75%, \>75%) and participant by assessment time as random effects with unstructured covariance.||3.57|-1.61|0.4555
91022040|NCT01872689|181927742|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.49998|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84946||0.5566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|2.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed Linear model comparing Lebrikizumab to Placebo, with assessment as the outcome variable; assessment time by treatment as fixed effects; and participant baseline FVC (\<50%, 50 to 75%, \>75%) and participant by assessment time as random effects with unstructured covariance.||2.17|-1.17|0.5566
91022041|NCT01872689|181927743|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|21.93023|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.62248||0.3129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.97|64.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed Linear model comparing Lebrikizumab to Placebo, with assessment as the outcome variable; assessment time by treatment as fixed effects; and participant baseline FVC (\<50%, 50 to 75%, \>75%) and participant by assessment time as random effects with unstructured covariance.||64.83|-20.97|0.3129
91022042|NCT01872689|181927743|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.4127|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.8016||0.2036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.5|11.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed Linear model comparing Lebrikizumab to Placebo, with assessment as the outcome variable; assessment time by treatment as fixed effects; and participant baseline FVC (\<50%, 50 to 75%, \>75%) and participant by assessment time as random effects with unstructured covariance.||11.67|-54.50|0.2036
91022043|NCT01872689|181927745|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.4299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.41|||Log Rank|||Stratified Analysis: stratified by baseline FVC (\<50%, 50 to 75%, \>75%)||1.41|0.44|0.4299
90893736|NCT02816138|181652590|OTHER|||||||0.068|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed rank test||||||0.068
91022044|NCT01872689|181927745|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.3751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.24|||Log Rank|||Stratified Analysis: stratified by baseline FVC (\<50%, 50 to 75%, \>75%)||1.24|0.56|0.3751
91022045|NCT01872689|181927746|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.54171|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05201||0.6075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|2.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed Linear model comparing Lebrikizumab to Placebo, with assessment as the outcome variable; assessment time by treatment as fixed effects; and participant baseline FVC (\<50%, 50 to 75%, \>75%) and participant by assessment time as random effects with unstructured covariance.||2.62|-1.54|0.6075
91022046|NCT01872689|181927746|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18203|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65206||0.7803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed Linear model comparing Lebrikizumab to Placebo, with assessment as the outcome variable; assessment time by treatment as fixed effects; and participant baseline FVC (\<50%, 50 to 75%, \>75%) and participant by assessment time as random effects with unstructured covariance.||1.47|-1.10|0.7803
91022047|NCT01872689|181927748|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||0.0972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.09|||Log Rank|||Stratified Analysis: stratified by baseline FVC (\<50%, 50 to 75%, \>75%)||1.09|0.39|0.0972
91022048|NCT01872689|181927748|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.9344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.42|||Log Rank|||Stratified Analysis: stratified by baseline FVC (\<50%, 50 to 75%, \>75%)||1.42|0.72|0.9344
91022049|NCT01872689|181927749|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|28.12302|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|49.47253||0.5707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.8|126.04|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean Difference = Lebrikizumab - Placebo|Mixed Linear model comparing Lebrikizumab to Placebo, with assessment as the outcome variable; assessment time by treatment as fixed effects; and participant baseline FVC (\<50%, 50 to 75%, \>75%) and participant by assessment time as random effects with unstructured covariance.||126.04|-69.80|0.5707
90956825|NCT02349425|181793317|SUPERIORITY||Estimated percent change|-55.92||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.923|-30.797|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model which uses log-transformation.|Percent change difference between Gefapixant and placebo was estimated by 100 x \[e\^diff - 1\] where e=exponent of difference; and diff = the treatment mean difference from mixed model of change from baseline based on log-transformed data.|||-30.797|-71.923|0.0006
90893737|NCT00981084|181652591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.19||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||We used a crossover design to exame whether a single dose of armodafinil would improve cognition in MS. For hypothesis testing analyses, we used a statistical approach that accounts for period (session) effects. We subtracted session 2 performance from session 1 performance on the RVLT learning, yeilding a difference score. we conducted an independent samples t test with treatment order as the independent variable (A/P vs. P/A) and the difference score as the dependent variable.||||= .19
90893738|NCT00981084|181652591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.0005||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||We used a crossover design to exame whether a single dose of armodafinil would improve cognition in MS. For hypothesis testing analyses, we used a statistical approach that accounts for period (session) effects. We subtracted session 2 performance from session 1 performance on the RVLT delay, yielding a difference score. we conducted an independent samples t test with treatment order as the independent variable (A/P vs. P/A) and the difference score as the dependent variable.||||= .0005
90956826|NCT02349425|181793322|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.0||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.2|-6.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||-6.8|-31.2|0.003
90956827|NCT02349425|181793322|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.7|-12.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||-12.1|-36.7|<0.001
90956828|NCT02349425|181793322|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.3||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.0|-9.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||-9.5|-49.0|0.005
90956829|NCT02349425|181793322|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.6|-14.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||-14.7|-44.6|<0.001
90956830|NCT02349425|181793323|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.9||||0.332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|7.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||7.2|-21.0|0.332
90956831|NCT02349425|181793323|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.5||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.3|-3.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||-3.6|-23.3|0.008
90956832|NCT02349425|181793323|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-30.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.7|-15.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||-15.7|-44.7|<0.001
90956833|NCT02349425|181793323|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.7||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.3|-11.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||-11.0|-42.3|0.001
90956834|NCT02349425|181793324|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.5|-6.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||-6.8|-23.5|<0.001
90956835|NCT02349425|181793324|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.1|-7.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||-7.4|-26.1|<0.001
90956836|NCT02349425|181793324|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.5||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.1|-7.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||-7.8|-31.1|0.002
90893739|NCT00981084|181652591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.21||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||We used a crossover design to exame whether a single dose of armodafinil would improve cognition in MS. For hypothesis testing analyses, we used a statistical approach that accounts for period (session) effects. We subtracted session 2 performance from session 1 performance on the BVMT learning, yeilding a difference score. we conducted an independent samples t test with treatment order as the independent variable (A/P vs. P/A) and the difference score as the dependent variable.||||= .21
90956837|NCT02349425|181793324|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.8|-9.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||-9.3|-31.8|<0.001
90956838|NCT02349425|181793325|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.1||||0.315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|4.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||4.0|-12.3|0.315
90956839|NCT02349425|181793325|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.2||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|-0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||-0.7|-13.7|0.030
90956840|NCT02349425|181793325|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.4|-9.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||-9.1|-27.4|<0.001
90956841|NCT02349425|181793325|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.3|-9.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||-9.0|-26.3|<0.001
90956842|NCT02349425|181793326|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.5||||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||1.6|-8.6|0.169
90956843|NCT02349425|181793326|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4||||0.341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|2.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||2.6|-7.5|0.341
90956844|NCT02349425|181793326|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|1.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||1.9|-5.8|0.311
90956845|NCT02349425|181793326|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.7||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||1.1|-8.6|0.128
91022050|NCT01872689|181927749|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.72972|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|31.68767||0.4934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.65|84.11|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean Difference = Lebrikizumab - Placebo|Mixed Linear model comparing Lebrikizumab to Placebo, with assessment as the outcome variable; assessment time by treatment as fixed effects; and participant baseline FVC (\<50%, 50 to 75%, \>75%) and participant by assessment time as random effects with unstructured covariance.||84.11|-40.65|0.4934
91022051|NCT01872689|181927750|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.10204|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.41325||0.3854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.88|2.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed Linear model comparing Lebrikizumab to Placebo, with assessment as the outcome variable; assessment time by treatment as fixed effects; and participant baseline FVC (\<50%, 50 to 75%, \>75%) and participant by assessment time as random effects with unstructured covariance.||2.68|-6.88|0.3854
91022052|NCT01872689|181927750|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16313|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.37698||0.9057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.87|2.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed Linear model comparing Lebrikizumab to Placebo, with assessment as the outcome variable; assessment time by treatment as fixed effects; and participant baseline FVC (\<50%, 50 to 75%, \>75%) and participant by assessment time as random effects with unstructured covariance.||2.55|-2.87|0.9057
91022053|NCT01872689|181927752|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.4433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.31|||Log Rank|||Stratified Analysis: stratified by baseline FVC (\<50%, 50 to 75%, \>75%)||1.31|0.54|0.4433
91022054|NCT01872689|181927754|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.9366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|5.3|||Log Rank|||Stratified Analysis: stratified by baseline FVC (\<50%, 50 to 75%, \>75%)||5.30|0.21|0.9366
91022055|NCT01872689|181927754|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.45||||0.1346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.31|||Log Rank|||Stratified Analysis: stratified by baseline FVC (\<50%, 50 to 75%, \>75%)||1.31|0.16|0.1346
91022056|NCT01872689|181927756|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.6815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.54|||Log Rank|||Stratified Analysis: stratified by baseline FVC (\<50%, 50 to 75%, \>75%)||1.54|0.52|0.6815
91022057|NCT01872689|181927758|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.5685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|2.26|||Log Rank|||Stratified Analysis: stratified by baseline FVC (\<50%, 50 to 75%, \>75%)||2.26|0.23|0.5685
91022058|NCT01872689|181927758|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.1976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.23|||Log Rank|||Stratified Analysis: stratified by baseline FVC (\<50%, 50 to 75%, \>75%)||1.23|0.37|0.1976
91022059|NCT01042977|181927790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0489|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.3||Significant at alpha=0.025 (2-sided). A hierarchical closed testing procedure was used to control Type I error across the primary \& key secondary objectives|ANCOVA|with treatment group and stratum as effects and baseline value as covariate for each endpoint|with stratum = age-by-insulin use-by-time from most recent qualifying CV event|H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-0.30|-0.50|<0.0001
91022060|NCT01042977|181927791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|7.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|9.8||Significant at alpha=0.025 (2-sided). A hierarchical closed testing procedure was used to control Type I error across the primary \& key secondary objectives|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|with age-by-insulin use-by-time from most recent qualifying CV event as stratum||H0: proportion(treat) minus proportion(placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: proportion(treat) minus proportion(placebo) =/= 0||9.8|4.3|<0.0001
91022061|NCT01042977|181927792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1957|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.31|-1.54||Significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure|ANCOVA|with treatment group and stratum as effects and baseline value as covariate|with stratum = age-by-insulin use-by-time from most recent qualifying CV event|H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-1.54|-2.31|<0.0001
91022062|NCT01042977|181927793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|13.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.149|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.4|17.8||Significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure|Regression, Logistic|Based on methodology of Zhang, Tsiatis \& Davidian and Davidian, Tsiatis, Zhang \& Lu, with adjustment for baseline total body weight and age stratum||H0: proportion(treat) minus proportion(placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: proportion(treat) minus proportion(placebo) =/= 0||17.8|9.4|<0.0001
91022063|NCT01042977|181927794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7977||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.28|-1.15||Significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure|ANCOVA|with treatment group and stratum as effects and baseline value as covariate|with stratum = age-by-insulin use-by-time from most recent qualifying CV event|H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-1.15|-4.28|0.0007
91022064|NCT01042977|181927795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7983||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.59|-1.46||Significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure|ANCOVA|with treatment group and stratum as effects and baseline value as covariate|with stratum = age-by-insulin use-by-time from most recent qualifying CV event|H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-1.46|-4.59|0.0002
91032452|NCT03247556|181949593|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.07||0.381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|1.2|||ANCOVA|||||1.2|-3.0|0.3810
90829469|NCT02365649|181533426|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.6||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|13.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders||13.3|-14.4|1.000
91022065|NCT01042977|181927796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9746||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.35|-1.53||Significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure|ANCOVA|with treatment group and stratum as effects and baseline value as covariate|with stratum = age-by-insulin use-by-time from most recent qualifying CV event|H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-1.53|-5.35|0.0004
91022066|NCT02499354|181927797|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2742|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.2742
91022067|NCT02499354|181927798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.55
91085435|NCT02171429|182053698|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.0||||0.9931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|9.1||Nominal p-value; it has not been adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Model adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL), MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL, and IBDQ score at BL.|Mean difference was calculated as etrolizumab arm minus adalimumab arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. Please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details. This comparison was not considered a key secondary outcome measure and was not part of the multiple testing procedure for statistical significance.||9.1|-9.2|0.9931
91085436|NCT01724177|182053718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||"A one sample binomial one sided exact test for the ORR (CR, CRu, or PR) was performed to provide the p-value (significance level: 0.05). The hypotheses of interest:~H0: ORR ≤ 5% versus H1: ORR \> 5%"|Exact Test|||||||<0.0001
91085437|NCT03397121|182053730|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-49.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.04|-43.99||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|ANCOVA||Represents the least squares mean difference from Placebo|||-43.99|-55.04|<.0001
91085438|NCT03397121|182053731|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-44.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.48|-40.12||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|ANCOVA||Represents the least squares mean difference from Placebo|||-40.12|-48.48|<0.0001
91085439|NCT03397121|182053732|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-68.89|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.11|-60.67||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|ANCOVA||Represents the least squares mean difference from Placebo|||-60.67|-77.11|<0.0001
91085440|NCT03397121|182053733|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-62.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.01|-56.48||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|ANCOVA||Represents the least squares mean difference from Placebo|||-56.48|-69.01|<0.0001
91085441|NCT03397121|182053734|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-78.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.65|-73.04||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|ANCOVA||Represents the least squares mean difference from Placebo|||-73.04|-83.65|<0.0001
91085442|NCT03397121|182053735|SUPERIORITY|LS Mean Difference (95% CI) from Placebo|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-31.77|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.59|-27.94||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|ANCOVA||Represents the least squares mean difference from Placebo|||-27.94|-35.59|<0.0001
91085443|NCT03397121|182053736|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-36.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.99|-32.14||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|ANCOVA||Represents the least squares mean difference from Placebo|||-32.14|-39.99|<0.0001
91085444|NCT03397121|182053737|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-42.36|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.32|-37.4||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|ANCOVA||Represents the least squares mean difference from Placebo|||-37.40|-47.32|<0.0001
91085445|NCT00472732|182053738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|||||The Bonferroni-corrected a priori p-value was 0.007 (a priori alpha=0.05/number of tests=7).|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis predicted that the concentration of myoinositol in posterior cingulate gray matter will be the same in OTCD patients as in controls.||||0.003
91085446|NCT00472732|182053738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The Bonferroni-corrected a priori p-value was 0.007 (a priori alpha=0.05/number of tests=7).|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis predicted that the concentration of myoinositol in parietal white matter will be the same in OTCD patients as in controls.||||<0.001
91085447|NCT00472732|182053738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The Bonferroni-corrected a priori p-value was 0.007 (a priori alpha=0.05/number of tests=7).|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis predicted that the concentration of glutamine in posterior cingulate gray matter would be the same for OTCD patients as for controls.||||0.001
91085448|NCT00472732|182053738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The Bonferroni-corrected a priori p-value was 0.007 (a priori alpha=0.05/number of tests=7).|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis predicted that the concentration of glutamine in parietal white matter would be the same for OTCD patients as for controls.||||<0.001
91085449|NCT00472732|182053739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value is adjusted for family wise error rate correction.|t-test, 2 sided|||Two-way between-group t-tests restricted to the prefrontal cortex were performed to compare activation during for the 2-Back\> 1-Back contrast between OTCD patients and controls.||||<0.05
91085450|NCT00472732|182053740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis predicted that fractional anisotropy, a marker of white matter integrity, would be the same for OTCD patients as for controls.||||<0.001
91085451|NCT04846270|182053745|OTHER|||||||0.0006|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test was used to test if the number of manual checks has been reduced.||"POWER is a single arm investigation with cross-over design. Each participating subject will use the study device and act as its own control.~The null hypothesis (H0) is that there is no difference in the mean number of checks performed during the investigation week compared to the baseline week.~The alternate hypothesis (H1) is that there is a reduction in the mean number of checks performed during the investigation week compared to the baseline week."||||0.0006
91085452|NCT04846270|182053747|OTHER|||||||0.0051|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test was used to test if the number of leakages had been reduced.||||||0.0051
91085453|NCT04846270|182053750|OTHER|||||||0.76|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test was used to test if the number of fecal incidents had been reduced.||||||0.76
90829470|NCT02365649|181533426|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|14.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders||14.6|-16.0|1.000
90829471|NCT02365649|181533426|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.1||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|35.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders||35.8|-11.7|0.350
90829472|NCT02365649|181533426|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.7||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|41.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5). Prespecified significant at the 0.5 level.|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders||41.3|2.0|0.034
90829473|NCT02365649|181533426|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.2||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.9|18.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders||18.3|-15.9|1.000
90829474|NCT02365649|181533426|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-15.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.6|0.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders||0.6|-30.6|1.000
90829475|NCT02365649|181533426|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.5||||0.663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.5|14.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders||14.6|-25.5|0.663
90956846|NCT02349425|181793327|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2||||0.613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|5.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||5.9|-3.5|0.613
90956847|NCT02349425|181793327|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|3.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||3.1|-4.3|.743
90956848|NCT02349425|181793327|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||2.3|-4.1|0.589
91085454|NCT04085601|182053752|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.7311|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.572|0.8902||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test is stratified by number of packed red blood cell (PRBC) within 12 months prior to screening (\<4, ≥ 4) reported in electronic data capture (EDC) data.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.8902|0.572|<0.0001
91085455|NCT04085601|182053753|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1470.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2113.44|-827.32||p-value for Baseline, strata and treatment is from LS mean of proc mixed and proc mianalyze based on parameter estimates.|ANCOVA|||||-827.32|-2113.44|<0.0001
91085456|NCT04085601|182053754|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.5411|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.339|0.7431||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test is stratified by number of PRBC within 12 months prior to screening (\<4, ≥ 4) reported in EDC data.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.7431|0.339|<0.0001
91085457|NCT04085601|182053755|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-103.82||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-158.9|-48.74||P-value for Baseline, strata and treatment is from LS mean of proc mixed and proc mianalyze based on parameter estimates.|ANCOVA|||||-48.74|-158.9|0.0002
91085458|NCT04085601|182053756|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.67||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|4.35||P-value for baseline, strata and treatment is from LS mean of proc mixed and proc mianalyze based on parameter estimates.|ANCOVA|||||4.35|0.99|0.0019
90829476|NCT02365649|181533426|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-15.0||||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.6|0.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders||0.6|-30.6|0.251
90829477|NCT02365649|181533427|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.0||||0.536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|30.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 20||30.6|-0.6|0.536
90829478|NCT02365649|181533427|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.0||||0.238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|30.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 20||30.6|-0.6|0.238
90829479|NCT02365649|181533427|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.3|24.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 20||24.3|-34.3|1.000
90829480|NCT02365649|181533427|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.0||||0.606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.8|23.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 28||23.8|-43.8|0.606
90956849|NCT02349425|181793327|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.1||||0.205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|2.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||2.9|-13.2|0.205
91085459|NCT04085601|182053757|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-0.7505|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9041|-0.5969||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test is stratified by number of PRBC within 12 months prior to screening (\<4, ≥4) reported in EDC data.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-0.5969|-0.9041|<0.0001
91085460|NCT04085601|182053758|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.7241|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5583|0.8899||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test is stratified by number of PRBC within 12 months prior to screening (\<4, ≥4) reported in EDC data.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.8899|0.5583|<0.0001
91085461|NCT04085601|182053759|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|3.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|4.0||Wilcoxon rank-sum test p-value for the comparison between treatments is based on median using stratified non-parametric analysis. The 95% confidence interval (CI) is constructed using Hodges-Lehmann Estimation of Location Shift.|Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||||4|2|<0.0001
91085462|NCT04085601|182053760|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|4.51||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|9.24||P-value for baseline, strata and treatment is from LS mean of proc mixed and proc mianalyze based on parameter estimates.|ANCOVA|||||9.24|-0.21|0.061
91085463|NCT04085601|182053761|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.3645||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1648|0.5642|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.5642|0.1648|0.001
91085464|NCT04085601|182053762|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.5592|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3682|0.7502|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.7502|0.3682|<0.0001
91085465|NCT04085601|182053763|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|21.75||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.35|34.16||P-value for baseline, strata and treatment is from LS mean of proc mixed and proc mianalyze based on parameter estimates.|ANCOVA|||||34.16|9.35|0.0006
91085466|NCT04085601|182053764|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|55.79||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.83|94.74||P-value for baseline, strata and treatment is from LS mean of proc mixed and proc mianalyze based on parameter estimates.|ANCOVA|||||94.74|16.83|0.005
90829481|NCT02365649|181533427|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.8||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.5|21.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 28||21.0|-28.5|1.000
91085467|NCT04085601|182053765|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.4639||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2529|0.675||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test is stratified by number of PRBC within 12 months prior to screening (\<4, ≥ 4) reported in EDC data.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.675|0.2529|0.0002
91085468|NCT04085601|182053766|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio|0.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|0.091||Hazard ratio is based on cox proportional hazards model.|Stratified Wilcoxon|||||0.091|0.004|<0.0001
91085469|NCT04085601|182053767|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio|0.025|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.005|0.121|||Stratified Wilcoxon|||||0.121|0.005|<0.0001
91085470|NCT03492437|182053771|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least square Mean|151.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|127.35|179.93||||||||179.93|127.35|
91085471|NCT03492437|182053772|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least square Mean|144.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|122.89|170.39||||||||170.39|122.89|
91085472|NCT03492437|182053773|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least square Mean|138.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|121.59|157.65||||||||157.65|121.59|
91085473|NCT03492437|182053774|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|1.0||||||||1.0|-0.3|
90956850|NCT02349425|181793328|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.0811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||0.1|-1.4|0.0811
91085474|NCT02418234|182053785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
91085475|NCT02418234|182053786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91085476|NCT04534517|182053787|SUPERIORITY|The superiority of the Test lens was concluded if the lower credible limit of the mean was above the pre-defined threshold 32 points|Mean Estimate|58.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.26|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.3|64.9|||Bayesian multivariate random-effects||Included Hyperope group only|It was calculated that 60 participants would have \> 99% power to for the mean CLUE vision scores for each sphere stratum to be above the hypothesis threshold at the 2-week follow-up. Sample size was determined using one sample means test for equivalence||64.9|52.3|
91085477|NCT04534517|182053787|SUPERIORITY|The superiority of the Test lens was concluded if the lower credible limit of the mean was above the pre-defined threshold 40 points for Myopes|Mean Estimate|63.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.97|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.9|69.6|||Bayesian multivariate random-effects||Included myope group only.|It was calculated that 60 participants would have \> 99% power to for the mean CLUE vision scores for each sphere stratum to be above the hypothesis threshold at the 2-week follow-up. Sample size was determined using one sample means test for equivalence||69.6|57.9|
91085478|NCT04534517|182053788|SUPERIORITY|The superiority of the Test lens was concluded if the upper credible limit of the mean was below the pre-defined threshold +0.10 logMAR for Distance|Mean estimate|-0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0172|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.125|-0.057|||Bayesian normal random-effects model|Repeated Measures||It was calculated that 60 participants would have \> 99% power to for the mean visual performance at each distance to be below the hypothesis threshold at the 2-week follow-up. Sample size was determined using one sample means test for equivalence||-0.057|-0.125|
91085479|NCT04534517|182053788|SUPERIORITY|The superiority of the Test lens was concluded if the upper credible limit of the mean was below the pre-defined threshold +0.17 logMAR for Intermediate|Mean Estimate|-0.057|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0171|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.091|-0.024|||Bayesian normal random-effects model|Repeated Measures||It was calculated that 60 participants would have \> 99% power to for the mean visual performance at each distance to be below the hypothesis threshold at the 2-week follow-up. Sample size was determined using one sample means test for equivalence||-0.024|-0.091|
91085480|NCT04534517|182053788|SUPERIORITY|The superiority of the Test lens was concluded if the upper credible limit of the mean was below the pre-defined threshold +0.17 logMAR for Near|Mean Estimate|0.066|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0171|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.031|0.098|||Bayesian normal random-effects model|Repeated Measures||It was calculated that 60 participants would have \> 99% power to for the mean visual performance at each distance to be below the hypothesis threshold at the 2-week follow-up. Sample size was determined using one sample means test for equivalence||0.098|0.031|
91085481|NCT04534517|182053789|SUPERIORITY|A superiority margin of 5% was used. Upper limit of 95% credible interval was compared to 5%.|Mean Proportion|0.001|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0012|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.004|||Bayesian beta-binomial model|Correlated Binary Data||||0.004|0.000|
91085482|NCT04534517|182053790|SUPERIORITY|A superiority margin of 5% was used. Upper limit of the 95% credible interval was compared to 5%|Mean Proportion|0.005|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0048|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.018|||Bayesian beta-binomial model|Correlated Binary Data||||0.018|0.000|
91085483|NCT04534517|182053791|SUPERIORITY|A superiority margin of 90% was used. Lower limit of the 95% credible interval was compared to 90%|Mean Proportion|0.992|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0072|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.973|0.999|||Bayesian beta-binomial model|Correlated Binary Data||||0.999|0.973|
91085484|NCT02121795|182053792|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was assessed using a conventional 95.002% confidence interval (CI) approach, with a noninferiority margin of 10%.|Percentage difference|1.3||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.002|-2.5|5.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by third agent.|Difference in percentages of virologic success between treatment groups and its 95.002% CI were calculated based on the Mantel-Haenszel (MH) proportions adjusted by the third agent stratum.|||5.1|-2.5|0.5
91085485|NCT00823264|182053802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.049
91085486|NCT00572455|182053826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|3.02||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.78|5.25|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||5.25|0.78|0.028
91085487|NCT00572455|182053826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|4.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.5|6.96|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||6.96|2.50|<0.001
91085488|NCT00572455|182053826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|6.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.33|8.79|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||8.79|4.33|<0.001
91085489|NCT00572455|182053826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|5.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.6|7.95|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||7.95|3.60|<0.001
90956851|NCT02349425|181793328|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.0097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||-0.3|-2.2|0.0097
91085490|NCT00572455|182053826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|5.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.74|7.37|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||7.37|2.74|<0.001
91085491|NCT00572455|182053826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|6.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.79|8.25|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||8.25|3.79|<0.001
91085492|NCT00572455|182053827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.06||||0.171|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.21|2.32|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||2.32|-0.21|0.171
91085493|NCT00572455|182053827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.45||||0.553|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8|1.7|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||1.70|-0.80|0.553
91085494|NCT00572455|182053827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.45||||0.555|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8|1.7|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||1.70|-0.80|0.555
91085495|NCT00572455|182053827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.48||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.22|2.73|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||2.73|0.22|0.053
91085496|NCT00572455|182053827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.29|3.8|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||3.80|1.29|<0.001
91085497|NCT00572455|182053827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.81||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.56|3.07|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to Latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||3.07|0.56|0.018
91085498|NCT00572455|182053831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|3.62||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.34|5.9|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 1 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||5.90|1.34|0.011
91085499|NCT00572455|182053831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|4.19||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.91|6.47|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 1 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||6.47|1.91|0.004
91085500|NCT00572455|182053831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|6.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.19|8.75|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 1 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||8.75|4.19|<0.001
91085501|NCT00572455|182053831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|5.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.11|7.54|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 1 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||7.54|3.11|<0.001
91022068|NCT01677910|181927804|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.283|-0.337|||Wilcoxon rank sum||Mean difference is calculated as LX1606-Placebo|Primary analysis used a blocked 2-sample Wilcoxon rank sum statistic stratified by the urinary 5-HIAA stratification at randomization.||-0.337|-1.283|< 0.001
91022069|NCT01677910|181927804|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.833|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.292|-0.374|||Wilcoxon rank sum||Mean difference is calculated as LX1606-Placebo|Primary analysis used a blocked 2-sample Wilcoxon rank sum statistic stratified by the urinary 5-HIAA stratification at randomization.||-0.374|-1.292|< 0.001
91022070|NCT01170364|181927824|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.004|||||||paired sample t-test, two tailed|||||||<0.004
91022071|NCT04132232|181927825|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.06
91022072|NCT00368537|181927828|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A 2-sided 95% CI (corrected for continuity) was calculated for the true difference between the cure rates. Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided CI is greater than -15%.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||||95.0|-8.7|8.6|||||Confidence interval calculated using asymptotic method corrected for continuity. Difference= Tigecycline minus Ampicillin-Sulbactam or Amoxicillin-Clavulanate.|||8.6|-8.7|
91022073|NCT00368537|181927829|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A 2-sided 95% CI (corrected for continuity) was calculated for the true difference between the cure rates. Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided CI is greater than -15%.|Risk Difference (RD)|2.2||||||95.0|-9.6|14.0|||||Confidence interval calculated using asymptotic method corrected for continuity. Difference= Tigecycline minus Ampicillin-Sulbactam or Amoxicillin-Clavulanate.|||14.0|-9.6|
91022074|NCT00368537|181927830|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A 2-sided 95% CI (corrected for continuity) was calculated for the true difference between the cure rates. Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided CI is greater than -15%.|Risk Difference (RD)|2.4||||||95.0|-9.6|14.4|||||Confidence interval calculated using asymptotic method corrected for continuity. Difference= Tigecycline minus Ampicillin-Sulbactam or Amoxicillin-Clavulanate.|Group comparison of eradication + presumed eradication||14.4|-9.6|
91022075|NCT00368537|181927832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.2||||0.444||95.0|-4.4|2.0|||Fisher Exact|2-sided||Intensive care unit||2.0|-4.4|0.444
91022076|NCT01368276|181927837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|-42.9||||0.2645|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive|Fisher Exact||Talimogene laherparepvec - GM-CSF|||||0.2645
90893740|NCT00981084|181652591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.1||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||We used a crossover design to exame whether a single dose of armodafinil would improve cognition in MS. For hypothesis testing analyses, we used a statistical approach that accounts for period (session) effects. We subtracted session 2 performance from session 1 performance on the BVMT delay, yielding a difference score. we conducted an independent samples t test with treatment order as the independent variable (A/P vs. P/A) and the difference score as the dependent variable.||||= .10
91022077|NCT01368276|181927838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|-1.2||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.3|54.9||Descriptive|Fisher Exact||Talimogene laherparepvec - GM-CSF|||54.9|-57.3|1.0000
91022078|NCT01427920|181927847|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for subject-driven vs. investigator driven titration would be concluded if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI was below or equal to 0.4%.|Estimated treatment difference, Mean|0.25||||||95.0|0.04|0.46|||Regression, Linear|Model includes treatment, strata and region as factors and relevant baseline HbA1c as covariate.||FAS||0.46|0.04|
91022079|NCT01427920|181927848|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for subject-driven vs. investigator driven titration would be concluded if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI was below or equal to 0.4%.|Estimated treatment difference, Mean|0.26||||||95.0|0.05|0.48|||Regression, Linear|Model includes treatment, strata and region as factors and relevant baseline HbA1c as covariate.||PP||0.48|0.05|
91022080|NCT01427920|181927849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference, Mean|0.13||||0.659||95.0|-0.44|0.69|||Regression, Linear|Model includes treatment, strata and region as factors and relevant baseline FPG as covariate.||H0: D = 0.0% against HA: D ≠ 0.0%, where D is the mean treatment difference (subject-driven titration minus investigator-driven titration).||0.69|-0.44|0.659
91032453|NCT03247556|181949593|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08||0.0432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||||-0.1|-4.3|0.0432
91032454|NCT03247556|181949594|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1433|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 1||||0.1433
91032455|NCT03247556|181949594|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0114|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 2||||0.0114
91032456|NCT03247556|181949594|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0008|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 3||||0.0008
91032457|NCT03247556|181949594|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0197|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 4||||0.0197
91032458|NCT03247556|181949594|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0573|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 5||||0.0573
91032459|NCT03247556|181949594|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0105|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 6||||0.0105
91032460|NCT03247556|181949594|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 7||||0.0004
91032461|NCT03247556|181949594|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2573|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 1||||0.2573
91032462|NCT03247556|181949594|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.165|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 2||||0.1650
91032463|NCT03247556|181949594|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0372|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 3||||0.0372
91032464|NCT03247556|181949594|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1711|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 4||||0.1711
91032465|NCT03247556|181949594|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1428|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 5||||0.1428
91032466|NCT03247556|181949594|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2148|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 6||||0.2148
91032467|NCT03247556|181949594|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0662|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 7||||0.0662
91077921|NCT02913105|182041137|OTHER|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.96||||0.4928|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|1.06|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||LDL Cholesterol Friedwald: Day 56||1.06|0.87|0.4928
91085502|NCT00572455|182053831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|6.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.66|8.33|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 1 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||8.33|3.66|<0.001
91085503|NCT00572455|182053831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|5.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.52|8.08|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 1 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||8.08|3.52|<0.001
91085504|NCT00572455|182053831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.44||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.14|5.02|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||5.02|-0.14|0.120
91085505|NCT00572455|182053831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|4.55||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.97|7.14|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||7.14|1.97|0.005
91085506|NCT00572455|182053831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|6.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.58|8.75|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||8.75|3.58|<0.001
91085507|NCT00572455|182053831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|6.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.52|8.54|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||8.54|3.52|<0.001
91085508|NCT00572455|182053831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|7.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.66|9.95|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||9.95|4.66|<0.001
91085509|NCT00572455|182053831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|5.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.91|8.08|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its Vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||8.08|2.91|<0.001
91085510|NCT00572455|182053831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|4.04||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.56|6.53|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 10 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||6.53|1.56|0.009
91085511|NCT00572455|182053831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|7.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.49|9.5|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 10 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||9.50|4.49|<0.001
91085512|NCT00572455|182053831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|7.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.11|10.11|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 10 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||10.11|5.11|<0.001
91085513|NCT00572455|182053831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|7.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.64|9.53|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 10 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||9.53|4.64|<0.001
91085514|NCT00572455|182053831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|6.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.4|8.62|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 10 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||8.62|3.40|<0.001
91085515|NCT00572455|182053831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|8.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.11|11.3|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 10 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||11.30|6.11|<0.001
91085516|NCT00572455|182053831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.66||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.29|5.02|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 1 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||5.02|0.29|0.066
91085517|NCT00572455|182053831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|4.13||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.76|6.5|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 1 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||6.50|1.76|0.006
91085518|NCT00572455|182053831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|6.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.76|8.49|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 1 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||8.49|3.76|<0.001
91085519|NCT00572455|182053831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|5.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.51|8.11|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 1 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||8.11|3.51|<0.001
91085520|NCT00572455|182053831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|4.02||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.53|6.5|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 1 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||6.50|1.53|0.010
91085521|NCT00572455|182053831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|5.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.03|7.93|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 1 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||7.93|3.03|<0.001
91085522|NCT00572455|182053831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|4.55||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.91|7.19|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 4 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||7.19|1.91|0.006
91085523|NCT00572455|182053831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|5.3||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.66|7.94|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 4 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||7.94|2.66|0.002
91085524|NCT00572455|182053831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|7.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.87|10.16|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 4 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||10.16|4.87|<0.001
91085525|NCT00572455|182053831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|9.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.57|11.71|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 4 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||11.71|6.57|<0.001
91085526|NCT00572455|182053831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|5.69||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.94|8.44|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 4 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||8.44|2.94|0.002
91085527|NCT00572455|182053831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|6.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.16|9.62|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 4 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||9.62|4.16|<0.001
91085528|NCT00572455|182053831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.83||||0.269|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.91|4.58|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||4.58|-0.91|0.269
91085529|NCT00572455|182053831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|4.49||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.75|7.24|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||7.24|1.75|0.009
91085530|NCT00572455|182053831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|6.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.08|9.57|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||9.57|4.08|<0.001
91085531|NCT00572455|182053831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|6.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.52|8.84|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||8.84|3.52|<0.001
91085532|NCT00572455|182053831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|5.52||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.71|8.33|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||8.33|2.71|0.002
91085533|NCT00572455|182053831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|6.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.01|9.5|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||9.50|4.01|<0.001
91085534|NCT00572455|182053831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|3.36||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|5.76|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 10 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||5.76|0.95|0.024
91085535|NCT00572455|182053831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|5.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.82|7.66|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 10 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||7.66|2.82|<0.001
91085536|NCT00572455|182053831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|6.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.23|9.06|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 10 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||9.06|4.23|<0.001
91085537|NCT00572455|182053831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|5.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.87|7.58|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 10 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||7.58|2.87|<0.001
91085538|NCT00572455|182053831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|3.88||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.39|6.37|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 10 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||6.37|1.39|0.012
91085539|NCT00572455|182053831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|6.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.48|9.48|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 10 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||9.48|4.48|<0.001
91085540|NCT00572455|182053831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|4.41||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.11|6.72|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 1 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||6.72|2.11|0.003
91085541|NCT00572455|182053831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|5.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.72|7.33|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 1 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||7.33|2.72|<0.001
91085542|NCT00572455|182053831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|6.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.27|8.88|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 1 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||8.88|4.27|<0.001
91085543|NCT00572455|182053831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|5.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.31|7.78|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 1 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||7.78|3.31|<0.001
91085544|NCT00572455|182053831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|4.44||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.06|6.82|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 1 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||6.82|2.06|0.003
91022081|NCT03341273|181927854|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is 12.5%. Non-inferiority of placebo is concluded if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the difference in proportions of clinical improvement is greater than -12.5%.|Risk Difference (RD)|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|2.0||The null hypothesis was evaluated using a non-inferiority test and non-inferiority of placebo was concluded if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the difference in proportions of clinical improvement was greater than -12.5%.|||Multiple imputation with a linear model to impute missing clinical values of improvement. The study day that D5V occurred on was included as a covariate in the final model and the estimates for risk difference assume that study day of D5V is 5.|Null Hypothesis: Proportion in placebo - Proportion in azithromycin = -12.5%||2|-15|
91022082|NCT03341273|181927855|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is 12.5%. Non-inferiority of placebo is concluded if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the difference in proportions of clinical improvement is greater than -12.5%.|Risk Difference (RD)|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|3.0||The null hypothesis was evaluated using a non-inferiority test and non-inferiority of placebo was concluded if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the difference in proportions of clinical improvement was greater than -12.5%.|||Multiple imputation with a linear model to impute missing clinical values of improvement. The study day that D11V occurred on was included as a covariate in the final model and the estimates for risk difference assume that study day of D11V is 11.|Null Hypothesis: Proportion in placebo - Proportion in azithromycin = -12.5%||3|-12|
91022083|NCT03341273|181927856|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is 12.5%. Non-inferiority of placebo is concluded if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the difference in proportions of clinical improvement is greater than -12.5%.|Risk Difference (RD)|-7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|0.0||The null hypothesis was evaluated using a non-inferiority test and non-inferiority of placebo was concluded if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the difference in proportions of clinical improvement was greater than -12.5%.|||Multiple imputation with a linear model to impute missing clinical values of improvement. The study day that D11V occurred on was included as a covariate in the final model and the estimates for risk difference assume that study day of D28V is 28.|Null Hypothesis: Proportion in placebo - Proportion in azithromycin = -12.5%||0|-13|
91022084|NCT03341273|181927857|SUPERIORITY|DOOR is a composite endpoint created using clinical outcomes from Day 1 through Day 5 Visit. It is based on adequate clinical improvement at Day 5 Visit and solicited events from Day 1 through Day 5 Visit.|Pr(Higher DOOR in Placebo at Day 5 Visit|0.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.68||Missing DOOR values at Day 5 Visit were first imputed using linear regression using baseline covariates and available DOOR components as covariates.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|The Mann-Whitney test was run on the multiple imputed datasets to generate estimates of DOOR probability and p-value||Null: The sum of the probability that a participant assigned to placebo will have a higher DOOR at Day 5 visit than if assigned to the Azithromycin plus one-half the probability of equal DOORs at Day 5 Visit is 50% (i.e., no difference in DOOR at Day 5 Visit).||0.68|0.57|<0.001
91022085|NCT01717456|181927879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.72||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.05
91022086|NCT00755937|181927928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage (no inferential test)|66.3||||||||||There were no comparisons between groups as this was a single-arm observational study.||||||||
91022087|NCT00755937|181927929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage (no inferential test)|72.5||||||||||There were no comparisons between groups as this was a single-arm observational study.||||||||
91022088|NCT00755937|181927930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage (no inferential test)|72.1||||||||||There were no comparisons between groups as this was a single-arm observational study.||||||||
91022089|NCT00755937|181927931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage (no inferential test)|60.3||||||||||There were no comparisons between groups as this was a single-arm observational study.||||||||
91022090|NCT00755937|181927932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage (no inferential test)|64.8||||||||||There were no comparisons between groups as this was a single-arm observational study.||||||||
91022091|NCT00755937|181927933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage (no inferential test)|72.1||||||||||There were no comparisons between groups as this was a single-arm observational study.||||||||
91022092|NCT03547531|181927941|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|independent t-test||Null hypothesis: the mean of plaque index between groups are not different|the statistical analysis used in this study is independent t-test|||>0.05
91022093|NCT03547531|181927942|OTHER|this data is analyzed using independent t-test|||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||null hypotesis: there is no difference of mean of gingival index between groups|this data is analyzed using independent t-test|||>0.05
91022094|NCT03547531|181927943|OTHER|this data is analyzed using independent t-test|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||null hypotesis: there is no difference of mean of plaque index between groups|this data is analyzed using independent t-test|||<0.05
91085545|NCT00572455|182053831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|7.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.7|9.47|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 1 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||9.47|4.70|<0.001
90956852|NCT02349425|181793328|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||-0.6|-2.6|0.0025
91022095|NCT03547531|181927944|OTHER|this data is analyzed using independent t-test|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||null hypotesis: there is no difference of mean of gingival index between groups|this data is analyzed using independent t-test|||<0.05
91022096|NCT02117479|181927952|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.969|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.747|1.256||||||||1.256|0.747|
91022097|NCT02117479|181927953|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.056|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.827|1.348||||||||1.348|0.827|
91022098|NCT01223196|181927991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Mann-Whitney test was used to test differences in M/I. Statistical Analysis applies to (M/I) between Pioglitazone and Placebo after 6 months.||Mann-Whitney test was used to test differences in whole body insulin sensitivity (M/I) between groups. Treatment-induced changes were examined by Wilcoxon's rank test. Data were analyzed using SPSS 20 (Statistical Package for Social Sciences 20), Chicago, IL, USA).||||0.04
91022099|NCT01223196|181927991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Mann-Whitney test was used to test differences in whole body insulin sensitivity (M/I) between groups.||||||0.05
90956853|NCT02349425|181793328|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||-0.5|-2.8|0.0050
90956854|NCT02349425|181793329|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.0506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||0.0|-1.4|0.0506
90956855|NCT02349425|181793329|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.0447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||-0.0|-1.7|0.0447
91022100|NCT01223196|181927992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Mann-Whitney test was used to test differences in TACE activity in skeletal muscle between groups.||Mann-Whitney test was used to test differences in TACE activity in skeletal muscle between groups. Treatment-induced changes were examined by Wilcoxon's rank test. Data were analyzed using SPSS 20 (Statistical Package for Social Sciences, Chicago, IL, USA).||||<0.05
91022101|NCT01223196|181927992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Statistical Analysis applies toTNF (Tumor Necrosis Factor) alpha converting enzyme (TACE) activity between Pioglitazone and Placebo after 6 months.||Statistical analysis 2 also used 2-sided t-test similar to Statistical analysis -1||||<0.05
91022102|NCT01223196|181927993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Mann-Whitney test was used to test differences in Heamoglobin A1c between groups.||Mann-Whitney test was used to test differences Haemoglobin A1C between groups. Treatment-induced changes were examined by Wilcoxon's rank test. Data were analyzed using SPSS 20 (Statistical Package for Social Sciences, Chicago, IL, USA).||||<0.05
91022103|NCT02629133|181927994|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.560
91022104|NCT02629133|181927994|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Differences between conditions in the change in % heavy drinking/using days from baseline to 6 months||||0.760
91022105|NCT02629133|181927995|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.026|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.026
90829482|NCT02365649|181533427|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-25.0||||0.181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.2|9.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 28||9.2|-59.2|0.181
90829483|NCT02365649|181533427|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|25.0||||0.281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|44.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 36||44.0|6.0|0.281
90956856|NCT02349425|181793329|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||-0.5|-2.2|0.0026
90956857|NCT02349425|181793329|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.0405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||-0.0|-2.2|0.0405
91022106|NCT02629133|181927995|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Distributions were badly skewed, and the sample was too small for ZINB or other analyses. Therefore, we analyzed differences between conditions in changes in services/day over time (i.e., from baseline to 6 month post-shelter follow-up) using the Mann-Whitney U.||||0.029
91022107|NCT02629133|181927996|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.5||||0.325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|13.5||We used hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) to predict 3-mo and 6-mo post-shelter scores from treatment condition, using baseline score as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||13.5|-4.5|0.325
91022108|NCT02629133|181927997|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.19||||0.192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|2.98||We used HLM to predict Cyber-Stalking Scores across 3 and 6 month post shelter follow-up points from treatment condition, using baseline score as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||Higher scores represent more cyber-stalking over follow-up.|||2.98|-0.61|0.192
91085546|NCT00572455|182053831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.41||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.02|4.84|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 4 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||4.84|-0.02|0.103
91085547|NCT00572455|182053831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|3.75||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.32|6.18|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 4 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||6.18|1.32|0.013
90956858|NCT02349425|181793330|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.88|5.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||5.80|1.88|<0.001
91085548|NCT00572455|182053831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|5.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.53|8.39|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 4 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||8.39|3.53|<0.001
91085549|NCT00572455|182053831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|5.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.5|8.23|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 4 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||8.23|3.50|<0.001
91085550|NCT00572455|182053831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|5.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.18|8.11|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 4 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||8.11|3.18|<0.001
91085551|NCT00572455|182053831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|5.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.46|8.48|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 4 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||8.48|3.46|<0.001
91085552|NCT00572455|182053833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.72||||0.377|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.63|2.08|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 1 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||2.08|-0.63|0.377
91085553|NCT00572455|182053833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.68||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.01|-0.35|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 1 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||-0.35|-3.01|0.039
91085554|NCT00572455|182053833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.34||||0.668|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.67|0.98|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 1 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||0.98|-1.67|0.668
90829484|NCT02365649|181533427|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.5|28.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 36||28.5|-28.5|1.000
90829485|NCT02365649|181533427|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-25.0||||0.231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.3|11.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 36||11.3|-61.3|0.231
91085555|NCT00572455|182053833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.26||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.07|2.59|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 1 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||2.59|-0.07|0.121
90829486|NCT02365649|181533427|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|37.5||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.8|69.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5). Prespecified significance at the 0.1 level.|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 44||69.2|5.8|0.099
90956859|NCT02349425|181793330|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|5.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||5.38|1.66|<0.001
91085556|NCT00572455|182053833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.67||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.34|2.99|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 1 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||2.99|0.34|0.039
91085557|NCT00572455|182053833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.99||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.34|2.31|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 1 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||2.31|-0.34|0.220
91085558|NCT00572455|182053833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.3||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.01|2.59|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||2.59|0.01|0.098
91085559|NCT00572455|182053833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.5||||0.519|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.77|1.77|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||1.77|-0.77|0.519
91085560|NCT00572455|182053833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.27||||0.724|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|1.55|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||1.55|-1.00|0.724
91085561|NCT00572455|182053833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.46||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.19|2.74|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||2.74|0.19|0.059
91085562|NCT00572455|182053833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.43|3.98|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||3.98|1.43|<0.001
91085563|NCT00572455|182053833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.09||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.82|3.37|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||3.37|0.82|0.008
91085564|NCT00572455|182053833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.32||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.13|2.51|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 10 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||2.51|0.13|0.068
91085565|NCT00572455|182053833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.01||||0.994|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.16|1.18|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 10 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||1.18|-1.16|0.994
91085566|NCT00572455|182053833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.5||||0.494|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|1.69|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 10 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||1.69|-0.70|0.494
91085567|NCT00572455|182053833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.39||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.16|2.62|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 10 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||2.62|0.16|0.063
91085568|NCT00572455|182053833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.15||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|3.34|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 10 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||3.34|0.95|0.004
91085569|NCT00572455|182053833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.17||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|3.38|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 10 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||3.38|0.97|0.004
91022109|NCT02629133|181927998|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.43||||0.119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.24|0.38||We conducted HLM predicting SBC Total scores at 3 and 6 months post-shelter release from treatment condition, using baseline SBC score as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||Higher is better (reflecting more safety behaviors used).|||0.38|-3.24|0.119
91022110|NCT02572427|181928005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.039|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.039
91022111|NCT02572427|181928006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
91022112|NCT00386100|181928025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.669|-0.305||No adjustment for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, gender, and baseline value with LOCF from Week 32 for withdrawn participants or missing values|AVM mean change from baseline minus MET mean change from baseline based on ANCOVA model|||-0.305|-0.669|<0.0001
91085570|NCT00572455|182053833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.55||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.32|2.77|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 1 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||2.77|0.32|0.038
91085571|NCT00572455|182053833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.48||||0.512|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.72|1.68|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 1 PM : Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||1.68|-0.72|0.512
91085572|NCT00572455|182053833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.66||||0.373|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.56|1.89|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 1 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||1.89|-0.56|0.373
91085573|NCT00572455|182053833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.31||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.05|2.56|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 1 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||2.56|0.05|0.088
91085574|NCT00572455|182053833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.21||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|3.44|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 1 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||3.44|0.98|0.004
91085575|NCT00572455|182053833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.33||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.09|3.57|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 1 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||3.57|1.09|0.003
91085576|NCT00572455|182053833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.87||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|3.04|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 4 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||3.04|0.69|0.010
91085577|NCT00572455|182053833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.89||||0.205|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.27|2.05|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 4 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||2.05|-0.27|0.205
91085578|NCT00572455|182053833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.44||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.26|2.63|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 4 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||2.63|0.26|0.045
91085579|NCT00572455|182053833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.09||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|3.31|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 4 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||3.31|0.88|0.005
91085580|NCT00572455|182053833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.33|3.7|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 4 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||3.70|1.33|<0.001
91085581|NCT00572455|182053833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.29||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1|3.48|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 4 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||3.48|1.10|0.002
91085582|NCT00572455|182053833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.27||||0.757|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.15|1.69|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||1.69|-1.15|0.757
91085583|NCT00572455|182053833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.13||||0.878|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.54|1.27|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||1.27|-1.54|0.878
91085584|NCT00572455|182053833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.24||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.64|1.17|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||1.17|-1.64|0.780
91085585|NCT00572455|182053833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.36||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.04|1.77|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||1.77|-1.04|0.670
91085586|NCT00572455|182053833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.98||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.58|3.38|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||3.38|0.58|0.021
91085587|NCT00572455|182053833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.31||||0.126|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|2.71|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||2.71|-0.10|0.126
91085588|NCT00572455|182053833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.97||||0.215|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.32|2.26|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 10 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||2.26|-0.32|0.215
91085589|NCT00572455|182053833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.37||||0.635|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.65|0.91|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 10 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||0.91|-1.65|0.635
91085590|NCT00572455|182053833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.06||||0.934|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.35|1.22|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 10 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||1.22|-1.35|0.934
91085591|NCT00572455|182053833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.56||||0.478|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.74|1.87|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 10 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||1.87|-0.74|0.478
91085592|NCT00572455|182053833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.57||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.26|3.87|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 10 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||3.87|1.26|0.002
91085593|NCT00572455|182053833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.99||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.68|3.3|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 10 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||3.30|0.68|0.013
90893741|NCT00981084|181652592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||We used a crossover design to exame whether a single dose of armodafinil would improve cognition in MS. For hypothesis testing analyses, we used a statistical approach that accounts for period (session) effects. We subtracted session 2 performance from session 1 performance on the CPT, yielding a difference score. we conducted an independent samples t test with treatment order as the independent variable (A/P vs. P/A) and the difference score as the dependent variable.||||.33
91085594|NCT00572455|182053833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.27||||0.736|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.04|1.57|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 1 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||1.57|-1.04|0.736
91085595|NCT00572455|182053833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.68||||0.386|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.96|0.61|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 1 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||0.61|-1.96|0.386
91085596|NCT00572455|182053833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.05||||0.948|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.35|1.24|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 1 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||1.24|-1.35|0.948
90956860|NCT02349425|181793331|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.6||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.2|1.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||1.9|-23.2|0.096
91085597|NCT00572455|182053833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.09||||0.908|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.41|1.22|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 1 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||1.22|-1.41|0.908
91085598|NCT00572455|182053833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.97||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.65|3.28|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 1 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||3.28|0.65|0.015
91085599|NCT00572455|182053833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.6||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.29|2.92|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 1 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||2.92|0.29|0.046
91085600|NCT00572455|182053833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.6||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.31|2.89|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 4 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||2.89|0.31|0.042
91085601|NCT00572455|182053833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.06||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.22|1.34|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 4 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||1.34|-1.22|0.940
91085602|NCT00572455|182053833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.24||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.05|2.53|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 4 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||2.53|-0.05|0.114
91085603|NCT00572455|182053833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.97||||0.228|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.35|2.28|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 4 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||2.28|-0.35|0.228
91085604|NCT00572455|182053833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.29||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|3.6|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 4 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||3.60|0.98|0.005
91085605|NCT00572455|182053833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.48||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.17|2.79|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 4 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||2.79|0.17|0.063
91085606|NCT00572455|182053833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.5||||0.562|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.92|1.91|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 28 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||1.91|-0.92|0.562
91085607|NCT00572455|182053833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.67||||0.431|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.73|2.07|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 28 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||2.07|-0.73|0.431
91085608|NCT00572455|182053833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.22||||0.795|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.18|1.62|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 28 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||1.62|-1.18|0.795
91085609|NCT00572455|182053833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.83||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.43|3.23|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 28 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||3.23|0.43|0.032
90956861|NCT02349425|181793331|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.0||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.6|-6.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||-6.3|-33.6|0.005
90956862|NCT02349425|181793331|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.7|-11.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||-11.6|-40.7|<0.001
91085610|NCT00572455|182053833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.73||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.34|4.13|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 28 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||4.13|1.34|0.002
91085611|NCT00572455|182053833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.04||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.64|3.44|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 28 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||3.44|0.64|0.017
91085612|NCT00572455|182053833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.26||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.09|2.6|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 28 10 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||2.60|-0.09|0.124
91085613|NCT00572455|182053833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.08||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.25|1.41|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 28 10 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||1.41|-1.25|0.920
91085614|NCT00572455|182053833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.12||||0.887|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.46|1.22|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 28 10 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||1.22|-1.46|0.887
91085615|NCT00572455|182053833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.42||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.08|2.77|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 28 10 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||2.77|0.08|0.083
90956863|NCT02349425|181793331|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-33.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.4|-19.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||-19.1|-48.4|<0.001
91022113|NCT00386100|181928026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.3||No adjustment for multiple comparisons|Repeated measures analysis|Repeated measures analysis with terms for baseline, region, treatment, gender, time, and treatment by time interaction|AVM mean change from baseline minus MET mean change from baseline based on repeated measures analysis model|||-0.30|-0.69|<0.0001
91022114|NCT00386100|181928027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|2.46||Hb1AC \<= 6.5%|Regression, Logistic|Logistic reggression with terms for treatment, region, gender, and baseline Hb1AC with LOCF from Week 32.|Odds of having an HbA1c \<= 6.5% at Week 80 on Avandamet compared to Metformin.|||2.46|1.18|0.0046
91022115|NCT00386100|181928027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.75|3.81||Hb1AC \< 7%|Regression, Logistic|Logistic reggression with terms for treatment, region, gender, and baseline Hb1AC with LOCF from Week 32|Odds of having an HbA1c \<7% at Week 80 on Avandamet compared to Metformin|||3.81|1.75|<0.0001
91022116|NCT00386100|181928028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.15|||<|0.0001||95.0|-1.54|-0.77|||Repeated measures analysis|Terms for baseline, region, treatment, pre-screening Hb1Ac strata, gender, time, and treatment by time interaction|AVM mean change from baseline minus MET mean change from baseline based on repeated measures analysis model|||-0.77|-1.54|<0.0001
91022117|NCT00386100|181928029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-1.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.425|-0.71||No adjustment for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment, region, gender, pre-screening Hb1Ac strata, and baseline with LOCF from Week 32 for withdrawn participants or missing values|AVM mean change from baseline minus MET mean change from baseline based on ANCOVA model|||-0.710|-1.425|<0.001
91022118|NCT00386100|181928030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.94|6.81||FPG \<=6.1 mmol/l|Regression, Logistic|Terms for treatment, region, gender, pre-screening Hb1Ac strata, and baseline with LOCF from Week 32.|Odds of having an FPG \<=6.1 mmol/l at Week 80 on Avandamet compared to Metformin|||6.81|2.94|<0.0001
91022119|NCT00386100|181928030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.25|4.92||FPG \<=7 mmol/l|Regression, Logistic|Terms for treatment, region, gender, pre-screening Hb1Ac, and baseline with LOCF from Week 32.|Odds of having an FPG \<=7 mmol/l at Week 80 on Avandamet compared to Metformin|||4.92|2.25|<0.0001
91022120|NCT00386100|181928031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.74|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional hazard regression with terms for treatment, region, baseline Hb1Ac strata, and gender||||0.74|0.45|<0.0001
91022121|NCT00386100|181928032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|5.97||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.522|9.526||Total cholesterol. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Log transformed|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with log (value) minus log (baseline \[BL\]) as dependent variable. Terms for treatment, region, gender, pre-screening HbA1c strata, and log (BL)||||9.526|2.522|0.0006
91022122|NCT00386100|181928032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|8.71||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.486|15.304||LDL cholesterol. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Log transformed|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with log (value) minus log (baseline \[BL\]) as dependent variable. Terms for treatment, region, gender, pre-screening HbA1c strata, and log (BL)||||15.304|2.486|0.056
91022123|NCT00386100|181928032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|2.58||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.232|5.47||HDL cholesterol. No adjustment for multiple comparison. Log transformed.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with log (value) minus log (baseline \[BL\]) as dependent variable. Terms for treatment, region, gender, pre-screening HbA1c strata, and log (BL)||||5.470|-0.232|0.072
91022124|NCT00386100|181928032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|0.743||||0.835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.056|8.035||Triglycerides. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Log transformed.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with log (value) minus log (baseline \[BL\]) as dependent variable. Terms for treatment, region, gender, pre-screening HbA1c strata, and log (BL)||||8.035|-6.056|0.835
91022125|NCT00386100|181928033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|102.24|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|79.23|128.19||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Log transformed.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with log (value) minus log (baseline \[BL\]) as dependent variable. Terms for treatment, region, gender, pre-screening HbA1c strata, and log (BL)||||128.19|79.23|<0.0001
91022126|NCT00386100|181928034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|-8.2||||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.04|2.82||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Log transformed.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with log (value) minus log (baseline \[BL\]) as dependent variable. Terms for treatment, region, gender, pre-screening HbA1c strata, and log (BL)||||2.82|-18.04|0.1380
91022127|NCT00386100|181928035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|-11.308||||0.0342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.617|-0.899||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Log transformed.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with log (value) minus log (baseline \[BL\]) as dependent variable. Terms for treatment, region, gender, pre-screening HbA1c strata, and log (BL)||||-0.899|-20.617|0.0342
91085616|NCT00572455|182053833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.65||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.29|4.01|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 28 10 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||4.01|1.29|0.002
90956864|NCT02349425|181793332|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.4||||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.1|6.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||6.2|-19.1|0.311
90956865|NCT02349425|181793332|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.4||||0.232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|4.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||4.9|-19.7|0.232
91085617|NCT00572455|182053833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.3||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|3.66|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 28 10 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||3.66|0.94|0.006
91085618|NCT00572455|182053833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.49||||0.533|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8|1.78|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 28 1 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||1.78|-0.80|0.533
91085619|NCT00572455|182053833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.02||||0.985|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.29|1.26|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 28 1 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||1.26|-1.29|0.985
91085620|NCT00572455|182053833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.34||||0.665|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.95|1.62|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 28 1 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||1.62|-0.95|0.665
91085621|NCT00572455|182053833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.86||||0.276|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.44|2.15|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 28 1 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||2.15|-0.44|0.276
91085622|NCT00572455|182053833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.34||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.04|3.65|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 28 1 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||3.65|1.04|0.004
91085623|NCT00572455|182053833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.04||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.74|3.35|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 28 1 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||3.35|0.74|0.011
91085624|NCT00572455|182053833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.78||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.41|3.14|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 28 4 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||3.14|0.41|0.033
91085625|NCT00572455|182053833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.84||||0.302|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|2.19|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 28 4 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||2.19|-0.50|0.302
91085626|NCT00572455|182053833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.94||||0.255|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.42|2.3|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 28 4 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||2.30|-0.42|0.255
91085627|NCT00572455|182053833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.08||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|2.46|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 28 4 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||2.46|-0.30|0.198
91085628|NCT00572455|182053833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.68||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.3|4.06|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 28 4 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||4.06|1.30|0.002
91085629|NCT00572455|182053833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.68||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.3|3.06|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 28 4 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||3.06|0.30|0.046
91085630|NCT01065571|182053843|EQUIVALENCE|Non-parametric analysis of interval to relapse||||||0.046||||||result from log rank test|Log Rank|||Kaplan-Meier life table analysis was performed to compare the two groups. The null hypothesis was that there would be no difference in relapses between the two groups during the study.||||0.046
91085631|NCT01065571|182053844|SUPERIORITY|fecal calprotectin (micrograms/gm stool)||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.06
91085632|NCT01065571|182053845|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||not adjusted for muliple comparisons, a priori threshold of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||paired t-test comparing baseline and value at end of participation||||0.02
91085633|NCT03280056|182053846|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.632|2.798|||Chi-squared|||||2.798|0.632|0.453
91085634|NCT03280056|182053847|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.998||||0.997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.416|2.395|||Chi-squared|||||2.395|0.416|0.997
90893742|NCT00981084|181652593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||We used a crossover design to examine whether a single dose of armodafinil would improve cognition in MS. For hypothesis testing analyses, we used a statistical approach that accounts for period (session) effects. We subtracted session 2 performance from session 1 performance on the Stroop, yielding a difference score. We conducted an independent samples t-test with treatment order as the independent variable (A/P vs. P/A) and the difference score as the dependent variable.||||.37
91085635|NCT03280056|182053848|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.926||0.693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|2.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.20|-1.47|0.693
91085636|NCT03280056|182053849|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.176||0.804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.65|13.72|||ANCOVA|||||13.72|-10.65|0.804
91085637|NCT00397189|182053884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|47.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.3|-6.0|||ANCOVA|||The analysis was a comparison of sleep latency as measured by the sleep diary at Visit 3 in the ITT 65-80 population, using a linear regression model with terms for treatment (Circadin® 2mg vs. Placebo) and baseline sleep latency.||-6|-25.3|<0.05
91085638|NCT00141518|182053909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mean change from baseline|-9.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.5||0.017|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Total Score, Change From Baseline for the Duodopa Naïve group at Month 12 (n=25)||||0.017
91085639|NCT00141518|182053910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mean change from baseline|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.29||0.919|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline for the Duodopa Naïve group at Month 12 (n=25)||||0.919
91085640|NCT00141518|182053911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mean change from baseline|0.18|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.24||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline for the Duodopa Naïve group at Month 12 (n=25)||||0.002
91085641|NCT00141518|182053938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mean change from baseline|-6.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.6||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline for the Duodopa Naïve group at Month 0 (n=27)||||0.001
91085642|NCT00141518|182053938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mean change from baseline|-9.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline for the Duodopa Naïve group at Month 3 (n=23)||||<0.001
91085643|NCT00141518|182053938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mean change from baseline|-5.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.2||0.022|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline for the Duodopa Naïve group at Month 6 (n=24)||||0.022
91085644|NCT00141518|182053938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mean change from baseline|-7.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.6||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline for the Duodopa Naïve group at Month 9 (n=23)||||0.005
91085645|NCT00141518|182053938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mean change from baseline|-5.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.9||0.126|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline for the Duodopa Naïve group at Month 12 (n=23)||||0.126
91085646|NCT00141518|182053938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mean change from baseline|-5.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.3||0.049|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline for the Duodopa Naïve group at Month 18 (n=22)||||0.049
91085647|NCT00141518|182053938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mean change from baseline|-3.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.9||0.203|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline for the Duodopa Naïve group at Month 24 (n=21)||||0.203
91085648|NCT00141518|182053938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mean change from baseline|0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.2||0.733|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline for the Duodopa Naïve group at Month 30 (n=21)||||0.733
91085649|NCT00141518|182053938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mean change from baseline|4.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.3||0.414|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline for the Duodopa Naïve group at Month 36 (n=20)||||0.414
91085650|NCT00141518|182053938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mean change from baseline|2.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.9||0.534|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline for the Duodopa Naïve group at Endpoint (n=27)||||0.534
90956866|NCT02349425|181793332|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.6||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.6|-3.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||-3.6|-27.6|0.012
90956867|NCT02349425|181793332|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.4||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.4|-0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||-0.5|-30.4|0.043
91085651|NCT00141518|182053947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016|||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline to Month 12 for morning scores||||0.016
91085652|NCT00141518|182053947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.188|||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline to Month 12 for day scores||||0.188
91085653|NCT00141518|182053948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline to Month 12 for morning scores||||0.008
91085654|NCT00141518|182053948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.107|||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline to Month 12 for day scores||||0.107
91085655|NCT00141518|182053949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline to Month 12 for morning scores||||0.002
91085656|NCT00141518|182053949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline to Month 12 for day scores||||0.010
91085657|NCT00141518|182053950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048|||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline to Month 12 for morning scores||||0.048
91085658|NCT00141518|182053950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline to Month 12 for day scores||||0.003
91085659|NCT00141518|182053951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline to Month 12 for morning scores||||0.001
91085660|NCT00141518|182053951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline to Month 12 for day scores||||0.003
91085661|NCT00141518|182053952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline to Month 12 for morning scores||||1.000
91085662|NCT00141518|182053952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline to Month 12 for day scores||||0.002
91085663|NCT00141518|182053953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017|||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline to Month 12 for morning scores||||0.017
91085664|NCT00141518|182053953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.191|||||||Wilcoxon tests|||||||0.191
91085665|NCT00141518|182053954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline to Month 12 for morning scores||||0.002
91085666|NCT00141518|182053954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline to Month 12 for day scores||||<0.001
91085667|NCT00141518|182053955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047|||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline to Month 12 for morning scores||||0.047
91085668|NCT00141518|182053955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.847|||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline to Month 12 for day scores||||0.847
91085669|NCT00141518|182053956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline to Month 12 for morning scores||||0.012
91085670|NCT00141518|182053956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035|||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline to Month 12 for day scores||||0.035
91085671|NCT00141518|182053957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.599|||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline to Month 12 for morning scores||||0.599
91085672|NCT00141518|182053957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048|||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline to Month 12 for day scores||||0.048
91085673|NCT00141518|182053958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026|||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline to Month 12 for morning scores||||0.026
91085674|NCT00141518|182053958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.208|||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline to Month 12 for day scores||||0.208
91085675|NCT00141518|182053959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline to Month 12 for morning scores||||0.010
91085676|NCT00141518|182053959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.073|||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline to Month 12 for day scores||||0.073
91085677|NCT00141518|182053960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048|||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline to Month 12 for morning scores||||0.048
91085678|NCT00141518|182053960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline to Month 12 for day scores||||0.030
91085679|NCT00141518|182053961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.208|||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline to Month 12 for morning scores||||0.208
91085680|NCT00141518|182053961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048|||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline to Month 12 for day scores||||0.048
91085681|NCT01411852|182053990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|1.25|||||Adjusted for age (linear spline with knot at 45 years), penetrating vs. blunt or no trauma (1 patient had neither blunt nor penetrating trauma), and Injury Severity Score (ISS). ISS multiply imputed for one patient.|||1.25|0.12|
91085682|NCT01411852|182053991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|-16.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.5|-5.5||||||||-5.5|-26.5|
91085683|NCT01411852|182053992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.76|0.4||||||||0.40|-2.76|
91085684|NCT01411852|182053993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|0.08||||||||0.08|-1.61|
91085685|NCT01411852|182053994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|2.2||||||||2.2|-1.8|
91085686|NCT01411852|182053995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.0||||||||1.0|-0.3|
91022128|NCT00386100|181928036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-33.7||||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.666|-0.99||No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, gender, pre-screening HbA1c strata, and baseline.|AVM mean change from baseline minus MET mean change from baseline based on ANCOVA model|||-0.99|-56.666|0.0042
91022129|NCT00386100|181928037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.229||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.359|-0.099||No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, gender, pre-screening HbA1c strata, and baseline|AVM mean change from baseline minus MET mean change from baseline based on ANCOVA model|||-0.099|-0.359|0.0006
90829487|NCT02365649|181533427|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|31.3||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|60.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5). Prespecified significance at the 0.1 level.|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 44||60.3|2.2|0.052
91085687|NCT01411852|182053996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.5|1.6||||||||1.6|-42.5|
91085688|NCT01411852|182053997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.1||||||||0.10|-0.06|
91085689|NCT01411852|182053998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|-10.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.4|2.0||||||||2.0|-22.4|
91085690|NCT01411852|182053999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|-18.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.2|1.4||||||||1.4|-39.2|
91085691|NCT01411852|182054000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|-10.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.6|8.8||||||||8.8|-29.6|
91085692|NCT01411852|182054001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|-4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|7.8||||||||7.8|-16.6|
91085693|NCT01411852|182054002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|2.1||||||||2.1|-3.8|
91085694|NCT01411852|182054003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|2.4||||||||2.4|-3.6|
91085695|NCT01411852|182054004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|3.1||||||||3.1|-2.9|
91085696|NCT01411852|182054005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.92|||||Adjusted for age (linear spline with knot at 45 years) and Injury Severity Score (ISS). ISS multiply imputed for one patient.|||0.92|0.03|
91085697|NCT01411852|182054006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|19.11|||||Adjusted for age (linear spline with knot at 45 years) and Injury Severity Score (ISS).|||19.11|0.19|
91085698|NCT01411852|182054007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.77|||||Adjusted for age (linear spline with knot at 45 years), penetrating mechanism (yes/no), and ISS (linear).|||1.77|0.22|
91085699|NCT03681184|182054051|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares (LS) Mean|-53.546|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3224|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.314|-44.778||P=1.685E-14|MMRM|||The Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) includes fixed effects of treatment arms (lumasiran vs. placebo) and scheduled visits (months 3, 4, 5, and 6), baseline 24-hour urinary oxalate corrected for BSA as a continuous fixed covariate, and patient as a random effect. The variance-covariance matrix is assumed to be unstructured. Satterthwaite approximation is used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||-44.778|-62.314|<0.0001
91085700|NCT03681184|182054052|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.975|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0998|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.177|-0.772||P=1.225E-11|MMRM|||The MMRM includes fixed effects of treatment arms (lumasiran vs. placebo) and scheduled visits (months 3, 4, 5, and 6), baseline 24-hour urinary oxalate corrected for BSA as a continuous fixed covariate, and patient as a random effect. The variance-covariance matrix is assumed to be unstructured. Satterthwaite approximation is used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||-0.772|-1.177|<0.0001
91085701|NCT03681184|182054053|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-51.7718|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.16118|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.2653|-39.2784||P=5.032E-10|MMRM|||The MMRM includes fixed effects of treatment arms (lumasiran vs. placebo) and scheduled visits (months 3, 4, 5, and 6), baseline 24-hour urinary oxalate:creatinine ratio as a continuous fixed covariate, and patient as a random effect. The variance-covariance matrix is assumed to be unstructured. Satterthwaite approximation is used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||-39.2784|-64.2653|<0.0001
91085702|NCT03681184|182054054|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportions|0.84|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.94||P=8.341E-07|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The proportion of participants (lumasiran vs. placebo) with 24-hour urinary oxalate ≤1.5 x ULN at Month 6 is analyzed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by baseline 24-hour urinary oxalate corrected for BSA (≤1.70 mmol/24hr/1.73m\^2 vs. \>1.70 mmol/24hr/1.73m\^2). The difference in proportion (lumasiran vs. placebo) and the corresponding 95% confidence interval are calculated using the Newcombe method, based on the Wilson score.||0.94|0.55|<0.0001
91022130|NCT00386100|181928038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|2.4||||0.7148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.87|16.34||HOMA-B. Log transformed.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with log (value) minus log (baseline \[BL\]) as dependent variable. Terms for treatment, region, gender, pre-screening HbA1c strata, and log (BL)||||16.34|-9.87|0.7148
91022131|NCT00386100|181928038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference from metformin|31.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.82|49.78||HOMA-S. Log transformed.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with log (value) minus log (baseline \[BL\]) as dependent variable. Terms for treatment, region, gender, pre-screening HbA1c strata, and log (BL)||||49.78|14.82|<0.001
90893743|NCT00981084|181652594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||We used a crossover design to examine whether a single dose of armodafinil would improve cognition in MS. For hypothesis testing analyses, we used a statistical approach that accounts for period (session) effects. We subtracted session 2 performance from session 1 performance on the Word Generation, yielding a difference score. We conducted an independent samples t-test with treatment order as the independent variable (A/P vs. P/A) and the difference score as the dependent variable.||||.53
90893744|NCT01112579|181652595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.4||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|14.9|||ANCOVA|||||14.9|-2.0|0.3
90893745|NCT01112579|181652596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-106.1||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-845.8|633.6|||ANCOVA|||||633.6|-845.8|0.79
91022132|NCT00386100|181928039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|80.85||||0.319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-79.035|240.744|||Repeated measures analysis|Repeated measures analysis with terms for baseline, region, treatment, gender, pre-screening Hb1AC, time, and treatment by time interaction||||240.744|-79.035|0.319
91022133|NCT00386100|181928041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.2||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-0.9||Overall population, Week 80. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||-0.9|-3.5|0.0012
91022134|NCT00386100|181928041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.6||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.6||Overall population, Week 56. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||-0.6|-2.7|0.0031
91022135|NCT00386100|181928041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1||||0.0308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.1||Overall population, Week 20. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||-0.1|-2.0|0.0308
91022136|NCT00386100|181928041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.7||||0.0954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|0.3||Male population, Week 80. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||0.3|-3.7|0.0954
91022137|NCT00386100|181928041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.9||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|-1.2||Female population, Week 80. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||-1.2|-4.7|0.0015
91022138|NCT00386100|181928041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.3||||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|-0.7||Female population, Week 56. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||-0.7|-3.9|0.0045
91022139|NCT00386100|181928041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.2||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-1.0||Female population, Week 20. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||-1.0|-3.3|0.0005
91022140|NCT00386100|181928041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.7||||0.2363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|1.2||Premenopausal female population, Week 80. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||1.2|-4.6|0.2363
91022141|NCT00386100|181928041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.3||||0.0161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|-0.6||Postmenopausal female population, Week 80. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||-0.6|-5.9|0.0161
91022142|NCT00386100|181928041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.6||||0.0338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|-0.2||Postmenopausal female population, Week 56. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||-0.2|-4.9|0.0338
90893746|NCT01112579|181652597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|3.2|||ANCOVA|||||3.2|-1.6|0.93
90893747|NCT00818753|181652599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||||95.0|0.08|12.76||p-values were not presented as the study was exploratory and not powered to to detect a difference in the treatments|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Dabigatran 110mg BID vs Heparin||12.76|0.08|
90893748|NCT00818753|181652599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||||95.0|0.13|16.82||p-values were not presented as the study was exploratory and not powered to to detect a difference in the treatments|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Dabigatran 150mg BID vs Heparin||16.82|0.13|
91022143|NCT00386100|181928041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-2.6||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|-1.0||Postmenopausal female population, Week 20. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||-1.0|-4.1|0.0020
91085703|NCT03681184|182054055|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportions|0.52||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The proportion of participants (lumasiran vs. placebo) with 24-hour urinary oxalate ≤ULN at Month 6 is analyzed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by baseline 24-hour urinary oxalate corrected for BSA (≤1.70 mmol/24hr/1.73m\^2 vs. \>1.70 mmol/24hr/1.73m\^2). The difference in proportion (lumasiran vs. placebo) and the corresponding 95% confidence interval are calculated using the Newcombe method, based on the Wilson score.||0.70|0.23|0.0010
91085704|NCT03681184|182054056|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-39.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.181|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.1|-28.87||P=2.862E-08|MMRM|||The MMRM includes fixed effects of treatment arms (lumasiran vs. placebo) and scheduled visits (months 3, 4, 5, and 6), baseline plasma oxalate as a continuous fixed covariate, and patient as a random effect. The variance-covariance matrix is assumed to be unstructured. Satterthwaite approximation is used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||-28.87|-50.10|<0.0001
91085705|NCT03681184|182054057|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-8.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.338|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.45|-5.98||P=3.893E-07|MMRM|||The MMRM includes fixed effects of treatment arms (lumasiran vs. placebo) and scheduled visits (months 3, 4, 5, and 6), baseline plasma oxalate as a continuous fixed covariate, and patient as a random effect. The variance-covariance matrix is assumed to be unstructured. Satterthwaite approximation is used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||-5.98|-11.45|<0.0001
91085706|NCT02500719|182054067|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1319||||0.029|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||This test is to determine if the difference between engagement and disengagement of emotional arousal is increased by real-time neurofeedback guidance in PTSD participants.||||.029
91085707|NCT00792116|182054075|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Repeated Measures||||||.05
91085708|NCT00792116|182054076|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Repeated Measures||||||.05
91085709|NCT04776928|182054077|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Two-part regression model|||||||0.010
91085710|NCT00103285|182054080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.61|16.63|||Mixed Models Analysis||Odds Ratios in this Statistical Analysis corresponds to all four time points.|Physical Functioning: Parents of 160 SR-ALL patients enrolled on Children's Oncology Group (COG) therapeutic trial AALL0331 at 31 sites completed the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory (PedsQL) 4.0 Generic Core Scales (physical, emotional and social functioning) and Family Assessment Device-General Functioning (FAD-GF) at 1, 6 and 12 months after diagnosis, and 3 months post-therapy.||16.63|1.61|
91085711|NCT00103285|182054080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|3.27|||Mixed Models Analysis||Odds Ratios in this Statistical Analysis corresponds to all four time points|Social Functioning: Parents of 160 SR-ALL patients enrolled on Children's Oncology Group (COG) therapeutic trial AALL0331 at 31 sites completed the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory (PedsQL) 4.0 Generic Core Scales (physical, emotional and social functioning) and Family Assessment Device-General Functioning (FAD-GF) at 1, 6 and 12 months after diagnosis, and 3 months post-therapy.||3.27|1.21|
91085712|NCT00103285|182054080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|3.34|||Mixed Models Analysis||Odds Ratios in this Statistical Analysis corresponds to all four time points|Parents of 160 SR-ALL patients enrolled on Children's Oncology Group (COG) therapeutic trial AALL0331 at 31 sites completed the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory (PedsQL) 4.0 Generic Core Scales (physical, emotional and social functioning) and Family Assessment Device-General Functioning (FAD-GF) at 1, 6 and 12 months after diagnosis, and 3 months post-therapy.||3.34|1.03|
90956868|NCT01143038|181793372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean|9.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.3|10.1|||||Based on the t-distribution|||10.1|8.3|
90956869|NCT01143038|181793372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Bootstrap mean|9.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.3|10.0|||||Estimates are based on bootstrap method with 1000 samples with replacement.|Bootstrap analysis||10.0|8.3|
90956870|NCT00657020|181793389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.296||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of Interest is left anterior insula.||||0.2960
90956871|NCT00657020|181793389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.345||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is left anterior insula.||||0.3450
90956872|NCT00657020|181793389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1192||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is left anterior putamen.||||0.1192
91085713|NCT00103285|182054081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.542|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.974|3.273|||Regression, Cox|||4981 eligible evaluable patients enrolled on AALL0331 had MRD evaluation at Day 29 of induction. MRD status defined as negative (\<0.1%) or positive (\>=0.1%). MRD status ( positive vs. negative) was correlated with EFS using Cox regression analysis.||3.273|1.974|
91085714|NCT00103285|182054083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.131|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.101|0.17|||Chi-squared|||MRD status ( positive vs. negative) was correlated with Early Marrow Status (M1 vs M2/M3) using Chi Square test.||0.17|0.101|
91085715|NCT00103285|182054084|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|12.73|||Regression, Logistic|||Parents of 159 SR-ALL patients enrolled on Children's Oncology Group (COG) therapeutic trial AALL0331 at 31 sites completed the BASC-2 Anxiety Scale at 1 month after diagnosis, and 3 months post-therapy. Of these 159 had data at 1 month after diagnosis and 96 at 3 months post therapy.||12.73|1.31|
91085716|NCT03654729|182054140|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.3842||||0.2266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8172|2.3446|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the common relative risk of moderate to severe CIPN.||2.3446|0.8172|0.2266
91085717|NCT03654729|182054140|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0951||||0.7434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6356|1.887|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the common relative risk of moderate to severe CIPN.||1.8870|0.6356|0.7434
91085718|NCT03272347|182054165|OTHER|The 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method with the difference weighted by the harmonic mean of sample size per arm for each stratum (screening HIV-1 RNA ≤100,000 or \>100,000 copies/mL).|Treatment Difference|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|18.3|||||Islatravir minus DOR/3TC/TDF|Treatment difference in percent response||18.3|-12.5|
91085719|NCT03272347|182054165|OTHER|The 95% CIs were calculated using stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method with the difference weighted by the harmonic mean of sample size per arm for each stratum (screening HIV-1 RNA ≤100,000 or \>100,000 copies/mL).|Treatment Difference|9.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|23.0|||||Islatravir minus DOR/3TC/TDF|Treatment difference in percent response||23.0|-3.8|
91085720|NCT03272347|182054165|OTHER|The 95% CIs were calculated using stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method with the difference weighted by the harmonic mean of sample size per arm for each stratum (screening HIV-1 RNA ≤100,000 or \>100,000 copies/mL).|Treatment Difference|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|16.3|||||Islatravir minus DOR/3TC/TDF|Treatment difference in percent response||16.3|-16.0|
91085721|NCT03272347|182054166|OTHER|The 95% CIs were calculated using stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method with the difference weighted by the harmonic mean of sample size per arm for each stratum (screening HIV-1 RNA ≤100,000 or \>100,000 copies/mL).|Treatment Difference|6.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|24.4|||||Islatravir minus DOR/3TC/TDF|Treatment difference in percent response||24.4|-12.2|
91085722|NCT03272347|182054166|OTHER|The 95% CIs were calculated using stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method with the difference weighted by the harmonic mean of sample size per arm for each stratum (screening HIV-1 RNA ≤100,000 or \>100,000 copies/mL).|Treatment Difference|6.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|24.6|||||Islatravir minus DOR/3TC/TDF|Treatment difference in percent response||24.6|-12.2|
91085723|NCT03272347|182054166|OTHER|The 95% CIs were calculated using stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method with the difference weighted by the harmonic mean of sample size per arm for each stratum (screening HIV-1 RNA ≤100,000 or \>100,000 copies/mL).|Treatment Difference|-6.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.1|14.8|||||Islatravir minus DOR/3TC/TDF|Treatment difference in percent response||14.8|-27.1|
91085724|NCT03272347|182054167|OTHER|Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in %|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.7|20.5|||||Islatravir minus DOR/3TC/TDF|Difference in % Islatravir vs DOR/3TC/TDF||20.5|-15.7|
91085725|NCT03272347|182054167|OTHER|Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in %|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|20.8|||||Islatravir minus DOR/3TC/TDF|Difference in % Islatravir vs DOR/3TC/TDF||20.8|-15.0|
91085726|NCT03272347|182054167|OTHER|Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in %|-9.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.4|10.1|||||Islatravir minus DOR/3TC/TDF|Difference in % Islatravir vs DOR/3TC/TDF||10.1|-29.4|
91085727|NCT03272347|182054168|OTHER|Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in %|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|14.5|||||Islatravir minus DOR/3TC/TDF|Difference in % Islatravir vs DOR/3TC/TDF||14.5|-13.4|
91085728|NCT03272347|182054168|OTHER|Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in %|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|8.5|||||Islatravir minus DOR/3TC/TDF|Difference in % Islatravir vs DOR/3TC/TDF||8.5|-16.4|
91085729|NCT03272347|182054168|OTHER|Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in %|3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|18.1|||||Islatravir minus DOR/3TC/TDF|Difference in % Islatravir vs DOR/3TC/TDF||18.1|-10.8|
90956873|NCT00657020|181793389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6639||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is left anterior putamen.||||0.6639
90893749|NCT03053050|181652653|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|-2.1||||0.4941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|4.0||Difference between SEL 18 mg and Placebo, 95% confidence interval (CI) and p-value were obtained by stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method with baseline diabetes mellitus status and Enhanced Liver Fibrosis (ELF) test score as stratification factors.|Mantel Haenszel|||||4.0|-8.3|0.4941
90956874|NCT00657020|181793389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8295||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is left dorsal anterior cingulate cortex.||||0.8295
90956875|NCT00657020|181793389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0078||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is left dorsal anterior cingulate cortex.||||0.0078
91085730|NCT03272347|182054169|OTHER|The 95% CIs were calculated using stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method with the difference weighted by the harmonic mean of sample size per arm for each stratum (screening HIV-1 RNA ≤100,000 or \>100,000 copies/mL).|Treatment Difference|-9.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.1|6.6|||||Islatravir minus DOR/3TC/TDF|Treatment difference in percent response||6.6|-26.1|
91085731|NCT03272347|182054169|OTHER|The 95% CIs were calculated using stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method with the difference weighted by the harmonic mean of sample size per arm for each stratum (screening HIV-1 RNA ≤100,000 or \>100,000 copies/mL).|Treatment Difference|-6.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.5|9.1|||||Islatravir minus DOR/3TC/TDF|Treatment difference in percent response||9.1|-21.5|
91085732|NCT03272347|182054169|OTHER|The 95% CIs were calculated using stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method with the difference weighted by the harmonic mean of sample size per arm for each stratum (screening HIV-1 RNA ≤100,000 or \>100,000 copies/mL).|Treatment Difference|-7.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.9|8.8|||||Islatravir minus DOR/3TC/TDF|Treatment difference in percent response||8.8|-23.9|
91085733|NCT03272347|182054170|OTHER|The 95% CIs were calculated using stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method with the difference weighted by the harmonic mean of sample size per arm for each stratum (screening HIV-1 RNA ≤100,000 or \>100,000 copies/mL).|Treatment Difference|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.4|27.7|||||Islatravir minus DOR/3TC/TDF|Treatment difference in percent response||27.7|-23.4|
91085734|NCT03272347|182054170|OTHER|The 95% CIs were calculated using stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method with the difference weighted by the harmonic mean of sample size per arm for each stratum (screening HIV-1 RNA ≤100,000 or \>100,000 copies/mL).|Treatment Difference|-3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.6|22.1|||||Islatravir minus DOR/3TC/TDF|Treatment difference in percent response||22.1|-29.6|
91085735|NCT03272347|182054170|OTHER|The 95% CIs were calculated using stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method with the difference weighted by the harmonic mean of sample size per arm for each stratum (screening HIV-1 RNA ≤100,000 or \>100,000 copies/mL).|Treatment Difference|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.7|25.2|||||Islatravir minus DOR/3TC/TDF|Treatment difference in percent response||25.2|-27.7|
91085736|NCT03272347|182054172|OTHER|The 95% CI for mean difference in CD4 change was based on t-distribution.|Treatment Difference|78.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.8|138.1|||||Islatravir minus DOR/3TC/TDF|Treatment difference in T-cell count||138.1|18.8|
91085737|NCT03272347|182054172|OTHER|The 95% CI for mean difference in CD4 change was based on t-distribution.|Treatment Difference|50.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.7|133.1|||||Islatravir minus DOR/3TC/TDF|Treatment difference in T-cell count||133.1|-31.7|
91085738|NCT03272347|182054172|OTHER|The 95% CI for mean difference in CD4 change was based on t-distribution.|Treatment Difference|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.0|64.7|||||Islatravir minus DOR/3TC/TDF|Treatment difference in T-cell count||64.7|-63.0|
91085739|NCT03272347|182054173|OTHER|The 95% CI for mean difference in CD4 change was based on t-distribution.|Treatment Difference|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.1|75.3|||||Islatravir minus DOR/3TC/TDF|Treatment difference in T-cell count||75.3|-74.1|
91085740|NCT03272347|182054173|OTHER|The 95% CI for mean difference in CD4 change was based on t-distribution.|Treatment Difference|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.7|73.8|||||Islatravir minus DOR/3TC/TDF|Treatment difference in T-cell count||73.8|-70.7|
91085741|NCT03272347|182054173|OTHER|The 95% CI for mean difference in CD4 change was based on t-distribution.|Treatment Difference|-80.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-165.6|4.0|||||Islatravir minus DOR/3TC/TDF|Treatment difference in T-cell count||4.0|-165.6|
91085742|NCT03272347|182054174|OTHER|The 95% CI for mean difference in CD4 change was based on t-distribution.|Treatment Difference|-25.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-134.8|83.8|||||Islatravir minus DOR/3TC/TDF|Treatment difference in T-cell count||83.8|-134.8|
91085743|NCT03272347|182054174|OTHER|The 95% CI for mean difference in CD4 change was based on t-distribution.|Treatment Difference|-107.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-212.1|-3.1|||||Islatravir minus DOR/3TC/TDF|Treatment difference in T-cell count||-3.1|-212.1|
91085744|NCT03272347|182054174|OTHER|The 95% CI for mean difference in CD4 change was based on t-distribution.|Treatment Difference|-132.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-242.9|-21.9|||||Islatravir minus DOR/3TC/TDF|Treatment difference in T-cell count||-21.9|-242.9|
91085745|NCT03272347|182054175|OTHER|The 95% CI for mean difference in CD4 change was based on t-distribution.|Treatment Difference|-65.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-195.3|64.0|||||Islatravir minus DOR/3TC/TDF|Treatment difference in T-cell count||64.0|-195.3|
91085746|NCT03272347|182054175|OTHER|The 95% CI for mean difference in CD4 change was based on t-distribution.|Treatment Difference|-61.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-188.7|66.8|||||Islatravir minus DOR/3TC/TDF|Treatment difference in T-cell count||66.8|-188.7|
90956876|NCT00657020|181793389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7153||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is left dorsolateral pre-frontal cortex.||||0.7153
91085747|NCT03272347|182054175|OTHER|The 95% CI for mean difference in CD4 change was based on t-distribution.|Treatment Difference|-107.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-231.2|16.9|||||Islatravir minus DOR/3TC/TDF|Treatment difference in T-cell count||16.9|-231.2|
91085748|NCT03272347|182054177|OTHER|Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in %|4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.3|29.6|||||Islatravir minus DOR/3TC/TDF|Difference in % Islatravir vs DOR/3TC/TDF||29.6|-20.3|
91085749|NCT03272347|182054177|OTHER|Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in %|9.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|33.5|||||Islatravir minus DOR/3TC/TDF|Difference in % Islatravir vs DOR/3TC/TDF||33.5|-15.4|
90956877|NCT00657020|181793389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8511||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is left dorsolateral pre-frontal cortex||||0.8511
90956878|NCT00657020|181793389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4228||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is left parietal cortex||||0.4228
90956879|NCT00657020|181793389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0611||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is left parietal cortex||||0.0611
90956880|NCT00657020|181793389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9879||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is left premotor cortex||||0.9879
90956881|NCT00657020|181793389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2065||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is left premotor cortex||||0.2065
91085750|NCT03272347|182054177|OTHER|Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in %|-5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.6|20.7|||||Islatravir minus DOR/3TC/TDF|Difference in % Islatravir vs DOR/3TC/TDF||20.7|-30.6|
91085751|NCT03272347|182054178|OTHER|Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in %|-3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.9|8.5|||||Islatravir minus DOR/3TC/TDF|Difference in % Islatravir vs DOR/3TC/TDF||8.5|-17.9|
91085752|NCT03272347|182054178|OTHER|Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in %|-3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.9|8.2|||||Islatravir minus DOR/3TC/TDF|Difference in % Islatravir vs DOR/3TC/TDF||8.2|-17.9|
91085753|NCT03272347|182054178|OTHER|Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in %|3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|20.6|||||Islatravir minus DOR/3TC/TDF|Difference in % Islatravir vs DOR/3TC/TDF||20.6|-11.5|
91085754|NCT03569098|182054242|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.441||0.7669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|1.19||One-sided P-value. The model includes the fixed categorical effects of treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit interaction, and the stratification factor as fixed categorical covariates and the Baseline value as a fixed continuous covariate.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Dysport 300 U versus Placebo.||1.19|-0.55|0.7669
91085755|NCT03569098|182054242|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.444||0.2085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|0.51||One-sided P-value. The model includes the fixed categorical effects of treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit interaction, and the stratification factor as fixed categorical covariates and the Baseline value as a fixed continuous covariate.|MMRM|||Dysport 500 U versus Placebo.||0.51|-1.24|0.2085
91085756|NCT00522548|182054276|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29||||||A p value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Fisher Exact|||Sample size was arbitrarily determined as 40 patients (20 in the CellCept group and 20 in the Myfortic group) in this proof of concept study||||.29
91085757|NCT00522548|182054277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||A p value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Fisher Exact|||Sample size was arbitrarily determined as 40 patients (20 in the CellCept group and 20 in the Myfortic group) in this proof of concept study||||0.39
91085758|NCT00522548|182054278|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||A p value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Fisher Exact|||Sample size was arbitrarily determined as 40 patients (20 in the CellCept group and 20 in the Myfortic group) in this proof of concept study||||1.0
91085759|NCT00522548|182054279|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||A p value of less than 0.05 was considered significant.|Fisher Exact|||Sample size was arbitrarily determined as 40 patients (20 in the CellCept group and 20 in the Myfortic group) in this proof of concept study||||1.00
91085760|NCT00522548|182054280|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14||||||a p value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant|Fisher Exact|||Sample size was arbitrarily determined as 40 patients (20 in the CellCept group and 20 in the Myfortic group) in this proof of concept study||||0.14
91085761|NCT00522548|182054281|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34||||||A p value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Chi-squared|||Sample size was arbitrarily determined as 40 patients (20 in the CellCept group and 20 in the Myfortic group) in this proof of concept study||||0.34
91085762|NCT00522548|182054282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51||||||A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Fisher Exact|||Sample size was arbitrarily determined as 40 patients (20 in the CellCept group and 20 in the Myfortic group) in this proof of concept study||||.51
91085763|NCT00522548|182054283|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||Sample size was arbitrarily determined as 40 patients (20 in the CellCept group and 20 in the Myfortic group) in this proof of concept study.||||0.95
91085764|NCT00522548|182054284|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||Sample size was arbitrarily determined as 40 patients (20 in the CellCept group and 20 in the Myfortic group) in this proof of concept study.||||0.57
91085765|NCT00522548|182054285|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||This represents p value for week 4 data. A p value of less than 0.05 was considered significant.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Sample size was arbitrarily determined as 40 patients (20 in the CellCept group and 20 in the Myfortic group) in this proof of concept study||||0.45
91085766|NCT00522548|182054285|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||This represents p value for week 24 data. A p value of less than 0.05 was considered significant.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Sample size was arbitrarily determined as 40 patients (20 in CellCept group and 20 in the Myfortic group) in this proof of concept study.||||0.58
91085767|NCT00522548|182054286|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012||||||This p value is for data at week 4. A p value of less than 0.05 was considered significant.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Sample size was arbitrarily determined as 40 patients (20 in the CellCept group and 20 in the Myfortic group) in this proof of concept study||||0.012
90956882|NCT00657020|181793389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1837||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is left substantia nigra/ventral tegmental area||||0.1837
90956883|NCT00657020|181793389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8195||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is left substantia nigra/ventral tegmental area||||0.8195
90956884|NCT00657020|181793389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.642||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is left thalamus||||0.6420
91085768|NCT00522548|182054286|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||This p value was for data at week 24. A p value of less than 0.05 was considered significant.|Kruskal-Wallis|||sample size was arbitrarily determined as 40 patients (20 in the CellCept group and 20 in the Myfortic Group) in this proof of concept study.||||0.046
91085769|NCT00522548|182054287|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27||||||p value represents data for week 4. A p value of less than 0.05 was considered significant.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Sample size was arbitrarily determined as 40 patients (20 in the CellCept group and 20 in the Myfortic group) in this proof of concept study||||0.27
91085770|NCT00522548|182054287|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||p value represents data for week 24. A p value of less than 0.05 was considered significant.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Sample size was arbitrarily determined as 40 patients (20 in the CellCept group and 20 in the Myfortic group) in this proof of concept study||||0.23
90893750|NCT03053050|181652653|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|-0.3||||0.9321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|6.0||Difference between SEL 6 mg and Placebo, 95% CI and p-value were obtained by stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method with baseline diabetes mellitus status and ELF test score as stratification factors.|Mantel Haenszel|||||6.0|-6.6|0.9321
90956885|NCT00657020|181793389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7475||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is left thalamus||||0.7475
90956886|NCT00657020|181793389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9049||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is left visual cortex||||0.9049
90956887|NCT00657020|181793389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.183||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is left visual cortex||||0.1830
90956888|NCT00657020|181793389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5318||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is right anterior insula||||0.5318
90956889|NCT00657020|181793389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9588||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is right anterior insula||||0.9588
90956890|NCT00657020|181793389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7551||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is right dorsal anterior cingulate cortex||||0.7551
90956891|NCT00657020|181793389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7895||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is right dorsal anterior cingulate cortex||||0.7895
90956892|NCT00657020|181793389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9494||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is right dorsolateral pre-frontal cortex||||0.9494
90956893|NCT00657020|181793389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4482||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is right dorsolateral pre-frontal cortex||||0.4482
90956894|NCT00657020|181793389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9343||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is right parietal cortex||||0.9343
90956895|NCT00657020|181793389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7711||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is right parietal cortex||||0.7711
90956896|NCT00657020|181793389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4755||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is right premotor cortex||||0.4755
91085771|NCT02915159|182054288|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4421|||||||longitudinal repeated measures analysis|||||||0.4421
91085772|NCT02915159|182054289|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3367|||||||longitudinal repeated measures analysis|||||||0.3367
91085773|NCT02915159|182054290|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5841|||||||longitudinal repeated measures analysis|||||||.5841
91085774|NCT00856999|182054329|EQUIVALENCE|Non-parametric test equivalent to the dependent t-test|||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<.001
91085775|NCT00856999|182054330|EQUIVALENCE|Non-parametric test equivalent to the dependent t-test|||||<|0.0004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<.0004
91085776|NCT04391179|182054347|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.033|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.089|0.023|||Mixed Models Analysis||Estimation represents log-scale difference between average daily change in D-Dimer for Dipyridamole patients minus placebo average daily change. Negative estimates indicate that D-Dimer levels decline faster in Dipyridamole versus placebo patients.|||.023|-.089|0.24
91085777|NCT04391179|182054348|SUPERIORITY||win ratio|1.0||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|97.8|0.78|1.29|||Mantel Haenszel||win ratio= (the probability of a win for the dipyridamole patient)/(probability of a win for the placebo patient)|A win ratio analysis of the hierarchical composite outcome requiring direct comparison of outcomes between each dipyridamole patient and placebo patient. The patient with the superior outcome is adjudicated the 'winner' and receives a +1 score, while the 'loser' scores -1.||1.29|0.78|.98
91085778|NCT04391179|182054349|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.08
91085779|NCT04391179|182054350|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||Log Rank|||||||.09
91085780|NCT04391179|182054351|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.29||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|3.94|||regression, negative binomial||estimated ratio of days on mechanical ventilation for dipyridamole and placebo|||3.94|0.02|0.36
91085781|NCT04391179|182054352|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|2.51|||Regression, Logistic||Odds of a 50 point drop in the dipyridamole group relative to the placebo group.|||2.51|0.43|.94
91085782|NCT04391179|182054353|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.95
91085783|NCT02820870|182054375|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.0|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.84|4.9|||Regression, Logistic|With clustering by provider and team.||||4.9|1.84|<0.01
91085784|NCT02820870|182054376|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.65||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|2.77|||Regression, Logistic|With cluster by provider and team.||||2.77|0.99|0.06
91085785|NCT02754518|182054379|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Primary outcome was presented at baseline and 1-year as means +/- standard deviations based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with paired t-tests.||||<0.001
91085786|NCT02754518|182054380|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||Primary outcome was presented at baseline and 1-year as means +/- standard deviations based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with paired t-tests.||||<0.001
91085787|NCT02754518|182054381|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||Primary outcome was presented at baseline and 1-year as means +/- standard deviations based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with paired t-tests.||||<0.001
91085788|NCT02754518|182054382|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|Sign test|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline and 1-year as medians (interquartile range) based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||||<0.001
91085789|NCT02754518|182054383|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|Sign test|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline and 1-year as medians (interquartile range) based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||||<0.001
91085790|NCT02754518|182054384|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|Sign test|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline and 1-year as medians (interquartile range) based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||||<0.001
91085791|NCT02754518|182054385|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Primary outcome was presented at baseline and 1-year as means +/- standard deviations based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with paired t-tests.||||<0.001
91085792|NCT02754518|182054386|OTHER|||||||0.13||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|t-test, 2 sided|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline and 1-year as means +/- standard deviations based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with paired t-tests.|paired t-test|||0.13
91085793|NCT02754518|182054387|OTHER|||||||0.95||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Primary outcome was presented at baseline and 1-year as means +/- standard deviations based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with paired t-tests.||||0.95
91085794|NCT02754518|182054388|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|Sign test|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline and 1-year as medians (interquartile range) based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||||<0.001
91085795|NCT02754518|182054389|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|Sign test|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline and 1-year as medians (interquartile range) based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||||<0.001
91085796|NCT02754518|182054390|OTHER|||||||0.65||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|t-test, 2 sided|Paired T-test||Primary outcome was presented at baseline and 1-year as means +/- standard deviations based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with paired t-tests.||||0.65
90829488|NCT02365649|181533427|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.0||||0.709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.4|27.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 44||27.4|-47.4|0.709
91085797|NCT02754518|182054391|OTHER|||||||0.06||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|Sign test|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline and 1-year as means +/- standard deviations based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with paired t-tests.||||0.06
91085798|NCT02754518|182054392|OTHER|||||||0.76||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|Sign test|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline and 1-year as medians (interquartile range) based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||||0.76
91085799|NCT02754518|182054393|OTHER|||||||0.07||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|Fisher Exact|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline and 1-year as frequency and percentages based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with the Fisher exact test.||||0.07
91085800|NCT02754518|182054394|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|Sign test|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline and 1-year as medians (interquartile range) based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||||0.001
91085801|NCT02754518|182054397|OTHER|||||||0.03||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|Sign test|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline and 1-year as medians (interquartile range) based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||||0.03
91085802|NCT02754518|182054398|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Primary outcome was presented at baseline and 1-year as means +/- standard deviations based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with paired t-tests.||||<0.001
91085803|NCT02754518|182054399|OTHER|||||||0.02||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|Sign test|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline and 1-year as medians (interquartile range) based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||||0.02
91085804|NCT02754518|182054400|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-Values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Primary outcome was presented at baseline and 1-year as means +/- standard deviations based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with paired t-tests.||||<0.001
91085805|NCT02754518|182054401|OTHER|||||||0.82||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|Sign test|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline and 1-year as medians (interquartile range) based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||||0.82
91085806|NCT02754518|182054402|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|Sign test|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline and 1-year as medians (interquartile range) based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||||<0.001
91085807|NCT02754518|182054403|OTHER|||||||0.01||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|Sign test|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline and 1-year as medians (interquartile range) based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||||0.01
91085808|NCT02754518|182054404|OTHER|||||||0.11||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|Sign test|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline and 1-year as medians (interquartile range) based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||||0.11
91085809|NCT02754518|182054405|OTHER|||||||0.17||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|Sign test|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline and 1-year as medians (interquartile range) based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||||0.17
90956897|NCT00657020|181793389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3982||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is right premotor cortex||||0.3982
91085810|NCT02754518|182054406|OTHER|||||||0.035||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|Sign test|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline and 1-year as medians (interquartile range) based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||||0.035
91085811|NCT02754518|182054407|OTHER|||||||0.059||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|Sign test|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline and 1-year as medians (interquartile range) based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||||0.059
91085812|NCT02754518|182054408|OTHER|||||||0.054||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|Sign test|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline and 1-year as medians (interquartile range) based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||||0.054
91085813|NCT02754518|182054409|OTHER|||||||0.28||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|Sign test|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline and 1-year as medians (interquartile range) based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||||0.28
90956898|NCT00657020|181793389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4622||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is right thalamus||||0.4622
91085814|NCT02754518|182054410|OTHER|||||||0.002||||||P-Values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|Sign test|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline and 1-year as medians (interquartile range) based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||||0.002
91085815|NCT02754518|182054411|OTHER|||||||0.008||||||P-Values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|Sign test|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline and 1-year as medians (interquartile range) based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||||0.008
91085816|NCT02754518|182054412|OTHER|||||||0.005||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|Sign test|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline and 1-year as medians (interquartile range) based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||||0.005
91085817|NCT02754518|182054413|OTHER|||||||0.056||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|Sign test|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline and 1-year as medians (interquartile range) based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||||0.056
91085818|NCT00872521|182054416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in response rate between 1q21 amplified and 1q21 NOT amplified||||0.09
91085819|NCT00872521|182054417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||Chi-squared|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in response rate between 1q21 amplified and 1q21 NOT amplified||||0.23
91085820|NCT00872521|182054418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in response rate between 1q21 amplified and 1q21 NOT amplified||||0.23
91085821|NCT00872521|182054419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.56|||||||Chi-squared|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in response rate between 1q21 amplified and 1q21 NOT amplified||||0.56
91085822|NCT00872521|182054420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Log Rank|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in response rate between 1q21 amplified and 1q21 NOT amplified||||0.01
91085823|NCT00872521|182054421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||Log Rank|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in response rate between 1q21 amplified and 1q21 NOT amplified||||0.28
91085824|NCT00313846|182054455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0026|||||||Kaplan-Meier estimate mean|||||||.0026
91085825|NCT03428100|182054467|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.78||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|3.32|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.32|0.95|0.071
91085826|NCT03428100|182054467|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.15||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|4.3|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.30|1.07|0.031
91085827|NCT03428100|182054468|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|2.77|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.77|0.65|0.427
91085828|NCT03428100|182054469|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|3.35|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.35|0.55|0.513
91085829|NCT03428100|182054469|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6||||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|3.53|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.53|0.73|0.242
91085830|NCT03428100|182054469|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.54||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|5.9|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.90|1.09|0.030
90956899|NCT00657020|181793389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4604||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is right thalamus||||0.4604
91085831|NCT03428100|182054470|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|3.83|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.83|0.45|0.611
91085832|NCT03428100|182054470|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.59||||0.325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|3.99|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.99|0.63|0.325
91085833|NCT03428100|182054470|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.29||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|6.14|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.14|0.85|0.100
91085834|NCT03428100|182054471|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.627||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.71|-6.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-6.58|-28.71|0.002
91085835|NCT03428100|182054471|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.82||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.83|-3.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.87|-22.83|0.006
91085836|NCT03428100|182054471|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.554||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.54|-9.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-9.70|-31.54|0.0002
91085837|NCT03428100|182054472|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.14||||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|24.29|||Regression, Logistic|||||24.29|0.71|0.115
91085838|NCT03428100|182054472|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.85||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|30.88|||Regression, Logistic|||||30.88|1.11|0.037
91085839|NCT03428100|182054472|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.78||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|28.08|||Regression, Logistic|||||28.08|0.81|0.083
91085840|NCT03428100|182054473|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.28||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|8.32|||Regression, Logistic|||||8.32|1.29|0.012
91085841|NCT03428100|182054473|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.71||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|8.66|||Regression, Logistic|||||8.66|1.59|0.002
91085842|NCT03428100|182054473|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.85||||2e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.79|16.82|||Regression, Logistic|||||16.82|2.79|0.00002
91085843|NCT03428100|182054474|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.203||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.02|-0.82|0.039
91085844|NCT03428100|182054474|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.175||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.13|-0.56|0.23
91085845|NCT03428100|182054474|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.201||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|-0.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.39|-1.18|0.0001
91085846|NCT03428100|182054475|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.388||0.0714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.06|-1.47|0.0714
91085847|NCT03428100|182054475|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.337||0.0134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.17|-1.50|0.0134
91085848|NCT03428100|182054475|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.386||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|-0.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.69|-2.21|0.0002
91085849|NCT03428100|182054476|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|3.75|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.75|0.78|0.183
91085850|NCT03428100|182054476|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.54||||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|3.11|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.11|0.76|0.235
91085851|NCT03428100|182054476|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|2.36|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.36|0.43|0.991
91085852|NCT03428100|182054477|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.57|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.57|0.77|0.263
91085853|NCT03428100|182054477|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.89||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|3.19|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.19|1.13|0.016
91085854|NCT03428100|182054477|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.93||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|3.52|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.52|1.06|0.031
91085855|NCT03428100|182054478|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.97||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|3.96|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.96|0.98|0.058
91085856|NCT03428100|182054478|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|3.32|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.32|0.95|0.072
91085857|NCT03428100|182054478|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|3.18|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.18|0.76|0.224
91085858|NCT03428100|182054479|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.03||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|86.08|||Regression, Logistic|||||86.08|0.29|0.265
91085859|NCT03428100|182054479|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.54||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|43.09|||Regression, Logistic|||||43.09|0.15|0.520
91085860|NCT03428100|182054479|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.17||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|99.99|||Regression, Logistic|||||99.99|0.45|0.164
91085861|NCT03428100|182054480|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.948||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.88|-0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.29|-11.88|0.040
91085862|NCT03428100|182054480|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.533||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.54|-1.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.58|-11.54|0.010
91085863|NCT03428100|182054480|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.919|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.51|-4.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.03|-15.51|<0.001
91085864|NCT03428100|182054481|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.75||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|73.93|||Regression, Logistic|||||73.93|0.31|0.265
90956900|NCT00657020|181793389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2485||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is right visual cortex||||0.2485
90956901|NCT00657020|181793389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1931||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is right visual cortex||||0.1931
91085865|NCT03428100|182054481|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.5||||0.511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|38.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||38.40|0.16|0.511
91085866|NCT03428100|182054481|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.95||||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|77.11|||Regression, Logistic|||||77.11|0.32|0.253
91085867|NCT03428100|182054482|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.078||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.26|-0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.16|-12.26|0.044
91085868|NCT03428100|182054482|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.632||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.67|-0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.32|-10.67|0.037
91085869|NCT03428100|182054482|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.03||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.37|-2.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.45|-14.37|0.006
91085870|NCT03428100|182054483|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>.999
91085871|NCT03428100|182054483|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.797|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.797
91085872|NCT03428100|182054483|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>.999
91085873|NCT03428100|182054484|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.49||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|17.45|||ANCOVA|||||17.45|-0.22|0.056
91085874|NCT03428100|182054484|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.92||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.24|13.19|||ANCOVA|||||13.19|-2.24|0.164
91085875|NCT03428100|182054484|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.53||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|16.15|||ANCOVA|||||16.15|-1.66|0.110
91085876|NCT03428100|182054485|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-48.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|35.63||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-118.0|21.88|||ANOVA|||||21.88|-118.00|0.178
91085877|NCT03428100|182054485|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-56.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|30.9||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-117.56|3.77|||ANOVA|||||3.77|-117.56|0.066
91085878|NCT03428100|182054485|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-71.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|35.57||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-141.24|-1.6|||ANOVA|||||-1.60|-141.24|0.045
91085879|NCT03428100|182054486|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.62||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.33|1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.70|-24.33|0.088
91085880|NCT03428100|182054486|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.725||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.67|-4.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.16|-26.67|0.007
91085881|NCT03428100|182054486|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.583||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.71|-6.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-6.82|-32.71|0.003
91085882|NCT03428100|182054487|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.263||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.28|0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.28|-28.28|0.055
91085883|NCT03428100|182054487|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.297||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.15|-2.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.38|-27.15|0.020
91085884|NCT03428100|182054487|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.216||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.01|-3.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.62|-32.01|0.014
91085885|NCT03428100|182054488|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.229||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.47|-0.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.36|-4.47|0.095
91085886|NCT03428100|182054488|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.057||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.16|-1.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.01|-5.16|0.004
91085887|NCT03428100|182054488|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.216|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.48|-2.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.70|-7.48|<0.001
91085888|NCT03428100|182054489|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.146||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.04|-0.53|0.097
91085889|NCT03428100|182054489|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.126||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.02|-0.52|0.033
91085890|NCT03428100|182054489|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|-0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.29|-0.86|<0.001
91085891|NCT03428100|182054490|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.516||0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|0.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Anxiety||0.45|-1.58|0.272
91085892|NCT03428100|182054490|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.446||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|-0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Anxiety||-0.24|-1.99|0.013
91085893|NCT03428100|182054490|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.511||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Anxiety||0.16|-1.85|0.099
91085894|NCT03428100|182054490|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.519||0.584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Depression||0.74|-1.30|0.584
91085895|NCT03428100|182054490|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.448||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Depression||0.25|-1.51|0.162
91085896|NCT03428100|182054490|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.515||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|-0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Depression||-0.15|-2.18|0.024
91085897|NCT03428100|182054491|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.018||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.23|0.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.77|-3.23|0.228
91085898|NCT03428100|182054491|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.876||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.35|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.10|-3.35|0.065
91085899|NCT03428100|182054491|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.007||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.99|-1.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.02|-4.99|0.003
91085900|NCT03428100|182054492|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.339||0.784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|5.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from Baseline (CFB) Absenteeism||5.67|-7.50|0.784
91085901|NCT03428100|182054492|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.813||0.525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.75|7.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||CFB Absenteeism||7.34|-3.75|0.525
91085902|NCT03428100|182054492|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.204||0.947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.11|6.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||CFB Absenteeism||6.53|-6.11|0.947
91085903|NCT03428100|182054492|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.409||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.62|11.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||CFB Presenteeism||11.74|-5.62|0.488
91085904|NCT03428100|182054492|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.72||0.936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.02|7.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||CFB Presenteeism||7.62|-7.02|0.936
91085905|NCT03428100|182054492|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.267||0.991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.35|8.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||CFB Presenteeism||8.45|-8.35|0.991
91085906|NCT03428100|182054492|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.938||0.816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.57|10.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||CFB Work Productivity Loss||10.88|-8.57|0.816
91085907|NCT03428100|182054492|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.178||0.971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.08|8.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||CFB Work Productivity Loss||8.38|-8.08|0.971
91085908|NCT03428100|182054492|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.804||0.852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.36|8.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||CFB Work Productivity Loss||8.56|-10.36|0.852
90893751|NCT03053050|181652655|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|-4.0||||0.2593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|2.9||Difference between SEL 18 mg and Placebo, 95% CI and p-value were obtained by stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method with baseline diabetes mellitus status and ELF test score as stratification factors.|Mantel Haenszel|||||2.9|-10.8|0.2593
91085909|NCT03428100|182054492|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.877||0.607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.61|5.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||CFB Activity Impairment||5.63|-9.61|0.607
91085910|NCT03428100|182054492|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.319||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.92|2.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||CFB Activity Impairment||2.12|-10.92|0.186
91085911|NCT03428100|182054492|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.82||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.96|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||CFB Activity Impairment||0.06|-14.96|0.052
91085912|NCT03428100|182054493|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||CFB US Health State Index||0.08|-0.01|0.131
91085913|NCT03428100|182054493|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||CFB US Health State Index||0.08|0.01|0.017
91085914|NCT03428100|182054493|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||CFB US Health State Index||0.11|0.02|0.003
91085915|NCT03428100|182054493|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||CFB UK Health State Index||0.11|-0.01|0.102
91085916|NCT03428100|182054493|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||CFB UK Health State Index||0.12|0.01|0.014
91085917|NCT03428100|182054493|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||CFB UK Health State Index||0.15|0.03|0.003
91085918|NCT03428100|182054494|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.256||0.221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|10.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||10.39|-2.41|0.221
91085919|NCT03428100|182054494|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.807||0.689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|6.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.65|-4.40|0.689
91085920|NCT03428100|182054494|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.226||0.294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.95|9.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.74|-2.95|0.294
91085921|NCT03428100|182054495|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.54|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.54|0.70|0.382
91085922|NCT03428100|182054495|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|2.02|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.02|0.65|0.638
91085923|NCT03428100|182054495|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|2.96|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.96|0.83|0.169
91085924|NCT03428100|182054496|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.674||0.447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.38|11.66|||Regression, Linear|||||11.66|-26.38|0.447
91085925|NCT03428100|182054496|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.454||0.646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.5|12.74|||Regression, Linear|||||12.74|-20.50|0.646
91085926|NCT03428100|182054496|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.64||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.14|1.77|||Regression, Linear|||||1.77|-36.14|0.075
91085927|NCT03990051|182054544|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of changes in score from baseline, Active - Placebo.||||||0.0197|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0197
91085928|NCT03990051|182054545|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of changes in score from baseline.||||||0.0039|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0039
91085929|NCT03990051|182054546|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of changes in score from baseline.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
91085930|NCT03990051|182054547|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of changes in score from baseline.||||||0.0002|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0002
91085931|NCT03990051|182054548|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of changes in score from baseline.||||||0.0138|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0138
91085932|NCT03990051|182054549|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of changes in score from baseline.||||||0.0014|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0014
91085933|NCT03990051|182054550|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of changes in score from baseline.||||||0.0849|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0849
91085934|NCT03990051|182054551|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of changes in score from baseline.||||||0.0041|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0041
91085935|NCT03990051|182054552|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of changes in score from baseline.||||||0.0006|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0006
91085936|NCT03990051|182054553|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of changes in score from baseline.||||||0.0143|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0143
90956902|NCT00657020|181793390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4535||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis considered the response time of treatments in comparison to be equal.||||0.4535
91085937|NCT03990051|182054554|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of changes in score from baseline.||||||0.0398|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0398
90829489|NCT02365649|181533427|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|32.5||||0.194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|64.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 52||64.1|0.9|0.194
90829490|NCT02365649|181533427|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.8||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|45.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 52||45.2|-17.7|0.400
90956903|NCT00657020|181793390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1811||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis considered the response time of treatments in comparison to be equal.||||0.1811
91085938|NCT03990051|182054555|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of changes in score from baseline.||||||-3.97|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||-3.97
91085939|NCT03990051|182054556|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of changes in score from baseline.||||||0.0005|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0005
91085940|NCT03990051|182054557|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of changes in score from baseline.||||||0.0005|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0005
91085941|NCT03990051|182054558|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of changes in score from baseline.||||||0.0067|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0067
91085942|NCT03990051|182054559|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of changes in score from baseline.||||||0.0636|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0636
91085943|NCT03990051|182054560|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of changes in score from baseline.||||||0.0028|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0028
91085944|NCT03990051|182054561|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of changes in score from baseline.||||||0.0067|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0067
91085945|NCT03990051|182054562|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of changes in score from baseline.||||||0.0105|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0105
91085946|NCT03990051|182054563|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of changes in score from baseline.||||||0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0010
91085947|NCT03990051|182054564|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of changes in score from baseline.||||||0.0155|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0155
91085948|NCT03990051|182054565|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of changes in score from baseline.||||||0.016|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0160
91085949|NCT03990051|182054566|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of changes in score from baseline.||||||0.0117|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0117
91085950|NCT03990051|182054567|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of changes in score from baseline.||||||0.4649|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.4649
91085951|NCT03990051|182054568|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of changes in score from baseline.||||||0.0082|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0082
91085952|NCT03990051|182054569|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of changes in score from baseline.||||||0.0225|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0225
91085953|NCT03990051|182054570|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of changes in score from baseline.||||||0.1822|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1822
91085954|NCT03990051|182054571|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of changes in score from baseline.||||||0.0515|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0515
91085955|NCT03990051|182054572|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of changes in score from baseline.||||||0.044|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.044
91085956|NCT03990051|182054573|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of changes of score from baseline.||||||0.083|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.083
91085957|NCT03990051|182054574|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of changes in score from baseline.||||||0.7147|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7147
91085958|NCT03990051|182054575|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of changes in score from baseline.||||||0.8251|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8251
91085959|NCT03990051|182054576|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of changes in score from baseline.||||||0.0435|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0435
91085960|NCT03990051|182054577|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of changes in score from baseline.||||||0.013|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0130
91085961|NCT03990051|182054578|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of changes in score from baseline.||||||0.3205|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.3205
91085962|NCT03990051|182054579|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of changes in score from baseline.||||||0.1401|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1401
91085963|NCT03990051|182054580|SUPERIORITY|Comparison in changes in score from baseline.||||||0.0098|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0098
91085964|NCT03990051|182054581|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of changes in score from baseline.||||||0.1032|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1032
91085965|NCT03990051|182054582|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of changes in score from baseline.||||||0.0389|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0389
91085966|NCT03990051|182054583|OTHER||||||<|1e-05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Score in 1 year compared to baseline||||<0.00001
91085967|NCT03990051|182054584|OTHER||||||<|1e-05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00001
91085968|NCT03990051|182054585|OTHER||||||<|1e-05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00001
91085969|NCT03990051|182054586|OTHER||||||<|1e-05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00001
91085970|NCT03990051|182054587|OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0002
91085971|NCT03990051|182054588|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0001
91085972|NCT03990051|182054589|OTHER||||||<|1e-05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00001
91085973|NCT03990051|182054590|OTHER||||||<|1e-05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00001
91085974|NCT03990051|182054591|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00001
91085975|NCT03990051|182054592|OTHER||||||<|1e-05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00001
91085976|NCT03990051|182054593|OTHER||||||<|1e-05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00001
91085977|NCT03990051|182054594|OTHER||||||<|1e-05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00001
91085978|NCT03990051|182054595|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0001
91085979|NCT03990051|182054596|OTHER||||||<|1e-05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00001
91085980|NCT03990051|182054597|OTHER||||||<|1e-05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00001
91085981|NCT03990051|182054598|OTHER||||||<|1e-05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00001
91085982|NCT03990051|182054599|OTHER||||||<|1e-05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00001
91085983|NCT03990051|182054600|OTHER||||||<|1e-05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00001
91085984|NCT03193047|182054604|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-30.261|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.502|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.324|-19.199|||ANCOVA||(Bempedoic acid plus evolocumab) minus (placebo plus evolocumab)|||-19.199|-41.324|<0.001
91085985|NCT03193047|182054605|SUPERIORITY||Lease squares mean difference|-35.884|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.159|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.303|-25.466|||ANCOVA||(Bempedoic acid plus evolocumab) minus (placebo plus evolocumab)|||-25.466|-46.303|<0.001
91085986|NCT03193047|182054606|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-38.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.602|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.558|-26.944|||ANCOVA||(Bempedoic acid plus evolocumab) minus (placebo plus evolocumab)|Month 1||-26.944|-49.558|<0.001
91085987|NCT03193047|182054606|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-29.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.606|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.176|-18.626|||ANCOVA||(Bempedoic acid plus evolocumab) minus (placebo plus evolocumab)|Month 2||-18.626|-41.176|<0.001
91085988|NCT03193047|182054607|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-27.031|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.509|-16.553|||ANCOVA||(Bempedoic acid plus evolocumab) minus (placebo plus evolocumab)|Apo B at Month 1||-16.553|-37.509|<0.001
91085989|NCT03193047|182054607|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-24.469|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.33|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.225|-15.713|||ANCOVA||(Bempedoic acid plus evolocumab) minus (placebo plus evolocumab)|Apo B at Month 2||-15.713|-33.225|<0.001
91085990|NCT03193047|182054607|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-31.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.689|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.116|-22.163|||ANCOVA||(Bempedoic acid plus evolocumab) minus (placebo plus evolocumab)|non-HDL-C at Month 1||-22.163|-41.116|<0.001
91085991|NCT03193047|182054607|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-24.246|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.838|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.987|-14.505|||ANCOVA||(Bempedoic acid plus evolocumab) minus (placebo plus evolocumab)|non-HDL-C at Month 2||-14.505|-33.987|<0.001
91085992|NCT03193047|182054607|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-21.941|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.572|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.153|-14.729|||ANCOVA||(Bempedoic acid plus evolocumab) minus (placebo plus evolocumab)|TC at Month 1||-14.729|-29.153|<0.001
91085993|NCT03193047|182054607|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-17.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.809|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.201|-9.839|||ANCOVA||(Bempedoic acid plus evolocumab) minus (placebo plus evolocumab)|TC at Month 2||-9.839|-25.201|<0.001
91085994|NCT03193047|182054608|SUPERIORITY||Median treatment difference|-32.479|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.395||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.524|-2.339|||Wilcoxon rank sum test||The median treatment difference (location shift) and the 95% confidence limits are from Hodges-Lehmann estimates.|hs-CRP at Month 1||-2.339|-70.524|0.046
91085995|NCT03193047|182054608|SUPERIORITY||Median treatment difference|-28.512|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.124||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.455|-3.93|||Wilcoxon rank sum test||The median treatment difference (location shift) and the 95% confidence limits are from Hodges-Lehmann estimates.|hs-CRP at Month 2||-3.930|-51.455|0.029
91085996|NCT00996034|182054660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||This is a comparison of scan 1 and scan 2||||<0.05
91085997|NCT01720524|182054661|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02||0.985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.08|2.04|||ANCOVA|||||2.04|-2.08|0.9850
91085998|NCT01720524|182054662|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|7.6||||0.4935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|29.3|||Chi-squared|||||29.3|-14.1|0.4935
91085999|NCT01720524|182054663|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9885|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.9885
91086000|NCT01720524|182054664|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.491|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.4910
91086001|NCT01720524|182054665|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|3.8||||0.7065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|22.9|||Fisher Exact|||Additional Treatment||22.9|-15.2|0.7065
91086002|NCT01720524|182054665|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|0.3|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.5|18.5|||Fisher Exact|||ECMO||18.5|-18.5|>0.999
91086003|NCT01720524|182054665|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|6.9||||0.2373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|22.8|||Fisher Exact|||Death||22.8|-5.5|0.2373
91086004|NCT01720524|182054666|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.9||||0.4984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|15.3|||ANCOVA|||Hour 6||15.3|-7.5|0.4984
91086005|NCT01720524|182054666|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.1||||0.3956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|13.7|||ANCOVA|||Hour 12||13.7|-5.5|0.3956
91086006|NCT01720524|182054666|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.2||||0.4249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|3.3|||ANCOVA|||Hour 24||3.3|-7.6|0.4249
91086007|NCT01720524|182054667|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.7||||0.7686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|5.8|||ANCOVA|||Hour 6||5.8|-4.3|0.7686
91086008|NCT01720524|182054667|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-8.0||||0.1112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|1.9|||ANCOVA|||Hour 12||1.9|-17.8|0.1112
91086009|NCT01720524|182054667|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-8.2||||0.2089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.2|4.8|||ANCOVA|||Hour 24||4.8|-21.2|0.2089
91086010|NCT01720524|182054668|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|37.2||||0.0829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|79.5|||ANCOVA|||Hour 6||79.5|-5.0|0.0829
91086011|NCT01720524|182054668|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|26.6||||0.1802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|65.9|||ANCOVA|||Hour 12||65.9|-12.7|0.1802
90893752|NCT03053050|181652655|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|-0.9||||0.808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|6.1||Difference between SEL 6 mg vs Placebo, 95% CI and p-value were obtained by stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method with baseline diabetes mellitus status and ELF test score as stratification factors.|Mantel Haenszel|||||6.1|-7.9|0.8080
90893753|NCT03053050|181652657|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|-2.0||||0.5636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|4.8||Difference between SEL 18 mg and Placebo, 95% CI and p-value were obtained by stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method with baseline diabetes mellitus status and ELF test score as stratification factors.|Mantel Haenszel|||||4.8|-8.7|0.5636
90893754|NCT03053050|181652657|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|-1.9||||0.5915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|4.9||Difference between SEL 6 mg and Placebo, 95% CI and p-value were obtained by stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method with baseline diabetes mellitus status and ELF test score as stratification factors.|Mantel Haenszel|||||4.9|-8.6|0.5915
90893755|NCT03053050|181652659|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|-3.2||||0.2455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|2.2||Difference between SEL 18 mg and Placebo, 95% CI and p-value were obtained by stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method with baseline diabetes mellitus status and ELF test score as stratification factors.|Mantel Haenszel|||||2.2|-8.5|0.2455
90893756|NCT03053050|181652659|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|-4.0||||0.1371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|1.3||Difference between SEL 6 mg and Placebo, 95% CI and p-value were obtained by stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method with baseline diabetes mellitus status and ELF test score as stratification factors.|Mantel Haenszel|||||1.3|-9.3|0.1371
90893757|NCT02293395|181652679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.5|||Log Rank|||||1.5|0.8|0.584
90893758|NCT01023568|181652699|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The GlideScope and Truview PCD video laryngoscopes were individually assessed for non-inferiority on time to intubation vs direct laryngoscopy at the 0.025 significance level using an a priori specified non-inferiority delta of seven seconds (about 40% of the expected standard deviation of 18 sec and not thought to be clinically important).|Median Difference (Final Values)|14.0|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|26.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Glidescope - direct laryngoscopy|||26|7|>0.99
90893759|NCT01023568|181652699|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The GlideScope and Truview PCD video laryngoscopes were individually assessed for non-inferiority on time to intubation vs direct laryngoscopy at the 0.025 significance level using an a priori specified non-inferiority delta of seven seconds (about 40% of the expected standard deviation of 18 sec and not thought to be clinically important).|Median Difference (Final Values)|17.0|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|28.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Truview PCD - direct laryngoscopy|||28|6|>0.99
90893760|NCT01023568|181652700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.28
90893761|NCT01023568|181652701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.0|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|1-tailed Wilcoxon sum-rank test|"The median difference was Hodges-Lehmann estimation and the confidence intervals were exact confidence limits. The SAS NPAR1WAY procedure was used for test and estimation."|The Cormack-Lehane grade with a grade 1 (best grade) to 4 (worst grade) was analyzed as an ordinal outcome.||2|1|> 0.99
90893762|NCT01023568|181652701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|1-tailed Wilcoxon sum-rank test|"The median difference was Hodges-Lehmann estimation and the confidence intervals were exact confidence limits. The SAS NPAR1WAY procedure was used for test and estimation."|The Cormack-Lehane grade with a grade 1 (best grade) to 4 (worst grade) was analyzed as an ordinal outcome.||0|0|0.18
90893763|NCT01023568|181652702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.26
90893764|NCT01023568|181652703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.99
90893765|NCT00224770|181652704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.6||0.324|ONE_SIDED|95.0||16.2|||Fisher Exact|One-sided test|MISTIE rate=14.8, 95% upper limit=25.1; medical rate=9.5, 95% upper limit=20.5; comparison considers MISTIE rate minus medical rate.|Null hypothesis is that rate of mortality within 30 days is the same between the two groups. The alternative hypothesis tests whether MISTIE surgical management has a higher rate of mortality than the medical arm.||16.2||0.324
90893766|NCT00224770|181652704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.2||0.633|ONE_SIDED|95.0||11.2|||Fisher Exact|One-sided test|ICES rate=7.1, 95% upper limit=29.7; medical rate=9.5, 95% upper limit=20.5; comparison considers ICES rate minus medical rate.|Null hypothesis is that rate of mortality within 30 days is the same between the two groups. The alternative hypothesis tests whether ICES surgical management has a higher rate of mortality than the medical arm.||11.2||0.633
90893767|NCT00224770|181652705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1||0.174|ONE_SIDED|95.0||11.7|||Fisher Exact|One-sided test|MISTIE rate=5.6, 95% upper limit=13.7; medical rate=0.0, 95% upper limit=6.9; comparison considers MISTIE rate minus medical rate.|Null hypothesis is that rate of procedure-related mortality within 7 days is the same between the two groups. The alternative hypothesis tests whether MISTIE surgical management has a higher rate of procedure-related mortality than the medical arm.||11.7||0.174
90893768|NCT00224770|181652706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.437|ONE_SIDED|95.0||1.5|||Fisher Exact|One-sided test|MISTIE rate=0.0, 95% upper limit=5.4; medical rate=2.4, 95% upper limit=10.8; comparison considers MISTIE rate minus medical rate.|Null hypothesis is that rate of cerebritis, meningitis and ventriculitis within 30 days is the same between the two groups. The alternative hypothesis tests whether MISTIE surgical management has a higher rate of these infections than medical.||1.5||0.437
90893769|NCT00224770|181652706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.75|ONE_SIDED|95.0||1.5|||Fisher Exact|One-sided test|ICES rate=0.0, 95% upper limit=19.3; medical rate=2.4, 95% upper limit=10.8; comparison considers ICES rate minus medical rate.|Null hypothesis is that rate of cerebritis, meningitis and ventriculitis within 30 days is the same between the two groups. The alternative hypothesis tests whether ICES surgical management has a higher rate of these infections than medical.||1.5||0.750
90956904|NCT00657020|181793391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6261||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis considered treatments in comparison to be equal.||||0.6261
91086012|NCT01720524|182054668|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|79.9||||0.1576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.5|192.2|||ANCOVA|||Hour 24||192.2|-32.5|0.1576
91086013|NCT00527826|182054702|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Negative binomial model for the rate of exacerbations (per year) using the treatment duration as offset term and treatment, COPD severity (stratum) and interaction as fixed factors. This model took further into account a strata imbalance of 73% COPD III vs. 27% COPD IV according to the observed rates (SAS code: proc GENMOD).||||||0.73||95.0|||||Negative binomial model|Least square means adjusted for COPD severity (stratum), interaction of stratum with treatment, and strata imbalance of 73% COPD III vs. 27% COPD IV.||||||0.73
91086014|NCT00527826|182054704|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Poisson model for the rate of exacerbations (per year) using the treatment duration as offset term and treatment, COPD severity (stratum) and interaction as fixed factors. This model took further into account a strata imbalance of 73% COPD III vs. 27% COPD IV according to the observed rates (SAS code: proc GENMOD).||||||0.66||95.0|||||Poisson model|Least square means adjusted for COPD severity (stratum), interaction of stratum with treatment, and strata imbalance of 73% COPD III vs. 27% COPD IV.||||||0.66
91086015|NCT00158262|182054717|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|16.7|||||Placebo-Propranolol|||16.7|-2.7|
91086016|NCT00158262|182054718|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5|15.3|||||Placebo-Propranolol|CAPS Total Score at Month 1||15.3|-15.5|
91086017|NCT00158262|182054718|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.3|16.0||||||CAPS Total Score at Month 3||16.0|-20.3|
91086018|NCT00158262|182054719|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|10.7|||||Placebo-Propranolol|||10.7|-4.8|
91086019|NCT02080364|182054730|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3386||||||p-value for comparison to Placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.3386
91086020|NCT02080364|182054730|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1992||||||p-value for compairons to Placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1992
91086021|NCT02080364|182054731|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9394||||||p-value for comparison to Placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.9394
91086022|NCT02080364|182054731|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||MMRM model does not converge. LS Mean and p-value are NA.|||
91086023|NCT00784719|182054744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median|59.0|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|57.0||Upper limit of 80% CI was not estimable as there were insufficient number of participants, who achieved \>=10 mm Schirmer test score in this reporting group, for the analysis.||||||||57.0|
91086024|NCT00784719|182054744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median|58.0|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|58.0||Upper limit of 80% CI was not estimable as there were insufficient number of participants, who achieved \>=10 mm Schirmer test score in this reporting group, for the analysis.||||||||58.0|
91086025|NCT00784719|182054744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median|57.0|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|29.0||Upper limit of 80% CI was not estimable as there were insufficient number of participants, who achieved \>=10 mm Schirmer test score in this reporting group, for the analysis.||||||||29.0|
91086026|NCT00784719|182054746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median|15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|9.0|28.0||||||||28.0|9.0|
91086027|NCT00784719|182054746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median|8.5|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|8.0|27.0||||||||27.0|8.0|
91086028|NCT00784719|182054746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median|15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|15.0|27.0||||||||27.0|15.0|
91086029|NCT00784719|182054746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median|9.5|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|8.0|15.0||||||||15.0|8.0|
91086030|NCT00784719|182054746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median|9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|8.0|15.0||||||||15.0|8.0|
91086031|NCT00784719|182054746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median|15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|8.0|43.0||||||||43.0|8.0|
91086032|NCT00784719|182054746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median|16.0|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|15.0|30.0||||||||30.0|15.0|
91086033|NCT04550364|182054763|OTHER|Semi-structured interview, background information, DSM 5 diagnosis and ED symptoms.||||||||||||||||23 of 24 women were used ideal type analysis as the methods. EDE-Q and DSM 5 diagnosis were measured.|Ideal type analysis as main method of analysis|||
91086034|NCT04550364|182054764|OTHER|Interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA)||||||||||||||||of the 24 mothers there were 7 of them that had undergone In vitro fertilization. These women were interviewed twice and IPA were used in analysis the material.|IPA|||
91086035|NCT04550364|182054765|OTHER|Grounded theory was used analysis method. 5 distinct ED trajectories into motherhood were identified based on the womens experiences from pregnancy to postpartum.||||||||||||||||This study was based on interviews conducted with 24 participants during pregnancy and postpartum. Semi-structured interview with 24 women at two time points: 1. During pregnancy and 2. 4-6 months after birth. DSM 5 diagnosis at both time points were also assessed and symptoms at eating disorders through EDE-Q.|Qualitative methods using Ground theory|||
91086036|NCT01919164|182054779|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.03||||||Descriptive statistics was provided for primary endpoint.||0.03|-0.01|
91086037|NCT01919164|182054779|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.04||||||Descriptive statistics was provided for primary endpoint.||0.04|-0.01|
91086038|NCT01919164|182054779|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.06||||||Descriptive statistics was provided for primary endpoint.||0.06|0.02|
91086039|NCT01919164|182054779|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.07||||||Descriptive statistics was provided for primary endpoint.||0.07|0.03|
91086040|NCT00511173|182054796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.5|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in warfarin dose (mg/wk) between pharmacist dosing and algorithm dosing. In order to gather all SNP groups, the power analysis resulted in \> 100 patients enrolled into each group.||||< 0.05
91086041|NCT04194489|182054809|OTHER|Effect size calculation|Cohen's d|0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Cohen's d effect size was calculated using baseline and follow-up means and standard deviations. An effect size of 0.2 is small, 0.5 is medium and 0.8 is large.||||
91086042|NCT04194489|182054810|OTHER|Effect size|Cohen's d|0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Cohen's d effect size was calculated using baseline and follow-up means and standard deviations. An effect size of 0.2 is small, 0.5 is medium and 0.8 is large.||||
91086043|NCT04194489|182054811|OTHER|Effect size calculation|Cohen's d|0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Cohen's d effect size was calculated using baseline and follow-up means and standard deviations. An effect size of 0.2 is small, 0.5 is medium and 0.8 is large.||||
90956905|NCT00657020|181793391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0106||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis considered treatments in comparison to be equal.||||0.0106
91022144|NCT00386100|181928042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.5||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.7||Overall population, Week 80. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||-0.7|-2.3|0.0005
91022145|NCT00386100|181928042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.2||Overall population, Week 56. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||-0.2|-1.7|0.0110
91022146|NCT00386100|181928042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.0618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.0||Overall population, Week 20. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||0.0|-1.1|0.0618
91022147|NCT00386100|181928042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.3||Male population, Week 80. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||-0.3|-2.3|0.0110
91022148|NCT00386100|181928042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.0272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.1||Male population, Week 56. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||-0.1|-1.9|0.0272
91022149|NCT00386100|181928042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8||||0.0337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.1||Male population, Week 20. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||-0.1|-1.6|0.0337
91022150|NCT00386100|181928042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-1.7||||0.0152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-0.3||Female population, Week 80. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||-0.3|-3.1|0.0152
91022151|NCT00386100|181928042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.0||Female population, Week 56. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||0.0|-2.4|0.0570
91022152|NCT00386100|181928042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-2.2||||0.0296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|-0.2||Premenopausal female population, Week 80. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||-0.2|-4.3|0.0296
91022153|NCT00386100|181928042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.4||||0.0155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|-0.5||Premenopausal female population, Week 56. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||-0.5|-4.4|0.0155
91022154|NCT00386100|181928042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.0||Premenopausal female population, Week 20. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||1.0|-1.7|0.5870
91022155|NCT00386100|181928042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.5||||0.1854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|0.7||Postmenopausal female population, Week 80. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||0.7|-3.6|0.1854
91022156|NCT00386100|181928043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-1.9||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-0.6||Overall population, Week 80. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||-0.6|-3.2|0.0038
91022157|NCT00386100|181928043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.5||||0.0134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.3||Overall population, Week 56. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||-0.3|-2.7|0.0134
91022158|NCT00386100|181928043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.0967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.1||Overall population, Week 20. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||0.1|-1.5|0.0967
91086044|NCT04194489|182054812|OTHER|Effect size calculation|Cohen's d|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Cohen's d effect size was calculated using baseline and follow-up means and standard deviations. An effect size of 0.2 is small, 0.5 is medium and 0.8 is large.||||
91086045|NCT02485483|182054815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.74||"Convergent Validity Criterion Correlation coefficient (ρ) \> \|0.50\|"|t-test, 2 sided||Convergent correlation between PHQ-9 and MADRS|Number of participants analyzed (N) = 221||0.74|0.59|<0.001
90956906|NCT00657020|181793392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5544||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is left parietal cortex.||||0.5544
91086046|NCT02485483|182054815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.76||"Convergent Validity Criterion ρ \> \|0.50\|"|t-test, 2 sided||Convergent correlation between PHQ-9 and BDI-II|Number of participants analyzed (N) = 222||0.76|0.62|<0.001
91086047|NCT02485483|182054816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.58||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.66||"Convergent Validity Criterion ρ \> \|0.50\|"|t-test, 2 sided||Convergent correlation between PHQ-9 and MADRS|Number of participants analyzed (N) = 203||0.66|0.48|0.057
91086048|NCT02485483|182054816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.8||"Convergent Validity Criterion ρ \> \|0.50\|"|t-test, 2 sided||Convergent correlation between PHQ-9 and BDI-II|Number of participants analyzed (N) = 200||0.80|0.67|<0.001
91086049|NCT02485483|182054817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.79||"Convergent Validity Criterion ρ \> \|0.50\|"|t-test, 2 sided||Convergent correlation between BDI-II and MADRS|Number of participants analyzed (N) = 258||0.79|0.67|<0.001
91086050|NCT02485483|182054818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.77||"Convergent Validity Criterion ρ \> \|0.50\|"|t-test, 2 sided||Convergent correlation between BDI-II and MADRS|Number of participants analyzed (N) = 214||0.77|0.64|<0.001
91086051|NCT02485483|182054819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|-0.59||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.49||"Convergent Validity Criterion ρ \> \|0.50\|"|t-test, 2 sided||Convergent correlation between WHO-5 and MADRS|Number of participants analyzed (N) = 222||-0.49|-0.67|0.034
91086052|NCT02485483|182054819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|-0.61||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.52||"Convergent Validity Criterion ρ \> \|0.50\|"|t-test, 2 sided||Convergent correlation between WHO-5 and BDI-II|Number of participants analyzed (N) = 223||-0.52|-0.68|0.010
91086053|NCT02485483|182054819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|-0.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.66||"Convergent Validity Criterion ρ \> \|0.50\|"|t-test, 2 sided||Convergent correlation between WHO-5 and PHQ-9|Number of participants analyzed (N) = 222||-0.66|-0.78|<0.001
91086054|NCT02485483|182054820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|-0.54||||0.219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.43||"Convergent Validity Criterion ρ \> \|0.50\|"|t-test, 2 sided||Convergent correlation between WHO-5 and MADRS|Number of participants analyzed (N) = 202||-0.43|-0.63|0.219
91086055|NCT02485483|182054820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|-0.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.6||"Convergent Validity Criterion ρ \> \|0.50\|"|t-test, 2 sided||Convergent correlation between WHO-5 and BDI-II|Number of participants analyzed (N) = 199||-0.60|-0.75|<0.001
90956907|NCT00657020|181793392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6716||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is left parietal cortex.||||0.6716
91022159|NCT00386100|181928043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.5||||0.0512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|0.0||Male population, Week 80. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||0.0|-3.0|0.0512
91022160|NCT00386100|181928043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.4||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|-0.2||Female population, Week 80. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||-0.2|-4.6|0.0330
91022161|NCT00386100|181928043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.8||||0.0547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|0.0||Female population, Week 56. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||0.0|-3.7|0.0547
91086056|NCT02485483|182054820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|-0.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.7||"Convergent Validity Criterion ρ \> \|0.50\|"|t-test, 2 sided||Convergent correlation between WHO-5 and PHQ-9|Number of participants analyzed (N) = 205||-0.70|-0.82|<0.001
91086057|NCT00377637|182054826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.478||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|Covariates included Treatment, Race, Geographical Region, and WHO Lupus Nephritis Class V and specified interaction terms.||||||0.478
91086058|NCT00377637|182054827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||Testing at the alpha=0.05 level was applied with no adjustments made for multiplicity.|Log Rank|||The difference in Kaplan-Meier survival curves between treatment groups (MMF-AZA) was assessed using a log-rank test, which is a non-parametric test to compare the survival distributions of two groups commonly used to analyze time-to-event endpoints.||||0.003
91086059|NCT03506438|182054840|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.7||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|-1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.2|-12.2|0.018
91086060|NCT03506438|182054841|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.1|-0.5|0.48
91086061|NCT03506438|182054842|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.0|-1.4|0.73
91086062|NCT03506438|182054843|SUPERIORITY||estimated mean difference|0.6||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.1|-1.0|0.47
91086063|NCT03506438|182054844|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|5.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.2|0.6|0.29
91086064|NCT03506438|182054845|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.47
91086065|NCT03506438|182054846|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.39
91086066|NCT03506438|182054847|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.08
90956908|NCT00657020|181793392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7511||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is left superior occipital cortex.||||0.7511
91086067|NCT04155463|182054848|OTHER||Median Percent Change|-18.4||||0.17|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|Two-tailed test for paired data|This calculation shows the median percent change in urinary glyphosate concentrations going from the conventional diet to organic diet for all participants. Interquartile range for this was -37.4 to 29.8.|Based on previous pesticide research, we calculated a sample size of 40 participants to provide a power of 0.80 at a 0.05 significance level in a two-sided test. We assumed a standard deviation of 0.5 µg/L.||||0.17
91086068|NCT04155463|182054848|OTHER||Median Percent Change|-24.2||||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|Two-tailed test for paired data|This calculation shows the median percent change in urinary glyphosate concentrations going from the conventional diet to organic diet for far-field participants. Interquartile range for this was -37.4 to -8.8.|||||0.06
91086069|NCT04155463|182054848|OTHER||Median Percent Change|1.4||||0.83|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Two-tailed test for paired data|This calculation shows the median percent change in urinary glyphosate concentrations going from the conventional diet to organic diet for near-field participants. Interquartile range for this was -41.9 to 43.0.|||||0.83
91086070|NCT00113295|182054850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.3|||<|0.05||||||No adjustment for multiple testing|t-test, 2 sided||This analysis applies to the additional reduction from phase 2 randomization to phase 2 endpoint in HAM-A scores.|In phase 2, comprising randomized double-blind quetiapine augmentation, change scores were examined with two-tailed, two-sample t tests, utilizing scores at phase 2 randomization as baseline. All analyses were intention to treat (ITT) with the last visit carried forward (LVCF) for subjects that did not complete the study.||||<0.05
91086071|NCT00875563|182054872|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|An exact test method (Sidik K. 2003, Statistics in Medicine 22: 265-278) for matched controls was used, at a type I error rate of 0.05 and a non-inferiority margin of 10%. 38 pairs of patients were determined necessary, and the power was calculated to be 0.92.||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Exact test for matched pairs|||Patients treated with the Zenith® Fenestrated AAA Endovascular Graft were compared with matched patients treated with the Zenith® AAA Endovascular Graft.||||0.02
91086072|NCT01808261|182054892|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0443|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0809||0.713||95.0|-0.119|0.2||P-value presented is the posterior probability that the treatment difference (GSK249320 15mg/kg - placebo) is greater than 0 m/s at Month 3/Day 90.|Bayesian method|||Credible intervals are displayed as confidence intervals. Posterior means, standard deviations, and credible intervals are provided in the table.||0.2|-0.119|0.713
91086073|NCT01808261|182054893|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0794|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0857||0.828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.093|0.247||P-value presented is the posterior probability that the treatment difference (GSK249320 15mg/kg - placebo) is greater than 0 m/s at Month 6/Day 180.|Bayesian method|||Credible intervals are displayed as confidence intervals. Posterior means, standard deviations, and credible intervals are provided in the table.||0.247|-0.093|0.828
91022162|NCT00386100|181928043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.1||||0.0613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|0.2||Premenopausal female population, Week 80. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||0.2|-6.3|0.0613
91022163|NCT00386100|181928043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.5||||0.1369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|1.7||Postmenopausal female population, Week 80. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||1.7|-3.9|0.1369
91022164|NCT00386100|181928044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.2||Overall population, Week 80. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||0.2|-1.7|0.1260
91022165|NCT00386100|181928044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.3117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.7||Male population, Week 80. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||0.7|-2.2|0.3117
91022166|NCT00386100|181928044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9||||0.1776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.4||Female population, Week 80. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||0.4|-2.2|0.1776
91022167|NCT00386100|181928044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-1.2||||0.2259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|0.8||Premenopausal female population, Week 80. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||0.8|-3.2|0.2259
91022168|NCT00386100|181928044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9||||0.384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|1.1||postmenopausal female population, Week 80. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||1.1|-2.8|0.3840
91022169|NCT00386100|181928045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.6102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.1||Overall population, Week 80. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||1.1|-1.9|0.6102
91086074|NCT01808261|182054895|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.408|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7495|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.067|7.883||||||Statistical data for Day 30. The point estimate and confidence interval are for the adjusted mean difference based on least square estimates.||7.883|-3.067|
91086075|NCT01808261|182054895|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8732|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.704|8.735||||||Statistical data for Day 60. The point estimate and confidence interval are for the adjusted mean difference based on least square estimates.||8.735|-2.704|
91086076|NCT01808261|182054895|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.435|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5633|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.668|9.538||||||Statistical data for Day 90. The point estimate and confidence interval are for the adjusted mean difference based on least square estimates.||9.538|-4.668|
91022170|NCT00386100|181928045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9||||0.3445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|1.0||Male population, Week 80. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||1.0|-2.9|0.3445
91086077|NCT01808261|182054895|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.944|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5635|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.15|11.037||||||Statistical data for Day 180. The point estimate and confidence interval are for the adjusted mean difference based on least square estimates.||11.037|-3.15|
91086078|NCT02585713|182054923|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1316|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.1316
91086079|NCT01150903|182054925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-square test was used to calculate p-value.||||<0.001
91022171|NCT00386100|181928045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.9735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|2.3||Female population, Week 80. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||2.3|-2.4|0.9735
91022172|NCT00386100|181928045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.4||||0.4861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|2.9||Premenopausal female population, Week 80. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||2.9|-5.8|0.4861
91022173|NCT00386100|181928045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|4.0||Postmenopausal female population, Week 80. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||4.0|-3.5|0.8770
91022174|NCT00386100|181928046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.7015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.0||Overall population, Week 80. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||1.0|-1.5|0.7015
91022175|NCT00386100|181928046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.6767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.0||Male population, Week 80. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||1.0|-0.7|0.6767
91022176|NCT00386100|181928046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.4199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|1.5||Female population, Week 80. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||1.5|-3.4|0.4199
91022177|NCT00386100|181928046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-5.5||||0.2526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|5.4||Premenopausal female population, Week 80. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||5.4|-16.4|0.2526
91022178|NCT00386100|181928046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.4153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.8||postmenopausal female population, Week 80. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||0.8|-1.8|0.4153
91022179|NCT00386100|181928047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|0.168||||0.7895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.066|1.417||Overall population, Week 80. Log transformed. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline.||||1.417|-1.066|0.7895
91022180|NCT00386100|181928047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|0.745||||0.4155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.064|2.587||Males, Week 80. Log transformed. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline.||||2.587|-1.064|0.4155
91022181|NCT00386100|181928047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|-0.452||||0.6223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.253|1.382||Females, Week 80. Log transformed. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline.||||1.382|-2.253|0.6223
91086080|NCT01150903|182054926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-square test was used to calculate p-value.||||<0.001
91086081|NCT04501952|182054933|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.134||||0.0076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.031|0.586|||Regression, Cox|P-value was estimated using the Cox regression with baseline stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard ratio and two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) were estimated using the Cox regression with baseline stratification factors as covariates.|||0.586|0.031|0.0076
91086082|NCT04501952|182054935|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.191||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.065|0.555|||Regression, Cox|P-value was estimated using the Cox regression with baseline stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard ratio and two-sided 95% CI were estimated using the Cox regression with baseline stratification factors as covariates.|||0.555|0.065|0.0024
91086083|NCT04501952|182054938|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.134||||0.0076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.031|0.586|||Regression, Cox|P-value were estimated using the Cox regression with baseline stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard ratio and two-sided 95% CI were estimated using the Cox regression with baseline stratification factors as covariates.|||0.586|0.031|0.0076
91022182|NCT00386100|181928047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|-0.638||||0.5908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.043|1.826||Premenopausal females, Week 80. Log transformed. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline.||||1.826|-3.043|0.5908
91022183|NCT00386100|181928047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|-0.155||||0.9154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.037|2.814||Postmenopausal females, Week 80. Log transformed. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline.||||2.814|-3.037|0.9154
91022184|NCT00386100|181928048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|1.467||||0.8682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.785|20.818||Overall population, Week 80. Log transformed.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||20.818|-14.785|0.8682
91022185|NCT00386100|181928048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|0.328||||0.974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.308|23.214||Males, Week 80. Log transformed.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline.||||23.214|-18.308|0.9740
91022186|NCT00386100|181928048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|2.986||||0.8378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.997|37.735||Females, Week 80. Log transformed.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline.||||37.735|-22.997|0.8378
91022187|NCT00386100|181928048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|8.19||||0.7889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.839|108.422||Pre-menopausal females, Week 80. Log transformed.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline.||||108.422|-43.839|0.7889
91022188|NCT00386100|181928048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|3.344||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.853|63.935||Postmenopausal females, Week 80. Log transformed.|ANCOVA|.Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline.||||63.935|-34.853|0.8800
91022189|NCT00386100|181928049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|1.2168||||0.9069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6057|24.3392||Overall population, Week 80. Log transformed.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline.||||24.3392|-17.6057|0.9069
91022190|NCT00386100|181928049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|-10.1648||||0.5118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.6298|25.3742||Males, Week 80. Log transformed.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline.||||25.3742|-35.6298|0.5118
91022191|NCT00386100|181928049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|8.8777||||0.5816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.2636|48.6692||Females, Week 80. Log transformed.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline.||||48.6692|-20.2636|0.5816
91022192|NCT00386100|181928049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|-1.0031||||0.9587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.928|52.959||Pre-menopausal females, Week 80. Log transformed.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline.||||52.9590|-35.9280|0.9587
91022193|NCT00386100|181928049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|4.7614||||0.8337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.4741|67.4901||Postmenopausal females, Week 80. Log transformed.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline.||||67.4901|-34.4741|0.8337
91022194|NCT00386100|181928050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|7.527||||0.7041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.773|57.892||Females, Week 80. Log transformed. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline.||||57.892|-26.773|0.7041
91022195|NCT00386100|181928050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|30.211||||0.6403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.586|341.371||Pre-menopausal females, Week 80. Log transformed. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline.||||341.371|-61.586|0.6403
91022196|NCT00386100|181928050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|1.929||||0.8474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.015|25.198||Postmenopausal females, Week 80. Log transformed. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|.Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline.||||25.198|-17.015|0.8474
91022197|NCT00386100|181928051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|5.7||||0.486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|23.6||Overall, Week 80. Log transformed. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||23.6|-9.6|0.4860
91022198|NCT00386100|181928051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|12.3||||0.3791|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|46.1||Males, Week 80. Log transformed. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||46.1|-13.7|0.3791
91022199|NCT00386100|181928051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|4.0||||0.7065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.3|27.6||Females, Week 80. Log transformed. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||27.6|-15.3|0.7065
90956909|NCT00657020|181793392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7959||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is left superior occipital cortex.||||0.7959
91022200|NCT00386100|181928051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|32.1||||0.1381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|92.7||Pre-menopausal females, Week 80. Log transformed. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||92.7|-9.5|0.1381
91086084|NCT04501952|182054939|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.1||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.023|0.43|||Regression, Cox|P-value were estimated using the Cox regression with baseline stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard ratio and two-sided 95% CI were estimated using the Cox regression with baseline stratification factors as covariates.|||0.430|0.023|0.0019
91086085|NCT04501952|182054940|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.4318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.24|||ANCOVA|P-value were from an ANCOVA model with baseline viral load as a covariate.|Least squares Mean (LSM), standard error (SE) and 95% CI were from an ANCOVA model with baseline viral load as a covariate.|||0.24|-0.10|0.4318
91086086|NCT04501952|182054941|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.405||||0.2987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.733|2.693|||Log Rank|p-value was based on stratified log-rank test with baseline stratification factor as strata.|Hazard ratio and two-sided 95% CI were estimated using the Cox regression with baseline stratification factors as covariates.|||2.693|0.733|0.2987
91086087|NCT04501952|182054943|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2163|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2163
91086088|NCT02609984|182054947|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8568||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5507|1.333||P-value based on a 2-sided stratified log-rank test stratified by type of sarcoma: synovial sarcoma versus myxoid/round cell liposarcoma.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio is from Cox proportional hazards model stratified by type of sarcoma: synovial sarcoma versus myxoid/round cell liposarcoma.|||1.3330|0.5507|0.4900
91086089|NCT02609984|182054948|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2145||||0.4737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7131|2.0684||P-value based on a 2-sided stratified log-rank test stratified by type of sarcoma: synovial sarcoma versus myxoid/round cell liposarcoma.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio is from Cox proportional hazards model stratified by type of sarcoma: synovial sarcoma versus myxoid/round cell liposarcoma.|||2.0684|0.7131|0.4737
91086090|NCT02609984|182054952|OTHER|||||||0.3645||||||P-value based on a 2-sided stratified log-rank test stratified by type of sarcoma: synovial sarcoma versus myxoid/round cell liposarcoma.|Log Rank|||||||0.3645
91086091|NCT02609984|182054953|OTHER|||||||0.3466||||||P-value based on a 2-sided stratified log-rank test stratified by type of sarcoma: synovial sarcoma versus myxoid/round cell liposarcoma.|Log Rank|||||||0.3466
91086092|NCT02609984|182054954|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7006||||0.1622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4241|1.1574||P-value based on a 2-sided stratified log-rank test stratified by type of sarcoma: synovial sarcoma versus myxoid/round cell liposarcoma.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio is from Cox proportional hazards model stratified by type of sarcoma: synovial sarcoma versus myxoid/round cell liposarcoma.|||1.1574|0.4241|0.1622
91022201|NCT00386100|181928051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|-4.3||||0.7195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.4|22.7||Postmenopausal females, Week 80. Log transformed. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|.Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||22.7|-25.4|0.7195
91022202|NCT00386100|181928052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|-3.0||||0.5595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|7.4||Overall, Week 80. Log transformed. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||7.4|-12.3|0.5595
91022203|NCT00386100|181928052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|1.0||||0.9125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.3|20.4||Males, Week 80. Log transformed. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||20.4|-15.3|0.9125
91086093|NCT02609984|182054955|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1849||||0.6397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5817|2.4134||P-value based on a 2-sided stratified log-rank test stratified by type of sarcoma: synovial sarcoma versus myxoid/round cell liposarcoma.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio is from Cox proportional hazards model stratified by type of sarcoma: synovial sarcoma versus myxoid/round cell liposarcoma.|||2.4134|0.5817|0.6397
91086094|NCT02609984|182054956|OTHER|||||||0.1128|||||||exact Pearson chi-square test|||||||0.1128
91086095|NCT02609984|182054957|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||exact Pearson chi-square test|||||||<0.0001
91086096|NCT02609984|182054958|OTHER|||||||0.405|||||||exact Pearson chi-square test|||||||0.4050
91086097|NCT02609984|182054959|OTHER|||||||0.0127|||||||exact Pearson chi-square test|||||||0.0127
91086098|NCT02256839|182054967|EQUIVALENCE|A 2x2 contingency table with 95% CI.|2 x 2 contingency table|98.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|95.3|99.3||||||||99.3|95.3|
91086099|NCT02256839|182054967|EQUIVALENCE|A 2x2 contingency table with 95% CI|2 x 2 contingency table|96.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|85.4|99.3||||||||99.3|85.4|
91086100|NCT01843803|182054968|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.029|TWO_SIDED|||||"P-Value = 0.029 after adjusting for clinical and demographic, and accounting for clustering of patients within providers.~Comparison of adjusted CARES score yielded a significant difference."|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model was ran with CARES as the dependent variable, adjusted for demographic and clinical measures , and provider as a random effect.||Mixed model adjusted for gender, race, education, marital status, mental health condition, substance disorder, COPD, heart failure, diabetes, coronary artery disease, study site and accounting for clustering of patients within providers.||||0.029
91086101|NCT01843803|182054970|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.69||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|2.86||P-Value derived after adjusting model provider clustering and treating it as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Assessed whether a person in the intervention group vs the attention control group was more likely to be probed at least once by their provider after adjusting for other measures and accounting for the provider clustering.||2.86|0.99|.065
91086102|NCT01843803|182054971|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||chi-square||||<0.05
91086103|NCT01850394|182054972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|180.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|300.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91086104|NCT01850394|182054972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|150.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|200.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91086105|NCT01850394|182054973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|140.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91086106|NCT01850394|182054973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91086107|NCT01850394|182054974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
91086108|NCT01850394|182054975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
91086109|NCT01850394|182054976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.66|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.0||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.05
91086110|NCT00086450|182054977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|7.9||||0.005||95.0|3.3|12.5|||Regression, Cox|||||12.5|3.3|0.005
91086111|NCT00086450|182054978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.74||||0.004||95.0|1.91|3.89|||Regression, Cox|||||3.89|1.91|0.004
91086112|NCT00086450|182054979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|5.4||||0.049||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.049
91086113|NCT00086450|182054980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68||95.0|||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.68
91086114|NCT00436826|182055004|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk|0.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.63|||Wald Chi-square|||||0.63|0.22|<0.001
91022204|NCT00386100|181928052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|-0.8||||0.9122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|14.5||Females, Week 80. Log transformed. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||14.5|-14.0|0.9122
91022205|NCT00386100|181928052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|4.6||||0.7435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.2|38.7||Pre-menopausal females, Week 80. Log transformed. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||38.7|-21.2|0.7435
91022206|NCT00386100|181928052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|-7.5||||0.3897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.0|11.0||Postmenopausal females, Week 80. Log transformed. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|.Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||11.0|-23.0|0.3897
91022207|NCT00386100|181928053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|-2.83||||0.5176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.97|6.06||Overall, Week 80. Log transformed. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||6.06|-10.97|0.5176
91086115|NCT03138577|182055051|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Counts and percentages of cases with paralysis were calculated separately for each volume of local anesthetic.|||
91086116|NCT03138577|182055052|OTHER|||||||||||||||Counts and percentages of cases with paralysis were calculated separately for each volume of local anesthetic.|||Counts and percentages of cases with paralysis were calculated separately for each volume of local anesthetic.|||
91086117|NCT03138577|182055053|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|7.5||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Sign test|||||||0.01
91086118|NCT03138577|182055053|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Sign test|||||||1.00
91086119|NCT03138577|182055054|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Dose response data was fit with a non-parametric smoothing technique for locally weighted regression (lowess) to produce a dose response curve.|||
91086120|NCT03138577|182055055|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Dose response data was fit with a non-parametric smoothing technique for locally weighted regression (lowess) to produce a dose response curve.|||
91086121|NCT03138577|182055056|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Sign test|||||||0.01
91086122|NCT03138577|182055056|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Sign test|||||||1.00
91086123|NCT03138577|182055057|OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.08
91086124|NCT02716584|182055058|SUPERIORITY||Effect size|0.41||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using a 2 (groups) x 2 (time: baseline, endpoint) repeated measures ANCOVA with number of exercise sessions attended as a covariate.||||0.02
91086125|NCT02716584|182055059|SUPERIORITY||Effect size|0.35||||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Data were analyzed using a 2 (groups) x 2 (time: baseline, endpoint) repeated measures ANCOVA with number of sessions attended as a covariate.||||||0.06
91086126|NCT02716584|182055060|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||ANCOVA|Data were analyzed using a 2 (groups) x 2 (time: baseline, endpoint) repeated measures ANCOVA with number of sessions attended as a covariate.||||||0.13
91086127|NCT02716584|182055061|SUPERIORITY||Effect size|0.19||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|||||The analyses for cohorts 1 and 2 utilized the a priori endpoint assessment conducted 1-2 weeks after completion of training.|ANCOVA|The data were analyzed using a 2 (groups) x 2 (time: baseline, endpoint) repeated measures ANCOVA with number of sessions attended as a covariate.||||||0.73
91086128|NCT02716584|182055061|SUPERIORITY||Effect size|0.73||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|||||For cohort 3, positive affect was measured at baseline and a midpoint assessment.|ANCOVA|The data were analyzed using a 2 (groups) x 2 (time: baseline, midpoint) repeated measures ANCOVA with number of sessions attended as a covariate.||||||.33
91086129|NCT02716584|182055062|SUPERIORITY||Effect size|-0.21||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|||||The analyses for cohorts 1 and 2 utilized the a priori endpoint assessment conducted 1-2 weeks after completion of training.|ANCOVA|The data were analyzed using a 2 (groups) x 2 (time: baseline, endpoint) repeated measures ANCOVA with number of sessions attended as a covariate.||||||0.62
91086130|NCT02716584|182055062|SUPERIORITY||Effect size|0.77||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|||||For cohort 3, positive affect was measured at a baseline and midpoint assessment.|ANCOVA|The data were analyzed using a 2 (groups) x 2 (time: baseline, midpoint) repeated measures ANCOVA with number of sessions attended as a covariate.||||||.23
91086131|NCT02716584|182055063|SUPERIORITY||Effect size|0.02||||0.57|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Data were analyzed using a 2 (groups) x 2 (time: baseline, endpoint) repeated measures ANCOVA with number of sessions attended as a covariate.||||||0.57
91086132|NCT02716584|182055064|SUPERIORITY||Effect size|0.35||||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Data were analyzed using a 2 (groups) x 2 (time: baseline, endpoint) repeated measures ANCOVA with number of sessions attended as a covariate.||||||0.12
91086133|NCT02716584|182055065|SUPERIORITY||Effect size|0.72||||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Data were analyzed using a 2 (groups) x 2 (time: baseline, endpoint) repeated measures ANCOVA with number of sessions attended as a covariate.||||||0.07
91086134|NCT02716584|182055066|SUPERIORITY||Effect size|0.0||||0.88|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Data were analyzed using a 2 (groups) x 2 (time: baseline, endpoint) repeated measures ANCOVA with number of sessions attended as a covariate.||||||0.88
91086135|NCT02716584|182055067|SUPERIORITY||Effect size|0.05||||0.86|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Data were analyzed using a 2 (groups) x 2 (time: baseline, endpoint) repeated measures ANCOVA with number of sessions attended as a covariate.||||||0.86
90893770|NCT00224770|181652707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9||0.409|ONE_SIDED|95.0||9.6|||Fisher Exact|One-sided test|MISTIE rate=5.6, 95% upper limit=13.7; medical rate=2.4, 95% upper limit=10.8; comparison considers MISTIE rate minus medical rate|Null hypothesis is that rate of symptomatic rebleeding 72 hours post last dose is the same between the two groups. The alternative hypothesis tests whether MISTIE surgical management has a higher rate of symptomatic rebleeding than the medical arm.||9.6||0.409
91022208|NCT00386100|181928053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|-6.26||||0.362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.62|7.97||Males, Week 80. Log transformed. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||7.97|-18.62|0.3620
91022209|NCT00386100|181928053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|0.72||||0.9115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.39|14.48||Females, Week 80. Log transformed. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||14.48|-11.39|0.9115
91022210|NCT00386100|181928053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|-13.51||||0.1956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.35|8.31||Pre-menopausal females, Week 80. Log transformed. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||8.31|-30.35|0.1956
91022211|NCT00386100|181928053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|3.75||||0.6749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.09|23.85||Postmenopausal females, Week 80. Log transformed. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|.Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||23.85|-13.09|0.6749
91022212|NCT02328807|181928061|OTHER||Negative biopsy rate at 6 months after R|0.667|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.223|0.957|||||Two-sided exact confidence interval was calculated using Clopper-Pearson method.|This trail is a single cohort study and no statistical hypothesis test for the primary outcome was planned.||0.957|0.223|
91022213|NCT03672396|181928072|OTHER|Paired t-test analysis between baseline and post-testing values from a single group of individuals who completed both testing sessions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.4|-0.2|0.378
91022214|NCT03672396|181928073|OTHER|Paired t-test analysis between baseline and post-testing values from a single group of individuals who completed both testing sessions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.35||||0.586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.7|-1.0|0.586
91022215|NCT03672396|181928074|OTHER|Paired t-test analysis between baseline and post-testing values from a single group of individuals who completed both testing sessions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.2|-0.7|0.252
91022216|NCT03672396|181928075|OTHER|Paired t-test analysis between baseline and post-testing values from a single group of individuals who completed both testing sessions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.3||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.9|4.3|||t-test, 2 sided|Mean difference calculated as Post - Pre.||||4.3|-36.9|0.111
91022217|NCT03672396|181928076|OTHER|Paired t-test analysis between baseline and post-testing values from a single group of individuals who completed both testing sessions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4||||0.579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|7.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||||7.2|-4.3|0.579
91022218|NCT03672396|181928077|OTHER|Paired t-test analysis between baseline and post-testing values from a single group of individuals who completed both testing sessions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|3.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.7|-3.9|0.948
91022219|NCT03672396|181928078|OTHER|Paired t-test analysis between baseline and post-testing values from a single group of individuals who completed both testing sessions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.7|-1.1|0.594
91022220|NCT03672396|181928079|OTHER|Paired t-test analysis between baseline and post-testing values from a single group of individuals who completed both testing sessions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.7|-2.3|0.274
91022221|NCT03672396|181928080|OTHER|Paired t-test analysis between baseline and post-testing values from a single group of individuals who completed both testing sessions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.89||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|3.29|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.29|0.48|0.013
91022222|NCT03672396|181928081|OTHER|Paired t-test analysis between baseline and post-testing values from a single group of individuals who completed both testing sessions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.16||||0.369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.54|13.85|||t-test, 2 sided|||||13.85|-5.54|0.369
91022223|NCT03672396|181928082|OTHER|Paired t-test analysis between baseline and post-testing values from a single group of individuals who completed both testing sessions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|12.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||||12.7|-13.5|0.945
91022224|NCT03672396|181928083|OTHER|Paired t-test analysis between baseline and post-testing values from a single group of individuals who completed both testing sessions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|4.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.6|-2.0|0.420
91022225|NCT03672396|181928084|OTHER|Paired t-test analysis between baseline and post-testing values from a single group of individuals who completed both testing sessions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.9|15.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||||15.8|-16.9|0.941
91022226|NCT03672396|181928085|OTHER|Paired t-test analysis between baseline and post-testing values from a single group of individuals who completed both testing sessions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3||||0.203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|5.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.9|-1.4|0.203
91022227|NCT03672396|181928086|OTHER|Paired t-test analysis between baseline and post-testing values from a single group of individuals who completed both testing sessions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|2.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.6|-0.04|0.057
91086136|NCT02497937|182055073|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.793|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.925|2.512|||||Difference estimate of DLco on Day 7 has been presented for Mayo site|||2.512|-0.925|
90893771|NCT00224770|181652707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.75|ONE_SIDED|95.0||2.2|||Fisher Exact|One-sided test|ICES rate=0.0, 95% upper limit=19.3; medical rate=2.4, 95% upper limit=10.8; comparison considers ICES rate minus medical rate|Null hypothesis is that rate of symptomatic rebleeding 72 hours post last dose is the same between the two groups. The alternative hypothesis tests whether ICES surgical management has a higher rate of symptomatic rebleeding than the medical arm.||2.2||0.750
91022228|NCT03672396|181928087|OTHER|Paired t-test analysis between baseline and post-testing values from a single group of individuals who completed both testing sessions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.3|-1.0|0.809
91022229|NCT03672396|181928088|OTHER|Paired t-test analysis between baseline and post-testing values from a single group of individuals who completed both testing sessions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.1|-0.3|0.191
91022230|NCT03672396|181928089|OTHER|Paired t-test analysis between baseline and post-testing values from a single group of individuals who completed both testing sessions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.3|-0.3|0.237
91022231|NCT03001011|181928110|SUPERIORITY||Median difference (Renvela - Placebo)|-0.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for statistical significance at 0.05.|Wilcoxon rank sum test||Renvela Vs. Placebo|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error \& handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in order outcome measures (OM) are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous OM was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||||<0.0001
91022232|NCT00725725|181928155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5299||||0.3934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0781|5.138|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.1380|-2.0781|0.3934
91022233|NCT00725725|181928155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2667||||0.3515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4665|4.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.0000|-1.4665|0.3515
91022234|NCT00725725|181928156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8246||||0.3597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8307|2.1815|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.1815|-5.8307|0.3597
91022235|NCT00725725|181928156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4414||||0.777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5952|2.7124|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.7124|-3.5952|0.7770
91022236|NCT00725725|181928157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3356||||0.2683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8933|6.5644|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.5644|-1.8933|0.2683
91022237|NCT00725725|181928157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.1317||||0.0844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4518|6.7152|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.7152|-0.4518|0.0844
91022238|NCT00725725|181928161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3456||||0.8894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6211|5.3124|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.3124|-4.6211|0.8894
91022239|NCT00725725|181928161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0417||||0.3765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5526|6.636|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.6360|-2.5526|0.3765
91022240|NCT00725725|181928162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2502||||0.8073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4963|8.9958|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.9958|-11.4963|0.8073
91022241|NCT00725725|181928162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0291||||0.661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2132|11.2714|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.2714|-7.2132|0.6610
91022242|NCT00725725|181928163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7296||||0.7895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7291|6.1883|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.1883|-4.7291|0.7895
91022243|NCT00725725|181928163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.526||||0.5488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5495|6.6015|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.6015|-3.5495|0.5488
90956910|NCT00657020|181793392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6418||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is left visual cortex.||||0.6418
91022244|NCT00725725|181928164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2766||||0.6516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9269|4.3738|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.3738|-6.9269|0.6516
91022245|NCT00725725|181928164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.1867||||0.0256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5864|-0.7869|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.7869|-11.5864|0.0256
91022246|NCT02556632|181928188|OTHER|||||||0.9306|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.9306
91022247|NCT02556632|181928189|OTHER|||||||0.8048|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.8048
91022248|NCT02556632|181928190|OTHER|||||||0.8591|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.8591
91022249|NCT00301873|181928207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.107|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0855||0.2212||95.0||||The p-value is a test of whether the slope of the regression line is non-zero.|Regression, Linear|The linear regression assesses the relationship between baseline baseline steroid use and BMD change at 6 months (outcome).||59 patients were accrued to the study. The 27 patients with follow-up at 6 months are included in an analysis to assess the association between baseline steroid use and bone mass density at 6 months using linear regression.||||.2212
91022250|NCT00301873|181928207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.2357|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1091||0.0413||95.0||||this p-value is at test of whether the slope of the regression line is non-zero.|Regression, Linear|The linear regression assesses the relationship between anticonvulsant use and BMD change at 6 months (outcome).||59 patients were accrued to the study. The 27 patients with follow-up at 6 months are included in an analysis to assess the association between baseline anticonvulsant use and bone mass density at 6 months using linear regression||||.0413
91022251|NCT00301873|181928207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.232|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1029||0.0418||95.0||||this p-value is at test of whether the slope of the regression line is non-zero.|Regression, Linear|The linear regression assesses the relationship between baseline steroid use and BMD change at 12 months (outcome).||59 patients were accrued to the study. The 19 patients with follow-up at 12 months are included in an analysis to assess the association between baseline steroid use and bone mass density at 12 months using linear regression||||.0418
91022252|NCT00301873|181928207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.2123|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1209||0.1026||95.0||||the p-value is a test of whether the slope ofl the regression line is non-zero.|Regression, Linear|The linear regression assesses the relationship between anticonvulsant use and BMD change at 12 months.||59 patients were accrued to the study. The 19 patients with follow-up at 12 months are included in an analysis to assess the association between baseline anti-convulsant use and bone mass density at 12 months using linear regression||||.1026
91086137|NCT00282152|182055125|NON_INFERIORITY|Because the purpose of this trial was to provide preliminary safety and tolerability data, the primary hypothesis was that the DBS+ODT group would not worsen more quickly than the ODT group. The primary endpoint was defined as the time to reach a four-point worsening of the UPDRS-III score following a one week treatment washout as assessed by the blinded rater.||||||0.968|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.968
91086138|NCT00282152|182055126|OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Study power was calculated based on the amount of PD medication consumed. We anticipated that the control group (ODT) would have a baseline value of 400 which would increase to 600, and that the treated group (DBS+ODT) would decrease from 400 to 300. A sample size of 12 patients per group (n=15, assuming 20% drop out) would have 80% power to detect a difference in means of 300 assuming that the common standard deviation is 250 using a two group t-test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level.||||0.40
91086139|NCT03538691|182055138|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.138||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.776|1.669|||Log Rank||The hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) were derived from the Cox proportional hazard model with treatment as fixed effect.|||1.669|0.776|0.5100
90829491|NCT02365649|181533427|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.9|32.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 52||32.9|-42.9|1.000
90829492|NCT02365649|181533427|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.3||||0.477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.6|51.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 20||51.1|-18.6|0.477
91022253|NCT04583592|181928210|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.787||||||\<0.05|Chi-squared|||||||0.787
91022254|NCT02517099|181928226|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.384||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.591|8.8|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||8.80|1.591|0.05
91022255|NCT01963676|181928230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|||||There was no adjustment because we just performed one comparison|t-test, 2 sided|Difference from Day 5 to Baseline was compared between the sham and the tDCS group using an unpaired t-test. Degrees of freedom: df = 24||"The null hypothesis was that there is no difference between the changes in the AHRS score from baseline to 5 days between the groups:~H0: μ1 = μ2 μ1: mean(difference 5 days-baseline) for tDCS group (n=13) μ2: mean(difference 5 days-baseline) for sham group (n=13)"||||0.48
91022256|NCT01963676|181928231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|||||There was no adjustment because we just performed one comparison|t-test, 2 sided|Difference from 1 Month to Baseline was compared between the sham and the tDCS group using an unpaired t-test. Degrees of freedom: df = 24||"The null hypothesis was that there is no difference between the AHRS score changes from baseline to 1month between the groups:~H0: μ1 = μ2 μ1: mean(difference 1 month-baseline) for tDCS group (n=13) μ2: mean(difference 1 month-baseline) for sham group (n=13)"||||0.86
91022257|NCT00766506|181928232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-2.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.55|-1.91|||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), with centre, surgery type and treatment included as covariates in the analysis.|Least square mean difference = Least square mean value for Fentanyl IONSYS group minus Least square mean value for Morphine IV PCA group|||-1.91|-2.55|<0.001
91022258|NCT00766506|181928233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.219|||||||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated from ANCOVA, with centre, surgery type and treatment included as covariates in the analysis.||At Hour 24||||0.219
91022259|NCT00766506|181928233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.299|||||||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated from ANCOVA, with centre, surgery type and treatment included as covariates in the analysis.||At Hour 48||||0.299
91022260|NCT00766506|181928233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.136|||||||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated from ANCOVA, with centre, surgery type and treatment included as covariates in the analysis.||At study discontinuation or withdrawal||||0.136
91022261|NCT00766506|181928234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.3|||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated from ANCOVA, with centre, surgery type and treatment included as covariates in the analysis.|Least square mean difference = Least square mean value for Fentanyl IONSYS group minus Least square mean value for Morphine IV PCA group|||-0.30|-0.74|<0.001
91022262|NCT00766506|181928235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.81||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|3.92|||Mantel Haenszel|P-value was calculated from a Mantel-Haenszel Chi-Squared test.||||3.92|0.84|0.131
91022263|NCT00766506|181928236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.342|||||||Log Rank|P-value was calculated from a log-rank test stratified for surgery type.||||||0.342
91022264|NCT00766506|181928237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.836|||||||Log Rank|P-value was calculated from a log-rank test stratified for surgery type.||||||0.836
91022265|NCT00766506|181928238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.0||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|24.03|||Chi-squared|||||24.03|1.04|0.029
91022266|NCT00766506|181928240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.61||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|3.53|||Chi-squared|||Paracetamol: P-value was calculated using Chi-squared test.||3.53|0.74|0.230
91022267|NCT00766506|181928240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72||||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|3.7|||Chi-squared|||NSAID's: P-value was calculated using Chi-squared test.||3.70|0.80|0.163
91022268|NCT03053622|181928242|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|0.996|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.807|1.23||||||||1.23|0.807|
91022269|NCT03053622|181928242|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|0.729|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.591|0.898||||||||0.898|0.591|
91086140|NCT03538691|182055139|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|0.23||||0.2393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.62||P-value was derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment, pooled center as factor and Baseline value as covariance.|ANCOVA|||||0.62|-0.16|0.2393
91022270|NCT03053622|181928242|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|0.422|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.343|0.518||||||||0.518|0.343|
91022271|NCT03053622|181928242|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|0.307|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.249|0.379||||||||0.379|0.249|
91022272|NCT03053622|181928243|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|0.986|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|1.2||||||||1.20|0.810|
91022273|NCT03053622|181928243|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|0.753|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.619|0.916||||||||0.916|0.619|
91022274|NCT03053622|181928244|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|48.4||||||||48.40|-0.10|
91022275|NCT03053622|181928244|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.25|23.97|||||"In this outcome, the median difference is not calculated by subtracting two observations, it is derived by Hodges-Lehmann approach to estimating location shift. This method will give the value of 0.25."|||23.97|-0.25|
91022276|NCT01406873|181928293|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.01
91022277|NCT03990389|181928297|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0618||||||Three degrees of freedom for the interaction test|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0618
91022278|NCT03990389|181928297|SUPERIORITY||estimated treatment effect at month 1|-2.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.63|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni correction for 3 times points|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.63
91022279|NCT03990389|181928297|SUPERIORITY||estimated treatment effect at month 2|-5.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.018|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni correction for 3 times points|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.018
91022280|NCT03990389|181928297|SUPERIORITY||estimated treatment effect at month 3|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.234|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni correction for 3 times points|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.234
91022281|NCT03990389|181928298|OTHER|||||||0.116|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.116
91022282|NCT00207714|181928303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||||||A positive test is concluded if there is a significant difference between combined golimumab and placebo groups and at least one of the pair-wise comparisons at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis: No difference in ACR 20 response at Week 16 between combined golimumab groups and Placebo +MTX group. Sample of 35 participants per treatment groups (140 in combined golimumab group and 35 in Placebo +MTX group) provides greater than 90% power assuming 60% golimumab response and 25 % response in Placebo +MTX.||||0.010
91022283|NCT00207714|181928303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.056|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis: No difference in ACR 20 response at Wk 16 between golimumab 50 mg every 4 weeks and Placebo + MTX. Sample of 35 participants per treatment groups (140 in combined golimumab group and 35 in Placebo +MTX group) provides greater than 90% power assuming 60% golimumab response and 25% response in placebo.||||0.056
91022284|NCT00207714|181928303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.281|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis: No difference in ACR 20 response at Wk 16 between Golimumab 50 mg every 2 or 4 Weeks and Placebo + MTX. Sample of 35 participants per treatment groups (140 in combined golimumab group and 35 in Placebo +MTX group) provides greater than 90% power assuming 60% golimumab response and 25% response in placebo.||||0.281
91086141|NCT03538691|182055140|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.177||||0.3086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.857|1.615|||Log Rank||The hazard ratio and 95% CI were derived from the Cox proportional hazard model with treatment as fixed effect.|||1.615|0.857|0.3086
91086142|NCT03538691|182055141|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.603|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.6030
91022285|NCT00207714|181928303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.119|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis: No difference in ACR 20 response at Wk 16 between Golimumab 100 mg every 4 weeks and Placebo + MTX. Sample of 35 participants per treatment groups (140 in combined golimumab group and 35 in Placebo +MTX group) provides greater than 90% power assuming 60% golimumab response and 25% response in placebo.||||0.119
91022286|NCT00207714|181928303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis: No difference in ACR 20 response at Wk 16 between Golimumab 100 mg every 2 or 4 Weeks and Placebo + MTX. Sample of 35 participants per treatment groups (140 in combined golimumab group and 35 in Placebo +MTX group) provides greater than 90% power assuming 60% golimumab response and 25% response in placebo.||||<0.001
91022287|NCT00207714|181928304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores.|||No difference in ACRn scores measured as percentage of improvement from baseline at Week 16 between Placebo + MTX and combined golimumab groups.||||0.001
91022288|NCT00207714|181928304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores.|||No difference in ACRn scores measured as percentage of improvement from baseline at Week 16 between Placebo + MTX and Golimumab 50 mg every 4 weeks||||0.006
91022289|NCT00207714|181928304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.095|||||||ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores.|||No difference in ACRn scores measured as percentage of improvement from baseline at Week 16 between Placebo + MTX and Golimumab 50 mg every 2 or 4 Weeks||||0.095
91022290|NCT00207714|181928304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores.|ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores||No difference in ACRn scores measured as percentage of improvement from baseline at Week 16 between Placebo + MTX Golibumab 100 mg every 4 weeks||||0.010
90893772|NCT00224770|181652708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.468|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Two-sided test||Null hypothesis is that the distributions of the mRS values for both groups are the same. The alternative hypothesis is that the distributions are not the same.||||0.468
91022291|NCT00207714|181928304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores.|||No difference in ACRn scores measured as percentage of improvement from baseline at Week 16 between Placebo + MTX Golimumab 100 mg every 2 or 4 Weeks||||<0.001
91022292|NCT02595528|181928311|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS)|-2.5543||||0.0029|||||||Mixed model for repeated measures|||AGN-190584 Quadratic||||0.0029
91022293|NCT02595528|181928311|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS)|6.6961|||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed model for repeated measures|||AGN-190584 Linear||||<0.0001
91022294|NCT02595528|181928311|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS)|-69.89||||0.4126|||||||Mixed model for repeated measures|||AGN-199201 Quadratic||||0.4126
91022295|NCT02595528|181928311|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS)|10.5017||||0.3752|||||||Mixed model for repeated measures|||AGN-199201 Linear||||0.3752
91022296|NCT03202511|181928312|EQUIVALENCE|0.8 to 1.25 equivalence margin was used.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.47|1.77||||||||1.77|1.47|
91022297|NCT03202511|181928313|EQUIVALENCE|80 to 125% equivalence margin was used.|Geometric Mean Ratio|77.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|61.4|97.6||||||||97.6|61.4|
91022298|NCT02082912|181928334|SUPERIORITY||F statistic|0.216||||0.651|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Values represent the time x treatment group interaction.||||0.651
91086143|NCT03538691|182055142|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7081|||||||Chi-squared|||Week 21||||0.7081
91086144|NCT03538691|182055142|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4589|||||||Chi-squared|||Week 23||||0.4589
90956911|NCT00657020|181793392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2205||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is left visual cortex.||||0.2205
91086145|NCT03538691|182055142|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5314|||||||Chi-squared|||Week 25||||0.5314
91086146|NCT03538691|182055142|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1433|||||||Chi-squared|||Week 29||||0.1433
91086147|NCT03538691|182055142|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9636|||||||Chi-squared|||Week 33||||0.9636
91086148|NCT03538691|182055142|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7596|||||||Chi-squared|||Week 37||||0.7596
90829493|NCT02365649|181533427|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.6||||0.833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.4|21.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 20||21.3|-26.4|0.833
90829494|NCT02365649|181533427|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.6||||0.732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.9|21.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 20||21.7|-30.9|0.732
91022299|NCT02082912|181928335|SUPERIORITY||F statistic|0.633||||0.447|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Values represent the time x treatment group interaction.||||0.447
91022300|NCT02082912|181928336|SUPERIORITY||F statistic|0.557||||0.471|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Values represent the time x treatment group interaction.||||0.471
91022301|NCT00409188|181928351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.893||||0.1566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.763|1.044|||Regression, Cox|||||1.044|0.763|0.1566
91022302|NCT00409188|181928352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.845||||0.0226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.732|0.977|||Regression, Cox|||||0.977|0.732|0.0226
91022303|NCT00409188|181928353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.868||||0.0528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.752|1.002|||Regression, Cox|||||1.002|0.752|0.0528
91022304|NCT01681771|181928406|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis comparing PHQ-9 mean values at 9 weeks follow-up between the I-CBT and discussion group and adjusting for PHQ-9 values baseline||||||0.21
91022305|NCT00265083|181928407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The positive test is defined if the comparison between combined golimumab and placebo is significant (p-value \<0.05), and at least one of the pair-wise comparisons is also significant (p-value \<0.05).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel with stratification: screening CRP level (\<=1.5mg/dL, \>1.5mg/dL)||Null hypothesis: No difference in ASAS 20 response comparing Groups I vs II and Groups I vs III. The sample size of 75 patients (pts) in placebo and 135 pts per active group will provide \>=99% power to detect a difference in ASAS 20 response between treatment groups at alpha=0.05, assuming 50% of pts with screening CRP\<1.5mg/dL, and the difference in ASAS 20 response of 10-27.5% in pts with screening CRP\<1.5mg/dL and 32.5-45% in pts with screening CRP\>=1.5mg/dL, between Groups I vs II or III.||||<0.001
91022306|NCT00265083|181928407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel with stratification: screening CRP level (\<=1.5mg/dL, \>1.5mg/dL)||||||<0.001
91022307|NCT00265083|181928407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel with stratification: screening CRP level (\<=1.5mg/dL, \>1.5mg/dL)||||||<0.001
91022308|NCT00265083|181928408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The positive test is defined if the comparison between combined golimumab and placebo is significant (p-value \<0.05), and at least one of the pair-wise comparisons is also significant (p-value \<0.05).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel with stratification: screening CRP level (\<=1.5mg/dL, \>1.5mg/dL)||Null hypothesis: No difference in ASAS 20 response comparing Groups I vs. II and Groups I vs. III.||||<0.001
91022309|NCT00265083|181928408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel with stratification: screening CRP level (\<=1.5mg/dL, \>1.5mg/dL)||Null hypothesis: no difference in ASAS 20 response between Group II and Group I.||||<0.001
91022310|NCT00265083|181928408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel with stratification: screening CRP level (\<=1.5mg/dL, \>1.5mg/dL)||Null hypothesis: no difference in ASAS 20 response between Group III and Group I.||||<0.001
91022311|NCT00265083|181928409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The positive test is defined if the comparison between combined golimumab and placebo is significant (p-value \<0.05), and at least one of the pair-wise comparisons is also significant (p-value \<0.05).|ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores|ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores with 2 factors: treatment group and screening C-reactive protein (CRP) level.||Null hypothesis: No difference in change from baseline in BASFI comparing Groups I vs. II and Groups I vs. III.||||<0.001
91022312|NCT00265083|181928409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores|ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores with 2 factors: treatment group and screening C-reactive protein (CRP) level.||Null hypothesis: no difference in BASFI between Group II and Group I.||||<0.001
91022313|NCT00265083|181928409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores|ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores with 2 factors: treatment group and screening C-reactive protein (CRP) level.||Null hypothesis: no difference in BASFI between Group III and Group I.||||<0.001
90956912|NCT00657020|181793392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5135||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is right parietal cortex.||||0.5135
91022314|NCT00265083|181928410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.288||95.0||||The positive test is defined if the comparison between combined golimumab and placebo is significant at the 0.05, and at least one of the pair-wise comparisons is also significant at the 0.05.|ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores|ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores with 2 factors: treatment group and screening C-reactive protein (CRP) level.||Null hypothesis: No difference in change from baseline in BASMI comparing Groups I vs. II and Groups I vs. III.||||0.288
91022315|NCT00265083|181928410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.444||95.0|||||ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores|ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores with 2 factors: treatment group and screening C-reactive protein (CRP) level.||Null hypothesis: no difference in BASMI between Group II and Group I.||||0.444
91022316|NCT00265083|181928410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.247||95.0|||||ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores|ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores with 2 factors: treatment group and screening C-reactive protein (CRP) level.||Null hypothesis: no difference in BASMI between Group III and Group I.||||0.247
91022317|NCT00782275|181928443|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.081|||||||exact binomial test|||The regimen was evaluated against an historical control with null and alternative 4-month PFS rates of 50% and 70%, respectively. With the final sample size of 40 eligible patients and using the same operating characteristics (alpha and beta 10%), the decision rule changes such that if 25 or more patients of 40 are alive and progression-free at 4 months then this regimen is considered promising.||||0.081
90956913|NCT00657020|181793392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9781||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is right parietal cortex.||||0.9781
90956914|NCT00657020|181793392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3755||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is right premotor cortex.||||0.3755
91022318|NCT04378010|181928447|OTHER||LS mean difference|1.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.788||0.454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.479|7.239|||Mixed model repeated measures|||||7.239|-3.479|0.454
91022319|NCT04378010|181928447|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.439|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.553||0.848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.458|4.579|||Mixed model repeated measures|||||4.579|-5.458|0.848
91022320|NCT04378010|181928458|OTHER||LS mean difference|-11.718|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.052||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.342|2.906|||ANCOVA|||||2.906|-26.342|0.114
91022321|NCT04378010|181928458|OTHER||LS mean difference|-11.261|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.879||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.723|2.2|||ANCOVA|||||2.200|-24.723|0.099
91022322|NCT04378010|181928459|OTHER||LS mean difference|1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.331||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.365|1.736|||ANCOVA|||||1.736|0.365|0.003
91022323|NCT04378010|181928459|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.591|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.315||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.035|1.216|||ANCOVA|||||1.216|-0.035|0.064
91022324|NCT04378010|181928463|OTHER||LS mean difference|12.986|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.472||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.608|25.363|||Mixed model repeated measures|||||25.363|0.608|0.040
91022325|NCT04378010|181928463|OTHER||LS mean difference|7.211|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.724||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.997|19.418|||Mixed model repeated measures|||||19.418|-4.997|0.242
91022326|NCT01928446|181928498|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.1||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.55|||Log Rank|||Model1 - Treatment only: unadjusted for other covariates||1.55|0.77|0.61
91022327|NCT01928446|181928498|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.08||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.53|||Log Rank|||Model2 - Treatment only: unadjusted with Site as random Effect||1.53|0.76|0.67
91022328|NCT01928446|181928499|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.49||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|3.64|||Log Rank|||||3.64|0.61|0.37
91022329|NCT01928446|181928500|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.14||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|2.69|||Log Rank|||Model 5: Non-fatal self-directed violence subgroup||2.69|0.48|0.77
91022330|NCT01928446|181928500|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.61||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|3.43|||Log Rank|||Model 6: Interrupted self-directed violence subgroup||3.43|0.75|0.22
91022331|NCT01928446|181928500|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.92||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.45|||Log Rank|||Model 7: Hospitalization to prevent suicide||1.45|0.58|0.71
91022332|NCT04356573|181928517|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
91022333|NCT01577537|181928518|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91022334|NCT01244815|181928523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares (LS) Means|-3.2||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|-0.8||p-value is adjusted by Hochberg's method for testing three asenapine groups versus the placebo group|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 98, asenapine 2.5 mg - 101, asenapine 5.0 mg - 98, asenapine 10.0 mg - 98)||-0.8|-5.6|0.008
91022335|NCT01244815|181928523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-5.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|-2.9||p-value is adjusted by Hochberg's method for testing three asenapine groups versus the placebo group|MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 98, asenapine 2.5 mg - 101, asenapine 5.0 mg - 98, asenapine 10.0 mg - 98)||-2.9|-7.7|<0.001
91022336|NCT01244815|181928523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-6.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|-3.8||p-value is adjusted by Hochberg's method for testing three asenapine groups versus the placebo group|MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 98, asenapine 2.5 mg - 101, asenapine 5.0 mg - 98, asenapine 10.0 mg - 98)||-3.8|-8.6|<0.001
91022337|NCT01244815|181928523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||t-statistic|-4.92|||<|0.0001||||||p-value (adjusted to control Type I error in multiple testing) for dose-response pattern 1 (Placebo\<2.5 mg=5.0 mg=10.0 mg)|MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|t-statistic associated with the contrast of the MMRM model for dose-response pattern 1. Lower value indicates pattern provides better fit to data.|Investigation of dose-response relationship of change from baseline to Day 21 in Y-MRS total score was a Secondary study endpoint. Multiple contrast testing using MMRM model (FAS population) was used to evaluate 7 pre-defined dose-response patterns.||||<0.0001
91022338|NCT01244815|181928523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||t-statistic|-4.87|||<|0.0001||||||p-value (adjusted to control Type I error in multiple testing) for dose-response pattern 2 (Placebo=2.5 mg\<5.0 mg=10.0 mg)|MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|t-statistic associated with the contrast of the MMRM model for dose-response pattern 2. Lower value indicates pattern provides better fit to data.|Investigation of dose-response relationship of change from baseline to Day 21 in Y-MRS total score was a Secondary study endpoint. Multiple contrast testing using MMRM model (FAS population) was used to evaluate 7 pre-defined dose-response patterns.||||<0.0001
91022339|NCT01244815|181928523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||t-statistic|-3.4||||0.0021||||||p-value (adjusted to control Type I error in multiple testing) for dose-response pattern 3 (Placebo=2.5 mg=5.0 mg\<10.0 mg)|MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|t-statistic associated with the contrast of the MMRM model for dose-response pattern 3. Lower value indicates pattern provides better fit to data.|Investigation of dose-response relationship of change from baseline to Day 21 in Y-MRS total score was a Secondary study endpoint. Multiple contrast testing using MMRM model (FAS population) was used to evaluate 7 pre-defined dose-response patterns.||||0.0021
91086149|NCT03538691|182055142|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2402|||||||Chi-squared|||Week 41||||0.2402
90829495|NCT02365649|181533427|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|19.4||||0.468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|54.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 28||54.2|-15.4|0.468
90956915|NCT00657020|181793392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2612||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is right premotor cortex.||||0.2612
91022340|NCT01244815|181928523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||t-statistic|-5.28|||<|0.0001||||||p-value (adjusted to control Type I error in multiple testing) for dose-response pattern 4 (Placebo\<2.5 mg\<5.0 mg\<10.0 mg)|MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|t-statistic associated with the contrast of the MMRM model for dose-response pattern 4. Lower value indicates pattern provides better fit to data.|Investigation of dose-response relationship of change from baseline to Day 21 in Y-MRS total score was a Secondary study endpoint. Multiple contrast testing using MMRM model (FAS population) was used to evaluate 7 pre-defined dose-response patterns.||||<0.0001
91022341|NCT01244815|181928523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||t-statistic|-4.64|||<|0.0001||||||p-value (adjusted to control Type I error in multiple testing) for dose-response pattern 5 (Placebo=2.5 mg\<5.0 mg\<10.0 mg)|MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|t-statistic associated with the contrast of the MMRM model for dose-response pattern 5. Lower value indicates pattern provides better fit to data.|Investigation of dose-response relationship of change from baseline to Day 21 in Y-MRS total score was a Secondary study endpoint. Multiple contrast testing using MMRM model (FAS population) was used to evaluate 7 pre-defined dose-response patterns.||||<0.0001
91022342|NCT01244815|181928523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||t-statistic|-5.07|||<|0.0001||||||p-value (adjusted to control Type I error in multiple testing) for dose-response pattern 6 (Placebo\<2.5 mg=5.0 mg\<10.0 mg)|MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|t-statistic associated with the contrast of the MMRM model for dose-response pattern 6. Lower value indicates pattern provides better fit to data.|Investigation of dose-response relationship of change from baseline to Day 21 in Y-MRS total score was a Secondary study endpoint. Multiple contrast testing using MMRM model (FAS population) was used to evaluate 7 pre-defined dose-response patterns.||||<0.0001
91022343|NCT01244815|181928523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||t-statistic|-5.49|||<|0.0001||||||p-value (adjusted to control Type I error in multiple testing) for dose-response pattern 7 (Placebo\<2.5 mg\<5.0 mg=10.0 mg)|MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|t-statistic associated with the contrast of the MMRM model for dose-response pattern 7. Lower value indicates pattern provides better fit to data.|Investigation of dose-response relationship of change from baseline to Day 21 in Y-MRS total score was a Secondary study endpoint. Multiple contrast testing using MMRM model (FAS population) was used to evaluate 7 pre-defined dose-response patterns.||||<0.0001
91022344|NCT01244815|181928524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.3||p-value is adjusted by Hochberg's method for testing three asenapine groups versus the placebo group|MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 98, asenapine 2.5 mg - 101, asenapine 5.0 mg - 98, asenapine 10.0 mg - 98)||-0.3|-0.9|<0.001
91022345|NCT01244815|181928524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.4||p-value is adjusted by Hochberg's method for testing three asenapine groups versus the placebo group|MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 98, asenapine 2.5 mg - 101, asenapine 5.0 mg - 98, asenapine 10.0 mg - 98)||-0.4|-0.9|<0.001
91022346|NCT01244815|181928524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.4||p-value is adjusted by Hochberg's method for testing three asenapine groups versus the placebo group|MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 98, asenapine 2.5 mg - 101, asenapine 5.0 mg - 98, asenapine 10.0 mg - 98)||-0.4|-1.0|<0.001
91022347|NCT01244815|181928525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.0||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|7.6||95% Confidence Interval and p-value are based on Wald statistic|Regression, Logistic|Model included terms of treatment and baseline Y-MRS total score|OR was adjusted for baseline. An OR of \>1 is considered to mean that asenapine has a higher probability of achieving Total Y-MRS 50% response.|Analysis is for asenapine versus placebo on Day 4 (LOCF)||7.6|1.2|0.018
91022348|NCT01244815|181928525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.4||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|8.6||95% Confidence Interval and p-value are based on Wald statistic|Regression, Logistic|Model included terms of treatment and baseline Y-MRS total score|OR was adjusted for baseline. An OR of \>1 is considered to mean that asenapine has a higher probability of achieving Total Y-MRS 50% response.|Analysis is for asenapine versus placebo on Day 4 (LOCF)||8.6|1.4|0.008
91022349|NCT01244815|181928525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1||||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|5.6||95% Confidence Interval and p-value are based on Wald statistic|Regression, Logistic|Model included terms of treatment and baseline Y-MRS total score|OR was adjusted for baseline. An OR of \>1 is considered to mean that asenapine has a higher probability of achieving Total Y-MRS 50% response.|Analysis is for asenapine versus placebo on Day 4 (LOCF)||5.6|0.8|0.129
91022350|NCT01244815|181928525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.9||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|5.9||95% Confidence Interval and p-value are based on Wald statistic|Regression, Logistic|Model included terms of treatment and baseline Y-MRS total score|OR was adjusted for baseline. An OR of \>1 is considered to mean that asenapine has a higher probability of achieving Total Y-MRS 50% response.|Analysis is for asenapine versus placebo on Day 7 (LOCF)||5.9|1.4|0.003
91022351|NCT01244815|181928525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.8||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|5.6||95% Confidence Interval and p-value are based on Wald statistic|Regression, Logistic|Model included terms of treatment and baseline Y-MRS total score|OR was adjusted for baseline. An OR of \>1 is considered to mean that asenapine has a higher probability of achieving Total Y-MRS 50% response.|Analysis is for asenapine versus placebo on Day 7 (LOCF)||5.6|1.4|0.005
90956916|NCT00657020|181793392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8486||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is right superior occipital cortex.||||0.8486
90893773|NCT00224770|181652708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.294|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Two-sided test||Null hypothesis is that the distributions of the mRS values for both groups are the same. The alternative hypothesis is that the distributions are not the same.||||0.294
91022352|NCT01244815|181928525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|7.3||95% Confidence Interval and p-value are based on Wald statistic|Regression, Logistic|Model included terms of treatment and baseline Y-MRS total score|OR was adjusted for baseline. An OR of \>1 is considered to mean that asenapine has a higher probability of achieving Total Y-MRS 50% response.|Analysis is for asenapine versus placebo on Day 7 (LOCF)||7.3|1.8|<0.001
91022353|NCT01244815|181928525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|4.1||95% Confidence Interval and p-value are based on Wald statistic|Regression, Logistic|Model included terms of treatment and baseline Y-MRS total score|OR was adjusted for baseline. An OR of \>1 is considered to mean that asenapine has a higher probability of achieving Total Y-MRS 50% response.|Analysis is for asenapine versus placebo on Day 14 (LOCF)||4.1|1.1|0.018
91022354|NCT01244815|181928525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|7.6||95% Confidence Interval and p-value are based on Wald statistic|Regression, Logistic|Model included terms of treatment and baseline Y-MRS total score|OR was adjusted for baseline. An OR of \>1 is considered to mean that asenapine has a higher probability of achieving Total Y-MRS 50% response.|Analysis is for asenapine versus placebo on Day 14 (LOCF)||7.6|2.2|<0.001
91022355|NCT01244815|181928525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|7.6|||Regression, Logistic|Model included terms of treatment and baseline Y-MRS total score|OR was adjusted for baseline. An OR of \>1 is considered to mean that asenapine has a higher probability of achieving Total Y-MRS 50% response.|Analysis is for asenapine versus placebo on Day 14 (LOCF)||7.6|2.2|<0.001
91022356|NCT01244815|181928525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|3.4||95% Confidence Interval and p-value are based on Wald statistic|Regression, Logistic|Model included terms of treatment and baseline Y-MRS total score|OR was adjusted for baseline. An OR of \>1 is considered to mean that asenapine has a higher probability of achieving Total Y-MRS 50% response.|Analysis is for asenapine versus placebo on Day 21 (LOCF)||3.4|1.0|0.042
91022357|NCT01244815|181928525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|5.8||95% Confidence Interval and p-value are based on Wald statistic|Regression, Logistic|Model included terms of treatment and baseline Y-MRS total score|OR was adjusted for baseline. An OR of \>1 is considered to mean that asenapine has a higher probability of achieving Total Y-MRS 50% response.|Analysis is for asenapine versus placebo on Day 21 (LOCF)||5.8|1.7|<0.001
91022358|NCT01244815|181928525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.9|||<|0.001||95.0|1.6|5.3||95% Confidence Interval and p-value are based on Wald statistic|Regression, Logistic|Model included terms of treatment and baseline Y-MRS total score|OR was adjusted for baseline. An OR of \>1 is considered to mean that asenapine has a higher probability of achieving Total Y-MRS 50% response.|Analysis is for asenapine versus placebo on Day 21 (LOCF)||5.3|1.6|<0.001
91022359|NCT01244815|181928526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.25||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.05|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 98, asenapine 2.5 mg - 101, asenapine 5.0 mg - 98, asenapine 10.0 mg - 98)||-0.05|-0.45|0.014
91022360|NCT01244815|181928526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.17||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.04|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 98, asenapine 2.5 mg - 101, asenapine 5.0 mg - 98, asenapine 10.0 mg - 98)||0.04|-0.37|0.107
91022361|NCT01244815|181928526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.21||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.01|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 98, asenapine 2.5 mg - 101, asenapine 5.0 mg - 98, asenapine 10.0 mg - 98)||-0.01|-0.42|0.039
91022362|NCT01244815|181928527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.33||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.1|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 98, asenapine 2.5 mg - 101, asenapine 5.0 mg - 98, asenapine 10.0 mg - 98)||-0.10|-0.56|0.006
91022363|NCT01244815|181928527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.35||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.12|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 98, asenapine 2.5 mg - 101, asenapine 5.0 mg - 98, asenapine 10.0 mg - 98)||-0.12|-0.59|0.003
91022364|NCT01244815|181928527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.21|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 98, asenapine 2.5 mg - 101, asenapine 5.0 mg - 98, asenapine 10.0 mg - 98)||-0.21|-0.67|<0.001
91022365|NCT01244815|181928528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.34||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.08|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 98, asenapine 2.5 mg - 101, asenapine 5.0 mg - 98, asenapine 10.0 mg - 98)||-0.08|-0.61|0.011
91086150|NCT03538691|182055142|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8363|||||||Chi-squared|||Week 45||||0.8363
91086151|NCT03538691|182055142|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8308|||||||Chi-squared|||Week 46||||0.8308
91086152|NCT03538691|182055143|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.12||||0.8806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|1.49|||ANCOVA|P-value was derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment, pooled center as factor and Baseline value as covariance.||||1.49|-1.73|0.8806
91086153|NCT03538691|182055144|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.03||||0.7956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.24|||ANCOVA|P-value was derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment, pooled center as factor and Baseline value as covariance.||||0.24|-0.18|0.7956
91086154|NCT03538691|182055145|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.15||||0.5223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.61||P-value was derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment, pooled center as factor and Baseline value as covariance.|ANCOVA|||SDS Individual Item: Work/School||0.61|-0.31|0.5223
91086155|NCT03538691|182055145|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.36||||0.0904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.77||P-value was derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment, pooled center as factor and Baseline value as covariance.|ANCOVA|||SDS Individual Item: Social Life||0.77|-0.06|0.0904
91086156|NCT03538691|182055145|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.25||||0.2289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.67||P-value was derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment, pooled center as factor and Baseline value as covariance.|ANCOVA|||SDS Individual Item: Family Life||0.67|-0.16|0.2289
91086157|NCT00636636|182055180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||||-0.11|-0.88|0.0125
91086158|NCT00636636|182055181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|0.092||||0.0434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.18|||Z test|||P-value (vs Placebo) for pairwise test of treatment effect between G-ER group and Placebo group is based on Z test for difference between the 2 groups in proportion of participants who were categorized as very much or much improved in PGIC at endpoint. Proportion in each group calculated from number of participants categorized as very much or much improved relative to total number of participants in ITT population.||0.18|-0.00|0.0434
91086159|NCT00636636|182055182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|0.102||||0.0268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.19|||Z test|||P-value (vs Placebo) for pairwise test of treatment effect between G-ER group and Placebo group is based on Z test for difference between the 2 groups in proportion of participants who were categorized as very much or much improved in CGIC at endpoint. Proportion in each group calculated from number of participants categorized as very much or much improved relative to total number of participants in ITT population.||0.19|0.01|0.0268
91086160|NCT00636636|182055183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.35|||ANCOVA||P-value versus Placebo for pairwise test of difference of LS mean change from baseline between G-ER and Placebo groups is based on t-test of Type III analysis.|||-0.35|-1.07|0.0001
91086161|NCT00636636|182055184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.15|||ANCOVA|||||-0.15|-0.96|0.007
91022366|NCT01244815|181928528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.36|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 98, asenapine 2.5 mg - 101, asenapine 5.0 mg - 98, asenapine 10.0 mg - 98)||-0.36|-0.89|<0.001
91022367|NCT01244815|181928528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.35|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 98, asenapine 2.5 mg - 101, asenapine 5.0 mg - 98, asenapine 10.0 mg - 98)||-0.35|-0.88|<0.001
91022368|NCT01244815|181928529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.32|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 98, asenapine 2.5 mg - 101, asenapine 5.0 mg - 98, asenapine 10.0 mg - 98)||-0.32|-0.90|<0.001
91086162|NCT01972464|182055217|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|6.52||a priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05|Regression, Logistic|adjusted for age (18-25 years versus \>25 years) and pre-quit smoking level (\<10 versus \>10 cigarettes per day)|OR represents of odds of abstinence in progesterone group versus placebo group|Null hypothesis- odds of week 8 point prevalence abstinence were equal between placebo and progesterone group.||6.52|0.48|0.39
91022369|NCT01244815|181928529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|-0.46|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 98, asenapine 2.5 mg - 101, asenapine 5.0 mg - 98, asenapine 10.0 mg - 98)||-0.46|-1.04|<0.001
91022370|NCT01244815|181928529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.45|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 98, asenapine 2.5 mg - 101, asenapine 5.0 mg - 98, asenapine 10.0 mg - 98)||-0.45|-1.03|<0.001
91022371|NCT01244815|181928530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.07||||0.536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.15|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 98, asenapine 2.5 mg - 101, asenapine 5.0 mg - 98, asenapine 10.0 mg - 98)||0.15|-0.28|0.536
91022372|NCT01244815|181928530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.03||||0.811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.19|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 98, asenapine 2.5 mg - 101, asenapine 5.0 mg - 98, asenapine 10.0 mg - 98)||0.19|-0.24|0.811
91086163|NCT01972464|182055218|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.39||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|3.38||a priori threshold = 0.05|Regression, Cox|Adjusted for age and pre-quit smoking level|Hazard ratio is placebo / progesterone|||3.38|0.66|0.41
91086164|NCT01972464|182055219|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|0.96|||general estimating equation|adjusted for age \& pre-quit smoking level; specified a gamma distribution, log link, autoregressive correlation structure|risk ratio is progesterone versus placebo|null hypothesis rate of change in QSU-brief scores were equal between treatment groups||0.96|0.86|<0.001
91086165|NCT02922153|182055267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|One-sided, two-sample t-test.||||||0.0223
91086166|NCT02922153|182055268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|One-sided two-sample t-test.||||||0.6259
91086167|NCT02922153|182055268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon two-sample test.||||||0.518
90956917|NCT00657020|181793392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8318||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is right superior occipital cortex.||||0.8318
91022373|NCT01244815|181928530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.07||||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.28|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 98, asenapine 2.5 mg - 101, asenapine 5.0 mg - 98, asenapine 10.0 mg - 98)||0.28|-0.15|0.556
91022374|NCT01244815|181928531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.21||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.0|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 98, asenapine 2.5 mg - 101, asenapine 5.0 mg - 98, asenapine 10.0 mg - 98)||0.00|-0.42|0.053
91022375|NCT01244815|181928531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.18||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.03|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 98, asenapine 2.5 mg - 101, asenapine 5.0 mg - 98, asenapine 10.0 mg - 98)||0.03|-0.40|0.094
91022376|NCT01244815|181928531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.15||||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.07|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 98, asenapine 2.5 mg - 101, asenapine 5.0 mg - 98, asenapine 10.0 mg - 98)||0.07|-0.36|0.178
91022377|NCT01244815|181928532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.08||||0.506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.16|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 98, asenapine 2.5 mg - 101, asenapine 5.0 mg - 98, asenapine 10.0 mg - 98)||0.16|-0.33|0.506
91022378|NCT01244815|181928532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.19||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.06|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 98, asenapine 2.5 mg - 101, asenapine 5.0 mg - 98, asenapine 10.0 mg - 98)||0.06|-0.43|0.131
91022379|NCT01244815|181928532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.16||||0.211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.09|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 98, asenapine 2.5 mg - 101, asenapine 5.0 mg - 98, asenapine 10.0 mg - 98)||0.09|-0.40|0.211
91022380|NCT01244815|181928533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.23||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.03|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 98, asenapine 2.5 mg - 101, asenapine 5.0 mg - 98, asenapine 10.0 mg - 98)||0.03|-0.49|0.079
91022381|NCT01244815|181928533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.34||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.08|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 98, asenapine 2.5 mg - 101, asenapine 5.0 mg - 98, asenapine 10.0 mg - 98)||-0.08|-0.60|0.010
91022382|NCT01244815|181928533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.2||||0.139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.06|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 98, asenapine 2.5 mg - 101, asenapine 5.0 mg - 98, asenapine 10.0 mg - 98)||0.06|-0.46|0.139
91022383|NCT01244815|181928534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-2.61||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.38|-0.83|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 98, asenapine 2.5 mg - 101, asenapine 5.0 mg - 98, asenapine 10.0 mg - 98)||-0.83|-4.38|0.004
91022384|NCT01244815|181928534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-2.17||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.95|-0.39|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 98, asenapine 2.5 mg - 101, asenapine 5.0 mg - 98, asenapine 10.0 mg - 98)||-0.39|-3.95|0.017
91022385|NCT01244815|181928534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-2.16||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.93|-0.38|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 98, asenapine 2.5 mg - 101, asenapine 5.0 mg - 98, asenapine 10.0 mg - 98)||-0.38|-3.93|0.017
91086168|NCT02922153|182055269|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0201||||||FEV1 one-sided, two-sample t-test|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0201
91086169|NCT02922153|182055269|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06||||||FVC one-sided, two-sample t-test|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.06
90956918|NCT00657020|181793392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7554||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is right visual cortex.||||0.7554
90956919|NCT00657020|181793392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5421||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is right visual cortex.||||0.5421
90956920|NCT00657020|181793393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1963||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis considered response time of treatments in comparison to be equal.||||0.1963
90956921|NCT00657020|181793393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0959||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis considered response time of treatments in comparison to be equal.||||0.0959
90956922|NCT00657020|181793394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis considered treatments in comparison to be equal.||||0.5400
90956923|NCT00657020|181793394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis considered the treatments in comparison to be equal.||||0.1800
91086170|NCT02922153|182055269|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09||||||SVC one-sided, two-sample t-test|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.09
91086171|NCT02922153|182055270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3085||||||72 Hours Post-Op|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||||||0.3085
91086172|NCT02922153|182055270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8196||||||96 Hours Post-Op|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||||||0.8196
91086173|NCT02922153|182055270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7269||||||120 Hours Post-Op|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||||||0.7269
91086174|NCT02922153|182055272|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4421|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Analysis is the time from end of procedure to oral endotracheal extubation||||0.4421
91086175|NCT02922153|182055273|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4352||||||Total Post-Procedure for Hospital Stay|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test||||||0.4352
91086176|NCT02922153|182055274|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2939||||||ICU Length of Stay|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||||||0.2939
91086177|NCT02922153|182055274|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0998||||||Hospital Length of Stay|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||||||0.0998
91086178|NCT02922153|182055275|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2877|||||||Chi-squared|||48 Hours Post-Op: Patient able to sit up in bed||||0.2877
91086179|NCT02922153|182055275|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5311|||||||Fisher Exact|||48 Hours Post-Op: Patient able to stand up||||0.5311
91086180|NCT02922153|182055275|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4908|||||||Fisher Exact|||48 Hours Post-Op: Patient able to walk||||0.4908
91086181|NCT02922153|182055275|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8621|||||||Fisher Exact|||48 Hours Post-Op: Right Shoulder Flexion Movement||||0.8621
91086182|NCT02922153|182055275|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||48 Hours Post-Op: Left Shoulder Flexion Movement||||1
91086183|NCT02922153|182055275|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0133|||||||Fisher Exact|||72 Hours Post-Op: Patient able to sit up in bed||||0.0133
91086184|NCT02922153|182055275|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0037|||||||Fisher Exact|||72 Hours Post-Op: Patient able to stand up||||0.0037
91086185|NCT02922153|182055275|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1671|||||||Fisher Exact|||72 Hours Post-Op: Patient able to walk||||0.1671
91086186|NCT02922153|182055275|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||72 Hours Post-Op: Right Shoulder Flexion Movement||||1.000
91086187|NCT02922153|182055275|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||72 Hours Post-Op: Left Shoulder Flexion Movement||||1
91086188|NCT02922153|182055275|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||96 Hours Post-Op: Patient able to sit up in bed||||1
91086189|NCT02922153|182055275|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2757|||||||Fisher Exact|||96 Hours Post-Op: Patient able to stand up||||0.2757
91086190|NCT02922153|182055275|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9025|||||||Fisher Exact|||96 Hours Post-Op: Patient able to walk||||0.9025
91086191|NCT02922153|182055275|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7942|||||||Fisher Exact|||96 Hours Post-Op: Right Shoulder Flexion Movement||||0.7942
91086192|NCT02922153|182055275|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||96 Hours Post-Op: Left Shoulder Flexion Movement||||1
91086193|NCT02922153|182055275|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3492|||||||Fisher Exact|||120 Hours Post-Op: Patient able to sit up in bed||||0.3492
91086194|NCT02922153|182055275|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2644|||||||Fisher Exact|||120 Hours Post-Op: Patient able to stand up||||0.2644
91086195|NCT02922153|182055275|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8258|||||||Fisher Exact|||120 Hours Post-Op: Patient able to walk||||0.8258
91086196|NCT02922153|182055275|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||Fisher Exact|||120 Hours Post-Op: Right Shoulder Flexion Movement||||0.67
91086197|NCT02922153|182055275|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5693|||||||Fisher Exact|||120 Hours Post-Op: Left Shoulder Flexion Movement||||0.5693
91086198|NCT02922153|182055275|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1189|||||||Chi-squared|||Discharge: Patient able to sit up in bed||||0.1189
91086199|NCT02922153|182055275|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Discharge: Patient able to stand up||||1
91086200|NCT02922153|182055275|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6992|||||||Fisher Exact|||Discharge: Patient able to walk||||0.6992
91086201|NCT02922153|182055275|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4429|||||||Fisher Exact|||Discharge: Right Shoulder Flexion Movement||||0.4429
91086202|NCT02922153|182055275|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4563|||||||Fisher Exact|||Discharge: Left Shoulder Flexion Movement||||0.4563
91086203|NCT01053741|182055287|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in epithelial surface disruption when comparing the two interventions. Power calculation was based on identifying a median difference in histology grade of 0.83, using a two-sided alpha of 0.05 with 90% power in 10 subjects.||||<0.05
91086204|NCT01001520|182055308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88||||||"Because the five a priori brain regions of interest (ROIs) are highly correlated, the significance threshold was adjusted to p=0.014."|Regression, Linear|BOLD signal change was examined using random effects maximum likelihood regression.||"We hypothesized that tolcapone would increase BOLD signal, meaning there would be an increase in brain activity, in the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, a part of the brain known to be involved in working memory.~We analyzed for main effects of treatment (tolcapone vs. placebo), back level (0, 1, 2, and 3), treatment order, and relevant covariates (genotype, race, age, sex, FTND score, Shipley IQ score)."||||0.88
91086205|NCT01001520|182055309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017||||||The threshold for statistical significance was not adjusted. Significance remained at p=0.05.|Regression, Linear|Accuracy was examined using random effects maximum likelihood regression.||We hypothesized that tolcapone (vs. placebo) would increase subject's accuracy during the N-back working memory task.||||0.017
91086206|NCT01001520|182055310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88||||||The threshold for statistical significance was not adjusted. Significance remained at p=0.05.|Regression, Linear|Examined using random effects maximum likelihood regression.||We hypothesized that tolcapone (vs. placebo) would reduce subject's reaction time during the N-back working memory task.||||0.88
91086207|NCT01001520|182055311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85||||||The threshold for statistical significance was not adjusted. Significance remained at p=0.05.|Regression, Linear|Examined using random effects maximum likelihood regression.||We hypothesized that smokers would smoke fewer cigarettes while taking tolcapone (vs. placebo).||||0.85
91086208|NCT01001520|182055312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4||||||The threshold for statistical significance was not adjusted. Significance remained at p=0.05.|Regression, Linear|Examined using random effects maximum likelihood regression.||We hypothesized that smokers, while taking tolcapone (vs. placebo), would experience less cigarette craving during their 24-hour abstinence period.||||0.40
91086209|NCT01001520|182055313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43||||||The threshold for statistical significance was not adjusted. Significance remained at p=0.05.|Regression, Linear|Examined using random effects maximum likelihood regression.||We hypothesized that smokers, while taking tolcapone (vs. placebo), would experience fewer withdrawal symptoms during their 24-hour abstinence period.||||0.43
91022386|NCT01244815|181928535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.79||||0.395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.62|1.04|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 98, asenapine 2.5 mg - 101, asenapine 5.0 mg - 98, asenapine 10.0 mg - 98)||1.04|-2.62|0.395
91022387|NCT01244815|181928535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-2.44||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.26|-0.63|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 98, asenapine 2.5 mg - 101, asenapine 5.0 mg - 98, asenapine 10.0 mg - 98)||-0.63|-4.26|0.009
91022388|NCT01244815|181928535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-1.44||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.27|0.38|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 98, asenapine 2.5 mg - 101, asenapine 5.0 mg - 98, asenapine 10.0 mg - 98)||0.38|-3.27|0.121
91022389|NCT01244815|181928536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-1.44||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.33|0.45|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 98, asenapine 2.5 mg - 101, asenapine 5.0 mg - 98, asenapine 10.0 mg - 98)||0.45|-3.33|0.135
91022390|NCT01244815|181928536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-2.19||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.08|-0.3|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 98, asenapine 2.5 mg - 101, asenapine 5.0 mg - 98, asenapine 10.0 mg - 98)||-0.30|-4.08|0.023
91022391|NCT01244815|181928536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-1.28||||0.189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|0.63|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 98, asenapine 2.5 mg - 101, asenapine 5.0 mg - 98, asenapine 10.0 mg - 98)||0.63|-3.20|0.189
91022392|NCT01244815|181928537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|4.29||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|7.02|||ANCOVA|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment and baseline|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|||7.02|1.56|0.002
91022393|NCT01244815|181928537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|6.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.22|9.68|||ANCOVA|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment and baseline|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|||9.68|4.22|<0.001
91022394|NCT01244815|181928537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|5.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.31|7.91|||ANCOVA|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment and baseline|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|||7.91|2.31|<0.001
91022395|NCT01244815|181928538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|2.24||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|4.48|||ANCOVA|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment and baseline|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|||4.48|-0.00|0.050
91022396|NCT01244815|181928538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|1.35||||0.239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|3.59|||ANCOVA|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment and baseline|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|||3.59|-0.90|0.239
91086210|NCT01001520|182055314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||||||"Because the five a priori brain regions of interest (ROIs) are highly correlated, the significance threshold was adjusted to p=0.014."|Regression, Linear|BOLD signal change was examined using random effects maximum likelihood regression.||"We hypothesized that tolcapone would increase BOLD signal, meaning there would be an increase in brain activity, in the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, a part of the brain known to be involved in working memory.~We analyzed for main effects of treatment (tolcapone vs. placebo), back level (0, 1, 2, and 3), treatment order, and relevant covariates (genotype, race, age, sex, FTND score, Shipley IQ score)."||||0.18
91022397|NCT01244815|181928538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|2.78||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|5.08|||ANCOVA|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment and baseline|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|||5.08|0.48|0.018
91022398|NCT01244815|181928539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.39||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.62|||ANCOVA|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment and baseline|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|||0.62|0.15|0.001
91022399|NCT01244815|181928539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.18||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.41|||ANCOVA|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment and baseline|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|||0.41|-0.06|0.135
91022400|NCT01244815|181928539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.25||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.49|||ANCOVA|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment and baseline|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|||0.49|0.01|0.044
91022401|NCT00845026|181928623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.184||95.0||||No adjustments were made for multiplicity. All treatment comparisons were evaluated based on a two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Log Rank|||||||0.184
91022402|NCT00382291|181928673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2106||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Data were analyzed using two-sided Kruskal-Wallis test with level of significance = .05. Null hypothesis was that there were no group differences. The maximum CGI-SA obtained over course of study was the outcome measure.||||.2106
91022403|NCT00382291|181928674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using ANCOVA modeling with two-sided testing and level of significance = .05. The dependent variable was last measured CY-BOCS score, the independent variable was randomized group assignment and the covariate was the CY-BOCS score at baseline. The null hypothesis was that there were no group differences.||||.8831
91022404|NCT02270983|181928704|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.325|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.439|2.211|||ANCOVA|||||2.211|0.439|0.0035
91022405|NCT02270983|181928704|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.908|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.451|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.021|2.796|||ANCOVA|||||2.796|1.021|<0.0001
91086211|NCT01001520|182055315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67||||||"Because the five a priori brain regions of interest (ROIs) are highly correlated, the significance threshold was adjusted to p=0.014."|Regression, Linear|BOLD signal change was examined using random effects maximum likelihood regression.||"We hypothesized that tolcapone would increase BOLD signal, meaning there would be an increase in brain activity, in the dorsal cingulate/medial prefrontal cortex, a part of the brain known to be involved in working memory.~We analyzed for main effects of treatment (tolcapone vs. placebo), back level (0, 1, 2, and 3), treatment order, and relevant covariates (genotype, race, age, sex, FTND score, Shipley IQ score)."||||0.67
91086212|NCT01001520|182055316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98||||||"Because the five a priori brain regions of interest (ROIs) are highly correlated, the significance threshold was adjusted to p=0.014."|Regression, Linear|BOLD signal change was examined using random effects maximum likelihood regression.||"We hypothesized that tolcapone would increase suppression of BOLD signal, meaning an increase in suppression of brain activity, in the posterior cingulate cortex, a part of the brain known to be involved in working memory.~We analyzed for main effects of treatment (tolcapone vs. placebo), back level (0, 1, 2, and 3), treatment order, and relevant covariates (genotype, race, age, sex, FTND score, Shipley IQ score)."||||0.98
91086213|NCT01001520|182055317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||||||"Because the five a priori brain regions of interest (ROIs) are highly correlated, the significance threshold was adjusted to p=0.014."|Regression, Linear|BOLD signal change was examined using random effects maximum likelihood regression.||"We hypothesized that tolcapone would increase suppression of BOLD signal, meaning an increase in suppression of brain activity, in the ventromedial prefrontal cortex, a part of the brain known to be involved in working memory.~We analyzed for main effects of treatment (tolcapone vs. placebo), back level (0, 1, 2, and 3), treatment order, and relevant covariates (genotype, race, age, sex, FTND score, Shipley IQ score)."||||0.002
91086214|NCT01004978|182055346|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4||||||one-sided p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4
91086215|NCT01004978|182055347|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.76
91086216|NCT00814138|182055356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-488.0||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2443.4|1467.3|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||If a study participant terminated, their last results were pulled forward.||1467.3|-2443.4|0.26
91086217|NCT00814138|182055357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|5.8|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||If a study participant terminated, their last results were pulled forward.||5.8|-9.7|0.26
91086218|NCT00814138|182055358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|1.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||If a study participant terminated, their last results were pulled forward.||1.5|-4.9|0.29
91086219|NCT00814138|182055359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|1.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||If a study participant terminated, their last results were pulled forward.||1.8|-6.3|0.28
91086220|NCT00814138|182055360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|5.4|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||If a study participant terminated, their last results were pulled forward.||5.4|-7.2|0.82
91086221|NCT00814138|182055361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|0.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||If a study participant terminated, their last results were pulled forward.||0.8|-3.7|0.21
91086222|NCT00814138|182055362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.3||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|0.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||If a study participant terminated, their last results were pulled forward.||0.5|-7.1|0.09
91086223|NCT01096160|182055398|OTHER|Difference in change from baseline in SBP (TWA\^0-24hrs)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.08||||0.1194|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.1|2.92|||Linear mixed effects model|||||2.92|-17.1|0.1194
90956924|NCT01183234|181793395|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals for the ratio of the treatment regimen means were provided by back-transformation on to the linear scale and were assessed against the currently accepted bioequivalence criteria for log-transformed data (0.80, 1.25).|Ratio of geometric LS means|0.953|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.915|0.993|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.993|0.915|
91086224|NCT01096160|182055398|OTHER|Difference in change from baseline in SBP (TWA\^0-24hrs)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.1||||0.0224|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.7|-2.48|||Linear mixed effects model|||||-2.48|-23.7|0.0224
91086225|NCT01096160|182055398|OTHER|Difference in change from baseline in SBP (TWA\^0-24hrs)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33||||0.4791|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.3|10.91|||Linear mixed effects model|||||10.91|-10.3|0.4791
91086226|NCT01096160|182055398|OTHER|Difference in change from baseline in SBP (TWA\^0-24hrs)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.21||||0.0705|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.4|1.01|||Linear mixed effcts model|||Panel D and Panel E had identical treatments (MK-8266 0.8 mg TID), which were combined for this analysis. Panel D was completed prior to initiation of Panel E.||1.01|-17.4|0.0705
91086227|NCT01096160|182055399|OTHER|Comparison of Day 10 values (TWA\^0-24hrs) for MK-8266 vs placebo|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.85||||0.1161|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.51|9.22|||Linear mixed effects model|||||9.22|-1.51|0.1161
91086228|NCT01096160|182055399|OTHER|Comparison of Day 10 values (TWA\^0-24hrs) for MK-8266 vs placebo|Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.28||||0.0189|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.6|12.97|||Linear mixed effects model|||||12.97|1.60|0.0189
91086229|NCT01096160|182055399|OTHER|Comparison of Day 10 values (TWA\^0-24hrs) for MK-8266 vs placebo|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26||||0.4689|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.42|5.95|||Linear mixed effects model|||||5.95|-5.42|0.4689
91086230|NCT01096160|182055399|OTHER|Comparison of Day 10 values (TWA\^0-24hrs) for MK-8266 vs placebo|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.06||||0.0869|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.89|9.01|||Linear mixed effects model|||Panel D and Panel E had identical treatments (MK-8266 0.8 mg TID), which were combined for this analysis. Panel D was completed prior to initiation of Panel E.||9.01|-0.89|0.0869
91086231|NCT01096160|182055400|OTHER|Comparison of Day 10 values (TWA\^0-24hrs) for MK-8266 vs placebo|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.87||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.7|-4.09|||Linear mixed effects model|||||-4.09|-15.7|0.003
91086232|NCT01096160|182055400|OTHER|Comparison of Day 10 values (TWA\^0-24hrs) for MK-8266 vs placebo|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.2||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.3|-5.1|||Linear mixed effects model|||||-5.10|-17.3|0.002
91086233|NCT01096160|182055400|OTHER|Comparison of Day 10 values (TWA\^0-24hrs) for MK-8266 vs placebo|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.18||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.3|0.95|||Linear mixed effcts model|||||0.95|-11.3|0.080
91086234|NCT01096160|182055400|OTHER|Difference in change from baseline in AIx (TWA\^0-24hrs)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.79||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.1|-1.46|||Linear mixed effcts model|||Panel D and Panel E had identical treatments (MK-8266 0.8 mg TID), which were combined for this analysis. Panel D was completed prior to initiation of Panel E.||-1.46|-12.1|0.019
91086235|NCT01096160|182055401|OTHER|Difference in change from baseline in cGMP|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.28||||0.318|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.53|3.05|||Linear mixed effects model|||||3.05|0.53|0.318
91086236|NCT01096160|182055401|OTHER|Difference in change from baseline in cGMP|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.66||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.66|4.17|||Linear mixed effects model|||||4.17|0.66|0.17
91086237|NCT01096160|182055401|OTHER|Difference in change from baseline in cGMP|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.41||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.16|1.02|||Linear mixed effcts model|||||1.02|0.16|0.054
91022406|NCT02270983|181928705|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.28||||0.1429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.77|||Log Rank|||||1.77|0.92|0.1429
91022407|NCT02270983|181928705|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.43||||0.0287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.97|||Log Rank|||||1.97|1.04|0.0287
91022408|NCT02270983|181928706|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.3332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.58|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel tests comparing specified treatment groups, controlling for geographic region.||||2.58|0.73|0.3332
91022409|NCT02270983|181928706|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.92||||0.0506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|3.68|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel tests comparing specified treatment groups, controlling for geographic region.||||3.68|1.00|0.0506
91022410|NCT02270983|181928707|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.751|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.217||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.324|1.178|||ANCOVA|||||1.178|0.324|0.0007
91022411|NCT02270983|181928707|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.987|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.217|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.558|1.416|||ANCOVA|||||1.416|0.558|<0.0001
91022412|NCT02270983|181928708|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.746|-0.174|||ANCOVA|||||-0.174|-0.746|0.0017
91022413|NCT02270983|181928708|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.669|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.146|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.957|-0.382|||ANCOVA|||||-0.382|-0.957|<0.0001
91022414|NCT02270983|181928709|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.033|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.205||0.872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.371|0.437|||ANCOVA|||||0.437|-0.371|0.8720
91022415|NCT02270983|181928709|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.607|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.205||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.011|-0.203|||ANCOVA|||||-0.203|-1.011|0.0034
91022416|NCT03840811|181928731|OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||Sign test|||To assess whether the fitness of a given mutant is different than that of wild-type, the ratio of colony-forming units of the mutant strain was compared to those of the WT strain at the time of treatment and in the inoculum using a Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test with a significance level of 0.025. CIs of participants in Mixed FA1090 + FA7537 group were compared to mean = 1.||||0.230
91022417|NCT03840811|181928732|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.14||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.34||One-sided Fisher's Exact Test with alpha=0.025|Fisher Exact|||||0.34|-0.58|0.54
91022418|NCT02186808|181928738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91022419|NCT04126733|181928757|EQUIVALENCE|H0: ORR ≤ 5% versus H1: ORR \>5% The hypothesis was tested by a one-sided exact binomial test, assuming a background response rate for the combination to be at most 5%.|Rate|7.1||||0.2721||95.0|2.4|15.9||The target response rate for the combination treatment was 17%. Using a one-sided exact binomial test at a type-I error of at most 2.5% at least 8 responders out of the 70 patients were needed to achieve significance.|Exact Binomial Test|||||15.9|2.4|0.2721
91086238|NCT01096160|182055401|OTHER|Difference in change from baseline in cGMP|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.78||||0.297|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.35|1.73|||Linear mixed effcts model|||Panel D and Panel E had identical treatments (MK-8266 0.8 mg TID), which were combined for this analysis. Panel D was completed prior to initiation of Panel E.||1.73|0.35|0.297
91086239|NCT02028507|182055417|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.89|||Regression, Cox|||This statistical Analysis corresponds to Global health status/quality of life scale||0.89|0.55|0.003
91086240|NCT02028507|182055417|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.76|||Regression, Cox|||This statistical Analysis corresponds to Physical functioning scale||0.76|0.50|<0.001
91086241|NCT02028507|182055417|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.79|||Regression, Cox|||This statistical Analysis corresponds to Role functioning scale||0.79|0.51|<0.001
91086242|NCT02028507|182055417|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.25|||Regression, Cox|||This statistical Analysis corresponds to Emotional functioning scale||1.25|0.76|0.818
91086243|NCT02028507|182055417|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.89|||Regression, Cox|||This statistical Analysis corresponds to Cognitive functioning scale||0.89|0.54|0.004
91086244|NCT02028507|182055417|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.78|||Regression, Cox|||This Statistical Analysis corresponds to Social functioning scale||0.78|0.49|<0.001
91086245|NCT02028507|182055418|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.86|||Regression, Cox|||This Statistical Analysis corresponds to Fatigue scale||0.86|0.57|0.001
91086246|NCT02028507|182055418|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.76|||Regression, Cox|||This Statistical Analysis corresponds to Nausea and vomiting scale||0.76|0.45|<0.001
91086247|NCT02028507|182055418|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.99|||Regression, Cox|||This Statistical Analysis corresponds to Pain scale||0.99|0.62|0.042
91086248|NCT02028507|182055418|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.44|||Regression, Cox|||This Statistical Analysis corresponds to Dyspnea scale||1.44|0.81|0.599
91086249|NCT02028507|182055418|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.1|||Regression, Cox|||This Statistical Analysis corresponds to Insomnia scale||1.10|0.64|0.196
91086250|NCT02028507|182055418|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.92|||Regression, Cox|||This Statistical Analysis corresponds to Appetite loss scale||0.92|0.54|0.011
91086251|NCT02028507|182055418|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.41|||Regression, Cox|||This Statistical Analysis corresponds to Constipation scale||1.41|0.83|0.564
91022420|NCT00837577|181928764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|-0.75||Adjusted for other prior antihyperglycemic medications (absence, presence).|Longitudinal data analysis (LDA)|LDA model included both baseline and post-baseline measurements as response variables. P-value calculated using least squares mean.||||-0.75|-1.09|<.001
91022421|NCT00837577|181928765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-51.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.3|-40.2||Adjusted for other prior antihyperglycemic medications (absence, presence).|Longitudinal data analysis (LDA)|LDA model included both baseline and post-baseline measurements as response variables. P-value calculated using least squares mean.||||-40.2|-62.3|<.001
91022422|NCT00837577|181928766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-22.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.0|-15.0||Adjusted for other prior antihyperglycemic medications (absence, presence).|Longitudinal data analysis (LDA)|LDA model included both baseline and post-baseline measurements as response variables. P-value calculated using least squares mean.||||-15.0|-30.0|<.001
91022423|NCT00919802|181928767|OTHER|||||||0.688|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Global Response Assessment (GRA) scores were obtained 6 and 24 hours post oxytocin or saline administration.||||0.688
91022424|NCT00919802|181928768|OTHER|paired t-test comparison of change in VAR from baseline 6 hours after drug; a change in VAR score was calculated for each subject for each arm and compared using a paired t-test||||||0.7252|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7252
91022425|NCT02059187|181928773|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|MK-1293 was to be considered non-inferior to Lantus in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the between-treatment difference (MK-1293 minus Lantus) in least-squares (LS) means was below 0.4% based on a cLDA model.|Difference in least squares means|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.18||||||||0.18|-0.12|
91022426|NCT02059187|181928774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|13.7||||||||13.7|-2.3|
91022427|NCT02059187|181928776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|8.5||||||||8.5|-8.5|
91022428|NCT02059187|181928777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percent|6.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|14.2||||||||14.2|-0.6|
91022429|NCT02059187|181928778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|4.9||||||||4.9|-2.2|
91022430|NCT02059187|181928779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Dofference in LS means|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.05||||||||0.05|-0.02|
91022431|NCT02059187|181928780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|10.7||||||||10.7|-3.7|
90893774|NCT00224770|181652709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.395|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Two-sided test||Null hypothesis is that the distributions of the mRS values for both groups are the same. The alternative hypothesis is that the distributions are not the same.||||0.395
91022432|NCT02059187|181928781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|4.4||||||||4.4|-11.3|
91022433|NCT02059187|181928782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted difference in percent|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|11.6|||||Calculated via Miettinen and Nurminen method, stratified by prior insulin status.|||11.6|-6.1|
91022434|NCT02059187|181928783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted difference in percent|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|6.5|||||Calculated via Miettinen and Nurminen method, stratified by prior insulin status.|||6.5|-8.3|
91022435|NCT03751020|181928784|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.34|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.03|-1.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The primary comparison was between EW and control to test the interaction between treatment and time.||-1.64|-11.03|<0.01
91022436|NCT03751020|181928785|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.33||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The primary comparison was between EW and control to test the interaction between treatment and time.||-0.03|-0.62|0.03
91022437|NCT03751020|181928786|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.03||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.55|0.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The primary comparison was between EW and control to test the interaction between treatment and time.||0.47|-8.55|0.07
91022438|NCT03751020|181928787|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.12||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.48|8.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The primary comparison was between EW and control to test the interaction between treatment and time.||8.77|-6.48|0.73
91022439|NCT03751020|181928788|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.28||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The primary comparison was between EW and control to test the interaction between treatment and time.||0.24|-2.80|0.10
91086252|NCT02028507|182055418|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.55|||Regression, Cox|||This Statistical Analysis corresponds to Diarrhea scale||0.55|0.32|<0.001
91086253|NCT02028507|182055418|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.07|||Regression, Cox|||This Statistical Analysis corresponds to Financial difficulties scale||1.07|0.56|0.118
91086254|NCT02028507|182055419|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.21|||Regression, Cox|||This Statistical Analysis corresponds to Body image scale||1.21|0.74|0.659
91086255|NCT02028507|182055419|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.39|||Regression, Cox|||This Statistical Analysis corresponds to Future perspective scale||1.39|0.74|0.928
91086256|NCT02028507|182055420|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.98|||Regression, Cox|||This Statistical Analysis corresponds to Systemic side-effects scale||0.98|0.64|0.029
91086257|NCT02028507|182055420|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.21|||Regression, Cox|||This Statistical Analysis corresponds to Breast symptoms scale||1.21|0.71|0.571
91086258|NCT02028507|182055420|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.09|||Regression, Cox|||This Statistical Analysis corresponds to Arm symptoms scale||1.09|0.66|0.187
91086259|NCT03361306|182055421|SUPERIORITY|Assuming the true VGPR+ rate is 40% under the null hypothesis, then this design will provide 90% power to detect a difference of 20% under the alternative hypothesis, assuming a one-sided alpha=0.10 significance level. For the originally planned enrollment of 40 subjects, if at least 21 subjects achieved VGPR or better to induction, the null hypothesis would be rejected.|Response Rate|0.467||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.213|0.734||This p-value is only based on partial enrollment on the study. As enrollment was halted early, this p-value is descriptive in nature and cannot determine the success/failure of the trial.|Fisher Exact||Confidence interval estimated using the Clopper Pearson method.|||0.734|0.213|0.390
91086260|NCT01556932|182055428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.2541|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91086261|NCT02038179|182055432|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83||||||Intent-to-Treat Analysis using multiple imputation. Imputed Means and Imputed Standard Errors of the Mean.|paired t-test|||||||0.83
91086262|NCT02038179|182055433|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||paired t-test|||||||<0.001
91086263|NCT02038179|182055434|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.84
91086264|NCT00121719|182055478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0146|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||This was a pilot study and a statistical sample size calculation was not performed.||||0.0146
91086265|NCT04346199|182055504|OTHER|No formal hypothesis testing for this endpoint.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.758|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.323|1.722||P-value not generated.|Regression, Cox|Adjusting for age (\<65 vs \>=65 years) and comorbidities (present vs absent). Ties handled by Efron approach. HR CI using profile likelihood approach.||||1.722|0.323|
90893775|NCT00224770|181652709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.175|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Two-sided test||Null hypothesis is that the distributions of the mRS values for both groups are the same. The alternative hypothesis is that the distributions are not the same.||||0.175
91022440|NCT03751020|181928789|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.09||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|1.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The primary comparison was between EW and control to test the interaction between treatment and time.||1.57|-1.19|0.76
91022441|NCT00528879|181928814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1014||0.0002||||||Tested at alpha=0.019, applying the Dunnett adjustment|ANCOVA|||||||0.0002
91022442|NCT00528879|181928814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1016|<|0.0001||||||Tested at alpha=0.019, applying the Dunnett adjustment|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91022443|NCT00528879|181928814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1021|<|0.0001||||||Tested at alpha=0.019, applying the Dunnett adjustment|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91022444|NCT00528879|181928815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.774|<|0.0019||||||Statistically significant according to hierarchical testing procedure (p\<0.05).|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0019
91022445|NCT00528879|181928815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.781|<|0.0001||||||Statistically significant according to hierarchical testing procedure (p\<0.05).|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91022446|NCT00528879|181928815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.819|<|0.0001||||||Statistically significant according to hierarchical testing procedure (p\<0.05).|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91022447|NCT00528879|181928816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3344|<|0.0001||||||Statistically significant according to hierarchical testing procedure (p\<0.05).|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91022448|NCT00528879|181928816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3344|<|0.0001||||||Statistically significant according to hierarchical testing procedure (p\<0.05).|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91022449|NCT00528879|181928816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3365|<|0.0001||||||Statistically significant according to hierarchical testing procedure (p\<0.05).|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91086266|NCT04346199|182055512|OTHER|No formal hypothesis testing for this endpoint.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.967||||||95.0|0.69|1.353|||Regression, Cox|Adjusting for age (\<65 vs \>=65 years) and comorbidities (present vs absent). Ties handled by Efron approach. HR CI using profile likelihood approach.||||1.353|0.690|
91086267|NCT00627926|182055515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|23.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.9|30.0||||||||30.0|15.9|
91086268|NCT00627926|182055515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|29.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.4|36.1||||||||36.1|22.4|
91086269|NCT00627926|182055516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|57.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.4|62.8||||||||62.8|51.4|
91086270|NCT00627926|182055516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|58.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.7|64.0||||||||64.0|52.7|
91086271|NCT00627926|182055517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|48.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.0|54.6||||||||54.6|43.0|
91086272|NCT00627926|182055517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|50.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.6|56.2||||||||56.2|44.6|
91086273|NCT00627926|182055518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|35.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.0|42.4||||||||42.4|29.0|
91086274|NCT00627926|182055518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|37.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.9|44.1||||||||44.1|30.9|
91086275|NCT00627926|182055519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|17.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.2|24.0||||||||24.0|11.2|
91086276|NCT00627926|182055519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|23.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.0|29.2||||||||29.2|17.0|
91086277|NCT00627926|182055520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|25.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.5|32.4||||||||32.4|18.5|
91086278|NCT00627926|182055520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|31.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.4|37.9||||||||37.9|24.4|
91086279|NCT00627926|182055521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|25.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.2|32.2||||||||32.2|18.2|
91086280|NCT00627926|182055521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|31.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.9|38.5||||||||38.5|24.9|
91086281|NCT00627926|182055526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|24.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.9|31.9||||||SVR Protocol Defined: undetectable HCV RNA at 24 weeks after the last planned dose of study treatment without any confirmed detectable HCV RNA between end of treatment visit (up to Week 48) and 24 weeks after last planned dose (up to Week 72).||31.9|17.9|
91086282|NCT00627926|182055526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|30.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.1|37.7||||||SVR Protocol Defined: undetectable HCV RNA at 24 weeks after the last planned dose of study treatment without any confirmed detectable HCV RNA between end of treatment visit (up to Week 48) and 24 weeks after last planned dose (up to Week 72).||37.7|24.1|
91086283|NCT00627926|182055526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|25.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.8|32.6||||||SVR FDA Guidance: undetectable HCV RNA at 24 weeks after the last planned dose of study treatment. Analysis was based only on the HCV RNA assessment in visit window (+/-2 weeks); if there were more than 1 assessment in the window, the last measurement was used.||32.6|18.8|
91022450|NCT00528879|181928817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|7.1||||0.1775||||||Statistically significant according to hierarchical testing procedure (p\<0.05).|Modified logistic regression|||||||0.1775
91022451|NCT00528879|181928817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.7||||0.0275||||||Statistically significant according to hierarchical testing procedure (p\<0.05).|Modified logistic regression|||||||0.0275
91022452|NCT00528879|181928817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.7||||0.0062||||||Statistically significant according to hierarchical testing procedure (p\<0.05).|Modified logistic regression|||||||0.0062
91022453|NCT00528879|181928818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3515||||||||Sequential testing procedures were used, and no test was performed for this comparison due to the fact that the previous comparison was not significant.|ANCOVA|||||||
91022454|NCT00528879|181928818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3022||0.0068||||||Statistically significant according to hierarchical testing procedure (p\<0.05).|ANCOVA|||||||0.0068
91022455|NCT00528879|181928818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3535||0.029||||||Statistically significant according to hierarchical testing procedure (p\<0.05).|ANCOVA|||||||0.0290
91022456|NCT00528879|181928819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3681||||||||Sequential testing procedures were used, and no test was performed for this comparison due to the fact that the previous comparison was not significant.|ANCOVA|||||||
91022457|NCT00528879|181928819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3745|<|0.0001||||||Statistically significant according to hierarchical testing procedure (p\<0.05).|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91022458|NCT00528879|181928819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3791|<|0.0001||||||Statistically significant according to hierarchical testing procedure (p\<0.05).|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91022459|NCT00528879|181928826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1109||||||||Sequential testing procedures were used, and no test was performed for this comparison due to the fact that the previous comparison was not significant.|ANCOVA|||||||
91022460|NCT00528879|181928826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1129||0.0004||||||Statistically significant according to hierarchical testing procedure (p\<0.05).|ANCOVA|||||||0.0004
91022461|NCT00528879|181928826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1146|<|0.0001||||||Statistically significant according to hierarchical testing procedure (p\<0.05).|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91022462|NCT00528879|181928827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.769||||||||Sequential testing procedures were used, and no test was performed for this comparison due to the fact that the previous comparison was not significant.|ANCOVA|||||||
91022463|NCT00528879|181928827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.762|<|0.0001||||||Statistically significant according to hierarchical testing procedure (p\<0.05).|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91022464|NCT00528879|181928827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.808|<|0.0001||||||Statistically significant according to hierarchical testing procedure (p\<0.05).|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91022465|NCT00528879|181928828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.9||||||||||Sequential testing procedures were used, and no test was performed for this comparison due to the fact that the previous comparison was not significant.|Modified logistic regression|||||||
90893776|NCT00224770|181652710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Two-sided test||Null hypothesis is that the distributions of percentage of blood clot resolved are the same between the two groups. The alternative hypothesis is that the distributions are not the same.||||<0.0001
91022466|NCT00528879|181928828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.8627|||||||Modified logistic regression|||||||0.8627
91022467|NCT00528879|181928828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.3||||0.0149||||||Statistically significant according to hierarchical testing procedure (p\<0.05).|Modified logistic regression|||||||0.0149
91022468|NCT02555618|181928831|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority margin is set to -20%.|Rate difference|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.983|11.415|||||TAK-850 - Influenza HA Vaccine|The analysis is difference of seroconversion rate between treatment groups for A/H1N1 Strain-Day 22.||11.415|-7.983|
91022469|NCT02555618|181928831|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority margin is set to -20%.|Rate difference|-4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.974|4.403|||||TAK-850 - Influenza HA Vaccine|The analysis is difference of seroconversion rate between treatment groups for A/H3N2 Strain-Day 22.||4.403|-13.974|
91022470|NCT02555618|181928831|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority margin is set to -20%.|Rate difference|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.082|11.32|||||TAK-850 - Influenza HA Vaccine|The analysis is difference of seroconversion rate between treatment groups for B Strain-Day 22.||11.320|-6.082|
91022471|NCT02555618|181928832|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority margin is set to 0.5.|Ratio of GMTs|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7984|1.2253|||||TAK-850/Influenza HA Vaccine|The analysis is Geometric Mean Ratio between treatment groups for A/H1N1 Strain-Day 22.||1.2253|0.7984|
91022472|NCT02555618|181928832|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority margin is set to 0.5.|Ratio of GMTs|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5544|1.05|||||TAK-850/Influenza HA Vaccine|The analysis is Geometric Mean Ratio between treatment groups for A/H3N2 Strain-Day 22.||1.0500|0.5544|
91022473|NCT02555618|181928832|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority margin is set to 0.5.|Ratio of GMTs|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8134|1.3931|||||TAK-850/Influenza HA Vaccine|The analysis is Geometric Mean Ratio between treatment groups for B Strain-Day 22.||1.3931|0.8134|
91086284|NCT00627926|182055526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|32.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.9|39.2||||||SVR FDA Guidance: undetectable HCV RNA at 24 weeks after the last planned dose of study treatment. Analysis was based only on the HCV RNA assessment in visit window (+/-2 weeks); if there were more than 1 assessment in the window, the last measurement was used.||39.2|25.9|
90893777|NCT00224770|181652710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Two-sided test||Null hypothesis is that the distributions of percentage of blood clot resolved are the same between the two groups. The alternative hypothesis is that the distributions are not the same.||||<0.0001
90893778|NCT00224770|181652711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Sign test|Two-sided test||Null hypothesis is that the median percent resolved is 0. The alternative hypothesis is that the median percent resolved is not equal to 0.||||<0.0001
91022474|NCT02555618|181928835|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority margin is set to -20%.|Rate difference|6.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.02|16.348||||||The analysis is difference of seroconversion rate between treatment groups for A/H1N1 Strain-Day 22.||16.348|-3.020|
91022475|NCT02555618|181928835|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority margin is set to -20%.|Rate difference|-8.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.282|0.901||||||The analysis is difference of seroconversion rate between treatment groups for A/H3N2 Strain-Day 22.||0.901|-18.282|
91022476|NCT02555618|181928835|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority margin is set to -20%.|Rate difference|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.461|6.835||||||The analysis is difference of seroconversion rate between treatment groups for B Strain-Day 22.||6.835|-11.461|
91022477|NCT02555618|181928836|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority margin is set to 0.5.|Ratio of GMTs|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9559|1.1473|||||TAK-850/Influenza HA Vaccine|The analysis is Geometric Mean Ratio between treatment groups for A/H1N1 Strain-Day 22.||1.1473|0.9559|
91022478|NCT02555618|181928836|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority margin is set to 0.5.|Ratio of GMTs|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7862|1.0241|||||TAK-850/Influenza HA Vaccine|The analysis is Geometric Mean Ratio between treatment groups for A/H3N2 Strain-Day 22.||1.0241|0.7862|
91022479|NCT02555618|181928836|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority margin is set to 0.5.|Ratio of GMTs|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9273|1.0364|||||TAK-850/Influenza HA Vaccine|The analysis is Geometric Mean Ratio between treatment groups for B Strain-Day 22.||1.0364|0.9273|
91022480|NCT02555618|181928839|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority margin is set to -20%.|Rate difference|14.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.489|23.577||||||The analysis is difference of seroconversion rate between treatment groups for A/H1N1 Strain-Day 22.||23.577|5.489|
91022481|NCT02555618|181928839|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority margin is set to -20%.|Rate difference|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.614|6.928||||||The analysis is difference of seroconversion rate between treatment groups for A/H3N2 Strain-Day 22.||6.928|-10.614|
91022482|NCT02555618|181928839|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority margin is set to -20%.|Rate difference|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.346|5.579||||||The analysis is difference of seroconversion rate between treatment groups for B-Strain.||5.579|-10.346|
91022483|NCT02555618|181928840|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority margin is set to 0.5.|Ratio of GMTs|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1221|1.9623|||||TAK-850/Influenza HA Vaccine|The analysis is Geometric Mean Ratio between treatment groups for A/H1N1 Strain-Day 22.||1.9623|1.1221|
91022484|NCT02555618|181928840|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority margin is set to 0.5.|Ratio of GMTs|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7806|1.4564|||||TAK-850/Influenza HA Vaccine|The analysis is Geometric Mean Ratio between treatment groups for A/H3N2 Strain-Day 22.||1.4564|0.7806|
91022485|NCT02555618|181928840|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority margin is set to 0.5.|Ratio of GMTs|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8166|1.3934|||||TAK-850/Influenza HA Vaccine|The analysis is Geometric Mean Ratio between treatment groups for B Strain-Day 22.||1.3934|0.8166|
91022486|NCT02555618|181928843|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority margin is set to -20%.|Rate difference|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.195|9.423|||||TAK-850 - Influenza HA Vaccine|The analysis is difference of seroconversion rate between treatment groups for A/H1N1 Strain-Day 22.||9.423|-7.195|
91022487|NCT02555618|181928843|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority margin is set to -20%.|Rate difference|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.369|8.803|||||TAK-850 - Influenza HA Vaccine|The analysis is difference of seroconversion rate between treatment groups for A/H3N2 Strain-Day 22.||8.803|-10.369|
91022488|NCT02555618|181928843|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority margin is set to -20%.|Rate difference|3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.406|12.757|||||TAK-850 - Influenza HA Vaccine|The analysis is difference of seroconversion rate between treatment groups for B Strain-Day 22.||12.757|-6.406|
91022489|NCT02555618|181928844|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority margin is set to 0.5.|Ratio of GMTs|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9106|1.2484|||||TAK-850/Influenza HA Vaccine|The analysis is Geometric Mean Ratio between treatment groups for A/H1N1 Strain-Day 22.||1.2484|0.9106|
91022490|NCT02555618|181928844|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority margin is set to 0.5.|Ratio of GMTs|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8686|1.0969|||||TAK-850/Influenza HA Vaccine|The analysis is Geometric Mean Ratio between treatment groups for A/H3N2-Day 22.||1.0969|0.8686|
91022491|NCT02555618|181928844|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority margin is set to 0.5.|Ratio of GMTs|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9622|1.1427|||||TAK-850/Influenza HA Vaccine|The analysis is Geometric Mean Ratio between treatment groups for B Strain-Day 22.||1.1427|0.9622|
91022492|NCT00272961|181928863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|8.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.19||0.185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.21|20.96|||ANCOVA|||Sitting SBP: p-value was obtained using an Analysis of Co-variance (ANCOVA) model on the maximum increase observed with baseline value as a covariate.||20.96|-4.21|0.185
91022493|NCT00272961|181928863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.59||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.16|11.59|||ANCOVA|||Sitting SBP: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the maximum increase observed with baseline value as a covariate.||11.59|-11.16|0.970
90893779|NCT00224770|181652711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.791|TWO_SIDED||||||Sign test|Two-sided||Null hypothesis is that the median percent resolved is 0. The alternative hypothesis is that the median percent resolved is not equal to 0.||||0.791
91086285|NCT05568797|182055543|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority is demonstrated if the upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the group GMT ratio (Control group divided by Co-Ad group) for HI antibody titers for the Flu strain is less than or equal (\<=) 1.5.|GMT Ratio|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|0.95|1.13|1.53|||||The comparison was done using adjusted group ratio of GMT (ANCOVA model applied to the logarithm- transformed titers). The ANCOVA model included the treatment group and the age category as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the FLU vaccine when co administered with the RSVPreF3 OA vaccine compared to the FLU vaccine administered alone, in terms of HI GMTs against the Flu A/Darwin/6/2021 H3N2 strain, at 1 month post-FLU vaccine dose administration (Day 31 for both groups).||1.53|1.13|
91086286|NCT05568797|182055543|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority is demonstrated if the UL of the 2-sided 95% CI of the group GMT ratio (Control group divided by Co-Ad group) for HI antibody titers for the Flu strain is \<=1.5.|GMT Ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|0.95|0.91|1.18|||||The comparison was done using adjusted group ratio of GMT (ANCOVA model applied to the logarithm- transformed titers). The ANCOVA model included the treatment group and the age category as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the FLU vaccine when co administered with the RSVPreF3 OA vaccine compared to the FLU vaccine administered alone, in terms of HI GMTs against the Flu A/Victoria/2570/2019 H1N1 influenza strain included in the FLU vaccine, at 1 month post-FLU vaccine dose administration (Day 31 for both groups).||1.18|0.91|
91086287|NCT05568797|182055543|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority is demonstrated if the UL of the 2-sided 95% CI of the group GMT ratio (Control group divided by Co-Ad group) for HI antibody titers for the Flu strain is \<=1.5.|GMT Ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|0.95|0.9|1.06|||||The comparison was done using adjusted group ratio of GMT (ANCOVA model applied to the logarithm- transformed titers). The ANCOVA model included the treatment group and the age category as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the FLU vaccine when co administered with the RSVPreF3 OA vaccine compared to the FLU vaccine administered alone, in terms of HI GMTs against the Flu B/Austria/1359417/2021 influenza strain included in the FLU vaccine, at 1 month post-FLU vaccine dose administration (Day 31 for both groups).||1.06|0.90|
91086288|NCT05568797|182055543|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority is demonstrated if the UL of the 2-sided 95% CI of the group GMT ratio (Control group divided by Co-Ad group) for HI antibody titers for the Flu strain is \<=1.5.|GMT Ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|0.95|0.95|1.13|||||The comparison was done using adjusted group ratio of GMT (ANCOVA model applied to the logarithm- transformed titers). The ANCOVA model included the treatment group and the age category as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the FLU vaccine when co administered with the RSVPreF3 OA vaccine compared to the Flu vaccine administered alone, in terms of HI GMTs against the Flu B/Phuket/3073/2013 Yamagata influenza strain included in the FLU vaccine, at 1 month post-FLU vaccine dose administration (Day 31 for both groups).||1.13|0.95|
91022494|NCT00272961|181928863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.71||0.994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.66|11.57|||ANCOVA|||Sitting SBP: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the maximum increase observed with baseline value as a covariate.||11.57|-11.66|0.994
91022495|NCT00272961|181928863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.72||0.861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.62|12.64|||ANCOVA|||Sitting SBP: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the maximum increase observed with baseline value as a covariate.||12.64|-10.62|0.861
91022496|NCT00272961|181928863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.9||0.221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.79|15.99|||ANCOVA|||Standing SBP: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the maximum increase observed with baseline value as a covariate.||15.99|-3.79|0.221
91022497|NCT00272961|181928863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.49||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.37|9.73|||ANCOVA|||Standing SBP: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the maximum increase observed with baseline value as a covariate.||9.73|-8.37|0.880
91022498|NCT00272961|181928863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.56||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.78|8.63|||ANCOVA|||Standing SBP: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the maximum increase observed with baseline value as a covariate.||8.63|-9.78|0.900
91022499|NCT00272961|181928863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.56||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.91|3.5|||ANCOVA|||Standing SBP: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the maximum increase observed with baseline value as a covariate.||3.50|-14.91|0.218
91022500|NCT00272961|181928863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.68||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|11.08|||ANCOVA|||Sitting DBP: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the maximum increase observed with baseline value as a covariate.||11.08|0.17|0.044
91022501|NCT00272961|181928863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.41||0.557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.47|6.33|||ANCOVA|||Sitting DBP: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the maximum increase observed with baseline value as a covariate.||6.33|-3.47|0.557
91022502|NCT00272961|181928863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|11.45|||ANCOVA|||Sitting DBP: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the maximum increase observed with baseline value as a covariate.||11.45|1.28|0.016
91022503|NCT00272961|181928863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.09|6.07|||ANCOVA|||Sitting DBP: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the maximum increase observed with baseline value as a covariate.||6.07|-4.09|0.695
91022504|NCT00272961|181928863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.56||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|9.95|||ANCOVA|||Standing DBP: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the maximum increase observed with baseline value as a covariate.||9.95|-0.36|0.067
91022505|NCT00272961|181928863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.36||0.737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.96|5.55|||ANCOVA|||Standing DBP: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the maximum increase observed with baseline value as a covariate.||5.55|-3.96|0.737
91022506|NCT00272961|181928863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|10.47|||ANCOVA|||Standing DBP: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the maximum increase observed with baseline value as a covariate.||10.47|0.80|0.023
91022507|NCT00272961|181928863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|6.5|||ANCOVA|||Standing DBP: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the maximum increase observed with baseline value as a covariate.||6.50|-3.20|0.495
91022508|NCT00272961|181928864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|232.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|201.83||0.2577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-178.5|643.7|||ANCOVA|||Sitting SBP: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on AUEC calculated over treatment and follow-up phases with baseline value as a covariate.||643.7|-178.5|0.2577
91022509|NCT00272961|181928864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|103.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|173.86||0.5552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-250.5|457.8|||ANCOVA|||Sitting SBP: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on AUEC calculated over treatment and follow-up phases with baseline value as a covariate.||457.8|-250.5|0.5552
91022510|NCT00272961|181928864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|41.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|177.26||0.8174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-319.8|402.3|||ANCOVA|||Sitting SBP: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on AUEC calculated over treatment and follow-up phases with baseline value as a covariate.||402.3|-319.8|0.8174
91022511|NCT00272961|181928864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|166.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|177.55||0.3557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-195.3|528.1|||ANCOVA|||Sitting SBP: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on AUEC calculated over treatment and follow-up phases with baseline value as a covariate.||528.1|-195.3|0.3557
91022512|NCT00272961|181928864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|163.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|130.15||0.2172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-99.6|425.7|||ANCOVA|||Standing SBP: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on AUEC calculated over treatment and follow-up phases with baseline value as a covariate.||425.7|-99.6|0.2172
91022513|NCT00272961|181928864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|115.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|116.03||0.3258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-118.8|349.5|||ANCOVA|||Standing SBP: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on AUEC calculated over treatment and follow-up phases with baseline value as a covariate.||349.5|-118.8|0.3258
91022514|NCT00272961|181928864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|24.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|117.88||0.8352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-213.2|262.6|||ANCOVA|||Standing SBP: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on AUEC calculated over treatment and follow-up phases with baseline value as a covariate.||262.6|-213.2|0.8352
91022515|NCT00272961|181928864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|50.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|117.93||0.6701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-187.4|288.6|||ANCOVA|||Standing SBP: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on AUEC calculated over treatment and follow-up phases with baseline value as a covariate.||288.6|-187.4|0.6701
91022516|NCT00272961|181928864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|225.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|108.95||0.0466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.6|447.5|||ANCOVA|||Sitting DBP: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on AUEC calculated over treatment and follow-up phases with baseline value as a covariate.||447.5|3.6|0.0466
91022517|NCT00272961|181928864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|114.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|93.2637||0.2274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.2|304.8|||ANCOVA|||Sitting DBP: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on AUEC calculated over treatment and follow-up phases with baseline value as a covariate.||304.8|-75.2|0.2274
91022518|NCT00272961|181928864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|224.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|96.9259||0.0269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.5|422.3|||ANCOVA|||Sitting DBP: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on AUEC calculated over treatment and follow-up phases with baseline value as a covariate.||422.3|27.5|0.0269
91022519|NCT00272961|181928864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|133.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|96.7383||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.8|330.3|||ANCOVA|||Sitting DBP: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on AUEC calculated over treatment and follow-up phases with baseline value as a covariate.||330.3|-63.8|0.1780
91022520|NCT00272961|181928864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|240.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|114.32||0.0413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.9|471.4|||ANCOVA|||Standing DBP: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on AUEC calculated over treatment and follow-up phases with baseline value as a covariate.||471.4|9.9|0.0413
91022521|NCT00272961|181928864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|157.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|102.21||0.1297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.3|364.3|||ANCOVA|||Standing DBP: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on AUEC calculated over treatment and follow-up phases with baseline value as a covariate.||364.3|-48.3|0.1297
91022522|NCT00272961|181928864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|254.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|104.0||0.0185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.0|464.8|||ANCOVA|||Standing DBP: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on AUEC calculated over treatment and follow-up phases with baseline value as a covariate.||464.8|45.0|0.0185
91022523|NCT00272961|181928864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|157.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|104.33||0.1382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.9|368.2|||ANCOVA|||Standing DBP: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on AUEC calculated over treatment and follow-up phases with baseline value as a covariate.||368.2|-52.9|0.1382
91022524|NCT00272961|181928869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0||0.7758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.31|7.03|||ANCOVA|||Pre-Dose on Week 10: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the sitting-standing difference at Week 10 (Pre-Dose) with the sitting-standing difference at Baseline as a covariate.||7.03|-5.31|0.7758
91022525|NCT00272961|181928869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.45||0.888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|4.71|||ANCOVA|||Pre-Dose on Week 10: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the sitting-standing difference at Week 10 (Pre-Dose) with the sitting-standing difference at Baseline as a covariate.||4.71|-5.40|0.8880
91022526|NCT00272961|181928869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.46||0.4573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.21|6.93|||ANCOVA|||Pre-Dose on Week 10: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the sitting-standing difference at Week 10 (Pre-Dose) with the sitting-standing difference at Baseline as a covariate.||6.93|-3.21|0.4573
91022527|NCT00272961|181928869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.78||0.4424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.56|7.91|||ANCOVA|||Pre-Dose on Week 10: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the sitting-standing difference at Week 10 (Pre-Dose) with the sitting-standing difference at Baseline as a covariate.||7.91|-3.56|0.4424
91022528|NCT00272961|181928869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.32||0.347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.65|10.01|||ANCOVA|||Post-Dose on Week 10: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the sitting-standing difference at Week 10 (Post-Dose) with the sitting-standing difference at Baseline as a covariate.||10.01|-3.65|0.3470
91022529|NCT00272961|181928869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.72||0.6249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.25|6.94|||ANCOVA|||Post-Dose on Week 10: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the sitting-standing difference at Week 10 (Post-Dose) with the sitting-standing difference at Baseline as a covariate.||6.94|-4.25|0.6249
91022530|NCT00272961|181928869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.73||0.1625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|9.54|||ANCOVA|||Post-Dose on Week 10: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the sitting-standing difference at Week 10 (Post-Dose) with the sitting-standing difference at Baseline as a covariate.||9.54|-1.69|0.1625
91022531|NCT00272961|181928869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.08||0.7556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.38|7.31|||ANCOVA|||Post-Dose on Week 10: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the sitting-standing difference at Week 10 (Post-Dose) with the sitting-standing difference at Baseline as a covariate.||7.31|-5.38|0.7556
91022532|NCT00272961|181928870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.59||0.0714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.25|0.28|||ANCOVA|||Pre-Dose on Week 10: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the sitting-standing difference at Week 10 (Pre-Dose) with the sitting-standing difference at Baseline as a covariate.||0.28|-6.25|0.0714
91022533|NCT00272961|181928870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.34||0.7269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|3.24|||ANCOVA|||Pre-Dose on Week 10: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the sitting-standing difference at Week 10 (Pre-Dose) with the sitting-standing difference at Baseline as a covariate.||3.24|-2.29|0.7269
91022534|NCT00272961|181928870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36||0.8656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.58|3.04|||ANCOVA|||Pre-Dose on Week 10: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the sitting-standing difference at Week 10 (Pre-Dose) with the sitting-standing difference at Baseline as a covariate.||3.04|-2.58|0.8656
91022535|NCT00272961|181928870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.7113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.41|2.36|||ANCOVA|||Pre-Dose on Week 10: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the sitting-standing difference at Week 10 (Pre-Dose) with the sitting-standing difference at Baseline as a covariate.||2.36|-3.41|0.7113
91022536|NCT00272961|181928870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.21||0.2204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.32|1.77|||ANCOVA|||Post-Dose on Week 10: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the sitting-standing difference at Week 10 (Post-Dose) with the sitting-standing difference at Baseline as a covariate.||1.77|-7.32|0.2204
91022537|NCT00272961|181928870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.87||0.5298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.04|2.66|||ANCOVA|||Post-Dose on Week 10: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the sitting-standing difference at Week 10 (Post-Dose) with the sitting-standing difference at Baseline as a covariate.||2.66|-5.04|0.5298
91022538|NCT00272961|181928870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.3135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.86|1.96|||ANCOVA|||Post-Dose on Week 10: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the sitting-standing difference at Week 10 (Post-Dose) with the sitting-standing difference at Baseline as a covariate.||1.96|-5.86|0.3135
91022539|NCT00272961|181928870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.95||0.2962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.09|1.93|||ANCOVA|||Post-Dose on Week 10: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the sitting-standing difference at Week 10 (Post-Dose) with the sitting-standing difference at Baseline as a covariate.||1.93|-6.09|0.2962
91022540|NCT00272961|181928871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.39||0.4933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.84|7.35|||ANCOVA|||Week 10 Sitting: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the post-dose minus pre-dose difference at Week 10 with the post-dose minus pre-dose difference at Baseline as a covariate.||7.35|-14.84|0.4933
91022541|NCT00272961|181928871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.57||0.408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.26|5.57|||ANCOVA|||Week 10 Sitting: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the post-dose minus pre-dose difference at Week 10 with the post-dose minus pre-dose difference at Baseline as a covariate.||5.57|-13.26|0.4080
91022542|NCT00272961|181928871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.56||0.5936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.86|6.93|||ANCOVA|||Week 10 Sitting: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the post-dose minus pre-dose difference at Week 10 with the post-dose minus pre-dose difference at Baseline as a covariate.||6.93|-11.86|0.5936
91022543|NCT00272961|181928871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.79||0.7883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.17|8.57|||ANCOVA|||Week 10 Sitting: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the post-dose minus pre-dose difference at Week 10 with the post-dose minus pre-dose difference at Baseline as a covariate.||8.57|-11.17|0.7883
91022544|NCT00272961|181928871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.12||0.5719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.46|7.6|||ANCOVA|||Week 10 Standing: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the post-dose minus pre-dose difference at Week 10 with the post-dose minus pre-dose difference at Baseline as a covariate.||7.60|-13.46|0.5719
91022545|NCT00272961|181928871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.33||0.3401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.11|4.7|||ANCOVA|||Week 10 Standing: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the post-dose minus pre-dose difference at Week 10 with the post-dose minus pre-dose difference at Baseline as a covariate.||4.70|-13.11|0.3401
91022546|NCT00272961|181928871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.34||0.6329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.01|6.82|||ANCOVA|||Week 10 Standing: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the post-dose minus pre-dose difference at Week 10 with the post-dose minus pre-dose difference at Baseline as a covariate.||6.82|-11.01|0.6329
91086289|NCT05568797|182055544|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority is demonstrated if the UL of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio (Control group divided by Co-Ad group) for RSV-A neutralizing antibody vaccine is \<=1.5.|GMT Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|0.95|0.87|1.12|||||The comparison is done using adjusted group ratio of GMT (ANCOVA model applied to the logarithm- transformed titers). The ANCOVA model included the treatment group and the age category as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the RSVPreF3 OA vaccine when co-administered with the FLU vaccine compared to the RSVPreF3 OA vaccine administered alone, in terms of RSV-A neutralizing antibody titers, at 1 month after the RSVPreF3 OA vaccine dose (Day 31 for the Co-Ad Group and Day 61 for the Control Group).||1.12|0.87|
91086290|NCT05568797|182055545|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority is demonstrated if the UL of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio (Control group divided by Co-Ad group) for RSV-B neutralizing antibody vaccine is \<=1.5.|GMT Ratio|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|0.95|1.03|1.3|||||The comparison is done using adjusted group ratio of GMT (ANCOVA model applied to the logarithm- transformed titers). The ANCOVA model included the treatment group, the age category as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the RSVPreF3 OA vaccine when co-administered with the FLU vaccine compared to the RSVPreF3 OA vaccine administered alone, in terms of RSV-B neutralizing antibody titers, at 1 month after the RSVPreF3 OA vaccine dose (Day 31 for the CoAd Group and Day 61 for the Control Group).||1.30|1.03|
91086291|NCT05568797|182055546|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority is demonstrated if the UL of the 2-sided 95% CI on the group difference (Control group minus Co-Ad group) in terms of SCR is \<=10% for anti-HI antibodies.|Difference of Percentage|10.25|||||TWO_SIDED|0.95|3.5|16.9||||||To evaluate the non-inferiority of the FLU vaccine when co-administered with the RSVPreF3 OA vaccine compared to the FLU vaccine administered alone as measured by the difference of percentage of participants achieving seroconversion for HI antibody titers against Flu A/Darwin/6/2021 H3N2 strain at 1 month post-FLU vaccine dose administration (Day 31 for both groups).||16.90|3.50|
91086292|NCT05568797|182055546|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority is demonstrated if the UL of the 2-sided 95% CI on the group difference (Control group minus Co-Ad group) in terms of SCR is \<=10% for anti-HI antibodies.|Difference of Percentage|1.66|||||TWO_SIDED|0.95|-5.16|8.47||||||To evaluate the non-inferiority of the FLU vaccine when co-administered with the RSVPreF3 OA vaccine compared to the FLU vaccine administered alone as measured by the difference of percentage of participants achieving seroconversion for HI antibody titers against Flu A/Victoria/2570/2019 H1N1 strain at 1 month post-FLU vaccine dose administration (Day 31 for both groups).||8.47|-5.16|
91086293|NCT05568797|182055546|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority is demonstrated if the UL of the 2-sided 95% CI on the group difference (Control group minus Co-Ad group) in terms of SCR is \<=10% for anti-HI antibodies.|Difference of Percentage|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|0.95|-4.92|5.46||||||To evaluate the non-inferiority of the FLU vaccine when co-administered with the RSVPreF3 OA vaccine compared to the FLU vaccine administered alone as measured by the difference of percentage of participants achieving seroconversion for HI antibody titers against Flu B/Austria/1359417/2021 Victoria at 1 month post-FLU vaccine dose administration (Day 31 for both groups).||5.46|-4.92|
91086294|NCT05568797|182055546|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority is demonstrated if the UL of the 2-sided 95% CI on the group difference (Control group minus Co-Ad group) in terms of SCR is \<=10% for anti-HI antibodies.|Difference of Percentage|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|0.95|-4.54|6.17||||||To evaluate the non-inferiority of the FLU vaccine when co-administered with the RSVPreF3 OA vaccine compared to the FLU vaccine administered alone as measured by the difference of percentage of participants achieving seroconversion for HI antibody titers against Flu B/Phuket/3073/2013 Yamagata strain at 1 month post-FLU vaccine dose administration (Day 31 for both groups).||6.17|-4.54|
91086295|NCT02651337|182055557|OTHER|It is a one arm clinical study. No comparison between groups was made.|||||||||||||||||The study tested the hypothesis that the Alivio flusher could increase flow in occluded or sluggish flowing catheters. Analysis was made on the basis of the procedural results related to priming the flusher, connecting the flusher to the shunt, flushing the system by dome compression, the ability to refill the dome, and the ability to evacuate the dome.|||
91086296|NCT00869128|182055573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||ANOVA|The effect of Circadin was checked by means of 2 x 2 mixed design analysis of variance for repeated measurement.||ANOVA, The effect of Circadin was checked by means of 2 x 2 mixed design analysis of variance for repeated measurement.||||0.04
91022547|NCT00272961|181928871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.51||0.4037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.45|13.11|||ANCOVA|||Week 10 Standing: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the post-dose minus pre-dose difference at Week 10 with the post-dose minus pre-dose difference at Baseline as a covariate.||13.11|-5.45|0.4037
91022548|NCT00272961|181928872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.08||0.7685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.19|9.62|||ANCOVA|||Week 10 Sitting: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the post-dose minus pre-dose difference at Week 10 with the post-dose minus pre-dose difference at Baseline as a covariate.||9.62|-7.19|0.7685
91022549|NCT00272961|181928872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.49||0.1739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.07|2.3|||ANCOVA|||Week 10 Sitting: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the post-dose minus pre-dose difference at Week 10 with the post-dose minus pre-dose difference at Baseline as a covariate.||2.30|-12.07|0.1739
91022550|NCT00272961|181928872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.61||0.4612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.74|10.15|||ANCOVA|||Week 10 Sitting: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the post-dose minus pre-dose difference at Week 10 with the post-dose minus pre-dose difference at Baseline as a covariate.||10.15|-4.74|0.4612
91086297|NCT03828214|182055617|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.2||0.973|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|||C2, C3, C4 were compared to C1 the comparison condition.||||0.973
91086298|NCT04388176|182055621|EQUIVALENCE|Differences in treatment groups in the primary endpoint (log (AUC)) was to be detected with a power of 90% and alpha=0.1.|Ratio in least square means|1.0146|||=|0.3801|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9859|1.0442|||ANCOVA|||||1.0442|0.9859|=0.3801
91086299|NCT04388176|182055622|EQUIVALENCE|Differences between treatment groups was to be detected with a power of 90% and alpha=0.1.|Ratio in least square means|1.0346|||=|0.0356|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0086|1.0613|||ANCOVA|||||1.0613|1.0086|=0.0356
91086300|NCT04388176|182055623|EQUIVALENCE|Differences between treatment groups was to be detected with a power of 90% and alpha=0.1.|Difference in least square means|-0.4991|||=|0.0154|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8234|-0.1749|||ANCOVA|||Analysis at the 10 min point||-0.1749|-0.8234|=0.0154
91086301|NCT04388176|182055624|EQUIVALENCE|Differences between treatment groups was to be detected with a power of 90% and alpha=0.1.|Ratio in least square means|0.8301|||=|0.282|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6206|1.1102|||ANCOVA|||||1.1102|0.6206|=0.282
91086302|NCT04388176|182055625|EQUIVALENCE|Differences between treatment groups was to be detected with a power of 90% and alpha=0.1|Difference in least square means|-0.3989|||=|0.3722|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.1718|0.3739|||ANCOVA|||||0.3739|-1.1718|=0.3722
91086303|NCT04388176|182055626|EQUIVALENCE|Differences between treatment groups was to be detected with a power of 90% and alpha=0.1|Difference in least square means|-0.109|||=|0.4982|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4074|0.1895|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of capillaroscopy before cold||0.1895|-0.4074|=0.4982
91086304|NCT04388176|182055626|EQUIVALENCE|A difference between treatment groups was detected with a power of 90% and alpha=0.1|Difference in least square means|-0.0637|||=|0.6219|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3037|0.1763|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of capillaroscopy post recovery||0.1763|-0.3037|=0.6219
91086305|NCT01689441|182055627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.25
91086306|NCT01689441|182055628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.51|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.51
91086307|NCT01689441|182055629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.54|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.54
91086308|NCT00534638|182055679|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine effectiveness percentage|49.6||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.1|68.2||An objective was reached if the 2-sided p-value associated to the objective was below 5%.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Overall efectiveness against HPV-16/18 Cervarix/Engerix-B B Group vs Engerix-B Group: The analysis of the overall effectiveness of GSK's HPV-16/18 vaccine against HPV-16/18 genital infection in Cervarix/Engerix-B B Group versus Engerix-B Group was based on stratified Mantel-Haenszel adjusted for clustering.||68.2|20.1|0.004
91086309|NCT00534638|182055679|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine effectiveness percentage|23.8||||0.232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|51.1||An objective was reached if the 2-sided p-value associated to the objective was below 5%.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Overall efectiveness against HPV-16/18 Cervarix/Engerix-B A Group vs Engerix-B Group: The analysis of the overall effectiveness of GSK's HPV-16/18 vaccine against HPV-16/18 genital infection in Cervarix/Engerix-B A Group versus Engerix-B Group was based on stratified Mantel-Haenszel adjusted for clustering.||51.1|-19.0|0.232
91086310|NCT00534638|182055680|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine effectiveness percentage|-52.2||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-139.4|3.3||An objective was reached if the 2-sided p-value associated to the objective was below 5%.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Overall efectiveness against HPV-16/18 Cervarix/Engerix-B A Group vs Cervarix/Engerix-B B Group: The analysis of the overall effectiveness of GSK's HPV-16/18 vaccine against HPV-16/18 genital infection in Cervarix/Engerix-B A Group versus Cervarix/Engerix-B B was based on stratified Mantel-Haenszel adjusted for clustering.||3.3|-139.4|0.069
91086311|NCT01237327|182055695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7799||||0.3348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.294|||Log Rank|||Overall survival compared using the hazard ratio; hazard ratio \<1.0 is in favor of exemestane.||1.294|0.47|0.3348
91086312|NCT03442725|182055700|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.297|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6|2.805||||||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) comparison of Cmax for telotristat ethyl between test group versus the control group.||2.805|0.600|
91086313|NCT03442725|182055700|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.423|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.901|2.247||||||ANOVA comparison of Cmax for LP-778902 between test group versus the control group.||2.247|0.901|
91086314|NCT03442725|182055701|OTHER|Estimate of the median difference and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) was determined by Hodges-Lehmann estimation.|Median Difference|0.0||||0.7452|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|0.95|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of tmax for telotristat ethyl between test group versus the control group.||0.950|-1.000|0.7452
91086315|NCT03442725|182055701|OTHER|Estimate of the median difference and 90% CIs was determined by Hodges-Lehmann estimation.|Median Difference|0.0||||0.7039|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of tmax for LP-778902 between test group versus the control group.||1.000|-1.000|0.7039
91086316|NCT03442725|182055703|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.506|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.914|2.48||||||ANOVA comparison of AUC0-inf for LP-778902 between test group versus the control group.||2.480|0.914|
91086317|NCT03442725|182055704|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.512|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.915|2.498||||||ANOVA comparison of AUC0-tlast for LP-778902 between test group versus the control group.||2.498|0.915|
91086318|NCT03442725|182055708|OTHER||Arithmetic Mean Difference|0.019|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.03|0.068||||||ANOVA comparison of fu of LP-778902 between test group versus the control group.||0.068|-0.030|
91086319|NCT03442725|182055709|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.727|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.866|3.443||||||ANOVA comparison of Cmaxu for LP-778902 between test group versus the control group.||3.443|0.866|
91086320|NCT03442725|182055710|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.828|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.903|3.699||||||ANOVA comparison of AUC0-infu for LP-778902 between test group versus the control group.||3.699|0.903|
91086321|NCT03442725|182055711|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.835|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.904|3.726||||||ANOVA comparison of AUC0-tlastu for LP-778902 between test group versus the control group.||3.726|0.904|
91104610|NCT00855166|182095207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6473||0.1521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|0.35||Exploratory. Model including fixed categorical effects of treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, gender and rescue medication as well as continuous fixed covariates of baseline measurement and baseline measurement-by-week interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Percent change in BMD from baseline to week 102 evaluated via longitudinal repeated measures analysis using direct likelihood.|Natural logarithms of baseline and week 102 values were used.|H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||0.35|-2.21|0.1521
91086322|NCT02603211|182055751|OTHER||||||||||||||||||"We will obtain 20 tactile image data sets from the breast tumor patients. The tactile images will be converted to size and deformation index. Then these two parameters will be converted to the risk score. This is a small number of patients for statistically significance study. Therefore, we plan to use the Leave-One-Out-Cross-Validation (LOOCV) technique to validate the human test results to determine the performance of the device.~We obtain the Risk Score. Risk Score is a unit less numerical value, which can be used as a scale to classify the tumor as malignant and benign. Based on the calculated size of the tumor and measured deformation index, the breast tumors are classified as benign and malignant using scoring method. The risk score will range from 0 to 5, where 0 represents the benign and 5 represents the malignant tumor.~Comparing the Risk Score and the Pathology reports we obtain sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of the system."|||
91086323|NCT00758498|182055756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.07|3.71|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a factor and baseline value was a co-variate||||3.71|2.07|<0.0001
91086324|NCT00758498|182055756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.06|7.69|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a factor and baseline value was a co-variate||||7.69|6.06|<0.0001
91086325|NCT00758498|182055757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.8341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.25|||ANOVA|||||0.25|-0.20|0.8341
91086326|NCT00758498|182055757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.0441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||||-0.05|-0.50|0.0441
91086327|NCT00758498|182055758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91086328|NCT00758498|182055758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91086329|NCT00758498|182055759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0012|||||||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons made use of an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) analysis with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate||||||0.0012
91022551|NCT00272961|181928872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.67||0.7172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|6.21|||ANCOVA|||Week 10 Sitting: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the post-dose minus pre-dose difference at Week 10 with the post-dose minus pre-dose difference at Baseline as a covariate.||6.21|-8.90|0.7172
91086330|NCT00758498|182055759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Analysis by ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate||||||<0.0001
90959129|NCT01620255|181798213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.096||||0.1473|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.045|0.237||1-sided p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|PF-00547659 75 mg vs placebo||0.237|-0.045|0.1473
91022552|NCT00272961|181928872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.12||0.4098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.01|11.91|||ANCOVA|||Week 10 Standing: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the post-dose minus pre-dose difference at Week 10 with the post-dose minus pre-dose difference at Baseline as a covariate.||11.91|-5.01|0.4098
91022553|NCT00272961|181928872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.48||0.6943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.54|5.78|||ANCOVA|||Week 10 Standing: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the post-dose minus pre-dose difference at Week 10 with the post-dose minus pre-dose difference at Baseline as a covariate.||5.78|-8.54|0.6943
91086331|NCT00758498|182055760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Analysis of treatment comparisons is based on an analysis of variance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as covariate|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91086332|NCT00758498|182055760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Analysis of treatment comparisons is based on an ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate||||||<0.0001
91086333|NCT00758498|182055761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0022|||||||ANCOVA|Analysis of treatment comparisons is based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate||||||0.0022
91086334|NCT00758498|182055761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0033|||||||ANCOVA|Analysis of treatment comparisons was based on ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline as a covariate||||||0.0033
91086335|NCT00758498|182055767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Analysis of treatment comparisons is based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as factor and baseline value as a covariate.||||||<0.0001
91086336|NCT00758498|182055767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Analysis of treatment comparisons is based on ANCOVA with treatment as factor and baseline value as a covariate||||||<0.0001
91086337|NCT00758498|182055768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Analysis of treatment comparisons is based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate||||||<0.0001
91022554|NCT00272961|181928872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.67||0.2042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.76|12.31|||ANCOVA|||Week 10 Standing: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the post-dose minus pre-dose difference at Week 10 with the post-dose minus pre-dose difference at Baseline as a covariate.||12.31|-2.76|0.2042
91022555|NCT00272961|181928872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.77||0.7791|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.69|8.83|||ANCOVA|||Week 10 Standing: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the post-dose minus pre-dose difference at Week 10 with the post-dose minus pre-dose difference at Baseline as a covariate.||8.83|-6.69|0.7791
91022556|NCT01507831|181928874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-61.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.3|-59.4||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Alirocumab group was compared to placebo group using an appropriate contrast statement.||-59.4|-64.3|<0.0001
91086338|NCT00758498|182055768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Analysis of treatment comparisons is based on ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate||||||<0.0001
91086339|NCT00758498|182055769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Analysis of treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||||<0.0001
91086340|NCT00758498|182055769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Analysis of treatment comparisons is from an ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate||||||<0.0001
91086341|NCT00758498|182055771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8262|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.8262
91086342|NCT00758498|182055771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0040
91086343|NCT00758498|182055772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9595|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.9595
91086344|NCT00758498|182055772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean|||||0.3539|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.3539
91022557|NCT01507831|181928875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-63.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.9|-61.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|A hierarchial testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchial testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||-61.2|-65.9|<0.0001
91022558|NCT01507831|181928876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-64.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.2|-62.4||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-62.4|-67.2|<0.0001
91022559|NCT01507831|181928877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-65.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.9|-63.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-63.2|-67.9|<0.0001
91022560|NCT01507831|181928878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-61.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.0|-58.5||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-58.5|-64.0|<0.0001
91022561|NCT01507831|181928879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-54.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.3|-51.7||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-51.7|-56.3|<0.0001
91022562|NCT01507831|181928880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-55.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.7|-53.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-53.2|-57.7|<0.0001
91022563|NCT01507831|181928881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-52.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.4|-50.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-50.2|-54.4|<0.0001
91022564|NCT01507831|181928882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-53.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.7|-51.6||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-51.6|-55.7|<0.0001
91086345|NCT00758498|182055773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1038|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.1038
91086346|NCT00758498|182055773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8112|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.8112
91086347|NCT03782987|182055782|OTHER||Geometric mean (gMean) ratio (%) (T/ R)|649.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|27.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|541.29|779.29|||||Confidence intervals were calculated based on the residual error from the ANOVA. Standard error of the mean is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variance (gCV).|Statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale including 'subjects' as random effect and 'treatment' as fixed effect.||779.29|541.29|
91022565|NCT01507831|181928883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-37.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.1|-35.9||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-35.9|-39.1|<0.0001
91022566|NCT01507831|181928884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-56.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.3|-53.7||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-53.7|-58.3|<0.0001
91022567|NCT01507831|181928885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-54.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.6|-52.6||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-52.6|-56.6|<0.0001
91022568|NCT01507831|181928886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-39.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.4|-37.5||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-37.5|-40.4|<0.0001
91022569|NCT01507831|181928887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|71.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.6|99.1||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model.|Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||99.1|51.6|<0.0001
91022570|NCT01507831|181928888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|93.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|66.1|132.0||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model.|Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||132.0|66.1|<0.0001
91022571|NCT01507831|181928889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|74.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.3|104.4||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model.|Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||104.4|53.3|<0.0001
91022572|NCT01507831|181928890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|97.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.2|138.9||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model.|Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||138.9|68.2|<0.0001
91022573|NCT01507831|181928891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-25.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.1|-23.1||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Robust|Multiple imputation approach followed by a robust regression model.|Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-23.1|-28.1|<0.0001
91086348|NCT03782987|182055783|OTHER||gMean ratio (%) (T/ R)|166.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|148.42|187.64|||||Confidence intervals were calculated based on the residual error from the ANOVA. Standard error of the mean is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variance (gCV).|Statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale including 'subjects' as random effect and 'treatment' as fixed effect.||187.64|148.42|
91086349|NCT03782987|182055784|OTHER||gMean ratio (%) (T/ R)|931.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|25.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|785.19|1104.85|||||Confidence intervals were calculated based on the residual error from the ANOVA. Standard error of the mean is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variance (gCV).|Statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale including 'subjects' as random effect and 'treatment' as fixed effect.||1104.85|785.19|
91086350|NCT01516736|182055785|EQUIVALENCE|The testing procedure was set up in a hierarchical structure, where first equivalence between LA-EP2006 and Neulasta® was assessed (margin ±1 day) and only if this was successfully established, non-inferiority between the two products was tested using a tighter margin of -0.6 days.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.16||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.08|||ANCOVA|The primary endpoints was analyzed with analysis of covariance (ANCOVA).||"The primary objective of the study was to compare LA-EP2006 and Neulasta in terms of the DSN in Cycle 1. It was to be shown in a hierarchical way:~1. that LA-EP2006 is equivalent (margin: ±1 day) to Neulasta® with respect to DSN duration in Cycle 1 and, if this was successfully established,~2. that LA-EP2006 is non-inferior (margin: -0.6 days) to Neulasta® with respect to DSN duration in Cycle 1."||0.08|-0.40|0.05
91086351|NCT01516736|182055785|NON_INFERIORITY|The testing procedure was set up in a hierarchical structure, where first equivalence between LA-EP2006 and Neulasta® was assessed (margin ±1 day) and only if this was successfully established, non-inferiority between the two products was tested using a tighter margin of -0.6 days.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.16||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.08|||ANCOVA|The primary endpoints was analyzed with analysis of covariance (ANCOVA).||"The primary objective of the study was to compare LA-EP2006 and Neulasta in terms of the DSN in Cycle 1. It was to be shown in a hierarchical way:~1. that LA-EP2006 is equivalent (margin: ±1 day) to Neulasta® with respect to DSN duration in Cycle 1 and, if this was successfully established,~2. that LA-EP2006 is non-inferior (margin: -0.6 days) to Neulasta® with respect to DSN duration in Cycle 1."||0.08|-0.40|0.05
91086352|NCT02781818|182055793|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.77
91086353|NCT02781818|182055793|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.46
91086354|NCT02781818|182055794|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.65
91086355|NCT02781818|182055794|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.98
91086356|NCT02781818|182055795|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.50
91086357|NCT02781818|182055795|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.70
90893780|NCT00224770|181652712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|10.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.5||0.189|ONE_SIDED|95.0||26.6|||Fisher Exact|One-sided test|MISTIE rate=34.6, 95% upper limit=46.9; medical rate=23.7, 95% upper limit=37.7; comparison considers MISTIE rate minus medical rate.|Null hypothesis is that the proportion with mRS score of 0-3 at 180 days is the same between the two groups. The alternative hypothesis tests whether MISTIE surgical management has a higher proportion than the medical arm.||26.6||0.189
91022574|NCT01507831|181928892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|5.9||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||5.9|3.3|<0.0001
91022575|NCT01507831|181928893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-17.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.1|-14.6||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Robust|Multiple imputation approach followed by a robust regression model.|Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-14.6|-20.1|<0.0001
91086358|NCT00524771|182055796|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size calculations were based on a non-inferiority test of two exponential survival curves . These calculations are based on the following assumptions: 1) one-sided α of 0.025; 2) power (1-β) of 0.80; VTE incidence rate of 9.1 VTE/10.000 WY and 4) non-inferiority limit on hazard ratio of 2.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.5|||||Hazard ratio was adjusted age, BMI, duration of current use and family history of VTE.|Tested null hypothesis: VTE hazard ratio for NuvaRing vs. COCs is higher or equal to 2. This analysis represents the a priori defined primary statistical analysis.||1.5|0.5|
91022576|NCT01507831|181928894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|4.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||4.2|1.6|<0.0001
91022577|NCT01507831|181928895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-25.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.4|-22.7||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Robust|Multiple imputation approach followed by a robust regression model.|Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-22.7|-27.4|<0.0001
91086359|NCT00524771|182055796|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size calculations were based on the primary statistical analysis (see above).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.7|||||Hazard ratio was adjusted age, BMI, duration of current use and family history of VTE.|Tested null hypothesis: VTE hazard ratio for NuvaRing vs. COC2 is higher or equal to 2.||1.7|0.4|
91086360|NCT00524771|182055796|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size calculations were based on the primary statistical analysis (see above).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.2|||||Hazard ratio was adjusted age, BMI, duration of current use and family history of VTE.|Like analysis 1 (see above) but restricted to exposure period of less than 6 months.||2.2|0.3|
91086361|NCT00524771|182055796|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size calculations were based on the primary statistical analysis (see above).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.6|||||Hazard ratio was adjusted age, BMI, duration of current use and family history of VTE.|Like analysis 1 (see above) but restricted to exposure period of 6 - 12 months.||2.6|0.3|
91086362|NCT00524771|182055796|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size calculations were based on the primary statistical analysis (see above).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.3|||||Hazard ratio was adjusted age, BMI, duration of current use and family history of VTE.|Like analysis 1 (see above) but restricted to exposure period of \> 12 months.||2.3|0.3|
91086363|NCT00524771|182055797|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size calculations were based on the primary statistical analysis (see above).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.3|||||The hazard ratio was adjusted for age, BMI, Smoking, and treated hypertension.|||2.3|0.2|
91022578|NCT01507831|181928896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|6.8||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||6.8|4.3|<0.0001
91022579|NCT01507831|181928897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-17.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.5|-15.3||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Robust|Multiple imputation approach followed by a robust regression model.|Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-15.3|-20.5|<0.0001
91022580|NCT01507831|181928898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|5.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||5.2|2.8|<0.0001
91022581|NCT01455545|181928911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.999||||0.967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.962|1.037|||Regression, Logistic|||Ho = no differences in ASK-20 results between both groups H1= there are differences between both groups. Comparison of two means. Unilateral test. (1-alpha)=95%. Statistic power: 90%. Precision: 10. S square: 256. Sample size: 44. Sample size adjusted to losses: 46 patients.||1.037|0.962|0.967
91022582|NCT01455545|181928912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.001||||0.861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.985|1.018|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.018|0.985|0.861
91022583|NCT01455545|181928913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.625||||0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.706|3.739|||Chi-squared|||Ho = no differences in gender results between both groups H1= there are differences between both groups. Cross tab Chi square||3.739|0.706|0.252
91022584|NCT01455545|181928914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.217||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Ho = no differences between both groups H1= there are differences between both groups. Chi - square||||0.217
91022585|NCT01455545|181928915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.376|1.829|||Chi-squared|||Ho = no differences between both groups H1= there are differences between both groups. Cross tabs Chi square||1.829|0.376|0.643
91022586|NCT01455545|181928916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.556||||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.247|1.253|||Chi-squared|||Ho = no differences between both groups H1= there are differences between both groups. Cross tabs Chi squared test.||1.253|0.247|0.155
91086364|NCT00524771|182055797|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size calculations were based on the primary statistical analysis (see above).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.6|||||Hazard ratio was adjusted for age, BMI, smoking, and treated hypertension.|||2.6|0.2|
91086365|NCT01877668|182055798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|17.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.67||0.0102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.06|30.21|||Large sample approximation|Missing response (MR)=non-response (NR)||||30.21|4.06|0.0102
91086366|NCT01877668|182055798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|27.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.64|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.22|40.26|||Large sample approximation|MR=NR||||40.26|14.22|<0.0001
91022587|NCT01455545|181928917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.19||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|1.763|||Chi-squared|||Ho = no differences between both groups H1= there are differences between both groups. Cross tabs Chi squared test.||1.763|0.020|0.107
91022588|NCT01455545|181928918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.849||||0.196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.541|2.219|||Chi-squared|||Ho = no differences between both groups H1= there are differences between both groups. Cross tabs Chi squared test.||2.219|1.541|0.196
91022589|NCT01455545|181928919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.135||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.618|15.91|||Chi-squared|||Ho = no differences between both groups H1= there are differences between both groups. Cross tabs Chi squared test.||15.91|0.618|0.150
91022590|NCT01455545|181928920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.096||||0.822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.492|2.441|||Chi-squared|||Ho = no differences between both groups H1= there are differences between both groups. Comparison of two proportions. Unilateral test. (1-alpha)=95%. Proportion: 90%. Precision: 10%. Sample size: 35. Sample size adjusted to losses: 41 patients.||2.441|0.492|0.822
91022591|NCT01455545|181928921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
91022592|NCT01455545|181928921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.038||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.012|1.065|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.065|1.012|0.005
91022593|NCT01455545|181928922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.35||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.153|0.799|||Regression, Logistic|||Ho = no differences between both groups H1= there are differences between both groups.||0.799|0.153|0.013
91022594|NCT03276962|181928994|SUPERIORITY||Incremental vaccine efficacy|-21.0||||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.0|7.0|||Regression, Cox|The 95% Confidence Interval of the incremental vaccine efficacy estimates was calculated from Cox regression model.||To demonstrate the superiority of a 3-dose schedule of GSK Biologicals' malaria vaccine RTS,S/AS01E with a fractional third dose at Month 2 (Fx012-14-mFxD Group) compared to a standard schedule of RTS,S/AS01E with 3 full doses (R012-20 + R012-14 Group) in terms of vaccine efficacy against clinical malaria (primary case definition) over 12 months post-Dose 3.||7|-57|0.154
91022595|NCT03056001|181929028|OTHER|Estimation only.|Rate|0.0333|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0008|0.1722|||||Confidence interval estimated using the Clopper Pearson method.|The reported severe or life-threatening adverse event rate with weekly doxorubicin and dacarbazine was 0.55. If it became evident that the rate of severe or life-threatening toxicity convincingly exceeded 0.55, the study would have been halted. Convincing evidence of exceeding 0.55 was based on Bayesian methods and continuous monitoring, where the stopping rule would have held enrollment if the posterior probability at any point exceeded 0.75 or higher.||0.1722|0.0008|
91022596|NCT03056001|181929029|OTHER|Estimation only|Median|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.1|||||The Kaplan Meier method was used to estimate the median OS (in years) for the population. The Greenwood method was used to estimate the confidence limits of the median overall survival.|||2.1|0.8|
91022597|NCT03056001|181929030|OTHER|Estimation only|Median|5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|8.3|||||The Kaplan Meier method was used to estimate the median PFS (in months) for the population. The Greenwood method was used to estimate the confidence limits of the median progression free survival.|||8.3|4.1|
91022598|NCT03056001|181929031|OTHER|Estimation only.|Rate|0.367|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.199|0.561|||||Confidence interval estimated using the Clopper Pearson method.|||0.561|0.199|
91086367|NCT01877668|182055798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|18.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.69||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.45|31.66|||Large sample approximation|MR=NR||||31.66|5.45|0.0055
90893781|NCT00224770|181652712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|19.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.9||0.156|ONE_SIDED|95.0||43.7|||Fisher Exact|One-sided test|ICES rate=42.9, 95% upper limit=67.5; medical rate=23.7, 95% upper limit=37.7; comparison considers ICES rate minus medical rate.|Null hypothesis is that the proportion with mRS score of 0-3 at 180 days is the same between the two groups. The alternative hypothesis tests whether ICES surgical management has a higher proportion than the medical arm.||43.7||0.156
91022599|NCT03056001|181929032|OTHER|Estimation only|Median|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|34.6|||||The Kaplan Meier method was used to estimate the median DoR (in months) for the population. The Greenwood method was used to estimate the confidence limits of the median duration of response.|||34.6|2.8|
91022600|NCT02522949|181929088|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7146|||||||ANCOVA|||Oropharyngeal||||0.7146
91022601|NCT02522949|181929088|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3543|||||||ANCOVA|||Nasal||||0.3543
91086368|NCT01877668|182055799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1697|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06173||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.291|-0.0483|||Mixed Models Analysis|No imputation.||||-0.0483|-0.2910|0.0062
91086369|NCT01877668|182055799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2196|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06184||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3411|-0.098|||Mixed Models Analysis|No imputation.||||-0.0980|-0.3411|0.0004
91086370|NCT01877668|182055799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06145||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3213|-0.0797|||Mixed Models Analysis|No imputation.||||-0.0797|-0.3213|0.0012
91086371|NCT00707057|182055849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null versus alternative hypothesis regarding the analgesic efficacy using the SPID 8-12 was compared between the 2 treatment groups using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA)model with each subject's outcome being his/her SPID 8-12 as the dependent variable in the ANCOVA model with terms for gender, treatment, and baseline pain score categories (stratified as ≤7 and \>7).||||<0.0001
91086372|NCT00707057|182055850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0017||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null versus alternative hypothesis regarding the durability of analgesic efficacy using the PID scores at 24, 36, and 48 hours.An individual subject was to achieve the 2-point reduction at all 3 terminal time points in order to be defined as responder.||||<0.0017
91086373|NCT00707057|182055851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Time to confirmed first perceptible relief was defined as the time to first perceptible relief, provided that the subject also stopped the second stopwatch indicating meaningful relief. For those who failed to achieve confirmed first perceptible and/or meaningful relief, a censored time was assigned.||||<0.0001
91086374|NCT00707057|182055852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Time to confirmed first perceptible relief was defined as the time to first perceptible relief, provided that the subject also stopped the second stopwatch indicating meaningful relief. For those who failed to achieve confirmed first perceptible and/or meaningful relief, a censored time was assigned.||||<0.0001
91086375|NCT00707057|182055853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91086376|NCT00707057|182055854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91086377|NCT00707057|182055854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Estimated Confidence Interval: 95%Method: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91086378|NCT00707057|182055855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|With terms for treatment, gender, and baseline pain score categories stratified as ≤7 and \>7.||The PID at each time point prior to dose 2 was derived by substracting the pain intensity from the base line pain intensity, so that a higher value was indicative of a greater improvement. Time weighted SPID for each specified interval was derived by first multiplying each PID score by the time from the previous time point, and adding them together for each scheduled time point within the time interval. Time weighted TOTPAR for ech specified interval was similarly derived.||||<0.0001
91022602|NCT02522949|181929096|OTHER|||||||0.0232|||||||Exact Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.0232
91022603|NCT03567239|181929115|OTHER|"The PIADS is broken into 3 subgroups - Competence, Adaptability, and Self-Esteem. The minimum possible score is -3 and the maximum possible score is 3 for each subgroup - with positive 3 being the best. The 7-Point Likert scale was used in response to the question The device provided increased my ability to … in relation to the custom need they had. A response of 1 = Strongly disagree and 7 = strongly agree."|||||||||||||||||Median values: Overall = 2.42, Competence = 2.58, Adaptability = 2.33, Self-Esteem = 2.00, Likert = 7|||
91022604|NCT03567239|181929116|OTHER|||||||||||||||||The NASA Task Load Index ranges from 1 to 21 with the lower the score the better.|Median vales: Overall = 4.83, Mental demand = 11, Physical demand = 4, Temporal demand = 6, Performance = 3, Effort = 3, Frustration = 5.|||
91022605|NCT03567239|181929117|OTHER|Median QUEST scores: Overall = 4.33, Device = 4.38, Services = 4.25.||||||||||||||||The QUEST (Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology) evaluates a patient's satisfaction with various assistive technologies. It has two subgroups, Device and Service on a scale of 1-5 with 5 being the best score.|Median QUEST scores: Overall = 4.33, Device = 4.38, Services = 4.25.|||
91086379|NCT00707057|182055856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
91086380|NCT00707057|182055857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The proportions of subjects who rescued at or prior to hour 8, hour 10, and hour 12 were reported and 95% confidence intervals for the corresponding parameters were calculated.||||<0.0001
91086381|NCT00707057|182055858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The pain relief and PID scores at individual time points were summarized by descriptive statistics. The test and reference were compared at each individual time point at 24, 36 and 48 hours.||||<0.0001
91086382|NCT00707057|182055859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||P-value from ANCOVA with terms for treatment, gender and baseline pain score categories.|ANCOVA|||Global evaluation for dose 1, either at the time of rescue or at dose 2 whichever came first were summarized by descriptive statistics based on non-missing data. The range went from 0 (Very poor) to 10 (Excellent) units on an 11-point Pain Intensity Numerical Rating Scale (PI-NRS).||||<0.0001
90829496|NCT02365649|181533427|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-11.2||||0.339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.1|11.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 28||11.7|-34.1|0.339
90829497|NCT02365649|181533427|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-14.5||||0.263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.3|10.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 28||10.2|-39.3|0.263
91086383|NCT00707057|182055860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||P- value from ANCOVA with terms for treatment, gender and baseline pain score categories.|ANCOVA|||"Global evaluation scores for dose 2 were summarized by descriptive statistics. Only non-missing values are used for the summary statistics.~The subjects were to provide global evaluation of dose 2 study medication using a range that went from 0 (Very poor) to 10 (Excellent) units on an 11-point Pain Intensity Numerical Rating Scale (PI-NRS)in response to pain relief."||||<0.0001
91086384|NCT00707057|182055860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||P-value from ANCOVA with terms for treatment, gender and baseline pain scores categories.|ANCOVA|||"Maximum relief scores for dose 2 were summarized by descriptive statistics. Only non-missing values are used for the summary statistics.~The subjects were to provide maximum relief scores for dose 2 study medication on an 11-point pain intensity numerical rating scale (PI-NRS)in response to pain relief."||||<0.0001
91086385|NCT00707057|182055860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||P-value from ANCOVA with terms for treatment, gender and baseline pain score categories.|ANCOVA|||"Overall relief scores for dose 2 were summarized by descriptive statistics. Only non-missing values are used for the summary statistics.~The subjects were to provide overall relief scores for dose 2 study medication on an 11-point pain intensity numerical rating scale (PI-NRS)in response to pain relief."||||<0.0001
91086386|NCT00707057|182055861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||P-value from ANCOVA with terms for treatment, gender and baseline pain score categories.|ANCOVA|||Global evaluation scores for dose 3 were summarized by descriptive statistics. Only non-missing values are used for the summary statistics. The subjects were to provide global evaluation of dose 3 study medication using a range that went from 0 (Very poor) to 10 (Excellent) units on an 11-point Pain Intensity Numerical Rating Scale (PI-NRS)in response to pain relief.||||<0.0001
91086387|NCT00707057|182055861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||P-value from ANCOVA with terms for treatment, gender and basee pain score categories.|ANCOVA|||Maximum relief scores for dose 3 were summarized by descriptive statistics. Only non-missing values are used for the summary statistics. The subjects were to provide maximum relief of dose 3 study medication on an 11-point pain intensity numerical rating scale (PI-NRS)in response to pain relief.||||<0.0001
91086388|NCT00707057|182055861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||P-value from ANCOVA with terms for treatment, gender and baseline pain score categories.|ANCOVA|||Overall relief scores for dose 3 were summarized by descriptive statistics. Only non-missing values are used for the summary statistics. The subjects were to provide overall relief of dose 3 study medication on an 11-point pain intensity numerical rating scale (PI-NRS)in response to pain relief.||||<0.0001
91086389|NCT00707057|182055862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||P-value from ANCOVA with terms for treatment, gender and baseline pain score categories.|ANCOVA|||Global evaluation scores for dose 4 were summarized by descriptive statistics. Only non-missing values are used for the summary statistics. The subjects were to provide global evaluation of dose 4 study medication using a range that went from 0 (Very poor) to 10 (Excellent) units on an 11-point Pain Intensity Numerical Rating Scale (PI-NRS)in response to pain relief.||||<0.0001
91086390|NCT00707057|182055862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||P-value from ANCOVA with terms for treatment, gender and baseline pain score categories.|ANCOVA|||Maximum relief scores for dose 4 were summarized by descriptive statistics. Only non-missing values are used for the summary statistics. The subjects were to provide maximum relief of dose 4 study medication on an 11-point pain intensity numerical rating scale (PI-NRS)in response to pain relief.||||<0.0001
91086391|NCT00707057|182055862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||P-value from ANCOVA with terms for treatment, gender and baseline pain score categories.|ANCOVA|||Overall relief scores for dose 4 were summarized by descriptive statistics. Only non-missing values are used for the summary statistics. The subjects were to provide overall relief of dose 4 study medication on an 11-point pain intensity numerical rating scale (PI-NRS)in response to pain relief.||||<0.0001
91086392|NCT01781208|182055885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||r=0.68, unadjusted for age, gender, and histologic inflammation.|Pearson Correlation|||Continuous data were summarized using means and standard deviations. The relationship between ARFI (VTQ) liver shear wave speed and liver histologic fibrosis score were assessed using Pearson correlation. No a priori power analysis was performed.||||<0.0001
91086393|NCT01781208|182055885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||r=0.73, unadjusted for age, gender, and histologic inflammation score|Pearson Correlation|||Continuous data were summarized using means and standard deviations. The relationship between ARFI (VTIQ) liver shear wave speed and liver histologic fibrosis score were assessed using Pearson correlation. No a priori power analysis was performed.||||<0.0001
91086394|NCT01116921|182055890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.3||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.7|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.70|0.13|0.006
90829498|NCT02365649|181533427|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.9||||0.697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.3|46.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 36||46.0|-22.3|0.697
90829499|NCT02365649|181533427|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.7||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.2|19.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 36||19.9|-23.2|0.880
90893782|NCT01106430|181652713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.001||95.0|||||Peto-Peto-Prentice Wilcoxon Test|||||||=0.001
91086395|NCT00619827|182055906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.97||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.99|-0.94|||ANCOVA|||||-0.94|-2.99|0.0003
90829500|NCT02365649|181533427|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.7||||0.355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.7|11.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 36||11.2|-32.7|0.355
91086396|NCT01111565|182055912|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-5.4|||=|0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|0.7|||ANCOVA|||||0.7|-11.5|=0.079
91086397|NCT01111565|182055912|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-5.2|||=|0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|0.7|||ANCOVA|||||0.7|-11.2|=0.085
91086398|NCT01111565|182055913|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.5|||=|0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Row Mean Scores Test was used to determine the p-value.||||0.1|-1.1|=0.148
91086399|NCT01111565|182055913|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.4|||=|0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Row Mean Scores Test was used to determine the p-value.||||0.3|-1.0|=0.242
91086400|NCT01111565|182055914|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.1|||=|0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|2.1|||ANCOVA|||||2.1|-1.8|=0.910
91086401|NCT01111565|182055914|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-1.0|||=|0.291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|0.9|||ANCOVA|||||0.9|-3.0|=0.291
91086402|NCT02363387|182055935|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|18.8|||Regression, Logistic|||||18.8|2.7|<0.001
91086403|NCT03442088|182055964|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.272||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0001
91086404|NCT03442088|182055965|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|95.98||||0.934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2324.0|2516.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2516|-2324|0.934
90893783|NCT01106430|181652714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.1||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.5|28.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||28.7|7.5|0.001
91022606|NCT04288115|181929138|NON_INFERIORITY|An one-sided α-level of 0.05 will be used to determine the statistical significance of the non-inferiority test.|Difference in Group Means|-5.3||||0.0913|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.1|5.4||Group differences.|Welch's two-sample t-test|A one-sided p-value \< 0.05 indicates the discontinuation mean falls within the non-inferiority limit.|Differences reported as the sham discontinuation mean minus the real discontinuation mean.|A one-sided t-test will be used to determine whether the mean Hypothyroid Symptoms score for the real discontinuation group is no more than 14 points worse than the score of the sham discontinuation group at 6 months.||5.4|-16.1|0.0913
91086405|NCT03442088|182055966|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6878||||0.1632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.685|0.3097|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.3097|-1.685|0.1632
91086406|NCT03442088|182055967|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.344||||0.1063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.248|0.5992|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.5992|-5.248|0.1063
91086407|NCT03442088|182055968|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.24||||0.5611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.333|14.81|||t-test, 2 sided|||||14.81|-8.333|0.5611
90893784|NCT01106430|181652715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-6.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|-3.6|||ANCOVA|||||-3.6|-9.3|<0.001
91086408|NCT02541422|182055973|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45||||||p-value calculated for the total hangover scale|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.45
91086409|NCT02541422|182055973|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93||||||p value calculated for symptom of headache|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.93
91086410|NCT02541422|182055973|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11||||||p value calculated for symptom of nausea|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.11
91086411|NCT02541422|182055973|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72||||||p value calculated for symptom of weakness|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.72
90893785|NCT01106430|181652716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.09||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||-0.00|-0.17|0.046
90893786|NCT00437645|181652721|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Statistical analysis for non-inferiority of valsartan/amlodipine 160/5 mg to amlodipine 10 mg alone with a non-inferiority margin of 3 mm Hg|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-0.44|||ANCOVA|||||-0.44|-3.00|
91086412|NCT00357877|182055974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.11||No interim analyses were done and no adjustment made for multiple comparisons. Identical analyses were run on each imputed dataset, with results combined with SAS® PROC MIANALZE to obtain final p-values.|Regression, Linear|The primary outcome analysis included treatment and site as class variables and age and age-squared as continuous covariates.||We hypothesized a lower increment score for the active treatment group but carried out two-tailed hypothesis testing. Sample size was estimated with simulated data with rank normalized scores. We calculated that 832 participants would yield a power of 90% to detect a 20% reduction in caries incidence (from a hypothesized mean increment of 1.5), and adopted a target of 1000 randomized participants to allow for attrition.||1.11|-0.60|0.56
91086413|NCT00357877|182055975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|1.46||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Identical analyses were run on each imputed dataset, with results combined with SAS® PROC MIANALYZE to obtain final p-values.|Regression, Linear|Model included treatment and site as class variables and age and age-squared as continuous covariates.||hypothesized a reduced caries increment in active arm, though conducted two-tailed hypothesis test.||1.46|-0.77|0.54
91086414|NCT00357877|182055976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|0.23||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Identical analyses were run on each imputed dataset, with results combined with SAS® PROC MIANALYZE to obtain final p-values.|Regression, Linear|treatment and site included as class variables and age and age-squared as continuous covariates.||Hypothesized lower increment in active arm, though hypothesis testing was two-sided.||0.23|-1.25|0.18
91086415|NCT00357877|182055977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.68|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.57||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.45||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Identical analyses were run on each imputed dataset, with results combined with SAS® PROC MIANALYZE to obtain final p-values.|Regression, Linear|Model included treatment and site as class variables, and age and age-squared as continuous covariates.||Hypothesized a lower increment for active treatment arm, although hypothesis testing was two-sided.||0.45|-1.80|0.24
91086416|NCT03570047|182055980|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.558|0.766|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||0.766|0.558|<0.0001
91022607|NCT04288115|181929138|OTHER|A two-sided α-level of 0.05 will be used to determine the statistical difference.|Difference in Group Means|0.8||||0.8793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|10.9||Testing whether group means are different.|ANCOVA|A p-value \< 0.05 indicates the real discontinuation mean and the sham discontinuation mean are different. Adjusted for gender and baseline HSSs.|Differences reported as the sham discontinuation mean minus the real discontinuation mean. These differences have been adjusted for gender and baseline hypothyroid symptom scores.|Analysis of 6-week outcome||10.9|-9.4|0.8793
91022608|NCT04288115|181929138|OTHER|A two-sided α-level of 0.05 will be used to determine the statistical significance.|Difference in Group Means|-2.3||||0.686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|9.3||Group differences.|ANCOVA|A p-value \< 0.05 indicates real discontinuation mean and sham discontinuation mean are different. Analyses adjusted for gender and baseline HSS.|Differences are reported as sham discontinuation mean minus real discontinuation mean. These differences have been adjusted for gender and baseline hypothyroid symptom scores.|Analysis of 6-month outcome||9.3|-14.0|0.6860
91022609|NCT04288115|181929139|NON_INFERIORITY|A one-sided α-level of 0.05 will be used to determine the statistical significance of the non-inferiority test.|Difference in Group Means|5.2||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.2|16.6||Group differences.|Welch's two-sample t-test|A one-sided p-value \< 0.05 indicates the discontinuation mean falls within the non-inferiority limit.|Differences reported as the sham discontinuation mean minus the real discontinuation mean.|A one-sided t-test will be used to determine whether the mean Tiredness score for the real discontinuation group is no more than 14 points worse than the score of the sham discontinuation group at 6 months.||16.6|-6.2|0.0036
91022610|NCT04288115|181929139|OTHER|A two-sided α-level of 0.05 will be used to determine the statistical significance.|Difference in Group Means|2.3||||0.7104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|14.7||Testing whether group means are different.|ANCOVA|A p-value \< 0.05 indicates real discontinuation mean and sham discontinuation mean are different. Analyses adjusted for gender and baseline score.|Differences reported as the sham discontinuation mean minus the real discontinuation mean. These mean differences have been adjusted for gender and baseline tiredness score.|Analysis of 6-week outcome||14.7|-10.1|0.7104
91022611|NCT04288115|181929139|OTHER|A two-sided α-level of 0.05 will be used to determine statistical significance.|Difference in Group Means|5.4||||0.3381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|16.7||Group differences.|ANCOVA|A p-value \< 0.05 indicates real discontinuation mean and sham discontinuation mean are different. Analyses adjusted for gender and baseline score.|Differences reported as sham discontinuation mean minus real discontinuation mean. These differences have been adjusted for gender and baseline tiredness scores.|Analysis of 6-month outcome||16.7|-5.9|0.3381
91022612|NCT04288115|181929140|OTHER|A two-sided α-level of 0.05 will be used to determine the statistical significance.|Difference in Group Means|-0.02||||0.4684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.076|0.036||Testing whether group means are different.|ANCOVA|A p-value \< 0.05 indicates real discontinuation mean and sham discontinuation mean are different. Analyses adjusted for gender and baseline score.|Differences reported as the sham discontinuation mean minus the real discontinuation mean. These differences have been adjusted for gender and baseline EQ-5D Descriptive scores.|Analysis of 6-week EQ-5D Descriptive score outcome.||0.036|-0.076|0.4684
91022613|NCT04288115|181929140|OTHER|A two-sided α-level of 0.05 will be used to determine the statistical significance.|Difference in Group Means|0.003||||0.9585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.102|0.107||Testing whether group means are different.|ANCOVA|A p-value \< 0.05 indicates real discontinuation mean and sham discontinuation mean are different. Analyses adjusted for gender and baseline score.|Differences reported as the sham discontinuation mean minus the real discontinuation mean. These differences have been adjusted for gender and baseline EQ-5D Descriptive scores.|Analysis of 6-month EQ-5D Descriptive score outcome.||0.107|-0.102|0.9585
91022614|NCT04288115|181929140|OTHER|A two-sided α-level of 0.05 will be used to determine the statistical significance.|Difference in Group Means|7.0||||0.0643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|14.4||Testing whether group means are different.|ANCOVA|A p-value \< 0.05 indicates real discontinuation mean and sham discontinuation mean are different. Analyses adjusted for gender and baseline score.|Differences reported as the sham discontinuation mean minus the real discontinuation mean. These differences have been adjusted for gender and baseline EQ-5D VAS scores.|Analysis of 6-week EQ-5D VAS score outcome.||14.4|-0.4|0.0643
91022615|NCT04288115|181929140|OTHER|A two-sided α-level of 0.05 will be used to determine the statistical significance.|Difference in Group Means|-6.2||||0.1742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.3|2.9||Testing whether group means are different.|ANCOVA|A p-value \< 0.05 indicates real discontinuation mean and sham discontinuation mean are different. Analyses adjusted for gender and baseline scores.|Differences reported as the sham discontinuation mean minus the real discontinuation mean. These differences have been adjusted for gender and baseline EQ-5D VAS scores.|Analysis of 6-month EQ-5D VAS score outcome.||2.9|-15.3|0.1742
91022616|NCT04288115|181929141|OTHER|A two-sided α-level of 0.05 will be used to determine the statistical significance.|Difference in Group Means|-12.0||||0.1695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.3|5.3||Testing whether group means are different.|ANCOVA|A p-value \< 0.05 indicates real discontinuation mean and sham discontinuation mean are different. Analyses adjusted for gender and baseline value.|Differences reported as the sham discontinuation mean minus the real discontinuation mean. These differences have been adjusted for gender and baseline total cholesterol value.|Analysis of 6-month total cholesterol outcome.||5.3|-29.3|0.1695
91086417|NCT03570047|182055980|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.0291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.642|0.977|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||0.977|0.642|0.0291
91086418|NCT03570047|182055980|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.592|0.842|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||0.842|0.592|0.0001
91022617|NCT04288115|181929141|OTHER|A two-sided α-level of 0.05 will be used to determine the statistical significance.|Difference in Group Means|-6.8||||0.3805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.2|8.6||Testing whether group means are different.|ANCOVA|A p-value \< 0.05 indicates real discontinuation mean and sham discontinuation mean are different. Analyses adjusted for gender and baseline value.|Differences reported as the sham discontinuation mean minus the real discontinuation mean. These differences have been adjusted for gender and baseline LDL values.|Analysis of 6-month LDL outcome.||8.6|-22.2|0.3805
91086419|NCT03570047|182055980|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.591|0.879|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||0.879|0.591|0.0012
91086420|NCT03570047|182055981|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.614|0.843|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||0.843|0.614|<0.0001
91086421|NCT03570047|182055981|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.529|0.825|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||0.825|0.529|0.0003
90829501|NCT02365649|181533427|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.1|37.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 44||37.1|-27.1|1.000
91086422|NCT03570047|182055981|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.618|0.879|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||0.879|0.618|0.0007
91086423|NCT03570047|182055981|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.583|0.874|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||0.874|0.583|0.0011
91086424|NCT03570047|182055982|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.0127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.872|0.984|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||0.984|0.872|0.0127
91086425|NCT03570047|182055982|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.2893||95.0|0.881|1.039|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||1.039|0.881|0.2893
91086426|NCT03570047|182055982|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.881|1.004|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||1.004|0.881|0.0640
91086427|NCT03570047|182055982|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.4404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.958|1.103|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||1.103|0.958|0.4404
91086428|NCT04878055|182055994|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.626||||0.216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.752|3.514|||Two-sided regression, Logistic|||Analysis is based on logistic regression model with Multiple Imputation under missing not at random using retrieve dropouts with proportion of patients alive and free of respiratory failure at Day 28 as dependent variable, treatment, age group, gender and presence of concomitant disease at baseline as qualitative independent variables. Site is considered as random effects that vary randomly among patients.||3.514|0.752|0.216
91086429|NCT04878055|182055995|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.377|||||||Chi-squared|Comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of a Chi-squared test.||||||0.377
91086430|NCT04878055|182055996|SUPERIORITY|Analysis is based on logistic regression model with proportion of patients died up to Date 28 as dependent variable, treatment, age group, gender and presence of concomitant disease at baseline as qualitative independent variables. Site is considered as random effects that vary randomly among patients.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.468||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.158|1.386|||Two-sided regression, Logistic|||||1.386|0.158|0.17
91086431|NCT04878055|182055997|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.561||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.247|1.277|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.277|0.247|0.168
90893787|NCT00297115|181652726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|58.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.0|75.0||No adjustment of the significance level was done as a hierarchical approach for hypotheses testing was used.|ANCOVA|Repeated measurements analysis (change from baseline over 52 weeks of treatment taking all post-randomization measurements into account).||||75|41|<0.0001
91086432|NCT04878055|182055998|SUPERIORITY|Estimates are calculated using a nonparametric method for cumulative incidence function with competing risks data. Estimates were calculated taking into account the following competing risks: Death, discontinuation for AEs and patient transferred to another institution.||||||0.167|||||||Gray's Test|||Until Day 28||||0.167
91086433|NCT04878055|182055999|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55||||||Comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of a Fisher's Exact test.|Fisher Exact|||At Day 3 - please note that the number of subjects is 268 (180+88) and not 270.||||0.55
91086434|NCT04878055|182055999|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.128|||||||Chi-squared|Comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of a Chi-squared mean.||At Day 7 - Please note that the total of subjects in this analysis is not 270 but 266 (n=179 in the Reparixin group and n=87 in the placebo group).||||0.128
91086435|NCT04878055|182055999|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.235|||||||Chi-squared|Comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of a Chi-squared test.||At Day 14 - Please note that the total of subjects in this analysis is not 270 but 256 (n=173 in the Reparixin group and n=83 in the placebo group).||||0.235
91086436|NCT04878055|182055999|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.281|||||||Chi-squared|Comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of a Chi-squared test.||At Day 21 - Please note that the total of subjects in this analysis is not 270 but 255 (n=172 in the Reparixin group and n=83 in the placebo group).||||0.281
91086437|NCT04878055|182055999|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.273|||||||Chi-squared|Comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of a Chi-squared test.||At Day 90 - Please note that the total of subjects in this analysis is not 270 but 50 (n=33 in the Reparixin group and n=17 in the placebo group).||||0.273
91086438|NCT04878055|182056000|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.047||||||Comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of two-sample Mann-Whitney U test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||At Day 3 - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270 but 255||||0.047
91086439|NCT04878055|182056000|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.262|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of two-sample Mann-Whitney U test.||||||0.262
91086440|NCT04878055|182056000|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.367|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of two-sample Mann-Whitney U test.||At Day 14 - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270 but 209||||0.367
91086441|NCT04878055|182056000|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.882||||||Comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of two-sample Mann-Whitney U test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||At Day 21 - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270 but 176||||0.882
91086442|NCT04878055|182056000|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of two-sample Mann-Whitney U test.||At Day 28 - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270 but 190||||0.19
91086443|NCT04878055|182056000|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.161||||||Comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of two-sample Mann-Whitney U test.|Mann-Whitney U test|||At Day 60 - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270 but 201||||0.161
91086444|NCT04878055|182056000|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.853|||||||Mann-Whitney U test|Comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of two-sample Mann-Whitney U test.||At Day 90 - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270 but 18||||0.853
91086445|NCT04878055|182056000|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.068|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of two-sample Mann-Whitney U test.||At EOS - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270 but 229||||0.068
91086446|NCT04878055|182056000|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.672|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of two-sample Mann-Whitney U test.||At hospital discharge (HD) - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270 but 195||||0.672
91086447|NCT04878055|182056000|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.153|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of two-sample Mann-Whitney U test.||At end of treatment (EoT) - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270 but 241||||0.153
91086448|NCT04878055|182056001|SUPERIORITY|Estimates are calculated using a nonparametric method for cumulative incidence function with competing risks data. The null hypothesis is that the cumulative incidence functions are identical across treatment groups and estimates are calculated taking into consideration the following competing risks: Death, reasons for discontinuation for Adverse events and patient transferred to another institution.||||||0.07|||||||Grey's test|||||||0.07
91086449|NCT04878055|182056002|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Gray's test|||number of patients included in the analysis=25||||0.07
90829502|NCT02365649|181533427|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.5||||0.891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.6|22.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 44||22.6|-19.6|0.891
90829503|NCT02365649|181533427|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.3||||0.779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.8|19.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 44||19.3|-25.8|0.779
90829504|NCT02365649|181533427|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.1||||0.678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.7|39.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 52||39.9|-23.7|0.678
90893788|NCT00297115|181652727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.815|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.935||No adjustment of the significance level was done as a hierarchical approach for hypotheses testing was used.|Poisson regression|||||0.935|0.710|0.0035
90893789|NCT00297115|181652728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|61.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.0|79.0||No adjustment of the significance level was done as a hierarchical approach for hypotheses testing was used.|ANCOVA|Repeated measurements analysis (change from baseline over 52 weeks of treatment taking all post-randomization measurements into account).||||79|44|<0.0001
91022618|NCT04288115|181929141|OTHER|A two-sided α-level of 0.05 will be used to determine the statistical significance.|Difference in Group Means|1.7||||0.5724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.44|7.9||Testing whether group means are different.|ANCOVA|A p-value \< 0.05 indicates real discontinuation mean and sham discontinuation mean are different. Analyses adjusted for gender and baseline value.|Differences reported as the sham discontinuation mean minus the real discontinuation mean. These differences have been adjusted for gender and baseline HDL values.|Analysis of 6-month HDL outcome.||7.9|-4.44|0.5724
91022619|NCT04288115|181929141|OTHER|A two-sided α-level of 0.05 will be used to determine the statistical significance.|Difference in Group Means|-17.8||||0.3939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.4|23.9||Testing whether group means are different.|ANCOVA|A p-value \< 0.05 indicates real discontinuation mean and sham discontinuation mean are different. Analyses adjusted for gender and baseline value.|Differences reported as the sham discontinuation mean minus the real discontinuation mean. These differences have been adjusted for gender and baseline triglyceride values.|Analysis of 6-month triglyceride outcome.||23.9|-59.4|0.3939
91022620|NCT02766400|181929149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cohen's d effect size at 12 months|0.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|1.19||a priori threshold was set at p\<0.05|Linear mixed models|F(4,150)=5.11|Effect size was calculated using mean change scores (baseline to month 12) and standard error of change (baseline to month 12) for each group.|All analyses were performed using the intent-to-treat principle so that comparisons were made according to the assigned intervention group regardless of study completion.||1.19|-0.12|<0.001
91022621|NCT02795780|181929183|OTHER|||||||0.0166||||||No adjustments for multiplicity. No a priori threshold defined.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline SUVr, age, and diagnosis group (AD/MCI)||Test of whether difference in least squares mean change is 0||||0.0166
91022622|NCT02795780|181929183|OTHER|||||||0.0108||||||No adjustments for multiplicity. No a priori threshold defined.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline SUVr, age, and diagnosis group (AD/MCI)||Test of whether difference in least squares mean change is 0||||0.0108
90829505|NCT02365649|181533427|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.6||||0.663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|25.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 52||25.2|-16.0|0.663
90829506|NCT02365649|181533427|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.8||||0.494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.7|11.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 52||11.0|-28.7|0.494
90893790|NCT00297115|181652729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.213|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.5028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.689|2.137||No adjustment of the significance level was done as a hierarchical approach for hypotheses testing was used.|Cox proportional hazards regression||The statistical analysis is based on the ITT Analysis Set (n= 772 in the roflumilast group, n= 796 in the placebo group).|||2.137|0.689|0.5028
91022623|NCT01364259|181929185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||0.175|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact||Our odds ratio is equal to 0\*5/9\*2 because we have a zero cell in the two by two table. Hence the OR = 0.|||||0.175
91022624|NCT01164137|181929192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.84|||t-test, 2 sided|||||.84|-.98|.87
91022625|NCT01164137|181929193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.63||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|1.88|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.88|-.62|.32
91086450|NCT04878055|182056003|SUPERIORITY|Estimates are calculated using a nonparametric method for cumulative incidence function with competing risks data. The null hypothesis is that the cumulative incidence functions are identical across treatment groups and estimates are calculated taking into consideration the following competing risks: Reasons for discontinuation for Adverse events and patient transferred to another institution.||||||0.668|||||||Gray's test|||Comparison at day 28||||0.668
91086451|NCT04878055|182056004|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.668|||||||Gray's test|||Number of patients included in the analysis = 59||||0.668
91086452|NCT04878055|182056005|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||Gray's test|||Estimates are calculated using a nonparametric method for cumulative incidence function with competing risks data. The null hypothesis is that the cumulative incidence functions are identical across treatment groups and estimates are calculated taking into consideration the following competing risks: Reasons for discontinuation for Adverse events and patient transferred to another institution.||||0.23
91022626|NCT01164137|181929194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.21||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|3.01|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.01|-.57|.18
91022627|NCT01164137|181929195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.71||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|3.81|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.81|-.39|.11
91022628|NCT01164137|181929196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.85||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|4.27|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.27|-.56|.13
91022629|NCT01529749|181929199|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||1
91022630|NCT01529749|181929200|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||1
91022631|NCT01529749|181929201|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||1
91022632|NCT01529749|181929202|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||1
91022633|NCT01529749|181929203|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||1
91022634|NCT01529749|181929204|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||1
91022635|NCT01529749|181929205|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||1
91022636|NCT01529749|181929206|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||1
91022637|NCT01529749|181929207|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.01
91086453|NCT04878055|182056006|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.444|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||day 3 - please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270 but 255||||0.444
91086454|NCT04878055|182056006|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.357|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||day 7 - please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270 but 246||||0.357
91086455|NCT04878055|182056006|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.484|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||day 14 - please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270 but 209||||0.484
91086456|NCT04878055|182056006|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.753|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||day 21 - please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270 but 176||||0.753
91086457|NCT04878055|182056006|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||day 28 - please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270 but 190||||0.26
91022638|NCT01529749|181929208|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||1
91022639|NCT01529749|181929209|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||1
91022640|NCT01529749|181929210|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||1
91022641|NCT01529749|181929211|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||1
91022642|NCT01529749|181929212|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||1
91022643|NCT01529749|181929213|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||1
91022644|NCT01529749|181929214|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.49
91022645|NCT01529749|181929215|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.02
91022646|NCT02623426|181929227|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of the proportion of baseline|1.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|1.56||A Bonferroni correction was used to adjust for the co-primary hypotheses;a two-sided type I error rate of 0.05/2 = 0.025 was used to determine statistical significance for the two pairwise comparisons (Ozurdex vs Methotrexate and Ozurdex vs Lucentis)|mixed effects model||The treatment effect is the ratio of the proportions of baseline retinal thickness (Methotrexate/Ozurdex). Values greater than 1 indicate less reduction in retinal thickness in the Methotrexate treated group compared to Ozurdex|A sample size of 240 was calculated to provide 91% power to detect a 25% reduction for Ozurdex, a 38% reduction for Methotrexate and Lucentis assuming a standard deviation of 0.33, 25% with bilateral disease, between-eye correlation of 0.4, 10% loss to follow-up, and a two-sided type 1 error rate of 0.025 for each pairwise comparison.||1.56|1.19|<0.001
91022647|NCT02623426|181929227|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of the proportion of BL|1.22||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.43||A Bonferroni correction was used to adjust for the co-primary hypotheses;a two-sided type I error rate of 0.05/2 = 0.025 was used to determine statistical significance for the two pairwise comparisons (Ozurdex vs Methotrexate and Ozurdex vs Lucentis)|mixed effects model||The treatment effect is the ratio of the proportions of baseline retinal thickness (Lucentis/Ozurdex) at 12 weeks. Values greater than 1 indicate less reduction in retinal thickness in the Lucentis treated group compared to Ozurdex|A sample size of 240 was calculated to provide 91% power to detect a 25% reduction for Ozurdex, a 38% reduction for methotrexate and Lucentis assuming a standard deviation of 0.33, 25% with bilateral disease, between-eye correlation of 0.4, 10% loss to follow-up, and a two-sided type 1 error rate of 0.025 for each pairwise comparison.||1.43|1.04|0.012
91022648|NCT02094937|181929228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|2.49||||||||2.49|0.31|
91022649|NCT02094937|181929228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|2.19||||||||2.19|0.28|
91022650|NCT02094937|181929229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|4.12||||||||4.12|0.90|
91022651|NCT02094937|181929229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|3.2||||||||3.20|0.66|
91022652|NCT01133392|181929236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square means|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.948|1.034||||||||1.034|0.948|
91022653|NCT01133392|181929237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square means|0.933|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.897|0.972||||||||0.972|0.897|
91022654|NCT01133392|181929238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square means|1.005|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.958|1.054||||||||1.054|0.958|
91022655|NCT01133392|181929239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|0.5||||||||0.500|-0.400|
90829507|NCT02365649|181533427|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.9||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.6|36.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5). Prespecified significance at the 0.1 level.|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 20||36.2|7.6|0.083
90829508|NCT02365649|181533427|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.0||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|32.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 20||32.0|-2.1|0.151
91086458|NCT04878055|182056006|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||day 60 - please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270 but 201||||0.19
90893791|NCT00297115|181652730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference calculated as ratio|1.0593||||0.3627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9356|1.1994||No adjustment of the significance level was done as a hierarchical approach for hypotheses testing was used.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including last observation carried forward (LOCF) method||||1.1994|0.9356|0.3627
91022656|NCT01133392|181929240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square means|1.014|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.961|1.07||||||||1.070|0.961|
91032854|NCT00050778|181951038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.126|0.431||An alpha-sharing approach was used to adjust for multiple treatment group comparisons, endpoints, and two pre-planned interim analyses, including a Lan-Demets error-spending function. Pre-specified threshold for statistical significance was 0.0040.|Andersen-Gill Model|||Treatment effects were estimated using an Anderson-Gill multiplicative intensity model with robust variance estimation. Covariates included treatment group, Baseline EDSS group (grouped by less than or equal to 1.5 and greater than 1.5), and country (investigative center grouped by country).||0.431|0.126|<0.0001
91032855|NCT00050778|181951038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.176|0.441|||Andersen-Gill Model|||Treatment effects were estimated using an Anderson-Gill multiplicative intensity model with robust variance estimation. Covariates included treatment group, Baseline EDSS group (grouped by less than or equal to 1.5 and greater than 1.5), and country (investigative center grouped by country).||0.441|0.176|<0.0001
91032856|NCT00050778|181951039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment effect|62.64||||0.0001|||||||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|||Cox PH regression model with treatment group indicator, Baseline EDSS and country as covariates was used.||||0.0001
91032857|NCT00050778|181951039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment effect|76.71|||<|0.0001|||||||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|||Cox PH regression model with treatment group indicator, Baseline EDSS and country as covariates was used.||||<0.0001
91032858|NCT00050778|181951039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment effect|70.13|||<|0.0001|||||||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|||Cox PH regression model with treatment group indicator, Baseline EDSS and country as covariates was used.||||<0.0001
91032859|NCT00050778|181951040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0885|||||||ANCOVA|||Ranked analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model using Baseline MRI-T1 brain volume, EDSS group, country, and treatment as covariates was used.||||0.0885
91032860|NCT00050778|181951040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0195|||||||ANCOVA|||Ranked ANCOVA model using Baseline MRI-T1 brain volume, EDSS group, country, and treatment as covariates was used.||||0.0195
91032861|NCT00050778|181951040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0215|||||||ANCOVA|||Ranked ANCOVA model using Baseline MRI-T1 brain volume, EDSS group, country, and treatment as covariates was used.||||0.0215
91032862|NCT00050778|181951041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3077|||||||ANCOVA|||Ranked ANCOVA model using Baseline MRI-T2 lesion volume, EDSS group, country, and treatment as covariates was used.||||0.3077
91032863|NCT00050778|181951041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3632|||||||ANCOVA|||Ranked ANCOVA model using Baseline MRI-T2 lesion volume, EDSS group, country, and treatment as covariates was used.||||0.3632
91032864|NCT00050778|181951041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2758|||||||ANCOVA|||Ranked ANCOVA model using Baseline MRI-T2 lesion volume, EDSS group, country, and treatment as covariates was used.||||0.2758
91032865|NCT02996682|181951075|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was from the 2-sided exact 1-sample binomial test for the superiority of each treatment group over pre-specified rate of 1%.|2-sided exact 1-sample binomial test|||A sample size of 50 participants in each treatment group would provide over 99% power to detect at least 40% improvement in SVR12 rate from the assumed spontaneous rate of 1% or less using a 2-sided exact 1-sample binomial test at significance level of 0.025.||||<0.001
91032866|NCT02996682|181951075|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was from the 2-sided exact 1-sample binomial test for the superiority of each treatment group over pre-specified rate of 1%.|2-sided exact 1-sample binomial test|||A sample size of 50 participants in each treatment group would provide over 99% power to detect at least 40% improvement in SVR12 rate from the assumed spontaneous rate of 1% or less using a 2-sided exact 1-sample binomial test at significance level of 0.025.||||<0.001
91032867|NCT02605395|181951103|EQUIVALENCE|The confidence intervals of logarithmically transformed ratio (Idiazole/Pariet) for Cmax to be within 80-125% to prove equivalency.|Ratio of means|95.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.12|101.65||||||||101.65|90.12|
91032868|NCT02605395|181951104|EQUIVALENCE|The confidence intervals of logarithmically transformed ratio (Idiazole/Pariet) for AUC(0-t) to be within 80-125% to prove equivalency.|Ratio of means|96.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.02|103.44||||||||103.44|90.02|
91032869|NCT02605395|181951105|EQUIVALENCE|The confidence intervals of logarithmically transformed ratio (Idiazole/Pariet) for AUC (0 to infinity) to be within 80-125% to prove equivalency.|Ratio of means|95.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.06|105.17||||||||105.17|87.06|
91032870|NCT02511782|181951109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
91032871|NCT02511782|181951110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
91032872|NCT00678639|181951160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median cost difference|588.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|336.0|811.0|||Hodges-Lehmann (median cost difference)|Distribution-free 95% CIs calculated using the method of Moses.|Results favored a reduced cost in the OU-CMR group.|H0: The median costs are not different among the study groups. HA: The median cost is different among groups. Power calculation was based on detecting a mean cost difference of $2000. Data was found to be non-normally distributed and therefore nonparametric comparisons were implemented.||811|336|
90959130|NCT01620255|181798213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.112||||0.1231|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.038|0.261||1-sided p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|PF-00547659 225 mg vs placebo||0.261|-0.038|0.1231
91086459|NCT04878055|182056006|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||day 90 - please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270 but 18||||1.000
91086460|NCT04878055|182056006|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.074|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EOS - please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270 but 229||||0.074
91086461|NCT04878055|182056006|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.193|||||||two-sample Mann-Whitney U test|||EOT - please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270 but 241||||0.193
91086462|NCT04878055|182056006|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.131|||||||two-sample Mann-Whitney U test|||Hospital discharge - please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270 but 195||||0.131
91086463|NCT04878055|182056007|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.997|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||at day 3 - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270 but 155.||||0.997
91086464|NCT04878055|182056007|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.712|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||at day 7 - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270 but 143.||||0.712
91086465|NCT04878055|182056007|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.241|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||at day 14 - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270 but 115.||||0.241
91086466|NCT04878055|182056007|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.528|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||at day 21 - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270 but 92.||||0.528
91086467|NCT04878055|182056007|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.814|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||at day 28 - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270 but 106.||||0.814
91086468|NCT04878055|182056007|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.242|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||at EOT - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270 but 115.||||0.242
91086469|NCT04878055|182056007|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.722|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||at hospital discharge (HD) - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270 but 65.||||0.722
91086470|NCT04878055|182056008|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.053|||||||two-sample Mann-Whitney U test|||at day 3 - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270, but it is 246.||||0.053
91086471|NCT04878055|182056008|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.245|||||||two-sample Mann-Whitney U test|||at day 7 - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270, but it is 225.||||0.245
91086472|NCT04878055|182056008|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.067|||||||two-sample Mann-Whitney U test|||at day 14 - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270, but it is 118.||||0.067
91086473|NCT04878055|182056008|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.051|||||||two-sample Mann-Whitney U test|||at day 21 - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270, but it is 54.||||0.051
91086474|NCT04878055|182056008|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.684|||||||two-sample Mann-Whitney U test|||at day 28 - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270, but it is 32.||||0.684
91086475|NCT04878055|182056008|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||two-sample Mann-Whitney U test|||at EOS - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 246, but it is 14.||||1.00
91086476|NCT04878055|182056008|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||two-sample Mann-Whitney U test|||at Day 60 - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 246, but it is 3.||||0.48
91086477|NCT04878055|182056008|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.638|||||||two-sample Mann-W hitney U test|||at Hospital discharge - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is 152.||||0.638
91086478|NCT04878055|182056008|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.137|||||||two-sample Mann-W hitney U test|||at EoT - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is 212.||||0.137
91086479|NCT04878055|182056009|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.399|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||at day 3 - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270, but it is 157||||0.399
91086480|NCT04878055|182056009|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||at day 7 - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270, but it is 139||||0.07
91086481|NCT04878055|182056009|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||at day 14 - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270, but it is 73||||0.4
91086482|NCT04878055|182056009|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.517|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||at day 21 - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270, but it is 23||||0.517
91086483|NCT04878055|182056009|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.445|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||at day 28 - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270, but it is 17||||0.445
91086484|NCT04878055|182056009|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.324|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||at EoT - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270, but it is 113||||0.324
91086485|NCT04878055|182056009|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.752|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||at Hospital discharge - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270, but it is 67.||||0.752
91086486|NCT04878055|182056010|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.447|||||||two-sample Mann-Whitney U test|||Please note that the number of patients in this analysis is not 270 but 255, because patients who used supplement oxygen were 174 in the Reparixin group and 81 in the placebo group.||||0.447
91086487|NCT04878055|182056011|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.065||||||Comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of a Chi-squared test|Chi-squared|||At day 28 - Please note that the number of patients in this analysis is not 270 but 245, because patients requiring IMV or ECMO were 163 in the Reparixin group and 82 in the placebo group.||||0.065
91086488|NCT04878055|182056011|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.072|||||||Chi-squared|Comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of a Chi-squared test||||||0.072
91086489|NCT04878055|182056012|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.485||||||Number of subjects included in analysis: 98|two-sample Mann-Whitney U test|||||||0.485
91086490|NCT04878055|182056013|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.267|||||||two-sample Mann-Whitney U test|||Number of subjects included in analysis: 17||||0.267
91086491|NCT04878055|182056014|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.137|||||||two-sample Mann-Whitney U test|||||||0.137
91086492|NCT04878055|182056015|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||two-sample Mann-Whitney U test|||at day 3 - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is 168||||0.002
91086493|NCT04878055|182056015|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.943|||||||two-sample Mann-Whitney U test|||at day 7 - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 168, but it is 146||||0.943
91086494|NCT04878055|182056015|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||two-sample Mann-Whitney U test|||at day 14 - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 168, but it is 76||||0.88
91086495|NCT04878055|182056015|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.458|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||at day 21 - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 168, but it is 38||||0.458
91086496|NCT04878055|182056015|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.285|||||||two-sample Mann-Whitney U test|||at day 28 - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 168, but it is 23.||||0.285
91086497|NCT04878055|182056015|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.885|||||||two-sample Mann-Whitney U test|||at EOS - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 168, but it is 8||||0.885
91086498|NCT04878055|182056015|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.583|||||||two-sample Mann-Whitney U test|||at HD - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270, but it is 74||||= 0.583
91086499|NCT04878055|182056015|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||two-sample Mann-Whitney U test|||at End of treatment - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270, but it is 131.||||0.5
91086500|NCT04878055|182056016|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||Comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of two-sample Mann-Whitney U test|Mann-Whitney U test|||at day 3 - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270, but it is 245||||0.005
91086501|NCT04878055|182056016|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.283||||||Comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of two-sample Mann-Whitney U test.|Mann-Whitney U test|||at day 7 - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270, but it is 221||||0.283
91086502|NCT04878055|182056016|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.512||||||Comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of two-sample Mann-Whitney U test.|Mann-Whitney U test|||at day 14 - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270, but it is 117||||0.512
91086503|NCT04878055|182056016|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.174|||||||Mann-Whitney U test|Comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of two-sample Mann-Whitney U test.||at day 21 - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270, but it is 51||||0.174
91086504|NCT04878055|182056016|SUPERIORITY|at EOT - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270, but it is 206||||||0.133|||||||Mann-Whitney U test|Comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of two-sample Mann-Whitney U test.||||||0.133
91086505|NCT04878055|182056016|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||Mann-Whitney U test|Comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of two-sample Mann-Whitney U test.||at day 28 ± 2 - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270, but it is 29||||0.009
91086506|NCT04878055|182056016|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.593|||||||Mann-Whitney U test|Comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of two-sample Mann-Whitney U test.||to HD - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270, but it is 144||||0.593
91086507|NCT04878055|182056016|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Mann-Whitney U test|Comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of two-sample Mann-Whitney U test.||to day 60 - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270, but it is 3||||0.540
91086508|NCT04878055|182056016|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.224|||||||Mann-Whitney U test|Comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of two-sample Mann-Whitney U test.||to EOS - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270, but it is 13||||0.224
91086509|NCT04878055|182056017|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||Mann-Whitney U test|Comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of two-sample Mann-Whitney U test.||to day 3 - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270, but it is 15||||0.68
91086510|NCT04878055|182056017|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.272||||||Comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of two-sample Mann-Whitney U test.|Mann-Whitney U test|||to day 7 - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270, but it is 13||||0.272
91086511|NCT04878055|182056017|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of two-sample Mann-Whitney U test.|Mann-Whitney U test|||to day 14 - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270, but it is 13||||1.000
91086512|NCT04878055|182056017|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.903||||||Comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of two-sample Mann-Whitney U test.|Mann-Whitney U test|||to day 21 - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270, but it is 9||||0.903
91086513|NCT04878055|182056017|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.432||||||Comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of two-sample Mann-Whitney U test.|Mann-Whitney U test|||to EOT - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270, but it is 13||||0.432
91086514|NCT04878055|182056017|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.105||||||Comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of two-sample Mann-Whitney U test.|Mann-Whitney U test|||to day 28 - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270, but it is 6||||0.105
91086515|NCT04878055|182056017|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.551||||||Comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of two-sample Mann-Whitney U test.|Mann-Whitney U test|||to HD - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270, but it is 8||||0.551
91086516|NCT04878055|182056018|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.52||||0.232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.178|1.522||Analysis is based on logistic regression model with proportion of patients died up to Day 60 as dependent variable, treatment, age group, gender and presence of concomitant disease at baseline as qualitative independent variables.|Regression, Logistic|||up to day 60||1.522|0.178|0.232
91086517|NCT04878055|182056018|SUPERIORITY|Analysis is based on logistic regression model with proportion of patients died up to Day 90 as dependent variable, treatment, age group, gender and presence of concomitant disease at baseline as qualitative independent variables.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.246||||0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.034|1.782|||Regression, Logistic|||Up to Day 90||1.782|0.034|0.158
91086518|NCT04878055|182056019|SUPERIORITY|Freedom from (time to) death or respiratory failure (need of invasive mechanical ventilation or ECMO or admission to ICU linked to worsening of respiratory parameters compared to baseline) up to Day 90 was performed using the same Kaplan-Meier analysis and the one-sided log-rank test that were used to test for differences between groups||||||0.33607|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.33607
91086519|NCT02372344|182056044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least square (LS) mean ratio|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.77||||||Total EPA: Ratio of Fasting to After meal. Primary comparisons for total EPA were based on a linear mixed-effect model. This model included log-transformed PK parameter (AUC) as a response variable and treatment, sequence and period as fixed categorical effects, and subject nested within sequence as a random categorical effect.||0.77|0.54|
91086520|NCT02372344|182056044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS mean ratio|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.86||||||Total EPA: Ratio of Before meal to After meal. Primary comparisons for total EPA were based on a linear mixed-effect model. This model included log-transformed PK parameter (AUC) as a response variable and treatment, sequence and period as fixed categorical effects, and subject nested within sequence as a random categorical effect.||0.86|0.59|
91086521|NCT02372344|182056045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS mean ratio|0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.47||||||Total EPA: Ratio of Fasting to After meal. Primary comparisons for total EPA were based on a linear mixed-effect model. This model included log-transformed PK parameter (Cmax) as a response variable and treatment, sequence and period as fixed categorical effects, and subject nested within sequence as a random categorical effect.||0.47|0.27|
91022657|NCT03751124|181929241|OTHER|Chi-square test was used for the comparison between relugolix plus E2/NETA group and placebo group.|Treatment difference|63.36|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.85|73.86||P-value was based on the stratified test statistics via log-log transformation of the difference in survival curve at a fixed time point stratified by pivotal study baseline MBL volume and duration of prior exposure to relugolix.|Log-Log transformation|Log-Log transformation of survival curve based on stratified Kaplan-Meier analysis|The 95% confidence interval (CI) of treatment difference was calculated via linear transformation of the difference in survival function with pooled variance.|The primary efficacy analysis was the comparison of the relugolix plus E2/NETA group with the placebo group with respect to responder rate.||73.86|52.85|<0.0001
91022658|NCT03751124|181929242|OTHER|Stratified log-rank test was used for the comparison between relugolix plus E2/NETA group and placebo group.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.2||P-value for comparison of relugolix plus E2/NETA to placebo was based on the stratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio (95% CI) of relugolix plus E2/NETA to placebo was based on a proportional hazard model stratified by pivotal study baseline MBL volume (\<225 mL or ≥225 mL) and duration of prior exposure to relugolix (28 weeks or 52 weeks).|||0.20|0.08|<0.0001
91022659|NCT03751124|181929243|OTHER|Chi-square test was used for the comparison between relugolix plus E2/NETA group and placebo group.|Treatment difference|58.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.97|69.11||P-value was based on the stratified test statistics via log-log transformation of the difference in survival curve at a fixed time point stratified by pivotal study baseline MBL volume and duration of prior exposure to relugolix.|Log-Log transformation|Log-Log transformation of survival curve based on stratified Kaplan-Meier analysis|The 95% CI of treatment difference was calculated via linear transformation of the difference in survival function with pooled variance.|||69.11|46.97|<0.0001
91022660|NCT03751124|181929244|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|44.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.13|55.11||P-value for difference between relugolix plus E2/NETA and placebo is based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by pivotal study baseline MBL volume (\<225 mL or ≥225 mL) and duration of prior exposure to relugolix (28 weeks or 52 weeks).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Treatment difference is relugolix plus E2/NETA minus placebo. 95% CI for difference is based on the normal approximation.|||55.11|33.13|<0.0001
91022661|NCT05166421|181929312|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.938|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8458|1.0403||||||Statistical Comparison of AUCinf of AZD7442||1.0403|0.8458|
91022662|NCT05166421|181929312|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.9968|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.898|1.1066||||||Statistical Comparison of AUCinf of AZD7442||1.1066|0.8980|
91022663|NCT05166421|181929312|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.0627|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9579|1.179||||||Statistical Comparison of AUCinf of AZD7442||1.1790|0.9579|
91022664|NCT05166421|181929312|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.8992|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8107|0.9974||||||Statistical Comparison of AUCinf of AZD8895||0.9974|0.8107|
91086522|NCT02372344|182056045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS mean ratio|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.59||||||Total EPA: Ratio of Before meal to After meal. Primary comparisons for total EPA were based on a linear mixed-effect model. This model included log-transformed PK parameter (Cmax) as a response variable and treatment, sequence and period as fixed categorical effects, and subject nested within sequence as a random categorical effect.||0.59|0.33|
91086523|NCT02372344|182056045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS mean ratio|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.57||||||Total DHA: Ratio of Fasting to After meal. Primary comparisons for total DHA were based on a linear mixed-effect model. This model included log-transformed PK parameter (Cmax) as a response variable and treatment, sequence and period as fixed categorical effects, and subject nested within sequence as a random categorical effect.||0.57|0.36|
90893792|NCT00297115|181652731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.286|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.104||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.082|0.489||No adjustment of the significance level was done as a hierarchical approach for hypotheses testing was used.|ANCOVA|Repeated measurements analysis (change from baseline over 52 weeks of treatment taking all post-randomization measurements into account).||||0.489|0.082|0.0059
91086524|NCT02372344|182056045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS mean ratio|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.71||||||Total DHA: Ratio of Before meal to After meal. Primary comparisons for total DHA were based on a linear mixed-effect model. This model included log-transformed PK parameter (Cmax) as a response variable and treatment, sequence and period as fixed categorical effects, and subject nested within sequence as a random categorical effect.||0.71|0.45|
91022665|NCT05166421|181929312|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.9826|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8854|1.0905||||||Statistical Comparison of AUCinf of AZD8895||1.0905|0.8854|
91022666|NCT05166421|181929312|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.0928|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9853|1.212||||||Statistical Comparison of AUCinf of AZD8895||1.2120|0.9853|
91022667|NCT05166421|181929312|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.0039|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9029|1.1161||||||Statistical Comparison of AUCinf of AZD1061||1.1161|0.9029|
91022668|NCT05166421|181929312|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.0336|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9288|1.1503||||||Statistical Comparison of AUCinf of AZD1061||1.1503|0.9288|
91022669|NCT05166421|181929312|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.0296|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9258|1.1451||||||Statistical Comparison of AUCinf of AZD1061||1.1451|0.9258|
91022670|NCT05166421|181929313|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.9418|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8512|1.0421||||||Statistical Comparison of AUClast of AZD7442||1.0421|0.8512|
91022671|NCT05166421|181929313|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.9973|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9004|1.1046||||||Statistical Comparison of AUClast of AZD7442||1.1046|0.9004|
91022672|NCT05166421|181929313|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.0589|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9559|1.173||||||Statistical Comparison of AUClast of AZD7442||1.1730|0.9559|
91022673|NCT05166421|181929313|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.8812|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7933|0.9788||||||Statistical Comparison of AUClast of AZD8895||0.9788|0.7933|
91022674|NCT05166421|181929313|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8633|1.0674||||||Statistical Comparison of AUClast of AZD8895||1.0674|0.8633|
91022675|NCT05166421|181929313|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.0894|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9796|1.2116||||||Statistical Comparison of AUClast of AZD8895||1.2116|0.9796|
91022676|NCT05166421|181929313|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.0065|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9061|1.118||||||Statistical Comparison of AUClast of AZD1061||1.1180|0.9061|
91022677|NCT05166421|181929313|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.0293|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9257|1.1446||||||Statistical Comparison of AUClast of AZD1061||1.1446|0.9257|
91022678|NCT05166421|181929313|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.0227|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9196|1.1373||||||Statistical Comparison of AUClast of AZD1061||1.1373|0.9196|
90829509|NCT02365649|181533427|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.8||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.4|24.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 20||24.1|-22.4|1.000
90829510|NCT02365649|181533427|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.4||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.4|26.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 28||26.3|-25.4|1.000
90829511|NCT02365649|181533427|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-9.2||||0.417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.3|12.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 28||12.9|-31.3|0.417
90829512|NCT02365649|181533427|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-20.2||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.7|6.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 28||6.2|-46.7|0.125
90829513|NCT02365649|181533427|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.9||||0.497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|40.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 36||40.0|-14.1|0.497
90829514|NCT02365649|181533427|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1||||0.993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.0|23.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 36||23.8|-24.0|0.993
90829515|NCT02365649|181533427|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-18.3||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.1|9.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 36||9.6|-46.1|0.200
90829516|NCT02365649|181533427|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.4||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|50.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 44||50.8|-7.9|0.177
90893793|NCT02713711|181652747|SUPERIORITY|ANOVA. Sample was calculated with power of 80% and alpha of 0.05.||||||0.3262|||||||ANOVA|repeated measures ANOVA (Bonferroni post-test) for intragroup analysis||||||0.3262
91022679|NCT05166421|181929314|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.0308|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9451|1.1243||||||Statistical Comparison of Cmax of AZD7442||1.1243|0.9451|
91086525|NCT02372344|182056046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS mean ratio|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.69||||||Total EPA: Ratio of Fasting to After meal. Primary comparisons for total EPA were based on a linear mixed-effect model. This model included log-transformed PK parameter (AUC0-72) as a response variable and treatment, sequence and period as fixed categorical effects, and subject nested within sequence as a random categorical effect.||0.69|0.45|
90829517|NCT02365649|181533427|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|22.4||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|46.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5). Prespecified significance at the 0.1 level.|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 44||46.2|-1.4|0.074
90829518|NCT02365649|181533427|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.9||||0.585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.1|20.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 44||20.3|-36.1|0.585
90829519|NCT02365649|181533427|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.4||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|50.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 52||50.8|-7.9|0.177
90829520|NCT02365649|181533427|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.1||||0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|36.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 52||36.8|-12.7|0.343
90829521|NCT02365649|181533427|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.9||||0.585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.1|20.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 52||20.3|-36.1|0.585
90893794|NCT02713711|181652747|SUPERIORITY|ANOVA. Sample was calculated with power of 80% and alpha of 0.05.||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|repeated measures ANOVA (Bonferroni post-test) for intragroup analysis||||||0.01
91022680|NCT05166421|181929314|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.993|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9112|1.0822||||||Statistical Comparison of Cmax of AZD7442||1.0822|0.9112|
91022681|NCT05166421|181929314|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.9634|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8833|1.0507||||||Statistical Comparison of Cmax of AZD7442||1.0507|0.8833|
90829522|NCT02365649|181533427|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-30.0||||0.539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.1|-9.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 20||-9.9|-50.1|0.539
91022682|NCT05166421|181929314|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.9701|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8894|1.0582||||||Statistical Comparison of Cmax of AZD8895||1.0582|0.8894|
91022683|NCT05166421|181929314|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.9629|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8835|1.0494||||||Statistical Comparison of Cmax of AZD8895||1.0494|0.8835|
91022684|NCT05166421|181929314|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.9926|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.0826||||||Statistical Comparison of Cmax of AZD8895||1.0826|0.9100|
91022685|NCT05166421|181929314|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.0976|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9992|1.2057||||||Statistical Comparison of Cmax of AZD1061||1.2057|0.9992|
91022686|NCT05166421|181929314|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.0195|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.929|1.119||||||Statistical Comparison of Cmax of AZD1061||1.1190|0.9290|
91022687|NCT05166421|181929314|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.9289|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8457|1.0203||||||Statistical Comparison of Cmax of AZD1061||1.0203|0.8457|
91022688|NCT02290028|181929330|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Exact, binomial|||Primary endpoint 1 was evaluated by performing an exact, binomial test comparing the observed proportion (overall complication-free rate at 6 months) to the performance goal of 90.0%, with Type I error (alpha) of 0.025 and power of 80%. The lower, two-sided 95% confidence bound for the overall complication-free rate must be greater than 90.0%.||||<0.0001
91022689|NCT02290028|181929331|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.002|||||||Exact, binomial|||Primary endpoint 2 was evaluated by performing an exact, binomial test comparing an observed proportion (rate of acceptable LV pacing thresholds at the permanently programmed pacing vector at 3 months) to 88%, with Type I error (alpha) of 0.025 and power of 80%. The lower, two-sided 95% confidence bound for the percentage of subjects with an acceptable LV pacing threshold in the permanently programmed pacing vector must be greater than 88.0%.||||=0.002
91022690|NCT02290028|181929332|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||Primary endpoint 3 will be evaluated by performing an exact, binomial test comparing the observed proportion (overall complication-free rate at 5 years) to the performance goal of 92.5%, with Type I error (alpha) of 0.025 and power of 80%. The lower, two-sided 95% confidence bound for the overall complication-free rate must be greater than 92.5%|On September 24, 2019, BIOTRONIK received FDA approval to transition the ongoing Sentus Post Approval Registry to a new EP PASSION real-world data methodology. As of study closure, the number of subjects with complete data required to perform the hypothesis test was not met. Therefore, this outcome measure was not analyzed.|||
91022691|NCT01735877|181929343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52||0.77|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||At Baseline||||0.77
91022692|NCT01735877|181929343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.02|17.25|||ANCOVA|||Mean Change from baseline to 1 month||17.25|11.02|<0.0001
91022693|NCT01735877|181929343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.65|26.48|||ANCOVA|||Baseline to 3 month||26.48|18.65|<0.0001
91022694|NCT01735877|181929343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.94|27.62|||ANCOVA|||Baseline to 6 month||27.62|18.94|<0.0001
91022695|NCT01735877|181929344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||Chi-squared|||At Baseline||||0.99
91022696|NCT01735877|181929344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||Chi-squared|||At 1 month||||0.99
91022697|NCT01735877|181929344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Chi-squared|||At 3 months||||0.03
91022698|NCT01735877|181929344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Chi-squared|||At 6 months||||0.004
91022699|NCT01735877|181929345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.25||0.64|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||At Baseline||||0.64
91022700|NCT01735877|181929345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.92||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.24|9.6|||ANCOVA|||Mean change from baseline to 1 month||9.60|2.24|0.002
90829523|NCT02365649|181533427|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-15.7||||0.277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.8|9.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 20||9.3|-40.8|0.277
91022701|NCT01735877|181929345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.71||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|14.63|||ANCOVA|||Mean change from baseline to 3 month||14.63|2.80|0.005
91022702|NCT01735877|181929345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.63||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.67|14.6|||ANCOVA|||Mean change from baseline to 6 month||14.60|2.67|0.006
91022703|NCT01735877|181929346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.99|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline||||0.99
91022704|NCT01735877|181929346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.93|4.42|||ANCOVA|||Mean change from baseline to 1 month||4.42|2.93|<0.0001
91022705|NCT01735877|181929346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.61|4.21|||ANCOVA|||Mean change from baseline to 3 month||4.21|2.61|<0.0001
91022706|NCT01735877|181929346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|4.02|||ANCOVA|||Mean change from baseline to 6 month||4.02|2.40|<0.0001
91022707|NCT01735877|181929347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||Chi-squared|||At Baseline||||0.99
91022708|NCT01735877|181929347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||Chi-squared|||At month 1||||0.99
91022709|NCT01735877|181929347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Chi-squared|||At month 3||||0.04
91022710|NCT01735877|181929347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||At month 6||||0.01
91022711|NCT00830063|181929359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-1.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|-0.72||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean was estimated from the corresponding analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.72|-1.76|<0.001
90829524|NCT02365649|181533427|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-15.7||||0.422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.9|11.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 20||11.5|-42.9|0.422
90829525|NCT02365649|181533427|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.5|46.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 28||46.5|-46.5|1.000
90829526|NCT02365649|181533427|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.7||||0.454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.9|13.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 28||13.5|-34.9|0.454
90829527|NCT02365649|181533427|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-17.9||||0.364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.1|5.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 28||5.4|-41.1|0.364
90829528|NCT02365649|181533427|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.0||||0.544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.2|55.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 36||55.2|-35.2|0.544
90829529|NCT02365649|181533427|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.5||||0.663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.5|14.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 36||14.6|-25.5|0.663
90829530|NCT02365649|181533427|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-15.0||||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.6|0.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 36||0.6|-30.6|0.251
91086526|NCT02372344|182056046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS mean ratio|0.55||||||95.0|0.44|0.69||||||Total EPA: Ratio of Before Meal to After meal. Primary comparisons for total EPA were based on a linear mixed-effect model. This model included log-transformed PK parameter (AUC0-72) as a response variable and treatment, sequence and period as fixed categorical effects, and subject nested within sequence as a random categorical effect.||0.69|0.44|
91086527|NCT02372344|182056046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS mean ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.04||||||Total DHA: Ratio of Fasting to After meal. Primary comparisons for total DHA were based on a linear mixed-effect model. This model included log-transformed PK parameter (AUC0-72) as a response variable and treatment, sequence and period as fixed categorical effects, and subject nested within sequence as a random categorical effect.||1.04|0.73|
91086528|NCT02372344|182056046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS mean ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.02||||||Total DHA: Ratio of Before meal to After meal. Primary comparisons for total DHA were based on a linear mixed-effect model. This model included log-transformed PK parameter (AUC0-72) as a response variable and treatment, sequence and period as fixed categorical effects, and subject nested within sequence as a random categorical effect.||1.02|0.72|
91086529|NCT00249873|182056065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.0133||95.0|0.81|0.98||Cumulative incidence functions in each treatment group were calculated using non-parametric Kaplan-Meier estimates. Median time-to-event was not reached in any group. The primary comparison was performed at the 5% level using a 2-sided Log rank test.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio was estimated by a Cox's proportional hazard model with treatment arm factor. It represents the relative hazard of any component of the primary event for the clopidogrel group compared with the Placebo group.|||0.98|0.81|0.0133
90829531|NCT02365649|181533427|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.1|3.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared|||Clinical non-responders, Week 44||3.1|-23.1|1.000
90829532|NCT02365649|181533427|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.2||||0.606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.2|10.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 44||10.8|-21.2|0.606
90829533|NCT02365649|181533427|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.9||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.7|16.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 44||16.0|-21.7|1.000
90829534|NCT02365649|181533427|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.1|3.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 52||3.1|-23.1|1.000
90893795|NCT02713711|181652747|SUPERIORITY|ANOVA. Sample was calculated with power of 80% and alpha of 0.05.||||||0.0646|||||||ANOVA|repeated measures ANOVA (Bonferroni post-test) for intragroup analysis||||||0.0646
91022712|NCT00830063|181929359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|-0.49||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.49|-1.52|<0.001
91022713|NCT00830063|181929359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|-0.2||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.20|-1.23|0.007
91022714|NCT00830063|181929359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.03||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||0.03|-0.99|0.068
91022715|NCT00830063|181929360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|-0.77||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.77|-1.73|<0.001
91022716|NCT00830063|181929360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|-0.55||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.55|-1.51|<0.001
91022717|NCT00830063|181929360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|-0.28||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.28|-1.24|0.002
91022718|NCT00830063|181929360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.05||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.05|-1.01|0.030
91022719|NCT00830063|181929361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.16||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.16|-0.50|<0.001
91022720|NCT00830063|181929361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|-0.04||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.04|-0.39|0.014
91086530|NCT00249873|182056066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72|||<|0.001||95.0|0.62|0.83||Cumulative incidence functions in each treatment group were calculated using non-parametric Kaplan-Meier estimates. Median time-to-event was not reached in any group. The primary comparison was performed at the 5% level using a 2-sided Log rank test.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio was estimated by a Cox's proportional hazard model with treatment arm factor. It represents the relative hazard of stroke for the clopidogrel group compared with the Placebo group.|||0.83|0.62|<0.001
91086531|NCT00249873|182056067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.696||95.0|0.89|1.08||Cumulative incidence functions in each treatment group were calculated using non-parametric Kaplan-Meier estimates. Median time-to-event was not reached in any group. The primary comparison was performed at the 5% level using a 2-sided Log rank test.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio was estimated by a Cox's proportional hazard model with treatment arm factor. It represents the relative hazard of death from any cause for the clopidogrel group compared with the Placebo group.|||1.08|0.89|0.696
91022721|NCT00830063|181929361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.02||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.02|-0.36|0.026
91022722|NCT00830063|181929361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.09||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||0.09|-0.25|0.349
91022723|NCT00830063|181929362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.25||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||0.25|-0.69|0.355
91022724|NCT00830063|181929362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|-0.1||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.10|-1.04|0.017
91022725|NCT00830063|181929362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.03||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||1.03|0.09|0.020
90893796|NCT02713711|181652747|SUPERIORITY|ANOVA. Sample was calculated with power of 80% and alpha of 0.05.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|repeated measures ANOVA (Bonferroni post-test) for intragroup analysis||||||<0.001
91086532|NCT00249873|182056068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91086533|NCT02762084|182056085|OTHER|Pairwise comparison||||||0.03|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment group as a factor and Baseline value as a covariate||at Week 26||||0.030
91086534|NCT02762084|182056085|OTHER|Pairwise comparison||||||0.756|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment group as a factor and Baseline value as a covariate||at Week 26||||0.756
91086535|NCT02762084|182056086|OTHER|Pairwise comparison||||||0.5|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment group as a factor and using Baseline value as a covariate||at Week 6||||0.500
91086536|NCT02762084|182056086|OTHER|Pairwise comparison||||||0.681|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment group as a factor and using Baseline value as a covariate||at Week 6||||0.681
91022726|NCT00830063|181929362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.67||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||0.67|-0.26|0.388
91022727|NCT00830063|181929362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|-0.7||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.70|-1.65|<0.001
91022728|NCT00830063|181929362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|-1.13||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-1.13|-2.07|<0.001
91022729|NCT00830063|181929362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.21||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||0.21|-0.73|0.274
91022730|NCT00830063|181929362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|-0.22||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.22|-1.16|0.004
91022731|NCT00830063|181929362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|-0.75||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.75|-1.74|<0.001
91022732|NCT00830063|181929362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-1.01||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-1.01|-2.00|<0.001
91022733|NCT00830063|181929362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.0||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||0.00|-0.99|0.051
91022734|NCT00830063|181929362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|-0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|-0.25||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.25|-1.24|0.003
91022735|NCT00830063|181929362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|-1.07||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference||-1.07|-2.12|<0.001
91086537|NCT02762084|182056090|OTHER|One-sided comparison||||||0.048|||||||Mann Whitey U|||at Week 26||||0.048
91086538|NCT02762084|182056090|OTHER|Two-sided comparison||||||0.096|||||||Mann Whitey U|||at Week 26||||0.096
91086539|NCT02762084|182056091|OTHER|Two-sided comparison||||||0.008|||||||Mann Whitey U|||at Week 26||||0.008
91086540|NCT04767373|182056135|OTHER||Efficacy estimate|60.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.1|71.9|||Exact method|One-sided p-value was estimated using an exact method.|A modified Poisson regression with robust variance method was used to generate efficacy estimate (1- Relative Risk \[RR\]) \& 95% confidence interval (CI). The model included region, gestational age, and age at randomization as covariates.|||71.9|44.1|<0.001
91086541|NCT04767373|182056136|OTHER||Estimated Percentage Difference|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|1.5|||||Estimated percentage difference beteween Clesrovimab 105 mg arm and placebo arm and associated 95% CI were calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||1.5|-2.6|
91086542|NCT04767373|182056137|OTHER||Estimated Percentage Difference|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.0|||||Estimated percentage difference between Clesrovimab 105 mg arm and placebo arm and associated 95% CI were calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||-0.0|-1.4|
91086543|NCT04767373|182056138|OTHER||Estimated Percentage Difference|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|1.2|||||Estimated percentage difference between Clesrovimab 105 mg arm and placebo arm and associated 95% CI were calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||1.2|-5.0|
91086544|NCT04767373|182056139|OTHER||Estimated Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.2|||||Estimated percentage difference between Clesrovimab 105 mg arm and placebo arm and associated 95% CI were calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||0.2|-0.3|
91086545|NCT04767373|182056140|OTHER||Estimated Percentage Difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.5|||||Estimated percentage difference between Clesrovimab 105 mg arm and placebo arm and associated 95% CI were calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||0.5|-0.4|
91022736|NCT00830063|181929362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.85||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference||-0.85|-1.90|<0.001
91022737|NCT00830063|181929362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|-0.37||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.37|-1.42|<0.001
91022738|NCT00830063|181929362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|-0.15||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.15|-1.19|0.012
91022739|NCT00830063|181929363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.25||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||0.25|-0.69|0.355
91022740|NCT00830063|181929363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|-0.1||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.10|-1.04|0.017
91032873|NCT00678639|181951161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"H0: There is no difference in correct cardiovascular admission decisions among groups.~Ha: A difference exists among study groups. Sample size was based upon 47 analyzable participants per study arm were required to provide 88% power to detect a 30% difference in the outcome."||||<0.001
91032874|NCT00855738|181951256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||McNemar|||Month 3: p-value versus baseline.||||<0.0001
91032875|NCT00855738|181951256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||McNemar|||Month 6: p-value versus baseline.||||<0.0001
91032876|NCT00855738|181951257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||McNemar|||Month 3 \>=25% reduction: p-value versus baseline.||||<0.0001
91032877|NCT00855738|181951257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||McNemar|||Month 3 \>=75% reduction: p-value versus baseline.||||<0.0001
91032878|NCT00855738|181951257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||McNemar|||Month 6: \>=25% reduction: p-value versus baseline.||||<0.0001
91032879|NCT00855738|181951257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||McNemar|||Month 6: \>=75% reduction: p-value versus baseline.||||<0.0001
91032880|NCT00855738|181951258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED||||||McNemar|||Month 3: p-value versus baseline.||||0.0039
91032881|NCT00855738|181951258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||McNemar|||Month 6: p-value versus baseline.||||<0.0001
91032882|NCT00855738|181951259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||<0.0001
91032883|NCT00855738|181951270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1797|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Depression domain: P-value vs baseline.||||0.1797
91032884|NCT00855738|181951270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0433|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Anxiety domain: P-value vs baseline.||||0.0433
91032885|NCT00855738|181951271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8284|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Energy: p-value versus baseline.||||0.8284
91032886|NCT00855738|181951271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6299|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Emotions (mood): p-value versus baseline.||||0.6299
91032887|NCT00855738|181951271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6162|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Daily activities: p-value versus baseline.||||0.6162
91032888|NCT00855738|181951271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5609|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Mental function: p-value versus baseline.||||0.5609
91032889|NCT00855738|181951271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4635|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Medication effects (physical/ mental): p-value versus baseline.||||0.4635
91032890|NCT00855738|181951271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Worry about seizures (impact of seizures): p-value versus baseline.||||<0.0001
91032891|NCT00855738|181951271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0258|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Overall quality of life: p-value versus baseline.||||0.0258
91032892|NCT00855738|181951272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7822|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 3: p-value versus baseline.||||0.7822
91032893|NCT00855738|181951272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4471|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 6: p-value versus baseline.||||0.4471
91032894|NCT00855738|181951273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2452|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Sleep disturbance: p-value versus baseline.||||0.2452
91032895|NCT00855738|181951273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Snoring: p-value verus baseline.||||1.0000
91032896|NCT00855738|181951273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4253|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Awake short of breath: p-value versus baseline.||||0.4253
91086546|NCT04767373|182056143|OTHER||Efficacy estimate|84.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|66.6|92.6||One-sided p-value was estimated using an exact method.|Exact method||A modified Poisson regression with robust variance method was used to generate efficacy estimate (1- RR) \& 95% CI. The model included region, gestational age, and age at randomization as covariates.|||92.6|66.6|<0.001
91086547|NCT04767373|182056144|OTHER||Efficacy estimate|59.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.3|71.1|||||A modified Poisson regression with robust variance method was used to generate efficacy estimate (1- RR) \& 95% CI. The model included region, gestational age, and age at randomization as covariates.|||71.1|43.3|
91086548|NCT00099632|182056154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.37||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by ARV regimen and the actual receipt of antenatal ZDV||Compare proportion of women with new NNRTI-resistant variants between treatment durations (7-day vs. 21 day), pooled over ARV regimens (3TC/ZDV, FTC/TDF, and LPV/r), stratified by ARV regimen and the actual receipt of antenatal ZDV||||0.37
91086549|NCT00099632|182056154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.091||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by treatment duration and the actual receipt of antenatal ZDV||Compare proportion of women with new NNRTI-resistant variants among ARV regimens (3TC/ZDV vs. FTC/TDF vs. LPV/r), pooled over treatment durations 7-day and 21-day, stratified by treatment duration and the actual receipt of antenatal ZDV||||0.091
91086550|NCT02797678|182056164|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.061|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.061
91086551|NCT02797678|182056167|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.301|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.301
91086552|NCT03131687|182056168|OTHER||Posterior Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.17|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Statistics are estimated from a Bayesian hierarchical logistic dose response model along with a titrated integrated two-component prediction model to estimate missing values.|||||
91086553|NCT03131687|182056168|OTHER||Posterior Mean Difference|-1.67|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.17|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Statistics are estimated from a Bayesian hierarchical logistic dose response model along with a titrated integrated two-component prediction model to estimate missing values.|||||
91086554|NCT03131687|182056168|OTHER||Posterior Mean Difference|-1.83|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.17|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Statistics are estimated from a Bayesian hierarchical logistic dose response model along with a titrated integrated two-component prediction model to estimate missing values.|||||
91086555|NCT03131687|182056168|OTHER||Posterior Mean Difference|-1.89|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.17|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Statistics are estimated from a Bayesian hierarchical logistic dose response model along with a titrated integrated two-component prediction model to estimate missing values.|||||
91086556|NCT03131687|182056169|OTHER||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.89|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.15|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Statistics are estimated from a Bayesian hierarchical logistic dose response model along with a titrated integrated two-component prediction model to estimate missing values.|||||
91086557|NCT03131687|182056169|OTHER||Posterior Mean Difference|-1.49|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.15|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Statistics are estimated from a Bayesian hierarchical logistic dose response model along with a titrated integrated two-component prediction model to estimate missing values.|||||
91086558|NCT03131687|182056169|OTHER||Posterior Mean Difference|-1.62|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.15|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Statistics are estimated from a Bayesian hierarchical logistic dose response model along with a titrated integrated two-component prediction model to estimate missing values.|||||
91086559|NCT03131687|182056169|OTHER||Posterior Mean Difference|-1.67|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.15|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Statistics are estimated from a Bayesian hierarchical logistic dose response model along with a titrated integrated two-component prediction model to estimate missing values.|||||
91086560|NCT03131687|182056170|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.4|-1.2|<0.001
91086561|NCT03131687|182056170|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.3|-2.2|<0.001
91086562|NCT03131687|182056170|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.6|-2.5|<0.001
91086563|NCT03131687|182056170|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-2.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.0|-2.9|<0.001
91086564|NCT03131687|182056171|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.4|-1.1|<0.001
91086565|NCT03131687|182056171|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.3|-2.0|<0.001
91086566|NCT03131687|182056171|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.5|-2.3|<0.001
91086567|NCT03131687|182056171|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.7|-2.4|<0.001
91086568|NCT03131687|182056172|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.7|-2.7|0.655
91086569|NCT03131687|182056172|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|-2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.3|-6.6|<0.001
91086570|NCT03131687|182056172|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|-6.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-6.0|-10.5|<0.001
91086571|NCT03131687|182056172|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-10.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|-8.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.6|-13.3|<0.001
91086572|NCT03131687|182056173|OTHER|||||||0.053|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.053
91086573|NCT03131687|182056173|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.002
91086574|NCT03131687|182056173|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
91086575|NCT03131687|182056173|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
91086576|NCT03131687|182056174|OTHER|||||||0.193|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.193
91086577|NCT03131687|182056174|OTHER|||||||0.036|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.036
90893797|NCT02713711|181652747|SUPERIORITY|Two-way ANOVA (Bonferroni post-test) for intergroup analysis.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90893798|NCT02713711|181652748|SUPERIORITY|paired-t test (intragroup analysis)||||||0.208|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2080
91086578|NCT03131687|182056174|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.003
91086579|NCT03131687|182056174|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.003
91086580|NCT03131687|182056175|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.030
91086581|NCT03131687|182056175|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
91086582|NCT03131687|182056175|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
91086583|NCT03131687|182056175|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
91086584|NCT03131687|182056176|OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.008
91086585|NCT03131687|182056176|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
91086586|NCT03131687|182056176|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
91086587|NCT03131687|182056176|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
91086588|NCT03131687|182056177|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.4||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.4|-5.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.3|-39.4|0.010
91086589|NCT03131687|182056177|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-56.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.9|-39.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-39.5|-72.9|<0.001
91086590|NCT03131687|182056177|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|-76.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-93.3|-59.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-59.2|-93.3|<0.001
91086591|NCT03131687|182056177|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-73.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-90.9|-55.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-55.2|-90.9|<0.001
91086592|NCT03131687|182056178|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.0|-0.1|0.396
91086593|NCT03131687|182056178|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.1|-0.1|0.903
91086594|NCT03131687|182056178|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.1|-0.1|0.536
91086595|NCT03131687|182056178|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.1|-0.0|0.325
91086596|NCT03131687|182056179|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.2|-0.4|0.565
91086597|NCT03131687|182056179|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.1|-0.7|0.010
90893799|NCT02713711|181652748|SUPERIORITY|paired-t test (intragroup analysis)||||||0.0136|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0136
91086598|NCT03131687|182056179|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.2|-0.9|0.001
91086599|NCT03131687|182056179|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.3|-0.9|<0.001
91086600|NCT03131687|182056180|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.1|-0.7|0.164
91086601|NCT03131687|182056180|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.4|-1.1|<0.001
91086602|NCT03131687|182056180|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.6|-1.4|<0.001
91086603|NCT03131687|182056180|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.7|-1.5|<0.001
91086604|NCT03131687|182056181|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.3|-0.3|0.919
91086605|NCT03131687|182056181|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.1|-0.5|0.194
91086606|NCT03131687|182056181|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.1|-0.5|0.145
91086607|NCT03131687|182056181|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.0|-0.6|0.067
91086608|NCT03131687|182056182|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.6|-3.1|0.539
91086609|NCT03131687|182056182|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.8||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|-1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.5|-6.1|0.001
91086610|NCT03131687|182056182|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|-3.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.7|-8.4|<0.001
91086611|NCT03131687|182056182|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|-6.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-6.4|-11.3|<0.001
91086612|NCT02137226|182056185|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 90% Confidence Interval (CI) for ACR20 at Week 12, rounded to 1 decimal place, had to be entirely contained in the predefined equivalence region \[-12.0%, 15.0%\]|Difference in proportions|5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.9|12.7|||Regression, Logistic||Results from logistic regression model adjusted for treatment, prior exposure to a biologic agent (yes / no), Baseline DAS28 (ESR). Difference in ACR20 Response Rate (BI695501 - Humira, %) is presented.|The week 12 confidence interval for the estimated difference in proportion is produced using the cumulative distribution function method of Reeve||12.7|-0.9|
91086613|NCT02137226|182056186|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin is not applicable|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.25|0.05|||ANCOVA||Difference in least square means of BI 695501 - Humira is presented.|Results based on DAS28 (ESR) mean changes from Baseline after 12 weeks of treatment = overall mean + treatment group + Baseline DAS28 (ESR) + prior exposure to a biologic agent + random error.||0.05|-0.25|
91086614|NCT02137226|182056186|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin is not applicable|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.23|||ANCOVA||Difference in least square means of BI 695501 - Humira is presented.|Results based on DAS28 (ESR) mean changes from Baseline after 24 weeks of treatment = overall mean + treatment group + Baseline DAS28 (ESR) + prior exposure to a biologic agent + random error.||0.23|-0.17|
90829535|NCT02365649|181533427|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.7|17.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 52||17.7|-18.7|1.000
90829536|NCT02365649|181533427|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.0||||0.501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.1|3.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 52||3.1|-23.1|0.501
90829537|NCT02365649|181533428|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.5||||0.633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|48.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 20||48.0|-13.0|0.633
90893800|NCT02713711|181652748|SUPERIORITY|paired-t test (intragroup analysis)||||||0.2987|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2987
91086615|NCT02137226|182056188|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 95% Confidence Interval (CI) for ACR20 at Week 24, rounded to 1 decimal place, had to be entirely contained in the predefined equivalence region \[-15.0%;+15.0%\]|Difference in proportions|4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|12.5|||Regression, Logistic||Results from logistic regression model adjusted for treatment, prior exposure to a biologic agent (yes / no), Baseline DAS28 (ESR). Difference in ACR20 Response Rate (BI695501 - Humira, %) is presented.|The week 24 confidence interval for the estimated difference in proportion is produced using the cumulative distribution function method of Reeve||12.5|-3.4|
91086616|NCT00672633|182056214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|20.0||||0.52||95.0|||||ANOVA|Repeated measures||The study was designed with 80% power to detect a net improvement of Triglyceride elevles with a sample size of 60.||||0.52
91086617|NCT00672633|182056215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|16.0||||0.06||95.0|||||ANOVA|Repeated Measures||No power calculations done for this outcomes||||0.06
91086618|NCT00672633|182056216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.3||||0.27||95.0|||||ANOVA|Repeated Measures||No power calculations were conducted for this outcome||||0.27
91086619|NCT01868165|182056220|OTHER||Slope|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.77|||||"Linear regression slope and 95% confidence intervals for the association between calcium channel blocker use and cognitive change was 0.58 (-0.60:1.77).~Multiple adjustments including; age, sex, education."|||1.77|-0.60|
91086620|NCT01603407|182056221|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3904|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.3904
91086621|NCT01603407|182056221|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.569|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.5690
91086622|NCT01603407|182056221|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1518|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1518
91086623|NCT01603407|182056222|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7365|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7365
91086624|NCT01603407|182056222|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
91086625|NCT01603407|182056222|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
90829538|NCT02365649|181533428|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|30.0||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.9|50.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 20||50.1|9.9|0.0024
90829539|NCT02365649|181533428|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.8|34.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 20||34.8|-34.8|1.000
90893801|NCT02713711|181652748|SUPERIORITY|paired-t test (intragroup analysis)||||||0.8347|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.8347
90893802|NCT02713711|181652748|SUPERIORITY|two-way ANOVA with Bonferroni post hoc test (intergroup analysis)||||||0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0001
91086626|NCT01603407|182056223|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2456|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2456
91086627|NCT01603407|182056223|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0369|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0369
91086628|NCT01603407|182056223|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3589|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.3589
91086629|NCT01603407|182056224|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7335|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7335
91086630|NCT01603407|182056224|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0004
91086631|NCT01603407|182056224|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0001
91086632|NCT01603407|182056225|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9532|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.9532
91086633|NCT01603407|182056225|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0040
91086634|NCT01603407|182056225|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0046|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0046
91086635|NCT01603407|182056226|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.332|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.3320
91086636|NCT01603407|182056226|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1248|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1248
91086637|NCT01603407|182056226|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5854|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.5854
91086638|NCT01603407|182056227|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.30814|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.30814
91086639|NCT01603407|182056227|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1405|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1405
91086640|NCT01603407|182056227|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.664|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.6640
91086641|NCT01603407|182056229|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8345|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8345
91086642|NCT01603407|182056229|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3762|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.3762
91086643|NCT01603407|182056229|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5059|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.5059
91086644|NCT01603407|182056230|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5947|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.5947
91086645|NCT01603407|182056230|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1098|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1098
91086646|NCT01603407|182056230|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2803|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2803
91086647|NCT01603407|182056231|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3875|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.3875
91086648|NCT01603407|182056231|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.424|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.4240
91086649|NCT01603407|182056231|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9683|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.9683
90829540|NCT02365649|181533428|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.8|29.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 28||29.8|-39.8|1.000
90893803|NCT01113502|181652788|OTHER||Maximum Tolerated Dose (mg)|300.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91022741|NCT00830063|181929363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.03||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||1.03|0.09|0.020
91022742|NCT00830063|181929363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.67||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||0.67|-0.26|0.388
91022743|NCT00830063|181929363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|-0.52||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.52|-1.45|<0.001
91022744|NCT00830063|181929363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|-1.1||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-1.10|-2.02|<0.001
91022745|NCT00830063|181929363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.25||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||0.25|-0.68|0.361
91022746|NCT00830063|181929363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|-0.33||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.33|-1.25|<0.001
91022747|NCT00830063|181929363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|-0.59||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.59|-1.54|<0.001
91022748|NCT00830063|181929363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|-1.09||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-1.09|-2.04|<0.001
91022749|NCT00830063|181929363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.02||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||0.02|-0.93|0.063
91032897|NCT00855738|181951273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0572|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Quantity: p-value versus baseline.||||0.0572
91032898|NCT00855738|181951273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0625|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Adequacy: p-value versus baseline.||||0.0625
91032899|NCT00855738|181951273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.554|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Somnolence: p-value versus baseline.||||0.5540
91032900|NCT00855738|181951273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4204|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Sleep problems (summary 6): p-value versus baseline.||||0.4204
91032901|NCT00855738|181951273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4869|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Sleep problems (summary 9): p-value versus baseline.||||0.4869
91032902|NCT00855738|181951274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0863|TWO_SIDED||||||McNemar|||Month 6: p-value versus baseline.||||0.0863
91032903|NCT00855738|181951275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0226|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Number of visits to a specialist because of epilepsy: p-value versus baseline.||||0.0226
91032904|NCT00855738|181951275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Number of visits to the emergency room because of epilepsy: p-value versus baseline.||||0.0017
91032905|NCT00855738|181951276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3141|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-value versus baseline.||||0.3141
91032906|NCT00855738|181951277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0708|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Cessation of usual occupation: p-value versus baseline.||||0.0708
91032907|NCT00855738|181951277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Requirement of informal caregiver: p-value versus baseline.||||1.0000
91032908|NCT00855738|181951277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Required admission to ICU: p-value versus baseline.||||1.0000
91032909|NCT02268500|181951393|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.89
91032910|NCT02268500|181951394|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.43
91032911|NCT02268500|181951395|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.03
91086650|NCT01603407|182056232|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6161|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.6161
91086651|NCT01603407|182056232|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7302|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7302
91086652|NCT01603407|182056232|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9007|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.9007
91086653|NCT01603407|182056233|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8138|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8138
91086654|NCT01603407|182056233|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5995|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.5995
91086655|NCT01603407|182056233|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7616|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7616
91086656|NCT01603407|182056234|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.6800
91086657|NCT01603407|182056234|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4365|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.4365
91086658|NCT01603407|182056234|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7281|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7281
90893804|NCT03440372|181652861|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.79||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|2.7|||Mantel Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test||||2.70|1.19|0.0049
91032912|NCT02268500|181951396|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.76
91032913|NCT02268500|181951397|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.01
91032914|NCT01312922|181951398|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.987||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.456|2.14|||Fisher Exact|||||2.140|0.456|1.000
91032915|NCT01312922|181951398|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.031||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.476|2.233|||Fisher Exact|||||2.233|0.476|1.000
91032916|NCT02227121|181951409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|92.86|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|70.3|||||||Null Hypothesis: Percentage of Subjects with Successful VF Termination ≤ 65% Alternative Hypothesis: Percentage of Subjects with Successful VF Termination \> 65%|||70.3|
91032917|NCT00154102|181951446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.853||||0.0479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.728|1.0|||Stratified log rank|Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate median PFS time. HR was calculated using Cox proportional hazards model stratified by randomization strata.||The study was planned with 633 progression events, in order to provide 80% power to test the null hypothesis of no difference in PFS time between treatment groups, assuming a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.8 of cetuximab + chemotherapy (CTX) over CTX alone. Significance level was fixed at 5%. The two-sided stratified log-rank test was employed, considering the randomization strata (region: Western Europe, Eastern Europe, outside Europe and Karnovsky Performance Scale (KPS):\<80 vs. ≥80)||1.000|0.728|0.0479
91032918|NCT00154102|181951447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.696||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.558|0.867|||Stratified log rank|Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate median PFS time. HR was calculated using Cox proportional hazards model stratified by randomization strata.||The two-sided stratified log-rank test was employed at the 5% significance level, considering the randomization strata (region: Western Europe, Eastern Europe, outside Europe and KPS:\<80 vs. ≥80)||0.867|0.558|0.0012
91032919|NCT00154102|181951448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.171||||0.2648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.887|1.544|||Stratified log rank|Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate median PFS time. HR was calculated using Cox proportional hazards model stratified by randomization strata.||The two-sided stratified log-rank test was employed at the 5% significance level, considering the randomization strata (region: Western Europe, Eastern Europe, outside Europe and KPS:\<80 vs. ≥80)||1.544|0.887|0.2648
91032920|NCT00154102|181951449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.878||||0.0419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.774|0.995|||Stratified log rank|Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate median OS time. HR was calculated using Cox proportional hazards model stratified by randomization strata.||The two-sided stratified log-rank test was employed at the 5% significance level, considering the randomization strata (region: Western Europe, Eastern Europe, outside Europe and KPS:\<80 vs. ≥80)||0.995|0.774|0.0419
91032921|NCT00154102|181951450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.796||||0.0093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.946|||Stratified log rank|Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate median OS time. HR was calculated using Cox proportional hazards model stratified by randomization strata.||The two-sided stratified log-rank test was employed at the 5% significance level, considering the randomization strata (region: Western Europe, Eastern Europe, outside Europe and KPS:\<80 vs. ≥80)||0.946|0.670|0.0093
91032922|NCT00154102|181951451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.035||||0.7549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.834|1.284|||Stratified log rank|Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate median OS time. HR was calculated using Cox proportional hazards model stratified by randomization strata.||The two-sided stratified log-rank test was employed at the 5% significance level, considering the randomization strata (region: Western Europe, Eastern Europe, outside Europe and KPS:\<80 vs. ≥80)||1.284|0.834|0.7549
91032923|NCT00154102|181951452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.77|||Stratified cochran-mantel haenszel test|||The two-sided stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test was employed at the 5% significance level, considering the randomization strata (region: Western Europe, Eastern Europe, outside Europe and KPS:\<80 vs. ≥80)||1.77|1.12|0.0038
91032924|NCT00154102|181951453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.069|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.515|2.826|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The two-sided stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test was employed at the 5% significance level, considering the randomization strata (region: Western Europe, Eastern Europe, outside Europe and KPS:\<80 vs. ≥80)||2.826|1.515|<0.0001
91032925|NCT00154102|181951454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.822||||0.3475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.544|1.242|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The two-sided stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test was employed at the 5% significance level, considering the randomization strata (region: Western Europe, Eastern Europe, outside Europe and KPS:\<80 vs. ≥80)||1.242|0.544|0.3475
91032926|NCT00154102|181951455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.6004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.26|||Stratified cochran-mantel haenszel test|||The two-sided stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test was employed at the 5% significance level, considering the randomization strata (region: Western Europe, Eastern Europe, outside Europe and KPS:\<80 vs. ≥80)||1.26|0.67|0.6004
91032927|NCT00154102|181951457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.02||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|6.27|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||6.27|1.45|0.002
91032928|NCT01032083|181951494|EQUIVALENCE|For the primary outcome, linear regression was used to determine mean difference between treatment groups. Differences between groups are presented as mean differences with associated 95% confidence interval (CI). Baseline values for variables were included as covariates in regression models and adjusted according to analysis of covariance. All analyses were conducted under the intention-to-treat principle.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.54||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.91|1.8|||Regression, Linear|||||1.80|-4.91|0.36
91086659|NCT01603407|182056235|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.545||||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|98.3|-2.6611|-0.2479|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.2479|-2.6611|0.0041
91086660|NCT01603407|182056235|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9076||||0.9076|TWO_SIDED|98.3|-1.248|1.1331|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.1331|-1.248|0.9076
91086661|NCT01603407|182056235|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.3971||||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.2014|2.5927|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.5927|0.2014|0.0054
91086662|NCT01603407|182056236|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.48|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.3|-2.3242|-0.6358|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.6358|-2.3242|<0.0001
91086663|NCT01603407|182056236|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.054|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.3|2.2222|3.8857|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.8857|2.2222|<0.0001
91086664|NCT01603407|182056236|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.534|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.3|3.6941|5.3738|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.3738|3.6941|<0.0001
91086665|NCT01603407|182056237|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6205||||0.0853|TWO_SIDED|98.3|-1.4845|0.2434|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.2434|-1.4845|0.0853
91086666|NCT01603407|182056237|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.876||||0.0143|TWO_SIDED|98.3|-1.7292|-0.0229|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.0229|-1.7292|0.0143
91086667|NCT01603407|182056237|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2555||||0.4731|TWO_SIDED|98.3|-1.1117|0.6007|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.6007|-1.1117|0.4731
91086668|NCT02358031|182056238|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.21211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.11||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG, HPV status and PD-L1 status.|Regression, Cox|||PFS in all participants of the pembro combo arm was compared to PFS in all participants of the control arm to address the sixth primary hypothesis. The comparison was based on a Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG, HPV status and PD-L1 status.||1.11|0.78|0.21211
91086669|NCT02358031|182056239|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.03697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.02||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG, HPV status and PD-L1 status.|Regression, Cox|||PFS in CPS ≥1 participants of the pembro combo arm was compared to PFS in CPS ≥1 participants of the control arm to address the fifth primary hypothesis. The comparison was based on a Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG, HPV status and PD-L1 status.||1.02|0.69|0.03697
91086670|NCT02358031|182056240|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.02951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.01||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG and HPV status.|Regression, Cox|||PFS in CPS ≥20 participants of the pembro combo arm was compared to PFS in CPS ≥20 participants of the control arm to address the fourth primary hypothesis. The comparison was based on a Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG and HPV status.||1.01|0.58|0.02951
91086671|NCT02358031|182056241|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.00025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.87||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG, HPV status and PD-L1 status.|Regression, Cox|||OS in all participants of the pembro combo arm was compared to OS in all participants of the control arm to address the fourteenth primary hypothesis. The comparison was based on a Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG, HPV status and PD-L1 status.||0.87|0.60|0.00025
91086672|NCT02358031|182056242|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||2e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.8||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG, HPV status and PD-L1 status.|Regression, Cox|||OS in CPS ≥1 participants of the pembro combo arm was compared to OS in CPS ≥1 participants of the control arm to address the twelfth primary hypothesis. The comparison was based on a Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG, HPV status and PD-L1 status.||0.80|0.53|0.00002
91086673|NCT02358031|182056243|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.00044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.82||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG and HPV status.|Regression, Cox|||OS in CPS ≥20 participants of the pembro combo arm was compared to OS in CPS ≥20 participants of the control arm to address the eleventh primary hypothesis. The comparison was based on a Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG and HPV status.||0.82|0.45|0.00044
91086674|NCT02358031|182056244|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.29||||0.9983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.53||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG, HPV status and PD-L1 status.|Regression, Cox|||PFS in all participants of the pembro mono arm was compared to PFS in all participants of the control arm to address the third primary hypothesis. The comparison was based on a Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG, HPV status and PD-L1 status.||1.53|1.09|0.99830
91086675|NCT02358031|182056245|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.8958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.36||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG, HPV status and PD-L1 status.|Regression, Cox|||PFS in CPS ≥1 participants of the pembro mono arm was compared to PFS in CPS ≥1 participants of the control arm to address the second primary hypothesis. The comparison was based on a Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG, HPV status and PD-L1 status.||1.36|0.94|0.89580
91086676|NCT02358031|182056246|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.46791|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.29||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG and HPV status.|Regression, Cox|||PFS in CPS ≥20 participants of the pembro mono arm was compared to PFS in CPS ≥20 participants of the control arm to address the first primary hypothesis. The comparison was based on a Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG and HPV status.||1.29|0.76|0.46791
91086677|NCT02358031|182056247|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.01985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.99||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG, HPV status and PD-L1 status.|Regression, Cox|||OS in all participants of the pembro mono arm was compared to OS in all participants of the control arm to address the tenth primary hypothesis. The comparison was based on a Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG, HPV status and PD-L1 status.||0.99|0.70|0.01985
91086678|NCT02358031|182056248|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.00133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.9||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG, HPV status and PD-L1 status.|Regression, Cox|||OS in CPS ≥1 participants of the pembro mono arm was compared to OS in CPS ≥1 participants of the control arm to address the eighth primary hypothesis. The comparison was based on a Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG, HPV status and PD-L1 status.||0.90|0.61|0.00133
90829541|NCT02365649|181533428|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.7|27.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 28||27.2|-24.7|1.000
90829542|NCT02365649|181533428|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-20.0||||0.384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.1|15.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 28||15.1|-55.1|0.384
90829543|NCT02365649|181533428|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|25.0||||0.281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|44.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 36||44.0|6.0|0.281
90829544|NCT02365649|181533428|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.5|28.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 36||28.5|-28.5|1.000
90829545|NCT02365649|181533428|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-35.0||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.8|0.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 36||0.8|-70.8|0.108
90829546|NCT02365649|181533428|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.5||||0.686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.6|52.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 44||52.6|-27.6|0.686
90829547|NCT02365649|181533428|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|25.0||||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|55.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 44||55.5|-5.5|0.126
90893805|NCT03440372|181652862|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.0179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|2.43|||Mantel Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test||||2.43|1.09|0.0179
90956925|NCT01183234|181793396|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals for the ratio of the treatment regimen means were provided by back-transformation on to the linear scale and were assessed against the currently accepted bioequivalence criteria for log-transformed data (0.80, 1.25).|Ratio of geometric LS means|0.988|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.931|1.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.05|0.931|
90956926|NCT01183234|181793397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.15|0.492|||Wilcoxon (Hodges-Lehmann)|||||0.492|-0.150|
90829548|NCT02365649|181533428|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.0||||0.709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.4|27.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 44||27.4|-47.4|0.709
90829549|NCT02365649|181533428|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|37.5||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.8|69.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 52||69.2|5.8|0.099
90829550|NCT02365649|181533428|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.8||||0.257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|50.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 52||50.3|-12.8|0.257
90829551|NCT02365649|181533428|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.0|38.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 52||38.0|-38.0|1.000
90829552|NCT02365649|181533428|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.6||||0.465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.5|50.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 20||50.7|-19.5|0.465
90893806|NCT03440372|181652863|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.93|||Mantel Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test||||1.93|0.83|0.2720
90956927|NCT00822172|181793413|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.076|||||||two-sample equal-variances t-test|||||||0.076
90829553|NCT02365649|181533428|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.9||||0.745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.3|27.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 20||27.0|-19.3|0.745
90829554|NCT02365649|181533428|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.3||||0.512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.6|16.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 20||16.1|-32.6|0.512
90829555|NCT02365649|181533428|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|22.5||||0.281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|57.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 28||57.2|-12.2|0.281
90829556|NCT02365649|181533428|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.1||||0.486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.8|14.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 28||14.6|-30.8|0.486
90829557|NCT02365649|181533428|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-15.8||||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.5|8.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 28||8.0|-39.5|0.212
90829558|NCT02365649|181533428|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.9||||0.697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.3|46.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 36||46.0|-22.3|0.697
90829559|NCT02365649|181533428|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.7||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.2|19.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 36||19.9|-23.2|0.880
90829560|NCT02365649|181533428|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.7||||0.355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.7|11.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 36||11.2|-32.7|0.355
90829561|NCT02365649|181533428|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.1||||0.678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.7|39.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 44||39.9|-23.7|0.678
90829562|NCT02365649|181533428|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.7||||0.873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.6|21.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 44||21.9|-18.6|0.873
90829563|NCT02365649|181533428|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.3|22.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 44||22.0|-22.3|0.990
90829564|NCT02365649|181533428|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.1||||0.678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.7|39.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 52||39.9|-23.7|0.678
90829565|NCT02365649|181533428|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.6||||0.663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|25.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 52||25.2|-16.0|0.663
90829566|NCT02365649|181533428|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.8||||0.494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.7|11.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 52||11.0|-28.7|0.494
90829567|NCT02365649|181533428|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|23.2||||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|48.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 20||48.1|-1.6|0.169
90829568|NCT02365649|181533428|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|30.6||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.5|49.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 20||49.7|11.5|0.005
90956928|NCT00822172|181793414|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.048|||||||two-sample equal-variances t-test|||||||0.048
90829569|NCT02365649|181533428|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.7||||0.963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.8|28.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 20||28.1|-26.8|0.963
90829570|NCT02365649|181533428|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.7||||0.729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.8|33.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 28||33.2|-19.8|0.729
90829571|NCT02365649|181533428|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.9||||0.804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.8|20.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 28||20.0|-25.8|0.804
90829572|NCT02365649|181533428|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-14.0||||0.306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.1|13.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 28||13.1|-41.1|0.306
90893807|NCT03440372|181652864|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.52||||0.0193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|2.15|||Mantel Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test||||2.15|1.07|0.0193
90893808|NCT03440372|181652865|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28||||0.3167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.05|||Mantel Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test||||2.05|0.79|0.3167
91086679|NCT02358031|182056249|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.78||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG and HPV status.|Regression, Cox|||OS in CPS ≥20 participants of the pembro mono arm was compared to OS in CPS ≥20 participants of the control arm to address the seventh primary hypothesis. The comparison was based on a Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG and HPV status.||0.78|0.44|0.00010
90829573|NCT02365649|181533428|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.9||||0.497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|40.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 36||40.0|-14.1|0.497
90829574|NCT02365649|181533428|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1||||0.993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.0|23.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 36||23.8|-24.0|0.993
90829575|NCT02365649|181533428|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-23.5||||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.2|4.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 36||4.1|-51.2|0.101
90829576|NCT02365649|181533428|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.1||||0.655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.0|38.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 44||38.3|-24.0|0.655
90829577|NCT02365649|181533428|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.5||||0.221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|40.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 44||40.0|-9.0|0.221
90829578|NCT02365649|181533428|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.9||||0.585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.1|20.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 44||20.3|-36.1|0.585
90829579|NCT02365649|181533428|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|24.6||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|53.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 52||53.9|-4.8|0.124
90829580|NCT02365649|181533428|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.2||||0.234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|39.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 52||39.9|-9.5|0.234
90829581|NCT02365649|181533428|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.8||||0.741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.9|23.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 52||23.4|-32.9|0.741
90893809|NCT03440372|181652866|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28||||0.3167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.05|||Mantel Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test||||2.05|0.79|0.3167
90829582|NCT02365649|181533428|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-25.0||||0.544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.0|-6.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 20||-6.0|-44.0|0.544
90829583|NCT02365649|181533428|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-15.5||||0.238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.2|7.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 20||7.3|-38.2|0.238
90829584|NCT02365649|181533428|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-17.9||||0.364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.1|5.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 20||5.4|-41.1|0.364
90829585|NCT02365649|181533428|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.5|46.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 28||46.5|-46.5|1.000
90829586|NCT02365649|181533428|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.7||||0.454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.9|13.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 28||13.5|-34.9|0.454
90829587|NCT02365649|181533428|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-25.0||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.0|-6.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 28||-6.0|-44.0|0.063
90893810|NCT03440372|181652867|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.2978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.77|||Mantel Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test||||2.77|0.73|0.2978
90956929|NCT00822172|181793415|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||two-sample equal-variances t-test|||||||0.650
90829588|NCT02365649|181533428|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.0||||0.544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.2|55.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 36||55.2|-35.2|0.544
90829589|NCT02365649|181533428|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.5||||0.663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.5|14.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 36||14.6|-25.5|0.663
90829590|NCT02365649|181533428|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-15.0||||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.6|0.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 36||0.6|-30.6|0.251
90829591|NCT02365649|181533428|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|4.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 44||4.6|-14.6|1.000
90829592|NCT02365649|181533428|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.2||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|13.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 44||13.0|-13.4|1.000
90829593|NCT02365649|181533428|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.1||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|18.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 44||18.7|-14.4|1.000
90829594|NCT02365649|181533428|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.1|3.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 52||3.1|-23.1|1.000
90829595|NCT02365649|181533428|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.7|17.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 52||17.7|-18.7|1.000
90893811|NCT03440372|181652868|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.1895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|2.72|||Mantel Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test||||2.72|0.82|0.1895
90893812|NCT03440372|181652869|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73||||0.0452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.97|||Mantel Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test||||2.97|1.00|0.0452
90829596|NCT02365649|181533428|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.0||||0.501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.1|3.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 52||3.1|-23.1|0.501
90829597|NCT02365649|181533429|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|30.0||||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.9|50.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 20||50.1|9.9|0.155
90829598|NCT02365649|181533429|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|30.0||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.9|50.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 20||50.1|9.9|0.024
90829599|NCT02365649|181533429|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.1|33.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 20||33.4|-40.1|1.000
90829600|NCT02365649|181533429|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.6||||0.633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.4|29.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 28||29.2|-46.4|0.633
90829601|NCT02365649|181533429|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.7|27.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 28||27.2|-24.7|1.000
90893813|NCT03440372|181652870|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.52||||0.0173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|2.14|||Mantel Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test||||2.14|1.08|0.0173
90893814|NCT03440372|181652871|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|2.2|||Mantel Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test||||2.20|0.97|0.0670
90893815|NCT03440372|181652872|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.0835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.16|||Mantel Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test||||2.16|0.95|0.0835
90829602|NCT02365649|181533429|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-24.4||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.3|12.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 28||12.5|-61.3|0.209
90829603|NCT02365649|181533429|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|25.0||||0.283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|44.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 36||44.0|6.0|0.283
90829604|NCT02365649|181533429|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.5|28.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 36||28.5|-28.5|1.000
90829605|NCT02365649|181533429|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-41.7||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.8|-5.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 36||-5.5|-77.8|0.048
90829606|NCT02365649|181533429|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.4||||0.408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.6|61.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 44||61.4|-18.6|0.408
90829607|NCT02365649|181533429|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|25.0||||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|55.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 44||55.5|-5.5|0.126
90829608|NCT02365649|181533429|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-16.7||||0.454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.5|21.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 44||21.1|-54.5|0.454
90829609|NCT02365649|181533429|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|35.7||||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|69.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 52||69.7|1.8|0.183
90956930|NCT00370331|181793420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.2|||<|0.001||99.0|3.59|18.73|||Repeated measures model for binary data|Repeated measures model for binary data using Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE)||||18.73|3.59|<0.001
90829610|NCT02365649|181533429|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.8||||0.257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|50.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 52||50.3|-12.8|0.257
90829611|NCT02365649|181533429|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.6||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.7|33.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|ANOVA||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 52||33.6|-44.7|1.000
90829612|NCT02365649|181533429|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|33.3||||0.307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|76.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 20||76.3|-9.7|0.307
90956931|NCT00952120|181793443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|robust standard errors were used to account for the multiple observations per patient||||||0.80
90829613|NCT02365649|181533429|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|33.3||||0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|70.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 20||70.8|-4.1|0.172
90829614|NCT02365649|181533429|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.1||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.9|55.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 20||55.1|-40.9|1.000
90829615|NCT02365649|181533429|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.8|54.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 28||54.5|-27.8|1.000
90829616|NCT02365649|181533429|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-11.7||||0.675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.5|28.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 28||28.1|-51.5|0.675
90829617|NCT02365649|181533429|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-12.9||||0.644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.2|33.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 28||33.5|-59.2|0.644
90829618|NCT02365649|181533429|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.6|50.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 36||50.6|-50.6|1.000
90829619|NCT02365649|181533429|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.4|50.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 36||50.0|-33.4|1.000
90829620|NCT02365649|181533429|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.1||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.9|55.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 36||55.1|-40.9|1.000
90829621|NCT02365649|181533429|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.6|50.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 44||50.6|-50.6|1.000
90829622|NCT02365649|181533429|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.4|50.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 44||50.0|-33.4|1.000
90829623|NCT02365649|181533429|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.1||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.9|55.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 44||55.1|-40.9|1.000
90829624|NCT02365649|181533429|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.2|60.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 52||60.2|-40.2|1.000
90829625|NCT02365649|181533429|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.3||||0.392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.9|59.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 52||59.6|-22.9|0.392
90829626|NCT02365649|181533429|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.9||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.7|50.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 52||50.5|-44.7|1.000
90829627|NCT02365649|181533429|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|29.0||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|51.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 20||51.5|6.5|0.070
90829628|NCT02365649|181533429|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|29.5||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.8|49.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 20||49.2|9.8|0.007
90829629|NCT02365649|181533429|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.3||||0.826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.1|32.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 20||32.8|-26.1|0.826
90829630|NCT02365649|181533429|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.2|27.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 28||27.7|-27.2|1.000
90829631|NCT02365649|181533429|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.2||||0.649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.8|17.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 28||17.3|-27.8|0.649
90829632|NCT02365649|181533429|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-16.7||||0.304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.7|12.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 28||12.4|-45.7|0.304
90829633|NCT02365649|181533429|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.3||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.2|38.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 36||38.7|-18.2|0.720
90829634|NCT02365649|181533429|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.2||||0.923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.0|25.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 36||25.4|-23.0|0.923
90829635|NCT02365649|181533429|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-20.0||||0.197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.4|10.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 36||10.4|-50.4|0.197
90829636|NCT02365649|181533429|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.5||||0.486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.4|43.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 44||43.5|-20.4|0.486
90829637|NCT02365649|181533429|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.9||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|42.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 44||42.7|-7.0|0.168
90829638|NCT02365649|181533429|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.3||||0.833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.3|27.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 44||27.6|-34.3|0.833
90829639|NCT02365649|181533429|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|22.6||||0.173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|53.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 52||53.4|-8.2|0.173
90829640|NCT02365649|181533429|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.6||||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|42.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 52||42.8|-7.6|0.178
90829641|NCT02365649|181533429|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.9|30.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|ANCOVA||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 52||30.9|-30.9|1.000
90829642|NCT02365649|181533430|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-27.8||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.9|16.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 20||16.3|-71.9|0.580
90829643|NCT02365649|181533430|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.9||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.6|39.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 20||39.7|-53.6|1.000
90893816|NCT05711641|181652873|OTHER|VAS was described with the use of summary measures, and the variations between the applied substances were compared with the use of Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) with normal marginal distribution and identity binding function, assuming an interchangeable correlation matrix between the substances (McCullagh; Nelder, 1989).|Generalized Estimating Equations|||||||||||||||"The alternative hypothesis of this study is that 10% lidocaine, applied topically to the external auditory canal (EAC), acts on tinnitus intensity differently than placebo, while the null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the action of lidocaine and placebo on tinnitus intensity.~The analyses were performed using the IBM-SPSS for Windows software version 22.0 and tabulated using the Microsoft-Excel 2010 software, and the tests were performed with a significance level of 5%."|VAS was described with the use of summary measures, and the variations between the applied substances were compared with the use of Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) with normal marginal distribution and identity binding function, assuming an interchangeable correlation matrix between the substances (McCullagh; Nelder, 1989).|||
90905074|NCT02886728|181677437|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|-0.09||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and subjects being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.09|-0.28|<0.001
91022750|NCT00830063|181929363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|-0.48||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.48|-1.43|<0.001
90829644|NCT02365649|181533430|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-24.4||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.2|23.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 20||23.3|-72.2|0.580
90829645|NCT02365649|181533430|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-38.9||||0.287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.0|5.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 28||5.2|-83.0|0.287
91022751|NCT00830063|181929363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.71||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.71|-1.70|<0.001
91022752|NCT00830063|181929363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|-0.86||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.86|-1.85|<0.001
91022753|NCT00830063|181929363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|-0.21||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.21|-1.19|0.006
91022754|NCT00830063|181929363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|-0.36||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.36|-1.34|<0.001
91022755|NCT00830063|181929364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.25||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||0.25|-0.69|0.355
91022756|NCT00830063|181929364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|-0.1||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.10|-1.04|0.017
91022757|NCT00830063|181929364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.03||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||1.03|0.09|0.020
91022758|NCT00830063|181929364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.67||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||0.67|-0.26|0.388
91022759|NCT00830063|181929364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|-0.7||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.70|-1.65|<0.001
91022760|NCT00830063|181929364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|-1.13||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference||-1.13|-2.07|<0.001
91022761|NCT00830063|181929364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.21||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||0.21|-0.73|0.274
91022762|NCT00830063|181929364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|-0.22||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.22|-1.16|0.004
90829646|NCT02365649|181533430|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.6||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.0|41.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 28||41.9|-53.0|1.000
90829647|NCT02365649|181533430|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-15.6||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.4|38.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 28||38.3|-69.4|1.000
90829648|NCT02365649|181533430|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-27.8||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.9|16.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 36||16.3|-71.9|0.580
91022763|NCT00830063|181929364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|-0.75||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.75|-1.74|<0.001
91022764|NCT00830063|181929364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-1.01||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-1.01|-2.00|<0.001
91086680|NCT02358031|182056256|OTHER||Difference in ORR Percentage|-0.8||||0.574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|7.2||No formal hypothesis testing performed; nominal p-value provided for treatment comparison.|Miettinen & Nurminen method|||ORR in all participants of the pembro combo arm was compared to ORR in all participants of the control arm. The comparison was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by ECOG (0 vs. 1), HPV status (Positive vs. Negative) and PD-L1 TPS status (Strongly Positive, Not Strongly Positive).||7.2|-8.7|0.5740
91022765|NCT00830063|181929364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.0||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||0.00|-0.99|0.051
91022766|NCT00830063|181929364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|-0.25||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.25|-1.24|0.003
91022767|NCT00830063|181929364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||-1.59|-1.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|-1.07||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-1.07|-2.12|<0.001
91022768|NCT00830063|181929364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.85||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.85|-1.90|<0.001
91022769|NCT00830063|181929364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|-0.37||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.37|-1.42|<0.001
91022770|NCT00830063|181929364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|-0.15||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.15|-1.19|0.012
91022771|NCT00830063|181929365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.06||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.06|-0.96|0.026
91022772|NCT00830063|181929365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|-0.43||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.43|-1.32|<0.001
91022773|NCT00830063|181929365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.67||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||0.67|-0.23|0.333
91022774|NCT00830063|181929365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.3||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||0.30|-0.59|0.527
91022775|NCT00830063|181929365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|-0.57||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.57|-1.48|<0.001
91022776|NCT00830063|181929365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|-1.25||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-1.25|-2.16|<0.001
91022777|NCT00830063|181929365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.32||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||0.32|-0.58|0.574
91022778|NCT00830063|181929365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|-0.36||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.36|-1.26|<0.001
91022779|NCT00830063|181929365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.67||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.67|-1.60|<0.001
91086681|NCT02358031|182056257|OTHER||Difference in ORR Percentage|0.5||||0.4586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|9.1||No formal hypothesis testing performed; nominal p-value provided for treatment comparison.|Miettinen & Nurminen method|||ORR in CPS ≥1 participants of the pembro combo arm was compared to ORR in CPS ≥1 participants of the control arm. The comparison was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by ECOG (0 vs. 1), HPV status (Positive vs. Negative) and PD-L1 TPS status (Strongly Positive, Not Strongly Positive).||9.1|-8.2|0.4586
91022780|NCT00830063|181929365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-1.17||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-1.17|-2.10|<0.001
91022781|NCT00830063|181929365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.01||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||0.01|-0.92|0.055
91022782|NCT00830063|181929365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|-0.49||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.49|-1.42|<0.001
91022783|NCT00830063|181929365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|-0.79||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.79|-1.75|<0.001
91022784|NCT00830063|181929365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|-0.99||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.99|-1.95|<0.001
91022785|NCT00830063|181929365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|-0.19||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.19|-1.15|0.006
91022786|NCT00830063|181929365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|-0.39||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.39|-1.34|<0.001
91022787|NCT00830063|181929366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.0||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.00|-0.32|0.045
91022788|NCT00830063|181929366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|-0.02||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.02|-0.33|0.030
90956932|NCT02224690|181793445|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-17.21||||0.0135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.32|-4.09|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Calculated using the Hodges-Lehmann approach|||-4.09|-30.32|0.0135
91022789|NCT00830063|181929366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.34||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||0.34|0.02|0.027
91022790|NCT00830063|181929366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.32||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||0.32|0.01|0.040
91022791|NCT00830063|181929366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.35||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.35|-0.66|<0.001
91022792|NCT00830063|181929366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.41||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.41|-0.72|<0.001
91022793|NCT00830063|181929366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|-0.01||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.01|-0.32|0.041
91022794|NCT00830063|181929366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.06||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.06|-0.38|0.006
90829649|NCT02365649|181533430|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.6||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.9|53.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 36||53.0|-41.9|1.000
90829650|NCT02365649|181533430|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-24.4||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.2|23.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 36||23.3|-72.2|0.580
91086682|NCT02358031|182056258|OTHER||Difference in ORR Percentage|5.0||||0.2161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|17.4||No formal hypothesis testing performed; nominal p-value provided for treatment comparison.|Miettinen & Nurminen method|||ORR in CPS ≥20 participants of the pembro combo arm was compared to ORR in CPS ≥20 participants of the control arm. The comparison was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by ECOG (0 vs. 1) and HPV status (Positive vs. Negative).||17.4|-7.5|0.2161
91022795|NCT00830063|181929366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.27||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.27|-0.60|<0.001
91022796|NCT00830063|181929366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.29||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.29|-0.62|<0.001
91022797|NCT00830063|181929366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.05||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.05|-0.38|0.011
91022798|NCT00830063|181929366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.07||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.07|-0.40|0.006
91022799|NCT00830063|181929366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.26||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.26|-0.60|<0.001
91022800|NCT00830063|181929366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.14||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference||-0.14|-0.48|<0.001
91022801|NCT00830063|181929366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.09||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.09|-0.42|0.003
91022802|NCT00830063|181929366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.03||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||0.03|-0.30|0.105
90829651|NCT02365649|181533430|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-44.4||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.9|-12.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 44||-12.0|-76.9|0.103
91022803|NCT00830063|181929367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.0||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.00|-0.32|0.045
91022804|NCT00830063|181929367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|-0.02||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.02|-0.33|0.030
91022805|NCT00830063|181929367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.34||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||0.34|0.02|0.027
90956933|NCT02224690|181793446|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.57||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|4.97|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Calculated using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group (2-5, 6-11, 12-17 and 18-55 years)||||4.97|1.33|0.0043
91022806|NCT00830063|181929367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.32||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||0.32|0.01|0.040
90829652|NCT02365649|181533430|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.6||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.9|53.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 44||53.0|-41.9|1.000
90829653|NCT02365649|181533430|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.4||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.3|49.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 44||49.4|-58.3|1.000
90829654|NCT02365649|181533430|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.7|48.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 52||48.7|-48.7|1.000
90829655|NCT02365649|181533430|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.7||||0.637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.7|63.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 52||63.0|-29.7|0.637
90829656|NCT02365649|181533430|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-13.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.0|33.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 52||33.3|-60.0|1.000
90829657|NCT02365649|181533430|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.6||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.4|66.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 20||66.6|-29.4|0.570
90829658|NCT02365649|181533430|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-14.8||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.7|10.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 20||10.2|-39.7|0.330
90829659|NCT02365649|181533430|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.0|19.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 20||19.4|-40.0|1.000
90956934|NCT02224690|181793447|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.13||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.26|-9.37|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Calculated using the Hodges-Lehmann approach|||-9.37|-33.26|0.0005
91022807|NCT00830063|181929367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|-0.32||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.32|-0.64|<0.001
90829660|NCT02365649|181533430|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.6||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.4|66.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 28||66.6|-29.4|0.570
90829661|NCT02365649|181533430|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-14.8||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.7|10.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 28||10.2|-39.7|0.330
90829662|NCT02365649|181533430|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.8||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.8|35.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 28||35.4|-33.8|1.000
90829663|NCT02365649|181533430|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.4||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.6|39.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 36||39.7|-42.6|1.000
90829664|NCT02365649|181533430|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-21.4||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.9|0.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 36||0.1|-42.9|0.100
90829665|NCT02365649|181533430|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.8||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.8|35.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 36||35.4|-33.8|1.000
90956935|NCT02224690|181793448|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.54||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|4.47|||Regression, Logistic|Ordinal logistic regression model with treatment group as a fixed factor.|Odds of participants recording a lower score (improvement) on a continuous scale|||4.47|1.45|0.0012
91086683|NCT02358031|182056259|OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.4||||0.839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.46|4.26||No formal hypothesis testing performed; nominal p-value provided for treatment comparison.|constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||Change from baseline to Week 15 in EORTC-QLQ-C30 GHS/QoL combined score was compared between all participants of the pembro combo arm and the control arm. Comparison based on constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model with GHS/QoL score as response variable and treatment by visit interaction, stratification factors (ECOG \[0 vs. 1\], HPV status \[Positive vs. Negative\] and PD-L1 TPS status \[Strongly Positive, Not Strongly Positive\]) as covariates.||4.26|-3.46|0.839
91086684|NCT02358031|182056260|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.37||||0.9497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|2.0||No formal hypothesis testing performed; nominal p-value provided for treatment comparison.|Regression, Cox|||TTD in GHS/QoL combined score was compared between all participants of the pembro combo arm and the control arm. Comparison based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG (0 vs. 1), HPV status (Positive vs. Negative) and PD-L1 TPS status (Strongly Positive, Not Strongly Positive).||2.00|0.94|0.9497
91086685|NCT02358031|182056261|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.37||||0.9476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|2.02||No formal hypothesis testing performed; nominal p-value provided for treatment comparison.|Regression, Cox|||TTD in EORTC QLQ-H\&N35 Pain Score was compared between all participants of the pembro combo arm and the control arm. Comparison based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG (0 vs. 1), HPV status (Positive vs. Negative) and PD-L1 TPS status (Strongly Positive, Not Strongly Positive).||2.02|0.93|0.9476
91086686|NCT02358031|182056262|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.5836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.59||No formal hypothesis testing performed; nominal p-value provided for treatment comparison.|Regression, Cox|||TTD in EORTC QLQ-H\&N35 Swallowing Score was compared between all participants of the pembro combo arm and the control arm. Comparison based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG (0 vs. 1), HPV status (Positive vs. Negative) and PD-L1 TPS status (Strongly Positive, Not Strongly Positive).||1.59|0.69|0.5836
91086687|NCT02358031|182056269|OTHER||Difference in ORR Percentage|-19.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.8|-12.1||No formal hypothesis testing performed; nominal p-value provided for treatment comparison.|Miettinen & Nurminen method|||ORR in all participants of the pembro mono arm was compared to ORR in all participants of the control arm. The comparison was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by ECOG (0 vs. 1), HPV status (Positive vs. Negative) and PD-L1 TPS status (Strongly Positive , Not Strongly Positive).||-12.1|-25.8|1.0000
91086688|NCT02358031|182056270|OTHER||Difference in ORR Percentage|-15.9||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.4|-8.3||No formal hypothesis testing performed; nominal p-value provided for treatment comparison.|Miettinen & Nurminen method|||ORR in CPS ≥1 participants of the pembro mono arm was compared to ORR in CPS ≥1 participants of the control arm. The comparison was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by ECOG (0 vs. 1), HPV status (Positive vs. Negative) and PD-L1 TPS status (Strongly Positive, Not Strongly Positive).||-8.3|-23.4|1.0000
91086689|NCT02358031|182056271|OTHER||Difference in ORR Percentage|-12.8||||0.9869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.8|-1.5||No formal hypothesis testing performed; nominal p-value provided for treatment comparison.|Miettinen & Nurminen method|||ORR in CPS ≥20 participants of the pembro mono arm was compared to ORR in CPS ≥20 participants of the control arm. The comparison was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by ECOG (0 vs. 1) and HPV status (Positive vs. Negative).||-1.5|-23.8|0.9869
91086690|NCT02358031|182056272|OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.24||||0.893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.34|3.82||No formal hypothesis testing performed; nominal p-value provided for treatment comparison.|constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||Change from baseline to Week 15 in EORTC-QLQ-C30 GHS/QoL combined score was compared between all participants of the pembro mono arm and the control arm. Comparison based on cLDA model with GHS/QoL score as response variable and treatment by visit interaction, stratification factors (ECOG \[0 vs. 1\], HPV status \[Positive vs. Negative\] and PD-L1 TPS status \[Strongly Positive, Not Strongly Positive\]) as covariates.||3.82|-3.34|0.893
91086691|NCT02358031|182056273|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.38||||0.953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.0||No formal hypothesis testing performed; nominal p-value provided for treatment comparison.|Regression, Cox|||TTD in GHS/QoL combined score was compared between all participants of the pembro mono arm and the control arm. Comparison based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG (0 vs. 1), HPV status (Positive vs. Negative) and PD-L1 TPS status (Strongly Positive, Not Strongly Positive).||2.00|0.95|0.9530
90956936|NCT01856868|181793464|EQUIVALENCE|Difference in baseline and 8 week scores was evaluated using a paired t-test analysis.||||||0.0434|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0434
90956937|NCT01856868|181793465|EQUIVALENCE|Difference in baseline and 8 week scores was evaluated using a paired t-test analysis.||||||0.0185|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0185
91086692|NCT02358031|182056274|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.1501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.21||No formal hypothesis testing performed; nominal p-value provided for treatment comparison.|Regression, Cox|||TTD in EORTC QLQ-H\&N35 Pain Score was compared between all participants of the pembro mono arm and the control arm. Comparison based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG (0 vs. 1), HPV status (Positive vs. Negative) and PD-L1 TPS status (Strongly Positive, Not Strongly Positive).||1.21|0.53|0.1501
91086693|NCT02358031|182056275|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.26||||0.8751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.88||No formal hypothesis testing performed; nominal p-value provided for treatment comparison.|Regression, Cox|||TTD in EORTC QLQ-H\&N35 Swallowing Score was compared between all participants of the pembro mono arm and the control arm. Comparison based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG (0 vs. 1), HPV status (Positive vs. Negative) and PD-L1 TPS status (Strongly Positive, Not Strongly Positive).||1.88|0.85|0.8751
91022808|NCT00830063|181929367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.42||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.42|-0.74|<0.001
91022809|NCT00830063|181929367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.02||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||0.02|-0.30|0.094
91022810|NCT00830063|181929367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.08||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.08|-0.40|0.003
91022811|NCT00830063|181929367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.23||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.23|-0.57|<0.001
91022812|NCT00830063|181929367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.35||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.35|-0.68|<0.001
91022813|NCT00830063|181929367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.02||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.02|-0.35|0.032
91022814|NCT00830063|181929367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.13||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.13|-0.46|<0.001
91022815|NCT00830063|181929367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.21||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.21|-0.54|<0.001
91086694|NCT00823134|182056288|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.7||0.021|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.021
90956938|NCT01856868|181793466|EQUIVALENCE|Difference in baseline and 8 week scores was evaluated using a paired t-test analysis.||||||0.0434|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0434
91022816|NCT00830063|181929367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.19||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.19|-0.52|<0.001
91022817|NCT00830063|181929367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.05||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.05|-0.38|0.012
91022818|NCT00830063|181929367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.03||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.03|-0.36|0.021
91022819|NCT00325403|181929417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann (H-L)|23.0||||0.0125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|41.0||P-Value|ANCOVA|||Using an allocation ratio of 2:1 between oral treprostinil and placebo, a fixed sample size of approximately 195 subjects with access to 0.25 mg tablets at randomization would provide at least 90% power at a significance level of 0.01 (two-sided hypothesis) to detect a between-treatment difference in the change from Baseline to Week 12 in distance traversed during the 6-minute walk, assuming a true underlying treatment difference of 45 meters with a SD of 75 meters in both treatment groups.||41|4|0.0125
90956939|NCT01856868|181793467|EQUIVALENCE|Difference in baseline and 8 week scores was evaluated using a paired t-test analysis.||||||0.0078|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0078
91022820|NCT00325403|181929418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann (H-L)|13.0||||0.0653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|33.0|||ANCOVA|||||33|-2|0.0653
91022821|NCT00325403|181929419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann (H-L)|17.0||||0.0307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|33.0|||ANCOVA|||||33|1|0.0307
91086695|NCT00823134|182056289|OTHER|The number of events found per category (PSG and ApneaLink Plus recording) will be compared. Events are Apneas and Hypopneas per hour of sleep, measured as Apnea-Hypopnea-Index (AHI), Apnea-Index (AI), Obstructive AI, Central AI, Hypopnea-Index (HI) and Oxygen Desaturation Index (ODI).|Correlation coefficient (Bland-Altman)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Per recording, the number of events found per category with PSG and ApneaLink Plus will be compared. As a summary, all PSG values and all ApneaLink Plus values per category will be collected in one graph (Bland-Altmann Plot). The correlation coefficient will be calculated per category. A correlation of \>75% will be seen as threshold for validity.||||
91086696|NCT00078403|182056295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.58||||||P-value is pre-specified 1-sided test that PEG slows liver fibrosis progression. Accrual and follow-up on Arms A and B were halted at interim review for lack of fibrosis progression in Arm B (control arm). P-value is unadjusted for interim analysis.|Exact Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Accrual and follow-up on Arms A and B were halted for futility at the first independent interim review of the primary endpoint conducted on May 2, 2007.||||0.58
91086697|NCT02692586|182056319|SUPERIORITY|To detect an RV/LV ratio change \> 0.12 with a power of 80% at one-sided alpha = 0.025, the necessary sample size was calculated to be ≥ 52, 31, or 21 patients (to detect RV/LV ratio changes of 0.20, 0.225, or 0.25, respectively).|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||< 0.0001
91086698|NCT02692586|182056320|SUPERIORITY|The hypothesized composite MAE rate was expected to be about 13%. The necessary sample size to detect a difference from an expected MAE rate of 13% with 80% power was calculated to be 103 patients (with a one-sided p value = 0.05).|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||< 0.0001
91086699|NCT03150082|182056338|EQUIVALENCE|Bio-equivalence analysis comparing ciprofloxacin test and reference product has been presented.|Percent ratio|96.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.13|103.0|||||Percent ratio (GR37547 500 mg/ciprofloxacin 500 mg reference) has been presented.|||103.00|91.13|
91086700|NCT03150082|182056339|EQUIVALENCE|Bio-equivalence analysis comparing ciprofloxacin test and reference product has been presented.|Percent ratio|93.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.09|100.82|||||Percent ratio (GR37547 500 mg/ciprofloxacin 500 mg reference) has been presented.|||100.82|86.09|
91086701|NCT03150082|182056340|EQUIVALENCE|Bio-equivalence analysis comparing ciprofloxacin test and reference product has been presented.|Percent ratio|96.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.17|103.11|||||Percent ratio (GR37547 500 mg/ciprofloxacin 500 mg reference) has been presented.|||103.11|91.17|
91086702|NCT03150082|182056341|EQUIVALENCE|Bio-equivalence analysis comparing ciprofloxacin test and reference product has been presented.||||||0.3499||||||"P value was analyzed using a nonparametric Wilcoxon signed-rank test."|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.3499
91086703|NCT02619617|182056402|OTHER|1.5mg SOM230 s.c. vs. Placebo s.c.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.308||||0.698|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.419|4.082|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.082|0.419|0.698
91086704|NCT02619617|182056403|OTHER|1.5mg SOM230 s.c. vs. Placebo s.c.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.033||||0.385|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.53|7.79|||Regression, Logistic|||||7.790|0.530|0.385
91086705|NCT02326272|182056444|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|33.405|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|9.965|111.983||The p-value for the primary analysis was evaluated at a 2-sided significance level of 0.025 for each CZP dose versus (vs) placebo (PBO).|Regression, Logistic|Estimated responder rate, odds ratios, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.||The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||111.983|9.965|<0.0001
91086706|NCT02326272|182056444|SUPERIORITY||Estimated difference in responder rate|69.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.12|82.36|||Regression, Logistic|Estimated responder rate, odds ratios, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.||The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||82.36|57.12|
91086707|NCT02326272|182056444|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|36.212|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|10.686|122.713||The p-value for the primary analysis was evaluated at a 2-sided significance level of 0.025 for each CZP dose vs PBO.|Regression, Logistic|Estimated responder rate, odds ratios, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.||The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||122.713|10.686|<0.0001
91086708|NCT02326272|182056444|SUPERIORITY||Estimated difference in responder rate|71.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.47|83.43|||Regression, Logistic|Estimated responder rate, odds ratios, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.||The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||83.43|58.47|
91086709|NCT02326272|182056445|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|106.225|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|9.572|1178.843||The p-value for the primary analysis was evaluated at a 2-sided significance level of 0.025 for each CZP dose vs PBO.|Regression, Logistic|Estimated responder rate, odds ratios, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.||The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||1178.843|9.572|<0.0001
91086710|NCT02326272|182056445|SUPERIORITY||Estimated difference in responder rate|64.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.16|77.46|||Regression, Logistic|Estimated responder rate, odds ratios, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.||The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||77.46|52.16|
91086711|NCT02326272|182056445|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|133.163|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|11.904|1489.578||The p-value for the primary analysis was evaluated at a 2-sided significance level of 0.025 for each CZP dose vs PBO.|Regression, Logistic|Estimated responder rate, odds ratios, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.||The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||1489.578|11.904|<0.0001
91086712|NCT02326272|182056445|SUPERIORITY||Estimated difference in responder rate|69.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.48|81.77|||Regression, Logistic|Estimated responder rate, odds ratios, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.||The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||81.77|57.48|
91086713|NCT02326272|182056446|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|24.283|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|4.386|134.432||The p-value for this analysis as used in the fixed sequence testing procedure was evaluated at a 2-sided significance level of 0.025 for each CZP dose vs PBO.|Regression, Logistic|Estimated responder rate, odds ratios, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.||The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||134.432|4.386|<0.0001
91086714|NCT02326272|182056446|SUPERIORITY||Estimated difference in responder rate|48.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.04|61.26|||Regression, Logistic|Estimated responder rate, odds ratios, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.||The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||61.26|35.04|
91086715|NCT02326272|182056446|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|27.204|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|4.895|151.198||The p-value for this analysis as used in the fixed sequence testing procedure was evaluated at a 2-sided significance level of 0.025 for each CZP dose vs PBO.|Regression, Logistic|Estimated responder rate, odds ratios, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.||The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||151.198|4.895|<0.0001
91086716|NCT02326272|182056446|SUPERIORITY||Estimated difference in responder rate|51.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.75|64.19|||Regression, Logistic|Estimated responder rate, odds ratios, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.||The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||64.19|37.75|
91086717|NCT02326272|182056449|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Treatment Differences|-6.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-8.88|-4.36||The P-value was obtained for each treatment group comparison tested at a significance level of 0.025 in the fixed sequence testing procedure.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model of change from Baseline DLQI score with treatment group, region, prior biologic exposure as factors; Baseline DLQI score as a covariate.||The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||-4.36|-8.88|<0.0001
90905075|NCT02886728|181677437|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|-0.07||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and subjects being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.07|-0.26|<0.001
91086718|NCT02326272|182056449|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Treatment Differences|-6.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-8.46|-3.93||The P-value was obtained for each treatment group comparison tested at a significance level of 0.025 in the fixed sequence testing procedure.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model of change from Baseline DLQI score with treatment group, region, prior biologic exposure as factors; Baseline DLQI score as a covariate.||The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||-3.93|-8.46|<0.0001
91086719|NCT00928434|182056467|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was defined as a lower bound (LCL) of the 95% confidence interval for the difference between the intermittent and pooled continuous treatments, CADT, (intermittent - continuous) of greater than -12.5%.|Percentage difference|1.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|3.33||||||||3.33|-0.19|
91086720|NCT00447772|182056510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean difference|-0.322|||=|0.2552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.877|0.233|||ANCOVA||The comparative analysis is based on adjusted means data.|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model included the baseline total Tsui score (patient in sitting position) as covariate and the main type of CD as between-group factor (due to non-significance the interaction between baseline total Tsui score and the main type of CD was removed from the model).||0.233|-0.877|=0.2552
91086721|NCT02427841|182056530|SUPERIORITY|Tested against the standard R0 rate of 37%. Given all evaluable patients are included in the denominator, R0 of 56% was not achieved. Specifically, of the 19 evaluable patients, 11 proceeded to surgery. Of the 11 who underwent surgery, 8 \[42% of those enrolled, but 72.7% of those resected\] achieved R0 resection.|binomial|42.0||||0.404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.0|67.0||Study was underpowered.|2-sided exact binomial||Test for superiority over standard R0 resection rate of 37%. Study was closed due to slow enrollment, meaning the primary endpoint was underpowered with only 19 of an expected 44 patients enrolled.|Study closed early due to lack of enrollment. Study expected to enrolled 44 evaluable patients to achieve 83% power using the 2-sided binomial test at 10% significance. Study enrolled only 19 evaluable patients, meaning the study was underpowered at \< 62%||67|20|.404
90956940|NCT01856868|181793468|EQUIVALENCE|Difference in baseline and 8 week scores was evaluated using a paired t-test analysis.||||||0.0025|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0025
91086722|NCT01765296|182056536|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|"The SD for the primary efficacy outcome measure (WOMAC-Pain Subscale in the index joint) has been assumed to be 11 units. A 10% between-group difference was chosen as the non-inferiority margin for this study. The following parameters were used to calculate the sample size needed for this non-inferiority study.~* Level of significance, α = 0.025(one-sided)~* Statistical power, 1-β = 0.95~* Difference between test group and comparison group, Δ=0, δ (\>0) = non-inferiority margin"||||||0.011|||||||ANCOVA|||The primary efficacy outcome measure is the change in the WOMAC-Pain Subscale in the index joint at Week 6 vs. pre-dose Baseline and was analyzed using a mixed effect ANCOVA. Statistical tests to determine superiority between two treatment arms, CG100649 2 mg and placebo, are two-sided, and Non-inferiority between two treatment arms, CG100649 2 mg and celecoxib 200 mg is based on a one-sided 97.5% confidence interval of the difference.||||0.011
90829666|NCT02365649|181533430|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.8|45.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 44||45.3|-33.8|1.000
91022822|NCT00325403|181929420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann (H-L)|12.0||||0.0518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|24.0|||ANCOVA|||||24|0|0.0518
91022823|NCT00325403|181929421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
91022824|NCT00325403|181929422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann (H-L)|0.0||||0.738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||"In cases where the value corresponding to overall poorest relative change was imputed for walk distance, a value of IV was used for the WHO functional classification for PAH."|Wilcoxon rank sum test||The values for the estimated parameter and 95% confidence interval were calculated.|||0|0|0.7380
91022825|NCT00325403|181929423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann (H-L)|0.0||||0.4887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||0|-1|0.4887
91022826|NCT00325403|181929424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann (H-L)|0.0||||0.6116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon sum-rank test|||||1|0|0.6116
91022827|NCT00325403|181929426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann (H-L)|26.0||||0.0326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|49.0|||ANCOVA|||||49|1|0.0326
91022828|NCT00325403|181929427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann (H-L)|16.0||||0.2275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|47.0|||ANCOVA|||||47|-15|0.2275
91022829|NCT00325403|181929428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann (H-L)|32.0||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|55.0|||ANCOVA|||||55|10|0.0024
90829667|NCT02365649|181533430|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.6||||0.598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.9|14.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 44||14.6|-29.9|0.598
91022830|NCT00325403|181929429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann (H-L)|25.5||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|41.0|||ANCOVA|||||41|10|0.0001
91022831|NCT00325403|181929430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann (H-L)|17.0||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|33.0|||ANCOVA|||||33|3|0.0025
91022832|NCT00325403|181929431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann (H-L)|20.0||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|34.0|||ANCOVA|||||34|7|0.0008
90956941|NCT01856868|181793469|EQUIVALENCE|Difference in baseline and 8 week scores was evaluated using a paired t-test analysis.||||||0.0082|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0082
90956942|NCT01856868|181793470|EQUIVALENCE|Difference in baseline and 8 week scores was evaluated using a paired t-test analysis.||||||0.031|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.031
91022833|NCT00325403|181929432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann (H-L)|14.0||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|25.0|||ANCOVA|||||25|3.9|0.0025
91022834|NCT00936884|181929456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|83.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|6.5|1074.7||Comparison of the MNTX group and the placebo group in the proportion of subjects having a RFBM within 4 hours after the first injection was performed by using a 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Chi square test at the alpha level of 0.025.|Chi-squared|||||1074.7|6.50|<0.0001
91022835|NCT00936884|181929457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|56.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|40.62|72.66||Comparison of the MNTX group and the placebo group was based on ANOVA model with the proportion of injections resulting in RFBM within 4 hours during the double-blind period as the dependent variable and the treatment group as the fixed effect. .|ANOVA||Estimated value is the difference in least squared means for MNTX vs. placebo (MNTX minus placebo). Based on the ANOVA model, there is 97.5% confidence that the difference between MNTX and placebo falls between the lower and upper limits presented.|||72.66|40.62|<0.0001
91022836|NCT00936884|181929458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|23.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|10.91|50.14||Comparison of the MNTX group and the placebo group in the proportion of subjects having a RFBM within 4 hours after each injection was performed by using a 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Chi square test at the alpha level of 0.025.|Chi-squared|||||50.14|10.91|< 0.0001
91022837|NCT01663714|181929459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|100.0|100.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with unconfirmed response.|||100|100|
91022838|NCT01663714|181929460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|100.0|100.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with confirmed response.|||100|100|
91022839|NCT00597584|181929481|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A non-inferiority margin of -1.0 g/dL was used in the primary efficacy assessments. Non-inferiority was established if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference between the means of the primary endpoint (peginesatide minus control ESA) was ≥ -1.0 g/dL.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.078|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.26|||ANOVA|The ANOVA cell means model was used to estimate primary efficacy endpoint within the specified cells formed by the combination of treatment and strata||The sample size for this study has been determined based on a two group evaluation of non-inferiority using the t-distribution (one-sided significance level 0.025) with a non inferiority margin of -1.0 g/dL. A sample size of approximately 750 (peginesatide group of 500 and epoetin group of 250) provided at least 99% power for the evaluation of non-inferiority, assuming an expected treatment difference of 0.0 g/dL and a standard deviation of 1.5 g/dL.||0.26|-0.05|
91022840|NCT00597584|181929482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.24|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.24|0.50|
91086723|NCT01765296|182056536|NON_INFERIORITY|"The SD for the primary efficacy outcome measure (WOMAC-Pain Subscale in the index joint) has been assumed to be 11 units. A 10% between-group difference was chosen as the non-inferiority margin for this study. The following parameters were used to calculate the sample size needed for this non-inferiority study.~* Level of significance, α = 0.025(one-sided)~* Statistical power, 1-β = 0.95~* Difference between test group and comparison group, Δ=0, δ (\>0) = non-inferiority margin"||||||0.425|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.425
91022841|NCT00597584|181929483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.07|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.07|0.87|
91022842|NCT00472446|181929512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||null hypothesis: no difference in outcome measure between superficial cervical block and placebo treatment (irrespective of timing of treatment)||||.028
91022843|NCT00472446|181929513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016|||||||Non-parametric ANOVA-type statistic|Non-parametric ANOVA-type statistic for pooled main effects with Box approximation, full model||null hypothesis: no difference in outcome measure between superficial cervical block and placebo treatment (irrespective of timing of treatment)||||0.016
91022844|NCT00472446|181929513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.723|||||||Non-parametric ANOVA-type statistic|Non-parametric ANOVA-type statistic for pooled main effects with Box approximation, full model||null hypothesis: no difference in outcome measure pre-operative versus post-operative application||||0.723
91022845|NCT00472446|181929515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.94|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|mid p value of the two-sided Fisher test||"null hypothesis: outcome measure (Proportion of patients taking analgetics) is equal between superficial cervical block and placebo treatment (irrespective of timing)~Proportion taking Paracetamol:"||||0.94
91022846|NCT00472446|181929515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|mid p value of two-sided Fisher test||"null hypothesis: outcome measure (Proportion of patients taking analgetics) is equal between superficial cervical block and placebo treatment (irrespective of timing)~Proportion taking Metamizole:"||||0.58
91022847|NCT00472446|181929516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.328|TWO_SIDED||||||Non-parametric ANOVA-type|Non-parametric ANOVA-type statistic for pooled main effects with Box approximation, full model||"null hypothesis: no difference in pooled dose of analgetics, superficial block versus Placebo~outcome: paracetamol"||||0.328
91022848|NCT00472446|181929516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81|TWO_SIDED||||||Non-parametric ANOVA-type|Non-parametric ANOVA-type statistic for pooled main effects with Box approximation, full model||"null hypothesis: no difference in pooled dose of analgetics, superficial block versus Placebo~outcome: metamizole"||||0.81
91022849|NCT00472446|181929516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.331|TWO_SIDED||||||Non-parametric ANOVA-type statistic|Non-parametric ANOVA-type statistic for pooled main effects with Box approximation, full model||"null hypothesis: no difference in outcome measure pre-operative and post-operative application~outcome measure: pooled paracetamol dose"||||0.331
91022850|NCT00472446|181929516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44|TWO_SIDED||||||Non-parametric ANOVA-type statistic|Non-parametric ANOVA-type statistic for pooled main effects with Box approximation, full model||"null hypothesis: no difference in outcome measure pre-operative and post-operative application~outcome measure: pooled metamizole dose"||||0.440
91022851|NCT00472446|181929517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.925|TWO_SIDED||||||non-parametric ANOVA-type statistic|non-parametric ANOVA-type statistic for pooled main effects, full model||null hypothesis: no difference in outcome measure for superficial cervical block versus placebo treatment||||0.925
91022852|NCT03211156|181929518|OTHER|||||||0.757|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.757
91086724|NCT03257436|182056538|OTHER|"A power calculation using a sample size of 61 subjects as the non-responders with the LV MSP on was calculated based on a one-sided exact test for a single binomial proportion, using SAS Version 9.4 with the following assumptions:~* Performance goal = 90%~* Expected LV MSP feature-related CFR rate between 6 and 12 Month Visit = 98%~* Significance level = 5%~* Power = 80%"|Kaplan Meir Methodology|99.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|94.1|||||||"The LV MSP feature-related CFR between the 6 Month Visit and the 12 Month Visit was calculated using Kaplan-Meier methodology.~H0: LV MSP feature-related complication-free rate between 6 Month Visit and 12 Month Visit ≤ 90%.~The sample size of 61 subjects was required to evaluate the Primary Safety Endpoint using an exact test since a power calculation cannot be directly calculated for a one group Kaplan-Meier analysis."|||94.1|
90829668|NCT02365649|181533430|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.2||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.7|24.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 44||24.3|-30.7|1.000
90956943|NCT01856868|181793471|EQUIVALENCE|Difference in baseline and 8 week scores was evaluated using a paired t-test analysis.||||||0.0238|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0238
91022853|NCT03211156|181929519|OTHER|||||||0.048|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.048
91022854|NCT01202994|181929530|OTHER||correlation coefficient|-0.45|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||This is a calculated p-value.|correlation|||The primary analysis is to examine the correlation between the practice effect z-score (presented in the Secondary Outcome section) and the standardized uptake value of flutemetamol (presented in the Outcome module).||||<0.05
91022855|NCT03726437|181929542|SUPERIORITY|Analyses were performed to determine whether RealConsent was superior to Stress and Mood Management in reducing incidence of sexual violence victimization.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.48||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|Models adjusted for fixed effects.||||.69|.33|.0002
91022856|NCT03726437|181929542|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|Models adjusted for fixed effects.||||1.28|.47|.31
91022857|NCT03726437|181929543|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted OR|1.17||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|1.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for fixed effects.||||1.22|0.12|.03
91022858|NCT03726437|181929544|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted OR|-0.5|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for fixed effects.||||0.27|-1.27|<.05
91022859|NCT03726437|181929545|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate ratio|0.81||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for fixed effects.||||.97|.67|.02
91022860|NCT03726437|181929546|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate ratio|1.05||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for fixed effects.||||1.20|.92|.43
91022861|NCT03726437|181929547|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted OR|1.72||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|2.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for fixed effects.||||2.55|1.17|.006
91022862|NCT01889862|181929556|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-973.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1204.19|-741.85||Based on Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure (MMRM) model with change from baseline as the response variable, and treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction and baseline blood phe concentration as factors.|ANCOVA|||Change in blood Phe concentration during Part 2 in subjects previously exposed to BMN165 who self administer BMN165 20mg/day compared with those who self administer matching placebo.||-741.85|-1204.19|<0.0001
91022863|NCT01889862|181929556|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-588.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-830.07|-346.94||Based on Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure (MMRM) model with change from baseline as the response variable, and treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction and baseline blood phe concentration as factors.|ANCOVA|||Change in blood Phe concentration during Part 2 in subjects previously exposed to BMN165 who self administer BMN165 40mg/day compared with those who self administer matching placebo.||-346.94|-830.07|<0.0001
91022864|NCT00033631|181929562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.2||Two-sided test, significance level = 0.05|Log Rank||Reference level = 70.2 Gy arm|The original target sample size was 1520 patients with a requirement of 715 deaths to test the hypothesis of overall survival (OS) efficacy of the 79.2 Gy arm. The trial was designed to detect a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.30 (standard/high-dose) with 90% statistical power at a one-sided significance level of 0.025.||1.2|0.83|0.98
91022865|NCT00033631|181929563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.7||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Gray's test|Reference arm is 70.2 Gy arm||||0.70|0.50|<0.0001
91022866|NCT00033631|181929564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.15|||Gray's test|Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Reference level is 70.2 Gy arm|||1.15|0.38|0.14
91022867|NCT00033631|181929565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.41||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.66|||Gray's test|Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Reference level = 70.2 Gy arm|||0.66|0.25|0.0001
91022868|NCT00033631|181929566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.01||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Gray's test||Reference level is the 70.2 Gy level|||1.01|0.42|0.051
91022869|NCT00033631|181929567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.29||||||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Chi-squared|||||||0.29
91022870|NCT00033631|181929568|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0513|||||||Chi-squared|Two-sided significance level = 0.05||With an expected percentage of erectile disfunction (ED) at 12 months of 29%, a two-sided significance level of 0.05, and 688 patients per arm provides 90% statistical power to detect a reduction in ED to 19%. This calculation assumes 26% ED at baseline and 80% compliance at 12 months. Only participants with baseline ED are analyzed.||||0.0513
91022871|NCT00033631|181929569|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||Chi-squared|Two-sided significance level = 0.05||||||0.59
91022872|NCT01827371|181929579|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Hypotheses Evaluation: The difference between the mean log2 peak titer for the control arm (Study Arm A) and each investigational arm (Study Arm B, C, or D) and the associated two sided 98.33% confidence intervals (CI) for the estimated population mean difference were calculated. If the upper limit of the 98.33% CI was less than 1, Study Arm B, C or D was considered to be non-inferior to Study Arm A.|Mean Difference (Log2 Scale)|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|98.33|0.72|1.93||||||"Hypotheses: H0: log2(GMT(Arm A))-log2 (GMT(Arm B)) ≥ 1 or GMT(Arm A)/GMT (Arm B) ≥2 H1: log2(GMT(Arm A))-log2(GMT(Arm B)) \< 1 or GMT(Arm A)/GMT(Arm B) \< 2.~Sample Size: The SD for log2 PRNT based on a prior study was\~1.9. The margin of non-inferiority was specified as a 2-fold difference on the original scale (1 on the log2 scale). The objective included three non-inferiority evaluations (A vs. B, A vs. C, A vs. D). Thus, a Bonferroni-corrected alpha of 2.5% / 3 = 0.833% was used. Power=80%"||1.93|0.72|
91022873|NCT01827371|181929579|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Hypotheses Evaluation: The difference between the mean log2 peak titer for the control arm (Study Arm A) and each investigational arm (Study Arm B, C, or D) and the associated two sided 98.33% confidence intervals (CI) for the estimated population mean difference were calculated. If the upper limit of the 98.33% CI was less than 1, Study Arm B, C or D was considered to be non-inferior to Study Arm A.|Mean Difference (Log2 Scale)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|98.33|0.26|1.47||||||"Hypotheses: H0: log2(GMT(Arm A))-log2 (GMT(Arm C)) ≥ 1 or GMT(Arm A)/GMT (Arm C) ≥2 H1: log2(GMT(Arm A))-log2(GMT(Arm C)) \< 1 or GMT(Arm A)/GMT(Arm C) \< 2.~Sample Size: The SD for log2 PRNT based on a prior study was\~1.9. The margin of non-inferiority was specified as a 2-fold difference on the original scale (1 on the log2 scale). The objective included three non-inferiority evaluations (A vs. B, A vs. C, A vs. D). Thus, a Bonferroni-corrected alpha of 2.5% / 3 = 0.833% was used. Power=80%"||1.47|0.26|
91086725|NCT03257436|182056539|OTHER|Even though fewer subjects (78) were available for the effectiveness endpoint analysis than originally planned (110), the study was still powered at approximately 90%|Proportion|51.3|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|41.1|||||||"The effectiveness endpoint for SMART MSP PAS is the proportion of the LV MSP Group with an Improved CCS. For this endpoint, those subjects in the LV MSP Group that become responders will be defined as having an Improved CCS.~H0: Proportion of LV MSP Group subjects with Improved CCS from 6 Month Visit through 12 Month Visit ≤ 5%"|||41.1|
91086726|NCT01619852|182056540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.19|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.19
91086727|NCT01619852|182056541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.64|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.64
91086728|NCT01619852|182056542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.68|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.68
90829669|NCT02365649|181533430|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.9||||0.468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.7|50.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared|||Non-responders, Week 52|Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|50.4|-24.7|0.468
90956944|NCT01856868|181793472|EQUIVALENCE|Difference in baseline and 8 week scores was evaluated using a paired t-test analysis.||||||0.0321|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0321
90956945|NCT01856868|181793473|EQUIVALENCE|Difference in baseline and 8 week scores was evaluated using a paired t-test analysis.||||||0.0182|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0182
90956946|NCT01856868|181793474|EQUIVALENCE|Difference in baseline and 8 week scores was evaluated using a paired t-test analysis.||||||0.0371|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0371
90956947|NCT01856868|181793475|EQUIVALENCE|Difference in baseline and 8 week scores was evaluated using a paired t-test analysis.||||||0.0257|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0257
91086729|NCT01619852|182056542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.69|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||McGill Questionnaire-Sensory-discriminative dimension||||0.69
91086730|NCT01619852|182056542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.75|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||McGill Questionnaire-affective dimension||||0.75
91086731|NCT01619852|182056542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.81|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Brief Pain Inventory||||0.81
91086732|NCT01619852|182056543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.19|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.19
91086733|NCT01619852|182056544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.29|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.29
91086734|NCT03877744|182056552|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of 2.5 was set prior to study initiation with a Type I error of 0.025.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6873|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2558||0.0008|ONE_SIDED|97.5||2.1894|||Mixed Models Analysis|Controls technician,site,seat type;Techn. nested in site modeled as random effect;Model allowed heterogeneous variances across arms w Kenward-Roger df|Mixed model allowed the arms to have unequal variance estimates. Degrees of freedom estimated using Kenward-Rogers.|||2.1894||0.0008
91086735|NCT00327717|182056565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.028
91086736|NCT00327717|182056566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.253||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.253
91086737|NCT00327717|182056567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.211||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.211
91086738|NCT00327717|182056568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.516||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.516
91086739|NCT00327717|182056569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.044|||||||X^2 test|||||||0.044
91086740|NCT00327717|182056570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09||95.0|||||X^2 test|||||||0.090
91086741|NCT00327717|182056571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09||95.0|||||X^2 test|||||||0.090
91086742|NCT00327717|182056572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.162||95.0|||||X^2 test|||||||0.162
91086743|NCT00327717|182056573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.678||95.0|||||X^2 test|||||||0.678
91086744|NCT01630135|182056576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.089|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|-0.76|||ANCOVA||The analysis was based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with a model adjusting for Treatment, Baseline, Age, and Sex.|||-0.76|-1.41|<0.001
91086745|NCT01387178|182056605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|7451.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5857.0|9045.0|||||The mean predicted cost for inpatient services for participants treated with FSC. A generalized linear model with a log link function and gamma distribution for the error term to resolve the issue of skewed cost distribution was used.|||9045|5857|
91086746|NCT01387178|182056605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|11545.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8827.0|14263.0|||||The mean predicted cost for inpatient services for participants treated with TIO. A generalized linear model with a log link function and gamma distribution for the error term to resolve the issue of skewed cost distribution was used.|||14263|8827|
91086747|NCT01387178|182056605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|61.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.0|63.0|||||The mean predicted cost for emergency department visits for participants treated with FSC. A generalized linear model with a log link function and gamma distribution for the error term to resolve the issue of skewed cost distribution was used.|||63|58|
91086748|NCT01387178|182056605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|51.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.0|53.0|||||The mean predicted cost for emergency department visits for participants treated with TIO. A generalized linear model with a log link function and gamma distribution for the error term to resolve the issue of skewed cost distribution was used.|||53|49|
91086749|NCT01387178|182056605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|231.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|227.0|234.0|||||The mean predicted cost for office visits for participants treated with FSC. A generalized linear model with a log link function and gamma distribution for the error term to resolve the issue of skewed cost distribution was used.|||234|227|
91086750|NCT01387178|182056605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|295.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|290.0|299.0|||||The mean predicted cost for office visits for participants treated with TIO. A generalized linear model with a log link function and gamma distribution for the error term to resolve the issue of skewed cost distribution was used.|||299|290|
91086751|NCT01387178|182056605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|873.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|827.0|919.0|||||The mean predicted cost for other outpatient and ancillary services for FSC participants. A generalized linear model with a log link function and gamma distribution for the error term to resolve the issue of skewed cost distribution was used.|||919|827|
91086752|NCT01387178|182056605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|1080.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1022.0|1138.0|||||The mean predicted cost for other outpatient and ancillary services for TIO participants. A generalized linear model with a log link function and gamma distribution for the error term to resolve the issue of skewed cost distribution was used.|||1138|1022|
91086753|NCT01387178|182056605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|1267.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1251.0|1283.0|||||The mean predicted cost for pharmacy services for participants treated with FSC. A generalized linear model with a log link function and gamma distribution for the error term to resolve the issue of skewed cost distribution was used.|||1283|1251|
91086754|NCT01387178|182056605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|1250.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1234.0|1266.0|||||The mean predicted cost for pharmacy services for participants treated with TIO. A generalized linear model with a log link function and gamma distribution for the error term to resolve the issue of skewed cost distribution was used.|||1266|1234|
91086755|NCT01387178|182056605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|1175.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1083.0|1267.0|||||The mean predicted cost for inpatient and emergency department services for FSC participants. A generalized linear model with a log link function and gamma distribution for the error term to resolve the issue of skewed cost distribution was used.|||1267|1083|
91086756|NCT01387178|182056605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|1566.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1438.0|1695.0|||||The mean predicted cost for inpatient and emergency department services for TIO participants. A generalized linear model with a log link function and gamma distribution for the error term to resolve the issue of skewed cost distribution was used.|||1695|1438|
91086757|NCT01387178|182056605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|2991.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2922.0|3059.0|||||The mean predicted cost for total healthcare services for participants treated with FSC. A generalized linear model with a log link function and gamma distribution for the error term to resolve the issue of skewed cost distribution was used.|||3059|2922|
91086758|NCT01387178|182056605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|3304.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3221.0|3386.0|||||The mean predicted cost for total healthcare services for participants treated with TIO. A generalized linear model with a log link function and gamma distribution for the error term to resolve the issue of skewed cost distribution was used.|||3386|3221|
91086759|NCT01387178|182056606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.964||||0.2198||95.0|0.909|1.022||Risk of Moderate COPD Exacerbations|Regression, Cox|||||1.022|0.909|0.2198
90829670|NCT02365649|181533430|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.2||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.7|28.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 52||28.1|-15.7|1.000
91022874|NCT01827371|181929579|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Hypotheses Evaluation: The difference between the mean log2 peak titer for the control arm (Study Arm A) and each investigational arm (Study Arm B, C, or D) and the associated two sided 98.33% confidence intervals (CI) for the estimated population mean difference were calculated. If the upper limit of the 98.33% CI was less than 1, Study Arm B, C or D was considered to be non-inferior to Study Arm A.|Mean Difference (Log2 Scale)|0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|98.33|-0.17|1.0007||||||"Hypotheses: H0: log2(GMT(Arm A))-log2 (GMT(Arm D)) ≥ 1 or GMT(Arm A)/GMT (Arm D) ≥2 H1: log2(GMT(Arm A))-log2(GMT(Arm D)) \< 1 or GMT(Arm A)/GMT(Arm D) \< 2.~Sample Size: The SD for log2 PRNT based on a prior study was\~1.9. The margin of non-inferiority was specified as a 2-fold difference on the original scale (1 on the log2 scale). The objective included three non-inferiority evaluations (A vs. B, A vs. C, A vs. D). Thus, a Bonferroni-corrected alpha of 2.5% / 3 = 0.833% was used. Power=80%"||1.0007|-0.17|
91022875|NCT01827371|181929580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4782|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha= 5%|Fisher Exact|||"Hypothesis:~H0: Pr('Pain at Injection Site ' Arm A) = Pr('Pain at Injection Site ' Arm D) H1: Pr('Pain at Injection Site ' Arm A) not = Pr('Pain at Injection Site ' Arm D)"||||0.4782
91022876|NCT01827371|181929580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1704|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha= 5%|Fisher Exact|||"Hypothesis:~H0: Pr('Itchiness at Injection Site' Arm A) = Pr('Itchiness at Injection Site' Arm D) H1: Pr('Itchiness at Injection Site' Arm A) not = Pr('Itchiness at Injection Site' Arm D)"||||0.1704
91022877|NCT01827371|181929580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha= 5%|Fisher Exact|||"Hypothesis:~H0: Pr('Underarm pain' Arm A) = Pr('Underarm pain' Arm D) H1: Pr('Underarm pain' Arm A) not = Pr('Underarm pain' Arm D)"||||1.000
91022878|NCT01827371|181929580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6171|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha= 5%|Fisher Exact|||"Hypothesis:~H0: Pr('Underarm swelling' Arm A) = Pr('Underarm swelling' Arm D) H1: Pr('Underarm swelling' Arm A) not = Pr('Underarm swelling' Arm D)"||||0.6171
91022879|NCT01827371|181929580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha=5%|Fisher Exact|||"Hypothesis:~H0: Pr('Redness at Injection Site' Arm A) = Pr('Redness at Injection Site' Arm D) H1: Pr('Redness at Injection Site' Arm A) not = Pr('Redness at Injection Site' Arm D)"||||<0.0001
91022880|NCT01827371|181929580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha=5%|Fisher Exact|||"Hypothesis:~H0: Pr('Swelling at Injection Site' Arm A) = Pr('Swelling at Injection Site' Arm D) H1: Pr('Swelling at Injection Site' Arm A) not = Pr('Swelling at Injection Site' Arm D)"||||0.0050
91022881|NCT01827371|181929580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha=5%|Fisher Exact|||"Hypothesis:~H0: Pr('Any Solicited Local Reaction' Arm A) = Pr('Any Solicited Local Reaction' Arm D) H1: Pr('Any Solicited Local Reaction' Arm A) not = Pr('Any Solicited Local Reaction' Arm D)"||||0.0012
91022882|NCT01827371|181929581|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Hypotheses Evaluation: The difference between the mean log2 peak titer for the control arm (Study Arm A) and each investigational arm (Study Arm B, C, or D) and the associated two sided 98.33% confidence intervals (CI) for the estimated population mean difference were calculated. If the upper limit of the 98.33% CI was less than 1, Study Arm B, C or D was considered to be non-inferior to Study Arm A.|Mean Difference (Log2 Scale)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|98.33|0.37|1.15||||||"Hypotheses: H0: log2(GMT(Arm A))-log2 (GMT(Arm B)) ≥ 1 or GMT(Arm A)/GMT (Arm B) ≥2 H1: log2(GMT(Arm A))-log2(GMT(Arm B)) \< 1 or GMT(Arm A)/GMT(Arm B) \< 2.~The margin of non-inferiority was specified as a 2-fold difference on the original scale (1 on the log2 scale). The objective included three non-inferiority evaluations (A vs. B, A vs. C, A vs. D). Thus, a Bonferroni-corrected alpha of 2.5% / 3 = 0.833% was used."||1.15|0.37|
91022883|NCT01827371|181929581|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Hypotheses Evaluation: The difference between the mean log2 peak titer for the control arm (Study Arm A) and each investigational arm (Study Arm B, C, or D) and the associated two sided 98.33% confidence intervals (CI) for the estimated population mean difference were calculated. If the upper limit of the 98.33% CI was less than 1, Study Arm B, C or D was considered to be non-inferior to Study Arm A.|Mean Difference (Log2 Scale)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|98.33|-0.06|0.67||||||"Hypotheses: H0: log2(GMT(Arm A))-log2 (GMT(Arm C)) ≥ 1 or GMT(Arm A)/GMT (Arm C) ≥2 H1: log2(GMT(Arm A))-log2(GMT(Arm C)) \< 1 or GMT(Arm A)/GMT(Arm C) \< 2.~The margin of non-inferiority was specified as a 2-fold difference on the original scale (1 on the log2 scale). The objective included three non-inferiority evaluations (A vs. B, A vs. C, A vs. D). Thus, a Bonferroni-corrected alpha of 2.5% / 3 = 0.833% was used."||0.67|-0.06|
91022884|NCT01827371|181929581|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Hypotheses Evaluation: The difference between the mean log2 peak titer for the control arm (Study Arm A) and each investigational arm (Study Arm B, C, or D) and the associated two sided 98.33% confidence intervals (CI) for the estimated population mean difference were calculated. If the upper limit of the 98.33% CI was less than 1, Study Arm B, C or D was considered to be non-inferior to Study Arm A.|Mean Difference (Log2 Scale)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|98.33|-0.5|0.3||||||"Hypotheses: H0: log2(GMT(Arm A))-log2 (GMT(Arm D)) ≥ 1 or GMT(Arm A)/GMT (Arm D) ≥2 H1: log2(GMT(Arm A))-log2(GMT(Arm D)) \< 1 or GMT(Arm A)/GMT(Arm D) \< 2.~The margin of non-inferiority was specified as a 2-fold difference on the original scale (1 on the log2 scale). The objective included three non-inferiority evaluations (A vs. B, A vs. C, A vs. D). Thus, a Bonferroni-corrected alpha of 2.5% / 3 = 0.833% was used."||0.30|-0.50|
91022885|NCT00950599|181929583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9888||95.0||||A significance level of alpha = 0.05 was used for the trend test.|Kruskal-Wallis|ANCOVA Model: post-pre=pre treatment.||A test for log-linear trend across saxagliptin doses was performed using a linear contrast among the saxagliptin doses from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model. The ANCOVA model was the same model used for the first secondary endpoint.||||0.9888
91022886|NCT00950599|181929584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9888||95.0||||Positive efficacy trend among doses of saxagliptin by assessing the adjusted mean change from baseline in A1C in the 0-40 mg cohort.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: post-pre=pretreatment. Contrast Coefficients: -2, -1, 0, 1 2.||||||0.9888
91022887|NCT01361607|181929667|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.84||||0.2735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.19|1.5|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.50|-6.19|0.2735
91022888|NCT00125931|181929678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||comparison of mean scores at hour 2 vs 3||||0.01
91022889|NCT00125931|181929679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||comparison of mean score on treatment vs post-treatment days||||0.01
91086760|NCT01387178|182056606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.864||||0.0406||95.0|0.752|0.994||Risk of Severe COPD Exacerbations|Regression, Cox|||||0.994|0.752|0.0406
91086761|NCT01387178|182056606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.953||||0.0962||95.0|0.901|1.009||Risk of Any COPD Exacerbation|Regression, Cox|||||1.009|0.901|0.0962
91086762|NCT01246895|182056610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values were obtained using general estimating equations (GEE) for longitudinal analysis of repeated correlated measures.|general estimating equations (GEE)|P-values were obtained using general estimating equations (GEE) for longitudinal analysis of repeated correlated measures.||||||0.017
91086763|NCT01246895|182056611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values were obtained using general estimating equations (GEE) for longitudinal analysis of repeated correlated measures.|general estimating equations (GEE)|P-values were obtained using general estimating equations (GEE) for longitudinal analysis of repeated correlated measures.||||||0.026
91086764|NCT01246895|182056612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.474|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values were obtained using general estimating equations (GEE) for longitudinal analysis of repeated correlated measures.|general estimating equations (GEE)|P-values were obtained using general estimating equations (GEE) for longitudinal analysis of repeated correlated measures.||WOMAC subscale - Pain||||0.474
91086765|NCT01246895|182056612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.236|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values were obtained using general estimating equations (GEE) for longitudinal analysis of repeated correlated measures.|general estimating equations (GEE)|P-values were obtained using general estimating equations (GEE) for longitudinal analysis of repeated correlated measures.||WOMAC subscale - Stiffness||||0.236
91086766|NCT01246895|182056612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.326|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values were obtained using general estimating equations (GEE) for longitudinal analysis of repeated correlated measures.|general estimating equations (GEE)|P-values were obtained using general estimating equations (GEE) for longitudinal analysis of repeated correlated measures.||WOMAC subscale - Physical function||||0.326
91086767|NCT01246895|182056613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Physical count|||||||0.01
91086768|NCT01246895|182056614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.478|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values were obtained using general estimating equations (GEE) for longitudinal analysis of repeated correlated measures.|general estimating equations (GEE)|P-values were obtained using general estimating equations (GEE) for longitudinal analysis of repeated correlated measures.||SF-36 v2 Physical component||||0.478
91086769|NCT01246895|182056614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values were obtained using general estimating equations (GEE) for longitudinal analysis of repeated correlated measures.|general estimating equations (GEE)|P-values were obtained using general estimating equations (GEE) for longitudinal analysis of repeated correlated measures.||SF-36 v2 Mental component||||0.125
91086770|NCT03311841|182056620|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.11|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of midazolam||1.11|0.37|
91086771|NCT03311841|182056620|OTHER|Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.31||||||Comparison of midazolam||2.31|0.77|
91086772|NCT03311841|182056620|OTHER|Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Geometric least squares mean ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.62||||||Comparison of midazolam||1.62|0.56|
91086773|NCT03311841|182056620|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.7|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of midazolam||0.70|0.23|
91086774|NCT03311841|182056620|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.93|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of dabigatran||1.93|0.53|
91086775|NCT03311841|182056620|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|2.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|5.47|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of dabigatran||5.47|1.51|
91086776|NCT03311841|182056620|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|4.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.62|9.48|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of dabigatran||9.48|2.62|
91086777|NCT03311841|182056620|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|3.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|6.44|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of dabigatran||6.44|1.78|
91086778|NCT03311841|182056620|OTHER|Comparison of pitavastatin|Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.31|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|||2.31|0.76|
90829671|NCT02365649|181533430|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.1||||0.538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|45.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 52||45.4|-15.2|0.538
90829672|NCT02365649|181533430|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-11.2||||0.692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.0|25.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 20||25.6|-48.0|0.692
90829673|NCT02365649|181533430|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-14.5||||0.388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.9|17.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 20||17.9|-46.9|0.388
91022890|NCT00125931|181929679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||comparison of mean scores at pre-treatment vs treatment days||||0.4
91022891|NCT02273206|181929682|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2562|||||||Chi-squared|p\<0.05||Colorectal Cancer Screening Intervention Arm Difference||||0.2562
91022892|NCT02273206|181929682|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9795|||||||Chi-squared|p\<0.05||Breast Cancer Screening Intervention Arm Difference||||0.9795
91022893|NCT02273206|181929682|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3917|||||||Chi-squared|p\<0.05||Cervical Cancer Screening Intervention Arm Difference||||0.3917
91022894|NCT02273206|181929683|SUPERIORITY|Test the coefficient for intervention|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.346||||0.0677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.979|1.851||Treatment Group (CCI vs PCM)|Regression, Logistic|p\<0.05|In the logistic regression model, adjustments were made for PHQ9 at baseline, improvement of depression by one level, baseline colorectal cancer up to date status, age, and income.|||1.851|0.979|0.0677
91022895|NCT02273206|181929684|SUPERIORITY|Test the coefficient for intervention|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.031||||0.8501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.753|1.41||Treatment Group (CCI vs PCM)|Regression, Logistic|p\<0.05|In the logistic regression model, adjustments were made for PHQ9 at baseline, improvement of depression by one level, baseline breast cancer up to date status, age, and income|||1.410|0.753|0.8501
91022896|NCT02273206|181929685|SUPERIORITY|Test the coefficient for intervention|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.876||||0.4432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.625|1.228||Treatment Group(CCI vs PCM)|Regression, Logistic|p\<0.05|In the logistic regression model, adjustments were made for PHQ9 at baseline, improvement of depression by one level, baseline cervical cancer up to date status, age, and income.|||1.228|0.625|0.4432
91022897|NCT02273206|181929686|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Two-sample t-test|p\<0.05||PHQ9 Intervention Arm Difference between baseline and 12-month follow up||||0.39
91022898|NCT02273206|181929687|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Chi-squared|||The Hopkins Symptom Checklist (SCL-20) at baseline.||||0.60
91022899|NCT02273206|181929687|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||Chi-squared|||The Hopkins Symptom Checklist (SCL-20) at 6 Months||||0.86
90829674|NCT02365649|181533430|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-19.0||||0.418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.8|16.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 20||16.9|-54.8|0.418
90829675|NCT02365649|181533430|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-17.1||||0.448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.1|20.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 28||20.0|-54.1|0.448
91022900|NCT02273206|181929688|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Chi-squared|||The Hopkins Symptom Checklist (SCL-20) at Baseline.||||0.60
91022901|NCT02273206|181929688|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||Chi-squared|||The Hopkins Symptom Checklist (SCL-20) at 12 months.||||0.23
91022902|NCT02273206|181929689|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4483|||||||Chi-squared|p\<0.05||Colorectal Cancer Screening Intervention Arm Difference at 12 Months||||0.4483
91022903|NCT02273206|181929689|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1706|||||||Chi-squared|p\<0.05||Cervical Cancer Screening Intervention Arm Difference at 12 Months||||0.1706
91022904|NCT02273206|181929689|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3568|||||||Chi-squared|p\<0.05||Breast Cancer Screening Intervention Arm Difference at 12 Months||||0.3568
91022905|NCT02273206|181929690|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||Chi-squared|||Mental Health Care Utilization - Mental Health Visits at baseline.||||0.85
91022906|NCT02273206|181929690|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||Chi-squared|||Mental Health Care Utilization - Mental Health Visits at 6 months.||||0.23
91022907|NCT02273206|181929690|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||Chi-squared|||Mental Health Care Utilization - Mental Health Visits at 12 months.||||0.98
91022908|NCT02273206|181929690|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||Chi-squared|||Mental Health Care Utilization - Mental Health Prescriptions at baseline.||||0.57
91022909|NCT02273206|181929690|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||Chi-squared|||Mental Health Care Utilization - Mental Health Prescriptions at 6 months.||||0.92
91022910|NCT02273206|181929690|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Chi-squared|||Mental Health Care Utilization - Mental Health Prescriptions at 12 months.||||0.99
91022911|NCT02273206|181929691|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Chi-squared|||Satisfaction with decision to participate in colorectal cancer screening at baseline.||||0.20
91022912|NCT02273206|181929691|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Chi-squared|||Satisfaction with decision to participate in colorectal cancer screening at 6 months.||||0.17
91022913|NCT02273206|181929691|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Chi-squared|||Satisfaction with decision to participate in colorectal cancer screening at 12 months.||||0.69
91022914|NCT02273206|181929691|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||Chi-squared|||Satisfaction with decision to participate in breast cancer screening at baseline.||||0.72
91022915|NCT02273206|181929691|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||Chi-squared|||Satisfaction with decision to participate in breast cancer screening at 6 months.||||0.72
91022916|NCT02273206|181929691|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||Chi-squared|||Satisfaction with decision to participate in breast cancer screening at 12 months.||||0.87
91086779|NCT03311841|182056620|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|3.42|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of pitavastatin||3.42|1.12|
91086780|NCT03311841|182056620|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.13|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of pitavastatin||2.13|0.73|
91086781|NCT03311841|182056620|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|2.27|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of pitavastatin||2.27|0.74|
91086782|NCT03311841|182056620|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.72|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of pitavastatin lactone||1.72|0.64|
91086783|NCT03311841|182056620|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.38|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of pitavastatin lactone||2.38|0.88|
91086784|NCT03311841|182056620|OTHER|Comparison of pitavastatin lactone|Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.76|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|||1.76|0.68|
91086785|NCT03311841|182056620|OTHER|Comparison of pitavastatin lactone|Geometric least squares mean ratio|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.17|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|||1.17|0.43|
91086786|NCT03311841|182056620|OTHER|Comparison of atorvastatin|Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|2.41|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|||2.41|0.53|
91086787|NCT03311841|182056620|OTHER|Comparison of atorvastatin|Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|3.46|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|||3.46|0.89|
91086788|NCT03311841|182056620|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|3.14|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of atorvastatin||3.14|0.85|
91086789|NCT03311841|182056620|OTHER|Comparison of atorvastatin|Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|2.22|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|||2.22|0.57|
91086790|NCT03311841|182056620|OTHER|Comparison of ortho-hydroxyatorvastatin|Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.49|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|||2.49|0.76|
91086791|NCT03311841|182056620|OTHER|Comparison of ortho-hydroxyatorvastatin|Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.29|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|||2.29|0.75|
91086792|NCT03311841|182056620|OTHER|Comparison of ortho-hydroxyatorvastatin|Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.81|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|||1.81|0.65|
90959131|NCT03794908|181798216|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.49||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.03|10.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|The comparison was done using a mixed model with assessments at 3 time points (pre-treatment, mid-treatment, and end of treatment).||Test of between-arm difference at mid-treatment.||10.64|-3.03|0.28
91086793|NCT03311841|182056620|OTHER|Comparison of ortho-hydroxyatorvastatin|Geometric least squares mean ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.33|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|||1.33|0.46|
91086794|NCT03311841|182056620|OTHER|Comparison of rosuvastatin|Geometric least squares mean ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|2.45|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|||2.45|0.33|
91086795|NCT03311841|182056620|OTHER|Comparison of rosuvastatin|Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|5.14|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|||5.14|0.75|
91086796|NCT03311841|182056620|OTHER|Comparison of rosuvastatin|Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|3.16|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|||3.16|0.49|
91086797|NCT03311841|182056620|OTHER|Comparison of rosuvastatin|Geometric least squares mean ratio|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.86|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|||1.86|0.27|
91086798|NCT03311841|182056622|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.11|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of midazolam||1.11|0.40|
91086799|NCT03311841|182056622|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.09|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of midazolam||2.09|0.76|
91086800|NCT03311841|182056622|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.52|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of midazolam||1.52|0.57|
91086801|NCT03311841|182056622|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.7|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of midazolam||0.70|0.25|
91086802|NCT03311841|182056622|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.73|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of dabigatran||1.73|0.53|
91086803|NCT03311841|182056622|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|2.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|4.32|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of dabigatran||4.32|1.32|
91086804|NCT03311841|182056622|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|3.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.75|5.48|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of dabigatran||5.48|1.75|
91086805|NCT03311841|182056622|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.64|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of dabigatran||2.64|0.80|
91086806|NCT03311841|182056622|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.2|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of pitavastatin||2.20|0.78|
91086807|NCT03311841|182056622|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|3.09|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of pitavastatin||3.09|1.09|
91086808|NCT03311841|182056622|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.09|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of pitavastatin||2.09|0.77|
91086809|NCT03311841|182056622|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|2.4|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of pitavastatin||2.40|0.85|
91086810|NCT03311841|182056622|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.56|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of pitavastatin lactone||1.56|0.68|
91086811|NCT03311841|182056622|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.92|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of pitavastatin lactone||1.92|0.83|
91086812|NCT03311841|182056622|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.63|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of pitavastatin lactone||1.63|0.73|
91086813|NCT03311841|182056622|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.29|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of pitavastatin lactone||1.29|0.56|
90829676|NCT02365649|181533430|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-13.7||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.4|19.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 28||19.9|-47.4|0.430
90829677|NCT02365649|181533430|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.6||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.8|37.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 28||37.6|-42.8|1.000
90829678|NCT02365649|181533430|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-21.2||||0.406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.3|12.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 36||12.9|-55.3|0.406
90829679|NCT02365649|181533430|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-14.5||||0.388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.9|17.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 36||17.9|-46.9|0.388
90829680|NCT02365649|181533430|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.8||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.5|30.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 36||30.8|-46.5|1.000
90829681|NCT02365649|181533430|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-25.3||||0.204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.7|4.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 44||4.1|-54.7|0.204
90829682|NCT02365649|181533430|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.0||||0.907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.9|31.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 44||31.0|-34.9|0.907
90829683|NCT02365649|181533430|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.2|36.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 44||36.3|-40.2|1.000
90829684|NCT02365649|181533430|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.4|41.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 52||41.3|-28.4|1.000
91022917|NCT02273206|181929691|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||Chi-squared|||Satisfaction with decision to participate in cervical cancer screening at baseline.||||0.65
90829685|NCT02365649|181533430|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.5||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5|48.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 52||48.4|-15.5|0.450
90829686|NCT02365649|181533430|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.8||||0.661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.0|46.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 52||46.6|-27.0|0.661
90829687|NCT02365649|181533431|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.5|77.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 20||77.5|-77.5|1.000
90829688|NCT02365649|181533431|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|25.0||||0.608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.8|70.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 20||70.8|-20.8|0.608
90829689|NCT02365649|181533431|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-50.0||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.6|-15.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 20||-15.4|-84.6|0.105
90829690|NCT02365649|181533431|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.5|77.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 28||77.5|-77.5|1.000
91022918|NCT02273206|181929691|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||Chi-squared|||Satisfaction with decision to participate in cervical cancer screening at 6 months.||||0.82
91022919|NCT02273206|181929691|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||Chi-squared|||Satisfaction with decision to participate in cervical cancer screening at 12 months.||||0.92
91086814|NCT03311841|182056622|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|2.23|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of atorvastatin||2.23|0.55|
91086815|NCT03311841|182056622|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|3.11|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of atorvastatin||3.11|0.89|
91086816|NCT03311841|182056622|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|2.77|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of atorvastatin||2.77|0.83|
91086817|NCT03311841|182056622|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.71|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of atorvastatin||2.71|0.78|
91086818|NCT03311841|182056622|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.34|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of ortho-hydroxyatorvastatin||2.34|0.70|
91086819|NCT03311841|182056622|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.28|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of ortho-hydroxyatorvastatin||2.28|0.78|
91086820|NCT03311841|182056622|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.74|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of ortho-hydroxyatorvastatin||1.74|0.62|
91086821|NCT03311841|182056622|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.82|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of ortho-hydroxyatorvastatin||1.82|0.62|
91086822|NCT03311841|182056622|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.67|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of rosuvastatin||2.67|0.58|
91086823|NCT03311841|182056622|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|2.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|4.63|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of rosuvastatin||4.63|1.09|
91086824|NCT03311841|182056622|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.93|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of rosuvastatin||2.93|0.72|
91086825|NCT03311841|182056622|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|2.19|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of rosuvastatin||2.19|0.51|
91086826|NCT03311841|182056623|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.11|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of midazolam||1.11|0.36|
91086827|NCT03311841|182056623|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.28|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of midazolam||2.28|0.75|
91086828|NCT03311841|182056623|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.61|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of midazolam||1.61|0.55|
91086829|NCT03311841|182056623|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.69|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of midazolam||0.69|0.23|
91086830|NCT03311841|182056623|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.95|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of dabigatran||1.95|0.53|
91086831|NCT03311841|182056623|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|5.74|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of dabigatran||5.74|1.57|
91086832|NCT03311841|182056623|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|5.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.83|9.87|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of dabigatran||9.87|2.83|
90959132|NCT03794908|181798216|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.53||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|11.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|The comparison was done using a mixed model with assessments at 3 time points (pre-treatment, mid-treatment, and end of treatment).||Test of between-arm difference at end of treatment.||11.40|-2.44|0.21
91022920|NCT02273206|181929691|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||Chi-squared|||Satisfaction with decision to participate in Mental Health Care at 12 months.||||0.56
91022921|NCT02273206|181929692|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Chi-squared|||Physician Recommendation of Colorectal Cancer Screening at baseline.||||0.17
91022922|NCT02273206|181929692|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||Chi-squared|||Physician Recommendation of Colorectal Cancer Screening at 6 months.||||0.38
91022923|NCT02273206|181929692|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Chi-squared|||Physician Recommendation of Colorectal Cancer Screening at 12 months.||||0.07
91022924|NCT02273206|181929692|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Chi-squared|||Physician Recommendation of Breast Cancer Screening at baseline.||||0.99
91022925|NCT02273206|181929692|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Chi-squared|||Physician Recommendation of Breast Cancer Screening at 6 months.||||0.15
91022926|NCT02273206|181929692|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||Chi-squared|||Physician Recommendation of Breast Cancer Screening at 12 months.||||0.55
91022927|NCT02273206|181929692|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Chi-squared|||Physician Recommendation of Cervical Cancer Screening at baseline.||||0.34
91022928|NCT02273206|181929692|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||Chi-squared|||Physician Recommendation of Cervical Cancer Screening at 6 months. .||||0.31
91022929|NCT02273206|181929692|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Chi-squared|||Physician Recommendation of Cervical Cancer Screening at 12 months.||||0.39
91022930|NCT02273206|181929692|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||Chi-squared|||Physician Recommendation of Mental Health Care at baseline.||||0.87
91022931|NCT02273206|181929692|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||Chi-squared|||Physician Recommendation of Mental Health Care at 6 months.||||0.83
91022932|NCT02273206|181929692|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||Chi-squared|||Physician Recommendation of Mental Health Care at 12 months.||||0.36
91022933|NCT02273206|181929693|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Chi-squared|||Generalized Anxiety Disorder scale at baseline. Coding of the measure was based on Spitzer, R.L., Kroenke, K., Williams, J.B., \& Lowe, B. (2006).||||0.95
91022934|NCT02273206|181929693|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Chi-squared|||Generalized Anxiety Disorder scale score at 6 months. Coding of the measure was based on Spitzer, R.L., Kroenke, K., Williams, J.B., \& Lowe, B. (2006).||||0.08
91022935|NCT02273206|181929693|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||Chi-squared|||Generalized Anxiety Disorder scale score at 12 months. Coding of the measure was based on Spitzer, R.L., Kroenke, K., Williams, J.B., \& Lowe, B. (2006).||||0.27
91022936|NCT02273206|181929694|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Chi-squared|||Medical Outcomes Study Health Survey at baseline. Continuous summary score was converted into 4 categories using quartiles as cut-points.||||0.54
91022937|NCT02273206|181929694|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||Chi-squared|||Medical Outcomes Study Health Survey at 6 months. Continuous summary score was converted into 4 categories using quartiles as cut-points.||||0.68
91022938|NCT02273206|181929694|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||Chi-squared|||Medical Outcomes Study Health Survey at 12 months. Continuous summary score was converted into 4 categories using quartiles as cut-points.||||0.68
91022939|NCT02273206|181929695|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||Chi-squared|||Colorectal Cancer Screening attitudes at baseline. Continuous summary score was converted into 4 categories using quartiles as cut-points.||||0.74
91022940|NCT02273206|181929695|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||Chi-squared|||Colorectal Cancer Screening attitudes at 6 months. Continuous summary score was converted into 4 categories using quartiles as cut-points.||||0.86
91022941|NCT02273206|181929695|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||Chi-squared|||Colorectal Cancer Screening attitudes at 12 months. Continuous summary score was converted into 4 categories using quartiles as cut-points.||||0.79
91022942|NCT02273206|181929695|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91|||||||Chi-squared|||Breast Cancer Screening attitudes at baseline. Continuous summary score was converted into 4 categories using quartiles as cut-points.||||0.91
91022943|NCT02273206|181929695|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||Chi-squared|||Breast Cancer Screening attitudes at 6 months. Continuous summary score was converted into 4 categories using quartiles as cut-points.||||0.71
91022944|NCT02273206|181929695|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||Chi-squared|||Breast Cancer Screening attitudes at 12 months. Continuous summary score was converted into 4 categories using quartiles as cut-points.||||0.77
91022945|NCT02273206|181929695|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||Chi-squared|||Cervical Cancer Screening attitudes at baseline. Continuous summary score was converted into 4 categories using quartiles as cut-points.||||0.64
91022946|NCT02273206|181929695|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Chi-squared|||Cervical Cancer Screening attitudes at 6 months. Continuous summary score was converted into 4 categories using quartiles as cut-points.||||0.11
91022947|NCT02273206|181929695|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||Cervical Cancer Screening attitudes at 12 months. Continuous summary score was converted into 4 categories using quartiles as cut-points.||||1.00
91022948|NCT02273206|181929697|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||Chi-squared|||Satisfaction with decision to participate in Mental Health Care at 12 months. Recoding of the continuous measure was based on quartiles.||||0.56
91022949|NCT02273206|181929698|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||Chi-squared|||Devaluation-Discrimination Scale Score at baseline. Continuous summary score was converted into 4 categories using quartiles as cut-points.||||0.18
91022950|NCT02273206|181929698|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Chi-squared|||Devaluation-Discrimination Scale score at 12 months. Continuous summary score was converted into 4 categories using quartiles as cut-points.||||0.32
91022951|NCT02273206|181929699|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Chi-squared|||Ambulatory Care Experiences - Shared Decision Making at baseline. Continuous summary score was converted into 4 categories using quartiles as cut-points.||||0.50
91022952|NCT02273206|181929699|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||Chi-squared|||Ambulatory Care Experiences - Shared Decision Making at six months. Continuous summary score was converted into 4 categories using quartiles as cut-points.||||0.51
91022953|NCT02273206|181929699|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Chi-squared|||Ambulatory Care Experiences - Shared Decision Making at twelve months. Continuous summary score was converted into 4 categories using quartiles as cut-points.||||0.02
91022954|NCT02273206|181929699|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91|||||||Chi-squared|||Ambulatory Care Experiences - Access at baseline. Continuous summary score was converted into 4 categories using quartiles as cut-points.||||0.91
91086833|NCT03311841|182056623|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|2.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|5.07|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of dabigatran||5.07|1.39|
91086834|NCT03311841|182056623|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.34|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of pitavastatin||2.34|0.76|
90905076|NCT02886728|181677437|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|-0.05||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and subjects being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.05|-0.22|0.002
91022955|NCT02273206|181929699|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Chi-squared|||Ambulatory Care Experiences - Access at six months. Continuous summary score was converted into 4 categories using quartiles as cut-points.||||0.69
91022956|NCT02273206|181929699|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||Chi-squared|||Ambulatory Care Experiences - Access at twelve months. Continuous summary score was converted into 4 categories using quartiles as cut-points.||||0.63
91022957|NCT02273206|181929699|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||Chi-squared|||Ambulatory Care Experiences - Care Coordination at baseline. Continuous summary score was converted into 4 categories using quartiles as cut-points.||||0.55
91022958|NCT02273206|181929699|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Chi-squared|||Ambulatory Care Experiences - Care Coordination at six months. Continuous summary score was converted into 4 categories using quartiles as cut-points.||||0.34
91022959|NCT02273206|181929699|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Chi-squared|||Ambulatory Care Experiences - Care Coordination at twelve months. Continuous summary score was converted into 4 categories using quartiles as cut-points.||||0.19
91022960|NCT02273206|181929699|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||Chi-squared|||Ambulatory Care Experiences - Quality at baseline. Continuous summary score was converted into 4 categories using quartiles as cut-points.||||0.47
91022961|NCT02273206|181929699|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||Chi-squared|||Ambulatory Care Experiences - Quality at six months. Continuous summary score was converted into 4 categories using quartiles as cut-points.||||0.38
91022962|NCT02273206|181929699|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||Chi-squared|||Ambulatory Care Experiences - Quality at twelve months. Continuous summary score was converted into 4 categories using quartiles as cut-points.||||0.98
91022963|NCT02273206|181929700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Chi-squared|||Medication Adherence at baseline. Coding of the measure was based on Morisky et al. (2008).||||0.78
91022964|NCT02273206|181929700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Chi-squared|||Medication Adherence at 6 months. Coding of the measure was based on Morisky et al. (2008).||||0.20
91022965|NCT02273206|181929700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||Chi-squared|||Medication Adherence at 12 Months. Coding of the measure was based on Morisky et al. (2008).||||0.77
91022966|NCT02273206|181929701|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Chi-squared|||Self-efficacy at baseline.Continuous summary score was converted into 4 categories using quartiles as cut-points.||||0.70
91022967|NCT02273206|181929701|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|||||||Chi-squared|||Self-efficacy at 6 months. Continuous summary score was converted into 4 categories using quartiles as cut-points.||||0.89
91022968|NCT02273206|181929701|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Chi-squared|||Self-efficacy at 12 months. Continuous summary score was converted into 4 categories using quartiles as cut-points.||||0.95
91022969|NCT02741271|181929711|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|5.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.21|7.2|||cLDA with multiple imputation|Primary Analysis Method, using the constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis (cLDA) model for missing data|Between-Treatment Difference|||7.20|3.21|<0.001
91022970|NCT02741271|181929714|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|6.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.53|8.56|||cLDA with multiple imputation|Primary Analysis Method|Between-Treatment Difference at 4 hr Post-Dose|||8.56|3.53|<0.001
91022971|NCT02741271|181929714|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|7.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.74|9.35|||cLDA with multiple imputation|Primary Analysis Method|Between-Treatment Difference at 2 hr Post-Dose|||9.35|4.74|<0.001
91022972|NCT02741271|181929714|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|6.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.09|8.28|||cLDA with multiple imputation|Primary Analysis Method|Between-Treatment Difference at 60 min Post-Dose|||8.28|4.09|<0.001
91022973|NCT02741271|181929714|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|6.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.1|8.67|||cLDA with multiple imputation|Primary Analysis Method|Between-Treatment Difference at 30 min Post-Dose|||8.67|5.10|<0.001
91022974|NCT02741271|181929714|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|6.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.89|8.39|||cLDA with multiple imputation|Primary Analysis Method|Between-Treatment Difference at 15 min Post-Dose|||8.39|4.89|<0.001
91022975|NCT02741271|181929714|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|4.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|5.91|||cLDA with multiple imputation|Primary Analysis Method|Between-Treatment Difference at 5 min Post-Dose|||5.91|2.50|<0.001
91022976|NCT02741271|181929715|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|6.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.36|8.27|||cLDA|Secondary Outcome Measure on Day 1|Between-Treatment Difference at 4 hr Post-Dose|||8.27|4.36|<0.001
91022977|NCT02741271|181929715|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|3.33||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|6.26|||cLDA|Secondary Outcome Measure at Week 12|Between-Treatment Difference at 4 hr Post-Dose|||6.26|0.41|0.026
91022978|NCT02741271|181929716|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|1.63||||0.197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|4.11|||cLDA|Secondary Outcome Measure|Between-Treatment Difference|||4.11|-0.85|0.197
91022979|NCT00373685|181929724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|||||Life Table Extension of Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) Test|Life Table Extension of CMH Test|||||||0.0003
91086835|NCT03311841|182056623|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|3.46|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of pitavastatin||3.46|1.12|
91086836|NCT03311841|182056623|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.15|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of pitavastatin||2.15|0.72|
90829691|NCT02365649|181533431|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.0|49.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 28||49.0|-49.0|1.000
90829692|NCT02365649|181533431|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-30.0||||0.565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-79.3|19.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|ANOVA||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 28||19.3|-79.3|0.565
90829693|NCT02365649|181533431|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|50.0||||0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.4|84.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 36||84.6|15.4|0.467
90829694|NCT02365649|181533431|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.0|49.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 36||49.0|-49.0|1.000
90829695|NCT02365649|181533431|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-50.0||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.6|-15.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 36||-15.4|-84.6|0.105
90829696|NCT02365649|181533431|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.5|89.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 44||89.5|-64.5|1.000
90829697|NCT02365649|181533431|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.7|60.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 44||60.7|-35.7|1.000
90829698|NCT02365649|181533431|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-17.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.0|31.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 44||31.0|-66.0|1.000
90905077|NCT02886728|181677437|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.04||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and subjects being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||0.04|-0.17|0.23
90829699|NCT02365649|181533431|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|50.0||||0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.4|84.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 52||84.6|15.4|0.467
90829700|NCT02365649|181533431|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.7|60.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 52||60.7|-35.7|1.000
90829701|NCT02365649|181533431|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-50.0||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.6|-15.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 52||-15.4|-84.6|0.105
90829702|NCT02365649|181533431|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|26.7||||0.249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.6|72.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 20||72.9|-19.6|0.249
90829703|NCT02365649|181533431|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.2|18.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 20||18.2|-28.2|1.000
90959133|NCT05062759|181798252|OTHER||Geometric Least square (LS) mean ratio|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.43|0.98||||||Influenza A H1N1 Ratio of placebo over tezepelumab. Results based on ANCOVA model.||0.98|0.43|
91086837|NCT03311841|182056623|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.36|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of pitavastatin||2.36|0.76|
91022980|NCT00373685|181929725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED||||||Life Table Extension of CMH Test|||||||0.0035
91022981|NCT00373685|181929726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.614|TWO_SIDED||||||Life Table Extension of CMH Test|||||||0.6140
91022982|NCT00373685|181929728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value associated with Overall (LOCF)|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91022983|NCT00373685|181929730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value associated with Overall (LOCF)|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
90829704|NCT02365649|181533431|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-13.3||||0.511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.5|3.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 20||3.9|-30.5|0.511
90905078|NCT02886728|181677437|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.04||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and subjects being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||0.04|-0.16|0.24
90956948|NCT01856868|181793478|EQUIVALENCE|Difference in baseline and 8 week scores was evaluated using a mixed model regression analysis, including fixed effects for height and weight using patient identity as source of random variation. As a pilot study, these measures were not subject to a formal power analysis but will be used in future sample size calculations.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.51||0.47|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.47
91086838|NCT03311841|182056623|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.65|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of pitavastatin lactone||1.65|0.64|
91086839|NCT03311841|182056623|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|2.24|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of pitavastatin lactone||2.24|0.87|
91086840|NCT03311841|182056623|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.71|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of pitavastatin lactone||1.71|0.68|
91086841|NCT03311841|182056623|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.17|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of pitavastatin lactone||1.17|0.45|
91086842|NCT03311841|182056623|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|2.52|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of atorvastatin||2.52|0.53|
91086843|NCT03311841|182056623|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|3.62|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of atorvastatin||3.62|0.90|
91086844|NCT03311841|182056623|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|3.23|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of atorvastatin||3.23|0.84|
91086845|NCT03311841|182056623|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.35|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of atorvastatin||2.35|0.58|
91086846|NCT03311841|182056623|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.97|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of ortho-hydroxyatorvastatin||2.97|0.71|
91086847|NCT03311841|182056623|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|3.19|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of ortho-hydroxyatorvastatin||3.19|0.89|
91086848|NCT03311841|182056623|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.14|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of ortho-hydroxyatorvastatin||2.14|0.63|
91086849|NCT03311841|182056623|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.57|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of ortho-hydroxyatorvastatin||1.57|0.44|
91086850|NCT03311841|182056623|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|2.91|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of rosuvastatin||2.91|0.56|
91086851|NCT03311841|182056623|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|2.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|5.81|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of rosuvastatin||5.81|1.21|
91086852|NCT03311841|182056623|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|3.18|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of rosuvastatin||3.18|0.70|
91086853|NCT03311841|182056623|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|2.08|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of rosuvastatin||2.08|0.43|
91086854|NCT03311841|182056624|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.48|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of midazolam||1.48|0.63|
90959134|NCT05062759|181798252|OTHER||Geometeric LS mean ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6|1.15||||||Influenza B Yamagata Lineage Ratio of placebo over tezepelumab. Results based on ANCOVA model||1.15|0.60|
91022984|NCT00373685|181929731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value associated with Overall (LOCF)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0023
91086855|NCT03311841|182056624|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.62|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of midazolam||1.62|0.69|
91086856|NCT03311841|182056624|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.41|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of midazolam||1.41|0.62|
91086857|NCT03311841|182056624|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.83|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of midazolam||0.83|0.36|
91086858|NCT03311841|182056624|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.61|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of dabigatran||1.61|0.44|
91086859|NCT03311841|182056624|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|3.27|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of dabigatran||3.27|0.89|
91086860|NCT03311841|182056624|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|3.27|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of dabigatran||3.27|0.93|
91086861|NCT03311841|182056624|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.38|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of dabigatran||1.38|0.38|
91086862|NCT03311841|182056624|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.4|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of pitavastatin||2.40|0.92|
91086863|NCT03311841|182056624|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|2.98|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of pitavastatin||2.98|1.14|
90829705|NCT02365649|181533431|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|33.3||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|78.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 28||78.1|-11.4|0.140
90959135|NCT05062759|181798252|OTHER||Geometric LS mean ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.71|1.37||||||Influenza B Victoria Lineage Ratio of placebo over tezepelumab. Results based on ANCOVA model||1.37|0.71|
91022985|NCT00373685|181929732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1008|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Baseline||||0.1008
91022986|NCT00373685|181929732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Week 8||||<0.0001
91022987|NCT00373685|181929732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Week 16||||<0.0001
91022988|NCT00373685|181929732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Week 24 or ET||||0.0005
91022989|NCT00373685|181929732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Week 24/LOCF||||<0.0001
91022990|NCT00373685|181929733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6562|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Baseline||||0.6562
91022991|NCT00373685|181929733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Week 8||||<0.0001
91022992|NCT00373685|181929733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Week 16||||<0.0001
91022993|NCT00373685|181929733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0245|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Week 24 or ET||||0.0245
91086864|NCT03311841|182056624|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.11|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of pitavastatin||2.11|0.84|
90959136|NCT05062759|181798253|OTHER||Geometeric LS mean ratio|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.42|1.28||||||Influenza A H1N1 Ratio of placebo over tezepelumab. Results based on ANCOVA model||1.28|0.42|
91022994|NCT00373685|181929733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0074|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Week 24/LOCF||||0.0074
91022995|NCT00373685|181929734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4074|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Baseline||||0.4074
91022996|NCT00373685|181929734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Week 8||||<0.0001
91022997|NCT00373685|181929734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Week 16||||<0.0001
91022998|NCT00373685|181929734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0127|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Week 24 or ET||||0.0127
91022999|NCT00373685|181929734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Week 24/LOCF||||0.0019
91023000|NCT00373685|181929735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2699|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Baseline||||0.2699
91023001|NCT00373685|181929735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Week 8||||<0.0001
91023002|NCT00373685|181929735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Week 16||||<0.0001
91023003|NCT00373685|181929735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Week 24 or ET||||0.0027
91023004|NCT00373685|181929735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Week 24/LOCF||||0.0001
91023005|NCT02570165|181929739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|191.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|101.07|284.26|||||The 95% Bayesian credible interval for the mean difference between batefenterol 37.5 µg dose and placebo (batefenterol 37.5 µg minus placebo) was estimated.|||284.26|101.07|
91023006|NCT02570165|181929739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|231.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|149.31|310.02|||||The 95% Bayesian credible interval for differences between each individual batefenterol 75 µg dose and placebo was estimated.|||310.02|149.31|
91023007|NCT02570165|181929739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|261.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|189.85|332.25|||||The 95% Bayesian credible interval for differences between each individual batefenterol 150 µg dose and placebo was estimated.|||332.25|189.85|
91023008|NCT02570165|181929739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|281.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|212.35|351.3|||||The 95% Bayesian credible interval for differences between each individual batefenterol 300 µg dose and placebo was estimated.|||351.30|212.35|
91023009|NCT02570165|181929739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|292.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|223.02|364.42|||||The 95% Bayesian credible interval for differences between each individual batefenterol 600 µg dose and placebo was estimated.|||364.42|223.02|
91023010|NCT02570165|181929740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|182.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.8|264.6|||||The 95% confidence interval for the difference between 37.5 µg Batefenterol and Placebo was estimated.|||264.60|99.80|
91023011|NCT02570165|181929740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|196.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|128.4|264.8|||||The 95% confidence interval for the difference between 75 µg Batefenterol and Placebo was estimated.|||264.80|128.40|
91023012|NCT02570165|181929740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|204.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|137.2|272.1|||||The 95% confidence interval for the difference between 150 µg Batefenterol and Placebo was estimated.|||272.10|137.20|
91023013|NCT02570165|181929740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|208.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|138.7|279.2|||||The 95% confidence interval for the difference between 300 µg Batefenterol and Placebo was estimated.|||279.20|138.70|
91086865|NCT03311841|182056624|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|2.38|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of pitavastatin||2.38|0.91|
91086866|NCT03311841|182056624|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.75|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of pitavastatin lactone||1.75|0.81|
90829706|NCT02365649|181533431|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.0||||0.569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|34.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 28||34.6|-14.6|0.569
90829707|NCT02365649|181533431|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.4||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|28.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 28||28.5|-19.7|1.000
91086867|NCT03311841|182056624|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.76|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of pitavastatin lactone||1.76|0.82|
91086868|NCT03311841|182056624|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.57|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of pitavastatin lactone||1.57|0.75|
91086869|NCT03311841|182056624|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.31|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of pitavastatin lactone||1.31|0.61|
91086870|NCT03311841|182056624|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|3.75|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of atorvastatin||3.75|0.58|
91086871|NCT03311841|182056624|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|2.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|5.85|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of atorvastatin||5.85|1.11|
91086872|NCT03311841|182056624|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|2.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|4.81|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of atorvastatin||4.81|0.97|
91086873|NCT03311841|182056624|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|2.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|6.77|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of atorvastatin||6.77|1.28|
90829708|NCT02365649|181533431|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|26.7||||0.249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.6|72.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 36||72.9|-19.6|0.249
90829709|NCT02365649|181533431|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.2|18.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 36||18.2|-28.2|1.000
91086874|NCT03311841|182056624|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.07|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of ortho-hydroxyatorvastatin||2.07|0.59|
91086875|NCT03311841|182056624|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.17|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of ortho-hydroxyatorvastatin||2.17|0.71|
91086876|NCT03311841|182056624|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.62|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of ortho-hydroxyatorvastatin||1.62|0.55|
91086877|NCT03311841|182056624|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.96|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of ortho-hydroxyatorvastatin||1.96|0.64|
91086878|NCT03311841|182056624|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|2.64|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of rosuvastatin||2.64|0.46|
91086879|NCT03311841|182056624|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|4.32|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of rosuvastatin||4.32|0.81|
91086880|NCT03311841|182056624|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|2.53|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of rosuvastatin||2.53|0.51|
90959137|NCT05062759|181798253|OTHER||Geometeric LS mean ratio|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.72|2.17||||||Influenza A H3N2 Ratio of placebo over tezepelumab. Results based on ANCOVA model||2.17|0.72|
91086881|NCT03311841|182056624|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.41|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of rosuvastatin||2.41|0.45|
91086882|NCT03311841|182056625|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|3.62|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of midazolam||3.62|0.78|
91086883|NCT03311841|182056625|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.23|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of pitavastatin||2.23|0.75|
91086884|NCT03311841|182056625|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|3.41|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of pitavastatin||3.41|1.15|
91023014|NCT02570165|181929740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|211.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|138.6|283.7|||||The 95% confidence interval for the difference between 600 µg Batefenterol and Placebo was estimated.|||283.70|138.60|
91086885|NCT03311841|182056625|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.66|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of pitavastatin||1.66|0.58|
90829710|NCT02365649|181533431|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.2||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.0|24.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 36||24.6|-29.0|1.000
90829711|NCT02365649|181533431|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.3||||0.613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.1|61.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 44||61.8|-35.1|0.613
90829712|NCT02365649|181533431|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.8|31.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 44||31.5|-34.8|1.000
90829713|NCT02365649|181533431|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-15.6||||0.615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.9|14.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 44||14.8|-45.9|0.615
90829714|NCT02365649|181533431|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.0||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.5|67.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 52||67.5|-27.5|0.560
90829715|NCT02365649|181533431|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.8|36.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared|||Non-responders, Week 52||36.8|-26.8|1.000
90829716|NCT02365649|181533431|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.9||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.7|19.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 52||19.9|-37.7|1.000
91023015|NCT04428502|181929774|EQUIVALENCE|Hypothesis tested was to evaluate that there is no difference in response between ACCP positive and ACCP negative PsA participants who were treated with etanercept.||||||0.6|||||||Student's t-test|||At Month 1: P-value \<0.05 was considered statistically significant, without multiplicity adjustment.||||0.6
90829717|NCT02365649|181533431|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.1|57.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 20||57.1|-37.1|1.000
90829718|NCT02365649|181533431|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.0||||0.588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.1|46.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 20||46.1|-26.1|0.588
90829719|NCT02365649|181533431|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-40.0||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.8|-15.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5). Prespecified statistical significance at the 0.1 level.|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 20||-15.2|-64.8|0.058
90829720|NCT02365649|181533431|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.7||||0.631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.9|63.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 28||63.2|-29.9|0.631
90829721|NCT02365649|181533431|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.5||||0.597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.7|44.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 28||44.8|-25.7|0.597
91023016|NCT04428502|181929774|EQUIVALENCE|Hypothesis tested was to evaluate that there is no difference in response between ACCP positive and ACCP negative PsA participants who were treated with etanercept.||||||0.007|||||||Student's t-test|||At Month 6: P-value \<0.05 was considered statistically significant, without multiplicity adjustment.||||0.007
91023017|NCT04428502|181929774|EQUIVALENCE|Hypothesis tested was to evaluate that there is no difference in response between ACCP positive and ACCP negative PsA participants who were treated with etanercept.||||||0.004|||||||Student's t-test|||At Month 12: P-value \<0.05 was considered statistically significant, without multiplicity adjustment.||||0.004
91086886|NCT03311841|182056625|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|2.03|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of pitavastatin lactone||2.03|0.52|
91023018|NCT02295280|181929781|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14||||||Reduction in pain scores by at least 2 units six hours post administration|Mann Whitney U test|Mann Whitney U test used for analysis of this continuous variable as data were not normally distributed. Outcome was comparable at the 6-hour mark.||A sample size calculation of 35 patients in each group was based on an estimated reduction in headache pain score by at least two points, with an a of 0.05 and power of 90%, which is similar to estimates reported in prior studies in non-pregnant patients and felt to be a clinically significant decrease. Statistical analyses were performed using chi-square, Fisher's exact test for categorical variables, the independent Student's t-test and Kolmogorov-Smirnov for continuous variables.||||0.14
91023019|NCT01241565|181929801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate of incidence of PAL|10.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|21.3|||||Incidence of Prolonged Air Leak (PAL) is estimated at between 5-10% in literature. PAL of 10%of evaluable cases was used to determine study success.|||21.3|3.9|
91023020|NCT02713243|181929808|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.04||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|7.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1 (Period 1 \& 2)||7.11|0.98|0.01
91023021|NCT02713243|181929808|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.31||||0.401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|4.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2 (Period 1 \& 2)||4.38|-1.77|0.401
91023022|NCT02713243|181929808|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.67||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|4.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1\&2 (Period 1 \& 2)||4.89|0.46|0.019
91086887|NCT03311841|182056625|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.97|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of pitavastatin lactone||2.97|0.77|
91086888|NCT03311841|182056625|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|2.05|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of pitavastatin lactone||2.05|0.56|
91086889|NCT03311841|182056625|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.17|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of pitavastatin lactone||1.17|0.30|
91086890|NCT03311841|182056625|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.94|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of atovastatin||2.94|0.84|
90905079|NCT02886728|181677437|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|-0.08||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and subjects being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.08|-0.25|<0.001
90959138|NCT05062759|181798253|OTHER||Geometric LS mean ratio|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.73|2.07||||||Influenza B Victoria Lineage Ratio of placebo over tezepelumab. Results based on ANCOVA model||2.07|0.73|
91086891|NCT03311841|182056625|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.73|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of atovastatin||2.73|0.81|
91023023|NCT02713243|181929813|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12||||0.533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1 (Period 1 \& 2)||0.52|-0.27|0.533
91023024|NCT02713243|181929813|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2 (Period 1 \& 2)||0.30|-0.49|0.640
91023025|NCT02713243|181929813|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02||||0.916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1\&2 (Period 1 \& 2)||0.30|-0.27|0.916
91023026|NCT03593772|181929826|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|-0.04819|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02482||0.0535|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Total POQ Score as the outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the treatment group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a treatment group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by treatment group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.05. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.0535
91086892|NCT03311841|182056625|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.47|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of ortho-hydroxyatorvastatin||2.47|0.84|
91086893|NCT03311841|182056625|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.78|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of ortho-hydroxyatorvastatin||1.78|0.63|
91086894|NCT03311841|182056625|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|3.61|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of rosuvastatin||3.61|0.95|
91086895|NCT03311841|182056625|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.64|5.86|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of rosuvastatin||5.86|1.64|
91023027|NCT03593772|181929826|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|-0.00163|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001826||0.3729|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Pain Rating as the outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the treatment group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a treatment group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by treatment group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.05. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.3729
91023028|NCT03593772|181929826|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|-0.00593|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.007228||0.4124|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Mobility as the outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the treatment group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a treatment group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by treatment group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.05. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.4124
91023029|NCT03593772|181929826|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|-0.00432|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.009334||0.6442|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Activities of Daily Living as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for treatment group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a treatment group x time interaction term to test if the rate of change in the instrument score differed by treatment group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.05. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.6442
91023030|NCT03593772|181929826|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|-0.00898|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.006436||0.1641|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Vitality as the outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the treatment group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a treatment group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by treatment group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.05. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.1641
91023031|NCT03593772|181929826|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|-0.01952|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.009846||0.0487|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Neg. Affect as the outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the treatment group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a treatment group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by treatment group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.05. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.0487
91023032|NCT03593772|181929826|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|-0.0066|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.004644||0.1554|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Fear as the outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the treatment group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a treatment group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by treatment group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.05. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.1554
91032929|NCT01032083|181951495|EQUIVALENCE|For the primary outcome, linear regression was used to determine mean difference between treatment groups. Differences between groups are presented as mean differences with associated 95% confidence interval (CI). Baseline values for variables were included as covariates in regression models and adjusted according to analysis of covariance. All analyses were conducted under the intention-to-treat principle.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|14.0|||Regression, Linear|||||14|-9|0.68
90959139|NCT05062759|181798253|OTHER||Geometeric LS mean ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.54|1.48||||||Influenza B Yamagata Lineage Ratio of placebo over tezepelumab. Results based on ANCOVA model||1.48|0.54|
91032930|NCT01643707|181951497|SUPERIORITY|A chi-square test was performed to determine a difference between Phase 1 and Phase 2.|||||<|1e-05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.00001
91032931|NCT01643707|181951498|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-Square test used to show any difference between Phase 1 and Phase 2|||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
91032932|NCT01643707|181951499|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-Square test used to show any difference between Phase 1 and Phase 2|||||<|0.0001||||||This endpoint was covered in primary objective 2, so this analysis is the same as previously reported.|Chi-squared||||See Primary Objectives for additional details.|||<0.0001
91032933|NCT04112823|181951504|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|20.0||||||||20|-6|
91032934|NCT04112823|181951505|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|16.0||||||||16|-8|
91032935|NCT04112823|181951506|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|14.0||||||||14|-8|
91032936|NCT04112823|181951508|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.2||||||||1.2|-0.3|
91032937|NCT04112823|181951509|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|18.0||||||||18|-9|
91032938|NCT03603314|181951516|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3419|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The null and alternative hypotheses for Part 1 of the study were as follows, where μH, μL and μP were defined as the mean change in PTA of the high dose, low dose, and placebo respectively: H0H: μH - μP = 0, HAH: μH - μP \<0 (greater decrease on high dose) H0L: μL - μP = 0, HAL: μL - μP \<0 (greater decrease on low dose)||||0.3419
91032939|NCT03603314|181951516|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5181|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The null and alternative hypotheses for Part 1 of the study were as follows, where μH, μL and μP were defined as the mean change in PTA of the high dose, low dose, and placebo respectively: H0H: μH - μP = 0, HAH: μH - μP \<0 (greater decrease on high dose) H0L: μL - μP = 0, HAL: μL - μP \<0 (greater decrease on low dose)||||0.5181
91023033|NCT03593772|181929827|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|-0.00113|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.000863||0.1924|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Pain as the outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the treatment group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a treatment group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by treatment group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.1924
91023034|NCT03593772|181929827|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|-0.0019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001152||0.1002|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Stress as the outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the treatment group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a treatment group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by treatment group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.1002
91023035|NCT03593772|181929827|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|0.000343|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.000996||0.7311|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Tension as the outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the treatment group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a treatment group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by treatment group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.7311
91023036|NCT03593772|181929828|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|-0.00241|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001716||0.1622|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Pain as the outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the treatment group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a treatment group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by treatment group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.1622
91023037|NCT03593772|181929828|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|-0.00235|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.002052||0.254|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Pain Interference with Activity as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.2540
91023038|NCT03593772|181929828|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|-0.00612|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.002297||0.0082|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Pain Interference with Sleep as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.0082
91023039|NCT03593772|181929828|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|-0.00636|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.002378||0.0079|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Pain Interference with Mood as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.0079
91023040|NCT03593772|181929828|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|-0.00334|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.002367||0.1588|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Pain Interference with Stress as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.1588
91023041|NCT03593772|181929829|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|-0.00974|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01379||0.4808|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on PCL-5 Total Score as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.4808
90959140|NCT05062759|181798254|OTHER||Geometeric LS mean ratio|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.52|1.04||||||Influenza A H1N1 Ratio of placebo over tezepelumab. Results based on ANCOVA model||1.04|0.52|
90959141|NCT05062759|181798254|OTHER||Geometeric LS mean ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.72|1.29||||||Influenza B Yamagata Lineage Ratio of placebo over tezepelumab. Results based on ANCOVA model||1.29|0.72|
91023042|NCT03593772|181929830|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|-0.00033|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00856||0.9692|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Physical Health Domain Score as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.9692
91023043|NCT03593772|181929830|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|0.01738|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.007848||0.0277|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Mental Health Domain Score as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.0277
91023044|NCT03593772|181929831|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|-0.00188|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.003253||0.5642|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Total PSQI Score as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.5642
91023045|NCT03593772|181929831|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|-0.00092|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00079||0.2438|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on PSQI Subjective Sleep Quality Domain as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.2438
91023046|NCT03593772|181929831|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|0.000304|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.000885||0.7317|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on PSQI Sleep latency Domain as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.7317
91023047|NCT03593772|181929831|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|-0.00062|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001327||0.6393|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on PSQI Sleep duration Domain as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.6393
91023048|NCT03593772|181929831|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|-0.00112|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.000873||0.1995|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on PSQI Sleep efficiency Domain as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.1995
91023049|NCT03593772|181929831|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|-0.00072|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.000675||0.2886|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on PSQI Sleep disturbance Domain as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.2886
91032940|NCT03603314|181951517|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3666|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The null and alternative hypotheses for Part 1 of the study were as follows, where μH, μL and μP were defined as the mean change in PTA of the high dose, low dose, and placebo respectively: H0H: μH - μP = 0, HAH: μH - μP \<0 (greater decrease on high dose) H0L: μL - μP = 0, HAL: μL - μP \<0 (greater decrease on low dose)||||0.3666
91032941|NCT03603314|181951517|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5776|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The null and alternative hypotheses for Part 1 of the study were as follows, where μH, μL and μP were defined as the mean change in PTA of the high dose, low dose, and placebo respectively: H0H: μH - μP = 0, HAH: μH - μP \<0 (greater decrease on high dose) H0L: μL - μP = 0, HAL: μL - μP \<0 (greater decrease on low dose)||||0.5776
91032942|NCT03603314|181951518|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4094|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The null and alternative hypotheses for Part 1 of the study were as follows, where μH, μL and μP were defined as the mean change in PTA of the high dose, low dose, and placebo respectively: H0H: μH - μP = 0, HAH: μH - μP \<0 (greater decrease on high dose) H0L: μL - μP = 0, HAL: μL - μP \<0 (greater decrease on low dose)||||0.4094
90829722|NCT02365649|181533431|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.7|30.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 28||30.0|-46.7|1.000
90829723|NCT02365649|181533431|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|26.7||||0.361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.5|71.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 36||71.8|-18.5|0.361
90829724|NCT02365649|181533431|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.3||||0.812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.6|31.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 36||31.0|-39.6|0.812
90829725|NCT02365649|181533431|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-27.5||||0.345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.3|6.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 36||6.3|-61.3|0.345
90829726|NCT02365649|181533431|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.1|57.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 44||57.1|-37.1|1.000
90829727|NCT02365649|181533431|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.0||||0.588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.1|46.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 44||46.1|-26.1|0.588
90905080|NCT02886728|181677437|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.01||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and subjects being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||0.01|-0.20|0.077
90959142|NCT05062759|181798254|OTHER||Geometric LS mean ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.73|1.46||||||Influenza B Victoria Lineage Ratio of placebo over tezepelumab. Results based on ANCOVA model||1.46|0.73|
90829728|NCT02365649|181533431|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-15.0||||0.657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.9|23.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 44||23.9|-53.9|0.657
90829729|NCT02365649|181533431|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.0||||0.635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.4|65.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 52||65.4|-25.4|0.635
90905081|NCT02886728|181677437|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|-0.01||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and subjects being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.01|-0.22|0.039
91023050|NCT03593772|181929831|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|0.002048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001356||0.1323|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on PSQI Use of sleep medication Domain as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.1323
91023051|NCT03593772|181929831|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|0.000209|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.000793||0.7923|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on PSQI Daytime dysfunction Domain as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.7923
91023052|NCT03593772|181929832|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|-0.00046|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001074||0.6679|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on COS Total Score as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.6679
91023053|NCT03593772|181929832|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|0.001083|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.000769||0.1607|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on COS Total Score as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.1607
91023054|NCT03593772|181929832|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|0.000984|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00064||0.126|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on CSS- Total as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.1260
91023055|NCT03593772|181929832|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|0.000909|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.000933||0.3311|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on CSS Self-Kindness Domain as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.3311
91086896|NCT03311841|182056625|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|3.24|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of rosuvastatin||3.24|0.95|
91086897|NCT05464420|182056655|OTHER|Estimated difference in percentage and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Estimated difference in percentage|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|8.6||||||Injection site erythema: V116 Combined Lots - PPSV23||8.6|3.0|
91086898|NCT05464420|182056655|OTHER|Estimated difference in percentage and 95% CI were based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Estimated difference in percentage|12.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|17.3||||||Injection site pain: V116 Combined Lots - PPSV23||17.3|8.0|
90829730|NCT02365649|181533431|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.5||||0.573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.7|46.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 52||46.7|-25.7|0.573
90829731|NCT02365649|181533431|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-34.2||||0.176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.3|-0.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 52||-0.1|-68.3|0.176
90829732|NCT02365649|181533431|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-12.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.4|10.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 44||10.4|-35.4|1.000
90829733|NCT02365649|181533431|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-12.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.4|10.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 44||10.4|-35.4|1.000
90829734|NCT02365649|181533431|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-12.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.4|10.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 44||10.4|-35.4|1.000
90829735|NCT02365649|181533432|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-25.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.0|5.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders||5.0|-55.0|1.000
90829736|NCT02365649|181533432|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.5|57.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders||57.5|-32.5|1.000
90829737|NCT02365649|181533432|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-25.0||||0.487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.0|5.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders||5.0|-55.0|0.487
90829738|NCT02365649|181533432|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.1||||0.375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|31.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ|Non-respoonders||31.6|-9.4|0.375
91023056|NCT03593772|181929832|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|0.001041|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.000887||0.2416|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on CSS Self-Judgment Domain as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.2416
90829739|NCT02365649|181533432|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-13.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.5|3.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders||3.9|-30.5|1.000
90829740|NCT02365649|181533432|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.1||||0.651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|35.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders||35.6|-19.4|0.651
90829741|NCT02365649|181533432|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.8||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.5|27.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders||27.8|-29.5|1.000
90829742|NCT02365649|181533433|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.5|77.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 20||77.5|-77.5|1.000
90829743|NCT02365649|181533433|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.0|49.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 20||49.0|-49.0|1.000
91023057|NCT03593772|181929832|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|-0.00087|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001016||0.3903|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on CSS Common Humanity Domain as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.3903
90829744|NCT02365649|181533433|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-50.0||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.6|-15.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 20||-15.4|-84.6|0.105
90905082|NCT02886728|181677438|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|-3.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-3.0|-6.0|<0.001
91023058|NCT03593772|181929832|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|0.001186|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00095||0.2131|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on CSS Isolation Domain as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.2131
90829745|NCT02365649|181533433|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.5|89.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 28||89.5|-64.5|1.000
90829746|NCT02365649|181533433|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.7|60.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 28||60.7|-35.7|1.000
90829747|NCT02365649|181533433|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-17.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.0|31.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 28||31.0|-66.0|1.000
90829748|NCT02365649|181533433|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|62.5||||0.444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.0|96.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 36||96.0|29.0|0.444
91023059|NCT03593772|181929832|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|0.001485|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.000933||0.113|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on CSS Mindfulness Domain as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.1130
91023060|NCT03593772|181929832|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|0.001983|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.000939||0.0358|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on CSS Over-identification Domain as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.0358
91023061|NCT03593772|181929832|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|-0.00019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.000495||0.7027|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on CSS- Total Score as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.7027
91023062|NCT03593772|181929832|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|0.000761|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00073||0.2979|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on CSS Self-Kindness Domain as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.2979
91023063|NCT03593772|181929832|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|-0.00063|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.000798||0.4278|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on CSS Self-Judgment Domain as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.4278
91023064|NCT03593772|181929832|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|-0.0000074|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.000877||0.9933|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on CSS Common Humanity Domain as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.9933
90829749|NCT02365649|181533433|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|25.0||||0.619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.4|72.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 36||72.4|-22.4|0.619
90956949|NCT01856868|181793479|EQUIVALENCE|Difference in baseline and 8 week scores was evaluated using a mixed model regression analysis, including fixed effects for height, weight and knee extension strength using patient identity as source of random variation. As a pilot study, these measures were not subject to a formal power analysis but will be used in future sample size calculations.|Mean Difference (Net)|11.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.6||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.50
90959143|NCT05062759|181798255|OTHER||Geometeric LS mean ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.51|1.25||||||Influenza A H1N1 Ratio of placebo over tezepelumab. Results based on ANCOVA model||1.25|0.51|
90829750|NCT02365649|181533433|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-37.5||||0.231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.0|-4.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 36||-4.0|-71.0|0.231
90829751|NCT02365649|181533433|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-37.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.0|-4.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 44||-4.0|-71.0|1.000
90829752|NCT02365649|181533433|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|25.0||||0.619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.4|72.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 44||72.4|-22.4|0.619
90829753|NCT02365649|181533433|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-17.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.0|31.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 44||31.0|-66.0|1.000
90829754|NCT02365649|181533433|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|75.0||||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.0|100.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 52||100.0|45.0|0.133
90829755|NCT02365649|181533433|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|37.5||||0.315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|82.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 52||82.5|-7.5|0.315
90829756|NCT02365649|181533433|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-25.0||||0.487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.0|5.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 52||5.0|-55.0|0.487
90829757|NCT02365649|181533433|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|26.7||||0.249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.6|72.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 20||72.9|-19.6|0.249
91023065|NCT03593772|181929832|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|-0.00115|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.000816||0.1589|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on CSS Isolation Domain as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.1589
90829758|NCT02365649|181533433|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-13.3||||0.487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.5|3.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 20||3.9|-30.5|0.487
90829759|NCT02365649|181533433|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-13.3||||0.511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.5|3.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 20||3.9|-30.5|0.511
90829760|NCT02365649|181533433|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|33.3||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|78.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 28||78.1|-11.4|0.140
90829761|NCT02365649|181533433|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.0||||0.569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|34.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 28||34.6|-14.6|0.569
90829762|NCT02365649|181533433|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.4||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|28.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 28||28.5|-19.7|1.000
90959144|NCT05062759|181798255|OTHER||Geometeric LS mean ratio|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.42|1.28||||||Influenza A H3N2 Ratio of placebo over tezepelumab. Results based on ANCOVA model||1.28|0.42|
90959145|NCT05062759|181798255|OTHER||Geometric LS mean ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.49|1.99||||||Influenza B Victoria Lineage Ratio of placebo over tezepelumab. Results based on ANCOVA model||1.99|0.49|
91032943|NCT03603314|181951518|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4602|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The null and alternative hypotheses for Part 1 of the study were as follows, where μH, μL and μP were defined as the mean change in PTA of the high dose, low dose, and placebo respectively: H0H: μH - μP = 0, HAH: μH - μP \<0 (greater decrease on high dose) H0L: μL - μP = 0, HAL: μL - μP \<0 (greater decrease on low dose)||||0.4602
91023066|NCT03593772|181929832|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|0.000109|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.000767||0.8875|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on CSS Mindfulness Domain as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.8875
91023067|NCT03593772|181929832|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|-0.00032|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00078||0.6859|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on CSS Over-identification Domain as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.6859
91023068|NCT03593772|181929833|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|-0.01408|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01085||0.1959|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on BDI total score as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.1959
91023069|NCT03593772|181929834|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|-0.00788|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.005845||0.1792|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Perceived Stress Scale Score as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.1792
91023070|NCT03593772|181929835|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|0.00132|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01039||0.8991|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Total RDAS as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.8991
91023071|NCT03593772|181929835|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|0.002105|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.002349||0.3711|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Decision Making Subdomain as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.3711
91086899|NCT05464420|182056655|OTHER|Estimated difference in percentage and 95% CI were based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Estimated difference in percentage|5.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|8.2||||||Injection site swelling: V116 Combined Lots - PPSV23||8.2|2.6|
91023072|NCT03593772|181929835|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|0.001864|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.002348||0.428|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Values Subdomain as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.4280
91023073|NCT03593772|181929835|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|-0.00007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.003205||0.9831|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Affection Subdomain as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.9831
91086900|NCT05464420|182056657|OTHER|Estimated difference in percentage and 95% CI were based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Estimated difference in percentage|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|6.0||||||Fatigue: V116 Combined Lots - PPSV23||6.0|-3.2|
91086901|NCT05464420|182056657|OTHER|Estimated difference in percentage and 95% CI were based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Estimated difference in percentage|5.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|9.7||||||Headache: V116 Combined Lots - PPSV23||9.7|1.6|
91086902|NCT05464420|182056657|OTHER|Estimated difference in percentage and 95% CI were based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Estimated difference in percentage|7.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|10.5||||||Myalgia: V116 Combined Lots - PPSV23||10.5|4.5|
90829763|NCT02365649|181533433|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.3||||0.447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.9|50.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 36||50.6|-23.9|0.447
90829764|NCT02365649|181533433|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.3|6.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 36||6.0|-19.3|1.000
90829765|NCT02365649|181533433|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.4||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|28.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 36||28.5|-19.7|1.000
90829766|NCT02365649|181533433|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.0||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.5|67.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 44||67.5|-27.5|0.560
90829767|NCT02365649|181533433|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-20.0||||0.231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.2|0.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 44||0.2|-40.2|0.231
91023074|NCT03593772|181929835|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|0.003052|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.006364||0.632|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Total Consensus Domain as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.6320
91023075|NCT03593772|181929835|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|0.00007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.002259||0.9755|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Stability Subdomain as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.9755
91023076|NCT03593772|181929835|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|0.00056|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001818||0.7584|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Conflict Subdomain as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.7584
91023077|NCT03593772|181929835|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|0.000297|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.003444||0.9313|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Total Satisfaction Domain as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.9313
91086903|NCT05464420|182056657|OTHER|Estimated difference in percentage and 95% CI were based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Estimated difference in percentage|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.1||||||Pyrexia: V116 Combined Lots - PPSV23||2.1|-1.0|
91086904|NCT05464420|182056659|OTHER|Estimated difference in percentage and 95% CI were based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Estimated difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.2||||||Vaccine-related SAEs: V116 Combined Lots - PPSV23||0.2|-0.7|
90829768|NCT02365649|181533433|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.9||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.7|19.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 44||19.9|-37.7|1.000
90829769|NCT02365649|181533433|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.4|45.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 52||45.7|-32.4|1.000
90829770|NCT02365649|181533433|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.2|18.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 52||18.2|-28.2|1.000
90959146|NCT05062759|181798255|OTHER||Geometeric LS mean ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7|1.52||||||Influenza B Yamagata Lineage Ratio of placebo over tezepelumab. Results based on ANCOVA model||1.52|0.70|
91086905|NCT05464420|182056660|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.24||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 3: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 2||1.24|0.96|<0.001
90893817|NCT05711641|181652874|OTHER|Tinnitus loudness was described with the use of summary measures, and the variations between the applied substances were compared with the use of Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) with normal marginal distribution and identity binding function, assuming an interchangeable correlation matrix between the substances (McCullagh; Nelder, 1989).||||||||||||||||"The alternative hypothesis of this study is that 10% lidocaine, applied topically to the external auditory canal (EAC), acts on tinnitus intensity differently than placebo, while the null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the action of lidocaine and placebo on tinnitus intensity.~The analyses were performed using the IBM-SPSS for Windows software version 22.0 and tabulated using the Microsoft-Excel 2010 software, and the tests were performed with a significance level of 5%."|Tinnitus loudness was described with the use of summary measures, and the variations between the applied substances were compared with the use of Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) with normal marginal distribution and identity binding function, assuming an interchangeable correlation matrix between the substances (McCullagh; Nelder, 1989).|||
91086906|NCT05464420|182056660|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.17||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 3|Serotype 3: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 3||1.17|0.90|<0.001
91086907|NCT05464420|182056660|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|0.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.06||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA Model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 2/ V116 Lot 3|Serotype 3: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 2/ V116 Lot 3||1.06|0.83|<0.001
91086908|NCT05464420|182056660|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.35||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 6A: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 2||1.35|0.97|<0.001
91086909|NCT05464420|182056660|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.22||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 6A: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 3||1.22|0.88|<0.001
91086910|NCT05464420|182056660|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|0.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.06||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 6A: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 2/ V116 Lot 3||1.06|0.77|<0.001
91086911|NCT05464420|182056660|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.34||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 7F: V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 2||1.34|1.01|<0.001
91086912|NCT05464420|182056660|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.25||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 7F: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 3||1.25|0.94|<0.001
90959147|NCT04981366|181798262|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||We applied the restricted maximum likelihood, compound symmetry covariance structure, and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom approximation. To maintain the significance level at 0.05, the primary endpoints were assessed using Hochberg's procedure.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.013
91086913|NCT05464420|182056660|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|0.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.07||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 7F: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 2/ V116 Lot 3||1.07|0.81|<0.001
91086914|NCT05464420|182056660|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.16||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 8 V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2||1.16|0.92|<0.001
91086915|NCT05464420|182056660|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.18||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 3|Serotype 8: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 3||1.18|0.93|<0.001
91086916|NCT05464420|182056660|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.14||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 2/ V116 Lot 3|Serotype 8: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 2/ V116 Lot 3||1.14|0.90|<0.001
90893818|NCT05711641|181652875|OTHER|MML was described with the use of summary measures, and the variations between the applied substances were compared with the use of Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) with normal marginal distribution and identity binding function, assuming an interchangeable correlation matrix between the substances (McCullagh; Nelder, 1989).||||||||||||||||"The alternative hypothesis of this study is that 10% lidocaine, applied topically to the external auditory canal (EAC), acts on tinnitus intensity differently than placebo, while the null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the action of lidocaine and placebo on tinnitus intensity.~The analyses were performed using the IBM-SPSS for Windows software version 22.0 and tabulated using the Microsoft-Excel 2010 software, and the tests were performed with a significance level of 5%."|MML was described with the use of summary measures, and the variations between the applied substances were compared with the use of Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) with normal marginal distribution and identity binding function, assuming an interchangeable correlation matrix between the substances (McCullagh; Nelder, 1989).|||
90829771|NCT02365649|181533433|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.2||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.0|24.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 52||24.6|-29.0|1.000
90829772|NCT02365649|181533433|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.1|57.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 20||57.1|-37.1|1.000
90829773|NCT02365649|181533433|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-11.4||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.7|22.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 20||22.8|-45.7|0.700
90829774|NCT02365649|181533433|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-40.0||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.8|-15.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5). Prespecified statistical significance at the 0.1 level.|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 20||-15.2|-64.8|0.058
90829775|NCT02365649|181533433|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|23.3||||0.354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.5|69.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 28||69.2|-22.5|0.354
90829776|NCT02365649|181533433|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.2||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.1|50.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 28||50.4|-18.1|0.450
90829777|NCT02365649|181533433|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.1|35.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 28||35.8|-39.1|1.000
90893819|NCT03574597|181652876|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.89|||Regression, Cox|||Data from the in-trial period. The outcome measure was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as categorical fixed factor. Participants without events of interest were censored at the end of their in-trial period.||0.89|0.72|< 0.0001
90893820|NCT01215292|181652938|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|80% power to detect 20% difference in ITT|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.05
90893821|NCT01215292|181652939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.05
90829778|NCT02365649|181533433|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|23.3||||0.354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.5|69.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 36||69.2|-22.5|0.354
90829779|NCT02365649|181533433|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.0||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.6|42.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 36||42.7|-24.6|0.700
90829780|NCT02365649|181533433|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-14.2||||0.621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.2|17.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 36||17.9|-46.2|0.621
90829781|NCT02365649|181533433|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.8|38.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 44||38.5|-51.8|1.000
90893822|NCT01215292|181652940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.05
90893823|NCT01596582|181652957|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.40
90829782|NCT02365649|181533433|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.3||||0.812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.6|31.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 44||31.0|-39.6|0.812
90829783|NCT02365649|181533433|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-15.0||||0.657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.9|23.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 44||23.9|-53.9|0.657
90829784|NCT02365649|181533433|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|23.3||||0.354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.5|69.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 52||69.2|-22.5|0.354
90829785|NCT02365649|181533433|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.2||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.1|50.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 52||50.4|-18.1|0.450
90829786|NCT02365649|181533433|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-14.2||||0.621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.2|17.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 52||17.9|-46.2|0.621
90829787|NCT02365649|181533434|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.2|95.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20%of the cells have expected cell count \<5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 20||95.6|-62.2|1.000
91023078|NCT03593772|181929835|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|-0.00129|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.002097||0.5401|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Activities Subdomain as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.5401
91023079|NCT03593772|181929835|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|0.00018|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.002471||0.9421|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Discussion Subdomain as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.9421
90829788|NCT02365649|181533434|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|29.2||||0.592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.3|79.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 20||79.6|-21.3|0.592
90829789|NCT02365649|181533434|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-13.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.8|38.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 20||38.2|-64.8|1.000
90893824|NCT01596582|181652958|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.51
90893825|NCT01596582|181652959|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90893826|NCT01596582|181652960|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90829790|NCT02365649|181533434|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.0|80.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 28||80.0|-80.0|1.000
90829791|NCT02365649|181533434|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.7|64.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 28||64.7|-39.7|1.000
90893827|NCT01596582|181652961|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.004
90893828|NCT01596582|181652962|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The p-value for each comparison was non-significanct.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
90893829|NCT01596582|181652963|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.51
90893830|NCT01596582|181652964|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.62
90893831|NCT01596582|181652965|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
90893832|NCT01596582|181652966|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.39
90893833|NCT01786967|181652980|SUPERIORITY|This was a pilot study to provide preliminary data to inform future sample size estimates for a larger more definitive trial|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.96||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.71|||Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis was that there will be no difference in treatment benefit scale between the two groups||1.71|0.53|1.0
90893834|NCT01786967|181652981|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.85||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.95|||Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the rate of moderate to severe adverse events.||.95|.76|1.0
90893835|NCT00182754|181653015|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.17
90893836|NCT00902694|181653045|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-0.4||||||6 month intervention versus control||-0.4|-2.6|
90893837|NCT00902694|181653045|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|-1.2||||||18 month intervention versus control||-1.2|-5.1|
90893838|NCT00902694|181653047|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|-0.4||||||6 month intervention versus control||-0.4|-3.6|
90893839|NCT00902694|181653047|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|0.3||||||18 month intervention versus control||0.3|-4.1|
90893840|NCT00902694|181653048|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|2.4||||||6 month systolic intervention versus control||2.4|-3.2|
90893841|NCT00902694|181653048|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.1||||||6 month diastolic intervention versus control||2.1|-1.6|
90893842|NCT00902694|181653048|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|4.8||||||18 month systolic intervention versus control||4.8|-1.6|
90893843|NCT00902694|181653048|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|3.4||||||18 month diastolic intervention versus control||3.4|-0.9|
90893844|NCT00902694|181653049|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|4.1||||||6 month total chol intervention versus control||4.1|-9.9|
90893845|NCT00902694|181653049|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|4.4||||||18 month total chol intervention versus control||4.4|-14.9|
90893846|NCT00902694|181653049|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|5.1||||||6 month LDL chol intervention versus control||5.1|-7.5|
90893847|NCT00902694|181653049|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|3.9||||||18 month LDL chol intervention versus control||3.9|-13.1|
90959148|NCT04981366|181798263|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||We applied the restricted maximum likelihood, compound symmetry covariance structure, and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom approximation. To maintain the significance level at 0.05, the primary endpoints were assessed using Hochberg's procedure.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
90893848|NCT00902694|181653049|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|1.7||||||6 month HDL chol intervention versus control||1.7|-2.9|
90893849|NCT00902694|181653049|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|3.1||||||18 month HDL intervention versus control||3.1|-1.8|
90893850|NCT00902694|181653049|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.5|12.4||||||6 month TRIG intervention versus control||12.4|-23.5|
90893851|NCT00902694|181653049|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.0|23.9||||||18 month TRIG intervention versus control||23.9|-27.0|
90893852|NCT04154787|181653060|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of adjusted geometric mean ratios on Day 169|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|1.37||||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.08||Calculated at one-sided 10% level from a lower-tailed test|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.08|0.90|0.2670
90893853|NCT04154787|181653063|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted geometric mean ratios|0.81||||0.4598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.42||Calculated from a two-sided test at the 0.05 significance level|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures||Comparison of adjusted geometric mean ratios: Test vs Ref.|Day 15||1.42|0.47|0.4598
91023080|NCT03593772|181929835|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|-0.00151|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.003983||0.7042|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Total Cohesion Domain as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.7042
91023081|NCT03593772|181929835|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|0.02128|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.008331||0.0114|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Total RDAS Score as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.0114
91023082|NCT03593772|181929835|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|0.002587|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001727||0.1358|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Decision Making Subdomain as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.1358
91023083|NCT03593772|181929835|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|0.001402|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001796||0.4354|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Values Subdomain as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.4354
91023084|NCT03593772|181929835|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|0.005759|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.002113||0.007|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on AffectionSubdomain as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.0070
91023085|NCT03593772|181929835|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|0.01037|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.004485||0.0217|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Total Consensus Domain as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.0217
91023086|NCT03593772|181929835|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|-0.00039|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001461||0.7881|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Stability Subdomain as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.7881
91023087|NCT03593772|181929835|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|0.004717|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00141||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Conflict Subdomain as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.0010
91023088|NCT03593772|181929835|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|0.004393|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.002415||0.0693|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Total Satisfaction Domain as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.0693
91086917|NCT05464420|182056660|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.26||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 9N: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 2||1.26|0.94|<0.001
90959149|NCT04981366|181798264|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
90829792|NCT02365649|181533434|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-30.0||||0.545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.2|23.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 28||23.2|-83.2|0.545
90829793|NCT02365649|181533434|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|50.0||||0.464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|90.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 36||90.0|10.0|0.464
90829794|NCT02365649|181533434|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.7|64.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 36||64.7|-39.7|1.000
90829795|NCT02365649|181533434|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-50.0||||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-90.0|-10.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 36||-10.0|-90.0|0.182
90829796|NCT02365649|181533434|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.2|95.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 44||95.6|-62.2|1.000
90829797|NCT02365649|181533434|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|29.2||||0.592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.3|79.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 44||79.6|-21.3|0.592
90829798|NCT02365649|181533434|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-13.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.8|38.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 44||38.2|-64.8|1.000
90893854|NCT04154787|181653063|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratios|1.3||||0.4528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|2.61||Calculated from a two-sided test at the 0.05 significance level|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures||Comparison of adjusted geometric mean ratios: Test vs Ref.|Day 169||2.61|0.65|0.4528
90893855|NCT02459574|181653071|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.156|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.097|0.25||Bonferonni corrected alpha of 0.05/2 = 0.025|Log Rank||95% Wald Confidence Limits Point estimate relates to AVATAR-AF in relation to Anti-Arrhythmic Therapy|Primary Analysis - AVATAR-AF vs Anti-Arrhythmic Therapy||0.250|0.097|<0.0001
91023089|NCT03593772|181929835|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|0.002959|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001887||0.1184|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Activities Subdomain as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.1184
90829799|NCT02365649|181533434|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|66.7||||0.429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.9|100.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 52||100.0|28.9|0.429
90829800|NCT02365649|181533434|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|29.2||||0.592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.3|79.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 52||79.6|-21.3|0.592
90829801|NCT02365649|181533434|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-33.3||||0.455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.1|4.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 52||4.4|-71.1|0.455
91032944|NCT03603314|181951519|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1269|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The null and alternative hypotheses for Part 1 of the study were as follows, where μH, μL and μP were defined as the mean change in PTA of the high dose, low dose, and placebo respectively: H0H: μH - μP = 0, HAH: μH - μP \<0 (greater decrease on high dose) H0L: μL - μP = 0, HAL: μL - μP \<0 (greater decrease on low dose)||||0.1269
90829802|NCT02365649|181533434|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|31.7||||0.191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|77.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 20||77.4|-14.0|0.191
90829803|NCT02365649|181533434|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.1|22.1|||Chi-squared|P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 20||22.1|-22.1|1.000
90956950|NCT01856868|181793481|EQUIVALENCE|Difference in baseline and 8 week scores was evaluated using a mixed model regression analysis, including fixed effects for height, weight and knee extension strength using patient identity as source of random variation. As a pilot study, these measures were not subject to a formal power analysis but will be used in future sample size calculations.|Mean Difference (Net)|5.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.79||0.159|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.159
91032945|NCT03603314|181951519|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2257|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The null and alternative hypotheses for Part 1 of the study were as follows, where μH, μL and μP were defined as the mean change in PTA of the high dose, low dose, and placebo respectively: H0H: μH - μP = 0, HAH: μH - μP \<0 (greater decrease on high dose) H0L: μL - μP = 0, HAL: μL - μP \<0 (greater decrease on low dose)||||0.2257
91023090|NCT03593772|181929835|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|0.003436|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.002262||0.1301|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Discussion Subdomain as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.1301
91023091|NCT03593772|181929835|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|0.006022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.003697||0.1049|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Total Cohesion Domain as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.1049
91023092|NCT03033069|181929856|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS ) Mean Difference|-5.99|||=|0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.79|-2.19|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||MMRM analysis with an unstructured (UN) variance covariance structure was performed. The model included fixed class-effect terms for treatment, trial site, type of trauma (combat related Yes/No), visit week, and an interaction term of treatment by visit week and included the interaction term of baseline values of CAPS-5 total score by visit week as a covariate.||-2.19|-9.79|=0.0021
91023093|NCT03033069|181929856|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.74|||=|0.3868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|2.22|||MMRM|||MMRM analysis with an UN variance covariance structure was performed. The model included fixed class-effect terms for treatment, trial site, type of trauma (combat related Yes/No), visit week, and an interaction term of treatment by visit week and included the interaction term of baseline values of CAPS-5 total score by visit week as a covariate.||2.22|-5.70|=0.3868
91023094|NCT03033069|181929856|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.91|||=|0.6399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.74|2.92|||MMRM|||MMRM analysis with an UN variance covariance structure was performed. The model included fixed class-effect terms for treatment, trial site, type of trauma (combat related Yes/No), visit week, and an interaction term of treatment by visit week and included the interaction term of baseline values of CAPS-5 total score by visit week as a covariate.||2.92|-4.74|=0.6399
91023095|NCT03033069|181929856|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.08|||=|0.0106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.96|-1.2|||MMRM|||MMRM analysis with an UN variance covariance structure was performed. The model included fixed class-effect terms for treatment, trial site, type of trauma (combat related Yes/No), visit week, and an interaction term of treatment by visit week and included the interaction term of baseline values of CAPS-5 total score by visit week as a covariate.||-1.20|-8.96|=0.0106
91023096|NCT03033069|181929856|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.24|||=|0.0384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.26|-0.23|||MMRM|||MMRM analysis with an UN variance covariance structure was performed. The model included fixed class-effect terms for treatment, trial site, type of trauma (combat related Yes/No), visit week, and an interaction term of treatment by visit week and included the interaction term of baseline values of CAPS-5 total score by visit week as a covariate.||-0.23|-8.26|=0.0384
91023097|NCT00430638|181929857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||No multiplicity adjustments|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included randomized treatment and baseline cuff blood pressure stage as factors and study baseline systolic BP value as a covariate.||Null hypothesis: For the entire efficacy population, Olmesartan had the same effect on change from baseline in systolic blood pressure at week 12 as Placebo. A statistical test was evaluated at the 2 sided significance level of 5% without adjustment for multiple comparisons.||||<0.0001
91023098|NCT00430638|181929858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA Model included randomized treatment and baseline cuff BP stage as factors and study baseline diastolic BP as a covariate.||Null hypothesis: For the entire efficacy population, Olmesartan had the same effect on change from baseline in diastolic blood pressure at week 12 as Placebo. A statistical test was evaluated at the 2 sided significance level of 5% without adjustment for multiple comparisons.||||<0.0001
91023099|NCT00430638|181929859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis (male systolic blood pressure (SBP)): For the male efficacy population, Olmesartan had the same effect on change from baseline in systolic blood pressure at week 12 as Placebo. A statistical test was evaluated at the 2 sided significance level of 5% without adjustment for multiple comparisons.||||<0.0001
91023100|NCT00430638|181929859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis (Males - diastolic blood pressure (DBP)): For the male efficacy population, Olmesartan had the same effect on change from baseline in diastolic blood pressure at week 12 as Placebo. A statistical test was evaluated at the 2 sided significance level of 5% without adjustment for multiple comparisons.||||<0.0001
91023101|NCT00430638|181929860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis (Systolic blood pressure (SBP) - females): For the female efficacy population, Olmesartan had the same effect on change from baseline in systolic blood pressure at week 12 as Placebo. A statistical test was evaluated at the 2 sided significance level of 5% without adjustment for multiple comparisons.||||<0.0001
91023102|NCT00430638|181929860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis (Diastolic blood pressure (DBP) - females): For the female efficacy population, Olmesartan had the same effect on change from baseline in DBP at week 12 as Placebo. A statistical test was evaluated at the 2 sided significance level of 5% without adjustment for multiple comparisons.||||<0.0001
91086918|NCT05464420|182056660|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.17||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 9N: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 3||1.17|0.87|<0.001
90956951|NCT02632526|181793510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0433|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.17|1.31||||||||1.31|1.17|
91023103|NCT00430638|181929861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis(Systolic blood pressure (SBP) - less than 65 years of age): For the efficacy population \< 65 years of age, Olmesartan had the same effect on change from baseline in SBP at week 12 as Placebo. A statistical test was evaluated at the 2 sided significance level of 5% without adjustment for multiple comparisons.||||<0.0001
91023104|NCT00430638|181929861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis (Diastolic blood pressure (DBP) - less than 65 years of age): For the efficacy population \< 65 years of age, Olmesartan had the same effect on change from baseline in DBP at week 12 as Placebo. A statistical test was evaluated at the 2 sided significance level of 5% without adjustment for multiple comparisons.||||<0.0001
91023105|NCT00430638|181929862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0125||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis (Systolic blood pressure (SBP) - \> or equal to 65 years old): For the efficacy population \> or = to 65 years of age, Olmesartan had the same effect on change from baseline in SBP at week 12 as Placebo. A statistical test was evaluated at the 2 sided significance level of 5% without adjustment for multiple comparisons.||||0.0125
91023106|NCT00430638|181929862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis (Diastolic blood pressure (DBP) \> or equal to 65): For the efficacy population \> or = to 65 years of age, Olmesartan had the same effect on change from baseline in DBP at week 12 as Placebo. A statistical test was evaluated at the 2 sided significance level of 5% without adjustment for multiple comparisons.||||0.0006
91023107|NCT00430638|181929863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis (Systolic blood pressure (SBP) - Black participants): For the Black efficacy population, Olmesartan had the same effect on change from baseline in SBP at week 12 as Placebo. A statistical test was evaluated at the 2 sided significance level of 5% without adjustment for multiple comparisons||||<0.0001
91023108|NCT00430638|181929863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis (Diastolic blood pressure (DBP) - Black participants): For the Black efficacy population, Olmesartan had the same effect on change from baseline in DBP at week 12 as Placebo. A statistical test was evaluated at the 2 sided significance level of 5% without adjustment for multiple comparisons||||<0.0001
91023109|NCT00430638|181929864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis(Systolic blood pressure (SBP) - non-Black participants): For the Non-Black efficacy population, Olmesartan had the same effect on change from baseline in SBP at week 12 as Placebo. A statistical test was evaluated at the 2 sided significance level of 5% without adjustment for multiple comparisons||||<0.0001
91023110|NCT00430638|181929864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis(Diastolic blood pressure (DBP) - non-Black participants): For the Non-Black efficacy population, Olmesartan had the same effect on change from baseline in DBP at week 12 as Placebo. A statistical test was evaluated at the 2 sided significance level of 5% without adjustment for multiple comparisons||||<0.0001
91023111|NCT00430638|181929865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis(Systolic blood pressure (SBP) - Stage 1 hypertensive participants): For the Stage 1 efficacy population, Olmesartan had the same effect on change from baseline in SBP at week 12 as Placebo. A statistical test was evaluated at the 2 sided significance level of 5% without adjustment for multiple comparisons||||<0.0001
91023112|NCT00430638|181929865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis (Diastolic blood pressure (DBP) - Stage 1 hypertensive participants): For the Stage 1 efficacy population, Olmesartan had the same effect on change from baseline in DBP at week 12 as Placebo. A statistical test was evaluated at the 2 sided significance level of 5% without adjustment for multiple comparisons||||<0.0001
91023113|NCT00430638|181929866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis (Systolic blood pressure (SBP) - Stage 2 hypertensive participants): For the Stage 2 efficacy population, Olmesartan had the same effect on change from baseline in SBP at week 12 as Placebo. A statistical test was evaluated at the 2 sided significance level of 5% without adjustment for multiple comparisons||||<0.0001
91023114|NCT00430638|181929866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis (Diastolic blood pressure (DBP) - Stage 2 hypertensive participants): For the Stage 2 efficacy population, Olmesartan had the same effect on change from baseline in DBP at week 12 as Placebo. A statistical test was evaluated at the 2 sided significance level of 5% without adjustment for multiple comparisons||||<0.0001
91023115|NCT02367781|181929869|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.639|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.536|0.763|||Log Rank|||||0.763|0.536|<.0001
91023116|NCT02367781|181929870|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.788||||0.0298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.636|0.977|||Log Rank|||||0.977|0.636|0.0298
91086919|NCT05464420|182056660|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|0.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.07||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 9N: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3||1.07|0.80|<0.001
90956952|NCT02632526|181793510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.322|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.182|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0124|0.656||||||||0.656|-0.0124|
91023117|NCT02367781|181929871|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.647|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.545|0.768|||Log Rank|||ITT Population||0.768|0.545|<0.0001
91023118|NCT02367781|181929871|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.561|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.432|0.728|||Log Rank|||TC1/2/3 or IC1/2/3-WT ITT Population||0.728|0.432|<0.0001
91023119|NCT02367781|181929871|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.549|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.425|0.708|||Log Rank|||TC1/2/3 or IC1/2/3 ITT Population||0.708|0.425|<0.0001
91023120|NCT02367781|181929872|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.837||||0.0732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.689|1.017|||Log Rank|||||1.017|0.689|0.0732
91023121|NCT02367781|181929873|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.752||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.545|1.039|||Log Rank|||TC1/2/3 or IC1/2/3 ITT Population||1.039|0.545|0.0830
91023122|NCT02367781|181929873|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.746||||0.0813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.536|1.038|||Log Rank|||TC1/2/3 or IC1/2/3 WT ITT Population||1.038|0.536|0.0813
91023123|NCT02367781|181929874|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Difference in Response Rate|19.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.05|27.37|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Wald with Continuity Correction|||27.37|11.05|<.0001
90829804|NCT02365649|181533434|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.0|7.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 20||7.3|-24.0|1.000
90829805|NCT02365649|181533434|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|23.3||||0.538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.5|71.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 28||71.2|-24.5|0.538
90829806|NCT02365649|181533434|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.8|29.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 28||29.8|-29.8|1.000
90829807|NCT02365649|181533434|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.2||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.3|27.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 28||27.0|-35.3|1.000
90829808|NCT02365649|181533434|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.7||||0.515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.7|50.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 36||50.1|-26.7|0.515
90829809|NCT02365649|181533434|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.1|22.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 36||22.1|-22.1|1.000
90829810|NCT02365649|181533434|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.2||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.6|31.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 36||31.9|-23.6|1.000
90893856|NCT02459574|181653071|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.173||||0.6061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.639|2.154||Bonferonni corrected alpha 0.05/2 = 0.025|Log Rank||95% Wald Confidence Limits Point estimate relates to AVATAR-AF in relation to Conventional Ablation|Secondary analysis of Primary Outcome measure - AVATAR-AF vs Conventional Ablation||2.154|0.639|0.6061
90956953|NCT02632526|181793511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0813|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.08|1.36||||||Day 1||1.36|1.08|
91086920|NCT05464420|182056660|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|0.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.11||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 10A: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 2||1.11|0.85|<0.001
91086921|NCT05464420|182056660|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.18||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 10A: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 3||1.18|0.91|<0.001
90829811|NCT02365649|181533434|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|23.3||||0.538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.5|71.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 44||71.2|-24.5|0.538
90829812|NCT02365649|181533434|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-16.7||||0.478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.8|4.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 44||4.4|-37.8|0.478
90829813|NCT02365649|181533434|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.2||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.3|27.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 44||27.0|-35.3|1.000
90829814|NCT02365649|181533434|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.7||||0.515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.7|50.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 52||50.1|-26.7|0.515
90956954|NCT02632526|181793513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0851|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.08|1.38||||||Day 10||1.38|1.08|
90956955|NCT02632526|181793514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0692|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.43|1.66||||||||1.66|1.43|
90956956|NCT02632526|181793514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.176|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0315|0.669||||||||0.669|0.0315|
90893857|NCT01337674|181653098|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Hypothesis: the upper bound of the 90% confidence interval for the difference in maximum change from baseline for MK-4618 + Met versus PBO + Met is \<20 mmHg|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.42|5.98|||||The estimated parameter is mean maximum change from baseline for placebo minus MK-4618. Mean and confidence interval for the difference were obtained from linear mixed effects model performed on the maximum increase from baseline values.|Semi-recumbent, Day 1||5.98|-8.42|
90956957|NCT02632526|181793515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0839|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.34|1.63||||||For Day 1||1.63|1.34|
90956958|NCT02632526|181793515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.104|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.25|1.6||||||Day 10||1.60|1.25|
90956959|NCT02632526|181793528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|28.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|20.98|37.73||||||Cmax||37.73|20.98|
91023124|NCT02367781|181929875|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified Analysis|Difference in Response Rate|16.89|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.9|24.88|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Wald with Continuity Correction|ITT Population||24.88|8.90|<.0001
91023125|NCT02367781|181929875|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|3.56||||||TC1/2/3 or IC1/2/3 ITT WT Population||3.56|1.38|
91023126|NCT02367781|181929875|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.21||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|3.51|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||TC1/2/3 or IC1/2/3 ITT Population||3.51|1.39|0.0007
91023127|NCT02367781|181929876|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.614||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.473|0.797|||Log Rank|||ITT Population||0.797|0.473|0.0002
91086922|NCT05464420|182056660|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.21||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 10A: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3||1.21|0.93|<0.001
91086923|NCT05464420|182056660|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|0.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.11||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 11A: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 2||1.11|0.84|<0.001
91086924|NCT05464420|182056660|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.16||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 11A: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3||1.16|0.87|<0.001
91086925|NCT05464420|182056660|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.2||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 11A: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3||1.20|0.90|<0.001
91086926|NCT05464420|182056660|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.26||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 12F: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2||1.26|0.96|<0.001
91086927|NCT05464420|182056660|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.17||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 12F: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3||1.17|0.89|<0.001
91086928|NCT05464420|182056660|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|0.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.07||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 12F: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3||1.07|0.81|<0.001
91086929|NCT05464420|182056660|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.22||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 15A: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2||1.22|0.89|<0.001
91086930|NCT05464420|182056660|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.17||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 15A: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3||1.17|0.86|<0.001
91086931|NCT05464420|182056660|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|0.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.12||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 15A: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3||1.12|0.82|<0.001
90956960|NCT02632526|181793529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|64.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|54.34|76.74||||||AUC(0-τ)||76.74|54.34|
91086932|NCT05464420|182056660|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.38||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 15C: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2||1.38|0.95|<0.001
91086933|NCT05464420|182056660|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.42||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 15C: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3||1.42|0.97|<0.001
91086934|NCT05464420|182056660|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.23||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 15C: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3||1.23|0.85|<0.001
91086935|NCT05464420|182056660|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|0.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.11||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 16F: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2||1.11|0.84|<0.001
91086936|NCT05464420|182056660|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|0.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.11||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 16F: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3||1.11|0.84|<0.001
90893858|NCT01337674|181653098|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Hypothesis: the upper bound of the 90% confidence interval for the difference in maximum change from baseline for MK-4618 + Met versus PBO + Met is \<20 mmHg|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.92|9.49|||||The estimated parameter is mean maximum change from baseline for placebo minus MK-4618. Mean and confidence interval for the difference were obtained from linear mixed effects model performed on the maximum increase from baseline values.|Semi-recumbent, Day 7||9.49|-4.92|
90893859|NCT01337674|181653098|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Hypothesis: the upper bound of the 90% confidence interval for the difference in maximum change from baseline for MK-4618 + Met versus PBO + Met is \<20 mmHg|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.31|8.62|||||The estimated parameter is mean maximum change from baseline for placebo minus MK-4618. Mean and confidence interval for the difference were obtained from linear mixed effects model performed on the maximum increase from baseline values.|Standing, Day 1||8.62|-5.31|
90956961|NCT03954392|181793542|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|Only one statistical test was conducted, therefore no adjustments for multiple comparisons was needed.||Statistical analysis will compare the post-intervention scores on the primary outcome (Faux Pas Recognition Test scores), controlling for pre-intervention scores.||||< 0.05
90956962|NCT03954392|181793543|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.05
90956963|NCT00998335|181793627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Baseline versus 3 months||||0.03
90959150|NCT04981366|181798265|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007||||||We applied the restricted maximum likelihood, compound symmetry covariance structure, and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom approximation. To maintain the significance level at 0.05, the primary endpoints were assessed using Hochberg's procedure.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.007
90959151|NCT04981366|181798266|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91023128|NCT02367781|181929876|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.458|0.785|||Log Rank|||ITT-WT Population||0.785|0.458|0.0002
91023129|NCT02367781|181929876|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.548||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.379|0.791|||Log Rank|||TC1/2/3 or IC1/2/3 ITT Population||0.791|0.379|0.0011
91023130|NCT02367781|181929876|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.551||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.381|0.798|||Log Rank|||TC1/2/3 or IC1/2/3 ITT WT Population||0.798|0.381|0.0014
91023131|NCT02367781|181929877|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|7.46||||0.0647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|15.37|||Z-test|||Event Free Rate (%) at Year 1 ITT WT Population||15.37|-0.45|0.0647
91023132|NCT02367781|181929877|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|8.07||||0.0516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|16.19|||Z-test|||Event Free Rate (%) at Year 2 ITT WT Population||16.19|-0.06|0.0516
90893860|NCT01337674|181653098|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Hypothesis: the upper bound of the 90% confidence interval for the difference in maximum change from baseline for MK-4618 + Met versus PBO + Met is \<20 mmHg|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.06|5.88|||||The estimated parameter is mean maximum change from baseline for placebo minus MK-4618. Mean and confidence interval for the difference were obtained from linear mixed effects model performed on the maximum increase from baseline values.|Standing, Day 7||5.88|-8.06|
90958880|NCT01052103|181797809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|3.8||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|6.7||P-value is for standing diastolic BP.|Type 3 Sums of Squares|||Changes from baseline to all post-baseline visits were analyzed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based MMRM. Model terms included fixed class effects for visit, investigative site, treatment, SOC type, baseline positive symptom stratum, and treatment-by-visit interaction as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline measurement and baseline-by-visit interaction.||6.7|1.0|0.009
90959152|NCT04981366|181798267|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91023133|NCT02367781|181929877|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|7.19||||0.0683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|14.91|||Z-test|||Event Free Rate (%) at Year 1 ITT Population||14.91|-0.54|0.0683
91023134|NCT02367781|181929877|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|7.53||||0.0625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|15.44|||Z-test|||Event Free Rate (%) at Year 2 ITT Population||15.44|-0.39|0.0625
91023135|NCT02367781|181929878|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|6.69||||0.2385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.44|17.83|||Z-test|||Event Free Rate (%) at Year 1 TC1/2/3 or IC1/2/3 ITT||17.83|-4.44|0.2385
91023136|NCT02367781|181929878|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|8.64||||0.271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.75|24.03|||Z-test|||Event Free Rate (%) at Year 2 TC1/2/3 or IC1/2/3 ITT||24.03|-6.75|0.2710
91023137|NCT02367781|181929878|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|6.34||||0.2733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|17.67|||Z-test|||Event Free Rate (%) Year 1 TC1/2/3 or IC1/2/3 ITT WT||17.67|-5.00|0.2733
91023138|NCT02367781|181929878|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|8.69||||0.2909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.44|24.81|||Z-test|||Event Free Rate (%) Year 2 TC1/2/3 or IC1/2/3 ITT WT||24.81|-7.44|0.2909
91023139|NCT02367781|181929879|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.893||||0.3342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.711|1.123|||Log Rank|||||1.123|0.711|0.3342
91023140|NCT03877237|181929894|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann median diff. vs placebo|4.23||||0.02164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|8.22||To account for multiplicity, a pre-specified testing strategy was followed to control the overall type I error rate.|Rank ANCOVA|Model includes baseline rank of outcome variable as a covariate, treatment group as a factor, and is stratified by T2DM status at randomization.||"For the primary efficacy endpoint KCCQ-TSS, the following hypothesis was tested using the significance level 0.04990~* H0: m(r(A)) = m(r(C)) versus~* H1: m(r(A)) ≠ m(r(C)) Where H0 and H1 are the null and alternative hypotheses, respectively, and m(r(A)) and m(r(C)) represent the median of the ranked changes in the primary efficacy endpoint, KCCQ-TSS, from baseline to week 16, among patients receiving dapagliflozin (Active) and placebo (Control) treatment, respectively."||8.22|0.96|0.02164
91023141|NCT03877237|181929895|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann median diff. vs placebo|4.17||||0.05842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|8.33||KCCQ-PLS was tested at the alpha level of 0.04990 because KCCQ-TSS had a statistically significant p-value, in accordance with the pre-specified testing strategy.|Rank ANCOVA|Model includes baseline rank of outcome variable as a covariate, treatment group as a factor, and is stratified by T2DM status at randomization.||"For the primary efficacy endpoint KCCQ-PLS, the following hypothesis was tested at significant level of 0.04990~* H0: m(r(A)) = m(r(C)) versus~* H1: m(r(A)) ≠ m(r(C)) Where H0 and H1 are the null and alternative hypotheses, respectively, and m(r(A)) and m(r(C)) represent the median of the ranked changes in the primary efficacy endpoint, KCCQ-PLS, from baseline to week 16, among patients receiving dapagliflozin (Active) and placebo (Control) treatment, respectively."||8.33|0.03|0.05842
90829815|NCT02365649|181533434|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.9|34.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 52||34.6|-17.9|1.000
90829816|NCT02365649|181533434|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.2||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.6|31.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 52||31.9|-23.6|1.000
90829817|NCT02365649|181533434|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|25.0||||0.344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.9|71.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical Responders, Week 20||71.9|-21.9|0.344
90829818|NCT02365649|181533434|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.9||||0.429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|53.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical Responders, Week 20||53.5|-17.8|0.429
90829819|NCT02365649|181533434|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.4|25.0|||Chi-squared|P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical Responders, Week 20||25.0|-46.4|1.000
90829820|NCT02365649|181533434|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.4|57.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical Responders, Week 28||57.1|-40.4|1.000
90829821|NCT02365649|181533434|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.3||||0.671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.9|46.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical Responders, Week 28||46.6|-29.9|0.671
91086937|NCT05464420|182056660|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.15||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 16F: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3||1.15|0.87|<0.001
90829822|NCT02365649|181533434|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-13.1||||0.656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.7|30.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical Responders, Week 28||30.5|-56.7|0.656
90829823|NCT02365649|181533434|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.7||||0.627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.4|64.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical Responders, Week 36||64.7|-31.4|0.627
90829824|NCT02365649|181533434|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.5||||0.701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.7|46.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical Responders, Week 36||46.7|-27.7|0.701
90829825|NCT02365649|181533434|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-19.0||||0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.2|18.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical Responders, Week 36||18.1|-56.2|0.603
90829826|NCT02365649|181533434|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.7||||0.627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.4|64.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical Responders, Week 44||64.7|-31.4|0.627
90959153|NCT04981366|181798268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.005
90959154|NCT04981366|181798269|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
90829827|NCT02365649|181533434|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.4||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.2|39.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical Responders, Week 44||39.0|-34.2|1.000
90829828|NCT02365649|181533434|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.8||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.6|38.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical Responders, Week 44||38.0|-47.6|1.000
90829829|NCT02365649|181533434|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|25.0||||0.344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.9|71.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical Responders, Week 52||71.9|-21.9|0.344
90829830|NCT02365649|181533434|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|25.0||||0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|60.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical Responders, Week 52||60.9|-10.9|0.248
90829831|NCT02365649|181533434|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.4|25.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical Responders, Week 52||25.0|-46.4|1.000
90829832|NCT02365649|181533435|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-25.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.0|5.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders||5.0|-55.0|1.000
90829833|NCT02365649|181533435|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|25.0||||0.608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.8|70.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders||70.8|-20.8|0.608
90829834|NCT02365649|181533435|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-25.0||||0.487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.0|5.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders||5.0|-55.0|0.487
90893861|NCT01337674|181653099|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Hypothesis: the upper bound of the 90% confidence interval for the difference in maximum change from baseline for MK-4618 + Amlo versus PBO + Amlo is \<20 mmHg|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.85|6.75|||||The estimated parameter is mean maximum change from baseline for placebo minus MK-4618. Mean and confidence interval for the difference were obtained from linear mixed effects model performed on the maximum increase from baseline values.|Semi-recumbent, Day 1||6.75|-2.85|
90959155|NCT04981366|181798270|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91032946|NCT03603314|181951520|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3121|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The null and alternative hypotheses for Part 1 of the study were as follows, where μH, μL and μP were defined as the mean change in PTA of the high dose, low dose, and placebo respectively: H0H: μH - μP = 0, HAH: μH - μP \<0 (greater decrease on high dose) H0L: μL - μP = 0, HAL: μL - μP \<0 (greater decrease on low dose)||||0.3121
90829835|NCT02365649|181533435|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.0||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.1|55.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders||55.1|-15.1|0.250
90829836|NCT02365649|181533435|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.3||||0.444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|24.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders||24.0|-7.3|0.444
90829837|NCT02365649|181533435|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.1||||0.375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|31.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders||31.6|-9.4|0.375
90829838|NCT02365649|181533435|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.1|37.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical responders||37.8|-31.1|1.000
90829839|NCT02365649|181533435|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|22.4||||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|52.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical responders||52.8|-8.0|0.215
90959156|NCT04981366|181798271|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
90959157|NCT04981366|181798272|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
90959158|NCT04981366|181798273|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.001
90829840|NCT02365649|181533435|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.8||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.5|27.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical responders||27.8|-29.5|1.000
91023142|NCT03877237|181929896|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann median diff. vs placebo|3.2||||0.68626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|13.0||To account for multiplicity, a pre-specified testing strategy was followed to control the overall type I error rate.|Rank ANCOVA|Model includes baseline rank of outcome variable as a covariate, treatment group as a factor, and is stratified by T2DM status at randomization.||"For the primary efficacy endpoint 6MWD, the following hypothesis was tested using the significance level 0.00010:~H0: m(r(A)) = m(r(C)) versus H1: m(r(A)) ≠ m(r(C)) Where H0 and H1 are the null and alternative hypotheses, respectively, and m(r(A)) and m(r(C)) represent the median of the ranked changes in the primary efficacy endpoint, 6MWD, from baseline to week 16, among patients receiving dapagliflozin (Active) and placebo (Control) treatment, respectively."||13.0|-6.5|0.68626
91023143|NCT03877237|181929897|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann median diff. vs placebo|-0.16||||0.19748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.22||Total time spent in LVPA was not tested for statistical significance and the p-value is considered nominal because the test for 6MWD was not statistically significant.|Rank ANCOVA|Model includes baseline rank of outcome variable as a covariate, treatment group as a factor, and is stratified by T2DM status at randomization.||"For the secondary efficacy endpoint, total time spent in LVPA, the testing hypothesis is~* H0: m(r(A)) = m(r(C)) versus~* H1: m(r(A)) ≠ m(r(C)) Where H0 and H1 are the null and alternative hypotheses, respectively, and m(r(A)) and m(r(C)) represent the median of the ranked changes in secondary efficacy endpoint, total time spent in LVPA, from baseline to End of study among patients receiving dapagliflozin (Active) and placebo (Control) treatment, respectively."||0.22|-0.55|0.19748
90893862|NCT01337674|181653099|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Hypothesis: the upper bound of the 90% confidence interval for the difference in maximum change from baseline for MK-4618 + Amlo versus PBO + Amlo is \<20 mmHg|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.71|-1.11|||||The estimated parameter is mean maximum change from baseline for placebo minus MK-4618. Mean and confidence interval for the difference were obtained from linear mixed effects model performed on the maximum increase from baseline values.|Semi-recumbent, Day 7||-1.11|-10.71|
91023144|NCT04364165|181929919|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|2.78|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.78|1.44|.01
91023145|NCT04364165|181929920|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|5.78|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.78|0.36|.41
91023146|NCT01625845|181929929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.474
91023147|NCT01625845|181929930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.068
91023148|NCT01625845|181929931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.296
91023149|NCT01625845|181929932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.203
91023150|NCT01625845|181929933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.906|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||.906
91023151|NCT01625845|181929934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.869
91023152|NCT01625845|181929935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.026
91086938|NCT05464420|182056660|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|0.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.11||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 17F: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2||1.11|0.85|<0.001
90829841|NCT02365649|181533436|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-15.0||||0.671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.5|25.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 20||25.5|-55.5|0.671
90959159|NCT04981366|181798274|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.033|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.033
91023153|NCT01294592|181929936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-1.7||Month 1|t-test, 2 sided|Values are based on t-tests from the general linear model|Estimates are based on the adjusted means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Cluster + Baseline Value. The adjusted mean difference is based on dutasteride plus tamsulosin minus Watchful Waiting All.|||-1.7|-2.8|<0.001
91023154|NCT01294592|181929936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-1.5||Month 3|t-test, 2 sided|Values are based on t-tests from the general linear model|Estimates are based on the adjusted means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Cluster + Baseline Value. The adjusted mean difference is based on dutasteride plus tamsulosin minus Watchful Waiting All.|||-1.5|-2.7|<0.001
91023155|NCT01294592|181929936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.9||Month 6|t-test, 2 sided|Values are based on t-tests from the general linear model|Estimates are based on the adjusted means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Cluster + Baseline Value. The adjusted mean difference is based on dutasteride plus tamsulosin minus Watchful Waiting All.|||-0.9|-2.1|<0.001
91023156|NCT01294592|181929936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-1.0||Month 9|t-test, 2 sided|Values are based on t-tests from the general linear model|Estimates are based on the adjusted means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Cluster + Baseline Value. The adjusted mean difference is based on dutasteride plus tamsulosin minus Watchful Waiting All.|||-1.0|-2.2|<0.001
91023157|NCT01294592|181929936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-1.0||Month 12|t-test, 2 sided|Values are based on t-tests from the general linear model|Estimates are based on the adjusted means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Cluster + Baseline Value. The adjusted mean difference is based on dutasteride plus tamsulosin minus Watchful Waiting All.|||-1.0|-2.2|<0.001
90959160|NCT04981366|181798275|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.944|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.944
91023158|NCT01294592|181929936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-1.0||Month 15|t-test, 2 sided|Values are based on t-tests from the general linear model|Estimates are based on the adjusted means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Cluster + Baseline Value. The adjusted mean difference is based on dutasteride plus tamsulosin minus Watchful Waiting All.|||-1.0|-2.3|<0.001
90958881|NCT01052103|181797810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|-0.5||||0.818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|3.9|||Type 3 Sums of Squares|||Changes from baseline to all post-baseline visits were analyzed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based MMRM. Model terms included fixed class effects for visit, investigative site, treatment, SOC type, baseline positive symptom stratum, and treatment-by-visit interaction as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline measurement and baseline-by-visit interaction.||3.9|-5.0|0.818
90959161|NCT04981366|181798276|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.203|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.203
91023159|NCT01294592|181929936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-1.0||Month 18|t-test, 2 sided|Values are based on t-tests from the general linear model|Estimates are based on the adjusted means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Cluster + Baseline Value. The adjusted mean difference is based on dutasteride plus tamsulosin minus Watchful Waiting All.|||-1.0|-2.4|<0.001
91023160|NCT01294592|181929936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-1.2||Month 21|t-test, 2 sided|Values are based on t-tests from the general linear model|Estimates are based on the adjusted means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Cluster + Baseline Value. The adjusted mean difference is based on dutasteride plus tamsulosin minus Watchful Waiting All.|||-1.2|-2.5|<0.001
91023161|NCT01294592|181929936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-1.2||Month 24|t-test, 2 sided|Values are based on t-tests from the general linear model|Estimates are based on the adjusted means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Cluster + Baseline Value. The adjusted mean difference is based on dutasteride plus tamsulosin minus Watchful Waiting All.|||-1.2|-2.5|<0.001
91023162|NCT00623623|181929964|OTHER||Relative risk|0.86||||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.08|||modified Poisson regression model|modified Poisson regression model with robust error variance||No confirmatory statistical hypothesis was pre-specified. All statistical tests were of exploratory nature based on descriptive p-values for formal statistical hypotheses generation.||1.08|0.68|0.195
91023163|NCT00623623|181929965|OTHER||Relative risk|1.03||||0.904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.55|||modified Poisson regression|modified Poisson regression model with robust error variance||No confirmatory statistical hypothesis was pre-specified. All statistical tests were of exploratory nature based on descriptive p-values for formal statistical hypotheses generation.||1.55|0.68|0.904
91023164|NCT00623623|181929966|OTHER||Relative risk|0.97||||0.905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.58|||modified Poisson regression model|modified Poisson regression model with robust error variance||No confirmatory statistical hypothesis was pre-specified. All statistical tests were of exploratory nature based on descriptive p-values for formal statistical hypotheses generation.||1.58|0.60|0.905
90829842|NCT02365649|181533436|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.0||||0.718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.8|39.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 20||39.8|-19.8|0.718
90829843|NCT02365649|181533436|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-15.0||||0.461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.4|22.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 20||22.4|-52.4|0.461
90829844|NCT02365649|181533436|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-50.0||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-85.5|-14.5||Statistically significant at 0.05 level. P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 28||-14.5|-85.5|0.030
90829845|NCT02365649|181533436|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-12.5||||0.483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.9|17.9|||Chi-squared|P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 28||17.9|-42.9|0.483
90829846|NCT02365649|181533436|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-15.0||||0.431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.8|20.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 28||20.8|-50.8|0.431
91023165|NCT00623623|181929967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative risk|0.73||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.08|||modified Poisson regression model|modified Poisson regression model with robust error variance||No confirmatory statistical hypothesis was pre-specified. All statistical tests were of exploratory nature based on descriptive p-values for formal statistical hypotheses generation.||1.08|0.49|0.120
91023166|NCT00623623|181929968|OTHER||Relative risk|0.79||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.11|||modified Poisson regression model|modified Poisson regression model with robust error variance||No confirmatory statistical hypothesis was pre-specified. All statistical tests were of exploratory nature based on descriptive p-values for formal statistical hypotheses generation.||1.11|0.57|0.170
91023167|NCT00623623|181929969|OTHER||Relative risk|1.1||||0.758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.97|||modified Poisson regression model|modified Poisson regression model with robust error variance||No confirmatory statistical hypothesis was pre-specified. All statistical tests were of exploratory nature based on descriptive p-values for formal statistical hypotheses generation.||1.97|0.61|0.758
91023168|NCT00623623|181929970|OTHER||Relative risk|1.1||||0.663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.66|||modified Poisson regression model|modified Poisson regression model with robust error variance||No confirmatory statistical hypothesis was pre-specified. All statistical tests were of exploratory nature based on descriptive p-values for formal statistical hypotheses generation.||1.66|0.73|0.663
91023169|NCT00623623|181929971|OTHER||Relative risk|1.72||||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|3.6|||modified Poisson regression model|modified Poisson regression model with robust error variance||No confirmatory statistical hypothesis was pre-specified. All statistical tests were of exploratory nature based on descriptive p-values for formal statistical hypotheses generation.||3.60|0.82|0.148
90829847|NCT02365649|181533436|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.1|41.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 36||41.1|-31.1|1.000
90829848|NCT02365649|181533436|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.5||||0.635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.6|23.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 36||23.6|-38.6|0.635
90829849|NCT02365649|181533436|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-40.0||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.8|-5.2||Statistically significant at 0.1 level. P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 36||-5.2|-74.8|0.056
91023170|NCT00623623|181929972|OTHER||Relative risk|0.5||||0.572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|5.52|||modified Poisson regression model|modified Poisson regression model with robust error variance||No confirmatory statistical hypothesis was pre-specified. All statistical tests were of exploratory nature based on descriptive p-values for formal statistical hypotheses generation.||5.52|0.05|0.572
91023171|NCT00623623|181929973|OTHER||Relative risk|0.81||||0.207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.13|||modified Poission Regression model|modified Poisson regression model with robust error variance||No confirmatory statistical hypothesis was pre-specified. All statistical tests were of exploratory nature based on descriptive p-values for formal statistical hypotheses generation.||1.13|0.58|0.207
91023172|NCT00623623|181929974|OTHER||Relative risk|0.81||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.04|||modified Poission Regression model|modified Poisson regression model with robust error variance||No confirmatory statistical hypothesis was pre-specified. All statistical tests were of exploratory nature based on descriptive p-values for formal statistical hypotheses generation.||1.04|0.63|0.100
91023173|NCT00623623|181929975|OTHER||Relative Risk|0.91||||0.511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.22|||modified Poission Regression model|modified Poisson regression model with robust error variance||No confirmatory statistical hypothesis was pre-specified. All statistical tests were of exploratory nature based on descriptive p-values for formal statistical hypotheses generation.||1.22|0.67|0.511
90829850|NCT02365649|181533436|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.5|32.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 44||32.5|-47.5|1.000
90829851|NCT02365649|181533436|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.5||||0.296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|49.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 44||49.7|-14.7|0.296
90959162|NCT04981366|181798277|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.027
91023174|NCT00623623|181929976|OTHER||Relative Risk|1.75||||0.369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|5.97|||modified Poisson regression model|modified Poisson regression model with robust error variance||No confirmatory statistical hypothesis was pre-specified. All statistical tests were of exploratory nature based on descriptive p-values for formal statistical hypotheses generation.||5.97|0.52|0.369
91023175|NCT00623623|181929977|OTHER||Relative Risk|4.99||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|49.08|||modified Poisson regression model|modified Poisson regression model with robust error variance||No confirmatory statistical hypothesis was pre-specified. All statistical tests were of exploratory nature based on descriptive p-values for formal statistical hypotheses generation.||49.08|0.51|0.168
91023176|NCT00623623|181929978|OTHER||Relative Risk|8.02||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|63.97|||modified Poisson regression model|modified Poisson regression model with robust error variance||No confirmatory statistical hypothesis was pre-specified. All statistical tests were of exploratory nature based on descriptive p-values for formal statistical hypotheses generation.||63.97|1.00|0.049
91023177|NCT00623623|181929979|OTHER||Relative Risk|4.51||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|20.82|||modified Poisson regression model|modified Poisson regression model with robust error variance||No confirmatory statistical hypothesis was pre-specified. All statistical tests were of exploratory nature based on descriptive p-values for formal statistical hypotheses generation.||20.82|0.98|0.054
91023178|NCT00623623|181929980|OTHER||Relative Risk|2.0||||0.324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|7.99|||modified Poisson regression model|modified Poisson regression model with robust error variance||No confirmatory statistical hypothesis was pre-specified. All statistical tests were of exploratory nature based on descriptive p-values for formal statistical hypotheses generation.||7.99|0.50|0.324
91023179|NCT00623623|181929981|OTHER||Relative Risk|3.01||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|8.24|||modified Poisson regression model|modified Poisson regression model with robust error variance||No confirmatory statistical hypothesis was pre-specified. All statistical tests were of exploratory nature based on descriptive p-values for formal statistical hypotheses generation.||8.24|1.10|0.032
91023180|NCT00623623|181929982|OTHER||Relative Risk|1.36||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.97|||modified Poisson regression model|modified Poisson regression model with robust error variance||No confirmatory statistical hypothesis was pre-specified. All statistical tests were of exploratory nature based on descriptive p-values for formal statistical hypotheses generation.||1.97|0.93|0.111
91023181|NCT00623623|181929983|OTHER||Relative Risk|1.08||||0.397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.28|||modified Poisson regression model|modified Poisson regression model with robust error variance||No confirmatory statistical hypothesis was pre-specified. All statistical tests were of exploratory nature based on descriptive p-values for formal statistical hypotheses generation.||1.28|0.91|0.397
91023182|NCT00623623|181929984|OTHER||Relative Risk|1.13||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.31|||modified Poisson regression model|modified Poisson regression model with robust error variance||No confirmatory statistical hypothesis was pre-specified. All statistical tests were of exploratory nature based on descriptive p-values for formal statistical hypotheses generation.||1.31|0.97|0.107
91023183|NCT00623623|181929985|OTHER||Relative Risk|0.84||||0.471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.34|||modified Poisson regression model|modified Poisson regression model with robust error variance||No confirmatory statistical hypothesis was pre-specified. All statistical tests were of exploratory nature based on descriptive p-values for formal statistical hypotheses generation.||1.34|0.53|0.471
90829852|NCT02365649|181533436|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.4|32.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 44||32.4|-42.4|1.000
90959163|NCT04981366|181798278|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.145|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.145
90959164|NCT04981366|181798279|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.001
90959165|NCT04981366|181798280|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.551|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.551
91023184|NCT00623623|181929986|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk|0.35||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.71|||modified Poisson regression model|modified Poisson regression model with robust error variance||No confirmatory statistical hypothesis was pre-specified. All statistical tests were of exploratory nature based on descriptive p-values for formal statistical hypotheses generation.||0.71|0.17|0.003
90829853|NCT02365649|181533436|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.9|35.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 52||35.9|-45.9|1.000
90829854|NCT02365649|181533436|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.8||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|45.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 52||45.2|-17.7|0.400
90829855|NCT02365649|181533436|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-15.0||||0.439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.4|22.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 52||22.4|-52.4|0.439
90829856|NCT02365649|181533436|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.9||||0.259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|56.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 20||56.6|-12.8|0.259
90829857|NCT02365649|181533436|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.5||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.6|9.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 20||9.7|-30.6|0.310
90829858|NCT02365649|181533436|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-19.4||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.8|-0.1||Statistically significant at 0.1 level. P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 20||-0.1|-38.8|0.097
90829859|NCT02365649|181533436|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|24.4||||0.181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|57.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 28||57.2|-8.5|0.181
90893863|NCT01337674|181653099|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Hypothesis: the upper bound of the 90% confidence interval for the difference in maximum change from baseline for MK-4618 + Amlo versus PBO + Amlo is \<20 mmHg|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.47|-1.03|||||The estimated parameter is mean maximum change from baseline for placebo minus MK-4618. Mean and confidence interval for the difference were obtained from linear mixed effects model performed on the maximum increase from baseline values.|Standing, Day 1||-1.03|-11.47|
90893864|NCT01337674|181653099|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Hypothesis: the upper bound of the 90% confidence interval for the difference in maximum change from baseline for MK-4618 + Amlo versus PBO + Amlo is \<20 mmHg|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.79|3.65|||||The estimated parameter is mean maximum change from baseline for placebo minus MK-4618. Mean and confidence interval for the difference were obtained from linear mixed effects model performed on the maximum increase from baseline values.|Standing, Day 7||3.65|-6.79|
91023185|NCT00623623|181929987|OTHER||Relative risk|1.17||||0.451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.73|||modified Poisson regression model|modified Poisson regression model with robust error variance||||1.73|0.78|0.451
90829860|NCT02365649|181533436|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.0||||0.826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.9|20.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 28||20.0|-15.9|0.826
90829861|NCT02365649|181533436|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.6||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.2|16.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 28||16.1|-21.2|1.000
90829862|NCT02365649|181533436|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.4||||0.369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.7|45.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 36||45.4|-16.7|0.369
90829863|NCT02365649|181533436|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.9||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.2|16.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 36||16.4|-18.2|1.000
91023186|NCT00623623|181929988|OTHER||Relative Risk|0.87||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.09|||modified Poisson regression model|modified Poisson regression model with robust error variance||||1.09|0.69|0.220
91032947|NCT03603314|181951520|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4965|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The null and alternative hypotheses for Part 1 of the study were as follows, where μH, μL and μP were defined as the mean change in PTA of the high dose, low dose, and placebo respectively: H0H: μH - μP = 0, HAH: μH - μP \<0 (greater decrease on high dose) H0L: μL - μP = 0, HAL: μL - μP \<0 (greater decrease on low dose)||||0.4965
91023187|NCT02144259|181930023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||GEE|||Because the expected amount of postpartum weight loss in non-breastfeeding women is not documented in the literature, we chose a sample size that would enable us to detect a one standard deviation difference in weight loss between the 3 groups at the primary 6 month endpoint. We used generalized estimating equations (GEEs) to test differences among all 3 groups over all the study periods.||||<0.05
91023188|NCT02144259|181930025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
90829864|NCT02365649|181533436|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.6||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.2|16.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 36||16.1|-21.2|1.000
90829865|NCT02365649|181533436|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.3||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.2|42.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 44||42.7|-20.2|0.660
90829866|NCT02365649|181533436|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.1||||0.908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|17.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 44||17.5|-19.7|0.908
90829867|NCT02365649|181533436|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.1||||0.446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.8|7.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 44||7.7|-27.8|0.446
90829868|NCT02365649|181533436|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.6||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|50.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 52||50.8|-9.5|0.135
90829869|NCT02365649|181533436|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.2||||0.306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|28.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 52||28.1|-5.7|0.306
90893865|NCT01787097|181653107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.003
91023189|NCT00950833|181930026|NON_INFERIORITY|The immune memory would be demonstrated if the lower limit (LL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) around the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratios (Pooled Synflorix I+II Group over Synflorix III Group) was higher than 1 for pneumococcal serotype 1.|GMC ratio for anti-1|6.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.03|7.58|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate the immunological memory induced for anti-pneumococcal serotype 1 following primary vaccination in study 107017 (NCT00370318) and booster vaccination in study 107137 (NCT00496015) with the Synflorix™ vaccine, through evaluation of early antibody responses after an additional dose of Synflorix™ vaccine at 40-48 months of age, compared to the Synflorix III Group.||7.58|5.03|
91023190|NCT00950833|181930026|NON_INFERIORITY|The immune memory would be demonstrated if the lower limit (LL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) around the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratios (Pooled SynflorixI+II Group over Synflorix Group) was higher than 1 for pneumococcal serotype 4.|GMC ratio for anti-4|2.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.38|3.45|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate the immunological memory for anti-pneumococcal serotype 4 induced following primary vaccination in study 107017 (NCT00370318) and booster vaccination in study 107137 (NCT00496015) with the Synflorix™ vaccine, through evaluation of early antibody responses after an additional dose of Synflorix™ vaccine at 40-48 months of age, compared to the Synflorix III Group.||3.45|2.38|
90829870|NCT02365649|181533436|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.7||||0.686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|20.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 52||20.7|-13.4|0.686
90829871|NCT02365649|181533436|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.9||||0.754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.4|35.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical responders, Week 20||35.2|-25.4|0.754
90829872|NCT02365649|181533436|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.7||||0.548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.6|17.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical responders, Week 20||17.3|-32.6|0.548
90893866|NCT04149925|181653134|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||Significant when p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
90893867|NCT02472652|181653141|OTHER||change in prolactin|30.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90956964|NCT05559476|181793651|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority is demonstrated if the Upper Limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% Confidence Interval (CI) of the GMT ratio (Control group divided by Co-Ad group) for RSVPreF3 OA vaccine is less than or equal (\<=)1.5.|GMT Ratio|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.35|||||The comparison is done using the adjusted group ratio of GMT (ANCOVA model applied to the logarithm- transformed titers). The ANCOVA model included the treatment group, the age category as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the RSVPreF3 OA vaccine when co-administered with the FLU vaccine compared to the RSVPreF3 OA vaccine administered alone, in terms of RSV-A neutralizing antibody titers, at 1 month after the RSVPreF3 OA vaccine dose (Day 31 for the Co-Ad Group and Day 61 for the Control Group).||1.35|1.03|
90958882|NCT01052103|181797811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|-0.44||||0.571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|1.1|||Type 3 Sums of Squares|||Changes from baseline to all post-baseline visits were analyzed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based MMRM. Model terms included fixed class effects for visit, investigative site, treatment, SOC type, baseline positive symptom stratum, and treatment-by-visit interaction as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline measurement and baseline-by-visit interaction.||1.10|-1.98|0.571
90958883|NCT01052103|181797816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.682||95.0||||P-value is for treatment-emergent suicidal ideation.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.682
91023191|NCT00950833|181930026|NON_INFERIORITY|The immune memory would be demonstrated if the lower limit (LL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) around the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratios (Pooled Synflorix I+II Group over Synflorix III Group) was higher than 1 for pneumococcal serotype 5.|GMC ratio for anti-5|13.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.96|16.55|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate the immunological memory for anti-pneumococcal serotype 5 induced following primary vaccination in study 107017 (NCT00370318) and booster vaccination in study 107137 (NCT00496015) with the Synflorix™ vaccine, through evaluation of early antibody responses after an additional dose of Synflorix™ vaccine at 40-48 months of age, compared to the Synflorix III Group.||16.55|10.96|
91023192|NCT00950833|181930026|NON_INFERIORITY|The immune memory would be demonstrated if the lower limit (LL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) around the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratios (Pooled Synflorix I+II Group over Synflorix III Group) was higher than 1 for pneumococcal serotype 6B.|GMC ratio for anti-6B|28.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.54|36.81|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate the immunological memory for anti-pneumococcal serotype 6B induced following primary vaccination in study 107017 (NCT00370318) and booster vaccination in study 107137 (NCT00496015) with the Synflorix™ vaccine, through evaluation of early antibody responses after an additional dose of Synflorix™ vaccine at 40-48 months of age, compared to the Synflorix III Group.||36.81|22.54|
91023193|NCT00950833|181930026|NON_INFERIORITY|The immune memory would be demonstrated if the lower limit (LL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) around the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratios (Pooled Synflorix I+II Group over Synflorix III Group) was higher than 1 for pneumococcal serotype 7F.|GMC ratio for anti-7F|4.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|5.78|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate the immunological memory for anti-pneumococcal serotype 7F induced following primary vaccination in study 107017 (NCT00370318) and booster vaccination in study 107137 (NCT00496015) with the Synflorix™ vaccine, through evaluation of early antibody responses after an additional dose of Synflorix™ vaccine at 40-48 months of age, compared to the Synflorix III Group.||5.78|3.9|
91023194|NCT00950833|181930026|NON_INFERIORITY|The immune memory would be demonstrated if the lower limit (LL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) around the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratios (Pooled Synflorix I+II Group over Synflorix III Group) was higher than 1 for pneumococcal serotype 9V.|GMC ratio for anti-9V|14.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.21|17.75|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate the immunological memory for anti-pneumococcal serotype 9V induced following primary vaccination in study 107017 (NCT00370318) and booster vaccination in study 107137 (NCT00496015) with the Synflorix™ vaccine, through evaluation of early antibody responses after an additional dose of Synflorix™ vaccine at 40-48 months of age, compared to the Synflorix III Group.||17.75|11.21|
91023195|NCT00950833|181930026|NON_INFERIORITY|The immune memory would be demonstrated if the lower limit (LL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) around the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratios (Pooled Synflorix I+II Group over Synflorix III Group) was higher than 1 for pneumococcal serotype 14.|GMC ratio for anti-14|22.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.51|30.0|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate the immunological memory for anti-pneumococcal serotype 14 induced following primary vaccination in study 107017 (NCT00370318) and booster vaccination in study 107137 (NCT00496015) with the Synflorix™ vaccine, through evaluation of early antibody responses after an additional dose of Synflorix™ vaccine at 40-48 months of age, compared to the Synflorix III Group.||30|17.51|
91023196|NCT00950833|181930026|NON_INFERIORITY|The immune memory would be demonstrated if the lower limit (LL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) around the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratios (Pooled Synflorix I+II Group over Synflorix III Group) was higher than 1 for pneumococcal serotype 18C.|GMC ratio for anti-18C|10.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.95|12.61|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate the immunological memory for anti-pneumococcal serotype 18C induced following primary vaccination in study 107017 (NCT00370318) and booster vaccination in study 107137 (NCT00496015) with the Synflorix™ vaccine, through evaluation of early antibody responses after an additional dose of Synflorix™ vaccine at 40-48 months of age, compared to the Synflorix III Group.||12.61|7.95|
91023197|NCT00950833|181930026|NON_INFERIORITY|The immune memory would be demonstrated if the lower limit (LL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) around the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratios (Pooled Synflorix I+II Group over Synflorix III Group) was higher than 1 for pneumococcal serotype 19F.|GMC ratio for anti-19F|9.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.29|11.74|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate the immunological memory for anti-pneumococcal serotype 19F induced following primary vaccination in study 107017 (NCT00370318) and booster vaccination in study 107137 (NCT00496015) with the Synflorix™ vaccine, through evaluation of early antibody responses after an additional dose of Synflorix™ vaccine at 40-48 months of age, compared to the Synflorix III Group.||11.74|7.29|
91023198|NCT00950833|181930026|NON_INFERIORITY|The immune memory would be demonstrated if the lower limit (LL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) around the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratios (Pooled Synflorix I+II Group over Synflorix III Group) was higher than 1 for pneumococcal serotype 23F.|GMC ratio for anti-23F|36.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.59|48.34|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate the immunological memory for anti-pneumococcal serotype 23F induced following primary vaccination in study 107017 (NCT00370318) and booster vaccination in study 107137 (NCT00496015) with the Synflorix™ vaccine, through evaluation of early antibody responses after an additional dose of Synflorix™ vaccine at 40-48 months of age, compared to the Synflorix III Group.||48.34|27.59|
91023199|NCT01205529|181930085|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic||0 participants with rare SCN5A non-synonymous variants met the primary outcome for ST-segment elevation.||Given the very small number of outcomes (N=4) and the small number of participants with the primary determinant (N=2), a Fisher's Exact Test is the appropriate test and it yields a P-value=1.000.|||1.0
91023200|NCT00711867|181930086|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was defined as -0.5 C.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||||95.0|-0.55|-0.14|||t-test, 2 sided|||H0: Mu\_VH - Mu\_BH \<= -0.5 C.||-0.14|-0.55|
91086939|NCT05464420|182056660|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.17||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 17F: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3||1.17|0.89|<0.001
91023201|NCT04133519|181930087|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.5352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.84||P value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel testing of H0: OR=1; H1: OR≠1 adjusting for IBS subtype and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel testing of H0: OR=1; H1: OR≠1 adjusting for IBS subtype and gender||1.84|0.73|0.5352
91023202|NCT04133519|181930087|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76||||0.0232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|2.87|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio reflects the odds of the number of GDH responders being greater than the number of MR responders for abdominal pain intensity.|The final 4 weeks of the on-treatment period (weeks 9-12) was a pre-specified period for analysis of the primary endpoint measure of abdominal pain due to IBS. An abdominal pain intensity responder was defined as a participant whose daily abdominal pain intensity averaged over the last 4 weeks of phase s (weeks 9 through 12) was at least 30% reduced compared with the daily abdominal pain intensity averaged over the 4 weeks of phase 1.||2.87|1.08|0.0232
91023203|NCT04133519|181930087|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76||||0.0254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|2.89||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Test testing H0: OR=1; H1: OR\<\>1 adjusting for IBS subtype and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio reflects the odds of GDH being superior to MR.|"Abdominal pain scores were averaged each week on treatment (1-12) and compared with the average baseline abdominal pain score. Participants that recorded a \> 30% decrease in abdominal pain in at least half the weeks on treatment were considered responders.~This analysis was specified in FDA Guidance for Industry, Irritable Bowel Syndrome - Clinical Evaluation of Drugs for Treatment, May 2012. Both the analysis period and the responder threshold (30%) are specified by the FDA Guidance."|Among all subjects, 64.0% reported Adequate Relief and 67.7% reported overall satisfaction with Regulora.|2.89|1.07|0.0254
91023204|NCT04133519|181930088|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.8115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.434|0.554|||ANOVA|||The least square (LS) mean difference between the GDH and MR groups using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model||0.554|-0.434|0.8115
91023205|NCT04133519|181930089|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.044||||0.7564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.236|0.325|||ANOVA|||Average abdominal pain frequency at Week 13-16 will be statistically compared between GDH and comparator using an ANOVA model adjusted for gender and IBS subtype. The daily pain frequency measurement was derived from the daily pain intensity measurement. Days where severity was \>0 were considered a day with pain and were recorded as positive. Days with a score of 0 were days without pain. Mean represents the mean number of days in each time period with abdominal pain.||0.325|-0.236|0.7564
91023206|NCT04133519|181930090|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.4753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.81||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Test testing H0: OR=1; H1: OR\<\>1 adjusting for IBS subtype and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||GDH:MR Relative Risk|A Stool Consistency Responder is defined as a \>=30% improvement in the proportion of Bristol Stool Form Scale (BSFS) scores that fall within Group 2 (normal stools)||1.81|0.76|0.4753
91023207|NCT04133519|181930091|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.6793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.301|0.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"The analysis is based on the mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of variance model for IBS-C participants:~parameter = treatment + timepoint + treatment\*timepoint + gender + subject error + random Means are the mean daily number of bowel movements for a 24-hour period."||0.460|-0.301|0.6793
91023208|NCT04133519|181930091|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.173||||0.9468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.904|5.249|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"The analysis is based on the mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of variance model for IBS-D participants:~parameter = treatment + timepoint + treatment\*timepoint + gender + subject error + random Means are the mean daily number of bowel movements for a 24-hour period."||5.249|-4.904|0.9468
91023209|NCT04133519|181930092|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.602||||0.5015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.282|3.077|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"The analysis is based on the mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of variance model:~parameter = treatment + timepoint + treatment\*timepoint + gender + subject error + random The unstructured covariance matrix was used to model the within-participant correlation. The model-based least square (LS) means and LS mean differences (GDH minus comparator) and associated 95% CIs for each week and overall were estimated."||3.077|-6.282|0.5015
91023210|NCT04133519|181930093|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.586||||0.2117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.619|11.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Percent Overall Work Impairment Due to IBS defined as the percent time missed by not showing up for work, plus the percent time missed while working, and calculated as: Q2/(Q2+Q4)+\[(1-(Q2/(Q2+Q4))x(Q5/10)\]."||11.790|-2.619|0.2117
91023211|NCT04133519|181930094|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.372||||0.3676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.793|7.537|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The analysis is based on the mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of variance model: parameter = treatment + timepoint + treatment\*timepoint + gender + subject error + random||7.537|-2.793|0.3676
91023212|NCT03840135|181930095|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.16|||t-test, 2 sided|||The value of δ = -0.52 days was considered as the boundary of superiority. The end of the fever period is considered to have an axillary body temperature of ≤36.9 ° C in two consecutive measurements (morning-evening / evening-morning).||0.16|-0.6|<0.05
91023213|NCT03840135|181930096|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||χ2 Pearson criterion|||||||<0.05
91023214|NCT03840135|181930097|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||χ2 Pearson criterion|||||||<0.05
91023215|NCT03840135|181930098|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||χ2 Pearson criterion|||||||<0.05
91086940|NCT05464420|182056660|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.2||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 17F: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3||1.20|0.92|<0.001
90959166|NCT04981366|181798281|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.001
91023216|NCT03840135|181930099|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91023217|NCT03840135|181930100|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||χ2 Pearson criterion|||||||<0.05
91023218|NCT03840135|181930101|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||χ2 Pearson criterion|||||||<0.05
91023219|NCT03840135|181930104|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
90959167|NCT04981366|181798282|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.001
91023220|NCT03840135|181930105|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
91023221|NCT00323609|181930106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.214||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.214
91023222|NCT00323609|181930107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at 7 days.||||0.430
91023223|NCT00323609|181930107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.655||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at 30 days.||||0.655
91023224|NCT00323609|181930107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.756||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at 3 months.||||0.756
91023225|NCT00323609|181930107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.503||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at 12 months.||||0.503
90829873|NCT02365649|181533436|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-22.5||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.1|5.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical responders, Week 20||5.0|-50.1|0.120
91023226|NCT00323609|181930107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.837||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at 24 months.||||0.837
91086941|NCT05464420|182056660|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.15||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 19A: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2||1.15|0.91|<0.001
90829874|NCT02365649|181533436|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-13.4||||0.403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.5|17.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical responders, Week 28||17.7|-44.5|0.403
90956965|NCT05559476|181793652|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority is demonstrated if the UL of the 2-sided 95% CI of the group GMT ratio (Control group divided by Co-Ad group) for HI antibody titers for the Flu strain is \<=1.5.|GMT Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.16|||||The comparison was done using the adjusted group ratio of GMT (ANCOVA model applied to the logarithm- transformed titers). The ANCOVA model included the treatment group, the age category as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the FLU vaccine when co-administered with the RSVPreF3 OA vaccine compared to the FLU vaccine administered alone, in terms of HI GMTs against the Flu A/Darwin/6/2021 H3N2 influenza strain, at 1 month post-FLU vaccine dose administration (Day 31 for both groups).||1.16|0.85|
91023227|NCT00323609|181930108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.785||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at 30 days||||0.785
91023228|NCT00323609|181930108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.393||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at 3 months.||||0.393
91086942|NCT05464420|182056660|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|0.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.07||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 19A: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3||1.07|0.84|<0.001
91086943|NCT05464420|182056660|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|0.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.04||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 19A: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3||1.04|0.82|<0.001
90829875|NCT02365649|181533436|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.0||||0.533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.0|17.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical responders, Week 28||17.0|-33.0|0.533
91023229|NCT00323609|181930108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.875||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at 12 months||||0.875
91023230|NCT00323609|181930108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.833||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at 24 months.||||0.833
91023231|NCT00323609|181930109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of SF-36 PCS result at 30 days.||||0.180
91023232|NCT00323609|181930109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.822||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of SF-36 PCS result at 3 months||||0.822
91023233|NCT00323609|181930109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.291||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of SF-36 PCS result at 12 months||||0.291
91023234|NCT00323609|181930109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.996||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of SF-36 PCS result at 24 months||||0.996
91023235|NCT00323609|181930109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.983||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of SF-36 MCS result at 30 days||||0.983
91086944|NCT05464420|182056660|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|0.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.14||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 20A: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2||1.14|0.84|<0.001
91023236|NCT00323609|181930109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.576||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of SF-36 MCS result at 3 months||||0.576
91023237|NCT00323609|181930109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.393||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of SF-36 MCS result at 12 months||||0.393
90959168|NCT04981366|181798283|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.001
91023238|NCT00323609|181930109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.722||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of SF-36 MCS result at 24 months||||0.722
91023239|NCT00323609|181930110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.318||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at 30 days.||||0.318
91023240|NCT00323609|181930110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.523||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at 3 months.||||0.523
91023241|NCT00323609|181930110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.634||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at 12 months.||||0.634
91023242|NCT00323609|181930110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.457||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at 24 months.||||0.457
91023243|NCT00323609|181930111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.818||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.818
91023244|NCT00323609|181930112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.226||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.226
91023245|NCT00323609|181930113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
91023246|NCT00323609|181930114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.112||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with Absolute Height Loss (AHL) as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at pre-discharge.||||0.112
91023247|NCT00323609|181930114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.364||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with Absolute Height Loss (AHL) as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at 3 months.||||0.364
91023248|NCT00323609|181930114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.185||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with Absolute Height Loss (AHL) as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at 12 months.||||0.185
91086945|NCT05464420|182056660|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.24||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 20A: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3||1.24|0.92|<0.001
91023249|NCT00323609|181930114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with Absolute Height Loss (AHL) as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at 24 months.||||0.100
90959169|NCT04981366|181798284|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.008
91023250|NCT00323609|181930115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with Absolute Height Loss (AHL) as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at pre-discharge.||||0.005
90959170|NCT04981366|181798285|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91023251|NCT00323609|181930115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.382||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with Absolute Height Loss (AHL) as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at 3 months.||||0.382
91023252|NCT00323609|181930115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.196||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with Absolute Height Loss (AHL) as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at 12 months.||||0.196
91023253|NCT00323609|181930115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.281||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with Absolute Height Loss (AHL) as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at 24 months.||||0.281
91023254|NCT00323609|181930116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with Absolute Height Loss (AHL) as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at pre-discharge.||||0.033
91023255|NCT00323609|181930116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.981||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with Absolute Height Loss (AHL) as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at 3 months.||||0.981
91023256|NCT00323609|181930116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.631||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with Absolute Height Loss (AHL) as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at 12 months.||||0.631
91023257|NCT00323609|181930116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with Absolute Height Loss (AHL) as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at 24 months.||||0.790
91023258|NCT00323609|181930117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.663||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at pre-discharge.||||0.663
91023259|NCT00323609|181930117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.933||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at 3 months.||||0.933
91023260|NCT00323609|181930117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.089||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at 12 months.||||0.089
91023261|NCT00323609|181930117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at 24 months.||||0.036
91023262|NCT00323609|181930118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.472||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at pre-discharge.||||0.472
91023263|NCT00323609|181930118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.745||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at 3 months.||||0.745
91023264|NCT00323609|181930118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.565||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at 12 months.||||0.565
91086946|NCT05464420|182056660|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.27||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 20A: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3||1.27|0.94|<0.001
91086947|NCT05464420|182056660|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.29||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 22F: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2||1.29|0.93|<0.001
91023265|NCT00323609|181930118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.687||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at 24 months.||||0.687
91023266|NCT03803085|181930121|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.02
91023267|NCT03803085|181930122|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.03
91023268|NCT03803085|181930123|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06||||||p\<0.05 was considered significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.06
91023269|NCT01154153|181930145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratio of Geometric mean|0.966|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.892|1.045|||ANCOVA||The treatment ratio was calculated as an exponential of the mean difference between treatments in log scale.|Missing cortisol values were imputed with multiple imputation. AUC(0-24 hr) was calculated for each imputation and analyzed with log-transformation using an ANCOVA model and analyzed with treatment, sex, and age group as fixed effects, and log-transformed baseline value as a covariate. The mean difference in log scale between treatments and its standard error were calculated by Least Squares mean. Results from multiply imputed data were combined using SAS procedure MIANALYZE.||1.045|0.892|
91023270|NCT01154153|181930146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|-0.37|||ANCOVA|For ANCOVA, treatment arm, randomization strata were fixed effects and baseline value was a covariate.||||-0.37|-1.34|0.0007
91023271|NCT01154153|181930147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1332||95.0||||Based on the ordinal evaluation score and adjusted for the randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1332
91023272|NCT01154153|181930148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3314||95.0||||Based on the ordinal evaluation score and adjusted for the randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3314
91023273|NCT03404206|181930204|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.001
91023274|NCT03404206|181930204|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.001
91086948|NCT05464420|182056660|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.21||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 22F: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3||1.21|0.87|<0.001
91086949|NCT05464420|182056660|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|0.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.1||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 22F: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3||1.10|0.80|<0.001
90959171|NCT04981366|181798286|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.344|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.344
91023275|NCT03404206|181930205|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|-34.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.67|-23.8|||ANCOVA|||||-23.8|-45.67|
91023276|NCT03404206|181930205|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|-73.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-89.01|-57.85|||ANCOVA|||||-57.85|-89.01|
91023277|NCT03404206|181930205|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|-38.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.29|-23.11|||ANCOVA|||||-23.11|-54.29|
91023278|NCT03404206|181930206|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|-18.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.52|-12.89|||ANCOVA|||||-12.89|-23.52|
91023279|NCT03404206|181930206|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|-33.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.29|-26.14|||ANCOVA|||||-26.14|-41.29|
91023280|NCT03404206|181930206|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|-15.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.09|-7.93|||ANCOVA|||||-7.93|-23.09|
91023281|NCT05478603|181930207|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|94.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.86|127.04|||ANOVA||The ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|"One-way ANOVA was used on the natural log transformed PK parameters with hepatic function group as a fixed factor.~The adjusted mean differences and the corresponding 90% confidence intervals derived from ANOVA were exponentiated to provide estimate of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test \[hepatic impairment group\]/Reference \[without hepatic impairment group\]) and 90% confidence intervals for the ratio."||127.04|70.86|
91023282|NCT05478603|181930207|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|99.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.5|133.56|||ANOVA||The ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|"One-way ANOVA was used on the natural log transformed PK parameters with hepatic function group as a fixed factor.~The adjusted mean differences and the corresponding 90% confidence intervals derived from ANOVA were exponentiated to provide estimate of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test \[hepatic impairment group\]/Reference \[without hepatic impairment group\]) and 90% confidence intervals for the ratio."||133.56|74.50|
91023283|NCT05478603|181930207|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|68.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|51.31|91.98|||ANOVA||The ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|"One-way ANOVA was used on the natural log transformed PK parameters with hepatic function group as a fixed factor.~The adjusted mean differences and the corresponding 90% confidence intervals derived from ANOVA were exponentiated to provide estimate of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test \[hepatic impairment group\]/Reference \[without hepatic impairment group\]) and 90% confidence intervals for the ratio."||91.98|51.31|
91086950|NCT05464420|182056660|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.17||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cDLA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 23A: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2||1.17|0.85|<0.001
90829876|NCT02365649|181533436|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.9||||0.539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.2|19.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical responders, Week 28||19.4|-37.2|0.539
90829877|NCT02365649|181533436|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.9||||0.754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.4|35.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical responders, Week 36||35.2|-25.4|0.754
90829878|NCT02365649|181533436|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-14.5||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.4|10.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical responders, Week 36||10.3|-39.4|0.256
90829879|NCT02365649|181533436|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-27.8||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.7|-0.8||Statistically significant at 0.1 level.|Chi-squared|P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical responders, Week 36||-0.8|-54.7|0.055
90829880|NCT02365649|181533436|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.2||||0.887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.8|33.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical responders, Week 44||33.2|-28.8|0.887
90829881|NCT02365649|181533436|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.5||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|39.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical responders, Week 44||39.4|-10.3|0.256
90829882|NCT02365649|181533436|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-9.0||||0.518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.0|17.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical responders, Week 44||17.9|-36.0|0.518
90829883|NCT02365649|181533436|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.3||||0.695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.1|37.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical responders, Week 52||37.6|-25.1|0.695
90829884|NCT02365649|181533436|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.4||||0.373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|36.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical responders, Week 52||36.4|-13.5|0.373
90959172|NCT04981366|181798287|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.613|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.613
90829885|NCT02365649|181533436|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.9||||0.628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.6|20.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical responders, Week 52||20.8|-34.6|0.628
90829886|NCT02365649|181533436|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-15.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.6|0.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical non-responders, Week 20||0.6|-30.6|1.000
90829887|NCT02365649|181533436|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.4|20.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical non-responders, Week 20||20.9|-22.4|1.000
90829888|NCT02365649|181533436|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-15.0||||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.6|0.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical non-responders, Week 20||0.6|-30.6|0.251
90829889|NCT02365649|181533436|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.1|3.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical non-responders, Week 28||3.1|-23.1|1.000
90829890|NCT02365649|181533436|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.7|17.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical non-responders, Week 28||17.7|-18.7|1.000
90959173|NCT04981366|181798288|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.944|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.944
90959174|NCT04981366|181798289|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.601|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.601
90829891|NCT02365649|181533436|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.0||||0.501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.1|3.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical non-responders, Week 28||3.1|-23.1|0.501
90829892|NCT02365649|181533436|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.5||||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|22.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical non-responders, Week 36||22.1|-3.0|0.488
90829893|NCT02365649|181533436|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.1|3.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical non-responders, Week 44||3.1|-23.1|1.000
90829894|NCT02365649|181533436|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.0||||0.232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.1|3.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical non-responders, Week 44||3.1|-23.1|0.232
90829895|NCT02365649|181533436|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.0||||0.501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.1|3.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical non-responders, Week 44||3.1|-23.1|0.501
90829896|NCT02365649|181533436|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.5||||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|22.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical non-responders, Week 52||22.1|-3.0|0.488
90829897|NCT02365649|181533437|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.0||||0.295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|37.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 20||37.5|2.5|0.295
90829898|NCT02365649|181533437|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.8||||0.355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|34.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 20||34.9|-7.4|0.355
90893868|NCT01123382|181653162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||||||Group X time interaction|Mixed Models Analysis|we included a random intercept for each individual participant. We used a first-order antedependent covariance structure.||To detect a minimum clinically important difference of 2 points2 on the BPI-SF3 with an anticipated standard deviation for each mean of 2.5, estimated from a prior study, with an alpha level of 0.05 and a power of 80%, for five waves of data, a sample size of 10 participants per group was necessary. With anticipated dropouts, a sample size of at least 12 participants per group was required.||||0.04
90893869|NCT01123382|181653163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|||||group x time interaction 0.059|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.059
90829899|NCT02365649|181533437|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-20.0||||0.384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.1|15.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 20||15.1|-55.1|0.384
90829900|NCT02365649|181533437|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-22.5||||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.5|14.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 28||14.5|-59.5|0.311
90829901|NCT02365649|181533437|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-16.3||||0.422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.8|11.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 28||11.3|-43.8|0.422
90829902|NCT02365649|181533437|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-25.0||||0.181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.2|9.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 28||9.2|-59.2|0.181
90829903|NCT02365649|181533437|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|25.0||||0.281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|44.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 36||44.0|6.0|0.281
90893870|NCT01123382|181653164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.543||||||group x time interaction 0.543|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.543
90959175|NCT04981366|181798290|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91086951|NCT05464420|182056660|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.19||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 23A: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3||1.19|0.86|<0.001
91086952|NCT05464420|182056660|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.19||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 23A: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3||1.19|0.87|<0.001
91086953|NCT05464420|182056660|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.48||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 23B: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2||1.48|1.00|<0.001
91023284|NCT05478603|181930208|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|101.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|59.74|173.71|||ANOVA||The ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|"One-way ANOVA was used on the natural log transformed PK parameters with hepatic function group as a fixed factor.~The adjusted mean differences and the corresponding 90% confidence intervals derived from ANOVA were exponentiated to provide estimate of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test \[hepatic impairment group\]/Reference \[without hepatic impairment group\]) and 90% confidence intervals for the ratio."||173.71|59.74|
91023285|NCT05478603|181930208|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|156.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.53|266.14|||ANOVA||The ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|"One-way ANOVA was used on the natural log transformed PK parameters with hepatic function group as a fixed factor.~The adjusted mean differences and the corresponding 90% confidence intervals derived from ANOVA were exponentiated to provide estimate of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test \[hepatic impairment group\]/Reference \[without hepatic impairment group\]) and 90% confidence intervals for the ratio."||266.14|91.53|
91023286|NCT05478603|181930208|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|96.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|56.58|164.51|||ANOVA||The ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|"One-way ANOVA was used on the natural log transformed PK parameters with hepatic function group as a fixed factor.~The adjusted mean differences and the corresponding 90% confidence intervals derived from ANOVA were exponentiated to provide estimate of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test \[hepatic impairment group\]/Reference \[without hepatic impairment group\]) and 90% confidence intervals for the ratio."||164.51|56.58|
91023287|NCT05478603|181930209|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|102.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|59.91|174.39|||ANOVA||The ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|"One-way ANOVA was used on the natural log transformed PK parameters with hepatic function group as a fixed factor.~The adjusted mean differences and the corresponding 90% confidence intervals derived from ANOVA were exponentiated to provide estimate of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test \[hepatic impairment group\]/Reference \[without hepatic impairment group\]) and 90% confidence intervals for the ratio."||174.39|59.91|
91023288|NCT05478603|181930209|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|152.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.62|260.9|||ANOVA||The ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|"One-way ANOVA was used on the natural log transformed PK parameters with hepatic function group as a fixed factor.~The adjusted mean differences and the corresponding 90% confidence intervals derived from ANOVA were exponentiated to provide estimate of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test \[hepatic impairment group\]/Reference \[without hepatic impairment group\]) and 90% confidence intervals for the ratio."||260.90|89.62|
91023289|NCT05478603|181930209|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|97.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|56.9|165.65|||ANOVA||The ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|"One-way ANOVA was used on the natural log transformed PK parameters with hepatic function group as a fixed factor.~The adjusted mean differences and the corresponding 90% confidence intervals derived from ANOVA were exponentiated to provide estimate of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test \[hepatic impairment group\]/Reference \[without hepatic impairment group\]) and 90% confidence intervals for the ratio."||165.65|56.90|
91023290|NCT05478603|181930210|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|93.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|64.61|134.69|||ANOVA||The ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|"One-way ANOVA was used on the natural log transformed PK parameters with hepatic function group as a fixed factor.~The adjusted mean differences and the corresponding 90% confidence intervals derived from ANOVA were exponentiated to provide estimate of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test \[hepatic impairment group\]/Reference \[without hepatic impairment group\]) and 90% confidence intervals for the ratio."||134.69|64.61|
91023291|NCT05478603|181930210|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|106.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|73.89|154.03|||ANOVA||The ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|"One-way ANOVA was used on the natural log transformed PK parameters with hepatic function group as a fixed factor.~The adjusted mean differences and the corresponding 90% confidence intervals derived from ANOVA were exponentiated to provide estimate of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test \[hepatic impairment group\]/Reference \[without hepatic impairment group\]) and 90% confidence intervals for the ratio."||154.03|73.89|
91023292|NCT05478603|181930210|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|246.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|170.57|355.58|||ANOVA||The ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|"One-way ANOVA was used on the natural log transformed PK parameters with hepatic function group as a fixed factor.~The adjusted mean differences and the corresponding 90% confidence intervals derived from ANOVA were exponentiated to provide estimate of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test \[hepatic impairment group\]/Reference \[without hepatic impairment group\]) and 90% confidence intervals for the ratio."||355.58|170.57|
91023293|NCT05478603|181930211|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|88.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|64.13|122.12|||ANOVA||The ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|"One-way ANOVA was used on the natural log transformed PK parameters with hepatic function group as a fixed factor.~The adjusted mean differences and the corresponding 90% confidence intervals derived from ANOVA were exponentiated to provide estimate of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test \[hepatic impairment group\]/Reference \[without hepatic impairment group\]) and 90% confidence intervals for the ratio."||122.12|64.13|
91023294|NCT05478603|181930211|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|106.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.11|146.83|||ANOVA||The ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|"One-way ANOVA was used on the natural log transformed PK parameters with hepatic function group as a fixed factor.~The adjusted mean differences and the corresponding 90% confidence intervals derived from ANOVA were exponentiated to provide estimate of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test \[hepatic impairment group\]/Reference \[without hepatic impairment group\]) and 90% confidence intervals for the ratio."||146.83|77.11|
91023295|NCT05478603|181930211|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|169.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|122.61|233.47|||ANOVA||The ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|"One-way ANOVA was used on the natural log transformed PK parameters with hepatic function group as a fixed factor.~The adjusted mean differences and the corresponding 90% confidence intervals derived from ANOVA were exponentiated to provide estimate of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test \[hepatic impairment group\]/Reference \[without hepatic impairment group\]) and 90% confidence intervals for the ratio."||233.47|122.61|
91023296|NCT05478603|181930212|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|95.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|52.6|172.03|||ANOVA||The ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|"One-way ANOVA was used on the natural log transformed PK parameters with hepatic function group as a fixed factor.~The adjusted mean differences and the corresponding 90% confidence intervals derived from ANOVA were exponentiated to provide estimate of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test \[hepatic impairment group\]/Reference \[without hepatic impairment group\]) and 90% confidence intervals for the ratio."||172.03|52.60|
91023297|NCT05478603|181930212|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|166.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.21|301.62|||ANOVA||The ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|"One-way ANOVA was used on the natural log transformed PK parameters with hepatic function group as a fixed factor.~The adjusted mean differences and the corresponding 90% confidence intervals derived from ANOVA were exponentiated to provide estimate of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test \[hepatic impairment group\]/Reference \[without hepatic impairment group\]) and 90% confidence intervals for the ratio."||301.62|92.21|
91023298|NCT05478603|181930212|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|237.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|131.46|430.0|||ANOVA||The ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|"One-way ANOVA was used on the natural log transformed PK parameters with hepatic function group as a fixed factor.~The adjusted mean differences and the corresponding 90% confidence intervals derived from ANOVA were exponentiated to provide estimate of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test \[hepatic impairment group\]/Reference \[without hepatic impairment group\]) and 90% confidence intervals for the ratio."||430.00|131.46|
91023299|NCT05478603|181930213|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|95.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|52.67|172.59|||ANOVA||The ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|"One-way ANOVA was used on the natural log transformed PK parameters with hepatic function group as a fixed factor.~The adjusted mean differences and the corresponding 90% confidence intervals derived from ANOVA were exponentiated to provide estimate of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test \[hepatic impairment group\]/Reference \[without hepatic impairment group\]) and 90% confidence intervals for the ratio."||172.59|52.67|
91023300|NCT05478603|181930213|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|163.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.1|295.22|||ANOVA||The ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|"One-way ANOVA was used on the natural log transformed PK parameters with hepatic function group as a fixed factor.~The adjusted mean differences and the corresponding 90% confidence intervals derived from ANOVA were exponentiated to provide estimate of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test \[hepatic impairment group\]/Reference \[without hepatic impairment group\]) and 90% confidence intervals for the ratio."||295.22|90.10|
91023301|NCT05478603|181930213|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|239.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|132.29|433.47|||ANOVA||The ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|"One-way ANOVA was used on the natural log transformed PK parameters with hepatic function group as a fixed factor.~The adjusted mean differences and the corresponding 90% confidence intervals derived from ANOVA were exponentiated to provide estimate of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test \[hepatic impairment group\]/Reference \[without hepatic impairment group\]) and 90% confidence intervals for the ratio."||433.47|132.29|
91023302|NCT05003167|181930252|SUPERIORITY||F|8.48||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||A mixed model ANOVA with session (pre-post-training) as a main effect and participant as a random factor was run via SAS 9.4. Alpha was set at .05.||||.001
91023303|NCT05003167|181930254|SUPERIORITY||F|2.29||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|df = 2,44||A mixed model ANOVA with session (pre-post-training) as a main effect and participant as a random factor was run via SAS 9.4. Alpha was set at .05.||||.113
91023304|NCT05003167|181930255|SUPERIORITY||F|3.17||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||A mixed model ANOVA with session (pre-post-training) as a main effect and participant as a random factor was run via SAS 9.4. Alpha was set at .05.||||.052
91023305|NCT05003167|181930256|SUPERIORITY||F|0.07||||0.931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||"A mixed model ANOVA with session (pre-post-training) as a main effect and participant as a random factor was run via SAS 9.4. Alpha was set at .05.~Results here are for percent of breaths at major boundaries."||||.931
91023306|NCT05003167|181930256|SUPERIORITY||F|0.23||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||A mixed model ANOVA with session (pre-post-training) as a main effect and participant as a random factor was run via SAS 9.4. Alpha was set at .05. Results reflect percent of breaths at boundaries unrelated to syntax.||||0.164
91032948|NCT03603314|181951521|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0976|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The null and alternative hypotheses for Part 1 of the study were as follows, where μH, μL and μP were defined as the mean change in PTA of the high dose, low dose, and placebo respectively: H0H: μH - μP = 0, HAH: μH - μP \<0 (greater decrease on high dose) H0L: μL - μP = 0, HAL: μL - μP \<0 (greater decrease on low dose)||||0.0976
90959176|NCT04981366|181798291|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
90893871|NCT01123382|181653165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|||||group x time interaction 0.33|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.33
90959177|NCT04981366|181798292|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91023307|NCT01010230|181930264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.24||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.59|3.11||The threshold for significance was established a priori at alpha=0.05.|ANOVA|BMC was normalized for height and adjusted for sex and tanner stage.||The power estimates were based on two-sided two-sample t-tests. With 30 subjects in each of the two arms and assuming no change in the control arm (0% change) and assuming the common standard deviation (SD) of 6.8% we estimated 87% power to detect an improvement of 5.5% change in the intervention arm, with type I error control α=0.05.||3.11|-5.59|0.69
91023308|NCT01010230|181930265|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The power calculation was based on the primary aim and is provided above.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.35||The threshold for significance was established a priori at alpha=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Active and placebo group means were compared with a 2-sample t-test after log-transforming the variable.||0.35|0.00|0.18
91023309|NCT01010230|181930266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.16||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.93|9.25||The threshold for significance was established a priori at alpha=0.05|ANOVA|BMC was normalized for height and adjusted for sex and tanner stage.||The power estimates were based on two-sided two-sample t-tests. With 30 subjects in each of the two arms and assuming no change in the control arm (0% change) and assuming the common standard deviation (SD) of 6.8% we estimated 87% power to detect an improvement of 5.5% change in the intervention arm, with type I error control α=0.05.||9.25|-6.93|0.85
91023310|NCT01010230|181930267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.19||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|5.95||The threshold for significance was established a priori at alpha=0.05.|ANOVA|Adjusted for sex and tanner stage.||The power estimates were based on two-sided two-sample t-tests. With 30 subjects in each of the two arms and assuming no change in the control arm (0% change) and assuming the common standard deviation (SD) of 6.8%3 we estimated 87% power to detect an improvement of 5.5% change in the intervention arm, with type I error control α=0.05.||5.95|0.43|0.12
91023311|NCT01010230|181930268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.24|4.05||The threshold for significance was established a priori at alpha=0.05.|ANOVA|Adjusted for sex and tanner stage (from general linear model).||The power estimates were based on two-sided two-sample t-tests. With 30 subjects in each of the two arms and assuming no change in the control arm (0% change) and assuming the common standard deviation (SD) of 6.8%3 we estimated 87% power to detect an improvement of 5.5% change in the intervention arm, with type I error control α=0.05.||4.05|-4.24|0.97
91023312|NCT01010230|181930269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.05|4.68||The threshold for significance was established a priori at alpha=0.05.|ANOVA|Adjusted for sex and tanner stage.||The power estimates were based on two-sided two-sample t-tests. With 30 subjects in each of the two arms and assuming no change in the control arm (0% change) and assuming the common standard deviation (SD) of 6.8%3 we estimated 87% power to detect an improvement of 5.5% change in the intervention arm, with type I error control α=0.05.||4.68|-4.05|0.91
91023313|NCT01010230|181930270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.29||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|3.11||The threshold for significance was established a priori at alpha=0.05.|ANOVA|Adjusted for sex and tanner stage.||The power estimates were based on two-sided two-sample t-tests. With 30 subjects in each of the two arms and assuming no change in the control arm (0% change) and assuming the common standard deviation (SD) of 6.8%3 we estimated 87% power to detect an improvement of 5.5% change in the intervention arm, with type I error control α=0.05.||3.11|-0.69|0.40
91023314|NCT01010230|181930271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.67||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|3.33||The threshold for significance was established a priori at alpha=0.05.|ANOVA|Adjusted for sex and tanner stage.||The power estimates were based on two-sided two-sample t-tests. With 30 subjects in each of the two arms and assuming no change in the control arm (0% change) and assuming the common standard deviation (SD) of 6.8%3 we estimated 87% power to detect an improvement of 5.5% change in the intervention arm, with type I error control α=0.05.||3.33|-2.02|0.73
91023315|NCT01010230|181930272|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The power calculation was based on the primary aim and is provided above.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.34||The threshold for significance was established a priori at alpha=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Active and placebo group means were compared with a 2-sample t-test after log-transforming the variable.||0.34|0.06|0.08
91023316|NCT01010230|181930273|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The power calculation was based on the primary aim and is provided above.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.26||The threshold for significance was established a priori at alpha=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Active and placebo group means were compared with a 2-sample t-test after log-transforming the variable.||0.26|0.00|0.17
91023317|NCT01010230|181930274|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The power calculation was based on the primary aim and is provided above.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.2||The threshold for significance was established a priori at alpha=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Active and placebo group means were compared with a 2-sample t-test after log-transforming the variable.||0.20|-0.04|0.38
90893872|NCT01123382|181653166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|||||group x time 0.61|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.61
91086954|NCT05464420|182056660|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|0.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.19||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 23B: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3||1.19|0.80|<0.001
90893873|NCT01123382|181653167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.398||||||group x time interaction 0.398|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.398
90893874|NCT01123382|181653168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46||||||group x time interaction 0.46|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.46
90893875|NCT01123382|181653169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59||||||group x time interaction 0.59|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.59
90893876|NCT01123382|181653170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69||||||group x time interaction 0.69|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.69
90893877|NCT02274857|181653176|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2179|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2179
90893878|NCT02274857|181653177|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2782|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2782
90893879|NCT02274857|181653178|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7266|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7266
91023318|NCT01010230|181930275|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The power calculation was based on the primary aim and is provided above.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.18||The threshold for significance was established a priori at alpha=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Active and placebo group means were compared with a 2-sample t-test after log-transforming the variable.||0.18|-0.22|0.88
91023319|NCT01010230|181930276|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The power calculation was based on the primary aim and is provided above.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.46||The threshold for significance was established a priori at alpha=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Active and placebo group means were compared with a 2-sample t-test after log-transforming the variable.||0.46|0.09|0.06
91023320|NCT00530439|181930283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.014
91023321|NCT02462382|181930299|EQUIVALENCE|The univariate analyses were conducted using Independent t-Tests for continuous variables and Fisher Exact Tests or Chi-Square Tests of Independence for categorical comparisons.|Fisher Exact Tests|0.041||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|||||POD 1 1cm incision.|Chi-squared|||Comparisons of pain scores using a Visual Analog Scale (VAS) based on Post-Operative Day (POD).||||.006
91023322|NCT02496221|181930311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.0021||||0.1229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.5781|2.5739|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment (albiglutide or placebo), and period as fixed effects and participant as random effect||||2.5739|-20.5781|0.1229
91023323|NCT02496221|181930312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-545.9585||||0.1291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1260.0|168.0858|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||168.0858|-1260.00|0.1291
91023324|NCT02496221|181930314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.2992||||0.0317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.0762|-1.5223|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment (albiglutide or placebo), and period as fixed effects and participant as random effect||||-1.5223|-31.0762|0.0317
90893880|NCT02274857|181653179|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3522|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3522
90893881|NCT00834106|181653183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine efficacy|76.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.7|91.1|||||Vaccine efficacy = 100 \* \[1 - (incidence rate with V501 / incidence rate with placebo)\]. The pre-specified success criterion was that the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval for vaccine efficacy excludes 0%.|||91.1|43.7|
91023325|NCT02496221|181930315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|252.6099||||0.0291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.5081|475.7117|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment (albiglutide or placebo), and period as fixed effects and participant as random effect||||475.7117|29.5081|0.0291
91023326|NCT02496221|181930316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3748||||0.7961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4109|2.6614|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment (albiglutide or placebo), and period as fixed effects and participant as random effect||||2.6614|-3.4109|0.7961
91023327|NCT02496221|181930318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.001526||||0.9424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.045665|0.048717|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment (albiglutide or placebo), and period as fixed effects and participant as random effect||||0.048717|-0.045665|0.9424
91023328|NCT02496221|181930319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01456||||0.0733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.030666|0.001554|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment (albiglutide or placebo), and period as fixed effects and participant as random effect||||0.001554|-0.030666|0.0733
91023329|NCT01335399|181930326|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4358|||||||Stratified Log Rank|||||||0.4358
91023330|NCT01335399|181930326|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.71|0.77|1.12|||||E-Ld/Ld. Calculated using Cox proportional hazards modeling|||1.12|0.77|
90959178|NCT04981366|181798294|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91023331|NCT01335399|181930327|SUPERIORITY||CMH ESTIMATE OF COMMON ODDS RATIO|1.26||||0.2232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.82|||CMH ESTIMATE OF COMMON ODDS RATIO|||||1.82|0.87|0.2232
91023332|NCT01335399|181930328|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.8932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.19|||Stratified log rank test||Stratified by stage of disease (International Staging System 1 - 2 vs 3), age (\<75 years old vs \>= 75 years old) and ECOG performance status (0 vs 1 - 2) at randomization.|||1.19|0.82|0.8932
91023333|NCT01335399|181930330|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.4358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.12|||Hazard Ratio|||||1.12|0.78|0.4358
91023334|NCT01893983|181930331|EQUIVALENCE|Compare whether 2 groups had any difference in risk/hazard of mental health engagement at any time during follow-up.|Cox Proportional Hazard|1.13||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.58||P value 0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance|Regression, Cox|Adjusted for site, mental health treatment history and mental health symptom severity at baseline, baseline amphetamine and opioid scores.|The referral alone arm is the reference group (denominator), and the motivational coaching arm is the numerator.|Compare 2 groups in regard to time to first mental health treatment using Cox proportional hazards regression.||1.58|0.81|0.660
91023335|NCT01120600|181930335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|5.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.48|6.7|||cLDA|||A constrained full likelihood longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) method was used for this statistical analysis. The cLDA model included the baseline measurement and all post-baseline percent changes from baseline in the response vector, with fixed effects for treatment, time, geographic region, machine type and treatment-by-time interaction, geographic region-by-time interaction, and machine type-by-time interaction.||6.7|4.48|< 0.001
91023336|NCT01120600|181930336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|2.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|2.77|||cLDA|||A cLDA method was used for this statistical analysis. The cLDA model included the baseline measurement and all post-baseline percent changes from baseline in the response vector, with fixed effects for treatment, time, geographic region, machine type and treatment-by-time interaction, geographic region-by-time interaction, and machine type-by-time interaction.||2.77|1.27|< 0.001
91023337|NCT01120600|181930337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|1.69|||=|0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.93|||cLDA|||A cLDA method was used for this statistical analysis. The cLDA model included the baseline measurement and all post-baseline percent changes from baseline in the response vector, with fixed effects for treatment, time, geographic region, machine type and treatment-by-time interaction, geographic region-by-time interaction, and machine type-by-time interaction.||2.93|0.45|= 0.008
90829904|NCT02365649|181533437|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.5|28.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 36||28.5|-28.5|1.000
90829905|NCT02365649|181533437|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-25.0||||0.231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.3|11.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 36||11.3|-61.3|0.231
90893882|NCT00834106|181653184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine efficacy|82.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.3|96.7|||||Vaccine efficacy = 100 \* \[1 - (incidence rate with V501 / incidence rate with placebo)\]. The pre-specified success criterion was that the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval for vaccine efficacy excludes 0%.|||96.7|38.3|
90893883|NCT00834106|181653185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine efficacy|100.0||||0.0072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.3|100.0|||Exact test, 1-sided||Vaccine efficacy = 100 \* \[1 - (incidence rate with V501 / incidence rate with placebo)\]. The pre-specified success criterion was that the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval for vaccine efficacy excludes 0%.|||100|32.3|0.0072
91023338|NCT01120600|181930338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|2.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|3.3|||cLDA|||A cLDA method was used for this statistical analysis. The cLDA model included the baseline measurement and all post-baseline percent changes from baseline in the response vector, with fixed effects for treatment, time, geographic region, machine type and treatment-by-time interaction, geographic region-by-time interaction, and machine type-by-time interaction.||3.3|0.93|< 0.001
91023339|NCT01120600|181930339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-76.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-92.56|-60.61|||cLDA|||A cLDA method was used for this statistical analysis. The cLDA model included the baseline measurement and all post-baseline percent changes from baseline in the response vector, with fixed effects for treatment, time, geographic region, machine type and treatment-by-time interaction, geographic region-by-time interaction, and machine type-by-time interaction.||-60.61|-92.56|< 0.001
91023340|NCT01120600|181930340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-68.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.1|-58.06|||cLDA|||A cLDA method was used for this statistical analysis. The cLDA model included the baseline measurement and all post-baseline percent changes from baseline in the response vector, with fixed effects for treatment, time, geographic region, machine type and treatment-by-time interaction, geographic region-by-time interaction, and machine type-by-time interaction.||-58.06|-78.1|< 0.001
91023341|NCT01120600|181930341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-7.94|||=|0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.58|-1.31|||cLDA|||A cLDA method was used for this statistical analysis. The cLDA model included the baseline measurement and all post-baseline percent changes from baseline in the response vector, with fixed effects for treatment, time, geographic region, machine type and treatment-by-time interaction, geographic region-by-time interaction, and machine type-by-time interaction.||-1.31|-14.58|= 0.019
91023342|NCT01120600|181930342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-16.0|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.74|-6.27|||cLDA|||A cLDA method was used for this statistical analysis. The cLDA model included the baseline measurement and all post-baseline percent changes from baseline in the response vector, with fixed effects for treatment, time, geographic region, machine type and treatment-by-time interaction, geographic region-by-time interaction, and machine type-by-time interaction.||-6.27|-25.74|= 0.001
91023343|NCT02544633|181930396|SUPERIORITY|An exact test for single proportion (two-sided a=5%) will be performed to test H0: ORR \<=20% against H1: ORR \>20%.|Objective response rate|10.7||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.27|28.23|||exact test|||||28.23|2.27|0.94
91023344|NCT02544633|181930396|SUPERIORITY||Objective response rate|15.0||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.21|37.89|||exact test|||||37.89|3.21|0.79
91023345|NCT02544633|181930396|SUPERIORITY||Objective response rate|25.0||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.19|65.09|||Exact Test|||||65.09|3.19|0.47
91023346|NCT02544633|181930396|SUPERIORITY||Objective response rate|0.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|26.46|||Exact test|||||26.46|0.00|>0.999
91023347|NCT02092961|181930413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-1.75||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.75|-0.42||A negative value for change from baseline in OMERACT RAMRIS synovitis score indicates a better clinical condition.|Van Elteren|Estimated using the Van Elteren test stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant).|The point estimate for the median difference in change from baseline and associated 90% CI was calculated using the method of unstratified Hodges-Lehmann. A treatment difference \<0 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|6 weeks||-0.42|-2.75|0.022
91023348|NCT02092961|181930413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.5||||0.402|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|2.0||A negative value for change from baseline in OMERACT RAMRIS synovitis score indicates a better clinical condition.|Van Elteren|Estimated using the Van Elteren test stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant).|The point estimate for the median difference in change from baseline and associated 90% CI was calculated using the method of unstratified Hodges-Lehmann. A treatment difference \<0 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|24 weeks||2.00|-1.00|0.402
90829906|NCT02365649|181533437|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|27.5||||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|58.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 44||58.9|-3.9|0.214
90959179|NCT04981366|181798295|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91023349|NCT02092961|181930414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.0||||0.746|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|0.5||A negative value for change from baseline in OMERACT RAMRIS osteitis score indicates a better clinical condition.|Van Elteren|Estimated using the Van Elteren test stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant).|The point estimate for the median difference in change from baseline and associated 90% CI was calculated using the method of unstratified Hodges-Lehmann. A treatment difference \<0 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|6 weeks||0.50|-1.00|0.746
90829907|NCT02365649|181533437|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.3||||0.277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|50.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 44||50.0|-7.5|0.277
90893884|NCT00834106|181653191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine efficacy|91.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|79.8|97.4|||||Vaccine efficacy = 100 \* \[1 - (incidence rate with V501 / incidence rate with placebo)\].|||97.4|79.8|
91023350|NCT02092961|181930414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|1.0||||0.413|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.5|3.5||A negative value for change from baseline in OMERACT RAMRIS synovitis score indicates a better clinical condition.|Van Elteren|Estimated using the Van Elteren test stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant).|The point estimate for the median difference in change from baseline and associated 90% CI was calculated using the method of unstratified Hodges-Lehmann. A treatment difference \<0 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|24 weeks||3.50|-1.50|0.413
91023351|NCT02092961|181930415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.0||||0.491|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.0||A negative value for change from baseline in JSN score indicates a better clinical condition.|Van Elteren|Estimated using the Van Elteren test stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant).|The point estimate for the median difference in change from baseline and associated 90% CI was calculated using the method of unstratified Hodges-Lehmann. A treatment difference \<0 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|6 weeks||0.00|0.00|0.491
91023352|NCT02092961|181930415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.0||||0.341|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.0||A negative value for change from baseline in JSN score indicates a better clinical condition.|Van Elteren|Estimated using the Van Elteren test stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant).|The point estimate for the median difference in change from baseline and associated 90% CI was calculated using the method of unstratified Hodges-Lehmann. A treatment difference \<0 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|24 weeks||0.00|0.00|0.341
91023353|NCT02092961|181930416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.0||||0.366|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|0.0||A negative value for change from baseline in OMERACT RAMRIS erosions score indicates a better clinical condition.|Van Elteren|Estimated using the Van Elteren test stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant).|The point estimate for the median difference in change from baseline and associated 90% CI was calculated using the method of unstratified Hodges-Lehmann. A treatment difference \<0 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|6 weeks||0.00|-0.50|0.366
91023354|NCT02092961|181930416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|1.25||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|2.5||A negative value for change from baseline in OMERACT RAMRIS erosions score indicates a better clinical condition.|Van Elteren|Estimated using the Van Elteren test stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant).|The point estimate for the median difference in change from baseline and associated 90% CI was calculated using the method of unstratified Hodges-Lehmann. A treatment difference \<0 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|24 weeks||2.50|0.50|0.053
91023355|NCT02092961|181930417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Treatment Difference|0.89||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.36|1.41|||ANCOVA|Includes terms for baseline as a continuous covariate and treatment and DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) as factors.||Change from baseline at Week 6. Nonresponder imputation applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data. Patients who prematurely withdrew due to project closure have no imputation applied.||1.41|0.36|0.006
91023356|NCT02092961|181930417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Treatment Difference|-0.34||||0.496|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.16|0.49|||ANCOVA|Includes terms for baseline as a continuous covariate and treatment and DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) as factors.||Change from baseline at Week 24. Nonresponder imputation applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data. Patients who prematurely withdrew due to project closure have no imputation applied.||0.49|-1.16|0.496
91023357|NCT02060461|181930456|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired Students t-test of FS200 and IntraLase intraoperative flap thickness measurements obtained by ultrasound pachymetry||||.003
91023358|NCT05321810|181930462|OTHER|||||||0.016|||||||Log Rank|||Statistical analysis has been presented for all time points from 0 to 24 months.|\[Not specified\]|||0.016
91023359|NCT05321810|181930467|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.812||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.957|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis has been presented for all time points from 0 to 24 months.|\[Not specified\]|0.957|0.690|0.013
91023360|NCT05321810|181930473|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Log Rank|||Statistical analysis has been presented for all time points from 0 to 24 months.|\[Not specified\]|||0.002
91023361|NCT05321810|181930476|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||Statistical analysis has been presented for all time points from 0 to 24 months.|\[Not specified\]|||<0.001
91023362|NCT05321810|181930477|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.773|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis has been presented for all time points from 0 to 24 months.|\[Not specified\]|0.773|0.420|<0.001
90893885|NCT00834106|181653192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine efficacy|93.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|72.9|99.2|||||Vaccine efficacy = 100 \* \[1 - (incidence rate with V501 / incidence rate with placebo)\].|||99.2|72.9|
91023363|NCT05321810|181930479|OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||Log Rank|||Statistical analysis has been presented for all time points from 0 to 24 months.|\[Not specified\]|||0.350
90959180|NCT04981366|181798296|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
90959181|NCT04981366|181798297|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
90959182|NCT04981366|181798298|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.017
90959183|NCT04981366|181798299|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91023364|NCT05321810|181930480|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.155||||0.324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.867|1.54|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis has been presented for all time points from 0 to 24 months.|\[Not specified\]|1.540|0.867|0.324
91023365|NCT05321810|181930482|OTHER|||||||0.111|||||||Log Rank|||Statistical analysis has been presented for all time points from 0 to 24 months.|\[Not specified\]|||0.111
91023366|NCT05321810|181930483|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.866||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.028|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis has been presented for all time points from 0 to 24 months.|\[Not specified\]|1.028|0.730|0.100
91023367|NCT05321810|181930485|OTHER|||||||0.979|||||||Log Rank|||Statistical analysis has been presented for all time points from 0 to 24 months.|\[Not specified\]|||0.979
91023368|NCT05321810|181930486|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.002||||0.978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.854|1.177|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis has been presented for all time points from 0 to 24 months.|\[Not specified\]|1.177|0.854|0.978
91023369|NCT05321810|181930488|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||Statistical analysis has been presented for all time points from 0 to 24 months.|\[Not specified\]|||<0.001
91023370|NCT05321810|181930489|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.428|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.263|0.697|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis has been presented for all time points from 0 to 24 months.|\[Not specified\]|0.697|0.263|<0.001
91023371|NCT05321810|181930493|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.727||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.599|0.881|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis has been presented for all time points from 0 to 24 months.|\[Not specified\]|0.881|0.599|0.001
91023372|NCT00803959|181930495|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The investigators selected the 11% noninferiority margin on the basis of clinical judgement that it was a reasonable threshold for a trade-off between a decrease in the rate of successful treatment and the potential benefits of eliminating UDS studies from preoperative assessment. To minimize bias toward noninferiority, only women treated per protocol (e.g. who underwent the randomly assigned evaluation) were considered in the primary outcome analysis (ITT analysis considered secondary).|Difference in success % (UDS - no UDS)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|6.9|||Chi-squared|Noninferiority declared if the upper boundary of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in % success (UDS - no UDS) was \< 11%.|Point estimates of success percentage are calculated as 200/259= 77.2% for Office Evaluation Only and 203/264 = 76.9% for Urodynamic Testing arm.|The null hypothesis was that the no UDS group was non-inferior to those in the UDS group. Assuming a significance level of 5% and a true success rate in each group of 70% with a noninferiority margin of 11 percentage points, we needed to enroll 270 women/group to have 80% power for determining whether the results in the no UDS group were non inferior to those in the UDS group. Assuming a 10% dropout rate, a sample of 300 women per group was required.||6.9|-7.5|
91023373|NCT00803959|181930496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63||95.0||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Alpha level is considered to be 0.05.|Chi-squared|No adjustments were made; test had 1 degree of freedom.||Null hypothesis is that the two groups will not differ in the percent meeting 70% reduction in Urogenital Distress Inventory score.||||0.63
91023374|NCT00803959|181930497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68||95.0||||P-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance set at alpha = 0.05.|Chi-squared|No adjustments made; 1 degree of freedom test.||"Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the proportion responding very much better or much better on the Patient Global Impression of Improvement at the 12 month visit."||||0.68
91023375|NCT00803959|181930498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68||95.0||||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at alpha = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|One df t test assumed equal variance; no evidence was found to the contrary.||Null hypothesis is that the two arms do not differ according to change in UDI score.||||0.68
91023376|NCT00803959|181930499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance set at alpha = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Test was 1 df t-test assuming equal variances; no evidence to the contrary was found.||Null hypothesis is that the 2 arms do not differ according to change in ISI score.||||0.40
91023377|NCT00803959|181930500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5||95.0||||P-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold was alpha = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|The t test had 1 df assuming equal variances; no evidence of unequal variances was found.||Null hypothesis is that the 2 arms do not differ in change in MESA stress score.||||0.50
91023378|NCT00803959|181930501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19||95.0||||P-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons and a priori threshold for statistical significance set at alpha = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|The t test had 1 df and assumed equal variances; no evidence of different variances was found.||Null hypothesis is that the two arms do not differ according to change in MESA urgency score.||||0.19
91023379|NCT00803959|181930502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49||95.0||||P-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons and a priori threshold for statistical significance set at alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|T test had 1 df and assumed equal variance; no evidence of different variances was found.||Null hypothesis is that the 2 arms do not differ according to mean change in IIQ score.||||0.49
91023380|NCT00803959|181930503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0||||P-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons and a priori threshold for statistical significance set at alpha = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|T test had 1 df assuming equal variances; no evidence of unequal variances was found.||Null hypothesis is that the 2 arms do not differ according to mean change in SF-12 scores.||||0.02
91023381|NCT00803959|181930504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|The t test had 1 df and assumed equal variance; no evidence of different variances was found.||Null hypothesis is that the 2 arms do not differ according to mean change in PGI-S score.||||0.51
91023382|NCT00803959|181930505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51||95.0|||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared test had 1 df and no adjustments.||Null hypothesis is that the 2 arms do not differ in the proportion of women who score moderate or severe on the PGI-S at 12 months||||0.51
91023383|NCT00803959|181930506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was alpha = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|T test had 1 df and assumed equal variances; no evidence of unequal variances was found.||Null hypothesis is that the 2 arms do not differ according to mean overall patient satisfaction score at 12 months.||||0.28
90829908|NCT02365649|181533437|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-20.0||||0.442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.2|17.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 44||17.2|-57.2|0.442
91023384|NCT00803959|181930507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19||95.0||||P-values was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at alpha = 0.05.|Chi-squared|Chi-squared test had 1 df and no adjustments.||Null hypothesis is that the proportion having a positive provocative stress test at 12 months was the same in both treatment arms.||||0.19
90905083|NCT02886728|181677438|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|-2.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-2.0|-6.0|<0.001
90959184|NCT04981366|181798300|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.949|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.949
91023385|NCT01859390|181930508|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.22|||t-test, 2 sided|||Two-sample T-test||0.22|-0.49|0.460
91023386|NCT01859390|181930508|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.513|0.173|||Regression, Linear||"Regression Model predictors include: AquADEKs-2 arm, Age \>=18 years, Sex, Screening FEV1%Predicted \>70%, Chronic use of Inhaled Antibiotics and Azithromycin.~The estimated value is the mean difference between groups for 16 week change in log10 MPO."|||0.173|-0.513|0.325
91023387|NCT01859390|181930509|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportions-SAE incidence|-12.9||||0.302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.1|7.8|||Fisher Exact|||||7.8|-32.1|0.302
91023388|NCT01859390|181930510|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.94||||0.486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.13|||Poisson Model|||Rate Ratio for Adverse Events calculated using Poisson Regression with an offset for the log of follow-up time in weeks. The total number of follow-up weeks in the AquADEKs-2 group was 642 and in the Control group was 639.||1.13|0.78|0.486
91023389|NCT01859390|181930510|SUPERIORITY|Rate Ratio for Serious Adverse Events calculated using Poisson Regression with an offset for the log of follow-up time in weeks. The total number of follow-up weeks in the AquADEKs-2 group was 642 and in the Control group was 639.|Rate Ratio|0.74||||0.269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.26|||Poisson Regression|||||1.26|0.43|0.269
91023390|NCT01859390|181930511|SUPERIORITY|Two sample T-test|Median Difference (Final Values)|1.43||||0.4463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|5.16|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.16|-2.30|0.4463
91023391|NCT01859390|181930512|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.8623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.44|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.44|-0.37|0.8623
91023392|NCT01859390|181930513|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.536||||0.0534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.284|1.009||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Alpha at 0.05.|Regression, Cox||"Cox model parameters include: AquADEKs-2 arm, Age \>=18 years, Sex, Screening FEV1 % Predicted \>70%, Chronic use of Inhaled Antibiotics and Azithromycin.~The parameter of interest is the Hazard Ratio comparing the AquADEKs-2 arm to the control arm."|||1.009|0.284|0.0534
91023393|NCT01859390|181930514|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.72||||0.1731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.16|||Poisson Model|||Rate Ratio for PEx calculated using Poisson Regression with an offset for the log of follow-up time in months. The total number of follow-up months in the AquADEKs-2 group was 148 and in the Control group was 147.||1.16|0.44|0.1731
91023394|NCT01859390|181930515|SUPERIORITY|Difference in Proportions|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.8||||0.2363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.1|7.4||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Alpha at 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||7.4|-35.1|0.2363
91023395|NCT01859390|181930516|SUPERIORITY|Difference in Proportions|Median Difference (Final Values)|-15.7||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.5|4.8|||Fisher Exact|||||4.8|-34.5|0.1900
90959185|NCT04981366|181798301|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.993|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.993
91023396|NCT01151813|181930518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.02
91023397|NCT01151813|181930519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
91023398|NCT01151813|181930520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
91023399|NCT01151813|181930521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04
91023400|NCT01084005|181930533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.81|-0.48|||ANCOVA|||||-0.48|-0.81|<0.0001
91023401|NCT01084005|181930534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.45|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||||-0.24|-0.45|<0.0001
91023402|NCT01084005|181930535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.71|-0.43|||ANCOVA|||||-0.43|-0.71|<0.0001
91023403|NCT01084005|181930536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.77|-0.47|||ANCOVA|||||-0.47|-0.77|<0.0001
91023404|NCT01084005|181930537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.8|<|0.0001||95.0|-30.2|-11.2|||ANCOVA|||||-11.2|-30.2|<0.0001
91023405|NCT01084005|181930538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1|<|0.0001||95.0|-24.7|-12.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-12.6|-24.7|<0.0001
91023406|NCT01084005|181930539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4|<|0.0001||95.0|-28.1|-14.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-14.8|-28.1|<0.0001
91023407|NCT01084005|181930540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.2|<|0.0001||95.0|-29.8|-13.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-13.4|-29.8|<0.0001
91023408|NCT01084005|181930541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.319|||<|0.0001||95.0|3.321|20.837|||Regression, Logistic|||||20.837|3.321|<0.0001
91023409|NCT01084005|181930544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.214||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.073|0.625|||Regression, Logistic|||Lina 5 mg qd vs Placebo||0.625|0.073|0.0048
91023410|NCT00606684|181930545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.092|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.039|0.144|||ANCOVA|||||0.144|0.039|<0.001
91023411|NCT00606684|181930545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.098|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.046|0.15|||ANCOVA|||||0.150|0.046|<0.001
90829909|NCT02365649|181533437|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.0||||0.419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|57.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 52||57.1|-17.1|0.419
90829910|NCT02365649|181533437|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.0||||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|50.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 52||50.4|-10.4|0.214
90829911|NCT02365649|181533437|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-15.0||||0.439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.4|22.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 52||22.4|-52.4|0.439
90829912|NCT02365649|181533437|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|23.1||||0.284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|56.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 20||56.4|-10.1|0.284
91023412|NCT00606684|181930545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.057|0.162|||ANCOVA|||||0.162|0.057|<0.001
91023413|NCT00606684|181930545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.137|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.085|0.19|||ANCOVA|||||0.190|0.085|<0.001
91023414|NCT00606684|181930545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.165|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.112|0.217|||ANCOVA|||||0.217|0.112|<0.001
91023415|NCT01967888|181930579|SUPERIORITY||t-test|-1.2||||0.542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|0.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||000|-14.3|0.542
91023416|NCT01967888|181930580|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|-0.1601778||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.317803|-0.0025525|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.0025525|-0.3178030|0.092
91023417|NCT01967888|181930581|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|-0.1178242||||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.287431|0.0517825|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.0517825|-0.2874310|0.161
91086955|NCT05464420|182056660|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.97||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 23B: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3||0.97|0.66|<0.001
90829913|NCT02365649|181533437|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.2||||0.988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.9|24.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 20||24.3|-23.9|0.988
90829914|NCT02365649|181533437|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-12.1||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.1|13.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 20||13.9|-38.1|0.370
90829915|NCT02365649|181533437|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|25.6||||0.268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|60.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 28||60.2|-8.9|0.268
91023418|NCT01967888|181930582|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|0.0136||||0.846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0508|0.0781|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.0781|-0.0508|0.846
91023419|NCT01967888|181930583|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|-0.025||||0.817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0939|0.0689|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.0689|-0.0939|0.817
91023420|NCT01967888|181930584|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|-9.4641||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.49|23.5618|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||23.5618|-42.4900|0.570
91023421|NCT01967888|181930585|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|-22.9454|||=|0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.1826|2.2918|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.2918|-48.1826|=0.074
91023422|NCT01967888|181930586|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|-0.2074|||=|0.358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6538|0.2389|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.2389|-0.6538|=0.358
91023423|NCT01967888|181930587|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|-0.277|||=|0.288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7936|0.2396|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.2396|-0.7936|=0.288
91023424|NCT01967888|181930588|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|0.09716|||=|0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.41834|7.61266|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.61266|-7.41834|=0.980
91023425|NCT01967888|181930589|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|1.07617|||=|0.785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.76562|8.91796|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.91796|-6.76562|=0.785
91023426|NCT01967888|181930590|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.176|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.176
91023427|NCT01967888|181930591|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.403|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.403
91023428|NCT01967888|181930592|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|2.1||||0.842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.2|22.33|||Chi-squared|||||22.33|-18.20|0.842
91023429|NCT01967888|181930593|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.21||||0.339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|34.97|||Anderson-Gill model|||||34.97|0.29|0.339
91023430|NCT01967888|181930594|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|5.0||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.91|25.93|||Chi-squared|||||25.93|-15.91|0.640
91023431|NCT01967888|181930600|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.448|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.448
91023432|NCT01967888|181930601|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.910
91023433|NCT01967888|181930602|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||1.000
91023434|NCT01967888|181930607|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|31.3491|||=|0.5018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.998|123.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||123.70|-60.9980|=0.5018
91023435|NCT01967888|181930608|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|23.5454|||=|0.4537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.6619|85.7528|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||85.7528|-38.6619|=0.4537
91023436|NCT03175120|181930619|SUPERIORITY||Treatment contrast|-0.92|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|-0.75|||ANCOVA|||The response and change from baseline in response after 26 weeks are analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed factors and corresponding baseline value as covariate.||-0.75|-1.09|<.0001
91023437|NCT01859325|181930708|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.36||||0.406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|0.67|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Samples size based on published data on populations of early treated patients undergoing ART interruption. The power based on a 2-sample t-test with a 2-tailed alpha of .05 and a total sample size of 30 is approximately 91% to detect a 1.25 log10 reduction in the rebound plasma viremia between vaccine and placebo groups.||0.67|-1.41|0.406
91023438|NCT00986154|181930729|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The study was designed to accumulate approximately 220 Overall primary efficacy events in the mITT (modified Intent to Treat) Analysis Set. Assuming equal efficacy (Hazard Ratio = 1.00), a total of 220 events gave a power of 85% to demonstrate that (LMW) heparin/edoxaban was non-inferior to the comparator, considering a relative non-inferiority margin of 1.5 (two sided α=0.05).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.703|1.128|||Regression, Cox||Time to 1st event analyzed by Cox proportional hazards with terms treatment group, randomization stratification factors: Presenting Diagnosis (PE with/without DVT, DVT only); Baseline risk factors (temp factors; all others); Need for reduced dose|(LMW) heparin/edoxaban will be non-inferior to (LMW) heparin/warfarin in preventing recurrence of acute, symptomatic VTE following initial index event. (LMW) Heparin/edoxaban was considered non-inferior to the standard therapy (\[LMW\] heparin/warfarin) if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the Hazard Ratio (\[LMW\] heparin/edoxaban to standard therapy) was less than 1.5. Events included in Overall study period if occurred on or after randomization date up to Day 365.||1.128|.703|<0.0001
91023439|NCT00986154|181930730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.9933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.832|1.2|||Regression, Cox||Time to 1st event analyzed by Cox proportional hazards with terms treatment group, randomization stratification factors: Presenting Diagnosis (PE with/without DVT, DVT only); Baseline risk factors (temp factors; all others); Need for reduced dose.|||1.200|.832|.9933
90829916|NCT02365649|181533437|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.0||||0.665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.4|17.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 28||17.5|-27.4|0.665
90829917|NCT02365649|181533437|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.9||||0.759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.9|21.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 28||21.0|-28.9|0.759
90905084|NCT02886728|181677438|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|-3.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-3.0|-7.0|<0.001
90959186|NCT04981366|181798302|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.601|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.601
90959187|NCT04981366|181798303|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.408|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.408
91023440|NCT00986154|181930731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.705|0.936|||Regression, Cox||Time to 1st event analyzed by Cox proportional hazards with terms treatment group, randomization stratification factors: Presenting Diagnosis (PE with/without DVT, DVT only); Baseline risk factors (temp factors; all others); Need for reduced dose|"Safety Analysis set includes all randomized subjects who received at least one dose of study drug.~Null hypothesis (LMW) heparin/edoxaban will be comparable to (LMW) heparin/warfarin in preventing recurrence of major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding."||.936|.705|.0040
91023441|NCT00267293|181930736|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power for 80%|||||<|0.001||||||comparision of mean temperatures from repeated exposure. At hour 6 temperature|Mixed Models Analysis|||Power for 80%||||<0.001
91023442|NCT00267293|181930736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Binary outcome \<38C and \>=38C|Chi-squared|||||||<.0001
90829918|NCT02365649|181533437|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.9||||0.259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|56.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 36||56.6|-12.8|0.259
90959188|NCT04981366|181798304|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.082|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.082
91023443|NCT01684722|181930739|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|2.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.5|-0.7|0.25
91023444|NCT01684722|181930739|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|2.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.6|-0.7|0.27
91023445|NCT01684722|181930740|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of change from baseline, active to|0.99||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.17|0.84|0.90
91023446|NCT01684722|181930740|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of change from baseline, active to|0.96||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.14|0.81|0.64
91023447|NCT00219557|181930746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.758||||0.1026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.17||One-sided log-rank test at alpha = 0.1 significance level was used.|Log Rank|||Differences in OS between treatment arms was analyzed by the stratified log-rank test where the stratification factors are Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (less than or equal to 1 or 2) and extent of disease (locally advanced or metastatic).||1.170|0.490|0.1026
91023448|NCT00219557|181930757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rate|4.3||||0.661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|12.7|||Fisher Exact|||Difference in percent of participants with overall response expressed as response rate, was used for calculation of 95% confidence interval (CI).||12.7|-4.0|0.661
91023449|NCT00219557|181930759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9648||||0.4466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.73||One-sided log-rank test at alpha = 0.1 significance level was used.|Log Rank|||Differences in PFS between treatment arms was analyzed by the stratified log-rank test where the stratification factors are ECOG performance status (less than equal to 1 or 2) and extent of disease (locally advanced or metastatic).||1.7300|0.5400|0.4466
91023450|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.06|2.19||||||For change in global QoL at Cycle 2 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||2.19|-19.06|
91023451|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|3.36||||||For change in physical functioning at Cycle 2 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||3.36|-15.4|
91023452|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.77|5.12||||||For change in role functioning at Cycle 2 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||5.12|-23.77|
91023453|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.25|5.79||||||For change in emotional functioning at Cycle 2 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||5.79|-15.25|
91023454|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.83|5.61||||||For change in cognitive functioning at Cycle 2 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||5.61|-15.83|
91023455|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.72|12.06||||||For change in social functioning at Cycle 2 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||12.06|-18.72|
91023456|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|22.44||||||For change in fatigue at Cycle 2 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||22.44|-1.62|
91023457|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.55|7.96||||||For change in nausea and vomiting at Cycle 2 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||7.96|-16.55|
91023458|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.57|22.32||||||For change in pain at Cycle 2 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||22.32|-7.57|
91023459|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|26.3||||||For change in dyspnea at Cycle 2 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||26.30|-1.28|
91086956|NCT05464420|182056660|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.18||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 24F: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2||1.18|0.88|<0.001
90829919|NCT02365649|181533437|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.7||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.2|19.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 36||19.9|-23.2|0.880
90959189|NCT04981366|181798305|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.550
90959190|NCT04981366|181798306|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.700
90959191|NCT04981366|181798307|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.254|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.254
90959192|NCT04981366|181798308|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.373|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.373
91023460|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|25.49||||||For change in insomnia at Cycle 2 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||25.49|-5.70|
91023461|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.81|32.07||||||For change in appetite loss at Cycle 2 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||32.07|-4.81|
91023462|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.62|20.96||||||For change in constipation at Cycle 2 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||20.96|-11.62|
91023463|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.1|12.54||||||For change in diarrhea at Cycle 2 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||12.54|-15.1|
91023464|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.67|15.53||||||For change in financial difficulties at Cycle 2 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||15.53|-4.67|
91023465|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.34|0.67||||||For change in global QoL at Cycle 3 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||0.67|-32.34|
91023466|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.12|0.96||||||For change in physical functioning at Cycle 3 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||0.96|-24.12|
91023467|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.47|-1.83||||||For change in role functioning at Cycle 3 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||-1.83|-35.47|
91023468|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.16|1.32||||||For change in emotional functioning at Cycle 3 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||1.32|-29.16|
91023469|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.97|6.77||||||For change in cognitive functioning at Cycle 3 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||6.77|-20.97|
91023470|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.28|9.04||||||For change in social functioning at Cycle 3 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||9.04|-28.28|
90829920|NCT02365649|181533437|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.7||||0.355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.7|11.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 36||11.2|-32.7|0.355
90829921|NCT02365649|181533437|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.1|37.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 44||37.1|-27.1|1.000
90829922|NCT02365649|181533437|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.4||||0.688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|25.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 44||25.9|-17.0|0.688
90829923|NCT02365649|181533437|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.1||||0.927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.3|24.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 44||24.5|-22.3|0.927
90829924|NCT02365649|181533437|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|27.5||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|60.0||Statistically significant at 0.1 level. P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 52||60.0|-5.0|0.075
90829925|NCT02365649|181533437|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.0||||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|32.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 52||32.7|-4.8|0.154
90829926|NCT02365649|181533437|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.9||||0.707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|24.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 52||24.2|-14.4|0.707
90829927|NCT02365649|181533437|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|25.0||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|40.0||Statistically significant at 0.1 level. P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical responders, Week 20||40.0|10.0|0.085
90958884|NCT01052103|181797817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.727||95.0||||One-sided p-value.|Type 3 Sums of Squares|||Changes from baseline to all post-baseline visits were analyzed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based MMRM. Model terms included fixed class effects for visit, investigative site, treatment, SOC type, baseline positive symptom stratum, and treatment-by-visit interaction as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline measurement and baseline-by-visit interaction.||||0.727
91086957|NCT05464420|182056660|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.18||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 24F: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3||1.18|0.88|<0.001
90829928|NCT02365649|181533437|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.7||||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|33.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical responders, Week 20||33.3|-4.0|0.137
90829929|NCT02365649|181533437|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-11.8||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.2|14.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical responders, Week 20||14.5|-38.2|0.370
90829930|NCT02365649|181533437|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.6||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.6|24.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical responders, Week 28||24.4|-31.6|1.000
90959193|NCT04981366|181798309|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.407|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.407
90959194|NCT04981366|181798310|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.051|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.051
90829931|NCT02365649|181533437|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-16.4||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.8|7.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical responders, Week 28||7.0|-39.8|0.174
90829932|NCT02365649|181533437|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-17.1||||0.203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.9|9.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical responders, Week 28||9.7|-43.9|0.203
91023471|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|33.54||||||For change in fatigue at Cycle 3 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||33.54|-1.27|
91023472|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.78|15.18||||||For change in nausea and vomiting at Cycle 3 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||15.18|-18.78|
90829933|NCT02365649|181533437|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.1||||0.286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|44.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical responders, Week 36||44.7|-4.5|0.286
90829934|NCT02365649|181533437|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.6||||0.773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.7|20.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical responders, Week 36||20.6|-27.7|0.773
90829935|NCT02365649|181533437|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-23.5||||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.2|4.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical responders, Week 36||4.1|-51.2|0.101
90905085|NCT02886728|181677438|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|-4.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-4.0|-7.0|<0.001
90958885|NCT01052103|181797821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4||0.305||95.0||||One-sided p-value.|Type 3 Sums of Squares|||Changes from baseline to all post-baseline visits were analyzed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based MMRM. Model terms included fixed class effects for visit, investigative site, treatment, SOC type, baseline positive symptom stratum, and treatment-by-visit interaction as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline measurement and baseline-by-visit interaction.||||0.305
91023473|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.22|36.39||||||For change in pain at Cycle 3 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||36.39|-3.22|
91023474|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.68|26.47||||||For change in dyspnea at Cycle 3 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||26.47|-5.68|
91023475|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.19|23.36||||||For change in insomnia at Cycle 3 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||23.36|-20.19|
91086958|NCT05464420|182056660|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.16||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 24F: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3||1.16|0.87|<0.001
91023476|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.62|40.1||||||For change in appetite loss at Cycle 3 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||40.1|-7.62|
91023477|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.49|23.02||||||For change in constipation at Cycle 3 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||23.02|-17.49|
91086959|NCT05464420|182056660|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.2||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 31: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2||1.20|0.87|<0.001
90829936|NCT02365649|181533437|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.2||||0.332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|44.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical responders, Week 44||44.4|-14.1|0.332
90829937|NCT02365649|181533437|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.2||||0.189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|39.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical responders, Week 44||39.8|-7.5|0.189
91023478|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.29|22.03||||||For change in diarrhea at Cycle 3 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||22.03|-16.29|
91023479|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.81|20.92||||||For change in financial difficulties at Cycle 3 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||20.92|-9.81|
91023480|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.52|7.57||||||For change in global QoL at Cycle 4 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||7.57|-19.52|
91023481|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.75|8.46||||||For change in physical functioning at Cycle 4 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||8.46|-19.75|
91023482|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.11|4.05||||||For change in role functioning at Cycle 4 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||4.05|-39.11|
91023483|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.5|2.0||||||For change in emotional functioning at Cycle 4 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||2.00|-26.5|
91023484|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.13|9.15||||||For change in cognitive functioning at Cycle 4 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||9.15|-23.13|
91023485|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.48|16.31||||||For change in social functioning at Cycle 4 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||16.31|-30.48|
91023486|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.86|27.63||||||For change in fatigue at Cycle 4 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||27.63|-5.86|
90829938|NCT02365649|181533437|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-14.1||||0.329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.2|13.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical responders, Week 44||13.9|-42.2|0.329
90829939|NCT02365649|181533437|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|24.6||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|53.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical responders, Week 52||53.9|-4.8|0.124
90905086|NCT02886728|181677438|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|-3.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-3.0|-6.0|<0.001
91023487|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.11|1.91||||||For change in nausea and vomiting at Cycle 4 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||1.91|-24.11|
91023488|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.26|14.0||||||For change in pain at Cycle 4 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||14.00|-24.26|
91023489|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.18|24.44||||||For change in dyspnea at Cycle 4 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||24.44|-14.18|
90959195|NCT04981366|181798311|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.385|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.385
91023490|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.25|13.59||||||For change in insomnia at Cycle 4 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||13.59|-26.25|
91023491|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.26|33.32||||||For change in appetite loss at Cycle 4 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||33.32|-15.26|
91023492|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.71|26.82||||||For change in constipation at Cycle 4 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||26.82|-25.71|
91023493|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.07|28.01||||||For change in diarrhea at Cycle 4 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||28.01|-24.07|
91023494|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.89|24.86||||||For change in financial difficulties at Cycle 4 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||24.86|-5.89|
91023495|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.19|3.17||||||For change in global QoL at Cycle 5 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||3.17|-43.19|
91023496|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.24|10.1||||||For change in physical functioning at Cycle 5 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||10.10|-27.24|
90829940|NCT02365649|181533437|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.2||||0.234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|39.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical responders, Week 52||39.9|-9.5|0.234
90959196|NCT04981366|181798312|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.239|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.239
91023497|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.1|8.96||||||For change in role functioning at Cycle 5 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||8.96|-41.10|
91023498|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.72|-5.5||||||For change in emotional functioning at Cycle 5 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||-5.50|-42.72|
91023499|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.66|10.61||||||For change in cognitive functioning at Cycle 5 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||10.61|-29.66|
91023500|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.93|7.46||||||For change in social functioning at Cycle 5 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||7.46|-47.93|
91023501|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.23|46.77||||||For change in fatigue at Cycle 5 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||46.77|3.23|
91023502|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.49|25.99||||||For change in nausea and vomiting at Cycle 5 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||25.99|-13.49|
91023503|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.12|46.41||||||For change in pain at Cycle 5 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||46.41|-7.12|
91023504|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|43.66||||||For change in dyspnea at Cycle 5 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||43.66|0.38|
91023505|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.49|38.73||||||For change in insomnia at Cycle 5 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||38.73|-18.49|
91023506|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.98|55.65||||||For change in appetite loss at Cycle 5 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||55.65|-13.98|
91023507|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.02|42.83||||||For change in constipation at Cycle 5 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||42.83|-19.02|
90905087|NCT02886728|181677438|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|-3.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-3.0|-7.0|<0.001
91023508|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.13|39.94||||||For change in diarrhea at Cycle 5 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||39.94|-16.13|
91023509|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.38|23.38||||||For change in financial difficulties at Cycle 5 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||23.38|-23.38|
91023510|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.53|17.21||||||For change in global QoL at Cycle 6 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups||17.21|-34.53|
91023511|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.01|26.04||||||For change in physical functioning at Cycle 6 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||26.04|-52.01|
91023512|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.87|19.24||||||For change in role functioning at Cycle 6 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||19.24|-71.87|
91023513|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.59|14.31||||||For change in emotional functioning at Cycle 6 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||14.31|-26.59|
91023514|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.46|11.48||||||For change in cognitive functioning at Cycle 6 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||11.48|-35.46|
91023515|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.97|49.04||||||For change in social functioning at Cycle 6 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||49.04|-20.97|
91023516|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.83|62.61||||||For change in fatigue at Cycle 6 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||62.61|-15.83|
91023517|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.84|38.73||||||For change in nausea and vomiting at Cycle 6 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||38.73|-30.84|
91023518|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.08|62.2||||||For change in pain at Cycle 6 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||62.20|-13.08|
91023519|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.65|34.94||||||For change in dyspnea at Cycle 6 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||34.94|-38.65|
91023520|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.43|56.73||||||For change in insomnia at Cycle 6 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||56.73|-37.43|
91023521|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.22|97.54||||||For change in appetite loss at Cycle 6 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||97.54|-71.22|
91023522|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.61|68.22||||||For change in constipation at Cycle 6 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||68.22|-22.61|
91023523|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.1|35.59||||||For change in diarrhea at Cycle 6 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||35.59|-39.10|
91023524|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|46.86||||||For change in financial difficulties at Cycle 6 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||46.86|1.09|
91023525|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.03|63.11||||||For change in global QoL at Cycle 7 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||63.11|-39.03|
91023526|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.74|58.52||||||For change in physical functioning at Cycle 7 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||58.52|-20.74|
91023527|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-48.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-111.94|15.28||||||For change in role functioning at Cycle 7 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||15.28|-111.94|
90958886|NCT01052103|181797822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.42||95.0||||One-sided p-value.|Type 3 Sums of Squares|||Changes from baseline to all post-baseline visits were analyzed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based MMRM. Model terms included fixed class effects for visit, investigative site, treatment, SOC type, baseline positive symptom stratum, and treatment-by-visit interaction as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline measurement and baseline-by-visit interaction.||||0.420
91023528|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.59|20.74||||||For change in emotional functioning at Cycle 7 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||20.74|-22.59|
91023529|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.98|39.43||||||For change in cognitive functioning at Cycle 7 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||39.43|-24.98|
91086960|NCT05464420|182056660|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.2||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 31: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3||1.20|0.87|<0.001
91023530|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.71|77.71||||||For change in social functioning at Cycle 7 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||77.71|-57.71|
91023531|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.87|24.79||||||For change in fatigue at Cycle 7 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||24.79|-58.87|
90959197|NCT04981366|181798313|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.463|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.463
91023532|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.1|13.1||||||For change in nausea and vomiting at Cycle 7 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||13.10|-43.10|
91023533|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.75|57.3||||||For change in pain at Cycle 7 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||57.30|-41.75|
91023534|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.79|20.46||||||For change in dyspnea at Cycle 7 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||20.46|-53.79|
91023535|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.14|30.92||||||For change in insomnia at Cycle 7 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||30.92|-73.14|
91023536|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-32.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-115.58|51.13||||||For change in appetite loss at Cycle 7 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||51.13|-115.58|
91023537|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|53.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.6|125.26||||||For change in constipation at Cycle 7 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||125.26|-18.60|
91023538|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.92|41.58||||||For change in diarrhea at Cycle 7 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||41.58|-34.92|
91023539|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.3|20.96||||||For change in financial difficulties at Cycle 7 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||20.96|-34.3|
91023540|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.94|100.6||||||For change in global QoL at Cycle 8 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||100.60|-58.94|
91023541|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.54|63.2||||||For change in physical functioning at Cycle 8 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||63.20|-44.54|
91023542|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.3|75.3||||||For change in role functioning at Cycle 8 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||75.30|-35.30|
90829941|NCT02365649|181533437|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.0||||0.484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.8|17.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical responders, Week 52||17.7|-37.8|0.484
90829942|NCT02365649|181533437|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.3|37.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical non-responders, Week 20||37.3|-57.3|1.000
90829943|NCT02365649|181533437|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-11.2||||0.431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.9|16.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical non-responders, Week 20||16.5|-38.9|0.431
90829944|NCT02365649|181533437|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-20.7||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.5|7.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical non-responders, Week 20||7.1|-48.5|0.250
90829945|NCT02365649|181533437|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.9|50.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical non-responders, Week 28||50.9|-40.9|1.000
90829946|NCT02365649|181533437|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.2|23.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical non-responders, Week 28||23.3|-25.2|1.000
90829947|NCT02365649|181533437|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.1|19.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical non-responders, Week 28||19.6|-31.1|1.000
90829948|NCT02365649|181533437|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.0||||0.544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.2|55.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical non-responders, Week 36||55.2|-35.2|0.544
90829949|NCT02365649|181533437|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.4|20.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical non-responders, Week 36||20.9|-22.4|1.000
90893886|NCT00117676|181653216|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|With a sample size of 200 subjects in the tenofovir DF group and 100 subjects in the adefovir dipivoxil group, a two group large-sample normal approximation test of proportions with a one-sided 0.025 significance level would have 95% power to reject the null hypothesis that the tenofovir DF treatment was inferior to the adefovir dipivoxil treatment (difference in proportions was less than -0.100) in favor of the alternative hypothesis that the tenofovir DF treatment was not inferior.|Difference in proportions|23.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.2|33.8||P-value corresponds to a Z-test of the null hypothesis that the stratum-adjusted (baseline ALT ≥ 2 x ULN or \> 2 x ULN) difference is 0.|Z-test|||A two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI), stratified by baseline ALT (≤ 2 x ULN or \> 2 x ULN) was used to evaluate the difference (tenofovir DF - adefovir dipivoxil) in the proportion of complete responders between treatment groups.||33.8|13.2|<0.001
91023543|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.66|36.66||||||For change in emotional functioning at Cycle 8 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||36.66|-51.66|
90829950|NCT02365649|181533437|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.9||||0.627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.5|12.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical non-responders, Week 36||12.8|-28.5|0.627
90829951|NCT02365649|181533437|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.1|3.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical non-responders, Week 44||3.1|-23.1|1.000
90829952|NCT02365649|181533437|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.7|17.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical non-responders, Week 44||17.7|-18.7|1.000
90829953|NCT02365649|181533437|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.3|26.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical non-responders, Week 44||26.8|-18.3|1.000
91023544|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.06|69.39||||||For change in cognitive functioning at Cycle 8 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||69.39|-36.06|
91023545|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.36|86.36||||||For change in social functioning at Cycle 8 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||86.36|-76.36|
91023546|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.63|42.08||||||For change in fatigue at Cycle 8 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||42.08|-77.63|
91023547|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.33|28.99||||||For change in nausea and vomiting at Cycle 8 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||28.99|-62.33|
91023548|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-79.59|96.26||||||For change in pain at Cycle 8 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||96.26|-79.59|
91023549|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-89.98|52.94||||||For change in dyspnea at Cycle 8 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||52.94|-89.98|
91023550|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-133.08|93.08||||||For change in insomnia at Cycle 8 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||93.08|-133.08|
91023551|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-36.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-151.27|77.94||||||For change in appetite loss at Cycle 8 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||77.94|-151.27|
91023552|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.58|65.91||||||For change in constipation at Cycle 8 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||65.91|-72.58|
90829954|NCT02365649|181533437|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.3||||0.232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|29.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical non-responders, Week 52||29.3|-0.7|0.232
91023553|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|73.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.45|163.12||||||For change in diarrhea at Cycle 8 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||163.12|-16.45|
91023554|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.23|41.56||||||For change in financial difficulties at Cycle 8 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||41.56|-48.23|
91023555|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.75|106.0||||||For change in global QoL at Cycle 9 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||106.00|-74.75|
91023556|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.22|83.89||||||For change in physical functioning at Cycle 9 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||83.89|-17.22|
91023557|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.04|66.37||||||For change in role functioning at Cycle 9 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||66.37|-58.04|
90893887|NCT00117676|181653217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|30.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.3|39.2||P-value corresponds to a Z-test of the null hypothesis that the stratum-adjusted difference is zero. Difference, standard error of the difference, and the CI are stratum adjusted based on baseline ALT category (≤ 2 x ULN or \> 2 x ULN).|Z-test|||||39.2|21.3|<0.001
91023558|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.19|38.61||||||For change in emotional functioning at Cycle 9 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||38.61|-28.19|
91023559|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|31.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.94|103.44||||||For change in cognitive functioning at Cycle 9 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||103.44|-40.94|
91023560|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-91.02|145.18||||||For change in social functioning at Cycle 9 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||145.18|-91.02|
91023561|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-99.46|68.9||||||For change in fatigue at Cycle 9 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||68.90|-99.46|
91023562|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.69|19.69||||||For change in nausea and vomiting at Cycle 9 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||19.69|-69.69|
91023563|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.4|77.4||||||For change in pain at Cycle 9 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||77.40|-77.40|
91023564|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-82.89|54.32||||||For change in dyspnea at Cycle 9 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||54.32|-82.89|
91023565|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-87.02|78.69||||||For change in insomnia at Cycle 9 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||78.69|-87.02|
91023566|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-184.57|134.57||||||For change in appetite loss at Cycle 9 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||134.57|-184.57|
90959198|NCT04981366|181798314|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.032|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.032
90959199|NCT04981366|181798315|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.469|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.469
90959200|NCT04981366|181798316|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.013
91023567|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-105.73|89.06||||||For change in constipation at Cycle 9 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||89.06|-105.73|
90829955|NCT02365649|181533437|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.1||||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|20.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical non-responders, Week 52||20.6|-6.3|0.412
90829956|NCT02365649|181533438|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-745.7||||0.356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2369.73|878.37||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Responders, Week 28||878.37|-2369.73|0.356
90829957|NCT02365649|181533438|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1119.5||||0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2698.52|459.5||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Responders, Week 28||459.50|-2698.52|0.158
90829958|NCT02365649|181533438|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1166.0||||0.322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3531.3|1199.32||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Responders, Week 28||1199.32|-3531.30|0.322
90829959|NCT02365649|181533438|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-828.2||||0.287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2387.16|730.75||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Responders, Week 52||730.75|-2387.16|0.287
90829960|NCT02365649|181533438|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1286.1||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2772.59|200.43||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|Prespecified statistically significant at 0.1 level.||Responders, Week 52||200.43|-2772.59|0.088
90829961|NCT02365649|181533438|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-502.2||||0.613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2505.74|1501.38||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Responders, Week 52||1501.38|-2505.74|0.613
90893888|NCT00117676|181653218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4||0.672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|8.0||P-value corresponds to a Z-test of the null hypothesis that the stratum-adjusted difference is zero. Two-sided 95% confidence intervals, stratified by baseline ALT (baseline ALT ≤ 2 x ULN, \> 2 x ULN), were used to evaluate treatment arm differences.|Z-test|||||8.0|-5.2|0.672
90893889|NCT00117676|181653223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0||0.293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|14.9||P-value corresponds to a Z-test of the null hypothesis that the stratum-adjusted difference is zero. Confidence interval stratum adjusted based on baseline ALT (≤ 2 x ULN, \> 2 x ULN).|Z-test|||||14.9|-4.5|0.293
90958887|NCT00666679|181797831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-Squares Means|0.05||||0.033||95.0|0.0|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model with fixed effects for treatment, time (weeks 1 and 2), treatment-by-time interaction, period and baseline covariate.|Least-Squares Means for average change from baseline are derived using appropriate contrast from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, time (weeks 1 and 2), treatment-by-time interaction, period and baseline covariate.|||0.09|0.00|0.033
90959201|NCT04981366|181798317|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.064|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.064
90829962|NCT02365649|181533438|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|283.4||||0.609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-823.64|1390.49||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Non-responders, Week 28||1390.49|-823.64|0.609
91023568|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|79.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.72|188.06||||||For change in diarrhea at Cycle 9 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||188.06|-29.72|
91023569|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.74|49.41||||||For change in financial difficulties at Cycle 9 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||49.41|-57.74|
90829963|NCT02365649|181533438|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-78.2||||0.855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-930.47|774.16||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Non-responders, Week 28||774.16|-930.47|0.855
90829964|NCT02365649|181533438|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|283.5||||0.584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-751.66|1318.57||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Non-responders, Week 28||1318.57|-751.66|0.584
90829965|NCT02365649|181533438|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|356.6||||0.624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1095.03|1808.19||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Non-responders, Week 52||1808.19|-1095.03|0.624
90829966|NCT02365649|181533438|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-135.1||||0.806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1233.48|963.25||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Non-responders, Week 52||963.25|-1233.48|0.806
90829967|NCT02365649|181533438|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|186.2||||0.793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1229.59|1602.06||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Non-responders, Week 52||1602.06|-1229.59|0.793
90959202|NCT04981366|181798318|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0314|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0314
90829968|NCT02365649|181533438|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-304.8||||0.561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1350.04|740.44||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical responders, Week 28||740.44|-1350.04|0.561
90829969|NCT02365649|181533438|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1119.0||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2083.81|-154.11||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|Prespecified statistically significant at 0.05 level.||Clinical responders, Week 28||-154.11|-2083.81|0.024
90958888|NCT00666679|181797832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-Squares Means|-0.15||||0.005||95.0|-0.26|-0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model with fixed effects for treatment, time (weeks 1 and 2), treatment-by-time interaction, period and baseline covariate.|Least-Squares Means for average change from baseline are derived using appropriate contrast from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, time (weeks 1 and 2), treatment-by-time interaction, period and baseline covariate.|||-0.05|-0.26|0.005
91023570|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.62|72.95||||||For change in global QoL at Cycle 10 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||72.95|-39.62|
91023571|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.42|61.66||||||For change in physical functioning at Cycle 10 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||61.66|-6.42|
91023572|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|26.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.28|81.66||||||For change in role functioning at Cycle 10 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||81.66|-29.28|
91023573|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.74|56.6||||||For change in emotional functioning at Cycle 10 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||56.6|-63.74|
91023574|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.66|79.28||||||For change in cognitive functioning at Cycle 10 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||79.28|-31.66|
91023575|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.82|110.96||||||For change in social functioning at Cycle 10 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||110.96|-53.82|
91023576|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-30.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-94.53|34.21||||||For change in fatigue at Cycle 10 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||34.21|-94.53|
91023577|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.26|49.93||||||For change in nausea and vomiting at Cycle 10 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||49.93|-83.26|
91023578|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-97.98|88.45||||||For change in pain at Cycle 10 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||88.45|-97.98|
91023579|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-86.68|64.46||||||For change in dyspnea at Cycle 10 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||64.46|-86.68|
91023580|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.41|64.93||||||For change in insomnia at Cycle 10 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||64.93|-55.41|
91023581|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-129.86|110.82||||||For change in appetite loss at Cycle 10 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||110.82|-129.86|
90829970|NCT02365649|181533438|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-819.3||||0.156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1959.79|321.21||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical responders, Week 28||321.21|-1959.79|0.156
91023582|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-117.92|79.82||||||For change in constipation at Cycle 10 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||79.82|-117.92|
91023583|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|76.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.75|159.13||||||For change in diarrhea at Cycle 10 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||159.13|-6.75|
91023584|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.93|55.41||||||For change in financial difficulties at Cycle 10 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||55.41|-64.93|
91023585|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-271.74|260.62||||||For change in global QoL at Cycle 11 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||260.62|-271.74|
91023586|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-166.87|197.98||||||For change in physical functioning at Cycle 11 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||197.98|-166.87|
91023587|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-238.4|293.96||||||For change in role functioning at Cycle 11 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||293.96|-238.4|
91023588|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-275.22|241.89||||||For change in emotional functioning at Cycle 11 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||241.89|-275.22|
91023589|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-307.94|319.05||||||For change in cognitive functioning at Cycle 11 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||319.05|-307.94|
90829971|NCT02365649|181533438|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-346.6||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1592.66|899.45||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical responders, Week 52||899.45|-1592.66|0.580
90829972|NCT02365649|181533438|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1275.9||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2415.88|-135.92||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|Prespecified statistically significant at 0.05 level.||Clinical responders, Week 52||-135.92|-2415.88|0.029
90829973|NCT02365649|181533438|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-534.9||||0.431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1883.23|813.5||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical responders, Week 52||813.50|-1883.23|0.431
90959203|NCT04981366|181798319|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0147|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0147
91023590|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-238.4|293.96||||||For change in social functioning at Cycle 11 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||293.96|-238.40|
91023591|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-215.01|244.64||||||For change in fatigue at Cycle 11 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||244.64|-215.01|
91023592|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-302.38|324.6||||||For change in nausea and vomiting at Cycle 11 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||324.60|-302.38|
91023593|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|38.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-305.85|383.63||||||For change in pain at Cycle 11 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||383.63|-305.85|
91023594|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-355.85|333.63||||||For change in dyspnea at Cycle 11 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||333.63|-355.85|
91023595|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-322.52|366.97||||||For change in insomnia at Cycle 11 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||366.97|-322.52|
91023596|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|44.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-208.53|297.42||||||For change in appetite loss at Cycle 11 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||297.42|-208.53|
91023597|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-165.61|165.61||||||For change in constipation at Cycle 11 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||165.61|-165.61|
91023598|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|77.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.84|173.39||||||For change in diarrhea at Cycle 11 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||173.39|-17.84|
91023599|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-106.73|84.5||||||For change in financial difficulties at Cycle 11 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||84.5|-106.73|
91023600|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-54.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-512.66|404.33||||||For change in global QoL at EoS, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||404.33|-512.66|
91023601|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-70.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-143.36|3.36||||||For change in physical functioning at EoS, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||3.36|-143.36|
91023602|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-33.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-400.13|333.46||||||For change in role functioning at EoS, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||333.46|-400.13|
91023603|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-41.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-591.86|508.53||||||For change in emotional functioning at EoS, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||508.53|-591.86|
90829974|NCT02365649|181533438|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-25.4||||0.965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1200.67|1149.95||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical non-responders, Week 28||1149.95|-1200.67|0.965
91023604|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-66.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.67|-66.67||||||For change in cognitive functioning at EoS, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||-66.67|-66.67|
91023605|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-83.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-450.13|283.46||||||For change in social functioning at EoS, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||283.46|-450.13|
91023606|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|66.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-177.86|311.2||||||For change in fatigue at EoS, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||311.2|-177.86|
91023607|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-333.46|400.13||||||For change in nausea and vomiting at EoS, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||400.13|-333.46|
91023608|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1258.79|1308.79||||||For change in pain at EoS, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||1308.79|-1258.79|
91023609|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|83.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-283.46|450.13||||||For change in dyspnea at EoS, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||450.13|-283.46|
90829975|NCT02365649|181533438|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|623.6||||0.123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-183.52|1430.64||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical non-responders, Week 28||1430.64|-183.52|0.123
90959204|NCT04981366|181798320|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.007
90959205|NCT04981366|181798321|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91023610|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-700.26|766.93||||||For change in insomnia at EoS, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||766.93|-700.26|
90829976|NCT02365649|181533438|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|368.2||||0.591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1031.23|1767.6||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical non-responders, Week 28||1767.60|-1031.23|0.591
90829977|NCT02365649|181533438|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|192.2||||0.642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-648.22|1032.68||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical non-responders, Week 52||1032.68|-648.22|0.642
90829978|NCT02365649|181533438|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|455.8||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-81.37|992.95||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|Prespecified statistically significant at 0.1 level.||Clinical non-responders, Week 52||992.95|-81.37|0.093
90829979|NCT02365649|181533438|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|463.6||||0.296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-428.99|1356.2||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical non-responders, Week 52||1356.20|-428.99|0.296
90829980|NCT02365649|181533439|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-2.0||||0.822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.83|15.83||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Responders, Week 20||15.83|-19.83|0.822
90829981|NCT02365649|181533439|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-6.4||||0.386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.97|8.25||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Responders, Week 20||8.25|-20.97|0.386
90829982|NCT02365649|181533439|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|12.9||||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.22|29.95||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Responders, Week 20||29.95|-4.22|0.136
90829983|NCT02365649|181533439|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|1.0||||0.912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.87|19.97||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Responders, Week 28||19.97|-17.87|0.912
90829984|NCT02365649|181533439|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-12.3||||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.77|3.25||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Responders, Week 28||3.25|-27.77|0.118
90829985|NCT02365649|181533439|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|12.5||||0.171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.61|30.65||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Responders, Week 28||30.65|-5.61|0.171
90959206|NCT04981366|181798322|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.001
91086961|NCT05464420|182056660|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.17||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 31: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3||1.17|0.85|<0.001
90829986|NCT02365649|181533439|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-6.9||||0.479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.5|12.63||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Responders, Week 36||12.63|-26.50|0.479
90829987|NCT02365649|181533439|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-17.1||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.12|-1.04||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|Prespecified statistically significant at 0.05 level.||Responders, Week 36||-1.04|-33.12|0.037
90829988|NCT02365649|181533439|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|6.9||||0.463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.86|25.65||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Responders, Week 36||25.65|-11.86|0.463
90829989|NCT02365649|181533439|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-4.6||||0.627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.59|14.37||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Responders, Week 44||14.37|-23.59|0.627
90829990|NCT02365649|181533439|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-12.2||||0.122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.75|3.37||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Responders, Week 44||3.37|-27.75|0.122
91023611|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1050.39|1150.39||||||For change in appetite loss at EoS, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||1150.39|-1050.39|
91023612|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1850.65|1817.32||||||For change in constipation at EoS, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||1817.32|-1850.65|
91023613|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-700.26|766.93||||||For change in diarrhea at EoS, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||766.93|-700.26|
90829991|NCT02365649|181533439|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|10.7||||0.243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.49|28.89||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Responders, Week 44||28.89|-7.49|0.243
90829992|NCT02365649|181533439|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-4.2||||0.658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.95|14.63||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Responders, Week 52||14.63|-22.95|0.658
91023614|NCT00219557|181930761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-383.46|350.13||||||For change in financial difficulties at EoS, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||350.13|-383.46|
91023615|NCT00219557|181930762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.11|15.29||||||For change in pancreatic pain at Cycle 2 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||15.29|-10.11|
91023616|NCT00219557|181930762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.39|20.2||||||For change in eating related items at Cycle 2 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||20.20|-13.39|
91023617|NCT00219557|181930762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.96|33.43||||||For change in altered bowel habits at Cycle 2 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||33.43|5.96|
91023618|NCT00219557|181930762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|24.47||||||For change in jaundice at Cycle 2 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||24.47|0.93|
91023619|NCT00219557|181930762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|28.91||||||For change in body image at Cycle 2 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||28.91|1.28|
91086962|NCT05464420|182056660|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.33||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 33F: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2||1.33|0.93|<0.001
90829993|NCT02365649|181533439|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-12.3||||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.69|3.12||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Responders, Week 52||3.12|-27.69|0.115
90829994|NCT02365649|181533439|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|10.0||||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.96|28.06||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Responders, Week 52||28.06|-7.96|0.267
91023620|NCT00219557|181930762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.59|23.3||||||For change in health care satisfaction at Cycle 2 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||23.30|-14.59|
91023621|NCT00219557|181930762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.53|-4.85||||||For change in sexual functioning at Cycle 2 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||-4.85|-37.53|
91023622|NCT00219557|181930762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.04|9.4||||||For change in ascites at Cycle 2 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||9.40|-25.04|
91023623|NCT00219557|181930762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.59|21.5||||||For change in indigestion at Cycle 2 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||21.50|-9.59|
91023624|NCT00219557|181930762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|30.4||||||For change in flatulence at Cycle 2 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||30.40|-1.61|
91023625|NCT00219557|181930762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.78|22.22||||||For change in cachexia at Cycle 2 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||22.22|2.78|
91023626|NCT00219557|181930762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|20.39||||||For change in side effects at Cycle 2 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||20.39|1.36|
91023627|NCT00219557|181930762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.36|11.71||||||For change in fear of future health at Cycle 2 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||11.71|-16.36|
91023628|NCT00219557|181930762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.78|24.2||||||For change in ability to plan future at Cycle 2 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||24.20|-11.78|
91023629|NCT00219557|181930762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|28.94||||||For change in pancreatic pain at Cycle 3 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||28.94|0.79|
91023630|NCT00219557|181930762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.45|34.42||||||For change in eating related items at Cycle 3 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||34.42|-7.45|
91023631|NCT00219557|181930762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|37.55||||||For change in altered bowel habits at Cycle 3 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||37.55|0.17|
91023632|NCT00219557|181930762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|22.48||||||For change in jaundice at Cycle 3 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||22.48|0.66|
91023633|NCT00219557|181930762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|36.95||||||For change in body image at Cycle 3 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||36.95|0.49|
91023634|NCT00219557|181930762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.4|11.17||||||For change in health care satisfaction at Cycle 3 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||11.17|-32.40|
91086963|NCT05464420|182056660|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.29||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 33F: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3||1.29|0.90|<0.001
91023635|NCT00219557|181930762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.63|17.27||||||For change in sexual functioning at Cycle 3 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||17.27|-14.63|
91023636|NCT00219557|181930762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|17.78||||||For change in ascites at Cycle 3 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||17.78|-14.70|
91023637|NCT00219557|181930762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.65|32.75||||||For change in indigestion at Cycle 3 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||32.75|-10.65|
91023638|NCT00219557|181930762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.33|24.13||||||For change in flatulence at Cycle 3 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||24.13|-17.33|
91023639|NCT00219557|181930762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|22.93||||||For change in cachexia at Cycle 3 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||22.93|-4.40|
91023640|NCT00219557|181930762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.99|35.39||||||For change in side effects at Cycle 3 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||35.39|2.99|
91023641|NCT00219557|181930762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.7|22.43||||||For change in fear of future health at Cycle 3 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||22.43|-23.70|
91023642|NCT00219557|181930762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|46.12||||||For change in ability to plan future at Cycle 3 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||46.12|-3.10|
91023643|NCT00219557|181930762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.57|13.19||||||For change in pancreatic pain at Cycle 4 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||13.19|-21.57|
91023644|NCT00219557|181930762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.86|7.66||||||For change in eating related items at Cycle 4 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||7.66|-32.86|
91023645|NCT00219557|181930762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.33|34.82||||||For change in altered bowel habits at Cycle 4 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||34.82|-10.33|
91023646|NCT00219557|181930762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|25.85||||||For change in jaundice at Cycle 4 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||25.85|-0.18|
91023647|NCT00219557|181930762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.45|24.14||||||For change in body image at Cycle 4 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||24.14|-16.45|
91023648|NCT00219557|181930762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.23|37.34||||||For change in health care satisfaction at Cycle 4 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||37.34|-23.23|
91023649|NCT00219557|181930762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.55|21.5||||||For change in sexual functioning at Cycle 4 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||21.50|-26.55|
91023650|NCT00219557|181930762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.48|8.56||||||For change in ascites at Cycle 4 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||8.56|-27.48|
91023651|NCT00219557|181930762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.62|16.7||||||For change in indigestion at Cycle 4 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||16.70|-30.62|
91023652|NCT00219557|181930762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.37|27.8||||||For change in flatulence at Cycle 4 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||27.80|-20.37|
91023653|NCT00219557|181930762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.73|31.81||||||For change in cachexia at Cycle 4 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||31.81|-5.73|
91023654|NCT00219557|181930762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.23|33.46||||||For change in side effects at Cycle 4 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||33.46|-3.23|
91023655|NCT00219557|181930762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.18|20.37||||||For change in fear of future health at Cycle 4 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||20.37|-36.18|
91023656|NCT00219557|181930762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.24|51.01||||||For change in ability to plan future at Cycle 4 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||51.01|-20.24|
91023657|NCT00219557|181930762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.09|32.59||||||For change in pancreatic pain at Cycle 5 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||32.59|-10.09|
91023658|NCT00219557|181930762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.22|40.03||||||For change in eating related items at Cycle 5 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||40.03|-25.22|
91023659|NCT00219557|181930762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.23|52.32||||||For change in altered bowel habits at Cycle 5 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||52.32|4.23|
91023660|NCT00219557|181930762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.09|43.34||||||For change in jaundice at Cycle 5 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||43.34|5.09|
90829995|NCT02365649|181533439|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.2||||0.974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.74|10.06||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Non-responders, Week 20||10.06|-9.74|0.974
90829996|NCT02365649|181533439|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.5||||0.882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.61|6.55||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Non-responders, Week 20||6.55|-7.61|0.882
90829997|NCT02365649|181533439|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.1||||0.982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.92|7.75||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Non-responders, Week 20||7.75|-7.92|0.982
90829998|NCT02365649|181533439|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|2.2||||0.673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.11|12.51||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Non-responders, Week 28||12.51|-8.11|0.673
90829999|NCT02365649|181533439|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|2.7||||0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.64|10.04||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Non-responders, Week 28||10.04|-4.64|0.467
90830000|NCT02365649|181533439|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|2.2||||0.583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.79|10.23||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Non-responders, Week 28||10.23|-5.79|0.583
90830001|NCT02365649|181533439|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|5.5||||0.564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.33|24.31||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Non-responders, Week 36||24.31|-13.33|0.564
90830002|NCT02365649|181533439|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-2.4||||0.728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.74|11.04||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Non-responders, Week 36||11.04|-15.74|0.728
90830003|NCT02365649|181533439|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|5.5||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.16|20.08||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Non-responders, Week 36||20.08|-9.16|0.460
90830004|NCT02365649|181533439|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|12.0||||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.72|32.75||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Non-responders, Week 44||32.75|-8.72|0.253
90830005|NCT02365649|181533439|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|1.1||||0.884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.67|15.84||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Non-responders, Week 44||15.84|-13.67|0.884
91023661|NCT00219557|181930762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|50.38||||||For change in body image at Cycle 5 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||50.38|-0.16|
90830006|NCT02365649|181533439|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|5.8||||0.474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.28|21.95||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Non-responders, Week 44||21.95|-10.28|0.474
90830007|NCT02365649|181533439|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|3.6||||0.727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.03|24.3||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Non-responders, Week 52||24.30|-17.03|0.727
90830008|NCT02365649|181533439|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|2.1||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.63|16.78||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Non-responders, Week 52||16.78|-12.63|0.780
90830009|NCT02365649|181533439|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|6.5||||0.424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.57|22.54||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Non-responders, Week 52||22.54|-9.57|0.424
90830010|NCT02365649|181533439|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.3||||0.841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.23|11.62||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical responders, Week 20||11.62|-14.23|0.841
90830011|NCT02365649|181533439|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-2.1||||0.702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.94|8.75||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical responders, Week 20||8.75|-12.94|0.702
91023662|NCT00219557|181930762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.95|27.8||||||For change in health care satisfaction at Cycle 5 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||27.80|-47.95|
91023663|NCT00219557|181930762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.78|14.57||||||For change in sexual functioning at Cycle 5 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||14.57|-21.78|
90830012|NCT02365649|181533439|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|5.7||||0.353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.43|17.83||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical responders, Week 20||17.83|-6.43|0.353
91023664|NCT00219557|181930762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.02|28.99||||||For change in ascites at Cycle 5 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||28.99|-17.02|
91023665|NCT00219557|181930762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.39|49.55||||||For change in indigestion at Cycle 5 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||49.55|-5.39|
91023666|NCT00219557|181930762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.33|34.89||||||For change in flatulence at Cycle 5 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||34.89|-15.33|
91023667|NCT00219557|181930762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.43|42.06||||||For change in cachexia at Cycle 5 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||42.06|-10.43|
91023668|NCT00219557|181930762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|42.43||||||For change in side effects at Cycle 5 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||42.43|1.11|
91023669|NCT00219557|181930762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.91|12.28||||||For change in fear of future health at Cycle 5 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||12.28|-41.91|
91023670|NCT00219557|181930762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|31.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|60.62||||||For change in ability to plan future at Cycle 5 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||60.62|1.60|
91023671|NCT00219557|181930762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.62|38.1||||||For change in pancreatic pain at Cycle 6 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||38.10|-20.62|
91023672|NCT00219557|181930762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.52|42.05||||||For change in eating related items at Cycle 6 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||42.05|-68.52|
91023673|NCT00219557|181930762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.93|52.05||||||For change in altered bowel habits at Cycle 6 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||52.05|-7.93|
91023674|NCT00219557|181930762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.64|42.89||||||For change in jaundice at Cycle 6 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||42.89|-5.64|
91023675|NCT00219557|181930762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.93|57.84||||||For change in body image at Cycle 6 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||57.84|-9.93|
91023676|NCT00219557|181930762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.7|59.78||||||For change in health care satisfaction at Cycle 6 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||59.78|-32.70|
91023677|NCT00219557|181930762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.46|55.74||||||For change in sexual functioning at Cycle 6 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||55.74|-29.46|
91023678|NCT00219557|181930762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.04|36.79||||||For change in ascites at Cycle 6 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||36.79|-24.04|
91023679|NCT00219557|181930762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.94|59.12||||||For change in indigestion at Cycle 6 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||59.12|-17.94|
91023680|NCT00219557|181930762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.12|40.71||||||For change in flatulence at Cycle 6 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||40.71|-20.12|
91023681|NCT00219557|181930762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.22|59.69||||||For change in cachexia at Cycle 6 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||59.69|-8.22|
91023682|NCT00219557|181930762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|38.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.32|71.81||||||For change in side effects at Cycle 6 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||71.81|5.32|
91023683|NCT00219557|181930762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.14|44.25||||||For change in fear of future health at Cycle 6 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||44.25|-53.14|
91023684|NCT00219557|181930762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.9|61.57||||||For change in ability to plan future at Cycle 6 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||61.57|-69.90|
91023685|NCT00219557|181930762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.52|50.45||||||For change in pancreatic pain at Cycle 7 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||50.45|-24.52|
91023686|NCT00219557|181930762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.41|30.11||||||For change in eating related items at Cycle 7 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||30.11|-76.41|
91023687|NCT00219557|181930762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.89|33.0||||||For change in altered bowel habits at Cycle 7 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||33.00|-71.89|
91023688|NCT00219557|181930762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|47.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.31|87.13||||||For change in jaundice at Cycle 7 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||87.13|7.31|
91023689|NCT00219557|181930762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|41.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.0|119.34||||||For change in body image at Cycle 7 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||119.34|-36.00|
91023690|NCT00219557|181930762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|38.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.05|82.83||||||For change in health care satisfaction at Cycle 7 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||82.83|-5.05|
91023691|NCT00219557|181930762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|66.37||||||For change in sexual functioning at Cycle 7 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||66.37|-2.09|
91023692|NCT00219557|181930762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.46|29.64||||||For change in indigestion at Cycle 7 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||29.64|-44.46|
91023693|NCT00219557|181930762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.45|66.37||||||For change in flatulence at Cycle 7 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||66.37|-40.45|
91023694|NCT00219557|181930762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.71|60.49||||||For change in cachexia at Cycle 7 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||60.49|-32.71|
91023695|NCT00219557|181930762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|30.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.16|77.89||||||For change in side effects at Cycle 7 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||77.89|-16.16|
91023696|NCT00219557|181930762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.95|86.62||||||For change in fear of future health at Cycle 7 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||86.62|-44.95|
91023697|NCT00219557|181930762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-115.22|78.19||||||For change in ability to plan future at Cycle 7 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||78.19|-115.22|
91023698|NCT00219557|181930762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.71|86.63||||||For change in pancreatic pain at Cycle 8 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||86.63|-39.71|
91023699|NCT00219557|181930762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-130.69|104.76||||||For change in eating related items at Cycle 8 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||104.76|-130.69|
91023700|NCT00219557|181930762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|48.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.12|103.42||||||For change in altered bowel habits at Cycle 8 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||103.42|-7.12|
91023701|NCT00219557|181930762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|92.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.16|122.02||||||For change in jaundice at Cycle 8 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||122.02|63.16|
91023702|NCT00219557|181930762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-85.03|96.14||||||For change in body image at Cycle 8 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||96.14|-85.03|
91023703|NCT00219557|181930762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|37.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.46|103.54||||||For change in health care satisfaction at Cycle 8 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||103.54|-29.46|
91023704|NCT00219557|181930762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.45|27.16||||||For change in sexual functioning at Cycle 8 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||27.16|-41.45|
91086964|NCT05464420|182056660|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|0.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.16||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 33F: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3||1.16|0.81|<0.001
90958889|NCT00666679|181797833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-Squares Means|-0.09||||0.015||95.0|-0.17|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model with fixed effects for treatment, time (weeks 1 and 2), treatment-by-time interaction, period and baseline covariate.|Least-Squares Means for average change from baseline are derived using appropriate contrast from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, time (weeks 1 and 2), treatment-by-time interaction, period and baseline covariate.|||-0.02|-0.17|0.015
91023705|NCT00219557|181930762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.04|59.64||||||For change in ascites at Cycle 8 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||59.64|-67.04|
91023706|NCT00219557|181930762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-104.79|89.97||||||For change in indigestion at Cycle 8 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||89.97|-104.79|
91023707|NCT00219557|181930762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.8|103.25||||||For change in flatulence at Cycle 8 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||103.25|-58.80|
91023708|NCT00219557|181930762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.28|91.83||||||For change in cachexia at Cycle 8 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||91.83|-36.28|
91023709|NCT00219557|181930762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.3|96.52||||||For change in side effects at Cycle 8 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||96.52|-74.30|
91023710|NCT00219557|181930762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-142.55|84.21||||||For change in fear of future health at Cycle 8 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||84.21|-142.55|
91023711|NCT00219557|181930762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-55.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-212.46|101.35||||||For change in ability to plan future at Cycle 8 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||101.35|-212.46|
91023712|NCT00219557|181930762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.93|96.26||||||For change in pancreatic pain at Cycle 9 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||96.26|-62.93|
91023713|NCT00219557|181930762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-87.74|116.31||||||For change in eating related items at Cycle 9 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||116.31|-87.74|
91023714|NCT00219557|181930762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|73.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.9|139.72||||||For change in altered bowel habits at Cycle 9 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||139.72|7.90|
90893890|NCT00117676|181653229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.8||0.859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|8.5||Statistical tests were not adjusted for baseline ALT stratum. Analysis set included only randomized and treated participants with baseline ALT \> ULN (biochemically evaluable analysis set).|Z-test|P-value corresponds to a Z-test of the null hypothesis that the ALT stratum-adjusted difference is zero.||||8.5|-10.2|0.859
91023715|NCT00219557|181930762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|76.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.64|118.74||||||For change in jaundice at Cycle 9 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||118.74|33.64|
90830013|NCT02365649|181533439|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|2.1||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.89|16.0||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical responders, Week 28||16.00|-11.89|0.770
91023716|NCT00219557|181930762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.64|121.79||||||For change in body image at Cycle 9 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||121.79|-64.64|
91023717|NCT00219557|181930762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|35.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.11|99.53||||||For change in health care satisfaction at Cycle 9 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||99.53|-28.11|
91023718|NCT00219557|181930762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-104.01|77.34||||||For change in sexual functioning at Cycle 9 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||77.34|-104.01|
91023719|NCT00219557|181930762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-44.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-140.03|51.14||||||For change in ascites at Cycle 9 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||51.14|-140.03|
91023720|NCT00219557|181930762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-88.45|97.98||||||For change in indigestion at Cycle 9 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||97.98|-88.45|
91023721|NCT00219557|181930762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.32|82.89||||||For change in flatulence at Cycle 9 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||82.89|-54.32|
91023722|NCT00219557|181930762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.45|114.07||||||For change in cachexia at Cycle 9 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||114.07|-66.45|
91023723|NCT00219557|181930762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|31.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.14|119.63||||||For change in side effects at Cycle 9 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||119.63|-56.14|
91023724|NCT00219557|181930762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-163.35|63.35||||||For change in fear of future health at Cycle 9 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||63.35|-163.35|
91023725|NCT00219557|181930762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-125.23|96.66||||||For change in ability to plan future at Cycle 9 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||96.66|-125.23|
91023726|NCT00219557|181930762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.18|95.18||||||For change in pancreatic pain at Cycle 10 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||95.18|-45.18|
91023727|NCT00219557|181930762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.18|95.18||||||For change in eating related items at Cycle 10 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||95.18|-45.18|
91086965|NCT05464420|182056660|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.17||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 35B: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2||1.17|0.91|<0.001
91086966|NCT05464420|182056660|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.18||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 35B: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3||1.18|0.91|<0.001
90893891|NCT00117676|181653230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.3||0.359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|15.3||P-value corresponds to a Z-test of the null hypothesis that the ALT stratum-adjusted difference is zero.|Z-test|Difference, standard error of the difference, and confidence interval are stratum adjusted (baseline ALT ≤ 2 x ULN or \> 2 x ULN).||||15.3|-5.5|0.359
90893892|NCT00952822|181653248|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence limits of -0.223 to 0.223 in accordance with FDA Guidance for Industry: Statistical Approaches to Establishing Bioequivalence; 2001.|Difference of Least-Squares Means|-0.052||||||90.0|-0.117|0.012||||||||0.012|-0.117|
91023728|NCT00219557|181930762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|77.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.55|141.0||||||For change in altered bowel habits at Cycle 10 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||141.00|14.55|
91023729|NCT00219557|181930762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|86.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.61|131.61||||||For change in jaundice at Cycle 10 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||131.61|40.61|
91023730|NCT00219557|181930762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.48|106.48||||||For change in body image at Cycle 10 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||106.48|-56.48|
91023731|NCT00219557|181930762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|47.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.69|132.13||||||For change in health care satisfaction at Cycle 10 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||132.13|-37.69|
91023732|NCT00219557|181930762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.68|110.68||||||For change in sexual functioning at Cycle 10 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||110.68|-70.68|
91086967|NCT05464420|182056660|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.14||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 35B: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3||1.14|0.89|<0.001
91086968|NCT05464420|182056661|OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.03|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 3: GMT Ratio V116 Combined Lots/ PPSV23|GMT Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.03|0.84|
91086969|NCT05464420|182056661|OTHER||GMT Ratio|3.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.01|4.02|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 6A: GMT Ratio V116 Combined Lots/ PPSV23|GMT Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|4.02|3.01|
91086970|NCT05464420|182056661|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|1.49|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 7F: GMT Ratio V116 Combined Lots / PPSV23|GMT Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.49|1.18|
91086971|NCT05464420|182056661|OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.93|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 8: GMT Ratio V116 Combined Lots / PPSV23|GMT Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|0.93|0.77|
91086972|NCT05464420|182056661|OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.08|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 9N: GMT Ratio V116 Combined Lots / PPSV23|GMT Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.08|0.85|
91086973|NCT05464420|182056661|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|1.48|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 10A: GMT Ratio V116 Combined Lots / PPSV23|GMT Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.48|1.18|
91086974|NCT05464420|182056661|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|1.95|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 11A: GMT Ratio V116 Combined Lots / PPSV23|GMT Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.95|1.56|
91086975|NCT05464420|182056661|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|1.56|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 12F: GMT Ratio V116 Combined Lots / PPSV23|GMT Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.56|1.22|
91086976|NCT05464420|182056661|OTHER||GMT Ratio|4.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.56|4.56|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 15A: GMT Ratio v116 Combined Lots / PPSV23|GMT Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|4.56|3.56|
91086977|NCT05464420|182056661|OTHER||GMT Ratio|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.49|3.38|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 15C: GMT Ratio V116 Combined Lots / PPSV23|GMT Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|3.38|2.49|
91086978|NCT05464420|182056661|OTHER||GMT Ratio|3.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.32|4.17||||||Serotype 16F: GMT Ratio V116 Combined Lots / PPSV23|GMT Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|4.17|3.32|
90958890|NCT00666679|181797834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-Squares Means|-0.6||||0.073||95.0|-1.26|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model with fixed effects for treatment, time (weeks 1 and 2), treatment-by-time interaction, period and baseline covariate.|Least-Squares Means for average change from baseline are derived using appropriate contrast from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, time (weeks 1 and 2), treatment-by-time interaction, period and baseline covariate.|||0.06|-1.26|0.073
91086979|NCT05464420|182056661|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|1.91|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 17F: GMT Ratio V116 Combined Lots / PPSV23|GMT Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.91|1.53|
91086980|NCT05464420|182056661|OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.03|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 19A: GMT Ratio V116 Combined Lots / PPSV23|GMT Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.03|0.84|
91086981|NCT05464420|182056661|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|1.67|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 20A: GMT Ratio V116 Combined Lots / PPSV23|GMT Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.67|1.30|
91086982|NCT05464420|182056661|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|1.53|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 22F: GMT Ratio V116 Combined Lots / PPSV23|GMT Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.53|1.17|
91086983|NCT05464420|182056661|OTHER||GMT Ratio|7.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.84|9.31|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 23A: GMT Ratio V116 Combined Lots / PPSV23|GMT Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|9.31|6.84|
91086984|NCT05464420|182056661|OTHER||GMT Ratio|23.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.71|28.55|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 23B: GMT Ratio V116 Combined Lots / PPSV23|GMT Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|28.55|19.71|
91086985|NCT05464420|182056661|OTHER||GMT Ratio|19.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.7|22.88|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 24F: GMT Ratio V116 Combined Lots / PPSV23|GMT Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|22.88|16.70|
91086986|NCT05464420|182056661|OTHER||GMT Ratio|13.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.68|15.71|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 31: GMT Ratio V116 Combined Lots / PPSV23|GMT Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|15.71|11.68|
91086987|NCT05464420|182056661|OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.97||||||Serotype 33F: GMT Ratio V116 Combined Lots / PPSV23|GMT Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|0.97|0.73|
91086988|NCT05464420|182056661|OTHER||GMT Ratio|3.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.36|4.09|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 35B: GMT Ratio V116 Combined Lots / PPSV23|GMT Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|4.09|3.36|
91086989|NCT05464420|182056662|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.09|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 3: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 2|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.09|0.88|
91086990|NCT05464420|182056662|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.05|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 3: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.05|0.85|
91086991|NCT05464420|182056662|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.08|||||V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 3: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 2/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.08|0.87|
91086992|NCT05464420|182056662|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.32|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 6A: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 2|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.32|0.95|
91086993|NCT05464420|182056662|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.2|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 6A: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.20|0.86|
91086994|NCT05464420|182056662|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.07|||||V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 6A: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 2/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.07|0.77|
91086995|NCT05464420|182056662|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.11|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 7F: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 2|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.11|0.85|
91086996|NCT05464420|182056662|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.18|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 7F: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.18|0.90|
91086997|NCT05464420|182056662|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.21|||||V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 7F: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 2/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.21|0.93|
91086998|NCT05464420|182056662|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.12|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 8: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 2|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.12|0.86|
91086999|NCT05464420|182056662|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.13|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 8: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.13|0.87|
91087000|NCT05464420|182056662|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.15|||||V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 8: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 2/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.15|0.89|
91087001|NCT05464420|182056662|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.21|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 9N: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 2|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.21|0.91|
91087002|NCT05464420|182056662|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.03|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 9N: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.03|0.77|
90830014|NCT02365649|181533439|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-5.3||||0.367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.04|6.37||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical responders, Week 28||6.37|-17.04|0.367
91087003|NCT05464420|182056662|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.98|||||V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 9N: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 2/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|0.98|0.74|
91087004|NCT05464420|182056662|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.18|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 10A: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 2|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.18|0.87|
91087005|NCT05464420|182056662|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.13|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 10A: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.13|0.83|
91087006|NCT05464420|182056662|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.11|||||V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 10A: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 2/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.11|0.82|
91087007|NCT05464420|182056662|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.14|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 11A: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 2|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.14|0.90|
91087008|NCT05464420|182056662|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.15|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 11A: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.15|0.91|
90830015|NCT02365649|181533439|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|7.0||||0.291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.09|20.07||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical responders, Week 28||20.07|-6.09|0.291
90830016|NCT02365649|181533439|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.7||||0.942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.87|19.4||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical responders, Week 36||19.40|-20.87|0.942
90893893|NCT00952822|181653249|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence limits of -0.223 to 0.223 in accordance with FDA Guidance for Industry: Statistical Approaches to Establishing Bioequivalence; 2001.|Difference of Least-Squares Means|-0.016||||||90.0|-0.076|0.043||||||||0.043|-0.076|
91087009|NCT05464420|182056662|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.14|||||V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 11A: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 2/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.14|0.90|
91087010|NCT05464420|182056662|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.12|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 12F: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 2|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.12|0.80|
91087011|NCT05464420|182056662|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.18|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 12F: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.18|0.84|
91087012|NCT05464420|182056662|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.25|||||V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 12F: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 2/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.25|0.89|
91087013|NCT05464420|182056662|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.21|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 15A: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 2|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.21|0.91|
91087014|NCT05464420|182056662|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.11|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 15A: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.11|0.83|
91087015|NCT05464420|182056662|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.05|||||V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 15A: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 2/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.05|0.80|
91087016|NCT05464420|182056662|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.23|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 15C: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 2|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.23|0.91|
91087017|NCT05464420|182056662|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.2|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 15C: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.20|0.89|
91087018|NCT05464420|182056662|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.14|||||V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 15C: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 2/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.14|0.84|
91087019|NCT05464420|182056662|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.03|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 16F: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 2|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.03|0.78|
91087020|NCT05464420|182056662|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.04|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 16F: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.04|0.78|
91087021|NCT05464420|182056662|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.15|||||V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 16F: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 2/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.15|0.88|
90830017|NCT02365649|181533439|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-12.0||||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.89|4.91||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical responders, Week 36||4.91|-28.89|0.162
90830018|NCT02365649|181533439|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|10.9||||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.96|29.82||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical responders, Week 36||29.82|-7.96|0.253
90830019|NCT02365649|181533439|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|5.5||||0.617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.25|27.21||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical responders, Week 44||27.21|-16.25|0.617
90830020|NCT02365649|181533439|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-6.0||||0.515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.22|12.24||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical responders, Week 44||12.24|-24.22|0.515
90830021|NCT02365649|181533439|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|13.8||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.53|34.23||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical responders, Week 44||34.23|-6.53|0.180
90830022|NCT02365649|181533439|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.4||||0.972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.86|21.09||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical responders, Week 52||21.09|-21.86|0.972
90830023|NCT02365649|181533439|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-4.9||||0.589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.94|13.1||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical responders, Week 52||13.10|-22.94|0.589
90830024|NCT02365649|181533439|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|14.1||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.07|34.22||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical responders, Week 52||34.22|-6.07|0.168
90830025|NCT02365649|181533439|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|1.9||||0.712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|12.36||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical non-responders, Week 20||12.36|-8.50|0.712
90830026|NCT02365649|181533439|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-2.3||||0.465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.41|3.9||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical non-responders, Week 20||3.90|-8.41|0.465
90830027|NCT02365649|181533439|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.3||||0.924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.83|7.52||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical non-responders, Week 20||7.52|-6.83|0.924
90830028|NCT02365649|181533439|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.4||||0.938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.88|9.6||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical non-responders, Week 28||9.60|-8.88|0.938
90830029|NCT02365649|181533439|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|2.2||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.17|7.64||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical non-responders, Week 28||7.64|-3.17|0.410
90830030|NCT02365649|181533439|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.2||||0.941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.89|6.35||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical non-responders, Week 28||6.35|-5.89|0.941
90830031|NCT02365649|181533439|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.7||||0.872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.23|9.67||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical non-responders, Week 36||9.67|-8.23|0.872
90830032|NCT02365649|181533439|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.0||||0.692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.27|4.2||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical non-responders, Week 36||4.20|-6.27|0.692
90830033|NCT02365649|181533439|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.4||||0.896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.32|5.54||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical non-responders, Week 36||5.54|-6.32|0.896
90830034|NCT02365649|181533439|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|1.0||||0.826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.92|9.87||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical non-responders, Week 44||9.87|-7.92|0.826
90893894|NCT01755702|181653260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.25||||0.284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.9|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model|||Null hypothesis considered no difference between the treatments in comparison.||1.90|0.83|0.2840
90830035|NCT02365649|181533439|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.4||||0.885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.82|5.58||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical non-responders, Week 44||5.58|-4.82|0.885
90830036|NCT02365649|181533439|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.1||||0.964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.03|5.76||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical non-responders, Week 44||5.76|-6.03|0.964
90830037|NCT02365649|181533439|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|1.1||||0.806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.59|9.72||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical non-responders, Week 52||9.72|-7.59|0.806
90830038|NCT02365649|181533439|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.4||||0.871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.65|5.47||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical non-responders, Week 52||5.47|-4.65|0.871
90830039|NCT02365649|181533439|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.5||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.28|5.19||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical non-responders, Week 52||5.19|-6.28|0.850
90830040|NCT02365649|181533440|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-3.9||||0.792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.73|25.9||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Responders||25.90|-33.73|0.792
90830041|NCT02365649|181533440|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|18.1||||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.62|44.75||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Responders||44.75|-8.62|0.179
90830042|NCT02365649|181533440|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-19.1||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.87|12.63||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Responders||12.63|-50.87|0.230
90830043|NCT02365649|181533440|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|16.4||||0.337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.54|50.4||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Non-responders||50.40|-17.54|0.337
91023733|NCT00219557|181930762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-33.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-91.87|25.2||||||For change in ascites at Cycle 10 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||25.20|-91.87|
90830044|NCT02365649|181533440|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|1.1||||0.924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.75|23.93||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Non-responders||23.93|-21.75|0.924
90893895|NCT01755702|181653260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.32||||0.2008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|2.01|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model|||Null hypothesis considered no difference between the treatments in comparison.||2.01|0.86|0.2008
90893896|NCT01755702|181653260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.4552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.74|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model|||Null hypothesis considered no difference between the treatments in comparison.||1.74|0.78|0.4552
91023734|NCT00219557|181930762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.89|97.45||||||For change in indigestion at Cycle 10 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||97.45|-41.89|
91023735|NCT00219557|181930762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.03|67.36||||||For change in flatulence at Cycle 10 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||67.36|-34.03|
91023736|NCT00219557|181930762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.19|116.86||||||For change in cachexia at Cycle 10 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||116.86|-100.19|
91023737|NCT00219557|181930762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.73|105.58||||||For change in side effects at Cycle 10 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||105.58|-53.73|
91023738|NCT00219557|181930762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-117.07|117.07||||||For change in ability to plan future at Cycle 10 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||117.07|-117.07|
91023739|NCT00219557|181930762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-221.53|249.31||||||For change in pancreatic pain at Cycle 11 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||249.31|-221.53|
90830045|NCT02365649|181533440|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-11.7||||0.373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.69|14.35||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Non-responders||14.35|-37.69|0.373
90893897|NCT01755702|181653260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.5579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.71|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model|||||1.71|0.75|0.5579
90893898|NCT01755702|181653260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.7214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.61|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model|||Null hypothesis considered no difference between the treatments in comparison.||1.61|0.72|0.7214
90893899|NCT01755702|181653260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.8192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.45|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model|||Null hypothesis considered no difference between the treatments in comparison.||1.45|0.62|0.8192
90893900|NCT03882879|181653293|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.64
90830046|NCT02365649|181533440|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-3.1||||0.813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.94|22.79||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical responders||22.79|-28.94|0.813
90830047|NCT02365649|181533440|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|5.3||||0.651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.02|28.65||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical responders||28.65|-18.02|0.651
90830048|NCT02365649|181533440|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-23.8||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.12|1.49||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|Prespecified statistically significant at 0.1 level.||Clinical responders||1.49|-49.12|0.065
90830049|NCT02365649|181533440|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|5.3||||0.802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.61|48.28||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical non-responders||48.28|-37.61|0.802
90830050|NCT02365649|181533440|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.6||||0.955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.46|21.63||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical non-responders||21.63|-20.46|0.955
90830051|NCT02365649|181533440|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-10.6||||0.395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.73|14.47||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical non-responders||14.47|-35.73|0.395
90830052|NCT02365649|181533441|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.0082||||0.893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1299|0.1136||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Responders||0.1136|-0.1299|0.893
90830053|NCT02365649|181533441|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.0685||||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0334|0.1705||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Responders||0.1705|-0.0334|0.182
90830054|NCT02365649|181533441|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.1323||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2552|-0.0093||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|Prespecified statistically significant at 0.05 level.||Responders||-0.0093|-0.2552|0.036
90830055|NCT02365649|181533441|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.0768||||0.316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0749|0.2286||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Non-responders||0.2286|-0.0749|0.316
90830056|NCT02365649|181533441|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.0573||||0.277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0471|0.1617||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Non-responders||0.1617|-0.0471|0.277
90830057|NCT02365649|181533441|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.0428||||0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0741|0.1597||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Non-responders||0.1597|-0.0741|0.467
90830058|NCT02365649|181533441|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.036||||0.464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1336|0.0616||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical responders||0.0616|-0.1336|0.464
90830059|NCT02365649|181533441|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.0404||||0.345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0444|0.1252||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical responders||0.1252|-0.0444|0.345
90830060|NCT02365649|181533441|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.0873||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1822|0.0076||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|Prespecified statistically significant at 0.1 level.||Clinical responders||0.0076|-0.1822|0.071
90830061|NCT02365649|181533441|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.1109||||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1109|0.3326||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical non-responders||0.3326|-0.1109|0.317
90830062|NCT02365649|181533441|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.0848||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0248|0.1945||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical non-responders||0.1945|-0.0248|0.125
90893901|NCT03882879|181653294|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.53
90893902|NCT03882879|181653295|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76||||||Between-group two-sided t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.76
90893903|NCT03882879|181653296|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.49
90893904|NCT03882879|181653297|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.20
91023740|NCT00219557|181930762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-260.62|271.74||||||For change in eating related items at Cycle 11 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||271.74|-260.62|
91023741|NCT00219557|181930762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|66.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-152.41|285.75||||||For change in altered bowel habits at Cycle 11 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||285.75|-152.41|
91023742|NCT00219557|181930762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-119.08|319.08||||||For change in jaundice at Cycle 11 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||319.08|-119.08|
90830063|NCT02365649|181533441|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.0559||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0745|0.1864||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical non-responders||0.1864|-0.0745|0.390
90830064|NCT02365649|181533442|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|8.7||||0.263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.79|24.16||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Responders||24.16|-6.79|0.263
90830065|NCT02365649|181533442|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|15.2||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|28.93||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|Prespecified statistically significant at 0.05 level.||Responders||28.93|1.47|0.031
90830066|NCT02365649|181533442|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-12.0||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.93|3.9||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Responders||3.90|-27.93|0.135
90830067|NCT02365649|181533442|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|6.3||||0.458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.61|23.27||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Non-responders||23.27|-10.61|0.458
90830068|NCT02365649|181533442|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|1.9||||0.738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.59|13.45||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Non-responders||13.45|-9.59|0.738
90830069|NCT02365649|181533442|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-5.4||||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.32|7.6||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Non-responders||7.60|-18.32|0.412
90830070|NCT02365649|181533442|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|3.9||||0.534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.56|16.36||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical responders||16.36|-8.56|0.534
90830071|NCT02365649|181533442|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|11.0||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|22.01||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|Prespecified statistically significant at 0.1 level.||Clinical responders||22.01|-0.10|0.052
90830072|NCT02365649|181533442|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-13.9||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.15|-1.63||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|Prespecified statistically significant at 0.05 level.||Clinical responders||-1.63|-26.15|0.027
90830073|NCT02365649|181533442|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.0||||0.928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.02|21.97||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical non-responders||21.97|-24.02|0.928
90830074|NCT02365649|181533442|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-2.5||||0.658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.72|8.77||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical non-responders||8.77|-13.72|0.658
90830075|NCT02365649|181533442|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-3.5||||0.601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.96|9.96||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical non-responders||9.96|-16.96|0.601
90893905|NCT01250990|181653301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8||||||p value is for comparison between changes in reverse cholesterol transport in niacin versus placebo groups after 12 weeks of treatment.|t-test, 2 sided|||This is a pilot study to assess the effects of niacin on reverse cholesterol transport. The null hypothesis is that niacin has no effect on reverse cholesterol transport.||||0.8
91023743|NCT00219557|181930762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-185.75|252.41||||||For change in body image at Cycle 11 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||252.41|-185.75|
91023744|NCT00219557|181930762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|44.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-82.04|170.93||||||For change in health care satisfaction at Cycle 11 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||170.93|-82.04|
91023745|NCT00219557|181930762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-733.59|733.59||||||For change in sexual functioning at Cycle 11 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||733.59|-733.59|
91023746|NCT00219557|181930762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-202.34|180.12||||||For change in ascites at Cycle 11 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||180.12|-202.34|
90830076|NCT02365649|181533444|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-50.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-99.0|-1.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders||-1.0|-99.0|1.000
90830077|NCT02365649|181533444|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-25.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.0|5.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical Responders||5.0|-55.0|1.000
90830078|NCT02365649|181533444|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-25.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.0|5.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical Responders||5.0|-55.0|1.000
90830079|NCT02365649|181533444|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-25.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.0|5.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical Responders||5.0|-55.0|1.000
90830080|NCT02365649|181533445|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-66.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|-13.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders||-13.3|-100.0|1.000
90830081|NCT02365649|181533445|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|33.3||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|86.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders||86.7|-20.0|0.250
90830082|NCT02365649|181533445|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.2|95.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders||95.6|-62.2|1.000
90830083|NCT02365649|181533445|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-33.3||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.1|4.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders||4.4|-71.1|0.500
90830084|NCT02365649|181533445|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-33.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.1|4.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders||4.4|-71.1|1.000
90830085|NCT03483896|181533446|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.5||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.01
90830086|NCT03483896|181533447|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.0||||0.17|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.17
91023747|NCT00219557|181930762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.5|106.73||||||For change in indigestion at Cycle 11 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||106.73|-84.50|
90830087|NCT00104650|181533506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.28|||<|0.001||95.0|3.35|45.03|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for cancer type stratification factor||||45.03|3.35|<0.001
90830088|NCT00104650|181533506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.33||||0.002||95.0|1.74|16.36|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for cancer type stratification factor||||16.36|1.74|0.002
90830089|NCT00104650|181533506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|77.8||||||95.0|60.8|89.9||||||||89.9|60.8|
90830090|NCT00104650|181533506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|63.6||||||95.0|45.1|79.6||||||||79.6|45.1|
90830091|NCT00104650|181533506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|28.6||||||95.0|14.6|46.3||||||||46.3|14.6|
90830092|NCT00104650|181533507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|63.9||||||95.0|46.2|79.2||||||||79.2|46.2|
90830093|NCT00104650|181533507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|63.6||||||95.0|45.1|79.6||||||||79.6|45.1|
90830094|NCT00104650|181533507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|37.1||||||95.0|21.5|55.1||||||||55.1|21.5|
91023748|NCT00219557|181930762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.5|106.73||||||For change in flatulence at Cycle 11 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||106.73|-84.50|
91023749|NCT00219557|181930762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|38.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-87.6|165.37||||||For change in cachexia at Cycle 11 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||165.37|-87.60|
90830095|NCT00104650|181533508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.388|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for the stratum to which participants were originally assigned by the Interactive Voice Response System (IVRS)||||||0.388
90830096|NCT00104650|181533509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.79|||<|0.001||95.0|2.01|7.15|||Regression, Cox|Stratified by cancer type and screening uNTx level||||7.15|2.01|<0.001
90830097|NCT00104650|181533509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.32|||<|0.001||95.0|2.23|8.36|||Regression, Cox|Stratified by cancer type and screening uNTx level||||8.36|2.23|<0.001
90830098|NCT00104650|181533510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.274||||0.006||95.0|0.11|0.687|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for cancer type stratification factor and screening uNTx level||||0.687|0.110|0.006
90893906|NCT03786952|181653302|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.453|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.453
90893907|NCT03786952|181653303|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.931|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.931
90830099|NCT00104650|181533510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.199||||0.001||95.0|0.076|0.523|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for cancer type stratification factor and screening uNTx level||||0.523|0.076|0.001
90893908|NCT03786952|181653304|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.923|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.923
91023750|NCT00219557|181930762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|44.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-208.53|297.42||||||For change in side effects at Cycle 11 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||297.42|-208.53|
91023751|NCT00219557|181930762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-275.19|230.75||||||For change in ability to plan future at Cycle 11 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||230.75|-275.19|
91023752|NCT00219557|181930762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|58.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-491.86|608.53||||||For change in pancreatic pain at EoS, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||608.53|-491.86|
91023753|NCT00219557|181930762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1258.79|1308.79||||||For change in eating related items at EoS, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||1308.79|-1258.79|
91023754|NCT00219557|181930762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|83.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-283.46|450.13||||||For change in altered bowel habits at EoS, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||450.13|-283.46|
91023755|NCT00219557|181930762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-175.06|191.73||||||For change in jaundice at EoS, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||191.73|-175.06|
91023756|NCT00219557|181930762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-733.59|733.59||||||For change in ascites at EoS, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||733.59|-733.59|
91023757|NCT00219557|181930762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-733.59|733.59||||||For change in indigestion at EoS, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||733.59|-733.59|
91023758|NCT00219557|181930762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|83.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-283.46|450.13||||||For change in flatulence at EoS, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||450.13|-283.46|
91023759|NCT00219557|181930762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|30.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1375.5|1436.61||||||For change in side effects at EoS, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||1436.61|-1375.5|
91023760|NCT03063632|181930765|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Per Global Response Score used in Mycosis Fungoides and Sezary Syndrome, Response is assessed by the standard response criteria: Complete Response (CR), complete disappearance of all clinical evidence of disease where all categories (i.e., skin, lymph nodes, viscera, blood) have complete response/noninvolved; Partial Response (PR), regression of measurable disease; Stable Disease (SD), failure to attain CR, PR, or PD.|Simple statistics. Non-responders excluded from analysis.|||
91023761|NCT03063632|181930766|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Kaplan-Meier method|||
91023762|NCT03063632|181930767|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Progression is assessed by the standard response criteria used in Mycosis Fungoides and Sezary Syndrome (skin, lymph nodes, viscera, blood, global). Per Global Response Score, progression is defined as Progressive Disease (PD) in any category (i.e., skin, lymph nodes, viscera, blood).|Kaplan-Meier method|||
91023763|NCT03063632|181930768|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Kaplan-Meier method|||
90830100|NCT00104650|181533511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.056|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for the stratum to which participants were originally assigned by the Interactive Voice Response System (IVRS)||||||0.056
90830101|NCT00104650|181533512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.162||||0.105||95.0|0.018|1.465|||Regression, Cox|||||1.465|0.018|0.105
90893909|NCT03786952|181653305|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.399|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.399
91023764|NCT03063632|181930769|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Binomial distribution|||
91023765|NCT00410410|181930773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.73||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.09||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Chi square p-value and RR along with 95% confidence interval provided, adjusting for randomization strata (whether a participant had an inadequate response and/or intolerance to anti-TNF therapy).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Conditional on ABA 30/\~10 mg/kg vs PLA comparison being statistically significant at 5% level, ABA \~10 vs PLA to be tested at 5% significance level.||Null hypothesis=no treatment difference between ABA arm and placebo (PLA) arm. ABA 30/\~10 mg/kg vs PLA: power=98%, sample size=140 per arm,expected PLA response rate=40%, ABA 30/\~10 mg/kg=65%. ABA \~10 mg/kg vs. PLA: power=90%, sample size=140 per arm, 5% significance; expected PLA response rate= 40%, ABA \~10=60%.||1.09|0.48|0.124
91032949|NCT03603314|181951521|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1762|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The null and alternative hypotheses for Part 1 of the study were as follows, where μH, μL and μP were defined as the mean change in PTA of the high dose, low dose, and placebo respectively: H0H: μH - μP = 0, HAH: μH - μP \<0 (greater decrease on high dose) H0L: μL - μP = 0, HAL: μL - μP \<0 (greater decrease on low dose)||||0.1762
91032950|NCT01382719|181951534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0215|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.9|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.0|||Van Elteren|||||1.0|0.0|<0.05
90830102|NCT00104650|181533512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.573||||0.43||95.0|0.143|2.289|||Regression, Cox|||||2.289|0.143|0.430
90830103|NCT00104650|181533513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.26||||||95.0|0.05|1.44||||||||1.44|0.05|
90830104|NCT00104650|181533513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.36||||||95.0|0.08|1.76||||||||1.76|0.08|
90830105|NCT03515824|181533521|OTHER|Bayesian posterior credible interval|Pooled-adjacent-violator algorithm|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.0|33.1||||||||33.1|0.0|
90830106|NCT03515824|181533521|OTHER|Bayesian posterior credible interval|Pooled-adjacent-violator algorithm|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.0|33.1||||||||33.1|0.0|
90893910|NCT03786952|181653306|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.872|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.872
90893911|NCT03786952|181653307|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.998|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.998
90893912|NCT03786952|181653308|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.10
90893913|NCT03786952|181653309|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.992|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.992
90893914|NCT03786952|181653310|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.519|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.519
90893915|NCT03786952|181653311|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.007
90893916|NCT03786952|181653312|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.457|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.457
90893917|NCT03786952|181653313|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.415|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.415
90893918|NCT03786952|181653314|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.923|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.923
90893919|NCT03786952|181653315|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.981|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.981
90893920|NCT03786952|181653316|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.627|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.627
91087022|NCT05464420|182056662|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.21|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 17F: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 2|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.21|0.91|
91087023|NCT05464420|182056662|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.23|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 17F: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.23|0.93|
91087024|NCT05464420|182056662|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.17|||||V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 17F: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 2/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.17|0.88|
91087025|NCT05464420|182056662|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.11|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 19A: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 2|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.11|0.85|
91087026|NCT05464420|182056662|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.04|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 19A: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.04|0.79|
91087027|NCT05464420|182056662|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.07|||||V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 19A: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 2/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.07|0.82|
91087028|NCT05464420|182056662|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.1|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 20A: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 2|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.10|0.83|
90830107|NCT03515824|181533521|OTHER|Bayesian posterior credible interval|Pooled-adjacent-violator algorithm|15.4|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|5.8|30.2||||||||30.2|5.8|
90830108|NCT03515824|181533524|OTHER|Clopper Pearson confidence interval method for binomial data|Objective Response Rate (ORR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|70.8||||||||70.8|0.0|
90893921|NCT03786952|181653317|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.901|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.901
91087029|NCT05464420|182056662|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.1|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 20A: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.10|0.84|
91087030|NCT05464420|182056662|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.16|||||V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 20A: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 2/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.16|0.88|
91087031|NCT05464420|182056662|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.16|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 22F: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 2|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.16|0.87|
91087032|NCT05464420|182056662|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.16|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 22F: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.16|0.87|
91087033|NCT05464420|182056662|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.15|||||V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 22F: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 2/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.15|0.86|
91087034|NCT05464420|182056662|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.16|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 23A: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 2|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.16|0.84|
90830109|NCT03515824|181533524|OTHER|Clopper Pearson confidence interval method for binomial data|Objective Response Rate (ORR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|60.2||||||||60.2|0.0|
90893922|NCT03786952|181653318|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.166|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.166
90893923|NCT03786952|181653319|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.252|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.252
90893924|NCT03292146|181653332|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.009
91087035|NCT05464420|182056662|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.15|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 23A: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.15|0.83|
91087036|NCT05464420|182056662|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.17|||||V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 23A: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 2/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.17|0.85|
91087037|NCT05464420|182056662|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.18|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 23B: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 2|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.18|0.87|
91087038|NCT05464420|182056662|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.07|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 23B: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.07|0.79|
91087039|NCT05464420|182056662|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.05|||||V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 23B: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 2/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.05|0.77|
91087040|NCT05464420|182056662|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.13|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 24F: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 2|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.13|0.80|
91087041|NCT05464420|182056662|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.19|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 24F: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.19|0.84|
91087042|NCT05464420|182056662|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.25|||||V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 24F: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 2/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.25|0.88|
90830110|NCT03515824|181533524|OTHER|Clopper Pearson confidence interval method for binomial data|Objective Response Rate (ORR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|21.8||||||||21.8|0.0|
90830111|NCT03515824|181533525|OTHER|Clopper Pearson confidence interval method for binomial data|Objective Response Rate (ORR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|84.2||||||||84.2|0.0|
90830112|NCT03515824|181533525|OTHER|Clopper Pearson confidence interval method for binomial data|Objective Response Rate (ORR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|70.8||||||||70.8|0.0|
90893925|NCT03292146|181653333|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.41
90893926|NCT03292146|181653334|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Matched pairs|||||||0.06
90893927|NCT03292146|181653334|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Matched pairs|||||||0.01
90893928|NCT03905330|181653338|SUPERIORITY||Least-Square mean|-1.089|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3691|=|0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.845|-0.334|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The difference between maralixibat and placebo treatment groups in the mean change in the average ItchRO(Obs) severity score between baseline and Weeks 15-26||-0.334|-1.845|= 0.0063
90893929|NCT03905330|181653339|SUPERIORITY||Least-Square mean|-186.723|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|51.9501|=|0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-293.454|-79.992|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-79.992|-293.454|= 0.0013
90893930|NCT03905330|181653340|SUPERIORITY||Least-Square mean|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.263|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.727|-0.674|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.674|-1.727|< 0.0001
90893931|NCT03905330|181653341|SUPERIORITY||Least-Square mean|-160.403|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|30.1827|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-220.836|-99.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-99.970|-220.836|< 0.0001
90893932|NCT03905330|181653342|OTHER||||||=|0.0736|||||||Bernard's exact test|||||||= 0.0736
91087043|NCT05464420|182056662|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.0|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 31: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 2|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.00|0.77|
91087044|NCT05464420|182056662|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.14|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 31: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.14|0.88|
91087045|NCT05464420|182056662|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.3|||||V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 31: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 2/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.30|1.00|
91087046|NCT05464420|182056662|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.16|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 33F: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 2|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.16|0.89|
91087047|NCT05464420|182056662|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.15|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 33F: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.15|0.88|
91087048|NCT05464420|182056662|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.13|||||V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 33F: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 2/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.13|0.87|
91087049|NCT05464420|182056662|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.17|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 35B: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.17|0.90|
91087050|NCT05464420|182056662|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.13|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 35B: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.13|0.87|
91087051|NCT05464420|182056662|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.1|||||V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 35B: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 2/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.10|0.85|
91087052|NCT05464420|182056663|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.21|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 3: GMC Ratio V116 Combined Lots/ PPSV23|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.21|1.01|
91087053|NCT05464420|182056663|OTHER||GMC Ratio|3.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.43|4.45|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 6A: GMC Ratio V116 Combined Lots/ PPSV23|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|4.45|3.43|
91087054|NCT05464420|182056663|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|1.72|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 7F: GMC Ratio V116 Combined Lots/ PPSV23|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.72|1.38|
91087055|NCT05464420|182056663|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.89|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 8: GMC Ratio V116 Combined Lots/ PPSV23|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|0.89|0.73|
91087056|NCT05464420|182056663|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.14|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 9N: GMC Ratio V116 Combined Lots/ PPSV23|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.14|0.91|
91087057|NCT05464420|182056663|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|1.66|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 10A: GMC Ratio V116 Combined Lots/ PPSV23|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.66|1.30|
91087058|NCT05464420|182056663|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|1.52|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 11A: GMC Ratio V116 Combined Lots/ PPSV23|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.52|1.26|
91087059|NCT05464420|182056663|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|1.62|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 12F: GMC Ratio V116 Combined Lots/ PPSV23|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.62|1.23|
91087060|NCT05464420|182056663|OTHER||GMC Ratio|6.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.08|7.65|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 15A: GMC Ratio V116 Combined Lots/ PPSV23|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|7.65|6.08|
91087061|NCT05464420|182056663|OTHER||GMC Ratio|3.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.86|3.67|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 15C: GMC Ratio V116 Combined Lots/ PPSV23|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|3.67|2.86|
91087062|NCT05464420|182056663|OTHER||GMC Ratio|6.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.83|7.19|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 16F: GMC Ratio V116 Combined Lots/ PPSV23|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|7.19|5.83|
91087063|NCT05464420|182056663|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|2.07|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 17F: GMC Ratio V116 Combined Lots/ PPSV23|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|2.07|1.66|
91087064|NCT05464420|182056663|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.22|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 19A: GMC Ratio V116 Combined Lots/ PPSV23|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.22|0.98|
91087065|NCT05464420|182056663|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|1.71|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 20A: GMC Ratio V116 Combined Lots/ PPSV23|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.71|1.37|
91087066|NCT05464420|182056663|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|1.49|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 22F: GMC Ratio V116 Combined Lots/ PPSV23|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.49|1.17|
91087067|NCT05464420|182056663|OTHER||GMC Ratio|8.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.19|9.23|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 23A: GMC Ratio V116 Combined Lots/ PPSV23|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|9.23|7.19|
91087068|NCT05464420|182056663|OTHER||GMC Ratio|5.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.08|6.48|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 23B: GMC Ratio V116 Combined Lots/ PPSV23|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|6.48|5.08|
91087069|NCT05464420|182056663|OTHER||GMC Ratio|14.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.77|16.4|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 24F: GMC Ratio V116 Combined Lots/ PPSV23|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|16.40|12.77|
91087070|NCT05464420|182056663|OTHER||GMC Ratio|9.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.61|10.59|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 31: GMC Ratio V116 Combined Lots/ PPSV23|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|10.59|8.61|
91087071|NCT05464420|182056663|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.91|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 33F: GMC Ratio V116 Combined Lots/ PPSV23|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|0.91|0.73|
91087072|NCT05464420|182056663|OTHER||GMC Ratio|7.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.41|7.77|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 35B: GMC Ratio V116 Combined Lots/ PPSV23|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|7.77|6.41|
91087073|NCT00382785|182056680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||univariate analysis|||Power calculation indicated that 60 subjects would be needed. Null Hypothesis: There will be no difference in perceived social support based on type of online support group (moderated or peer-led).||||.315
90830113|NCT03515824|181533525|OTHER|Clopper Pearson confidence interval method for binomial data|Objective Response Rate )ORR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|28.5||||||||28.5|0.0|
90830114|NCT00539994|181533543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
90830115|NCT00539994|181533543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
90830116|NCT03084796|181533552|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.068||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.003|0.132|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Analyzed using linear mixed model repeated for measurements (MMRM), including treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, US regions (Midwest, Northeast, South and West), and smoking status at screening as fixed effects, and the baseline value, and baseline by visit interaction as covariates.~Adjusted for multiplicity based on the parametric simulation method by Edwards and Berry."||0.132|0.003|0.037
90958891|NCT00666679|181797835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-Squares Means|6.08||||0.004||95.0|1.94|10.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model with fixed effects for treatment, time (weeks 1 and 2), treatment-by-time interaction and period.|Least-Squares Means for average percentage of days are derived using appropriate contrast from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, time (weeks 1 and 2), treatment-by-time interaction and period.|||10.23|1.94|0.004
91023766|NCT00410410|181930775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.67||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Chi square p-value and RR along with 95% confidence interval provided, adjusting for randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Conditional on ABA 30/\~10 vs PLA comparison for clinical response being significant at 5% level, this comparison for remission will be tested at 5%.|Conditional on both the remission comparison for ABA 30/\~10 vs PLA, and the clinical response comparison for ABA\~10 vs PLA being significant at 5%, the secondary remission comparison for ABA \~10 vs PLA will be tested at 5%.|Null hypothesis=no treatment difference between each of the ABA and placebo (PLA). At 5% significance level, Aba 30/\~10 vs. PLA: power=96%, sample size=140 per arm, expected PLA rate=15%. ABA 30/\~10 =35%; Aba \~10 vs. PLA: power=82%, sample size=140 per arm, expected PLA response rate= 15%, ABA/\~10 mg/kg=30%||0.67|.06|
91023767|NCT00410410|181930776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.05||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Chi square p-value and RR along with 95% confidence interval provided, adjusting for randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|If ABA 30/\~10 vs PLA remission comparison is significant at 5% level, the mucosal healing comparison for the same treatment group will be tested at 5%|Conditional on both the comparison for mucosal healing for ABA 30/\~10 vs PLA and the comparison for remission for ABA \~10 vs. PLA being significant, the comparison for mucosal healing for ABA \~10 vs PLA will be tested at 5%.|Null hypothesis=no treatment difference (relative risk \[RR\] of ABA over placebo=1) for mucosal healing. ABA 30/\~10 vs. placebo: power=99%, sample size=140 per arm, expected PLA response rate=30%, ABA 30/\~10 mg/kg=60%. ABA \~10 vs. placebo: power=98%, sample size=140 per arm, 5% significance; expected PLA response rate= 30%, ABA \~10 mg/kg=55%||1.05|0.42|
91023768|NCT00410410|181930777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.044||||||All statistical testing was performed at a pre-specified alpha-level of 5%.|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||The Cochran-Armitage trend test was performed to evaluate whether a relationship existed between the response and dose regimen by comparing the proportion of participants in response across all four treatment arms.||||0.044
91023769|NCT00410410|181930783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.149||||||All statistical testing was performed at a pre-specified alpha-level of 5%|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||The Cochran-Armitage trend test was performed to evaluate whether a relationship existed between the response and dose regimen by comparing the proportion of participants in response across all four treatment arms. Normal approximation was used if the number of responses in a treatment group is at least 5. Otherwise an exact method was used.||||0.149
91023770|NCT00106028|181930832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.438||||0.0625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.235|9.111|||ANCOVA|LS means and p-value are from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline and fixed effects for age group, treatment and pooled center for post-baseline.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||9.111|-0.235|0.0625
91023771|NCT00106028|181930833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.537||||0.6103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.424|7.497|||ANCOVA|LS means and p-value are from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline and fixed effects for age group, treatment and pooled center for post-baseline.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||7.497|-4.424|0.6103
91023772|NCT00106028|181930834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.554||||0.0808||95.0|-0.193|3.301|||ANCOVA|LS means and p-value are from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline and with fixed effects for age group, treatment and pooled center for post-baseline.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||3.301|-0.193|0.0808
91023773|NCT00106028|181930835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.498||||0.6466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.648|2.644|||ANCOVA|LS means and p-value are from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline and with fixed effects for age group, treatment and pooled center for post-baseline.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||2.644|-1.648|0.6466
91023774|NCT00106028|181930836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.465||||0.7391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.224|2.294|||ANCOVA|LS means and p-value are from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline and with fixed effects for age group, treatment and pooled center for post-baseline.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||2.294|-3.224|0.7391
90830117|NCT03084796|181533552|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.116|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.051|0.181|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis for was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 for this outcome measure.~Adjusted for multiplicity based on the parametric simulation method by Edwards and Berry."||0.181|0.051|<0.001
90893933|NCT03905330|181653343|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.041|||||||Bernard's exact test|||||||= 0.0410
91087074|NCT00382785|182056681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23||95.0|||||univariate analysis|Null Hypothesis: There will be no difference between the moderated and peer-led groups based on type of online support (moderated; peer-led)||Power analysis indicated that 60 subjects were needed. Null hypothesis: There will be no difference in depressive symptoms based on type of online support group (moderated or peer-led).||||.23
90830118|NCT03084796|181533552|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.151|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.086|0.216|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis for was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 for this outcome measure.~Adjusted for multiplicity based on the parametric simulation method by Edwards and Berry."||0.216|0.086|<0.001
90830119|NCT03084796|181533552|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.145|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.081|0.209|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis for was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 for this outcome measure.~Adjusted for multiplicity based on the parametric simulation method by Edwards and Berry."||0.209|0.081|<0.001
90830120|NCT03084796|181533552|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.211|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.159|0.263|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment F (Tiotropium 18 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Analyzed using a linear mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) including treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, US regions (Midwest, Northeast, South and West) and smoking status at screening as fixed effects, and the baseline value and baseline by visit interaction as covariates."||0.263|0.159|<0.001
90830121|NCT03084796|181533552|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.048||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.003|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Analyzed using a linear mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) including treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, US regions (Midwest, Northeast, South and West) and smoking status at screening as fixed effects, and the baseline value and baseline by visit interaction as covariates."||0.100|-0.003|0.066
90830122|NCT03084796|181533552|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.083||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.031|0.135|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Analyzed using a linear mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) including treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, US regions (Midwest, Northeast, South and West) and smoking status at screening as fixed effects, and the baseline value and baseline by visit interaction as covariates."||0.135|0.031|0.002
90830123|NCT03084796|181533552|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.077||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.026|0.128|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Analyzed using a linear mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) including treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, US regions (Midwest, Northeast, South and West) and smoking status at screening as fixed effects, and the baseline value and baseline by visit interaction as covariates."||0.128|0.026|0.003
90893934|NCT03905330|181653344|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0023|||||||Bernard's exact test|||||||= 0.0023
90893935|NCT03905330|181653345|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0004|||||||Bernard's exact test|||||||= 0.0004
90893936|NCT03624504|181653365|OTHER|Assume expected performance to be 94%. The Objective Performance Criterion (OPC) is set at 83% (same performance threshold in FDA approved global study). Assumes 0.05 significance level, 2-sided, 80% power and 10% study attrition.|Kaplan-Meier survival probability (%)|97.6||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|90.6|99.4||The threshold for significance was 0.05.|z test, 1-sided||The major complication free rate (i.e. survival probability) was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method.|"Null hypothesis: Major complication free rate at 6 months post-implant is less than or equal to 83%~Alternative hypothesis: Major complication free rate at 6 months post-implant is greater than 83%."||99.4|90.6|0.0021
90893937|NCT04496219|181653376|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This p value relates to instillation adherence||||0.97
90893938|NCT04496219|181653376|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This p value relates to missed visits.||||0.17
90893939|NCT04496219|181653377|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5638|||||||Chi-squared|||For the patient survey, the two arms will be compared using chi-squared. This analysis is for Constipation Symptoms.||||0.5638
90893940|NCT04496219|181653377|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1753|||||||Chi-squared|||For the patient survey, the two arms will be compared using chi-squared. This analysis is for Diarrhea Symptoms.||||0.1753
90893941|NCT04496219|181653377|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2062|||||||Chi-squared|||For the patient survey, the two arms will be compared using chi-squared. This analysis is for Urinary Symptoms.||||0.2062
90893942|NCT04496219|181653378|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8092|||||||Chi-squared|||For the patient survey, the two arms will be compared using chi-squared. This analysis is for Global Health.||||0.8092
90893943|NCT04496219|181653378|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5492|||||||Chi-squared|||For the patient survey, the two arms will be compared using chi-squared. This analysis is for Physical Function.||||0.5492
90893944|NCT04496219|181653378|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6464|||||||Chi-squared|||For the patient survey, the two arms will be compared using chi-squared. This analysis is for Emotional Function.||||0.6464
90893945|NCT04496219|181653378|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.586|||||||Chi-squared|||For the patient survey, the two arms will be compared using chi-squared. This analysis is for Social Function.||||0.586
90893946|NCT04496219|181653378|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8999|||||||Chi-squared|||For the patient survey, the two arms will be compared using chi-squared. This analysis is for Fatigue Symptoms.||||0.8999
90893947|NCT04496219|181653378|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2007|||||||Chi-squared|||For the patient survey, the two arms will be compared using chi-squared. This analysis is for Pain Symptoms.||||0.2007
90893948|NCT04496219|181653378|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9921|||||||Chi-squared|||For the patient survey, the two arms will be compared using chi-squared. This analysis is for Malaise Symptoms.||||0.9921
91087075|NCT00382785|182056682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Univariate Analysis|||Power analysis indicated that 60 subjects were needed. Null hypothesis: There will be no difference in quality of life (QOL) based on type of online support group (moderated or peer-led).||||.32
91087076|NCT03066830|182056715|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square (LS) Mean|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.095|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.946|-0.574|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 is analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of Metformin use at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||-0.574|-0.946|< 0.0001
91087077|NCT03066830|182056716|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.608|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.286|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1685|-1.0471|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 is analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of Metformin use at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and baseline fasting plasma glucose as a covariate.||-1.0471|-2.1685|< 0.0001
91087078|NCT03066830|182056717|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.272||0.5172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.316|1.669|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 12 is analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of Metformin use at screening and country as fixed effects, and baseline SBP as a covariate.||1.669|-3.316|0.5172
91087079|NCT03066830|182056718|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.983||0.2994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.946|0.907|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 12 is analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of Metformin use at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥ 30 mmHg) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and baseline SBP as a covariate.||0.907|-2.946|0.2994
91087080|NCT03066830|182056719|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.267|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.932|-0.884|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 is analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of Metformin use at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and baseline weight as a covariate.||-0.884|-1.932|< 0.0001
91087081|NCT03066830|182056720|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|6.7||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.03|10.47|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage difference between treatment groups using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by the randomization strata of HbA1c (≤ 8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130,≥130 mmHg) at screening, randomization strata of metformin use at the screening. Missing data at Week 26 were assigned a status of non-responder in the analysis.||10.47|3.03|0.0004
91087082|NCT03066830|182056721|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|17.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.16|23.73|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage difference between treatment groups using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by the randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, randomization strata of Metformin use at screening. Missing data at Week 26 were assigned a status of non-responder in the analysis.||23.73|11.16|< 0.0001
91087083|NCT00656175|182056774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon sign-rank test used for statistical significance.||||0.52
90830124|NCT03084796|181533552|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.035||||0.189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.017|0.087|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD.~Analyzed using a linear mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) including treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, US regions (Midwest, Northeast, South and West) and smoking status at screening as fixed effects, and the baseline value and baseline by visit interaction as covariates."||0.087|-0.017|0.189
91087084|NCT04878120|182056775|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.733||||||For interaction between study group and intervention|ANOVA|||"The study followed a randomized crossover design, with two study groups and two intervention types; the two groups differed in the order they received the two intervention types. To test the hypothesis that HCL Control with Smart Bolus Calculator reduces exposure to hypoglycemia with respect to Standard HCL Control, a mixed ANOVA was performed with LBGI as outcome measure, study group as between-subject factor, and intervention type as within-subject factor."||||0.733
90893949|NCT04496219|181653378|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5723|||||||Chi-squared|||For the patient survey, the two arms will be compared using chi-squared. This analysis is for Role Function.||||0.5723
90893950|NCT04496219|181653378|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.812|||||||Chi-squared|||For the patient survey, the two arms will be compared using chi-squared. This analysis is for Cognitive Function.||||0.812
91087085|NCT04878120|182056776|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.824||||||For interaction between study group and intervention|ANOVA|||The study followed a randomized crossover design, with two study groups and two intervention types; the two groups differed in the order they received the two intervention types. A mixed ANOVA was performed with percentage of time spent below 70 mg/dL as outcome measure, study group as between-subject factor, and intervention type as within-subject factor.||||0.824
90893951|NCT04496219|181653378|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||Chi-squared|||For the patient survey, the two arms will be compared using chi-squared. This analysis is for Nausea Symptoms.||||0.96
90893952|NCT04496219|181653378|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1062|||||||Chi-squared|||For the patient survey, the two arms will be compared using chi-squared. This analysis is for Dyspnoea Symptoms.||||0.1062
90893953|NCT04496219|181653378|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3259|||||||Chi-squared|||For the patient survey, the two arms will be compared using chi-squared. This analysis is for Insomnia Symptoms.||||0.3259
90893954|NCT04496219|181653378|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9664|||||||Chi-squared|||For the patient survey, the two arms will be compared using chi-squared. This analysis is for Appetite Loss Symptoms.||||0.9664
90893955|NCT04496219|181653378|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4564|||||||Chi-squared|||For the patient survey, the two arms will be compared using chi-squared. This analysis is for Finances.||||0.4564
90893956|NCT04496219|181653378|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1036|||||||Chi-squared|||For the patient survey, the two arms will be compared using chi-squared. This analysis is for Intravesical Symptoms.||||0.1036
91087086|NCT04878120|182056777|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.402||||||For interaction between study group and intervention|ANOVA|||The study followed a randomized crossover design, with two study groups and two intervention types; the two groups differed in the order they received the two intervention types. A mixed ANOVA was performed with percentage of time spent in 70-180 mg/dL as outcome measure, study group as between-subject factor, and intervention type as within-subject factor.||||0.402
91087087|NCT04878120|182056778|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3||||||For interaction between study group and intervention|ANOVA|||The study followed a randomized crossover design, with two study groups and two intervention types; the two groups differed in the order they received the two intervention types. A mixed ANOVA was performed with percentage of time spent above 180 mg/dL as outcome measure, study group as between-subject factor, and intervention type as within-subject factor.||||0.300
91087088|NCT04878120|182056779|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.168||||||For interaction between study arm and intervention|ANOVA|||The study followed a randomized crossover design, with two study groups and two intervention types; the two groups differed in the order they received the two intervention types. A mixed ANOVA was performed with HBGI as outcome measure, study group as between-subject factor, and intervention type as within-subject factor.||||0.168
91087089|NCT04878120|182056780|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.476||||||For interaction between study group and intervention|ANOVA|||The study followed a randomized crossover design, with two study groups and two intervention types; the two groups differed in the order they received the two intervention types. A mixed ANOVA was performed with CGM coefficient of variation as outcome measure, study group as between-subject factor, and intervention type as within-subject factor.||||0.476
91087090|NCT04878120|182056781|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.914||||||For interaction between study group and intervention|ANOVA|||The study followed a randomized crossover design, with two study groups and two intervention types; the two groups differed in the order they received the two intervention types. A mixed ANOVA was performed with total amount of carbohydrate administered as rescue treatments as outcome measure, study group as between-subject factor, and intervention type as within-subject factor.||||0.914
91087091|NCT02499120|182056822|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.536|1.253||1-sided p-value was from the log-rank test stratified by stratification factors ECOG(Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group) per randomization.|Log Rank|||||1.253|0.536|0.1800
91087092|NCT02499120|182056823|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.4953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.669|1.495||1-sided p-value was from the log-rank test stratified by stratification factors ECOG per randomization.|Log Rank|||||1.495|0.669|0.4953
90830125|NCT03084796|181533552|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.029||||0.273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.023|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Analyzed using a linear mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) including treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, US regions (Midwest, Northeast, South and West) and smoking status at screening as fixed effects, and the baseline value and baseline by visit interaction as covariates."||0.080|-0.023|0.273
91087093|NCT03705286|182056844|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.87||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.21|3.17|||Regression, Linear|||We evaluated whether there are differences in the Physical Component Score (PCS) for QOL between the PU-EVAC and PVC treatment groups by comparing their respective mean scores (i.e., mean\[PU-EVAC\] - mean\[PVC\] ). We modeled the data using linear regression and used robust standard error estimates to construct our statistical test and 95% confidence interval estimates. We also estimated the treatment groups' mean quality of life scores with standard error estimates and 95% confidence intervals.||3.17|-4.21|0.78
91087094|NCT03705286|182056844|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.05||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.03|1.07|||Regression, Linear|||We evaluated whether there are differences in the Mental Component Score (MCS) for QOL between the PU-EVAC and PVC treatment groups by comparing their respective mean scores (i.e., mean\[PU-EVAC\] - mean\[PVC\] ). We modeled the data using linear regression and used robust standard error estimates to construct our statistical test and 95% confidence interval estimates. We also estimated the treatment groups' mean quality of life scores with standard error estimates and 95% confidence intervals.||1.07|-7.03|0.15
91087095|NCT03705286|182056845|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.05||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|98.0|-0.07|0.17|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.17|-0.07|0.05
90893957|NCT04496219|181653378|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1789|||||||Chi-squared|||For the patient survey, the two arms will be compared using chi-squared. This analysis is for Worries.||||0.1789
90893958|NCT04496219|181653378|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5186|||||||Chi-squared|||For the patient survey, the two arms will be compared using chi-squared. This analysis is for Bloating Symptoms.||||0.5186
90893959|NCT04496219|181653378|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0757|||||||Chi-squared|||For the patient survey, the two arms will be compared using chi-squared. This analysis is for Sexual Function.||||0.0757
91087096|NCT03705286|182056846|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.126||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.26|||Regression, Logistic|||We evaluated whether there are differences in the risk of laryngeal injury between the PU-EVAC and PVC treatment groups, comparing their respective risk difference (i.e., probability\[PU-EVAC\] - probability \[PVC\]). We fit a logistic regression model and incorporated robust (i.e., Huber-White heteroskedastic consistent) standard error estimates for our hypothesis test and 95% confidence interval estimates.||0.26|-0.01|0.05
90830126|NCT03084796|181533552|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.006||||0.813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.058|0.045|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD).~Analyzed using a linear mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) including treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, US regions (Midwest, Northeast, South and West) and smoking status at screening as fixed effects, and the baseline value and baseline by visit interaction as covariates."||0.045|-0.058|0.813
90893960|NCT04496219|181653378|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1174|||||||Chi-squared|||For the patient survey, the two arms will be compared using chi-squared. This analysis is for Male Sex Problems.||||0.1174
90893961|NCT04496219|181653378|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3129|||||||Chi-squared|||For the patient survey, the two arms will be compared using chi-squared. This analysis is for Intimacy.||||0.3129
90893962|NCT01812655|181653384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.7||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|45.0|||Regression, Linear||Mean difference = PD group - VR group|||45.0|2.4|0.029
90893963|NCT01812655|181653384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.7||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|28.9|||Regression, Linear||Mean difference = VR group - SC group|||28.9|-9.5|0.32
90830127|NCT03084796|181533553|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.059||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.022|0.095|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Analyzed using linear mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM), including treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, US regions (Midwest, Northeast, South and West), and smoking status at screening as fixed effects, and the baseline value, and baseline by visit interaction as covariates."||0.095|0.022|0.002
90830128|NCT03084796|181533553|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.077|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.113|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 for this outcome measure."||0.113|0.040|<0.001
90830129|NCT03084796|181533553|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.126|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.089|0.163|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 for this outcome measure."||0.163|0.089|<0.001
90830130|NCT03084796|181533553|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.104|0.177|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 for this outcome measure."||0.177|0.104|<0.001
90830131|NCT03084796|181533553|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.183|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.147|0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment F (Tiotropium 18 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 for this outcome measure."||0.220|0.147|<0.001
90830132|NCT03084796|181533553|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.018||||0.322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.018|0.055|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 for this outcome measure."||0.055|-0.018|0.322
90830133|NCT03084796|181533553|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.067|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.031|0.104|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 for this outcome measure."||0.104|0.031|<0.001
90830134|NCT03084796|181533553|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.082|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.045|0.118|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 for this outcome measure."||0.118|0.045|<0.001
90830135|NCT03084796|181533553|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.049||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.013|0.086|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD.~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 for this outcome measure."||0.086|0.013|0.008
90893964|NCT01812655|181653385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Semipartial correlation|0.223||||0.26||95.0|||||Semipartial correlation||Semipartial correlation between desire for distraction and STAIC State Anxiety measured at Baseline for all participants|||||.26
90830136|NCT03084796|181533553|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.063|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.027|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 for this outcome measure."||0.100|0.027|<0.001
90830137|NCT03084796|181533553|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.014||||0.443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.022|0.051|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 for this outcome measure."||0.051|-0.022|0.443
90830138|NCT03084796|181533554|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.072|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.038|0.105|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Analyzed using linear mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM), including treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, US regions (Midwest, Northeast, South and West), and smoking status at screening as fixed effects, and the baseline value, and baseline by visit interaction as covariates."||0.105|0.038|<0.001
90830139|NCT03084796|181533554|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.086|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.052|0.119|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.119|0.052|<0.001
90830140|NCT03084796|181533554|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.143|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.109|0.177|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.177|0.109|<0.001
91023775|NCT00106028|181930837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|10.333|||<|0.0001||95.0|5.258|15.408|||ANCOVA|LS Means and p-value are from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline and with fixed effects for age group, treatment and pooled center for post-baseline.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||15.408|5.258|<0.0001
90830141|NCT03084796|181533554|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.127|0.194|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.194|0.127|<0.001
90893965|NCT01812655|181653385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Semipartial correlation|0.119||||0.59||95.0|||||Semipartial correlation||Semipartial correlation between desire for distraction and STAIC Trait Anxiety measured at Baseline for all participants|||||.59
90830142|NCT03084796|181533554|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.164|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.131|0.198|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment F (Tiotropium 18 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.198|0.131|<0.001
90830143|NCT03084796|181533554|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.014||||0.418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.048|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.048|-0.020|0.418
90830144|NCT03084796|181533554|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.071|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.038|0.105|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.105|0.038|<0.001
90830145|NCT03084796|181533554|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.089|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.055|0.122|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.122|0.055|<0.001
90830146|NCT03084796|181533554|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.057|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.024|0.091|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.091|0.024|<0.001
90830147|NCT03084796|181533554|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.075|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.041|0.108|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.108|0.041|<0.001
90830148|NCT03084796|181533554|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.017||||0.308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.016|0.051|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.051|-0.016|0.308
90830149|NCT03084796|181533554|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.092|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.038|0.147|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Analyzed using linear mixed model repeated for measurements (MMRM), including treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, US regions (Midwest, Northeast, South and West), and smoking status at screening as fixed effects, and the baseline value, and baseline by visit interaction as covariates."||0.147|0.038|<0.001
90830150|NCT03084796|181533554|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.133|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.079|0.188|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Analyzed, using linear mixed model repeated measurements (MMRM), including treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, US regions (Midwest, Northeast, South and West), and smoking status at screening as fixed effects, and the baseline value, and baseline by visit interaction as covariates."||0.188|0.079|<0.001
90830151|NCT03084796|181533554|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.174|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.229|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.229|0.120|<0.001
90830152|NCT03084796|181533554|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.181|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.127|0.235|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.235|0.127|<0.001
90830153|NCT03084796|181533554|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.229|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.175|0.284|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment F (Tiotropium 18 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.284|0.175|<0.001
90830154|NCT03084796|181533554|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.041||||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.013|0.095|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.095|-0.013|0.141
90830155|NCT03084796|181533554|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.082||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.028|0.137|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.137|0.028|0.003
90830156|NCT03084796|181533554|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.088||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.035|0.142|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.142|0.035|0.001
90830157|NCT03084796|181533554|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.041||||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.013|0.096|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.096|-0.013|0.137
90893966|NCT01812655|181653385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Semipartial correlation|-0.059||||0.6||95.0|||||Semipartial correlation||Semipartial correlation between desire for distraction and Procedural Pain (Outcome Measure #1) for all participants|||||.60
90893967|NCT01812655|181653386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||semipartial correlation|-0.276||||0.15||95.0|||||Semipartial Correlation||Semipartial correlation between Engagement with Distraction and STAIC State Anxiety measured at Baseline for all participants|||||0.15
91032951|NCT01382719|181951534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0012|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0012|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.06|||Van Elteren|||||0.06|0.00|<0.05
90830158|NCT03084796|181533554|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.048||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.006|0.101|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.101|-0.006|0.082
90830159|NCT03084796|181533554|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.006||||0.823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.048|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.060|-0.048|0.823
90830160|NCT03084796|181533555|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.061||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.022|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Analyzed using linear mixed model repeated for measurements (MMRM), including treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, US regions (Midwest, Northeast, South and West), and smoking status at screening as fixed effects, and the baseline value, and baseline by visit interaction as covariates."||0.100|0.022|0.002
90830161|NCT03084796|181533555|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.075|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.036|0.113|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.113|0.036|<0.001
90830162|NCT03084796|181533555|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.124|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.085|0.163|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.163|0.085|<0.001
90830163|NCT03084796|181533555|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.152|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.113|0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.190|0.113|<0.001
90830164|NCT03084796|181533555|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.163|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.124|0.202|||MMRM|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment F (Tiotropium 18 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.202|0.124|<0.001
90830165|NCT03084796|181533555|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.014||||0.485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.025|0.052|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.052|-0.025|0.485
90830166|NCT03084796|181533555|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.063||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.025|0.102|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.102|0.025|0.001
90830167|NCT03084796|181533555|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.091|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.053|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.130|0.053|<0.001
90830168|NCT03084796|181533555|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.011|0.088|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.088|0.011|0.012
90830169|NCT03084796|181533555|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.077|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.039|0.116|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.116|0.039|<0.001
90830170|NCT03084796|181533555|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.028||||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.011|0.066|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.066|-0.011|0.157
90893968|NCT01812655|181653386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Semipartial correlation|-0.347||||0.18||95.0|||||Semipartial correlation||Semipartial correlation between Engagement with Distraction and STAIC Trait Anxiety measured at Baseline for all participants|||||0.18
90830171|NCT03084796|181533555|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.069||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.011|0.128|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.128|0.011|0.021
90830172|NCT03084796|181533555|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.112|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.053|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.170|0.053|<0.001
90830173|NCT03084796|181533555|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.162|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.103|0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.220|0.103|<0.001
90830174|NCT03084796|181533555|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.157|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.099|0.215|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.215|0.099|<0.001
90893969|NCT01812655|181653386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Semipartial correlation|0.21||||0.054||95.0|||||Semipartial correlation||Semipartial correlation between Engagement with Distraction and Procedural Pain (Outcome Measure #1) for all participants|||||0.054
91104611|NCT00855166|182095208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4428||0.3105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|0.43||Exploratory. Model including fixed categorical effects of treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, gender and rescue medication as well as continuous fixed covariates of baseline measurement and baseline measurement-by-week interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Percent change in BMD from baseline to week 102 evaluated via longitudinal repeated measures analysis using direct likelihood.|Natural logarithms of baseline and week 102 values were used.|H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||0.43|-1.32|0.3105
90830175|NCT03084796|181533555|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.213|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.154|0.271|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment F (Tiotropium 18 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.271|0.154|<0.001
90830176|NCT03084796|181533555|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.043||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.015|0.101|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.101|-0.015|0.149
90830177|NCT03084796|181533555|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.092||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.034|0.151|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.151|0.034|0.002
90830178|NCT03084796|181533555|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.088||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.031|0.146|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.146|0.031|0.003
90830179|NCT03084796|181533555|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.009|0.108|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.108|-0.009|0.096
90830180|NCT03084796|181533555|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.045||||0.122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.012|0.103|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.103|-0.012|0.122
90830181|NCT03084796|181533555|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.004||||0.886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.062|0.054|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.054|-0.062|0.886
90830182|NCT03084796|181533556|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.074||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.008|0.141|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Analyzed using linear mixed model repeated for measurements (MMRM), including treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, US regions (Midwest, Northeast, South and West), and smoking status at screening as fixed effects, and the baseline value, and baseline by visit interaction as covariates."||0.141|0.008|0.029
90830183|NCT03084796|181533556|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.121|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.055|0.188|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.188|0.055|<0.001
90830184|NCT03084796|181533556|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.184|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.117|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.250|0.117|<0.001
90830185|NCT03084796|181533556|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.208|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.142|0.275|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.275|0.142|<0.001
90830186|NCT03084796|181533556|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.293|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.227|0.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment F (Tiotropium 18 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.360|0.227|<0.001
90830187|NCT03084796|181533556|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.047||||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.019|0.113|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.113|-0.019|0.161
90893970|NCT01812655|181653386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Semipartial Correlation|-0.102||||0.61||95.0|||||Semipartial Correlation||Semipartial correlation between Belief in Distraction's Efficacy and STAIC State Anxiety measured at Baseline for all participants|||||0.61
90830188|NCT03084796|181533556|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.109||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.043|0.176|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.176|0.043|0.001
90830189|NCT03084796|181533556|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.134|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.068|0.201|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.201|0.068|<0.001
90893971|NCT01812655|181653386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Semipartial Correlation|-0.622||||0.007||95.0|||||Semipartial Correlation||Semipartial correlation between Belief in Distraction's Efficacy and STAIC Trait Anxiety measured at Baseline for all participants|||||0.007
91104612|NCT02214212|182095231|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.16||||0.955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.69|5.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model used an unstructured correlation matrix, adjusting for treatment, time (linear) and the interaction as fixed effects.|The reported effect size has been expressed as the modelled difference in sleep efficiency improvement from day 1 to day 10. A positive effect size indicates a higher score in the white-light arm.|||5.37|-5.69|.955
91023776|NCT00106028|181930838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.04||||1789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.807|14.887|||ANCOVA|LS means and p-value are from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline and fixed effects for age group, treatment and pooled center for post-baseline.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||14.887|-2.807|01789
90830190|NCT03084796|181533556|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.062||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.128|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.128|-0.004|0.066
90830191|NCT03084796|181533556|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.087||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.021|0.153|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.153|0.021|0.010
90830192|NCT03084796|181533556|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.025||||0.465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.042|0.091|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.091|-0.042|0.465
90830193|NCT03084796|181533556|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.112||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.195|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.195|0.030|0.008
90830194|NCT03084796|181533556|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.173|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.091|0.256|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.256|0.091|<0.001
90830195|NCT03084796|181533556|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.219|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.136|0.302|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.302|0.136|<0.001
90830196|NCT03084796|181533556|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.213|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.131|0.295|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.295|0.131|<0.001
90830197|NCT03084796|181533556|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.326|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.244|0.409|||McNemar|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment F (Tiotropium 18 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.409|0.244|<0.001
90830198|NCT03084796|181533556|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.061||||0.144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.021|0.143|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.143|-0.021|0.144
90830199|NCT03084796|181533556|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.107||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.024|0.189|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.189|0.024|0.011
90830200|NCT03084796|181533556|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.101||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.019|0.182|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.182|0.019|0.016
90830201|NCT03084796|181533556|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.045||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.037|0.128|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.128|-0.037|0.280
90830202|NCT03084796|181533556|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.039||||0.342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.042|0.121|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.121|-0.042|0.342
90830203|NCT03084796|181533556|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.006||||0.886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.088|0.076|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.076|-0.088|0.886
90893972|NCT01812655|181653386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Semipartial correlation|-0.217||||0.045||95.0|||||Semipartial correlation||Semipartial correlation between Belief in Distraction's Efficacy and Procedural Pain (Outcome Measure #1) for all participants|||||0.045
91032952|NCT01382719|181951535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0496|||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
91032953|NCT01382719|181951536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0079|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.0|||Van Elteren|||||1.00|0.00|<0.05
90830204|NCT03084796|181533557|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.097||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.032|0.163|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Analyzed using linear mixed model repeated for measurements (MMRM), including treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, US regions (Midwest, Northeast, South and West), and smoking status at screening as fixed effects, and the baseline value, and baseline by visit interaction as covariates."||0.163|0.032|0.003
90830205|NCT03084796|181533557|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.156|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.091|0.221|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.221|0.091|<0.001
90830206|NCT03084796|181533557|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.208|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.143|0.273|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.273|0.143|<0.001
90830207|NCT03084796|181533557|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.237|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.172|0.302|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.302|0.172|<0.001
90830208|NCT03084796|181533557|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.276|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.211|0.341|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment F (Tiotropium 18 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.341|0.211|<0.001
90830209|NCT03084796|181533557|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.059||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.006|0.124|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.124|-0.006|0.076
90830210|NCT03084796|181533557|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.111|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.046|0.176|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.176|0.046|<0.001
90830211|NCT03084796|181533557|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.075|0.205|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.205|0.075|<0.001
90830212|NCT03084796|181533557|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.052||||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.013|0.117|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.117|-0.013|0.116
90830213|NCT03084796|181533557|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.081||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.016|0.146|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.146|0.016|0.014
90830214|NCT03084796|181533557|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.029||||0.384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.036|0.094|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.094|-0.036|0.384
90830215|NCT03084796|181533557|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.064|0.236|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.236|0.064|<0.001
90830216|NCT03084796|181533557|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.204|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.118|0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.290|0.118|<0.001
90830217|NCT03084796|181533557|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.248|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.162|0.335|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.335|0.162|<0.001
90830218|NCT03084796|181533557|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.254|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.168|0.339|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.339|0.168|<0.001
90893973|NCT00419263|181653395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.377|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|P-value is based on the treatment parameter from the Cox Regression Model including treatment, current smoking behavior, and geographic region.||||||0.377
90958892|NCT00666679|181797836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-Squares Means|-5.43|||<=|0.001||95.0|-8.67|-2.19|||ANCOVA|Model with terms for patient, treatment and period.|Least-Squares Means for percentage of days are derived from ANCOVA model with terms for patient, treatment and period.|||-2.19|-8.67|<=0.001
91104613|NCT02214212|182095232|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.69||||0.807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|6.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.29|-4.90|.807
91032954|NCT01382719|181951537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0012|||<|0.05|||||||Van Elteren|||||||<0.05
91104614|NCT02214212|182095233|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.48||||0.847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.38|4.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model adjusts for treatment, time (pre/post), site, FIM admit cognitive/motor, and the treatment/time as fixed effects.||||4.43|-5.38|.847
90830219|NCT03084796|181533557|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.354|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.268|0.439|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment F (Tiotropium 18 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.439|0.268|<0.001
91087097|NCT03877224|182056847|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann median diff. vs placebo|3.16||||0.07905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|6.01||To account for multiplicity, a pre-specified testing strategy was followed to control the overall type I error rate.|Rank ANCOVA|The model includes rank-based baseline, weeks impacted by COVID-19 and treatment group as covariates and is stratified by T2DM status at randomization||For the primary efficacy endpoint KCCQ-TSS, the following hypothesis was tested using the significance level 0.04990 • H0: m(r(A)) = m(r(C)) versus • H1: m(r(A)) ≠ m(r(C)) Where H0 and H1 are the null and alternative hypotheses, respectively, and m(r(A)) and m(r(C)) represent the median of the ranked changes in the primary efficacy endpoint, KCCQ-TSS, from baseline to week 16, among patients receiving dapagliflozin (Active) and placebo (Control) treatment, respectively.||6.01|0.36|0.07905
91087098|NCT03877224|182056848|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann median diff. vs placebo|3.12||||0.23215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|5.37||To account for multiplicity, a pre-specified testing strategy was followed to control the overall type I error rate.|Rank ANCOVA|The model includes rank-based baseline, weeks impacted by COVID-19 and treatment group as covariates and is stratified by T2DM status at randomization||For the primary efficacy endpoint KCCQ-PLS, the following hypothesis was tested at significant level of 0.00005 • H0: m(r(A)) = m(r(C)) versus • H1: m(r(A)) ≠ m(r(C)) Where H0 and H1 are the null and alternative hypotheses, respectively, and m(r(A)) and m(r(C)) represent the median of the ranked changes in the primary efficacy endpoint, KCCQ-PLS, from baseline to week 16, among patients receiving dapagliflozin (Active) and placebo (Control) treatment, respectively.||5.37|-0.09|0.23215
91087099|NCT03877224|182056849|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann median diff. vs placebo|1.6||||0.66801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|9.0||To account for multiplicity, a pre-specified testing strategy was followed to control the overall type I error rate.|Rank ANCOVA|The model includes rank-based baseline, treatment group as covariates and is stratified by T2DM status at randomization||For the primary efficacy endpoint 6MWD, the following hypothesis was tested using the significance level 0.00005: H0: m(r(A)) = m(r(C)) versus H1: m(r(A)) ≠ m(r(C)) Where H0 and H1 are the null and alternative hypotheses, respectively, and m(r(A)) and m(r(C)) represent the median of the ranked changes in the primary efficacy endpoint, 6MWD, from baseline to week 16, among patients receiving dapagliflozin (Active) and placebo (Control) treatment, respectively.||9.0|-5.9|0.66801
91087100|NCT03877224|182056850|SUPERIORITY|Total time spent in LVPA was not tested for statistical significance and the p-value is considered nominal because the test for 6MWD was not statistically significant.|Hodges-Lehmann median diff. vs placebo|0.19||||0.12523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.48|||Rank ANCOVA|Model includes baseline rank of outcome variable as a covariate, treatment group as a factor, and is stratified by T2DM status at randomization.||For the secondary efficacy endpoint, total time spent in LVPA, the testing hypothesis is • H0: m(r(A)) = m(r(C)) versus • H1: m(r(A)) ≠ m(r(C)) Where H0 and H1 are the null and alternative hypotheses, respectively, and m(r(A)) and m(r(C)) represent the median of the ranked changes in secondary efficacy endpoint, total time spent in LVPA, from baseline to End of study among patients receiving dapagliflozin (Active) and placebo (Control) treatment, respectively.||0.48|-0.06|0.12523
91087101|NCT01519817|182056863|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.5221||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of all CD4 cells at dose levels 1, 3, and 4. We could not do dose level 2 as we only had data on 2 patients and need an n\>2 to do paired analyses.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.5221
91087102|NCT01519817|182056863|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.25||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD4 cells at dose level 1.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.25
91087103|NCT01519817|182056863|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.5||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD4 cells at dose level 3.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.50
91087104|NCT01519817|182056863|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.16||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD4 cells at dose level 4.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.16
91087105|NCT01519817|182056863|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.8665||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of all CD8 cells at dose levels 1, 3, and 4. We could not do dose level 2 as we only had data on 2 patients and need an n\>2 to do paired analyses.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.8665
91087106|NCT01519817|182056863|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.88||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of all CD8 cells at dose levels 1, 3, and 4. We could not do dose level 2 as we only had data on 2 patients and need an n\>2 to do paired analyses.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.88
91087107|NCT01519817|182056863|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.84||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD8 cells at dose level 3.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.84
91087108|NCT01519817|182056863|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.57||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD8 cells at dose level 4.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.57
91104615|NCT02214212|182095234|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.14||||0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|8.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical significance by mixed-effects regression adjusts for time (pre/post), site, FIM admit cognitive, FIM admit motor as fixed effects.||||8.56|-2.29|.252
90830220|NCT03084796|181533557|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.054||||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.031|0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.140|-0.031|0.214
90893974|NCT00419263|181653396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is based on the log-rank statistic controlling for current smoking behavior and geographic region.|Log Rank|||||||0.007
91104616|NCT02214212|182095235|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.67||||0.722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.08|4.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.4|-3.08|.722
90830221|NCT03084796|181533557|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.098||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.012|0.184|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.184|0.012|0.025
90893975|NCT00419263|181653397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.537|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is based on the log-rank statistic controlling for current smoking behavior and geographic region.|Log Rank|||||||0.537
90893976|NCT00419263|181653398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||The differences between the treatment groups were evaluated using a Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test controlling for current smoking behavior.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
90893977|NCT00419263|181653399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The differences between the treatment groups were evaluated using a Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test controlling for current smoking behavior.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||< 0.001
90893978|NCT00419263|181653400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.409|TWO_SIDED|||||The differences between the treatment groups were evaluated using a Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test controlling for current smoking behavior.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.409
90893979|NCT00419263|181653401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.327|TWO_SIDED|||||The differences between the treatment groups were evaluated using a Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test controlling for current smoking behavior.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.327
90893980|NCT00540124|181653402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.073||95.0||||P-value for 12 Week Change. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values are from an ANCOVA with effects for treatment, prior alpha blocker use (yes/no), and baseline value, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||||||0.073
90893981|NCT00540124|181653402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.186||95.0||||P-value for 12 Week Change. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values are from an ANCOVA with effects for treatment, prior alpha blocker use (yes/no), and baseline value, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||||||0.186
90893982|NCT00540124|181653403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.155||95.0||||P-value for 4 Week Change. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values are from an ANCOVA with effects for treatment, prior alpha blocker use (yes/no), and baseline value, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||||||0.155
90893983|NCT00540124|181653403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.155||95.0||||P-value for 4 Week Change. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values are from an ANCOVA with effects for treatment, prior alpha blocker use (yes/no), and baseline value, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||||||0.155
91023777|NCT00106028|181930839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.28||||0.9646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.196|12.755|||ANCOVA|LS means and p-value are from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline and fixed effects for age group, treatment and pooled center for post-baseline.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||12.755|-12.196|0.9646
91023778|NCT00106028|181930840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.494||||0.003||95.0|1.912|9.077|||ANCOVA|LS means and p-value are from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline and fixed effects for age group, treatment and pooled center for post-baseline.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||9.077|1.912|0.0030
91032955|NCT01382719|181951538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0013|||<|0.05|||||||Van Elteren|||||||<0.05
91032956|NCT01382719|181951539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1161|||<|0.05|||||||Van Elteren|||||||<0.05
90893984|NCT00540124|181653403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.108||95.0||||P-value for 8 Week Change. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values are from an ANCOVA with effects for treatment, prior alpha blocker use (yes/no), and baseline value, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||||||0.108
90893985|NCT00540124|181653403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.112||95.0||||P-value for 8 Week Change. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values are from an ANCOVA with effects for treatment, prior alpha blocker use (yes/no), and baseline value, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||||||0.112
90893986|NCT00540124|181653404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.137||95.0||||P-value for 4 Week Change. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values are from ANCOVA with effects for treatment, prior alpha blocker use (yes/no), time (visit), baseline value, and time\*treatment interaction. Model used an unstructured covariance.|ANCOVA|||||||0.137
90893987|NCT00540124|181653404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0||||P-value for 4 Week Change. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values are from ANCOVA with effects for treatment, prior alpha blocker use (yes/no), time (visit), baseline value, and time\*treatment interaction. Model used an unstructured covariance.|ANCOVA|||||||0.009
90893988|NCT00540124|181653404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.118||95.0||||P-value for 8 Week Change. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values are from ANCOVA with effects for treatment, prior alpha blocker use (yes/no), time (visit), baseline value, and time\*treatment interaction. Model used an unstructured covariance.|ANCOVA|||||||0.118
91032957|NCT01382719|181951540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0133|||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
91032958|NCT00064753|181951580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.99||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.17||P was calculated with stratified proportional hazards models stratified by country|Regression, Cox|||||1.17|0.84|0.93
91032959|NCT00064753|181951581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.15||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.43||P was calculated with stratified proportional hazards models stratified by country|Regression, Cox|||||1.43|0.93|0.19
91032960|NCT00064753|181951582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.04||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.26||P was calculated with stratified proportional hazards models stratified by country|Regression, Cox|||||1.26|0.86|0.67
91032961|NCT00064753|181951583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.08||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.45||P was calculated with stratified proportional hazards models stratified by country|Regression, Cox|||||1.45|0.80|0.61
91087109|NCT01519817|182056863|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.3052||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of all B cells at dose levels 1, 3, and 4. We could not do dose level 2 as we only had data on 2 patients and need an n\>2 to do paired analyses.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.3052
91087110|NCT01519817|182056863|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.|||||>|0.9999||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of B cells at dose level 1.|Wilcoxon test|The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of B cells at dose level 1.||||||>0.9999
91087111|NCT01519817|182056863|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.13||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of B cells at dose level 3.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.13
91087112|NCT01519817|182056863|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.65||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of B cells at dose level 4.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.65
91087113|NCT01519817|182056863|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.0698||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of all NK cells at dose levels 1, 3, and 4. We could not do dose level 2 as we only had data on 2 patients and need an n\>2 to do paired analyses.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.0698
91087114|NCT01519817|182056863|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.63||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of NK cells at dose level 1.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.63
91087115|NCT01519817|182056863|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.74||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of NK cells at dose level 3.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.74
91087116|NCT01519817|182056863|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.13||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of NK cells at dose level 4.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.13
91087117|NCT01519817|182056863|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.0127||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of all NKT cells at dose levels 1, 3, and 4. We could not do dose level 2 as we only had data on 2 patients and need an n\>2 to do paired analyses.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.0127
91087118|NCT01519817|182056863|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.63||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of NKT cells at dose level 1.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.63
90893989|NCT00540124|181653404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018||95.0||||P-value for 8 Week Change. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values are from ANCOVA with effects for treatment, prior alpha blocker use (yes/no), time (visit), baseline value, and time\*treatment interaction. Model used an unstructured covariance.|ANCOVA|||||||0.018
91087119|NCT01519817|182056863|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.41||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of NKT cells at dose level 3.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.41
91087120|NCT01519817|182056863|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.07||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of NKT cells at dose level 4.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.07
91087121|NCT01519817|182056863|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.0654||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of all cDC cells at dose levels 1, 3, and 4. We could not do dose level 2 as we only had data on 2 patients and need an n\>2 to do paired analyses.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.0654
91087122|NCT01519817|182056863|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.38||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of cDC cells at dose level 1.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.38
91087123|NCT01519817|182056863|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.21||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of cDC cells at dose level 3.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.21
91087124|NCT01519817|182056863|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.16||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of cDC cells at dose level 4.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.16
91087125|NCT01519817|182056863|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.0457||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of all pDC cells at dose levels 1, 3, and 4. We could not do dose level 2 as we only had data on 2 patients and need an n\>2 to do paired analyses.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.0457
91087126|NCT01519817|182056863|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.63||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of pDC cells at dose level 1.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.63
91087127|NCT01519817|182056863|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.55||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of pDC cells at dose level 3.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.55
91087128|NCT01519817|182056863|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.13||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of pDC cells at dose level 4.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.13
90958893|NCT00666679|181797837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-Squares Means|-0.07||||0.013||95.0|-0.12|-0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model with fixed effects for treatment, period and baseline covariate.|Least-Squares Means for change from baseline are derived from mixed model with terms for treatment, period and baseline covariate.|||-0.01|-0.12|0.013
91104617|NCT02214212|182095236|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.25||||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.13|1.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.64|-6.13|.253
90958894|NCT00666679|181797838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-Squares Means|0.08||||0.002||95.0|0.03|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model with fixed effects for treatment, time (weeks 1 and 2), treatment-by-time interaction, period and baseline covariate.|Least-Squares Means for average change from baseline are derived using appropriate contrast from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, time (weeks 1 and 2), treatment-by-time interaction, period and baseline covariate.|||0.13|0.03|0.002
91087129|NCT01519817|182056863|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.7114||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of all MDSC cells at dose levels 1, 3, and 4. We could not do dose level 2 as we only had data on 2 patients and need an n\>2 to do paired analyses.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.7114
90830222|NCT03084796|181533557|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.104||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.019|0.189|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.189|0.019|0.016
90830223|NCT03084796|181533557|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.044||||0.313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.042|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.130|-0.042|0.313
90830224|NCT03084796|181533557|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.035|0.135|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure.~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.135|-0.035|0.250
90830225|NCT03084796|181533557|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.006||||0.898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.091|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.091|-0.080|0.898
90830226|NCT03084796|181533558|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.079||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.006|0.153|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Analyzed, using linear mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM), including treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, US regions (Midwest, Northeast, South and West), and smoking status at screening as fixed effects, and the baseline value, and baseline by visit interaction as covariates."||0.153|0.006|0.035
90830227|NCT03084796|181533558|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.158|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.085|0.232|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.232|0.085|<0.001
90830228|NCT03084796|181533558|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.201|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.127|0.275|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.275|0.127|<0.001
90830229|NCT03084796|181533558|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.241|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.168|0.315|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.315|0.168|<0.001
90830230|NCT03084796|181533558|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.277|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.204|0.351|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment F (Tiotropium 18 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.351|0.204|<0.001
90830231|NCT03084796|181533558|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.079||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.005|0.152|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.152|0.005|0.035
90830232|NCT03084796|181533558|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.121||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.048|0.195|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.195|0.048|0.001
90830233|NCT03084796|181533558|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.162|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.088|0.235|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.235|0.088|<0.001
90830234|NCT03084796|181533558|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.043||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.031|0.116|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.116|-0.031|0.256
91032962|NCT00064753|181951584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.12||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.81||P was calculated with stratified proportional hazards models stratified by country|Regression, Cox|||||1.81|0.69|0.64
90830235|NCT03084796|181533558|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.083||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.156|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.156|0.010|0.027
91032963|NCT00064753|181951585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.8||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.15||P was calculated with stratified proportional hazards models stratified by country|Regression, Cox|||||2.15|0.30|0.66
90830236|NCT03084796|181533558|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.033|0.114|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.114|-0.033|0.281
90830237|NCT03084796|181533558|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.141||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.232|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.232|0.050|0.003
90830238|NCT03084796|181533558|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.197|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.106|0.288|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.288|0.106|<0.001
90830239|NCT03084796|181533558|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.249|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.157|0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.340|0.157|<0.001
90830240|NCT03084796|181533558|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.245|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.155|0.336|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.336|0.155|<0.001
90830241|NCT03084796|181533558|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.348|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.258|0.439|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment F (Tiotropium 18 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.439|0.258|<0.001
90830242|NCT03084796|181533558|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.056||||0.222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.034|0.147|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.147|-0.034|0.222
90830243|NCT03084796|181533558|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio, log|0.108||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.017|0.199|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.199|0.017|0.020
90830244|NCT03084796|181533558|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.105||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.015|0.195|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.195|0.015|0.022
90830245|NCT03084796|181533558|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.052||||0.262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.039|0.143|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.143|-0.039|0.262
90830246|NCT03084796|181533558|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.048||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.041|0.138|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.138|-0.041|0.290
90830247|NCT03084796|181533558|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.004||||0.938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.094|0.087|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.087|-0.094|0.938
90830248|NCT03084796|181533559|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.64||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|2.24|||Regression, Cox|||"Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Analyzed using Cox proportional hazards model, including treatment, US regions (Midwest, Northeast, South and West), and smoking status at screening as fixed effects, and baseline FEV1 value as covariate."||2.24|1.21|0.002
90830249|NCT03084796|181533559|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.61|2.94|||Regression, Cox|||"Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||2.94|1.61|<0.001
90830250|NCT03084796|181533559|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.07|3.78|||Regression, Cox|||"Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||3.78|2.07|<0.001
90830251|NCT03084796|181533559|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.27|4.15|||Regression, Cox|||"Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||4.15|2.27|<0.001
90830252|NCT03084796|181533559|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|4.17|||Regression, Cox|||"Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment F (Tiotropium 18 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||4.17|2.30|<0.001
90958895|NCT04874415|181797839|SUPERIORITY|Main effects of each intervention factor were estimated using linear regression including all prespecified two-way interactions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|5.3|||||Once daily text message is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|||5.3|-6.2|
91032964|NCT00064753|181951586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.84||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.15|||Regression, Cox|||||1.15|0.62|0.28
91032965|NCT00064753|181951587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.95||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.23|||Regression, Cox|P was calculated with stratified proportional hazards models stratified by country||||1.23|0.73|0.70
91032966|NCT00064753|181951588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.14||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.65|||Regression, Cox|P was calculated with stratified proportional hazards models stratified by country||||1.65|0.79|0.49
90830253|NCT03084796|181533559|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.32||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.76|||Regression, Cox|||"Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||1.76|1.00|0.052
90830254|NCT03084796|181533559|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|2.26|||Regression, Cox|||"Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||2.26|1.28|<0.001
90830255|NCT03084796|181533559|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|2.48|||Regression, Cox|||"Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||2.48|1.41|<0.001
90830256|NCT03084796|181533559|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.28||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.69|||Regression, Cox|||"Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||1.69|0.98|0.074
90830257|NCT03084796|181533559|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.41||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.85|||Regression, Cox|||"Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||1.85|1.08|0.013
90830258|NCT03084796|181533559|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.44|||Regression, Cox|||"Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||1.44|0.84|0.494
90830259|NCT03084796|181533561|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.059||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.011|0.107|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Analyzed using linear mixed model repeated for measurements (MMRM), including treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, US regions (Midwest, Northeast, South and West), and smoking status at screening as fixed effects, and the baseline value, and baseline by visit interaction as covariates."||0.107|0.011|0.017
90830260|NCT03084796|181533561|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.032|0.128|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.128|0.032|0.001
90830261|NCT03084796|181533561|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.122|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.074|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.170|0.074|<0.001
90830262|NCT03084796|181533561|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio, log|0.111|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.063|0.159|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.159|0.063|<0.001
90830263|NCT03084796|181533561|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.122|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.074|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment F (Tiotropium 18 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.170|0.074|<0.001
90830264|NCT03084796|181533561|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.021||||0.377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.026|0.069|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.069|-0.026|0.377
90830265|NCT03084796|181533561|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.063||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.015|0.111|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.111|0.015|0.010
90830266|NCT03084796|181533561|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.052||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.005|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.100|0.005|0.031
90830267|NCT03084796|181533561|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.042||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.006|0.089|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.089|-0.006|0.085
90830268|NCT03084796|181533561|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.031||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.016|0.079|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.079|-0.016|0.199
90893990|NCT00540124|181653404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.207||95.0||||P-value for 12 Week Change. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values are from ANCOVA with effects for treatment, prior alpha blocker use (yes/no), time (visit), baseline value, and time\*treatment interaction. Model used an unstructured covariance.|ANCOVA|||||||0.207
90893991|NCT00540124|181653404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.581||95.0||||P-value for 12 Week Change. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values are from ANCOVA with effects for treatment, prior alpha blocker use (yes/no), time (visit), baseline value, and time\*treatment interaction. Model used an unstructured covariance.|ANCOVA|||||||0.581
90893992|NCT00540124|181653405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.306||95.0||||P-value for 4 Week Change. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values are from ANCOVA with effects for treatment, prior alpha blocker use (yes/no), time (visit), baseline value, and time\*treatment interaction. Model used an unstructured covariance.|ANCOVA|||||||0.306
90893993|NCT00540124|181653405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.762||95.0||||P-value for 4 Week Change. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values are from ANCOVA with effects for treatment, prior alpha blocker use (yes/no), time (visit), baseline value, and time\*treatment interaction. Model used an unstructured covariance.|ANCOVA|||||||0.762
90830269|NCT03084796|181533561|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.011||||0.657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.058|0.037|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.037|-0.058|0.657
90830270|NCT03084796|181533561|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.032||||0.246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.022|0.086|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.086|-0.022|0.246
90830271|NCT03084796|181533561|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.046|0.154|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.154|0.046|<0.001
90830272|NCT03084796|181533561|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.119|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.064|0.173|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.173|0.064|<0.001
90893994|NCT00540124|181653405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.203||95.0||||P-value for 8 Week Change. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values are from ANCOVA with effects for treatment, prior alpha blocker use (yes/no), time (visit), baseline value, and time\*treatment interaction. Model used an unstructured covariance.|ANCOVA|||||||0.203
90893995|NCT00540124|181653405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.464||95.0||||P-value for 8 Week Change. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values are from ANCOVA with effects for treatment, prior alpha blocker use (yes/no), time (visit), baseline value, and time\*treatment interaction. Model used an unstructured covariance.|ANCOVA|||||||0.464
91023779|NCT00106028|181930841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.473||||0.6106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.245|7.192|||ANCOVA|LS means and p-value are from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline and fixed effects for age group, treatment and pooled center for post-baseline.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||7.192|-4.245|0.6106
91023780|NCT00106028|181930842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.315||||0.9372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.598|8.229|||ANCOVA|LS means and p-value are from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline and fixed effects for age group, treatment and pooled center for post-baseline.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||8.229|-7.598|0.9372
91023781|NCT00106028|181930843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|31.675|||<|0.0001||95.0|21.051|42.3|||ANCOVA|LS means and p-value are from ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline and fixed effects for age group, treatment and pooled center for post-baseline.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||42.300|21.051|<0.0001
90830273|NCT03084796|181533561|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.142|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.088|0.196|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.196|0.088|<0.001
90830274|NCT03084796|181533561|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.124|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.178|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment F (Tiotropium 18 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.178|0.070|<0.001
90893996|NCT00540124|181653405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.169||95.0||||P-value for 12 Week Change. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values are from ANCOVA with effects for treatment, prior alpha blocker use (yes/no), time (visit), baseline value, and time\*treatment interaction. Model used an unstructured covariance.|ANCOVA|||||||0.169
90958896|NCT04874415|181797839|SUPERIORITY|Main effects of each intervention factor were estimated using linear regression including all prespecified two-way interactions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|4.6|||||Fixed step count is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|||4.6|-9.4|
90893997|NCT00540124|181653405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.243||95.0||||P-value for 12 Week Change. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values are from ANCOVA with effects for treatment, prior alpha blocker use (yes/no), time (visit), baseline value, and time\*treatment interaction. Model used an unstructured covariance.|ANCOVA|||||||0.243
90830275|NCT03084796|181533561|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.068||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.014|0.121|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.121|0.014|0.014
90830276|NCT03084796|181533561|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.087||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.032|0.141|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.141|0.032|0.002
90830277|NCT03084796|181533561|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.057|0.163|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.163|0.057|<0.001
90830278|NCT03084796|181533561|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.019||||0.493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.035|0.073|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.073|-0.035|0.493
90830279|NCT03084796|181533561|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.042||||0.119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.011|0.096|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.096|-0.011|0.119
90830280|NCT03084796|181533561|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.023||||0.392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.077|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.077|-0.030|0.392
90830281|NCT03084796|181533562|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.109||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.015|0.203|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Analyzed using linear mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM), including treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, US regions (Midwest, Northeast, South and West), and smoking status at screening as fixed effects, and the baseline value, and baseline by visit interaction as covariates."||0.203|0.015|0.023
90830282|NCT03084796|181533562|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.003|0.184|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.184|-0.003|0.058
90830283|NCT03084796|181533562|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.059||||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.035|0.153|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.153|-0.035|0.215
90830284|NCT03084796|181533562|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.093||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|0.187|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.187|-0.001|0.051
91087130|NCT01519817|182056863|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.|||||>|0.9999||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of MDSC cells at dose level 1.|Wilcoxon test|||||||>0.9999
90830285|NCT03084796|181533562|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.044||||0.364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.051|0.138|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment F (Tiotropium 18 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.138|-0.051|0.364
90830286|NCT03084796|181533562|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.019||||0.694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.112|0.074|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.074|-0.112|0.694
90830287|NCT03084796|181533562|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.143|0.044|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.044|-0.143|0.297
90830288|NCT03084796|181533562|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.016||||0.734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.109|0.077|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.077|-0.109|0.734
90830289|NCT03084796|181533562|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.031||||0.514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.124|0.062|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.062|-0.124|0.514
90830290|NCT03084796|181533562|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.003||||0.957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.095|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.095|-0.090|0.957
91032967|NCT00064753|181951589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.14||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|2.8|||Regression, Cox|P was calculated with stratified proportional hazards models stratified by country||||2.80|0.46|0.78
91087131|NCT01519817|182056863|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.38||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of MDSC cells at dose level 3.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.38
90893998|NCT00540124|181653406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.206||95.0||||P-value for 4 Week Change. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values are from ANCOVA with effects for treatment, prior alpha blocker use (yes/no), time (visit), baseline value, and time\*treatment interaction. Model used an unstructured covariance.|ANCOVA|||||||0.206
90893999|NCT00540124|181653406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.457||95.0||||P-value for 4 Week Change. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values are from ANCOVA with effects for treatment, prior alpha blocker use (yes/no), time (visit), baseline value, and time\*treatment interaction. Model used an unstructured covariance.|ANCOVA|||||||0.457
90894000|NCT00540124|181653406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.892||95.0||||P-value for 8 Week Change. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values are from ANCOVA with effects for treatment, prior alpha blocker use (yes/no), time (visit), baseline value, and time\*treatment interaction. Model used an unstructured covariance.|ANCOVA|||||||0.892
90894001|NCT00540124|181653406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.593||95.0||||P-value for 8 Week Change. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values are from ANCOVA with effects for treatment, prior alpha blocker use (yes/no), time (visit), baseline value, and time\*treatment interaction. Model used an unstructured covariance.|ANCOVA|||||||0.593
90894002|NCT00540124|181653406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.887||95.0||||P-value for 12 Week Change. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values are from ANCOVA with effects for treatment, prior alpha blocker use (yes/no), time (visit), baseline value, and time\*treatment interaction. Model used an unstructured covariance.|ANCOVA|||||||0.887
91087132|NCT01519817|182056863|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.91||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of MDSC cells at dose level 4.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.91
90830291|NCT03084796|181533562|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.034||||0.479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.127|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.127|-0.060|0.479
90830292|NCT03084796|181533562|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.079|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.120|-0.079|0.687
90830293|NCT03084796|181533562|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.066||||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.034|0.165|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.165|-0.034|0.195
90830294|NCT03084796|181533562|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.111||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.011|0.212|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.212|0.011|0.030
90830295|NCT03084796|181533562|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.019|0.179|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.179|-0.019|0.112
90830296|NCT03084796|181533562|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.074||||0.147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.026|0.174|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment F (Tiotropium 18 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.174|-0.026|0.147
90830297|NCT03084796|181533562|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.045||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.054|0.144|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.144|-0.054|0.370
90830298|NCT03084796|181533562|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.091||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.009|0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.190|-0.009|0.074
90830299|NCT03084796|181533562|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.039|0.158|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.158|-0.039|0.233
90830300|NCT03084796|181533562|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.046||||0.369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.054|0.145|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.145|-0.054|0.369
90894003|NCT00540124|181653406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.762||95.0||||P-value for 12 Week Change. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values are from ANCOVA with effects for treatment, prior alpha blocker use (yes/no), time (visit), baseline value, and time\*treatment interaction. Model used an unstructured covariance.|ANCOVA|||||||0.762
90958897|NCT04874415|181797839|SUPERIORITY|Main effects of each intervention factor were estimated using linear regression including all prespecified two-way interactions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|3.1|||||Loss framed incentive is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|||3.1|-11|
91087133|NCT01519817|182056863|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.2666||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of all Treg cells at dose levels 1, 3, and 4. We could not do dose level 2 as we only had data on 2 patients and need an n\>2 to do paired analyses.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.2666
91087134|NCT01519817|182056863|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.88||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of Treg cells at dose level 1.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.88
91087135|NCT01519817|182056863|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.45||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of Treg cells at dose level 1.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.45
91087136|NCT01519817|182056863|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.36||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of Treg cells at dose level 4.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.36
90830301|NCT03084796|181533562|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.014||||0.773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.084|0.112|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.112|-0.084|0.773
90830302|NCT03084796|181533562|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.031||||0.536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.068|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.068|-0.130|0.536
90830303|NCT03084796|181533563|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.77|||Regression, Logistic|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Analysis based on logistic regression model - multiple logistic regression model, with treatment, US regions, smoking status at screening, and BDI as covariates."||1.77|0.62|0.848
90830304|NCT03084796|181533563|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.28|||Regression, Logistic|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||2.28|0.80|0.264
90830305|NCT03084796|181533563|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.18|||Regression, Logistic|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||2.18|0.76|0.343
90830306|NCT03084796|181533563|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|2.98|||Regression, Logistic|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||2.98|1.02|0.042
90830307|NCT03084796|181533563|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.02|||Regression, Logistic|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment F (Tiotropium 18 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||2.02|0.71|0.503
90830308|NCT03084796|181533563|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28||||0.354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.16|||Regression, Logistic|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||2.16|0.76|0.354
90830309|NCT03084796|181533563|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.07|||Regression, Logistic|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||2.07|0.73|0.447
90830310|NCT03084796|181533563|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.66||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|2.83|||Regression, Logistic|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||2.83|0.97|0.064
90830311|NCT03084796|181533563|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.62|||Regression, Logistic|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||1.62|0.57|0.867
90894004|NCT00540124|181653407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.691||95.0||||P-value for 12 Week Change. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values are from an ANCOVA with effects for treatment, prior alpha blocker use (yes/no), and baseline value, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||||||0.691
90830312|NCT03084796|181533563|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.22|||Regression, Logistic|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||2.22|0.76|0.347
90830313|NCT03084796|181533563|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.32|||Regression, Logistic|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||2.32|0.79|0.269
90894005|NCT00540124|181653407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.415||95.0||||P-value for 12 Week Change. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values are from an ANCOVA with effects for treatment, prior alpha blocker use (yes/no), and baseline value, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||||||0.415
91087137|NCT01519817|182056863|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.0076||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of all CD4 EM cells at dose levels 1, 3, and 4. We could not do dose level 2 as we only had data on 2 patients and need an n\>2 to do paired analyses.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.0076
91087138|NCT01519817|182056863|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.38||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD4 EM cells at dose level 1.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.38
91087139|NCT01519817|182056863|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.22||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD4 EM cells at dose level 3.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.22
90830314|NCT03084796|181533563|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.92||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|3.3|||Regression, Logistic|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure.~Analysis based on logistic regression model - multiple logistic regression model, with treatment, US regions, smoking status at screening, and BDI as covariates."||3.30|1.12|0.018
90830315|NCT03084796|181533563|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|4.49|||Regression, Logistic|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||4.49|1.50|<0.001
90830316|NCT03084796|181533563|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.75|5.44|||Regression, Logistic|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||5.44|1.75|<0.001
90830317|NCT03084796|181533563|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.94|6.02|||Regression, Logistic|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||6.02|1.94|<0.001
90830318|NCT03084796|181533563|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.45||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|4.26|||Regression, Logistic|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment F (Tiotropium 18 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||4.26|1.41|0.001
90830319|NCT03084796|181533563|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.35|||Regression, Logistic|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||2.35|0.78|0.284
90830320|NCT03084796|181533563|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.61||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|2.84|||Regression, Logistic|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||2.84|0.91|0.103
90830321|NCT03084796|181533563|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.78||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|3.14|||Regression, Logistic|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||3.14|1.01|0.045
90830322|NCT03084796|181533563|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|2.12|||Regression, Logistic|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||2.12|0.67|0.557
90830323|NCT03084796|181533563|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|2.34|||Regression, Logistic|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||2.34|0.74|0.345
90830324|NCT03084796|181533563|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|2.0|||Regression, Logistic|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||2.00|0.61|0.732
90894006|NCT00540124|181653408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.176||95.0||||P-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Test with modified ridit scores controlling for alpha block use (yes/no) and lower urinary tract symptom severity as stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.176
91023782|NCT00106028|181930844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|14.029||||0.0793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.667|29.726|||ANCOVA|LS means and p-value are from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline and fixed effects for age group, treatment and pooled center for post-baseline.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||29.726|-1.667|0.0793
91023783|NCT00106028|181930845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.567|||<|0.0001||95.0|5.59|11.545|||ANCOVA|LS means and p-value are from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline and with fixed effects for age group, treatment and pooled center for post-baseline.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||11.545|5.590|<0.0001
91023784|NCT00106028|181930846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.315||||0.4575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.477|23.107|||ANCOVA|LS means and p-value are from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline and fixed effects for age group, treatment and pooled center for post-baseline.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||23.107|-10.477|0.4575
91023785|NCT00106028|181930847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|37.594||||0.0172||95.0|6.801|68.386|||ANCOVA|LS means and p-value are from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline and fixed effects for age group, treatment and pooled center for post-baseline.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||68.386|6.801|0.0172
91087140|NCT01519817|182056863|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.1||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD4 EM cells at dose level 4.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.10
91087141|NCT01519817|182056863|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.7144||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of all CD4 CM cells at dose levels 1, 3, and 4. We could not do dose level 2 as we only had data on 2 patients and need an n\>2 to do paired analyses.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.7144
91087142|NCT01519817|182056863|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.13||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD4 CM cells at dose level 1.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.13
91087143|NCT01519817|182056863|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.06||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD4 CM cells at dose level 3.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.06
91087144|NCT01519817|182056863|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.13||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD4 CM cells at dose level 4.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.13
91087145|NCT01519817|182056863|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.3741||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of all CD4 EMRA cells at dose levels 1, 3, and 4. We could not do dose level 2 as we only had data on 2 patients and need an n\>2 to do paired analyses.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.3741
91087146|NCT01519817|182056863|NON_INFERIORITY|The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD4 EMRA cells at dose level 1.||||||0.63|||||||Wilcoxon test|||||||0.63
91087147|NCT01519817|182056863|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.13||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD4 EMRA cells at dose level 3.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.13
91087148|NCT01519817|182056863|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.|||||>|0.9999||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD4 EMRA cells at dose level 4.|Wilcoxon test|||||||>0.9999
91087149|NCT01519817|182056863|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.3386||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of all CD4 naive cells at dose levels 1, 3, and 4. We could not do dose level 2 as we only had data on 2 patients and need an n\>2 to do paired analyses.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.3386
91087150|NCT01519817|182056863|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.88||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD4 naive cells at dose level 1.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.88
91087151|NCT01519817|182056863|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.0215||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD4 naive cells at dose level 3.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.0215
90894007|NCT00540124|181653408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.921||95.0||||P-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Test with modified ridit scores controlling for alpha block use (yes/no) and lower urinary tract symptom severity as stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.921
90894008|NCT00540124|181653409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.429||95.0||||P-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Test with modified ridit scores controlling for alpha block use (yes/no) and lower urinary tract symptom severity as stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.429
91087152|NCT01519817|182056863|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.65||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD4 naive cells at dose level 4.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.65
91087153|NCT01519817|182056863|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.5076||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of all CD8 EM cells at dose levels 1, 3, and 4. We could not do dose level 2 as we only had data on 2 patients and need an n\>2 to do paired analyses.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.5076
91087154|NCT01519817|182056863|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.63||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD8 EM cells at dose level 1.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.63
91087155|NCT01519817|182056863|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.68||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD8 EM cells at dose level 3.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.68
91087156|NCT01519817|182056863|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.73||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD8 EM cells at dose level 4.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.73
91087157|NCT01519817|182056863|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.6577||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of all CD8 CM cells at dose levels 1, 3, and 4. We could not do dose level 2 as we only had data on 2 patients and need an n\>2 to do paired analyses.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.6577
91087158|NCT01519817|182056863|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.88||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD8 CM cells at dose level 1.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.88
91087159|NCT01519817|182056863|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.74||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD8 CM cells at dose level 3.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.74
91087160|NCT01519817|182056863|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.2||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD8 CM cells at dose level 4.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.20
91087161|NCT01519817|182056863|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.6295||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of all CD8 EMRA cells at dose levels 1, 3, and 4. We could not do dose level 2 as we only had data on 2 patients and need an n\>2 to do paired analyses.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.6295
91023786|NCT00106028|181930848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.492||||0.9786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.807|35.824|||ANCOVA|LS means and p-value are from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline and fixed effects for age group, treatment and pooled center for post-baseline.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||35.824|-36.807|0.9786
91023787|NCT00106028|181930849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.64||||0.5971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.952|23.672|||ANCOVA|LS means and p-value are from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline and fixed effects for age group, treatment and pooled center for post-baseline.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||23.672|-40.952|0.5971
91023788|NCT00106028|181930850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.014||||0.4154||95.0|-1.442|3.47|||ANCOVA|LS means and p-value are from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline and fixed effects for age group, treatment and pooled center for post-baseline.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||3.470|-1.442|0.4154
91023789|NCT00106028|181930851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.884||||0.6404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.855|4.623|||ANCOVA|LS means and p-value are from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline and fixed effects for age group, treatment and pooled center for post-baseline.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||4.623|-2.855|0.6404
91023790|NCT00106028|181930852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.66||||0.4978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.499|3.179|||ANCOVA|LS means and p-value are from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline and fixed effects for age group, treatment and pooled center for post-baseline.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||3.179|-6.499|0.4978
91023791|NCT00106028|181930853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.534||||0.027||95.0|0.41|6.658|||ANCOVA|LS means and p-value are from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline and fixed effects for age group, treatment and pooled center for post-baseline.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||6.658|0.410|0.0270
91023792|NCT00106028|181930854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.065||||0.5925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.868|4.998|||ANCOVA|LS means and p-value are from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline and fixed effects for age group, treatment and pooled center for post-baseline.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||4.998|-2.868|0.5925
91023793|NCT00106028|181930855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.193||||0.684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.604|6.991|||ANCOVA|LS means and p-value are from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline and fixed effects for age group, treatment and pooled center for post-baseline.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||6.991|-4.604|0.6840
91023794|NCT00106028|181930856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.068||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||||0.0680
91023795|NCT00106028|181930857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4121||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||||0.4121
90894009|NCT00540124|181653409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.304||95.0||||P-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Test with modified ridit scores controlling for alpha block use (yes/no) and lower urinary tract symptom severity as stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.304
90830325|NCT03084796|181533564|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Analyzed using linear mixed model repeated for measurements (MMRM), including treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, US regions (Midwest, Northeast, South and West), and smoking status at screening as fixed effects, and the BDI, BDI by visit interaction as covariates."||0.81|-0.52|0.666
90830326|NCT03084796|181533564|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41||||0.224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|1.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||1.07|-0.25|0.224
90830327|NCT03084796|181533564|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|1.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||1.06|-0.27|0.239
90830328|NCT03084796|181533564|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||1.46|0.13|0.019
90830329|NCT03084796|181533564|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.52||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|1.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment F (Tiotropium 18 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||1.19|-0.14|0.124
90830330|NCT03084796|181533564|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26||||0.432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.92|-0.39|0.432
90830331|NCT03084796|181533564|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.25||||0.454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.91|-0.41|0.454
90830332|NCT03084796|181533564|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.65||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|1.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||1.31|-0.01|0.053
90830333|NCT03084796|181533564|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.65|-0.67|0.973
90830334|NCT03084796|181533564|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.39||||0.247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|1.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||1.04|-0.27|0.247
90830335|NCT03084796|181533564|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|1.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||1.06|-0.26|0.235
90830336|NCT03084796|181533564|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.61||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|1.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||1.28|-0.05|0.071
90830337|NCT03084796|181533564|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.98||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||1.64|0.32|0.004
90830338|NCT03084796|181533564|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.01||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||1.68|0.35|0.003
91023796|NCT00106028|181930858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3658||95.0|||||Savage Exact Test|||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||||0.3658
90830339|NCT03084796|181533564|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|2.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||2.18|0.86|<0.001
90830340|NCT03084796|181533564|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.08||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment F (Tiotropium 18 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||1.75|0.41|0.002
91032968|NCT00064753|181951590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.61||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|2.57|||Regression, Cox|P was calculated with stratified proportional hazards models stratified by country||||2.57|0.15|0.50
90830341|NCT03084796|181533564|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37||||0.271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|1.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||1.03|-0.29|0.271
90830342|NCT03084796|181533564|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|1.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||1.06|-0.26|0.235
90830343|NCT03084796|181533564|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||1.56|0.25|0.007
90830344|NCT03084796|181533564|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.69|-0.63|0.923
90830345|NCT03084796|181533564|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.53||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|1.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||1.19|-0.12|0.108
90830346|NCT03084796|181533564|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|1.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||1.16|-0.16|0.134
90830347|NCT03084796|181533565|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.88||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|14.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-Visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Analyzed using linear mixed model repeated for measurements (MMRM), including inter-visit period, treatment by inter-visit period interaction, US regions (Midwest, Northeast, South and West), and smoking status at screening as fixed effects, and the baseline value, and baseline by inter-visit period interaction as covariates."||14.63|1.13|0.022
90830348|NCT03084796|181533565|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.78||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|13.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-Visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||13.48|0.07|0.048
90830349|NCT03084796|181533565|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.65||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|13.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-Visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||13.40|-0.09|0.053
90830350|NCT03084796|181533565|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.29||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.55|16.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-Visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||16.04|2.55|0.007
90830351|NCT03084796|181533565|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.61||||0.191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.31|11.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-Visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment F (Tiotropium 18 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||11.53|-2.31|0.191
90830352|NCT03084796|181533565|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|5.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-Visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||5.60|-7.80|0.747
90830353|NCT03084796|181533565|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.23||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.96|5.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-Visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||5.50|-7.96|0.720
90830354|NCT03084796|181533565|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.41||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.31|8.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-Visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||8.14|-5.31|0.680
90830355|NCT03084796|181533565|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.82|6.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-Visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||6.57|-6.82|0.971
90830356|NCT03084796|181533565|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.52||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.17|9.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-Visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||9.21|-4.17|0.460
90830357|NCT03084796|181533565|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.64||||0.441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.09|9.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-Visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||9.37|-4.09|0.441
90894010|NCT00540124|181653410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.254||95.0||||P-value for 12 Week Change Waking Voids. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values for pairwise comparison of change difference based on Wilcoxon Rank Sum test.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||||0.254
90894011|NCT00540124|181653410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.359||95.0||||P-value for 12 Week Change Waking Voids. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values for pairwise comparison of change difference based on Wilcoxon Rank Sum test.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||||0.359
90830358|NCT03084796|181533565|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.76||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|14.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-Visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||14.08|-0.55|0.070
90830359|NCT03084796|181533565|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.44||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|15.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-Visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||15.72|1.16|0.023
90830360|NCT03084796|181533565|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.96||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|14.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-Visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||14.31|-0.40|0.064
90830361|NCT03084796|181533565|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.08||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.79|18.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-Visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||18.38|3.79|0.003
90830362|NCT03084796|181533565|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.2||||0.274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.32|11.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-Visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment F (Tiotropium 18 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||11.72|-3.32|0.274
90830363|NCT03084796|181533565|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.68||||0.649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.57|8.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-Visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||8.93|-5.57|0.649
90830364|NCT03084796|181533565|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.12|7.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-Visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||7.51|-7.12|0.958
90830365|NCT03084796|181533565|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.32||||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.93|11.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-Visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||11.58|-2.93|0.242
90894012|NCT00540124|181653410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.098||95.0||||P-value for 12 Week Change Sleeping Voids. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values for pairwise comparison of change difference based on Wilcoxon Rank Sum test.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||||0.098
90894013|NCT00540124|181653410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.632||95.0||||P-value for 12 Week Change Sleeping Voids. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values for pairwise comparison of change difference based on Wilcoxon Rank Sum test.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||||0.632
90894014|NCT00540124|181653410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.102||95.0||||P-value for 12 Week Change Total Voids. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values for pairwise comparison of change difference based on Wilcoxon Rank Sum test.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||||0.102
90956966|NCT05559476|181793652|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority is demonstrated if the UL of the 2-sided 95% CI of the group GMT ratio (Control group divided by Co-Ad group) for HI antibody titers for the Flu strain is \<=1.5.|GMT Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.09|||||The comparison was done using the adjusted group ratio of GMT (ANCOVA model applied to the logarithm- transformed titers). The ANCOVA model included the treatment group, the age category as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the FLU vaccine when co-administered with the RSVPreF3 OA vaccine compared to the FLU vaccine administered alone, in terms of HI GMTs against the Flu A/Victoria/2570/2019 H1N1 influenza strain, at 1 month post-FLU vaccine dose administration (Day 31 for both groups).||1.09|0.80|
90956967|NCT05559476|181793652|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority is demonstrated if the UL of the 2-sided 95% CI of the group GMT ratio (Control group divided by Co-Ad group) for HI antibody titers for the Flu strain is \<=1.5.|GMT Ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.03|||||The comparison was done using the adjusted group ratio of GMT (ANCOVA model applied to the logarithm- transformed titers). The ANCOVA model included the treatment group, the age category as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the FLU vaccine when co administered with the RSVPreF3 OA vaccine compared to the FLU vaccine administered alone, in terms of HI GMTs against the Flu B/Austria/1359417/2021 influenza strain, at 1 month post-FLU vaccine dose administration (Day 31 for both groups).||1.03|0.88|
90958898|NCT04874415|181797839|SUPERIORITY|Main effects of each intervention factor were estimated using linear regression including all prespecified two-way interactions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|9.8|||||Daily step count goal is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|||9.8|-1.0|
91023797|NCT00106028|181930859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3408||95.0|||||Savage Exact Test|||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||||0.3408
91032969|NCT00064753|181951591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.3||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|3.5|||Regression, Cox|P was calculated with stratified proportional hazards models stratified by country||||3.50|0.48|0.60
90894015|NCT00540124|181653410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.348||95.0||||P-value for 12 Week Change Total Voids. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values for pairwise comparison of change difference based on Wilcoxon Rank Sum test.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||||0.348
90830366|NCT03084796|181533565|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.48||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.77|5.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-Visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||5.81|-8.77|0.690
90830367|NCT03084796|181533565|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.64||||0.473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.58|9.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-Visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||9.87|-4.58|0.473
90830368|NCT03084796|181533565|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.13||||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.17|11.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-Visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||11.43|-3.17|0.267
90830369|NCT03084796|181533565|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.32||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|13.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||13.99|0.65|0.032
90830370|NCT03084796|181533565|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.61||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|14.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||14.24|0.97|0.025
90830371|NCT03084796|181533565|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.8||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|13.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||13.49|0.12|0.046
90830372|NCT03084796|181533565|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.19||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.52|16.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||16.85|3.52|0.003
90830373|NCT03084796|181533565|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.4||||0.207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.45|11.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment F (Tiotropium 18 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||11.25|-2.45|0.207
90830374|NCT03084796|181533565|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29||||0.932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.33|6.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||6.91|-6.33|0.932
90830375|NCT03084796|181533565|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52||||0.879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.17|6.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||6.14|-7.17|0.879
90830376|NCT03084796|181533565|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.87||||0.396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.77|9.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||9.50|-3.77|0.396
90830377|NCT03084796|181533565|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.44|5.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||5.83|-7.44|0.812
90830378|NCT03084796|181533565|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.58||||0.444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.03|9.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||9.19|-4.03|0.444
90830379|NCT03084796|181533565|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.38||||0.319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.27|10.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||10.04|-3.27|0.319
90830380|NCT03084796|181533566|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Analyzed, using linear mixed model repeated for measurements (MMRM), including treatment, inter-visit period, treatment by inter-visit period interaction, US regions (Midwest, Northeast, South and West), and smoking status at screening as fixed effects, and the baseline value, and baseline by inter-visit period interaction as covariates."||-0.18|-0.67|<0.001
90830381|NCT03084796|181533566|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||-0.04|-0.53|0.023
90830382|NCT03084796|181533566|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.02|-0.47|0.067
90830383|NCT03084796|181533566|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||-0.17|-0.66|<0.001
90830384|NCT03084796|181533566|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment F (Tiotropium 18 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.03|-0.47|0.084
90830385|NCT03084796|181533566|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.39|-0.10|0.243
90830386|NCT03084796|181533566|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.44|-0.05|0.112
90956968|NCT05559476|181793652|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority is demonstrated if the UL of the 2-sided 95% CI of the group GMT ratio (Control group divided by Co-Ad group) for HI antibody titers for the Flu strain is \<=1.5.|GMT Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.02|||||The comparison was done using the adjusted group ratio of GMT (ANCOVA model applied to the logarithm- transformed titers). The ANCOVA model included the treatment group, the age category as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the FLU vaccine when co administered with the RSVPreF3 OA vaccine compared to the FLU vaccine administered alone, in terms of HI GMTs against the Flu B/Phuket/3073/2013 Yamagata influenza strain, at 1 month post-FLU vaccine dose administration (Day 31 for both groups).||1.02|0.84|
90956969|NCT05559476|181793653|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority is demonstrated if the UL of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio (Control group divided by Co-Ad group) for RSVPreF3 OA vaccine is \<=1.5.|GMT Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.15|||||The comparison was done using the adjusted group ratio of GMT (ANCOVA model applied to the logarithm- transformed titers). The ANCOVA model included the treatment group, the age category as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the RSVPreF3 OA vaccine when co-administered with the FLU vaccine compared to the RSVPreF3 OA vaccine administered alone, in terms of RSV-B neutralizing antibody titers, at 1 month after the RSVPreF3 OA vaccine dose (Day 31 for the Co-Ad Group and Day 61 for the Control Group).||1.15|0.89|
90830387|NCT03084796|181533566|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.26|-0.23|0.929
90830388|NCT03084796|181533566|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.30|-0.19|0.668
90956970|NCT05559476|181793654|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority is demonstrated if the UL of the 2-sided 95% CI on the group difference (Control group minus Co-Ad group) in terms of SCR is \<=10% for anti-HI antibodies.|Difference of Percentage|-1.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.15|4.74||||||To evaluate the non-inferiority of the FLU vaccine when co-administered with the RSVPreF3 OA vaccine compared to the FLU vaccine administered alone as measured by the difference of percentage of participants achieving seroconversion for HI antibody titers against Flu A/Darwin/6/2021 H3N2 strain at 1 month post-FLU vaccine dose administration (Day 31 for both groups).||4.74|-8.15|
90956971|NCT05559476|181793654|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority is demonstrated if the UL of the 2-sided 95% CI on the group difference (Control group minus Co-Ad group) in terms of SCR is \<=10% for anti-HI antibodies.|Difference of Percentage|-4.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.67|2.48||||||To evaluate the non-inferiority of the FLU vaccine when co administered with the RSVPreF3 OA vaccine compared to the FLU vaccine administered alone as measured by the difference of percentage of participants achieving seroconversion for HI antibody titers against Flu A/Victoria/2570/2019 H1N1 strain at 1 month post-FLU vaccine dose administration (Day 31 for both groups).||2.48|-10.67|
90956972|NCT05559476|181793654|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority is demonstrated if the UL of the 2-sided 95% CI on the group difference (Control group minus Co-Ad group) in terms of SCR is \<=10% for anti-HI antibodies.|Difference of Percentage|-8.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.75|-2.29||||||To evaluate the non-inferiority of the FLU vaccine when co-administered with the RSVPreF3 OA vaccine compared to the FLU vaccine administered alone as measured by the difference of percentage of participants achieving seroconversion for HI antibody titers against Flu B/Austria/1359417/2021 Victoria at 1 month post-FLU vaccine dose administration (Day 31 for both groups).||-2.29|-14.75|
90956973|NCT05559476|181793654|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority is demonstrated if the UL of the 2-sided 95% CI on the group difference (Control group minus Co-Ad group) in terms of SCR is \<=10% for anti-HI antibodies.|Difference of Percentage|-5.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.28|0.56||||||To evaluate the non-inferiority of the FLU vaccine when co-administered with the RSVPreF3 OA vaccine compared to the FLU vaccine administered alone as measured by the difference of percentage of participants achieving seroconversion for HI antibody titers against Flu B/Phuket/3073/2013 Yamagata strain at 1 month post-FLU vaccine dose administration (Day 31 for both groups).||0.56|-12.28|
91023798|NCT00106028|181930862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.534||||0.0253||95.0|0.31|0.922||All Fractures|Cox proportional hazards|Hazard Ratio and 95% CI based on Cox proportional hazards model stratified by age group with treatment and pooled-country as covariates.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||0.922|0.310|0.0253
91087162|NCT01519817|182056863|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.63||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD8 EMRA cells at dose level 1.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.63
91023799|NCT00106028|181930862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.534||||0.0253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.922||All Non-Vertebral Fractures|Cox Proportional Hazard|Hazard Ratio and 95% CI based on Cox proportional hazards model stratified by age group with treatment and pooled-country as covariates.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||0.922|0.310|0.0253
91023800|NCT00106028|181930862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.487||||0.0501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.95||Long Bone Non-Vertebral Fracture|Cox Proportional Hazards|Hazard Ratio and 95% CI based on Cox proportional hazards model stratified by age group with treatment and pooled-country as covariates.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||0.950|0.250|0.0501
91023801|NCT00106028|181930862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.608||||0.2141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.262|1.41||Other Non-Vertebral Fracture|Cox Proportional Hazard|Hazard Ratio and 95% CI based on Cox proportional hazards model stratified by age group with treatment and pooled-country as covariates.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||1.410|0.262|0.2141
91023802|NCT00106028|181930863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.584||||0.0416||95.0|0.348|0.98||All Fractures|Wald test|Hazard Ratio and 95% CI based on Anderson-Gill mean intensity model stratified by age group with treatment and pooled-country as covariates.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||0.980|0.348|0.0416
91023803|NCT00106028|181930863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.584||||0.0416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.348|0.98||Non-Vertebral Fracture|Wald Test|Hazard Ratio and 95% CI based on Anderson-Gill mean intensity model stratified by age group with treatment and pooled-country as covariates.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||0.980|0.348|0.0416
91023804|NCT00106028|181930863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.543||||0.0799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.274|1.076||Long Bone Non-Vertebral Fracture|Wald Test|Hazard Ratio and 95% CI based on Anderson-Gill mean intensity model stratified by age group with treatment and pooled-country as covariates.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||1.076|0.274|0.0799
91023805|NCT00106028|181930863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.682||||0.682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.304|1.532||Other Non-Vertebral Fracture|Wald Test|Hazard Ratio and 95% CI based on Anderson-Gill mean intensity model stratified by age group with treatment and pooled-country as covariates.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||1.532|0.304|0.682
91023806|NCT00106028|181930864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.678||||0.0318||95.0|-22.325|-1.031|||ANCOVA|LS means and p-value are from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline and fixed effects for age group, treatment and pooled center for post-baseline.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||-1.031|-22.325|0.0318
91023807|NCT00106028|181930865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.067||||0.9907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.401|11.536|||ANCOVA|LS means and p-value are from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline and fixed effects for age group, treatment and pooled center for post-baseline.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||11.536|-11.401|0.9907
91023808|NCT00106028|181930866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.686||||0.3826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.276|5.903|||ANCOVA|LS means and p-value are from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline and fixed effects for age group, treatment and pooled center for post-baseline.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||5.903|-15.276|0.3826
90830389|NCT03084796|181533566|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.11|-0.38|0.281
90830390|NCT03084796|181533566|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.06|-0.43|0.134
90830391|NCT03084796|181533566|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||-0.14|-0.70|0.003
90830392|NCT03084796|181533566|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||-0.05|-0.61|0.020
90830393|NCT03084796|181533566|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||-0.06|-0.62|0.017
90830394|NCT03084796|181533566|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||-0.24|-0.80|<0.001
90830395|NCT03084796|181533566|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment F (Tiotropium 18 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.06|-0.52|0.115
91023809|NCT00106028|181930867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-26.629|||<|0.0001||95.0|-38.089|-15.169|||ANCOVA|LS means and p-value are from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline and fixed effects for age group, treatment and pooled center for post-baseline.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||-15.169|-38.089|<0.0001
90830396|NCT03084796|181533566|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.36|-0.19|0.532
91023810|NCT00106028|181930868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.04||||0.3075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.433|26.512|||ANCOVA|LS means and p-value are from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline and fixed effects for age group, treatment and pooled center for post-baseline.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||26.512|-8.433|0.3075
91023811|NCT00106028|181930869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.039||||0.3998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.849|6.772|||ANCOVA|LS means and p-value are from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline and fixed effects for age group, treatment and pooled center for post-baseline.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||6.772|-16.849|0.3998
91023812|NCT00106028|181930870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.352||||0.1592||95.0|-0.845|0.14|||ANCOVA|LS means and p-value are from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline and fixed effects for age group, treatment and pooled center for post-baseline.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||0.140|-0.845|0.1592
91023813|NCT00106028|181930871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.127||||0.2917||95.0|-0.111|0.365|||ANOVA|LS means and p-value are from ANOVA model with fixed effects for age group, treatment and pooled center for post-baseline.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||0.365|-0.111|0.2917
91032970|NCT02728102|181951654|SUPERIORITY||difference in the proportions|2.9||||0.3657|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-8.8|14.6||A one-sided significance level of 0.10 is used to assess whether the vaccine appears promising relative to control.|Z test|||The proportion of patients alive and in CR/sCR at 1 year post transplant will be described in the vaccine and no vaccine groups with 80% confidence intervals and compared between groups using a two-sample Z test comparing binomial proportions.||14.6|-8.8|0.3657
90830397|NCT03084796|181533566|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.35|-0.21|0.603
91087163|NCT01519817|182056863|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.|||||>|0.999||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD8 EMRA cells at dose level 3.|Wilcoxon test|||||||>0.999
91087164|NCT01519817|182056863|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.36||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD8 EMRA cells at dose level 4.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.36
91087165|NCT01519817|182056863|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.8314||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of all CD8 naive cells at dose levels 1, 3, and 4. We could not do dose level 2 as we only had data on 2 patients and need an n\>2 to do paired analyses.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.8314
91087166|NCT01519817|182056863|NON_INFERIORITY|The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD8 naive cells at dose level 1.||||||0.63|||||||Wilcoxon test|||||||0.63
91087167|NCT01519817|182056863|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.64||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD8 naive cells at dose level 3.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.64
91087168|NCT01519817|182056863|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.3||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD8 naive cells at dose level 4.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.30
91087169|NCT01519817|182056864|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.375||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IFNg cytokines at dose level 1.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.375
91087170|NCT01519817|182056864|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.4808||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of all IFNg cytokines at dose levels 1, 3, and 4. We could not do dose level 2 as we only had data on 2 patients and need an n\>2 to do paired analyses.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.4808
91087171|NCT01519817|182056864|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.7334||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IFNg cytokines at dose level 3.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.7334
91087172|NCT01519817|182056864|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.7109||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IFNg cytokines at dose level 4.|Wilcoxon|||||||0.7109
91087173|NCT01519817|182056864|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.4347||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of all IL10 cytokines at dose levels 1, 3, and 4. We could not do dose level 2 as we only had data on 2 patients and need an n\>2 to do paired analyses.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.4347
91087174|NCT01519817|182056864|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.|||||>|0.9999||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IL10 cytokines at dose level 1.|Wilcoxon|||||||>0.9999
91087175|NCT01519817|182056864|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.748||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IL10 cytokines at dose level 3.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.748
91087176|NCT01519817|182056864|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.8203|||||||Wilcoxon test|The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IL10 cytokines at dose level 4.||||||0.8203
91087177|NCT01519817|182056864|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.5625||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of all IL12p70 cytokines at dose levels 1, 3, and 4. We could not do dose level 2 as we only had data on 2 patients and need an n\>2 to do paired analyses.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.5625
91087178|NCT01519817|182056864|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.|||||>|0.9999||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IL12p70 cytokines at dose level 1.|Wilcoxon test|||||||>0.9999
91087179|NCT01519817|182056864|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.|||||>|0.9999||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IL12p70 cytokines at dose level 3.|Wilcoxon test|||||||>0.9999
91087180|NCT01519817|182056864|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.5||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IL12p70 cytokines at dose level 14|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.5
91087181|NCT01519817|182056864|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.6846||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of all IL1b cytokines at dose levels 1, 3, and 4. We could not do dose level 2 as we only had data on 2 patients and need an n\>2 to do paired analyses.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.6846
91087182|NCT01519817|182056864|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.|||||>|0.9999||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IL1b cytokines at dose level 1.|Wilcoxon test|||||||>0.9999
91087183|NCT01519817|182056864|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.5||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IL1b cytokines at dose level 3.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.5
91087184|NCT01519817|182056864|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.|||||>|0.9999||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IL1b cytokines at dose level 4.|Wilcoxon test|||||||>0.9999
90830398|NCT03084796|181533566|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.17|-0.38|0.460
90830399|NCT03084796|181533566|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD.~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.26|-0.29|0.921
90830400|NCT03084796|181533566|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.08|-0.47|0.172
90830401|NCT03084796|181533566|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.10|-0.46|0.210
90830402|NCT03084796|181533566|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||-0.17|-0.67|<0.001
90830403|NCT03084796|181533566|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||-0.06|-0.55|0.016
90830404|NCT03084796|181533566|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||-0.04|-0.54|0.025
90830405|NCT03084796|181533566|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||-0.22|-0.72|<0.001
90830406|NCT03084796|181533566|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment F (Tiotropium 18 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.03|-0.48|0.083
90830407|NCT03084796|181533566|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.36|-0.13|0.355
90830408|NCT03084796|181533566|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.38|-0.11|0.283
90830409|NCT03084796|181533566|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.20|-0.29|0.712
90830410|NCT03084796|181533566|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.27|-0.23|0.877
90830411|NCT03084796|181533566|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16||||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.08|-0.41|0.195
90830412|NCT03084796|181533566|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.07|-0.43|0.150
90894016|NCT00540124|181653411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.208||95.0||||P-value for 12 Week Change. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values for pairwise comparison of change difference based on Wilcoxon Rank Sum test.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||||0.208
91023814|NCT00106028|181930872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.007||||0.9622||95.0|-0.304|0.319|||ANOVA|LS mean and p-value are from ANOVA model adjusted by baseline and fixed effects for age group, treatment and pooled center for post-baseline.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||0.319|-0.304|0.9622
90830413|NCT03084796|181533567|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.967||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.753|-0.181|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Analyzed using linear mixed model repeated for measurements (MMRM), including treatment, inter-visit period, treatment by inter-visit period interaction, US regions (Midwest, Northeast, South and West), and smoking status at screening as fixed effects, and the baseline value, and baseline by inter-visit period interaction as covariates."||-0.181|-1.753|0.016
90830414|NCT03084796|181533567|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.824||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.606|-0.043|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||-0.043|-1.606|0.039
90830415|NCT03084796|181533567|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.227||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.012|-0.441|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||-0.441|-2.012|0.002
90830416|NCT03084796|181533567|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.949||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.733|-0.164|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||-0.164|-1.733|0.018
90830417|NCT03084796|181533567|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.566||||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.374|0.242|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment F (Tiotropium 18 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.242|-1.374|0.169
90830418|NCT03084796|181533567|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.142||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.638|0.923|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.923|-0.638|0.720
90830419|NCT03084796|181533567|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26||||0.515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.043|0.523|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.523|-1.043|0.515
90830420|NCT03084796|181533567|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.018||||0.963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.764|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.800|-0.764|0.963
90830421|NCT03084796|181533567|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.402||||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.182|0.377|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.377|-1.182|0.311
90830422|NCT03084796|181533567|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.124||||0.754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.903|0.654|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.654|-0.903|0.754
90830423|NCT03084796|181533567|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.278||||0.485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.503|1.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||1.060|-0.503|0.485
90830424|NCT03084796|181533567|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.349||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.294|-0.403|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||-0.403|-2.294|0.005
91087185|NCT01519817|182056864|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.4375||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of all IL-2 cytokines at dose levels 1, 3, and 4. We could not do dose level 2 as we only had data on 2 patients and need an n\>2 to do paired analyses.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.4375
90830425|NCT03084796|181533567|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.159||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.218|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||-0.218|-2.100|0.016
90830426|NCT03084796|181533567|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.466||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.416|-0.516|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||-0.516|-2.416|0.003
90830427|NCT03084796|181533567|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.396||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.337|-0.454|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||-0.454|-2.337|0.004
90830428|NCT03084796|181533567|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.824||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.797|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment F (Tiotropium 18 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.150|-1.797|0.097
90894017|NCT00540124|181653411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.985||95.0||||P-value for 12 Week Change. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values for pairwise comparison of change difference based on Wilcoxon Rank Sum test.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||||0.985
90830429|NCT03084796|181533567|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.746|1.126|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||1.126|-0.746|0.690
90830430|NCT03084796|181533567|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.117||||0.808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.061|0.827|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.827|-1.061|0.808
90830431|NCT03084796|181533567|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.047||||0.922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.983|0.889|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.889|-0.983|0.922
90830432|NCT03084796|181533567|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.307||||0.522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.248|0.634|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.634|-1.248|0.522
90830433|NCT03084796|181533567|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.237||||0.618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|0.696|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.696|-1.170|0.618
90830434|NCT03084796|181533567|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.871|1.012|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||1.012|-0.871|0.884
90830435|NCT03084796|181533567|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.158||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.978|-0.337|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||-0.337|-1.978|0.006
90830436|NCT03084796|181533567|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.992||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.808|-0.175|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||-0.175|-1.808|0.017
90830437|NCT03084796|181533567|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.346||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.168|-0.524|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||-0.524|-2.168|0.001
90830438|NCT03084796|181533567|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.172||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.991|-0.353|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||-0.353|-1.991|0.005
90830439|NCT03084796|181533567|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.695||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.539|0.149|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment F (Tiotropium 18 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.149|-1.539|0.107
90830440|NCT03084796|181533567|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.166||||0.689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.648|0.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.980|-0.648|0.689
90830441|NCT03084796|181533567|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.188||||0.651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.007|0.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.630|-1.007|0.651
90830442|NCT03084796|181533567|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.014||||0.973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.801|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.801|-0.830|0.973
91087186|NCT01519817|182056864|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.|||||>|0.9999||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IL-2 cytokines at dose level 1.|Wilcoxon test|||||||>0.9999
90830443|NCT03084796|181533567|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.355||||0.393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|0.461|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.461|-1.170|0.393
90830444|NCT03084796|181533567|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.181||||0.663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.993|0.632|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.632|-0.993|0.663
90830445|NCT03084796|181533567|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.174||||0.676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.643|0.991|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.991|-0.643|0.676
90894018|NCT00540124|181653412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.385||95.0||||P-value for 12 Week Change Terminal Micturation Dribble. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values for pairwise comparison of change difference based on Wilcoxon Rank Sum test.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||||0.385
91023815|NCT00106028|181930873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.009||||0.9596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.336|0.354|||ANOVA|LS means and p-value are from ANOVA model adjusted by baseline and fixed effects for age group, treatment and pooled center for post-baseline.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||0.354|-0.336|0.9596
91023816|NCT00106028|181930874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.107||||0.34||95.0|-0.114|0.328|||ANOVA|LS means and p-value are from ANOVA model with fixed effects for age group, treatment and pooled center for post-baseline.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||0.328|-0.114|0.3400
91023817|NCT00106028|181930875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.029||||0.6218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.084|0.142|||ANOVA|LS means and p-value are from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline and fixed effects for age group, treatment and pooled center for post-baseline.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||0.142|-0.084|0.6218
91023818|NCT00479401|181930905|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A non-inferiority hypothesis comparing pramipexole ER to pramipexole IR was to be tested using a non-inferiority margin of -3 points. The primary efficacy endpoint in UPDRS part II+III was the change from baseline (week 0) to week 33 on the UPDRS Parts II+III score combined. The statistical model was analysis of covariance, controlling for baseline UPDRS Part II+III. Fixed terms in the model were treatment, country, and UPDRS Part II+III score at baseline.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.7|||ANCOVA|Null hypothesis was tested using an analysis of covariance model with α = 0.05 in full analysis set with last observation carried forward.|PPX ER non-inferior to PPX IR, if the lower limit of the confidence interval for the difference is higher than the non-inferiority margin of -3|A non-inferiority hypothesis (H0: μER - μIR \< -3 vs. H1: μER - μIR ≥ -3) comparing pramipexole ER to pramipexole IR was tested using a non-inferiority margin of -3 points.||1.7|-2.2|
91023819|NCT01504867|181930921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||Wald|This was a large sample (Wald) test estimated using a conditional logistic regression model with site as a stratification variable.||The primary outcome significance level was adjusted for multiple testing associated with the interim analysis. Its significance level is 92.6%||||0.53
91023820|NCT01504867|181930922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.99
91023821|NCT01504867|181930923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.36
91023822|NCT01504867|181930924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.23
91023823|NCT01504867|181930925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.72
91023824|NCT01504867|181930926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.08
91023825|NCT01504867|181930927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.79
91023826|NCT02473510|181930936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|2.6||||||||2.6|-5.2|
91023827|NCT02473510|181930937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Difference|16.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.6|27.6||||||Up to Day 8||27.6|3.6|
91023828|NCT02473510|181930937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Difference|17.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|29.3||||||Up to Day 15||29.3|4.4|
91023829|NCT00500656|181930959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.475|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.901|6.355|||The Wilcoxon version of the log rank|The median time to onset was calculated using Kaplan Meier methodology. The Wilcoxon version of the log rank test of SAS was used||||6.355|1.901|< 0.001
91023830|NCT00500656|181930960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||The Wilcoxon version of the log rank|The median time to almost complete symptom relief was calculated using Kaplan Meier methodology.The Wilcoxon version of the log rank test SAS was used||||||< 0.001
91023831|NCT02257632|181930976|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.64|-10.32||missing Baseline VEGF-A level covariate values were imputed by the mean value of non-missing Baseline VEGF-A level from all other patients|ANCOVA|including treatment group and center as fixed effect factors and Baseline VEGF-A as a covariate||||-10.32|-19.64|<0.0001
91023832|NCT02257632|181930977|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.46|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.98|-6.94||missing Baseline VEGF-A level covariate values were imputed by the mean value of non-missing Baseline VEGF-A level from all the patients with values|ANCOVA|including treatment group and center as fixed effect factors and Baseline VEGF-A as a covariate||||-6.94|-15.98|< 0.0001
91023833|NCT00740727|181931007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% of subjects with infusion pain|11.1||||||95.0|1.4|34.7|||95% binomial exact confidence interval|||This analysis reports the number of subjects (of 18 possible) who experienced pain, during EASI placement or infusion, at the a priori-defined level of at least 3 on a 10-point pain scale.||34.7|1.4|
91023834|NCT00740727|181931008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% subjects with next-day EASI site pain|0.0||||||97.5|0.0|18.5|||binomial exact confidence interval|Because the point estimate was zero, the statistical software (STATA version 10MP) reports a one-sided 97.5% confidence interval.||This analysis reports the number of subjects (of 18 possible) who experienced pain, as assessed on next-day follow-up (24 hours after EASI infusion), at the a priori-defined level of at least 3 on a 10-point pain scale.||18.5|0|
91087187|NCT01519817|182056864|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.|||||>|0.9999||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IL-2 cytokines at dose level 3.|Wilcoxon test|||||||>0.9999
91023835|NCT00434161|181931042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.679||||0.188|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.351|1.313||A 2.5% type I error rate for each comparison gives an overall type I error rate of 5%.|Proportional odds model|The proportional odds model including the randomization factors as covariates was used for the primary endpoint, maximum severity of OM.|The odds ratio was defined to be the odds of a subject receiving placebo experiencing OM divided by the odds of a subject receiving palifermin developing OM.|The null hypothesis was that the severity distribution for OM was identical for the placebo and each of the two palifermin groups, and the alternative hypothesis was that palifermin resulted in a shift in the distribution to less severe mucositis than placebo. A total of 275 subjects would give at least 95% power, with a 2.5% type I error rate for each comparison to detect an odds ratio of at least 3.5 between the placebo group and each of the two palifermin groups.||1.313|0.351|0.188
91023836|NCT00434161|181931042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.242||||0.468|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.635|2.431||A 2.5% type I error rate for each comparison gives an overall type I error rate of 5%.|Proportional odds model|The proportional odds model including the randomization factors as covariates was used for the primary endpoint, maximum severity of OM.|The odds ratio was defined to be the odds of a subject receiving placebo experiencing OM divided by the odds of a subject receiving palifermin developing OM.|The null hypothesis was that the severity distribution for OM was identical for the placebo and each of the two palifermin groups, and the alternative hypothesis was that palifermin resulted in a shift in the distribution to less severe mucositis than placebo. A total of 275 subjects would give at least 95% power, with a 2.5% type I error rate for each comparison to detect an odds ratio of at least 3.5 between the placebo group and each of the two palifermin groups.||2.431|0.635|0.468
91023837|NCT00434161|181931043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|13.262||||0.245|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-4.303|30.828||For secondary endpoints the type I error was protected by using the Hochberg procedure. The reported p-values are adjusted by the Hochberg procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||30.828|-4.303|0.245
91023838|NCT00434161|181931043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.014||||0.806|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-20.519|16.491||For secondary endpoints the type I error was protected by using the Hochberg procedure. The reported p-values are adjusted by the Hochberg procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||16.491|-20.519|0.806
91023839|NCT00434161|181931044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.409|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.82||0.095|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.07|4.748||For secondary endpoints the type I error was protected by using the Hochberg procedure. The reported p-values are adjusted by the Hochberg procedure.|van Elteren test|||A type I error rate was protected by using the Hochberg procedure to adjust for multiple testing. Palifermin was not to be declared to be statistically superior to placebo with respect to secondary efficacy endpoints unless the primary endpoint was statistically significant in favor of palifermin.||4.748|0.070|0.095
91023840|NCT00434161|181931044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.213|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.13||0.806|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.575|2.15||For secondary endpoints the type I error was protected by using the Hochberg procedure. The reported p-values are adjusted by the Hochberg procedure.|van Elteren test|||||2.150|-2.575|0.806
91023841|NCT00434161|181931045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.436||||0.142|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.542|32.415||For secondary endpoints the type I error was protected by using the Hochberg procedure. The reported p-values are adjusted by the Hochberg procedure.|van Elteren test|||For the secondary endpoints, the type I error rate was protected by using the Hochberg procedure to adjust for multiple testing16. Palifermin was not to be declared to be statistically superior to placebo with respect to secondary efficacy endpoints unless the primary endpoint was statistically significant in favor of palifermin.||32.415|-1.542|0.142
91023842|NCT00434161|181931045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.331||||0.806|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-11.82|22.482||For secondary endpoints the type I error was protected by using the Hochberg procedure. The reported p-values are adjusted by the Hochberg procedure.|van Elteren test|||||22.482|-11.820|0.806
91023843|NCT00434161|181931046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.669|33.43||According to statistical analysis plan it was not planned to calculate any P-Value.||||||33.43|-21.669|
91023844|NCT00434161|181931048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.023|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.134|0.181||||||||0.181|-0.134|
91087188|NCT01519817|182056864|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.75||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IL-2 cytokines at dose level 4.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.75
90830446|NCT02741245|181533620|OTHER||Difference in M-estimates|-35.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.9|-32.0|||Shapiro-Wilk test|Robust regression model with terms for treatment, risk category and baseline, after imputing missing values by a multiple imputation approach||||-32.0|-39.9|<0.001
90830447|NCT02741245|181533620|OTHER|Robust regression model with terms for treatment, risk category and baseline, after imputing missing values by a multiple imputation approach|Difference in M-estimates|-14.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|-11.6|||Shapiro-Wilk test|||||-11.6|-18.0|<0.001
91023845|NCT00434161|181931049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.061|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.138|0.26||||||||0.260|-0.138|
91023846|NCT00434161|181931050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.689|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.641|14.264||||||||14.264|-21.641|
91023847|NCT00434161|181931051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.951|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.679|12.58||||||||12.580|-0.679|
91023848|NCT00434161|181931053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64||||0.192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.26|||Log Rank|||All comparisons for the long-term safety endpoints were based on the combined palifermin group (pre- and post- high dose chemotherapy and pre-high dose chemotherapy only) versus placebo (placebo over palifermin). Overall survival was analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method. Kaplan-Meier estimates were provided together with the 95% confidence interval.||1.26|0.33|0.192
91023849|NCT00434161|181931054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.417|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.086|45.919||||||||45.919|-11.086|
91023850|NCT00434161|181931055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.16|||Log Rank|||All comparisons for the long-term safety endpoints were based on the combined palifermin group (pre- and post- high dose chemotherapy and pre-high dose chemotherapy only) versus placebo (placebo over palifermin). Overall survival was analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method. Kaplan-Meier estimates were provided together with the 95% confidence interval.||1.16|0.55|0.236
90956974|NCT01190514|181793668|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence of the two treatments was to be concluded if the 90% CIs for the ratio of adjusted geometric means for AUC48 fell wholly within (80%, 125%).|ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means|95.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.94|105.04|||Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted mean difference and the 90% CI for the difference were exponentiated to provide an estimate of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (test/reference).|"DVS SR 25 mg\*2 fasted (test); DVS SR 50 mg fasted (reference).~Natural log transformed AUC48: mixed models analysis with sequence, period, treatment (formulation by food status) as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect."||105.04|86.94|
90830448|NCT02741245|181533620|OTHER|Robust regression model with terms for treatment, risk category and baseline, after imputing missing values by a multiple imputation approach|Difference in M-estimates|-41.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.8|-37.9|||Shapiro-Wilk test|||||-37.9|-45.8|<0.001
90830449|NCT02741245|181533620|OTHER|Robust regression model with terms for treatment, risk category and baseline, after imputing missing values by a multiple imputation approach|Differecne in M-estimates|-13.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|-10.1|||Shapiro-Wilk test|||||-10.1|-16.6|<0.001
90830450|NCT01116648|181533639|OTHER||Maximum Tolerated Dose (mg)|30.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Cediranib|||||
90830451|NCT01116648|181533639|OTHER||Maximum Tolerated Dose (mg BID)|200.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Olaparib|||||
90830452|NCT01116648|181533641|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.83|||Kaplan-Meier Plot|||||0.83|0.30|0.006
90830453|NCT04290039|181533657|OTHER|Estimation only|Geometric ratio of least-square means|0.579|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5265|0.636|||Mixed Models Analysis||Only subjects who had at least 2 periods where study drug was received with an evaluable PK profile were included in the comparisons.|||0.6360|0.5265|
90830454|NCT04290039|181533657|OTHER|Estimation only|Geometric ratio of least-square means|0.349|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.3171|0.3839|||Mixed Models Analysis||Only subjects who had at least 2 periods where study drug was received with an evaluable PK profile were included in the comparisons.|||0.3839|0.3171|
90830455|NCT04290039|181533657|OTHER|Estimation only|Geometric ratio of least-square means|0.603|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5524|0.6582|||Mixed Models Analysis||Only subjects who had at least 2 periods where study drug was received with an evaluable PK profile were included in the comparisons.|||0.6582|0.5524|
90830456|NCT04290039|181533658|OTHER|Estimation only|Geometric ratio of least-square means|0.546|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4971|0.6004|||Mixed Models Analysis||Only subjects who had at least 2 periods where study drug was received with an evaluable PK profile were included in the comparisons.|||0.6004|0.4971|
90830457|NCT04290039|181533658|OTHER|Estimation only|Geometric ratio of least-square means|0.306|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.2788|0.3367|||Mixed Models Analysis||Only subjects who had at least 2 periods where study drug was received with an evaluable PK profile were included in the comparisons.|||0.3367|0.2788|
90830458|NCT04290039|181533658|OTHER|Estimation only|Geometric ratio of least-square means|0.561|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5104|0.6164|||Mixed Models Analysis||Only subjects who had at least 2 periods where study drug was received with an evaluable PK profile were included in the comparisons.|||0.6164|0.5104|
90830459|NCT04290039|181533659|OTHER|Estimation only|Geometric ratio of least-square means|0.549|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4273|0.7118|||Mixed Models Analysis||Only subjects who had at least 2 periods where study drug was received with an evaluable PK profile were included in the comparisons.|||0.7118|0.4273|
90830460|NCT04290039|181533659|OTHER|Estimation only|Geometric ratio of least-square means|0.049|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0381|0.0641|||Mixed Models Analysis||Only subjects who had at least 2 periods where study drug was received with an evaluable PK profile were included in the comparisons.|||0.0641|0.0381|
90830461|NCT04290039|181533659|OTHER|Estimation only|Geometric ratio of least-square means|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0695|0.1167|||Mixed Models Analysis||Only subjects who had at least 2 periods where study drug was received with an evaluable PK profile were included in the comparisons.|||0.1167|0.0695|
90830462|NCT03096834|181533699|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.73||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|5.19|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for stratification factor (4-7 vs. 8-14) migraine days at Baseline after missing data are imputed as non-response (NRI).||||5.19|1.43|0.002
90830463|NCT03096834|181533700|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.67|-0.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3||-0.51|-2.67|0.004
90830464|NCT03096834|181533701|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.13||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|-1.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Physical impairment domain||-1.23|-5.70|0.003
90830465|NCT03096834|181533701|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.12|-1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Everyday activities domain||-1.70|-6.12|<0.001
90956975|NCT01190514|181793668|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence of the two treatments was to be concluded if the 90% CIs for the ratio of adjusted geometric means for AUC48 fell wholly within (80%, 125%).|ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means|101.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.17|105.64|||Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted mean difference and the 90% CI for the difference were exponentiated to provide an estimate of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (test/reference).|"DVS SR 25 mg\*2 fed (test); DVS SR 50 mg fed (reference).~Natural log transformed AUC48: mixed models analysis with sequence, period, treatment (formulation by food status) as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect."||105.64|97.17|
91087189|NCT01519817|182056864|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.4525||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of all IL-6 cytokines at dose levels 1, 3, and 4. We could not do dose level 2 as we only had data on 2 patients and need an n\>2 to do paired analyses.|Wilcoxon test|The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IL-6 cytokines at dose level 1.||||||0.4525
91087190|NCT01519817|182056864|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.875||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IL-6 cytokines at dose level 1.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.875
91087191|NCT01519817|182056864|NON_INFERIORITY|The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IL-6 cytokines at dose level 3.||||||0.4316|||||||Wilcoxon test|||Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||0.4316
91087192|NCT01519817|182056864|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.|||||>|0.9999||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IL-6 cytokines at dose level 4.|Wilcoxon test|||||||>0.9999
91087193|NCT01519817|182056864|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.9906||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of all IL-8 cytokines at dose levels 1, 3, and 4. We could not do dose level 2 as we only had data on 2 patients and need an n\>2 to do paired analyses.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.9906
91087194|NCT01519817|182056864|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.625|||||||Wilcoxon test|The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IL-8 cytokines at dose level 1.||||||0.625
91087195|NCT01519817|182056864|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.791||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IL-8 cytokines at dose level 3.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.791
91087196|NCT01519817|182056864|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.8203||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IL-8 cytokines at dose level 4.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.8203
91087197|NCT01519817|182056864|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.|||||>|0.9999||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of all TNF cytokines at dose levels 1, 3, and 4. We could not do dose level 2 as we only had data on 2 patients and need an n\>2 to do paired analyses.|Wilcoxon test|||||||>0.9999
91087198|NCT01519817|182056864|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.875||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of TNF cytokines at dose level 1.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.875
91087199|NCT01519817|182056864|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.9658||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of TNF cytokines at dose level 3.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.9658
91087200|NCT01519817|182056864|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.6523||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of TNF cytokines at dose level 4.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.6523
91087201|NCT01519817|182056865|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.2901||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of all sCD27 cytokines at dose levels 1, 3, and 4. We could not do dose level 2 as we only had data on 2 patients and need an n\>2 to do paired analyses.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.2901
91087202|NCT01519817|182056865|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.375||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of sCD27 cytokines at dose level 1.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.375
90830466|NCT03096834|181533702|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.43|-0.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.99|-2.43|<0.001
90830467|NCT03096834|181533703|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.16||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|9.01|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for stratification factor (4-7 vs. 8-14) migraine days at Baseline after missing data are imputed as non-response||||9.01|1.11|0.025
91087203|NCT01519817|182056865|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.2036||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of sCD27 cytokines at dose level 3.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.2036
91087204|NCT01519817|182056865|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.0742||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of sCD27 cytokines at dose level 4.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.0742
91087205|NCT01519817|182056866|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.1004||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of all ratio sCD27:sCD40AL cytokines at dose levels 1, 3, and 4. We could not do dose level 2 as we only had data on 2 patients and need an n\>2 to do paired analyses.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.1004
91087206|NCT01519817|182056866|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.625||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of ratio sCD27:sCD40L cytokines at dose level 1.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.625
91087207|NCT01519817|182056866|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.6772||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of ratio sCD27:sCD40L cytokines at dose level 3.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.6772
91087208|NCT01519817|182056866|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.3008||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of ratio sCD27:sCD40L cytokines at dose level 4.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.3008
91087209|NCT01519817|182056867|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.0621||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of all sCD40L cytokines at dose levels 1, 3, and 4. We could not do dose level 2 as we only had data on 2 patients and need an n\>2 to do paired analyses.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.0621
91087210|NCT01519817|182056867|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.875||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of sCD40L cytokines at dose level 1.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.875
91087211|NCT01519817|182056867|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.2402||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of sCD40L cytokines at dose level 3.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.2402
91087212|NCT01519817|182056867|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.3008||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of sCD40L cytokines at dose level 4.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.3008
91087213|NCT03934216|182056869|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.5935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.4|||Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.4|0.3|0.5935
91087214|NCT03934216|182056870|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.3051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.7|||Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.7|0.6|0.3051
91087215|NCT03934216|182056871|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.8764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.4|||Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.4|0.3|0.8764
90894019|NCT00540124|181653412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.595||95.0||||P-value for 12 Week Change Terminal Micturation Dribble. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values for pairwise comparison of change difference based on Wilcoxon Rank Sum test.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||||0.595
90894020|NCT00540124|181653412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.704||95.0||||P-value for 12 Week Change Post Micturation Dribble. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values for pairwise comparison of change difference based on Wilcoxon Rank Sum test.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||||0.704
90894021|NCT00540124|181653412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.439||95.0||||P-value for 12 Week Change Post Micturation Dribble. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values for pairwise comparison of change difference based on Wilcoxon Rank Sum test.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||||0.439
90894022|NCT00540124|181653413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.838||95.0||||P-value for 12 Week Change Qmax. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values are from an ANCOVA with effects for treatment, prior alpha blocker use (yes/no), and baseline value, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||||||0.838
90894023|NCT00540124|181653413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.831||95.0||||P-value for 12 Week Change Qmax. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values are from an ANCOVA with effects for treatment, prior alpha blocker use (yes/no), and baseline value, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||||||0.831
90956976|NCT01190514|181793668|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence of the two treatments was to be concluded if the 90% CIs for the ratio of adjusted geometric means for AUC48 fell wholly within (80%, 125%).|ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means|108.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.1|117.01|||Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted mean difference and the 90% CI for the difference were exponentiated to provide an estimate of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (test/reference).|"Food effect DVS SR 50 mg fed (test) versus DVS SR 50 mg fasted (reference).~Natural log transformed AUC48: mixed models analysis with sequence, period, treatment (formulation by food status) as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect."||117.01|101.10|
90830468|NCT01169103|181533734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||We assumed that mean decrease in visceral fat in our population would be 0.85\*standard deviation score (SDS). Therefore, 18 subjects in each group would be required in order for us to have an 81.7% chance of detecting a significant difference in the mean 6-month changes in visceral adiposity between the groups at a 5% significance level by rejecting the null hypothesis that there is no difference in change in visceral fat following administration of rhGH or placebo in obese adolescent girls.||||0.70
90830469|NCT01169103|181533734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in SAT p-value||||0.30
90830470|NCT01169103|181533735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.93||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.93
90830471|NCT01169103|181533736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.03||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in Total Cholesterol p-value||||0.03
90830472|NCT01169103|181533736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.57|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in Triglyceride p-value||||0.57
90830473|NCT01169103|181533736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.062|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in Low-density lipoprotein p-value||||0.062
90830474|NCT01169103|181533736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0396|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in High-density lipoprotein p-value||||0.0396
90894024|NCT00540124|181653413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.696||95.0||||P-value for 12 Week Change Qmean. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values are from an ANCOVA with effects for treatment, prior alpha blocker use (yes/no), and baseline value, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||||||0.696
90894025|NCT00540124|181653413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.257||95.0||||P-value for 12 Week Change Qmean. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values are from an ANCOVA with effects for treatment, prior alpha blocker use (yes/no), and baseline value, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||||||0.257
90894026|NCT00540124|181653414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.709||95.0||||P-value for 12 Week Change. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values are from an ANCOVA with effects for treatment, prior alpha blocker use (yes/no), and baseline value, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||||||0.709
90894027|NCT00540124|181653414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.494||95.0||||P-value for 12 Week Change. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values are from an ANCOVA with effects for treatment, prior alpha blocker use (yes/no), and baseline value, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||||||0.494
90894028|NCT02291679|181653418|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.76|5.2||P-value is obtained from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) tests controlling for baseline SBM stratum and geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Placebo as reference. Odds ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) for the odds ratio are obtained from the CMH tests controlling for baseline SBM stratum and geographic region.|||5.20|1.76|< 0.0001
90894029|NCT02291679|181653419|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.841|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.505|1.176||P-value is based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline SBM stratum, and geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA||Linaclotide - Placebo. Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline SBM stratum, and geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.|||1.176|0.505|< 0.0001
90894030|NCT02291679|181653420|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.037|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.636|1.438||P-value is based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline SBM stratum, and geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA||Linaclotide - Placebo. Estimate and 95% CI are based on a LS mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline SBM stratum, and geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.|||1.438|0.636|< 0.0001
90894031|NCT02291679|181653421|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.628|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.806||P-value is based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline SBM stratum, and geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA||Linaclotide - Placebo. Estimate and 95% CI are based on a LS mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline SBM stratum, and geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.|||0.806|0.450|< 0.0001
90894032|NCT02291679|181653422|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.329|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.449|-0.21||P-value is based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline SBM stratum, and geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA||Linaclotide - Placebo. Estimate and 95% CI are based on a LS mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline SBM stratum, and geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.|||-0.210|-0.449|< 0.0001
90830475|NCT01169103|181533737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.58||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.58
90830476|NCT01169103|181533738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.04||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04
90830477|NCT04755816|181533762|OTHER|Estimates and confidence intervals are provided|Win Ratio|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.54||||||"Dietary Sodium Intervention includes those in treatment group B and D. No Dietary Sodium Intervention includes those in treatment group A and C. By the unmatched pairs win ratio method, each participant receiving the intervention will be compared to each participant not receiving the intervention. For each comparison, winners will be determined according to the hierarchy described above. The win ratio is the number winners divided by the number of losers associated with the intervention."||1.54|1.08|
90830478|NCT04755816|181533763|OTHER|Estimates and confidence intervals are provided|Win Ratio|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.54||||||"Clinical Worsening Intervention includes those in treatment group C and D. No Clinical Worsening Intervention includes those in group A and B. By the unmatched pairs win ratio method, each participant receiving the intervention will be compared to each participant not receiving the intervention. For each comparison, winners will be determined according to the hierarchy described above. The win ratio is the number winners divided by the number of losers associated with the intervention."||1.54|1.08|
90830479|NCT04755816|181533765|OTHER|Estimates and confidence intervals are provided|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.096|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.321|3.743||||||Dietary Sodium Intervention includes those in treatment group B and D. No Dietary Sodium Intervention includes those in treatment group A and C.||3.743|0.321|
90830480|NCT04755816|181533766|OTHER|Estimates and confidence intervals are provided|Slope|-15.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.5|6.76|||||"The total score for the MLHFQ ranges from 0 to 105, with higher scores indicating more significant impairment in health-related quality of life. The change in MLHFQ is defined as MLHFQ at Week 12 minus MLHFQ at Week 0."|Dietary Sodium Intervention includes those in treatment group B and D. No Dietary Sodium Intervention includes those in treatment group A and C. Simple linear regression models will be used to assess the outcome of change in MLHFQ over 12 weeks as a function of treatment group assignment. Beta coefficients and 95% confidence intervals will be reported.||6.76|-37.5|
90830481|NCT04755816|181533767|OTHER|Estimates and confidence intervals are provided|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.556|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.163|1.901||||||Clinical Worsening Intervention includes those in treatment group C and D. No Clinical Worsening Intervention includes those in treatment group A and B.||1.901|0.163|
90830482|NCT04755816|181533768|OTHER|Estimates and confidence intervals are provided|Slope|-12.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.67|7.72|||||"The total score for the MLHFQ ranges from 0 to 105, with higher scores indicating more significant impairment in health-related quality of life. The change in MLHFQ is defined as MLHFQ at Week 12 minus MLHFQ at Week 0."|Clinical Worsening Intervention includes those in treatment group C and D. No Clinical Worsening Intervention includes those in treatment group A and B. Simple linear regression models will be used to assess the outcome of change in MLHFQ over 12 weeks as a function of treatment group assignment. Beta coefficients and 95% confidence intervals will be reported.||7.72|-33.67|
90830483|NCT00558246|181533769|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence is demonstrated if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (when subtracting the percentage of DERMABOND PROTAPE successful subjects from the percentage of INTRADERMAL SUTURE successful subjects) does not exceed 12%.|Differences in proportion of successes|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|5.9|||McNemar||The level of significance for statistical testing was 0.05 for this study.|||5.9|-5.9|1.0000
90830484|NCT00558246|181533770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90830485|NCT00558246|181533771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||McNemar|||||||1.0000
90830486|NCT00558246|181533772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2266|||||||McNemar|||||||0.2266
90830487|NCT00558246|181533773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5078||0.0|||||McNemar|||||||0.5078
90830488|NCT00657046|181533793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.693|||||||ANCOVA|GLM model with baseline as a covariate.||||||0.693
90830489|NCT00657046|181533793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.807|||||||ANCOVA|GLM model with baseline as a covariate.||||||0.807
90830490|NCT00657046|181533794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.212|||||||ANCOVA|GLM model with baseline as a covariate.||||||0.212
90830491|NCT00657046|181533794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||ANCOVA|GLM model with baseline as a covariate.||||||0.230
90830492|NCT00657046|181533795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.712|||||||ANCOVA|GLM model with baseline as a covariate.||||||0.712
90830493|NCT00657046|181533795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.607|||||||ANCOVA|GLM model with baseline as a covariate.||||||0.607
90830494|NCT00657046|181533796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4602|||||||ANCOVA|GLM model with baseline as a covariate||||||0.4602
90830495|NCT00657046|181533796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.94|||||||ANCOVA|GLM model with baseline as a covariate||||||0.940
90830496|NCT00657046|181533797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.376|||||||ANCOVA|GLM model with baseline as a covariate||||||0.376
90830497|NCT00657046|181533797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.903|||||||ANCOVA|GLM model with baseline as a covariate||||||0.903
90830498|NCT00657046|181533798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.319|||||||ANCOVA|GLM model with baseline as a covariate||||||0.319
90830499|NCT00657046|181533798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.408|||||||ANCOVA|GLM model with baseline as a covariate||||||0.408
90830500|NCT00657046|181533799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||ANCOVA|GLM model with baseline as a covariate||||||0.004
90830501|NCT00657046|181533799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||ANCOVA|GLM model with baseline as a covariate||||||0.030
90830502|NCT00657046|181533800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025|||||||ANCOVA|GLM model with baseline as a covariate||||||0.025
90830503|NCT00657046|181533800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022|||||||ANCOVA|GLM model with baseline as a covariate.||||||0.022
90830504|NCT00657046|181533801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.082|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.082
90830505|NCT00657046|181533801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.008
90830506|NCT03827655|181533802|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92|||=|0.649|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.63|1.33||P-values were derived using a one-sided test with alternative hypothesis (Ha): Hazard Ratio\>1.|Wald chi-square test||Hazard ratios, 90% confidence intervals (CIs) and associated Wald Chi-square p-values between TAK-954 dose levels and placebo were obtained using a stratified Cox proportional hazard model with treatment as the only independent variable.|||1.33|0.63|=0.649
91087216|NCT03934216|182056872|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.2235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.8|||Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.8|0.5|0.2235
91087217|NCT03143257|182056874|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|38.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91087218|NCT03143257|182056874|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|43.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|20.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91087219|NCT03143257|182056874|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||< 0.0001
91087220|NCT03143257|182056877|SUPERIORITY||Overall Benefit Score|-15.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|18.5|||TWO_SIDED||||||||The overall benefit can be determined by subtracting the aided and unaided scores of Ease of Communication, Reverberation, Background Noise \& Aversiveness. A negative score in overall benefit indicates a positive benefit to the subject.|||||
90830507|NCT03827655|181533802|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||=|0.505|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|1.43||P-values were derived using a one-sided test with alternative hypothesis (Ha): Hazard Ratio\>1.|Wald chi-square test||Hazard ratios, 90% CIs and associated Wald Chi-square p-values between TAK-954 dose levels and placebo are obtained using a stratified Cox proportional hazard model with treatment as the only independent variable.|||1.43|0.69|=0.505
90830508|NCT03827655|181533803|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03|||=|0.449|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.71|1.49||P-values were derived using a one-sided test with alternative hypothesis (Ha): Hazard Ratio\>1.|Wald chi-square test||Hazard ratios, 90% CIs and associated Wald Chi-square p-values between TAK-954 dose levels and placebo are obtained using a stratified Cox proportional hazard model with treatment as the only independent variable.|||1.49|0.71|=0.449
90830509|NCT03827655|181533803|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||=|0.507|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|1.44||P-values were derived using a one-sided test with alternative hypothesis (Ha): Hazard Ratio\>1.|Wald chi-square test||Hazard ratios, 90% CIs and associated Wald Chi-square p-values between TAK-954 dose levels and placebo are obtained using a stratified Cox proportional hazard model with treatment as the only independent variable.|||1.44|0.69|=0.507
90830510|NCT03827655|181533804|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05|||=|0.406|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.73|1.52||P-values were derived using a one-sided test with alternative hypothesis (Ha): Hazard Ratio\>1.|Wald chi-square test||Hazard ratios, 90% CIs and associated Wald Chi-square p-values between TAK-954 dose levels and placebo are obtained using a stratified Cox proportional hazard model with treatment as the only independent variable.|||1.52|0.73|=0.406
90830511|NCT03827655|181533804|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77|||=|0.88|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.54|1.11||P-values were derived using a one-sided test with alternative hypothesis (Ha): Hazard Ratio\>1.|Wald chi-square test||Hazard ratios, 90% CIs and associated Wald Chi-square p-values between TAK-954 dose levels and placebo are obtained using a stratified Cox proportional hazard model with treatment as the only independent variable.|||1.11|0.54|=0.880
90830512|NCT03827655|181533805|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03|||=|0.446|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.72|1.48||P-values were derived using a one-sided test with alternative hypothesis (Ha): Hazard Ratio\>1.|Wald chi-square test||Hazard ratios, 90% CIs and associated Wald Chi-square p-values between TAK-954 dose levels and placebo are obtained using a stratified Cox proportional hazard model with treatment as the only independent variable.|||1.48|0.72|=0.446
90830513|NCT03827655|181533805|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76|||=|0.892|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.53|1.09||P-values were derived using a one-sided test with alternative hypothesis (Ha): Hazard Ratio\>1.|Wald chi-square test||Hazard ratios, 90% CIs and associated Wald Chi-square p-values between TAK-954 dose levels and placebo are obtained using a stratified Cox proportional hazard model with treatment as the only independent variable.|||1.09|0.53|=0.892
90894033|NCT02291679|181653423|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.68||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|4.87||P-value is obtained from the CMH tests controlling for geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Placebo as reference. Odds ratio and 95% CI for the odds ratio are obtained from the CMH tests controlling for geographic region.|||4.87|1.47|0.0008
91087221|NCT01063855|182056895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.837|2.542||To properly adjust for multiplicity, a hierarchical (step-down) testing procedure with a priori ordered hypothesis was used to control the family-wise type I error was rate.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included treatment, PDE5I stratum, baseline Average IELT stratum, and region, as cofactors and baseline Average IELT as a covariate.|Estimates are based on two-stage sequential analysis using information fraction based weighted test statistics for PDE5I + Dapoxetine arm minus PDE5I + Placebo arm difference.|Null Hypothesis: No difference at Week 12 last postbaseline observations carried forward (LPOCF) Alternative Hypothesis:- Difference at Week 12 LPOCF \>0.||2.542|0.837|<0.001
91087222|NCT01063855|182056896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|13.6||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|22.3||A hierarchical (step-down) testing procedure with a priori ordered hypothesis was used to control the family-wise type 1 error rate.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, controlling for type of PDE5I stratum, baseline average IELT stratum, and region.|Risk Difference (RD) = PDE5I + Dapoxetine arm - PDE5I + placebo arm.|Null hypothesis: No difference at Week 12 last postbaseline observation carried forward (LPOCF). Alternative hypothesis: Difference at Week 12 LPOCF \> 0.||22.3|4.9|0.001
91087223|NCT01063855|182056897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|9.2||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|17.2||A hierarchical (step-down) testing procedure with a priori ordered hypothesis was used to control the family-wise type 1 error rate.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, controlling for type of PDE5I stratum, baseline average IELT stratum, and region.|Risk Difference (RD) = PDE5I + Dapoxetine arm - PDE5I + Placebo arm.|Null Hypothesis: No difference at Week 12 last postbaseline observation carried forward (LPOCF).||17.2|1.1|0.013
91087224|NCT01063855|182056898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.78||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.204|2.619||To properly adjust for multiplicity, a hierarchical (step-down) testing procedure with a priori ordered hypothesis was used to control the family-wise type I error.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression model included treatment, type of PDE5i stratum, baseline Average IELT stratum, and region, as factors.|Estimates are based on two-stage sequential analysis using information fraction based weighted test statistics for PDE5I + Dapoxetine arm over PDE5I + Placebo arm ratio.|Null Hypothesis: No difference at Week 12 last postbaseline observation carried forward (LPOCF) Alternative Hypothesis: PDE5I + Dapoxetine is superior to PDE5I + Placebo with respect to the outcome measure at Week 12 LPOCF.||2.619|1.204|0.002
91087225|NCT01063855|182056899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.108|2.394||To properly adjust for multiplicity, a hierarchical (step-down) testing procedure with a priori ordered hypothesis was used to control the family-wise type I error was rate.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression model included treatment, type of PDE5i stratum, baseline Average IELT stratum, and region, as factors.|Estimates are based on two-stage sequential analysis using information fraction based weighted test statistics for PDE5I + Dapoxetine arm over PDE5I + Placebo arm ratio.|Null Hypothesis: No difference at Week 12 last postbaseline observation carrried forward (LPOCF) Alternative Hypothesis:- PDE5I + Dapoxetine is superior to PDE5I + Placebo with respect to the outcome measure at Week 12 LPOCF.||2.394|1.108|0.007
91087226|NCT01063855|182056900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.642|3.568||To properly adjust for multiplicity, a hierarchical (step-down) testing procedure with a priori ordered hypothesis was used to control the family-wise type I error was rate|Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression model included treatment, type of PDE5i stratum, baseline Average IELT stratum, and region, as factors.|Estimates are based on two-stage sequential analysis using information fraction based weighted test statistics for PDE5I + Dapoxetine arm over PDE5I + Placebo arm ratio.|Null Hypothesis: No difference at Week 12 last postbaseline observation carried forward (LPOCF) Alternative Hypothesis:- PDE5I + Dapoxetine is superior to PDE5I + Placebo with respect to the outcome measure at Week 12.||3.568|1.642|<0.001
91087227|NCT01063855|182056901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.897|1.965||To properly adjust for multiplicity, a hierarchical (step-down) testing procedure with a priori ordered hypothesis was used to control the family-wise type I error was rate.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression model included treatment, type of PDE5i stratum, baseline Average IELT stratum, and region, as factors.|Estimates are based on two-stage sequential analysis using information fraction based weighted test statistics for PDE5I + Dapoxetine arm over PDE5I + Placebo arm ratio.|Null Hypothesis: No difference at Week 12 last postbaseline observation carried forward (LPOCF) Alternative Hypothesis:- PDE5I + Dapoxetine is superior to PDE5I + Placebo with respect to the outcome measure at Week 12 LPOCF.||1.965|0.897|>0.05
91087228|NCT01063855|182056902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.425|3.423||To properly adjust for multiplicity, a hierarchical (step-down) testing procedure with a priori ordered hypothesis was used to control the family-wise type I error was rate.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression model included treatment, type of PDE5i stratum, baseline Average IELT stratum, and region, as factors.|Estimates are based on two-stage sequential analysis using information fraction based weighted test statistics for PDE5I + Dapoxetine arm over PDE5I + Placebo arm ratio.|Null Hypothesis: No difference at Week 12 last postbaseline observation carried forward (LPOCF) Alternative Hypothesis:- PDE5I + Dapoxetine is superior to PDE5I + Placebo with respect to the outcome measure at Week 12.||3.423|1.425|<0.001
91087229|NCT01165307|182056903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.003
91087230|NCT01165307|182056904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between the groups for the SF-12 Physical Scale.||||0.82
91087231|NCT01165307|182056904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between the groups for the SF-12 mental scale.||||0.11
91087232|NCT01165307|182056905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.12
91087233|NCT01165307|182056906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.38
91087234|NCT01165307|182056907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.12
90830514|NCT03827655|181533806|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86|||=|0.76|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6|1.23||P-values were derived using a one-sided test with alternative hypothesis (Ha): Hazard Ratio\>1.|Wald chi-square test||Hazard ratios, 90% CIs and associated Wald Chi-square p-values between TAK-954 dose levels and placebo are obtained using a stratified Cox proportional hazard model with treatment as the only independent variable.|||1.23|0.60|=0.760
90958899|NCT04874415|181797840|SUPERIORITY|Main effects of each intervention factor were estimated using linear regression including all prespecified two-way interactions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-686.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2997.0|1626.0|||||Once daily text message is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|||1626|-2997|
91087235|NCT01165307|182056908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.60
91087236|NCT01165307|182056909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.42
91087237|NCT01165307|182056913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.08
91087238|NCT02492802|182056915|OTHER|||||||0.77|||||||The Wald Type III test|||||||0.77
91087239|NCT02683239|182056993|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.221|=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.159|-0.293|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.293|-1.159|= 0.0010
91087240|NCT02683239|182056993|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|-1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.217|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.646|-0.793|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.793|-1.646|< 0.0001
91087241|NCT02683239|182056993|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|-1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.222|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.664|-0.793|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.793|-1.664|< 0.0001
91087242|NCT02683239|182056993|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|-1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.222|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.477|-0.606|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.606|-1.477|< 0.0001
91087243|NCT02683239|182056994|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.218|=|0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.163|-0.309|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.309|-1.163|= 0.0007
90830515|NCT03827655|181533806|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83|||=|0.81|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.58|1.18||P-values were derived using a one-sided test with alternative hypothesis (Ha): Hazard Ratio\>1.|Wald chi-squared test||Hazard ratios, 90% CIs and associated Wald Chi-square p-values between TAK-954 dose levels and placebo are obtained using a stratified Cox proportional hazard model with treatment as the only independent variable.|||1.18|0.58|=0.810
91087244|NCT02683239|182056994|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.218|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.624|-0.768|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.768|-1.624|< 0.0001
91087245|NCT02683239|182056994|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|-1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.223|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.698|-0.822|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.822|-1.698|< 0.0001
91087246|NCT02683239|182056994|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|-1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.222|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.564|-0.695|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.695|-1.564|< 0.0001
91087247|NCT02683239|182056995|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|=|0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.028|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.028|-0.380|= 0.0230
91087248|NCT02683239|182056995|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.088|=|0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.437|-0.093|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.093|-0.437|= 0.0025
91087249|NCT02683239|182056995|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|=|0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.496|-0.145|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.145|-0.496|= 0.0003
90830516|NCT03827655|181533807|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13|||=|0.288|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.78|1.64||P-values were derived using a one-sided test with alternative hypothesis (Ha): Hazard Ratio\>1.|Wald chi-square test||Hazard ratios, 90% CIs and associated Wald Chi-square p-values between TAK-954 dose levels and placebo are obtained using a stratified Cox proportional hazard model with treatment as the only independent variable.|||1.64|0.78|=0.288
90830517|NCT03827655|181533807|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03|||=|0.453|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.72|1.47||P-values were derived using a one-sided test with alternative hypothesis (Ha): Hazard Ratio\>1.|Wald chi-square test||Hazard ratios, 90% CIs and associated Wald Chi-square p-values between TAK-954 dose levels and placebo are obtained using a stratified Cox proportional hazard model with treatment as the only independent variable.|||1.47|0.72|=0.453
90830518|NCT03827655|181533808|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.09|||=|0.046|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.17|0.0||P-value was derived using a one-sided test with Ha: Risk Difference\<0.|Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen||The p-values, risk differences and corresponding 90% CIs were obtained using a stratified Miettinen and Nurminen approach with strata weighting by sample size.|||0.00|-0.17|=0.046
90830519|NCT03827655|181533808|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||=|0.516|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.11|0.11||P-value was derived using a one-sided test with Ha: Risk Difference\<0.|Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen||The p-values, risk differences and corresponding 90% CIs were obtained using a stratified Miettinen and Nurminen approach with strata weighting by sample size.|||0.11|-0.11|=0.516
90830520|NCT03827655|181533809|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.03|||=|0.296|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.12|0.06||P-value was derived using a one-sided test with Ha: Risk Difference\<0.|Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen||The p-values, risk differences and corresponding 90% CIs were obtained using a stratified Miettinen and Nurminen approach with strata weighting by sample size.|||0.06|-0.12|=0.296
90830521|NCT03827655|181533809|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.03|||=|0.677|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.07|0.13||P-value was derived using a one-sided test with Ha: Risk Difference\<0.|Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen||The p-values, risk differences and corresponding 90% CIs were obtained using a stratified Miettinen and Nurminen approach with strata weighting by sample size.|||0.13|-0.07|=0.677
90830522|NCT03827655|181533810|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1|||=|0.338|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.76|1.57||P-values were derived using a one-sided test with alternative hypothesis (Ha): Hazard Ratio\>1.|Wald chi-square test||Hazard ratios, 90% CIs and associated Wald Chi-square p-values between TAK-954 dose levels and placebo are obtained using a stratified Cox proportional hazard model with treatment as the only independent variable.|||1.57|0.76|=0.338
90830523|NCT03827655|181533810|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04|||=|0.422|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.73|1.49||P-values were derived using a one-sided test with alternative hypothesis (Ha): Hazard Ratio\>1.|Wald chi-square test||Hazard ratios, 90% CIs and associated Wald Chi-square p-values between TAK-954 dose levels and placebo are obtained using a stratified Cox proportional hazard model with treatment as the only independent variable.|||1.49|0.73|=0.422
90830524|NCT02552966|181533851|OTHER|||||||0.61|||||||t-test, 2 sided|This t-test was applied to determine if the mean salivary pepsin concentration changed between baseline and 2 week post UESAD measurements.||||||0.61
90830525|NCT02552966|181533852|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
90830526|NCT02552966|181533853|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
90830527|NCT02552966|181533854|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
90830528|NCT01506271|181533879|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority test based on unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification.|Percentage Difference|1.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|8.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Relebactam minus Placebo|MK-7655 250 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference||8.6|-6.2|< 0.001
90830529|NCT01506271|181533879|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority test based on unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification.|Percentage Difference|3.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|10.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 125 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference||10.8|-2.0|< 0.001
90830530|NCT01506271|181533880|OTHER|Test for a non-zero difference.|Percentage Difference|0.0||||0.979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|4.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 250 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference||4.5|-4.7|0.979
91087250|NCT02683239|182056995|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.089|=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.466|-0.118|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.118|-0.466|= 0.0010
91087251|NCT01718483|182057020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-1.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-1.01|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||||-1.01|-1.70|<0.001
90830531|NCT01506271|181533880|OTHER|Test for a non-zero difference.|Percentage Difference|-1.8||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|1.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 125 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference||1.5|-6.2|0.153
90830532|NCT01506271|181533881|OTHER|Test for a non-zero difference.|Percentage Difference|0.9||||0.324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|4.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 250 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference||4.7|-2.4|0.324
90830533|NCT01506271|181533881|OTHER|Test for a non-zero difference|Percentage Difference|0.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|3.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 125 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference||3.2|-3.3|> 0.999
90830534|NCT01506271|181533882|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|7.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|20.1|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 250 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference||20.1|-5.4|
91087252|NCT01718483|182057021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91087253|NCT01718483|182057022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91087254|NCT01718483|182057023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-6.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.17|-5.54|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||||-5.54|-7.17|<0.001
91087255|NCT01718483|182057024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-7.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.93|-5.88|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||||-5.88|-8.93|<0.001
91087256|NCT01718483|182057025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.199|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|-0.088|||ANCOVA|||||-0.088|-0.310|<0.001
91087257|NCT01718483|182057026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.211|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|-0.092|||ANCOVA|||||-0.092|-0.330|<0.001
91087258|NCT01718483|182057027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.02||||0.308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.02|||ANCOVA|||||0.02|-0.07|0.308
91087259|NCT01718483|182057028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Multiplicity is not adjusted for this secondary efficacy endpoint in this study.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91087260|NCT01718483|182057029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-1.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.24|-1.3||Multiplicity is not adjusted for this secondary efficacy endpoint in this study.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||||-1.30|-2.24|<0.001
91087261|NCT01718483|182057030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|1.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.57||Multiplicity is not adjusted for this secondary efficacy endpoint in this study.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||Cognitive Restraint of Eating||2.57|0.72|<0.001
91087262|NCT01718483|182057030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-4.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.98|-3.39||Multiplicity is not adjusted for this secondary efficacy endpoint in this study.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||Disinhibition of Eating||-3.39|-4.98|<0.001
91087263|NCT01718483|182057030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-4.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.49|-3.91||Multiplicity is not adjusted for this secondary efficacy endpoint in this study.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||Perceived Hunger||-3.91|-5.49|<0.001
91087264|NCT01718483|182057031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-10.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.43|-8.21||Multiplicity is not adjusted for this secondary efficacy endpoint in this study.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||||-8.21|-12.43|<0.001
91087265|NCT01718483|182057032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.31||||0.706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|1.31||Multiplicity is not adjusted for this secondary efficacy endpoint in this study.|ANCOVA|||||1.31|-1.93|0.706
91087266|NCT00048035|182057047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Conversion Factor 90% CI|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.32|0.42|||||To analyze the appropriateness of the chosen dose conversion factors, a second regression analysis was carried out. This was a regression on the three different conversion factor dose groups, using the regression slope estimates of Hb.|All cohorts with dosing frequency 1 X / Week||0.42|0.32|
91087267|NCT00048035|182057047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Conversion Factor 90% CI|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.53|0.76|||||To analyze the appropriateness of the chosen dose conversion factors, a second regression analysis was carried out. This was a regression on the three different conversion factor dose groups, using the regression slope estimates of Hb change.|All cohorts with dosing frequency 1 X /2 Week||0.76|0.53|
91087268|NCT00583908|182057056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.1|<|0.0001||95.0||||Paired t-test|t-test, 1 sided||mean difference was senofilcon A minus balafilcon A|Alternative Hypothesis was senofilcon A toric was superior to balafilcon A toric by having less degrees of rotation||||<0.0001
91087269|NCT00583908|182057056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.8||0.0002||95.0||||paired t-test|t-test, 1 sided||mean difference is senofilcon A minus lotrafilcon B|Hypothesis was senofilcon A toric was superior to lotrafilcon B toric by having less degree of rotation||||0.0002
91087270|NCT00583908|182057056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.4|<|0.0001||95.0||||paired t-test|t-test, 1 sided||Mean difference is senofilcon A minus omafilcon A|Hypothesis was senofilcon A toric was superior to omafilcon A toric by having less degree of rotation||||<0.0001
91087271|NCT00583908|182057057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.15||0.0083||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided||Mean difference was senofilcon A minus balafilcon A|Alternative hypothesis was senofilcon A toric was superior to balafilcon A toric by having a lower logMAR score||||0.0083
91087272|NCT00583908|182057057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.09||0.052||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided||Mean difference was senofilcon A minus lotrafilcon B|Alternative hypothesis was senofilcon A toric was superior to lotrafilcon B toric by having a lower logMAR score||||0.052
91087273|NCT00583908|182057057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.14||0.015||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided||Mean difference was senofilcon A minus omafilcon A|Alternative hypothesis was senofilcon A toric was superior to omafilcon A toric by having a lower logMAR score||||0.015
91087274|NCT00583908|182057058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.5||0.16||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided||Mean difference is senofilcon A minus balafilcon A|||||0.16
91087275|NCT00583908|182057058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.5||0.73||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided||Mean difference is senofilcon A minus lotrafilcon B|||||0.73
91087276|NCT00583908|182057058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.4||0.044||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided||Mean difference was senofilcon A minus omafilcon A|||||0.044
91087277|NCT00583908|182057059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-3.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.0||0.044||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided||Mean difference is senofilcon A minus balafilcon A|||||0.044
91087278|NCT00583908|182057059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.7||0.31||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided||Mean difference is senofilcon A minus lotrafilcon B|||||0.31
91087279|NCT00583908|182057059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.9||0.44||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided||Mean difference is senofilcon A minus omafilcon A|||||0.44
91087280|NCT00583908|182057060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.5||0.78||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided||Mean difference is senofilcon A minus balafilcon A|||||0.78
91087281|NCT00583908|182057060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.3||0.68||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided||Mean difference is senofilcon A minus lotrafilcon B|||||0.68
91087282|NCT00583908|182057060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.6||0.78||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided||Mean difference is senofilcon A minus omafilcon A|||||0.78
91087283|NCT00583908|182057061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.5||0.11||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided||Mean difference is senofilcon A minus balafilcon A|||||0.11
91087284|NCT00583908|182057061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.3||0.31||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided||Mean difference is senofilcon A minus lotrafilcon B|||||0.31
90830535|NCT01506271|181533882|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|6.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|18.8|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 125 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference||18.8|-6.7|
90830536|NCT01506271|181533883|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|-3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|2.4|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 250 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference||2.4|-10.3|
90830537|NCT01506271|181533883|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|10.1|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 125 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference||10.1|-5.0|
90830538|NCT01506271|181533884|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|12.7|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 250 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference||12.7|-4.5|
90830539|NCT01506271|181533884|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|12.8|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 125 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference||12.8|-4.4|
90830540|NCT01506271|181533885|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|3.9|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 250 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference||3.9|-4.0|
90830541|NCT01506271|181533885|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification.|Percentage Difference|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|2.4|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 125 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference||2.4|-4.8|
90830542|NCT01506271|181533886|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|2.3|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 250 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference||2.3|-6.7|
90830543|NCT01506271|181533886|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|7.4|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 125 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference||7.4|-3.7|
90830544|NCT01506271|181533887|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|0.6|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 250 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference||0.6|-7.5|
90830545|NCT01506271|181533887|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification.|Percentage Difference|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|2.4|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 125 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference||2.4|-6.7|
90830546|NCT01506271|181533888|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|8.1|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 250 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - Diarrhoea||8.1|-4.7|
90830547|NCT01506271|181533888|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|8.2|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 125 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - Diarrhoea||8.2|-4.6|
90830548|NCT01506271|181533888|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|6.9|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 250 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - Nausea||6.9|-7.3|
90830549|NCT01506271|181533888|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|8.0|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 125 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - Nausea||8.0|-6.5|
90830550|NCT01506271|181533888|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|9.6|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 250 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - Vomiting||9.6|-2.3|
91023851|NCT00434161|181931056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio, log|0.84||||0.372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.23|||Log Rank|||All comparisons for the long-term safety endpoints were based on the combined palifermin group (pre- and post- high dose chemotherapy and pre-high dose chemotherapy only) versus placebo (placebo over palifermin). Overall survival was analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method. Kaplan-Meier estimates were provided together with the 95% confidence interval.||1.23|0.58|0.372
91023852|NCT01267266|181931101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.20
90830551|NCT01506271|181533888|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|11.8|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 125 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - Vomiting||11.8|-0.7|
90830552|NCT01506271|181533888|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|3.5|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 250 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - Postoperative Infection||3.5|-7.6|
90830553|NCT01506271|181533888|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|2.2|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 125 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - Postoperative Infection||2.2|-8.4|
90830554|NCT01506271|181533888|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|4.7|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 250 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - Seroma||4.7|-2.4|
90830555|NCT01506271|181533888|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|9.7|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 125 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - Seroma||9.7|1.0|
90830556|NCT01506271|181533888|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|6.6|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 250 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - ALT increased||6.6|-5.0|
91023853|NCT03549130|181931108|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) mean difference|-0.77||||0.2446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|0.53||Between treatment p-values.|ANCOVA|Treatment,site used as factors;following variables as covariate:baseline, age,level of congestion symptoms at baseline,Berlin score,Epworth sleepiness|Difference between treatments of adjusted mean change from baseline.|Treatment comparison of NRQLQ between active and placebo strip group for Sleep problems.||0.53|-2.06|0.2446
91087285|NCT00583908|182057061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-3.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.3||0.16||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided||Mean difference is senofilcon A minus omafilcon A|||||0.16
90830557|NCT01506271|181533888|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|6.7|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 125 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - ALT increased||6.7|-4.9|
91087286|NCT00583908|182057062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.8||0.061||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided||Mean difference is senofilcon A minus balafilcon A|||||0.061
91087287|NCT00583908|182057062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.9||0.47||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided||Mean difference is senofilcon A minus lotrafilcon B|||||0.47
91087288|NCT00583908|182057062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.6||0.38||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided||Mean difference is senofilcon A minus omafilcon A|||||0.38
91087289|NCT00583908|182057063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.5||0.17||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided||Mean difference is senofilcon A minus balafilcon A|||||0.17
91087290|NCT00583908|182057063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.0||0.89||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided||Mean difference is senofilcon A minus lotrafilcon B|||||0.89
90830558|NCT01506271|181533888|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|7.3|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 250 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - AST increased||7.3|-3.7|
90830559|NCT01506271|181533888|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|7.4|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 125 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - AST increased||7.4|-3.7|
90830560|NCT01506271|181533888|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|4.2|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 250 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - Lipase increased||4.2|-6.5|
90830561|NCT01506271|181533888|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|3.0|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 125 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - Lipase increased||3.0|-7.2|
90830562|NCT01506271|181533888|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|-3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|-0.3|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 250 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - Hypertension||-0.3|-8.7|
90830563|NCT01506271|181533888|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|4.3|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 125 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - Hypertension||4.3|-6.4|
90830564|NCT01506271|181533889|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|0.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Fisher Exact||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 250 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference||0|0|> 0.999
91087291|NCT00583908|182057063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.8||0.56||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided||Mean difference is senofilcon A minus omafilcon A|||||0.56
90830565|NCT01506271|181533889|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|0.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Fisher Exact||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 125 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference||0|0|> 0.999
90830566|NCT01506271|181533890|NON_INFERIORITY|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification.|Percentage Difference|-1.4||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|6.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 250 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference||6.0|-9.1|0.001
91087292|NCT00583908|182057064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.8||0.008||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided||Mean difference is senofilcon A minus balafilcon A|||||0.0080
91087293|NCT00583908|182057064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.1||0.0049||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided||Mean difference is senofilcon A minus lotrafilcon B|||||0.0049
90830567|NCT01506271|181533890|NON_INFERIORITY|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification.|Percentage Difference|-2.1||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|5.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 125 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference||5.3|-9.7|0.002
90830568|NCT01506271|181533891|NON_INFERIORITY|Two participants with indeterminate or missing response were excluded from the analysis.|Percentage Difference|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|6.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 250 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference||6.2|-6.3|< 0.001
90830569|NCT01506271|181533891|NON_INFERIORITY|Two participants with indeterminate or missing response were excluded from the analysis.|Percentage Difference|2.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|8.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 125 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference||8.3|-2.0|< 0.001
90830570|NCT01506271|181533892|NON_INFERIORITY|Eight participants with indeterminate or missing response were excluded from the analysis.|Percentage Difference|-0.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|6.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 250 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference||6.4|-6.7|< 0.001
91087294|NCT00583908|182057064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.6||0.0058||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided||Mean difference is senofilcon A minus omafilcon A|||||0.0058
91087295|NCT00583908|182057065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.7||0.27||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided||Mean difference is senofilcon A minus balafilcon A|||||0.27
91087296|NCT00583908|182057065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.0||0.85||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided||Mean difference is senofilocon A minus lotrafilcon B|||||0.85
91087297|NCT00583908|182057065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.6||0.73||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided||Mean difference is senofilcon A minus omifilcon A|||||0.73
91087298|NCT04033146|182057070|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Threshold was 0.05|ANOVA|||"H1. Bilateral ankle exoskeletons that provide 'motor-like' assistance will result in lower net metabolic power than those providing 'spring-like' assistance for young adults.~H2. Bilateral ankle exoskeletons that provide 'motor-like' assistance will result in lower net metabolic power than those providing 'spring-like' assistance for older adults."||||<0.001
91087299|NCT01305811|182057090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||general estimating equations|||||||0.03
91087300|NCT01305811|182057091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.22|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||In our original proposal to the funder, to protect our main outcome from possibly large attrition, we proposed to initially test mean differences between groups following 2 months of treatment or wait list using Student's t-tests at an alpha=0.05.||||=0.22
91087301|NCT02256696|182057139|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.41||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|2.12|||Regression, Cox|adjusted for age and sex at birth.||modified intention to treat (mITT) analysis||2.12|0.93|0.10
91087302|NCT02256696|182057139|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.89||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|2.87|||Regression, Cox|adjusted for age and sex at birth.||mITT analysis||2.87|1.24|0.003
91087303|NCT02256696|182057139|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.43||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.15|||Regression, Cox|adjusted for age and sex at birth||per protocol||2.15|0.95|0.09
91087304|NCT02256696|182057139|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.87||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|2.89|||Regression, Cox|adjusted for age and sex at birth||per protocol||2.89|1.21|0.005
90830571|NCT01506271|181533892|NON_INFERIORITY|Eight participants with indeterminate or missing response were excluded from the analysis.|Percentage Difference|0.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|6.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 125 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference||6.5|-6.3|< 0.001
90830572|NCT01506271|181533893|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority test based on Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification.|Percentage Difference|-1.3||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|6.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 250 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference||6.9|-9.6|0.002
90830573|NCT01506271|181533893|NON_INFERIORITY|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification.|Percentage Difference|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|8.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 125 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference||8.2|-7.2|< 0.001
90830574|NCT01506271|181533894|NON_INFERIORITY|Eight participants with indeterminate or missing response were excluded from the analysis.|Percentage Difference|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|7.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 250 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference||7.4|-7.4|< 0.001
90830575|NCT01506271|181533894|NON_INFERIORITY|Eight participants with indeterminate or missing response were excluded from the analysis.|Percentage Difference|1.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|8.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 125 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference||8.6|-5.2|< 0.001
91087305|NCT02256696|182057142|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.61||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|2.44|||Regression, Cox|adjusted for age and sex at birth.||mITT analysis||2.44|1.07|0.02
90830576|NCT01506271|181533896|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|5.1|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 250 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - Blood, lymphatic||5.1|-7.3|
90894034|NCT02291679|181653424|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|4.2||P-value is obtained from the CMH tests controlling for geographic region and baseline stratum.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Placebo as reference. Odds ratio and 95% CI for the odds ratio are obtained from the CMH tests controlling for geographic region and baseline stratum.|||4.20|1.58|< 0.0001
91087306|NCT02256696|182057142|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.8||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|2.75|||Regression, Cox|adjusted for age and sex at birth||mITT analysis||2.75|1.18|0.006
90830577|NCT01506271|181533896|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|-4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|0.1|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 125 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - Blood, lymphatic||0.1|-10.3|
90830578|NCT01506271|181533896|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|5.0|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 250 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - Cardiac disorder||5.0|-5.2|
90830579|NCT01506271|181533896|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|6.3|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 125 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - Cardiac disorder||6.3|-4.5|
90830580|NCT01506271|181533896|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|5.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|15.3|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 250 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - GI disorders||15.3|-3.9|
90830581|NCT01506271|181533896|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|13.6|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 125 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - GI disorders||13.6|-5.4|
90830582|NCT01506271|181533896|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|11.0|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 250 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - Gen. dis \& admin.||11.0|-2.0|
90830583|NCT01506271|181533896|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|7.8|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 125 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - Gen. dis \& admin.||7.8|-4.2|
90830584|NCT01506271|181533896|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|12.0|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 250 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - Infect. \& Infest.||12.0|-3.6|
90894035|NCT02291679|181653425|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.15||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|3.26||P-value is obtained from the CMH tests controlling for geographic region and baseline stratum.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Placebo as reference. Odds ratio and 95% CI for the odds ratio are obtained from the CMH tests controlling for geographic region and baseline stratum.|||3.26|1.42|0.0002
91087307|NCT02256696|182057142|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.6||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|2.42|||Regression, Cox|adjusted for age and sex at birth||per protocol analysis||2.42|1.05|0.03
91087308|NCT02256696|182057142|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.84||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|2.85|||Regression, Cox|adjusted for age and sex at birth||per protocol analysis||2.85|1.18|0.007
91087309|NCT01401543|182057156|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|AUC(0-∞) was log-transformed and analyzed using a linear mixed effects model with fixed factor for formulation, sequence, and period, and random factor for participant.|Geometric Least Squares (LS) Mean Ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.01|||||Formulation, sequence, and period were included in the model as fixed effects, and participant as a random factor.|||1.01|0.91|
91087310|NCT01401543|182057156|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|AUC(0-∞) was log-transformed and analyzed using a linear mixed effects model with fixed factor for formulation, sequence, and period, and random factor for participant.|Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|0.93|||||Formulation, sequence, and period were included in the model as fixed effects, and participant as a random factor.|||0.93|0.85|
90894036|NCT02291679|181653426|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.0342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.17||P-value is obtained from the CMH tests controlling for geographic region and baseline stratum.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Placebo as reference. Odds ratio and 95% CI for the odds ratio are obtained from the CMH tests controlling for geographic region and baseline stratum.|||2.17|1.03|0.0342
90956977|NCT01190514|181793670|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence of the two treatments was to be concluded if the 90% CIs for the ratio of adjusted geometric means for Cmax fell wholly within (80%, 125%).|Ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means|95.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.37|101.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted mean difference and the 90% CI for the difference were exponentiated to provide an estimate of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (test/reference).|"DVS SR 25 mg\*2 fasted (test); DVS SR 50 mg fasted (reference).~Natural log transformed Cmax: mixed models analysis with sequence, period, treatment (formulation by food status) as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect."||101.20|89.37|
90830585|NCT01506271|181533896|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|8.0|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 125 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - Infect. \& Infest.||8.0|-6.5|
90830586|NCT01506271|181533896|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|5.1|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 250 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - Injury, poison.||5.1|-7.3|
90830587|NCT01506271|181533896|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|8.5|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 1250mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - Injury, poison.||8.5|-5.0|
90830588|NCT01506271|181533896|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|7.4|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 250 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - Investigations||7.4|-9.8|
90830589|NCT01506271|181533896|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|6.5|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 125 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - Investigations||6.5|-10.5|
90830590|NCT01506271|181533896|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|2.2|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 250 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - Nervous System||2.2|-8.4|
90830591|NCT01506271|181533896|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|2.2|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 125 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - Nervous System||2.2|-8.4|
90830592|NCT01506271|181533896|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|5.4|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 250 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - Psychiatric disorders||5.4|-5.7|
90830593|NCT01506271|181533896|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|5.5|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 125 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - Psychiatric disorders||5.5|-5.7|
90830594|NCT01506271|181533896|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|3.0|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 250 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - Renal \& Urinary||3.0|-7.2|
90830595|NCT01506271|181533896|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|3.0|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 125 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - Renal \& Urinary||3.0|-7.2|
90830596|NCT01506271|181533896|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|-4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|0.7|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 250 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - Resp. \& chest||0.7|-10.7|
90830597|NCT01506271|181533896|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|4.4|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 125 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - Resp. \& chest||4.4|-8.4|
90830598|NCT01506271|181533896|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|8.1|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 250 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - Skin \& subcutan.||8.1|-2.4|
90830599|NCT01506271|181533896|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|4.5|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 125 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - Skin \& subcutan.||4.5|-4.7|
90830600|NCT01506271|181533896|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|-3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|2.0|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 250 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - Vascular disorders||2.0|-9.9|
90894037|NCT02291679|181653427|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.319||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.548|-0.09||P-value is based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline SBM stratum, and geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA||Linaclotide - Placebo. Estimate and 95% CI are based on a LS mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline SBM stratum, and geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.|||-0.090|-0.548|0.0063
90830601|NCT01506271|181533896|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|6.6|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 125 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - Vascular disorders||6.6|-6.9|
90830602|NCT03318549|181533902|OTHER|||||||0.011|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.011
90830603|NCT03318549|181533902|OTHER|||||||0.022|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.022
90830604|NCT03318549|181533903|OTHER|||||||0.303|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.303
90830605|NCT03318549|181533906|OTHER|||||||0.132|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.132
90830606|NCT03318549|181533906|OTHER|||||||0.647|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.647
90830607|NCT05579977|181533969|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.95|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.2|-0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.70|-1.20|<.0001
90830608|NCT05579977|181533969|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.55|-1.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.04|-1.55|<.0001
90830609|NCT05579977|181533969|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.37|||<|0.0001||90.0|-1.62|-1.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.11|-1.62|<.0001
90830610|NCT05579977|181533969|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.52|-1.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.01|-1.52|<.0001
90830611|NCT05579977|181533969|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.29|||<|0.0001||90.0|-1.55|-1.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.03|-1.55|<.0001
90830612|NCT05579977|181533969|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.12|-0.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.61|-1.12|<.0001
90830613|NCT05579977|181533970|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.44||||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.88|-1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.00|-3.88|0.0055
90830614|NCT05579977|181533970|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.84|-2.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.89|-5.84|<.0001
90830615|NCT05579977|181533970|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.07|-4.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.18|-7.07|<.0001
90830616|NCT05579977|181533970|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.5|-3.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.58|-6.50|<.0001
90830617|NCT05579977|181533970|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.91|-3.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.93|-6.91|<.0001
90894038|NCT02291679|181653428|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.178||||0.1028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.391|0.036||P-value is based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline SBM stratum, and geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA||Linaclotide - Placebo. Estimate and 95% CI are based on a LS mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline SBM stratum, and geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.|||0.036|-0.391|0.1028
90830618|NCT05579977|181533973|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.12|-0.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.61|-1.12|<.0001
90830619|NCT00452790|181534005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.483||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of tenderness-any within 4 days of the infant series dose 1 (6 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.483
90830620|NCT00452790|181534005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.698||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of tenderness-significant within 4 days of the infant series dose 1 (6 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.698
90830621|NCT00452790|181534005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.782||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of induration-any within 4 days of the infant series dose 1 (6 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.782
90830622|NCT00452790|181534005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of induration-mild within 4 days of the infant series dose 1 (6 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||>0.99
90830623|NCT00452790|181534005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.729||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of induration-moderate within 4 days of the infant series dose 1 (6 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.729
90830624|NCT00452790|181534005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of Induration-Severe within 4 days of the infant series dose 1 (6 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||
90830625|NCT00452790|181534005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.819||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of Erythema-Any within 4 days of the infant series dose 1 (6 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.819
90830626|NCT00452790|181534005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.904||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of erythema-mild within 4 days of the infant series dose 1 (6 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.904
90830627|NCT00452790|181534005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of Erythema-Moderate within 4 days of the infant series dose 1 (6 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||>0.99
90830628|NCT00452790|181534005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of erythema-severe within 4 days of the infant series dose 1 (6 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||
90830629|NCT00452790|181534005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of any local reaction (tenderness, induration and erythema) within 4 days of the infant series dose 1 (6 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.690
90830630|NCT00452790|181534006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.933||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of tenderness-any within 4 days of the infant series dose 2 (10 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.933
90830631|NCT00452790|181534006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.776||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of tenderness-significant within 4 days of the infant series dose 2 (10 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.776
90830632|NCT00452790|181534006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.596||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of induration-any within 4 days of the infant series dose 2 (10 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.596
90958900|NCT04874415|181797840|SUPERIORITY|Main effects of each intervention factor were estimated using linear regression including all prespecified two-way interactions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2340.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4794.0|115.0|||||Fixed step count goal is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|||115|-4794|
90830633|NCT00452790|181534006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.909||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of induration-mild within 4 days of the infant series dose 2 (10 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.909
90830634|NCT00452790|181534006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.683||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of induration-moderate within 4 days of the infant series dose 2 (10 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.683
90830635|NCT00452790|181534006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of induration-severe within 4 days of the infant series dose 2 (10 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||
90830636|NCT00452790|181534006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.203||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of erythema-any within 4 days of the infant series dose 2 (10 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.203
90830637|NCT00452790|181534006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.399||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of Erythema-Mild within 4 days of the infant series dose 2 (10 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.399
90830638|NCT00452790|181534006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.382||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of erythema-moderate within 4 days of the infant series dose 2 (10 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.382
90830639|NCT00452790|181534006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of erythema-severe within 4 days of the infant series dose 2 (10 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||
90830640|NCT00452790|181534006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.738||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of any Local reaction (tenderness, induration, erythema) within 4 days of the infant series dose 2 (10 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.738
90830641|NCT00452790|181534007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.918||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of tenderness-any within 4 days of the infant series dose 3 (14 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.918
90830642|NCT00452790|181534007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.906||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of tenderness-significant within 4 days of the infant series dose 3 (14 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.906
90830643|NCT00452790|181534007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.404||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of induration-any within 4 days of the infant series dose 3 (14 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.404
90830644|NCT00452790|181534007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.305||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of induration-mild within 4 days of the infant series dose 3 (14 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.305
90830645|NCT00452790|181534007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.771||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of induration-moderate within 4 days of the infant series dose 3 (14 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.771
90830646|NCT00452790|181534007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of induration-severe within 4 days of the infant series dose 3 (14 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||
90830647|NCT00452790|181534007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.867||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of erythema-any within 4 days of the infant series dose 3 (14 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.867
90830648|NCT00452790|181534007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.735||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of erythema-mild within 4 days of the infant series dose 3 (14 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.735
90830649|NCT00452790|181534007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of erythema-moderate within 4 days of the infant series dose 3 (14 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||>0.99
90830650|NCT00452790|181534007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of erythema-severe within 4 days of the infant series dose 3 (14 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||
90830651|NCT00452790|181534007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.842||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of any Local Reaction (tenderness, induration, erythema) within 4 days of the infant series dose 3 (14 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.842
90830652|NCT00452790|181534008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.908||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of tenderness-any within 4 days of the toddler dose, dose 4 (12 months of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.908
90830653|NCT00452790|181534008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.772||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of tenderness-significant within 4 days of the toddler dose, dose 4(12 months of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.772
90830654|NCT00452790|181534008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.681||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of induration-any within 4 days of the toddler dose, dose 4 (12 months of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.681
90830655|NCT00452790|181534008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.881||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of induration-mild within 4 days of the toddler dose, dose 4 (12 months of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.881
90830656|NCT00452790|181534008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.509||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of induration-moderate within 4 days of the toddler dose, dose 4 (12 months of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.509
90830657|NCT00452790|181534008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of induration-severe within 4 days of the toddler dose (12 months of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||
90830658|NCT00452790|181534008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of erythema-any within 4 days of the toddler dose, dose 4 (12 months of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.880
90830659|NCT00452790|181534008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.739||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of erythema-mild within 4 days of the toddler dose, dose 4 (12 months of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.739
90830660|NCT00452790|181534008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of erythema-moderate within 4 days of the toddler dose, dose 4 (12 months of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||>0.99
90830661|NCT00452790|181534008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of erythema-severe within 4 days of the toddler dose, dose 4 (12 months of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||
90830662|NCT00452790|181534008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.446||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of any local reaction (tenderness, induration, erythema) within 4 days of the toddler dose, dose 4 (12 months of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.446
90830663|NCT00452790|181534009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.625||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of fever \>=38 but \<=39 degrees C within 4 days of the infant series dose 1 (6 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.625
90830664|NCT00452790|181534009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.375||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of fever \>39 but \<=40 degrees C within 4 days of the infant series dose 1 (6 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.375
90830665|NCT00452790|181534009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.624||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of fever \>40 degrees C within 4 days of the infant series dose 1 (6 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.624
90830666|NCT00452790|181534009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of decreased appetite within 4 days of the infant series dose 1 (6 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||>0.99
90830667|NCT00452790|181534009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.282||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of irritability within 4 days of the infant series dose 1 (6 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.282
90830668|NCT00452790|181534009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.307||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of Increased sleep within 4 days of the infant series dose 1 (6 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.307
90830669|NCT00452790|181534009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.939||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of decreased sleep within 4 days of the infant series dose 1 (6 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.939
90830670|NCT00452790|181534009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.085||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of any systemic event (fever, decrease in appetite, irritability, increased or decreased sleep) within 4 days of the infant series dose 1 (6 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.085
90830671|NCT00452790|181534010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.111||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of fever \>= 38 but \<= 39 degrees C within 4 days of the infant series dose 2 (10 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.111
90830672|NCT00452790|181534010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of fever \>39 but \<= 40 degrees C within 4 days of the infant series dose 2 (10 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||>0.99
90830673|NCT00452790|181534010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.488||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of fever \>40 degrees C within 4 days of the infant series dose 2 (10 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.488
90830674|NCT00452790|181534010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.736||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of Decreased appetite within 4 days of the infant series dose 2 (10 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.736
90830675|NCT00452790|181534010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.856||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of Irritability within 4 days of the infant series dose 2 (10 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.856
90830676|NCT00452790|181534010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.098||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of Increased sleep within 4 days of the infant series dose 2 (10 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.098
90830677|NCT00452790|181534010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of Decreased sleep within 4 days of the infant series dose 2 (10 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.034
90830678|NCT00452790|181534010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of Any systemic event (fever, decrease in appetite, irritability, increased or decreased sleep) within 4 days of the infant series dose 2 (10 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||>0.99
90830679|NCT00452790|181534011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.085||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of fever \>= 38 but \<= 39 degrees C within 4 days of the infant series dose 3 (14 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.085
90830680|NCT00452790|181534011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of fever \>39 but \<= 40 degrees C within 4 days of the infant series dose 3 (14 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||
90830681|NCT00452790|181534011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.489||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of fever \>40 degrees C within 4 days of the infant series dose 3 (14 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.489
90830682|NCT00452790|181534011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of decreased appetite within 4 days of the infant series dose 3 (14 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.840
90830683|NCT00452790|181534011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.605||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of irritability within 4 days of the infant series dose 3 (14 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.605
90830684|NCT00452790|181534011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of increased sleep within 4 days of the infant series dose 3 (14 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||>0.99
90830685|NCT00452790|181534011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.265||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of decreased sleep within 4 days of the infant series dose 3 (14 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.265
90830686|NCT00452790|181534011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.422||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of any systemic event (fever, decrease in appetite, irritability, increased or decreased sleep) within 4 days of the infant series dose 3 (14 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.422
90830687|NCT00452790|181534012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.815||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of fever \>= 38 but \<= 39 degrees within 4 days of the toddler dose, dose 4 (12 months of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.815
90830688|NCT00452790|181534012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of fever \>39 but \<= 40 degrees within 4 days of the toddler dose, dose 4 (12 months of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||>0.99
90830689|NCT00452790|181534012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of fever \>40 degrees C within 4 days of the toddler dose, dose 4 (12 months of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||
90830690|NCT00452790|181534012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.401||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of decreased appetite within 4 days of the toddler dose, dose 4 (12 months of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.401
90830691|NCT00452790|181534012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.511||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of irritability within 4 days of the toddler dose, dose 4 (12 months of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.511
90830692|NCT00452790|181534012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.487||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of increased sleep within 4 days of the toddler dose, dose 4 (12 months of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.487
90830693|NCT00452790|181534012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.388||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of decreased sleep within 4 days of the toddler dose, dose 4 (12 months of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.388
90894039|NCT02291679|181653429|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.78||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.61|4.8||P-value is obtained from the CMH tests controlling for baseline SBM stratum and geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Placebo as reference. Odds ratio and 95% CI for the odds ratio are obtained from the CMH tests controlling for baseline SBM stratum and geographic region.|||4.80|1.61|0.0001
90894040|NCT02276222|181653452|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean (SE)|0.0084|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01012||0.4041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0114|0.0283|||ANCOVA|||||0.0283|-0.0114|0.4041
90958901|NCT04874415|181797840|SUPERIORITY|Main effects of each intervention factor were estimated using linear regression including all prespecified two-way interactions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1293.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3477.0|890.0|||||||Loss framed incentive is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|890|-3477|
90830694|NCT00452790|181534012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.753||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of any systemic event fever, decrease in appetite, irritability, increased or decreased sleep) within 4 days of the toddler dose, dose 4 (12 months of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.753
90830695|NCT01928927|181534050|SUPERIORITY||Theta statistic|0.5||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.73||No adjustment for multiple comparisons|Theta statistic; DeLong & Clarke-Pearson||The theta statistic estimates the probability that a randomly selected outcome from the telmisartan arm is \<= a randomly selected outcome from the control arm.|Null hypothesis: theta = 0.50||0.73|0.26|0.97
90830696|NCT01928927|181534051|SUPERIORITY||Theta statistic|0.57||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.83||No adjustment for multiple comparisons|Theta statistic; DeLong & Clarke-Pearson||The theta statistic estimates the probability that a randomly selected outcome from the telmisartan arm is \<= a randomly selected outcome from the control arm.|Null hypothesis: theta = 0.50||0.83|0.31|0.61
90830697|NCT01604291|181534118|OTHER|||||||0.9109||||||The p-value from chi-square is the difference between SVR achieved (yes/no) and dose modifications.|Chi-squared|||Correlation between SVR 24 and Gender||||0.9109
90830698|NCT01604291|181534118|OTHER|||||||0.1163||||||A t-test was done to compare SVR participants to non-SVR.|t-test, 1 sided|||Correlation between SVR 24 and Age||||0.1163
90830699|NCT01604291|181534118|OTHER|||||||0.9269||||||A t-test was done to compare SVR participants to non-SVR.|t-test, 1 sided|||Correlation between SVR 24 and Height||||0.9269
90830700|NCT01604291|181534118|OTHER|||||||0.3376||||||A t-test was done to compare SVR participants to non-SVR.|t-test, 1 sided|||Correlation between SVR 24 and Weight||||0.3376
91087311|NCT01401543|182057156|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|AUC(0-∞) was log-transformed and analyzed using a linear mixed effects model with fixed factor for formulation, sequence, and period, and random factor for participant.|Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|0.97|||||Formulation, sequence, and period were included in the model as fixed effects, and participant as a random factor.|||0.97|0.88|
90830701|NCT01604291|181534118|OTHER|||||||0.4618||||||A t-test was done to compare SVR participants to non-SVR.|t-test, 1 sided|||Correlation between SVR 24 and Body mass index.||||0.4618
90830702|NCT01604291|181534131|OTHER||phi-coefficient|-0.0835||||0.0463|||||||Chi-squared|The p-value from chi-square is the difference between SVR achieved (yes/no) and dose modifications.|phi-coefficient is a measure of the degree of association between two binary variables|Correlation with dose modification for Peginterferon alfa-2a.||||0.0463
90830703|NCT01604291|181534131|OTHER||phi-coefficient|0.0666||||0.2052|||||||Chi-squared|The p-value from chi-square is the difference between SVR achieved (yes/no) and dose modifications.|phi-coefficient is a measure of the degree of association between two binary variables.|Correlation with dose modification for Ribavirin.||||0.2052
90830704|NCT01604291|181534131|OTHER||phi-coefficient|-0.1672||||0.0033|||||||Fisher Exact|The p-value from chi-square is the difference between SVR achieved (yes/no) and dose modifications.|phi-coefficient is a measure of the degree of association between two binary variables.|Correlation with dose modification for Telaprevir/boceprevir.||||0.0033
90830705|NCT01420926|181534167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3|||||||Stratified 1-sided log-rank|||||||0.30
90830706|NCT00932321|181534173|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Primary hypothesis tested was the independence (lack of association) of mean number of IB days in Cycles 2-6 across treatment groups.||||||0.311|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by investigational site.||||||0.311
90830707|NCT04564846|181534174|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.974||||0.1628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.938|1.011|||Analysis of Covariance||Estimated Difference from Placebo Across All Time Points. Log transformed values analyzed using an Analysis of Covariance model with treatment and time point as effects and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.|Comparison to Placebo Across All Time Points||1.011|0.938|0.1628
90830708|NCT04564846|181534176|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.784||||0.0674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.605|1.017|||Analysis of Covariance|||Estimated Difference from Placebo Across All Time Points|Log transformed values analyzed using an Analysis of Covariance model with treatment and time point as effects and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.|1.017|0.605|0.0674
90958902|NCT04874415|181797840|SUPERIORITY|Main effects of each intervention factor were estimated using linear regression including all prespecified two-way interactions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-135.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2424.0|2153.0|||||Daily step count goal is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|||2153|-2424|
90830709|NCT04564846|181534177|OTHER|Log transformed values analyzed using an Analysis of Covariance model with treatment and time point as effects and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.|Risk Ratio, log|1.067||||0.8182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.976|1.167|||Analysis of Covariance|||Estimated Difference from Placebo Across All Time Points.||1.167|0.976|0.8182
90830710|NCT04564846|181534178|OTHER|AUC Parameters analyzed using an Analysis of Covariance model with treatment as the main effect and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.|Risk Ratio, log|1.007||||0.8182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.951|1.066|||Analysis of Covariance|||||1.066|0.951|0.8182
91087312|NCT01401543|182057156|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|AUC(0-∞) was log-transformed and analyzed using a linear mixed effects model with fixed factor for formulation, sequence, and period, and random factor for participant.|Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.86|0.95|||||Formulation, sequence, and period were included in the model as fixed effects, and participant as a random factor.|||0.95|0.86|
90830711|NCT04564846|181534179|OTHER||Analysis of Variance|0.4628|||||TWO_SIDED|||||Parameter analyzed using an Analysis of Variance model with treatment as the main effect.||||||||
90830712|NCT00179621|181534180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||To compare the response rates of Lenalidomide 5 mg QD vs. placebo, the Hochberg procedure was used to control the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS) score (IPSS combined score =0 versus \>0) to compare lenalidomide treatment with placebo.||||||<0.001
90830713|NCT00179621|181534180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||To compare the response rates of Lenalidomide 10 mg QD vs. placebo, the Hochberg procedure was used to control the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS) score (IPSS combined score =0 versus \>0) to compare lenalidomide treatment with placebo.||||||<0.001
90830714|NCT00179621|181534181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS) score (IPSS combined score =0 versus \>0) to compare lenalidomide treatment with placebo.||||||<0.001
90830715|NCT00179621|181534181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS) score (IPSS combined score =0 versus \>0) to compare lenalidomide treatment with placebo.||||||<0.001
90830716|NCT00179621|181534191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
90830717|NCT00179621|181534191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
90830718|NCT00179621|181534192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.054||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.054
90830719|NCT00179621|181534192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.080
90830720|NCT00179621|181534193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.062||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.062
90830721|NCT00179621|181534193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.113||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.113
90830722|NCT02722564|181534195|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||p value associated with the change between estimated and actual BrAC when the participants BrAC was ascending to 0.1.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90830723|NCT02722564|181534195|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||p value associated with change between estimated and actual BrAC as participants BrAC descended to 0.08.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90830724|NCT00865345|181534196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Intercept from ANCOVA model|70.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.0|100.0|||ANCOVA|null model ANOVA is used to calculate 95% CI around accuracy rate. Intercept was fit in the abscence of other predictors.||||100|60|<0.05
90830725|NCT00383552|181534209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.001
90830726|NCT00383552|181534210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.001
90830727|NCT00383552|181534212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90830728|NCT00383552|181534213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90830729|NCT00383552|181534214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.073|||||||Longitudinal Model|||||||0.073
91023854|NCT03549130|181931108|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.8||||0.0333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.45|-0.14||Between treatment p-values.|ANCOVA|Treatment,site used as factors;following variables as covariate:baseline, age,level of congestion symptoms at baseline,Berlin score,Epworth sleepiness|Difference between treatments of adjusted mean change from baseline.|Treatment comparison of NRQLQ between active and placebo strip group for Sleep Time Problems.||-0.14|-3.45|0.0333
90830730|NCT00383552|181534215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.015||||||BMI 25 to \<30|ANCOVA|||||||0.015
90830731|NCT00383552|181534215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||BMI less than 25 and for BMI 30 or more|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91023855|NCT03549130|181931108|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.63||||0.0345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.13|-0.12||Between treatment p-values.|ANCOVA|Treatment,site used as factors;following variables as covariate:baseline, age,level of congestion symptoms at baseline,Berlin score,Epworth sleepiness|Difference between treatments of adjusted mean change from baseline.|Treatment comparison of NRQLQ between active and placebo strip group for Symptoms on Waking in the Morning.||-0.12|-3.13|0.0345
90830732|NCT03692208|181534219|OTHER|Quantitative outcomes from chart and survey data were summarized by basic descriptive statistics.|||||<|0.01||||||P-values were calculated. Only P values of \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Chi-squared|Chi-squared tests, Fisher's Exact tests, two-sample t-tests, and paired two-sample t-tests were utilized to assess the outcomes between study arms.||||||<0.01
90830733|NCT00762359|181534223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.0989|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0425|0.23|||Log Rank|||||0.2300|0.0425|<0.0001
90830734|NCT00762359|181534224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
90830735|NCT00762359|181534225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
90830736|NCT00762359|181534226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0079||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0079
90830737|NCT00762359|181534227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0433||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0433
90830738|NCT00762359|181534229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
90830739|NCT00762359|181534230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0006
90830740|NCT00762359|181534231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0025||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0025
90830741|NCT00762359|181534232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0010
90830742|NCT00762359|181534234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
90830743|NCT00762359|181534235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6148||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6148
90830744|NCT00762359|181534236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.805||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8050
90830745|NCT00762359|181534237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8678||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8678
90830746|NCT00762359|181534238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2688||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2688
90830747|NCT00762359|181534240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7054||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7054
90830748|NCT00762359|181534241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3400
90830749|NCT00762359|181534242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8813||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8813
90830750|NCT00762359|181534243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1862||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1862
90830751|NCT00762359|181534245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8604||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8604
90830752|NCT00762359|181534246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5485||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5485
90830753|NCT00762359|181534247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7382||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7382
90830754|NCT00762359|181534248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7619||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7619
90830755|NCT00762359|181534250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0204||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0204
90830756|NCT00762359|181534251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0046||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0046
90830757|NCT00762359|181534252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0059||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0059
90830758|NCT00762359|181534253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1229||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1229
90830759|NCT00762359|181534255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2694||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2694
90830760|NCT00762359|181534256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0141||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0141
90830761|NCT00762359|181534257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3128||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3128
90830762|NCT00762359|181534258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.145||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1450
90830763|NCT00762359|181534260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6175||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6175
90830764|NCT00762359|181534261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4496||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4496
90830765|NCT00762359|181534262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4718||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4718
90830766|NCT00762359|181534263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4484||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4484
90830767|NCT00762359|181534265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2604||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2604
90830768|NCT00762359|181534266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6818||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6818
90830769|NCT00762359|181534267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9015||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.9015
90830770|NCT00762359|181534268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4497||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4497
90830771|NCT05482308|181534294|OTHER||Mean differences(Test-Reference)|98.35|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.92|104.1|||Mixed effect model|"Mixed effect model was fitted to obtain:~1.Adjusted mean differences 2.90% Confidence intervals(CI)"||||104.10|92.92|
90830772|NCT05482308|181534295|OTHER||Mean difference (Test-Reference)|91.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.5|102.9|||Mixed effect model|"Mixed effect model was fitted to obtain:~1.Adjusted mean differences 2.90% Confidence intervals(CI)"||||102.90|81.50|
91023856|NCT03549130|181931108|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.71||||0.1711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|0.31||Between treatment p-values.|ANCOVA|Treatment,site used as factors;following variables as covariate:baseline, age,level of congestion symptoms at baseline,Berlin score,Epworth sleepiness|Difference between treatments of adjusted mean change from baseline.|Treatment comparison of NRQLQ between active and placebo strip group for Practical Problems.||0.31|-1.72|0.1711
91087313|NCT01401543|182057156|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|AUC(0-∞) was log-transformed and analyzed using a linear mixed effects model with fixed factor for formulation, sequence, and period, and random factor for participant.|Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|0.99|||||Formulation, sequence, and period were included in the model as fixed effects, and participant as a random factor.|||0.99|0.90|
90830773|NCT03016312|181534296|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.184||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.971|1.445|||Log Rank|||Unstratified Analysis||1.445|0.971|0.0940
90830774|NCT03016312|181534296|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.118||||0.2786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.913|1.37|||Log Rank|||Stratified Analysis||1.370|0.913|0.2786
90830775|NCT03016312|181534297|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|-0.2||||0.9391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.38|4.97|||z-test|||Difference in Event Free Rate - 6 months||4.97|-5.38|0.9391
90830776|NCT03016312|181534297|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|-4.03||||0.2706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.21|3.14|||z-test|||Difference in Event Free Rate - 12 months||3.14|-11.21|0.2706
90830777|NCT03016312|181534299|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.917||||0.3157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.775|1.086|||Log Rank|||Unstratified Analysis||1.086|0.775|0.3157
90830778|NCT03016312|181534299|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.899||||0.2366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.754|1.072|||Log Rank|||Stratified Analysis||1.072|0.754|0.2366
90830779|NCT03016312|181534300|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|2.21||||0.5959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.95|10.37|||z-test|||Difference in Event Free Rate - 6 months||10.37|-5.95|0.5959
90956978|NCT01190514|181793670|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence of the two treatments was to be concluded if the 90% CIs for the ratio of adjusted geometric means for Cmax fell wholly within (80%, 125%).|Ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means|101.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.66|108.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted mean difference and the 90% CI for the difference were exponentiated to provide an estimate of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (test/reference).|"DVS SR 25 mg\*2 fed (test); DVS SR 50 mg fed (reference).~Natural log transformed Cmax: mixed models analysis with sequence, period, treatment (formulation by food status) as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect."||108.40|94.66|
90830780|NCT03016312|181534300|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|1.44||||0.6262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.35|7.23|||z-test|||Difference in Event Free Rate - 12 months||7.23|-4.35|0.6262
90830781|NCT03016312|181534301|SUPERIORITY||Difference in 50% Decrease Response Rate|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|2.0|-4.5|7.8|||||||Odds Ratio: 1.1 95%CI: 0.8, 1.5|7.8|-4.5|
90830782|NCT03016312|181534302|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.055||||0.5359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.251|||Log Rank|||Unstratified Analysis||1.251|0.890|0.5359
90830783|NCT03016312|181534302|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.037||||0.6857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.869|1.238|||Log Rank|||Stratified Analysis||1.238|0.869|0.6857
90830784|NCT04233008|181534320|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.04
90830785|NCT04233008|181534321|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.14
90830786|NCT04233008|181534322|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
90830787|NCT04233008|181534323|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.39
90830788|NCT04233008|181534324|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.01
90830789|NCT04233008|181534326|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.8
90830790|NCT00416624|181534332|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the hematopoietic response rate in the standard therapy group is far from 50% (\<25% or \>75%), the\> above sample size will provide an 80% power to detect a difference as small as\> 25%.|||||>|0.41|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||With 80 patients per treatment arm, there will be\> about 80% power to detect a difference through Fisher's exact test across two\> treatment arms of 25% in the true percentage of patients that experience a\> hematopoietic response as defined previously, if that percentage is at least 30% in\> the superior group, again with a 1.7% type I error rate.||||>0.41
90830791|NCT00416624|181534334|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A sample size of 80 patients per arm will provide\> 80% power to detect differences between average hemoglobin levels in the\> reference arm and another treatment of 50% of the standard deviation. Note that\> typically one would expect the estimates for the standard deviation at a single time\> point to differ from the standard deviation for the difference from baseline.|||||>|0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.13
90830792|NCT00416624|181534336|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the hematopoietic response rate in the standard therapy group is far from 50% (\<25% or \>75%), the\> above sample size will provide an 80% power to detect a difference as small as\> 25%.|||||>|0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||With 80 patients per treatment arm, there will be\> about 80% power to detect a difference through Fisher's exact test across two\> treatment arms of 25% in the true percentage of patients that experience a\> hematopoietic response as defined previously, if that percentage is at least 30% in\> the superior group, again with a 1.7% type I error rate.||||>0.49
90830793|NCT00416624|181534339|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the hematopoietic response rate in the standard therapy group is far from 50% (\<25% or \>75%), the above sample size will provide an 80% power to detect a difference as small as 25%.|||||>|0.56|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||With 80 patients per treatment arm, there will be about 80% power to detect a difference through Fisher's exact test across two treatment arms of 25% in the true percentage of patients that experience a hematopoietic response as defined previously, if that percentage is at least 30% in the superior group, again with a 1.7% type I error rate.||||>0.56
90830794|NCT00904813|181534344|NON_INFERIORITY|In the initial protocol treatment groups were deemed non-inferior if the upper limit of a two-sided 90% CI for the hazard ratio did not exceed 1.7. With a cumulative incidence of local recurrence at 15%, a sample size of 840 participants were determined to provide a power of 80%. However, due to lower recurrence rate, the trial was re-powered in the amendment 1999 to deem non-inferiority at an HR not exceeding 2.5 or 3.6 depending on the frequency of local recurrence.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.38||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.06|2.56||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Log Rank|An overall p-value was calculated.|SRT was used as reference group. Estimation described above is for SRT-delay. For LRT-delay HR (90% CI) was 1.22 with lower limit: 0.33, and upper limit: 3.45.|The effect of treatment regimen on local recurrence as first event in the three-armed group comparison (n = 385) was estimated with proportional hazards regression, stratified by participating centre.||2.56|0.06|0.52
90830795|NCT00904813|181534344|NON_INFERIORITY|In the initial protocol treatment groups were deemed non-inferior if the upper limit of a two-sided 90% CI for the hazard ratio did not exceed 1.7. With a cumulative incidence of local recurrence at 15%, a sample size of 840 participants were determined to provide a power of 80%. However, due to lower recurrence rate, the trial was re-powered in the amendment 1999 to deem non-inferiority at an HR not exceeding 2.5 or 3.6 depending on the frequency of local recurrence.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.35||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Log Rank|An overall p-value was calculated.|SRT was used as reference group (1.00). Estimation described above is for SRT-delay. For LRT-delay HR (95% CI) was 0.99 with lower limit: 0.68, and upper limit: 1.42.|The effect of treatment regimen on recurrence-free survival in the three armed randomisation comparison (n = 385) was estimated with proportional hazards regression, stratified by participating centre.||1.35|0.64|0.92
90830796|NCT00904813|181534344|NON_INFERIORITY|In the initial protocol treatment groups were deemed non-inferior if the upper limit of a two-sided 90% CI for the hazard ratio did not exceed 1.7. With a cumulative incidence of local recurrence at 15%, a sample size of 840 participants were determined to provide a power of 80%. However, due to lower recurrence rate, the trial was re-powered in the amendment 1999 to deem non-inferiority at an HR not exceeding 2.5 or 3.6 depending on the frequency of local recurrence.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.36|2.27||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Log Rank||SRT was used as reference group (1.00). Estimation described above is for SRT-delay.|The effect of treatment regimen on local recurrence as first event in the pooled short-course RT comparison (n = 712) was estimated with proportional hazards regression, stratified by participating centre.||2.27|0.36|0.59
90830797|NCT00904813|181534344|NON_INFERIORITY|In the initial protocol treatment groups were deemed non-inferior if the upper limit of a two-sided 90% CI for the hazard ratio did not exceed 1.7. With a cumulative incidence of local recurrence at 15%, a sample size of 840 participants were determined to provide a power of 80%. However, due to lower recurrence rate, the trial was re-powered in the amendment 1999 to deem non-inferiority at an HR not exceeding 2.5 or 3.6 depending on the frequency of local recurrence.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.18||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Log Rank||SRT was used as reference group. Estimation described above is for SRT-delay.|The effect of treatment regimen on recurrence-free survival in the pooled short-course RT comparison (n = 712) was estimated with proportional hazards regression, stratified by participating centre.||1.18|0.69|0.39
90830798|NCT00904813|181534345|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72||||0.289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.32||The threshold of statistical significance was p=0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Model was adjusted for sex, age over 75 years, type of surgery and ASA fitness grade.|Group B was used as the reference group.|The association between postoperative complications and short-course RT by overall treatment time was assessed using logistic regression analysis.||1.32|0.40|0.289
90830799|NCT00904813|181534345|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.84||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Model was adjusted for sex, age over 75 years, type of surgery and ASA fitness grade.|Group B was used as the reference group.|The association between postoperative complications and short-course RT by overall treatment time was assessed using logistic regression analysis.||0.84|0.30|0.009
90956979|NCT01190514|181793670|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence of the two treatments was to be concluded if the 90% CIs for the ratio of adjusted geometric means for Cmax fell wholly within (80%, 125%).|ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means|115.54|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|108.59|122.94|||Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted mean difference and the 90% CI for the difference were exponentiated to provide an estimate of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (test/reference).|"Food effect DVS SR 50 mg fed (test) versus DVS SR 50 mg fasted (reference).~Natural log transformed Cmax: mixed models analysis with sequence, period, treatment (formulation by food status) as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect."||122.94|108.59|
91023857|NCT03549130|181931109|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.47||||0.5063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|0.92||Between treatment p-values.|ANCOVA|Treatment,site used as factors;following variables as covariate:baseline, age,level of congestion symptoms at baseline,Berlin score,Epworth sleepiness|Difference between treatments of adjusted mean change from baseline.|Treatment comparison of NRQLQ between active and placebo strip group for Sleep problems.||0.92|-1.85|0.5063
91023858|NCT03549130|181931109|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.97||||0.2496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.64|0.69||Between treatment p-values.|ANCOVA|Treatment,site used as factors;following variables as covariate:baseline, age,level of congestion symptoms at baseline,Berlin score,Epworth sleepiness|Difference between treatments of adjusted mean change from baseline.|Treatment comparison of NRQLQ between active and placebo strip group for Sleep time problems.||0.69|-2.64|0.2496
91023859|NCT03549130|181931109|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.71||||0.3325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|0.74||Between treatment p-values.|ANCOVA|Treatment,site used as factors;following variables as covariate:baseline, age,level of congestion symptoms at baseline,Berlin score,Epworth sleepiness|Difference between treatments of adjusted mean change from baseline.|Treatment comparison of NRQLQ between active and placebo strip group for symptoms on waking in the morning.||0.74|-2.16|0.3325
90830800|NCT00904813|181534345|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.65||The threshold for statistical significance was p-value=0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Model was adjusted for sex, age over 75 years, type of surgery and ASA fitness grade.|Group B was used as the reference group.|The association between postoperative complications and short-course RT by overall treatment time was assessed using logistic regression analysis.||0.65|0.23|<0.001
90830801|NCT00904813|181534345|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.58||||0.521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|6.37||The threshold for statistical significance was p-value = 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Model was adjusted for sex, age over 75 years, type of surgery and ASA fitness grade.|Group E was used as the reference group.|The association between postoperative complications and long-course RT by overall treatment time was assessed using logistic regression analysis.||6.37|0.39|0.521
90830802|NCT00904813|181534346|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.99||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Regression, Cox|Model adjusted for age, sex and type of surgery.|No pCR was used as reference group.|The association between pathological complete response (pCR), eg no signs of viable tumour or metastatic nodes (T0N0) and overall survival (OS) was assessed using Cox-regression model.||0.99|0.26|0.046
90830803|NCT01173016|181534355|OTHER|||||||0.038|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Impact of anti-laronidase antibody status on the change in 6MWT outcome was tested||||0.038
90830804|NCT04245111|181534363|OTHER|No other statistical analysis completed other than percentage of patients completed as reported in the data table section||||||||||||||||No other statistical analysis completed other than percentage of patients completed as reported in the data table section|No other statistical analysis completed other than percentage of patients completed as reported in the data table section|||
90830805|NCT02792231|181534364|SUPERIORITY||rate ratio|0.416|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.309|0.56|||negative binomial regression model|||Obtained from fitting a negative binomial regression model with log-link to the number of relapses, adjusted for treatment and region as factors, number of relapses in previous year, baseline EDSS, baseline number of Gd-enhancing lesions and the patient's age at baseline as covariates. The natural log of the time-in-study was used as offset to annualize the relapse rate.||0.560|0.309|<0.001
90830806|NCT02792231|181534365|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.657||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.863|||Regression, Cox|||Pooled data - this study was not powered for the analysis of this endpoint individually. It was pre-specified in the study protocol to combine the data from this study with study COMB157G2301 to address this endpoint.||0.863|0.500|0.003
90830807|NCT02792231|181534366|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.662||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.449|0.977|||Regression, Cox|||This study was not powered for the analysis of this endpoint individually. It was pre-specified in the study protocol to combine the data from this study with study COMB157G2301 to address this endpoint.||0.977|0.449|0.038
90830808|NCT02792231|181534367|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.676||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.498|0.917|||Regression, Cox|||This study was not powered for the analysis of this endpoint individually. It was pre-specified in the study protocol to combine the data from this study with study COMB157G2301 to address this endpoint.||0.917|0.498|0.012
90830809|NCT02792231|181534368|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.759||||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.174|||Regression, Cox|||This study was not powered for the analysis of this endpoint individually. It was pre-specified in the study protocol to combine the data from this study with study COMB157G2301 to address this endpoint.||1.174|0.490|0.215
90830810|NCT02792231|181534369|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.355||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.952|1.928|||Regression, Cox|||This study was not powered for the analysis of this endpoint individually. It was pre-specified in the study protocol to combine the data from this study with study COMB157G2301 to address this endpoint.||1.928|0.952|0.092
90956980|NCT00706433|181793681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.768||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Rank ANCOVA with baseline total inflammatory lesion counts serving as the covariate.||Null hypothesis: equal median changes from baseline in total inflammatory lesion counts among the treatments||||0.7680
90830811|NCT02792231|181534370|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.523||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.936|2.477|||Regression, Cox|||This study was not powered for the analysis of this endpoint individually. It was pre-specified in the study protocol to combine the data from this study with study COMB157G2301 to address this endpoint.||2.477|0.936|0.090
90830812|NCT02792231|181534371|SUPERIORITY||rate ratio|0.061|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.037|0.101|||negative binomial regression model|||||0.101|0.037|<.001
91023860|NCT03549130|181931109|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.81||||0.1088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|0.18||Between treatment p-values.|ANCOVA|Treatment,site used as factors;following variables as covariate:baseline, age,level of congestion symptoms at baseline,Berlin score,Epworth sleepiness|Difference between treatments of adjusted mean change from baseline.|Treatment comparison of NRQLQ between active and placebo strip group for practical problems.||0.18|-1.81|0.1088
91023861|NCT03549130|181931110|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.25||||0.2513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.18||Between treatment p-values.|ANCOVA|Treatment,site used as factors;following variables as covariate:baseline, age,level of congestion symptoms at baseline,Berlin score,Epworth sleepiness|Difference between treatments of adjusted mean change from baseline.|Treatment comparison of Symptoms on Waking in the Morning in NRQLQ between active and placebo strip group for feel tired and unrefreshed.||0.18|-0.68|0.2513
90830813|NCT02792231|181534372|SUPERIORITY||rate ratio|0.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.27|||negative binomial regression model|||Month 12||0.27|0.17|<.001
90956981|NCT00706433|181793682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7975||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Null hypothesis: equal success rates.||||0.7975
91023862|NCT03549130|181931110|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.37||||0.0743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.04||Between treatment p-values.|ANCOVA|Treatment,site used as factors;following variables as covariate:baseline, age,level of congestion symptoms at baseline,Berlin score,Epworth sleepiness|Difference between treatments of adjusted mean change from baseline.|Treatment comparison of Symptoms on Waking in the Morning in NRQLQ between active and placebo strip group for nasal congestion or stuffy nose.||0.04|-0.78|0.0743
91023863|NCT03549130|181931110|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.55||||0.0158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.1||Between treatment p-values.|ANCOVA|Treatment,site used as factors;following variables as covariate:baseline, age,level of congestion symptoms at baseline,Berlin score,Epworth sleepiness|Difference between treatments of adjusted mean change from baseline.|Treatment comparison of Symptoms on Waking in the Morning in NRQLQ between active and placebo strip group for congestion in sinuses.||-0.10|-0.99|0.0158
90830814|NCT02792231|181534372|SUPERIORITY||rate ratio|0.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.31|||negative binomial regression model|||Month 24||0.31|0.12|<.001
90830815|NCT02792231|181534372|SUPERIORITY||rate ratio|0.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.19|||negative binomial regression model|||End of Study||0.19|0.13|<.001
90830816|NCT02792231|181534373|SUPERIORITY||Geo-mean ratio|0.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|0.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Models for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Month 3||0.93|0.85|<.001
90830817|NCT02792231|181534373|SUPERIORITY||Geo-mean ratio|0.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Models for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Month 12||0.79|0.70|<.001
90830818|NCT02792231|181534373|SUPERIORITY||Geo-mean ratio|0.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Models for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Month 24||0.81|0.71|<.001
90830819|NCT02792231|181534374|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.15|||random coefficient model|||||0.15|-0.02|0.128
90830820|NCT02792231|181534377|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.641||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.486|0.847|||Regression, Cox|||This study was not powered for the analysis of this endpoint individually. It was pre-specified in the study protocol to combine the data from this study with study COMB157G2301 to address this endpoint.||0.847|0.486|0.002
90830821|NCT02792231|181534378|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.657||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.481|0.898|||Regression, Cox|||This study was not powered for the analysis of this endpoint individually. It was pre-specified in the study protocol to combine the data from this study with study COMB157G2301 to address this endpoint.||0.898|0.481|0.008
90830822|NCT01755234|181534405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.97
90830823|NCT01755234|181534406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.96
90830824|NCT01755234|181534407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.96
90830825|NCT01755234|181534408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.84
90830826|NCT00861705|181534430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0018|||||||Chi-squared|Reported p-values are unadjusted and 1-sided||The study was designed to detect an increase in the incidence of pCR from 35% in the control arm to 55% in the experimental arm using a 1-sided chi square test of proportions. With a target sample of 362 patients and assuming a 10% dropout rate, an overall assessable sample size of 326 patients resulted in \> 95% power.||||0.0018
90830827|NCT00861705|181534431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0089|||||||Chi-squared|Reported p-values are unadjusted and 1-sided||The study was designed to detect an increase in the incidence of pCR from 35% in the control arm to 55% in the experimental arm using a 1-sided chi square test of proportions. With a target sample of 362 patients and assuming a 10% dropout rate, an overall assessable sample size of 326 patients resulted in \> 95% power.||||0.0089
90830828|NCT00861705|181534432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0029|||||||Chi-squared|Reported p-values are unadjusted and 1-sided||||||0.0029
90830829|NCT00861705|181534433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.057|||||||Chi-squared|Reported p-values are unadjusted and 1-sided||||||0.057
90830830|NCT00861705|181534437|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|2.1||||||||2.10|0.67|
90830831|NCT00861705|181534437|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|2.47||||||||2.47|0.82|
90830832|NCT00861705|181534437|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.37||||||||1.37|0.49|
90830833|NCT00861705|181534438|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.75||||||||1.75|0.66|
90830834|NCT00861705|181534438|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.92||||||||1.92|0.74|
90830835|NCT00861705|181534438|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.37||||||||1.37|0.49|
90830836|NCT00861705|181534439|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.03||||||||2.03|0.66|
90830837|NCT00861705|181534439|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.16||||||||2.16|0.72|
90830838|NCT00861705|181534439|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.7||||||||1.70|0.53|
90830839|NCT04864249|181534466|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.54
90830840|NCT04864249|181534467|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04
90830841|NCT04864249|181534468|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.89
90830842|NCT04864249|181534469|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
90830843|NCT04864249|181534470|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.15
90830844|NCT04864249|181534471|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.84
90830845|NCT04864249|181534472|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.51
90830846|NCT04864249|181534473|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.55
90830847|NCT04864249|181534474|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.55
90830848|NCT04864249|181534475|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.62
90830849|NCT04864249|181534476|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.19
90830850|NCT04864249|181534477|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.66
90830851|NCT04864249|181534478|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.22
90830852|NCT04864249|181534479|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.22
90830853|NCT04864249|181534480|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.56
90830854|NCT04864249|181534481|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.80
90830855|NCT04864249|181534482|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.48
90830856|NCT04864249|181534483|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.62
90830857|NCT04864249|181534484|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.21
90830858|NCT04864249|181534485|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.19
90830859|NCT04864249|181534486|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.19
90830860|NCT04864249|181534487|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.51
90830861|NCT04864249|181534488|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.38
90830862|NCT04864249|181534489|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.68
90830863|NCT04864249|181534490|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.42
90830864|NCT04864249|181534491|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.94
90830865|NCT04864249|181534492|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.68
90830866|NCT04864249|181534493|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.31
90830867|NCT04864249|181534494|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.52
90830868|NCT04864249|181534495|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.43
90830869|NCT04864249|181534496|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.07
90830870|NCT04864249|181534497|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.47
90830871|NCT04864249|181534498|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.41
90830872|NCT04864249|181534499|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.09
91023864|NCT03549130|181931110|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.47||||0.0489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.0||Between treatment p-values.|ANCOVA|Treatment,site used as factors;following variables as covariate:baseline, age,level of congestion symptoms at baseline,Berlin score,Epworth sleepiness|Difference between treatments of adjusted mean change from baseline.|Treatment comparison of Symptoms on Waking in the Morning in NRQLQ between active and placebo strip group for time to clear nighttime drainage after waking up.||0.00|-0.94|0.0489
91023865|NCT03549130|181931111|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.19||||0.3034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.18||Between treatment p-values.|ANCOVA|Treatment,site used as factors;following variables as covariate:baseline, age,level of congestion symptoms at baseline,Berlin score,Epworth sleepiness|Difference between treatments of adjusted mean change from baseline.|Treatment comparison of Symptoms on Waking in the Morning in NRQLQ between active and placebo strip group for feel tired and unrefreshed.||0.18|-0.57|0.3034
91023866|NCT03549130|181931111|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.15||||0.4891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.27||Between treatment p-values.|ANCOVA|Treatment,site used as factors;following variables as covariate:baseline, age,level of congestion symptoms at baseline,Berlin score,Epworth sleepiness|Difference between treatments of adjusted mean change from baseline.|Treatment comparison of Symptoms on Waking in the Morning in NRQLQ between active and placebo strip group for nasal congestion or stuffy nose.||0.27|-0.57|0.4891
91023867|NCT03549130|181931111|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.01||||0.9498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.4||Between treatment p-values.|ANCOVA|Treatment,site used as factors;following variables as covariate:baseline, age,level of congestion symptoms at baseline,Berlin score,Epworth sleepiness|Difference between treatments of adjusted mean change from baseline.|Treatment comparison of Symptoms on Waking in the Morning in NRQLQ between active and placebo strip group for congestion in sinuses.||0.40|-0.43|0.9498
91087314|NCT01401543|182057156|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|AUC(0-∞) was log-transformed and analyzed using a linear mixed effects model with fixed factor for formulation, sequence, and period, and random factor for participant.|Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.07|||||Formulation, sequence, and period were included in the model as fixed effects, and participant as a random factor.|||1.07|0.97|
91087315|NCT01401543|182057157|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Cmax was log-transformed and analyzed using a linear mixed effects model with fixed factor for formulation, sequence, and period, and random factor for participant.|Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.77|0.91|||||Formulation, sequence, and period were included in the model as fixed effects, and participant as a random factor.|||0.91|0.77|
91087316|NCT01401543|182057157|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Cmax was log-transformed and analyzed using a linear mixed effects model with fixed factor for formulation, sequence, and period, and random factor for participant.|Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.71|0.85|||||Formulation, sequence, and period were included in the model as fixed effects, and participant as a random factor.|||0.85|0.71|
90830873|NCT04864249|181534500|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.12
90830874|NCT04864249|181534501|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.48
90830875|NCT00883779|181534505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.7|||Log Rank|||||0.70|0.46|<0.0001
90830876|NCT00883779|181534507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.64|||Log Rank|||PFS in adenocarcinoma subgroup||0.64|0.39|<0.0001
90830877|NCT00883779|181534507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||=|0.579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.33|||Log Rank|||PFS in non-adenocarcinoma subgroup||1.33|0.60|=0.579
90830878|NCT00883779|181534507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.53|||Log Rank|||PFS in never smoked subgroup||0.53|0.28|<0.0001
90830879|NCT00883779|181534507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84|||=|0.2067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.1|||Log Rank|||PFS in former/current smoker subgroup||1.10|0.64|=0.2067
90830880|NCT00883779|181534507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.35|||Log Rank|||PFS in subgroup EGFR mutation||0.35|0.12|<0.0001
90830881|NCT00883779|181534507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95|||=|0.7511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.34|||Log Rank|||PFS in subgroup EGFR wild-type||1.34|0.67|=0.7511
90830882|NCT00883779|181534507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63|||=|0.3169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.58|||Log Rank|||PFS in subgroup KRAS mutation||1.58|0.25|=0.3169
90830883|NCT00883779|181534507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.7|||Log Rank|||PFS in subgroup KRAS wild-type||0.70|0.37|<0.0001
90830884|NCT00883779|181534507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51|||=|0.0091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.86|||Log Rank|||PFS in subgroup EGFR IHC positive||0.86|0.31|=0.0091
90830885|NCT00883779|181534507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.4|||=|0.0179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.88|||Log Rank|||PFS in subgroup EGFR IHC negative||0.88|0.18|=0.0179
90830886|NCT00883779|181534507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.26|||=|0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.64|||Log Rank|||PFS in subgroup EGFR FISH positive||0.64|0.11|=0.0017
90830887|NCT00883779|181534507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67|||=|0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.22|||Log Rank|||PFS in subgroup EGFR FISH negative||1.22|0.37|=0.1880
90830888|NCT00883779|181534508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85|||=|0.1213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.04|||Log Rank|||OS in overall participants (FAS population)||1.04|0.70|=0.1213
90830889|NCT00883779|181534508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|||=|0.0356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.98|||Log Rank|||OS in subgroup adenocarcinoma||0.98|0.62|=0.0356
90830890|NCT00883779|181534508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.37|||=|0.1157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.03|||Log Rank|||OS in subgroup non-adenocarcinoma||2.03|0.92|=0.1157
90830891|NCT00883779|181534508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66|||=|0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.89|||Log Rank|||OS in subgroup never smoked||0.89|0.49|=0.0056
90830892|NCT00883779|181534508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14|||=|0.3473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.5|||Log Rank|||OS in subgroup current/former smoker||1.50|0.87|=0.3473
90830893|NCT00883779|181534508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72|||=|0.1614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.14|||Log Rank|||OS in subgroup EGFR mutation||1.14|0.45|=0.1614
90830894|NCT00883779|181534508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|||=|0.1691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.11|||Log Rank|||OS in subgroup EGFR wild-type||1.11|0.55|=0.1691
90830895|NCT00883779|181534508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5|||=|0.1415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.28|||Log Rank|||OS in subgroup KRAS mutation||1.28|0.19|=0.1415
90830896|NCT00883779|181534508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||=|0.1447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.08|||Log Rank|||OS in subgroup KRAS wild-type||1.08|0.59|=0.1447
90830897|NCT00883779|181534508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58|||=|0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.96|||Log Rank|||OS in EGFR IHC positive||0.96|0.35|=0.0310
90830898|NCT00883779|181534508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.46|||=|0.0581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.05|||Log Rank|||OS in subgroup EGFR IHC negative||1.05|0.21|=0.0581
90830899|NCT00883779|181534508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.32|||=|0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.75|||Log Rank|||OS of subgroup EGFR FISH positive||0.75|0.14|=0.0063
90830900|NCT00883779|181534508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||=|0.3268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.36|||Log Rank|||OS of subgroup EGFR FISH negative||1.36|0.40|=0.3268
90830901|NCT00883779|181534510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.81|||=|0.5289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|11.8|||Chi-squared|||Difference in non-progression response rates||11.8|-6.2|=0.5289
90830902|NCT00883779|181534511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.7|33.5|||Chi-squared|||Difference in objective response rates||33.5|16.7|<0.0001
90830903|NCT00883779|181534512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.5|||Log Rank|||||0.50|0.21|<0.0001
90830904|NCT00883779|181534513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.69|||Log Rank|||||0.69|0.45|<0.0001
90830905|NCT00883779|181534515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79|||=|0.0364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.99|||Log Rank|||||0.99|0.63|=0.0364
90830906|NCT00883779|181534517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77|||=|0.0181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.96|||Log Rank|||||0.96|0.61|=0.0181
90830907|NCT00883779|181534519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio, log|0.73|||=|0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.9|||Log Rank|||||0.90|0.59|=0.0035
90830908|NCT00883779|181534520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.59|||Log Rank|||||1.59|0.60|0.9130
91087317|NCT01401543|182057157|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Cmax was log-transformed and analyzed using a linear mixed effects model with fixed factor for formulation, sequence, and period, and random factor for participant.|Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|1.01|||||Formulation, sequence, and period were included in the model as fixed effects, and participant as a random factor.|||1.01|0.85|
90830909|NCT03748823|181534550|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was determined based on the 90% Confidence interval calculated from the combination z-score that accounts for the interim analysis.|Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Mean|1.257|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.16|1.361||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on log-transformed Ctrough and included treatment and stratified weight group as fixed effects.|ANOVA||Geometric least squares mean are the least squares mean from the mixed model after back transformation to the original scale. The 90% confidence interval is presented after back transformation to the original scale.|||1.361|1.160|<0.0001
90830910|NCT04678115|181534566|OTHER|Power Calculation: Sample size was estimated based on the treatment condition (three-level factor) effect size on the spontaneous blink IPF measurements (0.55) after eight participants had completed the crossover using one-way analysis of variance power calculation. This led to a sample size of 12 participants with power of 0.80 and type II error of alpha 0.05. To account for possible attrition, 16 were enrolled, with 15 completing the crossover.|||||<|0.001||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed-effects regression was used to determine the effect of treatment condition on the spontaneous blink and resting state open IPF, with participant as random intercept. Covariates of age, gender, blink sequence, and crossover order were investigated alone, and significant (P \< 0.05) covariates were included in the final model, from which the estimated marginal means and their 95% confidence interval were reported. Hypothesis: MLP allows a more complete spontaneous blink.||||<0.001
90830911|NCT04678115|181534567|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hypothesis was that both devices (MLP and KFTS) would open the eye equally well, and that both would be better than sham treatment.||||0.001
90830912|NCT04678115|181534568|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||test of proportionality|||A test of proportionality was performed to determine the effect of the three treatments on the probability of the eyelid not fully closing.||||0.001
90830913|NCT00890825|181534570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.2069|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.56|1.14||One-sided p-value. The p-value is associated with the point estimate (e.g. HR comparing AZD6244 + Docetaxel vs Placebo + Docetaxel) on the outcome measure - Overall survival.|Regression, Cox|Analysis adjusted for the following covariates; WHO PS, gender, histology and smoking status|A Hazard Ratio less than 1 favoured AZD6244 + Docetaxel|||1.14|0.56|0.2069
90830914|NCT00890825|181534571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58||||0.0138|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.42|0.79||One-sided p-value. The p-value is associated with the point estimate (e.g. HR comparing AZD6244 + Docetaxel vs Placebo + Docetaxel) on the outcome measure.|Regression, Cox|The model allowed for the effect of treatment and included terms for WHO PS, gender, histology, and smoking status.|A Hazard Ratio (HR) \< 1 favoured AZD6244 + Docetaxel|||0.79|0.42|0.0138
90830915|NCT00890825|181534572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|37.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.0|53.0||Two-sided P-value|Fisher Exact|||||53|23|< 0.0001
90830916|NCT00890825|181534574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSmeans difference|-17.03||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-25.2|-8.86||One-sided p-value. The p-value is associated with the point estimate comparing AZD6244 + Docetaxel vs Placebo + Docetaxel on the outcome measure.|ANCOVA|LS means were adjusted for baseline tumour size, time from baseline scan to randomisation, WHO PS, gender, histology, and smoking status.|(AZD6244 + Docetaxel) - (Placebo + Docetaxel)|||-8.86|-25.2|0.004
90956982|NCT00706433|181793683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.1||95.0|||||ANOVA|Rank transformed data.||Null hypothesis: equal median percent changes from baseline in total inflammatory lesion counts among the treatments||||>0.10
90894041|NCT04102579|181653453|OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Means Difference|-3.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.37|-1.95||Statistical significance achieved if p-value \<0.05.|MMRM||LS Means Difference = Valbenazine - Placebo|Results were analyzed using a mixed-effect model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis. The model included the screening period baseline TMC as a covariate, and treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit interaction, and baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effects. Participant was included as a random effect.||-1.95|-4.37|<0.0001
90894042|NCT04102579|181653454|OTHER||Percent Difference in Responders|29.65||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.77|45.37||Statistical significance achieved if p-value \<0.05.|Fisher Exact||Percent Difference in Responders (%) = Valbenazine - Placebo|||45.37|10.77|0.0007
90830917|NCT00890825|181534575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.0||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-38.34|-13.7||One-sided p-value. The p-value is associated with the point estimate comparing AZD6244 + Docetaxel vs Placebo + Docetaxel on the outcome measure.|ANCOVA|LS means were adjusted for baseline tumour size, time from baseline scan to randomisation, WHO PS, gender, histology, and smoking status|(AZD6244 + Docetaxel) - (Placebo + Docetaxel)|||-13.7|-38.34|0.004
90894043|NCT04102579|181653455|OTHER||Percent Difference in Responders|26.31||||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.32|43.74||Statistical significance achieved if p-value \<0.05.|Fisher Exact||Percent Difference in Responders (%) = Valbenazine - Placebo|||43.74|6.32|0.0062
90894044|NCT04102579|181653456|OTHER||LS Means Difference|1.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.46||0.3304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|4.31||Statistical significance achieved if p-value \<0.05.|MMRM||LS Means Difference = Valbenazine - Placebo|LS mean was based on the MMRM model which included corresponding baseline value of the Neuro-QoL Upper Extremity Function T-score as a covariate; treatment group, visit, baseline-by-visit interaction, and treatment group-by-visit interaction as fixed effects; and participant as a random effect.||4.31|-1.46|0.3304
90894045|NCT02170025|181653458|OTHER||Bayesian analysis|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.7|6.0||||||Treatment effect describes the difference in outcomes between 0.5 mg riociguat and placebo on Day 14. This was an exploratory analysis. For sample size determination a probabilistic assessment on predicted point estimates and width of credible intervals was performed.||6.0|-8.7|
90894046|NCT02170025|181653458|OTHER||Bayesian analysis|-5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.4|2.4||||||Treatment effect describes the difference in outcomes between 1.0 mg riociguat and placebo on Day 28. This was an exploratory analysis. For sample size determination a probabilistic assessment on predicted point estimates and width of credible intervals was performed.||2.4|-12.4|
90956983|NCT00706433|181793684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.1||95.0|||||ANOVA|Rank transformed data.||Null hypothesis: equal median percent changes from baseline in total inflammatory lesion counts among the treatments||||>0.10
90830918|NCT00890825|181534576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54||||0.0158|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.37|0.78||One-sided p-value. The p-value is associated with the point estimate (e.g. HR comparing AZD6244 + Docetaxel vs Placebo + Docetaxel) on the outcome measure.|Log Rank|Confidence interval (CI) used Greenwood's formula for the standard error of a survival estimate|A hazard ratio (HR) \<1 favours AZD6244 75 mg bd+Docetaxel|||0.78|0.37|0.0158
90830919|NCT01363700|181534577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|-1.11|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-1.11|-1.52|<0.001
90830920|NCT01363700|181534578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|-0.92|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.92|-1.71|<0.001
90830921|NCT01363700|181534579|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority in Mean Ocular itching score compared to Olopatadine was assessed on the non-inferiority margin (0.5) with the upper limit of the confidence interval of the difference between the Epinastine (DE-114) and Olopatadine treatment groups.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.08||||||||0.08|-0.21|
90894047|NCT01031810|181653473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.56|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.81||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.25|19.86|||paired t-test 2 sided|||Compare the mean differences between baseline (week00) and week12 hamd17 summary scores||19.86|3.25|0.012
90894048|NCT00506493|181653502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Binomial Proportions|42.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.3|<|0.01|ONE_SIDED|97.5|30.0|||The percent of patients off Class I and III AADs and successfully converted out of AF following treatment (ptest) will exceed the percent of patients off Class I and III AADs and convereted out of AF, as reported in literature (pcontrol=22.1%)|Fisher Exact|||"The specific test hypothesis is as follows:~H0: ptest ≤ 22.1% Ha: ptest \> 22.1%"|||30.0|<0.01
90956984|NCT00706433|181793686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1103||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Rank ANCOVA with baseline total inflammatory lesion counts serving as the covariate.||Null hypothesis: equal median changes from baseline in total inflammatory lesion counts among the treatments||||0.1103
90894049|NCT00506493|181653503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||binomial proportions|6.7|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|97.5||14.9|||Fisher Exact|||||14.9||<0.0001
90894050|NCT02532179|181653508|SUPERIORITY||Mean Ratio|3.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.09|4.29||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in immune modulation over time|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.29|2.09|<0.001
90894051|NCT02532179|181653509|SUPERIORITY||Mean Ratio|3.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.77|5.25||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in immune modulation over time|Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.25|2.77|<0.001
90894052|NCT02532179|181653510|SUPERIORITY||Mean Ratio|6.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.87|11.06||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in immune modulation over time|Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.06|3.87|<0.001
90894053|NCT04958785|181653544|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.456||||0.1617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.147|1.409|||Log Rank||Hazard Ratio (HR) along with its 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) were estimated using the Cox proportional hazards regression model.|||1.409|0.147|0.1617
90894054|NCT04958785|181653546|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.037|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.379|10.938|||||Odds ratios and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using chi-square test.|||10.938|0.379|
90956985|NCT00706433|181793687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7228||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Null hypothesis: equal success rates.||||0.7228
90956986|NCT00706433|181793688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3416||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates||||0.3416
90956987|NCT00706433|181793689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5759||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.5759
90956988|NCT00706433|181793690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4754||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.4754
91023868|NCT03549130|181931111|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.36||||0.1235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.1||Between treatment p-values.|ANCOVA|Treatment,site used as factors;following variables as covariate:baseline, age,level of congestion symptoms at baseline,Berlin score,Epworth sleepiness|Difference between treatments of adjusted mean change from baseline.|Treatment comparison of Symptoms on Waking in the Morning in NRQLQ between active and placebo strip group for time to clear nighttime drainage after waking up.||0.10|-0.83|0.1235
90830922|NCT01363700|181534580|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority in Mean Ocular hyperemia score compared to Olopatadine was assessed on the non-inferiority margin (0.5) with the upper limit of the confidence interval of the difference between the Epinastine (DE-114) and Olopatadine treatment groups.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.22||||||||0.22|-0.81|
90830923|NCT03649217|181534581|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||.0001
90830924|NCT03649217|181534582|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||.0001
90830925|NCT03649217|181534583|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||.001
90830926|NCT03649217|181534584|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||ANOVA|||||||.0002
90830927|NCT03649217|181534585|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||ANOVA|||||||.006
90830928|NCT01721161|181534586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-3.48||||0.3337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.61|3.65|||ANCOVA||Difference is calculated as BIIB033 100 mg/kg - placebo.|||3.65|-10.61|0.3337
90830929|NCT01721161|181534587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-3.89||||0.1868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|1.92|||ANCOVA||Difference is calculated as BIIB033 100 mg/kg - placebo.|||1.92|-9.70|0.1868
90830930|NCT01721161|181534588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-4.76||||0.1488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.26|1.74|||ANCOVA|||||1.74|-11.26|0.1488
90830931|NCT01721161|181534589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-1.15||||0.4975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.51|2.21|||ANCOVA||Difference is calculated as BIIB033 100 mg/kg - placebo.|||2.21|-4.51|0.4975
90830932|NCT01721161|181534590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-1.76||||0.3505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|1.98|||ANCOVA|||||1.98|-5.50|0.3505
90830933|NCT01721161|181534591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-1.6||||0.5371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|3.6|||ANCOVA||Difference is calculated as BIIB033 100 mg/kg - placebo.|LCLA 1.25% chart||3.6|-6.9|0.5371
90830934|NCT01721161|181534591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-0.8||||0.7741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|4.9|||ANCOVA||Difference is calculated as BIIB033 100 mg/kg - placebo.|LCLA 2.5% chart||4.9|-6.5|0.7741
90830935|NCT01721161|181534592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-1.2||||0.6645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|4.3|||ANCOVA|||LCLA 1.25% chart||4.3|-6.6|0.6645
90830936|NCT01721161|181534592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||DIfference|-0.8||||0.8015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|5.2|||ANCOVA|||LCLA 2.5%||5.2|-6.7|0.8015
90830937|NCT01721161|181534593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-7.55||||0.0504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.12|0.01|||ANCOVA|||||0.01|-15.12|0.0504
90830938|NCT01216202|181534596|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||The association between change in serum testosterone levels and cumulative mean testicular radiation dose was assessed using longitudinal regression analysis (GEE). No preoperative RT contributed with baseline values.||||0.014
90830939|NCT01216202|181534597|SUPERIORITY||Estimated mean change|-4.0||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|-1.0||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Regression, Linear|Model adjusted for time between preoperative radiotherapy (RT) and surgery.||The association between change in total number of sperms per ejaculate and relative mean testicular dose was assessed using longitudinal regression analysis (GEE).||-1.0|-6.9|0.008
90830940|NCT00614380|181534608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.34||||||95.0|0.22|0.53|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.53|0.22|
90830941|NCT00614380|181534608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.31||||||95.0|0.12|0.81|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.81|0.12|
90830942|NCT00614380|181534608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.08||||||95.0|0.06|0.13|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.13|0.06|
90830943|NCT00614380|181534608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||||95.0|0.34|2.41|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.41|0.34|
90830944|NCT00614380|181534608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.25||||||95.0|0.16|0.39|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.39|0.16|
90830945|NCT00614380|181534608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.27||||||95.0|0.1|0.72|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.72|0.10|
90830946|NCT00462306|181534647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||4000 parturients and 500 non-pregnant achieves 90% power to detect a difference of 3% positive Berlin Questionnaire rates between pregnant and non-pregnant women using a two sided chi squared test at a significance level of 0.05|Chi-squared, Corrected|||We hypothesized that the rate of positive Berlin questionnaires would be higher in pregnant women compared to age matched controls undergoing surgery.||||0.001
90830947|NCT00462306|181534648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.01
90830948|NCT02360228|181534649|OTHER|||||||0.47|||||||ANOVA|Difference from day 5 to baseline was compared between the tACS, tDCS, and sham groups using a one way ANOVA. Degrees of freedom: df=19||The null hypothesis was that there is no difference between the changes in the AHRS score from baseline to 5 days between the groups.H0: μ1=μ2=μ3 μ1: mean(difference 5 days-baseline) for tACS group (n=8) μ2: mean(difference 5 days-baseline) for tDCS group (n=7) μ3: mean(difference 5 days-baseline) for sham group (n=7)||||0.47
90830949|NCT02360228|181534651|OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||ANOVA|Difference from day 5 to baseline was compared between the tACS, tDCS, and sham using a one way ANOVA. Degrees of freedom: df=19||The null hypothesis was that there is no difference between the changes in the PANSS score from day 5 to baseline. H0: μ1=μ2=μ3 μ1: mean(difference 5 days-baseline) for tACS group (n=8) μ2: mean(difference 5 days-baseline) for tDCS group (n=7) μ3: mean(difference 5 days-baseline) for sham group (n=7)||||0.37
90956989|NCT00706433|181793691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4096||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.4096
90956990|NCT00706433|181793692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5812||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.5812
91023869|NCT03549130|181931112|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8498||||||P-value are based on chi-square test|Chi-squared|||Treatment comparison of participants showing improvement based on NRQLQ on all of the items in sleep problems.||||0.8498
90830950|NCT02360228|181534652|OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||ANOVA|Difference from day 5 to baseline was compared between the tACS, tDCS, and sham groups using a one way ANOVA. Degrees of freedom: df=19||"The null hypothesis was that there is no difference between the changes in the BACS score from baseline to 5 days between the groups:~H0: μ1=μ2=μ3 μ1: mean(difference 5 days-baseline) for tACS group (n=8) μ2: mean(difference 5 days-baseline) for tDCS group (n=7) μ3: mean(difference 5 days-baseline) for sham group (n=7)"||||0.11
90830951|NCT02775916|181534661|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.69|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.332|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.343|1.937||||||||1.937|-3.343|
90830952|NCT02775916|181534662|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.466|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|3.55||||||||3.55|-2.52|
90830953|NCT02775916|181534663|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.119|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.08|6.89||||||||6.89|-6.08|
90830954|NCT02775916|181534663|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.615|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.27|13.93||||||||13.93|-5.27|
90894055|NCT01224925|181653559|SUPERIORITY||Log Rank (Mantel-Cox)|842.0|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|693.0|991.0|||Log Rank|||The power calculation was based on the intention to show a 30% difference in success rates. The following parameters were used (binomial scale): type I error: 5%; expected success rate in the CH group: 55% (based on Barthel et al. 2000); minimal difference between success rates not to be overlooked: 30%; type II error: 5%. The calculations revealed the need for 64 subjects in each group. After adding 20% for eventual drop-outs, we planned to recruit 160 subjects in one year.||991|693|<0.01
91087318|NCT01401543|182057157|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Cmax was log-transformed and analyzed using a linear mixed effects model with fixed factor for formulation, sequence, and period, and random factor for participant.|Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7|0.84|||||Formulation, sequence, and period were included in the model as fixed effects, and participant as a random factor.|||0.84|0.70|
91087319|NCT01401543|182057157|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Cmax was log-transformed and analyzed using a linear mixed effects model with fixed factor for formulation, sequence, and period, and random factor for participant.|Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|1.0|||||Formulation, sequence, and period were included in the model as fixed effects, and participant as a random factor.|||1.00|0.84|
91087320|NCT01401543|182057157|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Cmax was log-transformed and analyzed using a linear mixed effects model with fixed factor for formulation, sequence, and period, and random factor for participant.|Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.08|||||Formulation, sequence, and period were included in the model as fixed effects, and participant as a random factor.|||1.08|0.91|
91087321|NCT01401543|182057158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|1.05||||||||1.05|0.93|
91087322|NCT01401543|182057158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.89|1.0||||||||1.00|0.89|
90894056|NCT01224925|181653559|SUPERIORITY||Log Rank (Mantel-Cox)|1201.0|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1068.0|1335.0|||Log Rank|||||1335|1068|<0.01
90956991|NCT00706433|181793693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8679||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.8679
91087323|NCT01401543|182057158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.02||||||||1.02|0.90|
90830955|NCT02775916|181534664|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.27|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.76|8.66||||||||8.66|-21.76|
90830956|NCT02775916|181534665|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.626|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.94|9.0||||||||9.00|-30.94|
90830957|NCT02775916|181534666|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.595|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.75|14.37||||||||14.37|-29.75|
90830958|NCT01693029|181534671|EQUIVALENCE|"Equivalence margin (-0.5, 0.5) g/dL. Results from ANCOVA with factors treatment group and covariates mean baseline Hb and mean weekly dose during the evaluation period (Week 21-28)"|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0926|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2264|0.0413|||||||95% confidence interval for the difference is (-0.2522, 0.0670).|0.0413|-0.2264|
90830959|NCT00657540|181534691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0185|||||||Chi-squared|The proportion of treatment failures was compared between groups using a one-sided test at the 0.025 level of significance.||||||0.0185
90830960|NCT00657540|181534692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2302|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared tests at the 0.025 level of significance were used to test for a difference in proportions between the treatment groups.||||||0.2302
90830961|NCT00657540|181534693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8213|||||||Chi-squared|The proportion of subjects with at least one drug-related adverse event by treatment groups using a two-sided test at the 0.05 level of significance.||||||0.8213
90830962|NCT00657540|181534694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2765|||||||Chi-squared|The proportion of subjects with decreased pain at any time point between treatment groups using a one-sided test at the 0.025 level of significance.||||||0.2765
90830963|NCT00141453|181534696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.79||95.0|0.75|1.24|||Regression, Cox|The covariates were urinary albumin:creatinine ratio and serum creatinine at baseline \& regions (Japan/Hong Kong) for the renal composite event rate.||We planned to collect 400 patients to detect 35% risk reduction for renal outcome in olmesartan group with 80% power at 2-sided .05 alpha level. The Cox regression model was applied to estimate the hazard ratios (HR)between treatment groups with 95% confidence intervals for the renal and cardiovascular composite event rate.||1.24|0.75|0.79
90830964|NCT00141453|181534697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64||||0.039||95.0|0.43|0.98|||Regression, Cox|Covariates baseline urinary albumin:creatinine ratio, age and history of cardiovascular disease for cardiovascular composite event rate.||||0.98|0.43|0.039
90894057|NCT01224925|181653560|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
90956992|NCT00706433|181793694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3666||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.3666
91087324|NCT01401543|182057158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.02||||||||1.02|0.90|
91087325|NCT01401543|182057158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.03||||||||1.03|0.91|
91087326|NCT01401543|182057158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|1.08||||||||1.08|0.95|
91087327|NCT01401543|182057159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.68|0.77|||||Formulation, sequence, and period were included in the model as fixed effects, and participant as a random factor.|||0.77|0.68|
91087328|NCT01401543|182057159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.66|0.76|||||Formulation, sequence, and period were included in the model as fixed effects, and participant as a random factor.|||0.76|0.66|
91087329|NCT01401543|182057159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.05|||||Formulation, sequence, and period were included in the model as fixed effects, and participant as a random factor.|||1.05|0.92|
90830965|NCT02656017|181534721|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model with random intercept was used to compare the change in GSRS score as a function of time, the interaction between time and study arm, and clinical site.||0.26|-0.13|0.50
91087330|NCT01401543|182057159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.65|0.74|||||Formulation, sequence, and period were included in the model as fixed effects, and participant as a random factor.|||0.74|0.65|
91087331|NCT01401543|182057159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.02|||||Formulation, sequence, and period were included in the model as fixed effects, and participant as a random factor.|||1.02|0.90|
91087332|NCT01401543|182057159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.04|||||Formulation, sequence, and period were included in the model as fixed effects, and participant as a random factor.|||1.04|0.91|
91087333|NCT00069823|182057160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence-Rate Ratio|1.2||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.0||P values are for the treatment effect of esomeprazole as compared with placebo.|Negative binomial regression|||Rates were compared with incidence-rate ratios (IRR). The IRR and P values were estimated with the use of negative binomial regression models with robust variance estimates.||2.0|0.8|0.35
90830966|NCT02656017|181534722|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Gray's test|||The Gray's test of homogeneity for competing risks was used to compare cumulative incidence of tolerating the drug between study arms.||||0.12
91087334|NCT00069823|182057161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence-Rate Ratio|0.9||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.5||P values are for the treatment effect of esomeprazole as compared with placebo.|Negative binomial regression|||Rates were compared with incidence-rate ratios (IRR). The IRR and P values were estimated with the use of negative binomial regression models with robust variance estimates.||1.5|0.6|0.79
91087335|NCT00069823|182057162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence-Rate Ratio|1.1||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.5||P values are for the treatment effect of esomeprazole as compared with placebo.|Negative binomial regression|||The rates of EPACs were compared using incidence-rate ratios (IRR). IRR and P value were estimated with the use of negative binomial regression models with robust variance estimates.||1.5|0.8|0.66
91087336|NCT00069823|182057163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence-Rate Ratio|0.9||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.3||P values are for the treatment effect of esomeprazole as compared with placebo.|Negative binomial regression|||Rates were compared with incidence-rate ratios (IRR). The IRR and P values were estimated with the use of negative binomial regression models with robust variance estimates.||1.3|0.6|0.62
91087337|NCT00069823|182057164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence-Rate Ratio|1.0||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.3||P values are for the treatment effect of esomeprazole as compared with placebo.|Negative binomial regression|||Rates were compared with incidence-rate ratios (IRR). The IRR and P values were estimated with the use of negative binomial regression models with robust variance estimates.||1.3|0.8|0.87
91087338|NCT00069823|182057165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence-Rate Ratio|0.9||||0.62||95.0|0.7|1.3||P values are for the treatment effect of esomeprazole as compared with placebo.|Negative binomial regression|||Incidence-rate ratios and P values were estimated with the use of negative binomial regression models with robust variance estimates.||1.3|0.7|0.62
90830967|NCT02656017|181534723|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Cumulative incidence between study arms and logistic regression was used to assess the association between study arms.||||0.98
90894058|NCT03675451|181653561|OTHER|Clopper-Pearson (Exact) 95% confidence interval to assess precision of finding.|Proportion of Participants|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.99|||||Clopper-Pearson (Exact) 95% confidence interval to assess precision of finding.|Clopper-Pearson (Exact) 95% confidence interval to assess precision of finding.||0.99|0.74|
90894059|NCT03675451|181653562|OTHER|Clopper-Pearson (Exact) 95% confidence interval to assess precision of finding.|Proportion of Participants|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.0|||||Clopper-Pearson (Exact) 95% confidence interval to assess precision of finding.|Clopper-Pearson (Exact) 95% confidence interval to assess precision of finding.||1.00|0.66|
90956993|NCT00706433|181793695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.308||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.3080
91087339|NCT00069823|182057166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence-Rate Ratio|0.9||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.4||P values are for the treatment effect of esomeprazole as compared with placebo.|Negative binomial regression|||Incidence-rate ratios and P values were estimated with the use of negative binomial regression models with robust variance estimates.||1.4|0.6|0.70
91087340|NCT00069823|182057167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.08||P values were calculated with the use of linear regression.|Regression, Linear||Treatment effect is the difference in mean change in the esomeprazole group minus the mean change in the placebo group, e.g. 0.00 - (-0.02) = -0.03 (rounding)|The treatment effect is the mean change in the Esomeprazole group - mean change in placebo group||0.08|-0.03|0.36
90830968|NCT02656017|181534724|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|2.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model with random intercept was used to compare the change in SF-36 PCS as a function of time, the interaction between time and study arm, and clinical site.||2.60|-1.81|0.72
90830969|NCT02656017|181534725|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.11||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|4.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model with random intercept was used to compare the change in SF-36 MCS as a function of time, the interaction between time and study arm, and clinical site.||4.25|-2.02|0.49
90830970|NCT02656017|181534726|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Generalized linear mixed model (logit link) with random intercept and slope was used to compare back pain frequency as a function of time, the interaction between time and study arm, and clinical site.||||0.44
90956994|NCT00706433|181793696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||1.0
90894060|NCT05131165|181653703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.056||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance (alpha) = 0.05|ANCOVA|||The analyses utilized control as the reference group, and thus, the values reported include control mean and standard error as the reference value (derived from an ordinary least squared regression without controls). The results for the intervention groups are derived from the multiple regression model that controlled for other participant characteristics, including demographics, intrinsic motivation and habit strength at baseline.||||0.056
91023870|NCT03549130|181931112|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4652||||||P-value are based on chi-square test|Chi-squared|||Treatment comparison of participants showing improvement based on NRQLQ on any of the items in sleep problems.||||0.4652
90830971|NCT02656017|181534727|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.73||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|6.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model with random intercept was used to compare the change in eGFR as a function of time, the interaction between time and study arm, and clinical site.||6.87|-1.40|0.20
90830972|NCT02656017|181534728|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.68||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|5.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model with random intercept and slope was used to compare the annual percent change of ln(htTKV) as a function of time, the interaction between time and study arm, and clinical site.||5.62|-2.11|0.38
90830973|NCT02656017|181534729|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.81||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.48|11.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model with random intercept and slope was used to compare the annual percent change of ln(htTKCV) as a function of time, the interaction between time and study arm, and clinical site.||11.65|-3.48|0.31
90830974|NCT02656017|181534730|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.39||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|2.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model with random intercept and slope was used to compare the annual percent change of ln(htLV) as a function of time, the interaction between time and study arm, and clinical site.||2.61|-1.78|0.72
90830975|NCT02656017|181534731|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.05|14.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model with random intercept and slope was used to compare the annual percent change of ln(htLCV) as a function of time, the interaction between time and study arm, and clinical site.||14.76|-10.05|0.80
90830976|NCT02656017|181534732|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Generalized linear mixed model (logit link) with random intercept and slope was used to compare abdominal fullness interfered as a function of time, the interaction between time and study arm, and clinical site.||||0.83
90830977|NCT02656017|181534733|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Generalized linear mixed model (logit link) with random intercept and slope was used to compare interference of pain with sleep frequency as a function of time, the interaction between time and study arm, and clinical site.||||0.72
90830978|NCT02656017|181534734|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Generalized linear mixed model (logit link) with random intercept and slope was used to compare interference of pain with strenuous physical activity frequency as a function of time, the interaction between time and study arm, and clinical site.||||0.28
90830979|NCT04663321|181534807|SUPERIORITY|Difference in LS Means|LS Mean Difference|3.3||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|8.0|||ANCOVA|||||8.0|-1.4|0.168
90830980|NCT04663321|181534807|SUPERIORITY|Difference in LS Means|LS Mean Difference|-1.1||||0.697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|4.7|||ANCOVA|||||4.7|-6.9|0.697
90830981|NCT04663321|181534808|SUPERIORITY|Difference in LS Means|LS Mean Difference|2.9||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|6.6|||ANCOVA|||||6.6|-0.8|0.124
90830982|NCT04663321|181534808|SUPERIORITY|Difference in LS Means|LS Mean Difference|1.9||||0.417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|6.4|||ANCOVA|||||6.4|-2.7|0.417
90956995|NCT00706433|181793697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||1.0
91023871|NCT03549130|181931112|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.439||||||P-value are based on chi-square test|Chi-squared|||Treatment comparison of participants showing improvement based on NRQLQ on all of the items in sleep time problems.||||0.4390
91023872|NCT03549130|181931112|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2997||||||P-value are based on chi-square test|Chi-squared|||Treatment comparison of participants showing improvement based on NRQLQ on any of the items in sleep time problems.||||0.2997
91023873|NCT03549130|181931112|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1116||||||P-value are based on chi-square test|Chi-squared|||Treatment comparison of participants showing improvement based on NRQLQ on all of the items in symptoms on waking in AM.||||0.1116
90830983|NCT04663321|181534811|SUPERIORITY|Difference in LS Means|LS Mean Difference|2.0||||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|5.1|||ANCOVA|||||5.1|-1.0|0.187
90830984|NCT04663321|181534811|SUPERIORITY|Difference in LS Means|LS Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|3.1|||ANCOVA|||||3.1|-4.3|0.738
90830985|NCT04663321|181534812|SUPERIORITY|Difference in LS means|LS Mean Difference|1.7||||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|4.3|||ANCOVA|||||4.3|-0.8|0.182
90830986|NCT04663321|181534813|SUPERIORITY|Difference in LS Means|LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.7|||ANCOVA|||||0.7|-0.4|0.630
90830987|NCT04663321|181534813|SUPERIORITY|Difference in LS Means|LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.5|||ANCOVA|||||0.5|-0.9|0.549
90830988|NCT04663321|181534814|SUPERIORITY|Difference in LS Means|LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.8|||ANCOVA|||||0.8|-0.0|0.062
90830989|NCT04663321|181534814|SUPERIORITY|Difference in LS Means|LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5|||ANCOVA|||||0.5|-0.5|0.878
90830990|NCT04862065|181534873|SUPERIORITY||Clinical Specificity (%)|99.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.92|99.99|||Binomial Distribution|Specificity sample size is a minimum of 15,000 donors.||||99.99|99.92|
90830991|NCT04862065|181534874|OTHER|95% Confidence Interval provided|Point Estimate|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.09|100.0|||Sensitivity|||||100.00|99.09|
90830992|NCT04862065|181534875|OTHER|95% Confidence Interval provided.|Point Estimate|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.87|100.0|||Sensitivity|||Sensitivity||100.00|94.87|
90830993|NCT02653326|181534887|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.63
90830994|NCT02653326|181534888|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.32
90830995|NCT04664153|181534899|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-39.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.74||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-58.76|-20.12|||t-test, 1 sided|||||-20.12|-58.76|0.0004
90830996|NCT04664153|181534900|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.02|-2.77|||t-test, 1 sided|||||-2.77|-7.02|<0.0001
90894061|NCT05131165|181653703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.062||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance (alpha) = 0.05|ANCOVA|||The analyses utilized control as the reference group, and thus, the values reported include control mean and standard error as the reference value (derived from an ordinary least squared regression without controls). The results for the intervention groups are derived from the multiple regression model that controlled for other participant characteristics, including demographics, intrinsic motivation and habit strength at baseline.||||0.062
90894062|NCT05131165|181653704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.364||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance (alpha) = 0.05|ANCOVA|||The analyses utilized control as the reference group, and thus, the values reported include control mean and standard error as the reference value (derived from an ordinary least squared regression without controls). The results for the intervention groups are derived from the multiple regression model that controlled for other participant characteristics, including demographics, intrinsic motivation and habit strength at baseline.||||0.364
90894063|NCT05131165|181653704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.409||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance (alpha) = 0.05|ANCOVA|||The analyses utilized control as the reference group, and thus, the values reported include control mean and standard error as the reference value (derived from an ordinary least squared regression without controls). The results for the intervention groups are derived from the multiple regression model that controlled for other participant characteristics, including demographics, intrinsic motivation and habit strength at baseline.||||0.409
91087341|NCT00069823|182057168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.09|||Regression, Linear||Treatment effect is the difference in mean change in the esomeprazole group minus the mean change in the placebo group|||0.09|-0.03|0.30
91087342|NCT00069823|182057169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.1||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|16.0|||Regression, Linear||Treatment effect is the difference in mean change in the esomeprazole group minus the mean change in the placebo group|||16.0|-4.0|0.24
91087343|NCT00069823|182057170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Effect|-1.8||||0.04||95.0|-3.6|-0.1|||Regression, Linear|||||-0.1|-3.6|0.04
90830997|NCT00474123|181534945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The sample size was determined as 78 patients. Continuous data were presented as means ± SD, or median (interquartile range) when the distribution was non-normal. For qualitative variables, we presented counts and relative frequencies. For between-group comparison we used multiple regression with adjustment for baseline values of the outcome variable (ANCOVA), or Wilcoxon rank-sum test when the variable had a non-normal distribution.||||0.3
91087344|NCT00069823|182057171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Effect|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.2|||Regression, Linear||Treatment effect is the difference in mean change in the esomeprazole group minus the mean change in the placebo group|||0.2|0.0|0.11
90830998|NCT00474123|181534946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The sample size was determined as 78 patients. Continuous data were presented as means ± SD, or median (interquartile range) when the distribution was non-normal. For qualitative variables, we presented counts and relative frequencies. For between-group comparison we used multiple regression with adjustment for baseline values of the outcome variable (ANCOVA), or Wilcoxon rank-sum test when the variable had a non-normal distribution.||||0.65
90894064|NCT05131165|181653705|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.158||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance (alpha) = 0.05|ANCOVA|||The analyses utilized control as the reference group, and thus, the values reported include control mean and standard error as the reference value (derived from an ordinary least squared regression without controls). The results for the intervention groups are derived from the multiple regression model that controlled for other participant characteristics, including demographics, intrinsic motivation and habit strength at baseline.||||0.158
90830999|NCT00474123|181534947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The sample size was determined as 78 patients. Continuous data were presented as means ± SD, or median (interquartile range) when the distribution was non-normal. For qualitative variables, we presented counts and relative frequencies. For between-group comparison we used multiple regression with adjustment for baseline values of the outcome variable (ANCOVA), or Wilcoxon rank-sum test when the variable had a non-normal distribution.||||0.02
90956996|NCT00706433|181793698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||1.0
90956997|NCT00706433|181793699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3916||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.3916
90956998|NCT00706433|181793700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8387||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.8387
91087345|NCT00069823|182057172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|-0.02|||Regression, Linear||Treatment effect is the difference in mean change in the esomeprazole group minus the mean change in the placebo group|||-0.02|-0.05|0.11
91087346|NCT00069823|182057173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||Regression, Linear||Treatment effect is the difference in mean change in the esomeprazole group minus the mean change in the placebo group|||0.1|-0.2|0.33
91087347|NCT00069823|182057174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.4|||Regression, Linear||Treatment effect is the difference in mean change in the esomeprazole group minus the mean change in the placebo group|||0.4|-2.0|0.16
91087348|NCT00069823|182057175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.2|||Regression, Linear||Treatment effect is the difference in mean change in the esomeprazole group minus the mean change in the placebo group|||2.2|-1.1|0.56
91087349|NCT00069823|182057176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.07|||Regression, Linear||Treatment effect is the difference in mean change in the esomeprazole group minus the mean change in the placebo group|||0.07|-0.05|0.76
91087350|NCT00069823|182057177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.3|||Regression, Linear||Treatment effect is the difference in mean change in the esomeprazole group minus the mean change in the placebo group|||0.3|-0.8|0.39
90831000|NCT00474123|181534948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The sample size was determined as 78 patients. Continuous data were presented as means ± SD, or median (interquartile range) when the distribution was non-normal. For qualitative variables, we presented counts and relative frequencies. For between-group comparison we used multiple regression with adjustment for baseline values of the outcome variable (ANCOVA), or Wilcoxon rank-sum test when the variable had a non-normal distribution.||||0.85
90831001|NCT00702468|181534958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.335||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.162|0.691|||Chi-squared|||||0.691|0.162|0.013
90831002|NCT00702468|181534959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated treatment difference|-0.21||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.22|0.79|||ANCOVA||Negative difference indicates the comparison is in favour of Sativex|||0.79|-1.22|0.720
90831003|NCT00702468|181534960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment difference|0.53||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.68|5.74|||ANCOVA|||||5.74|-4.68|0.86
90831004|NCT00702468|181534962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|-1.78||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.52|10.96|||ANCOVA||Negative difference indicates the comparison is in favour of Sativex|It is important to emphasise that only four placebo subjects were included in the analysis and 11 of the Sativex subjects - this sample size is too small for a meaningful comparison between treatments. The reason for not including some of the data in this analysis is that a number of the subjects who withdrew early from the study restarted their own Sativex before the assessment was done.||10.96|-14.52|0.81
90831005|NCT00702468|181534963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||treatment difference|-0.64||||0.271|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.6|0.33|||ANCOVA||A negative difference indicates the comparison is in favour of Sativex|||0.33|-1.60|0.271
90831006|NCT00702468|181534964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.562||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.585|13.997|||Regression, Logistic|||||13.997|1.585|0.017
90831007|NCT00702468|181534965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|18.55||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.942|118.773|||Regression, Logistic|||||118.773|3.942|0.0011
90831008|NCT00702468|181534966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.444||||0.1151|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.948|13.718|||Regression, Logistic|||||13.718|0.948|0.1151
90831009|NCT01009060|181534985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.049||||0.7239|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.288|0.19|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Week 1||0.190|-0.288|0.7239
90831010|NCT01009060|181534985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.018||||0.8351|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.127|0.163|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Week 2||0.163|-0.127|0.8351
90831011|NCT01009060|181534985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.088||||0.4541|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.287|0.11|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Week 3||0.110|-0.287|0.4541
90831012|NCT01009060|181534985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.089||||0.4148|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.272|0.093|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Week 4||0.093|-0.272|0.4148
90831013|NCT01009060|181534985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.086||||0.3887|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.082|0.254|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Week 5||0.254|-0.082|0.3887
90831014|NCT01009060|181534985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.195||||0.2594|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.093|0.484|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Week 6||0.484|-0.093|0.2594
90831015|NCT01009060|181534985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.103||||0.4778|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.139|0.344|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Week 7||0.344|-0.139|0.4778
90831016|NCT01009060|181534986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.737||||0.6947|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.884|2.409|||ANCOVA|||||2.409|-3.884|0.6947
90831017|NCT01009060|181534987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.252||||0.1399|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.535|0.03|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure||For Speed of Processing/Simple Reaction Time|||0.030|-0.535|0.1399
90831018|NCT01009060|181534987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.179||||0.3992|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.176|0.534|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure||For Attention/Vigilance|||0.534|-0.176|0.3992
90831019|NCT01009060|181534987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.391||||0.1547|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.063|0.845|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure||For Working Memory|||0.845|-0.063|0.1547
90831020|NCT01009060|181534987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.279||||0.2531|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.127|0.685|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure||For Visual Learning|||0.685|-0.127|0.2531
90831021|NCT01009060|181534987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.398||||0.2417|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.167|0.963|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure||For Verbal Learning|||0.963|-0.167|0.2417
91023874|NCT03549130|181931112|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5101||||||P-value are based on chi-square test|Chi-squared|||Treatment comparison of participants showing improvement based on NRQLQ on any of the items in symptoms on waking in AM.||||0.5101
91023875|NCT03549130|181931112|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.474||||||P-value are based on chi-square test|Chi-squared|||Treatment comparison of participants showing improvement based on NRQLQ on all of the items in practical problems.||||0.4740
91023876|NCT03549130|181931112|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2787||||||P-value are based on chi-square test|Chi-squared|||Treatment comparison of participants showing improvement based on NRQLQ on any of the items in practical problems.||||0.2787
90831022|NCT01009060|181534987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.177||||0.2069|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.055|0.409|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure||For Reasoning/Problem Solving|||0.409|-0.055|0.2069
90831023|NCT01009060|181534987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03||||0.8645|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.262|0.322|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure||For Social Cognition|||0.322|-0.262|0.8645
90831024|NCT01009060|181534987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.069||||0.7873|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.364|0.503|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure||For Working Memory (Two-Back Memory)|||0.503|-0.364|0.7873
90831025|NCT01009060|181534988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.024||||0.0225|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.872|-1.175|||ANCOVA||For Speed of Processing|||-1.175|-6.872|0.0225
90831026|NCT01009060|181534988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.24||||0.3317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.085|1.605|||ANCOVA||For Attention/Vigilance|||1.605|-6.085|0.3317
90831027|NCT01009060|181534988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.038||||0.3243|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.482|1.406|||ANCOVA||For Working Memory|||1.406|-5.482|0.3243
90831028|NCT01009060|181534988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.746||||0.7497|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.667|3.175|||ANCOVA||For Visual Learning|||3.175|-4.667|0.7497
90831029|NCT01009060|181534988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.112||||0.1585|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.537|6.761|||ANCOVA||For Verbal Learning|||6.761|-0.537|0.1585
90831030|NCT01009060|181534988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.972||||0.6582|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.709|4.654|||ANCOVA||For Reasoning and Problem Solving|||4.654|-2.709|0.6582
90831031|NCT01009060|181534988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.338||||0.9092|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.316|4.639|||ANCOVA||For Social Cognition|||4.639|-5.316|0.9092
90831032|NCT01009060|181534989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.024||||0.4406|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.237|1.19|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||||1.190|-3.237|0.4406
90831033|NCT01009060|181534990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.876||||0.5197|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.743|2.99|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||||2.990|-6.743|0.5197
90831034|NCT01009060|181534991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.824||||0.4637|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.334|5.982|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||||5.982|-2.334|0.4637
90831035|NCT04201431|181535012|OTHER|Comparison of pooled data from Groups 1 and 2 volunteers who completed primary CHMI with pooled data of infectivity controls undergoing primary CHMI from VAC069 study running in parallel (NCT03797989).||||||0.01||||||Two tailed p value reported for Mann-Whitney test comparing infectivity controls with vaccinees|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of parasite multiplication rate in vaccinated subjects compared to infectivity controls in a blood-stage controlled human malaria infection model||||0.01
90831036|NCT00300755|181535069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group analysis of final week change from baseline.||||<0.001
90831037|NCT00300755|181535069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.063|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group analysis of final week change from baseline.||||0.063
90831038|NCT00300755|181535069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group analysis of final week change from baseline.||||< 0.001
90831039|NCT00300755|181535069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||ANCOVA|Analysis with treatment group and baseline age as fixed effects, and baseline GERD symptom score and baseline antacid use as covariates||Between group analysis of final week change from baseline.||||0.004
90831040|NCT00300755|181535069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.082|||||||ANCOVA|Analysis with treatment group and baseline age as fixed effects, and baseline GERD symptom score and baseline antacid use as covariates||Between group analysis of final week change from baseline.||||0.082
91023877|NCT03549130|181931113|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5958||||||P-value are based on chi-square test|Chi-squared|||Treatment comparison of participants showing improvement based on NRQLQ on all of the items in sleep problems.||||0.5958
91023878|NCT03549130|181931113|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7296||||||P-value are based on chi-square test|Chi-squared|||Treatment comparison of participants showing improvement based on NRQLQ on any of the items in sleep problems.||||0.7296
91023879|NCT03549130|181931113|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7171||||||P-value are based on chi-square test|Chi-squared|||Treatment comparison of participants showing improvement based on NRQLQ on all of the items in sleep time problems.||||0.7171
90831041|NCT00300755|181535069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.217|||||||ANCOVA|Analysis with treatment group and baseline age as fixed effects, and baseline GERD symptom score and baseline antacid use as covariates||Between group analysis of final week change from baseline.||||0.217
90831042|NCT00300755|181535070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group analysis of final week change from baseline for symptom Vomiting/regurgitation.||||0.002
90831043|NCT00300755|181535070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group analysis of final week change from baseline for symptom Vomiting/regurgitation.||||0.033
90831044|NCT00300755|181535070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group analysis of final week change from baseline for symptom Choking/gagging.||||<0.001
90831045|NCT00300755|181535070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group analysis of final week change from baseline for symptom Choking/gagging.||||0.002
91023880|NCT03549130|181931113|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.403||||||P-value are based on chi-square test|Chi-squared|||Treatment comparison of participants showing improvement based on NRQLQ on any of the items in sleep time problems.||||0.4030
90831046|NCT00300755|181535070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group analysis of final week change from baseline for symptom Refusal to eat.||||0.009
90831047|NCT00300755|181535070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group analysis of final week change from baseline for symptom Difficulty swallowing.||||0.004
90831048|NCT00300755|181535070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.044|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group analysis of final week change from baseline for symptom Difficulty swallowing.||||0.044
90831049|NCT00300755|181535070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group analysis of final week change from baseline for symptom Abdominal/belly pain.||||0.002
90831050|NCT00300755|181535070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group analysis of final week change from baseline for symptom Abdominal/belly pain.||||0.026
90831051|NCT00300755|181535070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group analysis of final week change from baseline for symptom Abdominal/belly pain.||||0.026
90831052|NCT00300755|181535071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group analysis of final week change from baseline for Cough without cold.||||0.004
90831053|NCT00300755|181535071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group analysis of final week change from baseline for Noisy breathing.||||0.047
90831054|NCT04571944|181535073|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % vs Placebo|-8.7||||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.1|2.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|Analysis was stratified by hospitalization reason (acute disease, elective surgery) and age category (\<75 years, ≥75 years).||||2.6|-20.1|0.129
90831055|NCT04571944|181535074|OTHER||Difference in % vs. Placebo|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|11.0||||||||11.0|-9.3|
90956999|NCT00706433|181793701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1489||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.1489
90957000|NCT00706433|181793702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||<0.0001
91023881|NCT03549130|181931113|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4741||||||P-value are based on chi-square test|Chi-squared|||Treatment comparison of participants showing improvement based on NRQLQ on all of the items in symptoms on waking in AM.||||0.4741
91023882|NCT03549130|181931113|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5591||||||P-value are based on chi-square test|Chi-squared|||Treatment comparison of participants showing improvement based on NRQLQ on any of the items in symptoms on waking in AM.||||0.5591
91023883|NCT03549130|181931113|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8285||||||P-value are based on chi-square test|Chi-squared|||Treatment comparison of participants showing improvement based on NRQLQ on all of the items in practical problems.||||0.8285
91087351|NCT01801111|182057180|OTHER|||||||0.0005|||||||Exact Clopper-Pearson CI|||Tests null hypothesis that the objective response rate (ORR) is equal to 35% versus the alternative hypothesis that the objective response rate was not equal to 35%.||||0.0005
91087352|NCT01801111|182057181|OTHER|||||||0.0599|TWO_SIDED||||||Exact Clopper-Pearson CI|||Tests null hypothesis that the ORR is equal to 35% versus the alternative hypothesis that the objective response rate was not equal to 35%.||||0.0599
91087353|NCT01801111|182057183|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Exact Clopper-Pearson CI|||Tests null hypothesis that the ORR is equal to 35% versus the alternative hypothesis that the objective response rate was not equal to 35%.||||0.0001
91087354|NCT01223937|182057218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.02||A priori threshold for significance was p\<=0.05.|ANCOVA|Repeated measures ANCOVA with treatment, visit (including a treatment-by-visit interaction term), and age stratification (\<65, ≥65 years) as factors.||"The trial was to be declared positive only if the 25 μg desmopressin group had a statistically significant positive effect as compared to placebo on both co-primary outcomes.~A summary of mean change in nocturnal voids, assessed longitudinally during 3 months of treatment, is presented below for the FAS using LOCF."||-0.02|-0.42|0.0280
91087355|NCT01223937|182057219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.85||||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|2.86||A priori threshold for significance was p\<=0.05.|Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)|GEE Method with treatment, visit (including a treatment-by-visit interaction term), and age stratification (\<65, ≥65 years) as factors.||The trial was to be declared positive only if the 25 μg desmopressin group had a statistically significant positive effect as compared to placebo on both co-primary outcomes.||2.86|1.19|0.0061
91087356|NCT01223937|182057220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.0104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.07||A priori threshold for significance was p\<=0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA of change from baseline adjusted for age (\<65, \>=65) and baseline nocturnal voids, using last observation carried forward.||Change from baseline in the adjusted mean number of nocturnal voids in the FAS using LOCF.||-0.07|-0.54|0.0104
91087357|NCT01223937|182057221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73||||0.0586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|3.05||A priori threshold for significance was p\<=0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Logistical regression of 33% responder status adjusted for age (\<65, \>=65) and baseline nocturnal voids using last observation carried forward.||||3.05|0.98|0.0586
91087358|NCT01223937|182057222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|49.03||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.35|81.7||A priori threshold for significance was p\<=0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA of change from baseline adjusted for age (\<65, \>=65) and baseline time to first nocturnal void, using last observation carried forward.||||81.70|16.35|0.0034
91087359|NCT01223937|182057223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-83.56||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-138.74|-28.38||A priori threshold for significance was p\<=0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA of change from baseline adjusted for age (\<65, \>=65) and baseline nocturnal urine volume, using last observation carried forward.||||-28.38|-138.74|0.0031
91087360|NCT01223937|182057224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-72.91||||0.1829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-180.42|34.6||A priori threshold for significance was p\<=0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA of change from baseline adjusted for age (\<65, \>=65) and baseline 24-hour urine volume, using last observation carried forward.||||34.60|-180.42|0.1829
91087361|NCT03284853|182057240|OTHER|The primary analysis was performed on the ITT population with imputation by Markov Chain Monte Carlo method.|||||<|0.05||||||Linear model with IOP at the given visit and time point as the response, baseline IOP as a covariate, and treatment as a main effect factor at each time point (08:00, 10:00, and 16:00 hours at the Week 2, Week 6, and Month 3 Visits).|Regression, Linear|Non-inferiority for PG324 was concluded if the UL of the 95% CI was ≤ l.5 mmHg at all 9 time points and ≤ l.0 mmHg at the majority of time points||Assuming no difference between PG324 and Ganfort, a two-tailed alpha of 0.05 (2-sided 95% CI) at each of 9 time points, a common SD of 3.5 mmHg, and a correlation between time points of ≤ 0.60, 200 ITT subjects per arm were necessary to have 85% power to show clinical non-inferiority of PG324 to Ganfort in the mean change from baseline IOP.||||<0.05
91087362|NCT00765817|182057245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91087363|NCT00765817|182057246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91087364|NCT00765817|182057247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91087365|NCT00765817|182057248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.174||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.174
91087366|NCT00765817|182057250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.203||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.203
91087367|NCT00765817|182057251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.063||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.063
91087368|NCT00765817|182057252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.745||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.745
91087369|NCT00765817|182057253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.933||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.933
91087370|NCT00765817|182057254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91087371|NCT00765817|182057255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.226||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.226
91087372|NCT00765817|182057256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.026
91087373|NCT00765817|182057257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.070
91087374|NCT00765817|182057258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.011
91087375|NCT00765817|182057259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91087376|NCT00765817|182057260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.666||95.0|||||Negative binomial regression model|||||||0.666
91087377|NCT00765817|182057261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.486||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.486
91087378|NCT06597084|182057290|OTHER||Percentiles of time to first US|92.0||||0.2081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.0|95.0|||Log Rank|||||95|25|0.2081
91087379|NCT06597084|182057296|OTHER||Overall Survival|||||0.0542|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0542
91087380|NCT01043133|182057306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||log-binomial|3.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.97||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|11.79|||log-binomial regression||Robust Huber-White standard errors account for clustering|||11.79|1.34|.01
91087381|NCT01043133|182057307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.25|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.78||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||||-.03|-2.48|.05
91104618|NCT02214212|182095237|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.39||||0.351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|0.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model adjusts for treatment, time (pre/post), site, FIM admit cognitive/motor, and the treatment/time as fixed effects.|A positive effect size indicates a higher score in the bright white light (BWL) intervention arm.|||0.44|-1.21|.351
91087382|NCT00490971|182057322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017||95.0||||The two treatment groups were compared using a weighted z-statistic based on rho-family of alpha spending function at information fraction of 85.0% at interim analysis analysis (rho=2.5) at 0.025 (1-sided) level. One-sided alpha at final was 0.0195.|Weighted Z- test|||Null hypothesis: there is no difference between Pali/Pali and Pali/Placebo in the time to recurrence of any mood symptoms related to bipolar I disorder. An interim analysis was performed when approximately 85% of the required number of recurrences were reported in Pali/Pali and Pali/Placebo treatment groups. A flexible group-sequential approach was adopted. The general family of alpha spending function based on the rho-family with rho=2.5 at overall type I error of 0.025 (1-sided) was employed.||||0.017
91087383|NCT00490971|182057323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The two treatment groups were compared using a weighted z-statistic based on rho-family of alpha spending function at information fraction of 81.9% at interim analysis analysis (rho=2.5) at 0.025 (1-sided) level. One-sided alpha at final was 0.0198.|Weighted z-test|||At the time of interim analysis of the primary efficacy endpoint, the proportion of recurrence of manic symptoms was 81.9% of the number of recurrence of manic symptoms at final analysis. A flexible group-sequential approach was adopted. The general family of alpha spending function based on the rho-family with rho=2.5 at overall type I error of 0.025 (1-sided) was employed.||||<0.001
91087384|NCT00490971|182057324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.46||Cox proportional hazards regression was performed with treatment (Pali/Placebo, Pali/Pali) as a factor. The 2 treatment groups were compared by means of a hazard ratio (Pali/Placebo: Pali/Pali)|Regression, Cox|The percent of participants who reported recurrence of depressive symptoms was: 18% Pali/Placebo, 24% Pali/Pali.|Hazard ratio was estimated with Pali/Placebo in the numerator and Pali/Pali in the denominator|||1.46|0.53|
91087385|NCT00490971|182057325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.92|-1.98|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group (Pali/Pali, Pali/Placebo) and country as factors with baseline value as covariate||Change from Baseline (Maintenance Phase) to Endpoint (Maintenance Phase)||-1.98|-6.92|<0.001
91087386|NCT00490971|182057326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|2.55|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model with treatment (Pali/Pali, Pali/Placebo) and country as factors with baseline value as covariate||Change from Baseline (Maintenance Phase) to Endpoint (Maintenance Phase)||2.55|-1.87|0.763
91087387|NCT00490971|182057327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.7||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|10.09|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model with treatment (Pali/Pali, Pali/Placebo) and country as factors with baseline value as covariate||Change from Baseline (Maintenance Phase) to Endpoint (Maintenance Phase)||10.09|1.40|0.010
91087388|NCT00490971|182057328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model on ranks with treatment (Pali/Pali, Pali/Placebo) and country as factors with baseline value as covariate||Change from Baseline (Maintenance Phase) to Endpoint (Maintenance Phase)||||0.007
91087389|NCT00593450|182057331|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority limit for the difference between study groups in the mean change in visual acuity at 1 year was 5 letters (i.e., one line on the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study \[ETDRS\] visual-acuity chart)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.16|TWO_SIDED|99.2|-3.9|2.9||This p-value is for the test of overall difference among 4 treatment groups. The p-value for pairwise comparison was not performed, because this is a non-inferiority trial.|ANOVA|We calcularted of two-sided 99.2% confidence intervals. We used Bonferroni approach to accommodate six pairwise treatment comparisons.|Estimate = Mean VA Change in Avastin Monthly Group - Mean VA Change in Lucentis Monthly Group|The study was designed as a non-inferiority trial among four study groups, with the ability to test for superiority if a treatment was found to be non-inferior. Assuming a standard deviation for changes in visual acuity for 15 letters, we determined that a sample of 277 patients per group (which was increased to 300 to allow for a rate of death or dropout of 8%) would provide a power of 90%.||2.9|-3.9|0.16
91087390|NCT00593450|182057331|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority limit for the difference between study groups in the mean change in visual acuity at 1 year was 5 letters (i.e., one line on the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study \[ETDRS\] visual-acuity chart)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.16|TWO_SIDED|99.2|-4.1|2.4||This p-value is for the test of overall difference among 4 treatment groups. The p-value for pairwise comparison was not performed, because this is a non-inferiority trial.|ANOVA|We calcularted of two-sided 99.2% confidence intervals. We used Bonferroni approach to accommodate six pairwise treatment comparisons.|Estimate = Mean VA Change in Avastin as Needed Group - Mean VA Change in Lucentis as Needed Group|The study was designed as a non-inferiority trial among four study groups, with the ability to test for superiority if a treatment was found to be non-inferior. Assuming a standard deviation for changes in visual acuity for 15 letters, we determined that a sample of 277 patients per group (which was increased to 300 to allow for a rate of death or dropout of 8%) would provide a power of 90%.||2.4|-4.1|0.16
91103880|NCT03829514|182094565|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Signal intensity data were loess normalized and normalized data were used to perform a limma t-test with empirical Bayes smoothing to standard errors|||Proteins were identified and quantified using EncyclopeDIA and visualized with Scaffold DIA using 1% false discovery thresholds at both the protein and peptide level. Protein exclusive intensity values were assessed for quality using an in-house ProteiNorm app, a tool for systematic evaluation of normalization methods, imputation of missing values and comparisons of multiple differential abundance methods . Cyclic loess normalization. The normalized data were used to perform statistical analysis using linear models for microarray data (limma) with empirical Bayes (eBayes) smoothing to the standard errors. Proteins with p-value \< 0.05 were considered significant.|||0.05
90957001|NCT00706433|181793702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4143||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.4143
90957002|NCT00706433|181793702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0005
90831056|NCT04571944|181535075|OTHER||Difference in % vs. Placebo|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|5.2||||||||5.2|-5.1|
90957003|NCT00706433|181793702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0003
91087391|NCT00593450|182057331|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority limit for the difference between study groups in the mean change in visual acuity at 1 year was 5 letters (i.e., one line on the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study \[ETDRS\] visual-acuity chart)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.16|TWO_SIDED|99.2|-4.7|1.3||This p-value is for the test of overall difference among 4 treatment groups. The p-value for pairwise comparison was not performed, because this is a non-inferiority trial.|ANOVA|We calcularted of two-sided 99.2% confidence intervals. We used Bonferroni approach to accommodate six pairwise treatment comparisons.|Estimate = Mean VA Change in Lucentis as Needed Group - Mean VA Change in Lucentis Monthly Group|The study was designed as a non-inferiority trial among four study groups, with the ability to test for superiority if a treatment was found to be non-inferior. Assuming a standard deviation for changes in visual acuity for 15 letters, we determined that a sample of 277 patients per group (which was increased to 300 to allow for a rate of death or dropout of 8%) would provide a power of 90%.||1.3|-4.7|0.16
91087392|NCT00593450|182057331|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority limit for the difference between study groups in the mean change in visual acuity at 1 year was 5 letters (i.e., one line on the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study \[ETDRS\] visual-acuity chart)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.16|TWO_SIDED|99.2|-5.7|1.6||This p-value is for the test of overall difference among 4 treatment groups. The p-value for pairwise comparison was not performed, because this is a non-inferiority trial.|ANOVA|We calcularted of two-sided 99.2% confidence intervals. We used Bonferroni approach to accommodate six pairwise treatment comparisons.|Estimate = Mean VA Change in Avastin as Needed Group - Mean VA Change in Avastin Monthly Group|The study was designed as a non-inferiority trial among four study groups, with the ability to test for superiority if a treatment was found to be non-inferior. Assuming a standard deviation for changes in visual acuity for 15 letters, we determined that a sample of 277 patients per group (which was increased to 300 to allow for a rate of death or dropout of 8%) would provide a power of 90%.||1.6|-5.7|0.16
91087393|NCT00593450|182057331|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority limit for the difference between study groups in the mean change in visual acuity at 1 year was 5 letters (i.e., one line on the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study \[ETDRS\] visual-acuity chart)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.16|TWO_SIDED|99.2|-4.5|2.1||This p-value is for the test of overall difference among 4 treatment groups. The p-value for pairwise comparison was not performed, because this is a non-inferiority trial.|ANOVA|We calcularted of two-sided 99.2% confidence intervals. We used Bonferroni approach to accommodate six pairwise treatment comparisons.|Estimate = Mean VA Change in Lucentis as Needed Group - Mean VA Change in Avastin Monthly Group|The study was designed as a non-inferiority trial among four study groups, with the ability to test for superiority if a treatment was found to be non-inferior. Assuming a standard deviation for changes in visual acuity for 15 letters, we determined that a sample of 277 patients per group (which was increased to 300 to allow for a rate of death or dropout of 8%) would provide a power of 90%.||2.1|-4.5|0.16
91087394|NCT00593450|182057331|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority limit for the difference between study groups in the mean change in visual acuity at 1 year was 5 letters (i.e., one line on the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study \[ETDRS\] visual-acuity chart)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.16|TWO_SIDED|99.2|-5.9|0.8||This p-value is for the test of overall difference among 4 treatment groups. The p-value for pairwise comparison was not performed, because this is a non-inferiority trial.|ANOVA|We calcularted of two-sided 99.2% confidence intervals. We used Bonferroni approach to accommodate six pairwise treatment comparisons.|Estimate = Mean VA Change in Avastin as Needed Group - Mean VA Change in Lucentis Monthly Group|The study was designed as a non-inferiority trial among four study groups, with the ability to test for superiority if a treatment was found to be non-inferior. Assuming a standard deviation for changes in visual acuity for 15 letters, we determined that a sample of 277 patients per group (which was increased to 300 to allow for a rate of death or dropout of 8%) would provide a power of 90%.||0.8|-5.9|0.16
91087395|NCT00255164|182057369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05||||||Hochberg's method was used to ensure that the overall 0.0025 level of significance was maintained for the pairwise comparisons between each dexlansoprazole MR dose and placebo.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.00001
91087396|NCT00255164|182057369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05||||||Hochberg's method was used to ensure that the overall 0.0025 level of significance was maintained for the pairwise comparisons between each dexlansoprazole MR dose and placebo.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.00001
91087397|NCT00255164|182057369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.80473||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.0025 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.80473
91087398|NCT00255164|182057370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05||95.0||||The 0.0025 level of significance for this secondary endpoint was controlled using Hochberg's method for comparisons of each dexlansoprazole MR dose to placebo.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.00001
90831057|NCT04571944|181535076|SUPERIORITY||Difference vs. Placebo|-0.5||||0.485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.0||Based on aligned rank test.|Hodges-Lehmann method|||||1.0|-2.0|0.485
90831058|NCT04571944|181535077|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % vs. Placebo|-8.6||||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.2|2.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|Analysis was stratified by hospitalization reason (acute disease, elective surgery) and age category (\<75 years, ≥75 years).||||2.8|-20.2|0.136
90957004|NCT00706433|181793702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||<0.0001
91087399|NCT00255164|182057370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05||95.0||||The 0.0025 level of significance for this secondary endpoint was controlled using Hochberg's method for comparisons of each dexlansoprazole MR dose to placebo.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.00001
91087400|NCT00255164|182057370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76046||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.0025 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.76046
91087401|NCT00255164|182057372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05||95.0||||Hochberg's method was used to ensure that the overall 0.0025 level of significance was maintained for the pairwise comparisons between each dexlansoprazole MR dose and placebo.|Log Rank|||||||<0.00001
91087402|NCT00255164|182057372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05||95.0||||Hochberg's method was used to ensure that the overall 0.0025 level of significance was maintained for the pairwise comparisons between each dexlansoprazole MR dose and placebo.|Log Rank|||||||<0.00001
91087403|NCT00255164|182057372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37161||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.0025 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|||||||0.37161
91087404|NCT00255164|182057373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05||95.0||||The 0.0025 level of significance for this secondary endpoint was controlled using Hochberg's method for comparisons of each dose to placebo.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.00001
91087405|NCT00255164|182057373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05||95.0||||The 0.0025 level of significance for this secondary endpoint was controlled using Hochberg's method for comparisons of each dose to placebo.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.00001
91087406|NCT00255164|182057373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.597||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.0025 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.59700
91087407|NCT00461097|182057388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|27.5||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|43.9||No adjustments were made to the p-value.|Barnard's statistic|The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.||Number of participants who successfully consumed 10,000 mg of egg white solid was compared using Barnard's statistic with the null hypothesis that there was no difference between treatment groups.||43.9|4.3|0.025
91087408|NCT01466361|182057394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-7.23||||0.0643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.89|0.44|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparisons were made between nicotine 1.5mg lozenge and placebo lozenge at 5% significance level.|Null hypothesis considered population means for treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to provoked nicotine cravings at 1 minute post dosing.||0.44|-14.89|0.0643
90831059|NCT03192826|181535078|EQUIVALENCE|The SPSS statistical package version 23.0 (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences, version 23.0, SSPS Inc. Chicago, IL, USA) was used for statistical analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA was used to compare parametric values with Bonferroni post hoc test for within group comparisons.|the reported p-value was calculated, and is not attempting to indicate the threshold for statistical significance|||||<0.05
90831060|NCT03192826|181535079|EQUIVALENCE|The SPSS statistical package version 23.0 (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences, version 23.0, SSPS Inc. Chicago, IL, USA) was used for statistical analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA was used to compare parametric values with Bonferroni post hoc test for within group comparisons.|the reported p-value was calculated, and is not attempting to indicate the threshold for statistical significance|||||<0.05
90831061|NCT03192826|181535080|EQUIVALENCE|The SPSS statistical package version 23.0 (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences, version 23.0, SSPS Inc. Chicago, IL, USA) was used for statistical analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA was used to compare parametric values with Bonferroni post hoc test for within group comparisons.|the reported p-value was calculated, and is not attempting to indicate the threshold for statistical significance|||||<0.05
90894065|NCT05131165|181653705|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance (alpha) = 0.05|ANCOVA|||The analyses utilized control as the reference group, and thus, the values reported include control mean and standard error as the reference value (derived from an ordinary least squared regression without controls). The results for the intervention groups are derived from the multiple regression model that controlled for other participant characteristics, including demographics, intrinsic motivation and habit strength at baseline.||||0.017
90894066|NCT05131165|181653706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.654||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance (alpha) = 0.05|ANCOVA|||The analyses utilized control as the reference group, and thus, the values reported include control mean and standard error as the reference value (derived from an ordinary least squared regression without controls). The results for the intervention groups are derived from the multiple regression model that controlled for other participant characteristics, including demographics, intrinsic motivation and habit strength at baseline.||||0.654
91087409|NCT01466361|182057394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-7.16||||0.1489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.93|2.61|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparisons were made between nicotine 1.5mg lozenge and placebo lozenge at 5% significance level.|Null hypothesis considered population means for treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to provoked nicotine cravings at 3 minute post dosing.||2.61|-16.93|0.1489
91087410|NCT01466361|182057394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-6.33||||0.2225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.56|3.9|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparisons were made between 1.5mg nicotine lozenge and placebo lozenge at 5% significance level.|Null hypothesis considered population means for treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to provoked nicotine cravings at 5 minute post dosing.||3.90|-16.56|0.2225
91087411|NCT01466361|182057394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-5.11||||0.3491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.87|5.66|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparisons were made between 1.5mg nicotine lozenge and placebo lozenge at 5% significance level.|Null hypothesis considered population means for treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to provoked nicotine cravings, 10 minutes post dosing.||5.66|-15.87|0.3491
91087412|NCT01466361|182057394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-5.0||||0.3936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|6.59|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparisons were made between 1.5mg nicotine lozenge and placebo lozenge at 5% significance level.|Null hypothesis considered population means for treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to provoked nicotine cravings, 15 minutes post dosing.||6.59|-16.60|0.3936
91087413|NCT01466361|182057395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-3.58||||0.3922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.85|4.7|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparisons were made between 4mg nicotine lozenge and placebo lozenge at 5% significance level.|Null hypothesis considered population means for treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to provoked nicotine cravings, at 1 minute post dosing.||4.70|-11.85|0.3922
91087414|NCT01466361|182057395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-9.7||||0.0547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.59|0.2|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparisons were made between 4mg nicotine lozenge and placebo lozenge at 5% significance level.|Null hypothesis considered population means for treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to provoked nicotine cravings, 3 minutes post dosing.||0.20|-19.59|0.0547
91087415|NCT03101150|182057419|OTHER|A sample size of minimum 152 was calculated to be able to determine incidence of preeclampsia that is in the range of 8-17% with 80% power assuming an alpha of 5%.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.163|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|1.32|||Chi-squared|||Eligible and consented study subjects were randomized according to permuted block design scheme to be allocated in 400 IU arm and 4000 IU arm.||1.32|0.02|<0.05
91087416|NCT03101150|182057420|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91087417|NCT03101150|182057421|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.43|||<|0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.94|||Chi-squared|||||0.94|0.19|<0.02
90831062|NCT03192826|181535081|EQUIVALENCE|The SPSS statistical package version 23.0 (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences, version 23.0, SSPS Inc. Chicago, IL, USA) was used for statistical analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA was used to compare parametric values with Bonferroni post hoc test for within group comparisons.|the reported p-value was calculated, and is not attempting to indicate the threshold for statistical significance|||||<0.05
90831063|NCT02694744|181535084|OTHER||||||||||||||||||If the 95% confidence interval for the w/out food Arm overlapped the confidence interval for the w/ food Arm, the study will conclude that there is no evidence of a statistically significant difference between treatment arms.|||
90831064|NCT02694744|181535085|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.7893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.22|||ANCOVA|||Estimation of mean change in serum potassium from Baseline to week 4.||0.22|-0.17|0.7893
90831065|NCT02920892|181535102|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.1||||0.1587|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.22|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.02|-0.22|0.1587
90831066|NCT02920892|181535103|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.66||||0.1054|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.34|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.03|-3.34|0.1054
90831067|NCT02920892|181535104|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.67||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.79|0.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.45|-1.79|0.32
90831068|NCT02920892|181535105|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.29||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.98|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.4|-1.98|0.78
90831069|NCT02920892|181535106|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.1||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.05|2.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.24|-2.05|0.94
90831070|NCT02920892|181535107|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.85||||0.1428|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.81|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.11|-1.81|0.1428
90831071|NCT02920892|181535108|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9462||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8764|1.0215|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.0215|0.8764|0.24
90831072|NCT02920892|181535109|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|2.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.27|0.4|0.92
90831073|NCT03863509|181535125|OTHER|||||||0.494|||||||ANCOVA|Age, sex, and race/ethnicity were covaried. Test for group difference: F (2, 384) = 0.707, p = .494||||||.494
90831074|NCT03863509|181535126|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||ANCOVA|Age, sex, and race/ethnicity were covaried. Test for group difference F(2, 381) = 7.409, p = .001||||||0.001
90831075|NCT03863509|181535126|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42||||0.822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.08|3.24|||ANCOVA post-hoc pairwise group compariso|Age, sex, and race/ethnicity were covaried.||these are pairwise follow-up tests probing a larger omnibus group difference involving three groups.||3.240|-4.080|0.822
90831076|NCT03863509|181535126|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.267||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.974|11.559|||ANCOVA post-hoc pairwise group compariso|Age, sex, and race were covaried||these are pairwise follow-up tests probing a larger omnibus group difference involving three groups.||11.559|2.974|0.001
90831077|NCT03863509|181535126|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.687|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.485|11.889|||ANCOVA post-hoc pairwise group compariso|Age, sex and race were covaried||These are pairwise follow-up tests probing a larger omnibus group difference involving three groups.||11.889|3.485|<0.001
90831078|NCT03863509|181535127|OTHER|||||||0.074||||||Age, sex, and race/ethnicity were covaried. Test for group difference: F (2, 386) = 2.616, p = .074|ANCOVA|||||||.074
90831079|NCT03863509|181535128|OTHER||Type III F-test of Fixed Group x Time ef|6.609||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||False Discovery Rate correction (Benjamini and Hochberg procedure) applied to a set of 13 Group x Time interaction tests.|Mixed Models Analysis|Omnibus Group x Time (pre-post) interaction test: F (2, 378.467) = 6.609, p = .002. Age, race, and sex were covaried.|F (2, 378.467) = 6.609, p = .002|Linear mixed models adjusted for age, sex, race/ethnicity compared the within-and between-group responses following product use||||.002
90831080|NCT03863509|181535128|OTHER||interaction estimate|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|5.24|||Mixed Models Analysis||fixed effects from linear mixed model testing for effects of group, time, and group x time in systolic blood pressure, adjusting for age, sex, and race. Here presented the Exclusive E-cigarette users x Time vs never users x time as reference|Fixed effects from mixed models of measures before and after nicotine-containing product challenge (covariate-adjusted)||5.24|1.36|0.001
90831081|NCT03863509|181535128|OTHER||interaction term estimate|3.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|5.38|||Mixed Models Analysis||fixed effects from linear mixed model testing for effects of group, time, and group x time in systolic blood pressure, adjusting for age, sex, and race. Here presented the Exclusive cigarette smokers x Time vs never users x time as reference|||5.38|1.20|0.002
90831082|NCT03863509|181535128|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.948||0.992|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||.992
90831083|NCT03863509|181535129|OTHER||Type III F-test of Fixed Group x Time ef|5.843||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|||||False Discovery Rate correction (Benjamini and Hochberg procedure) applied to a set of 13 Group x Time interaction tests.|Mixed Models Analysis|Age, race, and sex were covaried. Omnibus Group x Time (pre-post) interaction test: F (2, 378.999) = 5.843, p = .003|F (2, 378.999) = 5.843, p = .003|Linear mixed models adjusted for age, sex, race/ethnicity compared the within-and between-group responses following product use||||0.003
90831084|NCT03863509|181535129|OTHER||Interaction term Coefficient|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis||fixed effects from linear mixed model testing for effects of group, time, and group x time in diastolic blood pressure, adjusting for age, sex, and race. Here presented the Exclusive E-cigarette users x Time vs never users x time as reference|Fixed effects from mixed models of measures before and after nicotine-containing product challenge (covariate-adjusted)||0.05|0.01|.002
90831085|NCT03863509|181535129|OTHER||Interaction term Coefficient|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis||fixed effects from linear mixed model testing for effects of group, time, and group x time in diastolic blood pressure, adjusting for age, sex, and race. Here presented the Exclusive Smokers x Time vs never users x time as reference|Fixed effects from mixed models of measures before and after nicotine-containing product challenge (covariate-adjusted)||0.05|0.01|.003
91087418|NCT02359110|182057473|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 2 Analysis||1.3|-1.2|0.89
91087419|NCT02359110|182057473|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 4 Analysis||1.5|-1.6|0.94
91103881|NCT01644331|182094566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.315|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.315
90831086|NCT03863509|181535129|OTHER||Interaction term Coefficient|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.917|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||fixed effects from re-parameterized linear mixed model testing for effects of group, time, and group x time in diastolic blood pressure, adjusting for age, sex, and race for Exclusive E-cigarette users x Time vs Exclusive Smokers x time as reference|Fixed effects from mixed models of measures before and after nicotine-containing product challenge (covariate-adjusted)||||.917
90831087|NCT03863509|181535130|OTHER||Type III F-test of Fixed Group x Time Ef|49.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||False Discovery Rate correction (Benjamini and Hochberg procedure) applied to a set of 13 Group x Time interaction tests.|Mixed Models Analysis|Age, race, and sex were covaried. Omnibus Group x Time (pre-post) interaction test: F (2, 376.099) = 49.420, p \< .001|F (2, 376.099) = 49.420, p \< .001|Linear mixed models adjusted for age, sex, race/ethnicity compared the within-and between-group responses following product use||||< .001
90831088|NCT03863509|181535130|OTHER||interaction term coefficient|6.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.83|7.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||fixed effects from linear mixed model testing for effects of group, time, and group x time in Heart Rate, adjusting for age, sex, and race for Exclusive E-cigarette users x Time vs never users x time as reference|Fixed effects from mixed models of measures before and after nicotine-containing product challenge (covariate-adjusted)||7.3|4.83|<0.001
90831089|NCT03863509|181535130|OTHER||interaction term coefficient|5.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.76|6.42|||Mixed Models Analysis||fixed effects from linear mixed model testing for effects of group, time, and group x time in Heart Rate, adjusting for age, sex, and race for Exclusive Smokers x Time vs never users x time as reference|||6.42|3.76|<0.001
90831090|NCT03863509|181535130|OTHER||interaction term coefficient|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.602||0.107|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||fixed effects from re-parameterized linear mixed model testing for effects of group, time, and group x time in Heart Rate, adjusting for age, sex, and race for Exclusive E-cigarette users x Time vs Exclusive Smokers x time as reference|||||0.107
90831091|NCT03863509|181535131|OTHER||Type III F-test of Fixed Group x Time Ef|6.194||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||False Discovery Rate correction (Benjamini and Hochberg procedure) applied to a set of 13 Group x Time interaction tests.|Mixed Models Analysis|Age, race, and sex were covaried. Omnibus Group x Time (pre-post) interaction test: F (2,372.971) = 6.194, p = .002|F (2,372.971) = 6.194, p = .002|Linear mixed models adjusted for age, sex, race/ethnicity compared the within-and between-group responses following product use.||||0.002
90831092|NCT03863509|181535131|OTHER||interaction term coefficient|-0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|-0.002|||Mixed Models Analysis||fixed effects from linear mixed model testing for effects of group, time, and group x time in Brachial Artery Diameter, adjusting for age, sex, and race for Exclusive E-cigarette users x Time vs never users x time as reference|Fixed effects from mixed models of measures before and after nicotine-containing product challenge (covariate-adjusted)||-0.002|-0.01|0.003
90831093|NCT03863509|181535131|OTHER||interaction term coefficient|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.002||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|-0.002|||Mixed Models Analysis||fixed effects from linear mixed model testing for effects of group, time, and group x time in Brachial Artery Diameter, adjusting for age, sex, and race for Exclusive Smokers x Time vs never users x time as reference|||-0.002|-0.01|0.001
90831094|NCT03863509|181535131|OTHER||interaction term coefficient|-0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.002||0.582|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||fixed effects from re-parameterized linear mixed model testing for effects of group, time, and group x time in Brachial Artery Diameter, adjusting for age, sex, and race for Exclusive E-cigarette users x Time vs Exclusive Smokers x time as reference|||||0.582
90831095|NCT03863509|181535132|OTHER||Type III F-test of Fixed Group x Time E|1.753||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|||||False Discovery Rate correction (Benjamini and Hochberg procedure) applied to a set of 13 Group x Time interaction tests|Mixed Models Analysis|Age, race, and sex were covaried.|FMD responses in e-cigarette users, cigarette users, and never-users controls after adjusting for changes in brachial artery diameter.|Linear mixed models adjusted for age, sex, race/ethnicity compared the within-and between-group responses following product use||||0.175
90831096|NCT03863509|181535132|OTHER||interaction term coefficient|0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|1.56|||Mixed Models Analysis||fixed effects from linear mixed model testing for effects of group, time, and group x time in Brachial Artery Flow Mediated Dilation, adjusting for age, sex, and race for Exclusive E-cigarette users x Time vs never users x time as reference|Fixed effects from mixed models of measures before and after nicotine-containing product challenge (covariate-adjusted)||1.56|-0.05|0.067
90831097|NCT03863509|181535132|OTHER||interaction term coefficient|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||fixed effects from linear mixed model testing for effects of group, time, and group x time in Brachial Artery Flow Mediated Dilation, adjusting for age, sex, and race for Exclusive Smokers x Time vs never users x time as reference|||1.20|-0.55|0.464
90831098|NCT03863509|181535132|OTHER||interaction term coefficient|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.284|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||fixed effects from re-parameterized linear mixed model testing effects of group, time, and group x time in FMD, age, sex, race adjusted, for Exclusive E-cigarette users x Time vs Exclusive Smokers x time as reference|||||0.284
90957005|NCT00706433|181793702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||<0.0001
90831099|NCT03863509|181535133|OTHER||Type III F-test of Fixed Group x Time Ef|8.323|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||False Discovery Rate correction (Benjamini and Hochberg procedure) applied to a set of 13 Group x Time interaction tests|Mixed Models Analysis|Age, race, and sex were covaried. Omnibus Group x Time (pre-post) interaction test: F (2, 342.847) = 8.323, p = \<.001|F (2,342.847) = 8.323, p = \<.001|Linear mixed models adjusted for age, sex, race/ethnicity compared the within-and between-group responses following product use||||<0.001
90957006|NCT00706433|181793702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.9700
90957007|NCT00706433|181793703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2544||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.2544
90831100|NCT03863509|181535133|OTHER||interaction term coefficient|-6.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.89|-3.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||fixed effects from linear mixed model testing for effects of group, time, and group x time in PNN50, adjusting for age, sex, and race for Exclusive E-cigarette users x Time vs never users x time as reference|Fixed effects from mixed models of measures before and after nicotine-containing product challenge (covariate-adjusted)||-3.20|-9.89|<0.001
90831101|NCT03863509|181535133|OTHER||interaction term coefficient|-6.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.83||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.71|-2.52|||Mixed Models Analysis||fixed effects from linear mixed model testing for effects of group, time, and group x time in PNN50, adjusting for age, sex, and race for Exclusive Smokers x Time vs never users x time as reference|||-2.52|-9.71|0.001
90831102|NCT03863509|181535133|OTHER||interaction term coefficient|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.61||0.787|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||fixed effects from re-parameterized linear mixed model testing for effects of group, time, and group x time in PNN50, adjusting for age, sex, and race for Exclusive E-cigarette users x Time vs Exclusive Smokers x time as reference|||||0.787
90831103|NCT03863509|181535134|OTHER||Type III F-test of Fixed Group x Time Ef|7.26||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||False Discovery Rate correction (Benjamini and Hochberg procedure) applied to a set of 13 Group x Time interaction tests|Mixed Models Analysis|Age, race, and sex were covaried. Omnibus Group x Time (pre-post) interaction test: F (2, 345.918) = 7.260, p = .001|F (2,345.918) = 7.260, p = .001|Linear mixed models adjusted for age, sex, race/ethnicity compared the within-and between-group responses following product use Outcome measure ln transformed for analysis.||||0.001
90831104|NCT03863509|181535134|OTHER||interaction term coefficient|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|-0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis||fixed effects from linear mixed model testing for effects of group, time, and group x time in RMSSD, adjusting for age, sex, and race for Exclusive E-cigarette users x Time vs never users x time as reference|Fixed effects from mixed models of measures before and after nicotine-containing product challenge (covariate-adjusted)||-0.08|-0.31|0.001
90831105|NCT03863509|181535134|OTHER||interaction term coefficient|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|-0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis||fixed effects from linear mixed model testing for effects of group, time, and group x time in RMSSD, adjusting for age, sex, and race for Exclusive Smokers x Time vs never users x time as reference|||-0.09|-0.33|0.001
90831106|NCT03863509|181535134|OTHER||interaction term coefficient|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.847|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||fixed effects from re-parameterized linear mixed model testing for effects of group, time, and group x time in RMSSD, adjusting for age, sex, and race for Exclusive E-cigarette users x Time vs Exclusive Smokers x time as reference|||||0.847
90831107|NCT03863509|181535135|OTHER||Type III F-test of Fixed Group x Time Ef|1.712||||0.182|TWO_SIDED|||||False Discovery Rate correction (Benjamini and Hochberg procedure) applied to a set of 13 Group x Time interaction tests|Mixed Models Analysis|Age, race, and sex were covaried. Omnibus Group x Time (pre-post) interaction test: F (2, 312.081) = 1.712, p = .182|F (2, 312.081) = 1.712, p = .182|Linear mixed models adjusted for age, sex, race/ethnicity compared the within-and between-group responses following product use||||.182
90894067|NCT05131165|181653706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance (alpha) = 0.05|ANCOVA|||The analyses utilized control as the reference group, and thus, the values reported include control mean and standard error as the reference value (derived from an ordinary least squared regression without controls). The results for the intervention groups are derived from the multiple regression model that controlled for other participant characteristics, including demographics, intrinsic motivation and habit strength at baseline.||||0.035
90831108|NCT03863509|181535135|OTHER||interaction term coefficient|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.004|||Mixed Models Analysis||fixed effects from linear mixed model testing for effects of group, time, and group x time in HRV-Standing Ratio, adjusting for age, sex, and race for Exclusive E-cigarette users x Time vs never users x time as reference|||0.004|-0.09|0.07
90831109|NCT03863509|181535135|OTHER||interaction term coefficient|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis||fixed effects from linear mixed model testing for effects of group, time, and group x time in HRV-Standing Ratio adjusting for age, sex, and race for Exclusive Smokers x Time vs never users x time as reference|||0.02|-0.09|0.196
90831110|NCT03863509|181535135|OTHER||interaction term coefficient|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||fixed effects from re-parameterized linear mixed model testing for effects of group, time, and group x time in HRV-Standing Ratio adjusting for age, sex, and race for Exclusive E-cigarette users x Time vs Exclusive Smokers x time as reference|||||0.69
90831111|NCT03863509|181535136|OTHER||Type III F-test of Fixed Group x Time Ef|4.096||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|||||False Discovery Rate correction (Benjamini and Hochberg procedure) applied to a set of 13 Group x Time interaction tests.|Mixed Models Analysis|Age, race, and sex were covaried. Omnibus Group x Time (pre-post) interaction test: F (2, 373.239) = 4.096, p = .017|F (2, 373.239) = 4.096, p = .017|Linear mixed models adjusted for age, sex, race/ethnicity compared the within-and between-group responses following product use.||||0.017
90831112|NCT03863509|181535136|OTHER||interaction term coefficient|-3.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.18|-0.91|||Mixed Models Analysis||fixed effects from linear mixed model testing for effects of group, time, and group x time in FEV1, adjusting for age, sex, and race for Exclusive E-cigarette users x Time vs never users x time as reference|||-0.91|-5.18|0.005
90831113|NCT03863509|181535136|OTHER||interaction term coefficient|-1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18||0.274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.61|1.03|||Mixed Models Analysis||fixed effects from linear mixed model testing for effects of group, time, and group x time in FEV1, adjusting for age, sex, and race for Exclusive Smokers x Time vs never users x time as reference|||1.03|-3.61|0.274
90831114|NCT03863509|181535136|OTHER||interaction term coefficient|1.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06||0.098|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||fixed effects from re-parameterized linear mixed model testing for effects of group, time, and group x time in FEV1, adjusting for age, sex, and race for Exclusive E-cigarette users x Time vs Exclusive Smokers x time as reference|||||0.098
90957008|NCT00706433|181793704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4321||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.4321
90957009|NCT00706433|181793705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0317||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0317
90831115|NCT03863509|181535137|OTHER||Type III F-test of Fixed Group x Time Ef|0.26||||0.771|TWO_SIDED|||||False Discovery Rate correction (Benjamini and Hochberg procedure) applied to a set of 13 Group x Time interaction tests|Mixed Models Analysis|Age, race, and sex were covaried. Omnibus Group x Time (pre-post) interaction test: F (2, 373.434) = 0.260, p = .771|F (2, 373.434) = 0.260, p = .771|Linear mixed models adjusted for age, sex, race/ethnicity compared the within-and between-group responses following product use.||||.771
90831116|NCT03863509|181535137|OTHER||interaction term coefficient|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14||0.918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|2.12|||Mixed Models Analysis||fixed effects from linear mixed model testing for effects of group, time, and group x time in FVC, adjusting for age, sex, and race for Exclusive E-cigarette users x Time vs never users x time as reference|Fixed effects from mixed models of measures before and after nicotine-containing product challenge (covariate-adjusted)||2.12|-2.35|0.918
90831117|NCT03863509|181535137|OTHER||interaction term coefficient|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.23||0.518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.22|1.63|||Mixed Models Analysis||fixed effects from linear mixed model testing for effects of group, time, and group x time in FVC, adjusting for age, sex, and race for Exclusive Smokers x Time vs never users x time as reference|||1.63|-3.22|0.518
90831118|NCT03863509|181535137|OTHER||interaction term coefficient|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.539|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||fixed effects from re-parameterized linear mixed model testing for effects of group, time, and group x time in FVC, adjusting for age, sex, and race for Exclusive E-cigarette users x Time vs Exclusive Smokers x time as reference|||||0.539
90831119|NCT03863509|181535138|OTHER||Type III F-test of Fixed Group x Time Ef|7.157||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||False Discovery Rate correction (Benjamini and Hochberg procedure) applied to a set of 13 Group x Time interaction tests|Mixed Models Analysis|Age, race, and sex were covaried. Omnibus Group x Time (pre-post) interaction test: F (2, 375.412) = 7.157, p = .001|F (2, 375.412) = 7.157, p = .001|Linear mixed models adjusted for age, sex, race/ethnicity compared the within-and between-group responses following product use.||||0.001
90831120|NCT03863509|181535138|OTHER||interaction term coefficient|-3.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.43|-1.35|||Mixed Models Analysis||fixed effects from linear mixed model testing for effects of group, time, and group x time in FEV1/FVC, adjusting for age, sex, and race for Exclusive E-cigarette users x Time vs never users x time as reference|||-1.35|-5.43|0.001
90831121|NCT03863509|181535138|OTHER||interaction term coefficient|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12||0.778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.53|1.89|||Mixed Models Analysis||fixed effects from linear mixed model testing for effects of group, time, and group x time in FEV1/FVC, adjusting for age, sex, and race for Exclusive Smokers x Time vs never users x time as reference|||1.89|-2.53|0.778
90831122|NCT03863509|181535138|OTHER||interaction term coefficient|3.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||fixed effects from re-parameterized linear mixed model testing for effects of group, time, and group x time in FEV1/FVC, adjusting for age, sex, and race for Exclusive E-cigarette users x Time vs Exclusive Smokers x time as reference|||||0.002
90831123|NCT03863509|181535139|OTHER||Type III F-test of Fixed Group x Time Ef|4.317||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|||||False Discovery Rate correction (Benjamini and Hochberg procedure) applied to a set of 13 Group x Time interaction tests.|Mixed Models Analysis|Age, race, and sex were covaried. Omnibus Group x Time (pre-post) interaction test: F (2, 373.170) = 4.317, p = .014|F (2, 373.170) = 4.317, p = .014|Linear mixed models adjusted for age, sex, race/ethnicity compared the within-and between-group responses following product use||||0.014
90957010|NCT00706433|181793705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5818||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.5818
91023884|NCT03549130|181931113|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3487||||||P-value are based on chi-square test|Chi-squared|||Treatment comparison of participants showing improvement based on NRQLQ on any of the items in practical problems.||||0.3487
91023885|NCT01078623|181931114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.221|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.174|0.268|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as random effect, and baseline values at each period as a covariate||||0.268|0.174|<0.0001
91023886|NCT01078623|181931114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.234|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.186|0.281|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as random effect, and baseline values at each period as a covariate||||0.281|0.186|<0.0001
91023887|NCT02967133|181931152|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5186|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.5186
91023888|NCT01828255|181931172|OTHER||||||<|0.005|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.005
91023889|NCT04169282|181931208|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.108|||||||t-test, 1 sided|paired t-test for normally distributed and transformed data or Wilcoxon's Signed Rank test for non-parametric paired data||||||0.108
91023890|NCT04169282|181931209|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 1 sided|paired t-test for normally distributed and transformed data or Wilcoxon's Signed Rank test for non-parametric paired data||||||0.003
91023891|NCT04169282|181931210|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.025|||||||t-test, 1 sided|paired t-test for normally distributed and transformed data or Wilcoxon's Signed Rank test for non-parametric paired data||||||0.025
91023892|NCT00621686|181931217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.069|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.069
91023893|NCT01275313|181931223|EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation: To determine a difference of 20% in the control group and 10% in the treatment group with 80% power, 440 participants would be needed.||||||0.77|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Null hypothesis: At-risk nursing home residents provided with an individually-configured manual lightweight wheelchair and skin protection cushion have the same incidence of pressure injury development compared to individuals using a facility-provided manual wheelchair modified with a skin protection cushion and related adjustments.||||0.77
91023894|NCT00322309|181931235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.6|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||It was hypothesized that there would be no significant difference between the two treatment groups for benzoylecgonine data collected for Week 11.||||>0.05
91023895|NCT00322309|181931236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.6|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||It was hypothesized that means scores for the CGI-O would not differ significantly for these values obtained in the final treatment week, Week 11.||||>0.05
91087420|NCT02359110|182057473|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 6 Analysis||1.3|-2.2|0.64
90894068|NCT05131165|181653708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5468|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The analyses compared the change in viral suppression status of the participants from baseline to month 9. For each participant, we derived the change in viral suppression status by subtracting two binary variables - one indicating whether the participant was virally suppressed at baseline (based on their chart records from around 3 months prior to baseline) and the other indicating whether the participant was virally suppressed at around month 9 of the study.||||0.5468
90894069|NCT05131165|181653708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5255|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The analyses compared the change in viral suppression status of the participants from baseline to month 9. For each participant, we derived the change in viral suppression status by subtracting two binary variables - one indicating whether the participant was virally suppressed at baseline (based on their chart records from around 3 months prior to baseline) and the other indicating whether the participant was virally suppressed at around month 9 of the study.||||0.5255
90894070|NCT02416492|181653803|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9||0.0401|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||MMRM: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||Adjusted LS mean and treatment group difference in change from baseline at Week 24 were modeled using an MMRM including the following variables: treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline FMMS score, baseline FMMS score by visit interaction, GOS-E score at screening, and GOS-E score at screening by visit interaction.||||0.0401
90894071|NCT02416492|181653804|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-0.7||||0.1655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.3||MMRM: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||Adjusted LS mean and treatment group difference in change from baseline at Week 24 were modeled using an MMRM including the following variables: treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline FMMS score, baseline FMMS score by visit interaction, GOS-E score at screening, and GOS-E score at screening by visit interaction.||0.3|-1.7|0.1655
90894072|NCT02416492|181653805|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|2.7||||0.3398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|8.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM included treatment, visit, baseline endpoints \& GOS-E scores, baseline endpoints \& GOS-E by visit interaction, treatment-by-visit interaction||Adjusted LS mean and treatment group difference in change from baseline at Week 24 were modeled using an MMRM including the following variables: treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline FMMS score, baseline FMMS score by visit interaction, GOS-E score at screening, and GOS-E score at screening by visit interaction.||8.3|-2.9|0.3398
91087421|NCT02359110|182057473|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 8 Analysis||2.8|-1.6|0.59
90831124|NCT03863509|181535139|OTHER||interaction term coefficient|-5.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.21|-0.95|||Mixed Models Analysis||fixed effects from linear mixed model testing for effects of group, time, and group x time in FEF 25-75, adjusting for age, sex, and race for Exclusive E-cigarette users x Time vs never users x time as reference|Fixed effects from mixed models of measures before and after nicotine-containing product challenge (covariate-adjusted)||-0.95|-9.21|0.016
90831125|NCT03863509|181535139|OTHER||interaction term coefficient|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.28||0.998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.47|4.48|||Mixed Models Analysis||fixed effects from linear mixed model testing for effects of group, time, and group x time in FEF 25-75, adjusting for age, sex, and race for Exclusive Smokers x Time vs never users x time as reference|||4.48|-4.47|0.998
90831126|NCT03863509|181535139|OTHER||interaction term coefficient|5.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04||0.013|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||fixed effects from re-parameterized linear mixed model testing for effects of group, time, and group x time in FEF 25-75, adjusting for age, sex, and race for Exclusive E-cigarette users x Time vs Exclusive Smokers x time as reference|||||0.013
91087422|NCT02359110|182057474|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.8||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|15.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 2 Analysis||15.8|-8.1|0.52
90831127|NCT03863509|181535140|OTHER||Type III F-test of Fixed Group x Time Ef|6.694||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||False Discovery Rate correction (Benjamini and Hochberg procedure) applied to a set of 13 Group x Time interaction tests.|Mixed Models Analysis|Age, race, and sex were covaried. Omnibus Group x Time (pre-post) interaction test: F (2,376.779) = 6.694, p = .001|F ((2,376.779) = 6.694, p = .001|Linear mixed models adjusted for age, sex, race/ethnicity compared the within-and-between-group responses following product use Outcome measure ln transformed for analysis.||||0.001
90831128|NCT03863509|181535140|OTHER||interaction term coefficient|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|-0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis||fixed effects from linear mixed model testing for effects of group, time, and group x time in FeNO, adjusting for age, sex, and race for Exclusive E-cigarette users x Time vs never users x time as reference|Fixed effects from mixed models of measures before and after nicotine-containing product challenge (covariate-adjusted)||-0.04|-0.14|0.001
90894073|NCT02416492|181653806|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-2.6||||0.8974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.2|37.1||MMRM: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||Adjusted LS mean and treatment group difference in change from baseline at Week 24 were modeled using an MMRM including the following variables: treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline FMMS score, baseline FMMS score by visit interaction, GOS-E score at screening, and GOS-E score at screening by visit interaction.||37.1|-42.2|0.8974
90894074|NCT02416492|181653807|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-0.49||||0.8534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.77|4.8||MMRM: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM included treatment, visit, baseline endpoints \& GOS-E scores, baseline endpoints \& GOS-E by visit interaction, treatment-by-visit interaction||Change from Baseline in NeuroQOL Upper Extremity Function T Score at Week 24||4.80|-5.77|0.8534
91087423|NCT02359110|182057474|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|15.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 6 Analysis||15.3|-11.9|0.80
91087424|NCT02359110|182057475|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.88
91087425|NCT00735709|182057548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.99|-2.86||Pre-specified sequential statistical testing procedure indicates that when p-value \<0.05, hierarchical testing continues.|Mixed model for repeated measurements|P-values are from an MMRM model with Baseline-by-week, center, week, and week-by-treatment as factors in the analysis.||All statistical tests were 2-sided with the estimated P-values at the 5% level of significance. To control for multiplicity, a pre-specified sequential testing procedure was applied to compare 10 mg and 5 mg vortioxetine to placebo; as soon as an endpoint was non-significant at 0.05, the testing procedure stopped for all subsequent endpoints.||-2.86|-6.99|<0.001
90831129|NCT03863509|181535140|OTHER||interaction term coefficient|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis||fixed effects from linear mixed model testing for effects of group, time, and group x time in FeNO, adjusting for age, sex, and race for Exclusive Smokers x Time vs never users x time as reference|||0.04|-0.08|0.555
90831130|NCT03863509|181535140|OTHER||interaction term coefficient|0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||fixed effects from re-parameterized linear mixed model testing for effects of group, time, and group x time in FeNO, adjusting for age, sex, and race for Exclusive E-cigarette users x Time vs Exclusive Smokers x time as reference|||||0.007
90831131|NCT03863509|181535141|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||ANCOVA for group differences|ANCOVA|Age, sex, and race/ethnicity were covaried. Test for group difference: F (2, 386) = 12.869, p \< .001||||||< .001
90831132|NCT03863509|181535141|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.352||||0.269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.048|3.752|||ANCOVA post-hoc pairwise group compariso|Age, sex, and race were covaried||Never Users minus Exclusive E-Cig Users||3.752|-1.048|0.269
90831133|NCT03863509|181535141|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.575|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.37|-2.78|||ANCOVA post-hoc pairwise group compariso|Age, sex and race were covaried||Never Users minus Exclusive Smokers||-2.780|-8.37|<0.001
90831134|NCT03863509|181535141|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.927|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.672|-4.183|||ANCOVA post-hoc pairwise group compariso|Age, sex and race were covaried.||Exclusive E-Cig Users minus Exclusive Smokers||-4.183|-9.672|<0.001
90831135|NCT03863509|181535142|OTHER|||||||0.035|||||||ANCOVA|Age, sex, and race/ethnicity were covaried. Test for group difference: F (2, 361) = 3.392, p = .035|||Group difference did not survive correction for false discovery rate at .05, therefore not followed with post-hoc pairwise comparisons.|||.035
90831136|NCT03863509|181535143|OTHER|||||||0.549|||||||ANCOVA|Age, sex, and race/ethnicity were covaried. Test for group difference: F (2, 386) = 0.601, p = .549||||||.549
90831137|NCT03863509|181535144|OTHER|||||||0.022|||||||ANCOVA|Age, sex, and race/ethnicity were covaried. Test for group difference: F (2, 381) = 3.877, p = .022|||Group difference tested after correction for false discovery rate at .05, therefore we followed with post-hoc pairwise comparisons.|||.022
90831138|NCT03863509|181535144|OTHER|||||||0.952|||||||ANCOVA post-hoc pairwise group compariso|Age, sex, and race were covaried||Never Users minus Exclusive E-Cig Users||||0.952
90831139|NCT03863509|181535144|OTHER|||||||0.014|||||||ANCOVA post-hoc pairwise group compariso|Age, sex, and race were covaried||post hoc pairwise group comparisons.. Never Users minus Exclusive Smokers||||0.014
90831140|NCT03863509|181535144|OTHER|||||||0.011||||||Age, sex, and race were covaried|ANCOVA post-hoc pairwise group compariso|||Exclusive E-Cig Users minus Exclusive Smokers||||0.011
90831141|NCT03863509|181535145|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|Age, sex, and race/ethnicity were covaried. Outcome variable log-transformed for analysis. Test for group difference: F (2, 381) = 33.442, p \< .001|||Group difference tested for false discovery rate at .05 and followed with post-hoc pairwise comparisons.|||< .001
90831142|NCT03863509|181535145|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.039|0.322|||ANCOVA post-hoc pairwise group compariso|Age, sex, and race were covaried|Estimated marginal mean differences (log-transformed scale)|Never Users minus Exclusive E-Cig Users:||0.322|0.039|0.013
90831143|NCT03863509|181535145|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.679|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.514|0.844|||ANCOVA post-hoc pairwise group compariso|Age, sex and race were covaried|Estimated marginal mean differences (log-transformed scale)|Never Users minus Exclusive Smokers||0.844|0.514|<0.001
90831144|NCT03863509|181535145|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.498|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.336|0.66|||ANCOVA post-hoc pairwise group compariso|Age, sex, and race/ethnicity were covaried|"Estimated marginal mean differences (log-transformed scale)"|Exclusive E-Cig users minus Exclusive Smokers||0.660|0.336|<0.001
90831145|NCT03863509|181535146|OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||ANCOVA|Age, sex, and race/ethnicity were covaried. Test for group difference: F (2, 361) = 1.904, p = .150||||||.150
90831146|NCT03863509|181535147|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|Age, sex, and race/ethnicity were covaried. Test for group difference: F (2, 385) = 17.872, p \< .001|||Group difference tested for false discovery rate at .05, and followed with post-hoc pairwise comparisons. Estimated marginal mean differences:|||< .001
90831147|NCT03863509|181535147|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.632||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.019|-1.245|||ANCOVA post-hoc pairwise group compariso|Age, sex, and race were covaried||Never Users minus Exclusive E-Cig Users||-1.245|-6.019|0.003
90831148|NCT03863509|181535147|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.14|-5.62|||ANCOVA post-hoc pairwise group compariso|Age, sex, and race were covaried||Never Users minus Exclusive Smokers||-5.62|-11.14|<0.001
90831149|NCT03863509|181535147|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.748||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.456|-2.04|||ANCOVA post-hoc pairwise group compariso|Age, sex, and race were covaried||Exclusive E-Cig Users minus Exclusive Smokers||-2.040|-7.456|0.001
90831150|NCT03863509|181535148|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|Age, sex, and race/ethnicity were covaried. Test for group difference: F (2, 343) = 17.056, p \< .001|||Group difference tested for false discovery rate at .05, and followed with post-hoc pairwise comparisons.|||< .001
90831151|NCT03863509|181535148|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.279|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.733|1.824|||ANCOVA post-hoc pairwise group compariso|age, sex and race were covaried||Never Users minus Exclusive E-Cig Users||1.824|0.733|<0.001
90831152|NCT03863509|181535148|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.739|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.083|2.395|||ANCOVA post-hoc pairwise group compariso|Age, sex and race were covaried||Never Users minus Exclusive Smokers||2.395|1.083|<0.001
90831153|NCT03863509|181535148|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.46||||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|1.11|||ANCOVA post-hoc pairwise group compariso|age, sex and race were covaried||Exclusive E-Cig Users minus Exclusive Smokers||1.110|-0.190|0.165
90831154|NCT03863509|181535149|OTHER|||||||0.199|||||||ANCOVA|Age, sex, and race/ethnicity were covaried. Test for group difference: F (2, 386) = 1.621, p = .199||||||.199
90831155|NCT03863509|181535150|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|Age, sex, and race/ethnicity were covaried. Test for group difference: F (2, 343) = 17.056, p\< .001|||Group difference tested for false discovery rate at .05, and followed with post-hoc pairwise comparisons.|||<0.001
90831156|NCT03863509|181535150|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.279|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.733|1.824|||ANCOVA post-hoc pairwise group compariso|Age, sex and race were covaried||Never Users minus Exclusive E-Cig users||1.824|0.733|<0.001
90894075|NCT02416492|181653807|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|0.41||||0.8443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.78|4.6||MMRM: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM included treatment, visit, baseline endpoints \& GOS-E scores, baseline endpoints \& GOS-E by visit interaction, treatment-by-visit interaction||Change from Baseline in NeuroQOL Lower Extremity Function T Score at Week 24||4.60|-3.78|0.8443
90894076|NCT03387579|181653850|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.590
90894077|NCT03387579|181653850|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.224|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.224
90894078|NCT03387579|181653850|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
91087426|NCT00735709|182057548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.17|-2.08||Hierarchical testing stopped at SDS total score at Week 8 in the testing sequence, a nominal p-value is provided.|Mixed model for repeated measurements|P-values are from an MMRM model with Baseline-by-week, center, week, and week-by-treatment as factors in the analysis.||||-2.08|-6.17|<0.001
91087427|NCT00735709|182057548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.57|-1.47||This treatment arm is not in the testing sequence, a nominal p-value is provided.|Mixed model for repeated measurements|P-values are from an MMRM model with Baseline-by-week, center, week, and week-by-treatment as factors in the analysis.||||-1.47|-5.57|<0.001
90831157|NCT03863509|181535150|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.739|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.083|2.395|||ANCOVA post-hoc pairwise group compariso|age, sex, race covaried||Never Users minus Exclusive Smokers||2.395|1.083|<0.001
90831158|NCT03863509|181535150|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.46||||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|1.11|||ANCOVA post-hoc pairwise group compariso|Age, sex and race were covaried||Exclusive E-Cig Users minus Exclusive Smokers||1.110|-0.190|0.165
91087428|NCT00735709|182057549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.54||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.56|0.48||Pre-specified sequential statistical testing procedure indicates that when p-value \>0.05, hierarchical testing stops and for subsequent endpoints in the sequence a nominal p-value is provided.|Mixed model repeated measurements|P-values are from an MMRM model with Baseline-by-week, center, week, and week-by-treatment as factors in the analysis.||||0.48|-3.56|0.135
90831159|NCT03863509|181535151|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|Age, sex, and race/ethnicity were covaried. Test for group difference: F (2, 343) = 17.056, p\< .001|||Group difference tested for false discovery rate at .05, and followed with post-hoc pairwise comparisons.|||<0.001
90831160|NCT03863509|181535151|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.279|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.733|1.824|||ANCOVA post-hoc pairwise group compariso|Age, sex, race were covaried||Never Users minus Exclusive E-Cig Users||1.824|0.733|<0.001
90831161|NCT03863509|181535151|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.739|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.083|2.395|||ANCOVA post-hoc pairwise group compariso|Age, sex and race were covaried||Never Users minus Exclusive Smokers||2.395|1.083|<0.001
90831162|NCT03863509|181535151|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.46||||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|1.11|||ANCOVA post-hoc pairwise group compariso|Age, sex and race were covaried||Exclusive E-Cig Users minus Exclusive Smokers||1.110|-0.190|0.165
90831163|NCT03863509|181535152|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|Age, sex, and race/ethnicity were covaried. Test for group difference: F (2, 344) = 10.075, p \< .001|||Group difference tested for false discovery rate at .05, and followed with post-hoc pairwise comparisons. Estimated marginal mean differences:|||<0.001
90894079|NCT03387579|181653851|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.471|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.471
90894080|NCT03387579|181653852|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.525|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.525
90894081|NCT03387579|181653853|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.753|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.753
90957011|NCT00706433|181793705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0395||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0395
91087429|NCT00735709|182057549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.11||||0.263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.07|0.84|||Mixed model repeated measurements|P-values are from an MMRM model with Baseline-by-week, center, week, and week-by-treatment as factors in the analysis.||||0.84|-3.07|0.263
91087430|NCT00735709|182057549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.05||||0.963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.03|1.94|||Mixed model repeated measurements|P-values are from an MMRM model with Baseline-by-week, center, week, and week-by-treatment as factors in the analysis.||||1.94|-2.03|0.963
90831164|NCT03861273|181535153|NON_INFERIORITY|A repeated measure negative binomial regression model was used to do the hypothesis test on non-inferiority with one-sided test.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.13||||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.44|-0.81|||Generalized linear model (GLM)|The treatment difference and P-value were obtained from a repeated measures GLM with negative binomial distribution and identity link function.||||-0.81|-5.44|0.0081
90894082|NCT03387579|181653854|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.008
90894083|NCT03387579|181653855|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.127|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.127
90894084|NCT03387579|181653856|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
90894085|NCT03387579|181653857|SUPERIORITY||estimate|8.553||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|||||Intralipid 20% reduction versus smoflipid 20%|Mixed Models Analysis||standard error 4.249|||||0.046
90894086|NCT03387579|181653857|SUPERIORITY||estimate|7.023||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||Intralipid 20% historic versus smoflipid|Mixed Models Analysis||standard error 3.376|||||0.040
90894087|NCT03387579|181653857|SUPERIORITY||estimate|-1.53||||0.718|TWO_SIDED|||||Intralipid 20% Historic versus Intralipid 20% reduction|Mixed Models Analysis||standard error 4.231|||||0.718
90894088|NCT03387579|181653858|SUPERIORITY||estimate|13.436||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|||||Intralipid 20% reduction versus Smoflipid 20%|Mixed Models Analysis||standard error 4.440|||||0.003
90894089|NCT03387579|181653858|SUPERIORITY||estimate|3.936||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|||||Intralipid 20% historic versus Smoflipid 20%|Mixed Models Analysis||standard error 3.553|||||0.270
90894090|NCT03387579|181653858|SUPERIORITY||estimate|-9.5||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|||||Intralipid 20% historic versus Intralipid 20% reduction|Mixed Models Analysis||standard error 4.416|||||0.034
90894091|NCT03387579|181653859|SUPERIORITY||estimate|42.674||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|||||Intralipid 20% reduction versus Smoflipid 20%|Mixed Models Analysis||standard error 15.216|||||0.006
90894092|NCT03387579|181653859|SUPERIORITY||estimate|11.117||||0.305|TWO_SIDED|||||Intralipid 20% historic versus smoflipid 20%|Mixed Models Analysis||standard error 10.771|||||0.305
90831165|NCT03861273|181535154|NON_INFERIORITY|A repeated measure negative binomial regression model was used to do the hypothesis test on non-inferiority with one-sided test.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.62||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.27|-0.96|||Generalized linear model (GLM)|The treatment difference and P-value were obtained from a repeated measures GLM with negative binomial distribution and identity link function.||||-0.96|-4.27|0.0019
90831166|NCT03861273|181535155|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-54.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.64|-45.1|||Paired t-test|||The treatment difference (PF-06838435 - FIX Prophylaxis) estimate (95% CI) and p-value were obtained from paired t-test.||-45.10|-63.64|<.0001
90831167|NCT03861273|181535156|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value from one-sided t-statistic testing the log transformation of the steady state FIX:C \> log(5). Cumulative for 3 assays.|One-sided t-statistic testing|||Week 12 to Month 15||||<.0001
90831168|NCT03861273|181535158|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2935.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3403.1|-2468.3|||Paired t-test|||||-2468.30|-3403.10|<.0001
90831169|NCT03861273|181535159|NON_INFERIORITY|The treatment difference and P-value were obtained from a repeated measures GLM with negative binomial distribution and identity link function.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.55||||0.0191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.67|-0.42|||Generalized linear model (GLM)|||||-0.42|-4.67|0.0191
90831170|NCT03861273|181535160|NON_INFERIORITY|The treatment difference and P-value were obtained from a repeated measures GLM with negative binomial distribution and identity link function.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.57||||0.1528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|0.21|||Generalized linear model (GLM)|||||0.21|-1.35|0.1528
90831171|NCT03861273|181535161|NON_INFERIORITY|The treatment difference and P-value were obtained from a repeated measures GLM with negative binomial distribution and identity link function.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51||||0.3738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|0.61|||Generalized linear model (GLM)|||||0.61|-1.63|0.3738
90831172|NCT03861273|181535164|OTHER|||||||0.0117|||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.0117
90831173|NCT03861273|181535165|OTHER|||||||0.0052|||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.0052
90831174|NCT03861273|181535166|OTHER|||||||0.0237|||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.0237
90831175|NCT00770653|181535196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.267||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2264|5.3076|||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis (H0) = mean increase of HDL after 24 weeks of treatment of Pio/Met group ≤ the mean increase in the Gli/Met group. Alternate hypothesis (H1) = mean increase of HDL after 24 weeks of treatment of Pio/Met group \> the mean increase in the Gli/Met group. The relevant clinical effect size to detect with adequate power was 0.35. With this assumption, a one sided t-test with a type I error rate had 80% power to reject the H0 for the H1 when the sample size was 130 patients per group.||5.3076|1.2264|0.0018
90831176|NCT00770653|181535197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.267||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2264|5.3076|||ANCOVA||Deviation from the normal distribution assumption was detected for original and rank-transformed data for all time-points due to p-value of Shapiro-Wilk test, indicating the normal distribution assumption might be distrusted for HDL-cholesterol data.|||5.3076|1.2264|0.0018
90831177|NCT00770653|181535198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1311||||0.1167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2951|0.0329|||ANCOVA|||||0.0329|-0.2951|0.1167
90831178|NCT00770653|181535199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.9479||||0.1012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.4331|3.5373|||ANCOVA|||||3.5373|-39.4331|0.1012
90831179|NCT00770653|181535200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.1292||||0.7486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0109|23.2693|||ANCOVA|||||23.2693|-17.0109|0.7486
90831180|NCT00770653|181535201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2355||||0.9464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1253|6.6543|||ANCOVA|||||6.6543|-7.1253|0.9464
90831181|NCT00770653|181535202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1574||||0.0807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0193|0.3341|||ANCOVA|||||0.3341|-0.0193|0.0807
90831182|NCT00770653|181535203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.5039|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4222|-2.5855|||ANCOVA|||||-2.5855|-6.4222|<.0001
90831183|NCT00770653|181535204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0707||||0.7799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4665|8.6079|||ANCOVA|||||8.6079|-6.4665|0.7799
90831184|NCT00770653|181535205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.3161|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0994|7.5329|||ANCOVA|||||7.5329|5.0994|<.0001
90831185|NCT00770653|181535206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8323||||0.4131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8312|1.1665|||ANCOVA|||||1.1665|-2.8312|0.4131
90831186|NCT00770653|181535207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8847|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3067|-0.4627|||ANCOVA|||||-0.4627|-1.3067|<.0001
90831187|NCT00770653|181535208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4903||||0.0929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3979|0.4172|||ANCOVA|||||0.4172|-5.3979|0.0929
90831188|NCT00770653|181535209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8832||||0.3279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6571|0.8906|||ANCOVA|||||0.8906|-2.6571|0.3279
90831189|NCT00770653|181535210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Fisher Exact|-3.33||||0.2895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.83|8.39|||Fisher Exact|||The number and percentage of participants with a calculated compliance \>80% and \<120% are presented for both treatment groups. In addition, the p-values of Fisher's exact test, the two-sided 95% confidence intervals for the percentage of patients per treatment group and for the difference between the treatment groups are provided.||8.39|-14.83|0.2895
90831190|NCT00770653|181535211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.9516||||0.3517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-94.1999|34.2967|||ANCOVA|||||34.2967|-94.1999|0.3517
90831191|NCT00770653|181535212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-151.4477||||0.1979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-386.2256|83.3302|||ANCOVA|||||83.3302|-386.2256|0.1979
90831192|NCT00770653|181535213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.8589||||0.7186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-163.3229|113.6052|||ANCOVA|||||113.6052|-163.3229|0.7186
90831193|NCT00770653|181535214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.9728||||0.5058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.9915|20.0459|||ANCOVA|||||20.0459|-39.9915|0.5058
90831194|NCT00770653|181535215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.3988||||0.523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.7193|117.5169|||ANCOVA|||||117.5169|-60.7193|0.5230
90831195|NCT00770653|181535216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-367.2639||||0.2203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-964.3923|229.8646|||ANCOVA|||||229.8646|-964.3923|0.2203
90831196|NCT00770653|181535217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.0794||||0.585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-95.6468|151.8057|||ANCOVA|||||151.8057|-95.6468|0.5850
90831197|NCT00770653|181535218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4205||||0.0138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3207|-0.5202|||ANCOVA|||||-0.5202|-4.3207|0.0138
90831198|NCT00770653|181535219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0009||||0.0817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.1139|1.8578|||ANCOVA|||||1.8578|-30.1139|0.0817
90831199|NCT00770653|181535220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9935||||0.1761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4843|2.4712|||ANCOVA|||||2.4712|-0.4843|0.1761
90831200|NCT00770653|181535221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5263||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3832|3.6695|||ANCOVA|||||3.6695|1.3832|0.0002
90831201|NCT00770653|181535222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.2345||||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0675|5.4016|||ANCOVA|||||5.4016|1.0675|0.0055
90831202|NCT00770653|181535223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.9712||||0.0264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3863|5.5562|||ANCOVA|||||5.5562|0.3863|0.0264
90831203|NCT00770653|181535224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5394||||0.0509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0114|5.0901|||ANCOVA|||||5.0901|-0.0114|0.0509
90831204|NCT00770653|181535225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1718||||0.1013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.466|4.8097|||ANCOVA|||||4.8097|-0.4660|0.1013
90831205|NCT00770653|181535226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1346||||0.1363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7338|5.0031|||ANCOVA|||||5.0031|-0.7338|0.1363
90831206|NCT00770653|181535227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4181||||0.1165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6561|5.4922|||ANCOVA|||||5.4922|-0.6561|0.1165
90831207|NCT01908426|181535241|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.92|||Log Rank|The Log-Rank Test was stratified by etiology of disease, geo. region, presence of extrahepatic spread of disease and/or macrovascular invasion.||||0.92|0.63|0.0049
90831208|NCT01908426|181535242|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.52|||Log Rank|The Log Rank Test was stratified by etiology of disease, geographic region, presence of extrahepatic spread of disease and/or macrovascular invasion.||||0.52|0.36|< 0.0001
90831209|NCT01908426|181535243|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0086|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0086
90831210|NCT01782898|181535254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.82
90831211|NCT01782898|181535255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.05
90831212|NCT01782898|181535256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.14
90894093|NCT03387579|181653859|SUPERIORITY||estimate|-31.557|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Intralipid 20% historic versus Intralipid 20% reduction|Mixed Models Analysis||standard error 67.673|||||<0.001
90831213|NCT02973100|181535257|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.53|-1.07|<.001
90831214|NCT02973100|181535257|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.60|-1.14|<0.001
90831215|NCT02973100|181535257|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|-0.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.69|-1.24|<.001
90831216|NCT02973100|181535258|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|24.489|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.368|71.667|||Regression, Logistic|||||71.667|8.368|<.001
90831217|NCT02973100|181535258|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|27.906|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.238|84.3|||Regression, Logistic|||||84.300|9.238|<.001
90831218|NCT02973100|181535258|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|21.852|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.672|62.242|||Regression, Logistic|||||62.242|7.672|<.001
90894094|NCT03387579|181653860|SUPERIORITY||estimate|-0.593||||0.835|TWO_SIDED|||||Intralipid 20% reduction versus smoflipid 20%|Mixed Models Analysis||standard error 2.848|||||0.835
90831219|NCT02973100|181535259|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|-0.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.62|-2.02|<0.001
90831220|NCT02973100|181535259|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|-0.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.54|-1.91|<0.001
90831221|NCT02973100|181535259|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|-0.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.72|-2.12|<0.001
90831222|NCT02973100|181535260|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.2|-2.3|0.025
90831223|NCT02973100|181535260|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.3|-3.4|<0.001
90831224|NCT02973100|181535260|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|-1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.5|-3.7|<0.001
90831225|NCT00960622|181535266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.5|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|11.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||"Paired t-tests for inter-group differences between baseline and end-of-study measurements.Regression analysis, physiological correlates of statistically significant between-group changes.~P\<0.05 chosen for statistical significance"||11.3|-6.3|<0.05
90831226|NCT01342913|181535270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.022||||0.282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.018|0.063|||ANCOVA|||||0.063|-0.018|0.282
90831227|NCT03112681|181535273|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.0001
90831228|NCT03112681|181535273|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.0002
90831229|NCT03287791|181535292|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.8|-5.73|||ANOVA|||Analyses was performed using an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model with percent change from baseline to Week 12 in the lesion count as outcome and treatment, center and treatment-by-center interaction as factors.||-5.73|-16.80|<.0001
90831230|NCT03287791|181535292|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-9.71||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.28|-4.14|||ANOVA|||Analyses was performed using an ANOVA model with percent change from baseline to Week 12 in the lesion count as outcome and treatment, center and treatment-by-center interaction as factors.||-4.14|-15.28|0.0007
90831231|NCT02764385|181535301|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.73|2.01||||||||2.01|1.73|
90831232|NCT02764385|181535301|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.68||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.02|||Regression, Logistic|We adjust for clustering of visit within clinician and clinical site and the stepped wedge study design using generalized estimating equation methods.||||1.02|.45|.05
90831233|NCT02764385|181535302|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.73|2.1||||||||2.10|1.73|
90894095|NCT03387579|181653860|SUPERIORITY||estimate|-0.522||||0.799|TWO_SIDED|||||Intralipid 20% historic versus smoflipid 20%|Mixed Models Analysis||standard error 2.050|||||0.799
90894096|NCT03387579|181653860|SUPERIORITY||estimate|0.714||||0.714|TWO_SIDED|||||Intralipid 20% historic versus Intralipid 20% reduction|Mixed Models Analysis||standard error 2.758|||||0.714
91087431|NCT00735709|182057550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.3|||Mixed model repeated measurements|P-values are from an MMRM model with Baseline-by-week, center, week, and week-by-treatment as factors in the analysis.||||-0.30|-0.80|<0.001
91087432|NCT00735709|182057550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.22|||Mixed model repeated measurements|P-values are from an MMRM model with Baseline-by-week, center, week, and week-by-treatment as factors in the analysis.||||-0.22|-0.71|<0.001
91087433|NCT00735709|182057550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.23|||Mixed model repeated measurements|P-values are from an MMRM model with Baseline-by-week, center, week, and week-by-treatment as factors in the analysis.||||-0.23|-0.72|<0.001
91087434|NCT00735709|182057551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.348|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.995|5.618|||Regression, Logistic|Regression with explanatory variables for treatment and Baseline HAM-D24 score.|Odds ratio versus placebo.|||5.618|1.995|<0.001
90831234|NCT02891174|181535323|EQUIVALENCE|margin=10 mmHg|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|5.7|||||The adjusted mean difference between ibuprofen and acetaminophen is presented here. The adjusted mean difference was calculated using a linear mixed model adjusting for time period by intention-to-treat principles.|||5.7|-3.7|
90831235|NCT02891174|181535324|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59||||||Abdominal pain|t-test, 2 sided|||Change in abdominal pain||||0.59
90831236|NCT02891174|181535324|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91||||||Perineal pain|t-test, 2 sided|||Change in perineal pain||||0.91
90831237|NCT02891174|181535324|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88||||||Overall pain|t-test, 2 sided|||Change in overall pain||||0.88
90831238|NCT02891174|181535325|OTHER|||||||0.76|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.76
90831239|NCT02891174|181535326|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||First intervention (24 hours)||||0.02
90831240|NCT02891174|181535326|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Second intervention (24 hours)||||0.06
90831241|NCT02891174|181535326|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Overall satisfaction with pain control during study period||||0.04
90831242|NCT04607668|181535340|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.6||Two-sided p-value for treatment effect was generated from a nonparametric ANCOVA controlling for stratification factors of Region and Prior chemotherapy with study baseline ANC value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-0.6|-1.7|<0.001
90894097|NCT03387579|181653861|SUPERIORITY||estimate|11.162||||0.379|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Intralipid 20% reduction versus smoflipid 20%|standard error 12.626|||||0.379
91087435|NCT00735709|182057551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.739|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.631|4.598|||Regression, Logistic|Regression with explanatory variables for treatment and Baseline HAM-D24 score.|Odds ratio versus placebo|||4.598|1.631|<0.001
91087436|NCT00735709|182057551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.018|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.799|5.063|||Regression, Logistic|Regression with explanatory variables for treatment and Baseline HAM-D24 score.|Odds ratio versus placebo|||5.063|1.799|<0.001
91087437|NCT00735709|182057552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.59||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.34|-1.84|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|P-values are from an MMRM model with Baseline-by-week, center, week, and week-by-treatment as factors in the analysis.||||-1.84|-7.34|0.001
91087438|NCT00735709|182057552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.47||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.32|-1.62|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|P-values are from an MMRM model with Baseline-by-week, center, week, and week-by-treatment as factors in the analysis.||||-1.62|-7.32|0.002
91103882|NCT01644331|182094567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.19||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is a repeated measures analysis so all rows (visits) are taken into account.||0.34|0.03|0.021
90831243|NCT04607668|181535341|OTHER||aRR|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.19|||modified Poisson model|||||0.19|0.01|<0.001
90831244|NCT02250326|181535355|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.94||||Based on stratification factors of ECOG Performance Status (0 or 1), sex (male or female), and current smoker status (yes or no).||Based on stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model.||1.94|0.90|
90831245|NCT02250326|181535356|SUPERIORITY||Disease Control Rate Ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.778|1.207|||||95% CI was calculated using Clopper-Pearson method.||Direction of Disease Control Rate Ratio is DCR of Nab-Paclitaxel + CC-486 Combination Arm over DCR of Nab-Paclitaxel Alone|1.207|0.778|
90831246|NCT02250326|181535357|SUPERIORITY||Overall Response Rate Ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.398|1.754|||||95% CI was calculated using Clopper-Pearson method.||Direction of Overall Response Rate Ratio is ORR of Nab-Paclitaxel + CC-486 Combination Arm over ORR of nab-Paclitaxel Alone.|1.754|0.398|
90831247|NCT02250326|181535358|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|2.57||||Based on stratification factors of ECOG performance status (0 or 1), sex (male or female), and current smoker status (yes or no).||Based on stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model.||2.57|1.08|
90831248|NCT02210000|181535375|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.212||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3716|-0.0448||Posterior probability of the treatment difference in response rate at Week 12 being greater than 0%.|Bayesian method|||||-0.0448|-0.3716|0.017
90831249|NCT02210000|181535376|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2353|0.6553|||||A negative difference indicated greater improvement in the Camicinal group compared to Placebo.|Nausea at Week 12. The least square means were the adjusted means which had been estimated with a mixed model using Baseline weekly average value, diabetes type, treatment, week and the interaction between treatment and week as fixed effects, participants as random effect and week as repeated effect.||0.6553|-0.2353|
90831250|NCT02210000|181535376|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.749|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2275|1.2705|||||A negative difference indicated greater improvement in the Camicinal group compared to Placebo.|Feeling full after meals at Week 12. The least square means were the adjusted means which had been estimated with a mixed model using Baseline weekly average value, diabetes type, treatment, week and the interaction between treatment and week as fixed effects, participants as random effect and week as repeated effect.||1.2705|0.2275|
90894098|NCT03387579|181653861|SUPERIORITY||estimate|3.853||||0.717|TWO_SIDED|||||Intralipid 20% historic versus smoflipid 20%|Mixed Models Analysis||standard error 10.615|||||0.717
90894099|NCT03387579|181653861|SUPERIORITY|Intralipid 20% historic versus intralipid 20% reduction|estimate|-7.31||||0.576|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||standard error 13.025|||||0.576
90894100|NCT03387579|181653862|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||ROP||||1.00
91087439|NCT00735709|182057552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.13||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|-1.37|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|P-values are from an MMRM model with Baseline-by-week, center, week, and week-by-treatment as factors in the analysis.||||-1.37|-6.90|0.004
91087440|NCT00735709|182057553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.951||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.082|3.517|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with explanatory variables for treatment and Baseline MADRS score.||||3.517|1.082|0.026
91087441|NCT00735709|182057553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.056||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|3.673|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with explanatory variables for treatment and Baseline MADRS score.||||3.673|1.150|0.015
91087442|NCT00735709|182057553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.753||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.973|3.158|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with explanatory variables for treatment and Baseline MADRS score.||||3.158|0.973|0.062
91087443|NCT04547140|182057607|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Percentage of Participants Dying||||
91087444|NCT04547140|182057607|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|6.4|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Percentage of Participants Requiring ICU Admission||||
91087445|NCT04547140|182057608|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|6.9|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Percentage of Participants Who are Dependent on High Flow Oxygen Devices||||
91087446|NCT04547140|182057608|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Percentage of Participants Who are Dependent on Invasive Mechanical Ventilation||||
90831251|NCT02210000|181535376|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.489|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0592|1.0374|||||A negative difference indicated greater improvement in the Camicinal group compared to Placebo.|Bloating at Week 12. The least square means were the adjusted means which had been estimated with a mixed model using Baseline weekly average value, diabetes type, treatment, week and the interaction between treatment and week as fixed effects, participants as random effect and week as repeated effect.||1.0374|-0.0592|
90831252|NCT02210000|181535376|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.497|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0396|0.955|||||A negative difference indicated greater improvement in the Camicinal group compared to Placebo.|Not able to finish meal at Week 12. The least square means were the adjusted means which had been estimated with a mixed model using Baseline weekly average value, diabetes type, treatment, week and the interaction between treatment and week as fixed effects, participants as random effect and week as repeated effect.||0.9550|0.0396|
90894101|NCT03387579|181653862|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||ROP||||1.00
91087447|NCT04547140|182057609|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|1.22||||0.1453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|2.87||P-value was calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method for calculating the denominator degrees of freedom.|Kenward-Roger|||Day 15||2.87|-0.43|0.1453
91087448|NCT04547140|182057609|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.21||||0.8015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|1.86||P-value was calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method for calculating the denominator degrees of freedom.|Kenward-Roger|||Day 29||1.86|-1.44|0.8015
91087449|NCT04547140|182057611|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference of Duration|1.48||||0.5135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.04|6.0||P-value was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model, including the length of hospital stay (days) as a dependent variable and treatment group as a fixed effect.|ANOVA|||||6.00|-3.04|0.5135
91087450|NCT04547140|182057612|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference of Duration|3.41||||0.1221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|7.76||P-value was calculated using an ANOVA model, including the number of days in the ICU as a dependent variable and treatment group as a fixed effect.|ANOVA|||||7.76|-0.94|0.1221
91087451|NCT04547140|182057613|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference of Duration|2.78||||0.3329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.92|8.48||P-value was calculated using an ANOVA model, including the number of days on oxygen as a dependent variable and treatment group as a fixed effect.|ANOVA|||||8.48|-2.92|0.3329
91087452|NCT04547140|182057614|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference of Duration|3.48||||0.1092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|7.77||P-value was calculated using an ANOVA model, including the number of days on mechanical ventilation as a dependent variable and treatment group as a fixed effect.|ANOVA|||||7.77|-0.81|0.1092
91087453|NCT04547140|182057615|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.63||||0.1189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|0.17||P-value was calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method for calculating the denominator degrees of freedom.|Kenward-Roger|||Day 15||0.17|-1.43|0.1189
91087454|NCT04547140|182057615|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.85||||0.0341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|-0.07||P-value was calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method for calculating the denominator degrees of freedom.|Kenward-Roger|||Day 29||-0.07|-1.64|0.0341
90894102|NCT03387579|181653863|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
90894103|NCT03387579|181653863|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.640
91087455|NCT04547140|182057619|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|1.9||||0.8809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.1|28.3||P-value was calculated using Chi-square test with 5% level of significance to test the null hypothesis of no difference in the percentages of participants experiencing sustained normalization of fever.|Chi-squared|||||28.3|-24.1|0.8809
91087456|NCT03064113|182057650|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|173.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|112.4|235.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||235.3|112.4|<0.001
91087457|NCT03064113|182057650|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|169.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|107.8|230.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||||230.8|107.8|<0.001
91087458|NCT03064113|182057650|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|175.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|114.1|237.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||||237.2|114.1|<0.001
91087459|NCT03064113|182057651|SUPERIORITY||Slope|112.5||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.5|180.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||Tx Difference of LS Mean FEV1 at 12 hr||180.5|44.5|0.001
91087460|NCT03064113|182057651|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|123.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.6|192.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||Tx Difference of LS Mean FEV1 at 12 hr||192.3|54.6|<0.001
91087461|NCT03064113|182057651|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|15.3||||0.659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.5|94.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||Tx Difference of LS Mean FEV1 at 12 hr||94.1|-53.5|0.659
91087462|NCT03064113|182057651|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|102.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.1|151.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||Tx Difference of LS Mean FEV1 at 24 hr||151.5|54.1|<0.001
91087463|NCT03064113|182057651|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|136.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|87.8|185.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||Tx Difference of LS Mean FEV1 at 24 hr||185.3|87.8|<0.001
91087464|NCT03064113|182057651|SUPERIORITY|Tx Difference of LS Mean FEV1 at 24 hr|Difference of LS Mean|-24.2||||0.327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.9|24.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||24.6|-72.9|0.327
91087465|NCT03064113|182057652|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|26.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.0|34.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||Tx Difference of LS Mean AUC, 0-12 hrs||34.8|18.0|<0.001
91087466|NCT03064113|182057652|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|29.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.8|37.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||Tx Difference of LS Mean AUC, 0-12 hrs||37.4|20.8|<0.001
90894104|NCT03387579|181653863|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
90894105|NCT03387579|181653864|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.211|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.211
91087467|NCT03064113|182057652|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|25.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.3|33.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||Tx Difference of LS Mean AUC, 0-12 hrs||33.9|17.3|<0.001
91087468|NCT03064113|182057652|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|20.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.1|28.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||Tx Difference of LS Mean AUC, 0-24 hrs||28.2|12.1|<0.001
91087469|NCT03064113|182057652|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|25.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.4|33.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||Tx Difference of LS Mean AUC, 0-24 hrs||33.4|17.4|<0.001
91087470|NCT03064113|182057652|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|10.6||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|18.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||Tx Difference of LS Mean AUC, 0-24 hr||18.6|2.5|0.010
91087471|NCT03064113|182057653|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|0.1||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||Tx Difference of LS Mean 12 hr||0.2|0.0|0.003
91087472|NCT03064113|182057653|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|0.1||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||Tx Difference of LS Mean 12 hr||0.2|0.0|0.046
91087473|NCT03064113|182057653|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|0.1||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||Tx Difference of LS Mean 12 hr||0.2|0.0|0.003
91087474|NCT03064113|182057653|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|0.1||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||Tx Difference of LS Mean 24 hr||0.2|0.0|0.003
91087475|NCT03064113|182057653|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|0.1||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||Tx Difference of LS Mean 24 hr||0.2|0.0|0.048
91087476|NCT03064113|182057653|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|0.1||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||Tx Difference of LS Mean 24 hr||0.2|0.0|0.007
90894106|NCT03387579|181653865|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.720
91087477|NCT03064113|182057654|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|0.1||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||Tx Difference of LS Mean 12 hr||0.1|-0.0|0.054
91087478|NCT03064113|182057654|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|0.1||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||Tx Difference of LS Mean 12 hr||0.2|0.0|0.045
91087479|NCT03064113|182057654|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|0.0||||0.503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||Tx Difference of LS Mean 12 hr||0.1|-0.0|0.503
91087480|NCT03064113|182057654|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|0.0||||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||Tx Difference of LS Mean 24 hr||0.1|-0.0|0.183
91087481|NCT03064113|182057654|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|0.0||||0.422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||Tx Difference of LS Mean 24 hr||0.1|-0.0|0.422
91087482|NCT03064113|182057654|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|0.0||||0.287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Tx Difference of LS Mean 24 hr||0.0|-0.1|0.287
91087483|NCT03064113|182057656|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|3975.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2007.3|5943.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5943.7|2007.3|<0.001
91087484|NCT03064113|182057656|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|5888.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3924.4|7853.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||||7853.4|3924.4|<0.001
90894107|NCT03387579|181653866|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.500
90894108|NCT03387579|181653867|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.774|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.774
90894109|NCT03387579|181653868|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.457|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.457
90894110|NCT03387579|181653869|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.475|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.475
90894111|NCT01804816|181653949|EQUIVALENCE|a=0.05||||||0.063|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.063
90894112|NCT01804816|181653950|EQUIVALENCE|a = 0.05||||||0.005|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Based on results from prior small clinical trials we estimate the need for 20 patients enrolled to reach 80% statistical power.||||0.005
90894113|NCT01804816|181653950|EQUIVALENCE|a=0.05||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.002
90894114|NCT01804816|181653950|EQUIVALENCE|a=0.05||||||0.441|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.441
90894115|NCT01804816|181653951|EQUIVALENCE|a=0.05||||||0.729|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.729
91087485|NCT03064113|182057656|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|2654.7||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|689.7|4619.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4619.6|689.7|0.009
91087486|NCT02389959|182057719|OTHER|Linear regression model with repeated measures, controlling for patient's demographic factors, smoking status, and baseline level of ESS. The analysis is weighted by inverse probability treatment weight (IPTW).|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.11||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.47|0.26|||Regression, Linear|||Analysis between groups at month 1.||0.26|-2.47|0.111
91087487|NCT02389959|182057719|OTHER|Linear regression model with repeated measures, controlling for patient's demographic factors, smoking status, and baseline level of ESS. The analysis is weighted by inverse probability treatment weight (IPTW).|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.26||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|0.38|||Regression, Linear|||Analysis between groups at month 2.||0.38|-2.9|0.131
91087488|NCT02389959|182057719|OTHER|Linear regression model with repeated measures, controlling for patient's demographic factors, smoking status, and baseline level of ESS. The analysis is weighted by inverse probability treatment weight (IPTW).|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.85||||0.332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.57|0.88|||Regression, Linear|||Analysis between groups at month 4.||0.88|-2.57|0.332
91087489|NCT02389959|182057719|OTHER|Linear regression model with repeated measures, controlling for patient's demographic factors, smoking status, and baseline level of ESS. The analysis is weighted by inverse probability treatment weight (IPTW).|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.48||||0.597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|1.3|||Regression, Linear|||Analysis between groups at month 6.||1.3|-2.25|0.597
91087490|NCT02389959|182057720|OTHER|Linear regression model with repeated measures, controlling for patient's demographic factors, smoking status, and baseline level of PCS. The analysis is weighted by inverse probability treatment weight (IPTW).|Mean Difference (Net)|2.85||||0.191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|7.13|||Regression, Linear|||Analysis between groups at month 1.||7.13|-1.44|0.191
91087491|NCT02389959|182057720|OTHER|Linear regression model with repeated measures, controlling for patient's demographic factors, smoking status, and baseline level of PCS. The analysis is weighted by inverse probability treatment weight (IPTW).|Mean Difference (Net)|0.29||||0.914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.02|5.61|||Regression, Linear|||Analysis between groups at month 2||5.61|-5.02|0.914
90831253|NCT02210000|181535376|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3386|0.4395|||||A negative difference indicated greater improvement in the Camicinal group compared to Placebo.|Retching at Week 12. The least square means were the adjusted means which had been estimated with a mixed model using Baseline weekly average value, diabetes type, treatment, week and the interaction between treatment and week as fixed effects, participants as random effect and week as repeated effect.||0.4395|-0.3386|
90831254|NCT02210000|181535376|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.038|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3242|0.2492|||||A negative difference indicated greater improvement in the Camicinal group compared to Placebo.|Vomiting at Week 12. The least square means were the adjusted means which had been estimated with a mixed model using Baseline weekly average value, diabetes type, treatment, week and the interaction between treatment and week as fixed effects, participants as random effect and week as repeated effect.||0.2492|-0.3242|
90831255|NCT02210000|181535376|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.475|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0483|0.9978|||||A negative difference indicated greater improvement in the Camicinal group compared to Placebo.|Stomach visibly larger at Week 12. The least square means were the adjusted means which had been estimated with a mixed model using Baseline weekly average value, diabetes type, treatment, week and the interaction between treatment and week as fixed effects, participants as random effect and week as repeated effect.||0.9978|-0.0483|
90831256|NCT02210000|181535376|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.461|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0519|0.9748|||||A negative difference indicated greater improvement in the Camicinal group compared to Placebo.|Stomach fullness at Week 12. The least square means were the adjusted means which had been estimated with a mixed model using Baseline weekly average value, diabetes type, treatment, week and the interaction between treatment and week as fixed effects, participants as random effect and week as repeated effect.||0.9748|-0.0519|
90831257|NCT02210000|181535376|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.536|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0967|0.9745|||||A negative difference indicated greater improvement in the Camicinal group compared to Placebo.|Loss of appetite at Week 12. The least square means were the adjusted means which had been estimated with a mixed model using Baseline weekly average value, diabetes type, treatment, week and the interaction between treatment and week as fixed effects, participants as random effect and week as repeated effect.||0.9745|0.0967|
90831258|NCT02210000|181535376|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.196|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2746|0.6671|||||A negative difference indicated greater improvement in the Camicinal group compared to Placebo.|Upper abdominal pain at Week 12. The least square means were the adjusted means which had been estimated with a mixed model using Baseline weekly average value, diabetes type, treatment, week and the interaction between treatment and week as fixed effects, participants as random effect and week as repeated effect.||0.6671|-0.2746|
90831259|NCT02210000|181535376|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.314|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2013|0.8292|||||A negative difference indicated greater improvement in the Camicinal group compared to Placebo.|Upper abdominal discomfort at Week 12. The least square means were the adjusted means which had been estimated with a mixed model using Baseline weekly average value, diabetes type, treatment, week and the interaction between treatment and week as fixed effects, participants as random effect and week as repeated effect.||0.8292|-0.2013|
90831260|NCT02210000|181535376|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.384|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0323|0.7997|||||A negative difference indicated greater improvement in the Camicinal group compared to Placebo.|Overall severity of your GP symptoms at Week 12. The least square means were the adjusted means which had been estimated with a mixed model using Baseline weekly average value, diabetes type, treatment, week and the interaction between treatment and week as fixed effects, participants as random effect and week as repeated effect.||0.7997|-0.0323|
90831261|NCT02210000|181535376|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.068|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2366|0.3723|||||A negative difference indicated greater improvement in the Camicinal group compared to Placebo.|Nausea/Vomiting Subscale at Week 12. The least square means were the adjusted means which had been estimated with a mixed model using Baseline weekly average value, diabetes type, treatment, week and the interaction between treatment and week as fixed effects, participants as random effect and week as repeated effect.||0.3723|-0.2366|
90831262|NCT02210000|181535376|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.548|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1333|0.9628|||||A negative difference indicated greater improvement in the Camicinal group compared to Placebo.|Fullness/Early Satiety Subscale at Week 12. The least square means were the adjusted means which had been estimated with a mixed model using Baseline weekly average value, diabetes type, treatment, week and the interaction between treatment and week as fixed effects, participants as random effect and week as repeated effect.||0.9628|0.1333|
91023896|NCT00322309|181931237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.4|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||This analysis involves a between group comparison.|t-test, 2 sided|||It hypothesized that the two treatment groups would not differ significantly with respect to the total HAM-D scores obtained in the final week of the study (Week 11).||||>0.05
91023897|NCT00322309|181931238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|18.0|>|0.05||95.0||||Percent of capsules administered does not differ significantly between the two groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||It was hypothesized that there would be no significant difference in the mean percentage of capsules of those dispensed between the two groups.||||>0.05
91023898|NCT00322309|181931239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.5|>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||It was hypothesized that there would not be a significant difference between the two groups in the mean percent of urines positive for riboflavin.||||>0.05
90831263|NCT02210000|181535376|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.479|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0386|0.9966|||||A negative difference indicated greater improvement in the Camicinal group compared to Placebo.|Bloating Subscale at Week 12. The least square means were the adjusted means which had been estimated with a mixed model using Baseline weekly average value, diabetes type, treatment, week and the interaction between treatment and week as fixed effects, participants as random effect and week as repeated effect.||0.9966|-0.0386|
90957012|NCT00706433|181793705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7426||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.7426
91023899|NCT01165684|181931241|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was considered confirmed if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI was below or equal to 0.4% or equivalently if the p-value for the one-sided test of was less than or equal to 2.5%, where D is the mean treatment difference (step-wise regimen minus basal-bolus regimen).|Estimated treatment difference, Mean|0.14||||0.088||95.0|-0.02|0.3|||Regression, Linear|||||0.30|-0.02|0.088
91087492|NCT02389959|182057720|OTHER|Linear regression model with repeated measures, controlling for patient's demographic factors, smoking status, and baseline level of PCS. The analysis is weighted by inverse probability treatment weight (IPTW).|Mean Difference (Net)|1.55||||0.592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.17|7.28|||Regression, Linear|||Analysis between groups at month 4.||7.28|-4.17|0.592
91087493|NCT02389959|182057720|OTHER|Linear regression model with repeated measures, controlling for patient's demographic factors, smoking status, and baseline level of PCS. The analysis is weighted by inverse probability treatment weight (IPTW).|Mean Difference (Net)|3.1||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.92|9.12|||Regression, Linear|||Analysis between groups at month 6||9.12|-2.92|0.31
91087494|NCT02389959|182057721|OTHER|Linear regression model with repeated measures, controlling for patient's demographic factors, smoking status, and baseline level of MCS. The analysis is weighted by inverse probability treatment weight (IPTW).|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.63||||0.366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.38|3.11|||Regression, Linear|||Analysis between groups at month 1.||3.11|-8.38|0.366
90831264|NCT02210000|181535376|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.356|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0049|0.7179|||||A negative difference indicated greater improvement in the Camicinal group compared to Placebo.|Total GCSI-DD at Week 12. The least square means were the adjusted means which had been estimated with a mixed model using Baseline weekly average value, diabetes type, treatment, week and the interaction between treatment and week as fixed effects, participants as random effect and week as repeated effect.||0.7179|-0.0049|
90831265|NCT00833040|181535384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.49|<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||difference between the active and placebo groups||||<0.001
90831266|NCT05108246|181535416|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||P-value is calculated.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in balance was assessed by calculating a change score between pre-test and end point scores for balance. Change scores were then compared using Mann-Whitney U test and reported as Median (Interquartile range).||||.001
90831267|NCT05108246|181535416|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||P-value is calculated.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in balance was assessed by calculating a change score between pre-test and end point scores for balance. Change scores were then compared using Mann-Whitney U test and reported as Median (Interquartile range).||||.003
90831268|NCT00718510|181535418|OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||General Psychopathology Subscale Score|ANOVA|F(1,11)=5.03||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of PANSS between L-arginine and Placebo. A two-factor ANOVA was used across all subjects with the within-subject factor being the treatment phase (L-arginine first/Placebo second or Placebo first/L-arginine second) and the between-subject factor being the day of treatment (time). A sample size of 14 patients was needed to give 90% power to detect a 4 point difference on the PANSS. This included a drop-out rate of about 10%.||||<0.05
90831269|NCT00718510|181535419|OTHER|||||||0.46|||||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of CGI ratings between L-arginine and Placebo. A two-factor ANOVA was used across all subjects with the within-subject factor being the treatment phase (L-arginine first/Placebo second or Placebo first/L-arginine second) and the between-subject factor being the day of treatment (time).||||0.46
90831270|NCT00718510|181535420|OTHER|||||||0.55|||||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of CDSS ratings between L-arginine and Placebo. A two-factor ANOVA was used across all subjects with the within-subject factor being the treatment phase (L-arginine first/Placebo second or Placebo first/L-arginine second) and the between-subject factor being the day of treatment (time).||||0.55
90831271|NCT00423657|181535421|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the observed difference in the primary outcome measure between ceftaroline and vancomycin plus aztreonam was calculated. Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 95%CI was higher than -10%.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|5.0|||||Risk difference corresponds to Ceftaroline clinical cure rate minus Vancomycin plus Aztreonam clinical cure rate. The confidence interval was calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen method without adjustment.|The primary objective of this study was to determine the noninferiority in clinical cure rate of ceftaroline in comparison with vancomycin plus aztreonam in adult subjects with cSSSI.||5.0|-5.8|
90831272|NCT00097500|181535451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0001
90831273|NCT00097500|181535452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4185||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.4185
90831274|NCT00097500|181535453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at week 52.||||<0.0001
90831275|NCT00097500|181535453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1188||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at week 56.||||0.1188
90831276|NCT00097500|181535454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at week 52.||||<0.0001
90831277|NCT00097500|181535454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1996||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at week 56.||||0.1996
90831278|NCT00097500|181535455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5522||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.5522
90831279|NCT00097500|181535456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
90831280|NCT00097500|181535458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
90831281|NCT00189098|181535460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.0|-6.0|||risk differences (RD)||Risk difference and 95% confidence intervals reported for 6 weeks follow-up.|"Assuming a spontaneous recovery of 25% and a treatment effect of TMP-SMX of 50% (based on a retrospective study of children treated with TMP-SMX for COM at our hospital), and taking α=0.05 and a power of 0.80, we calculated that each group should consist of 50 children.~Rate differences with 95% confidence intervals were calculated at the three control visits to compare both groups for the outcome measures."||-6|-44|
90894116|NCT02740049|181653965|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002||||||P value is the comparison between the IFN/TNF induction group versus the VR588 (10-7M) treatment group.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Statistical differences is determined using the Kruskal-Wallis test followed by Dunn's multiple comparison test or a Wilcoxon signed rank test as appropriate.||||0.0002
91087495|NCT02389959|182057721|OTHER|Linear regression model with repeated measures, controlling for patient's demographic factors, smoking status, and baseline level of MCS. The analysis is weighted by inverse probability treatment weight (IPTW).|Mean Difference (Net)|0.82||||0.816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.12|7.76|||Regression, Linear|||Analysis between groups at month 2||7.76|-6.12|0.816
90831282|NCT00189098|181535460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.0|4.0|||risk difference (RD)||Risk difference and confidence interval reported for 12 week follow-up|"Assuming a spontaneous recovery of 25% and a treatment effect of TMP-SMX of 50% (based on a retrospective study of children treated with TMP-SMX for COM at our hospital), and taking α=0.05 and a power of 0.80, we calculated that each group should consist of 50 children.~Rate differences with 95% confidence intervals were calculated at the three control visits to compare both groups for the outcome measures."||4|-34|
90831283|NCT00189098|181535460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|22.0|||risk difference (RD)||Risk difference and confidence interval reported for 1 year follow-up.|"Assuming a spontaneous recovery of 25% and a treatment effect of TMP-SMX of 50% (based on a retrospective study of children treated with TMP-SMX for COM at our hospital), and taking α=0.05 and a power of 0.80, we calculated that each group should consist of 50 children.~Rate differences with 95% confidence intervals were calculated at the three control visits to compare both groups for the outcome measures."||22|-12|
90831284|NCT00189098|181535461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.0|10.0|||rate differences (95%CI intervals)||Risk difference and confidence interval reported for eardrop usage between 6 and 12 weeks follow-up.|||10|-34|
90831285|NCT00189098|181535462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|14.0|||rate difference (RD)||Risk difference and confidence interval reported for eardrop usage between 12 weeks and 1 year follow-up.|||14|-22|
90831286|NCT00189098|181535463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.0|9.0|||Rate differences (95%CI interval)||Risk difference and confidence interval reported for the use of additional systemic antibiotics other than the study medication between 6 to 12 weeks follow-up.|||9|-23|
90831287|NCT00189098|181535464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|37.0|||Rate difference (RD)||Risk difference and confidence interval reported for the use of additional systemic antibiotics other than the study medication between 12 weeks and 1 year follow-up.|||37|-7|
90831288|NCT00189098|181535465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|24.0|||Rate differences (95%CI intervals)||Risk difference and confidence interval reported for participants who underwent Ear Nose and Throat Surgery between 12 weeks and 1 year follow-up.|||24|-12|
90831289|NCT00844376|181535518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio of adjusted geometric means|95.77||||||90.0|85.82|106.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|The mixed effects model was implemented using SAS Proc Mixed, with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.|Natural log transformed AUC48 was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as a fixed effect and subject within sequence as a random effect.|Ratio of adjusted means (test/reference), and 90% CI for ratio--for AUC48; restricted (residual) maximum likelihood (REML) method of estimation.||106.88|85.82|
91103883|NCT01644331|182094568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.99||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|3.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This a repeated measure analysis so all rows (visits) are taken into account.||3.44|-1.47|0.430
90831290|NCT00844376|181535519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio of adjusted geometric means|95.04||||||90.0|84.99|106.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|The mixed effects model was implemented using SAS Proc Mixed, with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.|Natural log transformed AUCinf was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as a fixed effect and subject within sequence as a random effect.|Ratio of adjusted means (test/reference), and 90% CI for ratio--for AUCinf||106.27|84.99|
90831291|NCT00844376|181535520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio of adjusted geometric means|94.86||||||90.0|83.86|107.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|The mixed effects model was implemented using SAS Proc Mixed, with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.|Natural log transformed AUClast was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as a fixed effect and subject within sequence as a random effect.|Ratio of adjusted means (test/reference), and 90% CI for ratio--for AUClast||107.29|83.86|
90831292|NCT00844376|181535521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio of adjusted geometric means|117.9||||||90.0|98.22|141.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|The mixed effects model was implemented using SAS Proc Mixed, with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.|Natural log transformed Cmax was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as a fixed effect and subject within sequence as a random effect.|Ratio of adjusted means (test/reference), and 90% CI for ratio--for Cmax||141.53|98.22|
90831293|NCT01300234|181535525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|58.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|45.8|71.3||HBeAg-positive participants|Roche COBAS Taqman HBV test||"A non-completers equal failures approach is used for the primary analysis. The estimated value represents the difference between the percentage of participants achieving HBV DNA \<400 copies/mL at Week 48 in the TDF group and the ADV group."|||71.3|45.8|<0.0001
90831294|NCT01300234|181535525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|25.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|16.7|34.3||HBeAg-negative participants|Roche COBAS Taqman HBV test||"A non-completers equal failures approach was used for the primary analysis. The estimated value represents the difference between the percentage of participants achieving HBV DNA \<400 copies/mL at Week 48 in the TDF group and the ADV group."|||34.3|16.7|<0.0001
90831295|NCT04879628|181535580|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.56||||||Negative binomial regression model adjusting for the categorical baseline GdE T1 lesion count (presence/absence) as covariate, treatment as factor, with offset equal to the log of the duration (in months) between the Week 12 MRI and previous MRI at Week 8.||0.56|0.08|
90831296|NCT04879628|181535580|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.38||||||Negative binomial regression model adjusting for the categorical baseline GdE T1 lesion count (presence/absence) as covariate, treatment as factor, with offset equal to the log of the duration (in months) between the Week 12 MRI and previous MRI at Week 8.||0.38|0.03|
90894117|NCT02740049|181653966|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3994||||||P value is the comparison between the IFN/TNF induction group versus the VR588 (10-7M) treatment group|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Statistical differences is determined using the Kruskal-Wallis test followed by Dunn's multiple comparison test or Wilcoxon signed rank test as appropriate.||||0.3994
90894118|NCT02740049|181653967|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0104||||||P value is the comparison between the IFN/TNF induction group versus VR588 (10-7M) treatment group.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Statistical difference is determined using the Kruskal-Wallis test followed by Dunn's multiple comparison test or a Wilcoxon signed rank test as appropriate.||||0.0104
90894119|NCT00374322|181653991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.08||The p-value was calculated from a stratified log-rank test, stratifying for hormone receptor status, time since initial diagnosis, and lymph node involvement.|Log Rank||Estimate of the treatment hazard ratio (HR) was calcuated using the pike estimator.|||1.08|0.77|0.286
90894120|NCT00416182|181654025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||P-value of \< 0.05 is considered significant|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2
90894121|NCT00416182|181654026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||P-value of \< 0.05 is considered significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.048
90894122|NCT00416182|181654027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||P-value \< 0.05 is considered significant|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
90894123|NCT00416182|181654028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|||||P \<0.05 is considered significant|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4
90894124|NCT05899686|181654047|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was defined as ANOVA p\<0.05||||||0.65|||||||ANOVA|||Maximum percent change from baseline (light transmittance) during 60 heart beats after the tetanic stimulus were compared between the three stimulus locations using ANOVA||||0.65
90894125|NCT00572195|181654048|OTHER||Wilson score interval|77.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.1|81.9|||||The value is for all serious adverse events, regardless of device relation.||95% confidence interval estimated using the Wilson score interval|81.9|71.1|
90894126|NCT00572195|181654049|OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||For all 6-month periods, from 6 months through 9 years post-implant, p \<0.05.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||<0.05
90894127|NCT00572195|181654051|OTHER||GEE estimated intercept|48.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.8|49.2|||Generalized estimating equation (GEE)|||||49.2|46.8|<0.0001
90894128|NCT00572195|181654051|OTHER||Slope|0.0||||0.6729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||Generalized estimating equation (GEE)|||||0.1|-0.2|0.6729
90894129|NCT01984697|181654071|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) ratio for Girls 9 to 14 Years / Young Women 16 to 26 years is \>0.67.|GMT ratio|2.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.83|2.53|||ANOVA|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||2.53|1.83|<0.001
91023900|NCT01165684|181931242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference, Mean|0.55|||<|0.001||95.0|0.42|0.69|||Regression, Linear|||||0.69|0.42|<0.001
91023901|NCT01165684|181931243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference, Mean|0.37|||<|0.001||95.0|0.21|0.53|||Regression, Linear|||||0.53|0.21|<0.001
91087496|NCT02389959|182057721|OTHER|Linear regression model with repeated measures, controlling for patient's demographic factors, smoking status, and baseline level of MCS. The analysis is weighted by inverse probability treatment weight (IPTW).|Mean Difference (Net)|-4.3||||0.247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.61|3.02|||Regression, Linear|||Analysis between groups at month 4.||3.02|-11.61|0.247
90894130|NCT01984697|181654071|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the GMT ratio for Boys 9 to 14 Years / Young Women 16 to 26 years is \>0.67.|GMT Ratio|2.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.73|2.36|||ANOVA|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||2.36|1.73|<0.001
90894131|NCT01984697|181654071|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the GMT ratio for Girls and Boys 9 to 14 Years / Young Women 16 to 26 years is \>0.67.|GMT Ratio|3.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.93|4.11|||ANOVA|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||4.11|2.93|<0.001
90894132|NCT01984697|181654072|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the seroconversion percentage difference for Girls 9 to 14 Years - Young Women 16 to 26 years is \> -5.|Seroconversion percentage difference|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|2.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||2.0|-1.8|<0.001
90894133|NCT01984697|181654072|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the seroconversion percentage difference for Boys 9 to 14 Years - Young Women 16 to 26 years is \> -5.|Seroconversion percentage difference|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||2.3|-1.0|<0.001
90894134|NCT01984697|181654072|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the seroconversion percentage difference for Girls and Boys 9 to 14 Years - Young Women 16 to 26 years is \> -5.|Seroconversion percentage difference|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||2.3|-1.1|<0.001
90894135|NCT01984697|181654073|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the GMT ratio for Girls 9 to 14 Years / Young Women 16 to 26 years is \>0.67.|GMT ratio|2.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.03|2.82|||ANOVA|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||2.82|2.03|<0.001
90894136|NCT01984697|181654073|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the GMT ratio for Boys 9 to 14 Years / Young Women 16 to 26 years is \>0.67.|GMT Ratio|2.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.09|2.88|||ANOVA|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||2.88|2.09|<0.001
90894137|NCT01984697|181654073|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the GMT ratio for Girls and Boys 9 to 14 Years / Young Women 16 to 26 years is \>0.67.|GMT Ratio|5.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.32|5.94|||ANOVA|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||5.94|4.32|<0.001
91023902|NCT01165684|181931244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.85|||<|0.001||95.0|4.12|11.39|||Regression, Logistic|||||11.39|4.12|<0.001
91023903|NCT01165684|181931245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.38|||<|0.001||95.0|1.56|3.64|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.64|1.56|<0.001
91023904|NCT01165684|181931246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.146||95.0|0.9|2.07|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.07|0.90|0.146
91023905|NCT01165684|181931249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Mean|0.12||||0.635||95.0|-0.37|0.6|||Regression, Linear|||||0.60|-0.37|0.635
91023906|NCT01165684|181931252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated mean|0.36||||0.046||95.0|0.01|0.71|||Regression, Linear|||||0.71|0.01|0.046
91087497|NCT02389959|182057721|OTHER|Linear regression model with repeated measures, controlling for patient's demographic factors, smoking status, and baseline level of MCS. The analysis is weighted by inverse probability treatment weight (IPTW).|Mean Difference (Net)|-8.18||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.76|-0.6|||Regression, Linear|||Analysis between groups at month 6||-0.6|-15.76|0.035
90831297|NCT03349723|181535609|OTHER||Slope|0.9806|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0322|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9155|1.0457|||||Based on the estimate for the slope parameter (β), a 2-sided 95% CI for the slope was computed. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1.|The model consisted of a regression model applied to log-transformed data. The corresponding ANCOVA model included the logarithm of the dose as a covariate.||1.0457|0.9155|
90831298|NCT03349723|181535610|OTHER||Slope|0.9892|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0339|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9207|1.0577|||||Based on the estimate for the slope parameter (β), a 2-sided 95% CI for the slope was computed. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1.|The model consisted of a regression model applied to log-transformed data. The corresponding ANCOVA model included the logarithm of the dose as a covariate.||1.0577|0.9207|
90831299|NCT03409796|181535615|OTHER|||||||0.385|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Gluten 3 gram: Baseline versus Day 15. Change in Vh:Cd follows a normal distribution. A 1-sided paired t-test was used to compare Baseline and follow-up Vh:Cd measures. The normality assumption was checked using the Shapiro-Wilk test. If the data was not normal at alpha=0.05, a 1-sided Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used instead to compare Vh:CdBaseline (B) and Vh:Cd15.||||0.385
90831300|NCT03409796|181535615|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Gluten 10 gram: Baseline versus Day 15. Change in Vh:Cd follows a normal distribution. A 1-sided paired t-test was used to compare Baseline and follow-up Vh:Cd measures. The normality assumption was checked using the Shapiro-Wilk test. If the data was not normal at alpha=0.05, a 1-sided Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used instead to compare Vh:CdB and Vh:Cd15.||||0.003
90831301|NCT03409796|181535616|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Poisson distribution|||Gluten 3 gram: Baseline versus Day 15. The Poisson distribution assumption was checked using Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. Poisson generalized linear mixed models (GLMM) was fitted to data, where IEL measurements were grouped by participant (the random effect) and the change in IEL counts was the fixed effect. If the data was found to not be Poisson at alpha=0.05, a 1-sided Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used instead to compare IELB and IEL15.||||0.010
90831302|NCT03409796|181535616|OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Poisson distribution|||Gluten 10 gram: Baseline versus Day 15. The Poisson distribution assumption was checked using Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. Poisson GLMM was fitted to data, where IEL measurements were grouped by participant (the random effect) and the change in IEL counts was the fixed effect. If the data was found to not be Poisson at alpha=0.05, a 1-sided Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used instead to compare IELB and IEL15.||||0.006
90831303|NCT03270436|181535624|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3599||||||The p-value above reflects results of between-arms analysis of change in mean weight from baseline to immediate post-intervention. Analyses do not include imputed values.|linear mixed effects regression|Model includes group, time, g x t interaction, state, age, gender, marital status, employment, education, and accounts for clustering within churches.||Repeated measures regression model used all available participant data (no listwise deletion).||||0.3599
90831304|NCT03270436|181535624|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3207||||||The p-value above reflects results of between-arms analysis of change in mean weight from baseline to 6 months post-intervention. Analyses do not include imputed values.|linear mixed effects regression|Model includes group, time, g x t interaction, state, age, gender, marital status, employment, education, and accounts for clustering within churches.||Repeated measures regression model used all available participant data (no listwise deletion).||||0.3207
90831305|NCT03270436|181535625|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5698||||||The p-value above reflects results of between-arms analysis of mean change in HbA1c from baseline to immediate post-intervention. Analyses do not include imputed values.|linear mixed effects regression|Model includes group, time, g x t interaction, state, age, gender, marital status, employment, education, and accounts for clustering within churches.||Repeated measures regression model used all available participant data (no listwise deletion).||||0.5698
90831306|NCT03270436|181535625|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4106||||||The p-value above reflects results of between-arms analysis of mean change in HbA1c from baseline to 6 months post-intervention. Analyses do not include imputed values.|linear mixed effects regression|Model includes group, time, g x t interaction, state, age, gender, marital status, employment, education, and accounts for clustering within churches.||Repeated measures regression model used all available participant data (no listwise deletion).||||0.4106
90831307|NCT03270436|181535626|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0293||||||The p-value above reflects results of between-arms analysis of mean change in systolic blood pressure from baseline to immediate post-intervention. Analyses do not include imputed values.|linear mixed effects regression|Model includes group, time, g x t interaction, state, age, gender, marital status, employment, education, and accounts for clustering within churches.||Repeated measures regression model used all available participant data (no listwise deletion).||||0.0293
90831308|NCT03270436|181535626|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4686||||||The p-value above reflects results of between-arms analysis of mean change in systolic blood pressure from baseline to 6 months post-intervention. Analyses do not include imputed values.|linear mixed effects regression|Model includes group, time, g x t interaction, state, age, gender, marital status, employment, education, and accounts for clustering within churches.||Repeated measures regression model used all available participant data (no listwise deletion).||||0.4686
90831309|NCT03270436|181535627|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0068||||||The p-value above reflects results of between-arms analysis of mean change in diastolic blood pressure from baseline to immediate post-intervention. Analyses do not include imputed values.|linear mixed effects regression|Model includes group, time, g x t interaction, state, age, gender, marital status, employment, education, and accounts for clustering within churches.||Repeated measures regression model used all available participant data (no listwise deletion).||||0.0068
90894138|NCT01984697|181654074|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the GMT ratio for Girls 9 to 14 Years / Young Women 16 to 26 years is \>0.67.|GMT ratio|2.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.14|3.0|||ANOVA|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||3.00|2.14|<0.001
90894139|NCT01984697|181654074|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the GMT ratio for Boys 9 to 14 Years / Young Women 16 to 26 years is \>0.67.|GMT Ratio|2.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.29|3.15|||ANOVA|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||3.15|2.29|<0.001
91087498|NCT02389959|182057722|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test, 2-sided|||Analysis of intergroup difference at baseline.||||0.030
91087499|NCT02389959|182057722|OTHER|||||||0.719|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test, 2-sided|||Analysis of intergroup difference at month 2.||||0.719
91087500|NCT02389959|182057722|OTHER|||||||0.467|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test, 2-sided|||Analysis of intergroup difference at month 6.||||0.467
91087501|NCT01462110|182057820|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was the Week 4 mean is equal between the two cells. The alternative hypothesis was the Week 4 mean is not equal between the two cells.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.234|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0211|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.276|-0.192|||ANCOVA|Terms for treatment as a factor \& baseline as a covariate.||||-0.192|-0.276|<0.001
91087502|NCT01462110|182057821|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was the Week 4 mean is equal between the two cells. The alternative hypothesis was the Week 4 mean is not equal between the two cells.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.232|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0806|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.392|-1.071|||ANCOVA|Terms for treatment as a factor \& baseline as a covariate.||||-1.071|-1.392|<0.001
91087503|NCT01462110|182057822|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was the Week 2 mean is equal between the two cells. The alternative hypothesis was the Week 2 mean is not equal between the two cells.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.106|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0173|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|-0.071|||ANCOVA|Terms for treatment as a factor \& baseline as a covariate.||||-0.071|-0.140|<0.001
91087504|NCT01462110|182057823|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was the Week 2 mean is equal between the two cells. The alternative hypothesis was the Week 2 mean is not equal between the two cells.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0957|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.639|||ANCOVA|Terms for treatment as a factor \& baseline as a covariate.||||-0.639|-1.020|<0.001
90894140|NCT01984697|181654074|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the GMT ratio for Girls and Boys 9 to 14 Years / Young Women 16 to 26 years is \>0.67.|GMT Ratio|4.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.84|5.37|||ANOVA|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||5.37|3.84|<0.001
90894141|NCT01984697|181654075|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the GMT ratio for Girls 9 to 14 Years / Young Women 16 to 26 years is \>0.67.|GMT ratio|2.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.05|2.96|||ANOVA|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||2.96|2.05|<0.001
90894142|NCT01984697|181654075|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the GMT ratio for Boys 9 to 14 Years / Young Women 16 to 26 years is \>0.67.|GMT Ratio|2.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.04|2.92|||ANOVA|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||2.92|2.04|<0.001
90894143|NCT01984697|181654075|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the GMT ratio for Girls and Boys 9 to 14 Years / Young Women 16 to 26 years is \>0.67.|GMT Ratio|3.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.06|4.45|||ANOVA|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||4.45|3.06|<0.001
90894144|NCT01984697|181654076|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the GMT ratio for Girls 9 to 14 Years / Young Women 16 to 26 years is \>0.67.|GMT ratio|2.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|3.0|||ANOVA|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||3.00|2.10|<0.001
91087505|NCT01462110|182057824|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was the Week 2 mean is equal between the two cells. The alternative hypothesis was the Week 2 mean is not equal between the two cells.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.044|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0076|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.059|-0.029|||ANCOVA|Terms for treatment as a factor \& baseline as a covariate.||||-0.029|-0.059|<0.001
91087506|NCT01462110|182057825|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was the Week 4 mean is equal between the two cells. The alternative hypothesis was the Week 4 mean is not equal between the two cells.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0087|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.078|-0.043|||ANCOVA|Terms for treatment as a factor \& baseline as a covariate.||||-0.043|-0.078|<0.001
90894145|NCT01984697|181654076|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the GMT ratio for Boys 9 to 14 Years / Young Women 16 to 26 years is \>0.67.|GMT Ratio|2.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|3.12|||ANOVA|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||3.12|2.20|<0.001
91087507|NCT04754542|182057878|NON_INFERIORITY|We performed a non-inferiority test for the proportions of the drug continuation and drug discontinuation arms experiencing a new MS relapse and/or MRI Brain Lesion over the course of the study duration. The non-inferiority margin used was 8%.|Difference in proportion|0.0121||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1321|0.1287|||Exact binomial test|Exact binomial test fr difference in two proportions||We tested the null hypothesis of inferiority with the proportion of disease events (i.e., new MS relapse and/or MRI brain lesion) for the drug discontinuation group being 8% greater than the proportion for the drug continuation group under the alternative that the two rates are equal.||0.1287|-0.1321|0.124
91087508|NCT04754542|182057879|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.639|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.639
91087509|NCT04754542|182057880|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.964|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.964
91087510|NCT04754542|182057881|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.819|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.819
90957013|NCT00706433|181793705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0029||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0029
91087511|NCT04754542|182057882|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.515|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.515
90894146|NCT01984697|181654076|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the GMT ratio for Girls and Boys 9 to 14 Years / Young Women 16 to 26 years is \>0.67.|GMT Ratio|3.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.08|4.45|||ANOVA|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||4.45|3.08|<0.001
90957014|NCT00706433|181793705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2142||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.2142
91087512|NCT04754542|182057883|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.388|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.388
91087513|NCT04754542|182057884|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.183|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.183
91087514|NCT04754542|182057885|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.414|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.414
91087515|NCT04754542|182057886|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.998|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.998
91087516|NCT04754542|182057887|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.320
90894147|NCT01984697|181654077|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the GMT ratio for Girls 9 to 14 Years / Young Women 16 to 26 years is \>0.67.|GMT ratio|2.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|3.5|||ANOVA|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||3.50|2.50|<0.001
90894148|NCT01984697|181654077|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the GMT ratio for Boys 9 to 14 Years / Young Women 16 to 26 years is \>0.67.|GMT Ratio|2.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.55|3.5|||ANOVA|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||3.50|2.55|<0.001
90894149|NCT01984697|181654077|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the GMT ratio for Girls and Boys 9 to 14 Years / Young Women 16 to 26 years is \>0.67.|GMT Ratio|6.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.36|7.43|||ANOVA|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||7.43|5.36|<0.001
90894150|NCT01984697|181654078|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the GMT ratio for Girls 9 to 14 Years / Young Women 16 to 26 years is \>0.67.|GMT ratio|1.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|2.03|||ANOVA|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||2.03|1.38|<0.001
90894151|NCT01984697|181654078|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the GMT ratio for Boys 9 to 14 Years / Young Women 16 to 26 years is \>0.67.|GMT Ratio|1.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|1.99|||ANOVA|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||1.99|1.37|<0.001
90894152|NCT01984697|181654078|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the GMT ratio for Girls and Boys 9 to 14 Years / Young Women 16 to 26 years is \>0.67.|GMT Ratio|1.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.61|2.37|||ANOVA|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||2.37|1.61|<0.001
90894153|NCT01984697|181654079|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the GMT ratio for Girls 9 to 14 Years / Young Women 16 to 26 years is \>0.67.|GMT ratio|1.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|1.87|||ANOVA|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||1.87|1.36|<0.001
90894154|NCT01984697|181654079|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the GMT ratio for Boys 9 to 14 Years / Young Women 16 to 26 years is \>0.67.|GMT Ratio|1.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|2.05|||ANOVA|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||2.05|1.51|<0.001
90957015|NCT00706433|181793705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0781||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0781
91023907|NCT01165684|181931253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated mean|-0.48||||0.228||95.0|-1.25|0.3|||Regression, Linear|||||0.30|-1.25|0.228
91023908|NCT01165684|181931254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated mean|-0.17||||0.224||95.0|-0.45|0.11|||Regression, Linear|||||0.11|-0.45|0.224
91023909|NCT04549259|181931265|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.23||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|||||All tests performed were 2-sided. Given that the study was a pilot, we used α = .25 as a significance level cutoff and focus primarily on patterns in the data and effect sizes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We fit a generalized linear mixed model using the glmer function and a logit link in the R package lme4. The model included a random effect for participant. Predictors (fixed effects) included time (baseline vs. follow-up), random assignments, and interactions between assignments and time. We adjusted for mode of survey completion. Significant interactions indicated differential changes in outcomes over time for those randomly assigned vs. not randomly assigned to different interventions.||||.33
91023910|NCT04549259|181931265|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|||||All tests performed were 2-sided. Given that the study was a pilot, we used α = .25 as a significance level cutoff and focus primarily on patterns in the data and effect sizes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We fit a generalized linear mixed model using the glmer function and a logit link in the R package lme4. The model included a random effect for participant. Predictors (fixed effects) included time (baseline vs. follow-up), random assignments, and interactions between assignments and time. We adjusted for mode of survey completion. Significant interactions indicated differential changes in outcomes over time for those randomly assigned vs. not randomly assigned to different interventions.||||.63
91023911|NCT04549259|181931265|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.68||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|||||All tests performed were 2-sided. Given that the study was a pilot, we used α = .25 as a significance level cutoff and focus primarily on patterns in the data and effect sizes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We fit a generalized linear mixed model using the glmer function and a logit link in the R package lme4. The model included a random effect for participant. Predictors (fixed effects) included time (baseline vs. follow-up), random assignments, and interactions between assignments and time. We adjusted for mode of survey completion. Significant interactions indicated differential changes in outcomes over time for those randomly assigned vs. not randomly assigned to different interventions.||||.78
91087517|NCT04754542|182057888|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.061|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.061
91087518|NCT04754542|182057889|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.032|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.032
91087519|NCT04754542|182057890|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.514|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.514
90894155|NCT01984697|181654079|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the GMT ratio for Girls and Boys 9 to 14 Years / Young Women 16 to 26 years is \>0.67.|GMT Ratio|3.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.64|3.61|||ANOVA|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||3.61|2.64|<0.001
90894156|NCT01984697|181654080|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the GMT ratio for Girls 9 to 14 Years / Young Women 16 to 26 years is \>0.67.|GMT ratio|2.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.15|3.01|||ANOVA|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||3.01|2.15|<0.001
90957016|NCT00706433|181793706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9886||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.9886
91087520|NCT04754542|182057891|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.017
91087521|NCT04754542|182057892|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.155|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.155
91087522|NCT04754542|182057893|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.358|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.358
91087523|NCT04754542|182057894|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.151|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.151
91087524|NCT04754542|182057895|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.123|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.123
91023912|NCT04549259|181931265|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|||||All tests performed were 2-sided. Given that the study was a pilot, we used α = .25 as a significance level cutoff and focus primarily on patterns in the data and effect sizes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We fit a generalized linear mixed model using the glmer function and a logit link in the R package lme4. The model included a random effect for participant. Predictors (fixed effects) included time (baseline vs. follow-up), random assignments, and interactions between assignments and time. We adjusted for mode of survey completion. Significant interactions indicated differential changes in outcomes over time for those randomly assigned vs. not randomly assigned to different interventions.||||.90
91023913|NCT04549259|181931265|OTHER|Single group change over time.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.89||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|||||All tests performed were 2-sided. Given that the study was a pilot, we used α = .25 as a significance level cutoff and focus primarily on patterns in the data and effect sizes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Given that our factorial design resulted in many control participants who were assigned to alternative interventions, for this pilot we also report on changes over time in outcomes for participants randomly assigned to each intervention. These changes tested with mixed models that contained only participants assigned to each intervention. Here, time was the predictor of interest, and we again controlled for mode of survey administration."||||.38
91023914|NCT04549259|181931265|OTHER|Single group change over time.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|||||All tests performed were 2-sided. Given that the study was a pilot, we used α = .25 as a significance level cutoff and focus primarily on patterns in the data and effect sizes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Given that our factorial design resulted in many control participants who were assigned to alternative interventions, for this pilot we also report on changes over time in outcomes for participants randomly assigned to each intervention. These changes tested with mixed models that contained only participants assigned to each intervention. Here, time was the predictor of interest, and we again controlled for mode of survey administration."||||.78
91023915|NCT04549259|181931265|OTHER|Single group change over time.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.32||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|||||All tests performed were 2-sided. Given that the study was a pilot, we used α = .25 as a significance level cutoff and focus primarily on patterns in the data and effect sizes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Given that our factorial design resulted in many control participants who were assigned to alternative interventions, for this pilot we also report on changes over time in outcomes for participants randomly assigned to each intervention. These changes tested with mixed models that contained only participants assigned to each intervention. Here, time was the predictor of interest, and we again controlled for mode of survey administration."||||.45
91023916|NCT04549259|181931265|OTHER|Single group change over time.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|||||All tests performed were 2-sided. Given that the study was a pilot, we used α = .25 as a significance level cutoff and focus primarily on patterns in the data and effect sizes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Given that our factorial design resulted in many control participants who were assigned to alternative interventions, for this pilot we also report on changes over time in outcomes for participants randomly assigned to each intervention. These changes tested with mixed models that contained only participants assigned to each intervention. Here, time was the predictor of interest, and we again controlled for mode of survey administration."||||.91
91023917|NCT04549259|181931266|SUPERIORITY||B|2.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8||0.36|TWO_SIDED|||||All tests performed were 2-sided. Given that the study was a pilot, we used α = .25 as a significance level cutoff and focus primarily on patterns in the data and effect sizes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We fit a linear mixed model using the lmer function in the R package lme4. The model included a random effect for participant and utilized all available data. Predictors (fixed effects) included time (baseline vs. follow-up), random assignments, and interactions between assignments and time. We adjusted for mode of survey completion. Significant interactions indicated differential changes in outcomes over time for those randomly assigned vs. not randomly assigned to different interventions.||||.36
91023918|NCT04549259|181931266|SUPERIORITY||B|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.78||0.88|TWO_SIDED|||||All tests performed were 2-sided. Given that the study was a pilot, we used α = .25 as a significance level cutoff and focus primarily on patterns in the data and effect sizes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We fit a linear mixed model using the lmer function in the R package lme4. The model included a random effect for participant and utilized all available data. Predictors (fixed effects) included time (baseline vs. follow-up), random assignments, and interactions between assignments and time. We adjusted for mode of survey completion. Significant interactions indicated differential changes in outcomes over time for those randomly assigned vs. not randomly assigned to different interventions.||||.88
91023919|NCT04549259|181931266|SUPERIORITY||B|0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8||0.89|TWO_SIDED|||||All tests performed were 2-sided. Given that the study was a pilot, we used α = .25 as a significance level cutoff and focus primarily on patterns in the data and effect sizes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We fit a linear mixed model using the lmer function in the R package lme4. The model included a random effect for participant and utilized all available data. Predictors (fixed effects) included time (baseline vs. follow-up), random assignments, and interactions between assignments and time. We adjusted for mode of survey completion. Significant interactions indicated differential changes in outcomes over time for those randomly assigned vs. not randomly assigned to different interventions.||||.89
91023920|NCT04549259|181931266|SUPERIORITY||B|-0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.78||0.73|TWO_SIDED|||||All tests performed were 2-sided. Given that the study was a pilot, we used α = .25 as a significance level cutoff and focus primarily on patterns in the data and effect sizes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We fit a linear mixed model using the lmer function in the R package lme4. The model included a random effect for participant and utilized all available data. Predictors (fixed effects) included time (baseline vs. follow-up), random assignments, and interactions between assignments and time. We adjusted for mode of survey completion. Significant interactions indicated differential changes in outcomes over time for those randomly assigned vs. not randomly assigned to different interventions.||||.73
91087525|NCT04754542|182057896|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.656|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.656
91087526|NCT04754542|182057897|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.892|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.892
90894157|NCT01984697|181654080|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the GMT ratio for Boys 9 to 14 Years / Young Women 16 to 26 years is \>0.67.|GMT Ratio|2.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|3.16|||ANOVA|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||3.16|2.30|<0.001
90831310|NCT03270436|181535627|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9181||||||The p-value above reflects results of between-arms analysis of mean change in diastolic blood pressure from baseline to 6 months post-intervention. Analyses do not include imputed values.|linear mixed effects regression|Model includes group, time, g x t interaction, state, age, gender, marital status, employment, education, and accounts for clustering within churches.||Repeated measures regression model used all available participant data (no listwise deletion).||||0.9181
90831311|NCT03270436|181535628|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5984||||||The p-value above reflects results of between-arms analysis of mean change in sugar-sweetened beverages consumed per day from baseline to immediate post-intervention. Analyses do not include imputed values.|linear mixed effects regression|Model includes group, time, g x t interaction, state, age, gender, marital status, employment, education, and accounts for clustering within churches.||Repeated measures regression model used all available participant data (no listwise deletion).||||0.5984
90894158|NCT01984697|181654080|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the GMT ratio for Girls and Boys 9 to 14 Years / Young Women 16 to 26 years is \>0.67.|GMT Ratio|4.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.23|5.86|||ANOVA|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||5.86|4.23|<0.001
91023921|NCT04549259|181931266|OTHER|Single group change over time.|B|4.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.83||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||All tests performed were 2-sided. Given that the study was a pilot, we used α = .25 as a significance level cutoff and focus primarily on patterns in the data and effect sizes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Given that our factorial design resulted in many control participants who were assigned to alternative interventions, for this pilot we also report on changes over time in outcomes for participants randomly assigned to each intervention. These changes tested with mixed models that contained only participants assigned to each intervention. Here, time was the predictor of interest, and we again controlled for mode of survey administration."||||.01
91023922|NCT04549259|181931266|OTHER|Single group change over time.|B|3.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.03||0.12|TWO_SIDED|||||All tests performed were 2-sided. Given that the study was a pilot, we used α = .25 as a significance level cutoff and focus primarily on patterns in the data and effect sizes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Given that our factorial design resulted in many control participants who were assigned to alternative interventions, for this pilot we also report on changes over time in outcomes for participants randomly assigned to each intervention. These changes tested with mixed models that contained only participants assigned to each intervention. Here, time was the predictor of interest, and we again controlled for mode of survey administration."||||.12
91023923|NCT04549259|181931266|OTHER|Single group change over time.|B|3.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.06||0.08|TWO_SIDED|||||All tests performed were 2-sided. Given that the study was a pilot, we used α = .25 as a significance level cutoff and focus primarily on patterns in the data and effect sizes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Given that our factorial design resulted in many control participants who were assigned to alternative interventions, for this pilot we also report on changes over time in outcomes for participants randomly assigned to each intervention. These changes tested with mixed models that contained only participants assigned to each intervention. Here, time was the predictor of interest, and we again controlled for mode of survey administration."||||.08
91023924|NCT04549259|181931266|OTHER|Single group change over time.|B|3.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.99||0.12|TWO_SIDED|||||All tests performed were 2-sided. Given that the study was a pilot, we used α = .25 as a significance level cutoff and focus primarily on patterns in the data and effect sizes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Given that our factorial design resulted in many control participants who were assigned to alternative interventions, for this pilot we also report on changes over time in outcomes for participants randomly assigned to each intervention. These changes tested with mixed models that contained only participants assigned to each intervention. Here, time was the predictor of interest, and we again controlled for mode of survey administration."||||.12
91023925|NCT04549259|181931267|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|22.3||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|||||All tests performed were 2-sided. Given that the study was a pilot, we used α = .25 as a significance level cutoff and focus primarily on patterns in the data and effect sizes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We fit a generalized linear mixed model using the glmer function and a logit link in the R package lme4. The model included a random effect for participant. Predictors (fixed effects) included time (baseline vs. follow-up), random assignments, and interactions between assignments and time. We adjusted for mode of survey completion. Significant interactions indicated differential changes in outcomes over time for those randomly assigned vs. not randomly assigned to different interventions.||||.049
91023926|NCT04549259|181931267|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.86||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|||||All tests performed were 2-sided. Given that the study was a pilot, we used α = .25 as a significance level cutoff and focus primarily on patterns in the data and effect sizes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We fit a generalized linear mixed model using the glmer function and a logit link in the R package lme4. The model included a random effect for participant. Predictors (fixed effects) included time (baseline vs. follow-up), random assignments, and interactions between assignments and time. We adjusted for mode of survey completion. Significant interactions indicated differential changes in outcomes over time for those randomly assigned vs. not randomly assigned to different interventions.||||.66
91023927|NCT04549259|181931267|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.68||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|||||All tests performed were 2-sided. Given that the study was a pilot, we used α = .25 as a significance level cutoff and focus primarily on patterns in the data and effect sizes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We fit a generalized linear mixed model using the glmer function and a logit link in the R package lme4. The model included a random effect for participant. Predictors (fixed effects) included time (baseline vs. follow-up), random assignments, and interactions between assignments and time. We adjusted for mode of survey completion. Significant interactions indicated differential changes in outcomes over time for those randomly assigned vs. not randomly assigned to different interventions.||||.78
91032971|NCT02728102|181951654|EQUIVALENCE|The stratified odds ratio is estimated with 80% confidence intervals.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.7461|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.7|2.03||P-value is provided by Breslow-Day Test for Homogeneity of the Odds Ratios.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Odds Ratio estimate is for the Stratification. Stratum 1 is sCR/CR at Randomization. Stratum 2 is VGPR/PR/Stable Response at Randomization.|A secondary analysis stratified on disease response prior to randomization between arms will be conducted using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, and a stratified odds ratio along with 80% confidence intervals will be estimated.||2.03|0.70|0.7461
91087527|NCT04754542|182057898|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.063|||||||Mantel Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test for ordinal-nominal association was used||||||0.063
91087528|NCT00873730|182057909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6031|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.6031
91087529|NCT00873730|182057910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9166|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.9166
91087530|NCT00873730|182057911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7564|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7564
91087531|NCT00873730|182057912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3266|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3266
91087532|NCT00873730|182057913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7481|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7481
91087533|NCT00873730|182057914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7721|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7721
91087534|NCT00873730|182057915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.666|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis provided for Nocturnal Back Pain.||||0.6660
91087535|NCT00873730|182057915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5364|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis provided for Overall Spinal Pain.||||0.5364
90831312|NCT03270436|181535628|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3376||||||The p-value above reflects results of between-arms analysis of mean change in sugar-sweetened beverages consumed per day from baseline to 6 months post-intervention. Analyses do not include imputed values.|linear mixed effects regression|Model includes group, time, g x t interaction, state, age, gender, marital status, employment, education, and accounts for clustering within churches.||Repeated measures regression model used all available participant data (no listwise deletion).||||0.3376
90831313|NCT03270436|181535629|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.296||||||The p-value above reflects results of between-arms analysis of mean change in fruit \& vegetable consumption scores from baseline to immediate post-intervention. Analyses do not include imputed values.|linear mixed effects regression|Model includes group, time, g x t interaction, state, age, gender, marital status, employment, education, and accounts for clustering within churches.||Repeated measures regression model used all available participant data (no listwise deletion).||||0.2960
91087536|NCT00873730|182057916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9426|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis provided for the Physician Global Assessment.||||0.9426
91087537|NCT00873730|182057916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4969|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis provided for the Patient Global Assessment.||||0.4969
91087538|NCT00873730|182057917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6687|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6687
91087539|NCT00873730|182057918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6739|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6739
90894159|NCT01984697|181654081|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the seroconversion percentage difference for Girls 9 to 14 Years - Young Women 16 to 26 years is \> -5.|Seroconversion percentage difference|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||2.3|-1.1|<0.001
91087540|NCT00873730|182057919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2772|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2772
91087541|NCT00873730|182057920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.156|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1560
91087542|NCT00873730|182057921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2099|||||||Chi-squared|||Analysis provided for Mobility.||||0.2099
91087543|NCT00873730|182057921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8009|||||||Chi-squared|||Analysis provided for Self-care.||||0.8009
91087544|NCT00873730|182057921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.429|||||||Chi-squared|||Analysis provided for Usual activities.||||0.4290
91087545|NCT00873730|182057921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0461|||||||Chi-squared|||Analysis provided for Pain/Discomfort.||||0.0461
91087546|NCT00873730|182057921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.562|||||||Chi-squared|||Analysis provided for Anxiety/Depression.||||0.5620
91087547|NCT00873730|182057922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3476|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis provided for Physical functioning.||||0.3476
91087548|NCT00873730|182057922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9045|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis provided for Physical role limitations.||||0.9045
91087549|NCT00873730|182057922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8558|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis provided for Bodily pain.||||0.8558
91087550|NCT00873730|182057922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3123|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis provided for General health.||||0.3123
91087551|NCT00873730|182057922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3327|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis provided for Vitality.||||0.3327
91087552|NCT00873730|182057922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8334|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis provided for Social functioning.||||0.8334
91087553|NCT00873730|182057922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7998|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis provided for Emotional role limitations.||||0.7998
91087554|NCT00873730|182057922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7125|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis provided for Mental health.||||0.7125
91087555|NCT00873730|182057924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7404|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7404
91087556|NCT04110314|182057933|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.03|||||These results compare the arm receiving a pre-commitment prompt to the arm receiving no pre-commitment prompt.|||1.03|1.00|
91087557|NCT04110314|182057933|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.01|||||These results compare the arm receiving a pre-commitment prompt to the arm receiving no pre-commitment prompt.|||1.01|0.99|
91087558|NCT04110314|182057933|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.03|||||These results compare the arm receiving a pre-commitment prompt to the arm receiving no pre-commitment prompt.|||1.03|0.99|
91087559|NCT04110314|182057933|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.04|||||These results compare the arm receiving a pre-commitment prompt to the arm receiving no pre-commitment prompt.|||1.04|1.00|
91087560|NCT04110314|182057933|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.01|||||These results compare the arm receiving gain-framed reminders to the arm receiving no reminders.|||1.01|0.98|
91087561|NCT04110314|182057933|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|0.95|0.97|1.02|||||These results compare the arm receiving gain-framed reminders to the arm receiving no reminders.|||1.02|0.97|
91087562|NCT04110314|182057933|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.01|||||These results compare the arm receiving gain-framed reminders to the arm receiving no reminders.|||1.01|0.97|
91087563|NCT04110314|182057933|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.05|||||These results compare the arm receiving gain-framed reminders to the arm receiving no reminders.|||1.05|0.98|
91087564|NCT04110314|182057933|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.02|||||These results compare the arm receiving loss-framed reminders to the arm receiving no reminders.|||1.02|0.99|
91087565|NCT04110314|182057933|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.02|||||These results compare the arm receiving loss-framed reminders to the arm receiving no reminders.|||1.02|0.98|
91087566|NCT04110314|182057933|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.02|||||These results compare the arm receiving loss-framed reminders to the arm receiving no reminders.|||1.02|0.97|
91087567|NCT04110314|182057933|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.04|||||These results compare the arm receiving loss-framed reminders to the arm receiving no reminders.|||1.04|1.00|
91087568|NCT01711983|182057975|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin based on 1) the lower 95% confidence bound (= 0.82) for estimated 6-month composite Clinical Success for the historical device (219/253=0.866), and 2) a worst-case analysis of 6-month composite Clinical Success for the historical device (0.81, assuming the 18 subjects with missing echo evaluations were failures).|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.0366|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.007||A priori 1-sided alpha = 0.05.|2-sample binomial proportions test||Difference is control - test. Confidence interval is the upper one-sided 95% Wald confidence interval.|"Test null hypothesis of inferiority of test device (test) compared to historical device (control).~H0: Pc - Pt ≥ Δ vs H1: Pc - Pt \< Δ, where Pt and Pc are true proportions of 6-month clinical success for test and control, respectively, and Δ is the non-inferiority margin.~Given Nc = 253, then Nt = 135 test subjects provides 86% power to reject H0 with 95% confidence if Δ = 0.10 and Pc = Pt = 0.866 under H0."||0.007||<0.0001
91087569|NCT00737100|182057982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.94||||0.001||95.0|1.19|4.7||Comment for p-value: Hierarchical testing was applied. Comparison of 2.5 dose to be performed only if superiority of tiotropium 5.0 dose compared to placebo was shown for both primary endpoints.|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline, center, visit and age group||Comparison of Tiotropium 2.5 microgram dose versus placebo||4.70|1.19|0.001
91087570|NCT00737100|182057982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.39||||0.0001||95.0|1.67|5.12||Comment for p-value: Hierarchical testing was applied. Comparison of 2.5 dose to be performed only if superiority of tiotropium 5.0 dose compared to placebo was shown for both primary endpoints.|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline, center, visit and age group||Comparison of Tiotropium 5.0 microgram dose versus placebo||5.12|1.67|0.0001
91087571|NCT00737100|182057983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.24||||0.0184||95.0|0.38|4.11||Comment for p-value: Hierarchical testing was applied. Comparison of 2.5 dose to be performed only if superiority of tiotropium 5.0 dose compared to placebo was shown for both primary endpoints.|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline, center, visit and age group||Comparison of Tiotropium 2.5 microgram dose versus placebo||4.11|0.38|0.0184
91087572|NCT00737100|182057983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.22||||0.0179||95.0|0.38|4.06||Comment for p-value: Hierarchical testing was applied. Comparison of 2.5 dose to be performed only if superiority of tiotropium 5.0 dose compared to placebo was shown for both primary endpoints.|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline, center, visit and age group||Comparison of Tiotropium 5.0 microgram dose versus placebo||4.06|0.38|0.0179
91087573|NCT00737100|182057984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.83||||0.0756||95.0|-0.19|3.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline, center, visit and age group||Comparison of Tiotropium 2.5 microgram dose versus placebo||3.86|-0.19|0.0756
90831314|NCT03270436|181535629|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1519||||||The p-value above reflects results of between-arms analysis of mean change in fruit \& vegetable consumption scores from baseline to 6 months post-intervention. Analyses do not include imputed values.|linear mixed effects regression|Model includes group, time, g x t interaction, state, age, gender, marital status, employment, education, and accounts for clustering within churches.||Repeated measures regression model used all available participant data (no listwise deletion).||||0.1519
90894160|NCT01984697|181654081|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the seroconversion percentage difference for Boys 9 to 14 Years - Young Women 16 to 26 years is \> -5.|Seroconversion percentage difference|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||2.3|-1.0|<0.001
91087574|NCT00737100|182057984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.12||||0.0023||95.0|1.12|5.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline, center, visit and age group||Comparison of Tiotropium 5.0 microgram dose versus placebo||5.12|1.12|0.0023
91087575|NCT00737100|182057985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.85||||0.3857||95.0|-1.08|2.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline, center, visit and age group||Comparison of Tiotropium 2.5 microgram dose versus placebo||2.79|-1.08|0.3857
90894161|NCT01984697|181654081|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the seroconversion percentage difference for Girls and Boys 9 to 14 Years - Young Women 16 to 26 years is \> -5.|Seroconversion percentage difference|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||2.3|-1.1|<0.001
90894162|NCT01984697|181654082|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the seroconversion percentage difference for Girls 9 to 14 Years - Young Women 16 to 26 years is \> -5.|Seroconversion percentage difference|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||2.2|-1.0|<0.001
90831315|NCT03270436|181535630|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2824||||||The p-value above reflects results of between-arms analysis of change from baseline to immediate post-intervention. Analyses do not include imputed values.|Mantel Haenszel|The model includes only the study arm and time interaction.||Adjusted repeated measures generalized estimating equations (GEE) model.||||0.2824
90831316|NCT03270436|181535630|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7547||||||The p-value above reflects results of between-arms analysis of change from baseline to 6 months post-intervention. Analyses do not include imputed values.|Mantel Haenszel|The model includes only the study arm and time interaction.||Adjusted repeated measures generalized estimating equations (GEE) model.||||0.7547
90831317|NCT03270436|181535631|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6928||||||The p-value above reflects results of between-arms analysis of mean change in eating self-efficacy scores from baseline to immediate post-intervention. Analyses do not include imputed values.|linear mixed effects regression|Model includes group, time, g x t interaction, state, age, gender, marital status, employment, education, and accounts for clustering within churches.||Repeated measures regression model used all available participant data (no listwise deletion).||||0.6928
90831318|NCT03270436|181535631|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4947||||||The p-value above reflects results of between-arms analysis of mean change in eating self-efficacy scores from baseline to 6 months post-intervention. Analyses do not include imputed values.|linear mixed effects regression|Model includes group, time, g x t interaction, state, age, gender, marital status, employment, education, and accounts for clustering within churches.||Repeated measures regression model used all available participant data (no listwise deletion).||||0.4947
90831319|NCT03270436|181535632|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1539||||||The p-value above reflects results of between-arms analysis of mean change in physical activity self-efficacy scores from baseline to immediate post-intervention. Analyses do not include imputed values|linear mixed effects regression|Model includes group, time, g x t interaction, state, age, gender, marital status, employment, education, and accounts for clustering within churches.||Repeated measures regression model used all available participant data (no listwise deletion).||||0.1539
91023928|NCT04549259|181931267|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.43||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|||||All tests performed were 2-sided. Given that the study was a pilot, we used α = .25 as a significance level cutoff and focus primarily on patterns in the data and effect sizes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We fit a generalized linear mixed model using the glmer function and a logit link in the R package lme4. The model included a random effect for participant. Predictors (fixed effects) included time (baseline vs. follow-up), random assignments, and interactions between assignments and time. We adjusted for mode of survey completion. Significant interactions indicated differential changes in outcomes over time for those randomly assigned vs. not randomly assigned to different interventions.||||.54
91023929|NCT04549259|181931267|OTHER|Single group change over time.|Odds Ratio (OR)|6.26||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|||||All tests performed were 2-sided. Given that the study was a pilot, we used α = .25 as a significance level cutoff and focus primarily on patterns in the data and effect sizes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Given that our factorial design resulted in many control participants who were assigned to alternative interventions, for this pilot we also report on changes over time in outcomes for participants randomly assigned to each intervention. These changes tested with mixed models that contained only participants assigned to each intervention. Here, time was the predictor of interest, and we again controlled for mode of survey administration."||||.09
91023930|NCT04549259|181931267|OTHER|Single group change over time.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.05||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|||||All tests performed were 2-sided. Given that the study was a pilot, we used α = .25 as a significance level cutoff and focus primarily on patterns in the data and effect sizes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Given that our factorial design resulted in many control participants who were assigned to alternative interventions, for this pilot we also report on changes over time in outcomes for participants randomly assigned to each intervention. These changes tested with mixed models that contained only participants assigned to each intervention. Here, time was the predictor of interest, and we again controlled for mode of survey administration."||||.40
91023931|NCT04549259|181931267|OTHER|Single group change over time.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|||||All tests performed were 2-sided. Given that the study was a pilot, we used α = .25 as a significance level cutoff and focus primarily on patterns in the data and effect sizes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Given that our factorial design resulted in many control participants who were assigned to alternative interventions, for this pilot we also report on changes over time in outcomes for participants randomly assigned to each intervention. These changes tested with mixed models that contained only participants assigned to each intervention. Here, time was the predictor of interest, and we again controlled for mode of survey administration."||||.66
91023932|NCT04549259|181931267|OTHER|Single group change over time.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|||||All tests performed were 2-sided. Given that the study was a pilot, we used α = .25 as a significance level cutoff and focus primarily on patterns in the data and effect sizes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Given that our factorial design resulted in many control participants who were assigned to alternative interventions, for this pilot we also report on changes over time in outcomes for participants randomly assigned to each intervention. These changes tested with mixed models that contained only participants assigned to each intervention. Here, time was the predictor of interest, and we again controlled for mode of survey administration."||||.87
91023933|NCT04549259|181931268|SUPERIORITY||B|-1.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.47||0.24|TWO_SIDED|||||All tests performed were 2-sided. Given that the study was a pilot, we used α = .25 as a significance level cutoff and focus primarily on patterns in the data and effect sizes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We fit a linear mixed model using the lmer function in the R package lme4. The model included a random effect for participant and utilized all available data. Predictors (fixed effects) included time (baseline vs. follow-up), random assignments, and interactions between assignments and time. We adjusted for mode of survey completion. Significant interactions indicated differential changes in outcomes over time for those randomly assigned vs. not randomly assigned to different interventions.||||.24
91023934|NCT04549259|181931268|SUPERIORITY||B|-2.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.46||0.17|TWO_SIDED|||||All tests performed were 2-sided. Given that the study was a pilot, we used α = .25 as a significance level cutoff and focus primarily on patterns in the data and effect sizes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We fit a linear mixed model using the lmer function in the R package lme4. The model included a random effect for participant and utilized all available data. Predictors (fixed effects) included time (baseline vs. follow-up), random assignments, and interactions between assignments and time. We adjusted for mode of survey completion. Significant interactions indicated differential changes in outcomes over time for those randomly assigned vs. not randomly assigned to different interventions.||||.17
91087576|NCT00737100|182057985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.19||||0.2199||95.0|-0.72|3.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline, center, visit and age group||Comparison of Tiotropium 5.0 microgram dose versus placebo||3.11|-0.72|0.2199
90831320|NCT03270436|181535632|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1878||||||The p-value above reflects results of between-arms analysis of mean change in physical activity self-efficacy scores from baseline to 6 months post-intervention. Analyses do not include imputed values.|linear mixed effects regression|Model includes group, time, g x t interaction, state, age, gender, marital status, employment, education, and accounts for clustering within churches.||Repeated measures regression model used all available participant data (no listwise deletion).||||0.1878
90831321|NCT03270436|181535633|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4322||||||The p-value above reflects results of between-arms analysis of mean change in family support scale scores from baseline to immediate post-intervention. Analyses do not include imputed values.|linear mixed effects regression|Model includes group, time, g x t interaction, state, age, gender, marital status, employment, education, and accounts for clustering within churches.||Repeated measures regression model used all available participant data (no listwise deletion).||||0.4322
91087577|NCT00737100|182057986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.19||||0.0363||95.0|0.27|8.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline, center, visit and age group||Comparison of Tiotropium 2.5 microgram dose versus placebo||8.11|0.27|0.0363
91087578|NCT00737100|182057986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.34||||0.0073||95.0|1.45|9.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline, center, visit and age group||Comparison of Tiotropium 5.0 microgram dose versus placebo||9.23|1.45|0.0073
91087579|NCT00737100|182057987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.7414||95.0|-0.06|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline, center, visit and age group||Comparison of Tiotropium 2.5 microgram dose versus placebo||0.08|-0.06|0.7414
91087580|NCT00737100|182057987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.1418||95.0|-0.02|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline, center, visit and age group||Comparison of Tiotropium 5.0 microgram dose versus placebo||0.12|-0.02|0.1418
91087581|NCT00737100|182057988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.8515||95.0|0.37|1.72|||Regression, Logistic|Covariates of treatment and age group||Comparison of Tiotropium 2.5 microgram dose versus placebo||1.72|0.37|0.8515
91087582|NCT00737100|182057988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72||||0.5565||95.0|0.33|1.59|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline, center, visit and age group||Comparison of Tiotropium 5.0 microgram dose versus placebo||1.59|0.33|0.5565
91087583|NCT04428385|182058023|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|2.16||||||||2.16|0.34|
91087584|NCT04428385|182058024|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.78||||||||1.78|0.47|
90831322|NCT03270436|181535633|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9529||||||The p-value above reflects results of between-arms analysis of mean change in family support scale scores from baseline to 6 months post-intervention. Analyses do not include imputed values.|linear mixed effects regression|Model includes group, time, g x t interaction, state, age, gender, marital status, employment, education, and accounts for clustering within churches.||Repeated measures regression model used all available participant data (no listwise deletion).||||0.9529
90831323|NCT01959503|181535654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||||||<0.0001
90957017|NCT00706433|181793707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6907||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.6907
90831324|NCT01959503|181535655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.07|19.89|||Regression, Logistic|||||19.89|4.07|<0.0001
91087585|NCT04428385|182058025|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.62||||||||1.62|0.36|
91087586|NCT04428385|182058026|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.33||||||||1.33|0.33|
91087587|NCT04428385|182058027|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.9||||||||1.90|0.62|
91087588|NCT01064414|182058061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.117||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.529|-0.066|||ANCOVA|||||-0.066|-0.529|0.012
91087589|NCT01064414|182058061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.117|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.635|-0.174|||ANCOVA|||||-0.174|-0.635|<0.001
91087590|NCT01064414|182058062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.66||||0.227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|3.77|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.77|0.73|0.227
91087591|NCT01064414|182058062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.69||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|6.04|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.04|1.19|0.017
91087592|NCT01064414|182058063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-15.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.638||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.45|-2.307|||ANCOVA|||||-2.307|-28.45|0.021
91087593|NCT01064414|182058063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-12.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.683||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.36|0.962|||ANCOVA|||||0.962|-25.36|0.069
91087594|NCT00974311|182058064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.75|||Log Rank|Stratified by baseline Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status and mean Brief Pain Inventory - Short Form score (Question #3).|Hazard Ratio and 95% confidence interval are from Cox regression model.|||0.75|0.53|<0.0001
91087595|NCT00974311|182058065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.47|||Log Rank|Stratified by baseline ECOG performance status and mean Brief Pain Inventory - Short Form score (Question #3).|Hazard Ratio and 95% confidence interval are from Cox regression model.|||0.47|0.35|<0.0001
91087596|NCT00974311|182058066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.566|0.835|||Log Rank|Stratified by baseline ECOG performance status and mean Brief Pain Inventory - Short Form score (Question #3).|Hazard Ratio and 95% confidence interval are from Cox regression model.|||0.835|0.566|0.0001
91087597|NCT00974311|182058067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage of Participants|24.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.8|30.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline ECOG performance status and mean Brief Pain Inventory - Short Form score (Question #3).|Confidence Interval based on standard normal approximation.|||30.9|18.8|<0.0001
91087598|NCT00974311|182058068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.248|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.204|0.303||Stratified by baseline ECOG performance status and mean Brief Pain Inventory - Short Form score (Question #3).|Log Rank||Hazard Ratio and 95% confidence interval are from Cox regression model.|||0.303|0.204|<0.0001
91087599|NCT00974311|182058069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Rate of Pain Palliation|38.2||||0.0079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.4|57.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (0-1 vs. 2).|Confidence Interval based on standard normal approximation.|||57.0|19.4|0.0079
90831325|NCT01959503|181535656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.27|18.11|||Regression, Logistic|||||18.11|3.27|<0.0001
90831326|NCT01419236|181535662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.66||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.59|1.91|||Mixed Models Repeated Measure Analysis|||||1.91|-0.59|0.380
90831327|NCT01419236|181535663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.44||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.96|0.08|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||||0.08|-0.96|0.164
90831328|NCT01419236|181535664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.42||||0.342|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.31|1.15|||Mixed Models Repeated Measure Analysis|||||1.15|-0.31|0.342
90831329|NCT01419236|181535665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.81||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.05|1.57|||Mixed Models Repeated Measure Analysis|||||1.57|0.05|0.079
90831330|NCT01419236|181535666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.535|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|1.1|||Mixed Models Repeated Measure Analysis|||||1.10|-0.50|0.535
90957018|NCT00706433|181793708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0047||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0047
91023935|NCT04549259|181931268|SUPERIORITY||B|0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.47||0.66|TWO_SIDED|||||All tests performed were 2-sided. Given that the study was a pilot, we used α = .25 as a significance level cutoff and focus primarily on patterns in the data and effect sizes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We fit a linear mixed model using the lmer function in the R package lme4. The model included a random effect for participant and utilized all available data. Predictors (fixed effects) included time (baseline vs. follow-up), random assignments, and interactions between assignments and time. We adjusted for mode of survey completion. Significant interactions indicated differential changes in outcomes over time for those randomly assigned vs. not randomly assigned to different interventions.||||.66
91023936|NCT04549259|181931268|SUPERIORITY||B|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.46||0.89|TWO_SIDED|||||All tests performed were 2-sided. Given that the study was a pilot, we used α = .25 as a significance level cutoff and focus primarily on patterns in the data and effect sizes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We fit a linear mixed model using the lmer function in the R package lme4. The model included a random effect for participant and utilized all available data. Predictors (fixed effects) included time (baseline vs. follow-up), random assignments, and interactions between assignments and time. We adjusted for mode of survey completion. Significant interactions indicated differential changes in outcomes over time for those randomly assigned vs. not randomly assigned to different interventions.||||.89
91023937|NCT04549259|181931268|OTHER|Single group change over time.|B|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.045|TWO_SIDED|||||All tests performed were 2-sided. Given that the study was a pilot, we used α = .25 as a significance level cutoff and focus primarily on patterns in the data and effect sizes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Given that our factorial design resulted in many control participants who were assigned to alternative interventions, for this pilot we also report on changes over time in outcomes for participants randomly assigned to each intervention. These changes tested with mixed models that contained only participants assigned to each intervention. Here, time was the predictor of interest, and we again controlled for mode of survey administration."||||.045
91023938|NCT04549259|181931268|OTHER|Single group change over time.|B|-1.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.07|TWO_SIDED|||||All tests performed were 2-sided. Given that the study was a pilot, we used α = .25 as a significance level cutoff and focus primarily on patterns in the data and effect sizes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Given that our factorial design resulted in many control participants who were assigned to alternative interventions, for this pilot we also report on changes over time in outcomes for participants randomly assigned to each intervention. These changes tested with mixed models that contained only participants assigned to each intervention. Here, time was the predictor of interest, and we again controlled for mode of survey administration."||||.07
91023939|NCT04549259|181931268|OTHER|Single group change over time.|B|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88||0.57|TWO_SIDED|||||All tests performed were 2-sided. Given that the study was a pilot, we used α = .25 as a significance level cutoff and focus primarily on patterns in the data and effect sizes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Given that our factorial design resulted in many control participants who were assigned to alternative interventions, for this pilot we also report on changes over time in outcomes for participants randomly assigned to each intervention. These changes tested with mixed models that contained only participants assigned to each intervention. Here, time was the predictor of interest, and we again controlled for mode of survey administration."||||.57
91023940|NCT04549259|181931268|OTHER|Single group change over time.|B|-0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12||0.42|TWO_SIDED|||||All tests performed were 2-sided. Given that the study was a pilot, we used α = .25 as a significance level cutoff and focus primarily on patterns in the data and effect sizes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Given that our factorial design resulted in many control participants who were assigned to alternative interventions, for this pilot we also report on changes over time in outcomes for participants randomly assigned to each intervention. These changes tested with mixed models that contained only participants assigned to each intervention. Here, time was the predictor of interest, and we again controlled for mode of survey administration."||||.42
91023941|NCT02008721|181931334|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Power calculation: 80% power, 5% P-level, 50% effect size, i.e. an expected mean yearly UMSARS-ME increase of 3,9 under verum treatment compared to 7.8 ± 6.8 (mean ± standard deviation) under Placebo treatment.~We used a linear mixed-effects model to test the primary hypothesis-ie, to compare differences in the change in motor examination scores on UMSARS between baseline and week 52 between the study groups."||||0.51
91023942|NCT02008721|181931335|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Power calculation: 80% power, 5% P-level, 50% effect size, i.e. an expected mean yearly UMSARS-ME increase of 3,9 under verum treatment compared to 7.8 ± 6.8 (mean ± standard deviation) under Placebo treatment.~We used a linear mixed-effects model to test the primary hypothesis-ie, to compare differences in the change in motor examination scores on UMSARS between baseline and week 52 between the study groups."||||0.82
91087600|NCT03286218|182058079|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 14 mm.|Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|32.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|28.4|36.4||||||||36.4|28.4|
91087601|NCT03286218|182058079|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses vs Placebo is 14 mm.|LS Mean Difference|15.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|11.7|19.6||||||||19.6|11.7|
90831331|NCT01419236|181535667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.03||||0.172|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.22|2.27|||ANCOVA|||||2.27|-0.22|0.172
90894163|NCT01984697|181654082|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the seroconversion percentage difference for Boys 9 to 14 Years - Young Women 16 to 26 years is \> -5.|Seroconversion percentage difference|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||2.2|-1.0|<0.001
91023943|NCT02008721|181931336|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Power calculation: 80% power, 5% P-level, 50% effect size. We used a linear mixed-effects model to test the primary hypothesis-ie, to compare differences in the change in UMSARS total score between baseline and week 52 between the study groups.~We did a post-hoc power calculation based on the mean change in motor examination scores on UMSARS and SDs in the placebo group of the per-protocol study completer set to test the assumptions of our initial power calculation."||||0.99
91023944|NCT02008721|181931337|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Power calculation: 80% power, 5% P-level, 50% effect size. We used a linear mixed-effects model to test the primary hypothesis-ie, to compare differences in the change in UMSARS total score between baseline and week 52 between the study groups.~We did a post-hoc power calculation based on the mean change in motor examination scores on UMSARS and SDs in the placebo group of the per-protocol study completer set to test the assumptions of our initial power calculation."||||0.43
91023945|NCT01797120|181931350|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.92|||Log Rank|Log rank test was stratified on ECOG performance status, measurable disease, and prior chemotherapy for metastatic disease||||0.92|0.40|0.02
91023946|NCT01797120|181931351|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.01
91023947|NCT01797120|181931352|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.47
91023948|NCT00992264|181931372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.51|||||OR for smoking abstinence at 12 months in intent to treat sample. Participants receiving content written in a Prescriptive tone were compared against persons receiving content in a Motivational tone (ref group).|Comparison of persons assigned to Prescriptive message tone (n = 932) against persons assigned to Motivational message tone (n = 933).||1.51|0.51|
91023949|NCT00992264|181931372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.91|||||OR for smoking abstinence at 12 months when persons who randomly received a Testimonial were compared against persons receiving No Testimonial (ref group).|Comparison of persons assigned to Testimonials (n = 933) against persons assigned to receive no testimonials (n = 932).||1.91|0.66|
91023950|NCT00992264|181931372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.02|||||OR for smoking abstinence at 12 months when persons assigned to Dictated navigation were compared to those not assigned to Dictated navigation (ref group).|Comparison of persons assigned to the Dictated Navigation arm (n = 934) against persons assigned to assigned free navigation of the website (n = 931).||2.02|0.70|
90831332|NCT01419236|181535668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.32||||0.473|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.41|1.04|||Mixed Models Repeated Measure Analysis|||||1.04|-0.41|0.473
90831333|NCT01419236|181535669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.08||||0.885|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.03|0.87|||Mixed Models Repeated Measure Analysis|||||0.87|-1.03|0.885
90831334|NCT01419236|181535670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.03||||0.938|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.61|0.55|||Mixed Models Repeated Measure Analysis|||||0.55|-0.61|0.938
90831335|NCT02413918|181535680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|20.0|<|0.0094|TWO_SIDED|||||p value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons (see above). A priori threshold for significance was p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||BISS Outcomes: Mean changes in depression and mania for study completers were measured. The a priori hypothesis was a mean change of 50%.||||<0.0094
90831336|NCT02413918|181535680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||BISS Outcomes: Mean changes in mania for study completers were measured. The a priori hypothesis was a mean change of 50%.||||<0.0001
90831337|NCT04233801|181535681|OTHER|"A restricted maximum likelihood (REML) based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach was applied.The model included baseline value for the corresponding endpoint and its interaction with visit as additional covariates."|Adjusted mean|-0.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|-0.71|||Mixed model repeated measures|||||-0.71|-1.28|< 0.0001
90831338|NCT04233801|181535681|OTHER|"A restricted maximum likelihood (REML) based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach was applied.The model included baseline value for the corresponding endpoint and its interaction with visit as additional covariates."|Adjusted mean|-0.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|-0.7|||Mixed model repeated measures|||||-0.70|-1.26|< 0.0001
90831339|NCT04233801|181535682|OTHER|Logistic regression including treatment, baseline Estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), background therapy, and continuous baseline HbA1c.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.29||||0.1375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|6.83|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.83|0.77|0.1375
91023951|NCT00992264|181931372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.3|||||OR for smoking abstinence at 12 months when persons assigned to receive Proactive Email reminders were compared against persons who received No Emails (ref group).|Comparison of persons assigned to Proactive Email Outreach (n = 933) against persons assigned to receive No Proactive Email Outreach (n = 932).||1.30|0.43|
91023952|NCT00992264|181931373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.43|||||OR for use of adjunct treatment at 12 months when persons assigned to Prescriptive Tone were compared to persons assigned to receive content in a Motivational Tone (ref group).|Comparison of persons assigned to Prescriptive message tone (n = 932) against persons assigned to Motivational message tone (n = 933).||1.43|0.62|
91023953|NCT00992264|181931373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.07|||||OR for use of adjunct treatment at 12 months when persons assigned to receive a Testimonial were compared to persons assigned to receive No Testimonial (ref group).|Comparison of persons assigned to Testimonials (n = 933) against persons assigned to receive no testimonials (n = 932).||1.07|0.46|
91023954|NCT00992264|181931373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.18|||||OR for use of adjunct treatment at 12 months when persons assigned to Dictated Navigation were compared to persons not assigned to Dictated Navigation (ref group).|Comparison of persons assigned to the Dictated Navigation arm (n = 934) against persons assigned to assigned free navigation of the website (n = 931).||1.18|0.51|
91023955|NCT00992264|181931373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.03|||||OR for use of adjunct treatment at 12 months when persons assigned to Proactive Email reminders were compared to persons not assigned to receive Proactive Email reminders (ref group).|Comparison of persons assigned to Proactive Email Outreach (n = 933) against persons assigned to receive No Proactive Email Outreach (n = 932).||1.03|0.44|
91023956|NCT00909727|181931374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.6|18.3||The primary endpoint and key secondary endpoints were tested in sequence. test 1: primary (α=0.05); test 2: using Hochberg's step-up procedure on weight (Wk 24) and sweat chloride (Wk 24)(α=0.05); test 3: CFQ-R respiratory domain score (Wk 24).|Mixed Models Analysis|Denominator degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Roger approximation. No imputation of missing data was done.||The primary analysis for the primary efficacy variable was based on a Mixed-Effects Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM). The model included absolute change from baseline in percent predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) as the dependent variable, treatment (ivacaftor versus placebo) and visit (Day 15, Week 8, Week 16, and Week 24) as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect, with adjustment for the continuous baseline value of percent predicted FEV1.||18.3|6.6|<0.0001
91023957|NCT00909727|181931375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|15.5||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Denominator degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Roger approximation. no imputation of missing data was done.||Analysis for this variable was similar to that of the primary analysis of the primary efficacy endpoint, a Mixed-Effects Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM). Estimates were obtained from MMRM with dependent variable absolute change from baseline, fixed effects for categorical visit \& treatment group, \& adjustment for the continuous baseline value of percent predicted FEV1, using unstructured covariance matrix.||15.5|4.5|0.0006
91023958|NCT00909727|181931376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7||0.1092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|13.5||The primary endpoint and key secondary endpoints were tested in sequence. test 1: primary (α=0.05); test 2: using Hochberg's step-up procedure on weight (Wk 24) and sweat chloride (Wk 24)(α=0.05); test 3: CFQ-R respiratory domain score (Wk 24).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Through Week 24: Analysis for this variable was similar to that of the primary analysis of the primary efficacy endpoint, a Mixed-Effects Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), with the addition of the baseline domain score as a covariate.||13.5|-1.4|0.1092
91023959|NCT00909727|181931376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3||0.1354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|11.8||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Through Week 48: Analysis for this variable was similar to that of the primary analysis of the primary efficacy endpoint, a Mixed-Effects Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), with the addition of the baseline domain score as a covariate.||11.8|-1.6|0.1354
90831340|NCT04233801|181535682|OTHER|Logistic regression including treatment, baseline Estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), background therapy, and continuous baseline HbA1c.|Odds Ratio (OR)|6.01||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.11|17.1|||Regression, Logistic|||||17.10|2.11|0.0008
90831341|NCT04233801|181535683|OTHER|"A restricted maximum likelihood (REML) based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach was applied.The model included baseline value for the corresponding endpoint and its interaction with visit as additional covariates."|Adjusted mean|-2.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.66|-1.34|||Mixed model repeated measures|||||-1.34|-2.66|< 0.0001
90831342|NCT04233801|181535683|OTHER|"A restricted maximum likelihood (REML) based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach was applied.The model included baseline value for the corresponding endpoint and its interaction with visit as additional covariates."|Adjusted mean|-1.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|-0.67|||Mixed model repeated measures|||||-0.67|-1.96|< 0.0001
90831343|NCT04233801|181535684|OTHER|"A restricted maximum likelihood (REML) based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach was applied.The model included baseline value for the corresponding endpoint and its interaction with visit as additional covariates."|Adjusted mean|-3.6||||0.0774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.61|0.4|||Mixed model repeated measures|||||0.40|-7.61|0.0774
90831344|NCT04233801|181535684|OTHER|"A restricted maximum likelihood (REML) based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach was applied.The model included baseline value for the corresponding endpoint and its interaction with visit as additional covariates."|Adjusted mean|-1.01||||0.616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.98|2.96|||Mixed model repeated measures|||||2.96|-4.98|0.6160
90831345|NCT04233801|181535685|OTHER|"A restricted maximum likelihood (REML) based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach was applied.The model included baseline value for the corresponding endpoint and its interaction with visit as additional covariates."|Adjusted mean|-1.78||||0.1222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.05|0.48|||Mixed model repeated measures|||||0.48|-4.05|0.1222
90831346|NCT04233801|181535685|OTHER|"A restricted maximum likelihood (REML) based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach was applied.The model included baseline value for the corresponding endpoint and its interaction with visit as additional covariates."|Adjusted mean|0.65||||0.5687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|2.89|||Mixed model repeated measures|||||2.89|-1.59|0.5687
90831347|NCT04233801|181535686|OTHER|"A restricted maximum likelihood (REML) based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach was applied.The model included baseline value for the corresponding endpoint and its interaction with visit as additional covariates."|Adjusted mean|-20.05||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.73|-9.38|||Mixed model repeated measures|||||-9.38|-30.73|0.0003
90831348|NCT04233801|181535686|OTHER|"A restricted maximum likelihood (REML) based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach was applied.The model included baseline value for the corresponding endpoint and its interaction with visit as additional covariates."|Adjusted mean|-24.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.72|-13.54|||Mixed model repeated measures|||||-13.54|-34.72|<0.0001
90831349|NCT04233801|181535687|OTHER|The Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model included treatment and background therapy as classification effects, baseline PPG and baseline Estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) as the linear covariates.|Adjusted mean|-56.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.22|-34.41|||ANCOVA|||||-34.41|-78.22|<0.0001
91023960|NCT00909727|181931377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-54.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.8|-46.8||The primary endpoint and key secondary endpoints were tested in sequence. test 1: primary (α=0.05); test 2: using Hochberg's step-up procedure on weight (Wk 24) and sweat chloride (Wk 24)(α=0.05); test 3: CFQ-R respiratory domain score (Wk 24).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Through Week 24: Analysis for this variable was similar to that of the primary analysis of the primary efficacy endpoint. Estimates were from Mixed-Effects Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) with dependent variable absolute change from baseline, fixed effects for categorical visit and treatment group, and adjustment for continuous baseline value for sweat chloride and percent predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1), using unstructured covariance matrix.||-46.8|-61.8|<0.0001
91087602|NCT03286218|182058079|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses vs Placebo is 14 mm.|LS Mean Difference|20.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|16.3|24.3||||||||24.3|16.3|
91087603|NCT03286218|182058079|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses vs Placebo is 14 mm.|LS Mean Difference|23.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|19.6|27.6||||||||27.6|19.6|
91087604|NCT03286218|182058079|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Alprazolam and Lasmiditan 100 mg dose is 5 mm.|LS Mean Difference|16.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|12.8|20.8||||||||20.8|12.8|
90831350|NCT04233801|181535687|OTHER|The Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model included treatment and background therapy as classification effects, baseline PPG and baseline Estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) as the linear covariates.|Adjusted mean|-60.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-82.31|-39.11|||ANCOVA|||||-39.11|-82.31|<0.0001
90831351|NCT04233801|181535688|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76||||0.2422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|4.55|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression including treatment and continuous baseline glycosylated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c).|Odds ratio used Placebo as the reference group.|||4.55|0.68|0.2422
90831352|NCT04233801|181535688|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.7661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|2.5|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression including treatment and continuous baseline glycosylated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c).|Odds ratio used Placebo as the reference group.|||2.50|0.29|0.7661
90831353|NCT01841281|181535719|OTHER|||||||0.78||||||The p-value is for the interaction term|testing for interaction term|||||||0.78
91087605|NCT03286218|182058079|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Alprazolam and Lasmiditan 200 mg dose is 5 mm.|LS Mean Difference|12.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.1|16.1||||||||16.1|8.10|
91087606|NCT03286218|182058079|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Alprazolam and Lasmiditan 400 mg dose is 5 mm.|LS Mean Difference|8.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.8|12.8||||||||12.8|4.8|
91087607|NCT03286218|182058082|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|33.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|28.5|37.7||||||Overall Drug Liking||37.7|28.5|
91087608|NCT03286218|182058082|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|18.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|14.0|23.2||||||Overall Drug Liking||23.2|14.0|
91087609|NCT03286218|182058082|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|19.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|14.5|23.8||||||Overall Drug Liking||23.8|14.5|
91087610|NCT03286218|182058082|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|24.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|19.7|28.9||||||Overall Drug Liking||28.9|19.7|
91087611|NCT03286218|182058082|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|34.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|29.1|38.9||||||Take drug again||38.9|29.1|
91087612|NCT03286218|182058082|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|19.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|14.2|24.0||||||Take drug again||24.0|14.2|
91087613|NCT03286218|182058082|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|20.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|15.7|25.6||||||Take drug again||25.6|15.7|
91087614|NCT03286218|182058082|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|25.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|20.3|30.2||||||Take drug again||30.2|20.3|
91087615|NCT03286218|182058082|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|69.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|62.1|77.4||||||Good effects||77.4|62.1|
91087616|NCT03286218|182058082|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|35.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|27.9|43.2||||||Good effects||43.2|27.9|
91087617|NCT03286218|182058082|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|52.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|44.4|59.7||||||Good effects||59.7|44.4|
91087618|NCT03286218|182058082|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|53.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|45.4|60.6||||||Good effects||60.6|45.4|
91087619|NCT03286218|182058082|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|20.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|13.6|27.2||||||Bad effects||27.2|13.6|
91087620|NCT03286218|182058082|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.76|11.8||||||Bad effects||11.8|-1.76|
91087621|NCT03286218|182058082|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.487|14.1||||||Bad effects||14.1|0.487|
91087622|NCT03286218|182058082|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|12.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.69|19.3||||||Bad effects||19.3|5.69|
91087623|NCT03286218|182058082|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|75.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|67.2|83.5||||||Any effects||83.5|67.2|
91087624|NCT03286218|182058082|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|44.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|36.8|53.0||||||Any effects||53.0|36.8|
90831354|NCT01841281|181535720|OTHER|||||||0.09||||||The p-value is for the interaction term|testing for interaction term|||The treatment effect was tested as an interaction term between treatment and FeNO. The null hypothesis is the effect of treatment is stratified by the FeNO status. We used a regression model instead of t-test or Wilcoxon signed-rank test in order to control period and carry-over effect which is common in a cross-over study design||||0.09
91087625|NCT03286218|182058082|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|56.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|48.7|64.9||||||Any effects||64.9|48.7|
91087626|NCT03286218|182058082|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|64.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|56.7|73.0||||||Any effects||73.0|56.7|
91087627|NCT03286218|182058082|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|68.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.6|76.6||||||High||76.6|60.6|
91087628|NCT03286218|182058082|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|34.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|26.4|42.4||||||High||42.4|26.4|
91087629|NCT03286218|182058082|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|47.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|39.5|55.5||||||High||55.5|39.5|
91087630|NCT03286218|182058082|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|58.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|50.4|66.3||||||High||66.3|50.4|
91087631|NCT03286218|182058083|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91087632|NCT03286218|182058083|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.0781|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0781
91087633|NCT03286218|182058083|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.0625|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0625
91087634|NCT03286218|182058083|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.0098|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0098
91087635|NCT03286218|182058084|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-29.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-34.0|-25.9||||||Alertness/drowsiness||-25.9|-34.0|
91087636|NCT03286218|182058084|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-16.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.9|-12.8||||||Alertness/drowsiness||-12.8|-20.9|
91087637|NCT03286218|182058084|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-19.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.6|-15.5||||||Alertness/drowsiness||-15.5|-23.6|
91087638|NCT03286218|182058084|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-24.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-28.8|-20.8||||||Alertness/drowsiness||-20.8|-28.8|
91087639|NCT03286218|182058084|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-30.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-35.0|-26.5||||||Agitation/relaxation||-26.5|-35.0|
91087640|NCT03286218|182058084|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-19.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.7|-15.3||||||Agitation/relaxation||-15.3|-23.7|
91087641|NCT03286218|182058084|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-21.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-25.9|-17.5||||||Agitation/relaxation||-17.5|-25.9|
91087642|NCT03286218|182058084|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-28.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-33.0|-24.5||||||Agitation/relaxation||-24.5|-33.0|
91087643|NCT00458003|182058093|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.38
91087644|NCT00458003|182058094|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.10
91087645|NCT00643201|182058098|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Statistical Testing: non-inferiority tested at 1-sided α=0.025 with margin of 1.8. Demonstration of non-inferiority using both relative risk (RR) (margin = 1.8) and risk difference (RD) (margin = 0.035) were required to achieve the primary objective.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.839|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5965|1.1802||This is the first test in a sequential testing sequence. p-value calculated based on the Yanagawa-Tango-Hiejima test stratified by index event strata for non-inferiority. Tested at 1-sided α=0.025|Yanagawa-Tango-Hiejima|For a successful trial; rejection of the null hypotheses for both RR and RD was required.||Hypothesis that apixaban was non-inferior to enoxaparin/warfarin therapy in preventing the recurrence of VTE (nonfatal DVT or nonfatal PE)/VTE-related death.||1.1802|0.5965|<0.0001
91087646|NCT00643201|182058098|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Statistical Testing; non-inferiority tested at 1-sided α=0.025. If non-inferiority demonstrated for both RR and RD, the primary objective was achieved.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.0044|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0128|0.004||Yanagawa-Tango-Hiejima test statistic for risk difference (RD).|Yanagawa-Tango-Hiejima|||Hypothesis that apixaban was non-inferior to enoxaparin/warfarin therapy in preventing the recurrence of VTE (nonfatal DVT or nonfatalPE)/VTE-related death as measured by risk difference.||0.0040|-0.0128|<0.0001
91087647|NCT00643201|182058098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.839||||0.3128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5965|1.1802||Tested at 2-sided α=0.05 significance. Further inferential statistical testing halted due to failure to reject the null hypothesis of equivalence for VTE/VTE-related death.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Relative risk, CI, and p-value were calculated based on CMH test stratified by index event strata.||Hypothesis of apixaban therapy being superior to enoxaparin/warfarin therapy for the adjudicated endpoint. Inferential testing required demonstration of non-inferiority using both RR and RD plus demonstration of superiority for major bleeding.||1.1802|0.5965|0.3128
91087648|NCT00643201|182058099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.8151||||0.1554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6146|1.0812||The test was stratified by index event strata using alpha=0.05 level of significance. Analysis was performed on the secondary efficacy dataset; there was no imputation of missing data.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Nominal p-value is reported.||Exploratory hypothesis of apixaban therapy being superior to enoxaparin/warfarin therapy for the adjudicated endpoint.||1.0812|0.6146|0.1554
91103884|NCT01644331|182094569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-493.21||||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1176.96|190.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is a repeated measures analysis so all rows (visits) are taken into account.||190.55|-1176.96|0.157
90831355|NCT00683878|181535721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1175||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.17||Primary endpoints were tested at alpha=0.027 applying Dunnett's adjustment|ANCOVA|||||-0.17|-0.63|0.0007
90831356|NCT00683878|181535721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1175|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.31||Primary endpoints were tested at alpha=0.027 applying Dunnett's adjustment|ANCOVA|||||-0.31|-0.78|<0.0001
90831357|NCT00683878|181535722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-51.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.007|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.7|-33.2||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||||-33.2|-68.7|<0.0001
90831358|NCT00683878|181535722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-53.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.039|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.1|-35.6||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||||-35.6|-71.1|<0.0001
90831359|NCT00683878|181535723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3896|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.32|-0.79||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||||-0.79|-2.32|<0.0001
90831360|NCT00683878|181535723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3896|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.55|-1.02||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||||-1.02|-2.55|<0.0001
90831361|NCT00683878|181535724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.088|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.5|-11.4||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||||-11.4|-27.5|<0.0001
90831362|NCT00683878|181535724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.082|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.2|-16.1||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||||-16.1|-32.2|<0.0001
90831363|NCT00683878|181535725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.119||0.0496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|20.1||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05|Modified logistic regression|||||20.1|0.0|0.0496
90831364|NCT00683878|181535725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.253||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.1|26.7||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05|Modified logistic regression|||||26.7|6.1|0.0018
90831365|NCT00683878|181535726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6006||0.1566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.03|0.33||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||||0.33|-2.03|0.1566
90831366|NCT00683878|181535726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5995||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.73|-0.37||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||||-0.37|-2.73|0.0101
90831367|NCT00683878|181535727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4838|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.53|-0.62||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05. The comparison was stopped due to the preceding test (PLACEBO + Pio vs Dapa 5MG + Pio) not statistically significant P value = 0.1566.|ANCOVA|||||-0.62|-2.53|
90831368|NCT00683878|181535727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4688|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.83|-0.98||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||||-0.98|-2.83|<0.0001
91087649|NCT00643201|182058100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.7994||||0.1848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5737|1.1137||The test was stratified by index event strata using alpha=0.05 level of significance. . Nominal p-value is reported.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysis was performed on the secondary efficacy dataset; there was no imputation of missing data.||Exploratory hypothesis of apixaban therapy being superior to enoxaparin/warfarin therapy for the adjudicated endpoint.||1.1137|0.5737|0.1848
90831369|NCT04024891|181535728|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.7|-1.3|<0.0001
90831370|NCT04073186|181535759|SUPERIORITY|The superiority of the First wearing Cycle was concluded if the lower confidence limit of leastsquare mean as greater than 32.|Least-square Mean|59.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.37|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.6|64.0|||Linear Mixed Model|the Kenward and Roger method was used for the denominator degrees of freedom.||||64.0|54.6|
90831371|NCT04073186|181535760|SUPERIORITY|The superiority of the Test lens was concluded if the upper confidence limit of least-square mean was below the pre-defined threshold 0.10 logMAR.|Least-square Mean|-0.084|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0191|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.124|-0.044||Distance (4 Meter)|Linear Mixed Model|The Kenward and Roger Method was used for the demoninator degrees of freedom.||||-0.044|-0.124|
90831372|NCT04073186|181535760|SUPERIORITY|The superiority of the Test lens was concluded if the upper confidence limit of least-square mean was below the pre-defined threshold 0.17 logMAR.|Least-square Mean|-0.028|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0191|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.068|0.012|||Linear Mixed Model|The Kenward and Roger Method was used for the demoninator degrees of freedom||Intermediate (64 CM)||0.012|-0.068|
90831373|NCT04073186|181535760|SUPERIORITY|The superiority of the Test lens was concluded if the upper confidence limit of least-square mean was below the pre-defined threshold 0.17 logMAR|Least-square Means|0.037|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0191|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.003|0.077|||Linear Mixed Model|The Kenward and Roger Method was used for the demoninator degrees of freedom||Near (40 CM)||0.077|-0.003|
90831374|NCT04073186|181535761|SUPERIORITY|The superiority of the Test lens at 4-week followup compared to it at 2-week follow-up will beconcluded if the lower confidence limit of leastsquare mean difference is greater than 0.|Least-square Mean Difference|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|-0.1|||Linear Mixed Model|the Kenward and Roger method was used for the denominator degrees of freedom.|LSM difference was calculated as Second Wearing Cycle minus First Wearing Cycle|||-0.1|-8.1|
90831375|NCT05757648|181535777|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.005
90831376|NCT05757648|181535778|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.775|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.775
90831377|NCT05757648|181535779|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.682|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.682
90831378|NCT02201524|181535802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square (LS) mean difference|-5.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.42|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.15|-1.01||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo: Longitudinal analysis of covariance (LANCOVA) model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.01|-9.15|
90894164|NCT01984697|181654082|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the seroconversion percentage difference for Girls and Boys 9 to 14 Years - Young Women 16 to 26 years is \> -5.|Seroconversion percentage difference|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||2.2|-1.0|<0.001
90894165|NCT01984697|181654083|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the seroconversion percentage difference for Girls 9 to 14 Years - Young Women 16 to 26 years is \> -5.|Seroconversion percentage difference|1.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|3.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||3.8|0.1|<0.001
90894166|NCT01984697|181654083|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the seroconversion percentage difference for Boys 9 to 14 Years - Young Women 16 to 26 years is \> -5.|Seroconversion percentage difference|1.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|3.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||3.8|0.1|<0.001
90894167|NCT01984697|181654083|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the seroconversion percentage difference for Girls and Boys 9 to 14 Years - Young Women 16 to 26 years is \> -5.|Seroconversion percentage difference|1.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|3.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||3.8|0.1|<0.001
91023961|NCT00909727|181931377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-53.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.9|-46.0||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Through Week 48: Analysis for this variable was similar to that of the primary analysis of the primary efficacy endpoint. Estimates were from Mixed-Effects Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) with dependent variable absolute change from baseline, fixed effects for categorical visit and treatment group, and adjustment for continuous baseline value for sweat chloride and percent predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1), using unstructured covariance matrix.||-46.0|-60.9|<0.0001
91087650|NCT00643201|182058101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.6236||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4682|0.8306||The test was stratified by index event strata using alpha=0.05 level of significance. Nominal p-value is reported.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Exploratory hypothesis of apixaban therapy being superior to enoxaparin/warfarin therapy for the adjudicated endpoint.||0.8306|0.4682|0.0011
90831379|NCT02201524|181535802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-5.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.375|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.61|-1.62||||||PF-04965842 400 mg vs Placebo: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.62|-9.61|
90831380|NCT02201524|181535802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-9.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.506|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.19|-5.77||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||-5.77|-14.19|
90831381|NCT02201524|181535803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-9.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.291|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.19|4.56||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 1: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||4.56|-23.19|
90831382|NCT02201524|181535803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-11.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.177|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-24.87|2.5||||||PF-04965842 400 mg vs Placebo at Week 1: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||2.50|-24.87|
90894168|NCT01984697|181654084|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the seroconversion percentage difference for Girls 9 to 14 Years - Young Women 16 to 26 years is \> -5.|Seroconversion percentage difference|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||1.8|-1.7|<0.001
91023962|NCT00909727|181931378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.9||The primary endpoint and key secondary endpoints were tested in sequence. test 1: primary (α=0.05); test 2: using Hochberg's step-up procedure on weight (Wk 24) and sweat chloride (Wk 24)(α=0.05); test 3: CFQ-R respiratory domain score (Wk 24).|Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 24: Analysis for this variable was based on a Linear Mixed Effect (LME) model with dependent variable weight; treatment as a fixed effect; and intercept, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as random effects, with adjustment for baseline percent predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) severity.||2.9|0.9|0.0004
90831383|NCT02201524|181535803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-19.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.504|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-33.45|-4.99||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 1: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||-4.99|-33.45|
90831384|NCT02201524|181535803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.387|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.71|13.11||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 2: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||13.11|-21.71|
90894169|NCT01984697|181654084|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the seroconversion percentage difference for Boys 9 to 14 Years - Young Women 16 to 26 years is \> -5.|Seroconversion percentage difference|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||2.1|-1.0|<0.001
90894170|NCT01984697|181654084|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the seroconversion percentage difference for Girls and Boys 9 to 14 Years - Young Women 16 to 26 years is \> -5.|Seroconversion percentage difference|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||2.1|-1.0|<0.001
90831385|NCT02201524|181535803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-18.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.273|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-35.25|-0.82||||||PF-04965842 400 mg vs Placebo at Week 2: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.82|-35.25|
91087651|NCT00643201|182058102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.5532|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4658|0.6569||The test was stratified by index event strata using alpha=0.05 level of significance. Nominal p-value is reported.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Exploratory hypothesis of apixaban therapy being superior to enoxaparin/warfarin therapy for the adjudicated endpoint.||0.6569|0.4658|<0.0001
90831386|NCT02201524|181535803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-27.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.646|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-44.9|-9.23||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 2: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||-9.23|-44.90|
91087652|NCT00643201|182058103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.6347|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3735|1.0787|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Relative Risk and CI was calculated based on CMH test stratified by index event strata.|Exploratory hypothesis of apixaban therapy being superior to enoxaparin/warfarin therapy for the adjudicated endpoint.||1.0787|0.3735|
91087653|NCT00643201|182058104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0935|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6363|1.8793|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Relative Risk and CI was calculated based on CMH test stratified by index event strata.|Exploratory hypothesis of apixaban therapy being superior to enoxaparin/warfarin therapy for the adjudicated endpoint.||1.8793|0.6363|
91087654|NCT00643201|182058105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.7521|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.356|1.5889|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Relative Risk and CI was calculated based on CMH test stratified by index event strata.|Exploratory hypothesis of apixaban therapy being superior to enoxaparin/warfarin therapy for the adjudicated endpoint.||1.5889|0.3560|
91087655|NCT00643201|182058106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.6539|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3419|1.2508|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Relative Risk and CI was calculated based on CMH test stratified by index event strata.|Exploratory hypothesis of apixaban therapy being superior to enoxaparin/warfarin therapy for the adjudicated endpoint.||1.2508|0.3419|
91087656|NCT00643201|182058107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.7934|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5287|1.1906|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Relative Risk and CI was calculated based on CMH test stratified by index event strata.|Exploratory hypothesis of apixaban therapy being superior to enoxaparin/warfarin therapy for the adjudicated endpoint.||1.1906|0.5287|
91087657|NCT00643201|182058108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.307|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1728|0.5452||p-value calculated on the CMH test stratified by index event strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Relative risk and CI were calculated based on CMH test stratified by index event strata.|Hypothesis: apixaban therapy being superior to enoxaparin/warfarin therapy for the adjudicated endpoint. As per the hierarchical statistical testing cascade, inferential testing for adjudicated major bleeding occurred because non-inferiority for VTE/VTE-related death (Primary efficacy endpoint) was demonstrated earlier. Rejection of the null hypothesis for equivalence for major bleeding allowed inferential testing for superiority of VTE/VTE-related death.||0.5452|0.1728|<0.0001
91087658|NCT00643201|182058109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.441|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3566|0.5453||Tested at 2-sided alpha=0.05 significance.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Nominal p-value is reported.|Relative Risk and CI was calculated based on CMH test stratified by index event strata.|Exploratory hypothesis of apixaban therapy being superior to enoxaparin/warfarin therapy for the adjudicated endpoint. Inferential testing was not conducted because the null hypothesis pertaining to superiority for VTE/VTE-related death was not rejected.||0.5453|0.3566|<0.0001
91087659|NCT00643201|182058110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.4793|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3815|0.6022||Tested at 2-sided alpha=0.05 significance.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Nominal p-value is reported.|Relative Risk and CI was calculated based on CMH test stratified by index event strata.|Exploratory hypothesis of apixaban therapy being superior to enoxaparin/warfarin therapy for the adjudicated endpoint.||0.6022|0.3815|<0.0001
91087660|NCT00643201|182058111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.6182|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5432|0.7034||Tested at 2-sided alpha=0.05 significance.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Nominal p-value is reported.|Relative Risk and CI was calculated based on CMH test stratified by index event strata.|Exploratory hypothesis of apixaban therapy being superior to enoxaparin/warfarin therapy for the adjudicated endpoint.||0.7034|0.5432|<0.0001
91087661|NCT00643201|182058112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.5937|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5318|0.6629||Tested at 2-sided alpha=0.05 significance.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Nominal p-value is reported.|Relative Risk and CI was calculated based on CMH test stratified by index event strata.|Exploratory hypothesis of apixaban therapy being superior to enoxaparin/warfarin therapy for the adjudicated endpoint.||0.6629|0.5318|<0.0001
91087662|NCT02346708|182058121|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.07||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.56|0.42||We determined whether there was a significant group difference between the real and sham treated PD-MCI patients on the DRS-2 change following rTMS using mixed model regression (MMR) to fit longitudinal models.|Mixed Models Analysis|degrees of freedom: 46||We estimated a sample size of 20 per group would provide at least 80% power at a significance level of 0.05 to detect a between-group difference of 10 on the Matthis Dementia Rating Scale-2, an effect size similar to prior studies of rivastigmine.||0.42|-4.56|0.1
90831387|NCT02201524|181535803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-10.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.013|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-28.53|8.39||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 3: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||8.39|-28.53|
91087663|NCT03416270|182058122|OTHER|||||||0.36||||||12 weeks|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.36
90831388|NCT02201524|181535803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-29.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.793|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-47.33|-11.13||||||PF-04965842 400 mg vs Placebo at Week 3: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||-11.13|-47.33|
90831389|NCT02201524|181535803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-49.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.299|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-68.92|-31.05||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 3: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||-31.05|-68.92|
90831390|NCT02201524|181535803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-24.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.33|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-43.26|-5.24||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||-5.24|-43.26|
91087664|NCT03416270|182058122|OTHER|||||||0.56||||||1 week|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.56
91087665|NCT03416270|182058123|OTHER|||||||0.303|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.303
91087666|NCT03416270|182058124|OTHER|||||||0.438|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.438
91087667|NCT03416270|182058125|OTHER|||||||0.599|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.599
91087668|NCT03416270|182058126|OTHER|||||||0.92|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.92
91087669|NCT03416270|182058127|OTHER|||||||0.405|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.405
91087670|NCT03416270|182058128|OTHER|||||||0.536|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.536
91087671|NCT03416270|182058129|OTHER|||||||0.443|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.443
90894171|NCT01984697|181654085|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the seroconversion percentage difference for Girls 9 to 14 Years - Young Women 16 to 26 years is \> -5.|Seroconversion percentage difference|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||1.7|-1.7|<0.001
90894172|NCT01984697|181654085|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the seroconversion percentage difference for Boys 9 to 14 Years - Young Women 16 to 26 years is \> -5.|Seroconversion percentage difference|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||2.0|-1.0|<0.001
90957019|NCT00706433|181793708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6116||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.6116
90831391|NCT02201524|181535803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-27.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.155|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-46.18|-8.75||||||PF-04965842 400 mg vs Placebo at Week 4: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||-8.75|-46.18|
90831392|NCT02201524|181535803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-52.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.697|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-72.24|-33.02||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||-33.02|-72.24|
90831393|NCT02201524|181535803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-17.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.605|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-35.8|-0.15|||LANCOVA|||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 5: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.15|-35.80|
90831394|NCT02201524|181535803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-14.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.513|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-32.44|2.88||||||PF-04965842 400 mg vs Placebo at Week 5: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||2.88|-32.44|
90831395|NCT02201524|181535803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-47.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.125|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-66.61|-29.27||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 5: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||-29.27|-66.61|
90831396|NCT02201524|181535803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-21.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.459|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-41.0|-2.49||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 6: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||-2.49|-41.00|
90831397|NCT02201524|181535803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-17.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.416|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-36.92|1.42||||||PF-04965842 400 mg vs Placebo at Week 6: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||1.42|-36.92|
90831398|NCT02201524|181535803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-35.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.893|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-55.85|-15.9||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 6: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||-15.90|-55.85|
90831399|NCT02201524|181535803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-10.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.985|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-32.57|11.07||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 8: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||11.07|-32.57|
90831400|NCT02201524|181535803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-13.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.902|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-34.71|8.64||||||PF-04965842 400 mg vs Placebo at Week 8: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||8.64|-34.71|
91023963|NCT00909727|181931378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|4.2||P-value is for the treatment effect at Week 48 (obtained as a linear contrast of treatment at Day 336). There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 48: Analysis for this variable was based on a Linear Mixed Effect (LME) model with random intercept and random slope, treatment as a fixed effect, and visit (days on study) and treatment by visit interaction as random effects, with adjustment for categorical baseline percent predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) severity.||4.2|1.3|0.0002
90831401|NCT02201524|181535803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-34.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.69|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-57.44|-11.48||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 8: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||-11.48|-57.44|
90831402|NCT02201524|181535804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.626|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.73|0.72||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 1: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||0.72|-4.73|
90831403|NCT02201524|181535804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.603|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.99|0.38||||||PF-04965842 400 mg vs Placebo at Week 1: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||0.38|-4.99|
90831404|NCT02201524|181535804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-3.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.668|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.45|-0.86||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 1: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.86|-6.45|
91023964|NCT02491788|181931423|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
91023965|NCT00672620|181931429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.036||0.577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|1.46||Pre-specified sequential statistical testing procedure indicates that when p-value \>0.05, hierarchical testing stops and for subsequent endpoints in the sequence a nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and center as fixed factors, baseline HAM-D24 as covariate.||All statistical tests were 2-sided with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and with P-values evaluated at the 5% significance level (ie, statistical significance if P\<0.05). To control for multiplicity, a pre-specified sequential testing procedure was applied to compare 5 mg and 2.5 mg vortioxetine to placebo; as soon as an endpoint was non-significant at 0.05, the testing procedure stopped for all subsequent endpoints.||1.46|-2.61|0.577
91087672|NCT03416270|182058130|OTHER|||||||0.849|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.849
90831405|NCT02201524|181535804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.032|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.49|2.32||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 2: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||2.32|-4.49|
90831406|NCT02201524|181535804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-3.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.011|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.23|-0.49||||||PF-04965842 400 mg vs Placebo at Week 2: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.49|-7.23|
91087673|NCT03416270|182058131|OTHER|||||||0.013|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.013
91087674|NCT03416270|182058132|OTHER|||||||0.844|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.844
91087675|NCT03416270|182058133|OTHER|||||||0.262|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.262
91087676|NCT03416270|182058134|OTHER|||||||0.802|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.802
91087677|NCT03416270|182058135|OTHER|||||||0.327|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.327
91087678|NCT03416270|182058136|OTHER|||||||0.618|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.618
90831407|NCT02201524|181535804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-5.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.084|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.65|-1.67||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 2: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.67|-8.65|
90831408|NCT02201524|181535804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.224|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.07|1.39||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 3: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||1.39|-6.07|
91087679|NCT03416270|182058137|OTHER|||||||0.946|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.946
91087680|NCT03416270|182058138|OTHER|||||||0.53||||||12 week|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.53
91087681|NCT03416270|182058138|OTHER|||||||0.89||||||1 week|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.89
91087682|NCT03416270|182058139|OTHER|||||||0.26||||||12 weeks|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.26
90831409|NCT02201524|181535804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-6.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.177|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.78|-2.47||||||PF-04965842 400 mg vs Placebo at Week 3: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||-2.47|-9.78|
90831410|NCT02201524|181535804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-9.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.286|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.22|-5.56||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 3: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||-5.56|-13.22|
90831411|NCT02201524|181535804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-3.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.054|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.71|0.21||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 5: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||0.21|-6.71|
91087683|NCT03416270|182058139|OTHER|||||||0.56||||||1 week|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.56
91087684|NCT04556760|182058168|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-132.9528||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-256.5082|-9.3973|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (AZD9567 72mg vs Prednisolone 40mg)||-9.3973|-256.5082|0.036
91087685|NCT04556760|182058168|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-142.033||||0.432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-554.8722|270.8061|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (AZD9567 40mg vs Prednisolone 20mg)||270.8061|-554.8722|0.432
91087686|NCT04556760|182058168|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-126.8829||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-236.0426|-17.7233|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (Placebo vs Prednisolone 5mg)||-17.7233|-236.0426|0.030
91087687|NCT04556760|182058169|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5067|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.082|-0.9314|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (AZD9567 72mg vs Prednisolone 40mg)||-0.9314|-2.0820|<0.001
91087688|NCT04556760|182058169|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1099|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7257|-0.4941|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (AZD9567 40mg vs Prednisolone 20mg)||-0.4941|-1.7257|<0.001
91087689|NCT04556760|182058169|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1601||||0.547||95.0|-0.693|0.3729|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (Placebo vs Prednisolone 5mg)||0.3729|-0.6930|0.547
91087690|NCT04556760|182058170|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5015|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2258|-0.7773|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (AZD9567 72mg vs Prednisolone 40mg \[00 to 24 h\])||-0.7773|-2.2258|<0.001
91087691|NCT04556760|182058170|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8643|||<|0.001||95.0|-2.5611|-1.1674|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (AZD9567 72mg vs Prednisolone 40mg \[24 to 48 h\])||-1.1674|-2.5611|<0.001
91087692|NCT04556760|182058170|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5998|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3025|-0.8971|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (AZD9567 72mg vs Prednisolone 40mg \[48 to 72 h\])||-0.8971|-2.3025|<0.001
91087693|NCT04556760|182058170|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8474||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4465|-0.2484|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (AZD9567 40mg vs Prednisolone 20mg \[00 to 24 h\])||-0.2484|-1.4465|0.013
91087694|NCT04556760|182058170|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7778||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6022|0.0466|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (AZD9567 40mg vs Prednisolone 20mg \[24 to 48 h\])||0.0466|-1.6022|0.061
91087695|NCT04556760|182058170|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.143||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7622|-0.5238|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (AZD9567 40mg vs Prednisolone 20mg \[48 to 72 h\])||-0.5238|-1.7622|0.003
91087696|NCT04556760|182058170|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8338|0.1138|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (Placebo vs Prednisolone 5 mg \[00 to 24 h\])||0.1138|-0.8338|0.125
91087697|NCT04556760|182058170|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0845||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9706|0.8016|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (Placebo vs Prednisolone 5 mg \[24 to 48 h\])||0.8016|-0.9706|0.840
91087698|NCT04556760|182058170|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1298||||0.571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.646|0.3864|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (Placebo vs Prednisolone 5 mg \[48 to 72 h\])||0.3864|-0.6460|0.571
91087699|NCT04556760|182058171|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (AZD9567 72mg vs Prednisolone 40mg)||0.40|-0.55|0.753
91087700|NCT04556760|182058171|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (AZD9567 40mg vs Prednisolone 20mg)||0.37|-0.46|0.802
91087701|NCT04556760|182058171|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (Placebo vs Prednisolone 5mg)||0.37|-0.37|0.985
91087702|NCT04556760|182058172|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20498.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10819.2|30178.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (AZD9567 72mg vs Prednisolone 40mg)||30178.2|10819.2|<0.001
91087703|NCT04556760|182058172|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3321.4||||0.659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12975.8|19618.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (AZD9567 40mg vs Prednisolone 20mg)||19618.6|-12975.8|0.659
91087704|NCT04556760|182058172|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2698.8||||0.521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14849.0|9451.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (Placebo vs Prednisolone 5mg)||9451.3|-14849.0|0.521
91087705|NCT04556760|182058173|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1002.5864||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1620.215|-384.9577|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (AZD9567 72mg vs Prednisolone 40mg)||-384.9577|-1620.2150|0.003
91087706|NCT04556760|182058173|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|40.9836||||0.865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-526.6968|608.664|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (AZD9567 40mg vs Prednisolone 20mg)||608.6640|-526.6968|0.865
90831412|NCT02201524|181535804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.035|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.4|0.45||||||PF-04965842 400 mg vs Placebo at Week 5: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||0.45|-6.40|
90831413|NCT02201524|181535804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-8.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.167|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.24|-4.95||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 5: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||-4.95|-12.24|
91023966|NCT00672620|181931429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.038||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.58|0.5|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and center as fixed factors, baseline HAM-D24 as covariate.||||0.50|-3.58|0.138
91023967|NCT00672620|181931429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.047||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.02|-0.91|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and center as fixed factors, baseline HAM-D24 as covariate.||||-0.91|-5.02|0.005
91023968|NCT02965820|181931441|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.003|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||=0.0030
91023969|NCT03051256|181931457|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0122|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0122
90831414|NCT02201524|181535804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-3.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.321|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.89|-0.08||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 6: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.08|-7.89|
90894173|NCT01984697|181654085|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the seroconversion percentage difference for Girls and Boys 9 to 14 Years - Young Women 16 to 26 years is \> -5.|Seroconversion percentage difference|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||2.0|-1.1|<0.001
91023970|NCT03051256|181931457|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0308|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0308
91023971|NCT03051256|181931458|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0103|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0103
91087707|NCT04556760|182058173|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|101.4137||||0.754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-628.8097|831.637|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (Placebo vs Prednisolone 5mg)||831.6370|-628.8097|0.754
91087708|NCT04556760|182058174|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1225.905||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2007.2241|-444.5859|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (AZD9567 72mg vs Prednisolone 40mg)||-444.5859|-2007.2241|0.004
91087709|NCT04556760|182058174|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-466.9802||||0.313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1521.5088|587.5485|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (AZD9567 40mg vs Prednisolone 20mg)||587.5485|-1521.5088|0.313
91087710|NCT04556760|182058174|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-375.3161||||0.404||95.0|-1433.6265|682.9943|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (Placebo vs Prednisolone 5mg)||682.9943|-1433.6265|0.404
91087711|NCT04556760|182058175|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|365.6323||||0.608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1097.7973|1829.0618|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (AZD9567 72mg vs Prednisolone 40mg)||1829.0618|-1097.7973|0.608
91087712|NCT04556760|182058175|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|188.236||||0.897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3214.3323|3590.8043|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (AZD9567 40mg vs Prednisolone 20mg)||3590.8043|-3214.3323|0.897
91023972|NCT03051256|181931458|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0039|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0039
91023973|NCT03051256|181931459|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1237|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1237
91023974|NCT03051256|181931459|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1017|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1017
91023975|NCT03051256|181931460|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0066|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0066
91023976|NCT03051256|181931460|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0014|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0014
91023977|NCT03051256|181931461|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0245|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0245
91023978|NCT03051256|181931461|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0253|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0253
91023979|NCT03051256|181931462|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0454|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0454
91023980|NCT03051256|181931462|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0043|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0043
91023981|NCT03051256|181931463|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0177|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0177
91023982|NCT03051256|181931463|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0072|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0072
91023983|NCT03051256|181931464|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0895|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0895
91023984|NCT03051256|181931464|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0109|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0109
91023985|NCT01578707|181931478|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
91023986|NCT01578707|181931479|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<.0001
91023987|NCT01578707|181931480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1653|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.1653
91023988|NCT02063698|181931484|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 2: BPI Worst Pain Past 24 Hours||||1.0
90831415|NCT02201524|181535804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.304|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.68|0.07||||||PF-04965842 400 mg vs Placebo at Week 6: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||0.07|-7.68|
90831416|NCT02201524|181535804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-6.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.412|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.0|-2.89||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 6: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||-2.89|-11.00|
91087713|NCT04556760|182058175|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1061.4494||||0.381||95.0|-3588.2233|1465.3244|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (Placebo vs Prednisolone 5mg)||1465.3244|-3588.2233|0.381
90831417|NCT02201524|181535804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.607|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.65|3.11||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 8: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||3.11|-5.65|
90831418|NCT02201524|181535804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.586|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.18|1.51||||||PF-04965842 400 mg vs Placebo at Week 8: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||1.51|-7.18|
91023989|NCT02063698|181931484|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 3: BPI Worst Pain Past 24 Hours||||0.45
91023990|NCT02063698|181931484|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 4: BPI Worst Pain Past 24 Hours||||0.38
91023991|NCT02063698|181931484|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 5: BPI Worst Pain Past 24 Hours||||0.12
91023992|NCT02063698|181931484|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 6: BPI Worst Pain Past 24 Hours||||0.70
91023993|NCT02063698|181931484|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 7: BPI Worst Pain Past 24 Hours||||1.0
91023994|NCT02063698|181931484|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 8: BPI Worst Pain Past 24 Hours||||0.44
91023995|NCT02063698|181931485|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||Equal variance t-test|||||||0.44
91023996|NCT02063698|181931486|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Equal variance t-test|||||||0.13
91087714|NCT04556760|182058176|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|60.4211|||<|0.001||95.0|29.4904|91.3518|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (AZD9567 72mg vs Prednisolone 40mg)||91.3518|29.4904|<0.001
91023997|NCT02063698|181931488|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.025|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.025
91023998|NCT02063698|181931489|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.01
91023999|NCT02063698|181931490|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.02
91024000|NCT02063698|181931491|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.01
91024001|NCT02063698|181931492|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.04
91024002|NCT03124381|181931504|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority concluded if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (based on ANCOVA) is less than 15 percentage points. Terms for treatment, gender, center as factors and baseline as covariate.|Mean Difference (Net)|3.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.164|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.04|13.42||||||Non-inferiority test performed after significance vs. baseline confirmed for each cell. The null hypothesis for the non-inferiority test was H0: A-B≥15%, where A and B are the mean percent change at Week 12 of global face total acne lesion count of the Gel-Cream + Acne Mask cell and Acne Mask cell, respectively.||13.42|-7.04|
91024003|NCT03124381|181931504|SUPERIORITY|Superiority concluded if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval of the treatment difference is less than 0. Terms for treatment, gender, and center as factors and baseline score as covariate.|Mean Difference (Net)|3.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.164||0.538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.04|13.42|||ANCOVA|||Superiority test performed after non-inferiority confirmed as described above. The null hypothesis for the superiority test was H0: A-B = 0, where A and B are the mean percent change at Week 12 of global face total acne lesion count of the Acne Mask and the Gel-Cream + Acne Mask cell, respectively.||13.42|-7.04|0.538
91024004|NCT01365845|181931549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Non-parametric paired t-test (Wilcoxon)|29.1||||0.0078|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0078
91024005|NCT00951899|181931576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006||95.0||||A P value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of mean total GLP-1 concentration from baseline to 12 weeks in Colesevelam subjects||||0.0006
91024006|NCT00951899|181931576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of mean total GLP-1 concentration from baseline to 12 weeks in Placebo subjects||||0.30
91024007|NCT01123980|181931584|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was considered to be confirmed if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was below or equal to 0.4% or equivalent if the p-value for the one-sided test of H0: D \> 0.4% against HA: D =\< 0.4%, was less than or equal to 2.5%, where D is the mean treatment difference (investigational product minus comparator). Furthermore, superiority of BIAsp 30 OD over insulin glargine OD was shown if the upper limit of the 95% CI for the difference is lower than 0%|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001||95.0|-0.25|0.02||The p-values correspond to one-sided hypotheses of either non-inferiority or superiority, statistical significance level is 2.5%.|ANCOVA|The estimates are from a normal linear regression model with treatment, country and previous OADs as factors and baseline HbA1c as a covariate||H0: The mean treatment difference (BIAsp 30 minus insulin glargine) \> 0.4%. HA: The mean treatment difference (BIAsp 30 minus insulin glargine) =\< 0.4%. Sample size was calculated to achieve a power of at least 90%, assuming an equal change in HbA1c and a common standard deviation of 1.25%||0.02|-0.25|< 0.001
91024008|NCT01123980|181931585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.24|0.19||P-value for parallelism is overall test for parallel time profiles between treatment groups.|Mixed Models Analysis||Before breakfast|Repeated measures mixed model with an unstructured residual covarience matrix, including treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, country and previous OADs as factors.||0.19|-0.24|<0.001
91024009|NCT01123980|181931585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.45|0.58||P-value for parallelism is overall test for parallel time profiles between treatment groups.|Mixed Models Analysis||Two hours after breakfast|Repeated measures mixed model with an unstructured residual covarience matrix, including treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, country and previous OADs as factors.||0.58|-0.45|<0.001
91087715|NCT04556760|182058176|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|26.4529||||0.432||95.0|-44.9414|97.8471|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (AZD9567 40mg vs Prednisolone 20mg)||97.8471|-44.9414|0.432
90831419|NCT02201524|181535804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-6.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.758|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.15|-1.89||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 8: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.89|-11.15|
90831420|NCT02201524|181535805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.5|19.6||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 1: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||19.6|-21.5|
90831421|NCT02201524|181535805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|17.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.9|40.3||||||PF-04965842 400 mg vs Placebo at Week 1: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||40.3|-5.9|
90831422|NCT02201524|181535805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|14.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.3|38.0|||Difference in Percentage Analysed using|||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 1: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||38.0|-9.3|
90831423|NCT02201524|181535805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-14.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-38.0|9.3||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 2: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||9.3|-38.0|
90831424|NCT02201524|181535805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-25.4|29.1||||||PF-04965842 400 mg vs Placebo at Week 2: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||29.1|-25.4|
90831425|NCT02201524|181535805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|20.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.2|48.3||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 2: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||48.3|-10.2|
90831426|NCT02201524|181535805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-26.7|31.0||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 3: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||31.0|-26.7|
90831427|NCT02201524|181535805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|23.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.9|49.8||||||PF-04965842 400 mg vs Placebo at Week 3: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||49.8|-6.9|
90831428|NCT02201524|181535805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|67.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|36.4|85.3||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 3: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||85.3|36.4|
90831429|NCT02201524|181535805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|41.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.6|67.1||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||67.1|7.6|
90831430|NCT02201524|181535805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|41.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.6|67.1||||||PF-04965842 400 mg vs Placebo at Week 4: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||67.1|7.6|
90831431|NCT02201524|181535805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|55.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|19.7|77.6||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||77.6|19.7|
90831432|NCT02201524|181535805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|12.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.4|43.4||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 5: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||43.4|-21.4|
90831433|NCT02201524|181535805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-29.4|36.4||||||PF-04965842 400 mg vs Placebo at Week 5: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||36.4|-29.4|
91024010|NCT01123980|181931585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.31|0.58||P-value for parallelism is overall test for parallel time profiles between treatment groups.|Mixed Models Analysis||Before lunch|Repeated measures mixed model with an unstructured residual covarience matrix, including treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, country and previous OADs as factors.||0.58|-0.31|<0.001
90831434|NCT02201524|181535805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|45.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|17.1|69.0||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 5: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||69.0|17.1|
90831435|NCT02201524|181535805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|36.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.9|63.4||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 6: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||63.4|1.9|
90831436|NCT02201524|181535805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|14.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.4|47.0||||||PF-04965842 400 mg vs Placebo at Week 6: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||47.0|-21.4|
90831437|NCT02201524|181535805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|24.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.8|54.9||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 6: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||54.9|-11.8|
90831438|NCT02201524|181535805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-40.4|32.3||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 8: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||32.3|-40.4|
90831439|NCT02201524|181535805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|13.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.7|48.2||||||PF-04965842 400 mg vs Placebo at Week 8: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||48.2|-23.7|
90831440|NCT02201524|181535805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|12.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-28.0|49.3||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 8: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||49.3|-28.0|
90894174|NCT01984697|181654086|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the seroconversion percentage difference for Girls 9 to 14 Years - Young Women 16 to 26 years is \> -5.|Seroconversion percentage difference|1.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|4.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||4.0|-0.7|<0.001
91087716|NCT04556760|182058176|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.0243||||0.282||95.0|-74.0731|26.0245|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (Placebo vs Prednisolone 5mg)||26.0245|-74.0731|0.282
90831441|NCT02201524|181535806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.2|27.0||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 1: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||27.0|-10.2|
90831442|NCT02201524|181535806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.0|10.2||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 2: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||10.2|-27.0|
90831443|NCT02201524|181535806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|8.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.4|32.2||||||PF-04965842 400 mg vs Placebo at Week 2: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||32.2|-14.4|
90831444|NCT02201524|181535806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|17.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.7|43.6||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 2: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||43.6|-6.7|
90831445|NCT02201524|181535806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-28.8|12.1||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 3: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||12.1|-28.8|
90831446|NCT02201524|181535806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|32.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.4|55.4||||||PF-04965842 400 mg vs Placebo at Week 3: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||55.4|5.4|
90831447|NCT02201524|181535806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|28.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|55.3||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 3: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||55.3|0.8|
90831448|NCT02201524|181535806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.3|27.3||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||27.3|-27.3|
90831449|NCT02201524|181535806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|33.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|59.8||||||PF-04965842 400 mg vs Placebo at Week 4: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||59.8|1.0|
90831450|NCT02201524|181535806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|43.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.8|69.3||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||69.3|8.8|
90831451|NCT02201524|181535806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.1|49.3||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 5: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||49.3|2.1|
90831452|NCT02201524|181535806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|25.4|71.8||||||PF-04965842 400 mg vs Placebo at Week 5: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||71.8|25.4|
90831453|NCT02201524|181535806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|66.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|39.2|86.1||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 5: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||86.1|39.2|
90831454|NCT02201524|181535806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-36.3|18.3||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 6: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||18.3|-36.3|
90831455|NCT02201524|181535806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|41.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.2|68.5||||||PF-04965842 400 mg vs Placebo at Week 6: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||68.5|6.2|
90831456|NCT02201524|181535806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|31.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.9|60.5||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 6: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||60.5|-2.9|
90831457|NCT02201524|181535806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-15.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-47.8|13.7||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 8: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||13.7|-47.8|
90831458|NCT02201524|181535806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-6.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-40.6|24.8||||||PF-04965842 400 mg vs Placebo at Week 8: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||24.8|-40.6|
90831459|NCT02201524|181535806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-36.4|36.4||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 8: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||36.4|-36.4|
91087717|NCT04556760|182058177|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6023||||0.531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5463|1.3416|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (AZD9567 72mg vs Prednisolone 40mg)||1.3416|-2.5463|0.531
90831460|NCT02201524|181535807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.2|27.0||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 1: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||27.0|-10.2|
90831461|NCT02201524|181535807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.0|10.2||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 2: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||10.2|-27.0|
90831462|NCT02201524|181535807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.7|22.8||||||PF-04965842 400 mg vs Placebo at Week 2: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||22.8|-20.7|
90831463|NCT02201524|181535807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.3|24.8||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 2: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||24.8|-20.3|
90831464|NCT02201524|181535807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|13.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.6|33.8||||||PF-04965842 400 mg vs Placebo at Week 3: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||33.8|-5.6|
90831465|NCT02201524|181535807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|36.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|15.3|61.1||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 3: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||61.1|15.3|
90831466|NCT02201524|181535807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|33.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|11.3|57.3||||||PF-04965842 400 mg vs Placebo at Week 4: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||57.3|11.3|
90831467|NCT02201524|181535807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|60.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|34.7|80.9||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||80.9|34.7|
90831468|NCT02201524|181535807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.1|49.3||||||PF-04965842 400 mg vs Placebo at Week 5: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||49.3|2.1|
90831469|NCT02201524|181535807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|44.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|19.4|70.2||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 5: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||70.2|19.4|
90831470|NCT02201524|181535807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.7|46.6||||||PF-04965842 400 mg vs Placebo at Week 6: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||46.6|-2.7|
90831471|NCT02201524|181535807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|30.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.4|56.4||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 6: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||56.4|6.4|
90831472|NCT02201524|181535807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.9|54.9||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 8: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||54.9|-4.9|
90831473|NCT02201524|181535808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|13.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.4|33.8||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 1: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||33.8|-4.4|
90831474|NCT02201524|181535808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|12.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.2|32.0||||||PF-04965842 400 mg vs Placebo at Week 1: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||32.0|-5.2|
90831475|NCT02201524|181535808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.2|27.0||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 1: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||27.0|-10.2|
90831476|NCT02201524|181535808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|21.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.2|45.5||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 2: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||45.5|-3.2|
90831477|NCT02201524|181535808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|15.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.1|40.7||||||PF-04965842 400 mg vs Placebo at Week 2: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||40.7|-8.1|
90831478|NCT02201524|181535808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|34.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.3|59.4||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 2: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||59.4|7.3|
90831479|NCT02201524|181535808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|17.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.2|45.5||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 3: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||45.5|-11.2|
90831480|NCT02201524|181535808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|31.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.7|55.7||||||PF-04965842 400 mg vs Placebo at Week 3: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||55.7|1.7|
90831481|NCT02201524|181535808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|30.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.2|57.4|||Difference in Percentage Analysed using|||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 3: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||57.4|-1.2|
90894175|NCT01984697|181654086|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the seroconversion percentage difference for Boys 9 to 14 Years - Young Women 16 to 26 years is \> -5.|Seroconversion percentage difference|1.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|4.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||4.0|-0.7|<0.001
90894176|NCT01984697|181654086|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the seroconversion percentage difference for Girls and Boys 9 to 14 Years - Young Women 16 to 26 years is \> -5.|Seroconversion percentage difference|2.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|4.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||4.6|0.7|<0.001
90957020|NCT00706433|181793708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0209||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0209
90957021|NCT00706433|181793708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0513||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0513
91024011|NCT01123980|181931585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.26|0.82||P-value for parallelism is overall test for parallel time profiles between treatment groups.|Mixed Models Analysis||Two hours after lunch|Repeated measures mixed model with an unstructured residual covarience matrix, including treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, country and previous OADs as factors.||0.82|-0.26|<0.001
91024012|NCT01123980|181931585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.64|||<|0.001||95.0|0.22|1.06||P-value for parallelism is overall test for parallel time profiles between treatment groups.|Mixed Models Analysis||Before dinner|Repeated measures mixed model with an unstructured residual covarience matrix, including treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, country and previous OADs as factors.||1.06|0.22|<0.001
91024013|NCT01123980|181931585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.51|||<|0.001||95.0|-2.03|-1.0||P-value for parallelism is overall test for parallel time profiles between treatment groups.|Mixed Models Analysis||Two hours after dinner|Repeated measures mixed model with an unstructured residual covarience matrix, including treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, country and previous OADs as factors.||-1.00|-2.03|<0.001
91024014|NCT01123980|181931585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.25|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.73|-0.78||P-value for parallelism is overall test for parallel time profiles between treatment groups.|Mixed Models Analysis||Bedtime|Repeated measures mixed model with an unstructured residual covarience matrix, including treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, country and previous OADs as factors.||-0.78|-1.73|<0.001
91024015|NCT01123980|181931585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.81|-0.13||P-value for parallelism is overall test for parallel time profiles between treatment groups.|Mixed Models Analysis||02 - 04 a.m.|Repeated measures mixed model with an unstructured residual covarience matrix, including treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, country and previous OADs as factors.||-0.13|-0.81|<0.001
91024016|NCT01123980|181931585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.06|0.4||P-value for parallelism is overall test for parallel time profiles between treatment groups.|Mixed Models Analysis||Before breakfast the following day|Repeated measures mixed model with an unstructured residual covarience matrix, including treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, country and previous OADs as factors.||0.40|-0.06|<0.001
91087718|NCT04556760|182058177|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4621||||0.682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0933|3.0176|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (Placebo vs Prednisolone 5mg)||3.0176|-2.0933|0.682
91087719|NCT04556760|182058178|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0679||||0.526||95.0|-0.152|0.2866|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (AZD9567 72mg vs Prednisolone 40mg)||0.2866|-0.1520|0.526
90831482|NCT02201524|181535808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.4|52.5||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||52.5|-6.4|
90831483|NCT02201524|181535808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|41.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.7|66.7||||||PF-04965842 400 mg vs Placebo at Week 4: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||66.7|8.7|
90831484|NCT02201524|181535808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|53.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|18.5|76.6||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||76.6|18.5|
90831485|NCT02201524|181535808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|6.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-26.1|36.6||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 5: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||36.6|-26.1|
90957022|NCT00706433|181793708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0019||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0019
91024017|NCT01123980|181931586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.8583||95.0|0.64|1.46|||Regression, Logistic||The odds ratio and 95% confidence interval is for the HbA1c less than 7% treatment target were included.|The responder analysis was based on logistic regression model using treatment, country and previous OAD therapy (with or without a third OAD) as factors and baseline HbA1c as covariate.||1.46|0.64|0.8583
90831486|NCT02201524|181535808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|14.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.9|44.5||||||PF-04965842 400 mg vs Placebo at Week 5: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||44.5|-18.9|
90831487|NCT02201524|181535808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|50.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|12.9|75.3||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 5: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||75.3|12.9|
90831488|NCT02201524|181535808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-25.2|41.4||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 6: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||41.4|-25.2|
90831489|NCT02201524|181535808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-30.5|37.3||||||PF-04965842 400 mg vs Placebo at Week 6: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||37.3|-30.5|
90831490|NCT02201524|181535808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|13.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.9|46.2||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 6: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||46.2|-21.9|
90831491|NCT02201524|181535808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-33.2|34.6||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 8: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||34.6|-33.2|
90831492|NCT02201524|181535808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|20.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.6|51.9||||||PF-04965842 400 mg vs Placebo at Week 8: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||51.9|-17.6|
91087720|NCT04556760|182058178|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0882||||0.569||95.0|-0.2653|0.4416|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (AZD9567 40mg vs Prednisolone 20mg||0.4416|-0.2653|0.569
90831493|NCT02201524|181535808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|12.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-26.4|48.1||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 8: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||48.1|-26.4|
90831494|NCT02646826|181535821|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0017|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0017
90831495|NCT02646826|181535822|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.44|||||||ANOVA|||||||<.44
90831496|NCT00119847|181535831|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.04||p\<0.05 required for statistical significance|t-test, 2 sided|||The planned sample size of 300 subjects was chosen to provide 80% power to detect a clinically relevant difference of 0.1 in the change in α1 from baseline to 1 year between the 2 treatment groups on the basis of data from prior studies that indicated that baseline levels of α1 would be 1.0 with a common SD of 0.2.||0.04|-0.12|0.34
90831497|NCT00119847|181535832|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.0||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|10.7||p\<0.01 required for statistical significance|t-test, 2 sided|||||10.7|-4.8|0.45
90831498|NCT00119847|181535833|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.2||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|5.9||p\<0.01 required for statistical significance|t-test, 2 sided|||||5.9|-1.4|0.23
90831499|NCT00265564|181535839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||We investigated treatment condition differences in change of drug and alcohol use over four time-points using generalized linear mixed modeling analyses. A trajectory for each participant was modeled yielding estimates of baseline scores (intercept), slope, and error. Four between-person parameters were estimated: average baseline score for all participants, average slope over time in TAU condition, effect of being in SS on average intercept, effect of being in SS on average slope.||||> .05
90831500|NCT00265564|181535840|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.05
90831501|NCT00265564|181535841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Generalized linear mixed modeling analysis||||>.05
90831502|NCT01553084|181535842|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.3623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.7|||Regression, Logistic|||Combination NRT will be compared statististically versus Nicotine patch only (the reference or control group).||1.7|0.8|.3623
90831503|NCT01553084|181535842|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.1947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.2|||Regression, Logistic|||Varenicline will be compared statististically versus Nicotine patch only (the reference or control group).||1.2|0.6|.1947
90831504|NCT01553084|181535843|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.915||||0.3613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.756|1.107|||Regression, Cox|||||1.107|.756|.3613
90831505|NCT01553084|181535843|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.943||||0.5503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.779|1.142|||Regression, Cox|||||1.142|.779|.5503
90831506|NCT01553084|181535844|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.2|1.1|.03
90831507|NCT01553084|181535844|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.1|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.1|0.6|.19
90957023|NCT00706433|181793708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0089||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0089
91087721|NCT04556760|182058178|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1257||||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0677|0.3191|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (Placebo vs Prednisolone 5mg)||0.3191|-0.0677|0.166
90831508|NCT01553084|181535845|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.00612|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00625||0.3282|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|df=710||||||.3282
90831509|NCT00539981|181535884|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between 2 lots for each strain was concluded if the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of post-vaccination GMTs for Lot A vs. B falls within 0.67 to 1.5.|GMT ratio|1.07||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.36||Threshold for significance of p value was 0.05.|ANOVA|||A/Solomon Islands (H1N1): FluBlok: Lot A versus FluBlok: Lot B||1.36|0.85|0.009
90831510|NCT00539981|181535884|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between 2 lots for each strain was concluded if the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of post-vaccination GMTs for Lot A vs. C falls within 0.67 to 1.5.|GMT ratio|0.91||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|0.91|0.71|1.15||Threshold for significance of p value was 0.05.|ANOVA|||A/Solomon Islands (H1N1): FluBlok: Lot A versus FluBlok: Lot C||1.15|0.71|0.009
90831511|NCT00539981|181535884|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between 2 lots for each strain was concluded if the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of post-vaccination GMTs for Lot B vs. C falls within 0.67 to 1.5.|GMT ratio|0.85||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.07|||ANOVA|Threshold for significance of p value was 0.05.||A/Solomon Islands (H1N1): FluBlok: Lot B versus FluBlok: Lot C||1.07|0.67|0.009
90831512|NCT00539981|181535884|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between 2 lots for each strain was concluded if the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of post-vaccination GMTs for Lot A vs. B falls within 0.67 to 1.5.|GMT ratio|2.03||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|2.64||Threshold of significance for p value was 0.05.|ANOVA|||A/Wisconsin (H3N2): FluBlok: Lot A versus FluBlok: Lot B||2.64|1.56|0.065
91087722|NCT04556760|182058179|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0072|0.0271|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (AZD9567 72mg vs Prednisolone 40mg)||0.0271|-0.0072|0.226
90831513|NCT00539981|181535884|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between 2 lots for each strain was concluded if the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of post-vaccination GMTs for Lot A vs. C falls within 0.67 to 1.5.|GMT ratio|1.63||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|2.11|||ANOVA|Threshold of significance for p value was 0.05.||A/Wisconsin (H3N2): FluBlok: Lot A versus FluBlok: Lot C||2.11|1.26|0.065
91087723|NCT04556760|182058179|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0033||||0.619||95.0|-0.0128|0.0195|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (AZD9567 40mg vs Prednisolone 20mg)||0.0195|-0.0128|0.619
91087724|NCT04556760|182058179|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0009||||0.917||95.0|-0.0189|0.0207|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (Placebo vs Prednisolone 5mg)||0.0207|-0.0189|0.917
91087725|NCT04556760|182058180|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0007||||0.357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0008|0.0022|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (AZD9567 72mg vs Prednisolone 40mg)||0.0022|-0.0008|0.357
91087726|NCT04556760|182058180|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0003||||0.676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0012|0.0017|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (AZD9567 40mg vs Prednisolone 20mg)||0.0017|-0.0012|0.676
91087727|NCT04556760|182058180|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0012||||0.096||95.0|-0.0002|0.0026|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (Placebo vs Prednisolone 5mg)||0.0026|-0.0002|0.096
91087728|NCT04556760|182058181|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.73||||0.646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|5.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (AZD9567 72mg vs Prednisolone 40mg)||5.95|-9.40|0.646
91087729|NCT04556760|182058181|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.97||||0.11||95.0|-25.39|3.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (AZD9567 40mg vs Prednisolone 20mg)||3.44|-25.39|0.110
91087730|NCT04556760|182058181|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35||||0.932||95.0|-10.32|9.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (Placebo vs Prednisolone 5mg)||9.61|-10.32|0.932
91087731|NCT04556760|182058182|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.6||||0.533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.4|32.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (AZD9567 72mg vs Prednisolone 40mg)||32.7|-17.4|0.533
91087732|NCT04556760|182058182|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.3||||0.311||95.0|-26.7|71.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (AZD9567 40mg vs Prednisolone 20mg)||71.3|-26.7|0.311
90831514|NCT00539981|181535884|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between 2 lots for each strain was concluded if the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of post-vaccination GMTs for Lot B vs. C falls within 0.67 to 1.5.|GMT ratio|0.8||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.04|||ANOVA|Threshold of significance for p value was 0.05.||A/Wisconsin (H3N2): FluBlok: Lot B versus FluBlok: Lot C||1.04|0.62|0.065
90831515|NCT00539981|181535884|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between 2 lots for each strain was concluded if the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of post-vaccination GMTs for Lot A vs. B falls within 0.67 to 1.5.|GMT ratio|0.88||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.13|||ANOVA|Threshold of significance for p value was 0.05.||B/Malaysia: FluBlok: Lot A versus FluBlok: Lot B||1.13|0.69|0.011
90831516|NCT00539981|181535884|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between 2 lots for each strain was concluded if the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of post-vaccination GMTs for Lot A vs. C falls within 0.67 to 1.5.|GMT ratio|0.85||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.09|||ANOVA|Threshold of significance for p value was 0.05.||B/Malaysia: FluBlok: Lot A versus FluBlok: Lot C||1.09|0.65|0.011
91087733|NCT04556760|182058182|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|31.0||||0.204||95.0|-21.9|83.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (Placebo vs Prednisolone 5mg)||83.9|-21.9|0.204
91087734|NCT04556760|182058192|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0066||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.888|0.8748|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (AZD9567 72mg vs Prednisolone 40mg)||0.8748|-8.8880|0.103
91087735|NCT04556760|182058192|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.7535||||0.005||95.0|2.6034|8.9036|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (AZD9567 40mg vs Prednisolone 20mg)||8.9036|2.6034|0.005
91087736|NCT04556760|182058192|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.0619||||0.023||95.0|1.674|16.4499|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (Placebo vs Prednisolone 5mg)||16.4499|1.6740|0.023
91087737|NCT02513550|182058196|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.9|||=|0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||=0.005
91087738|NCT02513550|182058196|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.9|||=|0.522|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||=0.522
91087739|NCT02513550|182058197|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.9|||=|0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||=0.006
91087740|NCT02513550|182058197|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.6|||=|0.118|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||=0.118
91087741|NCT02849743|182058215|OTHER||Least Means Square|-0.5||||0.92|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.92
91087742|NCT02849743|182058216|OTHER||Regression Coefficient|-15784.0||||0.57|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.57
90831517|NCT00539981|181535884|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between 2 lots for each strain was concluded if the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of post-vaccination GMTs for Lot B vs. C falls within 0.67 to 1.5.|GMT ratio|0.96||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.23|||ANOVA|Threshold of significance for p value was 0.05.||B/Malaysia: FluBlok: Lot B versus FluBlok: Lot C||1.23|0.75|0.011
91087743|NCT02849743|182058217|OTHER||Regression Coefficient|48.0||||0.21|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.21
91087744|NCT02849743|182058218|OTHER||Regression Coefficient|-2.8||||0.55|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.55
91087745|NCT02849743|182058219|OTHER||Regression Coefficient|1.2||||0.86|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.86
91087746|NCT02849743|182058220|OTHER||Regression Coefficient|2.4||||0.88|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.88
91087747|NCT02849743|182058221|OTHER||Regression Coefficient|-0.02||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.50
91087748|NCT02849743|182058222|OTHER||Regression Coefficient|-0.02||||0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.49
91087749|NCT02849743|182058224|OTHER||Regression Coefficient|-0.7||||0.68|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.68
91087750|NCT02849743|182058225|OTHER||Regression Coefficient|-0.6||||0.52|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.52
91087751|NCT02849743|182058226|OTHER||Regression Coefficient|-0.2||||0.91|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Neuro-QoL - Anxiety||||0.91
91087752|NCT02849743|182058226|OTHER||Regression Coefficient|-0.2||||0.91|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Neuro-QoL - Depression||||0.91
90831518|NCT00539981|181535885|SUPERIORITY|Relative protective efficacy is equivalent to absolute efficacy which is defined as the reduction in the influenza rate for Flublok relative to placebo.|Relative protective efficacy|75.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-148.0|99.5||||||FluBlok versus Placebo||99.5|-148.0|
90831519|NCT02051764|181535892|OTHER|||||||0.2837||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. No a priori threshold was selected.|ANCOVA|Adjustments included baseline tau deposition, age, time (in years) between imaging, and included an interaction of time and enrolling diagnosis.||Overall change from baseline between groups. Test compared slopes of cognitively impaired (CI) vs healthy volunteers (HV). As the time between scans varied across subjects, an ANCOVA model was used to estimate slopes in each diagnosis group and test whether they were the different at 1 year. The flortaucipir change from baseline was used as the dependent variable in the model.||||0.2837
90831520|NCT02051764|181535892|OTHER|||||||0.9276||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. No a priori threshold was selected.|ANCOVA|Adjustments included baseline tau deposition, age, time (in years) between imaging, and included an interaction of time and enrolling diagnosis.||Change from baseline between groups for amyloid negative only. Test compared slopes of CI vs HV. As the time between scans varied across subjects, an ANCOVA model was used to estimate slopes in each diagnosis group and test whether they were different at 1 year. The flortaucipir change from baseline was used as the dependent variable in the model.||||0.9276
90831521|NCT02051764|181535892|OTHER|||||||0.6324||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. No a priori threshold was selected.|ANCOVA|Adjustments included baseline tau deposition, age, time (in years) between imaging, and included an interaction of time and enrolling diagnosis.||Change from baseline between groups for amyloid positive only. Test compared slopes of CI vs HV. As the time between scans varied across subjects, an ANCOVA model was used to estimate slopes in each diagnosis group and test whether they were different at 1 year. The flortaucipir change from baseline was used as the dependent variable in the model.||||0.6324
90831522|NCT00591006|181535893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.01
90831523|NCT00591006|181535893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.12
90831524|NCT00591006|181535893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.15
90831525|NCT00591006|181535893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.10
90894177|NCT01984697|181654087|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the seroconversion percentage difference for Girls 9 to 14 Years - Young Women 16 to 26 years is \> -5.|Seroconversion percentage difference|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||1.7|-1.7|<0.001
90831526|NCT00591006|181535894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.08
90894178|NCT01984697|181654087|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the seroconversion percentage difference for Boys 9 to 14 Years - Young Women 16 to 26 years is \> -5.|Seroconversion percentage difference|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||2.1|-1.0|<0.001
91024018|NCT01123980|181931587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.8013||95.0|0.64|1.79|||Regression, Logistic||The odds ratio and 95% confidence interval is for the HbA1c below or equal to 6.5% treatment target were included.|The responder analysis was based on logistic regression model using treatment, country and previous OAD therapy (with or without a third OAD) as factors and baseline HbA1c as covariate.||1.79|0.64|0.8013
91024019|NCT02557672|181931598|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of the Geometric Means|0.98||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.19|||Regression, Linear|||||1.19|0.81|0.84
91087753|NCT02849743|182058226|OTHER||Regression Coefficient|4.7||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Neuro-QoL - Cognition||||0.04
91087754|NCT02849743|182058226|OTHER||Regression Coefficient|2.3||||0.36|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Neuro-QoL - Social Function||||0.36
90831527|NCT00591006|181535894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.01
90831528|NCT00591006|181535894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.01
90831529|NCT00591006|181535894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.02
90831530|NCT00591006|181535895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.08
90831531|NCT00591006|181535895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.01
90831532|NCT00591006|181535895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.11
90831533|NCT00591006|181535895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.06
90831534|NCT03071263|181535914|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||α-level 0.05. Stratified by baseline potassium category (4.3-\<4.7 mEq/L or 4.7-5.1 mEq/L) and history of Type 1 or Type 2 diabetes mellitus (Yes or No) as randomized|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A sample size of 280 subjects has 90% power to detect a difference between treatment groups of 20% or more in the proportion of subjects remaining on spironolactone at Week 12, at α = 0.05.||||<0.0001
90831535|NCT03071263|181535915|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5757||||||Baseline AOBP SBP as a covariate and treatment group, baseline serum potassium (K+ 4.3-\<4.7 or 4.7-5.1 mEq/L), and history of Type 1 or Type 2 diabetes mellitus (Yes or No) as factors in the model.|ANCOVA|||||||0.5757
90831536|NCT03071263|181535916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6367||||||Baseline AOBP SBP as a covariate and treatment group, baseline serum potassium (K+ 4.3-\<4.7 or 4.7-5.1 mEq/L), and history of Type 1 or Type 2 diabetes mellitus as factors in the model.|ANCOVA|||The p-value is from a test comparing the difference between two groups in the mean change in AOBP SBP from baseline.||||0.6367
90831537|NCT00647296|181535939|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.606|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.408||0.1385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis||placebo minus active treatment arm, positive direction represents better outcome.|||0.19|-1.41|0.1385
91024020|NCT02557672|181931599|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.49||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.11|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.11|0.22|0.09
91024021|NCT02557672|181931600|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.76||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.73|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.73|0.33|0.51
91024022|NCT02557672|181931601|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|3.79|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.79|0.51|0.53
91087755|NCT02849743|182058227|OTHER||Regression Coefficient|0.05||||0.64|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.64
91087756|NCT02849743|182058228|OTHER||Regression Coefficient|0.05||||0.83|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.83
90831538|NCT00647296|181535939|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.113|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.7718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.88|||Mixed Models Analysis||placebo minus active treatment arm, positive direction represents better outcome.|||0.88|-0.65|0.7718
90831539|NCT00647296|181535939|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.401|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.397||0.3146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|1.18|||Mixed Models Analysis||placebo minus active treatment arm, positive direction represents better outcome.|||1.18|-0.38|0.3146
90831540|NCT00647296|181535940|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.395|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.536||0.7973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|3.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||placebo minus active treatment arm, positive direction represents a better outcome.|||3.40|-2.61|0.7973
90831541|NCT00647296|181535940|SUPERIORITY||Slope|2.009|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.47||0.1732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|4.89|||Mixed Models Analysis||placebo minus active treatment arm, positive direction represents better outcome.|||4.89|-0.87|0.1732
90831542|NCT00647296|181535940|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.451|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.497||0.7635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|3.39|||Mixed Models Analysis||placebo minus active treatment arm, positive direction represents a better outcome.|||3.39|-2.48|0.7635
90831543|NCT00647296|181535951|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.263|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.1772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.64|||Mixed Models Analysis||50 mg/day minus 150 mg/day arm, negative direction represents worse outcome.|||0.64|-0.12|0.1772
90831544|NCT00647296|181535952|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.615|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.4025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|0.83|||Mixed Models Analysis||50 mg/day minus 300 mg/day treatment arm, negative direction represents worse outcome.|||0.83|-2.06|0.4025
90831545|NCT00871871|181535954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.1||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.22|0.01||one-sided, alpha = 0.05|ANCOVA|||||0.01|-0.22|0.067
90831546|NCT00871871|181535955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|1.1|||>|0.5|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.86|1.34|||ANCOVA|||||1.34|0.86|>0.500
90831547|NCT00871871|181535956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.016||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.012|0.044||one-sided, alpha = 0.05|ANOVA|||||0.044|-0.012|0.130
90831548|NCT00871871|181535957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.54|||>|0.5|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|0.67|||ANCOVA|||||0.67|0.40|>0.500
90894179|NCT01984697|181654087|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the seroconversion percentage difference for Girls and Boys 9 to 14 Years - Young Women 16 to 26 years is \> -5.|Seroconversion percentage difference|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||2.1|-1.0|<0.001
90894180|NCT01984697|181654088|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the seroconversion percentage difference for Girls 9 to 14 Years - Young Women 16 to 26 years is \> -5.|Seroconversion percentage difference|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||2.1|-1.0|<0.001
91024023|NCT02557672|181931602|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.52||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|2.3|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.30|0.12|0.39
90831549|NCT00871871|181535958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.004||||0.342|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.023|0.014||one-sided, alpha = 0.05|ANOVA|||||0.014|-0.023|0.342
90831550|NCT00871871|181535959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.0016|||>|0.5|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.008|0.011|||ANOVA|||||0.011|-0.008|>0.500
90831551|NCT00871871|181535960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.003|||>|0.5|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.003|0.01|||ANOVA|||||0.010|-0.003|>0.500
90831552|NCT04612725|181535961|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.01||||0.3824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.28|1.26||Change from baseline in ISS7 at Week 12= Treatment + baseline ISS7 + region (Europe, North America, Asia) + visit + treatment by visit.|Mixed-effect model for repeated measures|||||1.26|-3.28|0.3824
90831553|NCT04612725|181535961|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.79||||0.1244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.09|0.5||Change from baseline in ISS7 at Week 12= Treatment + baseline ISS7 + region (Europe, North America, Asia) + visit + treatment by visit.|Mixed-effect model for repeated measures|||||0.50|-4.09|0.1244
90831554|NCT04612725|181535962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.07||||0.4016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.95|2.8||Change from baseline in UAS7 at Week 12= Treatment + baseline UAS7 + region (Europe, North America, Asia) + visit + treatment by visit.|Mixed-effect model for repeated measures|||||2.80|-6.95|0.4016
90831555|NCT04612725|181535962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-4.36||||0.0819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.28|0.56||Change from baseline in UAS7 at Week 12= Treatment + baseline UAS7 + region (Europe, North America, Asia) + visit + treatment by visit.|Mixed-effect model for repeated measures|||||0.56|-9.28|0.0819
91024024|NCT03705169|181931604|EQUIVALENCE|Confidence Interval (CI) on Geometric Mean Ratio.|Geometric Mean Ratio|3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|5.3|||||The ratios of the geometric means (Arm A/Arm C) and the corresponding 95% CI were obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 95% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|As dose-normalized AUC 0-12WK values were considered, participants were pooled within Arm (i.e., Arm A participants receiving 1, 3, 10, or 30 mg/kg were pooled and Arm C participants 0.3 or 1.0 mg/kg were pooled).|No comparisons were done with Arm B participants, as only two participants in that arm had available measurements such that AUC 0-12WK could be estimated.|5.3|1.9|
91024025|NCT03705169|181931605|OTHER||Mean|-0.18||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.18||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no change in HIV-1 RNA (log10 copies/mL) from baseline to Day 7 of SAR441236 monotherapy for viremic participants with HIV (Arm B cohorts).|t-test, 2 sided|||Arm B participants were pooled across doses for analysis.||0.18|-0.53|0.26
91024026|NCT03705169|181931607|OTHER||Mean|-0.02||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.19||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no change in HIV-1 RNA (log10 copies/mL) from baseline to Day 14 of SAR441236 monotherapy for viremic participants with HIV (Arm B cohorts).|t-test, 2 sided|||Arm B participants were pooled across doses for analysis.||0.19|-0.24|0.78
91024027|NCT01133821|181931624|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||time effect for HRSD-17||||<0.0001
91024028|NCT01133821|181931625|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline scores||||||>0.05
91024029|NCT03342898|181931626|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of the immune response was performed only between YF + TDV (Group 3) and YF + Placebo (Group 1) at Day 120. Non-inferiority between Group 3 and Group 1 was concluded if the upper bound of the 95% CI for the seroprotection rate difference (Group 1 - Group 3) was less than 5%.|Seroprotection Rate Difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|2.69|||||The Newcombe score method was used to compute the 95% CI of the seroprotection rate difference.|||2.69|-1.85|
90831556|NCT04612725|181535962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.56||||0.3314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.74|2.63||Change from baseline in UAS7 at Week 24= Treatment + baseline UAS7 + region (Europe, North America, Asia) + visit + treatment by visit.|Mixed-effect model for repeated measures|||||2.63|-7.74|0.3314
90831557|NCT04612725|181535962|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.74||||0.1582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.95|1.47||Change from baseline in UAS7 at Week 24= Treatment + baseline UAS7 + region (Europe, North America, Asia) + visit + treatment by visit.|Mixed-effect model for repeated measures|||||1.47|-8.95|0.1582
90831558|NCT04612725|181535963|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.62||||0.1995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|0.86||Change from baseline in ISS7 at Week 24= Treatment + baseline ISS7 + region (Europe, North America, Asia) + visit + treatment by visit.|Mixed-effect model for repeated measures|||||0.86|-4.10|0.1995
90831559|NCT04612725|181535963|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.76||||0.1654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.25|0.73||Change from baseline in ISS7 at Week 24= Treatment + baseline ISS7 + region (Europe, North America, Asia) + visit + treatment by visit.|Mixed-effect model for repeated measures|||||0.73|-4.25|0.1654
90831560|NCT04612725|181535964|SUPERIORITY||percentage difference|11.72||||0.1373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.37|25.82||Week 12: Estimates included treatment group, region (Europe, North America, Asia) and baseline UAS7.|Regression, Logistic|||||25.82|-2.37|0.1373
90831561|NCT04612725|181535964|SUPERIORITY||percentage difference|10.73||||0.1697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.42|24.88||Week 12: Estimates included treatment group, region (Europe, North America, Asia) and baseline UAS7.|Regression, Logistic|||||24.88|-3.42|0.1697
90831562|NCT04612725|181535964|SUPERIORITY||percentage difference|1.03||||0.9105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.9|18.96||Week 24: Estimates included treatment group, region (Europe, North America, Asia) and baseline UAS7.|Regression, Logistic|||||18.96|-16.90|0.9105
90831563|NCT04612725|181535964|SUPERIORITY||percentage difference|9.27||||0.3389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.37|27.9||Week 24: Estimates included treatment group, region (Europe, North America, Asia) and baseline UAS7.|Regression, Logistic|||||27.90|-9.37|0.3389
90831564|NCT04612725|181535965|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.16||||0.4203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|1.68||Change from baseline in HSS7 at Week 12= Treatment + baseline HSS7 + region (Europe, North America, Asia) + visit + treatment by visit.|Mixed-effect model for repeated measures|||||1.68|-4.00|0.4203
90831565|NCT04612725|181535965|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.6||||0.0754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.46|0.27||Change from baseline in HSS7 at Week 12= Treatment + baseline HSS7 + region (Europe, North America, Asia) + visit + treatment by visit.|Mixed-effect model for repeated measures|||||0.27|-5.46|0.0754
90831566|NCT04612725|181535965|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.06||||0.4772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.01|1.89||Change from baseline in HSS7 at Week 24= Treatment + baseline HSS7 + region (Europe, North America, Asia) + visit + treatment by visit.|Mixed-effect model for repeated measures|||||1.89|-4.01|0.4772
90831567|NCT04612725|181535965|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.0||||0.1851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.96|0.97||Change from baseline in HSS7 at Week 24= Treatment + baseline HSS7 + region (Europe, North America, Asia) + visit + treatment by visit.|Mixed-effect model for repeated measures|||||0.97|-4.96|0.1851
90831568|NCT04612725|181535967|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9678||||||Week 12: Estimates included treatment group, region (Europe, North America, Asia) and baseline UAS7.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.9678
90894181|NCT01984697|181654088|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the seroconversion percentage difference for Boys 9 to 14 Years - Young Women 16 to 26 years is \> -5.|Seroconversion percentage difference|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||2.1|-1.0|<0.001
91024030|NCT03342898|181931627|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of the immune response was performed only between TDV + YF (Group 3) and TDV + Placebo (Group 2) at Day 120. Non-inferiority between Group 3 and Group 2 was concluded if the upper bound of the 95% CI for the GMT ratio (Group 2/Group 3) was less than 2.0.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|2.22|||||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model was used for analysis, including log-transformed value of titer as the dependent variable and trial group as a factor.|Day 120, DENV-1||2.22|1.19|
91024031|NCT03342898|181931627|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of the immune response was performed only between TDV + YF (Group 3) and TDV + Placebo (Group 2) at Day 120. Non-inferiority between Group 3 and Group 2 was concluded if the upper bound of the 95% CI for the GMT ratio (Group 2/Group 3) was less than 2.0.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.3||||||95.0|1.03|1.75|||||ANOVA model was used for analysis, including log-transformed value of titer as the dependent variable and trial group as a factor.|Day 120, DENV-2||1.75|1.03|
91024032|NCT03342898|181931627|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of the immune response was performed only between TDV + YF (Group 3) and TDV + Placebo (Group 2) at Day 120. Non-inferiority between Group 3 and Group 2 was concluded if the upper bound of the 95% CI for the GMT ratio (Group 2/Group 3) was less than 2.0.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.3||||||95.0|0.99|1.61|||||ANOVA model was used for analysis, including log-transformed value of titer as the dependent variable and trial group as a factor.|Day 120, DENV-3||1.61|0.99|
91087757|NCT03677635|182058231|OTHER||Standardised Effect Size|0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.86|||Standardised Effect Size|||||.86|.21|
90831569|NCT04612725|181535967|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3689||||||Week 12: Estimates included treatment group, region (Europe, North America, Asia) and baseline UAS7.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.3689
90831570|NCT04612725|181535967|SUPERIORITY||percentage difference|-3.43||||0.6624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.96|12.11||Week 24: Estimates included treatment group, region (Europe, North America, Asia) and baseline UAS7.|Regression, Logistic|||||12.11|-18.96|0.6624
90831571|NCT04612725|181535967|SUPERIORITY||percentage difference|0.28||||0.9726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.84|16.4||Week 24: Estimates included treatment group, region (Europe, North America, Asia) and baseline UAS7.|Regression, Logistic|||||16.40|-15.84|0.9726
90831572|NCT04612725|181535969|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.29||||0.7256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.32||Change from baseline in UCT at Week 12= Treatment + baseline UCT + region (Europe, North America, Asia) + visit + treatment by visit.|Mixed-effect model for repeated measures|||||1.32|-1.90|0.7256
91087758|NCT03677635|182058232|OTHER|Cohen's d was reported.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.48|||Standardised Effect Size|||||.48|-.59|
91087759|NCT02168491|182058233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.02|||||||paired t test|||||||<0.02
91087760|NCT02168491|182058234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||paired t test|||||||0.24
91087761|NCT02168491|182058235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||paired t test|||||||0.28
91087762|NCT00809445|182058236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|4.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|3.57|5.72||a-prior threshold for statistical significance is .025|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The numerator is the two HIV rapid testing arms The denominator is the HIV testing referral arm|Hypothesis: The HIV rapid testing arms would have a higher rate of HIV testing than the HIV testing referral arm. Thus there is one comparison: HIV rapid test \& counseling+HIV rapid test and info versus HIV testing referral.||5.72|3.57|<0.001
91087763|NCT00809445|182058237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||incidence rate raios (IRR)|1.04||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.95|1.14||a-priori threshold for statistical significance is .025|generalized estimating equations (GEE)||Numerator includes the two HIV rapid testing groups Denominator is the HIV testing referral group|Hypothesis: The HIV rapid testing arms would have a lower rate of unprotected sexual episodes than the HIV testing referral arm. Thus there is one comparison: HIV rapid test \& counseling+HIV rapid test and info versus HIV testing referral.||1.14|0.95|0.39
91087764|NCT00809445|182058237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence rate ratio (IRR)|1.03||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.84|1.26||a-priori threshold for statistical significance is .025|Generalized estimating equations (GEE)||Numerator is the HIV rapid test and counseling arm Denominator is the HIV rapid test and info arm|"The data analysis information presented is for the comparison of the 2 on-site testing groups.~Hypothesis: HIV rapid test and counseling group will have fewer unprotected sexual acts than will HIV rapid test and info group"||1.26|0.84|0.81
91087765|NCT00809445|182058238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.044||||||a priori threshold for significance was .05|Chi-squared|Note that this is a 3 by 3 chi-square: the 3 conditions by discontinued sharing needles /no change in sharing needles/initiated sharing needles||||||0.044
91087766|NCT00809445|182058239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||a-priori threshold for statistical significance is .05|Chi-squared|chi-square = 428.2466, Df=2||||||<0.0001
91087767|NCT00810069|182058322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||P-value is for early intervention strategy versus delayed intervention strategy.|Kaplan-Meier Analysis|Kaplan-Meier analysis with Wilcoxon test to compare strategies.||Kaplan-Meier Estimates (weeks): analysis of early intervention versus delayed intervention strategies||||0.213
91087768|NCT00810069|182058323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||survival rate difference|0.02||||0.653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.1||P-value is for comparison of early intervention versus delayed intervention as a function of survival rate over a 12 week period (Week 4 through Week 16).|Kaplan Meier analysis|P-value for comparison of rates is based on normal approximation using Greenwood's estimation for standard error.||Survival function estimated over a 12 week period (Week 4 through Week 16): analysis of early intervention versus delayed intervention strategies||0.10|-0.06|0.653
91087769|NCT00810069|182058324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.947||95.0||||P-value is for early intervention strategy versus delayed intervention strategy.|Kaplan Meier analysis|Kaplan-Meier analysis with Wilcoxon test to compare strategies.||Analysis of early intervention strategy versus delayed intervention strategy||||0.947
91087770|NCT00810069|182058325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.597||95.0||||P-value is for early intervention versus delayed intervention strategies.|Kaplan-Meier analysis|Kaplan-Meier analysis with Wilcoxon test to compare strategies||Analysis of early intervention strategy versus delayed intervention strategy||||0.597
91087771|NCT00810069|182058326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.13||P-value for Week 6: Analysis of early versus delayed intervention strategies LS Mean/Estimate|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed models repeated measures with fixed effects for strategy, country, visit, strategy-by-visit interaction, baseline score and baseline-by visit||Repeated Measurements Analysis: Early Intervention versus Delayed Intervention Strategy at Week 6||0.13|-0.22|0.624
91087772|NCT00810069|182058326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.06||P-value for Week 8: Analysis of early versus delayed intervention strategies LS Mean/Estimate|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Models repeated measures with fixed effects for strategy, country, visit, strategy-by-visit interaction, baseline score and baseline-by-visit||Repeated Measurements Analysis: Early Intervention versus Delayed Intervention Strategy at Week 8||0.06|-0.29|0.208
91087773|NCT00810069|182058326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.0||P-value for Week 10: Analysis of early versus delayed intervention strategies LS Mean/Estimate|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed models repeated measures with fixed effects for strategy, country, visit, strategy-by-visit interaction, baseline score and baseline-by-visit||Repeated Measurements Analysis: Early Intervention versus Delayed Intervention Strategy at Week 10||-0.00|-0.37|0.044
91087774|NCT00810069|182058326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.02||P-value for Week 12: Analysis of early versus delayed intervention strategies LS Mean/Estimate|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed models repeated measures with fixed effects for strategy, country, visit, strategy-by-visit interactions, baseline score and baseline-by-visit||Repeated Measurements Analysis: Early Intervention versus Delayed Intervention Strategy at Week 12||0.02|-0.35|0.086
91087775|NCT00810069|182058326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.06||P-value for Week 14: Analysis of early versus delayed intervention strategies LS Mean/Estimate|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed models repeated measures with fixed effects for strategy, country, visit, strategy-by-visit interaction, baseline score and baseline-by-visit||Repeated Measurements Analysis: Early Intervention versus Delayed Intervention Strategy at Week 14||0.06|-0.33|0.181
91087776|NCT00810069|182058326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2||P-value for Week 16: Analysis of early versus delayed intervention strategies LS Mean/Estimate|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed models repeated measures with fixed effects for strategy, country, visit, strategy-by-visit interaction, baseline score and baseline-by-visit||Repeated Measurements Analysis: Early Intervention versus Delayed Intervention Strategy at Week 16||0.20|-0.20|0.994
91087777|NCT00810069|182058327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.25||P-value for Week 6: Analysis of early versus delayed intervention strategies LS Mean/Estimate|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed models repeated measures with fixed effects for strategy, country, visit, strategy-by-visit interaction, baseline score and baseline-by visit||Repeated Measurements Analysis: Early Intervention versus Delayed Intervention Strategy at Week 6||-0.25|-0.98|0.001
90957024|NCT00706433|181793708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.526||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.5260
90831573|NCT04612725|181535969|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.09||||0.189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|2.72||Change from baseline in UCT at Week 12= Treatment + baseline UCT + region (Europe, North America, Asia) + visit + treatment by visit.|Mixed-effect model for repeated measures|||||2.72|-0.54|0.1890
90831574|NCT04612725|181535969|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.63||||0.5048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|1.24||Change from baseline in UCT at Week 24= Treatment + baseline UCT + region (Europe, North America, Asia) + visit + treatment by visit.|Mixed-effect model for repeated measures|||||1.24|-2.51|0.5048
90831575|NCT04612725|181535969|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.99||||0.2991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|2.88||Change from baseline in UCT at Week 24= Treatment + baseline UCT + region (Europe, North America, Asia) + visit + treatment by visit.|Mixed-effect model for repeated measures|||||2.88|-0.89|0.2991
90831576|NCT04612725|181535970|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.63||||0.5704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.05|7.32||Change from baseline in CU-Q2oL at Week 12= Treatment + baseline CU-Q2oL + region (Europe, North America, Asia) + visit + treatment by visit.|Mixed-effect model for repeated measures|||||7.32|-4.05|0.5704
90831577|NCT04612725|181535970|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.24||||0.4416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.98|3.5||Change from baseline in CU-Q2oL at Week 12= Treatment + baseline CU-Q2oL + region (Europe, North America, Asia) + visit + treatment by visit.|Mixed-effect model for repeated measures|||||3.50|-7.98|0.4416
90831578|NCT04612725|181535970|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.47||||0.6591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.09|8.02||Change from baseline in CU-Q2oL at Week 24= Treatment + baseline CU-Q2oL + region (Europe, North America, Asia) + visit + treatment by visit.|Mixed-effect model for repeated measures|||||8.02|-5.09|0.6591
90831579|NCT04612725|181535970|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.04||||0.3624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.62|3.54||Change from baseline in CU-Q2oL at Week 24= Treatment + baseline CU-Q2oL + region (Europe, North America, Asia) + visit + treatment by visit.|Mixed-effect model for repeated measures|||||3.54|-9.62|0.3624
90831580|NCT04612725|181535971|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.48||||0.7037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|2.98||Change from baseline in DLQI at Week 12= Treatment + baseline DLQI + region (Europe, North America, Asia) + visit + treatment by visit.|Mixed-effect model for repeated measures|||||2.98|-2.02|0.7037
90831581|NCT04612725|181535971|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.25||||0.332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.78|1.29||Change from baseline in DLQI at Week 12= Treatment + baseline DLQI + region (Europe, North America, Asia) + visit + treatment by visit.|Mixed-effect model for repeated measures|||||1.29|-3.78|0.3320
90831582|NCT04612725|181535971|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.24||||0.359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|3.9||Change from baseline in DLQI at Week 24= Treatment + baseline DLQI + region (Europe, North America, Asia) + visit + treatment by visit.|Mixed-effect model for repeated measures|||||3.90|-1.42|0.3590
90831583|NCT04612725|181535971|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.88||||0.5175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.56|1.8||Change from baseline in DLQI at Week 24= Treatment + baseline DLQI + region (Europe, North America, Asia) + visit + treatment by visit.|Mixed-effect model for repeated measures|||||1.80|-3.56|0.5175
90831584|NCT03069352|181535974|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.749||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.524|1.071|||Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified by AML status (de novo, secondary) and age (18 - \< 75, ≥ 75).|The hazard ratio was estimated using the Cox proportional hazards model, stratified by AML status (de novo, secondary) and age (18 - \< 75, ≥ 75).|||1.071|0.524|0.114
90894182|NCT01984697|181654088|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the seroconversion percentage difference for Girls and Boys 9 to 14 Years - Young Women 16 to 26 years is \> -5.|Seroconversion percentage difference|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||2.1|-1.1|<0.001
90831585|NCT03069352|181535974|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.743||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.521|1.061|||Log Rank|Unstratified analysis|The hazard ratio was estimated using the Cox proportional hazards model.|||1.061|0.521|0.103
90831586|NCT03069352|181535975|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age (18 - \< 75, ≥ 75) and AML status (de novo, secondary).||||||<0.001
90831587|NCT03069352|181535975|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
90831588|NCT03069352|181535976|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age (18 - \< 75, ≥ 75) and AML status (de novo, secondary).||||||<0.001
90957025|NCT00706433|181793709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.782||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.7820
90831589|NCT03069352|181535976|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
90831590|NCT03069352|181535977|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age (18 - \< 75, ≥ 75) and AML status (de novo, secondary).||||||<0.001
90831591|NCT03069352|181535977|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
90831592|NCT03069352|181535978|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age (18 - \< 75, ≥ 75) and AML status (de novo, secondary).||||||<0.001
90831593|NCT03069352|181535978|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
90831594|NCT03069352|181535979|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age (18 - \< 75, ≥ 75) and AML status (de novo, secondary).||||||<0.001
90831595|NCT03069352|181535979|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
90831596|NCT03069352|181535980|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.507|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.068|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|-0.41|||||A linear mixed-effects regression model with a covariance structure including baseline score, stratification factors (age and AML status) treatment arm, visit, and treatment arm by visit interaction.|Cycle 3, Day 1||-0.41|-8.60|
90831597|NCT03069352|181535980|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.923|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.58|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.03|0.19|||||A linear mixed-effects regression model with a covariance structure including baseline score, stratification factors (age and AML status) treatment arm, visit, and treatment arm by visit interaction.|Cycle 5 Day 1||0.19|-10.03|
90831598|NCT03069352|181535980|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.807|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.609|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.98|4.36|||||A linear mixed-effects regression model with a covariance structure including baseline score, stratification factors (age and AML status) treatment arm, visit, and treatment arm by visit interaction.|Cycle 7 Day 1||4.36|-5.98|
91103885|NCT01644331|182094570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.206|||||||Chi-squared|||This is a repeated measures analysis so all rows (visits) are taken into account.||||0.206
91087778|NCT00810069|182058327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.12||P-value for Week 8: Analysis of early versus delayed intervention strategies LS Mean/Estimate|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed models repeated measures with fixed effects for strategy, country, visit, strategy-by-visit interaction, baseline score and baseline-by-visit||Repeated Measurements Analysis: Early Intervention versus Delayed Intervention Strategy at Week 8||-0.12|-0.87|0.010
91087779|NCT00810069|182058327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.24||P-value for Week 10: analysis of early versus delayed intervention strategies LS Mean/Estimate|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed models repeated measures with fixed effects for strategy, country, visit, strategy-by-visit interaction, baseline score and baseline-by-visit||Repeated Measurements Analysis: Early Intervention versus Delayed Intervention Strategy at Week 10||0.24|-0.55|0.445
91087780|NCT00810069|182058327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.12||P-value for Week 12: Analysis of early versus delayed intervention strategies LS Mean/Estimate|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed models repeated measures with fixed effects for strategy, country, visit, strategy-by-visit interaction, baseline score and baseline-by-visit||Repeated Measurements Analysis: Early Intervention versus Delayed Intervention Strategy at Week 12||0.12|-0.71|0.169
90831599|NCT03069352|181535980|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.648|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.176|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.94|4.64|||||A linear mixed-effects regression model with a covariance structure including baseline score, stratification factors (age and AML status) treatment arm, visit, and treatment arm by visit interaction.|Cycle 9 day 1||4.64|-7.94|
90831600|NCT03069352|181535980|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.126|||||||Linear Mixed Effects Regression Model|Model included AML status (de novo vs. secondary), age (18-\< 75 vs. ≥ 75), treatment arm, time, and treatment arm by time interaction as fixed factors||A linear mixed effects regression model with a variable covariance structure was fitted to the longitudinal data (considering all time points) to test for differences between treatment arms.||||0.126
90831601|NCT03069352|181535981|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.917|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.617|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.23|12.06|||||A linear mixed-effects regression model with a covariance structure including baseline score, stratification factors (age and AML status) treatment arm, visit, and treatment arm by visit interaction.|Cycle 3 Day 1||12.06|-6.23|
90831602|NCT03069352|181535981|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|13.388|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.659|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.18|24.59|||||A linear mixed-effects regression model with a covariance structure including baseline score, stratification factors (age and AML status) treatment arm, visit, and treatment arm by visit interaction.|Cycle 5 Day 1||24.59|2.18|
90831603|NCT03069352|181535981|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.119|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.031|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.83|19.06|||||A linear mixed-effects regression model with a covariance structure including baseline score, stratification factors (age and AML status) treatment arm, visit, and treatment arm by visit interaction.|Cycle 7 Day 1||19.06|-4.83|
90831604|NCT03069352|181535981|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.381|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.511|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.49|21.26|||||A linear mixed-effects regression model with a covariance structure including baseline score, stratification factors (age and AML status) treatment arm, visit, and treatment arm by visit interaction.|Cycle 9 Day 1||21.26|-8.49|
91087781|NCT00810069|182058327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.25||P-value for Week 14: Analysis of early versus delayed intervention strategies LS Mean/Estimate|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed models repeated measures with fixed effects for strategy, country, visit, strategy-by-visit interaction, baseline score and baseline-by-visit||Repeated Measurements Analysis: Early Intervention versus Delayed Intervention Strategy at Week 14||0.25|-0.63|0.393
91087782|NCT00810069|182058327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.3||P-value for Week 16: Analysis of early versus delayed intervention strategies LS Mean/Estimate|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed models repeated measures with fixed effects for strategy, country, visit, strategy-by-visit interaction, baseline scores and baseline-by-visit||Repeated Measurements Analysis: Early Intervention versus Delayed Intervention Strategy at Week 16||0.30|-0.61|0.510
90831605|NCT03069352|181535981|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.085|||||||Linear Mixed Effects Regression Model|Model included AML status (de novo vs. secondary), age (18-\< 75 vs. ≥ 75), treatment arm, time, and treatment arm by time interaction as fixed factors||A linear mixed effects regression model with a variable covariance structure was fitted to the longitudinal data (considering all time points) to test for differences between treatment arms.||||0.085
90831606|NCT03069352|181535982|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.583||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.416|0.817|||Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified by AML status (de novo, secondary) and age (18 - \< 75, ≥ 75).|The hazard ratio was estimated using the Cox proportional hazards model, stratified by AML status (de novo, secondary) and age (18 - \< 75, ≥ 75).|||0.817|0.416|0.002
91087783|NCT00810069|182058328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.47||P-value for Week 8: Analysis of early intervention versus delayed intervention strategies LS Mean/Estimate|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed models repeated measures with fixed effects for strategy, country, visit, strategy-by-visit interaction, baseline score and baseline-by-visit||Repeated Measurements Analysis: Early Intervention versus Delayed Intervention Strategy at Week 8||0.47|-0.19|0.401
91087784|NCT00810069|182058328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.46||P-value for Week 12: Analysis of early intervention versus delayed intervention strategies LS Mean/Estimate|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed models repeated measures with fixed effects for strategy, country, visit, strategy-by-visit interaction, baseline score and baseline-by-visit||Repeated Measurements Analysis: Early Intervention versus Delayed Intervention Strategy at Week 12||0.46|-0.27|0.618
90831607|NCT03069352|181535982|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.601||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.839|||Log Rank|Unstratified analysis|The hazard ratio was estimated using the Cox proportional hazards model.|||0.839|0.430|0.003
90831608|NCT03069352|181535983|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|22.9||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.8|35.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age (18 - \< 75, ≥ 75) and AML status (de novo, secondary).|Treatment difference = Venetoclax - Placebo|||35.0|10.8|0.001
90831609|NCT03069352|181535983|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
90831610|NCT03069352|181535984|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|15.2||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|29.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age (18 - \< 75, ≥ 75) and AML status (de novo, secondary).|Treatment difference = Venetoclax - Placebo|||29.0|1.4|0.040
91024033|NCT03342898|181931627|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of the immune response was performed only between TDV + YF (Group 3) and TDV + Placebo (Group 2) at Day 120. Non-inferiority between Group 3 and Group 2 was concluded if the upper bound of the 95% CI for the GMT ratio (Group 2/Group 3) was less than 2.0.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.46|||||ANOVA model was used for analysis, including log-transformed value of titer as the dependent variable and trial group as a factor.|Day 120, DENV-4||1.46|0.89|
91024034|NCT03342898|181931631|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of the immune response was performed only between YF + TDV (Group 3) and YF + Placebo (Group 1) at Day 30. Non-inferiority between Group 3 and Group 1 was concluded if the upper bound of the 95% CI for the GMT ratio (Group 1/Group 3) was less than 2.0.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.26|||||ANOVA model was used for analyses, including the log-transformed value of titer as the dependent variable and trial group as a factor.|||1.26|0.77|
91024035|NCT00461500|181931661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.6||0.683||95.0|-27.96|42.43|||ANCOVA||mean difference = drug SFC 100 minus FP 100|||42.43|-27.96|0.683
91024036|NCT01806597|181931674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|19.3||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|154.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Data at Week 16 was analyzed using the stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel-test. The test was stratified by body-weight category (\<90 kg or ≥90 kg).||154.6|2.4|0.0002
91024037|NCT01806597|181931674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|29.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|211.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Data at Week 16 was analyzed using the stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel-test. The test was stratified by body-weight category (\<90 kg or ≥90 kg).||211.9|4.1|<0.0001
91024038|NCT01144663|181931682|NON_INFERIORITY|Indication of non-inferiority of Nimenrix 3 Group compared to Menjugate Group is a lower limit of the 95% CI of the group difference greater than or equal to the predefined clinical limits of -5%.|Difference in percentage|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|1.2||||||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the Nimenrix 3 Group compared to the Menjugate Group, two-sided standardized asymptotic 95% CI (confidence interval) for the groups difference \[Nimenrix 3 Group minus Menjugate Group\] in the percentages of subjects with bactericidal vaccine response to MenC was computed.||1.2|-1.17|
91024039|NCT01144663|181931682|NON_INFERIORITY|Indication of non-inferiority of Nimenrix 3 Group compared to Menjugate Group is a lower limit of the 95% CI of the group difference greater than or equal to the predefined clinical limits of -5%.|Difference in percenttage|-0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|0.4||||||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the Nimenrix 3 Group compared to the NeisVac-C Group, two-sided standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the groups difference \[Nimenrix 3 Group minus NeisVac-C Group\] in the percentages of subjects with bactericidal vaccine response to MenC was computed.||0.4|-1.57|
91024040|NCT01144663|181931682|NON_INFERIORITY|Indication of non-inferiority of Nimenrix 3 Group compared to Menjugate Group is a lower limit of the 95% CI of the group difference greater than or equal to the predefined clinical limits of -5%.|Difference in percentage|-0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.45|0.43||||||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the Nimenrix 2 Group compared to Menjugate Group, two-sided standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the groups difference \[Nimenrix 2 Group minus Menjugate Group\] in the percentages of subjects with bactericidal vaccine response to MenC was computed.||0.43|-2.45|
91024041|NCT01144663|181931682|NON_INFERIORITY|Indication of non-inferiority of Nimenrix 3 Group compared to Menjugate Group is a lower limit of the 95% CI of the group difference greater than or equal to the predefined clinical limits of -5%.|Difference in percentage|-1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.84|-0.48||||||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the Nimenrix 2 Group compared to NeisVac-C Group, two-sided standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the groups difference \[Nimenrix 2 Group minus NeisVac-C Group\] in the percentages of subjects with bactericidal vaccine response to MenC was computed.||-0.48|-2.84|
91024042|NCT03081767|181931730|OTHER||||||<|1e-07||||||Actual P-Value = 3.89597E-42. A P-value of \<0.05 was considered significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0000001
91024043|NCT01335477|181931731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|93.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|24.907||0.0002||95.0|44.78|142.68||The objective of this trial was to assess the superiority of nintedanib 150 mg bid compared to placebo on the annual rate of decline in FVC.|Random coefficient regression|The Roger-Kenward approximation was used to estimate denominators degrees of freedom.|"Within-patient errors are modelled by an Unstructured variance-covariance matrix.~Inter-individual variability is modelled by a Variance-components variance-covariance matrix.~Nintedanib 150 mg bid versus Placebo."|"Random coefficient regression with fixed effects for treatment, gender, age, height and random effect of patient specific intercept and time.~A hierarchical procedure was used in order to demonstrate the superiority of nintedanib over placebo for one primary and two key secondary endpoints.~The consecutive steps of the hierarchy were only considered if the previous step was significant at the one-sided 2.5% level and the results were in favour of nintedanib."||142.68|44.78|0.0002
91024044|NCT01335477|181931732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.151||0.0197||95.0|-4.95|-0.43|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Within-patient errors are modelled by compound symmetry covariance matrix.~Nintedanib 150 mg bid versus Placebo."|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline SGRQ Total score, baseline SGRQ Total score-by-visit and random effect for patient.||-0.43|-4.95|0.0197
91024045|NCT01335477|181931733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.38||||0.005||95.0|0.19|0.77|||Log Rank||Nintedanib 150 mg bid versus Placebo.|Hazard Ratio is based on a Cox's regression model with terms for treatment, gender, age and height.||0.77|0.19|0.0050
91024046|NCT01335477|181931734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|109.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.808|<|0.0001||95.0|70.92|148.62|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Within-patient errors are modelled by compound symmetry covariance matrix.~Nintedanib 150 mg bid versus Placebo."|Based on Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), with fixed effects for treatment, visit, gender, age, height, treatment-by-visit, baseline FVC, baseline FVC-by-visit and random effect for patient.||148.62|70.92|<0.0001
91024047|NCT01335477|181931735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.742|<|0.0001||95.0|2.78|5.69|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Within-patient errors are modelled by compound symmetry covariance matrix.~Nintedanib 150 mg bid versus Placebo."|Based on Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), with fixed effects for treatment, visit, gender, age, height, treatment-by-visit, baseline FVC, baseline FVC-by-visit and random effect for patient.||5.69|2.78|<0.0001
91103886|NCT01644331|182094571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Kaplan Meier|0.98||||0.334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|0.99|||Log Rank|||||0.99|0.96|0.334
90831611|NCT03069352|181535984|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.039|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.039
90831612|NCT03069352|181535985|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|22.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.0|35.8||||||||35.8|9.0|
90831613|NCT03069352|181535986|SUPERIORITY||Slope|17.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|35.8||||||||35.8|-0.4|
90831614|NCT03069352|181535987|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.162|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age (18 - \< 75, ≥ 75) and AML status (de novo, secondary).||||||0.162
90831615|NCT03069352|181535987|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.277|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.277
90831616|NCT03069352|181535988|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.162|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age (18 - \< 75, ≥ 75) and AML status (de novo, secondary).||||||0.162
91024048|NCT01335477|181931736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.607|<|0.0001||95.0|1.87|4.25|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Within-patient errors are modelled by compound symmetry covariance matrix.~Nintedanib 150 mg bid versus Placebo."|Based on Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), with fixed effects for treatment, visit, gender, age, height, treatment-by-visit, baseline FVC \[%predicted\], baseline FVC \[%predicted\]-by-visit and random effect for patient.||4.25|1.87|<0.0001
91024049|NCT01335477|181931737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.743|<|0.0001||95.0|2.76|5.67|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Within-patient errors are modelled by compound symmetry covariance matrix.~Nintedanib 150 mg bid versus Placebo."|Based on Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), with fixed effects for treatment, visit, gender, age, height, treatment-by-visit, baseline FVC \[%predicted\], baseline FVC \[%predicted\]-by-visit and random effect for patient.||5.67|2.76|<0.0001
91024050|NCT01335477|181931740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.286||||0.1833||95.0|0.89|1.86|||Regression, Logistic||Nintedanib 150 mg bid versus Placebo|Logistic regression with terms treatment, age, gender, height and baseline FVC % predicted||1.86|0.89|0.1833
91024051|NCT01335477|181931741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.794||||0.0011||95.0|1.26|2.55|||Regression, Logistic||Nintedanib 150 mg bid versus Placebo|Logistic regression with terms treatment, age, gender, height and baseline FVC % predicted.||2.55|1.26|0.0011
91024052|NCT01335477|181931742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.664||||0.0218||95.0|1.08|2.57|||Regression, Logistic||Nintedanib 150 mg bid versus Placebo|Logistic regression with terms treatment, baseline SGRQ total score||2.57|1.08|0.0218
91024053|NCT01335477|181931743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.675||0.4019||95.0|-4.69|1.88|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Within-patient errors are modelled by compound symmetry covariance matrix.~Nintedanib 150 mg bid versus Placebo."|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline SGRQ Symptoms component, baseline SGRQ Symptoms component-by-visit and random effect for patient.||1.88|-4.69|0.4019
91024054|NCT01335477|181931744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.342||0.022||95.0|-5.71|-0.45|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Within-patient error are modelled by compound symmetry covariance matrix.~Nintedanib 150 mg bid versus Placebo."|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline SGRQ impact component, baseline SGRQ impact component-by-visit and random effect for patient||-0.45|-5.71|0.0220
91024055|NCT01335477|181931745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36||0.0152||95.0|-5.97|-0.64|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Within-patient errors are modelled by compound symmetry covariance matrix.~Nintedanib 150 mg bid versus Placebo."|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline SGRQ Activities component, baseline SGRQ Activities component-by-visit and random effect for patient||-0.64|-5.97|0.0152
91024056|NCT01335477|181931746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.192||0.0089||95.0|-5.46|-0.79|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Within-patient errors are modelled by compound symmetry covariance matrix.~Nintedanib 150 mg bid versus Placebo."|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline SGRQ-I Total score, baseline SGRQ-I Total score-by-visit and random effect for patient.||-0.79|-5.46|0.0089
91024057|NCT01335477|181931747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.685||0.1587||95.0|-5.68|0.93|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Within-patient errors are modelled by compound symmetry covariance matrix.~Nintedanib 150 mg bid versus Placebo."|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline SOBQ score, baseline SOBQ score-by-visit and random effect for patient.||0.93|-5.68|0.1587
91024058|NCT01335477|181931748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.713||0.2326||95.0|-1.31|5.41|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Within-patient errors are modelled by compound symmetry covariance matrix.~Nintedanib 150 mg bid versus Placebo."|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline CASA-Q Cough symptoms score, baseline CASA-Q Cough symptoms score-by-visit and random effect for patient.||5.41|-1.31|0.2326
91024059|NCT01335477|181931749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.564||0.2475||95.0|-1.26|4.88|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Within-patient errors are modelled by compound symmetry covariance matrix.~Nintedanib 150 mg bid versus Placebo"|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline CASA-Q Cough impact score, baseline CASA-Q Cough impact score-by-visit and random effect for patient.||4.88|-1.26|0.2475
91024060|NCT01335477|181931750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.379||||0.069||95.0|0.98|1.95|||Regression, Logistic||Nintedanib 150 mg bid versus Placebo|Logistic regression with term treatment||1.95|0.98|0.0690
91024061|NCT01335477|181931752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.38||||0.007||95.0|0.19|0.77|||Normal distribution|Risk ratio was calculated as the ratio of risk of exacerbation in both treatment groups.|Nintedanib 150 mg bid versus Placebo|The log of the risk ratio was assumed to follow a normal distribution with mean 0 and variance equal to the sum of the reciprocals of the number of patients with at least one exacerbation in each treatment arm.||0.77|0.19|0.0070
91024062|NCT01335477|181931753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.2995||95.0|0.4|1.35|||Log Rank||Nintedanib 150 mg bid versus Placebo|Hazard ratio is based on a Cox´s regression model with terms for treatment, gender, age and height.||1.35|0.40|0.2995
91024063|NCT01335477|181931754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.6654||95.0|0.39|1.9|||Log Rank||Nintedanib 150 mg bid versus Placebo|Hazard ratio is based on Cox´s regression model with terms for treatment, gender, age and height.||1.90|0.39|0.6654
91103887|NCT01644331|182094572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.148|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.148
90831617|NCT03069352|181535988|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.277|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.277
90831618|NCT03069352|181535992|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.704||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.503|0.985|||Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified by AML status (de novo, secondary) and age (18 - \< 75, ≥ 75).|The hazard ratio was estimated using the Cox proportional hazards model, stratified by AML status (de novo, secondary) and age (18 - \< 75, ≥ 75).|||0.985|0.503|0.040
90831619|NCT03069352|181535992|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.717||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.514|1.0|||Log Rank|Unstratified analysis|The hazard ratio was estimated using the Cox proportional hazards model.|||1.000|0.514|0.049
90831620|NCT00308139|181536061|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The choice of a 0.4% noninferiority margin was resulted from the considerations of expected clinical benefit of BYETTA in this study based on clinical data evaluating exenatide LAR and BYETTA, regulatory guidance, published literature, and statistical considerations.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.107||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.12|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model includes treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9% or \>=9%), and concomitant SU use at screening as factors.||Superiority of exenatide long-acting release (LAR) once weekly to BYETTA if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for treatment difference (LAR minus BYETTA) is less than 0; non-inferiority if this upper limit is less than 0.4%. Power:Assuming 20% dropout rate with 246 subjects will complete the study. This sample size would provide 90% power for non-inferiority test with assumption of greater reduction (0.1%) in LAR and a common standard deviation of 1.2%.||-0.12|-0.54|0.0023
90831621|NCT00308139|181536064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis: Percentages of subjects achieving HbA1c target value of \<7% at Week 30 were compared between treatments using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, in which baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9% or \>=9%) and concomitant SU use at screening served as the stratification factors. Null hypothesis: no difference between treatments in percentage of subjects achieving HbA1c target. Power: based on the primary measurement.||||0.0003
90831622|NCT00308139|181536066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2042|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis: Percentage of subjects achieving HbA1c target value of \<=6.5% at Week 30 were compared between treatments using CMH test, in which baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9% or \>=9%) and concomitant SU use at screening served as the stratification factors. Null hypothesis: no difference between treatments in percentage of subjects achieving HbA1c target. Power: based on the primary measurement.||||0.2042
90831623|NCT00308139|181536068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1513|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis: Percentages of subjects achieving HbA1c target values of \<=6.0% at Week 30 were compared between treatments using CMH test, in which baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9% or \>=9%) and concomitant SU use at screening served as the stratification factors. Null hypothesis: no difference between treatments in percentage of subjects achieving HbA1c target. Power: based on the primary measurement.||||0.1513
90831624|NCT00308139|181536070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|30.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.458||0.0124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.88|53.28|||ANCOVA|||Analysis: Change in 2h postprandial glucose from baseline (Day -3) to Week 14 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model including treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9% or \>=9%), and concomitant SU use at screening as factors, and baseline value of the 2h postprandial glucose as a covariate. Null hypothesis: no difference between treatments in change from baseline 2h postprandial glucose.||53.28|6.88|0.0124
90831625|NCT00308139|181536072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.612||0.8916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|1.12|||ANCOVA|||Analysis: Change in body weight from baseline (Day -3) to Week 30 was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9% or \>=9%), and concomitant SU use at screening as factors, and baseline value of the body weight as a covariate. Null hypothesis: no difference between treatments in change from baseline body weight. Power: based on the primary measurement.||1.12|-1.29|0.8916
90831626|NCT00308139|181536074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-16.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.4|-9.4|||ANCOVA|||Analysis: Change in fasting plasma glucose from baseline (Day -3) to Week 30 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model including treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9% or \>=9%), and concomitant SU use at screening as factors, and baseline value of the fasting plasma glucose as a covariate. Null hypothesis: no difference between treatments in change from baseline fasting plasma glucose. Power: based on the primary measurement.||-9.4|-24.4|<.0001
90831627|NCT00308139|181536078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-8.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.04||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|-2.2|||ANCOVA|||Analysis: Change in total cholesterol from baseline (Day -3) to Week 30 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model including treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9% or \>=9%), and concomitant SU use at screening as factors, and baseline value of the total cholesterol as a covariate. Null hypothesis: no difference between treatments in change from baseline total cholesterol. Power: based on the primary measurement.||-2.2|-14.1|0.0077
90894183|NCT01345630|181654093|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For the analysis of the primary endpoint conducted at Week 48, the alternative hypothesis was to test for non-inferiority of MVC+DRV/r to FTC/TDF+DRV/r with a non-inferiority margin of -10%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.83|-4.24||||||The difference in the percentages between the maraviroc and the emtricitabine/tenofovir treatment arms and the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference was provided using the stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel (MH) method over the two assays and the screening plasma HIV-1 RNA levels (\>=100,000 copies/mL or \<100,000 copies/mL). The sample size was chosen to yield a power of ≥90%. The 95% CIs and mean difference (final values) are presented as percentages above.||-4.24|-14.83|
91024064|NCT01335477|181931755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.2209||95.0|0.34|1.35|||Log Rank||Nintedanib 150 mg bid versus Placebo|Hazard ratio is based on a Cox´s regression model with terms for treatment, gender, age and height.||1.35|0.34|0.2209
91024065|NCT01335477|181931756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.1664||95.0|0.37|1.21|||Log Rank||Nintedanib 150 mg bid versus Placebo|Hazard ratio is based on Cox´s regression model with terms for treatment, gender, age and height.||1.21|0.37|0.1664
91024066|NCT01335477|181931757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.2123||95.0|0.55|1.16|||Log Rank||Nintedanib 150 mg bid versus Placebo|Hazard ratio is based on Cox´s regression model with terms for treatment, gender, age and height.||1.16|0.55|0.2123
91103888|NCT01644331|182094573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.334|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.334
91103889|NCT01644331|182094574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.67||||0.241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.79|0.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is a repeated measures analysis so all rows (visits) are taken into account.||0.45|-1.79|0.241
90831628|NCT00308139|181536080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.5613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.9|||ANCOVA|||Analysis: Change in HDL-C from baseline (Day -3) to Week 30 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model including treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9% or \>=9%), and concomitant SU use at screening as factors, and baseline value of the HDL as a covariate. Null hypothesis: no difference between treatments in change from baseline HDL. Power: based on the primary measurement.||1.9|-1.0|0.5613
90831629|NCT00308139|181536083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometic Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.042||0.2915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.04|||ANCOVA|||Analysis: Triglycerides data were logarithm-transformed and the change at Week 30 to baseline (Day -3), expressed as the ratio, was analyzed by an ANCOVA model including treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9% or \>=9%), and concomitant SU use at screening as factors, and baseline value of the triglycerides as a covariate. Null hypothesis: no difference between treatments in change from baseline triglycerides. Power: based on the primary measurement.||1.04|0.87|0.2915
90831630|NCT04231669|181536115|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Linear Mixed-effects regression|||||||0.05
90831631|NCT00435409|181536130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2239||||0.9409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9487|1.5789||Stratification factors included metastatic organ sites (2 or less versus \[vs\] more than \[\>\] 2 sites), hormone receptor status (HER2-/ER-/PR-) vs all others), and prior chemotherapy regimens (1 vs \>1), from interactive voice response system (IVRS).|Log Rank|||A stratified log-rank test (1-sided, α=0.025) based on randomization stratification factors||1.5789|0.9487|0.9409
90831632|NCT00435409|181536130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1084||||0.812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8817|1.3935||Stratification factors include metastatic organ sites (2 or less versus \[vs\] 2 or more sites), hormone receptor status (HER2-/ER-/PR-) vs all others), and prior chemotherapy regimens (1 vs more than 1), from IVRS.|Log Rank|||A stratified log-rank test (1-sided, α=0.025) based on randomization stratification factors||1.3935|0.8817|0.8120
90831633|NCT00435409|181536131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.3143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.97||A stratified CMH test stratified by randomization stratification factors was used to compare objective response rate (ORR) between two treatment arms.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Independent radiology assessment||1.97|0.69|0.3143
90831634|NCT00435409|181536131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.1269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|2.13||A stratified CMH test stratified by randomization stratification factors was used to compare ORR between two treatment arms.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Investigator's assessment||2.13|0.83|0.1269
90894184|NCT01345630|181654101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.075|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0303|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1343|-0.0157||||||The difference in proportions of patients with plasma HIV-1 RNA \<50 copies/mL at Week 48 between the \[MVC+DRV/r\] and the \[FTC/TDF+DRV/r\] treatment arms, with two-sided 95% confidence interval, is shown for those patients who were R5 by genotype (including all who were originally randomized to ESTA and were R5 by genotype upon retesting), via the maximum likelihood (ML) method.||-0.0157|-0.1343|
90894185|NCT01345630|181654106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.4|23.6|||ANCOVA|||Results were from an ANCOVA model with change from Baseline as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: Treatment group, Screening plasma HIV RNA concentration, Screening Tropism Assay, Baseline value of the response variable.||23.6|-24.4|0.9750
90894186|NCT01345630|181654107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-1.5|||ANCOVA|||Results were from ANCOVA model with change from Baseline as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: Treatment group, Screening plasma HIV RNA concentration, Screening Tropism Assay, Baseline value of the response variable.||-1.5|-3.1|<0.0001
90831635|NCT00435409|181536133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0372||||0.6275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8322|1.2927||Stratification factors (all from IVRS) included number of metastatic organ sites (\<=2 vs \>2 sites), hormone receptor status (HER2-/ER-/PR- vs all others), and prior chemotherapy regimens (1 vs \>1).|Log Rank||Hazard ratio for sunitinib + capecitabine versus capecitabine.|||1.2927|0.8322|0.6275
90831636|NCT03192176|181536163|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.56|-0.25||LS Means(LSM), standard errors(SE), confidence intervals(CI), \& p-values come from an ANCOVA model with CFB as the dependent variable \& treatment group, pooled center, smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement, baseline weight as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||-0.25|-3.56|0.0240
90831637|NCT03192176|181536163|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.68|-1.38||LS Means, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the dependent variable and treatment group, pooled center, smoking status as factors and baseline measurement, baseline weight as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||-1.38|-4.68|0.0004
90831638|NCT03192176|181536163|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.44|-1.14||LS Means, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the dependent variable and treatment group, pooled center, smoking status as factors and baseline measurement, baseline weight as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||-1.14|-4.44|0.0010
90894187|NCT01345630|181654108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|127.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|76.5|178.8|||ANCOVA|||Results were from ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: Treatment group, Screening plasma HIV RNA concentration, Screening Tropism Assay, Baseline value of the response variable.||178.8|76.5|<0.0001
90831639|NCT03192176|181536163|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|-1.89||LS Means, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the dependent variable and treatment group, pooled center, smoking status as factors and baseline measurement, baseline weight as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||-1.89|-5.20|<0.0001
90894188|NCT01345630|181654109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|3.1|||ANCOVA|||Results were from ANCOVA model with change from Baseline as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: Treatment group, Screening plasma HIV RNA concentration, Screening Tropism Assay, Baseline value of the response variable.||3.1|1.1|<0.0001
91024067|NCT01335477|181931758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.213||0.2032||95.0|-0.15|0.69|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Within-patient errors are modelled by compound symmetry covariance matrix.~Nintedanib 150 mg bid versus Placebo."|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), with fixed effects for treatment, visit, gender, age, height, treatment-by-visit, baseline SpO2, baseline SpO2-by-visit and random effect for patient.||0.69|-0.15|0.2032
90831640|NCT03192176|181536163|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.0058||95.0|-4.0|-0.68||LS Means, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the dependent variable and treatment group, pooled center, smoking status as factors and baseline measurement, baseline weight as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||-0.68|-4.00|0.0058
90831641|NCT03192176|181536163|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.65|-1.41||LS Means, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the dependent variable and treatment group, pooled center, smoking status as factors and baseline measurement, baseline weight as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||-1.41|-4.65|0.0003
90831642|NCT03192176|181536163|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.06|0.76||LS Means, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the dependent variable and treatment group, pooled center, smoking status as factors and baseline measurement, baseline weight as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||0.76|-4.06|0.0042
90831643|NCT03192176|181536164|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.0154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-0.35||LS Means, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the dependent variable and treatment group, pooled center, smoking status as factors and baseline measurement, baseline weight as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||-0.35|-3.30|0.0154
90831644|NCT03192176|181536164|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|-0.67||LS Means, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the dependent variable and treatment group, pooled center, smoking status as factors and baseline measurement, baseline weight as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||-0.67|-3.60|0.0043
90831645|NCT03192176|181536164|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.76|-0.83||LS Means, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the dependent variable and treatment group, pooled center, smoking status as factors and baseline measurement, baseline weight as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||-0.83|-3.76|0.0023
90831646|NCT03192176|181536164|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.09|-1.16||LS Means, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the dependent variable and treatment group, pooled center, smoking status as factors and baseline measurement, baseline weight as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||-1.16|-4.09|0.0005
90831647|NCT03192176|181536164|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.52|-0.58||LS Means, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the dependent variable and treatment group, pooled center, smoking status as factors and baseline measurement, baseline weight as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||-0.58|-3.52|0.0064
90831648|NCT03192176|181536164|SUPERIORITY||-2.6|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.04|-1.15||LS Means, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the dependent variable and treatment group, pooled center, smoking status as factors and baseline measurement, baseline weight as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||-1.15|-4.04|0.0005
90831649|NCT03192176|181536164|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.52|-0.59||LS Means, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the dependent variable and treatment group, pooled center, smoking status as factors and baseline measurement, baseline weight as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||-0.59|-3.52|0.0063
90831650|NCT03192176|181536165|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.07||LS Means, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the dependent variable and treatment group, pooled center, smoking status as factors and baseline measurement, baseline weight as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||-0.07|-0.84|0.0215
90831651|NCT03192176|181536165|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.24||LS Means, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the dependent variable and treatment group, pooled center, smoking status as factors and baseline measurement, baseline weight as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||-0.24|-1.01|0.0017
90831652|NCT03192176|181536165|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|-0.44||LS Means, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the dependent variable and treatment group, pooled center, smoking status as factors and baseline measurement, baseline weight as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||-0.44|-1.21|<0.0001
90831653|NCT03192176|181536165|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|-0.59||LS Means, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the dependent variable and treatment group, pooled center, smoking status as factors and baseline measurement, baseline weight as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||-0.59|-1.37|<0.0001
90831654|NCT03192176|181536165|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.04||LS Means, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the dependent variable and treatment group, pooled center, smoking status as factors and baseline measurement, baseline weight as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||-0.04|-0.81|0.0322
90831655|NCT03192176|181536165|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.23||LS Means, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the dependent variable and treatment group, pooled center, smoking status as factors and baseline measurement, baseline weight as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||-0.23|-0.99|0.0017
90831656|NCT03192176|181536165|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differencce|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.31||LS Means, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the dependent variable and treatment group, pooled center, smoking status as factors and baseline measurement, baseline weight as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||-0.31|-1.08|0.0004
90831657|NCT03192176|181536166|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.2324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.16||LS Means, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the dependent variable and treatment group, pooled center, smoking status as factors and baseline measurement, baseline weight as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||-0.16|-0.67|0.2324
90894189|NCT01345630|181654110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|-0.07|||ANCOVA|||Results are from an ANCOVA model with change from Baseline as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: Treatment group, Screening plasma HIV RNA concentration, Screening Tropism Assay, Baseline value of the response variable.||-0.07|-0.15|<0.0001
90831658|NCT03192176|181536166|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.04||LS Means, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the dependent variable and treatment group, pooled center, smoking status as factors and baseline measurement, baseline weight as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||0.04|-0.80|0.0736
90831659|NCT03192176|181536166|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.15||LS Means, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the dependent variable and treatment group, pooled center, smoking status as factors and baseline measurement, baseline weight as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||-0.15|-0.98|0.0080
90831660|NCT03192176|181536166|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.22||LS Means, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the dependent variable and treatment group, pooled center, smoking status as factors and baseline measurement, baseline weight as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||-0.22|-1.07|0.0028
90894190|NCT01345630|181654111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|75.861||||0.8379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-658.181|809.903|||ANCOVA|||Results are from ANCOVA model with change from Baseline as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment group, age, race, Screening BMI, and Baseline value of the response variable. Treatment differences are estimated using LS means with factor levels weighted according to overall analysis population proportions.||809.903|-658.181|0.8379
90894191|NCT01345630|181654112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.031||||0.3376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.033|0.094|||ANCOVA|||Results are from ANCOVA model with change from Baseline as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment group, age, race, Screening BMI, and Baseline value of the response variable. Treatment differences are estimated using LS means with factor levels weighted according to overall analysis population proportions.||0.094|-0.033|0.3376
90894192|NCT01345630|181654113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.014||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|0.023|||ANCOVA|||Results are from ANCOVA model with change from Baseline as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment group, age, race, Screening BMI, and Baseline value of the response variable. Treatment differences are estimated using LS means with factor levels weighted according to overall analysis population proportions.||0.023|0.004|0.0043
91024068|NCT01335477|181931759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.113|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1005||0.26||95.0|-0.084|0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Within-patient errors are modelled by compound symmetry covariance matrix.~Nintedanib 150 mg bid versus Placebo."|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures with fixed effects for treatment, visit, gender, age, height, treatment-by-visit, baseline DLCO (HGB Corrected) \[mmol/min/kPa\], baseline DLCO (HGB Corrected) \[mmol/min/kPa\]-by-visit and random effect for patient.||0.310|-0.084|0.2600
91024069|NCT01473758|181931771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.404|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.07||0.6491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.731|7.538||The model contains neutrophil count at Baseline and treatment as independent variables, fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||7.538|-4.731|0.6491
91024070|NCT01473758|181931772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.412|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.687||0.8786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.766|4.943||The model contains neutrophil count at Baseline and treatment as independent variables, fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||4.943|-5.766|0.8786
91024071|NCT02763579|181931829|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio|0.77||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.96|||Log Rank|||||0.96|0.62|0.0170
91024072|NCT02763579|181931830|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio|0.7||||0.0069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.91|||Log Rank|||||0.91|0.54|0.0069
91024073|NCT02763579|181931831|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.37||||||||1.37|0.55|
91024074|NCT02763579|181931832|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.715||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.562|0.911|||Log Rank|||||0.911|0.562|0.0063
91024075|NCT02763579|181931833|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|8.47||||0.0593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|17.27|||Z-test|||PFS Rate at 6 months||17.27|-0.33|0.0593
91024076|NCT02763579|181931833|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|7.27||||0.0133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|13.02|||Z-test|||PFS Rate at 1 year||13.02|1.52|0.0133
91024077|NCT02763579|181931834|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|13.46||||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.29|23.64|||Z-test|||OS Rate at 1 year||23.64|3.29|0.0095
91024078|NCT02763579|181931835|SUPERIORITY|Stratified analysis. Stratification factors: Sex (male vs female) and ECOG (0 vs 1).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.221||||0.3604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.795|1.874|||Log Rank|||Cough||1.874|0.795|0.3604
91024079|NCT02763579|181931835|SUPERIORITY|Stratified analysis. Stratification factors: Sex (male vs female) and ECOG (0 vs 1).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.058||||0.7712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.722|1.553|||Log Rank|||Pain in Chest||1.553|0.722|0.7712
91024080|NCT02763579|181931835|SUPERIORITY|Stratified analysis. Stratification factors: Sex (male vs female) and ECOG (0 vs 1).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.077||||0.6922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.747|1.552|||Log Rank|||Pain in Arm or Shoulder||1.552|0.747|0.6922
91024081|NCT02763579|181931835|SUPERIORITY|Stratified analysis. Stratification factors: Sex (male vs female) and ECOG (0 vs 1).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.748||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.549|1.019|||Log Rank|||Dyspnea||1.019|0.549|0.0650
91024082|NCT00936377|181931842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.64
91024083|NCT00936377|181931842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.27
91024084|NCT00936377|181931843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
91024085|NCT00936377|181931843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
91024086|NCT00936377|181931844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.066|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.066
91024087|NCT00936377|181931844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.27
91024088|NCT00936377|181931845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||||||Percentage of CIWA scores rates as severe|Chi-squared, Corrected|||Percentage of CIWA scores rates as severe||||0.18
91024089|NCT00936377|181931845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35||||||Percentage of CIWA scores rates as severe|Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.35
91024090|NCT00936377|181931846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||For hypotension||||1
91024091|NCT00936377|181931846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47|||||||Fisher Exact|||For hypotension||||0.47
91024092|NCT00936377|181931846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||For bradycardia||||1
91024093|NCT00936377|181931846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||Fisher Exact|||For bradycardia||||0.2
91024094|NCT00936377|181931847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Repeated measures ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91024095|NCT00936377|181931848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5
90831661|NCT03192176|181536166|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differnce|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.4647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.26||LS Means, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the dependent variable and treatment group, pooled center, smoking status as factors and baseline measurement, baseline weight as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||0.26|-0.58|0.4647
90831662|NCT03192176|181536166|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|-0.1||LS Means, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the dependent variable and treatment group, pooled center, smoking status as factors and baseline measurement, baseline weight as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||-0.10|-0.92|0.0160
90831663|NCT03192176|181536166|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.06||LS Means, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the dependent variable and treatment group, pooled center, smoking status as factors and baseline measurement, baseline weight as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||0.06|-0.78|0.0901
90831664|NCT03192176|181536167|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.0865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.92|0.2||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|MMRM: Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 1||0.20|-2.92|0.0865
90831665|NCT03192176|181536167|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.22|-1.1||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||-1.10|-4.22|0.0009
90831666|NCT03192176|181536167|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79|<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.06|-1.94||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||-1.94|-5.06|<0.00001
90831667|NCT03192176|181536167|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.63|-2.47||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||-2.47|-5.63|<0.00001
90831668|NCT03192176|181536167|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.55|0.63||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||0.63|-2.55|0.2360
90831669|NCT03192176|181536167|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|-2.4||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.92|-0.8||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||-0.80|-3.92|0.0032
90831670|NCT03192176|181536167|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.29|-1.19||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||-1.19|-4.29|0.0006
90831671|NCT03192176|181536167|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.1318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.86|0.38||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||0.38|-2.86|0.1318
90831672|NCT03192176|181536167|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|-1.04||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||-1.04|-4.30|0.0014
90831673|NCT03192176|181536167|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differencce|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.82|-1.58||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||-1.58|-4.82|0.0001
90831674|NCT03192176|181536167|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|-2.0||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||-2.00|-5.30|<0.0001
90831675|NCT03192176|181536167|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.0752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.15|0.15||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||0.15|-3.15|0.0752
91024096|NCT00936377|181931848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.95
91024097|NCT00936377|181931849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.43
91024098|NCT00936377|181931849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.64
91024099|NCT00829413|181931850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Sensitivity (%)|37.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.4|48.2|||McNemar|||||48.2|27.4|<.0001
91024100|NCT00829413|181931850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Sensitivity (%)|40.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.4|50.3|||McNemar|||||50.3|30.4|<.0001
90831676|NCT03192176|181536167|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.0343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.38|-0.13||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||-0.13|-3.38|0.0343
91024101|NCT00829413|181931850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Sensitivity (%)|75.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.9|83.3|||McNemar|||||83.3|67.9|<.0001
90831677|NCT03192176|181536167|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.95|-0.71||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||-0.71|-3.95|0.0049
90831678|NCT03192176|181536167|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.0285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-0.2||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||-0.20|-3.50|0.0285
90831679|NCT03192176|181536167|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.69|-1.37||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||-1.37|-4.69|0.0004
90831680|NCT03192176|181536167|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.14|-1.84||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||-1.84|-5.14|<0.0001
90831681|NCT03192176|181536167|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.65|-2.28||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRm|||Week 3||-2.28|-5.65|<0.0001
90831682|NCT03192176|181536167|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86||0.0169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.74|-0.37||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||-0.37|-3.74|0.0169
90831683|NCT03192176|181536167|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.04|-0.73||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||-0.73|-4.04|0.0049
90831684|NCT03192176|181536167|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.48|-1.18||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||-1.18|-4.48|0.0008
90831685|NCT03192176|181536167|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.0428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.36|-0.06||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||-0.06|-3.36|0.0428
90831686|NCT03192176|181536167|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.65|-1.34||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||-1.34|-4.65|0.0004
90831687|NCT03192176|181536167|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|-0.84||1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.88|-1.58||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||-1.58|-4.88|0.00001
90831688|NCT03192176|181536167|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.73|-2.37||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||-2.37|-5.73|<0.0001
90831689|NCT03192176|181536167|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.0225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.64|-0.28||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||-0.28|-3.64|0.0225
90831690|NCT03192176|181536167|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.49|-1.19||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||-1.19|-4.49|0.0008
90831691|NCT03192176|181536167|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|-1.42||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||-1.42|-4.70|0.0003
91024102|NCT00829413|181931851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Specificity (%)|7.9||||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|18.2|||McNemar|||||18.2|-2.4|0.1380
91024103|NCT00829413|181931851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Specificity (%)|28.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.7|37.5|||McNemar|||||37.5|19.7|<.0001
91024104|NCT00829413|181931851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Specificity (%)|50.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.0|59.5|||McNemar|||||59.5|42.0|<.0001
91024105|NCT00829413|181931852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Accuracy (%)|21.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.1|29.2|||McNemar|||||29.2|14.1|<.0001
91024106|NCT00829413|181931852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Accuracy (%)|34.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.3|40.7|||McNemar|||||40.7|27.3|<.0001
90957026|NCT00706433|181793710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4965||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.4965
90831692|NCT03192176|181536167|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.1168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|0.31||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||0.31|-2.80|0.1168
90831693|NCT03192176|181536167|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.15|-1.03||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||-1.03|-4.15|0.0012
90831694|NCT03192176|181536167|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.54|-1.42||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||-1.42|-4.54|0.0002
90831695|NCT03192176|181536167|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.44|-2.28||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||-2.28|-5.44|<0.0001
90831696|NCT03192176|181536167|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.0134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.58|-0.42||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||-0.42|-3.58|0.0134
90831697|NCT03192176|181536167|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.76|-0.65||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||-0.65|-3.76|0.0057
90831698|NCT03192176|181536167|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.06|-0.96||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||-0.96|-4.06|0.0016
90831699|NCT03192176|181536167|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.0843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.94|0.19||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||0.19|-2.94|0.0843
90831700|NCT03192176|181536167|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|-0.77||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||-0.77|-3.90|0.0035
90831701|NCT03192176|181536167|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.66|-1.52||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||-1.52|-4.66|0.0001
90831702|NCT03192176|181536167|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.28|-2.1||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||-2.10|-5.28|<0.0001
90831703|NCT03192176|181536167|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.0315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.33|-0.16||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||-0.16|-3.33|0.0315
90831704|NCT03192176|181536167|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.75|-0.62||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||-0.62|-3.75|0.0063
90831705|NCT03192176|181536167|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.25|-1.14||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||-1.14|-4.25|0.0007
90831706|NCT03192176|181536167|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.89|0.29||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||0.29|-2.89|0.1090
91024107|NCT00829413|181931852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Accuracy (%)|75.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.9|83.3|||McNemar|||||83.3|67.9|<.0001
91024108|NCT00829413|181931853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wald Test|||||||<.0001
91024109|NCT00829413|181931853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wald Test|||||||<.0001
91024110|NCT00829413|181931853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wald Test|||||||<.0001
91024111|NCT00829413|181931854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wald Test|||||||<.0001
91024112|NCT00829413|181931854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wald Test|||||||<.0001
91024113|NCT00829413|181931854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wald Test|||||||<.0001
91024114|NCT03255031|181931876|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.067||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.067
91024115|NCT03255031|181931877|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.004
90831707|NCT03192176|181536167|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.14|-0.95||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||-0.95|-4.14|0.0018
90831708|NCT03192176|181536167|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.54|-1.34||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||-1.34|-4.54|0.0004
90831709|NCT03192176|181536167|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|-2.15||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||-2.15|-5.40|<0.0001
90831710|NCT03192176|181536167|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.0231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-0.26||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||-0.26|-3.50|0.0231
90831711|NCT03192176|181536167|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.86|-0.67||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||-0.67|-3.86|0.0056
90831712|NCT03192176|181536167|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.35|-1.17||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||-1.17|-4.35|0.0007
90831713|NCT03192176|181536167|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.3568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|0.85||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||0.85|-2.35|0.3568
90831714|NCT03192176|181536167|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.65|-0.43||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||-0.43|-3.65|0.0129
90831715|NCT03192176|181536167|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.19|-0.97||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||-0.97|-4.19|0.0018
90831716|NCT03192176|181536167|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|-1.42||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||-1.42|-4.70|0.0003
90831717|NCT03192176|181536167|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.1004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|0.27||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||0.27|-3.00|0.1004
90831718|NCT03192176|181536167|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.0173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.57|-0.35||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||-0.35|-3.57|0.0173
90831719|NCT03192176|181536167|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.97|-0.77||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||-0.77|-3.97|0.0038
90831720|NCT03192176|181536167|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.1767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.57|0.48||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||0.48|-2.57|0.1767
90831721|NCT03192176|181536167|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.0308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-0.16||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||-0.16|-3.20|0.0308
90831722|NCT03192176|181536167|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.07|-1.0||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||-1.00|-4.07|0.0013
90831723|NCT03192176|181536167|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.47|-1.36||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||-1.36|-4.47|0.0003
91103890|NCT01644331|182094575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.28||||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is a repeated measures analysis so all rows (visits) are taken into account.||0.82|-0.26|0.303
91103891|NCT01644331|182094576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.471||||||24 hours|Chi-squared|||||||0.471
90957027|NCT00706433|181793711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0728||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0728
91024116|NCT01809314|181931886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||The difference between Baseline and Month 4 was analyzed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||||<0.0001
91024117|NCT01809314|181931887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Overall (all categories combined) change from Baseline in ECOG performance status at Month 4 was analyzed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||||0.001
91024118|NCT00449930|181931949|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The pre-specified non-inferiority margin was 0.4%; i.e., non-inferiority required that the upper boundary of the 95% confidence interval for the treatment difference (sitagliptin minus metformin) to be less than 0.4%.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.57||||95.0|0.06|0.21|||||Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with terms for treatment group and baseline value.|||0.21|0.06|
91024119|NCT00449930|181931950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.3|||<|0.001||95.0|-10.6|-4.2|||Fisher Exact||"Difference (sitagliptin minus metformin) in the percentage of patients with diarrhea.~Wilson Score method was used for the 95% Confidence Interval (CI)."|||-4.2|-10.6|<0.001
91024120|NCT00449930|181931951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.9||||0.032||95.0|-3.9|-0.2|||Fisher Exact||"Difference (sitagliptin minus metformin) in the percentage of patients with nausea.~Wilson Score method was used for the 95% CI."|||-0.2|-3.9|0.032
91024121|NCT00449930|181931952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.7||||0.103||95.0|-4.0|0.3|||Fisher Exact||"Difference (sitagliptin minus metformin) in the percentage of patients with abdominal pain.~Wilson Score method was used for the 95% CI."|||0.3|-4.0|0.103
91103892|NCT01644331|182094576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.585||||||48 hrs|Chi-squared|||||||0.585
90831724|NCT03192176|181536167|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.2109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.55|0.56||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||0.56|-2.55|0.2109
90831725|NCT03192176|181536167|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.0152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.44|-0.37||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||-0.37|-3.44|0.0152
90831726|NCT03192176|181536167|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.0075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.61|-0.56||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||-0.56|-3.61|0.0075
90831727|NCT03192176|181536167|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.0869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.96|0.2||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||0.20|-2.96|0.0869
90831728|NCT03192176|181536167|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.14|0.01||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||0.01|-3.14|0.0520
90831729|NCT03192176|181536167|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|-1.12||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||-1.12|-4.30|0.0009
90831730|NCT03192176|181536167|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.68|-1.46||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||-1.46|-4.68|0.0002
90831731|NCT03192176|181536167|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.0456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.25|-0.03||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Wek 10||-0.03|-3.25|0.0456
90831732|NCT03192176|181536167|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.0073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.76|-0.59||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||-0.59|-3.76|0.0073
90831733|NCT03192176|181536167|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.01|-0.86||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||-0.86|-4.01|0.0026
90831734|NCT03192176|181536167|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.0878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.87|0.2||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||0.20|-2.87|0.0878
90831735|NCT03192176|181536167|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.0182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.39|-0.32||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||-0.32|-3.39|0.0182
90831736|NCT03192176|181536167|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.55|-1.44||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||-1.44|-4.55|0.0002
90831737|NCT03192176|181536167|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.53|-1.4||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||-1.40|-4.53|0.0002
90831738|NCT03192176|181536167|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.0387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.22|-0.09||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||-0.09|-3.22|0.0387
90957028|NCT00706433|181793712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.548||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.5480
90831739|NCT03192176|181536167|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.89|-0.8||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||-0.80|-3.89|0.0031
90831740|NCT03192176|181536167|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.88|-0.81||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||-0.81|-3.88|0.0029
91087785|NCT00810069|182058328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.36||P-value for Week 16: Analysis of early intervention versus delayed intervention strategies LS Mean/Estimate|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed models repeated measures with fixed effects for strategy, country, visit, strategy-by-visit interaction, baseline score and baseline-by-visit||Repeated Measurements Analysis: Early Intervention versus Delayed Intervention Strategy at Week 16||0.36|-0.43|0.856
91087786|NCT00810069|182058329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|-0.01||P-value for Week 8: Analysis of early versus delayed intervention LS Mean/Estimate|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed models repeated measures with fixed effects for strategy, country, visit, strategy-by-visit interaction, baseline score and baseline-by-visit||Repeated Measurements Analysis: Early Intervention versus Delayed Intervention Strategy at Week 8||-0.01|-0.10|0.021
91087787|NCT00810069|182058329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.0||P-value for Week 12: Analysis of early versus delayed intervention strategies LS Mean/Estimate|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed models repeated measures with fixed effects for strategy, country, visit, strategy-by-visit interaction, baseline score and baseline-by-visit||Repeated Measurements Analysis: Early Intervention versus Delayed Intervention Strategy at Week 12||0.00|-0.09|0.071
91087788|NCT00810069|182058329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.06||P-value for Week 16: Analysis of early versus delayed intervention strategies LS Mean/Estimate|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed models repeated measures with fixed effects for strategy, country, visit, strategy-by-visit interaction, baseline score and baseline-by-visit||Repeated Measurements Analysis: Early Intervention versus Delayed Intervention Strategy at Week 16||0.06|-0.05|0.792
91087789|NCT00810069|182058330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|1.0||P-value for Week 8: Analysis of early versus delayed intervention strategies LS Mean/Estimate|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed models repeated measures with fixed effects for strategy, country, visit, strategy-by-visit interaction, baseline score and baseline-by-visit||Repeated Measurements Analysis: Early Intervention versus Delayed Intervention Strategy at Week 8||1.00|-1.74|0.597
91087790|NCT00810069|182058330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|0.78||P-value for Week 12: Analysis for early versus delayed intervention strategies LS Mean/Estimate|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed models repeated measures with fixed effects for strategy, country, visit, strategy-by-visit interaction, baseline score and baseline-by-visit||Repeated Measurements Analysis: Early Intervention versus Delayed Intervention Strategy at Week 12||0.78|-2.13|0.360
91087791|NCT00810069|182058330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|1.65||P-value for Week 16: Analysis for early versus delayed intervention strategies LS Mean/Estimate|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed models repeated measures with fixed effects for strategy, country, visit, strategy-by-visit interaction, baseline score and baseline-by-visit||Repeated Measurements Analysis: Early Intervention versus Delayed Intervention Strategy at Week 16||1.65|-1.52|0.937
91087792|NCT00810069|182058331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.075||95.0||||P-value is for early intervention strategy versus delayed intervention strategy.|Kaplan-Meier analysis|Kaplan-Meier analysis with Wilcoxon test to compare strategies||Kaplan-Meier estimates (weeks): analysis of early intervention versus delayed intervention strategies||||0.075
90957029|NCT00706433|181793713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0301||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0301
91087793|NCT00810069|182058332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Survival rate difference|-0.07||||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.02||P-value is for comparison of early intervention versus delayed intervention as a function of survival rate over a 12 week period (Week 4 through Week 16).|Kaplan-Meier analysis|P-value for comparison of rates is based on normal approximation using Greenwood's estimation for standard error.||Survival function estimated over a 12 week period (Week 4 through Week 16): analysis of early intervention versus delayed intervention strategies||0.02|-0.16|0.116
91087794|NCT00186485|182058348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Repeated Measures ANOVAs over the course of the TMS treatments, by severity of depression on the HAM-D rating scale: total scores (F (4,96) = 19.88, p \< .001) over the 4 week treatment period.|ANOVA|Repeated Measures Anova||ANOVA with partial eta accounts for multiple repeated measures over the course of treatment.||||<0.001
91087795|NCT00186485|182058349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||Repeated Measures ANOVAs over the course of the TMS treatments, by severity of depression on the BDI total scores (F (4,96) = 19.35, p \< .001) over the 4 week treatment period.,|ANOVA|||Repeated measures ANOVA with partial eta; accounts for multiple repeated measures over the course of treatment.||||<0.01
91103893|NCT01644331|182094576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12||||||72 hrs|Chi-squared|||||||0.120
91103894|NCT01644331|182094577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.037|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.037
91103895|NCT01644331|182094578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.373|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.373
90831741|NCT03192176|181536167|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.0653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|0.09||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||0.09|-2.90|0.0653
90957030|NCT00706433|181793713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0564||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0564
91103896|NCT01644331|182094579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Kaplan Meier|0.26||||0.709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.32|||Log Rank|||||0.32|0.21|0.709
90831742|NCT03192176|181536167|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.0102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.46|-0.47||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||-0.47|-3.46|0.0102
90831743|NCT03192176|181536167|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.38|-1.36||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||-1.36|-4.38|0.0002
90831744|NCT03192176|181536167|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.72|-1.67||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||-1.67|-4.72|<0.0001
90831745|NCT03192176|181536167|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.0231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-0.25||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||-0.25|-3.30|0.0231
90831746|NCT03192176|181536167|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.88|-0.87||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||-0.87|-3.88|0.0021
90831747|NCT03192176|181536167|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.88|-0.87||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||-0.87|-3.88|0.0021
90831748|NCT03192176|181536167|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.96|-0.97||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||-0.97|-3.96|0.0013
90831749|NCT03192176|181536167|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.89|0.43||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||0.43|-2.89|0.1460
90831750|NCT03192176|181536167|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.6066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.23||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMMRM|||Week 13||1.23|-2.10|0.6066
90831751|NCT03192176|181536167|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.8422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|1.54||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||1.54|-1.88|0.8422
90831752|NCT03192176|181536167|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.2346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.74|0.67||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|LSMean difference|||Week 13||0.67|-2.74|0.2346
90957031|NCT00706433|181793713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.447||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.4470
91024122|NCT00449930|181931953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.0||||||95.0|-2.4|0.2|||||"Difference (sitagliptin minus metformin) in the percentage of patients with vomiting.~Wilson Score method was used for the 95% CI."|||0.2|-2.4|
91024123|NCT00575328|181931961|SUPERIORITY|Analysis is a test of statistical significance to evaluate whether the results are consistent with the assumption of there being no difference in the clinical improvement (i.e. change in ASEX score) of the two treatments (null hypothesis).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.3||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|12.3||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. P value for significance set a priori at P\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: There will be no difference in clinical improvement (i.e. change in ASEX score) between treatment arms. No formal power analysis was carried out, given the small study sample.|The analysis is not truly informative, since the analyzable sample (n=6) was too small. Results should be viewed with caution.|12.3|-8.7|0.62
91024124|NCT00575328|181931962|SUPERIORITY|Analysis is a test of statistical significance to evaluate whether the results are consistent with the assumption of there being no difference in the clinical improvement (i.e. change in MGH-SD score) of the two treatments (null hypothesis).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.5||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|13.97||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. P value for significance set a priori at P\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: There will be no difference in clinical improvement (i.e. change in MGH-SD score) between treatment arms. No formal power analysis was carried out, given the small study sample.|Analysis was not truly informative since the analyzable sample (n=6) was too small. Results should be interpreted with caution.|13.97|-6.7|0.38
91024125|NCT02868281|181931963|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.87||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|48.11|||Mixed effect logistic regression||The model included treatment, Baseline ACT total score, Baseline ACT total score squared, center, type of Baseline controller, gender and age, with the center as a random factor.|||48.11|1.29|0.027
91024126|NCT02868281|181931964|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.1||||0.222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.0|||Mixed Model Repeat Measures||Weeks 1-4. The model included covariates of treatment, center, Baseline ACT total score, type of Baseline controller, gender, age and treatment-by-visit interaction, with the center as a random factor.|||0.0|-0.2|0.222
90894193|NCT01345630|181654114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.008||||0.2273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|0.022|||ANCOVA|||Results are from ANCOVA model with change from Baseline as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment group, age, race, Screening BMI, and Baseline value of the response variable. Treatment differences are estimated using LS means with factor levels weighted according to overall analysis population proportions.||0.022|-0.005|0.2273
90894194|NCT01345630|181654115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.005||||0.4188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.007|0.018|||ANCOVA|||Results are from ANCOVA model with change from Baseline as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment group, age, race, Screening BMI, and Baseline value of the response variable. Treatment differences are estimated using LS means with factor levels weighted according to overall analysis population proportions.||0.018|-0.007|0.4188
90894195|NCT01345630|181654116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.12||||0.1722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.17|0.94|||ANCOVA|||Results are from ANCOVA model with change from Baseline as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment group, age, race, Screening BMI, and Baseline value of the response variable. Treatment differences are estimated using LS means with factor levels weighted according to overall analysis population proportions.||0.94|-5.17|0.1722
90894196|NCT01345630|181654117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-126.78||||0.0071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-218.34|-35.23|||ANCOVA|||Results are from an ANCOVA model with change from Baseline as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment group, age, race, Screening BMI, Baseline value of the response variable. Treatment differences are estimated using LS means with factor levels weighted according to overall analysis population proportions.||-35.23|-218.34|0.0071
90894197|NCT04676425|181654118|OTHER||Least-Squares Geometric Mean Ratio|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7|2.01|||||Moderate hepatic impairment participants represent the numerator and healthy participants represent the denominator in the geometric mean ratio.|||2.01|0.70|
90894198|NCT04676425|181654119|OTHER||Least-Squares Geometric Mean Ratio|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.86|1.74|||||Moderate hepatic impairment participants represent the numerator and healthy participants represent the denominator in the geometric mean ratio.|||1.74|0.86|
90894199|NCT00949884|181654142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|-1.3|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment as a fixed effect and the baseline DBP as a covariate.||Null hypothesis was that there was no difference in change in seated diastolic blood pressure from baseline to end of treatment. Sample size of 900, this study had 90% power to detect a true difference in mean change from baseline in mean trough SDBP of 2.0 mmHg for Combined Olmesartan vs Losartan.||-1.3|-3.8|<0.0001
90894200|NCT00949884|181654143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|-1.8|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment as a fixed effect and baseline SSBP as a covariate.||||-1.8|-5.3|<0.0001
91087796|NCT00186485|182058350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||Repeated Measures ANOVAs over the course of the TMS treatments, by severity of depression on the CGI scores (F (4,88) = 5.31, p \< .01) over the 4 week treatment period.|ANOVA|||Repeated Measures ANOVA with partial eta; p value was adjusted for multiple comparisons over the course of treatment||||<0.01
91087797|NCT03113968|182058366|NON_INFERIORITY|The Farrington-Manning score test was used to assess the noninferiority of KET.|||||<|0.001|||||||The Farrington-Manning score test|||||||<.001
91087798|NCT03113968|182058367|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|9.3|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||||P-values not reported|||
90894201|NCT00949884|181654144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|-1.9|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment as a fixed effect and baseline SSBP as a covariate.||||-1.9|-5.8|0.0001
90894202|NCT00949884|181654145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|-1.5|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included treatment as a fixed effect and baseline blood pressure value as a covariate.||||-1.5|-3.8|<0.0001
90894203|NCT00949884|181654147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.1121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.2|||ANCOVA|Treatment as a fixed effect and the seated cuff diastolic blood pressure value at week 4 (with last observation carried forward) as a covariate.||||0.2|-2.0|0.1121
90894204|NCT00949884|181654147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.0783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.1|||ANCOVA|Treatment as a fixed effect and the seated cuff diastolic blood pressure value at week 4 (with last observation carried forward) as a covariate.||||0.1|-2.0|0.0783
91087799|NCT04805671|182058368|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.7||||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.71|-2.67|||Regression, Logistic|||ADG20 vs Placebo|A statistical method described in Ge et al. (2011) was used to compute a population-level estimate for the treatment difference (in terms of difference in proportion) with adjustment for the pre-defined prognostic factors. The variance of the estimated treatment difference or relative risk reduction was estimated using the delta method.|-2.67|-14.71|0.0047
91087800|NCT04805671|182058373|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-11.3||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.86|-4.81|||Regression, Logistic|||ADG20 vs Placebo|A statistical method described in Ge et al. (2011) was used to compute a population-level estimate for the treatment difference (in terms of difference in proportion) with adjustment for the pre-defined prognostic factors. The variance of the estimated treatment difference or relative risk reduction was estimated using the delta method.|-4.81|-17.86|0.0007
90957032|NCT00706433|181793713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2804||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.2804
91087801|NCT04805671|182058374|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.7||||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.71|-2.67|||Regression, Logistic|||ADG20 vs Placebo|A statistical method described in Ge et al. (2011) was used to compute a population-level estimate for the treatment difference (in terms of difference in proportion) with adjustment for the pre-defined prognostic factors. The variance of the estimated treatment difference or relative risk reduction was estimated using the delta method.|-2.67|-14.71|0.0047
90894205|NCT00949884|181654148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.92||0.2312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|0.7|||ANCOVA|Treatment as a fixed effect and the seated cuff diastolic blood pressure value at week 4 (with last observation carried forward) as a covariate.||||0.7|-2.9|0.2312
90831753|NCT03192176|181536167|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.1128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.11|0.33||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||0.33|-3.11|0.1128
90831754|NCT03192176|181536167|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.1811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.89|0.55||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||0.55|-2.89|0.1811
90831755|NCT03192176|181536167|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.3521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.45|0.87||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||0.87|-2.45|0.3521
90831756|NCT03192176|181536167|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|0.88||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||0.88|-2.44|0.3570
90831757|NCT03192176|181536167|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differencce|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.9227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|1.57||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||1.57|-1.73|0.9227
90831758|NCT03192176|181536167|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.8894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|1.6||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||1.60|-1.84|0.8894
90831759|NCT03192176|181536167|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.5074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|1.13||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||1.13|-2.29|0.5074
90831760|NCT03192176|181536167|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differencce|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.1753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.91|0.53||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||0.53|-2.91|0.1753
90831761|NCT03192176|181536167|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88||0.1212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|0.36||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||0.36|-3.09|0.1212
90831762|NCT03192176|181536167|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.3702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|0.9||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||0.90|-2.41|0.3702
91087802|NCT04805671|182058375|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-11.3||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.86|-4.81|||Regression, Logistic|||ADG20 vs Placebo|A statistical method described in Ge et al. (2011) was used to compute a population-level estimate for the treatment difference (in terms of difference in proportion) with adjustment for the pre-defined prognostic factors. The variance of the estimated treatment difference or relative risk reduction was estimated using the delta method.|-4.81|-17.86|0.0007
90831763|NCT03192176|181536167|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.6459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|1.96||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||1.96|-1.22|0.6459
90831764|NCT03192176|181536167|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.8248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.75||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||1.75|-1.40|0.8248
90831765|NCT03192176|181536167|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.4226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|2.33||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||2.33|-0.98|0.4226
90831766|NCT03192176|181536167|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.6469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|2.01||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||2.01|-1.25|0.6469
90831767|NCT03192176|181536167|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.7642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|1.91||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||1.91|-1.41|0.7642
90831768|NCT03192176|181536167|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.4068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.36|0.966||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||0.966|-2.36|0.4068
91087803|NCT04805671|182058376|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.237||||0.0938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.964|1.586|||Regression, Cox|||ADG20 vs. Placebo||1.586|0.964|0.0938
90831769|NCT03192176|181536167|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.7974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|1.78||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||1.78|-1.37|0.7974
90831770|NCT03192176|181536168|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.0297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.23|-0.17||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||-0.17|-3.23|0.0297
90831771|NCT03192176|181536168|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.66|-1.58||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||-1.58|-4.66|<0.0001
90831772|NCT03192176|181536168|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78|<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|-2.02||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||-2.02|-5.10|<0.00001
90831773|NCT03192176|181536168|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.78|-2.66||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||-2.66|-5.78|<0.0001
90831774|NCT03192176|181536168|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.1318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.76|0.36||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||0.36|-2.76|0.1318
90831775|NCT03192176|181536168|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.13|-1.05||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||-1.05|-4.13|0.0010
90831776|NCT03192176|181536168|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|-1.04||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||-1.04|-4.10|0.0011
90831777|NCT03192176|181536168|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.0405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-0.07||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||-0.07|-3.20|0.0405
90831778|NCT03192176|181536168|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|-1.55||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||-1.55|-4.70|0.0001
90831779|NCT03192176|181536168|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differencce|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.66|-1.52||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||-1.52|-4.66|0.0001
90831780|NCT03192176|181536168|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.26|-2.07||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||-2.07|-5.26|<0.0001
90831781|NCT03192176|181536168|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.0325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.34|-0.15||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||-0.15|-3.34|0.0325
90831782|NCT03192176|181536168|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.92|-0.78||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||-0.78|-3.92|0.0035
90831783|NCT03192176|181536168|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.0102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.61|-0.49||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||-0.49|-3.61|0.0102
90831784|NCT03192176|181536168|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.0098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.69|-0.51||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||-0.51|-3.69|0.0098
91087804|NCT04805671|182058377|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.137||||0.0361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.016|1.162|||Regression, Cox|||ADG20 vs Placebo||1.162|0.016|0.0361
91087805|NCT04805671|182058378|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.255||||0.0781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.974|1.617|||Regression, Cox|||ADG20 vs Placebo||1.617|0.974|0.0781
91087806|NCT04805671|182058379|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.4976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.32|||ANCOVA|||ADG20 vs. Placebo||0.32|-0.66|0.4976
91087807|NCT04805671|182058380|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.048||||0.7239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.806|1.364|||Regression, Cox|||||1.364|0.806|0.7239
91087808|NCT04805671|182058381|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-11.1||||0.0364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.42|-0.7|||Regression, Logistic|||||-0.70|-21.42|0.0364
91087809|NCT04805671|182058382|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.2||||0.0227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|15.31||The p-value and risk difference reported was calculated based on the Day 5 timepoint.|Regression, Logistic|||||15.31|1.15|0.0227
91087810|NCT04805671|182058383|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.93||||0.1124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.49|1.64|||ANCOVA|||||1.64|-15.49|0.1124
90831785|NCT03192176|181536168|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.18|-1.98||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||-1.98|-5.18|<0.0001
90831786|NCT03192176|181536168|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.89|-1.7||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||-1.70|-4.89|<0.0001
90831787|NCT03192176|181536168|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.61|-2.37||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||-2.37|-5.61|<0.0001
90831788|NCT03192176|181536168|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.17|-0.93||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||-0.93|-4.17|0.0021
90831789|NCT03192176|181536168|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.71|-1.52||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||-1.52|-4.71|0.0001
90831790|NCT03192176|181536168|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.11|-0.93||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||-0.93|-4.11|0.0020
90831791|NCT03192176|181536168|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.27|-0.27||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||-0.27|-3.27|0.0210
90831792|NCT03192176|181536168|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.59|-1.58||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||-1.58|-4.59|<0.0001
90831793|NCT03192176|181536168|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.34|-1.33||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||-1.33|-4.34|0.0003
90831794|NCT03192176|181536168|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.29|-2.23||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||-2.23|-5.29|<0.0001
90831795|NCT03192176|181536168|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.91|-0.86||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||-0.86|-3.91|0.0023
90831796|NCT03192176|181536168|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.25|-1.24||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||-1.24|-4.25|0.0004
90831797|NCT03192176|181536168|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.73|-0.74||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||-0.74|-3.73|0.0036
91087811|NCT03804268|182058390|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|22.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.3|30.8||P-value was adjusted for multiplicity control.|Chi-squared||Analysis was done using Chi-square test. 95% confidence interval for the percentage differences was calculated based on the normal approximation based on pooled variance without continuity correction.|||30.8|14.3|<0.0001
91087812|NCT03804268|182058391|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|9.7||||0.0114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|17.0||P-value was adjusted for multiplicity control.|Chi-squared||Analysis was done using Chi-square test. 95% confidence interval for the percentage differences was calculated based on the normal approximation based on pooled variance without continuity correction.|||17.0|2.3|0.0114
91087813|NCT03804268|182058392|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|2.1||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|8.5||P-value was adjusted for multiplicity control.|Chi-squared||Analysis was done using Chi-square test. 95% confidence interval for the percentage differences was calculated based on the normal approximation based on pooled variance without continuity correction.|||8.5|-4.4|1.0000
91087814|NCT03804268|182058393|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.0114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|6.5||MMRM with fixed effects: study intervention group,visit,visit by study intervention group interaction,age group,Baseline binocular DCNVA severity,iris color,emmetrope/non-emmetrope, Baseline value, and Baseline value by visit interaction was used.|MMRM|P-value was adjusted for multiplicity control.||||6.5|3.7|0.0114
91087815|NCT03804268|182058394|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|18.7||||0.0114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.6|26.7||P-value was adjusted for multiplicity control.|Chi-squared||Analysis was done using Chi-square test. 95% confidence interval was calculated based on normal approximation based on pooled variance without continuity correction.|||26.7|10.6|0.0114
91087816|NCT03804268|182058395|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.1||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used with study intervention group, age group, Baseline binocular DCNVA severity, iris color (brown/non-brown), emmetrope/non-emmetrope, and Baseline domain score as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|P-value was adjusted for multiplicity control.||||1.1|0.6|0.0114
91087817|NCT03804268|182058396|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.0114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|4.6||MMRM with fixed effects: study intervention group,visit,visit by study intervention group interaction,age group,Baseline binocular DCNVA severity,iris color,emmetrope/non-emmetrope, Baseline value, and Baseline value by visit interaction was used.|MMRM|P-value was adjusted for multiplicity control.||||4.6|2.4|0.0114
91087818|NCT03804268|182058397|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|-1.1||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|5.0||P-value was adjusted for multiplicity control.|Chi-squared||Analysis was done using Chi-square test. 95% confidence interval for the percentage differences was calculated based on the normal approximation based on pooled variance without continuity correction.|||5.0|-7.1|1.0000
91024127|NCT02868281|181931964|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.1||||0.156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.0|||Mixed Model Repeat Measures||Weeks 5-8. The model included covariates of treatment, center, Baseline ACT total score, type of Baseline controller, gender, age and treatment-by-visit interaction, with the center as a random factor.|||0.0|-0.2|0.156
91087819|NCT03804268|182058398|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.0114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|3.9||MMRM with fixed effects: study intervention group,visit,visit by study intervention group interaction,age group,Baseline binocular DCNVA severity,iris color,emmetrope/non-emmetrope, Baseline value, and Baseline value by visit interaction was used.|MMRM|P-value was adjusted for multiplicity control.||||3.9|1.3|0.0114
91024128|NCT02868281|181931964|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.1||||0.245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.0|||Mixed Model Repeat Measures||Weeks 9-12. The model included covariates of treatment, center, Baseline ACT total score, type of Baseline controller, gender, age and treatment-by-visit interaction, with the center as a random factor.|||0.0|-0.2|0.245
91087820|NCT03804268|182058399|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|12.6||||0.0171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|21.6||P-value was adjusted for multiplicity control.|Chi-squared||Analysis was done using Chi-square test. 95% confidence interval for the percentage differences was calculated based on the normal approximation based on pooled variance without continuity correction.|||21.6|3.5|0.0171
91087821|NCT03804268|182058400|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.1||ANCOVA was used with study intervention group, age group, baseline binocular DCNVA severity, iris color (brown/non-brown), emmetrope/non-emmetrope, and baseline domain score as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|P-value was adjusted for multiplicity control.||||1.1|0.5|0.0114
91087822|NCT03804268|182058401|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.3||ANCOVA was used with study intervention group, age group, Baseline binocular DCNVA severity, iris color (brown/non-brown), emmetrope/non-emmetrope, and Baseline domain score as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|P-value was adjusted for multiplicity control.||||-0.3|-0.6|0.0114
91087823|NCT03804268|182058402|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.0114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.1||ANCOVA was used with study intervention group, age group, Baseline binocular DCNVA severity, iris color (brown/non-brown), emmetrope/non-emmetrope, and Baseline domain score as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|P-value was adjusted for multiplicity control.||||-0.1|-0.4|0.0114
91087824|NCT02849587|182058403|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Generalized least squares model|||||||<0.001
90831798|NCT03192176|181536168|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.0195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.33|-0.29||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||-0.29|-3.33|0.0195
91087825|NCT02849587|182058404|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022|||||||Generalized least squares model|Raw data converted to z-score based on pre-smoking performance of entire sample.||||||0.022
91087826|NCT02849587|182058405|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.283|||||||Generalized least squares model|||||||0.283
91087827|NCT02849587|182058406|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0503|||||||Generalized estimating equations model|||||||0.0503
91087828|NCT02849587|182058407|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024|||||||Generalized least squares model|||||||0.024
90831799|NCT03192176|181536168|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.21|-1.17||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||-1.17|-4.21|0.0006
90831800|NCT03192176|181536168|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.32|-1.27||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||-1.27|-4.32|0.0004
90831801|NCT03192176|181536168|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.01|-1.92||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||-1.92|-5.01|<0.0001
90831802|NCT03192176|181536168|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.71|-0.62||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||-0.62|-3.71|0.0061
90831803|NCT03192176|181536168|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.19|-1.14||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||-1.14|-4.19|0.0006
90831804|NCT03192176|181536168|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.81|-0.78||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||-0.78|-3.81|0.0030
90831805|NCT03192176|181536168|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.0383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.17|-0.09||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||-0.09|-3.17|0.0383
90831806|NCT03192176|181536168|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.33|-1.24||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||-1.24|-4.33|0.0004
90831807|NCT03192176|181536168|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.14|-1.04||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||-1.04|-4.14|0.0011
90831808|NCT03192176|181536168|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.07|-1.93||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||-1.93|-5.07|<0.0001
90894206|NCT00949884|181654148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.0979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|0.3|||ANCOVA|Treatment as a fixed effect and the seated cuff diastolic blood pressure value at week 4 (with last observation carried forward) as a covariate.||||0.3|-3.2|0.0979
90831809|NCT03192176|181536168|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|-0.66||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||-0.66|-3.80|0.0055
90831810|NCT03192176|181536168|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.09|-0.99||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||-0.99|-4.09|0.0014
90831811|NCT03192176|181536168|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|-0.73||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||-0.73|-3.80|0.0040
90831812|NCT03192176|181536168|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.1502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.68|0.41||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||0.41|-2.68|0.1502
90831813|NCT03192176|181536168|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.74|-0.64||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||-0.64|-3.74|0.0057
90894207|NCT00949884|181654149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving systolic blood pressure goal of \<140 mmHg||||<0.0001
91087829|NCT02849587|182058408|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.716|||||||Generalized least squares model|The outcome was standardized prior to analyses.||||||0.716
91087830|NCT02849587|182058409|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Generalized least squares model|The outcome was standardized prior to analysis.||||||0.005
91087831|NCT02849587|182058410|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.366|||||||Generalized Estimating Equations model|||||||.366
91087832|NCT02849587|182058411|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.225|||||||Generalized least squares model|Outcome was log10 transformed prior to analyses.||||||.225
91087833|NCT02849587|182058412|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.592|||||||Generalized least squares model|The outcome was transformed using logit function prior to analyses. Model included treatment (3 groups), time (5 times), and their interaction.||||||.592
91087834|NCT02849587|182058413|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.294|||||||Generalized least squares model|||||||.294
91087835|NCT02849587|182058414|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.144|||||||Generalized least squares model|||||||.144
90831814|NCT03192176|181536168|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.76|-0.66||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||-0.66|-3.76|0.0054
90831815|NCT03192176|181536168|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.38|-1.22||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||-1.22|-4.38|0.0006
90831816|NCT03192176|181536168|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.0412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.21|-0.07||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||-0.07|-3.21|0.0412
91087836|NCT02849587|182058415|OTHER|Spearman's correlation||||||0.09|||||||Spearman's correlation|||||||0.090
91087837|NCT02849587|182058415|OTHER|Spearman's correlation||||||0.0006|||||||Spearman's correlation|||||||.0006
90831817|NCT03192176|181536168|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.76|-0.66||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||-0.66|-3.76|0.0054
90831818|NCT03192176|181536168|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.0167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.43|-0.34||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||-0.34|-3.43|0.0167
90831819|NCT03192176|181536168|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.0533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.94|0.02||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||0.02|-2.94|0.0533
91087838|NCT02849587|182058415|OTHER|Spearman's correlation||||||0.053|||||||Spearman's correlation|||||||0.053
91087839|NCT02849587|182058416|OTHER|Spearman's correlation||||||0.3|||||||Spearman's correlation|||||||0.300
91087840|NCT02849587|182058416|OTHER|Spearman's correlation||||||0.038|||||||Spearman's correlation|||||||0.038
90831820|NCT03192176|181536168|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.0065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.54|-0.58||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||-0.58|-3.54|0.0065
91087841|NCT02849587|182058416|OTHER|Spearman's correlation||||||0.175|||||||Spearman's correlation|||||||0.175
91087842|NCT03421379|182058450|NON_INFERIORITY|The pre-defined non-inferiority margin is (10%)|Treatment Difference Wald's Method|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|1.47||||||||1.47|-1.47|
91087843|NCT04010461|182058456|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.159|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.097|=|0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.037|0.355|||t-test, 2 sided|df = 35 Note: 1 subject was excluded from analysis as extraction of FPN eigenvalues failed due to technical deficiencies with image data||Analysis used standard, open-source methods for pre-processing . First-level analysis used the general framework of the modified General Linear Model, implemented in SPM12 with temporal convolution. For the n-back activation task, the first-level design matrix included regressors for 2-back and 1-back conditions, as well as 24 movement parameters. Statistical testing was done to establish whether more or less BOLD (neural activity) change occurred between two conditions.||0.355|-0.037|=0.11
91087844|NCT04010461|182058456|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.009|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.245|0.227|||t-test, 2 sided|df = 35 Note: 1 subject excluded from analysis as FPN extraction of eigenvalues failed due to technical issues with image data||Analysis used standard, open-source routes for slice timing correction, field map correction, realignment, smoothing (6 mm Gaussian kernel) and spatial normalization (MNI-152). First-level analysis used the general framework of the modified General Linear Model, implemented in SPM12 with temporal convolution. For the n-back activation task, the first-level design matrix included regressors for 2-back and 1-back conditions, as well as 24 movement parameters.||0.227|-0.245|0.94
91087845|NCT04010461|182058457|OTHER|Group-level analyses were performed using a General Linear Model (GLM). For each individual voxel, a separate GLM was estimated, with first-level connectivity measures at this voxel as dependent variables, and groups or other subject-level identifiers as independent variables. Voxel-level hypotheses were evaluated using multivariate parametric statistics with random effects across subjects and sample covariance estimation across multiple measurements.|random field theory|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||Inferences were performed at the level of individual clusters (groups of contiguous voxels). Cluster-level inferences were based on parametric statistics from Gaussian Random Field theory.|random field theory|Results were thresholded using a combination of a cluster-forming p \< 0.001 voxel-level threshold, and cluster-size threshold of 25 voxels|Number indicates the number of clusters above the threshold of significance for the contrast between two arms (passive vs active)|The contrast reflects the difference in connectivity between the conditions/sessions, at the level of each subject, then spatially averaged across all subjects. Functional connectivity strength for the dlPFC seed was represented by Fisher-transformed bivariate correlation coefficients from a weighted general linear model (weighted-GLM), defined separately for each pair of seed and target areas, modeling the association between their BOLD signal time series.||||1
90831821|NCT03192176|181536168|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|-0.82||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||-0.82|-3.80|0.0025
90831822|NCT03192176|181536168|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.22|-1.2||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||-1.20|-4.22|0.0005
90894208|NCT00949884|181654149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving systolic blood pressure goal of \<140 mmHg||||0.0001
91087846|NCT04010461|182058457|OTHER|The applied test with random field theory uses a metric of spatial dispersion, testing against the null hypothesis that spatial clusters of difference across the analyzed region are no different from chance clustering.|random field theory|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||random field theory||Number indicates the number of clusters above the threshold of significance for the contrast between two arms (passive vs control)|Results were thresholded using a combination of a cluster-forming p \< 0.001 voxel-level threshold, and a corrected false discovery rate (FDR) p \< 0.05 cluster-size threshold.||||1
91087847|NCT04010461|182058458|SUPERIORITY||F-ratio|0.1||||0.91|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.91
91087848|NCT04010461|182058459|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.55
90831823|NCT03192176|181536168|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.0541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.99|0.03||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||0.03|-2.99|0.0541
90831824|NCT03192176|181536168|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.69|-0.71||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||-0.71|-3.69|0.0039
90831825|NCT03192176|181536168|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.0245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.18|-0.22||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||-0.22|-3.18|0.0245
90831826|NCT03192176|181536168|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.0187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.36|-0.31||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||-0.31|-3.36|0.0187
90957033|NCT00706433|181793713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1835||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.1835
91024129|NCT02868281|181931964|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.1||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.0|||Mixed Model Repeat Measures||Weeks 13-16. The model included covariates of treatment, center, Baseline ACT total score, type of Baseline controller, gender, age and treatment-by-visit interaction, with the center as a random factor.|||0.0|-0.2|0.057
91024130|NCT02868281|181931964|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.1||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.0|||Mixed Model Repeat Measures||Weeks 17-20. The model included covariates of treatment, center, Baseline ACT total score, type of Baseline controller, gender, age and treatment-by-visit interaction, with the center as a random factor.|||0.0|-0.2|0.151
91024131|NCT02868281|181931964|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.1||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.0|||Mixed Model Repeat Measures||Weeks 21-24. The model included covariates of treatment, center, Baseline ACT total score, type of Baseline controller, gender, age and treatment-by-visit interaction, with the center as a random factor.|||0.0|-0.2|0.114
91024132|NCT02868281|181931965|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.05||||0.487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.09|||Mixed Model Repeat Measures||Weeks 1-4. The model included covariates of treatment, center, Baseline ACT total score, type of Baseline controller, gender, age and treatment-by-visit interaction, with the center as a random factor.|||0.09|-0.18|0.487
91024133|NCT02868281|181931965|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.04||||0.546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.09|||Mixed Model Repeat Measures||Weeks 5-8. The model included covariates of treatment, center, Baseline ACT total score, type of Baseline controller, gender, age and treatment-by-visit interaction, with the center as a random factor.|||0.09|-0.16|0.546
91024134|NCT02868281|181931965|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.06||||0.314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.06|||Mixed Model Repeat Measures||Weeks 9-12. The model included covariates of treatment, center, Baseline ACT total score, type of Baseline controller, gender, age and treatment-by-visit interaction, with the center as a random factor.|||0.06|-0.17|0.314
91024135|NCT02868281|181931965|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.07||||0.197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.04|||Mixed Model Repeat Measures||Weeks 13-16. The model included covariates of treatment, center, Baseline ACT total score, type of Baseline controller, gender, age and treatment-by-visit interaction, with the center as a random factor.|||0.04|-0.19|0.197
91087849|NCT04010461|182058459|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||ANOVA|||||||.65
91087850|NCT04010461|182058460|OTHER||cluster size|42.0||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value above represents the lowest (most significant) value of the largest cluster, for the contrast of Passive \> Active, testing whether the cluster size is greater than chance.|random field theory||The estimated parameter is the size, in voxels, of the largest cluster. The applied test with random field theory tests whether the size of cluster difference across are no different from chance clustering.|Statistical thresholding using a random field model adjusted for multiple comparisons, with initial voxel magnitude/height threshold set at p \< 0.001 and peak and cluster-corrected significance levels obtained (false discovery rate \[FDR\]corrected), across the entire brain.||||0.54
90831827|NCT03192176|181536168|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.68|-0.62||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||-0.62|-3.68|0.0060
90831828|NCT03192176|181536168|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.06|-0.98||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||-0.98|-4.06|0.0014
90831829|NCT03192176|181536168|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.49|-1.37||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||-1.37|-4.49|0.0003
90831830|NCT03192176|181536168|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.61|-0.49||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||-0.49|-3.61|0.0100
90831831|NCT03192176|181536168|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.98|-0.91||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||-0.91|-3.98|0.0019
90831832|NCT03192176|181536168|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.73|-0.67||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||-0.67|-3.73|0.0049
90831833|NCT03192176|181536168|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.0186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.25|-0.3||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||-0.30|-3.25|0.0186
90831834|NCT03192176|181536168|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.77|-0.82||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||-0.82|-3.77|0.0024
90894209|NCT00949884|181654149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving systolic blood pressure goal of \<135 mmHg||||<0.0001
91024136|NCT02868281|181931965|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.06||||0.282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.06|||Mixed Model Repeat Measures||Weeks 17-20. The model included covariates of treatment, center, Baseline ACT total score, type of Baseline controller, gender, age and treatment-by-visit interaction, with the center as a random factor.|||0.06|-0.17|0.282
90831835|NCT03192176|181536168|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.28|-1.3||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||-1.30|-4.28|0.0003
90831836|NCT03192176|181536168|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|-1.29||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||-1.29|-4.30|0.0003
90831837|NCT03192176|181536168|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.63|-0.62||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||-0.62|-3.63|0.0058
90831838|NCT03192176|181536168|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.04|-1.7||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||-1.7|-4.04|0.0008
91103897|NCT01339091|182094580|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority hypothesis test is a one-sided hypothesis test performed at the 2.5% level of significance. If the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference in response rates in the ITT population is greater than -10% the NI of dalbavancin to vancomycin/linezolid will be concluded.|Difference in Proportions|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|7.9|||||Confidence intervals were adjusted for fever at baseline|||7.9|-4.6|
90831839|NCT03192176|181536168|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.59|-0.64||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||-0.64|-3.59|0.0050
90957034|NCT00706433|181793713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0103||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0103
91024137|NCT02868281|181931965|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.03||||0.543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.08|||Mixed Model Repeat Measures||Weeks 21-24. The model included covariates of treatment, center, Baseline ACT total score, type of Baseline controller, gender, age and treatment-by-visit interaction, with the center as a random factor.|||0.08|-0.15|0.543
91087851|NCT04010461|182058460|SUPERIORITY||cluster size|16.0||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value above represents the lowest (most significant) value of the largest cluster, for the contrast of Passive \> Control, testing whether the size of this cluster is greater than one would expect by chance alone.|random field theory||The estimated parameter is the size, in voxels, of the largest cluster. The applied test with random field theory tests whether the size of cluster difference across are no different from chance clustering.|Statistical thresholding using a random field model adjusted for multiple comparisons, with initial voxel magnitude/height threshold set at p \< 0.001 and peak and cluster-corrected significance levels obtained (false discovery rate \[FDR\]corrected), across the entire brain..||||0.93
91087852|NCT04010461|182058461|SUPERIORITY||F-ratio|0.22||||0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Repeated measures ANOVA to test for differences in cerebral blood flow (perfusion) in the frontoparietal network||||0.8
91087853|NCT04010461|182058462|SUPERIORITY||F-ratio|3.96||||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.06
91087854|NCT04010461|182058462|SUPERIORITY||F-ratio|0.17||||0.68|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.68
91087855|NCT04010461|182058463|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures ANOVA for 1- and 2-back conditions|F-ratio|0.72||||0.41|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.41
91087856|NCT04010461|182058463|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.50
91087857|NCT02106351|182058483|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference back transformed|-0.4||||0.0118|TWO_SIDED|||||The 2-tailed significance level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA is performed on the ranked values.||The treatment difference between Dysport 8 U/kg and Dysport 2 U/kg was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) on the ranked changes from baseline. The model included treatment group, the baseline value, the 2 stratification factors (age range and BTX status at baseline) and the pooled centre as fixed effects. The derived least squares (LS) means were back transformed to the original scale and the treatment difference determined.||||0.0118
91087858|NCT02106351|182058483|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference back transformed|-0.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The 2-tailed significance level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA is performed on the ranked values.||The treatment difference between Dysport 16 U/kg and Dysport 2 U/kg was analysed using an ANCOVA on the ranked changes from baseline. The model included treatment group, the baseline value, the 2 stratification factors (age range and BTX status at baseline) and the pooled centre as fixed effects. The derived LS means were back transformed to the original scale and the treatment difference determined.||||<0.0001
91087859|NCT02106351|182058484|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference back transformed|0.2||||0.2043|TWO_SIDED|||||The two-tailed significance level was 0.05.|ANOVA|ANOVA was performed on ranked values.||The treatment difference between Dysport 8 U/kg and Dysport 2 U/kg was analysed using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the rank of the PGA score at TC 1, Week 6. The model included treatment group, the 2 stratification factors (age range and BTX status at baseline) and the centre as fixed effects. The derived LS means were back transformed to the original scale and the treatment difference determined.||||0.2043
91087860|NCT02106351|182058484|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference back transformed|0.2||||0.188|TWO_SIDED|||||The two-tailed significance level was 0.05.|ANOVA|ANOVA was performed on ranked values.||The treatment difference between Dysport 16 U/kg and Dysport 2 U/kg was analysed using an ANOVA on the rank of the PGA score at TC 1, Week 6. The model included treatment group, the 2 stratification factors (age range and BTX status at baseline) and the centre as fixed effects. The derived LS means were back transformed to the original scale and the treatment difference determined.||||0.1880
91087861|NCT02106351|182058485|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.5||||0.7648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|3.7||The two-tailed significance level was 0.05.|ANOVA|||The treatment difference between Dysport 8 U/kg and Dysport 2 U/kg was analysed using ANOVA on the GAS Total score at TC 1, Week 6. The model included treatment group, the 2 stratification factors (age range and BTX status at baseline) and the centre as fixed effects.||3.7|-2.7|0.7648
91087862|NCT02106351|182058485|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.5||||0.7429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|3.7||The two-tailed significance level was 0.05.|ANOVA|||The treatment difference between Dysport 16 U/kg and Dysport 2 U/kg was analysed using ANOVA on the GAS Total score at TC 1, Week 6. The model included treatment group, the 2 stratification factors (age range and BTX status at baseline) and the centre as fixed effects.||3.7|-2.6|0.7429
91087863|NCT01386606|182058502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value of treatment group.|Regression, Linear|||"Regression of 24 Hours Average Total Testosterone, Treatment Group and Morning Testosterone at Week 6.~Modeling 24 hour average total testosterone by morning testosterone and treatment group."||||0.056
91087864|NCT01386606|182058502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression Coefficient|-45.77||||0.436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-143.5|51.98||P-value for Androxal 25 mg treatment group.|Regression, Linear|||"Regression of 24 Hours Average Total Testosterone, Treatment Group and Morning Testosterone at Week 6.~Modeling 24 hour average total testosterone by morning testosterone and treatment group."||51.98|-143.5|0.436
91087865|NCT01386606|182058502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression Coefficient|-110.9||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-210.6|-11.23||P-value for Androxal 12.5 mg group.|Regression, Linear|||"Regression of 24 Hours Average Total Testosterone, Treatment Group and Morning Testosterone at Week 6.~Modeling 24 hour average total testosterone by morning testosterone and treatment group."||-11.23|-210.6|0.068
90957035|NCT00706433|181793713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1319||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.1319
91087866|NCT01386606|182058502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression Coefficient|-148.5||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-242.9|-54.05||P-value for Androxal 6.25 mg group.|Regression, Linear|||"Regression of 24 Hours Average Total Testosterone, Treatment Group and Morning Testosterone at Week 6.~Modeling 24 hour average total testosterone by morning testosterone and treatment group."||-54.05|-242.9|0.011
91087867|NCT01386606|182058502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression Coefficient|0.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.79||P-value for morning total testosterone (adjusted for treatment effect if treatment group is significant).|Regression, Linear|||"Regression of 24 Hours Average Total Testosterone, Treatment Group and Morning Testosterone at Week 6.~Modeling 24 hour average total testosterone by morning testosterone and treatment group."||0.79|0.37|<0.001
91087868|NCT01386606|182058503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value for treatment group effect.|ANOVA|||ANOVA results - change from baseline in morning LH at Week 2. Modeling change from baseline by treatment group.||||<0.001
91087869|NCT01386606|182058503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value for treatment group effect.|ANOVA|||ANOVA results - change from baseline in morning LH at Week 4. Modeling change from baseline by treatment group.||||<0.001
90894210|NCT00949884|181654149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving systolic blood pressure goal of \<135 mmHg||||<0.0001
90894211|NCT00949884|181654149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving systolic blood pressure goal of \<130 mmHg||||<0.0001
90894212|NCT00949884|181654149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving systolic blood pressure goal of \<130 mmHg||||<0.0001
90894213|NCT00949884|181654149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2755||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving systolic blood pressure goal of \<120 mmHg||||0.2755
90894214|NCT00949884|181654149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1646||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving systolic blood pressure goal of \<120 mmHg||||0.1646
90894215|NCT00949884|181654149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving diastolic blood pressure goal of \<90 mmHg||||<0.0001
90894216|NCT00949884|181654149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving diastolic blood pressure goal of \<90 mmHg||||<0.0001
90894217|NCT00949884|181654149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.|Regression, Logistic|||Percentage of participants achieving diastolic blood pressure goal of \<85 mmHg||||<0.0001
90894218|NCT00949884|181654149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving diastolic blood pressure goal of \<85 mmHg||||<0.0001
90894219|NCT00949884|181654149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving diastolic blood pressure goal of \<80 mmHg||||0.0010
90894220|NCT00949884|181654149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0011||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving diastolic blood pressure goal of \<80 mmHg||||0.0011
90894221|NCT00949884|181654149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving blood pressure goal of \<140/90 mmHg||||<0.0001
90894222|NCT00949884|181654149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving blood pressure goal of \<140/90 mmHg||||<0.0001
90894223|NCT00949884|181654149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving blood pressure goal of \<135/80 mmHg||||0.0005
91087870|NCT01386606|182058503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value for treatment group effect.|ANOVA|||ANOVA results - change from baseline in morning LH at Week 6. Modeling change from baseline by treatment group.||||<0.001
90894224|NCT00949884|181654149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving blood pressure goal of \<135/80 mmHg||||0.0004
91087871|NCT01386606|182058504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson Correlation|0.90993|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pearson correlation between 9 am morning testosterone and serial testosterone Cavg at Week 6.||||<0.0001
91087872|NCT01386606|182058504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson Correlation|0.86541|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pearson correlation between 9 am morning testosterone and serial testosterone Cmin at Week 6.||||<0.0001
91087873|NCT01386606|182058504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson Correlation|0.89643|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pearson correlation between 9 am morning testosterone and serial testosterone Cmax at Week 6.||||<0.0001
90894225|NCT00949884|181654149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0023||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving blood pressure goal of \<130/80 mmHg||||0.0023
90894226|NCT00949884|181654149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0012||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving blood pressure goal of \<130/80 mmHg||||0.0012
90894227|NCT00949884|181654150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving systolic blood pressure goal of \<140 mmHg||||<0.0001
90894228|NCT00949884|181654150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving systolic blood pressure goal of \<140 mmHg||||<0.0001
90894229|NCT00949884|181654150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0009||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving systolic blood pressure goal of \<135 mmHg||||0.0009
91087874|NCT01386606|182058506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value for treatment group effect.|ANOVA|||ANOVA results - change from baseline in morning FSH at Week 2. Modeling change from baseline by treatment group.||||<0.001
90831840|NCT03192176|181536168|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.0205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.63|-0.31||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||-0.31|-3.63|0.0205
90831841|NCT03192176|181536168|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.2818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.58|0.75||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMMRM|||Week 13||0.75|-2.58|0.2818
90894230|NCT00949884|181654150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0007||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving systolic blood pressure goal of \<135 mmHg||||0.0007
90894231|NCT00949884|181654150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0347||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving systolic blood pressure goal of \<130 mmHg||||0.0347
90894232|NCT00949884|181654150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving systolic blood pressure goal of \<130 mmHg||||0.0280
90894233|NCT00949884|181654150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0519||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving systolic blood pressure goal of \<120 mmHg||||0.0519
90894234|NCT00949884|181654150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0605||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving systolic blood pressure goal of \<120 mmHg||||0.0605
90831842|NCT03192176|181536168|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.3102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.83||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||0.83|-2.60|0.3102
90831843|NCT03192176|181536168|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.1422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.99|0.43||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|LSMean difference|||Week 13||0.43|-2.99|0.1422
90894235|NCT00949884|181654150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving diastolic blood pressure goal of \<90 mmHg||||0.0001
90831844|NCT03192176|181536168|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.12|-0.68||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||-0.68|-4.12|0.0064
90831845|NCT03192176|181536168|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.0752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.28|0.16||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||0.16|-3.28|0.0752
90894236|NCT00949884|181654150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving diastolic blood pressure goal of \<90 mmHg||||0.0003
90894237|NCT00949884|181654150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving diastolic blood pressure goal of \<85 mmHg||||0.0070
91024138|NCT02868281|181931966|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|0.06||||0.273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.059|0.18|||Mixed Model Repeat Measures||The model included covariates of treatment, center, Baseline FEV1, type of Baseline controller, gender and age, with the center as a random factor.|||0.180|-0.059|0.273
91024139|NCT02868281|181931967|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-12.0||||0.367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.3|16.3|||Mixed Model Repeat Measures||Weeks 1-4. The model included covariates of treatment, center, Baseline ACT total score, type of Baseline controller, gender, age and treatment-by-visit interaction, with the center as a random factor.|||16.3|-40.3|0.367
90894238|NCT00949884|181654150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0066||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving diastolic blood pressure goal of \<85 mmHg||||0.0066
90894239|NCT00949884|181654150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0061||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving diastolic blood pressure goal of \<80 mmHg||||0.0061
90894240|NCT00949884|181654150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0096||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving diastolic blood pressure goal of \<80 mmHg||||0.0096
91024140|NCT02868281|181931967|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-7.2||||0.587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.5|21.2|||Mixed Model Repeat Measures||Weeks 5-8. The model included covariates of treatment, center, Baseline ACT total score, type of Baseline controller, gender, age and treatment-by-visit interaction, with the center as a random factor.|||21.2|-35.5|0.587
91024141|NCT02868281|181931967|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-4.7||||0.721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.1|23.7|||Mixed Model Repeat Measures||Weeks 9-12. The model included covariates of treatment, center, Baseline ACT total score, type of Baseline controller, gender, age and treatment-by-visit interaction, with the center as a random factor.|||23.7|-33.1|0.721
91087875|NCT01386606|182058506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value for treatment group effect.|ANOVA|||ANOVA results - change from baseline in morning FSH at Week 4. Modeling change from baseline by treatment group.||||<0.001
91087876|NCT01386606|182058506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value for treatment group effect.|ANOVA|||ANOVA results - change from baseline in morning FSH at Week 6. Modeling change from baseline by treatment group.||||<0.001
91087877|NCT00593814|182058517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91087878|NCT03429348|182058547|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.18||||9e-07|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|We are comparing the log transformed values.||||||0.0000009
91087879|NCT03429348|182058547|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.35||||1.8e-05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|We are comparing the log transformed values||||||0.000018
91087880|NCT01965327|182058584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.027|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Missing data were imputed by last observation carried forward.||||||0.027
91087881|NCT01965327|182058585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0078
90831846|NCT03192176|181536168|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.3632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.43|0.89||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||0.89|-2.43|0.3632
90831847|NCT03192176|181536168|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differencce|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.0625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.32|0.09||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||0.09|-3.32|0.0625
90831848|NCT03192176|181536168|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86||0.6613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|1.32||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||1.32|-2.07|0.6613
90894241|NCT00949884|181654150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving blood pressure goal of \<140/90 mmHg||||<0.0001
91087882|NCT02185417|182058595|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.16|||Log Rank|||Primary analyses were performed with the use of unadjusted log-rank tests that were stratified according to VA health care system.||1.16|0.94|0.45
91087883|NCT02976519|182058606|OTHER||Slope|1.2705|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0801|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1067|1.4343|||||Based on the estimate for slope parameter (β), a 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the slope was computed. Standard error of the mean is actually standard error of slope.|Cmax. The basic model used for the investigation of dose proportionality was a power model (regression model applied to log-transformed data) that described the functional relationship between the dose and PK endpoints.||1.4343|1.1067|
91087884|NCT02976519|182058606|OTHER||Slope|1.1361|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0859|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9598|1.3123|||||Based on the estimate for slope parameter (β), a 2-sided 95% CI for the slope was computed. Standard error of the mean is actually standard error of slope.|Cmax,13. The basic model used for the investigation of dose proportionality was a power model (regression model applied to log-transformed data) that described the functional relationship between the dose and PK endpoints.||1.3123|0.9598|
90831849|NCT03192176|181536168|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.4209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|1.04||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||1.04|-2.48|0.4209
90831850|NCT03192176|181536168|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differencce|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89||0.3288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.63|0.88||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||0.88|-2.63|0.3288
90831851|NCT03192176|181536168|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.0202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.86|-0.33||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||-0.33|-3.86|0.0202
91087885|NCT02976519|182058607|OTHER||Slope|1.2743|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0739|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1231|1.4255|||||Based on the estimate for slope parameter (β), a 2-sided 95% CI for the slope was computed. Standard error of the mean is actually standard error of slope.|AUC0-12. The basic model used for the investigation of dose proportionality was a power model (regression model applied to log-transformed data) that described the functional relationship between the dose and PK endpoints.||1.4255|1.1231|
91087886|NCT02976519|182058607|OTHER||Slope|1.0924|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0793|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9296|1.2551|||||Based on the estimate for slope parameter (β), a 2-sided 95% CI for the slope was computed. Standard error of the mean is actually standard error of slope.|AUC0-12,13. The basic model used for the investigation of dose proportionality was a power model (regression model applied to log-transformed data) that described the functional relationship between the dose and PK endpoints.||1.2551|0.9296|
91087887|NCT00243919|182058644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.831||||0.481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.497|1.391||The trial tested the superiority of LTP delivered early or late, compared to HEP, using a two-sided significance level of 0.05. The study-wide error rate was controlled by applying the Hochberg step-up procedure to the two primary comparisons.|Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression was used to compare the proportion of participants who improved functional level of walking between Early-LTP and HEP adjusting for pre-specified covariates (severity of impairment, clinical site, age, stroke type, side of hemiparesis and depression). Assuming that 30% of HEP participants would improve functional level of walking, we derived a sample size of 400 to detect a clinically relevant 20% effect size with 85% power, adjusting for an loss-to-follow-up rate of 15%.||1.391|0.497|0.481
90894242|NCT00949884|181654150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving blood pressure goal of \<140/90 mmHg||||<0.0001
90831852|NCT03192176|181536168|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.0682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.42|0.12||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||0.12|-3.42|0.0682
90831853|NCT03192176|181536168|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86||0.3912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|0.96||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||0.96|-2.44|0.3912
90831854|NCT03192176|181536168|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.4964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|1.09||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||1.09|-2.25|0.4964
90831855|NCT03192176|181536168|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|1.68||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||1.68|-1.64|0.9830
90831856|NCT03192176|181536168|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89||0.9715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|1.78||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||1.78|-1.71|0.9715
90831857|NCT03192176|181536168|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.8715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|1.86||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||1.86|-1.58|0.8715
90894243|NCT00949884|181654150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0047||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving blood pressure goal of \<135/80 mmHg||||0.0047
90894244|NCT00949884|181654150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0063||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving blood pressure goal of \<135/80 mmHg||||0.0063
91024142|NCT02868281|181931967|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-3.3||||0.801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.7|25.1|||Mixed Model Repeat Measures||Weeks 13-16. The model included covariates of treatment, center, Baseline ACT total score, type of Baseline controller, gender, age and treatment-by-visit interaction, with the center as a random factor.|||25.1|-31.7|0.801
91024143|NCT02868281|181931967|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-5.0||||0.704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.3|23.4|||Mixed Model Repeat Measures||Weeks 17-20. The model included covariates of treatment, center, Baseline ACT total score, type of Baseline controller, gender, age and treatment-by-visit interaction, with the center as a random factor.|||23.4|-33.3|0.704
91024144|NCT02868281|181931967|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-4.0||||0.762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.4|24.5|||Mixed Model Repeat Measures||Weeks 21-24. The model included covariates of treatment, center, Baseline ACT total score, type of Baseline controller, gender, age and treatment-by-visit interaction, with the center as a random factor.|||24.5|-32.4|0.762
91024145|NCT02868281|181931968|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-12.8||||0.354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.1|16.5|||Mixed Model Repeat Measures||Weeks 1-4. The model included covariates of treatment, center, Baseline ACT total score, type of Baseline controller, gender, age and treatment-by-visit interaction, with the center as a random factor.|||16.5|-42.1|0.354
91024146|NCT02868281|181931968|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-8.4||||0.538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.8|21.0|||Mixed Model Repeat Measures||Weeks 5-8. The model included covariates of treatment, center, Baseline ACT total score, type of Baseline controller, gender, age and treatment-by-visit interaction, with the center as a random factor.|||21.0|-37.8|0.538
91024147|NCT02868281|181931968|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-5.0||||0.716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.4|24.5|||Mixed Model Repeat Measures||Weeks 9-12. The model included covariates of treatment, center, Baseline ACT total score, type of Baseline controller, gender, age and treatment-by-visit interaction, with the center as a random factor.|||24.5|-34.4|0.716
91024148|NCT02868281|181931968|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-3.1||||0.822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.5|26.3|||Mixed Model Repeat Measures||Weeks 13-16. The model included covariates of treatment, center, Baseline ACT total score, type of Baseline controller, gender, age and treatment-by-visit interaction, with the center as a random factor.|||26.3|-32.5|0.822
91024149|NCT02868281|181931968|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-4.0||||0.767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.4|25.4|||Mixed Model Repeat Measures||Weeks 17-20. The model included covariates of treatment, center, Baseline ACT total score, type of Baseline controller, gender, age and treatment-by-visit interaction, with the center as a random factor.|||25.4|-33.4|0.767
91024150|NCT02868281|181931968|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-3.8||||0.779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.4|25.7|||Mixed Model Repeat Measures||Weeks 21-24. The model included covariates of treatment, center, Baseline ACT total score, type of Baseline controller, gender, age and treatment-by-visit interaction, with the center as a random factor.|||25.7|-33.4|0.779
91024151|NCT02868281|181931969|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|0.3||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.6|||Mixed Model Repeat Measures||The model included covariates of treatment, center, Baseline AQLQ(S) score, type of Baseline controller, gender and age, with the center as a random factor.|||0.6|-0.0|0.059
91024152|NCT02868281|181931970|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.843||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|2.926|||Cox proportional hazards model||The model included treatment, Baseline ACT total score, center, type of Baseline controller, gender and age as covariates.|||2.926|1.160|0.010
90894245|NCT00949884|181654150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0589||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates||Percentage of participants achieving blood pressure goal of \<130/80 mmHg||||0.0589
90831858|NCT03192176|181536168|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89||0.2233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.83|0.66||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||0.66|-2.83|0.2233
90831859|NCT03192176|181536168|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89||0.2882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.69|0.8||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||0.80|-2.69|0.2882
90831860|NCT03192176|181536168|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.8643||95.0|-1.52|1.8||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||1.80|-1.52|0.8643
90831861|NCT03192176|181536169|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.07||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||-0.07|-0.53|0.0104
90831862|NCT03192176|181536169|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.09||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||-0.09|-0.56|0.0060
90831863|NCT03192176|181536169|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.24||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||-0.24|-0.71|<0.0001
90831864|NCT03192176|181536169|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.38||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||-0.38|-0.85|<0.0001
90831865|NCT03192176|181536169|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.6977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.19||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||0.19|-0.28|0.6977
90831866|NCT03192176|181536169|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.07||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||-0.07|-0.53|0.0121
90831867|NCT03192176|181536169|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.08||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||-0.08|-0.54|0.0086
90831868|NCT03192176|181536169|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.08||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||-0.08|-0.66|0.0138
90831869|NCT03192176|181536169|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.19||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||-0.19|-0.78|0.0014
90831870|NCT03192176|181536169|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differencce|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.43||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||-0.43|-1.02|<0.0001
91024153|NCT02868281|181931971|OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.09||||0.897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|3.73|||Generalised linear model||The model included treatment, Baseline ACT total score, type of Baseline controller, gender and age as covariates.|||3.73|0.32|0.897
91024154|NCT03210259|181932027|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was concluded if the confidence interval (CI) for the least squares (LS) means ratio was included in the pre-defined equivalence range of 80.00% to 125.00%.|Least squares means ratio|105.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.2|96.58|114.64|||||The least squares means were from ANCOVA. Ratio was calculated with the switching arm in the numerator and the continuous arm in the denominator.|The null hypothesis was that the ratio of expected means for Switching vs. Continuous Humira is less than 80.00% or more than 125.00%.||114.64|96.58|
91024155|NCT03210259|181932028|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was concluded if the confidence interval (CI) for the LS means ratio was included in the pre-defined equivalence range of 80.00% to 125.00%.|Least squares means ratio|101.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.2|93.26|109.7|||||The least squares means were from ANCOVA. Ratio was calculated with the switching arm in the numerator and the continuous arm in the denominator.|The null hypothesis was that the ratio of expected means for Switching vs. Continuous Humira is less than 80.00% or more than 125.00%.||109.70|93.26|
91024156|NCT03210259|181932029|OTHER||Least squares means ratio|107.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.2|97.33|118.43|||||The least squares means were from ANCOVA. Ratio was calculated with the switching arm as numerator and the continuous arm as the denominator.|No hypothesis was defined and no statistical test was performed.||118.43|97.33|
91024157|NCT03210259|181932031|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.45|13.96|||||Risk difference was calculated as Switching arm minus Continuous Humira.|No hypothesis was tested.||13.96|-2.45|
90831871|NCT03192176|181536169|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|-0.59||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||-0.59|-1.19|<0.0001
90831872|NCT03192176|181536169|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.2831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.14||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||0.14|-0.46|0.2831
90831873|NCT03192176|181536169|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.13||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||-0.13|-0.72|0.0051
90831874|NCT03192176|181536169|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.22||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||-0.22|-0.81|0.0006
90831875|NCT03192176|181536169|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.14||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||-0.14|-0.83|0.0058
90831876|NCT03192176|181536169|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.28||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||-0.28|-0.97|0.0004
90831877|NCT03192176|181536169|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|-0.46||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||-0.46|-1.14|<0.0001
90831878|NCT03192176|181536169|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|-0.57||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||-0.57|-1.27|<0.0001
91024158|NCT03210259|181932032|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.35|15.62|||||Risk difference was calculated as Switching arm minus Continuous Humira.|No hypothesis was tested.||15.62|-4.35|
91024159|NCT00990561|181932079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis = there is no difference between using ultravate once daily vs. twice daily||||<0.001
91024160|NCT03182686|181932088|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||"H0:π ≤ π0 versus HA:π \> π0~Where π0 is the hypothesized clinically significant value for the proportion of responders. The value will be 30% in this study. This test will be tested using an exact binomial test. That is, given the sample size of n, the number of responders X, and the value of π0 =0.30, then probability that X or more events would be observed will be calculated as the p-value. Since this is a one-sided test, the alpha level will be 0.025."||||<0.0001
91024161|NCT01989195|181932134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.05
91087888|NCT00243919|182058644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.192||||0.501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.715|1.985|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression was used to compare the proportion of participants who improved functional level of walking between Late-LTP and HEP adjusting for pre-specified covariates (severity of impairment, clinical site, age, stroke type, side of hemiparesis and depression).||1.985|0.715|0.501
90831879|NCT03192176|181536169|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.04||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||0.04|-0.66|0.0807
91024162|NCT01512979|181932146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.13|-0.46||The model includes treatment and continuous baseline HbA1c.|ANCOVA|||||-0.46|-1.13|<0.0001
90831880|NCT03192176|181536169|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.22||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||-0.22|-0.91|0.0014
90894246|NCT00949884|181654150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0594||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving blood pressure goal of \<130/80 mmHg||||0.0594
91024163|NCT01512979|181932147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7||0.0032||95.0|-28.0|-5.7||The model includes treatment, continuous baseline HbA1c and continuous baseline FPG.|ANCOVA|||||-5.7|-28.0|0.0032
91024164|NCT01512979|181932149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.83||||0.0031||95.0|1.573|9.328||The model includes treatment and continuous baseline HbA1c.|Regression, Logistic|||||9.328|1.573|0.0031
91024165|NCT01512979|181932150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.92||||0.0025||95.0|1.458|5.849||The model includes treatment and continuous baseline HbA1c.|Regression, Logistic|||||5.849|1.458|0.0025
91024166|NCT01512979|181932151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.448||||0.0008||95.0|1.453|4.123||The model includes treatment and continuous baseline HbA1c.|Regression, Logistic|||||4.123|1.453|0.0008
91087889|NCT00243919|182058645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.242||95.0||||We did not formally conduct statistical inference on the timing effect because the first primary null hypotheses is accepted. The p-value provided is the smallest alpha level that one would claim significant difference between early- and late-LTP.|Regression, Linear||Even though there was no formal inference of timing effect, we still provided descriptive statistics for the 6-month and 12-month changes. In addition, paired t-tests were used to compare within-group improvements.|The second primary analysis assessed the timing effect and its interaction with initial severity of gait impairment on walking speed change from baseline to 1 year after stroke.||||0.242
91024167|NCT00529568|181932157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage difference in SVR|6.0||||0.0202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|10.9||Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi-square test adjusted for the randomization strata|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The estimated value reflects the percentage of participants with SVR in the eltrombopag group minus the percentage of participants with SVR in the placebo group. Adjusted for the actual strata: HCV genotype, baseline platelet count, and HCV RNA.|||10.9|1.2|0.0202
91024168|NCT04444752|181932214|SUPERIORITY|Pairwise comparisons for each CBP-201 group vs placebo were performed and a serial gate-keeping procedure was used for multiplicity adjustment. Each CBP-201 group was compared to placebo group in order from highest dose (300 mg Q2W) to the lowest dose frequency (300 mg Q4W), until statistical signficance at p=0.05 level was not achieved.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.794||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted for multiplicity using a serial gatekeeping procedure at the 5% in descending order: 1. 300 mg dose Q2W 2. 150 mg dose Q2W 3. 300 mg dose Q4W vs placebo|ANCOVA|The data were analyzed using an ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, baseline vIGA (moderate, severe), and baseline EASI.||"The primary efficacy analysis includes comparison of percentage reduction in EASI from baseline to Week 16 for CBP-201 300 mg Q2W regimen vs placebo.~The sample size of the study was determined based on power calculations for the primary endpoint in patients receiving CBP-201 300 mg Q2W.~Null hypothesis: CBP-201 300 Q2W is not superior to placebo in terms of percent reduction in EASI Score from Baseline to Week 16."||||0.0007
91024169|NCT04444752|181932214|SUPERIORITY|Pairwise comparisons for each CBP-201 group vs placebo were performed and a serial gatekeeping procedure was used for multiplicity adjustment. Each CBP-201 group was compared with the placebo group in order from the highest dose (300 mg Q2W) to the lowest dose frequency (300 mg Q4W), until statistical significance at 0.05 level was not achieved.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.537||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted for multiplicity using a serial gatekeeping procedure at the 5% in descending order: 1. 300 mg dose Q2W 2. 150 mg Q2W 3. 300 mg Q4W vs placebo.|ANCOVA|The data were analyzed using an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, baseline vIGA (moderate, severe), and baseline EASI.||"The sample size of the study was determined based on power calculations for the primary endpoint in patients receiving CBP-201 300 mg Q2W.~Null hypothesis: CBP-201 150 Q2W is not superior to placebo in terms of percent reduction in EASI Score from Baseline to Week 16."||||0.0067
91024170|NCT04444752|181932214|SUPERIORITY|Pairwise comparisons for each CBP-201 group vs placebo were performed and a serial gatekeeping procedure was used for multiplicity adjustment. Each CBP-201 group was compared with placebo in order from highest dose (300 mg Q2W) to the lowest dose frequency (300 mg Q4W), until statistical significance at the 0.05 level was not achieved.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.575||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted for mulitplicity using a serial gatekeeping procedure at the 5% in descending order: 1. 300 mg dose Q2W 2. 150 mg Q2W 3. 300 mg Q4W vs placebo.|ANCOVA|The data were anlayzed using an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, baseline vIGA (moderate, severe), and baseline EASI||"The efficacy analysis includes comparing percentage reduction in EASI from baseline to Week 16 for CBP-201 300 mg Q4W regimen vs placebo.~The sample size of the study was determined based on power calculations for the primary endpoint in patients receiving CBP-201 300 mg Q2W.~Null hypothesis: CBP-201 300 Q4W is not superior to placebo in terms of percent reduction in EASI Score from Baseline to Week 16."||||0.0004
91024171|NCT04444752|181932215|SUPERIORITY|The secondary efficacy analysis includes comparison of the number of patients achieving a vIGA score of 0/1 (clear/almost clear) at Week 16 for each CBP-201 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.|Difference in vIGA Response Rate|28.1||||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|||||There were no adjustments for multiple comparisons. For IGA response, counts, percentage, and 95% CIs obtained using the Clopper-Pearson method and were presented for pairwise comparisons for each CBP-201 group vs. placebo.|Chi-squared|||Null hypothesis: CBP-201 300 Q2W is not superior to placebo in terms of the number of patients achieving a vIGA score of 0/1 (clear/almost clear) at Week 16.||||0.0089
91024172|NCT00433381|181932217|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Null hypothesis: 20% of patients progression-free at six months. Alternative hypothesis: 35%. Type I and II error rates = 0.10. Required sample size = 57.|The determination of treatment efficacy was to be made made based on the following rules: If 16 or more of the cases (16/57=28.1%) are progression free and alive at 6 months, then reject the null hypothesis that the rate is no better than 20%. If 15 or fewer of the cases (15/57=26.3%) are progression free and alive at 6 months, then reject the alternative hypothesis that the rate is at least 35%.|||
91024173|NCT00433381|181932218|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Null hypothesis: 35% discontinuation rate of bevacizumab and temozolomide. Alternative hypothesis: 5%. Type I and II error rates = 0.10. Sample size = 29.|The determination of treatment tolerability was to be made based on the following rules: If 6 or fewer of the cases (6/29=20.6%) stop treatment due to medical conditions, then reject the null hypothesis that the discontinuation rate is at least 35% and conclude tolerability. If 7 or more of the cases (7/29=24.1%) stop treatment due to medical conditions, then reject the alternative hypothesis that the discontinuation rate no more than 15%.|||
91024174|NCT00433381|181932219|OTHER|Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) analysis|Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.91||||||Accuracy estimate, as measured by the Area under the Curve (AUC), for the prediction of PFS-6 by change in metabolic ratio of tumor NAA/Cho at 2 weeks||0.91|0.09|
91024175|NCT00433381|181932219|OTHER|ROC analysis|Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.95||||||AUC (Accuracy) estimate for the prediction of PFS-6 by change in metabolic ratio of tumor Cho/Cr at 2 weeks||0.95|0.14|
91087890|NCT00243919|182058646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.94||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|3.21|||Regression, Logistic|Pairwise comparisons were conducted: Early-LTP versus Late-LTP, which had received only usual care in the 2- to 6-month post-stroke period.||Logistic regression was used to compare the proportion of participants who improved functional level of walking between early-LTP and Late-LTP (Usual Care) adjusting for pre-specified covariates (severity of impairment, clinical site, age, stroke type, side of hemiparesis and depression).||3.21|1.18|0.010
91087891|NCT00243919|182058646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.04||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|3.42|||Regression, Logistic|Pairwise comparisons were conducted: HEP versus Late-LTP, which had received only usual care in the 2- to 6-month post-stroke period.||Logistic regression was used to compare the proportion of participants who improved functional level of walking between HEP and Late-LTP (Usual Care) adjusting for pre-specified covariates (severity of impairment, clinical site, age, stroke type, side of hemiparesis and depression).||3.42|1.22|0.007
91087892|NCT00243919|182058647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.16||Bonferroni adjustment for multiple testing was used in the pair-wise comparisons of the secondary outcomes. A difference is claimed to be statistically significant when p\<0.0014.|t-test, 2 sided|||6 month secondary analysis. Following the overall ANOVA test, pairwise comparison was conducted to assess differences in walking speed changes between early-LTP and late-LTP.||0.16|0.08|<0.0001
91087893|NCT00243919|182058647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.14||Bonferroni adjustment for multiple testing was used in the pair-wise comparisons of the secondary outcomes. A difference is claimed to be statistically significant when p\<0.0014.|t-test, 2 sided|||6 month secondary analysis. Following the overall ANOVA test, pairwise comparison was conducted to assess differences in walking speed changes between HEP and late-LTP.||0.14|0.05|<.0001
91087894|NCT00243919|182058648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45||95.0||||Test differences across the three groups in change of 6 minute walking distance from baseline to 12-month post stroke.|ANOVA|||Primary 12 month analysis. Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group improvements and ANOVA to assess differences across the three groups followed with pairwise comparisons.||||0.45
91087895|NCT00243919|182058648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|Test differences across the three groups in change of 6 minute walking distance from baseline to 6-month post stroke.||6 month secondary analysis. Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group improvements and ANOVA to assess differences across the three groups followed with pairwise comparisons.||||<0.001
91087896|NCT00243919|182058649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|Test differences across the three groups in change of number of steps from baseline to 12-month post stroke.||12 month primary outcome. The Kruskal-Wallis procedure was used to assess differences across the three groups in number of steps taken in the community. Wilcoxon signed rank tests were used to compare within-group improvements.||||0.10
91087897|NCT00243919|182058649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|Test differences across the three groups in change of number of steps from baseline to 6-month post stroke.||6 month secondary analysis. The Kruskal-Wallis procedure was used to assess differences across the three groups in number of steps taken in the community. Wilcoxon signed rank tests were used to compare within-group improvements.||||0.04
91087898|NCT00243919|182058650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48||95.0|||||ANOVA|Test differences across the three groups in change of SIS Participation from baseline to 12-month post stroke.||12 month primary outcome. Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group improvements and ANOVA to assess differences across the three groups followed with pairwise comparisons.||||0.48
91087899|NCT00243919|182058650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0|||||ANOVA|Test differences across the three groups in change of SIS Participation from baseline to 6-month post stroke.||6 month secondary outcome. Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group improvements and ANOVA to assess differences across the three groups followed with pairwise comparisons.||||0.06
91087900|NCT00243919|182058651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07||95.0|||||ANOVA|Test differences across the three groups in change of SIS ADL/iADL from baseline to 12-month post stroke.||12 month primary outcome. Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group improvements and ANOVA to assess differences across the three groups followed with pairwise comparisons.||||0.07
91087901|NCT00243919|182058651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0|||||ANOVA|Test differences across the three groups in change of SIS ADL/iADL from baseline to 6-month post stroke.||6 month secondary outcome. Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group improvements and ANOVA to assess differences across the three groups followed with pairwise comparisons.||||0.03
91087902|NCT00243919|182058652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69||95.0|||||ANOVA|Test differences across the three groups in change of SIS Mobility from baseline to 12-month post stroke.||12 month primary outcome. Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group improvements and ANOVA to assess differences across the three groups followed with pairwise comparisons.||||0.69
91087903|NCT00243919|182058652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|Test differences across the three groups in change of SIS Mobility from baseline to 6-month post stroke.||6 month secondary outcome. Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group improvements and ANOVA to assess differences across the three groups followed with pairwise comparisons.||||<.0001
91087904|NCT00243919|182058653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13||95.0|||||ANOVA|Test differences across the three groups in change of FM-LE from baseline to 12-month post stroke.||12 month primary analysis. Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group improvements and ANOVA to assess differences across the three groups followed with pairwise comparisons.||||0.13
91087905|NCT00243919|182058653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||ANOVA|Test differences across the three groups in change of FM-LE from baseline to 6-month post stroke.||6 month secondary analysis. Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group improvements and ANOVA to assess differences across the three groups followed with pairwise comparisons.||||0.04
91087906|NCT00243919|182058654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0|||||ANOVA|Test differences across the three groups in change of Berg Balance Score from baseline to 12-month post stroke.||12 month primary outcome. Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group improvements and ANOVA to assess differences across the three groups followed with pairwise comparisons.||||0.06
91087907|NCT00243919|182058654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|Test differences across the three groups in change of Berg Balance Score from baseline to 6-month post stroke.||6 month secondary outcome. Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group improvements and ANOVA to assess differences across the three groups followed with pairwise comparisons.||||0.001
91087908|NCT00243919|182058655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62||95.0|||||ANOVA|Test differences across the three groups in change of ABC score from baseline to 12-month post stroke.||12 month primary outcome. Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group improvements and ANOVA to assess differences across the three groups followed with pairwise comparisons.||||0.62
91087909|NCT00243919|182058655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|Test differences across the three groups in change of ABC score from baseline to 6-month post stroke.||6 month secondary outcome. Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group improvements and ANOVA to assess differences across the three groups followed with pairwise comparisons.||||<0.001
91087910|NCT02221648|182058690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.447|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4470
91087911|NCT02221648|182058691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0293|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0293
91087912|NCT02221648|182058692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0448|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0448
91087913|NCT00905424|182058695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3||||0.0902|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.5|-0.1||The test was performed a priori at the significance level of 0.10|ANCOVA|||||-0.1|-4.5|0.0902
91087914|NCT00905424|182058696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.3091|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.4|0.6||The test was performed a priori at the significance level of 0.10|ANCOVA|||||0.6|-2.4|0.3091
90831881|NCT03192176|181536169|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.34||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||-0.34|-1.02|0.0001
90831882|NCT03192176|181536169|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.16||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||-0.16|-0.85|0.0046
90831883|NCT03192176|181536169|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.29||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||-0.29|-0.99|0.0003
91087915|NCT00905424|182058697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.0573|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.7|-0.3||The test was performed a priori at the significance level of 0.10|ANCOVA|||||-0.3|-3.7|0.0573
91087916|NCT00905424|182058698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2368||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2368
91087917|NCT00905424|182058701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0||||0.0463|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.4|-0.5||The test was performed a priori at the significance level of 0.10|ANCOVA|||Global Executive Composite||-0.5|-5.4|0.0463
91087918|NCT00905424|182058701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.1431|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.3|0.3||The test was performed a priori at the significance level of 0.10|ANCOVA|||Behavioral Regulation Index||0.3|-4.3|0.1431
91087919|NCT00905424|182058701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.3||||0.0281|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.8|-0.8||The test was performed a priori at the significance level of 0.10|ANCOVA|||Metacognition Index||-0.8|-5.8|0.0281
91087920|NCT00905424|182058702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.0|-0.1||The test was performed a priori at the significance level of 0.10|ANCOVA|||||-0.1|-6.0|0.0920
91087921|NCT00905424|182058703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.0774|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.2|-0.1||The test was performed a priori at the significance level of 0.10|ANCOVA|||||-0.1|-2.2|0.0774
91087922|NCT00905424|182058704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2||||0.4726|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.6|4.0||The test was performed a priori at the significance level of 0.10|ANCOVA|||||4.0|-1.6|0.4726
91087923|NCT00905424|182058705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.5182|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.4|3.1||The test was performed a priori at the significance level of 0.10|ANCOVA|||||3.1|-1.4|0.5182
91087924|NCT00905424|182058706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.463|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.1|1.2||The test was performed a priori at the significance level of 0.10|ANCOVA|||||1.2|-3.1|0.4630
91087925|NCT00905424|182058707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.523||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.5230
91087926|NCT00905424|182058710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8||||0.2876|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|4.7||The test was performed a priori at the significance level of 0.10|ANCOVA|||Global Executive Composite||4.7|-1.0|0.2876
91087927|NCT00905424|182058710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.559|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.1|4.4||The test was performed a priori at the significance level of 0.10|ANCOVA|||Behavioral Regulation Index||4.4|-2.1|0.5590
91087928|NCT00905424|182058710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3||||0.2079|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|5.2||The test was performed a priori at the significance level of 0.10|ANCOVA|||Metacognition Index||5.2|-0.7|0.2079
91087929|NCT00905424|182058711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.7||||0.1489|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.0|0.5||The test was performed a priori at the significance level of 0.10|ANCOVA|||||0.5|-8.0|0.1489
91087930|NCT00905424|182058712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0.0852|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.8|-0.1||The test was performed a priori at the significance level of 0.10|ANCOVA|||||-0.1|-2.8|0.0852
91087931|NCT00379899|182058720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.073|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for screening total coronary artery calcification score stratification factor (≥ 30 to 399, ≥ 400 to 999, and ≥ 1000)||||||0.073
90831884|NCT03192176|181536169|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|-0.45||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||-0.45|-1.14|<0.0001
90831885|NCT03192176|181536169|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|-0.7||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||-0.70|-1.14|<0.0001
90831886|NCT03192176|181536169|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.06||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||-0.06|-0.77|0.0209
90831887|NCT03192176|181536169|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.18||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|-0.24||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||-0.24|-0.93|0.0011
90831888|NCT03192176|181536169|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.38||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||-0.38|-1.07|<0.0001
90831889|NCT03192176|181536169|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.05||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||0.05|-0.67|0.0956
90831890|NCT03192176|181536169|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.16||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||-0.16|-0.89|0.0050
90831891|NCT03192176|181536169|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|-0.45||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||-0.45|-1.18|<0.0001
90831892|NCT03192176|181536169|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.65||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||-0.65|-1.40|<0.0001
90831893|NCT03192176|181536169|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.05||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||0.05|-0.69|0.0915
90894247|NCT00949884|181654150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0476||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving blood pressure goal of \<120/80 mmHg||||0.0476
90831894|NCT03192176|181536169|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.02||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||-0.02|-0.75|0.0378
90894248|NCT00949884|181654150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0657||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving blood pressure goal of \<120/80 mmHg||||0.0657
90831895|NCT03192176|181536169|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.16||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||-0.16|-0.89|0.0053
90831896|NCT03192176|181536169|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.08||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||-0.08|-0.83|0.0614
90831897|NCT03192176|181536169|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|-0.18||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||-0.18|-0.92|0.0040
90894249|NCT00949884|181654151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|1.5|||ANCOVA|Treatment is a fixed effect and baseline mean 24-hour ABPM blood pressure as a covariate.||Change from baseline at week 4 in systolic blood pressure.||1.5|-4.4|0.3250
90831898|NCT03192176|181536169|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.58||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||-0.58|-1.33|<0.0001
90894250|NCT00949884|181654151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0.3491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|1.5|||ANCOVA|Treatment is a fixed effect and baseline mean 24-hour ABPM blood pressure as a covariate.||Change from baseline at week 4 in systolic blood pressure.||1.5|-4.4|0.3491
91024176|NCT00433381|181932219|OTHER|ROC analysis|Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.99||||||AUC (Accuracy) estimate for the prediction of PFS-6 by change in metabolic ratio of tumor NAA/Cr at 2 weeks||0.99|0|
91024177|NCT00433381|181932219|OTHER||Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.0||||||AUC (Accuracy) estimate for the prediction of PFS-6 by change in metabolic ratio of tumor NAA/Cho at 8 weeks||1|0.53|
91024178|NCT00433381|181932219|OTHER||Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.0||||||AUC (Accuracy) estimate for the prediction of PFS-6 by change in metabolic ratio of tumor Cho/Cr at 8 weeks||1|0.47|
91024179|NCT00433381|181932219|OTHER||Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|1.0||||||AUC (Accuracy) estimate for the prediction of PFS-6 by change in metabolic ratio of tumor NAA/Cr at 8 weeks||1|0.11|
91024180|NCT00433381|181932219|OTHER||Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.0||||||AUC (Accuracy) estimate for the prediction of PFS-6 by change in metabolic ratio of tumor NAA/Cho at 16 weeks||1|0.21|
91024181|NCT00433381|181932219|OTHER|ROC analysis|Area Under the Curve (AUC)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.0||||||AUC (Accuracy) estimate for the prediction of PFS-6 by change in metabolic ratio of tumor Cho/Cr at 16 weeks||1|1|
91024182|NCT00433381|181932219|OTHER|ROC analysis|Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.0||||||AUC (Accuracy) estimate for the prediction of PFS-6 by change in metabolic ratio of tumor NAA/Cr at 16 weeks||1|0|
91024183|NCT00433381|181932219|OTHER|ROC analysis|Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.88||||||AUC (Accuracy) estimate for the prediction of PFS-6 by change in metabolic ratio of periphery NAA/Cho at 2 weeks||0.88|0|
91024184|NCT00433381|181932219|OTHER|ROC analysis|Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.91||||||AUC (Accuracy) estimate for the prediction of PFS-6 by change in metabolic ratio of periphery Cho/Cr at 2 weeks||0.91|0.13|
91024185|NCT00433381|181932219|OTHER|ROC analysis|Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|1.0||||||AUC (Accuracy) estimate for the prediction of PFS-6 by change in metabolic ratio of periphery NAA/Cr at 2 weeks||1|0.06|
91024186|NCT00433381|181932219|OTHER|ROC analysis|Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.92||||||AUC (Accuracy) estimate for the prediction of PFS-6 by change in metabolic ratio of periphery NAA/Cho at 8 weeks||0.92|0.02|
91024187|NCT00433381|181932219|OTHER|ROC analysis|Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.8||||||AUC (Accuracy) estimate for the prediction of PFS-6 by change in metabolic ratio of periphery Cho/Cr at 8 weeks||0.80|0.01|
91024188|NCT00433381|181932219|OTHER|ROC analysis|Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.0||||||AUC (Accuracy) estimate for the prediction of PFS-6 by change in metabolic ratio of periphery NAA/Cr at 8 weeks||1|0.22|
91024189|NCT00433381|181932219|OTHER|ROC analysis|Area Under the Curve (AUC)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.0||||||AUC (Accuracy) estimate for the prediction of PFS-6 by change in metabolic ratio of periphery NAA/Cho at 16 weeks||1|1|
90831899|NCT03192176|181536169|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|-0.71||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||-0.71|-1.47|<0.0001
91024190|NCT00433381|181932219|OTHER|ROC analysis|Area Under the Curve (AUC)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.0||||||AUC (Accuracy) estimate for the prediction of PFS-6 by change in metabolic ratio of periphery Cho/Cr at 16 weeks||1|1|
91024191|NCT00433381|181932219|OTHER|ROC analysis|Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.0||||||AUC (Accuracy) estimate for the prediction of PFS-6 by change in metabolic ratio of periphery NAA/Cr at 16 weeks||1|0.73|
91024192|NCT00433381|181932220|OTHER|ROC analysis|Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.92||||||AUC (Accuracy) estimate for the prediction of 12 month overall survival by change in metabolic ratio of tumor NAA/Cho at 2 weeks||0.92|0|
91024193|NCT00433381|181932220|OTHER|ROC analysis|Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.88||||||AUC (Accuracy) estimate for the prediction of 12 month overall survival by change in metabolic ratio of tumor Cho/Cr at 2 weeks||0.88|0|
91024194|NCT00433381|181932220|OTHER|ROC analysis|Accuracy: Area Under the ROC|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.0||||||AUC (Accuracy) estimate for the prediction of 12 month overall survival by change in metabolic ratio of tumor NAA/Cr at 2 weeks||1|0.25|
91024195|NCT00433381|181932220|OTHER|ROC analysis|Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.0||||||AUC (Accuracy) estimate for the prediction of 12 month overall survival by change in metabolic ratio of tumor NAA/Cho at 8 weeks||1|0.47|
91024196|NCT00433381|181932220|OTHER|ROC analysis|Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.0||||||AUC (Accuracy) estimate for the prediction of 12 month overall survival by change in metabolic ratio of tumor Cho/Cr at 8 weeks||1|0.44|
91024197|NCT00433381|181932220|OTHER|ROC analysis|Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.0||||||AUC (Accuracy) estimate for the prediction of 12 month overall survival by change in metabolic ratio of tumor NAA/Cr at 8 weeks||1|0.17|
91024198|NCT00433381|181932220|OTHER|ROC analysis|Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.0||||||AUC (Accuracy) estimate for the prediction of 12 month overall survival by change in metabolic ratio of tumor NAA/Cho at 16 weeks||1|0.45|
91024199|NCT00433381|181932220|OTHER|ROC analysis|Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.0||||||AUC (Accuracy) estimate for the prediction of 12 month overall survival by change in metabolic ratio of tumor Cho/Cr at 16 weeks||1|0.19|
91024200|NCT00433381|181932220|OTHER|ROC analysis|Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|1.0||||||AUC (Accuracy) estimate for the prediction of 12 month overall survival by change in metabolic ratio of tumor NAA/Cr at 16 weeks||1|0.03|
91024201|NCT00433381|181932220|OTHER|ROC analysis|Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.0||||||AUC (Accuracy) estimate for the prediction of 12 month overall survival by change in metabolic ratio of periphery NAA/Cho at 2 weeks||1|0.20|
91024202|NCT00433381|181932220|OTHER|ROC analysis|Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.0||||||AUC (Accuracy) estimate for the prediction of 12 month overall survival by change in metabolic ratio of periphery Cho/Cr at 2 weeks||1|0.36|
91024203|NCT00433381|181932220|OTHER|ROC analysis|Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.94||||||AUC (Accuracy) estimate for the prediction of 12 month overall survival by change in metabolic ratio of periphery NAA/Cr at 2 weeks||0.94|0.06|
91024204|NCT00433381|181932220|OTHER|ROC analysis|Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.95||||||AUC (Accuracy) estimate for the prediction of 12 month overall survival by change in metabolic ratio of periphery NAA/Cho at 8 weeks||0.95|0.22|
90894251|NCT00949884|181654151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.2085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|0.7|||ANCOVA|Treatment is a fixed effect and baseline mean 24-hour ABPM blood pressure is a covariate.||Change from baseline at week 4 in diastolic blood pressure.||0.7|-3.2|0.2085
90894252|NCT00949884|181654151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.2542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|0.8|||ANCOVA|Treatment is a fixed effect and baseline mean 24-hour ABPM blood pressure is a covariate.||Change from baseline at week 4 in diastolic blood pressure.||0.8|-3.0|0.2542
91087932|NCT00379899|182058721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.62||||0.094||95.0|0.36|1.08|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Logit estimates (Cinacalcet:Control)|||1.08|0.36|0.094
91087933|NCT00379899|182058722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for screening total coronary artery calcification score stratification factor||||||0.018
91087934|NCT00379899|182058724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.258|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.258
91087935|NCT00379899|182058725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for screening total coronary artery calcification score stratification factor||||||0.011
91087936|NCT00379899|182058726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for screening total coronary artery calcification score stratification factor||||||<0.001
90831900|NCT03192176|181536169|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.06||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||0.06|-0.70|0.0967
90831901|NCT03192176|181536169|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.15||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||-0.15|-0.90|0.0063
90831902|NCT03192176|181536169|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|-0.38||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||-0.38|-1.13|<0.0001
90831903|NCT03192176|181536169|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.02||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||0.02|-0.75|0.0632
90831904|NCT03192176|181536169|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.23||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||-0.23|-1.00|0.0020
90831905|NCT03192176|181536169|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|-0.51||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||-0.51|-1.29|<0.0001
90831906|NCT03192176|181536169|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|-0.69||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||-0.69|-1.48|<0.0001
90831907|NCT03192176|181536169|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.04||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||-0.04|-0.82|0.0308
90894253|NCT00949884|181654152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.6||||0.0209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|-0.5|||ANCOVA|Treatment is a fixed effect and baseline mean 24-hour ABPM blood pressure is a covariate.||Change from baseline at week 8 in systolic blood pressure.||-0.5|-6.6|0.0209
90957036|NCT00706433|181793714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||1.0
91087937|NCT00379899|182058727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for screening total coronary artery calcification score stratification factor||||||<0.001
91087938|NCT00379899|182058728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for screening total coronary artery calcification score stratification factor||||||0.025
91087939|NCT00379899|182058729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for screening total coronary artery calcification score stratification factor||||||0.021
91087940|NCT00379899|182058730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for screening total coronary artery calcification score stratification factor||||||<0.001
91087941|NCT00379899|182058731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for screening total coronary artery calcification score stratification factor||||||<0.001
91087942|NCT01922258|182058732|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-2.34|||=|0.1454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.49|0.82|||Mixed-effect model repeated measure|||||0.82|-5.49|=0.1454
91087943|NCT01156805|182058758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects linear regression, adjusted for clustering within schools and children to assess the effect of intervention on changes in BMI over time||||||0.05
91087944|NCT01261390|182058762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.677|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.652|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.915|0.561|||||Presented average of the treatment effects on 24hr SBP at 6months and 12months: (6mo + 12mo)/ 2; Comparison: ActivePAP Control. Adjusted for randomization factors (CVD; site; sleepstudy type) with subjectspecific slopes and intercepts.|"We conducted a linear mixed effects regression (LMER) to estimate the treatment effect of CPAP on mean 24hour Systolic Blood Pressure (SBP). Timepoint, treatment, and the timepoint\* treatment interaction were included as fixed effects, as were randomization stratification factors. Subject was included as a random effect. Let: y = observed SBP; β = fixed effects; u = random effects; X = known design matrix; Z = vector of subjects~Then our model is:~y = Xβ + Zu + ε"||0.561|-5.915|
91104619|NCT02214212|182095238|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.0||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model used an unstructured correlation matrix, adjusting for treatment, time (linear) and the interaction as fixed effects|The reported effect size has been expressed as the modelled difference in the Makley scale score improvement from day 1 to day 10. A positive effect size indicates a higher score in the white-light arm.|||0.03|-0.03|.910
91087945|NCT01261390|182058763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|99.0||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for intervention and study duration (number of nights), and randomization (CVD; site; diagnostic sleep study type; PAP device type).|Estimated value is minutes of use per night.|We performed a mixed effects analysis of the effect of Motivational Enhancement (ME) on nightly CPAP adherence. Our model included every night of data and adjusted for intervention and study duration (number of nights), as well as randomization stratification factors (CVD; site; diagnostic sleepstudy type; PAP device type).||||0.003
91087946|NCT02782741|182058805|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference of avalglucosidase alfa minus alglucosidase alfa was greater than (\>) -1.1.|LS mean difference|2.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29||0.0074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|4.99|||mixed model for repeated measures|||Analysis performed using MMRM model with baseline FVC (% predicted, as continuous), sex, age (in years at baseline), treatment group, visit, interaction term between treatment group and visit as fixed effects.||4.99|-0.13|0.0074
91087947|NCT02782741|182058805|SUPERIORITY|A test for superiority of avalglucosidase alfa versus alglucosidase alfa was performed with an overall 5% level of significance.||||||0.0626||||||Threshold for significance at \<0.05 level.|mixed model for repeated measures|||Analysis performed using MMRM model with baseline FVC (% predicted, as continuous), sex, age (in years at baseline), treatment group, visit, interaction term between treatment group and visit as fixed effects.||||0.0626
90831908|NCT03192176|181536169|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.12||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||-0.12|-0.89|0.0105
90831909|NCT03192176|181536169|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.26||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||-0.26|-1.03|0.0010
90831910|NCT03192176|181536169|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.1469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.11||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||0.11|-0.69|0.1469
90831911|NCT03192176|181536169|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.04||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||-0.04|-0.84|0.0315
91087948|NCT02782741|182058806|SUPERIORITY|Per the protocol-defined statistical test strategy for multiplicity adjustment, and since superiority was narrowly missed for FVC % predicted, superiority testing for the secondary outcome measure couldn't be performed.|LS mean difference|30.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.43||0.0405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|58.69|||mixed model for repeated measures|||LS mean difference was derived from MMRM model with baseline FVC (% predicted) and baseline 6MWT (distance walked in meter), age (in years, at baseline), gender, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.||58.69|1.33|0.0405
91087949|NCT02782741|182058807|OTHER|Per the protocol-defined statistical test strategy for multiplicity adjustment, and since superiority was narrowly missed for FVC % predicted, superiority testing for the secondary outcome measure couldn't be performed.|LS mean difference|3.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.24||0.5522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.31|13.57|||mixed model for repeated measures|||LS mean difference was derived from MMRM model for MIP % predicted adjusted for MIP % predicted at baseline, age (in years, at baseline), gender, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.||13.57|-7.31|0.5522
91087950|NCT02782741|182058808|OTHER|Per the protocol-defined statistical test strategy for multiplicity adjustment, and since superiority was narrowly missed for FVC % predicted, superiority testing for the secondary outcome measure couldn't be performed.|LS mean difference|-1.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.64||0.7321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.17|9.29|||mixed model for repeated measures|||LS mean difference was derived from MMRM model for MEP % predicted adjusted for MEP % predicted at baseline, age (in years, at baseline), gender, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.||9.29|-13.17|0.7321
90831912|NCT03192176|181536169|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|-0.38||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||-0.38|-1.18|0.0002
90831913|NCT03192176|181536169|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|-0.43||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||-0.43|-1.26|<0.0001
90831914|NCT03192176|181536169|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.4494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.25||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||0.25|-0.56|0.4494
90831915|NCT03192176|181536169|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.02||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||0.02|-0.79|0.0595
91103898|NCT03992872|182094609|SUPERIORITY|The significance of the difference between groups in seroconversion rates was assessed using a Fisher's exact test. The percentage who seroconverted in each group was presented along with its 95% CI calculated using the Wilson method. The Newcombe method was use to estimate the 95% confidence interval for the difference between groups in the percentage of subjects who seroconverted.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|11.4|||Fisher Exact|||||11.4|-11.4|1
90831916|NCT03192176|181536169|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.16||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||-0.16|-0.96|0.0065
90831917|NCT03192176|181536169|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.04||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||0.04|-0.77|0.0745
90831918|NCT03192176|181536169|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.01||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||0.01|-0.80|0.0540
90831919|NCT03192176|181536169|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|-0.41||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||-0.41|-1.22|0.0001
90831920|NCT03192176|181536169|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|-0.43||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||-0.43|-1.26|<0.0001
90831921|NCT03192176|181536169|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.5317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.28||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||0.28|-0.54|0.5317
90831922|NCT03192176|181536169|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.01||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||-0.01|-0.83|0.0424
90831923|NCT03192176|181536169|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.11||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||-0.11|-0.91|0.0134
90831924|NCT03192176|181536169|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.04||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||-0.04|-0.84|0.0300
90831925|NCT03192176|181536169|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.02||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||0.02|-0.78|0.0605
90831926|NCT03192176|181536169|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.4||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||-0.40|-1.20|0.0001
90831927|NCT03192176|181536169|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|-0.56||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||-0.56|-1.38|<0.0001
90831928|NCT03192176|181536169|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.1848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.13||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Wek 10||0.13|-0.68|0.1848
90831929|NCT03192176|181536169|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.04||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||-0.04|-0.84|0.0321
90831930|NCT03192176|181536169|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.22||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||-0.22|-1.01|0.0025
90831931|NCT03192176|181536169|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.01||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||-0.01|-0.81|0.0441
90957037|NCT00706433|181793715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4378||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.4378
90831932|NCT03192176|181536169|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.01||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||-0.01|-0.82|0.0422
91024205|NCT00433381|181932220|OTHER|ROC analysis|Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.87||||||AUC (Accuracy) estimate for the prediction of 12 month overall survival by change in metabolic ratio of periphery Cho/Cr at 8 weeks||0.87|0.13|
91024206|NCT00433381|181932220|OTHER|ROC analysis|Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.0||||||AUC (Accuracy) estimate for the prediction of 12 month overall survival by change in metabolic ratio of periphery NAA/Cr at 8 weeks||1|0.47|
91024207|NCT00433381|181932220|OTHER|ROC analysis|Area Under the Curve (AUC)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.0||||||AUC (Accuracy) estimate for the prediction of 12 month overall survival by change in metabolic ratio of periphery NAA/Cho at 16 weeks||1|1|
91024208|NCT00433381|181932220|OTHER|ROC analysis|Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.0||||||AUC (Accuracy) estimate for the prediction of 12 month overall survival by change in metabolic ratio of periphery Cho/Cr at 16 weeks||1|0.63|
91024209|NCT00433381|181932220|OTHER|ROC analysis|Area Under the Curve (AUC)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.0||||||AUC (Accuracy) estimate for the prediction of 12 month overall survival by change in metabolic ratio of periphery NAA/Cr at 16 weeks||1|1|
91024210|NCT00433381|181932221|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The determination of treatment efficacy was to be made made based on the following rules: If 16 or more of the cases (16/57=28.1%) are progression free and alive at 6 months, then reject the null hypothesis that the rate is no better than 20%. If 15 or fewer of the cases (15/57=26.3%) are progression free and alive at 6 months, then reject the alternative hypothesis that the rate is at least 35%.|||
91024211|NCT00433381|181932223|OTHER|Agreement was assessed using a Kappa statistic|Kappa Statistic|0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.57||||||Agreement between Local and Central determinations 6-month PFS, based on imaging, was evaluated using Kappa statistics||0.57|0.21|
91024212|NCT00433381|181932224|OTHER|Sensitivity|Sensitivity|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.73||||||Sensitivity||0.73|0.46|
91024213|NCT00433381|181932224|OTHER|Specificity|Specificity|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.87||||||Specificity||0.87|0.66|
91024214|NCT01387282|181932231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Superiority analysis||||< 0.0001
91024215|NCT01387282|181932232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.648|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Superiority analysis||||0.6480
91024216|NCT01387282|181932233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0016|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Superiority analysis||||0.0016
91024217|NCT01387282|181932234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8637|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Superiority analysis||||0.8637
91024218|NCT01387282|181932235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Superiority analysis||||< 0.0001
91024219|NCT00458302|181932236|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The primary comparison was performed at Week 48. If at Week 48, the lower limit of the 95% two-sided confidence interval of the difference between DRV/r and DRV/r+2NRTIs exceeds -12%, non-inferiority of the DRV/r 800/100 once a day (O.D) monotherapy versus the DRV/r 800/100 mg O.D. plus two NRTIs triple combination therapy was concluded.|Difference in proportion of response|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|6.8|||||Difference in proportion of response DRV/r minus DRV/r+2NRTIs.|Assuming a virologic response rate of 90% at 48 weeks for both treatment arms, 111 patients were required per treatment arm to establish non-inferiority of DRV/r versus triple regimen with a maximum allowable difference of 12%, with a one-sided significance level of p=0.025 and 80% power. To account for a maximum of 10% major protocol violations that would be excluded from the on-protocol analysis, 125 patients were recruited in each treatment arm, so 250 patients in total.||6.8|-10.1|
91024220|NCT00458302|181932237|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If at Week 48, the lower limit of the 95% two-sided confidence interval of the difference between DRV/r and DRV/r+2NRTIs exceeds -12%, non-inferiority of the DRV/r 800/100 once a day (O.D) monotherapy versus the DRV/r 800/100 mg O.D. plus two NRTIs triple combination therapy was concluded.|Difference in proportion of response|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|7.8|||||Difference in proportion of response DRV/r minus DRV/r+2NRTIs.|Assuming a virologic response rate of 90% at 48 weeks for both treatment arms, 111 patients were required per treatment arm to establish non-inferiority of DRV/r versus triple regimen with a maximum allowable difference of 12%, with a one-sided significance level of p=0.025 and 80% power. To account for a maximum of 10% major protocol violations that would be excluded from the on-protocol analysis, 125 patients were recruited in each treatment are, so 250 patients in total.||7.8|-9.9|
91024221|NCT00458302|181932239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion of response|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.99|10.58|||||Difference in proportion of response DRV/r minus DRV/r+2NRTIs.|||10.58|-7.99|
91024222|NCT02661126|181932249|OTHER|Geometric least-squares mean ratio (GMR) of AUC0-last in Moderate RI/Healthy Participants.|GMR of AUC0-last in Moderate RI/Healthy|2.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.4|2.92||||||||2.92|1.40|
91024223|NCT02661126|181932250|OTHER|GMR of AUC0-∞ in Moderate RI/Healthy Participants|GMR of AUC0-∞ in Moderate RI/Healthy|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.39|2.89||||||||2.89|1.39|
91024224|NCT02661126|181932251|OTHER|GMR of AUC0-24 in Moderate RI/Healthy Participants|GMR of AUC0-24 in Moderate RI/Healthy|2.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.39|2.92||||||||2.92|1.39|
91024225|NCT02661126|181932252|OTHER|GMR of Cmax in Moderate RI/Healthy Participants|GMR of Cmax in Moderate RI/Healthy|1.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.35|2.74||||||||2.74|1.35|
91024226|NCT02661126|181932258|OTHER|GMR of AUC0-last in Moderate RI/Healthy Participants.|GMR of AUC0-last in Moderate RI/Healthy|1.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.39|2.72||||||||2.72|1.39|
91024227|NCT02661126|181932259|OTHER|GMR of AUC0-∞ in Moderate RI/Healthy Participants|GMR of AUC0-∞ in Moderate RI/Healthy|2.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.5|2.74||||||||2.74|1.50|
91024228|NCT02661126|181932260|OTHER|GMR of AUC0-24 in Moderate RI/Healthy Participants|GMR of AUC0-24 in Moderate RI/Healthy|1.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.15|2.56||||||||2.56|1.15|
91024229|NCT02661126|181932261|OTHER|GMR of Cmax in Moderate RI/Healthy Participants|GMR of Cmax in Moderate RI/Healthy|1.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.2|2.87||||||||2.87|1.20|
91024230|NCT02661126|181932262|OTHER|GMR of C24 in Moderate RI/Healthy Participants|GMR of C24 in Moderate RI/Healthy|2.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.38|2.97||||||||2.97|1.38|
91024231|NCT02661126|181932266|OTHER|GMR of AUC0-last in Moderate RI/Healthy Participants.|GMR of AUC0-last in Moderate RI/Healthy|1.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.44|2.53||||||||2.53|1.44|
91024232|NCT02661126|181932267|OTHER|GMR of AUC0-∞ in Moderate RI/Healthy Participants|GMR of AUC0-∞ in Moderate RI/Healthy|1.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.48|2.63||||||||2.63|1.48|
91024233|NCT02661126|181932268|OTHER|GMR of AUC0-24 in Moderate RI/Healthy Participants|GMR of AUC0-24 in Moderate RI/Healthy|1.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.54|2.48||||||||2.48|1.54|
91024234|NCT02661126|181932269|OTHER|GMR of Cmax in Moderate RI/Healthy Participants|GMR of Cmax in Moderate RI/Healthy|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.29|2.24||||||||2.24|1.29|
91024235|NCT02661126|181932270|OTHER|GMR of C24 in Moderate RI/Healthy Participants|GMR of C24 in Moderate RI/Healthy|1.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.47|2.57||||||||2.57|1.47|
91024236|NCT02661126|181932273|OTHER|GMR of AUC0-last in Moderate RI/Healthy Participants.|GMR of AUC0-last in Moderate RI/Healthy|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.65|2.75||||||||2.75|0.65|
91024237|NCT02661126|181932274|OTHER|GMR of AUC0-∞ in Moderate RI/Healthy Participants|GMR of AUC0-∞ in Moderate RI/Healthy|1.59|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.79|3.19||||||||3.19|0.79|
91024238|NCT02661126|181932275|OTHER|GMR of AUC0-24 in Moderate RI/Healthy Participants|GMR of AUC0-24 in Moderate RI/Healthy|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.51|2.57||||||||2.57|0.51|
91024239|NCT02661126|181932276|OTHER|GMR of Cmax in Moderate RI/Healthy Participants|GMR of Cmax in Moderate RI/Healthy|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|3.05||||||||3.05|0.50|
91024240|NCT02661126|181932277|OTHER|GMR of C24 in Moderate RI/Healthy Participants|GMR of C24 in Moderate RI/Healthy|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.56|2.91||||||||2.91|0.56|
91024241|NCT02661126|181932282|OTHER|GMR of AUC0-last in Moderate RI/Healthy Participants.|GMR of AUC0-last in Moderate RI/Healthy|1.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.19|2.05||||||||2.05|1.19|
91024242|NCT02661126|181932283|OTHER|GMR of AUC0-∞ in Moderate RI/Healthy Participants|GMR of AUC0-∞ in Moderate RI/Healthy|1.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.2|2.05||||||||2.05|1.20|
91024243|NCT02661126|181932284|OTHER|GMR of AUC0-24 in Moderate RI/Healthy Participants|GMR of AUC0-24 in Moderate RI/Healthy|1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.13|1.98||||||||1.98|1.13|
91024244|NCT02661126|181932285|OTHER|GMR of Cmax in Moderate RI/Healthy Participants|GMR of Cmax in Moderate RI/Healthy|1.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.05|1.98||||||||1.98|1.05|
91024245|NCT02661126|181932286|OTHER|GMR of C24 in Moderate RI/Healthy Participants|GMR of C24 in Moderate RI/Healthy|1.54|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.15|2.07||||||||2.07|1.15|
91024246|NCT01513551|181932291|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|6.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|15.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||15.0|-1.4|
91024247|NCT01513551|181932291|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|9.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|17.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||17.7|1.1|
91024248|NCT02917447|181932298|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15||||||Omnibus test for difference in change from baseline in PCL by treatment group across the three post-treatment assessments, adjusted for rural/urban status and MST.|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effects were study assessment, group, the assessment by group interaction, and covariates. Participant was modeled as a random effect.||||||0.15
91024249|NCT02917447|181932299|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.049||||||Omnibus test for difference in change from baseline in outcome by treatment group across the three post-treatment assessments, adjusted for rural/urban status and MST.|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effects were study assessment, group, the assessment by group interaction, and covariates. Participant was modeled as a random effect.||||||.049
91024250|NCT02917447|181932300|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92||||||Omnibus test for difference in change from baseline in outcome by treatment group across the three post-treatment assessments, adjusted for rural/urban status and MST.|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effects were study assessment, group, the assessment by group interaction, and covariates. Participant was modeled as a random effect.||||||0.92
91024251|NCT01706198|181932302|OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|2.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|2.34||The analysis method was logistic regression adjusted for randomized treatment, asthma maintenance therapy (AMT) at Baseline per randomization stratification, Baseline ACT total score, Baseline ACT total score squared, gender and age.|Regression, Logistic||Adjusted odds ratio comparing FF/VI with Usual Care has been presented.|||2.34|1.70|<0.001
91024252|NCT01706198|181932303|OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.67|2.2||Logistic regression adjusted for randomized treatment, AMT at Baseline per randomization stratification, Baseline ACT total score, Baseline ACT total score squared, gender and age.|Regression, Logistic||Adjusted odds ratio comparing FF/VI with Usual Care for Week 12 has been presented.|||2.20|1.67|<0.001
91024253|NCT01706198|181932303|OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|1.91||Logistic regression adjusted for randomized treatment, AMT at Baseline per randomization stratification, Baseline ACT total score, Baseline ACT total score squared, gender and age.|Regression, Logistic||Adjusted odds ratio comparing FF/VI with Usual Care for Week 40 has been presented.|||1.91|1.45|<0.001
91024254|NCT01706198|181932303|OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|2.02||Logistic regression adjusted for randomized treatment, AMT at Baseline per randomization stratification, Baseline ACT total score, Baseline ACT total score squared, gender and age.|Regression, Logistic||Adjusted odds ratio comparing FF/VI with Usual Care for Week 52 has been presented.|||2.02|1.54|<0.001
91024255|NCT01706198|181932304|OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|2.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.82|2.4||The analysis method was logistic regression adjusted for randomized treatment, AMT at Baseline per randomization stratification, Baseline ACT total score, gender and age.|Regression, Logistic||Adjusted odds ratio comparing FF/VI with Usual Care at Week 12 has been presented.|||2.40|1.82|<0.001
91024256|NCT01706198|181932304|OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|2.25||The analysis method was logistic regression adjusted for randomized treatment, AMT at Baseline per randomization stratification, Baseline ACT total score, gender and age.|Regression, Logistic||Adjusted odds ratio comparing FF/VI with Usual Care at Week 24 has been presented.|||2.25|1.70|<0.001
91024257|NCT01706198|181932304|OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|2.06||The analysis method was logistic regression adjusted for randomized treatment, AMT at Baseline per randomization stratification, Baseline ACT total score, gender and age.|Regression, Logistic||Adjusted odds ratio comparing FF/VI with Usual Care at Week 40 has been presented.|||2.06|1.56|<0.001
91024258|NCT01706198|181932304|OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.69|2.24||The analysis method was logistic regression adjusted for randomized treatment, AMT at Baseline per randomization stratification, Baseline ACT total score, gender and age.|Regression, Logistic||Adjusted odds ratio comparing FF/VI with Usual Care at Week 52 has been presented.|||2.24|1.69|<0.001
91024259|NCT01706198|181932305|OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|2.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.98|2.62||The analysis method was logistic regression adjusted for randomized treatment, AMT at Baseline per randomization stratification, Baseline ACT total score, gender and age.|Regression, Logistic||Adjusted odds ratio comparing FF/VI with Usual Care at Week 12 has been presented.|||2.62|1.98|<0.001
91104620|NCT02214212|182095239|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.857||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|2.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model adjusts for treatment time (pre/post)||||2.32|-1.93|0.19
90831933|NCT03192176|181536169|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|-0.45||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||-0.45|-1.27|<0.0001
90831934|NCT03192176|181536169|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|-0.62||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||-0.62|-1.44|<0.0001
90831935|NCT03192176|181536169|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.1464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.11||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||0.11|-0.71|0.1464
90831936|NCT03192176|181536169|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.1||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||-0.10|-0.91|0.0144
90831937|NCT03192176|181536169|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.26||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||-0.26|-1.06|0.0013
90831938|NCT03192176|181536169|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.02||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||0.02|-0.80|0.0596
90831939|NCT03192176|181536169|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.03||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||-0.03|-0.85|0.0360
90831940|NCT03192176|181536169|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|-0.32||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||-0.32|-1.15|0.0006
90831941|NCT03192176|181536169|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|-0.39||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||-0.39|-1.23|0.0002
90831942|NCT03192176|181536169|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.3227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.21||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||0.21|-0.62|0.3227
90831943|NCT03192176|181536169|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.07||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||-0.07|-0.89|0.0220
91024260|NCT01706198|181932305|OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|2.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.81|2.41||The analysis method was logistic regression adjusted for randomized treatment, AMT at Baseline per randomization stratification, Baseline ACT total score, gender and age.|Regression, Logistic||Adjusted odds ratio comparing FF/VI with Usual Care at Week 24 has been presented.|||2.41|1.81|<0.001
90831944|NCT03192176|181536169|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.02||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||-0.02|-0.84|0.0380
90894254|NCT00949884|181654152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.6||||0.0186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|-0.6|||ANCOVA|Treatment is a fixed effect and baseline mean 24-hour ABPM blood pressure is a covariate.||Change from baseline at week 8 in systolic blood pressure.||-0.6|-6.6|0.0186
91024261|NCT01706198|181932305|OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|2.02||The analysis method was logistic regression adjusted for randomized treatment, AMT at Baseline per randomization stratification, Baseline ACT total score, gender and age.|Regression, Logistic||Adjusted odds ratio comparing FF/VI with Usual Care at Week 40 has been presented.|||2.02|1.53|<0.001
91104621|NCT02214212|182095240|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.8||||0.345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.83|5.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model adjusts for treatment, time (pre/post), FIM admit cognitive, site, FIM admit motor as mixed effects.||||5.24|-14.83|.345
90831945|NCT03192176|181536169|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.1||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||-0.10|-0.60|0.0067
90831946|NCT03192176|181536169|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.1227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.05||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMMRM|||Week 13||0.05|-0.45|0.1227
90894255|NCT00949884|181654152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5||||0.0175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|-0.4|||ANCOVA|Treatment is a fixed effect and baseline mean 24-hour ABPM blood pressure is a covariate.||Change from baseline at week 8 in diastolic blood pressure.||-0.4|-4.5|0.0175
90831947|NCT03192176|181536169|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.05||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||-0.05|-0.57|0.0208
90831948|NCT03192176|181536169|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.2396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.1||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|LSMean difference|||Week 13||0.10|-0.41|0.2396
90831949|NCT03192176|181536169|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.15||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||-0.15|-0.67|0.0022
90831950|NCT03192176|181536169|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.0||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||-0.00|-0.53|0.0479
90831951|NCT03192176|181536169|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.4152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.15||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||0.15|-0.35|0.4152
91024262|NCT01706198|181932305|OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|2.21||The analysis method was logistic regression adjusted for randomized treatment, AMT at Baseline per randomization stratification, Baseline ACT total score, gender and age.|Regression, Logistic||Adjusted odds ratio comparing FF/VI with Usual Care at Week 52 has been presented.|||2.21|1.66|<0.001
91024263|NCT01706198|181932306|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|1.77||MMRM adjusted for randomized treatment, AMT at Baseline per randomization stratification, Baseline ACT total score, randomized treatment-by-Baseline ACT total score interaction, gender, age, visit and randomized treatment by visit interaction.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Treatment difference of FF/VI versus Usual Care at Week 12 has been presented.|||1.77|1.30|<0.001
91024264|NCT01706198|181932306|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|1.76||MMRM adjusted for randomized treatment, AMT at Baseline per randomization stratification, Baseline ACT total score, randomized treatment-by-Baseline ACT total score interaction, gender, age, visit and randomized treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM||Treatment difference of FF/VI versus Usual Care at Week 24 has been presented.|||1.76|1.25|<0.001
91024265|NCT01706198|181932306|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|1.63||MMRM adjusted for randomized treatment, AMT at Baseline per randomization stratification, Baseline ACT total score, randomized treatment-by-Baseline ACT total score interaction, gender, age, visit and randomized treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM||Treatment difference of FF/VI versus Usual Care at Week 40 has been presented.|||1.63|1.11|<0.001
91024266|NCT01706198|181932306|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|1.76||MMRM adjusted for randomized treatment, AMT at Baseline per randomization stratification, Baseline ACT total score, randomized treatment-by-Baseline ACT total score interaction, gender, age, visit and randomized treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM||Treatment difference of FF/VI versus Usual Care at Week 52 has been presented.|||1.76|1.24|<0.001
91024267|NCT01706198|181932308|OTHER||Ratio|1.03||||0.786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.28||GLM assuming negative binomial distribution (NBD) adjusted for randomized treatment, asthma maintenance therapy at Baseline per randomization stratification, ACT total score at Baseline per randomization stratification, gender and age|Generalized Linear Model (GLM)||Ratio comparing FF/VI with Usual Care has been presented.|||1.28|0.83|0.786
91024268|NCT01706198|181932309|OTHER||Ratio|1.02||||0.461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.08||GLM assuming NBD adjusted for randomized treatment, asthma maintenance therapy at Baseline per randomization stratification, ACT total score at Baseline per randomization stratification, gender and age|Generalized Linear Model (GLM)||Ratio comparing FF/VI with Usual Care has been presented.|||1.08|0.97|0.461
91024269|NCT01706198|181932311|OTHER||Ratio|0.99||||0.822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.08||GLM assuming NBD adjusted for randomized treatment, asthma maintenance therapy at Baseline per randomization stratification, ACT total score at Baseline per randomization stratification, gender and age|Generalized Linear Model (GLM)||Ratio comparing FF/VI with Usual Care has been presented.|||1.08|0.91|0.822
91024270|NCT01706198|181932312|OTHER||Ratio|1.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.15||GLM assuming NBD adjusted for randomized treatment, asthma maintenance therapy at Baseline per randomization stratification, ACT total score at Baseline per randomization stratification, gender and age|Generalized Linear Model (GLM)||Ratio comparing FF/VI with Usual Care has been presented.|||1.15|1.05|<0.001
91024271|NCT01706198|181932314|OTHER||Ratio|0.98||||0.697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.09||GLM assuming NBD adjusted for randomized treatment; asthma maintenance therapy and ACT total score at Baseline per randomization stratification; number of severe asthma exacerbations in previous year prior to randomization categorized; gender \& age|Generalized Linear Model (GLM)||Ratio comparing FF/VI with Usual Care has been presented.|||1.09|0.88|0.697
91087951|NCT02782741|182058809|OTHER|Per the protocol-defined statistical test strategy for multiplicity adjustment, and since superiority was narrowly missed for FVC % predicted, superiority testing for the secondary outcome measure couldn't be performed.|LS mean difference|106.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|67.17||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.56|240.5|||mixed model for repeated measures|||LS mean difference was derived from MMRM model for HHD lower extremity muscle strength composite score adjusted for summary HHD lower extremity score at baseline, baseline FVC (% predicted), age (in years, at baseline), gender, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.||240.50|-26.56|0.1150
90894256|NCT00949884|181654152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4||||0.0177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|-0.4|||ANCOVA|Treatment is a fixed effect and baseline mean 24-hour ABPM blood pressure is a covariate.||Change from baseline at week 8 in diastolic blood pressure.||-0.4|-4.4|0.0177
90831952|NCT03192176|181536169|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differencce|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.03||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||-0.03|-0.52|0.0262
90831953|NCT03192176|181536169|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.05||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||0.05|-0.43|0.1210
90831954|NCT03192176|181536169|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.02||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||-0.02|-0.52|0.0369
90831955|NCT03192176|181536169|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differencce|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.5855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.18||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||0.18|-0.32|0.5855
90831956|NCT03192176|181536169|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.12||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||-0.12|-0.62|0.0041
90831957|NCT03192176|181536169|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.01||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||0.01|-0.50|0.0614
90831958|NCT03192176|181536169|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.3391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.12||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||0.12|-0.36|0.3391
90831959|NCT03192176|181536169|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.0||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||0.00|-0.49|0.0515
90831960|NCT03192176|181536169|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.02||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||0.02|-0.47|0.0667
90894257|NCT00949884|181654153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.3104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|1.7|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||Daytime systolic blood pressure||1.7|-5.2|0.3104
90894258|NCT00949884|181654153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6||||0.3653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|1.8|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||Daytime systolic blood pressure||1.8|-4.9|0.3653
91024272|NCT01706198|181932315|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.07||Cox proportional hazards model with randomized treatment, asthma maintenance therapy at Baseline per randomization stratification, ACT total score at Baseline per randomization stratification, gender and age as covariates|Cox proportional hazards model||A hazard ratio \<1 indicated a lower risk with FF/VI compared with Usual Care|||1.07|0.86|0.504
90831961|NCT03192176|181536169|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.12||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||-0.12|-0.63|0.0047
90831962|NCT03192176|181536169|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.17||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||0.17|-0.34|0.5130
90894259|NCT00949884|181654153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.1197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|0.5|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||Daytime diastolic blood pressure||0.5|-4.1|0.1197
90894260|NCT00949884|181654153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6||||0.1654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|0.7|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||Daytime diastolic blood pressure||0.7|-3.9|0.1654
90894261|NCT00949884|181654153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.4362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|1.9|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||Nighttime systolic blood pressure||1.9|-4.4|0.4362
90894262|NCT00949884|181654153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.4039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|1.8|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||Nighttime systolic blood pressure||1.8|-4.5|0.4039
90894263|NCT00949884|181654153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.3929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|1.2|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||Nighttime diastolic blood pressure||1.2|-3.1|0.3929
91024273|NCT01706198|181932316|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.5||ANCOVA adjusted for randomized treatment, asthma maintenance therapy at Baseline per randomization stratification, ACT total score at Baseline per randomization stratification, gender,age \& number of salbutamol inhalers in year prior to randomization|ANCOVA||Difference of FF/VI versus Usual Care has been presented.|||-0.5|-1.1|<0.001
91087952|NCT02782741|182058810|OTHER|No formal testing of additional secondary endpoint of QMFT.|LS mean difference|2.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94||0.0288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|3.95||Nominal p-value.|mixed model for repeated measures|||LS mean difference was derived from MMRM models adjust for total QMFT score at baseline, baseline FVC (% predicted), age (in years, at baseline), gender, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.||3.95|0.22|0.0288
91087953|NCT02782741|182058811|OTHER|No formal testing of additional secondary endpoint of SF-12.|Score difference|0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.46||0.5996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|3.67|||mixed model for repeated measures|||The MMRM models adjust for baseline score (PCS), baseline FVC (% predicted), age (in years, at baseline), gender, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.||3.67|-2.13|0.5996
91087954|NCT02782741|182058811|OTHER|No formal testing of additional secondary endpoint of SF-12.|Score difference|2.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.2427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|5.69|||mixed model for repeated measures|||The MMRM models adjust for baseline score (MCS), baseline FVC (% predicted), age (in years, at baseline), gender, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.||5.69|-1.46|0.2427
91087955|NCT01275144|182058830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.897|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.86|0.94|||||Ratio of LY2216684 to Placebo|||0.94|0.86|
91087956|NCT01275144|182058831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||median of paired differences|0.5||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|1.0|||Wilcoxon signed rank test||Ratio of LY2216684 to Placebo|||1.00|0.50|0.0021
91087957|NCT01275144|182058832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.01|1.08|||||Ratio of LY2216684 to Placebo|||1.08|1.01|
91087958|NCT05116202|182058854|SUPERIORITY||Difference in pRR|2.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.25|27.7||||||||27.70|-22.25|
91087959|NCT05116202|182058854|SUPERIORITY||Difference in pRR|-32.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.01|0.46||||||||0.46|-65.01|
90894264|NCT00949884|181654153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.4259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|1.3|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||Nighttime diastolic blood pressure||1.3|-3.0|0.4259
90894265|NCT00949884|181654154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.5||||0.0396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|-0.2|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||Daytime systolic blood pressure||-0.2|-6.8|0.0396
90894266|NCT00949884|181654154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.5||||0.0345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|-0.3|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||Daytime systolic blood pressure||-0.3|-6.8|0.0345
90894267|NCT00949884|181654154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5||||0.0324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|-0.2|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||Daytime diastolic blood pressure||-0.2|-4.8|0.0324
90894268|NCT00949884|181654154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4||||0.0363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|-0.2|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||Daytime diastolic blood pressure||-0.2|-4.7|0.0363
90894269|NCT00949884|181654154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0||||0.0988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|0.6|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||Nighttime systolic blood pressure||0.6|-6.5|0.0988
91087960|NCT05116202|182058854|SUPERIORITY||Difference in pRR|-17.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.75|15.21||||||||15.21|-49.75|
91087961|NCT05116202|182058856|SUPERIORITY||Difference in pRR|-6.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.31|17.68||||||||17.68|-31.31|
91087962|NCT05116202|182058856|SUPERIORITY||Difference in pRR|-31.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.79|0.16||||||||0.16|-63.79|
91087963|NCT05116202|182058856|SUPERIORITY||Difference in pRR|-21.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.44|9.8||||||||9.80|-53.44|
91087964|NCT05116202|182058857|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|10.42||||||||10.42|0.42|
91087965|NCT05116202|182058857|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|19.7||||||||19.70|0.79|
91087966|NCT05116202|182058857|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|6.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|53.7||||||||53.70|0.73|
91087967|NCT05116202|182058858|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|7.75||||||||7.75|0.25|
91087968|NCT05116202|182058858|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|12.62||||||||12.62|0.35|
91087969|NCT05116202|182058858|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|26.32||||||||26.32|0.22|
91087970|NCT05116202|182058859|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|12.39||||||||12.39|0.05|
91087971|NCT05116202|182058859|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|28.65||||||||28.65|0.23|
91087972|NCT05116202|182058859|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|18.58||||||||18.58|0.07|
91087973|NCT05116202|182058860|SUPERIORITY||Difference in ORR|-21.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.55|7.37||||||||7.37|-50.55|
91087974|NCT05116202|182058860|SUPERIORITY||Difference in ORR|-24.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.17|9.99||||||||9.99|-58.17|
91087975|NCT05116202|182058860|SUPERIORITY||Difference in ORR|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.58|35.4||||||||35.40|-33.58|
91087976|NCT01852513|182058872|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.391|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.391
91087977|NCT01852513|182058873|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.789|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.789
91087978|NCT01852513|182058874|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.778|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.778
91087979|NCT01871077|182058875|OTHER|||||||0.89|||||||Friedman test|||||||0.890
91087980|NCT01871077|182058876|OTHER|||||||0.078|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.078
91087981|NCT01871077|182058877|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Friedman test|||||||1.000
91087982|NCT01871077|182058878|OTHER|||||||0.497|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.497
91087983|NCT02864407|182058897|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||p-value for difference of Follow-up Week 24 (±2weeks) versus Baseline.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.0001
91087984|NCT02864407|182058898|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||p-value for difference of Week 52 (±2 weeks) versus Baseline.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.0001
91087985|NCT02864407|182058899|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||p-value for difference of Follow-up Week 24 (±2weeks) versus Baseline.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.0001
91087986|NCT02864407|182058900|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||p-value for difference of Follow-up Week 52 (±2weeks) versus Baseline.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.0001
91087987|NCT02864407|182058901|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|p-value for difference of Follow-up Week 24 (±2weeks) versus Baseline.||||||<0.0001
91087988|NCT02864407|182058902|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|p-value for difference of Follow-up Week 52 (±2weeks) versus Baseline.||||||<0.0001
90831963|NCT03192176|181536169|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.23||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||-0.23|-0.75|0.0002
90894270|NCT00949884|181654154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0||||0.0926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|0.5|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||Nighttime systolic blood pressure||0.5|-6.4|0.0926
90894271|NCT00949884|181654154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|0.3|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||Nighttime diastolic blood pressure||0.3|-4.5|0.0900
90894272|NCT00949884|181654154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.0942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|0.3|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||Nighttime diastolic blood pressure||0.3|-4.4|0.0942
91024274|NCT01706198|181932317|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.38||Cox proportional hazards model with randomized treatment, asthma maintenance therapy at Baseline per randomization stratification, ACT total score at Baseline per randomization stratification, gender and age as covariates|Cox proportional hazards model||Hazard ratio for FF/VI versus Usual Care has been presented|||1.38|1.09|<0.001
90831964|NCT03192176|181536169|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.07||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||-0.07|-0.60|0.0126
90831965|NCT03192176|181536169|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.3507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.13||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||0.13|-0.36|0.3507
90831966|NCT03192176|181536170|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.08||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||-0.08|-0.60|0.0098
90894273|NCT00949884|181654155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.3229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|1.8|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||2 hour systolic blood pressure||1.8|-5.4|0.3229
90894274|NCT00949884|181654155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6||||0.3863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|2.0|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||2 hour systolic blood pressure||2.0|-5.1|0.3863
90894275|NCT00949884|181654155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.1277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|0.6|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||2 hour diastolic blood pressure||0.6|-4.5|0.1277
91087989|NCT02864407|182058903|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|p-value for difference of Follow-up Week 24 (±2weeks) versus Baseline.||||||<0.0001
90894276|NCT00949884|181654155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.1799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|0.8|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||2 hour diastolic blood pressure||0.8|-4.3|0.1799
90894277|NCT00949884|181654155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.2708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|1.4|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||4 hour systolic blood pressure||1.4|-5.1|0.2708
90894278|NCT00949884|181654155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.3133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|1.6|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||4 hour systolic blood pressure||1.6|-5.0|0.3133
90831967|NCT03192176|181536170|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.11||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||-0.11|-0.63|0.0048
91024275|NCT01706198|181932318|OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|2.06||Logistic regression adjusted for randomized treatment, asthma maintenance therapy at Baseline per randomization stratification, ACT total score at Baseline per randomization stratification, gender, age and Baseline score.|Regression, Logistic||Adjusted odds ratio of FF/VI with Usual Care has been presented.|||2.06|1.55|<0.001
91087990|NCT02864407|182058904|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|p-value for difference of Follow-up Week 52 (±2weeks) versus Baseline.||||||<0.0001
91087991|NCT02864407|182058905|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||p-value for difference of Week 24 (±2 weeks) versus Baseline.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.0001
90894279|NCT00949884|181654155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6||||0.1621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|0.7|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||4 hour diastolic blood pressure||0.7|-3.9|0.1621
91087992|NCT02864407|182058906|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||p-value for difference of 52±2 weeks versus Baseline.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.0001
90894280|NCT00949884|181654155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0.2314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|0.9|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||4 hour diastolic blood pressure||0.9|-3.7|0.2314
90894281|NCT00949884|181654155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||0.2461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|1.3|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||6 hour systolic blood pressure||1.3|-5.0|0.2461
90894282|NCT00949884|181654155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.2558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|1.3|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||6 hour systolic blood pressure||1.3|-5.0|0.2558
91087993|NCT02864407|182058907|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||p-value for difference of Week 24 (±2 weeks) versus Baseline.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.0001
91024276|NCT01706198|181932319|OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|1.73||Logistic regression adjusted for randomized treatment, asthma maintenance therapy at Baseline per randomization stratification, ACT total score at Baseline per randomization stratification, gender, age and Baseline score.|Regression, Logistic||Adjusted odds ratio of FF/VI versus Usual Care has been presented.|||1.73|1.31|<0.001
91024277|NCT01706198|181932320|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the incidence ratio is less than 2.|Incidence ratio|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.7|||||Incidence ratio was calculated as percentage of participants who had at least one SAE of pneumonia in the FF/VI group divided by the percentage of participants who had at least one SAE of pneumonia in the Usual Care group.|||2.7|0.8|
91024278|NCT01706198|181932321|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.45||||0.255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.74||Cox proportional hazards model with randomized treatment, asthma maintenance therapy at Baseline per randomization stratification, ACT total score at Baseline per randomization stratification, gender and age as covariates.|Cox proportional hazards model||Hazard ratio for FF/VI versus Usual Care has been presented.|||2.74|0.77|0.255
91024279|NCT00549198|181932325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.435||95.0||||The model includes the following covariates: treatment, visit, baseline GFR by MDRD, baseline BMI, race group, treatment\*visit, baseline GFR by MDRD\*visit and baseline BMI\*visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|The correlation matrix for within-subject errors is unstructured.||||||0.435
91024280|NCT00549198|181932326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.057||95.0||||The model includes the following covariates: treatment, visit, baseline GFR by MDRD, baseline BMI, race group, age group, treatment\*visit, baseline GFR by MDRD\*visit and baseline BMI\*visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|The correlation matrix for within-subject errors is unstructured.||||||0.057
90831968|NCT03192176|181536170|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.28||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||-0.28|-0.80|<0.0001
90831969|NCT03192176|181536170|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.47||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||-0.47|-1.00|<0.0001
90831970|NCT03192176|181536170|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.6761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.21||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||0.21|-0.32|0.6761
90831971|NCT03192176|181536170|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.05||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||-0.05|-0.57|0.0188
90831972|NCT03192176|181536170|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.1||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||-0.10|-0.61|0.0067
90831973|NCT03192176|181536170|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.03||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||-0.03|-0.68|0.0335
90831974|NCT03192176|181536170|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.25||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||-0.25|-0.91|0.0007
90957038|NCT00706433|181793716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.343||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.3430
91087994|NCT02864407|182058908|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||p-value for difference of Week 52 (±2 weeks) versus Baseline.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.0001
91087995|NCT02686164|182058928|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.914|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|0.983||||||AUC(0-24) of Midazolam: Cycle 1 Day 1, Lenvatinib (single-dose) + Midazolam Versus (vs.) Cycle 1 Day -3, Midazolam||0.983|0.850|
90831975|NCT03192176|181536170|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differencce|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|-0.48||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||-0.48|-1.14|<0.0001
90831976|NCT03192176|181536170|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|-0.74||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||-0.74|-1.41|<0.0001
90831977|NCT03192176|181536170|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.3227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.17||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||0.17|-0.50|0.3227
90894283|NCT00949884|181654155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|0.7|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||6 hour diastolic blood pressure||0.7|-3.8|0.1700
90957039|NCT00706433|181793717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||1.0
91024281|NCT00549198|181932327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0||||The model includes the following covariates: treatment, visit, baseline GFR by MDRD, baseline BMI, race group, treatment\*visit, baseline GFR by MDRD\*visit and baseline BMI\*visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|The correlation matrix for within-subject errors is unstructured.||||||0.060
91087996|NCT02686164|182058928|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.148|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.938|1.404||||||AUC(0-24) of Midazolam: Cycle 1 Day 14, Lenvatinib (steady state) + Midazolam vs. Cycle 1 Day -3, Midazolam||1.404|0.938|
91024282|NCT00549198|181932328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.186||95.0||||The model includes the following covariates: treatment, visit, baseline GFR by CG, baseline BMI, race group, age group, hypertension, treatment\*visit, baseline GFR by CG\*visit and baseline BMI\*visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|The correlation matrix for within-subject errors is unstructured.||||||0.186
91024283|NCT00549198|181932329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.413||95.0||||The model includes the following covariates: treatment, visit, baseline GFR by CG, baseline BMI, race group, age group, hypertension, treatment\*visit, baseline GFR by CG\*visit and baseline BMI\*visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|The correlation matrix for within-subject errors is unstructured.||||||0.413
91024284|NCT00549198|181932330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.315||95.0||||The model includes the following covariates: treatment, visit, baseline GFR by CG, baseline BMI, race group, baseline CD4, treatment\*visit, baseline GFR by CG\*visit, baseline BMI\*visit and baseline CD4\*visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|The correlation matrix for within-subject errors is unstructured.||||||0.315
91024285|NCT00549198|181932337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The model includes the following covariates: treatment, visit, baseline spine BMD, baseline BMI, race group, age group, hypertension, treatment\*visit, baseline spine BMD\*visit and baseline BMI\*visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|The correlation matrix for within-subject errors is unstructured.||||||<0.001
91024286|NCT00549198|181932338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The model includes the following covariates: treatment, visit, baseline hip BMD, baseline BMI, race group, risk factor, country group, treatment\*visit, baseline hip BMD\*visit and baseline BMI\*visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|The correlation matrix for within-subject errors is unstructured.||||||<0.001
91024287|NCT00549198|181932339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036||95.0||||The model includes the following covariates: treatment, visit, baseline spine BMD, baseline BMI, race group, age group, treatment\*visit, baseline spine BMD\*visit and baseline BMI\*visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|The correlation matrix for within-subject errors is unstructured.||||||0.036
91024288|NCT00549198|181932340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The model includes the following covariates: treatment, visit, baseline hip BMD, baseline BMI, race group, risk factor, prohibited medication, previous fracture, treatment\*visit, baseline hip BMD\*visit and baseline BMI\*visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|Correlation matrix for within-subject errors is unstructured.||||||<0.001
91024289|NCT00549198|181932341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.112||95.0||||The model includes the following covariates: treatment, visit, baseline spine BMD, baseline BMI, race group, age group, treatment\*visit, baseline spine BMD\*visit and baseline BMI\*visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|correlation matrix for within-subject errors is unstructured.||||||0.112
91024290|NCT00549198|181932342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The model includes the following covariates: treatment, visit, baseline hip BMD, baseline BMI, race group, risk factor, prohibited medication, previous fracture, treatment\*visit, baseline hip BMD\*visit, and baseline BMI\*visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|The correlation matrix for within-subject errors is unstructured.||||||<0.001
91024291|NCT00549198|181932375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3025||95.0||||The model includes the following covariates: treatment, age, baseline biomarker value, and gender.|ANOVA|Estimates are calculated from an ANOVA model. Parameters are analyzed based on log transformed data.||||||0.3025
91024292|NCT00549198|181932376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||The model includes the following covariates: treatment, age, baseline biomarker value, baseline CD4, and gender.|ANOVA|Estimates are calculated from an ANOVA model. Parameters are analyzed based on log transformed data.||||||<0.0001
91024293|NCT00549198|181932377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3323||95.0||||The model includes the following covariates: treatment, age, and baseline biomarker value.|ANOVA|Estimates are calculated from an ANOVA model. Parameters are analyzed based on log transformed data.||||||0.3323
90957040|NCT00706433|181793718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||1.0
91024294|NCT00549198|181932378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||The model includes the following covariates: treatment, baseline biomarker value, baseline CD4, and gender.|ANOVA|Estimates are calculated from an ANOVA model. Parameters are analyzed based on log transformed data.||||||<0.0001
91024295|NCT00549198|181932379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||The model includes the following covariates: treatment, age, and baseline biomarker value.|ANOVA|Estimates are calculated from ana ANOVA model. Parameters are analyzed based on log transformed data.||||||<0.0001
91024296|NCT00549198|181932380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0019||95.0||||The model includes the following covariates: treatment, baseline biomarker value, and gender.|ANOVA|Estimates are calculated from an ANOVA model.||||||0.0019
91024297|NCT00549198|181932381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0019||95.0||||The model includes the following covariates: treatment, age, baseline biomarker value, and baseline CD4.|ANOVA|Estimates are calculated from an ANOVA model.||||||0.0019
91024298|NCT00549198|181932382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0266||95.0||||The model includes the following covariates: treatment, baseline biomarker value, and baseline CD4.|ANOVA|Estimates are calculated from an ANOVA model.||||||0.0266
91024299|NCT04229303|181932391|OTHER||Slope|0.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.424|0.821|||General power constant model|||Statistics for Voriconazole AUC0-t||0.821|0.424|<0.0001
91024300|NCT04229303|181932391|OTHER||Slope|1.21||||0.0363|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.05|1.362|||General power linear model|||Statistics for Voriconazole AUC0-t||1.362|1.050|0.0363
91024301|NCT04229303|181932391|OTHER||Geometric mean difference|13.48|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|10.096|17.994|||ANOVA|||Statistics for Voriconazole AUC0-t, 40mg vs 5mg||17.994|10.096|<0.0001
91087997|NCT02686164|182058928|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|1.335||||||AUC(0-24) of 1'-hydroxy midazolam: Cycle 1 Day 1, Lenvatinib (single-dose) + Midazolam vs. Cycle 1 Day -3, Midazolam||1.335|0.940|
91087998|NCT02686164|182058928|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.199|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.057|1.36||||||AUC(0-24) of 1'-hydroxy midazolam: Cycle 1 Day 14, Lenvatinib (steady-state) + Midazolam vs.Cycle 1 Day -3, Midazolam||1.360|1.057|
91087999|NCT02686164|182058929|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.862|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.753|0.988||||||Cmax of Midazolam: Cycle 1 Day 1, Lenvatinib (single-dose) + Midazolam vs. Cycle 1 Day -3, Midazolam||0.988|0.753|
91088000|NCT02686164|182058929|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.027|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.852|1.238||||||Cmax of Midazolam: Cycle 1 Day 14, Lenvatinib (steady state) + Midazolam vs. Cycle 1 Day -3, Midazolam||1.238|0.852|
91088001|NCT02686164|182058929|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.055|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.879|1.268||||||Cmax of 1'-hydroxy midazolam: Cycle 1 Day 1, Lenvatinib (single-dose) + Midazolam vs. Cycle 1 Day -3, Midazolam||1.268|0.879|
91088002|NCT02686164|182058929|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.845|1.046||||||Cmax of 1'-hydroxy midazolam: Cycle 1 Day 14, Lenvatinib (steady state) + Midazolam vs. Cycle 1 Day -3, Midazolam||1.046|0.845|
91088003|NCT02731300|182058931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||the final Week 4 values compared between active tDCS and sham tDCS groups|ANOVA|||the final Week 4 values compared between active tDCS and sham tDCS groups||||<0.05
90894284|NCT00949884|181654155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0.2011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|0.8|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||6 hour diastolic blood pressure||0.8|-3.7|0.2011
91088004|NCT02731300|182058932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||the final Week 4 values compared between active tDCS and sham tDCS groups|ANOVA|||the final Week 4 values compared between active tDCS and sham tDCS groups||||<0.05
91088005|NCT02465164|182058933|OTHER|Wilcoxon rank-sum tests||||||0.208|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.208
90831978|NCT03192176|181536170|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.11||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||-0.11|-0.77|0.0085
90831979|NCT03192176|181536170|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.3||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||-0.30|-0.95|0.0002
90831980|NCT03192176|181536170|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.12||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||-0.12|-0.87|0.0102
91088006|NCT01481558|182058946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.01||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.55
90831981|NCT03192176|181536170|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|-0.39||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||-0.39|-1.15|<0.0001
90831982|NCT03192176|181536170|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|-0.54||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||-0.54|-1.29|<0.0001
90957041|NCT00706433|181793719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||1.0
91088007|NCT03110133|182058956|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0488|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0488
91088008|NCT03110133|182058959|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0347|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0347
91088009|NCT00520039|182059026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|2.03|||Chi-squared|df = 1|The denominator of the Odds ratio represents the odds of improvement for the Standard Care Only (SCO) group.|Test of the null hypothesis that there is no improvement in MEE at Visit 3 using tympanogram.||2.03|0.15|0.02
91088010|NCT00520039|182059027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.31||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.62|||Chi-squared|df = 1|The odds of Resolution of MEE before OMT is represented in the denominator of the odds ratio|||1.62|-1.00|0.32
91088011|NCT00520039|182059028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|1.28|||Chi-squared|df = 1||||1.28|-0.78|.31
91088012|NCT01548599|182059038|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|2.028||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.766|3.289|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.289|0.766|0.002
91088013|NCT01548599|182059039|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91088014|NCT01548599|182059040|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.013
91088015|NCT01548599|182059041|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.261|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.398||0.378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.013|5.165|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.165|0.013|0.378
91088016|NCT01548599|182059042|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91088017|NCT01548599|182059043|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.398|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.398
91088018|NCT02674503|182059050|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||Linear fixed effect models adjusted for time in months|Regression, Linear|||||||0.02
91088019|NCT02674503|182059054|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Regression, Linear|Linear effects model adjusted for time (in months)||||||0.13
91088020|NCT02674503|182059056|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Regression, Linear|Linear mixed effects models adjusted for time (in months)||||||0.02
91088021|NCT01022203|182059063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.0001|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Used Intent to Treat Analysis. General linear mixed models (GLMMs) with main effects of treatment (SAT and PFE), time (baseline, end of treatment, and 12 week follow-up), and treatment by time interactions to model the longitudinal trajectories of the outcomes, for veterans and their partners. Time was flexibly modeled. All available observations from each subject were utilized in the GLMM modeling.||||<0.0001
91088022|NCT01022203|182059064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.004|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Used Intent to Treat Analysis. General linear mixed models (GLMMs) with main effects of treatment (SAT and PFE), time (baseline, end of treatment, and 12 week follow-up), and treatment by time interactions to model the longitudinal trajectories of the outcomes for veterans. Time was flexibly modeled. All available observations from each subject were utilized in the GLMM modeling.||||<0.001
90831983|NCT03192176|181536170|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|-0.68||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||-0.68|-1.46|<0.0001
90831984|NCT03192176|181536170|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.03||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||0.03|-0.73|0.0740
90831985|NCT03192176|181536170|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.21||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||-0.21|-0.97|0.0024
90831986|NCT03192176|181536170|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|-0.41||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||-0.41|-1.17|<0.0001
90831987|NCT03192176|181536170|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.1197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.08||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||0.08|-0.72|0.1197
90831988|NCT03192176|181536170|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.18||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||-0.18|-0.98|0.0046
90831989|NCT03192176|181536170|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|-0.47||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||-0.47|-1.28|<0.0001
90831990|NCT03192176|181536170|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|-0.69||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||-0.69|-1.51|<0.0001
90831991|NCT03192176|181536170|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.01||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||0.01|-0.80|0.0553
90831992|NCT03192176|181536170|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.05||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||0.05|-0.76|0.0823
91024302|NCT04229303|181932391|OTHER||Slope|1.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.728|1.963|||General power constant model|||Statistics for N-oxide Voriconazole AUC0-t||1.963|1.728|<0.0001
91024303|NCT04229303|181932391|OTHER||Slope|0.87||||0.0201|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.789|0.96|||General power linear model|||Statistics for N-oxide Voriconazole AUC0-t||0.960|0.789|0.0201
91024304|NCT04229303|181932391|OTHER||Geometric mean difference|6.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.253|7.217|||ANOVA|||Statistics for N-oxide Voriconazole AUC0-t, 40mg vs 5mg||7.217|5.253|<0.0001
91024305|NCT04229303|181932391|OTHER||Slope|0.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.661|0.958|||General power constant model|||Statistics for Voriconazole AUC0-inf||0.958|0.661|<0.0001
91024306|NCT04229303|181932391|OTHER||Slope|1.12||||0.1278|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.99|1.245|||General power linear model|||Statistics for Voriconazole AUC0-inf||1.245|0.990|0.1278
91088023|NCT01022203|182059065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||General linear mixed models with main effects of treatment, time (baseline, end of treatment, and 12 week follow-up), and treatment by time interactions as described for previous analyses.||||<0.0001
90894285|NCT00949884|181654156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.8||||0.1895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|1.4|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||2 hour systolic blood pressure||1.4|-7.0|0.1895
91024307|NCT04229303|181932391|OTHER||Geometric mean difference|9.43|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.834|13.012|||ANOVA|||Statistics for Voriconazole AUC0-inf, 40mg vs 5mg||13.012|6.834|<0.0001
91024308|NCT04229303|181932391|OTHER||Slope|1.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.86|2.106|||General power constant model|||Statistics for N-oxide Voriconazole AUC0-inf||2.106|1.860|<0.0001
91024309|NCT04229303|181932391|OTHER||Slope|0.79||||0.0082|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.67|0.912|||General power linear model|||Statistics for N-oxide Voriconazole AUC0-inf||0.912|0.670|0.0082
91024310|NCT04229303|181932391|OTHER||Geometric mean difference|5.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.627|7.421|||ANOVA|||Statistics for N-oxide Voriconazole AUC0-inf, 40mg vs 5mg||7.421|4.627|<0.0001
91024311|NCT04229303|181932392|OTHER||Slope|0.12||||0.2575|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.06|0.308|||General power constant model|||Statistics for Voriconazole Cmax||0.308|-0.060|0.2575
91024312|NCT04229303|181932392|OTHER||Slope|1.17||||0.0491|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.03|1.316|||General power linear model|||Statistics for Voriconazole Cmax||1.316|1.030|0.0491
91024313|NCT04229303|181932392|OTHER||Geometric mean difference|11.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.435|14.803|||ANOVA|||Statistics for Voriconazole Cmax, 40mg vs 5mg||14.803|8.435|<0.0001
91024314|NCT04229303|181932392|OTHER||Slope|1.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.135|1.363|||General power constant model|||Statistics for N-oxide Voriconazole Cmax||1.363|1.135|<0.0001
90831993|NCT03192176|181536170|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.16||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||-0.16|-0.96|0.0060
90831994|NCT03192176|181536170|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.03||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||-0.03|-0.83|0.0374
90831995|NCT03192176|181536170|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.19||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||-0.19|-1.00|0.0042
90831996|NCT03192176|181536170|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|-0.56||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||-0.56|-1.38|<0.0001
90831997|NCT03192176|181536170|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|-0.71||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||-0.71|-1.54|<0.0001
90831998|NCT03192176|181536170|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.03||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||0.03|-0.79|0.0710
90831999|NCT03192176|181536170|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.09||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||-0.09|-0.91|0.0160
90832000|NCT03192176|181536170|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|-0.34||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||-0.34|-1.15|0.0003
90832001|NCT03192176|181536170|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.1013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.07||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||0.07|-0.76|0.1013
90832002|NCT03192176|181536170|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.28||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||-0.28|-1.11|0.0011
90832003|NCT03192176|181536170|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|-0.53||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||-0.53|-1.36|<0.0001
90832004|NCT03192176|181536170|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|-0.72||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||-0.72|-1.57|<0.0001
90832005|NCT03192176|181536170|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.0||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||-0.00|-0.85|0.0476
90832006|NCT03192176|181536170|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.07||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||-0.07|-0.90|0.0220
90832007|NCT03192176|181536170|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.24||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||-0.24|-1.07|0.0019
90832008|NCT03192176|181536170|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.1457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.11||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||0.11|-0.74|0.1457
90832009|NCT03192176|181536170|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.05||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||-0.05|-0.91|0.0284
91088024|NCT03163446|182059067|OTHER|Statistics considered descriptive as study designed to provide proof of concept and initial assessment of efficacy; not considered confirmatory.|Risk Difference (RD)|10.4||||0.3137|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.35|27.19|||Fisher Exact|||||27.19|-6.35|0.3137
90832010|NCT03192176|181536170|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|-0.39||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||-0.39|-1.26|0.0002
90832011|NCT03192176|181536170|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|-0.48||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||-0.48|-1.36|<0.0001
90832012|NCT03192176|181536170|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.4223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.26||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||0.26|-0.61|0.4223
91024315|NCT04229303|181932392|OTHER||Slope|0.74||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.634|0.843|||General power linear model|||Statistics for N-oxide Voriconazole Cmax||0.843|0.634|0.0003
91024316|NCT04229303|181932392|OTHER||Geometric mean difference|4.97|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.946|6.254|||ANOVA|||Statistics for N-oxide Voriconazole Cmax, 40mg vs 5mg||6.254|3.946|<0.0001
91024317|NCT04229303|181932399|OTHER||Slope|2.0||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.528|2.617|||ANOVA|||Statistics for Voriconazole AUC0-t Day 1||2.617|1.528|0.0004
91024318|NCT04229303|181932399|OTHER||Slope|4.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.612|6.187|||ANOVA|||Statistics for Voriconazole AUC0-t Day 1||6.187|3.612|<0.0001
91024319|NCT04229303|181932399|OTHER||Slope|2.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.017|3.925|||ANOVA|||Statistics for Voriconazole AUC0-t day 10||3.925|2.017|<0.0001
91024320|NCT04229303|181932399|OTHER||Slope|5.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.783|7.361|||ANOVA|||Statistics for Voriconazole AUC0-t Day 10||7.361|3.783|<0.0001
91024321|NCT04229303|181932399|OTHER||Slope|1.97|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.615|2.396|||ANOVA|||Statistics for N-oxide Voriconazole AUC0-t Day 1||2.396|1.615|<0.0001
91024322|NCT04229303|181932399|OTHER||Slope|5.09|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.178|6.196|||ANOVA|||Statistics for N-oxide Voriconazole AUC0-t Day 1||6.196|4.178|<0.0001
91024323|NCT04229303|181932399|OTHER||Slope|2.45||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.791|3.349|||ANOVA|||Statistics for N-oxide Voriconazole AUC0-t Day 10||3.349|1.791|0.0002
91024324|NCT04229303|181932399|OTHER||Slope|4.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.365|6.294|||ANOVA|||Statistics for N-oxide Voriconazole AUC0-t Day 10||6.294|3.365|<0.0001
91024325|NCT04229303|181932399|OTHER||Slope|1.99||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.524|2.602|||ANOVA|||Statistics for Voriconazole AUC0-inf Day 1||2.602|1.524|0.0005
91024326|NCT04229303|181932399|OTHER||Slope|4.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.505|5.984|||ANOVA|||Statistics for Voriconazole AUC0-inf Day 1||5.984|3.505|<0.0001
91024327|NCT04229303|181932399|OTHER||Slope|2.65||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.851|3.781|||ANOVA|||Statistics for Voriconazole AUC0-inf Day 10||3.781|1.851|0.0003
91024328|NCT04229303|181932399|OTHER||Slope|5.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.587|7.088|||ANOVA|||Statistics for Voriconazole AUC0-inf Day 10||7.088|3.587|<0.0001
91024329|NCT04229303|181932399|OTHER||Slope|1.93|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.569|2.384|||ANOVA|||Statistics for N-oxide Voriconazole AUC0-inf Day 1||2.384|1.569|<0.0001
91024330|NCT04229303|181932399|OTHER||Slope|4.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.608|5.759|||ANOVA|||Statistics for N-oxide Voriconazole AUC0-inf Day 1||5.759|3.608|<0.0001
91024331|NCT04229303|181932399|OTHER||Slope|2.4||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.694|3.402|||ANOVA|||Statistics for N-oxide Voriconazole AUC0-inf Day 10||3.402|1.694|0.0007
91024332|NCT04229303|181932399|OTHER||Slope|4.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.975|5.974|||ANOVA|||Statistics for N-oxide Voriconazole AUC0-inf Day 10||5.974|2.975|<0.0001
91024333|NCT04229303|181932400|OTHER||Slope|2.03||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.562|2.65|||ANOVA|||Statistics for Voriconazole Cmax Day 1||2.650|1.562|0.0003
91024334|NCT04229303|181932400|OTHER||Slope|4.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.74|6.345|||ANOVA|||Statistics for Voriconazole Cmax Day 1||6.345|3.740|<0.0001
91024335|NCT04229303|181932400|OTHER||Slope|2.67|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.081|3.429|||ANOVA|||Statistics for Voriconazole Cmax Day 10||3.429|2.081|<0.0001
91024336|NCT04229303|181932400|OTHER||Slope|5.97|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.647|7.658|||ANOVA|||Statistics for Voriconazole Cmax Day 10||7.658|4.647|<0.0001
91024337|NCT04229303|181932400|OTHER||Slope|2.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.688|2.406|||ANOVA|||Statistics for N-oxide Voriconazole Cmax Day 1||2.406|1.688|<0.0001
91024338|NCT04229303|181932400|OTHER||Slope|4.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.964|5.65|||ANOVA|||Statistics for N-oxide Voriconazole Cmax Day 1||5.650|3.964|<0.0001
91024339|NCT04229303|181932400|OTHER||Slope|2.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.655|2.711|||ANOVA|||Statistics for N-oxide Voriconazole Cmax Day 10||2.711|1.655|<0.0001
91024340|NCT04229303|181932400|OTHER||Slope|4.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.135|5.135|||ANOVA|||Statistics for N-oxide Voriconazole Cmax day 10||5.135|3.135|<0.0001
91024341|NCT04229303|181932421|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.107|0.146||||||Part 3 - ZP-059 20mg: Oral Voriconazole (200mg VFEND)||0.146|0.107|
91024342|NCT04229303|181932421|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.545|2.853||||||ZP-059 20mg: Part 3 / Part 1||2.853|1.545|
91024343|NCT04229303|181932421|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|2.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.953|3.544||||||ZP-059 20mg: Part 3 / Part 2 Day 1||3.544|1.953|
91024344|NCT04229303|181932421|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.386|2.52||||||ZP-059 20mg: Part 3 / Part 2 Day 10||2.520|1.386|
91024345|NCT04229303|181932422|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.059|0.075||||||Part 3 ZP-059 20mg: Oral Voriconazole (200mg VFEND®)||0.075|0.059|
91024346|NCT04229303|181932422|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|1.891||||||ZP-059 20mg: Part 3 / Part 1||1.891|0.850|
91088025|NCT03163446|182059077|OTHER|P-value was ad hoc. Statistics considered descriptive as study designed to provide proof of concept and initial assessment of efficacy; not considered confirmatory.|Risk Difference (RD)|42.8||||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|90.0|14.3|71.4|||Fisher Exact|||||71.4|14.3|0.0101
91088026|NCT03163446|182059078|OTHER|P value was ad hoc. Descriptive statistics were performed.||||||0.0646|||||||Fisher Exact||||Descriptive statistics were performed.|||0.0646
91088027|NCT03163446|182059080|OTHER|P-value was ad hoc. Statistics considered descriptive as study designed to provide proof of concept and initial assessment of efficacy; not considered confirmatory.|Risk Difference (RD)|-21.3||||0.0556|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-45.1|2.5|||Fisher Exact|||||2.5|-45.1|0.0556
91088028|NCT00754741|182059122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.763|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.763
90832013|NCT03192176|181536170|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.01||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||-0.01|-0.87|0.0442
91024347|NCT04229303|181932422|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|2.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.953|3.544||||||ZP-059 20mg: Part 3 / Part 2 Day 1||3.544|1.953|
91024348|NCT04229303|181932422|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.386|2.52||||||ZP-059 20mg: Part 3 / Part 2 Day 10||2.520|1.386|
91024349|NCT01034137|181932433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.996|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.589|2.506|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The SRR was compared between the treatment groups by means of the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test taking into account the stratification factors used for randomization.||2.506|1.589|< 0.001
91024350|NCT01034137|181932433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.855|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.481|2.323|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The SRR was compared between the treatment groups by means of the CMH test taking into account the stratification factors used for randomization.||2.323|1.481|< 0.001
91024351|NCT01034137|181932433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03||||0.616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.915|1.16|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The SRR was compared between the treatment groups by means of the CMH test taking into account the stratification factors used for randomization.||1.160|0.915|0.616
91024352|NCT01764854|181932483|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||ANCOVA|||AZD1722 in-patient and Placebo in-patient are not included in this analysis since it was only a one week evaluation period and an effect was not expected. Also the size (n=8) of the group was too small to .perform this analysis.||||0.46
91024353|NCT01764854|181932484|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||AZD1722 out-patient and Placebo out-patient were not included in this analysis since stool was only collected in the clinical pharmacology unit of the in-patient groups.||||<0.0001
91024354|NCT03273387|181932485|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008||||||95% Confidence interval 1.97 - 11.3 statistical significant if p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|t=2.988 df=18||||||0.008
91024355|NCT03273387|181932486|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33||||||statistical significant if p \<0.05|two-way ANOVA|DF=3||||||0.33
91024356|NCT03273387|181932487|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002||||||95% Confidence interval 15.92 to 42.53 statistical significant if p \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|t=4.598 df=19||||||0.0002
91024357|NCT01381900|181932490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.071|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.644|-0.367|||ANCOVA|||||-0.367|-0.644|<0.001
91024358|NCT01381900|181932490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.071|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.731|-0.453|||ANCOVA|||||-0.453|-0.731|<0.001
91024359|NCT01381900|181932491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.173|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.375|-0.694|||ANCOVA|||||-0.694|-1.375|<0.001
91024360|NCT01381900|181932491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-1.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.173|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.769|-1.089|||ANCOVA|||||-1.089|-1.769|<0.001
91024361|NCT01381900|181932492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-1.6|||ANCOVA|||||-1.6|-2.7|<0.001
91024362|NCT01381900|181932492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-1.8|||ANCOVA|||||-1.8|-2.9|<0.001
91024363|NCT01381900|181932493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.09|5.09|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.09|2.09|
91024364|NCT01381900|181932493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.55|6.27|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.27|2.55|
91024365|NCT01381900|181932494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|4.48|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.48|1.45|
91024366|NCT01381900|181932494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.88|5.75|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.75|1.88|
91024367|NCT02891200|181932503|SUPERIORITY||Predicted Mean Difference|1.46||||0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.47|5.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects linear model with study site and setting as fixed effects, and adjusted for baseline SGRQ domain scores.||||5.38|-2.47|0.467
91088029|NCT00754741|182059122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.285|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.285
91088030|NCT00754741|182059123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.380
91088031|NCT00754741|182059123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.084|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.084
91088032|NCT00754741|182059124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.667|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.667
91088033|NCT00754741|182059124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.530
91088034|NCT00754741|182059125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.881|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.881
91088035|NCT00754741|182059125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.849|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.849
91088036|NCT00754741|182059126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.134|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.134
91088037|NCT00754741|182059126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.714|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.714
91088038|NCT00754741|182059127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.291|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.291
91088039|NCT00754741|182059127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.968|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.968
91088040|NCT00754741|182059128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.671|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.671
91088041|NCT00754741|182059128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.399|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.399
91088042|NCT00754741|182059129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.829|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.829
91088043|NCT00754741|182059129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.283|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.283
90832014|NCT03192176|181536170|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.16||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||-0.16|-1.02|0.0071
90832015|NCT03192176|181536170|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.05||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||0.05|-0.80|0.0823
90832016|NCT03192176|181536170|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.04||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||-0.04|-0.89|0.0336
90832017|NCT03192176|181536170|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|-0.46||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||-0.46|-1.32|<0.0001
90832018|NCT03192176|181536170|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|-0.47||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||-0.47|-1.34|<0.0001
90832019|NCT03192176|181536170|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.4819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.28||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||0.28|-0.59|0.4819
90832020|NCT03192176|181536170|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.03||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||-0.03|-0.88|0.0371
90832021|NCT03192176|181536170|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.12||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||-0.12|-0.97|0.0121
90832022|NCT03192176|181536170|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.05||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||-0.05|-0.89|0.0281
90832023|NCT03192176|181536170|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|-0.01||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||-0.01|-0.86|0.0436
91024368|NCT00294723|181932530|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The two sided 95% confidence interval for the treatment difference \[liraglutide - glimepiride\] was estimated. Liraglutide was shown to be non-inferior to glimepiride if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference was below 0.4% and superior if the complete confidence interval was below 0%.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.62|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.83|-0.42||"The statistical analysis of the primary endpoint was done in a hierarchal manner due to multiple comparisons. No other adjustments were made for multiplicity.~2-sided significance level 5%"|ANCOVA|||Change in glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c) from baseline to end of treatment at 52 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous oral antidiabetic drug (OAD) treatment as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate.||-0.42|-0.83|<0.0001
91088044|NCT00754741|182059130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.971|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.971
91088045|NCT00754741|182059130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.115|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.115
90832024|NCT03192176|181536170|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|-0.49||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||-0.49|-1.34|<0.0001
90832025|NCT03192176|181536170|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|-0.6||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||-0.60|-1.47|<0.0001
91088046|NCT00754741|182059131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.573|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.573
90832026|NCT03192176|181536170|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.1488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.11||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Wek 10||0.11|-0.75|0.1488
91088047|NCT00754741|182059131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.443|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.443
91088048|NCT00754741|182059132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.469|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.469
91088049|NCT00754741|182059132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.369|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.369
91088050|NCT00754741|182059133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.779|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.779
91088051|NCT00754741|182059133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.733|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.733
91088052|NCT00754741|182059134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.952|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.952
91088053|NCT00754741|182059134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.856|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.856
91088054|NCT00754741|182059135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.419|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.419
91024369|NCT00294723|181932530|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The two sided 95% confidence interval for the treatment difference \[liraglutide - glimepiride\] was estimated. Liraglutide was shown to be non-inferior to glimepiride if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference was below 0.4% and superior if the complete confidence interval was below 0%. Superiority of 1.2 mg liraglutide was only tested if 1.2 mg liraglutide was non-inferior to glimepiride and 1.8 mg liraglutide was superior to glimepiride.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.33||||0.0014||95.0|-0.53|-0.13||"The statistical analysis of the primary endpoint was done in a hierarchal manner due to multiple comparisons. No other adjustments were made for multiplicity.~2-sided significance level 5%"|ANCOVA|||Change in glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c) from baseline to end of treatment at 52 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous oral antidiabetic drug (OAD) treatment as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate.||-0.13|-0.53|0.0014
91024370|NCT00294723|181932530|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A test for superiority of liraglutide 1.8 mg to liraglutide 1.2 mg was performed to compare the two doses. Superiority of liraglutide 1.8 mg was concluded if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference (liraglutide 1.8 mg - liraglutide 1.2 mg) was below 0%.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.29||||0.0046||95.0|-0.5|-0.09||2-sided significance level 5%|ANCOVA|||Change in glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c) from baseline to end of treatment at 52 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous oral antidiabetic drug (OAD) treatment as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate.||-0.09|-0.50|0.0046
91024371|NCT00294723|181932531|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg and glimepiride was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0 kg, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide was better than glimepiride.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-3.58|||<|0.0001||95.0|-4.28|-2.87||2-sided significance level 5%|ANCOVA|||Change in body weight from baseline to end of treatment at 52 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline body weight as covariate.||-2.87|-4.28|<.0001
91032972|NCT02728102|181951654|SUPERIORITY|The proportion of patients alive and in CR/sCR at 1 year post transplant will be compared in the vaccine arm to Lenalidomide/GM-CSF arm with 80% confidence intervals using a two-sample Z test comparing binomial proportions.|difference in the proportions|7.2||||0.2429|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.4|20.6|||Z test|||A secondary pairwise analysis of CR/sCR rates comparing the vaccine arm to Lenalidomide/GM-CSF arm at 1 year post transplant.||20.6|-6.4|0.2429
91088055|NCT00754741|182059135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.998|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.998
90832027|NCT03192176|181536170|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.06||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||-0.06|-0.91|0.0251
90832028|NCT03192176|181536170|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.23||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||-0.23|-1.08|0.0027
90832029|NCT03192176|181536170|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.1053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.07||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||0.07|-0.77|0.1053
90832030|NCT03192176|181536170|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.04||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||-0.04|-0.90|0.0304
90832031|NCT03192176|181536170|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.43||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||-0.43|-1.33|<0.0001
90832032|NCT03192176|181536170|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|-0.61||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||-0.61|-1.49|<0.0001
90832033|NCT03192176|181536170|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.06||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||0.06|-0.81|0.0873
90832034|NCT03192176|181536170|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.12||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||-0.12|-0.97|0.0124
90832035|NCT03192176|181536170|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|-0.27||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||-0.27|-1.12|0.0014
90894286|NCT00949884|181654156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3||||0.2701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|1.8|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||2 hour systolic blood pressure||1.8|-6.5|0.2701
90832036|NCT03192176|181536170|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.0||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||-0.00|-0.68|0.0479
90832037|NCT03192176|181536170|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.2342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.13||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMMRM|||Week 13||0.13|-0.54|0.2342
90832038|NCT03192176|181536170|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.13||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||-0.13|-0.84|0.0070
90832039|NCT03192176|181536170|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.4291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.21||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|LSMean difference|||Week 13||0.21|-0.49|0.4291
90832040|NCT03192176|181536170|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.13||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||-0.13|-0.83|0.0076
90832041|NCT03192176|181536170|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.1506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.1||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||0.10|-0.62|0.1506
90832042|NCT03192176|181536170|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.5479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.24||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||0.24|-0.44|0.5479
90832043|NCT03192176|181536170|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differencce|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.1427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.08||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||0.08|-0.57|0.1427
90832044|NCT03192176|181536170|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.1498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.09||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||0.09|-0.56|0.1498
90832045|NCT03192176|181536170|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.11||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||-0.11|-0.79|0.0103
90832046|NCT03192176|181536170|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differencce|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.8984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.32||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||0.32|-0.36|0.8984
90832047|NCT03192176|181536170|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.11||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||-0.11|-0.79|0.0095
90832048|NCT03192176|181536170|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.08||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||0.08|-0.60|0.1370
90832049|NCT03192176|181536170|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.4223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.19||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||0.19|-0.46|0.4223
90832050|NCT03192176|181536170|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.3265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.17||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||0.17|-0.50|0.3265
91024372|NCT00294723|181932531|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.2 mg and glimepiride was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0 kg, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide was better than glimepiride.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-3.17|||<|0.0001||95.0|-3.87|-2.47||2-sided significance level 5%|ANCOVA|||Change in body weight from baseline to end of treatment at 52 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline body weight as covariate.||-2.47|-3.87|<.0001
91104622|NCT04903093|182095242|OTHER|The ratio and 90% CI were expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means|96.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.43|110.03||||||Test: Abrocitinib 200 mg oral suspension formulation 1; Reference: Abrocitinib 200 mg commercial tablet||110.03|85.43|
90832051|NCT03192176|181536170|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.04||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||0.04|-0.62|0.0852
90957042|NCT00706433|181793720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||1.0
90894287|NCT00949884|181654156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3||||0.1328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|0.7|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||2 hour diastolic blood pressure||0.7|-5.2|0.1328
91088056|NCT04152200|182059136|OTHER|Not applied|Least Squares (LS) Mean|-33.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.63|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-81.82|15.16|||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|||Restricted maximum likelihood (REML) based Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) was used to test against the null hypothesis of mean change from baseline outcome being equal to 0. The model includes scheduled visits and baseline plasma oxalate (μmol/L) as fixed effects and patient as a random factor. Autoregressive (1) was used to model the within-patient variability.||15.16|-81.82|
91088057|NCT04152200|182059137|OTHER|Not applied|Least Squares (LS) Mean|-42.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.95|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.71|-34.15|||MMRM|||REML based Mixed Model Repeated Measures MMRM was used to test against the null hypothesis of mean change from baseline outcome being equal to 0. The model includes scheduled visits and baseline plasma oxalate (μmol/L) as fixed effects and patient as a random factor. Autoregressive (1) was used to model the within-patient variability.||-34.15|-50.71|
91088058|NCT02699996|182059184|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.52|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.86|||t-test, 2 sided|df = 14||RTQ-Survivor Adolescent Responsibility Score||0.86|0.17|<.01
91088059|NCT02699996|182059184|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.67|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.07|||t-test, 2 sided|df=14||RTQ-Overall Readiness Score||1.07|0.27|<.01
91088060|NCT02699996|182059185|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.42|||t-test, 2 sided|df=14||TRI-total Score||0.42|0.05|0.02
90957043|NCT00706433|181793721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||1.0
91024373|NCT00294723|181932531|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg and liraglutide 1.2 mg was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0 kg, it was concluded that the liraglutide 1.8 mg was better than liraglutide 1.2 mg.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.41||||0.2584||95.0|-1.11|0.3||2-sided significance level 5%|ANCOVA|||Change in body weight from baseline to end of treatment at 52 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline body weight as covariate.||0.30|-1.11|0.2584
91024374|NCT00294723|181932532|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg and glimepiride was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0 kg, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide was better than glimepiride.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-3.65|||<|0.0001||95.0|-4.44|-2.86||2-sided significance level 5%|ANCOVA|||Change in body weight from baseline to end of treatment at 104 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline body weight as covariate.||-2.86|-4.44|<.0001
91024375|NCT00294723|181932532|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.2 mg and glimepiride was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0 kg, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide was better than glimepiride.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-2.84|||<|0.0001||95.0|-3.63|-2.06||2-sided significance level 5%|ANCOVA|||Change in body weight from baseline to end of treatment at 104 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline body weight as covariate.||-2.06|-3.63|<.0001
91024376|NCT00294723|181932532|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg and liraglutide 1.2 mg was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0 kg, it was concluded that the liraglutide 1.8 mg was better than liraglutide 1.2 mg.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.8||||0.0462||95.0|-1.59|-0.01||2-sided significance level 5%|ANCOVA|||Change in body weight from baseline to end of treatment at 104 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline body weight as covariate.||-0.01|-1.59|0.0462
91088061|NCT02699996|182059185|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.49|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.73|||t-test, 2 sided|df=14||TRI Knowledge score||0.73|0.26|<.01
91088062|NCT02699996|182059185|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0044|0.6|||t-test, 2 sided|df=14||TRI Skills/Self-Efficacy Score||0.60|-0.0044|0.053
91088063|NCT02699996|182059185|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.24|||t-test, 2 sided|df=14||TRI Beliefs/Expectations score||0.24|0.02|0.03
91088064|NCT02699996|182059185|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.69|||t-test, 2 sided|df=14||TRI Goals/Motivation score||0.69|0.11|<.01
91088065|NCT02699996|182059185|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.26|||t-test, 2 sided|df=14||Relationship/Communication Score||0.26|-0.16|0.61
91088066|NCT02699996|182059185|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.57|||t-test, 2 sided|df=14||TRI Psychosocial/Emotional Score||0.57|-0.37|0.65
91088067|NCT02699996|182059186|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.64||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.62|4.34|||t-test, 2 sided|df = 13||||4.34|-7.62|.56
91088068|NCT02699996|182059187|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.74||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.23|2.75|||t-test, 2 sided|df = 14||||2.75|-6.23|.42
91088069|NCT02699996|182059188|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.23|||t-test, 2 sided|df = 14||||0.23|-0.80|.26
91088070|NCT02699996|182059189|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.52|||t-test, 2 sided|df = 14||||0.52|0.03|.03
91088071|NCT02699996|182059190|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.52|||t-test, 2 sided|df = 14||Body Health Subscale||0.52|-0.12|.20
91088072|NCT02699996|182059190|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.2|||t-test, 2 sided|df = 14||Personal Growth Subscale||0.20|-0.46|.40
90832052|NCT03192176|181536170|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.21||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||-0.21|-0.91|0.0021
90894288|NCT00949884|181654156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.1778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|0.9|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||2 hour diastolic blood pressure||0.9|-4.9|0.1778
90894289|NCT00949884|181654156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.6||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|0.2|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||4 hour systolic blood pressure||0.2|-7.3|0.0620
90894290|NCT00949884|181654156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.1||||0.1011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|0.6|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||4 hour systolic blood pressure||0.6|-6.9|0.1011
90894291|NCT00949884|181654156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0||||0.0249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|-0.4|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||4 hour diastolic blood pressure||-0.4|-5.6|0.0249
90894292|NCT00949884|181654156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.6||||0.0497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|0.0|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||4 hour diastolic blood pressure||0.0|-5.2|0.0497
91088073|NCT02699996|182059190|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.29|||t-test, 2 sided|df = 14||Memory Subscale||0.29|-0.09|.29
90832053|NCT03192176|181536170|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.5717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.25||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||0.25|-0.45|0.5717
91088074|NCT02699996|182059191|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.03|||t-test, 2 sided|df = 14||||0.03|-0.40|.08
90894293|NCT00949884|181654156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.5||||0.0552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|0.1|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||6 hour systolic blood pressure||0.1|-7.1|0.0552
90894294|NCT00949884|181654156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.2||||0.0767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|0.3|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||6 hour systolic blood pressure||0.3|-6.8|0.0767
90894295|NCT00949884|181654156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.8||||0.0279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|-0.3|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||6 hour diastolic blood pressure||-0.3|-5.3|0.0279
90894296|NCT00949884|181654156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5||||0.0434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|-0.1|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||6 hour diastolic blood pressure||-0.1|-5.0|0.0434
91032468|NCT01710657|181949596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Reduction over Placebo|39.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.5|47.6||Significant at the 0.05 level. This testing procedure is considered a closed testing procedure and no adjustment of the significance level was necessary.|ANCOVA|||"To avoid inflation of Type I error, hypothesis testing followed predefined hierarchical procedure starting LCM 400 mg/day treatment group versus the placebo group.~If the test was not statistically significant, the procedure stopped and no Groups were declared different from placebo. If the test was statistically significant, the treatment group was considered different from placebo and the procedure continued with the LCM 200 mg/day treatment group."||47.6|30.5|<0.001
91088075|NCT01921517|182059192|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0481|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0481
90894297|NCT00949884|181654157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.3||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|-1.8|||ANCOVA|Treatment is a fixed effect and baseline blood pressure is a covariate.||Diastolic blood pressure||-1.8|-6.8|0.0009
90894298|NCT00949884|181654157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|-4.7|||ANCOVA|Treatment is a fixed effect and baseline blood pressure is a covariate.||Systolic blood pressure||-4.7|-12.5|<0.0001
90894299|NCT03896009|181654241|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
90894300|NCT03896009|181654242|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.002
90894301|NCT00662857|181654243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Means|0.982|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.846|1.141|||||"Geometric Mean Ratio of serum insulin from a single 30 U cartridge to 2 x 15 U cartridges of TI.~Based on pair-wise comparisons from analysis of covariance fitting the model: natural log of parameter = cohort, treatment, visit, subject (cohort)."|||1.141|0.846|
90894302|NCT00662857|181654244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Means|0.951|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.823|1.099|||||"Geometric Mean Ratio of serum insulin from a single 30 U cartridge to 2 x 15 U cartridges of TI.~Based on pair-wise comparisons from analysis of covariance fitting the model: natural log of parameter = cohort, treatment, visit, subject (cohort)."|||1.099|0.823|
90894303|NCT00662857|181654245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.3531|||||||Signed Rank Test|||||||0.3531
90894304|NCT00662857|181654246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Means|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.366|0.578|||||"Geometric Mean Ratio of serum insulin from a single 30 U cartridge of TI to 10 U sc insulin lispro.~Based on pair-wise comparisons from analysis of covariance fitting the model: natural log of parameter = cohort, treatment, visit, subject (cohort)."|||0.578|0.366|
91088076|NCT00871624|182059205|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A difference in the mean four-point NIV intolerance score of 1 over the course of the study or between groups was considered through investigator consensus to be clinically meaningful. Assuming that the SD of NIV intolerance scores was 1 and that an alpha of 0.05 would be used for testing, it was determined that 18 subjects were needed in each group to achieve an 80% power.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|4.7|||Chi-squared|||||4.7|0.44|0.54
91088077|NCT00871624|182059206|OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3
91104623|NCT04903093|182095242|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means|62.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|54.85|72.07||||||Test: Famotidine 40 mg tablet + Abrocitinib 200 mg commecial tablet; Reference: Abrocitinib 200 mg commercial tablet||72.07|54.85|
91088078|NCT01307787|182059233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mann-Whitney U tests were used to assess between group changes on delta scores at times T0( at the start of the study in week 1) and T1( post-intervention in week 9). Significance level for all statistical tests was set at p\< 0.05.||||0.002
90832054|NCT03192176|181536170|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.12||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||-0.12|-0.82|0.0084
90832055|NCT03192176|181536170|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.04||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||-0.04|-0.75|0.0277
90832056|NCT03192176|181536170|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.4627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.21||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||0.21|-0.46|0.4627
90832057|NCT03192176|181536171|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.94||0.0142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.62|-0.97||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||-0.97|-8.62|0.0142
90832058|NCT03192176|181536171|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-7.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.95|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.73|-4.05||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||-4.05|-11.73|<0.0001
90832059|NCT03192176|181536171|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-9.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.95|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.98|-5.31||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||-5.31|-12.98|<0.0001
90832060|NCT03192176|181536171|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-10.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.98|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.39|-6.61||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||-6.61|-14.39|<0.0001
90832061|NCT03192176|181536171|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.98||0.0819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.36|0.44||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||0.44|-7.36|0.0819
90832062|NCT03192176|181536171|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.95||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.78|-3.09||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||-3.09|-10.78|0.0004
90832063|NCT03192176|181536171|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.94||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.69|-3.05||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||-3.05|-10.69|0.0005
90832064|NCT03192176|181536171|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.98||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.01|-0.23||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||-0.23|-8.01|0.0380
90832065|NCT03192176|181536171|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.99||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.46|-3.64||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||-3.64|-11.46|0.0002
90832066|NCT03192176|181536171|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differencce|-8.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.98|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.96|-4.17||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||-4.17|-11.96|<0.0001
90832067|NCT03192176|181536171|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-9.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.01|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.17|-5.25||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||-5.25|-13.17|<0.0001
90832068|NCT03192176|181536171|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.02||0.0245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.52|-0.59||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||-0.59|-8.52|0.0245
91088079|NCT01307787|182059234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.47|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mann-Whitney U tests were used to assess between group changes on delta scores at times T0( at the start of the study in week 1) and T1( post-intervention in week 9). Significance level for all statistical tests was set at p\< 0.05.||||0.47
90894305|NCT00998400|181654264|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|All analyses were performed by using intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis, where missing values were managed by means of multiple imputations procedure.||||||0.030
90894306|NCT00998400|181654265|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|All analyses were performed by using intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis, where missing values were managed by means of multiple imputations procedure.||||||>0.05
90894307|NCT00998400|181654266|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|All analyses were performed by using intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis, where missing values were managed by means of multiple imputations procedure.||||||>0.05
90894308|NCT00998400|181654267|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Kaplan-Meier Survival analysis|||||||>0.05
90894309|NCT00998400|181654268|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|All analyses were performed by using intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis, where missing values were managed by means of multiple imputations procedure.||||||>0.05
90894310|NCT00998400|181654269|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|All analyses were performed by using intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis, where missing values were managed by means of multiple imputations procedure.||||||>0.05
90894311|NCT00998400|181654270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013|||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|All analyses were performed by using intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis, where missing values were managed by means of multiple imputations procedure.||||||0.013
90894312|NCT00998400|181654271|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|All analyses were performed by using intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis, where missing values were managed by means of multiple imputations procedure.||||||>0.05
91088080|NCT01307787|182059235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.24|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mann-Whitney U tests were used to assess between group changes on delta scores at times T0( at the start of the study in week 1) and T1( post-intervention in week 9). Significance level for all statistical tests was set at p\< 0.05.||||0.24
91088081|NCT01307787|182059236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.16|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mann-Whitney U tests were used to assess between group changes on delta scores at times T0( at the start of the study in week 1) and T1( post-intervention in week 9). Significance level for all statistical tests was set at p\< 0.05.||||0.16
90832069|NCT03192176|181536171|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.99||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.83|-2.01||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||-2.01|-9.83|0.0031
90894313|NCT00998400|181654272|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|All analyses were performed by using intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis, where missing values were managed by means of multiple imputations procedure.||||||>0.05
90894314|NCT00998400|181654273|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|All analyses were performed by using intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis, where missing values were managed by means of multiple imputations procedure.||||||>0.05
90894315|NCT00998400|181654274|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|All analyses were performed by using intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis, where missing values were managed by means of multiple imputations procedure.||||||>0.05
90894316|NCT00998400|181654275|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|All analyses were performed by using intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis, where missing values were managed by means of multiple imputations procedure.||||||>0.05
90894317|NCT01904864|181654293|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.6|||Regression, Linear||Change at 12 weeks compared|||1.6|0.4|<0.001
90832070|NCT03192176|181536171|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.98||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.53|-1.75||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||-1.75|-9.53|0.0046
90894318|NCT05674890|181654294|EQUIVALENCE|"Any deviation greater that +/- 0.60 (Effect size/Stdev OR 0.15/0.25=0.60) between device means was considered non-equivalent."|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.29|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.49||0.297|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Prior to patient enrollment, a power calculation was conducted to assess the ability of our analyses to reliably detect differences between the HFA and SSVR. With a sample size of 80, assumed effect size of 0.15, standard deviation of 0.25, intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.50, and significance level of 0.05, our analysis reaches a power of 0.87.||||0.297
90894319|NCT05674890|181654295|EQUIVALENCE|"Any deviation greater that +/- 0.60 (Effect size/Stdev OR 0.15/0.25=0.60) between device means was considered non-equivalent."|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.81|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Prior to patient enrollment, a power calculation was conducted to assess the ability of our analyses to reliably detect differences between the HFA and SSVR. With a sample size of 80, assumed effect size of 0.15, standard deviation of 0.25, intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.50, and significance level of 0.05, our analysis reaches a power of 0.87.||||<0.001
90894320|NCT05674890|181654296|EQUIVALENCE|"Any deviation greater that +/- 0.60 (Effect size/Stdev OR 0.15/0.25=0.60) between device means was considered non-equivalent."|Mean Difference (Net)|-48.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|56.48|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Prior to patient enrollment, a power calculation was conducted to assess the ability of our analyses to reliably detect differences between the HFA and SSVR. With a sample size of 80, assumed effect size of 0.15, standard deviation of 0.25, intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.50, and significance level of 0.05, our analysis reaches a power of 0.87.||||<0.001
90894321|NCT00105235|181654307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion|0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.086|0.423|||Exact Binomial Confidence Interval|||||.423|.086|
90894322|NCT00105235|181654308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.3|||Exact Binomial Confidence Interval|||||0.3|0|
90894323|NCT00105235|181654310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.3|||Exact Binomial Confidence Interval|||||0.3|0.04|
90894324|NCT00105235|181654311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.2|||Exact Binomial Confidence Interval|||||0.2|0.01|
91088082|NCT01307787|182059237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.21|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mann-Whitney U tests were used to assess between group changes on delta scores at times T0( at the start of the study in week 1) and T1( post-intervention in week 9). Significance level for all statistical tests was set at p\< 0.05.||||0.21
90832071|NCT03192176|181536171|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.61|-1.59||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||-1.59|-9.61|0.0064
90832072|NCT03192176|181536171|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-8.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.72|-4.65||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||-4.65|-12.72|<0.0001
90832073|NCT03192176|181536171|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-8.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.78|-4.75||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||-4.75|-12.78|<0.0001
90832074|NCT03192176|181536171|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-10.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.27|-6.09||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||-6.09|-14.27|<0.0001
90832075|NCT03192176|181536171|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.08||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.54|-2.36||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||-2.36|-10.54|0.0021
90832076|NCT03192176|181536171|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-7.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.05||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.71|-3.66||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||-3.66|-11.71|0.0002
90832077|NCT03192176|181536171|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.96|-2.95||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||-2.95|-10.96|0.0007
90832078|NCT03192176|181536171|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.03||0.0075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.46|-1.47||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||-1.47|-9.46|0.0075
90832079|NCT03192176|181536171|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-8.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.44|-4.42||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||-4.42|-12.44|<0.0001
90957044|NCT00706433|181793722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||1.0
91088083|NCT01307787|182059238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mann-Whitney U tests were used to assess between group changes on delta scores at times T0( at the start of the study in week 1) and T1( post-intervention in week 9). Significance level for all statistical tests was set at p\< 0.05.||||0.07
90832080|NCT03192176|181536171|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-8.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.15|-4.16||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||-4.16|-12.15|<0.0001
91088084|NCT01307787|182059239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mann-Whitney U tests were used to assess between group changes on delta scores at times T0( at the start of the study in week 1) and T1( post-intervention in week 9). Significance level for all statistical tests was set at p\< 0.05.||||0.4
90832081|NCT03192176|181536171|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-10.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|-6.16||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||-6.16|-14.30|<0.0001
90832082|NCT03192176|181536171|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.06||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.46|-2.34||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||-2.34|-10.46|0.0021
90832083|NCT03192176|181536171|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-8.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.25|-4.25||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||-4.25|-12.25|<0.0001
90957045|NCT00706433|181793723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||1.0
90957046|NCT00706433|181793724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||1.0
91088085|NCT01307787|182059240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mann-Whitney U tests were used to assess between group changes on delta scores at times T0( at the start of the study in week 1) and T1( post-intervention in week 9). Significance level for all statistical tests was set at p\< 0.05.||||0.6
91088086|NCT02452047|182059265|OTHER|Difference in percentages|Difference in FOR %|-7.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.5|21.4|||||Stratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method by infection type|||21.4|-27.5|
91088087|NCT02452047|182059266|OTHER|Difference in percentages|Difference in AE %|-10.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.1|18.0|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method|||18.0|-33.1|
91088088|NCT02452047|182059267|OTHER|Difference in percentages|Difference in SAE %|-21.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.8|1.3|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method|||1.3|-47.8|
91088089|NCT02452047|182059268|OTHER|Difference in percentages|Difference in drug-related AE %|-15.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.3|9.2|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method|||9.2|-42.3|
91088090|NCT02452047|182059269|OTHER|Difference in percentages|Difference in drug-related SAE %|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|11.2|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method|||11.2|-19.7|
91088091|NCT02452047|182059270|OTHER|Difference in percentages|Difference in discontinuation %|-18.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.3|-6.2|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method|||-6.2|-43.3|
91088092|NCT02452047|182059271|OTHER|Difference in percentages|Difference in drug-related discon %|-12.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.3|-0.3|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method|||-0.3|-36.3|
90832084|NCT03192176|181536171|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.02||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.58|-3.62||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||-3.62|-11.58|0.0002
90832085|NCT03192176|181536171|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.92||0.0123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|-1.05||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||-1.05|-8.60|0.0123
90832086|NCT03192176|181536171|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-7.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.92|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.63|-4.07||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||-4.07|-11.63|<0.0001
90832087|NCT03192176|181536171|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.92|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|-4.23||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||-4.23|-11.80|<0.0001
90832088|NCT03192176|181536171|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-9.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.95|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.73|-6.03||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||-6.03|-13.73|<0.0001
90832089|NCT03192176|181536171|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.95||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.13|-2.47||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||-2.47|-10.13|0.0013
90832090|NCT03192176|181536171|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-7.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.92||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.97|-3.41||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||-3.41|-10.97|0.0002
90832091|NCT03192176|181536171|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.41|-2.89||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||-2.89|-10.41|0.0006
91088093|NCT02452047|182059272|OTHER|Difference in percentages|Difference in pyrexia %|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.2|19.7|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method|||19.7|-25.2|
91088094|NCT02452047|182059272|OTHER|Difference in percentages|Difference blood creatinine inc %|-25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.8|-10.1|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method|||-10.1|-49.8|
91088095|NCT02452047|182059273|OTHER|Difference in Category 1 ECI %|Difference in Category 1 ECI %|-12.5||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.3|-0.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||||-0.3|-36.3|0.047
91088096|NCT02452047|182059273|OTHER|Difference in Category 2 ECI %|Difference in Category 2 ECI %|-12.5||||0.047||95.0|-36.3|-0.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||||-0.3|-36.3|0.047
91088097|NCT02452047|182059274|OTHER|Difference in percentages|Difference in nephrotoxicity %|-45.9||||0.002||95.0|-69.1|-18.4|||Fisher Exact||Miettinen \& Nurminen method|||-18.4|-69.1|0.002
91088098|NCT02452047|182059275|OTHER|Difference in Day 28 FCR %|Difference in Day 28 FCR %|26.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.3|51.5|||||Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by infection-site stratum|||51.5|1.3|
91088099|NCT02452047|182059276|OTHER|Difference in mortality %|Difference in mortality %|-17.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-46.4|6.7|||||Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by infection-site stratum|||6.7|-46.4|
91088100|NCT02452047|182059277|OTHER|Adjusted difference in OTX FCR %|Adjusted difference in OTX FCR %|33.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.4|61.1|||||Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by infection-site stratum|||61.1|7.4|
91088101|NCT02452047|182059278|OTHER|Adjusted difference in EOT FCR %|Adjusted difference in EOT FCR %|25.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.1|53.6|||||Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by infection-site stratum|||53.6|3.1|
91088102|NCT02452047|182059279|OTHER|Adjusted difference in EFU FCR %|Difference in EFU FCR %|24.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.8|51.4|||||Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by infection-site stratum|||51.4|3.8|
91088103|NCT02452047|182059280|OTHER|Difference in percentages|Difference in FMR %|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.8|36.6|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method|||36.6|-20.8|
91088104|NCT02452047|182059281|OTHER|Difference in percentages|Difference in FMR %|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.8|36.6|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method|||36.6|-20.8|
91088105|NCT02452047|182059282|OTHER|Difference in percentages|Difference in FMR %|-27.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-52.8|12.8|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method|||12.8|-52.8|
91088106|NCT03843372|182059302|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||The AHI was not a normal distribution. In the event that no carry over effect was detected between interventions, a Wilcoxon rank sum test was to be used to compare AHI between CPAP and HFNC||||<0.001
91088107|NCT03843372|182059303|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||The oxygen desaturation index was not a normal distribution. In the event that no carry over effect was detected between interventions, a Wilcoxon rank sum test was to be used to compare oxygen desaturation index between CPAP and HFNC||||<0.001
90832092|NCT03192176|181536171|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.0119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.54|-1.07||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||-1.07|-8.54|0.0119
90832093|NCT03192176|181536171|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.58|-3.09||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||-3.09|-10.58|0.0004
90832094|NCT03192176|181536171|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-7.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.57|-4.06||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||-4.06|-11.57|<0.0001
90832095|NCT03192176|181536171|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-9.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.94|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.89|-5.27||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||-5.27|-12.89|<0.0001
90832096|NCT03192176|181536171|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.18|-1.58||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||-1.58|-9.18|0.0057
90832097|NCT03192176|181536171|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|-2.9||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||-2.90|-10.40|0.0006
90832098|NCT03192176|181536171|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.89||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.27|-2.81||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||-2.81|-10.27|0.0006
90832099|NCT03192176|181536171|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.27|-0.68||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||-0.68|-8.27|0.0210
90832100|NCT03192176|181536171|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-7.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.98|-3.38||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||-3.38|-10.98|0.0002
90832101|NCT03192176|181536171|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-7.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.94||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.12|-3.49||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||-3.49|-11.12|0.0002
90832102|NCT03192176|181536171|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-9.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.97|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.99|-5.25||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||-5.25|-12.99|<0.0001
90832103|NCT03192176|181536171|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.96||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.45|-1.73||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||-1.73|-9.45|0.0047
90832104|NCT03192176|181536171|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.94||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.29|-2.67||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||-2.67|-10.29|0.0009
90832105|NCT03192176|181536171|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.92||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.28|-2.71||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||-2.71|-10.28|0.0008
90832106|NCT03192176|181536171|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93||0.0889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|0.51||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||0.51|-7.10|0.0889
90894325|NCT02052310|181654312|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was established if the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the treatment difference in least square (LS) means from MI ANCOVA model between the 2 treatment groups lay entirely above -0.75 g/dL.|LS Mean Difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.079|0.287|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with multiple imputation||Treatment comparison was made using the multiple imputation (MI) strategy by combining the results of analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline Hb as a covariate, and treatment, region and cardiovascular/cerebrovascular/thromboembolic medical history (yes vs. no) as factors.||0.287|0.079|0.0005
90894326|NCT02052310|181654313|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference for the responder rates (roxadustat minus epoetin alfa) calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen approach, adjusting for stratification factors, was greater than -15%.|Responder Rate Difference|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|7.7||||||For the difference of responder rates between 2 treatment groups, the CI was analyzed from the Miettinen \& Nurminen approach adjusting for randomization stratification factors.||7.7|-0.7|
91088108|NCT03843372|182059304|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||The total sleep time was not a normal distribution. In the event that no carry over effect was detected between interventions, a Wilcoxon rank sum test was to be used to compare total sleep time between CPAP and HFNC||||<0.001
90832107|NCT03192176|181536171|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.94||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.76|-2.13||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||-2.13|-9.76|0.0023
90832108|NCT03192176|181536171|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.94||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.36|-2.71||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||-2.71|-10.36|0.0009
90832109|NCT03192176|181536171|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-7.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.98||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.36|-3.58||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||-3.58|-11.36|0.0002
90832110|NCT03192176|181536171|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.97||0.0255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|-0.55||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||-0.55|-8.30|0.0255
90832111|NCT03192176|181536171|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.94||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.63|-1.98||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||-1.98|-9.63|0.0031
90832112|NCT03192176|181536171|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.45|-1.85||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||-1.85|-9.45|0.0037
90832113|NCT03192176|181536171|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.84||0.0316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.59|-0.35||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||-0.35|-7.59|0.0316
90832114|NCT03192176|181536171|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.84||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.02|-1.78||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||-1.78|-9.02|0.0036
90832115|NCT03192176|181536171|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.85||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.23|-2.94||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||-2.94|-10.23|0.0004
90832116|NCT03192176|181536171|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-7.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.88||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.93|-3.54||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||-3.54|-10.93|0.0001
90894327|NCT02052310|181654314|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference for the responder rates (roxadustat minus epoetin alfa) calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen approach, adjusting for stratification factors, was greater than -15%.|Responder Rate Difference|4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|8.7||||||For the difference of responder rates between 2 treatment groups, the CI analyzed was from the Miettinen \& Nurminen approach adjusting for randomization stratification factors.||8.7|-0.1|
90832117|NCT03192176|181536171|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.87||0.0502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.37|0.0||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||0.00|-7.37|0.0502
90832118|NCT03192176|181536171|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.85||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.28|-1.99||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||-1.99|-9.28|0.0025
90832119|NCT03192176|181536171|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.84||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.67|-1.44||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||-1.44|-8.67|0.0063
90957047|NCT00706433|181793725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||1.0
91088109|NCT03843372|182059305|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||The sleep efficiency was not a normal distribution. In the event that no carry over effect was detected between interventions, a Wilcoxon rank sum test was to be used to compare sleep efficiency between CPAP and HFNC||||0.008
91088110|NCT02157519|182059310|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.56||||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.33||threshold p \<0.05|Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline MMAS-4 scores (dichotomous) and change in perceived social support (MSPSS) from baseline to post-assessment||Analysis comparing the number of participants who self-reported adherence problems (i.e., dichotomous MMAS-4 scores) at post-assessment between groups adjusting for baseline self-reported adherence (i.e., dichotomous MMAS-4 scores) and change in perceived social support (MSPSS) from baseline to post-assessment.||1.33|0.23|0.186
91088111|NCT02157519|182059311|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.06||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.35|5.68||threshold p \< 0.05|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for change in perceived social support (MSPSS) from baseline to post-assessment||Analysis comparing the percentage of medication taken (as recorded by MEMS) from baseline to post-assessment between groups adjusting for change in perceived social support (MSPSS) from baseline to post-assessment.||5.68|-10.35|0.57
90832120|NCT03192176|181536171|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.0117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.58|-1.08||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||-1.08|-8.58|0.0117
90832121|NCT03192176|181536171|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.17|-1.67||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||-1.67|-9.17|0.0047
90832122|NCT03192176|181536171|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.92||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|-3.23||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||-3.23|-10.80|0.0003
90832123|NCT03192176|181536171|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-7.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.94|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.51|-3.86||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||-3.86|-11.51|<0.0001
90832124|NCT03192176|181536171|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.94||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.97|-1.34||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Wek 10||-1.34|-8.97|0.0083
90832125|NCT03192176|181536171|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.92||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|-2.56||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||-2.56|-10.10|0.0011
90832126|NCT03192176|181536171|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.77|-2.29||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||-2.29|-9.77|0.0017
90832127|NCT03192176|181536171|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86||0.0119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.37|-1.05||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||-1.05|-8.37|0.0119
90832128|NCT03192176|181536171|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.61|-2.29||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||-2.29|-9.61|0.0015
90832129|NCT03192176|181536171|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-7.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.88|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.38|-3.99||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||-3.99|-11.38|<0.0001
90832130|NCT03192176|181536171|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.33|-3.87||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||-3.87|-11.33|<0.0001
90832131|NCT03192176|181536171|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.89||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.07|-1.62||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||-1.62|-9.07|0.0051
90832132|NCT03192176|181536171|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.87||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.33|-2.96||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||-2.96|-10.33|0.0004
90832133|NCT03192176|181536171|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.64|-2.34||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||-2.34|-9.64|0.0014
90957048|NCT00706433|181793726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||1.0
91088112|NCT02157519|182059312|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.53||threshold p \<0.05|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for change in perceived social support (MSPSS) from baseline to post-assessment||Analysis comparing the change in symptom severity (MDASI-severity) from baseline to post-assessment between groups adjusting for change in perceived social support (MSPSS) from baseline to post-assessment.||0.53|-0.31|0.603
90894328|NCT02052310|181654315|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was established if the 2-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference in LS means of change from baseline Hb averaged over Weeks 28 to 52 lay entirely above -0.75 g/dL.|LS Mean Difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067||0.0148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.032|0.296|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment comparison was made using mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with baseline Hb as a covariate, and treatment, visit, visit-by-treatment interaction and randomization stratification factors except mean qualifying screening hemoglobin (≤8.0 vs. \>8.0 g/dL) as fixed effects.||0.296|0.032|0.0148
90832134|NCT03192176|181536171|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.82||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.67|-1.51||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||-1.51|-8.67|0.0054
90832135|NCT03192176|181536171|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.82||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.71|-2.55||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||-2.55|-9.71|0.0008
90832136|NCT03192176|181536171|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.84|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|-3.97||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||-3.97|-11.20|<0.0001
90832137|NCT03192176|181536171|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-8.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.85|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.88|-4.59||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||-4.59|-11.88|<0.0001
90832138|NCT03192176|181536171|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.85||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.27|-1.99||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||-1.99|-9.27|0.0026
90832139|NCT03192176|181536171|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.83||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.35|-3.16||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||-3.16|-10.35|0.0003
90832140|NCT03192176|181536171|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.81||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.88|-2.75||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||-2.75|-9.88|0.0006
90832141|NCT03192176|181536171|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.12||0.0126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.48|-1.15||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||-1.15|-9.48|0.0126
90832142|NCT03192176|181536171|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.12||0.1724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.06|1.27||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMMRM|||Week 13||1.27|-7.06|0.1724
90832143|NCT03192176|181536171|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.18||0.3548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.31|2.27||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||2.27|-6.31|0.3548
90832144|NCT03192176|181536171|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.18||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.04|0.53||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|LSMean difference|||Week 13||0.53|-8.04|0.0860
90832145|NCT03192176|181536171|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.19||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.89|-1.28||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||-1.28|-9.89|0.0111
90832146|NCT03192176|181536171|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.19||0.0349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.94|-0.33||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||-0.33|-8.94|0.0349
90832147|NCT03192176|181536171|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.12||0.2205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.77|1.57||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||1.57|-6.77|0.2205
90832148|NCT03192176|181536171|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differencce|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.17||0.0645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.29|0.24||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||0.24|-8.29|0.0645
90894329|NCT02052310|181654316|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was declared if the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between roxadustat and epoetin alfa (roxadustat - epoetin alpha) was less than 0.|LS Mean Difference|-18.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.584|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.448|-15.232|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment comparison was made using a MMRM with baseline LDL cholesterol as a covariate, and treatment, visit, visit-by-treatment interaction and randomization stratification factors as fixed effects.||-15.232|-21.448|<0.0001
90894330|NCT02052310|181654317|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin was fixed as a difference of -0.75.|LS Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099||0.8178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.171|0.217|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA multiple imputation||Treatment comparison was made using the multiple imputation strategy by combining the results of ANCOVA model with baseline Hb as a covariate, and treatment, region and cardiovascular/cerebrovascular/thromboembolic medical history (yes vs. no) as factors.||0.217|-0.171|0.8178
90894331|NCT02052310|181654318|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.00028||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Rank ANCOVA|||Treatment comparison was made using an ANCOVA model with baseline iron repletion status, treatment, and randomization stratification factors as fixed effects.||||0.00028
90894332|NCT02052310|181654319|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin for the difference between groups was 1.8.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.26||||0.3284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.791|2.016|||Cox Proportional Hazards model|||Analysis was done using a Cox Proportional Hazards model adjusting for baseline Hb and other stratification factors except mean qualifying screening hemoglobin (\<= 8.0 vs. \>8.0 g/dL) as fixed effects.||2.016|0.791|0.3284
90894333|NCT02563002|181654333|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.79|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log rank test|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|||0.79|0.45|0.0001
90894334|NCT02563002|181654334|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.0359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.03|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log rank test|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|||1.03|0.53|0.0359
90894335|NCT02563002|181654335|OTHER||Difference in percentage|12.0||||0.0159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|22.6||One-sided p-value based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Miettinen & Nurminen method||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||22.6|1.0|0.0159
90894336|NCT02093663|181654353|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.21||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|9.88|||Uncorrected Chi-squared Test|||This study is not powered to detect differences between treatment groups and other sensitivity analysis (last observation carried forward \[LOCF\] and complete case) intended to examine the robustness of the treatment estimate. This was an estimation study, and p-values were presented as descriptive statistics.||9.88|1.04|0.039
90894337|NCT02093663|181654354|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|2.34||P-value were based on a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by prior response status.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||This study is not powered to detect differences between treatment groups and other sensitivity analysis (LOCF and complete case) intended to examine the robustness of the treatment estimate. This was an estimation study, and p-value s were presented as descriptive statistics.||2.34|0.42|0.981
90894338|NCT02093663|181654355|OTHER||Difference in proportions|50.0||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.3|100.0||P-value was calculated based on Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||This study is not powered to detect differences between treatment groups and other sensitivity analysis (LOCF and complete case) intended to examine the robustness of the treatment estimate. This was an estimation study, and p-values were presented as descriptive statistics.||100.0|-19.3|0.400
91024377|NCT00294723|181932533|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The two sided 95% confidence interval for the treatment difference \[liraglutide - glimepiride\] was estimated. Liraglutide was shown to be non-inferior to glimepiride if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference was below 0.4% and superior if the complete confidence interval was below 0%.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.6|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.83|-0.38||"The statistical analysis of the primary endpoint was done in a hierarchal manner due to multiple comparisons. No other adjustments were made for multiplicity.~2-sided significance level 5%"|ANCOVA|||Change in glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c) from baseline to end of treatment at 104 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous oral antidiabetic drug (OAD) treatment as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate.||-0.38|-0.83|<.0001
91032469|NCT01710657|181949596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Reduction over Placebo|29.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.7|38.7||Significant at the 0.05 level. This testing procedure is considered a closed testing procedure and no adjustment of the significance level was necessary.|ANCOVA|||"To avoid inflation of Type I error, hypothesis testing followed predefined hierarchical procedure starting LCM 400 mg/day treatment group versus the placebo group.~If the test was not statistically significant, the procedure stopped and no Groups were declared different from placebo. If the test was statistically significant, the treatment group was considered different from placebo and the procedure continued with the LCM 200 mg/day treatment group."||38.7|18.7|< 0.001
91032470|NCT02724462|181949602|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|1.83|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.83|1.22|<.001
90894339|NCT02093663|181654356|OTHER||Difference in proportions|50.0||||0.333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.3|100.0||P-value was based on a Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||This study is not powered to detect differences between treatment groups and other sensitivity analysis (LOCF and complete case) intended to examine the robustness of the treatment estimate.||100.0|-19.3|0.333
90894340|NCT02093663|181654357|OTHER||Difference in Least squares Mean|-5.4||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|2.4||P-value is based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including treatment arm as a factor and baseline DUCS score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||This study is not powered to detect differences between treatment groups and other sensitivity analysis (LOCF and complete case) intended to examine the robustness of the treatment estimate. This was an estimation study, and p-values were presented as descriptive statistics.||2.4|-13.1|0.168
90957049|NCT00706433|181793727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||1.0
90957050|NCT00706433|181793728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0165||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0165
90957051|NCT00706433|181793728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2252||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.2252
90832149|NCT03192176|181536171|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.16||0.5031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.69|2.8||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||2.80|-5.69|0.5031
90832150|NCT03192176|181536171|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.24||0.5263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.84|2.99||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||2.99|-5.84|0.5263
90832151|NCT03192176|181536171|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differencce|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.24||0.2782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.83|1.97||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||1.97|-6.83|0.2782
90832152|NCT03192176|181536171|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.24||0.0198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.67|-0.84||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||-0.84|-9.67|0.0198
90832153|NCT03192176|181536171|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.25||0.0417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.05|-0.18||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||-0.18|-9.05|0.0417
90832154|NCT03192176|181536171|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.16||0.2963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.52|2.0||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||2.00|-6.52|0.2963
90832155|NCT03192176|181536171|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.09||0.5408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.39|2.83||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||2.83|-5.39|0.5408
91024378|NCT00294723|181932533|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The two sided 95% CI for the treatment difference \[liraglutide - glimepiride\] was estimated. Liraglutide was non-inferior to glimepiride if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference was below 0.4% and superior if the complete confidence interval was below 0%. Superiority of 1.2 mg liraglutide was only tested if 1.2 mg liraglutide was non-inferior to glimepiride and 1.8 mg liraglutide was superior to glimepiride.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.31||||0.0076||95.0|-0.54|-0.08||"The statistical analysis of the primary endpoint was done in a hierarchal manner due to multiple comparisons. No other adjustments were made for multiplicity.~2-sided significance level 5%"|ANCOVA|||Change in glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c) from baseline to end of treatment at 104 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous oral antidiabetic drug (OAD) treatment as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate.||-0.08|-0.54|0.0076
91024379|NCT00294723|181932533|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A test for superiority of liraglutide 1.8 mg to liraglutide 1.2 mg was performed to compare the two doses. Superiority of liraglutide 1.8 mg was concluded if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference (liraglutide 1.8 mg - liraglutide 1.2 mg) was below 0%.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.29||||0.0129||95.0|-0.52|-0.06||2-sided significance level 5%|ANCOVA|||Change in glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c) from baseline to end of treatment at 104 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous oral antidiabetic drug (OAD) treatment as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate.||-0.06|-0.52|0.0129
90832156|NCT03192176|181536171|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.07||0.7473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.74|3.41||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||3.41|-4.74|0.7473
91024380|NCT00294723|181932534|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg and glimepiride was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0 kg, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide was better than glimepiride.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-3.48|||<|0.0001||95.0|-4.28|-2.68||2-sided significance level was 5%.|ANCOVA|||Change in body weight from baseline to end of treatment at 156 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country, and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline body weight as covariate.||-2.68|-4.28|<0.0001
91024381|NCT00294723|181932534|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.2 mg and glimepiride was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0 kg, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide was better than glimepiride.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-2.72|||<|0.0001||95.0|-3.52|-1.93||2-sided significance level 5%|ANCOVA|||Change in body weight from baseline to end of treatment at 156 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country, and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline body weight as covariate.||-1.93|-3.52|<0.0001
91032471|NCT02724462|181949603|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.71|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.71|1.14|.001
90832157|NCT03192176|181536171|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.18||0.9214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.07|4.5||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||4.50|-4.07|0.9214
91032472|NCT05327491|181949614|EQUIVALENCE|It was concluded that the test treatment is bioequivalent to the reference treatment if the 90% CI for the ratio of Geometric Least Squares Mean (GLSM) was completely contained within the predefined interval of (0.8000, 1.2500).|Ratio of GLSM|0.962|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.053||||||||1.053|0.880|
91088113|NCT02157519|182059312|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.65||threshold p \<0.05|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for change in perceived social support (MSPSS) from baseline to post-assessment||Analysis comparing the change in symptom interference (MDASI-interference) from baseline to post-assessment between groups adjusting for change in perceived social support (MSPSS) from baseline to post assessment.||0.65|-0.64|0.982
90832158|NCT03192176|181536171|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.14||0.9876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.19|4.26||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||4.26|-4.19|0.9876
90832159|NCT03192176|181536171|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.18||0.2379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.86|1.71||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||1.71|-6.86|0.2379
90832160|NCT03192176|181536171|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.18||0.1491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.45|1.14||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||1.14|-7.45|0.1491
90957052|NCT00706433|181793728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0179||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0179
91088114|NCT02157519|182059313|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.65||0.144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.66|0.83||threshold p \< 0.05|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for change in perceived social support (MSPSS) from baseline to post-assessment||Analysis comparing the change in overall QOL (FACT-G) from baseline to post-assessment between groups adjusting for change in perceived social support (MSPSS) from baseline to post-assessment.||0.83|-5.66|0.144
91088115|NCT02157519|182059313|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.61||threshold p \<0.05|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for change in perceived social support (MSPSS) from baseline to post-assessment||Analysis comparing the change in physical QOL (FACT-Physical Well-Being) from baseline to post-assessment between groups adjusting for change in perceived social support (MSPSS) baseline from baseline to post-assessment.||0.61|-2.00|0.294
91088116|NCT02157519|182059313|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.12|-0.21||threshold p \<0.05|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for change in perceived social support (MSPSS) from baseline to post-assessment||Analysis comparing the change in social QOL (FACT-Social Well-Being) from baseline to post-assessment between groups adjusting for change in perceived social support (MSPSS) from baseline to post-assessment.||-0.21|-3.12|0.025
91024382|NCT00294723|181932534|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg and liraglutide 1.2 mg was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0 kg, it was concluded that the liraglutide 1.8 mg was better than liraglutide 1.2 mg.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.75||||0.0642||95.0|-1.55|0.05||2-sided significance level 5%|ANCOVA|||Change in body weight from baseline to end of treatment at 156 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country, and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline body weight as covariance.||0.05|-1.55|0.0642
91024383|NCT00294723|181932535|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg and glimepiride was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0 mg/dL, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide was better than glimepiride.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-20.28|||<|0.0001||95.0|-29.09|-11.46||2-sided significance level 5%|ANCOVA|||Change in fasting plasma glucose (FPG) from baseline to end of treatment at 52 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline FPG as covariate.||-11.46|-29.09|<.0001
91088117|NCT02157519|182059313|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|1.63||threshold p \<0.05|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for change in perceived social support (MSPSS) from baseline to post-assessment||Analysis comparing the change in emotional QOL (FACT-Emotional Well-Being) from baseline to post-assessment between groups adjusting for change in perceived social support (MSPSS) from baseline to post-assessment.||1.63|-0.64|0.392
90832161|NCT03192176|181536171|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.07||0.956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.96|4.19||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||4.19|-3.96|0.9560
91088118|NCT02157519|182059313|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|0.44||threshold p \<0.05|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for change in perceived social support (MSPSS) from baseline to post-assessment||Analysis comparing the change in functional QOL (FACT-Functional Well-Being) from baseline to post-assessment between groups adjusting for change in perceived social support (MSPSS) from baseline to post-assessment.||0.44|-1.94|0.216
91088119|NCT02157519|182059314|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.17||threshold p \< 0.05|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for change in perceived social support (MSPSS) from baseline to post assessment||Analysis comparing change in treatment satisfaction with clinician explanations (FACIT-TS-PS-Clinician Explanations) from baseline to post-assessment between groups adjusting for change in perceived social support (MSPSS) from baseline to post-assessment.||0.17|-0.93|0.170
91104624|NCT04903093|182095243|OTHER|The ratio and 90% CI were expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means|100.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.28|124.74||||||Test: Abrocitinib 200 mg oral suspension formulation 1; Reference: Abrocitinib 200 mg commercial tablet||124.74|80.28|
91104625|NCT04903093|182095243|OTHER|The ratio and 90% CI were expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means|15.53|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|12.46|19.36||||||Test: Famotidine 40 mg tablet + Abrocitinib 200 mg commercial tablet; Reference: Abrocitinib 200 mg commercial tablet||19.36|12.46|
90832162|NCT03192176|181536172|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.96||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.01|-1.3||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||-1.30|-9.01|0.0089
90894341|NCT02093663|181654358|OTHER||Difference in proportions|24.5||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|50.6||P-value was based on a continuity-corrected chi-squared test. PUCAI Score was compared between treatment arms using a continuity corrected chi-squared test. Expected cell counts are very low (\< 5), then Fisher's Exact Test is alternative method.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||This study is not powered to detect differences between treatment groups and other sensitivity analysis (LOCF and complete case) intended to examine the robustness of the treatment estimate. This was an estimation study, and p-values were presented as descriptive statistics.||50.6|-1.6|0.131
90894342|NCT02093663|181654359|OTHER||Difference in Proportions Percentage|-6.5||||0.539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.3|12.3||P-value is based on a CMH test adjusted by prior response status.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||This study is not powered to detect differences between treatment groups and other sensitivity analysis (LOCF and complete case) intended to examine the robustness of the treatment estimate. This was an estimation study, and p-values were presented as descriptive statistics.||12.3|-25.3|0.539
90894343|NCT02093663|181654360|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-16.2||||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.0|3.6||P-value was based on a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted by prior response status.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||This study is not powered to detect differences between treatment groups and other sensitivity analysis (LOCF and complete case) intended to examine the robustness of the treatment estimate. This was an estimation study, and p-values were presented as descriptive statistics.||3.6|-36.0|0.129
90894344|NCT02093663|181654361|OTHER||Difference in Least squares Mean|3.0||||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|7.4||P-value was based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including treatment arm and with prior response status.|ANCOVA|||This study is not powered to detect differences between treatment groups and other sensitivity analysis (LOCF and complete case) intended to examine the robustness of the treatment estimate. This was an estimation study, and p-values were presented as descriptive statistics.||7.4|-1.4|0.182
90957053|NCT00706433|181793728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0233||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0233
90957054|NCT00706433|181793728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1573||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.1573
90832163|NCT03192176|181536172|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-8.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.97|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.22|-4.48||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||-4.48|-12.22|<0.0001
90832164|NCT03192176|181536172|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-9.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.96|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.06|-5.34||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||-5.34|-13.06|<0.0001
90832165|NCT03192176|181536172|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-10.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.99|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.58|-6.75||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||-6.75|-14.58|<0.0001
90832166|NCT03192176|181536172|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.65|0.2||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||0.20|-7.65|0.0630
90832167|NCT03192176|181536172|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-7.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.97||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.04|-3.3||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||-3.30|-11.04|0.0003
90832168|NCT03192176|181536172|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.96||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.53|-2.84||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||-2.84|-10.53|0.0007
90832169|NCT03192176|181536172|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.98||0.0231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.43|-0.63||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||-0.63|-8.43|0.0231
90832170|NCT03192176|181536172|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.99|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.94|-4.09||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||-4.09|-11.94|<0.0001
90957055|NCT00706433|181793728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2039||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.2039
90957056|NCT00706433|181793728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||1.0
90957057|NCT00706433|181793729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1594||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.1594
90832171|NCT03192176|181536172|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differencce|-8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.99|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.87|-4.05||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||-4.05|-11.87|<0.0001
90832172|NCT03192176|181536172|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-9.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.02|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.21|-5.26||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||-5.26|-13.21|<0.0001
90832173|NCT03192176|181536172|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.02||0.0177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|-0.84||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||-0.84|-8.80|0.0177
90832174|NCT03192176|181536172|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.99||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.45|-2.6||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||-2.60|-10.45|0.0012
90832175|NCT03192176|181536172|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04||0.0072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.26|-2.64||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||-2.64|-9.26|0.0072
90832176|NCT03192176|181536172|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.86|-1.84||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||-1.84|-9.86|0.0044
90832177|NCT03192176|181536172|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-9.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.27|-5.21||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||-5.21|-13.27|<0.0001
91024384|NCT00294723|181932535|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.2 mg and glimepiride was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0 mg/dL, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide was better than glimepiride.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-9.92||||0.027||95.0|-18.7|-1.12||2-sided significance level 5%|ANCOVA|||Change in fasting plasma glucose (FPG) from baseline to end of treatment at 52 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline FPG as covariate.||-1.12|-18.70|0.0270
90957058|NCT00706433|181793730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5838||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.5838
91032473|NCT05327491|181949615|EQUIVALENCE|It was concluded that the test treatment is bioequivalent to the reference treatment if the 90% CI for the ratio of Geometric Least Squares Mean (GLSM) was completely contained within the predefined interval of (0.8000, 1.2500).|Ratio of GLSM|0.968|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.907|1.033||||||||1.033|0.907|
91032474|NCT05327491|181949616|EQUIVALENCE|It was concluded that the test treatment is bioequivalent to the reference treatment if the 90% CI for the ratio of Geometric Least Squares Mean (GLSM) was completely contained within the predefined interval of (0.8000, 1.2500).|Ratio of GLSM|0.967|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.908|1.029||||||||1.029|0.908|
91032475|NCT02589808|181949624|OTHER|||||||0.0005|||||||Kappa|||||||0.0005
91032476|NCT01969747|181949635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean|76.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.77|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.6|93.59|||ANCOVA||The model includes baseline UGE as linear covariate(s) and treatment as fixed effect(s).|Comparison of Empagliflozin 2.5 mg with Placebo||93.59|58.60|<0.0001
91032477|NCT01969747|181949635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean|106.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.85|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|88.73|124.05|||ANCOVA||The model includes baseline UGE as linear covariate(s) and treatment as fixed effect(s).|Comparison of Empagliflozin 10 mg with Placebo||124.05|88.73|<0.0001
91032478|NCT01969747|181949635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean|104.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.99|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.88|122.74|||ANCOVA||The model includes baseline UGE as linear covariate(s) and treatment as fixed effect(s).|Comparison of Empagliflozin 25 mg with Placebo||122.74|86.88|<0.0001
91032479|NCT04000815|181949636|OTHER||||||<|0.017||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.017
91032480|NCT04000815|181949637|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Bi-variate correlation analysis|Bi-variate correlation analyses were performed in groups 1 and 2 between serum CNP and FSH and between serum CNP and LH using Spearman test.||||||<0.05
91032481|NCT04000815|181949638|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Bi-variate correlation|Spearman test was applied.||||||<0.05
91032482|NCT04000815|181949639|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Bi-variate correlation analyses|Bi-variate correlation analyses were performed for all subjects in groups 1 and 2 between serum CNP and E2 using Spearman test.||||||<0.05
91032483|NCT00377260|181949682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The comparison adjusted for site, history of recurrent acute otitis media and exposure to other children.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups regarding the proportion of clinical treatment failures by the on-therapy visit.||||< .001
91032484|NCT00377260|181949683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The comparison adjusted for site, history of recurrent acute otitis media and exposure to other children.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups regarding the proportion of clinical failures by the end of therapy.||||< .001
91032485|NCT00377260|181949684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Generalized estimating equations|The comparison was adjusted for site, history of recurrent acute otitis media and exposure to other children.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups regarding the symptom burden as measured by the respective mean scores over time.||||.02
90894345|NCT02093663|181654362|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-9.0||||0.194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.1|11.0||P-value was based on a CMH test adjusted by prior response status. Participants with remission (PUCAI \<10) at double-blind maintenance phase at Week 26 was compared between treatment arms using a CMH test stratifying by Week 8 responder status.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||This study is not powered to detect differences between treatment groups and other sensitivity analysis (LOCF and complete case) intended to examine the robustness of the treatment estimate. This was an estimation study, and p-values were presented as descriptive statistics.||11.0|-29.1|0.194
90894346|NCT00508404|181654363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|4.45|||||The odds ratio is defined as the odds of having an objective response in the KRAS Wild-type group relative to the odds in the KRAS Mutant group.|||4.45|1.02|
90894347|NCT00508404|181654364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|3.93|||||The odds ratio is defined as the odds of having an objective response in the KRAS Wild-type group relative to the odds in the KRAS Mutant group.|||3.93|0.88|
90894348|NCT00508404|181654365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.89|||||The odds ratio is defined as the odds of having an objective response in the KRAS Wild-type group relative to the odds in the KRAS Mutant group.|||3.89|0.30|
90894349|NCT00508404|181654366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.283|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.614|||||Hazard ratio is presented as Wild-type KRAS:Mutant KRAS. A value \< 1.0 indicates a lower average event rate and longer time to event for Wild-type KRAS relative to Mutant KRAS.|||0.614|0.130|
90894350|NCT00508404|181654367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.642|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|2.721|||||Hazard ratio is presented as Wild-type KRAS:Mutant KRAS. A value \< 1.0 indicates a lower average event rate and longer time to event for Wild-type KRAS relative to Mutant KRAS.|||2.721|0.990|
91024385|NCT00294723|181932535|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg and liraglutide 1.2 mg was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0 mg/dL, it was concluded that liraglutide 1.8 mg was better than liraglutide 1.2 mg.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-10.36||||0.0223||95.0|-19.24|-1.48||2-sided significance level 5%|ANCOVA|||Change in fasting plasma glucose (FPG) from baseline to end of treatment at 52 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline FPG as covariate.||-1.48|-19.24|0.0223
91088120|NCT02157519|182059314|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.01||threshold p \< 0.05|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for change in perceived social support (MSPSS) from baseline to post assessment||Analysis comparing change in satisfaction with interpersonal treatment (FACIT-TS-PS Interpersonal Treatment) from baseline to post-assessment between groups adjusting for change in perceived social support (MSPSS) from baseline to post-assessment.||0.01|-0.72|0.057
91104626|NCT03657407|182095263|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.65||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|2.0|||t-test, 1 sided|||Null hypothesis that Belladonna \& Opium not superior to Placebo||2.0|-0.71|0.17
90832178|NCT03192176|181536172|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-8.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.57|-4.55||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||-4.55|-12.57|<0.0001
90832179|NCT03192176|181536172|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-10.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.29|-6.11||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||-6.11|-14.29|<0.0001
90832180|NCT03192176|181536172|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.08||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.04|-2.87||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||-2.87|-11.04|0.0009
90894351|NCT00508404|181654368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.464|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.306|0.703|||||Hazard ratio presented as Wild-type KRAS:Mutant KRAS. A value \< 1.0 indicates a lower average event rate and longer time to event for Wild-type KRAS relative to Mutant KRAS.|||0.703|0.306|
90894352|NCT00508404|181654369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.395|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.252|0.618|||||Hazard ratio is presented as Wild-type KRAS:Mutant KRAS. A value \< 1.0 indicates a lower average event rate and longer time to event for Wild-type KRAS relative to Mutant KRAS.|||0.618|0.252|
90894353|NCT00508404|181654370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.756|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.43|||||Hazard ratio is presented as Wild-type KRAS:Mutant KRAS. A value \< 1.0 indicates a lower average event rate and longer time to event for Wild-type KRAS relative to Mutant KRAS.|||1.430|0.400|
90894354|NCT00508404|181654371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.503|1.002|||||Hazard ratio is presented as Wild-type KRAS:Mutant KRAS. A value \< 1.0 indicates a lower average event rate and longer time to event for Wild-type KRAS relative to Mutant KRAS.|||1.002|0.503|
90894355|NCT00508404|181654373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in rates|8.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.01|19.08||||||||19.08|-4.01|
90905088|NCT02886728|181677438|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|-2.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-2.0|-5.0|<0.001
90905089|NCT02886728|181677438|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|-2.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-2.0|-5.0|<0.001
90832181|NCT03192176|181536172|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-8.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.44|-4.39||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||-4.39|-12.44|<0.0001
91024386|NCT00294723|181932536|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg and glimepiride was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0 mg/dL, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide was better than glimepiride.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-17.79||||0.0003||95.0|-27.48|-8.09||2-sided significance level 5%|ANCOVA|||Change in fasting plasma glucose (FPG) from baseline to end of treatment at 104 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline FPG as covariate.||-8.09|-27.48|0.0003
91024387|NCT00294723|181932536|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.2 mg and glimepiride was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0 mg/dL, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide was better than glimepiride.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-11.33||||0.0217||95.0|-20.99|-1.66||2-sided significance level 5%|ANCOVA|||Change in fasting plasma glucose (FPG) from baseline to end of treatment at 104 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline FPG as covariate.||-1.66|-20.99|0.0217
91024388|NCT00294723|181932536|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg and liraglutide 1.2 mg was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0 mg/dL, it was concluded that liraglutide 1.8 mg was better than liraglutide 1.2 mg|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-6.46||||0.1942||95.0|-16.23|3.3||2-sided significance level 5%|ANCOVA|||Change in fasting plasma glucose (FPG) from baseline to end of treatment at 104 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline FPG as covariate.||3.30|-16.23|0.1942
91024389|NCT00294723|181932537|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg and glimepiride was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0 mg/dL, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide was better than glimepiride.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-16.63||||0.0007||95.0|-26.19|-7.06||2-sided significance level 5%|ANCOVA|||Change in fasting plasma glucose (FPG) from baseline to end of treatment at 156 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline FPG as covariate.||-7.06|-26.19|0.0007
91024390|NCT00294723|181932537|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.2 mg and glimepiride was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0 mg/dL, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide was better than glimepiride.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-10.02||||0.0395||95.0|-19.56|-0.49||2-sided significance level 5%|ANCOVA|||Change in fasting plasma glucose (FPG) from baseline to end of treatment at 156 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline FPG as covariate.||-0.49|-19.56|0.0395
91024391|NCT00294723|181932537|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg and liraglutide 1.2 mg was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0 mg/dL, it was concluded that liraglutide 1.8 mg was better than liraglutide 1.2 mg.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-6.6||||0.1789||95.0|-16.24|3.03||2-sided significance level 5%|ANCOVA|||Change in fasting plasma glucose (FPG) from baseline to end of treatment at 156 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline FPG as covariate.||3.03|-16.24|0.1789
91024392|NCT00294723|181932538|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg and glimepiride was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0 mg/dL, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide was better than glimepiride.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-12.9||||0.0038||95.0|-21.6|-4.2||2-sided significance level 5%|ANCOVA|||Change in mean postprandial glucose (PPG) from baseline to end of treatment at 52 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline PPG as covariate.||-4.2|-21.6|0.0038
91024393|NCT00294723|181932538|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.2 mg and glimepiride was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0 mg/dL, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide was better than glimepiride.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-6.3||||0.1616||95.0|-15.0|2.5||2-sided significance level 5%|ANCOVA|||Change in postprandial glucose (PPG) from baseline to end of treatment at 52 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline PPG as covariate.||2.5|-15.0|0.1616
91024394|NCT00294723|181932538|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg and liraglutide 1.2 mg was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0 mg/dL, it was concluded that liraglutide 1.8 mg was better than liraglutide 1.2 mg.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-6.6||||0.1319||95.0|-15.3|2.0||2-sided significance level 5%|ANCOVA|||Change in postprandial glucose (PPG) from baseline to end of treatment at 52 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline PPG as covariate.||2.0|-15.3|0.1319
91088121|NCT02157519|182059314|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.39|0.45||threshold p \< 0.05|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for change in perceived social support (MSPSS) from baseline to post-assessment||Analysis comparing change in treatment satisfaction with comprehensive care (FACIT-TS-PS Comprehensive Care) from baseline to post-assessment between groups adjusting for change in perceived social support (MSPSS) from baseline to post-assessment.||0.45|-2.39|0.178
91088122|NCT02157519|182059314|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.75||threshold p \< 0.05|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for change in perceived social support (MSPSS) from baseline to post-assessment||Analysis comparing change in treatment satisfaction with nursing care (FACIT-TS-PS Nursing Care) from baseline to post-assessment between groups adjusting for change in perceived social support (MSPSS) from baseline to post-assessment.||0.75|-0.35|0.481
90832182|NCT03192176|181536172|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.65|-2.64||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||-2.64|-10.65|0.0012
90832183|NCT03192176|181536172|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.72|-1.71||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||-1.71|-9.72|0.0053
90832184|NCT03192176|181536172|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-8.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.77|-4.73||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||-4.73|-12.77|<0.0001
90832185|NCT03192176|181536172|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-7.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.84|-3.84||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||-3.84|-11.84|0.0001
90832186|NCT03192176|181536172|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-10.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.12|-5.96||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||-5.96|-14.12|<0.0001
90832187|NCT03192176|181536172|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.07||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.92|-2.78||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||-2.78|-10.92|0.0010
90832188|NCT03192176|181536172|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-8.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.49|-4.46||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||-4.46|-12.49|<0.0001
90832189|NCT03192176|181536172|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.03||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.12|-3.13||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||-3.13|-11.12|0.0005
90894356|NCT01197508|181654379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|2.79||The adjusted p-value protects the overall family-wise error rate by taking into account the multiple comparisons between the TC-5214 doses for both the primary efficacy variable (MADRS) and the key secondary efficacy variable (SDS).|MMRM|||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||2.79|-0.53|1.000
91024395|NCT00294723|181932539|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg and glimepiride was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0 mg/dL, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide was better than glimepiride.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-12.3||||0.0105||95.0|-21.71|-2.89||2-sided significance level 5%|ANCOVA|||Change in postprandial glucose (PPG) from baseline to end of treatment at 104 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline PPG as covariate.||-2.89|-21.71|0.0105
91024396|NCT00294723|181932539|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.2 mg and glimepiride was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0 mg/dL, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide was better than glimepiride.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-2.49||||0.606||95.0|-11.95|6.98||2-sided significance level 5%|ANCOVA|||Change in postprandial glucose (PPG) from baseline to end of treatment at 104 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline PPG as covariate.||6.98|-11.95|0.6060
91024397|NCT00294723|181932539|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg and liraglutide 1.2 mg was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0 mg/dL, it was concluded that liraglutide 1.8 mg was better than liraglutide 1.2 mg.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-9.81||||0.0392||95.0|-19.14|-0.49||2-sided significance level 5%|ANCOVA|||Change in postprandial glucose (PPG) from baseline to end of treatment at 104 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline PPG as covariate.||-0.49|-19.14|0.0392
91024398|NCT00294723|181932540|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg and glimepiride was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0 mg/dL, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide was better than glimepiride.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-10.98||||0.0227||95.0|-20.42|-1.54||2-sided significance level 5%|ANCOVA|||Change in postprandial glucose (PPG) from baseline to end of treatment at 156 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline PPG as covariate.||-1.54|-20.42|0.0227
91088123|NCT02157519|182059314|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.35||threshold p \< 0.05|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for change in perceived social support (MSPSS) from baseline to post-assessment||Analysis comparing change in treatment satisfaction with trust in clinicians (FACIT-TS-PS Trust in Clinicians) from baseline to post-assessment between groups adjusting for change in perceived social support (MSPSS) from baseline to post-assessment.||0.35|-0.34|0.970
90832190|NCT03192176|181536172|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.15|-1.58||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||-1.58|-9.15|0.0057
90832191|NCT03192176|181536172|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-8.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.15|-4.56||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||-4.56|-12.15|<0.0001
90832192|NCT03192176|181536172|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-7.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.68|-4.08||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||-4.08|-11.68|<0.0001
90832193|NCT03192176|181536172|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-9.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.96|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.66|-5.93||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||-5.93|-13.66|<0.0001
90832194|NCT03192176|181536172|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.95||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.54|-2.85||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||-2.85|-10.54|0.0007
90832195|NCT03192176|181536172|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-7.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.55|-3.95||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||-3.95|-11.55|<0.0001
90832196|NCT03192176|181536172|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.92||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.16|-2.6||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||-2.60|-10.16|0.0010
90832197|NCT03192176|181536172|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.99|-1.48||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||-1.48|-8.99|0.0064
90832198|NCT03192176|181536172|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-7.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.94|-3.42||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||-3.42|-10.94|0.0002
90832199|NCT03192176|181536172|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-7.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.92||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.29|-3.75||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||-3.75|-11.29|0.0001
90894357|NCT01197508|181654379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|2.13|||MMRM|||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||2.13|-1.22|1.000
91024399|NCT00294723|181932540|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.2 mg and glimepiride was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0 mg/dL, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide was better than glimepiride.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-1.83||||0.7047||95.0|-11.33|7.66||2-sided significance level 5%|ANCOVA|||Change in postprandial glucose (PPG) from baseline to end of treatment at 156 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline PPG as covariate.||7.66|-11.33|0.7047
91024400|NCT00294723|181932540|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg and liraglutide 1.2 mg was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0 mg/dL, it was concluded that liraglutide 1.8 mg was better than liraglutide 1.2 mg.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-9.15||||0.0553||95.0|-18.51|0.21||2-sided significance level 5%|ANCOVA|||Change in postprandial glucose (PPG) from baseline to end of treatment at 156 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline PPG as covariate.||0.21|-18.51|0.0553
91104627|NCT03657407|182095264|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.02||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|9.5|||t-test, 1 sided|||Null hypothesis that Belladonna \& Opium not superior to Placebo||9.5|-5.4|0.29
90832200|NCT03192176|181536172|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-8.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.95|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.69|-5.03||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||-5.03|-12.69|<0.0001
90832201|NCT03192176|181536172|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.94||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.62|-1.99||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||-1.99|-9.62|0.0030
90957059|NCT00706433|181793731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0064||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0064
90832202|NCT03192176|181536172|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.92||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.92|-3.37||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||-3.37|-10.92|0.0002
91088124|NCT02157519|182059315|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.1||threshold p \< 0.05|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for change in perceived social support (MSPSS) from baseline to post-assessment||Analysis comparing the number of emergency department (ED) visits over the study period between groups adjusting for change in perceived social support (MSPSS) from baseline to post-assessment.||0.10|-0.15|0.682
91088125|NCT02157519|182059316|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.15||threshold p \< 0.05|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for change in perceived social support (MSPSS) from baseline to post-assessment||Analysis comparing the number of hospitalizations over they study period between groups adjusting for change in perceived social support (MSPSS) from baseline to post-assessment||0.15|-0.24|0.640
91088126|NCT01656395|182059317|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.022||||0.685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.084|0.127|||cLDA model|||Difference in least squares (LS) means for average change from Baseline over Week 6 to Week 12 in FEV1: MK-1029 10 mg vs. Placebo. Constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model includes terms for visit as categorical variable, prior inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) use (Yes/No) and treatment by visit. Positive differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||0.127|-0.084|0.685
91088127|NCT01656395|182059317|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.149|0.07|||cLDA model|||Difference in LS means for average change from Baseline over Week 6 to Week 12 in FEV1: MK-1029 30 mg vs. Placebo. cLDA model includes terms for visit as categorical variable, prior ICS use (Yes/No) and treatment by visit. Positive differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||0.07|-0.149|0.477
91088128|NCT01656395|182059317|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.019||||0.733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.092|0.13|||cLDA model|||Difference in LS means for average change from Baseline over Week 6 to Week 12 in FEV1: MK-1029 60 mg vs. Placebo. cLDA model includes terms for visit as categorical variable, prior ICS use (Yes/No) and treatment by visit. Positive differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||0.13|-0.092|0.733
91088129|NCT01656395|182059317|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.008||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.115|0.1|||cLDA model|||Difference in LS means for average change from Baseline over Week 6 to Week 12 in FEV1: MK-1029 150 mg vs. Placebo. cLDA model includes terms for visit as categorical variable, prior ICS use (Yes/No) and treatment by visit. Positive differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||0.1|-0.115|0.89
91088130|NCT01656395|182059317|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.004||||0.935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.109|0.1|||cLDA model|||Difference in LS means for average change from Baseline over Week 6 to Week 12 in FEV1: Montelukast vs. Placebo. cLDA model includes terms for visit as categorical variable, prior ICS use (Yes/No) and treatment by visit. Positive differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||0.1|-0.109|0.935
91088131|NCT01656395|182059320|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.2||||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.48|3.08|||ANOVA|||Difference in LS means for percent of asthma exacerbation day over Week 6 through Week 12: MK- 1029 10 mg vs. Placebo. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model includes the terms for treatment groups and prior ICS use (Yes/No). Negative differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||3.08|-17.48|0.169
90832203|NCT03192176|181536172|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.91|-2.42||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||-2.42|-9.91|0.0013
91088132|NCT01656395|182059320|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.092||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.67|1.485|||ANOVA|||Difference in LS means for percent of asthma exacerbation day over Week 6 through Week 12: MK- 1029 30 mg vs. Placebo. ANOVA model includes the terms for treatment groups and prior ICS use (Yes/No). Negative differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||1.485|-19.67|0.092
91088133|NCT01656395|182059320|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.469||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.19|1.25|||ANOVA|||Difference in LS means for percent of asthma exacerbation day over Week 6 through Week 12: MK- 1029 60 mg vs. Placebo. ANOVA model includes the terms for treatment groups and prior ICS use (Yes/No). Negative differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||1.25|-20.19|0.083
91088134|NCT01656395|182059320|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.666||||0.367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.83|5.501|||ANOVA|||Difference in LS means for percent of asthma exacerbation day over Week 6 through Week 12: MK- 1029 150 mg vs. Placebo. ANOVA model includes the terms for treatment groups and prior ICS use (Yes/No). Negative differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||5.501|-14.83|0.367
91088135|NCT01656395|182059320|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.247||||0.308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.36|4.871|||ANOVA|||Difference in LS means for percent of asthma exacerbation day over Week 6 through Week 12: Montelukast vs. Placebo. ANOVA model includes the terms for treatment groups and prior ICS use (Yes/No). Negative differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||4.871|-15.36|0.308
91088136|NCT01656395|182059321|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.122||||0.429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.427|0.182|||cLDA model|||Difference in LS means for average change from Baseline to Week 12 in DSS: MK-1029 10 mg vs. Placebo. cLDA model includes terms for visit as categorical variable, prior ICS use (Yes/No) and treatment by visit. Negative differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||0.182|-0.427|0.429
91088137|NCT01656395|182059321|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.142||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.169|0.454|||cLDA model|||Difference in LS means for average change from Baseline to Week 12 in DSS: MK-1029 30 mg vs. Placebo. cLDA model includes terms for visit as categorical variable, prior ICS use (Yes/No) and treatment by visit. Negative differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||0.454|-0.169|0.370
90832204|NCT03192176|181536172|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.94||0.0137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.61|-0.99||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||-0.99|-8.61|0.0137
90832205|NCT03192176|181536172|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-7.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.94||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.24|-3.6||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||-3.60|-11.24|0.0002
90832206|NCT03192176|181536172|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.95||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.79|-3.13||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||-3.13|-10.79|0.0004
90832207|NCT03192176|181536172|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-8.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.98|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.74|-4.97||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||-4.97|-12.74|<0.0001
90894358|NCT01197508|181654379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|2.22|||MMRM|||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||2.22|-1.21|1.000
90894359|NCT01197508|181654380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.12|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||1.12|0.45|0.144
90957060|NCT00706433|181793731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0939||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0939
91032486|NCT00377260|181949685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The comparison was adjusted for site, history of recurrent acute otitis media and exposure to other children.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups regarding the proportion of children who develop worsening symptoms within the first 3 days of treatment.||||.24
90832208|NCT03192176|181536172|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.97||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.82|-2.07||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||-2.07|-9.82|0.0028
90832209|NCT03192176|181536172|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.95||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|-2.94||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||-2.94|-10.60|0.0006
90832210|NCT03192176|181536172|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.82|-2.21||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||-2.21|-9.82|0.0020
90894360|NCT01197508|181654380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.17|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||1.17|0.47|0.203
90894361|NCT01197508|181654380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.82|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||0.82|0.32|0.005
90957061|NCT00706433|181793731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3173||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.3173
90957062|NCT00706433|181793731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2207||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.2207
91104628|NCT03657407|182095265|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-19.31||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.1|4.5|||t-test, 1 sided|||Null hypothesis that Belladonna \& Opium not superior to Placebo||4.5|-43.1|0.05
90832211|NCT03192176|181536172|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93||0.0588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.46|0.14||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||0.14|-7.46|0.0588
90832212|NCT03192176|181536172|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|0.14||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||0.14|-9.90|0.0018
90832213|NCT03192176|181536172|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.94||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.98|-2.34||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||-2.34|-9.98|0.0017
90832214|NCT03192176|181536172|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-7.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.97||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.09|-3.32||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||-3.32|-11.09|0.0003
90832215|NCT03192176|181536172|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.97||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.55|-0.81||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||-0.81|-8.55|0.0810
90832216|NCT03192176|181536172|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.94||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.88|-2.23||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||-2.23|-9.88|0.0020
90832217|NCT03192176|181536172|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93||0.0076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.98|-1.39||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||-1.39|-8.98|0.0076
90832218|NCT03192176|181536172|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.85||0.0182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.01|-0.75||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||-0.75|-8.01|0.0182
90832219|NCT03192176|181536172|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.84||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.42|-2.16||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||-2.16|-9.42|0.0019
90832220|NCT03192176|181536172|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.02|-2.71||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||-2.71|-10.02|0.0007
90832221|NCT03192176|181536172|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.88||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.76|-3.35||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||-3.35|-10.76|0.0002
90832222|NCT03192176|181536172|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.88||0.0263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.89|-0.5||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||-0.50|-7.89|0.0263
90894362|NCT01197508|181654381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.45|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||1.45|0.54|0.636
91024401|NCT00294723|181932541|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the treatment difference \[liraglutide - glimepiride\] was estimated. Liraglutide was shown to be non-inferior to glimepiride if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference was below 0.4% and superior if the complete CI was below 0%.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.55|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.77|-0.34||The statistical analysis of the primary endpoint was done in a hierarchal manner due to multiple comparisons. No other adjustments were made for multiplicity. 2-sided significance level was 5%.|ANCOVA|||Change in glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c) from baseline to end of treatment at 156 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country, and previous oral antidiabetic drug (OAD) treatment as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate.||-0.34|-0.77|<0.0001
91024402|NCT00294723|181932541|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the treatment difference \[liraglutide - glimepiride\] was estimated. Liraglutide was shown to be non-inferior to glimepiride if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference was below 0.4% and superior if the complete CI was below 0%. Superiority of 1.2 mg liraglutide was only tested if 1.2 mg liraglutide was non-inferior to glimepiride and 1.8 mg liraglutide was superior to glimepiride.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.28||||0.0122||95.0|-0.49|-0.06||The statistical analysis of the primary endpoint was done in a hierarchal manner due to multiple comparisons. No other adjustments were made for multiplicity. 2-sided significance level was 5%.|ANCOVA|||Change in glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c) from baseline to end of treatment at 156 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country, and previous oral antidiabetic drug (OAD) treatment as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate.||-0.06|-0.49|0.0122
91024403|NCT00294723|181932541|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A test for superiority of liraglutide 1.8 mg to liraglutide 1.2 mg was performed to compare the two doses. Superiority of liraglutide 1.8 mg was concluded if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference (liraglutide 1.8 mg - liraglutide 1.2 mg) was below 0%.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.28||||0.0123||95.0|-0.49|-0.06||2-sided significance level 5%|ANCOVA|||Change in glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c) from baseline to end of treatment at 156 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country, and previous oral antidiabetic drug (OAD) treatment as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate.||-0.06|-0.49|0.0123
91088138|NCT01656395|182059321|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.089||||0.579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.402|0.225|||cLDA model|||Difference in LS means for average change from Baseline to Week 12 in DSS: MK-1029 60 mg vs. Placebo. cLDA model includes terms for visit as categorical variable, prior ICS use (Yes/No) and treatment by visit. Negative differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK- 1029 or Montelukast).||0.225|-0.402|0.579
90894363|NCT01197508|181654381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.2|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||1.20|0.44|0.215
90894364|NCT01197508|181654381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.96|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||0.96|0.35|0.034
90894365|NCT01197508|181654382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.99|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||1.99|0.36|0.711
90894366|NCT01197508|181654382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.85|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||1.85|0.34|0.594
90894367|NCT01197508|181654382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.65|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||2.65|0.50|0.749
90894368|NCT01197508|181654383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.96|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||0.96|0.28|0.037
91024404|NCT00294723|181932542|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg and glimepiride was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0 mg/dL, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide was better than glimepiride.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-4.0||||0.1396||95.0|-9.4|1.3||2-sided significance level 5%|ANCOVA|||Change in mean prandial increments of plasma glucose from baseline to end of treatment at 52 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||1.3|-9.4|0.1396
91024405|NCT00294723|181932542|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.2 mg and glimepiride was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0 mg/dL, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide was better than glimepiride.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-2.9||||0.2968||95.0|-8.3|2.5||2-sided significance level 5%|ANCOVA|||Change in mean prandial increments of plasma glucose from baseline to end of treatment at 52 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||2.5|-8.3|0.2968
91024406|NCT00294723|181932542|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg and liraglutide 1.2 mg was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0 mg/dL, it was concluded that liraglutide 1.8 mg was better than liraglutide 1.2 mg.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-1.2||||0.6639||95.0|-6.5|4.1||2-sided significance level 5%|ANCOVA|||Change in postprandial (PPG) from baseline to end of treatment at 52 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||4.1|-6.5|0.6639
91024407|NCT00294723|181932543|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg and glimepiride was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0 mg/dL, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide was better than glimepiride.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-3.81||||0.172||95.0|-9.28|1.66||2-sided significance level 5%|ANCOVA|||Change in prandial increments of plasma glucose from baseline to end of treatment at 104 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||1.66|-9.28|0.1720
91032487|NCT00377260|181949686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35||95.0||||A weighted regression model was used with weights equal to the number of days information regarding analgesic use was reported by the parents.|Regression, Linear|The comparison was adjusted for site, history of recurrent acute otitis media and exposure to other children.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups regarding the average number of doses of analgesic medication administered by parents.||||.35
90894369|NCT01197508|181654383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.25|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||1.25|0.38|0.222
90894370|NCT01197508|181654383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.98|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||0.98|0.28|0.042
90894371|NCT01197508|181654384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|2.27|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||2.27|0.48|0.913
90894372|NCT01197508|181654384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|2.01|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||2.01|0.42|0.841
90957063|NCT00706433|181793731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0183||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0183
91088139|NCT01656395|182059321|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.156||||0.305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.142|0.454|||cLDA model|||Difference in LS means for average change from Baseline to Week 12 in DSS: MK-1029 150 mg vs. Placebo. cLDA model includes terms for visit as categorical variable, prior ICS use (Yes/No) and treatment by visit. Negative differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||0.454|-0.142|0.305
90832223|NCT03192176|181536172|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.61|-2.29||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||-2.29|-9.61|0.0015
90832224|NCT03192176|181536172|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.84||0.0113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.32|-1.07||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||-1.07|-8.32|0.0113
90832225|NCT03192176|181536172|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.04|-1.54||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||-1.54|-9.04|0.0059
90832226|NCT03192176|181536172|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.76|-2.25||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||-2.25|-9.76|0.0018
90832227|NCT03192176|181536172|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.62|-3.05||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||-3.05|-10.62|0.0004
90832228|NCT03192176|181536172|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.95||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.39|-3.73||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||-3.73|-11.39|0.0001
90832229|NCT03192176|181536172|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.94||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|-1.75||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Wek 10||-1.75|-9.40|0.0044
90832230|NCT03192176|181536172|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.92||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|-2.84||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||-2.84|-10.40|0.0006
90832231|NCT03192176|181536172|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.57|-2.07||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||-2.07|-9.57|0.0025
90832232|NCT03192176|181536172|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.81|-1.49||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||-1.49|-8.81|0.0059
91024408|NCT00294723|181932543|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.2 mg and glimepiride was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0 mg/dL, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide was better than glimepiride.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.33||||0.906||95.0|-5.82|5.16||2-sided significance level 5%|ANCOVA|||Change in prandial increments of plasma glucose from baseline to end of treatment at 104 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||5.16|-5.82|0.9060
91032488|NCT00377260|181949687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The comparison was adjusted for site, history of recurrent acute otitis media and exposure to other children.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two treatment groups regarding the proportion of children with protocol-defined diarrhea.||||.04
90894373|NCT01197508|181654384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.39|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||1.39|0.26|0.239
90894374|NCT01197508|181654385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.705||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.288|2.481|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with randomization HAMD-17 total score as covariate, treatment as a fixed effect and pooled center as a random effect.||2.481|-0.288|0.120
90957064|NCT00706433|181793731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0254||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0254
91032489|NCT00377260|181949687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The comparison was adjusted for site, history of recurrent acute otitis media and exposure to other children.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two treatment groups regarding the proportion of children with diaper dermatitis.||||<.01
91032490|NCT00377260|181949687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The comparison was adjusted for site, history of recurrent acute otitis media and exposure to other children.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two treatment groups regarding the proportion of children with oral thrush.||||.07
91032491|NCT00377260|181949687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The comparison was adjusted for site, history of recurrent acute otitis media and exposure to other children.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two treatment groups regarding the proportion of children with vomiting.||||>.99
90832233|NCT03192176|181536172|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.06|-2.74||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||-2.74|-10.06|0.0007
90832234|NCT03192176|181536172|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-7.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.88|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.18|-3.79||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||-3.79|-11.18|<0.0001
90832235|NCT03192176|181536172|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-7.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.18|-3.72||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||-3.72|-11.18|0.0001
90894375|NCT01197508|181654385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.715||0.184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.452|2.354|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with randomization HAMD-17 total score as covariate, treatment as a fixed effect and pooled center as a random effect.||2.354|-0.452|0.184
90957065|NCT00706433|181793731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||1.0
90832236|NCT03192176|181536172|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.89||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.56|-2.11||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||-2.11|-9.56|0.0022
91088140|NCT01656395|182059321|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.136||||0.372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.434|0.163|||cLDA model|||Difference in LS means for average change from Baseline to Week 12 in DSS: Montelukast vs. Placebo. cLDA model includes terms for visit as categorical variable, prior ICS use (Yes/No) and treatment by visit. Negative differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||0.163|-0.434|0.372
91088141|NCT01656395|182059322|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.528||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.184|0.128|||cLDA model|||Difference in LS means for average change from Baseline over Week 6 to Week 12 in SABA use: MK-1029 10 mg vs. Placebo. cLDA model includes terms for visit as categorical variable, prior ICS use(Yes/No) and treatment by visit. Negative differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||0.128|-1.184|0.114
90832237|NCT03192176|181536172|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.87||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.56|-3.19||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||-3.19|-10.56|0.0003
90832238|NCT03192176|181536172|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.44|-2.13||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||-2.13|-9.44|0.0020
90832239|NCT03192176|181536172|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.82||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.18|-2.01||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||-2.01|-9.18|0.0023
90832240|NCT03192176|181536172|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.82||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.06|-2.89||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||-2.89|-10.06|0.0004
90832241|NCT03192176|181536172|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-7.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.84|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.05|-3.81||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||-3.81|-11.05|<0.0001
91088142|NCT01656395|182059322|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.075||||0.827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.6|||cLDA model|||Difference in LS means for average change from Baseline over Week 6 to Week 12 in SABA use: MK-1029 30 mg vs. Placebo. cLDA model includes terms for visit as categorical variable, prior ICS use (Yes/No) and treatment by visit. Negative differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||0.6|-0.75|0.827
90832242|NCT03192176|181536172|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-8.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|-4.49||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||-4.49|-11.80|<0.0001
90832243|NCT03192176|181536172|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.85||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.77|-2.47||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||-2.47|-9.77|0.0011
90832244|NCT03192176|181536172|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.83||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.54|-3.32||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||-3.32|-10.54|0.0002
91088143|NCT01656395|182059322|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.789|0.569|||cLDA model|||Difference in LS means for average change from Baseline over Week 6 to Week 12 in SABA use: MK-1029 60 mg vs. Placebo. cLDA model includes terms for visit as categorical variable, prior ICS use (Yes/No) and treatment by visit. Negative differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||0.569|-0.789|0.75
90832245|NCT03192176|181536172|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.82||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.71|-2.56||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||-2.56|-9.71|0.0008
90832246|NCT03192176|181536172|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.15||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.26|-1.8||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||-1.80|-10.26|0.0054
90832247|NCT03192176|181536172|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.15||0.1145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.63|0.83||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMMRM|||Week 13||0.83|-7.63|0.1145
91088144|NCT01656395|182059322|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.275||||0.403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.371|0.921|||cLDA model|||Difference in LS means for average change from Baseline over Week 6 to Week 12 in SABA use: MK-1029 150 mg vs. Placebo. cLDA model includes terms for visit as categorical variable, prior ICS use (Yes/No) and treatment by visit. Negative differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||0.921|-0.371|0.403
91088145|NCT01656395|182059322|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.389||||0.237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.035|0.257|||cLDA model|||Difference in LS means for average change from Baseline over Week 6 to Week 12 in SABA use: Montelukast vs. Placebo. cLDA model includes terms for visit as categorical variable, prior ICS use (Yes/No) and treatment by visit. Negative differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||0.257|-1.035|0.237
90832248|NCT03192176|181536172|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.21||0.2106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.13|1.58||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||1.58|-7.13|0.2106
90832249|NCT03192176|181536172|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.21||0.0685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.39|0.31||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|LSMean difference|||Week 13||0.31|-8.39|0.0685
90832250|NCT03192176|181536172|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.22||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.02|-2.29||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||-2.29|-11.02|0.0029
90832251|NCT03192176|181536172|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.22||0.0239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.42|-0.67||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||-0.67|-9.42|0.0239
90832252|NCT03192176|181536172|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.15||0.2224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.86|1.6||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||1.60|-6.86|0.2224
90832253|NCT03192176|181536172|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differencce|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.22||0.0308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.17|-0.45||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||-0.45|-9.17|0.0308
90832254|NCT03192176|181536172|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.21||0.4194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.13|2.56||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||2.56|-6.13|0.4194
90832255|NCT03192176|181536172|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.29||0.3759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.55|2.48||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||2.48|-6.55|0.3759
90832256|NCT03192176|181536172|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differencce|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.29||0.2285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.26|1.74||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||1.74|-7.26|0.2285
90832257|NCT03192176|181536172|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.29||0.0072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.71|-1.7||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||-1.70|-10.71|0.0072
90832258|NCT03192176|181536172|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.31||0.0338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.46|-0.38||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||-0.38|-9.46|0.0338
90894376|NCT01197508|181654385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|2.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.711||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.692|3.484|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with randomization HAMD-17 total score as covariate, treatment as a fixed effect and pooled center as a random effect.||3.484|0.692|0.003
90894377|NCT01197508|181654386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.131||95.0|-0.05|0.42|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization CGI-S total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.42|-0.05|0.131
90894378|NCT01197508|181654386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.31|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization CGI-S total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.31|-0.17|0.551
90832259|NCT03192176|181536172|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.21||0.3026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.64|2.07||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||2.07|-6.64|0.3026
90894379|NCT01197508|181654386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.3|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization CGI-S total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.30|-0.19|0.645
90894380|NCT01197508|181654387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.99|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization Clinical Global Impression Severity (CGI-S) as a covariate.||0.99|0.38|0.046
90957066|NCT00706433|181793732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4753||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.4753
90894381|NCT01197508|181654387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.0|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization Clinical Global Impression Severity (CGI-S) as a covariate.||1.00|0.38|0.051
90894382|NCT01197508|181654387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.98|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization Clinical Global Impression Severity (CGI-S) as a covariate.||0.98|0.37|0.040
90894383|NCT01197508|181654388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|2.03|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with randomization HAM-A total score as covariate, treatment as a fixed effect and pooled center as a random effect.||2.03|-0.58|0.273
90894384|NCT01197508|181654388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67||0.315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|2.0|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with randomization HAM-A total score as covariate, treatment as a fixed effect and pooled center as a random effect.||2.00|-0.65|0.315
90894385|NCT01197508|181654388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|2.51|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with randomization HAM-A total score as covariate, treatment as a fixed effect and pooled center as a random effect.||2.51|-0.13|0.078
90894386|NCT01197508|181654389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|1.19|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||1.19|-0.68|0.590
90894387|NCT01197508|181654389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|1.14|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||1.14|-0.74|0.679
90894388|NCT01197508|181654389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|1.53|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||1.53|-0.35|0.215
90894389|NCT01197508|181654390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|2.38|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||2.38|-0.01|0.052
90957067|NCT00706433|181793733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1728||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.1728
91088146|NCT01656395|182059323|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.241||||0.565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.066|0.583|||cLDA model|||Difference in LS means for average change from Baseline over Week 6 to Week 12 in nocturnal awakenings: MK-1029 10 mg vs. Placebo. cLDA model includes terms for visit as categorical variable, prior ICS use (Yes/No) and treatment by visit. Negative differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||0.583|-1.066|0.565
91088147|NCT01656395|182059323|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.135||||0.754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.713|0.983|||cLDA model|||Difference in LS means for average change from Baseline over Week 6 to Week 12 in nocturnal awakenings: MK-1029 30 mg vs. Placebo. cLDA model includes terms for visit as categorical variable, prior ICS use (Yes/No) and treatment by visit. Negative differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||0.983|-0.713|0.754
90894390|NCT01197508|181654390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|1.3|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||1.30|-1.11|0.874
90894391|NCT01197508|181654390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|2.24|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||2.24|-0.19|0.099
90894392|NCT01197508|181654391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|1.95|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||1.95|-0.77|0.394
90894393|NCT01197508|181654391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|1.63|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||1.63|-1.11|0.712
90894394|NCT01197508|181654391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|2.38|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||2.38|-0.41|0.167
90957068|NCT00706433|181793734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0002
91104629|NCT03657407|182095266|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.85||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.7|||t-test, 1 sided|||Null hypothesis that Belladonna \& Opium not superior to Placebo||1.7|0.42|0.42
90832260|NCT03192176|181536172|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.16||0.312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.45|2.07||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||2.07|-6.45|0.3120
90894395|NCT01197508|181654392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|2.95|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects the model; pooled center is a random effect.||2.95|0.02|0.046
91024409|NCT00294723|181932543|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg and liraglutide 1.2 mg was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0 mg/dL, it was concluded that liraglutide 1.8 mg was better than liraglutide 1.2 mg.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-3.48||||0.2089||95.0|-8.91|1.95||2-sided significance level 5%|ANCOVA|||Change in prandial increments of plasma glucose from baseline to end of treatment at 104 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||1.95|-8.91|0.2089
91024410|NCT00294723|181932544|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg and glimepiride was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0 mg/dL, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide was better than glimepiride.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-3.04||||0.2749||95.0|-8.51|2.42||2-sided significance level 5%|ANCOVA|||Change in prandial increments of plasma glucose from baseline to end of treatment at 156 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||2.42|-8.51|0.2749
91024411|NCT00294723|181932544|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.2 mg and glimepiride was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0 mg/dL, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide was better than glimepiride.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|0.43||||0.8765||95.0|-5.05|5.92||2-sided significance level 5%|ANCOVA|||Change in prandial increments of plasma glucose from baseline to end of treatment at 156 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||5.92|-5.05|0.8765
91024412|NCT00294723|181932544|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg and liraglutide 1.2 mg was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0 mg/dL, it was concluded that liraglutide 1.8 mg was better than liraglutide 1.2 mg.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-3.48||||0.2088||95.0|-8.9|1.95||2-sided significance level 5%|ANCOVA|||Change in prandial increments of plasma glucose from baseline to end of treatment at 156 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||1.95|-8.90|0.2088
91024413|NCT01769378|181932549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Squares Mean Difference|-1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|-0.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.97|-1.57|<0.001
91024414|NCT01769378|181932550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.82|33.84|||Regression, Logistic|Sequential gatekeeping strategy was used to adjust for multiplicity.||\<7.0% HbA1c||33.84|3.82|<0.001
91024415|NCT01769378|181932550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.71|35.34|||Regression, Logistic|||≤6.5% HbA1c||35.34|3.71|<0.001
91024416|NCT01769378|181932551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-33.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.55|-20.53|||ANCOVA|Sequential gatekeeping strategy was used to adjust for multiplicity.||||-20.53|-46.55|<0.001
91024417|NCT01769378|181932552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequential gatekeeping strategy was used to adjust for multiplicity.||||0.18|-1.53|0.120
91024418|NCT01769378|181932553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.09||No adjustment for multiplicity|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.09|-0.54|0.161
91024419|NCT01769378|181932554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-28.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.85|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.49|-19.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-19.40|-38.49|<0.001
91024420|NCT03882047|181932632|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
91024421|NCT03882047|181932632|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
91024422|NCT03882047|181932632|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.03
91024423|NCT03882047|181932633|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
91024424|NCT03882047|181932633|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
91024425|NCT03882047|181932633|OTHER|||||||0.31|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.31
90832261|NCT03192176|181536172|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.15||0.6816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.11|3.34||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||3.34|-5.11|0.6816
91024426|NCT03882047|181932634|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
91024427|NCT03882047|181932634|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
91024428|NCT03882047|181932634|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.01
91024429|NCT03882047|181932635|OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.08
91024430|NCT03882047|181932635|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
91024431|NCT03882047|181932635|OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.10
91024432|NCT03882047|181932636|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
91024433|NCT03882047|181932636|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
91024434|NCT03882047|181932636|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.01
91024435|NCT03882047|181932637|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.02
91024436|NCT03882047|181932637|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
91024437|NCT03882047|181932637|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.05
91024438|NCT03882047|181932638|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
91024439|NCT03882047|181932638|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
91024440|NCT03882047|181932638|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.06
91024441|NCT03882047|181932639|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
90832262|NCT03192176|181536172|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26||0.8599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.85|4.05||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||4.05|-4.85|0.8599
90894396|NCT01197508|181654392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|1.79|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||1.79|-1.17|0.681
90894397|NCT01197508|181654392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|2.84|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||2.84|-0.19|0.087
90894398|NCT01197508|181654393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.736||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.464|2.427||The adjusted p-value protects the overall family-wise error rate by taking into account the multiple comparisons between the TC-5214 doses for both the primary efficacy variable (MADRS) and the key secondary efficacy variable (SDS).|MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization SDS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||2.427|-0.464|1.000
90894399|NCT01197508|181654393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.746||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|2.188||The adjusted p-value protects the overall family-wise error rate by taking into account the multiple comparisons between the TC-5214 doses for both the primary efficacy variable (MADRS) and the key secondary efficacy variable (SDS).|MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization SDS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||2.188|-0.740|1.000
90894400|NCT01197508|181654393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.762||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.649|2.346||The adjusted p-value protects the overall family-wise error rate by taking into account the multiple comparisons between the TC-5214 doses for both the primary efficacy variable (MADRS) and the key secondary efficacy variable (SDS).|MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization SDS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||2.346|-0.649|1.000
90894401|NCT01197508|181654394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.61|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization SDS work/school domain score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.61|-0.54|0.914
90894402|NCT01197508|181654394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.81|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization SDS work/school domain score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.81|-0.36|0.446
90957069|NCT00706433|181793734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5313||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.5313
90957070|NCT00706433|181793734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0045||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0045
91024442|NCT03882047|181932639|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
90957071|NCT00706433|181793734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0045||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0045
90832263|NCT03192176|181536172|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.23||0.9093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.64|4.13||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||4.13|-4.64|0.9093
90832264|NCT03192176|181536172|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26||0.0788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.43|0.46||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||0.46|-8.43|0.0788
90832265|NCT03192176|181536172|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26||0.1278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.92|1.0||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||1.00|-7.92|0.1278
90832266|NCT03192176|181536172|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.15||0.9848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.19|4.27||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||4.27|-4.19|0.9848
90832267|NCT03192176|181536173|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|14.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.05||0.0388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|28.49||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|MMRM: Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 1||28.49|0.76|0.0388
91024443|NCT03882047|181932639|OTHER|||||||0.46|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.46
91024444|NCT03882047|181932640|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
91024445|NCT03882047|181932640|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
90832268|NCT03192176|181536173|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|23.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.08||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.17|37.02||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||37.02|9.17|0.0012
90832269|NCT03192176|181536173|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|37.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.41|51.22||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||51.22|23.41|<0.0001
90832270|NCT03192176|181536173|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|41.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.88|55.05||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||55.05|26.88|<0.0001
90832271|NCT03192176|181536173|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|8.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.19||0.2569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.98|22.32||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||22.32|-5.98|0.2569
90832272|NCT03192176|181536173|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|25.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.07||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.65|39.47||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||39.47|11.65|0.0003
90832273|NCT03192176|181536173|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|30.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.39|44.06||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||44.06|16.39|<0.0001
90832274|NCT03192176|181536173|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|15.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.02||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.11|29.71||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||29.71|2.11|0.0240
91024446|NCT03882047|181932640|OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.07
91024447|NCT03882047|181932641|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
91024448|NCT03882047|181932641|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
91024449|NCT03882047|181932641|OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.53
91024450|NCT03882047|181932642|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
91024451|NCT03882047|181932642|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
91024452|NCT03882047|181932642|OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.12
91024453|NCT00475852|181932668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.7||||0.313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographical region.||||0.7|-2.1|0.313
91024454|NCT00475852|181932669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Van Elteren test|Controlled for region.||||||0.030
91024455|NCT00475852|181932670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||Van Elteren test|Controlled for region.||||||0.007
91024456|NCT00475852|181932671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.318|||||||Van Elteren test|Controlled for region.||||||0.318
91024457|NCT00475852|181932672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018|||||||Van Elteren test|Controlled for region.||||||0.018
91024458|NCT00475852|181932673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.5||||0.295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlled for region.||||0.5|-1.5|0.295
91024459|NCT00475852|181932674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.16|||||||ANOVA|Controlled for region.|This analysis excluded subjects who were lost to follow-up, or withdrawal of consent before Day 30, or whose Day 30 visit occurred prior to Day 30.|||||0.160
91024460|NCT00475852|181932675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.9||||0.238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlled for region.|For subjects with a Day 30 visit prior to Day 30, information from their Day 180 visit, if available, was used to impute the mortality and rehospitalization status at Day 30.|||0.6|-2.4|0.238
91024461|NCT00475852|181932679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.21|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlled for region.||||1.21|0.98|0.109
91024462|NCT03654898|181932725|SUPERIORITY||cross-tabulation|0.48||||0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.49
91024463|NCT03654898|181932725|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.42|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted logistic regression||||1.42|0.80|0.67
91024464|NCT03654898|181932726|SUPERIORITY||Cross-tabulation|0.71||||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.40
91024465|NCT03654898|181932727|SUPERIORITY||Cross-tabulation|0.5||||0.78|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Test 1 was for TFVdp while test 2 was for 3TCtp.||||0.78
91024466|NCT03654898|181932727|SUPERIORITY||Cross-tabulation|2.13||||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Test 2 was for 3TCtp while test 1 was for TFVdp.||||0.34
91024467|NCT01335464|181932733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|125.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|24.209|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|77.68|172.84||The objective of this trial was to assess the superiority of nintedanib 150 mg bid compared to placebo on the annual rate of decline in FVC.|Random coefficient regression|The Roger-Kenward approximation was used to estimate denominators degrees of freedom.|"Within-patient errors are modelled by an Unstructured variance-covariance matrix.~Inter-individual variability is modelled by a Variance-components variance-covariance matrix~Nintedanib 150 mg bid versus Placebo"|"Random coefficient regression with fixed effects for treatment, gender, age, height and random effect of patient specific intercept and time.~A hierarchical procedure was used in order to demonstrate the superiority of nintedanib over placebo for one primary and two key secondary endpoints.~The consecutive steps of the hierarchy were only considered if the previous step was significant at the one-sided 2.5% level and the results were in favour of nintedanib."||172.84|77.68|<0.0001
91032492|NCT00377260|181949687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The comparison was adjusted for site, history of recurrent acute otitis media and exposure to other children.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two treatment groups regarding the proportion of children with rash.||||>.99
90832275|NCT03192176|181536173|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|24.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.05||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.62|38.37||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||38.37|10.62|0.0006
91088148|NCT01656395|182059323|SUPERIORITY||cLDA model|-0.251||||0.563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.104|0.603|||cLDA model|||Difference in LS means for average change from Baseline over Week 6 to Week 12 in nocturnal awakenings: MK-1029 60 mg vs. Placebo. cLDA model includes terms for visit as categorical variable, prior ICS use (Yes/No) and treatment by visit. Negative differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||0.603|-1.104|0.563
91088149|NCT01656395|182059323|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.241||||0.559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.053|0.571|||cLDA model|||Difference in LS means for average change from Baseline over Week 6 to Week 12 in nocturnal awakenings: MK-1029 150 mg vs. Placebo. cLDA model includes terms for visit as categorical variable, prior ICS use (Yes/No) and treatment by visit. Negative differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||0.571|-1.053|0.559
91088150|NCT01656395|182059323|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.071||||0.863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.883|0.741|||cLDA model|||Difference in LS means for average change from Baseline over Week 6 to Week 12 in nocturnal awakenings: Montelukast vs. Placebo. cLDA model includes terms for visit as categorical variable, prior ICS use (Yes/No) and treatment by visit. Negative differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||0.741|-0.883|0.863
91088151|NCT01656395|182059324|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.544||||0.958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.92|21.007|||cLDA model|||Difference in LS means for average change from Baseline over Week 6 to Week 12 in AM/PM PEF: MK-1029 10 mg vs. Placebo. cLDA model includes terms for visit as categorical variable, prior ICS use (Yes/No) and treatment by visit. Negative differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||21.007|-19.92|0.958
91088152|NCT01656395|182059324|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.251||||0.559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.81|27.307|||cLDA model|||Difference in LS means for average change from Baseline over Week 6 to Week 12 in AM/PM PEF: MK- 1029 30 mg vs. Placebo. cLDA model includes terms for visit as categorical variable, prior ICS use (Yes/No) and treatment by visit. Negative differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||27.307|-14.81|0.559
91088153|NCT01656395|182059324|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|9.575||||0.374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.62|30.766|||cLDA model|||Difference in LS means for average change from Baseline over Week 6 to Week 12 in AM/PM PEF: MK-1029 60 mg vs. Placebo. cLDA model includes terms for visit as categorical variable, prior ICS use (Yes/No) and treatment by visit. Negative differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||30.766|-11.62|0.374
91088154|NCT01656395|182059324|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.114||||0.618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.04|25.272|||cLDA model|||Difference in LS means for average change from Baseline over Week 6 to Week 12 in AM/PM PEF: MK-1029 150 mg vs. Placebo. cLDA model includes terms for visit as categorical variable, prior ICS use (Yes/No) and treatment by visit. Negative differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||25.272|-15.04|0.618
90832276|NCT03192176|181536173|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differencce|33.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.87|47.52||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||47.52|19.87|<0.0001
90957072|NCT00706433|181793734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0012||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0012
91088155|NCT01656395|182059324|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.604||||0.876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.76|18.554|||cLDA model|||Difference in LS means for average change from Baseline over Week 6 to Week 12 in AM/PM PEF: Montelukast vs. Placebo. cLDA model includes terms for visit as categorical variable, prior ICS use (Yes/No) and treatment by visit. Negative differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||18.554|-21.76|0.876
90832277|NCT03192176|181536173|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|38.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.93|52.04||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||52.04|23.93|<0.0001
90957073|NCT00706433|181793734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0015||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0015
91088156|NCT01656395|182059325|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.076||||0.682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.288|0.44|||cLDA model|||Difference in LS means for change from Baseline to Week 12 in AQLQ(S) Overall Score: MK-1029 10 mg vs. Placebo. cLDA model includes terms for visit as categorical variable, prior ICS use (Yes/No) and treatment by visit. Positive differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||0.440|-0.288|0.682
91088157|NCT01656395|182059325|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.047||||0.807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.422|0.329|||cLDA model|||Difference in LS means for change from Baseline to Week 12 in AQLQ(S) Overall Score: MK-1029 30 mg vs. Placebo. cLDA model includes terms for visit as categorical variable, prior ICS use (Yes/No) and treatment by visit. Positive differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||0.329|-0.422|0.807
91088158|NCT01656395|182059325|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.165||||0.403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.222|0.552|||cLDA model|||Difference in LS means for change from Baseline to Week 12 in AQLQ(S) Overall Score: MK-1029 60 mg vs. Placebo. cLDA model includes terms for visit as categorical variable, prior ICS use (Yes/No) and treatment by visit. Positive differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||0.552|-0.222|0.403
91088159|NCT01656395|182059325|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.375||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|0.751|||cLDA model|||Difference in LS means for change from Baseline to Week 12 in AQLQ(S) Overall Score: MK-1029 150 mg vs. Placebo. cLDA model includes terms for visit as categorical variable, prior ICS use (Yes/No) and treatment by visit. Positive differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||0.751|-0.001|0.051
91088160|NCT01656395|182059325|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.319||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.045|0.683|||cLDA model|||Difference in LS means for change from Baseline to Week 12 in AQLQ(S) Overall Score: Montelukast vs. Placebo. cLDA model includes terms for visit as categorical variable, prior ICS use (Yes/No) and treatment by visit. Positive differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK- 1029 or Montelukast).||0.683|-0.045|0.086
91088161|NCT01656395|182059326|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8||||0.7687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|21.3|||MN method|||Difference for AQLQ(S) Response Rate: MK-1029 10 mg vs. Placebo. P-values, estimates and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen (MN) method stratified by prior ICS use (Yes/No).||21.3|-16.0|0.7687
90832278|NCT03192176|181536173|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|14.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.16||0.0441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|28.53||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||28.53|0.38|0.0441
91088162|NCT01656395|182059326|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.6||||0.4943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.9|12.2|||MN Method|||Difference for AQLQ(S) Response Rate: MK-1029 30 mg vs. Placebo. P-values, estimates and 95% CIs are based on the MN method stratified by prior ICS use (Yes/No).||12.2|-24.9|0.4943
90832279|NCT03192176|181536173|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|19.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.04||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.58|33.28||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||33.28|5.58|0.0061
90832280|NCT03192176|181536173|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|25.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.01||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.96|39.53||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||39.53|11.96|0.0003
90832281|NCT03192176|181536173|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|20.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.55||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.36|35.07||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||35.07|5.36|0.0078
90832282|NCT03192176|181536173|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|28.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.59||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.36|43.22||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||43.22|13.36|0.0002
90832283|NCT03192176|181536173|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|36.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.55|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.07|51.77||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||51.77|22.07|<0.0001
90832284|NCT03192176|181536173|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|40.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.69|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.41|55.67||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRm|||Week 3||55.67|25.41|<0.0001
90832285|NCT03192176|181536173|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|19.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.7||0.0108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.59|34.88||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||34.88|4.59|0.0108
90894403|NCT01197508|181654394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.75|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization SDS work/school domain score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.75|-0.47|0.656
90894404|NCT01197508|181654395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.82|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization SDS social life domain score. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.82|-0.21|0.248
90832286|NCT03192176|181536173|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|25.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.56||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.09|39.84||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||39.84|10.09|0.0011
90894405|NCT01197508|181654395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.7|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization SDS social life domain score. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.70|-0.34|0.498
90894406|NCT01197508|181654395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.74|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization SDS social life domain score. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.74|-0.32|0.441
91088163|NCT01656395|182059326|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.5||||0.3003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|29.6|||MN method|||Difference for AQLQ(S) Response Rate: MK-1029 60 mg vs. Placebo. P-values, estimates and 95% CIs are based on the MN method stratified by prior ICS use (Yes/No).||29.6|-9.4|0.3003
91088164|NCT01656395|182059326|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.5||||0.0774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|35.7|||MN method|||Difference for AQLQ(S) Response Rate: MK-1029 150 mg vs. Placebo. P-values, estimates and 95% CIs are based on the MN method stratified by prior ICS use (Yes/No).||35.7|-1.9|0.0774
91088165|NCT01656395|182059326|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.2||||0.0555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|35.5|||MN method|||Difference for AQLQ(S) Response Rate: Montelukast vs. Placebo. P-values, estimates and 95% CIs are based on the MN method stratified by prior ICS use (Yes/No).||35.5|-0.4|0.0555
90832287|NCT03192176|181536173|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|30.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.53|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.03|45.67||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||45.67|16.03|<0.0001
91088166|NCT01656395|182059327|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.104||||0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.495|0.288|||cLDA model|||Difference in LS means for change from Baseline to Week 12 in ACQ Score: MK-1029 10 mg vs. Placebo. cLDA model includes terms for visit as categorical variable, prior ICS use (Yes/No) and treatment by visit. Negative differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||0.288|-0.495|0.603
90832288|NCT03192176|181536173|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|20.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.47||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.84|35.23||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||35.23|5.84|0.0063
90832289|NCT03192176|181536173|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|28.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.49||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.98|43.46||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||43.46|13.98|0.0002
90832290|NCT03192176|181536173|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|33.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.46|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.66|48.0||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||48.00|18.66|<0.0001
90832291|NCT03192176|181536173|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|41.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.52|56.41||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||56.41|26.52|<0.0001
90832292|NCT03192176|181536173|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|19.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.59||0.0098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.78|34.66||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||34.66|4.78|0.0098
90832293|NCT03192176|181536173|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|29.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.46|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.26|44.61||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||44.61|15.26|<0.0001
90832294|NCT03192176|181536173|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|33.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.43|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.5|47.73||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||47.73|18.50|<0.0001
90832295|NCT03192176|181536173|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|15.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.1||0.0303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|29.4||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||29.40|1.48|0.0303
90832296|NCT03192176|181536173|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|24.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.11||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.77|38.74||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||38.74|10.77|0.0006
90832297|NCT03192176|181536173|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|30.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.77|44.75||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||44.75|16.77|<0.0001
90957074|NCT00706433|181793734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||1.0
90832298|NCT03192176|181536173|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|38.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.23|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.55|53.0||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||53.00|24.55|<0.0001
90832299|NCT03192176|181536173|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|19.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.2||0.0086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.88|33.23||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||33.23|4.88|0.0086
90832300|NCT03192176|181536173|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|22.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.09||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.33|36.24||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||36.24|8.33|0.0018
90894407|NCT01197508|181654396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.87|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization SDS family life/home responsibilities domain score. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.87|-0.16|0.174
90832301|NCT03192176|181536173|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|25.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.07||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.24|39.05||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||39.05|11.24|0.0004
90957075|NCT00706433|181793735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0892||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0892
90832302|NCT03192176|181536173|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|14.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.62||0.0282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|27.6||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||27.60|1.56|0.0282
90832303|NCT03192176|181536173|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|19.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.63||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.85|32.92||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||32.92|6.85|0.0029
91024468|NCT01335464|181932734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.248||0.9657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|2.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Within-patient errors are modelled by compound symmetry covariance matrix~Nintedanib 150 mg bid versus Placebo"|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline SGRQ Total score, baseline SGRQ Total score-by-visit and random effect for patient.||2.40|-2.50|0.9657
91024469|NCT01335464|181932735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||0.6728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|2.42|||Log Rank||Nintedanib 150 mg bid versus Placebo|Hazard Ratio is based on a Cox´s regression model with terms for treatment, gender, age and height||2.42|0.54|0.6728
91024470|NCT01335464|181932736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|109.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.708|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.27|148.59|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Within-patient errors are modelled by compound symmetry covariance matrix.~Nintedanib 150 mg bid versus Placebo"|Based on Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), with fixed effects for treatment, visit, gender, age, height, treatment-by-visit, baseline FVC, baseline FVC-by-visit and random effect for patient.||148.59|71.27|<0.0001
91024471|NCT01335464|181932737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.753|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.54|5.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Within-patient errors are modelled by compound symmetry covariance matrix.~Nintedanib 150 mg bid versus Placebo"|Based on Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), with fixed effects for treatment, visit, gender, age, height, treatment-by-visit, baseline FVC, baseline FVC-by-visit and random effect for patient.||5.50|2.54|<0.0001
91024472|NCT01335464|181932738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.564|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.11|4.33|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Within-patient errors are modelled by compound symmetry covariance matrix.~Nintedanib 150 mg bid versus Placebo"|Based on Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), with fixed effects for treatment, visit, gender, age, height, treatment-by-visit, baseline FVC \[%predicted\], baseline FVC \[%predicted\]-by-visit and random effect for patient.||4.33|2.11|<0.0001
91024473|NCT01335464|181932739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.753|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.52|5.48|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Within-patient errors are modelled by compound symmetry covariance matrix.~Nintedanib 150 mg bid versus Placebo"|Based on Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), with fixed effects for treatment, visit, gender, age, height, treatment-by-visit, baseline FVC \[%predicted\], baseline FVC \[%predicted\]-by-visit and random effect for patient.||5.48|2.52|<0.0001
91024474|NCT01335464|181932742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.914||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|2.79|||Regression, Logistic||Nintedanib 150 mg bid versus Placebo|Logistic regression with terms treatment, age, gender, height and baseline FVC % predicted||2.79|1.32|0.0007
91024475|NCT01335464|181932743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.847||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|2.66|||Regression, Logistic||Nintedanib 150 mg bid versus Placebo|Logistic regression with terms treatment, age, gender, height and baseline FVC % predicted||2.66|1.28|0.0010
91024476|NCT01335464|181932744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.4298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.29|||Regression, Logistic||Nintedanib 150 mg bid versus Placebo|Logistic regression with terms treatment, baseline SGRQ total score||1.29|0.55|0.4298
91024477|NCT01335464|181932745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.744||0.1832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.74|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Within-patient errors are modelled by compound symmetry covariance matrix.~Nintedanib 150 mg bid versus Placebo"|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline SGRQ Symptoms component, baseline SGRQ Symptoms component-by-visit and random effect for patient.||1.10|-5.74|0.1832
91024478|NCT01335464|181932746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.446||0.551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.97|3.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Within-patient error are modelled by compound symmetry covariance matrix~Nintedanib 150 mg bid versus Placebo"|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline SGRQ impact component, baseline SGRQ Impact component-by-visit and random effect for patient||3.70|-1.97|0.5510
91024479|NCT01335464|181932747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.427||0.4049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.99|1.61|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Within-patient errors are modelled by compound symmetry covariance matrix~Nintedanib 150 mg bid versus Placebo"|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline SGRQ Activities component, baseline SGRQ Activities component-by-visit and random effect for patient||1.61|-3.99|0.4049
91024480|NCT01335464|181932748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.289||0.5446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.31|1.75|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Within-patient errors are modelled by compound symmetry covariance matrix.~Nintedanib 150mg versus placebo"|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline SGRQ-I Total score, baseline SGRQ-I Total score-by-visit and random effect for patient.||1.75|-3.31|0.5446
91088167|NCT01656395|182059327|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.032||||0.875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.436|0.372|||cLDA model|||Difference in LS means for change from Baseline to Week 12 in ACQ Score: MK-1029 30 mg vs. Placebo. cLDA model includes terms for visit as categorical variable, prior ICS use (Yes/No) and treatment by visit. Negative differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||0.372|-0.436|0.875
90957076|NCT00706433|181793736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4575||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.4575
90832304|NCT03192176|181536173|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|29.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.65|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.58|42.73||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||42.73|16.58|<0.0001
90832305|NCT03192176|181536173|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|35.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.75|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.42|48.99||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||48.99|22.42|<0.0001
90832306|NCT03192176|181536173|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|14.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.74||0.0304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|27.9||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||27.90|1.40|0.0304
90832307|NCT03192176|181536173|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|20.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.64||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.38|33.5||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||33.50|7.38|0.0022
90832308|NCT03192176|181536173|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|26.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.59|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.56|39.5||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||39.50|13.56|<0.0001
90832309|NCT03192176|181536173|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|14.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.87||0.0362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|27.95||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||27.95|0.93|0.0362
90894408|NCT01197508|181654396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.74|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization SDS family life/home responsibilities domain score. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.74|-0.30|0.402
90894409|NCT01197508|181654396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.88|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization SDS family life/home responsibilities domain score. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.88|-0.18|0.197
90832310|NCT03192176|181536173|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|22.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.88||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.41|36.47||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||36.47|9.41|0.0009
90832311|NCT03192176|181536173|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|28.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.91|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.27|42.46||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||42.46|15.27|<0.0001
90832312|NCT03192176|181536173|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|36.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.01|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.99|50.57||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||50.57|22.99|<0.0001
90957077|NCT00706433|181793737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8848||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.8848
90894410|NCT01197508|181654397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-1.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.643||0.371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.697|1.756|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA with randomization Q-LES-Q-SF % maximum total score as covariate, treatment as a fixed effect and pooled center as a random effect.||1.756|-4.697|0.371
90894411|NCT01197508|181654397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-1.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.672||0.432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.597|1.967|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA with randomization Q-LES-Q-SF % maximum total score as covariate, treatment as a fixed effect and pooled center as a random effect.||1.967|-4.597|0.432
90894412|NCT01197508|181654397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-2.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.672||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.992|0.573|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA with randomization Q-LES-Q-SF % maximum total score as covariate, treatment as a fixed effect and pooled center as a random effect.||0.573|-5.992|0.105
90894413|NCT01197508|181654398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.09|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with randomization Q-LES-Q-SF item 15 score as covariate, treatment as a fixed effect and pooled center as a random effect.||0.09|-0.29|0.312
90957078|NCT00706433|181793738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0008||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0008
90832313|NCT03192176|181536173|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|15.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.99||0.0265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.83|29.34||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||29.34|1.83|0.0265
90832314|NCT03192176|181536173|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|21.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.89||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.6|34.71||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||34.71|7.60|0.0023
90832315|NCT03192176|181536173|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|27.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.85|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.64|40.59||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||40.59|13.64|<0.0001
90832316|NCT03192176|181536173|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|9.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.8||0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.75|22.99||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||22.99|-3.75|0.1580
90832317|NCT03192176|181536173|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|18.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.8||0.0082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.72|31.5||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||31.50|4.72|0.0082
90832318|NCT03192176|181536173|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|25.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.85||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.77|38.71||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||38.71|11.77|0.0003
90832319|NCT03192176|181536173|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|30.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.96|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.93|44.31||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||44.31|16.93|<0.0001
90832320|NCT03192176|181536173|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|11.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.93||0.1074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.45|24.84||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||24.84|-2.45|0.1074
90894414|NCT01197508|181654398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.21|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with randomization Q-LES-Q-SF item 15 score as covariate, treatment as a fixed effect and pooled center as a random effect.||0.21|-0.18|0.885
90894415|NCT01197508|181654398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.01|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with randomization Q-LES-Q-SF item 15 score as covariate, treatment as a fixed effect and pooled center as a random effect.||0.01|-0.37|0.067
90894416|NCT01197508|181654399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.05|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with randomization Q-LES-Q-SF item 16 as a fixed effect and pooled center as a random effect.||0.05|-0.33|0.152
90894417|NCT01197508|181654399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.02|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with randomization Q-LES-Q-SF item 16 as a fixed effect and pooled center as a random effect.||0.02|-0.37|0.078
90957079|NCT00706433|181793738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4091||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.4091
91024481|NCT01335464|181932749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.77||0.6203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.35|2.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Within-patient errors are modelled by compound symmetry covariance matrix.~Nintedanib 150mg versus placebo"|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline SOBQ score, baseline SOBQ score-by-visit and random effect for patient.||2.60|-4.35|0.6203
91024482|NCT01335464|181932750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.803||0.8942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.78|3.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Within- patient errors are modelled by compound symmetry covariance matrix.~Nintedanib 150 mg versus Placebo"|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline CASA-Q Cough symptoms score, baseline CASA-Q Cough symptoms score-by-visit and random effect for patient.||3.30|-3.78|0.8942
91024483|NCT01335464|181932751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.596||0.3042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|4.77|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Within-patient errors are modelled by compound symmetry covariance matrix~Nintedanib 150 mg versus Placebo"|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline CASA-Q Cough impact score, baseline CASA-Q Cough impact score-by-visit and random effect for patient.||4.77|-1.49|0.3042
91024484|NCT01335464|181932752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.276||||0.1818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.83|||Regression, Logistic||Nintedanib 150mg versus placebo|Logistic regression with term treatment||1.83|0.89|0.1818
91024485|NCT01335464|181932754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.17||||0.6793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|2.46|||Normal distribution|Risk ratio was calculated as the ratio of risk of exacerbation in both treatment groups.|Nintedanib 150mg bid versus placebo|The log of the risk ratio was assumed to follow a normal distribution with mean 0 and variance equal to the sum of the reciprocals of the number of patients with at least one exacerbation in each treatment arm.||2.46|0.56|0.6793
91024486|NCT01335464|181932755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63||||0.288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.36|||Log Rank||Nintedanib 150mg bid versus placebo|Hazard ratio is based on a Cox´s regression model with terms for treatment, gender, age and height||1.36|0.29|0.2880
91024487|NCT01335464|181932756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61||||0.3515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.47|||Log Rank||Nintedanib 150mg versus placebo|Hazard ratio is based on Cox´s regression model with terms for treatment, gender, age and height||1.47|0.25|0.3515
91024488|NCT01335464|181932757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.4869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.82|||Log Rank||Nintedanib 150mg bid versus placebo|Hazard ratio is based on a Cox´s regression model with terms for treatment, gender, age and height||1.82|0.26|0.4869
91024489|NCT01335464|181932758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.51|||Log Rank||Nintedanib 150mg versus placebo|Hazard ratio is based on Cox´s regression model with terms for treatment, gender, age and height||1.51|0.36|0.4430
91088168|NCT01656395|182059327|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.151||||0.476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.568|0.265|||cLDA model|||Difference in LS means for change from Baseline to Week 12 in ACQ Score: MK-1029 60 mg vs. Placebo. cLDA model includes terms for visit as categorical variable, prior ICS use (Yes/No) and treatment by visit. Negative differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||0.265|-0.568|0.476
91088169|NCT01656395|182059327|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.362||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.767|0.042|||cLDA model|||Difference in LS means for change from Baseline to Week 12 in ACQ Score: MK-1029 150 mg vs. Placebo. cLDA model includes terms for visit as categorical variable, prior ICS use (Yes/No) and treatment by visit. Negative differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||0.042|-0.767|0.079
91088170|NCT01656395|182059327|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.227||||0.257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.621|0.166|||cLDA model|||"Difference in LS means for change from Baseline to Week 12 in ACQ Score: Montelukast vs. Placebo.~cLDA model includes terms for visit as categorical variable, prior ICS use (Yes/No) and treatment by visit. Negative differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast)."||0.166|-0.621|0.257
91088171|NCT01656395|182059328|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.1||||0.742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.1|21.1|||MN method|||Difference for change from Baseline to Week 12 in ACQ response rate: MK-1029 10 mg vs. Placebo. P-values, estimates and 95% CIs are based on the MN method stratified by prior ICS use (Yes/No).||21.1|-15.1|0.742
91088172|NCT01656395|182059328|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.4||||0.7248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.1|15.4|||MN method|||Difference for change from Baseline to Week 12 in ACQ response rate: MK-1029 30 mg vs. Placebo. P-values, estimates and 95% CIs are based on the MN method stratified by prior ICS use (Yes/No).||15.4|-22.1|0.7248
91088173|NCT01656395|182059328|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.8||||0.6991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.6|22.6|||MN method|||Difference for change from Baseline to Week 12 in ACQ response rate: MK-1029 60 mg vs. Placebo. P-values, estimates and 95% CIs are based on the MN method stratified by prior ICS use (Yes/No).||22.6|-15.6|0.6991
91088174|NCT01656395|182059328|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.1||||0.3934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|26.2|||MN method|||Difference for change from Baseline to Week 12 in ACQ response rate: MK-1029 150 mg vs. Placebo. P-values, estimates and 95% CIs are based on the MN method stratified by prior ICS use (Yes/No).||26.2|-10.6|0.3934
91088175|NCT01656395|182059328|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3||||0.8032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|20.5|||MN method|||Difference for change from Baseline to Week 12 in ACQ response rate: Montelukast vs. Placebo. P-values, estimates and 95% CIs are based on the MN method stratified by prior ICS use (Yes/No).||20.5|-16.0|0.8032
90894418|NCT01197508|181654399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with randomization Q-LES-Q-SF item 16 as a fixed effect and pooled center as a random effect.||-0.02|-0.41|0.033
90894419|NCT01197508|181654400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0181||0.543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0465|0.0245||Analysis for change in EQ-5D index score from randomization (Week 8) to end of treatment (Week 16)|MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization EQ-5D total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.0245|-0.0465|0.543
90894420|NCT01197508|181654400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0183||0.998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.036|0.0361||Analysis for change in EQ-5D index score from randomization (Week 8) to end of treatment (Week 16)|MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization EQ-5D total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.0361|-0.0360|0.998
90957080|NCT00706433|181793738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0176||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0176
91088176|NCT01656395|182059329|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.075||||0.873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.004|0.853|||ANOVA|||Difference in LS means for percent of asthma attack days over Week 6 to Week 12 of a 12-week treatment period: MK-1209 10 mg vs. Placebo. ANOVA model includes terms for prior ICS use (Yes/No) and treatment. Negative differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK- 1029 or Montelukast).||0.853|-1.004|0.873
91088177|NCT01656395|182059329|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.376||||0.437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.326|0.575|||ANOVA|||Difference in LS means for percent of asthma attack days over Week 6 to Week 12 of a 12-week treatment period: MK-1209 30 mg vs. Placebo. ANOVA model includes terms for prior ICS use (Yes/No) and treatment. Negative differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||0.575|-1.326|0.437
91088178|NCT01656395|182059329|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.54||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.504|0.423|||ANOVA|||Difference in LS means for percent of asthma attack days over Week 6 to Week 12 of a 12-week treatment period: MK-1209 60 mg vs. Placebo. ANOVA model includes terms for prior ICS use (Yes/No) and treatment. Negative differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||0.423|-1.504|0.270
91088179|NCT01656395|182059329|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.079||||0.865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.839|0.997|||ANOVA|||Difference in LS means for percent of asthma attack days over Week 6 to Week 12 of a 12-week treatment period: MK-1209 150 mg vs. Placebo. ANOVA model includes terms for prior ICS use (Yes/No) and treatment. Negative differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||0.997|-0.839|0.865
91088180|NCT01656395|182059329|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.309||||0.503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.219|0.6|||ANOVA|||Difference in LS means for percent of asthma attack days over Week 6 to Week 12 of a 12-week treatment period: Montelukast vs. Placebo. ANOVA model includes terms for prior ICS use (Yes/No) and treatment. Negative differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||0.600|-1.219|0.503
91088181|NCT02318849|182059330|SUPERIORITY||Change in percentage|0.09||||0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The anaylsis was adjusted for student characteristics.||The null hypothesis was that the of number students who report being a donor (or talking to parents about organ donation) both before and after exposure to the intervention would be equivalent. A secondary null hypothesis would be that longer expsosures to the intervention over time would not increase the number who report becoming a donor at the final assessment.||||0.009
91088182|NCT02318849|182059331|SUPERIORITY||Change in percentage|0.0|||>|0.1|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>0.10
91088183|NCT00676403|182059334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|37.3||||||95.0|0.1|157.7|||ED-50: Bootstrap Method||Non-convergence for the non-liner model occurred in some bootstrap samples which were not included in summarizing the ED50 distribution or confidence interval.|Dose response analysis ED 50: dose providing 50% of the maximal effect. Statistics were obtained from three parameter model Y = D + G\*exp(B\*dose) by bootstrapping 2000 data sets, where D = expected response of saturation (maximal effect), B = related to slope of the dose response mechanism (change in response relative to the change in dose), and D+G = expected response at zero dose.||157.7|0.1|
91088184|NCT00676403|182059334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|123.9||||||95.0|0.4|523.9|||ED 90: Bootstrap Method||Non-convergence for the non-liner model occurred in some bootstrap samples which were not included in summarizing the ED90 distribution or confidence interval.|Dose response analysis ED 90: dose providing 90% of the maximal effect. Statistics were obtained from three parameter model Y = D + G\*exp(B\*dose) by bootstrapping 2000 data sets, where D = expected response of saturation (maximal effect), B = related to slope of the dose response mechanism (change in response relative to the change in dose), and D+G = expected response at zero dose.||523.9|0.4|
91088185|NCT00676403|182059334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.472||0.0983||95.0|-8.97|0.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. The repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score was included as a covariate. Additionally, model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.77|-8.97|0.0983
91088186|NCT00676403|182059334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.415||0.0966||95.0|-8.78|0.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. The repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score was included as a covariate. Additionally, model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.73|-8.78|0.0966
91088187|NCT00676403|182059334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.548||0.0013||95.0|-13.31|-3.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. The repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score was included as a covariate. Additionally, model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||-3.28|-13.31|0.0013
91088188|NCT00676403|182059334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.437||0.0353||95.0|-9.96|-0.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. The repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score was included as a covariate. Additionally, model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||-0.36|-9.96|0.0353
91088189|NCT00676403|182059334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.469||0.0006||95.0|-13.4|-3.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. The repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score was included as a covariate. Additionally, model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||-3.67|-13.40|0.0006
91088190|NCT00676403|182059335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8784||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for difference; p-value was adjusted for geographic region at each visit.||||0.8784
91088191|NCT00676403|182059335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6767||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for difference; p-value was adjusted for geographic region at each visit.||||0.6767
90957081|NCT00706433|181793738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0245||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0245
91088192|NCT00676403|182059335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8955||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for difference; p-value was adjusted for geographic region at each visit.||||0.8955
91088193|NCT00676403|182059335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9505||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for difference; p-value was adjusted for geographic region at each visit.||||0.9505
91088194|NCT00676403|182059335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0466||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for difference; p-value was adjusted for geographic region at each visit.||||0.0466
91088195|NCT00676403|182059336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3876||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for difference; p-value was adjusted for geographic region at each visit.||||0.3876
91088196|NCT00676403|182059336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7959||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for difference; p-value was adjusted for geographic region at each visit.||||0.7959
91088197|NCT00676403|182059336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2032||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for difference; p-value was adjusted for geographic region at each visit.||||0.2032
90957082|NCT00706433|181793738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0020
91088198|NCT00676403|182059336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7032||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for difference; p-value was adjusted for geographic region at each visit.||||0.7032
91088199|NCT00676403|182059336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0551||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for difference; p-value was adjusted for geographic region at each visit.||||0.0551
91088200|NCT00676403|182059336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.41||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for difference; p-value was adjusted for geographic region at each visit.||||0.4100
90832321|NCT03192176|181536173|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|18.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.83||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.87|31.76||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||31.76|4.87|0.0077
90832322|NCT03192176|181536173|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|23.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.79||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.29|37.01||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||37.01|10.29|0.0006
90832323|NCT03192176|181536173|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|11.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.47||0.0689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|24.53||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||24.53|-0.92|0.0689
90832324|NCT03192176|181536173|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|14.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.46||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.84|27.27||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||27.27|1.84|0.0250
90832325|NCT03192176|181536173|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|24.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.51||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.54|37.17||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||37.17|11.54|0.0002
90894421|NCT01197508|181654400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0188||0.743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0432|0.0308||Analysis for change in EQ-5D index score from randomization (Week 8) to end of treatment (Week 16)|MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization EQ-5D total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.0308|-0.0432|0.743
90894422|NCT01197508|181654400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.95||0.244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|1.56||Analysis of change in EQ-5D VAS score from randomization (Week 8) to end of treatment (Week 16)|MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization EQ-5D VAS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||1.56|-6.10|0.244
90894423|NCT01197508|181654400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.98||0.389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.59|2.18||Analysis of change in EQ-5D VAS score from randomization (Week 8) to end of treatment (Week 16)|MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization EQ-5D VAS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||2.18|-5.59|0.389
90832326|NCT03192176|181536173|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|29.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.6|42.57||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||42.57|16.60|<0.0001
90832327|NCT03192176|181536173|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|8.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.59||0.2041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.58|21.36||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||21.36|-4.58|0.2041
90894424|NCT01197508|181654400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.02||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.79|1.16||Analysis of change in EQ-5D VAS score from randomization (Week 8) to end of treatment (Week 16)|MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization EQ-5D VAS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||1.16|-6.79|0.165
90894425|NCT02629991|181654410|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.059||||||Mixed effects model with random slopes and intercepts, including main effects for time and treatment group and a time by treatment interaction term.|Mixed effects model|||||||0.059
90957083|NCT00706433|181793738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0022||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0022
90894426|NCT02629991|181654411|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.088||||||Mixed effects model with random slopes and intercepts, including main effects for time and treatment group and a time by treatment interaction term.|Mixed effects model|||||||0.088
90894427|NCT02629991|181654412|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027|||||||Mixed effects model|Mixed effects model with random slopes and intercepts, including main effects for time and treatment group and a time by treatment interaction term.||||||0.027
90894428|NCT02629991|181654413|SUPERIORITY|Mixed effects model with random slopes and intercepts, including main effects for time and treatment group and a time by treatment interaction term.||||||0.16|||||||Mixed effects model|||||||0.16
90894429|NCT02629991|181654414|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Mixed effects model|Mixed effects model with random slopes and intercepts, including main effects for time and treatment group and a time by treatment interaction term.||||||0.69
91088201|NCT00676403|182059336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6524||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for difference; p-value was adjusted for geographic region at each visit.||||0.6524
90832328|NCT03192176|181536173|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|18.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.5||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.62|31.2||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||31.20|5.62|0.0049
90832329|NCT03192176|181536173|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|20.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.45||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|33.37||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||33.37|8.00|0.0015
91088202|NCT00676403|182059336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3219||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for difference; p-value was adjusted for geographic region at each visit.||||0.3219
91088203|NCT00676403|182059336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3509||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for difference; p-value was adjusted for geographic region at each visit.||||0.3509
91088204|NCT00676403|182059336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0053||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for difference; p-value was adjusted for geographic region at each visit.||||0.0053
90832330|NCT03192176|181536173|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|15.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.66||0.0184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.68|28.89||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||28.89|2.68|0.0184
90832331|NCT03192176|181536173|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|12.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.66||0.0551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|25.93||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||25.93|-0.28|0.0551
90832332|NCT03192176|181536173|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|25.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.73||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.51|39.0||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||39.00|12.51|0.0002
90832333|NCT03192176|181536173|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|31.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.8|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.17|44.93||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||44.93|18.17|<0.0001
90832334|NCT03192176|181536173|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|14.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.79||0.0367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|27.62||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Wek 10||27.62|0.89|0.0367
90832335|NCT03192176|181536173|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|21.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.7||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.99|34.34||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||34.34|7.99|0.0017
90832336|NCT03192176|181536173|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|24.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.65||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.29|37.44||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||37.44|11.29|0.0003
90832337|NCT03192176|181536173|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|14.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.45||0.0255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|27.15||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||27.15|1.78|0.0255
90832338|NCT03192176|181536173|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|15.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.45||0.0186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.57|27.94||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||27.94|2.57|0.0186
90832339|NCT03192176|181536173|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|26.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.52|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.71|39.36||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||39.36|13.71|<0.0001
90957084|NCT00706433|181793738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9372||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.9372
91088205|NCT00676403|182059336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9835||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for difference; p-value was adjusted for geographic region at each visit.||||0.9835
90832340|NCT03192176|181536173|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|29.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.58|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.94|42.81||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||42.81|16.94|<0.0001
90832341|NCT03192176|181536173|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|13.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.57||0.0347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|26.85||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||26.85|1.01|0.0347
90894430|NCT02629991|181654415|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.034||||||Mixed effects model with random slopes and intercepts, including main effects for time and treatment group and a time by treatment interaction term.|Mixed effects model|||||||0.034
90957085|NCT00706433|181793739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.239||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.2390
90894431|NCT02629991|181654416|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||Mixed effects model|Mixed effects model with random slopes and intercepts, including main effects for time and treatment group and a time by treatment interaction term.||||||0.009
91088206|NCT00676403|182059336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6668||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for difference; p-value was adjusted for geographic region at each visit.||||0.6668
91088207|NCT00676403|182059336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2823||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for difference; p-value was adjusted for geographic region at each visit.||||0.2823
91088208|NCT00676403|182059336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5687||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for difference; p-value was adjusted for geographic region at each visit.||||0.5687
91088209|NCT00676403|182059336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0043||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for difference; p-value was adjusted for geographic region at each visit.||||0.0043
90894432|NCT02629991|181654417|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.033|||||||Mixed effects model|Mixed effects model with random slopes and intercepts, including main effects for time and treatment group and a time by treatment interaction term.||||||0.033
90894433|NCT02629991|181654418|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Mixed effects model|Mixed effects model with random slopes and intercepts, including main effects for time and treatment group and a time by treatment interaction term.||||||0.78
90894434|NCT02629991|181654419|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53|||||||Mixed effects model|Mixed effects model with random slopes and intercepts, including main effects for time and treatment group and a time by treatment interaction term.||||||0.53
90894435|NCT02799784|181654420|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval around the (UMEC/VI 62.5/25 mcg versus TIO/OLO 5/5 mcg) treatment difference is above -50 milliliter then UMEC/VI 62.5/25 mcg was to be considered non-inferior to TIO/OLO 5/5 mcg.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.053|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.026|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.080|0.026|<0.001
90894436|NCT03086330|181654422|OTHER||Treatment difference|-1.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|-1.24|||ANCOVA|||The responses were analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment, stratification factor and region as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate. Before analysis, missing data were multiple imputed using observed data from participants within the same group defined by randomised treatment, using a regression model including stratification factor and region as categorical effects and data from baseline and all previous visits as covariates.||-1.24|-1.61|<0.0001
90894437|NCT03086330|181654423|OTHER||Treatment difference|-3.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|-2.93|||ANCOVA|||The responses were analysed using an ANCOVA with treatment, stratification factor and region as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate. Before analysis, missing data were multiple imputed using observed data from participants within the same group defined by randomised treatment, using a regression model including stratification factor and region as categorical effects and data from baseline and all previous visits as covariates.||-2.93|-4.70|<0.0001
90894438|NCT00939874|181654490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90894439|NCT00330174|181654492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Drinking outcomes were analyzed using multiple linear regression, controlling for site and baseline drinking level. Drinking and psychiatric symptoms assessed over time were examined using repeated measures (intercept only) mixed linear models (PROC MIXED in SAS). Analyses were performed using SAS statistical software (version 9.2; SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC). All tests were two-tailed and p-values less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant.||||0.64
90894440|NCT01032733|181654496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.5|<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||This trial represented a pilot study, which was designed to demonstrate the feasibility, acceptability, and efficacy of the intervention; therefore, a power analysis was not conducted. The statistical analyses consisted of descriptive and intent-to-treat (ITT) modeling procedures.||||<0.05
90894441|NCT01032733|181654497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
90894442|NCT01032733|181654498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
90894443|NCT01032733|181654499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
91088210|NCT00676403|182059336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8662||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for difference; p-value was adjusted for geographic region at each visit.||||0.8662
90894444|NCT01032733|181654500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
90894445|NCT04570436|181654503|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|30.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.85|<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|26.2||||Mixed Models Analysis|||"The sensitivity and integrity of the study was validated by comparing the mean responses of diazepam, the positive control (C), to the placebo (P):~H0: μC - μP ≤ δ1 versus Ha: μC - μP \> δ1 where δ1 = 15"|||26.2|<0.0001
90894446|NCT04570436|181654503|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin = 11|Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.84||0.3581|ONE_SIDED|95.0||14.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"The primary analysis evaluated whether gabapentin (T) produced mean responses that show abuse potential similar to placebo.~H0: μT - μP ≥ δ3 versus Ha: μT - μP \< δ3 where δ3 =11"||14.7||0.3581
90894447|NCT04570436|181654503|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin = 11|Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.85||0.3051|ONE_SIDED|95.0||14.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"The primary analysis evaluated whether gabapentin (T) produced mean responses that show abuse potential similar to placebo.~H0: μT - μP ≥ δ3 versus Ha: μT - μP \< δ3 where δ3 =11"||14.3||0.3051
90894448|NCT04570436|181654503|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin = 11|Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.83||0.2179|ONE_SIDED|95.0||13.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"The primary analysis evaluated whether gabapentin (T) produced mean responses that show abuse potential similar to placebo.~H0: μT - μP ≥ δ3 versus Ha: μT - μP \< δ3 where δ3 =11"||13.5||0.2179
90894449|NCT04570436|181654503|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin = 0|Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.84|<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|16.3||||Mixed Models Analysis|||"The null and alternative hypotheses for evaluating whether gabapentin (T) produced mean responses that show less abuse potential than diazepam (C) were:~H0: μC - μT ≤ δ2 versus Ha: μC - μT \> δ2 where δ2 =0"|||16.3|<0.0001
90894450|NCT04570436|181654503|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin = 0|Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.84|<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|16.7||||Mixed Models Analysis|||"The null and alternative hypotheses for evaluating whether gabapentin (T) produced mean responses that show less abuse potential than diazepam (C) were:~H0: μC - μT ≤ δ2 versus Ha: μC - μT \> δ2 where δ2 =0"|||16.7|<0.0001
91088211|NCT00676403|182059336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3656||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for difference; p-value was adjusted for geographic region at each visit.||||0.3656
91088212|NCT00676403|182059336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0806||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for difference; p-value was adjusted for geographic region at each visit.||||0.0806
91088213|NCT00676403|182059336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5381||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for difference; p-value was adjusted for geographic region at each visit.||||0.5381
91088214|NCT00676403|182059336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.009||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for difference; p-value was adjusted for geographic region at each visit.||||0.0090
91088215|NCT00676403|182059336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9748||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Last Observation Carried Forward: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for difference; p-value was adjusted for geographic region at each visit.||||0.9748
91088216|NCT00676403|182059336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3936||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Last Observation Carried Forward: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for difference; p-value was adjusted for geographic region at each visit.||||0.3936
90832342|NCT03192176|181536173|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|21.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.48||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.16|34.65||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||34.65|9.16|0.0008
90832343|NCT03192176|181536173|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|23.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.43||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.75|36.04||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||36.04|10.75|0.0003
90832344|NCT03192176|181536173|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|14.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.43||0.0221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.13|27.43||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||27.43|2.13|0.0221
90832345|NCT03192176|181536173|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|17.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.43||0.0087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.32|29.62||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||29.62|4.32|0.0087
90832346|NCT03192176|181536173|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|26.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.65|39.23||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||39.23|13.65|<0.0001
90832347|NCT03192176|181536173|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|31.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.56|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.13|43.94||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||43.94|18.13|<0.0001
90832348|NCT03192176|181536173|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|14.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.55||0.0244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.92|27.7||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||27.70|1.92|0.0244
90832349|NCT03192176|181536173|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|21.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.46||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.21|34.62||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||34.62|9.21|0.0008
90832350|NCT03192176|181536173|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|23.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.41||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.63|35.83||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||35.83|10.63|0.0003
90832351|NCT03192176|181536173|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|9.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.38||0.1871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.77|24.3||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||24.30|-4.77|0.1871
90894451|NCT04570436|181654503|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin = 0|Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.85|<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|17.4||||Mixed Models Analysis|||"The null and alternative hypotheses for evaluating whether gabapentin (T) produced mean responses that show less abuse potential than diazepam (C) were:~H0: μC - μT ≤ δ2 versus Ha: μC - μT \> δ2 where δ2 =0"|||17.4|<0.0001
91088217|NCT00676403|182059336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1563||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Last Observation Carried Forward: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for difference; p-value was adjusted for geographic region at each visit.||||0.1563
91088218|NCT00676403|182059336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6357||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Last Observation Carried Forward: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for difference; p-value was adjusted for geographic region at each visit.||||0.6357
91088219|NCT00676403|182059336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0133||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Last Observation Carried Forward: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for difference; p-value was adjusted for geographic region at each visit.||||0.0133
91088220|NCT00676403|182059337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.05||0.4133||95.0|-22.4|9.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score was included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||9.3|-22.4|0.4133
91088221|NCT00676403|182059337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.92||0.6676||95.0|-19.0|12.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Conrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score was included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||12.2|-19.0|0.6676
90832352|NCT03192176|181536173|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.38||0.7552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.23|16.83||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMMRM|||Week 13||16.83|-12.23|0.7552
90832353|NCT03192176|181536173|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.61||0.8407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.44|16.5||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||16.50|-13.44|0.8407
90832354|NCT03192176|181536173|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|7.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.6||0.345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.77|22.14||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|LSMean difference|||Week 13||22.14|-7.77|0.3450
90832355|NCT03192176|181536173|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.66||0.455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.34|20.8||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||20.80|-9.34|0.4550
90832356|NCT03192176|181536173|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|10.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.64||0.1747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.64|25.44||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||25.44|-4.64|0.1747
90832357|NCT03192176|181536173|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.38||0.5476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.08|18.97||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||18.97|-10.08|0.5476
90832358|NCT03192176|181536173|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.01||0.7954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.69|17.84||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||17.84|-13.69|0.7954
90832359|NCT03192176|181536173|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differencce|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.96||0.8731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.41|16.95||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||16.95|-14.41|0.8731
90894452|NCT04570436|181654505|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|325.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|113.38||0.0023|ONE_SIDED|90.0|138.2||||Mixed Models Analysis||||||138.2|0.0023
90894453|NCT04570436|181654505|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|140.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|113.01||0.2157|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-82.7|363.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||363.7|-82.7|0.2157
90894454|NCT04570436|181654505|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|155.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|113.25||0.172|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-68.3|379.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||379.1|-68.3|0.1720
91024490|NCT01335464|181932759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.3558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.25|||Log Rank||Nintedanib 150mg bid versus placebo|Hazard ratio is based on Cox´s regression model with terms for treatment, gender, age and height||1.25|0.52|0.3558
91024491|NCT01335464|181932760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.181||0.1138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.64|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Within-patient errors are modelled by compound symmetry covariance matrix.~Nintedanib 150mg bid versus placebo"|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), with fixed effects for treatment, visit, gender, age, height, treatment-by-visit, baseline SpO2, baseline SpO2-by-visit and random effect for patient.||0.64|-0.07|0.1138
91024492|NCT01335464|181932761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0896||0.865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.191|0.161|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Within-patient errors are modelled by compound symmetry covariance matrix.~Nintedanib 150mg bid versus placebo"|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures with fixed effects for treatment, visit, gender, age, height, treatment-by-visit, baseline DLCO (HGB Corrected) \[mmol/min/kPa\], baseline DLCO (HGB Corrected) \[mmol/min/kPa\]-by-visit and random effect for patient.||0.161|-0.191|0.8650
91024493|NCT01488019|181932763|NON_INFERIORITY|The hazard ratio and 90% two-sided confidence interval for the hazard ratio comparing Perforomist to placebo were estimated. Non-inferiority was declared if the upper limit of the two-sided 90% confidence interval was wholly less than 1.5.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.965|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.711|1.308||Hazard Ratio was calculated as Perforomist vs Placebo. The non-inferiority margin for the hazard ratio is 1.5. Subjects with no primary event at withdrawal or study completion were treated as censored observations at time of withdrawal|Regression, Cox|Treatment, site group, and bronchodilator reversibility included as covariates in the model.|Hazard Ratio was calculated as Perforomist Inhalation Solution vs Placebo. The non-inferiority margin for the hazard ratio is 1.5.|||1.308|0.711|
91024494|NCT02173301|181932813|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.066|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML) - an REML-based mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with and with baseline PASI score as covariate||||||0.066
91024495|NCT02173301|181932813|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML) - an REML-based mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with and with baseline PASI score as covariate||||||0.001
90894455|NCT04570436|181654505|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|212.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|113.01||0.0622|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.0|435.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||435.5|-11.0|0.0622
90894456|NCT04570436|181654505|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-185.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|113.04||0.1031|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-409.0|37.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||37.94|-409|0.1031
91024496|NCT02173301|181932813|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML) - an REML-based mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with and with baseline PASI score as covariate||||||<0.001
91024497|NCT02173301|181932814|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.501|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12 comparison||||0.501
90832360|NCT03192176|181536173|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.31||0.9689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.68|16.03||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||16.03|-16.68|0.9689
90832361|NCT03192176|181536173|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.28||0.6378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|20.21||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||20.21|-12.40|0.6378
90832362|NCT03192176|181536173|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differencce|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.33||0.8503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.82|17.97||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||17.97|-14.82|0.8503
90832363|NCT03192176|181536173|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|13.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.37||0.1224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.51|29.44||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||29.44|-3.51|0.1224
90832364|NCT03192176|181536173|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.99||0.3743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.62|22.85||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||22.85|-8.62|0.3743
90832365|NCT03192176|181536173|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-7.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.89||0.3173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.44|7.63||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||7.63|-23.44|0.3173
90832366|NCT03192176|181536173|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.82||0.7905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.48|13.32||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||13.32|-17.48|0.7905
90832367|NCT03192176|181536173|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-7.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.24||0.3804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.46|8.98||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||8.98|-23.46|0.3804
90832368|NCT03192176|181536173|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.11||0.4905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.58|10.38||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||10.38|-21.58|0.4905
90832369|NCT03192176|181536173|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-12.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.25||0.1289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.83|3.68||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||3.68|-28.83|0.1289
90832370|NCT03192176|181536173|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.24||0.4398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.86|22.61||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||22.61|-9.86|0.4398
90832371|NCT03192176|181536173|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.81||0.7921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.45|13.33||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||13.33|-17.45|0.7921
91024498|NCT02173301|181932814|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12 comparison||||0.340
90832372|NCT03192176|181536174|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|19.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.28||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.82|33.46||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|MMRM: Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 1||33.46|4.82|0.0090
90832373|NCT03192176|181536174|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|27.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.32||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.61|41.39||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||41.39|12.61|0.0003
90832374|NCT03192176|181536174|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|39.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.31|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.14|53.9||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||53.90|25.14|<0.0001
90832375|NCT03192176|181536174|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|44.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.27|59.39||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||59.39|30.27|<0.0001
91024499|NCT02173301|181932814|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.075|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12 comparison||||0.075
91024500|NCT02173301|181932815|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.229|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12 comparison||||0.229
91024501|NCT02173301|181932815|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.604|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12 comparison||||0.604
91024502|NCT02173301|181932815|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.573|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12 comparison||||0.573
90894457|NCT04570436|181654505|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-170.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|112.97||0.1334|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-394.0|52.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||52.71|-394|0.1334
90894458|NCT04570436|181654505|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-114.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|113.59||0.3189|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-338.0|110.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||110.8|-338|0.3189
90894459|NCT04570436|181654506|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|55.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.362|<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|90.0|46.89||||Mixed Models Analysis||||||46.89|<0.0001
90894460|NCT04570436|181654506|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.348||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.61|27.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||27.74|6.61|0.0016
90894461|NCT04570436|181654506|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.36||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|10.79|31.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||31.96|10.79|0.0001
90894462|NCT04570436|181654506|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.352|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|11.92|33.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||33.07|11.92|<0.0001
90894463|NCT04570436|181654506|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-38.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.312|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-49.1|-28.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-28.1|-49.1|<0.0001
90894464|NCT04570436|181654506|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-34.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.308|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-44.9|-23.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-23.9|-44.9|<0.0001
90894465|NCT04570436|181654506|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-33.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.337|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-43.8|-22.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-22.7|-43.8|<0.0001
90894466|NCT04570436|181654508|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|234.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|38.174|<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|90.0|171.7||||Mixed Models Analysis||||||171.7|<0.0001
90894467|NCT04570436|181654508|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|66.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|38.048||0.0834|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.86|141.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||141.5|-8.86|0.0834
90894468|NCT04570436|181654508|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|99.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|38.128||0.0103|TWO_SIDED|90.0|23.75|174.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||174.4|23.75|0.0103
90894469|NCT04570436|181654508|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|97.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|38.048||0.0116|TWO_SIDED|90.0|22.05|172.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||172.4|22.05|0.0116
90894470|NCT04570436|181654508|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-169.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|38.06|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-244.0|-93.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-93.4|-244|<0.0001
90894471|NCT04570436|181654508|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-136.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|38.036||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-211.0|-60.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-60.7|-211|0.0005
90894472|NCT04570436|181654508|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-138.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|38.243||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-213.0|-62.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-62.2|-213|0.0004
90894473|NCT02954354|181654522|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-26.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.8|-17.8||Adjusted p-value, two-sided significance level of 0.05|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||The primary analysis of time to alleviation of symptoms was a comparison of baloxavir with placebo in all participants in the intention-to-treat infection population. Statistical tests were performed at the 0.05 significance level.||-17.8|-35.8|<0.0001
90894474|NCT02954354|181654522|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Log Rank|Log rank test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Analysis using the stratified log rank test was performed as a sensitivity analysis.||||<0.0001
90894475|NCT02954354|181654523|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-0.3||||0.756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|6.6||Adjusted p-value, two-sided significance level of 0.05|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||A secondary analysis of time to alleviation of symptoms, consisting of a comparison between the 20 to 64 years of age stratum of the baloxavir group and the oseltamivir group, was conducted if statistical significance was observed in the primary analysis in order to maintain the overall Type I error.||6.6|-6.6|0.7560
90894476|NCT02954354|181654523|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3761||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Log Rank|Log rank test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Analysis using the stratified log rank test was performed as a sensitivity analysis.||||0.3761
90894477|NCT02954354|181654524|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 2||||<0.0001
90894478|NCT02954354|181654524|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 3||||<0.0001
90894479|NCT02954354|181654524|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 4||||<0.0001
90894480|NCT02954354|181654524|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 5||||<0.0001
90894481|NCT02954354|181654524|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4767||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 6||||0.4767
90894482|NCT02954354|181654524|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3353||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 9||||0.3353
90894483|NCT02954354|181654525|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 2||||<0.0001
90832376|NCT03192176|181536174|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|12.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.43||0.1019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.43|26.79||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||26.79|-2.43|0.1019
90832377|NCT03192176|181536174|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|27.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.31||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.45|42.22||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||42.22|13.45|0.0002
90832378|NCT03192176|181536174|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|29.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.27|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.21|43.82||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||43.82|15.21|<0.0001
90832379|NCT03192176|181536174|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|19.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.03||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.1|33.76||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||33.76|6.10|0.0049
90832380|NCT03192176|181536174|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|28.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.64|42.46||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||42.46|14.64|<0.0001
90832381|NCT03192176|181536174|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differencce|33.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.96|47.69||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||47.69|19.96|<0.0001
90832382|NCT03192176|181536174|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|39.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.4|53.58||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||53.58|25.40|<0.0001
90832383|NCT03192176|181536174|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|17.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.17||0.0146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|31.7||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||31.70|3.50|0.0146
90894484|NCT02954354|181654525|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 3||||<0.0001
91032493|NCT00377260|181949687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The comparison was adjusted for site, history of recurrent acute otitis media and exposure to other children.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two treatment groups regarding the proportion of children with mastoiditis.||||.99
90832384|NCT03192176|181536174|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|24.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.06||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.21|38.0||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||38.00|10.21|0.0007
90832385|NCT03192176|181536174|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|23.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.03||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.05|37.7||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||37.70|10.05|0.0008
90832386|NCT03192176|181536174|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|23.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.46||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.56|37.9||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||37.90|8.56|0.0020
90832387|NCT03192176|181536174|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|34.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.6|49.11||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||49.11|19.60|<0.0001
90832388|NCT03192176|181536174|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|35.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.46|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.96|50.32||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||50.32|20.96|<0.0001
90894485|NCT02954354|181654525|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0852||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 4||||0.0852
90894486|NCT02954354|181654525|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0063||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 5||||0.0063
90894487|NCT02954354|181654525|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6187||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 6||||0.6187
91032494|NCT00377260|181949687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The comparison was adjusted for site, history of recurrent acute otitis media and exposure to other children.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two treatment groups regarding the proportion of children with perforation of their tympanic membrane.||||.08
90832389|NCT03192176|181536174|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|43.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.03|57.93||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||57.93|28.03|<0.0001
90832390|NCT03192176|181536174|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|25.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.6||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.48|40.37||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||40.37|10.48|0.0009
90832391|NCT03192176|181536174|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|31.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.48|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.49|45.9||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||45.90|16.49|<0.0001
90832392|NCT03192176|181536174|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|28.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.44||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.24|43.52||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||43.52|14.24|0.0001
90832393|NCT03192176|181536174|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|23.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.42||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.46|37.66||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||37.66|8.46|0.0021
90832394|NCT03192176|181536174|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|32.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.45|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.42|46.71||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||46.71|17.42|<0.0001
90832395|NCT03192176|181536174|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|31.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.42|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.73|45.91||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||45.91|16.73|<0.0001
90832396|NCT03192176|181536174|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|41.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.56|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.95|56.68||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||56.68|26.95|<0.0001
90832397|NCT03192176|181536174|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|25.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.54||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.77|40.43||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||40.43|10.77|0.0008
90894488|NCT02954354|181654525|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8637||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|||Day 9||||0.8637
90894489|NCT02954354|181654526|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6145||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 2||||0.6145
90832398|NCT03192176|181536174|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|31.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.42|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.75|45.94||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||45.94|16.75|<0.0001
90832399|NCT03192176|181536174|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|29.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.39|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.91|43.97||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||43.97|14.91|<0.0001
90894490|NCT02954354|181654526|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2505||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 3||||0.2505
90832400|NCT03192176|181536174|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|20.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.05||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.31|34.06||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||34.06|6.31|0.0045
90832401|NCT03192176|181536174|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|30.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.68|44.49||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||44.49|16.68|<0.0001
90894491|NCT02954354|181654526|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.419||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 4||||0.4190
90894492|NCT02954354|181654526|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0095||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 5||||0.0095
90894493|NCT02954354|181654526|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7393||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 6||||0.7393
90957086|NCT00706433|181793740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||1.0
90894494|NCT02954354|181654526|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0049||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 9||||0.0049
90894495|NCT02954354|181654527|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2266||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 2||||0.2266
90894496|NCT02954354|181654527|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1379||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 3||||0.1379
90894497|NCT02954354|181654527|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5479||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 4||||0.5479
90894498|NCT02954354|181654527|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0241||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 5||||0.0241
90894499|NCT02954354|181654527|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0898||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 6||||0.0898
90894500|NCT02954354|181654527|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2548||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 9||||0.2548
90894501|NCT02954354|181654528|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 2||||<0.0001
90894502|NCT02954354|181654528|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 3||||<0.0001
90894503|NCT02954354|181654528|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0008||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 4||||0.0008
90894504|NCT02954354|181654528|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0132||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 5||||0.0132
90894505|NCT02954354|181654528|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9307||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 6||||0.9307
90894506|NCT02954354|181654528|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1677||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 9||||0.1677
90894507|NCT02954354|181654529|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 2||||<0.0001
90894508|NCT02954354|181654529|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 3||||<0.0001
90894509|NCT02954354|181654529|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.801||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 4||||0.8010
91088222|NCT00676403|182059337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.04||0.9355||95.0|-16.5|15.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score was included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||15.2|-16.5|0.9355
90894510|NCT02954354|181654529|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9451||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 5||||0.9451
90894511|NCT02954354|181654529|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2256||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 6||||0.2256
90894512|NCT02954354|181654529|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3332||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 9||||0.3332
90894513|NCT02954354|181654530|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 2||||<0.0001
91088223|NCT00676403|182059337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.97||0.9355||95.0|-15.1|16.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score was included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||16.4|-15.1|0.9355
91088224|NCT00676403|182059337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.94||0.1895||95.0|-26.1|5.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score was included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||5.2|-26.1|0.1895
90894514|NCT02954354|181654530|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 3||||<0.0001
90894515|NCT02954354|181654530|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 4||||<0.0001
90894516|NCT02954354|181654530|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 5||||<0.0001
90894517|NCT02954354|181654530|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 6||||0.0010
90894518|NCT02954354|181654530|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 9||||0.0002
91088225|NCT00676403|182059337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.1||0.1443||95.0|-27.8|4.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score was included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||4.1|-27.8|0.1443
90894519|NCT02954354|181654531|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 2||||<0.0001
90894520|NCT02954354|181654531|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 3||||<0.0001
90894521|NCT02954354|181654531|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4148||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 4||||0.4148
90894522|NCT02954354|181654531|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0338||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 5||||0.0338
90894523|NCT02954354|181654531|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9619||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 6||||0.9619
90894524|NCT02954354|181654531|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8491||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 9||||0.8491
90894525|NCT02954354|181654532|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||||||<0.0001
91088226|NCT00676403|182059337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.96||0.2946||95.0|-24.0|7.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score was included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||7.3|-24.0|0.2946
90894526|NCT02954354|181654533|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0313||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||||||0.0313
90957087|NCT00706433|181793741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0463||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0463
91088227|NCT00676403|182059337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.22||0.3686||95.0|-23.6|8.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score was included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||8.8|-23.6|0.3686
90832402|NCT03192176|181536174|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|29.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.14|42.98||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||42.98|15.14|<0.0001
90832403|NCT03192176|181536174|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|40.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.19|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.96|54.26||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||54.26|25.96|<0.0001
90832404|NCT03192176|181536174|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|24.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.15||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.28|38.42||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||38.42|10.28|0.0007
90832405|NCT03192176|181536174|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|26.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.06||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|40.55||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||40.55|1.78|0.0002
90832406|NCT03192176|181536174|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|23.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.03||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.55|37.22||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||37.22|9.55|0.0010
90832407|NCT03192176|181536174|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|19.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.6||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.13|32.11||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||32.11|6.13|0.0040
90832408|NCT03192176|181536174|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|23.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.62||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.8|36.83||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||36.83|10.80|0.0004
90832409|NCT03192176|181536174|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|27.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.64|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.1|40.24||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||40.24|14.10|<0.0001
90832410|NCT03192176|181536174|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|35.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.75|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.34|48.88||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||48.88|22.34|<0.0001
90832411|NCT03192176|181536174|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|20.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.72||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.76|33.19||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||33.19|6.76|0.0032
90832412|NCT03192176|181536174|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|24.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.64||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.02|37.13||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||37.13|11.02|0.0003
90832413|NCT03192176|181536174|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|23.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.59||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.17|36.08||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||36.08|10.17|0.0005
91032495|NCT00377260|181949688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The comparison adjusted for site, history of recurrent acute otitis media and exposure to other children.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups regarding the proportion of culture results with at least one AOM pathogen present.||||.002
90832414|NCT03192176|181536174|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|17.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.82||0.0102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|31.04||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||31.04|4.20|0.0102
90832415|NCT03192176|181536174|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|25.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.83||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.42|39.29||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||39.29|12.42|0.0002
90832416|NCT03192176|181536174|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|25.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.87||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.29|39.33||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||39.33|12.29|0.0002
90832417|NCT03192176|181536174|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|36.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.97|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.58|49.98||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||49.98|22.58|<0.0001
90832418|NCT03192176|181536174|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|20.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.94||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|34.29||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||34.29|7.00|0.0031
91088228|NCT00676403|182059337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.02||0.6079||95.0|-19.9|11.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score was included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||11.7|-19.9|0.6079
91088229|NCT00676403|182059337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.99||0.0016||95.0|-41.2|-9.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score was included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||-9.7|-41.2|0.0016
91088230|NCT00676403|182059337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.22||0.5976||95.0|-20.5|11.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score was included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||11.8|-20.5|0.5976
91088231|NCT00676403|182059337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.0||0.8527||95.0|-14.3|17.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score was included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||17.3|-14.3|0.8527
91088232|NCT00676403|182059337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.29||0.6973||95.0|-19.6|13.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score was included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||13.1|-19.6|0.6973
91088233|NCT00676403|182059337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.09||0.6895||95.0|-19.2|12.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score was included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||12.7|-19.2|0.6895
91088234|NCT00676403|182059337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.21||0.0209||95.0|-35.2|-2.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score was included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||-2.9|-35.2|0.0209
91088235|NCT00676403|182059337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.18||0.4084||95.0|-22.9|9.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score was included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||9.3|-22.9|0.4084
90832419|NCT03192176|181536174|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|22.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.85||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.43|36.38||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||36.38|9.43|0.0009
91088236|NCT00676403|182059337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.96||0.3958||95.0|-22.5|8.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score was included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||8.9|-22.5|0.3958
91088237|NCT00676403|182059337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.25||0.5776||95.0|-20.9|11.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score was included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||11.7|-20.9|0.5776
91088238|NCT00676403|182059337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.06||0.5665||95.0|-20.5|11.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score was included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||11.3|-20.5|0.5665
91088239|NCT00676403|182059337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.13||0.0041||95.0|-39.6|-7.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score was included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||-7.5|-39.6|0.0041
90832420|NCT03192176|181536174|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|22.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.8||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.42|36.19||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||36.19|9.42|0.0009
90832421|NCT03192176|181536174|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|13.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.71||0.0408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|26.97||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||26.97|0.58|0.0408
90832422|NCT03192176|181536174|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|20.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.72||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.77|33.21||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||33.21|6.77|0.0031
90832423|NCT03192176|181536174|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|22.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.76||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.8|35.4||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||35.40|8.80|0.0012
90832424|NCT03192176|181536174|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|29.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.87|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.39|43.42||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||43.42|16.39|<0.0001
90832425|NCT03192176|181536174|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|14.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.84||0.0303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|28.32||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||28.32|1.42|0.0303
90832426|NCT03192176|181536174|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|19.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.75||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|32.87||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||32.87|6.30|0.0040
90832427|NCT03192176|181536174|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|19.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.71||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.34|32.73||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||32.73|6.34|0.0038
90832428|NCT03192176|181536174|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|16.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.45||0.0137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.29|28.68||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||28.68|3.29|0.0137
90832429|NCT03192176|181536174|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|18.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.45||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.44|30.82||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||30.82|5.44|0.0052
90894527|NCT02954354|181654534|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|van Elteren test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||||||<0.0001
90894528|NCT02954354|181654535|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2424||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||||||0.2424
90894529|NCT02954354|181654536|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-72.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.0|-48.0||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||||-48.0|-72.0|<0.0001
90894530|NCT02954354|181654537|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-48.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.0|-24.0||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||||-24.0|-72.0|<0.0001
90957088|NCT00706433|181793741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1261||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.1261
90832430|NCT03192176|181536174|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|22.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.5||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.81|35.39||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||35.39|9.81|0.0006
90832431|NCT03192176|181536174|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|29.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.58|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.41|42.32||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||42.32|16.41|<0.0001
90832432|NCT03192176|181536174|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|13.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.57||0.0378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|26.63||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||26.63|0.78|0.0378
90832433|NCT03192176|181536174|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|20.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.49||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.31|32.85||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||32.85|7.31|0.002
90832434|NCT03192176|181536174|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|17.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.44||0.0071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.77|30.09||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||30.09|4.77|0.0071
90832435|NCT03192176|181536174|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|20.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.63||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.61|33.71||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||33.71|7.61|0.0020
90832436|NCT03192176|181536174|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|18.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.63||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.68|31.79||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||31.79|5.68|0.0050
90832437|NCT03192176|181536174|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|24.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.71||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.2|37.6||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||37.60|11.20|0.0003
90832438|NCT03192176|181536174|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|32.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.77|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.77|45.42||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||45.42|18.77|<0.0001
90832439|NCT03192176|181536174|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|19.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.76||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.79|32.38||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Wek 10||32.38|5.79|0.0050
90832440|NCT03192176|181536174|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|23.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.68||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.95|36.22||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||36.22|9.95|0.0006
90894531|NCT02954354|181654538|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-24.0||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-120.0|0.0||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||||0.0|-120.0|0.0020
90894532|NCT02954354|181654539|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-24.0||||0.0102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.0|24.0||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||||24.0|-48.0|0.0102
90894533|NCT02954354|181654540|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5973||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||12 hours||||0.5973
90894534|NCT02954354|181654540|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||24 hours||||0.0010
90894535|NCT02954354|181654540|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||36 hours||||<0.0001
91088240|NCT00676403|182059337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.22||0.1842||95.0|-27.1|5.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 5: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score was included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||5.2|-27.1|0.1842
90894536|NCT02954354|181654540|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||48 hours||||<0.0001
90832441|NCT03192176|181536174|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|22.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.62||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.79|35.85||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||35.85|9.79|0.0006
90894537|NCT02954354|181654540|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||72 hours||||<0.0001
90832442|NCT03192176|181536174|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|18.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.32||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.11|30.98||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||30.98|6.11|0.0036
90832443|NCT03192176|181536174|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|20.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.32||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.77|32.65||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||32.65|7.77|0.0015
90832444|NCT03192176|181536174|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|25.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.39||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.41|37.57||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||37.57|12.41|0.0001
90957089|NCT00706433|181793741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||1.0
91088241|NCT00676403|182059337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.0||0.8269||95.0|-17.5|14.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 5: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score was included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||14.0|-17.5|0.8269
90832445|NCT03192176|181536174|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|29.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.45|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.12|42.49||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||42.49|17.12|<0.0001
90832446|NCT03192176|181536174|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|19.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.43||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|32.21||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||32.21|6.90|0.0026
90832447|NCT03192176|181536174|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|23.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.36||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.92|35.94||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||35.94|10.92|0.0003
90832448|NCT03192176|181536174|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|21.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.3||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.34|34.14||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||34.14|9.34|0.0006
90832449|NCT03192176|181536174|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|19.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.37||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.78|31.83||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||31.83|6.78|0.0026
90832450|NCT03192176|181536174|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|20.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.36||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.29|33.33||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||33.33|8.29|0.0012
90832451|NCT03192176|181536174|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|25.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.44||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.48|37.82||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||37.82|12.48|0.0001
90832452|NCT03192176|181536174|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|31.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.11|44.67||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||44.67|19.11|<0.0001
90832453|NCT03192176|181536174|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|20.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.48||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.32|32.81||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||32.81|7.32|0.0021
90832454|NCT03192176|181536174|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|22.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.4||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.1|35.29||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||35.29|10.10|0.0004
90832455|NCT03192176|181536174|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|21.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.34||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.42|34.38||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||34.38|9.42|0.0006
90832456|NCT03192176|181536174|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|17.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.82||0.0304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.62|32.4||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||32.40|1.62|0.0304
90832457|NCT03192176|181536174|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.82||0.3857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|22.19||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMMRM|||Week 13||22.19|-8.60|0.3857
90832458|NCT03192176|181536174|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|7.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.06||0.3497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.31|23.4||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||23.40|-8.31|0.3497
90832459|NCT03192176|181536174|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|10.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.05||0.1771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.95|26.75||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|LSMean difference|||Week 13||26.75|-4.95|0.1771
90832460|NCT03192176|181536174|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|16.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.1||0.0444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|32.29||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||32.29|0.41|0.0444
90832461|NCT03192176|181536174|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|11.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.1||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.25|27.63||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||27.63|-4.25|0.1500
90894538|NCT02954354|181654540|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0115||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||96 hours||||0.0115
90894539|NCT02954354|181654540|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1298||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||120 hours||||0.1298
90894540|NCT02954354|181654540|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.117||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||144 hours||||0.1170
90894541|NCT02954354|181654540|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0757||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||168 hours||||0.0757
90894542|NCT02954354|181654540|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9453||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||192 hours||||0.9453
90894543|NCT02954354|181654540|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8657||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||216 hours||||0.8657
90894544|NCT02954354|181654541|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0458||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||12 hours||||0.0458
91088242|NCT00676403|182059337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.34||0.3319||95.0|-24.5|8.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 5: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score was included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||8.3|-24.5|0.3319
90894545|NCT02954354|181654541|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7565||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||24 hours||||0.7565
90894546|NCT02954354|181654541|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3297||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||36 hours||||0.3297
90894547|NCT02954354|181654541|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4442||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||48 hours||||0.4442
90894548|NCT02954354|181654541|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6029||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||72 hours||||0.6029
90894549|NCT02954354|181654541|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9881||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||96 hours||||0.9881
90894550|NCT02954354|181654541|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9257||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||120 hours||||0.9257
90894551|NCT02954354|181654541|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5317||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||144 hours||||0.5317
90894552|NCT02954354|181654541|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2144||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||168 hours||||0.2144
90894553|NCT02954354|181654541|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0413||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||192 hours||||0.0413
90894554|NCT02954354|181654541|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0409||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||216 hours||||0.0409
90894555|NCT02954354|181654542|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-19.8|||<|0.0001||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||||||<0.0001
90894556|NCT02954354|181654543|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-0.7||||0.4194||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||||||0.4194
91088243|NCT00676403|182059337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.09||0.7552||95.0|-13.4|18.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 5: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score was included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||18.5|-13.4|0.7552
90832462|NCT03192176|181536174|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.83||0.6196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.51|19.29||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||19.29|-11.51|0.6196
90832463|NCT03192176|181536174|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|9.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.48||0.2664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.25|26.15||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||26.15|-7.25|0.2664
90832464|NCT03192176|181536174|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differencce|4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.44||0.6388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.66|20.59||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||20.59|-12.66|0.6388
90832465|NCT03192176|181536174|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.79||0.5797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.43|22.19||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||22.19|-12.43|0.5797
91088244|NCT00676403|182059337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.16||0.0137||95.0|-36.3|-4.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 5: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score was included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||-4.2|-36.3|0.0137
90832466|NCT03192176|181536174|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|6.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.78||0.4817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|23.47||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||23.47|-11.10|0.4817
90832467|NCT03192176|181536174|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differencce|10.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.8||0.2358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.87|27.79||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||27.79|-6.87|0.2358
90832468|NCT03192176|181536174|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|14.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.86||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.11|31.77||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||31.77|-3.11|0.1070
90832469|NCT03192176|181536174|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.47||0.4268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.94|23.43||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||23.43|-9.94|0.4268
90894557|NCT02954354|181654544|SUPERIORITY|The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Difference|-23.1|||<|0.0001|||||||Generalized Wilcoxon test|Generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||||||<0.0001
90832470|NCT03192176|181536174|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.61||0.9197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.81|16.08||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||16.08|-17.81|0.9197
90832471|NCT03192176|181536174|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.54||0.9954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.77|16.87||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||16.87|-16.77|0.9954
90832472|NCT03192176|181536174|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.0||0.9607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.28|18.17||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||18.17|-17.28|0.9607
90832473|NCT03192176|181536174|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.87||0.6625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.33|13.59||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||13.59|-21.33|0.6625
90832474|NCT03192176|181536174|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.01||0.9952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.81|17.7||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||17.70|-17.81|0.9952
90832475|NCT03192176|181536174|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.02||0.4001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.16|25.36||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||25.36|-10.16|0.4001
90894558|NCT02954354|181654545|SUPERIORITY||Difference|1.3||||0.4856||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||||||0.4856
90832476|NCT03192176|181536174|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.54||0.751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.52|14.1||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||14.10|-19.52|0.7510
90832477|NCT03192176|181536175|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.02||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.95|18.64||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||18.64|1.95|0.0018
90832478|NCT03192176|181536175|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.28||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|25.42||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||25.42|2.70|0.0002
90832479|NCT03192176|181536175|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.92|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.53|33.74||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||33.74|3.53|<0.0001
90832480|NCT03192176|181536175|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.91|37.89||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||37.89|3.91|<0.0001
90832481|NCT03192176|181536175|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1||||0.2244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|6.92||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||6.92|0.64|0.2244
90832482|NCT03192176|181536175|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.58||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.77|26.53||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||26.53|2.77|0.0002
90832483|NCT03192176|181536175|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.25||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.71|25.13||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||25.13|2.71|0.0002
90832484|NCT03192176|181536175|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.04||||0.0149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|7.45||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||7.45|1.24|0.0149
90832485|NCT03192176|181536175|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.65||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.85|11.73||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||11.73|1.85|0.0011
90894559|NCT02954354|181654546|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.7173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.7||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline composite symptom score baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12)and region (Japan/Asia, Rest of the world) as covariates.||12 hours||0.7|-0.5|0.7173
91032496|NCT00377260|181949688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The comparison adjusted for site, history of recurrent acute otitis media and exposure to other children.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups regarding the proportion of culture results with Streptococcus pneumoniae present.||||<.001
90832486|NCT03192176|181536175|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.36||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.46|16.45||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||16.45|2.46|0.0001
90832487|NCT03192176|181536175|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.87||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.56|18.46||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||18.46|2.56|0.0001
90832488|NCT03192176|181536175|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.18||||0.0897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|5.34||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||5.34|0.89|0.0897
90832489|NCT03192176|181536175|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.46||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|8.53||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||8.53|1.42|0.0070
90832490|NCT03192176|181536175|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.75||||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|9.23||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||9.23|1.52|0.0041
90832491|NCT03192176|181536175|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.77||||0.0254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|6.78||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||6.78|1.13|0.0254
90832492|NCT03192176|181536175|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.0||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|10.04||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||10.04|1.59|0.0032
90832493|NCT03192176|181536175|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.25||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.37|16.51||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||16.51|2.37|0.0002
90832494|NCT03192176|181536175|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|25.7||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||25.70|3.00|<0.0001
90832495|NCT03192176|181536175|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.9||||0.0214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|7.18||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||7.18|1.17|0.0214
90832496|NCT03192176|181536175|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.67||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|9.09||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||9.09|1.48|0.0049
90894560|NCT02954354|181654546|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.4||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline composite symptom score baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12)and region (Japan/Asia, Rest of the world) as covariates.||24 hours||-0.4|-1.7|0.0009
90894561|NCT02954354|181654546|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-1.1||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline composite symptom score baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12)and region (Japan/Asia, Rest of the world) as covariates.||36 hours||-1.1|-2.4|<0.0001
90894562|NCT02954354|181654546|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-1.2||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline composite symptom score baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12)and region (Japan/Asia, Rest of the world) as covariates.||48 hours||-1.2|-2.4|<0.0001
91024503|NCT00387712|181932852|OTHER|Analysis of variance between groups across time is the primary analyses.||||||0.001||||||Group (high velocity training vs. low velocity duration training) by time (baseline to post-6 months) for the primary outcome category (peak fitness) using repeated measures analysis of variance. No adjustment for multiple comparisons is needed.|ANOVA|No other adjustments such as degrees of freedom was necessary.||"Power Calculation: It was calculated that 29 subjects should be randomized to 2 groups to achieve a significant time by group interaction for peak fitness for high-velocity or low velocity duration training groups, assuming a power of 90 percent power and alpha = 0.01, two-tailed analyses.~Primary analyses is a group by time analysis of variance in peak fitness levels between the higher-intensity and lower intensity training groups across baseline to 6 months post-exercise time points."||||0.001
91024504|NCT00387712|181932853|OTHER|Primary analyses is a group by time analysis of variance in myosin heavy chain levels levels between the higher-intensity and lower intensity training groups across baseline to 6 months post-exercise time points.||||||0.11|||||||ANOVA|||Power Calculation: It was calculated that 22 participants should be randomized to 2 groups to achieve a significant time by group interaction for myosin heavy chain isoforms for high-velocity or low velocity duration training groups, assuming a power of 90 percent power and alpha = 0.01, two-tailed analyses.||||0.11
90832497|NCT03192176|181536175|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.36||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|8.22||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||8.22|1.38|0.0078
90832498|NCT03192176|181536175|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.28||||0.0727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|5.63||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||5.63|0.93|0.0727
90832499|NCT03192176|181536175|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.94||||0.0199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|7.29||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||7.29|1.19|0.0199
90832500|NCT03192176|181536175|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.21||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.61|11.01||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||11.01|1.61|0.0034
91032497|NCT00377260|181949688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The comparison adjusted for site, history of recurrent acute otitis media and exposure to other children.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups regarding the proportion of culture results with Haemophilus influenzae present.||||.85
91032498|NCT00377260|181949688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The comparison adjusted for site, history of recurrent acute otitis media and exposure to other children.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups regarding the proportion of culture results with Moraxella catarrhalis present.||||<.001
91032499|NCT00377260|181949688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The comparison adjusted for site, history of recurrent acute otitis media and exposure to other children.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups regarding the proportion of culture results with Streptococcus pyogenes present.||||.28
90894563|NCT02954354|181654546|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.9||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline composite symptom score baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12)and region (Japan/Asia, Rest of the world) as covariates.||72 hours||-0.9|-2.0|<0.0001
90894564|NCT02954354|181654546|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.5||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline composite symptom score baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12)and region (Japan/Asia, Rest of the world) as covariates.||96 hours||-0.5|-1.5|0.0001
90894565|NCT02954354|181654546|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.1979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.2||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline composite symptom score baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12)and region (Japan/Asia, Rest of the world) as covariates.||120 hours||0.2|-0.8|0.1979
90894566|NCT02954354|181654546|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.1079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.1||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline composite symptom score baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12)and region (Japan/Asia, Rest of the world) as covariates.||144 hours||0.1|-0.8|0.1079
90894567|NCT02954354|181654546|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.5805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.3||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline composite symptom score baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12)and region (Japan/Asia, Rest of the world) as covariates.||168 hours||0.3|-0.6|0.5805
90894568|NCT02954354|181654546|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.8057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.5||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline composite symptom score baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12)and region (Japan/Asia, Rest of the world) as covariates.||192 hours||0.5|-0.4|0.8057
90894569|NCT02954354|181654546|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.9525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.6||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline composite symptom score baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12)and region (Japan/Asia, Rest of the world) as covariates.||216 hours||0.6|-0.6|0.9525
90894570|NCT02954354|181654547|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.4091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.8||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline composite symptom score baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12)and region (Japan/Asia, Rest of the world) as covariates.||12 hours||0.8|-0.3|0.4091
90894571|NCT02954354|181654547|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.3073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.8||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline composite symptom score baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12)and region (Japan/Asia, Rest of the world) as covariates.||24 hours||0.8|-0.3|0.3073
90894572|NCT02954354|181654547|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.3465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.3||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline composite symptom score baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12)and region (Japan/Asia, Rest of the world) as covariates.||36 hours||0.3|-0.8|0.3465
90894573|NCT02954354|181654547|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.4285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.7||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline composite symptom score baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12)and region (Japan/Asia, Rest of the world) as covariates.||48 hours||0.7|-0.3|0.4285
91024505|NCT00387712|181932854|OTHER|Analysis of variance between groups across time is the primary analyses.||||||0.81||||||Group (high velocity training vs. low velocity duration training) by time (baseline to post-6 months) for the secondary outcome category (30 ft walk time - fastest comfortable gait) using repeated measures analysis of variance.|ANOVA|No other adjustments such as degrees of freedom was necessary.||Primary analyses is a group by time analysis of variance in 30 foot walk time (sec) between the higher-intensity and lower intensity training groups across baseline to 6 months post-exercise time points.||||0.81
91024506|NCT01772368|181932857|OTHER|linearity statistical test|||||<|0.0001||||||A fixed-sequence testing procedure was employed to control the overall Type I error rate at the 2 sided 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|Fixed effects of sequence, period and treatment; a random effect of subject within sequence; and a covariate of period-specific baseline FEV1.||A linear in log-dose-trend contrast was constructed to evaluate the dose-response trend, where the logarithm of dose was defined precisely as log (dose+1) to accommodate the case of Fp MDPI 100 mcg, since the dose used in this trend analysis was the salmeterol dose. The study was considered positive if the trend test was positive and the test involving the highest FS MDPI dose (100/50 mcg) compared with Fp MDPI 100 mcg was positive, regardless of the results of the tests for the other doses.||||<0.0001
91024507|NCT01772368|181932857|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|251.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|215.6|287.1||A fixed-sequence testing procedure was employed to control the overall Type I error rate at the 2 sided 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|Fixed effects of sequence, period and treatment; a random effect of subject within sequence; and a covariate of period-specific baseline FEV1.|FS MDPI 100/50 mcg - Fp MDPI 100 mcg|The estimated treatment difference from the ANCOVA model between FS MDPI 100/50 mcg dose group and Fp MDPI 100 mcg group is presented together with the two-sided 95% CI for the difference and the p-value.||287.1|215.6|<0.0001
90894574|NCT02954354|181654547|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.6703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.6||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline composite symptom score baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12)and region (Japan/Asia, Rest of the world) as covariates.||72 hours||0.6|-0.4|0.6703
91088245|NCT00676403|182059337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.22||0.1157||95.0|-29.2|3.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score was included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||3.2|-29.2|0.1157
90894575|NCT02954354|181654547|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.7187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.5||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline composite symptom score baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12)and region (Japan/Asia, Rest of the world) as covariates.||96 hours||0.5|-0.3|0.7187
90894576|NCT02954354|181654547|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.7||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline composite symptom score baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12)and region (Japan/Asia, Rest of the world) as covariates.||120 hours||0.7|-0.1|0.1350
90894577|NCT02954354|181654547|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.7046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.5||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline composite symptom score baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12)and region (Japan/Asia, Rest of the world) as covariates.||144 hours||0.5|-0.3|0.7046
90894578|NCT02954354|181654547|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.2765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.6||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline composite symptom score baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12)and region (Japan/Asia, Rest of the world) as covariates.||168 hours||0.6|-0.2|0.2765
91088246|NCT00676403|182059337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.04||0.3791||95.0|-22.9|8.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score was included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||8.7|-22.9|0.3791
91088247|NCT00676403|182059337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.39||0.1329||95.0|-29.2|3.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score was included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||3.9|-29.2|0.1329
91088248|NCT00676403|182059337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.09||0.7723||95.0|-13.6|18.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score was included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||18.3|-13.6|0.7723
91088249|NCT00676403|182059337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.16||0.0063||95.0|-38.6|-6.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score was included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||-6.4|-38.6|0.0063
91088250|NCT00676403|182059338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.254||0.1715||95.0|-0.15|0.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.85|-0.15|0.1715
91088251|NCT00676403|182059338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.251||0.7944||95.0|-0.43|0.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.56|-0.43|0.7944
91088252|NCT00676403|182059338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.255||0.1994||95.0|-0.17|0.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.83|-0.17|0.1994
90894579|NCT02954354|181654547|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.8||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline composite symptom score baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12)and region (Japan/Asia, Rest of the world) as covariates.||192 hours||0.8|0.0|0.0274
90957090|NCT00706433|181793741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||1.0
90957091|NCT00706433|181793741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0947||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0947
91088253|NCT00676403|182059338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.251||0.3652||95.0|-0.27|0.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.72|-0.27|0.3652
91088254|NCT00676403|182059338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.251||0.0481||95.0|0.0|0.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.99|0.00|0.0481
91088255|NCT00676403|182059338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.256||0.2501||95.0|-0.21|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.80|-0.21|0.2501
91088256|NCT00676403|182059338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.252||0.5191||95.0|-0.33|0.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.66|-0.33|0.5191
91088257|NCT00676403|182059338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.262||0.0817||95.0|-0.06|0.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.97|-0.06|0.0817
91088258|NCT00676403|182059338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.253||0.1146||95.0|-0.1|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.90|-0.10|0.1146
91088259|NCT00676403|182059338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.253||0.0054||95.0|0.21|1.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||1.21|0.21|0.0054
91088260|NCT00676403|182059338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.261||0.3389||95.0|-0.26|0.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.76|-0.26|0.3389
90894580|NCT02954354|181654547|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.6001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.6||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline composite symptom score baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12)and region (Japan/Asia, Rest of the world) as covariates.||216 hours||0.6|-0.3|0.6001
91088261|NCT00676403|182059338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.254||0.5079||95.0|-0.33|0.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.67|-0.33|0.5079
91088262|NCT00676403|182059338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.265||0.0453||95.0|0.01|1.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||1.05|0.01|0.0453
91088263|NCT00676403|182059338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.256||0.1622||95.0|-0.15|0.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.86|-0.15|0.1622
90894581|NCT02954354|181654548|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-17.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.1|-11.9||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||||-11.9|-21.1|<0.0001
91088264|NCT00676403|182059338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.262||0.0003||95.0|0.45|1.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||1.48|0.45|0.0003
91088265|NCT00676403|182059338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.0383||95.0|0.03|1.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||1.05|0.03|0.0383
91088266|NCT00676403|182059338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.253||0.4495||95.0|-0.31|0.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.69|-0.31|0.4495
91088267|NCT00676403|182059338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.263||0.0135||95.0|0.14|1.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||1.17|0.14|0.0135
91088268|NCT00676403|182059338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.254||0.1423||95.0|-0.13|0.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.87|-0.13|0.1423
91088269|NCT00676403|182059338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.259||0.0035||95.0|0.25|1.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||1.27|0.25|0.0035
91088270|NCT00676403|182059338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.261||0.0125||95.0|0.14|1.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 5: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||1.17|0.14|0.0125
91088271|NCT00676403|182059338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.254||0.8021||95.0|-0.44|0.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 5: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.56|-0.44|0.8021
90894582|NCT02954354|181654549|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9225||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||||||0.9225
90894583|NCT02954354|181654550|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7866||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||12 hours||||0.7866
91088272|NCT00676403|182059338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.267||0.0249||95.0|0.08|1.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 5: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||1.13|0.08|0.0249
91088273|NCT00676403|182059338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.256||0.3383||95.0|-0.26|0.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 5: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.75|-0.26|0.3383
91088274|NCT00676403|182059338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.0001||95.0|0.55|1.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 5: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||1.57|0.55|0.0001
91088275|NCT00676403|182059338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.261||0.0133||95.0|0.14|1.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||1.17|0.14|0.0133
90832501|NCT03192176|181536175|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.26||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.16|18.26||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||18.26|2.16|0.0007
90832502|NCT03192176|181536175|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.02||||0.1206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|4.92||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||4.92|0.83|0.1206
90832503|NCT03192176|181536175|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.58||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|9.03||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||9.03|1.42|0.0070
90832504|NCT03192176|181536175|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.41||||0.0088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|8.54||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||8.54|1.36|0.0088
90832505|NCT03192176|181536175|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.4485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|3.4||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||3.40|0.58|0.4485
90832506|NCT03192176|181536175|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.92||||0.0255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|7.47||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||7.47|1.14|0.0255
90832507|NCT03192176|181536175|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.18||||0.0066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.49|11.75||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||11.75|1.49|0.0066
90832508|NCT03192176|181536175|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.46||||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|13.01||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||13.01|1.53|0.0061
90832509|NCT03192176|181536175|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.22||||0.0879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|5.57||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||5.57|0.89|0.0879
90832510|NCT03192176|181536175|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.68||||0.0389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|6.83||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||6.83|1.05|0.0389
90832511|NCT03192176|181536175|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.62||||0.0446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|6.73||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||6.73|1.02|0.0446
90832512|NCT03192176|181536175|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.8196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.72||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||2.72|0.45|0.8196
90832513|NCT03192176|181536175|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|5.1||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||5.10|0.79|0.1450
90832514|NCT03192176|181536175|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.08||||0.0114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|12.11||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||12.11|1.37|0.0114
91088276|NCT00676403|182059338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.256||0.382||95.0|-0.28|0.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.73|-0.28|0.3820
91088277|NCT00676403|182059338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.269||0.0053||95.0|0.23|1.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||1.28|0.23|0.0053
90832515|NCT03192176|181536175|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.29||||0.0307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|9.71||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||9.71|1.12|0.0307
90832516|NCT03192176|181536175|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.5921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|3.24||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||3.24|0.51|0.5921
90832517|NCT03192176|181536175|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.69||||0.0502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|7.26||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||7.26|1.00|0.0502
90832518|NCT03192176|181536175|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.31||||0.0224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|9.25||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||9.25|1.18|0.0224
90832519|NCT03192176|181536175|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.7225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|2.93||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||2.93|0.47|0.7225
90832520|NCT03192176|181536175|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.43||||0.0762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|6.48||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||6.48|0.91|0.0762
90832521|NCT03192176|181536175|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.51||||0.0252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|10.53||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||10.53|1.17|0.0252
90894584|NCT02954354|181654550|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||24 hours||||<0.0001
90894585|NCT02954354|181654550|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||36 hours||||<0.0001
91088278|NCT00676403|182059338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.256||0.3258||95.0|-0.25|0.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.76|-0.25|0.3258
90832522|NCT03192176|181536175|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.98||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|8.87||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||8.87|1.00|0.0490
90832523|NCT03192176|181536175|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.97||||0.1773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|5.3||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||5.30|0.74|0.1773
90832524|NCT03192176|181536175|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.62||||0.0609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|7.16||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||7.16|0.96|0.0609
90832525|NCT03192176|181536175|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.11||||0.1364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|5.61||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||5.61|0.79|0.1364
90832526|NCT03192176|181536175|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.5268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|3.51||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||3.51|0.53|0.5268
90832527|NCT03192176|181536175|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.02||||0.1645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|5.46||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||5.46|0.75|0.1645
91088279|NCT00676403|182059338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.0005||95.0|0.41|1.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||1.43|0.41|0.0005
91088280|NCT00676403|182059339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.1429||95.0|-1.0|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.1|-1.0|0.1429
91088281|NCT00676403|182059339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.0547||95.0|-1.2|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.0|-1.2|0.0547
90832528|NCT03192176|181536175|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.92||||0.0215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|12.57||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||12.57|1.22|0.0215
90832529|NCT03192176|181536175|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.04||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|9.69||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||9.69|0.95|0.0600
90832530|NCT03192176|181536175|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.6503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|3.32||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||3.32|0.47|0.6503
90832531|NCT03192176|181536175|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.7||||0.0683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|7.88||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||7.88|0.93|0.0683
90832532|NCT03192176|181536175|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.83||||0.0618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|8.44||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||8.44|0.95|0.0618
90832533|NCT03192176|181536175|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.5621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.63||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||3.63|0.50|0.5621
90894586|NCT02954354|181654550|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||48 hours||||<0.0001
91088282|NCT00676403|182059339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.0095||95.0|-1.4|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||-0.2|-1.4|0.0095
91088283|NCT00676403|182059339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.3676||95.0|-0.9|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.3|-0.9|0.3676
90832534|NCT03192176|181536175|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.92||||0.2182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|5.4||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||5.40|0.68|0.2182
90832535|NCT03192176|181536175|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.11||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|10.15||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||10.15|0.95|0.0600
90832536|NCT03192176|181536175|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.6||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|18.12||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||18.12|1.17|0.0290
90832537|NCT03192176|181536175|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.8485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.04||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||3.04|0.40|0.8485
90832538|NCT03192176|181536175|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.16||||0.1652|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|6.42||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||6.42|0.73|0.1652
90832539|NCT03192176|181536175|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.94||||0.2244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|5.65||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||5.65|0.67|0.2244
90894587|NCT02954354|181654550|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||72 hours||||<0.0001
90832540|NCT03192176|181536175|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.85||||0.2097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|4.84||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||4.84|0.71|0.2097
90832541|NCT03192176|181536175|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53||||0.3708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.92||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||3.92|0.60|0.3708
90832542|NCT03192176|181536175|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.66||||0.0704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|7.66||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||7.66|0.92|0.0704
90832543|NCT03192176|181536175|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.21||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.88|27.73||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||27.73|1.88|0.0040
90832544|NCT03192176|181536175|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.04||||0.1625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|5.55||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||5.55|0.75|0.1625
90832545|NCT03192176|181536175|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.59||||0.0093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|14.5||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||14.50|1.46|0.0093
90832546|NCT03192176|181536175|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.44||||0.0103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|13.87||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||13.87|1.42|0.0103
90832547|NCT03192176|181536175|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.89||||0.1965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|4.95||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||4.95|0.72|0.1965
90832548|NCT03192176|181536175|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.69||||0.0549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|7.42||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||7.42|0.98|0.0549
90832549|NCT03192176|181536175|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.01||||0.0503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|9.09||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||9.09|1.00|0.0503
90894588|NCT02954354|181654550|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7044||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||96 hours||||0.7044
90957092|NCT00706433|181793741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0886||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0886
90832550|NCT03192176|181536175|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.03||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.82|27.1||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||27.10|1.82|0.0046
90832551|NCT03192176|181536175|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.46||||0.0866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|6.88||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||6.88|0.88|0.0866
90894589|NCT02954354|181654550|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8512||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||120 hours||||0.8512
90894590|NCT02954354|181654550|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8783||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||144 hours||||0.8783
90957093|NCT00706433|181793741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||1.0
90832552|NCT03192176|181536175|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.96||||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.74|20.4||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||20.40|1.74|0.0045
90832553|NCT03192176|181536175|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.59||||0.0207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|10.62||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||10.62|1.22|0.0207
90832554|NCT03192176|181536175|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.86||||0.2127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|4.91||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||4.91|0.70|0.2127
90832555|NCT03192176|181536175|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.04||||0.1521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|5.43||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||5.43|0.77|0.1521
90832556|NCT03192176|181536175|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.12||||0.0098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|17.7||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||17.70|1.48|0.0098
90832557|NCT03192176|181536175|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.08||||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.82|27.5||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||27.50|1.82|0.0047
91088284|NCT00676403|182059339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.2959||95.0|-0.9|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.3|-0.9|0.2959
91088285|NCT00676403|182059339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.3435||95.0|-0.9|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.3|-0.9|0.3435
90832558|NCT03192176|181536175|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.1817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|5.51||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||5.51|0.72|0.1817
90832559|NCT03192176|181536175|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.09||||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|20.95||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||20.95|1.77|0.0042
90832560|NCT03192176|181536175|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.09||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|20.74||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||20.74|1.78|0.0039
90832561|NCT03192176|181536175|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.7025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|3.57||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||3.57|0.42|0.7025
90832562|NCT03192176|181536175|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.9599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|2.97||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||2.97|0.36|0.9599
90832563|NCT03192176|181536175|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.9671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|3.1||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||3.10|0.34|0.9671
90832564|NCT03192176|181536175|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|3.83||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||3.83|0.42|0.6810
90832565|NCT03192176|181536175|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.6346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|4.04||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||4.04|0.43|0.6346
90832566|NCT03192176|181536175|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.7929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|3.57||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||3.57|0.38|0.7929
90894591|NCT02954354|181654550|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8291||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||168 hours||||0.8291
90957094|NCT00706433|181793742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||<0.0001
90957095|NCT00706433|181793742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0255||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0255
90894592|NCT02954354|181654550|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8644||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||192 hours||||0.8644
90894593|NCT02954354|181654550|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9312||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||216 hours||||0.9312
90894594|NCT02954354|181654551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2953||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||12 hours||||0.2953
90894595|NCT02954354|181654551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5414||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||24 hours||||0.5414
90894596|NCT02954354|181654551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2079||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||36 hours||||0.2079
90894597|NCT02954354|181654551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7771||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world)||48 hours||||0.7771
90894598|NCT02954354|181654551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0215||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||72 hours||||0.0215
90894599|NCT02954354|181654551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8033||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world)||96 hours||||0.8033
91088286|NCT00676403|182059339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.0895||95.0|-1.1|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.1|-1.1|0.0895
90894600|NCT02954354|181654551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4157||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||120 hours||||0.4157
90894601|NCT02954354|181654551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5908||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world)||144 hours||||0.5908
90894602|NCT02954354|181654551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2975||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||168 hours||||0.2975
90894603|NCT02954354|181654551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8644||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||192 hours||||0.8644
90894604|NCT02954354|181654551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5573||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.m|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||216 hours||||0.5573
90894605|NCT02954354|181654552|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.2557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.06||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline composite symptom score and region (Japan/Asia, Rest of the world) and body temperature at baseline as covariates.||12 hours||0.06|-0.24|0.2557
90894606|NCT02954354|181654552|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.22||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline composite symptom score and region (Japan/Asia, Rest of the world) and body temperature at baseline as covariates.||24 hours||-0.22|-0.46|<0.0001
90894607|NCT02954354|181654552|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.29||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline composite symptom score and region (Japan/Asia, Rest of the world) and body temperature at baseline as covariates.||36 hours||-0.29|-0.52|<0.0001
90894608|NCT02954354|181654552|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.27||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline composite symptom score and region (Japan/Asia, Rest of the world) and body temperature at baseline as covariates.||48 hours||-0.27|-0.48|<0.0001
91088287|NCT00676403|182059339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.0844||95.0|-1.1|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.1|-1.1|0.0844
91088288|NCT00676403|182059339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.0675||95.0|-1.1|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.0|-1.1|0.0675
90832567|NCT03192176|181536175|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.8188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|3.28||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||3.28|0.39|0.8188
90832568|NCT03192176|181536175|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.8226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.6||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||2.60|0.30|0.8226
90832569|NCT03192176|181536175|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.9088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|2.72||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||2.72|0.32|0.9088
90832570|NCT03192176|181536175|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.6189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|2.35||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||2.35|0.24|0.6189
90832571|NCT03192176|181536175|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.6463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|4.03||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||4.03|0.42|0.6463
90832572|NCT03192176|181536175|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|4.54||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||4.54|0.47|0.5060
90832573|NCT03192176|181536175|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67||||0.3842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|5.31||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||5.31|0.53|0.3842
91088289|NCT00676403|182059339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.225||95.0|-1.0|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.2|-1.0|0.2250
91088290|NCT00676403|182059339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.3728||95.0|-0.9|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.3|-0.9|0.3728
91088291|NCT00676403|182059339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.2686||95.0|-0.9|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.3|-0.9|0.2686
90832574|NCT03192176|181536175|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.5021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|4.23||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||4.23|0.49|0.5021
90832575|NCT03192176|181536175|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.42||||0.1349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|1.31||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||1.31|0.14|0.1349
90832576|NCT03192176|181536175|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.57||||0.3191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.71||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||1.71|0.19|0.3191
90832577|NCT03192176|181536175|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.3||||0.0623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.06||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||1.06|0.09|0.0623
90832578|NCT03192176|181536175|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.47||||0.1958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.48||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||1.48|0.15|0.1958
90832579|NCT03192176|181536175|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.62||||0.4353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|2.05||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||2.05|0.19|0.4353
90832580|NCT03192176|181536175|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.9729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|3.31||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||3.31|0.31|0.9729
90832581|NCT03192176|181536175|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.64||||0.4211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.89||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||1.89|0.22|0.4211
90832582|NCT03192176|181536176|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.05||||0.1938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|16.35||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||16.35|0.57|0.1938
90832583|NCT03192176|181536176|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.97||||0.0162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|33.91||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||33.91|1.43|0.0162
90832584|NCT03192176|181536176|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.37||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.04|67.96||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||67.96|3.04|0.0008
90832585|NCT03192176|181536176|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.02||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.39|75.68||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||75.68|3.39|0.0005
90832586|NCT03192176|181536176|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.02||||0.1971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|16.17||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||16.17|0.56|0.1971
90832587|NCT03192176|181536176|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.31||||0.0811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|22.27||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||22.27|0.83|0.0811
90832588|NCT03192176|181536176|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.44||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.43|53.94||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||53.94|2.43|0.0021
90832589|NCT03192176|181536176|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.11||||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|5.64||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||5.64|0.79|0.1370
90832590|NCT03192176|181536176|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.2||||0.0181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|8.4||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||8.40|1.22|0.0181
90832591|NCT03192176|181536176|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.43||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.43|17.05||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||17.05|2.43|0.0002
90832592|NCT03192176|181536176|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.08||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.26|16.31||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||16.31|2.26|0.0003
90832593|NCT03192176|181536176|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.65||||0.3241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|4.49||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||4.49|0.61|0.3241
90832594|NCT03192176|181536176|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.85||||0.2249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|5.03||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||5.03|0.68|0.2249
90832595|NCT03192176|181536176|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.53||||0.0096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|9.18||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||9.18|1.36|0.0096
90832596|NCT03192176|181536176|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.35||||0.0768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|6.05||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||6.05|0.91|0.0768
90957096|NCT00706433|181793742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0576||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0576
91088292|NCT00676403|182059339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.0753||95.0|-1.2|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.1|-1.2|0.0753
91024508|NCT01772368|181932857|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|227.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|191.6|263.5||A fixed-sequence testing procedure was employed to control the overall Type I error rate at the 2 sided 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|Fixed effects of sequence, period and treatment; a random effect of subject within sequence; and a covariate of period-specific baseline FEV1.|FS MDPI 100/25 mcg - Fp MDPI 100 mcg|The estimated treatment difference from the ANCOVA model between FS MDPI 100/25 mcg dose group and Fp MDPI 100 mcg group is presented together with the two-sided 95% CI for the difference and the p-value.||263.5|191.6|<0.0001
91024509|NCT01772368|181932857|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|196.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|161.2|232.5||A fixed-sequence testing procedure was employed to control the overall Type I error rate at the 2 sided 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|Fixed effects of sequence, period and treatment; a random effect of subject within sequence; and a covariate of period-specific baseline FEV1.|FS MDPI 100/12.5 mcg - Fp MDPI 100 mcg|The estimated treatment difference from the ANCOVA model between FS MDPI 100/512.5 mcg dose group and Fp MDPI 100 mcg group is presented together with the two-sided 95% CI for the difference and the p-value.||232.5|161.2|<0.0001
91024510|NCT01772368|181932857|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|151.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|115.9|187.5||A fixed-sequence testing procedure was employed to control the overall Type I error rate at the 2 sided 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|Fixed effects of sequence, period and treatment; a random effect of subject within sequence; and a covariate of period-specific baseline FEV1.|FS MDPI 100/6.25 mcg - Fp MDPI 100 mcg|The estimated treatment difference from the ANCOVA model between FS MDPI 100/6.25 mcg dose group and Fp MDPI 100 mcg group is presented together with the two-sided 95% CI for the difference and the p-value.||187.5|115.9|<0.0001
91024511|NCT01772368|181932857|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|193.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|157.4|229.5||A fixed-sequence testing procedure was employed to control the overall Type I error rate at the 2 sided 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|Fixed effects of sequence, period and treatment; a random effect of subject within sequence; and a covariate of period-specific baseline FEV1.|Advair Diskus 100/50 mcg - Fp MDPI 100|The estimated treatment difference from the ANCOVA model between Advair Diskus 100/50 mcg dose group and Fp MDPI 100 mcg group is presented together with the two-sided 95% CI for the difference and the p-value.||229.5|157.4|<0.0001
91024512|NCT01772368|181932857|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|57.88||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.0|93.7||A fixed-sequence testing procedure was employed to control the overall Type I error rate at the 2 sided 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|Fixed effects of sequence, period and treatment; a random effect of subject within sequence; and a covariate of period-specific baseline FEV1.|FS MDPI 100/50 - Advair Diskus 100/50 mcg|The estimated treatment difference from the ANCOVA model between FS MDPI 100/50 mcg dose group and Advair Diskus 100/50 mcg group is presented together with the two-sided 95% CI for the difference and the p-value.||93.7|22.0|0.0017
91024513|NCT01772368|181932857|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|34.14||||0.0624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|70.1||A fixed-sequence testing procedure was employed to control the overall Type I error rate at the 2 sided 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|Fixed effects of sequence, period and treatment; a random effect of subject within sequence; and a covariate of period-specific baseline FEV1.|FS MDPI 100/25 mcg - Advair Diskus 100/50 mcg|The estimated treatment difference from the ANCOVA model between FS MDPI 100/25 mcg dose group and Advair Diskus 100/50 mcg group is presented together with the two-sided 95% CI for the difference and the p-value.||70.1|-1.8|0.0624
91024514|NCT01772368|181932857|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|3.42||||0.8503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.3|39.1||A fixed-sequence testing procedure was employed to control the overall Type I error rate at the 2 sided 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|Fixed effects of sequence, period and treatment; a random effect of subject within sequence; and a covariate of period-specific baseline FEV1.|FS MDPI 100/12.5mcg - Advair Diskus 100/50 mcg|The estimated treatment difference from the ANCOVA model between FS MDPI 100/12.5 mcg dose group and Advair Diskus 100/50 mcg group is presented together with the two-sided 95% CI for the difference and the p-value.||39.1|-32.3|0.8503
91024515|NCT01772368|181932857|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-41.72||||0.0229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.6|-5.8||A fixed-sequence testing procedure was employed to control the overall Type I error rate at the 2 sided 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|Fixed effects of sequence, period and treatment; a random effect of subject within sequence; and a covariate of period-specific baseline FEV1.|FS MDPI 100/6.25 mcg - Advair Diskus 100/50 mcg|The estimated treatment difference from the ANCOVA model between FS MDPI 100/6.25 mcg dose group and Advair Diskus 100/50 mcg group is presented together with the two-sided 95% CI for the difference and the p-value.||-5.8|-77.6|0.0229
91024516|NCT01772368|181932857|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-193.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-229.5|-157.4||A fixed-sequence testing procedure was employed to control the overall Type I error rate at the 2 sided 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|Fixed effects of sequence, period and treatment; a random effect of subject within sequence; and a covariate of period-specific baseline FEV1.|Fp MDPI 100 mcg - Advair Diskus 100/50 mcg|The estimated treatment difference from the ANCOVA model between Fp MDPI 100 mcg dose group and Advair Diskus 100/50 mcg group is presented together with the two-sided 95% CI for the difference and the p-value.||-157.4|-229.5|<0.0001
91024517|NCT01772368|181932858|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|226.77|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|172.4|281.1||significance of 0.05 or alpha of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Fixed effects of sequence, period and treatment; a random effect of subject within sequence; and a covariate of period-specific baseline FEV1.|FS MDPI 100/50 mcg - Fp MDPI 100 mcg|The estimated treatment difference from the ANCOVA model between each FS MDPI 100/50 mcg dose group and Fp MDPI 100 mcg group is presented together with the two-sided 95% CI for the difference and the p-value.||281.1|172.4|<0.0001
91032500|NCT00377260|181949689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The comparison was adjusted for site, history of recurrent acute otitis media and exposure to other children.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups regarding the proportion of children colonized with penicillin-susceptible Streptococcus pneumoniae.||||< .001
91088293|NCT00676403|182059339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.1335||95.0|-1.0|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.1|-1.0|0.1335
90832597|NCT03192176|181536176|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.91||||0.00251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|7.39||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||7.39|1.14|0.00251
90832598|NCT03192176|181536176|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.99||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|15.57||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||15.57|2.30|0.0002
90832599|NCT03192176|181536176|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|19.71||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||19.71|2.70|<0.0001
90832600|NCT03192176|181536176|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.14||||0.1144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|5.5||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||5.50|0.83|0.1144
90832601|NCT03192176|181536176|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.06||||0.1341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|5.3||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||5.30|0.80|0.1341
90832602|NCT03192176|181536176|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.43||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.75|11.22||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||11.22|1.75|0.0017
90832603|NCT03192176|181536176|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.06||||0.1488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|5.5||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||5.50|0.77|0.1488
90832604|NCT03192176|181536176|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.99||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|10.3||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||10.30|1.54|0.0043
90832605|NCT03192176|181536176|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.53||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|14.57||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||14.57|2.10|0.0005
90832606|NCT03192176|181536176|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.85|43.58||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||43.58|4.85|<0.0001
90832607|NCT03192176|181536176|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.96||||0.0262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|7.68||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||7.68|1.14|0.0262
90832608|NCT03192176|181536176|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.07||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.95|13.19||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||13.19|1.95|0.0009
90894609|NCT02954354|181654552|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|-0.13||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline composite symptom score and region (Japan/Asia, Rest of the world) and body temperature at baseline as covariates.||72 hours||-0.13|-0.31|<0.0001
90832609|NCT03192176|181536176|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.33||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.06|13.8||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||13.80|2.06|0.0006
90832610|NCT03192176|181536176|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.52||||0.3673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|3.75||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||3.75|0.61|0.3673
90894610|NCT02954354|181654552|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Dfference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.4484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.06||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline composite symptom score and region (Japan/Asia, Rest of the world) and body temperature at baseline as covariates.||96 hours||0.06|-0.13|0.4484
91088294|NCT00676403|182059339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.022||95.0|-1.3|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||-0.1|-1.3|0.0220
90957097|NCT00706433|181793742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0686||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0686
90957098|NCT00706433|181793742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0004
91024518|NCT01772368|181932858|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|198.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|143.7|252.9||significance of 0.05 or alpha of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Fixed effects of sequence, period and treatment; a random effect of subject within sequence; and a covariate of period-specific baseline FEV1.|FS MDPI 100/25 mcg - Fp MDPI 100 mcg|The estimated treatment difference from the ANCOVA model between each FS MDPI 100/25 mcg dose group and Fp MDPI 100 mcg group is presented together with the two-sided 95% CI for the difference and the p-value.||252.9|143.7|<0.0001
91024519|NCT01772368|181932858|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|158.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|104.7|213.3||significance of 0.05 or alpha of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Fixed effects of sequence, period and treatment; a random effect of subject within sequence; and a covariate of period-specific baseline FEV1.|FS MDPI 100/12.5 mcg - Fp MDPI 100 mcg|The estimated treatment difference from the ANCOVA model between each FS MDPI 100/12.5 mcg dose group and Fp MDPI 100 mcg group is presented together with the two-sided 95% CI for the difference and the p-value.||213.3|104.7|<0.0001
91024520|NCT01772368|181932858|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|116.96|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.4|171.6||significance of 0.05 or alpha of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Fixed effects of sequence, period and treatment; a random effect of subject within sequence; and a covariate of period-specific baseline FEV1.|FS MDPI 100/6.25 mcg - Fp MDPI 100 mcg|The estimated treatment difference from the ANCOVA model between each FS MDPI 100/6.25 mcg dose group and Fp MDPI 100 mcg group is presented together with the two-sided 95% CI for the difference and the p-value.||171.6|62.4|<0.0001
91024521|NCT01772368|181932858|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|159.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|104.3|213.7||significance of 0.05 or alpha of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Fixed effects of sequence, period and treatment; a random effect of subject within sequence; and a covariate of period-specific baseline FEV1.|Advair Diskus 100/50 mcg - Fp MDPI 100 mcg|The estimated treatment difference from the ANCOVA model between each Advair Diskus 100/50 mcg dose group and Fp MDPI 100 mcg group is presented together with the two-sided 95% CI for the difference and the p-value.||213.7|104.3|<0.0001
91024522|NCT01772368|181932858|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|67.76||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.3|122.2||significance of 0.05 or alpha of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Fixed effects of sequence, period and treatment; a random effect of subject within sequence; and a covariate of period-specific baseline FEV1.|FS MDPI 100/50 mcg - Advair Diskus 100/50 mcg|The estimated treatment difference from the ANCOVA model between each FS MDPI 100/50 mcg dose group and Advair Diskus 100/50 mcg group is presented together with the two-sided 95% CI for the difference and the p-value.||122.2|13.3|0.0150
91024523|NCT01772368|181932858|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|39.31||||0.1578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.3|94.0||significance of 0.05 or alpha of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Fixed effects of sequence, period and treatment; a random effect of subject within sequence; and a covariate of period-specific baseline FEV1.|FS MDPI 100/25 mcg - Advair Diskus 100/50 mcg|The estimated treatment difference from the ANCOVA model between each FS MDPI 100/25 mcg dose group and Advair Diskus 100/50 mcg group is presented together with the two-sided 95% CI for the difference and the p-value.||94.0|-15.3|0.1578
91024524|NCT01772368|181932858|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.02||||0.9993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.4|54.4||significance of 0.05 or alpha of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Fixed effects of sequence, period and treatment; a random effect of subject within sequence; and a covariate of period-specific baseline FEV1.|FS MDPI 100/12.5 mcg - Advair Diskus 100/50 mcg|The estimated treatment difference from the ANCOVA model between each FS MDPI 100/12.5 mcg dose group and Advair Diskus 100/50 mcg group is presented together with the two-sided 95% CI for the difference and the p-value.||54.4|-54.4|0.9993
91024525|NCT01772368|181932858|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-42.05||||0.1311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-96.7|12.6||significance of 0.05 or alpha of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Fixed effects of sequence, period and treatment; a random effect of subject within sequence; and a covariate of period-specific baseline FEV1.|FS MDPI 100/6.25 mcg - Advair Diskus 100/50 mcg|The estimated treatment difference from the ANCOVA model between each FS MDPI 100/6.25 mcg dose group and Advair Diskus 100/50 mcg group is presented together with the two-sided 95% CI for the difference and the p-value.||12.6|-96.7|0.1311
91024526|NCT01772368|181932858|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-159.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-213.7|-104.3||significance of 0.05 or alpha of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Fixed effects of sequence, period and treatment; a random effect of subject within sequence; and a covariate of period-specific baseline FEV1.|Fp MDPI 100 mcg - Advair Diskus 100/50 mcg|The estimated treatment difference from the ANCOVA model between each Fp MDPI 100 mcg dose group and Advair Diskus 100/50 mcg group is presented together with the two-sided 95% CI for the difference and the p-value.||-104.3|-213.7|<0.0001
91024527|NCT01772368|181932859|SUPERIORITY||geometric mean ratio|1.929|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.69|2.202||||||The analysis is based on ANOVA model of the log transformed data, with fixed effects of sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for subject within sequence. n=58||2.202|1.690|
91024528|NCT01772368|181932859|SUPERIORITY||geometric mean ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.702|0.911||||||The analysis is based on ANOVA model of the log transformed data, with fixed effects of sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for subject within sequence. n=59||0.911|0.702|
91024529|NCT01772368|181932859|SUPERIORITY||geometric mean ratio|0.427|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.376|0.485||||||The analysis is based on ANOVA model of the log transformed data, with fixed effects of sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for subject within sequence. n=61||0.485|0.376|
91024530|NCT01772368|181932859|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.172|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.151|0.196||||||The analysis is based on ANOVA model of the log transformed data, with fixed effects of sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for subject within sequence. n=59||0.196|0.151|
91024531|NCT01772368|181932860|SUPERIORITY||geometric mean ratio|3.622|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.149|4.168||||||The analysis is based on ANOVA model of the log transformed data, with fixed effects of sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for subject within sequence. n=58||4.168|3.149|
91024532|NCT01772368|181932860|SUPERIORITY||geometric mean ratio|1.534|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.335|1.763||||||The analysis is based on ANOVA model of the log transformed data, with fixed effects of sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for subject within sequence. n=59||1.763|1.335|
91088295|NCT00676403|182059339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.5754||95.0|-0.8|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.4|-0.8|0.5754
91088296|NCT00676403|182059339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.348||95.0|-0.9|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.3|-0.9|0.3480
91088297|NCT00676403|182059339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.0554||95.0|-1.2|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.0|-1.2|0.0554
91088298|NCT00676403|182059339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.4362||95.0|-0.8|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.4|-0.8|0.4362
91088299|NCT00676403|182059339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.3631||95.0|-0.9|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.3|-0.9|0.3631
90832611|NCT03192176|181536176|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.02||||0.1207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|4.91||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||4.91|0.83|0.1207
90832612|NCT03192176|181536176|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.01||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|13.21||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||13.21|1.90|0.0011
90832613|NCT03192176|181536176|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.08|27.38||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||27.38|3.08|<0.0001
90894611|NCT02954354|181654552|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.5963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.11||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline composite symptom score and region (Japan/Asia, Rest of the world) and body temperature at baseline as covariates.||ANCOVA with baseline composite symptom score and region (Japan/Asia, Rest of the world) and body temperature at baseline as covariates.||0.11|-0.07|0.5963
91088300|NCT00676403|182059339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.1152||95.0|-1.1|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 5: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.1|-1.1|0.1152
90832614|NCT03192176|181536176|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.38||||0.0594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|5.86||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||5.86|0.97|0.0594
90832615|NCT03192176|181536176|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.47||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|6.09||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||6.09|1.00|0.0500
90894612|NCT02954354|181654553|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.0937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.24||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline composite symptom score and region (Japan/Asia, Rest of the world) and body temperature at baseline as covariates.||12 hours||0.24|-0.02|0.0937
90957099|NCT00706433|181793742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0005
90894613|NCT02954354|181654553|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.3343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.16||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline composite symptom score and region (Japan/Asia, Rest of the world) and body temperature at baseline as covariates.||24 hours||0.16|-0.05|0.3343
90957100|NCT00706433|181793742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||1.0
91088301|NCT00676403|182059339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.4741||95.0|-0.8|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 5: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.4|-0.8|0.4741
91088302|NCT00676403|182059339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.0091||95.0|-1.4|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 5: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||-0.2|-1.4|0.0091
91088303|NCT00676403|182059339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.1721||95.0|-1.0|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 5: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.2|-1.0|0.1721
91088304|NCT00676403|182059339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.0262||95.0|-1.3|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 5: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||-0.1|-1.3|0.0262
91088305|NCT00676403|182059339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.9505||95.0|-0.6|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.6|-0.6|0.9505
90832616|NCT03192176|181536176|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.22||||0.0123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|8.03||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||8.03|1.29|0.0123
90832617|NCT03192176|181536176|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76||||0.2243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|4.37||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||4.37|0.71|0.2243
90832618|NCT03192176|181536176|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.13||||0.0976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|5.24||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||5.24|0.87|0.0976
90832619|NCT03192176|181536176|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.09||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.25|16.44||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||16.44|2.25|0.0004
91088306|NCT00676403|182059339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.6877||95.0|-0.7|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.5|-0.7|0.6877
91088307|NCT00676403|182059339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.1271||95.0|-1.1|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.1|-1.1|0.1271
90832620|NCT03192176|181536176|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.04|27.4||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||27.40|3.04|<0.0001
90832621|NCT03192176|181536176|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.06||||0.1237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|5.17||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||5.17|0.82|0.1237
90832622|NCT03192176|181536176|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.94||||0.0226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|7.41||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||7.41|1.16|0.0226
90894614|NCT02954354|181654553|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.9258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.1||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline composite symptom score and region (Japan/Asia, Rest of the world) and body temperature at baseline as covariates.||36 hours||0.10|-0.09|0.9258
90832623|NCT03192176|181536176|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.55||||0.0069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|8.91||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||8.91|1.42|0.0069
91088308|NCT00676403|182059339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.9136||95.0|-0.6|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.6|-0.6|0.9136
91088309|NCT00676403|182059339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.4072||95.0|-0.9|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.3|-0.9|0.4072
91088310|NCT00676403|182059340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.68||0.186||95.0|-35.2|6.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||6.9|-35.2|0.1860
91088311|NCT00676403|182059340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.54||0.653||95.0|-25.5|16.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||16.0|-25.5|0.6530
91088312|NCT00676403|182059340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.79||0.6263||95.0|-26.5|16.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||16.0|-26.5|0.6263
91088313|NCT00676403|182059340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.63||0.4266||95.0|-29.4|12.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||12.5|-29.4|0.4266
91088314|NCT00676403|182059340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.54||0.4023||95.0|-29.6|11.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||11.9|-29.6|0.4023
90832624|NCT03192176|181536176|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.1666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|4.75||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||4.75|0.76|0.1666
91088315|NCT00676403|182059340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.77||0.1041||95.0|-38.8|3.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||3.6|-38.8|0.1041
91088316|NCT00676403|182059340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.6||0.5084||95.0|-27.9|13.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||13.8|-27.9|0.5084
91088317|NCT00676403|182059340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.1||0.262||95.0|-34.3|9.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||9.4|-34.3|0.2620
91088318|NCT00676403|182059340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.7||0.3347||95.0|-31.4|10.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||10.7|-31.4|0.3347
90832625|NCT03192176|181536176|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.7||||0.0317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|6.67||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||6.67|1.09|0.0317
91088319|NCT00676403|182059340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.61||0.1142||95.0|-37.7|4.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||4.1|-37.7|0.1142
91088320|NCT00676403|182059340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.06||0.1237||95.0|-38.8|4.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||4.7|-38.8|0.1237
91088321|NCT00676403|182059340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.67||0.8302||95.0|-18.7|23.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||23.3|-18.7|0.8302
91088322|NCT00676403|182059340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.22||0.3039||95.0|-33.6|10.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||10.5|-33.6|0.3039
91088323|NCT00676403|182059340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.77||0.4595||95.0|-29.2|13.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||13.2|-29.2|0.4595
91088324|NCT00676403|182059340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.97||0.4338||95.0|-30.2|13.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||13.0|-30.2|0.4338
91088325|NCT00676403|182059340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.99||0.0647||95.0|-42.0|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||1.2|-42.0|0.0647
90832626|NCT03192176|181536176|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.28||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.94|14.39||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||14.39|1.94|0.0011
90832627|NCT03192176|181536176|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.45||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.81|25.46||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||25.46|2.81|0.0001
90894615|NCT02954354|181654553|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.6574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.06||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline composite symptom score and region (Japan/Asia, Rest of the world) and body temperature at baseline as covariates.||48 hours||0.06|-0.10|0.6574
91088326|NCT00676403|182059340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.61||0.5651||95.0|-27.0|14.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||14.8|-27.0|0.5651
91088327|NCT00676403|182059340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.16||0.1634||95.0|-37.6|6.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||6.4|-37.6|0.1634
90832628|NCT03192176|181536176|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1||||0.1142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|5.27||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||5.27|0.84|0.1142
90894616|NCT02954354|181654553|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.07||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline composite symptom score and region (Japan/Asia, Rest of the world) and body temperature at baseline as covariates.||72 hours||0.07|-0.09|0.8520
90894617|NCT02954354|181654553|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.4532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.11||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline composite symptom score and region (Japan/Asia, Rest of the world) and body temperature at baseline as covariates.||96 hours||0.11|-0.05|0.4532
91088328|NCT00676403|182059340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.77||0.2209||95.0|-34.4|8.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||8.0|-34.4|0.2209
91088329|NCT00676403|182059340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.84||0.1293||95.0|-37.8|4.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||4.8|-37.8|0.1293
91088330|NCT00676403|182059340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.06||0.0161||95.0|-48.5|-5.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 5: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||-5.0|-48.5|0.0161
91088331|NCT00676403|182059340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.67||0.8506||95.0|-23.0|19.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 5: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||19.0|-23.0|0.8506
90832629|NCT03192176|181536176|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.91||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|7.39||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||7.39|1.14|0.0250
91088332|NCT00676403|182059340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-30.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.31||0.0067||95.0|-53.2|-8.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 5: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||-8.6|-53.2|0.0067
91088333|NCT00676403|182059340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.76||0.1997||95.0|-35.0|7.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 5: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||7.4|-35.0|0.1997
91088334|NCT00676403|182059340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.9||0.0159||95.0|-47.9|-5.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 5: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||-5.0|-47.9|0.0159
90832630|NCT03192176|181536176|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.08||||0.0166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|7.75||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||7.75|1.23|0.0166
90894618|NCT02954354|181654553|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.13||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline composite symptom score and region (Japan/Asia, Rest of the world) and body temperature at baseline as covariates.||120 hours||0.13|-0.02|0.1570
90832631|NCT03192176|181536176|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.6033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|3.11||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||3.11|0.52|0.6033
91088335|NCT00676403|182059340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.98||0.0388||95.0|-44.4|-1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||-1.2|-44.4|0.0388
91088336|NCT00676403|182059340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.73||0.9962||95.0|-21.2|21.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||21.1|-21.2|0.9962
91088337|NCT00676403|182059340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.41||0.0839||95.0|-42.3|2.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||2.7|-42.3|0.0839
90894619|NCT02954354|181654554|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-23.1||||0.0001||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Cough||||0.0001
90832632|NCT03192176|181536176|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.05||||0.117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|5.02||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||5.02|0.84|0.1170
90894620|NCT02954354|181654554|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-9.0||||0.0298||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Sore throat||||0.0298
91024533|NCT01772368|181932860|SUPERIORITY||geometric mean ratio|0.795|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.694|0.911||||||The analysis is based on ANOVA model of the log transformed data, with fixed effects of sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for subject within sequence. n=61||0.911|0.694|
91024534|NCT01772368|181932860|SUPERIORITY||geometric mean ratio|0.339|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.295|0.39||||||The analysis is based on ANOVA model of the log transformed data, with fixed effects of sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for subject within sequence. n=59||0.390|0.295|
91024535|NCT02449291|181932863|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016|ONE_SIDED|95.0||||One-sided p-value. After adjustment for multiplicity using Hommel's method. (Note: unadjusted p value = 0.016) A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.025.|Chi-squared|||The primary efficacy analysis was a comparison of the incidence of the primary efficacy variable between the two groups that received APD421 and the group that received placebo, using Pearson's χ2 test. The threshold for determining statistical significance in the comparison of incidence of success between the active and placebo groups (the primary efficacy analysis) was a p-value of 2.5% one-sided.||||0.016
91024536|NCT02449291|181932863|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016||||||One-sided p-value. After adjustment for multiplicity using Hommel's method. (Note: unadjusted p value = 0.015) A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.025.|Chi-squared|||The primary efficacy analysis was a comparison of the incidence of the primary efficacy variable between the two groups that received APD421 and the group that received placebo, using Pearson's χ2 test. The threshold for determining statistical significance in the comparison of incidence of success between the active and placebo groups (the primary efficacy analysis) was a p-value of 2.5% one-sided.||||0.016
91024537|NCT02449291|181932864|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009||||||One-sided p-value. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.025.|Chi-squared|||||||0.009
91024538|NCT02449291|181932864|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||One-sided p-value. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.025.|Chi-squared|||||||0.002
91024539|NCT02449291|181932865|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17||||||One-sided p-value. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.025.|Chi-squared|||||||0.170
91024540|NCT02449291|181932865|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.552||||||One-sided p-value. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.025.|Chi-squared|||||||0.552
90832633|NCT03192176|181536176|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.69||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|6.91||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||6.91|1.05|0.0400
90957101|NCT00706433|181793743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0006
91024541|NCT02449291|181932866|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.003
91024542|NCT02449291|181932866|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Cox|||||||<0.001
91024543|NCT02449291|181932867|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.209|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.209
91024544|NCT02449291|181932867|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.440
91024545|NCT02449291|181932868|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.009
91024546|NCT02449291|181932868|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.009
91088338|NCT00676403|182059340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.83||0.5216||95.0|-28.3|14.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||14.4|-28.3|0.5216
90894621|NCT02954354|181654554|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-11.8||||0.0297||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Headache||||0.0297
91024547|NCT02449291|181932869|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.115|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.115
91024548|NCT02449291|181932869|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.222|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.222
91024549|NCT02449291|181932870|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.474|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.474
91024550|NCT02449291|181932870|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.505|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.505
91024551|NCT02449291|181932871|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.103|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.103
91024552|NCT02449291|181932871|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.166|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.166
91024553|NCT02449291|181932872|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.06
91024554|NCT02449291|181932872|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.029
91024555|NCT02462421|181932875|OTHER|Probability that the observed difference was the result of random variation rather than a difference between the two populations.||||||0.92||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Viewed as unnecessary inasmuch as none of the comparisons achieved p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||"Each of the variant genotypes was compared to the control group (homozygous for major alleles at all three genetic loci) in an unpaired t-test. The study was terminated early because it was clear that we would not meet our recruitment targets and that the study was likely underpowered.~Null hypothesis: pharmacodynamic response is the same in the control group and homozygotes for the genetic variant."||||0.92
91024556|NCT02462421|181932875|OTHER|Probability that the observed difference was the result of random variation rather than a difference between the two populations.||||||0.63||||||Not corrected for multiple comparisons|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: pharmacodynamic response is the same in the control group and homozygotes for the genetic variant.||||0.63
90832634|NCT03192176|181536176|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.61||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.88|16.72||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||16.72|1.88|0.0020
90832635|NCT03192176|181536176|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.5177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|3.37||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||3.37|0.54|0.5177
90832636|NCT03192176|181536176|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.79||||0.2117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|4.48||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||4.48|0.72|0.2117
90832637|NCT03192176|181536176|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.62||||0.0426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|6.67||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||6.67|1.03|0.0426
90832638|NCT03192176|181536176|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.54||||0.3508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|3.82||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||3.82|0.62|0.3508
90832639|NCT03192176|181536176|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.4431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|3.45||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||3.45|0.58|0.4431
90832640|NCT03192176|181536176|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.27||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|11.78||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||11.78|1.55|0.0050
90832641|NCT03192176|181536176|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.47||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.84|16.3||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||16.30|1.84|0.0023
90832642|NCT03192176|181536176|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.5663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|3.32||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||3.32|0.52|0.5663
90832643|NCT03192176|181536176|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.64||||0.0461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|6.83||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||6.83|1.02|0.0461
90832644|NCT03192176|181536176|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.5||||0.0552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|6.38||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||6.38|0.98|0.0552
90832645|NCT03192176|181536176|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.95||||0.1536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|4.88||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||4.88|0.78|0.1536
90832646|NCT03192176|181536176|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.69||||0.2575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|4.2||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||4.20|0.68|0.2575
90957102|NCT00706433|181793743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0245||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0245
90832647|NCT03192176|181536176|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.73||||0.0096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|10.11||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||10.11|1.38|0.0096
90832648|NCT03192176|181536176|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.48||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.69|26.76||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||26.76|2.69|0.0003
90957103|NCT00706433|181793743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||1.0
90832649|NCT03192176|181536176|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.18||||0.1047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|10.35||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||10.35|1.48|0.1047
90832650|NCT03192176|181536176|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.91||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|10.35||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||10.35|1.48|0.0060
91088339|NCT00676403|182059340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.98||0.0534||95.0|-42.9|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.3|-42.9|0.0534
90832651|NCT03192176|181536176|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.64||||0.0414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|6.71||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||6.71|1.04|0.0414
90832652|NCT03192176|181536176|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.31||||0.0809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|5.89||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||5.89|0.90|0.0809
90832653|NCT03192176|181536176|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74||||0.2377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|4.34||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||4.34|0.69|0.2377
90832654|NCT03192176|181536176|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.21||||0.0087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|12.34||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||12.34|1.44|0.0087
90832655|NCT03192176|181536176|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.0||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|18.94||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||18.94|1.90|0.0022
90832656|NCT03192176|181536176|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.4788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|3.55||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||3.55|0.55|0.4788
90832657|NCT03192176|181536176|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.98||||0.0074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|10.94||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||10.94|1.45|0.0074
90832658|NCT03192176|181536176|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.26||||0.0187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|8.75||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||8.75|1.22|0.0187
90832659|NCT03192176|181536176|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.57||||0.3443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|4.0||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||4.00|0.62|0.3443
91088340|NCT00676403|182059341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.89||0.0199||95.0|2.2|25.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||25.4|2.2|0.0199
90832660|NCT03192176|181536176|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.66||||0.2867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|4.22||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||4.22|0.65|0.2867
90832661|NCT03192176|181536176|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.12||||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|15.78||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||15.78|1.66|0.0044
90832662|NCT03192176|181536176|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.58||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.74|17.87||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||17.87|1.74|0.0038
90832663|NCT03192176|181536176|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.09||||0.1424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|5.6||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||5.60|0.78|0.1424
90832664|NCT03192176|181536176|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.32||||0.0191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|9.07||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||9.07|1.22|0.0191
90832665|NCT03192176|181536176|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.15||||0.0244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|8.56||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||8.56|1.16|0.0244
90832666|NCT03192176|181536176|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.63||||0.1462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|9.67||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||9.67|0.71|0.1462
91088341|NCT00676403|182059341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.78||0.0768||95.0|-1.1|21.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||21.7|-1.1|0.0768
91088342|NCT00676403|182059341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.91||0.0642||95.0|-0.7|22.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||22.6|-0.7|0.0642
91088343|NCT00676403|182059341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.88||0.2643||95.0|-5.0|18.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||18.2|-5.0|0.2643
91088344|NCT00676403|182059341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.8||0.0358||95.0|0.8|23.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||23.7|0.8|0.0358
91088345|NCT00676403|182059341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.93||0.0428||95.0|0.4|23.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||23.8|0.4|0.0428
91088346|NCT00676403|182059341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.81||0.1993||95.0|-4.0|18.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||18.9|-4.0|0.1993
91088347|NCT00676403|182059341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.04||0.0331||95.0|1.1|24.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||24.8|1.1|0.0331
91088348|NCT00676403|182059341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.91||0.0415||95.0|0.5|23.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||23.8|0.5|0.0415
90832667|NCT03192176|181536176|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.7403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|4.97||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||4.97|0.32|0.7403
90957104|NCT00706433|181793743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||1.0
91088349|NCT00676403|182059341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.83||0.0295||95.0|1.3|24.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||24.3|1.3|0.0295
91088350|NCT00676403|182059341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.01||0.1267||95.0|-2.6|21.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||21.1|-2.6|0.1267
90832668|NCT03192176|181536176|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.35||||0.2144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|9.07||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||9.07|0.61|0.2144
90832669|NCT03192176|181536176|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74||||0.4321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|6.96||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||6.96|0.44|0.4321
90957105|NCT00706433|181793743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0097||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0097
90832670|NCT03192176|181536176|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.53||||0.1778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|9.75||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||9.75|0.66|0.1778
90832671|NCT03192176|181536176|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.8016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|5.2||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||5.20|0.28|0.8016
90832672|NCT03192176|181536176|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.62||||0.1486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|9.64||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||9.64|0.71|0.1486
90832673|NCT03192176|181536176|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.51||||0.2881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.77||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||1.77|0.15|0.2881
90832674|NCT03192176|181536176|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.36||||0.1217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.31||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||1.31|0.10|0.1217
90832675|NCT03192176|181536176|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.36||||0.1027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.28||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||1.28|0.07|0.1027
90832676|NCT03192176|181536176|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.18||||0.0428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.94||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||0.94|0.03|0.0428
90832677|NCT03192176|181536176|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72||||0.5943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|2.44||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||2.44|0.21|0.5943
90832678|NCT03192176|181536176|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|3.28||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||3.28|0.27|0.9280
90832679|NCT03192176|181536176|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.94||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||2.94|0.30|0.9160
90832680|NCT03192176|181536176|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.43||||0.2262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|1.69||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||1.69|0.11|0.2262
90832681|NCT03192176|181536176|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.48||||0.2682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.75||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||1.75|0.13|0.2682
90832682|NCT03192176|181536176|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4||||0.2344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.81||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||1.81|0.09|0.2344
90832683|NCT03192176|181536176|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.22||||0.0835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|1.22||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||1.22|0.04|0.0835
90832684|NCT03192176|181536176|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72||||0.6322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|2.72||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||2.72|0.19|0.6322
90832685|NCT03192176|181536176|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65||||0.4845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.17||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||2.17|0.20|0.4845
90832686|NCT03192176|181536177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.9587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|17.98||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||17.98|0.06|0.9587
90832687|NCT03192176|181536177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.9895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|16.89||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||16.89|0.06|0.9895
90832688|NCT03192176|181536177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.24||||0.0736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|63.32||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||63.32|0.83|0.0736
91088351|NCT00676403|182059341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.84||0.4175||95.0|-6.8|16.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||16.2|-6.8|0.4175
91088352|NCT00676403|182059341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.09||0.0342||95.0|1.0|25.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||25.0|1.0|0.0342
91088353|NCT00676403|182059341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.96||0.1038||95.0|-2.0|21.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||21.5|-2.0|0.1038
91088354|NCT00676403|182059341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.98||0.0537||95.0|-0.2|23.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||23.4|-0.2|0.0537
91088355|NCT00676403|182059341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.99||0.0772||95.0|-1.2|22.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||22.4|-1.2|0.0772
91088356|NCT00676403|182059341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.81||0.1296||95.0|-2.6|20.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||20.3|-2.6|0.1296
91088357|NCT00676403|182059341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.06||0.014||95.0|3.1|27.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||27.0|3.1|0.0140
90832689|NCT03192176|181536177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.08||||0.0767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|61.78||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||61.78|0.81|0.0767
90832690|NCT03192176|181536177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.51||||0.288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|35.49||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||35.49|0.35|0.2880
90832691|NCT03192176|181536177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.96||||0.5894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|22.47||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||22.47|0.17|0.5894
90832692|NCT03192176|181536177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.45||||0.3093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|13.78||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||13.78|0.44|0.3093
90832693|NCT03192176|181536177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.31||||0.1606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|17.58||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||17.58|0.62|0.1606
90832694|NCT03192176|181536177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.92||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|56.87||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||56.87|2.50|0.0019
91088358|NCT00676403|182059341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.93||0.0642||95.0|-0.7|22.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||22.7|-0.7|0.0642
91088359|NCT00676403|182059341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.92||0.073||95.0|-1.0|22.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||22.3|-1.0|0.0730
91024557|NCT02462421|181932875|OTHER|Probability that the observed difference was the result of random variation rather than a difference between the two populations.||||||0.86||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: pharmacodynamic response is the same in the control group and homozygotes for the genetic variant.||||0.86
91024558|NCT02462421|181932876|OTHER|"We compared the two groups (wild type versus SLC2A9 variant homozygotes. Null hypothesis: there are no differences between the two groups with respect to the pharmacodynamic effect of canagliflozin on fractional excretion of uric acid in the urine."||||||0.04||||||Because the study was terminated early, we did not have sufficient statistical power to adjust for multiple comparisons. We are reporting a nominal p-value without adjusting for multiple comparisons|t-test, 2 sided|||The study was terminated early because of slow recruitment. As a result the study did not achieve the statistical power that had been planned.||||0.04
91024559|NCT02462421|181932877|OTHER|Probability that the observed difference was the result of random variation rather than a difference between the two populations.||||||0.07||||||Not corrected for multiple comparisons|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: pharmacodynamic response is the same in the control group and homozygotes for the genetic variant.||||0.07
91024560|NCT02462421|181932877|OTHER|Probability that the observed difference was the result of random variation rather than a difference between the two populations.||||||0.53||||||Not corrected for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: pharmacodynamic response is the same in the control group and homozygotes for the genetic variant.||||0.53
91024561|NCT02462421|181932877|OTHER|Probability that the observed difference was the result of random variation rather than a difference between the two populations.||||||0.92||||||Not corrected for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: pharmacodynamic response is the same in the control group and homozygotes for the genetic variant.||||0.92
91024562|NCT02462421|181932878|OTHER|Probability that the observed difference was the result of random variation rather than a difference between the two populations.|||||<|0.01||||||Not corrected for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: pharmacodynamic response is the same in the control group and homozygotes for the genetic variant.||||<0.01
91024563|NCT02462421|181932878|OTHER|Probability that the observed difference was the result of random variation rather than a difference between the two populations.||||||0.77||||||Not corrected for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: pharmacodynamic response is the same in the control group and homozygotes for the genetic variant.||||0.77
91024564|NCT02462421|181932878|OTHER|Probability that the observed difference was the result of random variation rather than a difference between the two populations.||||||0.65||||||Not corrected for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: pharmacodynamic response is the same in the control group and homozygotes for the genetic variant.||||0.65
91024565|NCT02462421|181932879|OTHER|Null hypothesis: None of the three genotypes is associated with an alteration in the pharmacodynamic effect of canagliflozin on urinary Na excretion||||||0.2||||||Because the study was terminated early, the study does not have sufficient statistical power to adjust for multiple comparisons. Accordingly, nominal p-values are reported.|t-test, 2 sided|||"The wild type genotype group was compared to homozygotes for each of the three other genotypes."||||0.20
91024566|NCT02462421|181932879|OTHER|Probability that the observed difference was the result of random variation rather than a difference between the two populations.||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: pharmacodynamic response is the same in the control group and homozygotes for the genetic variant.||||0.01
91024567|NCT02462421|181932879|OTHER|Probability that the observed difference was the result of random variation rather than a difference between the two populations.||||||0.16||||||Not corrected for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: pharmacodynamic response is the same in the control group and homozygotes for the genetic variant.||||0.16
91024568|NCT02462421|181932880|OTHER|Probability that the observed difference was the result of random variation rather than a difference between the two populations.||||||0.21||||||Not corrected for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: pharmacodynamic response is the same in the control group and homozygotes for the genetic variant.||||0.21
91024569|NCT02462421|181932880|OTHER|Probability that the observed difference was the result of random variation rather than a difference between the two populations.||||||0.92||||||Not corrected for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: pharmacodynamic response is the same in the control group and homozygotes for the genetic variant.||||0.92
91024570|NCT02462421|181932880|OTHER|Probability that the observed difference was the result of random variation rather than a difference between the two populations.||||||0.39||||||Not corrected for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||Not corrected for multiple comparisons.||||0.39
91088360|NCT00676403|182059341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.01||0.0215||95.0|2.1|25.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 5: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||25.8|2.1|0.0215
90832695|NCT03192176|181536177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.4||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.02|68.73||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||68.73|3.02|0.0008
90832696|NCT03192176|181536177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.8803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|6.55||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||6.55|0.11|0.8803
90957106|NCT00706433|181793743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0146||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0146
91032501|NCT00377260|181949690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The comparison adjusted for site, history of recurrent acute otitis media and exposure to other children.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups regarding the proportion of culture results with at least one AOM pathogen present.||||.10
90832697|NCT03192176|181536177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.98||||0.2096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|16.46||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||16.46|0.54|0.2096
90832698|NCT03192176|181536177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.69||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|37.11||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||37.11|1.60|0.0110
90832699|NCT03192176|181536177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.09||||0.0845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|11.11||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||11.11|0.86|0.0845
90832700|NCT03192176|181536177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.83||||0.1094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|10.13||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||10.13|0.79|0.1094
90832701|NCT03192176|181536177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.97||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.68|30.07||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||30.07|2.68|0.0004
90832702|NCT03192176|181536177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.11||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|24.09||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||24.09|2.10|0.0016
90832703|NCT03192176|181536177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.4375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|6.64||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||6.64|0.44|0.4375
90832704|NCT03192176|181536177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.02||||0.0898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|10.85||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||10.85|0.84|0.0898
90832705|NCT03192176|181536177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.32||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|21.06||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||21.06|1.90|0.0027
90894622|NCT02954354|181654554|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-20.7||||0.0027||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Nasal Congestion||||0.0027
90832706|NCT03192176|181536177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.44||||0.1242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|7.64||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||7.64|0.78|0.1242
90832707|NCT03192176|181536177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.66||||0.0815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|8.03||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||8.03|0.88|0.0815
91032502|NCT00377260|181949690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The comparison adjusted for site, history of recurrent acute otitis media and exposure to other children.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups regarding the proportion of culture results with Streptococcus pneumoniae present.||||.03
90832708|NCT03192176|181536177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.21||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.11|18.27||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||18.27|2.11|0.0009
90832709|NCT03192176|181536177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.28||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|15.64||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||15.64|1.78|0.0027
90832710|NCT03192176|181536177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.6267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|4.46||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||4.46|0.41|0.6267
90832711|NCT03192176|181536177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.77||||0.0709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|8.38||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||8.38|0.92|0.0709
90894623|NCT02954354|181654554|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-4.9||||0.0003||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world)||Feverishness or chills||||0.0003
90894624|NCT02954354|181654554|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-8.1||||0.0094||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Muscle or joint pain||||0.0094
91088361|NCT00676403|182059341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.84||0.3785||95.0|-6.4|16.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 5: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||16.7|-6.4|0.3785
91088362|NCT00676403|182059341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.12||0.0089||95.0|4.1|28.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 5: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||28.2|4.1|0.0089
91088363|NCT00676403|182059341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.96||0.0609||95.0|-0.5|23.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 5: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||23.0|-0.5|0.0609
91088364|NCT00676403|182059341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.95||0.0064||95.0|4.7|28.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 5: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||28.1|4.7|0.0064
91088365|NCT00676403|182059341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.01||0.0241||95.0|1.8|25.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||25.5|1.8|0.0241
90832712|NCT03192176|181536177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.62||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|13.59||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||13.59|1.59|0.0049
90832713|NCT03192176|181536177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.5107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|4.98||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||4.98|0.45|0.5107
90832714|NCT03192176|181536177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.37||||0.1297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|7.22||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||7.22|0.78|0.1297
90832715|NCT03192176|181536177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.04||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.34|21.22||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||21.22|2.34|0.0005
90832716|NCT03192176|181536177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.5||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.82|25.63||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||25.63|2.82|0.0001
90832717|NCT03192176|181536177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.84||||0.299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|5.81||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||5.81|0.58|0.2990
90894625|NCT02954354|181654554|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-15.3||||0.0007||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Fatigue||||0.0007
90894626|NCT02954354|181654555|SUPERIORITY||Difference|6.8||||0.6623||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Cough||||0.6623
90894627|NCT02954354|181654555|SUPERIORITY||Difference|1.8||||0.8184||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Sore throat||||0.8184
91088366|NCT00676403|182059341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.86||0.1032||95.0|-2.0|21.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||21.1|-2.0|0.1032
91088367|NCT00676403|182059341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.16||0.0076||95.0|4.4|28.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||28.7|4.4|0.0076
90832718|NCT03192176|181536177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.38||||0.1355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|7.42||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||7.42|0.76|0.1355
90832719|NCT03192176|181536177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.17||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.76|15.14||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||15.14|1.76|0.0028
90832720|NCT03192176|181536177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.7422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|3.47||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||3.47|0.41|0.7422
90894628|NCT02954354|181654555|SUPERIORITY||Difference|1.3||||0.9989||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Headache||||0.9989
90832721|NCT03192176|181536177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.44||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|6.52||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||6.52|0.91|0.0750
90894629|NCT02954354|181654555|SUPERIORITY||Difference|1.7||||0.3706||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Nasal congestion||||0.3706
90894630|NCT02954354|181654555|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-0.1||||0.9973||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Feverishness or chills||||0.9973
90894631|NCT02954354|181654555|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-0.7||||0.676||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Muscle or joint pain||||0.6760
91024571|NCT01339910|181932889|SUPERIORITY||Difference in 18 month OS (MAC-RIC)|9.8||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|20.3||This final test was performed at a 0.049 significance level, since 0.001 was spent at interim analyses and the overall significance level was 0.050.|Difference in Kaplan-Meier estimators|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in overall survival at 18 months post-randomization between AML/MDS participants receiving MAC and RIC conditioning regimens. 18 month overall survival was compared between treatment arms using the difference in Kaplan-Meier estimators, which should be close to 0 under the null hypothesis.||20.3|-0.8|0.07
91024572|NCT01339910|181932890|SUPERIORITY||Difference in 18 month RFS (MAC-RIC)|20.4|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.9|32.0||Test performed at a significance level of 0.05|Difference in Kaplan-Meier estimators|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in relapse-free survival at 18 months post-randomization between AML/MDS participants receiving MAC and RIC conditioning regimens. 18 month relapse-free survival was compared between treatment arms using the difference in Kaplan-Meier estimators, which should be close to 0 under the null hypothesis.||32.0|8.9|< 0.01
91024573|NCT01339910|181932891|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Test performed at a significance level of 0.05|Gray's test|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the cumulative incidence of disease relapse during the first 18 months post-randomization between AML/MDS participants receiving MAC and RIC conditioning regimens. Cumulative incidence of disease relapse was compared between treatment arms using Gray's test, treating death as a competing risk.||||< 0.001
91024574|NCT01339910|181932892|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||Test performed at a significance level of 0.05|Gray's test|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the cumulative incidence of treatment-related mortality during the first 18 months post-randomization between AML/MDS participants receiving MAC and RIC conditioning regimens. Cumulative incidence of treatment-related mortality was compared between treatment arms using Gray's test, treating disease relapse as a competing risk.||||0.002
91024575|NCT01339910|181932893|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||Test performed at a significance level of 0.05|Difference in Aalen-Johansen estimators|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the cumulative incidence of neutrophil engraftment at Day 28 post-transplant between AML/MDS participants receiving MAC and RIC conditioning regimens. Cumulative incidence of neutrophil engraftment at Day 28 was compared between treatment arms using the difference in Aalen-Johansen estimators, which should be close to 0 under the null hypothesis. Death was treated as a competing risk.||||0.002
91024576|NCT01339910|181932893|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.065||||||Test performed at a significance level of 0.05|Difference in Aalen-Johansen estimators|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the cumulative incidence of platelet engraftment at Day 60 post-transplant between AML/MDS participants receiving MAC and RIC conditioning regimens. Cumulative incidence of platelet engraftment at Day 60 was compared between treatment arms using the difference in Aalen-Johansen estimators, which should be close to 0 under the null hypothesis. Death was treated as a competing risk.||||0.065
91024577|NCT01339910|181932894|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||Test performed at a significance level of 0.05|Chi-squared|3 degrees of freedom||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the proportions of participants with full chimerism, mixed chimerism, graft rejection, and death prior to assessment at Day 28 post-transplant between AML/MDS participants receiving MAC and RIC conditioning regimens.||||0.005
91024578|NCT01339910|181932894|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011||||||Test performed at a significance level of 0.05|Chi-squared|3 degrees of freedom||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the proportions of participants with full chimerism, mixed chimerism, graft rejection, and death prior to assessment at Day 100 post-transplant between AML/MDS participants receiving MAC and RIC conditioning regimens.||||0.011
91088368|NCT00676403|182059341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.96||0.1257||95.0|-2.6|20.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||20.9|-2.6|0.1257
91088369|NCT00676403|182059341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.95||0.0131||95.0|3.2|26.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||26.6|3.2|0.0131
91088370|NCT00676403|182059342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.94||0.1824||95.0|-23.0|4.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||4.4|-23.0|0.1824
91088371|NCT00676403|182059342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.8||0.0767||95.0|-25.5|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||1.3|-25.5|0.0767
91088372|NCT00676403|182059342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.11||0.0492||95.0|-28.1|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||-0.1|-28.1|0.0492
91088373|NCT00676403|182059342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.84||0.2023||95.0|-22.2|4.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||4.7|-22.2|0.2023
91088374|NCT00676403|182059342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.83||0.0116||95.0|-30.9|-3.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||-3.9|-30.9|0.0116
91088375|NCT00676403|182059342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.01||0.1819||95.0|-23.2|4.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||4.4|-23.2|0.1819
91088376|NCT00676403|182059342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.76||0.2806||95.0|-20.6|6.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||6.0|-20.6|0.2806
90894632|NCT02954354|181654555|SUPERIORITY||Difference|2.2||||0.4241||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Fatigue||||0.4241
90957107|NCT00706433|181793743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||1.0
91088377|NCT00676403|182059342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.13||0.1465||95.0|-24.4|3.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||3.7|-24.4|0.1465
91088378|NCT00676403|182059342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.85||0.0046||95.0|-33.1|-6.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||-6.1|-33.1|0.0046
91088379|NCT00676403|182059342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.92||0.0187||95.0|-30.0|-2.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||-2.8|-30.0|0.0187
91088380|NCT00676403|182059342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.0||0.6128||95.0|-10.2|17.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||17.3|-10.2|0.6128
91088381|NCT00676403|182059342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.76||0.3488||95.0|-19.7|7.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||7.0|-19.7|0.3488
91088382|NCT00676403|182059342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.17||0.1472||95.0|-24.5|3.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||3.7|-24.5|0.1472
91088383|NCT00676403|182059342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.89||0.0791||95.0|-25.7|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||1.4|-25.7|0.0791
91088384|NCT00676403|182059342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.97||0.0282||95.0|-29.1|-1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||-1.7|-29.1|0.0282
91088385|NCT00676403|182059342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.08||0.1623||95.0|-23.9|4.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||4.0|-23.9|0.1623
91088386|NCT00676403|182059342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.84||0.3739||95.0|-19.6|7.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||7.4|-19.6|0.3739
91088387|NCT00676403|182059342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.26||0.0517||95.0|-28.5|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.1|-28.5|0.0517
90832722|NCT03192176|181536177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.0||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.16|16.67||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||16.67|2.16|0.0006
90832723|NCT03192176|181536177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.63||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.69|21.65||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||21.65|2.69|0.0001
90832724|NCT03192176|181536177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.8405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|3.23||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||3.23|0.38|0.8405
90832725|NCT03192176|181536177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.6257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|3.79||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||3.79|0.45|0.6257
91088388|NCT00676403|182059342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.92||0.0815||95.0|-25.8|1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||1.5|-25.8|0.0815
91088389|NCT00676403|182059342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.0||0.0031||95.0|-34.7|-7.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||-7.1|-34.7|0.0031
90832726|NCT03192176|181536177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.92||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|10.36||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||10.36|1.48|0.0060
90832727|NCT03192176|181536177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74||||0.3556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|5.68||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||5.68|0.54|0.3556
90832728|NCT03192176|181536177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.67||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|10.9||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||10.90|1.24|0.0190
90832729|NCT03192176|181536177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|30.68||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||30.68|3.20|<0.0001
90832730|NCT03192176|181536177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.67|47.05||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||47.05|4.67|<0.0001
91088390|NCT00676403|182059343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.88||0.3368||95.0|-8.0|23.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||23.1|-8.0|0.3368
90832731|NCT03192176|181536177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.13||||0.1936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|6.67||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||6.67|0.68|0.1936
90832732|NCT03192176|181536177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.39||||0.0335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|10.47||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||10.47|1.10|0.0335
90832733|NCT03192176|181536177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.18||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|18.17||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||18.17|2.10|0.0009
90832734|NCT03192176|181536177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|2.39||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||2.39|0.34|0.8330
90832735|NCT03192176|181536177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|3.91||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||3.91|0.62|0.3410
90832736|NCT03192176|181536177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.71||||0.0075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|9.69||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||9.69|1.42|0.0075
90894633|NCT02954354|181654556|SUPERIORITY|The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Difference|-39.5||||0.0563|||||||Generalized Wilcoxon test|Generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||||||0.0563
90894634|NCT02954354|181654557|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-0.6||||0.7176||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||||||0.7176
90832737|NCT03192176|181536177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.86||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|13.26||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||13.26|1.78|0.0020
90832738|NCT03192176|181536177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78||||0.6216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|2.1||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||2.10|0.29|0.6216
90832739|NCT03192176|181536177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.4615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|3.71||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||3.71|0.55|0.4615
90832740|NCT03192176|181536177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.84||||0.0281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|7.19||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||7.19|1.12|0.0281
90894635|NCT02954354|181654558|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6728||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Any Complications||||0.6728
90832741|NCT03192176|181536177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.8028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|2.35||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||2.35|0.33|0.8028
90832742|NCT03192176|181536177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.6846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|3.07||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||3.07|0.48|0.6846
91024579|NCT01339910|181932894|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39||||||Test performed at a significance level of 0.05|Chi-squared|3 degrees of freedom||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the proportions of participants with full chimerism, mixed chimerism, graft rejection, and death prior to assessment at 18 months post-transplant between AML/MDS participants receiving MAC and RIC conditioning regimens.||||0.39
91024580|NCT01339910|181932895|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024||||||Test performed at a significance level of 0.05|Gray's test|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the cumulative incidence of grade II-IV acute GVHD during the first 100 days post-randomization between AML/MDS participants receiving MAC and RIC conditioning regimens. Cumulative incidence of grade II-IV acute GVHD was compared between treatment arms using Gray's test, treating death as a competing risk.||||0.024
91024581|NCT01339910|181932895|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.066||||||Test performed at a significance level of 0.05|Gray's test|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the cumulative incidence of grade III-IV acute GVHD during the first 100 days post-randomization between AML/MDS participants receiving MAC and RIC conditioning regimens. Cumulative incidence of grade III-IV acute GVHD was compared between treatment arms using Gray's test, treating death as a competing risk.||||0.066
91024582|NCT01339910|181932896|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019||||||Test performed at a significance level of 0.05|Gray's test|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the cumulative incidence of chronic GVHD during the first 18 months post-randomization between AML/MDS participants receiving MAC and RIC conditioning regimens. Cumulative incidence of chronic GVHD was compared between treatment arms using Gray's test, treating death as a competing risk.||||0.019
91024583|NCT01399723|181932904|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority between amoxicillin and benzyl penicillin was defined a priori as a risk difference of treatment failure and associated upper bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of \<7%. A sample size of 576 would provide 80% power to detect noninferiority of amoxicillin against benzyl penicillin within a margin of 7% at a 1-sided level of significance of 0.025, assuming a prevalence of treatment failure of 10% at 48 hours derived from a preintervention pilot phase of the study|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|4.2|||||Risk difference comparison is for amoxicillin versus benzyl penicillin|||4.2|-5.0|
91024584|NCT01399723|181932905|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The initial sample size estimate of 576 children (288 per group) would provide 80% power to detect noninferiority of amoxicillin against benzyl penicillin within a margin of 7% at a 1-sided level of significance of 0.025, assuming a prevalence of treatment failure of 10% at 48 hours derived from a preintervention pilot phase of the study|Risk Difference (RD)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|5.8|||||Risk difference comparison is for amoxicillin versus benzyl penicillin|||5.8|-5.0|
91032503|NCT00377260|181949690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The comparison adjusted for site, history of recurrent acute otitis media and exposure to other children.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups regarding the proportion of culture results with Haemophilus influenzae present.||||.96
91032504|NCT00377260|181949690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The comparison adjusted for site, history of recurrent acute otitis media and exposure to other children.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups regarding the proportion of culture results with Moraxella catarrhalis present.||||.79
91032505|NCT00377260|181949690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The comparison adjusted for site, history of recurrent acute otitis media and exposure to other children.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups regarding the proportion of culture results with Streptococcus pyogenes present.||||.98
91032506|NCT00377260|181949691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The comparison was adjusted for site, history of recurrent acute otitis media and exposure to other children.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups regarding the proportion of children colonized with penicillin-susceptible Streptococcus pneumoniae.||||.04
91032507|NCT00377260|181949692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0|||||Generalized estimating equations|The comparison was adjusted for site, history of recurrent acute otitis media and exposure to other children.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups regarding the probability of middle ear effusion at the on-therapy visit.||||.03
91032508|NCT00377260|181949693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0|||||Generalized estimating equations|The comparison was adjusted for site, history of recurrent acute otitis media and exposure to other children.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups regarding the probability of middle ear effusion at the end-of-therapy visit.||||.006
91032509|NCT00377260|181949694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||Generalized estimating equations|The comparison was adjusted for site, history of recurrent acute otitis media and exposure to other children.||The analysis was ITT. The number of participants equals the number of children for which at least one ear has an interpretable tympanogram at the follow-up visit.||||.04
91032510|NCT00377260|181949695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2||95.0|||||Generalized estimating equations|The comparison was adjusted for site, history of recurrent acute otitis media and exposure to other children.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups regarding visits to primary care provider.||||.20
91032511|NCT00377260|181949696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9||95.0|||||Generalized estimating equations|The comparison was adjusted for site, history of recurrent acute otitis media and exposure to other children.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups regarding visits to emergency room||||.90
91032512|NCT00377260|181949697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.22||||0.14||95.0|||||Regression, Cox|The comparison was adjusted for site, history of recurrent acute otitis media and exposure to other children.|The Amoxicillin-Clavulanate arm represents the numerator and the Placebo arm represents the denominator.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups regarding the time to resolution of symptoms where resolution is defined as AOM-SOS score \<=1.||||.14
90832743|NCT03192176|181536177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.31||||0.0149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|8.67||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||8.67|1.26|0.0149
90832744|NCT03192176|181536177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.64||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.03|15.65||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||15.65|2.03|0.0009
90832745|NCT03192176|181536177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.6434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|2.15||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||2.15|0.29|0.6434
90832746|NCT03192176|181536177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.4784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|3.69||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||3.69|0.54|0.4784
90832747|NCT03192176|181536177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2||||0.0955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|5.55||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||5.55|0.87|0.0955
90832748|NCT03192176|181536177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.9082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.79||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||2.79|0.40|0.9082
90832749|NCT03192176|181536177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.6478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|3.21||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||3.21|0.48|0.6478
90832750|NCT03192176|181536177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.65||||0.0104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|9.82||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||9.82|1.35|0.0104
90832751|NCT03192176|181536177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.66||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.34|18.94||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||18.94|2.34|0.0004
90832752|NCT03192176|181536177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|2.45||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||2.45|0.34|0.8560
90832753|NCT03192176|181536177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6||||0.3319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|4.17||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||4.17|0.62|0.3319
90957108|NCT00706433|181793744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4235||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.4235
90832754|NCT03192176|181536177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.34||||0.0747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|5.95||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||5.95|0.92|0.0747
90832755|NCT03192176|181536177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.8986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|2.76||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||2.76|0.41|0.8986
90832756|NCT03192176|181536177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.9712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|2.53||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||2.53|0.38|0.9712
90832757|NCT03192176|181536177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.31||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|8.98||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||8.98|1.22|0.0910
90832758|NCT03192176|181536177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.68||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.01|16.06||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||16.06|2.01|0.0011
90894636|NCT02954354|181654559|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2217||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Any Complications||||0.2217
90957109|NCT00706433|181793745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||1.0
90894637|NCT03088267|181654577|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.6||||0.0118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.94|-2.17|||ANCOVA|||||-2.17|-14.94|0.0118
90832759|NCT03192176|181536177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.8466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|2.39||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||2.39|0.35|0.8466
90832760|NCT03192176|181536177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.03||||0.1409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|5.21||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||5.21|0.79|0.1409
90894638|NCT03088267|181654578|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.8||||0.1128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.94|42.5|||ANCOVA|||Comparison at 30 minutes post-dose||42.50|-4.94|0.1128
90894639|NCT03088267|181654578|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|60.3||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.91|87.75|||ANCOVA|||Comparison at 3 hours postdose||87.75|32.91|0.0003
90894640|NCT02279043|181654584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|4.88|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.88|0.16|0.89
90894641|NCT02279043|181654585|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.28
90894642|NCT02279043|181654586|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
90894643|NCT02279043|181654586|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.59||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|1.11|||Regression, Linear|||Multivariate analysis adjusting for cluster, as association was significant in bivariate test.||1.11|0.08|0.02
90894644|NCT02279043|181654587|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.59
90894645|NCT02279043|181654588|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.08
90894646|NCT02279043|181654589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.20|0.75|0.34
90894647|NCT02279043|181654590|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|2.05|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.05|0.49|0.99
91024585|NCT01399723|181932908|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The initial sample size estimate of 576 children (288 per group) would provide 80% power to detect noninferiority of amoxicillin against benzyl penicillin within a margin of 7% at a 1-sided level of significance of 0.025, assuming a prevalence of treatment failure of 10% at 48 hours derived from a preintervention pilot phase of the study|Risk Difference (RD)|-3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|3.0|||||Risk difference comparison is for amoxicillin versus benzyl penicillin|||3.0|-10.0|
90894648|NCT02279043|181654591|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.29|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.29|0.95|0.08
91024586|NCT02322879|181932909|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.59
91024587|NCT00810732|181932910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.19|||ANCOVA|||||-0.19|-0.94|0.0040
91024588|NCT00810732|181932910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||||-0.24|-0.99|0.0018
91024589|NCT00810732|181932910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.7945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.43|||ANCOVA|||||0.43|-0.33|0.7945
91024590|NCT00810732|181932911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.0087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.08|-0.91|||ANCOVA|||Mean Systemic Arterial BP: Week 3||-0.91|-6.08|0.0087
91024591|NCT00810732|181932911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.1424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|0.66|||ANCOVA|||Mean Systemic Arterial BP: Week 3||0.66|-4.50|0.1424
91024592|NCT00810732|181932911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29||0.2277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.15|1.0|||ANCOVA|||Mean Systemic Arterial BP: Week 3||1.00|-4.15|0.2277
91024593|NCT00810732|181932911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-2.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.81||0.1599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.16|1.03|||ANCOVA|||Systolic Blood Pressure: Week 3||1.03|-6.16|0.1599
91024594|NCT00810732|181932911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.5545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.66|2.52|||ANCOVA|||Systolic Blood Pressure: Week 3||2.52|-4.66|0.5545
91024595|NCT00810732|181932911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.4095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.08|2.09|||ANCOVA|||Systolic Blood Pressure: Week 3||2.09|-5.08|0.4095
91024596|NCT00810732|181932911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-4.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.49|-1.67|||ANCOVA|||Diastolic Blood Pressure: Week 3||-1.67|-6.49|0.0012
91024597|NCT00810732|181932911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-2.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21||0.0159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.38|-0.57|||ANCOVA|||Diastolic Blood Pressure: Week 3||-0.57|-5.38|0.0159
91024598|NCT00810732|181932911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21||0.3627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.51|1.3|||ANCOVA|||Diastolic Blood Pressure: Week 3||1.30|-3.51|0.3627
91024599|NCT00810732|181932911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-3.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.69|-1.03|||ANCOVA|||Mean Systemic Arterial BP: Week 6||-1.03|-5.69|0.0057
91024600|NCT00810732|181932911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16||0.6503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.86|1.8|||ANCOVA|||Mean Systemic Arterial BP: Week 6||1.80|-2.86|0.6503
91024601|NCT00810732|181932911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-2.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16||0.0183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.16|-0.5|||ANCOVA|||Mean Systemic Arterial BP: Week 6||-0.50|-5.16|0.0183
91024602|NCT00810732|181932911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-2.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.53||0.0726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.89|0.27|||ANCOVA|||Systolic Blood Pressure (SBP): Week 6||0.27|-5.89|0.0726
91024603|NCT00810732|181932911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.53||0.9661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.01|3.14|||ANCOVA|||Systolic Blood Pressure (SBP): Week 6||3.14|-3.01|0.9661
91024604|NCT00810732|181932911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-2.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.53||0.0656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.94|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Systolic Blood Pressure (SBP): Week 6||0.19|-5.94|0.0656
91024605|NCT00810732|181932911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-3.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.0068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.39|-0.92|||ANCOVA|||Diastolic Blood Pressure (DBP): Week 6||-0.92|-5.39|0.0068
91088391|NCT00676403|182059343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.75||0.4232||95.0|-21.5|9.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||9.1|-21.5|0.4232
90832761|NCT03192176|181536177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.08||||0.1212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|5.25||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||5.25|0.82|0.1212
91088392|NCT00676403|182059343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.09||0.7082||95.0|-12.9|19.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||19.0|-12.9|0.7082
91088393|NCT00676403|182059343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.7||0.9466||95.0|-15.7|14.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||14.7|-15.7|0.9466
91088394|NCT00676403|182059343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.72||0.3746||95.0|-22.1|8.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||8.4|-22.1|0.3746
91088395|NCT00676403|182059343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.95||0.9336||95.0|-15.0|16.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||16.3|-15.0|0.9336
91088396|NCT00676403|182059343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.71||0.2029||95.0|-25.0|5.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||5.4|-25.0|0.2029
90832762|NCT03192176|181536177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.4269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|3.88||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||3.88|0.56|0.4269
90832763|NCT03192176|181536177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.5454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|3.49||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||3.49|0.52|0.5454
90894649|NCT02279043|181654592|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|2.58|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.58|1.05|0.03
91024606|NCT00810732|181932911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.22|1.24|||ANCOVA|||Diastolic Blood Pressure (DBP): Week 6||1.24|-3.22|0.3760
91024607|NCT00810732|181932911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-2.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.0572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Diastolic Blood Pressure (DBP): Week 6||0.07|-4.40|0.0572
91024608|NCT00810732|181932912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.8823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.45|||ANCOVA|||Week 3||0.45|-0.39|0.8823
91024609|NCT00810732|181932912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.9457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.43|||ANCOVA|||Week 3||0.43|-0.41|0.9457
91024610|NCT00810732|181932912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.9358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.44|||ANCOVA|||Week 3||0.44|-0.40|0.9358
91024611|NCT00810732|181932912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.25|||ANCOVA|||Week 6||-0.25|-1.03|0.0022
91024612|NCT00810732|181932912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.8956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.36|||ANCOVA|||Week 6||0.36|-0.41|0.8956
91024613|NCT00810732|181932912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.23|||ANCOVA|||Week 6||-0.23|-1.00|0.0030
91024614|NCT00124020|181932913|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin of 20% was specified based on historical regulatory precedent.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.2||||||95.0|-6.8|7.2||p-values were not calculated in deference to confidence intervals.||||||7.2|-6.8|
91088397|NCT00676403|182059343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.18||0.3833||95.0|-23.3|9.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||9.0|-23.3|0.3833
90832764|NCT03192176|181536177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.62||||0.0595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|7.15||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||7.15|0.96|0.0595
90832765|NCT03192176|181536177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.58||||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.62|12.98||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||12.98|1.62|0.0041
90832766|NCT03192176|181536177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77||||0.6121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|2.13||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||2.13|0.28|0.6121
90832767|NCT03192176|181536177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.2329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|4.75||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||4.75|0.68|0.2329
90832768|NCT03192176|181536177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.28||||0.0891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|5.9||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||5.90|0.88|0.0891
91024615|NCT00268346|181932914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage response|6.9|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||binomial test for a single proportion|||In patients with prior chemotherapy, \>25% response indicates efficacy and \<10% indicates lack of efficacy. In patients with no prior chemotherapy, \>45% response indicates efficacy and \<25% indicates lack of efficacy. Using a 5% significance level, the study was designed to have 80% power to test each hypothesis.||||<0.05
91024616|NCT00981253|181932915|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.7|-1.5|||ANCOVA|||||-1.5|-18.7|
91024617|NCT00981253|181932916|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
91024618|NCT00981253|181932917|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.91|||Log Rank|||||0.91|0.24|
91024619|NCT00981253|181932918|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|1.17|||ANCOVA|||||1.17|-0.14|.95
91024620|NCT00981253|181932919|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.46|||ANCOVA|||||0.46|-0.22|0.99
91024621|NCT00981253|181932920|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.46||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|1.74|||ANCOVA|||||1.74|-0.78|0.99
91024622|NCT00981253|181932921|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.46|||ANCOVA|||||0.46|-0.22|0.99
91024623|NCT00981253|181932921|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.39|||ANCOVA|||||0.39|-0.14|0.99
91024624|NCT00752791|181932922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change from Baseline|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.44|||||A two-sided 95% CI of the estimated mean change from Baseline in hemoglobin was derived from the t-distribution.|||0.44|-0.24|
91024625|NCT01127581|181932929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-677.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank||Sample size 675 per group provides 90% power to see an improvement of ≥320 minutes (20% improvement from DVI) in time to vaginal delivery between MVI 200 \& DVI assuming a median time of 1600 minutes for DVI \& 34% dropout rate based on 5% 2-sided test|Subjects who underwent a cesarean delivery during the first hospitalization were censored using the longest time interval from study drug administration to cesarean delivery during the first hospitalization, independent of treatment group. Subjects who, in their first hospitalization, were discharged prior to delivery or withdrew consent prior to delivery were censored using the longest time interval from study drug administration to labor and delivery discharge, independent of treatment group.||||<0.001
91024626|NCT01127581|181932930|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A sample size of 675 subjects per group will provide a sufficient number of subjects to assess non-inferiority of MVI 200 with respect to rate of cesarean delivery, based on an alpha level of 5% and 80% power for a two-sided approach using a 10% non-inferiority limit (relative to the DVI rate), assuming a 30% rate of cesarean delivery in the DVI group compared to a 26% rate in the MVI 200 group.|Difference in Populations|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.79|3.59|||Chi-squared||MVI 200 - DVI|The analysis of the cesarean delivery rates during the first hospitalization was based on a between-treatment-group difference. If the upper limit of the asymptotic two-sided 95% confidence interval of the difference in event rates (MVI minus DVI) was less than the calculated non-inferiority margin (10% relative to the DVI rate, i.e., 0.1 times DVI rate), then MVI 200 would be considered non-inferior to DVI.||3.59|-5.79|
91024627|NCT01127581|181932931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-543.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank||MVI 200 - DVI|Subjects who did not deliver during the first hospitalization were censored using the longest time interval from study drug administration to labor and delivery discharge without delivery, independent of treatment group.||||<0.001
91024628|NCT01127581|181932932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-390.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank||MVI 200 - DVI|Subjects who never went into active labor during the first hospitalization were censored using the longest time interval from study drug administration to delivery during the first hospitalization, independent of treatment group. Subjects who, in their first hospitalization, were discharged prior to delivery or withdrew consent prior to delivery were censored using the longest time interval from study drug administration to labor and delivery discharge, independent of treatment group.||||<0.001
91024629|NCT01127581|181932933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|-26.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact||MVI 200 - DVI|||||<0.001
91024630|NCT01127581|181932934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|9.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact||MVI 200 - DVI|||||<0.001
91024631|NCT01127581|181932935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|26.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact||MVI 200 - DVI|||||<0.001
91024632|NCT01127581|181932936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|13.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact||MVI 200 - DVI|||||<0.001
91024633|NCT01127581|181932937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|29.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact||MVI 200 - DVI|||||<0.001
91088398|NCT00676403|182059343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.72||0.8152||95.0|-17.0|13.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||13.4|-17.0|0.8152
90832769|NCT03192176|181536177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.55||||0.6857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|9.97||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||9.97|0.03|0.6857
90832770|NCT03192176|181536177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.7291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|19.71||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||19.71|0.12|0.7291
91024634|NCT01127581|181932938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|1.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact||MVI 200 - DVI|||||<0.001
91024635|NCT05117099|181932940|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.548|||||||ANOVA|||||||.548
91024636|NCT05117099|181932942|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.915|||||||ANOVA|||||||.915
91024637|NCT05117099|181932943|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.663|||||||ANOVA|||||||.663
91024638|NCT05117099|181932944|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.138|||||||ANOVA|||||||.138
91024639|NCT05117099|181932945|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.114|||||||ANOVA|||||||.114
91024640|NCT05117099|181932946|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.065|||||||ANOVA|||||||.065
91024641|NCT05117099|181932947|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.394|||||||ANOVA|||||||.394
91024642|NCT05117099|181932948|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.388|||||||ANOVA|||||||.388
91024643|NCT05117099|181932949|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.332|||||||ANOVA|||||||.332
91024644|NCT02784106|181932950|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion of Responders|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.07|0.25||||||||0.25|-0.07|
91088399|NCT00676403|182059343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.81||0.1739||95.0|-26.1|4.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||4.7|-26.1|0.1739
90894650|NCT02279043|181654592|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.5||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects logistic regression||Multivariate analysis adjusting for cluster, as association was significant in bivariate test.||0.97|0.04|0.03
91024645|NCT02784106|181932951|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Mean Changes|-1.93|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.54|1.69||||||||1.69|-5.54|
91024646|NCT02784106|181932952|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion of Responders|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.13|0.06||||||Day 28||0.06|-0.13|
91024647|NCT02784106|181932952|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion of Responders|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.18|0.09||||||Day 56||0.09|-0.18|
91024648|NCT02784106|181932952|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion of Responders|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.15|0.12||||||Day 84||0.12|-0.15|
91024649|NCT02784106|181932953|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion of Responders|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.01|0.14||||||Day 28||0.14|0.01|
91024650|NCT02784106|181932953|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion of Responders|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.05|0.11||||||Day 56||0.11|-0.05|
91024651|NCT02784106|181932953|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion of Responders|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.15|0.07||||||Day 84||0.07|-0.15|
91024652|NCT02784106|181932954|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Mean Changes|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.37|2.58||||||||2.58|-5.37|
91024653|NCT02784106|181932955|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Mean Changes|-0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.33|0.16||||||Day 28||0.16|-0.33|
91024654|NCT02784106|181932955|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Mean Changes|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.29|0.43||||||Day 84||0.43|-0.29|
91024655|NCT02784106|181932956|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion of Participants|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.04|0.21||||||||0.21|-0.04|
91024656|NCT02784106|181932957|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion of Participants|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.13|0.06||||||||0.06|-0.13|
91024657|NCT02927847|181932985|OTHER||t-value|0.138||||0.891|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.891
91024658|NCT02927847|181932986|OTHER||t-value|-0.575||||0.571|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.571
91024659|NCT02927847|181932987|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.739|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.739
91024660|NCT03563027|181933027|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|433.0||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-337.0|1203.0|||Regression, Linear|||||1203|-337|.81
91024661|NCT03563027|181933027|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1224.0||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|451.0|1996.0|||Regression, Linear|||||1996|451|.005
91024662|NCT03563027|181933028|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-160.0||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-983.0|663.0|||Regression, Linear|||||663|-983|.92
91024663|NCT03563027|181933028|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|564.0||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-261.0|1389.0|||Regression, Linear|||||1389|-261|.37
91024664|NCT03563027|181933029|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.24|||Regression, Linear|||||.24|.18|<.001
91024665|NCT03563027|181933029|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.37|||Regression, Linear|||||.37|.31|<.001
91024666|NCT03563027|181933030|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.1|||Regression, Linear|||||0.1|.06|<.001
91024667|NCT03563027|181933030|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.2|||Regression, Linear|||||.20|.15|<.001
91024668|NCT02444533|181933098|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.043|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between groups for pain on day of surgery. Statistical significance was defined as a p-value less than 0.05.||||0.043
91024669|NCT02444533|181933098|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.445|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between groups for pain at 14 days after surgery. Statistical significance was defined as a p-value less than 0.05.||||0.445
91024670|NCT02444533|181933099|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between groups for ibuprofen usage. Statistical significance was defined as a p-value less than 0.05.||||0.650
91088400|NCT00676403|182059343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.94||0.3392||95.0|-8.0|23.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||23.3|-8.0|0.3392
90832771|NCT03192176|181536177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.8951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|14.41||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||14.41|0.05|0.8951
90832772|NCT03192176|181536177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.66||||0.6865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|19.74||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||19.74|0.14|0.6865
91088401|NCT00676403|182059343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.71||0.913||95.0|-16.0|14.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||14.4|-16.0|0.9130
91088402|NCT00676403|182059343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.22||0.6||95.0|-20.5|11.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||11.9|-20.5|0.6000
91088403|NCT00676403|182059343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.75||0.4445||95.0|-9.3|21.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||21.2|-9.3|0.4445
90832773|NCT03192176|181536177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.9132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|20.24||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||20.24|0.07|0.9132
90894651|NCT02279043|181654593|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.25|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|3.56|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.56|1.42|<0.01
90894652|NCT02279043|181654593|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.84|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects logistic regression||Multivariate analysis adjusting for cluster, as association was significant in bivariate test.||1.35|0.33|<0.01
90894653|NCT02279043|181654594|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|2.74|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.74|0.52|0.93
90832774|NCT03192176|181536177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.7982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|16.59||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||16.59|0.12|0.7982
90894654|NCT02279043|181654595|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|2.74|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.74|0.52|0.68
90894655|NCT02279043|181654596|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|1.93|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.93|0.08|0.33
91024671|NCT02444533|181933099|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between groups for acetaminophen usage. Statistical significance was defined as a p-value less than 0.05.||||0.970
91024672|NCT02444533|181933099|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.835|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between groups for oxycodone usage. Statistical significance was defined as a p-value less than 0.05.||||0.835
91024673|NCT02444533|181933100|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between groups at 7 days. Statistical significance was defined as a p-value less than 0.05.||||1.0
91024674|NCT00602030|181933113|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.72||||0.505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.89|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel estimation of odds ratio adjusted for the smoking history stratification factor, using placebo as reference group.|||1.89|0.27|0.505
91024675|NCT00602030|181933114|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.31||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|1.54|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Estimation of odds ratio was adjusted for the smoking history stratification factor, using placebo as reference group .|||1.54|0.06|0.13
91024676|NCT00602030|181933115|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.06||||0.918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|3.27|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Estimation of odds ratio was adjusted for the smoking history stratification factor, using placebo as reference group.|||3.27|0.34|0.918
91024677|NCT00397839|181933137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.58|||<|0.001||95.0|1.41|3.76|||ANCOVA|||||3.76|1.41|<0.001
91024678|NCT00397839|181933138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.86||||0.118||95.0|-0.22|1.94|||ANCOVA|||||1.94|-0.22|0.118
91024679|NCT00397839|181933139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.13|||<|0.001||95.0|1.34|2.92|||ANCOVA|||Total Hip subgroup||2.92|1.34|<0.001
91024680|NCT00397839|181933139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.43||||0.012||95.0|0.32|2.55|||ANCOVA|||Femoral Neckm subgroup||2.55|0.32|0.012
91024681|NCT00397839|181933139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.72||||0.004||95.0|0.56|2.88|||ANCOVA|||Trochanter subgroup||2.88|0.56|0.004
91024682|NCT00397839|181933140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.75|||<|0.001||95.0|1.11|2.4|||ANCOVA|||Total Hip subgroup||2.40|1.11|<0.001
90832775|NCT03192176|181536177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.9029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|15.57||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||15.57|0.09|0.9029
91024683|NCT00397839|181933140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.18||||0.031||95.0|0.11|2.25|||ANCOVA|||Femoral Neck subgroup||2.25|0.11|0.031
91024684|NCT00397839|181933140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.18||||0.031||95.0|0.11|2.25|||ANCOVA|||Trochanter subgroup||2.25|0.11|0.031
91024685|NCT00397839|181933141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.91||||0.362||95.0|0.73|1.13|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Relative risk|Total Spine BMD at Month 6||1.13|0.73|0.362
91024686|NCT00397839|181933141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.85||||0.044||95.0|0.72|1.01|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Relative risk|Total Spine BMD at Month 12||1.01|0.72|0.044
91024687|NCT00397839|181933141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.46|||<|0.001||95.0|0.3|0.72|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Relative risk|Total Hip BMD at Month 6||0.72|0.30|<0.001
91024688|NCT00397839|181933141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.57|||<|0.001||95.0|0.41|0.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Relative risk|Total Hip BMD at Month 12||0.80|0.41|<0.001
91024689|NCT00397839|181933141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.41|||<|0.001||95.0|0.23|0.72|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Relative risk|Both Total Hip and Total Spine BMD at Month 6||0.72|0.23|<0.001
91024690|NCT00397839|181933141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5|||<|0.001||95.0|0.33|0.75|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Relative risk|Both Total Hip and Total Spine BMD||0.75|0.33|<0.001
91024691|NCT00362401|181933159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The comparison of the three valve groups with respect to the objective sound measures was made by the one-way ANOVA method. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference on intensity of heart valve sounds among the three groups.||||<0.05
91024692|NCT01841359|181933176|OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.90
91024693|NCT01841359|181933177|OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.08
91024694|NCT01841359|181933178|OTHER||||||=|0.20492|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||= 0.20492
91024695|NCT01841359|181933179|OTHER|||||||0.2655|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2655
91024696|NCT01841359|181933180|OTHER|||||||0.64|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.64
91024697|NCT01841359|181933181|OTHER|||||||0.597|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.597
90832776|NCT03192176|181536177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||0.7971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|11.94||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||11.94|0.04|0.7971
91024698|NCT01841359|181933182|OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.37
91024699|NCT01841359|181933183|OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.14
91024700|NCT01841359|181933184|OTHER|||||||0.412|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.412
91024701|NCT01841359|181933185|OTHER|||||||0.89|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.890
91024702|NCT01841359|181933186|OTHER|||||||0.69|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.69
91024703|NCT02151461|181933187|OTHER|A mixed-effects model for analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used to analyze changes from Baseline in plasma glucose AUC(0-3hr) at Week 4 in the Day 28 Evaluable population. The model includes factors for treatment group and fasting plasma glucose stratum.||||||0.0435||||||Baseline plasma glucose AUC(0-3hr) is adjusted as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.0435
91024704|NCT02151461|181933187|OTHER|||||||0.065|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.065
91024705|NCT02151461|181933187|OTHER|||||||0.1216|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1216
91024706|NCT02151461|181933188|OTHER|A mixed-effects model for analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used to analyze changes from Baseline in incremental plasma glucose AUC at Week 4 in the Day 28 Evaluable population. The model will include factors for treatment group and fasting plasma glucose stratum.||||||0.8867|||||||ANCOVA|The model includes factors for treatment group and fasting plasma glucose stratum.||||||0.8867
91024707|NCT02151461|181933188|OTHER|||||||0.7641|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.7641
91024708|NCT02151461|181933188|OTHER|||||||0.2518|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2518
91024709|NCT02151461|181933189|OTHER|||||||0.0179|||||||ANCOVA|Total daily dose is twice the respective dose, Pairwise comparison using Treatment D as the reference group||||||0.0179
91024710|NCT02151461|181933189|OTHER|||||||0.0736|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0736
91024711|NCT02151461|181933189|OTHER|||||||0.0475|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0475
91024712|NCT02151461|181933190|OTHER|||||||0.0089|||||||ANCOVA|Total daily dose is twice the respective dose. Pairwise Comparison using Treatment D as the Reference Group||||||0.0089
91024713|NCT02151461|181933190|OTHER|||||||0.376|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.376
91024714|NCT02151461|181933190|OTHER|||||||0.0578|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0578
91024715|NCT02151461|181933191|OTHER|||||||0.2177|||||||ANCOVA|Total daily dose is twice the respective dose. Pairwise Comparison using Treatment D as the Reference Group||The HOMA Calculator,is an algorithm that takes account of variations in hepatic and peripheral glucose resistance, increases in insulin secretion curve for plasma glucose concentrations above 10 mmol/L (180 mg/dL), and contribution of circulating proinsulin (eg, C-peptide) to estimate steady state beta cell function (%HOMA-B) and insulin sensitivity (%HOMA-S), as percentages of a normal reference population. %HOMA-IR was analyzed on a logarithmic scale (natural logarithmic transformation).||||0.2177
91024716|NCT02151461|181933191|OTHER|||||||0.4144|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.4144
91024717|NCT02151461|181933191|OTHER|||||||0.3117|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3117
91024718|NCT02151461|181933192|OTHER|Average Change in Pre-meal Glucose Level||||||0.011|||||||ANCOVA|Total daily dose is twice the respective dose Pairwise comparison using Treatment D as the reference group||||||0.011
91024719|NCT02151461|181933192|OTHER|Average Change in Pre-meal Glucose Level||||||0.0152|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0152
91024720|NCT02151461|181933192|OTHER|Average Change in Pre-meal Glucose Level||||||0.0284|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0284
91024721|NCT02151461|181933192|OTHER|Average Change in Post-meal Glucose Level||||||0.1273|||||||ANCOVA|Total daily dose is twice the respective dose Pairwise comparison using Treatment D as the reference group||||||0.1273
90832777|NCT03192176|181536178|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67||||0.7899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|12.34||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||12.34|0.04|0.7899
90832778|NCT03192176|181536178|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.9186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|14.73||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||14.73|0.05|0.9186
90832779|NCT03192176|181536178|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.19||||0.5303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|25.46||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||25.46|0.19|0.5303
90832780|NCT03192176|181536178|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.85||||0.1149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|52.66||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||52.66|0.65|0.1149
90832781|NCT03192176|181536178|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.07||||0.0442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|77.71||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||77.71|1.06|0.0442
90832782|NCT03192176|181536178|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.53||||0.2851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|35.68||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||35.68|0.35|0.2851
90832783|NCT03192176|181536178|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.22||||0.2073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|39.48||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||39.48|0.45|0.2073
90832784|NCT03192176|181536178|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.68||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|37.16||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||37.16|0.36|0.2700
90832785|NCT03192176|181536178|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.41||||0.2982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|34.27||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||34.27|0.34|0.2982
90832786|NCT03192176|181536178|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.3||||0.0204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|102.6||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||102.6|1.47|0.0204
90832787|NCT03192176|181536178|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.1||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|93.74||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||93.74|1.31|0.0270
90832788|NCT03192176|181536178|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.22||||0.5224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|25.68||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||25.68|0.19|0.5224
90832789|NCT03192176|181536178|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.92||||0.1635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|46.35||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||46.35|0.52|0.1635
90832790|NCT03192176|181536178|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.97||||0.0266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|91.15||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||91.15|1.32|0.0266
90957110|NCT00706433|181793746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0865||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0865
91024722|NCT02151461|181933192|OTHER|Average Change in Post-meal Glucose Level||||||0.0085|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0085
91024723|NCT02151461|181933192|OTHER|Average Change in Post-meal Glucose Level||||||0.1289|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1289
91024724|NCT02151461|181933193|OTHER|Plasma Insulin Absolute AUC(0-2hr) (h\*uIU/mL)||||||0.3143|||||||ANCOVA|Total daily dose is twice the respective dose. Pairwise comparison using Treatment D as the reference group.||||||0.3143
91024725|NCT02151461|181933193|OTHER|Plasma Insulin Absolute AUC(0-2hr) (h\*uIU/mL)||||||0.5677|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.5677
91024726|NCT02151461|181933193|OTHER|Plasma Insulin Absolute AUC(0-2hr) (h\*uIU/mL)||||||0.8407|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.8407
91024727|NCT02151461|181933194|OTHER|||||||0.9789|||||||ANCOVA|Total daily dose is twice the respective dose Pairwise comparison using Treatment D as the reference group||||||0.9789
91024728|NCT02151461|181933194|OTHER|||||||0.841|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.841
91024729|NCT02151461|181933194|OTHER|||||||0.748|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.748
91024730|NCT02191579|181933233|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.681|9.085||Odds ratio, 95% CI, and p-value were estimated using a logistic regression model adjusted by baseline headache days.|Regression, Logistic|||||9.085|2.681|<0.001
91024731|NCT02191579|181933234|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.199|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.936|-4.462||Estimated mean difference, 95% CI, and p-value were assessed using analysis of covariance adjusting for baseline headache days.|ANCOVA|||||-4.462|-7.936|<0.001
91088404|NCT00676403|182059343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.85||0.9656||95.0|-15.8|15.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||15.1|-15.8|0.9656
91088405|NCT00676403|182059343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.02||0.5679||95.0|-11.2|20.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||20.4|-11.2|0.5679
91088406|NCT00676403|182059343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.79||0.5619||95.0|-19.9|10.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||10.8|-19.9|0.5619
91088407|NCT00676403|182059343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.31||0.993||95.0|-16.3|16.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||16.4|-16.3|0.9930
91088408|NCT00676403|182059343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.79||0.6892||95.0|-12.2|18.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||18.5|-12.2|0.6892
90832791|NCT03192176|181536178|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.69||||0.4299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|31.21||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||31.21|0.23|0.4299
90832792|NCT03192176|181536178|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.87||||0.1667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|45.84||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||45.84|0.52|0.1667
90832793|NCT03192176|181536178|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.11||||0.0592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|71.35||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||71.35|0.92|0.0592
90832794|NCT03192176|181536178|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|18.28||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.21|151.2||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||151.2|2.21|0.0070
90832795|NCT03192176|181536178|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.79||||0.2594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|38.32||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||38.32|0.37|0.2594
90832796|NCT03192176|181536178|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.14||||0.0589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|71.67||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||71.67|0.92|0.0589
90832797|NCT03192176|181536178|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.08||||0.0338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|85.2||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||85.20|1.19|0.0338
90832798|NCT03192176|181536178|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.7756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|4.88||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||4.88|0.12|0.7756
90832799|NCT03192176|181536178|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.9246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|5.74||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||5.74|0.20|0.9246
91088409|NCT00676403|182059343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.89||0.4928||95.0|-21.0|10.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||10.1|-21.0|0.4928
90957111|NCT00706433|181793747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.623||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.6230
91088410|NCT00676403|182059344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.1||0.2719||95.0|-4.4|15.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||15.6|-4.4|0.2719
91088411|NCT00676403|182059344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.02||0.693||95.0|-7.9|11.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||11.8|-7.9|0.6930
91088412|NCT00676403|182059344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.24||0.7178||95.0|-12.2|8.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||8.4|-12.2|0.7178
91088413|NCT00676403|182059344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.96||0.8037||95.0|-11.0|8.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||8.5|-11.0|0.8037
91088414|NCT00676403|182059344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.02||0.0832||95.0|-1.2|18.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||18.6|-1.2|0.0832
91088415|NCT00676403|182059344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.17||0.3554||95.0|-5.4|14.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||14.9|-5.4|0.3554
91088416|NCT00676403|182059344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.96||0.9538||95.0|-9.5|10.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||10.0|-9.5|0.9538
91088417|NCT00676403|182059344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.26||0.5593||95.0|-13.4|7.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||7.3|-13.4|0.5593
91088418|NCT00676403|182059344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.97||0.8663||95.0|-8.9|10.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||10.6|-8.9|0.8663
90832800|NCT03192176|181536178|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.42||||0.0177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|21.93||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||21.93|1.34|0.0177
90832801|NCT03192176|181536178|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.38||||0.0178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|21.65||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||21.65|1.34|0.0178
91088419|NCT00676403|182059344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.12||0.119||95.0|-2.1|18.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||18.1|-2.1|0.1190
90832802|NCT03192176|181536178|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.8564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|6.2||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||6.20|0.22|0.8564
90832803|NCT03192176|181536178|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.52||||0.2202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|11.0||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||11.00|0.58|0.2202
91088420|NCT00676403|182059344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.15||0.1544||95.0|-2.8|17.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||17.5|-2.8|0.1544
91088421|NCT00676403|182059344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.97||0.8439||95.0|-8.8|10.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||10.7|-8.8|0.8439
90832804|NCT03192176|181536178|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.37||||0.2498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|10.25||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||10.25|0.55|0.2498
90832805|NCT03192176|181536178|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.22||||0.0576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|72.29||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||72.29|0.93|0.0576
91088422|NCT00676403|182059344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.3||0.9925||95.0|-10.5|10.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||10.4|-10.5|0.9925
91088423|NCT00676403|182059344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.02||0.8784||95.0|-9.1|10.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||10.6|-9.1|0.8784
91088424|NCT00676403|182059344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.17||0.8948||95.0|-9.5|10.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||10.8|-9.5|0.8948
91088425|NCT00676403|182059344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.26||0.2197||95.0|-3.9|16.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||16.8|-3.9|0.2197
91088426|NCT00676403|182059344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.07||0.6183||95.0|-7.4|12.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||12.5|-7.4|0.6183
91088427|NCT00676403|182059344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.42||0.4484||95.0|-14.8|6.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||6.5|-14.8|0.4484
91088428|NCT00676403|182059344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.07||0.3857||95.0|-5.6|14.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||14.4|-5.6|0.3857
91088429|NCT00676403|182059344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.22||0.8824||95.0|-11.0|9.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||9.5|-11.0|0.8824
90832806|NCT03192176|181536178|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.34||||0.3065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|33.59||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||33.59|0.33|0.3065
90894656|NCT00101933|181654609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0017||95.0||||Since a treatment-by-visit interaction remains in the final model, the results were analyzed by visit. The results shown are for the last month in the blinded phase (month 3-4).|Generalized Estimating Equations|This analysis is adjusted for significant baseline covariates.||The numbers presented are the percentage reduction in the number of seizures in each group. A negative percentage change indicates a seizure reduction.||||0.0017
91024732|NCT02191579|181933235|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-4.248|||<|0.001||95.0|-5.766|-2.731||Estimated mean difference, 95% CI, and p-value for Week 30 were assessed using analysis of covariance adjusting for baseline headache days.|ANCOVA|||||-2.731|-5.766|<0.001
91024733|NCT02191579|181933236|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.05|||<|0.001||95.0|2.014|8.157||Odds ratio, 95% CI, and p-value for the Week 29-32 interval were estimated using a logistic regression model adjusted by baseline headache days.|Regression, Logistic|||||8.157|2.014|<0.001
91024734|NCT00769015|181933237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.54||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.06||Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test. The p-value refers to the overall test of between group differences in rates of depression.|Mantel Haenszel|||||1.06|.27|.067
91024735|NCT00769015|181933238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.81||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.92|4.3|||Linear Mixed effects model|||||4.30|-5.92|.75
91024736|NCT00769015|181933239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Change in least squares mean|3.47||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.22|5.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.29|-12.22|.68
91024737|NCT00769015|181933240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.42||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.58|7.41|||Least squares mean|||||7.41|-2.58|.34
91024738|NCT00769015|181933241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.02||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|5.76|||Least squares mean|||||5.76|-9.80|.68
91024739|NCT00769015|181933242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.39||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.04|6.82|||Least squares mean|||||6.82|-4.04|.68
91024740|NCT00769015|181933243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.62||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.94|9.17|||Least squares mean|||||9.17|-5.94|.68
91024741|NCT01086215|181933246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Alternative hypothesis is change in occlusion \>0||||||<0.0001
91024742|NCT01086215|181933246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Alternative hypothesis is change in occlusion \>0||||||<0.0001
91024743|NCT01086215|181933246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Alternative hypothesis is change in occlusion \>0||||||<0.0001
91024744|NCT01086215|181933246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Alternative hypothesis is change in occlusion \>0||||||<0.0001
91024745|NCT01965652|181933250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.226|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.72||The significance level was set at 0.05 (2-sided). The analysis of efficacy endpoints was not adjusted for multiplicity; hence, the p-values are purely nominal. A mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method was used for the comparisons.|Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The MMRM method included the opioid dose strata as a covariate and treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 12 Analysis||1.72|0.83|<0.0001
91024746|NCT01965652|181933250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.47|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The MMRM method included the opioid dose strata as a covariate and treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 24 Analysis||1.47|0.53|<0.0001
91088430|NCT00676403|182059345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.87||0.1673||95.0|-4.6|26.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||26.4|-4.6|0.1673
91024747|NCT01965652|181933250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.249|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.5|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The MMRM method included the opioid dose strata as a covariate and treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 36 Analysis||1.50|0.52|<0.0001
91024748|NCT01965652|181933250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.259||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.51|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The MMRM method included the opioid dose strata as a covariate and treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 52 Analysis||1.51|0.49|0.0001
91024749|NCT01965652|181933252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.25|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 2 Analysis||-0.25|-0.44|<0.0001
91024750|NCT01965652|181933252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.14|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 12 Analysis||-0.14|-0.36|<0.0001
91024751|NCT01965652|181933252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.18|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 24 Analysis||-0.18|-0.40|<0.0001
91024752|NCT01965652|181933252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.24|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 36 Analysis||-0.24|-0.47|<0.0001
91024753|NCT01965652|181933252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.12|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 52 Analysis||-0.12|-0.35|<0.0001
91024754|NCT01965652|181933253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|-0.1|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 2 Analysis||-0.10|-0.31|0.0002
91024755|NCT01965652|181933253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.0173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|-0.03|||Mixed-effects model repeated meaures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 12 Analysis||-0.03|-0.26|0.0173
90832807|NCT03192176|181536178|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|19.9||||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|165.1||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||165.1|2.40|0.0056
90832808|NCT03192176|181536178|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|25.05||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.05|205.5||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||205.5|3.05|0.0027
90832809|NCT03192176|181536178|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.61||||0.2762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|36.51||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||36.51|0.36|0.2762
90832810|NCT03192176|181536178|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.93||||0.0851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|62.69||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||62.69|0.77|0.0851
90832811|NCT03192176|181536178|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|17.02||||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.09|138.7||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||138.7|2.09|0.0081
90832812|NCT03192176|181536178|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.37||||0.0995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|57.62||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||57.62|0.70|0.0995
90832813|NCT03192176|181536178|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.76||||0.1184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|51.8||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||51.80|0.64|0.1184
90957112|NCT00706433|181793748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0963||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0963
90957113|NCT00706433|181793749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4814||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.4814
91024756|NCT01965652|181933253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.06|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 24 Analysis||-0.06|-0.30|0.0035
91024757|NCT01965652|181933253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.16|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 36 Analysis||-0.16|-0.40|<0.0001
91024758|NCT01965652|181933253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.064||0.0336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|-0.01|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 52 Analysis||-0.01|-0.26|0.0336
91024759|NCT01965652|181933254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.14|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 2 Analysis||-0.14|-0.37|<0.0001
91024760|NCT01965652|181933254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063||0.0114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|-0.04|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 12 Analysis||-0.04|-0.28|0.0114
91024761|NCT01965652|181933254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.065||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.11|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 24 Analysis||-0.11|-0.36|0.0003
91088431|NCT00676403|182059345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.71||0.9839||95.0|-15.0|15.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||15.3|-15.0|0.9839
91024762|NCT01965652|181933254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.064|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.13|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 36 Analysis||-0.13|-0.38|<0.0001
91024763|NCT01965652|181933254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066||0.0119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|-0.04|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 52 Analysis||-0.04|-0.29|0.0119
91024764|NCT01965652|181933255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|-0.39|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 2 Analysis||-0.39|-0.64|<0.0001
91024765|NCT01965652|181933255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.26|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 12 Analysis||-0.26|-0.51|<0.0001
91088432|NCT00676403|182059345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.06||0.2905||95.0|-7.3|24.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||24.4|-7.3|0.2905
90832814|NCT03192176|181536178|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|26.54||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.23|218.3||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||218.3|3.23|0.0023
90832815|NCT03192176|181536178|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|19.09||||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.31|157.9||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||157.9|2.31|0.0062
90832816|NCT03192176|181536178|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.49||||0.0695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|65.87||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||65.87|0.85|0.0695
90832817|NCT03192176|181536178|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.64||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|75.98||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||75.98|0.98|0.0520
91024766|NCT01965652|181933255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.27|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 24 Analysis||-0.27|-0.54|<0.0001
91024767|NCT01965652|181933255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.071|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.34|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 36 Analysis||-0.34|-0.62|<0.0001
91024768|NCT01965652|181933255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.072|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.23|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 52 Analysis||-0.23|-0.52|<0.0001
91024769|NCT01965652|181933256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|-0.3|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 2 Analysis||-0.30|-0.49|<0.0001
91024770|NCT01965652|181933256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.051|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.26|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 12 Analysis||-0.26|-0.46|<0.0001
91024771|NCT01965652|181933256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.22|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 24 Analysis||-0.22|-0.43|<0.0001
91088433|NCT00676403|182059345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.69||0.5513||95.0|-10.6|19.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||19.7|-10.6|0.5513
91024772|NCT01965652|181933256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.29|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 36 Analysis||-0.29|-0.50|<0.0001
91024773|NCT01965652|181933256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.2|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 52 Analysis||-0.20|-0.42|<0.0001
91024774|NCT01965652|181933257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.28|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 2 Analysis||-0.28|-0.50|<0.0001
91024775|NCT01965652|181933257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.2|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 12 Anaysis||-0.20|-0.44|<0.0001
91024776|NCT01965652|181933257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.065|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.15|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 24 Analysis||-0.15|-0.40|<0.0001
91024777|NCT01965652|181933257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.21|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 36 Analysis||-0.21|-0.48|<0.0001
91024778|NCT01965652|181933257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.15|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 52 Analysis||-0.15|-0.41|<0.0001
91088434|NCT00676403|182059345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.77||0.1589||95.0|-4.3|26.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||26.3|-4.3|0.1589
91024779|NCT01965652|181933258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.051|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|-0.14|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 2 Analysis||-0.14|-0.34|<0.0001
91024780|NCT01965652|181933258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.14|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 12 Analysis||-0.14|-0.35|<0.0001
91024781|NCT01965652|181933258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.14|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 24 Analysis||-0.14|-0.36|<0.0001
91024782|NCT01965652|181933258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.19|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 36 Analysis||-0.19|-0.43|<0.0001
91024783|NCT01965652|181933258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|-0.09|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 52 Analysis||-0.09|-0.33|0.0006
91024784|NCT01965652|181933259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.29|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 2 Analysis||-0.29|-0.50|<0.0001
91024785|NCT01965652|181933259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.24|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 12 Analysis||-0.24|-0.48|<0.0001
91088435|NCT00676403|182059345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.95||0.0541||95.0|-0.3|31.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||31.0|-0.3|0.0541
91024786|NCT01965652|181933259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.21|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 24 Analysis||-0.21|-0.45|<0.0001
91024787|NCT01965652|181933259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.3|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 36 Analysis||-0.30|-0.54|<0.0001
91024788|NCT01965652|181933259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.064|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.19|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 52 Analysis||-0.19|-0.44|<0.0001
91024789|NCT01965652|181933260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.53|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 2 Analysis||-0.53|-0.81|<0.0001
91024790|NCT01965652|181933260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.075|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.43|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 12 Analysis||-0.43|-0.73|<0.0001
91024791|NCT01965652|181933260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.077|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.36|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 24 Analysis||-0.36|-0.66|<0.0001
91024792|NCT01965652|181933260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.38|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 36 Analysis||-0.38|-0.69|<0.0001
91024793|NCT01965652|181933260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.083|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|-0.32|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 52 Analysis||-0.32|-0.64|<0.0001
91024794|NCT01965652|181933261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91024795|NCT01033864|181933262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8055|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8055
91024796|NCT01033864|181933263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2548|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2548
91024797|NCT01033864|181933264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4417|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4417
91024798|NCT01033864|181933265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0455|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0455
91024799|NCT01033864|181933266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2300
91024800|NCT01033864|181933267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0106|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0106
90832818|NCT03192176|181536178|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|22.3||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.75|180.6||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||180.6|2.75|0.0036
90832819|NCT03192176|181536178|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.66||||0.0676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|24.23||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||24.23|0.89|0.0676
90832820|NCT03192176|181536178|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.14||||0.0903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|21.38||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||21.38|0.80|0.0903
90832821|NCT03192176|181536178|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|15.46||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.18|75.14||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||75.14|3.18|0.0007
90832822|NCT03192176|181536178|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.94||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.22|53.77||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||53.77|2.22|0.0032
91024801|NCT01033864|181933268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3401|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3401
91024802|NCT01033864|181933269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0074|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0074
91024803|NCT01033864|181933270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0002
91024804|NCT02524106|181933272|OTHER||percentage difference|61.0||||0.028|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.028
91024805|NCT02524106|181933273|OTHER||percentage difference|39.0||||0.096|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.096
91024806|NCT01121900|181933274|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence is established when the ratio of geometric Least Squares means (LSmeans) and confidence interval calculated from the exponential of the difference between the Test and Reference product for the ln-transformed parameter Cmax is between 80% and 125%.|Mean ratio|39.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|34.4|46.0|||||Test/reference (%)|||46.0|34.4|
91024807|NCT01121900|181933275|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence is established when the ratio of geometric Least Squares means (LSmeans) and confidence interval calculated from the exponential of the difference between the Test and Reference product for the ln-transformed parameter AUC(0-tlast) is between 80% and 125%.|Mean ratio|80.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.2|88.3|||||Test/reference (%)|||88.3|74.2|
91024808|NCT01121900|181933276|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence is established when the ratio of geometric Least Squares means (LSmeans) and confidence interval calculated from the exponential of the difference between the Test and Reference product for the ln-transformed parameter AUC(0-∞) is between 80% and 125%.|Mean ratio|83.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.5|91.1|||||Test/reference (%)|||91.1|76.5|
91024809|NCT00408876|181933287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.503||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.503
91024810|NCT00408876|181933287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.447||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.447
91024811|NCT00408876|181933287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.084||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.084
91024812|NCT00408876|181933287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.964||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.964
91024813|NCT00408876|181933287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.451||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.451
91024814|NCT00408876|181933287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.333||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.333
91024815|NCT00408876|181933288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.21||||0.318||95.0|-0.62|0.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.20|-0.62|0.318
91024816|NCT00408876|181933288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.49||||0.005||95.0|-0.83|-0.15|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.15|-0.83|0.005
91024817|NCT00408876|181933288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.27||||0.124||95.0|-0.61|0.07|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.07|-0.61|0.124
91024818|NCT00408876|181933288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.28||||0.183||95.0|-0.7|0.13|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.13|-0.70|0.183
91024819|NCT00408876|181933288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06||||0.778||95.0|-0.48|0.36|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.36|-0.48|0.778
91024820|NCT00408876|181933288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.22||||0.21||95.0|-0.13|0.57|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.57|-0.13|0.210
91024821|NCT00408876|181933289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.97||||0.161||95.0|-2.32|0.39|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.39|-2.32|0.161
91024822|NCT00408876|181933289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.41||||0.019||95.0|-2.59|-0.24|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.24|-2.59|0.019
91024823|NCT00408876|181933289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.56||||0.01||95.0|-2.74|-0.38|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.38|-2.74|0.010
91024824|NCT00408876|181933289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.45||||0.526||95.0|-1.83|0.94|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.94|-1.83|0.526
91024825|NCT00408876|181933289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.59||||0.397||95.0|-1.96|0.78|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.78|-1.96|0.397
91024826|NCT00408876|181933289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15||||0.813||95.0|-1.35|1.06|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.06|-1.35|0.813
91024827|NCT00408876|181933290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.15||||0.657||95.0|-0.5|0.79|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.79|-0.50|0.657
91024828|NCT00408876|181933290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.23||||0.384||95.0|-0.76|0.29|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.29|-0.76|0.384
91024829|NCT00408876|181933290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.56||||0.04||95.0|-1.1|-0.03|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.03|-1.10|0.040
91024830|NCT00408876|181933290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.38||||0.253||95.0|-1.03|0.27|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.27|-1.03|0.253
91024831|NCT00408876|181933290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.71||||0.034||95.0|-1.36|-0.05|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.05|-1.36|0.034
91024832|NCT00408876|181933290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.33||||0.232||95.0|-0.86|0.21|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.21|-0.86|0.232
90832823|NCT03192176|181536178|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.04||||0.2031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|16.85||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||16.85|0.55|0.2031
90832824|NCT03192176|181536178|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.13||||0.0972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|22.1||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||22.10|0.77|0.0972
90832825|NCT03192176|181536178|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.04||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|53.06||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||53.06|2.30|0.0027
91024833|NCT00408876|181933291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.33||||0.365||95.0|-0.39|1.05|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.05|-0.39|0.365
91024834|NCT00408876|181933291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.36||||0.232||95.0|-0.95|0.23|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.23|-0.95|0.232
91024835|NCT00408876|181933291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.314||95.0|-0.9|0.29|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.29|-0.90|0.314
91024836|NCT00408876|181933291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.69||||0.062||95.0|-1.41|0.03|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.03|-1.41|0.062
91024837|NCT00408876|181933291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.64||||0.083||95.0|-1.36|0.08|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.08|-1.36|0.083
91024838|NCT00408876|181933291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.859||95.0|-0.54|0.65|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.65|-0.54|0.859
91024839|NCT00408876|181933292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.984||95.0|-0.34|0.34|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.34|-0.34|0.984
91024840|NCT00408876|181933292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.41||||0.004||95.0|-0.7|-0.13|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.13|-0.70|0.004
91024841|NCT00408876|181933292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.53|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.81|-0.24|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.24|-0.81|<0.001
91024842|NCT00408876|181933292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.42||||0.018||95.0|-0.76|-0.07|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.07|-0.76|0.018
91024843|NCT00408876|181933292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.53||||0.003||95.0|-0.87|-0.19|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.19|-0.87|0.003
91024844|NCT00408876|181933292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11||||0.442||95.0|-0.4|0.17|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.17|-0.40|0.442
91024845|NCT00408876|181933293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.31||||0.464||95.0|-0.52|1.14|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.14|-0.52|0.464
91024846|NCT00408876|181933293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.68||||0.052||95.0|-1.36|0.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.00|-1.36|0.052
91024847|NCT00408876|181933293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.68||||0.052||95.0|-1.37|0.01|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.01|-1.37|0.052
91024848|NCT00408876|181933293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.99||||0.021||95.0|-1.83|-0.15|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.15|-1.83|0.021
91024849|NCT00408876|181933293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.99||||0.02||95.0|-1.83|-0.16|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.16|-1.83|0.020
91024850|NCT00408876|181933293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.988||95.0|-0.7|0.69|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.69|-0.70|0.988
91024851|NCT00408876|181933294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.21||||0.543||95.0|-0.46|0.88|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.88|-0.46|0.543
91024852|NCT00408876|181933294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.55||||0.053||95.0|-1.1|0.01|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.01|-1.10|0.053
91024853|NCT00408876|181933294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.65||||0.024||95.0|-1.21|-0.09|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.09|-1.21|0.024
91024854|NCT00408876|181933294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.75||||0.03||95.0|-1.43|-0.07|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.07|-1.43|0.030
91024855|NCT00408876|181933294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.85||||0.014||95.0|-1.54|-0.17|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.17|-1.54|0.014
91024856|NCT00408876|181933294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.727||95.0|-0.66|0.46|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.46|-0.66|0.727
91024857|NCT00408876|181933295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.09||||0.813||95.0|-0.63|0.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.80|-0.63|0.813
91024858|NCT00408876|181933295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.63||||0.035||95.0|-1.21|-0.04|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.04|-1.21|0.035
91024859|NCT00408876|181933295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.58||||0.054||95.0|-1.17|0.01|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.01|-1.17|0.054
91024860|NCT00408876|181933295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.71||||0.051||95.0|-1.43|0.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.00|-1.43|0.051
91024861|NCT00408876|181933295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.67||||0.07||95.0|-1.39|0.05|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.05|-1.39|0.070
91024862|NCT00408876|181933295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.872||95.0|-0.54|0.64|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.64|-0.54|0.872
91024863|NCT00408876|181933296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.11||||0.79||95.0|-0.68|0.89|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.89|-0.68|0.790
91024864|NCT00408876|181933296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.93||||0.005||95.0|-1.57|-0.28|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.28|-1.57|0.005
91024865|NCT00408876|181933296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.87||||0.009||95.0|-1.52|-0.22|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.22|-1.52|0.009
91024866|NCT00408876|181933296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.03||||0.011||95.0|-1.83|-0.24|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.24|-1.83|0.011
91024867|NCT00408876|181933296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.97||||0.016||95.0|-1.77|-0.18|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.18|-1.77|0.016
91024868|NCT00408876|181933296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.06||||0.857||95.0|-0.6|0.72|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.72|-0.60|0.857
91024869|NCT00408876|181933297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03||||0.948||95.0|-0.81|0.76|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.76|-0.81|0.948
91024870|NCT00408876|181933297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.55||||0.096||95.0|-1.2|0.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.10|-1.20|0.096
91024871|NCT00408876|181933297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.39||||0.239||95.0|-1.05|0.26|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.26|-1.05|0.239
90832826|NCT03192176|181536178|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.06||||0.1306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|13.02||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||13.02|0.72|0.1306
90832827|NCT03192176|181536178|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.83||||0.0248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|19.1||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||19.10|1.22|0.0248
91024872|NCT00408876|181933297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.53||||0.196||95.0|-1.32|0.27|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.27|-1.32|0.196
91024873|NCT00408876|181933297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.37||||0.367||95.0|-1.17|0.43|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.43|-1.17|0.367
91024874|NCT00408876|181933297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.16||||0.637||95.0|-0.5|0.82|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.82|-0.50|0.637
91024875|NCT00408876|181933298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05||||0.887||95.0|-0.76|0.65|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.65|-0.76|0.887
91024876|NCT00408876|181933298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.81||||0.006||95.0|-1.4|-0.23|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.23|-1.40|0.006
91024877|NCT00408876|181933298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.26||||0.392||95.0|-0.84|0.33|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.33|-0.84|0.392
91024878|NCT00408876|181933298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.76||||0.036||95.0|-1.48|-0.05|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.05|-1.48|0.036
91024879|NCT00408876|181933298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.573||95.0|-0.92|0.51|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.51|-0.92|0.573
91024880|NCT00408876|181933298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.56||||0.064||95.0|-0.03|1.15|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.15|-0.03|0.064
91024881|NCT00408876|181933299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.36||||0.374||95.0|-1.15|0.43|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.43|-1.15|0.374
91024882|NCT00408876|181933299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9||||0.007||95.0|-1.55|-0.25|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.25|-1.55|0.007
91024883|NCT00408876|181933299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.46||||0.169||95.0|-1.12|0.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.20|-1.12|0.169
91024884|NCT00408876|181933299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.54||||0.182||95.0|-1.35|0.26|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.26|-1.35|0.182
91024885|NCT00408876|181933299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.802||95.0|-0.91|0.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.70|-0.91|0.802
91024886|NCT00408876|181933299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.44||||0.191||95.0|-0.22|1.11|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.11|-0.22|0.191
91024887|NCT00408876|181933300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.25||||0.556||95.0|-1.1|0.59|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.59|-1.10|0.556
91024888|NCT00408876|181933300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.73||||0.041||95.0|-1.42|-0.03|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.03|-1.42|0.041
91024889|NCT00408876|181933300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.44||||0.22||95.0|-1.14|0.26|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.26|-1.14|0.220
91024890|NCT00408876|181933300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.47||||0.278||95.0|-1.33|0.38|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.38|-1.33|0.278
91024891|NCT00408876|181933300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.18||||0.673||95.0|-1.04|0.68|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.68|-1.04|0.673
91024892|NCT00408876|181933300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.29||||0.422||95.0|-0.42|1.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.00|-0.42|0.422
91024893|NCT00408876|181933301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.39||||0.234||95.0|-1.03|0.25|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.25|-1.03|0.234
91024894|NCT00408876|181933301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.93|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.46|-0.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.40|-1.46|<0.001
91024895|NCT00408876|181933301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.34||||0.213||95.0|-0.87|0.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.20|-0.87|0.213
91024896|NCT00408876|181933301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.54||||0.105||95.0|-1.19|0.11|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.11|-1.19|0.105
91024897|NCT00408876|181933301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.876||95.0|-0.6|0.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.70|-0.60|0.876
91024898|NCT00408876|181933301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.59||||0.033||95.0|0.05|1.13|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.13|0.05|0.033
91024899|NCT00408876|181933302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04||||0.925||95.0|-0.73|0.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.80|-0.73|0.925
91024900|NCT00408876|181933302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.85||||0.008||95.0|-1.49|-0.22|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.22|-1.49|0.008
91024901|NCT00408876|181933302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.49||||0.132||95.0|-1.12|0.15|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.15|-1.12|0.132
91024902|NCT00408876|181933302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.89||||0.024||95.0|-1.67|-0.12|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.12|-1.67|0.024
91024903|NCT00408876|181933302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.52||||0.184||95.0|-1.3|0.25|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.25|-1.30|0.184
91024904|NCT00408876|181933302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.37||||0.262||95.0|-0.27|1.01|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.01|-0.27|0.262
91024905|NCT00408876|181933303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07||||0.849||95.0|-0.84|0.69|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.69|-0.84|0.849
91024906|NCT00408876|181933303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.73||||0.024||95.0|-1.36|-0.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.10|-1.36|0.024
91024907|NCT00408876|181933303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09||||0.773||95.0|-0.73|0.54|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.54|-0.73|0.773
91024908|NCT00408876|181933303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.66||||0.097||95.0|-1.43|0.12|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.12|-1.43|0.097
91024909|NCT00408876|181933303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.96||95.0|-0.79|0.75|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.75|-0.79|0.960
91024910|NCT00408876|181933303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.64||||0.052||95.0|0.0|1.28|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.28|0.00|0.052
91024911|NCT00408876|181933304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.756||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.756
90832828|NCT03192176|181536178|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.14||||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.79|28.53||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||28.53|1.79|0.0054
90832829|NCT03192176|181536178|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.01||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.55|39.36||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||39.36|2.55|0.0010
90832830|NCT03192176|181536178|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.8271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|6.45||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||6.45|0.23|0.8271
91024912|NCT00408876|181933304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.507||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.507
91024913|NCT00408876|181933304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.056||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.056
91024914|NCT00408876|181933304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.816||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.816
91024915|NCT00408876|181933304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.208||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.208
91024916|NCT00408876|181933304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.212||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.212
91024917|NCT00408876|181933305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.885||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.885
91024918|NCT00408876|181933305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.026
91024919|NCT00408876|181933305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.007
91024920|NCT00408876|181933305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.095||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.095
91024921|NCT00408876|181933305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.040
91024922|NCT00408876|181933305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.635||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.635
91024923|NCT00408876|181933306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.575||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.575
91024924|NCT00408876|181933306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.009
91024925|NCT00408876|181933306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||<0.001
91024926|NCT00408876|181933306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.115||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.115
91024927|NCT00408876|181933306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.002
91024928|NCT00408876|181933306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.072||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.072
91024929|NCT00408876|181933307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.516||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.516
91024930|NCT00408876|181933307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.006
91024931|NCT00408876|181933307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||<0.001
91024932|NCT00408876|181933307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.112||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.112
91024933|NCT00408876|181933307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.010
91024934|NCT00408876|181933307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.219||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.219
91024935|NCT00408876|181933308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.309||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.309
91024936|NCT00408876|181933308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.001
91024937|NCT00408876|181933308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||<0.001
91024938|NCT00408876|181933308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.116||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.116
91024939|NCT00408876|181933308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.033
91024940|NCT00408876|181933308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.480
91024941|NCT00408876|181933309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.709||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.709
91024942|NCT00408876|181933309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.012
91024943|NCT00408876|181933309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.001
91024944|NCT00408876|181933309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.097||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.097
91024945|NCT00408876|181933309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.023
91024946|NCT00408876|181933309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.435||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.435
91024947|NCT00408876|181933310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.931||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.931
91024948|NCT00408876|181933310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.007
91024949|NCT00408876|181933310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||<0.001
91024950|NCT00408876|181933310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.036
91024951|NCT00408876|181933310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.007
91024952|NCT00408876|181933310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.416||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.416
91024953|NCT00408876|181933311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.634||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.634
91024954|NCT00408876|181933311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.031
91024955|NCT00408876|181933311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.002
91024956|NCT00408876|181933311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.026
91024957|NCT00408876|181933311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.003
91024958|NCT00408876|181933311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.313||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.313
91024959|NCT00408876|181933312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.91||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.910
91024960|NCT00408876|181933312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.026
91024961|NCT00408876|181933312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||<0.001
91024962|NCT00408876|181933312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.090
91024963|NCT00408876|181933312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.006
91024964|NCT00408876|181933312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.171||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.171
90832831|NCT03192176|181536178|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.27||||0.1089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|13.95||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||13.95|0.77|0.1089
91024965|NCT00408876|181933313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.733||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.733
91024966|NCT00408876|181933313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.022
91024967|NCT00408876|181933313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||<0.001
91024968|NCT00408876|181933313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.128||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.128
91024969|NCT00408876|181933313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.013
91024970|NCT00408876|181933313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.225||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.225
91024971|NCT00408876|181933314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.890
91024972|NCT00408876|181933314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.079||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.079
91024973|NCT00408876|181933314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.035
91024974|NCT00408876|181933314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.117||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.117
91024975|NCT00408876|181933314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.060
91024976|NCT00408876|181933314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.647||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.647
91088436|NCT00676403|182059345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.66||0.5987||95.0|-11.0|19.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||19.1|-11.0|0.5987
90832832|NCT03192176|181536178|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.58||||0.0138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|21.93||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||21.93|1.42|0.0138
91024977|NCT00408876|181933315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.243||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.243
91024978|NCT00408876|181933315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.110
91024979|NCT00408876|181933315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.236||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.236
91024980|NCT00408876|181933315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.014
91024981|NCT00408876|181933315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.036
90832833|NCT03192176|181536178|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.4||||0.1987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|9.15||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||9.15|0.63|0.1987
90832834|NCT03192176|181536178|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.3984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|7.02||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||7.02|0.46|0.3984
90832835|NCT03192176|181536178|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.92||||0.0402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|14.45||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||14.45|1.06|0.0402
91024982|NCT00408876|181933315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.756||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.756
91024983|NCT00408876|181933316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.23||||0.465||95.0|-0.84|0.39|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.39|-0.84|0.465
91024984|NCT00408876|181933316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.79||||0.002||95.0|-1.3|-0.29|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.29|-1.30|0.002
91024985|NCT00408876|181933316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.31||||0.233||95.0|-0.82|0.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.20|-0.82|0.233
91024986|NCT00408876|181933316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.56||||0.075||95.0|-1.19|0.06|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.06|-1.19|0.075
91024987|NCT00408876|181933316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08||||0.798||95.0|-0.71|0.54|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.54|-0.71|0.798
91024988|NCT00408876|181933316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.48||||0.066||95.0|-0.03|1.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.00|-0.03|0.066
91024989|NCT00408876|181933317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.869||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.869
91024990|NCT00408876|181933317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.141||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.141
91024991|NCT00408876|181933317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.033
91024992|NCT00408876|181933317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.142||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.142
91024993|NCT00408876|181933317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.049
91024994|NCT00408876|181933317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.587||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.587
91024995|NCT00408876|181933318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.356||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.356
91024996|NCT00408876|181933318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.472||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.472
91024997|NCT00408876|181933318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.255||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.255
91024998|NCT00408876|181933318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.107||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.107
91024999|NCT00408876|181933318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.053||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.053
91025000|NCT00408876|181933318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.779||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.779
91025001|NCT00408876|181933319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.21||||0.747||95.0|-1.47|1.06|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.06|-1.47|0.747
91025002|NCT00408876|181933319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.07||||0.045||95.0|-2.12|-0.02|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.02|-2.12|0.045
91025003|NCT00408876|181933319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.58||95.0|-0.76|1.36|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.36|-0.76|0.580
90832836|NCT03192176|181536178|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.05||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.32|27.95||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||27.95|2.32|0.0010
90832837|NCT03192176|181536178|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.8287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|4.08||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||4.08|0.17|0.8287
90832838|NCT03192176|181536178|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.93||||0.1083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|10.92||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||10.92|0.79|0.1083
90832839|NCT03192176|181536178|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.03||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.76|20.66||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||20.66|1.76|0.0043
90832840|NCT03192176|181536178|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.23||||0.1126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|13.79||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||13.79|0.76|0.1126
90894657|NCT00101933|181654611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate per 1000 years of stimulation|4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|17.79|||No statistical test||The rate is calculated per 1000 subject years of follow-up based on 406 subject years of stimulation. The confidence interval is the 95% Poisson confidence interval. Per protocol, only definite and probable SUDEP were included in the calculation.|||17.79|0.60|
90894658|NCT00101933|181654612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's Exact test. The numbers presented in this analysis are the number of subjects who were responders based on a responder definition including all subjects with 50% or greater improvement in total seizure count.||||0.830
90894659|NCT00101933|181654613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.105||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.105
90894660|NCT00101933|181654614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.498||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.498
90894661|NCT00101933|181654615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
90957114|NCT00706433|181793750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7153||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.7153
91025004|NCT00408876|181933319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.86||||0.185||95.0|-2.14|0.41|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.41|-2.14|0.185
91025005|NCT00408876|181933319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.51||||0.438||95.0|-0.77|1.79|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.79|-0.77|0.438
91025006|NCT00408876|181933319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.37||||0.012||95.0|0.3|2.44|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.44|0.30|0.012
91025007|NCT00408876|181933320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.46||||0.729||95.0|-2.16|3.08|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.08|-2.16|0.729
91025008|NCT00408876|181933320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.02||||0.352||95.0|-1.14|3.18|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.18|-1.14|0.352
91025009|NCT00408876|181933320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.81||||0.465||95.0|-3.0|1.37|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.37|-3.00|0.465
91025010|NCT00408876|181933320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.56||||0.677||95.0|-2.09|3.21|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.21|-2.09|0.677
91025011|NCT00408876|181933320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.27||||0.345||95.0|-3.92|1.38|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.38|-3.92|0.345
91025012|NCT00408876|181933320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.84||||0.102||95.0|-4.04|0.37|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.37|-4.04|0.102
91025013|NCT00408876|181933321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04||||0.977||95.0|-2.91|2.83|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.83|-2.91|0.977
91025014|NCT00408876|181933321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9||||0.451||95.0|-1.44|3.24|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.24|-1.44|0.451
91025015|NCT00408876|181933321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.74||||0.15||95.0|-0.63|4.11|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.11|-0.63|0.150
91025016|NCT00408876|181933321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.94||||0.524||95.0|-1.96|3.83|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.83|-1.96|0.524
91025017|NCT00408876|181933321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.78||||0.23||95.0|-1.13|4.69|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.69|-1.13|0.230
91025018|NCT00408876|181933321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.84||||0.491||95.0|-1.55|3.23|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.23|-1.55|0.491
91025019|NCT00408876|181933322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.15||||0.645||95.0|-0.49|0.79|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.79|-0.49|0.645
91025020|NCT00408876|181933322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6||||0.027||95.0|0.07|1.12|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.12|0.07|0.027
91025021|NCT00408876|181933322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.75||||0.006||95.0|0.22|1.29|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.29|0.22|0.006
91025022|NCT00408876|181933322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.44||||0.18||95.0|-0.21|1.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.10|-0.21|0.180
91025023|NCT00408876|181933322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6||||0.069||95.0|-0.05|1.25|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.25|-0.05|0.069
91025024|NCT00408876|181933322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.16||||0.564||95.0|-0.38|0.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.70|-0.38|0.564
91025025|NCT00408876|181933323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04||||0.929||95.0|-0.92|1.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.00|-0.92|0.929
91025026|NCT00408876|181933323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.58||||0.147||95.0|-0.21|1.36|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.36|-0.21|0.147
91025027|NCT00408876|181933323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.16||||0.7||95.0|-0.64|0.95|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.95|-0.64|0.700
91025028|NCT00408876|181933323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.54||||0.279||95.0|-0.44|1.51|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.51|-0.44|0.279
91088437|NCT00676403|182059345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.1||0.4372||95.0|-9.6|22.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||22.2|-9.6|0.4372
91088438|NCT00676403|182059345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.71||0.8336||95.0|-16.8|13.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||13.6|-16.8|0.8336
91088439|NCT00676403|182059345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.9||0.0804||95.0|-1.7|29.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||29.4|-1.7|0.0804
91088440|NCT00676403|182059345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.94||0.2985||95.0|-7.4|23.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||23.9|-7.4|0.2985
91088441|NCT00676403|182059345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.66||0.4991||95.0|-9.9|20.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||20.3|-9.9|0.4991
91088442|NCT00676403|182059345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.15||0.2675||95.0|-7.0|25.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||25.1|-7.0|0.2675
91088443|NCT00676403|182059345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.77||0.1593||95.0|-4.3|26.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||26.3|-4.3|0.1593
91088444|NCT00676403|182059345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.96||0.0179||95.0|3.3|34.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||34.6|3.3|0.0179
91088445|NCT00676403|182059345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.06||0.0281||95.0|1.9|33.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||33.7|1.9|0.0281
90832841|NCT03192176|181536178|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.9||||0.1479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|12.3||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||12.30|0.69|0.1479
91088446|NCT00676403|182059345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.77||0.1883||95.0|-5.0|25.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||25.5|-5.0|0.1883
91088447|NCT00676403|182059345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.28||0.23||95.0|-6.3|26.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||26.3|-6.3|0.2300
91088448|NCT00676403|182059345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.82||0.7575||95.0|-13.0|17.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||17.8|-13.0|0.7575
90832842|NCT03192176|181536178|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.49||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.59|42.46||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||42.46|2.59|0.0010
90957115|NCT00706433|181793751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3832||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.3832
91025029|NCT00408876|181933323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.11||||0.822||95.0|-0.86|1.09|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.09|-0.86|0.822
91025030|NCT00408876|181933323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.42||||0.299||95.0|-1.22|0.38|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.38|-1.22|0.299
91025031|NCT00408876|181933324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.18||||0.766||95.0|-1.33|0.98|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.98|-1.33|0.766
91025032|NCT00408876|181933324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6||||0.217||95.0|-0.35|1.55|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.55|-0.35|0.217
91025033|NCT00408876|181933324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07||||0.88||95.0|-0.89|1.04|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.04|-0.89|0.880
91025034|NCT00408876|181933324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.78||||0.193||95.0|-0.39|1.94|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.94|-0.39|0.193
91025035|NCT00408876|181933324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.25||||0.675||95.0|-0.92|1.42|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.42|-0.92|0.675
91025036|NCT00408876|181933324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.53||||0.288||95.0|-1.5|0.45|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.45|-1.50|0.288
91025037|NCT00408876|181933325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.42||||0.501||95.0|-1.66|0.81|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.81|-1.66|0.501
91025038|NCT00408876|181933325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.33||||0.524||95.0|-0.69|1.35|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.35|-0.69|0.524
91025039|NCT00408876|181933325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.89||||0.089||95.0|-0.14|1.91|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.91|-0.14|0.089
91025040|NCT00408876|181933325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.75||||0.234||95.0|-0.49|2.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.00|-0.49|0.234
91025041|NCT00408876|181933325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.31||||0.04||95.0|0.06|2.56|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.56|0.06|0.040
90832843|NCT03192176|181536178|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.01||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.31|51.14||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||51.14|3.31|0.0002
90832844|NCT03192176|181536178|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.91||||0.1483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|12.41||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||12.41|0.68|0.1483
91025042|NCT00408876|181933325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.56||||0.289||95.0|-0.48|1.59|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.59|-0.48|0.289
91025043|NCT00408876|181933326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03||||0.862||95.0|-0.27|0.32|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.32|-0.27|0.862
91025044|NCT00408876|181933326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.11||||0.368||95.0|-0.13|0.35|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.35|-0.13|0.368
91025045|NCT00408876|181933326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.06||||0.628||95.0|-0.18|0.31|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.31|-0.18|0.628
91025046|NCT00408876|181933326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.09||||0.573||95.0|-0.21|0.38|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.38|-0.21|0.573
91025047|NCT00408876|181933326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03||||0.819||95.0|-0.26|0.33|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.33|-0.26|0.819
90832845|NCT03192176|181536178|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.03||||0.0557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|16.84||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||16.84|0.97|0.0557
91025048|NCT00408876|181933326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05||||0.687||95.0|-0.3|0.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.20|-0.30|0.687
91025049|NCT00408876|181933327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.972||95.0|-0.48|0.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.50|-0.48|0.972
91025050|NCT00408876|181933327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.99||95.0|-0.4|0.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.40|-0.40|0.990
91025051|NCT00408876|181933327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.793||95.0|-0.35|0.46|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.46|-0.35|0.793
91025052|NCT00408876|181933327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.981||95.0|-0.5|0.49|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.49|-0.50|0.981
91025053|NCT00408876|181933327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.857||95.0|-0.45|0.54|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.54|-0.45|0.857
91025054|NCT00408876|181933327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.805||95.0|-0.36|0.46|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.46|-0.36|0.805
91025055|NCT00408876|181933328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.24||||0.34||95.0|-0.26|0.75|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.75|-0.26|0.340
91025056|NCT00408876|181933328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04||||0.848||95.0|-0.45|0.37|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.37|-0.45|0.848
91025057|NCT00408876|181933328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12||||0.573||95.0|-0.54|0.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.30|-0.54|0.573
91025058|NCT00408876|181933328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.29||||0.272||95.0|-0.79|0.22|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.22|-0.79|0.272
91025059|NCT00408876|181933328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.36||||0.161||95.0|-0.88|0.15|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.15|-0.88|0.161
91025060|NCT00408876|181933328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08||||0.711||95.0|-0.5|0.34|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.34|-0.50|0.711
91025061|NCT00408876|181933329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.22||||0.713||95.0|-1.39|0.95|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.95|-1.39|0.713
91025062|NCT00408876|181933329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.52||||0.288||95.0|-0.44|1.49|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.49|-0.44|0.288
91025063|NCT00408876|181933329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.46||||0.351||95.0|-1.44|0.51|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.51|-1.44|0.351
91025064|NCT00408876|181933329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.74||||0.219||95.0|-0.44|1.93|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.93|-0.44|0.219
90832846|NCT03192176|181536178|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.47||||0.0072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|25.28||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||25.28|1.66|0.0072
90832847|NCT03192176|181536178|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.9715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|3.24||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||3.24|0.32|0.9715
90832848|NCT03192176|181536178|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|4.39||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||4.39|0.50|0.4720
90832849|NCT03192176|181536178|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.35||||0.1262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|7.05||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||7.05|0.79|0.1262
90832850|NCT03192176|181536178|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.07||||0.0396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|8.92||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||8.92|1.05|0.0396
91025065|NCT00408876|181933329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.24||||0.686||95.0|-1.43|0.94|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.94|-1.43|0.686
91025066|NCT00408876|181933329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.98||||0.05||95.0|-1.97|0.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.00|-1.97|0.050
91025067|NCT00408876|181933330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.663||95.0|-0.06|0.04|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.04|-0.06|0.663
91025068|NCT00408876|181933330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02||||0.33||95.0|-0.02|0.06|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.06|-0.02|0.330
91025069|NCT00408876|181933330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03||||0.143||95.0|-0.01|0.07|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.07|-0.01|0.143
91025070|NCT00408876|181933330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03||||0.218||95.0|-0.02|0.08|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.08|-0.02|0.218
91025071|NCT00408876|181933330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04||||0.1||95.0|-0.01|0.09|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.09|-0.01|0.100
91025072|NCT00408876|181933330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.614||95.0|-0.03|0.05|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.05|-0.03|0.614
91025073|NCT00408876|181933331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.22||||0.786||95.0|-1.83|1.39|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.39|-1.83|0.786
91025074|NCT00408876|181933331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.52||||0.445||95.0|-1.85|0.81|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.81|-1.85|0.445
91025075|NCT00408876|181933331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.39||||0.043||95.0|0.04|2.74|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.74|0.04|0.043
91025076|NCT00408876|181933331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.721||95.0|-1.92|1.33|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.33|-1.92|0.721
91025077|NCT00408876|181933331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.61||||0.053||95.0|-0.02|3.24|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.24|-0.02|0.053
91025078|NCT00408876|181933331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.91||||0.006||95.0|0.54|3.27|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.27|0.54|0.006
91025079|NCT00408876|181933332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.39||||0.378||95.0|-0.48|1.25|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.25|-0.48|0.378
91025080|NCT00408876|181933332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13||||0.723||95.0|-0.84|0.59|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.59|-0.84|0.723
91025081|NCT00408876|181933332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.22||||0.542||95.0|-0.95|0.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.50|-0.95|0.542
91025082|NCT00408876|181933332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.52||||0.245||95.0|-1.39|0.36|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.36|-1.39|0.245
91025083|NCT00408876|181933332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.61||||0.169||95.0|-1.48|0.26|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.26|-1.48|0.169
91025084|NCT00408876|181933332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.796||95.0|-0.82|0.63|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.63|-0.82|0.796
91025085|NCT00408876|181933334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91025086|NCT00408876|181933334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.015
91025087|NCT00408876|181933334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.015
91025088|NCT00408876|181933335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.039||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.039
91025089|NCT00408876|181933336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.048
91025090|NCT00408876|181933337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.015
91025091|NCT00408876|181933337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.046||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.046
91025092|NCT00408876|181933338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.039||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.039
91025093|NCT00408876|181933339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.042||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.042
91025094|NCT00408876|181933340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91025095|NCT00408876|181933341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.031
91025096|NCT00408876|181933342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.030
91025097|NCT00408876|181933343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.005
91025098|NCT00408876|181933343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91025099|NCT00408876|181933343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
91025100|NCT00408876|181933344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.38||||0.348||95.0|-4.28|1.51|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.51|-4.28|0.348
91025101|NCT00408876|181933344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.5||||0.04||95.0|0.11|4.89|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.89|0.11|0.040
91025102|NCT00408876|181933344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.61||||0.191||95.0|-0.81|4.03|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.03|-0.81|0.191
90832851|NCT03192176|181536178|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.66||||0.5137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|2.29||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||2.29|0.19|0.5137
91025103|NCT00408876|181933344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.89||||0.009||95.0|0.97|6.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||||6.80|0.97|0.009
91025104|NCT00408876|181933344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.0||||0.044||95.0|0.08|5.91|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.91|0.08|0.044
91025105|NCT00408876|181933344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.89||||0.473||95.0|-3.33|1.55|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.55|-3.33|0.473
91025106|NCT00408876|181933345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4||||0.846||95.0|-3.61|4.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.40|-3.61|0.846
91025107|NCT00408876|181933345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14||||0.934||95.0|-3.45|3.17|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.17|-3.45|0.934
91025108|NCT00408876|181933345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.03||||0.234||95.0|-1.32|5.39|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.39|-1.32|0.234
91025109|NCT00408876|181933345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.54||||0.794||95.0|-4.58|3.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.50|-4.58|0.794
91025110|NCT00408876|181933345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.64||||0.426||95.0|-2.4|5.67|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.67|-2.40|0.426
91025111|NCT00408876|181933345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.17||||0.207||95.0|-1.21|5.55|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.55|-1.21|0.207
91025112|NCT00408876|181933346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17||||0.901||95.0|-2.54|2.89|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.89|-2.54|0.901
91025113|NCT00408876|181933346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11||||0.926||95.0|-2.35|2.14|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.14|-2.35|0.926
91025114|NCT00408876|181933346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.62||||0.002||95.0|1.35|5.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.90|1.35|0.002
91025115|NCT00408876|181933346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.28||||0.841||95.0|-3.02|2.46|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.46|-3.02|0.841
91025116|NCT00408876|181933346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.45||||0.014||95.0|0.71|6.19|||t-test, 2 sided|||||6.19|0.71|0.014
91025117|NCT00408876|181933346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.73||||0.001||95.0|1.44|6.02|||t-test, 2 sided|||||6.02|1.44|0.001
91025118|NCT00408876|181933347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.057||95.0|-1.41|0.02|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.02|-1.41|0.057
91025119|NCT00408876|181933347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.46||||0.128||95.0|-1.05|0.13|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.13|-1.05|0.128
91025120|NCT00408876|181933347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.82||||0.007||95.0|-1.42|-0.22|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.22|-1.42|0.007
91025121|NCT00408876|181933347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.24||||0.518||95.0|-0.48|0.96|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.96|-0.48|0.518
91025122|NCT00408876|181933347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12||||0.734||95.0|-0.85|0.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.60|-0.85|0.734
91025123|NCT00408876|181933347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.36||||0.239||95.0|-0.97|0.24|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.24|-0.97|0.239
91025124|NCT00291330|181933348|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority margin was set up to 2.75 for the HR analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.65|1.7||Non-inferiority P-Value. Two Statistical analyses performed on primary endpoint. Both non inferiority for the risk difference and for the hazard ratio analyses to be reached in order to conclude positively on the primary endpoint.|Regression, Cox|Patients without events are censored at the end of post treatment period (day 224)||Hazard ratio vs. Warfarin (events occurring between randomisation and end of post treatment period). The time to first occurrence of the primary endpoint was compared between treatment groups using the Cox proportional hazards (PH) model, including the factors treatment, active cancer at baseline, symptomatic PE at baseline, and the interaction between active cancer and symptomatic PE.||1.70|0.65|<0.0001
91025125|NCT00291330|181933348|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority margin was set up to 3.6% for the risk difference based on KM estimates|Risk Difference (Percentage)|0.4|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.8|1.5||Non-inferiority P-Value. Two Statistical analyses performed on primary endpoint. Both non inferiority for the risk difference and for the hazard ratio analyses to be reached in order to conclude positively on the primary endpoint.|Kaplan Meier weighted estimates|||Risk difference vs. Warfarin for Proportion of patients with VTE or death related to VTE at 6 months. Point estimate and 95% CI for the overall risk difference obtained based on the Kaplan Meier (KM) estimates at 6 months (180 days) after adjusting for the stratification factors active cancer at baseline and symptomatic PE at baseline.||1.50|-0.80|<0.0001
90832852|NCT03192176|181536178|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.25||||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|6.58||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||6.58|0.77|0.1370
91025126|NCT00291330|181933348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||||95.0|0.65|1.84|||Regression, Cox|Patients without events are censored at day 180||Hazard ratio vs. Warfarin (events occurring between randomisation and the day 180). The time to first occurrence of the primary endpoint was compared between treatment groups using the Cox proportional hazards (PH) model, including the factors treatment, active cancer at baseline, symptomatic PE at baseline, and the interaction between active cancer and symptomatic PE.||1.84|0.65|
91025127|NCT00291330|181933349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (Percentage)|0.3||||0.622||95.0|-1.0|1.7|||Kaplan Meier weighted estimates|||Risk difference vs. Warfarin for Proportion of patients with VTE or death at 6 months. Point estimate and 95% CI for the overall risk difference obtained based on the Kaplan Meier (KM) estimates at 6 months (180 days) after adjusting for the stratification factors active cancer at baseline and symptomatic PE at baseline.||1.70|-1.00|0.6220
91032513|NCT00377260|181949698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.37||||0.04||95.0|||||Regression, Cox|The comparison was adjusted for site, history of recurrent acute otitis media and exposure to other children.|The Amoxicillin-Clavulanate arm represents the numerator and the Placebo arm represents the denominator.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups regarding the time to resolution of symptoms where resolution is defined as AOM-SOS score \<=1 on two consecutive occasions.||||.04
91088449|NCT00676403|182059345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.02||0.0757||95.0|-1.5|30.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||30.1|-1.5|0.0757
91088450|NCT00676403|182059346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.89||0.2817||95.0|-18.0|5.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||5.2|-18.0|0.2817
91088451|NCT00676403|182059346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.76||0.6796||95.0|-13.7|9.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||9.0|-13.7|0.6796
91088452|NCT00676403|182059346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.01||0.2505||95.0|-18.8|4.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||4.9|-18.8|0.2505
91088453|NCT00676403|182059346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.73||0.5102||95.0|-15.1|7.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||7.5|-15.1|0.5102
91088454|NCT00676403|182059346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.78||0.5706||95.0|-14.7|8.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||8.1|-14.7|0.5706
90832853|NCT03192176|181536178|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.5526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|4.07||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||4.07|0.47|0.5526
90832854|NCT03192176|181536179|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.75||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.99|16.62||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||16.62|1.99|0.0012
90894662|NCT00101933|181654616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0387||95.0||||Since a visit-by-treatment interaction did not remain in the final model, the results shown are for the entire blinded phase.|Generalized Estimating Equations|This analysis is adjusted for significant baseline covariates.||The numbers presented are the percentage reduction in the number of seizures in each group. A negative percentage change indicates a seizure reduction.||||0.0387
91088455|NCT00676403|182059346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.95||0.4708||95.0|-16.0|7.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||7.4|-16.0|0.4708
91088456|NCT00676403|182059346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.72||0.6202||95.0|-8.4|14.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||14.1|-8.4|0.6202
90832855|NCT03192176|181536179|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.06|25.68||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||25.68|3.06|<0.0001
90832856|NCT03192176|181536179|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.94|33.85||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||33.85|3.94|<0.0001
90894663|NCT00101933|181654617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Numbers provided indicate the percentage change from baseline in seizure frequency of each participant's most severe seizures. Negative values indicate improvement from baseline.||||0.047
90894664|NCT00774579|181654618|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6
90832857|NCT03192176|181536179|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.55|40.38||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||40.38|4.55|<0.0001
91088457|NCT00676403|182059346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.04||0.4177||95.0|-16.8|7.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||7.0|-16.8|0.4177
91088458|NCT00676403|182059346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.75||0.6509||95.0|-8.7|13.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||13.9|-8.7|0.6509
91088459|NCT00676403|182059346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.86||0.8273||95.0|-10.3|12.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||12.8|-10.3|0.8273
91088460|NCT00676403|182059346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.94||0.2842||95.0|-18.1|5.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||5.3|-18.1|0.2842
91088461|NCT00676403|182059346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.72||0.7041||95.0|-9.1|13.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||13.5|-9.1|0.7041
91088462|NCT00676403|182059346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.07||0.7216||95.0|-14.1|9.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||9.8|-14.1|0.7216
90832858|NCT03192176|181536179|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.9||||0.0555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|8.61||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||8.61|0.98|0.0555
91088463|NCT00676403|182059346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.78||0.6188||95.0|-14.3|8.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||8.5|-14.3|0.6188
90832859|NCT03192176|181536179|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.98||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.75|23.18||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||23.18|2.75|0.0001
90832860|NCT03192176|181536179|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.07||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.81|23.19||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||23.19|2.81|0.0001
90832861|NCT03192176|181536179|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.55||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.82|11.39||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||11.39|1.82|0.0012
91088464|NCT00676403|182059346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.9||0.8096||95.0|-10.2|13.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||13.0|-10.2|0.8096
91088465|NCT00676403|182059346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.01||0.0157||95.0|-26.5|-2.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||-2.8|-26.5|0.0157
90832862|NCT03192176|181536179|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.25||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.06|13.43||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||13.43|2.06|0.0005
90894665|NCT00774579|181654619|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1
91088466|NCT00676403|182059346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.79||0.6007||95.0|-14.4|8.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||8.4|-14.4|0.6007
90832863|NCT03192176|181536179|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.62||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|14.39||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||14.39|2.20|0.0003
90832864|NCT03192176|181536179|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.99|23.74||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||23.74|2.99|<0.0001
90832865|NCT03192176|181536179|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.74||||0.0277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|6.7||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||6.70|1.12|0.0277
90832866|NCT03192176|181536179|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.15||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|10.32||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||10.32|1.66|0.0022
90832867|NCT03192176|181536179|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.06||||0.0314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|7.41||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||7.41|1.26|0.0314
90832868|NCT03192176|181536179|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.92||||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|9.97||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||9.97|1.54|0.0041
90832869|NCT03192176|181536179|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.19||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.64|10.74||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||10.74|1.64|0.0028
90832870|NCT03192176|181536179|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.96||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|12.98||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||12.98|1.90|0.0011
90894666|NCT02963974|181654651|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analyzed CNC Word scores from 3 months through 24 months to evaluate change over time with device use. Scores were converted to Rau prior to analysis.||||< 0.001
90832871|NCT03192176|181536179|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.79||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.86|26.99||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||26.99|2.86|0.0001
90832872|NCT03192176|181536179|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.09||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|10.57||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||10.57|1.59|0.0036
90832873|NCT03192176|181536179|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.52||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.75|11.67||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||11.67|1.75|0.0018
90832874|NCT03192176|181536179|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.76||||0.0243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|6.68||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||6.68|1.14|0.0243
90832875|NCT03192176|181536179|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.33||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|5.96||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||5.96|0.91|0.0770
90894667|NCT02963974|181654651|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analyzed pre-op to 3 month post activation CNC Word scores to test superiority of cochlear implant use to pre-operative hearing aid use.||||< 0.001
90957116|NCT00706433|181793752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2908||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.2908
90894668|NCT02963974|181654653|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05. This was a two-way repeated measures ANOVA.|ANOVA|||Analyzed BKB-SIN SNR-50 scores at 12 months post activation to evaluate the impact of device use (CI off vs on) and masker location (front, to the affected ear, or to the normal hearing ear) on hearing in noise.||||< 0.001
90957117|NCT00706433|181793753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8096||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.8096
90832876|NCT03192176|181536179|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.61||||0.0451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|6.69||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||6.69|1.02|0.0451
91088467|NCT00676403|182059346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.15||0.1057||95.0|-22.1|2.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||2.1|-22.1|0.1057
90832877|NCT03192176|181536179|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.36||||0.0165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|9.04||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||9.04|1.25|0.0165
91088468|NCT00676403|182059346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.81||0.7764||95.0|-13.1|9.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||9.8|-13.1|0.7764
91088469|NCT00676403|182059346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.93||0.7146||95.0|-13.9|9.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||9.5|-13.9|0.7146
91088470|NCT00676403|182059347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.2978||95.0|-0.3|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.9|-0.3|0.2978
91088471|NCT00676403|182059347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.7242||95.0|-0.5|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.7|-0.5|0.7242
91088472|NCT00676403|182059347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.0773||95.0|-0.1|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||1.2|-0.1|0.0773
91088473|NCT00676403|182059347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.7831||95.0|-0.5|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.7|-0.5|0.7831
90832878|NCT03192176|181536179|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.28||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|16.23||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||16.23|1.72|0.0037
90894669|NCT02963974|181654654|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analyzed BKB-SIN SNR-50 scores across all time points (6, 12, and 24 months post activation) to evaluate the impact of time, device use (CI off vs on), and masker location (front, to the affected ear, or to the normal hearing ear) on hearing in noise.||||< 0.001
91088474|NCT00676403|182059347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.3291||95.0|-0.3|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.9|-0.3|0.3291
91088475|NCT00676403|182059347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.3692||95.0|-0.3|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.9|-0.3|0.3692
90832879|NCT03192176|181536179|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.29||||0.0812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|5.82||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||5.82|0.90|0.0812
90894670|NCT02963974|181654658|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01911||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analyzed overall RMS error at 3, 9, 18, and 24 months post activation to evaluate the impact of device use (CI off vs on) and time on localization.||||0.01911
90894671|NCT02963974|181654659|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of scores across time to investigate change in scores over time: Speech subtest.||||< 0.001
90832880|NCT03192176|181536179|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.46||||0.0577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|6.22||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||6.22|0.97|0.0577
90832881|NCT03192176|181536179|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.33||||0.0706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|5.85||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||5.85|0.93|0.0706
90832882|NCT03192176|181536179|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.7||||0.0404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|7.0||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||7.00|1.04|0.0404
90832883|NCT03192176|181536179|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.3||||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|11.99||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||11.99|1.54|0.0054
90832884|NCT03192176|181536179|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.37||||0.0186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|9.27||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||9.27|1.22|0.0186
90832885|NCT03192176|181536179|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.58||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.96|22.14||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||22.14|1.96|0.0023
90832886|NCT03192176|181536179|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.63||||0.0118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|9.93||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||9.93|1.33|0.0118
90832887|NCT03192176|181536179|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.57||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.88|16.53||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||16.53|1.88|0.0020
90832888|NCT03192176|181536179|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.71||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|7.14||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||7.14|1.03|0.0430
90832889|NCT03192176|181536179|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.81||||0.2197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|4.66||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||4.66|0.70|0.2197
90832890|NCT03192176|181536179|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.08||||0.1341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|5.42||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||5.42|0.80|0.1341
90832891|NCT03192176|181536179|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.69||||0.0196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|11.05||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||11.05|1.23|0.0196
90832892|NCT03192176|181536179|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.79||||0.0121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|16.26||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||16.26|1.41|0.0121
90832893|NCT03192176|181536179|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.06||||0.1511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|5.56||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||5.56|0.77|0.1511
90832894|NCT03192176|181536179|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.94||||0.0068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|15.68||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||15.68|1.55|0.0068
90832895|NCT03192176|181536179|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.49||||0.0741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|6.79||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||6.79|0.91|0.0741
90832896|NCT03192176|181536179|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.2772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|4.43||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||4.43|0.65|0.2772
90832897|NCT03192176|181536179|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.55||||0.0705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|7.02||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||7.02|0.92|0.0705
90894672|NCT02963974|181654659|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of scores across time to investigate change in scores over time: Spatial subtest.||||0.001
91088476|NCT00676403|182059347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.7614||95.0|-0.5|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.7|-0.5|0.7614
91088477|NCT00676403|182059347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.0355||95.0|0.0|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||1.3|0.0|0.0355
91088478|NCT00676403|182059347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.5068||95.0|-0.4|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.8|-0.4|0.5068
91088479|NCT00676403|182059347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.0561||95.0|0.0|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||1.2|-0.0|0.0561
91088480|NCT00676403|182059347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.2223||95.0|-0.2|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||1.0|-0.2|0.2223
91088481|NCT00676403|182059347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.6791||95.0|-0.5|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.7|-0.5|0.6791
91088482|NCT00676403|182059347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.0188||95.0|0.1|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||1.4|0.1|0.0188
91088483|NCT00676403|182059347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.1314||95.0|-0.1|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||1.1|-0.1|0.1314
91088484|NCT00676403|182059347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.09||95.0|-0.1|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||1.1|-0.1|0.0900
91088485|NCT00676403|182059347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.4144||95.0|-0.4|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.9|-0.4|0.4144
91088486|NCT00676403|182059347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.7699||95.0|-0.5|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.7|-0.5|0.7699
91088487|NCT00676403|182059347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.0406||95.0|0.0|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||1.3|0.0|0.0406
90894673|NCT02963974|181654659|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of scores across time to investigate change in scores over time: Qualities subtest.||||< 0.001
90894674|NCT02963974|181654660|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of scores over time.||||< 0.001
91088488|NCT00676403|182059347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.7574||95.0|-0.5|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.7|-0.5|0.7574
91088489|NCT00676403|182059347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.0554||95.0|0.0|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||1.2|-0.0|0.0554
91088490|NCT00676403|182059348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.36||0.5409||95.0|-13.8|7.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||7.3|-13.8|0.5409
91088491|NCT00676403|182059348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.25||0.823||95.0|-11.5|9.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||9.2|-11.5|0.8230
91088492|NCT00676403|182059348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.48||0.2958||95.0|-16.5|5.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||5.1|-16.5|0.2958
91088493|NCT00676403|182059348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.27||0.3708||95.0|-15.1|5.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||5.7|-15.1|0.3708
91088494|NCT00676403|182059348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.27||0.1853||95.0|-17.4|3.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||3.4|-17.4|0.1853
91088495|NCT00676403|182059348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.41||0.1834||95.0|-17.9|3.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||3.4|-17.9|0.1834
90832898|NCT03192176|181536179|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.88||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|12.39||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||12.39|1.22|0.0220
91088496|NCT00676403|182059348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.22||0.8711||95.0|-11.1|9.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||9.4|-11.1|0.8711
91088497|NCT00676403|182059348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.5||0.3252||95.0|-16.3|5.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||5.4|-16.3|0.3252
91088498|NCT00676403|182059348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.28||0.3205||95.0|-15.7|5.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||5.1|-15.7|0.3205
90832899|NCT03192176|181536179|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.33||||0.0196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|14.82||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||14.82|1.27|0.0196
90832900|NCT03192176|181536179|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.09||||0.0433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|9.24||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||9.24|1.03|0.0433
90957118|NCT00706433|181793754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.308||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.3080
91025128|NCT00291330|181933349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.9844||95.0|0.69|1.46|||Regression, Cox|Patients without events are censored at the end of post treatment period (day 224)||Hazard ratio vs. Warfarin (events occurring between randomisation and end of post treatment period). The time to first occurrence of the endpoint was compared between treatment groups using the Cox proportional hazards (PH) model, including the factors treatment, active cancer at baseline, symptomatic PE at baseline, and the interaction between active cancer and symptomatic PE.||1.46|0.69|0.9844
91025129|NCT00291330|181933350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (Percentage)|-0.2||||0.6466||95.0|-1.1|0.7|||Kaplan Meier weighted estimates|||Risk difference vs. Warfarin for Proportion of patients with symptomatic DVT at 6 months. Point estimate and 95% CI for the overall risk difference obtained based on the Kaplan Meier (KM) estimates at 6 months (180 days) after adjusting for the stratification factors active cancer at baseline and symptomatic PE at baseline.||0.70|-1.10|0.6466
91025130|NCT00291330|181933350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.385||95.0|0.4|1.42|||Regression, Cox|Patients without events are censored at the end of post treatment period (day 224)||Hazard ratio vs. Warfarin (events occurring between randomisation and end of post treatment period). The time to first occurrence of the endpoint was compared between treatment groups using the Cox proportional hazards (PH) model, including the factors treatment, active cancer at baseline, symptomatic PE at baseline, and the interaction between active cancer and symptomatic PE.||1.42|0.40|0.3850
91025131|NCT00291330|181933351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (Percentage)|0.3||||0.2981||95.0|-0.3|1.0|||Kaplan Meier weighted estimates|||Risk difference vs. Warfarin for Proportion of patients with symptomatic non-fatal PE at 6 months. Point estimate and 95% CI for the overall risk difference obtained based on the Kaplan Meier (KM) estimates at 6 months (180 days) after adjusting for the stratification factors active cancer at baseline and symptomatic PE at baseline.||1.00|-0.30|0.2981
91025132|NCT00291330|181933351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.0||||0.1092||95.0|0.86|4.68|||Regression, Cox|Patients without events are censored at the end of post treatment period (day 224)||Hazard ratio vs. Warfarin (events occurring between randomisation and end of post treatment period). The time to first occurrence of the endpoint was compared between treatment groups using the Cox proportional hazards (PH) model, including the factors treatment, active cancer at baseline, symptomatic PE at baseline, and the interaction between active cancer and symptomatic PE.||4.68|0.86|0.1092
91025133|NCT00291330|181933352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (Percentage)|-0.3||||0.5327||95.0|-1.2|0.6|||Kaplan Meier weighted estimates|||Risk difference at 6 months vs. Warfarin for Proportion of patients who died due to VTE . Point estimate and 95% CI for the overall risk difference obtained based on the Kaplan Meier (KM) estimates at 6 months (180 days) after adjusting for the stratification factors active cancer at baseline and symptomatic PE at baseline.||0.60|-1.20|0.5327
91025134|NCT00291330|181933352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.33||||0.3332||95.0|0.03|3.15|||Regression, Cox|Patients without events are censored at the end of post treatment period (day 224)||Hazard ratio vs. Warfarin (events occurring between randomisation and end of post treatment period). The time to first occurrence of the endpoint was compared between treatment groups using the Cox proportional hazards (PH) model, including the factors treatment, active cancer at baseline, symptomatic PE at baseline, and the interaction between active cancer and symptomatic PE.||3.15|0.03|0.3332
91025135|NCT00291330|181933353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (Percentage)|-0.1||||0.8018||95.0|-1.0|0.8|||Kaplan Meier weighted estimates|||Risk difference at 6 months vs. Warfarin for Proportion of patients who died from any cause. Point estimate and 95% CI for the overall risk difference obtained based on the Kaplan Meier (KM) estimates at 6 months (180 days) after adjusting for the stratification factors active cancer at baseline and symptomatic PE at baseline.||0.80|-1.00|0.8018
91025136|NCT00291330|181933353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.8203||95.0|0.54|1.63|||Regression, Cox|Patients without events are censored at the end of post treatment period (day 224)||Hazard ratio vs. Warfarin (events occurring between randomisation and end of post treatment period). The time to first occurrence of the endpoint was compared between treatment groups using the Cox proportional hazards (PH) model, including the factors treatment, active cancer at baseline, symptomatic PE at baseline, and the interaction between active cancer and symptomatic PE.||1.63|0.54|0.8203
91025137|NCT00291330|181933354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.5063||95.0|0.45|1.48|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard ratio vs. Warfarin for the category major bleeding events (events occurring between 1st intake of study drug and last intake of study drug + 6 days). The time to first occurrence of the endpoint was compared between treatment groups using the Cox proportional hazards (PH) model, including the factors treatment, active cancer at baseline, symptomatic PE at baseline, and the interaction between active cancer and symptomatic PE.||1.48|0.45|0.5063
91025138|NCT00291330|181933354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.85|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard ratio vs. Warfarin for the category of any bleeding events (events occurring between 1st intake of study drug and last intake of study drug + 6 days). The time to first occurrence of the endpoint was compared between treatment groups using the Cox proportional hazards (PH) model, including the factors treatment, active cancer at baseline, symptomatic PE at baseline, and the interaction between active cancer and symptomatic PE.||0.85|0.59|0.0002
90832901|NCT03192176|181536179|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.15||||0.0355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|9.2||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||9.20|1.08|0.0355
90832902|NCT03192176|181536179|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.3238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|4.28||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||4.28|0.62|0.3238
90894675|NCT02963974|181654661|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1009||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of scores to evaluation change over time: General Fatigue Subtest||||0.1009
91088499|NCT00676403|182059348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.34||0.0837||95.0|-19.8|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||1.2|-19.8|0.0837
91088500|NCT00676403|182059348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4||0.8895||95.0|-11.4|9.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||9.9|-11.4|0.8895
91088501|NCT00676403|182059348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.22||0.6469||95.0|-12.7|7.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||7.9|-12.7|0.6469
91088502|NCT00676403|182059348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.53||0.2687||95.0|-17.0|4.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||4.8|-17.0|0.2687
91088503|NCT00676403|182059348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.31||0.1757||95.0|-17.7|3.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||3.3|-17.7|0.1757
91088504|NCT00676403|182059348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.38||0.0306||95.0|-22.3|-1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||-1.1|-22.3|0.0306
91088505|NCT00676403|182059348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.47||0.0857||95.0|-20.2|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||1.3|-20.2|0.0857
91088506|NCT00676403|182059348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.28||0.2932||95.0|-16.0|4.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||4.8|-16.0|0.2932
91088507|NCT00676403|182059348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.6||0.0613||95.0|-21.6|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.5|-21.6|0.0613
91088508|NCT00676403|182059348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.34||0.5431||95.0|-13.8|7.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||7.3|-13.8|0.5431
91088509|NCT00676403|182059348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.41||0.0262||95.0|-22.7|-1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||-1.4|-22.7|0.0262
90832903|NCT03192176|181536179|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68||||0.3208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|4.68||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||4.68|0.60|0.3208
90832904|NCT03192176|181536179|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.2281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|5.4||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||5.40|0.67|0.2281
90894676|NCT02963974|181654661|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.109||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of scores to evaluation change over time: Sleep Fatigue Subtest||||0.109
90894677|NCT02963974|181654661|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1733||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of scores to evaluation change over time: Cognitive Fatigue Subtest||||0.1733
91025139|NCT00931385|181933364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.148|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|0.113|0.183|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.183|0.113|<0.0001
90832905|NCT03192176|181536179|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.18||||0.0566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|10.46||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||10.46|0.97|0.0566
90832906|NCT03192176|181536179|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.39||||0.1491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|7.78||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||7.78|0.73|0.1491
91025140|NCT00931385|181933364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.148|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|0.113|0.183|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.183|0.113|<0.0001
91025141|NCT00931385|181933364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.141|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|0.106|0.177|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.177|0.106|<0.0001
91025142|NCT00931385|181933365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.109|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.073|0.146|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.146|0.073|<0.0001
91025143|NCT00931385|181933365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.127|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.091|0.164|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.164|0.091|<0.0001
91025144|NCT00931385|181933365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.172|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.135|0.209|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.209|0.135|<0.0001
91025145|NCT00931385|181933366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.128|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001||95.0|0.094|0.163|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.163|0.094|<0.0001
91025146|NCT00931385|181933366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.137|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001||95.0|0.103|0.172|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.172|0.103|<0.0001
91025147|NCT00931385|181933366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.156|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|0.122|0.191|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.191|0.122|<0.0001
91025148|NCT00931385|181933367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.164|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.126|0.201|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.201|0.126|<0.0001
91025149|NCT00931385|181933367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.164|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.127|0.202|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.202|0.127|<0.0001
91025150|NCT00931385|181933367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.198|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.16|0.236|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.236|0.160|<0.0001
90832907|NCT03192176|181536179|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.32||||0.1477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|7.23||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||7.23|0.74|0.1477
90894678|NCT00567190|181654683|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.75||Tested at two-sided 5% significance level|Log Rank (stratified)|Stratified by prior treatment status and region|Hazard ratio is comparing Pertuzumab arm with Placebo arm.|The null hypothesis (H0) was that the survival distributions of PFS in the two treatments arms (pertuzumab vs. placebo) are the same. The alternative hypothesis (H1) was that the survival distribution of PFS in the experimental arm (pertuzumab) and control arm (placebo) are different.||0.75|0.51|<0.0001
91025151|NCT00931385|181933368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.174|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.135|0.214|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.214|0.135|<0.0001
91025152|NCT00931385|181933368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.166|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.127|0.206|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.206|0.127|<0.0001
91025153|NCT00931385|181933368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.218|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.178|0.257|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.257|0.178|<0.0001
90832908|NCT03192176|181536179|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.24||||0.0532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|10.64||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||10.64|0.98|0.0532
91025154|NCT00931385|181933369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.106|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001||95.0|0.064|0.147|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.147|0.064|<0.0001
90832909|NCT03192176|181536179|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.22||||0.1616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|6.76||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||6.76|0.73|0.1616
91025155|NCT00931385|181933369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.113|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001||95.0|0.072|0.155|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.155|0.072|<0.0001
91025156|NCT00931385|181933369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.133|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001||95.0|0.092|0.175|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.175|0.092|<0.0001
91025157|NCT00931385|181933370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.226|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001||95.0|0.167|0.284|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.284|0.167|<0.0001
91025158|NCT00931385|181933370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.229|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001||95.0|0.17|0.287|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.287|0.170|<0.0001
91025159|NCT00931385|181933370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.203|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001||95.0|0.144|0.262|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.262|0.144|<0.0001
91025160|NCT00931385|181933371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.147|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001||95.0|0.087|0.207|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.207|0.087|<0.0001
91025161|NCT00931385|181933371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.171|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001||95.0|0.112|0.231|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.231|0.112|<0.0001
91025162|NCT00931385|181933371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.251|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001||95.0|0.191|0.311|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.311|0.191|<0.0001
91025163|NCT00931385|181933372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.186|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.0001||95.0|0.132|0.241|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.241|0.132|<0.0001
91025164|NCT00931385|181933372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.0001||95.0|0.145|0.254|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.254|0.145|<0.0001
91088510|NCT00676403|182059349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.44||0.1547||95.0|-18.5|3.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||3.0|-18.5|0.1547
90832910|NCT03192176|181536179|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|4.11||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||4.11|0.55|0.4320
91025165|NCT00931385|181933372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.227|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.0001||95.0|0.172|0.282|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.282|0.172|<0.0001
90957119|NCT00706433|181793755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3208||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.3208
91025166|NCT00931385|181933373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.261|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|<|0.0001||95.0|0.191|0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.330|0.191|<0.0001
91025167|NCT00931385|181933373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.252|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036|<|0.0001||95.0|0.183|0.322|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.322|0.183|<0.0001
90832911|NCT03192176|181536179|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.2231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|5.35||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||5.35|0.68|0.2231
91025168|NCT00931385|181933373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.302|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036|<|0.0001||95.0|0.232|0.372|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.372|0.232|<0.0001
91025169|NCT00931385|181933374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.154|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034|<|0.0001||95.0|0.087|0.221|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.221|0.087|<0.0001
90832912|NCT03192176|181536179|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.88||||0.0347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|13.64||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||13.64|1.10|0.0347
90832913|NCT03192176|181536179|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.59||||0.0291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|18.07||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||18.07|1.17|0.0291
90832914|NCT03192176|181536179|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.82||||0.2805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|5.38||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||5.38|0.61|0.2805
90832915|NCT03192176|181536179|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.1||||0.0602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|10.11||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||10.11|0.95|0.0602
90832916|NCT03192176|181536179|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.5087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|3.88||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||3.88|0.51|0.5087
91025170|NCT00931385|181933374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.154|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034|<|0.0001||95.0|0.086|0.221|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.221|0.086|<0.0001
91025171|NCT00931385|181933374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.183|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034|<|0.0001||95.0|0.115|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.250|0.115|<0.0001
91025172|NCT02033876|181933376|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.43
91025173|NCT02033876|181933377|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.65
91025174|NCT02033876|181933379|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.37
91025175|NCT02033876|181933380|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.51
91025176|NCT02033876|181933381|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.4
91025177|NCT02033876|181933382|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.8
91025178|NCT02033876|181933383|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.006
91025179|NCT02046369|181933446|SUPERIORITY|The primary efficacy endpoint (the change from baseline in CDRS-R total score at Week 6)will be analyzed using a likelihood-based mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM).The response (dependent) variable is the change from baseline in CDRS-R total score assessed weekly (Weeks 1 to 6).The MMRM model includes fixed effects terms for treatment, visit (as a categorical variable), pooled country, age stratum (stratification factor, CDRS-R total score at baseline, and treatment-by-visit interaction.|LS mean differnce (SE)|-5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.39|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|-3.0|||LS mean differnece (SE)|||A mean difference in change from Baseline in CDRS-R total score of 5.0 units was assumed for the lurasidone 20-80 mg/day arm over the placebo arm, and a common standard deviation of 14.2 units (effect size=0.35), a sample size of 145 subjects per treatment arm was calculated to yield a power of 85%. With an expected attrition rate of 15%, approximately 170 subjects per treatment arm (340 in total) were to be randomized in a 1:1 ratio .||-3.0|-8.4|<0.0001
90832917|NCT03192176|181536179|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.26||||0.1224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|6.38||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||6.38|0.80|0.1224
91025180|NCT02046369|181933447|SUPERIORITY||LS mean differnce (SE)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.0385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.1|||LS mean differnece (SE)|||LS mean difference, and the associated 95% CI and p-value for change from baseline are based on Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM).||-0.1|-2.2|0.0385
91025181|NCT02046369|181933448|SUPERIORITY||LS mean differnce (SE)|3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.35||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|6.5|||LS mean differnece (SE)|||LS mean difference, and the associated 95% CI and p-value for change from baseline are based on Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM).||6.5|1.2|0.0044
91025182|NCT02046369|181933449|SUPERIORITY||LS mean differnce (SE)|4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.19|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|7.0|||LS mean differnece (SE)|||LS mean difference, and the associated 95% CI and p-value for change from baseline are based on Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM).||7.0|2.4|<0.0001
91025183|NCT02046369|181933450|SUPERIORITY||LS mean differnce (SE)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.3715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.8|||ANCOVA|||LS mean difference, and the associated 95% CI and p-value for change from baseline are based on Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM).||0.8|-2.2|0.3715
91025184|NCT02046369|181933451|SUPERIORITY||LS mean differnce (SE)|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.112|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.22||LS mean difference, and the associated 95% CI and p-value for change from baseline are based on Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM).|LS mean differnece (SE)|||||-0.22|-0.66|<0.0001
91025185|NCT04345471|181933472|SUPERIORITY|To adjust for the multiplicity, only when the superiority of MD-120 50 mg to Placebo was verified, the superiority of MD-120 100 mg to Placebo was tested.|LS mean difference|-0.6||||0.509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.2||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05, 2-sided.|MMRM|||||1.2|-2.5|0.509
91025186|NCT04345471|181933472|SUPERIORITY|To adjust for the multiplicity, only when the superiority of MD-120 50 mg to Placebo was verified, the superiority of MD-120 100 mg to Placebo was tested.|LS mean difference|-1.4||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|0.4||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05, 2-sided. The value was based on the post-hoc analysis by not taking into account the multiplicity.|MMRM|||||0.4|-3.3|0.131
90957120|NCT00706433|181793756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||1.0
90832918|NCT03192176|181536179|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.85||||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|5.02||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||5.02|0.68|0.2280
91025187|NCT04345471|181933474|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2||||0.811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.2||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05, 2-sided.|MMRM|||||1.2|-1.5|0.811
91025188|NCT04345471|181933474|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.5||||0.424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.8||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05, 2-sided.|MMRM|||||0.8|-1.9|0.424
91025189|NCT01710306|181933487|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1996|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1996
91025190|NCT00185211|181933503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0027||95.0||||A 2-sided error level of 0.0253 was used for analyses at month 36 and 60 in order to keep the study-wise error level at 0.05. A conditional sequential testing approach was used for the family of null hypotheses of the primary efficacy variables.|Log Rank|||"The null hypothesis for comparison of initial IFNB-1b versus initial placebo treatment was:~H0: The survival functions (i.e., the probability that time to CDMS is ≥ t) are identical for both treatment arms for all points in time t\>0.~The two-sided alternative hypothesis was:~H1: The survival functions (i.e., the probability that time to CDMS is ≥ t) are not identical for both treatment arms for some points in time t\>0."||||0.0027
91025191|NCT00185211|181933503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.663||||0.0028||97.47|0.488|0.902|||Regression, Cox|covariate adjustment: steroid use during first event, onset of disease, categorized number of T2 lesions at screening|The direction of comparison is initial IFNB-1b (numerator) versus initial placebo (denominator), i.e. the Hazard Ratio represents the relative risk of initial IFNB-1b treatment compared to initial placebo treatment.|Time to CDMS was modelled by a Cox proportional hazards regression model with the following covariates: treatment group, steroid use during first event (yes vs. no), onset of disease (monofocal vs. multifocal) and number of T2 lesions at screening (categories: 2-4, 5-8 and at least 9 T2 lesions). The null hypothesis was: Initial IFNB-1b and initial placebo do not differ with regard to the hazard for CDMS, i.e. hazard ratio = 1.||0.902|0.488|0.0028
91025192|NCT00185211|181933504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1768||95.0||||A 2-sided error level of 0.0253 was used for analyses at month 36 and 60 in order to keep the study-wise error level at 0.05. A conditional sequential testing approach was used for the family of null hypotheses of the primary efficacy variables.|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis for comparison of initial IFNB-1b versus initial placebo treatment was: H0: The survival functions (i.e., the probability that time to confirmed EDSS progression is ≥ t) are not identical for both treatment arms for some points in time t\>0. The two-sided alternative hypothesis was: H1: The survival functions (i.e., the probability that time to confirmed EDSS progression is ≥ t) are identical for both treatment arms for some points in time t\>0.||||0.1768
91025193|NCT00185211|181933504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.764||||0.1604||97.47|0.497|1.174|||Regression, Cox|The variable used as additional covariate adjustment was volume of T2 lesions on screening MRI.|The direction of comparison is initial IFNB-1b (numerator) versus initial placebo (denominator), i.e. the Hazard Ratio represents the relative risk of initial IFNB-1b treatment compared to initial placebo treatment.|Time to confirmed EDSS progression was modelled by a Cox proportional hazards regression model with the following covariates: treatment group and volume of T2 lesions on screening MRI. The null hypothesis was: Initial IFNB-1b and initial placebo do not differ with regard to the hazard for confirmed EDSS progression, i.e. hazard ratio = 1.||1.174|0.497|0.1604
91025194|NCT00185211|181933505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.888||95.0||||A 2-sided error level of 0.0253 was used for analyses at month 36 and 60 in order to keep the study-wise error level at 0.05. A conditional sequential testing approach was used for the family of null hypotheses of the primary efficacy variables.|non-parametric ANCOVA|Variable used as covariate: FAMS TOI measured at baseline||"The null hypothesis H0: The distribution of FAMS TOI at month 60, adjusted for baseline FAMS TOI, is identical for both treatment arms was tested against the alternative hypothesis HA: The distribution of FAMS TOI at month 60, adjusted for baseline FAMS TOI, is not the same in the two treatment arms using a non-parametric analysis of covariance (ANCOVA)."||||0.8880
91025195|NCT00185211|181933505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3832||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Variable used as covariate: FAMS TOI measured at baseline||"The null hypothesis H0: The mean FAMS TOI at month 60, adjusted for baseline FAMS TOI, is identical for both treatment arms was tested against the alternative hypothesis HA: The mean FAMS TOI at month 60, adjusted for baseline FAMS TOI, is not the same in the two treatment arms using a parametric analysis of covariance (ANCOVA)."||||0.3832
91025196|NCT00185211|181933506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||6e-06||95.0||||The two-sided error level for the exploratory analysis of the secondary outcome measures was of 0.05.|Log Rank|||"The null hypothesis for comparison of initial IFNB-1b versus initial placebo treatment was:~H0: The survival functions (i.e., the probability that time to McDonald MS is ≥ t) are identical for both treatment arms for all points in time t\>0.~The two-sided alternative hypothesis was:~H1: The survival functions (i.e., the probability that time to McDonald MS is ≥ t) are not identical for both treatment arms for some points in time t\>0."||||0.000006
91025197|NCT00185211|181933506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.583|||<|1e-06||95.0|0.474|0.718|||Regression, Cox|covariate adjustment: steroid use during first event, onset of disease, categorized number of T2 lesions at screening|The direction of comparison is initial IFNB-1b versus initial placebo, i.e. the Hazard Ratio represents the relative risk of initial IFNB-1b treatment compared to initial placebo treatment.|Time to McDonald MS was modelled by a Cox proportional hazards regression model with the following covariates: treatment group, steroid use during first event (yes vs. no), onset of disease (monofocal vs. multifocal) and number of T2 lesions at screening (categories: 2-4, 5-8 and at least 9 T2 lesions). The null hypothesis was: Initial IFNB-1b and initial placebo do not differ with regard to the hazard for McDonald MS, i.e. hazard ratio = 1.||0.718|0.474|< 0.000001
91032514|NCT00377260|181949699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Generalized estimating equations|The comparison adjusted for site, history of recurrent acute otitis media and exposure to other children.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups regarding the number of antibiotic prescriptions, exclusive of the blinded study medication.||||<.001
90957121|NCT00706433|181793757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||1.0
90832919|NCT03192176|181536179|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.07||||0.1835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|6.02||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||6.02|0.71|0.1835
90832920|NCT03192176|181536179|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.85||||0.0107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|22.69||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||22.69|1.51|0.0107
90832921|NCT03192176|181536179|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.94||||0.0576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|8.96||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||8.96|0.97|0.0576
90832922|NCT03192176|181536179|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.68||||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|46.77||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||46.77|2.00|0.0047
90832923|NCT03192176|181536179|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.89||||0.0569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|8.64||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||8.64|0.97|0.0569
90832924|NCT03192176|181536179|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.35||||0.1078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|6.68||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||6.68|0.83|0.1078
91088511|NCT00676403|182059349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.33||0.2532||95.0|-16.6|4.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||4.4|-16.6|0.2532
90832925|NCT03192176|181536179|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.6||||0.0772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|7.47||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||7.47|0.90|0.0772
91088512|NCT00676403|182059349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.56||0.0848||95.0|-20.6|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||1.3|-20.6|0.0848
91088513|NCT00676403|182059349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.36||0.2424||95.0|-16.8|4.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||4.3|-16.8|0.2424
91088514|NCT00676403|182059349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.35||0.047||95.0|-21.2|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||-0.1|-21.2|0.0470
90832926|NCT03192176|181536179|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.36||||0.1311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|7.22||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||7.22|0.77|0.1311
91088515|NCT00676403|182059349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.49||0.1494||95.0|-18.8|2.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||2.9|-18.8|0.1494
90832927|NCT03192176|181536179|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.64||||0.01255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|21.96||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||21.96|1.45|0.01255
90832928|NCT03192176|181536179|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.97||||0.0128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|17.54||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||17.54|1.41|0.0128
90832929|NCT03192176|181536179|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.32||||0.0079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.62|24.63||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||24.63|1.62|0.0079
91088516|NCT00676403|182059349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.3||0.5081||95.0|-13.9|6.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||6.9|-13.9|0.5081
91088517|NCT00676403|182059349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.58||0.2141||95.0|-17.9|4.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||4.0|-17.9|0.2141
91088518|NCT00676403|182059349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.37||0.1484||95.0|-18.4|2.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||2.8|-18.4|0.1484
91088519|NCT00676403|182059349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.42||0.0963||95.0|-19.7|1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||1.6|-19.7|0.0963
91088520|NCT00676403|182059349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.48||0.8519||95.0|-11.8|9.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||9.8|-11.8|0.8519
90832930|NCT03192176|181536179|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.9||||0.0572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|8.67||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||8.67|0.97|0.0572
90832931|NCT03192176|181536179|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.33||||0.0284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|9.79||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||9.79|1.14|0.0284
90894679|NCT00567190|181654683|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.76||Tested at two-sided 5% significance level|Log Rank (unstratified)|Unstratified|Hazard ratio is comparing Pertuzumab arm with Placebo arm.|The null hypothesis (H0) was that the survival distributions of PFS in the two treatments arms (pertuzumab vs. placebo) are the same. The alternative hypothesis (H1) was that the survival distribution of PFS in the experimental arm (pertuzumab) and control arm (placebo) are different.||0.76|0.52|<0.0001
91025198|NCT00185211|181933507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.797||||0.1265||95.0|0.595|1.066||The two-sided error level for the exploratory analysis of the secondary outcome measures was of 0.05.|Andersen-Gill Model|Covariate adjustment: steroid use during first event, onset of disease, categorized number of T2 lesions at screening|The direction of comparison is initial IFNB-1b (numerator) versus initial placebo (denominator), i.e. the Hazard Ratio represents the relative risk of initial IFNB-1b treatment compared to initial placebo treatment.|The time to recurrent relapses was modelled by an extension of Cox's PH regression model (Andersen-Gill Model) for recurrent events with the following covariates: treatment group, steroid use during first event (yes vs. no), onset of disease (monofocal vs. multifocal) and number of T2 lesions at screening (2-4, 5-8 and at least 9 T2 lesions). The null hypothesis was: Initial IFNB-1b and initial placebo do not differ with regard to the hazard for recurrent relapses, i.e. hazard ratio = 1.||1.066|0.595|0.1265
91025199|NCT00185211|181933508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.7971||||0.0141||95.0|0.665|0.9554||The two-sided error level for the exploratory analysis of the secondary outcome measures was of 0.05.|generalized linear Poisson regression|covariate adjustment: steroid use during first event, onset of disease, categorized number of T2 lesions at screening|The direction of comparison is initial IFNB-1b (numerator) versus initial placebo (denominator), i.e. the Risk Ratio represents the relative risk of initial IFNB-1b treatment compared to initial placebo treatment.|Relapse rate was analyzed by a generalized linear Poisson regression model with individual relapse counts as dependent variable, covariates: treatment arm, steroid use during first event, onset of disease and categorized number of T2 lesions at screening and offset variable natural log of time (in years) as difference between last clinical visit and baseline visit. The treatment effect on the relapse rate was of primary interest.||0.9554|0.6650|0.0141
91025200|NCT00185211|181933509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6078||95.0||||The two-sided error level for the exploratory analysis of the secondary outcome measures was of 0.05.|non-parametric ANCOVA|Variable used as covariate: MSFC Z-scores measured at baseline||"The null hypothesis H0: The distribution of MSFC Z-scores at month 60 adjusted for baseline MSFC Z-score is identical for both treatment arms was tested against the alternative hypothesis HA: The distribution of MSFC Z-scores at month 60 adjusted for baseline MSFC Z-score is not the same in the two treatment groups based on a non-parametric analysis of covariance (ANCOVA)."||||0.6078
91025201|NCT00185211|181933509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8245||95.0||||The two-sided error level for the exploratory analysis of the secondary outcome measures was of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Variable used as covariate: MSFC Z-scores measured at baseline||"The null hypothesis H0: The mean MSFC Z-scores at month 60 adjusted for baseline MSFC Z-score are identical for both treatment arms was tested against the alternative hypothesis HA: The mean MSFC Z-scores at month 60 adjusted for baseline MSFC Z-score are not the same in the two treatment groups based on a non-parametric analysis of covariance (ANCOVA)."||||0.8245
91088521|NCT00676403|182059349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.3||0.477||95.0|-14.2|6.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||6.7|-14.2|0.4770
91088522|NCT00676403|182059349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.61||0.2166||95.0|-18.0|4.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||4.1|-18.0|0.2166
91088523|NCT00676403|182059349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4||0.1062||95.0|-19.4|1.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||1.9|-19.4|0.1062
91088524|NCT00676403|182059349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.45||0.0475||95.0|-21.6|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||-0.1|-21.6|0.0475
91088525|NCT00676403|182059349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.54||0.0537||95.0|-21.7|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.2|-21.7|0.0537
91088526|NCT00676403|182059349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.35||0.3153||95.0|-15.9|5.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||5.2|-15.9|0.3153
90832932|NCT03192176|181536179|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.58||||0.0705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|7.22||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||7.22|0.92|0.0705
91088527|NCT00676403|182059349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.68||0.0424||95.0|-22.8|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||-0.4|-22.8|0.0424
90832933|NCT03192176|181536179|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.81||||0.0136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|16.77||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||16.77|1.38|0.0136
90832934|NCT03192176|181536179|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.96||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.06|48.29||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||48.29|2.06|0.0043
91088528|NCT00676403|182059349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.42||0.3077||95.0|-16.2|5.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||5.1|-16.2|0.3077
91088529|NCT00676403|182059349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.48||0.0224||95.0|-23.4|-1.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||-1.8|-23.4|0.0224
90832935|NCT03192176|181536179|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.66||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|7.83||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||7.83|0.90|0.0760
90832936|NCT03192176|181536179|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.75||||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|20.0||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||20.00|1.65|0.0059
90958903|NCT04874415|181797841|SUPERIORITY|Main effects of each intervention factor were estimated using linear regression including all prespecified two-way interactions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.006|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.04|||||Once daily text message is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|||0.04|-0.05|
91088530|NCT00676403|182059350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.65||0.0646||95.0|0.9|15.0|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Differences in proportions were obtained using LS means. Repeated measures logistic regression model used fixed effects including treatment, geographic region, week, and the treatment by week interaction. The within-subject covariance structure was modeled as compound sysmetric.||15.0|0.9|0.0646
91088531|NCT00676403|182059350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.58||0.2947||95.0|0.5|9.1|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Differences in proportions were obtained using LS means. Repeated measures logistic regression model used fixed effects including treatment, geographic region, week, and the treatment by week interaction. The within-subject covariance structure was modeled as compound sysmetric.||9.1|0.5|0.2947
91088532|NCT00676403|182059350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1||0.0249||95.0|1.2|17.2|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Differences in proportions were obtained using LS means. Repeated measures logistic regression model used fixed effects including treatment, geographic region, week, and the treatment by week interaction. The within-subject covariance structure was modeled as compound sysmetric.||17.2|1.2|0.0249
91088533|NCT00676403|182059350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99||0.7671||95.0|0.3|5.9|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Differences in proportions were obtained using LS means. Repeated measures logistic regression model used fixed effects including treatment, geographic region, week, and the treatment by week interaction. The within-subject covariance structure was modeled as compound sysmetric.||5.9|0.3|0.7671
91088534|NCT00676403|182059350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9||0.0169||95.0|1.3|15.9|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Differences in proportions were obtained using LS means. Repeated measures logistic regression model used fixed effects including treatment, geographic region, week, and the treatment by week interaction. The within-subject covariance structure was modeled as compound sysmetric.||15.9|1.3|0.0169
91088535|NCT00676403|182059350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.9569||95.0|0.2|4.3|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Differences in proportions were obtained using LS means. Repeated measures logistic regression model used fixed effects including treatment, geographic region, week, and the treatment by week interaction. The within-subject covariance structure was modeled as compound sysmetric.||4.3|0.2|0.9569
90832937|NCT03192176|181536179|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.22||||0.0143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|13.35||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||13.35|1.33|0.0143
90832938|NCT03192176|181536179|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.82||||0.2779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|5.35||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||5.35|0.62|0.2779
90832939|NCT03192176|181536179|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.7559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|3.41||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||3.41|0.41|0.7559
90832940|NCT03192176|181536179|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|3.23||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||3.23|0.35|0.9050
90832941|NCT03192176|181536179|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.05||||0.2163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|6.38||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||6.38|0.66|0.2163
91088536|NCT00676403|182059350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.07||0.0711||95.0|0.9|11.4|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Differences in proportions were obtained using LS means.Repeated measures logistic regression model used fixed effects including treatment, geographic region, week, and the treatment by week interaction. The within-subject covariance structure was modeled as compound sysmetric.||11.4|0.9|0.0711
91088537|NCT00676403|182059350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.85||0.1073||95.0|0.8|10.2|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Differences in proportions were obtained using LS means. Repeated measures logistic regression model used fixed effects including treatment, geographic region, week, and the treatment by week interaction. The within-subject covariance structure was modeled as compound sysmetric.||10.2|0.8|0.1073
90832942|NCT03192176|181536179|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.24||||0.1713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|7.14||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||7.14|0.70|0.1713
90832943|NCT03192176|181536179|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.3981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|5.09||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||5.09|0.52|0.3981
90832944|NCT03192176|181536179|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.9692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|2.96||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||2.96|0.35|0.9692
90832945|NCT03192176|181536179|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77||||0.2978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|5.22||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||5.22|0.60|0.2978
90832946|NCT03192176|181536179|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.8525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|3.18||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||3.18|0.38|0.8525
91025202|NCT00185211|181933510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0062||95.0||||The two-sided error level for the exploratory analysis of the secondary outcome measures was of 0.05.|non-parametric ANCOVA|Variable used as covariate: number of Gd-enhancing lesions on T1 at screening||"The null hypothesis H0: The distribution of the cumulative number of newly active lesions at month 60 adjusted for the number of Gadolinium (Gd)-enhancing lesions on T1 at screening is identical for both treatment arms. was tested against the corresponding two-sided alternative hypothesis based on a non-parametric analysis of covariance (ANCOVA)."||||0.0062
91025203|NCT00185211|181933510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative effect size|0.7351||||0.0435||95.0|0.5436|0.994||The two-sided error level for the exploratory analysis of the secondary outcome measures was of 0.05.|generalized linear model|Distribution: negative binomial distribution; covariate: number of Gd-enhancing lesions on T1 at screening|The direction of comparison is initial IFNB-1b versus initial placebo.|Assuming that the cumulative number of newly active lesions at month 60 follows a negative binomial distribution, a generalized linear model (logarithmic link function, covariate: number of Gd-enhancing lesions on T1 at BENEFIT screening) was set up in order to analyze the treatment effect on that MRI outcome.||0.9940|0.5436|0.0435
91025204|NCT00185211|181933511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7801||95.0||||The two-sided error level for the exploratory analysis of the secondary outcome measures was of 0.05.|non-parametric ANCOVA|Variable used as covariate: T2 lesion volume at screening||"The null hypothesis H0: The distribution of the absolute change of T2 lesion volume at month 60 adjusted for the T2 lesion volume at screening is identical for both treatment arms. was tested against the corresponding two-sided alternative hypothesis based on a non-parametric analysis of covariance (ANCOVA)."||||0.7801
91025205|NCT00185211|181933511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9408||95.0||||The two-sided error level for the exploratory analysis of the secondary outcome measures was of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Variable used as covariate: T2 lesion volume at screening||"The null hypothesis H0: The mean absolute change of T2 lesion volume at month 60 adjusted for the T2 lesion volume at screening is identical for both treatment arms. was tested against the corresponding two-sided alternative hypothesis based on a parametric analysis of covariance (ANCOVA)."||||0.9408
91025206|NCT00185211|181933512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6619||95.0||||The two-sided error level for the exploratory analysis of the secondary outcome measures was of 0.05.|non-parametric ANCOVA|Variable used as covariate: Volume of black holes at screening||"The null hypothesis H0: The distribution of the absolute change of volume of black holes at month 60 adjusted for the volume of black holes at screening is identical for both treatment arms. was tested against the corresponding two-sided alternative hypothesis based on a non-parametric analysis of covariance (ANCOVA)."||||0.6619
91025207|NCT00185211|181933512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8558||95.0||||The two-sided error level for the exploratory analysis of the secondary outcome measures was of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Variable used as covariate: Volume of black holes at screening||"The null hypothesis H0: The mean absolute change of volume of black holes at month 60 adjusted for the volume of black holes at screening is identical for both treatment arms. was tested against the corresponding two-sided alternative hypothesis based on a parametric analysis of covariance (ANCOVA)."||||0.8558
91025208|NCT00185211|181933513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1208||95.0||||The two-sided error level for the exploratory analysis of the secondary outcome measures was of 0.05.|non-parametric ANCOVA|Variable used as covariate: Brain volume at screening||"The null hypothesis H0: The distribution of the percentage change of brain volume at month 60 adjusted for the brain volume at screening is identical for both treatment arms. was tested against the corresponding two-sided alternative hypothesis based on a non-parametric analysis of covariance (ANCOVA)."||||0.1208
91025209|NCT00185211|181933513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0719||95.0||||The two-sided error level for the exploratory analysis of the secondary outcome measures was of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Variable used as covariate: Brain volume at screening||"The null hypothesis H0: The mean percentage change of brain volume at month 60 adjusted for the brain volume at screening is identical for both treatment arms. was tested against the corresponding two-sided alternative hypothesis based on a parametric analysis of covariance (ANCOVA)."||||0.0719
91025210|NCT00420290|181933525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0||||0.031 is the upper level of significance|ANCOVA|||Using data from 128 CHD patients, CRP data were highly skewed, and data were log transformed to achieve normality. With 14 pts in each group (total of 28), it was predicted the minimum detectable difference between control and intervention would be 15% (1.22 for control group and 1.00 for the intervention group), with an 80% power and an alpha of 0.05 using t test approach. Thus, planned sample size was 30 to complete the study.||||0.008
91025211|NCT00420290|181933526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.03
91025212|NCT00420290|181933527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
91025213|NCT00420290|181933528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
91025214|NCT00420290|181933529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
91025215|NCT00972153|181933531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Descriptive statistics (means, medians, frequencies) were used to evaluate the distributions of variables. One-way analysis of variance and independent t-tests or Mann-Whitney U tests were used to compare patient and environmental characteristics between groups. Generalized estimating equations were used to evaluate the effects of group and other factors on airborne CFUs/cubic meter at the surgical site in each 10 minute interval.||||<0.001
91025216|NCT00972153|181933532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Descriptive statistics (means, medians, frequencies) were used to evaluate the distributions of variables. One-way analysis of variance and independent t-tests or Mann-Whitney U tests were used to compare patient and environmental characteristics between groups. Generalized estimating equations were used to evaluate the effects of group and other factors on airborne CFUs/cubic meter at the surgical site in each 10 minute interval.||||<0.001
91088538|NCT00676403|182059350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.48||0.1583||95.0|0.7|8.1|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Differences in proportions were obtained using LS means. Repeated measures logistic regression model used fixed effects including treatment, geographic region, week, and the treatment by week interaction. The within-subject covariance structure was modeled as compound sysmetric.||8.1|0.7|0.1583
90832947|NCT03192176|181536179|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67||||0.5028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|2.13||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||2.13|0.21|0.5028
91088539|NCT00676403|182059350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8||0.0385||95.0|1.1|15.6|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Differences in proportions were obtained using LS means. Repeated measures logistic regression model used fixed effects including treatment, geographic region, week, and the treatment by week interaction. The within-subject covariance structure was modeled as compound sysmetric.||15.6|1.1|0.0385
91088540|NCT00676403|182059350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09||0.4923||95.0|0.4|6.1|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Differences in proportions were obtained using LS means. Repeated measures logistic regression model used fixed effects including treatment, geographic region, week, and the treatment by week interaction. The within-subject covariance structure was modeled as compound sysmetric.||6.1|0.4|0.4923
91088541|NCT00676403|182059350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.7169||95.0|0.4|4.4|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Differences in proportions were obtained using LS means. Repeated measures logistic regression model used fixed effects including treatment, geographic region, week, and the treatment by week interaction. The within-subject covariance structure was modeled as compound sysmetric.||4.4|0.4|0.7169
91088542|NCT00676403|182059350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12||0.4156||95.0|0.5|6.2|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Differences in proportions were obtained using LS means. Repeated measures logistic regression model used fixed effects including treatment, geographic region, week, and the treatment by week interaction. The within-subject covariance structure was modeled as compound sysmetric.||6.2|0.5|0.4156
91088543|NCT00676403|182059350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.4165||95.0|0.5|5.6|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Differences in proportions were obtained using LS means. Repeated measures logistic regression model used fixed effects including treatment, geographic region, week, and the treatment by week interaction. The within-subject covariance structure was modeled as compound sysmetric.||5.6|0.5|0.4165
90832948|NCT03192176|181536179|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53||||0.4594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|4.73||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||4.73|0.50|0.4594
90832949|NCT03192176|181536179|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.56||||0.1124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|8.17||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||8.17|0.80|0.1124
90832950|NCT03192176|181536179|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.75||||0.3415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|5.58||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||5.58|0.55|0.3415
91088544|NCT00676403|182059350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08||0.4673||95.0|0.4|6.0|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Differences in proportions were obtained using LS means. Repeated measures logistic regression model used fixed effects including treatment, geographic region, week, and the treatment by week interaction. The within-subject covariance structure was modeled as compound sysmetric.||6.0|0.4|0.4673
91088545|NCT00676403|182059350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.9855||95.0|0.2|4.1|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Differences in proportions were obtained using LS means. Repeated measures logistic regression model used fixed effects including treatment, geographic region, week, and the treatment by week interaction. The within-subject covariance structure was modeled as compound sysmetric.||4.1|0.2|0.9855
91088546|NCT00676403|182059350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.9566||95.0|0.3|3.3|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Differences in proportions were obtained using LS means. Repeated measures logistic regression model used fixed effects including treatment, geographic region, week, and the treatment by week interaction. The within-subject covariance structure was modeled as compound sysmetric.||3.3|0.3|0.9566
90832951|NCT03192176|181536179|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.65||||0.3635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|4.83||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||4.83|0.56|0.3635
90832952|NCT03192176|181536179|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73||||0.5716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|2.2||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||2.20|0.24|0.5716
90832953|NCT03192176|181536179|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||0.5028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|2.05||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||2.05|0.23|0.5028
90832954|NCT03192176|181536179|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.3982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.98||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||1.98|0.18|0.3982
90832955|NCT03192176|181536179|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.87||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||2.87|0.30|0.93
90832956|NCT03192176|181536179|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.12||||0.2364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|7.32||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||7.32|0.61|0.2364
90832957|NCT03192176|181536179|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.7095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|4.04||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||4.04|0.39|0.7095
90832958|NCT03192176|181536179|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.6011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|2.2||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||2.20|0.26|0.6011
91025217|NCT04136626|181933543|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0475||||0.0871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3977|0.3027||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons because this was the pre-specified primary endpoint comparison. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was alpha=.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures were modeled with a first-order heterogeneous auto-regressive (ARH(1)) covariance structure.|The effect is presented as the Perspectives OCD group outcome compared to the Health and Well-Being Program group outcome at the trial end-point (week 12).|Null hypothesis: there is no significant difference in Y-BOCS total scores between the treatment groups at endpoint (week 12).||0.3027|-4.3977|0.0871
91025218|NCT04136626|181933543|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the amount of change|-3.4385||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7394|-1.1376||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was alpha=.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures were modeled with a first-order heterogeneous auto-regressive (ARH(1)) covariance structure.|The effect is presented as the difference in the amount of symptom reduction (week 12 - week 0) between Perspectives OCD and the Health and Well-Being Program group (i.e., a group difference in the amount of change over time).|Null hypothesis: there is no significant difference in the change from baseline to end-of-treatment Y-BOCS total scores between the treatment groups.||-1.1376|-5.7394|0.0036
91025219|NCT04136626|181933544|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8743||||0.3616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7666|1.0181||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was alpha=.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures were modeled with a first-order heterogeneous auto-regressive (ARH(1)) covariance structure.|The effect is presented as the Perspectives OCD group outcome compared to the Health and Well-Being Program group outcome at the trial end-point (week 12).|Null hypothesis: there is no significant difference in depression severity (QIDS-SR total scores) between the treatment groups at endpoint (week 12).||1.0181|-2.7666|0.3616
91025220|NCT04136626|181933544|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the amount of change|-1.3076||||0.1973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3014|0.6862||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was alpha=.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures were modeled with a first-order heterogeneous auto-regressive (ARH(1)) covariance structure.|The effect is presented as the difference in the amount of symptom reduction (week 12 - week 0) between Perspectives OCD and the Health and Well-Being Program group (i.e., a group difference in the amount of change over time).|Null hypothesis: there is no significant difference in the change from baseline to end-of-treatment depression severity (QIDS-SR total scores) between the treatment groups.||0.6862|-3.3014|0.1973
91025221|NCT04136626|181933545|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7992||||0.1289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4246|0.8262||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was alpha=.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures were modeled with a first-order heterogeneous auto-regressive (ARH(1)) covariance structure.|The effect is presented as the Perspectives OCD group outcome compared to the Health and Well-Being Program group outcome at the trial end-point (week 12).|Null hypothesis: there is no significant difference in functional impairment (WSAS total scores) between the treatment groups at endpoint (week 12).||0.8262|-6.4246|0.1289
91025222|NCT04136626|181933545|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the amount of change|-4.5704||||0.0137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1939|-0.9468||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was alpha=.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures were modeled with a first-order heterogeneous auto-regressive (ARH(1)) covariance structure.|The effect is presented as the difference in the amount of symptom reduction (week 12 - week 0) between Perspectives OCD and the Health and Well-Being Program group (i.e., a group difference in the amount of change over time).|Null hypothesis: there is no significant difference in the change from baseline to end-of-treatment functional impairment (WSAS total scores) between the treatment groups.||-0.9468|-8.1939|0.0137
91088547|NCT00676403|182059350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17||0.4632||95.0|0.4|6.6|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Differences in proportions were obtained using LS means. Repeated measures logistic regression model used fixed effects including treatment, geographic region, week, and the treatment by week interaction. The within-subject covariance structure was modeled as compound sysmetric.||6.6|0.4|0.4632
90832959|NCT03192176|181536180|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.78||||0.0181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|33.1||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||33.10|1.39|0.0181
90832960|NCT03192176|181536180|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.97||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|47.48||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||47.48|2.10|0.0039
90832961|NCT03192176|181536180|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|21.2||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.51|99.65||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||99.65|4.51|0.0001
91088548|NCT00676403|182059350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.2042||95.0|0.1|1.6|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Differences in proportions were obtained using LS means. Repeated measures logistic regression model used fixed effects including treatment, geographic region, week, and the treatment by week interaction. The within-subject covariance structure was modeled as compound sysmetric.||1.6|0.1|0.2042
90832962|NCT03192176|181536180|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|23.97|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.09|112.9||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||112.9|5.09|<0.0001
90832963|NCT03192176|181536180|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.17||||0.1766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|16.87||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||16.87|0.59|0.1766
91088549|NCT00676403|182059350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.34||0.3382||95.0|0.5|7.5|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Differences in proportions were obtained using LS means. Repeated measures logistic regression model used fixed effects including treatment, geographic region, week, and the treatment by week interaction. The within-subject covariance structure was modeled as compound sysmetric.||7.5|0.5|0.3382
91088550|NCT00676403|182059351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.6||||0.3932||95.0|-6.0|15.2|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance of change from baseline; LS Mean, standard error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||15.2|-6.0|0.3932
91088551|NCT00676403|182059351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.3||||0.1585||95.0|-2.9|17.5|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance of change from baseline; LS Mean, standard error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||17.5|-2.9|0.1585
90832964|NCT03192176|181536180|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.68||||0.0116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|37.43||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||37.43|1.58|0.0116
91088552|NCT00676403|182059351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.8||||0.285||95.0|-4.9|16.5|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance of change from baseline; LS Mean, standard error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||16.5|-4.9|0.2850
90832965|NCT03192176|181536180|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.74||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.71|59.81||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||59.81|2.71|0.0013
90832966|NCT03192176|181536180|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.82||||0.0359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|7.43||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||7.43|1.07|0.0359
90832967|NCT03192176|181536180|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.8||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|15.33||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||15.33|2.20|0.0004
90832968|NCT03192176|181536180|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.68|18.98||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||18.98|2.68|<0.0001
90832969|NCT03192176|181536180|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.84||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.53|18.46||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||18.46|2.53|0.0001
90832970|NCT03192176|181536180|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.04||||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|5.47||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||5.47|0.76|0.1540
90832971|NCT03192176|181536180|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.84||||0.0065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|10.12||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||10.12|1.46|0.0065
90958904|NCT04874415|181797841|SUPERIORITY|Main effects of each intervention factor were estimated using linear regression including all prespecified two-way interactions.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.02|||||Fixed step count goal is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|||0.02|-0.07|
91088553|NCT00676403|182059351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.8645||95.0|-9.4|11.1|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance of change from baseline; LS Mean, standard error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||11.1|-9.4|0.8645
91088554|NCT00676403|182059351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.4||||0.3031||95.0|-5.0|15.8|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance of change from baseline; LS Mean, standard error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||15.8|-5.0|0.3031
91088555|NCT00676403|182059352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.1||||0.5384||95.0|-13.2|7.0|||ANCOVA|||Physical Functioning: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||7.0|-13.2|0.5384
91088556|NCT00676403|182059352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.8015||95.0|-10.9|8.5|||ANCOVA|||Physical Functioning: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||8.5|-10.9|0.8015
91088557|NCT00676403|182059352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.1||||0.4429||95.0|-14.5|6.4|||ANCOVA|||Physical Functioning: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||6.4|-14.5|0.4429
91088558|NCT00676403|182059352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.886||95.0|-10.5|9.1|||ANCOVA|||Physical Functioning: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||9.1|-10.5|0.8860
91088559|NCT00676403|182059352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.9963||95.0|-10.0|9.9|||ANCOVA|||Physical Functioning: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||9.9|-10.0|0.9963
91088560|NCT00676403|182059352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.9||||0.3421||95.0|-6.3|18.1|||ANCOVA|||Role-Physical: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||18.1|-6.3|0.3421
91088561|NCT00676403|182059352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.4||||0.2849||95.0|-5.4|18.1|||ANCOVA|||Role-Physical: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||18.1|-5.4|0.2849
91088562|NCT00676403|182059352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.6||||0.3058||95.0|-6.1|19.2|||ANCOVA|||Role-Physical: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||19.2|-6.1|0.3058
91088563|NCT00676403|182059352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.9604||95.0|-12.1|11.5|||ANCOVA|||Role-Physical: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||11.5|-12.1|0.9604
90832972|NCT03192176|181536180|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.9||||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|10.14||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||10.14|1.50|0.0052
91088564|NCT00676403|182059352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.5||||0.1661||95.0|-3.6|20.6|||ANCOVA|||Role-Physical: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||20.6|-3.6|0.1661
91088565|NCT00676403|182059352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.9||||0.1441||95.0|-3.1|20.9|||ANCOVA|||Bodily Pain: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||20.9|-3.1|0.1441
91088566|NCT00676403|182059352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.0||||0.3076||95.0|-5.6|17.5|||ANCOVA|||Bodily Pain: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||17.5|-5.6|0.3076
91088567|NCT00676403|182059352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.0||||0.1209||95.0|-2.7|22.7|||ANCOVA|||Bodily Pain: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||22.7|-2.7|0.1209
91088568|NCT00676403|182059352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.4||||0.2791||95.0|-5.3|18.0|||ANCOVA|||Bodily Pain: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||18.0|-5.3|0.2791
91088569|NCT00676403|182059352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.2||||0.0644||95.0|-0.7|23.0|||ANCOVA|||Bodily Pain: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||23.0|-0.7|0.0644
90832973|NCT03192176|181536180|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.68||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|9.39||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||9.39|1.44|0.0064
90832974|NCT03192176|181536180|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.86||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.26|15.21||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||15.21|2.26|0.0003
90832975|NCT03192176|181536180|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.42||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.47|16.69||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||16.69|2.47|0.0001
90832976|NCT03192176|181536180|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.01|22.42||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||22.42|3.01|<0.0001
90832977|NCT03192176|181536180|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.12||||0.0171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|7.97||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||7.97|1.22|0.0171
90832978|NCT03192176|181536180|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.38||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.71|11.18||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||11.18|1.71|0.0020
91088570|NCT00676403|182059352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.7544||95.0|-9.5|6.9|||ANCOVA|||General Health: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||6.9|-9.5|0.7544
91088571|NCT00676403|182059352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.6||||0.5142||95.0|-10.3|5.2|||ANCOVA|||General Health: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||5.2|-10.3|0.5142
91088572|NCT00676403|182059352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.8158||95.0|-7.4|9.4|||ANCOVA|||General Health: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||9.4|-7.4|0.8158
91088573|NCT00676403|182059352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.9||||0.4599||95.0|-10.8|4.9|||ANCOVA|||General Health: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||4.9|-10.8|0.4599
91088574|NCT00676403|182059352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.8636||95.0|-8.7|7.3|||ANCOVA|||General Health: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||7.3|-8.7|0.8636
90832979|NCT03192176|181536180|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.97||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|9.99||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||9.99|1.58|0.0034
90832980|NCT03192176|181536180|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.63||||0.0399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|6.59||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||6.59|1.05|0.0399
90832981|NCT03192176|181536180|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.76||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.23|14.84||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||14.84|2.23|0.0003
91088575|NCT00676403|182059352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.7||||0.5281||95.0|-7.8|15.1|||ANCOVA|||Vitality: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||15.1|-7.8|0.5281
91088576|NCT00676403|182059352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5||||0.6566||95.0|-8.5|13.5|||ANCOVA|||Vitality: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||13.5|-8.5|0.6566
90832982|NCT03192176|181536180|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.05||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|10.23||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||10.23|1.60|0.0031
91088577|NCT00676403|182059352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.1||||0.0677||95.0|-0.8|23.0|||ANCOVA|||Vitality: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||23.0|-0.8|0.0677
91088578|NCT00676403|182059352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.3||||0.4443||95.0|-6.8|15.4|||ANCOVA|||Vitality: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||15.4|-6.8|0.4443
90832983|NCT03192176|181536180|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.41|28.28||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||28.28|3.41|<0.0001
91088579|NCT00676403|182059352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.5||||0.2543||95.0|-4.7|17.7|||ANCOVA|||Vitality: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||17.7|-4.7|0.2543
91088580|NCT00676403|182059352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.9416||95.0|-11.0|11.9|||ANCOVA|||Social Functioning: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||11.9|-11.0|0.9416
91088581|NCT00676403|182059352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.1||||0.5824||95.0|-14.1|7.9|||ANCOVA|||Social Functioning: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||7.9|-14.1|0.5824
91088582|NCT00676403|182059352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.4||||0.5668||95.0|-15.3|8.4|||ANCOVA|||Social Functioning: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||8.4|-15.3|0.5668
91088583|NCT00676403|182059352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6||||0.7769||95.0|-9.6|12.8|||ANCOVA|||Social Functioning: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||12.8|-9.6|0.7769
91088584|NCT00676403|182059352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.8||||0.1753||95.0|-3.5|19.1|||ANCOVA|||Social Functioning: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||19.1|-3.5|0.1753
90832984|NCT03192176|181536180|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.96||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|10.01||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||10.01|1.57|0.0036
90832985|NCT03192176|181536180|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.79||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.89|12.11||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||12.11|1.89|0.0009
90832986|NCT03192176|181536180|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.33||||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|8.21||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||8.21|1.35|0.0091
90832987|NCT03192176|181536180|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.78||||0.2043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|4.34||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||4.34|0.73|0.2043
90832988|NCT03192176|181536180|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.7||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.84|12.01||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||12.01|1.84|0.0012
91088585|NCT00676403|182059352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.7||||0.1508||95.0|-3.2|20.7|||ANCOVA|||Role-Emotional: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||20.7|-3.2|0.1508
91088586|NCT00676403|182059352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.9||||0.0916||95.0|-1.6|21.4|||ANCOVA|||Role-Emotional: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||21.4|-1.6|0.0916
91088587|NCT00676403|182059352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.1||||0.6222||95.0|-9.2|15.4|||ANCOVA|||Role-Emotional: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||15.4|-9.2|0.6222
91088588|NCT00676403|182059352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.2||||0.085||95.0|-1.4|21.8|||ANCOVA|||Role-Emotional: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||21.8|-1.4|0.0850
90894680|NCT00567190|181654684|SUPERIORITY|Exploratory|Cox Proportional Hazard|0.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.82||Exploratory|Log Rank (stratified)|Stratified by prior treatment status and region.|Hazard ratio is comparing Pertuzumab arm with Placebo arm.|End-of-Study OS Analysis: This end-of-study OS analysis is considered exploratory only as the confirmatory OS analysis for statistical interpretation had previously occurred at the second interim OS analysis.||0.82|0.58|<0.0001
91088589|NCT00676403|182059352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.8||||0.0154||95.0|2.9|26.7|||ANCOVA|||Role-Emotional: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||26.7|2.9|0.0154
91088590|NCT00676403|182059352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.7201||95.0|-11.9|8.2|||ANCOVA|||Mental Health: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||8.2|-11.9|0.7201
91088591|NCT00676403|182059352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.8875||95.0|-9.1|10.5|||ANCOVA|||Mental Health: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||10.5|-9.1|0.8875
90832989|NCT03192176|181536180|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.77||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|9.7||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||9.70|1.47|0.0058
90832990|NCT03192176|181536180|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.07||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.73|23.83||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||23.83|2.73|0.0002
90832991|NCT03192176|181536180|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.88||||0.0221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|7.12||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||7.12|1.16|0.0221
90832992|NCT03192176|181536180|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.0||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|10.13||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||10.13|1.58|0.0034
91088592|NCT00676403|182059352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.7||||0.3735||95.0|-5.7|15.1|||ANCOVA|||Mental Health: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||15.1|-5.7|0.3735
90832993|NCT03192176|181536180|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.22||||0.0123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|8.04||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||8.04|1.29|0.0123
90894681|NCT00567190|181654684|SUPERIORITY|Exploratory|Cox Proportional Hazard|0.68||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.84||Exploratory|Log Rank (stratified)|Stratified by prior treatment status and region.|Hazard ratio is comparing Pertuzumab arm with Placebo arm.|Event-Driven Final OS Analysis: This final OS analysis was event-driven and planned to take place after a total of 385 deaths had occurred. It is considered exploratory only as the confirmatory OS analysis for statistical interpretation had previously occurred at the second interim OS analysis.||0.84|0.56|0.0002
91088593|NCT00676403|182059352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.8621||95.0|-8.9|10.6|||ANCOVA|||Mental Health: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||10.6|-8.9|0.8621
91088594|NCT00676403|182059352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.9||||0.1203||95.0|-2.1|17.8|||ANCOVA|||Mental Health: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||17.8|-2.1|0.1203
90957122|NCT04101318|181793760|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.62||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05. Furthermore, p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Model was with the following fixed effects: product and period. Subject and the interaction between product and subject were random effects|Difference between Arm 1 and Arm 2= Mean (Arm 1) - Mean (Arm 2)|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms.||0.62|-0.38|0.625
91088595|NCT00676403|182059352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8||||0.4966||95.0|-5.4|11.0|||ANCOVA|||Summary Physical Score: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||11.0|-5.4|0.4966
90832994|NCT03192176|181536180|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.3291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|3.78||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||3.78|0.64|0.3291
90832995|NCT03192176|181536180|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.27||||0.0118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|8.21||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||8.21|1.30|0.0118
90832996|NCT03192176|181536180|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.93||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.49|10.4||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||10.40|1.49|0.0058
90832997|NCT03192176|181536180|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.98||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.03|17.65||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||17.65|2.03|0.0012
91088596|NCT00676403|182059352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2||||0.5776||95.0|-5.6|10.1|||ANCOVA|||Summary Physical Score: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||10.1|-5.6|0.5776
91088597|NCT00676403|182059352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.7||||0.3955||95.0|-4.9|12.3|||ANCOVA|||Summary Physical Score: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||12.3|-4.9|0.3955
91088598|NCT00676403|182059352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.7994||95.0|-6.9|9.0|||ANCOVA|||Summary Physical Score: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||9.0|-6.9|0.7994
91088599|NCT00676403|182059352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.2||||0.2073||95.0|-2.9|13.2|||ANCOVA|||Summary Physical Score: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||13.2|-2.9|0.2073
91088600|NCT00676403|182059352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.2||||0.5148||95.0|-6.4|12.8|||ANCOVA|||Summary Emotional Score: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||12.8|-6.4|0.5148
91088601|NCT00676403|182059352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0||||0.5255||95.0|-6.3|12.2|||ANCOVA|||Summary Emotional Score: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||12.2|-6.3|0.5255
91088602|NCT00676403|182059352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.4||||0.3793||95.0|-5.5|14.4|||ANCOVA|||Summary Emotional Score: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||14.4|-5.5|0.3793
90832998|NCT03192176|181536180|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.13||||0.1043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|5.32||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||5.32|0.85|0.1043
90832999|NCT03192176|181536180|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.01||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.85|13.54||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||13.54|1.85|0.0015
90833000|NCT03192176|181536180|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.33||||0.0658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|5.73||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||5.73|0.95|0.0658
90833001|NCT03192176|181536180|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.02||||0.1253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|4.98||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||4.98|0.82|0.1253
90833002|NCT03192176|181536180|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.01||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.88|13.34||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||13.34|1.88|0.0013
90833003|NCT03192176|181536180|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.66||||0.0096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|9.75||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||9.75|1.37|0.0096
90833004|NCT03192176|181536180|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.06||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.04|17.96||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||17.96|2.04|0.0012
90833005|NCT03192176|181536180|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.75||||0.0344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|7.02||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||7.02|1.08|0.0344
90833006|NCT03192176|181536180|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.07||||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|10.72||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||10.72|1.55|0.0045
90894682|NCT00567190|181654684|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.66||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.84||The threshold for statistical significance was HR≤0.739, p≤0.0138.|Log Rank (stratified)|Stratified by prior treatment status and region.|Hazard ratio (HR) is comparing Pertuzumab arm with Placebo arm.|Second Interim OS Analysis: For this second interim OS analysis, the pre-defined O'Brien-Fleming stopping boundary for the Lan-DeMets α-spending function was: HR≤0.739, p≤0.0138.||0.84|0.52|0.0008
91088603|NCT00676403|182059352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.8||||0.312||95.0|-4.5|14.1|||ANCOVA|||Summary Emotional Score: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||14.1|-4.5|0.3120
91088604|NCT00676403|182059352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.7||||0.0442||95.0|0.3|19.2|||ANCOVA|||Summary Emotional Score: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||19.2|0.3|0.0442
91088605|NCT00676403|182059353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4452||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CHM test for difference; p-value was adjusted for geographic region at each visit.||||0.4452
91088606|NCT00676403|182059353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4342||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CHM test for difference; p-value was adjusted for geographic region at each visit.||||0.4342
91088607|NCT00676403|182059353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0942||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CHM test for difference; p-value was adjusted for geographic region at each visit.||||0.0942
91088608|NCT00676403|182059353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1873||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CHM test for difference; p-value was adjusted for geographic region at each visit.||||0.1873
91088609|NCT00676403|182059353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4709||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CHM test for difference; p-value was adjusted for geographic region at each visit.||||0.4709
90833007|NCT03192176|181536180|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.24||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|5.55||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||5.55|0.91|0.0810
90833008|NCT03192176|181536180|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.29||||0.0761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|5.7||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||5.70|0.92|0.0761
90833009|NCT03192176|181536180|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.66||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|9.51||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||9.51|1.41|0.0078
90833010|NCT03192176|181536180|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.99||||0.0253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|7.82||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||7.82|1.15|0.0253
90833011|NCT03192176|181536180|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.23||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.99|19.55||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||19.55|1.99|0.0017
91032515|NCT00377260|181949700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93||95.0|||||Generalized estimating equations|The comparison was adjusted for site, history of recurrent acute otitis media and exposure to other children.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups regarding the visits at which family member reported missing work, i.e. number of such visits / total number of follow-up assessment visits.||||.93
91032516|NCT00377260|181949701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66||95.0|||||Generalized estimating equations|The comparison was adjusted for site, history of recurrent acute otitis media and exposure to other children.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups regarding the visits at which family member reported making special daycare arrangements, i.e. number of such visits / total number of follow-up assessment visits.||||.66
91032517|NCT00377260|181949702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|The comparison adjusted for site, history of recurrent acute otitis media and exposure to other children.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the groups regarding the mean parental satisfaction score at the on-therapy visit.||||.71
91032518|NCT00377260|181949703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|The comparison adjusted for site, history of recurrent acute otitis media and exposure to other children.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the groups regarding the mean parental satisfaction score at the end-of-therapy visit.||||.04
91032519|NCT00377260|181949704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|The comparison adjusted for site, history of recurrent acute otitis media and exposure to other children.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the groups regarding the mean parental satisfaction score at the follow-visit visit.||||.005
91032520|NCT00377260|181949705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|The comparison was adjusted for site, history of recurrent acute otitis media and exposure to other children.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two treatment groups regarding the mean weighted average acute otitis media - severity of symptom (AOM-SOS) score (symptom burden), post-enrollment, over the first 7 days of therapy.||||.01
91032521|NCT01391793|181949722|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is adjusted for the stratification variable, duration of fever, and for age at baseline (\<24 months, \>=24 months).||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two treatment arms regarding the proportion of children with renal scarring at the outcome DMSA renal scan.||||0.16
91032522|NCT01391793|181949723|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Test of equality - 2 Poisson parameters|The method used is a conditional test.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two treatment arms regarding the proportion of children with severe renal scarring at the outcome DMSA renal scan.||||0.25
91032523|NCT01391793|181949724|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Generalized estimating equations|The p-value is adjusted for the stratification variable, duration of fever, and for age at baseline (\<24 months, \>=24 months).||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two treatment arms regarding the mean proportion of children with renal scarring at the outcome DMSA scan taken across the 3 radiologists.||||0.07
91032524|NCT01015625|181949725|SUPERIORITY|A two-sided significance level of 5% was used.|Cox Proportional Hazard|1.77||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|3.09|||Log Rank||From the Cox Proportional hazard model with surgery vs no surgery fitted as a covariate. A hazard ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher average event rate and a shorter overall survival time for surgery relative to no surgery.|To determine the effect of local therapy (surgery, Arm A) compared to systemic therapy only (Arm B) in synchronous metastasized breast cancer patients in terms of overall survival. Overall survival is defined as the time from randomization to death from any cause. Participants last known to be alive were censored at their last contact date or at the data cut-off date whichever came first.||3.09|1.01|0.042
91032525|NCT01015625|181949726|SUPERIORITY|A two-sided significance level of 5% was used.|Cox Proportional Hazard|1.45||||0.147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|2.42|||Log Rank||From the Cox Proportional hazard model with surgery vs no surgery fitted as a covariate. A hazard ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher average event rate and a shorter time to distant progression for surgery relative to no surgery.|To determine the effect of local therapy (surgery) compared to systemic therapy only in synchronous metastasized breast cancer patients in terms of time from randomization to distant progression. Distant progression is defined as detection of new lesions or progression of existing metastases in locations different then breast. Participants last known to be alive without a distant progression were censored at their last contact date or at the data cut-off date whichever came first.||2.42|0.87|0.147
91088610|NCT01272908|182059374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.293||||0.253|||||||Regression, Logistic|||ACR20: Week 12 versus (vs) Week 4||||0.253
91088611|NCT01272908|182059374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.019||||0.005|||||||Regression, Logistic|||ACR20: Week 24 vs Week 4||||0.005
91088612|NCT01272908|182059374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.552||||0.023|||||||Regression, Logistic|||ACR50: Week 12 vs Week 4||||0.023
91088613|NCT01272908|182059374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.861||||0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||ACR50: Week 24 vs. Week 4||||0.001
91088614|NCT01272908|182059378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.099||||0.667|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Good vs Moderate vs None: Week 12 vs Week 4||||0.667
91088615|NCT01272908|182059378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.589|||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Good vs Moderate vs None: Week 24 vs Week 4||||<0.001
91088616|NCT01272908|182059378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.138||||0.44|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Good/Moderate vs None: Week 12 vs Week 4||||0.440
91088617|NCT01272908|182059378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.009||||0.012|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Good/Moderate vs None: Week 24 vs Week 4||||0.012
91088618|NCT01272908|182059380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Week 4||||<0.001
91088619|NCT01272908|182059380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Week 12||||<0.001
91088620|NCT01272908|182059380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Week 24||||<0.001
91088621|NCT01272908|182059380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Week 36||||<0.001
91088622|NCT01272908|182059380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Week 48||||<0.001
90833012|NCT03192176|181536180|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.3512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|3.87||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||3.87|0.62|0.3512
90833013|NCT03192176|181536180|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.77||||0.0352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|7.13||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||7.13|1.07|0.0352
90894683|NCT00567190|181654684|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.64||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.88||The threshold for statistical significance was HR≤0.603, p≤0.0012.|Log Rank (stratified)|Stratified by prior treatment status and region.|Hazard ratio (HR) is comparing pertuzumab with placebo arms.|First Interim OS Analysis: For this first interim OS analysis, the pre-defined O'Brien-Fleming stopping boundary for the Lan-DeMets α-spending function was: HR≤0.603, p≤0.0012.||0.88|0.47|0.0050
91088623|NCT01272908|182059382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test|||Baseline vs Week 24||||<0.001
91088624|NCT01272908|182059384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline vs Week 24||||<0.001
91088625|NCT01272908|182059386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline vs Week 24||||<0.001
91088626|NCT01272908|182059388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||Baseline vs Week 24||||<0.001
91088627|NCT01272908|182059390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline vs Week 24||||<0.001
91088628|NCT01272908|182059392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||Baseline vs Week 24||||<0.001
91088629|NCT01272908|182059394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||Baseline vs Week 24||||<0.001
91088630|NCT01272908|182059396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||Baseline vs Week 24||||<0.001
91088631|NCT01272908|182059400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline vs Week 12||||<0.001
91088632|NCT01272908|182059400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||Baseline vs Week 24||||<0.001
91088633|NCT02533934|182059417|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin is defined by the a priori threshold for statistical significance.|||||<|0.01|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||APRI change from baseline to last follow-up||||<.01
91088634|NCT02533934|182059417|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin is defined by the a priori threshold for statistical significance.|||||<|0.01|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||APRI change from baseline to last follow-up||||<.01
91088635|NCT02533934|182059417|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin is defined by the a priori threshold for statistical significance|||||<|0.01|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||FIB4 change from baseline to last follow-up||||<.01
91088636|NCT02533934|182059417|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin is defined by the a priori threshold for statistical significance|||||<|0.01|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||FIB4 change from baseline to last follow-up||||<.01
91088637|NCT02533934|182059419|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin is defined by the a priori threshold for statistical significance.|||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Signed Rank Test)|||||||<0.001
91088638|NCT01431339|182059426|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority hypothesis test is a one-sided hypothesis test performed at the 2.5% level of significance. If the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference in response rates in the ITT population is greater than -10% the NI of dalbavancin to vancomycin/linezolid will be concluded.|Difference in Proportions|-1.5||||||95.0|-7.4|4.6|||||Confidence intervals were adjusted for fever at baseline|||4.6|-7.4|
91088639|NCT01705977|182059454|OTHER||Difference in percentage versus placebo|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.51|||||95% Confidence Interval was calculated using simple asymptotic Chi-Square (Pearson) method.|||0.51|-0.31|
91088640|NCT01705977|182059455|OTHER||Difference in percentage versus placebo|-0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|0.85|||||95% CI for serious infections was calculated using simple asymptotic Chi-Square (Pearson) method.|||0.85|-1.55|
91088641|NCT01705977|182059455|OTHER||Difference in percentage versus placebo|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.2|||||95% CI for opportunistic infections and other infections of interest (serious and non-serious) was calculated using simple asymptotic Chi-Square (Pearson) method.|||0.20|-1.60|
91088642|NCT01705977|182059455|OTHER||Difference in percentage versus placebo|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.31|||||95% CI for malignancies (excluding NMSC) was calculated using simple asymptotic Chi-Square (Pearson) method.|||0.31|-0.31|
91088643|NCT01705977|182059455|OTHER||Difference in percentage versus placebo|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.31|||||95% CI for NMSC was calculated using simple asymptotic Chi-Square (Pearson) method.|||0.31|-0.21|
91088644|NCT01705977|182059455|OTHER||Difference in percentage versus placebo|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.58|||||95% CI for psychiatric events suggesting serious mood disorders and anxiety (serious depression) was calculated using simple asymptotic Chi-Square (Pearson) method.|||0.58|0.02|
91088645|NCT01705977|182059455|OTHER||Difference in percentage versus placebo|0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.96|||||95% CI for suicidality (C-SSRS) was calculated using simple asymptotic Chi-Square (Pearson) method.|||0.96|-0.44|
91088646|NCT01705977|182059455|OTHER||Difference in percentage versus placebo|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.61|||||95% CI for SIHR was calculated using simple asymptotic Chi-Square (Pearson) method.|||0.61|-0.01|
91088647|NCT01705977|182059457|OTHER||Difference in percentage versus placebo|-0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|0.13|||||95% CI was calculated using simple asymptotic Chi-Square (Pearson) method.|||0.13|-1.03|
91088648|NCT01705977|182059458|OTHER||Difference in percentage versus placebo|-0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|0.51|||||95% CI for serious infections was calculated using simple asymptotic Chi-Square (Pearson) method.|||0.51|-2.02|
91088649|NCT01705977|182059458|OTHER||Difference in percentage versus placebo|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|-0.04|||||95% CI for opportunistic infections and other infections of interest (serious and non-serious) was calculated using simple asymptotic Chi-Square (Pearson) method.|||-0.04|-1.96|
91088650|NCT01705977|182059458|OTHER||Difference in percentage versus placebo|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.24|||||95% CI for malignancies (excluding NMSC) was calculated using simple asymptotic Chi-Square (Pearson) method.|||0.24|-0.44|
91088651|NCT01705977|182059458|OTHER||Difference in percentage versus placebo|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.31|||||95% CI for NMSC was calculated using simple asymptotic Chi-Square (Pearson) method.|||0.31|-0.21|
90833014|NCT03192176|181536180|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.36||||0.0704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|5.97||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||5.97|0.93|0.0704
90833015|NCT03192176|181536180|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.94||||0.1651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|4.93||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||4.93|0.76|0.1651
91088652|NCT01705977|182059458|OTHER||Difference in percentage versus placebo|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.58|||||95% CI for psychiatric events suggesting serious mood disorders and anxiety (serious depression) was calculated using simple asymptotic Chi-Square (Pearson) method.|||0.58|0.02|
91088653|NCT01705977|182059458|OTHER||Difference in percentage versus placebo|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|1.05|||||95% CI for suicidality (C-SSRS) was calculated using simple asymptotic Chi-Square (Pearson) method.|||1.05|-0.42|
91088654|NCT01705977|182059458|OTHER||Difference in percentage versus placebo|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.61|||||95% CI for SIHR was calculated using simple asymptotic Chi-Square (Pearson) method.|||0.61|-0.01|
91088655|NCT01705977|182059460|OTHER||Odds ratio versus placebo|1.3||||0.0284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.65|||Regression, Logistic||95% CI and P-value was calculated from a logistic regression model for the comparison between belimumab and placebo including treatment group, Baseline prednisone dose, screening SELENA SLEDAI score (\<=9 versus \>=10) and region|||1.65|1.03|0.0284
90833016|NCT03192176|181536180|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.21||||0.0964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|5.62||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||5.62|0.87|0.0964
90833017|NCT03192176|181536180|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.12||||0.0276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|8.59||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||8.59|1.13|0.0276
91088656|NCT00810199|182059480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.2055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.882|1.799||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline DAS28 (≤5.5 and \>5.5).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.799|0.882|0.2055
91088657|NCT00810199|182059480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.1894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.889|1.814||Logistic regression including treatment , region and baseline DAS28.|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio is for Tocilizumab + Methotrexate relative to Tocilizumab + Placebo.||||1.814|0.889|0.1894
91088658|NCT00810199|182059481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8742||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Region and baseline DAS28 (≤5.5 and \>5.5) included as stratification variables.||Week 24||||0.8742
91088659|NCT00810199|182059481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6212||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Region and baseline DAS28 (≤5.5 and \>5.5) included as stratification variables.||Week 52||||0.6212
91088660|NCT00810199|182059481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0963||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Region and baseline DAS28 (≤5.5 and \>5.5) included as stratification variables.||Week 104||||0.0963
91088661|NCT00810199|182059482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2969||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Region and baseline DAS28 (≤5.5 and \>5.5) included as stratification variables.||Week 24||||0.2969
91088662|NCT00810199|182059482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2215||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Region and baseline DAS28 (≤5.5 and \>5.5) included as stratification variables.||Week 52||||0.2215
91088663|NCT00810199|182059482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1243||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Region and baseline DAS28 (≤5.5 and \>5.5) included as stratification variables.||Week 104||||0.1243
91088664|NCT00810199|182059483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6775||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Region and baseline DAS28 (≤5.5 and \>5.5) included as stratification variables.||Week 24||||0.6775
91088665|NCT00810199|182059483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9976||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Region and baseline DAS28 (≤5.5 and \>5.5) included as stratification variables.||Week 52||||0.9976
90833018|NCT03192176|181536180|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.99||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|15.7||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||15.70|1.58|0.0060
90894684|NCT00567190|181654685|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.81|||Log Rank (stratified)|Stratified by prior treatment status and region.|Hazard ratio is comparing Pertuzumab arm with Placebo arm.|PFS by Investigator - Stratified||0.81|0.59|<0.0001
91088666|NCT00810199|182059483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2168||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Region and baseline DAS28 (≤5.5 and \>5.5) included as stratification variables.||Week 104||||0.2168
90833019|NCT03192176|181536180|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.03||||0.1556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|5.39||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||5.39|0.76|0.1556
91088667|NCT00810199|182059484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8369||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Region and baseline DAS28 (≤5.5 and \>5.5) included as stratification variables.||Week 24||||0.8369
91088668|NCT00810199|182059484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6528||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Region and baseline DAS28 (≤5.5 and \>5.5) included as stratification variables.||Week 52||||0.6528
91088669|NCT00810199|182059484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2546||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Region and baseline DAS28 (≤5.5 and \>5.5) included as stratification variables.||Week 104||||0.2546
91088670|NCT00810199|182059485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1018|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.1018
91088671|NCT00810199|182059486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7176|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.7176
91088672|NCT00810199|182059487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8526|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.8526
90833020|NCT03192176|181536180|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.33||||0.0202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|9.18||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||9.18|1.21|0.0202
90833021|NCT03192176|181536180|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.83||||0.2063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|4.67||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||4.67|0.72|0.2063
91088673|NCT00810199|182059488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2217|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.2217
90957123|NCT04101318|181793761|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.737||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.038|2.908||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05. Furthermore, p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Proportional odds ratio model|Ordinal regression model for itching evaluated on a 5 point scale. Product and period are fixed effects and subject is a random effect.|Odds ratio, marginal= Arm1/Arm2|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms.||2.908|1.038|0.036
91088674|NCT00810199|182059489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.11|||ANCOVA|Baseline DAS28 as a covariate.||||-0.11|-0.41|0.0008
91088675|NCT00810199|182059490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.0245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.053|2.109|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression including treatment, region and baseline DAS28.|Odds ratio is for Tocilizumab + Methotrexate relative to Tocilizumab + Placebo.|||2.109|1.053|0.0245
91088676|NCT00810199|182059490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.482||||0.0258||95.0|1.048|2.095||Stratified by region and baseline DAS28 (≤ 5.5 and \> 5.5).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.095|1.048|0.0258
90833022|NCT03192176|181536180|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.7||||0.0383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|6.92||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||6.92|1.06|0.0383
90833023|NCT03192176|181536180|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.46||||0.0118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|9.1||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||9.10|1.32|0.0118
91088677|NCT00810199|182059491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0287||95.0|||||Wald Chi-square|Asymptotic test; parameter estimate is zero.||Week 24||||0.0287
91088678|NCT00810199|182059491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.224|||||||Wald Chi-square|Asymptotic test; parameter estimate is zero.||Week 52||||0.2240
91088679|NCT00810199|182059492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0497||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24||||0.0497
91088680|NCT00810199|182059492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3918|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 52||||0.3918
91088681|NCT00810199|182059493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0019||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Region and baseline DAS28 (≤5.5 and \>5.5) included as stratification variables.||Week 24||||0.0019
91088682|NCT00810199|182059493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1181|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Region and baseline DAS28 (≤5.5 and \>5.5) included as stratification variables.||Week 52||||0.1181
91088683|NCT00810199|182059494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7776||||||P-value is from a 2-sided, Wilcoxon rank-sum test of no difference between the 2 treatment groups in change from baseline.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24||||0.7776
91088684|NCT00810199|182059494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8843|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 52||||0.8843
91088685|NCT00810199|182059495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9095||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24||||0.9095
91088686|NCT00810199|182059495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7179|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 52||||0.7179
91088687|NCT00810199|182059496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3113||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24||||0.3113
91088688|NCT00810199|182059496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2931||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 52||||0.2931
91088689|NCT00810199|182059497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2451||95.0||||P-value is from a 2-sided, Wilcoxon rank-sum test of no difference between the 2 treatment groups in change from baseline.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24||||0.2451
91088690|NCT00810199|182059497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8841||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 52||||0.8841
91088691|NCT00810199|182059498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9655||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24||||0.9655
91088692|NCT00810199|182059498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0308||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 52||||0.0308
91088693|NCT00810199|182059499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5186||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24||||0.5186
91088694|NCT00810199|182059499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7706||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 52||||0.7706
91088695|NCT00810199|182059500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6067||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24||||0.6067
91088696|NCT00810199|182059500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.681||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 52||||0.6810
91088697|NCT00810199|182059501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9323||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24||||0.9323
91088698|NCT00810199|182059501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1448||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 52||||0.1448
91088699|NCT00810199|182059502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.2034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.09||Baseline x-ray and DAS28 as covariates and treatment group and region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||0.09|-0.43|0.2034
91088700|NCT00810199|182059502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28||||0.3611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.32||Baseline x-ray and DAS28 as covariates and treatment group and region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||0.32|-0.88|0.3611
91088701|NCT00810199|182059502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.0342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|-0.05||Baseline x-ray and DAS28 as covariates and treatment group and region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 104||-0.05|-1.16|0.0342
91088702|NCT00810199|182059503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.7095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.16||Baseline x-ray and DAS28 as covariates and treatment group and region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||0.16|-0.23|0.7095
90833024|NCT03192176|181536180|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.96||||0.0314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|7.97||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||7.97|1.10|0.0314
90833025|NCT03192176|181536180|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.8||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.17|21.34||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||21.34|2.17|0.0010
90833026|NCT03192176|181536180|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.24||||0.0956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|5.8||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||5.80|0.87|0.0956
90833027|NCT03192176|181536180|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.8||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|13.4||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||13.40|1.72|0.0027
90833028|NCT03192176|181536180|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.41||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|6.14||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||6.14|0.94|0.0660
90833029|NCT03192176|181536180|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.32||||0.0853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|6.05||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||6.05|0.89|0.0853
90833030|NCT03192176|181536180|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.49||||0.0159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|9.62||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||9.62|1.26|0.0159
90833031|NCT03192176|181536180|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.27||||0.0303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|9.53||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||9.53|1.12|0.0303
91088703|NCT00810199|182059503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.8147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.57||Baseline x-ray and DAS28 as covariates and treatment group and region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||0.57|-0.45|0.8147
91088704|NCT00810199|182059503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32||||0.0778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.04||Baseline x-ray and DAS28 as covariates and treatment group and region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 104||0.04|-0.67|0.0778
91088705|NCT00810199|182059504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.0441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.0||Baseline x-ray and DAS28 as covariates and treatment group and region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||-0.00|-0.25|0.0441
90833032|NCT03192176|181536180|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.84||||0.0071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|15.28||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||15.28|1.54|0.0071
90833033|NCT03192176|181536180|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.6||||0.0621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|7.09||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||7.09|0.95|0.0621
90833034|NCT03192176|181536180|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.2||||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|12.15||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||12.15|1.45|0.0081
90833035|NCT03192176|181536180|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.64||||0.0533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|7.09||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||7.09|0.99|0.0533
90894685|NCT00567190|181654686|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Objective Response Rates|10.83||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|17.5|||Mantel Haenszel|Stratified by prior treatment status and region.|Difference in the objective response rates between arms is calculated as Pertuzumab arm minus Placebo arm. The 95% CI was calculated using the Hauck-Anderson method.|Difference in Objective Response (CR + PR) Between Arms||17.5|4.2|0.0011
90894686|NCT00567190|181654686|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|2.54||||||Odds Ratio for Objective Response (CR + PR)||2.54|1.26|
90894687|NCT00567190|181654687|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.85||||||||0.85|0.51|
90833036|NCT03192176|181536180|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.2666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|4.42||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||4.42|0.66|0.2666
90833037|NCT03192176|181536180|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.44||||0.0754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|6.52||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||6.52|0.91|0.0754
90833038|NCT03192176|181536180|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.27||||0.0313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|9.64||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||9.64|1.11|0.0313
90833039|NCT03192176|181536180|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.76||||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.67|19.88||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||19.88|1.67|0.0056
91025223|NCT04136626|181933546|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.3953||||0.1796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0543|10.8448||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was alpha=.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures were modeled with a first-order heterogeneous auto-regressive (ARH(1)) covariance structure.|The effect is presented as the Perspectives OCD group outcome compared to the Health and Well-Being Program group outcome at the trial end-point (week 12).|Null hypothesis: there is no significant difference in quality of life (Q-LES-Q-SF percentage scores) between the treatment groups at endpoint (week 12).||10.8448|-2.0543|0.1796
91025224|NCT04136626|181933546|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the amount of change|6.7962||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.314|13.2785||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was alpha=.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures were modeled with a first-order heterogeneous auto-regressive (ARH(1)) covariance structure.|The effect is presented as the difference in the amount of symptom reduction (week 12 - week 0) between Perspectives OCD and the Health and Well-Being Program group (i.e., a group difference in the amount of change over time).|Null hypothesis: there is no significant difference in the change from baseline to end-of-treatment quality of life (Q-LES-Q-SF percentage scores) between the treatment groups.||13.2785|0.3140|0.0400
91025225|NCT00723554|181933604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|-5.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of the change in average inhalation times from Period I (PD-6) to Period II (PD-15)||-5.4|-6.9|<0.001
91025226|NCT00723554|181933608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of the change in average number of days of dosing from Period I (PD-6) to Period II (PD-15)||0.6|-1.0|0.59
91025227|NCT00723554|181933612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of the change in average number of daily doses from Period I (PD-6) to Period II (PD-15)||0.7|0.2|<0.001
91025228|NCT00723554|181933616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|11.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|15.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of the change in percentage of complete doses delivered from Period I (PD-6) to Period II (PD-15)||15.6|6.5|<0.0001
91025229|NCT01614509|181933667|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Central retinal thickness was measured using an optical coherence tomography by every visit intended for all participants.||||||0.6||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Central retinal thickness was measured using an optical coherence tomography by every visit. And we compare the difference of central retinal thickness between two groups||||0.60
91025230|NCT02345486|181933697|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.74|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||"reported mean difference is a difference in proportions."|||0.74|0.66|0.001
91025231|NCT03979677|181933719|OTHER|HDI and DHI analyzed using linear mixed-effects models with two within-participant factors, Intervention (pre-intervention, post-intervention) and Inventory (DHI, HDI). All models included participant as a random factor. Models constructed using lmer function of the lme package in R and analyzed using anova function in base R. Significant main effects and interactions were evaluated using emmeans . Pairwise comparisons were adjusted to account for false-discovery rates.|||||<|0.0001||||||Multiple comparisons were adjusted.|linear mixed-effects models|||||||<.0001
91025232|NCT03979677|181933720|OTHER|HDI and DHI analyzed using linear mixed-effects models with two within-participant factors, Intervention (pre-intervention, post-intervention) and Inventory (DHI, HDI). All models included participant as a random factor. Models constructed using lmer function of the lme package in R and analyzed using anova function in base R. Significant main effects and interactions were evaluated using emmeans . Pairwise comparisons were adjusted to account for false-discovery rates.|||||<|0.0001||||||Point change in DHI was tests.|linear mixed-effects models|||||||<.0001
90833040|NCT03192176|181536180|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.58||||0.0736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|7.28||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||7.28|0.91|0.0736
90833041|NCT03192176|181536180|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.51||||0.0184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|10.0||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||10.00|1.24|0.0184
90833042|NCT03192176|181536180|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.18||||0.1187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|5.81||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||5.81|0.82|0.1187
91088706|NCT00810199|182059504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.13||Baseline x-ray and DAS28 as covariates and treatment group and region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||-0.13|-0.54|0.0012
90894688|NCT00567190|181654688|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.97||||0.7161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.16||Stratified by prior treatment status and region.|Log Rank (stratified)||Hazard ratio is comparing Pertuzumab arm with Placebo arm.|||1.16|0.81|0.7161
90833043|NCT03192176|181536180|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.8||||0.0299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|12.69||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||12.69|1.14|0.0299
90833044|NCT03192176|181536180|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.5989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|4.89||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||4.89|0.40|0.5989
90833045|NCT03192176|181536180|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.61||||0.1337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|9.14||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||9.14|0.74|0.1337
90894689|NCT00567190|181654697|OTHER|||||||0.7174|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Wilcoxon Test of Maximum Decrease in LVEF From BL||||0.7174
90894690|NCT02231177|181654710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|32.15|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.99|1.27|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale with fixed effect for treatment, period, sequence, centre and random effect for subject within sequence and centre.|The standard deviation is actually the geometric intra-individual coefficient of variation.|Comparison of Olodaterol (Tiotropium+Olodaterol 5/10 μg: Olodaterol 10 µg). No formal testing.||1.27|0.99|
91025233|NCT05085613|181933745|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6279928|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.150369||0.998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.463627|10.71961||Sidak's adjusted p-value for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|DF=6|Economic recovery condition - control|Note that analyses are underpowered due to administrative issues with funding that halted recruitment early.||10.71961|-9.463627|0.998
91025234|NCT05085613|181933745|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.044194|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.302202||0.725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.416608|14.505||Sidak's adjusted p-value for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|DF = 6|Freedom - control|Note that analyses are underpowered due to administrative issues with funding that halted recruitment early.||14.505|-6.416608|0.725
91025235|NCT05085613|181933745|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.53656|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|-1.53656||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.25295|9.179834||Sidak's adjusted p-value for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|DF = 6|Humor - control|Note that analyses are underpowered due to administrative issues with funding that halted recruitment early.||9.179834|-12.25295|0.980
91025236|NCT05085613|181933746|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.002255|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.801527||0.813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.39448|28.39899||Sidak's adjusted p-value for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|Df = 6|Economic recovery condition - control|Note that analyses are underpowered due to administrative issues with funding that halted recruitment early.||28.39899|-14.39448|0.813
91025237|NCT05085613|181933746|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.12214|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.07444||0.268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.938055|37.18234||Sidak's adjusted p-value for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|DF = 6|Freedom - control|Note that analyses are underpowered due to administrative issues with funding that halted recruitment early.||37.18234|-6.938055|0.268
91025238|NCT05085613|181933746|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.4032|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.305576||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.218891|37.0253||Sidak's adjusted p-value for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|DF = 6|Humor - Control|Note that analyses are underpowered due to administrative issues with funding that halted recruitment early.||37.0253|-8.218891|0.330
91025239|NCT05085613|181933747|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.457003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.380984||0.994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.98852|14.07451||Sidak's adjusted p-value for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|DF = 5|Economic recovery - control|Note that analyses are underpowered due to administrative issues with funding that halted recruitment early.||14.07451|-16.98852|0.994
91025240|NCT05085613|181933747|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.097586|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.675066||0.998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.34491|15.14973||Sidak's adjusted p-value for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|DF = 5|Freedom - control|Note that analyses are underpowered due to administrative issues with funding that halted recruitment early.||15.14973|-17.34491|0.998
91025241|NCT05085613|181933747|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.926191|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.588643||0.447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.110771|24.96315||Sidak's adjusted p-value for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|DF = 5|Humor - Control|Note that analyses are underpowered due to administrative issues with funding that halted recruitment early.||24.96315|-7.110771|0.447
91025242|NCT05085613|181933748|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.154612|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.986723||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.985328|0.6761041||Sidak's adjusted p-value for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|DF = 6|Economic recovery - control|Note that analyses are underpowered due to administrative issues with funding that halted recruitment early.||.6761041|-8.985328|0.113
91025243|NCT05085613|181933748|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.685896|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.046067||0.473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6609|2.289114||Sidak's adjusted p-value for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|DF = 6|Freedom - control|Note that analyses are underpowered due to administrative issues with funding that halted recruitment early.||2.289114|-7.66090|0.473
91025244|NCT05085613|181933748|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.469932|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.102231||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.58151|-1.358358||Sidak's adjusted p-value for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|DF = 6|Humor - control|Note that analyses are underpowered due to administrative issues with funding that halted recruitment early.||-1.358358|-11.58151|0.008
91025245|NCT02040766|181933795|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.81||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.796|4.821||significance at 0.05.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with effects due to baseline trough morning percent predicted FEV1, sex, age, current protocol-allowed asthma therapy (inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) or non-corticosteroid (NCS) therapy) at the time of screening visit, during the run-in period, and during treatment.||4.821|0.796|0.0063
91025246|NCT02040766|181933795|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.63||||0.5332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.354|2.614||significance at 0.05.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with effects due to baseline trough morning percent predicted FEV1, sex, age, current protocol-allowed asthma therapy (ICS or NCS therapy) at the time of screening visit, during the run-in period, and during treatment.||2.614|-1.354|0.5332
91088707|NCT00810199|182059504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29||||0.0372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.02||Baseline x-ray and DAS28 as covariates and treatment group and region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 104||-0.02|-0.56|0.0372
90833046|NCT03192176|181536180|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.62||||0.4605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|5.89||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||5.89|0.45|0.4605
90833047|NCT03192176|181536180|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.48||||0.0188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|15.65||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||15.65|1.28|0.0188
90833048|NCT03192176|181536180|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.5854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|5.42||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||5.42|0.39|0.5854
90833049|NCT03192176|181536180|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.32||||0.1768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|7.86||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||7.86|0.68|0.1768
91025247|NCT02040766|181933795|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.92||||0.3649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.077|2.924||significance at 0.05|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with effects due to baseline trough morning percent predicted FEV1, sex, age, current protocol-allowed asthma therapy (ICS or NCS therapy) at the time of screening visit, during the run-in period, and during treatment.||2.924|-1.077|0.3649
91025248|NCT02040766|181933795|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.09||||0.2823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.902|3.088|||ANCOVA|||||3.088|-0.902|0.2823
91025249|NCT02040766|181933796|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.3||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.58|17.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||17.06|5.58|0.0001
91025250|NCT02040766|181933796|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.5||||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.71|14.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||14.24|2.71|0.0041
91025251|NCT02040766|181933796|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.6||||0.0103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.79|13.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||13.35|1.79|0.0103
91025252|NCT02040766|181933796|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.5||||0.0278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|12.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||12.23|0.71|0.0278
91025253|NCT02040766|181933797|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.96|17.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||17.45|5.96|<0.0001
91025254|NCT02040766|181933797|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.0||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|15.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||15.76|4.20|0.0007
91025255|NCT02040766|181933797|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.9||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.11|15.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||15.68|4.11|0.0008
91025256|NCT02040766|181933797|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.7||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.95|14.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||14.49|2.95|0.0031
91025257|NCT02040766|181933798|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.548|-0.174|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.174|-0.548|0.0002
91025258|NCT02040766|181933798|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.331|0.044|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.044|-0.331|0.1320
91025259|NCT02040766|181933798|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.5866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.136|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.136|-0.240|0.5866
91025260|NCT02040766|181933798|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.0587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.369|0.007|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.007|-0.369|0.0587
91025261|NCT02040766|181933799|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.261|-0.065|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.065|-0.261|0.0011
91025262|NCT02040766|181933799|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.0869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.185|0.013|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.013|-0.185|0.0869
91025263|NCT02040766|181933799|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.4388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.138|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.060|-0.138|0.4388
91025264|NCT02040766|181933799|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.1041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.017|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.017|-0.180|0.1041
91025265|NCT02040766|181933800|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.287|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.2870
91025266|NCT02040766|181933800|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5257|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.5257
91025267|NCT02040766|181933800|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9982|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.9982
91025268|NCT02040766|181933800|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7633|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.7633
91025269|NCT01271933|181933801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0186|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was calculated using log-rank test for comparing pregabalin CR with placebo|Log Rank|||||||0.0186
91025270|NCT01271933|181933805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.4||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model|ANCOVA|||||0.4|-1.2|0.3310
91025271|NCT01271933|181933808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.9247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.8||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||||0.8|-0.8|0.9247
91025272|NCT01271933|181933817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.12||0.4314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|8.5||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the domain: Subjective Wake after Sleep Onset||8.5|-19.7|0.4314
91025273|NCT01271933|181933817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.26||0.8915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|19.6||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the domain: Subjective Latency to Sleep Onset||19.6|-17.1|0.8915
91025274|NCT01271933|181933818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.4571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.1||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||||1.1|-0.5|0.4571
91025275|NCT01271933|181933819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.3779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.6||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||||0.6|-0.2|0.3779
90833050|NCT03192176|181536180|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.8426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|2.78||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||2.78|0.29|0.8426
90833051|NCT03192176|181536180|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.54||||0.3017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.73||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||1.73|0.17|0.3017
90833052|NCT03192176|181536180|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72||||0.5958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|2.43||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||2.43|0.21|0.5958
90833053|NCT03192176|181536180|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.23||||0.0515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|1.01||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||1.01|0.05|0.0515
90833054|NCT03192176|181536180|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.9734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|3.11||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||3.11|0.31|0.9734
90833055|NCT03192176|181536180|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.7969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|2.93||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||2.93|0.25|0.7969
90833056|NCT03192176|181536180|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78||||0.6637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|2.4||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||2.40|0.25|0.6637
90833057|NCT03192176|181536180|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53||||0.4921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|5.15||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||5.15|0.45|0.4921
90833058|NCT03192176|181536180|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|3.64||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||3.64|0.33|0.8910
90833059|NCT03192176|181536180|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.68||||0.5881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|2.78||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||2.78|0.16|0.5881
90833060|NCT03192176|181536180|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.11||||0.0523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|1.02||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||1.02|0.01|0.0523
90833061|NCT03192176|181536180|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6||||0.4646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|5.61||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||5.61|0.46|0.4646
90833062|NCT03192176|181536180|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.5806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|5.14||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||5.14|0.40|0.5806
90833063|NCT03192176|181536180|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|3.12||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||3.12|0.28|0.9220
90833064|NCT03192176|181536181|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.45||||0.1933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|42.25||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||42.25|0.47|0.1933
90833065|NCT03192176|181536181|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.61||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|50.44||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||50.44|0.62|0.1240
91025276|NCT01271933|181933820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.2009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.1||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||||1.1|-0.2|0.2009
90833066|NCT03192176|181536181|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.16||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.71|117.2||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||117.2|1.71|0.0140
91025277|NCT01271933|181933822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.1845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.3||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||||0.3|-1.6|0.1845
90833067|NCT03192176|181536181|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|17.5||||0.0075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.15|142.7||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||142.7|2.15|0.0075
90833068|NCT03192176|181536181|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.98||||0.5853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|22.96||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||22.96|0.17|0.5853
90833069|NCT03192176|181536181|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.0||||0.1596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|47.05||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||47.05|0.53|0.1596
90833070|NCT03192176|181536181|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.48||||0.0908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|56.51||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||56.51|0.74|0.0908
90833071|NCT03192176|181536181|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.97||||0.1318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|12.19||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||12.19|0.72|0.1318
90833072|NCT03192176|181536181|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.99||||0.0093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|23.04||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||23.04|1.56|0.0093
90833073|NCT03192176|181536181|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.13||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.69|38.22||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||38.22|2.69|0.0006
90894691|NCT02231177|181654711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|27.17|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.01|1.22|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale with fixed effect for treatment, period, sequence, centre and random effect for subject within sequence and centre.|The standard deviation is actually the geometric intra-individual coefficient of variation.|Comparison of Olodaterol (Tiotropium+Olodaterol 5/10 μg: Olodaterol 10 µg). No formal testing.||1.22|1.01|
90833074|NCT03192176|181536181|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|15.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.11|59.4||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||59.40|4.11|<0.0001
90894692|NCT02231177|181654712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.98|STANDARD_DEVIATION|20.43|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.06|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale with fixed effect for treatment, period, sequence, centre and random effect for subject within sequence and centre.|The standard deviation is actually the geometric intra-individual coefficient of variation.|Comparison of Tiotropium (Tiotropium+Olodaterol 5/10 μg: Tiotropium 5 µg). No formal testing.||1.06|0.91|
90833075|NCT03192176|181536181|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.53||||0.2054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|10.64||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||10.64|0.60|0.2054
90894693|NCT02231177|181654713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.85|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|1.13|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale with fixed effect for treatment, period, sequence, centre and random effect for subject within sequence and centre.|The standard deviation is actually the geometric intra-individual coefficient of variation.|Comparison of Olodaterol (Tiotropium+Olodaterol 5/10 μg: Olodaterol 10 µg). No formal testing.||1.13|0.98|
91025278|NCT01271933|181933825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.52||0.0305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9|1.0||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the domain: Sleep disturbance||1.0|-18.9|0.0305
91025279|NCT01271933|181933825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.17||0.3133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|15.5||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the domain: Snoring||15.5|-5.0|0.3133
91025280|NCT01271933|181933825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.71||0.2985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|3.5||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the domain: Awakening Short of Breath or with a Headache||3.5|-11.2|0.2985
91025281|NCT01271933|181933825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.49||0.2159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|17.7||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the domain: Sleep adequacy||17.7|-4.1|0.2159
91025282|NCT01271933|181933825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1||0.2041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|2.9||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the domain: Somnolence||2.9|-13.4|0.2041
91025283|NCT01271933|181933825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.81||0.1319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|1.8||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the domain: Sleep Problems Index I||1.8|-13.4|0.1319
91088708|NCT00810199|182059505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|6.75||||0.0694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|14.52|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region and categorical baseline DAS28 (≤ 5.5 and \> 5.5).||Week 52||14.52|-1.02|0.0694
91088709|NCT00810199|182059505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1695|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Week 104||||0.1695
90833076|NCT03192176|181536181|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.8||||0.1592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|11.72||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||11.72|0.67|0.1592
90833077|NCT03192176|181536181|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.31||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|24.07||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||24.07|1.66|0.0070
90833078|NCT03192176|181536181|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.39||||0.0392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|10.85||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||10.85|1.06|0.0392
90833079|NCT03192176|181536181|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.49||||0.0096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|13.96||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||13.96|1.44|0.0096
90833080|NCT03192176|181536181|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.28|31.16||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||31.16|3.28|<0.0001
90833081|NCT03192176|181536181|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.75|36.9||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||36.90|3.75|<0.0001
90833082|NCT03192176|181536181|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.11||||0.2217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|7.03||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||7.03|0.64|0.2217
90833083|NCT03192176|181536181|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.26||||0.0131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|13.38||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||13.38|1.36|0.0131
90833084|NCT03192176|181536181|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.39||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.76|16.46||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||16.46|1.76|0.0031
90833085|NCT03192176|181536181|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.15||||0.1485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|6.1||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||6.10|0.76|0.1485
90833086|NCT03192176|181536181|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.54||||0.0128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|9.56||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||9.56|1.31|0.0128
90894694|NCT02231177|181654714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.81|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|0.98|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale with fixed effect for treatment, period, sequence, centre and random effect for subject within sequence and centre.|The standard deviation is actually the geometric intra-individual coefficient of variation.|Comparison of Tiotropium (Tiotropium+Olodaterol 5/10 μg: Tiotropium 5 µg). No formal testing.||0.98|0.83|
91025284|NCT01271933|181933825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.89||0.1473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|2.0||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the domain: Sleep Problems Index II||2.0|-13.4|0.1473
91025285|NCT01271933|181933826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.3596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.6||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||||0.6|-0.2|0.3596
91025286|NCT01271933|181933828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.4985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.36||Nominal p-value for two-sided test.|two-sided test|||"Odds ratio is the probability of the event occurring in Pregabalin 330 - 495 mg/day relative to the event occurring in Placebo for Pregabalin.~Odds ratio \> 1 is in favor of Pregabalin 330 - 495 mg/day."||2.36|0.66|0.4985
91025287|NCT01271933|181933830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|6.8||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the domain: SF-36 Physical Functioning||6.8|-9.5|0.7400
91025288|NCT01271933|181933830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.89||0.5938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|12.3||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the domain: SF-36 Role-Physical||12.3|-7.1|0.5938
91025289|NCT01271933|181933830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.61||0.4842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|12.4||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the domain: SF-36 Pain Index||12.4|-5.9|0.4842
91025290|NCT01271933|181933830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.45||0.0827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|0.8||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the domain: SF-36 General Health Perceptions||0.8|-12.9|0.0827
90833087|NCT03192176|181536181|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.5||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.37|17.81||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||17.81|2.37|0.0003
90833088|NCT03192176|181536181|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.42||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.32|17.77||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||17.77|2.32|0.0003
90833089|NCT03192176|181536181|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.87||||0.2354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|5.26||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||5.26|0.67|0.2354
91025291|NCT01271933|181933830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.73||0.4561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.09|5.8||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the domain: SF-36 Vitality||5.8|-12.09|0.4561
91025292|NCT01271933|181933830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.31||0.9645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|8.4||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the domain: SF-36 Social Functioning||8.4|-8.8|0.9645
91025293|NCT01271933|181933830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.41||0.7636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|12.4||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the domain: SF-36 Role-Emotional||12.4|-9.1|0.7636
91025294|NCT01271933|181933830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.54||0.7067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|8.4||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the domain: SF-36 Mental Health Index||8.4|-5.7|0.7067
91025295|NCT01271933|181933830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.78||0.8352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|3.2||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the domain: Physical Component Score||3.2|-3.9|0.8352
91025296|NCT01271933|181933830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.22||0.9347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|4.6||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the domain: Mental Component Score||4.6|-4.2|0.9347
91025297|NCT01271933|181933832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.1901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|2.3||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||HADS-A Anxiety scale||2.3|-0.5|0.1901
91025298|NCT01271933|181933832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.6914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.0||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||HADS-D Depression scale||1.0|-1.6|0.6914
91025299|NCT01271933|181933834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.3721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.2||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the domain: Item 1: Physical activities||1.2|-0.5|0.3721
91025300|NCT01271933|181933834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.8084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.4||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the domain: Item 2: Feel good||1.4|-1.1|0.8084
91025301|NCT01271933|181933834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.6312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.5||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the domain: Item 3: Work missed||0.5|-0.9|0.6312
91025302|NCT01271933|181933834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.8824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.2||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the domain: Item 4: Do job||1.2|-1.0|0.8824
91025303|NCT01271933|181933834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.2742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.4||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the domain: Item 5: Pain||0.4|-1.5|0.2742
91025304|NCT01271933|181933834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.0||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the domain: Item 6: Fatigue||1.0|-0.8|0.8520
91025305|NCT01271933|181933834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.5264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.7||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the domain: Item 7: Rested||0.7|-1.4|0.5264
91025306|NCT01271933|181933834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.6601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.9||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the domain: Item 8: Stiffness||0.9|-1.3|0.6601
91025307|NCT01271933|181933834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.8937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.0||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the domain: Item 9: Anxiety||1.0|-1.2|0.8937
91025308|NCT01271933|181933834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.9151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.9||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the domain: Item 10: Depression||0.9|-1.0|0.9151
91088710|NCT00810199|182059506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-2.91||||0.0496||95.0|-5.86|0.05|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region and categorical baseline DAS28 (≤ 5.5 and \> 5.5).||||0.05|-5.86|0.0496
91088711|NCT00810199|182059507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-1.48||||0.5188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.59|3.62|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region and categorical baseline DAS28 (≤ 5.5 and \> 5.5).||||3.62|-6.59|0.5188
91088712|NCT00810199|182059508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2652|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24||||0.2652
91088713|NCT00810199|182059508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.197|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 52||||0.1970
91088714|NCT00810199|182059508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1671|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1671
91088715|NCT00810199|182059510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference (Wald CI)|5.22||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|11.64|||ANCOVA|The analysis of covariance model included treatment group, region and baseline DAS28 (≤ 5.5 and \> 5.5) as fixed factors.||||11.64|-1.20|0.1110
91088716|NCT00810199|182059511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference (Wald CI)|-2.11||||0.6027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.07|5.85|||ANCOVA|The analysis of covariance model included treatment group, region and baseline DAS28 (≤ 5.5 and \> 5.5) as fixed factors.||||5.85|-10.07|0.6027
91088717|NCT00810199|182059512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1695|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.1695
91088718|NCT00810199|182059513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0096|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0096
91088719|NCT00810199|182059514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0734|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0734
91088720|NCT00870467|182059521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90833090|NCT03192176|181536181|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.41||||0.0894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|6.65||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||6.65|0.87|0.0894
91088721|NCT00870467|182059522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91088722|NCT00870467|182059523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91088723|NCT00870467|182059524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91088724|NCT00870467|182059525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91088725|NCT00870467|182059526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
90833091|NCT03192176|181536181|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.23||||0.0201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|8.67||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||8.67|1.20|0.0201
91088726|NCT02493517|182059660|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is defined as 0.6 SDS for the upper limit of 95% CI of the LS mean difference of the log-transformed IGF-1 SDS without back-transformation.|Treatment difference|-0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.11||||||"The Least Square (LS) Means and 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) were based on the generalised linear model (GLM) with IGF-1 SDS change from baseline values as dependent variable, with treatment group and previous pituitary surgery as independent factors, and the baseline value of IGF-1 SDS as independent covariate. A log-transformation with base e was applied to the IGF-1 SDS data before analysing.~The treatment difference (lanreotide Autogel - lanreotide PR) is presented."||0.11|-0.74|
91088727|NCT02493517|182059660|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin for the back-transformed LS Mean ratio of IGF-1 SDS of lanreotide Autogel versus lanreotide PR is exp (0.6) = 1.822.|LS Mean ratio|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.11||||||"The LS Means and 95% CIs were based on the GLM with IGF-1 SDS change from baseline values as dependent variable, with treatment group and previous pituitary surgery as independent factors, and the baseline value of IGF-1 SDS as independent covariate. A log-transformation with base e was applied to the IGF-1 SDS data before analysing.~The LS Mean ratio (lanreotide Autogel versus lanreotide PR) is presented."||1.11|0.48|
91088728|NCT02493517|182059661|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|17.7||||||The risk difference (lanreotide Autogel - lanreotide PR) in the percentage of normal IGF-1 SDS values at EOST/EW Visit is presented.||17.7|-5.2|
91088729|NCT02493517|182059662|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|14.4||||||The risk difference (lanreotide Autogel - lanreotide PR) in the percentage of GH levels ≤2.5 mcg/L at EOST/EW Visit is presented.||14.4|-17.5|
91088730|NCT02493517|182059663|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|12.0||||||The risk difference (lanreotide Autogel - lanreotide PR) in the percentage of GH levels ≤1 mcg/L at EOST/EW Visit is presented.||12.0|-8.9|
91088731|NCT02493517|182059664|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|12.5||||||The risk difference (lanreotide Autogel - lanreotide PR) in the percentage subjects with normal IGF-1 levels and who have GH levels \>1 mcg/L and ≤2.5 mcg/L at EOST/EW Visit is presented.||12.5|-3.1|
91088732|NCT02493517|182059665|OTHER||Treatment difference|3.63|STANDARD_DEVIATION|21.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.98|11.25||||||Treatment difference (lanreotide Autogel - lanreotide PR) is presented.||11.25|-3.98|
91088733|NCT02493517|182059666|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.3|13.3||||||Risk difference (lanreotide Autogel - lanreotide PR) in the percentage of subjects with at least 20% reduction in the solid component of tumour volume compared to Baseline is presented.||13.3|-24.3|
90833092|NCT03192176|181536181|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1||||0.1614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|5.94||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||5.94|0.74|0.1614
91088734|NCT03718429|182059671|SUPERIORITY|In line with recommendations for pilot investigations, since there were no preliminary data exploring the pharmacodynamic effects of vascular dose rivaroxaban in addition to antiplatelet therapy, we arbitrarily chose a sample size of 20 patients per treatment cohort.||||||0.275|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.275
91088735|NCT03718429|182059672|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.488|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.488
91088736|NCT03718429|182059673|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91088737|NCT05404711|182059676|OTHER||AUC|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.94|||||Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was 0.56 (95% CI 0.18-0.94) for 2-hour postprandial glucose.|||0.94|0.18|
91088738|NCT05404711|182059677|OTHER||AUC|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.94|||||Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was 0.56 (95% CI 0.18-0.94) for 2-hour postprandial glucose.|||0.94|0.18|
91088739|NCT05404711|182059678|OTHER||AUC|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.94|||||Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was 0.56 (95% CI 0.18-0.94) for 2-hour postprandial glucose.|||0.94|0.18|
91088740|NCT05404711|182059679|OTHER||AUC|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.94|||||Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was 0.56 (95% CI 0.18-0.94) for 2-hour postprandial glucose.|||0.94|0.18|
91088741|NCT05404711|182059680|OTHER||AUC|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was 1.00 (based on 100% sensitivity) for elevated fasting glucose.|||||
91088742|NCT05404711|182059681|OTHER||AUC|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was 1.00 (based on 100% sensitivity) for elevated fasting glucose.|||||
91088743|NCT05404711|182059682|OTHER||AUC|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was 1.00 (based on 100% sensitivity) for elevated fasting glucose.|||||
91088744|NCT05404711|182059683|OTHER||AUC|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was 1.00 (based on 100% sensitivity) for elevated fasting glucose.|||||
91088745|NCT05404711|182059684|OTHER|Spearman correlation analysis|Spearman correlation rho|0.18||||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman correlation|||Correlation analyses were performed to assess the relationship between home-OGTT fasting glucose and HbA1c.||||0.3
90833093|NCT03192176|181536181|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.57||||0.0123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|9.66||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||9.66|1.32|0.0123
91088746|NCT05404711|182059684|OTHER|Spearman correlation analysis|Spearman correlation rho|0.5||||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman correlation|||Correlation analyses were performed to assess the relationship between home-OGTT 2-hour glucose and HbA1c.||||0.005
91088747|NCT05404711|182059684|OTHER|Spearman correlation analysis|Spearman correlation rho|0.46||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman correlation|||Correlation analyses were performed to assess the relationship between delta (difference between fasting and postprandial) home-OGTT glucose and HbA1c.||||0.01
90833094|NCT03192176|181536181|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.08||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.17|17.03||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||17.03|2.17|0.0006
91088748|NCT05404711|182059684|OTHER|Spearman correlation analysis|Spearman correlation rho|0.23||||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman correlation|||Correlation analyses were performed to assess the relationship between home-OGTT peak glucose and HbA1c.||||0.2
91088749|NCT05404711|182059684|OTHER|Spearman correlation analysis|Spearman correlation rho|0.14||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman correlation|||Correlation analyses were performed to assess the relationship between time of home-OGTT peak glucose and HbA1c.||||0.5
90833095|NCT03192176|181536181|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|28.36||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||28.36|3.40|<0.0001
90833096|NCT03192176|181536181|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.08||||0.1609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|5.81||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||5.81|0.75|0.1609
91088750|NCT05404711|182059684|OTHER|Spearman correlation analysis|Spearman correlation rho|0.29||||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman correlation|||Correlation analyses were performed to assess the relationship between CGM mean glucose (mg/dL) and HbA1c.||||0.1
91088751|NCT05404711|182059684|OTHER|Spearman correlation analysis|Spearman correlation rho|-0.15||||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman correlation|||Correlation analyses were performed to assess the relationship between CGM correlation of variability (CV) and HbA1c.||||0.4
91088752|NCT05404711|182059684|OTHER|Spearman correlation analysis|Spearman correlation rho|-0.06||||0.7|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman correlation|||Correlation analyses were performed to assess the relationship between CGM standard deviation and HbA1c.||||0.7
91088753|NCT05404711|182059685|OTHER|Spearman correlation analysis|Spearman correlation rho|0.25||||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman correlation|||Correlation analyses were performed to assess the relationship between home-OGTT fasting glucose and laboratory-OGTT fasting glucose.||||0.2
91088754|NCT05404711|182059685|OTHER|Spearman correlation analysis|Spearman correlation rho|0.19||||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman correlation|||Correlation analyses were performed to assess the relationship between home-OGTT 2-hour glucose and lab-OGTT fasting glucose.||||0.3
91088755|NCT05404711|182059685|OTHER|Spearman correlation analysis|Spearman correlation rho|-0.1||||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman correlation|||Correlation analyses were performed to assess the relationship between delta (difference between fasting and postprandial) home-OGTT and lab-OGTT fasting glucose.||||0.6
91088756|NCT05404711|182059685|OTHER|Spearman correlation analysis|Spearman correlation rho|0.19||||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman correlation|||Correlation analyses were performed to assess the relationship between home-OGTT peak glucose and lab-OGTT fasting glucose.||||0.3
91088757|NCT05404711|182059685|OTHER|Spearman correlation analysis|Spearman correlation rho|0.09||||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman correlation|||Correlation analyses were performed to assess the relationship between time of home-OGTT peak glucose and lab-OGTT fasting glucose.||||0.6
91088758|NCT05404711|182059685|OTHER|Spearman correlation analysis|Spearman correlation rho|0.35||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman correlation|||Correlation analyses were performed to assess the relationship between CGM mean glucose and lab-OGTT fasting glucose.||||0.05
91088759|NCT05404711|182059685|OTHER|Spearman correlation analysis|Spearman correlation rho|-0.18||||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman correlation|||Correlation analyses were performed to assess the relationship between CGM coefficient of variability (CV) and lab-OGTT fasting glucose.||||0.3
91088760|NCT05404711|182059685|OTHER|Spearman correlation analysis|Spearman correlation rho|-0.07||||0.7|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman correlation|||Correlation analyses were performed to assess the relationship between CGM standard deviation (SD) and lab-OGTT fasting glucose.||||0.7
91088761|NCT05404711|182059686|OTHER|Spearman correlation analysis|Spearman correlation rho|0.1||||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman correlation|||Correlation analyses were performed to assess the relationship between home-OGTT fasting glucose and lab-OGTT 2-hour glucose.||||0.6
90833097|NCT03192176|181536181|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.42||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|6.79||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||6.79|0.86|0.0930
91025309|NCT01271933|181933834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.91||0.9045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|7.3||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the total score||7.3|-8.2|0.9045
91025310|NCT01271933|181933836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.4606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.9||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the domain: General Fatigue||0.9|-0.4|0.4606
91025311|NCT01271933|181933836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.4703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.5||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the domain: Physical Fatigue||0.5|-1.0|0.4703
91025312|NCT01271933|181933836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.4009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.0||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the domain: Reduced activity||1.0|-0.4|0.4009
91025313|NCT01271933|181933836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.0695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.3||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the domain: Reduced motivation||1.3|-0.1|0.0695
91025314|NCT01271933|181933836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.5869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.4||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the domain: Mental fatigue||0.4|-0.7|0.5869
91025315|NCT01271933|181933838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.29||||0.0296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|4.81||Nominal p-value for two-sided test.|two-sided test|||This analysis is for the domain: Benefit from treatment||4.81|1.09|0.0296
91025316|NCT01271933|181933838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.4691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|2.61||Nominal p-value for two-sided test|two-sided test|||This analysis is for the domain: Satisfaction from treatment||2.61|0.64|0.4691
91025317|NCT01271933|181933838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.9577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|2.01||Nominal p-value for two-sided test|two-sided test|||This analysis is for the domain: Willingness to continue treatment||2.01|0.48|0.9577
91025318|NCT01271933|181933840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.85||0.0562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|39.2||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the domain: Percent Work Time Missed||39.2|-0.5|0.0562
91025319|NCT01271933|181933840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.96||0.7892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|9.2||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the domain: Percent Impairment While Working||9.2|-7.0|0.7892
91025320|NCT01271933|181933840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.82||0.0819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|6.8||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the domain: Percent Activity Impairment||6.8|-0.4|0.0819
91025321|NCT01271933|181933840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91||0.4135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|5.4||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the domain: Percent Overall Work Impairment||5.4|-2.2|0.4135
91025322|NCT01271933|181933851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.1224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.9||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||||0.9|-0.1|0.1224
91025323|NCT01271933|181933852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.06||0.768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|6.9||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||||6.9|-9.3|0.7680
91025324|NCT01271933|181933853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|0.6||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||||0.6|-4.5|0.1360
91025325|NCT01271933|181933854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6489.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12579.5||0.6077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18648.6|31627.6||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the domain: Total daytime activity||31627.6|-18648.6|0.6077
91025326|NCT01271933|181933855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38||0.6647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|3.4||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||||3.4|-2.2|0.6647
91025327|NCT00617461|181933885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference versus placebo|-0.29||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.48|-0.1|||ANCOVA|An ANCOVA (repeated measures mixed model) with body mass index, baseline 24-hr average pain intensity, and grouped center as covariates was used.||||-0.10|-0.48|0.013
91025328|NCT00591253|181933926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.97|-2.04||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons controlled using closed testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||-2.04|-7.97|0.001
91025329|NCT00591253|181933926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.69|-4.86||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons controlled using closed testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||-4.86|-10.69|<0.001
91088762|NCT05404711|182059686|OTHER|Spearman correlation analysis|Spearman correlation rho|0.31||||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman correlation|||Correlation analyses were performed to assess the relationship between home-OGTT 2-hour glucose and lab-OGTT 2-hour glucose.||||0.1
91088763|NCT05404711|182059686|OTHER|Spearman correlation analysis|Spearman correlation rho|0.25||||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman correlation|||Correlation analyses were performed to assess the relationship between delta (difference between fasting and postprandial) home-OGTT glucose and lab-OGTT 2-hour glucose.||||0.2
91088764|NCT05404711|182059686|OTHER|Spearman correlation analysis|Spearman correlation rho|0.26||||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman correlation|||Correlation analyses were performed to assess the relationship between home-OGTT peak glucose and lab-OGTT 2-hour glucose.||||0.2
91088765|NCT05404711|182059686|OTHER|Spearman correlation analysis|Spearman correlation rho|0.27||||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman correlation|||Correlation analyses were performed to assess the relationship between time of home-OGTT peak glucose and lab-OGTT 2-hour glucose.||||0.2
91088766|NCT05404711|182059686|OTHER|Spearman correlation analysis|Spearman correlation rho|0.31||||0.08|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman correlation|||Correlation analyses were performed to assess the relationship between CGM mean glucose and lab-OGTT 2-hour glucose.||||0.08
91088767|NCT05404711|182059686|OTHER|Spearman correlation analysis|Spearman correlation rho|0.15||||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman correlation|||Correlation analyses were performed to assess the relationship between CGM coefficient of variability (CV) and lab-OGTT 2-hour glucose.||||0.4
91088768|NCT05404711|182059686|OTHER|Spearman correlation analysis|Spearman correlation rho|0.28||||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman correlation|||Correlation analyses were performed to assess the relationship between CGM standard deviation (SD) and lab-OGTT 2-hour glucose.||||0.1
91088769|NCT00325819|182059687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.66||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.01|||unadjusted Poisson regression|||The study sample size of 1000 children was selected to have 80% power to detect a 30% reduction in risk of the primary outcome of rectal temperature \>=38 following vaccination. In 2009, during the enrollment period of our trial, another paper reported the results of a randomized trial of acetaminophen prophylaxis in infants which found significantly lower immune responses to various vaccines in the acetaminophen group. In light of thse findings we elected to stop enrollment in our trial.||1.01|0.41|0.053
91088770|NCT00325819|182059688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.0||||0.08||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.08
91088771|NCT00325819|182059689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.31||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.84|||unadjusted Poisson regression|||||0.84|0.12|0.02
91088772|NCT00325819|182059690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.45||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.28|||unadjusted Poisson regression|||||1.28|0.16|0.14
90894695|NCT02231177|181654715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.96|STANDARD_DEVIATION|29.92|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|1.07|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale with fixed effect for treatment, period, sequence, centre and random effect for subject within sequence and centre.|The standard deviation is actually the geometric intra-individual coefficient of variation.|Comparison of Tiotropium (Tiotropium+Olodaterol 5/10 μg : Tiotropium 5 µg). No formal testing.||1.07|0.87|
91088773|NCT00325819|182059691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.4||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.7|||unadjusted Poisson regression|||||0.70|0.25|0.001
91088774|NCT00325819|182059692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.62||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.88|||unadjusted Poisson regression|||||1.88|0.21|0.40
91088775|NCT00325819|182059693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|3.94|||unadjusted Poisson regression|||||3.94|0.25|1.00
91088776|NCT00325819|182059694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.94||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|14.34|||unadjusted Poisson regression|||||14.34|0.60|0.18
91088777|NCT03430856|182059741|NON_INFERIORITY|Change from baseline in HbA1c at 24 weeks of treatment, was analyzed using mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) where all available post-baseline HbA1c measurements obtained up to Week 24 was entered as the dependent variables; visit and treatment were included as fixed factors, with Baseline HbA1c and stratification factor variables as covariates. Furthermore, the interaction terms of visit by treatment, visit by stratification factors and visit by Baseline HbA1c were included in the model.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.502|1.47|||||Insulin Tregopil 45 mg - Insulin Aspart|||1.470|0.502|
91088778|NCT03430856|182059741|NON_INFERIORITY|Non inferiority margin is 0.4%|Mean Difference (Net)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.414|1.37|||||Insulin Tregopil 30mg - Insulin Aspart|||1.370|0.414|
91088779|NCT01228591|182059778|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is assessed with a margin of -0.05logMAR.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0059|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0044|0.0187|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is defined by: Test lens (Acuvue Advance Plus) - control lens (Acuvue Advance)|"For Low Luminance/ High Contrast grouping (Monocular):~Ho: The test lens (Acuvue Advance Plus) will be non-inferior to the control lens (Acuvue Advance).~Ha: The test lens (Acuvue Advance Plus) will be \<= to the control lens (Acuvue Advance)."||0.0187|-0.0044|
91088780|NCT01228591|182059778|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is assessed with a margin of -0.05 logMAR.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0059|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0086|0.0146|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is defined by: Test lens (Acuvue Advance Plus) - control lens (Acuvue Advance)|"High Luminance/ Low Contrast grouping (Binocular):~Ho: The test lens (Acuvue Advance Plus) will be non-inferior to the control lens (Acuvue Advance).~Ha: The test lens (Acuvue Advance Plus) will be \<= to the control lens (Acuvue Advance)."||0.0146|-0.0086|
91088781|NCT01228591|182059779|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is assessed with a margin of -0.05 logMAR.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0061|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0041|0.0282|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference represents: Test lens (Advance Plus) - Control lens (Advance).|"For Low Luminance/ High Contrast Grouping (Monocular):~Ho: The test lens (Advance Plus) will be non-inferior to the control lens (Advance).~Ha: The test lens (Advance Plus) will be \<= to the control lens (Advance)."||0.0282|0.0041|
91088782|NCT01228591|182059779|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is assessed with a margin of -0.05 logMAR.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.006|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.009|0.3305|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean Difference is defined to be: test lens (Advance Plus) - control lens (Advance).|"For High Luminance/ Low Contrast Grouping (Binocular):~Ho: The test lens (Advance Plus) will be non-inferior from the control lens (Advance).~Ha: The test lens (Advance Plus) will be \<= to the control lens (Advance)."||0.3305|0.0090|
90833098|NCT03192176|181536181|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.02||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|10.91||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||10.91|1.48|0.0063
90833099|NCT03192176|181536181|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76||||0.2621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|4.74||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||4.74|0.65|0.2621
90833100|NCT03192176|181536181|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.55||||0.0092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|9.21||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||9.21|1.37|0.0092
90833101|NCT03192176|181536181|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.69||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.09|15.48||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||15.48|2.09|0.0007
90833102|NCT03192176|181536181|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.08|25.43||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||25.43|3.08|<0.0001
90833103|NCT03192176|181536181|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.4259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|4.08||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||4.08|0.55|0.4259
90833104|NCT03192176|181536181|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.13||||0.1334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|5.74||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||5.74|0.79|0.1334
91025330|NCT00591253|181933927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.18|-2.78||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons controlled using closed testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||-2.78|-10.18|<0.001
91025331|NCT00591253|181933927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.27|-2.81||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons controlled using closed testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||-2.81|-10.27|<0.001
91025332|NCT00591253|181933928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.44||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.47|-1.4||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.40|-5.47|0.001
91025333|NCT00591253|181933928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.78|-3.77||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-3.77|-7.78|<0.001
91025334|NCT00591253|181933929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.12||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.22|-1.02||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.02|-5.22|0.004
91025335|NCT00591253|181933929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.96||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.08|-0.84||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.84|-5.08|0.006
91025336|NCT00591253|181933930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.09||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.14|-2.04||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-2.04|-8.14|0.001
90833105|NCT03192176|181536181|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.39||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|8.77||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||8.77|1.31|0.0120
90833106|NCT03192176|181536181|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.84||||0.2443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|5.1||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||5.10|0.66|0.2443
91025337|NCT00591253|181933930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.96|-4.97||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-4.97|-10.96|<0.001
91025338|NCT00591253|181933931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.86|-1.61||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.61|-5.86|<0.001
91025339|NCT00591253|181933931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.99|-3.81||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-3.81|-7.99|<0.001
91025340|NCT00591253|181933932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.91||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.54|-1.27||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.27|-8.54|0.008
91025341|NCT00591253|181933932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.85|-3.69||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-3.69|-10.85|<0.001
91088783|NCT02371616|182059798|NON_INFERIORITY|Inferences: upper end of the 2-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference for the estimated effect of Test relative to Comparator, for success, should be \<=6mm. (i.e., Test is no more than 6mm inferior to Comparator).|Least square (LS) mean difference|2.67||||0.2678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|7.4||From ANCOVA model: change from baseline as the response variable, treatment group, baseline Schiff stratum and study site as fixed effects, with baseline VAS score as covariate.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named dentifrice such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|Statistical analysis applies to change from baseline at week 8 for test and comparator dentifrice.||7.40|-2.06|0.2678
91088784|NCT03205150|182059806|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.35||0.075|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-22.8|-3.78|||ANCOVA|||||-3.78|-22.80|0.075
91088785|NCT03205150|182059806|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-21.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.49||0.005|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-31.33|-11.94|||ANCOVA|||||-11.94|-31.33|0.005
91088786|NCT03205150|182059806|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|8.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.14||0.178|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.41|16.29|||ANCOVA|||||16.29|0.41|0.178
91088787|NCT03205150|182059807|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45||0.235|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.6|0.14|||ANCOVA|||||0.14|-3.60|0.235
91088788|NCT03205150|182059807|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.46||0.004|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.14|-2.37|||ANCOVA|||||-2.37|-6.14|0.004
91088789|NCT03205150|182059807|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.19||0.037|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.98|4.07|||ANCOVA|||||4.07|0.98|0.037
91088790|NCT03205150|182059808|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.22|-2.08|||ANCOVA|||||-2.08|-4.22|<.001
91088791|NCT03205150|182059808|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.28|-3.08|||ANCOVA|||||-3.08|-5.28|<.001
91088792|NCT03205150|182059808|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.148|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.12|1.94|||ANCOVA|||||1.94|0.12|0.148
91088793|NCT03205150|182059816|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.36||0.013|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-16.79|-5.5|||ANCOVA|||||-5.50|-16.79|0.013
91088794|NCT03205150|182059816|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.43||0.001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-20.43|-8.98|||ANCOVA|||||-8.98|-20.43|0.001
91088795|NCT03205150|182059816|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.65||0.332|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.15|8.28|||ANCOVA|||||8.28|-1.15|0.332
91088796|NCT01095835|182059817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.08
91088797|NCT03028142|182059828|OTHER||LS Means ratio|1.05||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.09|||ANCOVA|||||1.09|1.02|0.0022
90833107|NCT03192176|181536181|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.6||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.73|12.25||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||12.25|1.73|0.0022
90833108|NCT03192176|181536181|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.6||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.35|18.58||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||18.58|2.35|0.0004
91088798|NCT03028142|182059828|OTHER||LS Means ratio|1.09|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.12|||ANCOVA|||||1.12|1.05|<0.0001
90833109|NCT03192176|181536181|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.05|36.63||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||36.63|4.05|<0.0001
91088799|NCT03028142|182059829|OTHER||LS Means ratio|1.03||||0.0988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.06|||ANCOVA|||||1.06|0.99|0.0988
91088800|NCT03028142|182059829|OTHER||LS Means ratio|1.06||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.09|||ANCOVA|||||1.09|1.02|0.0009
91088801|NCT03028142|182059830|OTHER||LS Means ratio|1.02||||0.2496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.06|||ANCOVA|||||1.06|0.98|0.2496
91088802|NCT03028142|182059830|OTHER||LS Means ratio|1.06||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.1|||ANCOVA|||||1.1|1.02|0.0039
91088803|NCT03028142|182059831|OTHER||LS Means ratio|1.03||||0.1404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.06|||ANCOVA|||||1.06|0.99|0.1404
91088804|NCT03028142|182059831|OTHER||LS Means ratio|1.04||||0.0228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.08|||ANCOVA|||||1.08|1.01|0.0228
91088805|NCT01298700|182059878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.7||||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|1.9||P-value was stratified by baseline prostaglandin analogue (PGA) treatment(yes/no) and by baseline active ocular surface finding (present/absent).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||bimatoprost 0.01% ophthalmic solution - bimatoprost 0.03% ophthalmic solution|||1.9|-11|0.148
91088806|NCT00129441|182059880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.16
91088807|NCT00129441|182059881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.162||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.162
91088808|NCT00129441|182059882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.12
91088809|NCT00129441|182059883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.05
91088810|NCT00129441|182059884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.249||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.249
91088811|NCT00129441|182059885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||At week 4, mean BPRS total scores were nearly the same for the placebo group and L-830982 group as a result of a significant reduction in positive symptoms reported for the placebo group (F=9.12, df=1,13, p=0.01). For the L-830982-treated group, neither total BPRS scores nor any of the factor scores changed over the course of the trial.||||0.01
91088812|NCT00129441|182059886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91088813|NCT00129441|182059887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91088814|NCT04006145|182059888|SUPERIORITY||LS-Means Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.184||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline in serum LDL-C at Week 16 was analyzed using ANCOVA after the missing data imputation, with treatment group as a factor, baseline serum LDL-C, baseline LDL-C-by-treatment interaction values, and baseline lipid-lowering medications (Yes or No) as covariates. Missing data for serum LDL-C was imputed through multiple imputation method as described in the statistical analysis plan (SAP).||-0.04|-0.76|0.029
90833110|NCT03192176|181536181|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.3101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|4.71||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||4.71|0.61|0.3101
90833111|NCT03192176|181536181|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.65||||0.0116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|10.0||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||10.00|1.34|0.0116
90833112|NCT03192176|181536181|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.15||||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|11.05||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||11.05|1.56|0.0045
90833113|NCT03192176|181536181|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.3505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|3.88||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||3.88|0.62|0.3505
91025342|NCT00591253|181933933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.05||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.69|-0.4||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.40|-5.69|0.024
91025343|NCT00591253|181933933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.39|-3.19||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-3.19|-8.39|<0.001
91025344|NCT00591253|181933934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.3||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.52|-2.08||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-2.08|-8.52|0.001
91025345|NCT00591253|181933934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.88|-4.55||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-4.55|-10.88|<0.001
91025346|NCT00591253|181933935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.81||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.08|-1.54||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.54|-6.08|0.001
91025347|NCT00591253|181933935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.88|-3.41||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-3.41|-7.88|<0.001
91025348|NCT00591253|181933936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.86||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.72|-1.01||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.01|-8.72|0.014
91025349|NCT00591253|181933936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|-4.92||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-4.92|-12.50|<0.001
91025350|NCT00591253|181933937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.04||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.17|-0.91||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.91|-7.17|0.012
91025351|NCT00591253|181933937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.63|-4.48||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-4.48|-10.63|<0.001
91025352|NCT00591253|181933938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.15||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|3.65||P-value for response criteria for systolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||3.65|1.27|0.004
91025353|NCT00591253|181933938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.93||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|3.31||P-value for response criteria for systolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||3.31|1.13|0.016
91025354|NCT00591253|181933939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.85||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|3.08||P-value for response criteria for diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic diastolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||3.08|1.11|0.018
91025355|NCT00591253|181933939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.89||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|3.16||P-value for response criteria for diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic diastolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||3.16|1.13|0.015
91025356|NCT00591253|181933940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.35||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|4.24||P-value for joint response criteria for systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||4.24|1.31|0.004
91025357|NCT00591253|181933940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|5.13||P-value for joint response criteria for systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||5.13|1.57|<0.001
91025358|NCT00252187|181933941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Change in end systolic LV volume index compared between two groups||||0.004
91025359|NCT00252187|181933941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Change in LV end diastolic volume was compared between two groups||||0.001
91025360|NCT00252187|181933942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.001
91088815|NCT01001429|182059889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.04
91088816|NCT01001429|182059889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||UMSS scores with subjects propofol vs. Dexmetomidine group||||0.68
90833114|NCT03192176|181536181|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.28||||0.0739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|5.62||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||5.62|0.92|0.0739
90833115|NCT03192176|181536181|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.19||||0.0163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|8.2||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||8.20|1.24|0.0163
91025361|NCT00252187|181933944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.14
91025362|NCT00252187|181933945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.006
91025363|NCT03764059|181933949|NON_INFERIORITY|The test for non-inferiority is based on a 95% CI of the difference between the investigational and control groups with respect to the rate of clinically acceptable restorations at 1-year post placement. The non-inferiority margin was 7%. To establish non-inferiority the lower limit has to be \> -7%|Risk Difference (RD)|4.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||9.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||9.2|- 0.6|< 0.0001
91025364|NCT00947765|181933981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91025365|NCT00947765|181933982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91025366|NCT00947765|181933983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0022||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0022
91025367|NCT00947765|181933984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.003
91025368|NCT00947765|181933985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0127||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0127
91025369|NCT00947765|181933986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0184||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0184
91025370|NCT00947765|181933987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0058||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0058
91025371|NCT00947765|181933988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0064||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0064
91025372|NCT00566709|181933989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
91025373|NCT00566709|181933990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.07
91025374|NCT00566709|181933991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.56|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.56
91025375|NCT00566709|181933992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.79
91025376|NCT00566709|181933993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.77
91025377|NCT00566709|181933994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.22
91025378|NCT03443869|181933995|NON_INFERIORITY|LET was concluded non-inferior to VGCV if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for difference in percentage of participants with adjudicated CMV disease (LET - VGCV) was no higher than 10%|Stratum-adjusted Treatment Difference|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|3.8|||||Difference = LET minus VGCV|The Observed failure (OF) approach was used to handle missing values, that is participants who had discontinued prematurely from the study for any reason were not considered failures||3.8|-6.5|
91025379|NCT03443869|181933996|OTHER||Stratum-adjusted Treatment Difference|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|0.1|||||Difference = LET minus VGCV|The Observed failure (OF) approach was used to handle missing values, that is participants who had discontinued prematurely from the study for any reason were not considered failures||0.1|-3.4|
91025380|NCT03443869|181933998|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|4.2|||||Difference = LET minus VGCV|||4.2|-4.4|
91025381|NCT03443869|181933999|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|-0.9|||||Difference = LET minus VGCV|||-0.9|-7.0|
91025382|NCT01360632|181934021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.19||||0.0925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.58|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||The primary analysis was performed on the Efficacy Sample by fitting a Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis with an unstructured variance covariance structure in which the change from the end of Phase A (Week 8) in MADRS Total Score (at Weeks 9 to 14) was the dependent variable. The model included fixed class effect terms for treatment, trial site, visit week, and an interaction term of treatment by visit week.||0.2|-2.58|0.0925
91025383|NCT01360632|181934021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.52||||0.0327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.92|-0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||The primary analysis was performed on the Efficacy Sample by fitting a MMRM analysis with an unstructured variance covariance structure in which the change from the end of Phase A (Week 8) in MADRS Total Score (at Weeks 9 to 14) was the dependent variable. The model included fixed class effect terms for treatment, trial site, visit week, and an interaction term of treatment by visit week.||-0.13|-2.92|0.0327
91025384|NCT01360632|181934022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.0737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.73|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3.||0.13|-2.73|0.0737
91025385|NCT01360632|181934022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.95||||0.0079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.39|-0.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3.||-0.51|-3.39|0.0079
91025386|NCT01360632|181934023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.06||||0.0096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|-0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis at Week 9. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B.||-0.26|-1.86|0.0096
91088817|NCT02812186|182059912|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.01
91088818|NCT02812186|182059913|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.28
91088819|NCT02812186|182059914|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.63
91088820|NCT00643760|182059924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference versus placebo|-0.35||||0.295||95.0|-1.02|0.31||This p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity using a combination of a sequential method and the Hochberg procedure in order to maintain the overall experiment-wise alpha level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with body mass index (BMI), baseline 24-hour average pain intensity, and grouped center as covariates was used.||||0.31|-1.02|0.295
91088821|NCT00643760|182059924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference versus placebo|-0.02||||0.946||95.0|-0.71|0.66||This p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity using a combination of a sequential method and the Hochberg procedure in order to maintain the overall experiment-wise alpha level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|An ANCOVA model with BMI, baseline 24-hour average pain intensity, and grouped center as covariates was used.||||0.66|-0.71|0.946
91088822|NCT00643760|182059924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference versus placebo|-0.55||||0.105||95.0|-1.1|0.01||This p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity using a combination of a sequential method and the Hochberg procedure in order to maintain the overall experiment-wise alpha level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|An ANCOVA model with BMI, baseline 24-hour average pain intensity, and grouped center as covariates was used.||||0.01|-1.10|0.105
91088823|NCT00643760|182059924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference versus placebo|0.43||||||95.0|-0.22|1.08||||||||1.08|-0.22|
91088824|NCT00789321|182059949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-11.7||||0.001||90.0|-18.1|-5.4|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline in systolic blood pressure included as covariate||||-5.4|-18.1|0.001
91088825|NCT00789321|182059950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|39.0||||0.001||95.0|17.9|60.1|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline in systolic blood pressure included as covariate||||60.1|17.9|0.001
91025387|NCT01360632|181934023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33||||0.4137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|0.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis at Week 9. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B.||0.47|-1.14|0.4137
91025388|NCT01360632|181934023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.44||||0.0065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.47|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate||Statistical analysis at Week 10. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B.||-0.4|-2.47|0.0065
91025389|NCT01360632|181934023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.89||||0.0914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis at Week 10. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B.||0.14|-1.93|0.0914
91088826|NCT00104052|182059951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Normal approximation to the binomial|0.654||||||95.0|0.564|0.744||||||||0.744|0.564|
91088827|NCT01294423|182059959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0853|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.18||significant at alpha=0.027 (2-sided) applying Dunnett's adjustment. A hierarchical closed testing procedure was used to control the Type I error rate across the primary and key secondary endpoints.|ANCOVA|with treatment group (all treatment groups included) and gender as effect and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0 (with alpha = 0.027 applying Dunnett's adjustment, two-sided)||-0.18|-0.52|<0.0001
91088828|NCT01294423|182059959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0851|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.23||significant at alpha=0.027 (2-sided) applying Dunnett's adjustment. A hierarchical closed testing procedure was used to control the Type I error rate across the primary and key secondary endpoints.|ANCOVA|with treatment group (all treatment groups included) and gender as effect and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0 (with alpha = 0.027 applying Dunnett's adjustment, two-sided)||-0.23|-0.56|<0.0001
91088829|NCT01294423|182059960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.902|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.1|-8.7||significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure within treatment group.|ANCOVA|with treatment group (all treatment groups included) and stratum (HbA1c at randomization by gender) as effect and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-8.7|-20.1|<0.0001
91088830|NCT01294423|182059960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.892|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.2|-13.8||significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure within treatment group.|ANCOVA|with treatment group (all treatment groups included) and stratum (HbA1c at randomization by gender) as effect and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-13.8|-25.2|<0.0001
91088831|NCT01294423|182059961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3533||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|-0.59||significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure within treatment group.|ANCOVA|with treatment group (all treatment groups included) and stratum (HbA1c at randomization by gender) as effect and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-0.59|-1.98|0.0003
90833116|NCT03192176|181536181|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.49||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.81|25.64||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||25.64|2.81|0.0001
91025390|NCT01360632|181934023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.39||||0.0139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis at Week 11. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B.||-0.28|-2.5|0.0139
91025391|NCT01360632|181934023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71||||0.2097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis at Week 11. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B.||0.4|-1.82|0.2097
91025392|NCT01360632|181934023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.56||||0.0099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.75|-0.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis at Week 12. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B.||-0.38|-2.75|0.0099
91025393|NCT01360632|181934023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.29||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis at Week 12. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B.||-0.1|-2.48|0.034
91025394|NCT01360632|181934023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.53||||0.0177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis at Week 13. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B.||-0.27|-2.8|0.0177
91025395|NCT01360632|181934023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.71||||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.98|-0.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis at Week 13. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B.||-0.44|-2.98|0.0085
91025396|NCT01360632|181934024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.92||||0.0286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 9. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3.||-0.1|-1.74|0.0286
91025397|NCT01360632|181934024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42||||0.3173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 9. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3.||0.4|-1.24|0.3173
91025398|NCT01360632|181934024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.17||||0.0313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|-0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 10. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3.||-0.11|-2.23|0.0313
91025399|NCT01360632|181934024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.97||||0.0732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 10. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3.||0.09|-2.04|0.0732
91025400|NCT01360632|181934024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.36||||0.0206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|-0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 11. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3.||-0.21|-2.51|0.0206
91025401|NCT01360632|181934024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.91||||0.1233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 11. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3.||0.25|-2.06|0.1233
91088832|NCT01294423|182059961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.354||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.08|-0.69||significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure within treatment group.|ANCOVA|with treatment group (all treatment groups included) and stratum (HbA1c at randomization by gender) as effect and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-0.69|-2.08|0.0001
91088833|NCT02026141|182059968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
91088834|NCT01248455|182059979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.56|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||No patients obtained a 50% reduction in M-protein concentration and the study did not continue to the second stage of enrollment due to the lack of efficacy as defined by out criteria. This statistical analysis includes all participants (i.e., stable disease (SD), minimal response (MR), biochemical progression (BP), and progressive disease (PD)).||||0.56
91088835|NCT00917124|182059998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||"Hypothesis: intraoperative monitoring of cerebral oxigenation with INVOS system will improve cognitive outcome of patients undergoing CABG procedure.~Sample size was determined assuming 50% incidence of cognitive impairment after cardiac surgery and possibility of decreasing that incidence to 30% using cerebral oximetry. Based on 0.8 power to detect a significant difference (p=0.05), 90 patients were required for each study group."||||0.002
91088836|NCT02937623|182060080|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.44|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.591|-0.297|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: change from baseline in Schiff sensitivity score as response and treatment as factors and baseline Schiff sensitivity score as covariate|Difference is first named dentifrice minus second named dentifrice such that a negative difference favours first named dentifrice.|||-0.297|-0.591|<.0001
91088837|NCT03675360|182060084|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.23|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|-0.14|||linear mixed effects model|||||-0.14|-0.32|<0.05
91088838|NCT03675360|182060085|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.3|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.6|-4.9|||linear mixed effects model|||||-4.9|-15.6|<0.05
90894696|NCT02231177|181654716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|21.33|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|1.12|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale with fixed effect for treatment, period, sequence, centre and random effect for subject within sequence and centre.|The standard deviation is actually the geometric intra-individual coefficient of variation.|Comparison of Olodaterol (Tiotropium+Olodaterol 5/10 μg : Olodaterol 10 µg). No formal testing.||1.12|0.93|
91088839|NCT03675360|182060086|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.2|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|0.9|||linear mixed effects model|||||0.9|-7.3|<0.05
91088840|NCT03675360|182060087|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.05|||linear mixed effects model|||||0.05|-0.31|<0.05
91088841|NCT03675360|182060088|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.9|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|-4.4|||linear mixed effects model|||||-4.4|-7.4|<0.05
91088842|NCT03675360|182060089|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.2|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|-2.0|||linear mixed effects model|||||-2.0|-10.5|<0.05
91088843|NCT03675360|182060090|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.4|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|-1.1|||linear mixed effects model|||||-1.1|-3.7|<0.05
90833117|NCT03192176|181536181|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.8358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|2.35||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||2.35|0.35|0.8358
90833118|NCT03192176|181536181|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.18||||0.1006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|5.52||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||5.52|0.86|0.1006
90833119|NCT03192176|181536181|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.53||||0.0484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|6.34||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||6.34|1.01|0.0484
91088844|NCT03675360|182060091|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.6|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|0.0|||linear mixed effects model|||||0|-5.2|<0.05
90833120|NCT03192176|181536181|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.6492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.08||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||3.08|0.50|0.6492
90894697|NCT02231177|181654717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.91|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.61|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|1.0|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale with fixed effect for treatment, period, sequence, centre and random effect for subject within sequence and centre.|The standard deviation is actually the geometric intra-individual coefficient of variation.|Comparison of Tiotropium (Tiotropium+Olodaterol 5/10 μg : Tiotropium 5 µg). No formal testing.||1.00|0.84|
91088845|NCT03675360|182060092|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.7|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|-2.6|||linear mixed effects model|||||-2.6|-6.7|<0.05
91088846|NCT03675360|182060093|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.3|||linear mixed effects model|||||0.3|-1.8|<0.05
91088847|NCT01569126|182060110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.026||||||95.0|||||||The correlation of time-matched change from baseline QTcF interval (dependent variable) to the time-matched plasma concentration of total fluoxetine and norfluoxetine (covariate) and participant (random effect).|||||
91088848|NCT01585246|182060113|OTHER||Maximum Tolerated Dose (MTD)|960.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||The time-to-event continual reassessment method (TITE-CRM) was used The TITE-CRM incorporated a decision rule for the allocation of next participant to a dose of SP based on the current estimate of toxicity. The first men were allocated to lowest dose (320 mg); when no adverse event was reported during 12 weeks, the dose was increased to 640 mg for next men, and then to 960 mg in the absence of advert event.||||
91088849|NCT04552132|182060142|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.63
91088850|NCT04552132|182060143|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
91088851|NCT04552132|182060144|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.63
91088852|NCT04552132|182060145|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
91088853|NCT04552132|182060146|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.57
91088854|NCT04552132|182060147|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.60
91088855|NCT04552132|182060148|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
91088856|NCT04552132|182060149|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
91088857|NCT04552132|182060150|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.18
91088858|NCT04552132|182060151|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4993|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.4993
91088859|NCT04552132|182060152|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.52
91088860|NCT04552132|182060153|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.70
91088861|NCT00196105|182060221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.057||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||.057
91088862|NCT00196105|182060222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||.04
91088863|NCT00196105|182060222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0||||Death is censored for Kaplan-Meier analysis.|Log Rank|||||||.007
91088864|NCT00196105|182060222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||.69
91088865|NCT00196105|182060222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Chi-squared|||6 mm Zilver vs. 10 mm Zilver and 10 mm Wallstent combined||||.02
91088866|NCT00196105|182060223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||.16
91088867|NCT00196105|182060225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||.32
91088868|NCT00196105|182060225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.69
91088869|NCT02227784|182060254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-33.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.4|-23.3|||ANCOVA|||||-23.3|-44.4|<0.001
90958905|NCT04874415|181797841|SUPERIORITY|Main effects of each intervention factor were estimated using linear regression including all prespecified two-way interactions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.06|||||||Loss Framed Incentive is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|0.06|-0.02|
91088870|NCT02227784|182060254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-27.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.6|-18.5|||ANCOVA|||||-18.5|-36.6|<0.001
91088871|NCT02227784|182060254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-6.14||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|-0.22|||ANCOVA|||||-0.22|-12.2|0.045
91088872|NCT02227784|182060255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|125.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|117.1|133.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||133.6|117.1|<0.001
91088873|NCT02227784|182060255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|131.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|123.5|139.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||139.5|123.5|<0.001
91088874|NCT02227784|182060255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|127.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|120.1|135.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||135.0|120.1|<0.001
91088875|NCT02227784|182060256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|46.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.79|51.98|||ANCOVA|||||51.98|40.79|<0.001
91088876|NCT02227784|182060256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|52.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.12|57.33|||ANCOVA|||||57.33|47.12|<0.001
91088877|NCT02227784|182060256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|48.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.82|52.86|||ANCOVA|||||52.86|43.82|<0.001
91088878|NCT02227784|182060257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-26.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.4|-20.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-20.0|-33.4|<0.001
91088879|NCT02227784|182060257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-22.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.4|-15.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-15.9|-28.4|<0.001
91088880|NCT02227784|182060257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-7.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|-2.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.68|-11.5|<0.001
91088881|NCT02227784|182060258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-23.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.0|-16.5|||ANCOVA|||||-16.5|-30.00|<0.001
91088882|NCT02227784|182060258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-16.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.3|-10.6|||ANCOVA|||||-10.6|-22.3|<0.001
91088883|NCT02227784|182060258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-4.11||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.47|0.15|||ANCOVA|||||0.15|-8.47|0.062
91088884|NCT02227784|182060259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|38.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.17|45.88|||ANCOVA|||||45.88|30.17|<0.001
91088885|NCT02227784|182060259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|42.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.29|49.76|||ANCOVA|||||49.76|34.29|<0.001
91088886|NCT02227784|182060259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|39.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.2|46.08|||ANCOVA|||||46.08|33.20|<0.001
91088887|NCT02227784|182060260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-33.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.9|-22.3|||ANCOVA|||||-22.3|-44.9|<0.001
91088888|NCT02227784|182060260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-32.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.0|-21.8|||ANCOVA|||||-21.8|-44.0|<0.001
91088889|NCT02227784|182060260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-42.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.9|-33.4|||ANCOVA|||||-33.4|-50.9|<0.001
91088890|NCT00248651|182060261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||Overall treatment effect from logistic regression model incorporating balancing factors. A p-value of \<0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||0.05
91088891|NCT00248651|182060264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between antidepressant arms and placebo for overall quality of life. A p-value of \<0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||0.02
91088892|NCT00248651|182060264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between antidepressant arms and placebo for Eat/Drink subscale. A p-value of \<0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||0.06
91088893|NCT00248651|182060264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between antidepressant arms and placebo for Interference subscale. A p-value of \<0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||0.06
91088894|NCT00248651|182060264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between antidepressant arms and placebo for Sleep Disturbance subscale. A p-value of \<0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||0.01
90894698|NCT02231177|181654718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.32|STANDARD_DEVIATION|96.12|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|1.77|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale with fixed effect for treatment, period, sequence, centre and random effect for subject within sequence and centre.|The standard deviation is actually the geometric intra-individual coefficient of variation.|Comparison of Olodaterol (Tiotropium+Olodaterol 5/10 μg; Olodaterol 10 µg). No formal testing.||1.77|0.98|
91025402|NCT01360632|181934024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.61||||0.0097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.84|-0.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 12. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3.||-0.39|-2.84|0.0097
91025403|NCT01360632|181934024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.63||||0.0092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.86|-0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 12. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3.||-0.41|-2.86|0.0092
91025404|NCT01360632|181934024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.63||||0.0139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.94|-0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 13. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3.||-0.33|-2.94|0.0139
91025405|NCT01360632|181934024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.12||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.42|-0.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 13. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3.||-0.81|-3.42|0.0015
91025406|NCT01360632|181934025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.23||MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 11. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B.||-0.23|-0.87|0.0008
91025407|NCT01360632|181934025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.5792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.23||MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 11. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B||0.23|-0.41|0.5792
91025408|NCT01360632|181934025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49||||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 14. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B.||-0.12|-0.87|0.0091
91025409|NCT01360632|181934025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37||||0.0474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 14. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B.||0|-0.73|0.0474
91025410|NCT01360632|181934026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.58||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.22||MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 11. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3.||-0.22|-0.94|0.0015
91025411|NCT01360632|181934026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21||||0.2627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.15||MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate|Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 11. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3.||0.15|-0.56|0.2627
91025412|NCT01360632|181934026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49||||0.0158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 14. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3||-0.09|-0.89|0.0158
91025413|NCT01360632|181934026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48||||0.0191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 14. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3.||-0.08|-0.88|0.0191
91025414|NCT01360632|181934027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45||||0.0377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||For Item: Work/School: Week 11||-0.03|-0.88|0.0377
91025415|NCT01360632|181934027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43||||0.0741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.04||MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||-0.43|For Item: Work/School: Week 14||0.04|-0.91|0.0741
91088895|NCT00248651|182060264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between antidepressant arms and placebo for Work/Study subscale. A p-value of \<0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||0.04
91088896|NCT05607576|182060276|OTHER|Clarke error grid analyses (EGA) were performed to compare CGM values to glucometer glucose values blood glucose readings (mg/dL) were grouped based on radiation exposure (\>0-500 µGy and \>500 µGy). A p-value \<0.05 was considered statistically significant.|||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed models with random effects were used to assess absolute differences in BG mg/dL by cumulative scatter||||||<0.05
91088897|NCT05607576|182060277|OTHER|Clarke error grid analyses (EGA) were performed to compare CGM values to glucometer glucose values. A p-value \<0.05 was considered statistically significant.|||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed models with random effects over time were used to assess absolute differences in BG mg/dL by time||||||<0.05
91088898|NCT05616013|182060278|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Change difference|-14.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|-11.0|||ANCOVA|||Bima 30mg/kg + Sema 2.4mg vs Placebo||-11.0|-18.0|<0.001
91088899|NCT05616013|182060278|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Change difference|-10.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|-7.09|||ANCOVA|||Bima 30mg/kg + Sema 1.0mg vs Placebo||-7.09|-14.0|<0.001
91088900|NCT05616013|182060278|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Change difference|-11.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|-7.55|||ANCOVA|||Bima 10mg/kg + Sema 2.4mg vs Placebo||-7.55|-14.4|<0.001
91088901|NCT05616013|182060278|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Change difference|-9.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|-5.93|||ANCOVA|||Bima 10mg/kg + Sema 1.0mg vs Placebo||-5.93|-12.9|<.001
91088902|NCT05616013|182060278|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Change difference|-10.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|-7.46|||ANCOVA|||Sema 2.4mg vs Placebo||-7.46|-14.4|<0.001
91088903|NCT05616013|182060278|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Change difference|-6.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.96|-2.94|||ANCOVA|||Sema 1.0mg vs Placebo||-2.94|-9.96|<0.001
91088904|NCT05616013|182060278|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Change difference|-5.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.47|-2.41|||ANCOVA|||Bima 30mg/kg vs Placebo||-2.41|-9.47|<0.001
91088905|NCT05616013|182060278|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Change difference|-2.68||||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.18|0.82|||ANCOVA|||Bima 10mg/kg vs Placebo||0.82|-6.18|0.133
91088906|NCT02357459|182060319|SUPERIORITY|The analysis included all study weeks of data, and was not confined to only that at Baseline and Week 12. Descriptive statistics included number of observations, unadjusted mean, standard deviation, median, minimum and maximum, and baseline adjusted means from the mixed model. Treatment differences from control was presented, and estimated via least squares means from the analysis model along with 95% confidence intervals and associated 2-sided p-values.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|-0.49||The threshold for significance was \<0.05.|longitudinal mixed repeated measures|||||-0.49|-1.47|<0.0001
91088907|NCT03246347|182060333|SUPERIORITY||Proportion|0.6111|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4346|0.7686|||One-sided test for binomial proportions|||The 12-month PSA CR rate with ADT + docetaxel is 27.7% (Sweeney 2015); we estimated that the lower limit of the 95% CI was 23.4%. We sought to test the null hypothesis that the 52-week PSA CR rate for subjects treated with study therapy was \<=25%. We anticipated enrolling 39 subjects and this design would provide 90% power with a 1-sided alpha =0.10 significance level, assuming the true 52-week PSA CR rate was 45%. An improvement from 25% to 45% in 52-week PSA CR rate was considered important.||.7686|.4346|<0.001
91088908|NCT05556148|182060366|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.54||||0.2968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.44|1.37|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 1||1.37|-4.44|0.2968
91088909|NCT05556148|182060366|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.36|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.77|-10.95|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 2||-10.95|-19.77|<.0001
91088910|NCT05556148|182060366|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.06|-21.49|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 3||-21.49|-33.06|<.0001
91088911|NCT05556148|182060366|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-35.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.69|-28.41|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 4||-28.41|-41.69|<.0001
91088912|NCT05556148|182060366|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-38.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.87|-31.11|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 5||-31.11|-45.87|<.0001
90833121|NCT03192176|181536181|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74||||0.223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|4.27||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||4.27|0.71|0.2230
91088913|NCT05556148|182060366|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-39.67|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.46|-30.88|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 6||-30.88|-48.46|<.0001
91088914|NCT05556148|182060366|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-52.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.69|-41.51|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 7||-41.51|-63.69|<.0001
91088915|NCT05556148|182060367|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29||||0.7112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|1.86|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 1||1.86|-1.27|0.7112
91088916|NCT05556148|182060367|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.51|-3.92|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 2||-3.92|-8.51|<.0001
91088917|NCT05556148|182060367|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|-9.22|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 3||-9.22|-15.00|<.0001
91088918|NCT05556148|182060367|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.24|-12.71|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 4||-12.71|-19.24|<.0001
91088919|NCT05556148|182060367|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.29|-15.59|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 5||-15.59|-23.29|<.0001
91088920|NCT05556148|182060367|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.36|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.03|-14.69|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 6||-14.69|-24.03|<.0001
91088921|NCT05556148|182060367|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.87|-18.93|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 7||-18.93|-31.87|<.0001
91088922|NCT05556148|182060368|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.83||||0.0481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.64|-0.02|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 1||-0.02|-3.64|0.0481
91088923|NCT05556148|182060368|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.74|-6.55|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 2||-6.55|-11.74|<.0001
91088924|NCT05556148|182060368|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.44|-11.88|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 3||-11.88|-18.44|<.0001
91025416|NCT01360632|181934027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37||||0.0966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.81||MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||For Item: Work/School: Week 11||0.81|-0.07|0.0966
91025417|NCT01360632|181934027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.4774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Item: Work/School: Week 14||0.31|-0.66|0.4774
91025418|NCT01360632|181934027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41||||0.0263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.05||MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Social life: Week 11||-0.05|-0.76|0.0263
91025419|NCT01360632|181934027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48||||0.0214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Social life: Week 14||-0.07|-0.89|0.0214
91025420|NCT01360632|181934027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.8281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.32||MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Social life: Week 11||0.32|-0.40|0.8281
91025421|NCT01360632|181934027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Social life: Week 14||0.01|-0.80|0.0540
91025422|NCT01360632|181934027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.63||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.26||MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Family life: Week 11||-0.26|-0.99|0.0008
91025423|NCT01360632|181934027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55||||0.0093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Family life: Week 14||-0.14|-0.97|0.0093
91025424|NCT01360632|181934027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0.2182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Family life: Week 11||0.14|-0.59|0.2182
91025425|NCT01360632|181934027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48||||0.0256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.06||MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Family life: Week 14||-0.06|-0.90|0.0256
91025426|NCT01360632|181934028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53||||0.0341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.04||MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Work/school: Week 11||-0.04|-1.01|0.0341
91025427|NCT01360632|181934028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46||||0.0816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.06||MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||School/work: Week 14||0.06|-0.99|0.0816
91025428|NCT01360632|181934028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29||||0.2561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.78||MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Work/school: Week 11||0.78|-0.21|0.2561
91025429|NCT01360632|181934028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29||||0.2952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.25||MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Work/school: Week 14||0.25|-0.82|0.2952
91025430|NCT01360632|181934028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43||||0.0331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.03||MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Social life: Week 11||-0.03|-0.82|0.0331
91025431|NCT01360632|181934028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47||||0.0352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Social life: Week 14||-0.03|-0.90|0.0352
91025432|NCT01360632|181934028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.25||MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Social life: Week 11||0.25|-0.54|0.4860
91025433|NCT01360632|181934028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49||||0.0282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|-0.05||MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Social life: Week 14||-0.05|-0.93|0.0282
91025434|NCT01360632|181934028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.24||MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Family life: Week 11||-0.24|-1.01|0.0016
91025435|NCT01360632|181934028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51||||0.0186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Family life: Week 14||-0.09|-0.94|0.0186
91025436|NCT01360632|181934028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35||||0.0824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.04||MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Family life: Week 11||0.04|-0.73|0.0824
91025437|NCT01360632|181934028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59||||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.16||MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Family life: Week 14||-0.16|-1.02|0.0077
91025438|NCT01360632|181934029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.0436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 9. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B.||0|-0.18|0.0436
91025439|NCT01360632|181934029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||-0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 9. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B.||0.03|-0.15|-0.06
91088925|NCT05556148|182060368|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.84|-15.3|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 4||-15.30|-22.84|<.0001
91088926|NCT05556148|182060368|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.35|-14.75|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 5||-14.75|-23.35|<.0001
91088927|NCT05556148|182060368|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.7|-14.92|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 6||-14.92|-25.70|<.0001
91088928|NCT05556148|182060368|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.48|-21.92|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 7||-21.92|-32.48|<.0001
91088929|NCT05556148|182060369|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.31|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 1||0.31|-0.31|1.0000
91088930|NCT05556148|182060369|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.63||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.3|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 2||-0.30|-0.97|0.0003
91088931|NCT05556148|182060369|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.7|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 3||-0.70|-1.50|<.0001
91088932|NCT05556148|182060369|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-1.24|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 4||-1.24|-2.20|<.0001
91088933|NCT05556148|182060369|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.75|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|-1.16|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 5||-1.16|-2.33|<.0001
91088934|NCT05556148|182060369|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|-1.28|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 6||-1.28|-2.51|<.0001
91088935|NCT05556148|182060369|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.29|-1.64|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 7||-1.64|-3.29|<.0001
91088936|NCT05556148|182060370|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|-0.14|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 1||-0.14|-0.64|0.0023
90833122|NCT03192176|181536181|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.43||||0.0126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|9.02||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||9.02|1.30|0.0126
90833123|NCT03192176|181536181|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.56||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.94|15.98||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||15.98|1.94|0.0014
90833124|NCT03192176|181536181|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.4713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.83||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||1.83|0.27|0.4713
91088937|NCT05556148|182060370|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|-1.12|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 2||-1.12|-1.82|<.0001
91088938|NCT05556148|182060370|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-1.58|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 3||-1.58|-2.40|<.0001
90833125|NCT03192176|181536181|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.02||||0.1397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|5.12||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||5.12|0.79|0.1397
91088939|NCT05556148|182060370|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.43|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.86|-2.0|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 4||-2.00|-2.86|<.0001
91088940|NCT05556148|182060370|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.51|-2.49|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 5||-2.49|-3.51|<.0001
91088941|NCT05556148|182060370|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.77|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.36|-2.18|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 6||-2.18|-3.36|<.0001
91088942|NCT05556148|182060370|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|-2.57|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 7||-2.57|-4.10|<.0001
91088943|NCT05556148|182060371|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11||||0.4495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.18|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 1||0.18|-0.40|0.4495
91088944|NCT05556148|182060371|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|-0.54|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 2||-0.54|-1.19|<.0001
91088945|NCT05556148|182060371|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|-0.82|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 3||-0.82|-1.59|<.0001
91088946|NCT05556148|182060371|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|-1.12|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 4||-1.12|-2.05|<.0001
91088947|NCT05556148|182060371|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-1.33|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 5||-1.33|-2.40|<.0001
91088948|NCT05556148|182060371|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.45|-1.24|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 6||-1.24|-2.45|<.0001
91088949|NCT05556148|182060371|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.19|-1.75|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 7||-1.75|-3.19|<.0001
91088950|NCT05556148|182060372|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.4758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.42|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 1||0.42|-0.20|0.4758
91088951|NCT05556148|182060372|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.24|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 2||-0.24|-0.99|0.0016
91088952|NCT05556148|182060372|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|-0.79|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 3||-0.79|-1.67|<.0001
91088953|NCT05556148|182060372|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.67|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|-1.16|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 4||-1.16|-2.18|<.0001
90833126|NCT03192176|181536181|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.75||||0.2272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|4.34||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||4.34|0.71|0.2272
90833127|NCT03192176|181536181|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.83||||0.2024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|4.64||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||4.64|0.72|0.2024
90833128|NCT03192176|181536181|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.1716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|4.79||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||4.79|0.76|0.1716
90833129|NCT03192176|181536181|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.2||||0.0199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|8.51||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||8.51|1.20|0.0199
90833130|NCT03192176|181536181|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.45||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|25.54||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||25.54|2.80|0.0002
90833131|NCT03192176|181536181|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.4243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|3.77||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||3.77|0.57|0.4243
90833132|NCT03192176|181536181|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.99||||0.1507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|5.09||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||5.09|0.78|0.1507
90833133|NCT03192176|181536181|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.6||||0.0449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|6.6||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||6.60|1.02|0.0449
90833134|NCT03192176|181536181|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68||||0.2759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|4.24||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||4.24|0.66|0.2759
90833135|NCT03192176|181536181|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|4.78||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||4.78|0.76|0.1700
90833136|NCT03192176|181536181|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.47||||0.0153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|9.51||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||9.51|1.27|0.0153
90833137|NCT03192176|181536181|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.04||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.08|17.53||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||17.53|2.08|0.0009
90833138|NCT03192176|181536181|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.6228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.23||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||3.23|0.50|0.6228
90833139|NCT03192176|181536181|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.62||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|6.76||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||6.76|1.02|0.0460
90957124|NCT04101318|181793762|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35||||0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.2||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05. Furthermore, p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|The mode had following fixed effects: product and period. Subject and the interaction between product and subject were random effects.|Difference between Arm 1 and Arm 2= Mean (Arm 1) - Mean (Arm 2)|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms.||0.20|-0.90|0.202
90833140|NCT03192176|181536181|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.07||||0.1215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|5.23||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||5.23|0.82|0.1215
90833141|NCT03192176|181536181|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.75||||0.247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|4.48||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||4.48|0.68|0.2470
90958906|NCT04874415|181797841|SUPERIORITY|Main effects of each intervention factor were estimated using linear regression including all prespecified two-way interactions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0006|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.04|||||Daily Step Count Goal is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|||0.04|-0.04|
91088954|NCT05556148|182060372|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.46|-1.51|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 5||-1.51|-2.46|<.0001
91088955|NCT05556148|182060372|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.77|-1.39|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 6||-1.39|-2.77|<.0001
91088956|NCT05556148|182060372|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.65|-2.08|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 7||-2.08|-3.65|<.0001
91088957|NCT05556148|182060373|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.8017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.28|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 1||0.28|-0.36|0.8017
91088958|NCT05556148|182060373|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.67||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.3|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 2||-0.30|-1.05|0.0005
91088959|NCT05556148|182060373|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|-0.89|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 3||-0.89|-1.69|<.0001
91088960|NCT05556148|182060373|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|-0.97|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 4||-0.97|-1.86|<.0001
91088961|NCT05556148|182060373|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-1.47|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 5||-1.47|-2.50|<.0001
91088962|NCT05556148|182060373|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.95|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|-1.29|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 6||-1.29|-2.61|<.0001
91088963|NCT05556148|182060373|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.26|-1.54|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 7||-1.54|-3.26|<.0001
91088964|NCT05556148|182060374|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.8311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.31|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 1||0.31|-0.25|0.8311
91088965|NCT05556148|182060374|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41||||0.0313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.04|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 2||-0.04|-0.78|0.0313
91088966|NCT05556148|182060374|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.84||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|-0.39|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 3||-0.39|-1.28|0.0003
91088967|NCT05556148|182060374|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|-0.59|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 4||-0.59|-1.51|<.0001
91088968|NCT05556148|182060374|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|-0.66|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 5||-0.66|-1.74|<.0001
91088969|NCT05556148|182060374|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.05||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|-0.42|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 6||-0.42|-1.69|0.0018
90833142|NCT03192176|181536181|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.83||||0.2072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|4.66||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||4.66|0.72|0.2072
90833143|NCT03192176|181536181|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.57||||0.0621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|6.94||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||6.94|0.95|0.0621
91088970|NCT05556148|182060374|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.27||||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.43|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 7||-0.43|-2.10|0.0041
91088971|NCT05556148|182060375|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.27|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 1||0.27|-0.25|0.9380
91088972|NCT05556148|182060375|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37||||0.0416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.01|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 2||-0.01|-0.72|0.0416
91088973|NCT05556148|182060375|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.96|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|-0.62|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 3||-0.62|-1.29|<.0001
91088974|NCT05556148|182060375|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.76|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 4||-0.76|-1.60|<.0001
91088975|NCT05556148|182060375|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|-1.27|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 5||-1.27|-2.25|<.0001
91088976|NCT05556148|182060375|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|-1.05|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 6||-1.05|-2.33|<.0001
91088977|NCT05556148|182060375|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.08|-1.52|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 7||-1.52|-3.08|<.0001
91088978|NCT05556148|182060376|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.7821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.33|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 1||0.33|-0.25|0.7821
91088979|NCT05556148|182060376|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.77|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|-0.39|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 2||-0.39|-1.14|<.0001
91088980|NCT05556148|182060376|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|-1.19|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 3||-1.19|-2.05|<.0001
91088981|NCT05556148|182060376|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.73|-1.86|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 4||-1.86|-2.73|<.0001
91088982|NCT05556148|182060376|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.46|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.98|-1.94|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 5||-1.94|-2.98|<.0001
91088983|NCT05556148|182060376|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.36|-1.92|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 6||-1.92|-3.36|<.0001
91088984|NCT05556148|182060376|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.19|-2.21|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 7||-2.21|-4.19|<.0001
91088985|NCT05556148|182060377|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.68|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 1||0.68|0.21|0.0003
91088986|NCT05556148|182060377|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.24|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 2||0.24|-0.38|0.6460
91088987|NCT05556148|182060377|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.22|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 3||-0.22|-0.95|0.0021
91088988|NCT05556148|182060377|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.83||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|-0.41|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 4||-0.41|-1.25|0.0002
91088989|NCT05556148|182060377|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|-0.73|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 5||-0.73|-1.68|<.0001
91088990|NCT05556148|182060377|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.36||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|-0.68|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 6||-0.68|-2.04|0.0003
90833144|NCT03192176|181536181|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.67||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.93|16.69||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||16.69|1.93|0.0016
90833145|NCT03192176|181536181|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.4372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|3.84||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||3.84|0.56|0.4372
90833146|NCT03192176|181536181|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.18||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|5.66||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||5.66|0.84|0.1100
90833147|NCT03192176|181536181|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.55||||0.0533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|6.59||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||6.59|0.99|0.0533
90833148|NCT03192176|181536181|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.68||||0.1769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|44.0||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||44.00|0.50|0.1769
90833149|NCT03192176|181536181|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.26||||0.4942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|23.53||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||23.53|0.22|0.4942
90833150|NCT03192176|181536181|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.82||||0.0214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|112.7||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||112.7|1.46|0.0214
91088991|NCT05556148|182060377|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.95|-1.32|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 7||-1.32|-2.95|<.0001
91088992|NCT05556148|182060378|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.1074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.45|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 1||0.45|-0.04|0.1074
90833151|NCT03192176|181536181|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.93||||0.6013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|22.99||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||22.99|0.16|0.6013
90833152|NCT03192176|181536181|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.6||||0.0537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|76.58||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||76.58|0.97|0.0537
90833153|NCT03192176|181536181|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.8||||0.2662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|39.91||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||39.91|0.36|0.2662
90833154|NCT03192176|181536181|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.7431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|17.84||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||17.84|0.13|0.7431
90833155|NCT03192176|181536181|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.53||||0.2829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|35.22||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||35.22|0.35|0.2829
91088993|NCT05556148|182060378|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35||||0.0364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.02|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 2||-0.02|-0.67|0.0364
91088994|NCT05556148|182060378|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|-0.91|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 3||-0.91|-1.68|<.0001
91088995|NCT05556148|182060378|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|-1.36|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 4||-1.36|-2.25|<.0001
91088996|NCT05556148|182060378|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.24|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|-1.69|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 5||-1.69|-2.78|<.0001
91088997|NCT05556148|182060378|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-1.45|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 6||-1.45|-2.70|<.0001
91088998|NCT05556148|182060378|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.97|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.84|-2.1|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 7||-2.10|-3.84|<.0001
91088999|NCT05556148|182060379|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.88|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|-1.43|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 1||-1.43|-2.33|<.0001
91089000|NCT05556148|182060379|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-2.01|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 2||-2.01|-2.90|<.0001
91089001|NCT05556148|182060379|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.41|-2.39|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 3||-2.39|-3.41|<.0001
91089002|NCT05556148|182060379|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.82|-2.77|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 4||-2.77|-3.82|<.0001
91089003|NCT05556148|182060379|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.95|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.53|-2.37|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 5||-2.37|-3.53|<.0001
91089004|NCT05556148|182060379|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.98|-2.53|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 6||-2.53|-3.98|<.0001
91089005|NCT05556148|182060379|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.08|-2.16|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 7||-2.16|-4.08|<.0001
91089006|NCT05556148|182060380|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.14|-1.31|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 1||-1.31|-2.14|<.0001
91089007|NCT05556148|182060380|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.55|-1.7|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 2||-1.70|-2.55|<.0001
91089008|NCT05556148|182060380|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.71|-1.9|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 3||-1.90|-2.71|<.0001
90833156|NCT03192176|181536181|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.12||||0.5311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|22.29||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||22.29|0.20|0.5311
91089009|NCT05556148|182060380|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.23|-2.29|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 4||-2.29|-3.23|<.0001
91089010|NCT05556148|182060380|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.31|-2.39|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 5||-2.39|-3.31|<.0001
90833157|NCT03192176|181536181|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.71||||0.1857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|46.83||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||46.83|0.47|0.1857
90833158|NCT03192176|181536181|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.9879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|17.5||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||17.50|0.06|0.9879
90833159|NCT03192176|181536181|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.57||||0.1853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|43.19||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||43.19|0.48|0.1853
91089011|NCT05556148|182060380|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.72|-2.64|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 6||-2.64|-3.72|<.0001
91089012|NCT05556148|182060380|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|-2.43|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 7||-2.43|-3.90|<.0001
91089013|NCT05556148|182060381|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.39|-1.57|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 1||-1.57|-2.39|<.0001
91089014|NCT05556148|182060381|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.24|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.66|-1.81|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 2||-1.81|-2.66|<.0001
91089015|NCT05556148|182060381|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.14|-2.32|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 3||-2.32|-3.14|<.0001
91089016|NCT05556148|182060381|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.91|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-2.43|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 4||-2.43|-3.40|<.0001
91089017|NCT05556148|182060381|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.68|-2.66|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 5||-2.66|-3.68|<.0001
91089018|NCT05556148|182060381|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.02|-2.54|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 6||-2.54|-4.02|<.0001
91089019|NCT05556148|182060381|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.24|-2.7|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 7||-2.70|-4.24|<.0001
91089020|NCT05556148|182060382|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.96|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.37|-1.55|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 1||-1.55|-2.37|<.0001
91089021|NCT05556148|182060382|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.83|-2.01|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 2||-2.01|-2.83|<.0001
91089022|NCT05556148|182060382|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.97|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.41|-2.53|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 3||-2.53|-3.41|<.0001
91089023|NCT05556148|182060382|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.81|-2.87|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 4||-2.87|-3.81|<.0001
91089024|NCT05556148|182060382|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.36|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.84|-2.87|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 5||-2.87|-3.84|<.0001
91089025|NCT05556148|182060382|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.91|-2.56|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 6||-2.56|-3.91|<.0001
91089026|NCT05556148|182060382|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.48|-2.92|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 7||-2.92|-4.48|<.0001
91089027|NCT05556148|182060383|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.17|-1.34|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 1||-1.34|-2.17|<.0001
91089028|NCT05556148|182060383|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.09|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|-1.67|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 2||-1.67|-2.51|<.0001
91089029|NCT05556148|182060383|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.86|-1.97|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 3||-1.97|-2.86|<.0001
91089030|NCT05556148|182060383|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.22|-2.27|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 4||-2.27|-3.22|<.0001
91089031|NCT05556148|182060383|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-2.16|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 5||-2.16|-3.30|<.0001
91089032|NCT05556148|182060383|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.56|-2.19|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 6||-2.19|-3.56|<.0001
91089033|NCT05556148|182060383|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.01|-2.39|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 7||-2.39|-4.01|<.0001
91089034|NCT05556148|182060384|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.93|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|-1.51|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 1||-1.51|-2.35|<.0001
91089035|NCT05556148|182060384|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-2.2|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 2||-2.20|-3.00|<.0001
91089036|NCT05556148|182060384|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|-2.22|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 3||-2.22|-3.09|<.0001
91089037|NCT05556148|182060384|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.53|-2.62|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 4||-2.62|-3.53|<.0001
90833160|NCT03192176|181536181|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.43||||0.217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|46.93||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||46.93|0.42|0.2170
90833161|NCT03192176|181536181|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.8354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|12.62||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||12.62|0.04|0.8354
90833162|NCT03192176|181536182|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.9671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|16.04||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||16.04|0.06|0.9671
90833163|NCT03192176|181536182|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.16||||0.3289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|31.87||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||31.87|0.31|0.3289
90833164|NCT03192176|181536182|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.26||||0.3157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|32.71||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||32.71|0.32|0.3157
90833165|NCT03192176|181536182|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|16.83||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||16.83|0.06|0.991
91089038|NCT05556148|182060384|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.76|-2.75|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 5||-2.75|-3.76|<.0001
90833166|NCT03192176|181536182|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.26||||0.5139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|26.12||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||26.12|0.20|0.5139
90833167|NCT03192176|181536182|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.32||||0.3079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|33.45||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||33.45|0.33|0.3079
90833168|NCT03192176|181536182|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.83||||0.0469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|75.68||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||75.68|1.03|0.0469
90833169|NCT03192176|181536182|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.39||||0.0134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.74|119.1||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||119.1|1.74|0.0134
90833170|NCT03192176|181536182|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.98||||0.1606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|46.9||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||46.90|0.53|0.1606
91089039|NCT05556148|182060384|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.04|-2.78|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 6||-2.78|-4.04|<.0001
91089040|NCT05556148|182060384|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|-2.64|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 7||-2.64|-4.30|<.0001
91089041|NCT05556148|182060385|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.49|-1.66|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 1||-1.66|-2.49|<.0001
91089042|NCT05556148|182060385|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-2.33|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 2||-2.33|-3.20|<.0001
91089043|NCT05556148|182060385|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.63|-2.78|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 3||-2.78|-3.63|<.0001
91089044|NCT05556148|182060385|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.98|-3.0|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 4||-3.00|-3.98|<.0001
91089045|NCT05556148|182060385|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.33|-3.33|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 5||-3.33|-4.33|<.0001
91089046|NCT05556148|182060385|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.65|-3.46|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 6||-3.46|-4.65|<.0001
91089047|NCT05556148|182060385|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.81|-3.46|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 7||-3.46|-4.81|<.0001
91089048|NCT05556148|182060386|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.66|-1.77|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 1||-1.77|-2.66|<.0001
91089049|NCT05556148|182060386|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.15|-2.31|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 2||-2.31|-3.15|<.0001
90833171|NCT03192176|181536182|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.69||||0.0854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|58.35||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||58.35|0.77|0.0854
90833172|NCT03192176|181536182|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.07||||0.1082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|54.72||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||54.72|0.67|0.1082
90833173|NCT03192176|181536182|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.22||||0.0737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|63.04||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||63.04|0.83|0.0737
90833174|NCT03192176|181536182|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.98||||0.0217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|99.74||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||99.74|1.44|0.0217
90833175|NCT03192176|181536182|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|19.24||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.36|157.1||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||157.1|2.36|0.0058
90833176|NCT03192176|181536182|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.44||||0.1924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|41.87||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||41.87|0.47|0.1924
90833177|NCT03192176|181536182|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.54||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|66.0||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||66.00|0.86|0.0680
90833178|NCT03192176|181536182|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|15.95||||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.97|129.4||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||129.4|1.97|0.0095
90833179|NCT03192176|181536182|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.68||||0.269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|37.21||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||37.21|0.36|0.2690
90833180|NCT03192176|181536182|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.28||||0.0321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|86.53||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||86.53|1.22|0.0321
91089050|NCT05556148|182060386|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|-2.73|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 3||-2.73|-3.60|<.0001
90833181|NCT03192176|181536182|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.48||||0.0131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.75|119.7||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||119.7|1.75|0.0131
90833182|NCT03192176|181536182|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|25.22||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.11|204.6||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||204.6|3.11|0.0025
90833183|NCT03192176|181536182|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.65||||0.1788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|43.72||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||43.72|0.49|0.1788
90833184|NCT03192176|181536182|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.33||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|87.31||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||87.31|1.22|0.0320
90833185|NCT03192176|181536182|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.24||||0.0251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|93.33||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||93.33|1.35|0.0251
90833186|NCT03192176|181536182|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.6154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|5.83||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||5.83|0.35|0.6154
90833187|NCT03192176|181536182|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.37||||0.1906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|8.63||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||8.63|0.65|0.1906
90833188|NCT03192176|181536182|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.67||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|13.07||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||13.07|1.03|0.0450
91089051|NCT05556148|182060386|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-3.05|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 4||-3.05|-4.00|<.0001
91089052|NCT05556148|182060386|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.19|-3.27|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 5||-3.27|-4.19|<.0001
90833189|NCT03192176|181536182|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.19||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|24.66||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||24.66|2.10|0.0017
90833190|NCT03192176|181536182|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.3939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|6.97||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||6.97|0.47|0.3939
90833191|NCT03192176|181536182|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.06||||0.2869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|7.74||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||7.74|0.55|0.2869
90833192|NCT03192176|181536182|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.41||||0.1817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|8.8||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||8.80|0.66|0.1817
90833193|NCT03192176|181536182|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.41||||0.0256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|96.77||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||96.77|1.35|0.0256
90833194|NCT03192176|181536182|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.65||||0.0153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|112.8||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||112.8|1.65|0.0153
90833195|NCT03192176|181536182|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|21.76||||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.64|179.2||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||179.2|2.64|0.0042
90833196|NCT03192176|181536182|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|35.75||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.39|291.5||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||291.5|4.39|0.0008
90833197|NCT03192176|181536182|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.45||||0.0967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|58.21||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||58.21|0.71|0.0967
90833198|NCT03192176|181536182|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.3||||0.0564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|72.95||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||72.95|0.94|0.0564
90894699|NCT02231177|181654719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.99|STANDARD_DEVIATION|72.08|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.79|1.24|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale with fixed effect for treatment, period, sequence, centre and random effect for subject within sequence and centre.|The standard deviation is actually the geometric intra-individual coefficient of variation.|Comparison of Tiotropium (Tiotropium+Olodaterol 5/10 μg; Tiotropium 5 µg). No formal testing.||1.24|0.79|
90833199|NCT03192176|181536182|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|23.63||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.93|190.5||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||190.5|2.93|0.0030
90833200|NCT03192176|181536182|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.72||||0.0384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|83.68||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||83.68|1.13|0.0384
90833201|NCT03192176|181536182|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.65||||0.0153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|112.9||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||112.9|1.65|0.0153
91089053|NCT05556148|182060386|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.55|-3.45|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 6||-3.45|-4.55|<.0001
91089054|NCT05556148|182060386|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.74|-3.39|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 7||-3.39|-4.74|<.0001
90833202|NCT03192176|181536182|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|30.55||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.72|250.6||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||250.6|3.72|0.0015
90894700|NCT03039023|181654751|EQUIVALENCE|For equivalence testing, the difference was assumed to be 0.||||||0.2||||||A p-value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.20
90894701|NCT03039023|181654751|EQUIVALENCE|For equivalence testing, the difference was assumed to be 0.|||||<|0.0001||||||A p-value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||<0.0001
91089055|NCT03191799|182060410|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Month 3 vs. Baseline||||<0.0001
91089056|NCT03191799|182060410|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Month 6 vs. Baseline||||<0.0001
91089057|NCT03191799|182060410|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Month 12 vs. Baseline||||<0.0001
91089058|NCT03191799|182060410|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Month 18 vs. Baseline||||<0.0001
90894702|NCT03039023|181654751|EQUIVALENCE|For equivalence testing, the difference was assumed to be 0.|||||<|0.0001||||||A p-value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||<0.0001
90894703|NCT03039023|181654751|EQUIVALENCE|For equivalence testing, the difference was assumed to be 0.|||||<|0.0001||||||A p-value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||<0.0001
90894704|NCT03039023|181654751|EQUIVALENCE|For equivalence testing, the difference was assumed to be 0.||||||0.27||||||A p-value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.27
90894705|NCT03039023|181654752|EQUIVALENCE|For equivalence testing, the difference was assumed to be 0.||||||0.1||||||A p-value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.10
90894706|NCT03039023|181654752|EQUIVALENCE|For equivalence testing, the difference was assumed to be 0.||||||0.0002||||||A p-value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.0002
90894707|NCT03039023|181654752|EQUIVALENCE|For equivalence testing, the difference was assumed to be 0.||||||0.01||||||A p-value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.01
90894708|NCT03039023|181654752|EQUIVALENCE|For equivalence testing, the difference was assumed to be 0.||||||0.006||||||A p-value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.006
91089059|NCT03191799|182060410|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Early Terminatinon/Study Completion vs. Baseline||||<0.0001
91089060|NCT03191799|182060412|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Month 3 vs. Baseline||||<0.0001
91089061|NCT03191799|182060412|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Month 6 vs. Baseline||||<0.0001
91089062|NCT03191799|182060412|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Month 12 vs. Baseline||||<0.0001
91089063|NCT03191799|182060412|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Month 18 vs. Baseline||||<0.0001
91089064|NCT03191799|182060412|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Early Terminatinon/Study Completion vs. Baseline||||<0.0001
91089065|NCT03191799|182060423|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Month 3 vs. Baseline||||0.0001
90894709|NCT03039023|181654752|EQUIVALENCE|For equivalence testing, the difference was assumed to be 0.||||||0.79||||||A p-value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.79
90958907|NCT04874415|181797842|SUPERIORITY|Main effects were estimated using generalized linear models with log link. No interactions were included (failure to converge).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.006|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|10.3|||||Once daily text message is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|||10.3|-10.3|
91089066|NCT03191799|182060423|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Month 6 vs. Baseline||||<0.0001
91089067|NCT03191799|182060423|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Month 12 vs. Baseline||||<0.0001
91089068|NCT03191799|182060423|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Month 18 vs. Baseline||||<0.0001
90894710|NCT03039023|181654753|EQUIVALENCE|For equivalence testing, the difference was assumed to be 0.||||||0.28||||||A p-value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.28
90894711|NCT03039023|181654753|EQUIVALENCE|For equivalence testing, the difference was assumed to be 0.|||||<|0.0001||||||A p-value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||<0.0001
90894712|NCT03039023|181654753|EQUIVALENCE|For equivalence testing, the difference was assumed to be 0.|||||<|0.0001||||||A p-value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||<0.0001
90894713|NCT03039023|181654753|EQUIVALENCE|For equivalence testing, the difference was assumed to be 0.|||||<|0.0001||||||A p-value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||<0.0001
90894714|NCT03039023|181654753|EQUIVALENCE|For equivalence testing, the difference was assumed to be 0.||||||0.11||||||A p-value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.11
90894715|NCT03039023|181654754|EQUIVALENCE|For equivalence testing, the difference was assumed to be 0.||||||0.005||||||A p-value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.005
90894716|NCT03039023|181654754|EQUIVALENCE|For equivalence testing, the difference was assumed to be 0.|||||<|0.001||||||A p-value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||<0.001
90894717|NCT03039023|181654754|EQUIVALENCE|For equivalence testing, the difference was assumed to be 0.|||||<|0.001||||||A p-value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||<0.001
90894718|NCT03039023|181654754|EQUIVALENCE|For equivalence testing, the difference was assumed to be 0.||||||0.009||||||A p-value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.009
90894719|NCT03039023|181654754|EQUIVALENCE|For equivalence testing, the difference was assumed to be 0.||||||0.04||||||A p-value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.04
91089069|NCT03191799|182060423|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004|||||||Paired t-test|||Early Terminatinon/Study Completion vs. Baseline||||0.0004
91089070|NCT03191799|182060425|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Month 3 vs. Baseline||||<0.0001
91089071|NCT03191799|182060425|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Month 6 vs. Baseline||||<0.0001
91089072|NCT03191799|182060425|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Month 12 vs. Baseline||||<0.0001
91089073|NCT03191799|182060425|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Month 18 vs. Baseline||||<0.0001
91089074|NCT03191799|182060425|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Early Terminatinon/Study Completion vs. Baseline||||<0.0001
91089075|NCT03191799|182060435|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Month 3 vs. Baseline||||<0.0001
91089076|NCT03191799|182060435|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Month 6 vs. Baseline||||<0.0001
91089077|NCT03191799|182060435|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Month 12 vs. Baseline||||<0.0001
91089078|NCT03191799|182060435|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Month 18 vs. Baseline||||<0.0001
91089079|NCT03191799|182060435|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Early Terminatinon/Study Completion vs. Baseline||||<0.0001
91089080|NCT03191799|182060436|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Month 3 vs. Baseline||||<0.0001
91089081|NCT03191799|182060436|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Month 6 vs. Baseline||||<0.0001
91089082|NCT03191799|182060436|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Month 12 vs. Baseline||||<0.0001
91089083|NCT03191799|182060436|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Month 18 vs. Baseline||||<0.0001
91089084|NCT03191799|182060436|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Early Terminatinon/Study Completion vs. Baseline||||<0.0001
91089085|NCT01239797|182060440|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.89|||Log Rank|2-sided p-value for stratified log rank test||Hazard Ratio of Lenalidomide + Dexamethasone + Elotuzumab to Lenalidomide + Dexamethasone||0.89|0.60|0.0014
90833203|NCT03192176|181536182|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|35.99||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.41|293.5||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||293.5|4.41|0.0008
90833204|NCT03192176|181536182|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.67||||0.0192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|106.1||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||106.1|1.51|0.0192
90833205|NCT03192176|181536182|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.92||||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.03|141.0||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||141.0|2.03|0.0089
90833206|NCT03192176|181536182|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|24.96||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.09|201.6||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||201.6|3.09|0.0025
90833207|NCT03192176|181536182|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.03||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|10.94||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||10.94|0.84|0.0910
90833208|NCT03192176|181536182|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.96||||0.0296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|13.67||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||13.67|1.15|0.0296
91089086|NCT01239797|182060441|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.87|||Log Rank|2-sided p-value for stratified log rank test||Hazard Ratio of Lenalidomide + Dexamethasone + Elotuzumab to Lenalidomide + Dexamethasone||0.87|0.60|0.0005
90894720|NCT03039023|181654755|EQUIVALENCE|For equivalence testing, the difference was assumed to be 0.||||||0.93||||||A p-value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.93
90894721|NCT03039023|181654755|EQUIVALENCE|For equivalence testing, the difference was assumed to be 0.||||||0.01||||||A p-value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.01
90894722|NCT03039023|181654755|EQUIVALENCE|For equivalence testing, the difference was assumed to be 0.||||||0.003||||||A p-value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.003
90833209|NCT03192176|181536182|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.23||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.38|28.44||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||28.44|2.38|0.0009
90833210|NCT03192176|181536182|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.54||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.46|29.63||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||29.63|2.46|0.0007
90833211|NCT03192176|181536182|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76||||0.4152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|6.86||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||6.86|0.45|0.4152
90833212|NCT03192176|181536182|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.29||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|11.93||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||11.93|0.91|0.0700
90833213|NCT03192176|181536182|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.83||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.71|19.84||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||19.84|1.71|0.0048
90833214|NCT03192176|181536182|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.44||||0.1497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|8.23||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||8.23|0.72|0.1497
90833215|NCT03192176|181536182|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.05||||0.0608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|9.77||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||9.77|0.95|0.0608
91089087|NCT01239797|182060442|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.95||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|2.78|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by B2 microglobulin (\<3.5 mg/L vs \>=3.5 mg/L), number of prior lines of therapy (1 vs \>=2), and immunomodulatory drug use at randomization||Ratio of Lenalidomide + Dexamethasone + Elotuzumab to Lenalidomide + Dexamethasone||2.78|1.36|0.0002
90894723|NCT03039023|181654755|EQUIVALENCE|For equivalence testing, the difference was assumed to be 0.||||||0.04||||||A p-value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.04
90894724|NCT03039023|181654755|EQUIVALENCE|For equivalence testing, the difference was assumed to be 0.||||||0.99||||||A p-value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.99
90894725|NCT03039023|181654756|EQUIVALENCE|For equivalence testing, the difference was assumed to be 0.||||||0.02||||||A p-value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.02
90957125|NCT04101318|181793763|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.369||||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.781|2.401||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05. Furthermore, p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Proportional odds ratio model|Ordinal regression model for pain evaluated on a 5 point scale. Product and period are fixed effects and subject is a random effect.|Odds ratio, marginal= Arm1/Arm2|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms.||2.401|0.781|0.267
91089088|NCT01239797|182060442|SUPERIORITY||Difference in ORR|12.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.2|19.3||||||Difference of Lenalidomide + Dexamethasone + Elotuzumab minus Lenalidomide + Dexamethasone computed using the method of DerSimonian and Laird (weighted average over the strata)||19.3|6.2|
91089089|NCT02631941|182060478|EQUIVALENCE|For budesonide AUC0-last, the 90% Cls for Z7200 compared with Symbicort without and with charcoal lie entirely within the standard bioequivalence acceptance limits of (80% - 125.00%).|Adjusted geometric means ratio|100.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.82|105.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||105.69|95.82|<0.001
91089090|NCT02631941|182060478|EQUIVALENCE|For budesonide AUC0-last, the 90% Cls for Z7200 compared with Symbicort without and with charcoal lie entirely within the standard bioequivalence acceptance limits of (80% - 125.00%).|Adjusted geometric means ratio|102.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.55|109.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||109.13|95.55|<0.001
91089091|NCT02631941|182060479|EQUIVALENCE|For Formoterol AUC0-last, the 90% Cls for Z7200 compared to Symbicort without and with charcoal lie entirely within the standard bioequivalence acceptance limits of (80.00%, 125.00%).|Adjusted geometric means ratio|87.96||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.31|92.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||92.86|83.31|0.002
91089092|NCT02631941|182060479|EQUIVALENCE|For Formoterol AUC0-last, the 90% Cls for Z7200 compared to Symbicort without and with charcoal lie entirely within the standard bioequivalence acceptance limits of (80.00%, 125.00%).|Adjusted geometric means ratio|91.17||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.94|99.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||99.04|83.94|0.005
91089093|NCT02631941|182060480|EQUIVALENCE|For Budesonide Cmax, the 90% Cls for Z7200 compared with Symbicort without and with charcoal do not lie entirely within the wider bioequivalence acceptance limits of ( 73.74%, 135.62%) and standard bioequivalence acceptance limits of (80.00%, 125.00%), respectively.|Adjusted geometric means ratio|157.86||||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|144.12|172.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||172.91|144.12|1.00
90833216|NCT03192176|181536182|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.99||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.85|19.34||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||19.34|1.85|0.0028
90833217|NCT03192176|181536182|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.84||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.45|25.13||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||25.13|2.45|0.0005
90833218|NCT03192176|181536182|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.8393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|4.39||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||4.39|0.30|0.8393
90833219|NCT03192176|181536182|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.01||||0.0215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|13.1||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||13.10|1.23|0.0215
90833220|NCT03192176|181536182|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.42||||0.0112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|13.94||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||13.94|1.40|0.0112
90833221|NCT03192176|181536182|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.3498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|5.29||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||5.29|0.55|0.3498
90833222|NCT03192176|181536182|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.05||||0.1981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|6.08||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||6.08|0.69|0.1981
90833223|NCT03192176|181536182|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.28||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.76|15.78||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||15.78|1.76|0.0029
90833224|NCT03192176|181536182|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.95||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.03|17.4||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||17.40|2.03|0.0011
90833225|NCT03192176|181536182|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.9511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|3.23||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||3.23|0.29|0.9511
90833226|NCT03192176|181536182|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76||||0.3241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|5.45||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||5.45|0.57|0.3241
90833227|NCT03192176|181536182|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.9||||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|11.16||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||11.16|1.36|0.0111
90833228|NCT03192176|181536182|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.51||||0.1375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|8.48||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||8.48|0.74|0.1375
90833229|NCT03192176|181536182|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.02||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|9.83||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||9.83|0.93|0.0670
90833230|NCT03192176|181536182|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.57||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.29|25.04||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||25.04|2.29|0.0009
90833231|NCT03192176|181536182|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.42||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.91|30.49||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||30.49|2.91|0.0002
90833232|NCT03192176|181536182|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.75||||0.0982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|9.14||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||9.14|0.83|0.0982
90833233|NCT03192176|181536182|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.6||||0.1233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|8.8||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||8.80|0.77|0.1233
90833234|NCT03192176|181536182|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.63||||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|14.64||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||14.64|1.46|0.0091
90833235|NCT03192176|181536182|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|3.1||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||3.10|0.34|0.9620
90894726|NCT03039023|181654756|EQUIVALENCE|For equivalence testing, the difference was assumed to be 0.|||||<|0.0001||||||A p-value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||<0.0001
90894727|NCT03039023|181654756|EQUIVALENCE|For equivalence testing, the difference was assumed to be 0.|||||<|0.0001||||||A p-value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||<0.0001
90833236|NCT03192176|181536182|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.3527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|4.59||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||4.59|0.58|0.3527
90833237|NCT03192176|181536182|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.04||||0.0394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|8.76||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||8.76|1.06|0.0394
90833238|NCT03192176|181536182|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.36||||0.0224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|9.53||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||9.53|1.19|0.0224
90833239|NCT03192176|181536182|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.7891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|3.44||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||3.44|0.39|0.7891
90833240|NCT03192176|181536182|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.48||||0.0851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|6.99||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||6.99|0.88|0.0851
90833241|NCT03192176|181536182|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74||||0.2885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|4.83||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||4.83|0.63|0.2885
90833242|NCT03192176|181536182|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78||||0.8611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|13.3||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||13.30|0.05|0.8611
90894728|NCT03039023|181654756|EQUIVALENCE|For equivalence testing, the difference was assumed to be 0.||||||0.001||||||A p-value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.001
90894729|NCT03039023|181654756|EQUIVALENCE|For equivalence testing, the difference was assumed to be 0.||||||0.02||||||A p-value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.02
90894730|NCT03701399|181654768|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.7581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model based summary statistics were from a mixed model with repeated measures, including fixed effects for treatment, randomization stratum (SCA genotype group), visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and country, baseline score as a covariate|All SCA participants||0.34|-0.47|0.7581
90833243|NCT03192176|181536182|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.7549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|17.42||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||17.42|0.13|0.7549
91025440|NCT01360632|181934029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|-0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 10. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B.||-0.08|-0.34|0.0012
91025441|NCT01360632|181934029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.0266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 10. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B.||-0.02|-0.27|0.0266
91025442|NCT01360632|181934029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|-0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 11. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B.||-0.07|-0.33|0.0034
91025443|NCT01360632|181934029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.3053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 11. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B.||0.06|-0.2|0.3053
91025444|NCT01360632|181934029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.0541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 12. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B.||0|-0.29|0.0541
91025445|NCT01360632|181934029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.0912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 12. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B.||0.02|-0.28|0.0912
91025446|NCT01360632|181934029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.1553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 13. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B.||0.04|-0.28|0.1553
91025447|NCT01360632|181934029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11||||0.1855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 13. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B.||0.05|-0.27|0.1855
91025448|NCT01360632|181934029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11||||0.2015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 14. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B.||0.06|-0.28|0.2015
91025449|NCT01360632|181934029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.0852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 14. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B.||0.02|-0.32|0.0852
90833244|NCT03192176|181536182|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.07||||0.5658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|24.66||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||24.66|0.17|0.5658
90833245|NCT03192176|181536182|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.83||||0.6319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|21.86||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||21.86|0.15|0.6319
90833246|NCT03192176|181536182|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.9526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|18.96||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||18.96|0.06|0.9526
91089094|NCT02631941|182060480|EQUIVALENCE|For Budesonide Cmax, the 90% Cls for Z7200 compared with Symbicort without and with charcoal do not lie entirely within the wider bioequivalence acceptance limits of ( 73.74%, 135.62%) and standard bioequivalence acceptance limits of (80.00%, 125.00%), respectively.|Adjusted geometric means ratio|166.81||||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|148.35|187.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||187.57|148.35|1.00
90833247|NCT03192176|181536183|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74||||0.2251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|4.26||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||4.26|0.71|0.2251
90833248|NCT03192176|181536183|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.57||||0.0084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|9.2||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||9.20|1.39|0.0084
90833249|NCT03192176|181536183|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.71||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.09|15.62||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||15.62|2.09|0.0007
91025450|NCT01360632|181934030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.0817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 9. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3.||0.01|-0.17|0.0817
91025451|NCT01360632|181934030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.1406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 9. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3.||0.02|-0.16|0.1406
91025452|NCT01360632|181934030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|-0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 10. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3.||-0.04|-0.29|0.011
91025453|NCT01360632|181934030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.0287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 10. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3.||-0.02|-0.27|0.0287
91025454|NCT01360632|181934030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.0071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|-0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 11. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3.||-0.05|-0.32|0.0071
91025455|NCT01360632|181934030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.2503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|-0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 11. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3.||-0.06|-0.22|0.2503
91025456|NCT01360632|181934030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.0539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 12. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3.||0|-0.3|0.0539
91025457|NCT01360632|181934030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16||||0.0398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|-0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 12. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3.||-0.01|-0.31|0.0398
91025458|NCT01360632|181934030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.1168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 13. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3.||0.03|-0.3|0.1168
91025459|NCT01360632|181934030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16||||0.0621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 13. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3.||0.01|-0.32|0.0621
91089095|NCT02631941|182060481|EQUIVALENCE|For Formoterol Cmax, the 90% Cl for Z7200 compared to Symbicort without and with charcoal lie entirely within the wider bioequivalence acceptance limits of (77.65%, 128.79%) and standard bioequivalence acceptance limits of (80.00%, 125.00%), respectively.|Adjusted geometric means ratio|85.22||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.66|91.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||91.17|79.66|0.012
90833250|NCT03192176|181536183|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.11||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.87|14.0||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||14.00|1.87|0.0015
90833251|NCT03192176|181536183|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.6976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|2.95||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||2.95|0.48|0.6976
90833252|NCT03192176|181536183|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.57||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.73|12.05||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||12.05|1.73|0.0021
90833253|NCT03192176|181536183|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.06||||0.0171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|7.68||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||7.68|1.22|0.0171
90833254|NCT03192176|181536183|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.86||||0.2224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|5.04||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||5.04|0.69|0.2224
90833255|NCT03192176|181536183|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74||||0.2716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|4.69||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||4.69|0.65|0.2716
91089096|NCT02631941|182060481|EQUIVALENCE|For Formoterol Cmax, the 90% Cl for Z7200 compared to Symbicort without and with charcoal lie entirely within the wider bioequivalence acceptance limits of (77.65%, 128.79%) and standard bioequivalence acceptance limits of (80.00%, 125.00%), respectively.|Adjusted geometric means ratio|87.74||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.48|94.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||94.47|81.48|0.020
90833256|NCT03192176|181536183|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.49||||0.0112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|14.32||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||14.32|1.41|0.0112
91089097|NCT03933449|182060493|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.55||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.82||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate|||0.82|0.36|0.0015
90833257|NCT03192176|181536183|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.08||||0.0461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|9.31||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||9.31|1.02|0.0461
90833258|NCT03192176|181536183|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.3463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|4.47||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||4.47|0.59|0.3463
90833259|NCT03192176|181536183|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.05||||0.0419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|8.92||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||8.92|1.04|0.0419
91089098|NCT03933449|182060494|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.34||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.69||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate|||0.69|0.17|0.0008
90833260|NCT03192176|181536183|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68||||0.2977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|4.46||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||4.46|0.63|0.2977
90833261|NCT03192176|181536183|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.87||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|5.21||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||5.21|0.67|0.2300
90833262|NCT03192176|181536183|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.83||||0.0655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|8.58||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||8.58|0.94|0.0655
90833263|NCT03192176|181536183|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.79||||0.0245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|12.11||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||12.11|1.19|0.0245
90833264|NCT03192176|181536183|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.62||||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|21.93||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||21.93|1.44|0.0129
91089099|NCT03933449|182060495|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.55||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.83||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate|||0.83|0.37|0.0021
91089100|NCT03933449|182060496|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|12.9||||0.0084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|24.5||One-sided p-value for testing. H0: difference in %=0 versus H1: difference in %\>0.|Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||24.5|2.7|0.0084
91089101|NCT03933449|182060497|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|17.1||||0.0403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|38.0||One-sided p-value for testing. H0: difference in %=0 versus H1: difference in %\>0.|Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||38.0|-2.3|0.0403
91089102|NCT03933449|182060498|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|13.3||||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|25.2||One-sided p-value for testing. H0: difference in %=0 versus H1: difference in %\>0.|Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||25.2|2.8|0.0083
90833265|NCT03192176|181536183|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.37||||0.1259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|7.15||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||7.15|0.79|0.1259
90833266|NCT03192176|181536183|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.4||||0.1015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|6.82||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||6.82|0.84|0.1015
90833267|NCT03192176|181536183|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.48||||0.0167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|15.33||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||15.33|1.31|0.0167
91025460|NCT01360632|181934030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 14. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3.||0.02|-0.32|0.089
90833268|NCT03192176|181536183|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.5232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.95||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||3.95|0.50|0.5232
91025461|NCT01360632|181934030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.0213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 14. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3.||-0.03|-0.38|0.0213
91025462|NCT01360632|181934031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.28||||0.0228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.37|-0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 9. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B.||-0.18|-2.37|0.0228
91025463|NCT01360632|181934031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37||||0.5081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|0.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 9. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B.||0.73|-1.47|0.5081
91025464|NCT01360632|181934031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.86||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-0.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 10. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B.||-0.53|-3.2|0.0064
91025465|NCT01360632|181934031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.89||||0.1898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|0.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 10. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B.||0.44|-2.23|0.1898
91089103|NCT03933449|182060499|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.23||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate|||1.23|0.58|0.177
90833269|NCT03192176|181536183|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.2055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|5.82||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||5.82|0.68|0.2055
90833270|NCT03192176|181536183|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.0||||0.0658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|9.64||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||9.64|0.93|0.0658
90833271|NCT03192176|181536183|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.34||||0.0136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|35.75||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||35.75|1.51|0.0136
90833272|NCT03192176|181536183|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.3238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|5.0||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||5.00|0.59|0.3238
90833273|NCT03192176|181536183|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.86||||0.0118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|23.21||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||23.21|1.48|0.0118
90833274|NCT03192176|181536183|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.29||||0.0163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|20.62||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||20.62|1.36|0.0163
91089104|NCT03933449|182060500|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.46||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate|||1.46|0.44|0.238
91089105|NCT03933449|182060501|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.23||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate|||1.23|0.57|0.171
91089106|NCT00501631|182060504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.336||95.0|||||Van der Waerden test|||The null hypothesis that there is no difference between two treatment groups (i.e. Placebo and Vivitrol) was tested using a two-sided Van der Waerden test. Response profiles were tabulated as a cumulative percent of subjects at each decile of percent heavy drinking days.||||0.336
91089107|NCT01039467|182060558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
90833275|NCT03192176|181536183|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.6363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|4.18||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||4.18|0.42|0.6363
91089108|NCT01039467|182060559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
90833276|NCT03192176|181536183|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.68||||0.0722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|15.25||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||15.25|0.89|0.0722
90833277|NCT03192176|181536183|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.35||||0.2019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|8.73||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||8.73|0.63|0.2019
90833278|NCT03192176|181536183|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.15||||0.0337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|86.09||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||86.09|1.20|0.0337
90894731|NCT03701399|181654768|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model based summary statistics were from a mixed model with repeated measures, including fixed effects for treatment, randomization stratum (SCA genotype group), visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and country.|SCA3 genotype participants||-0.01|-1.11|0.0450
90894732|NCT00448448|181654793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.93|||<|0.0267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|3.46|||Regression, Logistic|The success rate was adjusted for the propensity score (probability of receiving a brace) and the duration of follow-up.||||3.46|1.08|<0.0267
90894733|NCT03945292|181654799|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-66.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.107|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.18|-56.45||From a mixed model with repeated measures, including fixed effects for treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, presence of metabolic syndrome, presence of NAFLD or NASH, baseline serum Z-AAT as covariate, and subject as a random effect.|Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|NAFLD=non-alcoholic fatty liver disease; NSH=non-alcoholic steatohepatitis||||-56.45|-77.18|< 0.0001
90957126|NCT04101318|181793764|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.3||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05. Furthermore, p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Model was with the following fixed effects: product and period. Subject and the interaction between product and subject were random effects|Difference between Arm 1 and Arm 2= Mean (Arm 1) - Mean (Arm 2)|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms.||0.30|-0.57|0.545
90894734|NCT03945292|181654799|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-90.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.26|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.72|-79.34||From a mixed model with repeated measures, including fixed effects for treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, presence of metabolic syndrome, presence of NAFLD or NASH, baseline serum Z-AAT as covariate, and subject as a random effect.|MMRM|||||-79.34|-100.72|< 0.0001
91089109|NCT01039467|182060560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.833||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.833
91089110|NCT01039467|182060561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.265||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.265
91089111|NCT01039467|182060562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
91089112|NCT01039467|182060563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91089113|NCT01039467|182060564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0008||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0008
91089114|NCT01039467|182060565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.053||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.053
91089115|NCT01039467|182060566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.493||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.493
91089116|NCT01746862|182060574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|3.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.17|4.78|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline age and baseline height as the covariates.||||4.78|2.17|<0.0001
91089117|NCT00731822|182060603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|5.1||||||||5.1|-3.9|
91089118|NCT05209880|182060609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5835|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5835
91089119|NCT03834493|182060624|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.6621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.22|||Log Rank||Stratified Cox model with Efron's tie handling method|||1.22|0.88|0.6621
91089120|NCT03834493|182060625|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.4073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.14|||Log Rank||Stratified Cox model with Efron's tie handling method|||1.14|0.84|0.4073
91089121|NCT03834493|182060626|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.09|||||Stratified Cox model with Efron's tie handling method|||1.09|0.83|
91089122|NCT03834493|182060627|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|8.3|||||Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen method|||8.3|-1.5|
91089123|NCT03834493|182060628|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|4.1|||||Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen method|||4.1|-3.4|
91089124|NCT03834493|182060629|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|6.1|||||Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen method|||6.1|-0.2|
91089125|NCT03834493|182060631|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.15|||||Stratified Cox model with Efron's tie handling method|||1.15|0.86|
90833279|NCT03192176|181536183|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.25||||0.2207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|8.24||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||8.24|0.61|0.2207
90833280|NCT03192176|181536183|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.5||||0.0849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|14.57||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||14.57|0.84|0.0849
90833281|NCT03192176|181536183|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.47||||0.0844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|14.24||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||14.24|0.84|0.0844
90833282|NCT03192176|181536183|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.15||||0.2383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|7.65||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||7.65|0.60|0.2383
90833283|NCT03192176|181536183|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.55||||0.1653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|9.58||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||9.58|0.68|0.1653
90957127|NCT04101318|181793765|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.316||||0.293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.783|2.211||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05. Furthermore, p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Proportional odds ratio model|Ordinal regression model for burning evaluated on a 5 point scale. Product and period are fixed effects and subject is a random effect.|Odds ratio, marginal= Arm1/Arm2|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms.||2.211|0.783|0.293
91089126|NCT03834493|182060632|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.09|||||Stratified Cox model with Efron's tie handling method|||1.09|0.74|
91089127|NCT03834493|182060633|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.35|||||Stratified Cox model with Efron's tie handling method|||1.35|0.82|
91089128|NCT03834493|182060634|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.51|||||Stratified Cox model with Efron's tie handling method|||1.51|0.85|
91089129|NCT04073303|182060666|SUPERIORITY||Rate-Difference|49.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.1|54.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||54.1|40.1|<0.0001
90833284|NCT03192176|181536183|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.48||||0.1836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|9.48||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||9.48|0.65|0.1836
90833285|NCT03192176|181536183|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.3||||0.0529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|70.8||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||70.80|0.97|0.0529
90833286|NCT03192176|181536183|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.95||||0.3197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|7.27||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||7.27|0.52|0.3197
90833287|NCT03192176|181536183|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.88||||0.0376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|31.25||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||31.25|1.11|0.0376
90833288|NCT03192176|181536183|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.08||||0.0343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|85.64||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||85.64|1.19|0.0343
90833289|NCT03192176|181536183|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.58||||0.4435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|5.09||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||5.09|0.49|0.4435
90957128|NCT04101318|181793766|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.27||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05. Furthermore, p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|generalized linear mixed repeated model with fixed effects|Odds ratio, marginal= Arm1/Arm2|There is no difference between the two arms.||1.27|0.53|0.375
91089130|NCT04073303|182060667|SUPERIORITY||Rate-Difference|71.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.7|76.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||76.3|60.7|<0.0001
91089131|NCT04073303|182060668|SUPERIORITY||Rate-Difference|56.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.6|64.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||64.5|45.6|<0.0001
91089132|NCT04073303|182060669|SUPERIORITY||Rate-Difference|49.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.6|57.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||57.4|40.6|<0.0001
91089133|NCT04073303|182060670|SUPERIORITY||Rate-Difference|70.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.6|77.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||77.5|59.6|<0.0001
91089134|NCT04073303|182060671|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-5.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.64|-4.75|||ANCOVA|||||-4.75|-5.64|<0.0001
91089135|NCT04817332|182060682|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.92|||Odds ratio Ordinal Logistic Regression|adjusted for the stratifying factors of age as a fixed effect and site using robust standard errors to account for clustering||||0.92|0.57|0.008
91089136|NCT04817332|182060683|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.0|||Regression, Cox|||||1.00|0.76|0.058
91089137|NCT04817332|182060686|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.13||||||||1.13|0.84|
91089138|NCT04817332|182060688|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|0.99||||||||0.99|0.87|
91089139|NCT04817332|182060689|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.74||||||||1.74|0.73|
91089140|NCT04817332|182060690|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.04||||||||1.04|0.69|
90833290|NCT03192176|181536183|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.34||||0.1805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|8.13||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||8.13|0.67|0.1805
91089141|NCT04817332|182060691|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|1.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|2.58||||||||2.58|1.09|
91089142|NCT04817332|182060692|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.15||||||||1.15|0.92|
91089143|NCT04817332|182060693|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.88||||||||1.88|1.06|
91089144|NCT04817332|182060707|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-67.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-102.0|-31.0||||||||-31|-102|
90833291|NCT03192176|181536183|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.54||||0.0857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|14.95||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||14.95|0.84|0.0857
91089145|NCT04817332|182060711|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.003|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.066||||||||0.066|-0.06|
90833292|NCT03192176|181536183|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.5||||0.0316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|89.63||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||89.63|1.23|0.0316
91089146|NCT03143101|182060716|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|18.1||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.8|30.9||p-value is calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusting for the prior influenza vaccination status.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||30.9|4.8|0.006
91089147|NCT03143101|182060720|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|32.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.4|47.8||p-value is calculated from the CMH test adjusting for the prior influenza vaccination status.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||47.8|14.4|<0.001
91089148|NCT03126786|182060744|SUPERIORITY|The sample size was determined such that the difference in visual acuity between the ACTIVE treatment group and CONTROL treatment group could be estimated within +/- five ETDRS letters. Week 24 data from the Eylea prescribing information was used to estimate a pooled standard deviation of 9.17 letters. With 28 subjects per arm, a two-sided 90% confidence interval with a distance from the mean difference to the limits (half of interval width) will be less than 5 letters.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.28||0.288|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.2|1.4||There was a single primary outcome tested at a single primary endpoint, therefore no adjustments for multiple comparisons were performed. The primary endpoint was assess with a 2-sided alpha level of 0.100.|Mixed model for repeat measures|The covariance structure was assumed to be unstructured.|Estimated Value calculated as Active minus Control.|The primary efficacy analysis comparing ACTIVE with CONTROL on the mean change from baseline (Visit 2, Day 0) BCVA at Week 12 was be performed using a Mixed Model for Repeated Measurements (MMRM). This model included treatment (ACTIVE or CONTROL), visit (Visit 3 (Week 4), Visit 4 (Week 8), and Visit 5 (Week 12), Visit 6 (Week 16), Visit 7 (Week 20) and Visit 8 (Week 24), and the 2-way interactions of treatment and visit, and the BCVA baseline included as the covariate.||1.4|-6.2|0.288
91089149|NCT03243305|182060751|OTHER||Seven-cycle Pregnancy Percentage|13.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.91|17.39|||Kaplan-Meier|||The primary hypothesis to be tested is whether subjects using Amphora vaginal gel have a 7-cycle cumulative pregnancy percentage less than or equal to 21%||17.39|9.91|
91089150|NCT02689804|182060756|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
91089151|NCT02689804|182060757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.15
91089152|NCT04391842|182060784|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91089153|NCT04391842|182060785|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
91089154|NCT01691378|182060796|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.4||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|8.3|||ANCOVA|||"Analyses 2-sided test w/ sig level .05. N=35 analyzed w/ α .05 provided 80% power to detect effect size d=1. T1 variables compared using Wilcoxon rank sum \& Fisher exact tests. Per protocol analysis, all participants required T2 BHS.~T2 BHS compared bet arms controlling for T1 BHS. No confounders significant at .10, not included in model. Analysis of covariance modeled T2 BHS as function of arm \& T1 BHS. Estimated mean difference in T2 scores calculated, no adjustment for multiple comparisons."||8.3|.52|.03
91089155|NCT01691378|182060796|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.6||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|-1.3|||Regression, Linear|||"Analysis contrasted T1 to T2 change with T2 to T3 change in Waitlist arm only. Waitlist participants serve as their own control \& only variable controlled for was change in Waitlist period (if participants improved greatly during Waitlist period, they would no longer have enough room to change in Intervention period). Linear regression used with difference in change as dependent variable \& Waitlist period change as only predictor. Estimated mean difference in change calculated from this model."||-1.3|-7.9|.01
91089156|NCT01691378|182060796|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.3||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|-3.2|||one-sample t-test|||Analysis investigated change from T1 to T3 within the WtoH Intervention first arm only. This difference was calculated and a 1-sample t test was used to determine whether the estimate was different from zero. As this change was not compared with a control group change, baseline values were not accounted for.||-3.2|-9.3|.0007
91089157|NCT01691378|182060797|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.8||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|8.0|||ANCOVA|||"Analyses 2-sided test w/ sig level .05. N=35 analyzed w/ α .05 provided 80% power to detect effect size d=1. T1 variables compared using Wilcoxon rank sum \& Fisher exact tests. Per protocol analysis, all participants required T2 BHS.~T2 BSS compared bet arms controlling for T1 BSS. No confounders significant at .10, not included in model. Analysis of covariance modeled T2 BSS as function of arm \& T1 BSS. Estimated mean difference in T2 scores calculated, no adjustment for multiple comparisons."||8.0|-.29|.07
90833293|NCT03192176|181536183|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.81||||0.3471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|6.27||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||6.27|0.52|0.3471
90833294|NCT03192176|181536183|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.15||||0.0313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|32.09||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||32.09|1.18|0.0313
90833295|NCT03192176|181536183|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.49||||0.0208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|106.3||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||106.3|1.47|0.0208
90833296|NCT03192176|181536183|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.8669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|3.97||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||3.97|0.31|0.8669
90833297|NCT03192176|181536183|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.6592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|4.89||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||4.89|0.37|0.6592
90833298|NCT03192176|181536183|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.23||||0.2923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|9.98||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||9.98|0.50|0.2923
90833299|NCT03192176|181536183|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.78||||0.1145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|51.04||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||51.04|0.65|0.1145
90894735|NCT03945292|181654799|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-97.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.24|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-108.21|-86.94||From a mixed model with repeated measures, including fixed effects for treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, presence of metabolic syndrome, presence of NAFLD or NASH, baseline serum Z-AAT as covariate, and subject as a random effect.|MMRM|||||-86.94|-108.21|< 0.0001
90833300|NCT03192176|181536183|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77||||0.447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|7.78||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||7.78|0.40|0.4470
90833301|NCT03192176|181536183|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.31||||0.0753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|65.41||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||65.41|0.82|0.0753
90833302|NCT03192176|181536183|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.85||||0.0829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|60.24||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||60.24|0.78|0.0829
90894736|NCT03945292|181654803|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-129.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|36.409||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-205.52|-53.11||Model based summary statistics are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with fixed effect factors treatment group and baseline total liver Z-AAT protein as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-53.11|-205.52|0.0021
90894737|NCT03945292|181654803|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-124.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|37.207||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-201.9|-46.15||Model based summary statistics are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with fixed effect factors treatment group and baseline total liver Z-AAT protein as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-46.15|-201.9|0.0035
90894738|NCT03945292|181654803|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-140.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|30.906||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-205.27|-75.89||Model based summary statistics are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with fixed effect factors treatment group and baseline total liver Z-AAT protein as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-75.89|-205.27|0.0002
90833303|NCT03192176|181536183|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.9978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|3.59||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||3.59|0.28|0.9978
90833304|NCT03192176|181536183|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68||||0.4571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|6.65||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||6.65|0.43|0.4571
90833305|NCT03192176|181536183|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.99||||0.3681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|8.94||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||8.94|0.44|0.3681
90833306|NCT03192176|181536183|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.12||||0.1038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|54.38||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||54.38|0.69|0.1038
91089158|NCT01691378|182060797|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|3.1|||Regression, Linear|||"Analysis contrasted T1 to T2 change with T2 to T3 change in Waitlist arm only. Waitlist participants serve as their own control \& only variable controlled for was change in Waitlist period (if participants improved greatly during Waitlist period, they would no longer have enough room to change in Intervention period). Linear regression used with difference in change as dependent variable \& Waitlist period change as only predictor. Estimated mean difference in change calculated from this model."||3.1|-3.3|.94
91089159|NCT01691378|182060797|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.5||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|0.12|||one-sample t-test|||Analysis investigated change from T1 to T3 within the WtoH Intervention first arm only. This difference was calculated and a 1-sample t test was used to determine whether the estimate was different from zero. As this change was not compared with a control group change, baseline values were not accounted for.||.12|-7.0|.06
90833307|NCT03192176|181536183|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74||||0.4639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|7.72||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||7.72|0.39|0.4639
90833308|NCT03192176|181536183|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.15||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|63.27||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||63.27|0.81|0.0770
90833309|NCT03192176|181536183|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.9838|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|4.01||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||4.01|0.26|0.9838
90833310|NCT03192176|181536183|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77||||0.6995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|2.86||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||2.86|0.21|0.6995
90833311|NCT03192176|181536183|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.8808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|4.71||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||4.71|0.26|0.8808
90833312|NCT03192176|181536183|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.94||||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|45.13||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||45.13|0.54|0.1570
90894739|NCT03945292|181654805|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-98.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.291||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-140.53|-55.6||Model based summary statistics are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with fixed effect factors treatment group and baseline soluble liver Z-AAT protein as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-55.6|-140.53|0.0001
90894740|NCT03945292|181654805|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-109.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.616|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-154.81|-64.32||Model based summary statistics are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with fixed effect factors treatment group and baseline soluble liver Z-AAT protein as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-64.32|-154.81|< 0.0001
90894741|NCT03945292|181654805|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-118.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-153.95|-82.12||Model based summary statistics are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with fixed effect factors treatment group and baseline soluble liver Z-AAT protein as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-82.12|-153.95|< 0.0001
90833313|NCT03192176|181536183|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.19||||0.3742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|12.26||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||12.26|0.39|0.3742
90833314|NCT03192176|181536183|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.24||||0.1436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|48.26||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||48.26|0.57|0.1436
90833315|NCT03192176|181536183|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.57||||0.1277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|50.77||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||50.77|0.61|0.1277
90833316|NCT03192176|181536183|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.6689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.81||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||2.81|0.20|0.6689
90833317|NCT03192176|181536183|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.8019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|4.95||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||4.95|0.29|0.8019
90833318|NCT03192176|181536183|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.9591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|4.05||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||4.05|0.23|0.9591
90894742|NCT03945292|181654807|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-180.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|74.087||0.0247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-335.77|-25.64||Model based summary statistics are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with fixed effect factors treatment group and baseline insoluble liver Z-AAT protein as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-25.64|-335.77|0.0247
91089160|NCT01691378|182060798|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.6||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|12.9|||ANCOVA|||"Analyses 2-sided test w/ sig level .05. N=35 analyzed w/ α .05 provided 80% power to detect effect size d=1. T1 variables compared using Wilcoxon rank sum \& Fisher exact tests. Per protocol analysis, all participants required T2 BHS.~T2 BDI compared bet arms controlling for T1 BDI. No confounders significant at .10, not included in model. Analysis of covariance modeled T2 BDI as function of arm \& T1 BDI. Estimated mean difference in T2 scores calculated, no adjustment for multiple comparisons."||12.9|-1.7|.13
91089161|NCT01691378|182060798|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.7||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|-3.6|||Regression, Linear|||"Analysis contrasted T1 to T2 change with T2 to T3 change in Waitlist arm only. Waitlist participants serve as their own control \& only variable controlled for was change in Waitlist period (if participants improved greatly during Waitlist period, they would no longer have enough room to change in Intervention period). Linear regression used with difference in change as dependent variable \& Waitlist period change as only predictor. Estimated mean difference in change calculated from this model."||-3.6|-13.8|.003
91089162|NCT01691378|182060798|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.6||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|-5.3|||one-sample t-test|||Analysis investigated change from T1 to T3 within the WtoH Intervention first arm only. This difference was calculated and a 1-sample t test was used to determine whether the estimate was different from zero. As this change was not compared with a control group change, baseline values were not accounted for.||-5.3|-18.0|.002
91089163|NCT01107925|182060821|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Difference in median MPA in response to 20 μM ADP in LBW participants who received 5 mg prasugrel to the 75th percentile of MPA response to 20 μM ADP in HBW participants who received10 mg prasugrel at the end of Study Period 1 (Baseline through Day 12) was estimated from the observed data.|Estimate of the difference|-10.1||||0.526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.4|0.2|||bootstrap (to determine 95% CI)||Estimate of the difference = \[median (low body weight) - Q3 (higher body weight)\]|||0.20|-23.40|0.526
91089164|NCT04235504|182060835|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|-1.1|||linear mixed model|||||-1.10|-1.74|<0.0001
91089165|NCT04235504|182060836|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.59|33.6|||linear mixed model|||||33.60|21.59|<0.0001
91089166|NCT04235504|182060837|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.16|-21.55|||linear mixed model|||||-21.55|-34.16|<0.0001
91089167|NCT04235504|182060838|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.6227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.61|||linear mixed model|||||0.61|-0.37|0.6227
91089168|NCT04235504|182060839|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.17|0.0||Due to the small sample size, p value will not be meaningful. Therefore, p value is not presented|linear mixed model|||||0.00|-2.17|
91089169|NCT04235504|182060840|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.34|45.28||Due to the small sample size, p value will not be meaningful. Therefore, p value is not presented|linear mixed model|||||45.28|12.34|
91089170|NCT04235504|182060841|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-28.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.27|-11.64||Due to the small sample size, p value will not be meaningful. Therefore, p value is not presented|linear mixed model|||||-11.64|-45.27|
91089171|NCT04235504|182060842|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|0.59||Due to the small sample size, p value will not be meaningful. Therefore, p value is not presented|linear mixed model|||||0.59|-1.32|
91089172|NCT02002871|182060854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0152|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The statistical analysis was performed on the difference of the change from baseline of the Blue light treated plaque versus the Control plaque.||||0.0152
91089173|NCT03652818|182060875|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-25.2868|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.1594|||ONE_SIDED|90.0||-4.421|||||Statistics are from ANCOVA including treatment and sex as fixed effects with baseline PI score prior to Dose 2 as a covariate. The lower limit of one-sided 90% CI was -∞|Group D vs. Group B||-4.4210||
91089174|NCT03652818|182060875|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2756|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.3283|||ONE_SIDED|90.0||20.8083|||||Statistics are from ANCOVA including treatment and sex as fixed effects with baseline PI score prior to Dose 2 as a covariate. The lower limit of one-sided 90% CI was -∞|Group C vs. Group B||20.8083||
91089175|NCT03652818|182060875|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-65.9241|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.2146|||ONE_SIDED|90.0||-43.6959|||||Statistics are from ANCOVA including treatment and sex as fixed effects with baseline PI score prior to Dose 2 as a covariate. The lower limit of one-sided 90% CI was -∞|Group C vs. Group A||-43.6959||
91089176|NCT03652818|182060875|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-65.6486|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.8753|||ONE_SIDED|90.0||-43.8584|||||Statistics are from ANCOVA including treatment and sex as fixed effects with baseline PI score prior to Dose 2 as a covariate. The lower limit of one-sided 90% CI was -∞|Group B vs. Group A||-43.8584||
90957129|NCT04101318|181793767|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.4||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05. Furthermore, p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|generalized linear mixed repeated model with fixed effects|Odds ratio, marginal= Arm1/Arm2|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms.||1.40|0.49|0.482
91089177|NCT03652818|182060875|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-90.9353|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.1044|||ONE_SIDED|90.0||-68.8494|||||Statistics are from ANCOVA including treatment and sex as fixed effects with baseline PI score prior to Dose 2 as a covariate. The lower limit of one-sided 90% CI was -∞|Group D vs. Group A||-68.8494||
91089178|NCT03652818|182060875|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-25.0112|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.5376|||ONE_SIDED|90.0||-3.6571|||||Statistics are from ANCOVA including treatment and sex as fixed effects with baseline PI score prior to Dose 2 as a covariate. The lower limit of one-sided 90% CI was -∞|Group D vs. Group C||-3.6571||
91089179|NCT03652818|182060875|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|10.9546|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.0237|||ONE_SIDED|90.0||38.1014|||||Statistics are from ANCOVA including treatment and sex as fixed effects with baseline PI score prior to Dose 2 as a covariate. The lower limit of one-sided 90% CI was -∞|Group E vs. Group D||38.1014||
91089180|NCT03652818|182060876|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|33.6821|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.1209|||ONE_SIDED|90.0|7.7011||||||Statistics are from ANCOVA including treatment and sex as fixed effects with baseline PI score prior to Dose 2 as a covariate. The upper limit was ∞|Group D vs. Group B|||7.7011|
91089181|NCT03652818|182060876|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|6.1658|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.3312|||ONE_SIDED|90.0|-20.0868||||||Statistics are from ANCOVA including treatment and sex as fixed effects with baseline PI score prior to Dose 2 as a covariate. The upper limit was ∞|Group C vs. Group B|||-20.0868|
91089182|NCT03652818|182060876|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|77.3395|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.4347|||ONE_SIDED|90.0|49.662||||||Statistics are from ANCOVA including treatment and sex as fixed effects with baseline PI score prior to Dose 2 as a covariate. The upper limit was ∞|Group C vs. Group A|||49.6620|
91089183|NCT03652818|182060876|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|71.1737|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.0123|||ONE_SIDED|90.0|44.0417||||||Statistics are from ANCOVA including treatment and sex as fixed effects with baseline PI score prior to Dose 2 as a covariate. The upper limit was ∞|Group B vs. Group A|||44.0417|
91089184|NCT03652818|182060876|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|104.8558|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.2975|||ONE_SIDED|90.0|77.3555||||||Statistics are from ANCOVA including treatment and sex as fixed effects with baseline PI score prior to Dose 2 as a covariate. The upper limit was ∞|Group D vs. Group A|||77.3555|
91089185|NCT03652818|182060876|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|27.5163|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.5918|||ONE_SIDED|90.0|0.9272||||||Statistics are from ANCOVA including treatment and sex as fixed effects with baseline PI score prior to Dose 2 as a covariate. The upper limit was ∞|Group D vs. Group C|||0.9272|
91089186|NCT03652818|182060876|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-30.1223|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|26.1776|||ONE_SIDED|90.0|-63.924||||||Statistics are from ANCOVA including treatment and sex as fixed effects with baseline PI score prior to Dose 2 as a covariate. The upper limit was ∞|Group E vs. Group D|||-63.9240|
91089187|NCT01868646|182060900|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002||||||"The p-value associated with treatment factor of changes from baseline to Week 12, 24 and 36 endpoint between Subetta and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0002
91089188|NCT01868646|182060901|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0426||||||"The p-value associated with treatment factor of changes from baseline to Week 4, 12, 24 and 36 endpoint between Subetta and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0426
91089189|NCT01868646|182060902|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.599||||||"The p-value associated with treatment factor of changes from baseline to Week 4, 8, 12, 18, 24, 30 and 36 endpoint between Subetta and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.5990
91089190|NCT01868646|182060903|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6215||||||"The p-value associated with treatment factor of mean value at baseline to Week 12, 24 and 36 endpoint between Subetta and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.6215
91089191|NCT01868646|182060904|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6155||||||"The p-value associated with treatment factor of changes from baseline to Week 12, 24 and 36 endpoint between Subetta and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of Total cholesterol changes from baseline to Week 12, 24 and 36 endpoint between Subetta and Placebo treatment groups.||||0.6155
91089192|NCT01868646|182060904|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7507||||||"The p-value associated with treatment factor of changes from baseline to Week 12, 24 and 36 endpoint between Subetta and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of HDL cholesterol changes from baseline to Week 12, 24 and 36 endpoint between Subetta and Placebo treatment groups.||||0.7507
91089193|NCT01868646|182060904|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4195||||||"The p-value associated with treatment factor of changes from baseline to Week 12, 24 and 36 endpoint between Subetta and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of LDL cholesterol changes from baseline to Week 12, 24 and 36 endpoint between Subetta and Placebo treatment groups.||||0.4195
91089194|NCT01868646|182060904|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3609||||||"The p-value associated with treatment factor of changes from baseline to Week 12, 24 and 36 endpoint between Subetta and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of Triglycerides changes from baseline to Week 12, 24 and 36 endpoint between Subetta and Placebo treatment groups.||||0.3609
90894743|NCT03945292|181654807|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-163.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|73.513||0.0382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-317.65|-9.93||Model based summary statistics are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with fixed effect factors treatment group and baseline insoluble liver Z-AAT protein as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-9.93|-317.65|0.0382
90894744|NCT03945292|181654807|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-193.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|63.089||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-325.25|-61.15||Model based summary statistics are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with fixed effect factors treatment group and baseline insoluble liver Z-AAT protein as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-61.15|-325.25|0.0064
90894745|NCT02684006|181654827|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.475|0.79||2-sided p-value|Log Rank|||||0.790|0.475|0.0001
90894746|NCT02684006|181654828|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.1509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.701|1.057||2-sided p-value|Log Rank|||||1.057|0.701|0.1509
90894747|NCT02684006|181654829|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.563|0.84||2-sided p-value|Log Rank|||||0.840|0.563|0.0002
90894748|NCT02684006|181654830|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.1338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.749|1.039||2-sided p-value|Log Rank|||||1.039|0.749|0.1338
91089195|NCT01868646|182060905|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0605|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0605
91089196|NCT01868646|182060906|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0726|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0726
91089197|NCT01868646|182060907|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3108|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.3108
91089198|NCT01868646|182060908|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2934|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2934
91089199|NCT01868646|182060909|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.341|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3410
91089200|NCT01868646|182060910|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1577|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Satisfaction||||0.1577
91089201|NCT01868646|182060910|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5262|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Hyperglycemia||||0.5262
91089202|NCT01868646|182060910|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7417|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Hypoglycemia||||0.7417
91089203|NCT00536510|182060919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.96|<|0.001||95.0|-18.6|-10.9||The significance test was 2-tailed with α=0.05|ANOVA|The efficacy analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with factors for treatment, country, gender, and stratum defined by concomitant statin use.||The primary hypothesis of superiority of MK0524A 2 g to placebo in lowering Low Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol (LDL-C) was assessed using the comparison between these 2 groups from the ANOVA model.||-10.9|-18.6|<0.001
91089204|NCT00536510|182060920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.68|<|0.001||95.0|12.6|19.2||The significance test was 2-tailed with α=0.05|ANOVA|The efficacy analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with factors for treatment, country, gender, and stratum defined by concomitant statin use.||The secondary hypothesis of superiority of MK0524A 2 g to placebo in lowering High Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol (HDL-C) was assessed using the comparison between these 2 groups from the ANOVA model.||19.2|12.6|<0.001
91089205|NCT01249417|182060921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS means|-0.38||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|-0.13|||ANCOVA|||LS means for each treatment group and treatment comparisons, as well as the p-values were obtained from an ANCOVA on the change from baseline with treatment, baseline MAS score, age range at baseline, BTX status at baseline and centre as covariates.||-0.13|-0.64|0.0029
91089206|NCT01249417|182060921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS means|-0.49||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.23|||ANCOVA|||LS means for each treatment group and treatment comparisons, as well as the p-values were obtained from an ANCOVA on the change from baseline with treatment, baseline MAS score, age range at baseline, BTX status at baseline and centre as covariates.||-0.23|-0.75|0.0002
91089207|NCT01249417|182060922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS means|0.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.14|||ANOVA|||LS means for each treatment group and treatment comparisons, as well as the p-values were obtained from an ANOVA on the visit value with treatment, age range at baseline, BTX status at baseline and centre as covariates.||1.14|0.50|<0.0001
91089208|NCT01249417|182060922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS means|0.77|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.1|||ANOVA|||LS means for each treatment group and treatment comparisons, as well as the p-values were obtained from an ANOVA on the visit value with treatment, age range at baseline, BTX status at baseline and centre as covariates.||1.10|0.45|<0.0001
91089209|NCT01249417|182060923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS means|5.32||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.31|8.32|||ANOVA|||LS means for each treatment group and treatment comparisons, as well as the p-values were obtained from an ANOVA on the visit value with treatment, age range at baseline, BTX status at baseline and centre as covariates.||8.32|2.31|0.0006
90833319|NCT03192176|181536183|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.33||||0.3364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|13.06||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||13.06|0.42|0.3364
90833320|NCT03192176|181536183|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2||||0.3698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|12.32||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||12.32|0.39|0.3698
90833321|NCT03192176|181536183|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.92||||0.1587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|45.01||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||45.01|0.54|0.1587
90833322|NCT03192176|181536183|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.5||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|50.06||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||50.06|0.61|0.1300
90894749|NCT02684006|181654839|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.565|0.768||2-sided p-value|Log Rank|||||0.768|0.565|<.0001
90833323|NCT03192176|181536183|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.81||||0.4152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|7.53||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||7.53|0.43|0.4152
90833324|NCT03192176|181536183|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.9645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|3.5||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||3.50|0.27|0.9645
90833325|NCT03192176|181536183|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.95||||0.3884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|8.96||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||8.96|0.43|0.3884
90833326|NCT03192176|181536183|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.62||||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|14.41||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||14.41|0.48|0.2670
90833327|NCT03192176|181536183|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.91||||0.0861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|62.9||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||62.90|0.76|0.0861
90894750|NCT02684006|181654840|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.551|0.754||||||||0.754|0.551|
90894751|NCT06060457|181654930|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.625|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.686||||||RSV-A: Arm 1 versus Arm 2||0.686|0.570|
90894752|NCT06060457|181654930|OTHER||GMR|0.638|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.584|0.697||||||RSV-B: Arm 1 versus Arm 2||0.697|0.584|
91089210|NCT01249417|182060923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|4.65||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|7.71|||ANOVA|||LS means for each treatment group and treatment comparisons, as well as the p-values were obtained from an ANOVA on the visit value with treatment, age range at baseline, BTX status at baseline and centre as covariates.||7.71|1.59|0.0031
90833328|NCT03192176|181536183|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.21||||0.0774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|64.66||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||64.66|0.80|0.0774
90833329|NCT03192176|181536183|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.73||||0.0389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|20.65||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||20.65|1.08|0.0389
90833330|NCT03192176|181536183|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.81||||0.3695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|6.57||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||6.57|0.50|0.3695
90833331|NCT03192176|181536183|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.95||||0.3501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|7.89||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||7.89|0.48|0.3501
90894753|NCT00162370|181654948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.014|||||||Regression, Cox|||The null hypothesis evaluated is that the scores are not associated with outcome. Of the two measures, wall motion index is considered to be the primary endpoint measure. The cardiac event rate will be summarized by categorical levels of wall motion index score and the difference in wall motion index score.||||0.014
90894754|NCT00162370|181654949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Cox|||||||<0.0001
91089211|NCT01854697|182060924|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The primary endpoint assessment comparison was made within each of the 2 HCV genotypes (GT1a and GT1b). Within HCV GT1a, the 3-DAA + RBV and TPV/PR arms were compared. Within HCV GT1b, the 3-DAA and TPV/PR arms were compared. The test treatment arm was considered noninferior to the TPV/PR arm in the respective HCV subtype if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the treatment arm difference was above the noninferiority margin of -10.5%.|Difference|14.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|28.2|||||Difference (95% CI) from TPV/PR within GT1a. Calculated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||28.2|1.3|
91089212|NCT01854697|182060924|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The primary endpoint assessment comparison was made within each of the 2 HCV genotypes (GT1a and GT1b). Within HCV GT1a, the 3-DAA + RBV and TPV/PR arms were compared. Within HCV GT1b, the 3-DAA and TPV/PR arms were compared. The test treatment arm was considered noninferior to the TPV/PR arm in the respective HCV subtype if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the treatment arm difference was above the noninferiority margin of -10.5%.|Difference|19.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.4|32.6|||||Difference (95% CI) from TPV/PR within GT1b. Calculated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||32.6|6.4|
91089213|NCT01854697|182060925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.28||0.351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.39|6.65|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included baseline score and region as covariates and treatment arm as a factor.||||6.65|-2.39|0.351
91089214|NCT01854697|182060925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean of Difference|5.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.84||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.19|9.47|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included baseline score and region as covariates and treatment arm as a factor.||||9.47|2.19|0.002
91089215|NCT01854697|182060925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean of Difference|5.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.65||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.01|8.54|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included baseline score and region as covariates and treatment arm as a factor.||||8.54|2.01|0.002
90833332|NCT03192176|181536183|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.49||||0.2021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|10.14||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||10.14|0.61|0.2021
90894755|NCT01895972|181655018|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The reduction from baseline in IOP was significant at all post-baseline assessment time points through Week 52.|t-test, 2 sided|||comparison vs. baseline||||<0.001
90957130|NCT04101318|181793768|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.14||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05. Furthermore, p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|generalized linear mixed repeated model with fixed effects||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms.|Odds ratio, marginal= Arm1/Arm2|1.14|0.43|0.151
90894756|NCT04085328|181655022|NON_INFERIORITY|Predefined margin of 0.05 for noninferiority|Difference in proportion|-0.0154|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||-0.0015|||Generalized linear model|Proportion of events was analyzed using a generalized linear model, with a logit link function, accounting for within-subject correlation.|Difference in proportion = LID015385 minus Biofinity.|||-0.0015||
91089216|NCT01854697|182060926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|6.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.69|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.72|9.44|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included baseline score and region as covariates and treatment arm as a factor.||||9.44|2.72|<0.001
91089217|NCT01854697|182060926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|6.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.34|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.55|8.85|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included baseline score and region as covariates and treatment arm as a factor.||||8.85|3.55|<0.001
91089218|NCT01854697|182060926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|6.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.36|9.37|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included baseline score and region as covariates and treatment arm as a factor.||||9.37|4.36|<0.001
91089219|NCT01854697|182060927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.2||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|38.0|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with treatment arm, baseline log10 HCV RNA level, and interleukin 28B (IL28B) genotype (CC versus non-CC) as predictors.||||38.0|1.4|0.021
91089220|NCT01854697|182060927|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The test treatment arm was considered noninferior to the TPV/PR arm in the GT1b HCV subtype if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the treatment arm difference was above the noninferiority margin of -10.5%.|Difference|20.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.9|33.6|||||Difference (95% CI) from TPV/PR within GT1b. Calculated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||33.6|7.9|
90894757|NCT00514735|181655026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||In order to maintain the overall level of significance at the α=0.025 level after a planned interim analysis using α=0.003, this test will actually be performed using an adjusted α=0.0245 at the completion of the study.|Chi-squared|||"H0: Pa ≤ Pm Ha: Pa \> Pm~where Pa is the proportion of successfully treated subjects in the ablation management arm and Pm is the proportion of successfully treated subjects in the optimal medical management/drug therapy arm."||||<0.0001
90833333|NCT03192176|181536183|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.6201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|5.62||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||5.62|0.36|0.6201
90833334|NCT03192176|181536183|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.71||||0.0235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|132.0||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||132.0|1.42|0.0235
90833335|NCT03192176|181536183|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.43||||0.0929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|14.48||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||14.48|0.81|0.0929
90833336|NCT03192176|181536183|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|3.33||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||3.33|0.29|0.9820
90833337|NCT03192176|181536183|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.4956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|5.41||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||5.41|0.44|0.4956
90833338|NCT03192176|181536183|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.5708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.44||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||2.44|0.20|0.5708
90894758|NCT00514735|181655027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1427||||||An exact, one-sample binomial test was conducted at a one-sided α=0.025 level of significance.|Fisher Exact|||"H0: Pa ≥ 0.16 Ha: Pa \< 0.16~where Pa is the proportion of acute safety failures in the ablation management arm."||||0.1427
90894759|NCT00514735|181655028|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This objective was not statistically powered. The non-inferiority chronic safety margin was 0.06.||||||0.0033|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||"H0: Pa ≥ Pm + 0.06 Ha: Pa \< Pm + 0.06~where Pa is the proportion of failed subjects in the ablation management arm and Pm is the proportion of failed subjects in the optimal medical management/drug therapy arm."||||0.0033
90894760|NCT00514735|181655030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||ANOVA|||"H0: μa = μm Ha: μa ≠ μm~where μa is the change of LAD from baseline to 6 month in Ablation Management arm, and μm is the change of LAD from baseline to 6 month in Medical Management arm."||||0.35
90833339|NCT03192176|181536183|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.55||||0.1985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|10.61||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||10.61|0.61|0.1985
90833340|NCT03192176|181536183|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.8368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|4.32||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||4.32|0.31|0.8368
90833341|NCT03192176|181536183|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.18||||0.1397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|14.76||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||14.76|0.68|0.1397
90833342|NCT03192176|181536183|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.88||||0.0366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|6.85||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||6.85|0.52|0.0366
90833343|NCT03192176|181536183|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.7968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|3.05||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||3.05|0.23|0.7968
90833344|NCT03192176|181536183|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.9074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.81||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||3.81|0.30|0.9074
90833345|NCT03192176|181536183|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.41||||0.1987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.6||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||1.60|0.10|0.1987
90833346|NCT03192176|181536183|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.58||||0.204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|11.18||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||11.18|0.60|0.2040
90894761|NCT00514735|181655031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||ANOVA|||"H0: μa = μm Ha: μa ≠ μm~where μa is the change of LVEF from baseline to 6 month in Ablation Management arm, and μm is the change of LVEF from baseline to 6 month in Medical Management arm."||||0.06
90894762|NCT00514735|181655032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
91089221|NCT01854697|182060927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|28.2||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|241.1|||Regression, Logistic|Calculated using logistic regression model with treatment arm, baseline log10 HCV RNA level, and IL28B genotype (CC versus non-CC) as predictors.||||241.1|3.3|0.002
90833347|NCT03192176|181536183|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.51||||0.3318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.99||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||1.99|0.13|0.3318
90833348|NCT03192176|181536183|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.7437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|5.1||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||5.10|0.31|0.7437
90833349|NCT03192176|181536183|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.6848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|4.71||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||4.71|0.36|0.6848
90833350|NCT03192176|181536184|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.12||||0.1114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|5.32||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||5.32|0.84|0.1114
90833351|NCT03192176|181536184|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.69||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.83|12.04||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||12.04|1.83|0.0013
90833352|NCT03192176|181536184|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.65|18.54||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||18.54|2.65|<0.0001
91089222|NCT01854697|182060927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratum-adjusted Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel after adjusting for IL28B genotype (CC or non-CC).||||||0.005
91089223|NCT01854697|182060930|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The test treatment arm was considered noninferior to the TPV/PR arm in the GT1a HCV subtype if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the treatment arm difference was above the noninferiority margin of -10.5%.|Difference|13.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|27.0|||||Difference (95% CI) from TPV/PR within GT1a. Calculated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||27.0|-0.4|
90833353|NCT03192176|181536184|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.96||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.91|12.89||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||12.89|1.91|0.0010
90833354|NCT03192176|181536184|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.6384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|3.22||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||3.22|0.49|0.6384
90833355|NCT03192176|181536184|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.77||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.23|14.93||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||14.93|2.23|0.0003
90833356|NCT03192176|181536184|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.15||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|10.45||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||10.45|1.65|0.0025
90833357|NCT03192176|181536184|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.82||||0.0279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|7.12||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||7.12|1.12|0.0279
90833358|NCT03192176|181536184|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.36||||0.0114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|8.61||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||8.61|1.31|0.0114
90833359|NCT03192176|181536184|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.55||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.66|21.45||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||21.45|2.66|0.0001
91089224|NCT01854697|182060930|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The test treatment arm was considered noninferior to the TPV/PR arm in the GT1b HCV subtype if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the treatment arm difference was above the noninferiority margin of -10.5%.|Difference|19.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|32.7|||||Difference (95% CI) from TPV/PR within GT1b. Calculated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||32.7|6.5|
90894763|NCT00514735|181655033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.025|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.025
90894764|NCT01422408|181655054|OTHER|Two-sided test that the change is different from zero. Not tested against alternative treatment; single arm study.|||||<|0.001||||||2.5% significance level to account for two co-primary endpoints.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The primary endpoints (i.e., change in symptoms of vaginal dryness from the baseline to 4 weeks, and change in symptoms of dyspareunia from the baseline to 4 weeks) will be analyzed using Wilcoxon signed rank test with 2.5% significance level to account for two co-primary endpoints.||||<0.001
91089225|NCT01854697|182060930|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The test treatment arm was considered noninferior to the TPV/PR arm in the GT1b HCV subtype if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the treatment arm difference was above the noninferiority margin of -10.5%.|Difference|19.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.4|32.6|||||Difference (95% CI) from TPV/PR within GT1b. Calculated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||32.6|6.4|
90957131|NCT04101318|181793769|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.56||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05. Furthermore, p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Model was with the following fixed effects: product and period. Subject and the interaction between product and subject were random effects.|Difference between Arm 1 and Arm 2= Mean (Arm 1) - Mean (Arm 2)|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms.||0.56|-0.39|0.725
91089226|NCT03074695|182060931|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|3.03||||0.766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.02|20.08|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline characteristics (parturient race, ethnicity, height, and induction status).||||20.08|-14.02|0.766
91089227|NCT00902577|182060941|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.54||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.36|||Regression, Cox|||"FMISO selectively binds to hypoxic tissues so that SUVpeak within a region provides a measure of tumor hypoxia.:~This marker was modeled with a univariate Cox regression model for overall survival (OS) time. The hazard ratio, along with its 95% confidence interval and the p-value based on Wald's statistic are reported."||2.36|1.0|0.048
91089228|NCT00902577|182060941|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.81|||Regression, Cox|||T/Bmax is the pixel in the tumor region with the maximum tumor:blood ratio (T/Bmax) and T/Bmax depicts the magnitude of the hypoxia TBmax was modeled with a univariate Cox regression model for OS time. The hazard ratio, along with its 95% confidence interval and the p-value based on Wald's statistic are reported. The study was designed to enroll 46 evaluable participants to detect a log hazard ratio of 1.279 for TBmax with HV as a covariate with a 50% event rate||1.81|.75|0.50
91089229|NCT00902577|182060941|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|0.97|0.97|1.03|||Regression, Cox|||"Hypoxia Volume (HV) depicts the volume of tumor that has crossed the threshold for hypoxia.~Hypoxic Volume (HV) was modeled with a univariate Cox regression model for overall survival (OS) time. The hazard ratio, along with its 95% confidence interval and the p-value based on Wald's statistic are reported."||1.03|0.97|0.90
91089230|NCT00902577|182060941|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.34|||Regression, Cox||HR reported per 0.01 increase|"ktrans reflects the rate of gadolinium moves from plasma to extravascular extracellular space (predominantly though blood flow and capillary leakage).~Mean ktrans were computed using a matrix-based linearization method to fit tissue ∆R1(t) to the extended Tofts model Mean ktrans was modeled with a univariate Cox regression model for overall survival (OS) time. The hazard ratio, along with its 95% confidence interval and the p-value based on Wald's statistic are reported."||1.34|1.02|0.024
91089231|NCT00902577|182060941|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.32||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.72|||Regression, Cox||HR reported per 0.01 increase|"ktrans reflects the rate of gadolinium moves from plasma to extravascular extracellular space (predominantly though blood flow and capillary leakage).~Median ktrans were computed using a matrix-based linearization method to fit tissue ∆R1(t) to the extended Tofts model.~Median ktrans was modeled with a univariate Cox regression model for overall survival (OS) time. The hazard ratio, along with its 95% confidence interval and the p-value based on Wald's statistic are reported."||1.72|1.01|0.045
91089232|NCT00902577|182060941|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.37|||Regression, Cox|||Relative cerebral blood volume (RCBV) maps, computed from the integral of ∆R2\*(t), were corrected for leakage effects and normalized to normal appearing white matter (nRCBV); nRCBV provides a measure of tumor vasculature and was modeled with a univariate Cox regression model for overall survival (OS) time. The hazard ratio, along with its 95% confidence interval and the p-value based on Wald's statistic are reported.||1.37|0.90|0.31
91089233|NCT00902577|182060941|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.29|||Regression, Cox|||cerebral blood flow (CBF) maps were was normalized to the mean of the region of interest (ROI) in normal appearing white matter to produce the nCBF and provide another measure of vascular permeability and perfusion nCBF was modeled with a univariate Cox regression model for overall survival (OS) time. The hazard ratio, along with its 95% confidence interval and the p-value based on Wald's statistic are reported.||1.29|0.88|0.51
91089234|NCT00902577|182060941|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.26|||Regression, Cox|||Apparent Diffusion Coefficient (ADC) measures water diffusion through tissue. Cerebral infarction leads to diffusion restriction resulting in a low ADC signal in the infarcted area. A double Gaussian mixed model was fit to the ADC histogram and the mean of the lower ADC curve, was modeled with a univariate Cox regression model for overall survival (OS) time. The hazard ratio, along with its 95% confidence interval and the p-value based on Wald's statistic are reported.||1.26|0.79|0.9700
91089235|NCT00902577|182060941|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.9007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.09|||Regression, Cox|||Apparent Diffusion Coefficient (ADC) measures water diffusion through tissue. Cerebral infarction leads to diffusion restriction resulting in a low ADC signal in the infarcted area. A double Gaussian mixed model was fit to the ADC histogram and the mean of the higher ADC curve, was modeled with a univariate Cox regression model for overall survival (OS) time. The hazard ratio, along with its 95% confidence interval and the p-value based on Wald's statistic are reported.||1.09|0.91|0.9007
91089236|NCT00902577|182060942|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.24||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.91|||Regression, Cox|||"FMISO selectively binds to hypoxic tissues so that SUVpeak within a region provides a measure of tumor hypoxia.~This marker was modeled with a univariate Cox regression model for Progression Free Survival time. The hazard ratio, along with its 95% confidence interval and the p-value based on Wald's statistic are reported."||1.91|.80|0.33
91089237|NCT00902577|182060942|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.4|||Regression, Cox|||T/Bmax is the pixel in the tumor region with the maximum tumor:blood ratio (T/Bmax) and T/Bmax depicts the magnitude of the hypoxia TBmax was modeled with a univariate Cox regression model for PFS time. The hazard ratio, along with its 95% confidence interval and the p-value based on Wald's statistic are reported.||1.4|.61|0.72
91089238|NCT00902577|182060942|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.04|||Regression, Cox|||"Hypoxia Volume (HV) depicts the volume of tumor that has crossed the threshold for hypoxia.~Hypoxic Volume (HV) was modeled with a univariate Cox regression model for PFS time. The hazard ratio, along with its 95% confidence interval and the p-value based on Wald's statistic are reported."||1.04|.98|0.355
91089239|NCT00902577|182060942|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.23|||Regression, Cox|||"ktrans reflects the rate of gadolinium moves from plasma to extravascular extracellular space (predominantly though blood flow and capillary leakage).~Mean ktrans were computed using a matrix-based linearization method to fit tissue ∆R1(t) to the extended Tofts model.~Mean ktrans was modeled with a univariate Cox regression model for PFS time. The hazard ratio, along with its 95% confidence interval and the p-value based on Wald's statistic are reported."||1.23|0.99|0.074
91089240|NCT00902577|182060942|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.63|||Regression, Cox|||"ktrans reflects the rate of gadolinium moves from plasma to extravascular extracellular space (predominantly though blood flow and capillary leakage).~Median ktrans were computed using a matrix-based linearization method to fit tissue ∆R1(t) to the extended Tofts model.~Median ktrans was modeled with a univariate Cox regression model for PFS time. The hazard ratio, along with its 95% confidence interval and the p-value based on Wald's statistic are reported."||1.63|1.04|0.021
91089241|NCT00902577|182060942|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.28||||0.0096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.54|||Regression, Cox|||"Relative cerebral blood volume (RCBV) maps, computed from the integral of ∆R2\*(t), were corrected for leakage effects and normalized to normal appearing white matter (nRCBV); nRCBV provides a measure of tumor vasculature and was modeled with a univariate Cox regression model for PFS time.~The hazard ratio, along with its 95% confidence interval and the p-value based on Wald's statistic are reported."||1.54|1.06|0.0096
91089242|NCT00902577|182060942|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.38|||Regression, Cox|||"cerebral blood flow (CBF) maps were was normalized to the mean of the region of interest (ROI) in normal appearing white matter to produce the nCBF and provide another measure of vascular permeability and perfusion.~nCBF was modeled with a univariate Cox regression model for PFS time. The hazard ratio, along with its 95% confidence interval and the p-value based on Wald's statistic are reported."||1.38|1.01|0.038
91089243|NCT00902577|182060942|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.682||||0.3253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.318|1.463|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression for SUVpeak to predict PFS6||1.463|0.318|0.3253
90833360|NCT03192176|181536184|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.41||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.25|18.26||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||18.26|2.25|0.0005
90833361|NCT03192176|181536184|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.37||||0.0695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|6.02||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||6.02|0.93|0.0695
90833362|NCT03192176|181536184|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.83||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.83|12.77||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||12.77|1.83|0.0015
90833363|NCT03192176|181536184|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.28||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|8.28||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||8.28|1.30|0.0120
90833364|NCT03192176|181536184|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.49||||0.662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|6.57||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||6.57|0.94|0.662
91089244|NCT00902577|182060942|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.991||||0.9836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.403|2.434|||Regression, Logistic|||TBmax was modeled with a univariate logistic regression model for PFS6.||2.434|0.403|0.9836
91089245|NCT00902577|182060942|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.957||||0.1566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.017|||Regression, Logistic|||Hypoxic Volume (HV) was modeled with a logistic regression model for 6month progression free survival (PFS6) .||1.017|0.900|0.1566
91089246|NCT00902577|182060942|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.993||||0.9554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.775|1.273|||Regression, Logistic|||"Mean ktrans were computed using a matrix-based linearization method to fit tissue ∆R1(t) to the extended Tofts model.~Mean ktrans was modeled with a univariate logistic regression model for PFS6."||1.273|0.775|0.9554
91089247|NCT00902577|182060942|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.919||||0.6941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.602|1.402|||Regression, Logistic|||"Median ktrans were computed using a matrix-based linearization method to fit tissue ∆R1(t) to the extended Tofts model.~Median ktrans was modeled with a univariate logistic regression model for PFS6"||1.402|0.602|0.6941
90833365|NCT03192176|181536184|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.22||||0.1019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|5.8||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||5.80|0.85|0.1019
90833366|NCT03192176|181536184|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.44||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.83|16.18||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||16.18|1.83|0.0023
90833367|NCT03192176|181536184|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.33||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.15|25.02||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||25.02|2.15|0.0015
91089248|NCT00902577|182060942|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.744||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.506|1.095|||Regression, Logistic|||"Relative cerebral blood volume (RCBV) maps were corrected for leakage effects and normalized to normal appearing white matter (nRCBV).~nRCBV was modeled with a univariate logistic regression model for PFS6."||1.095|0.506|0.1340
90833368|NCT03192176|181536184|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.78||||0.238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|4.66||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||4.66|0.68|0.2380
91089249|NCT00902577|182060942|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.821||||0.2642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.161|||Regression, Logistic|||"cerebral blood flow (CBF) maps were was normalized to the mean of the region of interest (ROI) in normal appearing white matter to produce the nCBF.~nCBF was modeled with a univariate logistic regression model for PFS6."||1.161|0.580|0.2642
90833369|NCT03192176|181536184|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.61||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|9.81||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||9.81|1.33|0.0120
90833370|NCT03192176|181536184|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.25||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|5.77||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||5.77|0.88|0.0910
90894765|NCT01422408|181655054|OTHER|Exact McNemar's test was used to test if the proportion of severe symptoms at baseline are equal to the proportion of severe symptoms at the end of the study.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.36||Since there are two-co-primary endpoints, the significance level is 2.5%|McNemar|||"GEE (general estimating equation) methods were planned as a secondary analysis of the primary endpoints. Missing data for some of the weeks prevented these models from converging and we could not obtain valid results with these methods. Since this is a secondary analysis, we decided to compare symptom severity at baseline vs. week 4 (end of study). Symptoms are considered severe for scores 3 or 4 and not severe for scores 0, 1, 2"||0.36|0|0.001
91089250|NCT00902577|182060942|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.855||||0.5069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.539|1.357|||Regression, Logistic|||Apparent Diffusion Coefficient (ADC) low values were modeled with a univariate logistic regression model for PFS6||1.357|0.539|0.5069
91089251|NCT00902577|182060942|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.884||||0.1921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.735|1.064|||Regression, Logistic|||Apparent Diffusion Coefficient (ADC) high values were modeled with a univariate Logistic regression model for PFS6||1.064|0.735|0.1921
91089252|NCT00902577|182060942|OTHER|An Area Under the Curve (AUC) with a lower bound of at least 0.5 is considered statistically significant.|Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.79||||||"FMISO selectively binds to hypoxic tissues so that SUVpeak within a region provides a measure of tumor hypoxia.~Receiver Operating Characteristic(ROC) analysis was perform to determine the accuracy of this marker to predict PFS9."||0.79|0.42|
91089253|NCT00902577|182060942|OTHER|An Area Under the Curve (AUC) with a lower bound of at least 0.5 is considered statistically significant.|Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.78||||||"T/Bmax is the pixel in the tumor region with the maximum tumor:blood ratio (T/Bmax) and T/Bmax depicts the magnitude of the hypoxia.~Receiver Operating Characteristic(ROC) analysis was perform to determine the accuracy of this marker to predict PFS9."||0.78|0.39|
91089254|NCT00902577|182060942|OTHER|An Area Under the Curve (AUC) with a lower bound of at least 0.5 is considered statistically significant.|Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.83||||||"Hypoxia Volume (HV) depicts the volume of tumor that has crossed the threshold for hypoxia.~Receiver Operating Characteristic(ROC) analysis was perform to determine the accuracy of this marker to predict PFS9."||0.83|0.46|
91089255|NCT00902577|182060942|OTHER|An Area Under the Curve (AUC) with a lower bound of at least 0.5 is considered statistically significant.|Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.83||||||"mean ktrans reflects the rate of gadolinium moves from plasma to extravascular extracellular space (predominantly though blood flow and capillary leakage).~Receiver Operating Characteristic(ROC) analysis was perform to determine the accuracy of mean ktrans to predict PFS9."||0.83|0.42|
91089256|NCT00902577|182060942|OTHER|An Area Under the Curve (AUC) with a lower bound of at least 0.5 is considered statistically significant.|Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.84||||||"Median ktrans reflects the rate of gadolinium moves from plasma to extravascular extracellular space (predominantly though blood flow and capillary leakage).~Receiver Operating Characteristic(ROC) analysis was perform to determine the accuracy of Median ktrans to predict PFS9."||0.84|0.44|
91089257|NCT00902577|182060942|OTHER|An Area Under the Curve (AUC) with a lower bound of at least 0.5 is considered statistically significant.|Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.89||||||nRCBV provides a measure of tumor vasculature Receiver Operating Characteristic(ROC) analysis was perform to determine the accuracy of this marker to predict PFS9.||0.89|0.54|
91089258|NCT00902577|182060942|OTHER|An Area Under the Curve (AUC) with a lower bound of at least 0.5 is considered statistically significant.|Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.89||||||nCBF provides a measure of vascular permeability and perfusion. Receiver Operating Characteristic(ROC) analysis was perform to determine the accuracy of this marker to predict PFS9.||0.89|0.55|
91089259|NCT01421498|182061000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment difference|0.24||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.38|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.38|0.10|0.0007
90894766|NCT01422408|181655055|OTHER|Two-sided test that the change is different from zero. Not tested against alternative treatment; single arm study.||||||0.002||||||2.5% significance level to account for two co-primary endpoints.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The primary endpoints (i.e., change in symptoms of vaginal dryness from the baseline to 4 weeks, and change in symptoms of dyspareunia from the baseline to 4 weeks) will be analyzed using Wilcoxon signed rank test with 2.5% significance level to account for two co-primary endpoints.||||0.002
90957132|NCT04101318|181793770|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.56||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05. Furthermore, p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Model was with the following fixed effects: product and period. Subject and the interaction between product and subject were random effects.|Difference between Arm 1 and Arm 2= Mean (Arm 1) - Mean (Arm 2)|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms.||0.56|-0.39|0.721
91089260|NCT01421498|182061001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment difference|-0.02||||0.786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.11|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.11|-0.15|0.7860
91089261|NCT04456686|182061012|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.7|||Bayesian Mixed Model Analysis|||||0.70|-0.77|
91089262|NCT04456686|182061013|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|1.96|||Bayesian Mixed Model Analysis|||||1.96|-0.82|
91089263|NCT04456686|182061014|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.63|||Bayesian Mixed Model Analysis|||||0.63|-0.45|
91089264|NCT04456686|182061015|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.31|5.06|||Bayesian Mixed Model Analysis|||||5.06|-3.31|
91089265|NCT04456686|182061016|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.5|||Bayesian Mixed Model Analysis|||||0.50|-0.46|
90833371|NCT03192176|181536184|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.93||||0.1926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|5.18||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||5.18|0.72|0.1926
91089266|NCT04456686|182061017|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.91|||Bayesian Mixed Model Analysis|||||0.91|-0.72|
91089267|NCT04456686|182061018|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|2.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.27|12.2|||Bayesian Mixed Model Analysis|||||12.20|-7.27|
91089268|NCT04456686|182061019|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.85|||Bayesian Mixed Model Analysis|||||0.85|-0.04|
91089269|NCT04456686|182061020|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|168.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.22|379.2|||Bayesian Mixed Model Analysis|||||379.20|-38.22|
90833372|NCT03192176|181536184|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.29||||0.1017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|6.15||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||6.15|0.85|0.1017
90894767|NCT01422408|181655055|OTHER|Exact McNemar's test was used to test if the proportion of severe symptoms at baseline are equal to the proportion of severe symptoms at the end of the study.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.09||Since there are two-co-primary endpoints, the significance level is 2.5%|McNemar|||"GEE (general estimating equations) methods were planned as a secondary analysis of the primary endpoints. Missing data for some of the weeks prevented these models from converging and we could not obtain valid results with these methods. Since this is a secondary analysis, we decided to compare symptom severity at baseline vs. week 4 (end of study). Symptoms are considered severe for scores 3 or 4 and not severe for scores 0, 1, 2"||1.09|0|0.062
91089270|NCT04456686|182061021|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.06|||Bayesian Mixed Model Analysis|||||0.06|-0.07|
91089271|NCT02858401|182061025|OTHER|||||||0.1498|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.1498
91089272|NCT02858401|182061025|OTHER|||||||0.064|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.0640
91089273|NCT02858401|182061025|OTHER|||||||0.2807|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.2807
91089274|NCT02858401|182061025|OTHER|||||||0.1228|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.1228
91089275|NCT02858401|182061025|OTHER|||||||0.0289|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.0289
90894768|NCT01422408|181655056|OTHER|Two-sided test that the change is different from zero. Not tested against alternative treatment; single arm study.||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The secondary endpoints (i.e., change in symptoms of vaginal itching from the baseline to 4 weeks, and change in vaginal index score from the baseline to 4 weeks) will be analyzed using Wilcoxon signed rank test with 2.5% significance level to account for two co-secondary endpoints.||||0.001
90894769|NCT01422408|181655057|OTHER|2.5% significance level to account for two co-primary endpoints.||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The secondary endpoints (i.e., change in symptoms of vaginal itching from the baseline to 4 weeks, and change in vaginal index score from the baseline to 4 weeks) will be analyzed using Wilcoxon signed rank test with 2.5% significance level to account for two co-secondary endpoints.||||0.002
91089276|NCT02858401|182061025|OTHER|||||||0.5895|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.5895
91089277|NCT02858401|182061026|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
91089278|NCT02858401|182061026|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
91089279|NCT02858401|182061026|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
91089280|NCT02858401|182061027|OTHER|||||||0.5557|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.5557
90833373|NCT03192176|181536184|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.85||||0.0153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|11.45||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||11.45|1.29|0.0153
91089281|NCT02858401|182061027|OTHER|||||||0.5557|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.5557
91089282|NCT02858401|182061027|OTHER|||||||0.8288|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.8288
91089283|NCT02858401|182061027|OTHER|||||||0.5557|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.5557
91089284|NCT02858401|182061027|OTHER|||||||0.6056|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.6056
91089285|NCT02858401|182061027|OTHER|||||||0.5557|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.5557
91089286|NCT02858401|182061028|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
91089287|NCT02858401|182061028|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
91089288|NCT02858401|182061028|OTHER|||||||0.4047|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.4047
91089289|NCT02858401|182061029|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
91089290|NCT02858401|182061029|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
91089291|NCT02858401|182061029|OTHER|||||||0.1556|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.1556
91089292|NCT02858401|182061029|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
91089293|NCT02858401|182061029|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
91089294|NCT02858401|182061029|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
91089295|NCT02858401|182061030|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
91089296|NCT02858401|182061030|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
91089297|NCT02858401|182061030|OTHER|||||||0.3613|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.3613
91089298|NCT02858401|182061031|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
91089299|NCT02858401|182061031|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
91089300|NCT02858401|182061031|OTHER|||||||0.1949|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.1949
91089301|NCT02858401|182061031|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
91089302|NCT02858401|182061031|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
91089303|NCT02858401|182061031|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
91089304|NCT02858401|182061032|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
91089305|NCT02858401|182061032|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
91089306|NCT02858401|182061032|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
91089307|NCT02858401|182061033|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
91089308|NCT02858401|182061033|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
91089309|NCT02858401|182061033|OTHER|||||||0.4047|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.4047
91089310|NCT02858401|182061034|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
91089311|NCT02858401|182061034|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
91089312|NCT02858401|182061034|OTHER|||||||0.1556|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.1556
91089313|NCT02858401|182061034|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
91089314|NCT02858401|182061034|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
91089315|NCT02858401|182061034|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
90833374|NCT03192176|181536184|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.52||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.95|28.98||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||28.98|1.95|0.0034
91089316|NCT02858401|182061035|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
91089317|NCT02858401|182061035|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
91089318|NCT02858401|182061035|OTHER|||||||0.4047|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.4047
91089319|NCT02858401|182061036|OTHER|||||||0.1949|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.1949
91089320|NCT02858401|182061036|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
91089321|NCT02858401|182061036|OTHER|||||||0.4278|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.4278
91089322|NCT02858401|182061036|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
91089323|NCT02858401|182061036|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
90833375|NCT03192176|181536184|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.4539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|3.76||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||3.76|0.55|0.4539
91089324|NCT02858401|182061036|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
91089325|NCT02858401|182061037|OTHER|||||||0.5186|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.5186
91089326|NCT02858401|182061037|OTHER|||||||0.5716|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.5716
91089327|NCT02858401|182061037|OTHER|||||||0.1869|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.1869
91089328|NCT02858401|182061037|OTHER|||||||0.5186|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.5186
91089329|NCT02858401|182061037|OTHER|||||||0.5186|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.5186
91089330|NCT02858401|182061038|OTHER|||||||0.3613|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.3613
91089331|NCT02858401|182061038|OTHER|||||||0.4237|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.4237
91089332|NCT02858401|182061038|OTHER|||||||0.223|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.2230
91089333|NCT02858401|182061039|OTHER|||||||0.3456|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.3456
91089334|NCT02858401|182061039|OTHER|||||||0.3971|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.3971
91089335|NCT02858401|182061039|OTHER|||||||0.1301|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.1301
91089336|NCT02858401|182061039|OTHER|||||||0.3456|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.3456
91089337|NCT02858401|182061039|OTHER|||||||0.3456|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.3456
91089338|NCT02858401|182061039|OTHER|||||||0.3456|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.3456
91089339|NCT02858401|182061040|OTHER|||||||0.4047|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.4047
91089340|NCT02858401|182061040|OTHER|||||||0.4652|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.4652
91089341|NCT02858401|182061040|OTHER|||||||0.5993|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.5993
91089342|NCT02858401|182061041|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
91089343|NCT02858401|182061041|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
91089344|NCT02858401|182061041|OTHER|||||||0.1949|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.1949
91089345|NCT02858401|182061041|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
91089346|NCT02858401|182061041|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
91089347|NCT02858401|182061041|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
91089348|NCT02858401|182061042|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
91089349|NCT02858401|182061042|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
91089350|NCT02858401|182061042|OTHER|||||||0.2763|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.2763
91089351|NCT02858401|182061042|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
91089352|NCT02858401|182061042|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
91089353|NCT02858401|182061043|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
91089354|NCT02858401|182061043|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
91089355|NCT02858401|182061043|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
91089356|NCT02858401|182061044|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
91089357|NCT02858401|182061044|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
91089358|NCT02858401|182061044|OTHER|||||||0.1949|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.1949
91089359|NCT02858401|182061044|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
91089360|NCT02858401|182061044|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
91089361|NCT02858401|182061044|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
91089362|NCT02858401|182061045|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
91089363|NCT02858401|182061045|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
91089364|NCT02858401|182061045|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
91089365|NCT02858401|182061046|OTHER|||||||0.5383|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.5383
91089366|NCT02858401|182061046|OTHER|||||||0.5896|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.5896
91089367|NCT02858401|182061046|OTHER|||||||0.8207|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.8207
91089368|NCT02858401|182061046|OTHER|||||||0.5383|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.5383
91089369|NCT02858401|182061046|OTHER|||||||0.5383|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.5383
91089370|NCT02858401|182061046|OTHER|||||||0.5383|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.5383
91089371|NCT02858401|182061047|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
91089372|NCT02858401|182061047|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
91089373|NCT02858401|182061047|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
91089374|NCT02858401|182061048|OTHER|||||||0.3237|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.3237
90833376|NCT03192176|181536184|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.03||||0.0327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|8.4||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||8.40|1.10|0.0327
90833377|NCT03192176|181536184|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.67||||0.0555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|7.3||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||7.30|0.98|0.0555
90833378|NCT03192176|181536184|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.64||||0.3505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|4.67||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||4.67|0.58|0.3505
90833379|NCT03192176|181536184|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.92||||0.0265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|13.11||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||13.11|1.17|0.0265
90833380|NCT03192176|181536184|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.77||||0.0174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|17.32||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||17.32|1.32|0.0174
90833381|NCT03192176|181536184|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.95||||0.0075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|44.61||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||44.61|1.80|0.0075
90833382|NCT03192176|181536184|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.46||||0.1228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|7.68||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||7.68|0.78|0.1228
90833383|NCT03192176|181536184|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.28||||0.0431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|10.38||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||10.38|1.04|0.0431
90833384|NCT03192176|181536184|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.7||||0.0851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|8.35||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||8.35|0.87|0.0851
90833385|NCT03192176|181536184|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.4726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|3.99||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||3.99|0.53|0.4726
90833386|NCT03192176|181536184|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.29||||0.1289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|6.67||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||6.67|0.79|0.1289
90833387|NCT03192176|181536184|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.39||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|10.84||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||10.84|1.06|0.0400
90833388|NCT03192176|181536184|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.22||||0.0097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.67|40.55||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||40.55|1.67|0.0097
90833389|NCT03192176|181536184|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.97||||0.226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|5.94||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||5.94|0.66|0.2260
90833390|NCT03192176|181536184|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.63||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.07|35.96||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||35.96|2.07|0.0031
90833391|NCT03192176|181536184|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.16||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.07|49.9||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||49.90|2.07|0.0043
90833392|NCT03192176|181536184|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.5571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|4.04||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||4.04|0.47|0.5571
91089375|NCT02858401|182061048|OTHER|||||||0.3755|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.3755
91089376|NCT02858401|182061048|OTHER|||||||0.4577|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.4577
91089377|NCT02858401|182061048|OTHER|||||||0.3237|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.3237
91089378|NCT02858401|182061048|OTHER|||||||0.3237|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.3237
91089379|NCT02858401|182061048|OTHER|||||||0.3237|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.3237
91089380|NCT02858401|182061049|OTHER|||||||0.4047|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.4047
91089381|NCT02858401|182061049|OTHER|||||||0.4652|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.4652
90833393|NCT03192176|181536184|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.13||||0.1911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|6.59||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||6.59|0.69|0.1911
91089382|NCT02858401|182061049|OTHER|||||||0.7526|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.7526
91089383|NCT02858401|182061050|OTHER|||||||0.5546|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.5546
91089384|NCT02858401|182061050|OTHER|||||||0.6937|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.6937
90833394|NCT03192176|181536184|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.74||||0.1101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|9.41||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||9.41|0.80|0.1101
90833395|NCT03192176|181536184|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.86||||0.0199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|34.74||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||34.74|1.36|0.0199
90833396|NCT03192176|181536184|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.96||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|6.33||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||6.33|0.61|0.2600
90833397|NCT03192176|181536184|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.93||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.73|46.19||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||46.19|1.73|0.0090
90833398|NCT03192176|181536184|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|17.22||||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.04|145.2||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||145.2|2.04|0.0089
91089385|NCT02858401|182061050|OTHER|||||||0.8207|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.8207
91089386|NCT02858401|182061050|OTHER|||||||0.5383|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.5383
91089387|NCT02858401|182061050|OTHER|||||||0.5383|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.5383
90833399|NCT03192176|181536184|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.8966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|3.19||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||3.19|0.36|0.8966
90833400|NCT03192176|181536184|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.5031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|4.51||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||4.51|0.48|0.5031
90833401|NCT03192176|181536184|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.03||||0.2603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|6.92||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||6.92|0.59|0.2603
90957133|NCT04101318|181793771|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.28||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05. Furthermore, p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Model was with the following fixed effects: product and period. Subject and the interaction between product and subject were random effects.|Difference between Arm 1 and Arm 2= Mean (Arm 1) - Mean (Arm 2)|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms.||0.28|-0.38|0.753
91089388|NCT02858401|182061050|OTHER|||||||0.7878|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.7878
90833402|NCT03192176|181536184|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.16||||0.2447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|7.88||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||7.88|0.59|0.2447
90833403|NCT03192176|181536184|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.64||||0.4239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|5.55||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||5.55|0.49|0.4239
90833404|NCT03192176|181536184|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.72||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|99.35||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||99.35|1.38|0.0240
91089389|NCT02858401|182061051|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
91089390|NCT02858401|182061051|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
91089391|NCT02858401|182061051|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
91089392|NCT02858401|182061052|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
91089393|NCT02858401|182061052|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
91089394|NCT02858401|182061052|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
91089395|NCT02858401|182061052|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
91089396|NCT02858401|182061052|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.0000
91089397|NCT02858401|182061052|OTHER|||||||0.1949|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.1949
91089398|NCT02858401|182061053|OTHER|||||||0.5186|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.5186
91089399|NCT02858401|182061053|OTHER|||||||0.5716|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.5716
91089400|NCT02858401|182061053|OTHER|||||||0.6908|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.6908
91089401|NCT02858401|182061053|OTHER|||||||0.5186|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.5186
91089402|NCT02858401|182061053|OTHER|||||||0.5186|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.5186
91089403|NCT02858401|182061054|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
91089404|NCT02858401|182061054|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
91089405|NCT02858401|182061054|OTHER|||||||0.4047|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.4047
91089406|NCT02858401|182061055|OTHER|||||||0.5383|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.5383
91089407|NCT02858401|182061055|OTHER|||||||0.5896|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.5896
91089408|NCT02858401|182061055|OTHER|||||||0.1784|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.1784
91089409|NCT02858401|182061055|OTHER|||||||0.5383|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.5383
90833405|NCT03192176|181536184|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.6||||0.1457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|9.41||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||9.41|0.72|0.1457
90833406|NCT03192176|181536184|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|3.38||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||3.38|0.34|0.9000
90833407|NCT03192176|181536184|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.7644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|3.64||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||3.64|0.39|0.7644
91089410|NCT02858401|182061055|OTHER|||||||0.5383|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.5383
91089411|NCT02858401|182061055|OTHER|||||||0.5383|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.5383
91089412|NCT02858401|182061056|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
91089413|NCT02858401|182061056|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
91089414|NCT02858401|182061056|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
90894770|NCT01422408|181655059|OTHER|||||||0.1029||||||No adjustment for multiple comparison. Significance level of 0.05. Since this endpoint is of an exploratory nature and the significance is well above the threshold, not much more consideration was given to the issue of multiple comparisons|ANOVA|Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA rather than ANOVA since normal distribution of residuals may be suspect.||In order to compare the response between groups, Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA was used.||||0.1029
91089415|NCT02858401|182061057|OTHER|||||||0.4047|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.4047
91089416|NCT02858401|182061057|OTHER|||||||0.4047|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.4047
90833408|NCT03192176|181536184|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.29||||0.2245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|8.67||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||8.67|0.60|0.2245
90833409|NCT03192176|181536184|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.28||||0.0475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|27.4||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||27.40|1.02|0.0475
90833410|NCT03192176|181536184|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.15||||0.2569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|8.07||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||8.07|0.57|0.2569
91089417|NCT02858401|182061057|OTHER|||||||0.4047|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.4047
91089418|NCT02858401|182061058|OTHER|||||||0.3074|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.3074
91089419|NCT02858401|182061058|OTHER|||||||0.3074|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.3074
91089420|NCT02858401|182061059|OTHER|||||||0.4047|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.4047
91089421|NCT02858401|182061059|OTHER|||||||0.4047|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.4047
91089422|NCT02858401|182061059|OTHER|||||||0.4047|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.4047
91089423|NCT02858401|182061060|OTHER|||||||0.1757|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.1757
91089424|NCT02858401|182061060|OTHER|||||||0.1757|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.1757
91089425|NCT02858401|182061060|OTHER|||||||0.5993|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.5993
91089426|NCT02858401|182061061|OTHER|||||||0.8504|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.8504
91089427|NCT02858401|182061061|OTHER|||||||0.5716|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.5716
91089428|NCT02858401|182061061|OTHER|||||||0.6908|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.6908
91089429|NCT02858401|182061061|OTHER|||||||0.5186|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.5186
91089430|NCT02858401|182061061|OTHER|||||||0.5186|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.5186
91089431|NCT02858401|182061062|OTHER|||||||0.4047|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.4047
91089432|NCT02858401|182061062|OTHER|||||||0.4047|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.4047
91089433|NCT02858401|182061062|OTHER|||||||0.4047|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.4047
91089434|NCT02858401|182061063|OTHER|||||||0.4047|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.4047
91089435|NCT02858401|182061063|OTHER|||||||0.4047|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.4047
91089436|NCT02858401|182061063|OTHER|||||||0.4047|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.4047
91089437|NCT02858401|182061064|OTHER|||||||0.3074|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.3074
91089438|NCT02858401|182061064|OTHER|||||||0.3074|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.3074
91089439|NCT02858401|182061065|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
91089440|NCT02858401|182061065|OTHER|||||||0.4047|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.4047
91089441|NCT02858401|182061065|OTHER|||||||0.4047|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.4047
91089442|NCT02858401|182061066|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
91089443|NCT02858401|182061066|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
91089444|NCT02858401|182061066|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
91089445|NCT02858401|182061067|OTHER|||||||0.1757|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.1757
91089446|NCT02858401|182061067|OTHER|||||||0.1757|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.1757
91089447|NCT02858401|182061067|OTHER|||||||0.223|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.2230
91089448|NCT02858401|182061068|OTHER|||||||0.4047|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.4047
91089449|NCT02858401|182061068|OTHER|||||||0.4047|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.4047
91089450|NCT02858401|182061068|OTHER|||||||0.4652|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.4652
91089451|NCT02858401|182061069|OTHER|||||||0.4047|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.4047
90833411|NCT03192176|181536184|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.32||||0.0412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|79.44||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||79.44|1.09|0.0412
90833412|NCT03192176|181536184|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.84||||0.1201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|10.61||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||10.61|0.76|0.1201
90833413|NCT03192176|181536184|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67||||0.3814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|5.23||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||5.23|0.53|0.3814
90833414|NCT03192176|181536184|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.8549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|3.23||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||3.23|0.38|0.8549
90833415|NCT03192176|181536184|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.77||||0.1274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|10.24||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||10.24|0.75|0.1274
90833416|NCT03192176|181536184|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.67||||0.0703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|15.01||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||15.01|0.90|0.0703
90833417|NCT03192176|181536184|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.41||||0.1821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|8.76||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||8.76|0.66|0.1821
90894771|NCT01422408|181655060|OTHER|||||||0.2678||||||No adjustment for multiple comparison. Significance level of 0.05. Since this endpoint is of an exploratory nature and the significance is well above the threshold, not much more consideration was given to the issue of multiple comparisons|ANOVA|Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA rather than ANOVA since normal distribution of residuals may be suspect.||In order to compare the response between groups, Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA was used.||||0.2678
91089452|NCT02858401|182061069|OTHER|||||||0.4047|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.4047
90833418|NCT03192176|181536184|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.96||||0.0187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|109.5||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||109.5|1.53|0.0187
90833419|NCT03192176|181536184|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.18||||0.0458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|17.0||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||17.00|1.03|0.0458
90833420|NCT03192176|181536184|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.6806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|3.89||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||3.89|0.41|0.6806
90833421|NCT03192176|181536184|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|3.45||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||3.45|0.38|0.8090
90957134|NCT04101318|181793772|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.37||||0.331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|4.18||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05. Furthermore, p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Model was with the following fixed effects: product and period. Subject and the interaction between product and subject were random effects.|Difference between Arm 1 and Arm 2= Mean (Arm 1) - Mean (Arm 2)|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms.||4.18|-1.43|0.331
91089453|NCT02858401|182061069|OTHER|||||||0.4652|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.4652
91089454|NCT02858401|182061070|OTHER|||||||0.1757|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.1757
90833422|NCT03192176|181536184|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.22||||0.2352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|8.26||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||8.26|0.60|0.2352
90833423|NCT03192176|181536184|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.04||||0.1231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|12.5||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||12.50|0.74|0.1231
91089455|NCT02858401|182061070|OTHER|||||||0.1757|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.1757
91089456|NCT02858401|182061070|OTHER|||||||0.223|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.2230
91089457|NCT02858401|182061073|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
91089458|NCT02858401|182061073|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
91089459|NCT02858401|182061073|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
91089460|NCT02858401|182061073|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
91089461|NCT02858401|182061073|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
91089462|NCT02858401|182061073|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
91089463|NCT02858401|182061074|OTHER|||||||0.3333|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.3333
91089464|NCT02858401|182061075|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
90833424|NCT03192176|181536184|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.86||||0.1445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|11.76||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||11.76|0.70|0.1445
91089465|NCT02858401|182061075|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
91089466|NCT02858401|182061075|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
91089467|NCT02858401|182061075|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
91089468|NCT02858401|182061075|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
91089469|NCT02858401|182061075|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
91089470|NCT02858401|182061076|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
90833425|NCT03192176|181536184|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.03||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|102.7||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||102.7|1.41|0.0230
91089471|NCT02858401|182061076|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
91089472|NCT02858401|182061076|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
91089473|NCT02858401|182061076|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
91089474|NCT02858401|182061076|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
91089475|NCT02858401|182061076|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
90833426|NCT03192176|181536184|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.51||||0.0801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|14.36||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||14.36|0.86|0.0801
90833427|NCT03192176|181536184|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.4152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|5.32||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||5.32|0.50|0.4152
91089476|NCT02858401|182061077|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
91089477|NCT02858401|182061077|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
91089478|NCT02858401|182061077|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
90833428|NCT03192176|181536184|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.3845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|5.65||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||5.65|0.51|0.3845
90833429|NCT03192176|181536184|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.46||||0.1864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|9.39||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||9.39|0.65|0.1864
91089479|NCT02858401|182061078|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
91089480|NCT02858401|182061078|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
91089481|NCT02858401|182061078|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
91089482|NCT02858401|182061080|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
91089483|NCT02858401|182061080|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
91089484|NCT02858401|182061080|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
91089485|NCT02059239|182061090|OTHER|Simple proportion in autologous group with exact (Clopper-Pearson) 95% confidence interval.|Proportion (percent)|88.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.3|98.6||||||||98.6|65.3|
91089486|NCT02059239|182061090|OTHER|Simple proportion in allogeneic group with exact (Clopper-Pearson) 95% confidence interval.|Proportion (percent)|81.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.4|95.9||||||||95.9|54.4|
91089487|NCT02059239|182061091|OTHER|Simple proportion in autologous group with exact (Clopper-Pearson) 95% confidence interval.|Proportion (percent)|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|79.4|100.0||||||||100.0|79.4|
91089488|NCT02059239|182061091|OTHER|Simple proportion in allogeneic group with exact (Clopper-Pearson) 95% confidence interval.|Proportion (percent)|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|75.3|100.0||||||||100.0|75.3|
91089489|NCT02059239|182061092|OTHER|Simple proportion in autologous group with exact (Clopper-Pearson) 95% confidence interval.|Proportion (percent)|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|79.4|100.0||||||||100.0|79.4|
91089490|NCT02059239|182061092|OTHER|Simple proportion in allogeneic group with exact (Clopper-Pearson) 95% confidence interval.|Proportion (percent)|92.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.0|99.8||||||||99.8|64.0|
91089491|NCT02059239|182061093|OTHER|Simple proportion in autologous group with exact (Clopper-Pearson) 95% confidence interval.|Proportion (percent)|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|79.4|100.0||||||||100.0|79.4|
91089492|NCT02059239|182061093|OTHER|Simple proportion in allogeneic group with exact (Clopper-Pearson) 95% confidence interval.|Proportion (percent)|84.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.6|98.1||||||||98.1|54.6|
91089493|NCT02059239|182061094|OTHER|Simple proportion in autologous group with exact (Clopper-Pearson) 95% confidence interval.|Proportion (percent)|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|79.4|100.0||||||||100.0|79.4|
91089494|NCT02059239|182061094|OTHER|Simple proportion in allogeneic group with exact (Clopper-Pearson) 95% confidence interval.|Proportion (percent)|46.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.2|74.9||||||||74.9|19.2|
91089495|NCT02059239|182061095|OTHER|Simple proportion in autologous group with exact (Clopper-Pearson) 95% confidence interval.|Proportion (percent)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|20.6||||||||20.6|0.0|
91089496|NCT02059239|182061095|OTHER|Simple proportion in allogeneic group with exact (Clopper-Pearson) 95% confidence interval.|Proportion (percent)|15.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|45.4||||||||45.4|1.9|
91089497|NCT02059239|182061096|OTHER|Simple proportion (objective response: CR+PR) in autologous group with exact (Clopper-Pearson) 95% confidence interval.|Proportion (percent)|66.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.0|86.7||||||||86.7|41.0|
91089498|NCT02059239|182061096|OTHER|Simple proportion (objective response: CR+PR) in allogeneic group with exact (Clopper-Pearson) 95% confidence interval.|Proportion (percent)|43.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.8|70.1||||||||70.1|19.8|
91089499|NCT02059239|182061097|OTHER|Simple proportion (objective response: CR+PR) in autologous group with exact (Clopper-Pearson) 95% confidence interval.|Proportion (percent)|87.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.7|98.4||||||||98.4|61.7|
90833430|NCT03192176|181536184|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.06||||0.01268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|12.86||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||12.86|0.73|0.01268
90833431|NCT03192176|181536184|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.8||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|11.76||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||11.76|0.67|0.1600
91089500|NCT02059239|182061097|OTHER|Simple proportion (objective response: CR+PR) in allogeneic group with exact (Clopper-Pearson) 95% confidence interval.|Proportion (percent)|76.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.2|95.0||||||||95.0|46.2|
91089501|NCT02059239|182061098|OTHER|Simple proportion (objective response: CR+PR) in autologous group with exact (Clopper-Pearson) 95% confidence interval.|Proportion (percent)|81.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.4|96.0||||||||96.0|54.4|
91089502|NCT02059239|182061098|OTHER|Simple proportion (objective response: CR+PR) in allogeneic group with exact (Clopper-Pearson) 95% confidence interval.|Proportion (percent)|30.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.1|61.4||||||||61.4|9.1|
91089503|NCT02059239|182061099|OTHER|Median PFS in allogeneic group with exact (Clopper-Pearson) 95% confidence interval.|Median (95% CI)|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|25.0||||||||25|5|
91089504|NCT01418339|182061128|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-4.63|||=|0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.62|-1.63||P-value was derived from a repeated measures linear model with treatment, week, and treatment by week interaction as fixed categorical effects, the baseline value as a fixed covariate, and week as the time variable for repeated measures.|MMRM|||The statistical comparison was performed using MMRM model at a significance level of 0.05 (2-sided).||-1.63|-7.62|=0.0028
91089505|NCT01418339|182061129|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.52|||=|0.0124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|-0.12||P-value was derived from a repeated measures linear model with treatment, week, and treatment by week interaction as fixed categorical effects, the baseline value as a fixed covariate, and week as the time variable for repeated measures.|MMRM|||The statistical comparison was performed using MMRM model at a significance level of 0.05 (2-sided).||-0.12|-0.93|=0.0124
90833432|NCT03192176|181536184|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.13||||0.0317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|32.11||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||32.11|1.17|0.0317
91089506|NCT01418339|182061130|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-2.0|||=|0.5317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.31|4.32||P-value was derived from a repeated measures linear model with treatment, week, and treatment by week interaction as fixed categorical effects, the baseline value as a fixed covariate, and week as the time variable for repeated measures.|MMRM|||The statistical comparison was performed using MMRM model at a significance level of 0.05 (2-sided).||4.32|-8.31|=0.5317
90833433|NCT03192176|181536184|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.73||||0.0709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|15.53||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||15.53|0.89|0.0709
90833434|NCT03192176|181536184|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6||||0.4533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|5.41||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||5.41|0.47|0.4533
90833435|NCT03192176|181536184|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.7053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|2.6||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||2.60|0.24|0.7053
90833436|NCT03192176|181536184|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.84||||0.3677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|6.99||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||6.99|0.49|0.3677
91089507|NCT02219685|182061162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58||||||This p-value for treatment effect on basal ganglia was based on a two sample t-test assuming equal variances.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.58
91089508|NCT02219685|182061162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48||||||This p-value for treatment effect on frontal cortex was based on a two sample t-test assuming equal variances.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.48
91089509|NCT02219685|182061162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96||||||This p-value for treatment effect on dorsolateral prefrontal cortex was based on a two sample t-test assuming equal variances.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.96
91089510|NCT02219685|182061163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54||||||This p-value for treatment effect on basal ganglia was based on a two sample t-test assuming equal variances.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.54
91089511|NCT02219685|182061163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57||||||This p-value for treatment effect on frontal cortex was based on a two sample t-test assuming equal variances.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.57
91089512|NCT02219685|182061163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63||||||This p-value for treatment effect on dorsolateral prefrontal cortex was based on a two sample t-test assuming equal variances.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.63
91089513|NCT02219685|182061164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7||||||This p-value for treatment effect on basal ganglia was based on a two sample t-test assuming equal variances.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.70
91089514|NCT02219685|182061164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21||||||This p-value for treatment effect on frontal cortex was based on a two sample t-test assuming equal variances.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.21
91089515|NCT02219685|182061164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59||||||This p-value for treatment effect on dorsolateral prefrontal cortex was based on a two sample t-test assuming equal variances.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.59
90833437|NCT03192176|181536184|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|4.4||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||4.40|0.35|0.7350
90833438|NCT03192176|181536184|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.6443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|5.15||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||5.15|0.36|0.6443
90833439|NCT03192176|181536184|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.58||||0.4865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|5.76||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||5.76|0.43|0.4865
90833440|NCT03192176|181536184|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.52||||0.1628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|9.27||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||9.27|0.69|0.1628
90833441|NCT03192176|181536184|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.6935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|2.57||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||2.57|0.24|0.6935
90833442|NCT03192176|181536184|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.9753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|3.28||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||3.28|0.32|0.9753
90833443|NCT03192176|181536184|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.7407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|2.81||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||2.81|0.23|0.7407
90833444|NCT03192176|181536184|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.4929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|5.49||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||5.49|0.44|0.4929
90833445|NCT03192176|181536184|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.8496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|3.15||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||3.15|0.25|0.8496
91025466|NCT01360632|181934031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.09||||0.0074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.62|-0.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 11. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B.||-0.56|-3.62|0.0074
90894772|NCT01422408|181655061|OTHER|||||||0.2472||||||No adjustment for multiple comparison. Significance level of 0.05. Since this endpoint is of an exploratory nature and the significance is well above the threshold, not much more consideration was given to the issue of multiple comparisons|ANOVA|Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA rather than ANOVA since normal distribution of residuals may be suspect.||In order to compare the response between groups, Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA was used.||||0.2472
91032973|NCT02728102|181951654|SUPERIORITY|The proportion of patients alive and in CR/sCR at 1 year post transplant will be compared in the vaccine arm to Lenalidomide alone arm with 80% confidence intervals using a two-sample Z test comparing binomial proportions.|difference in the proportions|-1.6||||0.4397|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-15.6|12.4|||Z test|||A secondary pairwise analysis of CR rates comparing the vaccine arm to Lenalidomide alone arm at 1 year post transplant.||12.4|-15.6|0.4397
90833446|NCT03192176|181536184|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.92||||0.3248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|7.05||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||7.05|0.52|0.3248
90833447|NCT03192176|181536184|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.03||||0.2589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|6.92||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||6.92|0.59|0.2589
90833448|NCT03192176|181536184|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.54||||0.3318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.87||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||1.87|0.16|0.3318
90833449|NCT03192176|181536184|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.8536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|3.01||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||3.01|0.26|0.8536
90833450|NCT03192176|181536184|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.48||||0.2817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|1.84||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||1.84|0.12|0.2817
90833451|NCT03192176|181536184|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59||||0.4091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|2.07||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||2.07|0.17|0.4091
90833452|NCT03192176|181536184|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5||||0.3147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.93||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||1.93|0.13|0.3147
90833453|NCT03192176|181536184|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.8547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|3.24||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||3.24|0.24|0.8547
90833454|NCT03192176|181536184|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.66||||0.5023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.19||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||2.19|0.20|0.5023
90833455|NCT03192176|181536185|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.99||||0.0093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|11.35||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||11.35|1.41|0.0093
90833456|NCT03192176|181536185|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.66||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|13.09||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||13.09|1.66|0.0035
90833457|NCT03192176|181536185|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.48|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.01|23.9||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||23.90|3.01|<0.0001
90833458|NCT03192176|181536185|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.57||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.65|21.59||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||21.59|2.65|0.0002
90833459|NCT03192176|181536185|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.13||||0.1664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|6.22||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||6.22|0.73|0.1664
91032974|NCT02728102|181951655|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9376||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Chi-squared|||The proportion of participants alive and with sCR/CR/VGPR will be compared between the vaccine and the combined non-vaccine arms at 6 months Post Transplant.||||0.9376
90833460|NCT03192176|181536185|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.39||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.94|14.96||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||14.96|1.94|0.0012
90957135|NCT04101318|181793773|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.68||||0.239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.98|31.34||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05. Furthermore, p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Model was with the following fixed effects: product and period. Subject and the interaction between product and subject were random effects.|Difference between Arm 1 and Arm 2= Mean (Arm 1) - Mean (Arm 2)|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms.||31.34|-7.98|0.239
90833461|NCT03192176|181536185|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.49|27.86||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||27.86|3.49|<0.0001
90833462|NCT03192176|181536185|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.73||||0.0334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|6.89||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||6.89|1.08|0.0334
90833463|NCT03192176|181536185|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.12||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|10.62||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||10.62|1.60|0.0034
90833464|NCT03192176|181536185|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.55||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.45|17.47||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||17.47|2.45|0.0002
90833465|NCT03192176|181536185|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.9||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.85|12.98||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||12.98|1.85|0.0014
90833466|NCT03192176|181536185|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.26||||0.0872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|5.74||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||5.74|0.89|0.0872
90833467|NCT03192176|181536185|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.19||||0.0131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|7.98||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||7.98|1.28|0.0131
91089516|NCT02219685|182061165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0795||||||The p-value was from ANCOVA model for change from baseline with treatment group and baseline as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||||0.0795
91089517|NCT02219685|182061166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7007||||||The p-value was from ANCOVA model for change from baseline with treatment group and baseline as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||||0.7007
90833468|NCT03192176|181536185|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.6||||0.0386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|6.43||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||6.43|1.05|0.0386
90833469|NCT03192176|181536185|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.11||||0.0191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|8.05||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||8.05|1.20|0.0191
90833470|NCT03192176|181536185|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.84||||0.0291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|7.26||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||7.26|1.11|0.0291
90833471|NCT03192176|181536185|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.09||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.23|16.58||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||16.58|2.23|0.0004
90833472|NCT03192176|181536185|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.24||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.49|21.02||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||21.02|2.49|0.0003
90894773|NCT01422408|181655062|OTHER|||||||0.507||||||No adjustment for multiple comparison. Significance level of 0.05. Since this endpoint is of an exploratory nature and the significance is well above the threshold, not much more consideration was given to the issue of multiple comparisons|ANOVA|Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA rather than ANOVA since normal distribution of residuals may be suspect.||In order to compare the response between groups, Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA was used.||||0.507
90894774|NCT01422408|181655063|OTHER|||||||0.3676||||||No adjustment for multiple comparison. Significance level of 0.05. Since this endpoint is of an exploratory nature and the significance is well above the threshold, not much more consideration was given to the issue of multiple comparisons|ANOVA|Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA rather than ANOVA since normal distribution of residuals may be suspect.||In order to compare the response between groups, Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA was used.||||0.3676
90833473|NCT03192176|181536185|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.22||||0.0992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|5.72||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||5.72|0.86|0.0992
90833474|NCT03192176|181536185|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.66||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.11|15.16||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||15.16|2.11|0.0006
90894775|NCT01422408|181655064|OTHER|||||||0.6023||||||No adjustment for multiple comparison. Significance level of 0.05. Since this endpoint is of an exploratory nature and the significance is well above the threshold, not much more consideration was given to the issue of multiple comparisons|ANOVA|Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA rather than ANOVA since normal distribution of residuals may be suspect.||In order to compare the response between groups, Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA was used.||||0.6023
90894776|NCT01422408|181655065|OTHER|||||||0.6587||||||No adjustment for multiple comparison. Significance level of 0.05. Since this endpoint is of an exploratory nature and the significance is well above the threshold, not much more consideration was given to the issue of multiple comparisons|ANOVA|Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA rather than ANOVA since normal distribution of residuals may be suspect.||In order to compare the response between groups, Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA was used.||||0.6587
90957136|NCT04101318|181793774|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.31||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05. Furthermore, p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Model was with the following fixed effects: product and period. Subject was a random effect.|Difference between Arm 1 and Arm 2= Mean (Arm 1) - Mean (Arm 2)|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms.||0.31|-0.91|0.322
91089518|NCT02219685|182061167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2677||||||The p-value was ANCOVA model for change from baseline with treatment group and baseline as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||||0.2677
91089519|NCT02219685|182061168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.987||||||The p-value was from ANCOVA model for change from baseline with treatment group and baseline as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||||0.9870
90833475|NCT03192176|181536185|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.74||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|9.59||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||9.59|1.46|0.0060
90833476|NCT03192176|181536185|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.01||||0.1472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|5.14||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||5.14|0.78|0.1472
90833477|NCT03192176|181536185|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.05||||0.1284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|5.15||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||5.15|0.81|0.1284
90833478|NCT03192176|181536185|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.55||||0.0117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|9.5||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||9.50|1.32|0.0117
90833479|NCT03192176|181536185|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.24||||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.49|12.03||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||12.03|1.49|0.0067
90833480|NCT03192176|181536185|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.4088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|3.71||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||3.71|0.59|0.4088
90833481|NCT03192176|181536185|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.09||||0.0194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|7.96||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||7.96|1.20|0.0194
90833482|NCT03192176|181536185|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.64||||0.0423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|6.73||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||6.73|1.03|0.0423
90833483|NCT03192176|181536185|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.86||||0.2151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|4.99||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||4.99|0.70|0.2151
90833484|NCT03192176|181536185|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.71||||0.0531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|7.42||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||7.42|0.99|0.0531
90833485|NCT03192176|181536185|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.11||||0.0118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|12.34||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||12.34|1.37|0.0118
91025467|NCT01360632|181934031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42||||0.5935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|1.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 11. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B.||1.11|-1.95|0.5935
91025468|NCT01360632|181934031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||0.0211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.52|-0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 12. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B.||-0.29|-3.52|0.0211
91025469|NCT01360632|181934031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.34||||0.1031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.96|0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 12. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B.||0.27|-2.96|0.1031
91025470|NCT01360632|181934031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1366||||0.1366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.02|0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 13. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B.||0.41|-3.02|0.1366
91025471|NCT01360632|181934031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.96||||0.2709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.68|0.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 13. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B.||0.75|-2.68|0.2709
91025472|NCT01360632|181934031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6||||0.0812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 14. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B.||0.2|-3.4|0.0812
90833486|NCT03192176|181536185|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.28||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.29|80.46||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||80.46|3.29|0.0006
90833487|NCT03192176|181536185|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.57||||0.3698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|4.22||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||4.22|0.59|0.3698
90894777|NCT01422408|181655066|OTHER|||||||0.8772||||||No adjustment for multiple comparison. Significance level of 0.05. Since this endpoint is of an exploratory nature and the significance is well above the threshold, not much more consideration was given to the issue of multiple comparisons|ANOVA|Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA rather than ANOVA since normal distribution of residuals may be suspect.||In order to compare the response between groups, Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA was used.||||0.8772
90894778|NCT01422408|181655067|OTHER|||||||0.7395||||||No adjustment for multiple comparison. Significance level of 0.05. Since this endpoint is of an exploratory nature and the significance is well above the threshold, not much more consideration was given to the issue of multiple comparisons|ANOVA|Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA rather than ANOVA since normal distribution of residuals may be suspect.||In order to compare the response between groups, Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA was used.||||0.7395
90894779|NCT01422408|181655068|OTHER|||||||0.9618||||||No adjustment for multiple comparison. Significance level of 0.05. Since this endpoint is of an exploratory nature and the significance is well above the threshold, not much more consideration was given to the issue of multiple comparisons|ANOVA|Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA rather than ANOVA since normal distribution of residuals may be suspect.||In order to compare the response between groups, Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA was used.||||0.9618
90894780|NCT01422408|181655069|OTHER|||||||0.5113||||||No adjustment for multiple comparison. Significance level of 0.05. Since this endpoint is of an exploratory nature and the significance is well above the threshold, not much more consideration was given to the issue of multiple comparisons|ANOVA|Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA rather than ANOVA since normal distribution of residuals may be suspect.||In order to compare the response between groups, Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA was used.||||0.5113
90894781|NCT01422408|181655070|OTHER|||||||0.8833||||||No adjustment for multiple comparison. Significance level of 0.05. Since this endpoint is of an exploratory nature and the significance is well above the threshold, not much more consideration was given to the issue of multiple comparisons|ANOVA|Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA rather than ANOVA since normal distribution of residuals may be suspect.||In order to compare the response between groups, Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA was used.||||0.8833
90833488|NCT03192176|181536185|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.58||||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|13.53||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||13.53|1.55|0.0059
90833489|NCT03192176|181536185|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.32||||0.0241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|9.44||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||9.44|1.17|0.0241
90833490|NCT03192176|181536185|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.5308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.77||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||3.77|0.50|0.5308
90833491|NCT03192176|181536185|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.8603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|2.9||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||2.90|0.41|0.8603
90894782|NCT01422408|181655071|OTHER|||||||0.7983||||||No adjustment for multiple comparison. Significance level of 0.05. Since this endpoint is of an exploratory nature and the significance is well above the threshold, not much more consideration was given to the issue of multiple comparisons|ANOVA|Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA rather than ANOVA since normal distribution of residuals may be suspect.||In order to compare the response between groups, Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA was used.||||0.7983
90894783|NCT01422408|181655072|OTHER|||||||0.4937||||||No adjustment for multiple comparison. Significance level of 0.05. Since this endpoint is of an exploratory nature and the significance is well above the threshold, not much more consideration was given to the issue of multiple comparisons|ANOVA|Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA rather than ANOVA since normal distribution of residuals may be suspect.||In order to compare the response between groups, Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA was used.||||0.4937
90894784|NCT01422408|181655073|OTHER|||||||0.9106||||||No adjustment for multiple comparison. Significance level of 0.05. Since this endpoint is of an exploratory nature and the significance is well above the threshold, not much more consideration was given to the issue of multiple comparisons|ANOVA|Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA rather than ANOVA since normal distribution of residuals may be suspect.||In order to compare the response between groups, Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA was used.||||0.9106
90894785|NCT01422408|181655074|OTHER|||||||0.507||||||No adjustment for multiple comparison. Significance level of 0.05. Since this endpoint is of an exploratory nature and the significance is well above the threshold, not much more consideration was given to the issue of multiple comparisons|ANOVA|Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA rather than ANOVA since normal distribution of residuals may be suspect.||In order to compare the response between groups, Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA was used.||||0.507
90894786|NCT01422408|181655075|OTHER|||||||0.3676||||||No adjustment for multiple comparison. Significance level of 0.05. Since this endpoint is of an exploratory nature and the significance is well above the threshold, not much more consideration was given to the issue of multiple comparisons|ANOVA|Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA rather than ANOVA since normal distribution of residuals may be suspect.||In order to compare the response between groups, Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA was used.||||0.3676
91032975|NCT02728102|181951655|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4887||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Chi-squared|||In this pairwise analysis, the proportion of participants alive and with sCR/CR/VGPR will be compared between the vaccine arm and lenalidomide/GM-CSF arm at 6 months Post Transplant.||||0.4887
90833492|NCT03192176|181536185|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.73||||0.0264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|11.95||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||11.95|1.17|0.0264
90833493|NCT03192176|181536185|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.6||||0.0188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|16.42||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||16.42|1.29|0.0188
90894787|NCT01422408|181655076|OTHER|||||||0.6023||||||No adjustment for multiple comparison. Significance level of 0.05. Since this endpoint is of an exploratory nature and the significance is well above the threshold, not much more consideration was given to the issue of multiple comparisons|ANOVA|Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA rather than ANOVA since normal distribution of residuals may be suspect.||In order to compare the response between groups, Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA was used.||||0.6023
90894788|NCT01422408|181655077|OTHER|||||||0.08531||||||No adjustment for multiple comparison. Significance level of 0.05. Since this endpoint is of an exploratory nature and the significance is well above the threshold, not much more consideration was given to the issue of multiple comparisons|ANOVA|Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA rather than ANOVA since normal distribution of residuals may be suspect.||In order to compare the response between groups, Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA was used.||||0.08531
90894789|NCT01422408|181655078|OTHER|||||||0.2011||||||No adjustment for multiple comparison. Significance level of 0.05. Since this endpoint is of an exploratory nature and the significance is well above the threshold, not much more consideration was given to the issue of multiple comparisons|ANOVA|Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA rather than ANOVA since normal distribution of residuals may be suspect.||In order to compare the response between groups, Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA was used.||||0.2011
90894790|NCT01422408|181655079|OTHER|||||||0.1187||||||No adjustment for multiple comparison. Significance level of 0.05. Since this endpoint is of an exploratory nature and the significance is well above the threshold, not much more consideration was given to the issue of multiple comparisons|ANOVA|Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA rather than ANOVA since normal distribution of residuals may be suspect.||In order to compare the response between groups, Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA was used.||||0.1187
90894791|NCT02038894|181655087|NON_INFERIORITY|A previous study for evaluating respiratory complications with intubated and insufflated techniques found a difference in the incidence of respiratory complications of 9.1%, a power analysis was determined. 200 subjects per group was estimated provide 82% power to detect a difference. We elected to do an interim analysis when 60 children per group were recruited because of a clinical impression that one of the techniques had a grossly divergent incidence of respiratory complications.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.14||Threshold for significance \<0.05 Comparing SPO2 \<95%|Mean equality test|||||0.14|0|<0.0001
90894792|NCT02038894|181655087|NON_INFERIORITY|A previous study found an incidence of respiratory complications of 9.1%. 200 subjects per group was estimated provide 82% power to detect a difference when conducting a two- sided test at a significance level of a = 0.05.We did an interim analysis when 60 children per group were recruited because of a clinical impression that one of the techniques had a grossly divergent incidence of respiratory complications. Based on the results of that interim analysis, recruitment was discontinued|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.27||p\<0.05. Sp02\<85%|Mean equality test||Odds ratios were calculated to the respiratory complications comparing the different groups and by regrouping by the differences in airway management (IS + IP vs NA) and by the medication used for anesthesia maintenance (IS vs IP + NA)|||0.27|0|0.0001
90894793|NCT02038894|181655088|NON_INFERIORITY|No previous data was available to calculate a power calculation for the secondary outcome.||||||0.901||||||Threshold of Significance|Mean equality test|||Total OR Time||||0.901
91089520|NCT02219685|182061169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3388||||||The p-value was from ANCOVA model for change from baseline with treatment group and baseline as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||||0.3388
90894794|NCT00724152|181655090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Null hypothesis: The Cognitive Behavioral Therapy group would not demonstrate decreased distress at post-treatment as compared to the Tinnitus Education group on the primary outcome measure (THI) between pre-treatment and post-treatment.||||<0.05
90894795|NCT03266770|181655100|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|1.29|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.29|-1.07|0.83
90894796|NCT04274894|181655102|NON_INFERIORITY|"The hypothesis for the primary safety analysis is:~H0: Change in 24-hour average SBP from Baseline to EOT ≥ 3 mmHg Vs. H1: Change in 24-hour average SBP from Baseline to EOT \< 3 mmHg"|LS Mean Change from Baseline to EOT|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|3.13||||||The primary endpoint of change from Baseline to End of Treatment (EOT) in average 24-hour SBP was evaluated using a linear regression model with change in average 24-hour SBP from Baseline to EOT as the dependent variable, centralized baseline average 24-hour SBP, ongoing medical history of hypertension, and pooled study center as covariates in the per protocol population.||3.13|0.63|
90894797|NCT03848403|181655108|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means Difference|-21.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.9|-16.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-16.48|-26.90|<0.0001
90894798|NCT03848403|181655108|SUPERIORITY||LS Means Difference|-21.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.39|-15.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-15.88|-26.39|<0.0001
90894799|NCT03848403|181655108|SUPERIORITY||LS Means Difference|0.55||||0.8341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.65|5.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.75|-4.65|0.8341
90894800|NCT01499082|181655125|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|"Stepwise closed testing approach was used to assess non-inferiority and superiority sequentially:~1. Non-inferiority of HOE901-U300 vs Lantus: Upper bound of two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of difference between HOE901-U300 and Lantus on mITT population is \<0.4%.~2. Superiority (only if non-inferiority has been demonstrated): Upper bound of two-sided 95% CI for difference in mean change in HbA1c from baseline to endpoint between HOE901-U300 and Lantus on mITT population is \<0."|Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.112|0.107||||||Analysis was performed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, strata of screening HbA1c (\<8.0 and \>=8.0%), and country as fixed effects and using the HbA1c baseline value as a covariate.||0.107|-0.112|
90957137|NCT04101318|181793775|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.15||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05. Furthermore, p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Model was with the following fixed effects: product and period. Subject was a random effect.|Difference between Arm 1 and Arm 2= Mean (Arm 1) - Mean (Arm 2)|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms.||0.15|-0.44|0.343
91089521|NCT00705757|182061191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.769|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||One way ANOVA of Upper Lid||||0.769
91089522|NCT00705757|182061191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||One way ANOVA of Lower Lid||||0.230
91089523|NCT00705757|182061191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||One way ANOVA of cheek/face||||0.851
91089524|NCT03519009|182061209|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|6.3|||longitudinal logistic regression|||||6.3|1.8|<0.001
90833494|NCT03192176|181536185|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.7642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|3.27||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||3.27|0.42|0.7642
90833495|NCT03192176|181536185|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.91||||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|16.53||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||16.53|1.46|0.0101
90833496|NCT03192176|181536185|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.88||||0.0572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|8.55||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||8.55|0.97|0.0572
90833497|NCT03192176|181536185|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.7348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|3.2||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||3.20|0.44|0.7348
90833498|NCT03192176|181536185|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2||||0.1397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|6.25||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||6.25|0.77|0.1397
90894801|NCT01499082|181655126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.79||||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.93|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A one-sided test (at alpha=0.025) for superiority of HOE901-U300 over Lantus was to be performed in case the non-inferiority of HOE901-U300 vs Lantus for the primary endpoint was demonstrated. Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method with treatment as a factor and stratified on strata of screening HbA1c (\<8.0 and \>=8.0%).||0.93|0.67|0.0045
90833499|NCT03192176|181536185|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.07||||0.0231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|13.64||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||13.64|1.21|0.0231
90833500|NCT03192176|181536185|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.54||||0.0196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|16.15||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||16.15|1.27|0.0196
90833501|NCT03192176|181536185|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.7703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|3.24||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||3.24|0.42|0.7703
90833502|NCT03192176|181536185|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.83||||0.0222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|12.12||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||12.12|1.21|0.0222
90957138|NCT04101318|181793776|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16||||0.387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.21||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05. Furthermore, p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Model was with the following fixed effects: product and period. Subject was a random effect.|Difference between Arm 1 and Arm 2= Mean (Arm 1) - Mean (Arm 2)|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms.||0.21|-0.53|0.387
90833503|NCT03192176|181536185|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.77||||0.0668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|8.21||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||8.21|0.93|0.0668
90833504|NCT03192176|181536185|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.7533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|3.22||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||3.22|0.43|0.7533
90833505|NCT03192176|181536185|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67||||0.3325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|4.73||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||4.73|0.59|0.3325
90833506|NCT03192176|181536185|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.71||||0.0899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|8.57||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||8.57|0.86|0.0899
90833507|NCT03192176|181536185|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.31||||0.0642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|11.79||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||11.79|0.93|0.0642
90833508|NCT03192176|181536185|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.5964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|3.89||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||3.89|0.46|0.5964
90833509|NCT03192176|181536185|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.43||||0.0224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|15.91||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||15.91|1.23|0.0224
91089525|NCT03519009|182061210|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|4.4|||longitudinal logistic regression|||||4.4|1.5|<0.001
90833510|NCT03192176|181536185|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72||||0.3139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|4.96||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||4.96|0.60|0.3139
90833511|NCT03192176|181536185|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.6343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|3.76||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||3.76|0.45|0.6343
90833512|NCT03192176|181536185|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.6557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|3.61||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||3.61|0.45|0.6557
90833513|NCT03192176|181536185|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.66||||0.0516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|13.51||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||13.51|0.99|0.0516
90833514|NCT03192176|181536185|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.38||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|17.91||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||17.91|1.07|0.0400
90833515|NCT03192176|181536185|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.5825|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|4.24||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||4.24|0.44|0.5825
90833516|NCT03192176|181536185|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.46||||0.0152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|37.83||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||37.83|1.47|0.0152
90833517|NCT03192176|181536185|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3||||0.1565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|7.3||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||7.30|0.73|0.1565
90833518|NCT03192176|181536185|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.4932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|4.25||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||4.25|0.50|0.4932
90833519|NCT03192176|181536185|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.8504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|3.12||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||3.12|0.39|0.8504
90833520|NCT03192176|181536185|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.07||||0.0759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|10.61||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||10.61|0.89|0.0759
90833521|NCT03192176|181536185|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.69||||0.0477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|13.46||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||13.46|1.01|0.0477
90833522|NCT03192176|181536185|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.47||||0.1448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|8.36||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||8.36|0.73|0.1448
90833523|NCT03192176|181536185|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.54||||0.0173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|22.71||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||22.71|1.35|0.0173
90833524|NCT03192176|181536185|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.57||||0.1101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|8.17||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||8.17|0.81|0.1101
90833525|NCT03192176|181536185|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.6022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|3.78||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||3.78|0.46|0.6022
90833526|NCT03192176|181536185|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.6128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|3.73||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||3.73|0.46|0.6128
90833527|NCT03192176|181536185|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.82||||0.1001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|9.68||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||9.68|0.82|0.1001
91032976|NCT02728102|181951655|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5176||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Chi-squared|||In this pairwise analysis, the proportion of participants alive and with sCR/CR/VGPR will be compared between the vaccine arm and lenalidomide alone arm at 6 months Post Transplant.||||0.5176
91089526|NCT04585919|182061211|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed effect model controlling for secular trend, patient sociodemographic and health characteristics||||||0.005
91089527|NCT04585919|182061212|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed effect model controlling for secular trend, patient sociodemographic and health characteristics||||||0.19
91089528|NCT01435759|182061225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean|3.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.01||0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||MCP-Mod Analysis|The systolic blood pressure p-value was based on a critical value of 1.99 from a multivariate-t distribution with 341 degrees of freedom.|The t-statistic used for this analysis, 3.14, was based on MCP-Mod Analysis for the candidate model EMax.|||||0.004
90833528|NCT03192176|181536185|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.95||||0.0255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|20.12||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||20.12|1.22|0.0255
90894802|NCT01499082|181655127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.162||0.6909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.383|0.254|||ANCOVA|||Change in pre-injection SMPG was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment, strata of screening HbA1c (\<8.0 and \>=8.0%), and country as fixed effects and using the pre-injection SMPG baseline value as a covariate. A test for superiority of HOE901-U300 over Lantus was to be performed one-sided at level alpha = 0.025 if previous analysis for nocturnal hypoglycemia was significant.||0.254|-0.383|0.6909
90894803|NCT01499082|181655136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.123|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.189|0.298||||||Analysis was performed using Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment regimen and country as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c value as a covariate.||0.298|-0.189|
90894804|NCT01218126|181655141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.6||||0.517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|5.2|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Placebo versus Losmapimod 2.5 mg at Week 4.||5.2|-10.4|0.517
90894805|NCT01218126|181655141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2||||0.763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|6.5|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg at Week 4||6.5|-8.9|0.763
90894806|NCT01218126|181655141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.5||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|13.3|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Placebo versus Losmapimod 15 mg at Week 4||13.3|-2.3|0.164
90894807|NCT01218126|181655141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|10.5|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Placebo versus Losmapimod 2.5 mg at Week 12||10.5|-9.2|0.900
90894808|NCT01218126|181655141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3||||0.788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|8.4|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg at Week 12||8.4|-11.1|0.788
90894809|NCT01218126|181655141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.8||||0.722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|11.8|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Placebo versus Losmapimod 15 mg at Week 12||11.8|-8.2|0.722
90894810|NCT01218126|181655141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.7||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.2|4.9|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Placebo versus Losmapimod 2.5 mg at Week 24||4.9|-18.2|0.260
90894811|NCT01218126|181655141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.7||||0.422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.1|6.8|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg at Week 24||6.8|-16.1|0.422
90833529|NCT03192176|181536185|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.42||||0.1521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|8.1||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||8.10|0.72|0.1521
91089529|NCT01435759|182061225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Means|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.01||0.032|TWO_SIDED||||||MCP-Mod Analysis|The systolic blood pressure p-value was based on a critical value of 1.99 from a multivariate-t distribution with 341 degrees of freedom.|The t-statistic used for this analysis, 2.48, was based on MCP-Mod Analysis for the candidate model Exponential.|||||0.032
91089530|NCT01435759|182061225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean|3.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.01||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||MCP-Mod Analysis|The systolic blood pressure p-value was based on a critical value of 1.99 from a multivariate-t distribution with 341 degrees of freedom.|The t-statistic used for this analysis, 3.26 was based on MCP-Mod Analysis for the candidate model Linear.|||||0.003
91089531|NCT01435759|182061225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Means|2.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.01||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||MCP-Mod Analysis Method|The systolic blood pressure p-value was based on a critical value of 1.99 from a multivariate-t distribution with 341 degrees of freedom.|The t-statistic used for this analysis, 2.88, was based on MCP-Mod Analysis for the candidate model Logistic1.|||||0.010
90833530|NCT03192176|181536185|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.37||||0.0071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.84|47.69||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||47.69|1.84|0.0071
90957139|NCT04101318|181793777|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.16||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05. Furthermore, p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Model was with the following fixed effects: product and period. Subject was a random effect.|Difference between Arm 1 and Arm 2= Mean (Arm 1) - Mean (Arm 2)|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms.||0.16|-0.18|0.899
91025473|NCT01360632|181934031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.52||||0.1001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.33|0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 14. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B.||0.29|-3.33|0.1001
91025474|NCT01360632|181934032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.12||||0.0496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.24|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 9. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3.||0|-2.24|0.0496
91025475|NCT01360632|181934032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49||||0.387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|0.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 9. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3.||0.63|-1.61|0.387
91025476|NCT01360632|181934032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.75||||0.0125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.13|-0.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 10. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3.||-0.38|-3.13|0.0125
91025477|NCT01360632|181934032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.19||||0.0898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.57|0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 10. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3.||0.19|-2.57|0.0898
91025478|NCT01360632|181934032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.31||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.88|-0.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 11. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3.||-0.74|-3.88|0.004
91025479|NCT01360632|181934032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.83||||0.301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 11. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3.||0.74|-2.4|0.301
91025480|NCT01360632|181934032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.15||||0.0118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.82|-0.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 12. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3.||-0.48|-3.82|0.0118
91089532|NCT01435759|182061225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Means|3.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.01||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||MCP-Mod Analysis|The systolic blood pressure p-value was based on a critical value of 1.99 from a multivariate-t distribution with 341 degrees of freedom.|The t-statistic used for this analysis, 3.12, was based on MCP-Mod Analysis for the candidate model Logistic2.|||||0.005
91089533|NCT01435759|182061226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Means|2.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.011|TWO_SIDED||||||MCP-Mod Analysis|The diastolic blood pressure p-value was based on a critical value of 1.99 from a multivariate-t distribution with 341 degrees of freedom.|The t-statistic used for this analysis, 2.86 was based on MCP-Mod Analysis for the candidate model Emax.|||||0.011
91089534|NCT01435759|182061226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Means|1.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.023|TWO_SIDED||||||MCP-Mod Analysis|The diastolic blood pressure p-value was based on a critical value of 1.99 from a multivariate-t distribution with 341 degrees of freedom.|The t-statistic used for this analysis, 2.59, was based on MCP-Mod Analysis for the candidate model Exponential.|||||0.023
90833531|NCT03192176|181536185|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.52||||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|7.93||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||7.93|0.80|0.1150
90833532|NCT03192176|181536185|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.8101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.22||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||3.22|0.40|0.8101
90833533|NCT03192176|181536185|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.4663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|4.33||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||4.33|0.51|0.4663
90833534|NCT03192176|181536185|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.8||||0.0453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|14.01||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||14.01|1.03|0.0453
90833535|NCT03192176|181536185|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.36||||0.0659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|12.21||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||12.21|0.92|0.0659
90833536|NCT03192176|181536185|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.83||||0.3117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|5.86||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||5.86|0.57|0.3117
90833537|NCT03192176|181536185|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.02||||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|24.73||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||24.73|1.46|0.0129
90833538|NCT03192176|181536185|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.12||||0.0303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|14.83||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||14.83|1.14|0.0303
90833539|NCT03192176|181536185|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.94||||0.2772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|6.42||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||6.42|0.59|0.2772
90833540|NCT03192176|181536185|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.9432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|3.16||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||3.16|0.29|0.9432
90833541|NCT03192176|181536185|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.08||||0.2577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|7.36||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||7.36|0.59|0.2577
90833542|NCT03192176|181536185|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.55||||0.1496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|9.12||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||9.12|0.71|0.1496
90894812|NCT01218126|181655141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.4||||0.564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.1|8.2|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Placebo versus Losmapimod 15 mg at Week 24||8.2|-15.1|0.564
90957140|NCT00717067|181793778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted geometric means|129.17||||||90.0|92.16|181.04|||ANOVA|||Ratio (%) test (mild) / reference (normal). AUClast was calculated using the log-linear trapezoidal method.||181.04|92.16|
90957141|NCT00717067|181793778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted geometric means|88.31||||||90.0|61.97|125.83|||ANOVA|||Ratio (%) test (moderate) / reference (normal). AUClast was calculated using the log-linear trapezoidal method.||125.83|61.97|
90833543|NCT03192176|181536185|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.05||||0.2874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|7.67||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||7.67|0.55|0.2874
90833544|NCT03192176|181536185|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.26||||0.1981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|7.78||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||7.78|0.65|0.1981
90833545|NCT03192176|181536185|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.35||||0.0531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|11.43||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||11.43|0.98|0.0531
90833546|NCT03192176|181536185|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72||||0.5858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|2.35||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||2.35|0.22|0.5858
90833547|NCT03192176|181536185|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.68||||0.5122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|2.16||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||2.16|0.21|0.5122
90833548|NCT03192176|181536185|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.55||||0.3415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.89||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||1.89|0.16|0.3415
90833549|NCT03192176|181536185|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.8263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|2.98||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||2.98|0.25|0.8263
90957142|NCT00717067|181793778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted geometric means|322.23||||||90.0|171.97|603.78|||ANOVA|||Ratio (%) test (severe) / reference (normal). AUClast was calculated using the log-linear trapezoidal method.||603.78|171.97|
91089535|NCT01435759|182061226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||MCP-Mod Analysis|2.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||Least Squares Means|The diastolic blood pressure p-value was based on a critical value of 1.99 from a multivariate-t distribution with 341 degrees of freedom.|The t-statistic used for this analysis, 3.28, was based on MCP-Mod Analysis for the candidate model Linear.|||||0.003
91089536|NCT01435759|182061226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Means|2.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||MCP-Mod Analysis|The diastolic blood pressure p-value was based on a critical value of 1.99 from a multivariate-t distribution with 341 degrees of freedom.|The t-statistic used for this analysis, 2.93, was based on MCP-Mod Analysis for the candidate model Logistic1.|||||0.009
91089537|NCT01435759|182061226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Means|2.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||MCP-Mod Analysis|The diastolic blood pressure p-value was based on a critical value of 1.99 from a multivariate-t distribution with 341 degrees of freedom.|The t-statistic used for this analysis, 3.13, was based on MCP-Mod Analysis for the candidate model Logistic2.|||||0.005
91089538|NCT01435759|182061227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Means|4.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||MCP-Mod Analysis|The pulse p-value was based on a critical value of 1.99 from a multivariate-t distribution with 341 degrees of freedom.|The t-statistic used for this analysis, 4.24, was based on MCP-Mod Analysis for the candidate model Emax|||||<0.001
91089539|NCT01435759|182061227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Means|3.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||MCP-Mod Analysis|The pulse p-value was based on a critical value of 1.99 from a multivariate-t distribution with 341 degrees of freedom.|The t-statistic used for this analysis, 3.36, was based on MCP-Mod Analysis for the candidate model Expontential.|||||0.002
91089540|NCT01435759|182061227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Means|4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||MCP-Mod Analysis|The pulse p-value was based on a critical value of 1.99 from a multivariate-t distribution with 341 degrees of freedom.|The t-statistic used for this analysis, 4.10, was based on MCP-Mod Analysis for the candidate model Linear.|||||<0.001
90833550|NCT03192176|181536185|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.8085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|3.03||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||3.03|0.24|0.8085
90833551|NCT03192176|181536185|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.6745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|4.43||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||4.43|0.38|0.6745
90833552|NCT03192176|181536185|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.9019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|3.45||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||3.45|0.34|0.9019
90833553|NCT03192176|181536185|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.62||||0.4425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|2.1||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||2.10|0.18|0.4425
91089541|NCT01435759|182061227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Means|4.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||MCP-Mod Analysis|The pulse p-value was based on a critical value of 1.99 from a multivariate-t distribution with 341 degrees of freedom.|The t-statistic used for this analysis, 4.39, was based on MCP-Mod Analysis for the candidate model Logistic1.|||||<0.001
91089542|NCT01435759|182061227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Means|4.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||MCP-Mod Analysis|The pulse p-value was based on a critical value of 1.99 from a multivariate-t distribution with 341 degrees of freedom.|The t-statistic used for this analysis, 4.39 was based on MCP-Mod Analysis for the candidate model Logistic2.|||||<0.001
91089543|NCT01435759|182061228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Means|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.07||1|ONE_SIDED|||||Any p-value \<=0.10 indicates successful establishment of dose-response relationship.|MCP-Mod Analysis Method|The adjusted p-value was based on a critical value of 2.02 from a multivariate-t distribution with 341 degrees of freedom.|The t-statistic used for this analysis, 0.10, was based on MCP-Mod Analysis from the linear contrast using optimal coefficients for the pre-specified candidate model Betamod.|Analysis of Dose-Response Using the MCP-Mod Analysis Method||||1.000
91089544|NCT01435759|182061228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Means|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06||0.942|ONE_SIDED|||||Any p-value \<=0.10 indicates successful establishment of dose-response relationship.|MCP-Mod Analysis|The adjusted p-value was based on a critical value of 2.02 from a multivariate-t distribution with 341 degrees of freedom.|The t-statistic used for this analysis, 0.41, was based on MCP-Mod Analysis from the linear contrast using optimal coefficients for the pre-specified candidate model Emax.|Analysis of Dose-Response Using the MCP-Mod Analysis Method.||||0.942
91089545|NCT01435759|182061228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Means|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06||0.995|ONE_SIDED|||||Any p-value \<=0.10 indicates successful establishment of dose-response relationship.|MCP-Mod Analysis|The adjusted p-value was based on a critical value of 2.02 from a multivariate-t distribution with 341 degrees of freedom.|The t-statistic used for this analysis, 0.20, was based on MCP-Mod Analysis from the linear contrast using optimal coefficients for the pre-specified candidate model Linear.|Analysis of Dose-Response Using the MCP-Mod Analysis Method.||||0.995
91089546|NCT01435759|182061228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Means|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.07||0.978|ONE_SIDED|||||Any p-value \<=0.10 indicates successful establishment of dose-response relationship.|MCP-Mod Analysis|The adjusted p-value was based on a critical value of 2.02 from a multivariate-t distribution with 341 degrees of freedom.|The t-statistic used for this analysis, 0.30, was based on MCP-Mod Analysis from the linear contrast using optimal coefficients for the pre-specified candidate model Logistic.|Analysis of Dose-Response Using the MCP-Mod Analysis Method||||0.978
90833554|NCT03192176|181536185|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.54||||0.3106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.77||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||1.77|0.17|0.3106
90833555|NCT03192176|181536185|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.32||||0.0912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|1.2||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||1.20|0.08|0.0912
90894813|NCT01218126|181655142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.0|38.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Pre-Bronchodilator FEV1 for Placebo versus Losmapimod 2.5 mg at Week 4||38|-39|0.968
90894814|NCT01218126|181655142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.0||||0.715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.0|31.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Pre-Bronchodilator FEV1 Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg at Week 4||31|-45|0.715
90894815|NCT01218126|181655142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|28.0||||0.152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|66.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Pre-Bronchodilator FEV1 for Placebo versus Losmapimod 15 mg at Week 4||66|-10|0.152
90894816|NCT01218126|181655142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.0||||0.922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.0|40.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Pre-Bronchodilator FEV1 for Placebo versus Losmapimod 2.5 mg at Week 8||40|-45|0.922
90894817|NCT01218126|181655142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.0||||0.694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.0|50.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Pre-Bronchodilator FEV1 for Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg at Week 8||50|-34|0.694
90894818|NCT01218126|181655142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|37.0||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|79.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Pre-Bronchodilator FEV1 for Placebo versus Losmapimod 15 mg at Week 8||79|-6.3|0.094
90894819|NCT01218126|181655142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|16.0||||0.456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.0|58.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Pre-Bronchodilator FEV1 for Placebo versus Losmapimod 2.5 mg at Week 12||58|-26|0.456
90894820|NCT01218126|181655142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|20.0||||0.355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|61.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Pre-Bronchodilator FEV1 for Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg at Week 12||61|-22|0.355
90894821|NCT01218126|181655142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|49.0||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.7|91.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Pre-Bronchodilator FEV1 for Placebo versus Losmapimod 15 mg at Week 12||91|6.7|0.023
90894822|NCT01218126|181655142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|22.0||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|65.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Pre-Bronchodilator FEV1 for Placebo versus Losmapimod 2.5 mg at Week 16||65|-21|0.320
90894823|NCT01218126|181655142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|24.0||||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|67.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Pre-Bronchodilator FEV1 for Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg at Week 16||67|-19|0.267
90894824|NCT01218126|181655142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|24.0||||0.289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|67.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Pre-Bronchodilator FEV1 for Placebo versus Losmapimod 15 mg at Week 16||67|-20|0.289
90833556|NCT03192176|181536185|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.5681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.41||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||2.41|0.20|0.5681
90894825|NCT01218126|181655142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.0||||0.786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.0|49.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Pre-Bronchodilator FEV1 for Placebo versus Losmapimod 2.5 mg at Week 20||49|-37|0.786
91089547|NCT00427908|182061242|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion indicative of non-inferiority: lower limit of the standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for the group difference (Nimenrix minus Mencevax) in the percentage of subjects with bactericidal vaccine response to be greater than or equal to -15% for rSBA-MenA.|Difference in percentage|6.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|16.04||||||To evaluate the non-inferiority of Nimenrix™ conjugate vaccine compared to Mencevax™ plain polysaccharide vaccine in terms of the vaccine response (VRR) to MenA. Response to a vaccine antigen component was defined as: For initially seronegative subject, post-vaccination serum bactericidal assay using rabbit complement (rSBA) titer ≥ 1:32. For initially seropositive subject, at least 4-fold increase in rSBA-MenA titer from pre to post vaccination.||16.04|1.15|
91089548|NCT00427908|182061242|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion indicative of non-inferiority: lower limit of the standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for the group difference (Nimenrix minus Mencevax) in the percentage of subjects with bactericidal vaccine response is greater than or equal to -15% for rSBA-MenC.|Difference in percentage|13.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.79|24.32||||||To evaluate the non-inferiority of Nimenrix™ conjugate vaccine compared to Mencevax™ plain polysaccharide vaccine in terms of the vaccine response (VRR) to MenC. Response to a vaccine antigen component was defined as: For initially seronegative subject, post-vaccination serum bactericidal assay using rabbit complement (rSBA) titer ≥ 1:32. For initially seropositive subject, at least 4-fold increase in rSBA-MenC titer from pre to post vaccination.||24.32|4.79|
91089549|NCT00427908|182061242|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion indicative of non-inferiority: lower limit of the standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for the group difference (Nimenrix minus Mencevax) in the percentage of subjects with bactericidal vaccine response is greater than or equal to -15% for rSBA-MenW-135.|Difference in percentage|4.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|12.21||||||To evaluate the non-inferiority of Nimenrix™ conjugate vaccine compared to Mencevax™ plain polysaccharide vaccine in terms of the vaccine response (VRR) to MenW-135. Response to a vaccine antigen component was defined as: For initially seronegative subject, post-vaccination serum bactericidal assay using rabbit complement (rSBA) titer ≥ 1:32. For initially seropositive subject, at least 4-fold increase in rSBA-MenW-135 titer from pre to post vaccination.||12.21|1.51|
91089550|NCT00427908|182061242|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion indicative of non-inferiority: lower limit of the standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for the group difference (Nimenrux minus Mencevax) in the percentage of subjects with bactericidal vaccine response is greater than or equal to -15% for rSBA-MenY.|Difference in percentage|16.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.99|26.78||||||To evaluate the non-inferiority of Nimenrix™ conjugate vaccine compared to Mencevax™ plain polysaccharide vaccine in terms of the vaccine response (VRR) to MenY. Response to a vaccine antigen component was defined as: For initially seronegative subject, post-vaccination serum bactericidal assay using rabbit complement (rSBA) titer ≥ 1:32. For initially seropositive subject, at least 4-fold increase in rSBA-MenY titer from pre to post vaccination.||26.78|8.99|
91089551|NCT00427908|182061245|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion indicative of non-inferiority (serogroup C only): one month after vaccination, the lower limit of the 2-sided standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the group difference (Nimenrix Group minus Meningitec Group) in the percentage of subjects with rSBA titer ≥ 1:8 is greater than or equal to the predefined clinical limit of -15%.|Difference in vaccine response rate|1.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|7.89||||||To evaluate the non-inferiority of the vaccine response induced by Nimenrix™ conjugate vaccine when compared to the licensed Meningitec™ vaccine for MenC as measured by rSBA.||7.89|-0.27|
91089552|NCT01764841|182061323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7331||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.5027|1.069|||Wald-type test|||The hazard ratio for time to first exacerbation event within 48 weeks and 97.5% Confidence Interval (CI) was calculated by using Cox proportional hazards model by comparison of Cipro 28/Pooled Placebo reporting groups. P-value was analysed using Wald-type test.||1.0690|0.5027|0.0650
91089553|NCT01764841|182061323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5333||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.3568|0.7971|||Wald-type test|||The hazard ratio for time to first exacerbation event within 48 weeks and 97.5% CI was calculated by using Cox proportional hazards model by comparison of Cipro 14/Pooled Placebo reporting groups. P-value was analysed using Wald-type test.||0.7971|0.3568|0.0005
90894826|NCT01218126|181655142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|33.0||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|76.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Pre-Bronchodilator FEV1 for Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg at Week 20||76|-10|0.134
90894827|NCT01218126|181655142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|29.0||||0.191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|74.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Pre-Bronchodilator FEV1 for Placebo versus Losmapimod 15 mg at Week 20||74|-15|0.191
91089554|NCT01764841|182061324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio|0.8615||||0.2944|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.6264|1.1848|||Poisson regression|||A Poisson regression with adjustment for over-/under dispersion was used to analyze the number of exacerbation events over 48 weeks and to test the difference in the frequency of exacerbation between Ciprofloxacin DPI 28 and Pooled placebo group. P-value was analyzed using Wald-type test along with the incidence rate ratio of the comparison.||1.1848|0.6264|0.2944
91089555|NCT01764841|182061324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio|0.7329||||0.0382|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.5237|1.0256|||Poisson regression|||A Poisson regression with adjustment for over-/under dispersion was used to analyze the number of exacerbation events over 48 weeks and to test the difference in the frequency of exacerbation between Ciprofloxacin DPI 14 and Pooled placebo group. P-value was analyzed using Wald-type test along with the incidence rate ratio of the comparison.||1.0256|0.5237|0.0382
91089556|NCT04863872|182061340|OTHER|Difference|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.72||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.3|||Poisson regression|Poisson regression with binary primary outcome, estimated using Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) and robust variance estimation.||||1.30|0.39|0.27
90957143|NCT00717067|181793779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted geometric means|151.99||||||90.0|109.53|210.92|||ANOVA|||Ratio (%) test (mild) / reference (normal).||210.92|109.53|
90957144|NCT00717067|181793779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted geometric means|115.95||||||90.0|82.23|163.5|||ANOVA|||Ratio (%) test (moderate) / reference (normal).||163.50|82.23|
90833557|NCT03192176|181536185|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.58||||0.4261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|2.21||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||2.21|0.15|0.4261
90833558|NCT03192176|181536185|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.7514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|2.82||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||2.82|0.24|0.7514
90833559|NCT03192176|181536185|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.52||||0.2712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.67||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||1.67|0.16|0.2712
90833560|NCT03192176|181536186|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.89||||0.0103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|16.4||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||16.40|1.46|0.0103
90833561|NCT03192176|181536186|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.19||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|23.48||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||23.48|2.20|0.0011
90833562|NCT03192176|181536186|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.41|35.86||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||35.86|3.41|<0.0001
90833563|NCT03192176|181536186|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.48||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.18|34.55||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||34.55|3.18|0.0001
90833564|NCT03192176|181536186|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.46||||0.1571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|8.55||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||8.55|0.71|0.1571
90833565|NCT03192176|181536186|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.14||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.21|23.04||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||23.04|2.21|0.0010
90833566|NCT03192176|181536186|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.35||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.29|23.61||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||23.61|2.29|0.0008
90894828|NCT01218126|181655142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.0||||0.852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.0|46.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Pre-Bronchodilator FEV1 for Placebo versus Losmapimod 2.5 mg at Week 24||46|-38|0.852
90894829|NCT01218126|181655142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|18.0||||0.397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.0|60.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Pre-Bronchodilator FEV1 for Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg at Week 24||60|-24|0.397
90957145|NCT00717067|181793780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted geometric means|121.01||||||90.0|83.15|176.13|||ANOVA|||Ratio (%) test (mild) / reference (normal).||176.13|83.15|
90833567|NCT03192176|181536186|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.78||||0.0342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|7.18||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||7.18|1.08|0.0342
90894830|NCT01218126|181655142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|15.0||||0.494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.0|58.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Pre-Bronchodilator FEV1 for Placebo versus Losmapimod 15 mg at Week 24||58|-28|0.494
90957146|NCT00717067|181793780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted geometric means|70.9||||||90.0|47.83|105.1|||ANOVA|||Ratio (%) test (moderate) / reference (normal).||105.10|47.83|
90833568|NCT03192176|181536186|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.98||||0.0231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|7.66||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||7.66|1.16|0.0231
90833569|NCT03192176|181536186|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.12||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|10.55||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||10.55|1.60|0.0032
90957147|NCT00717067|181793780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted geometric means|238.73||||||90.0|106.83|533.48|||ANOVA|||Ratio (%) test (severe) / reference (normal).||533.48|106.83|
90957148|NCT00717067|181793782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted geometric means|323.91||||||90.0|174.32|601.88|||ANOVA|||Ratio (%) test (severe) / reference (normal).||601.88|174.32|
90833570|NCT03192176|181536186|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.89||||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|10.22||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||10.22|1.48|0.0059
91025481|NCT01360632|181934032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.87||||0.0287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.54|-0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 12. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3.||-0.19|-3.54|0.0287
91025482|NCT01360632|181934032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.63||||0.0686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.39|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 13. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3.||0.12|-3.39|0.0686
91025483|NCT01360632|181934032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.72||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.47|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 13. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3.||0.04|-3.47|0.056
91025484|NCT01360632|181934032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||0.0448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.75|-0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 14. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3.||-0.04|-3.75|0.0448
91025485|NCT01360632|181934032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.13||||0.0251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.98|-0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 14. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3.||-0.27|-3.98|0.0251
91025486|NCT01360632|181934033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.67||||0.1732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|0.29|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 14. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The last observation carried forward (LOCF) method was used to impute missing data.||0.29|-1.63|0.1732
91025487|NCT01360632|181934033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.34||||0.0066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.31|-0.37|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 14. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The last observation carried forward (LOCF) method was used to impute missing data.||-0.37|-2.31|0.0066
91025488|NCT01360632|181934034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.78||||0.1226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|0.21|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 14. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||0.21|-1.78|0.1226
91025489|NCT01360632|181934034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.69||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.69|-0.68|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 14. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||-0.68|-2.69|0.001
91025490|NCT01360632|181934035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.8164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.73|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 14. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||0.73|-0.93|0.8164
91025491|NCT01360632|181934035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55||||0.1939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|0.28|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 14. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||0.28|-1.39|0.1939
91025492|NCT01360632|181934036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28||||0.5192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|0.57|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 14. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||0.57|-1.14|0.5192
91032977|NCT02728102|181951655|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2461||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||In this pairwise analysis, the proportion of participants alive and with sCR/CR/VGPR will be compared between lenalidomide/GM-CSF arm and lenalidomide alone arm at 6 months Post Transplant.||||0.2461
90833571|NCT03192176|181536186|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76||||0.2471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|4.59||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||4.59|0.68|0.2471
90894831|NCT01218126|181655142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.0||||0.807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.0|40.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Post-Bronchodilator FEV1 for Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg at Week 4||40|-31|0.807
91089557|NCT00549549|182061341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.18|||ANCOVA|||This was the primary analysis. The analysis was conducted using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with randomization stratum (2 levels: monoarticular or oligoarticular) and treatment group and region as factors, and the Patient's Assessment of Pain Intensity (for the prior 24 hours) at Baseline as a covariate.||-0.18|-0.74|
90833572|NCT03192176|181536186|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.66||||0.0381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|6.7||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||6.70|1.05|0.0381
91089558|NCT00549549|182061341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.04|||ANCOVA|||||0.04|-0.52|
91089559|NCT00549549|182061341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.84|||ANCOVA|||||0.84|0.29|
91089560|NCT00549549|182061341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.6|||ANCOVA|||||0.60|0.05|
91089561|NCT00549549|182061341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.39|||ANCOVA|||||0.39|-0.17|
91089562|NCT00549549|182061342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.14|||ANCOVA|||Day 5 analysis. The analysis was conducted using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with randomization stratum (2 levels: monoarticular or oligoarticular) and treatment group as factors, and the Patient's Assessment of Pain Intensity (for the prior 24 hours) at Baseline as a covariate.||0.14|-0.29|
91089563|NCT00549549|182061342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Day 5 analysis||0.02|-0.42|
91089564|NCT00549549|182061342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.47|||ANCOVA|||Day 5 analysis||0.47|0.04|
91089565|NCT00549549|182061342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.39|||ANCOVA|||Day 5 analysis||0.39|-0.04|
91089566|NCT00549549|182061342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.27|||ANCOVA|||Day 5 analysis||0.27|-0.16|
91089567|NCT00549549|182061342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.16|||ANCOVA|||Day 9 analysis||0.16|-0.26|
91089568|NCT00549549|182061342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Day 9 analysis||0.03|-0.40|
91089569|NCT00549549|182061342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.32|||ANCOVA|||Day 9 analysis||0.32|-0.11|
91089570|NCT00549549|182061342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.27|||ANCOVA|||Day 9 analysis||0.27|-0.16|
91089571|NCT00549549|182061342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.13|||ANCOVA|||Day 9 analysis||0.13|-0.30|
90833573|NCT03192176|181536186|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.34||||0.0113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|8.48||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||8.48|1.31|0.0113
91089572|NCT00549549|182061342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Day 14/early termination analysis||0.10|-0.33|
91089573|NCT00549549|182061342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||Day 14/early termination analysis||-0.11|-0.53|
91089574|NCT00549549|182061342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.37|||ANCOVA|||Day /early termination analysis||0.37|-0.05|
91089575|NCT00549549|182061342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.25|||ANCOVA|||Day 14/early termination analysis||0.25|-0.17|
91089576|NCT00549549|182061342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Day 14/early termination analysis||0.05|-0.38|
91089577|NCT00549549|182061343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.22|||ANCOVA|||Day 5 analysis. The analysis was conducted using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with randomization stratum (2 levels: monoarticular or oligoarticular) and treatment group as factors, and the Patient's Assessment of Pain Intensity (for the prior 24 hours) at Baseline as a covariate.||0.22|-0.29|
91089578|NCT00549549|182061343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.16|||ANCOVA|||Day 5 analysis.||0.16|-0.35|
91089579|NCT00549549|182061343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.34|||ANCOVA|||Day 5 analysis.||0.34|-0.17|
91089580|NCT00549549|182061343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Day 5 analysis.||0.30|-0.20|
91089581|NCT00549549|182061343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.25|||ANCOVA|||Day 5 analysis.||0.25|-0.26|
91089582|NCT00549549|182061343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Day 9 analysis.||0.11|-0.36|
91089583|NCT00549549|182061343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.04|||ANCOVA|||Day 9 analysis.||0.04|-0.44|
91089584|NCT00549549|182061343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.46|||ANCOVA|||Day 9 analysis.||0.46|-0.01|
91089585|NCT00549549|182061343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.33|||ANCOVA|||Day 9 analysis.||0.33|-0.14|
91089586|NCT00549549|182061343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.26|||ANCOVA|||Day 9 analysis.||0.26|-0.22|
91089587|NCT00549549|182061343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Day 14/early termination analysis||0.10|-0.38|
91089588|NCT00549549|182061343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||Day 14/early termination analysis||-0.04|-0.52|
90894832|NCT01218126|181655142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|16.0||||0.386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|51.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Post-Bronchodilator FEV1 for Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg at Week 4||51|-20|0.386
91025493|NCT01360632|181934036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.88||||0.0443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 14. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||-0.02|-1.75|0.0443
91025494|NCT01360632|181934037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.0248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|-0.02|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value and treatment difference (CI) are derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) row mean score differ test controlling for study center.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 9. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||-0.02|-0.26|0.0248
91025495|NCT01360632|181934037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.1334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.03|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value and treatment difference (CI) are derived from CMH row mean scores statistics controlling for study center.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 9. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||0.03|-0.22|0.1334
91025496|NCT01360632|181934037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.11|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value and treatment difference (CI) are derived from CMH row mean score differ test controlling for study center.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 10. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||-0.11|-0.42|0.0009
91025497|NCT01360632|181934037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value and treatment difference (CI) are derived from CMH row mean scores statistics controlling for study center||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 10. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||-0.09|-0.38|0.0019
91025498|NCT01360632|181934037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.11|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value and treatment difference (CI) are derived from CMH row mean score differ test controlling for study center||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 11. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||-0.11|-0.42|0.0009
91025499|NCT01360632|181934037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.0254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|-0.02|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value and treatment difference (CI) are derived from CMH row mean score differ test controlling for study center.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 11. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||-0.02|-0.34|0.0254
91025500|NCT01360632|181934037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.08|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value and treatment difference (CI) are derived from CMH row mean score differ test controlling for study center.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 12. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||-0.08|-0.41|0.0035
91025501|NCT01360632|181934037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21||||0.0152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|-0.04|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value and treatment difference (CI) are derived from CMH row mean score differ test controlling for study center.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 12. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||-0.04|-0.39|0.0152
91025502|NCT01360632|181934037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.08|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value and treatment difference (CI) are derived from CMH row mean score differ test controlling for study center.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 13. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||-0.08|-0.42|0.004
91025503|NCT01360632|181934037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.05|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value and treatment difference (CI) are derived from CMH row mean score differ test controlling for study center.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 13. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||-0.05|-0.42|0.013
91089589|NCT00549549|182061343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.39|||ANCOVA|||Day 14/early termination analysis||0.39|-0.08|
91089590|NCT00549549|182061343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.26|||ANCOVA|||Day 14/early termination analysis||0.26|-0.22|
91089591|NCT00549549|182061343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.12|||ANCOVA|||Day 14/early termination analysis||0.12|-0.36|
91089592|NCT00549549|182061344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6402|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 5 analyses. Pairwise p-values are presented, calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics, stratified by number of affected joints \[1 or \>1\]) and region.||||0.6402
91089593|NCT00549549|182061344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9739|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 5 analyses||||0.9739
91089594|NCT00549549|182061344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4581|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 5 analyses||||0.4581
91089595|NCT00549549|182061344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2962|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 5 analyses||||0.2962
91089596|NCT00549549|182061344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4951|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 5 analyses||||0.4951
91089597|NCT00549549|182061344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4957|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 9 analyses||||0.4957
91089598|NCT00549549|182061344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8364|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 9 analyses||||0.8364
91089599|NCT00549549|182061344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6892|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 9 analyses||||0.6892
91089600|NCT00549549|182061344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.411|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 9 analyses||||0.4110
91089601|NCT00549549|182061344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5981|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 9 analyses||||0.5981
91089602|NCT00549549|182061344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9317|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 14/Early Termination analyses||||0.9317
91089603|NCT00549549|182061344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0831|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 14/Early Termination analyses||||0.0831
91089604|NCT00549549|182061344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5747|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 14/Early Termination analyses||||0.5747
91089605|NCT00549549|182061344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6204|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 14/Early Termination analyses||||0.6204
91089606|NCT00549549|182061344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2556|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 14/Early Termination analysis||||0.2556
90957149|NCT00522873|181793810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||proportion|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0119|||||The number of women who had a biopsy classified as 'hyperplasia or worse' was divided by the number of women with an evaluable biopsy (i.e. classified as 'normal' after 1 year of treatment or as 'hyperplasia or worse' at any time during the study).|Exact 95% confidence interval for proportion of participants with hyperplasia or worse at EoS||0.0119|0.0000|
90957150|NCT00522873|181793811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||proportion|0.687|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.637|0.734||||||exact 95% confidence intervall (Clopper-Pearson) for proportion of participants with amenorrhea||0.734|0.637|
91089607|NCT00549549|182061345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1444|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 5 analyses. Pairwise p-values are presented, calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics, stratified by number of affected joints \[1 or \>1\]) and region.||||0.1444
91089608|NCT00549549|182061345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7532|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 5 analyses||||0.7532
91089609|NCT00549549|182061345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4722|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 5 analyses||||0.4722
91089610|NCT00549549|182061345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3878|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 5 analyses||||0.3878
91089611|NCT00549549|182061345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6717|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 5 analyses||||0.6717
91089612|NCT00549549|182061345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3098|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 9 analyses||||0.3098
91089613|NCT00549549|182061345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4356|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 9 analyses||||0.4356
91089614|NCT00549549|182061345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5703|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 9 analyses||||0.5703
91089615|NCT00549549|182061345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4986|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 9 analyses||||0.4986
91089616|NCT00549549|182061345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7855|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 9 analyses||||0.7855
91089617|NCT00549549|182061345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0169|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 14/Early Termination analyses||||0.0169
91089618|NCT00549549|182061345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1353|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 14/Early Termination analyses||||0.1353
91089619|NCT00549549|182061345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.369|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 14/Early Termination analyses||||0.3690
91089620|NCT00549549|182061345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0787|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 14/Early Termination analyses||||0.0787
91089621|NCT00549549|182061345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5687|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 14/Early Termination analyses||||0.5687
91089622|NCT00549549|182061346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||The analysis was conducted using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with randomization stratum (2 levels: monoarticular or oligoarticular), region and treatment group as factors, and the Patient's Assessment of Pain Intensity at Baseline as a covariate.||-0.10|-0.60|
91089623|NCT00549549|182061346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.25|||ANCOVA|||Day 1 analyses||-0.25|-0.75|
91089624|NCT00549549|182061346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.78|||ANCOVA|||Day 1 analyses||0.78|0.29|
91089625|NCT00549549|182061346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.44|||ANCOVA|||Day 1 analyses||0.44|-0.06|
91089626|NCT00549549|182061346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.28|||ANCOVA|||Day 1 analyses||0.28|-0.21|
91089627|NCT00549549|182061346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.04|||ANCOVA|||Day 2 analyses||0.04|-0.52|
91089628|NCT00549549|182061346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.18|||ANCOVA|||Day 2 analyses||-0.18|-0.74|
91089629|NCT00549549|182061346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.84|||ANCOVA|||Day 2 analyses||0.84|0.29|
90833574|NCT03192176|181536186|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.56||||0.0486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|6.52||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||6.52|1.01|0.0486
90833575|NCT03192176|181536186|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.71||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|6.87||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||6.87|1.07|0.0350
90833576|NCT03192176|181536186|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.24||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|10.9||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||10.90|1.65|0.0027
91089630|NCT00549549|182061346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Day 2 analyses||0.60|0.05|
91089631|NCT00549549|182061346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.39|||ANCOVA|||Day 2 analyses||0.39|-0.17|
91089632|NCT00549549|182061346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Day 3 analyses||0.03|-0.53|
91089633|NCT00549549|182061346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.26|||ANCOVA|||Day 3 analyses||-0.26|-0.83|
91089634|NCT00549549|182061346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.88|||ANCOVA|||Day 3 analyses||0.88|0.32|
91089635|NCT00549549|182061346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.64|||ANCOVA|||Day 3 analyses||0.64|0.08|
90833577|NCT03192176|181536186|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.68||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.76|12.47||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||12.47|1.76|0.0020
90833578|NCT03192176|181536186|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.41||||0.0686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|6.19||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||6.19|0.94|0.0686
90833579|NCT03192176|181536186|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.02||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|10.21||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||10.21|1.58|0.0034
90833580|NCT03192176|181536186|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.9||||0.0222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|7.22||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||7.22|1.16|0.0222
90833581|NCT03192176|181536186|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.28||||0.0876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|5.84||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||5.84|0.89|0.0876
90833582|NCT03192176|181536186|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.72||||0.0345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|6.88||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||6.88|1.08|0.0345
91089636|NCT00549549|182061346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.34|||ANCOVA|||Day 3 analyses||0.34|-0.22|
91089637|NCT00549549|182061346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Day 4 analyses||-0.00|-0.56|
91089638|NCT00549549|182061346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.28|||ANCOVA|||Day 4 analyses||-0.28|-0.84|
91089639|NCT00549549|182061346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.9|||ANCOVA|||Day 4 analyses||0.90|0.35|
91089640|NCT00549549|182061346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.62|||ANCOVA|||Day 4 analyses||0.62|0.07|
91089641|NCT00549549|182061346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.34|||ANCOVA|||Day 4 analyses||0.34|-0.21|
91089642|NCT00549549|182061346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|-0.07|||ANCOVA|||Day 5 analyses||-0.07|-0.64|
91089643|NCT00549549|182061346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.38|||ANCOVA|||Day 5 analyses||-0.38|-0.94|
91089644|NCT00549549|182061346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.93|||ANCOVA|||Day 5 analyses||0.93|0.37|
91089645|NCT00549549|182061346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.57|||ANCOVA|||Day 5 analyses||0.57|0.02|
91089646|NCT00549549|182061346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.27|||ANCOVA|||Day 5 analyses||0.27|-0.29|
91089647|NCT00549549|182061346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||Day 6 analyses||-0.10|-0.65|
91089648|NCT00549549|182061346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.29|||ANCOVA|||Day 6 analyses||-0.29|-0.84|
91089649|NCT00549549|182061346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.83|||ANCOVA|||Day 6 analyses||0.83|0.29|
90833583|NCT03192176|181536186|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.76||||0.0319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|6.99||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||6.99|1.09|0.0319
90833584|NCT03192176|181536186|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.27||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.92|14.47||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||14.47|1.92|0.0013
90833585|NCT03192176|181536186|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.91||||0.1751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|4.87||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||4.87|0.75|0.1751
90833586|NCT03192176|181536186|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.46||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.73|11.5||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||11.50|1.73|0.0019
90833587|NCT03192176|181536186|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.79||||0.0284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|6.97||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||6.97|1.11|0.0284
91025504|NCT01360632|181934037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16||||0.0755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.02|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value and treatment difference (CI) are derived from CMH row mean score differ test controlling for study center.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 14. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||0.02|-0.33|0.0755
91025505|NCT01360632|181934037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.0527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value and treatment difference (CI) are derived from CMH row mean score differ test controlling for study center||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 14. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||0|-0.39|0.0527
91025506|NCT01360632|181934038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.0275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|-0.01|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value and treatment difference (CI) are derived from CMH row mean score differ test controlling for study center.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 9. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||-0.01|-0.26|0.0275
91025507|NCT01360632|181934038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.1583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.04|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value and treatment difference (CI) are derived from CMH row mean score differ test controlling for study center.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 9. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||0.04|-0.22|0.1583
91025508|NCT01360632|181934038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value and treatment difference (CI) are derived from CMH row mean score differ test controlling for study center.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 10. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||-0.09|-0.41|0.0021
91025509|NCT01360632|181934038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value and treatment difference (CI) are derived from CMH row mean score differ test controlling for study center.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 10. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||-0.09|-0.4|0.0018
91025510|NCT01360632|181934038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.11|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value and treatment difference (CI) are derived from CMH row mean score differ test controlling for study center.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 11. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||-0.11|-0.43|0.0011
91025511|NCT01360632|181934038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.0235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.03|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value and treatment difference (CI) are derived from CMH row mean score differ test controlling for study center.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 11. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||-0.03|-0.36|0.0235
91025512|NCT01360632|181934038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value and treatment difference (CI) are derived from CMH row mean score differ test controlling for study center.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 12. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||-0.10|-0.44|0.0021
91089650|NCT00549549|182061346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.46|||ANCOVA|||Day 6 analyses||0.46|-0.08|
91089651|NCT00549549|182061346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.26|||ANCOVA|||Day 6 analyses||0.26|-0.28|
91089652|NCT00549549|182061346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||Day 7 analyses||-0.04|-0.61|
91089653|NCT00549549|182061346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|-0.34|||ANCOVA|||Day 7 analyses||-0.34|-0.92|
91089654|NCT00549549|182061346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.78|||ANCOVA|||Day 7 analyses||0.78|0.21|
91089655|NCT00549549|182061346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.45|||ANCOVA|||Day 7 analyses||0.45|-0.11|
91089656|NCT00549549|182061346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.15|||ANCOVA|||Day 7 analyses||0.15|-0.42|
91089657|NCT00549549|182061346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Day 8 analyses||-0.00|-0.57|
91089658|NCT00549549|182061346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.27|||ANCOVA|||Day 8 analyses||-0.27|-0.84|
91089659|NCT00549549|182061346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Day 8 analyses||0.70|0.14|
90833588|NCT03192176|181536186|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|4.45||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||4.45|0.66|0.2650
90833589|NCT03192176|181536186|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1||||0.1238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|5.38||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||5.38|0.82|0.1238
90833590|NCT03192176|181536186|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.22||||0.0219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|8.74||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||8.74|1.18|0.0219
91089660|NCT00549549|182061346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.41|||ANCOVA|||Day 8 analyses||0.41|-0.15|
91089661|NCT00549549|182061346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.14|||ANCOVA|||Day 8 analyses||0.14|-0.42|
90833591|NCT03192176|181536186|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.46||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.84|16.16||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||16.16|1.84|0.0022
90833592|NCT03192176|181536186|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.82||||0.223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|4.77||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||4.77|0.69|0.2230
90957151|NCT00522873|181793811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||proportion|0.593|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.496|0.684||||||exact 95% confidence intervall (Clopper-Pearson) for proportion of participants with amenorrhea||0.684|0.496|
90957152|NCT00522873|181793812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||proportion|0.789|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.743|0.83||||||exact 95% confidence intervall (Clopper-Pearson) for proportion of participants with amenorrhea||0.830|0.743|
91089662|NCT00549549|182061346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||Day 9 analyses||-0.02|-0.61|
91089663|NCT00549549|182061346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.23|||ANCOVA|||Day 9 analyses||-0.23|-0.82|
91089664|NCT00549549|182061346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.76|||ANCOVA|||Day 9 analyses||0.76|0.18|
91089665|NCT00549549|182061346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.44|||ANCOVA|||Day 9 analyses||0.44|-0.13|
91089666|NCT00549549|182061346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.23|||ANCOVA|||Day 9 analyses||0.23|-0.35|
91089667|NCT00549549|182061346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Day 10 analyses||0.01|-0.59|
91089668|NCT00549549|182061346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.16|||ANCOVA|||Day 10 analyses||-0.16|-0.76|
91089669|NCT00549549|182061346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.69|||ANCOVA|||Day 10 analyses||0.69|0.10|
91089670|NCT00549549|182061346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.41|||ANCOVA|||Day 10 analyses||0.41|-0.18|
91089671|NCT00549549|182061346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.23|||ANCOVA|||Day 10 analyses||0.23|-0.36|
91089672|NCT00549549|182061346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Day 11 analyses||0.05|-0.56|
91089673|NCT00549549|182061346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.17|||ANCOVA|||Day 11 analyses||-0.17|-0.77|
91089674|NCT00549549|182061346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.69|||ANCOVA|||Day 11 analyses||0.69|0.10|
91089675|NCT00549549|182061346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.44|||ANCOVA|||Day 11 analyses||0.44|-0.16|
91089676|NCT00549549|182061346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.23|||ANCOVA|||Day 11 analyses||0.23|-0.37|
91089677|NCT00549549|182061346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.09|||ANCOVA|||Day 12 analyses||0.09|-0.53|
91089678|NCT00549549|182061346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.15|||ANCOVA|||Day 12 analyses||-0.15|-0.77|
90833593|NCT03192176|181536186|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.05||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.83|13.97||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||13.97|1.83|0.0018
90833594|NCT03192176|181536186|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.17||||0.0205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|8.42||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||8.42|1.19|0.0205
90833595|NCT03192176|181536186|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.4628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|3.81||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||3.81|0.54|0.4628
90833596|NCT03192176|181536186|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.4015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|3.92||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||3.92|0.58|0.4015
90833597|NCT03192176|181536186|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.39||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.76|16.47||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||16.47|1.76|0.0031
90833598|NCT03192176|181536186|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.15||||0.0115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|12.5||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||12.50|1.38|0.0115
90833599|NCT03192176|181536186|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.81||||0.2513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|4.98||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||4.98|0.66|0.2513
90833600|NCT03192176|181536186|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.94||||0.0099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|11.14||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||11.14|1.39|0.0099
91025513|NCT01360632|181934038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.05|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value and treatment difference (CI) are derived from CMH row mean score differ test controlling for study center.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 12. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||-0.05|-0.42|0.0111
91025514|NCT01360632|181934038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value and treatment difference (CI) are derived from CMH row mean score differ test controlling for study center.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 13. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||-0.09|-0.44|0.0030
91025515|NCT01360632|181934038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value and treatment difference (CI) are derived from CMH row mean score differ test controlling for study center.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 13. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||-0.09|-0.47|0.0046
91025516|NCT01360632|181934038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21||||0.0237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|-0.03|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value and treatment difference (CI) are derived from CMH row mean score differ test controlling for study center.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 14. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||-0.03|-0.39|0.0237
91025517|NCT01360632|181934038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||0.0171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.04|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value and treatment difference (CI) are derived from CMH row mean score differ test controlling for study center.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 14. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||-0.04|-0.45|0.0171
91025518|NCT01360632|181934039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.37||||0.5279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|3.68|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 9. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||3.68|0.51|0.5279
91089679|NCT00549549|182061346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.57|||ANCOVA|||Day 12 analyses||0.57|-0.04|
90833601|NCT03192176|181536186|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.19||||0.0242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|8.74||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||8.74|1.16|0.0242
90957153|NCT00522873|181793812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||proportion|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.756|0.904||||||exact 95% confidence intervall (Clopper-Pearson) for proportion of participants with amenorrhea||0.904|0.756|
91089680|NCT00549549|182061346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.36|||ANCOVA|||Day 12 analyses||0.36|-0.25|
91089681|NCT00549549|182061346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Day 12 analyses||0.11|-0.50|
90833602|NCT03192176|181536186|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.07||||0.1518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|5.6||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||5.60|0.77|0.1518
90833603|NCT03192176|181536186|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.95||||0.1811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|5.17||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||5.17|0.73|0.1811
90833604|NCT03192176|181536186|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.88||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|11.55||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||11.55|1.30|0.0150
90894833|NCT01218126|181655142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|31.0||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|67.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Post-Bronchodilator FEV1 for Placebo versus Losmapimod 15 mg at Week 4||67|-4.8|0.089
91025519|NCT01360632|181934039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|0.13||||0.0141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.94|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 9. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||0.94|0.02|0.0141
91025520|NCT01360632|181934039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.92||||0.0484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|3.72|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 10. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||3.72|0.99|0.0484
91025521|NCT01360632|181934039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.23||||0.5813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 10. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.50|0.60|0.5813
91025522|NCT01360632|181934039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.51||||0.1236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.54|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 11. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.54|0.90|0.1236
91025523|NCT01360632|181934039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.21||||0.4998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 11. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.10|0.70|0.4998
91025524|NCT01360632|181934039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.64||||0.0365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.61|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 12. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.61|1.03|0.0365
91025525|NCT01360632|181934039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.52||||0.0822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.43|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 12. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.43|0.95|0.0822
91025526|NCT01360632|181934039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.19||||0.4049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.78|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 13. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||1.78|0.79|0.4049
91025527|NCT01360632|181934039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.23||||0.2951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 13. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||1.80|0.84|0.2951
90833605|NCT03192176|181536186|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.28||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.67|16.68||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||16.68|1.67|0.0046
90894834|NCT01218126|181655142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.0|43.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Post-Bronchodilator FEV1 for Placebo versus Losmapimod 2.5 mg at Week 8||43|-45|0.958
90894835|NCT01218126|181655142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.0||||0.766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.0|50.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Post-Bronchodilator FEV1 for Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg at Week 8||50|-37|0.766
91089682|NCT00549549|182061346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Day 13/Early Termination analyses||0.07|-0.56|
91089683|NCT00549549|182061346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.19|||ANCOVA|||Day 13/Early Termination analyses||-0.19|-0.81|
91089684|NCT00549549|182061346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.51|||ANCOVA|||Day 13/Early Termination analyses||0.51|-0.10|
91089685|NCT00549549|182061346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.26|||ANCOVA|||Day 13/Early Termination analyses||0.26|-0.35|
91089686|NCT00549549|182061346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Day 13/Early Termination analyses||0.01|-0.60|
91089687|NCT00549549|182061347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.14|||ANCOVA|||The analysis was conducted using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with randomization stratum (2 levels: monoarticular or oligoarticular) and treatment group as factors, and the Patient's Assessment of Pain Intensity at Baseline as a covariate.||0.14|-0.28|
91089688|NCT00549549|182061347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Day 1, 2 hours postdose||0.03|-0.39|
91089689|NCT00549549|182061347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.52|||ANCOVA|||Day 1, 2 hours postdose||0.52|0.11|
91089690|NCT00549549|182061347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.45|||ANCOVA|||Day 1, 2 hours postdose||0.45|0.04|
91089691|NCT00549549|182061347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.34|||ANCOVA|||Day 1, 2 hours postdose||0.34|-0.08|
90833606|NCT03192176|181536186|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.58||||0.3788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|4.34||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||4.34|0.57|0.3788
90833607|NCT03192176|181536186|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.82||||0.0424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|7.7||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||7.70|1.04|0.0424
90833608|NCT03192176|181536186|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.69||||0.0139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|10.43||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||10.43|1.30|0.0139
90957154|NCT00545051|181793815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.09|4.41|||ANCOVA|||||4.41|2.09|<0.001
90957155|NCT00545051|181793816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|3.23|||ANCOVA|||||3.23|1.22|<0.001
91089692|NCT00549549|182061347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Day 1, 4 hours postdose||0.08|-0.37|
91089693|NCT00549549|182061347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||Day 1, 4 hours postdose||-0.03|-0.48|
91089694|NCT00549549|182061347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.58|||ANCOVA|||Day 1, 4 hours postdose||0.58|0.14|
91089695|NCT00549549|182061347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.44|||ANCOVA|||Day 1, 4 hours postdose||0.44|0.00|
91089696|NCT00549549|182061347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.34|||ANCOVA|||Day 1, 4 hours postdose||0.34|-0.11|
91089697|NCT00549549|182061347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Day 1, 8 hours postdose||0.17|-0.32|
91089698|NCT00549549|182061347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.06|||ANCOVA|||Day 1, 8 hours postdose||-0.06|-0.56|
91089699|NCT00549549|182061347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.67|||ANCOVA|||Day 1, 8 hours postdose||0.67|0.18|
91089700|NCT00549549|182061347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.59|||ANCOVA|||Day 1, 8 hours postdose||0.59|0.11|
91089701|NCT00549549|182061347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.36|||ANCOVA|||Day 1, 8 hours postdose||0.36|-0.13|
91089702|NCT00549549|182061347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Day 1, 12 hours postdose||0.10|-0.42|
91089703|NCT00549549|182061347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||Day 1, 12 hours postdose||-0.11|-0.63|
91089704|NCT00549549|182061347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Day 1, 12 hours postdose||0.70|0.19|
91089705|NCT00549549|182061347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.55|||ANCOVA|||Day 1, 12 hours postdose||0.55|0.03|
91089706|NCT00549549|182061347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.34|||ANCOVA|||Day 1, 12 hours postdose||0.34|-0.18|
91089707|NCT00549549|182061347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Day 2, 0 hours postdose||0.07|-0.46|
91089708|NCT00549549|182061347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||Day 2, 0 hours postdose||-0.04|-0.57|
91089709|NCT00549549|182061347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.68|||ANCOVA|||Day 2, 0 hours postdose||0.68|0.16|
91089710|NCT00549549|182061347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.49|||ANCOVA|||Day 2, 0 hours postdose||0.49|-0.04|
91089711|NCT00549549|182061347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.38|||ANCOVA|||Day 2, 0 hours postdose||0.38|-0.15|
90833609|NCT03192176|181536186|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67||||0.3057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|4.42||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||4.42|0.63|0.3057
90833610|NCT03192176|181536186|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.3717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|4.02||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||4.02|0.59|0.3717
90833611|NCT03192176|181536186|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.32||||0.0252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|9.5||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||9.50|1.16|0.0252
90833612|NCT03192176|181536186|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.56||||0.0235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|10.69||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||10.69|1.19|0.0235
90833613|NCT03192176|181536186|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|3.39||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||3.39|0.46|0.6580
90833614|NCT03192176|181536186|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.58||||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|13.62||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||13.62|1.54|0.0061
90833615|NCT03192176|181536186|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.7||||0.0149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|10.61||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||10.61|1.29|0.0149
91089712|NCT00549549|182061347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.14|||ANCOVA|||Day 2, 8 hours postdose||0.14|-0.40|
90833616|NCT03192176|181536186|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.9282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|2.62||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||2.62|0.35|0.9282
90833617|NCT03192176|181536186|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.7902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|2.35||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||2.35|0.33|0.7902
90833618|NCT03192176|181536186|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.22||||0.1603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|6.74||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||6.74|0.73|0.1603
90833619|NCT03192176|181536186|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.55||||0.1144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|8.14||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||8.14|0.80|0.1144
91089713|NCT00549549|182061347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||Day 2, 8 hours postdose||-0.05|-0.59|
91089714|NCT00549549|182061347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.74|||ANCOVA|||Day 2, 8 hours postdose||0.74|0.20|
91089715|NCT00549549|182061347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.61|||ANCOVA|||Day 2, 8 hours postdose||0.61|0.08|
91089716|NCT00549549|182061347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.42|||ANCOVA|||Day 2, 8 hours postdose||0.42|-0.11|
91089717|NCT00549549|182061348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.27|||ANCOVA|||8 hour postdose analysis. The analysis was conducted using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with randomization stratum (2 levels: monoarticular or oligoarticular) and treatment group as factors, and the Patient's Assessment of Pain Intensity at Baseline as a covariate.||0.27|-0.09|
91089718|NCT00549549|182061348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.4|||ANCOVA|||8 hour postdose analysis||0.40|0.04|
91089719|NCT00549549|182061348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.14|||ANCOVA|||8 hour postdose analysis||-0.14|-0.50|
91089720|NCT00549549|182061348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||8 hour postdose analysis||-0.05|-0.41|
91089721|NCT00549549|182061348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.08|||ANCOVA|||8 hour postdose analysis||0.08|-0.28|
90833620|NCT03192176|181536186|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.5903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|2.13||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||2.13|0.26|0.5903
91089722|NCT00549549|182061348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.29|||ANCOVA|||12 hour postdose analysis||0.29|-0.10|
91089723|NCT00549549|182061348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.45|||ANCOVA|||12 hour postdose analysis||0.45|0.06|
91089724|NCT00549549|182061348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.16|||ANCOVA|||12 hour postdose analysis||-0.16|-0.55|
90833621|NCT03192176|181536186|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.89||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|13.16||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||13.16|1.15|0.0290
90833622|NCT03192176|181536186|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.12||||0.1721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|6.26||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||6.26|0.72|0.1721
90833623|NCT03192176|181536186|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.83||||0.2439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|5.09||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||5.09|0.66|0.2439
90833624|NCT03192176|181536186|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.7402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|3.19||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||3.19|0.44|0.7402
90833625|NCT03192176|181536186|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.17||||0.0422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|9.63||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||9.63|1.04|0.0422
90833626|NCT03192176|181536186|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.44||||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.62|18.27||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||18.27|1.62|0.0061
90833627|NCT03192176|181536186|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.3191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|4.92||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||4.92|0.59|0.3191
90833628|NCT03192176|181536186|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.91||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|19.66||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||19.66|1.78|0.0037
90894836|NCT01218126|181655142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|43.0||||0.06||95.0|-1.7|87.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Post-Bronchodilator FEV1 for Placebo versus Losmapimod 15 mg at Week 8||87|-1.7|0.060
90957156|NCT00545051|181793817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.55||||0.122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|1.25|||ANCOVA|||Month 6||1.25|-0.15|0.122
90833629|NCT03192176|181536186|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.02||||0.0139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|12.2||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||12.20|1.33|0.0139
90833630|NCT03192176|181536186|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.59||||0.3757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|4.42||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||4.42|0.57|0.3757
90957157|NCT00545051|181793817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|2.66|||ANCOVA|||Month 12||2.66|0.96|<0.001
91089725|NCT00549549|182061348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.07|||ANCOVA|||12 hour postdose analysis||-0.07|-0.45|
91089726|NCT00549549|182061348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.09|||ANCOVA|||12 hour postdose analysis||0.09|-0.29|
91089727|NCT00549549|182061348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.35|||ANCOVA|||24 hour postdose analysis||0.35|-0.08|
91089728|NCT00549549|182061348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.51|||ANCOVA|||24 hour postdose analysis||0.51|0.08|
91089729|NCT00549549|182061348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.18|||ANCOVA|||24 hour postdose analysis||-0.18|-0.61|
91089730|NCT00549549|182061348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||24 hour postdose analysis||-0.05|-0.47|
91089731|NCT00549549|182061348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.11|||ANCOVA|||24 hour postdose analysis||0.11|-0.32|
91089732|NCT00549549|182061349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0459|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||\>=30% reduction analyses. The analysis was conducted using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with randomization stratum (2 levels: monoarticular or oligoarticular) and treatment group as factors, and the Patient's Assessment of Pain Intensity at Baseline as a covariate.||||0.0459
91089733|NCT00549549|182061349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||\>=30% reduction analyses||||0.0017
91089734|NCT00549549|182061349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||\>=30% reduction analyses||||0.0001
91089735|NCT00549549|182061349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.041|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||\>=30% reduction analyses||||0.0410
91089736|NCT00549549|182061349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5592|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||\>=30% reduction analyses||||0.5592
90833631|NCT03192176|181536186|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.7087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|3.28||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||3.28|0.45|0.7087
90833632|NCT03192176|181536186|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.53||||0.1083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|7.88||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||7.88|0.81|0.1083
90833633|NCT03192176|181536186|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.21||||0.0473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|10.14||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||10.14|1.01|0.0473
90833634|NCT03192176|181536186|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.89||||0.2481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|5.6||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||5.60|0.64|0.2481
90957158|NCT00545051|181793818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||sCTX at Month 1||||<0.001
91089737|NCT00549549|182061349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0277|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||\>=50% reduction analyses||||0.0277
91089738|NCT00549549|182061349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||\>=50% reduction analyses||||0.0018
90833635|NCT03192176|181536186|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.84||||0.0066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.64|20.89||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||20.89|1.64|0.0066
90833636|NCT03192176|181536186|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.06||||0.0466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|9.18||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||9.18|1.02|0.0466
90957159|NCT00545051|181793818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||sCTX at Month 6||||<0.001
90957160|NCT00545051|181793818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||sCTX at Month 12||||<0.001
90957161|NCT00545051|181793818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||P1NP at Month 1||||<0.001
91089739|NCT00549549|182061349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||\>=50% reduction analyses||||<.0001
91089740|NCT00549549|182061349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0394|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||\>=50% reduction analyses||||0.0394
91089741|NCT00549549|182061349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4603|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||\>=50% reduction analyses||||0.4603
91089742|NCT00549549|182061352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5528|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Withdrawal on Day 1. Pairwise p-values are presented, calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics, stratified by number of affected joints \[1 or \>1\]) and region.||||0.5528
91089743|NCT00549549|182061352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1779|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Withdrawal on Day 1. Pairwise p-values are presented, calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics, stratified by number of affected joints \[1 or \>1\]) and region.||||0.1779
91089744|NCT00549549|182061352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1754|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Withdrawal on Day 1. Pairwise p-values are presented, calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics, stratified by number of affected joints \[1 or \>1\]) and region.||||0.1754
91089745|NCT00549549|182061352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3384|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Withdrawal on Day 1. Pairwise p-values are presented, calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics, stratified by number of affected joints \[1 or \>1\]) and region.||||0.3384
91089746|NCT00549549|182061352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5005|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Withdrawal on any time during treatment. Pairwise p-values are presented, calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics, stratified by number of affected joints \[1 or \>1\]) and region.||||0.5005
91089747|NCT00549549|182061352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0845|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Withdrawal on any time during treatment. Pairwise p-values are presented, calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics, stratified by number of affected joints \[1 or \>1\]) and region.||||0.0845
91089748|NCT00549549|182061352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0213|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Withdrawal on any time during treatment. Pairwise p-values are presented, calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics, stratified by number of affected joints \[1 or \>1\]) and region.||||0.0213
90833637|NCT03192176|181536186|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.8769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|2.53||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||2.53|0.34|0.8769
91025528|NCT01360632|181934039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.53||||0.0248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 14. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.20|1.06|0.0248
91032978|NCT02728102|181951655|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.253||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Chi-squared|||The proportion of participants alive and with sCR/CR/VGPR will be compared between the vaccine and the combined non-vaccine arms at 1 year Post Transplant.||||0.2530
90957162|NCT00545051|181793818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||P1NP at Month 6||||<0.001
90957163|NCT00545051|181793818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||P1NP at Month 12||||<0.001
90957164|NCT00545051|181793818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||TRACP at Month 1||||<0.001
90957165|NCT00545051|181793818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||TRACP at Month 6||||<0.001
91032979|NCT02728102|181951655|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2213||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||In this pairwise analysis, the proportion of participants alive and with sCR/CR/VGPR will be compared between the vaccine arm and lenalidomide/GM-CSF arm at 1 year Post Transplant.||||0.2213
91032980|NCT02728102|181951655|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.493||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||In this pairwise analysis, the proportion of participants alive and with sCR/CR/VGPR will be compared between the vaccine arm and lenalidomide alone arm at 1 year Post Transplant.||||0.4930
91032981|NCT02728102|181951655|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6591||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||In this pairwise analysis, the proportion of participants alive and with sCR/CR/VGPR will be compared between the lenalidomide/GM-CSF arm and lenalidomide alone arm at 1 year Post Transplant.||||0.6591
91032982|NCT02728102|181951655|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.679||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Chi-squared|||The proportion of participants alive and with sCR/CR/VGPR will be compared between the vaccine and the combined non-vaccine arms at 2 years Post Transplant.||||0.6790
91032983|NCT02728102|181951655|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3124||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||In this pairwise analysis, the proportion of participants alive and with sCR/CR/VGPR will be compared between the vaccine arm and lenalidomide/GM-CSF arm at 2 years Post Transplant.||||0.3124
91032984|NCT02728102|181951655|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7379||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||In this pairwise analysis, the proportion of participants alive and with sCR/CR/VGPR will be compared between the vaccine arm and lenalidomide alone arm at 2 years Post Transplant.||||0.7379
91032985|NCT02728102|181951655|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2379||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||In this pairwise analysis, the proportion of participants alive and with sCR/CR/VGPR will be compared between the lenalidomide/GM-CSF arm and lenalidomide alone arm at 2 years Post Transplant.||||0.2379
91032986|NCT02728102|181951655|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5353||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Chi-squared|||Proportion of participants achieving CR among the subset of participants who are not in CR at the time of randomization between the vaccine and the combined non-vaccine arms at 6 months Post Transplant.||||0.5353
91032987|NCT02728102|181951655|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4417||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Chi-squared|||Proportion of participants achieving CR among the subset of participants who are not in CR at the time of randomization between the vaccine and the combined non-vaccine arms at 12 months Post Transplant.||||0.4417
91032988|NCT02728102|181951655|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.945||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Chi-squared|||Proportion of participants achieving CR among the subset of participants who are not in CR at the time of randomization between the vaccine and the combined non-vaccine arms at 24 months Post Transplant.||||0.9450
91032989|NCT02728102|181951655|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1599||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Chi-squared|||A pairwise analysis of proportion of participants achieving CR among the subset of participants who are not in CR at the time of randomization between the vaccine arm and lenalidomide/GM-CSF arm is conducted at 1 year post transplant.||||0.1599
91032990|NCT02728102|181951655|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8984||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Chi-squared|||A pairwise analysis of proportion of participants achieving CR among the subset of participants who are not in CR at the time of randomization between the vaccine arm and lenalidomide alone arm is conducted at 1 year post transplant.||||0.8984
91032991|NCT02728102|181951655|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1757||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Chi-squared|||A pairwise analysis of proportion of participants achieving CR among the subset of participants who are not in CR at the time of randomization between lenalidomide/GM-CSF arm and lenalidomide alone arm is conducted at 1 year post transplant.||||0.1757
91032992|NCT02728102|181951656|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.161||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of Myeloma Progression between vaccine vs. non- vaccine arms.||||0.161
91032993|NCT02728102|181951657|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.116||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of Myeloma Progression between the vaccine arm and lenalidomide/GM-CSF arm.||||0.116
90833638|NCT03192176|181536186|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.5448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|3.82||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||3.82|0.49|0.5448
90833639|NCT03192176|181536186|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.57||||0.4125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|4.64||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||4.64|0.53|0.4125
90833640|NCT03192176|181536186|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.36||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|11.3||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||11.30|1.00|0.0500
90833641|NCT03192176|181536186|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.6167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|3.87||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||3.87|0.45|0.6167
90833642|NCT03192176|181536186|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.0||||0.0233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|13.26||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||13.26|1.21|0.0233
90833643|NCT03192176|181536186|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.68||||0.0803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|8.09||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||8.09|0.89|0.0803
90833644|NCT03192176|181536186|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.64||||0.1274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|9.18||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||9.18|0.76|0.1274
90833645|NCT03192176|181536186|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.9445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|3.71||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||3.71|0.29|0.9445
90833646|NCT03192176|181536186|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.69||||0.4204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|6.03||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||6.03|0.47|0.4204
90894837|NCT01218126|181655142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.0||||0.678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.0|35.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Post-Bronchodilator FEV1 for Placebo versus Losmapimod 2.5 mg at Week 12||35|-53|0.678
90894838|NCT01218126|181655142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|11.0||||0.636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.0|54.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Post-Bronchodilator FEV1 for Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg at Week 12||54|-33|0.636
91089749|NCT00549549|182061352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1231|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Withdrawal on any time during treatment. Pairwise p-values are presented, calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics, stratified by number of affected joints \[1 or \>1\]) and region.||||0.1231
91089750|NCT00549549|182061352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6636|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Withdrawal on any time during treatment. Pairwise p-values are presented, calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics, stratified by number of affected joints \[1 or \>1\]) and region.||||0.6636
91089751|NCT00549549|182061352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5378|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Withdrawal on any time during study. Pairwise p-values are presented, calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics, stratified by number of affected joints \[1 or \>1\]) and region.||||0.5378
90833647|NCT03192176|181536186|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.78||||0.1315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|10.49||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||10.49|0.74|0.1315
90833648|NCT03192176|181536186|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.24||||0.0944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|12.87||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||12.87|0.82|0.0944
90957166|NCT00545051|181793818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||TRACP at Month 12||||<0.001
91089752|NCT00549549|182061352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0818|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Withdrawal on any time during study. Pairwise p-values are presented, calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics, stratified by number of affected joints \[1 or \>1\]) and region.||||0.0818
91089753|NCT00549549|182061352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0317|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Withdrawal on any time during study. Pairwise p-values are presented, calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics, stratified by number of affected joints \[1 or \>1\]) and region.||||0.0317
90833649|NCT03192176|181536186|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.99||||0.2801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|6.89||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||6.89|0.57|0.2801
90833650|NCT03192176|181536186|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.44||||0.1524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|8.3||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||8.30|0.72|0.1524
90833651|NCT03192176|181536186|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.6129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|4.75||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||4.75|0.40|0.6129
90833652|NCT03192176|181536186|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.63||||0.4617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|2.18||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||2.18|0.18|0.4617
90833653|NCT03192176|181536186|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.6519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.7||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||2.70|0.20|0.6519
90833654|NCT03192176|181536186|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.8011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|3.18||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||3.18|0.22|0.8011
90833655|NCT03192176|181536186|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.95||||0.3254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|7.41||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||7.41|0.51|0.3254
90833656|NCT03192176|181536186|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|6.94||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||6.94|0.58|0.2730
90833657|NCT03192176|181536186|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.6601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|4.41||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||4.41|0.39|0.6601
90833658|NCT03192176|181536186|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.6588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.76||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||2.76|0.20|0.6588
90957167|NCT01375114|181793820|OTHER|||||||0.67|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.67
90957168|NCT01375114|181793821|OTHER|||||||0.71|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.71
91025529|NCT01360632|181934039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.51||||0.0326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.21|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 14. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.21|1.03|0.0326
91025530|NCT01360632|181934040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|0.87||||0.7993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.55|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 9. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.55|0.30|0.7993
91025531|NCT01360632|181934040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|0.11||||0.0118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.93|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 9. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||0.93|0.01|0.0118
91032994|NCT02728102|181951657|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.519||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of Myeloma Progression between the vaccine arm and lenalidomide alone arm.||||0.519
90833659|NCT03192176|181536186|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.52||||0.3257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|1.92||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||1.92|0.14|0.3257
90833660|NCT03192176|181536186|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.42||||0.2229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.69||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||1.69|0.10|0.2229
90957169|NCT01375114|181793822|OTHER|||||||0.34|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.34
90957170|NCT01375114|181793823|OTHER|||||||0.36|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.36
90957171|NCT01375114|181793824|OTHER|||||||0.56|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.56
90957172|NCT04745026|181793825|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|3.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.931|=|0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|7.21||Randomization factors, baseline score, visit, treatment arm, visit by treatment arm (fixed), and visit repeated within each patient (repeated).|Mixed models for repeated measures|||Irritability (Week 12)||7.21|-0.48|=0.085
90833661|NCT03192176|181536186|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.43||||0.2425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.77||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||1.77|0.10|0.2425
90833662|NCT03192176|181536186|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.9672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|4.11||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||4.11|0.23|0.9672
90833663|NCT03192176|181536186|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.5838|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|5.09||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||5.09|0.40|0.5838
90833664|NCT03192176|181536186|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.9361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|3.24||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||3.24|0.28|0.9361
90833665|NCT03192176|181536187|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.6||||0.0429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|6.55||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||6.55|1.03|0.0429
90833666|NCT03192176|181536187|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.81||||0.0296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|7.12||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||7.12|1.11|0.0296
90833667|NCT03192176|181536187|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.48||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|12.13||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||12.13|1.65|0.0032
90833668|NCT03192176|181536187|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.11||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.31|21.9||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||21.90|2.31|0.0006
90833669|NCT03192176|181536187|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.2073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|4.47||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||4.47|0.72|0.2073
90833670|NCT03192176|181536187|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.54||||0.0096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|9.2||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||9.20|1.36|0.0096
91025532|NCT01360632|181934040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.5||||0.2825|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|3.16|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 10. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||3.16|0.71|0.2825
91089754|NCT00549549|182061352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1592|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Withdrawal on any time during study. Pairwise p-values are presented, calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics, stratified by number of affected joints \[1 or \>1\]) and region.||||0.1592
90833671|NCT03192176|181536187|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.52||||0.0462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|6.27||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||6.27|1.02|0.0462
90833672|NCT03192176|181536187|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.26||||0.1387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|6.63||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||6.63|0.77|0.1387
90894839|NCT01218126|181655142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|38.0||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|83.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Post-Bronchodilator FEV1 for Placebo versus Losmapimod 15 mg at Week 12||83|-6.5|0.094
90833673|NCT03192176|181536187|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|4.84||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||4.84|0.60|0.3130
90957173|NCT04745026|181793825|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16|=|0.3107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|3.36|||Mixed models for repeated measures|Randomization factors, baseline score, visit, treatment arm, visit by treatment arm (fixed), and visit repeated within each patient (repeated).||Social Withdrawal Week 12)||3.36|-1.08|=0.3107
90833674|NCT03192176|181536187|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.32||||0.0392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|10.4||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||10.40|1.06|0.0392
91089755|NCT00549549|182061352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7956|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Withdrawal on any time during study. Pairwise p-values are presented, calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics, stratified by number of affected joints \[1 or \>1\]) and region.||||0.7956
90833675|NCT03192176|181536187|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.7||||0.0135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|22.71||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||22.71|1.43|0.0135
91025533|NCT01360632|181934040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.2||||0.6375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 10. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.50|0.58|0.6375
91025534|NCT01360632|181934040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.62||||0.0923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.82|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 11. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.82|0.92|0.0923
91025535|NCT01360632|181934040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.29||||0.3812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 11. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.30|0.73|0.3812
91025536|NCT01360632|181934040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.63||||0.0464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.65|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 12. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.65|1.00|0.0464
91025537|NCT01360632|181934040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.62||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.64|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 12. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.64|1.00|0.0490
91025538|NCT01360632|181934040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.32||||0.2124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|2.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 13. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.06|0.85|0.2124
91025539|NCT01360632|181934040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.41||||0.1078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|2.14|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 13. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.14|0.93|0.1078
91025540|NCT01360632|181934040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.69||||0.0094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|2.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 14. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.50|1.14|0.0094
91025541|NCT01360632|181934040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.65||||0.0162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|2.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 14. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.50|1.09|0.0162
91025542|NCT01360632|181934041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of remission rate|1.03||||0.9498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|2.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 9. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.90|0.37|0.9498
91025543|NCT01360632|181934041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|0.13||||0.0141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.94|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 9. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||0.94|0.02|0.0141
91025544|NCT01360632|181934041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|0.93||||0.8609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.17|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 10. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.17|0.40|0.8609
91025545|NCT01360632|181934041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|0.59||||0.2846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.54|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 10. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||1.54|0.22|0.2846
90833676|NCT03192176|181536187|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.85||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|9.36||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||9.36|0.87|0.0840
90833677|NCT03192176|181536187|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.47||||0.0163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|15.17||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||15.17|1.32|0.0163
90833678|NCT03192176|181536187|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.5056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|3.84||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||3.84|0.52|0.5056
90833679|NCT03192176|181536187|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.69||||0.3358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|4.9||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||4.90|0.58|0.3358
90833680|NCT03192176|181536187|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.05||||0.0696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|10.18||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||10.18|0.91|0.0696
90833681|NCT03192176|181536187|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.8||||0.0794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|8.82||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||8.82|0.89|0.0794
90833682|NCT03192176|181536187|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.32||||0.0149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|36.28||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||36.28|1.48|0.0149
90833683|NCT03192176|181536187|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.37||||0.0377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|17.59||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||17.59|1.09|0.0377
90833684|NCT03192176|181536187|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.32||||0.0454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|10.77||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||10.77|1.03|0.0454
90833685|NCT03192176|181536187|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.77||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|13.26||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||13.26|1.07|0.0390
90833686|NCT03192176|181536187|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.12||||0.1947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|6.64||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||6.64|0.68|0.1947
90833687|NCT03192176|181536187|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.79||||0.2913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|5.25||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||5.25|0.61|0.2913
90833688|NCT03192176|181536187|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.21||||0.1665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|6.82||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||6.82|0.72|0.1665
90833689|NCT03192176|181536187|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.41||||0.0157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.63|110.3||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||110.3|1.63|0.0157
90833690|NCT03192176|181536187|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.01||||0.0846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|10.49||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||10.49|0.86|0.0846
90833691|NCT03192176|181536187|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.42||||0.0171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|21.75||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||21.75|1.35|0.0171
91032995|NCT02728102|181951657|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.387||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of Myeloma Progression between the lenalidomide/GM-CSF arm and lenalidomide alone arm.||||0.387
90833692|NCT03192176|181536187|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.71||||0.0262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|18.49||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||18.49|1.20|0.0262
90833693|NCT03192176|181536187|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.88||||0.2858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|5.95||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||5.95|0.59|0.2858
90833694|NCT03192176|181536187|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.65||||0.0155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|39.72||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||39.72|1.47|0.0155
90833695|NCT03192176|181536187|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.66||||0.1249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|9.31||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||9.31|0.76|0.1249
90833696|NCT03192176|181536187|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.85||||0.0616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|15.82||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||15.82|0.94|0.0616
90833697|NCT03192176|181536187|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.32||||0.0126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|43.9||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||43.90|1.58|0.0126
90833698|NCT03192176|181536187|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.1||||0.0853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|11.23||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||11.23|0.85|0.0853
90833699|NCT03192176|181536187|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.56||||0.1562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|9.35||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||9.35|0.70|0.1562
90833700|NCT03192176|181536187|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.83||||0.1297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|10.91||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||10.91|0.74|0.1297
90833701|NCT03192176|181536187|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.34||||0.2001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|8.55||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||8.55|0.64|0.2001
90957174|NCT04745026|181793825|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.695|=|0.9513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|1.42|||Mixed models for repeated measures|Randomization factors, baseline score, visit, treatment arm, visit by treatment arm (fixed), and visit repeated within each patient (repeated).||Stereotypic Behavior (Week 12)||1.42|-1.34|=0.9513
91025546|NCT01360632|181934041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.5||||0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.99|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 11. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.99|0.75|0.2480
91025547|NCT01360632|181934041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.13||||0.7513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|2.37|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 11. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.37|0.54|0.7513
91025548|NCT01360632|181934041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.82||||0.0554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|3.35|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 12. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||3.35|0.99|0.0554
91025549|NCT01360632|181934041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.48||||0.2409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.87|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 12. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.87|0.76|0.2409
91025550|NCT01360632|181934041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.18||||0.5538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|2.02|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 13. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.02|0.69|0.5538
90833702|NCT03192176|181536187|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.6||||0.0495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|73.7||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||73.70|1.00|0.0495
90833703|NCT03192176|181536187|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.86||||0.1553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|12.2||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||12.20|0.67|0.1553
90833704|NCT03192176|181536187|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.67||||0.0199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|42.67||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||42.67|1.38|0.0199
90833705|NCT03192176|181536187|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.28||||0.0472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|27.34||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||27.34|1.02|0.0472
90833706|NCT03192176|181536187|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.75||||0.3736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|5.98||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||5.98|0.51|0.3736
90833707|NCT03192176|181536187|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.06||||0.2628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|7.26||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||7.26|0.58|0.2628
90833708|NCT03192176|181536187|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.43||||0.1998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|9.39||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||9.39|0.63|0.1998
90833709|NCT03192176|181536187|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.89||||0.1507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|12.28||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||12.28|0.68|0.1507
90833710|NCT03192176|181536187|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.92||||0.0385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|31.94||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||31.94|1.10|0.0385
90894840|NCT01218126|181655142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.0||||0.772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.0|37.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Post-Bronchodilator FEV1 for Placebo versus Losmapimod 2.5 mg at Week 16||37|-49|0.772
91025551|NCT01360632|181934041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.44||||0.1743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|2.41|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 13. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.41|0.85|0.1743
91025552|NCT01360632|181934041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.3||||0.2843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.07|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 14. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.07|0.81|0.2843
91025553|NCT01360632|181934041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.19||||0.464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.92|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 14. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||1.92|0.74|0.4640
91025554|NCT01360632|181934042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|0.6||||0.3867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.97|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 9. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||1.97|0.18|0.3867
91025555|NCT01360632|181934042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|0.11||||0.0118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.93|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 9. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||0.93|0.01|0.0118
91025556|NCT01360632|181934042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|0.59||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.66|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 10. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||1.66|0.21|0.3200
91025557|NCT01360632|181934042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|0.6||||0.3266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.62|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 10. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||1.62|0.23|0.3266
90833711|NCT03192176|181536187|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.85||||0.0299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|93.28||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||93.28|1.26|0.0299
90833712|NCT03192176|181536187|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.8034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|4.74||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||4.74|0.30|0.8034
90894841|NCT01218126|181655142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|19.0||||0.387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.0|61.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Post-Bronchodilator FEV1 for Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg at Week 16||61|-24|0.387
91089756|NCT00549549|182061353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.31|||ANCOVA|||The analysis was conducted using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with randomization stratum (2 levels: monoarticular or oligoarticular) and treatment group as factors, and the Patient's Assessment of Pain Intensity at Baseline as a covariate.||0.31|-0.17|
91089757|NCT00549549|182061353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.46|||ANCOVA|||||0.46|-0.02|
91089758|NCT00549549|182061353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||||-0.02|-0.50|
91089759|NCT00549549|182061353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.05|||ANCOVA|||||0.05|-0.43|
91089760|NCT00549549|182061353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.19|||ANCOVA|||||0.19|-0.28|
91089761|NCT00549549|182061354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3173|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||p-value calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics, stratified by number of affected joints \[1; \>1\], and region.||||0.3173
91089762|NCT00549549|182061355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4724|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||p-value calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics, stratified by number of affected joints \[1; \>1\], and region.||||0.4724
90833713|NCT03192176|181536187|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.8532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|4.42||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||4.42|0.29|0.8532
90833714|NCT03192176|181536187|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.8823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|4.41||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||4.41|0.28|0.8823
90833715|NCT03192176|181536187|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.79||||0.1651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|43.76||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||43.76|0.52|0.1651
91089763|NCT00549549|182061355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7316|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||p-value calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics, stratified by number of affected joints \[1; \>1\], and region.||||0.7316
90833716|NCT03192176|181536187|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.36||||0.1048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|59.55||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||59.55|0.68|0.1048
90833717|NCT03192176|181536187|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.87||||0.1168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|53.53||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||53.53|0.64|0.1168
90833718|NCT03192176|181536187|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.6936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|4.95||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||4.95|0.35|0.6936
91089764|NCT00549549|182061355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7316|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||p-value calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics, stratified by number of affected joints \[1; \>1\], and region.||||0.7316
91089765|NCT00808067|182061407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.93|||Regression, Cox|||||0.93|0.64|0.0055
91089766|NCT00808067|182061414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.5119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.42|||Regression, Cox|||||1.42|0.84|0.5119
91089767|NCT00808067|182061415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.2371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.29|||Regression, Cox|||||1.29|0.94|0.2371
91089768|NCT00808067|182061416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.5052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.27|||Regression, Cox|||||1.27|0.89|0.5052
91089769|NCT00808067|182061417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.2241||95.0|0.82|1.05|||Regression, Cox|||||1.05|0.82|0.2241
91089770|NCT01939314|182061421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|7.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|27.1||||||||27.1|-13.0|
91089771|NCT01939314|182061423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|24.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|43.6||||||||43.6|2.6|
91089772|NCT03311945|182061447|OTHER||||||||||||||||||This was a single-arm study without a comparator group; therefore, no formal hypothesis testing was conducted. The primary endpoint-therapeutic failure at 48 weeks-was analyzed descriptively. The proportion of participants experiencing therapeutic failure was calculated for both the intention-to-treat (ITT) and on-treatment (OT) populations. Exact binomial (Clopper-Pearson) 95% confidence intervals were used to estimate the failure rates.|||
91089773|NCT03839394|182061467|OTHER|||||||0.012|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This was a pilot study positioned to determine the effect size of a clinic-based intervention that has not been evaluated previously. Therefore, sample size was determined to be adequate to discern an effect size, but not powered to determine definitive statistical significance.||||0.012
91089774|NCT03839394|182061468|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Z-test of Proportions|||This was a pilot study positioned to determine the effect size of a clinic-based intervention that has not been evaluated previously. Therefore, sample size was determined to be adequate to discern an effect size, but not powered to determine definitive statistical significance.||||0.05
91089775|NCT03839394|182061469|OTHER|||||||0.75|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This was a pilot study positioned to determine the effect size of a clinic-based intervention that has not been evaluated previously. Therefore, sample size was determined to be adequate to discern an effect size, but not powered to determine definitive statistical significance.||||0.750
90833719|NCT03192176|181536187|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74||||0.4315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|6.9||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||6.90|0.44|0.4315
90833720|NCT03192176|181536187|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.7936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|4.53||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||4.53|0.31|0.7936
90833721|NCT03192176|181536187|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.3||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|56.03||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||56.03|0.71|0.0990
90833722|NCT03192176|181536187|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.86||||0.1128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|52.21||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||52.21|0.66|0.1128
90833723|NCT03192176|181536187|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.36||||0.0732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|65.38||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||65.38|0.83|0.0732
90833724|NCT03192176|181536187|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.6559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|5.91||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||5.91|0.33|0.6559
90833725|NCT03192176|181536187|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.7333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|2.96||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||2.96|0.21|0.7333
90833726|NCT03192176|181536187|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.9266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|3.74||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||3.74|0.24|0.9266
90833727|NCT03192176|181536187|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.04||||0.1518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|46.13||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||46.13|0.55|0.1518
90833728|NCT03192176|181536187|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.69||||0.1714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|42.91||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||42.91|0.51|0.1714
90833729|NCT03192176|181536187|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.6||||0.1299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|51.95||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||51.95|0.60|0.1299
90833730|NCT03192176|181536187|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.75||||0.2495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|15.44||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||15.44|0.49|0.2495
91025558|NCT01360632|181934042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.47||||0.3027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|3.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 11 All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||3.10|0.70|0.3027
91025559|NCT01360632|181934042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.17||||0.696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|2.52|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 11 All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.52|0.54|0.6960
91025560|NCT01360632|181934042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.62||||0.1368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|3.07||CMH general association test controlling for trial site|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 12 All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||3.07|0.86|0.1368
91032996|NCT02728102|181951659|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.168||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of Progression-Free Survival between vaccine vs. non- vaccine arms.||||0.168
90833731|NCT03192176|181536187|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.7065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|5.6||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||5.60|0.31|0.7065
90833732|NCT03192176|181536187|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.7504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|5.24||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||5.24|0.30|0.7504
90833733|NCT03192176|181536187|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.7862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|3.29||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||3.29|0.21|0.7862
90833734|NCT03192176|181536187|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.98||||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|45.59||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||45.59|0.54|0.1550
90833735|NCT03192176|181536187|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.7||||0.1706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|42.96||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||42.96|0.51|0.1706
90894842|NCT01218126|181655142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|26.0||||0.243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|69.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Post-Bronchodilator FEV1 for Placebo versus Losmapimod 15 mg at Week 16||69|-18|0.243
91025561|NCT01360632|181934042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.48||||0.2387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.89|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 12. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.89|0.76|0.2387
91025562|NCT01360632|181934042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.26||||0.4498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|2.28|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 13. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.28|0.69|0.4498
91025563|NCT01360632|181934042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.6||||0.1009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|2.82|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 13. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.82|0.91|0.1009
91025564|NCT01360632|181934042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.45||||0.1499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|2.41|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 14. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.41|0.87|0.1499
91025565|NCT01360632|181934042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.31||||0.3012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.18|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 14. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.18|0.78|0.3012
91025566|NCT01360632|181934043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.41||||0.2873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.65|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 9. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.65|0.75|0.2873
91025567|NCT01360632|181934043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.37||||0.2677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.36|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 9. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.36|0.79|0.2677
91025568|NCT01360632|181934043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.8||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|2.68|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 10. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.68|1.21|0.0031
91025569|NCT01360632|181934043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.7||||0.0066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|2.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 10. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.50|1.15|0.0066
91025570|NCT01360632|181934043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.34||||0.0665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.83|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 11. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||1.83|0.98|0.0665
91025571|NCT01360632|181934043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.41||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.91|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 11. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||1.91|1.05|0.0250
91032997|NCT02728102|181951660|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of Progression-Free Survival between the vaccine arm and lenalidomide/GM-CSF arm.||||0.120
91089776|NCT03839394|182061470|OTHER|||||||0.86|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This was a pilot study positioned to determine the effect size of a clinic-based intervention that has not been evaluated previously. Therefore, sample size was determined to be adequate to discern an effect size, but not powered to determine definitive statistical significance.||||0.860
91089777|NCT03839394|182061471|OTHER|||||||0.76|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This was a pilot study positioned to determine the effect size of a clinic-based intervention that has not been evaluated previously. Therefore, sample size was determined to be adequate to discern an effect size, but not powered to determine definitive statistical significance.||||0.760
91089778|NCT00418028|182061500|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"If we assume that the non-inferiority level is up to 15% lower (equivalent to a median progression-free time of 3 months), for a one-sided error α=0.05, and 80% power, are necessary 88 patients per group.~Considering an dropout rate of around 10%, the number of patients would be 98 per group."|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3||||0.1224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.7|||Log Rank|||||1.7|0.9|0.1224
91089779|NCT00418028|182061501|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8269|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.8269
91089780|NCT00418028|182061502|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18||||0.5703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|2.07|||Log Rank|||||2.07|0.67|0.5703
91089781|NCT00418028|182061503|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.4676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.5|||Log Rank|||||1.50|0.83|0.4676
90833736|NCT03192176|181536187|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.31||||0.1415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|49.11||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||49.11|0.57|0.1415
90833737|NCT03192176|181536187|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.67||||0.1241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|51.74||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||51.74|0.62|0.1241
90833738|NCT03192176|181536187|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.64||||0.2169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|12.29||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||12.29|0.57|0.2169
90833739|NCT03192176|181536187|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.9982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|3.6||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||3.60|0.28|0.9982
90833740|NCT03192176|181536187|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.57||||0.5364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|6.54||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||6.54|0.38|0.5364
90833741|NCT03192176|181536187|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.68||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|51.07||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||51.07|0.63|0.1210
91089782|NCT00418028|182061504|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.5688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.25|||Log Rank|||||1.25|0.66|0.5688
91089783|NCT00418028|182061505|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4984|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.4984
90833742|NCT03192176|181536187|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.65||||0.0726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|70.58||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||70.58|0.83|0.0726
90957175|NCT04745026|181793825|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|2.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.943|=|0.305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|5.88|||Mixed models repeated measures|Randomization factors, baseline score, visit, treatment arm, visit by treatment arm (fixed), and visit repeated within each patient (repeated).||Hyperactivity/Noncompliance (Week 12)||5.88|-1.86|=0.305
91089784|NCT00418028|182061506|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.2556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.63|||Log Rank|||||1.63|0.88|0.2556
91089785|NCT03574974|182061562|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.047|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.047
91089786|NCT05630196|182061612|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|1.0|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||1.00|-0.22|
91089787|NCT05630196|182061613|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|2.77|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||2.77|-0.44|
91089788|NCT05630196|182061614|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.67|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.67|-0.23|
91089789|NCT05630196|182061615|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|1.18|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||1.18|-0.13|
91089790|NCT05630196|182061616|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.51|11.87|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||11.87|-3.51|
91089791|NCT05630196|182061617|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.05|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.05|-0.74|
91089792|NCT05630196|182061618|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-11.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-159.85|136.77|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||136.77|-159.85|
91089793|NCT05630196|182061619|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.08|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.08|-0.11|
91089794|NCT03438266|182061620|NON_INFERIORITY|If the upper limit of the confidence interval at Month 1 was less than 0.5, then treatment with cannula was considered non-inferior to treatment with needle.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.25|||||The 95% CI is based on the paired t-test.|Change from Baseline at Month 1||0.25|-0.05|
91089795|NCT03438266|182061621|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.31|3.98||||||||3.98|-7.31|
90833743|NCT03192176|181536187|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.34||||0.0749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|65.81||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||65.81|0.82|0.0749
90957176|NCT04745026|181793825|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.517|=|0.4754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.66|||Mixed models repeated measures|Randomization factors, baseline score, visit, treatment arm, visit by treatment arm (fixed), and visit repeated within each patient (repeated).||Inappropriate Speech (Week 12)||0.66|-1.4|=0.4754
91025572|NCT01360632|181934043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.18||||0.2224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.54|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 12. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||1.54|0.90|0.2224
91025573|NCT01360632|181934043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.31||||0.0369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.68|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 12. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||1.68|1.01|0.0369
91025574|NCT01360632|181934043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.36||||0.0179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.75|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 13. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||1.75|1.05|0.0179
91025575|NCT01360632|181934043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.49||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|1.89|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 13. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||1.89|1.17|0.0011
91025576|NCT01360632|181934043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.12||||0.3249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.41|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 14. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||1.41|0.89|0.3249
91025577|NCT01360632|181934043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.33||||0.0122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.66|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 14. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||1.66|1.06|0.0122
91025578|NCT01360632|181934044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.22||||0.5836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.49|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 9. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.49|0.60|0.5836
91025579|NCT01360632|181934044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.31||||0.3792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.37|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 9. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.37|0.73|0.3792
91025580|NCT01360632|181934044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.77||||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|2.74|||Ratio of response rate|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 10. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.74|1.14|0.0101
91025581|NCT01360632|181934044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.75||||0.0065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|2.63|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 10. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.63|1.17|0.0065
91032998|NCT02728102|181951660|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.519||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of Progression-Free Survival between the vaccine arm and lenalidomide alone arm.||||0.519
90833744|NCT03192176|181536187|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.01||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|16.35||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||16.35|0.98|0.0530
90833745|NCT03192176|181536187|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.32||||0.2134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|8.72||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||8.72|0.62|0.2134
90833746|NCT03192176|181536187|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.88||||0.3688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|7.41||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||7.41|0.48|0.3688
90957177|NCT04745026|181793826|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.36|=|0.8506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.26|5.15|||Mixed models for repeated measures|Randomization factors, baseline score, visit, treatment arm, visit by treatment arm (fixed), and visit repeated within each patient (repeated).||Week 12||5.15|-4.26|=0.8506
90957178|NCT04745026|181793827|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22|||=|0.7087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|3.51|||Regression, Logistic|Includes treatment arm, randomization variables and baseline score (CGI-S) covariates. Responders achieved a score of 1 or 2 at post-baseline visits.||Responders with 'Very Much Improved' or 'Much Improved' response at week 12||3.51|0.43|=0.7087
90957179|NCT04745026|181793828|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.6108|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||||=0.6108
91025582|NCT01360632|181934044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.41||||0.0526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.99|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 11. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||1.99|1.00|0.0526
91025583|NCT01360632|181934044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.51||||0.0156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|2.11|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 11. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.11|1.08|0.0156
91025584|NCT01360632|181934044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.22||||0.1689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.63|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 12. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||1.63|0.92|0.1689
91025585|NCT01360632|181934044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.37||||0.0231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 12. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||1.80|1.04|0.0231
91025586|NCT01360632|181934044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.4||||0.0175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.84|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 13. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||1.84|1.06|0.0175
91025587|NCT01360632|181934044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.59||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|2.07|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 13. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.07|1.22|0.0004
91025588|NCT01360632|181934044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.21||||0.1396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.55|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 14. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||1.55|0.94|0.1396
91025589|NCT01360632|181934044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.46||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|1.86|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 14. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||1.86|1.15|0.0016
91025590|NCT03740100|181934049|OTHER||Percent with objective response|17.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|58.0||||||The primary endpoint was to determine the objective response rate of patients with R/M HNSCC harboring NOTCH1 LOF mutations to oral bimiralisib using RECIST v1.1. We used a Simon's optimal two-stage design. In order to have 80% power to detect a response rate of 30%, (one-sided α=0.05 and β=0.20), we planned to enroll up to 10 patients in the first stage. If ≥ 2 patients had an objective response, then the study would enroll an additional 19 patients in the second stage.||58|1|
91025591|NCT01191255|181934057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value for the change in mean serum phosphorus was calculated via an ANCOVA model with treatment as the fixed effect and Week-52-baseline as the co-variate.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91025592|NCT01191255|181934058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value for the change in mean serum Ferritin were created via an ANCOVA model with treatment as the fixed effect and Study-baseline as the co-variate.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91025593|NCT01191255|181934059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91025594|NCT01191255|181934060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91025595|NCT01191255|181934061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91025596|NCT00634283|181934086|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.55
90957180|NCT01415531|181793843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|-4.8|||ANCOVA|||||-4.8|-7.7|<0.0001
91025597|NCT00634283|181934086|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32||||||The a priori threshold was set at 0.05, 2-tailed, without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change in PFC over the one-week placebo lead-in period was compared between antidepressant-experienced and antidepressant-naive groups using a between groups t-test.|"Group differences in PFC changes over time during administration of venlafaxine were assessed using mixed-model analysis.~we compared brain functional changes over the course of venlafaxine treatment between antidepressant-experienced and antidepressant-naïve subjects using linear mixed model analysis (random intercept model) conducted using full maximum likelihood estimation (MLE). Changes in PFC were calculated from the end of placebo lead-in to 48 hours, and 1, 2, and 4 weeks, yielding a within-group factor of time with four levels. We employed a first-order autoregressive covariance structure to reflect our assumption that PFC measurements closer together in time would be more highly correlated."|||0.32
91089796|NCT03256578|182061707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.896|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.896
91089797|NCT03256578|182061708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.107|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.107
91089798|NCT03256578|182061709|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.847|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.847
91089799|NCT03256578|182061710|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.126|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.126
91089800|NCT03256578|182061711|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.346|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.346
91089801|NCT03256578|182061712|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.094|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.094
90833747|NCT03192176|181536187|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.61||||0.0563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|22.11||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||22.11|0.96|0.0563
91089802|NCT03256578|182061713|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.656|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.656
91089803|NCT03256578|182061714|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.434|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.434
91089804|NCT03256578|182061715|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.903|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.903
91089805|NCT03256578|182061716|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.699|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.699
91089806|NCT03256578|182061717|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.231|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.231
90833748|NCT03192176|181536187|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.94||||0.0935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|19.52||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||19.52|0.79|0.0935
91089807|NCT03256578|182061718|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.593||||0.283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.225|1.561|||Chi-squared|||||1.561|0.225|0.283
91089808|NCT03256578|182061719|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.864||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.756|4.599|||Chi-squared|||||4.599|0.756|0.168
90833749|NCT03192176|181536187|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.71||||0.0901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|16.93||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||16.93|0.81|0.0901
90833750|NCT03192176|181536187|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.84||||0.1366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|11.26||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||11.26|0.72|0.1366
90833751|NCT03192176|181536187|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.7876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|4.08||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||4.08|0.34|0.7876
90833752|NCT03192176|181536187|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.59||||0.4658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|5.59||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||5.59|0.45|0.4658
91089809|NCT03256578|182061720|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.67||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.474|0.947|||Chi-squared|||||0.947|0.474|0.024
91089810|NCT03256578|182061721|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.585|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.585
91089811|NCT03256578|182061722|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.342|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.342
91089812|NCT03256578|182061723|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.431|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.431
91089813|NCT03256578|182061725|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.059||||0.518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.854|1.313|||Chi-squared|||||1.313|0.854|0.518
91089814|NCT03256578|182061726|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.951||||0.855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.555|1.629|||Chi-squared|||||1.629|0.555|0.855
91089815|NCT03256578|182061727|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.994||||0.524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.834|1.186|||Chi-squared|||||1.186|0.834|0.524
91089816|NCT03256578|182061728|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.649||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.294|1.434|||Chi-squared|||||1.434|0.294|0.280
91089817|NCT03256578|182061729|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.393||||0.339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.703|2.76|||Chi-squared|||||2.760|0.703|0.339
91089818|NCT03256578|182061730|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.486|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.486
91089819|NCT03256578|182061731|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.655|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.655
91089820|NCT03256578|182061732|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.02|||Chi-squared|||||1.02|0.99|1.00
91089821|NCT05428436|182061733|OTHER||gMean ratio|121.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.14|170.3|||||gMean ratio: T1/R. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 78.5.|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model (logarithmic scale) with the effects: sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||170.30|86.14|
91089822|NCT05428436|182061733|OTHER||gMean ratio|108.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.68|152.48|||||gMean ratio: T2/T1. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 78.5.|ANOVA model (logarithmic scale) with the effects: sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||152.48|76.68|
91089823|NCT05428436|182061734|OTHER||gMean ratio|122.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.25|187.84|||||gMean ratio: T1/R. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 104.0.|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model (logarithmic scale) with the effects: sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment (restricted to the two formulation groups (T1 \& R)). The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||187.84|79.25|
91089824|NCT05428436|182061734|OTHER||gMean ratio|108.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|104.33|112.97|||||gMean ratio: T2/T1. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 7.8.|ANOVA model (logarithmic scale) with the effects: sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment (restricted to the two treatment groups (T1 \& T2)). The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||112.97|104.33|
91089825|NCT05428436|182061735|OTHER||gMean ratio|118.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.82|162.25|||||gMean ratio: T1/R. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 72.2.|ANOVA model (logarithmic scale) with the effects: sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||162.25|85.82|
91032526|NCT01015625|181949727|SUPERIORITY|A two-sided significance level of 5% was used.|Cox Proportional Hazard|0.95||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.02|||Log Rank||From the Cox Proportional hazard model with surgery vs no surgery fitted as a covariate. A hazard ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher average event rate and a shorter time to local progression for surgery relative to no surgery.|To determine the effect of local therapy (surgery) compared to systemic therapy only in synchronous metastasized breast cancer patients in terms of time from randomization to local progression. Local progression is defined as recurrence in breast with localization mamma, chest wall or axilla. Participants last known to be alive, who did not experience a local progression were censored at their last contact date or at the data cut-off date whichever came first.||2.02|0.45|0.890
90833753|NCT03192176|181536187|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.8707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|3.2||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||3.20|0.25|0.8707
90833754|NCT03192176|181536187|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.89||||0.3584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|7.36||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||7.36|0.49|0.3584
90833755|NCT03192176|181536187|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.13||||0.1455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|14.57||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||14.57|0.67|0.1455
90833756|NCT03192176|181536187|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.07||||0.0661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|28.66||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||28.66|0.90|0.0661
90833757|NCT03192176|181536187|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.97||||0.3034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|7.17||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||7.17|0.54|0.3034
90833758|NCT03192176|181536187|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.9901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|3.6||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||3.60|0.28|0.9901
90833759|NCT03192176|181536187|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|5.68||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||5.68|0.42|0.5070
90833760|NCT03192176|181536187|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.7927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|3.26||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||3.26|0.21|0.7927
90833761|NCT03192176|181536187|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.4426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|6.69||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||6.69|0.44|0.4426
90833762|NCT03192176|181536187|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.8925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|3.56||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||3.56|0.23|0.8925
90833763|NCT03192176|181536187|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.79||||0.4285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|7.52||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||7.52|0.42|0.4285
90833764|NCT03192176|181536187|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|3.72||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||3.72|0.31|0.9000
90833765|NCT03192176|181536188|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.41||||0.0602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|6.06||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||6.06|0.96|0.0602
90833766|NCT03192176|181536188|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.88||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.89|12.57||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||12.57|1.89|0.0010
90833767|NCT03192176|181536188|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.24||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.03|13.51||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||13.51|2.03|0.0006
90833768|NCT03192176|181536188|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.23|25.45||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||25.45|3.23|<0.0001
91025598|NCT01715415|181934094|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Based on historical SVR rates for noncirrhotic peg-interferon/ribavirin (pegIFN/RBV) treatment-experienced subjects administered telaprevir plus pegIFN/RBV, the lower confidence bound (LCB) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) must have exceeded 60% to achieve noninferiority of the ABT-450/r/ABT-267 and ABT-333, plus RBV treatment group as compared with the historical rate for telaprevir plus pegIFN and RBV, and the LCB of the 95% CI must have exceeded 70% to achieve superiority.|Percentage of Participants with SVR12|96.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.1|98.4|||||95% CI calculated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution. In order to control the Type I error rate at 0.05, a fixed-sequence testing procedure was used to proceed through the primary and numbered secondary efficacy endpoints.|With a sample size of 300 subjects and assuming that 85% of the subjects in Arm A will achieve sustained virologic response (SVR) 12, this study has greater than 90% power to demonstrate non-inferiority with a 2-sided 95% lower confidence bound greater than 60% and greater than 90% power to demonstrate superiority with a 2-sided 95% lower confidence bound greater than 70% (based on the normal approximation of a single binomial proportion).||98.4|94.1|
91025599|NCT01715415|181934095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||In order to control the Type I error rate at 0.05, a fixed-sequence testing procedure will be used to proceed through the primary and the first 3 secondary endpoints in the order numbered below.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91025600|NCT01715415|181934096|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Based on historical SVR rates for noncirrhotic pegIFN/RBV treatment-experienced subjects of the appropriate HCV genotype 1 subtype administered telaprevir plus pegIFN/RBV, the lower confidence bound (LCB) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) must have exceeded 65% to achieve superiority of the ABT-450/r/ABT-267 and ABT-333, plus RBV treatment group as compared with the historical rate for telaprevir plus pegIFN and RBV.|Percentage of Participants with SVR12|96.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.0|98.9|||||95% CI calculated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||98.9|93.0|
91025601|NCT01715415|181934097|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Based on historical SVR rates for noncirrhotic pegIFN/RBV treatment-experienced subjects of the appropriate HCV genotype 1 subtype administered telaprevir plus pegIFN/RBV, the lower confidence bound (LCB) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) must have exceeded 77% to achieve superiority of the ABT-450/r/ABT-267 and ABT-333, plus RBV treatment group as compared with the historical rate for telaprevir plus pegIFN and RBV.|Percentage of Participants with SVR12|96.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.6|99.9||||||||99.9|93.6|
91025602|NCT04578548|181934100|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Difference|-0.91||||0.606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.34|2.64|||Random coefficient regression model|||Based on a random coefficient regression model (linear slope model) on htTKV log-transformed values with time (in weeks) as a continuous variable, treatment, time-by-treatment interaction and a random intercept and slope. The treatment effect was determined by using estimated slopes for each treatment group on the basis of the time-by-treatment interaction term from the mixed model.||2.64|-4.34|0.606
91025603|NCT04578548|181934102|SUPERIORITY||Least-squares mean difference|-2.31||||0.171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.64|1.02|||Random coefficient regression model|||Least-squares mean difference (95% CI) from a random coefficient regression model (linear slope model) on eGFR values with time (in weeks) as a continuous variable, the time-by-treatment interaction and a random intercept and slope. The treatment effect was determined by using estimated slopes for each treatment group on the basis of the time-by-treatment interaction term from the mixed model.||1.02|-5.64|0.171
91025604|NCT01379781|181934109|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-6.54||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effect model was used to compare Hamilton Rating Scales of Depression (HRSD) for women who received the PREPP intervention between the pre-randomization assessment and the 6 weeks postpartum session.||||.01
91025605|NCT02247479|181934110|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.019||||0.8381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.206|0.167|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline GA area, lesion location, contiguity, biomarker status, modified baseline BCVA and sex.||0.167|-0.206|0.8381
91025606|NCT02247479|181934110|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.051||||0.5901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.134|0.236|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline GA area, lesion location, contiguity, biomarker status, modified baseline BCVA and sex.||0.236|-0.134|0.5901
91025607|NCT02247479|181934111|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.2||||0.935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|4.8|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline number of absolute scotomatous points, GA lesion location, contiguity, biomarker status, modified baseline BCVA and sex.||4.8|-5.2|0.9350
91025608|NCT02247479|181934111|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.1||||0.9789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|5.2|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline number of absolute scotomatous points, GA lesion location, contiguity, biomarker status, modified baseline BCVA and sex.||5.2|-5.0|0.9789
91025609|NCT02247479|181934112|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.28||||0.5538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|1.22|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline mean macular sensitivity, GA lesion location, contiguity, biomarker status, modified baseline BCVA and sex.||1.22|-0.66|0.5538
91025610|NCT02247479|181934112|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.63||||0.2032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.35|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline mean macular sensitivity, GA lesion location, contiguity, biomarker status, modified baseline BCVA and sex.||0.35|-1.60|0.2032
91089826|NCT05428436|182061735|OTHER||gMean ratio|87.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|63.77|121.28|||||gMean ratio: T2/T1. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 72.2.|ANOVA model (logarithmic scale) with the effects: sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||121.28|63.77|
90833769|NCT03192176|181536188|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.06||||0.1259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|5.22||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||5.22|0.82|0.1259
91025611|NCT02247479|181934113|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|1.0||||0.2547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|2.8|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline BCVA, GA lesion location, biomarker status, and sex.||2.8|-0.7|0.2547
91025612|NCT02247479|181934113|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.2||||0.8423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.6|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline BCVA, GA lesion location, biomarker status, and sex.||1.6|-1.9|0.8423
91025613|NCT02247479|181934114|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.3248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.2|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48: The adjusted analysis was based on a logistic regression analysis. The model included terms for treatment group, baseline BCVA, baseline GA lesion location, biomarker status, and sex.||2.2|0.8|0.3248
91025614|NCT02247479|181934114|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.7209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.8|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48: The adjusted analysis was based on a logistic regression analysis. The model included terms for treatment group, baseline BCVA, baseline GA lesion location, biomarker status, and sex.||1.8|0.7|0.7209
91025615|NCT02247479|181934115|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.6||||0.5695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|2.6|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline LLVA, GA lesion location, biomarker status, modified baseline BCVA ETDRS chart Snellen equivalent category, and sex.||2.6|-1.4|0.5695
91089827|NCT05428436|182061736|OTHER||gMean ratio|115.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.64|172.22|||||gMean ratio: T1/R. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 93.3.|ANOVA model (logarithmic scale) with the effects: sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment (restricted to the two formulation groups (T1 \& R)). The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||172.22|77.64|
91089828|NCT05428436|182061736|OTHER||gMean ratio|90.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.82|101.87|||||gMean ratio: T2/T1. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 23.0.|ANOVA model (logarithmic scale) with the effects: sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment (restricted to the two treatment groups (T1 \& T2)). The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||101.87|80.82|
91089829|NCT05428436|182061737|OTHER||gMean ratio|93.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.49|97.21|||||gMean ratio: T1/R. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 7.1.|ANOVA model (logarithmic scale) with the effects: sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||97.21|90.49|
91089830|NCT05428436|182061737|OTHER||gMean ratio|109.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|105.72|113.44|||||gMean ratio: T2/T1. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 7.1.|ANOVA model (logarithmic scale) with the effects: sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||113.44|105.72|
91025616|NCT02247479|181934115|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.3||||0.7865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|2.3|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline LLVA, GA lesion location, biomarker status, modified baseline BCVA ETDRS chart Snellen equivalent category, and sex.||2.3|-1.7|0.7865
91025617|NCT02247479|181934116|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.9448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.7|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48: The adjusted analysis was based on a logistic regression analysis. The model included terms for treatment group, baseline LLVA, baseline GA lesion location, biomarker status, modified baseline BCVA ETDRS chart Snellen equivalent category, and sex.||1.7|0.6|0.9448
91025618|NCT02247479|181934116|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.8764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.8|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48: The adjusted analysis was based on a logistic regression analysis. The model included terms for treatment group, baseline LLVA, baseline GA lesion location, biomarker status, modified baseline BCVA ETDRS chart Snellen equivalent category, and sex.||1.8|0.6|0.8764
91089831|NCT05428436|182061738|OTHER||gMean ratio|95.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.39|98.77|||||gMean ratio: T1/R. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 7.5.|ANOVA model (logarithmic scale) with the effects: sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment (restricted to the two formulation groups (T1 \& R)). The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||98.77|91.39|
90833770|NCT03192176|181536188|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.65|18.71||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||18.71|2.65|<0.0001
90833771|NCT03192176|181536188|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.51||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|8.76||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||8.76|1.41|0.0070
90833772|NCT03192176|181536188|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.15||||0.0193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|8.23||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||8.23|1.20|0.0193
91089832|NCT05428436|182061738|OTHER||gMean ratio|108.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.9|112.89|||||gMean ratio: T2/T1. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 8.2.|ANOVA model (logarithmic scale) with the effects: sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment (restricted to the two treatment groups (T1 \& T2)). The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||112.89|103.90|
91025619|NCT02247479|181934117|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|5.66||||0.0991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|12.38|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, baseline maximum reading speed, type of reading charts, baseline BCVA of better seeing eye, biomarker status, and sex.||12.38|-1.07|0.0991
91025620|NCT02247479|181934117|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.99||||0.7713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.66|5.69|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, baseline maximum reading speed, type of reading charts, baseline BCVA of better seeing eye, biomarker status, and sex.||5.69|-7.66|0.7713
91025621|NCT02247479|181934118|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|1.72||||0.6204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.09|8.53|||MMRM|||MMRM analysis uses change as response variable included terms for treatment group, baseline maximum reading speed, type of reading charts, biomarker status, modified baseline BCVA and sex.||8.53|-5.09|0.6204
91025622|NCT02247479|181934118|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|1.47||||0.6705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.31|8.25|||MMRM|||MMRM analysis uses change as response variable included terms for treatment group, baseline maximum reading speed, type of reading charts, biomarker status, modified baseline BCVA and sex.||8.25|-5.31|0.6705
91025623|NCT02247479|181934119|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.36||||0.7246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|1.64|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, baseline score, baseline BCVA of better seeing eye, biomarker status, and sex.||1.64|-2.35|0.7246
91025624|NCT02247479|181934119|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-1.56||||0.1193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.53|0.4|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, baseline score, baseline BCVA of better seeing eye, biomarker status, and sex.||0.40|-3.53|0.1193
91025625|NCT02247479|181934120|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.22||||0.8659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.84|2.39|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, baseline score, baseline BCVA of better seeing eye, biomarker status, and sex.||2.39|-2.84|0.8659
91025626|NCT02247479|181934120|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-1.94||||0.1399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.51|0.64|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, baseline score, baseline BCVA of better seeing eye, biomarker status, and sex.||0.64|-4.51|0.1399
91025627|NCT02247479|181934121|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.99||||0.4855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.79|3.76|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, baseline score, baseline BCVA of better seeing eye, biomarker status, and sex.||3.76|-1.79|0.4855
91025628|NCT02247479|181934121|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-1.6||||0.2515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.33|1.13|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, baseline score, baseline BCVA of better seeing eye, biomarker status, and sex.||1.13|-4.33|0.2515
91025629|NCT02247479|181934122|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.07||||0.2075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.04|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, baseline Mean FRI Index score, baseline BCVA of better seeing eye, biomarker status, and sex.||0.04|-0.18|0.2075
91025630|NCT02247479|181934122|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.08||||0.1222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.02|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, baseline Mean FRI Index score, baseline BCVA of better seeing eye, biomarker status, and sex.||0.02|-0.19|0.1222
91025631|NCT02247479|181934123|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.022||||0.8612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.266|0.223|||MMRM|||CFI Positive: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline GA area, lesion location, contiguity, biomarker status, modified baseline BCVA and sex.||0.223|-0.266|0.8612
91025632|NCT02247479|181934123|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.077||||0.5317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.165|0.319|||MMRM|||CFI Positive: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline GA area, lesion location, contiguity, biomarker status, modified baseline BCVA and sex.||0.319|-0.165|0.5317
91025633|NCT02247479|181934123|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.033||||0.824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.322|0.257|||MMRM|||CFI Negative: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline GA area, lesion location, contiguity, biomarker status, modified baseline BCVA and sex.||0.257|-0.322|0.8240
91025634|NCT02247479|181934123|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.006||||0.9676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.283|0.294|||MMRM|||CFI Negative: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline GA area, lesion location, contiguity, biomarker status, modified baseline BCVA and sex.||0.294|-0.283|0.9676
91025635|NCT02410252|181934182|OTHER||%|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||There was no statistical analysis conducted on demographic characteristics or baseline surveys|descriptive analysis|||Descriptive statistics were used to characterize the study sample, and survey responses.||||
91025636|NCT02410252|181934182|OTHER|Only percents were calculated, no formal statistical analysis was completed.||||||||||||Statistical analysis was not completed. This was a feasibility study with small n and was not powered to determine statistical significance.||||Only percent will be calculated. No statistical analysis will be conducted.|No statistical analysis was conducted as part of this study.|||
91025637|NCT02410252|181934183|OTHER||%|0.29||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance was set at p\<0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"GAD-7 scores were coded as a categorical variable as follows: mild anxiety (total score 0 to 5) and moderate/ severe anxiety (total score 6-15).~Proportion of participants with mild and moderate/ severe anxiety at enrollment and closeout was compared using Cochran's Q test."||||0.13
91025638|NCT02410252|181934184|OTHER||%|84.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||descriptive analysis|||Descriptive statistics were used to characterize the study sample, and survey responses. All analysis was conducted using STATA version 14.2 with an alpha of 0.05 set a priori. Since this was an exploratory study with descriptive statistics, a complete case analysis approach was adopted for this study||||0.05
91025639|NCT00006170|181934214|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power was determined using a log-rank statistic for comparing 2 survival curves, with a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05 and 40% as the reference from which differences were computed.||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.001
91025640|NCT00006170|181934214|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power was determined using a log-rank statistic for comparing 2 survival curves, with a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05 and 40% as the reference from which differences were computed.||||||0.25||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.25
91025641|NCT00006170|181934214|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power was determined using a log-rank statistic for comparing 2 survival curves, with a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05 and 40% as the reference from which differences were computed.||||||0.07||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.07
90833773|NCT03192176|181536188|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.34||||0.0148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|8.81||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||8.81|1.27|0.0148
90833774|NCT03192176|181536188|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.05||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.83|13.94||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||13.94|1.83|0.0018
90833775|NCT03192176|181536188|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.27||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.32|22.78||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||22.78|2.32|0.0007
90833776|NCT03192176|181536188|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.11||||0.0246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|8.35||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||8.35|1.16|0.0246
90833777|NCT03192176|181536188|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.22||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.87|14.6||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||14.60|1.87|0.0016
90833778|NCT03192176|181536188|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.25||||0.0825|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|5.62||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||5.62|0.90|0.0825
90833779|NCT03192176|181536188|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.66||||0.0542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|7.2||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||7.20|0.98|0.0542
90833780|NCT03192176|181536188|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.38||||0.0837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|6.33||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||6.33|0.89|0.0837
90833781|NCT03192176|181536188|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.67||||0.0131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|10.26||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||10.26|1.31|0.0131
90833782|NCT03192176|181536188|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.34||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.41|36.19||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||36.19|2.41|0.0012
90833783|NCT03192176|181536188|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.1||||0.0359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|8.93||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||8.93|1.08|0.0359
90833784|NCT03192176|181536188|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.86||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.91|17.92||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||17.92|1.91|0.0019
90833785|NCT03192176|181536188|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.43||||0.0715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|6.38||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||6.38|0.93|0.0715
91025642|NCT00006170|181934215|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power was determined using a log-rank statistic for comparing 2 survival curves, with a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05 and 40% as the reference from which differences were computed.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
91025643|NCT00006170|181934215|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power was determined using a log-rank statistic for comparing 2 survival curves, with a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05 and 40% as the reference from which differences were computed.||||||0.053||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.053
90833786|NCT03192176|181536188|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.89||||0.0465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|8.2||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||8.20|1.02|0.0465
90958908|NCT04874415|181797842|SUPERIORITY|Main effects were estimated using generalized linear models with log link. No interactions were included (failure to converge).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.00001|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.03|||||Fixed Step Count Goal is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|||0.03|-0.03|
91025644|NCT00006170|181934215|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power was determined using a log-rank statistic for comparing 2 survival curves, with a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05 and 40% as the reference from which differences were computed.||||||0.08||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.08
91025645|NCT00006170|181934216|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power was determined using a log-rank statistic for comparing 2 survival curves, with a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05 and 40% as the reference from which differences were computed.||||||0.006||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.006
90833787|NCT03192176|181536188|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.41||||0.0839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|6.53||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||6.53|0.89|0.0839
90894843|NCT01218126|181655142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-19.0||||0.398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.0|25.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Post-Bronchodilator FEV1 for Placebo versus Losmapimod 2.5 mg at Week 20||25|-62|0.398
90894844|NCT01218126|181655142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|27.0||||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|70.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Post-Bronchodilator FEV1 for Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg at Week 20||70|-16|0.214
90894845|NCT01218126|181655142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|14.0||||0.526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.0|58.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Post-Bronchodilator FEV1 for Placebo versus Losmapimod 15 mg at Week 20||58|-30|0.526
90894846|NCT01218126|181655142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.0||||0.671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.0|34.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Post-Bronchodilator FEV1 for Placebo versus Losmapimod 2.5 mg at Week 24||34|-53|0.671
90894847|NCT01218126|181655142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|20.0||||0.355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.0|64.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Post-Bronchodilator FEV1 for Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg at Week 24||64|-23|0.355
90894848|NCT01218126|181655142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.0||||0.781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.0|50.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Post-Bronchodilator FEV1 for Placebo versus Losmapimod 15 mg at Week 24||50|-38|0.781
90894849|NCT01218126|181655143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|13.0||||0.742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.0|93.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Pre-Bronchodilator FVC for Placebo versus Losmapimod 2.5 mg at Week 4||93|-66|0.742
90894850|NCT01218126|181655143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-30.0||||0.446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-109.0|48.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Pre-Bronchodilator FVC for Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg at Week 4||48|-109|0.446
90958909|NCT04874415|181797842|SUPERIORITY|Main effects were estimated using generalized linear models with log link. No interactions were included (failure to converge).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|12.7|||||Loss Framed Incentive is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|||12.7|-12.7|
90833788|NCT03192176|181536188|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.56||||0.0191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|10.28||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||10.28|1.23|0.0191
90833789|NCT03192176|181536188|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.11||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.52|58.22||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||58.22|2.52|0.0019
90894851|NCT01218126|181655143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|57.0||||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|137.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Pre-Bronchodilator FVC for Placebo versus Losmapimod 15 mg at Week 4||137|-22|0.157
91025646|NCT00006170|181934216|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power was determined using a log-rank statistic for comparing 2 survival curves, with a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05 and 40% as the reference from which differences were computed.||||||0.45||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.45
91025647|NCT00006170|181934216|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power was determined using a log-rank statistic for comparing 2 survival curves, with a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05 and 40% as the reference from which differences were computed.||||||0.046||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.046
91025648|NCT02363010|181934235|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68||||||A prior threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|ANOVA|Controlling for baseline weight.||Exploring group differences in 12 month weight losses.||||.68
91025649|NCT02363010|181934235|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11||||||A prior threshold for significance was p\<.05.|ANOVA|Controlling for baseline weight.||Exploring group differences in 18 month weight losses.||||.11
91025650|NCT02363010|181934236|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|Compound Poisson general linear models|Controlling for baseline MVPA.||Exploring group differences in 12 month moderator to vigorous physical activity (MVPA).||||.41
91025651|NCT02363010|181934236|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|Compound Poisson general linear models|Controlling for baseline MVPA.||Exploring group differences in 12 month MVPA.||||.46
91025652|NCT02363010|181934236|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\< .05.|Compound Poisson general linear models|Controlling for baseline MVPA.||Exploring group differences in 12 month MVPA.||||.82
91025653|NCT02363010|181934236|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|Compound Poisson general linear models|Controlling for baseline MVPA.||Exploring group differences in 18 month MVPA.||||.42
91025654|NCT02363010|181934236|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|Compound Poisson general linear models|Controlling for baseline MVPA.||Exploring group differences in 18 month MVPA.||||.28
91025655|NCT02363010|181934236|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|Compound Poisson general linear models|Controlling for baseline MVPA.||Exploring group differences in 18 month MVPA.||||.82
91025656|NCT02363010|181934237|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|ANOVA|Controlling for baseline half-mile walk time.||Exploring group differences in 12 month cardiorespiratory fitness, measured by half-mile walk time.||||.06
91025657|NCT02363010|181934237|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|ANOVA|Controlling for baseline half-mile walk time.||Exploring group differences in 18 month cardiorespiratory fitness, measured by half-mile walk time.||||.30
91025658|NCT02363010|181934238|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|ANOVA|Controlling for baseline waist circumference.||Exploring group differences in 12 month waist circumference.||||.59
91025659|NCT02363010|181934238|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|ANOVA|Controlling for baseline waist circumference.||Exploring group differences in 18 month waist circumference.||||.57
91025660|NCT02363010|181934239|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.978||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|Regression, Linear|Controlling for baseline weight.||The null hypothesis was that baseline Emotional Overeating would not significantly moderate the relationship between the three treatment conditions and 36-month weight loss. As a note, multiple imputation for missing weight loss data was not conducted for exploratory moderation analyses.||||.978
91025661|NCT02363010|181934239|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.998||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \<.05.|Regression, Poison|Controlling for baseline MVPA. Poisson linear regression was used as MVPA data distribution was zero-inflated.||The null hypothesis was that baseline Emotional Overeating would not significantly moderate the relationship between the three treatment conditions and 36-month MVPA. As a note, multiple imputation for missing MVPA data was not conducted for exploratory moderation analyses.||||.998
91025662|NCT02363010|181934239|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.878||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|Regression, Linear|Controlling for baseline weight.||The null hypothesis was that 6-month Emotional Overeating would not significantly moderate the relationship between the three treatment conditions and 36-month weight loss. As a note, multiple imputation for missing weight loss data was not conducted for exploratory moderation analyses.||||.878
91025663|NCT02363010|181934239|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.602||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|Regression, Poison|Controlling for baseline MVPA. Poisson linear regression was used as MVPA data distribution was zero-inflated.||The null hypothesis was that 6-month Emotional Overeating would not significantly moderate the relationship between the three treatment conditions and 36-month MVPA. As a note, multiple imputation for missing MVPA data was not conducted for exploratory moderation analyses.||||.602
91025664|NCT02363010|181934240|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.487||||||A prior threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|Regression, Linear|Controlling for baseline weight.||The null hypothesis was that baseline Disinhibited Eating would not significantly moderate the relationship between the three treatment conditions and 36-month weight loss. As a note, multiple imputation for missing weight loss data was not conducted for exploratory moderation analyses.||||.487
91025665|NCT02363010|181934240|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.262||||||A prior threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|Regression, Poison|Controlling for baseline MVPA. Poisson linear regression was used as MVPA data distribution was zero-inflated.||The null hypothesis was that baseline Disinhibited Eating would not significantly moderate the relationship between the three treatment conditions and 36-month MVPA. As a note, multiple imputation for missing MVPA data was not conducted for exploratory moderation analyses.||||.262
91025666|NCT02363010|181934240|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.851||||||A prior threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|Regression, Linear|Controlling for baseline weight.||The null hypothesis was that 6-month Disinhibited Eating would not significantly moderate the relationship between the three treatment conditions and 36-month weight loss. As a note, multiple imputation for missing weight loss data was not conducted for exploratory moderation analyses.||||.851
91025667|NCT02363010|181934240|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.978||||||A prior threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|Regression, Poison|Controlling for baseline MVPA. Poisson linear regression was used as MVPA data distribution was zero-inflated.||The null hypothesis was that 6-month Disinhibited Eating would not significantly moderate the relationship between the three treatment conditions and 36-month MVPA. As a note, multiple imputation for missing MVPA data was not conducted for exploratory moderation analyses.||||.978
91025668|NCT02363010|181934241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.796||||||A prior threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|Regression, Linear|Controlling for baseline weight.||The null hypothesis was that baseline Hedonic Hunger would not significantly moderate the relationship between the three treatment conditions and 36-month weight loss. As a note, multiple imputation for missing weight loss data was not conducted for exploratory moderation analyses.||||.796
91025669|NCT02363010|181934241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.481||||||A prior threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|Regression, Poison|Controlling for baseline MVPA. Poisson linear regression was used as MVPA data distribution was zero-inflated.||The null hypothesis was that baseline Hedonic Hunger would not significantly moderate the relationship between the three treatment conditions and 36-month MVPA. As a note, multiple imputation for missing MVPA data was not conducted for exploratory moderation analyses.||||.481
91104630|NCT03926247|182095272|OTHER|Within-group longitudinal analysis (no comparison groups)|LSM Final Difference|-0.044|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|=|0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.087|-0.008|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analyses were conducted using a mixed effects linear model to calculate least square means across the 4 timepoints. This was a longitudinal within-group analysis with 4 timepoints of data nested within 56 individuals. Our hypothesis was that participants' depression/anxiety symptoms would decrease overtime.||-0.008|-0.087|=0.019
91025670|NCT02363010|181934241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.872||||||A prior threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|Regression, Linear|Controlling for baseline weight.||The null hypothesis was that 6-month Hedonic Hunger would not significantly moderate the relationship between the three treatment conditions and 36-month weight loss. As a note, multiple imputation for missing weight loss data was not conducted for exploratory moderation analyses.||||.872
91025671|NCT02363010|181934241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.802||||||A prior threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|Regression, Poison|Controlling for baseline MVPA. Poisson linear regression was used as MVPA data distribution was zero-inflated.||The null hypothesis was that 6-month Hedonic Hunger would not significantly moderate the relationship between the three treatment conditions and 36-month weight loss. As a note, multiple imputation for missing weight loss data was not conducted for exploratory moderation analyses.||||.802
91025672|NCT02363010|181934242|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.926||||||A prior threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|Regression, Linear|Controlling for baseline weight.||The null hypothesis was that baseline Appetitive Response to Exercise would not significantly moderate the relationship between the three treatment conditions and 36-month weight loss. As a note, multiple imputation for missing weight loss data was not conducted for exploratory moderation analyses.||||.926
91025673|NCT02363010|181934242|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82||||||A prior threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|Regression, Poison|Controlling for baseline MVPA. Poisson linear regression was used as MVPA data distribution was zero-inflated.||The null hypothesis was that baseline Appetitive Response to Exercise would not significantly moderate the relationship between the three treatment conditions and 36-month MVPA. As a note, multiple imputation for missing MVPA data was not conducted for exploratory moderation analyses.||||.820
91025674|NCT02363010|181934242|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.127||||||A prior threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|Regression, Linear|Controlling for baseline weight.||The null hypothesis was that 6-month Appetitive Response to Exercise would not significantly moderate the relationship between the three treatment conditions and 36-month weight loss. As a note, multiple imputation for missing weight loss data was not conducted for exploratory moderation analyses.||||.127
91025675|NCT02363010|181934242|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.814||||||A prior threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|Regression, Poison|Controlling for baseline MVPA. Poisson linear regression was used as MVPA data distribution was zero-inflated.||The null hypothesis was that 6-month Appetitive Response to Exercise would not significantly moderate the relationship between the three treatment conditions and 36-month MVPA. As a note, multiple imputation for missing MVPA data was not conducted for exploratory moderation analyses.||||.814
91025676|NCT02884206|181934260|NON_INFERIORITY|To demonstrate non-inferiority that LCZ696 does not lead to a relevant decrease in cognition compared to valsartan at year 3, the lower bound of 95% CI does not include the pre-specified non-inferiority (NI) boundary (Cohen's D) of -0.3. An effect size of 0.3 in Cohen's D is generally considered as small.|LSM|-0.018||||0.7363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.123|0.087|||ANCOVA|||Repeated measure ANCOVA|Cohen's D: -0.0277, 95% CI: -0.1101 to 0.0778|0.0870|-0.1230|0.7363
91025677|NCT02884206|181934261|NON_INFERIORITY|To show that the point estimate of SUVr difference in mean change over 3 years is in favor of LCZ696 and the non-inferiority is demonstrated, with the upper bound of the 95% CI excluding the NI boundary of 0.01.|Least Squares Mean|-0.0292||||0.0579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0593|0.001|||ANCOVA|||Multiple Imputation ANCOVA in Global cortical composite||0.0010|-0.0593|0.0579
91025678|NCT02884206|181934262|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|0.0007||||0.9916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1339|0.1353|||ANCOVA|||Repeated measure ANCOVA for memory domain|Cohen's D: 0.0009; 95% CI: -0.0912 to 0.0922|0.1353|-0.1339|0.9916
91025679|NCT02884206|181934262|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|0.0327||||0.6348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1024|0.1677|||ANCOVA|||Repeated measure ANCOVA for executive function domain|Cohen's D: 0.0391, 95% CI: -0.0727 to 0.1192|0.1677|-0.1024|0.6348
91025680|NCT02884206|181934262|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|-0.1042||||0.2403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2783|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Repeated measure ANCOVA for attention domain|Cohen's D: -0.0967, 95% CI: -0.1542 to 0.0387|0.0700|-0.2783|0.2403
91025681|NCT02884206|181934263|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|-0.1105||||0.7081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6906|0.4696|||ANCOVA|||Repeated measure ANCOVA|Cohen's D: -0.0308, 95% CI: -0.1208 to 0.0820|0.4696|-0.6906|0.7081
91025682|NCT03907280|181934285|OTHER|Absolute bioavailability comparison|Ratio of the geometric means (T1/R) [%]|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.39|0.63|||Mixed Models Analysis||The standard error of the mean is actually the geometric standard error.|Exploratory trial, no formal hypotheses were tested. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale including effects for treatment sequence ('fixed effect'), subjects nested within treatment sequences ('random effect'), and treatment ('fixed effect').||0.63|0.39|
91025683|NCT03907280|181934285|OTHER|Absolute bioavailability comparison|Ratio of the geometric means (T2/R) [%]|40.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|31.68|51.15|||Mixed Models Analysis||The standard error of the mean is actually the geometric standard error.|Exploratory trial, no formal hypotheses were tested. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale including effects for treatment sequence ('fixed effect'), subjects nested within treatment sequences ('random effect'), and treatment ('fixed effect').||51.15|31.68|
91025684|NCT03907280|181934285|OTHER|Absolute bioavailability comparison|Ratio of the geometric means (T3/R) [%]|40.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|31.86|50.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|The standard error of the mean is actually the geometric standard error.||Exploratory trial, no formal hypotheses were tested. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale including effects for treatment sequence ('fixed effect'), subjects nested within treatment sequences ('random effect'), and treatment ('fixed effect').||50.83|31.86|
91025685|NCT03513497|181934337|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3
91025686|NCT03513497|181934338|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5
91025687|NCT03513497|181934339|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6
91025688|NCT03513497|181934340|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5
91025689|NCT01412541|181934343|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The evaluable sample size required for 90% power is 150 (50 Control plus 100 Test). This endpoint is not the sample-size driver of the study. Randomization of 476 subjects is expected to provide at least 405 evaluable subjects, after adjustment for up to 15% censoring) and approximately 99% power.||||||0.025|||||||Farrington and Manning|||"To assess if proportion of subjects with at least one safety event\* in the Test group is inferior or not inferior to that of Control group through 12-months Post index procedure (PPI) H0: The proportion of subjects with safety events in the Test group through 12-months PPI is clinically inferior to that of the Control group.~H1: The proportion of subjects with safety events in the Test group through 12-months PPI is clinically non-inferior to that of the Control group."||||0.025
91025690|NCT01412541|181934344|EQUIVALENCE|The statistical analysis is a likelihood ratio chi-square test for inequality of binomial proportions; the test is a two-sided test at α=0.05. The response variable in each subject will be the presence or absence of at least one efficacy event from the time following the index procedure through 12 months. The study evaluable sample size required for 90% power is approximately 405 subjects. After adjustment for 15% censoring through 12 months, the study size is 476.||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared|The statistical analysis is a likelihood ratio chi-square test for inequality of binomial proportions; the test is a two-sided test.||"To assess whether the proportion of subjects with at least one efficacy event\* in the Test group is equal or not to that of Control group through 12-months post-index procedure.~H0: The proportion of subjects with efficacy events in the Control group through 12-months post-index procedure is equal to that of the Test group.~H1: The proportion of subjects with efficacy events in the Control group through 12-months post-index procedure is not equal to that of the Test group."||||0.05
91025691|NCT03294538|181934361|EQUIVALENCE|If the adjusted 90% confidence interval on the difference between proportions of participants considered Responders in the generic estradiol vaginal cream group and the Estrace Vaginal Cream group was contained within the equivalence range \[-0.20, +0.20\], then treatment with generic estradiol vaginal cream and treatment with Estrace Vaginal Cream were considered therapeutically equivalent.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.8|7.2||||||Therapeutic equivalence of the generic estradiol vaginal cream group to the Estrace Vaginal Cream group based on the primary endpoint was evaluated in the PP population.||7.2|-5.8|
91025692|NCT03294538|181934362|SUPERIORITY|The proportion of participants considered as Responders in the generic estradiol vaginal cream group and the Estrace Vaginal Cream group were each compared to the proportion of Responders in the vehicle vaginal cream group. If both the generic estradiol vaginal cream group and the Estrace Vaginal Cream group demonstrated a statistically significant greater proportion of Responders than the vehicle vaginal cream group, then superiority was concluded.|Odds Ratio (OR)|19.9|||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Superiority of the generic estradiol vaginal cream group and the Estrace Vaginal Cream group to the vehicle vaginal cream group based on the primary endpoint was evaluated in the mITT population.||||<0.0001
91025693|NCT03294538|181934362|SUPERIORITY|The proportion of participants considered as Responders in the generic estradiol vaginal cream group and the Estrace Vaginal Cream group were each compared to the proportion of Responders in the vehicle vaginal cream group. If both the generic estradiol vaginal cream group and the Estrace Vaginal Cream group demonstrated a statistically significant greater proportion of Responders than the vehicle vaginal cream group, then superiority was concluded.|Odds Ratio (OR)|20.2|||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Superiority of the generic estradiol vaginal cream group and the Estrace Vaginal Cream group to the vehicle vaginal cream group based on the primary endpoint was evaluated in the mITT population.||||<0.0001
91025694|NCT03294538|181934363|EQUIVALENCE|If the adjusted 90% confidence interval on the difference between proportions of participants considered Treatment Success in the generic estradiol vaginal cream group and the Estrace Vaginal Cream group was contained within the equivalence range \[-0.20, +0.20\], then treatment with generic estradiol vaginal cream and treatment with Estrace Vaginal Cream were considered therapeutically equivalent.|Odds Ratio (OR)|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.0|6.2||||||Therapeutic equivalence of the generic estradiol vaginal cream group to the Estrace Vaginal Cream group based on the secondary endpoint was evaluated in the PP population.||6.2|-9.0|
91025695|NCT03294538|181934364|SUPERIORITY|The proportion of participants considered as Treatment Success in the generic estradiol vaginal cream group and the Estrace Vaginal Cream group were each compared to the proportion of Treatment Success in the vehicle vaginal cream group. If both the generic estradiol vaginal cream group and the Estrace Vaginal Cream group demonstrated a statistically significant greater proportion of Treatment Success than the vehicle vaginal cream group, then superiority was concluded.|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.9||||0.2897|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Superiority of the generic estradiol vaginal cream group and the Estrace Vaginal Cream group to the vehicle vaginal cream group based on the secondary endpoint was evaluated in the mITT population.||||0.2897
90833790|NCT03192176|181536188|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.76||||0.0593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|7.9||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||7.90|0.96|0.0593
91032527|NCT00105196|181949778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.73|||<|0.001||95.0|-5.44|-2.02|||t-test, 2 sided|||The sample size for the study was based on the primary outcome measure. The study was powered at 90% to detect a treatment difference between adjunctive aripiprazole and adjunctive placebo of 3.75, assuming a standard deviation of 10.5 and a two-sided alpha level of 0.05. The null-hypothesis was the lack of a treatment difference.||-2.02|-5.44|<0.001
91032528|NCT00105196|181949779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42||||0.075||95.0|-0.88|0.04|||t-test, 2 sided|||To protect the overall (primary and key secondary efficacy analysis) alpha level of 0.05, for this key secondary endpoint a hierarchical testing procedure was followed such that formal testing would take place conditional on the primary efficacy analysis showing a statistically significant difference.||0.04|-0.88|0.075
90958910|NCT04874415|181797842|SUPERIORITY|Main effects were estimated using generalized linear models with log link. No interactions were included (failure to converge).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.00002|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.03|||||Daily Step Count Goal is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|||0.03|-0.03|
91025696|NCT03294538|181934364|SUPERIORITY|The proportion of participants considered as Treatment Success in the generic estradiol vaginal cream group and the Estrace Vaginal Cream group were each compared to the proportion of Treatment Success in the vehicle vaginal cream group. If both the generic estradiol vaginal cream group and the Estrace Vaginal Cream group demonstrated a statistically significant greater proportion of Treatment Success than the vehicle vaginal cream group, then superiority was concluded.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.9||||0.4949|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Superiority of the generic estradiol vaginal cream group and the Estrace Vaginal Cream group to the vehicle vaginal cream group based on the primary endpoint was evaluated in the mITT population.||||0.4949
91025697|NCT01787825|181934385|NON_INFERIORITY|This is McNemar design.|percentage concordance|77.19||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.68|83.93||The blinded readers assessed concordance of normal versus abnormal and overall concordance of clinically significant abnormal images.|McNemar||Overall concordance of clinically significant abnormal images.|There was a comparison between normal and abnormal images. And detailed analysis of abnormal images that were considered clinical significant.||83.93|68.68|1.0000
90833791|NCT03192176|181536188|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.95||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.63|15.04||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||15.04|1.63|0.0048
90833792|NCT03192176|181536188|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.75||||0.0494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|7.57||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||7.57|1.00|0.0494
90833793|NCT03192176|181536188|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.15||||0.1887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|6.7||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||6.70|0.69|0.1887
90833794|NCT03192176|181536188|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.06||||0.0717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|10.7||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||10.7|0.91|0.0717
90833795|NCT03192176|181536188|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.43||||0.1419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|7.92||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||7.92|0.74|0.1419
90894852|NCT01218126|181655143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.0||||0.826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-93.0|74.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Pre-Bronchodilator FVC for Placebo versus Losmapimod 2.5 mg at Week 8||74|-93|0.826
91025698|NCT01787825|181934387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage concordance|71.93||||0.972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.07|79.36|||Bowkers|||||79.36|63.07|0.972
91025699|NCT00415532|181934442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.172|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.084|0.352||Significant level is set at 0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.352|0.084|<0.0001
91025700|NCT00415532|181934443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.307||||0.0005||95.0|0.154|0.611||Significant level is set at 0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.611|0.154|0.0005
90833796|NCT03192176|181536188|SUPERIORITY|0.0141|Odds Ratio (OR)|14.37||||0.0141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.71|120.6||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||120.6|1.71|0.0141
90833797|NCT03192176|181536188|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.19||||0.0775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|11.54||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||11.54|0.88|0.0775
90833798|NCT03192176|181536188|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.35||||0.0283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|16.19||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||16.19|1.17|0.0283
90833799|NCT03192176|181536188|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.21||||0.1767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|6.96||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||6.96|0.70|0.1767
90833800|NCT03192176|181536188|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2||||0.1675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|6.72||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||6.72|0.72|0.1675
90833801|NCT03192176|181536188|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.84||||0.2717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|5.49||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||5.49|0.62|0.2717
91025701|NCT00415532|181934446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0133||||||Significant level is set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0133
91025702|NCT00415532|181934447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3434||||||Significant level is set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.3434
91025703|NCT00415532|181934448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0076||||||Significant level is set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0076
91025704|NCT00415532|181934449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0246||||||Significant level is set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0246
90833802|NCT03192176|181536188|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.4||||0.1367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|7.64||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||7.64|0.76|0.1367
90833803|NCT03192176|181536188|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.53||||0.0162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.62|113.0||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||113.0|1.62|0.0162
90833804|NCT03192176|181536188|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.23||||0.0765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|11.78||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||11.78|0.88|0.0765
90833805|NCT03192176|181536188|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.8||||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.79|33.87||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||33.87|1.79|0.0061
90894853|NCT01218126|181655143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.0||||0.773||95.0|-95.0|70.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Pre-Bronchodilator FVC for Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg at Week 8||70|-95|0.773
91025705|NCT01952574|181934450|SUPERIORITY|To maintain the type I error at ≤ 0.05, the pairwise comparison was tested in a sequential testing procedure in the order of erenumab 70 mg vs placebo, 21 mg vs placebo, and 7 mg vs placebo. The lower dose group was only to be tested when the higher dose group was tested as significant.|LS Mean Difference|-1.12||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|-0.17|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||The primary analysis utilized a generalized linear mixed model which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, the stratification factor region, and baseline value as covariates.||-0.17|-2.06|0.021
91025706|NCT01952574|181934450|SUPERIORITY|To maintain the type I error at ≤ 0.05, the pairwise comparison was tested in a sequential testing procedure in the order of erenumab 70 mg vs placebo, 21 mg vs placebo, and 7 mg vs placebo. The lower dose group was only to be tested when the higher dose group was tested as significant.|LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|0.86|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||The primary analysis utilized a generalized linear mixed model which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, the stratification factor region, and baseline value as covariates.||0.86|-1.07|0.83
91025707|NCT01952574|181934450|SUPERIORITY|To maintain the type I error at ≤ 0.05, the pairwise comparison was tested in a sequential testing procedure in the order of erenumab 70 mg vs placebo, 21 mg vs placebo, and 7 mg vs placebo. The lower dose group was only to be tested when the higher dose group was tested as significant.|LS Mean Difference|0.11||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|92.0|-0.83|1.05|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||The primary analysis utilized a generalized linear mixed model which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, the stratification factor region, and baseline value as covariates.||1.05|-0.83|0.82
91025708|NCT01952574|181934451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|3.42|||Generalised Linear Mixed Model|Generalized linear mixed model including treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factor region, and baseline value as covariates.||The generalized linear mixed model includes data for all participants in the efficacy analysis set with at least one percent change from baseline value in monthly migraine days (152 participants in the placebo group and 104 in the erenumab 70 mg group)||3.42|1.17|0.011
91025709|NCT01952574|181934451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.18|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|Generalized linear mixed model including treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factor region, and baseline value as covariates.||The generalized linear mixed model includes data for all participants in the efficacy analysis set with at least one change from baseline value in monthly migraine days (152 participants in the placebo group and 99 in the erenumab 21 mg group)||2.18|0.71|0.44
91032529|NCT00105196|181949780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53||||0.052||95.0|-1.06|0.0||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was implemented for this secondary endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.00|-1.06|0.052
90833806|NCT03192176|181536188|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.4||||0.0181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|21.85||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||21.85|1.33|0.0181
90833807|NCT03192176|181536188|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.3925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|4.99||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||4.99|0.53|0.3925
90833808|NCT03192176|181536188|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.66||||0.374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|5.12||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||5.12|0.54|0.3740
90894854|NCT01218126|181655143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|47.0||||0.277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.0|131.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Pre-Bronchodilator FVC for Placebo versus Losmapimod 15 mg at Week 8||131|-38|0.277
91032530|NCT00105196|181949781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57||||0.037||95.0|-1.1|-0.03||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was implemented for this secondary endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.03|-1.10|0.037
91032531|NCT00105196|181949782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.792||95.0|-0.67|0.51||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was implemented for this secondary endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.51|-0.67|0.792
91025710|NCT01952574|181934451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.63|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|Generalized linear mixed model including treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factor region, and baseline value as covariates.||The generalized linear mixed model includes data for all participants in the efficacy analysis set with at least one change from baseline value in monthly migraine days (152 participants in the placebo group and 107 in the erenumab 7 mg group)||1.63|0.53|0.80
91025711|NCT01952574|181934452|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.12|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|Generalized linear mixed model including treatment, visit, treatment by visit, the stratification factor region, and baseline value as covariates.||||0.12|-0.92|0.13
91025712|NCT01952574|181934452|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.02||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.54|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|Generalized linear mixed model including treatment, visit, treatment by visit, the stratification factor region, and baseline value as covariates.||||0.54|-0.51|0.95
91025713|NCT01952574|181934452|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.37||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.87|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|Generalized linear mixed model including treatment, visit, treatment by visit, the stratification factor region, and baseline value as covariates.||||0.87|-0.14|0.16
91025714|NCT01620489|181934477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference|-0.66|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.9|-0.43||Adjustment for multiple comparisons was not used since there was only one primary endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The null hypothesis of no treatment difference was tested using a two-sided test based on a mixed model repeated measurement (MMRM) analysis. The model included treatment, country, stratification groups (6 groups from cross-classifying renal function category (2 levels: eGFR\<45 and ≥45 mL/min) and the background insulin treatment category (3 levels: basal, premix or no insulin)) as fixed effects factors and baseline HbA1c as a covariate, all nested within week.||-0.43|-0.90|<0.0001
91025715|NCT01620489|181934478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated odds ratio|4.48|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.46|8.18||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Logistic|||Analysed by a logistic regression model with treatment, country and stratification groups as fixed effects and HbA1c and body weight at baseline as covariates. No weight gain was defined as change from baseline to Week 26 in body weight ≤0 kg.||8.18|2.46|<0.0001
91025716|NCT01620489|181934479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated odds ratio|3.94|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.12|7.3||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Logistic|||Analysed by a logistic regression model with treatment, country and stratification groups as fixed effects and HbA1c at baseline as covariates.||7.30|2.12|<0.0001
91025717|NCT01620489|181934480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference|-1.08|||<|0.0001||95.0|-1.58|-0.58||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mean change from baseline in the 7-point profile (SMPG) after 26 weeks treatment was analysed using an MMRM model with treatment, country and stratification groups as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate, all nested within visit.||-0.58|-1.58|<0.0001
91025718|NCT01620489|181934481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference|-0.51|||=|0.0022||95.0|-0.83|-0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|Not adjusted for multiple comparisons||Change from baseline in BMI (kg/m˄2) after 26 weeks treatment was analysed separately using an MMRM analysis model with treatment, country and stratification groups as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate, all nested within visit.||-0.18|-0.83|= 0.0022
91025719|NCT01620489|181934482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment ratio|0.98|||=|0.3575||95.0|0.94|1.02||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|||The ratio to baseline in eGFR (mL/min/1.73m˄2) after 26 weeks treatment was estimated based on log-transformed data for changes from baseline. The responses were analysed using an MMRM model with treatment, country and stratification groups as fixed effects and log-transformed baseline as a covariate, all nested within visit. The resulting estimates were back-transformed to the original scale.||1.02|0.94|= 0.3575
91025720|NCT01328054|181934486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.151|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.72|9.89|||||Confidence interval (CI), estimated value and dispersion value of is presented for pre dose|||9.89|2.72|
91025721|NCT01328054|181934486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.059|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.0|9.87|||||CI, estimated value and dispersion value of is presented for 1 hour post dose|||9.87|3.00|
91025722|NCT01328054|181934486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.734|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.82|10.6|||||CI, estimated value and dispersion value of is presented for 2 hour post dose|||10.60|4.82|
91025723|NCT01328054|181934486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.085|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.94|9.89|||||CI, estimated value and dispersion value of is presented for 3 hour post dose|||9.89|2.94|
91025724|NCT01328054|181934486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.434|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.54|10.65|||||CI, estimated value and dispersion value of is presented for 4 hour post dose|||10.65|2.54|
91025725|NCT01328054|181934486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.573|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.57|10.14|||||CI, estimated value and dispersion value of is presented for 6 hour post dose|||10.14|1.57|
91025726|NCT01328054|181934486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.735|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.35|9.47|||||CI, estimated value and dispersion value of is presented for 8 hour post dose|||9.47|0.35|
91025727|NCT01328054|181934486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.08|13.42|||||CI, estimated value and dispersion value of is presented for 10 hour post dose|||13.42|4.08|
91025728|NCT01328054|181934486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.759|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.16|10.36|||||CI, estimated value and dispersion value of is presented for 12 hour post dose|||10.36|1.16|
91025729|NCT01328054|181934486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.164|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.15|7.36|||||CI, estimated value and dispersion value of is presented for 24 hour post dose|||7.36|0.15|
91025730|NCT02629965|181934510|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.115|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.077|0.153|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measures includes treatment and period as fixed effects, study baseline as a covariate and patient as a random effect.|Adjusted mean of differences between treatments and standard error||Mixed effect repeated measurement was used to calculate adjusted mean values as well as treatment contrasts together with the 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and p-values.|0.153|0.077|<0.001
91025731|NCT02629965|181934511|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.168|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.26||0.4291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.211|14.548|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measures includes treatment and period as fixed effects, study baseline as a covariate and patient as a random effect.|Adjusted mean of differences between treatments and standard error||Mixed effect repeated measurement was used to calculate adjusted mean values as well as treatment contrasts together with the 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and p-values.|14.548|-6.211|0.4291
91025732|NCT02629965|181934512|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.501|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|83.704||0.9098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-155.692|174.694|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measures includes treatment and period as fixed effects, study baseline as a covariate and patient as a random effect.|Adjusted mean of differences between treatments and standard error||Mixed effect repeated measurement was used to calculate adjusted mean values as well as treatment contrasts together with the 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and p-values.|174.694|-155.692|0.9098
91025733|NCT02629965|181934513|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.292|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.469||0.5338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.217|0.633|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measures includes treatment and period as fixed effects, study baseline as a covariate and patient as a random effect.|Adjusted mean of differences between treatments and standard error||Mixed effect repeated measurement was used to calculate adjusted mean values as well as treatment contrasts together with the 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and p-values.|0.633|-1.217|0.5338
91025734|NCT02629965|181934514|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.939|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.007||0.3524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.048|2.926|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measures includes treatment and period as fixed effects, study baseline as a covariate and patient as a random effect.|Adjusted mean of differences between treatments and standard error||Mixed effect repeated measurement was used to calculate adjusted mean values as well as treatment contrasts together with the 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and p-values.|2.926|-1.048|0.3524
91025735|NCT02629965|181934515|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.257|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.647||0.3949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.966|7.481|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measures includes treatment and period as fixed effects, study baseline as a covariate and patient as a random effect.|Adjusted mean of differences between treatments and standard error||Mixed effect repeated measurement was used to calculate adjusted mean values as well as treatment contrasts together with the 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and p-values.|7.481|-2.966|0.3949
91025736|NCT02629965|181934516|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.543||0.4955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.572|9.411|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measures includes treatment and period as fixed effects, study baseline as a covariate and patient as a random effect.|Adjusted mean of differences between treatments and standard error||Mixed effect repeated measurement was used to calculate adjusted mean values as well as treatment contrasts together with the 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and p-values.|9.411|-4.572|0.4955
90833809|NCT03192176|181536188|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.33||||0.1753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|7.93||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||7.93|0.69|0.1753
90833810|NCT03192176|181536188|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.85||||0.0195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|109.5||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||109.5|1.51|0.0195
90894855|NCT01218126|181655143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|45.0||||0.319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.0|132.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Pre-Bronchodilator FVC for Placebo versus Losmapimod 2.5 mg at Week 12||132|-43|0.319
90894856|NCT01218126|181655143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|16.0||||0.716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.0|103.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Pre-Bronchodilator FVC for Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg at Week 12||103|-71|0.716
91025737|NCT02629965|181934517|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.134|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.091|0.176|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measures includes treatment and period as fixed effects, study baseline as a covariate and patient as a random effect.|Adjusted mean of differences between treatments and standard error||Mixed effect repeated measurement was used to calculate adjusted mean values as well as treatment contrasts together with the 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and p-values.|0.176|0.091|<0.0001
91025738|NCT02629965|181934518|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.105|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.009|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.088|0.123|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measures includes treatment and period as fixed effects, study baseline as a covariate and patient as a random effect.|Adjusted mean of differences between treatments and standard error||Mixed effect repeated measurement was used to calculate adjusted mean values as well as treatment contrasts together with the 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and p-values.|0.123|0.088|<0.0001
91032532|NCT00105196|181949783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response|1.74|||<|0.001||95.0|1.31|2.32||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was implemented for this secondary endpoint.|CMH General Association Test||aripiprazole/placebo|||2.32|1.31|<0.001
91025739|NCT02629965|181934519|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.163|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.197|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measures includes treatment and period as fixed effects, study baseline as a covariate and patient as a random effect.|Adjusted mean of differences between treatments and standard error||Mixed effect repeated measurement was used to calculate adjusted mean values as well as treatment contrasts together with the 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and p-values.|0.197|0.130|<0.0001
91025740|NCT02629965|181934520|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.133|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.103|0.162|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measures includes treatment and period as fixed effects, study baseline as a covariate and patient as a random effect.|Adjusted mean of differences between treatments and standard error||Mixed effect repeated measurement was used to calculate adjusted mean values as well as treatment contrasts together with the 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and p-values.|0.162|0.103|<0.0001
91025741|NCT02629965|181934521|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.128|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.156|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measures includes treatment and period as fixed effects, study baseline as a covariate and patient as a random effect.|Adjusted mean of differences between treatments and standard error||Mixed effect repeated measurement was used to calculate adjusted mean values as well as treatment contrasts together with the 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and p-values.|0.156|0.100|<0.0001
91025742|NCT02629965|181934522|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.082|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.056|0.108|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measures includes treatment and period as fixed effects, study baseline as a covariate and patient as a random effect.|Adjusted mean of differences between treatments and standard error||Mixed effect repeated measurement was used to calculate adjusted mean values as well as treatment contrasts together with the 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and p-values.|0.108|0.056|<0.0001
91025743|NCT02629965|181934523|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.086|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.058|0.114|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measures includes treatment and period as fixed effects, study baseline as a covariate and patient as a random effect.|Adjusted mean of differences between treatments and standard error||Mixed effect repeated measurement was used to calculate adjusted mean values as well as treatment contrasts together with the 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and p-values.|0.114|0.058|<0.0001
91025744|NCT02629965|181934524|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.083|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.059|0.108|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measures includes treatment and period as fixed effects, study baseline as a covariate and patient as a random effect.|Adjusted mean of differences between treatments and standard error||Mixed effect repeated measurement was used to calculate adjusted mean values as well as treatment contrasts together with the 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and p-values.|0.108|0.059|<0.0001
91025745|NCT02629965|181934525|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.152|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.114|0.189|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measures includes treatment and period as fixed effects, study baseline as a covariate and patient as a random effect.|Adjusted mean of differences between treatments and standard error||Mixed effect repeated measurement was used to calculate adjusted mean values as well as treatment contrasts together with the 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and p-values.|0.189|0.114|<0.0001
91025746|NCT01743677|181934534|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.15|0.56||||||||0.56|-3.15|
91025747|NCT01743677|181934535|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.28|0.43||||||||0.43|-3.28|
90833811|NCT03192176|181536188|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.29||||0.1932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|8.02||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||8.02|0.66|0.1932
90833812|NCT03192176|181536188|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.55||||0.0537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|12.86||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||12.86|0.98|0.0537
90894857|NCT01218126|181655143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|75.0||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|163.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Pre-Bronchodilator FVC for Placebo versus Losmapimod 15 mg at Week 12||163|-14|0.098
90894858|NCT01218126|181655143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|10.0||||0.832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.0|100.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Pre-Bronchodilator FVC for Placebo versus Losmapimod 2.5 mg at Week 16||100|-80|0.832
91025748|NCT01743677|181934536|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.15|-0.44||||||||-0.44|-4.15|
91025749|NCT01743677|181934537|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.21|0.5||||||||0.50|-3.21|
91025750|NCT01743677|181934538|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.78|2.93||||||||2.93|-0.78|
91025751|NCT01743677|181934539|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|2.71||||||||2.71|-1.00|
91025752|NCT01743677|181934540|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.71|3.0||||||||3.00|-0.71|
91025753|NCT01743677|181934541|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.29|4.0||||||||4.00|0.29|
91025754|NCT01743677|181934542|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|3.21||||||||3.21|-0.50|
91025755|NCT01743677|181934543|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|11.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.62|12.96||||||||12.96|9.62|
91025756|NCT01743677|181934544|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.11|2.44||||||0.25 hour post-dose||2.44|-2.11|
91025757|NCT01743677|181934544|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.49|4.06||||||0.5 hour post-dose||4.06|-0.49|
91025758|NCT01743677|181934544|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.71|5.26||||||1 hour post-dose||5.26|0.71|
91025759|NCT01743677|181934544|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.19|3.36||||||2 hours post-dose||3.36|-1.19|
91089833|NCT03964207|182061739|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LSmeans|-5.28||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.07|-1.48|||Mixed-effects Model||The Least squares means (LSmeans) were adjusted with treatment and visit. And the Difference of LSmeans was calculated as: value from the test treatment group - value from the comparator treatment group.|The hypothesis test was held to investigate the superiority of the test treatment. Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) was used to analyze the performance domain of PASAPQ score, with treatment and period as fixed effects, and patient as a random effect.||-1.48|-9.07|0.007
91089834|NCT03964207|182061740|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LSmeans|-4.14||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.72|-0.56|||Mixed Models Analysis||The Least squares means (LSmeans) were adjusted with treatment and visit. And the Difference of LSmeans was calculated as: value from the test treatment group - value from the comparator treatment group.|The hypothesis test was held to investigate the superiority of the test treatment. Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) was used to analyze the performance domain of PASAPQ score, with treatment and period as fixed effects, and patient as a random effect||-0.56|-7.72|0.024
91089835|NCT03964207|182061741|SUPERIORITY||Difference rate (%)|13.0||||0.249|||||||Chi-square test||The Difference rate was calculated as: value from the test treatment group - value from the comparator treatment group.|Chi-squared test was used to analyze proportion of patients indicating preference in the Patient satisfaction and preference questionnaire (PASAPQ) at week 8. All participants have used both treatments at this point: Handihaler (4 weeks) and Respimat (4 weeks).||||0.249
90833813|NCT03192176|181536188|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.72||||0.0144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|39.66||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||39.66|1.50|0.0144
90833814|NCT03192176|181536188|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|4.09||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||4.09|0.41|0.6660
90833815|NCT03192176|181536188|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.7923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|3.62||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||3.62|0.37|0.7923
90833816|NCT03192176|181536188|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73||||0.3796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|5.9||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||5.90|0.51|0.3796
90833817|NCT03192176|181536188|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.2||||0.0874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|21.73||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||21.73|0.81|0.0874
90833818|NCT03192176|181536188|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.6||||0.1925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|10.96||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||10.96|0.62|0.1925
90833819|NCT03192176|181536188|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.99||||0.0651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|17.38||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||17.38|0.92|0.0651
90833820|NCT03192176|181536188|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46||||0.5361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|4.81||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||4.81|0.44|0.5361
90833821|NCT03192176|181536188|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.6258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|4.17||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||4.17|0.42|0.6258
90833822|NCT03192176|181536188|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.6275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|4.06||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||4.06|0.43|0.6275
90833823|NCT03192176|181536188|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.21||||0.2212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|7.9||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||7.90|0.62|0.2212
90833824|NCT03192176|181536188|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.13||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|95.49||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||95.49|1.30|0.0280
91025760|NCT01743677|181934544|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.11|4.44||||||4 hours post-dose||4.44|-0.11|
91025761|NCT01743677|181934544|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.22|2.33||||||8 hours post-dose||2.33|-2.22|
91025762|NCT01743677|181934544|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.79|2.76||||||12 hours post-dose||2.76|-1.79|
91025763|NCT01743677|181934544|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.17|4.38||||||16 hours post-dose||4.38|-0.17|
91025764|NCT01743677|181934544|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.49|3.06||||||24 hours post-dose||3.06|-1.49|
91025765|NCT03586830|181934577|SUPERIORITY||Difference of least square (LS) means|-4.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.757|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.05|-3.06|||Hochberg Approach|||||-3.06|-6.05|<.001
91025766|NCT03586830|181934577|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-5.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.755|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.34|-4.36|||Hochberg Approach|||||-4.36|-7.34|<.001
91089836|NCT03964207|182061742|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LSmeans|-4.72||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.59|0.15|||The mixed model for repeated measures||The Least squares means (LSmeans) were adjusted with treatment and visit. And the Difference of LSmeans was calculated as: value from the test treatment group - value from the comparator treatment group.|The hypothesis test was held to investigate the superiority of the test treatment. Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) was used to analyze the performance domain of PASAPQ score, with treatment and period as fixed effects, and patient as a random effect.||0.15|-9.59|0.057
91089837|NCT03964207|182061743|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LSmeans|-4.38||||0.347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.63|4.86|||Mixed Models Analysis||The Least squares means (LSmeans) were adjusted with treatment and visit. And the Difference of LSmeans was calculated as: value from the test treatment group - value from the comparator treatment group.|The hypothesis test was held to investigate the superiority of the test treatment. Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) was used to analyze the performance domain of PASAPQ score, with treatment and period as fixed effects, and patient as a random effect.||4.86|-13.63|0.347
91089838|NCT00830219|182061744|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|103.53||||||90.0|99.16|108.09|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||108.09|99.16|
91089839|NCT00830219|182061745|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|102.3||||||90.0|97.56|107.27|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||107.27|97.56|
91089840|NCT00830219|182061746|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|102.54||||||90.0|97.53|107.8|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||107.8|97.53|
91089841|NCT01130272|182061747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.457||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.994|6.077|||ANCOVA|||||6.077|0.994|0.052
91089842|NCT01130272|182061747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.383||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.036|5.478|||ANCOVA|||||5.478|1.036|0.041
90833825|NCT03192176|181536188|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.88||||0.0589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|25.32||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||25.32|0.94|0.0589
90833826|NCT03192176|181536188|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.63||||0.0799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|15.39||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||15.39|0.86|0.0799
90833827|NCT03192176|181536188|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.91||||0.1112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|10.87||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||10.87|0.78|0.1112
90894859|NCT01218126|181655143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|25.0||||0.579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.0|114.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Pre-Bronchodilator FVC for Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg at Week 16||114|-64|0.579
91025767|NCT03586830|181934577|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-7.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.748|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|-5.75|||Hochberg Approach|||||-5.75|-8.70|<.001
91025768|NCT00395083|181934581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.8|||Log Rank|||||1.80|0.70|0.62
91025769|NCT00395083|181934582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.8|||Regression, Cox|||||1.80|0.70|0.62
91025770|NCT00395083|181934583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.0||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|6.17|||Regression, Cox|||||6.17|1.46|0.003
91025771|NCT00395083|181934584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.0||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|6.17|||Log Rank|||||6.17|1.46|0.002
91025772|NCT04192799|181934585|EQUIVALENCE|Testing was two-sided and p-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Mean Ratio|0.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.85||Testing was two-sided and p-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant, not adjusted for multiple comparison.|Gamma Regression with Log Link Function|Adjusted for demographics, clinical characteristics, time period; interaction term for hospital and time period, random effect for practice group.||||0.85|0.65|<0.001
91089843|NCT01130272|182061747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.079||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.893|4.842|||ANCOVA|||||4.842|0.893|0.090
91089844|NCT01130272|182061747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.797||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.227|6.376|||ANCOVA|||||6.376|1.227|0.015
91089845|NCT01130272|182061748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.719||||0.449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.306|1.689|||ANCOVA|||||1.689|0.306|0.449
91089846|NCT01130272|182061748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.208||||0.583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.615|2.373|||ANCOVA|||||2.373|0.615|0.583
91089847|NCT01130272|182061748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.014||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.069|3.795|||ANCOVA|||||3.795|1.069|0.030
90894860|NCT01218126|181655143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|42.0||||0.369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.0|133.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Pre-Bronchodilator FVC for Placebo versus Losmapimod 15 mg at Week 16||133|-49|0.369
90894861|NCT01218126|181655143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-32.0||||0.487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-121.0|58.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Pre-Bronchodilator FVC for Placebo versus Losmapimod 2.5 mg at Week 20||58|-121|0.487
90894862|NCT01218126|181655143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.0||||0.887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-82.0|95.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Pre-Bronchodilator FVC for Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg at Week 20||95|-82|0.887
91025773|NCT04192799|181934586|EQUIVALENCE|Testing was two-sided and p-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Mean Ratio|1.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.19||Testing was two-sided and p-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant, not adjusted for multiple comparison.|Gamma Regression with Log Link Function|Adjusted for demographics, clinical characteristics, time period; interaction term for hospital and time period, random effect for practice group.||||1.19|1.06|<0.001
91025774|NCT04192799|181934587|EQUIVALENCE|Testing was two-sided and p-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Mean Ratio|0.93||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.09||Testing was two-sided and p-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant, not adjusted for multiple comparison.|Gamma Regression with Log Link Function|Adjusted for demographics, clinical characteristics, time period; interaction term for hospital and time period, random effect for practice group.||||1.09|0.80|0.37
91025775|NCT04192799|181934588|EQUIVALENCE|Testing was two-sided and p-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|12.27||Testing was two-sided and p-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant, not adjusted for multiple comparison.|Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for demographics, clinical characteristics, time period; interaction term for hospital and time period, random effect for practice group.||||12.27|0.14|0.81
91025776|NCT04192799|181934589|EQUIVALENCE|Testing was two-sided and p-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Slope|0.05||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.11|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for demographics, clinical characteristics, time period; interaction term for hospital and time period, random effect for practice group.||||0.11|-0.01|0.12
91025777|NCT00982410|181934616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6489|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2255|-0.0722|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline NRS-1 pain level. Time interval and therapy session block were utilized to model the variance.|EUC (Arm 2) was referent. Estimation parameter = value for Cognitive Behavior Treatment group minus value for Educational Support group.|Ho: There was no difference in average pain level across the follow-up period, between CBT group and Educational support group.||-0.07220|-1.2255|<0.05
91025778|NCT00982410|181934617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.034|0.466|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline WHY MPI General Activity score. Time interval and therapy session block were utilized to model the variance.|Education Support group was referent. Mean difference = value for CBT group minus value for Educational Support group.|||0.466|0.034|<0.05
91025779|NCT00982410|181934618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline #days of alcohol use. Time interval and therapy session block were utilized to model the variance.||||||<0.01
91025780|NCT00982410|181934619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline #days illicit drug use. Time interval and therapy session block were utilized to model the variance. EUC group was referent.||||||>0.05
91025781|NCT00982410|181934620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.66|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|14.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline pain tolerance. Time interval and therapy session block were utilized to model the variance.|Educational Support group = referent. Estimation parameter = CBT group minus EUC group, adjusted for BL pain tolerance. Cold tolerance distribution had ceiling and floor effects; and, \~20% of participants refused cold tolerance task in follow-up.|||14.32|-5.00|>0.05
91025782|NCT00982410|181934621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.28|||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.93|16.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline CPSS PSE score. Time interval and therapy session block were utilized to model the variance. EUC group was referent.|Adjusted for baseline CPSS PSE score. EUC group was referent. Mean difference = value for CBT minus value for Educational Support group.|||16.63|3.93|<0.005
91025783|NCT01016652|181934625|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This is a non-inferiority analysis, with \>=5 CLUE points being the non-inferiority margin.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.86|1.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ho: There are not significant differences between the two lenses (etafilcon A multifocal (test) vs. etafilcon A sphere (control)for Vision quality.~Ha: The test lens is greater than or equal by 5 CLUE points than the control lense."||1.59|-9.86|
91025784|NCT01016652|181934626|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin will be exceeded if the test lens is greater than or equal to 0.25D over the control lens.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ho: There is not a difference between the test lens and the control lens for amplitude of accommodation.~Ha: Monocular amplitude of accommodation of the test lens is significantly better than the control lens"||0.10|-0.09|
91032533|NCT00105196|181949784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response|1.43|||<|0.001||95.0|1.17|1.74||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was implemented for this secondary endpoint.|ANCOVA||aripiprazole/placebo|||1.74|1.17|<0.001
91032534|NCT00105196|181949785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of remission|1.95|||<|0.001||95.0|1.36|2.8||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was implemented for this secondary endpoint.|CMH General Association Test||aripiprazole/placebo|||2.80|1.36|<0.001
91032999|NCT02728102|181951660|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.387||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of Progression-Free Survival between the lenalidomide/GM-CSF arm and lenalidomide alone arm.||||0.387
90894863|NCT01218126|181655143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|32.0||||0.486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.0|123.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Pre-Bronchodilator FVC for Placebo versus Losmapimod 15 mg at Week 20||123|-59|0.486
90894864|NCT01218126|181655143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-24.0||||0.604||95.0|-113.0|66.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Pre-Bronchodilator FVC for Placebo versus Losmapimod 2.5 mg at Week 24||66|-113|0.604
90894865|NCT01218126|181655143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.0||||0.872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-97.0|82.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Pre-Bronchodilator FVC for Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg at Week 24||82|-97|0.872
90894866|NCT01218126|181655143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|43.0||||0.355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.0|134.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Pre-Bronchodilator FVC for Placebo versus Losmapimod 15 mg at Week 24||134|-48|0.355
90894867|NCT01218126|181655143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.0||||0.839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.0|80.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Post-Bronchodilator FVC for Placebo versus Losmapimod 2.5 mg at Week 4||80|-65|0.839
90894868|NCT01218126|181655143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|12.0||||0.741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.0|84.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Post-Bronchodilator FVC for Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg at Week 4||84|-60|0.741
90894869|NCT01218126|181655143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|71.0||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|143.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Post-Bronchodilator FVC for Placebo versus Losmapimod 15 mg at Week 4||143|-1.8|0.056
90958911|NCT04874415|181797843|SUPERIORITY|Main effects of each intervention factor were estimated using generalized linear models with log link, including all prespecified two-way interactions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.00003|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2311.0|2311.0|||||Once daily text message is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|||2311|-2311|
91025785|NCT02034799|181934631|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assumed proportion of success for SOC is 0.95 and the proportion of success for the Bioseal group at which the power is calculated is 0.95. A sample size of 112 subjects per group achieves 80% power to detect the non-inferiority margin difference between the group proportions of -0.10. One-sided significance level of 0.025 was used. Using drop-out rate of 10%, 125 subjects per treatment group were randomized for a total of 250 subjects.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0781|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.048|0.199||||||H0: Delta \</= -0.1 HA: Delta \> -0.1 Delta is difference in proportion of successes between Bioseal and SOC gropus (Bioseal minus SOC). Success is defined as hemostasis at the TBS at 6 minutes following treatment application||0.199|-0.048|
91025786|NCT05188521|181934682|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
91025787|NCT05188521|181934683|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.593|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.593
91025788|NCT05188521|181934684|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
91025789|NCT05188521|181934685|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.138|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.138
91025790|NCT05188521|181934686|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.003
91025791|NCT05188521|181934687|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.357|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.357
91025792|NCT05188521|181934688|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.008
91025793|NCT05188521|181934689|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.000
91025794|NCT01341639|181934692|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -10% (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was non-inferior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|Difference in percentages|11.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.44|14.68||1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -10% (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was non-inferior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|Difference in percentages: Non-inferiority for PRP|PR5I minus INFANRIX™ hexa|14.68|8.44|< 0.001
91025795|NCT01341639|181934692|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -10% (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was non-inferior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|Difference in percentages|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.96||1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -10% (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was non-inferior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|Difference in percentages: Non-inferiority for Diphtheria|PR5I minus INFANRIX™ hexa|0.96|-0.95|< 0.001
91025796|NCT01341639|181934692|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -5% (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was non-inferior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|Difference in percentages|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.74|||Miettinen & Nurminen||If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -5% (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was non-inferior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|Difference in percentages: Non-inferiority for Tetanus|PR5I minus INFANRIX™ hexa|0.74|-0.71|< 0.001
91032535|NCT00813293|181949821|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.794|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Assuming the two trial arms were independent, the standard deviation was 0.5cm for both arms and a sample size of 16 evaluable patients (8 per arm), the study had an 84% power at a 5% (two-sided) significance level to detect 0.8cm difference in ablation zone size. In order to allow a 20% drop-out rate, a total of 20 subjects were accrued.||||.794
91025797|NCT01341639|181934692|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -5% (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was non-inferior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|Difference in percentages|0.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|1.07||1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -5% (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was non-inferior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|Difference in percentages: Non-inferiority for IPV1|PR5I minus INFANRIX™ hexa|1.07|-0.51|< 0.001
91025798|NCT01341639|181934692|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -5% (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was non-inferior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|Difference in percentages|0.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|1.21||1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -5% (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was non-inferior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|Difference in percentages: Non-inferiority for IPV2|PR5I minus INFANRIX™ hexa|1.21|-0.69|< 0.001
91025799|NCT01341639|181934692|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -5% (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was non-inferior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|Difference in percentages|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.73||1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -5% (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was non-inferior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|Difference in percentages: Non-inferiority for IPV3|PR5I minus INFANRIX™ hexa|0.73|-0.7|< 0.001
91025800|NCT01341639|181934693|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -10% (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was non-inferior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|Difference in percentages|0.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|1.85||1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -10% (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was non-inferior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|Difference in percentages: Non-inferiority for HBsAg|PR5I minus INFANRIX™ hexa|1.85|-0.49|< 0.001
91025801|NCT01341639|181934693|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -10% (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was non-inferior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|Difference in percentages|1.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|2.86||1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -10% (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was non-inferior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|Difference in percentages: Non-inferiority for PT|PR5I minus INFANRIX™ hexa|2.86|0.32|< 0.001
91025802|NCT01341639|181934693|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -10% (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was non-inferior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|Difference in percentages|-2.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.39|-1.29||1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -10% (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was non-inferior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|Difference in percentages: Non-inferiority for FHA|PR5I minus INFANRIX™ hexa|-1.29|-4.39|< 0.001
91025803|NCT01341639|181934693|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -10% (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was non-inferior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|Difference in percentages|0.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.52||1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -10% (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was non-inferior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|Difference in percentages: Non-inferiority for PRN|PR5I minus INFANRIX™ hexa|1.52|-1.4|< 0.001
91025804|NCT01341639|181934695|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -5% (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was non-inferior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|Difference in percentages|-0.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.82|2.25||1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -5% (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was non-inferior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|Difference in percentages: Non-inferiority for Measles|PR5I minus INFANRIX™ hexa|2.25|-2.82|< 0.001
91025805|NCT01341639|181934695|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -5% (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was non-inferior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|Difference in percentages|3.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|6.4||1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -5% (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was non-inferior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|Difference in percentages: Non-inferiority for Mumps|PR5I minus INFANRIX™ hexa|6.4|-0.12|< 0.001
91025806|NCT01341639|181934695|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -5% (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was non-inferior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|Difference in percentages|0.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.34||1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -5% (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was non-inferior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|Difference in percentages: Non-inferiority for Rubella|PR5I minus INFANRIX™ hexa|2.34|-1.5|< 0.001
91025807|NCT01341639|181934695|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -10% (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was non-inferior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|Difference in percentages|-0.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|2.06||1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -10% (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was non-inferior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|Difference in percentages: Non-inferiority for Varicella|PR5I minus INFANRIX™ hexa|2.06|-2.11|< 0.001
91025808|NCT01341639|181934696|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.4|||||If the 95% CI for the risk differences included 0.0, the numerical differences were not considered significant.|Risk difference: ISRs or systemic AEs|PR5I minus INFANRIX™ hexa|0.4|-1.9|
91025809|NCT01341639|181934696|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.1|||||If the 95% CI for the risk differences included 0.0, the numerical differences were not considered significant.|Risk difference: ISRs or vaccine-related systemic AEs|PR5I minus INFANRIX™ hexa|1.1|-1.8|
91025810|NCT01341639|181934696|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Risk Difference (RD)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|4.3|||||If the 95% CI for the risk differences included 0.0, the numerical differences were not considered significant.|Risk difference: At least 1 ISR|PR5I minus INFANRIX™ hexa|4.3|-2.1|
90894870|NCT01218126|181655143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-25.0||||0.554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-107.0|57.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Post-Bronchodilator FVC for Placebo versus Losmapimod 2.5 mg at Week 8||57|-107|0.554
91025811|NCT01341639|181934696|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Risk Difference (RD)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|4.3|||||If the 95% CI for the risk differences included 0.0, the numerical differences were not considered significant.|Risk difference: At least 1 solicited ISR|PR5I minus INFANRIX™ hexa|4.3|-2.4|
91025812|NCT01341639|181934696|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Risk Difference (RD)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.3|||||If the 95% CI for the risk differences included 0.0, the numerical differences were not considered significant.|Risk difference: At least 1 systemic AE|PR5I minus INFANRIX™ hexa|0.3|-2.4|
91025813|NCT01341639|181934696|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|1.3|||||If the 95% CI for the risk differences included 0.0, the numerical differences were not considered significant.|Risk difference: At least 1 vaccine-related systemic AE|PR5I minus INFANRIX™ hexa|1.3|-3.2|
91025814|NCT01341639|181934696|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Risk Difference (RD)|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|0.2|||||If the 95% CI for the risk differences included 0.0, the numerical differences were not considered significant.|Risk difference: At least 1 solicited systemic AE|PR5I minus INFANRIX™ hexa|0.2|-3.3|
91025815|NCT01341639|181934696|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Risk Difference (RD)|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|1.1|||||If the 95% CI for the risk differences included 0.0, the numerical differences were not considered significant.|Risk difference: At least 1 vaccine-related solicited systemic AE|PR5I minus INFANRIX™ hexa|1.1|-3.7|
91025816|NCT01341639|181934697|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Risk Difference (RD)|4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|10.1|||||If the 95% CI for the risk differences included 0.0, the numerical differences were not considered significant.|Risk difference: Injection-site erythema|PR5I minus INFANRIX™ hexa|10.1|-0.5|
91025817|NCT01341639|181934697|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Risk Difference (RD)|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|6.8|||||If the 95% CI for the risk differences included 0.0, the numerical differences were not considered significant.|Risk difference: Injection-site pain|PR5I minus INFANRIX™ hexa|6.8|-3.2|
91025818|NCT01341639|181934697|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Risk Difference (RD)|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|9.6|||||If the 95% CI for the risk differences included 0.0, the numerical differences were not considered significant.|Risk difference: Injection-site swelling|PR5I minus INFANRIX™ hexa|9.6|-1.6|
91025819|NCT01341639|181934698|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Risk Difference (RD)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|2.1|||||If the 95% CI for the risk differences included 0.0, the numerical differences were not considered significant.|Risk difference: Injection-site bruising|PR5I minus INFANRIX™ hexa|2.1|-1.8|
91025820|NCT01341639|181934698|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Risk Difference (RD)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|2.1|||||If the 95% CI for the risk differences included 0.0, the numerical differences were not considered significant.|Risk difference: Injection-site haematoma|PR5I minus INFANRIX™ hexa|2.1|-0.6|
91025821|NCT01341639|181934698|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.8|||||If the 95% CI for the risk differences included 0.0, the numerical differences were not considered significant.|Risk difference: Injection-site haemorrhage|PR5I minus INFANRIX™ hexa|0.8|-2.3|
91025822|NCT01341639|181934698|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Risk Difference (RD)|-3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|0.5|||||If the 95% CI for the risk differences included 0.0, the numerical differences were not considered significant.|Risk difference: Injection-site induration|PR5I minus INFANRIX™ hexa|0.5|-7.8|
91025823|NCT01341639|181934698|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.3|||||If the 95% CI for the risk differences included 0.0, the numerical differences were not considered significant.|Risk difference: Injection-site nodule|PR5I minus INFANRIX™ hexa|1.3|-1.7|
91025824|NCT01341639|181934698|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Risk Difference (RD)|1.1||||||95.0|-0.6|3.0|||||If the 95% CI for the risk differences included 0.0, the numerical differences were not considered significant.|Risk difference: Injection-site warmth|PR5I minus INFANRIX™ hexa|3|-0.6|
91032536|NCT02794974|181949826|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.236|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.236
91032537|NCT02794974|181949827|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.018
91032538|NCT02794974|181949828|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio|4.5||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|32.2|||Odds Ratio|||||32.2|0.63|0.209
91032539|NCT02794974|181949829|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio|2.5||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|12.77|||Odds Ratio|||||12.77|0.49|0.44
91032540|NCT02794974|181949830|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio|1.88||||0.695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|9.45|||Odds Ratio|||||9.45|0.37|0.695
91032541|NCT02870920|181949831|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.54|0.97|||Log Rank|||||0.97|0.54|0.07
91032542|NCT02870920|181949832|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.76|1.34|||Log Rank|||||1.34|0.76|0.97
91032543|NCT00533273|181949834|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<.001
91032544|NCT00533273|181949835|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<.001
91032545|NCT00533273|181949836|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<.001
91032546|NCT00533273|181949837|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<.001
91032547|NCT00533273|181949839|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||.014
91032548|NCT00533273|181949840|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<.0001
91032549|NCT00533273|181949841|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<.001
91032550|NCT00533273|181949842|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<.001
91032551|NCT00615069|181949889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||Log-rank test of freedom from major adverse events through 1 year, 31 mm GORE EXCLUDER® Test Subjects vs historical open surgical control Subjects.||||0.003
91032552|NCT00615069|181949890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.241|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.428|3.603||||||Estimation of Hazard ratio of the 31 mm GORE EXCLUDER® Test Subjects vs original GORE EXCLUDER® AAA Endoprosthesis Subjects (original PMA subjects) using Cox Regression, not a powered analysis.||3.603|0.428|
91032553|NCT00259012|181949936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.087|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired||Within group comparison between steady state and baseline||||0.087
91032554|NCT00259012|181949936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired||Within group comparison between steady state and baseline||||0.019
90894871|NCT01218126|181655143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-30.0||||0.472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-110.0|51.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Post-Bronchodilator FVC for Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg at Week 8||51|-110|0.472
90894872|NCT01218126|181655143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|66.0||||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|149.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Post-Bronchodilator FVC for Placebo versus Losmapimod 15 mg at Week 8||149|-16|0.116
90894873|NCT01218126|181655143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.0||||0.805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-98.0|76.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Post-Bronchodilator FVC for Placebo versus Losmapimod 2.5 mg at Week 12||76|-98|0.805
90894874|NCT01218126|181655143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|13.0||||0.763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.0|100.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Post-Bronchodilator FVC for Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg at Week 12||100|-73|0.763
90894875|NCT01218126|181655143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|75.0||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|163.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Post-Bronchodilator FVC for Placebo versus Losmapimod 15 mg at Week 12||163|-13|0.096
91025825|NCT01341639|181934699|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Risk Difference (RD)|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|1.4|||||If the 95% CI for the risk differences included 0.0, the numerical differences were not considered significant.|Risk difference: Crying|PR5I minus INFANRIX™ hexa|1.4|-6.3|
91025826|NCT01341639|181934699|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Risk Difference (RD)|-3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|2.3|||||If the 95% CI for the risk differences included 0.0, the numerical differences were not considered significant.|Risk difference: Decreased appetite|PR5I minus INFANRIX™ hexa|2.3|-8.4|
91025827|NCT01341639|181934699|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Risk Difference (RD)|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|6.0|||||If the 95% CI for the risk differences included 0.0, the numerical differences were not considered significant.|Risk difference: Irritability|PR5I minus INFANRIX™ hexa|6|-1.7|
90894876|NCT01218126|181655143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-31.0||||0.485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-118.0|56.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Post-Bronchodilator FVC for Placebo versus Losmapimod 2.5 mg at Week 16||56|-118|0.485
90894877|NCT01218126|181655143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|17.0||||0.704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.0|103.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Post-Bronchodilator FVC for Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg at Week 16||103|-69|0.704
91025828|NCT01341639|181934699|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Risk Difference (RD)|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|3.4|||||If the 95% CI for the risk differences included 0.0, the numerical differences were not considered significant.|Risk difference: Pyrexia|PR5I minus INFANRIX™ hexa|3.4|-6.7|
91025829|NCT01341639|181934699|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Risk Difference (RD)|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|1.4|||||If the 95% CI for the risk differences included 0.0, the numerical differences were not considered significant.|Risk difference: Somnolence|PR5I minus INFANRIX™ hexa|1.4|-7.8|
91032555|NCT00259012|181949937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.255|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired||Within group comparison between steady state and baseline||||0.255
91032556|NCT00259012|181949937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired||Within group comparison between steady state and baseline.||||0.031
91032557|NCT00259012|181949938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.099|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group comparison between steady state and baseline||||0.099
91032558|NCT00259012|181949938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group comparison between steady state and baseline||||0.016
91032559|NCT00259012|181949939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.347|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group comparison between steady state and baseline||||0.347
91032560|NCT00259012|181949939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group comparison between steady state and baseline||||0.012
91032561|NCT00259012|181949940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.339|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group comparison between steady state and baseline||||0.339
91032562|NCT00259012|181949940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group comparison between steady state and baseline||||0.003
91032563|NCT00259012|181949941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.982|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group comparison between steady state and baseline||||0.982
91032564|NCT00259012|181949941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.534|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group comparison between steady state and baseline||||0.534
91032565|NCT00259012|181949942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.166|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group comparison between steady state and baseline||||0.166
91032566|NCT00259012|181949942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.119|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group comparison between steady state and baseline||||0.119
91032567|NCT00259012|181949943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.387|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group comparison between steady state and baseline||||0.387
91032568|NCT00259012|181949943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group comparison between steady state and baseline||||0.021
91032569|NCT00819507|181949952|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.01|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
91032570|NCT00819507|181949953|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|14.35|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
91032571|NCT02495467|181949978|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.03||||0.0132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.84|0.22|0.0132
91025830|NCT01341639|181934699|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Risk Difference (RD)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|6.0|||||If the 95% CI for the risk differences included 0.0, the numerical differences were not considered significant.|Risk difference: Vomiting|PR5I minus INFANRIX™ hexa|6|-4.4|
91025831|NCT01590433|181934724|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91025832|NCT02040428|181934743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|ONE_SIDED||||||Adaptive group sequential design|Whitehead method for triangular test||Superiority||||0.0001
91025833|NCT02040428|181934744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0046
91025834|NCT02058628|181934747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004||95.0||||Data is represented as per CTR.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|DUAC versus SKINOREN with a nominal alpha level of 5%, without adjustment for multiple comparisons.||||||0.0004
91025835|NCT03551730|181934772|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|-0.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91025836|NCT03551730|181934772|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|-0.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91025837|NCT03551730|181934772|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|-0.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
90894878|NCT01218126|181655143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|72.0||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|159.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Post-Bronchodilator FVC for Placebo versus Losmapimod 15 mg at Week 16||159|-16|0.108
91025838|NCT03551730|181934773|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|53922.58||||0.1529|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1529
91025839|NCT03551730|181934773|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|124993.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91025840|NCT03551730|181934773|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|96385.09||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0032
91025841|NCT04527471|181934786|OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
91025842|NCT01492582|181934835|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority required that the lower bound of the one-sided 99.688% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio was \>0.5.|lower bound one-sided CI of GMT ratio|1.74|||||ONE_SIDED||||||||GMT ratio = GMT (cancer survivor) / GMT (historical healthy population)|"Historical Healthy Population Reference:~QUADRIVALENT~Male and female, all age groups:~Merck Pub 9883616 (Gardasil Package Insert, April 2011, pp 24-26)"||||
91025843|NCT01492582|181934835|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority required that the lower bound of the one-sided 99.688% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio was \>0.5.|lower bound one-sided CI of GMT ratio|1.76|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Historical Healthy Population Reference:~QUADRIVALENT~Male and female, all age groups:~Merck Pub 9883616 (Gardasil Package Insert, April 2011, pp 24-26)"|GMT ratio = GMT (cancer survivor) / GMT (historical healthy population)|||
91025844|NCT01492582|181934835|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority required that the lower bound of the one-sided 99.688% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio was \>0.5.|lower bound one-sided CI of GMT ratio|2.15|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Historical Healthy Population Reference:~QUADRIVALENT~Male and female, all age groups:~Merck Pub 9883616 (Gardasil Package Insert, April 2011, pp 24-26)"|GMT ratio = GMT (cancer survivor) / GMT (historical healthy population)|||
91025845|NCT01492582|181934835|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority required that the lower bound of the one-sided 99.688% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio was \>0.5.|lower bound one-sided CI of GMT ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Historical Healthy Population Reference:~QUADRIVALENT~Male and female, all age groups:~Merck Pub 9883616 (Gardasil Package Insert, April 2011, pp 24-26)"|GMT ratio = GMT (cancer survivor) / GMT (historical healthy population)|||
91025846|NCT01492582|181934835|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority required that the lower bound of the one-sided 99.688% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio was \>0.5.|lower bound one-sided CI of GMT ratio|1.52|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Historical Healthy Population Reference:~QUADRIVALENT~Male and female, all age groups:~Merck Pub 9883616 (Gardasil Package Insert, April 2011, pp 24-26)"|GMT ratio = GMT (cancer survivor) / GMT (historical healthy population)|||
91032572|NCT02495467|181949979|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41||||0.0122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.73|0.09|0.0122
91032573|NCT02495467|181949980|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.57|0.21|<0.0001
91032574|NCT02495467|181949981|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41||||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.69|0.12|0.0055
91032575|NCT02495467|181949982|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.48||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.76|0.20|0.001
91032576|NCT02495467|181949983|SUPERIORITY||Means ratio|0.995||||0.7999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.032|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||||1.032|0.960|0.7999
91032577|NCT02495467|181949984|SUPERIORITY||Means ratio|0.989||||0.6746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.937|1.043|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||||1.043|0.937|0.6746
91032578|NCT02495467|181949985|SUPERIORITY||Means ratio|1.075||||0.0959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.987|1.17|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||||1.170|0.987|0.0959
91032579|NCT02495467|181949986|SUPERIORITY||Means ratio|1.522|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.267|1.829|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||||1.829|1.267|<0.0001
91032580|NCT02495467|181949987|SUPERIORITY||Means ratio|1.32||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.128|1.545|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||||1.545|1.128|0.0005
91032581|NCT02495467|181949988|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Prescott Test (Exact)|||||||<0.0001
91032582|NCT02495467|181949989|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||Prescott Test (Exact)|||||||0.0003
91032583|NCT00834756|181949990|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using PROC GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|96.0||||||90.0|87.96|104.78|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||104.78|87.96|
91032584|NCT00834756|181949991|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using PROC GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|98.63||||||90.0|92.34|105.35|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||105.35|92.34|
91089848|NCT01130272|182061748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.395||||0.326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.717|2.716|||ANCOVA|||||2.716|0.717|0.326
91089849|NCT00641056|182061753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power: 205 patients per treatment group would provide approximately 92% power to detect a true difference between treatments of 0.4% in change in HbA1c from baseline with a 2-sided t test at a significance level of 0.05, assuming a common standard deviation of 1.2%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|-0.03||No adjustments for multiplicity were performed|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-model Repeated Measures (MMRM) Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model includes treatment, baseline HbA1c, country, background OAD stratum, week of visit, and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects; patient and error as random effects. Superiority of exenatide once weekly to insulin glargine is concluded if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval for the treatment difference \[exenatide once weekly-insulin glargine\]\<0; noninferiority is concluded if this upper limit\<0.3%.||-0.03|-0.29|0.017
91025847|NCT01492582|181934835|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority required that the lower bound of the one-sided 99.688% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio was \>0.5.|lower bound one-sided CI of GMT ratio|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Historical Healthy Population Reference:~QUADRIVALENT~Male and female, all age groups:~Merck Pub 9883616 (Gardasil Package Insert, April 2011, pp 24-26)"|GMT ratio = GMT (cancer survivor) / GMT (historical healthy population)|||
91025848|NCT01492582|181934835|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority required that the lower bound of the one-sided 99.688% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio was \>0.5.|lower bound one-sided CI of GMT ratio|2.48|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Historical Healthy Population Reference:~QUADRIVALENT~Male and female, all age groups:~Merck Pub 9883616 (Gardasil Package Insert, April 2011, pp 24-26)"|GMT ratio = GMT (cancer survivor) / GMT (historical healthy population)|||
91025849|NCT01492582|181934835|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority required that the lower bound of the one-sided 99.688% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio was \>0.5.|lower bound one-sided CI of GMT ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Historical Healthy Population Reference:~QUADRIVALENT~Male and female, all age groups:~Merck Pub 9883616 (Gardasil Package Insert, April 2011, pp 24-26)"|GMT ratio = GMT (cancer survivor) / GMT (historical healthy population)|||
91025850|NCT01492582|181934835|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority required that the lower bound of the one-sided 99.688% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio was \>0.5.|lower bound one-sided CI GMT ratio|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Historical Healthy Population Reference:~NONAVALENT~Girls 9-15, Boys 9-15, Women 16-26:~Petersen LK, Restrepo J, Moreira ED, Jr., et al. Impact of baseline covariates on the immunogenicity of the 9-valent HPV vaccine - A combined analysis of five phase III clinical trials. Papillomavirus Res. 2017;3:105-115;"|GMT ratio = GMT (cancer survivor) / GMT (historical healthy population)|||
91025851|NCT01492582|181934835|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority required that the lower bound of the one-sided 99.688% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio was \>0.5.|lower bound one-sided CI of GMT ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Historical Healthy Population Reference:~NONAVALENT~Girls 9-15, Boys 9-15, Women 16-26:~Petersen LK, Restrepo J, Moreira ED, Jr., et al. Impact of baseline covariates on the immunogenicity of the 9-valent HPV vaccine - A combined analysis of five phase III clinical trials. Papillomavirus Res. 2017;3:105-115;"|GMT ratio = GMT (cancer survivor) / GMT (historical healthy population)|||
91025852|NCT01492582|181934835|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority required that the lower bound of the one-sided 99.688% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio was \>0.5.|lower bound one-sided CI of GMT ratio|1.46|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Historical Healthy Population Reference:~NONAVALENT~Men 16-26:~Castellsague X, Giuliano AR, Goldstone S, et al. Immunogenicity and safety of the 9-valent HPV vaccine in men. Vaccine. 2015;33(48):6892-6901. (HM data)."|GMT ratio = GMT (cancer survivor) / GMT (historical healthy population)|||
91025853|NCT01492582|181934835|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority required that the lower bound of the one-sided 99.688% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio was \>0.5.|lower bound one-sided CI of GMT ratio|1.61|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Historical Healthy Population Reference:~NONAVALENT~Girls 9-15, Boys 9-15, Women 16-26:~Petersen LK, Restrepo J, Moreira ED, Jr., et al. Impact of baseline covariates on the immunogenicity of the 9-valent HPV vaccine - A combined analysis of five phase III clinical trials. Papillomavirus Res. 2017;3:105-115;"|GMT ratio = GMT (cancer survivor) / GMT (historical healthy population)|||
91089850|NCT00641056|182061754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||No adjustments for multiplicity were performed|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage of patients achieving HbA1c \<=7.0% at Week 26 were compared between treatments using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, in which background OAD and country served as the stratification factors.||||0.097
91089851|NCT00641056|182061755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||No adjustments for multiplicity were performed|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage of patients achieving HbA1c \<=6.5% at Week 26 were compared between treatments using a CMH test, in which background OAD and country served as the stratification factors.||||0.002
91089852|NCT00641056|182061756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.0||No adjustments for multiplicity were performed|Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM ANCOVA with change in FSG as the dependent variable; treatment, baseline FSG, country, background OAD stratum, week of visit, and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects; patient and error as random effects.||1.00|0.25|0.001
91089853|NCT00641056|182061757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.57|-3.52||No adjustments for multiplicity were performed|Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM ANCOVA with change in BW as the dependent variable; treatment, baseline BW, country, background OAD stratum, week of visit, and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects; patient and error as random effects.||-3.52|-4.57|<.001
90894879|NCT01218126|181655143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-64.0||||0.147||95.0|-151.0|23.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Post-Bronchodilator FVC for Placebo versus Losmapimod 2.5 mg at Week 20||23|-151|0.147
91089854|NCT00641056|182061758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.06||No adjustments for multiplicity were performed|Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM ANCOVA with change in total cholesterol as the dependent variable; treatment, baseline total cholesterol, country, background OAD stratum, week of visit, and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects; patient and error as random effects.||0.06|-0.21|0.292
90833828|NCT03192176|181536188|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.76||||0.0959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|9.11||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||9.11|0.84|0.0959
90833829|NCT03192176|181536188|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.62||||0.3886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|4.85||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||4.85|0.54|0.3886
90833830|NCT03192176|181536188|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.0||||0.0864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|10.52||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||10.52|0.85|0.0864
90833831|NCT03192176|181536188|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.22||||0.0145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.69|119.5||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||119.5|1.69|0.0145
90833832|NCT03192176|181536188|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.08||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|110.0||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||110.0|1.56|0.0180
90833833|NCT03192176|181536188|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|18.53||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.14|160.6||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||160.6|2.14|0.0080
90833834|NCT03192176|181536188|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.07||||0.0236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|20.65||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||20.65|1.24|0.0236
90833835|NCT03192176|181536188|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.59||||0.4303|TWO_SIDED|0.4303|0.5|5.07||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||5.07|0.50|0.4303
90894880|NCT01218126|181655143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.0||||0.792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-98.0|75.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Post-Bronchodilator FVC for Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg at Week 20||75|-98|0.792
90833836|NCT03192176|181536188|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.5529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|4.39||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||4.39|0.45|0.5529
90833837|NCT03192176|181536188|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.87||||0.3268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|6.55||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||6.55|0.53|0.3268
90833838|NCT03192176|181536188|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.02||||0.0343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|84.66||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||84.66|1.19|0.0343
90833839|NCT03192176|181536188|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.45||||0.0391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|79.82||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||79.82|1.12|0.0391
90833840|NCT03192176|181536188|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.31||||0.0187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|115.1||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||115.1|1.54|0.0187
91033000|NCT02728102|181951661|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.563||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of overall Survival between vaccine vs. non- vaccine arms.||||0.563
91033001|NCT02728102|181951662|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.308||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of overall Survival between the vaccine arm and lenalidomide/GM-CSF arm.||||0.308
91033002|NCT02728102|181951662|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of overall Survival between the vaccine arm and lenalidomide alone arm.||||0.990
91033003|NCT02728102|181951662|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.303||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of overall Survival between the lenalidomide/GM-CSF arm and lenalidomide alone arm.||||0.303
91033004|NCT02728102|181951664|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.189||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Chi-squared|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of proportions of patients With Grade ≥ 3 Toxicities between vaccine vs. non- vaccine arms.||||0.189
91033005|NCT02728102|181951666|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of Participants with Grade 2 and 3 infections between vaccine vs. non- vaccine arms.||||0.82
90833841|NCT03192176|181536188|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.6||||0.1475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|9.47||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||9.47|0.71|0.1475
90833842|NCT03192176|181536188|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.19||||0.2161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|7.55||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||7.55|0.63|0.2161
90833843|NCT03192176|181536188|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.79||||0.3478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|6.04||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||6.04|0.53|0.3478
90833844|NCT03192176|181536188|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.22||||0.2269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|8.14||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||8.14|0.61|0.2269
90833845|NCT03192176|181536188|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.66||||0.0683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|24.35||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||24.35|0.89|0.0683
90833846|NCT03192176|181536188|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.11||||0.0228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|38.49||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||38.49|1.31|0.0228
90833847|NCT03192176|181536188|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.95||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|16.72||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||16.72|0.93|0.0620
90833848|NCT03192176|181536188|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.18||||0.2251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|7.67||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||7.67|0.62|0.2251
90833849|NCT03192176|181536188|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.7908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|3.99||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||3.99|0.35|0.7908
90833850|NCT03192176|181536188|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.84||||0.3735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|7.06||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||7.06|0.48|0.3735
90894881|NCT01218126|181655143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|49.0||||0.275||95.0|-39.0|138.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Post-Bronchodilator FVC for Placebo versus Losmapimod 15 mg at Week 20||138|-39|0.275
90894882|NCT01218126|181655143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-28.0||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-115.0|59.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Post-Bronchodilator FVC for Placebo versus Losmapimod 2.5 mg at Week 24||59|-115|0.530
90833851|NCT03192176|181536188|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.49||||0.1856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|9.64||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||9.64|0.64|0.1856
90833852|NCT03192176|181536188|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.67||||0.01798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|11.2||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||11.20|0.64|0.01798
90833853|NCT03192176|181536188|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.19||||0.1101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|13.22||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||13.22|0.77|0.1101
90833854|NCT03192176|181536188|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.99||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|11.31||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||11.31|0.79|0.1060
90894883|NCT01218126|181655143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|10.0||||0.827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.0|96.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Post-Bronchodilator FVC for Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg at Week 24||96|-77|0.827
90894884|NCT01218126|181655143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|35.0||||0.434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.0|124.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Post-Bronchodilator FVC for Placebo versus Losmapimod 15 mg at Week 24||124|-53|0.434
91089855|NCT00641056|182061759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.02||No adjustments for multiplicity were performed|Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM ANCOVA with change in HDL as the dependent variable; treatment, baseline HDL, country, background OAD stratum, week of visit, and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects; patient and error as random effects.||0.02|-0.05|0.377
91089856|NCT00641056|182061760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.15||No adjustments for multiplicity were performed|Mixed Models Analysis|||Triglycerides data were logarithm-transformed and the change at Week 26 to baseline, expressed as the ratio, was analyzed by MMRM ANCOVA with change in triglycerides as the dependent variable; treatment, baseline triglycerides, country, background OAD stratum, week of visit, and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects; patient and error as random effects.||1.15|0.99|0.077
91089857|NCT01811732|182061764|NON_INFERIORITY|A 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for noninferiority testing was computed based on the difference in sample rates for vancomycin + aztreonam and delafloxacin at the primary endpoint. If the upper limit (UL) of the CI was less than 0.10, delafloxacin would be considered noninferior to vancomycin + aztreonam.|Difference in Responder Rates|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|3.6||||||||3.6|-8.8|
91089858|NCT02035553|182061787|SUPERIORITY||Diff in MMRM LSM|-1.84||||0.0451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.64|-0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.04|-3.64|0.0451
91089859|NCT04539964|182061788|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis (H0) is that there is no difference between the treatment and control groups versus the alternative hypothesis (H1) that treatment group response rate exceeds the control group response rate.|Risk Difference (RD)|11.8||||0.0209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|23.1||The study is considered successful if there is a statistically significant improvement in the proportion of subjects with ACR20 response in favor of the SetPoint System at the one-sided alpha of 0.025.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||23.1|0.6|0.0209
91089860|NCT04539964|182061789|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis (H0) is that there is no difference between the treatment and control groups versus the alternative hypothesis (H1) that treatment group response rate exceeds the control group response rate.|Risk Difference (RD)|19.5||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.3|31.7||Adjusted p-value. Hochberg's step-up procedure was used to control the family wise type 1 error rate at a 1-sided significance level of 0.025.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||31.7|7.3|0.0048
91089861|NCT04539964|182061790|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis (H0) is that there is no difference between the treatment and control groups versus the alternative hypothesis (H1) that treatment group response rate exceeds the control group response rate.|Risk Difference (RD)|13.2||||0.0528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|25.3||Adjusted p-value. Hochberg's step-up procedure was used to control the family wise type 1 error rate at a 1-sided significance level of 0.025.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||25.3|1.1|0.0528
91089862|NCT04539964|182061791|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis (H0) is that there is no difference between the treatment and control groups versus the alternative hypothesis (H1) that treatment group response rate exceeds the control group response rate.|Risk Difference (RD)|9.0||||0.0797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|21.4||Adjusted p-value. Hochberg's step-up procedure was used to control the family wise type 1 error rate at a 1-sided significance level of 0.025.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.4|-3.3|0.0797
90833855|NCT03192176|181536188|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.5258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|4.86||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||4.86|0.45|0.5258
91089863|NCT04539964|182061792|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis (H0) is that there is no difference between the treatment and control groups versus the alternative hypothesis (H1) that treatment group response rate exceeds the control group response rate.|Risk Difference (RD)|8.0||||0.0797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|19.0||Adjusted p-value. Hochberg's step-up procedure was used to control the family wise type 1 error rate at a 1-sided significance level of 0.025.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||19.0|-3.1|0.0797
91089864|NCT04539964|182061793|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis (H0) is that there is no difference between the treatment and control groups versus the alternative hypothesis (H1) that control group response rate exceeds the treatment group response rate.|Risk Difference (RD)|-3.7||||0.2476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|7.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||7.0|-14.4|0.2476
91089865|NCT04539964|182061794|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis (H0) is that there is no difference between the treatment and control groups versus the alternative hypothesis (H1) that control group response rate exceeds the treatment group response rate.|Risk Difference (RD)|-20.2||||0.0156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.1|-2.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-2.2|-38.1|0.0156
90833856|NCT03192176|181536188|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.8746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|3.5||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||3.50|0.34|0.8746
90833857|NCT03192176|181536188|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.7434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|2.77||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||2.77|0.24|0.7434
90958912|NCT04874415|181797843|SUPERIORITY|Main effects of each intervention factor were estimated using generalized linear models with log link, including all prespecified two-way interactions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0000004|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.9|27.9|||||Fixed Step Count Goal is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|||27.9|-27.9|
90833858|NCT03192176|181536188|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.3211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|6.8||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||6.80|0.53|0.3211
90833859|NCT03192176|181536188|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|5.48||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||5.48|0.41|0.5330
91025854|NCT01492582|181934835|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority required that the lower bound of the one-sided 99.688% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio was \>0.5.|lower bound one-sided CI of GMT ratio|1.39|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Historical Healthy Population Reference:~NONAVALENT~Girls 9-15, Boys 9-15, Women 16-26:~Petersen LK, Restrepo J, Moreira ED, Jr., et al. Impact of baseline covariates on the immunogenicity of the 9-valent HPV vaccine - A combined analysis of five phase III clinical trials. Papillomavirus Res. 2017;3:105-115;"|GMT ratio = GMT (cancer survivor) / GMT (historical healthy population)|||
91025855|NCT01492582|181934835|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority required that the lower bound of the one-sided 99.688% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio was \>0.5.|lower bound one-sided CI of GMT ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Historical Healthy Population Reference:~NONAVALENT~Girls 9-15, Boys 9-15, Women 16-26:~Petersen LK, Restrepo J, Moreira ED, Jr., et al. Impact of baseline covariates on the immunogenicity of the 9-valent HPV vaccine - A combined analysis of five phase III clinical trials. Papillomavirus Res. 2017;3:105-115;"|GMT ratio = GMT (cancer survivor) / GMT (historical healthy population)|||
91025856|NCT01492582|181934835|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority required that the lower bound of the one-sided 99.688% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio was \>0.5.|lower bound one-sided CI of GMT ratio|1.65|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Historical Healthy Population Reference:~NONAVALENT~Men 16-26:~Castellsague X, Giuliano AR, Goldstone S, et al. Immunogenicity and safety of the 9-valent HPV vaccine in men. Vaccine. 2015;33(48):6892-6901. (HM data)."|GMT ratio = GMT (cancer survivor) / GMT (historical healthy population)|||
90833860|NCT03192176|181536188|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.0||||0.1119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|11.64||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||11.64|0.77|0.1119
90833861|NCT03192176|181536188|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76||||0.354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|5.85||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||5.85|0.53|0.3540
91025857|NCT01492582|181934835|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority required that the lower bound of the one-sided 99.688% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio was \>0.5.|lower bound one-sided CI of GMT ratio|-0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Historical Healthy Population Reference:~NONAVALENT~Girls 9-15, Boys 9-15, Women 16-26:~Petersen LK, Restrepo J, Moreira ED, Jr., et al. Impact of baseline covariates on the immunogenicity of the 9-valent HPV vaccine - A combined analysis of five phase III clinical trials. Papillomavirus Res. 2017;3:105-115;"|GMT ratio = GMT (cancer survivor) / GMT (historical healthy population)|||
91025858|NCT01492582|181934836|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Injection site - Pain, any; Injection site - Swelling, any; Injection site - Erythema, any; Systemic - Nausea Historical Healthy Population: Reported from Gardasil Package Insert 04/2015, Tables 1, 2, 5, and 6||||<0.001
91025859|NCT01492582|181934836|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Systemic - Fever Historical Healthy Population: Reported from Gardasil Package Insert 04/2015, Tables 1, 2, 5, and 6||||0.03
91025860|NCT01492582|181934836|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Systemic - Dizziness Historical Healthy Population: Reported from Gardasil Package Insert 04/2015, Tables 1, 2, 5, and 6||||0.48
91025861|NCT01492582|181934836|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Injection site - Pain, any; Injection site - Swelling, any; Injection site - Erythema, any; Systemic - Nausea; Systemic - Fatigue Historical Healthy Population - As reported by Moreira et. al, 2016, Pediatrics, Table 5||||<0.001
90833862|NCT03192176|181536188|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65||||0.5076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|2.29||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||2.29|0.19|0.5076
91025862|NCT01492582|181934836|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Systemic - Headache Historical Healthy Population - As reported by Moreira et. al, 2016, Pediatrics, Table 5||||0.07
91025863|NCT01492582|181934836|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Systemic - Fever Historical Healthy Population - As reported by Moreira et. al, 2016, Pediatrics, Table 5||||0.28
91025864|NCT01492582|181934836|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||Fisher Exact|||Systemic - Dizziness Historical Healthy Population - As reported by Moreira et. al, 2016, Pediatrics, Table 5||||0.45
91025865|NCT00096265|181934866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.43||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|2.31||One-sided|Log Rank||WBRT + SRS is the denominator of the hazard ratio.|120 patients per arm required to detect a 33% reduction in hazard rate corresponding to improvement in MST of 5.9 (null hypothesis) to 8.9 months with a one-sided type I error rate of 0.025 and 85% power.||2.31|0.89|0.93
91025866|NCT00096265|181934866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.47||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.36||One-sided|Log Rank||WBRT + SRS is the denominator of the hazard ratio.|120 patients per arm required to detect a 33% reduction in hazard rate corresponding to improvement in MST of 5.9 (null hypothesis) to 8.9 months with a one-sided type I error rate of 0.025 and 85% power.||2.36|0.92|0.95
91025867|NCT00096265|181934867|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Gray's test|||||||0.30
91025868|NCT00096265|181934867|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Gray's test|||||||0.48
91025869|NCT00096265|181934869|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Chi-squared|||With 70 patients per arm, a 0.05 level chi-square test would have 80% power to distinguish between two groups when the proportions in the three categories are as follows for standard vs. experimental arm, respectively: 25% vs. 50% improvement, 55% vs. 40% stable, and 20% vs. 10% deterioration, or any distribution that corresponds to an effect size, Δ² = Σ(π2j-π1j)2/\[2(π2j-π1j)\], of 0.0702.||||0.39
91025870|NCT00096265|181934869|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Chi-squared|||With 70 patients per arm, a 0.05 level chi-square test would have 80% power to distinguish between two groups when the proportions in the three categories are as follows for standard vs. experimental arm, respectively: 25% vs. 50% improvement, 55% vs. 40% stable, and 20% vs. 10% deterioration, or any distribution that corresponds to an effect size, Δ² = Σ(π2j-π1j)2/\[2(π2j-π1j)\], of 0.0702.||||0.28
90894885|NCT01218126|181655144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|2.2|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Placebo versus Losmapimod 2.5 mg at Week 12||2.2|-3.3|0.686
91025871|NCT00096265|181934870|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Chi-squared|||108 with three month performance status data, per arm, would result in a 0.050 level chi-square test with 90% power to distinguish between the groups when the proportions in the 3 categories are characterized by an effect size, Δ² = Σ(π2j-π1j)2/\[2(π2j-π1j)\], of 0.0586.||||0.002
90833863|NCT03192176|181536188|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71||||0.5801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|2.41||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||2.41|0.21|0.5801
90833864|NCT03192176|181536188|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.48||||0.2785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.82||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||1.82|0.13|0.2785
90833865|NCT03192176|181536188|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||0.5656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|2.45||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||2.45|0.19|0.5656
90833866|NCT03192176|181536188|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73||||0.6445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|2.81||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||2.81|0.19|0.6445
90833867|NCT03192176|181536188|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.7363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|4.99||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||4.99|0.32|0.7363
90833868|NCT03192176|181536188|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.56||||0.3455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.86||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||1.86|0.17|0.3455
90833869|NCT03192176|181536189|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.3||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|11.54||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||11.54|1.60|0.0037
90833870|NCT03192176|181536189|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.95||||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.49|10.48||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||10.48|1.49|0.0057
90833871|NCT03192176|181536189|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.03||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.26|16.13||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||16.13|2.26|0.0003
90833872|NCT03192176|181536189|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.42||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.37|17.39||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||17.39|2.37|0.0003
90833873|NCT03192176|181536189|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.11||||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|5.73||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||5.73|0.78|0.1410
90833874|NCT03192176|181536189|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.85||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|15.55||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||15.55|2.20|0.0004
90833875|NCT03192176|181536189|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.5||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.08|14.54||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||14.54|2.08|0.0006
91025872|NCT00096265|181934870|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||108 cases with three month performance status data, per arm, would result in a 0.050 level chi-square test with 90% power to distinguish between the groups when the proportions in the 3 categories are characterized by an effect size, Δ² = Σ(π2j-π1j)2/\[2(π2j-π1j)\], of 0.0586.||||< 0.001
91025873|NCT00096265|181934871|SUPERIORITY|Assuming the survival rate of the standard arm (MST = 5.9 months), then 49% of patients were expected to be alive at six months. Assuming steroid data would be available for 90% of these patients, results in a projection of 52 cases/arm with steroid data at 6 months. With this sample size, a two-sided 0.050 alpha test will have 90% power to distinguish between the groups when the proportions in the 3 categories are characterized by an effect size, Δ² = Σ(π2j-π1j)2/\[2(π2j-π1j)\], of 0.1217.||||||0.51|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.51
90833876|NCT03192176|181536189|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.09||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|10.57||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||10.57|1.58|0.0037
90894886|NCT01218126|181655144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.5||||0.279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|4.2|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg at Week 12||4.2|-1.2|0.279
90894887|NCT01218126|181655144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.8||||0.193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|0.9|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Placebo versus Losmapimod 15 mg at Week 12||0.9|-4.6|0.193
90894888|NCT01218126|181655144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4||||0.803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|3.5|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Placebo versus Losmapimod 2.5 mg at Week 24||3.5|-2.7|0.803
90894889|NCT01218126|181655144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.9||||0.229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|5.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg at Week 24||5.0|-1.2|0.229
90894890|NCT01218126|181655144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.4||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|1.8|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Placebo versus Losmapimod 15 mg at Week 24||1.8|-4.5|0.390
90894891|NCT01218126|181655146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.96||||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.01|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Placebo versus Losmapimod 2.5 mg at Week 4||1.01|0.91|0.157
90894892|NCT01218126|181655146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.91||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|0.95|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg at Week 4||0.95|0.86|0.000
90894893|NCT01218126|181655146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.91||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|0.96|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Placebo versus Losmapimod 15 mg at Week 4||0.96|0.86|0.000
90894894|NCT01218126|181655146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.95||||0.072||95.0|0.9|1.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Placebo versus Losmapimod 2.5 mg at Week 8||1.00|0.90|0.072
90894895|NCT01218126|181655146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|0.95|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg at Week 8||0.95|0.85|0.000
90894896|NCT01218126|181655146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.88||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|0.94|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Placebo versus Losmapimod 15 mg at Week 8||0.94|0.83|0.000
90894897|NCT01218126|181655146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.99||||0.728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.05|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Placebo versus Losmapimod 2.5 mg at Week 12||1.05|0.93|0.728
90894898|NCT01218126|181655146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.91||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|0.97|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg at Week 12||0.97|0.86|0.002
91025874|NCT00096265|181934871|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||Chi-squared|||Assuming the survival rate of the standard arm (MST = 5.9 months), then 49% of patients were expected to be alive at six months. Assuming steroid data would be available for 90% of these patients, results in a projection of 52 cases/arm with steroid data at 6 months. With this sample size, a two-sided 0.050 alpha test will have 90% power to distinguish between the groups when the proportions in the 3 categories are characterized by an effect size, Δ² = Σ(π2j-π1j)2/\[2(π2j-π1j)\], of 0.1217.||||0.56
91025875|NCT00096265|181934872|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Chi-squared|||A two group chi-square test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level would have 89% power to detect the difference between a proportion of 0.50 and a proportion of 0.30, or equivalently, of 0.70, when the sample size in each group is 120.||||0.78
91025876|NCT00096265|181934872|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Chi-squared|||A two group chi-square test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level would have 89% power to detect the difference between a proportion of 0.50 and a proportion of 0.30, or equivalently, of 0.70, when the sample size in each group is 120.||||0.80
91025877|NCT01506323|181934873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.006|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value is based on a false discovery rate adjustment for multiple hypothesis testing.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects, repeated measures models adjusting for demographic factors were implemented.||This analysis is from baseline (week 0) to post-treatment (week 8). Cronbach's alpha for this study was .92 at baseline.||||<.006
91025878|NCT01506323|181934873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||repeated measures||||<|0.031|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons using false discovery rate.|Mixed Models Analysis|This p-value is based on a false discovery rate adjustment for multiple hypothesis testing.||This analysis is from baseline (week 0) to 2 months follow-up.||||<.031
90833877|NCT03192176|181536189|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.31||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.67|11.16||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||11.16|1.67|0.0026
90833878|NCT03192176|181536189|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.26||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.63|16.6||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||16.60|2.63|0.0002
90833879|NCT03192176|181536189|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.23|27.34||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||27.34|3.23|<0.0001
90833880|NCT03192176|181536189|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.64||||0.0431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|6.76||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||6.76|1.03|0.0431
90833881|NCT03192176|181536189|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.4||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|11.29||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||11.29|1.72|0.0020
90833882|NCT03192176|181536189|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.76||||0.0291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|6.86||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||6.86|1.11|0.0291
90833883|NCT03192176|181536189|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.96||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|10.61||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||10.61|1.48|0.0063
90833884|NCT03192176|181536189|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.11||||0.0202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|8.11||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||8.11|1.19|0.0202
90833885|NCT03192176|181536189|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.1||||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|10.84||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||10.84|1.55|0.0044
90833886|NCT03192176|181536189|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.21||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.89|29.38||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||29.38|2.89|0.0002
90833887|NCT03192176|181536189|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.43||||0.0706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|6.37||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||6.37|0.93|0.0706
91025879|NCT01506323|181934874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value is based on false discovery rate adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis is from baseline to post-treatment. Cronbach's alpha for this study was .86 at baseline.||||0.82
91025880|NCT01506323|181934874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82|ONE_SIDED|||||This p-value is based on a false discovery rate adjustment for multiple hypothesis testing.|Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis is from baseline to 2 months post-treatment.||||0.82
91025881|NCT01506323|181934875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.008|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value is based on a false discovery rate adjustment for multiple hypothesis testing.|repeated measures|||This analysis is from baseline to post-treatment. Cronbach's alpha for this study was .85 at baseline.||||<0.008
91025882|NCT01506323|181934875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.09|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value is based on a false discovery rate adjustment for multiple hypothesis testing.|Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis is from baseline to 2 months post-treatment||||<0.09
91025883|NCT01506323|181934876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.006|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value is based on a false discovery rate adjustment for multiple hypothesis testing.|Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis is from baseline to post-treatment. Cronbach's alpha for this study was .78 at baseline.||||<.006
91025884|NCT01506323|181934876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.03|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value is based on a false discovery rate adjustment for multiple hypothesis testing.|repeated measures|||This analysis is from baseline to 2 months post-treatment.||||<.03
91025885|NCT01506323|181934877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0008|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value is based on a false discovery rate adjustment for multiple hypothesis testing.|repeated measures|||This analysis is from baseline to post-treatment. Cronbach's alpha for this study was .89 at baseline.||||<0.0008
91025886|NCT01506323|181934877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.006|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value is based on a false discovery rate adjustment for multiple hypothesis testing.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis is from baseline to 2 months post-treatment.||||<0.006
91025887|NCT01506323|181934878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.1|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value is based on a false discovery rate adjustment for multiple hypothesis testing. Raw p-value was \<0.02.|Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis is from baseline to post-treatment. Cronbach's alpha for total score in this study was .86 at baseline.||||<0.10
91025888|NCT01506323|181934878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.49|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value is based on a false discovery rate adjustment for multiple hypothesis testing.|Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis is from baseline to post-treatment.||||<0.49
91025889|NCT01506323|181934879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.78|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value is based on a false discovery rate adjustment for multiple hypothesis testing.|Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis is from baseline to post-treatment. Cronbach's alpha for this study was .96 at baseline.||||<0.78
91025890|NCT01506323|181934879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.99|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value is based on a false discovery rate adjustment for multiple hypothesis testing.|Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis is from baseline to 2-months post-treatment.||||<0.99
91025891|NCT01506323|181934880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value is based on a false discovery rate adjustment for multiple hypothesis testing.|Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis was from baseline to post-treatment. Cronbach's alpha for this study was .92 at baseline.||||<0.04
91025892|NCT01506323|181934880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.25|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value is based on a false discovery rate adjustment for multiple hypothesis testing.|Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis is from baseline to 2-months post-treatment.||||<0.25
91025893|NCT01506323|181934881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.99|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value is based on a false discovery rate adjustment for multiple hypothesis testing.|Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis is from baseline to post-treatment. Cronbach's alpha for this study was .89 at baseline.||||<0.99
91025894|NCT01506323|181934881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.94|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value is based on a false discovery rate adjustment for multiple hypothesis testing.|Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis is from baseline to 2-months post-treatment.||||<0.94
91089866|NCT04539964|182061795|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis (H0) is that there is no difference between the treatment and control groups versus the alternative hypothesis (H1) that control group response rate exceeds the treatment group response rate.|Risk Difference (RD)|-18.6||||0.0099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.7|-2.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-2.6|-34.7|0.0099
91089867|NCT04539964|182061796|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis (H0) is that there is no difference between the treatment and control groups versus the alternative hypothesis (H1) that the control group mean change exceeds the treatment group mean change.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.0618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.1|-0.8|0.0618
91025895|NCT01506323|181934882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.12|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value is based on a false discovery rate adjustment for multiple hypothesis testing.|Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis is from baseline to post-treatment. Cronbach's alpha for this study was .88 at baseline.||||<0.12
91089868|NCT04539964|182061797|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis (H0) is that there is no difference between the treatment and control groups versus the alternative hypothesis (H1) that the control group mean change exceeds the treatment group mean change.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9||||0.0308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.0|-1.8|0.0308
91089869|NCT04539964|182061798|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis (H0) is that there is no difference between the treatment and control groups versus the alternative hypothesis (H1) that the control group mean change exceeds the treatment group mean change.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8||||0.0441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.1|-1.7|0.0441
91089870|NCT04539964|182061799|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis (H0) is that there is no difference between the treatment and control groups versus the alternative hypothesis (H1) that the control group mean change exceeds the treatment group mean change.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.2871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.3|-0.6|0.2871
91089871|NCT04539964|182061800|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis (H0) is that there is no difference between the treatment and control groups versus the alternative hypothesis (H1) that the control group mean change exceeds the treatment group mean change.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.4345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.7|-0.9|0.4345
90833888|NCT03192176|181536189|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.2||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.79|24.08||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||24.08|2.79|0.0001
90958913|NCT04874415|181797843|SUPERIORITY|Main effects of each intervention factor were estimated using generalized linear models with log link, including all prespecified two-way interactions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.005|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|6.8|||||Loss Framed Incentive is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|||6.8|-6.9|
91025896|NCT01506323|181934882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.49|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value is based on a false discovery rate adjustment for multiple hypothesis testing.|Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis is from baseline to 2-months post-treatment.||||<0.49
91025897|NCT01506323|181934883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.59|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value is based on a false discovery rate adjustment for multiple hypothesis testing.|Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis is from baseline to post-treatment. Cronbach's alpha for total score was .89 at baseline.||||<0.59
91025898|NCT01506323|181934883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.1|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value is based on a false discovery rate adjustment for multiple hypothesis testing.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects, repeated measures models adjusting for demographic factors were implemented.||This analysis is from baseline to 2-months post-treatment.||||<0.10
91025899|NCT01172600|181934884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|1.17|||Regression, Linear|The analysis adjusted for VAS at baseline (before 1st block), number of epidural blocks received, and imbalanced baseline variables.|This is an intention- to-treat analysis. We assigned missing outcomes to 10 patients.|||1.17|-1.43|0.84
91025900|NCT01172600|181934884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.03||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|0.28|||Regression, Linear||This is a per-protocol analysis, using 68 patients with completed data.|||0.28|-2.34|0.12
91025901|NCT01172600|181934885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|98.3|-1.8|1.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model with repeated measures, adjusting for VAS pain score at baseline, number of epidural blocks received, and imbalanced baseline variables.|This analysis was per-protocol, using only patients with completed data.|||1.21|-1.80|0.63
91089872|NCT04539964|182061801|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis (H0) is that there is no difference between the treatment and control groups versus the alternative hypothesis (H1) that the control group mean change exceeds the treatment group mean change.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.45||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.2|-1.1|0.0900
91089873|NCT04539964|182061802|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis (H0) is that there is no difference between the treatment and control groups versus the alternative hypothesis (H1) that the control group mean change exceeds the treatment group mean change.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.0662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.2|-1.7|0.0662
91089874|NCT04539964|182061803|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis (H0) is that there is no difference between the treatment and control groups versus the alternative hypothesis (H1) that the control group mean change exceeds the treatment group mean change.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.8||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.3|-3.9|0.0450
90833889|NCT03192176|181536189|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.24||||0.0146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|8.32||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||8.32|1.26|0.0146
90833890|NCT03192176|181536189|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.37||||0.0816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|6.24||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||6.24|0.90|0.0816
90833891|NCT03192176|181536189|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.25||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|5.81||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||5.81|0.87|0.0930
90833892|NCT03192176|181536189|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.81||||0.365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|7.39||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||7.39|1.07|0.365
90833893|NCT03192176|181536189|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.93||||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|14.73||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||14.73|1.65|0.0042
90833894|NCT03192176|181536189|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.73||||0.0488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|7.41||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||7.41|1.01|0.0488
90833895|NCT03192176|181536189|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.85||||0.0075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|10.36||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||10.36|1.43|0.0075
90833896|NCT03192176|181536189|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2||||0.0984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|5.59||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||5.59|0.86|0.0984
90894899|NCT01218126|181655146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|0.95|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Placebo versus Losmapimod 15 mg at Week 12||0.95|0.84|0.001
90894900|NCT01218126|181655146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.01||||0.823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.07|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Placebo versus Losmapimod 2.5 mg at Week 24||1.07|0.95|0.823
90833897|NCT03192176|181536189|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.89||||0.2226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|5.29||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||5.29|0.68|0.2226
90833898|NCT03192176|181536189|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.16||||0.1467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|6.08||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||6.08|0.76|0.1467
90833899|NCT03192176|181536189|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.74||||0.0705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|8.19||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||8.19|0.92|0.0705
90833900|NCT03192176|181536189|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|26.62||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.16|223.9||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||223.9|3.16|0.0025
90833901|NCT03192176|181536189|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.75||||0.0757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|8.4||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||8.40|0.90|0.0757
91089875|NCT04539964|182061804|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis (H0) is that there is no difference between the treatment and control groups versus the alternative hypothesis (H1) that the control group mean change exceeds the treatment group mean change.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.55||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.1|-3.2|0.0350
90833902|NCT03192176|181536189|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.66||||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.71|18.74||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||18.74|1.71|0.0045
90894901|NCT01218126|181655146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.96||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.02|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg at Week 24||1.02|0.90|0.153
90833903|NCT03192176|181536189|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.63||||0.0771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|7.67||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||7.67|0.90|0.0771
90833904|NCT03192176|181536189|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.03||||0.1856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|5.81||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||5.81|0.71|0.1856
90833905|NCT03192176|181536189|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.5973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|3.54||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||3.54|0.48|0.5973
90833906|NCT03192176|181536189|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.57||||0.0935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|7.77||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||7.77|0.85|0.0935
90833907|NCT03192176|181536189|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.52||||0.0157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|22.1||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||22.10|1.38|0.0157
90833908|NCT03192176|181536189|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.08||||0.1963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|6.32||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||6.32|0.68|0.1963
90833909|NCT03192176|181536189|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.31||||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|18.43||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||18.43|1.53|0.0085
90833910|NCT03192176|181536189|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.21||||0.1433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|6.38||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||6.38|0.76|0.1433
90833911|NCT03192176|181536189|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.17||||0.1577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|6.37||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||6.37|0.74|0.1577
90833912|NCT03192176|181536189|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.16||||0.1608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|6.34||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||6.34|0.74|0.1608
91025902|NCT01172600|181934886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.11||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|98.3|-3.05|0.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model with repeated measures, adjusting for VAS pain score at baseline, number of epidural blocks received, and imbalanced baseline variables.|This analysis was per-protocol, using only patients with completed data.|||0.82|-3.05|0.16
90833913|NCT03192176|181536189|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.96||||0.0693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|9.53||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||9.53|0.92|0.0693
90833914|NCT03192176|181536189|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.57||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.89|48.39||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||48.39|1.89|0.0063
90833915|NCT03192176|181536189|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.25||||0.1637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|7.05||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||7.05|0.72|0.1637
90894902|NCT01218126|181655146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.95||||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.01|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Placebo versus Losmapimod 15 mg at Week 24||1.01|0.90|0.126
91025903|NCT02232074|181934897|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|3.14||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Regression, Logistic|||Compared to the control group, the Breast cancer INTERVENTION group will be more likely to have timely first treatment (i.e. receipt of first treatment within 90 days of diagnosis).||3.14|0.21|0.77
90894903|NCT01218126|181655147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.87||||0.291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.12|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Placebo versus Losmapimod 2.5 mg at Week 4||1.12|0.68|0.291
90894904|NCT01218126|181655147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.78||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg at Week 4||1.00|0.61|0.046
90894905|NCT01218126|181655147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.73||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.94|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Placebo versus Losmapimod 15 mg at Week 4||0.94|0.57|0.014
90894906|NCT01218126|181655147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.04||||0.755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.32|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Placebo versus Losmapimod 2.5 mg at Week 8||1.32|0.82|0.755
90894907|NCT01218126|181655147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.77||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.97|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg at Week 8||0.97|0.60|0.029
90894908|NCT01218126|181655147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.74||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.94|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg at Week 8||0.94|0.58|0.015
90894909|NCT01218126|181655147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.91||||0.468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.17|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Placebo versus Losmapimod 2.5 mg at Week 12||1.17|0.71|0.468
90894910|NCT01218126|181655147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.73||||0.011||95.0|0.57|0.93|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg at Week 12||0.93|0.57|0.011
90894911|NCT01218126|181655147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.64||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.82|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Placebo versus Losmapimod 15 mg at Week 12||0.82|0.50|0.000
90894912|NCT01218126|181655147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.95||||0.696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.22|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Placebo versus Losmapimod 2.5 mg at Week 24||1.22|0.74|0.696
91089876|NCT04539964|182061805|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis (H0) is that there is no difference between the treatment and control groups versus the alternative hypothesis (H1) that treatment group response rate exceeds the control group response rate.|Risk Difference (RD)|7.8||||0.0648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|17.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||17.7|-2.1|0.0648
91089877|NCT04539964|182061806|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis (H0) is that there is no difference between the treatment and control groups versus the alternative hypothesis (H1) that treatment group response rate exceeds the control group response rate.|Risk Difference (RD)|11.4||||0.0154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|21.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.6|1.2|0.0154
91089878|NCT04539964|182061850|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis (H0) is that there is no difference between the treatment and control groups versus the alternative hypothesis (H1) that treatment group response rate exceeds the control group response rate.|Risk Difference (RD)|25.2||||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.1|43.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||43.3|7.1|0.0054
91089879|NCT04539964|182061851|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis (H0) is that there is no difference between the treatment and control groups versus the alternative hypothesis (H1) that treatment group response rate exceeds the control group response rate.|Risk Difference (RD)|20.3||||0.0437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|42.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||42.9|-2.2|0.0437
91089880|NCT04539964|182061852|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis (H0) is that there is no difference between the treatment and control groups versus the alternative hypothesis (H1) that treatment group response rate exceeds the control group response rate.|Risk Difference (RD)|-17.6||||0.1643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.1|16.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||16.0|-51.1|0.1643
91089881|NCT04539964|182061853|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis (H0) is that there is no difference between the treatment and control groups versus the alternative hypothesis (H1) that treatment group response rate exceeds the control group response rate.|Risk Difference (RD)|-2.4||||0.415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.1|19.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||19.2|-24.1|0.415
90894913|NCT01218126|181655147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.81||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.04|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg at Week 24||1.04|0.64|0.099
91104631|NCT03926247|182095273|OTHER|Within-group longitudinal analysis (no comparison groups)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.892|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.643|=|0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.161|0.372|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analyses were conducted using a mixed effects linear model to calculate least square means across the 4 timepoints. This was a longitudinal within-group analysis with 4 timepoints of data nested within 56 individuals. Our hypothesis was that participants' PTSD symptoms would decrease overtime.||0.372|-2.161|=0.168
91025904|NCT02232074|181934898|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.0||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|45.4||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Regression, Logistic|||Compared to the control group, the Lung cancer INTERVENTION group will be more likely to have timely first treatment (i.e. receipt of first treatment within 90 days of diagnosis).||45.4|0.35|0.26
90833916|NCT03192176|181536189|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.57||||0.0326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|11.47||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||11.47|1.11|0.0326
90833917|NCT03192176|181536189|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.24||||0.1455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|6.67||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||6.67|0.76|0.1455
90833918|NCT03192176|181536189|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.08||||0.1951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|6.32||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||6.32|0.69|0.1951
90833919|NCT03192176|181536189|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.4097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|4.53||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||4.53|0.54|0.4097
90833920|NCT03192176|181536189|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.29||||0.1554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|7.22||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||7.22|0.73|0.1554
90833921|NCT03192176|181536189|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.22||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|17.14||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||17.14|1.04|0.0440
90833922|NCT03192176|181536189|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.23||||0.1928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|7.47||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||7.47|0.67|0.1928
90833923|NCT03192176|181536189|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.67||||0.0222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|17.47||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||17.47|1.25|0.0222
90833924|NCT03192176|181536189|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.58||||0.4075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|4.65||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||4.65|0.54|0.4075
90833925|NCT03192176|181536189|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.65||||0.3659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|4.93||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||4.93|0.56|0.3659
90833926|NCT03192176|181536189|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.7878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|3.24||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||3.24|0.41|0.7878
90833927|NCT03192176|181536189|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.26||||0.0635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|11.38||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||11.38|0.94|0.0635
90833928|NCT03192176|181536189|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.62||||0.0137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.73|123.3||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||123.3|1.73|0.0137
91025905|NCT02232074|181934899|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.53|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Regression, Linear|Adjusting for baseline Distress Thermometer scores.||Compared to the control group, the Breast cancer INTERVENTION group will have less distress at 3 months post-enrollment||||0.53
91025906|NCT02232074|181934900|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.62||0.43|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusting for baseline Distress Thermometer scores.|Regression, Linear|||Compared to the control group, the LUNG cancer INTERVENTION group will have less distress at 3 months post-enrollment||||0.43
90833929|NCT03192176|181536189|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.91||||0.1069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|10.62||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||10.62|0.79|0.1069
90833930|NCT03192176|181536189|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.6||||0.0186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|23.47||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||23.47|1.33|0.0186
90833931|NCT03192176|181536189|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.37||||0.1434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|7.56||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||7.56|0.75|0.1434
90833932|NCT03192176|181536189|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2||||0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|6.75||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||6.75|0.72|0.1670
90833933|NCT03192176|181536189|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|3.28||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||3.28|0.41|0.7810
90833934|NCT03192176|181536189|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.27||||0.1682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|7.26||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||7.26|0.71|0.1682
90833935|NCT03192176|181536189|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.22||||0.0215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|21.39||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||21.39|1.28|0.0215
90833936|NCT03192176|181536189|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.75||||0.0306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|19.52||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||19.52|1.16|0.0306
90833937|NCT03192176|181536189|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.1||||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.92|52.29||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||52.29|1.92|0.0059
90833938|NCT03192176|181536189|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.64||||0.1004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|8.43||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||8.43|0.83|0.1004
90833939|NCT03192176|181536189|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.11||||0.1837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|6.36||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||6.36|0.70|0.1837
90833940|NCT03192176|181536189|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.5929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|3.75||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||3.75|0.47|0.5929
90833941|NCT03192176|181536189|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.93||||0.2588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|6.07||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||6.07|0.62|0.2588
90833942|NCT03192176|181536189|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.69||||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|38.41||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||38.41|1.54|0.0129
91032585|NCT00834756|181949992|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using PROC GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|100.37||||||90.0|93.95|107.21|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||107.21|93.95|
91032586|NCT03611608|181950054|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|263.54|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|90.0|207.86||||t-test, 1 sided||||||207.86|<0.001
91032587|NCT04625114|181950057|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.183||||0.511|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.511
91032588|NCT04625114|181950058|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.965||||0.921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.942|||Regression, Cox|||||1.942|0.480|0.921
91032589|NCT00986245|181950061|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|80% power|Mean Difference (Net)|0.4|||<|0.05|||||||Sign test|||The UPDRS-part3 was compared between the Once-daily of Ropinirole PR arm and the Twice-daily of Ropinirole PR using the Wilcoxon signed rank test.||||<0.05
91032590|NCT00986245|181950062|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|80% power|Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||<|0.05|||||||Sign test|||The Hoehn and Yahr stage was compared between the Once-daily of Ropinirole PR arm and the Twice-daily of Ropinirole PR using the Wilcoxon signed rank test.||||<0.05
91032591|NCT00986245|181950063|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|80% power|Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|||<|0.05|||||||Sign test|||"The Overall quality of sleep was compared between the Once-daily of Ropinirole PR arm and the Twice-daily of Ropinirole PR using the Wilcoxon signed rank test."||||<0.05
91032592|NCT00986245|181950064|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|80% power|Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|||<|0.05|||||||Sign test|||"The Nocturnal off-symptoms was compared between the Once-daily of Ropinirole PR arm and the Twice-daily of Ropinirole PR using the Wilcoxon signed rank test."||||<0.05
91032593|NCT00986245|181950065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4|||<|0.05||||||80% power|Sign test|||"The Early morning off symptoms was compared between the Once-daily of Ropinirole PR arm and the Twice-daily of Ropinirole PR using the Wilcoxon signed rank test."||||<0.05
91032594|NCT00986245|181950066|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|80% power|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|||<|0.05|||||||Sign test|||"The Epworth sleep scale was compared between the Once-daily of Ropinirole PR arm and the Twice-daily of Ropinirole PR using the Wilcoxon signed rank test."||||<0.05
91032595|NCT00986245|181950067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8|||<|0.05|||||||Sign test|||||||<0.05
91103899|NCT03992872|182094610|SUPERIORITY||GMR (Prior Alpha / Naïve Alpha)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||P- value = NE (Not estimable due to lack of response; all baseline values in this group were \<LOD and imputed as LOD/2, or 7.5)||P-values were based on an ANOVA model with log10-transformed titer as the dependent variable and study arm, age, and gender as predictors.|"Differences in least squares means from the ANOVA model were back-transformed and reported as geometric mean ratios with 95% confidence intervals.~95% CI \[NE,NE\]~NE = Not estimable due to lack of response."|Day 1: Geometric mean ratio (prior alpha group over naïve alpha group) and 95% confidence interval||||
90833943|NCT03192176|181536189|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.12||||0.0168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|35.61||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||35.61|1.42|0.0168
90833944|NCT03192176|181536189|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.95||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.94|50.97||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||50.97|1.94|0.0058
90833945|NCT03192176|181536189|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.08||||0.1934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|6.26||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||6.26|0.69|0.1934
90833946|NCT03192176|181536189|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.01||||0.2181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|6.12||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||6.12|0.66|0.2181
90833947|NCT03192176|181536189|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.58||||0.4116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|4.71||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||4.71|0.53|0.4116
90833948|NCT03192176|181536189|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.84||||0.0938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|9.66||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||9.66|0.84|0.0938
90833949|NCT03192176|181536189|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.02||||0.0125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|41.08||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||41.08|1.57|0.0125
90833950|NCT03192176|181536189|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.29||||0.0761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|12.23||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||12.23|0.88|0.0761
90833951|NCT03192176|181536189|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.02||||0.0305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|14.16||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||14.16|1.14|0.0305
90833952|NCT03192176|181536189|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.42||||0.0501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|11.68||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||11.68|1.00|0.0501
90833953|NCT03192176|181536189|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.61||||0.1212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|8.77||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||8.77|0.78|0.1212
90894914|NCT01218126|181655147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.86||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.11|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Placebo versus Losmapimod 15 mg at Week 24||1.11|0.67|0.256
90833954|NCT03192176|181536189|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.8332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|3.68||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||3.68|0.35|0.8332
90833955|NCT03192176|181536189|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.66||||0.4285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|5.76||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||5.76|0.48|0.4285
90833956|NCT03192176|181536189|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.98||||0.0954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|10.74||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||10.74|0.83|0.0954
90833957|NCT03192176|181536189|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.98||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|11.38||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||11.38|0.78|0.1110
91025907|NCT02232074|181934901|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.18|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Regression, Linear|Adjusting for baseline Distress Thermometer scores.||Compared to the control group, the Breast cancer INTERVENTION group will have less distress at 6 months post-enrollment||||0.18
91025908|NCT02232074|181934902|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29||0.33|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Regression, Linear|Adjusting for baseline Distress Thermometer scores.||Compared to the control group, the Lung cancer INTERVENTION group will have less distress at 6 months post-enrollment||||0.33
91025909|NCT02232074|181934903|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.68|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Regression, Linear|||||||0.68
91025910|NCT02232074|181934904|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.26|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Regression, Linear|||||||0.26
91025911|NCT02232074|181934905|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.43||0.62|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Regression, Linear|||Compared to the control group, the Breast cancer INTERVENTION group will be more satisfied with patient navigation at 6 months post-enrollment||||0.62
91025912|NCT02232074|181934906|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.91||0.69|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Regression, Linear|||Compared to the control group, the Lung cancer INTERVENTION group will be more satisfied with patient navigation at 6 months post-enrollment||||0.69
91025913|NCT02232074|181934907|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.58|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Regression, Linear|adjusting for baseline Case scores.||Compared to the control group, the breast cancer INTERVENTION group would have higher self-efficacy was adjusting for baseline self-efficacy scores.||||0.58
91025914|NCT02232074|181934908|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.21||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|adjusting for baseline Case scores.||Compared to the control group, the lung cancer INTERVENTION group would have higher self-efficacy was adjusting for baseline self-efficacy scores.||||0.09
91025915|NCT02232074|181934909|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|2.79||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Regression, Logistic|||We hypothesize that compared to the control group, the Breast cancer INTERVENTION group will receive quality care (i.e. receipt of radiation within one year of diagnosis).||2.79|0.28|0.79
91025916|NCT02232074|181934910|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.71|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Regression, Linear|||We hypothesize that compared to the control group, the Breast cancer INTERVENTION group will have less distress at 12 months post-enrollment.||||0.71
91025917|NCT02232074|181934911|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.45|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.71||0.61|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Regression, Linear|||We hypothesize that compared to the control group, the Lung cancer INTERVENTION group will have less distress at 12 months post-enrollment||||0.61
91025918|NCT02232074|181934912|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.08||0.46|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Regression, Linear|||||||0.46
90833958|NCT03192176|181536189|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.44||||0.1642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|8.55||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||8.55|0.69|0.1642
90833959|NCT03192176|181536189|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.19||||0.1976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|7.24||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||7.24|0.66|0.1976
91025919|NCT02232074|181934913|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.2||0.89|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Regression, Linear|||||||0.89
91025920|NCT02232074|181934914|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.38|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.66||0.16|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Regression, Linear|||||||0.16
91025921|NCT02232074|181934915|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.83|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.93||0.16|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Regression, Linear|||||||0.16
91025922|NCT02232074|181934916|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.75||0.13|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Regression, Linear|||||||0.13
91025923|NCT02232074|181934917|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.97|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.7||0.8|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Regression, Linear|||||||0.80
91025924|NCT02637076|181934937|OTHER|||||||0.31|||||||repeated measures ANOVA|F(2,36)=1.26||||||0.31
91025925|NCT02637076|181934942|OTHER|||||||0.748|||||||repeated measures ANOVA|||||||0.748
91033006|NCT02728102|181951667|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of Participants with Grade 2 and 3 infections between the vaccine arm and lenalidomide/GM-CSF arm.||||0.21
91033007|NCT02728102|181951667|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of Participants with Grade 2 and 3 infections between the vaccine arm and lenalidomide alone arm.||||0.40
91033008|NCT02728102|181951667|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of Participants with Grade 2 and 3 infections between the lenalidomide/GM-CSF arm and lenalidomide alone arm.||||0.08
90833960|NCT03192176|181536189|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.5761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|4.58||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||4.58|0.43|0.5761
91025926|NCT01464827|181934950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.49||||0.406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|2.61||No adjustment for multiple comparison. Pre-specified 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio: Group A : Group G|"The primary efficacy endpoint was the comparison of the percentage of treatment-naïve participants with SVR24 after treatment with 3 DAAs (at the 150 mg ABT-450 dose) and ribavirin for 8 weeks (Group A) versus 12 weeks (Group G).~Logistic regression with baseline log10 HCV RNA level, treatment group, Interleukin 28B genotype (CC or non-CC), HCV subgenotype (1a or non-1a), and geographic region (US or non-US) as predictors."||2.61|0.09|0.406
90833961|NCT03192176|181536189|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.64||||0.454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.04||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||2.04|0.20|0.4540
91025927|NCT01464827|181934951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4||||0.266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|2.02||No adjustment for multiple comparison. Pre-specified 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio: Group A : Groups \[F + G + K + L\]|The percentage of participants with SVR24 after treatment for 8 weeks versus 12 weeks was compared using logistic regression with treatment group, baseline log10 HCV RNA level, HCV subgenotype (1a or non-1a), geographic region (US or non-US), Interleukin 28B genotype (CC or non-CC), and ABT-450/ritonavir dose and population (treatment-naïve or null-responders) as predictors.||2.02|0.08|0.266
90833962|NCT03192176|181536189|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.57||||0.3732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.96||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||1.96|0.17|0.3732
90833963|NCT03192176|181536189|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.59||||0.4665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|5.5||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||5.50|0.46|0.4665
90833964|NCT03192176|181536189|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46||||0.5634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|5.25||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||5.25|0.41|0.5634
90833965|NCT03192176|181536189|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.65||||0.4297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|5.7||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||5.70|0.48|0.4297
90833966|NCT03192176|181536189|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.9789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|3.14||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||3.14|0.31|0.9789
90833967|NCT03192176|181536189|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.7357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|2.7||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||2.70|0.24|0.7357
90833968|NCT03192176|181536189|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.46||||0.1977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|1.5||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||1.50|0.14|0.1977
90833969|NCT03192176|181536189|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.52||||0.3203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|1.88||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||1.88|0.14|0.3203
90833970|NCT03192176|181536189|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.9739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.44||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||3.44|0.30|0.9739
91103900|NCT03992872|182094610|SUPERIORITY||GMR (Prior Alpha / Naïve Alpha)|3.11||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|6.23|||ANOVA|P-values were based on an ANOVA model with log10-transformed titer as the dependent variable and study arm, age, and gender as predictors.|Differences in least squares means from the ANOVA model were back-transformed and reported as geometric mean ratios with 95% confidence intervals.|Day 8: Geometric mean ratio (prior alpha group over naïve alpha group) and 95% confidence interval||6.23|1.55|0.0019
90833971|NCT03192176|181536189|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.6714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|4.97||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||4.97|0.36|0.6714
90833972|NCT03192176|181536189|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.6375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|2.52||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||2.52|0.22|0.6375
90833973|NCT03192176|181536189|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.54||||0.298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.71||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||1.71|0.17|0.2980
90894915|NCT01218126|181655148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|1.0||||0.989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.54|||Negative Binomial regression model|Covariates of treatment, group, smoking status, history of exacerbations and region, with logarithm of time on treatment as an offset variable.|Rate ratio= (Rate of exacerbation in Losmapimod 2.5 mg arm) / (Rate of exacerbation in placebo arm)|Losmapimod 2.5 mg versus Placebo||1.54|0.64|0.989
90833974|NCT03192176|181536190|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.35||||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.69|16.96||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||16.96|1.69|0.0044
90833975|NCT03192176|181536190|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.65||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.79|26.83||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||26.83|2.79|0.0002
90833976|NCT03192176|181536190|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.49|33.54||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||33.54|3.49|<0.0001
90833977|NCT03192176|181536190|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|31.29||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||31.29|3.20|<0.0001
90833978|NCT03192176|181536190|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.51||||0.1266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|8.15||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||8.15|0.77|0.1266
90833979|NCT03192176|181536190|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.72||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.85|17.66||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||17.66|1.85|0.0024
90833980|NCT03192176|181536190|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.93||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.59|24.26||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||24.26|2.59|0.0003
90833981|NCT03192176|181536190|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.11||||0.0217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|8.17||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||8.17|1.18|0.0217
90833982|NCT03192176|181536190|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.63||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.75|12.25||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||12.25|1.75|0.0021
91025928|NCT01464827|181934951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.66||||0.525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|2.4||No adjustment for multiple comparison. Pre-specified 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio: Group A : Groups \[H + I + M + N\]|The percentage of participants with SVR24 after treatment for 8 weeks versus 24 weeks was compared using logistic regression with treatment group, baseline log10 HCV RNA level, HCV subgenotype (1a or non-1a), geographic region (US or non-US), Interleukin 28B genotype (CC or non-CC), ABT-450/ritonavir dose and population (treatment-naïve or null-responders) as predictors.||2.40|0.18|0.525
90833983|NCT03192176|181536190|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.72||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|12.37||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||12.37|1.80|0.0016
91025929|NCT01464827|181934951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.64||||0.375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|4.92||No adjustment for multiple comparison. Pre-specified 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio: Groups \[F + G + K + L\] : Groups \[H + I + M + N\]|The percentage of participants with SVR24 after treatment for 12 weeks versus 24 weeks was compared using logistic regression with treatment group, baseline log10 HCV RNA level, HCV subgenotype (1a or non-1a), geographic region (US or non-US), Interleukin 28B genotype (CC or non-CC), ABT-450/ritonavir dose and population (treatment-naïve or null-responders) as predictors.||4.92|0.55|0.375
91103901|NCT03992872|182094610|SUPERIORITY||GMR (Prior Alpha / Naïve Alpha)|0.88||||0.6223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.46|||ANOVA|P-values were based on an ANOVA model with log10-transformed titer as the dependent variable and study arm, age, and gender as predictors.|Differences in least squares means from the ANOVA model were back-transformed and reported as geometric mean ratios with 95% confidence intervals.|Day 22: Geometric mean ratio (prior alpha group over naïve alpha group) and 95% confidence interval||1.46|0.54|0.6223
90833984|NCT03192176|181536190|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.8||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.79|12.86||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||12.86|1.79|0.0018
90833985|NCT03192176|181536190|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.69||||0.0467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|7.14||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||7.14|1.01|0.0467
90833986|NCT03192176|181536190|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.7||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|12.28||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||12.28|1.80|0.0016
90833987|NCT03192176|181536190|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.98||||0.0234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|7.65||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||7.65|1.16|0.0234
91089882|NCT01674725|182061854|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The noninferiority of the rate of sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment for the ABT-450/r/ABT-267 and ABT-333 treatment group as compared with the historical rate for telaprevir plus pegIFN-RBV was analyzed; the lower confidence bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the percentage of participants with sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment must exceed 64% to achieve noninferiority.|Percentage of Participants|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|95.9|100.0|||||95% CI was calculated using the Wilson score method for the single proportion because the point estimate was 100%.|Planned enrollment is 210 to allow ≥200 GT1b-infected participants to be treated with combination formulation of ABT-450/r/ABT-267 and ABT-333 with and without RBV. Enrollment terminated after 187 participants were randomized. Assuming a rate of 82% in each arm, a sample size of 90 participants per arm will have \>90% power to demonstrate noninferiority of each arm to the historical rate based on the normal approximation of a single binomial proportion in a one-sample test for superiority.||100.0|95.9|
91103902|NCT03992872|182094610|SUPERIORITY||GMR (Prior Alpha / Naïve Alpha)|0.88||||0.6444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.55||P-values were based on an ANOVA model with log10-transformed titer as the dependent variable and study arm, age, and gender as predictors.|ANOVA||Differences in least squares means from the ANOVA model were back-transformed and reported as geometric mean ratios with 95% confidence intervals.|Day 29: Geometric mean ratio (prior alpha group over naïve alpha group) and 95% confidence interval||1.55|0.50|0.6444
90833988|NCT03192176|181536190|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.88||||0.0294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|7.46||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||7.46|1.11|0.0294
90833989|NCT03192176|181536190|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.74||||0.0068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|9.73||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||9.73|1.44|0.0068
90833990|NCT03192176|181536190|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.35||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.68|11.29||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||11.29|1.68|0.0025
90833991|NCT03192176|181536190|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.82||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.13|15.92||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||15.92|2.13|0.0006
90833992|NCT03192176|181536190|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.53||||0.0572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|6.61||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||6.61|0.97|0.0572
90833993|NCT03192176|181536190|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.03||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.28|15.97||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||15.97|2.28|0.0003
90833994|NCT03192176|181536190|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.55||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|6.38||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||6.38|1.02|0.0460
90833995|NCT03192176|181536190|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.03||||0.1406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|5.23||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||5.23|0.79|0.1406
90833996|NCT03192176|181536190|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.97||||0.0234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|7.63||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||7.63|1.16|0.0234
90833997|NCT03192176|181536190|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.82||||0.0302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|7.22||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||7.22|1.10|0.0302
90833998|NCT03192176|181536190|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.23||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.87|14.63||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||14.63|1.87|0.0016
90833999|NCT03192176|181536190|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.82||||0.2105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|4.64||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||4.64|0.71|0.2105
90834000|NCT03192176|181536190|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.17||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.61|10.81||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||10.81|1.61|0.0033
90834001|NCT03192176|181536190|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1||||0.1087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|5.21||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||5.21|0.85|0.1087
91025930|NCT01464827|181934952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-12.16||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.2|0.88||No adjustment for multiple comparison. Pre-specified 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|The Mantel-Haenszel method was used because logistic regression failed due to separation or quasi-separation.|Difference = Group B - Groups \[F + G + K + L\]|The percentage of participants with SVR24 after treatment with 2 DAAs and ribavirin versus 3 DAAs and ribavirin was compared using stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel (MH) method with Interleukin 28B genotype (CC or non-CC) and HCV subgenotype (1a or non-1a).||0.88|-25.20|0.068
91025931|NCT01464827|181934952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-6.75||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.93|0.43||No adjustment for multiple comparison. Pre-specified 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|The Mantel-Haenszel method was used because logistic regression failed due to separation or quasi-separation.|Difference = Groups \[C + D + J\] - Groups \[F + G + K + L\]|The percentage of participants with SVR24 after treatment with 2 DAAs and ribavirin versus 3 DAAs and ribavirin was compared using stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel (MH) method with Interleukin 28B genotype (CC or non-CC) and HCV subgenotype (1a or non-1a).||0.43|-13.93|0.065
91025932|NCT01464827|181934953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-7.13||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.77|1.51||No adjustment for multiple comparison. Pre-specified 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|The Mantel-Haenszel method was used because logistic regression failed due to separation or quasi-separation.|Difference = Group E - Groups \[F + G + K + L\]|The percentage of participants with SVR24 after treatment with 3 DAAs with and without ribavirin was compared using a stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel (MH) method with Interleukin 28B genotype (CC or non-CC) and HCV subgenotype (1a or non-1a).||1.51|-15.77|0.106
91025933|NCT01464827|181934954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|5.34||No adjustment for multiple comparison. Pre-specified 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio: Groups \[F + G + H + I\] : Groups \[K + L + M + N\]|The percentage of participants with SVR24 after treatment with 3 DAAs and ribavirin in treatment-naïve versus null-responders was compared using logistic regression with treatment group, baseline log10 HCV RNA level, HCV subgenotype (1a or non-1a), geographic region (US or non-US), Interleukin 28B genotype (CC or non-CC), and ABT-450/ritonavir dose as predictors.||5.34|0.37|0.616
91025934|NCT01075763|181934955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||For baseline: the difference between the two groups was analyzed using t-test.||||0.64
91025935|NCT01075763|181934955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||For Week 52: the difference between the two groups was analyzed using t-test.||||0.92
91025936|NCT01075763|181934956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||For Week 12: the difference between the two groups was analyzed using t-test.||||0.63
91025937|NCT01075763|181934956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||For Week 28: the difference between the two groups was analyzed using t-test.||||0.74
91089883|NCT01674725|182061854|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The noninferiority of the rate of sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment for the ABT-450/r/ABT-267 and ABT-333, plus RBV treatment group as compared with the historical rate for telaprevir plus pegIFN-RBV was analyzed; the lower confidence bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the percentage of participants with sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment must exceed 64% to achieve noninferiority.|Percentage of Participants|97.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.6|100.0|||||95% CI was calculated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Assuming a rate of 82% in each arm, a sample size of 90 participants per arm will have \>90% power to demonstrate noninferiority of each arm to the historical rate based on the normal approximation of a single binomial proportion in a one-sample test for superiority.||100.0|94.6|
91025938|NCT01075763|181934957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||For baseline: the difference between the two groups was analyzed using t-test.||||0.45
90834002|NCT03192176|181536190|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|4.03||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||4.03|0.60|0.3600
91025939|NCT01075763|181934957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||For Week 12: the difference between the two groups was analyzed using t-test.||||0.88
91025940|NCT01075763|181934957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||For Week 28: the difference between the two groups was analyzed using t-test.||||0.68
91025941|NCT01075763|181934957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||For Week 52: the difference between the two groups was analyzed using t-test.||||0.81
91089884|NCT01674725|182061855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91025942|NCT01075763|181934958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||For baseline: the difference between the two groups was analyzed using t-test.||||0.29
91025943|NCT01075763|181934958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||For Week 12: the difference between the two groups was analyzed using t-test.||||0.36
91025944|NCT01075763|181934958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||For Week 28: the difference between the two groups was analyzed using t-test.||||0.68
91025945|NCT01075763|181934958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||For Week 52: the difference between the two groups was analyzed using t-test.||||0.41
91025946|NCT01075763|181934959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||For baseline: the difference between the two groups was analyzed using t-test.||||0.86
91025947|NCT01075763|181934959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||For Week 28: the difference between the two groups was analyzed using t-test.||||0.62
91025948|NCT01075763|181934959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||For Week 52: the difference between the two groups was analyzed using t-test.||||0.21
91025949|NCT01075763|181934960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||For baseline: the difference between the two groups was analyzed using t-test.||||0.95
91025950|NCT01075763|181934960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||For Week 28: the difference between the two groups was analyzed using t-test.||||0.73
91025951|NCT01075763|181934960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||For Week 52: the difference between the two groups was analyzed using t-test.||||0.30
91025952|NCT01075763|181934962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||For baseline: the difference between the two groups was analyzed using t-test.||||0.80
90958914|NCT04874415|181797843|SUPERIORITY|Main effects of each intervention factor were estimated using generalized linear models with log link, including all prespecified two-way interactions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-126.0|125.0|||||Daily Step Count Goal is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|||125|-126|
91025953|NCT01075763|181934962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||For Week 28: the difference between the two groups was analyzed using t-test.||||0.74
91089885|NCT01674725|182061856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of Participants|97.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.6|100.0|||||95% CI was calculated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution; the lower confidence bound for the percentage of participants with sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment must exceed 75% to achieve superiority.|||100.0|94.6|
91089886|NCT01674725|182061856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of Participants|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|95.9|100.0|||||95% CI was calculated using the Wilson score method for the single proportion; the lower confidence bound for the percentage of participants with sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment must exceed 75% to achieve superiority|||100|95.9|
91089887|NCT01674725|182061856|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The noninferiority of the rate of sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment for the ABT-450/r/ABT-267 and ABT-333 treatment group as compared with the ABT-450/r/ABT-267 and ABT-333, plus RBV treatment group was analyzed using a noninferiority margin of -10.5%; the lower confidence bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in percentage of participants with sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment must exceed -10.5% to achieve noninferiority.|Percentage of Participants|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|5.4|||||95% CI was calculated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||5.4|-0.8|
91089888|NCT02709746|182061870|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.13||||0.4702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|4.2|||Mixed Model Repeated Analysis|||||4.2|-1.94|0.4702
91089889|NCT02709746|182061870|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.72||||0.6373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.71|2.27|||Mixed Model Repeated Analysis|||||2.27|-3.71|0.6373
91089890|NCT02709746|182061870|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.73||||0.0152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.74|-0.72|||Mixed Model Repeated Analysis|||||-0.72|-6.74|0.0152
91025954|NCT01075763|181934962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||For Week 52: the difference between the two groups was analyzed using t-test.||||0.12
91025955|NCT01075763|181934963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||For baseline: the difference between the two groups was analyzed using t-test.||||0.53
91089891|NCT02709746|182061870|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||0.8778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|2.82|||Mixed Model Repeated Analysis|||||2.82|-2.41|0.8778
91089892|NCT02337062|182061898|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for determining statistical significance in the comparison of incidence of success between the active and placebo groups (the primary efficacy analysis) was a p-value of 2.5% one-sided.|Chi-squared|||The primary efficacy analysis was a comparison of the incidence of the primary efficacy variable between the two groups that received APD421 and the group that received placebo, using Pearson's χ2 test.||||<0.001
91089893|NCT02337062|182061899|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.003
91089894|NCT02337062|182061900|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.002
91089895|NCT02337062|182061901|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.002
90834003|NCT03192176|181536190|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.05||||0.1394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|5.32||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||5.32|0.79|0.1394
90834004|NCT03192176|181536190|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.7||||0.0522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|7.36||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||7.36|0.99|0.0522
91025956|NCT01075763|181934963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||For Week 28: the difference between the two groups was analyzed using t-test.||||0.85
91025957|NCT01075763|181934963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||For Week 52: the difference between the two groups was analyzed using t-test.||||0.85
91025958|NCT00586521|181934964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The primary outcome measure was analyzed by paired t-test and Wilcoxon test (number of joint bleeds prophylaxis treatment compared to number of joint bleeds on-demand treatment) at 6 months of treatment.||||<0.001
91089896|NCT02337062|182061902|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91089897|NCT02337062|182061903|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.001
91089898|NCT01240382|182061919|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority in mean change in fluorescein staining score from baseline was assessed on the non-inferiority margin (0.34) with the upper limit of the confidence interval of the difference between the 2 treatment groups.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||||95.0|-0.405|0.338|||l|||||0.338|-0.405|
91089899|NCT01240382|182061920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.67||||0.01||95.0|-1.18|-0.67|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.67|-1.18|0.010
91089900|NCT03575702|182061940|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is considered as change in mean daily urination episodes of 0,8 episodes per day|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|=|0.5595|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.38|||ANCOVA|The number of urination episodes at the initiation of therapy is used as covariate, and the therapy group is used as a factor.||"The null hypothesis is that effect of Urotol according to the assessment of mean daily urination episodes exceeds effect of Uritos.~A sample containing of 222 patients (111 per study group) is considered sufficient to prove the alternative hypothesis at the significance level 0.025% and study power 80%. Given the expected drop out rate during the treatment period, the total number of patients to be randomized is 300 (150 in each group)."||0.38||=0.5595
91089901|NCT03575702|182061941|OTHER||||||=|0.0008|||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.0008
91089902|NCT03575702|182061942|OTHER||||||=|0.0099|||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.0099
91089903|NCT03575702|182061943|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91089904|NCT03575702|182061944|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Changes in number of daily incontinence episodes - week 2||||||<0.0001
91089905|NCT03575702|182061944|OTHER||||||=|0.0236|||||||ANCOVA|Changes in number of daily incontinence episodes - week 4||||||=0.0236
91025959|NCT00586521|181934964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||paired t-test|||The maximum individual reduction in the actual number of joint bleeds after the switch to prophylactic treatment was analyzed by a paired t-test of the individual difference between prophylaxis treatment bleed compared to on-demand treatment bleeds.||||<0.001
91089906|NCT03575702|182061944|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Changes in number of daily incontinence episodes - week 8||||||<0.0001
90834005|NCT03192176|181536190|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.97||||0.0119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.63|11.61||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||11.61|1.63|0.0119
90834006|NCT03192176|181536190|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.07||||0.1474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|5.53||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||5.53|0.77|0.1474
90834007|NCT03192176|181536190|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.08||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.76|14.67||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||14.67|1.76|0.0026
90834008|NCT03192176|181536190|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.11||||0.1263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|5.51||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||5.51|0.81|0.1263
90834009|NCT03192176|181536190|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.83||||0.2327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|4.95||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||4.95|0.68|0.2327
90834010|NCT03192176|181536190|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.12||||0.1359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|5.7||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||5.70|0.79|0.1359
90834011|NCT03192176|181536190|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.35||||0.0258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|9.69||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||9.69|1.16|0.0258
91025960|NCT00586521|181934965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||paired t-test|||paired t-test (prophylaxis compared to on-demand) at 6 months of treatment.||||<0.001
91089907|NCT03575702|182061944|OTHER||||||=|0.0018|||||||ANCOVA|Changes in daytime number of daily incontinence episodes - week 2||||||=0.0018
90834012|NCT03192176|181536190|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.77||||0.0076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|15.04||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||15.04|1.51|0.0076
90834013|NCT03192176|181536190|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.36||||0.1088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|6.75||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||6.75|0.83|0.1088
90834014|NCT03192176|181536190|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.89||||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.64|14.62||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||14.62|1.64|0.0045
91089908|NCT03575702|182061944|OTHER||||||=|0.3835|||||||ANCOVA|Changes in daytime number of daily incontinence episodes - week 4||||||=0.3835
90834015|NCT03192176|181536190|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.74||||0.0493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|7.5||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||7.50|1.00|0.0493
90834016|NCT03192176|181536190|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.99||||0.0376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|8.41||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||8.41|1.06|0.0376
90834017|NCT03192176|181536190|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.53||||0.0723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|6.94||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||6.94|0.92|0.0723
91025961|NCT00586521|181934966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||paired t-test|||The Gilbert Score was the sum of 3 scores: pain (0=no pain to 3=severe pain); bleeding score (0=none to 3=3 or more major bleeds or 7 or more minor bleeds); and physical score (based on swelling, muscle atrophy; and axial deformity (at knee or ankle), range of motion, crepitus on motion, flexion contracture, instability.||||<0.001
91089909|NCT03575702|182061944|OTHER||||||=|0.0088|||||||ANCOVA|Changes in daytime number of daily incontinence episodes - week 8||||||=0.0088
91089910|NCT03575702|182061944|OTHER||||||=|0.0004|||||||ANCOVA|Changes in nighttime number of daily incontinence episodes - week 2||||||=0.0004
91089911|NCT03575702|182061944|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Changes in nighttime number of daily incontinence episodes - week 4||||||<0.0001
91089912|NCT03575702|182061944|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Changes in nighttime number of daily incontinence episodes - week 8||||||<0.0001
91089913|NCT03575702|182061945|OTHER|||||||0.0008|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0008
91089914|NCT03575702|182061946|OTHER||||||=|0.1348|||||||ANCOVA|Week 2 changes||||||=0.1348
91089915|NCT03575702|182061946|OTHER||||||=|0.3199|||||||ANCOVA|Week 4 changes||||||=0.3199
91089916|NCT03575702|182061946|OTHER||||||=|0.9537|||||||ANCOVA|Week 8 changes||||||=0.9537
91089917|NCT03575702|182061947|OTHER||||||=|0.5321|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Change week 12||||||=0.5321
91089918|NCT03575702|182061948|OTHER||||||=|0.4839|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Change week 12||||||=0.4839
91089919|NCT03575702|182061949|OTHER||||||=|0.86|||||||Chi-squared|||||||=0.86
91089920|NCT00490035|182061959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage Reduction over Placebo|6.5|||=|0.261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|16.9|||ANCOVA|||In order to control the Type I error testing was performed in sequence starting with 50 mg, then 100 mg and finally 20 mg Brivaracetam per day versus Placebo, only moving to the next test if the previous one was significant at the 5 % level.||16.9|-5.2|=0.261
91089921|NCT05559905|182061982|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.29||||0.578|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.16|0.58|||ANOVA|||Per protocol, only Panel A (prophylaxis) and Panel C (placebo) were included in the model. The mean PVL in each group and the differences in mean PVL between MK-4482 and placebo and the corresponding 2- sided 95% CI were computed based on the linear model.||0.58|-1.16|0.578
91089922|NCT05559905|182061983|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-2.69||||0.201|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.17|-0.79|||ANOVA|||Per protocol, only Panel B (treatment) and Panel C (placebo) were included in the model. For both panels, only the participants with RSV infection were included in the analysis. The mean VL-AUC in each group and the differences in mean VL-AUC between MK-4482 and placebo and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI were computed based on the linear model.||-0.79|-6.17|0.201
91089923|NCT05559905|182061989|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.62||||0.736|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.65|2.42|||ANOVA|||Per protocol, only Panel A (prophylaxis) and Panel C (placebo) were included in the model. The mean VL-AUC in each group and the differences in mean VL-AUC between MK-4482 and placebo and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI were computed based on the linear model.||2.42|-3.65|0.736
90834018|NCT03192176|181536190|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.11||||0.0396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|9.17||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||9.17|1.06|0.0396
90834019|NCT03192176|181536190|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.18||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.85|20.67||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||20.67|1.85|0.0031
90834020|NCT03192176|181536190|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.41||||0.1044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|6.96||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||6.96|0.83|0.1044
90834021|NCT03192176|181536190|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.47||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|16.75||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||16.75|1.78|0.0029
91089924|NCT05559905|182061990|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-1.93||||0.646|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.88|5.02|||ANOVA|||Per protocol, only Panel A (prophylaxis) and Panel C (placebo) were included in the model. The mean VL-AUC in each group and the differences in mean VL-AUC between MK-4482 and placebo and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI were computed based on the linear model.||5.02|-8.88|0.646
91089925|NCT05559905|182061991|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.14||||0.849|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.31|1.04|||ANOVA|||Per protocol, only Panel A (prophylaxis) and Panel C (placebo) were included in the model. The mean PVL in each group and the differences in mean PVL between MK-4482 and placebo and the corresponding 2- sided 95% CI were computed based on the linear model.||1.04|-1.31|0.849
91089926|NCT05559905|182061992|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-2.09||||0.371|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.97|1.78|||ANOVA|||Per protocol, only Panel A (prophylaxis) and Panel C (placebo) were included in the model. The TSS-AUC in each group and the differences in mean TSS-AUC between MK-4482 and placebo and the corresponding 2- sided 95% CI were computed based on the linear model.||1.78|-5.97|0.371
91089927|NCT05559905|182061993|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-1.82||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.11|1.47|||ANOVA|||Per protocol, only Panel A (prophylaxis) and Panel C (placebo) were included in the model. The TSS-AUC-CFB in each group and the differences in mean TSS-AUC-CFB between MK-4482 and placebo and the corresponding 2- sided 95% CI were computed based on the linear model.||1.47|-5.11|0.360
91089928|NCT05559905|182061994|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.46||||0.459|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.5|0.57|||ANOVA|||Per protocol, only Panel A (prophylaxis) and Panel C (placebo) were included in the model. The mean peak TSS in each group and the differences in mean peak TSS between MK-4482 and placebo and the corresponding 2- sided 95% CI was computed based on the linear model.||0.57|-1.50|0.459
91089929|NCT05559905|182061996|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percent (%)|3.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.28|24.5||||||||24.50|-18.28|
91089930|NCT05559905|182061997|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percent (%)|2.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.37|25.69||||||||25.69|-19.37|
91089931|NCT05559905|182061998|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percent (%)|-2.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.07|19.91||||||||19.91|-25.07|
90834022|NCT03192176|181536190|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.01||||0.0364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|8.45||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||8.45|1.07|0.0364
91089932|NCT05559905|182061999|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percent (%)|-16.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.77|5.64||||||||5.64|-36.77|
91089933|NCT05559905|182062000|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percent (%)|-2.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.69|19.37||||||||19.37|-25.69|
90834023|NCT03192176|181536190|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.6396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|3.37||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||3.37|0.47|0.6396
91025962|NCT00586521|181934967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.314||||||The alpha level for a significant P-value was pre-defined at 5%.|paired t-test|||"The Haemo-QoL A questionnaire measures the subject's self-assessment of disease impact on physical functioning, role functioning, worry, consequences, positive affect, and treatment concern."||||0.314
91025963|NCT01633827|181934974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
91025964|NCT01633827|181934975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.025||||0.025|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.025
91025965|NCT01633827|181934976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5
91025966|NCT01633827|181934977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5
91025967|NCT01633827|181934978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.001||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
91025968|NCT04604184|181934993|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.39||||0.3232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.08|5.3|||Regression, Logistic|includes treatment, age, severity grade and creatinine at baseline, duration of symptoms before hospitalisation as covariates||||5.30|-16.08|0.3232
91025969|NCT04604184|181934994|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-9.86||||0.1274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.54|2.82|||Regression, Logistic|includes treatment, age, severity grade and creatinine at baseline, duration of symptoms before hospitalisation as covariates||||2.82|-22.54|0.1274
91025970|NCT04604184|181934995|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.66||||0.6828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.11|15.43|||Regression, Logistic|includes treatment, age, severity grade and creatinine at baseline, duration of symptoms before hospitalisation as covariates||||15.43|-10.11|0.6828
91025971|NCT04604184|181934996|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.67||||0.0445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.99|||Regression, Cox|Covariates are treatment, age, severity grade and creatinine at baseline and duration of symptoms before hospitalization||||0.99|0.46|0.0445
91025972|NCT04604184|181934997|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.35||0.5526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.47|1.87|||ANCOVA|Fixed effects of treatment, age, severity grade and creatinine at baseline and duration of symptoms before hospitalisation as covariates|Difference = covariate adjusted BI 764198 - covariate adjusted Placebo|||1.87|-3.47|0.5526
91025973|NCT04604184|181934998|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.32||||0.0995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|11.65|||Regression, Logistic|Includes treatment, age, severity grade and creatinine at baseline, and duration of symptoms before hospitalisation as covariates||Day 15||11.65|-1.01|0.0995
91089934|NCT05559905|182062001|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.69||||0.253|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.68|0.31|||ANOVA|||Per protocol, only Panel B (treatment) and Panel C (placebo) are included in the model. For both panels, only the participants with RSV infection were included. The mean PVL in each group and the differences in mean PVL between MK-4482 and placebo and the corresponding 2- sided 95% CI were computed based on the linear model.||0.31|-1.68|0.253
91025974|NCT04604184|181934998|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|6.06||||0.1992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.19|15.31|||Regression, Logistic|Includes treatment, age, severity grade and creatinine at baseline, and duration of symptoms before hospitalisation as covariates||Day 29||15.31|-3.19|0.1992
91025975|NCT04604184|181934998|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|8.93||||0.0709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|18.62|||Regression, Logistic|Includes treatment, age, severity grade and creatinine at baseline, and duration of symptoms before hospitalisation as covariates||Day 60||18.62|-0.76|0.0709
91025976|NCT04604184|181934998|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|10.35||||0.0412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|20.28|||Regression, Logistic|Includes treatment, age, severity grade and creatinine at baseline, and duration of symptoms before hospitalisation as covariates||Day 90||20.28|0.41|0.0412
91025977|NCT03734237|181935006|EQUIVALENCE|Null Hypothesis: RR=1, Alternative hypothesis: RR not equal to 1|Risk Ratio (RR)|-26.7||||0.1412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.7|7.6|||Chi-squared|||Relative vaccine effectiveness with the outcome laboratory confirmed influenza identified via surveillance and/or abstracted from clinical records.||7.6|-73.7|0.1412
91025978|NCT03734237|181935006|EQUIVALENCE|Null Hypothesis: RR=1, Alternative hypothesis: RR not equal to 1.|Risk Ratio (RR)|-13.1||||0.4552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.4|18.2|||Chi-squared|||Relative vaccine effectiveness with the outcome laboratory confirmed influenza identified via surveillance and/or abstracted from clinical records.||18.2|-56.4|0.4552
91025979|NCT01844583|181935013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Ratio|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.35|||||Estimates for each PK parameter were obtained using a mixed effects model of log (PK parameter) with fixed terms for the esomeprazole effect and random terms for participants within sequence.|||1.35|0.97|
91025980|NCT01844583|181935014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Ratio|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.08|1.45|||||Estimates for each PK parameter were obtained using a mixed effects model of log (PK parameter) with fixed terms for the esomeprazole effect and random terms for participants within sequence.|||1.45|1.08|
91025981|NCT01844583|181935015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Ratio|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.07|1.53|||||Estimates for each PK parameter were obtained using a mixed effects model of log (PK parameter) with fixed terms for the esomeprazole effect and random terms for participants within sequence.|||1.53|1.07|
91089935|NCT05559905|182062002|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.72||||0.1708||95.0|0.83|3.57|||Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|||3.57|0.83|0.1708
90834024|NCT03192176|181536190|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.4378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|3.91||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||3.91|0.55|0.4378
90834025|NCT03192176|181536190|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.95||||0.2045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|5.44||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||5.44|0.70|0.2045
91089936|NCT05559905|182062003|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-5.93||||0.257|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.61|2.75|||ANOVA|||Per protocol, only Panel B (treatment) and Panel C (placebo) are included in the model. For both panels, only the participants with RSV infection were included in the analysis. The mean VL-AUC in each group and the differences in mean VL-AUC between MK-4482 and placebo and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI were computed based on the linear model.||2.75|-14.61|0.257
91025982|NCT01844583|181935018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|1.26|||||Estimates for each PK parameter were obtained using a mixed effects model of log (PK parameter) with fixed terms for the esomeprazole effect and random terms for participants within sequence.|||1.26|0.84|
90834026|NCT03192176|181536190|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.54||||0.0958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|7.62||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||7.62|0.85|0.0958
91025983|NCT01844583|181935019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Ratio|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.41|0.62|||||Estimates for each PK parameter were obtained using a mixed effects model of log (PK parameter) with fixed terms for the esomeprazole effect and random terms for participants within sequence.|||0.62|0.41|
90834027|NCT03192176|181536190|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|4.85||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||4.85|0.60|0.3210
90834028|NCT03192176|181536190|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.75||||0.0199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|11.39||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||11.39|1.23|0.0199
90834029|NCT03192176|181536190|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.26||||0.1219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|6.36||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||6.36|0.80|0.1219
90834030|NCT03192176|181536190|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72||||0.2975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|4.76||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||4.76|0.62|0.2975
90834031|NCT03192176|181536190|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.75||||0.2763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|4.8||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||4.80|0.64|0.2763
90834032|NCT03192176|181536190|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.33||||0.1235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|6.82||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||6.82|0.79|0.1235
90834033|NCT03192176|181536190|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.24||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|14.19||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||14.19|1.27|0.0190
90834034|NCT03192176|181536190|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.98||||0.2213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|5.93||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||5.93|0.66|0.2213
90834035|NCT03192176|181536190|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.88||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.71|20.25||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||20.25|1.71|0.0050
91025984|NCT01844583|181935020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Ratio|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.41|0.7|||||Estimates for each PK parameter were obtained using a mixed effects model of log (PK parameter) with fixed terms for the esomeprazole effect and random terms for participants within sequence.|||0.70|0.41|
91089937|NCT05559905|182062004|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.58||||0.453|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.88|0.71|||ANOVA|||Per protocol, only Panel B (treatment) and Panel C (placebo) are included in the model. For both panels, only the participants with RSV infection were included in the analysis. The mean PVL in each group and the differences in mean PVL between MK-4482 and placebo and the corresponding 2- sided 95% CI were computed based on the linear model.||0.71|-1.88|0.453
91089938|NCT05559905|182062005|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.9121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|2.51|||Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|||2.51|0.44|0.9121
90834036|NCT03192176|181536190|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.39||||0.1053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|6.85||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||6.85|0.83|0.1053
90834037|NCT03192176|181536190|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.39||||0.0991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|6.72||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||6.72|0.85|0.0991
91025985|NCT01625377|181935026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.34|-7.34|||ANCOVA|||||-7.34|-21.34|<0.0001
91089939|NCT05559905|182062006|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-1.83||||0.377|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.25|1.6|||ANOVA|||Per protocol, only Panel B (treatment) and Panel C (placebo) were included in the model. The TSS-AUC in each group and the differences in mean TSS-AUC between MK-4482 and placebo and the corresponding 2- sided 95% CI were computed based on the linear model.||1.60|-5.25|0.377
91089940|NCT05559905|182062007|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.13||||0.958|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.28|4.02|||ANOVA|||Per protocol, only Panel B (treatment) and Panel C (placebo) were included in the model. The TSS-AUC-CFB in each group and the differences in mean TSS-AUC-CFB between MK-4482 and placebo and the corresponding 2- sided 95% CI were computed based on the linear model.||4.02|-4.28|0.958
91089941|NCT05559905|182062008|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.62||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.21|0.98|||ANOVA|||Per protocol, only Panel B (treatment) and Panel C (placebo) are included in the model. For both panels, only the participants with RSV infection were included in the analysis. The mean peak TSS in each group and the differences in mean peak TSS between MK-4482 and placebo and the corresponding 2- sided 95% CI was computed based on the linear model.||0.98|-2.21|0.520
90834038|NCT03192176|181536190|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.93||||0.2056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|5.32||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||5.32|0.70|0.2056
90834039|NCT03192176|181536190|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.17||||0.0407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|9.57||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||9.57|1.05|0.0407
91089942|NCT05559905|182062010|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.24||||0.0459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|5.07|||Log Rank|Two-sided p-value based on log-rank test.|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|||5.07|0.99|0.0459
91089943|NCT03258593|182062037|OTHER|Location Tests (Wilcoxon Rank sum test)|Median Difference (Net)|67.5||||0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.0|75.0||Unadjusted p-value|Wilcoxon Rank sum test|||||75|25|0.202
91089944|NCT03258593|182062037|OTHER|Location Tests (Wilcoxon Rank sum test)|Median Difference (Net)|114.0||||0.667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.9|160.3||Unadjusted p-value|Wilcoxon Rank sum test|||||160.3|67.9|0.667
91089945|NCT03258593|182062037|OTHER|Location Tests (Wilcoxon Rank sum test)|Median Difference (Net)|44.1||||0.463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.0|75.0|||Wilcoxon Rank sum test|||||75|25|0.463
91089946|NCT03258593|182062039|OTHER|Location test (Rank sum based i.e., Wilcoxon test)|Median Difference (Net)|-17.75||||0.863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-211.6|170.3|||Wilcoxon Rank sum test||Median change; Signed Rank (S/R) of post-treatment PDL-1 levels minus baseline.|||170.3|-211.6|0.863
91089947|NCT03258593|182062039|OTHER|Location test (Rank sum based i.e., Wilcoxon test)|Median Difference (Net)|114.1||||0.666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.9|160.3|||Wilcoxon Rank sum test||Median change; Signed Rank (S/R) of post-treatment PDL-1 levels minus baseline.|||160.3|67.9|0.666
91089948|NCT03258593|182062039|OTHER|Location test (Rank sum based i.e., Wilcoxon test)|Median Difference (Net)|21.3||||0.949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-203.9|269.9|||Wilcoxon Rank sum test||Median change; Signed Rank (S/R) of post-treatment PDL-1 levels minus baseline.|||269.9|-203.9|0.949
91089949|NCT03258593|182062041|OTHER|Other: median difference|Median Difference (Net)|4.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|38.0||Hochberg adjustment may be used.|Paired samples Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Interferon Gamma (IFN-γ) at 3 weeks compared to their respective baseline values.||38.0|1.7|<0.001
91089950|NCT03258593|182062041|OTHER|Other: median difference|Median Difference (Net)|3.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|11.25||Hochberg adjustment may be used.|Paired samples Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Interferon Gamma (IFN-γ) at 5 weeks compared to their respective baseline values.||11.25|1.5|<0.001
91089951|NCT03258593|182062041|OTHER|Other: median difference|Median Difference (Net)|0.4|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.7||Hochberg adjustment may be used.|Paired samples Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Tumor Necrosis Factor Alpha (TNF-α) at 3 weeks compared to their respective baseline values.||0.7|0.1|<0.05
91089952|NCT03258593|182062041|OTHER|Other: median difference|Median Difference (Net)|0.24||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.96||Hochberg adjustment may be used.|Paired samples Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Tumor Necrosis Factor Alpha (TNF-α ) at 5 weeks compared to their respective baseline values.||0.96|-0.01|0.052
90834040|NCT03192176|181536190|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.47||||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.63|18.3||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||18.30|1.63|0.0059
90834041|NCT03192176|181536190|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.85||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|12.3||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||12.30|1.20|0.0230
90834042|NCT03192176|181536190|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.36||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.14|25.29||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||25.29|2.14|0.0015
91089953|NCT03258593|182062041|OTHER|Other: median difference|Median Difference (Net)|0.39||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|4.61||Hochberg adjustment may be used.|Paired samples Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Interleukin 6 (IL-6) at 3 weeks as compared to their respective baseline values.||4.61|-0.03|0.055
91089954|NCT03258593|182062041|OTHER|Other: median difference|Median Difference (Net)|0.54||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|1.96|||Paired samples Wilcoxon rank sum test|Hochberg adjustment may be used.||Interleukin 6 (IL-6) at 5 weeks as compared to their respective baseline values.||1.96|-0.06|0.06
91089955|NCT03258593|182062041|OTHER|Other: median difference|Median Difference (Net)|0.73||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|1.62||Hochberg adjustment may be used.|Paired samples Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Interleukin 8 (IL-8) at 3 weeks as compared to their respective baseline values.||1.62|-1.63|0.420
91089956|NCT03258593|182062041|OTHER|Other: median difference|Median Difference (Net)|-0.39||||0.733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.315|1.31||Hochberg adjustment may be used.|Paired samples Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Interleukin 8 (IL-8) at 5 weeks as compared to their respective baseline values.||1.31|-1.315|0.733
91089957|NCT03258593|182062041|OTHER|Other: median difference|Median Difference (Net)|0.12||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.21||Hochberg adjustment may be used.|Paired samples Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Interleukin 10 (IL-10) at 3 weeks as compared to their respective baseline values.||0.21|0.04|0.010
90894916|NCT01218126|181655148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.98||||0.915||95.0|0.64|1.5|||Negative Binomial regression model|Covariates of treatment, group, smoking status, history of exacerbations and region, with logarithm of time on treatment as an offset variable.|Rate ratio= (Rate of exacerbation in Losmapimod 7.5 mg arm) / (Rate of exacerbation in placebo arm)|Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg||1.50|0.64|0.915
90894917|NCT01218126|181655148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.74||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.18|||Negative Binomial regression model|Covariates of treatment, group, smoking status, history of exacerbations and region, with logarithm of time on treatment as an offset variable.|Rate ratio= (Rate of exacerbation in Losmapimod 15 mg arm) / (Rate of exacerbation in placebo arm)|Placebo versus Losmapimod 15 mg||1.18|0.47|0.210
90894918|NCT05380947|181655149|OTHER|The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale including effects for sequence, subjects nested within sequences, period, and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|Adjusted geometric means ratio (T1/R)|135.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.7|183.6|||||Unit of adjusted geometric means ratio (T1/R) is %. Unit of 90% Confidence Interval is %. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 39.7%|||183.6|99.7|
90894919|NCT05380947|181655149|OTHER|The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale including effects for sequence, subjects nested within sequences, period, and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|Adjusted geometric means ratio (T2/T1)|74.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|67.6|81.6|||||Unit of adjusted geometric means ratio (T2/T1) is %. Unit of 90% Confidence Interval is %. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 9.8%|||81.6|67.6|
90894920|NCT05380947|181655149|OTHER|The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale including effects for sequence, subjects nested within sequences, period, and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|Adjusted geometric means ratio (T3/T1)|97.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.8|110.0|||||Unit of adjusted geometric means ratio (T3/T1) is %. Unit of 90% Confidence Interval is %. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 13.8%|||110.0|85.8|
91089958|NCT03258593|182062041|OTHER|Other: median difference|Median Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.4||Hochberg adjustment may be used.|Paired samples Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Interleukin 10 (IL-10) at 5 weeks as compared to their respective baseline values.||0.40|0.04|0.014
91089959|NCT03258593|182062043|OTHER|One curve estimated in this cohort. Not compared to any other curves.|Kaplan-Meier product-limit|13.2|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|2.5|97.5||Unadjusted p-value|Kaplan-Meier product-limit estimates|||Disease free survival time was evaluated with the product-limit estimator by Kaplan-Meier test.||97.5|2.5|
90834043|NCT03192176|181536190|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.45||||0.0248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|10.16||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||10.16|1.17|0.0248
90834044|NCT03192176|181536190|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.37||||0.1091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|6.83||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||6.83|0.82|0.1091
90894921|NCT05380947|181655150|OTHER|The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale including effects for sequence, subjects nested within sequences, period, and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|Adjusted geometric means ratio (T1/R)|139.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.7|221.3|||||Unit of adjusted geometric means ratio (T1/R) is %. Unit of 90% Confidence Interval is %. Intra-individual coefficient of variation (gCV) = 62.3%|||221.3|87.7|
90894922|NCT05380947|181655150|OTHER|The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale including effects for sequence, subjects nested within sequences, period, and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|Adjusted geometric means ratio (T2/T1)|53.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|40.5|70.8|||||Unit of adjusted geometric means ratio (T2/T1) is %. Unit of 90% Confidence Interval is %. Intra-individual coefficient of variation (gCV) = 31.0%|||70.8|40.5|
90958915|NCT04874415|181797844|SUPERIORITY|Main effects of each intervention factor were estimated using generalized linear models with log link, including all prespecified two-way interactions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.003|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|3.9|||||Once daily text message is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|||3.9|-3.9|
91089960|NCT05457257|182062058|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19||||0.726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|3.45||The 2-sided nominal p-values were calculated using the log-rank test stratified by the same variables selected in the primary pooling strategy, using the Breslow method for handling ties.|Log Rank||The Hazard ratio and CI were calculated using a Cox Proportional Hazards model adjusted for the variables. The Efron approach was used for handling ties. A hazard ratio \<1 favours Olaparib 300 mg bd.|The explanation of statistical method||3.45|0.46|0.726
91089961|NCT05457257|182062059|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.4||||0.498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|59.66||A Fisher's exact test using mid p-values was used.|Regression, Logistic||Objective response rate compared using logistic regression adjusting for previous taxane use as a covariate. An odds ratio \>1 favours Olaparib 300 mg bd. CI calculated using profile likelihood method.|The explanation of statistical method||59.66|0.20|0.498
91089962|NCT05457257|182062060|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.66||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|7.48||The 2-sided nominal p-values were calculated using the log-rank test stratified by the same covariates and using the Breslow method for handling ties.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio and CI were calculated using a Cox Proportional Hazards model with the Efron approach being used for handling ties, adjusting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 favours Olaparib 300 mg bd.|The explanation of statistical method||7.48|0.50|0.440
90834045|NCT03192176|181536190|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.3054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|4.75||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||4.75|0.61|0.3054
91089963|NCT05457257|182062062|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.88||The 2-sided nominal p-value was calculated using the log-rank test stratified by the same variables selected in the primary pooling strategy, using the Breslow method for handling ties.|Log Rank||The Hazard ratio and CI were calculated using a Cox Proportional Hazards model adjusted for the variables selected in the primary pooling strategy: none. The Efron approach was used for handling ties. A hazard ratio \<1 favours Olaparib 300 mg bd.|The explanation of statistical method||2.88|0.20|0.604
91089964|NCT05457257|182062065|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|6.24||The 2-sided nominal p-values were calculated using the log-rank test stratified by the same covariates and using the Breslow method for handling ties.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio and CI were calculated using a Cox Proportional Hazards model with the Efron approach being used for handling ties, adjusting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 favours Olaparib 300 mg bd.|The explanation of statistical method||6.24|0.19|0.889
91089965|NCT00359203|182062067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.43||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.96|||Log Rank|The risk of syncope recurrence was based on HR obtained by means of the univarate Cox model, with the use of the Breslow method for ties.|numerator=pacemaker ON denominator=pacemaker OFF|The analysis was designed to have 80% power to detect a 1-year absolute reduction of 25% in the risk of recurrence of first syncope in the Pm ON arm applying a log-rank test with a 2-sided significance level of 0.05. This analysis was planned as a comparison of the cumulative risk of syncope between the 2 groups with the use of a log-rank test.||0.96|0.19|0.04
91089966|NCT00359203|182062067|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The analysis was designed to have 80% power to detect a 1-year absolute reduction of 25% in the risk of recurrence of first syncope in the treatment arm applying a log-rank test with a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.43||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.96||For the final analysis the threshold of statistical significance was set at 0.04.|Log Rank||Numerator=pacemaker ON denominator=pacemaker OFF|||0.96|0.19|0.039
91089967|NCT02131064|182062068|SUPERIORITY||Difference in tpCR rate|-11.71||||0.0126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.95|-2.48||Threshold for significance at 5%|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Chi-Square|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Chi-square test was used and stratified by local hormone receptor status and clinical stage at presentation.||95% CI for the difference in tPCR rates between treatment arms was calculated using normal approximation.||-2.48|-20.95|0.0126
91089968|NCT02131064|182062069|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.21||||0.7557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|3.96|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Chi-Square Test|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Chi-square test was used and stratified by local hormone receptor status and clinical stage at presentation.||||3.96|0.37|0.7557
91089969|NCT02131064|182062070|SUPERIORITY||Difference in BCS rate|-10.84||||0.0228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.21|-1.47|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Chi-Square|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Chi-square test was used and stratified by local hormone receptor status and clinical stage at presentation.||95% CI for the difference in BCS rate between treatment arms was calculated using normal approximation.||-1.47|-20.21|0.0228
91089970|NCT02131064|182062071|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.61||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|4.98|||Log Rank|The Log Rank was used and stratified by local hormone receptor status and clinical stage at presentation.||||4.98|1.36|0.0027
90834046|NCT03192176|181536190|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.48||||0.1129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|7.61||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||7.61|0.81|0.1129
91089971|NCT02131064|182062072|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|2.4||||||||2.40|0.52|
91089972|NCT02131064|182062075|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Deterioration|-24.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.98|-15.19||||||95% CI for the difference in clinically meaningful deterioration in GHS/QoL score between treatment arms was calculated using normal approximation.||-15.19|-33.98|
91089973|NCT02131064|182062076|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.78|||Log Rank|Log Rank was used and stratified by local hormone receptor status and clinical stage at presentation.||Stratified cox proportional hazards regression model was used to estimate Hazard Ratio and CI. Stratification by hormonal receptor status and clinical stage at presentation (stratification factors).||0.78|0.46|0.0001
90834047|NCT03192176|181536190|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.28||||0.0432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|10.37||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||10.37|1.04|0.0432
90834048|NCT03192176|181536190|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.77||||0.0315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|12.6||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||12.60|1.13|0.0315
91089974|NCT02131064|182062087|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Deterioration|-16.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.32|-6.94||||||This is the statistical analysis for cognitive functioning. 95% CI for the difference in clinically meaningful deterioration in function subscales between treatment arms was calculated using normal approximation.||-6.94|-26.32|
91089975|NCT02131064|182062087|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Deterioration|-32.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.74|-23.34||||||This is the statistical analysis for physical functioning. 95% CI for the difference in clinically meaningful deterioration in function subscales between treatment arms was calculated using normal approximation.||-23.34|-41.74|
91089976|NCT02131064|182062087|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Deterioration|-28.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.95|-19.8||||||This is the statistical analysis for role functioning. 95% CI for the difference in clinically meaningful deterioration in function subscales between treatment arms was calculated using normal approximation.||-19.80|-37.95|
91089977|NCT02554760|182062101|OTHER||success proportion|84.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.4|92.3|||Catagorical tabulation|||||92.3|60.4|
91089978|NCT02554760|182062101|OTHER||success proportion|78.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.4|93.9||||||||93.9|54.4|
91089979|NCT00593918|182062104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed random effects model was used both unadjusted and adjustment for relevant co-variates obtained from the literature.||||||0.04
91089980|NCT00593918|182062105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14||95.0||||Analysis was per protocol based on the number of children enrolled by genotype and completed nasal washes at first visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed random effects model was used both unadjusted and adjustment for relevant co-variates obtained from the literature.||||||0.14
91025986|NCT05431153|181935045|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|98.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.0|103.91|||||Values were back-transformed from the log scale. The model was a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.|||103.91|94.00|
91025987|NCT05431153|181935045|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|98.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.88|102.35|||||Values were back-transformed from the log scale. The model was a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.|||102.35|93.88|
91025988|NCT05431153|181935045|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|98.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.79|105.73|||||Values were back-transformed from the log scale. The model was a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.|||105.73|91.79|
91025989|NCT05431153|181935046|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|96.35|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.48|106.12|||||Values were back-transformed from the log scale. The model was a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.|||106.12|87.48|
91025990|NCT05431153|181935046|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|93.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.65|102.0|||||Values were back-transformed from the log scale. The model was a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.|||102.00|85.65|
91025991|NCT05431153|181935046|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|98.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.86|106.9|||||Values were back-transformed from the log scale. The model was a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.|||106.90|89.86|
91025992|NCT05431153|181935047|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|111.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.55|124.93|||||Values were back-transformed from the log scale. The model was a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.|||124.93|99.55|
91025993|NCT05431153|181935047|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|98.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.68|106.73|||||Values were back-transformed from the log scale. The model was a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.|||106.73|90.68|
91025994|NCT05431153|181935048|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|111.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.46|128.93|||||Values were back-transformed from the log scale. The model was a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.|||128.93|96.46|
91089981|NCT00871234|182062117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.03||||0.36||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank|||||||0.36
91089982|NCT00689338|182062179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||estimate of survival|53.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.9|60.9|||Kaplan-Meier|||Kaplan-Meier estimate of survival at Day 90 (survivor function).||60.9|45.9|
90834049|NCT03192176|181536190|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.26||||0.0147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|13.64||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||13.64|1.33|0.0147
90957181|NCT00122460|181793845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.797||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.644|0.986|||Stratified Log Rank|||"The primary analysis tested the equality of OS between treatment groups applying a 2-sided stratified log-rank test (α=5%), taking into account the strata used for randomization (previous chemotherapy (CTX) \[no vs. yes\] and Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) \[\<80 vs. ≥80\]).~Median overall survival was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. The Hazard Ratio (HR) of cetuximab + CTX over CTX alone was calculated using the Cox proportional hazards model stratified by randomization strata."||0.986|0.644|0.036
91025995|NCT05431153|181935048|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|81.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.06|88.26|||||Values were back-transformed from the log scale. The model was a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.|||88.26|75.06|
91025996|NCT00678392|181935054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.665|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.544|0.812||P-value was obtained from 1-sided log rank test, stratified by eastern cooperative oncology group (ECOG) and prior treatment. One-sided log-rank test at 0.025 level of significance was used to compare PFS between the 2 treatment arms.|Log Rank|||||0.812|0.544|<0.0001
91089983|NCT00078286|182062181|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|\*Power analysis already provided.|Difference in mean change score|-0.3||||0.89||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Significance was tested at p=.05.||A hierarchical mixed model was used, analyzing the fixed effects of treatment, the natural log of time, natural log of time squared, the interactions of time and time squared with treatment and site, as well as the random effects of patient, patient-by-time, and square of patient-by-time.||||0.89
91025997|NCT00678392|181935055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.969||||0.3744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.174|||Log Rank|P-value was obtained from a 1-sided log-rank test of treatment stratified by ECOG performance status and prior treatment.||||1.174|0.800|0.3744
91025998|NCT00678392|181935056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.056||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.408|3.003|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was obtained from a 1-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test of treatment stratified by ECOG performance status and prior treatment.||||3.003|1.408|0.0001
91025999|NCT00782509|181935089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.151|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001||95.0|0.116|0.185|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.185|0.116|<0.0001
91026000|NCT00782509|181935089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.143|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001||95.0|0.11|0.177|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.177|0.110|<0.0001
90894923|NCT05380947|181655150|OTHER|The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale including effects for sequence, subjects nested within sequences, period, and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|Adjusted geometric means ratio (T3/T1)|87.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|66.8|113.2|||||Unit of adjusted geometric means ratio (T3/T1) is %. Unit of 90% Confidence Interval is %. Intra-individual coefficient of variation (gCV) = 30.5%|||113.2|66.8|
90894924|NCT05380947|181655151|OTHER|The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale including effects for sequence, subjects nested within sequences, period, and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|Adjusted geometric means ratio (T1/R)|129.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.2|173.4|||||Unit of adjusted geometric means ratio (T1/R) is %. Unit of 90% Confidence Interval is %. Intra-individual coefficient of variation (gCV) =36.6%|||173.4|96.2|
90894925|NCT05380947|181655151|OTHER|The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale including effects for sequence, subjects nested within sequences, period, and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|Adjusted geometric means ratio (T2/T1)|74.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|68.6|81.7|||||Unit of adjusted geometric means ratio (T2/T1) is %. Unit of 90% Confidence Interval is %. Intra-individual coefficient of variation (gCV) = 9.0%|||81.7|68.6|
90894926|NCT05380947|181655151|OTHER|The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale including effects for sequence, subjects nested within sequences, period, and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|Adjusted geometric means ratio (T3/T1)|96.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.3|110.2|||||Unit of adjusted geometric means ratio (T3/T1) is %. Unit of 90% Confidence Interval is %. Intra-individual coefficient of variation (gCV) = 14.2%|||110.2|85.3|
90894927|NCT01563536|181655162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Maximal Decrease)|-1.5||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.81|-0.13||Pre-specified 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with the baseline log10 HCV RNA values as a covariate and with an effect for treatment arm.||||-0.13|-2.81|0.035
90894928|NCT01860703|181655164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.02|5.01||||||||5.01|1.02|
90894929|NCT01860703|181655170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.26|7.19||||||||7.19|3.26|
90894930|NCT01860703|181655173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|13.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|11.1|15.75||||||||15.75|11.10|
90894931|NCT02532556|181655176|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxan signed-rank test|||||||<0.05
90894932|NCT02532556|181655177|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxan signed-rank test|||||||<0.05
90894933|NCT00538590|181655191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: post-operative intraocular pressure change in ologen group is equal to that in Mitomycin-C group.||||0.95
90894934|NCT00538590|181655193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: post-operative intraocular pressure change in ologen group is equal to that in Mitomycin-C group.||||1.00
90894935|NCT00538590|181655194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: post-operative intraocular pressure change in ologen group is equal to that in Mitomycin-C group.||||0.40
90958916|NCT04874415|181797844|SUPERIORITY|Main effects of each intervention factor were estimated using generalized linear models with log link, including all prespecified two-way interactions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.002|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|2.6|||||Fixed Step Count Goal is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|||2.6|-2.6|
91026001|NCT00782509|181935090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.047|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.0116||95.0|0.011|0.084|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.084|0.011|0.0116
91026002|NCT00782509|181935090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.0095||95.0|0.012|0.085|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.085|0.012|0.0095
90894936|NCT00538590|181655195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.91||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: post-operative intraocular pressure change in ologen group is equal to that in Mitomycin-C group.||||0.91
91026003|NCT00782509|181935091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027|<|0.0001||95.0|0.057|0.162|||ANCOVA|Treatment, tiotropium stratum and baseline as fixed effects|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.162|0.057|<0.0001
91026004|NCT00782509|181935091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.089|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.0011||95.0|0.036|0.143|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, tiotropium stratum and baseline as fixed effects|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.143|0.036|0.0011
91026005|NCT00782509|181935092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.164|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001||95.0|0.131|0.197|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.197|0.131|<0.0001
91026006|NCT00782509|181935092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.171|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001||95.0|0.138|0.204|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.204|0.138|<0.0001
90894937|NCT03184792|181655221|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.5|||<|0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.6|12.4|||ANOVA|||||12.4|6.6|<0.000
90894938|NCT03184792|181655221|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|10.4||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|17.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||17.0|3.7|0.010
90894939|NCT03184792|181655222|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
90894940|NCT00313820|181655228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.578||95.0|-0.7|0.4|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and country as factors and baseline pain score as covariate.||Modelled Results: Endpoint Mean Pain Score Pregabalin vs Placebo||0.4|-0.7|0.578
90894941|NCT00313820|181655228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.294||95.0||||Interaction p-value based on adding interaction term to the main model.|ANCOVA|||Modelled Results: Treatment by country interaction||||0.294
90894942|NCT00313820|181655229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.161||95.0|-0.8|0.1||Estimated from a repeated measures linear mixed model with treatment, week, country and treatment by week interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1 Modelled Results||0.1|-0.8|0.161
90894943|NCT00313820|181655229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.062||95.0|-1.0|0.0||Estimated from a repeated measures linear mixed model with treatment, week, country and treatment by week interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2 Modelled Results||0.0|-1.0|0.062
90894944|NCT00313820|181655229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.024||95.0|-1.1|-0.1||Estimated from a repeated measures linear mixed model with treatment, week, country and treatment by week interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 Modelled Results||-0.1|-1.1|0.024
90894945|NCT00313820|181655229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.026||95.0|-1.1|-0.1||Estimated from a repeated measures linear mixed model with treatment, week, country and treatment by week interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6 Modelled Results||-0.1|-1.1|0.026
90894946|NCT00313820|181655229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.105||95.0|-0.9|0.1||Estimated from a repeated measures linear mixed model with treatment, week, country and treatment by week interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 9 Modelled Results||0.1|-0.9|0.105
90894947|NCT00313820|181655229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.592||95.0|-0.6|0.4||Estimated from a repeated measures linear mixed model with treatment, week, country and treatment by week interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12 Modelled Results||0.4|-0.6|0.592
90894948|NCT00313820|181655230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.087||95.0||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test comparing pregabalin to placebo adjusted for country under the null hypothesis of no treatment difference.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||30% Responders||||0.087
90834050|NCT03192176|181536190|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.18||||0.0405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|9.59||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||9.59|1.05|0.0405
90834051|NCT03192176|181536190|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.5238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.93||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||3.93|0.50|0.5238
90894949|NCT00313820|181655231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.622||95.0||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test comparing pregabalin to placebo adjusted for country under the null hypothesis of no treatment difference.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||50% Responders||||0.622
90894950|NCT00313820|181655232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.027||95.0|-1.0|-0.1||Estimated from a repeated measures linear mixed model with treatment, week, country and treatment by week interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1; Modelled Results||-0.1|-1.0|0.027
90894951|NCT00313820|181655232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.038||95.0|-1.0|0.0||Estimated from a repeated measures linear mixed model with treatment, week, country and treatment by week interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2; Modelled Results||-0.0|-1.0|0.038
90894952|NCT00313820|181655232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.004||95.0|-1.2|-0.2||Estimated from a repeated measures linear mixed model with treatment, week, country and treatment by week interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3; Modelled Results||-0.2|-1.2|0.004
90894953|NCT00313820|181655232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.005||95.0|-1.1|-0.2||Estimated from a repeated measures linear mixed model with treatment, week, country and treatment by week interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6; Modelled Results||-0.2|-1.1|0.005
90894954|NCT00313820|181655232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.078||95.0|-0.9|0.0||Estimated from a repeated measures linear mixed model with treatment, week, country and treatment by week interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 9; Modelled Results||0.0|-0.9|0.078
90894955|NCT00313820|181655232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.663||95.0|-0.6|0.4||Estimated from a repeated measures linear mixed model with treatment, week, country and treatment by week interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12; Modelled Results||0.4|-0.6|0.663
91089984|NCT00078286|182062182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.08||||0.78||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Tests for differences of proportions were used to examine the composite cardiovascular status outcome at the end of acute treatment. Chi-square tests were used to test for overall treatment differences, with a Mantel Haenszel test performed to examine treatment differences when controlling for clinical site. The primary analyses were conducted on the tri-level cardiovascular status outcome.||||.78
90834052|NCT03192176|181536190|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73||||0.306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|4.97||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||4.97|0.60|0.3060
91026007|NCT00782509|181935093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.163|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001||95.0|0.13|0.197|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.197|0.130|<0.0001
91089985|NCT00729521|182062242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio|0.92|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|0.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Effects Poisson Regression|Comparison group is the control arm.|||0.95|0.88|<0.05
91026008|NCT00782509|181935093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.152|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001||95.0|0.119|0.186|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.186|0.119|<0.0001
91026009|NCT00782509|181935094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.169|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001||95.0|0.135|0.203|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.203|0.135|<0.0001
91089986|NCT00729521|182062242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incident Rate Ratio|0.91|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|0.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Effected Poisson Model Regression|Comparison group is the control arm.|||0.94|0.88|<.05
90834053|NCT03192176|181536190|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.64||||0.3747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|4.86||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||4.86|0.55|0.3747
90834054|NCT03192176|181536190|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.49||||0.0443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|11.8||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||11.80|1.03|0.0443
90834055|NCT03192176|181536190|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.49||||0.1269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|8.06||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||8.06|0.77|0.1269
90834056|NCT03192176|181536190|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.15||||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.49|17.13||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||17.13|1.49|0.0095
91026010|NCT00782509|181935094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.161|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001||95.0|0.127|0.195|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.195|0.127|<0.0001
90834057|NCT03192176|181536190|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.34||||0.1254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|6.94||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||6.94|0.79|0.1254
90834058|NCT03192176|181536190|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.66||||0.0402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|12.63||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||12.63|1.06|0.0402
91033009|NCT02728102|181951668|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of proportions of patients without Minimal Residual Disease between vaccine vs. non- vaccine arms||||0.80
91033010|NCT03834870|181951672|OTHER||Percentage of enrolled from eligible|84.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|81.98|86.1||||||||86.10|81.98|
91033011|NCT03834870|181951673|OTHER||Percentage of enrolled from eligible|99.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.4|99.6||||||||99.60|98.40|
91033012|NCT01544127|181951693|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.12||A priori, analyses were proposed to be one-sided, with p set at 0.05.|Zero-Inflated Poisson|Analysis adjusted for severity of worst TBI experience and used a robust standard error that was clustered on participants.|OR was calculated for number of participants with suicidal ideation. Analyses were one-sided, but two-sided confidence intervals for the OR are reported.|"MI-SI + TAU and MI-SI-R + TAU vs. TAU Alone~A hurdle model was used to examine the effect of the experimental interventions on the presence of suicidal ideation and the severity of suicidal ideation among those with it. These analyses examined the presence of suicidal ideation in the combined MI-SI + TAU and MI-SI-R + TAU treatment group."||1.12|0.31|.054
91033013|NCT01544127|181951693|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.4||A priori, analyses were proposed as one-sided, with p set at 0.05.|Zero-Inflated Poisson|Analysis adjusted for severity of worst TBI experience and used a robust standard error that was clustered on participants.|OR was calculated for number of participants with suicidal ideation. Analyses were one-sided, but two-sided confidence intervals for the OR are reported.|MI-SI+TAU vs. TAU Alone||1.40|0.26|0.12
91033014|NCT01544127|181951693|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.24||A priori, analyses were proposed as one-sided, with p set at 0.05.|Zero-Inflated Poisson|Analysis adjusted for severity of worst TBI experience and used a robust standard error that was clustered on participants.|OR was calculated for number of participants with suicidal ideation. Analyses were one-sided, but two-sided confidence intervals for the OR are reported.|MI-SI-R + TAU vs. TAU Alone||1.24|0.28|0.08
91033015|NCT01544127|181951694|SUPERIORITY||Beta|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.3|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori, analyses were proposed to be one-sided, with p set at 0.05.|Zero-Inflated Poisson|A robust standard error clustered on participants was used.||"MI-SI + TAU vs. MI-SI-R + TAU vs. TAU Alone~A hurdle model was used to examine the effect of the experimental interventions on the presence/absence of suicidal ideation and the severity of suicidal ideation among those with it. These analyses examined the severity of suicidal ideation among participants with suicidal ideation in the combined MI-SI + TAU and MI-SI-R + TAU treatment group."||||0.30
90834059|NCT03192176|181536190|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.59||||0.4547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|5.42||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||5.42|0.47|0.4547
90834060|NCT03192176|181536190|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.4008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|5.99||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||5.99|0.49|0.4008
90834061|NCT03192176|181536190|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.55||||0.1535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|9.22||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||9.22|0.71|0.1535
90834062|NCT03192176|181536190|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.19||||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.79|28.95||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||28.95|1.79|0.0055
90834063|NCT03192176|181536190|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.19||||0.2116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|7.5||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||7.50|0.64|0.2116
90834064|NCT03192176|181536190|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.34||||0.1668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|7.83||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||7.83|0.70|0.1668
90834065|NCT03192176|181536190|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.32||||0.1824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|7.98||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||7.98|0.67|0.1824
90834066|NCT03192176|181536190|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|2.9||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||2.90|0.25|0.7970
90834067|NCT03192176|181536190|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78||||0.7065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|2.85||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||2.85|0.21|0.7065
90834068|NCT03192176|181536190|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.9126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|3.93||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||3.93|0.29|0.9126
90834069|NCT03192176|181536190|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.82||||0.1282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|10.7||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||10.70|0.74|0.1282
90834070|NCT03192176|181536190|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.03||||0.2661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|7.04||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||7.04|0.58|0.2661
90834071|NCT03192176|181536190|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.7457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|4.09||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||4.09|0.36|0.7457
90834072|NCT03192176|181536190|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73||||0.4095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|6.41||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||6.41|0.47|0.4095
90834073|NCT03192176|181536190|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.9571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|3.77||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||3.77|0.28|0.9571
90834074|NCT03192176|181536190|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.8827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|3.59||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||3.59|0.23|0.8827
90894956|NCT00313820|181655232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.627||95.0|-0.6|0.4||Estimated from a repeated measures linear mixed model with treatment, week, country and treatment by week interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Endpoint \[Week 12 or ET\]; Modelled Results||0.4|-0.6|0.627
90894957|NCT00313820|181655233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.05||0.741||95.0|-7.0|5.0||Estimated from ANCOVA (general linear model) with treatment and country as factors and baseline value as a covariate|ANCOVA|||Modelled Results||5.0|-7.0|0.741
90894958|NCT00313820|181655234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.216||95.0|-1.0|0.2||Estimated from ANCOVA (general linear model) with treatment and country as factors and baseline score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Burning Pain Week 12 \[LOCF\]; Modelled Results||0.2|-1.0|0.216
90894959|NCT00313820|181655234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.76||95.0|-0.4|0.6||Estimated from ANCOVA (general linear model) with treatment and country as factors and baseline score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Pressing Pain Week 12 \[LOCF\]; Modelled Results||0.6|-0.4|0.760
90834075|NCT03192176|181536190|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||0.5944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|2.74||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||2.74|0.17|0.5944
90834076|NCT03192176|181536190|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.74||||0.1647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|11.39||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||11.39|0.66|0.1647
90834077|NCT03192176|181536190|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.07||||0.2684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|7.48||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||7.48|0.57|0.2684
90834078|NCT03192176|181536190|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.5338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|5.07||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||5.07|0.43|0.5338
90834079|NCT03192176|181536191|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.0179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|-0.18||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors and baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|||Week 4||-0.18|-1.95|0.0179
90834080|NCT03192176|181536191|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|-0.47||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors and baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||-0.47|-2.25|0.0027
90834081|NCT03192176|181536191|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-0.73||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors and baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||-0.73|-2.50|0.0004
90834082|NCT03192176|181536191|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.43|-0.64||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors and baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||-0.64|-2.43|0.0009
90834083|NCT03192176|181536191|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.5806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|0.64||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors and baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||0.64|-1.14|0.5806
91026011|NCT00782509|181935095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.165|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|0.131|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.200|0.131|<0.0001
90834084|NCT03192176|181536191|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.0105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.03|-0.27||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors and baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||-0.27|-2.03|0.0105
90834085|NCT03192176|181536191|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|-0.39||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors and baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||-0.39|-2.16|0.0048
90834086|NCT03192176|181536191|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.1801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|0.29||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors and baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||0.29|-1.52|0.1801
90834087|NCT03192176|181536191|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.0609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|0.04||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors and baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||0.04|-1.76|0.0609
90834088|NCT03192176|181536191|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|-0.49||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors and baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||-0.49|-2.33|0.0028
91026012|NCT00782509|181935095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.136|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|0.102|0.171|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.171|0.102|<0.0001
91026013|NCT00782509|181935096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.161|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|0.127|0.196|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.196|0.127|<0.0001
91089987|NCT01774981|182062267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0449|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0449
91089988|NCT01774981|182062267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0808|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0808
91026014|NCT00782509|181935096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.158|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001||95.0|0.123|0.193|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.193|0.123|<0.0001
91026015|NCT00782509|181935097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.053|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018||0.0043||95.0|0.017|0.089|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.089|0.017|0.0043
91026016|NCT00782509|181935097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.065|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018||0.0005||95.0|0.028|0.101|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.101|0.028|0.0005
91026017|NCT00782509|181935098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.073|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|0.037|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.110|0.037|<0.0001
91026018|NCT00782509|181935098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.085|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|0.049|0.121|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.121|0.049|<0.0001
91026019|NCT00782509|181935099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.069|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.0002||95.0|0.032|0.106|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.106|0.032|0.0002
91026020|NCT00782509|181935099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.044|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.0186||95.0|0.007|0.081|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.081|0.007|0.0186
91089989|NCT01774981|182062267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2219|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.2219
91026021|NCT00782509|181935100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.069|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.0003||95.0|0.032|0.106|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.106|0.032|0.0003
91026022|NCT00782509|181935100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.058|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.002||95.0|0.021|0.095|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.095|0.021|0.0020
90834089|NCT03192176|181536191|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.55||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors and baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||-0.55|-2.40|0.0018
90834090|NCT03192176|181536191|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.5519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|0.64||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors and baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||0.64|-1.19|0.5519
90834091|NCT03192176|181536191|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.1922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|0.31||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors and baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||0.31|-1.51|0.1922
91026023|NCT00782509|181935101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.058|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.0024||95.0|0.02|0.095|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.095|0.020|0.0024
91026024|NCT00782509|181935101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.027|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.1614||95.0|-0.011|0.064|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.064|-0.011|0.1614
91026025|NCT00782509|181935102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.062|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.0012||95.0|0.025|0.099|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.099|0.025|0.0012
91026026|NCT00782509|181935102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.072|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.0002||95.0|0.034|0.109|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.109|0.034|0.0002
91026027|NCT00782509|181935103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.068|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.0004||95.0|0.031|0.106|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.106|0.031|0.0004
91089990|NCT02915835|182062286|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.70
91089991|NCT02915835|182062287|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.61
91089992|NCT02915835|182062288|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
91089993|NCT02915835|182062289|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
91089994|NCT02915835|182062290|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
91089995|NCT02915835|182062291|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
91089996|NCT02915835|182062292|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
91089997|NCT02915835|182062293|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
91089998|NCT02915835|182062294|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
91089999|NCT02915835|182062295|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
90834092|NCT03192176|181536191|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.0463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|-0.02||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors and baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||-0.02|-1.82|0.0463
90834093|NCT03192176|181536191|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.1288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|0.19||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors and baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||0.19|-1.53|0.1288
90834094|NCT03192176|181536191|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.0577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|0.03||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors and baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||0.03|-1.72|0.0577
90834095|NCT03192176|181536191|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|-0.48||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors and baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||-0.48|-2.26|0.0027
90834096|NCT03192176|181536191|SUPERIORITY||-1.3|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.41||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors and baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||-0.41|-2.20|0.0043
90834097|NCT03192176|181536191|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.4089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|0.52||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors and baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||0.52|-1.27|0.4089
90834098|NCT03192176|181536191|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|0.31||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors and baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||0.31|-1.44|0.2050
90834099|NCT03192176|181536191|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.0265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|-0.11||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors and baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||-0.11|-1.84|0.0265
90834100|NCT03192176|181536191|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.7617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.88||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors and baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||0.88|-1.20|0.7617
90834101|NCT03192176|181536191|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.6061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|1.32||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors and baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||1.32|-0.77|0.6061
90834102|NCT03192176|181536191|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.7997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|1.21||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors and baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||1.21|-0.93|0.7997
90834103|NCT03192176|181536191|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.3391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|1.6||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors and baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||1.60|-0.55|0.3391
90834104|NCT03192176|181536191|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.3934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|0.61||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors and baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||0.61|-1.55|0.3934
91090000|NCT02915835|182062296|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
91090001|NCT02915835|182062297|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
91090002|NCT02915835|182062298|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
91090003|NCT02915835|182062299|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||Log Rank|||||||.56
91090004|NCT02915835|182062300|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||Log Rank|||||||.35
91090005|NCT02915835|182062302|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.76
91090006|NCT02915835|182062303|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.57
91090007|NCT02915835|182062304|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.40
91090008|NCT02915835|182062305|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.49
91090009|NCT02915835|182062306|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.75
91090010|NCT02915835|182062307|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.41
91090011|NCT02915835|182062308|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.31
91090012|NCT02915835|182062309|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.84
91090013|NCT02915835|182062310|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.11
91090014|NCT02915835|182062311|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.66
91090015|NCT02915835|182062312|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.27
91090016|NCT02915835|182062313|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.54
91090017|NCT02915835|182062314|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.90
91026028|NCT00782509|181935103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.071|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.0002||95.0|0.033|0.108|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.108|0.033|0.0002
91026029|NCT00782509|181935104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.168|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|0.132|0.203|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.203|0.132|<0.0001
91026030|NCT00782509|181935104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.177|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|0.142|0.212|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.212|0.142|<0.0001
91026031|NCT00782509|181935105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.155|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|0.119|0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.190|0.119|<0.0001
91026032|NCT00782509|181935105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.147|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|0.111|0.182|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.182|0.111|<0.0001
91026033|NCT00782509|181935106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.172|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|0.136|0.209|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.209|0.136|<0.0001
91026034|NCT00782509|181935106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.166|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|0.13|0.202|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.202|0.130|<0.0001
91026035|NCT00782509|181935107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.144|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|0.108|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.180|0.108|<0.0001
91026036|NCT00782509|181935107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|0.094|0.166|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.166|0.094|<0.0001
91026037|NCT00782509|181935108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.164|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.128|0.201|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.201|0.128|<0.0001
91026038|NCT00782509|181935108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.135|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.098|0.171|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.171|0.098|<0.0001
91026039|NCT00782509|181935109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.155|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.118|0.192|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.192|0.118|<0.0001
90834105|NCT03192176|181536191|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|1.04||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors and baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||1.04|-1.08|0.9750
90894960|NCT00313820|181655234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.36||95.0|-0.7|0.3||Estimated from ANCOVA (general linear model) general linear model with treatment and country as factors and baseline score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Paroxysmal Pain Week 12 \[LOCF\]; Modelled Results||0.3|-0.7|0.360
91026040|NCT00782509|181935109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.157|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.12|0.194|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.194|0.120|<0.0001
91026041|NCT00782509|181935110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.331|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|<|0.0001||95.0|0.263|0.399|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.399|0.263|<0.0001
91026042|NCT00782509|181935110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.333|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034|<|0.0001||95.0|0.265|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.400|0.265|<0.0001
91090018|NCT02915835|182062315|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.68
91090019|NCT02915835|182062316|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.25
91090020|NCT02915835|182062317|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.95
91090021|NCT02915835|182062318|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.38
91090022|NCT02915835|182062319|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.82
91090023|NCT02915835|182062320|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.47
91090024|NCT02915835|182062321|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.35
91090025|NCT02915835|182062322|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.84
91090026|NCT02915835|182062323|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.55
90894961|NCT00313820|181655234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.239||95.0|-0.8|0.2||Estimated from ANCOVA (general linear model) with treatment and country as factors and baseline score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Evoked Pain Week 12 \[LOCF\]; Modelled Results||0.2|-0.8|0.239
90894962|NCT00313820|181655234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.118||95.0|-1.0|0.1||Estimated from ANCOVA (general linear model) with treatment and country as factors and baseline score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||P/D Week 12 \[LOCF\]; Modelled Results||0.1|-1.0|0.118
91090027|NCT02915835|182062325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.34
90894963|NCT00313820|181655234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.87||0.138||95.0|-6.5|0.9||Estimated from ANCOVA (general linear model) with treatment and country as factors and baseline score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Total Score Week 12 \[LOCF\]; Modelled Results||0.9|-6.5|0.138
91090028|NCT02915835|182062326|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.36
91090029|NCT02915835|182062327|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.04
91090030|NCT02915835|182062328|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.32
91090031|NCT02915835|182062329|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.14
91090032|NCT02915835|182062330|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.41
91090033|NCT02915835|182062331|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.85
91090034|NCT02915835|182062332|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.85
91090035|NCT02915835|182062333|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.75
91090036|NCT02915835|182062334|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.95
91090037|NCT02915835|182062335|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.31
91090038|NCT02915835|182062336|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.14
91090039|NCT02915835|182062337|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.32
91090040|NCT02915835|182062338|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.47
91090041|NCT02915835|182062339|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
91090042|NCT02915835|182062340|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.73
91090043|NCT02915835|182062341|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.32
91090044|NCT02915835|182062342|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.45
91090045|NCT02915835|182062343|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.58
91090046|NCT02915835|182062344|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.39
91090047|NCT02915835|182062345|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.14
91090048|NCT00433836|182062346|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|non-inferiority delta of 3.5 mm Hg|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|1.17|||ANOVA|||||1.17|-3.80|
91090049|NCT00113607|182062350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio, log|0.79||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.96|||Log Rank|||||0.96|0.65|0.0190
91090050|NCT00113607|182062351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio, log|0.86||||0.0835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.02|||Log Rank|||||1.02|0.72|0.0835
91090051|NCT00113607|182062352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.646||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.144|2.367|||Fisher Exact|||||2.367|1.144|0.0080
91090052|NCT00113607|182062353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio, log|0.95||||0.8203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.46|||Log Rank|||||1.46|0.62|0.8203
91090053|NCT02634073|182062400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.855|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.799|0.914|||ANCOVA||AUC (0-inf) comparison|||0.914|0.799|
91090054|NCT02634073|182062400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.677|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.635|0.721|||ANCOVA||AUC (0-inf) comparision|||0.721|0.635|
91090055|NCT02634073|182062400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.637|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.594|0.682|||ANCOVA||AUC (0-inf) comparision|||0.682|0.594|
91090056|NCT02634073|182062400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.803|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.747|0.864|||ANCOVA||AUC (0-24) comparision|||0.864|0.747|
91090057|NCT02634073|182062400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.608|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.566|0.655|||ANOVA||AUC (0-24) comparision|||0.655|0.566|
91090058|NCT02634073|182062400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.557|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.518|0.599|||ANCOVA||AUC (0-24) comparision|||0.599|0.518|
91090059|NCT02634073|182062400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.819|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.766|0.876|||ANCOVA||AUC (0-t) comparision|||0.876|0.766|
91090060|NCT02634073|182062400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.636|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.595|0.68|||ANCOVA||AUC (0-t) comparision|||0.680|0.595|
91090061|NCT02634073|182062400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.585|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.548|0.626|||ANCOVA||AUC (0-t) comparision|||0.626|0.548|
91090062|NCT02634073|182062401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.993|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.916|1.08|||ANCOVA||C24 comparison|||1.08|0.916|
91090063|NCT02634073|182062401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.03|1.21|||ANCOVA||C24 comparision|||1.21|1.03|
91090064|NCT02634073|182062401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.18|||ANCOVA||C24 comparision|||1.18|1.000|
91090065|NCT02634073|182062401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.13|1.56|||ANCOVA||Ct comparision|||1.56|1.13|
91090066|NCT02634073|182062401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.25|1.71|||ANCOVA||Ct comparision|||1.71|1.25|
91090067|NCT02634073|182062401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.18|1.63|||ANCOVA||Ct comparision|||1.63|1.18|
91090068|NCT02634073|182062401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.724|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.657|0.798|||ANCOVA||Cmax comparision|||0.798|0.657|
91090069|NCT02634073|182062401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.479|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.434|0.527|||ANCOVA||Cmax comparision|||0.527|0.434|
91090070|NCT02634073|182062401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.454|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.412|0.5|||ANCOVA||Cmax comparision|||0.500|0.412|
91090071|NCT02634073|182062402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.11|1.69|||ANCOVA|||||1.69|1.11|
91090072|NCT02634073|182062402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.53|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.25|1.88|||ANCOVA|||||1.88|1.25|
91090073|NCT02634073|182062402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.04|1.61|||ANCOVA|||||1.61|1.04|
91090074|NCT02634073|182062403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.094|1.251|||ANCOVA|||||1.251|1.094|
91090075|NCT02634073|182062403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.478|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.386|1.576|||ANCOVA|||||1.576|1.386|
91026043|NCT00782509|181935111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.242|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|<|0.0001||95.0|0.174|0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.310|0.174|<0.0001
90834106|NCT03192176|181536191|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|0.97||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors and baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||0.97|-1.13|0.8830
90834107|NCT03192176|181536192|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.27||0.5872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.09|10.73||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Ease of Getting to Sleep||10.73|-6.09|0.5872
90834108|NCT03192176|181536192|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.33||0.3779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|12.35||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Ease of Getting to Sleep||12.35|-4.70|0.3779
90834109|NCT03192176|181536192|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.34||0.3506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.61|4.49||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Ease of Getting to Sleep||4.49|-12.61|0.3506
90834110|NCT03192176|181536192|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.39||0.8236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.66|9.62||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Ease of Getting to Sleep||9.62|-7.66|0.8236
90834111|NCT03192176|181536192|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.35||0.5949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.24|10.87||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Ease of Getting to Sleep||10.87|-6.24|0.5949
90834112|NCT03192176|181536192|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.19||0.9237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.65|7.85||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Ease of Getting to Sleep||7.85|-8.65|0.9237
90894964|NCT00313820|181655235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.79||0.086||95.0|-10.3|0.7||Estimated from ANCOVA (general linear model) with treatment and country as factors and the baseline assessment as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Sleep disturbance; Modelled Results||0.7|-10.3|0.086
90894965|NCT00313820|181655235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.72||0.039||95.0|0.4|15.1||Estimated from ANCOVA (general linear model) with treatment and country as factors and the baseline assessment as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Snoring score; Modelled Results||15.1|0.4|0.039
90894966|NCT00313820|181655235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.71||0.169||95.0|-9.1|1.6||Estimated from ANCOVA (general linear model) with treatment and country as factors and the baseline assessment as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Awaken SOB or headache; Modelled Results||1.6|-9.1|0.169
91026044|NCT00782509|181935111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.226|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|<|0.0001||95.0|0.159|0.294|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.294|0.159|<0.0001
90834113|NCT03192176|181536192|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.32||0.3599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.54|12.46||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Ease of Getting to Sleep||12.46|-4.54|0.3599
90834114|NCT03192176|181536192|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.08||0.7422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.33|11.68||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Quality of Sleep||11.68|-8.33|0.7422
91090076|NCT02634073|182062403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.571|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.466|1.684|||ANCOVA|||||1.684|1.466|
90834115|NCT03192176|181536192|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.09||0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.67|7.37||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Quality of Sleep||7.37|-12.67|0.6030
90834116|NCT03192176|181536192|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.14||0.2478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.07|4.17||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Quality of Sleep||4.17|-16.07|0.2478
90894967|NCT00313820|181655235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.03||95.0|0.0|0.7||Estimated from ANCOVA (general linear model) with treatment and country as factors and the baseline assessment as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Sleep quantity; Modelled Results||0.7|0.0|0.030
90894968|NCT00313820|181655235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.44||0.013||95.0|1.8|15.4||Estimated from ANCOVA (general linear model) with treatment and country as factors and the baseline assessment as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Sleep adequacy; Modelled Results||15.4|1.8|0.013
91026045|NCT00782509|181935112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.263|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|<|0.0001||95.0|0.195|0.332|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.332|0.195|<0.0001
91026046|NCT00782509|181935112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.246|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|<|0.0001||95.0|0.178|0.315|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.315|0.178|<0.0001
91026047|NCT00782509|181935113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.239|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|<|0.0001||95.0|0.17|0.308|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.308|0.170|<0.0001
91026048|NCT00782509|181935113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.245|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|<|0.0001||95.0|0.176|0.314|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.314|0.176|<0.0001
90834117|NCT03192176|181536192|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.18||0.5295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.94|13.47||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Quality of Sleep||13.47|-6.94|0.5295
90834118|NCT03192176|181536192|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.16||0.6938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|8.13||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Quality of Sleep||8.13|-12.20|0.6938
90834119|NCT03192176|181536192|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.97||0.9765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.93|9.63||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Quality of Sleep||9.63|-9.93|0.9765
91026049|NCT00782509|181935114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.241|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036|<|0.0001||95.0|0.171|0.311|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.311|0.171|<0.0001
91026050|NCT00782509|181935114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.219|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|<|0.0001||95.0|0.15|0.289|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.289|0.150|<0.0001
91033016|NCT01544127|181951694|SUPERIORITY||Beta|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.23|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori, analyses were proposed to be one-sided, with p set at 0.05.|Zero-Inflated Poisson|A robust standard error clustered on participants was used.||MI-SI vs. TAU Alone||||0.23
91033017|NCT01544127|181951694|SUPERIORITY||Beta|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.46|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori, analyses were proposed to be one-sided, with p set at 0.05.|Zero-Inflated Poisson|A robust standard error clustered on participants was used.||MI-SI-R vs. TAU Alone||||0.46
91033018|NCT01544127|181951695|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.96|TWO_SIDED|0.95|0.3|3.54||A priori, p was set at 0.01 for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Logistic|||MI-SI + TAU vs. TAU Alone||3.54|0.30|0.96
90834120|NCT03192176|181536192|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.13||0.4771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.45|13.76||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Quality of Sleep||13.76|-6.45|0.4771
91033019|NCT01544127|181951695|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|2.06||A priori, p was set at 0.01 for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Logistic|||MI-SI-R + TAU vs. TAU Alone||2.06|0.23|0.50
91033020|NCT01544127|181951696|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|4.88||A priori, p was set at 0.01 for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|||MI-SI + TAU vs. TAU Alone||4.88|0.59|0.31
91033021|NCT01544127|181951696|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.31||A priori, p was set at 0.01 for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|||MI-SI-R vs. TAU Alone||2.31|0.10|0.24
91033022|NCT01544127|181951696|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|1.43||A priori, p was set at 0.01 for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|||"MI-SI-R + TAU vs. MI-SI + TAU~Because the impact of MI-SI + TAU and MI-SI-R + TAU were in different directions when compared to TAU Alone, they were compared. For this analysis, the null hypothesis was that the revisions did not change the impact of MI-SI + TAU."||1.43|0.06|0.10
90834121|NCT03192176|181536192|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.44||0.4256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.19|12.27||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Ease of Awaking From Sleep||12.27|-5.19|0.4256
90834122|NCT03192176|181536192|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.45||0.9559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.52|9.01||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Ease of Awaking From Sleep||9.01|-8.52|0.9559
90834123|NCT03192176|181536192|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.49||0.2003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|3.07||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Ease of Awaking From Sleep||3.07|-14.60|0.2003
91026051|NCT00782509|181935115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.217|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036|<|0.0001||95.0|0.147|0.288|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.288|0.147|<0.0001
91026052|NCT00782509|181935115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.218|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036|<|0.0001||95.0|0.148|0.288|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.288|0.148|<0.0001
91026053|NCT00782509|181935116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.059|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.104||95.0|-0.012|0.131|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.131|-0.012|0.1040
91026054|NCT00782509|181935116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.087|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||0.0172||95.0|0.015|0.158|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.158|0.015|0.0172
91026055|NCT00782509|181935117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.094|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.0106||95.0|0.022|0.166|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.166|0.022|0.0106
91026056|NCT00782509|181935117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.0013||95.0|0.046|0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.190|0.046|0.0013
91026057|NCT00782509|181935118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.032|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.3821||95.0|-0.04|0.105|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.105|-0.040|0.3821
91026058|NCT00782509|181935118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.1917||95.0|-0.024|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.120|-0.024|0.1917
90834124|NCT03192176|181536192|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.53||0.6692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.86|6.98||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Ease of Awaking From Sleep||6.98|-10.86|0.6692
90834125|NCT03192176|181536192|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.51||0.6894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.68|7.08||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Ease of Awaking From Sleep||7.08|-10.68|0.6894
90894969|NCT00313820|181655235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.51||0.399||95.0|-2.8|7.1||Estimated from ANCOVA (general linear model) with treatment and country as factors and the baseline assessment as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Somnolence; Modelled Results||7.1|-2.8|0.399
91026059|NCT00782509|181935119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.1808||95.0|-0.023|0.123|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.123|-0.023|0.1808
91026060|NCT00782509|181935119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.033|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.37||95.0|-0.039|0.106|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.106|-0.039|0.3700
91026061|NCT00782509|181935120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.2312||95.0|-0.029|0.118|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.118|-0.029|0.2312
91026062|NCT00782509|181935120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.0596||95.0|-0.003|0.144|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.144|-0.003|0.0596
91026063|NCT00782509|181935121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.038|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.311||95.0|-0.036|0.111|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.111|-0.036|0.3110
91026064|NCT00782509|181935121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038||0.9426||95.0|-0.076|0.071|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.071|-0.076|0.9426
91026065|NCT00782509|181935122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038||0.268||95.0|-0.032|0.115|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.115|-0.032|0.2680
91090077|NCT05696392|182062426|OTHER|difference between the average sleep at baseline and Week 8||||||0.8357|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.8357
91090078|NCT05696392|182062427|OTHER|difference between the average sleep at baseline and Week 8||||||0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.0001
90894970|NCT00313820|181655235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.13||0.049||95.0|-8.4|0.0||Estimated from ANCOVA (general linear model) with treatment and country as factors and the baseline assessment as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Overall sleep problems index; Modelled Results||-0.0|-8.4|0.049
91026066|NCT00782509|181935122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.069|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038||0.0662||95.0|-0.005|0.143|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.143|-0.005|0.0662
91026067|NCT00782509|181935123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.046|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038||0.2249||95.0|-0.028|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.120|-0.028|0.2249
91026068|NCT00782509|181935123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.062|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038||0.0994||95.0|-0.012|0.136|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.136|-0.012|0.0994
91026069|NCT00782509|181935124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.332|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036|<|0.0001||95.0|0.261|0.403|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.403|0.261|<0.0001
90834126|NCT03192176|181536192|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.35||0.1627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.66|2.48||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Ease of Awaking From Sleep||2.48|-14.66|0.1627
90834127|NCT03192176|181536192|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.48||0.9371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.18|8.47||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Ease of Awaking From Sleep||8.47|-9.18|0.9371
90894971|NCT00313820|181655236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.201||95.0|0.8|2.9||Estimated from a logistic regression model with treatment and the baseline assessment as factors.|Regression, Logistic||Standard error of the mean = standard error of the odds ratio.|Modelled Results||2.9|0.8|0.201
90894972|NCT00313820|181655237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.015||95.0|-1.8|-0.2||Estimated from ANCOVA (general linear model) with treatment and country as factors and baseline score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12 \[LOCF\] Anxiety score; Modelled Results||-0.2|-1.8|0.015
90894973|NCT00313820|181655237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.6||95.0|-0.6|1.0||Estimated from ANCOVA (general linear model) with treatment and country as factors and baseline score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12 \[LOCF\] Depression score; Modelled Results||1.0|-0.6|0.600
90894974|NCT00313820|181655238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.566||95.0|-0.1|0.1||Estimated from ANCOVA (general linear model) with treatment and country as factors and baseline score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Modelled Results||0.1|-0.1|0.566
91026070|NCT00782509|181935124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.333|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036|<|0.0001||95.0|0.263|0.403|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.403|0.263|<0.0001
91026071|NCT00782509|181935125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.225|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036|<|0.0001||95.0|0.153|0.296|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.296|0.153|<0.0001
91026072|NCT00782509|181935125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036|<|0.0001||95.0|0.139|0.281|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.281|0.139|<0.0001
90834128|NCT03192176|181536192|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.53||0.8521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.07|9.77||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Integrity of Behavior following Awaking||9.77|-8.07|0.8521
90834129|NCT03192176|181536192|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.56||0.9367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.62|9.35||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Integrity of Behavior following Awaking||9.35|-8.62|0.9367
90834130|NCT03192176|181536192|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-8.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.57||0.0551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.82|0.19||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Integrity of Behavior following Awaking||0.19|-17.82|0.0551
90894975|NCT00313820|181655239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.47||0.22||95.0|-1.8|7.9||Estimated from ANCOVA (general linear model) with treatment and coutntry as factors and baseline score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Modelled Results||7.9|-1.8|0.220
90894976|NCT00313820|181655240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.144||95.0|-0.5|0.1||Estimated from ANCOVA (general linear model) with treament and country as factors.|ANCOVA|||Modelled Results||0.1|-0.5|0.144
91026073|NCT00782509|181935126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.268|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.0001||95.0|0.196|0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.340|0.196|<0.0001
91090079|NCT04464707|182062514|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.8484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|1.22|||ANCOVA|||||1.22|-1.48|0.8484
90834131|NCT03192176|181536192|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differencce|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.64||0.4936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.32|5.96||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Integrity of Behavior following Awaking||5.96|-12.32|0.4936
90834132|NCT03192176|181536192|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.59||0.6404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.89|11.17||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Integrity of Behavior following Awaking||11.17|-6.89|0.6404
90834133|NCT03192176|181536192|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.45||0.8955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.17|9.34||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Integrity of Behavior following Awaking||9.34|-8.17|0.8955
90834134|NCT03192176|181536192|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.59||0.9776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.91|9.17||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Integrity of Behavior following Awaking||9.17|-8.91|0.9776
90834135|NCT03192176|181536192|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.14||0.7852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.27|7.01||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Ease of Getting to Sleep||7.01|-9.27|0.7852
90834136|NCT03192176|181536192|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.15||0.7812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.02|9.33||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Ease of Getting to Sleep||9.33|-7.02|0.7812
90834137|NCT03192176|181536192|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.23||0.2648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.07|3.61||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Ease of Getting to Sleep||3.61|-13.07|0.2648
90834138|NCT03192176|181536192|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.25||0.6312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.41|6.32||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Ease of Getting to Sleep||6.32|-10.41|0.6312
91026074|NCT00782509|181935126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.251|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.0001||95.0|0.179|0.323|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.323|0.179|<0.0001
90834139|NCT03192176|181536192|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.2||0.7416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.89|9.67||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Ease of Getting to Sleep||9.67|-6.89|0.7416
90834140|NCT03192176|181536192|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.12||0.4254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.83|11.41||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Ease of Getting to Sleep||11.41|-4.83|0.4254
90834141|NCT03192176|181536192|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.11||0.4038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.66|11.54||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Ease of Getting to Sleep||11.54|-4.66|0.4038
90834142|NCT03192176|181536192|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.91||0.327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.49|4.85||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Quality of Sleep||4.85|-14.49|0.3270
90834143|NCT03192176|181536192|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.85||0.7333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.21|7.9||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Quality of Sleep||7.90|-11.21|0.7333
90834144|NCT03192176|181536192|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-7.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.99||0.1319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.36|2.28||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Quality of Sleep||2.28|-17.36|0.1319
90834145|NCT03192176|181536192|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0||0.6132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.38|7.32||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Quality of Sleep||7.32|-12.38|0.6132
90894977|NCT00313820|181655241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.049||95.0|-0.6|0.0||Estimated from ANCOVA (general linear model) with treatment and country as factors.|ANCOVA|||Modelled Results||-0.0|-0.6|0.049
90834146|NCT03192176|181536192|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.98||0.4024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.98|5.63||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Quality of Sleep||5.63|-13.98|0.4024
90834147|NCT03192176|181536192|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.88||0.4904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.97|6.23||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Quality of Sleep||6.23|-12.97|0.4904
90834148|NCT03192176|181536192|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.87||0.5521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.48|6.69||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Quality of Sleep||6.69|-12.48|0.5521
90834149|NCT03192176|181536192|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5||0.737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.38|7.35||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Ease of Awaking From Sleep||7.35|-10.38|0.7370
90834150|NCT03192176|181536192|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.46||0.5269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.62|5.96||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Ease of Awaking From Sleep||5.96|-11.62|0.5269
90834151|NCT03192176|181536192|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.58||0.3937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.93|5.11||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Ease of Awaking From Sleep||5.11|-12.93|0.3937
90834152|NCT03192176|181536192|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.59||0.846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.15|9.94||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Ease of Awaking From Sleep||9.94|-8.15|0.8460
90834153|NCT03192176|181536192|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.57||0.5673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.62|6.38||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Ease of Awaking From Sleep||6.38|-11.62|0.5673
90834154|NCT03192176|181536192|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.49||0.3791|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.88|12.79||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Ease of Awaking From Sleep||12.79|-4.88|0.3791
90834155|NCT03192176|181536192|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.47||0.834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.86|9.73||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Ease of Awaking From Sleep||9.73|-7.86|0.8340
90834156|NCT03192176|181536192|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.67||0.9457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.51|8.88||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Integrity of Behavior Following Awaking||8.88|-9.51|0.9457
90834157|NCT03192176|181536192|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.65||0.657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.22|7.09||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Integrity of Behavior Following Awaking||7.09|-11.22|0.6570
90834158|NCT03192176|181536192|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.73||0.231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|3.64||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Integrity of Behavior Following Awaking||3.64|-15.00|0.2310
90834159|NCT03192176|181536192|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.77||0.9066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.84|9.96||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Integrity of Behavior Following Awaking||9.96|-8.84|0.9066
90834160|NCT03192176|181536192|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differnce|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.71||0.2914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.26|4.3||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Integrity of Behavior Following Awaking||4.30|-14.26|0.2914
90834161|NCT03192176|181536192|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.64||0.9277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.73|9.57||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Integrity of Behavior Following Awaking||9.57|-8.73|0.9277
90894978|NCT00251862|181655244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Absolute Difference|8.3||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|14.2|||Chi-squared|||Sample size and power considerations focused on a two-group comparison of the DA alone versus control study arms for the primary outcome of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening test completion at 12 months. Based on crude estimates of baseline test completion rates, we calculated that a target sample of 275 subjects per arm provided greater than 80% power of detecting a 54% vs. 40% difference at the P\<0.05 level.||14.2|-2.2|0.046
90894979|NCT00251862|181655244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Absolute Difference|6.0||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|16.5|||Chi-squared|||||16.5|0.2|0.153
90834162|NCT03192176|181536192|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.64||0.9367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.51|8.77||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Integrity of Behavior Following Awaking||8.77|-9.51|0.9367
90834163|NCT03192176|181536192|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.35||0.2407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.46|13.69||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Ease of Getting to Sleep||13.69|-3.46|0.2407
90834164|NCT03192176|181536192|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|6.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.55||0.1305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|15.89||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Ease of Getting to Sleep||15.89|-2.06|0.1305
90834165|NCT03192176|181536192|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.59||0.2152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.34|14.75||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Ease of Getting to Sleep||14.75|-3.34|0.2152
90894980|NCT00251862|181655245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Pairwise comparisons: DA+YDR vs. Control, P\<0.001; DA alone vs. Control, P\<0.001|ANCOVA|||The three study groups were compared on cumulative pre-test and post-test knowledge through separate one-factor analysis of covariance (ANCOVA); followed pairwise comparisons using Bonferroni's adjusted multiple comparison procedure.||||<0.001
90894981|NCT00251862|181655246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The three study groups were compared through separate one-factor analysis of covariance (ANCOVA); followed pairwise comparisons using Bonferroni's adjusted multiple comparison procedure.||||<0.001
90894982|NCT00251862|181655247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||The three study groups were compared through separate one-factor analysis of covariance (ANCOVA); followed pairwise comparisons using Bonferroni's adjusted multiple comparison procedure.||||<0.001
90894983|NCT02453685|181655248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference at week 32|0.18||||0.0435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.36|||Mixed Models Analysis||"'Treatment difference' refers to BIAsp 30 minus Basal-bolus"|Analysis was performed using mixed model repeated measurements including treatment, region, and strata as fixed effects, HbA1c at baseline as covariate, interactions between all fixed effects and visit and using an unstructured residual covariance matrix.||0.36|0.01|0.0435
91026075|NCT00782509|181935127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.226|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.0001||95.0|0.154|0.298|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.298|0.154|<0.0001
91026076|NCT00782509|181935127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.209|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.0001||95.0|0.137|0.281|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.281|0.137|<0.0001
91026077|NCT00782509|181935128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.226|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.0001||95.0|0.153|0.299|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.299|0.153|<0.0001
91026078|NCT00782509|181935128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.206|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.0001||95.0|0.133|0.279|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.279|0.133|<0.0001
91026079|NCT00782509|181935129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.207|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.0001||95.0|0.133|0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.280|0.133|<0.0001
91026080|NCT00782509|181935129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.211|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.0001||95.0|0.138|0.285|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.285|0.138|<0.0001
91090080|NCT03389620|182062609|NON_INFERIORITY|Based on previous literature indicating that the minimum clinical threshold for change in NRS pain score is 2 points, a non-inferiority margin of differential change between treatment arms of 2 points at the 2 month time point following the surgical procedure was specified, assuming the true difference between treatment arms is zero.||||||0.057|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.057
90894984|NCT01515748|181655265|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0152||||||Threshold for statistical significance at 0.049.|Stratified Log Rank|||Analysis was performed using Kaplan-Meier method. Comparison was stratified based on site and TNM classification (T4/N-, T2/N+, T3-4/N+).||||0.0152
91026081|NCT00782509|181935130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.142|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047||0.0028||95.0|0.049|0.235|||ANCOVA|Treatment, tiotropium stratum and baseline as fixed effects|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.235|0.049|0.0028
91026082|NCT00782509|181935130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.156|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.0013||95.0|0.061|0.25|||ANCOVA|Treatment, tiotropium stratum and baseline as fixed effects|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.250|0.061|0.0013
91090081|NCT03389620|182062610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.376|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 2 weeks||||0.376
91026083|NCT00782509|181935131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.959||0.0072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.622|23.099|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||||23.099|3.622|0.0072
91026084|NCT00782509|181935131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.934|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.894|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.323|30.545|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||||30.545|11.323|<0.0001
90834166|NCT03192176|181536192|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.72||0.1099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|16.89||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Ease of Getting to Sleep||16.89|-1.73|0.1099
90834167|NCT03192176|181536192|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|7.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.75||0.1219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|16.75||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Ease of Getting to Sleep||16.75|-1.99|0.1219
90834168|NCT03192176|181536192|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|9.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.44||0.0316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|18.36||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Ease of Getting to Sleep||18.36|0.85|0.0316
90834169|NCT03192176|181536192|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.47||0.1557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|15.16||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Ease of Getting to Sleep||15.16|-2.44|0.1557
90834170|NCT03192176|181536192|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.97||0.8592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.91|10.67||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Quality of Sleep||10.67|-8.91|0.8592
90834171|NCT03192176|181536192|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.15||0.6891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.08|12.2||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Quality of Sleep||12.20|-8.08|0.6891
90894985|NCT00803452|181655294|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.001
90834172|NCT03192176|181536192|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.2||0.9481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.59|9.92||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Quality of Sleep||9.92|-10.59|0.9481
90834173|NCT03192176|181536192|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.36||0.7246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.46|8.68||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Quality of Sleep||8.68|-12.46|0.7246
90834174|NCT03192176|181536192|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.45||0.8842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.94|11.53||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Quality of Sleep||11.53|-9.94|0.8842
90834175|NCT03192176|181536192|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.05||0.8103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.74|11.17||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Quality of Sleep||11.17|-8.74|0.8103
90834176|NCT03192176|181536192|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.1||0.9631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.81|10.28||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Quality of Sleep||10.28|-9.81|0.9631
91026085|NCT00782509|181935132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.456|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.201||0.0169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.242|22.67|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||||22.670|2.242|0.0169
90834177|NCT03192176|181536192|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.87||0.9788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.73|9.47||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Ease of Awaking From Sleep||9.47|-9.73|0.9788
90894986|NCT01971723|181655303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Groups were compared against each other at the two different time points and against themselves at the same time points.||This statistical analysis is for the squat one repetition maximum outcomes, only.||||.38
91026086|NCT00782509|181935132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.653|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.132|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.574|30.731|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||||30.731|10.574|<0.0001
91026087|NCT00782509|181935133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.416|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.127||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.665|-0.167|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||||-0.167|-0.665|0.0011
91026088|NCT00782509|181935133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.513|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.125|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.267|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||||-0.267|-0.760|<0.0001
91026089|NCT00782509|181935134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.157||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.729|-0.111|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||||-0.111|-0.729|0.0077
91026090|NCT00782509|181935134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.155|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.065|-0.456|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||||-0.456|-1.065|<0.0001
91026091|NCT00782509|181935135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.837|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.252||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.333|-0.342|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||||-0.342|-1.333|0.0010
91026092|NCT00782509|181935135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.278|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.249|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.767|-0.789|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||||-0.789|-1.767|<0.0001
91026093|NCT00782509|181935136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0122||95.0|-0.5|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model included treatment, tiotropium stratum, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, patient as random.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.1|-0.5|0.0122
91026094|NCT00782509|181935136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0008||95.0|-0.6|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model included treatment, tiotropium stratum, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, patient as random.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.1|-0.6|0.0008
91090082|NCT03389620|182062610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.848|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 4 months||||0.848
91026095|NCT00782509|181935137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0028||95.0|-0.5|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model included treatment, tiotropium stratum, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, patient as random.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.1|-0.5|0.0028
91026096|NCT00782509|181935137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0169||95.0|-0.5|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model included treatment, tiotropium stratum, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, patient as random.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.0|-0.5|0.0169
91026097|NCT00782509|181935138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.018||95.0|-0.5|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model included treatment, tiotropium stratum, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, patient as random.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.0|-0.5|0.0180
91026098|NCT00782509|181935138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0015||95.0|-0.6|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model included treatment, tiotropium stratum, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, patient as random.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.1|-0.6|0.0015
91090083|NCT03389620|182062611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.613|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 2 weeks||||0.613
90894987|NCT01971723|181655303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||This statistical analysis is for the bench press one repetition maximum outcomes, only.||||0.0001
91026099|NCT00782509|181935139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.1313||95.0|-0.4|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model included treatment, tiotropium stratum,visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, patient as random.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.0|-0.4|0.1313
91026100|NCT00782509|181935139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0089||95.0|-0.5|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model included treatment, tiotropium stratum visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, patient as random.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.1|-0.5|0.0089
90894988|NCT01971723|181655303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||This statistical analysis is for the deadlift one repetition maximum measures, only.||||.3
90894989|NCT01971723|181655303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||This statistical analysis compares the outcomes of the total weight lifted.||||0.0001
90894990|NCT01971723|181655304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
91026101|NCT00782509|181935140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.993|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.187||0.9853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.687|1.436|||Log Rank|Model included a stratification factor for tiotropium use stratum and a covariate for treatment group|Comparison of Olo 5 mcg qd to placebo across stratum|||1.436|0.687|0.9853
91026102|NCT00782509|181935140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.241|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.222||0.2344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.873|1.763|||Log Rank|Model included a stratification factor for tiotropium use stratum and a covariate for treatment group|Comparison of Olo 10 mcg qd to placebo across stratum|||1.763|0.873|0.2344
91026103|NCT00782509|181935141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.438||0.9035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.463|2.38|||Log Rank|Model included a stratification factor for tiotropium use stratum and a covariate for treatment group|Comparison of Olo 5 mcg qd to placebo across stratum|||2.380|0.463|0.9035
91026104|NCT00782509|181935141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.958|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.408||0.9304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.415|2.209|||Log Rank|Model included a stratification factor for tiotropium use stratum and a covariate for treatment group|Comparison of Olo 10 mcg qd to placebo across stratum|||2.209|0.415|0.9304
91026105|NCT00782509|181935142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.233||0.669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.717|1.657|||Log Rank|Model included a stratification factor for tiotropium use stratum and a covariate for treatment group|Comparison of Olo 5 mcg qd to placebo across stratum|||1.657|0.717|0.6690
91090084|NCT03389620|182062611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.565|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 2 months||||0.565
91090085|NCT03389620|182062611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.958|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 4 months||||0.958
91090086|NCT03389620|182062612|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.287|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 2 weeks||||0.287
91090087|NCT03389620|182062612|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.365|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 2 months||||0.365
91090088|NCT03389620|182062612|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.867|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 4 months||||0.867
91090089|NCT03389620|182062613|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.311|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 2 weeks||||0.311
91090090|NCT03389620|182062613|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.377|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 2 months||||0.377
91026106|NCT00782509|181935142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.344|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.273||0.1437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.902|2.002|||Log Rank|Model included a stratification factor for tiotropium use stratum and a covariate for treatment group|Comparison of Olo 10 mcg qd to placebo across stratum|||2.002|0.902|0.1437
91026107|NCT00782509|181935143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|1.188|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2251||0.3637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8188|1.7234|||Negative binomial regression|Regression of treatment effect using tiotropium strata as a covariate, a log link function and log(exposure) as offset.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.7234|0.8188|0.3637
91026108|NCT00782509|181935143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|1.2822|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2403||0.1853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8874|1.8527|||Negative binomial regression|Regression of treatment effect using tiotropium strata as a covariate, a log link function and log(exposure) as offset.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.8527|0.8874|0.1853
91026109|NCT00782509|181935144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|1.0314|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4664||0.9455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4244|2.5063|||Negative binomial regression|Regression of treatment effect using tiotropium strata as a covariate, a log link function and log(exposure) as offset.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||2.5063|0.4244|0.9455
90834178|NCT03192176|181536192|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.02||0.7875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.26|8.54||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Ease of Awaking From Sleep||8.54|-11.26|0.7875
90834179|NCT03192176|181536192|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.08||0.9746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.85|10.17||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Ease of Awaking From Sleep||10.17|-9.85|0.9746
90834180|NCT03192176|181536192|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.21||0.9092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.67|10.86||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Ease of Awaking From Sleep||10.86|-9.67|0.9092
90834181|NCT03192176|181536192|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.27||0.9745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.55|10.21||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Ease of Awaking From Sleep||10.21|-10.55|0.9745
91090091|NCT03389620|182062613|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.668|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 4 months||||0.668
91090092|NCT03389620|182062614|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.794|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 2 weeks||||0.794
90834182|NCT03192176|181536192|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.95||0.3458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.08|14.44||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Ease of Awaking From Sleep||14.44|-5.08|0.3458
90834183|NCT03192176|181536192|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differnce|3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.98||0.4657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.17|13.45||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Ease of Awaking From Sleep||13.45|-6.17|0.4657
90834184|NCT03192176|181536192|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.07||0.5838|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|12.76||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Integrity of Behavior Following Awaking||12.76|-7.20|0.5838
90834185|NCT03192176|181536192|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.22||0.8322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.18|11.39||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Integrity of Behavior Following Awaking||11.39|-9.18|0.8322
90834186|NCT03192176|181536192|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.26||0.7366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.59|12.13||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Integrity of Behavior Following Awaking||12.13|-8.59|0.7366
90894991|NCT01971723|181655305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||This statistical measurement is for cholesterol measure outcomes, only.||||>.05
91026110|NCT00782509|181935144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|1.1273|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5028||0.7883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4696|2.7064|||Negative binomial regression|Regression of treatment effect using tiotropium strata as a covariate, a log link function and log(exposure) as offset.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||2.7064|0.4696|0.7883
91090093|NCT03389620|182062614|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.843|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 2 months||||0.843
90894992|NCT01971723|181655305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||This statistical analysis is for glucose measure outcomes, only.||||>.05
91026111|NCT00782509|181935145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|1.2846|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2803||0.2514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.837|1.9717|||Negative binomial regression|Regression of treatment effect using tiotropium strata as a covariate, a log link function and log(exposure) as offset.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.9717|0.8370|0.2514
91090094|NCT03389620|182062614|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.713|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 4 months||||0.713
91090095|NCT03389620|182062615|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.177|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 2 weeks||||0.177
91090096|NCT03389620|182062615|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.325|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 2 months||||0.325
91090097|NCT03389620|182062615|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.505|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 4 months||||0.505
91090098|NCT03389620|182062616|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.811|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 2 weeks||||0.811
91090099|NCT03389620|182062616|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.325|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 2 months||||0.325
91090100|NCT03389620|182062616|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.674|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 4 months||||0.674
91090101|NCT03389620|182062617|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.903|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 2 weeks||||0.903
91090102|NCT03389620|182062617|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 2 months||||0.500
91090103|NCT03389620|182062617|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.716|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 4 months||||0.716
91090104|NCT03389620|182062618|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.461|||||||Fisher Exact|||Immediately post-procedure||||0.461
91090105|NCT03389620|182062618|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||2 days post procedure||||1.00
91090106|NCT06077773|182062649|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference (LSMD)|1.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.38||0.4059|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.96|5.94||MMRM=mixed effects model for repeated measures|MMRM|The p-value was based on the treatment group by week interaction term for the visit of interest.|LSMD = EP262 minus placebo|||5.94|-1.96|0.4059
90834187|NCT03192176|181536192|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4||0.2971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.99|16.28||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Integrity of Behavior Following Awaking||16.28|-4.99|0.2971
91090107|NCT06077773|182062649|SUPERIORITY||LSMD|-1.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.385||0.5213|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.49|2.42||The p-value was based on the treatment group by week interaction term for the visit of interest.|MMRM||LSMD = EP262 minus placebo|||2.42|-5.49|0.5213
91090108|NCT03834506|182062657|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.1677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.09||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by prior treatment with a NHA (abiraterone acetate) and type of metastases at baseline.|Log Rank||HR based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by prior treatment with a NHA (abiraterone acetate) and type of metastases at baseline.|||1.09|0.78|0.1677
91090109|NCT03834506|182062658|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.0335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.01||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by prior treatment with NHA (abiraterone acetate) and type of metastases at baseline.|Log Rank||HR based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by prior treatment with NHA (abiraterone acetate) and type of metastases at baseline.|||1.01|0.71|0.0335
90834188|NCT03192176|181536192|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.41||0.9562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.96|10.37||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Integrity of Behavior Following Awaking||10.37|-10.96|0.9562
91090110|NCT03834506|182062659|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.0331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.01||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by prior treatment with NHA (abiraterone acetate) and type of metastases at baseline.|Log Rank||HR based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by prior treatment with NHA (abiraterone acetate) and type of metastases at baseline.|||1.01|0.74|0.0331
91090111|NCT03834506|182062661|OTHER||Percent Difference|-1.8||||0.6545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|7.1||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by prior treatment with a NHA (abiraterone acetate) and type of metastases at baseline.|Miettinen & Nurminen method||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by prior treatment with a NHA (abiraterone acetate) and type of metastases at baseline.|||7.1|-10.7|0.6545
91090112|NCT03834506|182062663|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.6178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.43|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by prior treatment with NHA (abiraterone acetate) and type of metastases at baseline.|HR based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by prior treatment with NHA (abiraterone acetate) and type of metastases at baseline.|||1.43|0.77|0.6178
90894993|NCT01971723|181655305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||This statistical analysis is for HDL measure outcomes, only.||||>.05
90894994|NCT01971723|181655305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||This statistical analysis is for LDL measure outcomes, only.||||>.05
91090113|NCT03834506|182062664|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.54||||0.9788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|2.33|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by prior treatment with NHA (abiraterone acetate) and type of metastases at baseline.|HR based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by prior treatment with NHA (abiraterone acetate) and type of metastases at baseline.|||2.33|1.01|0.9788
91090114|NCT03834506|182062665|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.12|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by prior treatment with NHA (abiraterone acetate) and type of metastases at baseline.|HR based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by prior treatment with NHA (abiraterone acetate) and type of metastases at baseline.|||1.12|0.82|0.2970
91090115|NCT03834506|182062666|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.2876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.15|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by prior treatment with NHA (abiraterone acetate) and type of metastases at baseline.|HR based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by prior treatment with NHA (abiraterone acetate) and type of metastases at baseline.|||1.15|0.78|0.2876
91090116|NCT04577794|182062669|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02||0.981|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.7|1.7|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used with a multiple imputation method to handle missing values, with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as covariate.||1.7|-1.7|0.981
91090117|NCT04414787|182062692|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.21|6.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference between Time 1 (baseline) and Time 3 (\~1 week post-randomization)||6.21|-6.21|1.00
91090118|NCT04414787|182062693|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|1.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference between Time 1 (baseline) and Time 4 (3 months post-randomization)||1.72|-1.83|0.95
91090119|NCT04414787|182062694|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|1.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference between Time 1 (baseline) and Time 4 (3 months post-randomization)||1.86|-1.28|0.72
90834189|NCT03192176|181536192|SUPERIORITY||0.28|8.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.13||0.0926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|18.76||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Integrity of Behavior Following Awaking||18.76|-1.44|0.0926
90834190|NCT03192176|181536192|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.18||0.4996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|13.7||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Integrity of Behavior Following Awaking||13.70|-6.70|0.4996
90834191|NCT03192176|181536192|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.76||0.896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.99|8.75||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Ease of Getting to Sleep||8.75|-9.99|0.8960
90834192|NCT03192176|181536192|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.89||0.5471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.68|12.58||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Ease of Getting to Sleep||12.58|-6.68|0.5471
90834193|NCT03192176|181536192|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.93||0.738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.06|11.36||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Ease of Getting to Sleep||11.36|-8.06|0.7380
90834194|NCT03192176|181536192|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|9.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.14||0.0644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|19.69||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Ease of Getting to Sleep||19.69|-0.58|0.0644
90834195|NCT03192176|181536192|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.04||0.8475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|8.96||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Ease of Getting to Sleep||8.96|-10.90|0.8475
90894995|NCT01971723|181655305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||This statistical analysis for the triglyceride measure outcomes, only.||||>.05
91090120|NCT04414787|182062695|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.35||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|5.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference between Time 1 (baseline) and Time 4 (3 months post-randomization)||5.14|-2.44|0.48
90834196|NCT03192176|181536192|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.86||0.3044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.57|14.59||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Ease of Getting to Sleep||14.59|-4.57|0.3044
90834197|NCT03192176|181536192|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.89||0.3895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.42|13.86||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Ease of Getting to Sleep||13.86|-5.42|0.3895
90834198|NCT03192176|181536192|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.07||0.4551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|7.42||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Quality of Sleep||7.42|-16.50|0.4551
90834199|NCT03192176|181536192|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differencce|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.1||0.7182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.21|9.81||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Quality of Sleep||9.81|-14.21|0.7182
90834200|NCT03192176|181536192|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.21||0.6259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.26|9.2||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Quality of Sleep||9.20|-15.26|0.6259
90834201|NCT03192176|181536192|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.5||0.312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.22|19.4||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Quality of Sleep||19.40|-6.22|0.3120
90894996|NCT01971723|181655306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
90894997|NCT01971723|181655307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
90894998|NCT01971723|181655308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
90894999|NCT01971723|181655309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
90895000|NCT01971723|181655310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
90895001|NCT01971723|181655311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||>.05
90895002|NCT01971723|181655312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This statistical analysis is for deadlift volume measure outcomes, only.||||>.05
91090121|NCT04414787|182062696|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.49||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference between Time 1 (baseline) and Time 3 (target \~1 week post-randomization)||1.2|0.20|0.12
90895003|NCT01971723|181655312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This statistical analysis is for auxiliary squat volume measure outcomes, only.||||>.05
91090122|NCT04414787|182062697|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.58
91026112|NCT00782509|181935145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|1.3373|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2901||0.1807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8735|2.0474|||Negative binomial regression|Regression of treatment effect using tiotropium strata as a covariate, a log link function and log(exposure) as offset.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||2.0474|0.8735|0.1807
91032596|NCT00854308|181950084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.086||||0.6873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.727|1.622|||Log Rank||The hazard ratio was estimated using Cox Regression and was stratified for smoking status, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status and histology. The hazard ratio is relative to Placebo + Erlotinib.|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in PFS between MetMab + Erlotinib and Placebo + Erlotinib. The alternate hypothesis is that MetMab + Erlotinib would have prolonged PFS compared with Placebo + Erlotinib.||1.622|0.727|0.6873
90834202|NCT03192176|181536192|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.41||0.3297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.89|6.37||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Quality of Sleep||6.37|-18.89|0.3297
90834203|NCT03192176|181536192|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.16||0.613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.02|15.26||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Quality of Sleep||15.26|-9.02|0.6130
90834204|NCT03192176|181536192|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.22||0.7292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.09|14.4||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Quality of Sleep||14.40|-10.09|0.7292
90834205|NCT03192176|181536192|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.6||0.8695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|11.96||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Ease of Awaking From Sleep||11.96|-1.11|0.8695
90834206|NCT03192176|181536192|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.64||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.99|14.25||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Ease of Awaking From Sleep||14.25|-7.99|0.5800
90834207|NCT03192176|181536192|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.74||0.7024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.11|13.5||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Ease of Awaking From Sleep||13.50|-9.11|0.7024
90834208|NCT03192176|181536192|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|11.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.99||0.0572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|23.23||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Ease of Awaking From Sleep||23.23|-0.35|0.0572
90834209|NCT03192176|181536192|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.93||0.783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.04|13.31||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Ease of Awaking From Sleep||13.31|-10.04|0.7830
90834210|NCT03192176|181536192|SUPERIORITY||0.1|15.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.71||0.0074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.19|26.67||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Ease of Awaking From Sleep||26.67|4.19|0.0074
90834211|NCT03192176|181536192|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|11.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.73||0.0551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|22.32||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Ease of Awaking From Sleep||22.32|-0.24|0.0551
91032597|NCT00854308|181950085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7101||95.0||||P-value was stratified for smoking status, ECOG performance status and histology.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in Objective Response between MetMab + Erlotinib and Placebo + Erlotinib. The alternate hypothesis is that MetMab + Erlotinib would have better Objective Response compared with Placebo + Erlotinib.||||0.7101
91032598|NCT00854308|181950086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3671||95.0||||P-value was stratified for smoking status, ECOG performance status and histology.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in Objective Response between MetMab + Erlotinib and Placebo + Erlotinib. The alternate hypothesis is that MetMab + Erlotinib would have better Objective Response compared with Placebo + Erlotinib||||0.3671
91032599|NCT00854308|181950087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.529||||0.0418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.284|0.986|||Log Rank||The hazard ratio was estimated using Cox Regression and was stratified for smoking status, ECOG performance status and histology. The hazard ratio is relative to Placebo + Erlotinib.|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in PFS between MetMab + Erlotinib and Placebo + Erlotinib. The alternate hypothesis is that MetMab + Erlotinib would have prolonged PFS compared with Placebo + Erlotinib.||0.986|0.284|0.0418
91032600|NCT01390844|181950089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|34.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.24|47.18|||Miettinen and Numinen|||Between-Group Comparison||47.18|20.24|<0.0001
91032601|NCT01390844|181950090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|33.83||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.15|52.18|||Miettinen and Numinen|||Between-Group Comparison||52.18|10.15|0.0063
91032602|NCT01390844|181950091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|35.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.51|47.72|||Miettinen and Numinen|||Between-Group Comparison||47.72|20.51|<0.0001
91026113|NCT03151499|181935165|OTHER||Geometric mean (gMean) ratio (%)|7.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.19|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.74|10.601|||||gMean ratio = BI 409306 + Rifampicin pretreatment (T) / BI 409306 (R). Standard Error of the mean is actually the Geometric Standard Error.|The main focus is on estimation, therefore no hypothesis was tested. The statistical analysis model for the primary endpoints is an ANOVA (analysis of variance). This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'subjects' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects' will be considered as random, whereas the treatment effect will be considered as fixed. The PK endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model.||10.601|5.740|
91026114|NCT03151499|181935166|OTHER||Geometric mean (gMean) ratio (%)|9.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.232|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.767|14.098|||||gMean ratio = BI 409306 + Rifampicin pretreatment (T) / BI 409306 (R). Standard Error of the mean is actually the Geometric Standard Error.|The main focus is on estimation, therefore no hypothesis was tested. The statistical analysis model for the primary endpoints is an ANOVA (analysis of variance). This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'subjects' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects' will be considered as random, whereas the treatment effect will be considered as fixed. The PK endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model.||14.098|6.767|
91026115|NCT03151499|181935167|OTHER||Geometric mean (gMean) ratio (%)|8.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.187|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.081|11.126|||||gMean ratio = BI 409306 + Rifampicin pretreatment (T) / BI 409306 (R). Standard Error of the mean is actually the Geometric Standard Error.|Since the main focus is on estimation and not testing, therefore no hypothesis was tested.The statistical analysis model is an ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'subjects' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects' will be considered as random, whereas the treatment effect will be considered as fixed. The PK endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model.||11.126|6.081|
91026116|NCT01798485|181935173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.111||||0.3293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.899|1.372|||Log Rank|P-value was from stratified log-rank test (strata: screening LDH, screening ECOG and geographic region).||Primary study hypothesis was tested at a 2-sided, 0.05 significance level using a stratified log-rank test.||1.372|0.899|0.3293
91026117|NCT01798485|181935173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.111|||||TWO_SIDED|99.5|0.821|1.503||||||"Futility analysis for the first Interim Analysis which had a database cutoff of 19 October 2015. For the first interim analysis, if the lower limit of the 2-sided 99.5% confidence interval (CI) for the Hazard Ratio was greater than 0.75, then the study could be stopped for futility, based on Data Monitoring Committee recommendation.~Hazard ratio and 99.5% CI were calculated using the stratified Cox Proportional Hazards model (strata: screening LDH, screening ECOG and geographic region)."||1.503|0.821|
91026118|NCT01798485|181935174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.161||||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.961|1.403||Significance level of 0.05.|Log Rank|Stratified log-rank test with stratification variables, ECOG, screening total LDH levels, and geographic region, used to compare the treatment groups.||||1.403|0.961|0.1180
91026119|NCT01798485|181935175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.232||||0.2506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.865|1.754||Significance level of 0.05.|Log Rank|P-value was from stratified log-rank test (strata: screening ECOG and geographic region).||||1.754|0.865|0.2506
91026120|NCT01798485|181935176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.448|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level of 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.448
91026121|NCT01798485|181935177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.339|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level of 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||\>= 6 weeks||||0.339
91026122|NCT01798485|181935177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.817|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level of 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||\>= 12 weeks||||0.817
90834212|NCT03192176|181536192|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.51||0.2959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.63|5.08||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Integrity of Behavior Following Awaking||5.08|-16.63|0.2959
90834213|NCT03192176|181536192|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.55||0.2976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.14|16.74||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Integrity of Behavior Following Awaking||16.74|-5.14|0.2976
90834214|NCT03192176|181536192|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.62||0.7236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.07|13.05||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Integrity of Behavior Following Awaking||13.05|-9.07|0.7236
90895004|NCT01971723|181655312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||This statistical analysis is for squat volume measure outcomes, only.||||>.05
90895005|NCT01971723|181655312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This statistical analysis is for bench volume measure outcomes, only.||||>.05
91026123|NCT01798485|181935178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.344||||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.207|4.551||Significance level of 0.05.|Log Rank|P-value was from stratified log-rank test (strata: screening LDH, screening ECOG and geographic region).||||4.551|1.207|0.0111
91026124|NCT01798485|181935179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.112||||0.5191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.797|1.551||Significance level of 0.05.|Log Rank|P-value was from stratified log-rank test (strata: screening ECOG and geographic region).||||1.551|0.797|0.5191
91090123|NCT04414787|182062698|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.29
91090124|NCT04414787|182062699|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.79
90895006|NCT01971723|181655312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This statistical analysis is for total squat volume measures, only.||||>.05
90895007|NCT01971723|181655312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This statistical analysis is for total weight lifted volume measure outcomes, only.||||>.05
91026125|NCT01798485|181935182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.233||||0.1343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.937|1.621||Significance level of 0.05.|Log Rank|Stratified log-rank test (strata: screening LDH, screening ECOG and geographic region).||||1.621|0.937|0.1343
91090125|NCT05093933|182062700|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.04|||Log Rank|Stratified by the randomization stratification factor (NYHA FC)|Based on a Cox proportional hazard model controlling for the randomization stratification factor (NYHA FC)|||1.04|0.83|0.219
91026126|NCT01798485|181935183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level of 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.250
91026127|NCT00770991|181935188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||All patients received BRB suppositories and were pooled for the analysis comparing baseline and end of study polyp counts.||||0.065
91026128|NCT00770991|181935189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.016
91026129|NCT00770991|181935190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.043|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.043
91026130|NCT02180061|181935225|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0216||||||One-sided p-value. The ORR was deemed clinically meaningful if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval exceeded 10% (p\<0.0250).|Exact Binomial Distribution|||||||0.0216
91026131|NCT02295774|181935240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mc Nemar's χ2 test|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||Mc Nemar's χ2 test was not applicable because there is no change between visits.|Mc Nemar's χ2 test was not applicable because there is no change between visits.|"The results of the γH2AX analysis were listed and summarised by frequency tables by visit and colonic region.~The results were compared between Visit 2 and Visit 1 for each colonic region and overall using the Mc Nemar's χ2 test.~In case of the presence of at least one positive colonic region, that visit was to be considered as 'Positive' for the overall γH2AX analysis."||||
91090126|NCT05093933|182062701|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.97|||Log Rank|Stratified by the randomization stratification factor (NYHA FC)|Based on a Cox proportional hazard model controlling for the randomization stratification factor (NYHA FC)|||0.97|0.71|0.020
91026132|NCT01617577|181935244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed rank test||ADAScog scores at baseline vs final visit (wk 14); null hypothesis is there is no difference between scores||||0.36
91026133|NCT01617577|181935244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.058||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed rank test||PAL(mem) at baseline and 14 wk (final visit): null hypothesis is thereis no difference in score||||0.058
91026134|NCT01617577|181935244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed rank test||PALtot trials adj at baseline vs 14wk (final visit)||||0.034
91026135|NCT03532009|181935245|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.426|||||||F-test|||The p-value was obtained by pooling the p-values from Chi-square tests performed on individual data sets using the F-distribution and reflects a global test of no difference in distribution of patients in the respective categories between SZC and placebo groups. The null hypothesis was that there is no difference between SZC and placebo in the distribution of percentage of patients in the 4 RAASi treatment categories. The hypothesis was tested at a significance level of 5%.||||0.426
91090127|NCT05093933|182062702|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.1|||Log Rank|Stratified by the randomization stratification factor (NYHA FC)|Based on a Cox proportional hazard model controlling for the randomization stratification factor (NYHA FC)|||1.10|0.82|0.509
91090128|NCT05093933|182062703|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.02|||Andersen-Gill Model||Based on an Andersen-Gill model controlling for the randomization stratification factor (NYHA FC)|||1.02|0.80|0.094
91090129|NCT05093933|182062704|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.02|||Log Rank|Stratified by the randomization stratification factor (NYHA FC)|Based on a Cox proportional hazard model controlling for the randomization stratification factor (NYHA FC)|||1.02|0.82|0.116
91026136|NCT00368966|181935252|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) greater than (\>) -10%.|Difference|-0.6||||||95.0|-2.9|1.6||||||For Meningococcal C the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at ≥ 1:8 threshold was calculated||1.6|-2.9|
91090130|NCT05093933|182062705|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.97|||Log Rank|Stratified by the randomization stratification factor (NYHA FC)|Based on a Cox proportional hazard model controlling for the randomization stratification factor (NYHA FC)|||0.97|0.74|0.015
91090131|NCT05093933|182062709|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-0.1||||0.512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||0.2|-0.4|0.512
91026137|NCT00368966|181935252|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|1.2||||||95.0|-2.3|4.9||||||For Diphtheria the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at ≥ 0.10 IU/mL threshold was calculated||4.9|-2.3|
91026138|NCT00368966|181935252|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-1.3|1.3||||||For Diphtheria the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at ≥ 0.01 IU/mL threshold was calculated||1.3|-1.3|
91026139|NCT00368966|181935253|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for immune response induced by Meningitec was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMT ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.72||||||95.0|0.6|0.86||||||For Meningococcal C the GMT ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||0.86|0.60|
91026140|NCT00368966|181935254|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for immune response induced by Meningitec was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.81||||||95.0|0.7|0.94||||||For Diphtheria the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||0.94|0.70|
91026141|NCT00368966|181935257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|1.23||||||95.0|1.13|1.35||||||For serotype 4, the Geometric Mean fold Rise (GMFR) were calculated using all participants with available data from both 13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 2 and 13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 3 blood draws.||1.35|1.13|
91090132|NCT05093933|182062710|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|2.1||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||3.6|0.6|0.007
91090133|NCT05093933|182062711|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|1.3||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||2.6|0.0|0.045
91090134|NCT00922636|182062767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.74||||0.008||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.027 with a Dunnett adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Least Squares (LS) Mean Change is from a restricted maximum likelihood-based, mixed model repeated measure (MMRM) analysis.|The LS Mean difference was computed as treatment minus placebo.|||||0.008
90834215|NCT03192176|181536192|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|10.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.88||0.0884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|21.63||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Integrity of Behavior Following Awaking||21.63|-1.52|0.0884
90834216|NCT03192176|181536192|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.77||0.3887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.35|6.38||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Integrity of Behavior Following Awaking||6.38|-16.35|0.3887
90834217|NCT03192176|181536192|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|6.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.59||0.2671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|17.24||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Integrity of Behavior Following Awaking||17.24|-4.80|0.2671
90834218|NCT03192176|181536192|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.63||0.6076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|13.99||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Integrity of Behavior Following Awaking||13.99|-8.20|0.6076
90834219|NCT03192176|181536193|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91||0.2159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.93|0.67||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Psychological Symptoms Score||0.67|-2.93|0.2159
90834220|NCT03192176|181536193|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.92||0.0405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|-0.08||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Psychological Symptoms Score||-0.08|-3.70|0.0405
90834221|NCT03192176|181536193|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93||0.0115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.18|-0.53||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Psychological Symptoms Score||-0.53|-4.18|0.0115
90834222|NCT03192176|181536193|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93||0.0553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.62|0.04||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Psychological Symptoms Score||0.04|-3.62|0.0553
90834223|NCT03192176|181536193|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.92||0.2753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.82|0.8||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Psychological Symptoms Score||0.80|-2.82|0.2753
91026142|NCT00368966|181935257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|9.28||||||95.0|8.18|10.53||||||For serotype 6B the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||10.53|8.18|
90834224|NCT03192176|181536193|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91||0.514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|2.4||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Psychological Symptoms Score||2.40|-1.20|0.5140
90834225|NCT03192176|181536193|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93||0.0178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.03|-0.38||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Psychological Symptoms Score||-0.38|-4.03|0.0178
90834226|NCT03192176|181536193|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.9675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|0.98||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Physical Symptoms Score||0.98|-1.02|0.9675
90834227|NCT03192176|181536193|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.3122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|0.49||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Physical Symptoms Score||0.49|-1.52|0.3122
90834228|NCT03192176|181536193|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.9977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.0||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Physical Symptoms Score||1.00|-1.00|0.9977
90834229|NCT03192176|181536193|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.9312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|0.97||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Physical Symptoms Score||0.97|-1.05|0.9312
90895008|NCT01971723|181655313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
90895009|NCT01971723|181655314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
90895010|NCT01971723|181655315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.05
91032603|NCT01390844|181950092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|33.18||||0.0086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.96|51.83|||Miettinen and Numinen|||Between-Group Comparison||51.83|8.96|0.0086
90834230|NCT03192176|181536193|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.6005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|0.74||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Physical Symptoms Score||0.74|-1.27|0.6005
90834231|NCT03192176|181536193|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.5284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|1.32||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Physical Symptoms Score||1.32|-0.68|0.5284
90834232|NCT03192176|181536193|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.1111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|0.19||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Physical Symptoms Score||0.19|-1.82|0.1111
90834233|NCT03192176|181536193|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.1764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.21||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Vasomotor Symptoms Score||0.21|-1.16|0.1764
90834234|NCT03192176|181536193|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|-0.34||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Vasomotor Symptoms||-0.34|-1.73|0.0037
90834235|NCT03192176|181536193|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.92||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Vasomotor Symptoms Score||-0.92|-2.30|<0.0001
90834236|NCT03192176|181536193|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|-0.81||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Vasomotor Symptoms Score||-0.81|-2.21|<0.0001
90834237|NCT03192176|181536193|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.1444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|0.18||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Vasomotor Symptoms Score||0.18|-1.21|0.1444
90834238|NCT03192176|181536193|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.0088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.23||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Vasomotor Symptoms Score||-0.23|-1.60|0.0088
90834239|NCT03192176|181536193|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|-0.54||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Vasomotor Symptoms Score||-0.54|-1.93|0.0005
90834240|NCT03192176|181536193|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.01||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Sexual Dysfunction Score||-0.01|-0.69|0.0416
90834241|NCT03192176|181536193|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.03||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Sexual Dysfunction Score||-0.03|-0.71|0.0353
90895011|NCT03017079|181655324|NON_INFERIORITY|a:0.05;β：0.01 P=.046||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||P=.046||||0.05
90834242|NCT03192176|181536193|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.16||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Sexual Dysfunction Score||-0.16|-0.84|0.0040
90834243|NCT03192176|181536193|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.0||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Sexual Dysfunction Score||-0.00|-0.69|0.0495
90834244|NCT03192176|181536193|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.8665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.37||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Sexual Dysfunction Score||0.37|-0.31|0.8665
90895012|NCT03017079|181655325|NON_INFERIORITY|a 0.05|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.05||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
90895013|NCT03017079|181655326|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.05
90895014|NCT03017079|181655328|NON_INFERIORITY|According to the rule of a=0.05, P\<0.05 means that the hypothesis was true|||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||<0.05
90834245|NCT03192176|181536193|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.9303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.32||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Sexual Dysfunction Score||0.32|-0.35|0.9303
90834246|NCT03192176|181536193|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.1039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.06||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Sexual Dysfunction Score||0.06|-0.62|0.1039
90834247|NCT03192176|181536193|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.54||0.2547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.78|1.27||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Total Score||1.27|-4.78|0.2547
90834248|NCT03192176|181536193|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.55||0.0225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|-0.5||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Total Score||-0.50|-6.60|0.0225
90834249|NCT03192176|181536193|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differencce|-4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.55||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.38|-1.26||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Total Score||-1.26|-7.38|0.0058
90834250|NCT03192176|181536193|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.56||0.0301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.48|-0.33||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Total Score||-0.33|-6.48|0.0301
90834251|NCT03192176|181536193|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.55||0.322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.59|1.51||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Total Score||1.51|-4.59|0.3220
90834252|NCT03192176|181536193|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.54||0.8782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|3.27||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Total Score||3.27|-2.80|0.8782
90834253|NCT03192176|181536193|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.55||0.0069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.27|-1.17||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Total Score||-1.17|-7.27|0.0069
90834254|NCT03192176|181536193|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.49|0.25||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Psychological Symptoms Score||0.25|-3.49|0.0890
90834255|NCT03192176|181536193|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.1444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.25|0.48||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Psychological Symptoms Score||0.48|-3.25|0.1444
90834256|NCT03192176|181536193|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||0.1022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.51|0.32||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Psychological Symptoms Score||0.32|-3.51|0.1022
91026143|NCT00368966|181935257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|1.15||||||95.0|1.05|1.25||||||For serotype 6B, the GMFR were calculated using all participants with available data from both 13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 2 and 13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 3 blood draws.||1.25|1.05|
90834257|NCT03192176|181536193|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||0.2342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.07|0.75||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Psychological Symptoms Score||0.75|-3.07|0.2342
90958917|NCT04874415|181797844|SUPERIORITY|Main effects of each intervention factor were estimated using generalized linear models with log link, including all prespecified two-way interactions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.00001|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.02|||||Loss Framed Incentive is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|||0.02|-0.02|
90834258|NCT03192176|181536193|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96||0.9906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|1.87||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Psychological Symptoms Score||1.87|-1.89|0.9906
90834259|NCT03192176|181536193|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|2.4||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Psychological Symptoms Score||2.40|-1.34|0.5770
91032604|NCT01390844|181950093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|29.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.26|42.22|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Between-Group Comparison||42.22|15.26|<0.001
90834260|NCT03192176|181536193|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.1865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.14|0.61||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Psychological Symptoms Score||0.61|-3.14|0.1865
90834261|NCT03192176|181536193|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.4575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|0.65||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Physical Symptoms Score||0.65|-1.45|0.4575
90834262|NCT03192176|181536193|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.6016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|0.77||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Physical Symptoms Score||0.77|-1.33|0.6016
90834263|NCT03192176|181536193|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.7026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|1.28||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Physical Symptoms Score||1.28|-0.86|0.7026
90834264|NCT03192176|181536193|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.2971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|0.5||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Physical Symptoms Score||0.50|-1.64|0.2971
90834265|NCT03192176|181536193|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.5491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|0.74||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Physical Symptoms Score||0.74|-1.38|0.5491
90834266|NCT03192176|181536193|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.7142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|1.25||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Physical Symptoms Score||1.25|-0.86|0.7142
90834267|NCT03192176|181536193|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.1157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|0.21||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Physical Symptoms Score||0.21|-1.89|0.1157
90834268|NCT03192176|181536193|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.1114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.14||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Vasomotor Symptoms Score||0.14|-1.30|0.1114
90834269|NCT03192176|181536193|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|-0.4||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Vasomotor Symptoms Score||-0.40|-1.83|0.0025
90958918|NCT04874415|181797844|SUPERIORITY|Main effects of each intervention factor were estimated using generalized linear models with log link, including all prespecified two-way interactions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.8|22.8|||||Daily Step Count goal is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|||22.8|-22.8|
91026144|NCT00368966|181935257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|1.61||||||95.0|1.41|1.83||||||For serotype 14, the GMFR were calculated using all participants with available data from both 13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 2 and 13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 3 blood draws.||1.83|1.41|
90834270|NCT03192176|181536193|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.74||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Vasomotor Symptoms Scre||-0.74|-2.20|<0.0001
90834271|NCT03192176|181536193|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.5093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.48|||MMRM|||Week 8: Vasomotor Symptoms Score||0.48|-0.96|0.5093
90834272|NCT03192176|181536193|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|-0.86||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Vasomotor Symptoms Score||-0.86|-2.33|<0.0001
90834273|NCT03192176|181536193|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|-0.24||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Vasomotor Symptoms Score||-0.24|-1.67|0.0090
91026145|NCT00368966|181935257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|1.45||||||95.0|1.3|1.61||||||For serotype 18C, the GMFR were calculated using all participants with available data from both 13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 2 and 13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 3 blood draws.||1.61|1.30|
91026146|NCT00368966|181935257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.93||||||95.0|0.83|1.03||||||For serotype 19F, the GMFR were calculated using all participants with available data from both 13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 2 and 13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 3 blood draws.||1.03|0.83|
91026147|NCT00368966|181935257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|4.0||||||95.0|3.55|4.5||||||For serotype 23F, the GMFR were calculated using all participants with available data from both 13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 2 and 13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 3 blood draws.||4.50|3.55|
91026148|NCT00368966|181935257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|1.6||||||95.0|1.46|1.76||||||For serotype 1, the GMFR were calculated using all participants with available data from both 13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 2 and 13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 3 blood draws.||1.76|1.46|
91026149|NCT00368966|181935257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|1.23||||||95.0|1.13|1.35||||||For serotype 3, the GMFR were calculated using all participants with available data from both 13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 2 and 13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 3 blood draws.||1.35|1.13|
91026150|NCT00368966|181935257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|1.94||||||95.0|1.78|2.11||||||For serotype 5, the GMFR were calculated using all participants with available data from both 13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 2 and 13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 3 blood draws.||2.11|1.78|
91026151|NCT00368966|181935257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|2.87||||||95.0|2.58|3.2||||||For serotype 6A, the GMFR were calculated using all participants with available data from both 13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 2 and 13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 3 blood draws.||3.20|2.58|
91026152|NCT00368966|181935257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|2.18||||||95.0|1.98|2.41||||||For serotype 7F, the GMFR were calculated using all participants with available data from both 13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 2 and 13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 3 blood draws.||2.41|1.98|
91026153|NCT00368966|181935257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|1.3||||||95.0|1.18|1.44||||||For serotype 19A, the GMFR were calculated using all participants with available data from both 13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 2 and 13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 3 blood draws.||1.44|1.18|
91026154|NCT00368966|181935258|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-1.3|1.3||||||For Pertussis, PT the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 5.0 EU/mL threshold was calculated||1.3|-1.3|
91026155|NCT00368966|181935258|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|-1.9||||||95.0|-6.0|2.0||||||For Pertussis, PT the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 20 EU/mL threshold was calculated||2.0|-6.0|
91026156|NCT00368966|181935258|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-1.3|1.3||||||For Pertussis, FHA the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 5.0 EU/mL threshold was calculated||1.3|-1.3|
90834274|NCT03192176|181536193|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|-0.4||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|LSMean difference|||Week 4: Vasomotor Symptoms Score||-0.40|-1.84|0.0024
90834275|NCT03192176|181536193|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.5497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.25||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Sexual Dysfunction Score||0.25|-0.47|0.5497
91026157|NCT00368966|181935258|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-1.3|1.3||||||For Pertussis, FHA the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 7.82 EU/mL threshold was calculated||1.3|-1.3|
91026158|NCT00368966|181935258|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|-1.3||||||95.0|-5.2|2.6||||||For Pertussis, FHA the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 64 EU/mL threshold was calculated||2.6|-5.2|
91026159|NCT00368966|181935258|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-1.3|1.3||||||For Pertussis, PRN the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 5 EU/mL threshold was calculated||1.3|-1.3|
91026160|NCT00368966|181935258|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|-0.6||||||95.0|-4.4|3.2||||||For Pertussis, PRN the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 39 EU/mL threshold was calculated||3.2|-4.4|
91032605|NCT01390844|181950094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|36.13||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.12|55.01|||Mittienen and Nurminen|||Between-Group Comparison||55.01|12.12|0.004
91032606|NCT02597101|181950116|OTHER|REML mixed model|REML mixed model|0.05|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Using REML mixed model analysis, differences between study arms resulting in a p\<0.05 would represent statistically-significant differences.|REML mixed model|||The primary efficacy endpoint is the improvement of insulin sensitivity by 40% or greater at 6 months compared to baseline, assessed by the hyperinsulinemic-euglycemic clamp method.||||<0.05
91032607|NCT02079766|181950125|OTHER|||||||0.2959||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons or multiplicity were made for this study. No a priori threshold for significance was chosen.|Fisher Exact|||Evaluated the association between the overall brain uptake and the study group||||0.2959
91032608|NCT02079766|181950126|OTHER|||||||0.5163||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons or multiplicity were made for this study. No a priori threshold for significance was chosen.|ANOVA|MMSE score as the response variable and flortaucipir uptake score (4 levels) as the fixed effect||Measured differences in clinical presentation using MMSE between subjects with no visual flortaucipir uptake, and those with mild uptake.||||0.5163
91032609|NCT03252353|181950127|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0079|||||||Regression, Logistic|The adjusted proportion of responders is 58.16 for Octreotide Capsule Treatment Group vs. 19.42 for the Placebo||The proportion of \[IGF-1/GH\] responders was compared between treatment groups using an exact logistic regression model with categorical covariates for treatment group, prior SRL dose, and baseline \[IGF-1/GH\] level||||0.0079
91090135|NCT00922636|182062767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.04||||0.006||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.027 with a Dunnett adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Least Squares (LS) Mean Value is from a restricted maximum likelihood-based, mixed model repeated measure (MMRM) analysis.|The LS Mean difference was computed as treatment minus placebo.|||||0.006
91026161|NCT00368966|181935258|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-1.7|1.7||||||For Pertussis, PT the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 5.0 EU/mL threshold was calculated||1.7|-1.7|
91026162|NCT00368966|181935258|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|-1.4||||||95.0|-5.1|2.2||||||For Pertussis, PT the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 11 EU/mL threshold was calculated||2.2|-5.1|
91026163|NCT00368966|181935258|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-1.4|1.4||||||For Pertussis, FHA the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 5.0 EU/mL threshold was calculated||1.4|-1.4|
91026164|NCT00368966|181935258|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-1.4|1.4||||||For Pertussis, FHA the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 7.82 EU/mL threshold was calculated||1.4|-1.4|
91026165|NCT00368966|181935258|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|-0.6||||||95.0|-4.6|3.3||||||For Pertussis, FHA the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 99 EU/mL threshold was calculated||3.3|-4.6|
91026166|NCT00368966|181935258|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-1.4|1.4||||||For Pertussis, PRN the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 5 EU/mL threshold was calculated||1.4|-1.4|
91026167|NCT00368966|181935258|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|-1.7||||||95.0|-5.8|2.3||||||For Pertussis, PRN the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 69 EU/mL threshold was calculated||2.3|-5.8|
91026168|NCT00368966|181935258|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.7||||||For Diphtheria the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.10 IU/mL threshold was calculated||0.7|-2.5|
91026169|NCT00368966|181935258|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.3||||||For Diphtheria the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.01 IU/mL threshold was calculated||1.3|-1.3|
91026170|NCT00368966|181935258|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|0.8||||||For Diphtheria the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.10 IU/mL threshold was calculated||0.8|-2.8|
91026171|NCT00368966|181935258|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.5||||||For Diphtheria the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.01 IU/mL threshold was calculated||1.5|-1.5|
91026172|NCT00368966|181935258|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.9||||||For Tetanus the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.10 IU/mL threshold was calculated||2.9|-2.1|
91026173|NCT00368966|181935258|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.3||||||For Tetanus the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.01 IU/mL threshold was calculated||1.3|-1.3|
91026174|NCT00368966|181935258|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|3.8||||||For Tetanus the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.10 IU/mL threshold was calculated||3.8|-2.1|
90834276|NCT03192176|181536193|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.04||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Sexual Dysfunction Score||-0.04|-0.76|0.0276
91026175|NCT00368966|181935258|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.7||||||For Tetanus the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.01 IU/mL threshold was calculated||1.7|-1.8|
91026176|NCT00368966|181935258|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.3||||||For Poliovirus Type 1 the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 1:8 threshold was calculated||1.3|-1.4|
91090136|NCT00922636|182062770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16||||0.938||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.027 with a Dunnett adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Least squares (LS) mean is from a restricted maximum likelihood-based, mixed model repeated measure (MMRM) analysis.||Gated secondary analysis for total score. If both LY2216684 groups (0.2 mg/kg/day and 0.3 mg/kg/day) were statistically significantly superior than placebo for the primary endpoint, then gated secondary analysis was assessed at an alpha level of 0.027. If only 0.2 mg/kg/day or 0.3 mg/kg/day LY2216684 was statistically significantly superior than placebo for the primary endpoint, then gated secondary analysis was assessed at an alpha level of 0.023 for the corresponding group.||||0.938
91026177|NCT00368966|181935258|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|2.6||||||For Poliovirus Type 2 the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 1:8 threshold was calculated||2.6|-0.6|
91026178|NCT00368966|181935258|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.0||||||For Poliovirus Type 3 the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 1:8 threshold was calculated||2.0|-1.0|
91026179|NCT00368966|181935258|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.5||||||For Poliovirus Type 1 the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 1:8 EU/mL threshold was calculated||1.5|-1.5|
91026180|NCT00368966|181935258|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.2||||||For Poliovirus Type 2 the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 1:8 EU/mL threshold was calculated||2.2|-1.1|
91026181|NCT00368966|181935258|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.5||||||For Poliovirus Type 3 the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 1:8 EU/mL threshold was calculated||1.5|-1.5|
91026182|NCT00368966|181935259|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMT ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|1.0||||||95.0|0.82|1.23||||||For Poliovirus Type 1 the GMT ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.23|0.82|
91026183|NCT00368966|181935259|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMT ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.94||||||95.0|0.76|1.18||||||For Poliovirus Type 2 the GMT ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.18|0.76|
91026184|NCT00368966|181935259|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMT ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.95||||||95.0|0.76|1.19||||||For Poliovirus Type 3 the GMT ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.19|0.76|
91026185|NCT00368966|181935259|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMT ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.82||||||95.0|0.69|0.98||||||For Poliovirus Type 1 the GMT ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||0.98|0.69|
91026186|NCT00368966|181935259|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMT ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.9||||||95.0|0.75|1.09||||||For Poliovirus Type 2 the GMT ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.09|0.75|
91026187|NCT00368966|181935259|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMT ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|1.07||||||95.0|0.88|1.29||||||For Poliovirus Type 3 the GMT ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.29|0.88|
91026188|NCT00368966|181935260|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.85||||||95.0|0.75|0.96||||||For diphtheria toxoid the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||0.96|0.75|
91026189|NCT00368966|181935260|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|1.03||||||95.0|0.88|1.2||||||For Tetanus the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.20|0.88|
90834277|NCT03192176|181536193|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.1274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.08||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Sexual Dysfunction Score||0.08|-0.65|0.1274
91026190|NCT00368966|181935260|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.86||||||95.0|0.71|1.02||||||For diphtheria toxoid the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.02|0.71|
91026191|NCT00368966|181935260|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|1.12||||||95.0|0.9|1.4||||||For Tetanus the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.40|0.90|
91026192|NCT00368966|181935261|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|1.03||||||95.0|0.93|1.13||||||For Pertussis PT the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.13|0.93|
91026193|NCT00368966|181935261|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|1.07||||||95.0|0.96|1.2||||||For Pertussis FHA the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.20|0.96|
91026194|NCT00368966|181935261|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|1.05||||||95.0|0.92|1.18||||||For Pertussis PRN the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.18|0.92|
91026195|NCT00368966|181935261|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|1.0||||||95.0|0.88|1.14||||||For Pertussis PT the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.14|0.88|
91026196|NCT00368966|181935261|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|1.01||||||95.0|0.88|1.15||||||For Pertussis FHA the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.15|0.88|
91026197|NCT00368966|181935261|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.89||||||95.0|0.78|1.02||||||For Pertussis PRN the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.02|0.78|
91026198|NCT00368966|181935262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|2.2||||||95.0|0.1|4.4||||||For serotype 4, the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 2 - 13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 3) was calculated||4.4|0.1|
91026199|NCT00368966|181935262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|41.2||||||95.0|34.9|46.9||||||For serotype 6B, the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 2 - 13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 3) was calculated||46.9|34.9|
91026200|NCT00368966|181935262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|7.3||||||95.0|4.1|10.4||||||For serotype 9V, the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 2 - 13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 3) was calculated||10.4|4.1|
91026201|NCT00368966|181935262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-1.1||||||95.0|-3.4|1.2||||||For serotype 14, the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 2 - 13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 3) was calculated||1.2|-3.4|
91026202|NCT00368966|181935262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|6.4||||||95.0|3.1|9.5||||||For serotype 18C, the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 2 - 13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 3) was calculated||9.5|3.1|
91026203|NCT00368966|181935262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|1.5||||||95.0|-0.4|3.4||||||For serotype 19F, the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 2 - 13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 3) was calculated||3.4|-0.4|
91026204|NCT00368966|181935262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|26.5||||||95.0|20.7|31.9||||||For serotype 23F, the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 2 - 13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 3) was calculated||31.9|20.7|
91103903|NCT03992872|182094610|SUPERIORITY||GMR (Prior Alpha / Naïve Alpha)|0.89||||0.6198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.41||P-values were based on an ANOVA model with log10-transformed titer as the dependent variable and study arm, age, and gender as predictors.|ANOVA||Differences in least squares means from the ANOVA model were back-transformed and reported as geometric mean ratios with 95% confidence intervals.|Day 57: Geometric mean ratio (prior alpha group over naïve alpha group) and 95% confidence interval||1.41|0.57|0.6198
90834278|NCT03192176|181536193|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.1865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.12||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|LSMean difference|||Week 8: Sexual Dysfunction Score||0.12|-0.61|0.1865
90834279|NCT03192176|181536193|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.1857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.12||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Sexual Dysfunction Score||0.12|-0.61|0.1857
90834280|NCT03192176|181536193|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.8631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.39||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Sexual Dysfunction Score||0.39|-0.33|0.8631
90834281|NCT03192176|181536193|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.04||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Sexual Dysfunction Score||-0.04|-0.75|0.0304
91026205|NCT00368966|181935262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|3.0||||||95.0|0.8|5.1||||||For serotype 1, the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 2 - 13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 3) was calculated||5.1|0.8|
91026206|NCT00368966|181935262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|2.2||||||95.0|-1.8|6.3||||||For serotype 3, the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 2 - 13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 3) was calculated||6.3|-1.8|
91026207|NCT00368966|181935262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|10.0||||||95.0|5.9|13.9||||||For serotype 5, the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 2 - 13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 3) was calculated||13.9|5.9|
91026208|NCT00368966|181935262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|13.0||||||95.0|8.6|17.2||||||For serotype 6A, the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 2 - 13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 3) was calculated||17.2|8.6|
91026209|NCT00368966|181935262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|1.5||||||95.0|-0.1|3.1||||||For serotype 7F, the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 2 - 13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 3) was calculated||3.1|-0.1|
91026210|NCT00368966|181935262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|1.5||||||95.0|-0.4|3.4||||||For serotype 19A, the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 2 - 13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 3) was calculated||3.4|-0.4|
91026211|NCT01602614|181935275|OTHER|Spearman Rank Correlation||||||0.3117|||||||Spearman Rank Correlation|||No subjects were enrolled in Group 1 and Group 4. One subject in Group 3 did not collect full PK panel therefore no pk was analyzed for this subject.||||0.3117
91026212|NCT01602614|181935276|OTHER|Spearman Rank Correlation||||||0.6175||||||Spearman Rank Correlation|Spearman Rank Correlation|||No subjects were enrolled in Group 1 and Group 4. One subject in Group 3 did not collect full PK panel therefore no pk was analyzed for this subject.||||0.6175
91026213|NCT01602614|181935277|OTHER|Spearman Rank Correlation||||||0.7129||||||Spearman Rank Correlation|Spearman Rank Correlation|||No subjects were enrolled in Group 1 and Group 4. One subject in Group 3 did not collect full PK panel therefore no pk was analyzed for this subject.||||0.7129
91026214|NCT01602614|181935278|OTHER|Spearman Rank Correlation||||||0.9828|||||||Spearman Rank Correlation|||No subjects were enrolled in Group 1 and Group 4. One subject in Group 3 did not collect full PK panel therefore no pk was analyzed for this subject.||||0.9828
91026215|NCT01602614|181935279|OTHER|Spearman Rank Correlation||||||0.9656|||||||Spearman Rank Correlation|||No subjects were enrolled in Group 1 and Group 4. One subject in Group 3 did not collect full PK panel therefore no pk was analyzed for this subject.||||0.9656
91026216|NCT01602614|181935280|OTHER|Spearman Rank Correlation||||||0.5113|||||||Spearman Rank Correlation|||No subjects were enrolled in Group 1 and Group 4. One subject in Group 3 did not collect full PK panel therefore no pk was analyzed for this subject.||||0.5113
91026217|NCT01602614|181935281|OTHER|Spearman Rank Correlation||||||0.217||||||Spearman Rank Correlation|Spearman Rank Correlation|||No subjects were enrolled in Group 1 and Group 4. One subject in Group 3 did not collect full PK panel therefore no pk was analyzed for this subject.||||0.2170
91026218|NCT01602614|181935282|OTHER|Spearman Rank Correlation||||||0.4299||||||Spearman Rank Correlation|Spearman Rank Correlation|||No subjects were enrolled in Group 1 and Group 4. One subject in Group 3 did not collect full PK panel therefore no pk was analyzed for this subject.||||0.4299
91026219|NCT01602614|181935283|OTHER|Spearman Rank Correlation||||||0.8629||||||Spearman Rank Correlation|Spearman Rank Correlation|||No subjects were enrolled in Group 1 and Group 4. One subject in Group 3 did not collect full PK panel therefore no pk was analyzed for this subject.||||0.8629
91026220|NCT01602614|181935284|OTHER|Spearman Rank Correlation||||||0.5717||||||Spearman Rank Correlation|Spearman Rank Correlation|||No subjects were enrolled in Group 1 and Group 4. One subject in Group 3 did not collect full PK panel therefore no pk was analyzed for this subject.||||0.5717
91090137|NCT00922636|182062770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.44||||0.002||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.027 with a Dunnett adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Least squares (LS) mean is from a restricted maximum likelihood-based, mixed model repeated measure (MMRM) analysis.||Gated secondary analysis for total score. If both LY2216684 groups (0.2 mg/kg/day and 0.3 mg/kg/day) were statistically significantly superior than placebo for the primary endpoint, then gated secondary analysis was assessed at an alpha level of 0.027. If only 0.2 mg/kg/day or 0.3 mg/kg/day LY2216684 was statistically significantly superior than placebo for the primary endpoint, then gated secondary analysis was assessed at an alpha level of 0.023 for the corresponding group.||||0.002
90834282|NCT03192176|181536193|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63||0.1246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.71|0.7||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Total Score||0.70|-5.71|0.1246
91026221|NCT01694485|181935293|SUPERIORITY|The study was powered for formal statistical testing of the abrilumab 70 mg and 210 mg groups. To account for multiplicity of statistical testing, primary and key secondary end points for the 2 highest doses of abrilumab (70 and 210 mg) were tested at the end of the 8-week induction period under a sequential framework at a 2-sided significance level of 0.10 using the Bonferroni-based chain procedure.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.35||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.41|7.95|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline total Mayo Score and stratification factors.|An odds ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher remission rate for the abrilumab treatment group relative to placebo.|Comparisons between treatment groups were made using remission rates estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline total Mayo Score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||7.95|1.41|0.021
91026222|NCT01694485|181935293|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Remission Rates|9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.6|14.6||||||The difference in remission rates, estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline total Mayo Score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||14.6|1.6|
90834283|NCT03192176|181536193|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.19|0.22||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Total Score||0.22|-6.19|0.0680
90834284|NCT03192176|181536193|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.67||0.0729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.28|0.28||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Total Score||0.28|-6.28|0.0729
91026223|NCT01694485|181935293|SUPERIORITY|The study was powered for formal statistical testing of the abrilumab 70 mg and 210 mg groups. To account for multiplicity of statistical testing, primary and key secondary end points for the 2 highest doses of abrilumab (70 and 210 mg) were tested at the end of the 8-week induction period under a sequential framework at a 2-sided significance level of 0.10 using the Bonferroni-based chain procedure.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.33||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.34|8.26|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline total Mayo Score and stratification factors|An odds ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher remission rate for the abrilumab treatment group relative to placebo.|Comparisons between treatment groups were made using remission rates from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline total Mayo Score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||8.26|1.34|0.030
91026224|NCT01694485|181935293|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Remission Rates|8.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|14.9||||||The difference in remission rates, estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline total Mayo Score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||14.9|0.8|
91026225|NCT01694485|181935293|SUPERIORITY|Comparisons of abrilumab 21 mg with placebo were not included in the hypothesis testing procedure and were not adjusted for multiplicity.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.64||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.13|3.17|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline total Mayo Score and stratification factors|An odds ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher remission rate for the abrilumab treatment group relative to placebo.|Comparisons between treatment groups were made using remission rates from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline total Mayo Score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||3.17|0.13|0.64
91026226|NCT01694485|181935293|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was not part of the formal testing.|Difference in Adjusted Remission Rates|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.2|5.5||||||The difference in remission rates estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline total Mayo Score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||5.5|-5.2|
91026227|NCT01694485|181935293|SUPERIORITY|Comparisons of abrilumab 7 mg with placebo were not included in the hypothesis testing procedure and were not adjusted for multiplicity.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.34||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.03|4.33|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline total Mayo Score and stratification factors|An odds ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher remission rate for the abrilumab treatment group relative to placebo.|Comparisons between treatment groups were made using remission rates from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline total Mayo Score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||4.33|0.03|0.49
91026228|NCT01694485|181935293|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was not part of the formal testing.|Difference in Adjusted Remission Rates|-2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.5|5.4||||||The difference in remission rates estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline total Mayo Score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||5.4|-5.5|
91032610|NCT03252353|181950128|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0007|||||||Regression, Logistic|The adjusted proportion of responders is 77.66 for Octreotide Capsule Treatment Group vs. 30.40 for the Placebo||The proportion of \[IGF-1/GH\] responders was compared between treatment groups using an exact logistic regression model with categorical covariates for treatment group, prior SRL dose, and baseline \[IGF-1/GH\] level||||0.0007
90834285|NCT03192176|181536193|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.66||0.0541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.49|0.06||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Total Score||0.06|-6.49|0.0541
90834286|NCT03192176|181536193|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.64||0.696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.87|2.59||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Total Score||2.59|-3.87|0.6960
90834287|NCT03192176|181536193|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63||0.9725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.27|3.15||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Total Score||3.15|-3.27|0.9725
90895015|NCT04450108|181655329|SUPERIORITY|The change of FeNO values will be estimated in ANCOVA with baseline values as the covariable and will be reported as percent change together with the 95%-confidence interval.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||Since the effect size of the change (mean change / standard deviation) is on the order of 1 (resulting in N=10 and 13 for power = 80% and 90%, respectively) and therefore large, the sample size is not determined by the primary objective but by the necessity to achieve representative data of FeNO measurement data over all age groups, measurement ranges (\<, ≥ cut off) and sites. Thus, 120 subjects will be recruited.||||<0.001
91032611|NCT03252353|181950129|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0029|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0029
90834288|NCT03192176|181536193|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63||0.0419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.53|-0.12||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Total Score||-0.12|-6.53|0.0419
90834289|NCT03192176|181536193|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96||0.0794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.57|0.2||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Psychological Symptoms Score||0.20|-3.57|0.0794
90895016|NCT02597907|181655405|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
91032612|NCT01918800|181950136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for clinical significance was 7 point improvement.|paired t test|||||||.64
91032613|NCT01918800|181950137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|paired t test|||||||0.04
91032614|NCT01918800|181950138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons|Paired t test|||||||0.35
91032615|NCT01918800|181950139|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8||||||The p value in this case is for the SF-36 Physical|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8
91032616|NCT01918800|181950139|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The p value in this case refers to the SF-36 Mental||||.09
91032617|NCT01918800|181950140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.521||||||This p value applies to the RAPA Cardiovascular|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.521
91032618|NCT01918800|181950140|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4199|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This p values is for the RAPA Strength||||0.4199
91032619|NCT01918800|181950140|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.854|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.854
91032620|NCT01918800|181950141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.42
91032621|NCT01918800|181950142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.36
91032622|NCT03018249|181950143|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.87
91032623|NCT03018249|181950144|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.0|30.0||||||||30|-25|
91032624|NCT03018249|181950145|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.7|45.3||||||||45.3|-16.7|
90834290|NCT03192176|181536193|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98||0.1153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.47|0.38||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Psychological Symptoms Score||0.38|-3.47|0.1153
90895017|NCT00949715|181655406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.0||||0.2352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|10.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||HO: Pacing at selective RV sites (mid-septum or apex) has no different impact on the change in LVEF after 24 months follow-up. With 12% SD and 80 subjects in groups will have 90% power to detect an absolute difference in LVEF of 6.2% at 24 months follow-up at an alpha level of 0.05.||10.8|-2.7|0.2352
91026229|NCT01694485|181935294|SUPERIORITY|If both comparisons of the primary endpoint reached statistical significance at 0.10, results from the 2 key secondary endpoints (response and mucosal healing at week 8) were to be sequentially (70 mg vs placebo then 210 mg vs placebo) tested at significance level of 0.05 independently of each other, according to the Bonferroni-based chain procedure.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.71|4.52|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline total Mayo Score and stratification factors.|An odds ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher response rate for the abrilumab treatment group relative to placebo.|Comparisons between treatment groups were made using response rates estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline total Mayo Score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||4.52|1.71|<0.001
91026230|NCT01694485|181935294|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Response Rates|23.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|11.8|33.2||||||The difference in adjusted response rates, estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline total Mayo Score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||33.2|11.8|
91026231|NCT01694485|181935294|SUPERIORITY|If both comparisons of the primary endpoint reached statistical significance at 0.10, results from the 2 key secondary endpoints (response and mucosal healing at week 8) were to be sequentially (70 mg vs placebo then 210 mg vs placebo) tested at significance level of 0.05 independently of each other, according to the Bonferroni-based chain procedure.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.57||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.53|4.31|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline total Mayo Score and stratification factors|An odds ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher response rate for the abrilumab treatment group relative to placebo.|Comparisons between treatment groups were made using response rates from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline total Mayo Score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||4.31|1.53|0.003
91026232|NCT01694485|181935294|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Response Rates|21.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.0|31.8||||||The difference in adjusted response rates, estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline total Mayo Score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||31.8|9.0|
91026233|NCT01694485|181935294|SUPERIORITY|Comparisons of abrilumab 21 mg with placebo were not included in the hypothesis testing procedure and were not adjusted for multiplicity.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.54||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.29|5.02|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline total Mayo Score and stratification factors|An odds ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher response rate for the abrilumab treatment group relative to placebo.|Comparisons between treatment groups were made using response rates from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline total Mayo Score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||5.02|1.29|0.024
91026234|NCT01694485|181935294|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was not part of the formal testing.|Difference in Adjusted Response Rates|21.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.9|34.1||||||The difference in adjusted response rates, estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline total Mayo Score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||34.1|4.9|
91026235|NCT01694485|181935294|SUPERIORITY|Comparisons of abrilumab 7 mg with placebo were not included in the hypothesis testing procedure and were not adjusted for multiplicity.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.13|1.22|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline total Mayo Score and stratification factors|An odds ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher response rate for the abrilumab treatment group relative to placebo.|Comparisons between treatment groups were made using response rates from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline total Mayo Score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||1.22|0.13|0.18
90895018|NCT00949715|181655407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1||||0.7405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|5.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||Ho: Packing at selective RV sites (mid-Septum or apex) has no different impact on LVEF change from 2 weeks to 24 months.||5.5|-7.6|0.7405
91026236|NCT01694485|181935294|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was not part of the formal testing.|Difference in Adjusted Response Rates|-13.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-24.4|2.7||||||The difference in adjusted response rates, estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline total Mayo Score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||2.7|-24.4|
91026237|NCT01694485|181935295|SUPERIORITY|If both comparisons of the primary endpoint reached statistical significance at 0.10, results from the 2 key secondary endpoints (response and mucosal healing at week 8) were to be sequentially (70 mg vs placebo then 210 mg vs placebo) tested at significance level of 0.05 independently of each other, according to the Bonferroni-based chain procedure.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.34||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.35|4.07|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline rectosigmoidoscopy score and stratification factors.|An odds ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher healing rate for the abrilumab treatment group relative to placebo.|Comparisons between treatment groups were made using healing rates estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline rectosigmoidoscopy score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||4.07|1.35|0.011
90895019|NCT00949715|181655408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.3||||0.1051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.1|2.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||Ho: Pacing at selective sites (RVS or RVA) has no different impact on LV end systolic volume||2.4|-25.1|0.1051
90895020|NCT00949715|181655409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.9||||0.9835||95.0||||Adjusting for age and gender|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Rank Sum||Ho: The AT/AF burden in the RVS group is the same as the RVA group.||||0.9835
91026238|NCT01694485|181935295|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Healing Rates|15.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.8|24.0||||||The difference in adjusted healing rates, estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline rectosigmoidoscopy score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||24.0|4.8|
91026239|NCT01694485|181935295|SUPERIORITY|If both comparisons of the primary endpoint reached statistical significance at 0.10, results from the 2 key secondary endpoints (response and mucosal healing at week 8) were to be sequentially (70 mg vs placebo then 210 mg vs placebo) tested at significance level of 0.05 independently of each other, according to the Bonferroni-based chain procedure.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.15|3.82|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline rectosigmoidoscopy score and stratification factors|An odds ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher healing rate for the abrilumab treatment group relative to placebo.|Comparisons between treatment groups were made using healing rates from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline rectosigmoidoscopy score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||3.82|1.15|0.041
91026240|NCT01694485|181935295|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Healing Rates|13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.7|22.1||||||The difference in adjusted healing rates, estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline rectosigmoidoscopy score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||22.1|1.7|
90834291|NCT03192176|181536193|SUPERIORITY||-1.5|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.1334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.47|0.46||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Psychological Symptoms Score||0.46|-3.47|0.1334
90895021|NCT05050578|181655426|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority in distance VA was declared if upper confidence limit was less than 0.05.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.003|||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.0||Since a noninferiority hypothesis is being tested, a p-value is not applicable. Confidence limit is being reported and compared to the noninferiority margin.|||LSM results based on mixed effects repeated measures model with both fixed (lens, visit, lens by visit interaction, period, sequence) and random (subject) effects. Difference = LID18869 minus AOHG. Sign is retained with the rounded value.|||0.00||
90895022|NCT00990964|181655431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||One sample proportion|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.929|0.951||||||||.951|.929|
90895023|NCT00990964|181655432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||One sample proportion|0.974|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.965|0.98||||||||.980|.965|
90895024|NCT03386032|181655444|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|Model adjusted means.||Change from baseline in variables were analyzed separately using a mixed model for repeated measures with Subject nested within treatment (random effect), and Treatment, Week, Treatment-by-Week, Age \& Baseline (fixed effects). Last Observation was Carried Forward (LOCF) for drops. Sporadic missing data were left missing.||||<0.05
91032625|NCT00829530|181950174|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|88.87||||||90.0|80.31|98.34|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||98.34|80.31|
91032626|NCT00829530|181950175|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|94.96||||||90.0|89.77|100.45|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||100.45|89.77|
91032627|NCT00829530|181950176|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|95.24||||||90.0|90.13|100.63|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||100.63|90.13|
91032628|NCT00829530|181950177|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|98.85||||||90.0|91.95|106.27|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||106.27|91.95|
91032629|NCT00829530|181950178|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|100.62||||||90.0|97.8|103.52|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||103.52|97.8|
91032630|NCT03553823|181950188|SUPERIORITY||Difference secukinumab vs guselkumab|20.0||||0.1715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|50.3|||Fisher Exact|The statistical model was the Fisher's exact test for the difference in proportions.||"Proportion of subjects whose plaque achieves clear or almost clear status (TCS = 0-2)"||50.3|-13.3|0.1715
91032631|NCT00454909|181950215|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|11.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.87|19.18||||||Evaluation of the immunogenicity induced by Nimenrix™ conjugate vaccine as compared to Menactra® vaccine in terms of percentage of subjects with serum bactericidal assay using human complement against N. meningitidis serogroup A (hSBA-MenA) antibody titers ≥ 1:8 one month after vaccination.||19.18|3.87|
91032632|NCT00454909|181950215|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-2.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.08|0.4||||||Evaluation of the immunogenicity induced by Nimenrix™ conjugate vaccine as compared to Menactra® vaccine in terms of percentage of subjects with serum bactericidal assay using human complement against N. meningitidis serogroup C (hSBA-MenC) antibody titers ≥ 1:8 one month after vaccination.||0.40|-5.08|
91032633|NCT00454909|181950215|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|14.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.24|22.71||||||Evaluation of the immunogenicity induced by Nimenrix™ conjugate vaccine as compared to Menactra® vaccine in terms of percentage of subjects with serum bactericidal assay using human complement against N. meningitidis serogroup W-135 (hSBA-MenW -135) antibody titers ≥ 1:8 one month after vaccination.||22.71|8.24|
90895025|NCT03386032|181655445|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|Model adjusted means. Last Observation was Carried Forward (LOCF) for drops. Sporadic missing data were left miss||"Change from baseline in variables were analyzed separately using a mixed model for repeated measures with Subject nested within treatment (random effect), and Treatment, Week, Treatment-by-Week, Age \& Baseline (fixed effects). Last Observation was Carried Forward (LOCF) for drops. Sporadic missing data were left missing.~Significance level: 0.05 (2-sided)"||||<0.05
90895026|NCT04082442|181655461|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.0001
90895027|NCT04082442|181655462|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.34
90895028|NCT04525547|181655464|OTHER|||||||0.817|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.8170
90895029|NCT04525547|181655465|OTHER|||||||0.6533|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6533
90895030|NCT01493687|181655490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90895031|NCT01493687|181655491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.12|-6.13|||ANCOVA|||||-6.13|-10.12|<0.001
91026241|NCT01694485|181935295|SUPERIORITY|Comparisons of abrilumab 21 mg with placebo were not included in the hypothesis testing procedure and were not adjusted for multiplicity.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.32|1.97|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline rectosigmoidoscopy score and stratification factors|An odds ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher healing rate for the abrilumab treatment group relative to placebo.|Comparisons between treatment groups were made using healing rates from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline rectosigmoidoscopy score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||1.97|0.32|0.68
91026242|NCT01694485|181935295|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was not part of the formal testing.|Difference in Adjusted Healing Rates|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.9|9.4||||||The difference in adjusted healing rates, estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline rectosigmoidoscopy score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||9.4|-11.9|
91026243|NCT01694485|181935295|SUPERIORITY|Comparisons of abrilumab 7 mg with placebo were not included in the hypothesis testing procedure and were not adjusted for multiplicity.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.21|2.22|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline rectosigmoidoscopy score and stratification factors|An odds ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher healing rate for the abrilumab treatment group relative to placebo.|Comparisons between treatment groups were made using healing rates from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline rectosigmoidoscopy score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||2.22|0.21|0.60
91026244|NCT01694485|181935295|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was not part of the formal testing.|Difference in Adjusted Healing Rates|-4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.9|11.3||||||The difference in adjusted healing rates, estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline rectosigmoidoscopy score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||11.3|-14.9|
91026245|NCT01694485|181935296|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.94||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.03|8.36|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline total Mayo Score and stratification factors.|An odds ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher sustained remission rate for the abrilumab treatment group relative to placebo.|Comparisons between treatment groups were made using sustained remission rates estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline total Mayo Score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||8.36|1.03|0.090
90895032|NCT01493687|181655492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90895033|NCT01783418|181655494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.613|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Baseline and Post-intervention (8 weeks)||||0.613
90895034|NCT01783418|181655495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.957|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Baseline, Post-intervention (8 weeks)||||0.957
90895035|NCT01783418|181655496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.256|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Baseline, Post-intervention (8 weeks)||||.256
90895036|NCT01783418|181655497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Baseline, Post-intervention (8 weeks)||||0.97
91026246|NCT01694485|181935296|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Remission Rates|5.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|10.4||||||The difference in adjusted sustained remission rates, estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline total Mayo Score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||10.4|-0.6|
90895037|NCT01783418|181655498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.241|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Baseline, Post-intervention||||0.241
90895038|NCT01783418|181655499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.358|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Baseline, Post-intervention (8 weeks)||||0.358
90895039|NCT01783418|181655500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Baseline, Post-intervention (8 weeks)||||0.95
90895040|NCT00508261|181655514|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for non-inferiority: The lower limit of the two-sided standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for the group difference in the percentages of subjects with serum bactericidal antibodies using baby rabbit complement (rSBA) titer ≥1:8 is greater than or equal to the pre-defined clinical limit of -10%.|Difference in percentages|1.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|4.71||||||Demonstration of the non-inferiority of Nimenrix vaccine co-administered with combined Infanrix-hexa vaccine given alone in terms of bactericidal antibodies to Neisseria meningitidis serogroup A, at month 1.||4.71|-0.33|
90895041|NCT00508261|181655514|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for non-inferiority: The lower limit of the two-sided standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for the group difference in the percentages of subjects with serum bactericidal antibodies using baby rabbit complement (rSBA) titer ≥1:8 is greater than or equal to the pre-defined clinical limit of -10%.|Difference in percentages|2.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|6.24||||||Demonstration of the non-inferiority of the Nimenrix vaccine co-administered with combined Infanrix-hexa vaccine given alone in terms of bactericidal antibodies to Neisseria meningitidis serogroup C, at month 1.||6.24|0.73|
90895042|NCT00508261|181655514|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for non-inferiority: The lower limit of the two-sided standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for the group difference in the percentages of subjects with serum bactericidal antibodies using baby rabbit complement (rSBA) titer ≥1:8 is greater than or equal to the pre-defined clinical limit of -10%.|Difference in percentages|1.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|4.64||||||Demonstration of the non-inferiority of the Nimenrix vaccine co-administered with combined Infanrix-hexa vaccine given alone in terms of bactericidal antibodies to Neisseria meningitidis serogroup W-135, at month 1.||4.64|-0.36|
90834292|NCT03192176|181536193|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.3457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.93|1.03||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Psychological Symptoms Score||1.03|-2.93|0.3457
91026247|NCT01694485|181935296|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.38|4.56|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline total Mayo Score and stratification factors|An odds ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher sustained remission rate for the abrilumab treatment group relative to placebo.|Comparisons between treatment groups were made using sustained remission rates from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline total Mayo Score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||4.56|0.38|0.72
91026248|NCT01694485|181935296|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Remission Rates|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.7|4.6||||||The difference in adjusted sustained remission rates, estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline total Mayo Score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||4.6|-4.7|
90834293|NCT03192176|181536193|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99||0.2607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.07|0.83||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Psychological Symptoms Score||0.83|-3.07|0.2607
90834294|NCT03192176|181536193|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||0.7816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|1.64||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Psychological Symptoms Score||1.64|-2.18|0.7816
90834295|NCT03192176|181536193|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||0.0955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.54|0.29||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Psychological Symptoms Score||0.29|-3.54|0.0955
90834296|NCT03192176|181536193|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.2582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|0.42||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Physical Symptoms Score||0.42|-1.57|0.2582
90834297|NCT03192176|181536193|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.3448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|1.52||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Physical Symptoms Score||1.52|-0.53|0.3448
91032634|NCT00454909|181950215|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|13.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.9|20.1||||||Evaluation of the immunogenicity induced by Nimenrix™ conjugate vaccine as compared to Menactra® vaccine in terms of percentage of subjects with serum bactericidal assay using human complement against N. meningitidis serogroup Y (hSBA-MenY) antibody titers ≥ 1:8 one month after vaccination.||20.10|7.90|
91032635|NCT02549092|181950225|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean of Difference|-8.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.91||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.98|11.55||P value is from the mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) with the model: change from Baseline=treatment, country, visit, Baseline, treatment-by-visit, and Baseline-by-visit. Unstructured variance-covariance structure was used in the MMRM analysis.|mixed model repeated measures|Adjusted for multiplicity using the Hochberg procedure to control the family-wise error rate at a pre-specified significance level (alpha = 0.05).|Difference of LCIG - OMT|||11.55|-27.98|0.410
91032636|NCT02549092|181950226|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|1.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.37||0.509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.16|6.3||The P value is from the MMRM with the model: change from Baseline = treatment, country, visit, Baseline, treatment-by-visit, and Baseline-by-visit. The unstructured variance-covariance structure was used in the MMRM analysis.|mixed model repeated measures|Adjusted for multiplicity using the Hochberg procedure to control the family-wise error rate at a pre-specified significance level (alpha = 0.05).|Difference of LCIG - OMT|||6.30|-3.16|0.509
90834298|NCT03192176|181536193|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.6587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|1.28||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Physical Symptoms Score||1.28|-0.81|0.6587
90834299|NCT03192176|181536193|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.8299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.93||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Physical Symptoms Score||0.93|-1.16|0.8299
90834300|NCT03192176|181536193|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.8129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|0.92||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Physical Symptoms Score||0.92|-1.17|0.8129
90834301|NCT03192176|181536193|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|1.66||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Physical Symptoms Score||1.66|-0.37|0.2130
91033023|NCT00696020|181951771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.3791|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.029|0.076||Type I error was controlled by a closed stepwise procedure.|ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, and centre (centre random, all other effects fixed).|2 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||0.076|-0.029|0.3791
90834302|NCT03192176|181536193|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.4131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|0.59||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Physical Symptoms Score||0.59|-1.42|0.4131
91026249|NCT01694485|181935296|SUPERIORITY|Comparisons of abrilumab 21 mg with placebo were not included in the hypothesis testing procedure and were not adjusted for multiplicity.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.16|4.41|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline total Mayo Score and stratification factors|An odds ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher sustained remission rate for the abrilumab treatment group relative to placebo.|Comparisons between treatment groups were made using sustained remission rates from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline total Mayo Score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||4.41|0.16|0.86
91026250|NCT01694485|181935296|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was not part of the formal testing.|Difference in Adjusted Remission Rates|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.9|6.2||||||The difference in adjusted sustained remission rates estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline total Mayo Score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||6.2|-3.9|
91026251|NCT01694485|181935296|SUPERIORITY|Comparisons of abrilumab 7 mg with placebo were not included in the hypothesis testing procedure and were not adjusted for multiplicity.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.49||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.04|6.31|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline total Mayo Score and stratification factors|An odds ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher sustained remission rate for the abrilumab treatment group relative to placebo.|Comparisons between treatment groups were made using sustained remission rates from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline total Mayo Score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||6.31|0.04|0.64
91026252|NCT01694485|181935296|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was not part of the formal testing.|Difference in Adjusted Remission Rates|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.2|6.4||||||The difference in adjusted sustained remission rates estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline total Mayo Score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||6.4|-4.2|
91026253|NCT02907203|181935297|NON_INFERIORITY|Compared with the Performance Goal: 0.9mm|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.98||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.152|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.152|-0.5|0.000
91026254|NCT01992107|181935313|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the ratio of GMTs (GMT TIV1c/GMT QIVc) for HI antibody does not exceed the non-inferiority margin of 1.5|Ratios of GMT (Day 22/Day 50)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.14|||ANCOVA|||Non-inferiority of immune responses of QIVc to TIV1c, assessed in terms of ratios of GMT against influenza strain A/H1N1||1.14|0.93|
91026255|NCT01992107|181935313|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the ratio of GMTs (GMT TIV1c/GMT QIVc) for HI antibody does not exceed the non-inferiority margin of 1.5|Ratios of GMT (Day 22/Day 50)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.14|||ANCOVA|||Non-inferiority of immune responses of QIVc to TIV1c, assessed in terms of ratios of GMT against influenza strain A/H3N2||1.14|0.97|
91026256|NCT01992107|181935313|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the ratio of GMTs (GMT TIV1c/GMT QIVc) for HI antibody does not exceed the non-inferiority margin of 1.5|Ratios of GMT (Day 22/Day 50)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.1|||ANCOVA|||Non-inferiority of immune responses of QIVc to TIV1c, assessed in terms of ratios of GMT against influenza strain B1||1.1|0.89|
91026257|NCT01992107|181935313|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the ratio of GMTs (GMT TIV2c/GMT QIVc) for HI antibody does not exceed the non-inferiority margin of 1.5|Ratios of GMT (Day 22/Day 50)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.14|||ANCOVA|||Non-inferiority of immune responses of QIVc to TIV2c, assessed in terms of ratios of GMT against influenza strain B2||1.14|0.87|
91026258|NCT01992107|181935314|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference between seroconversion rates (% seroconversion TIV1c - % seroconversion QIVc) for HI antibody does not exceed the margin of 10%|Difference b/w SC rates (Day 22/Day 50)|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|6.9|||ANCOVA|||Non-inferiority of immune responses of QIVc to TIV1c in terms of differences in seroconversion rates against influenza strain A/H1N1||6.9|-2.5|
91026259|NCT01992107|181935314|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference between seroconversion rates (% seroconversion TIV1c - % seroconversion QIVc) for HI antibody does not exceed the margin of 10%|Difference b/w SC rates (Day 22/Day 50)|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|9.2|||ANCOVA|||Non-inferiority of immune responses of QIVc to TIV1c in terms of differences in seroconversion rates against influenza strain A/H3N2||9.2|-1.4|
91026260|NCT01992107|181935314|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference between seroconversion rates (% seroconversion TIV1c - % seroconversion QIVc) for HI antibody does not exceed the margin of 10%|Difference b/w SC rates (Day 22/Day 50)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|4.5|||ANCOVA|||Non-inferiority of immune responses of QIVc to TIV1c in terms of differences in seroconversion rates against influenza strain B1||4.5|-5.5|
91026261|NCT01992107|181935314|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference between seroconversion rates (% seroconversion TIV2c - % seroconversion QIVc) for HI antibody does not exceed the margin of 10%|Difference b/w SC rates (Day 22/Day 50)|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|3.2|||ANCOVA|||Non-inferiority of immune responses of QIVc to TIV2c in terms of differences in seroconversion rates against influenza strain B2||3.2|-6.5|
90834303|NCT03192176|181536193|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.1273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.15||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Vasomotor Symptoms Score||0.15|-1.20|0.1273
90895043|NCT00508261|181655514|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for non-inferiority: The lower limit of the two-sided standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for the group difference in the percentages of subjects with serum bactericidal antibodies using baby rabbit complement (rSBA) titer ≥1:8 is greater than or equal to the pre-defined clinical limit of -10%.|Difference in percentages|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|6.18||||||Demonstration of the non-inferiority of the Nimenrix vaccine co-administered with combined Infanrix-hexa vaccine given alone in terms of bactericidal antibodies to Neisseria meningitidis serogroup Y, at month 1.||6.18|0.71|
90895044|NCT00508261|181655515|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for non-inferiority (1 month after the first study vaccination): The lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI on the GMC ratio for anti-PT (ELISA) is greater than or equal to a pre-defined clinical limit of delta = 0.67.|Adjusted GMC ratios|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.12||||||Demonstration of non-inferiority of combined Infanrix-hexa vaccine co-administered with Nimenrix vaccine to Infanrix-hexa vaccine given alone in terms of geometric mean concentrations (GMCs) of antibodies to pertussis toxoid (PT), at month 1.||1.12|0.83|
90834304|NCT03192176|181536193|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|-0.31||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Vasomotor Symptoms Score||-0.31|-1.69|0.0046
90834305|NCT03192176|181536193|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.19|-0.8||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Vasomotor Symptoms Score||-0.80|-2.19|<0.0001
90834306|NCT03192176|181536193|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.19|-0.78||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Vasomotor Symptoms Score||-0.78|-2.19|<0.0001
90834307|NCT03192176|181536193|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.0333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|-0.06||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Vasomotor Symptoms Score||-0.06|-1.45|0.0333
90834308|NCT03192176|181536193|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.0423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|-0.02||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Vasomotor Symptoms Score||-0.02|-1.39|0.0423
90834309|NCT03192176|181536193|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.0208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|-0.12||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Vasomotor Symptoms Score||-0.12|-1.49|0.0208
90834310|NCT03192176|181536193|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.3435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.19||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Sexual Dysfunction Score||0.19|-0.55|0.3435
90895045|NCT00508261|181655515|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for non-inferiority (1 month after the first study vaccination): The lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI on the GMC ratio for anti-FHA (ELISA) is greater than or equal to a pre-defined clinical limit of delta = 0.67.|Adjusted GMC ratios|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.13||||||Demonstration of non-inferiority of combined Infanrix-hexa vaccine co-administered with Nimenrix vaccine to Infanrix-hexa vaccine given alone in terms of geometric mean concentrations (GMCs) of antibodies to filamentous haemagglutinin (FHA), at month 1.||1.13|0.85|
90895046|NCT00508261|181655515|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for non-inferiority (1 month after the first study vaccination): The lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI on the GMC ratio for anti-PRN (ELISA) is greater than or equal to a pre-defined clinical limit of delta = 0.67.|Adjusted GMC ratios|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.1||||||Demonstration of non-inferiority of combined Infanrix-hexa vaccine co-administered with Nimenrix vaccine to Infanrix-hexa vaccine given alone in terms of geometric mean concentrations (GMCs) of antibodies to pertactin (PRN), at month 1.||1.1|0.78|
90834311|NCT03192176|181536193|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.22||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Sexual Dysfunction Score||-0.22|-0.98|0.0021
90834312|NCT03192176|181536193|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.02||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Sexual Dysfunction Score||-0.02|-0.79|0.0408
90834313|NCT03192176|181536193|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differencce|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.05||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Sexual Dysfunction Score||0.05|-0.73|0.0911
90834314|NCT03192176|181536193|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.7891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.33||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Sexual Dysfunction Score||0.33|-0.44|0.7891
90834315|NCT03192176|181536193|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.9973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.38||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Sexual Dysfunction Score||0.38|-0.38|0.9973
90834316|NCT03192176|181536193|SUPERIORITY||-0.1|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.6377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.29||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Sexual Dysfunction Score||0.29|-0.47|0.6377
90834317|NCT03192176|181536193|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.61||0.0862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.95|0.4||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Total Score||0.40|-5.95|0.0862
90834318|NCT03192176|181536193|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.65||0.1305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.74|0.74||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Total Score||0.74|-5.74|0.1305
90834319|NCT03192176|181536193|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.68||0.0707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.34|0.26||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Total Score||0.26|-6.34|0.0707
90834320|NCT03192176|181536193|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.68||0.1232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.92|0.71||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Total Score||0.71|-5.92|0.1232
90834321|NCT03192176|181536193|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.66||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.18|1.37||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Total Score||1.37|-5.18|0.2530
90834322|NCT03192176|181536193|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.64||0.9133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|3.04||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Total Score||3.04|-3.40|0.9133
90834323|NCT03192176|181536193|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63||0.1078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.85|0.58||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Total Score||0.58|-5.85|0.1078
90834324|NCT03192176|181536193|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differencce|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08||0.0719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.07|0.18||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Psychological Symptoms Score||0.18|-4.07|0.0719
91026262|NCT01992107|181935320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratios of GMT (Day 22/Day 50)|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.29||||||Superiority of immune responses of QIVc to TIV1c in terms of ratios of GMT against influenza strain B2.The upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMTs (GMT TIV1c/GMTQIVc) for HI antibody should not exceed the superiority margin of 1 met.||0.29|0.22|
90834325|NCT03192176|181536193|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09||0.1298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|0.49||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Psychological Symptoms Score||0.49|-3.80|0.1298
90834326|NCT03192176|181536193|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.9532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|2.13||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Psychological Symptoms Score||2.13|-2.26|0.9532
90895047|NCT00508261|181655516|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for non-inferiority (1 month after the first study vaccination): The lower limit of the two-sided standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the group difference in the percentages of subjects with anti-HBs antibody concentrations ≥10 mIU/ml is greater than or equal to the pre-defined clinical limit of -10%.|Difference in percentages|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|4.6||||||||4.6|-1.47|
90895048|NCT00508261|181655517|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for non-inferiority (1 month after the first study vaccination): The lower limit of the two-sided standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the group difference in the percentage of subjects with anti-PRP concentrations (ELISA) ≥1.0 μg/mL is greater than or equal to the pre-defined clinical limit of -10%.|Difference in percentages|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|4.5||||||||4.5|-1.45|
91026263|NCT01992107|181935321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference b/w SC rates(Day 22/Day 50)|-47.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.1|-42.1||||||Superiority of immune responses of QIVc to TIV1c in terms of seroconversion rates against influenza strain B2.The upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between seroconversion rates (% seroconversion TIV1c - %seroconversion QIVc) for HI antibody should not exceed the margin of 0 points met.||-42.1|-51.1|
91026264|NCT01992107|181935322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratios of GMT (Day 22/Day 50)|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.42||||||Superiority of immune responses of QIVc to TIV2c in terms of ratios of GMT against influenza strain B1.The upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMTs (GMT TIV2c /GMTQIVc) for HI antibody should not exceed the superiority margin of 1 met.||0.42|0.35|
90834327|NCT03192176|181536193|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12||0.751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|2.55||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Psychological Symptoms Score||2.55|-1.84|0.7510
90834328|NCT03192176|181536193|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.95|0.42||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Psychological Symptoms Score||0.42|-3.95|0.1120
90834329|NCT03192176|181536193|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.9781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|2.19||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Psychological Symptoms Score||2.19|-2.13|0.9781
90834330|NCT03192176|181536193|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.57|0.77||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Psychological Symptoms Score||0.77|-3.57|0.2060
90834331|NCT03192176|181536193|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.5332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|0.76||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Physical Symptoms Score||0.76|-1.46|0.5332
90834332|NCT03192176|181536193|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.4599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|0.7||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Physical Symptoms Score||0.70|-1.54|0.4599
90834333|NCT03192176|181536193|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.4752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|1.55||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Physical Symptoms Score||1.55|-0.72|0.4752
90834334|NCT03192176|181536193|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.9051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|1.07||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Physical Symptoms Score||1.07|-1.21|0.9051
90834335|NCT03192176|181536193|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.9937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|1.15||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Physical Symptoms Score||1.15|-1.14|0.9937
90834336|NCT03192176|181536193|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.6956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|1.35||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Physical Symptoms Score||1.35|-0.91|0.6956
91033024|NCT00696020|181951771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.033|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.2133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.019|0.085||Type I error was controlled by a closed stepwise procedure.|ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, and centre (centre random, all other effects fixed).|5 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||0.085|-0.019|0.2133
91033025|NCT00696020|181951771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.057|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.0337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|0.11||Type I error was controlled by a closed stepwise procedure.|ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, and centre (centre random, all other effects fixed).|10 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||0.110|0.004|0.0337
91033026|NCT00696020|181951772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.1163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.093||Type I error was controlled by a closed stepwise procedure.|ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, and centre (centre random, all other effects fixed).|2 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||0.093|-0.010|0.1163
91033027|NCT00696020|181951772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.0224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.009|0.111||Type I error was controlled by a closed stepwise procedure.|ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, and centre (centre random, all other effects fixed).|5 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||0.111|0.009|0.0224
91033028|NCT00696020|181951772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.055|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.003|0.107||Type I error was controlled by a closed stepwise procedure.|ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, and centre (centre random, all other effects fixed).|10 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||0.107|0.003|0.0380
91033029|NCT00696020|181951773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047||0.9573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.089|0.094|||ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed).|2 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||0.094|-0.089|0.9573
91033030|NCT00696020|181951773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.099|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.046||0.0321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.009|0.189|||ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed).|5 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||0.189|0.009|0.0321
91033031|NCT00696020|181951773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.117|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047||0.0125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.025|0.209|||ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed)|10 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||0.209|0.025|0.0125
90834337|NCT03192176|181536193|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.2302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|0.44||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Physical Symptoms Score||0.44|-1.81|0.2302
90834338|NCT03192176|181536193|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.1544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|0.25||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Vasomotor Symptoms Score||0.25|-1.55|0.1544
90834339|NCT03192176|181536193|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.6847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.72||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Vasomotor Symptoms Score||0.72|-1.10|0.6847
90895049|NCT00180479|181655543|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size calculation for endpoint of in-segment LL at 240 days is based on these assumptions: one-tailed non-inferiority= (δ)=0.025, Power=99%, Randomization ratio 2:1, True mean in-seg. LL is assumed to be 0.24 mm in both arms.|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Primary endpoint analyzed for intent-to-treat \& per-treatment evaluable pop. Hypothesis test based on per-subject analysis of intent-to-treat pop. using analysis lesion. The null hypothesis evaluated using non-inferiority test with asymptotic test statistic.||||<0.0001
91090138|NCT02456727|182062834|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3714|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2039||0.0691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.772|0.0291|||ANCOVA|The outcome is the change of score from baseline to 12 weeks, adjusting for the baseline score.|The estimated value is the difference of score change from baseline to 12 weeks between two treatment arms (Individual-Group).|||0.0291|-0.7720|0.0691
91090139|NCT02456727|182062835|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1631|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.246||0.5077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6452|0.319|||ANCOVA|The outcome is the change of score from baseline to 12 weeks, adjusting for the baseline score.|The estimated value is the difference of score change from baseline to 12 weeks between two treatment arms (Individual-Group).|||0.319|-0.6452|0.5077
91090140|NCT02456727|182062836|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis is that the group treatment is inferior to the individual treatment. 10% is set as the non-inferiority margin. If the upper limit of 90% confidence interval of the estimated value does not exceed 10%, non-inferiority is demonstrated.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0724|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0399||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0058|0.1506|||Chi-squared||The estimated value is the difference of proportion of respondents (\>=30% improvement) at 12 weeks between two treatment arms (Individual-Group)|||0.1506|-0.0058|0.24
91090141|NCT02456727|182062837|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis is that the group treatment is inferior to the individual treatment. 10% is set as the non-inferiority margin. If the upper limit of 90% confidence interval of the estimated value does not exceed 10%, non-inferiority is demonstrated.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0531|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0487||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0422|0.1485|||Chi-squared||The estimated value is the difference of proportion of respondents (\>=30% improvement) at 12 weeks between two treatment arms (Individual-Group)|||0.1485|-0.0422|0.17
91090142|NCT02456727|182062838|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis is that the group treatment is inferior to the individual treatment. 10% is set as the non-inferiority margin. If the upper limit of 90% confidence interval of the estimated value does not exceed 10%, non-inferiority is demonstrated.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0625|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0396||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0151|0.1401|||Chi-squared||The estimated value is the difference of proportion of respondents (\>=30% improvement) at 24 weeks between two treatment arms (Individual-Group)|||0.1401|-0.0151|0.17
91090143|NCT02456727|182062839|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis is that the group treatment is inferior to the individual treatment. 10% is set as the non-inferiority margin. If the upper limit of 90% confidence interval of the estimated value does not exceed 10%, non-inferiority is demonstrated.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0882|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0488||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0075|0.184|||Chi-squared||The estimated value is the difference of proportion of respondents (\>=30% improvement) at 24 weeks between two treatment arms (Individual-Group)|||0.184|-0.0075|0.40
91090144|NCT02456727|182062840|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2643|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1782||0.1387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6136|0.0851|||ANCOVA|The outcome is the change in score from baseline to 12 weeks, adjusting for the baseline score.|The estimated value is the difference of score change from baseline to 12 weeks between the two treatment arms (Individual-Group).|||0.0851|-0.6136|0.1387
91090145|NCT02456727|182062841|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2334|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2124||0.2725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6497|0.1829|||ANCOVA|The outcome is the change in score from baseline to 12 weeks, adjusting for the baseline score.|The estimated value is the difference of score change from baseline to 12 weeks between the two treatment arms (Individual-Group).|||0.1829|-0.6497|0.2725
91090146|NCT02456727|182062842|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis is that the group treatment is inferior to the individual treatment. 10% is set as the non-inferiority margin. If the upper limit of 90% confidence interval of the estimated value does not exceed 10%, non-inferiority is demonstrated.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0426|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0388||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0334|0.1185|||Chi-squared||The estimated value is the difference of proportion of respondents (\>=30% improvement) at 12 weeks between two treatment arms (Individual-Group)|||0.1185|-0.0334|0.07
90834340|NCT03192176|181536193|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.64||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Vasomotor Symptoms Score||0.64|-1.20|0.5520
90834341|NCT03192176|181536193|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.3632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|0.5||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Vasomotor Symptoms Score||0.50|-1.36|0.3632
91090147|NCT02456727|182062843|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis is that the group treatment is inferior to the individual treatment. 10% is set as the non-inferiority margin. If the upper limit of 90% confidence interval of the estimated value does not exceed 10%, non-inferiority is demonstrated.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0283|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0477||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0651|0.1218|||Chi-squared||The estimated value is the difference of proportion of respondents (\>=30% improvement) at 12 weeks between two treatment arms (Individual-Group)|||0.1218|-0.0651|0.07
91090148|NCT02456727|182062844|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis is that the group treatment is inferior to the individual treatment. 10% is set as the non-inferiority margin. If the upper limit of 90% confidence interval of the estimated value does not exceed 10%, non-inferiority is demonstrated.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0262|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0356||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0436|0.0961|||Chi-squared||The estimated value is the difference of proportion of respondents (\>=30% improvement) at 24 weeks between two treatment arms (Individual-Group)|||0.0961|-0.0436|0.02
90834342|NCT03192176|181536193|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.2828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|0.42||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Vasomotor Symptoms Score||0.42|-1.43|0.2828
90834343|NCT03192176|181536193|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.4702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|0.58||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Vasomotor Symptoms Score||0.58|-1.24|0.4702
90834344|NCT03192176|181536193|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.8262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|0.81||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Vasomotor Symptoms Score||0.81|-1.02|0.8262
90834345|NCT03192176|181536193|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.3152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.19||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Sexual Dysfunction Score||0.19|-0.60|0.3152
90834346|NCT03192176|181536193|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.4399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.24||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Sexual Dysfunction Score||0.24|-0.56|0.4399
90834347|NCT03192176|181536193|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.1898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.13||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Sexual Dysfunction Score||0.13|-0.67|0.1898
90834348|NCT03192176|181536193|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.9791|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.41||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Sexual Dysfunction Score||0.41|-0.40|0.9791
90895050|NCT00180479|181655544|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Study had 89% statistical power based on major secondary endpoint to prove non-inferiority of XIENCE® V to TAXUS®, non-inferiority delta=5.5%, true TVF rate 9.4% in both arms with overall 5% alpha (one-sided), assuming 1% subject dropout rate.|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Null hypothesis was evaluated using a non-inferiority Z statistic. Non-inferiority was defined as a one-sided alpha of 0.05 and a difference in TVF rate of no more than 5.5%.||||<0.0001
91090149|NCT02456727|182062845|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis is that the group treatment is inferior to the individual treatment. 10% is set as the non-inferiority margin. If the upper limit of 90% confidence interval of the estimated value does not exceed 10%, non-inferiority is demonstrated.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0323|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0539|0.1186|||Chi-squared||The estimated value is the difference of proportion of respondents (\>=30% improvement) at 24 weeks between two treatment arms (Individual-Group)|||0.1186|-0.0539|0.06
90834349|NCT03192176|181536193|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.3178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.2||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Sexual Dysfunction Score||0.20|-0.61|0.3178
90834350|NCT03192176|181536193|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.4174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.24||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Sexual Dysfunction Score||0.24|-0.57|0.4174
90834351|NCT03192176|181536193|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.16||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Sexual Dysfunction Score||0.16|-0.63|0.2490
90834352|NCT03192176|181536193|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.87||0.1233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.57|0.79||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Total Score||0.79|-6.57|0.1233
90895051|NCT03315143|181655587|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.88|||Cox proportional hazards model|||The estimates of the hazard ratio (HR) and corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was to be provided by a marginal Cox proportional hazard model stratified by region and ejection fraction, with non-cardiovascular (non-CV) death treated as a competing event.||0.88|0.63|<0.001
90834353|NCT03192176|181536193|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.2858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.76|1.7||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Total Score||1.70|-5.76|0.2858
90834354|NCT03192176|181536193|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93||0.9716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.87|3.73||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Total Score||3.73|-3.87|0.9716
90834355|NCT03192176|181536193|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93||0.9072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.58|4.03||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Total Score||4.03|-3.58|0.9072
90834356|NCT03192176|181536193|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.92||0.2334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.07|1.49||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Total Score||1.49|-6.07|0.2334
90834357|NCT03192176|181536193|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91||0.9859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.79|3.72||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Total Score||3.72|-3.79|0.9859
90834358|NCT03192176|181536193|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.77|1.72||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Total Score||1.72|-5.77|0.2870
90834359|NCT03192176|181536194|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.1632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|0.24||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Vasomotor Mean Score||0.24|-1.41|0.1632
90834360|NCT03192176|181536194|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.03|-0.38||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Vasomotor Mean Score||-0.38|-2.03|0.0045
90895052|NCT03315143|181655588|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.82|||Cox proportional hazards model|||The estimates of the HR and corresponding 2-sided 95% CI was to be provided by a marginal Cox proportional hazard model stratified by region and ejection fraction, with non-CV death treated as a competing event.||0.82|0.55|<0.001
90834361|NCT03192176|181536194|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.43|-0.77||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Vasomotor Mean Score||-0.77|-2.43|0.0002
90834362|NCT03192176|181536194|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-1.02||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Vasomotor Mean Score||-1.02|-2.70|<0.0001
90834363|NCT03192176|181536194|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.8569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.76||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Vasomotor Mean Score||0.76|-0.91|0.8569
90834364|NCT03192176|181536194|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|0.15||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Vasomotor Mean Score||0.15|-1.49|0.1110
90834365|NCT03192176|181536194|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.0187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|-0.17||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Vasomotor Mean Score||-0.17|-1.83|0.0187
90895053|NCT03315143|181655589|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||=|0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.12|||Cox proportional hazards model|||The estimates of the HR and corresponding 2-sided 95% CI was to be provided by a marginal Cox proportional hazard model stratified by region and ejection fraction, with non-CV death treated as a competing event.||1.12|0.73|=0.35
90834366|NCT03192176|181536194|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.4972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.36||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Psychological Mean Score||0.36|-0.73|0.4972
90895054|NCT03315143|181655590|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.83||||||The estimates of the HR and corresponding 2-sided 95% CI was to be provided by a marginal Cox proportional hazard model stratified by region and ejection fraction, with non-CV death treated as a competing event.||0.83|0.63|
91033032|NCT00696020|181951774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.085|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.026|0.145|||ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed).|2 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||0.145|0.026|0.0052
90895055|NCT03315143|181655591|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.89||||||The estimates of the HR and corresponding 2-sided 95% CI was to be provided by a marginal Cox proportional hazard model stratified by region and ejection fraction, with non-CV death treated as a competing event.||0.89|0.65|
90834367|NCT03192176|181536194|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.2568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.23||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Psychological Mean Score||0.23|-0.86|0.2568
90834368|NCT03192176|181536194|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.2609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.23||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Psychological Mean Score||0.23|-0.86|0.2609
90834369|NCT03192176|181536194|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.4148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.32||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Psychological Mean Score||0.32|-0.78|0.4148
90834370|NCT03192176|181536194|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.5575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.71||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Psychological Mean Score||0.71|-0.38|0.5575
90834371|NCT03192176|181536194|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.1671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.92||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Psychological Mean Score||0.92|-0.16|0.1671
90834372|NCT03192176|181536194|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.9462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.53||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Psychological Mean Score||0.53|-0.57|0.9462
90834373|NCT03192176|181536194|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.04||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Physical Mean Score||0.04|-0.91|0.0699
90834374|NCT03192176|181536194|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|-0.2||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Physical Mean Score||-0.20|-1.15|0.0056
90834375|NCT03192176|181536194|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.1117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.09||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Physical Mean Score||0.09|-0.86|0.1117
90834376|NCT03192176|181536194|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.06||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Physical Mean Score||-0.06|-1.02|0.0265
90834377|NCT03192176|181536194|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.1119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.09||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Physical Mean Score||0.09|-0.86|0.1119
90834378|NCT03192176|181536194|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.7607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.4||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Physical Mean Score||0.40|-0.54|0.7607
90834379|NCT03192176|181536194|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.01||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Physical Mean Score||-0.01|-0.97|0.0437
90895056|NCT03315143|181655592|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.08||||||The estimates of the HR and corresponding 2-sided 95% CI was to be provided by a marginal Cox proportional hazard model stratified by region and ejection fraction, with non-CV death treated as a competing event.||1.08|0.46|
91026265|NCT01992107|181935323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference b/w SC rates(Day 22/Day 50)|-34.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.8|-29.3||||||Superiority of immune responses of QIVc to TIV2c in terms of seroconversion rates against influenza strain B1.The upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between seroconversion rates (% seroconversion TIV1c or TIV2c - %seroconversion QIVc) for HI antibody should not exceed the margin of 0 points met.||-29.3|-38.8|
90895057|NCT03315143|181655593|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.18||||||The estimates of the HR and corresponding 2-sided 95% CI was to be provided by a marginal Cox proportional hazard model stratified by region and ejection fraction.||1.18|0.83|
91026266|NCT02022007|181935326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||McNemar|||Study change from dysglycemia to normal glucose state||||.007
91026267|NCT02022007|181935327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||ANOVA|||This was a Subjects (SS)/Groups repeated measures design||||.02
91026268|NCT02022007|181935328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|n||Pretreatment fasting glucose levels were compared with post-treatment levels||||<0.0001
90895058|NCT03315143|181655594|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.91||||||The estimates of the HR and corresponding 2-sided 95% CI was to be provided by a marginal Cox proportional hazard model stratified by region and ejection fraction, with non-CV death treated as a competing event.||0.91|0.65|
90834380|NCT03192176|181536194|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.0211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|-0.12||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Sexual Mean Score||-0.12|-1.51|0.0211
90834381|NCT03192176|181536194|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|-0.42||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Sexual Mean Score||-0.42|-1.82|0.0017
90834382|NCT03192176|181536194|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.0598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|0.03||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Sexual Mean Score||0.03|-1.37|0.0598
90834383|NCT03192176|181536194|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differencce|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.1573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|0.2||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Sexual Mean Score||0.20|-1.21|0.1573
90834384|NCT03192176|181536194|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.7257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.58||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Sexual Mean Score||0.58|-0.83|0.7257
90834385|NCT03192176|181536194|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.9324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.66||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Sexual Mean Score||0.66|-0.72|0.9324
90834386|NCT03192176|181536194|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.2172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|0.26||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Sexual Mean Score||0.26|-1.14|0.2172
90834387|NCT03192176|181536194|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.04||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Overall Mean Score||0.04|-0.88|0.0742
91026269|NCT02022007|181935329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038|||||||ANOVA|||||||.038
90834388|NCT03192176|181536194|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|-0.23||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Overall Score||-0.23|-1.16|0.0035
90834389|NCT03192176|181536194|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.06||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Overall Mean Score||-0.06|-0.99|0.0266
90834390|NCT03192176|181536194|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.13||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Overall Mean Score||-0.13|-1.06|0.0124
90834391|NCT03192176|181536194|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.4367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.28||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Overall Mean Score||0.28|-0.65|0.4367
90834392|NCT03192176|181536194|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.9318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.44||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Overall Mean Score||0.44|-0.48|0.9318
90834393|NCT03192176|181536194|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.04||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Overall Mean Score||0.04|-0.89|0.0714
91026270|NCT02022007|181935330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.003
91026271|NCT02022007|181935331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025|||||||ANOVA|||||||.025
91026272|NCT02022007|181935332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.006
91026273|NCT02022007|181935333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||ANOVA|||||||.006
91026274|NCT02022007|181935334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026|||||||ANOVA|||||||.026
91026275|NCT02022007|181935335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||ANOVA|||||||.006
91026276|NCT02022007|181935336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||ANOVA|||||||.006
91090150|NCT02456727|182062846|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.1475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5288|0.0795|||t-test, 2 sided|The outcome is the change of PGIC from baseline to 12 weeks.|The estimated value is the difference of PGIC change from baseline to 12 weeks between two treatment arms (Individual-Group).|||0.0795|-0.5288|0.1475
90895059|NCT00840801|181655605|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|A stratified score test was used to test the non-inferiority with a margin of -10% at 2.5% type I error (one-sided).|||||<|0.001|||||||Stratified score test|||Non-inferiority Test on Seropositive Response Rate||||<0.001
91026277|NCT02022007|181935337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.05
91026278|NCT00952484|181935382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value based on Wilcoxon rank sum test comparing the median RGI-C score for the asfotase alfa combined reporting group to the historical control group.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0007
91026279|NCT00952484|181935383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0097|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value testing whether the mean change from Baseline differs from Zero based on a t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0097
91090151|NCT02456727|182062847|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.3038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.546|0.1706|||t-test, 2 sided|The outcome is the change of PGIC from baseline to 12 weeks.|The estimated value is the difference of PGIC change from baseline to 12 weeks between two treatment arms (Individual-Group).|||0.1706|-0.546|0.3038
91090152|NCT02456727|182062848|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis is that the group treatment is inferior to the individual treatment. 10% is set as the non-inferiority margin. If the upper limit of 90% confidence interval of the estimated value does not exceed 10%, non-inferiority is demonstrated.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0251|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0392||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0517|0.1018|||Chi-squared||The estimated value is the difference of proportion of respondents (change post treatment\>=6) at 12 weeks between two treatment arms (Individual-Group)|||0.1018|-0.0517|0.03
91026280|NCT00952484|181935384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0789|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value testing whether the mean change from Baseline differs from Zero based on a t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0789
91026281|NCT00952484|181935385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7417|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value testing whether the mean change from Baseline differs from Zero based on a t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7417
91090153|NCT02456727|182062849|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis is that the group treatment is inferior to the individual treatment. 10% is set as the non-inferiority margin. If the upper limit of 90% confidence interval of the estimated value does not exceed 10%, non-inferiority is demonstrated.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0018|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0481||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0925|0.096|||Chi-squared||The estimated value is the difference of proportion of respondents (change post treatment\>=6) at 12 weeks between two treatment arms (Individual-Group)|||0.096|-0.0925|0.02
91090154|NCT02456727|182062850|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis is that the group treatment is inferior to the individual treatment. 10% is set as the non-inferiority margin. If the upper limit of 90% confidence interval of the estimated value does not exceed 10%, non-inferiority is demonstrated.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.0104|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.081|0.0602|||Chi-squared||The estimated value is the difference of proportion of respondents (change post treatment\>=6) at 24 weeks between two treatment arms (Individual-Group)|||0.0602|-0.081|0.00
91090155|NCT02456727|182062851|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis is that the group treatment is inferior to the individual treatment. 10% is set as the non-inferiority margin. If the upper limit of 90% confidence interval of the estimated value does not exceed 10%, non-inferiority is demonstrated.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0154|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0464||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0755|0.1063|||Chi-squared||The estimated value is the difference of proportion of respondents (change post treatment\>=6) at 24 weeks between two treatment arms (Individual-Group)|||0.1063|-0.0755|0.03
90895060|NCT00335452|181655620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk Reduction (%)|6.1||||0.3037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|16.6||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is ≤0.05.|Log Rank|Two-sided stratified by ASA dose level (low or high) and qualifying condition (UA/NSTEMI or STEMI) log-rank test.|The relative risk reduction (high dose treatment regimen (600/150/75 mg) versus standard treatment regimen (300/75/75 mg)) is estimated using stratified Cox proportional hazards model controlling for ASA dose level and qualifying condition.|||16.6|-5.8|0.3037
91026282|NCT00952484|181935386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.757|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value testing whether the mean change from Baseline differs from Zero based on a Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test.|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank|||||||0.7570
91026283|NCT00952484|181935387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value testing whether the mean change from Baseline differs from Zero based on a t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91026284|NCT00952484|181935388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value testing whether the mean change from Baseline differs from Zero based on a t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0007
91026285|NCT02750306|181935396|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|28.2||||0.00128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.1|45.2|||ANCOVA|||||45.2|11.1|0.00128
91026286|NCT02750306|181935399|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-15.7||||0.01354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.1|-3.3|||ANCOVA|||||-3.3|-28.1|0.01354
91026287|NCT02422290|181935400|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.83||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.27|7.87|||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired sample t-test was calculated to test mean difference between CY-BOCS scores at the time points Baseline and Day 14.||7.87|-2.27|.20
91026288|NCT02422290|181935401|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|2.16|||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired sample t-test was calculated to test mean difference between CGI-S scores at the time points Baseline and Day 14.||2.16|-.56|.18
91026289|NCT02422290|181935402|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|2.78|||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired sample t-test was calculated to test mean difference between OCD-VAS scores at the time points Baseline and Day 14.||2.78|-2.78|1.00
91026290|NCT02422290|181935403|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.41||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.46|18.96|||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired sample t-test was calculated to test mean difference between OCD-VAS scores at the time points Baseline and Day 14.||18.96|-15.46|.77
90834394|NCT03192176|181536194|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.2027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|0.29||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Vasomotor Mean Score||0.29|-1.35|0.2027
90834395|NCT03192176|181536194|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|-0.53||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Vasomotor Mean Score||-0.53|-2.16|0.0013
90834396|NCT03192176|181536194|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.53|-0.87||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Vasomotor Mean Score||-0.87|-2.53|<0.0001
90834397|NCT03192176|181536194|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.83|-1.16||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Vasomotor Mean Score||-1.16|-2.83|<0.0001
90834398|NCT03192176|181536194|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.3791|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|0.45||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Vasomotor Mean Score||0.45|-1.19|0.3791
90834399|NCT03192176|181536194|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.0211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|-0.15||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Vasomotor Mean Score||-0.15|-1.78|0.0211
90834400|NCT03192176|181536194|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.47||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Vasomotor Mean Score||-0.47|-2.10|0.0021
90834401|NCT03192176|181536194|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.48||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Wek 8: Psychological Mean Score||0.48|-0.55|0.8890
90834402|NCT03192176|181536194|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.5568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.36||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Psychological Mean Score||0.36|-0.67|0.5568
90834403|NCT03192176|181536194|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.3989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.3||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Psychological Mean Score||0.30|-0.75|0.3989
90834404|NCT03192176|181536194|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.6094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.39||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Psychological Mean Score||0.39|-0.66|0.6094
91026291|NCT01945138|181935419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
91026292|NCT01945138|181935420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.115|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.115
91026293|NCT01945138|181935421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.193|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.193
91026294|NCT01945138|181935422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.848|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.848
90895061|NCT00335452|181655621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is ≤0.05.|Regression, Logistic|logistic regression model including terms for ASA dose level (low or high) and qualifying condition (UA/NSTEMI or STEMI).||||||0.012
91026295|NCT01945138|181935423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.074|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.074
91026296|NCT01945138|181935424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.38
91026297|NCT01945138|181935425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.461|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.461
91026298|NCT01945138|181935426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.205|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.205
91026299|NCT01945138|181935427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.157|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.157
91026300|NCT01945138|181935428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.443|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.443
91026301|NCT01945138|181935429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04
91026302|NCT01945138|181935430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.401|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.401
91026303|NCT01945138|181935431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.22
91026304|NCT01945138|181935432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.325|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.325
91026305|NCT01945138|181935433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.311|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.311
91026306|NCT00457665|181935453|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.94
91026307|NCT01102777|181935484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.142|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline value of outcome, MMRC dyspnea score, and urban versus rural residence.||||||0.142
91026308|NCT01102777|181935485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.502|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Based on mixed models, adjusting for group, time, group\*time interaction, MMRC score, and urban versus rural residence.||||||.502
90834405|NCT03192176|181536194|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.5229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.69||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Psychological Mean Score||0.69|-0.35|0.5229
90834406|NCT03192176|181536194|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.4409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.72||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Psychological Mean Score||0.72|-0.31|0.4409
90834407|NCT03192176|181536194|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.8062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.58||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Psychological Mean Score||0.58|-0.45|0.8062
90834408|NCT03192176|181536194|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.3663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.26||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Physical Mean Score||0.26|-0.71|0.3663
91026309|NCT01102777|181935486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline value and rural residence.||||||.90
91026310|NCT01102777|181935487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline value and rural residence.||||||.93
91026311|NCT01102777|181935488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|TWO_SIDED||||||Zero inflated Poisson regression|Adjusted for age, gender, oxygen use, and arm.||||||.08
91026312|NCT01102777|181935489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.731|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Based on mixed models, adjusting for group, time, group\*time interaction, MMRC score, and urban versus rural residence.||||||0.731
91026313|NCT01102777|181935490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Based on mixed models, adjusting for time, MMRC score, and urban versus rural residence.||||||.52
91026314|NCT01102777|181935491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||The determination of arm occurred after recruitment, and Study Reach is a recruitment value.||||
91026315|NCT01102777|181935492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusting for time, MMRC score, and urban versus rural residence.||||||.11
91026316|NCT01102777|181935493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Based on mixed models, adjusting for time, MMRC score, and urban versus rural residence.||||||.01
91026317|NCT00210626|181935530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3807||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Covariate used is Baseline SF-36 PF Score. Baseline SF-36 PF Score was collected prior to the start of Procrit or Placebo treatment||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between Procrit and Placebo in average SF-36 Physical Function Scores||||0.3807
91026318|NCT00210626|181935531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7038||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7038
91026319|NCT04147715|181935588|OTHER|The drug interaction was assessed by whether the 90% CIs for the geometric least squares mean ratio of Cmax, Cτ, and AUC0-τ of S-648414 were completely contained within the range of 0.8000 to 1.2500.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.9913|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9232|1.0645|||||Ratio = S-648414 + Dolutegravir / S-648414|The effect of dolutegravir on the PK of S-648414 was assessed by analysis of variance (ANOVA) fit with a linear mixed effect model with the natural log (ln)-transformed Cmax as the dependent variable, treatment as fixed effect, and participant as random effect. The difference and 90% confidence interval (CI) between the ln-transformed Cmax of S-648414 + dolutegravir and S-648414 alone were estimated then back-transformed to obtain the corresponding geometric least squares mean ratio and 90% CI.||1.0645|0.9232|
91026320|NCT04147715|181935588|OTHER|The drug interaction was assessed by whether the 90% CIs for the geometric least squares mean ratio of Cmax, Cτ, and AUC0-τ of S-648414 were completely contained within the range of 0.8000 to 1.2500.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.9754|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8916|1.0671|||||Ratio = S-648414 + Dolutegravir / S-648414|The effect of dolutegravir on the PK of S-648414 was assessed by an ANOVA fitted with a linear mixed effect model with the natural log-transformed Cmax as the dependent variable, treatment as fixed effect, and participant as random effect. The difference and 90% CI between the ln-transformed Cmax of S-648414 + dolutegravir and S-648414 alone were estimated then back-transformed to obtain the corresponding geometric least squares mean ratio and 90% CI.||1.0671|0.8916|
91026321|NCT04147715|181935590|OTHER|The drug interaction was assessed by whether the 90% CIs for the geometric least squares mean ratio of Cmax, Cτ, and AUC0-τ of S-648414 were completely contained within the range of 0.8000 to 1.2500.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.0353|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9421|1.1377|||||Ratio = S-648414 + Dolutegravir / S-648414|The effect of dolutegravir on the PK of S-648414 was assessed using an ANOVA fitted with a linear mixed effect model with the natural log-transformed Cτ as the dependent variable, treatment as a fixed effect, and participant as a random effect. The difference and 90% CI between the ln-transformed Cτ of S-648414 + dolutegravir and S-648414 alone were estimated then back-transformed to obtain the corresponding geometric least squares mean ratio and 90% CI.||1.1377|0.9421|
91026322|NCT04147715|181935590|OTHER|The drug interaction was assessed by whether the 90% CIs for the geometric least squares mean ratio of Cmax, Cτ, and AUC0-τ of S-648414 were completely contained within the range of 0.8000 to 1.2500.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.9096|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8791|0.9411|||||Ratio = S-648414 + Dolutegravir / S-648414|The effect of dolutegravir on the PK of S-648414 was assessed using an ANOVA fitted with a linear mixed effect model with the natural log-transformed Cτ as the dependent variable, treatment as a fixed effect, and participant as a random effect. The difference and 90% CI between the ln-transformed Cτ of S-648414 + dolutegravir and S-648414 alone were estimated then back-transformed to obtain the corresponding geometric least squares mean ratio and 90% CI.||0.9411|0.8791|
91033033|NCT00696020|181951774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.079|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.138|||ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed)|5 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||0.138|0.020|0.0086
91026323|NCT04147715|181935591|OTHER|The drug interaction was assessed by whether the 90% CIs for the geometric least squares mean ratio of Cmax, Cτ, and AUC0-τ of S-648414 were completely contained within the range of 0.8000 to 1.2500.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.0071|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9679|1.0479|||||Ratio = S-648414 + Dolutegravir / S-648414|The effect of dolutegravir on the PK of S-648414 was assessed using an ANOVA fitted with a linear mixed effect model with the natural log-transformed AUC0-τ as the dependent variable, treatment as a fixed effect, and participant as a random effect. The difference and 90% CI between the ln-transformed AUC0-τ of S-648414 + dolutegravir and S-648414 alone were estimated then back-transformed to obtain the corresponding geometric least squares mean ratio and 90% CI.||1.0479|0.9679|
91026324|NCT04147715|181935591|OTHER|The drug interaction was assessed by whether the 90% CIs for the geometric least squares mean ratio of Cmax, Cτ, and AUC0-τ of S-648414 were completely contained within the range of 0.8000 to 1.2500.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.9852|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9605|1.0105|||||Ratio = S-648414 + Dolutegravir / S-648414|The effect of dolutegravir on the PK of S-648414 was assessed using an ANOVA fitted with a linear mixed effect model with the natural log-transformed AUC0-τ as the dependent variable, treatment as a fixed effect, and participant as a random effect. The difference and 90% CI between the ln-transformed AUC0-τ of S-648414 + dolutegravir and S-648414 alone were estimated then back-transformed to obtain the corresponding geometric least squares mean ratio and 90% CI.||1.0105|0.9605|
91026325|NCT04147715|181935593|OTHER|The drug interaction was assessed by whether the 90% CIs for the geometric least squares mean ratio of Cmax, Cτ, and AUC0-τ of dolutegravir were completely contained within the range of 0.8000 to 1.2500.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.1806|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1171|1.2477|||||Ratio = S-648414 + Dolutegravir / Dolutegravir|The effect of S-648414 on the plasma PK of dolutegravir was assessed using an ANOVA fitted with a linear mixed effect model with the natural log-transformed Cmax as the dependent variable, treatment as a fixed effect, and participant as a random effect. The difference and 90% CI between the ln-transformed Cmax of dolutegravir plus S-648414 and dolutegravir alone was estimated then back-transformed to obtain the corresponding geometric least squares mean ratio and 90% CI.||1.2477|1.1171|
91026326|NCT04147715|181935593|OTHER|The drug interaction was assessed by whether the 90% CIs for the geometric least squares mean ratio of Cmax, Cτ, and AUC0-τ of dolutegravir were completely contained within the range of 0.8000 to 1.2500.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.048|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9656|1.1373|||||Ratio = S-648414 + Dolutegravir / Dolutegravir|The effect of S-648414 on the plasma PK of dolutegravir was assessed using an ANOVA fitted with a linear mixed effect model with the natural log-transformed Cmax as the dependent variable, treatment as a fixed effect, and participant as a random effect. The difference and 90% CI between the ln-transformed Cmax of dolutegravir plus S-648414 and dolutegravir alone was estimated then back-transformed to obtain the corresponding geometric least squares mean ratio and 90% CI.||1.1373|0.9656|
91026327|NCT04147715|181935595|OTHER|The drug interaction was assessed by whether the 90% CIs for the geometric least squares mean ratio of Cmax, Cτ, and AUC0-τ of dolutegravir were completely contained within the range of 0.8000 to 1.2500.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.3445|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.2352|1.4636|||||Ratio = S-648414 + Dolutegravir / Dolutegravir|The effect of S-648414 on the plasma PK of dolutegravir was assessed using an ANOVA fitted with a linear mixed effect model with the natural log-transformed Cτ as the dependent variable, treatment as a fixed effect, and participant as a random effect. The difference and 90% CI between the ln-transformed Cτ of dolutegravir plus S-648414 and dolutegravir alone was estimated then back-transformed to obtain the corresponding geometric least squares mean ratio and 90% CI.||1.4636|1.2352|
91026328|NCT04147715|181935595|OTHER|The drug interaction was assessed by whether the 90% CIs for the geometric least squares mean ratio of Cmax, Cτ, and AUC0-τ of dolutegravir were completely contained within the range of 0.8000 to 1.2500.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.0769|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0137|1.1441|||||Ratio = S-648414 + Dolutegravir / Dolutegravir|The effect of S-648414 on the plasma PK of dolutegravir was assessed using an ANOVA fitted with a linear mixed effect model with the natural log-transformed Cτ as the dependent variable, treatment as a fixed effect, and participant as a random effect. The difference and 90% CI between the ln-transformed Cτ of dolutegravir plus S-648414 and dolutegravir alone was estimated then back-transformed to obtain the corresponding geometric least squares mean ratio and 90% CI.||1.1441|1.0137|
91026329|NCT04147715|181935596|OTHER|The drug interaction was assessed by whether the 90% CIs for the geometric least squares mean ratio of Cmax, Cτ, and AUC0-τ of dolutegravir were completely contained within the range of 0.8000 to 1.2500.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.1939|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1176|1.2754|||||Ratio = S-648414 + Dolutegravir / Dolutegravir|The effect of S-648414 on the plasma PK of dolutegravir was assessed using an ANOVA fitted with a linear mixed effect model with the natural log-transformed AUC0-τ as the dependent variable, treatment as a fixed effect, and participant as a random effect. The difference and 90% CI between the ln-transformed AUC0-τ of dolutegravir plus S-648414 and dolutegravir alone was estimated then back-transformed to obtain the corresponding geometric least squares mean ratio and 90% CI.||1.2754|1.1176|
91026330|NCT04147715|181935596|OTHER|The drug interaction was assessed by whether the 90% CIs for the geometric least squares mean ratio of Cmax, Cτ, and AUC0-τ of dolutegravir were completely contained within the range of 0.8000 to 1.2500.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.0482|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9881|1.1119|||||Ratio = S-648414 + Dolutegravir / Dolutegravir|The effect of S-648414 on the plasma PK of dolutegravir was assessed using an ANOVA fitted with a linear mixed effect model with the natural log-transformed AUC0-τ as the dependent variable, treatment as a fixed effect, and participant as a random effect. The difference and 90% CI between the ln-transformed AUC0-τ of dolutegravir plus S-648414 and dolutegravir alone was estimated then back-transformed to obtain the corresponding geometric least squares mean ratio and 90% CI.||1.1119|0.9881|
91026331|NCT04147715|181935598|OTHER||Slope|0.9857|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9341|1.0373||||||The dose proportionality of plasma PK parameters of S-648414 was examined for all fasted groups in Part 1 using the power model. The power model assumes a linear relationship between the ln-transformed parameter and ln-transformed dose where ln(Cmax) = Intercept + Slope × ln(Dose) + Random error||1.0373|0.9341|
91026332|NCT04147715|181935598|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.8786|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7705|1.0019|||||Ratio = Fed / Fasted|"The effect of food on the plasma PK of S-648414 was examined after a single dose of 100 mg S-648414 in the fed state and fasted state using an ANOVA fitted with a linear mixed effect model with ln-transformed Cmax as the dependent variable, treatment as a fixed effect, and participant as random effect.~The difference and 90% CI between the fed and fasted state ln-transformed Cmax were estimated, then back-transformed to obtain the corresponding geometric least squares mean ratio and 90% CI."||1.0019|0.7705|
90834409|NCT03192176|181536194|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.0424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.02||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Physical Mean Score||-0.02|-0.99|0.0424
90834410|NCT03192176|181536194|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.1597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.14||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Physical Mean Score||0.14|-0.85|0.1597
90834411|NCT03192176|181536194|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.0595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|0.02||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Physical Mean Score||0.02|-0.97|0.0595
90834412|NCT03192176|181536194|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differnce|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.2162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.18||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Physical Symptoms Score||0.18|-0.80|0.2162
90834413|NCT03192176|181536194|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.9833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.48||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Physical Mean Score||0.48|-0.49|0.9833
90834414|NCT03192176|181536194|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.2034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.17||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Physical Mean Score||0.17|-0.81|0.2034
90834415|NCT03192176|181536194|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.9576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.67||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Sexual Mean Score||0.67|-0.70|0.9576
90834416|NCT03192176|181536194|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.03||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Sexual Mean Score||-0.03|-1.40|0.0410
90834417|NCT03192176|181536194|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.3961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.4||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Sexual Mean Score||0.40|-1.00|0.3961
91090156|NCT02456727|182062852|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.082|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5336||0.8778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9659|1.13|||ANCOVA|The outcome is the change of score from baseline to 12 weeks, adjusting for the baseline score.|The estimated value is the difference of score change from baseline to 12 weeks between two treatment arms (Individual-Group).|||1.13|-0.9659|0.8778
90834418|NCT03192176|181536194|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.5012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.46||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Sexual Mean Score||0.46|-0.94|0.5012
90834419|NCT03192176|181536194|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.2592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.3||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Sexual Mean Score||0.30|-1.10|0.2592
90834420|NCT03192176|181536194|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.6141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.86||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Sexual Mean Score||0.86|-0.51|0.6141
90834421|NCT03192176|181536194|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.41||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Sexual Mean Score||0.41|-0.95|0.4390
90834422|NCT03192176|181536194|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.4521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.29||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Overall Mean Score||0.29|-0.64|0.4521
91090157|NCT02456727|182062853|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3623|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6252||0.5626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8667|1.5912|||ANCOVA|The outcome is the change of score from baseline to 12 weeks, adjusting for the baseline score.|The estimated value is the difference of score change from baseline to 12 weeks between two treatment arms (Individual-Group).|||1.5912|-0.8667|0.5626
90834423|NCT03192176|181536194|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.06||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Overall Mean Score||-0.06|-0.99|0.0257
91026333|NCT04147715|181935600|OTHER||Slope|1.0252|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.984|1.0665||||||The dose proportionality of plasma PK parameters of S-648414 was examined for all fasted groups in Part 1 using the power model. The power model assumes a linear relationship between the ln-transformed parameter and ln-transformed dose where ln(AUC0-last) = Intercept + Slope × ln(Dose) + Random error||1.0665|0.9840|
91026334|NCT04147715|181935600|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.9598|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8585|1.073|||||Ratio = Fed / Fasted|The effect of food on the plasma PK of S-648414 was examined after a single dose of 100 mg S-648414 in the fed and fasted state using an ANOVA fitted with a linear mixed effect model, with ln-transformed AUC0-last as the dependent variable, treatment as a fixed effect, and participant as random effect. The difference and 90% CI between the fed and fasted state ln-transformed AUC0-last were estimated, then back-transformed to obtain the corresponding geometric least squares mean ratio and 90% CI.||1.0730|0.8585|
90834424|NCT03192176|181536194|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.01||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Overall Mean Score||0.01|-0.93|0.0564
91026335|NCT04147715|181935601|OTHER||Slope|1.028|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9866|1.0695||||||The dose proportionality of plasma PK parameters of S-648414 was examined for all fasted groups in Part 1 using the power model. The power model assumes a linear relationship between the ln-transformed parameter and ln-transformed dose where ln(AUC0-inf) = Intercept + Slope × ln(Dose) + Random error||1.0695|0.9866|
91026336|NCT04147715|181935601|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.9646|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8643|1.0766|||||Ratio = Fed / Fasted|The effect of food on the plasma PK of S-648414 was examined after a single dose of 100 mg S-648414 in the fed and fasted state using an ANOVA fitted with a linear mixed effect model, with ln-transformed AUC0-inf as the dependent variable, treatment as a fixed effect, and participant as random effect. The difference and 90% CI between the fed and fasted state ln-transformed AUC0-inf were estimated, then back-transformed to obtain the corresponding geometric least squares mean ratio and 90% CI.||1.0766|0.8643|
91026337|NCT04147715|181935602|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.0272|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9949|1.0606|||||Ratio = Fed / Fasted|The effect of food on the plasma PK of S-648414 was examined after a single dose of 100 mg S-648414 in the fed and fasted state using an ANOVA fitted with a linear mixed effect model, with ln-transformed t1/2,z as the dependent variable, treatment as a fixed effect, and participant as random effect. The difference and 90% CI between the fed and fasted state ln-transformed t1/2,z were estimated, then back-transformed to obtain the corresponding geometric least squares mean ratio and 90% CI.||1.0606|0.9949|
91026338|NCT04147715|181935609|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.5167|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.2654|1.818|||||Ratio = 50 mg / 30 mg|"The dose proportionality of plasma S-648414 Cmax after a single dose of S-648414 (Day 1) was assessed using an ANOVA model fitted to the ln-transformed Cmax, with dose group fitted as a fixed factor.~The point estimates and 90% CIs were generated for the ratios of the 50 mg dose to 30 mg dose ln-transformed Cmax, then back-transformed to obtain the corresponding geometric least squares mean ratio and 90% CI."||1.8180|1.2654|
91026339|NCT04147715|181935609|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.8372|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.5696|2.1506|||||Ratio = 50 mg / 30 mg|"The dose proportionality of plasma S-648414 Cmax after multiple doses of S-648414 (Day 14) was assessed using an ANOVA model fitted to the ln-transformed Cmax, with dose group fitted as a fixed factor.~The point estimates and 90% CIs were generated for the ratios of the 50 mg dose to 30 mg dose ln-transformed Cmax, then back-transformed to obtain the corresponding geometric least squares mean ratio and 90% CI."||2.1506|1.5696|
90834425|NCT03192176|181536194|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.05||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Wek 8: Overall Mean Score||-0.05|-0.99|0.0293
90834426|NCT03192176|181536194|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.3742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.26||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Overall Mean Score||0.26|-0.68|0.3742
91026340|NCT04147715|181935609|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.7489|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.525|2.0057|||||Ratio = Day 14 / Day 1|"The accumulation ratio of Cmax in the 30 mg dose group was calculated as the ratio of Day 14 to Day 1 using an ANOVA fitted with a linear mixed model with ln-transformed Cmax, Day as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect.~The difference and 90% CI between the ln-transformed Cmax on Day 1 and Day 14 were estimated then back-transformed to obtain the corresponding geometric least squares mean ratio and 90% CI."||2.0057|1.5250|
91026341|NCT04147715|181935609|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|2.1453|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.9741|2.3313|||||Ratio = Day 14 / Day 1|"The accumulation ratio of Cmax in the 50 mg dose group was calculated as the ratio of Day 14 to Day 1 using an ANOVA fitted with a linear mixed model with ln-transformed Cmax, Day as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect.~The difference and 90% CI between the ln-transformed Cmax on Day 1 and Day 14 were estimated then back-transformed to obtain the corresponding geometric least squares mean ratio and 90% CI."||2.3313|1.9741|
91026342|NCT04147715|181935611|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.6277|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.4038|1.8874|||||Ratio = 50 mg / 30 mg|"The dose proportionality of plasma S-648414 AUC0-τ after a single dose of S-648414 (Day 1) was assessed using an ANOVA model fitted to the ln-transformed AUC0-τ, with dose group fitted as a fixed factor.~The point estimates and 90% CIs were generated for the ratios of the 50 mg dose to 30 mg dose ln-transformed AUC0-τ, then back-transformed to obtain the corresponding geometric least squares mean ratio and 90% CI."||1.8874|1.4038|
91033034|NCT00696020|181951774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.125|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.066|0.185|||ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed)|10 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||0.185|0.066|<0.0001
91033035|NCT00696020|181951775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.116|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056||0.0384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.006|0.225|||ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed)|2 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||0.225|0.006|0.0384
91090158|NCT02456727|182062854|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis is that the group treatment is inferior to the individual treatment. 10% is set as the non-inferiority margin. If the upper limit of 90% confidence interval of the estimated value does not exceed 10%, non-inferiority is demonstrated.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0362|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0399||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0419|0.1144|||Chi-squared||The estimated value is the difference of proportion of respondents (score change\>=2) at 12 weeks between two treatment arms (Individual-Group)|||0.1144|-0.0419|0.05
91090159|NCT02456727|182062855|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis is that the group treatment is inferior to the individual treatment. 10% is set as the non-inferiority margin. If the upper limit of 90% confidence interval of the estimated value does not exceed 10%, non-inferiority is demonstrated.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0647|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0466||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0266|0.156|||Chi-squared||The estimated value is the difference of proportion of respondents (score change\>=2) at 12 weeks between two treatment arms (Individual-Group)|||0.156|-0.0266|0.22
91090160|NCT02456727|182062856|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis is that the group treatment is inferior to the individual treatment. 10% is set as the non-inferiority margin. If the upper limit of 90% confidence interval of the estimated value does not exceed 10%, non-inferiority is demonstrated.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0523|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0415||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.029|0.1335|||Chi-squared||The estimated value is the difference of proportion of respondents (score change\>=2) at 24 weeks between two treatment arms (Individual-Group)|||0.1335|-0.029|0.12
91090161|NCT02456727|182062857|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis is that the group treatment is inferior to the individual treatment. 10% is set as the non-inferiority margin. If the upper limit of 90% confidence interval of the estimated value does not exceed 10%, non-inferiority is demonstrated.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0928|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0498||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0047|0.1903|||Chi-squared||The estimated value is the difference of proportion of respondents (score change\>=2) at 24 weeks between two treatment arms (Individual-Group)|||0.1903|-0.0047|0.44
91090162|NCT02456727|182062858|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4831|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5753||0.4014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6468|1.6129|||ANCOVA|The outcome is the change of score from baseline to 12 weeks, adjusting for the baseline score.|The estimated value is the difference of score change from baseline to 12 weeks between two treatment arms (Individual-Group).|||1.6129|-0.6468|0.4014
91090163|NCT02456727|182062859|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6617|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.647||0.307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|1.9334|||ANCOVA|The outcome is the change of score from baseline to 12 weeks, adjusting for the baseline score.|The estimated value is the difference of score change from baseline to 12 weeks between two treatment arms (Individual-Group).|||1.9334|-0.61|0.307
91090164|NCT02456727|182062860|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis is that the group treatment is inferior to the individual treatment. 10% is set as the non-inferiority margin. If the upper limit of 90% confidence interval of the estimated value does not exceed 10%, non-inferiority is demonstrated.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0159|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0364||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0555|0.0873|||Chi-squared||The estimated value is the difference of proportion of respondents (score change\>=5) at 12 weeks between two treatment arms (Individual-Group)|||0.0873|-0.0555|0.01
91090165|NCT02456727|182062861|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis is that the group treatment is inferior to the individual treatment. 10% is set as the non-inferiority margin. If the upper limit of 90% confidence interval of the estimated value does not exceed 10%, non-inferiority is demonstrated.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0287|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0424||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0544|0.1117|||Chi-squared||The estimated value is the difference of proportion of respondents (score change\>=5) at 12 weeks between two treatment arms (Individual-Group)|||0.1117|-0.0544|0.05
90834427|NCT03192176|181536194|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.9106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.44||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Overall Mean Score||0.44|-0.49|0.9106
91090166|NCT02456727|182062862|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis is that the group treatment is inferior to the individual treatment. 10% is set as the non-inferiority margin. If the upper limit of 90% confidence interval of the estimated value does not exceed 10%, non-inferiority is demonstrated.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0389|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0369||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0335|0.1112|||Chi-squared||The estimated value is the difference of proportion of respondents (score change\>=5) at 24 weeks between two treatment arms (Individual-Group)|||0.1112|-0.0335|0.05
91090167|NCT02456727|182062863|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis is that the group treatment is inferior to the individual treatment. 10% is set as the non-inferiority margin. If the upper limit of 90% confidence interval of the estimated value does not exceed 10%, non-inferiority is demonstrated.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0608|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0436||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0247|0.1463|||Chi-squared||The estimated value is the difference of proportion of respondents (score change\>=5) at 24 weeks between two treatment arms (Individual-Group)|||0.1463|-0.0247|0.18
91090168|NCT02456727|182062864|OTHER|The null hypothesis is that there is no change in the proportion of participants with self-reported opioid prescription comparing 12 weeks vs baseline.||||||0.1658|||||||McNemar|||Two treatment arms are combined as one group to compare the outcome of interest pre- and post-randomization.||||0.1658
91090169|NCT02456727|182062865|OTHER|The null hypothesis is that there is no change in the proportion of participants with self-reported opioid prescription comparing 12 weeks vs baseline.||||||0.1172|||||||McNemar|||Two treatment arms are combined as one group to compare the outcome of interest pre- and post-randomization.||||0.1172
91090170|NCT02456727|182062866|OTHER|The null hypothesis is that there is no change in the days of self-reported opioid medication use comparing 12 weeks vs baseline.||||||0.0326|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Two treatment arms are combined as one group to compare the outcome of interest prior- and post-randomization.||||0.0326
90834428|NCT03192176|181536194|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.1844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.15||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Overall Mean SCore||0.15|-0.78|0.1844
90834429|NCT03192176|181536194|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.0287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|-0.09||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Vasomotor Mean Score||-0.09|-1.69|0.0287
91090171|NCT02456727|182062867|OTHER|The null hypothesis is that there is no change in the days of self-reported opioid medication use comparing 12 weeks vs baseline.||||||0.0026|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Two treatment arms are combined as one group to compare the outcome of interest prior- and post-randomization.||||0.0026
91090172|NCT02456727|182062868|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.129||||||The change in MME was not normally distributed, thus we report median and IQR rather than mean/standard deviation. We employed Mann-Whitney to assess whether the change in MME between pre- and post-treatment periods differed across intervention arms.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.129
91090173|NCT02456727|182062869|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.031||||||The change in MME was not normally distributed, thus we report median and IQR rather than mean/standard deviation. We employed Mann-Whitney to assess whether the change in MME between pre- and post-treatment periods differed across intervention arms.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.031
91090174|NCT02456727|182062870|SUPERIORITY|Difference in change in proportion pre and post-treatment differs by treatment arm.||||||0.0059|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0059
91090175|NCT02456727|182062871|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0385|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0385
91090176|NCT02974868|182062873|SUPERIORITY||Mean of Difference from Placebo|31.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.25|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.78|43.5||Hochberg P-value (one-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measure (MMRM)|MMRM contains fixed factors of treatment, week, baseline, treatment by week and treatment by baseline interaction and a random effect for subject.||||43.50|18.78|<.0001
91090177|NCT02974868|182062873|SUPERIORITY||Mean of Difference from Placebo|49.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.35|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.62|61.74||Hochberg P-value (one-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measure (MMRM)|MMRM contains fixed factors of treatment, week, baseline, treatment by week and treatment by baseline interaction and a random effect for subject.||||61.74|36.62|<.0001
91090178|NCT02974868|182062874|OTHER||Mean of Difference from Placebo|25.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.64||0.0094|TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.98|43.58|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure (MMRM)|MMRM contains fixed factors of treatment, week, baseline, treatment by week and treatment by baseline interaction and a random effect for subject.||||43.58|7.98|0.0094
91090179|NCT02974868|182062874|OTHER||Mean of Difference from Placebo|46.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.51|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|29.02|64.2|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|MMRM contains fixed factors of treatment, week, baseline, treatment by week and treatment by baseline interaction and a random effect for subject.||||64.20|29.02|<.0001
90834430|NCT03192176|181536194|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|-0.43||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Vasomotor Mean Score||-0.43|-2.05|0.0028
91090180|NCT02974868|182062879|OTHER||Difference in Percentage from Placebo|47.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|34.2|60.7|||Chan and Zhang method|||||60.7|34.2|<.0001
91090181|NCT02974868|182062879|OTHER||Difference in Percentage from Placebo|61.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|48.2|73.6|||Chan and Zhang method|||||73.6|48.2|<.0001
91090182|NCT01663402|182062908|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|0.93||Threshold for statistical significance at 0.0498 level.|Log Rank|||Analysis was performed using Cox proportional hazard model and log rank test stratified on geographical region (North America, South America, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Asia, Rest of the world).||0.93|0.78|0.0003
91090183|NCT01663402|182062909|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|0.95||Threshold for statistical significance at 0.0498 level.|Log Rank|||Analysis was performed using Cox proportional hazard model and log rank test stratified on geographical region(North America,South America,Western Europe,Eastern Europe,Asia, Rest of the world).A hierarchical testing approach was used to control the overall type-I error at 0.0249 one-sided alpha level(0.0498 two-sided).Testing was then performed sequentially in the order endpoints were reported.Hierarchical testing sequence continued only if the previous endpoint was statistically significant.||0.95|0.81|0.0013
90957182|NCT00122460|181793846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.538|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.431|0.672|||Stratified Log Rank|||"To test the equality of PFS between treatment groups, a two-sided stratified log-rank test (α=5%)was used, taking into account strata used for randomization (previous CTX \[yes/no\] and KPS \[\<80 vs. ≥80\]).~Median PFS time was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. The HR of cetuximab + CTX over CTX alone was calculated using the Cox proportional hazards model stratified by randomization strata."||0.672|0.431|<0.0001
91090184|NCT01663402|182062910|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.96||Threshold for statistical significance at 0.0498 level.|Log Rank|||Analysis was performed using Cox proportional hazard model and log rank test stratified on geographical region (North America, South America, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Asia, Rest of the world). Testing was performed according to the hierarchical testing procedure (continued only if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||0.96|0.80|0.0060
91090185|NCT01663402|182062911|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|0.94||Threshold for statistical significance at 0.0498 level.|Log Rank|||Analysis was performed using Cox proportional hazard model and log rank test stratified on geographical region (North America, South America, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Asia, Rest of the world). Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (continued only if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||0.94|0.81|0.0003
91090186|NCT01663402|182062912|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.93||Threshold for statistical significance at 0.0498 level.|Log Rank|||Analysis was performed using Cox proportional hazard model and log rank test stratified on geographical region (North America, South America, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Asia, Rest of the world). Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (continued only if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||0.93|0.79|0.0003
91090187|NCT01663402|182062913|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.3824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.11||Threshold for statistical significance at 0.0498 level.|Log Rank|||Analysis was performed using Cox proportional hazard model and log rank test stratified on geographical region (North America, South America, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Asia, Rest of the world). Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (continued only if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||1.11|0.76|0.3824
91090188|NCT03387267|182062942|OTHER||AUC under ROC curve|0.64|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.72||||||||0.72||
91090189|NCT03387267|182062943|OTHER||AUC under ROC curve|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91090190|NCT03387267|182062944|OTHER||AUC under ROC curve|0.576|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90834431|NCT03192176|181536194|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.32|-0.67||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Vasomotor Mean Score||-0.67|-2.32|0.0004
91026343|NCT04147715|181935611|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.7454|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.4785|2.0605|||||Ratio = 50 mg / 30 mg|"The dose proportionality of plasma S-648414 AUC0-τ after multiple doses of S-648414 (Day 14) was assessed using an ANOVA model fitted to the ln-transformed AUC0-τ, with dose group fitted as a fixed factor.~The point estimates and 90% CIs were generated for the ratios of the 50 mg dose to 30 mg dose ln-transformed AUC0-τ, then back-transformed to obtain the corresponding geometric least squares mean ratio and 90% CI."||2.0605|1.4785|
91026344|NCT04147715|181935611|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.9102|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.7788|2.0513|||||Ratio = Day 14 / Day 1|"The accumulation ratio of AUC0-τ in the 30 mg dose group was calculated as the ratio of Day 14 to Day 1 using an ANOVA fitted with a linear mixed model with ln-transformed AUC0-τ, Day as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect.~The difference and 90% CI between the ln-transformed AUC0-τ on Day 1 and Day 14 were estimated then back-transformed to obtain the corresponding geometric least squares mean ratio and 90% CI."||2.0513|1.7788|
91026345|NCT04147715|181935611|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|2.0478|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.9203|2.1837|||||Ratio = Day 14 / Day 1|"The accumulation ratio of AUC0-τ in the 50 mg dose group was calculated as the ratio of Day 14 to Day 1 using an ANOVA fitted with a linear mixed model with ln-transformed AUC0-τ, Day as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect.~The difference and 90% CI between the ln-transformed AUC0-τ on Day 1 and Day 14 were estimated then back-transformed to obtain the corresponding geometric least squares mean ratio and 90% CI."||2.1837|1.9203|
90834432|NCT03192176|181536194|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.87|-1.22||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Vasomotor Mean Score||-1.22|-2.87|<0.0001
91026346|NCT04147715|181935618|OTHER|The drug interaction was assessed by whether the 90% CIs for the geometric least squares mean ratio of Cmax, AUC0-last, and AUC0-inf of midazolam were completely contained within the range of 0.8000 to 1.2500.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.9241|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8057|1.06|||||Ratio = 30 mg S-648414 + Midazolam / Midazolam|The effect of S-648414 on the PK of midazolam (a CYP3A substrate) was assessed using an ANOVA fitted with a linear mixed effect model with ln-transformed Cmax as the dependent variable, treatment as a fixed effect, and participant as a random effect. The difference and 90% CI between the ln-transformed Cmax of midazolam plus S-648414 and midazolam alone was estimated then back-transformed to obtain the corresponding geometric least squares mean ratios and 90% CIs.||1.0600|0.8057|
91026347|NCT04147715|181935618|OTHER|The drug interaction was assessed by whether the 90% CIs for the geometric least squares mean ratio of Cmax, AUC0-last, and AUC0-inf of midazolam were completely contained within the range of 0.8000 to 1.2500.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.0303|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9299|1.1415|||||Ratio = 50 mg S-648414 + Midazolam / Midazolam|The effect of S-648414 on the PK of midazolam (a CYP3A substrate) was assessed using an ANOVA fitted with a linear mixed effect model with ln-transformed Cmax as the dependent variable, treatment as a fixed effect, and participant as a random effect. The difference and 90% CI between the ln-transformed Cmax of midazolam plus S-648414 and midazolam alone was estimated then back-transformed to obtain the corresponding geometric least squares mean ratios and 90% CIs.||1.1415|0.9299|
90834433|NCT03192176|181536194|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.1826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|0.26||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Vasomotor Mean Score||0.26|-1.38|0.1826
90895062|NCT00335452|181655622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk Reduction (%)|3.1||||0.6047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|14.0||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is ≤0.05.|Log Rank|Two-sided stratified by clopidogrel treatment regimen (300/75/75 mg or 600/150/75 mg) log-rank test.|The relative risk reduction (ASA high dose versus ASA low dose) is estimated using stratified Cox proportional hazards model controlling for Clopidogrel treatment regimen.|||14.0|-9.2|0.6047
90895063|NCT00335452|181655623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk Reduction (%)|-6.5||||0.4579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.0|9.9||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is ≤0.05.|Log Rank|Two-sided stratified by qualifying condition (UA/NSTEMI or STEMI) log-rank test.|The relative risk reduction (high dose treatment regimen (600/150/75 mg) versus standard treatment regimen (300/75/75 mg)) is estimated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model controlling for qualifying condition.|||9.9|-26.0|0.4579
90957183|NCT00122460|181793847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.326||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.504|3.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test was performed using the randomization strata previous CTX (no vs. yes) and KPS (\<80 vs. ≥80). Treatment group comparisons were performed two-sided with α=5%.||3.600|1.504|0.0001
91026348|NCT04147715|181935620|OTHER|The drug interaction was assessed by whether the 90% CIs for the geometric least squares mean ratio of Cmax, AUC0-last, and AUC0-inf of midazolam were completely contained within the range of 0.8000 to 1.2500|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.842|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6628|1.0696|||||Ratio = 30 mg S-648414 + Midazolam / Midazolam|The effect of S-648414 on the PK of midazolam (a CYP3A substrate) was assessed using an ANOVA fitted with a linear mixed effect model with ln-transformed AUC0-last as the dependent variable, treatment as a fixed effect, and participant as a random effect. The difference and 90% CI between the ln-transformed AUC0-last of midazolam plus S-648414 and midazolam alone was estimated then back-transformed to obtain the corresponding geometric least squares mean ratios and 90% CIs.||1.0696|0.6628|
91033036|NCT00696020|181951775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.184|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.076|0.292|||ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed).|5 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||0.292|0.076|0.0009
91033037|NCT00696020|181951775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.239|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.349|||ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed)|10 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||0.349|0.130|<0.0001
90834434|NCT03192176|181536194|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.0178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.79|-0.17||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Vasomotor Mean Score||-0.17|-1.79|0.0178
90957184|NCT00122460|181793848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.881|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.87|4.441|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test was performed using the randomization strata previous CTX (no vs. yes) and KPS (\<80 vs. ≥80). Treatment group comparisons were performed two-sided with α=5%.||4.441|1.870|<0.0001
91026349|NCT04147715|181935620|OTHER|The drug interaction was assessed by whether the 90% CIs for the geometric least squares mean ratio of Cmax, AUC0-last, and AUC0-inf of midazolam were completely contained within the range of 0.8000 to 1.2500.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.8542|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7185|1.0155|||||Ratio = 50 mg S-648414 + Midazolam / Midazolam|The effect of S-648414 on the PK of midazolam (a CYP3A substrate) was assessed using an ANOVA fitted with a linear mixed effect model with ln-transformed AUC0-last as the dependent variable, treatment as a fixed effect, and participant as a random effect. The difference and 90% CI between the ln-transformed AUC0-last of midazolam plus S-648414 and midazolam alone was estimated then back-transformed to obtain the corresponding geometric least squares mean ratios and 90% CIs.||1.0155|0.7185|
91026350|NCT04147715|181935621|OTHER|The drug interaction was assessed by whether the 90% CIs for the geometric least squares mean ratio of Cmax, AUC0-last, and AUC0-inf of midazolam were completely contained within the range of 0.8000 to 1.2500.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.8377|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6645|1.0561|||||Ratio = 30 mg S-648414 + Midazolam / Midazolam|The effect of S-648414 on the PK of midazolam (a CYP3A substrate) was assessed using an ANOVA fitted with a linear mixed effect model with ln-transformed AUC0-inf as the dependent variable, treatment as a fixed effect, and participant as a random effect. The difference and 90% CI between the ln-transformed AUC0-inf of midazolam plus S-648414 and midazolam alone was estimated then back-transformed to obtain the corresponding geometric least squares mean ratios and 90% CIs.||1.0561|0.6645|
91026351|NCT04147715|181935621|OTHER|The drug interaction was assessed by whether the 90% CIs for the geometric least squares mean ratio of Cmax, AUC0-last, and AUC0-inf of midazolam were completely contained within the range of 0.8000 to 1.2500.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.8529|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7213|1.0085|||||Ratio = 50 mg S-648414 + Midazolam / Midazolam|The effect of S-648414 on the PK of midazolam (a CYP3A substrate) was assessed using an ANOVA fitted with a linear mixed effect model with ln-transformed AUC0-inf as the dependent variable, treatment as a fixed effect, and participant as a random effect. The difference and 90% CI between the ln-transformed AUC0-inf of midazolam plus S-648414 and midazolam alone was estimated then back-transformed to obtain the corresponding geometric least squares mean ratios and 90% CIs.||1.0085|0.7213|
91026352|NCT02330081|181935680|NON_INFERIORITY|The FDA validation level requirements for test platelet quality is that the lower 1-sided 95% confidence limit of platelet recovery must be ≥ 66% of fresh control platelet values|Risk Ratio (RR)|83.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.97|||ONE_SIDED|95.0|76.2||||||Estimate is the ratio of the mean platelet recovery of treatment over control||||76.2|
91026353|NCT02330081|181935681|NON_INFERIORITY|One of the FDA validation level requirements for test platelet quality is that the lower 1-sided 95% confidence limit of the mean platelet survival time must be ≥58% of fresh control platelet mean survival time|Mean Ratio Survival Time|81.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0|||ONE_SIDED|95.0|77.0||||||Estimate is the ratio of the mean platelet survival time of treatment over control||||77.0|
91026354|NCT02277769|181935694|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|27.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.46|34.69||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo|Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity.||34.69|20.46|< 0.0001
91026355|NCT02277769|181935694|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|27.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.87|34.99||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs Placebo|Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity.||34.99|20.87|< 0.0001
91090191|NCT04613518|182062964|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.7|43.4||||||||43.4|-35.7|
91026356|NCT02277769|181935695|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|32.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.75|39.94||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.025 level. Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity.||39.94|24.75|< 0.0001
91026357|NCT02277769|181935695|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|36.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.69|43.81||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs Placebo|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.025 level. Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity.||43.81|28.69|< 0.0001
91026358|NCT02277769|181935696|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|26.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.13|33.87||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||33.87|19.13|< 0.0001
91026359|NCT02277769|181935696|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|29.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.11|36.95||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||36.95|22.11|< 0.0001
91026360|NCT02277769|181935697|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|37.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.03|45.6||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||45.60|30.03|< 0.0001
91026361|NCT02277769|181935697|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|36.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.56|44.06||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||44.06|28.56|< 0.0001
91026362|NCT02277769|181935698|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-28.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.04|-21.83||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-21.83|-36.04|< 0.0001
91026363|NCT02277769|181935698|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) mean difference|-32.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.2|-25.49||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-25.49|-40.20|< 0.0001
91026364|NCT02277769|181935699|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|16.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.99|22.68||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||22.68|9.99|< 0.0001
91026365|NCT02277769|181935699|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|21.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.66|27.93||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||27.93|14.66|< 0.0001
91026366|NCT02277769|181935700|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|9.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.54|13.98||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||13.98|5.54|< 0.0001
91026367|NCT02277769|181935700|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|11.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.31|16.32||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||16.32|7.31|< 0.0001
91026368|NCT02277769|181935701|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.605|-1.587||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-1.587|-2.605|< 0.0001
91026369|NCT02277769|181935701|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.982|-1.957||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-1.957|-2.982|< 0.0001
91026370|NCT02277769|181935702|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-36.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.46|-28.86|||ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-28.86|-43.46|< 0.0001
90834435|NCT03192176|181536194|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differnce|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|-0.44||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Vasomotor Mean Score||-0.44|-2.06|0.0025
90834436|NCT03192176|181536194|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.9163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.5||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Psychological Mean Score||0.50|-0.55|0.9163
91026371|NCT02277769|181935702|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-38.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.55|-30.88||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-30.88|-45.55|< 0.0001
91026372|NCT02277769|181935703|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|43.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.12|51.29||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||51.29|35.12|< 0.0001
91026373|NCT02277769|181935703|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|39.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.92|47.19||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||47.19|30.92|< 0.0001
91026374|NCT02277769|181935704|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|22.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.09|29.59||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||29.59|16.09|< 0.0001
91026375|NCT02277769|181935704|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|23.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.63|30.05||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||30.05|16.63|< 0.0001
91026376|NCT02277769|181935705|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-17.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.062|-13.927||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-13.927|-22.062|< 0.0001
91026377|NCT02277769|181935705|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-19.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.491|-15.529||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-15.529|-23.491|< 0.0001
91026378|NCT02277769|181935706|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-31.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.36|-25.4||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-25.40|-37.36|< 0.0001
91026379|NCT02277769|181935706|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-33.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.75|-27.8||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-27.80|-39.75|< 0.0001
91026380|NCT02277769|181935707|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-5.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.86|-4.47||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-4.47|-6.86|< 0.0001
91026381|NCT02277769|181935707|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-5.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|-4.72||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-4.72|-7.10|< 0.0001
91026382|NCT02277769|181935708|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-7.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.36|-5.57||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-5.57|-8.36|< 0.0001
91026383|NCT02277769|181935708|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-8.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.36|-6.64||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-6.64|-9.36|< 0.0001
91026384|NCT02277769|181935709|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-4.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.34|-3.09||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-3.09|-5.34|< 0.0001
91026385|NCT02277769|181935709|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-4.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.04|-3.81||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-3.81|-6.04|< 0.0001
91026386|NCT02277769|181935710|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-27.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.73|-21.7||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-21.70|-33.73|< 0.0001
91026387|NCT02277769|181935710|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-28.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.03|-22.74||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-22.74|-35.03|< 0.0001
91026388|NCT02277769|181935711|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-17.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.96|-13.53||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-13.53|-21.96|< 0.0001
91026389|NCT02277769|181935711|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-15.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.16|-10.78||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-10.78|-19.16|< 0.0001
91026390|NCT02196506|181935736|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3||||0.0074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.97|-0.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Analysis at Week 14||-0.62|-3.97|0.0074
91026391|NCT02196506|181935737|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22||||0.3331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Analysis at Week 14||0.23|-0.66|0.3331
91026392|NCT02196506|181935738|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.25||||0.0263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.23|-0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Analysis at Week 14||-0.27|-4.23|0.0263
91026393|NCT02196506|181935739|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.98||||0.0099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.24|-0.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Analysis at Week 14||-0.72|-5.24|0.0099
91026394|NCT01070394|181935740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE regression model|Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)||||||<.001
91026395|NCT01070394|181935741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.569|||||||GEE regression model|Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)||||||.569
91026396|NCT01070394|181935741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.827|||||||Generalized Estimating Equation|||The following p-value is for AMSES In-Clinic, a subset of the overall AMSES||||.827
91026397|NCT01070394|181935741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.569|||||||Generalized Estimating Equation|||The following p-value is for AMSES, Evening, a subset of the AMSES||||.569
91026398|NCT01070394|181935742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||GEE regression model|Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)||||||.001
91026399|NCT01070394|181935743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||GEE regression model|||||||<.001
91026400|NCT01070394|181935744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||GEE regression model|Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)||||||<.0001
91026401|NCT01070394|181935745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||GEE regression model|Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)||||||0.001
91026402|NCT04014959|181935845|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t(35)= -4.47||Statistical analysis of fMRI-guided TMS evoked subgenual anterior cingulate responses (fMRI BOLD) change at Pre-tx/Pre-iTBS. Statistics are from one-sample T-tests vs. 0, 2-tailed. Negative t-values represent negative mean fMRI BOLD percent signal change. Alternative hypothesis: true mean is not equal to 0.||||<0.001
91026403|NCT04014959|181935845|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t(35)= -3.00||Statistical analysis of fMRI-guided TMS evoked subgenual anterior cingulate responses (fMRI BOLD) change at Pre-tx/Post-iTBS. Statistics are from one-sample T-tests vs. 0, 2-tailed. Negative t-values represent negative mean fMRI BOLD percent signal change. Alternative hypothesis: true mean is not equal to 0.||||0.005
91026404|NCT04014959|181935845|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t(35)= -2.96||Statistical analysis of fMRI-guided TMS evoked subgenual anterior cingulate responses (fMRI BOLD) change at Post-tx/Pre-iTBS. Statistics are from one-sample T-tests vs. 0, 2-tailed. Negative t-values represent negative mean fMRI BOLD percent signal change. Alternative hypothesis: true mean is not equal to 0.||||0.005
91033038|NCT00696020|181951776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.357|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.76||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.057|35.657|||ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed).|2 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||35.657|9.057|0.0010
91026405|NCT04014959|181935845|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t(35)= -5.05||Statistical analysis of fMRI-guided TMS evoked subgenual anterior cingulate responses (fMRI BOLD) change at Post-tx/Post-iTBS. Statistics are from one-sample T-tests vs. 0, 2-tailed. Negative t-values represent negative mean fMRI BOLD percent signal change. Alternative hypothesis: true mean is not equal to 0.||||<0.001
91026406|NCT04014959|181935847|OTHER|Statistics are an unadjusted linear regression of change in DASS-21 depression score on the pre-intervention TMS/fMRI evoked brain response.||||||0.007|||||||Regression, Linear|β = -33.60||Analysis to investigate the correlation between changes in DASS-21 Scores (Secondary Outcome) and Evoked Functional Brain Activity (Other Pre-specified Outcome) pre and post the 3-Day TMS Intervention Regimen.||||0.007
91026407|NCT02004847|181935852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistically analysed were the difference in change from baseline to the end of treatment (week 12) of the target plaque compared to the control plaque.||||0.0005
91026408|NCT02004847|181935853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistically analysed were the difference in change from baseline to the end of treatment during the attack period (week 4) of the target plaque compared to the control plaque.||||0.0036
91026409|NCT02004847|181935854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3075|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistically analysed were the difference in change from end of treatment (week 12, visit 7) to end of follow up (week 16, visit 8) of the target plaque compared to the control plaque.||||0.3075
90834437|NCT03192176|181536194|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.1597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.15||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Psychological Mean Score||0.15|-0.92|0.1597
90834438|NCT03192176|181536194|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.4871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.35||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Psychological Mean Score||0.35|-0.74|0.4871
90834439|NCT03192176|181536194|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.5401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.38||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Psychological Mean Score||0.38|-0.72|0.5401
91026410|NCT02004847|181935855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistically analysed were the difference in change from baseline to week 4 of the target plaque compared to the control plaque.||||0.0140
91026411|NCT02004847|181935855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistically analysed were the difference in change from baseline to week 12 of the target plaque compared to the control plaque.||||0.0064
91026412|NCT02004847|181935855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.102|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistically analysed were the difference in change from baseline to week 16 of the target plaque compared to the control plaque.||||0.1020
91026413|NCT02220920|181935868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.87|||ANCOVA|||||-0.87|-1.33|<0.001
91026414|NCT02220920|181935869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-32.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.3|-18.9|||ANCOVA|||||-18.9|-46.3|<0.001
91026415|NCT02220920|181935870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-2.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|-1.65|||ANCOVA|||||-1.65|-3.09|<0.001
91026416|NCT02220920|181935871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-3.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.67||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.49|0.11|||ANCOVA||Estimated P-Value, Least-Squares Mean Difference, Standard Error of the mean, 95% CI are presented for the change from Baseline in systolic blood pressure for week 16.|||0.11|-6.49|0.058
91026417|NCT02220920|181935871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-1.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.27|0.8|||ANCOVA||Estimated P-Value, Least-Squares Mean Difference, Standard Error of the mean, 95% CI are presented for the change from Baseline in diastolic blood pressure for week 16.|||0.80|-3.27|0.232
91026418|NCT01132118|181935876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93||||||Unadjusted|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The P-value calculated was for the difference betweeen the change during hydroxychloroquine versus placebo using Wilcoxon signed-rank tests.||||0.930
91026419|NCT01132118|181935876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.785||||||Adjusted for weight change.|Regression, Linear|||The P-value was calculated for the difference between the change during hydroxychloroquine versus placebo from a linear regression model.||||0.785
91026420|NCT01132118|181935877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.575||||||Unadjusted P-value|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||P-value for the difference between change during hydroxychloroquine versus placebo using Wilcoxon signed-rank tests.||||0.575
91026421|NCT01132118|181935877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.308||||||Adjusted for weight change.|Regression, Linear|||P-value for the difference between the change during hydroxychloroquine versus placebo from a linear regression model.||||0.308
91026422|NCT01132118|181935878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.468||||||Unadjusted|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||P-value for the difference betweeen change during hydroxychloroquine versus placebo suing Wilcoxon signed-rank tests.||||0.468
91026423|NCT01132118|181935878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.902||||||Adjusted for weight change.|Regression, Linear|||P-value for the difference between the change during hydroxychloroquine versus placebo from a linear regression model.||||0.902
91026424|NCT01132118|181935879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||||||Unadjusted|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||P-value for the difference between the change during hydroxychloroquine versus placebo using Wilcoxon signed-rank tests.||||0.004
91026425|NCT01132118|181935879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||||||Adjusted for weight change.|Regression, Linear|||P-value for the difference between the change during hydroxychloroquine versus placebo from a linear regression model.||||0.004
91026426|NCT01132118|181935880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||||||Unadjusted|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||P-value for the difference between the change during hydroxychloroquine versus placebo using Wilcoxon signed-rank tests.||||0.009
90834440|NCT03192176|181536194|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.3788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.79||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Psychological Mean Score||0.79|-0.30|0.3788
90834441|NCT03192176|181536194|SUPERIORITY||0.28|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.4541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.74||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Psychological Mean Score||0.74|-0.33|0.4541
90834442|NCT03192176|181536194|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.9233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.56||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Psychological Mean Score||0.56|-0.51|0.9233
90834443|NCT03192176|181536194|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.6043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.35||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Physical Mean Score||0.35|-0.61|0.6043
90834444|NCT03192176|181536194|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.1781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.15||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Physical Mean Score||0.15|-0.82|0.1781
90834445|NCT03192176|181536194|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.5221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.34||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Physical Mean Score||0.34|-0.66|0.5221
90834446|NCT03192176|181536194|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.4744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.32||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Physical Mean Score||0.32|-0.68|0.4744
90834447|NCT03192176|181536194|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.5167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.33||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Physical Mean Score||0.33|-0.66|0.5167
90834448|NCT03192176|181536194|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.3441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.72||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Physical Mean Score||0.72|-0.25|0.3441
91026427|NCT01132118|181935880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011||||||Adjusted for weight change.|Regression, Linear|||P-value for the difference between the change during hydroxychloroquine versus placebo from a linear regression model.||||0.011
91026428|NCT01132118|181935881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73||||||Unadjusted|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||P-value for the difference between the change during hydroxychloroquine versus placebo using Wilcoxon signed-rank tests.||||0.730
91026429|NCT01132118|181935881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.208||||||Adjusted for weight change.|Regression, Linear|||P-value for the difference between the change during hydroxychloroquine versus placebo from a linear regression model.||||0.208
91090192|NCT04379921|182063055|OTHER|||||||0.26801155||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05. The p-value is adjusted using the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH method).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of correlation: steps to SF-36||||0.26801155
91090193|NCT04379921|182063055|OTHER|||||||0.27520264||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05. The p-value is adjusted using the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH method).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of correlation: steps to EQ-5D||||0.27520264
91026430|NCT01132118|181935882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.487||||||Unadjusted P-value.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||P-value for the difference between the change during hydroxychloroquine versus placebo using Wilcoxon signed-rank tests.||||0.487
91026431|NCT01132118|181935882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.884||||||P-value adjusted for weight change.|Regression, Linear|||P-value for the difference between the change during hydroxycholorquine versus placebo from a linear regression model.||||0.884
91090194|NCT04379921|182063055|OTHER|||||||0.95547874||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05. The p-value is adjusted using the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH method).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of correlation: steps to PROMIS||||0.95547874
91090195|NCT04379921|182063055|OTHER|||||||0.5623012||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05. The p-value is adjusted using the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH method).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of correlation: steps to NDI||||0.56230120
91026432|NCT01644890|181935883|NON_INFERIORITY|The primary PFS analysis was confirmed whether or not the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the hazard ratio (HR) for NK105 relative to PTX fell below the non-inferiority margin of 1.215 (\<1.215) by fitting a Cox proportional hazards model that included allocation adjustment factors other than the study site as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.255|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.989|1.592|||||History of chemotherapy for metastatic or recurrent breast cancer (yes/no), History of treatment using a taxane anticancer drug (yes/no), ER status \[(+) or (-)\], and Disease free interval (\<12 months or ≥12 months) were covariates for adjustment.|Based on the results of previous studies, the expected median PFS was 5.5 months for PTX and 6.35 months for NK105. Assuming a randomization period of 18 months, a follow-up period of 12 months, a one-sided significance level of 2.5%, a power of 85% and the non-inferiority margin of 1.215, the number of patients was estimated to 172 pts per group, a total of 344 patients. Considering an expected withdrawal/dropout rate of approximately 20%, the target sample size was set at 414.||1.592|0.989|
90834449|NCT03192176|181536194|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.5362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.33||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Physical Mean Score||0.33|-0.64|0.5362
91026433|NCT01644890|181935884|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.197|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.885|1.62|||||History of chemotherapy for metastatic or recurrent breast cancer (yes/no), History of treatment using a taxane anticancer drug (yes/no), ER status \[(+) or (-)\], and Disease free interval (\<12 months or ≥12 months) were covariates for adjustment.|||1.620|0.885|
91026434|NCT01644890|181935885|OTHER||Difference in ORR (%)|-7.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.4|2.7||||||||2.7|-17.4|
91090196|NCT04379921|182063055|OTHER|||||||0.3581397||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05. The p-value is adjusted using the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH method).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of correlation: steps to ODI||||0.35813970
91090197|NCT04379921|182063055|OTHER|||||||0.26801155||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05. The p-value is adjusted using the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH method).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of correlation: distance (meters) to SF-36||||0.26801155
91090198|NCT04379921|182063055|OTHER|||||||0.08121447||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05. The p-value is adjusted using the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH method).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of correlation: distance (meters) to EQ-5D||||0.08121447
91090199|NCT04379921|182063055|OTHER|||||||0.95547874||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05. The p-value is adjusted using the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH method).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of correlation: distance (meters) to PROMIS||||0.95547874
91090200|NCT04379921|182063055|OTHER|||||||0.59932922||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05. The p-value is adjusted using the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH method).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of correlation: distance (meters) to NDI||||0.59932922
91090201|NCT04379921|182063055|OTHER|||||||0.3581397||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05. The p-value is adjusted using the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH method).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of correlation: distance (meters) to ODI||||0.35813970
90834450|NCT03192176|181536194|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.9349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.71||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Sexual Mean Score||0.71|-0.78|0.9349
90834451|NCT03192176|181536194|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differencce|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.0084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|-0.26||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Sexual Mean Score||-0.26|-1.78|0.0084
91090202|NCT04379921|182063056|OTHER|||||||0.0909144||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05. The p-value is adjusted using the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH method).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of correlation: steps to SF-36||||0.09091440
91090203|NCT04379921|182063056|OTHER|||||||0.12858419||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05. The p-value is adjusted using the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH method).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of correlation: steps to EQ-5D||||0.12858419
90834452|NCT03192176|181536194|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.1212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|0.16||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Sexual Mean Score||0.16|-1.38|0.1212
90834453|NCT03192176|181536194|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.7709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.66||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Sexual Mean Score||0.66|-0.89|0.7709
91026435|NCT03031899|181935935|NON_INFERIORITY|"1. Rose bengal should stain the areas positively stained by Toluidine blue~2. areas stained by rose bengal that shows dysplasia in biopsy"|SN, SP, PPV, NPV|||||0.005|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.005
91026436|NCT04682444|181935949|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5547|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 7||||0.5547
91026437|NCT04682444|181935949|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 14||||<0.0001
91090204|NCT04379921|182063056|OTHER|||||||0.95547874||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05. The p-value is adjusted using the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH method).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of correlation: steps to PROMIS||||0.95547874
91090205|NCT04379921|182063056|OTHER|||||||0.9304017||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05. The p-value is adjusted using the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH method).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of correlation: steps to NDI||||0.93040170
91090206|NCT04379921|182063056|OTHER|||||||0.38647114||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05. The p-value is adjusted using the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH method).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of correlation: steps to ODI||||0.38647114
91090207|NCT04379921|182063056|OTHER|||||||0.0909144||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05. The p-value is adjusted using the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH method).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of correlation: distance (meters) to SF-36||||0.09091440
91090208|NCT04379921|182063056|OTHER|||||||0.12858419||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05. The p-value is adjusted using the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH method).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of correlation: distance (meters) to EQ-5D||||0.12858419
91090209|NCT04379921|182063056|OTHER|||||||0.95547874||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05. The p-value is adjusted using the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH method).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of correlation: distance (meters) to PROMIS||||0.95547874
91026438|NCT04682444|181935950|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used for testing without adjustment for baseline status.||||0.0001
91026439|NCT04682444|181935951|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 3||||<0.0001
91026440|NCT04682444|181935951|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0013|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 7||||0.0013
91026441|NCT04682444|181935952|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0474|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 7||||0.0474
91026442|NCT04682444|181935952|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 14||||<0.0001
91090210|NCT04379921|182063056|OTHER|||||||0.9304017||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05. The p-value is adjusted using the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH method).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of correlation: distance (meters) to NDI||||0.93040170
91090211|NCT04379921|182063056|OTHER|||||||0.38647114||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05. The p-value is adjusted using the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH method).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of correlation: distance (meters) to ODI||||0.38647114
91090212|NCT04379921|182063057|OTHER|||||||0.14778771||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05. The p-value is adjusted using the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH method).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of correlation: steps to SF-36||||0.14778771
91090213|NCT04379921|182063057|OTHER|||||||0.36288455||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05. The p-value is adjusted using the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH method).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of correlation: steps to EQ-5D||||0.36288455
91090214|NCT04379921|182063057|OTHER|||||||0.95547874|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05. The p-value is adjusted using the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH method).||Analysis of correlation: steps to PROMIS||||0.95547874
91090215|NCT04379921|182063057|OTHER|||||||0.65291937||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05. The p-value is adjusted using the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH method).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of correlation: steps to NDI||||0.65291937
90834454|NCT03192176|181536194|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.1667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|0.23||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Sexual Mean Score||0.23|-1.33|0.1667
90834455|NCT03192176|181536194|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.9213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.79||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Sexual Mean Score||0.79|-0.72|0.9213
90895064|NCT00335452|181655623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk Reduction (%)|17.6||||0.0262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|30.5||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is ≤0.05.|Log Rank|Two-sided stratified by qualifying condition (UA/NSTEMI or STEMI) log-rank test.|The relative risk reduction (high dose treatment regimen (600/150/75 mg) versus standard treatment regimen (300/75/75 mg)) is estimated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model controlling for qualifying condition.|||30.5|2.2|0.0262
90895065|NCT00335452|181655623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0355||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is ≤0.05.|Chi-squared|Interaction chi-squared test of the Cox proportional hazards model.||||||0.0355
91090216|NCT04379921|182063057|OTHER|||||||0.61429132|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05. The p-value is adjusted using the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH method).||Analysis of correlation: steps to ODI||||0.61429132
91090217|NCT04379921|182063057|OTHER|||||||0.1589642||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05. The p-value is adjusted using the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH method).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of correlation: distance (meters) to SF-36||||0.15896420
91090218|NCT04379921|182063057|OTHER|||||||0.39253325||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05. The p-value is adjusted using the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH method).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of correlation: distance (meters) to EQ-5D||||0.39253325
90895066|NCT00335452|181655624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk Reduction (%)|14.7||||0.0332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|26.3||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is ≤0.05.|Log Rank|Two-sided stratified by ASA dose level (low or high) and qualifying condition (UA/NSTEMI or STEMI) Log-rank test. No adjustment was made.|The relative risk reduction (high dose treatment regimen (600/150/75 mg) versus standard treatment regimen (300/75/75 mg)) is estimated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model controlling for ASA dose level and qualifying condition.|||26.3|1.2|0.0332
91090219|NCT04379921|182063057|OTHER|||||||0.99526258||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05. The p-value is adjusted using the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH method).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of correlation: distance (meters) to PROMIS||||0.99526258
90834456|NCT03192176|181536194|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.2315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|0.29||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Sexual Mean Score||0.29|-1.21|0.2315
90895067|NCT00335452|181655625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.945||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is ≤0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model including a term for Clopidogrel treatment regimen (300/75/75 mg or 600/150/75 mg).||||||0.945
91090220|NCT04379921|182063057|OTHER|||||||0.65291937||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05. The p-value is adjusted using the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH method).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of correlation: distance (meters) to NDI||||0.65291937
91090221|NCT04379921|182063057|OTHER|||||||0.67694276||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05. The p-value is adjusted using the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH method).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of correlation: distance (meters) to ODI||||0.67694276
90895068|NCT00335452|181655626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk Reduction (%)|32.6||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.2|45.8||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is ≤0.05.|Log Rank|Two-sided stratified by ASA dose level (low or high) and qualifying condition (UA/NSTEMI or STEMI) log-rank test.|The relative risk reduction (high dose treatment regimen (600/150/75 mg) versus standard treatment regimen (300/75/75 mg)) is estimated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model controlling for ASA dose level and qualifying condition.|||45.8|16.2|0.0004
90895069|NCT02736825|181655627|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of 15% between two independent percentages using the z-test with unpooled variance||||||0.367|||||||Z-test|||||||0.3670
90895070|NCT02901626|181655646|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.2||||||||1.20|0.83|
91090222|NCT04379921|182063058|OTHER|||||||0.06340316||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05. The p-value is adjusted using the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH method).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of correlation: steps to SF-36||||0.06340316
90834457|NCT03192176|181536194|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.4731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.29||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Overall Mean Score||0.29|-0.63|0.4731
90834458|NCT03192176|181536194|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.05||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Overall Mean Score||-0.05|-0.98|0.0310
90834459|NCT03192176|181536194|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.11||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Overall Mean Score||0.11|-0.84|0.1320
90834460|NCT03192176|181536194|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.1212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.1||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Overall Mean Score||0.10|-0.85|0.1212
90834461|NCT03192176|181536194|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.5689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.34||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Overall Mean Score||0.34|-0.62|0.5689
90834462|NCT03192176|181536194|SUPERIORITY||0.1|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.55||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Overall Mean Score||0.55|-0.39|0.7340
90834463|NCT03192176|181536194|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.2704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.2||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Overall Mean Score||0.20|-0.73|0.2704
90834464|NCT03192176|181536194|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|0.67||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Vasomotor Mean Score||0.67|-1.24|0.5610
90895071|NCT02901626|181655647|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|8.0||||||||8|-4|
91090223|NCT04379921|182063058|OTHER|||||||0.08121447||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05. The p-value is adjusted using the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH method).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of correlation: steps to EQ-5D||||0.08121447
90834465|NCT03192176|181536194|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.7966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|1.09||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Vasomotor Mean Score||1.09|-0.83|0.7966
90834466|NCT03192176|181536194|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.3965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|1.4||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Vasomotor Mean Score||1.40|-0.56|0.3965
90834467|NCT03192176|181536194|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.8189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|1.1||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Vasomotor Mean Score||1.10|-0.87|0.8189
90834468|NCT03192176|181536194|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.5693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|0.7||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Vasomotor Mean Score||0.70|-1.27|0.5693
90834469|NCT03192176|181536194|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.5217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|0.65||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Vasomotor Mean Score||0.65|-1.29|0.5217
90958919|NCT04874415|181797845|SUPERIORITY|Main effects of each intervention factor were estimated using generalized linear models with log link, including all prespecified two-way interactions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.3|38.2|||||Once daily text message is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|||38.2|-38.3|
90895072|NCT02901626|181655648|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|0.8||||||||0.80|-1.06|
90895073|NCT02901626|181655649|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.71||||||||1.71|0.92|
90895074|NCT02901626|181655650|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.55||||||||1.55|0.93|
90895075|NCT02901626|181655651|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.45||||||||1.45|0.93|
90895076|NCT02901626|181655652|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.82||||||||1.82|0.92|
90895077|NCT02901626|181655653|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.19||||||||1.19|0.79|
90895078|NCT02901626|181655654|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|2.39||||||||2.39|0.61|
90895079|NCT02901626|181655655|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.31||||||||1.31|0.79|
91026443|NCT04682444|181935953|SUPERIORITY|A mixed model repeated measurement was used, which considered baseline, treatment visit\*treatment as fixed and patient as random effect.||||||0.0065|||||||MMRM|||Day 3||||0.0065
91026444|NCT04682444|181935953|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||A mixed model repeated measurement was used, which considered baseline, treatment visit\*treatment as fixed and patient as random effect.|MMRM|||Day 7||||<0.0001
91026445|NCT04682444|181935953|SUPERIORITY|A mixed model repeated measurement was used, which considered baseline, treatment visit\*treatment as fixed and patient as random effect.|||||<|0.0001|||||||MMRM|||Day 14||||<0.0001
91026446|NCT04682444|181935955|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5152|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 3||||0.5152
90834470|NCT03192176|181536194|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.2988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|1.48||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Vasomotor Mean Score||1.48|-0.46|0.2988
90834471|NCT03192176|181536194|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.7957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.53||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Psychological Mean Score||0.53|-0.69|0.7957
90834472|NCT03192176|181536194|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|0.26||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Psychological Mean Score||0.26|-0.97|0.2540
90895080|NCT02901626|181655656|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|2.04||||||||2.04|0.55|
90895081|NCT02901626|181655657|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||||||||0|0|
90834473|NCT03192176|181536194|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.6956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.5||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Psychological Mean Score||0.50|-0.75|0.6956
90895082|NCT02901626|181655658|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.94||||||||1.94|0.95|
90895083|NCT02901626|181655659|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.11||||||||2.11|1.00|
90895084|NCT02901626|181655660|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.18||||||||1.18|0.88|
90958920|NCT04874415|181797845|SUPERIORITY|Main effects of each intervention factor were estimated using generalized linear models with log link, including all prespecified two-way interactions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0001|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3|||||Fixed Step Count Goal is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|||0.3|-0.3|
91026447|NCT04682444|181935955|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0009|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 7||||0.0009
91026448|NCT04682444|181935955|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 14||||<0.0001
91026449|NCT04682444|181935956|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1253|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 3||||0.1253
90895085|NCT02901626|181655661|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|12.0||||||||12|-12|
90895086|NCT02901626|181655662|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.17||||||||1.17|0.69|
91026450|NCT04682444|181935956|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0611|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 7||||0.0611
91026451|NCT04682444|181935956|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 14||||0.4000
91026452|NCT04682444|181935957|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4636|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 3||||0.4636
91026453|NCT04682444|181935957|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 7||||0.1000
90895087|NCT02901626|181655663|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|14.0||||||||14|-12|
90895088|NCT02901626|181655664|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|15.7||||||||15.7|0.06|
90895089|NCT02901626|181655665|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|2.65||||||||2.65|0.25|
90895090|NCT02901626|181655666|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.9||||||||1.90|0.17|
90895091|NCT02901626|181655667|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.96||||||||1.96|0.68|
90895092|NCT02901626|181655668|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.27||||||||1.27|0.71|
90895093|NCT02901626|181655669|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.41||||||||1.41|0.37|
90895094|NCT02901626|181655670|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|3.37||||||||3.37|0.39|
91026454|NCT04682444|181935957|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0363|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 14||||0.0363
91026455|NCT04682444|181935958|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3107|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 3||||0.3107
91026456|NCT04682444|181935958|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0083|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 7||||0.0083
91026457|NCT04682444|181935958|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0611|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 14||||0.0611
91026458|NCT04682444|181935959|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2988|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 3||||0.2988
91026459|NCT04682444|181935960|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 3||||0.0005
91026460|NCT04682444|181935960|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0238|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 7||||0.0238
91026461|NCT04682444|181935960|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0277|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 14||||0.0277
91026462|NCT04682444|181935961|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1253|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 3||||0.1253
91026463|NCT04682444|181935961|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0611|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 7||||0.0611
91026464|NCT04682444|181935961|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 14||||0.4000
91026465|NCT04682444|181935963|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 14||||<0.0001
91026466|NCT04682444|181935964|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3973|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 3||||0.3973
91026467|NCT04682444|181935964|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3122|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 7||||0.3122
91026468|NCT04682444|181935964|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0064|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 14||||0.0064
91026469|NCT04682444|181935966|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 3||||0.012
91026470|NCT04682444|181935966|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 7||||0.036
91026471|NCT04682444|181935966|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 14||||<0.0001
90895095|NCT02901626|181655671|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.29||||||||1.29|0.78|
90895096|NCT02901626|181655672|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.1||||||||1.10|0.58|
90895097|NCT02901626|181655673|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|12.57||||||||12.57|0.48|
90895098|NCT02901626|181655674|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.58||||||||1.58|0.27|
90895099|NCT02901626|181655675|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.97||||||||0.97|0.47|
90895100|NCT02901626|181655676|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|2.66||||||||2.66|0.09|
90895101|NCT02901626|181655677|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.37||||||||1.37|0.81|
90895102|NCT02901626|181655678|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||||||||0|0|
90895103|NCT02901626|181655679|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|36.0||||||||36|-16|
90895104|NCT03662074|181655691|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The pre-specified analysis plan as per the protocol is to proceed to the second stage of recruitment for additional participants if the response proportion exceeds the historical control of 10%.|||
90895105|NCT01446666|181655712|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||McNemar|||The HCC detection rate was defined as the number of patients with HCC detected by a given modality divided by the total number of patients with HCC detected by all modalities and by follow-up dynamic CT scan. The HCC detection rates from ultrasonography and MRI were compared.||||<0.01
90895106|NCT01446666|181655713|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||McNemar|||||||<0.01
90895107|NCT01446666|181655714|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||McNemar|||||||<0.01
90895108|NCT01446666|181655715|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||McNemar|||||||0.004
90895109|NCT00762450|181655750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|paired t-tests||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
90895110|NCT04557930|181655815|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||We tested the association between exposure to the intervention and the incidence of ACP billing in the pre- and post-intervention periods using a mixed effects logistic regression model, adjusting for time, patient and hospital covariates.||1.06|0.88|0.41
90895111|NCT04557930|181655815|SUPERIORITY|Sensitivity analysis of the association between the intervention and ACP billing, adjusted for time, patient characteristics, hospital characteristics, and the interaction between step of the trial and the intervention.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|Overall effect allowing effect heterogeneity across steps \<0.001 Interaction effect \<0.001|Step 1 cohort|||1.19|0.89|0.74
90895112|NCT04557930|181655815|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sensitivity analysis of the association between the intervention and ACP billing, adjusted for time, patient characteristics, hospital characteristics, and the interaction between step of the trial and the intervention.|Step 2 cohort|1.36|0.98|0.09
90895113|NCT04557930|181655815|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sensitivity analysis of the association between the intervention and ACP billing, adjusted for time, patient characteristics, hospital characteristics, and the interaction between step of the trial and the intervention.|Step 3 cohort|1.33|0.97|0.11
90895114|NCT04557930|181655815|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.76|||Mixed Models Analysis||Step 4 cohort|Sensitivity analysis of the association between the intervention and ACP billing, adjusted for time, patient characteristics, hospital characteristics, and the interaction between step of the trial and the intervention.||0.76|0.57|<0.001
90895115|NCT04557930|181655815|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sensitivity analysis of the association between the intervention and ACP billing, adjusted for time, patient characteristics, hospital characteristics, and the interaction between step of the trial and the intervention.|Step 5 cohort|1.19|0.89|0.49
90895116|NCT01165775|181655849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2155|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2155
90895117|NCT03355326|181655850|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.971|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.971
91026472|NCT04682444|181935968|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 3||||0.0002
90895118|NCT03355326|181655851|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.900
90895119|NCT03355326|181655852|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.648|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.648
90895120|NCT03355326|181655853|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.967|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.967
90895121|NCT03355326|181655854|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
90895122|NCT03355326|181655855|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
90895123|NCT03355326|181655856|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
90895124|NCT00608582|181655861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.028||||||p\<0.05 considered significant|ANOVA|Post-hoc paired t-tests were performed.||A repeated measures ANOVA is performed with a significance level of p\<0.05 (two-sided). Factors: Time (Baseline vs. 2 Mo. Post rTMS treatment) and Group (Real vs. Sham).||||<0.028
90895125|NCT00608582|181655861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||p\<.05 considered significant; Pairwise comparisons not adjusted for multiple comparisons|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired, t-tests were performed if the ANOVA yields a significant interaction (p\<0.05, two-sided) for Baseline vs. 2 months after last rTMS treatment.||||<0.05
90895126|NCT00608582|181655861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.237||||||p\<0.05 considered significant. Pairwise comparisons were not corrected for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired, t-tests were performed if the ANOVA yields a significant interaction (p\<0.05, two-sided) for Baseline vs. 2 Mo. after last Sham rTMS treatment.||||<0.237
90895127|NCT00608582|181655862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.414||||||p\<0.05 considered significant|ANOVA|||A repeated measures ANOVA is performed with a significance level of p\<0.05 (two-sided). Factors: Time (Baseline vs. 2 months after last rTMS treatment) and Group (Real vs. Sham).||||0.414
90895128|NCT00608582|181655862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.822||||||p\<0.05 considered significant|ANOVA|||A repeated measures ANOVA is performed with a significance level of p\<0.05 (two-sided). Factors: Time (Baseline vs. 2 months after last rTMS treatment) and Group (Real vs. Sham).||||<0.822
90895129|NCT00608582|181655862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.835||||||p\<0.05 considered significant|ANOVA|||A repeated measures ANOVA is performed with a significance level of p\<0.05 (two-sided). Factors: Time (Baseline vs. 2 months after last rTMS treatment) and Group (Real vs. Sham).||||<0.835
91026473|NCT04682444|181935968|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4048|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 7||||0.4048
91026474|NCT04682444|181935969|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 3||||0.0002
90895130|NCT04922554|181655863|OTHER|Endpoints are summarized using descriptive statistics. Inferential testing of pre-specified hypothesis was not completed.|Difference in response rates|14.15||||0.2182|TWO_SIDED|||||Nominal p-values are provided for descriptive purposes.|Chi-squared|Analysis stratified by prior NTM antibiotic treatment was not performed due to small sample size in one randomization stratification subgroup.||||||0.2182
91026475|NCT04682444|181935969|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1614|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 7||||0.1614
91026476|NCT04682444|181935970|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5581|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 3||||0.5581
91026477|NCT04682444|181935970|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4167|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 7||||0.4167
91026478|NCT04682444|181935971|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0406|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 3||||0.0406
91026479|NCT04682444|181935971|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 7||||0.2000
91026480|NCT04682444|181935972|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2208|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 3||||0.2208
91026481|NCT04682444|181935972|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0659|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 7||||0.0659
91026482|NCT04682444|181935974|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.941|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 0, IFN-alpha||||0.941
91026483|NCT04682444|181935974|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.943|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 0, IFN-gamma||||0.943
91026484|NCT04682444|181935974|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 7, IFN-alpha||||<0.001
91026485|NCT04682444|181935974|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 7, IFN-gamma||||<0.001
91026486|NCT04682444|181935974|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.625|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 14, IFN-alpha||||0.625
91026487|NCT04682444|181935974|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 14, IFN-gamma||||<0.001
91033039|NCT00696020|181951776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.769|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.687||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.613|31.924|||ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed).|5 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||31.924|5.613|0.0053
91033040|NCT00696020|181951776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|26.954|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.805|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.565|40.343|||ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed)|10 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||40.343|13.565|<0.0001
91033041|NCT00696020|181951777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.088|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.027|0.149|||ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, and centre (centre random, all other effects fixed).|2 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||0.149|0.027|0.0048
91033042|NCT00696020|181951777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.086|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.025|0.146|||ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, and centre (centre random, all other effects fixed).|5 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||0.146|0.025|0.0056
91033043|NCT00696020|181951777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.128|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.066|0.189|||ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, and centre (centre random, all other effects fixed).|10 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||0.189|0.066|<0.0001
91033044|NCT00696020|181951778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056||0.0332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.23|||ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed).|2 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||0.230|0.010|0.0332
91033045|NCT00696020|181951778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.183|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.074|0.292|||ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed)|5 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||0.292|0.074|0.0011
91033046|NCT00696020|181951778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.238|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.128|0.349|||ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed)|10 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||0.349|0.128|<0.0001
91033047|NCT00696020|181951779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.867|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.813||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.462|36.272|||ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed).|2 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||36.272|9.462|0.0009
91033048|NCT00696020|181951779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.743|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.739||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.484|33.002|||ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed)|5 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||33.002|6.484|0.0036
91033049|NCT00696020|181951779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.793|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.859|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.298|41.287|||ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed)|10 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||41.287|14.298|<0.0001
91033050|NCT00696020|181951780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.088|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033||0.0079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.023|0.152|||ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed)|2 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||0.152|0.023|0.0079
91033051|NCT00696020|181951780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.082|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.018|0.146|||ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed)|5 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||0.146|0.018|0.0120
91033052|NCT00696020|181951780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.144|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.209|||ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed)|10 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||0.209|0.080|<0.0001
91033053|NCT00696020|181951781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.131|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.0296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.013|0.249|||ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed)|2 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||0.249|0.013|0.0296
91033054|NCT00696020|181951781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.204|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.087|0.32|||ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed)|5 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||0.320|0.087|0.0007
91033055|NCT00696020|181951781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.265|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.147|0.383|||ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed)|10 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||0.383|0.147|<0.0001
91090224|NCT04379921|182063058|OTHER|||||||0.95547874||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05. The p-value is adjusted using the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH method).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of correlation: steps to PROMIS||||0.95547874
91090225|NCT04379921|182063058|OTHER|||||||0.59932922||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05. The p-value is adjusted using the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH method).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of correlation: steps to NDI||||0.59932922
91090226|NCT04379921|182063058|OTHER|||||||0.3581397||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05. The p-value is adjusted using the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH method).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of correlation: steps to ODI||||0.35813970
91090227|NCT04379921|182063058|OTHER|||||||0.06340316||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05. The p-value is adjusted using the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH method).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of correlation: distance (meters) to SF-36||||0.06340316
91026488|NCT00494975|181935985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.56|||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||The VAS score of pruritus intensity was recorded for each participant at baseline and weekly until week 12 so that each one had 12 repeatedly measured data scores. To investigate the predictive effects of age, sex, comorbid diseases, phototherapy, and results of blood laboratory exams on the intensity of pruritus, marginal linear regression model was fitted to the repeatedly measured VAS score data using the generalized estimating equations (GEE) method.||1.56|0.31|<0.05
91026489|NCT01469364|181935998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.203|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test 2 sided.||||||0.2030
91090228|NCT04379921|182063058|OTHER|||||||0.08121447||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05. The p-value is adjusted using the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH method).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of correlation: distance (meters) to EQ-5D||||0.08121447
91026490|NCT01469364|181935999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2527|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test 2 sided.||||||0.2527
91090229|NCT04379921|182063058|OTHER|||||||0.95547874||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05. The p-value is adjusted using the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH method).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of correlation: distance (meters) to PROMIS||||0.95547874
90834474|NCT03192176|181536194|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.8694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.68||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Psychological Mean Score||0.68|-0.57|0.8694
90958921|NCT04874415|181797845|SUPERIORITY|Main effects of each intervention factor were estimated using generalized linear models with log link, including all prespecified two-way interactions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0006|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.8|||||Loss Framed Incentive is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|||0.8|-0.8|
91090230|NCT04379921|182063058|OTHER|||||||0.59932922|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of correlation: distance (meters) to NDI||||0.59932922
91090231|NCT04379921|182063058|OTHER|||||||0.3581397||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05. The p-value is adjusted using the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH method).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of correlation: distance (meters) to ODI||||0.35813970
90834475|NCT03192176|181536194|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.5047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.41||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Psychological Mean Score||0.41|-0.84|0.5047
90834476|NCT03192176|181536194|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.7515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.71||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Psychological Mean Score||0.71|-0.52|0.7515
91090232|NCT04379921|182063059|OTHER|||||||0.52394318||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05. The p-value is adjusted using the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH method).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of correlation: steps to SF-36||||0.52394318
91090233|NCT04379921|182063059|OTHER|||||||0.37244637||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05. The p-value is adjusted using the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH method).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of correlation: steps to EQ-5D||||0.37244637
91026491|NCT01469364|181936004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Absolute Difference|-1.52||||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired Measured t-test||P-Value for the SF-36 PCS||||0.34
91026492|NCT01469364|181936004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Absolute Difference|0.78||||0.18|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired Measured t-test||P-Value for the SF-36 MCS||||0.18
91026493|NCT01469364|181936005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Absolute Difference|1.62||||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired Measure t-test||P-Value for SF-36 PCS||||0.09
91026494|NCT01469364|181936005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Absolute Difference|-1.24||||0.31|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired Measure t-test||P-Value for SF-36 MCS||||0.31
91026495|NCT01469364|181936006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Absolute Difference|0.82||||0.56|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired Measure t-test||P-Value for SGRQ measure||||0.56
91026496|NCT01469364|181936007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Absolute Difference|0.15||||0.68|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired Measure t-test||P-Value for SGRQ Measure||||0.68
91090234|NCT04379921|182063059|OTHER|||||||0.95547874||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05. The p-value is adjusted using the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH method).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of correlation: steps to PROMIS||||0.95547874
91090235|NCT04379921|182063059|OTHER|||||||0.9304017||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05. The p-value is adjusted using the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH method).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of correlation: steps to NDI||||0.93040170
91090236|NCT04379921|182063059|OTHER|||||||0.38647114||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05. The p-value is adjusted using the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH method).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of correlation: steps to ODI||||0.38647114
91090237|NCT04379921|182063059|OTHER|||||||0.7155239||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05. The p-value is adjusted using the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH method).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of correlation: distance (meters) to SF-36||||0.71552390
91026497|NCT01469364|181936008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7454|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test 2 sided.||||||0.7454
90834477|NCT03192176|181536194|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.7818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.53||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Psychological Mean Score||0.53|-0.70|0.7818
90834478|NCT03192176|181536194|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.36||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Physical Mean Score||0.36|-0.65|0.5770
90895131|NCT04922554|181655864|OTHER|Endpoints are summarized using descriptive statistics. Inferential testing of pre-specified hypothesis was not completed.|Difference in response rates|22.15||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|||||Nominal p-values are provided for descriptive purposes.|Chi-squared|Analysis stratified by prior NTM antibiotic treatment was not performed due to small sample size in one randomization stratification subgroup.||||||0.0460
91026498|NCT01469364|181936009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9638|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was completed.||||||0.9638
91026499|NCT00789802|181936010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.03
91026500|NCT00789802|181936010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.02
91026501|NCT02811861|181936014|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio|0.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.8|||Stratified Log-rank Test|Hazard ratio is based on a Cox Proportional Hazards Model including treatment group as a factor.||||0.80|0.53|<0.0001
90834479|NCT03192176|181536194|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.1893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.17||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Physical Mean Score||0.17|-0.85|0.1893
90834480|NCT03192176|181536194|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.2997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.79||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Physical Mean Score||0.79|-0.25|0.2997
90895132|NCT04922554|181655873|OTHER|Endpoints are summarized using descriptive statistics. Inferential testing of pre-specified hypothesis was not completed.|Least square mean difference|0.8||||0.824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.01|7.52||ANCOVA analyzed change from baseline using treatment, prior antibiotic use, and baseline score as factors. LS mean difference = Omadacycline minus Placebo.|ANCOVA|||||7.52|-6.01|0.8240
90895133|NCT04922554|181655874|OTHER|Endpoints are summarized using descriptive statistics. Inferential testing of pre-specified hypothesis was not completed.|Least square mean difference|5.1||||0.2149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.03|13.2||ANCOVA analyzed change from baseline using treatment, prior antibiotic use, and baseline score as factors. LS mean difference = Omadacycline minus Placebo.|ANCOVA|||||13.20|-3.03|0.2149
91026502|NCT02811861|181936014|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio|0.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.49|||Stratified Log-rank Test|Hazard ratio is based on a Cox Proportional Hazards Model including treatment group as a factor.||||0.49|0.32|<0.0001
91026503|NCT04081337|181936030|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|19.68||||0.5733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.36|89.72|||ANCOVA|||||89.72|-50.36|0.5733
91026504|NCT04081337|181936031|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-855.94|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1090.87|-621.02|||ANCOVA|||||-621.02|-1090.87|<0.0001
91026505|NCT04081337|181936032|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.22||||0.9481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-102.65|96.2|||ANCOVA|||||96.20|-102.65|0.9481
91026506|NCT04081337|181936033|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.034|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.051|-0.018|||ANCOVA|||||-0.018|-0.051|<0.0001
91026507|NCT04081337|181936034|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.028||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.045|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||||-0.010|-0.045|0.0031
91026508|NCT04081337|181936035|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|251.89||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|119.09|384.69|||ANCOVA|||||384.69|119.09|0.0004
91026509|NCT04081337|181936036|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-6.87||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.51|-3.22|||ANCOVA|||For Adjusted protein oxidation||-3.22|-10.51|0.0005
91026510|NCT04081337|181936036|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|14.48|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.02|20.93|||ANCOVA|||For Adjusted fat oxidation||20.93|8.02|<0.0001
91026511|NCT04081337|181936036|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-26.64||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.46|-13.83|||ANCOVA|||Adjusted carbohydrate oxidation||-13.83|-39.46|0.0001
91026512|NCT04081337|181936037|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-8.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.04|-5.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.90|-11.04|<0.0001
91026513|NCT04081337|181936038|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-4.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.12|-3.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.05|-5.12|<0.0001
91026514|NCT04081337|181936039|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-5.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.93|-3.22|||ANCOVA|||||-3.22|-6.93|<0.0001
91026515|NCT04081337|181936040|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.14||||0.0304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||||-0.11|-2.16|0.0304
91026516|NCT04081337|181936041|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-1.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-1.06|||ANCOVA|||For Triglyceride||-1.06|-2.60|<0.0001
91026517|NCT04081337|181936041|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.84|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|-0.48|||ANCOVA|||For VLDL||-0.48|-1.19|<0.0001
91026518|NCT04081337|181936041|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.53||||0.0436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||For HDL||-0.02|-1.05|0.0436
91026519|NCT04081337|181936041|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.45||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.66|||ANCOVA|||For Free fatty acid||0.66|0.23|0.0002
91026520|NCT04081337|181936042|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.03||||0.8762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.4|||ANCOVA|||||0.40|-0.34|0.8762
91026521|NCT04081337|181936043|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|3.49||||0.0126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|6.19|||ANCOVA|||||6.19|0.79|0.0126
91026522|NCT04081337|181936044|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.26||||0.0222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|-0.19|||ANCOVA|||||-0.19|-2.34|0.0222
91026523|NCT04081337|181936045|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.36|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.23|||ANCOVA|||||-0.23|-0.48|<0.0001
91026524|NCT06624072|181936046|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (T1/R)|103.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.31|109.52|||||Ratio as percentage \[%\] Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 8.7%.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. The pharmacokinetic endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. The model included the effect 'subjects within sequences' as random and the other effects of sequence, period and treatment were considered as fixed. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale.||109.52|97.31|
90895134|NCT04922554|181655875|OTHER|Endpoints are summarized using descriptive statistics. Inferential testing of pre-specified hypothesis was not completed.|Least square mean difference|8.3||||0.123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.31|18.88||ANCOVA analyzed change from baseline using treatment, prior antibiotic use, and baseline score as factors. LS mean difference = Omadacycline minus Placebo.|ANCOVA|||||18.88|-2.31|0.1230
91026525|NCT06624072|181936047|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means, T2/T1|95.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.37|102.18|||||Ratio as percentage \[%\] Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 10.3%.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. The pharmacokinetic endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. The model included the effect 'subjects within sequences' as random and the other effects of sequence, period and treatment were considered as fixed. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale.||102.18|89.37|
91026526|NCT06624072|181936048|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means, T1/R|104.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.0|119.65|||||Ratio as percentage \[%\] Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 20.4%.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. The pharmacokinetic endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. The model included the effect 'subjects within sequences' as random and the other effects of sequence, period and treatment were considered as fixed. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale.||119.65|91.00|
91026527|NCT06624072|181936049|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means, T2/T1|68.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|61.23|77.11|||||Ratio as percentage \[%\] Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 17.9%.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. The pharmacokinetic endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. The model included the effect 'subjects within sequences' as random and the other effects of sequence, period and treatment were considered as fixed. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale.||77.11|61.23|
91026528|NCT06624072|181936050|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means, T1/R|103.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.22|109.25|||||Ratio as percentage \[%\] Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 8.6%.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. The pharmacokinetic endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. The model included the effect 'subjects within sequences' as random and the other effects of sequence, period and treatment were considered as fixed. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale.||109.25|97.22|
91026529|NCT06624072|181936051|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means, T2/T1|95.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.47|102.42|||||Ratio as percentage \[%\] Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 10.4%.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. The pharmacokinetic endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. The model included the effect 'subjects within sequences' as random and the other effects of sequence, period and treatment were considered as fixed. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale.||102.42|89.47|
91026530|NCT00449072|181936065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (LS Mean)|-0.45||||0.0096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.11|||ANCOVA|The treatment arm, age group (at Visit 1) and sex were fixed effects, and baseline growth velocity was a covariate in the ANCOVA model||||-0.11|-0.78|0.0096
91026531|NCT00449072|181936066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.12||||0.7341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.58|||ANCOVA||The treatment arm, sex and age group were fixed effects, and baseline value was a covariate in the ANCOVA model.|||0.58|-0.83|0.7341
91026532|NCT00449072|181936067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differerence|-0.15||||0.1963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.08|||ANCOVA||The treatment arm, sex and age group were fixed effects, and baseline value was a covariate in the ANCOVA model.|Change in nasal stuffiness||0.08|-0.37|0.1963
91026533|NCT00449072|181936067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.04||||0.7193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.17|||ANCOVA||The treatment arm, sex and age group were fixed effects, and baseline value was a covariate in the ANCOVA model.|Change in Nasal Discharge||0.17|-0.24|0.7193
91026534|NCT00449072|181936067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.09||||0.402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.29|||ANCOVA||The treatment arm, sex and age group were fixed effects, and baseline value was a covariate in the ANCOVA model.|Change in Sneezing||0.29|-0.12|0.4020
91026535|NCT00449072|181936067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean Difference|-0.02||||0.8854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.2|||ANCOVA||The treatment arm, sex and age group were fixed effects, and baseline value was a covariate in the ANCOVA model.|Change in Nasal Itching||0.20|-0.23|0.8854
91026536|NCT00449072|181936068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0951||95.0|||||Mixed model for repeated measures|The treatment arm, assessment visit, their interaction, sex and age group were fixed effects, and assessment visit was a repeated factor.||Statistical Analysis for Day 120||||0.0951
91026537|NCT00449072|181936068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1247||95.0|||||Mixed model for repeated measures|The treatment arm, assessment visit, their interaction, sex and age group were fixed effects, and assessment visit was a repeated factor.||Statistical analysis for Day 240||||0.1247
91026538|NCT00449072|181936068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0207||95.0|||||Mixed model for repeated measures|The treatment arm, assessment visit, their interaction, sex and age group were fixed effects, and assessment visit was a repeated factor.||Statistical analysis for Day 360||||0.0207
91026539|NCT00449072|181936069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2445||95.0|||||Mixed model for repeated measures|The treatment arm, assessment visit, their interaction, sex and age group were fixed effects, and assessment visit was a repeated factor.||Statistical Analysis for Day 120||||0.2445
91026540|NCT00449072|181936069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4488||95.0|||||Mixed model for repeated measures|The treatment arm, assessment visit, their interaction, sex and age group were fixed effects, and assessment visit was a repeated factor.||Statistical Analysis for Day 240||||0.4488
91026541|NCT00449072|181936069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0142||95.0||||The treatment arm, assessment visit, their interaction, sex and age group were fixed effects, and assessment visit was a repeated factor.|Mixed model for repeated measures|||Statistical Analysis for Day 360||||0.0142
91026542|NCT04041570|181936109|OTHER|t-tests were only employed to determine which individuals were responders. Response rates with 95% Clopper-Pearson confidence intervals were reported within group.||||||0.05||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and was only used to assess whether participants had a positive response or not.|t-test, 1 sided|This test was only used to determine whether participants were positive responders or not.||Statistical testing was performed within group and not between groups. Positivity for an individual was determined if there was a significant (p-value\<0.05) increase (one-sided test) in the ELISA titers at week 4 when compared to those at baseline. For each participant a t-test was performed to compare the triplicate baseline titers to their triplicate week 4 titers. The proportion of positive responses and associated Clopper-Pearson 95% was calculated within group.|For each participant, a positive response was defined as a significant increase in ELISA titer post vaccination (Week 4) from baseline (Week 0). Within each participant, a t-test is performed to compare the triplicate readings (replicates 1-3) post vaccination versus the triplicate readings at baseline. A participant is defined as a positive responder if one-sided t-test has p-value \< 0.05. The proportion of responders and associated 95% Clopper-Pearson Confidence Intervals were calculated.|||0.05
91026543|NCT00895583|181936176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.3||Two-sided alpha equals (=) 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||1.3|0.4|0.239
91026544|NCT00895583|181936177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.4||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||||1.4|0.5|0.422
91026545|NCT00895583|181936178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.4||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Month 12||1.4|0.5|0.524
91026546|NCT00895583|181936178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.2||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Month 24||1.2|0.4|0.298
91026547|NCT00895583|181936179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.0||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Month 12||1.0|0.3|0.055
91026548|NCT00895583|181936179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.3||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Month 24||1.3|0.4|0.330
91026549|NCT00895583|181936180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.5||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Month 12||1.5|0.4|0.543
91026550|NCT00895583|181936180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.8||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Month 24||1.8|0.6|1.000
91026551|NCT00895583|181936182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|5.5||Alpha was unadjusted.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and baseline GFR as a covariate.||Change from randomization at Month 6||5.5|0.5|0.019
91026552|NCT00895583|181936182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|1.1||Alpha was unadjusted.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline GFR as a covariate.||Change from randomization at Month 12||1.1|-4.8|0.215
91026553|NCT00895583|181936182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|3.9||Alpha was unadjusted.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline GFR as a covariate.||Change from randomization at Month 18||3.9|-2.7|0.722
91026554|NCT00895583|181936182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|4.4||Alpha was unadjusted.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline GFR as a covariate.||Change from randomization at Month 24||4.4|-3.0|0.710
91026555|NCT00895583|181936183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope difference (SRL-TAC)|-1.8||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|0.5|||Random coefficient model||Random coefficient model with GFR as the dependent variable and study day as the independent variable.|Slope difference (sirolimus \[SRL\] minus tacrolimus \[TAC\])||0.5|-4.2|0.131
91026556|NCT00895583|181936185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|0.8||Alpha was unadjusted.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline serum creatinine as a covariate.||Change from randomization at Month 6||0.8|-8.6|0.105
91026557|NCT00895583|181936185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|14.3||Alpha was unadjusted.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline serum creatinine as a covariate.||Change from randomization at Month 12||14.3|1.1|0.023
91026558|NCT00895583|181936185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4||0.955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|6.4||Alpha was unadjusted.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline serum creatinine as a covariate.||Change from randomization at Month 18||6.4|-6.8|0.955
91026559|NCT00895583|181936185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.8||0.582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|14.6||Alpha was unadjusted.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline serum creatinine as a covariate.||Change from randomization at Month 24||14.6|-8.2|0.582
91026560|NCT00895583|181936186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.006
91026561|NCT00895583|181936187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Post-randomization to Month 12 Post-transplantation||||1.000
91026562|NCT00895583|181936187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.215|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Post-randomization to Month 24 post-transplantation||||0.215
91026563|NCT00895583|181936188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.499|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Month 6||||0.499
91026564|NCT00895583|181936188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Month 12||||0.067
91026565|NCT00895583|181936188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Month 18||||0.061
91026566|NCT00895583|181936188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Month 24||||0.020
91026567|NCT00895583|181936191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||On-therapy Period||||1.000
91026568|NCT00895583|181936191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Off-therapy Period||||1.000
91026569|NCT00895583|181936192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.284|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Baseline||||0.284
90895135|NCT04922554|181655876|OTHER|Endpoints are summarized using descriptive statistics. Inferential testing of pre-specified hypothesis was not completed.|Least square mean difference|5.5||||0.1168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|12.43||ANCOVA analyzed change from baseline using treatment, prior antibiotic use, and baseline score as factors. LS mean difference = Omadacycline minus Placebo.|ANCOVA|||||12.43|-1.41|0.1168
90834481|NCT03192176|181536194|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.7529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.44||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Physical Mean Score||0.44|-0.60|0.7529
90834482|NCT03192176|181536194|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.4173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.31||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Physical Mean Score||0.31|-0.73|0.4173
90834483|NCT03192176|181536194|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.4944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.69||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Physical Mean Score||0.69|-0.34|0.4944
90834484|NCT03192176|181536194|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differencce|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.9231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.49||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Physical Mean Score||0.49|-0.54|0.9231
90895136|NCT04922554|181655877|OTHER|Endpoints are summarized using descriptive statistics. Inferential testing of pre-specified hypothesis was not completed.|Least square mean difference|6.5||||0.0743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|13.66||ANCOVA analyzed change from baseline using treatment, prior antibiotic use, and baseline score as factors. LS mean difference = Omadacycline minus Placebo.|ANCOVA|||||13.66|-0.66|0.0743
90895137|NCT04922554|181655878|OTHER|Endpoints are summarized using descriptive statistics. Inferential testing of pre-specified hypothesis was not completed.|Least square mean difference|7.1||||0.0899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|15.23||ANCOVA analyzed change from baseline using treatment, prior antibiotic use, and baseline score as factors. LS mean difference = Omadacycline minus Placebo.|ANCOVA|||||15.23|-1.13|0.0899
91026570|NCT00895583|181936192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Month 12||||0.046
91026571|NCT00895583|181936192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Month 24||||1.000
91026572|NCT00895583|181936193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.||TC, Month 12||||<0.001
91026573|NCT00895583|181936193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Mean|0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.||TC, Month 24||||<0.001
91026574|NCT00895583|181936193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.824|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.||HDL-C, Month 12||||0.824
90834485|NCT03192176|181536194|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differencce|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.5112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|0.52||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Sexual Mean Score||0.52|-1.04|0.5112
90834486|NCT03192176|181536194|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|-0.09||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Sexual Mean Score||-0.09|-1.66|0.0300
90895138|NCT04922554|181655879|OTHER|Endpoints are summarized using descriptive statistics. Inferential testing of pre-specified hypothesis was not completed.|Least square mean difference|0.5||||0.9019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|8.59||ANCOVA analyzed change from baseline using treatment, prior antibiotic use, and baseline score as factors. LS mean difference = Omadacycline minus Placebo.|ANCOVA|||||8.59|-7.60|0.9019
91026575|NCT00895583|181936193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.735|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.||HDL-C, Month 24||||0.735
91026576|NCT00895583|181936193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.||LDL-C, Month 12||||<0.001
91026577|NCT00895583|181936193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.||LDL-C, Month 24||||0.001
91026578|NCT00895583|181936193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.||Triglycerides, Month 12||||<0.001
91026579|NCT00895583|181936193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.028|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.||Triglycerides, Month 24||||0.028
91026580|NCT00895583|181936194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.429|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Anti-hypertensives, Baseline||||0.429
91026581|NCT00895583|181936194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.326|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Anti-hypertensives, Month 12||||0.326
91026582|NCT00895583|181936194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.517|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Anti-hypertensives, Month 24||||0.517
91026583|NCT00895583|181936194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Diabetes agents (insulin), Baseline||||1.000
91026584|NCT00895583|181936194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Diabetes agent (insulin), Month 12||||1.000
91026585|NCT00895583|181936194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.223|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Diabetes agent (insulin), Month 24||||0.223
90834487|NCT03192176|181536194|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.0634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|0.04||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Sexual Mean Score||0.04|-1.57|0.0634
90834488|NCT03192176|181536194|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.9406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.84||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Sexual Mean Score||0.84|-0.78|0.9406
91026586|NCT00895583|181936194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.498|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Diabetes agent (non-insulin), Baseline||||0.498
91026587|NCT00895583|181936194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.566|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Diabetes agent (non-insulin), Month 12||||0.566
91026588|NCT00895583|181936194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.423|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Diabetes agent (non-insulin), Month 24||||0.423
91026589|NCT00895583|181936194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Lipid-lowering agents, Baseline||||0.033
91026590|NCT00895583|181936194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Lipid-lowering agents, Month 12||||0.900
91026591|NCT00895583|181936194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.802|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Lipid-lowering agents, Month 24||||0.802
91026592|NCT00895583|181936194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||ESAs, Baseline||||0.260
91026593|NCT00895583|181936194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||ESAs, Month 12||||0.086
91026594|NCT00895583|181936194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.723|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||ESAs, Month 24||||0.723
91026595|NCT00895583|181936195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratio|1.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|2.11||Alpha was unadjusted.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with change in the logarithmic Upr/Cr as dependent variable, treatment and logarithmic pre-randomization value as covariate.||Change from pre-randomization at Month 12; treatment ratio (SRC/TAC) in adjusted geometric mean fold-change from baseline.||2.11|1.38|<0.001
91026596|NCT00895583|181936195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratio|1.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|2.26||Alpha was unadjusted.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with change in the logarithmic Upr/Cr as dependent variable, treatment and logarithmic pre-randomization value as covariate.||Change from pre-randomization at Month 24; treatment ratio (SRC/TAC) in adjusted geometric mean fold-change from baseline.||2.26|1.39|<0.001
91026597|NCT00895583|181936196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Pre-randomization||||1.000
91026598|NCT00895583|181936196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||On-Therapy Period||||0.020
91026599|NCT00895583|181936196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Off-Therapy Period||||0.021
91026600|NCT00895583|181936197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha is unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91026601|NCT00895583|181936198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||On-Therapy Period, any treatment||||<0.001
91026602|NCT00895583|181936198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.685|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Off-Therapy Period, any treatment||||0.685
91026603|NCT00895583|181936199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0.521|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||0.521
91026604|NCT00895583|181936200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.265|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.|||||0.265
91026605|NCT00895583|181936201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|10.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|23.61||0.672|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|ANCOVA||ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.|||||0.672
91026606|NCT00895583|181936202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67||0.504|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|ANCOVA||ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.|||||0.504
91026607|NCT00895583|181936203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18||0.637|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.||||||0.637
91026608|NCT00895583|181936204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.48||0.955|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.||||||0.955
91026609|NCT00895583|181936205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|216.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|198.84||0.279|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.||||||0.279
91026610|NCT00895583|181936206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.337|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||0.337
91026611|NCT00895583|181936207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||New onset (from baseline up to On-Therapy Month 24)||||0.025
91026612|NCT00895583|181936207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||New onset at 1 year (from baseline up to On-Therapy Month 12)||||0.012
91026613|NCT00895583|181936207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||New onset at 2 years (from On-Therapy Month 12 to On-Therapy Month 24)||||1.000
91026614|NCT00895583|181936208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Insulin (12-Month)||||1.000
91026615|NCT00895583|181936208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Non-insulin (12-Month)||||1.000
91026616|NCT00895583|181936208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.386|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Non-insulin (24-Month)||||0.386
91026617|NCT00895583|181936208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Insulin (24-Month)||||1.000
91026618|NCT00895583|181936209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.129|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.129
91026619|NCT00895583|181936210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
90834489|NCT03192176|181536194|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.1168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|0.16||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Sexual Mean Score||0.16|-1.46|0.1168
91026620|NCT00895583|181936211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.276|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.276
91026621|NCT00895583|181936212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.158|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.158
91026622|NCT01149616|181936213|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.007
91026623|NCT01149616|181936214|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.006
90834490|NCT03192176|181536194|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.9937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.8||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Sexual Mean Score||0.80|-0.79|0.9937
90834491|NCT03192176|181536194|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.1858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|0.26||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Sexual Mean Score||0.26|-1.32|0.1858
91026624|NCT01149616|181936215|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||P value was calculated, and threshold for significance calculated at less than or equal to 0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.05
91033056|NCT00696020|181951782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.414|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.057||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.529|37.3|||ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed).|2 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||37.300|9.529|0.0010
91033057|NCT00696020|181951782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.695|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.981||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.961|32.43|||ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed).|5 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||32.430|4.961|0.0078
91033058|NCT00696020|181951782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|29.357|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.105|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.379|43.335|||ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed)|10 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||43.335|15.379|<0.0001
91033059|NCT00696020|181951784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.044|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.3517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.049|0.138|||ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed).|2 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||0.138|-0.049|0.3517
91033060|NCT00696020|181951784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.3171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.046|0.143|||ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed)|5 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||0.143|-0.046|0.3171
91033061|NCT00696020|181951784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.035|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.4654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.13|||ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed)|10 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||0.130|-0.060|0.4654
91033062|NCT00696020|181951785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.106|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.704||0.0899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.055|28.267|||ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed).|2 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||28.267|-2.055|0.0899
91033063|NCT00696020|181951785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.817|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.759||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.549|35.084|||ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed).|5 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||35.084|4.549|0.0111
91033064|NCT00696020|181951785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.893|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.844||0.0166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.458|34.329|||ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed)|10 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||34.329|3.458|0.0166
91033065|NCT00624065|181951798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.968||||0.8822||95.0|0.63|1.49|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.49|0.63|0.8822
91033066|NCT01387022|181951800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
91033067|NCT01387022|181951801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.481|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.481
91033068|NCT01387022|181951803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.267|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.267
91033069|NCT01536405|181951813|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority evaluation is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the risk difference excluding a decrease \>= the prespecified criterion of 10 percentage points|Risk Difference (RD)|4.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|6.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen||RD = MMRV (AMP) - MMRV (2006 process)|||6.8|1.8|<0.001
91033070|NCT01536405|181951813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response rate|97.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|95.6|98.4|||One-sample binomial|||Acceptability of the antibody response rate was based on a lower bound of the 95% CI being \>76%||98.4|95.6|<0.001
91033071|NCT01536405|181951814|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority evaluation is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI on the risk difference excluding a decrease \>= the prespecified criterion of 5 percentage points|Risk Difference (RD)|-2.2||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-0.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen||RD = MMRV (AMP) - MMRV (2006 process)|||-0.6|-4.0|0.003
91033072|NCT01536405|181951814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response rate|96.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.9|97.9|||One-sample binomial|||Acceptability of the antibody response rate was based on a lower bound of the 95% CI being \>90%||97.9|94.9|<0.001
91033073|NCT01536405|181951815|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority evaluation is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI on the risk difference excluding a decrease \>= the prespecified criterion of 5 percentage points|Risk Difference (RD)|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|2.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen||RD = MMRV (AMP) - MMRV (2006 process)|||2.8|-0.7|<0.001
91033074|NCT01536405|181951815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response rate|98.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.8|99.1|||One-sample binomial|||Acceptability of the antibody response rate was based on a lower bound of the 95% CI being \>90%||99.1|96.8|<0.001
90895139|NCT04922554|181655880|OTHER|Endpoints are summarized using descriptive statistics. Inferential testing of pre-specified hypothesis was not completed.|Least square mean difference|13.7||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.43|21.89||ANCOVA analyzed change from baseline using treatment, prior antibiotic use, and baseline score as factors. LS mean difference = Omadacycline minus Placebo.|ANCOVA|||||21.89|5.43|0.0015
90895140|NCT04922554|181655881|OTHER|Endpoints are summarized using descriptive statistics. Inferential testing of pre-specified hypothesis was not completed.|Least square mean difference|0.9||||0.8269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.26|9.05||ANCOVA analyzed change from baseline using treatment, prior antibiotic use, and baseline score as factors. LS mean difference = Omadacycline minus Placebo.|ANCOVA||Treatment comparison of Omadacycline and Placebo for activity score has been presented.|||9.05|-7.26|0.8269
90895141|NCT04922554|181655881|OTHER|Endpoints are summarized using descriptive statistics. Inferential testing of pre-specified hypothesis was not completed.|Least square mean difference|-0.2||||0.9584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.74|7.35||ANCOVA analyzed change from baseline using treatment, prior antibiotic use, and baseline score as factors. LS mean difference = Omadacycline minus Placebo.|ANCOVA||Treatment comparison between Omadacycline and Placebo for impact score has been presented|||7.35|-7.74|0.9584
91026625|NCT02100956|181936290|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis was that there was no difference in VAS pain scale scores after intrathecal study drug injection between oxytocin and placebo. To account for repeated measures across time and drug conditions, VAS apin scale scores were analyzed using a linear mixed-effects model with random intercepts at the level of participant. Each outcome was regressed on fixed-effects for order of study day, study drug, time after injection, and drug x time interaction.||||<0.05
91026626|NCT03529955|181936296|EQUIVALENCE|The student t test (paired) and ANOVA analysis of variance were used to assess the mean change in CDASI, MMT-8, DLQI and to compare the positive cell detection on immunohistochemistry for CCL5, pSTAT1 and pSTAT3 at baseline and 3 months post apremilast. All p values were two-sided, and values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant. Analyses were performed using GraphPad Prism 8 (GraphPad Software Inc.). The last observation carried forward approach was used for missing values.||||||0.01||||||The investigators hypothesized that genes identified as significantly differentially expressed between the two groups will have ≥2-fold change at p\<0.01.|ANOVA|||The student t test (paired) and ANOVA analysis of variance were used to assess the mean change in CDASI, MMT-8, DLQI and to compare the positive cell detection on immunohistochemistry for CCL5, pSTAT1 and pSTAT3 at baseline and 3 months post apremilast. All p values were two-sided, and values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant. Analyses were performed using GraphPad Prism 8 (GraphPad Software Inc.). The last observation carried forward approach was used for missing values.||||0.01
91026627|NCT03433274|181936367|OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||one-sided 2.5% level of significance|||"The null and alternative hypotheses are:~H0: πD ≤ πPG H1: πD \> πPG where πD is the true event rate for freedom from all-cause mortality and HFH at 12 months and πPG is the performance goal (PG)."||||0.0002
91026628|NCT03433274|181936368|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Exact Binomial test|at a one-sided 2.5% level of significance||"The null and alternative hypotheses are stated as:~H0: PMR ≤ 1+ ≤ PPG H1: P MR ≤ 1+ \> PPG where PMR ≤ 1+ is the proportion of subjects who have MR ≤ 1+ at 30 days post index procedure."||||<0.0001
91026629|NCT03433274|181936369|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|at a one-sided 2.5% level of significance||"The null and alternative hypotheses are:~H0: D12M ≤ 0 H1: D12M \> 0 Where D12M is the average change in KCCQ score from baseline at 12 months."||||<0.0001
91026630|NCT03433274|181936370|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||McNemar|at a two-sided 5% level of significance||"The null and alternative hypotheses are stated as:~H0: PM12 = PB H1: PM12 ≠ PB where PM12 and PB represent the proportion of NYHA Classification I or II at 12 months and baseline, respectively."||||<0.0001
91026631|NCT03433274|181936371|OTHER|||||||0.0338|||||||paired t-test|at a one-sided 2.5% significance level||"The null and alternative hypotheses are:~H0: D12M ≤ 0 H1: D12M \> 0 Where D12M is the average change in 6MWT distance from baseline at 12 months."||||0.0338
90895142|NCT04922554|181655881|OTHER|Endpoints are summarized using descriptive statistics. Inferential testing of pre-specified hypothesis was not completed.|Least square mean difference|-5.0||||0.2123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.88|2.92||ANCOVA analyzed change from baseline using treatment, prior antibiotic use, and baseline score as factors. LS mean difference = Omadacycline minus Placebo.|ANCOVA||Treatment comparison between Omadacycline and Placebo for symptom score has been presented.|||2.92|-12.88|0.2123
90895143|NCT04922554|181655881|OTHER|Endpoints are summarized using descriptive statistics. Inferential testing of pre-specified hypothesis was not completed.|Least square mean difference|-0.8||||0.8161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.58|5.99||ANCOVA analyzed change from baseline using treatment, prior antibiotic use, and baseline score as factors. LS mean difference = Omadacycline minus Placebo.|ANCOVA||Treatment comparison between Omadacycline and Placebo for total score has been presented.|||5.99|-7.58|0.8161
91026632|NCT05056727|181936408|OTHER||Treatment difference in mean slope|-0.7354||||0.4691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7311|1.2604||Test of no treatment difference in mean total eGFR-slope|Mixed Models Analysis||SZC minus Placebo|||1.2604|-2.7311|0.4691
91026633|NCT05056727|181936409|OTHER|Test of no treatment difference in mean chronic eGFR slope|Treatment difference in mean slope|-2.0421||||0.1338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7156|0.6314|||Mixed Models Analysis||SZC minus Placebo|||0.6314|-4.7156|0.1338
91026634|NCT05056727|181936410|OTHER|Test of treatment HR = 1|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.72||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|5.9|||Regression, Cox||SZC relative to Placebo|||5.90|0.50|0.390
91026635|NCT05056727|181936411|OTHER|Test of treatment HR = 1|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.47|||Regression, Cox||SZC relative to Placebo|||0.47|0.25|<0.001
91026636|NCT05056727|181936412|OTHER|Test of zero treatment difference|Mean Difference|301.1||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.15|579.11|||Regression, Linear||SZC minus Placebo|||579.11|23.15|0.034
91026637|NCT04969939|181936430|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference (%-point)|-2.15||||0.0437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.24|-0.06|||ANCOVA|||Week 48 responses were analysed using an analysis of covariance model with randomised treatment as factors and baseline body weight (kg) as covariate.||-0.06|-4.24|0.0437
91026638|NCT02667067|181936464|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<.001
91026639|NCT03611309|181936552|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.63||||0.623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.15|4.89||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear||FACIT-Pal Total score|||4.89|-8.15|.623
90834492|NCT03192176|181536194|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.5765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.36||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Overall Mean Score||0.36|-0.65|0.5765
90834493|NCT03192176|181536194|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.1848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.17||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Overall Mean Score||0.17|-0.86|0.1848
90834494|NCT03192176|181536194|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.7299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.61||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Overall Mean Score||0.61|-0.43|0.7299
90834495|NCT03192176|181536194|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.9415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.5||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Overall Mean Score||0.50|-0.54|0.9415
90834496|NCT03192176|181536194|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.2742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.23||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Overall Mean Score||0.23|-0.82|0.2742
90834497|NCT03192176|181536194|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.6946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.62||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Overall Mean Score||0.62|-0.41|0.6946
90834498|NCT03192176|181536194|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.9442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.5||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Overall Mean Score||0.50|-0.53|0.9442
90834499|NCT03631940|181536209|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.49||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.36|5.37|||Hierarchical generalized linear mixed mo|Hierarchical generalized linear mixed models||||5.37|-6.36|.87
90834500|NCT00836589|181536220|NON_INFERIORITY|"Estimated SAEFR at 5 years is 92.5% with a 5% non-inferiority margin (87.5%).~Type I error (alpha) is 0.05 (one-sided for non-inferiority).~Statistical power is 80%."||||||0.002|||||||Binomial Proportion|||||||0.0020
90834501|NCT00117637|181536230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.27||The log rank test is stratified by region (western Europe, Eastern Europe, USA) and by Motzer risk category (low, intermediate).|Log Rank|||The study was planned to show a 80% improvement in PFS for the group treated with Sorafenib compared to the group treated with Interferon, with a 80% power and a 2-sided type I error of 5%||1.27|0.61|0.50
90834502|NCT00117637|181536231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.882||||0.469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.628|1.239||The log rank test is stratified by region (western Europe, Eastern Europe, USA) and by Motzer risk category (low, intermediate).|Log Rank|||The study was planned to show a 80% improvement in PFS for the group treated with Sorafenib compared to the group treated with Interferon, with a 80% power and a 2-sided type I error of 5%||1.239|0.628|0.469
90834503|NCT00117637|181536232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0||||The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics was stratified by region and Motzer risk category.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.006
90834504|NCT00117637|181536233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004||95.0||||the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics was stratified by region and Motzer risk category.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0004
90834505|NCT00117637|181536235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The least square (LS) means have been adjusted according to the stratification factors (geographical region, Motzer score at baseline) and using the baseline respiratory score as covariate.||||0.022
91026640|NCT03611309|181936553|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.15||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||Analysis of physical health score.||0.15|-0.29|.555
91026641|NCT03611309|181936553|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.002||||0.983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||Analysis of mental health score.||0.20|-0.20|.983
91026642|NCT03611309|181936555|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.004||||0.997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|2.1||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear||FACIT-Sp-12 Total Score|||2.10|-2.09|.997
91026643|NCT03611309|181936556|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.484||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||"Analysis of question Help you live longer?"||||.484
91026644|NCT03611309|181936556|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.343||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||"Analysis of question Cure your cancer?"||||.343
90834506|NCT00117637|181536237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The least square (LS) means have been adjusted according to the stratification factors (geographical region, Motzer score at baseline) and using the baseline respiratory score as covariate.||||0.015
90834507|NCT00117637|181536239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.073||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The least square (LS) means have been adjusted according to the stratification factors (geographical region, Motzer score at baseline).||||0.073
90834508|NCT00117637|181536241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.067||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The least square (LS) means have been adjusted according to the stratification factors (geographical region, Motzer score at baseline).||||0.067
90834509|NCT00117637|181536242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The least square (LS) means have been adjusted according to the stratification factors (geographical region, Motzer score at baseline).||||0.005
90834510|NCT00117637|181536243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The least square (LS) means have been adjusted according to the stratification factors (geographical region, Motzer score at baseline).||||0.001
91026645|NCT03611309|181936556|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.908|||||||Regression, Linear|The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.||"Analysis of question Help you with problems you were having because of your cancer?"||||.908
91026646|NCT03611309|181936559|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.531||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||.531
91026647|NCT03611309|181936560|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.871||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||.871
91026648|NCT03611309|181936561|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||"Analysis of question Help your loved one live longer?"||||.770
91026649|NCT03611309|181936561|SUPERIORITY|The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.||||||0.755|||||||Regression, Linear|||"Analysis of question Awareness after: Cure your loved one's cancer?"||||.755
91026650|NCT03611309|181936561|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.929||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||"Analysis of question Awareness after: Help your loved one with problems due to the cancer?"||||.929
91026651|NCT04526899|181936564|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0148|||||||1-sided exact binomial test|||||||0.0148
91026652|NCT01711021|181936644|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) mean difference|-5.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.76|-4.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measure (MMRM) analysis for SKAMP total score in Double-Blind period||||-4.97|-6.76|< 0.001
91026653|NCT01711021|181936646|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.01
91026654|NCT02833415|181936662|OTHER|Differences of Least Squares Means|Differences of Least Squares Means|0.9398|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2941||0.0053|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Followup||||0.0053
91026655|NCT02833415|181936662|OTHER|Differences of Least Squares Means|Differences of Least Squares Means|0.152|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2424||0.5394|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Followup||||0.5394
90895144|NCT04922554|181655882|OTHER|Endpoints are summarized using descriptive statistics. Inferential testing of pre-specified hypothesis was not completed.|Least square mean difference|-5.7||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.95|-2.38||ANCOVA analyzed change from baseline using treatment, prior antibiotic use, and baseline score as factors. LS mean difference = Omadacycline minus Placebo.|ANCOVA|||||-2.38|-8.95|0.0010
90895145|NCT04922554|181655883|OTHER|Endpoints are summarized using descriptive statistics. Inferential testing of pre-specified hypothesis was not completed.|Difference in improvement rates|39.61||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.66|62.56|||Fisher Exact|||||62.56|16.66|0.0020
91026656|NCT02324972|181936725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.25|||ANCOVA|||A sample size of 20 subjects per group was assumed to have 80% power to allow detection of a statistically significant difference in change from baseline in TLSS between the 2 groups, if the effect size was approximately less than or equal to 0.9. This is equivalent to detecting a difference of -4.5 between the 2 groups with a common standard deviation of 5. The primary analysis was doing using last observation carried forward (LOCF) imputed data.||1.25|-1.30|0.636
91026657|NCT02324972|181936726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.68|||ANOVA|||||0.68|-0.44|0.677
91026658|NCT02324972|181936727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.219||||0.802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.983|1.544|||ANOVA|||||1.544|-1.983|0.802
91026659|NCT02324972|181936728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.108||||0.976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.076|7.292|||ANOVA|||||7.292|-7.076|0.976
91026660|NCT02324972|181936729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.52||||0.233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|6.72|||ANOVA|||||6.72|-1.68|0.233
91026661|NCT02398188|181936740|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.397|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.397
91026662|NCT02398188|181936741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.379|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.379
91026663|NCT00220701|181936744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||F statistics|2.82||||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.10
91026664|NCT03123549|181936849|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.017
91026665|NCT06268730|181936872|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.104||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.104
90834511|NCT00117637|181536244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The least square (LS) means have been adjusted according to the stratification factors (geographical region, Motzer score at baseline).||||0.019
90834512|NCT00117637|181536253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.014
90834513|NCT03324607|181536266|OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.006
91026666|NCT06268730|181936873|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.061||||||the a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.061
91026667|NCT06268730|181936874|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.053||||||the a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.053
91026668|NCT06268730|181936875|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||the a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.003
91026669|NCT06268730|181936876|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58||||||the a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.58
91026670|NCT00135707|181936881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.07||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.25|||Chi-squared|||The primary hypothesis states that antioxidant therapy initiated prior to 16 weeks gestation in women will reduce the frequency of serious maternal and infant complications associated with pregnancy related hypertension. We estimated that with a sample size of 10,000 women, the study would have 90% power to show a 30% reduction in the rate of the primary outcome, from 4% in the placebo to 2.8% in the vitamin group, with a two-sided type I error rate of 5%.||1.25|0.91|0.42
91026671|NCT00135707|181936882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.24|||Chi-squared|||||1.24|0.85|0.79
91026672|NCT00135707|181936883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.79||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.31|||Chi-squared|||||1.31|0.47|0.35
91026673|NCT00135707|181936884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.68||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.17|||Chi-squared|||||1.17|0.39|0.16
91026674|NCT00135707|181936885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.63||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.63|||Chi-squared|||||1.63|0.25|0.34
91026675|NCT00135707|181936886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.49||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|7.94|||Chi-squared|||||7.94|0.78|0.11
91026676|NCT00135707|181936887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.81||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.68|||Chi-squared|||||1.68|0.39|0.57
91026677|NCT00135707|181936888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.3||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.9|||Chi-squared|||||1.90|0.89|0.18
91026678|NCT00135707|181936889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.09||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|2.46|||Chi-squared|||||2.46|0.48|0.84
90834514|NCT01890343|181536310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The effect of diagnostic group on mean cortical florbetapir binding relative to cerebellar cortex was determined.||||0.002
90834515|NCT00467740|181536411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045||0.0754||95.0|-0.008|0.167|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.167|-0.008|0.0754
90834516|NCT00467740|181536411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.086|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045||0.0571||95.0|-0.003|0.174|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.174|-0.003|0.0571
90834517|NCT00467740|181536411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.076|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045||0.0906||95.0|-0.012|0.164|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.164|-0.012|0.0906
90834518|NCT00467740|181536411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.147|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044||0.0011||95.0|0.059|0.234|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.234|0.059|0.0011
90834519|NCT00467740|181536412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.238|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.843||0.0393||95.0|0.801|31.675|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||31.675|0.801|0.0393
90834520|NCT00467740|181536412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.878|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.875||0.0005||95.0|12.379|43.378|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||43.378|12.379|0.0005
90834521|NCT00467740|181536412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|36.072|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.906|<|0.0001||95.0|20.512|51.633|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||51.633|20.512|<0.0001
90834522|NCT00467740|181536412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|42.943|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.848|<|0.0001||95.0|27.498|58.389|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||58.389|27.498|<0.0001
91026679|NCT00135707|181936890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.07||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.24|||Chi-squared|||||1.24|0.93|0.33
91026680|NCT00135707|181936891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.17|||Chi-squared|||||1.17|1.03|0.004
91026681|NCT00135707|181936892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.07||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.21|||Chi-squared|||||1.21|0.95|0.25
91026682|NCT00135707|181936893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.73||||0.15||95.0|0.47|1.12|||Chi-squared|||||1.12|0.47|0.15
90895146|NCT04922554|181655884|OTHER|Endpoints are summarized using descriptive statistics. Inferential testing of pre-specified hypothesis was not completed.|Difference in improvement rates|15.41||||0.3051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|39.93|||Fisher Exact|||||39.93|-9.10|0.3051
91026683|NCT00135707|181936894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.75||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.77|||Chi-squared|||||1.77|0.32|0.51
91026684|NCT00135707|181936895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.21||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.79|||Chi-squared|||||1.79|0.82|0.33
91026685|NCT00135707|181936896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.96||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.22|||Chi-squared|||||1.22|0.75|0.74
90834523|NCT00467740|181536413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.067|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044||0.1264||95.0|-0.019|0.154|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.154|-0.019|0.1264
90834524|NCT00467740|181536413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.101|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044||0.0232||95.0|0.014|0.188|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.188|0.014|0.0232
90834525|NCT00467740|181536413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.114|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044||0.0106||95.0|0.027|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.200|0.027|0.0106
90895147|NCT04922554|181655885|OTHER|Endpoints are summarized using descriptive statistics. Inferential testing of pre-specified hypothesis was not completed.||||||0.3552|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.3552
91026686|NCT00135707|181936897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.66||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.11|||Chi-squared|||||1.11|0.40|0.12
91026687|NCT00135707|181936898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.11|||Chi-squared|||||1.11|0.97|0.35
91026688|NCT00135707|181936900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.3||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|1.08|||Chi-squared|||||1.08|0.08|0.05
91026689|NCT00135707|181936901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.67||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.01|||Chi-squared|||||1.01|0.45|0.05
91026690|NCT00135707|181936902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.65
91026691|NCT00135707|181936903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.21
91026692|NCT00135707|181936904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.97||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.09|||Chi-squared|||\<37 weeks' gestation||1.09|0.87|0.63
91026693|NCT00135707|181936904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.86||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.06|||Chi-squared|||\<32 weeks' gestation||1.06|0.69|0.16
91026694|NCT00135707|181936905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.92||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.19|||Chi-squared|||||1.19|0.72|0.53
91026695|NCT00135707|181936906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.55
91026696|NCT00135707|181936907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.27|||Chi-squared|||||1.27|0.79|0.98
91026697|NCT00135707|181936908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.93||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.07|||Chi-squared|||||1.07|0.81|0.32
91026698|NCT00135707|181936909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.15|||Chi-squared|||||1.15|0.92|0.58
91026699|NCT00135707|181936910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.04||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.3|||Chi-squared|||||1.30|0.83|0.75
91026700|NCT00135707|181936911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.85||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|2.54|||Chi-squared|||||2.54|0.29|0.78
91026701|NCT00135707|181936912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.3||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.23|||Chi-squared|||||2.23|0.76|0.34
91026702|NCT00135707|181936913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.71||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.6|||Chi-squared|||||1.60|0.32|0.41
91026703|NCT00135707|181936914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.18||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|2.3|||Chi-squared|||||2.30|0.61|0.62
91026704|NCT00135707|181936915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.85||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.48|||Chi-squared|||||1.48|0.49|0.56
91026705|NCT00135707|181936916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.79
91026706|NCT00135707|181936917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.02||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.26|||Chi-squared|||||1.26|0.82|0.86
91026707|NCT00135707|181936918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.12||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.42|||Chi-squared|||||1.42|0.89|0.32
91026708|NCT01681030|181936919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion|0.923|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.998|||||CI for EVARREST Group|||0.998|0.640|
91026709|NCT01681030|181936919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion|0.333|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.133|0.59|||||CI for Topical Hemostat group|||0.590|0.133|
91026710|NCT01681030|181936919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion|0.455|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.167|0.766|||||CI for Standard of Care group|||0.766|0.167|
91026711|NCT02584140|181936929|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The P-Value for Week 4 was \<0.001; The P-Value for Week 12 was 0.005; The P-Value for Week 24 was 0.029; The P-Value for Week 36 was 0.008; The P-Value for Week 48 was 0.03.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91026712|NCT00620763|181936930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.02||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model analysis of variance tested for treatment and feeding sequence effects.||16 subjects required to detect a difference in Calcium 47 absorption of 2 percentage points with 90% power, alpha = 0.05||||0.02
91026713|NCT00729859|181936932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0075||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.005|0.035|||paired t-test|||p value for the difference = 0.28||0.035|0.005|0.28
91026714|NCT01006707|181936993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.042|||||||ANOVA|||Results were considered significant at p\<0.05.||||0.042
91090238|NCT04379921|182063059|OTHER|||||||0.35456143||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05. The p-value is adjusted using the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH method).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of correlation: distance (meters) to EQ-5D||||0.35456143
90834526|NCT00467740|181536413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.173|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044||0.0001||95.0|0.087|0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.260|0.087|0.0001
90834527|NCT00467740|181536414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.103|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.0329||95.0|0.008|0.198|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.198|0.008|0.0329
90834528|NCT00467740|181536414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.089|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.0666||95.0|-0.006|0.184|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.184|-0.006|0.0666
91026715|NCT01006707|181936994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.322|||||||ANOVA|||Results were considered significant at p\<0.05.||||0.322
91026716|NCT01006707|181936995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.261|||||||ANOVA|||Results were considered significant at p\<0.05.||||0.261
91026717|NCT05034731|181937007|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority analyses were based on paired t-tests looking at the differences in speech scores calculated using the investigational speech scores minus the control speech scores. The primary efficacy analyses tested the null hypothesis (inferiority) that the mean of the paired differences in AzBio sentence scores in quite (remote fitting - in-office fitting) are less than or equal to -10 percentile points.|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
91026718|NCT05034731|181937008|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority analyses were based on paired t-tests looking at the differences in speech scores calculated using the investigational speech scores minus the control speech scores. The primary efficacy analyses tested the null hypothesis (inferiority) that the mean of the paired differences in AzBio sentence scores in quite (remote fitting - in-office fitting) are less than or equal to -10 percentile points.|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
91026719|NCT00358826|181937074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Adjusted using Dunnett's method.|ANCOVA|The model included treatment effect, with baseline value as a covariate.||||||<0.001
91026720|NCT00358826|181937074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Adjusted using Dunnett's method.|ANCOVA|The model included treatment effect, with baseline value as a covariate.||||||<0.001
91026721|NCT00358826|181937074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Adjusted using Dunnett's method.|ANCOVA|The model included treatment effect, with baseline value as a covariate.||||||<0.001
91026722|NCT00358826|181937075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Adjusted using Dunnett's method.|ANCOVA|The model included treatment effect, with baseline value as a covariate.||||||<0.001
91026723|NCT00358826|181937075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Adjusted using Dunnett's method.|ANCOVA|The model included treatment effect, with baseline value as a covariate.||||||<0.001
91026724|NCT00358826|181937075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Adjusted using Dunnett's method.|ANCOVA|The model included treatment effect, with baseline value as a covariate.||||||<0.001
91026725|NCT00358826|181937076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.656||||||Adjusted using Dunnett's method.|ANCOVA|||||||0.656
91026726|NCT00358826|181937076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.863||||||Adjusted using Dunnett's method.|ANCOVA|||||||0.863
91026727|NCT00358826|181937076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.996||||||Adjusted using Dunnett's method.|ANCOVA|||||||0.996
91026728|NCT00358826|181937077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.331||||||Adjusted using Dunnett's method.|ANCOVA|||||||0.331
91026729|NCT00358826|181937077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.606||||||Adjusted using Dunnett's method.|ANCOVA|||||||0.606
91026730|NCT00358826|181937077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Adjusted using Dunnett's method.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90834529|NCT00467740|181536414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.043|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.3738||95.0|-0.052|0.137|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.137|-0.052|0.3738
90895148|NCT04922554|181655886|OTHER|Endpoints are summarized using descriptive statistics. Inferential testing of pre-specified hypothesis was not completed.||||||0.0753|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.0753
91026731|NCT00358826|181937078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22||||||Dunnett test compared with Placebo|ANCOVA|||||||0.22
91026732|NCT00358826|181937078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.005||||||Dunnett test compared with Placebo|ANCOVA|||||||<0.005
91026733|NCT00358826|181937078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6||||||Dunnett test compared with Placebo|ANCOVA|||||||0.60
91026734|NCT00358826|181937079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92||||||Dunnett test compared with Placebo|ANCOVA|||||||0.92
91026735|NCT00358826|181937079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96||||||Dunnett test compared with Placebo|ANCOVA|||||||0.96
91026736|NCT00358826|181937079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||Dunnett test compared with Placebo|ANCOVA|||||||1.00
91026737|NCT00358826|181937080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99||||||Dunnett test compared with Placebo|ANCOVA|||||||0.99
91026738|NCT00358826|181937080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11||||||Dunnett test compared with Placebo|ANCOVA|||||||0.11
91026739|NCT00358826|181937080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99||||||Dunnett test compared with Placebo|ANCOVA|||||||0.99
91026740|NCT00283686|181937098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|5.0||adjusted for age, sex, race, baseline estimated GFR, and clinical site.|Mixed Models Analysis|Test for differences between treatment groups over time.||||5.0|-0.8|0.52
91026741|NCT00283686|181937098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.2||adjusted for age, sex, race, baseline estimated GFR, and clinical site.|Mixed Models Analysis|Testing differences between blood pressure groups over time||||-0.2|-1.6|0.006
91026742|NCT00283686|181937099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.3||adjusting for age, sex, race, and clinical site|Mixed Models Analysis|Testing for differences in treatment over time (differences in slopes over time).||||0.3|-0.6|0.52
91026743|NCT00283686|181937099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.6||adjusted for age, sex, race, and clinical site|Mixed Models Analysis|Testing for differences between groups over time (differences in slopes over time)||||0.6|-0.3|0.55
91026744|NCT00283686|181937100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|1.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusting for age, sex, race, and clinical site||||1.9|-3.3|0.57
91026745|NCT00283686|181937100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|-3.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusting for age, sex, race, and clinical site||||-3.4|-8.5|<0.0001
91026746|NCT00283686|181937101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusting for age, sex, race, and clinical site||||0.6|-3.1|0.18
91026747|NCT00283686|181937101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusting for age, sex, race, and clinical site||||0.6|-3.1|0.19
91026748|NCT00283686|181937102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.088||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for age, sex, race, baseline estimated GFR, and clinical site|comparing the annual change over time between ACE/ARB and ACE alone|||0.22|-0.40|0.58
91026749|NCT00283686|181937102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for age, sex, race, baseline estimated GFR, and clinical site|comparing annual change in LVMI between Low Blood Pressure and Standard Blood Pressure groups|||-0.29|-0.91|0.0002
91026750|NCT00283686|181937103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.97||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.55|8.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for age, sex, race, baseline estimated GFR, and clinical site|difference in annual change in mL/min/1.73 m\^2 for ACE+ARB compared to ACE alone|||8.50|-2.55|0.29
91026751|NCT00283686|181937103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.98||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.54|6.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusting for age, sex, race, baseline estimated GFR, and clinical site|difference in annual change mL/min/1.73 m\^2 between low and standard blood pressure groups|||6.50|-4.54|0.73
91026752|NCT00283686|181937104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.0228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.95|||Regression, Cox|adjusting for age, sex, race, and clinical site||||0.95|0.53|0.0228
91026753|NCT00283686|181937104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.22|||Regression, Cox|adjusting for age, sex, race, and clinical site||||1.22|0.70|0.59
91026754|NCT00283686|181937105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.016||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusting for age, sex, race, and clinical site||||0.17|-0.19|0.87
91026755|NCT00283686|181937105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.046|0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusting for age, sex, race, and clinical site||||0.31|-0.046|0.14
91026756|NCT00283686|181937106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25||||0.0221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.036|0.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusting for age, sex, race, and clinical site||||0.46|0.036|0.0221
91026757|NCT00283686|181937106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0.0339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.018|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusting for age, sex, race, and clinical site||||-0.018|-0.44|0.0339
91026758|NCT01851590|181937114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Proportions and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for negative KOH staining, negative cultures, and a combination of these at 4- and 10-month time points. Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel and χ2-tests were used to analyse efficacy criteria.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The sample size was estimated according to complete mycological cure at 10 months. Estimation was based on the design of a binary-outcome head-to-head superiority trial. Orally administered terbinafine treatment was considered the active control. Approximately 25 patients / arm were required to have 80% power (β=0.2) at a two-sided α=0.05 significance level to detect a decrease in primary outcome from 50% in the terbinafine arm to 15% in the amorolfine or resin lacquer treatment arms.||||<0.05
91026759|NCT01851590|181937115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Differences between quantitative data were assessed with one-way analysis of variances, and pairwise comparisons were performed with Bonferroni's post hoc test.|ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91026760|NCT01851590|181937116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Differences between quantitative data were assessed with one-way analysis of variances, and pairwise comparisons were performed with Bonferroni's post hoc test.|ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91026761|NCT01851590|181937117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Differences between quantitative data were assessed with one-way analysis of variances, and pairwise comparisons were performed with Bonferroni's post hoc test.|ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91026762|NCT01851590|181937118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Qualitative data are expressed as frequencies and percentages, and differences between parallel groups were compared with the χ2-test or Fisher's exact test, as appropriate.|Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
91026763|NCT00696709|181937119|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The statistical criterion for significance requires that the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the geometric mean fold rise in vaccine recipients is \>1.0.|Longitudinal regression (LR)|Calculated based on LR model (adjusting for pre-vaccination immunogenicity level and incomplete data) with visit as covariate.||||||<0.0001
91026764|NCT00696709|181937120|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The statistical criterion for significance requires that the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the geometric mean fold rise in vaccine recipients is \>1.0.|Longitudinal regression (LR)|Calculated based on LR model (adjusting for pre-vaccination immunogenicity level and incomplete data) with visit as covariate.||||||<0.0001
91026765|NCT00696709|181937121|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The statistical criterion for significance requires that the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the geometric mean fold rise in vaccine recipients is \>1.0.|Longitudinal regression (LR)|Calculated based on LR model (adjusting for pre-vaccination immunogenicity level and incomplete data) with visit as covariate.||||||<0.0001
91090239|NCT04379921|182063059|OTHER|||||||0.95547874||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05. The p-value is adjusted using the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH method).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of correlation: distance (meters) to PROMIS||||0.95547874
91090240|NCT04379921|182063059|OTHER|||||||0.9304017||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05. The p-value is adjusted using the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH method).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of correlation: distance (meters) to NDI||||0.93040170
91026766|NCT00696709|181937122|OTHER|The statistical criterion for significance requires that the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the geometric mean fold rise in vaccine recipients is \>1.0.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Longitudinal data analysis (LDA)|LDA with log-transformed VZV responses at each visit as response variables and visit as covariate.||||||<0.0001
90895149|NCT04922554|181655888|OTHER|Endpoints are summarized using descriptive statistics. Inferential testing of pre-specified hypothesis was not completed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.84||||0.0168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|11.87|||Chi-squared|||||11.87|1.24|0.0168
91026767|NCT00696709|181937123|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|5.7|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen|||5.7|-10.8|
91090241|NCT04379921|182063059|OTHER|||||||0.42512141||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05. The p-value is adjusted using the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH method).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of correlation: distance (meters) to ODI||||0.42512141
91090242|NCT04275973|182063077|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.649|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||No Intervention vs AFO||||0.649
91090243|NCT04275973|182063077|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.513|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||No Intervention vs FES||||0.513
91090244|NCT04275973|182063077|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.617|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||AFO vs FES||||0.617
91090245|NCT02713178|182063164|SUPERIORITY||LSMD|-20.249||||0.4463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.361|31.864|||ANOVA|||||31.864|-72.361|0.4463
91090246|NCT02713178|182063164|SUPERIORITY||LSMD|-28.796||||0.2749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.483|22.892|||ANOVA|||||22.892|-80.483|0.2749
91090247|NCT02713178|182063165|SUPERIORITY||LSM treatment ratio|0.853||||0.0716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.717|1.014|||ANOVA|||||1.014|0.717|0.0716
91090248|NCT02713178|182063165|SUPERIORITY||LSM treatment ratio|0.913||||0.3004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.769|1.084|||ANOVA|||||1.084|0.769|0.3004
91090249|NCT02713178|182063167|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1896|||||||Log Rank|||The overall distribution as estimated by the Kaplan-Meier analysis was compared between the EXPAREL arm and the placebo arm.||||0.1896
91090250|NCT02713178|182063167|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2549|||||||Log Rank|||The overall distribution as estimated by the Kaplan-Meier analysis was compared between the EXPAREL arm and the placebo arm.||||0.2549
90895150|NCT04922554|181655889|OTHER|Endpoints are summarized using descriptive statistics. Inferential testing of pre-specified hypothesis was not completed.||||||0.0233|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0233
91026768|NCT00696709|181937123|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|8.8|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen|||8.8|-9.2|
91026769|NCT00696709|181937124|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|35.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.2|52.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||52.6|15.2|<0.001
91026770|NCT00696709|181937124|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|40.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.6|57.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||57.0|19.6|<0.001
91090251|NCT00791219|182063172|NON_INFERIORITY|To demonstrate non-inferiority an upper bound 95% confidence interval approach comparing the difference between the cure rate in the Test and the Reference groups was used. If the lower bound 95% confidence interval of the difference between the proportion of patients in the Test group compared to the Reference group considered a Therapeutic Cure, Clinical Cure and Mycological Cure as appropriate, at Week 24 was greater than -20 then non-inferiority was considered to have been demonstrated|-20|6.47|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|-1.77||||||||||-1.77|
91090252|NCT00791219|182063172|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||one-sided continuity corrected Z-test|||The ITT was used for all superiority testing. For the three primary endpoints and all four secondary endpoints, if the difference between the proportion of patients considered a cure was statistically greater (p\<0.05) than the proportion of patients considered a cure in the Placebo group, then superiority was considered to have been demonstrated. A one-sided continuity corrected Z-test was used for superiority testing||||<0.05
90895151|NCT04922554|181655890|OTHER|Endpoints are summarized using descriptive statistics. Inferential testing of pre-specified hypothesis was not completed.||||||0.0349|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0349
90895152|NCT03092375|181655894|OTHER|Study is not intended to be powered|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.48|5.12|||||Excludes re-infection and death|The difference in the percentage of subjects with on-treatment virologic failure (Defined as increase of \>1 log10 IU/mL above nadir during treatment, or HCV RNA \>= 15 IU/mL at end of treatment with at least 6 weeks of treatment between Arms A and B are summarized with two-sided 95% Wilson score intervals.||5.12|-9.48|
91026771|NCT00696709|181937125|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.3|16.1|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen|||16.1|-25.3|
91026772|NCT00696709|181937125|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.9|24.9|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen|||24.9|-16.9|
91026773|NCT00696709|181937126|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|1.6||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|8.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||8.4|-9.3|0.480
91090253|NCT00791219|182063173|NON_INFERIORITY|To demonstrate non-inferiority an upper bound 95% confidence interval approach comparing the difference between the cure rate in the Test and the Reference groups was used. If the lower bound 95% confidence interval of the difference between the proportion of patients in the Test group compared to the Reference group considered a Therapeutic Cure, Clinical Cure and Mycological Cure as appropriate, at Week 24 was greater than -20 then non-inferiority was considered to have been demonstrated|-20|10.38|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.92|||||||To demonstrate non-inferiority an upper bound 95% confidence interval approach comparing the difference between the cure rate in the Test and the Reference groups was used. If the lower bound 95% confidence interval of the difference between the proportion of patients in the Test group compared to the Reference group considered a Therapeutic Cure, Clinical Cure and Mycological Cure as appropriate, at Week 24 was greater than -20 then non-inferiority was considered to have been demonstrated|||0.92|
91090254|NCT00791219|182063173|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||one-sided continuity corrected Z-test|||The ITT was used for all superiority testing. For the three primary endpoints and all four secondary endpoints, if the difference between the proportion of patients considered a cure was statistically greater (p\<0.05) than the proportion of patients considered a cure in the Placebo group, then superiority was considered to have been demonstrated. A one-sided continuity corrected Z-test was used for superiority testing||||<0.05
91026774|NCT00696709|181937126|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|1.6||||0.469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|8.8|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||8.8|-9.2|0.469
90834530|NCT00467740|181536414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.0037||95.0|0.046|0.234|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.234|0.046|0.0037
90834531|NCT00467740|181536415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.051|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.046||0.2646||95.0|-0.039|0.142|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.142|-0.039|0.2646
90895153|NCT03092375|181655895|OTHER|The difference in the percentage of subjects with post-treatment relapse between Arms A and B are summarized with two-sided 95% Wilson score intervals.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.49|5.49||||||||5.49|-10.49|
91026775|NCT00696709|181937127|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|5.7|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen|||5.7|-10.8|
91026776|NCT00696709|181937127|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|6.0|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen|||6.0|-10.8|
91026777|NCT01261325|181937144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent reduction over PBO|22.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.3|31.2||"Type I error rate of 0.05 based on a Hochberg multiple comparison procedure would be considered statistically significant or similar, as accurate and appropriate."|ANCOVA|Effects of treatment, country, combination of LEV status and number of previous AEDs, and log-transformed baseline seizure frequency are in the model.||||31.2|13.3|<0.001
91026778|NCT01261325|181937144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent reduction over PBO|23.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.8|31.6||Statistically significant with control of Type I error rate based on a Hochberg multiple comparison procedure.|ANCOVA|Effects of treatment, country, combination of LEV status and number of previous AEDs, and log-transformed baseline seizure frequency are in the model.||||31.6|13.8|<0.001
91026779|NCT01261325|181937145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds ratio (BRV versus PBO)|2.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|3.6||Statistically significant with control of Type I error rate based on a Hochberg multiple comparison procedure.|Regression, Logistic|Effects of treatment, country, combination of LEV status and number of previous AEDs, and log-transformed baseline seizure frequency are in the model.||||3.6|1.6|<0.001
91026780|NCT01261325|181937145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds ratio (BRV versus PBO)|2.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|3.3||Statistically significant with control of Type I error rate based on a Hochberg multiple comparison procedure.|Regression, Logistic|Effects of treatment, country, combination of LEV status and number of previous AEDs, and log-transformed baseline seizure frequency are in the model.||||3.3|1.5|<0.001
91026781|NCT01261325|181937146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median difference vs placebo|15.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.6|24.2||Statistically significant at a nominal 0.050 significance level.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Hodges-Lehmann non-parametric effect estimates and corresponding two-sided 95% confidence intervals are provided above.|||24.2|7.6|<0.001
91026782|NCT01261325|181937146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median difference vs placebo|18.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.4|26.4||Statistically significant at a nominal 0.050 significance level.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Hodges-Lehmann non-parametric effect estimates and corresponding two-sided 95% confidence intervals are provided above.|||26.4|10.4|<0.001
91026783|NCT01261325|181937150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.82||Statistically significant at a nominal 0.050 significance level.|Semi-parametric hazards regression model|Effects of treatment, country, combination of LEV status and number of previous AEDs, and log-transformed baseline seizure frequency are in the model.|Hazard ratio is Brivaracetam versus Placebo.|||0.82|0.56|<0.001
91026784|NCT01261325|181937150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.79||Statistically significant at a nominal 0.050 significance level.|Semi-parametric hazards regression model|Effects of treatment, country, combination of LEV status and number of previous AEDs, and log-transformed baseline seizure frequency are in the model.|Hazard ratio is Brivaracetam versus Placebo.|||0.79|0.54|<0.001
91026785|NCT01261325|181937151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.8||Statistically significant at a nominal 0.050 significance level.|Semi-parametric hazards regression model|Effects of treatment, country, combination of LEV status and number of previous AEDs, and log-transformed baseline seizure frequency are in the model.|Hazard ratio is Brivaracetam versus Placebo.|||0.80|0.53|<0.001
91026786|NCT01261325|181937151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.71||Statistically significant at a nominal 0.050 significance level.|Semi-parametric hazards regression model|Effects of treatment, country, combination of LEV status and number of previous AEDs, and log-transformed baseline seizure frequency are in the model.|Hazard ratio is Brivaracetam versus Placebo.|||0.71|0.47|<0.001
91026787|NCT01261325|181937152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.93||Statistically significant at a nominal 0.050 significance level.|Semi-parametric hazards regression model|Effects of treatment, country, combination of LEV status and number of previous AEDs, and log-transformed baseline seizure frequency are in the model.||||0.93|0.60|0.009
91026788|NCT01261325|181937152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.85||Statistically significant at a nominal 0.050 significance level.|Semi-parametric hazards regression model|Effects of treatment, country, combination of LEV status and number of previous AEDs, and log-transformed baseline seizure frequency are in the model.||||0.85|0.55|<0.001
91026789|NCT00543439|181937153|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of arithmetic means|0.03||||0.002|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.08|||Paired t-test|||Ratio of the arithmetic means of the ABR for OD cohort: OD therapy to OD cohort: RP therapy 25 IU/kg was calculated. One-sided 95% CI for this ratio was reported.||0.08||0.0020
91026790|NCT00543439|181937154|EQUIVALENCE|90% 2-sided CI for the mean difference in ABRs for the 2 prophylaxis regimens for ITT participants was constructed using the t distribution with n-1 degrees of freedom (n equals the number of participants) to assess the equivalence of the 2 regimens. Equivalence was demonstrated and the null hypothesis rejected if the limits of the 90% CI fell wholly within the interval of (-4, 4) bleeds per year.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.03|2.22||||||||2.22|0.03|
91026791|NCT01211769|181937180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||TIME COMPARISON||||<0.001
91026792|NCT01211769|181937180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Variance (F)|0.71||||0.69||95.0|||||ANOVA|||GROUP COMPARISON||||0.69
91090255|NCT00791219|182063174|NON_INFERIORITY|To demonstrate non-inferiority an upper bound 95% confidence interval approach comparing the difference between the cure rate in the Test and the Reference groups was used. If the lower bound 95% confidence interval of the difference between the proportion of patients in the Test group compared to the Reference group considered a Therapeutic Cure, Clinical Cure and Mycological Cure as appropriate, at Week 24 was greater than -20 then non-inferiority was considered to have been demonstrated|-20|3.17|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|-10.62||||||||||-10.62|
91090256|NCT00791219|182063174|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||one-sided continuity corrected Z-test|||The ITT was used for all superiority testing. For the three primary endpoints and all four secondary endpoints, if the difference between the proportion of patients considered a cure was statistically greater (p\<0.05) than the proportion of patients considered a cure in the Placebo group, then superiority was considered to have been demonstrated. A one-sided continuity corrected Z-test was used for superiority testing||||<0.05
91090257|NCT00791219|182063177|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound 95% confidence interval of the difference between the proportion of patients in the Test group compared to the Reference group considered a Therapeutic Cure, Clinical Cure or Mycological Cure as appropriate at Visit 7 was greater than -20 then non-inferiority was considered to have been demonstrated|-20|-0.57|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|-12.91|||||||If the lower bound 95% confidence interval of the difference between the proportion of patients in the Test group compared to the Reference group considered a Therapeutic Cure, Clinical Cure or Mycological Cure as appropriate at Visit 7 was greater than -20 then non-inferiority was considered to have been demonstrated|||-12.91|
91090258|NCT00791219|182063178|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0018|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||It the difference between the proportion of patients considered a cure was statistically greater (p\<0.05) than the proportion of patients considered a cure in the Placebo group, then superiority was considered to have been demonstrated.|A one-sided continuity corrected Z-test|||For the three primary endpoints and all four dichotomous secondary endpoints, if the difference between the proportion of patients considered a cure in the Test or Reference group was statistically greater (p \< 0.05) than the proportion of patients considered a cure in the Placebo group, then superiority of that treatment over placebo was considered to have been demonstrated. A one-sided continuity corrected Z-test was used for superiority testing.||||<0.05
91090259|NCT00791219|182063178|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0853|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||A one-sided continuity corrected Z-test|||For the three primary endpoints and all four dichotomous secondary endpoints, if the difference between the proportion of patients considered a cure in the Test or Reference group was statistically greater (p \< 0.05) than the proportion of patients considered a cure in the Placebo group, then superiority of that treatment over placebo was considered to have been demonstrated. A one-sided continuity corrected Z-test was used for superiority testing.||||<0.05
91090260|NCT04112368|182063227|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|This is the p-value for the Treatment X Cycle Phase Interaction. Kenward-Roger Method was utilized for degrees of freedom.||Fixed interaction effect of treatment (0=Placebo, 1=E2+P4) by cycle phase (0=Lower-Risk Baseline, 1=Higher-Risk Perimenstrual Phase) predicting SI severity in a multilevel model (with daily observations nested within conditions nested within participants over time).||-.02|-.02|<.001
91026793|NCT01211769|181937181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||TIME COMPARISON||||<0.001
91026794|NCT01211769|181937181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Variance (F)|0.73||||0.53||95.0|||||ANOVA|||GROUP COMPARISON||||0.53
91090261|NCT04112368|182063228|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.19||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Fixed interaction effect of treatment (0=Placebo, 1=E2+P4) by cycle phase (0=Lower-Risk Baseline, 1=Higher-Risk Perimenstrual Phase) predicting SI severity in a multilevel model (with daily observations nested within conditions nested within participants over time).||.82|.04|.026
91090262|NCT04112368|182063229|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.09||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Fixed interaction effect of treatment (0=Placebo, 1=E2+P4) by cycle phase (0=Lower-Risk Baseline, 1=Higher-Risk Perimenstrual Phase) predicting SI severity in a multilevel model (with daily observations nested within conditions nested within participants over time).||.00|-.18|.052
91090263|NCT06831344|182063243|EQUIVALENCE|The two treatments were deemed equivalent if the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the geometric mean ratios (GMRs) for all of the parameters were each within 80.00% and 125.00%.|Ratio of GLSM Percentage (%)|113.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|104.86|122.33|||||Geometric least square mean (GLSM) ratios were calculated by taking antilog of difference of least square means and associated 90% confidence intervals (CIs) from linear mixed effect model analyzing natural logarithms of corresponding PK parameters.|||122.33|104.86|
91090264|NCT06831344|182063243|EQUIVALENCE|The two treatments were deemed equivalent if the 90% CIs for the GMRs for all of the parameters were each within 80.00% and 125.00%.|Ratio of GLSM (%)|107.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.67|116.28|||||GLSM ratios were calculated by taking the antilog of the difference of least square means and associated 90% CIs from the linear mixed effect model analyzing the natural logarithms of the corresponding PK parameters.|||116.28|99.67|
91026795|NCT01211769|181937182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||TIME COMPARISON||||<0.001
91026796|NCT01211769|181937182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Variance (F)|1.08||||0.37||95.0|||||ANOVA|||GROUP COMPARISON||||0.37
91026797|NCT02400710|181937185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.05
91026798|NCT02400710|181937186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||.05
91026799|NCT02826603|181937196|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|2.84|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.84|1.72|<0.0001
91026800|NCT02826603|181937197|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.63|2.72|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.72|1.63|<0.0001
91026801|NCT02826603|181937198|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.89|3.62|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.62|1.89|<0.0001
91026802|NCT02826603|181937199|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.65|4.71|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.71|2.65|<0.0001
91026803|NCT02826603|181937200|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|3.01|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.01|1.80|<0.0001
91026804|NCT02826603|181937201|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.96|3.37|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.37|1.96|<0.0001
91026805|NCT02826603|181937202|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.89|3.31|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.31|1.89|<0.0001
91026806|NCT02826603|181937203|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.96|4.17|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.17|1.96|<0.0001
91026807|NCT02826603|181937204|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.19|3.71|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.71|2.19|<0.0001
91090265|NCT06831344|182063243|EQUIVALENCE|The two treatments were deemed equivalent if the 90% CIs for the GMRs for all of the parameters were each within 80.00% and 125.00%.|Ratio of GLSM (%)|101.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.68|109.3|||||GLSM ratios were calculated by taking the antilog of the difference of least square means and associated 90% CIs from the linear mixed effect model analyzing the natural logarithms of the corresponding PK parameters.|||109.30|93.68|
90834532|NCT00467740|181536415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.043|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.046||0.3527||95.0|-0.048|0.135|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.135|-0.048|0.3527
90834533|NCT00467740|181536415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.069|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.046||0.1369||95.0|-0.022|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.160|-0.022|0.1369
90834534|NCT00467740|181536415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.046||0.0051||95.0|0.039|0.221|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.221|0.039|0.0051
90834535|NCT00467740|181536416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.127|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053||0.017||95.0|0.023|0.232|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.232|0.023|0.0170
90834536|NCT00467740|181536416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.099|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053||0.0646||95.0|-0.006|0.204|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.204|-0.006|0.0646
90834537|NCT00467740|181536416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.028|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053||0.602||95.0|-0.077|0.132|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.132|-0.077|0.6020
90895154|NCT03092375|181655896|OTHER|Difference in percentage of subjects with on-treatment virologic failure between Arms C and D will be summarized with two-sided 95% Wilson score intervals|Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.03|22.08||||||||22.08|-3.03|
91026808|NCT02826603|181937205|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.84|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|2.41|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.41|1.41|<0.0001
91026809|NCT02668302|181937206|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4709|||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-values from two-sample T-test with equal variance assumption||||||0.4709
91090266|NCT06831344|182063243|EQUIVALENCE|The two treatments were deemed equivalent if the 90% CIs for the GMRs for all of the parameters were each within 80.00% and 125.00%.|Ratio of GLSM (%)|105.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.08|114.43|||||GLSM ratios were calculated by taking the antilog of the difference of least square means and associated 90% CIs from the linear mixed effect model analyzing the natural logarithms of the corresponding PK parameters.|||114.43|98.08|
90834538|NCT00467740|181536416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053||0.0147||95.0|0.026|0.233|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.233|0.026|0.0147
90834539|NCT00467740|181536417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.037|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053||0.4902||95.0|-0.068|0.142|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.142|-0.068|0.4902
90834540|NCT00467740|181536417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.058|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054||0.2832||95.0|-0.048|0.164|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.164|-0.048|0.2832
90834541|NCT00467740|181536417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054||0.6516||95.0|-0.081|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.130|-0.081|0.6516
90834542|NCT00467740|181536417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.147|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053||0.006||95.0|0.042|0.252|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.252|0.042|0.0060
90834543|NCT00467740|181536418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.178|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.0005||95.0|0.079|0.277|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.277|0.079|0.0005
90834544|NCT00467740|181536418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.137|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.051||0.007||95.0|0.038|0.237|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.237|0.038|0.0070
90895155|NCT03092375|181655897|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.85|10.22||||||Excludes re-infection and death||10.22|-13.85|
91026810|NCT03558997|181937207|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|4.73||||0.7185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.023|30.487|||ANCOVA|A Multiple imputation (MI) method addressed missing values in AUC (percent change from baseline) - Seeds: 16115 and 51161 with imputation size 40.|The confidence interval (CI) with p-value was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab + SCIT vs SCIT) of the LS mean using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment as fixed factor.|||30.487|-21.023|0.7185
91090267|NCT06831344|182063243|EQUIVALENCE|The two treatments were deemed equivalent if the 90% CIs for the GMRs for all of the parameters were each within 80.00% and 125.00%.|Ratio of GLSM (%)|95.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.0|102.67|||||GLSM ratios were calculated by taking the antilog of the difference of least square means and associated 90% CIs from the linear mixed effect model analyzing the natural logarithms of the corresponding PK parameters.|||102.67|88.00|
91090268|NCT06831344|182063243|EQUIVALENCE|The two treatments were deemed equivalent if the 90% CIs for the GMRs for all of the parameters were each within 80.00% and 125.00%.|Ratio of GLSM (%)|104.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.93|113.08|||||GLSM ratios were calculated by taking the antilog of the difference of least square means and associated 90% CIs from the linear mixed effect model analyzing the natural logarithms of the corresponding PK parameters.|||113.08|96.93|
91090269|NCT06831344|182063244|EQUIVALENCE|The two treatments were deemed equivalent if the 90% CIs for the GMRs for all of the parameters were each within 80.00% and 125.00%.|Ratio of GLSM (%)|114.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|107.46|122.24|||||GLSM ratios were calculated by taking the antilog of the difference of least square means and associated 90% CIs from the linear mixed effect model analyzing the natural logarithms of the corresponding PK parameters.|||122.24|107.46|
91090270|NCT06831344|182063244|EQUIVALENCE|The two treatments were deemed equivalent if the 90% CIs for the GMRs for all of the parameters were each within 80.00% and 125.00%.|Ratio of GLSM (%)|110.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.14|117.33|||||GLSM ratios were calculated by taking the antilog of the difference of least square means and associated 90% CIs from the linear mixed effect model analyzing the natural logarithms of the corresponding PK parameters.|||117.33|103.14|
91090271|NCT06831344|182063244|EQUIVALENCE|The two treatments were deemed equivalent if the 90% CIs for the GMRs for all of the parameters were each within 80.00% and 125.00%.|Ratio of GLSM (%)|106.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.39|113.06|||||GLSM ratios were calculated by taking the antilog of the difference of least square means and associated 90% CIs from the linear mixed effect model analyzing the natural logarithms of the corresponding PK parameters.|||113.06|99.39|
91090272|NCT06831344|182063244|EQUIVALENCE|The two treatments were deemed equivalent if the 90% CIs for the GMRs for all of the parameters were each within 80.00% and 125.00%.|Ratio of GLSM (%)|103.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.39|110.78|||||GLSM ratios were calculated by taking the antilog of the difference of least square means and associated 90% CIs from the linear mixed effect model analyzing the natural logarithms of the corresponding PK parameters.|||110.78|97.39|
91090273|NCT06831344|182063244|EQUIVALENCE|The two treatments were deemed equivalent if the 90% CIs for the GMRs for all of the parameters were each within 80.00% and 125.00%.|Ratio of GLSM (%)|95.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.99|102.37|||||GLSM ratios were calculated by taking the antilog of the difference of least square means and associated 90% CIs from the linear mixed effect model analyzing the natural logarithms of the corresponding PK parameters.|||102.37|89.99|
91090274|NCT06831344|182063244|EQUIVALENCE|The two treatments were deemed equivalent if the 90% CIs for the GMRs for all of the parameters were each within 80.00% and 125.00%.|Ratio of GLSM (%)|97.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.87|104.51|||||GLSM ratios were calculated by taking the antilog of the difference of least square means and associated 90% CIs from the linear mixed effect model analyzing the natural logarithms of the corresponding PK parameters.|||104.51|91.87|
91090275|NCT06831344|182063245|EQUIVALENCE|The two treatments were deemed equivalent if the 90% CIs for the GMRs for all of the parameters were each within 80.00% and 125.00%.|Ratio of GLSM (%)|114.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|107.28|121.17|||||GLSM ratios were calculated by taking the antilog of the difference of least square means and associated 90% CIs from the linear mixed effect model analyzing the natural logarithms of the corresponding PK parameters.|||121.17|107.28|
91090276|NCT06831344|182063245|EQUIVALENCE|The two treatments were deemed equivalent if the 90% CIs for the GMRs for all of the parameters were each within 80.00% and 125.00%.|Ratio of GLSM (%)|109.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.49|116.9|||||GLSM ratios were calculated by taking the antilog of the difference of least square means and associated 90% CIs from the linear mixed effect model analyzing the natural logarithms of the corresponding PK parameters.|||116.90|103.49|
91090277|NCT06831344|182063245|EQUIVALENCE|The two treatments were deemed equivalent if the 90% CIs for the GMRs for all of the parameters were each within 80.00% and 125.00%.|Ratio of GLSM (%)|106.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.26|113.24|||||GLSM ratios were calculated by taking the antilog of the difference of least square means and associated 90% CIs from the linear mixed effect model analyzing the natural logarithms of the corresponding PK parameters.|||113.24|100.26|
91090278|NCT06831344|182063245|EQUIVALENCE|The two treatments were deemed equivalent if the 90% CIs for the GMRs for all of the parameters were each within 80.00% and 125.00%.|Ratio of GLSM (%)|104.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.15|110.86|||||GLSM ratios were calculated by taking the antilog of the difference of least square means and associated 90% CIs from the linear mixed effect model analyzing the natural logarithms of the corresponding PK parameters.|||110.86|98.15|
91090279|NCT06831344|182063245|EQUIVALENCE|The two treatments were deemed equivalent if the 90% CIs for the GMRs for all of the parameters were each within 80.00% and 125.00%.|Ratio of GLSM (%)|96.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.77|102.53|||||GLSM ratios were calculated by taking the antilog of the difference of least square means and associated 90% CIs from the linear mixed effect model analyzing the natural logarithms of the corresponding PK parameters.|||102.53|90.77|
91090280|NCT06831344|182063245|EQUIVALENCE|The two treatments were deemed equivalent if the 90% CIs for the GMRs for all of the parameters were each within 80.00% and 125.00%.|Ratio of GLSM (%)|97.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.11|104.05|||||GLSM ratios were calculated by taking the antilog of the difference of least square means and associated 90% CIs from the linear mixed effect model analyzing the natural logarithms of the corresponding PK parameters.|||104.05|92.11|
90834545|NCT00467740|181536418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.099|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.0512||95.0|-0.001|0.198|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.198|-0.001|0.0512
90895156|NCT03092375|181655898|OTHER|Study was not powered to compare efficacy|Logistic Regression Contrast Estimate|-0.812||||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.947|0.323|||Chi-squared|Logistic regression contrast estimates with Wald confidence intervals and Chi-square p values|Comparison of Arm Pair A/C versus B/D overall on mITT population|||0.323|-1.947|0.161
90834546|NCT00467740|181536418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.232|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001||95.0|0.133|0.331|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.331|0.133|<0.0001
90895157|NCT03092375|181655898|OTHER|Study is not powered to compare efficacy of 12 wks vs 16 weeks of treatment|Logistic regression contrast estimate|0.89||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.239|1.076|||Chi-squared|Logistic regression contrast estimates with Wald confidence intervals and Chi-square p values|Difference in proportion of SVR12 rates for 12 vs 16 weeks on mITT Comparing Cirrhotic subjects versus non-cirrhotic subjects.|||1.076|-1.239|0.890
91026811|NCT03558997|181937208|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|0.3||||0.5438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.661|1.254|||ANCOVA|A Multiple imputation (MI) method addressed missing values in AUC (percent change from baseline) - Seeds: 16115 and 51161 with imputation size 40.|The confidence interval (CI) with p-value was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab + SCIT vs SCIT) of the LS mean using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment as fixed factor.|||1.254|-0.661|0.5438
91026812|NCT03558997|181937209|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|0.03||||0.9559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.877|0.928|||ANCOVA|A Multiple imputation (MI) method addressed missing values in AUC (percent change from baseline) - Seeds: 16115 and 51161 with imputation size 40.|The confidence interval (CI) with p-value was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab vs Placebo) of the LS mean using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment as fixed factor.|||0.928|-0.877|0.9559
91026813|NCT03558997|181937210|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|7.25||||0.5416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.028|30.53|||ANCOVA|A Multiple imputation (MI) method addressed missing values in AUC (percent change from baseline) - Seeds: 16115 and 51161 with imputation size 40.|The confidence interval (CI) with p-value was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab vs Placebo) of the LS mean using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment as fixed factor.|||30.530|-16.028|0.5416
91026814|NCT03558997|181937211|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-0.94||||0.0414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.848|-0.037|||ANCOVA|A Multiple imputation (MI) method addressed missing values in AUC (percent change from baseline) - Seeds: 16115 and 51161 with imputation size 40.|The confidence interval (CI) with p-value was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab + SCIT vs Dupilumab) of LS mean difference using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment as fixed factor.|||-0.037|-1.848|0.0414
91026815|NCT03558997|181937212|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-30.45||||0.0108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.874|-7.034|||ANCOVA|A Multiple imputation (MI) method addressed missing values in AUC (percent change from baseline) - Seeds: 16115 and 51161 with imputation size 40.|The confidence interval (CI) with p-value was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab + SCIT vs Dupilumab) of LS mean difference using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment as fixed factor.|||-7.034|-53.874|0.0108
91090281|NCT02997163|182063283|SUPERIORITY||Percent Ratio of Geometric Means|112.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.06|157.26||||||||157.26|80.06|
91090282|NCT02997163|182063283|SUPERIORITY||Percent Ratio of Geometric Means|142.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.03|198.42||||||||198.42|103.03|
91090283|NCT02997163|182063283|SUPERIORITY||Percent Ratio of Geometric Means|263.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|187.88|369.06||||||||369.06|187.88|
91090284|NCT02997163|182063284|SUPERIORITY||Percent Ratio of Geometric Means|111.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.4|166.01||||||||166.01|74.40|
91090285|NCT02997163|182063284|SUPERIORITY||Percent Ratio of Geometric Means|131.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.12|194.25||||||||194.25|89.12|
91090286|NCT02997163|182063284|SUPERIORITY||Percent Ratio of Geometric Means|189.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|126.74|282.8||||||||282.80|126.74|
91090287|NCT02997163|182063285|SUPERIORITY||Percent Ratio of Geometric Means|118.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.85|167.7||||||||167.70|83.85|
91026816|NCT03558997|181937213|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference|0.665||||0.1449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|3.21|||ANCOVA||P-value was based on treatment differences of median change using rank based ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate \& treatment as fixed factors. Median difference \& its 95% CI estimated with Hodges-Lehmann method.|||3.2100|-0.770|0.1449
91090288|NCT02997163|182063285|SUPERIORITY||Percent Ratio of Geometric Means|139.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.53|195.06||||||||195.06|99.53|
91090289|NCT02997163|182063285|SUPERIORITY||Percent Ratio of Geometric Means|286.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|202.66|405.33||||||||405.33|202.66|
91026817|NCT03558997|181937214|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference|335.3||||0.1231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-551.47|1746.55|||ANCOVA||P-value was based on treatment differences of median change using rank based ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate \& treatment as fixed factors. Median difference \& its 95% CI estimated with Hodges-Lehmann method.|||1746.55|-551.47|0.1231
91090290|NCT02997163|182063286|SUPERIORITY||Percent Ratio of Geometric Means|117.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.74|172.99||||||||172.99|79.74|
91090291|NCT02997163|182063286|SUPERIORITY||Percent Ratio of Geometric Means|128.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.05|186.72||||||||186.72|88.05|
91090292|NCT02997163|182063286|SUPERIORITY||Percent Ratio of Geometric Means|206.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|139.91|303.51||||||||303.51|139.91|
91090293|NCT01949545|182063343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|144.43||||0.02232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|111.48|187.12|||ANOVA||The geometric mean ratio was calculated by exponentiation of the differences in the least squares means, using log-transformed data, between the hepatic impairment cohort (test) and participants with normal hepatic function (reference).|To assess the effect of hepatic impairment relative to participants with normal hepatic function on AUC0-last an analysis of variance (ANOVA) of the log-transformed plasma PK parameters was performed. The ANOVA model included hepatic impairment as a fixed effect.||187.12|111.48|0.02232
91090294|NCT01949545|182063343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|126.08||||0.1812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.59|168.06|||ANOVA||The geometric mean ratio was calculated by exponentiation of the differences in the least squares means, using log-transformed data, between the hepatic impairment cohort (test) and participants with normal hepatic function (reference).|To assess the effect of hepatic impairment relative to participants with normal hepatic function on AUC0-last an ANOVA of the log-transformed plasma PK parameters was performed. The ANOVA model included hepatic impairment as a fixed effect.||168.06|94.59|0.1812
91090295|NCT01949545|182063344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|151.84||||0.02137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|113.59|202.96|||ANOVA||The geometric mean ratio was calculated by exponentiation of the differences in the least squares means, using log-transformed data, between the hepatic impairment cohort (test) and participants with normal hepatic function (reference).|To assess the effect of hepatic impairment relative to participants with normal hepatic function on AUC0-inf an ANOVA of the log-transformed plasma PK parameters was performed. The ANOVA model included hepatic impairment as a fixed effect.||202.96|113.59|0.02137
90834547|NCT00467740|181536419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.082|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061||0.1811||95.0|-0.039|0.203|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.203|-0.039|0.1811
91026818|NCT03558997|181937215|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference|-13.325|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.94|-8.36|||ANCOVA||P-value was based on treatment differences of median change using rank based ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate \& treatment as fixed factors. Median difference \& its 95% CI estimated with Hodges-Lehmann method.|||-8.3600|-23.9400|<0.0001
90834548|NCT00467740|181536419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.077|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062||0.2118||95.0|-0.044|0.199|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.199|-0.044|0.2118
90834549|NCT00467740|181536419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.037|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062||0.5504||95.0|-0.085|0.158|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.158|-0.085|0.5504
90834550|NCT00467740|181536419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.191|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062||0.0022||95.0|0.069|0.312|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.312|0.069|0.0022
90834551|NCT00467740|181536420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.178|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|<|0.0001||95.0|0.102|0.255|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.255|0.102|<0.0001
90834552|NCT00467740|181536420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.183|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|<|0.0001||95.0|0.106|0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.260|0.106|<0.0001
90834553|NCT00467740|181536420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.173|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|<|0.0001||95.0|0.096|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.250|0.096|<0.0001
90834554|NCT00467740|181536420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.291|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|<|0.0001||95.0|0.214|0.367|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.367|0.214|<0.0001
90834555|NCT00467740|181536421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045|<|0.0001||95.0|0.101|0.279|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.279|0.101|<0.0001
90834556|NCT00467740|181536421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.196|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.046|<|0.0001||95.0|0.107|0.286|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.286|0.107|<0.0001
90834557|NCT00467740|181536421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.157|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045||0.0007||95.0|0.067|0.246|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.246|0.067|0.0007
90834558|NCT00467740|181536421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.263|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045|<|0.0001||95.0|0.174|0.352|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.352|0.174|<0.0001
90834559|NCT00467740|181536422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.214|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001||95.0|0.115|0.313|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.313|0.115|<0.0001
90834560|NCT00467740|181536422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.156|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.0021||95.0|0.057|0.255|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.255|0.057|0.0021
90834561|NCT00467740|181536422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.088|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.0795||95.0|-0.01|0.187|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.187|-0.010|0.0795
90834562|NCT00467740|181536422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.227|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001||95.0|0.129|0.326|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.326|0.129|<0.0001
90834563|NCT00467740|181536423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.179|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049||0.0003||95.0|0.082|0.276|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.276|0.082|0.0003
90834564|NCT00467740|181536423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.132|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049||0.0077||95.0|0.035|0.229|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.229|0.035|0.0077
90834565|NCT00467740|181536423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049||0.0427||95.0|0.003|0.197|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.197|0.003|0.0427
90895158|NCT03092375|181655898|OTHER|Study is not powered|Logistic regression contrast estimate|0.977||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|2.694|||Chi-squared|||Comparison of 12 weeks vs 16 weeks in Genotype 1b vs non-1b||2.694|-0.740|0.265
90834566|NCT00467740|181536423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049|<|0.0001||95.0|0.143|0.336|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.336|0.143|<0.0001
91026819|NCT03558997|181937216|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference|-134.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-205.51|-94.98|||ANCOVA||P-value was based on treatment differences of median change using rank based ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate \& treatment as fixed factors. Median difference \& its 95% CI estimated with Hodges-Lehmann method.|||-94.98|-205.51|<0.0001
91026820|NCT03558997|181937217|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference|0.84|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.27|||ANCOVA||P-value was based on treatment differences of median change using rank based ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate \& treatment as fixed factors. Median difference \& its 95% CI estimated with Hodges-Lehmann method.|||1.2700|0.4500|<0.0001
91026821|NCT00526890|181937231|OTHER|||||||0.3149|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon test was used to test the correlation between selenium levels and serious adverse events.||||0.3149
91026822|NCT04128696|181937232|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.51||||0.973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|2.29||Nominal p-value was calculated based on the one-sided log-rank test, stratified by PD-L1 expression (CPS ≥20 vs. 1≤ CPS \<20) and HPV status (oropharynx HPV positive vs oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharynx).|Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|||The hazard ratio and 2-sided 95% CI was calculated from the Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling, a treatment covariate and stratified by PD-L1 expression (CPS ≥20 vs. 1≤ CPS \<20) and HPV status (oropharynx HPV positive vs oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharynx).||2.29|0.99|0.973
91026823|NCT04128696|181937233|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.44|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.01|9.82||Nominal p-value was calculated based on the one-sided log-rank test, stratified by HPV status (oropharynx HPV positive vs oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharynx).|Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|||The hazard ratio and 2-sided 95% CI was calculated from the Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling, a treatment covariate and stratified by HPV status (oropharynx HPV positive vs oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharynx).||9.82|2.01|>0.999
91026824|NCT04128696|181937234|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.4||||0.989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.86||Nominal p-value was calculated based on the log-rank test, stratified by stratified by PD-L1 expression (CPS ≥20 vs. 1≤ CPS \<20) and HPV status (oropharynx HPV positive vs oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharynx).|Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|||The hazard ratio and 2-sided 95% CI was calculated from the Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling, a treatment covariate and stratified by PD-L1 expression (CPS ≥20 vs. 1≤ CPS \<20) and HPV status (oropharynx HPV positive vs oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharynx).||1.86|1.05|0.989
91026825|NCT04128696|181937235|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.48||||0.996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.99||Nominal p-value was calculated based on the log-rank test, stratified by PD-L1 expression (CPS ≥20 vs. 1≤ CPS \<20) and HPV status (oropharynx HPV positive vs oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharynx).|Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|||The hazard ratio and 2-sided 95% CI was calculated from the cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling, a treatment covariate and stratified by PD-L1 expression (CPS ≥20 vs. 1≤ CPS \<20) and HPV status (oropharynx HPV positive vs oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharynx)||1.99|1.10|0.996
91026826|NCT04128696|181937236|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|2.43|||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|||The hazard ratio and 2-sided 95% CI was calculated from the Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling, a treatment covariate and stratified by HPV status (oropharynx HPV positive vs oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharynx)||2.43|0.98|
91026827|NCT04128696|181937237|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.53|||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|||The hazard ratio and 2-sided 95% CI was calculated from the Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling, a treatment covariate and stratified by HPV status (oropharynx HPV positive vs oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharynx).||2.53|1.00|
91026828|NCT04128696|181937242|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|4.0||||||The comparison between the treatment groups was based on the stratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method with strata weighting by sample size and a single treatment covariate. Stratification factors included PD-L1 expression (CPS ≥20 vs. 1≤ CPS \<20) and HPV status (positive vs. negative). Participants with oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharyngeal tumors were combined as the HPV negative group.||4.0|-14.6|
91103904|NCT03992872|182094610|SUPERIORITY||GMR (Prior Alpha / Naïve Alpha)|0.89||||0.6451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.45||P-values were based on an ANOVA model with log10-transformed titer as the dependent variable and study arm, age, and gender as predictors.|ANOVA||Differences in least squares means from the ANOVA model were back-transformed and reported as geometric mean ratios with 95% confidence intervals.|Day 182: Geometric mean ratio (prior alpha group over naïve alpha group) and 95% confidence interval||1.45|0.55|0.6451
91026829|NCT04128696|181937243|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-13.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.8|1.5||||||The comparison between the treatment groups was based on the stratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method with strata weighting by sample size and a single treatment covariate. Stratification factors included HPV status (positive vs. negative). Participants with oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharyngeal tumors were combined as the HPV negative group.||1.5|-27.8|
91026830|NCT04128696|181937244|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-11.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.4|-1.1||||||The comparison between treatment groups was based on the stratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method with strata weighting by sample size and a single treatment covariate. Stratification factors included PD-L1 expression (CPS ≥20 vs. 1≤ CPS \<20) and HPV status (positive vs. negative). Participants with oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharyngeal tumors were combined as the HPV negative group.||-1.1|-22.4|
90834567|NCT00467740|181536424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.169|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.0005||95.0|0.074|0.263|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.263|0.074|0.0005
90834568|NCT00467740|181536424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.174|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.0003||95.0|0.08|0.269|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.269|0.080|0.0003
91026831|NCT04128696|181937245|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-18.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.7|-1.4||||||The comparison between treatment groups was based on the stratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method with strata weighting by sample size and a single treatment covariate. Stratification factors included HPV status (positive vs. negative). Participants with oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharyngeal tumors were combined as the HPV negative group.||-1.4|-33.7|
90834569|NCT00467740|181536424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.173|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.0004||95.0|0.078|0.268|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.268|0.078|0.0004
90834570|NCT00467740|181536424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.296|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048|<|0.0001||95.0|0.202|0.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.390|0.202|<0.0001
90895159|NCT00861614|181655903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.0127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.96|||Log Rank||Ipilimumab over placebo|||0.96|0.71|0.0127
91033075|NCT01536405|181951816|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority evaluation is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI on the risk difference excluding a decrease \>= the prespecified criterion of 5 percentage points|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen||RD = MMRV (AMP) - MMRV (2006 process)|||0.7|-1.8|<0.001
91033076|NCT01536405|181951816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response rate|98.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|97.6|99.5|||One-sample binomial|||Acceptability of the antibody response rate was based on a lower bound of the 95% CI being \>90%||99.5|97.6|<0.001
90834571|NCT00467740|181536425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.173|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.0004||95.0|0.078|0.268|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.268|0.078|0.0004
90895160|NCT00861614|181655905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.82|||||Ipilimumab over placebo|||0.82|0.61|
90895161|NCT00861614|181655907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|4.0|||||Ipilimumab over placebo|||4.00|0.02|
90895162|NCT00944658|181655917|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.139|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.139
90895163|NCT00944658|181655918|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.58
90895164|NCT00944658|181655919|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.108|||||||ANCOVA|Rank Ancova||||||0.108
91033077|NCT01536405|181951817|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority evaluation is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI on the GMT ratio, excluding a decrease of \>=1.5 fold|GMT ratio|1.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.3|||t-test, 2 sided|Analysis was based on log-transformed titers|GMT ratio = MMRV (AMP) / MMRV (2006 process)|||1.3|1.1|<0.001
91033078|NCT01536405|181951818|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority evaluation is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI on the GMT ratio, excluding a decrease of \>=1.5 fold|GMT ratio|0.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.0|||t-test, 2 sided|Analysis was based on log-transformed titers|GMT ratio = MMRV (AMP) / MMRV (2006 process)|||1.0|0.8|<0.001
91033079|NCT01536405|181951819|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority evaluation is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI on the GMT ratio, excluding a decrease of \>=1.5 fold|GMT ratio|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.1|||t-test, 2 sided|Analysis was based on log-transformed titers|GMT ratio = MMRV (AMP) / MMRV (2006 process)|||1.1|0.9|<0.001
91033080|NCT01536405|181951820|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority evaluation is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI on the GMT ratio, excluding a decrease of \>=1.5 fold|GMT ratio|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.1|||t-test, 2 sided|Analysis was based on log-transformed titers|GMT ratio = MMRV (AMP) / MMRV (2006 process)|||1.1|0.9|<0.001
91033081|NCT01536405|181951821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen||RD = MMRV (AMP) - MMRV (2006 process)|||1.3|-1.0|<0.001
91033082|NCT01844375|181951837|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence analysis||||||0.75|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.75
91033083|NCT02514122|181951849|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.83||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.9||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Score was lower in the Ketamine group.|||1.9|0.29|0.009
91033084|NCT02514122|181951850|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.54|||Fisher Exact|||||.54|.18|<0.001
91033085|NCT01472341|181951864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|TWO_SIDED||||||Multivariate regression analysis|HOMA %B was the response variable and other study parameters were independent variables.||||||0.24
91033086|NCT01472341|181951865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Multivariate regression analysis|PI/I ratio was the response variable and other study parameters were independent variables.||||||0.001
91033087|NCT01472341|181951866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Multivariate regression analysis|HOMA %B was the response variable and other study parameters were independent variables.||||||<0.0001
91033088|NCT03506386|181951870|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical differences among eligible performed, eligible not performed and not eligible participants were estimated by Log Rank test.|Log Rank|||||||< 0.0001
91033089|NCT02729714|181951873|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.72
91033090|NCT02729714|181951874|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.51
91033091|NCT02729714|181951875|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.81
91033092|NCT02729714|181951876|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.004
91033093|NCT02729714|181951877|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.32
91033094|NCT02729714|181951878|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.098|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.098
91033095|NCT02729714|181951879|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2
91033096|NCT05615935|181951880|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference (ANCOVA)|2.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni correction, with a significance threshold of 0.05.|ANCOVA|||Using G\*Power 3.1, the required sample size for ANCOVA with two groups was estimated with a significance level of 0.05, statistical power of 0.80, and an effect size of 0.35, based on Cohen's guidelines for a medium-to-large effect commonly applied in behavioral research (Cohen, 1988). Assuming up to two covariates, a minimum of 67 participants was required. Accounting for a 10% attrition rate, the final target was set at 74 participants.||||<0.001
91026832|NCT04128696|181937254|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.77||Nominal p-value was calculated based on the one-sided log-rank test, stratified by PD-L1 expression (CPS ≥20 vs. 1≤ CPS \<20) and HPV status (oropharynx HPV positive vs oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharynx).|Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|||The hazard ratio and 2-sided 95% CI was calculated from the Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling, a treatment covariate and stratified by PD-L1 expression (CPS ≥20 vs. 1≤ CPS \<20) and HPV status (oropharynx HPV positive vs oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharynx).||1.77|0.78|0.783
91026833|NCT04128696|181937255|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.0||Nominal p-value was calculated based on the log-rank test, stratified by HPV status (oropharynx HPV positive vs oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharynx).|Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|||The hazard ratio and 2-sided 95% CI was calculated from the cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling, a treatment covariate and stratified by HPV status (oropharynx HPV positive vs oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharynx).||2.00|0.50|0.500
91026834|NCT04128696|181937256|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.34||Nominal p-value was calculated based on the one-sided log-rank test, stratified by PD-L1 expression (CPS ≥20 vs. 1≤ CPS \<20) and HPV status (oropharynx HPV positive vs oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharynx).|Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|||The hazard ratio and 2-sided 95% CI was calculated from the Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling, a treatment covariate and stratified by PD-L1 expression (CPS ≥20 vs. 1≤ CPS \<20) and HPV status (oropharynx HPV positive vs oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharynx).||1.34|0.62|0.329
91026835|NCT04128696|181937257|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.0||Nominal p-value was calculated based on the one-sided log-rank test, stratified by HPV status (oropharynx HPV positive vs oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharynx).|Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|||The hazard ratio and 2-sided 95% CI was calculated from the Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling, a treatment covariate and stratified by HPV status (oropharynx HPV positive vs oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharynx).||2.00|0.60|0.608
91026836|NCT03280537|181937259|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.12||Tested at the two-sided 0.05 significance level. There was no adjustment for multiplicity for the co-primary outcome measures.|Mixed-Effect Model of Repeated Measures|Adjustments: geographic region, asthma/aspirin sensitivity, treatment, timepoint, baseline NPS, treatment and baseline NPS by timepoint interactions.|Difference in least squares means: Omalizumab arm minus Placebo arm.|The primary analysis tested the null hypothesis that no treatment group difference existed for change from baseline in NPS at Week 24. As NPS and NCS are co-primary outcome measures, both null hypotheses for NPS and NCS must be rejected, with parameter estimates indicating a benefit of omalizumab over placebo, for the study to be deemed positive.||-0.12|-1.05|0.0140
91026837|NCT03280537|181937260|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.19||Tested at the two-sided 0.05 significance level. There was no adjustment for multiplicity for the co-primary outcome measures.|Mixed-Effect Model of Repeated Measures|Adjustments: geographic region, asthma/aspirin sensitivity, treatment, timepoint, baseline NCS, treatment and baseline NCS by timepoint interactions.|Difference in least squares means: Omalizumab arm minus Placebo arm.|The primary analysis tested the null hypothesis that no treatment group difference existed for change from baseline in NCS at Week 24. As NPS and NCS are co-primary outcome measures, both null hypotheses for NPS and NCS must be rejected, with parameter estimates indicating a benefit of omalizumab over placebo, for the study to be deemed positive.||-0.19|-0.80|0.0017
91090296|NCT01949545|182063344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|143.53||||0.07247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|103.28|199.45|||ANOVA||The geometric mean ratio was calculated by exponentiation of the differences in the least squares means, using log-transformed data, between the hepatic impairment cohort (test) and participants with normal hepatic function (reference).|To assess the effect of hepatic impairment relative to participants with normal hepatic function on AUC0-inf an ANOVA of the log-transformed plasma PK parameters was performed. The ANOVA model included hepatic impairment as a fixed effect.||199.45|103.28|0.07247
91090297|NCT00496769|182063382|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.45|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.62|||Log Rank|||||0.62|0.32|<0.00001
91090298|NCT00496769|182063383|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.00026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.83|||Log Rank||Vascular death|||0.83|0.53|0.00026
91090299|NCT00496769|182063384|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.06782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.02|||Log Rank||All-cause death|||1.02|0.62|0.06782
91090300|NCT00496769|182063384|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.9|||Log Rank||Composite endpoint of major vascular events and major bleeding-net clinical benefit|||0.90|0.60|0.00280
91090301|NCT00496769|182063384|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.36586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.17|||Log Rank||Vascular death|||1.17|0.65|0.36586
91090302|NCT00496769|182063385|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.54||||0.0716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|2.45|||Log Rank||Major bleeding|||2.45|0.96|0.0716
90834572|NCT00467740|181536425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.185|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.0002||95.0|0.09|0.281|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.281|0.090|0.0002
91090303|NCT00496769|182063385|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.53|||Log Rank||All bleeding|||1.53|1.10|0.0017
91090304|NCT00496769|182063385|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.38||||0.0144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.78|||Log Rank||Major or CNRM bleeding|||1.78|1.07|0.0144
91090305|NCT00496769|182063386|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.53|||Log Rank|||||1.53|1.10|0.0017
91090306|NCT02308046|182063391|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.002
90834573|NCT00467740|181536425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.138|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.0047||95.0|0.043|0.233|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.233|0.043|0.0047
90834574|NCT00467740|181536425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.237|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048|<|0.0001||95.0|0.142|0.332|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.332|0.142|<0.0001
91090307|NCT02308046|182063392|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||<0.001
91090308|NCT02308046|182063393|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Comparison of culture cure at 7-14 days||||<0.001
91090309|NCT02308046|182063393|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Comparison of culture cure at 21-30 days||||<0.001
91090310|NCT02308046|182063394|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.088|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Comparison of the number of subjects whose reported their symptoms completely resolved||||0.088
91090311|NCT01181167|182063403|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Difference in incidence of thromboembolic events between DU-176b and enoxaparin groups and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated.~Incidence of thromboembolic events and 95% CI also calculated by treatment group.~Only when null hypothesis H01 was rejected, upper limit of 95% CI for difference between DU-176b and enoxaparin groups was confirmed. When upper limit of 95% CI was below 0%, DU-176b was considered to be superior to enoxaparin in terms of the prevention of VTE."|Cox Proportional Hazard|-4.5|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||||Farrington Manning Method|ANCOVA|||Hypothesis testing of proportion of subjects who experienced at least one thromboembolic events, defined as primary endpoint, carried out using Farrington-Manning method. Null hypothesis H˅01: Incidence of thromboembolic events in DU-176b group (P˅DU) = Incidence of thromboembolic events in enoxaparin group (P˅E) + Δ (8%). Alternative hypothesis H˅11: P˅DU \< P˅E + Δ (significance level: One-sided, 0.025)||||<0.001
91090312|NCT01573000|182063405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.0|65.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with confirmed response (CR, CCR, PR). The number of participants evaluable for overall response (confirmed and unconfirmed; n=42) is used as the denominator.|||65|35|
91090313|NCT01573000|182063405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|22.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.0|36.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with confirmed response (CR, CCR, PR). The number of participants evaluable for overall response (confirmed and unconfirmed; n=36) is used as the denominator.|||36|9|
91090314|NCT01573000|182063406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|16.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|32.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with confirmed response (CR, CCR, PR) before Crossover.|||32|0|
91090315|NCT01573000|182063406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|79.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.0|97.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with confirmed response (CR, CCR, PR) after Crossover.|||97|61|
91090316|NCT01573000|182063407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|26.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.0|39.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with complete response. The number of participants evaluable for overall response (confirmed and unconfirmed; n=42) is used as the denominator.|||39|13|
91090317|NCT01573000|182063407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|17.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with complete response. The number of participants evaluable for overall response (confirmed and unconfirmed; n=36) is used as the denominator.|||17|0|
90834575|NCT00467740|181536426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.204|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055||0.0002||95.0|0.096|0.312|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.312|0.096|0.0002
91090318|NCT01573000|182063408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.012
91090319|NCT01573000|182063409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with confirmed complete response before Crossover.|||0|0|
91090320|NCT01573000|182063409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|42.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.0|64.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with confirmed complete response after Crossover.|||64|20|
91090321|NCT01573000|182063410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|7.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with confirmed CCR. The number of participants evaluable for overall response (confirmed and unconfirmed; n=42) is used as the denominator.|||7|0|
91090322|NCT01573000|182063410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|8.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with confirmed CCR. The number of participants evaluable for overall response (confirmed and unconfirmed; n=36) is used as the denominator.|||8|0|
91090323|NCT01573000|182063411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with confirmed CCR before Crossover.|||0|0|
91090324|NCT01573000|182063411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|15.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with confirmed CCR after Crossover.|||15|0|
90834576|NCT00467740|181536426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.153|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055||0.0057||95.0|0.045|0.261|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.261|0.045|0.0057
91033097|NCT05615935|181951881|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference (ANCOVA)|4.58||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni correction, with a significance threshold of 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||||0.15
91033098|NCT05615935|181951881|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.64|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.35||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni correction, with a significance threshold of 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
91033099|NCT05093205|181951921|OTHER|0.15 mg LE \& 0.03 mg EE was the Reference treatment (Part B Period 1), PF-06882961 120 mg BID + 0.15 mg LE \& 0.03 mg EE was the Test treatment (Period 3).|Specified in comments|122.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|106.96|140.25|||Mixed Models Analysis||A mixed effects model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect was used was applied to calculate the ratio (Test/Reference) of adjusted means and 90% CIs for Ratio. The ratio (and 90% CI) is expressed as percentage.|||140.25|106.96|
91033100|NCT05093205|181951921|OTHER|0.15 mg LE \& 0.03 mg EE was the Reference treatment (Part B Period 1), PF-06882961 200 mg BID + 0.15 mg LE \& 0.03 mg EE was the Test treatment (Period 5).|Specified in comments|143.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|122.64|168.68|||Mixed Models Analysis||A mixed effects model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect was used was applied to calculate the ratio (Test/Reference) of adjusted means and 90% CIs for Ratio. The ratio (and 90% CI) is expressed as percentage.|||168.68|122.64|
91026838|NCT03280537|181937261|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.16||Tested at the two-sided 0.05 significance level.|Mixed-Effect Model of Repeated Measures|Adjustments: geographic region, asthma/aspirin sensitivity, treatment, timepoint, baseline SSS, treatment and baseline SSS by timepoint interactions.|Difference in least squares means: Omalizumab arm minus Placebo arm.|The null hypothesis was that no difference exists between the treatment groups for change from baseline in the average daily Sense of Smell Score (SSS) at Week 24.||-0.16|-0.73|0.0024
91026839|NCT03280537|181937262|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.27||Tested at the two-sided 0.05 significance level.|Mixed-Effect Model of Repeated Measures|Adjustments: geographic region, asthma/aspirin sensitivity, treatment, timepoint, baseline PRS, treatment and baseline PRS by timepoint interactions.|Difference in least squares means: Omalizumab arm minus Placebo arm.|The null hypothesis was that no difference exists between the treatment groups for change from baseline in the average daily Posterior Rhinorrhea Score (PRS) at Week 24.||-0.27|-0.81|0.0001
91090325|NCT01573000|182063412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|31.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.0|45.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with confirmed CR and CCR. The number of participants evaluable for overall response (confirmed and unconfirmed; n=42) is used as the denominator.|||45|17|
91090326|NCT01573000|182063412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|21.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with confirmed CR and CCR. The number of participants evaluable for overall response (confirmed and unconfirmed; n=36) is used as the denominator.|||21|1|
91090327|NCT01573000|182063413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with confirmed CR and CCR before Crossover.|||0|0|
91090328|NCT01573000|182063413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|47.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.0|70.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with confirmed CR and CCR after Crossover.|||70|25|
91090329|NCT01573000|182063414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|17.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|28.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with confirmed PR. The number of participants evaluable for overall response (confirmed and unconfirmed; n=42) is used as the denominator.|||28|5|
91090330|NCT01573000|182063414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|21.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with confirmed PR. The number of participants evaluable for overall response (confirmed and unconfirmed; n=36) is used as the denominator.|||21|1|
91090331|NCT01573000|182063415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.001
91090332|NCT01573000|182063417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.495||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.495
90834577|NCT00467740|181536426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.079|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055||0.1513||95.0|-0.029|0.186|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.186|-0.029|0.1513
91090333|NCT01573000|182063418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.677||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.677
90834578|NCT00467740|181536426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.221|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055|<|0.0001||95.0|0.114|0.328|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.328|0.114|<0.0001
90834579|NCT00467740|181536427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.166|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054||0.0022||95.0|0.06|0.271|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.271|0.060|0.0022
91090334|NCT01573000|182063421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.119||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.119
91090335|NCT01573000|182063422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.016
91090336|NCT01573000|182063435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|16.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|32.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with confirmed PR before Crossover.|||32|0|
91090337|NCT01573000|182063435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|32.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|52.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with confirmed PR after Crossover.|||52|11|
91090338|NCT01507181|182063471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.32
90834580|NCT00467740|181536427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.117|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054||0.0307||95.0|0.011|0.223|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.223|0.011|0.0307
90834581|NCT00467740|181536427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.081|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054||0.132||95.0|-0.025|0.187|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.187|-0.025|0.1320
90834582|NCT00467740|181536427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.232|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054|<|0.0001||95.0|0.127|0.337|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.337|0.127|<0.0001
91090339|NCT01507181|182063472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.047
91090340|NCT01507181|182063473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17||||||Statistics are calculated by comparing 24-h scores using separate ANCOVAs and controlling for baseline severity.|ANCOVA|||||||0.17
91090341|NCT01669434|182063484|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.81||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.97|||Fisher Exact|||||0.97|0.67|0.03
91090342|NCT01669434|182063485|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.6||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.6|||Fisher Exact|||||1.60|0.23|0.44
91090343|NCT01669434|182063486|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.2||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|2.99|||Fisher Exact|||||2.99|0.48|1.0
91090344|NCT01669434|182063487|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.26|||Fisher Exact|||||1.26|0.81|1.0
91090345|NCT01669434|182063488|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.95||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|3.34|||Fisher Exact|||||3.34|1.14|0.01
91090346|NCT01669434|182063489|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.49||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.86|||Fisher Exact|||||0.86|0.28|0.02
91090347|NCT01450813|182063553|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size needed for a one-way ANOVA test with an alpha of 0.05 and power of 0.8 to rule out the null hypothesis that neuromuscular blocking drugs have no effect on CVI with 95% confidence was a total of 64 or 16 per Group.|||||<|0.05||||||Comparisons of the means were accomplished via student's t-test with Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis that neuromuscular blocking drugs have no effect on CVI with 95% confidence.||||< 0.05
90834583|NCT00467740|181536428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.079|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056||0.1585||95.0|-0.031|0.188|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.188|-0.031|0.1585
90834584|NCT00467740|181536428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.097|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056||0.0848||95.0|-0.013|0.207|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.207|-0.013|0.0848
90834585|NCT00467740|181536428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.097|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056||0.0838||95.0|-0.013|0.207|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.207|-0.013|0.0838
90834586|NCT00467740|181536428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056||0.0014||95.0|0.07|0.289|||Mixed Models Analysis||Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.289|0.070|0.0014
90834587|NCT00467740|181536429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.099|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059||0.0959||95.0|-0.018|0.216|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.216|-0.018|0.0959
90834588|NCT00467740|181536429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.119|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.047||95.0|0.002|0.237|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.237|0.002|0.0470
90834589|NCT00467740|181536429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.077|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.196||95.0|-0.04|0.195|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.195|-0.040|0.1960
90895165|NCT01255592|181655921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of AZD5069 80 mg to placebo|0.31||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.17|0.59|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance included treatment, inhaled corticosteroids, Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection, and baseline as covariates. The analysis was done on log-transformed data. The results were back-transformed after the analysis on the log scale.||0.59|0.17|0.004
91026840|NCT03280537|181937263|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|-0.44||Tested at the two-sided 0.05 significance level.|Mixed-Effect Model of Repeated Measures|Adjustments: geographic region, asthma/aspirin sensitivity, treatment, timepoint, baseline NPS, treatment and baseline NPS by timepoint interactions.|Difference in least squares means: Omalizumab arm minus Placebo arm.|The null hypothesis was that no difference exists between the treatment groups for change from baseline in the NPS at Week 16.||-0.44|-1.39|0.0002
90834590|NCT00467740|181536429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.185|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059||0.002||95.0|0.068|0.302|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.302|0.068|0.0020
90895166|NCT01255592|181655922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of AZD5069 80 mg to placebo|0.64||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.49|0.84|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance included treatment, inhaled corticosteroids, Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection, and baseline as covariates. The analysis was done on log-transformed data. The results were back-transformed after the analysis on the log scale.||0.84|0.49|0.008
91026841|NCT03280537|181937264|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.3||Tested at the two-sided 0.05 significance level.|Mixed-Effect Model of Repeated Measures|Adjustments: geographic region, asthma/aspirin sensitivity, treatment, timepoint, baseline NCS, treatment and baseline NCS by timepoint interactions.|Difference in least squares means: Omalizumab arm minus Placebo arm.|The null hypothesis was that no difference exists between the treatment groups for change from baseline in the average daily NCS at Week 16.||-0.30|-0.87|<0.0001
91026842|NCT03280537|181937265|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-15.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.26|-8.82||Tested at the two-sided 0.05 significance level.|Mixed-Effect Model of Repeated Measures|Adjustments: geographic region, asthma/aspirin sensitivity, treatment, timepoint, baseline, treatment and baseline by timepoint interactions.|Difference in least squares means: Omalizumab arm minus Placebo arm.|The null hypothesis was that no difference exists between the treatment groups for change from baseline in the SNOT-22 score at Week 24.||-8.82|-21.26|<0.0001
91026843|NCT03280537|181937266|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.35||Tested at the two-sided 0.05 significance level.|Mixed-Effect Model of Repeated Measures|Adjustments: geographic region, asthma/aspirin sensitivity, treatment, timepoint, baseline ARS, treatment and baseline ARS by timepoint interactions.|Difference in least squares means: Omalizumab arm minus Placebo arm.|The null hypothesis was that no difference exists between the treatment groups for change from baseline in the average daily Anterior Rhinorrhea Score (ARS) at Week 24.||-0.35|-0.90|<0.0001
91026844|NCT03280537|181937267|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.2||||0.1594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|1.89||Tested at the two-sided 0.05 significance level.|Wald Chi-Square|Adjusted for geographic region and asthma/aspirin sensitivity comorbidity status.|Odds ratio is comparing Omalizumab arm to Placebo arm.|The null hypothesis was that no difference exists between the treatment groups for requirement of rescue medication through Week 24.||1.89|0.02|0.1594
90895167|NCT01255592|181655923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|6.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.298||0.047|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.22|12.33|||ANCOVA|||The 24-hour sputum weight on Visit 4 was compared between groups using ANCOVA (additive model) with treatment and inhaled corticosteroids/P. aeruginosa infection as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||12.33|1.22|0.047
91103905|NCT03992872|182094611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0211|||||||Fisher Exact|"Day 8~Note: A subject has a 4-fold rise at a visit if they achieve a titer at that visit that is at least 4-fold higher than their Day 1 titer."||||||0.0211
90895168|NCT01255592|181655924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.092||0.284|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.05|0.26|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance included treatment, inhaled corticosteroids, Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection and baseline as covariates.||0.26|-0.05|0.284
90895169|NCT01255592|181655925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.078||0.929|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.12|0.14|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance included treatment, inhaled corticosteroids, Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection and baseline as covariates.||0.14|-0.12|0.929
90895170|NCT01255592|181655926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062||0.966|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.11|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance included treatment, inhaled corticosteroids, Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection and baseline as covariates.||0.10|-0.11|0.966
90895171|NCT01255592|181655927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.791|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.13|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance included treatment, inhaled corticosteroids, Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection and baseline as covariates.||0.17|-0.13|0.791
90895172|NCT01255592|181655928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.433|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.6|0.6|||ANCOVA|||The ANCOVA model used TDI as the response variable with treatment, inhaled corticosteroids, Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection and BDI as covariates.||0.6|-1.6|0.433
91090348|NCT00752089|182063573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|1.146||||0.7756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.904|9.196||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANOVA|The model included treatment and period as fixed and participant as random factors.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments. Tests were 2-sided.||9.196|-6.904|0.7756
90834591|NCT00467740|181536430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.143|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.064||0.027||95.0|0.016|0.269|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.269|0.016|0.0270
90834592|NCT00467740|181536430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.106|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.065||0.1031||95.0|-0.021|0.233|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.233|-0.021|0.1031
90834593|NCT00467740|181536430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.064||0.4378||95.0|-0.077|0.177|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.177|-0.077|0.4378
90895173|NCT01255592|181655929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.03||0.935|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.81|14.13|||ANCOVA|||Morning PEF: Analysis of covariance includes treatment, inhaled corticosteroids, Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection and baseline as covariates.||14.13|-12.81|0.935
90895174|NCT01255592|181655929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.35||0.654|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.02|15.64|||ANCOVA|||Evening PEF: Analysis of covariance included treatment, inhaled corticosteroids, Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection and baseline as covariates.||15.64|-9.02|0.654
90895175|NCT01255592|181655930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.329|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.09|0.36|||ANCOVA|||Describe your breathing: Analysis of covariance included treatment, inhaled corticosteroids, Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection and baseline as covariates.||0.36|-0.09|0.329
90834594|NCT00467740|181536430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.176|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.064||0.0064||95.0|0.05|0.303|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.303|0.050|0.0064
90834595|NCT00467740|181536431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.075|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.069||0.2781||95.0|-0.061|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.210|-0.061|0.2781
90834596|NCT00467740|181536431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.068|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.069||0.3284||95.0|-0.068|0.204|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.204|-0.068|0.3284
90895176|NCT01255592|181655930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.664|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.16|0.27|||ANCOVA|||How often do you cough?: Analysis of covariance included treatment, inhaled corticosteroids, Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection and baseline as covariates.||0.27|-0.16|0.664
90895177|NCT01255592|181655930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.152|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.04|0.54|||ANCOVA|||Night time symptom score: Analysis of covariance includes treatment, inhaled corticosteroids, Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection and baseline as covariates.||0.54|-0.04|0.152
90895178|NCT01255592|181655930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.15|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8|0.05|||ANCOVA|||What color is your sputum?: Analysis of covariance included treatment, inhaled corticosteroids, Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection and baseline as covariates.||0.05|-0.80|0.150
90895179|NCT01255592|181655930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.248|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.06|0.35|||ANCOVA|||The amount of sputum you produced: Analysis of covariance included treatment, inhaled corticosteroids, Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection and baseline as covariates.||0.35|-0.06|0.248
90895180|NCT01255592|181655930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.053|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.45|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||Type of sputum: Analysis of covariance included treatment, inhaled corticosteroids, Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection and baseline as covariates.||-0.04|-0.45|0.053
90895181|NCT01255592|181655930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.179|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.04|0.42|||ANCOVA|||How do you feel?: Analysis of covariance includes treatment, inhaled corticosteroids, Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection and baseline as covariates.||0.42|-0.04|0.179
90895182|NCT01255592|181655930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.942|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.75|0.68|||ANCOVA|||Number of puffs of inhalers: Analysis of covariance includes treatment, inhaled corticosteroids, Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection and baseline as covariates.||0.68|-0.75|0.942
91026845|NCT03280537|181937268|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|20.61||Tested at the two-sided 0.05 significance level.|Fisher Exact|Unadjusted|Odds ratio is comparing Omalizumab arm to Placebo arm.|The null hypothesis was that no difference exists between the treatment groups for having had surgery for nasal polyps through Week 24.||20.61|0.00|1.0000
91026846|NCT03280537|181937269|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.04||||0.0396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|15.25|||Wald Chi-Square|Adjusted for Baseline AQLQ, geographic region, and aspirin sensitivity status.|Odds ratio is comparing Omalizumab arm to Placebo arm.|The null hypothesis was that no difference exists between the treatment groups for number of participants with a change from baseline in AQLQ score of ≥0.5 at Week 24.||15.25|1.07|0.0396
90834597|NCT00467740|181536431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.036|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.069||0.602||95.0|-0.1|0.171|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.171|-0.100|0.6020
90834598|NCT00467740|181536431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.069||0.0006||95.0|0.104|0.375|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.375|0.104|0.0006
90834599|NCT00467740|181536432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.052|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067||0.4331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.079|0.184|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.184|-0.079|0.4331
90834600|NCT00467740|181536432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.044|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068||0.515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.089|0.178|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.178|-0.089|0.5150
90834601|NCT00467740|181536432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.038|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068||0.5714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.095|0.171|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.171|-0.095|0.5714
90834602|NCT00467740|181536432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.162|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068||0.0177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.028|0.296|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.296|0.028|0.0177
90834603|NCT00467740|181536433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.665||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.883|38.057|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||38.057|7.883|0.0030
90834604|NCT00467740|181536433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.7||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.446|39.754|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||39.754|9.446|0.0016
90834605|NCT00467740|181536433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|36.806|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.727|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.598|52.015|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||52.015|21.598|<.0001
90834606|NCT00467740|181536433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|42.505|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.675|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.399|57.611|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||57.611|27.399|<.0001
90834607|NCT00467740|181536434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.055||0.2898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.194|0.957|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.957|-3.194|0.2898
90834608|NCT00467740|181536434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.351|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.057||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.432|-0.269|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.269|-4.432|0.0270
90834609|NCT00467740|181536434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.063||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.138|-0.952|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.952|-5.138|0.0045
90834610|NCT00467740|181536434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.937|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.053||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.01|-0.865|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.865|-5.010|0.0056
91026847|NCT03280537|181937270|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.2||||0.1594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|1.89||Tested at the two-sided 0.05 significance level.|Wald Chi-Square|Adjusted for geographic region and asthma/aspirin sensitivity comorbidity status.|Odds ratio is comparing Omalizumab arm to Placebo arm.|The null hypothesis was that no difference exists between the treatment groups for requirement of rescue treatment through Week 24.||1.89|0.02|0.1594
90834611|NCT00467740|181536435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.287|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.257||0.2645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.793|0.218|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model with terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.218|-0.793|0.2645
90834612|NCT00467740|181536435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.526|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.258||0.0423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.034|-0.018|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model with terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.018|-1.034|0.0423
90834613|NCT00467740|181536435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.332|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.259||0.2008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.842|0.178|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model with terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.178|-0.842|0.2008
91026848|NCT03280537|181937271|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.22||||0.0139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|60.23||Tested at the two-sided 0.05 significance level.|Fisher Exact|Unadjusted|Odds ratio is comparing Omalizumab arm to Placebo arm.|The null hypothesis was that no difference exists between the treatment groups for change from baseline in reduction in the need for surgery for nasal polyps by Week 24.||60.23|1.23|0.0139
91026849|NCT03280537|181937272|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-2.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-1.18||Tested at the two-sided 0.05 significance level.|Mixed-Effect Model of Repeated Measures|Adjustments: geographic region, asthma/aspirin sensitivity, treatment, timepoint, baseline TNSS, treatment and baseline by timepoint interactions.|Difference in least squares means: Omalizumab arm minus Placebo arm.|The null hypothesis was that no difference exists between the treatment groups for change from baseline in the average daily Total Nasal Symptom Score (TNSS) at Week 24.||-1.18|-3.00|<0.0001
91026850|NCT03280537|181937273|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|3.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|6.15||Tested at the two-sided 0.05 significance level.|Mixed-Effect Model of Repeated Measures|Adjustments: geographic region, asthma/aspirin sensitivity, treatment, timepoint, baseline UPSIT, treatment and baseline by timepoint interactions.|Difference in least squares means: Omalizumab arm minus Placebo arm|The null hypothesis was that no difference exists between the treatment groups for change from baseline in the UPSIT score at Week 24.||6.15|1.57|0.0011
91026851|NCT03118739|181937289|SUPERIORITY||Mean % Change from Baseline|-39.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-61.785|-3.814||||||||-3.814|-61.785|
91026852|NCT04567615|181937354|SUPERIORITY||Strata adjusted difference in ORR|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|5.3|||||Difference in ORR of Treatment B over ORR Treatment A|||5.3|-10.7|
91026853|NCT04567615|181937357|SUPERIORITY||Cox proportional hazard model|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.33|||||HR of Treatment B over HR Treatment A|||1.33|0.75|
91090349|NCT00752089|182063573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|3.291||||0.4194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.84|11.421||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANOVA|The model included treatment and period as fixed and participant as random factors.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments. Tests were 2-sided.||11.421|-4.840|0.4194
91090350|NCT00752089|182063573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|22.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.28|30.12||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANOVA|The model included treatment and period as fixed and participant as random factors.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments. Tests were 2-sided.||30.120|14.280|<0.0001
90834614|NCT00467740|181536435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.593|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.257||0.0218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.098|-0.087|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model with terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.087|-1.098|0.0218
90834615|NCT00467740|181536444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.142|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.114||0.2156||95.0|-0.368|0.083|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model with terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.083|-0.368|0.2156
90834616|NCT00467740|181536444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.197|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.114||0.0869||95.0|-0.422|0.029|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model with terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.029|-0.422|0.0869
91026854|NCT04567615|181937358|SUPERIORITY||Strata adjusted difference in ORR|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|7.4|||||Difference in ORR of Treatment B over ORR Treatment A|||7.4|-9.2|
91026855|NCT04567615|181937361|SUPERIORITY||Cox proportional hazard model|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.33|||||HR of Treatment B over HR of Treatment A|||1.33|0.75|
91026856|NCT04567615|181937362|SUPERIORITY||Cox proportional hazard model|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.49|||||HR of Treatment B over HR of Treatment A|||1.49|0.74|
91090351|NCT00752089|182063573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|2.145||||0.5927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.874|10.164||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANOVA|The model included treatment and period as fixed and participant as random factors.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments. Tests were 2-sided.||10.164|-5.874|0.5927
91026857|NCT07174544|181937404|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was assessed by comparing outcomes between the intervention and wait-list control groups over time.|||||||||||||Generalized estimating equations (GEE)|Generalized estimating equations were used to examine changes in outcomes over time between groups, accounting for repeated measurements.|||Analyses followed the intention-to-treat principle using available data at each assessment time point. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize baseline characteristics.|||
91026858|NCT03419234|181937414|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.049|||||||Log Rank|Stratified log rank test||||||0.049
91026859|NCT05918952|181937426|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.19||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|3.98|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.98|1.21|.05
91026860|NCT05918952|181937427|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|2.41|||Regression, Logistic|||Hypothesis: Higher General Sentiment (GS) scores will be associated with greater likelihood of COVID-19 testing uptake.||2.41|1.35|<0.001
91026861|NCT05918952|181937428|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.01|6.2|||Regression, Logistic|||Hypothesis: Higher VFS scores will be associated with increased likelihood of test uptake.||6.20|2.01|<0.001
90895183|NCT01255592|181655931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.374||0.625|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.32|4.0|||ANCOVA|||Total score: Analysis of covariance included treatment, inhaled corticosteroids, Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection and baseline as covariates.||4.00|-7.32|0.625
90895184|NCT01255592|181655931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-4.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.342||0.151|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.49|0.74|||ANCOVA|||Symptom domain: Analysis of covariance included treatment, inhaled corticosteroids, Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection and baseline as covariates.||0.74|-10.49|0.151
90895185|NCT01255592|181655931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.524||0.773|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.91|6.28|||ANCOVA|||Activity domain: Analysis of covariance included treatment, inhaled corticosteroids, Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection and baseline as covariates.||6.28|-8.91|0.773
91026862|NCT05918952|181937428|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.01||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|95.17||Low sample size and power. Model considered unstable and potentially overfit. Results not reliable.|Regression, Logistic|||Hypothesis: Higher VFS scores will be associated with increased likelihood of completion of a follow-up test.||95.17|1.27|0.029
91026863|NCT05918952|181937429|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.69||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|2.4|||Regression, Logistic|||Hypothesis: Higher Practical Support (PS) scores will be associated with greater likelihood of COVID-19 testing uptake.||2.40|1.19|0.003
91090352|NCT00752089|182063573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|21.054|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.189|28.919||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANOVA|The model included treatment and period as fixed and participant as random factors.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments. Tests were 2-sided.||28.919|13.189|<0.0001
91090353|NCT00752089|182063573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|18.909|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.036|26.783||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANOVA|The model included treatment and period as fixed and participant as random factors.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments. Tests were 2-sided.||26.783|11.036|<0.0001
91090354|NCT00752089|182063574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-321.438||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-818.118|175.242||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANOVA|The model included treatment and period as fixed and participant as random factors.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments. Tests were 2-sided.||175.242|-818.118|0.1990
91090355|NCT00752089|182063574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-72.68||||0.7718||95.0|-574.398|429.039||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANOVA|The model included treatment and period as fixed and participant as random factors.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments. Tests were 2-sided.||429.039|-574.398|0.7718
91090356|NCT00752089|182063574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|1784.675|||<|0.0001||95.0|1296.044|2273.306||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANOVA|The model included treatment and period as fixed and participant as random factors.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments. Tests were 2-sided.||2273.306|1296.044|<0.0001
91090357|NCT00752089|182063574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|248.758||||0.3164||95.0|-245.962|743.478||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANOVA|The model included tratment and period as fixed and participant as random factors.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments. Tests were 2-sided.||743.478|-245.962|0.3164
91090358|NCT00752089|182063574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|2106.113|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1620.906|2591.32||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANOVA|The model included treatment and period as fixed and participant as random factors.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments. Tests were 2-sided.||2591.320|1620.906|<0.0001
91090359|NCT00752089|182063574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|1857.355|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1371.637|2343.072||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANOVA|The model included treatment and period and fixed and participant as random factors.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments. Tests were 2-sided.||2343.072|1371.637|<0.0001
91090360|NCT01324102|182063578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is .05. The .004 value exceeds this value. There was only one comparison, so there was no adjustment for multiple comparison. This analysis refers to the row and category of anxiety.|ANOVA|F=10.25||Repeated measure Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) with null hypothesis of no group differences, comparing anxiety scores pre-Yoga versus post-Yoga, between the two groups for changes in anxiety.||||.004
91090361|NCT01324102|182063578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|||||F=4.07. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is .05. The .056 value does not exceed it. There was only one comparison, so there was no adjustment for multiple comparison. This analysis refers to the row/category of insomnia.|ANOVA|||Repeated measure Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) with null hypothesis of no group differences, comparing insomnia scores pre-Yoga versus post-Yoga, between the two groups. This measures changes in insomnia.||||.056
91090362|NCT00386334|182063587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Multiple comparisons not applied due to only two treatments in the study.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and site type as fixed effects and the baseline as a covariate||||||<0.0001
90895186|NCT01255592|181655931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.845||0.92|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.84|6.07|||ANCOVA|||Impact domain: Analysis of covariance included treatment, inhaled corticosteroids, Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection and baseline as covariates.||6.07|-6.84|0.920
91026864|NCT04680052|181937431|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.434|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.324|0.58|||stratified Log Rank||The hazard ratio was estimated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model.|||0.580|0.324|<0.0001
91026865|NCT04680052|181937433|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.383|0.653|||stratified Log Rank||The hazard ratio was estimated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model.|||0.653|0.383|<0.0001
90895187|NCT01255592|181655932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of LS means|0.69||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.42|1.14|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance included treatment, inhaled corticosteroids, Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection and baseline as covariates.||1.14|0.42|0.220
91026866|NCT04680052|181937434|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.0286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|2.13|||stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The strata information was based on the data obtained from the interactive response technology that was used for randomization.|||2.13|1.04|0.0286
91026867|NCT04680052|181937436|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.587||||0.1061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.306|1.128|||stratified Log Rank||The hazard ratio was estimated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model.|||1.128|0.306|0.1061
91026868|NCT04680052|181937437|SUPERIORITY|Only primary and key secondary endpoints were formally tested; this endpoint was not formally tested.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.0221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.03|||stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The strata information was based on the data obtained from the interactive response technology that was used for randomization.|||2.03|1.06|0.0221
91026869|NCT04680052|181937438|SUPERIORITY|Only primary and key secondary endpoints were formally tested; this endpoint was not formally tested.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.4093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|3.33|||stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The strata information was based on the data obtained from the interactive response technology that was used for randomization.|||3.33|0.61|0.4093
91026870|NCT04680052|181937439|SUPERIORITY|Only primary and key secondary endpoints were formally tested; this endpoint was not formally tested.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.2874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|3.47|||stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The strata information was based on the data obtained from the interactive response technology that was used for randomization.|||3.47|0.69|0.2874
91026871|NCT04680052|181937440|SUPERIORITY|Only primary and key secondary endpoints were formally tested; this endpoint was not formally tested.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|3.02|||stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The strata information was based on the data obtained from the interactive response technology that was used for randomization.|||3.02|1.30|0.0014
91026872|NCT04680052|181937441|SUPERIORITY|Only primary and key secondary endpoints were formally tested; this endpoint was not formally tested.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|2.74|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The strata information was based on the data obtained from the interactive response technology that was used for randomization.|||2.74|1.29|0.0009
91026873|NCT04680052|181937443|SUPERIORITY|Only primary and key secondary endpoints were formally tested; this endpoint was not formally tested.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.473|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.678|||stratified Log Rank||The hazard ratio was estimated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model.|||0.678|0.330|<0.0001
91026874|NCT04680052|181937445|SUPERIORITY|Only primary and key secondary endpoints were formally tested; this endpoint was not formally tested.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.55||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.397|0.763|||stratified Log Rank||The hazard ratio was estimated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model.|||0.763|0.397|0.0003
91026875|NCT04680052|181937447|SUPERIORITY|Only primary and key secondary endpoints were formally tested; this endpoint was not formally tested.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.5837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.476|1.519|||stratified Log Rank||The hazard ratio was estimated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model.|||1.519|0.476|0.5837
91090363|NCT00386334|182063590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0014||||||Multiple comparisons not applied due to only two treatments in the study.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and site type as fixed effects and the baseline as a covariate||||||0.0014
91090364|NCT00386334|182063593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Multiple comparisons not applied due to only two treatments in the study.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and site type as fixed effects and the baseline as a covariate||||||<0.0001
90895188|NCT01255592|181655933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of LS means|4.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.05|6.54|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance included treatment, inhaled corticosteroids, Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection and baseline as covariates.||6.54|3.05|<0.001
91026876|NCT04680052|181937449|SUPERIORITY|Only primary and key secondary endpoints were formally tested; this endpoint was not formally tested.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.407|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.294|0.563|||stratified Log Rank||The hazard ratio was estimated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model.|||0.563|0.294|<0.0001
91026877|NCT04680052|181937451|SUPERIORITY|Only primary and key secondary endpoints were formally tested; this endpoint was not formally tested.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.481|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.357|0.647|||stratified Log Rank||The hazard ratio was estimated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model.|||0.647|0.357|<0.0001
91026878|NCT04680052|181937452|SUPERIORITY|Only primary and key secondary endpoints were formally tested; this endpoint was not formally tested.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|3.43|||stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The strata information was based on the data obtained from the interactive response technology that was used for randomization.|||3.43|1.43|0.0003
91026879|NCT04680052|181937453|SUPERIORITY|Only primary and key secondary endpoints were formally tested; this endpoint was not formally tested.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|2.86|||stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The strata information was based on the data obtained from the interactive response technology that was used for randomization.|||2.86|1.33|0.0005
91026880|NCT04680052|181937455|SUPERIORITY|Only primary and key secondary endpoints were formally tested; this endpoint was not formally tested.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.461|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.312|0.681|||stratified Log Rank||The hazard ratio was estimated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model.|||0.681|0.312|<0.0001
91026881|NCT04680052|181937457|SUPERIORITY|Only primary and key secondary endpoints were formally tested; this endpoint was not formally tested.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.192||||0.7469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.409|3.475|||stratified Log Rank||The hazard ratio was estimated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model.|||3.475|0.409|0.7469
91026882|NCT01073020|181937469|SUPERIORITY||proportion|0.08||||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared||Estimation parameter is the difference between the proportion of patients in the LAGB group vs. proportion of patients in the Intensive Medical Diabetes \& Weight Management (LAGB Grp) who achieved the primary outcome.|||||0.60
91026883|NCT01073020|181937469|SUPERIORITY||proportion|0.42||||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared||Estimation parameter is the difference between the proportion of patients in the RYGB group vs. proportion of patients in the Intensive Medical Diabetes \& Weight Management (RYGB Grp) who achieved the primary outcome.|||||0.005
91090365|NCT00386334|182063596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005||||||Multiple comparisons not applied due to only two treatments in study.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and site type as fixed effects and the baseline as a covariate||||||0.0005
91090366|NCT00386334|182063599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Multiple comparisons not applied due to only two treatments in the study.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and site type as fixed effects and the baseline as a covariate||||||<0.0001
91090367|NCT00386334|182063602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Multiple comparisons not applied due to only two treatments in the study.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and site type as fixed effects and the baseline as a covariate||||||<0.0001
91026884|NCT01073020|181937470|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis||Estimation parameter is the difference between the change from baseline in HbA1c in the LAGB group vs. change from baseline in HbA1c in the Intensive Medical Diabetes \& Weight Management (LAGB Grp), adjusted for baseline HbA1c.|||||0.33
91026885|NCT01073020|181937470|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis||Estimation parameter is the difference between the change from baseline in HbA1c in the RYGB group vs. change from baseline in HbA1c in the Intensive Medical Diabetes \& Weight Management (RYGB Grp), adjusted for baseline HbA1c.|||||<0.001
91026886|NCT01073020|181937471|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis||Estimation parameter is the difference between the change from baseline in BMI in the LAGB group vs. change from baseline in BMI in the Intensive Medical Diabetes \& Weight Management (LAGB Grp), adjusted for baseline BMI.|||||<0.001
91026887|NCT01073020|181937471|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis||Estimation parameter is the difference between the change from baseline in BMI in the RYGB group vs. change from baseline in BMI in the Intensive Medical Diabetes \& Weight Management (RYGB Grp), adjusted for baseline BMI.|||||<0.001
90834617|NCT00467740|181536444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.328|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.114||0.0044||95.0|-0.552|-0.103|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model with terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.103|-0.552|0.0044
90834618|NCT00467740|181536444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.276|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.113||0.0158||95.0|-0.499|-0.052|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model with terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.052|-0.499|0.0158
90834619|NCT02374164|181536513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.612|0.847|||||Ratio Fed/Fasted. Point estimate and 90% CI were obtained from the exponentiated results of analysis of the natural logarithm-transformed data. Bioequivalence was reached if the value was 0.80 to 1.25.|Relative bioavailability of a single dose of Febuxostat XR 80 mg in the fasted and fed (high-fat meal) states.||0.847|0.612|
90834620|NCT00867165|181536519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|-26.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.8|-22.69|||ANCOVA|||||-22.69|-30.80|<0.001
90834621|NCT00867165|181536520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|-20.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.2|-17.65|||ANCOVA|||||-17.65|-24.20|<0.001
90834622|NCT00867165|181536521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|-20.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.02|-16.45|||ANCOVA|||||-16.45|-24.02|<0.001
90895189|NCT01255592|181655934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of LS means|0.92||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.68|1.26|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance included treatment, inhaled corticosteroids, Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection and baseline as covariates.||1.26|0.68|0.670
90895190|NCT01255592|181655935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of LS means|0.99||||0.968|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.78|1.27|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance included treatment, inhaled corticosteroids, Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection and baseline as covariates.||1.27|0.78|0.968
91026888|NCT01073020|181937472|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.5||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis||Estimation parameter is the difference between change from baseline in CHD risk over 10 yrs. in LAGB group vs. change from baseline in CHD risk over 10 yrs. in Intensive Medical Diabetes \& Weight Management (LAGB Grp), adjusted for baseline CHD risk.|||||0.81
91026889|NCT01073020|181937472|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.6||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis||Estimation parameter is the difference between change from baseline in CHD risk over 10 yrs. in RYGB group vs. change from baseline in CHD risk over 10 yrs. in Intensive Medical Diabetes \& Weight Management (RYGB Grp), adjusted for baseline CHD risk.|||||0.009
91026890|NCT00094302|181937477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.04||No covariate adjustment|Log Rank|Two-sided log rand test (0.05 Type 1 error)|Spironolactone compared to Placebo|Composite endpoint was compared by trial arm using logrank test of time to first event from time of randomization. Time to event was the time at which the first observed event component of the composite endpoint was observed. This endpoint was adjudicated by the TOPCAT clinical endpoints committee. There were 320 subjects in the Spironolactone group and 351 subjects in Placebo group with a confirmed event. Subjects who did not experience this endpoint were censored at time of last contact.||1.04|0.77|0.14
91026891|NCT00094302|181937478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.12||No covariate adjustment|Log Rank|Two-sided log rand test (0.05 Type 1 error)|Spironolactone compared to Placebo|"This endpoint was compared by trial arm (spironolactone vs. placebo) using a logrank test of time to event from the time of randomization. Subjects who did not experience this endpoint were censored at the time of their last contact.~This endpoint was adjudicated by the TOPCAT clinical endpoints committee. There were 336 subjects (160 in the Spironolactone group and 176 in the Placebo group) with a confirmed event."||1.12|0.73|0.35
90834623|NCT00867165|181536522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-square means|0.7||||0.807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.97|6.36|||ANCOVA|||||6.36|-4.97|0.807
90834624|NCT00867165|181536523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Differrence in least-squares means|-25.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.59|-21.91|||ANCOVA|||||-21.91|-29.59|<0.001
90834625|NCT00867165|181536524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-square means|-14.68||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.35|-2.0|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-2.00|-27.35|0.021
90834626|NCT00867165|181536525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|-24.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.95|-20.99|||ANCOVA|||||-20.99|-28.95|<0.001
90834627|NCT00867165|181536526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-square means|-23.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.49|-20.39|||ANCOVA|||||-20.39|-27.49|<0.001
90834628|NCT00867165|181536527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|-27.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.7|-23.73|||ANCOVA|||||-23.73|-31.70|<0.001
90834629|NCT00867165|181536528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|-20.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.3|-16.89|||ANCOVA|||||-16.89|-23.30|<0.001
90834630|NCT00867165|181536529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|-20.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.39|-17.15|||ANCOVA|||||-17.15|-23.39|<0.001
90895191|NCT01255592|181655936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of LS means|1.43||||0.193|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|2.24|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance included treatment, inhaled corticosteroids, Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection and baseline as covariates.||2.24|0.91|0.193
91026892|NCT00094302|181937479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|2.5||No covariate adjustment|Log Rank|Two-sided log rand test (0.05 Type 1 error)|Spironolactone compared to Placebo|"This endpoint was compared by trial arm (spironolactone vs. placebo) using a logrank test of time to first event from the time of randomization. Subjects who did not experience this endpoint were censored at the time of their last contact.~This endpoint was adjudicated by the TOPCAT clinical endpoints committee. There were 8 subjects (3 in the Spironolactone group and 5 in the Placebo group) with a confirmed event."||2.50|0.14|0.48
90834631|NCT00867165|181536530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|-21.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.67|-18.08|||ANCOVA|||||-18.08|-24.67|<0.001
90834632|NCT00867165|181536531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|-0.95||||0.733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.46|4.55|||ANCOVA|||||4.55|-6.46|0.733
90834633|NCT00867165|181536532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|0.53||||0.863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.59|6.66|||ANCOVA|||||6.66|-5.59|0.863
90834634|NCT00867165|181536533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|1.92||||0.501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.71|7.56|||ANCOVA|||||7.56|-3.71|0.501
91026893|NCT00094302|181937480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.99||No covariate adjustment|Log Rank|Two-sided log rand test (0.05 Type 1 error)|Spironolactone compared to Placebo|"This endpoint was compared by trial arm (spironolactone vs. placebo) using a logrank test of time to first event from the time of randomization. Subjects who did not experience this endpoint were censored at the time of their last contact.~This endpoint was adjudicated by the TOPCAT clinical endpoints committee. There were 451 subjects (206 in the Spironolactone group and 245 in the Placebo group) who have been confirmed to have experienced the event"||0.99|0.69|0.04
91026894|NCT00094302|181937481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.08||No covariate adjustment|Log Rank|Two-sided log rand test (0.05 Type 1 error)|Spironolactone compared to Placebo|Endpoint compared by trial arm using logrank test of time to event from randomization. Subjects who did not experience endpoint were censored at time of last contact. Attempts were made to determine vital status as of each subject's last potential visit, based on randomization, even if the subject ended study participation before then. This outcome was adjudicated. There were 252 events over 6,022 patient-years in Spironolactone arm and 274 events over 5,981 patient-years in Placebo arm.||1.08|0.77|0.29
91026895|NCT00094302|181937482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.06||No covariate adjustment|Log Rank|Two-sided log rank test (0.05 Type 1 error)|Spironolactone compared to Placebo|Composite endpoint was compared by trial arm using logrank test of time to first event from time of randomization. Time to event was the time at which the first observed event component of the composite endpoint was observed. Component endpoints were adjudicated by the TOPCAT clinical endpoints committee. There were 382 subjects in Spironolactone group and 404 subjects in Placebo group with a confirmed event. Subjects who did not experience this endpoint were censored at time of last contact.||1.06|0.80|0.28
91026896|NCT00094302|181937483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.04||No covariate adjustment|Log Rank|Two-sided log rank test (0.05 Type 1 error)|Spironolactone compared to Placebo|Endpoint was compared by trial arm using logrank test of time to first event from time of randomization. Time to event was the time at which the first observed event component of the composite endpoint was observed. Component endpoints were adjudicated by the TOPCAT clinical endpoints committee. There were 291 subjects in Spironolactone group and 320 subjects in Placebo group with a confirmed event. Subjects who did not experience this endpoint were censored at time of last contact.||1.04|0.76|0.15
91026897|NCT00094302|181937484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||incidence rate ratio|0.75||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.97||No covariate adjustment|Negative binomial regression||Spironolactone compared to Placebo|There were a total of 869 confirmed heart failure hospitalizations (394 in the Spironolactone group and 475 in the Placebo group) during the 11,471 person-years collected over the course of the TOPCAT trial (5,755 person-years in the Spironolactone group and 5,716 person-years in the Placebo group). The incidence rate of heart failure hospitalizations for each treatment group was compared using a negative binomial regression with a p-value threshold of 0.05 for statistical significance.||0.97|0.58|0.03
91026898|NCT00094302|181937485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.38||No covariate adjustment|Log Rank|Two-sided log rank test (0.05 Type 1 error)|Spironolactone compared to Placebo|Composite endpoint was compared by trial arm using logrank test of time to first event from time of randomization. Time to event was the time at which the first observed event component of the composite endpoint was observed. Component endpoints were adjudicated by the TOPCAT clinical endpoints committee. There were 58 subjects in the Spironolactone group and 60 subjects in Placebo group with a confirmed event. Subjects who did not experience this endpoint were censored at time of last contact.||1.38|0.67|0.82
91026899|NCT00094302|181937486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.83||No covariate adjustment|Log Rank|Two-sided log rank test (0.05 Type 1 error)|Spironolactone compared to Placebo|"This endpoint was compared by trial arm (spironolactone vs. placebo) using a logrank test of time to first event from the time of randomization. Subjects who did not experience this endpoint were censored at the time of their last contact.~This endpoint was adjudicated by the TOPCAT clinical endpoints committee. There were 56 subjects (29 in the Spironolactone group and 27 in the Placebo group) with confirmed events."||1.83|0.64|0.76
91026900|NCT00094302|181937487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio, log|1.02||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.5||No covariate adjustment|Log Rank|Two-sided log rank test (0.05 Type 1 error)|Spironolactone compared to Placebo|"This endpoint was compared by trial arm (spironolactone vs. placebo) using a logrank test of time to first event from the time of randomization. Subjects who did not experience this endpoint were censored at the time of their last contact.~This endpoint was adjudicated by the TOPCAT clinical endpoints committee. There were 103 subjects (52 in the Spironolactone group and 51 in the Placebo group) with confirmed events."||1.50|0.69|0.94
91090368|NCT00386334|182063605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Multiple comparisons not applied due to only two treatments in the study.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and site type as fixed effects and the baseline as a covariate||||||<0.0001
90834635|NCT00867165|181536534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|-24.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.78|-20.58|||ANCOVA|||||-20.58|-27.78|<0.001
90834636|NCT00867165|181536535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|-24.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.06|-21.16|||ANCOVA|||||-21.16|-28.06|<0.001
91090369|NCT00386334|182063608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Multiple comparisons not applied due to only two treatments in the study.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and site type as fixed effects and the baseline as a covariate||||||<0.0001
91090370|NCT00386334|182063611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Multiple comparisons not applied due to only two treatments in the study.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and site type as fixed effects and the baseline as a covariate||||||<0.0001
91026901|NCT00094302|181937488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.42||No covariate adjustment|Log Rank|Two-sided log rand test (0.05 Type 1 error)|Spironolactone compared to Placebo|"This endpoint was compared by trial arm (spironolactone vs. placebo) using a logrank test of time to first event from the time of randomization. Subjects who did not experience this endpoint were censored at the time of their last contact.~This endpoint was adjudicated by the TOPCAT clinical endpoints committee. There were 129 subjects (65 in the Spironolactone group and 64 in the Placebo group) with confirmed events."||1.42|0.71|0.98
91026902|NCT00094302|181937489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.35||No covariate adjustment|Log Rank|Two-sided log rand test (0.05 Type 1 error)|Spironolactone compared to Placebo|"This endpoint was compared by trial arm (spironolactone vs. placebo) using a logrank test of time to first event from the time of randomization. Subjects who did not experience this endpoint were censored at the time of their last contact.~This endpoint was adjudicated by the TOPCAT clinical endpoints committee. There were 117 subjects (57 in the Spironolactone group and 60 in the Placebo group) with confirmed events."||1.35|0.65|0.73
91026903|NCT00094302|181937490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.49|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|1.87||No covariate adjustment|Log Rank|Two-sided log rand test (0.05 Type 1 error)|Spironolactone compared to Placebo|"This endpoint was compared by trial arm (spironolactone vs. placebo) using a logrank test of time to first event from the time of randomization. Subjects who did not experience this endpoint were censored at the time of their last contact.~There were 295 subjects (175 in the Spironolactone group and 120 in the Placebo group) experiencing this endpoint. This endpoint did not undergo adjudication by the TOPCAT clinical endpoints committee."||1.87|1.18|<0.01
91026904|NCT00094302|181937491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.35||No covariate adjustment|Log Rank|Two-sided log rank test (0.05 Type 1 error)|Spironolactone compared to Placebo|Composite endpoint was compared by trial arm using logrank test of time to first event from time of randomization. Time to event was the time at which the first observed event component of the composite endpoint was observed. Component endpoints were adjudicated by the TOPCAT clinical endpoints committee. There were 58 subjects in the Spironolactone group and 61 subjects in Placebo group with a confirmed event. Subjects who did not experience this endpoint were censored at time of last contact.||1.35|0.66|0.75
91026905|NCT00094302|181937492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||A generalized linear model was fit, with the post-baseline quality of life scores as the dependent variable, and the baseline quality of life score, treatment group, month of visit, and the interaction between treatment group and month of visit as predictor variables. This tests whether the slope of the post-baseline quality of life parameter differs by treatment group, taking into account that measurements in the same subject over time may be correlated.||||0.27
91026906|NCT00094302|181937492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Since the p-value for the preceding test (Statistical Analysis 1) was not significant at the 0.05 level, another generalized linear model was fit, omitting the interaction between treatment group and month of visit. This tests whether the value of the post-baseline quality of life parameter differs by treatment group, taking into account that measurements in the same subject over time may be correlated.||||<0.01
91026907|NCT00094302|181937493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||A generalized linear model was fit, with the post-baseline quality of life scores as the dependent variable, and the baseline quality of life score, treatment group, month of visit, and the interaction between treatment group and month of visit as predictor variables. This tests whether the slope of the post-baseline quality of life parameter differs by treatment group, taking into account that measurements in the same subject over time may be correlated.||||0.87
91026908|NCT00094302|181937493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Since the p-value for the preceding test (Statistical Analysis 1) was not significant at the 0.05 level, another generalized linear model was fit, omitting the interaction between treatment group and month of visit. This tests whether the value of the post-baseline quality of life parameter differs by treatment group, taking into account that measurements in the same subject over time may be correlated.||||0.16
91026909|NCT00094302|181937494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||A generalized linear model was fit, with the post-baseline quality of life scores as the dependent variable, and the baseline quality of life score and treatment group as predictor variables. This tests whether the value of the post-baseline quality of life parameter differs by treatment group.||||0.99
91026910|NCT00094302|181937495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||A generalized linear model was fit, with the post-baseline quality of life scores as the dependent variable, and the baseline quality of life score, treatment group, month of visit, and the interaction between treatment group and month of visit as predictor variables. This tests whether the slope of the post-baseline quality of life parameter differs by treatment group, taking into account that measurements in the same subject over time may be correlated.||||0.39
91026911|NCT00094302|181937495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Since the p-value for the preceding test (Statistical Analysis 1) was not significant at the 0.05 level, another generalized linear model was fit, omitting the interaction between treatment group and month of visit. This tests whether the value of the post-baseline quality of life parameter differs by treatment group, taking into account that measurements in the same subject over time may be correlated.||||0.01
91090371|NCT00386334|182063614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Multiple comparisons not applied due to only two treatments in the study.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and site type as fixed effects and the baseline as a covariate||||||<0.0001
91090372|NCT00386334|182063617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1175||||||Multiple comparisons not applied due to only two treatments in the study.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and site type as fixed effects and the baseline as a covariate||||||0.1175
91090373|NCT00386334|182063620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0717||||||Multiple comparisons not applied due to only two treatments in the study.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and site type as fixed effects and the baseline as a covariate||||||0.0717
91090374|NCT00386334|182063623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1182||||||Multiple comparisons not applied due to only two treatments in the study.|ANCOVA|||||||0.1182
90895192|NCT01255592|181655937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of LS means|3.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.19|4.79|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance included treatment, inhaled corticosteroids, Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection and baseline as covariates.||4.79|2.19|<0.001
90895193|NCT01255592|181655938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of LS means|1.02||||0.917|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.71|1.48|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance included treatment, inhaled corticosteroids, Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection and baseline as covariates.||1.48|0.71|0.917
90895194|NCT01255592|181655939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of LS means|0.17||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.03|1.08|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance included treatment, inhaled corticosteroids, Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection and baseline as covariates.||1.08|0.03|0.111
91026912|NCT00094302|181937496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.04||No covariate adjustment|Log Rank|Two-sided log rand test (0.05 Type 1 error)|Spironolactone compared to Placebo|"This endpoint was compared by trial arm (spironolactone vs. placebo) using a logrank test of time to first event from the time of randomization. Subjects who did not experience this endpoint were censored at the time of their last contact.~There were a total of 1558 subjects (766 subjects in the Spironolactone group and 792 subjects in the Placebo) who were hospitalized for any cause while on study. This endpoint was not adjudicated by the TOPCAT clinical endpoints committee."||1.04|0.85|0.25
91026913|NCT00094302|181937497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||A generalized linear model was fit, with the post-baseline laboratory value as the dependent variable, and the baseline laboratory value, treatment group, month of visit, and the interaction between treatment group and month of visit as predictor variables. This tests whether the slope of the post-baseline laboratory parameter differs by treatment group, taking into account that measurements in the same subject over time may be correlated.||||0.27
91026914|NCT00094302|181937497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Since the p-value for the preceding test (Statistical Analysis 1) was not significant at the 0.05 level, another generalized linear model was fit, omitting the interaction between treatment group and month of visit. This tests whether the value of the post-baseline laboratory parameter differs by treatment group, taking into account that measurements in the same subject over time may be correlated.||||<0.01
91026915|NCT00094302|181937498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||A generalized linear model was fit, with the post-baseline laboratory value as the dependent variable, and the baseline laboratory value, treatment group, month of visit, and the interaction between treatment group and month of visit as predictor variables. This tests whether the slope of the post-baseline laboratory parameter differs by treatment group, taking into account that measurements in the same subject over time may be correlated.||||0.53
91026916|NCT00094302|181937498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Since the p-value for the preceding test (Statistical Analysis 1) was not significant at the 0.05 level, another generalized linear model was fit, omitting the interaction between treatment group and month of visit. This tests whether the value of the post-baseline laboratory parameter differs by treatment group, taking into account that measurements in the same subject over time may be correlated.||||<0.01
91026917|NCT00094302|181937499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||A generalized linear model was fit, with the post-baseline laboratory value as the dependent variable, and the baseline laboratory value, treatment group, month of visit, and the interaction between treatment group and month of visit as predictor variables. This tests whether the slope of the post-baseline laboratory parameter differs by treatment group, taking into account that measurements in the same subject over time may be correlated.||||0.11
91026918|NCT00094302|181937499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Since the p-value for the preceding test (Statistical Analysis 1) was not significant at the 0.05 level, another generalized linear model was fit, omitting the interaction between treatment group and month of visit. This tests whether the value of the post-baseline laboratory parameter differs by treatment group, taking into account that measurements in the same subject over time may be correlated.||||<0.01
91026919|NCT00094302|181937500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||A generalized linear model was fit, with the post-baseline laboratory value as the dependent variable, and the baseline laboratory value, treatment group, month of visit, and the interaction between treatment group and month of visit as predictor variables. This tests whether the slope of the post-baseline laboratory parameter differs by treatment group, taking into account that measurements in the same subject over time may be correlated.||||0.59
91026920|NCT00094302|181937500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Since the p-value for the preceding test (Statistical Analysis 1) was not significant at the 0.05 level, another generalized linear model was fit, omitting the interaction between treatment group and month of visit. This tests whether the value of the post-baseline laboratory parameter differs by treatment group, taking into account that measurements in the same subject over time may be correlated.||||0.54
91026921|NCT00094302|181937501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||A generalized linear model was fit, with the post-baseline laboratory value as the dependent variable, and the baseline laboratory value, treatment group, month of visit, and the interaction between treatment group and month of visit as predictor variables. This tests whether the slope of the post-baseline laboratory parameter differs by treatment group, taking into account that measurements in the same subject over time may be correlated.||||0.98
91026922|NCT00094302|181937501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Since the p-value for the preceding test (Statistical Analysis 1) was not significant at the 0.05 level, another generalized linear model was fit, omitting the interaction between treatment group and month of visit. This tests whether the value of the post-baseline laboratory parameter differs by treatment group, taking into account that measurements in the same subject over time may be correlated.||||0.02
91026923|NCT02761980|181937519|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|3.14||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|5.15|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference and 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) were based on Least Square Mean (LSM) from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment, and covariates time from the first RSE full dose to randomization, and baseline temperature.||5.15|1.13|0.002
91090375|NCT00386334|182063626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.301||||||Multiple comparisons not applied due to only two treatments in the study.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and site type as fixed effects and the baseline as a covariate||||||0.3010
90834637|NCT00867165|181536536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|-26.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.35|-22.75|||ANCOVA|||||-22.75|-30.35|<0.001
90834638|NCT00867165|181536537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|-9.73||||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.73|3.27|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||3.27|-22.73|0.137
90834639|NCT00867165|181536538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|-15.19||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.05|-4.34|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-4.34|-26.05|0.005
90834640|NCT00867165|181536539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|-8.61||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.44|3.23|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||3.23|-20.44|0.149
90834641|NCT00867165|181536540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|-1.91||||0.373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.15|2.32|||ANCOVA|||||2.32|-6.15|0.373
90834642|NCT00867165|181536541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-squares mean|-19.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.7|-14.82|||ANCOVA|||||-14.82|-24.70|<0.001
90834643|NCT00867165|181536542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|-20.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.59|-16.07|||ANCOVA|||||-16.07|-25.59|<0.001
90834644|NCT00867165|181536543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|-23.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.0|-17.97|||ANCOVA|||||-17.97|-29.00|<0.001
90834645|NCT00867165|181536544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|-22.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.25|-17.34|||ANCOVA|||||-17.34|-27.25|<0.001
91026924|NCT02761980|181937519|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.91||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|2.33|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference and 95 % CI were based on LSM from ANCOVA with treatment, and covariates time from the first RSE full dose to randomization, and baseline temperature.||2.33|-0.52|0.210
90834646|NCT00867165|181536545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|-24.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.88|-19.12|||ANCOVA|||||-19.12|-29.88|<0.001
90834647|NCT00867165|181536546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|-25.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.69|-19.62|||ANCOVA|||||-19.62|-30.69|<0.001
90834648|NCT00867165|181536547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|-29.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.71|-22.91|||ANCOVA|||||-22.91|-35.71|<0.001
90834649|NCT00867165|181536548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|-28.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.41|-22.29|||ANCOVA|||||-22.29|-34.41|<0.001
90834650|NCT00867165|181536549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|-19.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.87|-14.7|||ANCOVA|||||-14.70|-23.87|<0.001
90834651|NCT00867165|181536550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|-46.11||||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-108.14|15.92|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||15.92|-108.14|0.116
90834652|NCT00867165|181536551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|17.27||||0.382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.46|55.0|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||55.00|-20.46|0.382
90834653|NCT00867165|181536552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|-49.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.36|-43.87|||ANCOVA|||||-43.87|-55.36|<0.001
90834654|NCT00867165|181536553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|-58.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.67|-53.38|||ANCOVA|||||-53.38|-63.67|<0.001
90834655|NCT00867165|181536554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|-61.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.51|-54.53|||ANCOVA|||||-54.53|-67.51|<0.001
90834656|NCT00867165|181536555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|-62.74||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.22|-52.26|||ANCOVA|||||-52.26|-73.22|0.001
90834657|NCT00867165|181536556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|-49.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.83|-44.14|||ANCOVA|||||-44.14|-54.83|<0.001
90834658|NCT00867165|181536557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|-57.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.87|-53.11|||ANCOVA|||||-53.11|-62.87|<0.001
90834659|NCT00867165|181536558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|-62.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.54|-56.66|||ANCOVA|||||-56.66|-68.54|<0.001
90834660|NCT00867165|181536559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|-64.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.11|-55.23|||ANCOVA|||||-55.23|-74.11|<0.001
90834661|NCT00867165|181536560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|-18.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.7|-11.99|||ANCOVA|||||-11.99|-24.70|<0.001
90834662|NCT00867165|181536561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|-25.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.2|-20.02|||ANCOVA|||||-20.02|-31.20|<0.001
90834663|NCT00867165|181536562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|-28.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.89|-22.59|||ANCOVA|||||-22.59|-34.89|<0.001
91026925|NCT02761980|181937519|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.79||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|2.21|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference and 95 % CI were based on LSM from ANCOVA with treatment, and covariates time from the first RSE full dose to randomization, and baseline temperature.||2.21|-0.64|0.280
91026926|NCT02761980|181937519|SUPERIORITY|Treatment difference and 95 % CI were based on LSM from ANCOVA with treatment, and covariates time from the first RSE full dose to randomization, and baseline temperature.|LSM difference|2.23||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|4.25|||ANCOVA|||||4.25|0.22|0.030
91026927|NCT02761980|181937519|SUPERIORITY|Treatment difference and 95 % CI were based on LSM from ANCOVA with treatment, and covariates time from the first RSE full dose to randomization, and baseline temperature.|LSM difference|2.35||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|4.37|||ANCOVA|||||4.37|0.33|0.023
90834664|NCT00867165|181536563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|-32.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.38|-23.9|||ANCOVA|||||-23.90|-40.38|<0.001
90834665|NCT00867165|181536564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|20.01||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.1|31.91|||ANCOVA|||||31.91|8.10|0.001
90834666|NCT00867165|181536565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|26.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.99|38.58|||ANCOVA|||||38.58|13.99|<0.001
90834667|NCT00867165|181536566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|36.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.12|49.28|||ANCOVA|||||49.28|24.12|<0.001
90834668|NCT00867165|181536567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|24.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.43|37.67|||ANCOVA|||||37.67|10.43|<0.001
90834669|NCT00988884|181536597|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of concomitant versus non-concomitant vaccination is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the fold difference is \>0.5|Fold difference in GMT|0.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.08|||ANOVA|||Anti-HPV 6||1.08|0.88|<0.001
90895195|NCT01255592|181655940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of LS means|1.33||||0.367|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.79|2.26|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance included treatment, inhaled corticosteroids, Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection and baseline as covariates.||2.26|0.79|0.367
90895196|NCT01255592|181655941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of LS means|1.54||||0.112|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|2.4|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance included treatment, inhaled corticosteroids, Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection and baseline as covariates.||2.40|0.98|0.112
90895197|NCT01255592|181655942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of LS means|1.05||||0.241|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|1.12|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance included treatment, inhaled corticosteroids, Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection and baseline as covariates.||1.12|0.98|0.241
90895198|NCT01255592|181655943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of LS means|5.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.18|7.23|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance included treatment, inhaled corticosteroids, Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection and baseline as covariates.||7.23|4.18|<0.001
91026928|NCT02761980|181937519|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.12||||0.864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|1.29|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference and 95 % CI were based on LSM from ANCOVA with treatment, and covariates time from the first RSE full dose to randomization, and baseline temperature.||1.29|-1.54|0.864
90834670|NCT00988884|181536597|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of concomitant versus non-concomitant vaccination is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the fold difference is \>0.5|Fold difference in GMT|0.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.07|||ANOVA|||Anti-HPV 11||1.07|0.87|<0.001
90834671|NCT00988884|181536597|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of concomitant versus non-concomitant vaccination is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the fold difference is \>0.5|Fold difference in GMT|0.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.09|||ANOVA|||Anti-HPV 16||1.09|0.89|<0.001
90834672|NCT00988884|181536597|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of concomitant versus non-concomitant vaccination is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the fold difference is \>0.5|Fold difference in GMT|0.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.12|||ANOVA|||Anti-HPV 18||1.12|0.88|<0.001
90834673|NCT00988884|181536597|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of concomitant versus non-concomitant vaccination is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the fold difference is \>0.5|Fold difference in GMT|1.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.17|||ANOVA|||Anti-HPV 31||1.17|0.93|<0.001
91090376|NCT00386334|182063629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78||||||Multiple comparisons not applied due to only two treatments in the study.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and site type as fixed effects and the baseline as a covariate||||||0.7800
90834674|NCT00988884|181536597|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of concomitant versus non-concomitant vaccination is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the fold difference is \>0.5|Fold difference in GMT|0.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.11|||ANOVA|||Anti-HPV 33||1.11|0.89|<0.001
90834675|NCT00988884|181536597|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of concomitant versus non-concomitant vaccination is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the fold difference is \>0.5|Fold difference in GMT|1.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.25|||ANOVA|||Anti-HPV 45||1.25|0.97|<0.001
90834676|NCT00988884|181536597|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of concomitant versus non-concomitant vaccination is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the fold difference is \>0.5|Fold difference in GMT|0.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.1|||ANOVA|||Anti-HPV 52||1.10|0.88|<0.001
90834677|NCT00988884|181536597|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of concomitant versus non-concomitant vaccination is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the fold difference is \>0.5|Fold difference in GMT|0.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.1|||ANOVA|||Anti-HPV 58||1.10|0.88|<0.001
90895199|NCT01255592|181655944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of LS means|1.16||||0.281|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.47|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance included treatment, inhaled corticosteroids, Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection and baseline as covariates.||1.47|0.92|0.281
90895200|NCT01255592|181655945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of LS means|1.56||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.28|1.91|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance included treatment, inhaled corticosteroids, Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection and baseline as covariates.||1.91|1.28|0.001
90895201|NCT01255592|181655946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of LS means|6.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.42|8.35|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance included treatment, inhaled corticosteroids, Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection and baseline as covariates.||8.35|4.42|<0.001
90895202|NCT00605202|181655977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0||||P-value of the change in the plasma potassium (baseline to 2 weeks) between arms|t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis applies to the change in the plasma potassium (baseline to 2 weeks) between arms||||0.007
90895203|NCT00838682|181655978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
90895204|NCT00838682|181655979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
90895205|NCT00838682|181655980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
90895206|NCT00838682|181655981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
90895207|NCT00838682|181655982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
90895208|NCT00838682|181655983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91026929|NCT02761980|181937520|SUPERIORITY|Treatment difference and 95 % CI were based on LSM from ANCOVA with treatment, and covariates time from the first RSE full dose to randomization, and baseline temperature.|LSM difference|0.9||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.51|||ANCOVA|||WSTD 0-2 hours||1.51|0.29|0.004
91026930|NCT02761980|181937520|SUPERIORITY|Treatment difference and 95 % CI were based on LSM from ANCOVA with treatment, and covariates time from the first RSE full dose to randomization, and baseline temperature.|LSM difference|0.39||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.82|||ANCOVA|||WSTD 0-2 hours||0.82|-0.04|0.078
91026931|NCT02761980|181937520|SUPERIORITY|Treatment difference and 95 % CI were based on LSM from ANCOVA with treatment, and covariates time from the first RSE full dose to randomization, and baseline temperature.|LSM difference|0.3||||0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.74|||ANCOVA|||WSTD 0-2 hours||0.74|-0.13|0.172
91090377|NCT00386334|182063632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0803||||||Multiple comparisons not applied due to only two treatments in the study.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and site type as fixed effects and the baseline as a covariate||||||0.0803
91090378|NCT00386334|182063635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2643||||||Multiple comparisons not applied due to only two treatments in the study.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and site type as fixed effects and the baseline as a covariate||||||0.2643
91090379|NCT00386334|182063638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0765||||||Multiple comparisons not applied due to only two treatments in the study.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and site type as fixed effects and the baseline as a covariate||||||0.0765
91090380|NCT00386334|182063641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2967||||||Multiple comparisons not applied due to only two treatments in the study.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and site type as fixed effects and the baseline as a covariate||||||0.2967
91090381|NCT00386334|182063644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0634||||||Multiple comparisons not applied due to only two treatments in the study.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and site type as fixed effects and the baseline as a covariate||||||0.0634
91090382|NCT00386334|182063647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Multiple comparisons not applied due to only two treatments in the study.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and site type as fixed effects and the baseline as a covariate||||||<0.0001
91090383|NCT03238417|182063656|NON_INFERIORITY|Analysis of Variance comparing change in outcome between EBQI and control from baseline to 12 month.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32||0.623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|2.0||P-value is from the interaction term between EBQI and time.|ANOVA|||||2.0|-3.3|0.623
91090384|NCT03238417|182063657|NON_INFERIORITY|Analysis of Variance testing for change in outcome between EBQI and control from baseline to 24 months.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|1.8||P-value is from the interaction term of EBQI and time.|ANOVA|||||1.8|-2.8|0.678
90834678|NCT00988884|181536598|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of concomitant versus non-concomitant vaccination is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 97.5% confidence interval for the percentage difference is greater than -10|Difference in percentage|3.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.7|9.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Serogroup A||9.3|-1.7|<0.001
90834679|NCT00988884|181536598|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of concomitant versus non-concomitant vaccination is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 97.5% confidence interval for the percentage difference is greater than -10|Difference in percentage|-2.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-5.4|1.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Serogroup C||1.1|-5.4|<0.001
90834680|NCT00988884|181536598|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of concomitant versus non-concomitant vaccination is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 97.5% confidence interval for the percentage difference is greater than -10|Difference in percentage|2.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.8|6.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Serogroup Y||6.1|-1.8|<0.001
91090385|NCT03238417|182063658|SUPERIORITY|Difference-in-differences analysis using linear regression, adjusted for age, how often they saw women patients in the past year, location of practice in primary care or women's health clinic, and having had any type of quality improvement training. We adjusted our analysis with non-response weights.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.35||P-value is from the interaction term between EBQI and time, adjusted for non-response weights and characteristics described in the statistical analysis overview.|Regression, Linear||The estimated value reported here is the predicted mean change from baseline to 12-month, adjusting for characteristics described in the statistical analysis overview.|Change in gender awareness score between EBQI and control from baseline to 12-month||0.35|-0.17|0.364
91103906|NCT03992872|182094611|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|"Day 29.~Note: A subject has a 4-fold rise at a visit if they achieve a titer at that visit that is at least 4-fold higher than their Day 1 titer."||||||1.0000
90895209|NCT02305381|181655984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-1.75|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.01|-1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||Superiority for change in HbA1c was claimed if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the estimated difference was below 0%.|Hierarchical testing was performed as per sequence listed below:Change in HbA1c: semaglutide 1.0 mg vs placebo. Change in HbA1c: semaglutide 0.5 mg vs placebo. Change in body weight: semaglutide 1.0 mg vs placebo. Change in body weight: semaglutide 0.5 mg vs placebo. Analysis was performed using MMRM with treatment, country and stratification variable (HbA1c at screening \[≤8.0% or \>8.0%\] crossed with use of metformin \[yes or no\]; 2 by 2 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate||-1.50|-2.01|< 0.0001
91103907|NCT03992872|182094611|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|"Day 57.~Note: A subject has a 4-fold rise at a visit if they achieve a titer at that visit that is at least 4-fold higher than their Day 1 titer."||||||1.0000
90834681|NCT00988884|181536598|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of concomitant versus non-concomitant vaccination is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 97.5% confidence interval for the percentage difference is greater than -10|Difference in percentage|-2.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-4.7|0.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Serogroup W-135||0.3|-4.7|<0.001
90834682|NCT00988884|181536599|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of concomitant versus non-concomitant vaccination is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 97.5% confidence interval for the percentage difference is greater than -10|Difference in percentage|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.8|0.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Anti-diphtheria titer \>=0.1 IU/mL||0.9|-0.8|<0.001
91026932|NCT02761980|181937520|SUPERIORITY|Treatment difference and 95 % CI were based on LSM from ANCOVA with treatment, and covariates time from the first RSE full dose to randomization, and baseline temperature.|LSM difference|0.51||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.13|||ANCOVA|||WSTD 0-2 hours||1.13|-0.10|0.098
91026933|NCT02761980|181937520|SUPERIORITY|Treatment difference and 95 % CI were based on LSM from ANCOVA with treatment, and covariates time from the first RSE full dose to randomization, and baseline temperature.|LSM difference|0.6||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|1.21|||ANCOVA|||WSTD 0-2 hours||1.21|-0.01|0.054
91026934|NCT02761980|181937520|SUPERIORITY|Treatment difference and 95 % CI were based on LSM from ANCOVA with treatment, and covariates time from the first RSE full dose to randomization, and baseline temperature.|LSM difference|-0.09||||0.692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.34|||ANCOVA|||WSTD 0-2 hours||0.34|-0.52|0.692
91026935|NCT02761980|181937520|SUPERIORITY|Treatment difference and 95 % CI were based on LSM from ANCOVA with treatment, and covariates time from the first RSE full dose to randomization, and baseline temperature.|LSM difference|1.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|2.88|||ANCOVA|||WSTD 0-4 hours||2.88|0.86|< 0.001
91026936|NCT02761980|181937520|SUPERIORITY|Treatment difference and 95 % CI were based on LSM from ANCOVA with treatment, and covariates time from the first RSE full dose to randomization, and baseline temperature.|LSM difference|0.61||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.33|||ANCOVA|||WSTD 0-4 hours||1.33|-0.10|0.094
91026937|NCT02761980|181937520|SUPERIORITY|Treatment difference and 95 % CI were based on LSM from ANCOVA with treatment, and covariates time from the first RSE full dose to randomization, and baseline temperature.|LSM difference|0.45||||0.217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|1.17|||ANCOVA|||WSTD 0-4 hours||1.17|-0.27|0.217
91026938|NCT02761980|181937520|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|1.26||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|2.27||Treatment difference and 95 % CI were based on LSM from ANCOVA with treatment, and covariates time from the first RSE full dose to randomization, and baseline temperature.|ANCOVA|||WSTD 0-4 hours||2.27|0.24|0.015
91026939|NCT02761980|181937520|SUPERIORITY|Treatment difference and 95 % CI were based on LSM from ANCOVA with treatment, and covariates time from the first RSE full dose to randomization, and baseline temperature.|LSM difference|1.42||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.44|||ANCOVA|||WSTD 0-4 hours||2.44|0.40|0.006
91026940|NCT02761980|181937520|SUPERIORITY|Treatment difference and 95 % CI were based on LSM from ANCOVA with treatment, and covariates time from the first RSE full dose to randomization, and baseline temperature.|LSM difference|-0.16||||0.659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.55|||ANCOVA|||WSTD 0-4 hours||0.55|-0.87|0.659
91026941|NCT02761980|181937520|SUPERIORITY|Treatment difference and 95 % CI were based on LSM from ANCOVA with treatment, and covariates time from the first RSE full dose to randomization, and baseline temperature.|LSM difference|2.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|4.08|||ANCOVA|||WSTD 0-6 hours||4.08|1.16|< 0.001
91026942|NCT02761980|181937520|SUPERIORITY|Treatment difference and 95 % CI were based on LSM from ANCOVA with treatment, and covariates time from the first RSE full dose to randomization, and baseline temperature.|LSM difference|0.79||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|1.82|||ANCOVA|||WSTD 0-6 hours||1.82|-0.25|0.135
91026943|NCT02761980|181937520|SUPERIORITY|Treatment difference and 95 % CI were based on LSM from ANCOVA with treatment, and covariates time from the first RSE full dose to randomization, and baseline temperature.|LSM difference|0.7||||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|1.74|||ANCOVA|||WSTD 0-6 hours||1.74|-0.34|0.186
91026944|NCT02761980|181937520|SUPERIORITY|Treatment difference and 95 % CI were based on LSM from ANCOVA with treatment, and covariates time from the first RSE full dose to randomization, and baseline temperature.|LSM difference|1.83||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|3.29|||ANCOVA|||WSTD 0-6 hours||3.29|0.37|0.014
91026945|NCT02761980|181937520|SUPERIORITY|Treatment difference and 95 % CI were based on LSM from ANCOVA with treatment, and covariates time from the first RSE full dose to randomization, and baseline temperature.|LSM difference|1.92||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|3.39|||ANCOVA|||WSTD 0-6 hours||3.39|0.45|0.011
91103908|NCT03992872|182094611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1124|||||||Fisher Exact|"Day 182.~Note: A subject has a 4-fold rise at a visit if they achieve a titer at that visit that is at least 4-fold higher than their Day 1 titer."||||||0.1124
91026946|NCT02761980|181937520|SUPERIORITY|Treatment difference and 95 % CI were based on LSM from ANCOVA with treatment, and covariates time from the first RSE full dose to randomization, and baseline temperature.|LSM difference|-0.09||||0.865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|0.94|||ANCOVA|||WSTD 0-6 hours||0.94|-1.12|0.865
91026947|NCT02761980|181937521|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.449||||||Generalized log-rank test based on interval-censored survival analysis using nonparametric survival method.|Log Rank|||||||0.449
91026948|NCT02761980|181937521|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.142||||||Generalized log-rank test based on interval-censored survival analysis using nonparametric survival method.|Log Rank|||||||0.142
91026949|NCT02761980|181937521|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.822||||||Generalized log-rank test based on interval-censored survival analysis using nonparametric survival method.|Log Rank|||||||0.822
91026950|NCT02761980|181937521|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.671||||||Generalized log-rank test based on interval-censored survival analysis using nonparametric survival method.|Log Rank|||||||0.671
91026951|NCT02761980|181937521|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.514||||||Generalized log-rank test based on interval-censored survival analysis using nonparametric survival method.|Log Rank|||||||0.514
91026952|NCT02761980|181937521|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.191||||||Generalized log-rank test based on interval-censored survival analysis using nonparametric survival method.|Log Rank|||||||0.191
91026953|NCT02761980|181937522|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.997||||||P-value, hazard ratio (HR) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the proportional hazards (PH) model with treatment term in the model.|hazard ratio|||||||0.997
91026954|NCT02761980|181937522|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.998||||||P-value, HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the PH model with treatment term in the model.|Hazard Ratio|||||||0.998
91026955|NCT02761980|181937522|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.997||||||P-value, HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the PH model with treatment term in the model.|Hazard Ratio|||||||0.997
91026956|NCT02761980|181937523|SUPERIORITY|Treatment difference and 95 % CI were based on LSM from ANCOVA with treatment, and covariates time from the first RSE full dose to randomization, and baseline temperature.|LSM difference|0.67||||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|1.48|||ANCOVA|||||1.48|-0.13|0.101
91026957|NCT02761980|181937523|SUPERIORITY|Treatment difference and 95 % CI were based on LSM from ANCOVA with treatment, and covariates time from the first RSE full dose to randomization, and baseline temperature.|LSM difference|0.16||||0.582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.73|||ANCOVA|||||0.73|-0.41|0.582
91026958|NCT02761980|181937523|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.15||||0.614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.72|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference and 95 % CI were based on LSM from ANCOVA with treatment, and covariates time from the first RSE full dose to randomization, and baseline temperature.||0.72|-0.43|0.614
91026959|NCT02761980|181937523|SUPERIORITY|Treatment difference and 95 % CI were based on LSM from ANCOVA with treatment, and covariates time from the first RSE full dose to randomization, and baseline temperature.|LSM difference|0.51||||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|1.32|||ANCOVA|||||1.32|-0.29|0.212
91026960|NCT02761980|181937523|SUPERIORITY|Treatment difference and 95 % CI were based on LSM from ANCOVA with treatment, and covariates time from the first RSE full dose to randomization, and baseline temperature.|LSM difference|0.53||||0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|1.34|||ANCOVA|||||1.34|-0.28|0.202
91103909|NCT03992872|182094612|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999|||||||Fisher Exact|||"Null hypothesis for analysis of percentage of subjects with Anti-Chikungunya neutralizing activity at or above selected thresholds by time point.~Day 1 : Subjects with Titer \>=40"||||>0.9999
91026961|NCT02761980|181937523|SUPERIORITY|Treatment difference and 95 % CI were based on LSM from ANCOVA with treatment, and covariates time from the first RSE full dose to randomization, and baseline temperature.|LSM difference|-0.01||||0.965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.55|||ANCOVA|||||0.55|-0.58|0.965
91026962|NCT00101582|181937536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-Square Statistic|4.1764||||0.041||95.0||||Generalized Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for general association. Participants having no assessment were assumed as having WHO grade 3 or 4 oral mucositis in hypothesis testing.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by disease stage (III versus IV) and primary anatomical tumor location (oral cavity / oropharynx vs. nasopharynx vs. hypopharynx / larynx).||Sample size calculations were based on the number of participants needed to detect, with 90% power and 5% type 1 error rate, at least a 25% difference in the incidence of severe OM between the treatment groups. A 25% absolute reduction in the incidence of severe OM from the placebo group was considered by investigators as clinically meaningful in this clinical setting.||||0.0410
91026963|NCT00101582|181937537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-Square Statistic|5.8002||||0.016||95.0||||Generalized Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for mean score difference.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by disease stage (III versus IV) and primary anatomical tumor location (oral cavity / oropharynx vs. nasopharynx vs. hypopharynx / larynx).||||||0.0160
91026964|NCT00101582|181937537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1122||95.0||||Adjusted p-value was based on Hochberg procedure to control for the Type 1 error.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||To protect the overall type 1 error, the Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiple statistical testing of the secondary efficacy endpoints.||||0.1122
91026965|NCT00101582|181937538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6603||||0.0261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4546|0.9592|||Stratified Log-Rank test|Stratified by disease stage (III versus IV) and primary anatomical tumor location (oral cavity / oropharynx vs. nasopharynx vs. hypopharynx / larynx).|Hazard ratio of palifermin over placebo based on Stratified Cox proportional hazard model.|||0.9592|0.4546|0.0261
91026966|NCT00101582|181937538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1566||95.0||||Adjusted p-value was based on Hochberg procedure to control for the Type 1 error.|Stratified Log-Rank test|||||||0.1566
91026967|NCT00101582|181937539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-Square Statistic|3.9715||||0.0463||95.0||||Generalized Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for general association. Participants having no assessment were assumed to have the event.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by disease stage (III versus IV) and primary anatomical tumor location (oral cavity / oropharynx vs. nasopharynx vs. hypopharynx / larynx).||||||0.0463
91026968|NCT00101582|181937539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2314||95.0||||Adjusted p-value was based on Hochberg procedure to control for the Type 1 error.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2314
91026969|NCT00101582|181937540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-Square Statistic|3.2548||||0.0712||95.0||||Generalized Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for mean score difference using modified ridit score|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by disease stage (III versus IV) and primary anatomical tumor location (oral cavity / oropharynx vs. nasopharynx vs. hypopharynx / larynx).||||||0.0712
91026970|NCT00101582|181937540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2849||95.0||||Adjusted p-value was based on Hochberg procedure to control for the Type 1 error.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2849
91026971|NCT00101582|181937541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-Square Statistic|1.3901||||0.2384||95.0||||Generalized Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for mean score difference using modified ridit score.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by disease stage (III versus IV) and primary anatomical tumor location (oral cavity / oropharynx vs. nasopharynx vs. hypopharynx / larynx).||||||0.2384
91026972|NCT00101582|181937541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6835||95.0||||Adjusted p-value was based on Hochberg procedure to control for the Type 1 error.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.6835
91026973|NCT00101582|181937542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-Square Statistic|0.9039||||0.3417||95.0||||Generalized Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for general association|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by disease stage (III versus IV) and primary anatomical tumor location (oral cavity / oropharynx vs. nasopharynx vs. hypopharynx / larynx).||||||0.3417
91026974|NCT00101582|181937542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6835||95.0||||Adjusted p-value was based on Hochberg procedure to control for the Type 1 error.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.6835
91026975|NCT00101582|181937543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-Square Statistic|0.0027||||0.9587||95.0||||Generalized Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by disease stage (III versus IV) and primary anatomical tumor location (oral cavity / oropharynx vs. nasopharynx vs. hypopharynx / larynx).||||||0.9587
91026976|NCT00101582|181937543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9587||95.0||||Adjusted p-value was based on Hochberg procedure to control for the Type 1 error.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.9587
91026977|NCT01907087|181937544|OTHER|Inference is by an exact binomial test of the null hypothesis H0: Prob(response) \<= 0.50 vs. the alternative hypothesis H1: Prob(response) \> 0.50, where Prob(response) denotes the population probability of a response. The confidence interval is an exact interval with significance level α=0.05.|Proportion of responders|0.87||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.97|||exact binomial test|||"Responder Analysis using ITT Population: Proportion of Subjects without an Unreversed Two-point Decline or Score of 0 in ML Scale Score at 48 Weeks.~A 'response' is defined as the absence of an unreversed two-point decline or score of 0 in the 0-to-6 point CLN2 score at 48 weeks."||0.97|0.66|0.0002
91026978|NCT01907087|181937544|OTHER|"Subject rate of decline per 48 weeks is estimated: (baseline CLN2 score - last CLN2 score)/(time elapsed in units of 48 weeks).~P-value computed as a two-sided t-test for the hypothesis H0: Rate=2.0 points lost/48 weeks vs. H1: Rate not equal 2.0 points lost/48 weeks."|Slope|0.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.809|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.75|||t-test, 2 sided|||Slopes Analysis using ITT Population: Estimated Rate of Decline (300 mg Dosing Period).||0.75|0.05|<0.0001
91026979|NCT01919190|181937550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.8
91026980|NCT01919190|181937551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0456|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0456
91026981|NCT01082952|181937605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The p value is calculated for the results of ASM proliferation following incubation with eosinophils isolated from patients in each group. p\< 0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|Proliferation data was evaluated using two-way factorial ANOVA followed by Bonferroni post hoc test.||||||<0.05
91026982|NCT02337933|181937607|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.003
91026983|NCT02337933|181937608|OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.008
91026984|NCT02337933|181937609|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
91026985|NCT02337933|181937610|OTHER|||||||0.308|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.308
91026986|NCT02337933|181937611|OTHER|||||||0.575|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.575
91026987|NCT02337933|181937612|OTHER|||||||0.169|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.169
91026988|NCT02337933|181937613|OTHER|||||||0.373|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.373
91026989|NCT02337933|181937614|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
91026990|NCT02337933|181937615|OTHER|||||||0.049|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.049
91026991|NCT02337933|181937616|OTHER|||||||0.224|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.224
91026992|NCT02337933|181937617|OTHER|||||||0.116|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.116
91026993|NCT02337933|181937618|OTHER|||||||0.953|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.953
91026994|NCT02337933|181937619|OTHER|||||||0.999|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.999
91026995|NCT02743702|181937637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91026996|NCT01176448|181937687|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|With 12 scars (or pairs to compare), our power calculation had a 95 percent probability that the study will detect a treatment difference at a two-sided 0.05 percent significance level, if a significant difference between treatments is 1.5 units (based on a 0-4 scale as mentioned above). This is based on the assumption that the within-patient standard deviation of the response variable is 0.5 units.||||||0.77||95.0||||Appropriately powered, this study failed to reject the null hypothesis that fraxel achieves a similar cosmetic result at 3 months when compared to dermabrasion.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||efficacy outcomes analyzed by 3 surgeons blinded to the treatment and scars evaluated by halves comparing pre-treatment photos to 3-month photos and given a score on the quartile scale described in table 1. The ordinal rater scores of each evaluator were then averaged, and Wilcoxon Signed Ranks performed on the group's scores. (table 5) There were 4 Fraxel winners, 4 Dermabrasion winners, and 4 ties. There was a p value of 0.77 indicating no significant difference between the categories||||.77
91026997|NCT01842958|181937767|NON_INFERIORITY|The test arm will be considered non-inferior to the control arm if the 95% upper confidence interval of the estimated difference between the test and control arms is less than -0.5mm.||||||0.02|||||||ANCOVA|||The primary efficacy endpoint is change in crestal bone level from loading to 12 months post-loading. The primary analysis is a test for non-inferiority of the test implant to the control implant at the one-sided 5% significance level. The null hypothesis is that µ3.3 ≥ µ4.1 + δ, where µ3.3 is the mean change in crestal bone level for the test implants, µ4.1 is the mean change in crestal bone level for control implants, and δ is a pre-specified clinically significant difference.||||0.02
91026998|NCT00818623|181937805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||5.86e-05||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.0000586
91026999|NCT00818623|181937806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0014||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0014
91103910|NCT03992872|182094612|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999|||||||Fisher Exact|||"Null hypothesis for analysis of percentage of subjects with Anti-Chikungunya neutralizing activity at or above selected thresholds by time point~Day 1: Subjects with Titer \>=160"||||>0.9999
91027000|NCT00818623|181937806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of participants castrated|87.5||||||95.0|66.1|95.8||||||Percentage of participants castrated (testosterone ≤0.5 ng/mL) for at least 28 days.||95.8|66.1|
91027001|NCT00818623|181937806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of participants castrated|66.7||||||95.0|33.7|86.0||||||Percentage of participants castrated (testosterone ≤0.5 ng/mL) for at least 28 days.||86|33.7|
91027002|NCT00818623|181937806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of participants castrated|54.5||||||95.0|22.9|78.0||||||Percentage of participants castrated (testosterone ≤0.5 ng/mL) for at least 28 days.||78|22.9|
91027003|NCT00818623|181937806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of participants castrated|100.0||||||95.0|85.8|100.0||||||Percentage of participants castrated (testosterone ≤0.5 ng/mL) for at least 28 days.||100|85.8|
91027004|NCT00818623|181937806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of participants castrated|75.0||||||95.0|52.6|87.9||||||Percentage of participants castrated (testosterone ≤0.5 ng/mL) for at least 28 days.||87.9|52.6|
91027005|NCT00818623|181937806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of participants castrated|95.7||||||95.0|72.9|99.4||||||Percentage of participants castrated (testosterone ≤0.5 ng/mL) for at least 28 days.||99.4|72.9|
91027006|NCT00818623|181937806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of participants castrated|62.5||||||95.0|40.3|78.4||||||Percentage of participants castrated (testosterone ≤0.5 ng/mL) for at least 28 days.||78.4|40.3|
91027007|NCT00818623|181937806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of participants castrated|88.9||||||95.0|69.4|96.3||||||Percentage of participants castrated (testosterone ≤0.5 ng/mL) for at least 28 days.||96.3|69.4|
91027008|NCT00818623|181937807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0031||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0031
91027009|NCT00818623|181937807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of participants castrated|45.8||||||95.0|25.6|64.0||||||Percentage of participants castrated (testosterone ≤0.5 ng/mL) for at least 84 days.||64|25.6|
91027010|NCT00818623|181937807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of participants castrated|38.1||||||95.0|12.1|64.3||||||Percentage of participants castrated (testosterone ≤0.5 ng/mL) for at least 84 days.||64.3|12.1|
91027011|NCT00818623|181937807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of participants castrated|32.7||||||95.0|8.3|60.6||||||Percentage of participants castrated (testosterone ≤0.5 ng/mL) for at least 84 days.||60.6|8.3|
91027012|NCT00818623|181937807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of participants castrated|83.3||||||95.0|61.5|93.4||||||Percentage of participants castrated (testosterone ≤0.5 ng/mL) for at least 84 days.||93.4|61.5|
91027013|NCT00818623|181937807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of participants castrated|49.4||||||95.0|28.3|67.4||||||Percentage of participants castrated (testosterone ≤0.5 ng/mL) for at least 84 days.||67.4|28.3|
91027014|NCT00818623|181937807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of participants castrated|82.0||||||95.0|58.8|92.8||||||Percentage of participants castrated (testosterone ≤0.5 ng/mL) for at least 84 days.||92.8|58.8|
91027015|NCT00818623|181937807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of participants castrated|50.0||||||95.0|29.1|67.8||||||Percentage of participants castrated (testosterone ≤0.5 ng/mL) for at least 84 days.||67.8|29.1|
91027016|NCT00818623|181937807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of participants castrated|70.4||||||95.0|49.4|83.9||||||Percentage of participants castrated (testosterone ≤0.5 ng/mL) for at least 84 days.||83.9|49.4|
91027017|NCT00818623|181937808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0866||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.0866
91027018|NCT00818623|181937809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.033||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.033
90895210|NCT02305381|181655984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-1.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|-1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Superiority for change in HbA1c was claimed if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the estimated difference was below 0%.|Hierarchical testing was performed as per sequence listed below:Change in HbA1c: semaglutide 1.0 mg vs placebo. Change in HbA1c: semaglutide 0.5 mg vs placebo. Change in body weight: semaglutide 1.0 mg vs placebo. Change in body weight: semaglutide 0.5 mg vs placebo. Analysis was performed using MMRM with treatment, country and stratification variable (HbA1c at screening \[≤8.0% or \>8.0%\] crossed with use of metformin \[yes or no\]; 2 by 2 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate||-1.10|-1.61|< 0.0001
90895211|NCT02276066|181655992|OTHER|We performed a delta analysis, by graphing the difference between the two measurements, we wanted to visually assess the degree of agreement or discrepancy between the two methods. We were looking to evaluate the consistency, accuracy, or bias between different measurement techniques.|||||<|0.05|||||||Delta analysis|||||||<0.05
90895212|NCT03928028|181656002|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.507||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .15|generalized estimating equation|||This analysis compares mothers in FBT to mothers in FBT+Parent-focused CRT||||.507
90895213|NCT03928028|181656002|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .15|generalized estimating equation|||This analysis compares fathers in FBT to fathers in FBT+Parent-focused CRT||||.017
90895214|NCT03928028|181656002|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.139||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .15|generalized estimating equation|||This analysis compares adolescents in FBT to adolescents in FBT+Adolescent-focused CRT||||.139
90895215|NCT03928028|181656003|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.389|||||||generalized estimating equation|||This analysis compare mothers in FBT to mothers in FBT+CRTp||||.389
90895216|NCT03928028|181656003|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.447||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .15|generalized estimating equation|||This analysis compares fathers in FBT to fathers in FBT+Parent-focused CRT||||.447
90895217|NCT03928028|181656003|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .15|generalized estimating equation|||This analysis compares adolescents in FBT to adolescents in FBT+Adolescent-focused CRT||||<.001
90895218|NCT03928028|181656004|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.778||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .15|generalized estimating equation|||This analysis compares mothers in FBT to mothers in FBT+Parent-focused CRT||||.778
90895219|NCT03928028|181656004|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.297||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .15|generalized estimating equation|||This analysis compares mothers in FBT to mothers in FBT+Parent-focused CRT||||.297
91027019|NCT00818623|181937810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.131||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.131
91027020|NCT01166568|181937814|SUPERIORITY||binomial distribution|0.75||||0.025|ONE_SIDED|97.5|0.75|||the p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Fisher Exact|||"The PSI procedure is defined as successful if 75% of subjects achieve the first primary endpoint or second primary endpoint. The corresponding statistical hypotheses are as follows:~H0 (null hypothesis): p1 ≤ 0.75 Ha (alternative hypothesis): p1 \> 0.75, Where, p1 is the probability of subjects achieving the first primary endpoint. H0 (null hypothesis): p2 ≤ 0.75 Ha (alternative hypothesis): p2 \> 0.75, Where, p2 is the probability of subjects achieving the second primary endpoint."|||0.75|0.025
91033101|NCT05093205|181951922|OTHER|0.15 mg LE \& 0.03 mg EE was the Reference treatment (Part B Period 1), PF-06882961 120 mg BID + 0.15 mg LE \& 0.03 mg EE was the Test treatment (Period 3).|Specified in comments|104.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.56|117.89|||Mixed Models Analysis||A mixed effects model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect was used was applied to calculate the ratio (Test/Reference) of adjusted means and 90% CIs for Ratio. The ratio (and 90% CI) is expressed as percentage.|||117.89|92.56|
90895220|NCT03928028|181656004|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.062||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .15|generalized estimating equation|||This analysis compares adolescents in FBT to adolescents in FBT+Adolescent-focused CRT||||.062
90895221|NCT03928028|181656005|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.069||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .15|generalized estimating equation|||This analysis compares mothers in FBT to mothers in FBT+Parent-focused CRT||||.069
90895222|NCT03928028|181656005|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.323||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .15|generalized estimating equation|||This analysis compares fathers in FBT to fathers in FBT+Parent-focused CRT||||.323
90895223|NCT03928028|181656005|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.225|||||||generalized estimating equation|||This analysis compares adolescents in FBT to adolescents in FBT+Adolescent-focused CRT||||.225
90895224|NCT03928028|181656006|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.196||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .15|generalized estimating equation|||This analysis compares mothers in FBT to mothers in FBT+Parent-focused CRT||||.196
90895225|NCT03928028|181656006|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.812||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .15|generalized estimating equation|||This analysis compares fathers in FBT to fathers in FBT+Parent-focused CRT||||.812
90895226|NCT03928028|181656006|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.499||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .15|generalized estimating equation|||This analysis compares adolescents in FBT to adolescents in FBT+Adolescent-focused CRT||||.499
90895227|NCT03928028|181656007|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.446||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .15|generalized estimating equation|||This analysis compares mothers in FBT to mothers in FBT+Parent-focused CRT||||.446
90895228|NCT03928028|181656007|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.647|||||||generalized estimating equation|||This analysis compares fathers in FBT to fathers in FBT+Parent-focused CRT||||.647
90895229|NCT03928028|181656007|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.765||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .15|generalized estimating equation|||This analysis compares adolescents in FBT to adolescents in FBT+Adolescent-focused CRT||||.765
90895230|NCT03928028|181656008|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.425||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .15|generalized estimating equation|||This analysis compares mothers in FBT to mothers in FBT+Parent-focused CRT||||.425
90895231|NCT03928028|181656008|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||generalized estimating equation|||This analysis compares fathers in FBT to fathers in FBT+Parent-focused CRT||||.630
90895232|NCT03928028|181656008|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.854||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .15|generalized estimating equation|||This analysis compares adolescents in FBT to adolescents in FBT+Adolescent-focused CRT||||.854
90895233|NCT02802501|181656013|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.444|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.285|0.693|||Cox Proportional Hazard||If hazard ratio was found to be \<1 then there are lower chances of relapse with Tafenoquine+DHA-PQP compared to DHA-PQP only.|||0.693|0.285|<0.001
90895234|NCT02802501|181656014|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.722|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.031|2.875|||||If hazard ratio was found to be \>1 then there are higher chances of relapse with Tafenoquine+DHA-PQP compared to Primaquine+DHA-PQP.|||2.875|1.031|
90895235|NCT02802501|181656015|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.258|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.155|0.431|||||If hazard ratio was found to be \<1 then there are lower chances of relapse with Primaquine+DHA-PQP compared to DHA-PQP only.|||0.431|0.155|
91027021|NCT00320593|181937840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.55|||ANCOVA|||The primary analysis was a comparison of treatment groups using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model in which myopia at 3 years was adjusted for myopia at baseline and prior SVL wear. The sample size was computed to reach a 90% power and type I error rate of 5%, so that a difference in 3-year myopia progression between treatment groups would be detected if the true difference was at least 0.60 D, assuming a standard deviation of 0.85 D in each group and loss of follow up of 10%.||0.55|0.01|
91027022|NCT00320593|181937840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.53|||ANCOVA|||An adjusted analysis for the treatment group difference of change in spherical equivalent from baseline to 3 years was performed by including in an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model the following covariates in addition to baseline myopia and prior single vision lens wear, which are known to be related to myopia progression: age, sex, ethnicity, accommodative lag, and magnitude of near esophoria.||0.53|0.02|
91027023|NCT00320593|181937843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|0.28|||ANCOVA|||A secondary analysis was conducted to assess the treatment effect on myopia at the interim time point of 1 year, using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model for the treatment group difference of change in spherical equivalent refractive error from baseline to 1 year, in which myopia at 1 year was adjusted for myopia at baseline and prior single vision lenses wear. Only complete cases (cases in which both baseline and 1 year values were known) were included.||0.28|-0.005|
90834683|NCT00988884|181536599|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of concomitant versus non-concomitant vaccination is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 97.5% confidence interval for the percentage difference is greater than -10|Difference in percentage|-0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.2|0.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Anti-tetanus titer \>=0.1 IU/mL||0.7|-1.2|<0.001
90834684|NCT00988884|181536600|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of concomitant versus non-concomitant vaccination is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 97.5% confidence interval for the fold difference is \>0.67|Fold difference in GMT|0.8||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.69|0.92|||ANOVA|||Anti-PT||0.92|0.69|0.003
91103911|NCT03992872|182094612|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||"Null hypothesis for analysis of percentage of subjects with Anti-Chikungunya neutralizing activity at or above selected thresholds by time point.~Day 1: Subjects with Titer \>=640"||||1.0000
90834685|NCT00988884|181536600|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of concomitant versus non-concomitant vaccination is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 97.5% confidence interval for the fold difference is \>0.67|Fold difference in GMT|0.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.83|1.01|||ANOVA|||Anti-FHA||1.01|0.83|<0.001
90834686|NCT00988884|181536600|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of concomitant versus non-concomitant vaccination is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 97.5% confidence interval for the fold difference is \>0.67|Fold difference in GMT|0.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.84|1.08|||ANOVA|||Anti-PRN||1.08|0.84|<0.001
90834687|NCT00988884|181536600|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of concomitant versus non-concomitant vaccination is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 97.5% confidence interval for the fold difference is \>0.67|Fold difference in GMT|0.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.76|1.21|||ANOVA|||Anti-FIM 2/3||1.21|0.76|<0.001
90834688|NCT00988884|181536603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-0.4||||0.806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|2.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||2.7|-3.5|0.806
90834689|NCT04621448|181536607|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|4.39|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference estimate of 2.2 was confirmed. It is slightly different than the difference of the raw change values \[+.7 - (-1.7) = 2.4\] because it comes from the mixed effects model.|||4.39|0.01|0.048
90834690|NCT04621448|181536608|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.12|2.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.40|-4.12|0.603
90834691|NCT04621448|181536609|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.75|3.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.92|-2.75|0.734
90834692|NCT04621448|181536610|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6||||0.159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|3.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.74|-0.62|0.159
90834693|NCT04621448|181536611|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.97|1.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.56|-1.97|0.818
90895236|NCT02802501|181656016|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.433|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.273|0.686|||||If hazard ratio was found to be \<1 then there are lower chances of relapse with Tafenoquine+DHA-PQP compared to DHA-PQP only.|||0.686|0.273|
90834694|NCT04621448|181536612|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|3.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.51|-0.26|0.089
90834695|NCT04621448|181536613|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|1.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.58|-0.96|0.631
90834696|NCT04621448|181536614|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|1.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.49|-0.71|0.484
90834697|NCT04621448|181536615|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.36|3.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.01|-2.36|0.81
90834698|NCT04621448|181536616|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|2.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.00|-0.77|0.384
90834699|NCT04621448|181536617|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|0.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.81|-1.65|0.509
90834700|NCT04621448|181536618|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|3.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.01|0.24|0.021
90895237|NCT05067439|181656052|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|288.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|240.56|346.73||||||Omeprazole 10 mg was Reference and abrocitinib 200 mg + omeprazole 10 mg was Test. Natural log-transformed AUCinf was analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect and estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and 90% CIs were obtained. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||346.73|240.56|
91103912|NCT03992872|182094612|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0257|||||||Fisher Exact|||"Null hypothesis for analysis of percentage of subjects with Anti-Chikungunya neutralizing activity at or above selected thresholds by time point.~Day 8 : Subjects with Titer \>=40"||||0.0257
91103913|NCT03992872|182094612|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.037|||||||Fisher Exact|||"Null hypothesis for analysis of percentage of subjects with Anti-Chikungunya neutralizing activity at or above selected thresholds by time point~Day 8: Subjects with Titer \>=160"||||0.0370
90834701|NCT04621448|181536619|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.31|-1.94|0.156
90834702|NCT04621448|181536620|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.10|-0.62|0.582
90834703|NCT04621448|181536621|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.34|-1.21|0.271
90834704|NCT04621448|181536622|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|1.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.88|-1.52|0.834
90834705|NCT04621448|181536623|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|3.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.15|-1.62|0.529
90834706|NCT04621448|181536624|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.377|||||||Poisson regression|||||||0.377
90834707|NCT04621448|181536625|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.043|||||||Poisson regression|||||||0.043
90834708|NCT00549640|181536626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.973||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|1-tailed||||||0.973
90834709|NCT00549640|181536627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|1 tailed test||||||0.500
90834710|NCT00549640|181536628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|For each subject, the average daily withdrawal score for the 14 days following target quit date was calculated and expressed as a change from baseline||||||0.65
90834711|NCT00549640|181536628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|analysis performed using daily scores||||||0.79
90834712|NCT03550378|181536631|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-30.384|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-41.27|-19.498|||ANCOVA|||||-19.498|-41.270|<0.001
90834713|NCT04999839|181536674|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.727|||=|0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.933|14.885||P-value was calculated using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, with prior treatment with biologics included as a stratification factor, comparing the percentage of participants in each dose of NDI-034858 vs placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio for achievement of PASI-75 was calculated using the Mantel-Haenszel (MH) method.|||14.885|0.933|=0.052
90834714|NCT04999839|181536674|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.733|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.525|45.994||P-value was calculated using a CMH test, with prior treatment with biologics included as a stratification factor, comparing the percentage of participants in each dose of NDI-034858 vs placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio for achievement of PASI-75 was calculated using the MH method.|||45.994|3.525|<0.001
90834715|NCT04999839|181536674|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|29.014|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.526|98.735||P-value was calculated using a CMH test, with prior treatment with biologics included as a stratification factor, comparing the percentage of participants in each dose of NDI-034858 vs placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio for achievement of PASI-75 was calculated using the MH method.|||98.735|8.526|<0.001
90834716|NCT04999839|181536674|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|40.111|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.277|156.548||P-value was calculated using a CMH test, with prior treatment with biologics included as a stratification factor, comparing the percentage of participants in each dose of NDI-034858 vs placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio for achievement of PASI-75 was calculated using the MH method.|||156.548|10.277|<0.001
90834717|NCT03546621|181536696|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Bonferroni-Holm|||For each of the three Myrcludex B treatment groups, a null hypothesis of no clinically significant difference in proportion of responders compared to the control group (Tenofovir only), at week 24, were tested using the one-sided Wald test for superiority, at a one-sided overall significance level of 0.05 adjusted for multiple testing according to Bonferroni-Holm, with the superiority limit (test margin) set to 5%.||||<.0001
90834718|NCT03546621|181536697|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9818||||||A test is considered as statistically significant if the adjusted p-value is smaller than 0.05.|Bonferroni-Holm|||Week 48. Two-sided Fisher's exact tests were used to test null hypothesis of no difference in the proportion of responders compared to the Tenofovir only group. Separate comparisons were made for each of the three Myrcludex B groups versus the control group, and the adjusted p-values were computed using the Bonferroni-Holm method.||||0.9818
90834719|NCT03546621|181536697|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||A test is considered as statistically significant if the adjusted p-value as smaller than 0.05|Bonferroni-Holm|||Week 48. Two-sided Fisher's exact tests were used to test null hypothesis of no difference in the proportion of responders compared to the Tenofovir only group. Separate comparisons were made for each of the three Myrcludex B groups versus the control group, and the adjusted p-values were computed using the Bonferroni-Holm method.||||1.0000
90834720|NCT03546621|181536697|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7132||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Bonferroni-Holm|||Week 48. Two-sided Fisher's exact tests were used to test null hypothesis of no difference in the proportion of responders compared to the Tenofovir only group. Separate comparisons were made for each of the three Myrcludex B groups versus the control group, and the adjusted p-values were computed using the Bonferroni-Holm method.||||0.7132
90834721|NCT03546621|181536698|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0232||||||A test is considered as statistically significant if the adjusted p-value is smaller than 0.05.|Bonferroni-Holm|||"Fisher's exact test was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference in proportions against a two-sided alternative hypothesis. Separate tests were performed for each of the three Myrcludex B treatment groups against the control group, at week 24 and week 48, and adjusted p-values were computered using the Bonferroni-Holm method.~This analysis, and presentation of descriptive statistics, was repeated for the subgroups of patients with normal/abnormal baseline ALT values."||||0.0232
90834722|NCT03546621|181536698|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0047||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Bonferroni-Holm|||Fisher's exact test was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference in proportions against a two-sided alternative hypothesis. Separate tests were performed for each of the three Myrcludex B treatment groups against the control group, at week 24 and week 48, and adjusted p-values were computered using the Bonferroni-Holm method.||||0.0047
91103914|NCT03992872|182094612|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1806|||||||Fisher Exact|||"Null hypothesis for analysis of percentage of subjects with Anti-Chikungunya neutralizing activity at or above selected thresholds by time point.~Day 8: Subjects with Titer \>=640"||||0.1806
91103915|NCT03992872|182094612|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||"Null hypothesis for analysis of percentage of subjects with Anti-Chikungunya neutralizing activity at or above selected thresholds by time point.~Day 22: Subjects with Titer \>=40"||||1.0000
90834723|NCT03546621|181536698|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Bonferroni-Holm|||Fisher's exact test was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference in proportions against a two-sided alternative hypothesis. Separate tests were performed for each of the three Myrcludex B treatment groups against the control group, at week 24 and week 48, and adjusted p-values were computered using the Bonferroni-Holm method.||||0.0010
90834724|NCT03546621|181536699|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1642||||||A test is considered as statistically significant if the adjusted p-value is smaller than 0.05.|Bonferroni-Holm|||"Week 24. The change from baseline to week 24 and week 48 in ALT levels was performed using van Elteren tests.~Fisher's exact test was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference in proportions (of patients with normal ALT values) against a two-sided alternative hypothesis. Separate tests were performed for each of the three Myrcludex B treatment groups against the control group, at week 24 and week 48, and adjusted p-values were computed using the Bonferroni-Holm method."||||0.1642
90834725|NCT03546621|181536699|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0428||||||A test is considered statistically significant if the adjusted p-value is smaller than 0.05|Bonferroni-Holm|||Week 24||||0.0428
90834726|NCT03546621|181536699|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0428||||||A test is considered statistically significant if the adjusted p-value is smaller than 0.05|Bonferroni-Holm|||Week 24||||0.0428
90834727|NCT03546621|181536699|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2388||||||A test is considered as statistically significant if the adjusted p-value is smaller than 0.05.|Boferroni-Holm|||Week 48||||0.2388
90834728|NCT03546621|181536699|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7157||||||A test is considered as statistically significant if the adjusted p-value is smaller than 0.05.|Bonferroni-Holm|||Week 48||||0.7157
90834729|NCT03546621|181536699|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2388||||||A test is considered as statistically significant if the adjusted p-value is smaller than 0.05.|Bonferroni-Holm|||Week 48||||0.2388
90834730|NCT03546621|181536700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7416||||||A test is considered as statistically significant if the adjusted p-value is smaller than 0.05.|Bonferroni-Holm|||"Week 24. Two-sided van Elteren tests, stratified by presence of cirrhosis, were used to test for differences compared to the control group.~Separate comparisons were made for each of the three MXB groups versus the control group, and adjusted p-values were computed using the Bonferroni-Holm method."||||0.7416
90834731|NCT03546621|181536700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4434||||||A test is considered as statistically significant if the adjusted p-value is smaller than 0.05.|Bonferroni-Holm|||Week 24||||0.4434
90834732|NCT03546621|181536700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7371||||||A test is considered as statistically significant if the adjusted p-value is smaller than 0.05.|Bonferroni-Holm|||Week 24.||||0.7371
90834733|NCT03546621|181536700|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||A test is considered as statistically significant if the adjusted p-value is smaller than 0.05.|Bonferroni-Holm|||Week 48||||1.0000
90834734|NCT03546621|181536700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9441||||||A test is considered as statistically significant if the adjusted p-value is smaller than 0.05.|Bonferroni-Holm|||Week 48||||0.9441
90834735|NCT03546621|181536700|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||A test is considered as statistically significant if the adjusted p-value is smaller than 0.05.|Bonferroni-Holm|||Week 48||||1.0000
90895238|NCT05067439|181656053|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|139.59|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|121.98|159.74||||||Caffeine 100 mg was Reference and abrocitinib 200 mg + caffeine 100 mg was Test. Natural log-transformed AUCinfCR was analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect and estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and 90% CIs were obtained. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||159.74|121.98|
90834736|NCT03546621|181536701|SUPERIORITY||Bonferroni-Holm|||||0.5984||||||A test is considered as statistically significant if the adjusted p-value is smaller than 0.05.|Bonferroni-Holm|||"Week 24. The change from baseline to Week 24 in HBsAg was performed using van Elteren tests. Tests were performed on log-10 transformed data.~Separare comparisons were made for each of the three Myrcludex B groups versus the control group, and the adjusted values were computed using the Bonferroni-Holm method."||||0.5984
90834737|NCT03546621|181536701|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7529||||||A test is considered as statistically significant if the adjusted p-value is smaller than 0.05.|Bonferroni-Holm|||Week 24||||0.7529
90834738|NCT03546621|181536701|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3305||||||A test is considered as statistically significant if the adjusted p-value is smaller than 0.05.|Bonferroni-Holm|||Week 24||||0.3305
90834739|NCT03546621|181536701|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||A test is considered as statistically significant if the adjusted p-value is smaller than 0.05.|Bonferroni-Holm|||Week 48||||1.0000
90834740|NCT03546621|181536701|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||A test is considered as statistically significant if the adjusted p-value is smaller than 0.05.|Bonferroni-Holm|||Week 48||||1.0000
90834741|NCT03546621|181536701|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||A test is considered as statistically significant if the adjusted p-value is smaller than 0.05.|Bonferroni-Holm|||Week 48||||1.0000
90834742|NCT03546621|181536702|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||A test is considered as statistically significant if the adjusted p-value is smaller than 0.05.|Bonferroni-Holm|||"Week 24. Two-sided van Elteren tests, stratified by presence of cirrhosis, were used to test for differences compared to the control group.~Tests were performed on log-10 transformed data. Separate comparisons were made for each of the three MXB groups versus the control group, and adjusted p-values were computed using the Bonferroni-Holm method."||||1.0000
90834743|NCT03546621|181536702|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Bonferroni-Holm|||Week 24.||||1.0000
90834744|NCT03546621|181536702|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Bonferroni-Holm|||Week 24||||1.0000
90834745|NCT03546621|181536702|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||A test is considered as statistically significant if the adjusted p-value is smaller than 0.05|Bonferroni-Holm|||Week 48||||1.0000
90834746|NCT03546621|181536702|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||A test is considered as statistically significant if the adjusted p-value is smaller than 0.05.|Bonferroni-Holm|||Week 48||||1.0000
90834747|NCT03546621|181536702|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||A test is considered as statistically significant if the adjusted p-value is smaller than 0.05.|Bonferroni-Holm|||Week 48||||1.0000
90834748|NCT00660192|181536705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0347|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0347
90834749|NCT00660192|181536706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0300
91090386|NCT03238417|182063659|SUPERIORITY|Difference-in-differences analysis using linear regression, adjusted for age, how often they saw women patients in the past year, location of practice in primary care or women's health clinic, and having had any type of quality improvement training. We adjusted our analysis with non-response weights.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.1||P-value reflects the interaction term between EBQI and time, adjusted for non-response weights and characteristics described in the statistical analysis overview.|Regression, Linear||The estimated value reported here is the predicted mean change from baseline to 24-month, adjusting for characteristics described in the statistical analysis overview.|Change in gender awareness score between EBQI and control from baseline to 24-month||0.10|-0.33|0.29
91090387|NCT03238417|182063660|SUPERIORITY|Difference-in-differences analysis using logistic regression. The number of activities were recoded into 0 vs 1+ activities. The model was adjusted for age, how often they saw women patients in the past year, location of practice in primary care or women's health clinic, and having had any type of quality improvement training. We also adjusted for non-response weights.|Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|0.13||P-value is from the interaction term between EBQI and time, adjusted for non-response weights and characteristics described in the statistical analysis overview.|Difference-in-Differences analysis||The estimated value is predicted change in the odds of involving in one or more quality improvement activities, adjusting for characteristics described in the statistical analysis overview.|||0.13|-1.52|0.10
90834750|NCT02732600|181536712|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|1.68|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis 1 is Comparison Across Conditions at BASELINE Analysis 2 is Comparison Across Conditions at 6 Months Analysis 3 is Comparison Across Conditions at 1 year||1.68|-0.66|0.39
90834751|NCT02732600|181536712|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|2.06|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis 1 is Comparison Across Conditions at BASELINE Analysis 2 is Comparison Across Conditions at 6 Months Analysis 3 is Comparison Across Conditions at 1 year||2.06|-0.75|0.35
90834752|NCT02732600|181536712|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|2.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis 1 is Comparison Across Conditions at BASELINE Analysis 2 is Comparison Across Conditions at 6 Months Analysis 3 is Comparison Across Conditions at 1 year||2.60|-0.57|0.21
90834753|NCT02732600|181536713|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6||0.156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|13.48|||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test used to compare group differences in Cohesiveness at BASELINE||13.48|-2.2|0.156
90834754|NCT02732600|181536713|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.89||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.85|19.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test to compare group means on Communication at BASELINE||19.8|-3.85|0.182
90834755|NCT02732600|181536713|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.31||0.234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.74|22.57|||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test to compare group differences on Role Clarity at BASELINE||22.57|-5.74|0.234
90895239|NCT05067439|181656054|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|110.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.45|117.17||||||Efavirenz 50 mg was Reference and abrocitinib 200 mg + efavirenz 50 mg was Test. Natural log-transformed AUClastCR was analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect and estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and 90% CIs were obtained. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||117.17|103.45|
90895240|NCT02323646|181656064|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0019|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0019
90834756|NCT02732600|181536713|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.63||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.22|33.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test to compare group values on Goals at Baseline||33.5|-5.22|0.149
90834757|NCT02732600|181536713|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.1||0.947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|13.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test of differences between groups on Cohesiveness at 6-Months||13.8|-14.7|0.947
90834758|NCT02732600|181536713|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.6|18.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test of groups differences on Communication at 6 Months||18.4|-15.6|0.870
90834759|NCT02732600|181536713|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.62||0.478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.26|23.63|||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test of group differences on Role Clarity at 6 months||23.63|-11.26|0.478
90895241|NCT02323646|181656064|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0063|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0063
90895242|NCT02323646|181656065|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0237|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0237
90895243|NCT02323646|181656065|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0272|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0272
90895244|NCT02323646|181656066|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0145|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test.|||Percentage change in the last value on drug Course 1.||||0.0145
90834760|NCT02732600|181536713|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.71||0.773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.35|17.83|||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test of group differences on Goals at 6 Months||17.83|-13.35|0.773
90834761|NCT02732600|181536713|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.8||0.498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.4|38.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test of group differences on Cohesiveness at 1year||38.6|-20.4|0.498
90834762|NCT02732600|181536713|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.4||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.3|26.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test of group differences on Communication at 1 year||26.7|-20.3|0.780
90834763|NCT02732600|181536713|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.54||0.474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.19|46.11|||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test of group differences on Role Clarity at 1 year||46.11|-23.19|0.474
90834764|NCT02732600|181536713|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.78||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.21|28.21|||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test of group differences on Goals at 1 year||28.21|-8.21|0.267
90834765|NCT02732600|181536714|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|1.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||t test comparison across groups on CORE PEER at 6 months||1.00|-0.09|0.098
90834766|NCT02732600|181536714|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|1.43|||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test comparison across groups on COLLABORATION at 6 months||1.43|-0.43|0.282
90834767|NCT02732600|181536714|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|2.29|||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test comparison across groups on PEER SPECIALIST AS LIAISON at 6 months||2.29|-0.05|0.06
90834768|NCT02732600|181536714|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.59|||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test comparison across groups on PROVIDES INFO ON SERVICES at 6 months||1.59|0.07|0.34
90834769|NCT02732600|181536714|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.83||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|2.62|||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test comparison across groups on Symptoms and Medication at 6-months||2.62|-0.94|0.34
90834770|NCT02732600|181536714|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|1.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test comparison across groups on Training and Preparation at 6-months||1.50|-1.03|0.66
90834771|NCT02732600|181536714|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|2.16|||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test comparison across groups on Team Integration and Relationships at 6 Months||2.16|-0.36|0.15
90834772|NCT02732600|181536714|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|0.59|||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test comparison across groups on Leadership at 6-months||0.59|-1.01|0.59
90834773|NCT02732600|181536714|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|1.68|||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test comparison across groups on Fits to Experience at 6 months||1.68|-1.77|0.95
90834774|NCT02732600|181536714|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|1.68|||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test comparison across groups on Role Clarity at 6 months||1.68|-0.58|0.32
90834775|NCT02732600|181536714|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|2.04|||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test comparison across both groups on Resources at 6 months||2.04|-0.60|0.27
90895245|NCT02323646|181656066|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0662|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test.|||Percentage change in the last value on drug Course 1.||||0.0662
90834776|NCT02732600|181536714|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|1.85|||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test comparison across groups on Performance Reviews at 6 months||1.85|-1.71|0.93
90834777|NCT02732600|181536714|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|-0.005|||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test comparison across groups on CORE PEER at 1 year||-0.005|-1.45|0.15
90834778|NCT02732600|181536714|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.32|||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test comparison across groups on Collaboration at 1 year||0.32|-1.7|0.04
90834779|NCT02732600|181536714|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio, log|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|0.17|||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test comparison across groups on Peer Specialists as Liaison at 1 year||0.17|-2.07|0.08
90834780|NCT02732600|181536714|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.18|||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test comparison across groups on Provides Info on Services at 1 year||0.18|-0.58|0.26
90895246|NCT02323646|181656066|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0061|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage change in the last value on drug Course 2.||||0.0061
90895247|NCT02323646|181656066|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0296|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage change in the last value on drug Course 2.||||0.0296
90895248|NCT02323646|181656067|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2642|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 1||||0.2642
90895249|NCT02323646|181656067|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4383|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 1||||0.4383
90834781|NCT02732600|181536714|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.65||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.53|2.83|||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test comparison between groups on Symptoms and Medication at 1 year||2.83|-4.53|0.61
90834782|NCT02732600|181536714|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.87|1.01|||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test comparison across groups on Training and Preparation at 1 year||1.01|-2.87|0.30
90834783|NCT02732600|181536714|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.08|-0.52|||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test comparison across groups on Team Integration and Relationships at 1 year||-0.52|-2.08|0.004
90834784|NCT02732600|181536714|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|-0.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test comparison across groups on Leadership at 1 year||-0.60|-4.20|0.01
90834785|NCT02732600|181536714|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.1|23.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test comparison across groups on Fits to Experience at 1 year||23.5|-24.1|0.90
90834786|NCT02732600|181536714|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.02|0.12|||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test comparison across groups on Role Clarity at 1 year||0.12|-3.02|0.06
90834787|NCT02732600|181536714|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|1.37|||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test comparison across groups on Resources at 1 year||1.37|-0.97|0.71
90834788|NCT02732600|181536714|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.03|2.23|||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test comparison on Performance Reviews at 1 year||2.23|-5.03|0.41
90834789|NCT02732600|181536715|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|5.88||not adjusted for multiple comparisons|t-test, 2 sided|||Group Comparison at Baseline||5.88|1.29|0.002
90834790|NCT02732600|181536715|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|5.78|||t-test, 2 sided|||Group Comparison at 6 Months||5.78|-0.54|0.10
90834791|NCT02732600|181536715|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.83||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.06|4.14|||t-test, 2 sided|||Group Comparison at 1 year||4.14|-3.06|0.77
90834792|NCT02732600|181536716|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.56||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|6.38||p value for 1st year only|t-test, 2 sided|||||6.38|0.56|0.02
90834793|NCT02732600|181536716|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.39||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.67|5.04|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.04|-4.67|0.93
91090388|NCT03238417|182063661|SUPERIORITY|Difference-in-differences analysis using logistic regression. The number of activities were recoded into 0 vs 1+ activities. The model was adjusted for age, how often they saw women patients in the past year, location of practice in primary care or women's health clinic, and having had any type of quality improvement training. We also adjusted for non-response weights.|Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|0.29||P-value is from the interaction term between EBQI and time, adjusted for non-response weights and characteristics described in the statistical analysis overview.|Regression, Logistic||The estimated value is predicted change in the odds of involving in one or more quality improvement activities, adjusting for characteristics described in the statistical analysis overview.|||0.29|-1.25|0.22
91090389|NCT03238417|182063662|NON_INFERIORITY|Analysis of Variance testing the differences in outcome between EBQI and control groups over 12 month period.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1||0.788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|5.4||The p-value reflects the interaction term between EBQI and time|ANOVA|||||5.4|-7.1|0.788
91090390|NCT03238417|182063663|NON_INFERIORITY|Analysis of Variance testing for differences in outcomes between EBQI and control arms from baseline to 24 months.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.89||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.35|4.35||The p-value reflects the interaction terms between EBQI and control arms.|ANOVA|||||4.35|-7.35|0.61
91090391|NCT03238417|182063664|NON_INFERIORITY|ANOVA comparing changes in outcome over time between EBQI and control arms|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.5||0.987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.45|21.11||The p-value reflects the interaction term between EBQI and time|ANOVA|||||21.11|-21.45|0.987
91090392|NCT03238417|182063665|NON_INFERIORITY|ANOVA comparing changes in outcome over time between EBQI and control groups|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.35||0.708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.89|17.08||The p-value reflects the interaction terms between EBQI and time|ANOVA|||||17.08|-24.89|0.708
91090393|NCT03238417|182063666|NON_INFERIORITY|ANOVA comparing changes in outcome over time between EBQI and control groups|Mean Difference (Net)|-4.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.85||0.613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.43|13.4||The p-value reflects the interaction term between EBQI and time|ANOVA|||||13.40|-22.43|0.613
91090394|NCT03238417|182063667|NON_INFERIORITY|ANOVA comparing changes in outcome over time between EBQI and control groups|Mean Difference (Net)|0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.48||0.922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.26|20.13||The p-value reflects the interaction term between EBQI and time.|ANOVA|||||20.13|-18.26|0.922
91090395|NCT03238417|182063668|NON_INFERIORITY|two-way ANOVA testing change in a composite score of gender-neutral preventive care between EBQI and control arms over time|Mean Difference (Net)|0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.13||0.789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.74|4.89||The p-value represents the interaction term between EBQI and control.|ANOVA|||||4.89|-3.74|0.789
91090396|NCT03238417|182063669|NON_INFERIORITY|ANOVA comparing changes in outcomes over time between EBQI and control groups|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.45||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|3.33||The p-value reflects the interaction between EBQI and time.|ANOVA|The analysis is adjusted for EBQI and time.||||3.33|-6.60|0.51
91090397|NCT03238417|182063670|NON_INFERIORITY|ANOVA testing for change in outcome over time between EBQI and control arms|Mean Difference (Net)|3.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.3||0.711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|19.9||The p-value reflects the interaction between EBQI and time|ANOVA|||||19.9|-13.7|0.711
90834794|NCT02732600|181536717|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.37|||t-test, 2 sided|p value for 1st year||||1.37|0.68|0.0001
90834795|NCT02732600|181536718|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|9.96|||t-test, 2 sided|||||9.96|1.46|0.02
90895250|NCT02323646|181656067|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5333|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 2||||0.5333
91090398|NCT03238417|182063671|NON_INFERIORITY|ANOVA comparing changes in outcome over time between EBQI and control arms|Mean Difference (Net)|8.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.7||0.335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|26.1||The p-value reflects the interaction term between EBQI and time.|ANOVA|||||26.1|-9.1|0.335
91090399|NCT03238417|182063672|NON_INFERIORITY|Analysis of Variance testing for change in outcome between EBQI and control groups from baseline to 12 months.|Mean Difference (Net)|-13.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.3||0.268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.7|11.1||P-value is from the interaction term between EBQI and time.|ANOVA|||||11.1|-38.7|0.268
91090400|NCT03238417|182063673|NON_INFERIORITY|Analysis of Variance testing the differences between EBQI and control from baseline and 24 months|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.6||0.991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.6|25.3||P-value is from the interaction between EBQI and time.|ANOVA|||||25.3|-25.6|0.991
91090401|NCT02089347|182063674|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is supported by a data if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) is greater than -10%|Wilson score method|1.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|4.61||||||Non-inferiority comparison of post-booster response for Diphtheria.||4.61|-0.31|
91090402|NCT02089347|182063674|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is supported by the data if lower bound ot the two-sided 95% is greater than -10%|Wilson score method|6.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.32|10.84||||||Non-inferiority comparison of post-vaccination booster response for tetanus||10.84|3.32|
91090403|NCT02089347|182063675|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is supported by a data if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) is greater than -10%|Wilson score method|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|3.15||||||Non-inferiority comparison of Diphtheria post-vaccination seroprotection rates at ≥ 0.1 IU/mL||3.15|-0.61|
90895251|NCT02323646|181656067|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8791|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 2||||0.8791
90895252|NCT02323646|181656067|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3666|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change: Course 2, Week 24 Follow-up||||0.3666
90834796|NCT02732600|181536718|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.92||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.14|8.54|||t-test, 2 sided|||||8.54|-3.14|0.38
90834797|NCT02732600|181536719|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-99.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|41.73||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-186.2|-12.66|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-12.66|-186.2|0.027
90895253|NCT02323646|181656067|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.345|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change: Course 2, Week 24 Follow-up||||0.3450
90895254|NCT02323646|181656068|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0473|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 1||||0.0473
90895255|NCT02323646|181656068|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0191|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 1||||0.0191
91027024|NCT00320593|181937844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.45|||ANCOVA|||A secondary analysis was conducted to assess the treatment effect on myopia at the interim time point of 2 years, using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model for the treatment group difference of change in spherical equivalent refractive error from baseline to 2 years, in which myopia at 2 years was adjusted for myopia at baseline and prior single vision lenses wear. Only complete cases (cases in which both baseline and 2 year values were known) were included.||0.45|0.02|
90834798|NCT02732600|181536720|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.92|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.92|0.28|0.001
90834799|NCT03111875|181536734|SUPERIORITY|common effect|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.04||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.6|0.87|1.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.24|0.87|0.69
90834800|NCT03111875|181536734|SUPERIORITY|average relative effect|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.68||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.6|0.43|1.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.08|0.43|0.10
90834801|NCT03111875|181536735|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.13||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|98.75|0.87|1.47|||log-binomial models|The relative risk was estimated using a GEE model to adjust for within-patient correlation across components and log link (to estimate relative risk).||||1.47|0.87|0.25
90834802|NCT03111875|181536736|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.07||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|98.75|0.87|1.33|||log-binomial models|The relative risk was estimated using a GEE model to adjust for within-patient correlation across components and log link (to estimate relative risk)||||1.33|0.87|0.41
90834803|NCT02898454|181536752|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.71|||ANCOVA|||Data was analyzed using a hybrid method of the worst-observation carried forward (WOCF) and multiple imputation (MI). The imputed completed data were analyzed by fitting ANCOVA model with the corresponding baseline, treatment group, asthma/NSAID-ERD status, prior surgery history, and regions as covariates. Statistical inference obtained from all imputed data was combined using Rubin's rule.||-0.71|-1.03|<0.0001
90834804|NCT02898454|181536753|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-1.51|||ANCOVA|||Data was analyzed using a hybrid method of the WOCF and MI. The imputed completed data were analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with corresponding baseline value, treatment group, asthma/NSAID-ERD status, prior surgery history, and regions as covariates. Statistical inference obtained from all imputed data was combined using Rubin's rule.||-1.51|-2.10|<0.0001
90834805|NCT02898454|181536754|SUPERIORITY|Hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error. For regions outside of Japan, this first secondary endpoint was not tested unless both co-primary endpoints were significant at the 0.05 level. Hierarchical testing continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant. For Japan submission, LMK was instead a co-primary endpoint which also had to be met before secondary endpoints were tested in the hierarchy. Last endpoint in hierarchy is Week 52 SNOT-22.|LS mean difference|-5.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|-4.46||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using a hybrid method of the WOCF and MI. The imputed completed data were analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with corresponding baseline, treatment group, asthma/NSAID-ERD status, prior surgery history, and regions as covariates. Statistical inference obtained from all imputed data was combined using Rubin's rule.||-4.46|-5.80|<0.0001
91027025|NCT00321711|181937850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.032||||||95.0|0.153|6.95||||||||6.950|0.153|
91027026|NCT00321711|181937850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.333||||||95.0|0.028|3.926||||||||3.926|0.028|
91027027|NCT00321711|181937850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.118||||||95.0|0.007|1.882|||||Adjusted by the stratification factor|||1.882|0.007|
90834806|NCT02898454|181536755|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if previous outcome measures were statistically significant).|LS mean difference|-2.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.87|-2.02||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using a hybrid method of the WOCF and MI. The imputed completed data were analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with corresponding baseline value, treatment group, asthma/NSAID-ERD status, prior surgery history, and regions as covariates. Statistical inference obtained from all imputed data was combined using Rubin's rule.||-2.02|-2.87|<0.0001
90834807|NCT02898454|181536756|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if previous outcome measures were statistically significant).|LS mean difference|10.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.98|12.07||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using a hybrid method of the WOCF and MI. The imputed completed data were analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with corresponding baseline value, treatment group, asthma/NSAID-ERD status, prior surgery history, and regions as covariates. Statistical inference obtained from all imputed data was combined using Rubin's rule.||12.07|8.98|<0.0001
90834808|NCT02898454|181536757|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if previous outcome measures were statistically significant).|LS mean difference|-0.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|-0.81||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using a hybrid method of the WOCF and MI. The imputed completed data were analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with corresponding baseline value, treatment group, asthma/NSAID-ERD status, prior surgery history, and regions as covariates. Statistical inference obtained from all imputed data was combined using Rubin's rule.||-0.81|-1.15|<0.0001
90834809|NCT02898454|181536758|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if previous outcome measures were statistically significant).|LS mean difference|-17.36|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.87|-13.85||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using a hybrid method of the WOCF and MI. The imputed completed data were analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with corresponding baseline value, treatment group, asthma/NSAID-ERD status, prior surgery history, and regions as covariates. Statistical inference obtained from all imputed data was combined using Rubin's rule.||-13.85|-20.87|<0.0001
90895256|NCT02323646|181656068|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0749|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 2||||0.0749
90895257|NCT02323646|181656068|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0233|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 2||||0.0233
90895258|NCT02323646|181656068|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7569|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 2, Week 24 Follow-up Visit||||0.7569
90895259|NCT02323646|181656068|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5399|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 2, Week 24 Follow-up Visit||||0.5399
90895260|NCT02323646|181656069|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1683|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 1||||0.1683
90895261|NCT02323646|181656069|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.256|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 1||||0.2560
91027028|NCT00321711|181937851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||||95.0|0.063|15.988|||||Romiplostim/placebo|||15.988|0.063|
91027029|NCT00321711|181937852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.827||||||95.0|0.347|9.618|||||Romiplostim/placebo|||9.618|0.347|
91027030|NCT00321711|181937852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.445||||||95.0|0.037|5.325|||||Romiplostim/placebo|||5.325|0.037|
91027031|NCT00321711|181937852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.444||||||95.0|0.032|6.08|||||Romiplostim/placebo|||6.080|0.032|
91027032|NCT00321711|181937853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in incidence rate|-33.5||||||95.0|-69.0|2.0|||||Romiplostim - placebo|||2.0|-69.0|
91027033|NCT00321711|181937853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.315||||||95.0|0.029|3.412||||||||3.412|0.029|
91027034|NCT00321711|181937853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.211||||||95.0|0.021|2.082||||||||2.082|0.021|
91090404|NCT02089347|182063675|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is supported by a data if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) is greater than -10%.|Wilson score method|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|2.14||||||Non-inferiority comparison of Tetanus post-vaccination seroprotection rates at ≥ 0.1 IU/mL||2.14|-1.09|
91090405|NCT00975416|182063683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.927|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Repeated measures ANOVA to deterimine whether oxytocin increased compared to placebo measures of therapeutic alliance (as measured by the Helping alliance questionnaire) pre compared to post 12 sessions of CBT.||||0.927
91090406|NCT00975416|182063683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Repeated measures anova to determine if oxytocin compared to placebo increased therpeutic alliance as measured by the working alliance inventory after 12 sessions of CBT.||||0.60
90895262|NCT02323646|181656069|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4997|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 2||||0.4997
91027035|NCT01709383|181937855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.57
91027036|NCT01709383|181937857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.64
91090407|NCT01249131|182063685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Least Squares (LS) Means (in %)|94.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.9|107.0|||||LS mean was calculated from analysis of variance (ANOVA). Data for dose-normalized AUCinf were natural log-transformed prior to analysis. Ratio of AUCinf LS means for log-transformed parameter (expressed as a percent).|||107|83.9|
91090408|NCT01249131|182063685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of LS Means (in %)|110.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.2|124.0|||||LS mean was calculated from ANOVA. Data for dose-normalized AUCinf were natural log-transformed prior to analysis. Ratio of AUCinf LS means for log-transformed parameter (expressed as a percent).|||124|98.2|
90895263|NCT02323646|181656069|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1334|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 2||||0.1334
91027037|NCT01484028|181937873|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A non-inferiority margin of 0.05 LogMAR was used.|Least-square mean difference|0.011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0034|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|0.017|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The alternative hypothesis is the monocular distance Snellen VA (LogMAR scale) of etafilcon A with embedded print and PVP for dark/light eyes is non-inferior to that of etafilcon A control lenses.||0.017|0.004|
91027038|NCT00905489|181937903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio NVP XR: NVP IR (%)|91.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.008|TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.47|99.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted geometric means are estimated from the mixed model for intra-individual comparison.||||99.64|83.47|0.0080
91027039|NCT02473991|181937922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Regression, Linear|||Null hypothesis In normal pregnant women, placental thickness during second trimesters may be correlated with birth weight at term.||||<0.01
91027040|NCT02473991|181937923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Regression, Linear|||Null hypothesis In normal pregnant women, placental thickness during third trimesters may be correlated with birth weight at term.||||<0.01
91027041|NCT04828161|181937924|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) mean difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.138|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|-0.32|||ANCOVA|||||-0.32|-0.86|<0.001
91027042|NCT04828161|181937924|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.135||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.07|||ANCOVA|||||-0.07|-0.60|0.014
91027043|NCT04828161|181937924|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.135||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.15|||ANCOVA|||||-0.15|-0.68|0.002
90895264|NCT02323646|181656069|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0323|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 2, Week 24 Follow-up Visit||||0.0323
90895265|NCT02323646|181656069|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3847|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 2, Week 24 Follow-up Visit||||0.3847
91027044|NCT03093454|181937942|EQUIVALENCE|Linear mixed effects models were used to investigate HADS scores (total, anxiety, and depression), sleep scores, and pain scores. Variables for time point (preoperative/Post-op Day 1/final Post-op Day) \& arm were analyzed. Adjustment for multiple pairwise comparisons used the Scheffe method. Analyses were conducted based on the intent to treat principle. P-values\<0.05 were considered statistically significant. Each time point, the mean and corresponding 95% confidence interval has been plotted.|Odds Ratio (OR)|95.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.0||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The p value is calculated and adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Lavender group compared to control group||||0.05
91027045|NCT01884025|181937949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t-Value: 0.55||Change in total BADS score.||||0.59
91027046|NCT01884025|181937949|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t Value: 0.03||Change in Activation Subscale||||0.98
91027047|NCT01884025|181937949|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||t-test, 2 sided|"DF: 18~1 Value: -0.04"||Change in Avoidance/Rumination Subscale||||0.96
91027048|NCT01884025|181937949|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t Value: 1.31||Change in Work/School Impairment Subscale||||0.21
91027049|NCT01884025|181937949|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t Value: 0.99||Change in Social Impairment Subscale||||0.34
91027050|NCT01884025|181937950|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t Value: 0.33||||||0.75
91027051|NCT01884025|181937951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t Value: -0.36||Change in overall physical activity frequency were compared between the two groups.||||0.72
91027052|NCT01884025|181937951|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t Value: -0.39||Change in moderate physical activity frequency between the two groups.||||0.70
91090409|NCT01249131|182063686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of LS Means (in %)|96.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.2|111.0|||||LS mean was calculated from ANOVA. Data for dose-normalized Cmax were natural log-transformed prior to analysis. Ratio of Cmax LS means for log-transformed parameter (expressed as a percent).|||111|84.2|
91090410|NCT01249131|182063686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of LS Means (in %)|107.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.8|123.0|||||LS mean was calculated from ANOVA. Data for dose-normalized Cmax were natural log-transformed prior to analysis. Ratio of Cmax LS means for log-transformed parameter (expressed as a percent).|||123|93.8|
91090411|NCT00678418|182063799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||95.0|||||Van der Waerden|||Null hypothesis = the distribution function of opioid-free weeks is the same for both treatment groups.||||0.0002
91090412|NCT00678418|182063800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0042||95.0||||A total of 114 subjects continued on-study beyond the 168-day endpoint for Part A; these subjects were censored as of the first dosing day in Part B.|Kaplan Meier|||P-value was calculated using the log-rank test for the null hypothesis: the distribution of days to discontinuation does not differ by treatment.||||0.0042
91090413|NCT00678418|182063801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||"P-value was calculated using the Chi-square test for the null hypothesis: mean treatment difference = 0.~Calculations were based on the Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) model (normal distribution, identity link and AR(1) correlation structure) for repeated data on change from baseline with treatment and visit as main effects, and baseline as a covariate. Missing data were imputed using the Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF) method."||||<0.0001
91090414|NCT00678418|182063802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.75||||0.0154||95.0|0.6|0.95|||Chi-squared|||"Chi-square test was used to calculate the p-value for treatment. Null hypothesis = no association between relapse to dependence and study treatment.~Subjects who discontinued prematurely from the study were imputed as having a positive naloxone challenge test result."||0.95|0.60|0.0154
91090415|NCT00678418|182063803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0031||95.0|||||van der Waerden|||Null hypothesis: Treatment difference=0. Missing data from subjects due to early discontinuation during Part A were imputed using the baseline rate; thus data for subjects who discontinued early were imputed as having no change from baseline.||||0.0031
91090416|NCT06058390|182063839|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.14|||||Geometric mean is adjusted for covariates: randomized groups (Arms 1 and 2 of this endpoint), injection site (arm, thigh and abdomen) as categorical covariates and log transformed Baseline weight as continuous covariate.|Analysis was performed on the natural logarithms using a fixed-effects model.||1.14|0.91|
91090417|NCT06058390|182063840|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.15|||||Geometric mean is adjusted for covariates: randomized groups (Arms 1 and 2 of this endpoint), injection site (arm, thigh and abdomen) as categorical covariates and log transformed Baseline weight as continuous covariate.|Analysis was performed on the natural logarithms using a fixed-effects model.||1.15|0.96|
90834810|NCT02898454|181536759|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if previous outcome measures were statistically significant).|LS mean difference|-2.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.59|-1.83||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w then q4w vs. Placebo|Data were analyzed using a hybrid method of the WOCF and MI. The imputed completed data were analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with corresponding baseline, treatment group, asthma/NSAID-ERD status, prior surgery history, and regions as covariates. Statistical inference obtained from all imputed data was combined using Rubin's rule.||-1.83|-2.59|<0.0001
90895266|NCT02323646|181656070|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6356|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 1||||0.6356
91090418|NCT06058390|182063841|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.18|||||Geometric mean is adjusted for covariates: randomized groups (Arms 1 and 2 of this endpoint), injection site (arm, thigh and abdomen) as categorical covariates and log transformed baseline weight as continuous covariate.|Analysis was performed on the natural logarithms using a fixed-effects model.||1.18|0.88|
91090419|NCT06058390|182063842|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.09|||||Geometric mean is adjusted for covariates: randomized groups (Arms 1 and 2 of this endpoint), injection site (arm, thigh and abdomen) as categorical covariates and log transformed Baseline weight as continuous covariate.|Analysis was performed on the natural logarithms using a fixed-effects model.||1.09|0.88|
91090420|NCT06058390|182063843|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|1.13|||||Geometric mean is adjusted for covariates: randomized groups (Arms 1 and 2 of this endpoint), injection site (arm, thigh and abdomen) as categorical covariates and log transformed Baseline weight as continuous covariate.|Analysis was performed on the natural logarithms using a fixed-effects model.||1.13|0.87|
91090421|NCT06058390|182063844|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|1.08|||||Geometric mean is adjusted for covariates: randomized groups (Arms 1 and 2 of this endpoint), injection site (arm, thigh and abdomen) as categorical covariates and log transformed Baseline weight as continuous covariate.|Analysis was performed on the natural logarithms using a fixed-effects model.||1.08|0.87|
90895267|NCT02323646|181656070|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9539|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 1||||0.9539
91090422|NCT03585270|182063845|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk Reduction|0.072||||0.7338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.426|0.396|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Homogeneity of the treatment effect across strata was investigated using the Breslow-Day test (p-value = 0.2785).|||0.396|-0.426|0.7338
91090423|NCT03585270|182063846|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk Reduction|0.341||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.213|0.642|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Homogeneity of the treatment effect across strata was investigated using the Breslow-Day test (p-value = 0.8644).|||0.642|-0.213|0.177
91090424|NCT03585270|182063847|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk Reduction|-0.254||||0.1983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.107|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Homogeneity of the treatment effect across strata was investigated using the Breslow-Day test (p-value = 0.8844).|||0.107|-0.760|0.1983
90895268|NCT02323646|181656070|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5219|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 2||||0.5219
90895269|NCT02323646|181656070|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2678|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 2||||0.2678
90895270|NCT02323646|181656070|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3086|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 2, Week 24 Follow-up Visit||||0.3086
90895271|NCT02323646|181656070|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3847|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 2, Week 24 Follow-up Visit||||0.3847
90895272|NCT02323646|181656071|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8393|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 1||||0.8393
91090425|NCT03585270|182063848|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk Reduction|-0.254||||0.1983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.107|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Homogeneity of the treatment effect across strata was investigated using the Breslow-Day test (p-value = 0.8844).|||0.107|-0.760|0.1983
90834811|NCT02898454|181536759|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if previous outcome measures were statistically significant).|LS mean difference|-2.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|-2.03||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs. Placebo|Data were analyzed using a hybrid method of the WOCF and MI. The imputed completed data were analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with corresponding baseline, treatment group, asthma/NSAID-ERD status, prior surgery history, and regions as covariates. Statistical inference obtained from all imputed data was combined using Rubin's rule.||-2.03|-2.78|<0.0001
90834812|NCT02898454|181536760|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if previous outcome measures were statistically significant).|LS mean difference|-1.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.92||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w then q4w vs. Placebo|Data were analyzed using a hybrid method of the WOCF and MI. The imputed completed data were analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with corresponding baseline, treatment group, asthma/NSAID-ERD status, prior surgery history, and regions as covariates. Statistical inference obtained from all imputed data was combined using Rubin's rule.||-0.92|-1.30|<0.0001
90895273|NCT02323646|181656071|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1361|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 1||||0.1361
90895274|NCT02323646|181656071|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0382|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 2||||0.0382
90895275|NCT02323646|181656071|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6273|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 2||||0.6273
90895276|NCT02323646|181656071|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8237|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 2, Week 24 Follow-up Visit||||0.8237
90895277|NCT02323646|181656071|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.137|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 2, Week 24 Follow-up Visit||||0.1370
90895278|NCT02323646|181656072|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7949|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 1||||0.7949
90895279|NCT02323646|181656072|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1928|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 1||||0.1928
90895280|NCT02323646|181656072|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 2||||1.0000
90895281|NCT02323646|181656072|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.392|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 2||||0.3920
90895282|NCT02323646|181656072|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.541|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 2, Week 24 Follow-up Visit||||0.5410
90895283|NCT02323646|181656072|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4602|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 2, Week 24 Follow-up Visit||||0.4602
90895284|NCT02323646|181656073|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9536|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 1||||0.9536
90895285|NCT02323646|181656073|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1355|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 1||||0.1355
90895286|NCT02323646|181656073|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9396|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 2||||0.9396
91027053|NCT01884025|181937952|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t Value: 0.77||Change in the physical health scale of the RAND 12 were compared.||||0.45
90895287|NCT02323646|181656073|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9102|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 2||||0.9102
90895288|NCT02323646|181656073|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6266|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 2, Week 24 Follow-up Visit||||0.6266
90895289|NCT02323646|181656073|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9302|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 2, Week 24 Follow-up Visit||||0.9302
90895290|NCT02323646|181656074|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.817|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 1||||0.8170
90895291|NCT02323646|181656074|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8177|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 1||||0.8177
90895292|NCT02323646|181656074|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3167|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 2||||0.3167
90895293|NCT02323646|181656074|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5503|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 2||||0.5503
90895294|NCT02323646|181656074|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6929|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 2, Week 24 Follow-up Visit||||0.6929
90895295|NCT02323646|181656074|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.726|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 2, Week 24 Follow-up Visit||||0.7260
90895296|NCT02323646|181656075|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3896|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 1||||0.3896
90895297|NCT02323646|181656075|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1358|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 1||||0.1358
90895298|NCT02323646|181656075|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7903|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 2||||0.7903
90895299|NCT02323646|181656075|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8206|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 2||||0.8206
90895300|NCT02323646|181656075|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7891|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 2, Week 24 Follow-up Visit||||0.7891
90895301|NCT02323646|181656075|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.401|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 2, Week 24 Follow-up Visit||||0.4010
90895302|NCT02323646|181656076|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0294|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 1||||0.0294
90895303|NCT02323646|181656076|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1934|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 1||||0.1934
90895304|NCT02323646|181656076|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0442|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 2||||0.0442
90895305|NCT02323646|181656076|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8314|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 2||||0.8314
90895306|NCT00089141|181656077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.66||||0.22||95.0|0.7|3.7||P values are 2 sided and are based on likelihood ratio statistics.|Regression, Cox|Analysis for all endpoints was stratified by number of affected organs and type of conditioning regimen.|For all analyses, MMF arm in numerator, and placebo arm in denominator. Hazard ratio estimate includes 3 efficacy success events that occurred after two years in the placebo arm.|||3.7|0.7|.22
90895307|NCT00089141|181656078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.65||||0.03||95.0|1.1|2.6|||Regression, Cox|Statistical analysis did not count treatment continuing beyond 2 years as efficacy failure (n = 2 in each arm).||||2.6|1.1|.03
90895308|NCT00089141|181656079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19||||0.55||95.0|0.7|2.1|||Regression, Cox|||||2.1|0.7|.55
90834813|NCT02898454|181536760|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if previous outcome measures were statistically significant).|LS mean difference|-0.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|-0.8||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs. Placebo|Data were analyzed using a hybrid method of the WOCF and MI. The imputed completed data were analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with corresponding baseline, treatment group, asthma/NSAID-ERD status, prior surgery history, and regions as covariates. Statistical inference obtained from all imputed data was combined using Rubin's rule.||-0.80|-1.18|<0.0001
90834814|NCT02898454|181536761|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if previous outcome measures were statistically significant).|LS mean difference|-21.36|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.45|-17.27||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w then q4w vs. Placebo|Data were analyzed using a hybrid method of the WOCF and MI. The imputed completed data were analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with corresponding baseline, treatment group, asthma/NSAID-ERD status, prior surgery history, and regions as covariates. Statistical inference obtained from all imputed data was combined using Rubin's rule.||-17.27|-25.45|<0.0001
91090426|NCT03585270|182063849|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk Reduction|0.119||||0.5591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.349|0.425|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Homogeneity of the treatment effect across strata was investigated using the Breslow-Day test (p-value = 0.1706).|||0.425|-0.349|0.5591
90834815|NCT02898454|181536761|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if previous outcome measures were statistically significant).|LS mean difference|-20.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.81|-16.65||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs. Placebo|Data were analyzed using a hybrid method of the WOCF and MI. The imputed completed data were analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with corresponding baseline, treatment group, asthma/NSAID-ERD status, prior surgery history, and regions as covariates. Statistical inference obtained from all imputed data was combined using Rubin's rule.||-16.65|-24.81|<0.0001
90834816|NCT03040141|181536802|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|13.55|||Regression, Logistic|||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only; there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.||13.55|1.03|0.181
90834817|NCT03040141|181536802|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.3||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|12.13|||Regression, Logistic|||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only; there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.||12.13|0.90|0.073
90834818|NCT03040141|181536802|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.5||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|11.48|||Regression, Logistic|||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only; there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.||11.48|1.08|0.037
90834819|NCT03040141|181536802|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.25|||Regression, Logistic|||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only; there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.||3.25|0.40|0.814
90834820|NCT03040141|181536804|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.748||||||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons, which were performed at the 0.05 significance level. The goal will be used to assess the strength of evidence to select the endpoints for a Phase 3 trial.|Chi-squared|All statistical comparisons were performed using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level.||The VIS410 high-dose group was compared against the placebo group. The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||0.748
91090427|NCT03585270|182063850|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk Reduction|0.267||||0.1179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.085|0.505|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Homogeneity of the treatment effect across strata was investigated using the Breslow-Day test (p-value = 0.4580)|||0.505|-0.085|0.1179
90834821|NCT03040141|181536804|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.94||||||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons, which were performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Chi-squared|All statistical comparisons were performed using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level.||The VIS410 low-dose group was compared against the placebo group. The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference||||0.940
90834822|NCT03040141|181536804|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.902||||||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons, which were performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Chi-squared|All statistical comparisons were performed using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level.||The total VIS410 high-dose group (high-dose + low-dose) was compared against the placebo group. The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||0.902
90834823|NCT03040141|181536804|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.283||||||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons, which were performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Chi-squared|All statistical comparisons were performed using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level.||The VIS410 high-dose group was compared against the VIS410 low-dose group. The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||0.283
90834824|NCT03040141|181536805|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.919||||||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons, which were performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Chi-squared|All statistical comparisons were performed using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level.||The VIS410 high-dose group was compared against the placebo group. The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||0.919
90834825|NCT03040141|181536805|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.9||||||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons, which were performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Chi-squared|All statistical comparisons were performed using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level.||The VIS410 low-dose group was compared against the placebo group. The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||0.900
90834826|NCT03040141|181536805|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.99||||||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Chi-squared|All statistical comparisons were performed using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level||The combined VIS410 high- and low-dose groups was compared against the placebo group. The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||0.990
90895309|NCT00089141|181656080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.61||||0.48||95.0|0.4|6.0|||Regression, Cox|||||6.0|0.4|.48
90895310|NCT00089141|181656081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.74||||0.17||95.0|0.8|3.9|||Regression, Cox|adjusted for risk category||||3.9|0.8|.17
90895311|NCT00089141|181656082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.62||||0.41||95.0|0.5|5.0|||Regression, Cox|||||5.0|0.5|.41
90834827|NCT03040141|181536805|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.521||||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Chi-squared|All statistical comparisons were performed using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level.||The VIS410 high-dose group was compared against the VIS410 low-dose group. The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||0.521
90834828|NCT03040141|181536806|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.36||||||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only; there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||The VIS410 high-dose group was compared against the placebo group. The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||0.360
90834829|NCT03040141|181536807|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.735|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.735
90834830|NCT03040141|181536807|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.259|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.259
90834831|NCT03040141|181536807|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.644||||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. All statistical comparisons were performed using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level.|ANOVA|||||||0.644
90834832|NCT03040141|181536807|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.146|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.146
90834833|NCT03040141|181536808|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.624||||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. All statistical comparisons were performed using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level.|ANOVA|||||||0.624
90834834|NCT03040141|181536808|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.399||||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. All statistical comparisons were performed using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level.|ANOVA|||||||0.399
90834835|NCT03040141|181536808|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.837|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.837
90834836|NCT03040141|181536808|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.183|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.183
90834837|NCT03040141|181536809|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference||||||0.88|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.880
90834838|NCT03040141|181536809|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference||||||0.778|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.778
90834839|NCT03040141|181536809|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.94|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.940
90834840|NCT03040141|181536809|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.662|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.662
90834841|NCT03040141|181536810|OTHER|||||||0.64|||||||Chi-squared|A Wald Chi-square statistic from a Cox proportional model was used for comparisons of treatment groups||||||0.640
90834842|NCT03040141|181536810|OTHER|||||||0.775|||||||Chi-squared|A Wald Chi-square statistic from a Cox proportional model was used for comparisons of treatment groups||||||0.775
90834843|NCT03040141|181536810|OTHER|||||||0.701|||||||Chi-squared|A Wald Chi-square statistic from a Cox proportional model was used for comparisons of treatment groups||||||0.701
90834844|NCT03040141|181536810|OTHER|||||||0.638|||||||Chi-squared|A Wald Chi-square statistic from a Cox proportional model was used for comparisons of treatment groups||||||0.638
90834845|NCT03040141|181536811|OTHER|||||||0.127|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.127
90834846|NCT03040141|181536811|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||1.000
90834847|NCT03040141|181536811|OTHER|||||||0.458|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.458
90834848|NCT03040141|181536811|OTHER|||||||0.127|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.127
90834849|NCT03040141|181536812|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.371|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.371
90834850|NCT03040141|181536812|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.735|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.735
90834851|NCT03040141|181536812|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.476|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.476
90834852|NCT03040141|181536812|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.581|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.581
90834853|NCT03040141|181536813|OTHER|||||||0.98|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.980
90895312|NCT00089141|181656083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.69||||0.14||95.0|0.9|3.2|||Regression, Cox|||||3.2|0.9|.14
90834854|NCT03040141|181536813|OTHER|||||||0.955|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.955
90834855|NCT03040141|181536813|OTHER|||||||0.955|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.955
90834856|NCT03040141|181536813|OTHER|||||||0.955|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.955
90834857|NCT03040141|181536814|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.695|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.695
90834858|NCT03040141|181536814|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.542|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.542
90834859|NCT03040141|181536814|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.899|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.899
90834860|NCT03040141|181536814|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.321|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.321
90834861|NCT03040141|181536815|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.663|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.663
90834862|NCT03040141|181536815|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.54|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.540
90834863|NCT03040141|181536815|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.918|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.918
90834864|NCT03040141|181536815|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.294|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.294
90834865|NCT03040141|181536817|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.25|||||||Chi-squared|Wald Chi-square statistic from a Cox proportional model is used for comparisons of treatment groups.||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only; there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.||||0.250
90834866|NCT03040141|181536817|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.133|||||||Chi-squared|Wald Chi-square statistic from a Cox proportional model is used for comparisons of treatment groups.||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only; there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.||||0.133
90895313|NCT00089141|181656084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.99||||0.1||95.0|0.9|4.3|||Regression, Cox|||||4.3|0.9|.10
90895314|NCT00089141|181656085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.28||||0.34||95.0|0.08|2.1|||Regression, Cox|||||2.1|.08|.34
91027054|NCT01884025|181937952|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t Value: 0.76||Change in the mental health scale of the RAND 12 were compared.||||0.45
91027055|NCT01884025|181937953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t Value: -0.36||||||0.72
91027056|NCT01884025|181937954|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t Value: 0.15||||||0.88
91027057|NCT01884025|181937955|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t Value: 1.83||||||.08
91027058|NCT01884025|181937956|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16||||||Chi Squared 1.98|Chi-squared|||||||.16
91027059|NCT01884025|181937957|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85||||||t value: .19|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.85
91027060|NCT01884025|181937958|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6||||||t value: .54|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.60
90834867|NCT03040141|181536817|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.177|||||||Chi-squared|Wald Chi-square statistic from a Cox proportional model is used for comparisons of treatment groups.||||||0.177
90834868|NCT03040141|181536817|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.36|||||||Chi-squared|Wald Chi-square statistic from a Cox proportional model is used for comparisons of treatment groups.||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only; there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons||||0.360
90895315|NCT00089141|181656086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.51||||0.28||95.0|0.7|3.2|||Regression, Cox|||||3.2|0.7|.28
91027061|NCT01884025|181937959|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26||||||t value: -1.17|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.26
91027062|NCT01884025|181937960|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08||||||t value: 1.85|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.08
91090428|NCT03585270|182063851|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk Reduction|0.139||||0.5217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.365|0.457|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Homogeneity of the treatment effect across strata was investigated using the Breslow-Day test (p-value = 0.1685)|||0.457|-0.365|0.5217
91090429|NCT03292016|182063852|OTHER||Geometric Mean ratio (APL-130277/APOKYN)|12.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.5|20.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|With fixed effects-treatment and period, random effect-subject nested within sequence to analyze natural-log transformed dose normalized parameter.||Sample size of 12 subjects, a two-sided 90% CI for the difference in paired PK parameter means on the log scale will have an interval that extends no more than 0.221 units from the observed difference with 90% coverage probability. Assumes CV of 35% for the difference on the original scale.||20.3|7.5|
91090430|NCT03292016|182063852|OTHER||Geometric Mean ratio (APL-130277/APO-go)|10.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.5|16.3||||||||16.3|6.5|
91090431|NCT03292016|182063852|OTHER|relative bioavailibilty|Geometric Mean ratio (APOKYN/APO-go)|83.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|50.5|137.6||||||||137.6|50.5|
91027063|NCT00755326|181937969|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
91027064|NCT01111110|181937975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||half the mean difference|21.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.7||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|41.7|||t-test, 2 sided|two sample effect size must be halved to account for mean difference estimates twice the effect size|See 4 Puff result|(Comparison of period 2 minus period 1) results Point and interval estimates are halved because this estimates twice the effect size.||41.7|3.8|0.026
91027065|NCT01111110|181937976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||half the mean difference|23.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.8||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|41.0||The effect size is half the difference between the means as (A-B)-(B-A)=2A-2B|t-test, 2 sided|Must take half the mean difference to estimate effect size|No comments|Study intended to get more subjects, but PI's review committee had to deal with candidate deadlines and a high rate of screen failures and allowed her to test seven subjects. Primary concern was the research experience, not the study questions. There was no bias in failing to meet accrual objectives thanks to the blinding.||41.0|6.0|0.018
91027066|NCT01111110|181937977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Effect size=half the mean diff|24.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.6||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|41.7|||t-test, 2 sided||You kicked this out on another trial, but note that the period 2-Period 1 differences between the orderings estimate twice the effect size. The effect sizes herein take this into account.|Null hypothesis is that the Treatment order is independent of the dependent variable based on Period 2 minus Period 1||41.7|7.7|0.013
91027067|NCT00662025|181937983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Objective Response Rate (percentage)|30.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.2|43.0||||||||43.0|19.2|
91027068|NCT00662025|181937984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Objective Response Rate (percentage)|27.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.6|39.7||||||||39.7|16.6|
91027069|NCT00662025|181937985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CBR Rate (percentage)|50.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.9|63.6||||||||63.6|37.9|
91027070|NCT00662025|181937986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CBR Rate (percentage)|52.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.4|65.1||||||||65.1|39.4|
90834869|NCT03040141|181536818|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.636|||||||Chi-squared|Wald Chi-square statistic from a Cox proportional model is used for comparisons of treatment groups.||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only; there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.||||0.636
90834870|NCT03040141|181536818|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.446|||||||Chi-squared|Wald Chi-square statistic from a Cox proportional model is used for comparisons of treatment groups.||||||0.446
90895316|NCT02459262|181656089|OTHER|ANOVA repeated measures: In-transformed antibody concentrations as dependent variable; dose level, time, presence of adjuvant and dose\*time interaction as fixed effects; subjects as random effects||||||0.0193||||||Adjuvant effect at Day 85, the primary immunological endpoint|ANOVA|Adjuvant effect, with higher antibody concentration values after all dose levels of vaccine was significant at all time points (D29, D43, D57, Day 85)||The objectives for Part A were to evaluate the effect of adjuvant and to inform the selection of dose levels for Part B. The study was not powered for inter-group comparisons.||||0.0193
90895317|NCT02459262|181656090|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
90895318|NCT02459262|181656091|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
90895319|NCT05168579|181656094|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.76|69.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||69.6|2.76|<0.001
91027071|NCT01333033|181938004|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
91090432|NCT03292016|182063852|OTHER||Ratio|0.21|||||||||||||The comparative bioavailability calculated as the ratio of the Test/Reference between APL 20 mg and APO-Go 3 mg|||||
91090433|NCT03292016|182063852|OTHER||Ratio|0.13|||||||||||||The comparative bioavailability calculated as the ratio of the Test/Reference between APL 20 mg and APOKYN 3 mg|||||
91090434|NCT03292016|182063852|OTHER||Ratio|1.16|||||||||||||The comparative bioavailability calculated as the ratio of the Test/Reference between APO-Go 3 mg and APOKYN 3 mg|||||
90834871|NCT03040141|181536818|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.53|||||||Chi-squared|Wald Chi-square statistic from a Cox proportional model is used for comparisons of treatment groups.||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only; there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.||||0.530
90834872|NCT03040141|181536818|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.463|||||||Chi-squared|Wald Chi-square statistic from a Cox proportional model is used for comparisons of treatment groups||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only; there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.||||0.463
90834873|NCT03040141|181536819|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.152|||||||Chi-squared|Wald Chi-square statistic from a Cox proportional model is used for comparisons of treatment groups.||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only; there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.||||0.152
90834874|NCT03040141|181536819|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.176|||||||Chi-squared|Wald Chi-square statistic from a Cox proportional model is used for comparisons of treatment groups.||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only; there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.||||0.176
90834875|NCT03040141|181536819|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.157|||||||Chi-squared|Wald Chi-square statistic from a Cox proportional model is used for comparisons of treatment groups.||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only; there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.||||0.157
90834876|NCT03040141|181536819|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.844|||||||Chi-squared|Wald Chi-square statistic from a Cox proportional model is used for comparisons of treatment groups.||||||0.844
90834877|NCT03040141|181536820|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.531|||||||Chi-squared|Wald Chi-square statistic from a Cox proportional model is used for comparisons of treatment groups.||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only; there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.||||0.531
90834878|NCT03040141|181536820|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.582|||||||Chi-squared|Wald Chi-square statistic from a Cox proportional model is used for comparisons of treatment groups.||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only; there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.||||0.582
90834879|NCT03040141|181536820|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.55|||||||Chi-squared|Wald Chi-square statistic from a Cox proportional model is used for comparisons of treatment groups.||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only; there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.||||0.550
90834880|NCT03040141|181536820|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.84|||||||Chi-squared|P-value determined based on Cox proportional hazards model Wald Chi-Square Statistic.||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only; there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.||||0.840
90834881|NCT03040141|181536821|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.3534|||||||ANCOVA|||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only; there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.||||0.3534
90834882|NCT03040141|181536821|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.7839|||||||ANCOVA|||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only; there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.||||0.7839
90834883|NCT03040141|181536821|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.4893|||||||ANCOVA|||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only; there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.||||0.4893
91027072|NCT03588390|181938010|OTHER||Slope|0.696|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0971|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5006|0.8914|||||Based on the estimate for slope parameter (β), a 2-sided 95% CI for the slope was computed. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1. Standard error of the mean is actually standard error of slope.|The basic model for the investigation of dose proportionality was a power model that described the functional relationship between the dose and PK endpoints.||0.8914|0.5006|
91027073|NCT03588390|181938010|OTHER||Slope|0.9244|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.122|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6764|1.1724|||||Based on the estimate for slope parameter (β), a 2-sided 95% CI for the slope was computed. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1. Standard error of the mean is actually standard error of slope.|The basic model for the investigation of dose proportionality was a power model that described the functional relationship between the dose and PK endpoints.||1.1724|0.6764|
91027074|NCT03588390|181938011|OTHER||Slope|0.6533|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0982|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4556|0.851|||||Based on the estimate for slope parameter (β), a 2-sided 95% CI for the slope was computed. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1. Standard error of the mean is actually standard error of slope.|The basic model for the investigation of dose proportionality was a power model that described the functional relationship between the dose and PK endpoints.||0.8510|0.4556|
91027075|NCT03588390|181938011|OTHER||Slope|0.8586|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1307|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5929|1.1242|||||Based on the estimate for slope parameter (β), a 2-sided 95% CI for the slope was computed. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1. Standard error of the mean is actually standard error of slope.|The basic model for the investigation of dose proportionality was a power model that described the functional relationship between the dose and PK endpoints.||1.1242|0.5929|
91027076|NCT02300025|181938053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means ratio|92.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|59.2|143.4|||||The 90% CI for differences in LS means between test and reference treatments obtained from mixed model were also back-transformed to give 90% CIs for the ratio of the test treatment relative to the reference treatment.|Cmax was analyzed using a mixed model analysis of variance (ANOVA) to determine 90% confidence interval (CI) of the ratio between normal hepatic function (reference) and mild hepatic impairment (test) where hepatic impairment group was a fixed factor. The least squares (LS) means of the test and reference treatments obtained from the mixed model were back-transformed to give geometric LS means (a point estimate).||143.4|59.2|
91027077|NCT02300025|181938053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means ratio|84.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|54.6|132.1|||||The 90% CI for differences in LS means between the test and reference treatments obtained from the mixed model were also back-transformed to give 90% CIs for the ratio of the test treatment relative to the reference treatment.|Cmax was analyzed using a mixed model ANOVA to determine 90% CI of the ratio between normal hepatic function (reference) and moderate hepatic impairment (test) where hepatic impairment group was a fixed factor. The LS means of the test and reference treatments obtained from the mixed model were back-transformed to give geometric LS means (a point estimate).||132.1|54.6|
91090435|NCT03292016|182063852|OTHER||Ratio|0.16|||||||||||||The comparative bioavailability calculated as the ratio of the Test/Reference between APL 25 mg and APO-Go 4 mg|||||
91090436|NCT03292016|182063852|OTHER||Ratio|0.17|||||||||||||The comparative bioavailability calculated as the ratio of the Test/Reference between APL 25 mg and APOKYN 4 mg|||||
91090437|NCT03292016|182063852|OTHER||Ratio|1.12|||||||||||||The comparative bioavailability calculated as the ratio of the Test/Reference between APO-Go 4 mg and APOKYN 4 mg|||||
91090438|NCT03292016|182063852|OTHER||Ratio|0.08|||||||||||||The comparative bioavailability calculated as the ratio of the Test/Reference between APL 30 mg and APO-Go 5 mg|||||
91090439|NCT03292016|182063852|OTHER||Ratio|0.09|||||||||||||The comparative bioavailability calculated as the ratio of the Test/Reference between APL 30 mg and APOKYN 5 mg|||||
91090440|NCT03292016|182063852|OTHER||Ratio|1.04|||||||||||||The comparative bioavailability calculated as the ratio of the Test/Reference between APO-Go 5 mg and APOKYN 5 mg|||||
91090441|NCT03292016|182063853|OTHER|||||||0.0625|||||||Sign test|||||||0.0625
91090442|NCT03292016|182063853|OTHER|||||||0.0313|||||||Sign test|||||||0.0313
91090443|NCT03292016|182063853|OTHER||||||>|0.9999|||||||Sign test|||||||>0.9999
91090444|NCT03292016|182063854|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (APL-130277/APOKYN)|17.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|13.1|22.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|With fixed effects-treatment and period, random effect-subject nested within sequence to analyze natural-log transformed dose normalized parameter.||||22.5|13.1|
91090445|NCT03292016|182063854|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (APL-130277/APOKYN)|16.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|13.0|21.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||21.3|13.0|
91090446|NCT03292016|182063854|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (APOKYN/APO-go)|96.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.2|126.4||||||||126.4|74.2|
91090447|NCT03292016|182063854|OTHER||Ratio|0.32|||||||||||||The comparative bioavailability calculated as the ratio of the Test/Reference between APL 20 mg and APO-Go 3 mg|||||
90834884|NCT03040141|181536821|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.5101|||||||ANCOVA|||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only; there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.||||0.5101
90834885|NCT03040141|181536822|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.5436|||||||ANCOVA|||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only; there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.||||0.5436
91090448|NCT03292016|182063854|OTHER||Ratio|0.16|||||||||||||The comparative bioavailability calculated as the ratio of the Test/Reference between APL 20 mg and APOKYN 3 mg|||||
90834886|NCT03040141|181536822|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.8215|||||||ANCOVA|||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only; there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.||||0.8215
91090449|NCT03292016|182063854|OTHER||Ratio|1.09|||||||||||||The comparative bioavailability calculated as the ratio of the Test/Reference between APO-Go 3 mg and APOKYN 3 mg|||||
91090450|NCT03292016|182063854|OTHER||Ratio|0.23|||||||||||||The comparative bioavailability calculated as the ratio of the Test/Reference between APL 25 mg and APO-Go 4 mg|||||
91090451|NCT03292016|182063854|OTHER||Ratio|0.23|||||||||||||The comparative bioavailability calculated as the ratio of the Test/Reference between APL 25 mg and APOKYN 4 mg|||||
91090452|NCT03292016|182063854|OTHER||Ratio|1.0|||||||||||||The comparative bioavailability calculated as the ratio of the Test/Reference between APO-Go 4 mg and APOKYN 4 mg|||||
91090453|NCT03292016|182063854|OTHER||Ratio|0.15|||||||||||||The comparative bioavailability calculated as the ratio of the Test/Reference between APL 30 mg and APO-Go 5 mg|||||
91090454|NCT03292016|182063854|OTHER||Ratio|0.14|||||||||||||The comparative bioavailability calculated as the ratio of the Test/Reference between APL 30 mg and APOKYN 5 mg|||||
90834887|NCT03040141|181536822|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.6319|||||||ANCOVA|||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only; there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.||||0.6319
90834888|NCT03040141|181536822|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.7011|||||||ANCOVA|||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only; there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.||||0.7011
90834889|NCT03040141|181536823|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.478|||||||Regression, Logistic|||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only; there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.||||0.478
91090455|NCT03292016|182063854|OTHER||Ratio|0.96|||||||||||||The comparative bioavailability calculated as the ratio of the Test/Reference between APO-Go 5 mg and APOKYN 5 mg|||||
91090456|NCT03292016|182063855|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (APL-130277/APOKYN)|17.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|13.7|22.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|With fixed effects-treatment and period, random effect-subject nested within sequence to analyze natural-log transformed dose normalized parameter.||||22.5|13.7|
91090457|NCT03292016|182063855|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (APL-130277/APO-go)|17.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|13.7|21.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||21.6|13.7|
91090458|NCT03292016|182063855|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (APOKYN/APO-go)|97.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.6|124.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||124.8|76.6|
91090459|NCT03292016|182063860|OTHER|||||||0.0313|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0313
91090460|NCT03292016|182063860|OTHER|||||||0.0625|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0625
91090461|NCT03292016|182063860|OTHER||||||>|0.9999|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.9999
91090462|NCT03904693|182063863|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.82|||ANCOVA|||||0.82|0.61|<0.0001
91090463|NCT03904693|182063863|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.8|||ANCOVA|||||0.80|0.64|<0.0001
91090464|NCT03904693|182063864|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|16.04|||=|0.3802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|49.08|||ANCOVA|||||49.08|-17.0|=0.3802
91090465|NCT03904693|182063864|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|25.37|||=|0.0591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|51.59|||ANCOVA|||||51.59|-0.93|=0.0591
91090466|NCT01211145|182063937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.5||Unadjusted|Regression, Logistic||ZOMIG 0.5 mg/Placebo|||2.50|0.75|.312
91090467|NCT01211145|182063937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|3.26||Unadjusted|Regression, Logistic||ZOMIG 2.5 mg/Placebo|||3.26|0.95|.071
91090468|NCT01211145|182063937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|3.39||Unadjusted|Regression, Logistic||ZOMIG 5.0 mg/Placebo|||3.39|1.40|<.001
91090469|NCT01211145|182063938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.91||Unadjusted|Regression, Logistic||ZOMIG 0.5 mg/Placebo|||1.91|0.70|.575
91090470|NCT01211145|182063938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.87||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|3.31||Unadjusted|Regression, Logistic||ZOMIG 2.5 mg/Placebo|||3.31|1.06|.032
91090471|NCT01211145|182063938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.95||Unadjusted|Regression, Logistic||ZOMIG 5.0 mg/Placebo|||1.95|0.91|.137
91090472|NCT01211145|182063939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.96||Unadjusted|Regression, Logistic||ZOMIG 0.5 mg/Placebo|||1.96|0.74|.458
91090473|NCT01211145|182063939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.82||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|3.03||Unadjusted|Regression, Logistic||ZOMIG 2.5 mg/Placebo|||3.03|1.09|.021
90834890|NCT03040141|181536823|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.468|||||||Regression, Logistic|||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only; there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.||||0.468
90834891|NCT03040141|181536823|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.412|||||||Regression, Logistic|||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only; there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons||||0.412
90834892|NCT03040141|181536823|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.982|||||||Regression, Logistic|||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only; there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons||||0.982
90834893|NCT02099864|181536842|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.0||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|108.8|||Fisher Exact|Due to sample size, Fisher's exact test was used rather than simple logistic regression.||||108.8|0.9|0.055
90834894|NCT02099864|181536843|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|5.3|||Fisher Exact|Due to sample size, Fisher's exact was used rather than regression.||||5.3|0.1|1.000
90834895|NCT02099864|181536844|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|17.0|||Fisher Exact|||||17.0|0.0|1.000
90834896|NCT02099864|181536845|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|23.2||||0.84|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Difference is the median for responders minus the median for non-responders.|||||0.84
91090474|NCT01211145|182063939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.61||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|2.32||Unadjusted|Regression, Logistic||ZOMIG 5.0 mg/Placebo|||2.32|1.12|.010
91090475|NCT01211145|182063940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.84||Unadjusted|Regression, Logistic||ZOMIG 0.5 mg/Placebo|||1.84|0.64|.753
90834897|NCT02099864|181536846|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||0.14|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Difference is the median for responders minus the median for non-responders.|||||0.14
90834898|NCT02099864|181536847|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|60.2|||Fisher Exact|||||60.2|0.1|1.00
90834899|NCT02099864|181536849|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|4.8||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Difference is the median for the responders minus the median for the non-responders.|||||0.01
90834900|NCT02099864|181536852|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.45|||Regression, Cox|||||0.45|0.07|<0.001
90834901|NCT02099864|181536853|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.22||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.56|||Regression, Cox|||||0.56|0.08|0.002
90834902|NCT02099864|181536854|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.23||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.59|||Regression, Cox|||||0.59|0.02|0.23
90834903|NCT02099864|181536855|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.45|||Regression, Cox|||||0.45|0.07|<0.001
90834904|NCT02099864|181536860|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.03|11.82|||Regression, Cox|||||11.82|2.03|<0.001
90834905|NCT01650194|181536867|OTHER|||||||0.615|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Testosterone biomarker results collected at baseline and at Week 9 were compared using the paired t-test to evaluate the effect of enzalutamide.||||0.6150
90834906|NCT01650194|181536869|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Cortisol biomarker results collected at baseline and at Week 9 were compared using the paired t-test to evaluate the effect of enzalutamide.||||<.0001
90834907|NCT01650194|181536870|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Androstenedione biomarker results collected at baseline and at Week 9 were compared using the paired t-test to evaluate the effect of enzalutamide.||||<.0001
90834908|NCT01650194|181536871|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Progesterone biomarker results collected at baseline and at Week 9 were compared using the paired t-test to evaluate the effect of enzalutamide.||||<.0001
90834909|NCT01650194|181536872|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pregnenolone biomarker results collected at baseline and at Week 9 were compared using the paired t-test to evaluate the effect of enzalutamide.||||<.0001
90834910|NCT01650194|181536873|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Testosterone blood results collected at baseline and at Week 9 were compared using the paired t-test to evaluate the effect of enzalutamide.||||<.0001
90834911|NCT01650194|181536875|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Cortisol blood results collected at baseline and at Week 9 were compared using the paired t-test to evaluate the effect of enzalutamide.||||<.0001
90834912|NCT01650194|181536876|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Androstenedione blood results collected at baseline and at Week 9 were compared using the paired t-test to evaluate the effect of enzalutamide.||||<.0001
90834913|NCT01650194|181536877|OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Progesterone blood results collected at baseline and at Week 9 were compared using the paired t-test to evaluate the effect of enzalutamide.||||0.0002
90834914|NCT01650194|181536878|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pregnenolone blood results collected at baseline and at Week 9 were compared using the paired t-test to evaluate the effect of enzalutamide.||||<.0001
90834915|NCT04906499|181536898|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.93||||||||0.93|-0.68|
90834916|NCT04906499|181536900|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|1.24||||||||1.24|-0.44|
90834917|NCT04906499|181536902|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|1.77||||||||1.77|-0.13|
90834918|NCT04906499|181536904|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|1.93||||||||1.93|-0.05|
90834919|NCT04906499|181536906|OTHER||Pearson's r Correlation Coefficient|0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.9||||||||0.90|-0.67|
90834920|NCT04906499|181536907|OTHER||Pearson's r Correlation Coefficient|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.94||||||||0.94|-0.48|
90834921|NCT04906499|181536908|OTHER||Pearson's r Correlation Coefficient|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.71||||||||0.71|-0.88|
90834922|NCT04906499|181536909|OTHER||Pearson's r Correlation Coefficient|-0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.73||||||||0.73|-0.87|
90834923|NCT04906499|181536911|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|-0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|0.44||||||||0.44|-1.24|
90834924|NCT03346434|181536930|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|23.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.27|34.37||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||34.37|13.27|< 0.0001
91090476|NCT01211145|182063940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|2.79||Unadjusted|Regression, Logistic||ZOMIG 2.5 mg/Placebo|||2.79|0.86|.145
91090477|NCT01211145|182063940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|2.04||Unadjusted|Regression, Logistic||ZOMIG 5.0 mg/Placebo|||2.04|0.91|.127
91090478|NCT01211145|182063941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.32||Unadjusted|Regression, Logistic||ZOMIG 0.5 mg/Placebo|||2.32|0.79|.274
91090479|NCT01211145|182063941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|1.67||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|2.91||Unadjusted|Regression, Logistic||ZOMIG 2.5 mg/Placebo|||2.91|0.96|.067
91090480|NCT01211145|182063941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|2.08||Unadjusted|Regression, Logistic||ZOMIG 5.0 mg/Placebo|||2.08|0.91|.127
91090481|NCT01211145|182063942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.16||Unadjusted|Regression, Logistic||ZOMIG 0.5 mg/Placebo|||1.16|0.38|.153
91090482|NCT01211145|182063942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.08||Unadjusted|Regression, Logistic||ZOMIG 2.5 mg/Placebo|||1.08|0.33|.087
91090483|NCT01211145|182063942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.54||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.83||Unadjusted|Regression, Logistic||ZOMIG 5.0 mg/Placebo|||0.83|0.36|.004
91090484|NCT04195061|182063943|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.303|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.303
90834925|NCT03346434|181536931|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|42.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.47|55.16||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||55.16|29.47|< 0.0001
90834926|NCT03346434|181536940|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-50.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.38|-38.4||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||-38.40|-62.38|< 0.0001
90834927|NCT03346434|181536941|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-47.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.47|-34.79||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||-34.79|-59.47|< 0.0001
90834928|NCT03346434|181536942|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|39.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.18|52.27||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||52.27|26.18|< 0.0001
90895320|NCT01242748|181656096|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Degarelix was considered to be non-inferior to goserelin with regard to the hazard ratio of PSA PFS failure rates as the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the adjusted hazard ratio was less than the non-inferiority margin of 1.33.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.774||||0.1589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.542|1.106|||Cox proportional hazard model|||The hazard ratio of PSA PFS failure rates was estimated using the Cox proportional hazard model with time to PSA PFS failure as dependent and treatment as independent variables and adjusted for baseline PSA category, prostate cancer stage, weight and geographical region. Degarelix was to be considered non-inferior to goserelin if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the adjusted hazard ratio was less than or equal to the non-inferiority margin of 1.33.||1.106|0.542|0.1589
90895321|NCT01242748|181656097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.783||||0.1244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.574|1.07|||Cox proportional hazard model|||The hazard ratio was estimated using the Cox proportional hazard model.||1.070|0.574|0.1244
90895322|NCT01242748|181656098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.856|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.263||||||The hazard ratio was estimated using the Cox proportional hazard model.||1.263|0.580|
91090485|NCT04195061|182063944|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.035
91090486|NCT04195061|182063945|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.007
90834929|NCT03346434|181536943|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|43.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.03|56.67||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||56.67|30.03|< 0.0001
90834930|NCT03346434|181536944|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|48.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.03|62.0||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||62.00|35.03|< 0.0001
90834931|NCT03346434|181536945|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|22.5|||=|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.37|32.6||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||32.60|12.37|= 0.0001
90834932|NCT03346434|181536946|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-24.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.204|-17.329||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||-17.329|-31.204|< 0.0001
90834933|NCT03346434|181536947|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.26|-6.89||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||-6.89|-11.26|< 0.0001
90834934|NCT03346434|181536948|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-38.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.65|-30.21||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||-30.21|-46.65|< 0.0001
90834935|NCT03346434|181536949|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.093|2.317||Threshold significance was at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||2.317|1.093|< 0.0001
91090487|NCT02688933|182063965|SUPERIORITY||Least Square mean difference|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15||0.8494|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Generalized linear model|Generalized linear model with identity link||Analysis was performed using generalized linear model with identity link, had percentage of time glucose concentration within target range 70-180 mg/dL as dependent variable, treatment group as an independent variable, adjusting variables including baseline characteristics: duration of diabetes, baseline BMI, age, and randomization strata (HbA1c at screening \[\<8.0% vs ≥8.0%\], frequency of Lantus injection at screening, current CGM use \[yes/no\], and mealtime insulin titration algorithm).||||0.8494
91090488|NCT00767572|182063983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0||||Significance threshold p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: pre-post brachial artery diameter changes do not differ between placebo and atorvastatin||||>0.05
91090489|NCT02873689|182063995|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.057|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.057
91090490|NCT02873689|182063996|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.268|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.268
91090491|NCT00434252|182064006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in survival rates|3.5||||0.5724||95.0|-8.7|15.7|||z-test|z-test using the standard errors computed using Greenwood's method.||||15.7|-8.7|0.5724
91090492|NCT00434252|182064007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in event rates|12.2||||0.0982||95.0|-2.3|26.6|||z-test|z-test using the standard errors computed using Greenwood's method||||26.6|-2.3|0.0982
91103916|NCT03992872|182094612|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||"Null hypothesis for analysis of percentage of subjects with Anti-Chikungunya neutralizing activity at or above selected thresholds by time point~Day 22: Subjects with Titer \>=160"||||1.0000
91090493|NCT02990000|182064017|SUPERIORITY|We used the Optimal Design program to determine the minimum numbers of therapists and patients needed to detect a moderate effect of condition (standardized difference between change rates = .50). Based on this a priori power analysis, we will need a total of 44 therapists and 211 patients to achieve a power of .80 to detect moderate condition effects. Factoring in a 25% dropout rate, enrolling 281 patients should provide sufficient statistical power.|condition effect on weekly change rate|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|-0.03|||3-level hierarchical linear model|||To account for the nested nature of the data (time points nested within patients nested within therapists), a 3-level hierarchical linear model was used to test the effect of condition (Scientific Match = 1; Pragmatic Match = 0) on weekly during-treatment change on the TOP-CS average z-scores. Given that higher TOP-CS z-scores indicate greater impairment, negative slopes indicate a weekly decrease in impairment during treatment (i.e., a better outcome or more improvement).||-0.03|-0.05|.02
91090494|NCT02990000|182064018|SUPERIORITY||condition effect on weekly change rate|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.02|||3-level hierarchical linear model|||To account for the nested nature of the data (time points nested within patients nested within therapists), a 3-level hierarchical linear model was used to test the effect of condition (Scientific Match = 1; Pragmatic Match = 0) on weekly during-treatment change on the SCL-10 total score. Given that higher SCL-10 scores indicate greater psychological distress, negative slopes indicate a weekly decrease in impairment during treatment (i.e., a better outcome or more improvement).||-0.02|-0.30|.03
91027078|NCT02300025|181938053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means ratio|39.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|25.1|60.7|||||The 90% CI for differences in LS means between the test and reference treatments obtained from the mixed model were also back-transformed to give 90% CIs for the ratio of the test treatment relative to the reference treatment.|Cmax was analyzed using a mixed model ANOVA to determine 90% CI of the ratio between normal hepatic function (reference) and severe hepatic impairment (test) where hepatic impairment group was a fixed factor. The LS means of the test and reference treatments obtained from the mixed model were back-transformed to give geometric LS means (a point estimate).||60.7|25.1|
91027079|NCT02300025|181938055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means ratio|98.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|52.0|186.0|||||The 90% CI for differences in LS means between the test and reference treatments obtained from the mixed model were also back-transformed to give 90% CIs for the ratio of the test treatment relative to the reference treatment.|AUC (0-t) was analyzed using a mixed model ANOVA to determine 90% CI of the ratio between normal hepatic function (reference) and mild hepatic impairment (test) where, hepatic impairment group was a fixed factor. The LS means of the test and reference treatments obtained from the mixed model were back-transformed to give geometric LS means (a point estimate).||186.0|52.0|
91090495|NCT02990000|182064019|SUPERIORITY||condition effect on weekly change rate|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.21|||3-level hierarchical linear model|||To account for the nested nature of the data (time points nested within patients nested within therapists), a 3-level hierarchical linear model was used to test the effect of condition (Scientific Match = 1; Pragmatic Match = 0) on weekly during-treatment change on the patient-rated WAI. Given that higher WAI scores indicate better quality therapeutic alliances, positive slopes indicate a weekly increase in alliance during treatment (i.e., a better outcome or more improvement).||0.21|-0.33|.65
91090496|NCT02990000|182064020|SUPERIORITY||condition effect on weekly change rate|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.07|||3-level hierarchical linear model|||To account for the nested nature of the data (time points nested within patients nested within therapists), a 3-level hierarchical linear model was used to test the effect of condition (Scientific Match = 1; Pragmatic Match = 0) on weekly during-treatment change on the OE subscale of the CEQ. Given that higher OE scores indicate more optimistic expectations, positive slopes indicate a weekly increase in OE during treatment (i.e., a better outcome or more improvement).||0.07|-0.17|.41
91090497|NCT02990000|182064021|SUPERIORITY||condition effect on weekly change rate|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.002||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|-0.006|||3-level hierarchical linear model|||To account for the nested nature of the data (time points nested within patients nested within therapists), a 3-level hierarchical linear model was used to test the effect of condition (Scientific Match = 1; Pragmatic Match = 0) on weekly during-treatment change on the log-transformed TOP-CS domain-specific z-scores. Given that higher z-scores indicate greater impairment, negative slopes indicate a weekly decrease in impairment during treatment (i.e., a better outcome or more improvement).||-0.006|-0.01|.01
91103917|NCT03992872|182094612|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0797|||||||Fisher Exact|||"Null hypothesis for analysis of percentage of subjects with Anti-Chikungunya neutralizing activity at or above selected thresholds by time point~Day 22: Subjects with Titer \>=640"||||0.0797
90834936|NCT03346434|181536950|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.029|-2.6||Threshold significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||-2.600|-4.029|< 0.0001
90834937|NCT03346434|181536951|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.789|-5.814||Threshold significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||-5.814|-9.789|< 0.0001
90834938|NCT03346434|181536952|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.29|-4.75||Threshold significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||-4.75|-10.29|< 0.0001
90834939|NCT03346434|181536953|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-8.96|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.711|-6.202||Threshold significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||-6.202|-11.711|< 0.0001
90834940|NCT03346434|181536954|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0015||||||Threshold significance is at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||||= 0.0015
90834941|NCT03346434|181536955|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.9|||=|0.0997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.35|0.56||Threshold significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||0.56|-6.35|= 0.0997
90834942|NCT03525444|181536958|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|13.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.1|15.4|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||The data presented for Primary endpoint was based on interim analysis at Week 4.||15.4|12.1|<0.0001
90834943|NCT03525444|181536959|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|14.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.7|15.8|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||15.8|12.7|<0.0001
90834944|NCT03525444|181536960|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.55|||Negative binomial regression model|||||0.55|0.25|<0.0001
90895323|NCT01242748|181656099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.511||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.739|7.09|||Cox proportional hazard model|||The hazard ratio was estimated using the Cox proportional hazard model.||7.090|1.739|0.0005
91027080|NCT02300025|181938055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means ratio|102.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|54.0|193.2|||||The 90% CI for differences in LS means between the test and reference treatments obtained from the mixed model were also back-transformed to give 90% CIs for the ratio of the test treatment relative to the reference treatment.|AUC (0-t) was analyzed using a mixed model ANOVA to determine 90% CI of the ratio between normal hepatic function (reference) and moderate hepatic impairment (test) where, hepatic impairment group was a fixed factor. The LS means of the test and reference treatments obtained from the mixed model were back-transformed to give geometric LS means (a point estimate).||193.2|54.0|
91090498|NCT02990000|182064022|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.48|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel logistic regression|||Multilevel logistic regression analysis with patients nested within therapists (Scientific Match = 1; Pragmatic Match = 0). Statistically significant odds ratios that are greater than 1 would indicate that patients in the Scientific Match Condition were more likely to discontinue treatment early, whereas odds ratios that are less than 1 would indicate the opposite.||||.48
91090499|NCT02990000|182064023|SUPERIORITY||condition effect on satisfaction|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|1.31|||2-level hierarchical linear model|||Due to the nested nature of the data (patients nested within therapists), we used a two-level hierarchical linear model to test the effect of condition on provider satisfaction at posttreatment. Because higher values indicate more satisfaction, a positive condition effect would indicate that Scientific Match patients were more satisfied than Pragmatic Match patients, whereas a negative condition effect would indicate the opposite.||1.31|-0.57|.44
91090500|NCT03268343|182064034|SUPERIORITY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio (%)|74.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|66.39|84.08|||||fed / fasted; results obtained using an ANOVA with fixed effects of treatment, period, sequence and participant (sequence).|||84.08|66.39|
90834945|NCT03525444|181536961|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-41.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.4|-39.3|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||-39.3|-44.4|<0.0001
90834946|NCT03525444|181536962|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|20.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.5|23.0|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||23.0|17.5|<0.0001
90834947|NCT03525444|181536963|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.23|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||1.23|0.85|<0.0001
90834948|NCT03525444|181536964|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-41.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.0|-38.5|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||-38.5|-44.0|<0.0001
90834949|NCT03525444|181536965|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|20.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.9|23.2|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||23.2|16.9|<0.0001
90834950|NCT03525444|181536967|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.43||||||||0.43|0.17|
90834951|NCT03525444|181536968|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|3.4||||||||3.4|2.3|
90834952|NCT03224130|181537051|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.21
90834953|NCT03224130|181537052|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.31
90834954|NCT03224130|181537053|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||censored Poisson model|||||||0.24
90834955|NCT03224130|181537054|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Poisson model|||||||<0.01
90834956|NCT03224130|181537055|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.50
90834957|NCT03224130|181537056|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.998|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.998
90834958|NCT03224130|181537057|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.92
90834959|NCT01690052|181537058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|The p-value is calculated from the ANOVA||||||0.05
90834960|NCT02421172|181537093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior probablility|0.9729||||||||||||||||||
90834961|NCT03489863|181537105|NON_INFERIORITY|see above|Mean Difference (Net)|-18.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.0|2.0|||ANCOVA|||The primary endpoint is non-inferiority in PRU, at 24 hours of prasugrel versus ticagrelor. Under the assumption of 0 difference at 24 hours in mean PRU between ticagrelor and prasugrel and a common standard deviation of 50 PRU, a sample size of 22 patients per group allows for the 95% CI to stay within ± 45 PRU with a 90% power and alpha = 0.05.||2|-38|<0.05
90834962|NCT01751061|181537106|SUPERIORITY|To test the primary hypothesis, we used a general linear model fit with generalized estimating equations, a linear link, and an exchangeable correlation (PROC GENMOD). Model parameters included indictor variables for intervention, Interview 2, the interaction between intervention and Interview 2, and a 4-level site variable. The mean CSCS between-groups difference, corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI), and p value were derived from the intervention-by-Interview 2 interaction term.|||||<|0.05||||||P values were calculated. A two-sided type-I error rate of 0.05 was set for all tests; there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons. All participants were included in analyses as per their group randomization.|GEE|||We estimated that 210 patients (315 surrogates, assuming \~1.5 per patient) would provide a power of 80% to detect a between-groups mean CSCS score difference of 9 percentage points between Interviews 1 and 2, assuming a baseline mean of 50, SD=24, a type-I error=5%, a correlation between interviews of 0.5, an expectation that 50% of patients would have multiple surrogates, an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.8 for multiple surrogates for a patient, and 5% dropout before Interview 2.||||<0.05
90834963|NCT01751061|181537107|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||P values were calculated.|generalized linear model|||Generalized linear model.||||<0.05
90834964|NCT01751061|181537108|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||P values were calculated.|generalized linear model|||||||<0.05
90834965|NCT01751061|181537109|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||P values were calculated.|generalized linear models|||||||<0.05
90834966|NCT01751061|181537110|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||P values were calculated.|generalized linear models|||||||<0.05
90834967|NCT01751061|181537111|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||P values were calculated.|generalized linear models|||||||<0.05
90834968|NCT01751061|181537112|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||P values were calculated.|GEE|||To test the hypothesis, we used a general linear model fit with generalized estimating equations, a linear link, and an exchangeable correlation (PROC GENMOD). Model parameters included indictor variables for intervention, Interview 2, the interaction between intervention and Interview 2, and a 4-level site variable. The mean CSCS between-groups difference, corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI), and p value were derived from the intervention-by-Interview 2 interaction term.||||<0.05
90834969|NCT01194830|181537154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0005||95.0|-0.91|-0.26|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline HbA1c and number of other Oral Antidiabetic Drugs||||-0.26|-0.91|0.0005
91027081|NCT02300025|181938055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means ratio|42.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|22.5|80.5|||||The 90% CI for differences in LS means between the test and reference treatments obtained from the mixed model were also back-transformed to give 90% CIs for the ratio of the test treatment relative to the reference treatment.|AUC (0-t) was analyzed using a mixed model ANOVA to determine 90% CI of the ratio between normal hepatic function (reference) and severe hepatic impairment (test) where, hepatic impairment group was a fixed factor. The LS means of the test and reference treatments obtained from the mixed model were back-transformed to give geometric LS means (a point estimate).||80.5|22.5|
91090501|NCT03268343|182064035|SUPERIORITY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio (%)|97.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.2|99.98|||||fed / fasted; results obtained using an ANOVA with fixed effects of treatment, period, sequence and participant (sequence).|||99.98|94.20|
90834970|NCT01194830|181537155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.62|-0.22|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline HbA1c and number of other Oral Antidiabetic Drugs||||-0.22|-0.62|<0.0001
90834971|NCT01194830|181537156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0002||95.0|-0.84|-0.26|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline HbA1c and number of other Oral Antidiabetic Drugs||||-0.26|-0.84|0.0002
90834972|NCT01194830|181537157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0003||95.0|-0.85|-0.26|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline HbA1c and number of other Oral Antidiabetic Drugs||||-0.26|-0.85|0.0003
90834973|NCT01194830|181537158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.063||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.764|9.358|||Regression, Logistic|||||9.358|1.764|0.0010
90834974|NCT01194830|181537159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.433||||0.0352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.124|26.26|||Regression, Logistic|||||26.260|1.124|0.0352
90834975|NCT01194830|181537160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.951||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.651|5.274|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.274|1.651|0.0003
90834976|NCT01194830|181537161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-12.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.2||0.0972||95.0|-26.1|2.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline HbA1c, baseline FPG, and number of other Oral Antidiabetic Drugs||||2.2|-26.1|0.0972
90834977|NCT01194830|181537162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|24.45||0.9368||95.0|-53.8|49.86|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline HbA1c, baseline 2-hour PPG, and number of other Oral Antidiabetic Drugs||||49.86|-53.80|0.9368
90834978|NCT05635461|181537222|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|60.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|56.12|64.42|||||Geometric mean ratio was obtained by multiplying 100 with ratio of test (CVN424 tablet fasted) and reference (CVN424 suspension fasted).|||64.42|56.12|
90834979|NCT05635461|181537223|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|60.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|56.12|64.42|||||Geometric mean ratio was obtained by multiplying 100 with ratio of test (CVN424 tablet fasted) and reference (CVN424 suspension fasted).|||64.42|56.12|
90895324|NCT01242748|181656100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.739||||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.493|1.108|||Cox proportional hazard model|||The hazard ratio was estimated using the Cox proportional hazard model.||1.108|0.493|0.143
90895325|NCT01242748|181656101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.595||||0.2212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.259|1.368|||Cox proportional hazard model|||The hazard ratio was estimated using the Cox proportional hazard model.||1.368|0.259|0.2212
91090502|NCT03268343|182064036|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.25|||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test||Hodges-Lehmann method|||2.25|0.50|< 0.0001
90834980|NCT05635461|181537224|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|27.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|25.09|31.13|||||Geometric mean ratio was obtained by multiplying 100 with ratio of test (CVN424 tablet fasted) and reference (CVN424 suspension fasted).|||31.13|25.09|
90834981|NCT05635461|181537225|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9265|2.247|||ANOVA|||||2.2470|0.9265|<0.0001
90834982|NCT05635461|181537225|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.4475|3.0035|||ANOVA|||||3.0035|2.4475|<0.0001
90834983|NCT05635461|181537226|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.0||||||||0.000|0.000|
90834984|NCT05635461|181537226|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.25||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.251|||ANOVA|||||0.2510|0.0000|0.0010
90834985|NCT05635461|181537227|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|161.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|150.96|172.92|||||Geometric mean ratio was obtained by multiplying 100 with ratio of test (CVN424 tablet Fed) and reference (CVN424 tablet fasted).|||172.92|150.96|
90834986|NCT05635461|181537228|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|161.59|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|150.98|172.95|||||Geometric mean ratio was obtained by multiplying 100 with ratio of test (CVN424 tablet Fed) and reference (CVN424 tablet fasted).|||172.95|150.98|
90834987|NCT05635461|181537229|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|304.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|273.51|338.31|||||Geometric mean ratio was obtained by multiplying 100 with ratio of test (CVN424 tablet Fed) and reference (CVN424 tablet fasted).|||338.31|273.51|
90834988|NCT05635461|181537230|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.99||||0.0662|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.006|1.537|||ANOVA|||||1.5370|0.0060|0.0662
90834989|NCT05635461|181537231|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.25||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.251|||ANOVA|||||0.2510|0.0000|0.0039
90834990|NCT00807911|181537256|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.657||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.434|0.994|||t-test, 1 sided|||||0.994|0.434|0.047
90834991|NCT00807911|181537257|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.602||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.371|0.977|||t-test, 1 sided|||||0.977|0.371|0.040
90834992|NCT00807911|181537258|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.744||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.334|1.657|||t-test, 1 sided|||||1.657|0.334|0.47
90834993|NCT00807911|181537259|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.456||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.215|0.97|||t-test, 1 sided|||||0.970|0.215|0.036
90834994|NCT02648204|181537268|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-Inferiority margin: 0.4|Treatment difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.25|-0.55|<0.0001
90834995|NCT02648204|181537268|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.25|-0.55|<0.0001
90895326|NCT02347657|181656147|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|4.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|4.8|||Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)|||Testing was performed according to the hierarchical testing procedure to control the overall type I error for tested at α = 0.05.||4.8|3.1|<0.0001
90895327|NCT02347657|181656148|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|6.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|8.3|||MMRM|||Testing was performed according to the hierarchical testing procedure to control the overall type I error for tested at α = 0.05.||8.3|5.3|<0.0001
91027082|NCT02300025|181938056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means ratio|97.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|59.3|160.6|||||The 90% CI for differences in LS means between the test and reference treatments obtained from the mixed model were also back-transformed to give 90% CIs for the ratio of the test treatment relative to the reference treatment.|AUC (0 - ∞) was analyzed using a mixed model ANOVA to determine 90% CI of the ratio between normal hepatic function (reference) and mild hepatic impairment (test) where hepatic impairment group was a fixed factor. The LS means of the test and reference treatments obtained from the mixed model were back-transformed to give geometric LS means (a point estimate).||160.6|59.3|
90895328|NCT02347657|181656149|SUPERIORITY||Event Rate Ratio|0.65||||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.88|||Negative Binomial Regression|||Testing was performed according to the hierarchical testing procedure to control the overall type I error for tested at α = 0.05.||0.88|0.48|0.0054
90895329|NCT02347657|181656150|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.06||||0.4127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.19|||MMRM|||Testing was performed according to the hierarchical testing procedure to control the overall type I error for tested at α = 0.05.||0.19|-0.08|0.4127
90895330|NCT00677352|181656165|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Sertraline was concluded to be non-inferior to paroxetine when the upper limit of the CI fell below the non-inferiority margin of 4.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.6|||ANCOVA|||The two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the intergroup difference (sertraline group - paroxetine group) of the mean reduction in the PAS total score at each dose during the treatment phase was calculated using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group as a factor and baseline PAS total score as a covariate.||1.6|-2.5|
90895331|NCT00677352|181656171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05 (two-sided).|Fisher Exact|||||||0.0062
91027083|NCT02300025|181938056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means ratio|103.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|62.6|169.6|||||The 90% CI for differences in LS means between the test and reference treatments obtained from the mixed model were also back-transformed to give 90% CIs for the ratio of the test treatment relative to the reference treatment.|AUC (0 - ∞) was analyzed using a mixed model ANOVA to determine 90% CI of the ratio between normal hepatic function (reference) and moderate hepatic impairment (test) where hepatic impairment group was a fixed factor. The LS means of the test and reference treatments obtained from the mixed model were back-transformed to give geometric LS means (a point estimate).||169.6|62.6|
91090503|NCT03268343|182064037|SUPERIORITY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio (%)|96.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.3|99.85|||||fed / fasted; results obtained using an ANOVA with fixed effects of treatment, period, sequence and participant (sequence).|||99.85|93.30|
91090504|NCT03268343|182064041|SUPERIORITY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio (%)|104.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.97|110.87|||||fed / fasted; results obtained using an ANOVA with fixed effects of treatment, period, sequence and participant (sequence).|||110.87|98.97|
91090505|NCT02860988|182064094|OTHER|Two-sided tests versus a margin|Mean Difference (Net)|0.6||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.29
91090506|NCT02860988|182064095|OTHER|Two-sided tests versus a margin|Risk Difference (RD)|0.9||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.88
90895332|NCT02182973|181656172|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
90895333|NCT02182973|181656173|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.875|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.875
90895334|NCT02182973|181656174|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.025|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.025
90895335|NCT05614089|181656175|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43||||||Since this is one of two coprimary outcomes (this outcome and % time-in-range), a win (p\<0.025 for benefit) on either outcome will be considered to be a positive trial.|Regression, Linear|Multivariable generalized linear regression model adjusted for age at screening, study site, and % time in serious hypoglycemia at baseline||6-month (primary)||||0.43
91090507|NCT02860988|182064096|OTHER|Two-sided tests versus a margin.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.96||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.89
91090508|NCT02860988|182064097|OTHER|Two-sided tests versus a margin.|Risk Difference (RD)|-4.26||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.61
90895336|NCT05614089|181656175|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008||||||Since this is one of two coprimary outcomes (this outcome and % time-in-range), a win (p\<0.025 for benefit) on either outcome will be considered to be a positive trial.|Regression, Linear|Multivariable generalized linear regression model adjusted for age at screening, study site, and % time in serious hypoglycemia at baseline||12-month||||0.008
90895337|NCT05614089|181656176|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71||||||Since this is one of two coprimary outcomes (this outcome and % time in serious hypoglycemia), a win (p\<0.025 for benefit) on either outcome will be considered to be a positive trial.|Regression, Linear|Multivariable generalized linear regression model adjusted for age at screening, study site, and % TIR at baseline||6-month (primary)||||0.71
91090509|NCT02860988|182064098|OTHER|Two-sided tests versus a margin.|Risk Difference (RD)|3.61||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.67
91090510|NCT02860988|182064099|OTHER|Two-sided tests versus a margin.|Risk Difference (RD)|5.23||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.14
91090511|NCT02860988|182064100|OTHER|Two-sided tests versus a margin.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.03||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.81
91090512|NCT02860988|182064101|OTHER|Two-sided tests versus a margin.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.31||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.74
91090513|NCT00737048|182064116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.06|<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Least Signiﬁcant Diﬀerence Method|||Statistical Analysis 1 for Total pain relief based on numerical rating scale score||||<0.0001
91090514|NCT00737048|182064116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.99|<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Least Signiﬁcant Diﬀerence Method|||Statistical Analysis 2 for Total pain relief based on numerical rating scale score||||<0.0001
90834996|NCT02648204|181537268|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-Inferiority margin: 0.04|Treatment difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.25|-0.57|<0.0001
90834997|NCT02648204|181537268|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.25|-0.57|<0.0001
90834998|NCT02648204|181537269|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-2.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.02|-1.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.51|-3.02|<0.0001
90834999|NCT02648204|181537269|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-3.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.32|-2.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.78|-4.32|<0.0001
90835000|NCT00614575|181537298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change from baseline|-7.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.0|<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||||||<0.0001
90835001|NCT00614575|181537299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change from baseline|-4.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.8|<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||||||<0.0001
90835002|NCT00614575|181537300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change from baseline|-0.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.9|<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||||||<0.0001
90835003|NCT00614575|181537301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mean change from baseline|-0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.6|<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||||||<0.0001
90835004|NCT00189540|181537311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.35||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Comparison made is the difference from baseline at Month 3.||||0.35
90835005|NCT00189540|181537311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.17||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Comparison made is the difference from baseline at Month 6.||||0.17
90835006|NCT00189540|181537312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.55||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||The comparison of groups at Month 3||||0.55
90835007|NCT00189540|181537312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.28||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||The comparison of groups at Month 6.||||0.28
90835008|NCT00189540|181537313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between groups at Month 3||||0.2
90835009|NCT00189540|181537313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.04||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between groups at Month 6||||0.04
90835010|NCT00189540|181537314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
90835011|NCT00189540|181537315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.77||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Comparison at Month 3||||0.77
90835012|NCT00189540|181537315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.45||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Comparison at Month 6||||0.45
90835013|NCT00189540|181537316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.06||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between groups for mean TBI at Month 3 versus baseline.||||0.06
90835014|NCT00189540|181537316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between groups for mean TBI at Month 6 versus baseline.||||0.05
90835015|NCT03882021|181537317|OTHER||Kaplan Meier Survival Estimate|57.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.2|62.8|||||Kaplan-Meier estimate of freedom from recurrence after removal from AAD at one year.|||62.8|51.2|
90835016|NCT03882021|181537318|OTHER|Kaplan Meier Estimate of freedom from symptomatic recurrence.|Kaplan-Meier Survival Estimate|61.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.8|67.1|||||Kaplan-Meier estimate of freedom from symptomatic AF/AFL/AT recurrence after removal from AAD|||67.1|55.8|
90835017|NCT03882021|181537319|OTHER|Kaplan Meier estimate of single procedure clinical success.|Kaplan-Meier Survival Estimate|79.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|74.2|83.6|||||Kaplan-Meier estimate of freedom from symptomatic AF/AFL/AT without new or increased dose of Class I/III AAD at one year.|||83.6|74.2|
90835018|NCT03882021|181537320|OTHER|Kaplan Meier estimate of freedom from AF/AFL/AT|Kaplan Meier Survival Estimate|75.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|69.9|80.1|||||Kaplan Meier estimate of freedom from AF/AFL/AT at 12 months.|||80.1|69.9|
90835019|NCT00286442|181537326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.32||A step-down strategy was used for the primary analysis. First, the 25mg dose was compared to placebo at the 2-sided 0.05 significance level. The 12.5 mg dose was compared to placebo only if the comparison of the 25mg dose to placebo was significant.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as class variables and baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|Null Hypothesis: No difference between treatment and placebo arms in change from baseline in glycosylated hemoglobin at wk 26. Sample size calculated based on normally distributed means. For comparison of either dose vs. placebo (2-sample t-test), study sample size \>=500 participants had 95% power to detect a treatment difference as small as 0.4% in the supportive per protocol analysis set assuming SD=0.8%, 2-sided \>0.05 significance level and \>=80% of participants meeting per protocol criteria.||-0.32|-0.68|<0.001
90835020|NCT00286442|181537326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.3||A step-down strategy was used for the primary analysis. First, the 25mg dose was compared to placebo at the 2-sided 0.05 significance level. The 12.5 mg dose was compared to placebo only if the comparison of the 25mg dose to placebo was significant.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on change from baseline with treatment and geographic region as class variables and baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|Null Hypothesis: No difference between treatment and placebo arms in change from baseline in glycosylated hemoglobin at week 26. Sample size calculated based on normally distributed means. For comparison of either dose vs. placebo (2-sample t-test), study sample size \>=500 participants had 95% power to detect a treatment difference as small as 0.4% in the per protocol analysis set assuming SD=0.8%, 2-sided test at 0.05 significance level and \>=80% of participants meeting per protocol criteria.||-0.30|-0.67|<0.001
90835021|NCT00286442|181537327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.16||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on change from baseline with treatment and geographic region as class variables and baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.16|-0.37|<0.001
90835022|NCT00286442|181537327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.19||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on change from baseline with treatment and geographic region as class variables and baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.19|-0.40|<0.001
91027084|NCT02300025|181938056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means ratio|68.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|40.4|116.2|||||The 90% CI for differences in LS means between the test and reference treatments obtained from the mixed model were also back-transformed to give 90% CIs for the ratio of the test treatment relative to the reference treatment.|AUC (0 - ∞) was analyzed using a mixed model ANOVA to determine 90% CI of the ratio between normal hepatic function (reference) and severe hepatic impairment (test) where hepatic impairment group was a fixed factor. The LS means of the test and reference treatments obtained from the mixed model were back-transformed to give geometric LS means (a point estimate).||116.2|40.4|
91027085|NCT01227668|181938104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.12|||Stratified log rank|||||1.12|0.28|0.097
91027086|NCT01227668|181938105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.4||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.82|0.02||For secondary endpoints, hierarchical testing aimed to keep the overall experiment-wise type I error rate to \<=0.05. Difference in chg from BL was tested at 0.05 significance only if APR arm significantly differed vs placebo from primary analysis.|ANCOVA|||||0.02|-8.82|0.051
91027087|NCT01227668|181938106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.1||Treatment diff in chg from BL to endpnt in IS score was tested at 0.05 signif only if ARP arm signif differed vs pb from PA. Thus, if ARP arm signif differed vs pb in IS score, treatment diff in mean CGI-I score at endpnt was tested at 0.05 signfnce.|ANCOVA|||||0.1|-1.3|0.090
90835023|NCT00286442|181537328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.24||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on change from baseline with treatment and geographic region as class variables and baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.24|-0.52|<0.001
90835024|NCT00286442|181537328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.24||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on change from baseline with treatment and geographic region as class variables and baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.24|-0.52|<0.001
90835025|NCT00286442|181537329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.34||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on change from baseline with treatment and geographic region as class variables and baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.34|-0.66|<0.001
90895338|NCT05614089|181656176|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64||||||Since this is one of two coprimary outcomes (this outcome and % time in serious hypoglycemia), a win (p\<0.025 for benefit) on either outcome will be considered to be a positive trial.|Regression, Linear|Multivariable generalized linear regression model adjusted for age at screening, study site, and % TIR at baseline||12-month||||0.64
90895339|NCT05614089|181656177|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Regression, Linear|Multivariable generalized linear regression model adjusted for age at screening, study site, and % time in hypoglycemia at baseline||6-month||||0.54
91027088|NCT00891878|181938117|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.43
90835026|NCT00286442|181537329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.34||No multiplicity adjustments|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on change from baseline with treatment and geographic region as class variables and baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.34|-0.66|<0.001
90895340|NCT05614089|181656177|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Regression, Linear|Multivariable generalized linear regression model adjusted for age at screening, study site, and % time in hypoglycemia at baseline||12-month||||0.07
90895341|NCT05614089|181656178|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||Regression, Linear|Multivariable generalized linear regression model adjusted for age at screening, study site, and % time above range at baseline||6-month||||0.58
91027089|NCT00891878|181938118|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.45
91027090|NCT01360450|181938123|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||yes the P value was adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|2 sided ANOVA|Mean difference between the two treatment arms|||||>0.05
91027091|NCT00494806|181938140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7279|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.05||95.0|0.3174|1.1383|||t-test, 2 sided|df = 64|Relative risk not calculated.|"No differences in time to first flatus between the rocking and non rocking groups is the null hypothesis.~Sample size calculations by setting the criterion for significance at .05, two-tailed test (an effect in either directions was accepted), and power at .80. A total sample of 54 participants was determined necessary to yield statistically significant results (27 in Group A and 27 in Group B)."||1.1383|0.3174|<0.05
91027092|NCT01533428|181938153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.6||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|-0.8|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model including treatment, gender, pain score at baseline, HbA1c at screening and site as factors/covariates.||All statistical comparisons were made using two-sided tests at the 5% significance level||-0.8|-12.3|0.025
91027093|NCT01533428|181938154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.1||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|-1.2|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model including treatment, gender, pain score at baseline, HbA1c at screening and site as factors/covariates.||All statistical comparisons were made using two-sided tests at the 5% significance level.||-1.2|-12.9|0.018
91027094|NCT01533428|181938155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.1||||0.208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|2.3|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model including treatment, gender, pain score at baseline, HbA1c at screening and site as factors/covariates.||Comparison of capsaicin 8% and placebo for change from Baseline to Week 2.||2.3|-10.4|0.208
91027095|NCT01533428|181938155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.7||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|-0.4|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model including treatment, gender, pain score at baseline, HbA1c at screening and site as factors/covariates.||Comparison of capsaicin 8% and placebo for change from Baseline to Week 3.||-0.4|-13.1|0.036
91027096|NCT01533428|181938155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.2||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|-0.8|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model including treatment, gender, pain score at baseline, HbA1c at screening and site as factors/covariates.||Comparison of capsaicin 8% and placebo for change from Baseline to Week 4.||-0.8|-13.5|0.027
90835027|NCT00286442|181537330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.36||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on change from baseline with treatment and geographic region as class variables and baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.36|-0.70|<0.001
90835028|NCT00286442|181537330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.34||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on change from baseline with treatment and geographic region as class variables and baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.34|-0.69|<0.001
91027097|NCT01533428|181938155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.3||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|-1.0|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model including treatment, gender, pain score at baseline, HbA1c at screening and site as factors/covariates.||Comparison of capsaicin 8% and placebo for change from Baseline to Week 5.||-1.0|-13.6|0.024
91027098|NCT01533428|181938155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.3||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|0.0|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model including treatment, gender, pain score at baseline, HbA1c at screening and site as factors/covariates.||Comparison of capsaicin 8% and placebo for change from Baseline to Week 6.||0.0|-12.6|0.051
91027099|NCT01533428|181938155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-8.1||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|-1.8|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model including treatment, gender, pain score at baseline, HbA1c at screening and site as factors/covariates.||Comparison of capsaicin 8% and placebo for change from Baseline to Week 7.||-1.8|-14.4|0.012
91027100|NCT01533428|181938155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.2||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|-0.8|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model including treatment, gender, pain score at baseline, HbA1c at screening and site as factors/covariates.||Comparison of capsaicin 8% and placebo for change from Baseline to Week 8.||-0.8|-13.5|0.026
91027101|NCT01533428|181938155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.9||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|-0.6|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model including treatment, gender, pain score at baseline, HbA1c at screening and site as factors/covariates.||Comparison of capsaicin 8% and placebo for change from Baseline to Week 9.||-0.6|-13.2|0.032
91027102|NCT01533428|181938155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.5||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|-1.2|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model including treatment, gender, pain score at baseline, HbA1c at screening and site as factors/covariates.||Comparison of capsaicin 8% and placebo for change from Baseline to Week 10.||-1.2|-13.9|0.020
91027103|NCT01533428|181938155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.4||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|-1.1|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model including treatment, gender, pain score at baseline, HbA1c at screening and site as factors/covariates.||Comparison of capsaicin 8% and placebo for change from Baseline to Week 11.||-1.1|-13.7|0.022
91027104|NCT01533428|181938155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-9.0||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.3|-2.7|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model including treatment, gender, pain score at baseline, HbA1c at screening and site as factors/covariates.||Comparison of capsaicin 8% and placebo for change from Baseline to Week 12.||-2.7|-15.3|0.005
91027105|NCT01533428|181938157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.2|||Regression, Logistic|Analysis of regression logistics model including treatment, gender, pain score at baseline, HbA1c at screening and site as factors/covariates.||Percentage of participants with 30% reduction in average daily pain score assessed in Weeks 2-8. The comparison of the odds ratio of capsaicin 8% to placebo for percent change from baseline was performed using a logistic regression model.||2.2|0.9|0.108
91027106|NCT01533428|181938157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.4|||Regression, Logistic|Analysis of regression logistics model including treatment, gender, pain score at baseline, HbA1c at screening and site as factors/covariates.||Percentage of participants with 30% reduction in average daily pain score assessed in Weeks 2-12. The comparison of the odds ratio of capsaicin 8% to placebo for percent change from baseline was performed using a logistic regression model.||2.4|1.0|0.050
91027107|NCT01533428|181938158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.1|||Regression, Logistic|Analysis of regression logistics model including treatment, gender, pain score at baseline, HbA1c at screening and site as factors/covariates.||Percentage of participants with 50% reduction in average daily pain score assessed in Weeks 2-8. The comparison of the odds ratio of capsaicin 8% to placebo for percent change from baseline was performed using a logistic regression model.||2.1|0.7|0.403
91027108|NCT01533428|181938158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.0|||Regression, Logistic|Analysis of regression logistics model including treatment, gender, pain score at baseline, HbA1c at screening and site as factors/covariates.||Percentage of participants with 50% reduction in average daily pain score assessed in Weeks 2-12. The comparison of the odds ratio of capsaicin 8% to placebo for percent change from baseline was performed using a logistic regression model.||2.0|0.7|0.446
91027109|NCT01533428|181938159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.072|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysis of Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test model including treatment, gender, pain score at baseline, HbA1c at screening and site as factors/covariates.||Comparing the difference between capsaicin 8% and placebo for counts by category using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test.||||0.072
91027110|NCT01533428|181938160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.075|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysis of Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test model including treatment, gender, pain score at baseline, HbA1c at screening and site as factors/covariates.||Comparing the difference between capsaicin 8% and placebo for counts by category using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test.||||0.075
91027111|NCT01533428|181938161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.169|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysis of Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test model including treatment, gender, pain score at baseline, HbA1c at screening and site as factors/covariates.||Comparing the difference between capsaicin 8% and placebo for counts by category using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test.||||0.169
90895342|NCT05614089|181656178|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||Regression, Linear|Multivariable generalized linear regression model adjusted for age at screening, study site, and % time above range at baseline||12-month||||0.21
91027112|NCT01533428|181938162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.7||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|5.0|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model including treatment, gender, pain score at baseline, HbA1c at screening and site as factors/covariates.||The statistical comparison between Baseline and Week 8 was made using two-sided tests at the 5% significance level.||5.0|-1.6|0.320
91027113|NCT01533428|181938162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.2||||0.473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|4.5|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model including treatment, gender, pain score at baseline, HbA1c at screening and site as factors/covariates.||The statistical comparison between Baseline and Week 12 was made using two-sided tests at the 5% significance level.||4.5|-2.1|0.473
91027114|NCT01533428|181938162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.7||||0.514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|2.2|||ANCOVA|||The statistical comparison between Baseline and Week 2 was made using two-sided tests at the 5% significance level.||2.2|-4.4|0.514
91027115|NCT01533428|181938163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.7|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model including treatment, gender, pain score at baseline, HbA1c at screening and site as factors/covariates.||Comparing the difference between capsaicin 8% and placebo for change from Baseline at Week 2 was completed using ANCOVA model.||0.7|-0.5|0.719
91027116|NCT01533428|181938163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.3|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model including treatment, gender, pain score at baseline, HbA1c at screening and site as factors/covariates.||Comparing the difference between capsaicin 8% and placebo for change from Baseline at Week 8 was completed using ANCOVA model.||0.3|-0.8|0.334
91027117|NCT01533428|181938163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.5|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model including treatment, gender, pain score at baseline, HbA1c at screening and site as factors/covariates.||Comparing the difference between capsaicin 8% and placebo for change from Baseline at Week 12 was completed using ANCOVA model.||0.5|-0.7|0.726
91027118|NCT01533428|181938164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.5|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model including treatment, gender, pain score at baseline, HbA1c at screening and site as factors/covariates.||Comparing the difference between capsaicin 8% and placebo for change from Baseline at Week 2 was completed using ANCOVA model.||0.5|-0.6|0.841
91027119|NCT01533428|181938164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.2|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model including treatment, gender, pain score at baseline, HbA1c at screening and site as factors/covariates.||Comparing the difference between capsaicin 8% and placebo for change from Baseline at Week 8 was completed using ANCOVA model.||0.2|-0.9|0.171
91027120|NCT01533428|181938164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.4|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model including treatment, gender, pain score at baseline, HbA1c at screening and site as factors/covariates.||Comparing the difference between capsaicin 8% and placebo for change from Baseline at Week 12 was completed using ANCOVA model.||0.4|-0.7|0.595
90895343|NCT05614089|181656179|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Regression, Linear|Multivariable generalized linear regression model adjusted for age at screening, study site, and number of nocturnal events at baseline||6-month||||0.70
90895344|NCT05614089|181656179|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Regression, Linear|Multivariable generalized linear regression model adjusted for age at screening, study site, and number of nocturnal events at baseline||12-month||||0.02
90895345|NCT05614089|181656180|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||Regression, Linear|Multivariable generalized linear regression model adjusted for age at screening, study site, and HbA1c at baseline||6-month||||0.81
90895346|NCT05614089|181656180|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||Regression, Linear|Multivariable generalized linear regression model adjusted for age at screening, study site, and HbA1c at baseline||12-month||||0.29
91027121|NCT01533428|181938166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-9.0||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.2|-0.9|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model including treatment,gender, pain score at baseline, HbA1c at screening and site as factors/covariates.||All statistical comparisons were made using two-sided tests at the 5% significance level.||-0.9|-17.2|0.030
91027122|NCT01533428|181938166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-9.5||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.4|-1.5|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model including treatment,gender, pain score at baseline, HbA1c at screening and site as factors/covariates.||All statistical comparisons were made using two-sided tests at the 5% significance level.||-1.5|-17.4|0.020
91027123|NCT01688037|181938171|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.2966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.7|||ANCOVA|||||0.7|-2.3|0.2966
91027124|NCT01688037|181938172|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.4|||ANOVA|||||0.4|-0.3|0.743
91027125|NCT01688037|181938173|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.1151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.1|||ANOVA|||||0.1|-0.7|0.1151
91027126|NCT01688037|181938173|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.0|||ANOVA|||||0.0|-0.8|0.0277
91027127|NCT03065283|181938178|EQUIVALENCE|p\< or = 0.05|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.57|||t-test, 2 sided|||A paired t-test was used for intragroup analysis, and an independent Student's t-test was used for intergroup analysis. Data are represented in mean between-group difference with a 95% CI, and analysis was by intention to treat.||0.57|-0.38|0.05
91027128|NCT00095199|181938191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.21||The 2-sided unstratified log-rank test was employed at the 5% significance level.|Log Rank|Kaplan-Meier method estimated median PFS time. HR was calculated with unstratified Cox proportional hazards model. HR\<1 favours Cetuximab arm||The Pemetrexed comparisons (Cetuximab + Pemetrexed vs Pemetrexed) were considered the primary comparisons. The Docetaxel comparisons (Cetuximab + Docetaxel vs Docetaxel) were considered supportive as Docetaxel comparisons remained underpowered by design. No tests were conducted to compare participants who received Docetaxel to those who received Pemetrexed.||1.21|0.87|0.756
90895347|NCT05614089|181656181|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||Negative Binomial Regression|Negative binomial regression model adjusted for age at screening and study site||Through 6-month||||0.98
90895348|NCT05614089|181656181|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||Negative Binomial Regression|Negative binomial regression model adjusted for age at screening and study site||Through 12-month||||0.61
90895349|NCT05614089|181656182|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||Negative Binomial Regression|Negative binomial regression model adjusted for age at screening and study site||Through 6-month||||0.83
91090515|NCT00526474|182064151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.88||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|0.95|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||0.95|0.82|0.001
90835029|NCT00286442|181537331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.34||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on change from baseline with treatment and geographic region as class variables and baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.34|-0.69|<0.001
90835030|NCT00286442|181537331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.34||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on change from baseline with treatment and geographic region as class variables and baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.34|-0.69|<0.001
90835031|NCT00286442|181537332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.7|-6.8||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline FPG as covariates. Missing data imputed with LOCF.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the metformin arm.|||-6.8|-20.7|<0.001
90835032|NCT00286442|181537332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9|-4.9||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline FPG as covariates. Missing data imputed with LOCF.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the metformin arm.|||-4.9|-18.9|<0.001
90835033|NCT00286442|181537333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.9|-9.5||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline FPG as covariates. Missing data imputed with LOCF.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-9.5|-23.9|<0.001
90835034|NCT00286442|181537333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.1|-9.6||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline FPG as covariates. Missing data imputed with LOCF.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-9.6|-24.1|<0.001
90835035|NCT00286442|181537334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.6|-11.0||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline FPG as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-11.0|-24.6|<0.001
90835036|NCT00286442|181537334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.3|-10.6||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline FPG as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-10.6|-24.3|<0.001
90835037|NCT00286442|181537335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.0|-12.2||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline FPG as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-12.2|-28.0|<0.001
90835038|NCT00286442|181537335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.6|-9.7||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline FPG as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-9.7|-25.6|<0.001
90835039|NCT00286442|181537336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.6|-8.9||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline FPG as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-8.9|-25.6|<0.001
90835040|NCT00286442|181537336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.4|-8.6||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline FPG as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-8.6|-25.4|<0.001
90835041|NCT00286442|181537337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.4|-10.8||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline FPG as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-10.8|-27.4|<0.001
90835042|NCT00286442|181537337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.0|-8.3||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline FPG as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-8.3|-25.0|<0.001
90895350|NCT05614089|181656182|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||Negative Binomial Regression|Negative binomial regression model adjusted for age at screening and study site||Through 12-month||||0.09
91027129|NCT00095199|181938191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.13||The 2-sided unstratified log-rank test was employed at the 5% significance level.|Log Rank|Kaplan-Meier method estimated median PFS time. HR was calculated with unstratified Cox proportional hazards model. HR\<1 favours Cetuximab arm||The Pemetrexed comparisons (Cetuximab + Pemetrexed vs Pemetrexed) were considered the primary comparisons. The Docetaxel comparisons (Cetuximab + Docetaxel vs Docetaxel) were considered supportive as Docetaxel comparisons remained underpowered by design. No tests were conducted to compare participants who received Docetaxel to those who received Pemetrexed.||1.13|0.73|0.391
91027130|NCT00095199|181938192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.2||The 2-sided unstratified log-rank test was employed at the 5% significance level|Log Rank|Kaplan-Meier method estimated median OS time. HR was calculated with unstratified Cox proportional hazards model. HR\<1 favors Cetuximab arm||The Pemetrexed comparisons (Cetuximab + Pemetrexed vs Pemetrexed) were considered the primary comparisons. The Docetaxel comparisons (Cetuximab + Docetaxel vs Docetaxel) were considered supportive as Docetaxel comparisons remained underpowered by design. No tests were conducted to compare participants who received Docetaxel to those who received Pemetrexed.||1.20|0.86|0.864
91027131|NCT00095199|181938192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.41||The 2-sided unstratified log-rank test was employed at the 5% significance level.|Log Rank|Kaplan-Meier method estimated median OS time. HR was calculated with unstratified Cox proportional hazards model. HR\<1 favors Cetuximab arm||The Pemetrexed comparisons (Cetuximab + Pemetrexed vs Pemetrexed) were considered the primary comparisons. The Docetaxel comparisons (Cetuximab + Docetaxel vs Docetaxel) were considered supportive as Docetaxel comparisons remained underpowered by design. No tests were conducted to compare participants who received Docetaxel to those who received Pemetrexed.||1.41|0.90|0.307
91027132|NCT00095199|181938193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.59||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|3.26||The 2-sided unstratified Mantel Haenszel test was employed at the 5% significance level.|Mantel Haenszel|HR\<1 favors Cetuximab arm||The Pemetrexed comparisons (Cetuximab + Pemetrexed vs Pemetrexed) were considered the primary comparisons. The Docetaxel comparisons (Cetuximab + Docetaxel vs Docetaxel) were considered supportive as Docetaxel comparisons remained underpowered by design. No tests were conducted to compare participants who received Docetaxel to those who received Pemetrexed.||3.26|0.78|0.200
91027133|NCT00095199|181938193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|2.74||The 2-sided unstratified Mantel Haenszel test was employed at the 5% significance level.|Mantel Haenszel|HR\<1 favors Cetuximab arm||The Pemetrexed comparisons (Cetuximab + Pemetrexed vs Pemetrexed) were considered the primary comparisons. The Docetaxel comparisons (Cetuximab + Docetaxel vs Docetaxel) were considered supportive as Docetaxel comparisons remained underpowered by design. No tests were conducted to compare participants who received Docetaxel to those who received Pemetrexed.||2.74|0.52|0.683
91027134|NCT00095199|181938194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.62||The 2-sided unstratified Mantel Haenszel test was employed at the 5% significance level.|Mantel Haenszel|HR\<1 favors Cetuximab arm||The Pemetrexed comparisons (Cetuximab + Pemetrexed vs Pemetrexed) were considered the primary comparisons. The Docetaxel comparisons (Cetuximab + Docetaxel vs Docetaxel) were considered supportive as Docetaxel comparisons remained underpowered by design. No tests were conducted to compare participants who received Docetaxel to those who received Pemetrexed.||1.62|0.86|0.310
91027135|NCT00095199|181938194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|2.4||The 2-sided unstratified Mantel Haenszel test was employed at the 5% significance level.|Mantel Haenszel|HR\<1 favors Cetuximab arm||The Pemetrexed comparisons (Cetuximab + Pemetrexed vs Pemetrexed) were considered the primary comparisons. The Docetaxel comparisons (Cetuximab + Docetaxel vs Docetaxel) were considered supportive as Docetaxel comparisons remained underpowered by design. No tests were conducted to compare participants who received Docetaxel to those who received Pemetrexed.||2.40|0.93|0.100
91027136|NCT00095199|181938195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.06||The 2-sided unstratified Mantel Haenszel test was employed at the 5% significance level.|Mantel Haenszel|HR\<1 favors Cetuximab arm||The Pemetrexed comparisons (Cetuximab + Pemetrexed vs Pemetrexed) were considered the primary comparisons. The Docetaxel comparisons (Cetuximab + Docetaxel vs Docetaxel) were considered supportive as Docetaxel comparisons remained underpowered by design. No tests were conducted to compare participants who received Docetaxel to those who received Pemetrexed.||1.06|0.46|0.091
91027137|NCT00095199|181938195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.5||The 2-sided unstratified Mantel Haenszel test was employed at the 5% significance level.|Mantel Haenszel|HR\<1 favors Cetuximab arm||The Pemetrexed comparisons (Cetuximab + Pemetrexed vs Pemetrexed) were considered the primary comparisons. The Docetaxel comparisons (Cetuximab + Docetaxel vs Docetaxel) were considered supportive as Docetaxel comparisons remained underpowered by design. No tests were conducted to compare participants who received Docetaxel to those who received Pemetrexed.||2.50|0.72|0.361
91032637|NCT02549092|181950227|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.59||0.291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.96|3.34||The repeated measures model: change = treatment, country, visit, baseline, treatment \* visit, baseline \* visit. The unstructured variance-covariance structure is used.|Repeated measures model||Difference of LCIG - OMT|Statistical significance for the 3 key secondary efficacy endpoints (PDQ-8 index score, CGI-C score, and UPDRS Part II) could only be evaluated using the Hochberg procedure for multiplicity control if both primary endpoints had been statistically significant after multiplicity adjustment.||3.34|-10.96|0.291
91032638|NCT02549092|181950228|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.84|-1.82||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: FINAL = treatment, country.|ANCOVA||Difference of LCIG - OMT|Statistical significance for the 3 key secondary efficacy endpoints (PDQ-8 index score, CGI-C score, and UPDRS Part II) could only be evaluated using the Hochberg procedure for multiplicity control if both primary endpoints had been statistically significant after multiplicity adjustment.||-1.82|-2.84|< 0.001
91033102|NCT05093205|181951922|OTHER|0.15 mg LE \& 0.03 mg EE was the Reference treatment (Part B Period 1), PF-06882961 200 mg BID + 0.15 mg LE \& 0.03 mg EE was the Test treatment (Period 5).|Specified in comments|92.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.05|106.19|||Mixed Models Analysis||A mixed effects model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect was used was applied to calculate the ratio (Test/Reference) of adjusted means and 90% CIs for Ratio. The ratio (and 90% CI) is expressed as percentage.|||106.19|81.05|
90835043|NCT00286442|181537338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.7|-9.4||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline FPG as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-9.4|-26.7|<0.001
90835044|NCT00286442|181537338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.2|-6.8||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline FPG as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-6.8|-24.2|<0.001
90835045|NCT00286442|181537339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.3|-10.2||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline FPG as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-10.2|-27.3|<0.001
90835046|NCT00286442|181537339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.9|-8.8||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline FPG as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-8.8|-25.9|<0.001
90835047|NCT00286442|181537340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.372|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.213|0.65||no multiplicity adjustments.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) is alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||0.650|0.213|<0.001
90835048|NCT00286442|181537340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.405||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.231|0.708||No multiplicity adjustments.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) is alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||0.708|0.231|0.002
90835049|NCT00286442|181537341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.302||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.143|0.635||no multiplicity adjustments.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) is alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||0.635|0.143|0.002
90835050|NCT00286442|181537341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.236|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.109|0.51|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) is alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||0.510|0.109|<0.001
90835051|NCT00286442|181537342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0.634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|4.5||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline proinsulin as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||4.5|-7.4|0.634
90835052|NCT00286442|181537342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.5||||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|1.4||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline proinsulin as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||1.4|-10.5|0.136
90835053|NCT00286442|181537343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5||||0.274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|2.0||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline proinsulin as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||2.0|-6.9|0.274
90895351|NCT05614089|181656183|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Regression, Linear|Multivariable generalized linear regression model adjusted for age at screening, study site, and PedsQL 3.2 DM Diabetes Symptoms score at baseline||6-month||||0.95
91027138|NCT00095199|181938196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||0.472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.74||The 2-sided unstratified log-rank test was employed at the 5% significance level.|Log Rank|Kaplan-Meier estimated time to symptomatic progression. HR was calculated using unstratified Cox proportional hazards model. HR\<1 favors Cetuximab arm||The Pemetrexed comparisons (Cetuximab + Pemetrexed vs Pemetrexed) were considered the primary comparisons. The Docetaxel comparisons (Cetuximab + Docetaxel vs Docetaxel) were considered supportive as Docetaxel comparisons remained underpowered by design. No tests were conducted to compare participants who received Docetaxel to those who received Pemetrexed.||1.74|0.77|0.472
91033103|NCT02567968|181951938|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.002
91103918|NCT03992872|182094612|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||"Null hypothesis for analysis of percentage of subjects with Anti-Chikungunya neutralizing activity at or above selected thresholds by time point.~Day 29: Subject with Titer \>=40"||||1.0000
90835054|NCT00286442|181537343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.6||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|-0.1||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA||Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.1|-9.1|0.046
90835055|NCT00286442|181537344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0.655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|4.6||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline proinsulin as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||4.6|-7.4|0.655
90835056|NCT00286442|181537344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0.645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|4.6||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline FPG as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||4.6|-7.4|0.645
91032639|NCT02549092|181950229|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.77|-0.81||The repeated measures model: change = treatment, country, visit, baseline, treatment \* visit, baseline \* visit. The unstructured variance-covariance structure is used.|Repeated measures model||Difference of LCIG - OMT|Statistical significance for the 3 key secondary efficacy endpoints (PDQ-8 index score, CGI-C score, and UPDRS Part II) could only be evaluated using the Hochberg procedure for multiplicity control if both primary endpoints had been statistically significant after multiplicity adjustment.||-0.81|-4.77|0.006
90835057|NCT00286442|181537345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|4.6||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline proinsulin as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||4.6|-6.3|0.748
90835058|NCT00286442|181537345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2||||0.432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|3.3||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline proinsulin as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||3.3|-7.7|0.432
90835059|NCT00286442|181537346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2||||0.427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|3.3||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline proinsulin as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||3.3|-7.8|0.427
90835060|NCT00286442|181537346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|6.5||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline proinsulin as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||6.5|-4.6|0.746
90835061|NCT00286442|181537347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|7.2||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline proinsulin as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||7.2|-5.0|0.727
90835062|NCT00286442|181537347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.601||||1.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|7.8||No multiplicity adjustments|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline proinsulin as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||7.8|-4.5|1.6
90835063|NCT00286442|181537348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.19||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|4.52||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline insulin as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||4.52|-0.15|0.066
90835064|NCT00286442|181537348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|3.93||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline insulin as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||3.93|-0.74|0.180
90835065|NCT00286442|181537349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.02|4.68||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline insulin as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||4.68|-5.02|0.944
90835066|NCT00286442|181537349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5||||0.316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|2.4||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline insulin as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||2.40|-7.40|0.316
90835067|NCT00286442|181537350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32||||0.901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.42|4.77||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline insulin as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||4.77|-5.42|0.901
90957185|NCT00122460|181793849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.593|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.484|0.727|||Stratified Log Rank|||"Treatment groups were compared applying a two-sided stratified log-rank test (α=5%), taking into account strata used for randomization (previous CTX \[yes/no\] and KPS \[\<80 vs. ≥80\]).~Median time to treatment failure was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. The HR of cetuximab + CTX over CTX alone was calculated using the Cox proportional hazards model stratified by randomization strata."||0.727|0.484|<0.0001
91032640|NCT02549092|181950230|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99||0.933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|2.06||The repeated measures model: change = treatment, country, visit, baseline, treatment \* visit, baseline \* visit. The unstructured variance-covariance structure is used.|Repeated measures model||Difference of LCIG - OMT|Cardiovascular including falls||2.06|-1.89|0.933
90835068|NCT00286442|181537350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.45||||0.578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.59|3.68||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline insulin as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||3.68|-6.59|0.578
90835069|NCT00286442|181537351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.63||||0.708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.67|3.93||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline insulin as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||3.93|-2.67|0.708
90835070|NCT00286442|181537351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.89||||0.601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|4.21||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline insulin as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||4.21|-2.44|0.601
90835071|NCT00286442|181537352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.12||||0.398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|3.72||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline insulin as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||3.72|-1.48|0.398
90835072|NCT00286442|181537352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.07||||0.425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|3.69||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline insulin as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||3.69|-1.56|0.425
90835073|NCT00286442|181537353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.87||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|5.23||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline insulin as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||5.23|0.50|0.018
90835074|NCT00286442|181537353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.22||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|4.6||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline insulin as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||4.60|-0.15|0.067
90835075|NCT00286442|181537354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.036||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.064|-0.009||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline proinsulin/insulin ratio as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.009|-0.064|0.011
90835076|NCT00286442|181537354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.047|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.075|-0.019||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline proinsulin/insulin ratio as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.019|-0.075|<0.001
90835077|NCT00286442|181537355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.045|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|-0.021||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline proinsulin/insulin ratio as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.021|-0.070|<0.001
90835078|NCT00286442|181537355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.037||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.062|-0.012||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline proinsulin/insulin ratio as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.012|-0.062|0.004
90895352|NCT05614089|181656183|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||Regression, Linear|Multivariable generalized linear regression model adjusted for age at screening, study site, and PedsQL 3.2 DM Diabetes Symptoms score at baseline||12-month||||0.73
90895353|NCT05614089|181656184|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||Regression, Linear|Multivariable generalized linear regression model adjusted for age at screening, study site, and PedsQL 3.2 DM Diabetes Management score at baseline||6-month||||0.81
90958922|NCT04874415|181797845|SUPERIORITY|Main effects of each intervention factor were estimated using generalized linear models with log link, including all prespecified two-way interactions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0001|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4|||||Daily Step Count Goal is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|||0.4|-0.4|
90835079|NCT00286442|181537356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.039||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.068|-0.011||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline proinsulin/insulin ratio as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm|||-0.011|-0.068|0.007
90835080|NCT00286442|181537356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.037||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.066|-0.008||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline proinsulin/insulin ratio as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm|||-0.008|-0.066|0.011
90895354|NCT05614089|181656184|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||Regression, Linear|Multivariable generalized linear regression model adjusted for age at screening, study site, and PedsQL 3.2 DM Diabetes Management score at baseline||12-month||||0.44
90835081|NCT00286442|181537357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.052|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|-0.024||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline proinsulin/insulin ratio as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.024|-0.080|<0.001
90835082|NCT00286442|181537357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.044||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.072|-0.015||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline proinsulin/insulin ratio as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.015|-0.072|0.003
90895355|NCT05614089|181656185|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Regression, Linear|Multivariable generalized linear regression model adjusted for age at screening, study site, and ITSQ at baseline||6-month||||0.04
91090516|NCT00526474|182064152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.94|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||0.94|0.80|<0.001
91027139|NCT00095199|181938196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.27||The 2-sided unstratified log-rank test was employed at the 5% significance level.|Log Rank|Kaplan-Meier estimated time to symptomatic progression. HR was calculated using unstratified Cox proportional hazards model. HR\<1 favors Cetuximab arm||The Pemetrexed comparisons (Cetuximab + Pemetrexed vs Pemetrexed) were considered the primary comparisons. The Docetaxel comparisons (Cetuximab + Docetaxel vs Docetaxel) were considered supportive as Docetaxel comparisons remained underpowered by design. No tests were conducted to compare participants who received Docetaxel to those who received Pemetrexed.||1.27|0.42|0.272
91027140|NCT00095199|181938197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.58||||0.236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|3.36||The 2-sided unstratified log-rank test was employed at the 5% significance level.|Log Rank|The Kaplan-Meier method estimated duration of response. HR was calculated using unstratified Cox proportional hazards model. HR\<1 favors Cetuximab arm||The Pemetrexed comparisons (Cetuximab + Pemetrexed vs Pemetrexed) were considered the primary comparisons. The Docetaxel comparisons (Cetuximab + Docetaxel vs Docetaxel) were considered supportive as Docetaxel comparisons remained underpowered by design. No tests were conducted to compare participants who received Docetaxel to those who received Pemetrexed.||3.36|0.74|0.236
91027141|NCT00095199|181938197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|2.18||The 2-sided unstratified log-rank test was employed at the 5% significance level.|Log Rank|The Kaplan-Meier method estimated duration of response. HR was calculated using unstratified Cox proportional hazards model. HR\<1 favors Cetuximab arm||The Pemetrexed comparisons (Cetuximab + Pemetrexed vs Pemetrexed) were considered the primary comparisons. The Docetaxel comparisons (Cetuximab + Docetaxel vs Docetaxel) were considered supportive as Docetaxel comparisons remained underpowered by design. No tests were conducted to compare participants who received Docetaxel to those who received Pemetrexed.||2.18|0.42|0.887
91027142|NCT00717977|181938221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0||||Adjusted for CGM device type. Age was analyzed as continuous.|Regression, Linear|||The associations of mean sensor glucose and glucose variability measures with age were assessed using least-squares regression models adjusting for device type.||||0.009
91027143|NCT00717977|181938222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0||||Adjusted for CGM device type. Age was analyzed as continuous.|Regression, Linear|||The associations of mean sensor glucose and glucose variability measures with age were assessed using least-squares regression models adjusting for device type.||||0.04
91090517|NCT00526474|182064153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|1.74|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||1.74|1.31|<0.001
91090518|NCT00526474|182064154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|1.51|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||1.51|1.31|<0.001
90835083|NCT00286442|181537358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.046||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.097|0.005||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline proinsulin/insulin ratio as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.005|-0.097|0.078
90835084|NCT00286442|181537358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.005||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.056|0.047||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline proinsulin/insulin ratio as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.047|-0.056|0.860
90895356|NCT05614089|181656185|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Regression, Linear|Multivariable generalized linear regression model adjusted for age at screening, study site, and ITSQ at baseline||12-month||||0.10
90895357|NCT03937219|181656186|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.0131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.94|||Log Rank|||||0.94|0.57|0.0131
90895358|NCT05417620|181656188|OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|1.21||||0.707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|3.31||Threshold for significance: 0.05.|Regression, Poisson|||"This statistical analysis is done at the district level where counts of initiations in intervention districts are compared to standard of care districts. In the measure type we report rate = average counts of PrEP initiations per number of study months."||3.31|0.44|0.707
90957186|NCT00122460|181793850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.762||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.497|1.168|||Stratified Log Rank|||"To test the equality of duration of response between treatment groups, the two-sided stratified log-rank test (α=5%) was used taking strata used for randomization into account (previous CTX \[no vs. yes\] and KPS \[\<80 vs. ≥80\]).~Median duration of response was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. The HR of cetuximab + CTX over CTX alone was calculated using the Cox proportional hazards model stratified by randomization strata."||1.168|0.497|0.21
91090519|NCT00526474|182064155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.91||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|0.98|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||0.98|0.85|0.009
91090520|NCT00526474|182064156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.86||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|0.94|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||0.94|0.78|0.002
91027144|NCT00717977|181938223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Adjusted for device type. Age was analyzed as continuous.|Regression, Linear|||The associations of mean sensor glucose and glucose variability measures with age were assessed using least-squares regression models adjusting for device type.||||<0.001
91027145|NCT05440097|181938280|OTHER||Difference in percentage|12.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.079|13.431|||Mixed Models Analysis|The primary analysis used mixed effect logistic regression model, taking the timepoint as the fixed effect, hospital and patient as random effects.||||13.431|9.079|<.0001
91027146|NCT05440097|181938281|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|30.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.82|34.25|||Normal approximation|||||34.25|26.82|
91027147|NCT05440097|181938282|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|3.58|||Normal approximation||Change from baseline in proportion at week 12|||3.58|0.77|
91027148|NCT05440097|181938282|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|3.56|||Normal approximation||Change from baseline in proportion at week 24|||3.56|0.57|
91027149|NCT05440097|181938282|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|12.2||||||95.0|9.25|15.13|||Normal approximation||Change from baseline in proportion at week 36|||15.13|9.25|
91027150|NCT05440097|181938282|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|13.1||||||95.0|10.32|15.79|||Normal approximation||Change from baseline in proportion at week 48|||15.79|10.32|
91027151|NCT05440097|181938284|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.21|16.85|||Normal approximation||Change from baseline in the Proportion at week 12|||16.85|9.21|
91027152|NCT05440097|181938284|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|8.23|||Normal approximation||Change from baseline in the proportion at week 24|||8.23|0.61|
91027153|NCT05440097|181938284|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.68|10.36|||Normal approximation||Change from baseline in the proportion at week 36|||10.36|2.68|
90895359|NCT04393441|181656199|NON_INFERIORITY|MMRM with fixed effects=treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction,Baseline total staining stratum(TSS),and Baseline TSS by visit interaction.|Least Squares Mean Difference|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.0475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|2.27|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline in Total Staining Score at Day 90: The null hypothesis was that 011516X tear formulation was to be considered noninferior to Systane Ultra MD if the upper limit of 2-sided confidence interval (CI) was less than 2.3 units.||2.27|0.01|0.0475
91090521|NCT00526474|182064157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|0.93|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||0.93|0.81|<0.001
91090522|NCT00526474|182064158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.91||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|0.96|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||0.96|0.86|0.001
91090523|NCT00526474|182064159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|0.95|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||0.95|0.85|<0.001
90895360|NCT04393441|181656200|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. The p-value for treatment differences is reported for reference.|Least Squares Mean Difference|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.32||0.9001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.03|34.14|||MMRM|MMRM with fixed effects=treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Baseline TSS, and Baseline TSS by visit interaction.||||34.14|-30.03|0.9001
91027154|NCT01806688|181938296|EQUIVALENCE|The study is designed to detect a 10.0% difference in area under the curve (AUC) appetite ratings between foods. The required number of Participants is 38.|||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|Sources of variation included in the model: snack, visit number, baseline score, visit number × snack, and snack × overweight.||Items #1 were compared to each other and Items #2 were compared to each other||||<0.05
91027155|NCT01806688|181938297|EQUIVALENCE|The study is designed to detect a 10.0% difference in area under the curve (AUC) appetite ratings between foods. The required number of Participants is 38.|||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|Sources of variation included in the model: snack, visit number, baseline score, visit number × snack, and snack × overweight.||Items #1 were compared to each other and Items #2 were compared to each other||||<0.05
91027156|NCT01806688|181938299|EQUIVALENCE|The study is designed to detect a 10.0% difference in area under the curve (AUC) appetite ratings between foods. The required number of Participants is 38.|||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|Sources of variation included in the model: snack, visit number, baseline score, visit number × snack, and snack × overweight.||Items #1 were compared to each other and Items #2 were compared to each other||||<0.05
91027157|NCT02146430|181938302|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.187||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.12|||Difference of means|||||0.12|-0.61|0.1870
91027158|NCT02146430|181938302|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.185||0.0944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.05|||Difference of means|||||0.05|-0.67|0.0944
91027159|NCT02146430|181938302|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.187||0.1391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.09|||Difference of means|||||0.09|-0.64|0.1391
91027160|NCT02146430|181938302|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.187||0.7338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.3|||Difference of means|||||0.30|-0.43|0.7338
91027161|NCT02146430|181938302|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.8705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.34|||Difference of means|||||0.34|-0.40|0.8705
91027162|NCT02146430|181938304|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.592||0.0326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.52|-0.28|||Difference of means|||||-0.28|-6.52|0.0326
91027163|NCT02146430|181938304|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.592||0.422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|1.84|||Difference of means|||||1.84|-4.40|0.4220
91027164|NCT02146430|181938304|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.615||0.9659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|3.23|||Difference of means|||||3.23|-3.10|0.9659
90895361|NCT02782169|181656201|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.32
90895362|NCT02953938|181656237|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.64||0.368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|1.07|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.07|-1.49|0.3680
90895363|NCT02953938|181656238|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.58|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.042||0.0349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.67|-0.48|||ANOVA|||||-0.48|-12.67|0.0349
90835085|NCT00286442|181537359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.053||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.106|-0.001||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline proinsulin/insulin ratio as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.001|-0.106|0.048
90835086|NCT00286442|181537359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.004||||0.889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.057|0.05||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline proinsulin/insulin ratio as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.050|-0.057|0.889
90835087|NCT00286442|181537360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.336||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.642||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline C-peptide as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.642|0.030|0.031
90835088|NCT00286442|181537360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.304||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.002|0.611||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline C-peptide as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.611|-0.002|0.051
90835089|NCT00286442|181537361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.088||||0.563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.209|0.384||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline C-peptide as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.384|-0.209|0.563
90835090|NCT00286442|181537361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.111||||0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.188|0.41||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline C-peptide as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.410|-0.188|0.467
90895364|NCT02953938|181656239|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.051||0.2707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.045|0.158|||ANOVA|||||0.158|-0.045|0.2707
90835091|NCT00286442|181537362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.187||||0.243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.127|0.501||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline C-peptide as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.501|-0.127|0.243
90895365|NCT02953938|181656241|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.32||||0.7602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.65|85.28|||ANOVA|||||85.28|-62.65|0.7602
90895366|NCT03371082|181656246|EQUIVALENCE|The limits of the lower and upper equivalence margin were -11.3 and 11.3, respectively.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.63|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.4|6.5|||||The asymptotic standard error was planned and is reported above.|This is a two-arm study.||6.5|-5.4|
90895367|NCT00810264|181656327|NON_INFERIORITY|The primary safety endpoint 1 hypothesis was evaluated by performing an exact, non-inferiority test comparing a binomial proportion (overall SAEFR at 5 years) to 92.5%, with a non-inferiority delta of 5%.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Binomial Proportion|||||||<0.0001
90895368|NCT01648348|181656399|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.77|||Log Rank|||||1.77|0.73|0.57
90895369|NCT01648348|181656400|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
90835092|NCT00286442|181537362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.279||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.037|0.595||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline C-peptide as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.595|-0.037|0.083
90895370|NCT01648348|181656401|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.69|||Log Rank|||||1.69|0.66|0.82
90895371|NCT01648348|181656403|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.19
90835093|NCT00286442|181537363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.155||||0.321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.152|0.463||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline C-peptide as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.463|-0.152|0.321
90835094|NCT00286442|181537363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.268||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.041|0.577||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline C-peptide as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.577|-0.041|0.089
90895372|NCT01648348|181656404|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Future uncertainty symptom scale/item t-test, 2-sided, unpooled.||||0.55
90895373|NCT01648348|181656404|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Visual disorder symptom scale/item t-test, 2-sided, unpooled.||||0.16
90895374|NCT01648348|181656404|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Motor dysfunction symptom scale/item t-test, 2-sided, unpooled.||||0.99
90895375|NCT01648348|181656404|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Communication deficit symptom scale/item t-test, 2-sided, unpooled.||||0.75
90895376|NCT01648348|181656404|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Headaches symptom scale/item t-test, 2-sided, unpooled.||||0.17
90895377|NCT01648348|181656404|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Seizures symptom scale/item t-test, 2-sided, unpooled.||||0.90
91027165|NCT02146430|181938304|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.608||0.1867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|5.28|||Difference of means|||||5.28|-1.03|0.1867
91090524|NCT00526474|182064160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.89||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.04|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||1.04|0.76|0.151
90835095|NCT00286442|181537364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.144||||0.305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.132|0.42||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline C-peptide as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.420|-0.132|0.305
90835096|NCT00286442|181537364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.191||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.086|0.468||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline C-peptide as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.468|-0.086|0.177
90835097|NCT00286442|181537365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.394||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.107|0.68||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline C-peptide as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.680|0.107|0.007
90835098|NCT00286442|181537365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.263||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.025|0.55||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline C-peptide as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.550|-0.025|0.074
90835099|NCT00286442|181537366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.117|17.864||no multiplicity adjustments.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) is alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \>1.0 indicates higher incidence of response compared to placebo.|||17.864|2.117|<0.001
90835100|NCT00286442|181537366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.322||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.82|15.564||No multiplicity adjustments.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) is alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \>1.0 indicates higher incidence of response compared to placebo.|||15.564|1.820|0.002
90835101|NCT00286442|181537367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.092|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.271|11.345||No multiplicity adjustments.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \>1.0 indicates higher incidence of response compared to placebo.|||11.345|3.271|<0.001
90835102|NCT00286442|181537367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.451|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.388|8.296||No multiplicity adjustments.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \>1.0 indicates higher incidence of response compared to placebo.|||8.296|2.388|<0.001
90895378|NCT01648348|181656404|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Drowsiness symptom scale/item t-test, 2-sided, unpooled.||||0.82
90835103|NCT00286442|181537368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.238|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.327|7.717||No multiplicity adjustments.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \>1.0 indicates higher incidence of response compared to placebo.|||7.717|2.327|<0.001
90895379|NCT01648348|181656404|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Itchy skin symptom scale/item t-test, 2-sided, unpooled.||||0.15
90835104|NCT00286442|181537368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.293|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.814|5.979|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \>1.0 indicates higher incidence of response compared to placebo.|||5.979|1.814|<0.001
90835105|NCT00286442|181537369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.103|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.428|6.934||No multiplicity adjustments.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \>1.0 indicates higher incidence of response compared to placebo.|||6.934|2.428|<0.001
90895380|NCT01648348|181656404|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Hair loss symptom scale/item t-test, 2-sided, unpooled.||||0.77
90895381|NCT01648348|181656404|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Weakness of legs symptom scale/item t-test, 2-sided, unpooled.||||0.10
90895382|NCT01648348|181656404|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Bladder control symptom scale/item t-test, 2-sided, unpooled.||||0.65
90895383|NCT01648348|181656405|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||proportion test|||||||0.83
90895384|NCT00696410|181656409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||p value represents test of paired (within patient) difference||||0.068
90895385|NCT00696410|181656409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||p value tests difference between the marker in CHF patients at time 0 and Health Controls (between group)||||0.022
91027166|NCT02146430|181938304|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.631||0.0333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|6.67|||Difference of means|||||6.67|0.27|0.0333
91027167|NCT02146430|181938306|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.2474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.2|||ANCOVA|||||0.2|-0.9|0.2474
91027168|NCT02146430|181938306|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.3347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.3|||ANCOVA|||||0.3|-0.8|0.3347
91027169|NCT02146430|181938306|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.3999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.8|||ANCOVA|||||0.8|-0.3|0.3999
91027170|NCT02146430|181938306|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.8435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.6|||ANCOVA|||||0.6|-0.5|0.8435
91027171|NCT02146430|181938306|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.0446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.1|||ANCOVA|||||1.1|0.0|0.0446
91027172|NCT02146430|181938307|SUPERIORITY||Difference of least squares means|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.9775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Anxiety: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||0.5|-0.5|0.9775
91027173|NCT02146430|181938307|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Anxiety: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.4|-0.6|0.6500
91027174|NCT02146430|181938307|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.6546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Anxiety: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.4|-0.6|0.6546
91027175|NCT02146430|181938307|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.6692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Anxiety: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.4|-0.6|0.6692
91027176|NCT02146430|181938307|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.6737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Anxiety: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.4|-0.6|0.6737
90895386|NCT00696410|181656410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Sign test|||p value represents test of paired (within patient) difference||||0.71
91027177|NCT02146430|181938307|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.3888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Depression: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||0.3|-0.8|0.3888
91027178|NCT02146430|181938307|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Depression: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.6|-0.5|0.9200
91027179|NCT02146430|181938307|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.7061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Depression: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.6|-0.4|0.7061
91027180|NCT02146430|181938307|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.3337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Depression: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.8|-0.3|0.3337
91103919|NCT03992872|182094612|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||"Null hypothesis for analysis of percentage of subjects with Anti-Chikungunya neutralizing activity at or above selected thresholds by time point.~Day 29: Subject with Titer \>=160"||||1.0000
90895387|NCT00696410|181656410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||p value tests difference between the marker in CHF patients at time 0 and Health Controls (between group)||||0.33
90895388|NCT00696410|181656411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69|||||||Sign test|||p value represents test of paired (within patient) difference||||0.69
90895389|NCT00696410|181656411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||p value tests difference between the marker in CHF patients at time 0 and Health Controls (between group)||||0.004
91027181|NCT02146430|181938307|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.2139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.9|||ANCOVA|||Depression: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.9|-0.2|0.2139
91027182|NCT02146430|181938308|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|2.197|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4933||0.1416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.733|5.126|||ANCOVA|||Physical Component: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||5.126|-0.733|0.1416
91027183|NCT02146430|181938308|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.249|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.492||0.8677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.679|3.176|||ANCOVA|||Physical Component: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||3.176|-2.679|0.8677
91027184|NCT02146430|181938308|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.899|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4959||0.5481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.834|2.036|||ANCOVA|||Physical Component: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||2.036|-3.834|0.5481
91027185|NCT02146430|181938308|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-1.948|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4875||0.1906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.866|0.971|||ANCOVA|||Physical Component: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.971|-4.866|0.1906
91027186|NCT02146430|181938308|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-3.095|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4883||0.0378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.015|-0.175|||ANCOVA|||Physical Component: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||-0.175|-6.015|0.0378
91027187|NCT02146430|181938308|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.664|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6865||0.3337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.683|2.011|||ANCOVA|||Mental Component: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||2.011|-0.683|0.3337
91027188|NCT02146430|181938308|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.194|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.686||0.7778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|1.152|||ANCOVA|||Mental Component: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||1.152|-1.540|0.7778
91027189|NCT02146430|181938308|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.087|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6879||0.8991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.437|1.262|||ANCOVA|||Mental Component: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||1.262|-1.437|0.8991
91027190|NCT02146430|181938308|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.857|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6833||0.2098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.198|0.483|||ANCOVA|||Mental Component: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.483|-2.198|0.2098
91027191|NCT02146430|181938308|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.751|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6842||0.2725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.093|0.591|||ANCOVA|||Mental Component: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.591|-2.093|0.2725
91027192|NCT02146430|181938309|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.0018|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01329||0.8923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0243|0.0279|||ANCOVA|||||0.0279|-0.0243|0.8923
91027193|NCT02146430|181938309|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.0021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01327||0.8749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0281|0.024|||ANCOVA|||||0.0240|-0.0281|0.8749
91027194|NCT02146430|181938309|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.0091|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01332||0.4932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0353|0.017|||ANCOVA|||||0.0170|-0.0353|0.4932
91027195|NCT02146430|181938309|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.0039|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01323||0.7688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0298|0.0221|||ANCOVA|||||0.0221|-0.0298|0.7688
91027196|NCT02146430|181938309|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.0109|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01326||0.4099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0369|0.0151|||ANCOVA|||||0.0151|-0.0369|0.4099
91027197|NCT02146430|181938310|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.166||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.23|-0.88|0.0009
91090525|NCT00526474|182064161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.83||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.93|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||0.93|0.74|0.001
91027198|NCT02146430|181938310|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.166||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.31|-0.96|0.0001
90835106|NCT00286442|181537369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.314|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.545|7.312||No multiplicity adjustments.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \>1.0 indicates higher incidence of response compared to placebo.|||7.312|2.545|<0.001
90835107|NCT00286442|181537370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.601|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.554|12.282||No multiplicity adjustments.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \>1.0 indicates higher incidence of response compared to placebo.|||12.282|2.554|<0.001
90895390|NCT00696410|181656412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||Sign test|||p value represents test of paired (within patient) difference||||0.48
91027199|NCT02146430|181938310|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.167|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|-0.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.52|-1.17|<0.0001
91027200|NCT02146430|181938310|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.167||0.6408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.25|-0.40|0.6408
91027201|NCT02146430|181938310|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.167||0.0786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.03|-0.62|0.0786
91027202|NCT02146430|181938312|SUPERIORITY||Difference of least squares means|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Worst pain: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||0.0|-0.7|0.0541
91027203|NCT02146430|181938312|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.7771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Worst pain: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.3|-0.4|0.7771
91027204|NCT02146430|181938312|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.5488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Worst pain: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.3|-0.5|0.5488
91027205|NCT02146430|181938312|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Worst pain: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.7|-0.1|0.0987
91027206|NCT02146430|181938312|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Worst pain: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.6|-0.1|0.1840
91027207|NCT02146430|181938312|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.1903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Least pain: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||0.1|-0.6|0.1903
91027208|NCT02146430|181938312|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.5787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Least pain: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.2|-0.4|0.5787
91027209|NCT02146430|181938312|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.5535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Least pain: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.2|-0.5|0.5535
91027210|NCT02146430|181938312|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.4476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Least pain: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.5|-0.2|0.4476
91027211|NCT02146430|181938312|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.4737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Least pain: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.5|-0.2|0.4737
91027212|NCT02146430|181938312|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Average pain: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||0.0|-0.6|0.0814
91027213|NCT02146430|181938312|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.3069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Average pain: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.2|-0.5|0.3069
91027214|NCT02146430|181938312|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.3916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Average pain: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.2|-0.5|0.3916
91027215|NCT02146430|181938312|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.4667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Average pain: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.4|-0.2|0.4667
91027216|NCT02146430|181938312|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.3744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Average pain: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.5|-0.2|0.3744
91027217|NCT02146430|181938312|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.2959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Pain right now: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||0.2|-0.6|0.2959
91027218|NCT02146430|181938312|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.9119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Pain right now: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.4|-0.4|0.9119
91027219|NCT02146430|181938312|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.9399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Pain right now: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.4|-0.4|0.9399
91027220|NCT02146430|181938312|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.2455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Pain right now: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.6|-0.2|0.2455
91027221|NCT02146430|181938312|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.3311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Pain right now: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.6|-0.2|0.3311
91027222|NCT02146430|181938312|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.254|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1647||0.1233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.577|0.069|||ANCOVA|||Severity score: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||0.069|-0.577|0.1233
91027223|NCT02146430|181938312|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.072|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1643||0.661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.394|0.25|||ANCOVA|||Severity score: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.250|-0.394|0.6610
90835108|NCT00286442|181537370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.793|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.645|12.684||No multiplicity adjustments.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \>1.0 indicates higher incidence of response compared to placebo.|||12.684|2.645|<0.001
90835109|NCT00286442|181537371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.449||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.883|6.797||No multiplicity adjustments.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \>1.0 indicates higher incidence of response compared to placebo.|||6.797|0.883|0.085
90835110|NCT00286442|181537371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.958||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.087|8.046||No multiplicity adjustments.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \>1.0 indicates higher incidence of response compared to placebo.|||8.046|1.087|0.034
90835111|NCT00286442|181537372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.404||||0.639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|5.803||No multiplicity adjustments.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \>1.0 indicates higher incidence of response compared to placebo.|||5.803|0.340|0.639
90835112|NCT00286442|181537372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.959||||0.956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.218|4.223||No multiplicity adjustments.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \>1.0 indicates higher incidence of response compared to placebo.|||4.223|0.218|0.956
90835113|NCT00286442|181537373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.27||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline weight as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.27|-0.63|0.439
90835114|NCT00286442|181537373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.04||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline weight as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.04|-0.86|0.075
90835115|NCT00286442|181537374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29||||0.305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.83||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline weight as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.83|-0.26|0.305
90835116|NCT00286442|181537374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.47||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline weight as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.47|-0.63|0.788
90895391|NCT00696410|181656412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||p value tests difference between the marker in CHF patients at time 0 and Health Controls (between group)||||0.39
90835117|NCT00286442|181537375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.63||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline weight as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.63|-0.58|0.930
90895392|NCT00696410|181656413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92|||||||Sign test|||p value represents test of paired (within patient) difference||||0.92
90895393|NCT00696410|181656413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||p value tests difference between the marker in CHF patients at time 0 and Health Controls (between group)||||0.22
90835118|NCT00286442|181537375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.43||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline weight as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.43|-0.79|0.559
90835119|NCT00286442|181537376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.66||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline weight as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.66|-0.66|0.996
90895394|NCT03063294|181656414|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Difference|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.5|||||"The difference in difference equals the follow-up minus baseline change in Hassles scale results for the toolkit plus coaching clinics, minus the follow-up minus baseline change in the Hassles scale results for the toolkit only clinics."|"Zero-inflated negative binomial regression was used to obtain predicted mean Hassles scale scores for the toolkit only clinics and toolkit plus coaching clinics at baseline and follow-up, adjusting for study design and characteristics of survey respondents. The difference-in-difference was then computed as described below, under method of estimation. Bootstrap resampling was used to calculate the 95% confidence intervals around the predicted means and the difference-in-difference."||0.50|-0.47|
90895395|NCT02134587|181656422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1e-05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.00001
90895396|NCT02134587|181656423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91027224|NCT02146430|181938312|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.098|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1649||0.5514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.422|0.225|||ANCOVA|||Severity score: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.225|-0.422|0.5514
91027225|NCT02146430|181938312|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.182|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1638||0.2673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.503|||ANCOVA|||Severity score: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.503|-0.140|0.2673
91027226|NCT02146430|181938312|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.156|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1644||0.3439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.167|0.478|||ANCOVA|||Severity score: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.478|-0.167|0.3439
90835120|NCT00286442|181537376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28||||0.407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.38||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline weight as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.38|-0.94|0.407
90835121|NCT02174731|181537386|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of roxadustat versus epoetin alfa was declared if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the difference between roxadustat and epoetin alfa exceeded -0.75. Non-inferiority p-value is 1-sided.|Least Square Mean Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.18|||ANCOVA||Difference between groups (roxadustat minus Epoetin alfa) in LS mean changes.|||0.18|0.01|<0.001
90835122|NCT02174731|181537387|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of roxadustat versus epoetin alfa was declared if the lower bound of the 95% CI of the difference between roxadustat and epoetin alfa exceeded -0.75. Non-inferiority p-value is 1-sided.|Least Square Mean Difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.25|||MMRM||Difference between groups (roxadustat minus Epoetin alfa) in LS mean change.|||0.25|0.03|<0.001
90835123|NCT02174731|181537388|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of roxadustat versus epoetin alfa was declared if the lower bound of the 95% CI of the difference between roxadustat and epoetin alfa exceeded -0.15. Non-inferiority p-value is 1-sided.|Least Square Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.05|||ANCOVA||Difference between groups (roxadustat minus Epoetin alfa) in LS mean.|||0.05|0.00|<0.001
90835124|NCT02174731|181537389|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of roxadustat versus epoetin alfa was declared if the lower bound of the 95% CI of the difference between roxadustat and epoetin alfa exceeded -0.15. Non-inferiority p-value is 1-sided.|Least Square Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.05|||ANCOVA||Difference between groups (roxadustat minus Epoetin alfa) in LS mean.|||0.05|-0.01|<0.001
90835125|NCT02174731|181537390|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was also declared as the lower bound of the 95% CI exceeded 0 and p-value was lower than 0.05.|Least Square Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|-0.27|||ANCOVA||Difference between groups (roxadustat minus Epoetin alfa) in LS mean.|||-0.27|-0.39|<0.001
90835126|NCT02174731|181537391|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of roxadustat versus epoetin alfa was declared if the lower bound of the 95% CI of the difference between roxadustat and epoetin alfa exceeded -0.75. Non-inferiority p-value is 1-sided.|Least Square Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.081|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.36|||ANCOVA|MAR-based multiple imputation.|Difference between groups (roxadustat minus Epoetin alfa) in LS mean.|||0.36|0.04|<0.001
90835127|NCT02174731|181537392|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||<0.0001
90835128|NCT02174731|181537393|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of roxadustat versus epoetin alfa was declared if the upper bound of the HR 95% CI of the difference between roxadustat and epoetin alfa was less than or equal to 1.8. Non-inferiority p-value is 1-sided. The CIs were from Wald and ties were calculated using the Efron method.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.07|||Regression, Cox|||||1.07|0.64|<0.001
90835129|NCT00079040|181537396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|63.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|52.4|73.6||||||||73.6|52.4|
90835130|NCT01069484|181537469|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation was based on the study by Mørkved and Bø (1997), showing 67% prevalence reduction of UI in the PFMT group and 34% reduction in the control group. Assuming a similar effect, two-sided significance of \<0.05, and a power of 0.90, required a total of 62 women. Stratified analysis on major levator ani (LA) muscle defects was planned, but the effect of PFMT in women with such defects was unknown. The statistical advice was to aim for 80 women with- and 80 women without such defects.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.89||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.32||P-values \< 0.05 were considered significant.|Mantel Haenszel||"Pelvic floor muscle training arm represents the numerator for relative risk and usual care arm represents the denominator for relative risk"|"Intention to treat was the principal analysis. Missing values for categorical data (self-reported UI) the approach of last observation carried forward was used."||1.32|0.60|0.57
90835131|NCT01069484|181537470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.84||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.42||P-values \< 0.05 were considered significant.|Mantel Haenszel||"Pelvic floor muscle training arm represents the numerator for relative risk and usual care arm represents the denominator for relative risk"|"Intention to treat was the principal analysis. Missing values for categorical data (self-reported UI) the approach of last observation carried forward was used."||1.42|0.49|0.51
90835132|NCT02649556|181537521|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|3.65||||||"The analysis will determine the effect of THS 2.2 compared to CC at Month 12 on the components of the smokers' health profile. This study has no formal pre-specified hypotheses associated with the study objectives. Estimates of THS 2.2 effect will be presented by mean of LS Mean difference of HDL-C levels between CC and THS 2.2 and related 95% CI."|Mixed model conducted on original values with visit, baseline value and its interaction with visit, sex, Caucasian origin, product use pattern category and its interaction with visit, and other baseline covariates relevant for the specific clinical risk endpoint as fixed effect factors and site as a random effect.|3.65|-0.160|
90895397|NCT04295005|181656496|OTHER|Group differences in the costs incurred after treatment initiation were evaluated based on an incremental cost approach using the Bang and Tsiatis estimator with possibly censored data.|||||<|0.001|||||||Bang and Tsiatis|||Total cost comparison.||||< 0.001
91027227|NCT02146430|181938312|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.2708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|7.4|||ANCOVA|||Relief (%) by treatment of pain: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||7.4|-2.1|0.2708
91027228|NCT02146430|181938312|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.6285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|5.9|||ANCOVA|||Relief (%) by treatment of pain: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||5.9|-3.5|0.6285
90895398|NCT04295005|181656496|OTHER|Group differences in the costs incurred after treatment initiation were evaluated based on an incremental cost approach using the Bang and Tsiatis estimator with possibly censored data.|||||<|0.001|||||||Bang and Tsiatis|||Total cost comparison.||||< 0.001
91027229|NCT02146430|181938312|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.41||0.9177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|4.5|||ANCOVA|||Relief (%) by treatment of pain: Placebo vs DS-5565 150 mg BID||4.5|-5.0|0.9177
91027230|NCT02146430|181938312|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.38||0.5334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|3.2|||ANCOVA|||Relief (%) by treatment of pain: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||3.2|-6.2|0.5334
90835133|NCT02649556|181537522|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.413|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.694|-0.131||||||"The analysis will determine the effect of THS 2.2 compared to CC at Month 12 on the components of the smokers' health profile. This study has no formal pre-specified hypotheses associated with the study objectives. Estimates of THS 2.2 effect will be presented by mean of LS Mean difference of White Blood Cell counts between CC and THS 2.2 and related 95% CI."|Mixed model conducted on original values with visit, baseline value and its interaction with visit, sex, Caucasian origin, product use pattern category and its interaction with visit, and other baseline covariates relevant for the specific clinical risk endpoint as fixed effect factors and site as a random effect.|-0.131|-0.694|
90835134|NCT02649556|181537523|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.914|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.339|2.17||||||"The analysis will determine the effect of THS 2.2 compared to CC at Month 12 on the components of the smokers' health profile. This study has no formal pre-specified hypotheses associated with the study objectives. Estimates of THS 2.2 effect will be presented by mean of LS Mean difference of FEV1 levels between CC and THS 2.2 and related 95% CI."|Mixed model conducted on original values with visit, baseline value and its interaction with visit, sex, Caucasian origin, product use pattern category and its interaction with visit, and other baseline covariates relevant for the specific clinical risk endpoint as fixed effect factors and site as a random effect.|2.17|-0.339|
90835135|NCT02649556|181537524|OTHER||% Relative Reduction|3.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0231|6.1|||||Derived as 100 x (1 - Geometric LS Mean Ratio)|"The analysis will determine the effect of THS 2.2 compared to CC at Month 12 on the components of the smokers' health profile. This study has no formal pre-specified hypotheses associated with the study objectives. Estimates of THS 2.2 effect will be presented by mean of relative reduction of sICAM-1 levels between CC and THS 2.2 and related 95% CI."|Mixed model conducted on log-transformed values with visit, log-transformed baseline value and its interaction with visit, sex, Caucasian origin, product use pattern category and its interaction with visit, and other baseline covariates relevant for the specific clinical risk endpoint as fixed effect factors and site as a random effect|6.10|0.0231|
90835136|NCT02649556|181537525|OTHER||% Relative Reduction|3.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.74|14.3|||||Derived as 100 x (1-Geometric LS Mean Ratio)|"The analysis will determine the effect of THS 2.2 compared to CC at Month 12 on the components of the smokers' health profile. This study has no formal pre-specified hypotheses associated with the study objectives. Estimates of THS 2.2 effect will be presented by mean of relative reduction of 11-DTXB2 levels between CC and THS 2.2 and related 95% CI."|Mixed model conducted on log-transformed values with visit, log-transformed baseline value and its interaction with visit, sex, Caucasian origin, product use pattern category and its interaction with visit, and other baseline covariates relevant for the specific clinical risk endpoint as fixed effect factors and site as a random effect|14.3|-8.74|
90835137|NCT02649556|181537526|OTHER||% Relative Reduction|7.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|14.7|||||Derived as 100 x (1 - Geometric LS Mean Ratio)|"The analysis will determine the effect of THS 2.2 compared to CC at Month 12 on the components of the smokers' health profile. This study has no formal pre-specified hypotheses associated with the study objectives. Estimates of THS 2.2 effect will be presented by mean of relative reduction of 8-epi-PGF2α levels between CC and THS 2.2 and related 95% CI."|Mixed model conducted on log-transformed values with visit, log-transformed baseline value and its interaction with visit, sex, Caucasian origin, product use pattern category and its interaction with visit, and other baseline covariates relevant for the specific clinical risk endpoint as fixed effect factors and site as a random effect.|14.7|-1.03|
91027231|NCT02146430|181938312|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.39||0.2261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|1.8|||ANCOVA|||Relief (%) by treatment of pain: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||1.8|-7.6|0.2261
90835138|NCT02649556|181537527|OTHER||% Relative Reduction|46.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.2|54.8|||||Derived as 100 x (1 - Geometric LS Mean Ratio)|"The analysis will determine the effect of THS 2.2 compared to CC at Month 12 on the components of the smokers' health profile. This study has no formal pre-specified hypotheses associated with the study objectives. Estimates of THS 2.2 effect will be presented by mean of relative reduction of Total NNAL levels between CC and THS 2.2 and related 95% CI."|Mixed model conducted on log-transformed values with visit, log-transformed baseline value and its interaction with visit, sex, Caucasian origin, product use pattern category and its interaction with visit, and other baseline covariates relevant for the specific clinical risk endpoint as fixed effect factors and site as a random effect|54.8|36.2|
90835139|NCT02649556|181537528|OTHER||% Relative Reduction|31.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.3|39.1|||||Derived as 100 x (1 - Geometric LS Mean Ratio)|"The analysis will determine the effect of THS 2.2 compared to CC at Month 12 on the components of the smokers' health profile. This study has no formal pre-specified hypotheses associated with the study objectives. Estimates of THS 2.2 effect will be presented by mean of relative reduction of COHb levels between CC and THS 2.2 and related 95% CI."|Mixed model conducted on log-transformed values with visit, log-transformed baseline value and its interaction with visit, sex, Caucasian origin, product use pattern category and its interaction with visit, and other baseline covariates relevant for the specific clinical risk endpoint as fixed effect factors and site as a random effect.|39.1|23.3|
90835140|NCT01602224|181537541|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.98||||0.401|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||100 mg Tabalumab+Dexamethasone+Bortezomib compared with Placebo Comparator: Placebo + Dexamethasone + Bortezombib, only tabalumab odds ratio compared to placebo.||||0.401
90957187|NCT02084056|181793861|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (FDC/free combination) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted Geometric Means ratio|103.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.018|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.703|106.747|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'|Ratio of (FDC 2000 fasted/ L+M 2000 fasted)|||106.747|100.703|<0.0001
91027232|NCT02146430|181938312|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-3.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.758||0.0281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.32|-0.42|||ANCOVA|||Interference: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||-0.42|-7.32|0.0281
91027233|NCT02146430|181938312|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-1.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.756||0.419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.87|2.03|||ANCOVA|||Interference: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||2.03|-4.87|0.4190
90835141|NCT01602224|181537541|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.84||||0.455|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||300 mg Tabalumab+Dexamethasone+Bortezomib compared with Placebo Comparator: Placebo + Dexamethasone + Bortezombib, only tabalumab odds ratio compared to placebo.||||0.455
90835142|NCT01602224|181537541|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.419|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||100 mg Tabalumab+Dexamethasone+Bortezomib and 300 mg Tabalumab+Dexamethasone+Bortezomib compared with Placebo Comparator: Placebo + Dexamethasone + Bortezombib, only compared to placebo.||||0.419
90835143|NCT01352117|181537543|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.911||||||The critical value for the final analysis was adjusted for the three interim analyses conducted for the Data and Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) review using the Haybittle-Peto guidelines, at the p-value cutoff of 0.0487.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Stratified Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test (asymptotic method) known as van Elteren test, stratification by screening CD4 (\<200 vs. \>=200 cells/mm\^3).||||||0.911
90835144|NCT01183689|181537572|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.41||No interim analyses were conducted. Pairwise differences among the three arms were assessed with a 2 degree of freedom Wald Test.|Mixed Models Analysis||Above is provided the mean difference between Arms 1 and 2.|Mean changes from random effects model applied to repeated measures to compute the average differences among groups over time.||1.41|0.23|<0.05
90835145|NCT01183689|181537572|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.64|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.05|3.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|This was fitted with Proc Mixed in SAS.|95% confidence interval excludes 0|Mean changes from a random effects model applied to repeated measures to compute the average differences between groups over time. This entry is for the comparison between groups 1 and 3.||3.22|2.05|<0.05
90835146|NCT01183689|181537573|OTHER|Generalized Estimating Equations|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.9|||Generalized Estimating Equations|||Generalized estimating equations were used to compare the average percent of weight gainers over time among the three groups. The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in these average percentages. Participants were assigned values of 0 or 1 at each visit depending on their weight gain status. The percentages were summarized with odds ratios for weight gain over time.||1.90|1.02|<0.05
90835147|NCT01183689|181537573|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.28|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.64|3.19|||generalized estimating equations|||This is a parallel analysis, comparing groups 1 and 3, using generalized estimating equations to summarize the odds ratio for weight gain in group 1 versus group 3,||3.19|1.64|<0.05
90895399|NCT04295005|181656496|OTHER|Group differences in the costs incurred after treatment initiation were evaluated based on an incremental cost approach using the Bang and Tsiatis estimator with possibly censored data.|||||<|0.001|||||||Bang and Tsiatis|||Total cost comparison.||||< 0.001
91027234|NCT02146430|181938312|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.763||0.3622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.06|1.85|||ANCOVA|||Interference: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||1.85|-5.06|0.3622
91027235|NCT02146430|181938312|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|2.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.75||0.1623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|5.88|||ANCOVA|||Interference: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||5.88|-0.99|0.1623
91027236|NCT02146430|181938312|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|2.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.753||0.1978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|5.7|||ANCOVA|||Interference: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||5.70|-1.18|0.1978
90835148|NCT01183689|181537574|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|2.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|The p-value is based on a 2 degree of freedom Wald test within the mixed effect model to test for pairwise differences among the 3 arms.|Listed above is the mean difference between arms 1 and 2|Mean differences at 2 years are calculated from a linear contrast within a mixed effects model. Note that this comparison is between Groups 1 and 2.||2.24|0.39|<0.05
90835149|NCT01183689|181537574|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|2.04|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|2.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|A linear contrast was used to compare groups 1 and 3 at 24 months.||A linear contrast from a mixed effects model was used to compare mean differences at 24 months between groups 1 and 3.||2.98|1.11|<0.05
90895400|NCT04295005|181656496|OTHER|Group differences in the costs incurred after treatment initiation were evaluated based on an incremental cost approach using the Bang and Tsiatis estimator with possibly censored data.|||||<|0.001|||||||Bang and Tsiatis|||Inpatient cost comparison||||< 0.001
91027237|NCT02146430|181938312|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.1|||ANCOVA|||General activity: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||0.1|-0.8|0.0867
91027238|NCT02146430|181938312|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.6993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.3|||ANCOVA|||General activity: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.3|-0.5|0.6993
91027239|NCT02146430|181938312|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.8702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4|||ANCOVA|||General activity: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.4|-0.4|0.8702
90835150|NCT01183689|181537575|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.99||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|3.92||The p-value is from a 2 degree of freedom test for pairwise difference among the 3 arms within an analysis of variance.|ANOVA|||Analysis of variance to assess mean differences in changes from baseline in systolic blood pressure. This analysis compares groups 1 and 2.||3.92|0.06|0.13
90835151|NCT01183689|181537575|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.93||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|2.84|||ANOVA|||Mean differences in systolic blood pressure between groups 1 and 3 over time.||2.84|-0.98|0.13
90835152|NCT01183689|181537576|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.73||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|3.14||The p-value is from a 2 degree of freedom F-test from an analysis of variance to compare mean differences among the 3 arms.|ANOVA|||Mean differences from baseline to 2 years were compared among the 3 arms using analysis of variance.||3.14|0.32|0.06
90895401|NCT04295005|181656496|OTHER|Group differences in the costs incurred after treatment initiation were evaluated based on an incremental cost approach using the Bang and Tsiatis estimator with possibly censored data.|||||<|0.001|||||||Bang and Tsiatis|||Inpatient cost comparison.||||< 0.001
91027240|NCT02146430|181938312|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.1826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.7|||ANCOVA|||General activity: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.7|-0.1|0.1826
91027241|NCT02146430|181938312|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.1206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.7|||ANCOVA|||General activity: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.7|-0.1|0.1206
91090526|NCT00526474|182064162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.88||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.03|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||1.03|0.75|0.108
91090527|NCT00526474|182064163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.97||||0.733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.14|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||1.14|0.83|0.733
91090528|NCT00526474|182064164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.95||||0.411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.07|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression||Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||1.07|0.85|0.411
91090529|NCT00526474|182064165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.83||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.93|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||0.93|0.74|0.001
91090530|NCT00526474|182064166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|0.95|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||0.95|0.83|<0.001
91090531|NCT00526474|182064167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.9|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||0.90|0.76|<0.001
91090532|NCT00526474|182064168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.89|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||0.89|0.73|<0.001
91090533|NCT00526474|182064169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|1.71|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||1.71|1.23|<0.001
91090534|NCT00526474|182064170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|1.54|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||1.54|1.31|<0.001
91090535|NCT00526474|182064171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.93|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||0.93|0.79|<0.001
90835153|NCT01183689|181537576|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.92||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|2.33||This p-value is from a 2 degree of freedom omnibus test for differences among the 3 groups.|ANOVA|||Analysis of variance was used to compare mean changes from baseline to 2 years in diastolic blood pressure.||2.33|-0.49|0.06
90895402|NCT04295005|181656496|OTHER|Group differences in the costs incurred after treatment initiation were evaluated based on an incremental cost approach using the Bang and Tsiatis estimator with possibly censored data.||||||0.126|||||||Bang and Tsiatis|||Inpatient cost comparison||||0.126
91090536|NCT00526474|182064172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|0.93|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||0.93|0.75|<0.001
91090537|NCT00526474|182064173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.9|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||0.90|0.77|<0.001
90835154|NCT01183689|181537577|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.12|3.52||The p-value results from a 2 degree of freedom F-test.|ANOVA|||Mean changes from baseline to 2 years were compared between Groups 1 and 2.||3.52|-6.12|0.73
90835155|NCT01183689|181537577|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.89||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.36|0.58||This p-value is from a 2 degree of freedom test for differences among the 3 groups.|ANOVA|||Analysis of variance was used to compare mean differences in total cholesterol changes from baseline among groups.||0.58|-4.36|0.73
90895403|NCT04295005|181656496|OTHER|Group differences in the costs incurred after treatment initiation were evaluated based on an incremental cost approach using the Bang and Tsiatis estimator with possibly censored data.|||||<|0.001|||||||Bang and Tsiatis|||Outpatient cost comparison.||||< 0.001
90895404|NCT04295005|181656496|OTHER|Group differences in the costs incurred after treatment initiation were evaluated based on an incremental cost approach using the Bang and Tsiatis estimator with possibly censored data.|||||<|0.001|||||||Bang and Tsiatis|||Outpatient cost comparison.||||< 0.001
91090538|NCT00526474|182064174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|0.95|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||0.95|0.83|<0.001
91090539|NCT00526474|182064175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|0.94|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||0.94|0.83|<0.001
91090540|NCT00526474|182064176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.86||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.03|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||1.03|0.71|0.108
91090541|NCT00526474|182064177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.82||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.93|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||0.93|0.73|0.002
91090542|NCT00526474|182064178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.88||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.04|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||1.04|0.74|0.127
91090543|NCT00526474|182064179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.67||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.87|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||0.87|0.52|0.002
91090544|NCT00526474|182064180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.92||||0.249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.06|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||1.06|0.80|0.249
91090545|NCT00526474|182064181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.86||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.98|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||0.98|0.76|0.019
91090546|NCT00526474|182064182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.89||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|0.96|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||0.96|0.83|0.003
91090547|NCT00473083|182064200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8769||||||P for arm 1 v arms 2 and 3 combined|Chi-squared|||||||0.8769
90895405|NCT04295005|181656496|OTHER|Group differences in the costs incurred after treatment initiation were evaluated based on an incremental cost approach using the Bang and Tsiatis estimator with possibly censored data.|||||<|0.001|||||||Bang and Tsiatis|||Outpatient cost comparison.||||< 0.001
91090548|NCT00473083|182064200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.147||||||P for arm 1 v arms 2 and 3 combined|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.147
91090549|NCT00473083|182064201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1503||||||P(arm 1 v arm 2) in patients with maximum severity of rash grade 1, 2a, or 2b|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1503
91090550|NCT00473083|182064201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4681||||||P(arm2 v arm3) in patients with maximum severity of rash grade 1, 2a, or 2b|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4681
91090551|NCT00473083|182064201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0196||||||P(arm 1 v arm 3) in patients with maximum severity of rash grade 1, 2a, or 2b|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0196
91090552|NCT00473083|182064201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1658||||||P(arm 1 v arm 2) in patients with maximum severity of rash grade 3|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1658
91090553|NCT00473083|182064201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.9999||||||"P(arm 2 v arm 3) in patients with maximum severity of rash grade 3.~P-value was calculated to be \>0.9999 using the Wilcoxon Rank Sumtest by comparing between the two treatment arms."|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.9999
91090554|NCT00473083|182064201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.285||||||P(arm 1 v arm 3) in patients with maximum severity of rash grade 3|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.285
91090555|NCT00473083|182064202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5097|||||||Chi-squared|||Maximal Rash Grade 1||||0.5097
91090556|NCT00473083|182064202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.474|||||||Chi-squared|||Maximal Rash Grade 2a||||0.4740
91090557|NCT00473083|182064202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2123|||||||Chi-squared|||Maximal Severity Grade 2b||||0.2123
91090558|NCT00473083|182064202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5004|||||||Chi-squared|||Maximal Severity Grade 3||||0.5004
91090559|NCT00473083|182064202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9072|||||||Chi-squared|||Maximal Severity Grade 1||||0.9072
91090560|NCT00473083|182064202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0464|||||||Chi-squared|||Maximal Severity Grade 2a||||0.0464
91090561|NCT00473083|182064202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6759|||||||Chi-squared|||Maximal Severity Grade 2b||||0.6759
91090562|NCT00473083|182064202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0065|||||||Chi-squared|||Maximal Severity Grade 3||||0.0065
90895406|NCT04295005|181656496|OTHER|Group differences in the costs incurred after treatment initiation were evaluated based on an incremental cost approach using the Bang and Tsiatis estimator with possibly censored data.|||||<|0.001|||||||Bang and Tsiatis|||Medication cost comparison.||||< 0.001
90895407|NCT04295005|181656496|OTHER|Group differences in the costs incurred after treatment initiation were evaluated based on an incremental cost approach using the Bang and Tsiatis estimator with possibly censored data.|||||<|0.001|||||||Bang and Tsiatis|||Medication cost comparison.||||< 0.001
90895408|NCT04295005|181656496|OTHER|Group differences in the costs incurred after treatment initiation were evaluated based on an incremental cost approach using the Bang and Tsiatis estimator with possibly censored data.|||||<|0.001|||||||Bang and Tsiatis|||Medication cost comparison.||||< 0.001
90895409|NCT03810534|181656522|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.24||0.62|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||The final estimated mean difference is based on a linear mixed model that adjusts for time and is not equal to the difference in the unadjusted, observed means.|||||.62
91090563|NCT00473083|182064202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5898|||||||Chi-squared|||Maximal Severity Grade 1||||0.5898
90835156|NCT01183689|181537578|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|4.52||The p-value is a 2 degree of freedom test from the generalized estimating equations analysis applied to the longitudinal binary data among the 3 study arms.|generalized estimating equations|||The average percentage of participants who were obese across follow-up were compared among the 3 arms using a generalized estimating equations approach for repeated binary measures. Participants were assigned values of 0 or 1 depending on their obesity status at each exam. Differences were summarized with odds ratios.||4.52|1.23|<0.001
90835157|NCT01183689|181537578|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.13||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|4.1||This p-value is from a 2 degree of freedom test for differences among the 3 groups.|generalized estimating equations|||Generalized estimating equations were used. Differences were summarized with odds ratios.||4.10|1.12|0.008
90835158|NCT01183689|181537579|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.45||the p-value results from a 2 degree of freedom F-test to assess pairwise differences among the 3 groups|ANOVA|the p-value results from a 2 degree of freedom F-test to assess pairwise differences among the 3 groups||Mean changes from baseline to 2 years among the 3 groups were assessed using a 2 degree of freedom F-test||0.45|-0.61|0.002
90835159|NCT01183689|181537579|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.55||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|1.08||This p-value is from a 2 degree of freedom test for differences among all 3 groups|ANOVA|||Differences among the 3 groups were based on analyses of variance.||1.08|0.02|0.002
90835160|NCT01183689|181537580|SUPERIORITY|A 2 degree of freedom F-test from ANOVA was used to compare mean differences in changes among the 3 arms of the study.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|-0.38||The p-value is from a 2 degree of freedom F test to assess differences among the 3 arms of the study.|ANOVA|The p-value is from a 2 degree of freedom F test to assess differences among the 3 arms of the study.||Changes in units of the scale from baseline to 2 years||-0.38|-1.32|<0.001
90835161|NCT01183689|181537580|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.37||This p-value is from a 2 degree of freedom test to compare differences among the 3 groups.|ANOVA|||Analysis of variance was used to compare mean changes from baseline to 2 years among the 3 groups.||0.37|-0.57|<0.001
90835162|NCT01183689|181537581|SUPERIORITY|2 degree of freedom F-test from analysis of variance to compare 2 year differences from baseline among the 3 arms of the study|Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.71||2 degree of freedom F-test from analysis of variance to compare 2 year differences from baseline among the 3 arms of the study, not adjusted for multiple comparisons among endpoints|ANOVA|2 degree of freedom F-test from analysis of variance to compare 2 year differences from baseline among the 3 arms of the study||2 degree of freedom F-test from analysis of variance to compare 2 year differences from baseline among the 3 arms of the study||0.71|-0.31|<0.001
90835163|NCT01183689|181537581|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.88||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.39||This p-value is from a 2 degree freedom test of differences among the 3 groups.|ANOVA|||Analysis of variance was used to compare mean changes from baseline to year 2 among the 3 groups.||1.39|0.37|0.002
90835164|NCT01183689|181537582|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.45||2 degree of freedom F-test from analysis of variance|ANOVA|2 degree of freedom F-test from analysis of variance to compare mean differences among arms||2 degree F-test from analysis of variance applied to 2 year changes in scores from baseline||0.45|-0.71|<0.001
90895410|NCT03810534|181656523|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.44||0.31|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||The final estimated mean difference is based on a linear mixed model that adjusts for time and is not equal to the difference in the unadjusted, observed means.|||||.31
90895411|NCT03810534|181656524|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.93|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||The final estimated mean difference is based on a linear mixed model that adjusts for time and is not equal to the difference in the unadjusted, observed means.|||||.93
90895412|NCT03810534|181656525|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||The final estimated mean difference is based on a linear mixed model that adjusts for time and is not equal to the difference in the unadjusted, observed means.|||||.60
90835165|NCT01183689|181537582|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|1.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.98||This p-value is from the omnibus 2 degree of freedom test for mean differences among the 3 groups.|ANOVA|||Analysis of variance was used to compare mean changes from baseline to 2 years among the 3 groups.||1.98|0.82|<0.001
90895413|NCT03810534|181656526|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.49||0.53|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||The final estimated mean difference is based on a linear mixed model that adjusts for time and is not equal to the difference in the unadjusted, observed means.|||||.53
90895414|NCT03810534|181656527|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.57||0.83|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||The final estimated mean difference is based on a linear mixed model that adjusts for time and is not equal to the difference in the unadjusted, observed means.|||||.83
91090564|NCT00473083|182064202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1921|||||||Chi-squared|||Maximal Severity Grade 2a||||0.1921
91090565|NCT00473083|182064202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0882|||||||Chi-squared|||Maximal Severity Grade 2b||||0.0882
91090566|NCT00473083|182064202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0344|||||||Chi-squared|||Maximal Severity Grade 3||||0.0344
90835166|NCT01183689|181537583|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.09||This p-value is from a 2 degree of freedom test for differences among the 3 arms.|ANOVA|2 degree of freedom test from analysis of variance to assess mean differences among the 3 arms||2 degree of freedom F-test from analysis of variance to compare 2 year differences in general health index values among the 3 arms||0.09|-0.24|0.24
90835167|NCT01183689|181537583|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.02||This p-value is from the 2 degree of freedom test of differences among the 3 arms.|ANOVA|||Analysis of variance was used to compare differences in changes from baseline to 2 years among the three arms.||0.02|-0.32|0.24
90895415|NCT03810534|181656528|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.05||0.75|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||The final estimated mean difference is based on a linear mixed model that adjusts for time and is not equal to the difference in the unadjusted, observed means.|||||.75
90895416|NCT03810534|181656529|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.07||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||The final estimated mean difference is based on a linear mixed model that adjusts for time and is not equal to the difference in the unadjusted, observed means.|||||.50
90835168|NCT01183689|181537584|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.52||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|3.81||This p-value is from a 2 degree of freedom F-test to compare the 3 arms using analysis of variance.|ANOVA|||Mean differences between baseline and year 2 were compared among the 3 arms using analysis of variance.||3.81|-0.77|0.16
90835169|NCT01183689|181537584|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.21||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|4.51||This p-value is from a 2 degree of freedom F test.|ANOVA|||Analysis of variance was used to compared mean differences among the 3 groups.||4.51|-0.09|0.16
90835170|NCT01183689|181537585|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.89|4.23||This p-value is from a 2 degree of freedom F-test from analysis of variance.|ANOVA|||Mean changes from baseline to year 2 among the 3 arms were compared using analysis of variance.||4.23|-3.89|0.75
90835171|NCT01183689|181537585|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.44||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|5.49||This p-value is from a 2 degree of freedom test.|ANOVA||No significant differences between groups 1 and 3.|Analysis of variance was used to compare mean changes among the 3 groups.||5.49|-2.61|0.75
90835172|NCT01183689|181537586|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.08||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|0.28||This p-value is from a 2 degree of freedom F-test to compare the 3 arms within an analysis of variance.|ANOVA||No significant difference between groups 1 and 2.|Mean changes from baseline to year 2 among the 3 arms were compared using analysis of variance.||0.28|-2.44|0.05
90895417|NCT03810534|181656530|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.48|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||The final estimated mean difference is based on a linear mixed model that adjusts for time and is not equal to the difference in the unadjusted, observed means.|||||.48
90835173|NCT01183689|181537586|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.66||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-0.32||This p-value is from an F-test to compare differences among the 3 groups.|ANOVA|||Analysis of variance was used to compare mean differences in changes from baseline to 2 years among the 3 groups.||-0.32|-3.00|0.05
90835174|NCT01183689|181537587|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.46||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|0.45||This p-value is from a 2 degree of freedom F-test from an analysis of variance to assess differences among the 3 arms.|ANOVA|||Mean changes between baseline and year 2 were compared among the 3 arms using analysis of variance.||0.45|-1.37|0.03
90835175|NCT01183689|181537587|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.21||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|-0.3||This p-value is from a 2 degree of freedom F-test to compare differences among the 3 groups.|ANOVA|||Analysis of variance was used to compare mean differences from baseline to 2 years among the 3 groups.||-0.30|-2.11|0.03
90895418|NCT03810534|181656531|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.22|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||The final estimated mean difference is based on a linear mixed model that adjusts for time and is not equal to the difference in the unadjusted, observed means.|||||.22
90895419|NCT03810534|181656532|SUPERIORITY||Mean ratio|0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.88|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.88
91027242|NCT02146430|181938312|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||Mood: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||-0.1|-0.9|0.0211
91027243|NCT02146430|181938312|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.4963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Mood: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.3|-0.6|0.4963
91027244|NCT02146430|181938312|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.3031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Mood: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.2|-0.6|0.3031
90835176|NCT01183689|181537588|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.08||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|3.0||This p-value is from a 2 degree of freedom F-test from an analysis of variance to assess mean differences among the 3 arms.|ANOVA||The 95% confidence interval for differences between groups 1 and 2 includes 0.|Mean differences from baseline to year 2 among the 3 arms were assessed using analysis of variance.||3.00|-0.84|0.20
90835177|NCT01183689|181537588|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|1.35||This p-value is from an analysis of variance comparing all 3 groups.|ANOVA||The 95% confidence interval for differences between groups 1 and 3 includes 0.|Analysis of variance was used to compare differences among the 3 groups.||1.35|-1.45|0.20
90895420|NCT03810534|181656533|SUPERIORITY||Mean ratio|0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.23
90895421|NCT02943941|181656548|OTHER|||||||0.429|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.429
90895422|NCT02943941|181656549|OTHER|||||||0.059||||||Pressure during coughing versus normal breathing initially measured at baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.059
90895423|NCT02943941|181656550|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90895424|NCT03286751|181656570|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric LSMeans|1.01||||0.5495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.974|1.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.05|0.974|0.5495
91027245|NCT02146430|181938312|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.1019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Mood: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.8|-0.1|0.1019
91027246|NCT02146430|181938312|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Mood: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.7|-0.1|0.2010
91090567|NCT00473083|182064203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3834|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.3834
90835178|NCT01183689|181537589|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.1||2 degree of freedom F-test from analysis of variance, with no adjustment for multiple outcomes|ANOVA|||2 degree of freedom F-test to compare mean 2 year differences among 3 arms||0.10|-0.34|0.02
90835179|NCT01183689|181537589|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.08||This p-value is from a 2 degree of freedom test for differences among the 3 groups.|ANOVA|||Analysis of variance was used to compare mean differences in changes from baseline to 2 years among the 3 groups.||-0.08|-0.52|0.02
90835180|NCT01183689|181537590|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-52.0||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-164.0|60.0||2 degree of freedom F-test to compare 3 arms with respect to 2-year changes in kilocalories|ANOVA|||2 degree of freedom F-test to compare mean differences among 3 arms in changes in kilocalories from baseline to year 2||60|-164|0.58
90835181|NCT01183689|181537590|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-50.0||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-162.0|61.0||This p-value is from a 2 degree of freedom F-test to compare differences among the 3 groups|ANOVA|||Analysis of variance was used to assess mean differences in 2 year changes in kilocalories intake among the 3 groups.||61|-162|0.58
90835182|NCT01183689|181537591|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.27||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.55|0.02||2 degree of freedom F-test from analysis of variance to compare changes in waist circumference from baseline among the three arms|ANOVA|No adjustment to degrees of freedom|Difference between groups 1 and 2: 95% confidence interval includes 0|2 degree of freedom F-test from ANOVA to compare differences among 3 arms||0.02|-2.55|0.001
90835183|NCT01183689|181537591|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.42||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.69|-1.14||The p-value is from a 2 degree of freedom F-test for differences among the 3 arms|ANOVA||The 95% confidence interval for differences between groups 1 and 3 does not include 0.|Mean change in waist girth from baseline to year 2||-1.14|-3.69|0.001
90835184|NCT01183689|181537592|SUPERIORITY|Chi-squared test to compare the percentage of participants reporting self-weighing more than once per week among the 3 arms.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|3.02||This is based on a 2 degree of freedom likelihood ratio test to compare differences among the 3 arms.|Regression, Logistic||The 95% confidence interval for the odds ratio comparing the rates of self-weighing at year 2 between groups 1 and 2 excludes 0.|Logistic regression to compare differences among the 3 groups||3.02|1.04|0.004
90835185|NCT01183689|181537592|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.35||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|3.94||2 degree of freedom likelihood ratio statistic to compare differences among the 3 arms|Regression, Logistic|No adjustments|The 95% confidence interval for the odds ratio comparing groups 1 and 3 excludes 0.|Logistic regression analysis was used to compare the rates of daily self-weighing at 2 years among the 3 groups.||3.94|1.40|0.004
90835186|NCT04673214|181537602|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis for the modification in the clinical evolution of the conjunctivitis sign in patients diagnosed with COVID-19 under early intervention treatment with Azithromycin / Ribaroxaban / Paracetamol for 14 days followed by video call is rejected.||||||0.05||||||Presence of a p \<0.05 as significant in the comparison of treatment with clinical symptoms|Chi-squared|||Null Hypothesis: There will be no modification in the clinical evolution ≥ 25% of patients diagnosed with COVID-19 under an early intervention treatment with Azithromycin / Ivermectin / Ribaroxaban / Paracetamol vs. Azithromycin / Ribaroxaban / Paracetamol for 14 days followed by video call from U.M.F 13 and U.M.F 20 from I.M.S.S., during the period of December 2020- February 2021, with a power of 90%, type I error rate 1% and loss to follow-up 20%.||||0.05
90835187|NCT04673214|181537602|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis is rejected with a difference of 2 days in the modification of the clinical evolution (symptoms of fever, cough, headache, myalgia, odynophagia, anosmia, rhinorrhea, arthralgia, chest pain, dyspnea, conjunctivitis) of patients diagnosed with COVID -19 in early intervention treatment. vs. therapeutic failure, for 14 days followed by video call, with a power of 90%, a type I error rate of 1% and a loss to follow-up of 20%||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Assuming a difference of 2 days in the modification of the clinical course (symptoms of fever, cough, headache, myalgia, odynophagia, anosmia, rhinorrhea, arthralgia, chest pain, dyspnea, conjunctivitis) of patients diagnosed with COVID-19 in early intervention treatment vs. therapeutic failure, for 14 days followed by video call, with a power of 90%, a type I error rate of 1% and a loss to follow-up of the twenty%||||0.05
90835188|NCT04673214|181537603|SUPERIORITY|Assuming a difference in the percentage of effectiveness in the clinical modification and therapeutic failure of patients diagnosed with the outcome of improvement in the Modification of the clinical evolution of the symptoms of patients with COVID-19 using double therapy was reported 95.7% (n = 44) Vs. triple therapy 90.8% (n = 59) and therapeutic failure 4.3% (n = 2) vs. 9.2% (n = 6), respectively.||||||0.05||||||Presence of a p \<0.05 as significant in the comparison of treatment with clinical symptoms the clinical modification and therapeutic failure of patients diagnosed with COVID-19|Chi-squared|||Assuming a difference in the percentage of effectiveness in the clinical modification and therapeutic failure of patients diagnosed with COVID-19 under treatment with Azithromycin / Ivermectin / Ribaroxaban / Paracetamol vs. Azithromycin / Ribaroxaban / Paracetamol followed for 14 days followed by video call, with a power of 90%, a type I error rate of 1% and a loss to follow-up of 20%||||0.05
90835189|NCT04673214|181537604|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis is rejected with a mean duration of 2 days with clinical symptoms of COVID-19 in early intervention treatment as a result of improving the modification of the clinical evolution of symptoms vs therapeutic failure.||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Assuming a difference in days of effectiveness in clinical modification and therapeutic failure of patients diagnosed with COVID-19 in treatment with Azithromycin / Ivermectin / Ribaroxaban / Paracetamol vs. Azithromycin / Ribaroxaban / Paracetamol followed for 14 days followed by video call, with a potency 90%, a Type I error rate of 1%, and a loss to follow-up of 20%||||0.05
90835190|NCT04673214|181537605|SUPERIORITY|A total of 62 patients was calculated, however due to the availability of medication, it was recalculated to 111 patients, that is, 65 cases in the triple therapy group and 46 in the double therapy group would be necessary for the analysis.||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Gehan) statistical test|||Assuming a 25% efficacy in modifying the clinical course (COVID-19 mild phase symptoms) of patients with COVID-19 under a comparative treatment for 14 days followed by video call, with a power of 90%, type I error rate 1% and loss to follow-up 20%||||0.05
90958923|NCT04874415|181797846|SUPERIORITY|Main effects of each intervention factor were estimated using generalized linear models with log link, including all prespecified two-way interactions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.4|31.5|||||Once daily text message is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|||31.5|-31.4|
91090568|NCT00473083|182064205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0147|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0147
90835191|NCT03585660|181537624|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||bootstrap z-test|The standard error of the difference in accuracy was estimated using nonparametric bootstrap, with B=9999 resamples.||The null hypothesis is that the accuracy of HM-MRI and mp-MRI are the same and the alternative hypothesis is that the accuracy of HM-MRI is greater than the accuracy of mp-MRI.||||0.02
90835192|NCT03585660|181537625|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||bootstrap z-test|The standard error of the difference of AUCs was estimated using nonparametric bootstrap, with B=9999 resamples.||The null hypothesis is that the AUCs of HM-MRI and mp-MRI are the same and the alternative hypothesis is that the AUC of HM-MRI is greater than the AUC of mp-MRI.||||0.08
90835193|NCT03585660|181537626|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||bootstrap z-test|||The null hypothesis is that the sensitivity of HM-MRI and mp-MRI are the same and the alternative hypothesis is that the sensitivity of HM-MRI is greater than the sensitivity of mp-MRI.||||0.97
90835194|NCT03585660|181537627|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||bootstrap z-test|||The null hypothesis is that the specificity of HM-MRI and mp-MRI are the same and the alternative hypothesis is that the specificity of HM-MRI is greater than the specificity of mp-MRI.||||<0.01
90835195|NCT03585660|181537628|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis is that the PPV of HM-MRI and mp-MRI are the same and the alternative hypothesis is that the PPV of HM-MRI is greater than the PPV of mp-MRI.||||||0.06|||||||bootstrap z-test|||||||0.06
90835196|NCT03585660|181537629|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis is that the NPV of HM-MRI and mp-MRI are the same and the alternative hypothesis is that the NPV of HM-MRI is greater than the NPV of mp-MRI.||||||0.97|||||||bootstrap z-test|||||||0.97
90835197|NCT03583099|181537631|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|4.0||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|15.0|||generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||15.0|-6.9|0.47
90835198|NCT03583099|181537632|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|10.4||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|20.7|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education|||20.7|0.1|0.05
90895425|NCT03286751|181656570|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric LSMeans|1.02||||0.2236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.986|1.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.06|0.986|0.2236
90835199|NCT03583099|181537633|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|1.3||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|9.2|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||9.2|-6.7|0.75
90835200|NCT03583099|181537634|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-2.7||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|6.1|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education|||6.1|-11.5|0.54
90835201|NCT03583099|181537635|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|5.1||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|12.3|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||12.3|-2.1|0.16
90895426|NCT03286751|181656570|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric LSMeans|1.03||||0.0727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.997|1.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.07|0.997|0.0727
90835202|NCT03583099|181537636|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-0.6||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|5.1|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||5.1|-6.4|0.82
90895427|NCT03286751|181656571|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric LSMeans|0.97||||0.5749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.08|0.87|0.5749
90835203|NCT03583099|181537637|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-6.3||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|0.4|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||0.4|-13.0|0.06
90835204|NCT03583099|181537638|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-2.5||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|9.5|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education|||9.5|-14.5|0.68
90835205|NCT03583099|181537639|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|13.3||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.72|33.38|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education|||33.38|-6.72|0.19
90835206|NCT03583099|181537640|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|0.85||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.82|19.52|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education|||19.52|-17.82|0.93
90895428|NCT03286751|181656571|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric LSMeans|0.92||||0.1578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.03|0.83|0.1578
90895429|NCT03286751|181656571|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric LSMeans|0.92||||0.1351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.03|0.83|0.1351
90958924|NCT04874415|181797846|SUPERIORITY|Main effects of each intervention factor were estimated using generalized linear models with log link, including all prespecified two-way interactions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.3|44.5|||||Fixed Step Count Goal is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|||44.5|-44.3|
91090569|NCT03924323|182064222|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean difference|-1.42||||0.0281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.69|-0.15|||mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||-0.15|-2.69|0.0281
91090570|NCT03924323|182064223|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.253||||0.4521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.695|2.258|||generalized linear mixed model (GLMMIX)|||||2.258|0.695|0.4521
91090571|NCT03924323|182064224|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.157||||0.6928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|2.387|||generalized linear mixed model (GLMMIX)|||||2.387|0.560|0.6928
91090572|NCT03903172|182064227|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.25|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 0||||=0.25
91090573|NCT03903172|182064227|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.93|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 1||||=.93
91027247|NCT02146430|181938312|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Walking ability: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||-0.0|-0.9|0.0331
91090574|NCT03903172|182064228|SUPERIORITY||||||=|1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Used acetominophen||||=1.0
90835207|NCT03583099|181537641|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|6.83||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.84|24.5|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education|||24.50|-10.84|0.45
90835208|NCT03583099|181537642|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|7.6||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.58|25.78|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||25.78|-10.58|0.41
90835209|NCT03583099|181537643|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|1.85||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.17|16.88|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||16.88|-13.17|0.81
90835210|NCT03583099|181537644|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|8.01||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.38|31.4|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||31.40|-15.38|0.51
90835211|NCT03583099|181537645|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-10.34||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.78|14.09|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||14.09|-34.78|0.41
90835212|NCT03583099|181537646|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-3.94||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.03|23.16|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||23.16|-31.03|0.76
90835213|NCT03583099|181537647|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-0.76||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.36|23.83|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||23.83|-25.36|0.95
90835214|NCT03583099|181537648|SUPERIORITY||Difference in means|-0.32||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.01|1.36||The p-value is adjusted for baseline CAT score.|Mixed Models Analysis||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||1.36|-2.01|0.55
91027248|NCT02146430|181938312|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.7478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Walking ability: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.3|-0.5|0.7478
91027249|NCT02146430|181938312|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Walking ability: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.3|-0.5|0.6940
90835215|NCT03583099|181537649|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|8.7||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|17.4|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||17.4|-0.1|0.05
90835216|NCT03583099|181537650|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|1.81||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.47|25.08|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||25.08|-21.47|0.88
90835217|NCT03583099|181537651|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-5.62||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.21|11.97|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||11.97|-23.21|0.53
90835218|NCT03583099|181537652|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|10.68||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.27|28.63|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education|||28.63|-7.27|0.24
90835219|NCT03583099|181537653|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-13.55||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.65|6.55|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||6.55|-33.65|0.19
90835220|NCT03583099|181537654|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|0.38||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|13.27|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||13.27|-12.50|0.95
91027250|NCT02146430|181938312|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Walking ability: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.8|-0.0|0.0690
91027251|NCT02146430|181938312|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Walking ability: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.8|-0.0|0.0816
91027252|NCT02146430|181938312|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.1174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Normal work: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||0.1|-0.7|0.1174
91027253|NCT02146430|181938312|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Normal work: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.4|-0.4|0.9250
91027254|NCT02146430|181938312|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.8555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Normal work: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.4|-0.4|0.8555
91090575|NCT03903172|182064228|SUPERIORITY||||||=|1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Used ibuprofen||||=1.0
91090576|NCT03903172|182064228|SUPERIORITY||||||=|1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Used Cyclobenzaprine||||=1.0
91090577|NCT03903172|182064228|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.11|||||||Fisher Exact|||Used Methocarbamol||||=.11
91090578|NCT03903172|182064228|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.49|||||||Fisher Exact|||Used Hydroxyzine||||=.49
90895430|NCT01301391|181656581|SUPERIORITY||Single proportion|0.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.74||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05|Fisher Exact|||H0:p≤ 25% vs H1:p\> 25% with an interesting PFS-3 rate of 50% (median PFS of 3 months), alpha=0.05 and beta=0.10, 30 evaluable patients are required for a single stage trial. If at the end of the trial 12 or more out of 30 evaluable patients are alive and progression-free at 3 months since the treatment start date, the null hypothesis are rejected. A Fleming multiple-testing procedure is applied. If \>=4 successes out of the first 15 patients are observed, accrual will continue up to 30.||0.74|0.33|<0.001
90895431|NCT00106184|181656596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.74|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|No confidence intervals as no parameters were estimated.||Proportional hazards model||||=0.74
90895432|NCT00106184|181656597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|Difference in baseline muscle enzymes therefore tested the difference in the proportions adjusting for the baseline values.||||||>0.90
90895433|NCT00106184|181656598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.9|||||||Log Rank|||||||>0.90
90895434|NCT01814748|181656615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|0.12||||0.535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.49|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Terms for treatment, time, and the interaction of time by treatment, with the constraint that the mean baseline is the same for all treatment groups.||||0.49|-0.26|0.535
91027255|NCT02146430|181938312|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Normal work: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.7|-0.1|0.0956
90835221|NCT03583099|181537655|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-6.97||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.12|2.17|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||2.17|-16.12|0.14
90835222|NCT03583099|181537656|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-1.06||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.39|11.27|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||11.27|-13.39|0.87
90895435|NCT01814748|181656616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percent|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|13.0||||||||13.0|-13.8|
90895436|NCT01814748|181656617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percent|-2.0||||||||||||||||||
90895437|NCT01814748|181656618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|4.2||||0.685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.1|24.4|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Terms for treatment, time, and the interaction of time by treatment, with the constraint that the mean baseline is the same for all treatment groups.||||24.4|-16.1|0.685
90895438|NCT01814748|181656619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-3.7||||0.586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|9.7|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Terms for treatment, time, and the interaction of time by treatment, with the constraint that the mean baseline is the same for all treatment groups.||||9.7|-17.1|0.586
90895439|NCT01814748|181656620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Between-group rate difference|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|13.1|||Mietinnen and Nurminen|||||13.1|-14.0|
90895440|NCT01814748|181656621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Between-group rate difference|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|15.5|||Mietinnen and Nurminen|||||15.5|-7.4|
90895441|NCT00409682|181656631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|10.29||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.14|23.71||There is no adjustment for multiple comparison on the primary outcome measure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference is between adalimumab High-dose and adalimumab Low-dose group.|The point estimates for the number of subjects who achieved PCDAI clinical remission in each treatment group and the difference in number between the groups were provided. The P value and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the difference were provided. The P value is from the CMH test adjusted for infliximab use and response status at Week 4. The primary analysis was performed for the intent-to-treat (ITT) using the non-responder (NRI) imputation method.||23.71|-3.14|0.075
91027256|NCT02146430|181938312|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.1659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Normal work: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.7|-0.1|0.1659
91090579|NCT03903172|182064228|SUPERIORITY||||||=|1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Used an 'Other' non-pharmacologic medication||||=1.0
90835223|NCT03583099|181537657|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-1.8||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.9|12.4|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||12.4|-15.9|0.81
90895442|NCT00409682|181656632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|10.18||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.62|22.97||The hierarchical stepwise closed testing procedure was implemented to control the overall significance level at 0.05 in the ITT population.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||A significance test for any individual major secondary efficacy endpoint in the hierarchy was to be inferential only if the hypothesis tests of all preceding major secondary efficacy endpoints were statistically significant at 0.050.|The point estimates for the number of subjects who achieved PCDAI clinical remission in each treatment group and the difference in number between the groups were provided. The P value and 95% CIs for the difference were provided. The analysis was performed for the intent-to-treat (ITT) population using the non-responder imputation (NRI) method.||22.97|-2.62|0.100
91027257|NCT02146430|181938312|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Relations with other people: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||-0.0|-0.8|0.0468
91027258|NCT02146430|181938312|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.1083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Relations with other people: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.1|-0.7|0.1083
91027259|NCT02146430|181938312|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Relations with other people: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.0|-0.8|0.0505
91090580|NCT03903172|182064229|SUPERIORITY||||||=|1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Any narcotic medication used||||=1.0
91090581|NCT01545388|182064230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.678|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.868|-0.489|||cLDA|Based on a cLDA model with the terms listed above and a constraint that the mean baseline is the same for all treatment groups.||||-0.489|-0.868|<0.001
91090582|NCT01545388|182064230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.525|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.713|-0.337|||cLDA|Based on a cLDA model with the terms listed above and a constraint that the mean baseline is the same for all treatment groups.||||-0.337|-0.713|<0.001
90835224|NCT03583099|181537658|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|2.3||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|11.8|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||11.8|-7.2|0.63
90895443|NCT00409682|181656633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|10.72||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.45|24.89||The hierarchical stepwise closed testing procedure was implemented to control the overall significance level at 0.05 in the ITT population|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||A significance test for any individual major secondary efficacy endpoint in the hierarchy was to be inferential only if the hypothesis tests of all preceding major secondary efficacy endpoints were statistically significant at 0.050.|The point estimates for the number of subjects who achieved PCDAI clinical response in each treatment group and the difference in number between the groups were provided. The P value and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the difference were provided. The analysis was performed for the intent-to-treat (ITT) population using the non-responder imputation (NRI) method.||24.89|-3.45|0.073
90895444|NCT00409682|181656634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|13.51||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|27.04||The hierarchical stepwise closed testing procedure was implemented to control the overall significance level at 0.05 in the ITT population|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||A significance test for any individual major secondary efficacy endpoint in the hierarchy was to be inferential only if the hypothesis tests of all preceding major secondary efficacy endpoints were statistically significant at 0.050.|The point estimates for the number of subjects who achieved PCDAI clinical response in each treatment group and the difference in number between the groups were provided. The P value and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the difference were provided. The analysis was performed for the intent-to-treat (ITT) population using the non-responder imputation (NRI) method.||27.04|-0.01|0.038
90895445|NCT00409682|181656635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.903||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.86|1.66||The hierarchical stepwise closed testing procedure was implemented to control the overall significance level at 0.05 in the ITT population.|ANCOVA||Difference is between adalimumab High-dose and adalimumab Low-dose groups. Baseline means include subjects who had both Baseline and post-Baseline measurements.|"Analyzed as change from Baseline to Week 26, and compared between the two treatment groups. The estimated treatment mean difference, P values, and 95% CI for the treatment difference were provided. Analysis was conducted in the ITT population for OC.~The P value is from the ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor, adjusted for the baseline value, and the strata (response status at Week 4 and prior infliximab experience)."||1.66|-9.86|0.161
90895446|NCT00409682|181656636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.941||0.735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.88|4.88|||ANCOVA||Difference is between adalimumab High-dose and adalimumab Low-dose groups. Baseline means include subjects who had both Baseline and post-Baseline measurements.|Analyzed as change from Baseline to Week 52, and compared between the two treatment groups. The estimated treatment mean difference, P values, and 95% confidence interval (CI) for the treatment difference were provided. Analysis was conducted in the ITT population for OC.||4.88|-6.88|0.735
91090583|NCT01545388|182064230|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin (Δ) is set as 0.3% to show the non-inferiority of metformin 500 mg q.d. to metformin 250 mg b.i.d.|Difference in least squares means|0.153|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.306||||||||0.306|0.000|
91090584|NCT01545388|182064231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-18.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.94|-11.24|||cLDA|Based on a cLDA model with the terms listed above and a constraint that the mean baseline is the same for all treatment groups.||||-11.24|-25.94|<0.001
90835225|NCT03583099|181537659|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|5.8||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|14.2|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||14.2|-2.5|0.17
90835226|NCT03583099|181537660|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-2.9||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|7.3|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||7.3|-13.0|0.58
90895447|NCT04710927|181656655|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
90895448|NCT04710927|181656655|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
90895449|NCT00530062|181656656|OTHER||Difference in adjusted mean|0.946||||0.5595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.293|4.185||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||The analysis was performed using the mixed-effect analysis of variance with fixed effects of center, sequence, treatment group and period, and random effect of the participant within sequence.||4.185|-2.293|0.5595
90895450|NCT01376323|181656675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.6||||||||0.60|-0.13|
90895451|NCT01376323|181656675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.35||||||||0.35|-0.37|
90895452|NCT01376323|181656675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.23||||||||0.23|-0.49|
90895453|NCT01376323|181656675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.06||||||||0.06|-0.66|
90895454|NCT01376323|181656676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.551|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.645|0.543|||||Comparison for glucose.|||0.543|-1.645|
90895455|NCT01376323|181656676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.382|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.472|0.708|||||Comparison for glucose.|||0.708|-1.472|
90895456|NCT01376323|181656676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.696|0.516|||||Comparison for glucose.|||0.516|-1.696|
90895457|NCT01376323|181656676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.595|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.669|0.48|||||Comparison for glucose.|||0.480|-1.669|
90895458|NCT01376323|181656676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.036|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.042|0.113|||||Comparison for NEFA.|||0.113|-0.042|
91090585|NCT01545388|182064231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-16.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.62|-9.06|||cLDA|Based on a cLDA model with the terms listed above and a constraint that the mean baseline is the same for all treatment groups.||||-9.06|-23.62|<0.001
91090586|NCT01545388|182064231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|2.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.63|8.14||||||||8.14|-3.63|
91090587|NCT01474486|182064235|OTHER|||||||0.64|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.64
91090588|NCT01255163|182064243|OTHER|||||||0.016||||||threshold for significance (p \< 0.05)|Fisher Exact|||||||0.016
91090589|NCT01255163|182064244|OTHER|||||||0.098||||||"Threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05.~Type III Tests of Fixed Effects Group \* VisitLong F (6, 52.008) = 1.902, p = 0.098"|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures mixed model with Repeated Factor (Visit Long: baseline, 6, 12, 18 months), Fixed Factors (Group,VisitLong, Sex) and Covariate (Age)|||"MIXED MMSE.tot BY Group Sex VisitLong WITH Age~* CRITERIA=CIN(95) MXITER(100) MXSTEP(10) SCORING(1) SINGULAR(0.000000000001) HCONVERGE(0, ABSOLUTE) LCONVERGE(0, ABSOLUTE) PCONVERGE(0.000001, ABSOLUTE)~* FIXED=Group Sex Age Group\*VisitLong \| SSTYPE(3)~* METHOD=REML~* PRINT=SOLUTION~* REPEATED=VisitLong \| SUBJECT(SubjectID) COVTYPE(AR1)~* EMMEANS=TABLES(Group) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI)~* EMMEANS=TABLES(Sex) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI)~* EMMEANS=TABLES(Group\*VisitLong) COMPARE(Group) ADJ(BONFERRONI)~* EMMEANS=TABLES(Group\*VisitLong) COMPARE(VisitLong) ADJ(BONFERRONI) ."|||0.098
90835227|NCT03583099|181537661|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-0.6||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|7.1|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||7.1|-8.3|0.89
90835228|NCT03583099|181537662|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-3.9||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|1.5|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||1.5|-9.2|0.16
90835229|NCT03583099|181537663|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-2.2||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|6.5|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||6.5|-10.9|0.62
91090590|NCT01255163|182064245|OTHER|||||||0.295||||||"Threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05.~Type III Tests of Fixed Effects for Group\*VisitLong F (6, 52.281) = 1.254, p = 0.295"|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures mixed model with Repeated Factor (Visit Long: baseline, 6, 12, 18 months), Fixed Factors (Group,VisitLong, Sex) and Covariate (Age)|||"MIXED ADAS70 BY Group Sex VisitLong WITH Age~* CRITERIA=CIN(95) MXITER(100) MXSTEP(10) SCORING(1) SINGULAR(0.000000000001) HCONVERGE(0, ABSOLUTE) LCONVERGE(0, ABSOLUTE) PCONVERGE(0.000001, ABSOLUTE)~* FIXED=Group Sex Age Group\*VisitLong \| SSTYPE(3)~* METHOD=REML~* PRINT=SOLUTION~* REPEATED=VisitLong \| SUBJECT(SubjectID) COVTYPE(AR1)~* EMMEANS=TABLES(Group) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI)~* EMMEANS=TABLES(Sex) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI)~* EMMEANS=TABLES(Group\*VisitLong) COMPARE(Group) ADJ(BONFERRONI)~* EMMEANS=TABLES(Group\*VisitLong) COMPARE(VisitLong) ADJ(BONFERRONI) ."|||0.295
91090591|NCT01255163|182064246|OTHER|||||||0.141||||||Threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05. Type III Tests of Fixed Effects Group \* VisitLong F (6, 47.485) = 1.704, p = 0.141|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures mixed model with Repeated Factor (Visit Long: baseline, 6, 12, 18 months), Fixed Factors (Group,VisitLong, Sex) and Covariate (Age)|||"MIXED CDR BY Group Sex VisitLong WITH Age~CRITERIA=CIN(95) MXITER(100) MXSTEP(10) SCORING(1) SINGULAR(0.000000000001) HCONVERGE(0, ABSOLUTE) LCONVERGE(0, ABSOLUTE) PCONVERGE(0.000001, ABSOLUTE) FIXED=Group Sex Age Group\*VisitLong \| SSTYPE(3) METHOD=REML PRINT=SOLUTION REPEATED=VisitLong \| SUBJECT(SubjectID) COVTYPE(AR1) EMMEANS=TABLES(Group) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) EMMEANS=TABLES(Sex) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) EMMEANS=TABLES(Group\*VisitLong) COMPARE(Group) ADJ(BONFERRONI) EMMEANS=TABLES(Group\*VisitLong) COMPARE(VisitLong) ADJ(BONFERRONI) ."|||0.141
90835230|NCT03583099|181537664|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-1.64||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.27|13.99|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||13.99|-17.27|0.84
90835231|NCT03583099|181537665|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|6.09||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.63|16.8|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||16.80|-4.63|0.27
90835232|NCT03583099|181537666|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|2.91||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.59|12.41|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||12.41|-6.59|0.55
90835233|NCT03583099|181537667|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|2.37||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.09|13.83|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||13.83|-9.09|0.69
90835234|NCT03583099|181537668|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|0.36||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.13|8.85|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||8.85|-8.13|0.93
90835235|NCT03583099|181537669|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-4.01||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.97|2.95|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||2.95|-10.97|0.26
90835236|NCT03583099|181537670|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-2.04||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.28|10.21|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||10.21|-14.28|0.74
90835237|NCT03583099|181537671|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|0.1||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|8.1|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||8.1|-7.9|0.98
90835238|NCT03583099|181537672|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|2.6||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|9.6|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||9.6|-4.3|0.46
90835239|NCT03583099|181537673|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|1.5||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|6.1|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||6.1|-3.0|0.50
90895459|NCT01376323|181656676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.004|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.073|0.081|||||Comparison for NEFA.|||0.081|-0.073|
90835240|NCT03583099|181537674|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-0.2||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|6.5|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||6.5|-6.8|0.96
90835241|NCT03583099|181537675|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|2.2||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|7.5|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||7.5|-3.0|0.40
90835242|NCT03583099|181537676|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-0.1||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|4.0|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||4.0|-4.3|0.96
90835243|NCT03583099|181537677|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|0.1||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|8.1|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||8.1|-7.9|0.98
90835244|NCT03583099|181537678|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-4.2||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|6.8|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||6.8|-15.2|0.46
90835245|NCT03583099|181537679|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|3.9||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|12.4|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||12.4|-4.7|0.37
90895460|NCT01376323|181656676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.021|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.058|0.099|||||Comparison for NEFA.|||0.099|-0.058|
91027260|NCT02146430|181938312|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.6993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Relations with other people: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.5|-0.3|0.6993
91027261|NCT02146430|181938312|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.9781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Relations with other people: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.4|-0.4|0.9781
91027262|NCT02146430|181938312|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||Sleep: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||-0.1|-1.0|0.0154
91027263|NCT02146430|181938312|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Sleep: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.0|-0.9|0.0731
91027264|NCT02146430|181938312|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||Sleep: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||-0.1|-1.0|0.0259
91027265|NCT02146430|181938312|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.5243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Sleep: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.6|-0.3|0.5243
91027266|NCT02146430|181938312|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.8488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Sleep: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.5|-0.4|0.8488
90835246|NCT03583099|181537680|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-0.8||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|4.4|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||4.4|-6.0|0.75
90835247|NCT03583099|181537681|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-8.7||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.3|0.9|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||0.9|-18.3|0.08
90835248|NCT03583099|181537682|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-4.8||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|1.1|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||1.1|-10.6|0.11
90895461|NCT01376323|181656676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.083|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|-0.007|||||Comparison for NEFA.|||-0.007|-0.160|
90895462|NCT01376323|181656678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.94||||||||0.94|-0.79|
90895463|NCT01376323|181656678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.82||||||||0.82|-0.90|
90895464|NCT01376323|181656678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.85||||||||0.85|-0.90|
91027267|NCT02146430|181938312|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.2746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Enjoyment of life: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||0.2|-0.7|0.2746
91027268|NCT02146430|181938312|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.9349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Enjoyment of life: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.4|-0.4|0.9349
91027269|NCT02146430|181938312|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.5164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Enjoyment of life: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.6|-0.3|0.5164
91027270|NCT02146430|181938312|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.2382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Enjoyment of life: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.7|-0.2|0.2382
91027271|NCT02146430|181938312|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Enjoyment of life: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.8|-0.0|0.0807
91027272|NCT02146430|181938313|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0237||0.0601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.091|0.002|||ANCOVA|||||0.002|-0.091|0.0601
91027273|NCT02146430|181938313|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0237||0.8299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.052|0.041|||ANCOVA|||||0.041|-0.052|0.8299
91027274|NCT02146430|181938313|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0237||0.0347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.096|0.004|||ANCOVA|||||0.004|-0.096|0.0347
91027275|NCT02146430|181938313|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0237||0.0951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.007|0.086|||ANCOVA|||||0.086|-0.007|0.0951
90835249|NCT03583099|181537683|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|0.4||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|5.9|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||5.9|-5.1|0.89
91027276|NCT02146430|181938313|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0237||0.8199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.052|0.041|||ANCOVA|||||0.041|-0.052|0.8199
91027277|NCT03093324|181938327|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.542||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.754|||Negative Binomial Regression Model|||Number of event days was analyzed by a negative binomial regression model, with the logarithmic transformation of the number of exposure days as the ''offset'' parameter and treatment group as a factor and adjusting for study part, region (US and non-US), age, and body mass index (BMI).||0.754|0.390|0.0003
91027278|NCT03093324|181938328|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.52||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.356|0.76|||Negative Binomial Regression Model|||Number of event days was analyzed by a negative binomial regression model, with the logarithmic transformation of the number of exposure days as the ''offset'' parameter and treatment group as a factor and adjusting for study part, region (US and non-US), age, and body mass index (BMI).||0.760|0.356|0.0007
91027279|NCT03093324|181938329|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.714||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.554|0.921|||Negative Binomial Regression Model|||Number of event days was analyzed by a negative binomial regression model, with the logarithmic transformation of the number of exposure days as the ''offset'' parameter and treatment group as a factor and adjusting for study part, region (US and non-US), age, and body mass index (BMI).||0.921|0.554|0.009
91027280|NCT03093324|181938330|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.555||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.357|0.862|||Negative Binomial Regression Model|||Number of event days was analyzed by a negative binomial regression model, with the logarithmic transformation of the number of exposure days as the ''offset'' parameter and treatment group as a factor and adjusting for study part, region (US and non-US), age, and body mass index (BMI).||0.862|0.357|0.009
91027281|NCT03093324|181938331|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.696||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.499|0.972|||Negative Binomial Regression Model|||Number of event days was analyzed by a negative binomial regression model, with the logarithmic transformation of the number of exposure days as the ''offset'' parameter and treatment group as a factor and adjusting for study part, region (US and non-US), age, and body mass index (BMI).||0.972|0.499|0.033
91027282|NCT03093324|181938332|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.662||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.425|1.031|||Negative Binomial Regression Model|||Number of event days was analyzed by a negative binomial regression model, with the logarithmic transformation of the number of exposure days as the ''offset'' parameter and treatment group as a factor and adjusting for study part, region (US and non-US), age, and body mass index (BMI).||1.031|0.425|0.068
91027283|NCT03093324|181938333|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.713||||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.417|1.217|||Negative Binomial Regression Model|||Number of event days was analyzed by a negative binomial regression model, with the logarithmic transformation of the number of exposure days as the ''offset'' parameter and treatment group as a factor and adjusting for study part, region (US and non-US), age, and body mass index (BMI).||1.217|0.417|0.215
91027284|NCT03093324|181938334|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Nausea: DMF is used as a referenced group in the model, adjusting for study parts, region (US and non-US), age and BMI.||-0.0|-0.6|0.043
91027285|NCT03093324|181938334|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||Vomiting: DMF is used as a referenced group in the model, adjusting for study parts, region (US and non-US), age and BMI.||-0.2|-0.7|<0.001
91027286|NCT03093324|181938334|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||Upper Abdominal Pain: DMF is used as a referenced group in the model, adjusting for study parts, region (US and non-US), age and BMI.||-0.2|-0.9|0.001
91027287|NCT03093324|181938334|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Lower Abdominal Pain: DMF is used as a referenced group in the model, adjusting for study parts, region (US and non-US), age and BMI.||0.2|-0.4|0.403
91027288|NCT03093324|181938334|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Diarrhea: DMF is used as a referenced group in the model, adjusting for study parts, region (US and non-US), age and BMI.||0.2|-0.6|0.261
91027289|NCT01767597|181938336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5||||||No p-value adjustments for multiple comparisons were required. Significance was determined using a p-value \<0.05.|Chi-squared|||Power calculations were performed to detect \>15% difference in immediate linkage-to-care and vaccination. We hypothesized from discussions with an expert panel that \~30% of participants would have appropriate care with standard HBV serology. Assuming type 1 error=0.05 and power=80%, 152 participants per arm would be needed. As \~40% of the population would be nonimmunized or HBsAg-positive from previous data, a minimum 375 participants per arm would be required.||||0.5
91027290|NCT04583579|181938379|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.78
91027291|NCT02006706|181938383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.606|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.73|4.22|||t-test, 2 sided||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the DAS28 at baseline and DAS28 after 24 weeks of follow-up|||4.22|1.73|<0.001
91027292|NCT02006706|181938384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91027293|NCT02173704|181938441|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Sufficiency: The criterion for a sufficient immune response was that the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:5 should be ≥ 70%.|Single binomial proportion|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|97.2|100.0|||Exact test of binomial proportion|||Statistical analysis 5/99 strain: The power to reject the null hypothesis associated with the primary objective for strain 5/99 was 99%.||100|97.2|
91027294|NCT02173704|181938441|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Sufficiency: The criterion for a sufficient immune response was that the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥ 1:5 should be ≥ 70%.|single binomial proportion|79.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.4|85.8|||Exact test of binomial proportion|||Statistical analysis NZ98/254 strain: The power to reject the null hypothesis associated with the primary objective for strain NZ98/25 was 94%.||85.8|71.4|
90895465|NCT01376323|181656678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|0.42||||||||0.42|-1.27|
90835250|NCT03583099|181537684|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-8.8||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|0.0|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||-0.0|-17.5|0.05
90835251|NCT03583099|181537685|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|16.76||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.89|36.42|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||36.42|-2.89|0.09
90835252|NCT03583099|181537686|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|3.7||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|15.9|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||15.9|-8.6|0.56
90835253|NCT03583099|181537687|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|10.41||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.39|40.2|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||40.20|-19.39|0.49
90835254|NCT03583099|181537688|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|10.8||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|22.1|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||22.1|-0.5|0.06
90835255|NCT03583099|181537689|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|0.41||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.97|11.79|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||11.79|-10.97|0.94
90835256|NCT03583099|181537690|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|2.7||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|11.8|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||11.8|-6.5|0.57
90835257|NCT03583099|181537691|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|1.36||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.01|20.73|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||20.73|-18.01|0.89
90835258|NCT03583099|181537692|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-2.2||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|7.6|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||7.6|-12.1|0.65
90835259|NCT03583099|181537693|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|12.48||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|29.96|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||29.96|-5.00|0.16
90835260|NCT03583099|181537694|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|4.3||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|12.2|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||12.2|-3.6|0.29
90835261|NCT03583099|181537695|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|5.28||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.07|18.62|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||18.62|-8.07|0.44
90835262|NCT03583099|181537696|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-1.5||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|4.5|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||4.5|-7.6|0.62
90895466|NCT01376323|181656679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.62|53.16||||||||53.16|-48.62|
91027295|NCT02173704|181938443|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Sufficiency: The criterion for a sufficient immune response was that the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:5 should be ≥ 70%.|Single binomial proportion|99.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|95.7|99.98|||Exact test of binomial proportion|||Statistical analysis H44/76 strain: The null hypothesis associated with the primary objective is that the proportion of subjects with hSBA titers ≥ 1:5 one month after the third dose of the Bexsero® vaccine was ≤ 0.70. Assuming the results for the three strains are independent, the power to reject the null hypothesis associated with the primary objectives to demonstrate sufficiency of response (for all three strains was 92%.||99.98|95.7|
90835263|NCT03583099|181537697|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-7.1||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.18|9.0|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||9.0|-23.18|0.39
90835264|NCT03583099|181537698|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-6.6||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|0.8|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||0.8|-13.9|0.08
90835265|NCT03583099|181537699|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-11.3||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.06|7.0|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||7.00|-29.06|0.23
90835266|NCT03583099|181537700|SUPERIORITY||Difference in means|-1.14||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.42|4.13||The p-value adjusts for baseline CAT score.|Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||4.13|-6.42|0.97
90895467|NCT01376323|181656679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.04|42.7||||||||42.70|-58.04|
90895468|NCT01376323|181656679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|24.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.75|75.92||||||||75.92|-27.75|
90895469|NCT01376323|181656679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.72|48.53||||||||48.53|-52.72|
90835267|NCT03583099|181537701|SUPERIORITY||Difference in means|-0.003||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|1.85|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||1.85|-1.86|0.47
90835268|NCT03583099|181537702|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|17.84||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.34|33.34|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||33.34|2.34|0.02
90835269|NCT03583099|181537703|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|7.8||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|17.6|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||17.6|-2.0|0.12
90835270|NCT03583099|181537704|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|The p-value is calculated from a two-sided Fisher's exact test. This test is appropriate since only one outcome per practice was seen.||||||1.0
90835271|NCT03583099|181537705|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|2.06||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.67|26.79|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||26.79|-22.67|0.87
90835272|NCT03583099|181537706|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|The p-value is calculated from a two-sided Fisher's exact test.||||||1.0
90835273|NCT03583099|181537707|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-5.53||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.33|13.28|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||13.28|-24.33|0.56
90958925|NCT04874415|181797846|SUPERIORITY|Main effects of each intervention factor were estimated using generalized linear models with log link, including all prespecified two-way interactions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|14.2|||||Loss Framed Incentive is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|||14.2|-2.7|
90895470|NCT01376323|181656681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.36|16.2||||||||16.20|-19.36|
91027296|NCT02173704|181938443|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Sufficiency: The criterion for a sufficient immune response was that the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:5 should be ≥ 75%.|Single binomial proportion|99.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.7|99.82|||Exact test for binomial proportion|||Statistical analysis 5/99 strain: The power to reject the null hypothesis associated with the secondary objective for strain 5/99 was 99%.||99.82|94.7|
90835274|NCT03583099|181537708|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|The p-value is calculated from a two-sided Fisher's exact test.||||||1.0
90835275|NCT03583099|181537709|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|12.66||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.05|32.37|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||32.37|-7.05|0.21
90895471|NCT01376323|181656681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-15.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.0|2.81||||||||2.81|-33.00|
91032641|NCT02549092|181950230|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.35||0.655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.63|5.74||The repeated measures model: change = treatment, country, visit, baseline, treatment \* visit, baseline \* visit. The unstructured variance-covariance structure is used.|Repeated measures model||Difference of LCIG - OMT|Sleep/fatigue||5.74|-3.63|0.655
90835276|NCT03583099|181537710|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|The p-value is calculated from a two-sided Fisher's exact test.||||||1.0
90835277|NCT03583099|181537711|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-18.29||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.66|2.08|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||2.08|-38.66|0.08
90835278|NCT03583099|181537712|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|The p-value is calculated from a two-sided Fisher's exact test.||||||1.0
90835279|NCT03583099|181537713|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-0.67||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.06|12.71|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||12.71|-14.06|0.92
90835280|NCT03583099|181537715|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-5.47||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.72|4.77|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||4.77|-15.72|0.29
90835281|NCT03583099|181537717|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-2.87||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.14|11.39|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||11.39|-17.14|0.69
90835282|NCT03583099|181537718|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-13.15||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.06|12.76|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||12.76|-39.06|0.32
90895472|NCT01376323|181656681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.41|4.23||||||||4.23|-32.41|
90895473|NCT01376323|181656681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-19.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.55|-1.68||||||||-1.68|-36.55|
90895474|NCT02436811|181656683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||A stepwise forward selection model was used. All independent variables with P\<0.20 in the univariate analysis were selected and those which were significant (P\<0.05) were kept in the final model. The level of significance was 5%.|Regression, Poisson|||Univariate and multivariate Poisson regressions with robust variance were obtained to estimate the rate ratios (RR) and their respective 95% confidence intervals. Two Poisson regression models were generated, using the knowledge score 15 minutes after the intervention (post-test) and 4 weeks after the interventions (follow-up test) as dependent variables.||||<0.001
90835283|NCT03583099|181537719|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-0.2||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5|15.0|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||15.0|-15.5|0.98
90835284|NCT03583099|181537721|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|3.1||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|13.1|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||13.1|-7.0|0.55
90835285|NCT03583099|181537722|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-8.61||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.19|12.97|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||12.97|-30.19|0.43
90835286|NCT03583099|181537723|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|7.6||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|16.5|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||16.5|-1.4|0.10
90835287|NCT03583099|181537724|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|0.82||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.92|21.92|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||21.92|-20.92|0.94
90835288|NCT03583099|181537725|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-3.4||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|7.6|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||7.6|-14.4|0.55
90835289|NCT03583099|181537727|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-1.1||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|7.1|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||7.1|-9.3|0.80
90835290|NCT03583099|181537729|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-3.9||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|1.8|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||1.8|-9.7|0.18
90835291|NCT03583099|181537730|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-0.17||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.06|25.72|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||25.72|-26.06|0.99
90835292|NCT03583099|181537731|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-2.6||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|6.8|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||6.8|-12.0|0.59
90835293|NCT03583099|181537733|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|1.9||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|18.4|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||18.4|-14.5|0.82
90835294|NCT03583099|181537735|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|7.6||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|19.3|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||19.3|-4.1|0.20
90905090|NCT02886728|181677438|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|-2.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-2.0|-6.0|<0.001
90835295|NCT03583099|181537737|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|4.9||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|15.3|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||15.3|-5.5|0.36
90835296|NCT03583099|181537739|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|4.6||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|17.1|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||17.1|-7.9|0.47
90835297|NCT03583099|181537741|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|0.6||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|9.0|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||9.0|-7.8|0.88
90835298|NCT03583099|181537743|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-4.3||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|3.4|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||3.4|-12.0|0.27
90835299|NCT03583099|181537744|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-4.94||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.92|38.04|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||38.04|-47.92|0.82
90835300|NCT03583099|181537745|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-1.1||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|12.2|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||12.2|-14.5|0.87
90835301|NCT03583099|181537746|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-37.6||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.8|-3.5|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||-3.5|-71.8|0.03
90835302|NCT03583099|181537747|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|2.3||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|10.3|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||10.3|-5.6|0.56
90835303|NCT03583099|181537748|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-23.07||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.4|1.27|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||1.27|-47.40|0.06
91027297|NCT02173704|181938443|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Sufficiency: The criterion for a sufficient immune response was that the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:5 should be ≥ 75%.|Single binomial proportion|94.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|88.7|97.4|||Exact test for binomial proportions|||Statistical analysis NZ98/254 strain: The power to reject the null hypothesis associated with the secondary objective for strain NZ98/254 was 99%.||97.4|88.7|
90835304|NCT03583099|181537749|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|3.2||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|10.4|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||10.4|-4.0|0.39
91027298|NCT03901963|181938452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.37|8.57||Tested at 2-sided 0.05 significance level through stratified CMH method. Stratification factor included baseline cytogenetic risk per investigator'|stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH)||Odds ratio and 95% CI were estimated by Mantel-Haenszel method. Stratification factor included baseline cytogenetic risk per investigator's assessment (high risk versus standard/unknown risk) as used for randomization of the study.|||8.57|2.37|<0.0001
90835305|NCT03583099|181537750|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-1.72||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.24|14.8|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||14.80|-18.24|0.84
90835306|NCT03583099|181537751|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|2.0||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|6.9|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||6.9|-2.9|0.42
90835307|NCT03583099|181537752|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-42.09||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.27|-9.92|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||-9.92|-74.27|0.01
90835308|NCT03583099|181537753|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|2.4||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|9.1|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||9.1|-4.2|0.47
90835309|NCT03583099|181537754|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-12.27||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.72|13.18|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||13.18|-37.72|0.34
90835310|NCT03583099|181537755|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|2.4||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|7.9|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||7.9|-3.1|0.39
90835311|NCT03583099|181537757|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-1.2||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|3.1|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||3.1|-5.5|0.59
91027299|NCT01700621|181938475|NON_INFERIORITY|A noninferiority margin of -10% was chosen as the maximal absolute reduction in proportion seroprotection allowed in the concomitant measles-rubella and rotavirus vaccine group as compared to the measles-rubella vaccine alone group.|Seroconversion proportion difference|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|9.0||||||||9.0|-6.9|
91027300|NCT01288859|181938491|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The results from LC-MS/MS analysis of parent polyphenols were analyzed and expressed as the absolute changes from the baseline to reduce possible effects of inter-subject fasting variability|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.02
91027301|NCT01288859|181938492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis was performed using the statistical package SPSS for Windows (version15). By the analysis of variance (ANOVA) for repeated measures the subjective time curves for all measured compounds were compared and tested for the effect of treatment and of time as factors. For all tests, following a significant main effect in the ANOVA, individual means were compared using the Bonferroni test (p \< 0.05). Results were considered significant at p \< 0.05.||||0.01
91027302|NCT01288859|181938493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.04
91027303|NCT00384033|181938494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|2.7||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided. Global F-test was used to adjust for multiplicity. If global F-test was significant at 0.05 level, pair wise analysis was interpreted without any further p-value adjustment.|ANCOVA|||For DVS SR 50 mg, HAM-D17 total score was evaluated using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and site as factors and baseline HAM-D17 score as the covariate.||2.70|-0.60|0.198
91027304|NCT00384033|181938494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|3.4||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided. Global F-test was used to adjust for multiplicity. If global F-test was significant at 0.05 level, pair wise analysis was interpreted without any further p-value adjustment.|ANCOVA|||For DVS SR 100 mg, HAM-D17 total score was evaluated using ANCOVA with treatment and site as factors and baseline HAM-D17 score as the covariate.||3.40|0.20|0.028
91103920|NCT03992872|182094612|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1284|||||||Fisher Exact|||"Null hypothesis for analysis of percentage of subjects with Anti-Chikungunya neutralizing activity at or above selected thresholds by time point.~Day 29: Subject with Titer \>= 640"||||0.1284
91090592|NCT01255163|182064247|OTHER|||||||0.031||||||Threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05. Type III Tests of Fixed Effects: Group \* VisitLong F (6, 51.955) = 2.553, p = 0.031. Univarate Exendin-4 F(3, 51.386) = 2.734, p = 0.053. Pairwise for Exendin-4, baseline vs. 18 months (p = 0.035).|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures mixed model with Repeated Factor (Visit Long: baseline, 6, 12, 18 months), Fixed Factors (Group,VisitLong, Sex) and Covariate (Age)|||"MIXED CDR.sob BY Group Sex VisitLong WITH Age CRITERIA=CIN(95) MXITER(100) MXSTEP(10) SCORING(1) SINGULAR(0.000000000001) HCONVERGE(0, ABSOLUTE) LCONVERGE(0, ABSOLUTE) PCONVERGE(0.000001, ABSOLUTE) FIXED=Group Sex Age Group\*VisitLong \| SSTYPE(3) METHOD=REML PRINT=SOLUTION REPEATED=VisitLong \| SUBJECT(SubjectID) COVTYPE(AR1) EMMEANS=TABLES(Group) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) EMMEANS=TABLES(Sex) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) EMMEANS=TABLES(Group\*VisitLong) COMPARE(Group) ADJ(BONFERRONI) EMMEANS=TABLES(Group\*VisitLong) COMPARE(VisitLong) ADJ(BONFERRONI) ."|||0.031
90835312|NCT03583099|181537759|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|0.3||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|8.8|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||8.8|-8.2|0.94
90835313|NCT03583099|181537760|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|0.6||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|13.4|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||13.4|-12.2|0.93
90835314|NCT03583099|181537761|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-8.2||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|5.7|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||5.7|-22.0|0.25
90835315|NCT03583099|181537762|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-3.4||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|6.0|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||6.0|-12.7|0.48
90835316|NCT03583099|181537763|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|3.9||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|14.2|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||14.2|-6.3|0.45
90835317|NCT03583099|181537765|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-2.2||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|3.9|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||3.9|-8.4|0.48
90835318|NCT03583099|181537766|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-0.4||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.4|19.5|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||19.5|-20.4|0.97
90895475|NCT03595332|181656689|EQUIVALENCE|The analysis tests whether for both groups combined, the baseline to 10-week follow-up BMI percentile scores are significantly different from zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.137|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9846||0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.793|3.067||This test compares baseline to 10-week post-test for both groups combined, to test the null hypothesis that the BMI Percentile score would not be different from zero. A p-value of 0.05 was used as a priori threshold for statistical significance.|Regression, Linear|Linear regression with Generalized Estimating Equations to account for nested data structure of 222 children nested within 150 families and 4 schools.||||3.067|-0.793|0.248
91103921|NCT03992872|182094612|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||"Null hypothesis for analysis of percentage of subjects with Anti-Chikungunya neutralizing activity at or above selected thresholds by time point.~Day 57: Subject with Titer \>= 40"||||1.0000
90835319|NCT03583099|181537767|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-12.1||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.5|-0.6|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||-0.6|-23.5|0.04
90835320|NCT03583099|181537768|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-1.8||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|2.3|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||2.3|-5.8|0.39
90835321|NCT03583099|181537769|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-7.3||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|0.4|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||0.4|-14.9|0.06
90835322|NCT03583099|181537770|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-0.9||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|7.0|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||7.0|-8.8|0.82
90835323|NCT03583099|181537771|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|0.6||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|7.9|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||7.9|-6.6|0.86
90835324|NCT03583099|181537772|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-7.4||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|2.5|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||2.5|-17.3|0.14
90835325|NCT03583099|181537774|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-14.66||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.54|8.22|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||8.22|-37.54|0.21
90835326|NCT03583099|181537775|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|0.4||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|2.7|||Generalized estimating equation contrast|||||2.7|-2.0|0.76
90835327|NCT03583099|181537778|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|0.6||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|3.4|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||3.4|-2.1|0.66
90895476|NCT03595332|181656690|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis tested whether BMI Percentile score change among overweight participants (BMI equal or greater than 85th percentile at baseline) significantly changed from baseline to follow-up (was significantly different from zero). This was a subset analysis among the highest risk participants in the study.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.173|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.34||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.806|-0.541||The p-value threshold was 0.05 for all comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Linear regression with Generalized Estimating Equations to account for nested data structure of children within schools and families.|A negative parameter suggests a decreased BMI Percentile.|||-0.541|-5.806|0.018
90835328|NCT01018030|181537792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.386||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.1|||ANCOVA||The estimation for least squares mean was adjusted for baseline value, country, allergic rhinitis status, age, and gender.|||-0.10|-0.67|0.008
90835329|NCT01018030|181537792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.357||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|-0.07|||ANCOVA||The estimation for least squares mean was adjusted for baseline value, country, allergic rhinitis status, age, and gender.|||-0.07|-0.64|0.014
90835330|NCT01903356|181537836|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed rank test has been used for this analysis.||Comparison of % of HbA1c before and 24 weeks after administration of TrajentaDuo® Tablet treatment.|The difference considered in the analysis is HbA1c values after drug administration minus HbA1c values before drug administration|||<0.0001
90835331|NCT01903356|181537839|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed rank test has been used for this analysis.||Comparison of FPG before and 24 weeks after administration of TrajentaDuo® Tablet treatment|The difference considered in the analysis is FPG values after drug administration minus FPG values before drug administration|||<0.0001
90835332|NCT00713609|181537841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.692||||||For ILC|ANCOVA|||||||0.692
90835333|NCT00713609|181537841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.467||||||For ILC|ANCOVA|||||||0.467
90835334|NCT00713609|181537841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.281||||||For ILC|ANCOVA|||||||0.281
90835335|NCT00713609|181537841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.075||||||For ILC|ANCOVA|||||||0.075
90895477|NCT03595332|181656691|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis tested the difference in BMI percentile between baseline and 1-year follow-up among participants in the immediate intervention group to test the null hypothesis that no change occurred.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.363|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.676||0.829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.922|3.648||A prior threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made.|Regression, Linear|Analysis included Generalized Estimating Equations with linear response variable, accounting for nested data structure.||||3.648|-2.922|0.829
90835336|NCT00713609|181537841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||For ILC|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90835337|NCT00713609|181537841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||For NILC|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90835338|NCT00713609|181537841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.803||||||For NILC|ANCOVA|||||||0.803
90835339|NCT00713609|181537841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.175||||||For NILC|ANCOVA|||||||0.175
90835340|NCT00713609|181537841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.552||||||For NILC|ANCOVA|||||||0.552
90835341|NCT00713609|181537841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||For NILC|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90835342|NCT00713609|181537841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||||||For TC|ANCOVA|||||||0.006
90835343|NCT00713609|181537841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.618||||||For TC|ANCOVA|||||||0.618
90835344|NCT00713609|181537841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.149||||||For TC|ANCOVA|||||||0.149
90835345|NCT00713609|181537841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.255||||||For TC|ANCOVA|||||||0.255
90835346|NCT00713609|181537841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||For TC|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90835347|NCT00713609|181537842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.922|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.922
90835348|NCT00713609|181537842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.132|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.132
90835349|NCT00713609|181537842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.020
90835350|NCT00713609|181537842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.706|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.706
90835351|NCT00713609|181537842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.009
90835352|NCT00713609|181537843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.504||||||For ILC|ANCOVA|||||||0.504
90835353|NCT00713609|181537843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.504||||||For ILC|ANCOVA|||||||0.504
90835354|NCT00713609|181537843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.177||||||For ILC|ANCOVA|||||||0.177
90835355|NCT00713609|181537843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.084||||||For ILC|ANCOVA|||||||0.084
90835356|NCT00713609|181537843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||For ILC|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90835357|NCT00713609|181537843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||For NILC|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90835358|NCT00713609|181537843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.776||||||For NILC|ANCOVA|||||||0.776
90835359|NCT00713609|181537843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.465||||||For NILC|ANCOVA|||||||0.465
90835360|NCT00713609|181537843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.288||||||For NILC|ANCOVA|||||||0.288
90835361|NCT00713609|181537843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||For NILC|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90835362|NCT00713609|181537843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||||||For TC|ANCOVA|||||||0.006
90835363|NCT00713609|181537843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62||||||For TC|ANCOVA|||||||0.620
90835364|NCT00713609|181537843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.291||||||For TC|ANCOVA|||||||0.291
90835365|NCT00713609|181537843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.085||||||For TC|ANCOVA|||||||0.085
90835366|NCT00713609|181537843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||For TC|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90835367|NCT00713609|181537844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.652|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.652
90835368|NCT00713609|181537844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.279|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.279
90835369|NCT00713609|181537844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.312|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.312
90835370|NCT00713609|181537844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.063|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.063
90835371|NCT00713609|181537844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.005
90835372|NCT01791244|181537850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.48||||0.9148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|9.25|||linear mixed model|||Linear mixed model, with baseline value, time, Expanded Disability Status Score (EDSS) at baseline and sex as fixed factors was used for the analysis.||9.25|-8.30|0.9148
91103922|NCT03992872|182094612|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6411|||||||Fisher Exact|||"Null hypothesis for analysis of percentage of subjects with Anti-Chikungunya neutralizing activity at or above selected thresholds by time point.~Day 57: Subject with Titer\>=160"||||0.6411
90835373|NCT01856270|181537873|SUPERIORITY|The data from this study was compared with the data from the Natural History of Headache after Mild TBI which was previously published (Lucas, Hoffman, Bell, Dikmen. (2014), A prospective study of prevalence and characterization of headache following mild traumatic brain injury. Cephalalgia (34) 93-102).|Difference of proportions|0.114||||0.101|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.017|||A priori significance threshold α=.05|Fisher Exact||Confidence interval estimation method from Wallenstein (1997). 71 of 205 participants (at 3 Mo post) in the Natural History study endorsed having a headache more than once per week.|A positive difference of proportions would indicate an improvement in the Amitriptyline sample, while a negative difference would indicate a worsening.|||-0.017|.101
90835374|NCT01856270|181537874|SUPERIORITY|The data from this study was compared with the data from the Natural History of Headache after Mild TBI which was previously published (Lucas, Hoffman, Bell, Dikmen. (2014), A prospective study of prevalence and characterization of headache following mild traumatic brain injury. Cephalalgia (34) 93-102).|Difference of proportions|0.194||||0.017|ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.057|||A priori significance threshold α=.05|Fisher Exact||Confidence interval estimation method from Wallenstein (1997). 56 of 148 participants (at 3 mo post) in the Natural History study reported pain \>=6.|A positive difference of proportions would indicate an improvement in the Amitriptyline sample, while a negative difference would indicate a worsening|||.057|.017
90835375|NCT01856270|181537875|SUPERIORITY||Difference of proportions|0.093||||0.456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.106|0.286||A priori significance threshold α=.05|Fisher Exact||Estimate is the effect observed in the Immediate group (i.e. Immediate - Delayed). Confidence interval estimation method from Wallenstein (1997).|||.286|-.106|.456
90835376|NCT01856270|181537876|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|3.4||A priori significance threshold α=.05|t-test, 2 sided||Estimate is the effect observed in the Immediate group (i.e. Immediate - Delayed)|||3.4|-5.1|.684
90835377|NCT01856270|181537877|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.9||A priori significance threshold α=.05|t-test, 2 sided||Estimate is the effect observed in the Immediate group (i.e. Immediate - Delayed)|||2.9|-1.0|.306
90835378|NCT01856270|181537878|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.6||A priori significance threshold α=.05|t-test, 2 sided||Estimate is the effect observed in the Immediate group (i.e. Immediate - Delayed)|||1.6|-0.9|.583
90835379|NCT01856270|181537879|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4||||0.444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|8.8||A priori significance threshold α=.05|t-test, 2 sided||Estimate is the effect observed in the Immediate group (i.e. Immediate - Delayed)|||8.8|-4.0|.444
90835380|NCT01856270|181537880|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.3||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|53.3||A priori significance threshold α=.05|t-test, 2 sided||Estimate is the effect observed in the Immediate group (i.e. Immediate - Delayed)|||53.3|1.2|.041
90835381|NCT01856270|181537881|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|0.3||A priori significance threshold α=.05|t-test, 2 sided||Estimate is the effect observed in the Immediate group (i.e. Immediate - Delayed)|||0.3|-3.8|.089
90835382|NCT03535974|181537909|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.122||0.047|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.047
90835383|NCT02913482|181537925|SUPERIORITY|Result compared to a performance criterion of 5% derived from natural history data.|||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sided Exact Binomial Test|||||||<0.0001
90835384|NCT02913482|181537926|SUPERIORITY|Result compared to a performance criterion of 17% derived from natural history data.|||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sided Exact Binomial Test|||||||<0.0001
90835385|NCT02913482|181537927|SUPERIORITY|Result compared to a performance criterion of 17% derived from natural history data. Statistical analysis was only performed for Month 12 data.|||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sided Exact Binomial Test|||||||<0.0001
90835386|NCT02913482|181537933|SUPERIORITY|Result compared to a performance criterion of 12% derived from natural history data. Statistical analysis was only performed for Month 12 data.|||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sided Exact Binomial Test|||||||<0.0001
90835387|NCT02913482|181537935|SUPERIORITY|Result compared to a performance criterion of 5% derived from natural history data.|||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sided Exact Binomial Test|||||||<0.0001
90835388|NCT02913482|181537936|SUPERIORITY|Result compared to a performance criterion of 5% derived from natural history data.|||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sided Exact Binomial Test|||||||<0.0001
90835389|NCT02913482|181537937|SUPERIORITY|Result compared to a performance criterion of 5% derived from natural history data.||||||1|||||||One-sided Exact Binomial Test|||||||1.0000
90835390|NCT02913482|181537938|SUPERIORITY|Result compared to a performance criterion of 5% derived from natural history data.||||||1|||||||One-sided Exact Binomial Test|||||||1.0000
90835391|NCT02913482|181537942|SUPERIORITY|Result compared to a performance criterion of 42% derived from natural history data. Statistical analysis was only performed for Month 12 data.|||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sided Z-test|||||||<0.0001
90835392|NCT02913482|181537943|SUPERIORITY|Result compared to a performance criterion of 60% derived from natural history data. Statistical analysis was only performed for Month 12 data.||||||0.0005|||||||One-sided Z-test|||||||0.0005
90835393|NCT02913482|181537944|SUPERIORITY|Result compared to a performance criterion of 89% derived from natural history data. Statistical analysis was only performed for Month 12 data.||||||0.2595|||||||One-sided Z-test|||||||0.2595
90835394|NCT01983228|181537977|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.61||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|2.77||Multiple logistic regression adjusted for use of walking aids and opioids (both significantly difference between arms at baseline).|Regression, Logistic|||measured change as a responder yes/no (30% or greater improvement from baseline).||2.77|0.94|0.09
90835395|NCT01983228|181537978|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.21||Multiple linear regression adjusted for use of walking aids and opioids (both significantly difference between arms at baseline).|Regression, Linear|||||0.21|-0.62|0.34
90835396|NCT01983228|181537979|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|0.65||Multiple linear regression adjusted for use of walking aids and opioids (both significantly difference between arms at baseline).|Regression, Linear|||||0.65|-1.69|0.38
91103923|NCT03992872|182094612|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5382|||||||Fisher Exact|||"Null hypothesis for analysis of percentage of subjects with Anti-Chikungunya neutralizing activity at or above selected thresholds by time point.~Day 57: Subject with Titer\>=640"||||0.5382
91090593|NCT01255163|182064248|OTHER|||||||0.703||||||Threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05. Type III Tests of Fixed Effects Group \* VisitLong F (2, 15.251) = 0.360, p = 0.703.|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures mixed model with Repeated Factor (Visit Long: baseline,18 months), Fixed Factors (Group,VisitLong, Sex) and Covariate (Age)|||"MIXED TAU BY Group Sex VisitLong WITH Age CRITERIA=CIN(95) MXITER(100) MXSTEP(10) SCORING(1) SINGULAR(0.000000000001) HCONVERGE(0, ABSOLUTE) LCONVERGE(0, ABSOLUTE) PCONVERGE(0.000001, ABSOLUTE) FIXED=Group Sex Age Group\*VisitLong \| SSTYPE(3) METHOD=REML PRINT=SOLUTION REPEATED=VisitLong \| SUBJECT(SubjectID) COVTYPE(AR1) EMMEANS=TABLES(Group) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) EMMEANS=TABLES(Sex) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) EMMEANS=TABLES(Group\*VisitLong) COMPARE(Group) ADJ(BONFERRONI) EMMEANS=TABLES(Group\*VisitLong) COMPARE(VisitLong) ADJ(BONFERRONI) ."|||0.703
91090594|NCT01255163|182064249|OTHER|||||||0.845||||||Threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05. Type III Tests of Fixed Effects Group \* VisitLong F (2, 15.828) = 0.170, p = 0.845.|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures mixed model with Repeated Factor (Visit Long: baseline,18 months), Fixed Factors (Group,VisitLong, Sex) and Covariate (Age)|||"MIXED pTAU BY Group Sex VisitLong WITH Age CRITERIA=CIN(95) MXITER(100) MXSTEP(10) SCORING(1) SINGULAR(0.000000000001) HCONVERGE(0, ABSOLUTE) LCONVERGE(0, ABSOLUTE) PCONVERGE(0.000001, ABSOLUTE) FIXED=Group Sex Age Group\*VisitLong \| SSTYPE(3) METHOD=REML PRINT=SOLUTION REPEATED=VisitLong \| SUBJECT(SubjectID) COVTYPE(AR1) EMMEANS=TABLES(Group) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) EMMEANS=TABLES(Sex) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) EMMEANS=TABLES(Group\*VisitLong) COMPARE(Group) ADJ(BONFERRONI) EMMEANS=TABLES(Group\*VisitLong) COMPARE(VisitLong) ADJ(BONFERRONI) ."|||0.845
91090595|NCT01255163|182064250|OTHER|||||||0.018||||||Type III Tests of Fixed Effects: Group \* VisitLong F (2, 16.614) = 5.142, p = 0.018. Univariate tests: Placebo F(1, 16.595) = 4.138, p = 0.058; Exendin-4 F(1, 16.595) = 6.262, p = 0.022. Pairwise for Exendin-4, baseline vs. 18 months (p = 0.022).|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures mixed model with Repeated Factor (Visit Long: baseline,18 months), Fixed Factors (Group,VisitLong, Sex) and Covariate (Age)|||"MIXED Ab42 BY Group Sex VisitLong WITH Age CRITERIA=CIN(95) MXITER(100) MXSTEP(10) SCORING(1) SINGULAR(0.000000000001) HCONVERGE(0, ABSOLUTE) LCONVERGE(0, ABSOLUTE) PCONVERGE(0.000001, ABSOLUTE) FIXED=Group Sex Age Group\*VisitLong \| SSTYPE(3) METHOD=REML PRINT=SOLUTION REPEATED=VisitLong \| SUBJECT(SubjectID) COVTYPE(AR1) EMMEANS=TABLES(Group) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) EMMEANS=TABLES(Sex) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) EMMEANS=TABLES(Group\*VisitLong) COMPARE(Group) ADJ(BONFERRONI) EMMEANS=TABLES(Group\*VisitLong) COMPARE(VisitLong) ADJ(BONFERRONI) ."|||0.018
91103924|NCT03992872|182094612|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4915|||||||Fisher Exact|||"Null hypothesis for analysis of percentage of subjects with Anti-Chikungunya neutralizing activity at or above selected thresholds by time point.~Day 182: Subject with Titer \>= 40"||||0.4915
91103925|NCT03992872|182094612|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999|||||||Fisher Exact|||"Null hypothesis for analysis of percentage of subjects with Anti-Chikungunya neutralizing activity at or above selected thresholds by time point.~Day 182: Subject with Titer \>= 160"||||>0.9999
90835397|NCT01983228|181537980|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|0.49||Multiple linear regression adjusted for use of walking aids and opioids (both significantly difference between arms at baseline).|Regression, Linear|||||0.49|-1.68|0.28
90835398|NCT01983228|181537981|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.77||Multiple linear regression adjusted for use of walking aids and opioids (both significantly difference between arms at baseline).|Regression, Linear|||||0.77|-0.00|0.05
90835399|NCT01983228|181537982|SUPERIORITY|Multiple linear regression adjusted for use of walking aids and opioids (both significantly difference between arms at baseline).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|193.9||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-454.93|842.73||Multiple linear regression adjusted for use of walking aids and opioids (both significantly difference between arms at baseline).|Regression, Linear|||||842.73|-454.93|0.56
90835400|NCT01983228|181537983|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|2.62||Multiple logistic regression adjusted for use of walking aids and opioids (both significantly difference between arms at baseline).|Regression, Logistic|||measured change as a responder yes/no (30% or greater improvement from baseline).||2.62|0.85|0.16
90835401|NCT01983228|181537984|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.23||Multiple linear regression adjusted for use of walking aids and opioids (both significantly difference between arms at baseline).|Regression, Linear|||||-0.23|-0.99|0.002
90835402|NCT01983228|181537985|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.36||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|1.51||Multiple linear regression adjusted for use of walking aids and opioids (both significantly difference between arms at baseline).|Regression, Linear|||||1.51|-0.79|0.54
90835403|NCT01983228|181537986|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.48||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|1.62||Multiple linear regression adjusted for use of walking aids and opioids (both significantly difference between arms at baseline).|Regression, Linear|||||1.62|-0.66|0.41
90835404|NCT01983228|181537987|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.38||Multiple linear regression adjusted for use of walking aids and opioids (both significantly difference between arms at baseline).|Regression, Linear|||||-0.38|-1.07|<0.0001
90835405|NCT01983228|181537988|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|540.78||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.77|1110.33||Multiple linear regression adjusted for use of walking aids and opioids (both significantly difference between arms at baseline).|Regression, Linear|||||1110.33|-28.77|0.06
90835406|NCT01983228|181537989|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.93||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|5.86||Multiple linear regression adjusted for use of walking aids and opioids (both significantly difference between arms at baseline).|Regression, Linear|||||5.86|-0.01|0.05
90835407|NCT01983228|181537990|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.76||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.36||Multiple linear regression adjusted for use of walking aids and opioids (both significantly difference between arms at baseline).|Regression, Linear|||||1.36|0.15|0.01
90835408|NCT01983228|181537991|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.07||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.53|0.39||Multiple linear regression adjusted for use of walking aids and opioids (both significantly difference between arms at baseline).|Regression, Linear|||||0.39|-2.53|0.15
90835409|NCT01983228|181537992|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.47||Multiple linear regression adjusted for use of walking aids and opioids (both significantly difference between arms at baseline).|Regression, Linear|||||1.47|-0.80|0.56
90835410|NCT01983228|181537993|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.46||Multiple linear regression adjusted for use of walking aids and opioids (both significantly difference between arms at baseline).|Regression, Linear|||||0.46|-0.17|0.38
90835411|NCT01983228|181537994|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.19||Logistic regression modeling the odds of yes to using opioids for pain treatment adjusting for use of walking aids and opioids (both significantly difference between arms at baseline).|Regression, Logistic|||||2.19|0.66|0.56
90835412|NCT01983228|181537995|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.84||Multiple linear regression adjusted for use of walking aids and opioids (both significantly difference between arms at baseline).|Regression, Linear|||||0.84|-0.18|0.21
90835413|NCT01650558|181538001|NON_INFERIORITY|Will assess performance of each experimental group relative to TS with a noninferiority margin for 1-HR of 0.35 to test the null (1-HR ≥ 0.35) and alternative (1-HR \< 0.35) hypotheses. Each experimental group will be declared noninferior to TS if the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval of 1-HR is below 0.35. For ease of interpretation, the HRs have been recast with TS as the reference group, such that HRs greater than 1 indicate an increase in the experimental hazard rate relative to TS.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.27|||<=|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.82||P-Value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Poisson|Rate ratio confidence intervals and p-values were adjusted for overdispersion using the Pearson's chi-square scale.||||1.82|0.89|<=0.05
90835414|NCT01650558|181538001|NON_INFERIORITY|Will assess performance of each experimental group relative to TS with a noninferiority margin for 1-HR of 0.35 to test the null (1-HR ≥ 0.35) and alternative (1-HR \< 0.35) hypotheses. Each experimental group will be declared noninferior to TS if the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval of 1-HR is below 0.35. For ease of interpretation, the HRs have been recast with TS as the reference group, such that HRs greater than 1 indicate an increase in the experimental hazard rate relative to TS.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.28|||<=|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.83||P-Value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Poisson|Rate ratio confidence intervals and p-values were adjusted for overdispersion using the Pearson's chi-square scale.||||1.83|0.89|<=0.05
90835415|NCT01650558|181538002|NON_INFERIORITY|Will assess performance of each experimental group relative to TS with a noninferiority margin for 1-HR of 0.35 to test the null (1-HR ≥ 0.35) and alternative (1-HR \< 0.35) hypotheses. Each experimental group will be declared noninferior to TS if the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval of 1-HR is below 0.35. For ease of interpretation, the HRs have been recast with TS as the reference group, such that HRs greater than 1 indicate an increase in the experimental hazard rate relative to TS.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.38|||<=|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|2.3||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made.|Fisher Exact|||||2.30|0.83|<=0.05
90835416|NCT01650558|181538002|NON_INFERIORITY|Will assess performance of each experimental group relative to TS with a noninferiority margin for 1-HR of 0.35 to test the null (1-HR ≥ 0.35) and alternative (1-HR \< 0.35) hypotheses. Each experimental group will be declared noninferior to TS if the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval of 1-HR is below 0.35. For ease of interpretation, the HRs have been recast with TS as the reference group, such that HRs greater than 1 indicate an increase in the experimental hazard rate relative to TS.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.51|||<=|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|2.49||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made.|Fisher Exact|||||2.49|0.91|<=0.05
90835417|NCT01650558|181538003|NON_INFERIORITY|Will assess performance of each experimental group relative to TS with a noninferiority margin for 1-HR of 0.35 to test the null (1-HR ≥ 0.35) and alternative (1-HR \< 0.35) hypotheses. Each experimental group will be declared noninferior to TS if the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval of 1-HR is below 0.35. For ease of interpretation, the HRs have been recast with TS as the reference group, such that HRs greater than 1 indicate an increase in the experimental hazard rate relative to TS.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13|||<=|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.93||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Fisher Exact|||||1.93|0.66|<=0.05
90835418|NCT01650558|181538003|NON_INFERIORITY|Will assess performance of each experimental group relative to TS with a noninferiority margin for 1-HR of 0.35 to test the null (1-HR ≥ 0.35) and alternative (1-HR \< 0.35) hypotheses. Each experimental group will be declared noninferior to TS if the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval of 1-HR is below 0.35. For ease of interpretation, the HRs have been recast with TS as the reference group, such that HRs greater than 1 indicate an increase in the experimental hazard rate relative to TS.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96|||<=|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.68||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Fisher Exact|||||1.68|0.55|<=0.05
90835419|NCT01650558|181538004|NON_INFERIORITY|Will assess performance of each experimental group relative to TS with a noninferiority margin for 1-HR of 0.35 to test the null (1-HR ≥ 0.35) and alternative (1-HR \< 0.35) hypotheses. Each experimental group will be declared noninferior to TS if the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval of 1-HR is below 0.35. For ease of interpretation, the HRs have been recast with TS as the reference group, such that HRs greater than 1 indicate an increase in the experimental hazard rate relative to TS.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.47|||<=|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|2.0||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Poisson|Rate ratio confidence intervals and p-values were adjusted for overdispersion using the Pearson's chi-square scale.||||2.00|1.07|<=0.05
90835420|NCT01650558|181538004|NON_INFERIORITY|Will assess performance of each experimental group relative to TS with a noninferiority margin for 1-HR of 0.35 to test the null (1-HR ≥ 0.35) and alternative (1-HR \< 0.35) hypotheses. Each experimental group will be declared noninferior to TS if the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval of 1-HR is below 0.35. For ease of interpretation, the HRs have been recast with TS as the reference group, such that HRs greater than 1 indicate an increase in the experimental hazard rate relative to TS.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.43|||<=|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.96||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Poisson|Rate ratio confidence intervals and p-values were adjusted for overdispersion using the Pearson's chi-square scale.||||1.96|1.04|<=0.05
90835421|NCT01650558|181538005|NON_INFERIORITY|Will assess performance of each experimental group relative to TS with a noninferiority margin for 1-HR of 0.35 to test the null (1-HR ≥ 0.35) and alternative (1-HR \< 0.35) hypotheses. Each experimental group will be declared noninferior to TS if the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval of 1-HR is below 0.35. For ease of interpretation, the HRs have been recast with TS as the reference group, such that HRs greater than 1 indicate an increase in the experimental hazard rate relative to TS.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.31|||<=|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|1.55||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Poisson|Rate ratio confidence intervals and p-values were adjusted for overdispersion using the Pearson's chi-square scale.||||1.55|1.11|<=0.05
90835422|NCT01650558|181538005|NON_INFERIORITY|Will assess performance of each experimental group relative to TS with a noninferiority margin for 1-HR of 0.35 to test the null (1-HR ≥ 0.35) and alternative (1-HR \< 0.35) hypotheses. Each experimental group will be declared noninferior to TS if the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval of 1-HR is below 0.35. For ease of interpretation, the HRs have been recast with TS as the reference group, such that HRs greater than 1 indicate an increase in the experimental hazard rate relative to TS.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.34|||<=|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.58||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Poisson|Rate ratio confidence intervals and p-values were adjusted for overdispersion using the Pearson's chi-square scale.||||1.58|1.14|<=0.05
90835423|NCT02960217|181538009|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (Median Diff.)|1.46||||0.2684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|4.36||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of the location shift with 95% confidence interval (CI) and Wilcoxon Rank Sum test p-value are based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|||Participants completing both UX007 treatment period and placebo period (n=42). Per protocol, when the normality assumption is not met (p value for Wilk-Shapiro test \< 0.05), Wilcoxon rank-sum test will be considered as the primary analysis to assess treatment difference in movement disorder event frequency.||4.36|-1.12|0.2684
90835424|NCT02960217|181538009|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilk-Shapiro test for normality|||||||< 0.0001
90835425|NCT02960217|181538012|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (Median Diff.)|25.0||||0.6419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.5|91.5||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of the location shift with 95% CI and Wilcoxon Rank Sum test p-value are based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|||Number of participants in this analysis completed both UX007 treatment period and placebo treatment period (n=34).||91.5|-62.5|0.6419
90835426|NCT02960217|181538012|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005|||||||Wilk-Shapiro Test for Normality|||||||0.0005
90835427|NCT02960217|181538013|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91||0.9513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.9||Based on an ANCOVA model including covariate for period baseline value, fixed effects for treatment sequence, treatment group, period, and a random effect for participant within the sequence.|ANCOVA|||||1.9|-2.0|0.9513
90835428|NCT02960217|181538013|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8214|||||||Wilk-Shapiro Test for Normality|||||||0.8214
90835429|NCT02960217|181538014|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32||0.1572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|4.7||Based on an ANCOVA model including covariate for period baseline value, fixed effects for treatment sequence, treatment group, period, and a random effect for participant within the sequence.|ANCOVA|||||4.7|-0.8|0.1572
90835430|NCT02960217|181538014|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8451|||||||Wilk-Shapiro Test for Normality|||||||0.8451
90835431|NCT02960217|181538015|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.66||0.8345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|3.1||Based on an ANCOVA model including covariate for period baseline value, fixed effects for treatment sequence, treatment group, period, and a random effect for participant within the sequence.|ANCOVA|||||3.1|-3.8|0.8345
90835432|NCT02960217|181538015|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2894|||||||Wilk-Shapiro Test for Normality|||||||0.2894
90835433|NCT02960217|181538016|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005|||||||Wilk-Shapiro Test for Normality|||||||0.0005
90835434|NCT02960217|181538016|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (Median Diff.)|0.2||||0.4898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|5.8||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of the location shift with 95% CI and Wilcoxon Rank Sum test p-value are based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|||Number of participants in this analysis completed both UX007 treatment period and placebo treatment period (n=21).||5.8|-5.4|0.4898
90835435|NCT02960217|181538017|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.42||0.5853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|3.8||Based on an ANCOVA model including covariate for period baseline value, fixed effects for treatment sequence, treatment group, period, and a random effect for participant within the sequence.|ANCOVA|||||3.8|-2.2|0.5853
90835436|NCT02960217|181538017|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1066|||||||Wilk-Shapiro Test for Normality|||||||0.1066
90835437|NCT02960217|181538018|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.33||0.1875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|1.0||Based on an ANCOVA model including covariate for period baseline value, fixed effects for treatment sequence, treatment group, period, and a random effect for participant within the sequence.|ANCOVA|||||1.0|-4.6|0.1875
90835438|NCT02960217|181538018|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2034|||||||Wilk-Shapiro Test for Normality|||||||0.2034
90835439|NCT02960217|181538019|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.56||0.1138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|5.9||Based on an ANCOVA model including covariate for period baseline value, fixed effects for treatment sequence, treatment group, period, and a random effect for participant within the sequence.|ANCOVA|||||5.9|-0.7|0.1138
90835440|NCT02960217|181538019|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1478|||||||Wilk-Shapiro Test for Normality|||||||0.1478
90835441|NCT02960217|181538020|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.62||0.5505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|2.6||Based on an ANCOVA model including covariate for period baseline value, fixed effects for treatment sequence, treatment group, period, and a random effect for participant within the sequence.|ANCOVA|||||2.6|-4.6|0.5505
90835442|NCT02960217|181538020|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4459|||||||Wilk-Shapiro Test for Normality|||||||0.4459
90835443|NCT02960217|181538021|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.84||0.5544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|4.6||Based on an ANCOVA model including covariate for period baseline value, fixed effects for treatment sequence, treatment group, period, and a random effect for participant within the sequence.|ANCOVA|||||4.6|-8.1|0.5544
90835444|NCT02960217|181538021|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1104|||||||Wilk-Shapiro Test for Normality|||||||0.1104
90835445|NCT02960217|181538022|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.27||0.7145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|6.1|||ANCOVA|||||6.1|-8.5|0.7145
90835446|NCT02960217|181538022|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8255|||||||Wilk-Shapiro Test for Normality|||||||0.8255
90835447|NCT02960217|181538023|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.82||0.4176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|5.6||Based on an ANCOVA model including covariate for period baseline value, fixed effects for treatment sequence, treatment group, period, and a random effect for participant within the sequence.|ANCOVA|||||5.6|-2.5|0.4176
90835448|NCT02960217|181538023|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6557|||||||Wilk-Shapiro Test for Normality|||||||0.6557
90835449|NCT02960217|181538024|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09||0.0935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|4.5||Based on an ANCOVA model including covariate for period baseline value, fixed effects for treatment sequence, treatment group, period, and a random effect for participant within the sequence.|ANCOVA|||||4.5|-0.4|0.0935
90835450|NCT02960217|181538024|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7267|||||||Wilk-Shapiro Test for Normality|||||||0.7267
90835451|NCT02960217|181538025|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.8329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.5||Based on an ANCOVA model including covariate for study baseline CGI-S score, fixed effects for treatment sequence, treatment group, period, and a random effect for subject within the sequence.|ANCOVA|||||0.5|-0.6|0.8329
90835452|NCT02960217|181538025|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2348|||||||Wilk-Shapiro Test for Normality|||||||0.2348
90835453|NCT02960217|181538027|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0315|||||||Wilk-Shapiro Test for Normality|||||||0.0315
90835454|NCT02960217|181538027|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (Median Diff.)|-0.5||||0.2425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.5||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of the location shift with 95% CI and Wilcoxon Rank Sum test p-value are based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|||Number of participants in this analysis completed both UX007 treatment period and placebo treatment period (n=13).||0.5|-1.5|0.2425
90835455|NCT02960217|181538028|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0072|||||||Wilk-Shapiro Test for Normality|||||||0.0072
90835456|NCT02960217|181538028|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (Median Diff.)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|13.5||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of the location shift with 95% CI and Wilcoxon Rank Sum test p-value are based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|||Number of participants in this analysis completed both UX007 treatment period and placebo treatment period (n=12).||13.5|-14.5|1.0000
90835457|NCT02960217|181538029|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.1076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|2.2||Based on an ANCOVA model including covariate for period baseline value, fixed effects for treatment sequence, treatment group, period, and a random effect for subject within the sequence.|ANCOVA|||||2.2|-0.3|0.1076
90835458|NCT02960217|181538029|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7698|||||||Wilk-Shapiro Test for Normality|||||||0.7698
90835459|NCT02960217|181538030|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0138|||||||Wilk-Shapiro Test for Normality|||||||0.0138
90835460|NCT02960217|181538030|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (Median Diff.)|2.0||||0.3907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|20.5||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of the location shift with 95% CI and Wilcoxon Rank Sum test p-value are based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|||Number of participants in this analysis completed both UX007 treatment period and placebo treatment period (n=13).||20.5|-3.5|0.3907
90835461|NCT02960217|181538031|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.51||0.5233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|2.4||Based on an ANCOVA model including covariate for period baseline value, fixed effects for treatment sequence, treatment group, period, and a random effect for subject within the sequence.|ANCOVA|||||2.4|-4.4|0.5233
90835462|NCT02960217|181538031|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6918|||||||Wilk-Shapiro Test for Normality|||||||0.6918
90835463|NCT02734693|181538032|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.565|-2.802|||ANCOVA|||Least squares means, SEs, effect sizes, 95% CIs, and p-values were generated using an ANCOVA model, with treatment (dasotraline/placebo), mean SKAMP-CS at baseline, and site as fixed effects. The dasotraline 6 mg/day treatment arm was discontinued in Version 3.00 of the protocol.||-2.802|-7.565|<0.001
90835464|NCT02734693|181538035|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.395||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.987|38.346|||ANCOVA|||Least squares means, SEs, effect sizes, 95% CIs, and p-values were generated using an ANCOVA model, with treatment (dasotraline/placebo), PERMP at baseline, and site as fixed effects. The dasotraline 6 mg/day treatment arm was discontinued in Version 3.00 of the protocol||38.346|8.987|0.002
90835465|NCT02734693|181538035|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|24.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.389||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.381|38.714|||ANCOVA|||Least squares means, SEs, effect sizes, 95% CIs, and p-values were generated using an ANCOVA model, with treatment (dasotraline/placebo), PERMP at baseline, and site as fixed effects. The dasotraline 6 mg/day treatment arm was discontinued in Version 3.00 of the protocol||38.714|9.381|0.002
90835466|NCT02588599|181538097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t=8.0; df=53||||||<0.0001
90835467|NCT00402168|181538105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|14.9||||||At Month 6, difference in percentage of participants with acute rejection (number with acute rejection/number randomized) using exact method.||14.9|2.1|
90835468|NCT00402168|181538105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|14.9||||||At Month 12, difference in percentage of participants with acute rejection using exact method.||14.9|2.1|
90835469|NCT00402168|181538106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|6.1||||||Participants surviving with a functioning graft by Month 6: For 95% Confidence Interval (CI) of difference, exact method was used.||6.1|-3.3|
90835470|NCT00402168|181538106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|6.1||||||Participants surviving with a functioning graft by Month 12: For 95% CI of difference, exact method was used.||6.1|-3.3|
90835471|NCT00402168|181538109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|13.8||||||||13.8|-0.1|
90835472|NCT00402168|181538114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.1||||0.4491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|3.9|||ANCOVA|||Mental Component Scales (MCS)||3.9|-1.7|0.4491
90835473|NCT00402168|181538114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.7892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.9|||ANCOVA|||Physical Component Scales (PCS)||1.9|-2.5|0.7892
90835474|NCT00402168|181538116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Difference|0.0076|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.0252||||||Difference in Symptom Occurrence between treatment groups.||.0252|-.010|
90835475|NCT00402168|181538116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Difference|0.0148|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.002|0.0321||||||Difference in Symptom Distress between treatment groups.||.0321|-.002|
90835476|NCT00550407|181538132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.010
90835477|NCT03883581|181538155|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.08
90835478|NCT03883581|181538156|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.647|||||||Paired t test|||||||0.647
90835479|NCT03883581|181538157|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.103|||||||Paired t test|||||||0.103
90835480|NCT03883581|181538158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0004
90835481|NCT03883581|181538159|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.103|||||||Paired t test|||||||0.103
90835482|NCT05893862|181538172|OTHER|LS Mean Difference 1 Hr|LS Mean Difference|9.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.4|11.04|||t-test, 1 sided|||||11.04|7.40|<0.0001
90835483|NCT05893862|181538172|OTHER|LS Mean Difference 2 Hr|LS Mean Difference|8.44||||0.0141|TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.31|10.56|||t-test, 1 sided|||||10.56|6.31|0.0141
90835484|NCT05893862|181538172|OTHER|LS Mean Difference 3 Hr|LS Mean Difference|10.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.85|12.74|||t-test, 1 sided|||||12.74|8.85|<0.0001
90835485|NCT05893862|181538172|OTHER|LS Mean Difference Week 4 Hr|LS Mean Difference|6.43||||0.1045|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.96|8.91|||t-test, 1 sided|||||8.91|3.96|0.1045
90835486|NCT05893862|181538172|OTHER|LS Mean Difference 8 Hr|LS Mean Difference|6.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.66|8.38||||||||8.38|4.66|
90835487|NCT05893862|181538172|OTHER|LS Mean Difference 11 Hr|LS Mean Difference|7.33||||||90.0|4.74|9.93||||||||9.93|4.74|
90835488|NCT05893862|181538172|OTHER|LS Mean Difference 14 Hr|LS Mean Difference|6.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.95|8.88||||||||8.88|3.95|
90835489|NCT05893862|181538172|OTHER|LS Mean Difference 24 Hr|LS Mean Difference|2.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|4.76||||||||4.76|0.81|
90835490|NCT05893862|181538175|OTHER|LS Mean Difference 0.5 Hr|LS Mean Difference|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.11|2.14||||||||2.14|-1.11|
90835491|NCT05893862|181538175|OTHER|LS Mean Difference 1 Hr|LS Mean Difference|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.26|1.98||||||||1.98|-1.26|
90895478|NCT03595332|181656692|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis test whether for both groups combined, Baseline to 10-week change in reported intention of physical activity was significantly different from zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.284|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.128||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.034|0.534||A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Regression, Linear|Linear regression models with Generalized Estimating Equations to account for nested data were made.|A positive parameter would suggest an increase in intentions to be physically active.|||0.534|0.034|0.026
90835492|NCT05893862|181538175|OTHER|LS Mean Difference 2 Hr|LS Mean Difference|1.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.04|3.66||||||||3.66|-1.04|
90835493|NCT05893862|181538175|OTHER|LS Mean Difference 3 hr|LS Mean Difference|4.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.9|6.64||||||||6.64|1.90|
90895479|NCT02227875|181656693|NON_INFERIORITY|Mixed-Effect Model for Repeated Measures|Mean Difference (Net)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.098|0.218||||||||0.218|-0.098|
91103926|NCT03992872|182094612|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.552|||||||Fisher Exact|||"Null hypothesis for analysis of percentage of subjects with Anti-Chikungunya neutralizing activity at or above selected thresholds by time point.~Day 182: Subject with Titer \>= 640"||||0.5520
90835494|NCT05893862|181538175|OTHER|LS Mean Difference 4 Hr|LS Mean Difference|7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.35|9.64||||||||9.64|4.35|
90835495|NCT05893862|181538175|OTHER|LS Mean Difference 6 Hr|LS Mean Difference|7.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.35|9.64||||||||9.64|4.35|
90835496|NCT05893862|181538175|OTHER|LS Mean Difference 8 Hr|LS Mean Difference|9.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.71|11.8||||||||11.80|6.71|
90835497|NCT05893862|181538175|OTHER|LS Mean Difference 12 Hr|LS Mean Difference|4.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.27|7.35||||||||7.35|2.27|
90835498|NCT05893862|181538175|OTHER|LS Mean Difference 14 Hr|LS Mean Difference|3.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|6.23||||||||6.23|0.91|
90835499|NCT05893862|181538175|OTHER|LS Mean Difference 24 Hr|LS Mean Difference|5.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.18|6.85||||||||6.85|3.18|
90835500|NCT05893862|181538175|OTHER|LS Mean Difference 1 Hr|LS Mean Difference|3.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.56|6.34||||||||6.34|1.56|
90835501|NCT05893862|181538175|OTHER|LS Mean Difference 2 Hr|LS Mean Difference|3.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.49|6.35||||||||6.35|1.49|
90835502|NCT05893862|181538175|OTHER|LS Mean Difference 3 Hr|LS Mean Difference|4.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.33|7.03||||||||7.03|2.33|
90835503|NCT05893862|181538175|OTHER|LS Mean Difference 4 Hr|LS Mean Difference|4.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.45|7.12||||||||7.12|2.45|
90835504|NCT05893862|181538175|OTHER|LS Mean Difference 8 Hr|LS Mean Difference|4.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.93|7.71||||||||7.71|1.93|
90835505|NCT05893862|181538175|OTHER|LS Mean Difference 11 Hr|LS Mean Difference|5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.51|8.09||||||||8.09|2.51|
90835506|NCT05893862|181538175|OTHER|LS Mean Difference 14 Hr|LS Mean Difference|5.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.97|8.74||||||||8.74|2.97|
90835507|NCT05893862|181538175|OTHER|LS Mean Difference 16 Hr|LS Mean Difference|4.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.79|6.45||||||||6.45|1.79|
90835508|NCT05893862|181538175|OTHER|LS Mean Difference 24 Hr|LS Mean Difference|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.69|3.26||||||||3.26|-1.69|
90835509|NCT01097668|181538188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||negative binomial model|||Comparison of the baseline 'ITT population' MRI data with week 16 data.||||<0.001
90835510|NCT01097668|181538188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||negative binomial model|||Comparison of the baseline 'MRI population' data with data from week 16.||||0.030
90835511|NCT04516746|181538202|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|73.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.34|80.47|||Poisson regression with robust variance|||The 95% confidence interval (CI) and p-value were estimated based on Poisson regression with robust variance (including study arm and stratification factor \[age group at informed consent\] as covariates, and log of the follow up time as an offset).||80.47|65.34|<0.001
90835512|NCT04516746|181538206|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|64.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.05|71.03|||Poisson regression with robust variance|||The 95% CI and p-value were estimated based on Poisson regression with robust variance (including study arm and stratification factor \[age group at informed consent\] as covariates, and log of the follow up time as an offset).||71.03|56.05|<0.001
90835513|NCT04516746|181538207|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|69.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.68|76.57|||Poisson regression with robust variance|||The 95% CI and p-value were estimated based on Poisson regression with robust variance (including study arm and stratification factor \[age group at informed consent\] as covariates, and log of the follow up time as an offset).||76.57|60.68|<0.001
90835514|NCT04516746|181538208|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|70.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.62|77.64|||Poisson regression with robust variance|||The 95% CI and p-value were estimated based on Poisson regression with robust variance (including study arm and stratification factor \[age group at informed consent\] as covariates, and log of the follow up time as an offset).||77.64|61.62|<0.001
90835515|NCT04516746|181538209|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|73.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.13|80.13|||Poisson regression with robust variance|||The 95% CI and p-value were estimated based on Poisson regression with robust variance (including study arm and stratification factor \[age group at informed consent\] as covariates, and log of the follow up time as an offset).||80.13|65.13|<0.001
91090596|NCT01255163|182064251|OTHER|||||||0.009||||||Type III Tests of Fixed Effects: Group \* VisitLong F (8, 72.603) = 2.816, p = 0.009. Univarate Exendin-4 F(4, 72.944) = 4.834, p = 0.002. Pairwise comparisons for Exendin-4 showed a decrease in BMI baseline vs. 6 months (p = 0.029).|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures mixed model with Repeated Factor (Visit Long: baseline, 6, 12, 18 months), Fixed Factors (Group,VisitLong, Sex) and Covariate (Age)|||"MIXED BMI BY Group Sex VisitLong WITH Age CRITERIA=CIN(95) MXITER(100) MXSTEP(10) SCORING(1) SINGULAR(0.000000000001) HCONVERGE(0, ABSOLUTE) LCONVERGE(0, ABSOLUTE) PCONVERGE(0.000001, ABSOLUTE) FIXED=Group Sex Age Group\*VisitLong \| SSTYPE(3) METHOD=REML PRINT=SOLUTION REPEATED=VisitLong \| SUBJECT(SubjectID) COVTYPE(AR1) EMMEANS=TABLES(Group) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) EMMEANS=TABLES(Sex) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) EMMEANS=TABLES(Group\*VisitLong) COMPARE(Group) ADJ(BONFERRONI) EMMEANS=TABLES(Group\*VisitLong) COMPARE(VisitLong) ADJ(BONFERRONI) ."|||0.009
91090597|NCT02495389|182064253|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7741|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.35|29.57|||t-test, 2 sided|A two-sided paired t-test was used for this analysis.||The null hypothesis is that there is no change in patients' baseline Overactive Bladder Questionnaire (OAB-q) Health Related Quality of Life (HRQL) score after 12 weeks of therapy.||29.57|18.35|<.0001
90835516|NCT04516746|181538210|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|100.0|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|71.62||||Poisson regression exact conditional|||The exact 1-sided 97.5% CI and p-value were estimated based on stratified Poisson regression with exact conditional method (including study arm and stratification factor \[age group at informed consent\] as strata factor and log of total number of participants for each combination of study arm and strata as an offset).|||71.62|<0.001
90835517|NCT04516746|181538211|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|84.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.97|94.5|||Poisson regression with robust variance|||The 95% CI were estimated based on Poisson regression with robust variance (including study arm and age group at screening (18-65 years, ≥ 65 years) as covariates and log of the follow-up time as an offset).||94.50|58.97|<0.001
90835518|NCT04516746|181538212|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|94.8||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.98|99.34|||Poisson regression with robust variance|||The 95% CI and p-value were estimated based on Poisson regression with robust variance (including study arm and stratification factor \[age group at informed consent\] as covariates, and log of the follow up time as an offset).||99.34|58.98|0.005
90835519|NCT04516746|181538219|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|54.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.48|61.26||||||The 95% CI were estimated based on Poisson regression with robust variance (including study arm and age group at screening (18-65 years, ≥ 65 years) as covariates and log of the follow-up time as an offset).||61.26|46.48|
90895480|NCT02856113|181656717|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|0.102|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.3677|=|0.782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.627|0.831||P-values was assessed at 0.05 significance level using MMRM.|MMRM||MMRM:Treatment,scheduled visit,antidiabetic therapy,visit-by-treatment interaction-categorical effects;Baseline HbA1c,visit-by-baseline HbA1c interaction-continuous covariates;unstructured covariance matrix for correlation of repeated measurements.|||0.831|-0.627|=0.782
90895481|NCT02856113|181656718|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.046|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.2635|=|0.863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.567|0.476||P-values was assessed at 0.05 significance level using MMRM.|MMRM||MMRM:Treatment,scheduled visit,antidiabetic therapy,visit-by-treatment interaction-categorical effects;Baseline HbA1c,visit-by-baseline HbA1c interaction-continuous covariates;unstructured covariance matrix for correlation of repeated measurements.|Change From Baseline at Week 12||0.476|-0.567|=0.863
91090598|NCT02495389|182064254|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-51.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.1584|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.04|-39.2|||t-test, 2 sided|A two-sided paired t-test was used for this analysis.||The null hypothesis is that there is no change in patients' baseline Urinary Distress Inventory score after 12 weeks of therapy.||-39.20|-64.04|<.0001
91090599|NCT02495389|182064255|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4701|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.33|-18.27|||t-test, 2 sided|A two-sided paired t-test was used for this analysis.||The null hypothesis is that there is no change in patients' baseline Pelvic Organ Prolapse Distress Inventory score after 12 weeks of therapy.||-18.27|-40.33|<.0001
90835520|NCT05546476|181538228|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Posterior Median|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.49|2.34||||||Bayesian Emax model was used for statistical calculation. The posterior medians and 90% credible intervals (5th and 95th percentiles of the relevant posterior distribution) were reported for differences relative to placebo). No adjustments were made for multiplicity.||2.34|0.49|
90835521|NCT05546476|181538228|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Posterior Median|2.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.08|3.15||||||Bayesian Emax model was used for statistical calculation. The posterior medians and 90% credible intervals (5th and 95th percentiles of the relevant posterior distribution) were reported for differences relative to placebo). No adjustments were made for multiplicity.||3.15|1.08|
90835522|NCT05546476|181538228|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Posterior Median|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.68|4.34||||||Bayesian Emax model was used for statistical calculation. The posterior medians and 90% credible intervals (5th and 95th percentiles of the relevant posterior distribution) were reported for differences relative to placebo). No adjustments were made for multiplicity.||4.34|1.68|
90895482|NCT02856113|181656718|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.004|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.3123|=|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.614|0.622||P-values was assessed at 0.05 significance level using MMRM.|MMRM||MMRM:Treatment,scheduled visit,antidiabetic therapy,visit-by-treatment interaction-categorical effects;Baseline HbA1c,visit-by-baseline HbA1c interaction-continuous covariates;unstructured covariance matrix for correlation of repeated measurements.|Change From Baseline at Week 18||0.622|-0.614|=0.990
90895483|NCT02856113|181656718|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.412|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.3664|=|0.264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.139|0.316||P-values was assessed at 0.05 significance level using MMRM.|MMRM||MMRM:Treatment,scheduled visit,antidiabetic therapy,visit-by-treatment interaction-categorical effects;Baseline HbA1c,visit-by-baseline HbA1c interaction-continuous covariates;unstructured covariance matrix for correlation of repeated measurements.|Change From Baseline at Week 39||0.316|-1.139|=0.264
90835523|NCT05546476|181538229|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|53.36|||=|0.826|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-40.89|147.6|||MMRM analysis; 1-sided|||Sedentary Activity Time: MMRM model included participant as a random term, and baseline, time (as a factor), baseline-by-time interaction, treatment and treatment-by-time interaction, type of therapy \[platinum or not at randomization +/- 28 days\], and type of cancer as fixed terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix and Kenwood-Roger degrees of freedom.||147.60|-40.89|=0.8260
90895484|NCT02856113|181656718|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.483|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.4165|=|0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.314|0.348||P-values was assessed at 0.05 significance level using MMRM.|MMRM||MMRM:Treatment,scheduled visit,antidiabetic therapy,visit-by-treatment interaction-categorical effects;Baseline HbA1c,visit-by-baseline HbA1c interaction-continuous covariates;unstructured covariance matrix for correlation of repeated measurements.|Change From Baseline at Week 52||0.348|-1.314|=0.250
91027305|NCT00384033|181938494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.4||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||For Duloxetine 60 mg, HAM-D17 total score was evaluated using ANCOVA with treatment and site as factors and baseline HAM-D17 score as the covariate.||3.40|0.00|0.047
90835524|NCT05546476|181538229|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-37.9|||=|0.254|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-132.94|57.14|||MMRM analysis; 1-sided|||Sedentary Activity Time: MMRM model included participant as a random term, and baseline, time (as a factor), baseline-by-time interaction, treatment and treatment-by-time interaction, type of therapy \[platinum or not at randomization +/- 28 days\], and type of cancer as fixed terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix and Kenwood-Roger degrees of freedom.||57.14|-132.94|=0.2540
90835525|NCT05546476|181538229|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-1.95|||=|0.487|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-101.63|97.73|||MMRM analysis; 1-sided|||Sedentary Activity Time: MMRM model included participant as a random term, and baseline, time (as a factor), baseline-by-time interaction, treatment and treatment-by-time interaction, type of therapy \[platinum or not at randomization +/- 28 days\], and type of cancer as fixed terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix and Kenwood-Roger degrees of freedom.||97.73|-101.63|=0.4870
90895485|NCT03494166|181656729|SUPERIORITY|Key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm variable in the mixed model, reflecting average difference of group means over time (weeks 1-13).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|1.25||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed effects models were used for 13 repeated measures of symptom severity index, adjusting for baseline value.|The mean of the group that started with SMSH alone minus the mean of the group that started with SMSH+TIPC (average over time).|"The null hypothesis was that the means in two arms were equal, the alternative hypothesis was that the means were not equal.~We planned to randomize 224 survivors in approximately 3:1 ratio in the first randomization; power was 0.92 to detect the adjusted d=0.54 in the comparison of the SMSH and SMSH+TIPC in the first randomization. The planned number of 224 was exceeded because more survivors than planned were determined to have high need for symptom management."||1.25|-3.90|.31
91027306|NCT00384033|181938495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|||||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For DVS SR 50 mg, CGI-I was evaluated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with treatment as a factor and controlling for center.||||0.110
91027307|NCT00384033|181938495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|||||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For DVS SR 100 mg, CGI-I was evaluated using CMH test with treatment as a factor and controlling for center.||||0.009
91027308|NCT00384033|181938495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|||||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For Duloxetine 60 mg, CGI-I was evaluated using CMH test with treatment as a factor and controlling for center.||||0.008
91027309|NCT00384033|181938496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.4||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||For DVS SR 50 mg, CGI-S was evaluated using ANCOVA with treatment and site as factors and baseline CGI-S score as the covariate.||0.40|-0.10|0.248
91027310|NCT00384033|181938496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.6||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||For DVS SR 100 mg, CGI-S was evaluated using ANCOVA with treatment and site as factors and baseline CGI-S score as the covariate.||0.60|0.10|0.011
91027311|NCT00384033|181938496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.6||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||For Duloxetine 60 mg, CGI-S was evaluated using ANCOVA with treatment and site as factors and baseline CGI-S score as the covariate.||0.60|0.00|0.026
91027312|NCT00384033|181938497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|4.0||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||For DVS SR 50 mg, MADRS total score was evaluated using ANCOVA with treatment and site as factors and baseline MADRS score as the covariate.||4.00|-0.60|0.149
91027313|NCT00384033|181938497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.3||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|5.6||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||For DVS SR 100 mg, MADRS total score was evaluated using ANCOVA with treatment and site as factors and baseline MADRS score as the covariate.||5.60|1.10|0.004
91027314|NCT00384033|181938497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.4||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|5.8||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||For Duloxetine 60 mg, MADRS total score was evaluated using ANCOVA with treatment and site as factors and baseline MADRS score as the covariate.||5.80|1.10|0.005
91027315|NCT00384033|181938498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.46||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||For DVS SR 50 mg, lassitude item of the MADRS score was evaluated using ANCOVA with treatment and site as factors and baseline lassitude item of the MADRS score as the covariate.||0.46|-0.22|0.473
91090600|NCT02495389|182064256|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-32.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.1226|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.35|-19.65|||t-test, 2 sided|A two-sided paired t-test was used for this analysis.||The null hypothesis is that there is no change in patients' baseline Colo-Rectal-Anal Distress Inventory score after 12 weeks of therapy.||-19.65|-44.35|<.0001
91090601|NCT01924533|182064257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.0262|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.63|1.0|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||1.00|0.63|0.0262
90835526|NCT05546476|181538229|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|37.76|||=|0.0497|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.07|75.46|||MMRM analysis; 1-sided|||Non-Sedentary Activity Time: MMRM model included participant as a random term, and baseline, time (as a factor), baseline-by-time interaction, treatment and treatment-by-time interaction, type of therapy \[platinum or not at randomization +/- 28 days\], and type of cancer as fixed terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix and Kenwood-Roger degrees of freedom.||75.46|0.07|=0.0497
90835527|NCT05546476|181538229|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-4.36|||=|0.5745|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-42.94|34.22|||MMRM analysis; 1-sided|||Non-Sedentary Activity Time: MMRM model included participant as a random term, and baseline, time (as a factor), baseline-by-time interaction, treatment and treatment-by-time interaction, type of therapy \[platinum or not at randomization +/- 28 days\], and type of cancer as fixed terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix and Kenwood-Roger degrees of freedom.||34.22|-42.94|=0.5745
90835528|NCT05546476|181538229|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|49.85|||=|0.0189|TWO_SIDED|90.0|10.62|89.08|||MMRM analysis; 1-sided|||Non-Sedentary Activity Time: MMRM model included participant as a random term, and baseline, time (as a factor), baseline-by-time interaction, treatment and treatment-by-time interaction, type of therapy \[platinum or not at randomization +/- 28 days\], and type of cancer as fixed terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix and Kenwood-Roger degrees of freedom.||89.08|10.62|=0.0189
91090602|NCT01924533|182064258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.2458|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.4|1.34|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||1.34|0.40|0.2458
91090603|NCT01924533|182064259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.0645|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.67|1.04|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||1.04|0.67|0.0645
90835529|NCT05546476|181538229|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|8.51|||=|0.1302|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.0|21.03|||MMRM analysis; 1-sided|||Moderate to Vigorous Physical Activity Time: MMRM model included participant as a random term, and baseline, time (as a factor), baseline-by-time interaction, treatment and treatment-by-time interaction, type of therapy \[platinum or not at randomization +/- 28 days\], and type of cancer as fixed terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix and Kenwood-Roger degrees of freedom.||21.03|-4.00|=0.1302
90835530|NCT05546476|181538229|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|4.49|||=|0.278|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.18|17.16|||MMRM analysis; 1-sided|||Moderate to Vigorous Physical Activity Time: MMRM model included participant as a random term, and baseline, time (as a factor), baseline-by-time interaction, treatment and treatment-by-time interaction, type of therapy \[platinum or not at randomization +/- 28 days\], and type of cancer as fixed terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix and Kenwood-Roger degrees of freedom.||17.16|-8.18|=0.2780
90895486|NCT03494166|181656730|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was the coefficient for the variable reflecting trial arm from the second randomization in the mixed model. This parameter reflected average difference between means of two groups over time (weeks 5-13).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.35||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.91|4.55||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed effects models were used for 9 repeated measures of symptom severity index (weeks 5-13), adjusting for baseline value.|The mean of the group that continued with SMSH alone minus the mean of the group that had TIPC added to the SMSH after week 4.|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that the means of two groups were not equal. The required sample size was 60 per group for .80 power or greater in two-tailed tests at the 0.05 level of significance using the effect size of Cohen's d=0.54 (adjusted for baseline and repeated measures). The actual sample size was smaller (61 total) due to the higher than planned rate of response to the SMSH alone by week 4.||4.55|-8.91|.52
90835531|NCT05546476|181538229|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|8.11|||=|0.1529|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.01|21.23|||MMRM analysis; 1-sided|||Moderate to Vigorous Physical Activity Time: MMRM model included participant as a random term, and baseline, time (as a factor), baseline-by-time interaction, treatment and treatment-by-time interaction, type of therapy \[platinum or not at randomization +/- 28 days\], and type of cancer as fixed terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix and Kenwood-Roger degrees of freedom.||21.23|-5.01|=0.1529
90835532|NCT05546476|181538230|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-130.27|||=|0.5762|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1257.31|996.77|||MMRM analysis; 1-sided|||MMRM model included participant as a random term, and baseline, time (as a factor), baseline-by-time interaction, treatment and treatment-by-time interaction, type of therapy \[platinum or not at randomization +/- 28 days\], and type of cancer as fixed terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix and Kenwood-Roger degrees of freedom.||996.77|-1257.31|=0.5762
90835533|NCT05546476|181538230|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|724.14|||=|0.1486|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-425.81|1874.09|||MMRM analysis; 1-sided|||MMRM model included participant as a random term, and baseline, time (as a factor), baseline-by-time interaction, treatment and treatment-by-time interaction, type of therapy \[platinum or not at randomization +/- 28 days\], and type of cancer as fixed terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix and Kenwood-Roger degrees of freedom.||1874.09|-425.81|=0.1486
90835534|NCT05546476|181538230|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|185.62|||=|0.3972|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-997.94|1369.18|||MMRM analysis; 1-sided|||MMRM model included participant as a random term, and baseline, time (as a factor), baseline-by-time interaction, treatment and treatment-by-time interaction, type of therapy \[platinum or not at randomization +/- 28 days\], and type of cancer as fixed terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix and Kenwood-Roger degrees of freedom.||1369.18|-997.94|=0.3972
91090604|NCT01924533|182064260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.2199|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.42|1.29|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||1.29|0.42|0.2199
91090605|NCT01924533|182064261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.69||||0.0548|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.92|3.17|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.17|0.92|0.0548
91090606|NCT01924533|182064262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.24||||0.0309|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.95|23.23|||Regression, Logistic|||||23.23|0.95|0.0309
91090607|NCT01924533|182064263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.0716|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.64|1.05|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||1.05|0.64|0.0716
91090608|NCT01924533|182064264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63||||0.0927|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.34|1.16|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||1.16|0.34|0.0927
91090609|NCT04233879|182064283|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was concluded if the upper bound of the 2-sided multiplicity-adjusted 95% confidence interval (95%CI) was less than 10 percentage points.|Treatment Difference|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|5.8|||||Unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method was used to generate the treatment difference and the associated 95%CI.|||5.8|-4.5|
90835535|NCT05546476|181538231|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|1587.26|||=|0.0985|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-443.79|3618.31|||MMRM analysis; 1-sided|||MMRM model included participant as a random term, and baseline, time (as a factor), baseline-by-time interaction, treatment and treatment-by-time interaction, type of therapy \[platinum or not at randomization +/- 28 days\], and type of cancer as fixed terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix and Kenwood-Roger degrees of freedom.||3618.31|-443.79|=0.0985
90835536|NCT05546476|181538231|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-98.54|||=|0.5315|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2169.67|1972.58|||MMRM analysis; 1-sided|||MMRM model included participant as a random term, and baseline, time (as a factor), baseline-by-time interaction, treatment and treatment-by-time interaction, type of therapy \[platinum or not at randomization +/- 28 days\], and type of cancer as fixed terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix and Kenwood-Roger degrees of freedom.||1972.58|-2169.67|=0.5315
90835537|NCT05546476|181538231|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|2203.18|||=|0.0437|TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.51|4321.85|||MMRM analysis; 1-sided|||MMRM model included participant as a random term, and baseline, time (as a factor), baseline-by-time interaction, treatment and treatment-by-time interaction, type of therapy \[platinum or not at randomization +/- 28 days\], and type of cancer as fixed terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix and Kenwood-Roger degrees of freedom.||4321.85|84.51|=0.0437
90835538|NCT05546476|181538232|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.0|||=|0.5052|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.046|0.045|||MMRM analysis; 1-sided|||Gait Speed: MMRM model included participant as a random term, and baseline, time (as a factor), baseline-by-time interaction, treatment and treatment-by-time interaction, type of therapy \[platinum or not at randomization +/- 28 days\], and type of cancer as fixed terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix and Kenwood-Roger degrees of freedom.||0.045|-0.046|=0.5052
90835539|NCT05546476|181538232|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.004|||=|0.5599|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.05|0.042|||MMRM analysis; 1-sided|||Gait Speed: MMRM model included participant as a random term, and baseline, time (as a factor), baseline-by-time interaction, treatment and treatment-by-time interaction, type of therapy \[platinum or not at randomization +/- 28 days\], and type of cancer as fixed terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix and Kenwood-Roger degrees of freedom.||0.042|-0.050|=0.5599
90835540|NCT05546476|181538232|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.017|||=|0.277|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.03|0.064|||MMRM analysis; 1-sided|||Gait Speed: MMRM model included participant as a random term, and baseline, time (as a factor), baseline-by-time interaction, treatment and treatment-by-time interaction, type of therapy \[platinum or not at randomization +/- 28 days\], and type of cancer as fixed terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix and Kenwood-Roger degrees of freedom.||0.064|-0.030|=0.2770
90835541|NCT05546476|181538232|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.0|||=|0.5047|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.071|0.07|||MMRM analysis; 1-sided|||95th Percentile of Gait Speed: MMRM model included participant as a random term, and baseline, time (as a factor), baseline-by-time interaction, treatment and treatment-by-time interaction, type of therapy \[platinum or not at randomization +/- 28 days\], and type of cancer as fixed terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix and Kenwood-Roger degrees of freedom.||0.070|-0.071|=0.5047
90895487|NCT03494166|181656731|SUPERIORITY|Key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm from the first randomization variable in the linear regression model.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.63|1.81||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Regression, Linear||The mean of group that started with SMSH alone minus the mean of the group that started with SMSH+TIPC.|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that the means of two groups were not equal. Sample size was determined by the power calculation for the primary outcome.||1.81|-2.63|.71
90895488|NCT03494166|181656732|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm from the second randomization variable in linear regression model.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.91||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.53|5.01||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Regression, Linear|The model included the adjustment for baseline value of the outcome.|The mean of the group that continued with SMSH alone minus the mean of the group that had TIPC added to the SMSH after week 4.|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that the means of two groups were not equal. Sample size was determined by the power calculation for the primary outcome.||5.01|-6.53|.79
91090610|NCT04233879|182064284|OTHER|Difference between treatment groups (Group 1: DOR/ISL and Group 2: BIC/FTC/TAF)|Percentage Difference|4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|9.6|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method was used to generate percentage difference and the associated 95%CI.|||9.6|-0.8|
90835542|NCT05546476|181538232|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.026|||=|0.7316|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.097|0.045|||MMRM analysis; 1-sided|||95th Percentile of Gait Speed: MMRM model included participant as a random term, and baseline, time (as a factor), baseline-by-time interaction, treatment and treatment-by-time interaction, type of therapy \[platinum or not at randomization +/- 28 days\], and type of cancer as fixed terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix and Kenwood-Roger degrees of freedom.||0.045|-0.097|=0.7316
90835543|NCT05546476|181538232|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.01|||=|0.4145|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.063|0.082|||MMRM analysis; 1-sided|||95th Percentile of Gait Speed: MMRM model included participant as a random term, and baseline, time (as a factor), baseline-by-time interaction, treatment and treatment-by-time interaction, type of therapy \[platinum or not at randomization +/- 28 days\], and type of cancer as fixed terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix and Kenwood-Roger degrees of freedom.||0.082|-0.063|=0.4145
90835544|NCT05546476|181538233|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|4.24|||=|0.0114|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.19|7.28|||MMRM analysis; 1-sided|||MMRM model included participant as a random term, and baseline, time (as a factor), baseline-by-time interaction, treatment and treatment-by-time interaction, type of therapy \[platinum or not at randomization +/- 28 days\], and type of cancer as fixed terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix and Kenwood-Roger degrees of freedom.||7.28|1.19|=0.0114
90895489|NCT01058304|181656880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.67||||0.1024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.87|0.538|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"The analysis compares study Arm 1 and Arm 2 at 24-week follow-up, with 12-week data also included in the response trajectory.~The hypothesis being tested is that group-based PT (Arm 1) will result in a significantly greater improvement WOMAC scores compared to individual PT (Arm 2)"||0.538|-5.87|0.1024
91090611|NCT04233879|182064285|OTHER|Difference between treatment groups (Group 1: DOR/ISL and Group 2: BIC/FTC/TAF)|Percentage Difference|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|7.9|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method was used to generate percentage difference and the associated 95%CI.|||7.9|0.4|
90895490|NCT01058304|181656880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.64|2.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The hypothesis being tested is that the group-based PT program (Arm 1) will result in greater improvements in WOMAC scores at 24-week follow-up (12 weeks after the end of the group program) when compared to usual PT care (Arm 2).||2.04|-4.64|0.444
90895491|NCT01058304|181656881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.113||||0.527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.463|0.238|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The analysis compares Arms 1 and 2 at 12-week follow-up. The hypothesis being tested is that the group-based PT program (Arm 1) will result in a significantly greater improvement in SPPB scores compared with the individual PT program (Arm 2).||0.238|-0.463|0.527
90895492|NCT01069354|181656883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Paired t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90895493|NCT01069354|181656884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Binomial proportion, two-sided Fisher's exact test|Fisher Exact|||91 (90.1%) of 101 subjects had a ≥ 2.0 cm lower VAS Score in treatment versus control NLF at Time 0||||<0.0001
91027316|NCT00384033|181938498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27||||0.119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.61||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||For DVS SR 100 mg, lassitude item of the MADRS score was evaluated using ANCOVA with treatment and site as factors and baseline lassitude item of the MADRS score as the covariate.||0.61|-0.07|0.119
91027317|NCT00384033|181938498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.4||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||For Duloxetine 60 mg, lassitude item of the MADRS score was evaluated using ANCOVA with treatment and site as factors and baseline lassitude item of the MADRS score as the covariate.||0.40|-0.27|0.710
91027318|NCT00384033|181938499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.5||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||For DVS SR 50 mg, HAM-D6 score was evaluated using ANCOVA with treatment and site as factors and baseline HAM-D6 score as the covariate.||1.50|-0.30|0.215
91027319|NCT00384033|181938499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.3||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||For DVS SR 100 mg, HAM-D6 score was evaluated using ANCOVA with treatment and site as factors and baseline HAM-D6 score as the covariate.||2.30|0.40|0.005
91027320|NCT00384033|181938499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.1||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||For Duloxetine 60 mg, HAM-D6 score was evaluated using ANCOVA with treatment and site as factors and baseline HAM-D6 score as the covariate.||2.10|0.20|0.024
91027321|NCT00384033|181938500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.53||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.17||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||For DVS SR 50 mg, HAM-D energy subscale score was evaluated using ANCOVA with treatment and site as factors and baseline HAM-D energy score as the covariate.||1.17|-0.10|0.100
91027322|NCT00384033|181938500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.79||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.42||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||For DVS SR 100 mg, HAM-D energy subscale score was evaluated using ANCOVA with treatment and site as factors and baseline HAM-D energy score as the covariate.||1.42|0.16|0.014
91027323|NCT00384033|181938500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.72||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|1.38||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||For Duloxetine 60 mg, HAM-D energy subscale score was evaluated using ANCOVA with treatment and site as factors and baseline HAM-D energy score as the covariate.||1.38|0.06|0.032
91027324|NCT00384033|181938501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.5||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||For DVS SR 50 mg, Covi anxiety scale was evaluated using ANCOVA with treatment and site as factors and baseline Covi anxiety score as the covariate.||0.50|-0.20|0.445
91027325|NCT00384033|181938501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.7||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||For DVS SR 100 mg, Covi anxiety scale was evaluated using ANCOVA with treatment and site as factors and baseline Covi anxiety score as the covariate.||0.70|-0.00|0.056
91027326|NCT00384033|181938501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.9||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||For Duloxetine 60 mg, Covi anxiety scale was evaluated using ANCOVA with treatment and site as factors and baseline Covi anxiety score as the covariate.||0.90|0.10|0.006
91027327|NCT00384033|181938502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.5||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|7.9||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||For DVS SR 50 mg, overall VAS-PI score was evaluated using ANCOVA with treatment and site as factors and baseline VAS-PI score as the covariate.||7.90|-0.90|0.124
91027328|NCT00384033|181938502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.7||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|9.1||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||For DVS SR 100 mg, overall VAS-PI score was evaluated using ANCOVA with treatment and site as factors and baseline VAS-PI score as the covariate.||9.10|0.30|0.035
90895494|NCT01069354|181656885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Paired t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90895495|NCT01069354|181656886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Paired t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90895496|NCT01069354|181656887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Paired t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90895497|NCT01069354|181656888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Paired t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91090612|NCT04233879|182064288|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was concluded if the upper bound of the 2-sided multiplicity-adjusted 95% CI was less than 10 percentage points.|Treatment Difference|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|7.7|||||Miettinen and Nurminen method was used to generate treatment difference and the associated 95%CI.|||7.7|-3.1|
91090613|NCT04233879|182064289|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was concluded if the upper bound of the 2-sided multiplicity-adjusted 95% CI was less than 10 percentage points.|Treatment Difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|6.1|||||Miettinen and Nurminen method was used to generate treatment difference and the associated 95%CI.|||6.1|-4.1|
91090614|NCT04233879|182064300|SUPERIORITY|Superiority will be concluded if the upper bound of the 2-sided multiplicity-adjusted 95% CI was less than 0.|Treatment Difference|0.15||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|1.02|||ANCOVA|A 2-sided p-value was calculated using the Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model.|ANCOVA model was used to generate treatment difference and the associated 95%CI.|||1.02|-0.71|0.73
91090615|NCT02756910|182064321|OTHER||percentile method|0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.96|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||bootstrapping|||||||<0.05
91090616|NCT00323063|182064322|OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.3
91090617|NCT02240667|182064353|OTHER|||||||0.8496|||||||stratified log-rank test|||Persistence in both treatment groups was compared by means of the stratified Log-rank test||||0.8496
91090618|NCT01076543|182064374|OTHER||Maximum tolerated dose in mg|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||"The maximum tolerated dose (MTD) was determined using the traditional 3+3 design and was the maximum dose level such that less than 33% of the patients (i.e, \<1 of 3 or \<2 of 6) experience dose-limiting toxicity."|||||
91090619|NCT01076543|182064376|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.1|||||||Binomial exact test|The number of responders required to reject the null hypothesis was 16 or more.||Two-stage, minimax design was used to test the null hypothesis that the overall response rate was 30% vs. a 50% alternative.||||>0.10
90835545|NCT05546476|181538233|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.64|||=|0.36|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.3|3.57|||MMRM analysis; 1-sided|||MMRM model included participant as a random term, and baseline, time (as a factor), baseline-by-time interaction, treatment and treatment-by-time interaction, type of therapy \[platinum or not at randomization +/- 28 days\], and type of cancer as fixed terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix and Kenwood-Roger degrees of freedom.||3.57|-2.30|=0.3600
91090620|NCT01076543|182064376|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||Two-stage, minimax design was used to test the null hypothesis that the overall response rate was 50% vs. 70% alternative.|The follicular subgroup did not reach its accrual goal and was closed.|||
90835546|NCT05546476|181538233|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|4.11|||=|0.0138|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.06|7.17|||MMRM analysis; 1-sided|||MMRM model included participant as a random term, and baseline, time (as a factor), baseline-by-time interaction, treatment and treatment-by-time interaction, type of therapy \[platinum or not at randomization +/- 28 days\], and type of cancer as fixed terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix and Kenwood-Roger degrees of freedom.||7.17|1.06|=0.0138
90835547|NCT05546476|181538234|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|2.35|||=|0.009|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.72|3.97|||MMRM analysis; 1-sided|||MMRM model included participant as a random term, and baseline, time (as a factor), baseline-by-time interaction, treatment and treatment-by-time interaction, type of therapy \[platinum or not at randomization +/- 28 days\], and type of cancer as fixed terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix and Kenwood-Roger degrees of freedom.||3.97|0.72|=0.0090
90895498|NCT01069354|181656889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5663||||||Paired t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5663
91090621|NCT01076543|182064376|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.1|||||||Binomial exact test.|The number of responders required to reject the null hypothesis was 16 or more.||Two-stage, minimax design was used to test the null hypothesis that the overall response rate was 30% vs. a 50% alternative.||||<0.10
91090622|NCT00791999|182064415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.025||95.0||||Wald p-values(vs. placebo) for the comparison of the treatment groups have been calculated using logistic regression with factors for treatment.|Regression, Logistic|||For ACR20 responder rate at Week 12, treatment comparisons versus placebo for the two CDP870 dose groups, the CDP870 200 mg group the CDP870 400 mg, were performed. The ACR20 responder rate in the CDP870 100 mg group was used for the secondary analysis.||||<0.025
91090623|NCT00791999|182064416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0||||Wald p-values(vs. placebo) for the comparison of the treatment groups have been calculated using logistic regression with factors for treatment.|Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.05
91090624|NCT01791985|182064473|OTHER||Mean|0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.32|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Proportion of change in tumour size at 12 weeks (or progression if prior to week 12), when used in combination with either anastrozole or letrozole in ER positive breast cancer patients who have progressed on treatment with either anastrozole or letrozole in any setting||||
91090625|NCT01103323|182064478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.774||||0.005178||95.0|0.636|0.942||According to protocol specified O'Brien-Fleming type alpha spending function and 432 death events at 2nd IA, the pre-specified alpha (false positive rate) for this analysis was 0.009279 (1-sided).|Log Rank||Two treatment groups compared using a stratified log-rank test, stratified by same stratification factors as randomization. Hazard ratio (Regorafenib / Placebo) and its 95% confidence interval calculated using Cox model, stratified by same factors.|Sample size based on primary efficacy endpoint of OS. The study was designed to have 90% power to detect 33.3% increase in median OS (i.e. hazard ratio of 0.75, Regorafenib / Placebo). Assuming 1-sided overall alpha of 0.025, randomization ratio of 2:1 for Regorafenib and Placebo, and 2 formal interim analyses of OS using an O'Brien-Fleming-type error spending function, a total of 582 death events were required for primary completion. Results based on 2nd planned formal IA with 432 total events.||0.942|0.636|0.005178
91090626|NCT01103323|182064479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.494|||<|1e-06||95.0|0.419|0.582||Comparison based on pre-specified alpha level of 0.025 (1-sided).|Log Rank||Hazard ratio (Regorafenib / Placebo)|Two treatment groups compared using a stratified log-rank test, stratified by same stratification factors as randomization. Hazard ratio (Regorafenib / Placebo) and its 95% confidence interval calculated using Cox model, stratified by same factors.||0.582|0.419|<0.000001
90835548|NCT05546476|181538234|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.0|||=|0.4987|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.55|1.56|||MMRM analysis; 1-sided|||MMRM model included participant as a random term, and baseline, time (as a factor), baseline-by-time interaction, treatment and treatment-by-time interaction, type of therapy \[platinum or not at randomization +/- 28 days\], and type of cancer as fixed terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix and Kenwood-Roger degrees of freedom.||1.56|-1.55|=0.4987
90835549|NCT05546476|181538234|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|2.3|||=|0.01|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.68|3.92|||MMRM analysis; 1-sided|||MMRM model included participant as a random term, and baseline, time (as a factor), baseline-by-time interaction, treatment and treatment-by-time interaction, type of therapy \[platinum or not at randomization +/- 28 days\], and type of cancer as fixed terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix and Kenwood-Roger degrees of freedom.||3.92|0.68|=0.0100
90835550|NCT05546476|181538235|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.43|||=|0.1912|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.38|1.24|||MMRM analysis; 1-sided|||Appetite: MMRM model included participant as a random term, and baseline, time (as a factor), baseline-by-time interaction, treatment and treatment-by-time interaction, type of therapy \[platinum or not at randomization +/- 28 days\], and type of cancer as fixed terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix and Kenwood-Roger degrees of freedom.||1.24|-0.38|=0.1912
90835551|NCT05546476|181538235|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.46|||=|0.1866|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.39|1.3|||MMRM analysis; 1-sided|||Appetite: MMRM model included participant as a random term, and baseline, time (as a factor), baseline-by-time interaction, treatment and treatment-by-time interaction, type of therapy \[platinum or not at randomization +/- 28 days\], and type of cancer as fixed terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix and Kenwood-Roger degrees of freedom.||1.30|-0.39|=0.1866
90835552|NCT05546476|181538235|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.92|||=|0.0349|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.09|1.75|||MMRM analysis; 1-sided|||Appetite: MMRM model included participant as a random term, and baseline, time (as a factor), baseline-by-time interaction, treatment and treatment-by-time interaction, type of therapy \[platinum or not at randomization +/- 28 days\], and type of cancer as fixed terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix and Kenwood-Roger degrees of freedom.||1.75|0.09|=0.0349
90835553|NCT05546476|181538235|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.47|||=|0.8754|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|1.14|||MMRM analysis; 1-sided|||Nausea: MMRM model included participant as a random term, and baseline, time (as a factor), baseline-by-time interaction, treatment and treatment-by-time interaction, type of therapy \[platinum or not at randomization +/- 28 days\], and type of cancer as fixed terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix and Kenwood-Roger degrees of freedom.||1.14|-0.20|=0.8754
90835554|NCT05546476|181538235|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.38|||=|0.8205|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.31|1.08|||MMRM analysis; 1-sided|||Nausea: MMRM model included participant as a random term, and baseline, time (as a factor), baseline-by-time interaction, treatment and treatment-by-time interaction, type of therapy \[platinum or not at randomization +/- 28 days\], and type of cancer as fixed terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix and Kenwood-Roger degrees of freedom.||1.08|-0.31|=0.8205
90835555|NCT05546476|181538235|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.17|||=|0.3375|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.86|0.51|||MMRM analysis; 1-sided|||Nausea: MMRM model included participant as a random term, and baseline, time (as a factor), baseline-by-time interaction, treatment and treatment-by-time interaction, type of therapy \[platinum or not at randomization +/- 28 days\], and type of cancer as fixed terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix and Kenwood-Roger degrees of freedom.||0.51|-0.86|=0.3375
90835556|NCT05546476|181538235|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.66|||=|0.9138|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.14|1.45|||MMRM analysis; 1-sided|||Physical Fatigue: MMRM model included participant as a random term, and baseline, time (as a factor), baseline-by-time interaction, treatment and treatment-by-time interaction, type of therapy \[platinum or not at randomization +/- 28 days\], and type of cancer as fixed terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix and Kenwood-Roger degrees of freedom.||1.45|-0.14|=0.9138
91090627|NCT01103323|182064480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-0.6||||0.188432||95.0|-1.74|0.53||Comparison based on pre-specified alpha level of 0.025 (1-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference = Placebo - Regorafenib 160 mg|Two treatment groups compared using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusting for same stratification factors as at randomization.||0.53|-1.74|0.188432
90835557|NCT05546476|181538235|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.64|||=|0.9011|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.18|1.46|||MMRM analysis; 1-sided|||Physical Fatigue: MMRM model included participant as a random term, and baseline, time (as a factor), baseline-by-time interaction, treatment and treatment-by-time interaction, type of therapy \[platinum or not at randomization +/- 28 days\], and type of cancer as fixed terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix and Kenwood-Roger degrees of freedom.||1.46|-0.18|=0.9011
90835558|NCT05546476|181538235|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.21|||=|0.6618|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.61|1.02|||MMRM analysis; 1-sided|||Physical Fatigue: MMRM model included participant as a random term, and baseline, time (as a factor), baseline-by-time interaction, treatment and treatment-by-time interaction, type of therapy \[platinum or not at randomization +/- 28 days\], and type of cancer as fixed terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix and Kenwood-Roger degrees of freedom.||1.02|-0.61|=0.6618
90895499|NCT01069354|181656890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3197||||||Paired t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3197
90835559|NCT00910104|181538364|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|8.6|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|37.3||All P-values were 2-sided. Analyses were performed in SAS 9.1 (SAS Institute, USA) and S-plus 8 (Insightful, USA). P\<0.05 was established as an a priori threshold for statistical significance.|Regression, Cox|||The primary efficacy end-point was time to reversal of cholestasis (direct bilirubin \[DB\]\<=2 mg/dL). Crude (unadjusted) hazard ratios were estimated using proportional hazard regression. Subjects who died, were transplanted, or still on PN at the end of follow-up were censored (Ref: PMID 19661785).||37.3|2.0|=0.001
90895500|NCT02496767|181656893|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.707|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9365||0.3782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.089|5.503|||Repeated-measures mixed model|||||5.503|-2.089|0.3782
90895501|NCT02496767|181656893|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.612|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0245||0.7625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.359|4.583|||Repeated-measures mixed model|||||4.583|-3.359|0.7625
90895502|NCT02496767|181656893|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.428|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1081||0.8394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.711|4.566|||Repeated-measures mixed model|||||4.566|-3.711|0.8394
91090628|NCT01103323|182064481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-25.94|||<|1e-06||95.0|-32.06|-19.82||Comparison based on pre-specified alpha level of 0.025 (1-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference = Placebo - Regorafenib 160 mg|Two treatment groups compared using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusting for same stratification factors as at randomization.||-19.82|-32.06|<0.000001
91090629|NCT04536701|182064494|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.444|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Total DASS score reported.||||0.444
91090630|NCT04536701|182064494|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8378|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Depressive Mood DASS score reported||||0.8378
90835560|NCT00910104|181538364|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|17.4||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|83.0||All P-values were 2-sided. Analyses were performed in SAS 9.1 (SAS Institute, USA) and S-plus 8 (Insightful, USA). P\<0.05 was established as an a priori threshold for statistical significance.|Regression, Cox|||The primary efficacy end-point was time to reversal of cholestasis (direct bilirubin \[DB\]\<=2 mg/dL). Adjusted hazard ratios were estimated using proportional hazard regression adjusted for baseline covariates (including duration of parenteral nutrition (PN) and baseline DB). Subjects who died, were transplanted, or still on PN at the end of follow-up were censored (Ref: PMID 19661785).||83|3.7|0.001
90835561|NCT00910104|181538364|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of proportion with reversal of cholestasis (direct bilirubin \<=2.0 mg/dL).||||<0.0001
90895503|NCT02496767|181656894|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.4521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.12|||Repeated-measures mixed model|||||1.12|-0.50|0.4521
90895504|NCT02496767|181656894|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.426||0.712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.68|||Repeated-measures mixed model|||||0.68|-1.00|0.7120
91090631|NCT04536701|182064494|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4087|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Anxiety DASS score reported||||0.4087
91090632|NCT04536701|182064494|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4124|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Stress DASS score reported||||0.4124
91090633|NCT04536701|182064495|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0508|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Total RMBPC frequency reported||||0.0508
90835562|NCT03137654|181538365|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0078|||||||Linear Mixed Model|||||||.0078
91090634|NCT04536701|182064495|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.026|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Frequency of disruptive symptoms on RMBP reported||||0.026
91090635|NCT04536701|182064495|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1861|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Frequency of depressive symptoms on RMBPC reported||||0.1861
91090636|NCT04536701|182064495|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9535|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Frequency of memory symptoms on RMBPC reported||||0.9535
90835563|NCT03137654|181538369|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.393|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.393
90835564|NCT03137654|181538371|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0344|||||||ANOVA|||||||.0344
90895505|NCT02496767|181656894|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.439||0.451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|0.53|||Repeated-measures mixed model|||||0.53|-1.19|0.4510
90895506|NCT02496767|181656895|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0011||||0.9505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0374|0.0351|||Repeated-measures mixed model|||||0.0351|-0.0374|0.9505
90835565|NCT03137654|181538372|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0344|||||||ANOVA|||||||.0344
90835566|NCT03137654|181538373|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0365|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0365
90835567|NCT03137654|181538374|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.212|||||||ANOVA|||||||.212
90835568|NCT03137654|181538375|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<.001
90835569|NCT03137654|181538376|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.445|||||||ANOVA|||||||.445
90835570|NCT03137654|181538377|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.245|||||||ANOVA|||||||.245
91090637|NCT04536701|182064495|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0411|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||RMBPC reaction total is reported||||0.0411
91090638|NCT04536701|182064495|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0058|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||RMBPC reaction disruptive symptoms is reported||||0.0058
90895507|NCT02496767|181656895|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0066||||0.7336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0317|0.045|||Repeated-measures mixed model|||||0.0450|-0.0317|0.7336
90895508|NCT02496767|181656895|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0088||||0.6593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0303|0.0479|||Repeated-measures mixed model|||||0.0479|-0.0303|0.6593
90895509|NCT02496767|181656896|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.818||||0.2369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.587|1.141|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio for tirasemtiv vs placebo|||1.141|0.587|0.2369
90895510|NCT02496767|181656896|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.988||||0.942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.711|1.372|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio for tirasemtiv vs placebo|||1.372|0.711|0.9420
90895511|NCT02496767|181656896|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.933||||0.6853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.668|1.304|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio for tirasemtiv vs placebo|||1.304|0.668|0.6853
91090639|NCT04536701|182064495|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2527|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||RMBPC reaction depressive symptoms is reported||||0.2527
91090640|NCT04536701|182064495|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3542|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||RMBPC reaction memory symptoms||||0.3542
91090641|NCT04536701|182064496|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3857|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3857
91090642|NCT04536701|182064497|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7213|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ) total reported||||0.7213
91090643|NCT04536701|182064497|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6075|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||FFMQ Observing reported||||0.6075
91090644|NCT04536701|182064497|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4136|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||FFMQ Describing reported||||0.4136
91090645|NCT04536701|182064497|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8378|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||FFMQ Acting with Awareness reported||||0.8378
91090646|NCT04536701|182064497|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7193|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||FFMQ Nonjudging reported||||0.7193
91090647|NCT04536701|182064497|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4145|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||FFMQ Nonreactivity reported||||0.4145
91090648|NCT04536701|182064498|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5368|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5368
91090649|NCT04536701|182064499|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2845|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||FAD Total reported||||0.2845
91090650|NCT04536701|182064499|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1386|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||FAD Problem Solving is reported||||0.1386
91090651|NCT04536701|182064499|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7551|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||FAD Communication is reported||||0.7551
91090652|NCT04536701|182064499|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7213|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||FAD Roles is reported||||0.7213
91090653|NCT04536701|182064499|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3233|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||FAD Affective Responsiveness is reported||||0.3233
91090654|NCT04536701|182064499|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2832|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||FAD Affective Involvement is reported||||0.2832
91090655|NCT04536701|182064499|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6831|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||FAD Behavior Control is reported||||0.6831
91090656|NCT04536701|182064499|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6075|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||FAD General Functioning is reported||||0.6075
91090657|NCT01946204|182064500|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.271|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.219|0.335|||Log Rank|||Statistical Analysis for TTM by BICR (US Regulatory)||0.335|0.219|<0.0001
91090658|NCT01946204|182064500|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.279|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.227|0.342|||Log Rank|||Statistical Analysis for TTM by BICR (Ex-US Regulatory)||0.342|0.227|<0.0001
91090659|NCT01946204|182064501|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.291|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.238|0.356|||Log Rank|||Statistical Analysis for PFS by BICR (US Regulatory)||0.356|0.238|<0.0001
91090660|NCT01946204|182064501|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.247|0.364|||Log Rank|||Statistical Analysis for PFS by BICR (EX-US Regulatory)||0.364|0.247|<0.0001
90835571|NCT04890652|181538378|OTHER|single group. The power-related information was estimated by calculating the effect size, specifically partial eta squared.|||||<|0.001|||||||General Linear Model|||||||<0.001
90835572|NCT04890652|181538379|OTHER|Single group. The power-related information was estimated by calculating the effect size, specifically partial eta squared.|||||<|0.001|||||||General Linear Model|||||||<0.001
90835573|NCT04386291|181538385|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.54||||0.071|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.071
91090661|NCT01946204|182064502|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.447|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.315|0.634|||Log Rank|||Statistical Analysis for Time to Symptomatic Progression||0.634|0.315|<0.0001
91090662|NCT01946204|182064505|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.227|0.346|||Log Rank|||Statistical Analysis for MFS by BICR (US Regulatory)||0.346|0.227|<0.0001
90835574|NCT04386291|181538385|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.46|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.46
91090663|NCT01946204|182064505|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.297|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.244|0.362|||Log Rank|||Statistical Analysis for MFS by BICR (Ex-US Regulatory)||0.362|0.244|<0.0001
91090664|NCT03217591|182064539|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean change (%)|-16.0|||=|0.2142|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-33.3|5.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment comparison between placebo and praliciguat 20 mg. Geometric mean change (%) and the associated confidence intervals (CIs) were derived as 100×\[exp(Least Squares Mean Change)-1\].||5.8|-33.3|=0.2142
91090665|NCT03217591|182064539|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean change (%)|-14.6|||=|0.2718|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-32.7|8.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment comparison between placebo and praliciguat 40 mg. Geometric mean change (%) and the associated CIs were derived as 100×\[exp(Least Squares Mean Change)-1\].||8.3|-32.7|=0.2718
90835575|NCT04386291|181538386|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.01
90835576|NCT04386291|181538386|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.76||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.04
90835577|NCT04386291|181538387|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.47||||0.08|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.08
90835578|NCT04386291|181538387|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.5
90835579|NCT04386291|181538388|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68||||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.25
90835580|NCT04386291|181538388|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.54||||0.065|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.065
90835581|NCT04386291|181538389|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.24||||0.88|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.88
90835582|NCT04386291|181538389|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.56||||0.7|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.7
90835583|NCT04386291|181538390|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.84||||0.038|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.038
90835584|NCT04386291|181538390|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.59||||0.059|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.059
90835585|NCT04386291|181538391|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.58||||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Reappraisal subscale analysis||||0.9
90835586|NCT04386291|181538391|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.73||||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Subpression subscale analysis||||0.23
90835587|NCT04386291|181538391|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.54||||0.7|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Reappraisal subscale analysis||||0.7
90835588|NCT04386291|181538391|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Suppression subscale analysis||||0.5
90835589|NCT04386291|181538392|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.67||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.5
90835590|NCT04386291|181538393|SUPERIORITY||mean rank difference|79.0||||0.076|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Mann-Witney was used because assumption of normality of variance was violated||||||0.076
90835591|NCT04386291|181538393|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.8
90835592|NCT00772538|181538394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.086|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034||0.011||95.0|0.02|0.152||Step-wise testing for co-primary endpoints, confirmatory only if previous hypotheses had been successful, significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.152|0.020|0.0110
90835593|NCT00772538|181538395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.088|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031||0.005||95.0|0.027|0.149||Step-wise testing for co-primary endpoints, confirmatory only if previous hypotheses had been successful, significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.149|0.027|0.0050
90835594|NCT00772538|181538396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.0343||||||Confirmatory only if previous hypotheses for each of the 2 twin studies had been successful, significance level of alpha=0.05 (2-sided). A pre-specified interim analysis was performed. Cui et al (Biometrics,1999) was used to calculate the p-value.|Regression, Cox|Parameter estimates of Cox proportional hazard model regression regarding. Only treatment was fitted as an effect in the model.|If HR is below 1 then favours tiotropium.|||||0.0343
90835595|NCT00772538|181538397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.089|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.0362||95.0|0.006|0.173||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.173|0.006|0.0362
90835596|NCT00772538|181538398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.136|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0007||95.0|0.058|0.214||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.214|0.058|0.0007
90835597|NCT00772538|181538399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.086|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032||0.0067||95.0|0.024|0.149||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.149|0.024|0.0067
90835598|NCT00772538|181538400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.098|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0139||95.0|0.02|0.176||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.176|0.020|0.0139
90835599|NCT00772538|181538401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.073|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034||0.0347||95.0|0.005|0.14||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.140|0.005|0.0347
90835600|NCT00772538|181538402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032||0.1896||95.0|-0.021|0.104||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.104|-0.021|0.1896
90835601|NCT00772538|181538403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.073|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032||0.0247||95.0|0.009|0.136||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.136|0.009|0.0247
90835602|NCT00772538|181538404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.125|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.0039||95.0|0.04|0.21||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.210|0.040|0.0039
90835603|NCT00772538|181538405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.111|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0063||95.0|0.031|0.19||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.190|0.031|0.0063
90835604|NCT00772538|181538406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.122|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041||0.0027||95.0|0.042|0.201||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.201|0.042|0.0027
90835605|NCT00772538|181538407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.293|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.584|<|0.0001||95.0|13.279|31.308||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||31.308|13.279|<0.0001
90835606|NCT00772538|181538408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.267|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.699|<|0.0001||95.0|14.027|32.507||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||32.507|14.027|<0.0001
90835607|NCT00772538|181538409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.117|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.0001||95.0|0.061|0.173||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.173|0.061|<0.0001
90835608|NCT00772538|181538410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.124|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029|<|0.0001||95.0|0.068|0.181||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.181|0.068|<0.0001
90835609|NCT00772538|181538411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.283|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.736||0.7012||95.0|-1.165|1.731||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||1.731|-1.165|0.7012
91027329|NCT00384033|181938502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|4.1||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|8.8||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||For Duloxetine 60 mg, overall VAS-PI score was evaluated using ANCOVA with treatment and site as factors and baseline VAS-PI score as the covariate.||8.80|-0.70|0.093
90835610|NCT00772538|181538412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.0499||95.0|0.49|1.0||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Regression, Cox|Parameter estimates of Cox proportional hazard model regarding. Only treatment was fitted as an effect in the model.|If HR is below 1 then favours tiotropium.|||1.00|0.49|0.0499
90835611|NCT00772538|181538413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0102||95.0|0.55|0.92||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Poisson Regression|Parameter estimates of Poisson regression model. Log exposure was used as offset and adjusted for overdispersion.|Tio R5 - Placebo|||0.92|0.55|0.0102
91027330|NCT00384033|181938502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.1||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|7.7||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||For DVS SR 50 mg, stomach pain score was evaluated using ANCOVA with treatment and site as factors and baseline stomach pain score as the covariate.||7.70|-1.40|0.177
90835612|NCT00772538|181538414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0062||95.0|0.46|0.88||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Poisson Regression|Parameter estimates of Poisson regression model. Log exposure was used as offset and adjusted for overdispersion.|Tio R5 - Placebo|||0.88|0.46|0.0062
90835613|NCT00772538|181538415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59||||0.0065||95.0|0.4|0.88||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Fisher Exact|Exact 95percent confidence interval by Clopper and Pearson.|Tio R5 vs Placebo|||0.88|0.40|0.0065
90835614|NCT00772538|181538416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65||||0.0561||95.0|0.42|1.01||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Fisher Exact|Exact 95percent confidence interval by Clopper and Pearson.|Tio R5 vs Placebo|||1.01|0.42|0.0561
90835615|NCT00772538|181538417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.5604||95.0|0.3|1.92||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Regression, Cox|Parameter estimates of Cox proportional hazard model regarding. Only treatment was fitted as an effect in the model.|If HR is below 1 then favours tiotropium|||1.92|0.30|0.5604
90835616|NCT00772538|181538418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.5538||95.0|0.54|1.39||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Poisson Regression|Parameter estimates of Poisson regression model. Log exposure was used as offset and adjusted for overdispersion.|Tio R5 - Placebo|||1.39|0.54|0.5538
90835617|NCT00772538|181538419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.633||95.0|0.25|2.13||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Fisher Exact|Exact 95percent confidence interval by Clopper and Pearson.|Tio R5 vs Placebo|||2.13|0.25|0.6330
90835618|NCT00772538|181538420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.074||0.5714||95.0|-0.103|0.186||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.186|-0.103|0.5714
90835619|NCT00772538|181538421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.038|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.075||0.6099||95.0|-0.109|0.185||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.185|-0.109|0.6099
90835620|NCT00772538|181538422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.126|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066||0.0586||95.0|-0.256|0.005||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.005|-0.256|0.0586
91090666|NCT03217591|182064539|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean change (%)|-15.3|||=|0.1736|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-30.7|3.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment comparison between placebo and praliciguat overall. Geometric mean change (%) and the associated CIs were derived as 100×\[exp(Least Squares Mean Change)-1\].||3.6|-30.7|=0.1736
90835621|NCT00772538|181538423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.121|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067||0.0727||95.0|-0.253|0.011||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.011|-0.253|0.0727
90835622|NCT00772538|181538424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||0.9807||95.0|-0.048|0.047||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.047|-0.048|0.9807
90835623|NCT00772538|181538425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.092|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.172||0.5927||95.0|-0.43|0.246||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.246|-0.430|0.5927
90835624|NCT00772538|181538426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.0427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.73||Calculated as 2\*one-sided-p-value in the direction corresponding to testing the null hypothesis|Fisher Exact||Tio R5 / Placebo|Comparison at 24 weeks||1.73|1.01|0.0427
90835625|NCT00772538|181538426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|2.21||Calculated as 2\*one-sided-p-value in the direction corresponding to testing the null hypothesis|Fisher Exact||Tio R5 / Placebo|Comparison at 48 weeks||2.21|1.28|0.0001
90835626|NCT04529083|181538432|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.625||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.19|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.19|-1.06|0.011
90895512|NCT02496767|181656897|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.066||||0.7667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.698|1.627|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio for tirasemtiv vs placebo|||1.627|0.698|0.7667
90835627|NCT04529083|181538434|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.94||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|3.26|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.26|0.63|0.006
90835628|NCT03305666|181538440|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical analyses were conduced using SAS version 9.4. This non-inferiority test was conducted via a one-way ANOVA test, with statistical significance set at p \< 0.05.||||||0.12|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.12
90835629|NCT03305666|181538441|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical analyses were conducted using SAS version 9.4. This non-inferiority test was conducted via a one-way ANOVA test, with statistical significance set at p \< 0.05.||||||0.41|||||||ANOVA|||This is the P-Value for between groups comparison of Postoperative Day #1.||||0.41
90835630|NCT03305666|181538441|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical analyses were conducted using SAS version 9.4. This non-inferiority test was conducted via a one-way ANOVA test, with statistical significance set at p \< 0.05.||||||0.25|||||||ANOVA|||This is the P-Value for between groups comparison of Postoperative Day #2.||||0.25
90835631|NCT03305666|181538441|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical analyses were conducted using SAS version 9.4. This non-inferiority test was conducted via a one-way ANOVA test, with statistical significance set at p \< 0.05.||||||0.12|||||||ANOVA|||This is the P-Value for between groups comparison of Postoperative Day #3.||||0.12
90835632|NCT03305666|181538441|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical analyses were conducted using SAS version 9.4. This non-inferiority test was conducted via a one-way ANOVA test, with statistical significance set at p \< 0.05.||||||0.04|||||||ANOVA|||This is the P-Value for between groups comparison of Postoperative Day #4.||||0.04
90835633|NCT03305666|181538441|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical analyses were conducted using SAS version 9.4. This non-inferiority test was conducted via a one-way ANOVA test, with statistical significance set at p \< 0.05.||||||0.32|||||||ANOVA|||This is the P-Value for between groups comparison of Postoperative Day #5.||||0.32
90835634|NCT03305666|181538442|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical analyses were conduced using SAS version 9.4. This non-inferiority test was conducted via a one-way ANOVA test, with statistical significance set at p \< 0.05.||||||0.23|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.23
90835635|NCT04196686|181538443|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.51|||Cox mixed effects model|||||0.51|0.25|<0.001
90835636|NCT04196686|181538444|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.455||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.59|||Linear mixed effects model|||Analysis was controlled for dominant hand treatment assignment, dominant hand order, and gender. Overall mean difference calculated from regression model.||0.59|0.32|0.200
90835637|NCT04196686|181538445|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.002||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.00007|0.00368|||Linear mixed effects model|||The variables in the physiologic model were SCRD change over time and the SCRD change between groups, defined as those with and without VR.||0.00368|0.00007|0.047
90835638|NCT03448406|181538511|SUPERIORITY||Median difference (HL-estimate)|4.0||||0.366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|13.0|||Wilcoxon rank test, normal approximation||Empagliflozin vs. Placebo. For estimation of effect, the non-parametric Hodge-Lehman (HL) estimate for the median difference was calculated.|H0: There is no difference between the effect of Placebo and the effect of empagliflozin.||13.0|-5.0|0.3660
90835639|NCT03448406|181538512|SUPERIORITY||Median difference (HL-estimate)|2.08||||0.2783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.08|6.25|||Wilcoxon rank test, normal approximation||Empagliflozin vs. Placebo. For estimation of effect, the non-parametric Hodges-Lehmann estimate for the median difference was calculated.|H0: There is no difference between the effect of Placebo and the effect of empagliflozin.||6.25|-2.08|0.2783
90835640|NCT03448406|181538513|SUPERIORITY||Median difference (HL-estimate)|-0.07||||0.5512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.2|||Wilcoxon rank test, normal approximation||Empagliflozin vs. Placebo. For estimation of effect, the non-parametric Hodges-Lehmann (HL) estimate for the median difference was calculated.|H0: There is no difference between the effect of Placebo and the effect of empagliflozin.||0.20|-0.35|0.5512
90835641|NCT03448406|181538514|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (HL-estimate)|3.0||||0.3657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|11.0|||Wilcoxon rank test, normal approximation||Empagliflozin vs. Placebo. For estimation of effect, the non-parametric Hodges-Lehmann (HL) estimate for the median difference was calculated.|H0: There is no difference between the effect of Placebo and the effect of empagliflozin.||11.0|-4.0|0.3657
90835642|NCT03448406|181538515|OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean|-0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.11||0.444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.14|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure (MMRM)|Covariates: visit-by-treatment interaction, baseline-by-visit interaction. Unstructured covariance structure was used to model within-patient errors.||||0.14|-0.31|0.4440
90835643|NCT03448406|181538516|OTHER|||||||0.3924|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test|Test on difference in mean treatment scores, based on modified ridit scores.||||||0.3924
90895513|NCT02496767|181656897|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.904||||0.6619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.577|1.419|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio for tirasemtiv vs placebo|||1.419|0.577|0.6619
90895514|NCT02496767|181656897|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.882||||0.5856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.561|1.386|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio for tirasemtiv vs placebo|||1.386|0.561|0.5856
90895515|NCT02496767|181656898|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.103||0.9991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.17|2.17|||Repeated-measures mixed model|||||2.17|-2.17|0.9991
90895516|NCT02496767|181656898|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.138||0.4808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.04|1.43|||Repeated-measures mixed model|||||1.43|-3.04|0.4808
90895517|NCT02496767|181656898|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.165||0.6082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.89|1.69|||Repeated-measures mixed model|||||1.69|-2.89|0.6082
90895518|NCT02496767|181656899|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.776||||0.2602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.206|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio for tirasemtiv vs placebo|||1.206|0.500|0.2602
90895519|NCT02496767|181656899|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.094||||0.6748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.662|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio for tirasemtiv vs placebo|||1.662|0.720|0.6748
90895520|NCT02496767|181656899|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.938||||0.7694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.609|1.443|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio for tirasemtiv vs placebo|||1.443|0.609|0.7694
90895521|NCT00166296|181656900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4||||0.441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.075|2.141|||Fisher Exact|||||2.141|0.075|0.441
90895522|NCT00166296|181656901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
90895523|NCT00166296|181656902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.443||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.443
90895524|NCT00166296|181656903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.93||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.930
90895525|NCT03477279|181656904|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|7.3|||||Couple (HIV+ Women) - Individual (HIV+ Women)|||7.3|-5.6|
90895526|NCT03477279|181656905|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|14.0|||||Couple (HIV+ Women) - Individual (HIV+ Women)|||14.0|-0.8|
90895527|NCT03477279|181656906|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|21.7|||||Male Partners of Women in Couple - Male Partners of Women in Individual|||21.7|-1.7|
90895528|NCT03477279|181656907|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|32.3|||||Male Partners of Women in Couple - Male Partners of Women in Individual|||32.3|0.9|
90895529|NCT03477279|181656908|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|31.8||||||||31.8|-1.6|
90895530|NCT03477279|181656909|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|8.5|||||Male Partners of Women in Couple - Male Partners of Women in Individual|||8.5|-13.2|
90895531|NCT03477279|181656910|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|10.7|||||Couple (HIV+ Women) - Individual (HIV+ Women)|||10.7|-10.0|
90895532|NCT03477279|181656911|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|13.9||||||||13.9|1.7|
90895533|NCT02277990|181656929|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.0406|TWO_SIDED|95.12|0.36|0.98||The 0.05 critical value for assessing the primary endpoint was adjusted to 0.0488, to account for a planned interim analysis.|Regression, Cox|The Cox regression was stratified according to device type (pacemaker or CRT-P vs. ICD or CRT-D).||||0.98|0.36|0.0406
90895534|NCT02277990|181656930|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.0248|TWO_SIDED|95.12|0.47|0.96|||Regression, Cox|||||0.96|0.47|0.0248
90895535|NCT02277990|181656931|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority test was performed on the as-treated cohort, per the statistical analysis plan. The non-inferiority margin for the hazard ratio was 1.33 (i.e., the hazard ratio for complications in the envelope group vs. the control group must be significantly lower than 1.33).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.12|0.77|1.12|||Regression, Cox|||||1.12|0.77|<0.01
90895536|NCT02277990|181656932|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63||||0.0402|TWO_SIDED|95.12|0.4|0.98|||Regression, Cox|||||0.98|0.40|0.0402
90895537|NCT03138733|181656955|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority hypothesis test was a one-sided hypothesis test performed at the 2.5% level of significance. If the lower limit of the two sided 95% CI for the difference in response rates in the mITT population was greater than -15%, the non-inferiority of ceftobiprole to daptomycin therapy was to be concluded.|Adjusted proportion difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|11.1||||||The observed difference in percentage of responders at PTE (ceftobiprole group minus the daptomycin group) were determined and a two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the observed difference was computed, with adjustment for actual stratum (dialysis status and prior antibacterial treatment use). Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights were used for the stratum weight in the calculation of the CI||11.1|-7.1|
90895538|NCT03138733|181656956|OTHER||Adjusted proportion difference|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|9.5|||||The two-sided 95% CI was computed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights method adjusted for actual stratum (dialysis status and prior antibacterial treatment use)|||9.5|-8.3|
90895539|NCT03138733|181656957|OTHER||Adjusted proportion difference|5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|13.0|||||The two-sided 95% CI was computed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights method adjusted for actual stratum (dialysis status and prior antibacterial treatment use)|||13|-2.9|
90895540|NCT03138733|181656958|OTHER||Adjusted proportion difference|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|5.2|||||The two-sided 95% CI was computed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights method adjusted for actual stratum (dialysis status and prior antibacterial treatment use)|||5.2|-6.2|
90895541|NCT03138733|181656959|OTHER||Adjusted proportion difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|4.8|||||The two-sided 95% CI was computed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights method adjusted for actual stratum (dialysis status and prior antibacterial treatment use)|||4.8|-4.6|
90895542|NCT02521285|181656991|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.343|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.343
90895543|NCT02521285|181656991|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.149|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.149
90895544|NCT02521285|181656992|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.878|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.878
90895545|NCT02521285|181656993|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.382|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.382
90895546|NCT02521285|181656993|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
90895547|NCT02521285|181656994|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.53
90895548|NCT02521285|181656994|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||1
90895549|NCT02521285|181656995|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.234|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.234
90895550|NCT02521285|181656995|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.442|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.442
91090667|NCT03845894|182064628|NON_INFERIORITY|There have been no studies to evaluate pain scores ISB w/ plain bupi+adjuvants. Power to detect difference at least 0.4 on the VAS scale. Threshold for inferiority is difference \>=2 points on the VAS scale. Will use two-sample t test with α= 0.05 and β= 0.1. Postop opioid consumption, total post-op opioid @ 1st 48 hours in oxycodone equivalents. Mean opioid consumption per cohort is calculated, \& the cohorts compared for statistical difference with two-sample t test, with α= 0.05 and β= 0.1.||||||0.14|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.14
91090668|NCT00879190|182064631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
91090669|NCT00879190|182064632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.03
91090670|NCT00879190|182064633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6
91090671|NCT00289211|182064634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.048||||0.048||95.0|1.008|4.164|||Regression, Cox|||Subjects who did not experience beginning of substantial relief of the defining symptom within 4 hours after initial treatment were included in the analysis as censored observations. Entries of 4.0 (hours) for median time to event or 95% CI indicate that data were NE (see Population Description). As non-numeric data are not supported by the median and 95% CI fields, entry of the actual results (ie, NE or \>4.0) was not possible.||4.164|1.008|0.048
90895551|NCT02521285|181656996|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.645|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.645
91090672|NCT00289211|182064635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.41||||0.062||95.0|0.87|2.29|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.29|0.87|0.062
91090673|NCT00289211|182064636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.717||||0.001||95.0|1.471|5.02|||Regression, Cox|||Subjects who had not experienced complete resolution of the HAE attack at the time of the follow-up telephone call, or who were lost to follow-up, were censored at 72 hours.||5.020|1.471|0.001
91090674|NCT00289211|182064637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Change at 1 hour post-infusion.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91090675|NCT00289211|182064637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Change at 2 hours post-infusion.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91090676|NCT00289211|182064637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Change at 4 hours post-infusion.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91090677|NCT00289211|182064637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0007||95.0||||Change at 12 hours post-infusion.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0007
91090678|NCT00289211|182064638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Percent change 1 hour post-infusion.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91090679|NCT00289211|182064638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Percent change 2 hours post-infusion.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91090680|NCT00289211|182064638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Percent change 4 hours post-infusion.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
90835644|NCT03448406|181538517|OTHER|||||||0.4435|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test|Test on difference in mean treatment scores, based on modified ridit scores.||||||0.4435
90835645|NCT03448406|181538518|OTHER|||||||0.5124|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test|Test on difference in mean treatment scores, based on modified ridit scores.||||||0.5124
90835646|NCT03448406|181538519|OTHER|||||||0.5713|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test|Test on difference in mean treatment scores, based on modified ridit scores.||||||0.5713
90835647|NCT03448406|181538520|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|0.95||||0.4032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.07|||Mixed model repeated Measure (MMRM)|Covariates: Visit-by-treatment interaction and baseline-by-visit interaction. Unstructured covariance structure to model within-patient errors.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio \[Empagliflozin/Placebo\] of relative change to baseline.|||1.07|0.85|0.4032
90835648|NCT01292486|181538524|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was 2 days.|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||<|0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Hodges-Lehman estimation|||The null hypothesis was that the median day to neutrophil recovery in this study was more than two days longer than historical controls.||0.0|0.0|<0.025
90835649|NCT04369404|181538531|SUPERIORITY|We hypothesize that participants who received the decision aid will have higher knowledge. This is pilot study, thus we did not have a power calculation.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.0||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|24.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||24.6|0.7|0.06
90835650|NCT04369404|181538532|OTHER||Pearson Chi-Square|2.97||||0.085|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||"a chisquare test was conducted to determine if the proportion of treatment unsure responses were different between the usual care and intervention arms."||||0.085
90835651|NCT04369404|181538533|OTHER||Pearson Chi-Square|1.524||||0.47|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.47
91090681|NCT00289211|182064638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0022||95.0||||Percent change 12 hours post-infusion.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0022
90895552|NCT02521285|181656996|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.878|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.878
90895553|NCT02521285|181657004|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.755|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.755
90895554|NCT02521285|181657005|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.397|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference between arms||||0.397
91090682|NCT00289211|182064639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1321||95.0||||Change at 1 hour post-infusion.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1321
91090683|NCT00289211|182064639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5218||95.0||||Change at 2 hours post-infusion.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5218
91090684|NCT00289211|182064639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.121||95.0||||Change at 4 hours post-infusion.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1210
91090685|NCT00289211|182064639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0017||95.0||||Change at 12 hours post-infusion.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0017
91090686|NCT03863353|182064658|SUPERIORITY||Rebression coefficient|2.13||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|3.4||Adjusted for repeated measures and effects of covariates|Regression, Linear|||Hypothesis was tested using multivariable regression models (generalized estimating equation)||3.40|0.86|.001
91090687|NCT03863353|182064659|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.9||adjusted for covariates|Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression model examined the effect of the intervention on the outcome (collapsed intentions/behaviors)||1.90|0.72|0.534
91090688|NCT00966433|182064660|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.2||||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.61|-2.79|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-2.79|-13.61|.0051
91090689|NCT00966433|182064661|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.6||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.97|4.23|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.23|2.97|.0001
91090690|NCT00966433|182064666|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.9||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.88|-8.92|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-8.92|-18.88|.0001
91090691|NCT04275336|182064783|OTHER||H value|1.344||||0.511|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||\<0.05|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.511
91090692|NCT04275336|182064784|OTHER||H value|5.272||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||\<0.05|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.072
90835652|NCT02542865|181538557|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.56||0.0628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|0.8|||ANCOVA|Analysis of variance(ANCOVA):cluster/school=random effect,product group and gender=fixed effects,baseline Individual Dietary Diversity Score=covariate|Difference is difference in back-transformed adjusted means for Test Group (fortified malt based food plus dietary counselling) minus Control Group (dietary counselling only).|||0.8|-12.7|0.0628
90835653|NCT02542865|181538557|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.9||||0.039|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA:cluster/school=random effect,product group and gender=fixed effects,baseline Individual Dietary Diversity Score=covariate|Difference is difference in back-transformed adjusted means for Test Group minus Control Group. The corresponding CI is not presented as there is no direct back-transformation.|Since the distribution of the data was found to be more skewed with more zero counts than was anticipated at the time the trial was designed, an additional analysis of log (+1)-transformed data was performed.||||0.0390
90835654|NCT00659061|181538588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32||95.0||||at baseline|Chi-squared|||||||0.32
90835655|NCT00659061|181538588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||at endline|Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
90835656|NCT00659061|181538590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0||95.0|||||ANOVA|adjusted for baseline, child age, sex, number of sprinkles sachets consumed, number of mths between enrollment and endline Hb measurement)||||||<0.000
90895555|NCT02521285|181657005|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.983|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in arms.||||0.983
90895556|NCT02521285|181657006|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.065|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.065
90895557|NCT02521285|181657006|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.203|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.203
90895558|NCT02521285|181657007|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.755|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.755
90895559|NCT02521285|181657007|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.343|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.343
90895560|NCT02521285|181657008|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.281|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.281
90835657|NCT00659061|181538591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34||95.0||||baseline|Chi-squared|||||||0.34
90835658|NCT00659061|181538591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||endline|Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
90895561|NCT02521285|181657008|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.189|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.189
91090693|NCT04275336|182064785|OTHER||H value|0.198||||0.906|ONE_SIDED|95.0||||\<0.05|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.906
91090694|NCT04275336|182064786|OTHER||H value|6.679||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||\<0.05|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.035
91090695|NCT04275336|182064787|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17||||0.844|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.844
90835659|NCT00659061|181538592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0||95.0||||endline|ANOVA|adjusted for baseline child age, sex, # of sprinkle sachet consumed, # of mths between enrollment and endline Hb measurement||||||0.000
90835660|NCT00659061|181538593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7||95.0||||baseline|Chi-squared|||||||0.7
90835661|NCT00659061|181538593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0||||endline|Chi-squared|||||||0.02
90835662|NCT00659061|181538594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62||95.0||||baseline|Chi-squared|||||||0.62
90835663|NCT00659061|181538594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89||95.0||||endline|Chi-squared|||||||0.89
90835664|NCT00659061|181538595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93||95.0||||baseline|Chi-squared|||||||0.93
90835665|NCT00659061|181538595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49||95.0||||endline|Chi-squared|||||||0.49
90835666|NCT01210716|181538596|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the lower 97.5% confidence limit on the mean of the paired differences is greater than -15% of the Control group mean (i.e., p-value \<=0.05), then the Test group will be considered non-inferior in the primary efficacy parameter to Control at the margin of 15%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.69|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.97|<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|4.0||||paired t-test|||A one-sample t-test on the mean of paired differences was used to evaluate the primary objective. Sample size was determined using historical data and the 95% chi-square upper confidence limit on the observed standard deviation of the paired differences. A minimum sample of 27 pairs was required to demonstrate the AMICUS procedure to be non-inferior to Spectra with a mean efficiency of plasma removal with a non-inferiority margin of 15% with at least 97.5% (one-sided) confidence and 90% power.|||4.0|<0.001
90895562|NCT02521285|181657009|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.083|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.083
90895563|NCT02521285|181657009|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.195|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.195
90895564|NCT02521285|181657010|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.755|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.755
90895565|NCT02521285|181657010|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.432|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.432
90895566|NCT02521285|181657011|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.463|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.463
90895567|NCT02521285|181657011|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.189|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.189
90895568|NCT02521285|181657012|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.105|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.105
90895569|NCT02521285|181657012|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.161|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.161
90895570|NCT02521285|181657015|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.518|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.518
90895571|NCT02521285|181657016|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.876|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.876
90895572|NCT02521285|181657016|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.505|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.505
90895573|NCT02521285|181657017|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.463|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.463
90895574|NCT02521285|181657017|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.094|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.094
90895575|NCT02521285|181657018|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.105|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.105
90895576|NCT02521285|181657018|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.13
90895577|NCT05701995|181657031|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.7||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|23.6|||Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH)|||Full Analysis Set||23.6|2.5|0.0001
90895578|NCT05701995|181657031|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.5||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|30.4|||Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH)|||Full Analysis Set Sub-population||30.4|2.4|0.0003
90895579|NCT05701995|181657032|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3||||0.0107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|4.4|||Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH)|||Full Analysis Set||4.4|1.2|0.0107
90895580|NCT05701995|181657032|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3||||0.0175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|4.7|||Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH)|||Full Analysis Set Sub-population||4.7|1.2|0.0175
90895581|NCT05701995|181657033|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-1.2|||Covariance model|||Full Analysis Set||-1.2|-2.9|<0.0001
91090696|NCT04275336|182064788|OTHER||H value|1.651||||0.438|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||\<0.05|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.438
91090697|NCT04275336|182064789|OTHER||H value|0.341||||0.843|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||\<0.05|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.843
90835667|NCT03164668|181538601|SUPERIORITY||Estimated mean ratio|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.72|||||Baseline adjusted model estimated mean ratio in cigarettes smoked per day of those randomized conditions in which menthol cigarettes are avoided relative to conditions in which participants can continue smoking usual cigarettes|Comparison of those assigned to conditions in which menthol cigarettes are avoided relative to conditions in which can continue smoking usual cigarettes||0.72|0.13|
90835668|NCT03164668|181538601|SUPERIORITY||Estimated mean ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.22|||||Baseline adjusted model estimated mean ratio in cigarettes smoked per day among those in conditions in which they receive tobacco flavored e-cigarettes relative to conditions in which they receive menthol flavored e-cigarettes|Comparison of those assigned to conditions in which they receive tobacco flavored e-cigarettes relative to conditions in which they receive menthol flavored e-cigarettes||1.22|0.78|
90835669|NCT03164668|181538602|SUPERIORITY||Estimated mean ratio|3.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|6.61|||||Model estimated mean ratio in puffs of e-cigarettes used per day among those randomized to conditions in which menthol cigarettes are avoided relative to conditions in which participants can continue smoking usual cigarettes|Comparison of those assigned to conditions in which menthol cigarettes are avoided relative to conditions in which can continue smoking usual cigarettes||6.61|1.39|
90835670|NCT03164668|181538602|SUPERIORITY||Estimated mean ratio|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.92|||||Estimated mean ratio of number of puffs of e-cigarettes used per day among those in conditions in which they receive tobacco flavored e-cigarettes relative to conditions in which they receive menthol flavored e-cigarettes|Comparison of those assigned to conditions in which they receive tobacco flavored e-cigarettes relative to conditions in which they receive menthol flavored e-cigarettes||0.92|0.59|
90835671|NCT00528957|181538691|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|In the randomized phase, it was assumed that the respective proportions of participants maintaining HIV-1 RNA \< 400 copies/mL was 92% for participants switching to tenofovir DF and 90% for participants continuing stavudine or zidovudine, as estimated from previous GSI studies. The equivalence limit was set at -15% for the lower boundary of a two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the difference in proportions of participants maintaining HIV-1 RNA \< 400 copies/mL at Week 48.|Difference in percentages between groups|-8.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.5|4.5|||Normal approximation|The difference between the two proportions and its CI were based on normal approximation methods.|Difference is for tenofovir DF minus stavudine or zidovudine (randomized phase)|"The statistical hypotheses for the primary endpoint was as follows:~* Null Hypothesis: tenofovir DF group is more than 15% worse than the stavudine or zidovudine group with respect to the proportion of participants maintaining HIV-1 RNA concentrations \< 400 copies/mL at Week 48.~* Alternate Hypothesis: tenofovir DF group is no more than 15% worse than the stavudine or zidovudine group with respect to the proportion of participants maintaining HIV-1 RNA \< 400 copies/mL at Week 48."||4.5|-21.5|
90835672|NCT00528957|181538692|NON_INFERIORITY|In the randomized phase, it was assumed that the respective proportions of participants maintaining HIV-1 RNA \< 400 copies/mL was 92% for subjects switching to tenofovir DF and 90% for subjects continuing stavudine or zidovudine, as estimated from previous GSI studies. The equivalence limit was set at -15% for the lower boundary of a two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the difference in proportions of participants maintaining HIV-1 RNA \< 400 copies/mL at Week 48.|Difference in percentages between groups|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|11.8|||||The difference between the two proportions and its CI were based on normal approximation methods.|||11.8|-13.7|
90835673|NCT01611792|181538739|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.02|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.0001
90895582|NCT05701995|181657033|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-1.3|||Covariance model|||Full Analysis Set Sub-population||-1.3|-3.0|<0.0001
91027331|NCT00384033|181938502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.6||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|9.1||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||For DVS SR 100 mg, stomach pain score was evaluated using ANCOVA with treatment and site as factors and baseline stomach pain score as the covariate.||9.10|0.10|0.048
90835674|NCT01611792|181538740|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.67|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.86||0.0038|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0038
90835675|NCT01611792|181538741|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.36||0.36|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.36
90835676|NCT01611792|181538742|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.31|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.98||0.0018|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0018
90835677|NCT01611792|181538743|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.69|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.12||0.19|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.19
90835678|NCT01611792|181538744|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.69|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.12||0.19|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.19
90895583|NCT05701995|181657034|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.9||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|17.4|||Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH)|||Full Analysis Set Sub-population||17.4|2.0|0.0004
90895584|NCT00715429|181657041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.27||||||Daily cramp rate at baseline\& on treatment, were calculated as % of each subjects total # of cramps, for comparison among subjects. Change in % cramp rates from baseline to treatment was computed for each subject in vit D and placebo groups.|t-test, 2 sided|T test was used to compare the change in % cramp rate from baseline to treatment for each subject in each treatment group.||||||0.27
90958926|NCT04874415|181797846|SUPERIORITY|Main effects of each intervention factor were estimated using generalized linear models with log link, including all prespecified two-way interactions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|2.4|||||Daily Step Count Goal is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|||2.4|-13.3|
91027332|NCT00384033|181938502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.8||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|8.1||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||For Duloxetine 60 mg, stomach pain score was evaluated using ANCOVA with treatment and site as factors and baseline stomach pain score as the covariate.||8.10|-0.50|0.088
91090698|NCT04275336|182064790|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.642||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||\<0.05|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.440
91090699|NCT04664205|182064794|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.010
91090700|NCT04664205|182064795|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.069|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.069
90835679|NCT00083889|181538754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5268|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4316|0.643||p-value from 2-sided, unstratified test.|Log Rank||Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio les than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of SU011248; a hazard ratio greater than 1 indicates a reduction in favor of IFN-a.|Unstratified analysis: Hazard Ratio (SU011248 vs IFN-α). Progression-free survival (PFS) was assessed in each treatment arm using the Kaplan-Meier method.||0.6430|0.4316|<0.0001
90835680|NCT00083889|181538754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5136|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4196|0.6288||p-value is from 2-sided, stratified test. Stratification factors were: Lactic Dehydrogenase (LDH) \> or \<= 1.5 x upper limit of normal, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status 0 or 1, and absence or presence of prior nephrectomy.|Log Rank||Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of SU011248: a hazard ratio greater than 1 indicates a reduction in favor of IFN-a.|Stratified analysis: Hazard Ratio (SU011248 vs IFN-a).||0.6288|0.4196|<.00001
90835681|NCT00083889|181538755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||treatment difference|30.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.31|36.56|||Chi-squared||95% confidence interval was calculated based on a normal distribution.|||36.56|25.31|<0.001
90835682|NCT00083889|181538756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||treatment difference|33.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.62|39.69|||Chi-squared||95% confidence interval was calculated based on a normal distribution.|||39.69|27.62|<0.001
90835683|NCT00083889|181538757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8209||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.673|1.0013||p-value is from 2-sided, unstratified tests.|Log Rank||Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of SU011248; a hazard ratio greater than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of IFN-a|Unstratified analysis: Hazard Ratio (SU011248 vs IFN-α).||1.0013|0.6730|0.0510
90835684|NCT00083889|181538757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8209||||0.0128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.673|1.0013||p-value is from 2-sided, unstratified tests.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of SU011248; a hazard ratio greater than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of IFN-a.|Unstratified analysis: Hazard Ratio (SU011248 vs IFN-α).||1.0013|0.6730|0.0128
90835685|NCT00083889|181538757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8179||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6692|0.9995||p-value is from 2-sided, stratified tests. Stratification factors were: Lactic Dehydrogenase (LDH) \> or \<= 1.5 x upper limit of normal, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status 0 or 1, and absence or presence of prior nephrectomy.|Log Rank||Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of SU011248; a hazard ratio greater than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of IFN-a.|Stratified analysis: Hazard Ratio (SU011248 vs IFN-α).||0.9995|0.6692|0.0490
90895585|NCT00406133|181657043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29||||||"A P value of 0.0167 was considered the significance level for the primary analysis in each age group to maintain an overall type I error rate of 0.05.~P value is for age 8-14 group."|ANCOVA|Performed in each age group and adjusted for the baseline A1c and clinical center.||The study was to test whether the use of CGM will lower A1c at 26 weeks. The estimated sample size was 110 for each age group, which will provide 90% power to detect a difference between treatment groups in each of the age groups assuming a population difference of 0.5%, a two-tailed test with type I error rate of 5%, standard deviation of the 6 month HbA1c values of 0.9, correlation between baseline and 26-week values of 0.58.||||0.29
90895586|NCT00406133|181657043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52||||||"A P value of 0.0167 was considered the significance level for the primary analysis in each age group to maintain an overall type I error rate of 0.05.~P value for age 15-24 group."|ANCOVA|Performed in each age group and adjusted for the baseline A1c and clinical center.||||||0.52
91027333|NCT00384033|181938502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.7||||0.122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|8.4||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||For DVS SR 50 mg, back pain score was evaluated using ANCOVA with treatment and site as factors and baseline back pain score as the covariate.||8.40|-1.00|0.122
91027334|NCT00384033|181938502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.8||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|10.5||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||For DVS SR 100 mg, back pain score was evaluated using ANCOVA with treatment and site as factors and baseline back pain score as the covariate.||10.50|1.10|0.015
90835686|NCT00083889|181538758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5332|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4345|0.6544||p-value is from 2-sided, unstratified test.|Log Rank||Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of SU011248; a hazard ratio greater than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of IFN-a|Unstratified Analysis: Hazard Ratio (SU011248 vs IFN-a)||0.6544|0.4345|<0.0001
90835687|NCT00083889|181538758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.516|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4191|0.6352||p-value is from 2-sided, stratified test. Stratification factors are: Lactic Dehydrogenase (LDH) \> or \<= 1.5 x upper limit of normal, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status 0 or 1, and absence or presence of prior nephrectomy.|Log Rank||Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of SU011248; a hazard ratio greater than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of IFN-a.|Stratified Analysis: Hazard Ratio (SU011248 vs IFN-a)||0.6352|0.4191|<.00001
90835688|NCT00083889|181538759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5454|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4558|0.6526||p-value is from 2-sided, unstratified test.|Log Rank||Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio \< 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of SU011248; a hazard ratio \> 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of IFN-a.|Unstratified Analysis: Hazard Ratio (SU011248 vs IFN-α)||0.6526|0.4558|<0.0001
90895587|NCT00406133|181657043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||"A P value of 0.0167 was considered the significance level for the primary analysis in each age group to maintain an overall type I error rate of 0.05.~P value is for age \>=25 group."|ANCOVA|Performed in each age group and adjusted for the baseline A1c and clinical center.||||||<0.001
91090701|NCT04664205|182064796|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.478|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.478
91090702|NCT01578772|182064798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Pairwise comparisons were performed using Wilcoxon signed rank test. All statistical tests are two-sided with nominal alpha level of 0.05.||||0.1|-0.1|<0.05
90895588|NCT00406133|181657044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16||||||P-value was for the comparison of RT-CGM group and Control group.|ANCOVA|Based on the ranks of the 26wk values using VDW scores, adjusted for the baseline value, clinical center, and type of continuous glucose monitor.||A sample size of 120 subjects was planned to have 90% power to detect a difference in this outcome between treatment groups, assuming a population difference of 29 min/day, standard deviation of the 26-week values of 59 min/day, correlation between baseline and 26-week values of 0.66, an α=0.05, and no more than 15% losses to follow-up.||||0.16
90895589|NCT00406133|181657045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74||||||P-value is for N(%) of subjects with \>=1 severe hypo event in the 8-14 year age group.|Fisher Exact|||The proportions of patients experiencing one or more severe hypoglycemic events in each treatment group were compared using Fisher's exact test. Incidences of hypoglycemic events were compared and confidence intervals for the treatment group difference calculated using permutation tests. Similar analyses were performed for the subset of hypoglycemic events associated with seizure or coma.||||0.74
90895590|NCT00406133|181657045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48||||||P-value is for N(%) of subjects with \>=1 severe hypo event in the 15-24 year age group.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.48
90895591|NCT00406133|181657045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||P-value is for N(%) of subjects with \>=1 severe hypo event in the \>=25 year age group.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
90835689|NCT00083889|181538759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5417|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4519|0.6492||p-value is from 2-sided, stratified test. Stratification factors were: Lactic Dehydrogenase (LDH) \> or \<= 1.5 x upper limit of normal, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status 0 or 1, and absence or presence of prior nephrectomy.|Log Rank||Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of SU011248; a hazard ratio greater than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of IFN-a.|Stratified Analysis: Hazard Ratio (SU011248 vs IFN-α)||0.6492|0.4519|<.00001
90835690|NCT00083889|181538762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.913|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.376|2.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 1 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index-Disease Related Symptoms (FKSI-DRS) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.450|1.376|<.0001
90835691|NCT00083889|181538762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.935|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.421|2.449|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 1 Day 28: Difference in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FKSI-DRS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.449|1.421|<.0001
90835692|NCT00083889|181538762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.948|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.443|2.452|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 2 Day 1: Difference in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FKSI-DRS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.452|1.443|<.0001
90895592|NCT00406133|181657045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||P-value is for N(%) of subjects with \>=1 severe hypo event with seizure or comma in the 8-14 year age group.|Fisher Exact|||The proportions of patients experiencing one or more severe hypoglycemic events in each treatment group were compared using Fisher's exact test. Incidences of hypoglycemic events were compared and confidence intervals for the treatment group difference calculated using permutation tests. Similar analyses were performed for the subset of hypoglycemic events associated with seizure or coma.||||0.74
90895593|NCT00406133|181657045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||P-value is for N(%) of subjects with \>=1 severe hypo event with seizure or comma in the 15-24 year age group.|Fisher Exact|||The proportions of patients experiencing one or more severe hypoglycemic events in each treatment group were compared using Fisher's exact test. Incidences of hypoglycemic events were compared and confidence intervals for the treatment group difference calculated using permutation tests. Similar analyses were performed for the subset of hypoglycemic events associated with seizure or coma.||||0.48
90835693|NCT00083889|181538762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.97|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.476|2.464|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 2 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FKSI-DRS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.464|1.476|<.0001
90835694|NCT00083889|181538762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.983|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.491|2.475|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 3 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FKSI-DRS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.475|1.491|<.0001
90895594|NCT00406133|181657045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||P-value is for N(%) of subjects with \>=1 severe hypo event with seizure or comma in the \>=25 year age group.|Fisher Exact|||The proportions of patients experiencing one or more severe hypoglycemic events in each treatment group were compared using Fisher's exact test. Incidences of hypoglycemic events were compared and confidence intervals for the treatment group difference calculated using permutation tests. Similar analyses were performed for the subset of hypoglycemic events associated with seizure or coma.||||1.0
90895595|NCT00406133|181657046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53||||||P-value for the comparison of treatment groups at 26wks adjusting for baseline for 8-14 years age group.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for the corresponding baseline value, baseline glycated hemoglobin level, clinical center, and type of continuous glucose monitor.||Continuous glucose monitoring data in both groups following the 26-week visit (blinded use in the control group and unblinded use in the continuous glucose monitoring group) were used to estimate the amount of time per day the glucose level was hypoglycemic (\<=70 mg/dL and \<=50 mg/dL), hyperglycemic (\>180 mg/dL and \>250 mg/dL), and in the target range (71 to 180 mg/dL).||||0.53
90895596|NCT00406133|181657046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79||||||P-value for the comparison of treatment groups at 26wks adjusting for baseline for 15-24 years age group.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for the corresponding baseline value, baseline glycated hemoglobin level, clinical center, and type of continuous glucose monitor.||||||0.79
90835695|NCT00083889|181538762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.005|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|2.501|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 3 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FKSI-DRS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.501|1.510|<.0001
90835696|NCT00083889|181538762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.018|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.517|2.519|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 4 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FKSI-DRS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.519|1.517|<.0001
90835697|NCT00083889|181538762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.522|2.559|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 4 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FKSI-DRS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.559|1.522|<.0001
90835698|NCT00083889|181538762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.053|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.522|2.584|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 5 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FKSI-DRS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.584|1.522|<.0001
90835699|NCT00083889|181538762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.075|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.515|2.635|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 5 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FKSI-DRS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.635|1.515|<.0001
90835700|NCT00083889|181538762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.088|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.509|2.667|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 6 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FKSI-DRS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.667|1.509|<.0001
90835701|NCT00083889|181538762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.494|2.727|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 6 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FKSI-DRS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.727|1.494|<.0001
90835702|NCT00083889|181538762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.123|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.483|2.763|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 7 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FKSI-DRS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.763|1.483|<.0001
90835703|NCT00083889|181538762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.146|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.461|2.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 7 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FKSI-DRS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.830|1.461|<.0001
90835704|NCT00083889|181538762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.158|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.447|2.869|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 8 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FKSI-DRS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.869|1.447|<.0001
90835705|NCT00083889|181538762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.181|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|2.941|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 8 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FKSI-DRS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.941|1.420|<.0001
90835706|NCT00083889|181538762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.193|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.404|2.983|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 9 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FKSI-DRS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.983|1.404|<.0001
90835707|NCT00083889|181538762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.216|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.373|3.059|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 9 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FKSI-DRS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||3.059|1.373|<.0001
90835708|NCT00083889|181538762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.228|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.355|3.102|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 10 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FKSI-DRS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||3.102|1.355|<.0001
90835709|NCT00083889|181538762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.251|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.321|3.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 10 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FKSI-DRS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||3.180|1.321|<.0001
90895597|NCT00406133|181657046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value for the comparison of treatment groups at 26wks adjusting for baseline for \>=25 years age group.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90835710|NCT00083889|181538762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.263|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.302|3.225|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 11 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FKSI-DRS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||3.225|1.302|<.0001
91090703|NCT01578772|182064799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.7|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.9|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Pairwise comparisons were performed using Wilcoxon signed rank test. All statistical tests are two-sided with nominal alpha level of 0.05.||||1.9|-1.3|<0.05
90835711|NCT00083889|181538762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.286|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.266|3.305|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 11 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FKSI-DRS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||3.305|1.266|<.0001
90835712|NCT00083889|181538762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.298|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.246|3.351|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 12 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FKSI-DRS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||3.351|1.246|<.0001
90835713|NCT00083889|181538762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.321|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.209|3.433|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 12 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FKSI-DRS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||3.433|1.209|<.0001
90835714|NCT00083889|181538762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.333|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.188|3.479|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 13 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FKSI-DRS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||3.479|1.188|<.0001
90835715|NCT00083889|181538762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.356||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|3.562|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 13 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FKSI-DRS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||3.562|1.150|0.0001
90835716|NCT00083889|181538762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.369||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.128|3.609|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 14 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FKSI-DRS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||3.609|1.128|0.0002
90835717|NCT00083889|181538762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.391||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.089|3.693|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 14 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FKSI-DRS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||3.693|1.089|0.0003
90835718|NCT00083889|181538762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.404||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.067|3.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 15 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FKSI-DRS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||3.740|1.067|0.0004
91090704|NCT05222880|182064818|SUPERIORITY|A superiority Margin of 0.00 logMAR was used for distance.|Mean Population Estimate|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.007|||TWO_SIDED|99.0|-0.12|-0.08||||||It was calculated using a 2-sided one sample mean t-test with a family wise type I error rate of 5% (1% Individually) with at least 99% statistical power, that 17 subjects were required to test the primary hypothesis for Distance.||-0.08|-0.12|
91090705|NCT05222880|182064818|SUPERIORITY|A superiority Margin of 0.17 logMAR was used for Intermediate.|Mean Population Estimate|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.007|||TWO_SIDED|99.0|-0.06|-0.02||||||It was calculated using a 2-sided one sample mean t-test with a family wise type I error rate of 5% (1% Individually) with at least 99% statistical power, that 11 subjects were required to test the primary hypothesis for Intermediate.||-0.02|-0.06|
90835719|NCT00083889|181538762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.426||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.027|3.825|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 15 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FKSI-DRS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||3.825|1.027|0.0007
90835720|NCT00083889|181538762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.439||||0.0009||95.0|1.005|3.872|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 16 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FKSI-DRS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||3.872|1.005|0.0009
90835721|NCT00083889|181538762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.461||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.964|3.958|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 16 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FKSI-DRS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||3.958|0.964|0.0013
90835722|NCT00083889|181538762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.474||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.942|4.006|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 17 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FKSI-DRS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||4.006|0.942|0.0016
91090706|NCT05222880|182064818|SUPERIORITY|A superiority Margin of 0.17 logMAR was used for near.|Mean Population Estimate|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.009|||TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.05|0.09||||||It was calculated using a 2-sided one sample mean t-test with a family wise type I error rate of 5% (1% Individually) with at least 99% statistical power, that 48 subjects were required to test the primary hypothesis for Near.||0.09|0.05|
91090707|NCT05222880|182064819|SUPERIORITY|A superiority Margin of 36 CLUE Points was used for Hyperopes.|Mean Population Estimate|52.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.75|||TWO_SIDED|99.0|45.2|59.4||||||It was calculated using a 2-sided one sample mean t-test with a family wise type I error rate of 5% (1% individually) with at least 99% statistical power, that 14 subjects were required to test for superiority for CLUE vision scores for Hyperopes.||59.4|45.2|
91027335|NCT00384033|181938502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.2||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|9.2||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||For Duloxetine 60 mg, back pain score was evaluated using ANCOVA with treatment and site as factors and baseline back pain score as the covariate.||9.20|-0.80|0.103
90835723|NCT00083889|181538762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.496||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.901|4.092|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 17 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FKSI-DRS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||4.092|0.901|0.0022
90835724|NCT00083889|181538762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.509||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.878|4.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 18 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FKSI-DRS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||4.140|0.878|0.0026
90835725|NCT00083889|181538762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.531||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.836|4.226|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 18 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FKSI-DRS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||4.226|0.836|0.0034
90835726|NCT00083889|181538762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.544||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.813|4.274|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 19 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FKSI-DRS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||4.274|0.813|0.0040
90835727|NCT00083889|181538762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.566||||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.772|4.361|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 19 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FKSI-DRS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||4.361|0.772|0.0051
90835728|NCT00083889|181538762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.579||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.748|4.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 20 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FKSI-DRS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||4.410|0.748|0.0058
90835729|NCT00083889|181538762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.602||||0.0071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.706|4.497|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 20 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FKSI-DRS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||4.497|0.706|0.0071
90895598|NCT00406133|181657047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58||||||P-value for the comparison of treatment groups at 26wks adjusting for baseline for 8-14 years age group.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for the corresponding baseline value, baseline glycated hemoglobin level, clinical center, and type of continuous glucose monitor.||Continuous glucose monitoring data in both groups following the 26-week visit (blinded use in the control group and unblinded use in the continuous glucose monitoring group) were used to estimate the amount of time per day the glucose level was hypoglycemic (\<=70 mg/dL and \<=50 mg/dL), hyperglycemic (\>180 mg/dL and \>250 mg/dL), and in the target range (71 to 180 mg/dL).||||0.58
91027336|NCT00384033|181938502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4||||0.384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|4.5||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||For DVS SR 50 mg, chest pain score was evaluated using ANCOVA with treatment and site as factors and baseline chest pain score as the covariate.||4.50|-1.70|0.384
91027337|NCT00384033|181938502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|5.1||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||For DVS SR 100 mg, chest pain score was evaluated using ANCOVA with treatment and site as factors and baseline chest pain score as the covariate.||5.10|-1.20|0.221
91027338|NCT00384033|181938502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4||||0.411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|4.7||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||For Duloxetine 60 mg, chest pain score was evaluated using ANCOVA with treatment and site as factors and baseline chest pain score as the covariate.||4.70|-1.90|0.411
91027339|NCT00384033|181938502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|6.7||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||For DVS SR 50 mg, arms, legs, joint pain score was evaluated using ANCOVA with treatment and site as factors and baseline arms, legs, pain score as the covariate.||6.70|-2.80|0.412
91027340|NCT00384033|181938502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.9||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|9.6||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||For DVS SR 100 mg, arms, legs, joint pain score was evaluated using ANCOVA with treatment and site as factors and baseline arms, legs, pain score as the covariate.||9.60|0.20|0.042
90835730|NCT00083889|181538763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.165|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.234|4.095|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 1 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||4.095|2.234|<.0001
90835731|NCT00083889|181538763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.205|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.318|4.092|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 1 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||4.092|2.318|<.0001
90835732|NCT00083889|181538763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.228|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.358|4.097|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 2 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||4.097|2.358|<.0001
90835733|NCT00083889|181538763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.268|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.418|4.119|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 2 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||4.119|2.418|<.0001
90835734|NCT00083889|181538763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.291|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.443|4.139|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 3 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||4.139|2.443|<.0001
90895599|NCT00406133|181657047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85||||||P-value for the comparison of treatment groups at 26wks adjusting for baseline for 15-24 years age group.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for the corresponding baseline value, baseline glycated hemoglobin level, clinical center, and type of continuous glucose monitor.||||||0.85
90895600|NCT00406133|181657047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||||||P-value for the comparison of treatment groups at 26wks adjusting for baseline for \>=25 years age group.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for the corresponding baseline value, baseline glycated hemoglobin level, clinical center, and type of continuous glucose monitor.||||||0.002
90895601|NCT00406133|181657048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||||||P-value for the comparison of treatment groups at 26wks adjusting for baseline for 8-14 years age group.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for the corresponding baseline value, baseline glycated hemoglobin level, clinical center, and type of continuous glucose monitor.||Continuous glucose monitoring data in both groups following the 26-week visit (blinded use in the control group and unblinded use in the continuous glucose monitoring group) were used to estimate the amount of time per day the glucose level was hypoglycemic (\<=70 mg/dL and \<=50 mg/dL), hyperglycemic (\>180 mg/dL and \>250 mg/dL), and in the target range (71 to 180 mg/dL).||||0.18
90835735|NCT00083889|181538763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.331|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.474|4.189|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 3 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||4.189|2.474|<.0001
90895602|NCT00406133|181657048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44||||||P-value for the comparison of treatment groups at 26wks adjusting for the baseline for 15-24 years age group.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for the corresponding baseline value, baseline glycated hemoglobin level, clinical center, and type of continuous glucose monitor.||||||0.44
90835736|NCT00083889|181538763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.354|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.484|4.224|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 4 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||4.224|2.484|<.0001
90835737|NCT00083889|181538763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.395|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.489|4.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 4 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||4.300|2.489|<.0001
90895603|NCT00406133|181657048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value for the comparison of treatment groups at 26wks adjusting for baseline for \>=25 years age group.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for the corresponding baseline value, baseline glycated hemoglobin level, clinical center, and type of continuous glucose monitor.||||||<0.001
90895604|NCT00406133|181657049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29||||||P-value for the comparison of treatment groups at 26wks adjusting for baseline for 8-14 years age group.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for the corresponding baseline value, baseline glycated hemoglobin level, clinical center, and type of continuous glucose monitor.||Continuous glucose monitoring data in both groups following the 26-week visit (blinded use in the control group and unblinded use in the continuous glucose monitoring group) were used to estimate the amount of time per day the glucose level was hypoglycemic (\<=70 mg/dL and \<=50 mg/dL), hyperglycemic (\>180 mg/dL and \>250 mg/dL), and in the target range (71 to 180 mg/dL).||||0.29
90895605|NCT00406133|181657049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79||||||P-value for the comparison of treatment groups at 26wks adjusting for baseline for 15-24 years age group.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for the corresponding baseline value, baseline glycated hemoglobin level, clinical center, and type of continuous glucose monitor.||||||0.79
90895606|NCT00406133|181657049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41||||||P-value for the comparison of treatment groups at 26wks adjusting for baseline for \>=25 years age group.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for the corresponding baseline value, baseline glycated hemoglobin level, clinical center, and type of continuous glucose monitor.||||||0.41
90835738|NCT00083889|181538763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.417|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.486|4.348|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 5 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||4.348|2.486|<.0001
90835739|NCT00083889|181538763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.458|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.469|4.446|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 5 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||4.446|2.469|<.0001
90835740|NCT00083889|181538763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.48|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.455|4.505|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 6 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||4.505|2.455|<.0001
90835741|NCT00083889|181538763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.521|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.422|4.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 6 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||4.620|2.422|<.0001
90835742|NCT00083889|181538763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.543|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.399|4.687|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 7 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||4.687|2.399|<.0001
90835743|NCT00083889|181538763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.584|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.354|4.814|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 7 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||4.814|2.354|<.0001
90895607|NCT00406133|181657050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5||||||P-value for the comparison of treatment groups at 26wks adjusting for baseline for 8-14 years age group.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for the corresponding baseline value, baseline glycated hemoglobin level, clinical center, and type of continuous glucose monitor.||Continuous glucose monitoring data in both groups following the 26-week visit (blinded use in the control group and unblinded use in the continuous glucose monitoring group) were used to estimate the amount of time per day the glucose level was hypoglycemic (\<=70 mg/dL and \<=50 mg/dL), hyperglycemic (\>180 mg/dL and \>250 mg/dL), and in the target range (71 to 180 mg/dL).||||0.50
90835744|NCT00083889|181538763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.606|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.326|4.887|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 8 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||4.887|2.326|<.0001
90895608|NCT00406133|181657050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99||||||P-value for the comparison of treatment groups at 26wks adjusting for baseline for 15-24 years age group.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for the corresponding baseline value, baseline glycated hemoglobin level, clinical center, and type of continuous glucose monitor.||||||0.99
90895609|NCT00406133|181657050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1||||||P-value for the comparison of treatment groups at 26wks adjusting for baseline for \>=25 years age group.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for the corresponding baseline value, baseline glycated hemoglobin level, clinical center, and type of continuous glucose monitor.||||||0.10
90835745|NCT00083889|181538763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.647|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.272|5.022|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 8 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||5.022|2.272|<.0001
90835746|NCT00083889|181538763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.669|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.24|5.099|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 9 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||5.099|2.240|<.0001
90835747|NCT00083889|181538763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.18|5.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 9 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||5.240|2.180|<.0001
90835748|NCT00083889|181538763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.733|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.145|5.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 10 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||5.320|2.145|<.0001
91027341|NCT00384033|181938502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.3||||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|7.8||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||For Duloxetine 60 mg, arms, legs, joint pain score was evaluated using ANCOVA with treatment and site as factors and baseline arms, legs, pain score as the covariate.||7.80|-1.20|0.155
91027342|NCT00780026|181938532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.841||||||P value for Bacterial infection|Chi-squared|||||||0.841
90835749|NCT00083889|181538763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.773|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.08|5.466|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 10 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||5.466|2.080|<.0001
90835750|NCT00083889|181538763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.796|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.043|5.548|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 11 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||5.548|2.043|<.0001
90835751|NCT00083889|181538763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.836|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.975|5.698|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 11 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||5.698|1.975|<.0001
90835752|NCT00083889|181538763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.859|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.936|5.781|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 12 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||5.781|1.936|<.0001
90835753|NCT00083889|181538763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.899||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.866|5.933|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 12 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||5.933|1.866|0.0002
90835754|NCT00083889|181538763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.922||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.826|6.018|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 13 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||6.018|1.826|0.0002
90835755|NCT00083889|181538763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.962||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.753|6.172|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 13 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||6.172|1.753|0.0004
90835756|NCT00083889|181538763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.985||||0.0006||95.0|1.712|6.258|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 14 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||6.258|1.712|0.0006
90835757|NCT00083889|181538763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.026||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.638|6.413|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 14 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||6.413|1.638|0.0010
90835758|NCT00083889|181538763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.048||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.597|6.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 15 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||6.500|1.597|0.0012
90835759|NCT00083889|181538763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.089||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.521|6.656|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 15 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||6.656|1.521|0.0018
90835760|NCT00083889|181538763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.111||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.479|6.743|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 16 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||6.743|1.479|0.0022
90835761|NCT00083889|181538763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.152||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.403|6.901|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 16 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||6.901|1.403|0.0031
90835762|NCT00083889|181538763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.174||||0.0037||95.0|1.36|6.988|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 17 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||6.988|1.360|0.0037
91027343|NCT00780026|181938532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.298||||||P-value for fungal infection|Chi-squared|||||||0.298
91027344|NCT00780026|181938532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.585||||||P value for transplant incision wound|Chi-squared|||||||0.585
91027345|NCT00780026|181938532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.505||||||P value for viral infection|Chi-squared|||||||0.505
91027346|NCT00780026|181938533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.999
90835763|NCT00083889|181538763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.215||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.283|7.147|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 17 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||7.147|1.283|0.0048
90835764|NCT00083889|181538763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.237||||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|7.235|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 18 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||7.235|1.240|0.0056
90835765|NCT00083889|181538763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.278||||0.0071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.162|7.394|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 18 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||7.394|1.162|0.0071
90835766|NCT00083889|181538763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.3||||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.119|7.482|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 19 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||7.482|1.119|0.0081
90835767|NCT00083889|181538763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.341||||0.0099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.041|7.642|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 19 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||7.642|1.041|0.0099
90835768|NCT00083889|181538763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.364||||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.997|7.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 20 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||7.730|0.997|0.0111
90895610|NCT00406133|181657051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66||||||P-value for the comparison of treatment groups at 26wks adjusting for baseline for 8-14 years age group.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for the corresponding baseline value, baseline glycated hemoglobin level, clinical center, and type of continuous glucose monitor.||Glucose variability was assessed by computing the absolute rate of change.||||0.66
90835769|NCT00083889|181538763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.404||||0.0133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.918|7.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 20 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||7.890|0.918|0.0133
90835770|NCT00083889|181538764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5404|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4532|0.6444||p-value is from 2-sided, unstratified test.|Log Rank||Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of SU011248: a hazard ratio greater than 1 indicates a reduction in favor of IFN-a.|Unstratified analysis: Hazard Ratio (SU011248 vs IFN-α).||0.6444|0.4532|<0.0001
90835771|NCT00083889|181538764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5418|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4536|0.6473||p-value is from 2-sided, stratified test. Stratification factors are: Lactic Dehydrogenase (LDH) \> or \<= 1.5 x upper limit of normal, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status 0 or 1, and absence or presence of prior nephrectomy.|Log Rank||Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of SU011248: a hazard ratio greater than 1 indicates a reduction in favor of IFN-a.|Stratified analysis: Hazard Ratio (SU011248 vs IFN-α).||0.6473|0.4536|<.00001
90835772|NCT00083889|181538765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.486|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.852|7.119|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 1 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||7.119|3.852|<.0001
90835773|NCT00083889|181538765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.535|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.955|7.115|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 1 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||7.115|3.955|<.0001
90895611|NCT00406133|181657051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48||||||P-value for the comparison of treatment groups at 26wks adjusting for baseline for 15-24 years age group.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for the corresponding baseline value, baseline glycated hemoglobin level, clinical center, and type of continuous glucose monitor.||||||0.48
90895612|NCT00406133|181657051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07||||||P-value for the comparison of treatment groups at 26wks adjusting for baseline for \>=25 years age group.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for the corresponding baseline value, baseline glycated hemoglobin level, clinical center, and type of continuous glucose monitor.||||||0.07
90895613|NCT00406133|181657052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline A1c and clinical center.||Other preplanned secondary outcomes included change in A1c from baseline to 26 weeks in an ANCOVA model (adjusted for baseline A1c and clinical center).||||<0.001
91027347|NCT00780026|181938534|EQUIVALENCE|If the p-value for the means is \> 0.05 between the groups then they will be deemed equivalent.||||||0.384|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.384
91027348|NCT00780026|181938536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.401|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.401
90835774|NCT00083889|181538765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.562|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|7.124|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 2 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||7.124|4.000|<.0001
90835775|NCT00083889|181538765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.611|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.061|7.162|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 2 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||7.162|4.061|<.0001
90835776|NCT00083889|181538765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.639|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.083|7.195|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 3 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||7.195|4.083|<.0001
90835777|NCT00083889|181538765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.688|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|7.276|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 3 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||7.276|4.100|<.0001
90835778|NCT00083889|181538765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.715|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.098|7.333|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 4 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||7.333|4.098|<.0001
90835779|NCT00083889|181538765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.764|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.075|7.454|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 4 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||7.454|4.075|<.0001
90835780|NCT00083889|181538765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.792|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.053|7.531|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 5 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||7.531|4.053|<.0001
90835781|NCT00083889|181538765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.841|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.998|7.684|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 5 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||7.684|3.998|<.0001
90835782|NCT00083889|181538765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.868|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.96|7.777|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 6 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||7.777|3.960|<.0001
90835783|NCT00083889|181538765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.917|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.88|7.955|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 6 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||7.955|3.880|<.0001
90835784|NCT00083889|181538765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.945|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.83|8.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 7 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||8.060|3.830|<.0001
90835785|NCT00083889|181538765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.994|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.731|8.257|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 7 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||8.257|3.731|<.0001
90835786|NCT00083889|181538765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.021|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.672|8.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 8 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||8.370|3.672|<.0001
90835787|NCT00083889|181538765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.071|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.56|8.581|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 8 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||8.581|3.560|<.0001
90835788|NCT00083889|181538765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.098|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.495|8.701|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 9 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||8.701|3.495|<.0001
91027349|NCT00780026|181938537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.826||||||P value for bile leak|Chi-squared|||||||0.826
91027350|NCT00780026|181938537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.137||||||This is the p value for Biliary Stricture|Chi-squared|||||||0.137
91027351|NCT00780026|181938538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.999
91027352|NCT01816477|181938549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.55
91090708|NCT05222880|182064819|SUPERIORITY|A superiority Margin of 41 CLUE Points was used for Myopes.|Mean Population Estimate|63.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.054|||TWO_SIDED|99.0|58.0|68.6||||||It was calculated using a 2-sided one sample mean t-test with a family wise type I error rate of 5% (1% individually) with at least 99% statistical power, that 18 subjects were required to test for superiority for CLUE vision scores for Myopes.||68.6|58.0|
90835789|NCT00083889|181538765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.147|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.373|8.921|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 9 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||8.921|3.373|<.0001
90835790|NCT00083889|181538765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.174|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.303|9.045|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 10 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||9.045|3.303|<.0001
90835791|NCT00083889|181538765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.224|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.174|9.273|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 10 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||9.273|3.174|<.0001
90835792|NCT00083889|181538765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.251||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.101|9.401|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 11 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||9.401|3.101|0.0001
90835793|NCT00083889|181538765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.3||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.966|9.634|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 11 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||9.634|2.966|0.0002
90835794|NCT00083889|181538765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.327||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.89|9.765|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 12 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||9.765|2.890|0.0003
90835795|NCT00083889|181538765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.377||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.751|10.002|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 12 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||10.002|2.751|0.0006
90835796|NCT00083889|181538765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.404||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.673|10.135|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 13 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||10.135|2.673|0.0008
90835797|NCT00083889|181538765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.453||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.53|10.376|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 13 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||10.376|2.530|0.0013
90835798|NCT00083889|181538765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.48||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.451|10.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 14 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||10.510|2.451|0.0016
90958927|NCT04874415|181797847|SUPERIORITY|Main effects of each intervention factor were estimated using generalized linear models with log link, including all prespecified two-way interactions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.002|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|3.1|||||Once daily text message is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|||3.1|-3.1|
91027353|NCT01816477|181938550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0872|||||||Unequal Variance T-Test|||Comparison between the groups for day 1.||||0.0872
91027354|NCT01816477|181938550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6751|||||||Unequal Variance T-Test|||Comparison between groups for day 2.||||0.6751
91027355|NCT01816477|181938550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1203|||||||Unequal Variance T-Test|||Comparison between groups for day 3.||||0.1203
91027356|NCT01816477|181938550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3582|||||||Unequal Variance T-Test|||Comparison between groups for day 4.||||0.3582
91027357|NCT01816477|181938550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0625|||||||Unequal Variance T-Test|||Comparison between groups for day 5||||0.0625
91027358|NCT01816477|181938550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0484|||||||Unequal Variance T-Test|||Comparison between groups for day 6.||||0.0484
91090709|NCT05222880|182064820|SUPERIORITY|A superiority margin of 0.05 was used.|Mean Proportion|0.0019|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.00209|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0076|||Bayesian beta- binomial model|Bayesian beta-binomial model for correlated binary data||It was calculated using a Bayesian beta-binomial model for correlated data with a reference rate of 0.02 and an intraclass correlation of 0.70 with 2000 replicating trials, that 100 subjects were required to test for superiority to achieve a minimum statistical power of 90% with 95% central posterior credible.||0.0076|0.0000|
90835799|NCT00083889|181538765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.53||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.306|10.754|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 14 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||10.754|2.306|0.0025
90835800|NCT00083889|181538765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.557||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.224|10.889|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 15 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||10.889|2.224|0.0030
90835801|NCT00083889|181538765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.606||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.077|11.135|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 15 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||11.135|2.077|0.0043
90835802|NCT00083889|181538765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.634||||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.995|11.272|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 16 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||11.272|1.995|0.0051
90835803|NCT00083889|181538765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.683||||0.0068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.847|11.519|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 16 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||11.519|1.847|0.0068
90835804|NCT00083889|181538765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.71||||0.0079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.764|11.657|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 17 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||11.657|1.764|0.0079
90835805|NCT00083889|181538765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.759||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.613|11.905|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 17 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||11.905|1.613|0.0100
90835806|NCT00083889|181538765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.787||||0.0114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|12.043|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 18 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||12.043|1.530|0.0114
90835807|NCT00083889|181538765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.836||||0.0141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.378|12.293|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 18 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||12.293|1.378|0.0141
90835808|NCT00083889|181538765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.863||||0.0157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.294|12.432|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 19 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||12.432|1.294|0.0157
90835809|NCT00083889|181538765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.912||||0.0189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.142|12.683|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 19 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||12.683|1.142|0.0189
90835810|NCT00083889|181538765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.94||||0.0208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.057|12.822|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 20 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||12.822|1.057|0.0208
90835811|NCT00083889|181538765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.989||||0.0244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.904|13.074|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 20 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||13.074|0.904|0.0244
90835812|NCT00083889|181538766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.459|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.805|2.114|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 1 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G) Physical Well Being (PWB) subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.114|0.805|<.0001
90835813|NCT00083889|181538766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.453|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.827|2.079|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 1 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G PWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.079|0.827|<.0001
90835814|NCT00083889|181538766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.837|2.063|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 2 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G PWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.063|0.837|<.0001
90835815|NCT00083889|181538766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.444|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.847|2.041|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 2 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G PWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.041|0.847|<.0001
90835816|NCT00083889|181538766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.848|2.032|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 3 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G PWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.032|0.848|<.0001
90835817|NCT00083889|181538766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.434|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.844|2.024|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 3 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G PWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.024|0.844|<.0001
90835818|NCT00083889|181538766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.431|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.838|2.023|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 4 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G PWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.023|0.838|<.0001
90835819|NCT00083889|181538766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.424|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.819|2.029|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 4 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G PWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.029|0.819|<.0001
90835820|NCT00083889|181538766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.421|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.805|2.037|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 5 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G PWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.037|0.805|<.0001
90835821|NCT00083889|181538766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.415|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.774|2.056|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 5 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G PWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.056|0.774|<.0001
90835822|NCT00083889|181538766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.411|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.753|2.069|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 6 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G PWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.069|0.753|<.0001
90835823|NCT00083889|181538766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.405|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.711|2.099|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 6 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G PWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.099|0.711|<.0001
90835824|NCT00083889|181538766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.402||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.685|2.119|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 7 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G PWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.119|0.685|0.0001
90835825|NCT00083889|181538766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.396||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.634|2.157|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 7 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G PWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.157|0.634|0.0003
90835826|NCT00083889|181538766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.392||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.604|2.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 8 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G PWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.180|0.604|0.0005
90835827|NCT00083889|181538766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.386||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.547|2.225|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 8 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G PWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.225|0.547|0.0012
90835828|NCT00083889|181538766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.383||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.514|2.252|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 9 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G PWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.252|0.514|0.0018
90835829|NCT00083889|181538766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.376||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.451|2.301|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 9 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G PWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.301|0.451|0.0035
90895614|NCT00406133|181657053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Based on the ranks of the 26wk values using VDW scores, adjusted for the baseline value, clinical center, and type of continuous glucose monitor.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline value, clinical center and type of continuous glucose monitor.||Percentages of values less than or greater than a given threshold were converted to minutes per day by multiplying by 1,440. A nonparametric approach was followed using an ANCOVA based on ranks of the 26 week values, adjusted for the baseline value, clinical center, and type of continuous glucose monitor.||||<0.001
90895615|NCT00406133|181657054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||||||P-value representative of 13 and 26 weeks combined.|ANCOVA|||Percentages of values less than or greater than a given threshold were converted to minutes per day by multiplying by 1,440. A nonparametric approach was followed using an ANCOVA based on ranks of the 26 week values, adjusted for the baseline value, clinical center, and type of continuous glucose monitor.||||0.03
90835830|NCT00083889|181538766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.373||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.416|2.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 10 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G PWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.330|0.416|0.0049
90835831|NCT00083889|181538766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.367||||0.0084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|2.383|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 10 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G PWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.383|0.350|0.0084
90835832|NCT00083889|181538766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.363||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.313|2.414|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 11 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G PWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.414|0.313|0.0110
90835833|NCT00083889|181538766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.357||||0.0168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.245|2.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 11 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G PWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.470|0.245|0.0168
90835834|NCT00083889|181538766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.354||||0.0208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.206|2.501|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 12 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G PWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.501|0.206|0.0208
90835835|NCT00083889|181538766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.348||||0.0293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.136|2.559|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 12 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G PWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.559|0.136|0.0293
90835836|NCT00083889|181538766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.344||||0.0348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.096|2.592|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 13 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G PWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.592|0.096|0.0348
90835837|NCT00083889|181538766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.338||||0.0459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.024|2.652|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 13 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G PWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.652|0.024|0.0459
90895616|NCT00406133|181657055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||||||P-value for the 8-14 year old age group|Regression, Logistic|||Within each age group, in addition to the primary ANCOVA analysis, pre-specified 26-week binary glycated hemoglobin outcomes (relative decrease by \>=10%, 26-week level \<7.0%, absolute decrease by \>=0.5%, relative increase by \>=10%, absolute increase by \>=0.5%) were evaluated in logistic regression models, adjusted for baseline glycated hemoglobin level and clinical center.||||0.04
90895617|NCT00406133|181657055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46||||||P-value for the 15-24 year age group|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.46
90895618|NCT00406133|181657055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||||||P-value for the \>=25 year age group|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.003
90895619|NCT00406133|181657056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24||||||P-value for 8-14 year old age group|Regression, Logistic|||Within each age group, in addition to the primary ANCOVA analysis, pre-specified 26-week binary glycated hemoglobin outcomes (relative decrease by \>=10%, 26-week level \<7.0%, absolute decrease by \>=0.5%, relative increase by \>=10%, absolute increase by \>=0.5%) were evaluated in logistic regression models, adjusted for baseline glycated hemoglobin level and clinical center.||||0.24
90895620|NCT00406133|181657056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98||||||P-value for the 15-24 year old age group|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.98
90895621|NCT00406133|181657056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48||||||P-value for the \>=25 year old age group|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.48
90895622|NCT00406133|181657057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||||||P-value representative of 13 and 26 weeks combined|ANCOVA|||Percentages of values less than or greater than a given threshold were converted to minutes per day by multiplying by 1,440. A nonparametric approach was followed using an ANCOVA based on ranks of the 26 week values, adjusted for the baseline value, clinical center, and type of continuous glucose monitor.||||0.005
90835838|NCT00083889|181538766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.335||||0.0528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.016|2.685|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 14 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G PWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.685|-0.016|0.0528
90835839|NCT00083889|181538766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.328||||0.0663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|2.746|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 14 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G PWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.746|-0.090|0.0663
90835840|NCT00083889|181538766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.325||||0.0744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.131|2.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 15 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G PWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.780|-0.131|0.0744
90835841|NCT00083889|181538766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.319||||0.0898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.205|2.842|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 15 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G PWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.842|-0.205|0.0898
91027359|NCT01816477|181938551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6465|||||||Unequal Variance T-Test|||Comparison between the groups for day 1.||||0.6465
91027360|NCT01816477|181938551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9233|||||||Unequal Variance T-Test|||Comparison between groups for day 2.||||0.9233
91027361|NCT01816477|181938551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5788|||||||Unequal Variance T-Test|||Comparison between groups for day 3.||||0.5788
91027362|NCT01816477|181938551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1036|||||||Unequal Variance T-Test|||Comparison between the groups for day 4.||||0.1036
91027363|NCT01816477|181938551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5314|||||||Unequal Variance T-Test|||Comparison between groups for day 5.||||0.5314
91027364|NCT01816477|181938551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7166|||||||Unequal Variance T-Test|||Comparison between groups for day 6.||||0.7166
90895623|NCT00406133|181657058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||||||P-value representative of 13 and 26 weeks combined.|ANCOVA|||Percentages of values less than or greater than a given threshold were converted to minutes per day by multiplying by 1,440. A nonparametric approach was followed using an ANCOVA based on ranks of the 26 week values, adjusted for the baseline value, clinical center, and type of continuous glucose monitor.||||0.05
90835842|NCT00083889|181538766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.315||||0.0988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.246|2.877|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 16 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G PWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.877|-0.246|0.0988
90835843|NCT00083889|181538766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.309||||0.1156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.321|2.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 16 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G PWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.940|-0.321|0.1156
90835844|NCT00083889|181538766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.306||||0.1252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.363|2.975|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 17 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G PWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.975|-0.363|0.1252
91027365|NCT04128007|181938561|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.64|32.32|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by country, baseline S-IGA, and baseline B-IGA per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|Stratified by country, baseline S-IGA, and baseline B-IGA per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|S-IGA Success at Week 8 Odds Ratio||32.32|6.64|<0.0001
91027366|NCT04128007|181938562|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.65|21.18|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by country, baseline S-IGA, and baseline B-IGA per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|Stratified by country, baseline S-IGA, and baseline B-IGA per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|B-IGA Success at Week 8 Odds Ratio||21.18|3.65|<0.0001
91027367|NCT04128007|181938563|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.14|7.71|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by country, baseline S-IGA, and baseline B-IGA per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|Stratified by country, baseline S-IGA, and baseline B-IGA per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|SI-NRS Success at Week 2 Odds Ratio||7.71|2.14|<0.0001
91027368|NCT04128007|181938563|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.36|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.93|9.78||Stratified by country, baseline S-IGA, and baseline B-IGA per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Stratified by country, baseline S-IGA, and baseline B-IGA per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|SI-NRS Success at Week 4 Odds Ratio||9.78|2.93|<0.0001
91027369|NCT04128007|181938563|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.02|18.89||Stratified by country, baseline S-IGA, and baseline B-IGA per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Stratified by country, baseline S-IGA, and baseline B-IGA per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|SI-NRS Success at Week 8 Odds Ratio||18.89|5.02|<0.0001
91027370|NCT04128007|181938564|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-19.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.4|-11.8|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with country; treatment; and baseline S-IGA, B-IGA, and PSD scores as independent variables with multiple imputation of missing data.|ANCOVA with country; treatment; and baseline S-IGA, B-IGA, and PSD scores as independent variables with multiple imputation of missing data.|Comparison of Week 4 Change from Baseline||-11.8|-27.4|<0.0001
91027371|NCT04128007|181938564|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-27.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.5|-19.5|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with country; treatment; and baseline S-IGA, B-IGA, and PSD scores as independent variables with multiple imputation of missing data.|ANCOVA with country; treatment; and baseline S-IGA, B-IGA, and PSD scores as independent variables with multiple imputation of missing data.|Comparison of Week 8 Change from Baseline||-19.5|-35.5|<0.0001
91027372|NCT04128007|181938565|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.94|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.764|5.616||Stratified by country, baseline S-IGA, and baseline B-IGA per randomization.|Log Rank||Stratified by country, baseline S-IGA, and baseline B-IGA per randomization.|Time to PSSI-50 Hazard Ratio||5.616|2.764|<0.0001
91027373|NCT04128007|181938566|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.46|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.81|18.61||Stratified by country, baseline S-IGA, and baseline B-IGA per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Stratified by country, baseline S-IGA, and baseline B-IGA per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|PSSI-75 at Week 8 Odds Ratio||18.61|4.81|<0.0001
91027374|NCT04128007|181938567|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|34.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.49|139.77|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by country, baseline S-IGA, and baseline B-IGA per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|Stratified by country, baseline S-IGA, and baseline B-IGA per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|PSSI-90 at Week 8 Odds Ratio||139.77|8.49|<0.0001
91027375|NCT00481247|181938569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0056||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance=0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Hasford Score.||||||0.0056
91027376|NCT00481247|181938570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.13||||||||1.13|0.55|
91027377|NCT00481247|181938572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|1.77||||||Hazard Ratio and Confidence Interval were based on analyses on all randomized subjects||1.77|1.20|
91027378|NCT00481247|181938573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|1.89||||||Hazard Ratio, and Confidence Interval were based on analyses on all randomized subjects||1.89|1.25|
91027379|NCT01716754|181938578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.78|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.78|0.35|0.576
91027380|NCT01716754|181938578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.52|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.52|0.46|0.556
91027381|NCT01716754|181938580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|2.86|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.86|0.61|0.483
91027382|NCT01716754|181938580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.44|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.44|0.79|0.261
91027383|NCT01716754|181938582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.604|||||||Repeated measures mixed model|||Morning||||0.604
91027384|NCT01716754|181938582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26|||||||Repeated measures mixed model|||Morning||||0.260
91027385|NCT01716754|181938582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.937|||||||Repeated measures mixed model|||Evening||||0.937
90835845|NCT00083889|181538766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.1429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.439|3.038|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 17 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G PWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||3.038|-0.439|0.1429
90835846|NCT00083889|181538766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.296||||0.1529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.481|3.074|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 18 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G PWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||3.074|-0.481|0.1529
90835847|NCT00083889|181538766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.29||||0.1711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.558|3.138|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 18 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G PWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||3.138|-0.558|0.1711
90895624|NCT00406133|181657059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39||||||P-value representative of 13 and 26 weeks combined.|ANCOVA|||Glucose variability was assessed by computing the absolute rate of change.||||0.39
91027386|NCT01716754|181938582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88|||||||Repeated measures mixed model|||Evening||||0.880
91027387|NCT01716754|181938582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.762|||||||Repeated measures mixed model|||Overall daily||||0.762
91027388|NCT01716754|181938582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.408|||||||Repeated measures mixed model|||Overall daily||||0.408
91027389|NCT02110706|181938587|OTHER|"A futility (non-superiority) design is a screening tool to identify whether agents should be candidates for phase III trials while minimizing costs/sample size If futility is declared, results would imply not cost effective to conduct a future phase III clinical trial If futility is not declared, suggests that there could be a clinically meaningful effect - supports exploration in a larger, phase III trial"|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.03|ONE_SIDED|90.0||2.41|||Regression, Logistic|||"This futility design tests the following hypothesis:~H0: Rituximab improves outcome by at least 30% compared to placebo (pR - pP ≥ 0.30 - not futile) versus HA: Rituximab does not improve outcome by at least 30% compared to placebo (pR - pP \< 0.30 - futile)"||2.41||0.03
91027390|NCT02110706|181938588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.23|2.21|||t-test, 2 sided|||% of study participants with treatment related AEs||2.21|0.23|0.63
91027391|NCT02110706|181938588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.27|2.11|||t-test, 2 sided|||% study participants with treatment related SAEs||2.11|0.27|0.65
91027392|NCT02110706|181938589|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11||||0.93|ONE_SIDED|90.0||2.02|||Regression, Linear|||This objective was assessed longitudinally by comparing the final score at the end of the study to the score obtained at baseline. The outcome was defined as the change from baseline to week 52 in the MGC. This hypothesis was assessed using a linear regression model, adjusted for differences in baseline MGC scores.||2.02||0.93
91027393|NCT02110706|181938590|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.09||||0.39|ONE_SIDED|90.0||1.03|||Regression, Linear|||This objective was assessed longitudinally by comparing the final score at the end of the study to the score obtained at baseline. The outcome was defined as the change from baseline to week 52 in the QMG. This hypothesis was assessed using a linear regression model, adjusted for differences in baseline QMG scores.||1.03||0.39
91027394|NCT04281485|181938594|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78|=|0.9116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|1.64|||Mixed Models Analysis||||The Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) model contained fixed effects for treatment group (categorical variable), visit (ordered categorical variable), and treatment group by visit interaction with additional fixed effects for baseline value (continuous variable), screening age (continuous variable), baseline value by visit interaction, and screening age by visit interaction with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix.|1.64|-1.46|=0.9116
91027395|NCT04281485|181938595|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|85.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.17|=|0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.15|122.35|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model contained treatment group (categorical variable) and screening age (continuous variable).||||122.35|49.15|=0.0002
91027396|NCT04281485|181938596|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|51.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.49|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.43|71.49|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model contained treatment group (categorical variable) and screening age (continuous variable).||||71.49|31.43|<0.0001
91027397|NCT04281485|181938597|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Ratio of LS Means|0.64|||=|0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.81|||Mixed Models Analysis||||MMRM approach for log transformed data including visits through Week 52 where serum CK concentration was assessed with fixed effects for treatment group (categorical variable), visit (ordered categorical variable), and treatment group by visit interaction, and with additional fixed effects for natural log of baseline (continuous variable), screening age covariate (continuous variable), natural log of baseline by visit interaction, and screening age covariate by visit interaction with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix.|0.81|0.50|=0.0002
91027398|NCT04281485|181938598|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73|||=|0.2784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|4.62|||Binomial regression||||The generalized mixed linear model assumed a binomial distribution with logit link \& contains fixed effects for treatment group (categorical variable) \& screening age (continuous variable).|4.62|0.64|=0.2784
91027399|NCT04281485|181938599|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9|||=|0.5437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.28|||Binomial Regression||||The generalized mixed linear model assumed a binomial distribution with a logit link and contained fixed effects for treatment group (categorical variable) and screening age (continuous variable).|1.28|0.63|=0.5437
91027400|NCT04281485|181938600|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.079|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.082|=|0.3343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.242|0.083|||Mixed Models Analysis||||The MMRM model contained fixed effects for treatment group (categorical variable), visit (ordered categorical variable), and treatment group by visit interaction with additional fixed effects for baseline value (continuous variable), screening age (continuous variable), baseline value by visit interaction, and screening age by visit interaction with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix.|0.083|-0.242|=0.3343
90895625|NCT00406133|181657060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||Nominal p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|||||||0.04
90835848|NCT00083889|181538766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.287||||0.1813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|3.173|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 19 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G PWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||3.173|-0.600|0.1813
90835849|NCT00083889|181538766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.28||||0.1998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.677|3.238|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 19 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G PWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||3.238|-0.677|0.1998
90835850|NCT00083889|181538766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.277||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|3.273|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 20 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G PWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||3.273|-0.720|0.2100
90835851|NCT00083889|181538766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.271||||0.2283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.797|3.338|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 20 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G PWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||3.338|-0.797|0.2283
90835852|NCT00083889|181538767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.214|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.719|1.708|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 1 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G) Social/Family Well Being (SWB) subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||1.708|0.719|<.0001
90835853|NCT00083889|181538767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.216|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.729|1.703|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 1 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G SWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||1.703|0.729|<.0001
90835854|NCT00083889|181538767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.217|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.731|1.704|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 2 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G SWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||1.704|0.731|<.0001
90835855|NCT00083889|181538767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 2 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G SWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||1.710|0.730|<.0001
90835856|NCT00083889|181538767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.221|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.727|1.716|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 3 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G SWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||1.716|0.727|<.0001
90835857|NCT00083889|181538767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.224|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.716|1.732|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 3 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G SWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||1.732|0.716|<.0001
90835858|NCT00083889|181538767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.225|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.707|1.744|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 4 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G SWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||1.744|0.707|<.0001
90835859|NCT00083889|181538767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.228|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.687|1.769|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 4 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G SWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||1.769|0.687|<.0001
90835860|NCT00083889|181538767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.229|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.673|1.785|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 5 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G SWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||1.785|0.673|<.0001
91027401|NCT04281485|181938601|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|=|0.8826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.052|0.045|||Mixed Models Analysis||||The MMRM model contained fixed effects for treatment group (categorical variable), visit (ordered categorical variable), and treatment group by visit interaction with additional fixed effects for baseline value (continuous variable), screening age (continuous variable), baseline value by visit interaction, and screening age by visit interaction with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix.|0.045|-0.052|=0.8826
91032642|NCT02549092|181950230|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.67||0.616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.18|5.48||The repeated measures model: change = treatment, country, visit, baseline, treatment \* visit, baseline \* visit. The unstructured variance-covariance structure is used.|Repeated measures model||Difference of LCIG - OMT|Mood/cognition||5.48|-9.18|0.616
91090710|NCT05222880|182064821|SUPERIORITY|A superiority margin of 0.05 was used.|Mean Proportion|0.0018|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0021|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0078|||Bayesian beta-binomial model|Bayesian beta-binomial model for correlated binary data||It was calculated using a Bayesian beta-binomial model for correlated data with a reference rate of 0.02 and an intraclass correlation of 0.70 with 2000 replicating trials, that 100 subjects were required to test for superiority to achieve a minimum statistical power of 90% with 95% central posterior credible.||0.0078|0.0000|
91090711|NCT05222880|182064822|SUPERIORITY|A superiority Margin of 41 CLUE Points was used for Hyperopes.|Mean Population Estimate|52.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.75|||TWO_SIDED|99.0|45.2|59.4||||||It was calculated using a 2-sided one sample mean t-test with a family wise type I error rate of 5% (1% individually) with at least 80% statistical power, that 16 subjects were required to test for superiority for CLUE vision scores for Hyperopes.||59.4|45.2|
91090712|NCT05222880|182064822|SUPERIORITY|A superiority Margin of 46 CLUE Points was used for Myopes.|Mean Population Estimate|63.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.054|||TWO_SIDED|99.0|58.0|68.6||||||It was calculated using a 2-sided one sample mean t-test with a family wise type I error rate of 5% (1% individually) with at least 80% statistical power, that 15 subjects were required to test for superiority for CLUE vision scores for Myopes.||68.6|58.0|
91090713|NCT05222880|182064823|SUPERIORITY|A Superiority margin of 52 CLUE points was used|Mean Population Estimate|72.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.763|||TWO_SIDED|99.0|68.1|77.1||||||It was calculated using a 2-sided one sample mean t-test with a family wise type I error rate of 5% (1% individually) with at least 80% statistical power, that 11 subjects were required to test for superiority for CLUE comfort scores.||77.1|68.1|
91090714|NCT05222880|182064824|SUPERIORITY|A Superiority margin of 53 CLUE points was used|Mean Population Estimate|67.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.77|||TWO_SIDED|99.0|63.0|72.1||||||It was calculated using a 2-sided one sample mean t-test with a family wise type I error rate of 5% (1% individually) with at least 80% statistical power, that 17 subjects were required to test for superiority for CLUE handling scores.||72.1|63.0|
90895626|NCT00406133|181657061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of treatment differences|408148.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-176644.0|3475108.0||||||"ICER = Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio is defined as the mean difference in costs between the treatment groups divided by the mean difference in QALY (quality-adjusted life-year) between the treatment groups:~(mean cost\[CGM\] - mean cost \[control\]) / (mean QALY\[CGM\] - mean QALY\[SMBG\]).~Units are dollars per QALY."||3475108|-176644|
90895627|NCT00406133|181657062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||||||P-value for the 8-14 year old age group|Regression, Logistic|||Within each age group, in addition to the primary ANCOVA analysis, pre-specified 26-week binary glycated hemoglobin outcomes (relative decrease by \>=10%, 26-week level \<7.0%, absolute decrease by \>=0.5%, relative increase by \>=10%, absolute increase by \>=0.5%) were evaluated in logistic regression models, adjusted for baseline glycated hemoglobin level and clinical center.||||0.009
90895628|NCT00406133|181657062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57||||||P-value for 15-24 year old age group|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.57
91090715|NCT05222880|182064825|SUPERIORITY|A superiority margin of 0.90 was used.|Mean Posterior Proportion|0.985|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0071|||TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.959|0.997|||Bayesian beta-binomial model|Bayesian beta-binomial model for correlated binary data||It was calculated using a Bayesian beta-binomial model for correlated data with a reference rate of 0.98 and an intraclass correlation of 0.70 with 2000 replicating trials, that 92 subjects were required to test for superiority to achieve a minimum statistical power of 80% with 99% central posterior credible.||0.997|0.959|
91090716|NCT01077323|182064833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Rate Ratio (ARR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.28|||||"ARR equals adjusted incidence rate of acute pancreatitis in exenatide cohort divided by adjusted incidence of acute pancreatitis in OAD cohort.~Adjusted incidence rates were calculated using a Poisson regression model adjusted for propensity score."|||1.28|0.59|
91090717|NCT01077323|182064834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Rate Ratio (ARR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.5|||||ARR equals adjusted incidence rate of acute pancreatitis in exenatide cohort divided by adjusted incidence of acute pancreatitis in OAD cohort.Rate ratios adjusted for propensity score of exenatide initiation using Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|||1.5|0.8|
90895629|NCT00406133|181657062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value for the \>=25 year old age group|Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
90895630|NCT00406133|181657063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||||||P-value for 8-14 year age group|Regression, Logistic|||Within each age group, in addition to the primary ANCOVA analysis, pre-specified 26-week binary glycated hemoglobin outcomes (relative decrease by \>=10%, 26-week level \<7.0%, absolute decrease by \>=0.5%, relative increase by \>=10%, absolute increase by \>=0.5%) were evaluated in logistic regression models, adjusted for baseline glycated hemoglobin level and clinical center.||||0.18
90895631|NCT00406133|181657063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84||||||P-value for 15-24 year old age group.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.84
90895632|NCT00406133|181657063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||||||P-value for \>=25 year old age group.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.02
91090718|NCT01077323|182064835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Rate Ratio (ARR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|2.09|||||"ARR equals adjusted incidence rate of acute pancreatitis in exenatide cohort divided by adjusted incidence of acute pancreatitis in OAD cohort.~Adjusted incidence rates were calculated using a Poisson regression model adjusted for propensity score."|||2.09|0.36|
91090719|NCT01077323|182064836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Rate Ratio (ARR)|1.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|2.25|||||"ARR equals adjusted incidence rate of acute pancreatitis in exenatide cohort divided by adjusted incidence of acute pancreatitis in OAD cohort.~Adjusted incidence rates were calculated using a Poisson regression model adjusted for propensity score."|||2.25|0.86|
90895633|NCT00406133|181657064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||||||P-value for 8-14 year age group|Regression, Logistic|||Within each age group, in addition to the primary ANCOVA analysis, pre-specified 26-week binary glycated hemoglobin outcomes (relative decrease by \>=10%, 26-week level \<7.0%, absolute decrease by \>=0.5%, relative increase by \>=10%, absolute increase by \>=0.5%) were evaluated in logistic regression models, adjusted for baseline glycated hemoglobin level and clinical center.||||0.01
90895634|NCT00406133|181657064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8||||||P-value for 14-24 year age group|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.80
90895635|NCT00406133|181657064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||||||P-value for \>=25 year age group|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.005
90835861|NCT00083889|181538767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.232|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.646|1.818|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 5 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G SWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||1.818|0.646|<.0001
90835862|NCT00083889|181538767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.233|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.629|1.838|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 6 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G SWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||1.838|0.629|<.0001
90835863|NCT00083889|181538767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.236||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.595|1.876|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 6 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G SWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||1.876|0.595|0.0002
90835864|NCT00083889|181538767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.237||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.575|1.899|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 7 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G SWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||1.899|0.575|0.0003
90835865|NCT00083889|181538767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.24||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.537|1.942|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 7 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G SWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||1.942|0.537|0.0005
90835866|NCT00083889|181538767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.241||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.515|1.967|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 8 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G SWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||1.967|0.515|0.0008
90895636|NCT00406133|181657065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||||||P-value for the 8-14 year age group|Regression, Logistic|||A post-hoc defined binary outcome of 26-week glycated hemoglobin \<7.0% with no severe hypoglycemic events was analyzed in logistic regression models, adjusted for baseline glycated hemoglobin level and clinical center.||||0.02
90895637|NCT00406133|181657065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67||||||P-value for the 15-24 year old age group|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.67
91027402|NCT04281485|181938602|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|2.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63|=|0.219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|5.24|||Mixed Models Analysis||||The MMRM model contained fixed effects for treatment group (categorical variable), visit (ordered categorical variable), and treatment group by visit interaction with additional fixed effects for baseline value (continuous variable), screening age (continuous variable), baseline value by visit interaction, and screening age by visit interaction with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix.|5.24|-1.22|=0.2190
91027403|NCT04281485|181938603|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.96|=|0.7096||95.0|-4.79|7.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||||The MMRM model contained fixed effects for treatment group (categorical variable), visit (ordered categorical variable), and treatment group by visit interaction with additional fixed effects for baseline value (continuous variable), screening age (continuous variable), baseline value by visit interaction, and screening age by visit interaction with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix.|7.00|-4.79|=0.7096
91027404|NCT00947427|181938642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.86|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.86
91027405|NCT03211416|181938675|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate|0.296|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.151|0.483||||||||0.483|0.151|
91027406|NCT03211416|181938678|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4||||||Significance level of 0.05.|Two-sided, one-sample t-test|||The null hypothesis is that the mean ratio of T effect cells (post / pre) is equal to 1 (no change).||||0.40
91027407|NCT02909673|181938684|EQUIVALENCE|Null Hypothesis: No difference between Fourth R Treatment and Control treatment in the rate of Physical DV perpetration. Power analyses were conducted to ensure adequate statistical power to detect minimum detectible differences of 3-6%. An intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) =0.01 was assumed among observations of students attending the same school and was accounted for in the power estimation though the use of a variance inflation factor (VIF)|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.66||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.0||P-value was not adjusted for multiple test. ICC was estimated at 0.006. Type I error rate was set at 0.05|Regression, Logistic|Multilevel logistic regression used to adjust for the clustered sample design (students nested within schools).|Odds of Physical DV perpetration in the control group relative to the treatment group|||1.00|0.43|0.05
91027408|NCT01399736|181938826|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.55|||Chi-squared|||||0.55|0.22|<0.001
91027409|NCT01399736|181938827|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|2.56|||Chi-squared|||||2.56|0.25|0.70
91027410|NCT01399736|181938828|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|4.01|||Chi-squared|||||4.01|0.25|1.00
91027411|NCT01399736|181938829|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.13|||Chi-squared|||||1.13|0.22|0.10
91027412|NCT01399736|181938830|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.59|||Chi-squared|||||1.59|0.22|0.29
91027413|NCT01399736|181938831|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.57|||Chi-squared|||||0.57|0.24|<0.001
90835867|NCT00083889|181538767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.244||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.474|2.013|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 8 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G SWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.013|0.474|0.0015
90895638|NCT00406133|181657065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||||||P-value for the \>=25 year old age group|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.006
90835868|NCT00083889|181538767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.245||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 9 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G SWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.040|0.450|0.0021
90835869|NCT00083889|181538767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.248||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.406|2.089|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 9 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G SWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.089|0.406|0.0037
91027414|NCT01399736|181938832|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|5.02|||Chi-squared|||||5.02|0.29|0.80
91027415|NCT03335371|181938867|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.087|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||||-0.04|-0.39|<0.0001
91027416|NCT02649231|181938900|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.75||||||Confirmed alcohol relapse by drug condition at 6 months using the Alcohol Timeline-Followback. Logistic regression modelling was used to compare the ketamine group with the placebo group (combined across therapy and alcohol education).||1.75|0.28|
91027417|NCT02649231|181938901|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|19.0||||||Linear regression modelling was used to compare the ketamine group with the placebo group (combined across therapy and psychoeducation). Only participants with a minimum of 159 days of completed drinking self-report data were included in the main ITT analysis as this was the shortest duration of time before any participant completed the 6 month (23-25 week) follow up in the study. Reporting time was capped at 180 days.||19.0|1.1|
91027418|NCT02970669|181938904|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric Means (SacVal/Ena)|0.9456||||0.0895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8863|1.0088|||ANCOVA|model for a log-scaled response with treatment group as a class variable and the baseline value in logarithmic scale as a continuous covariate.||||1.0088|0.8863|0.0895
91027419|NCT02970669|181938905|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|293.6||||0.6316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-916.5|1503.8|||ANCOVA|model with treatment group as a class variable and the baseline value as a continuous covariate.||||1503.8|-916.5|0.6316
91027420|NCT02970669|181938907|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.038||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.062|4.138|||ANCOVA|model with treatment group as a class variable and the baseline value as a continuous covariate.||||4.138|-0.062|0.0570
91027421|NCT02970669|181938908|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.478||||0.0121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.553|4.403|||ANCOVA|model with treatment group as a class variable and the baseline value as a continuous covariate.||||4.403|0.553|0.0121
91027422|NCT01714505|181938910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Paired t-tests: compare LBGI, carbohydrates for hypoglycemia treatment, % of time in range and average BG on CLC vs OL.||||||0.003
91027423|NCT01714505|181938911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.1|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||>0.1
91027424|NCT01714505|181938912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.02
91027425|NCT01832090|181938955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91027426|NCT01832090|181938956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
91027427|NCT01832090|181938957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
91027428|NCT01832090|181938958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91027429|NCT01832090|181938959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.05
91027430|NCT01832090|181938960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.05
91027431|NCT01832090|181938963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91027432|NCT01832090|181938964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91027433|NCT04182204|181938979|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.83|||Log Rank|||||0.83|0.43|0.0017
91027434|NCT04182204|181938980|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.51|||Log Rank|||||0.51|0.27|<0.0001
91027435|NCT04182204|181938981|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rate|21.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.58|32.94|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||32.94|9.58|<0.0001
91027436|NCT04182204|181938982|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rate|28.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.89|40.33|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||40.33|15.89|<0.0001
91027437|NCT04182204|181938983|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rate|30.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.71|42.68||||||||42.68|17.71|
91027438|NCT04182204|181938984|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rate|17.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.95|28.86||||||||28.86|5.95|
91027439|NCT04182204|181938985|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rate|20.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.16|32.56||||||||32.56|8.16|
91027440|NCT04182204|181938987|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.53||||||||0.53|0.30|
91027441|NCT04182204|181938988|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.83||||||||0.83|0.40|
91027442|NCT04182204|181938989|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.17||||||||1.17|0.62|
91027443|NCT04182204|181938990|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.91||||||||0.91|0.45|
91027444|NCT04182204|181938995|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rate|10.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.37|22.63||||||||22.63|-2.37|
91027445|NCT04182204|181938996|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rate|9.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.22|22.78||||||||22.78|-3.22|
91027446|NCT04182204|181938997|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rate|18.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.54|30.97||||||||30.97|5.54|
91027447|NCT00249821|181939010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||"Month 12: Analysis of co-variance (ANCOVA) method with covariates height and age at baseline was used to calculate presented p-value."||||0.001
91027448|NCT00249821|181939011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||"Change at Month 6: ANCOVA method with covariates height and age at baseline was used to calculate presented p-value."||||0.012
91027449|NCT00249821|181939011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||"Change at Month 12: ANCOVA method with covariates height and age at baseline was used to calculate presented p-value."||||0.002
91027450|NCT00249821|181939012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||"Month 6: ANCOVA method with covariates height and age at baseline was used to calculate presented p-value."||||0.022
90895639|NCT00406133|181657066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Other preplanned secondary outcomes included change in A1c from baseline to 26 weeks in an ANCOVA model (adjusted for baseline A1c and clinical center) and 26-week binary A1c outcomes (decrease and increase in A1C from baseline by \>=0.3% and 26-week value \<7.0%) evaluated similarly using logistic regression models.||||<0.001
90895640|NCT00406133|181657067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Other preplanned secondary outcomes included change in A1c from baseline to 26 weeks in an ANCOVA model (adjusted for baseline A1c and clinical center) and 26-week binary A1c outcomes (decrease and increase in A1C from baseline by \>=0.3% and 26-week value \<7.0%) evaluated similarly using logistic regression models.||||0.002
90895641|NCT00406133|181657068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Other preplanned secondary outcomes included change in A1c from baseline to 26 weeks in an ANCOVA model (adjusted for baseline A1c and clinical center) and 26-week binary A1c outcomes (decrease and increase in A1C from baseline by \>=0.3% and 26-week value \<7.0%) evaluated similarly using logistic regression models.||||<0.001
90835870|NCT00083889|181538767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.249||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.382|2.116|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 10 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G SWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.116|0.382|0.0048
90835871|NCT00083889|181538767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.251||||0.0074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.336|2.167|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 10 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G SWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.167|0.336|0.0074
90835872|NCT00083889|181538767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.253||||0.0092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|2.196|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 11 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G SWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.196|0.310|0.0092
90835873|NCT00083889|181538767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.255||||0.0132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.262|2.248|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 11 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G SWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.248|0.262|0.0132
90835874|NCT00083889|181538767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.257||||0.0159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.236|2.278|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 12 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G SWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.278|0.236|0.0159
90835875|NCT00083889|181538767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.259||||0.0213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.187|2.332|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 12 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G SWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.332|0.187|0.0213
90835876|NCT00083889|181538767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.261||||0.0248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|2.362|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 13 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G SWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.362|0.160|0.0248
90895642|NCT06916468|181657128|OTHER||Proportion|86.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Binomial test|Comparing preference to 50/50 baseline||||||<0.001
90895643|NCT06916468|181657129|OTHER||Proportion|13.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Proportion|Out of the 53 participants , what proportion preferred the device without the cotton dampener on majority of anatomical sites||||||<0.001
90895644|NCT02790073|181657130|OTHER|Within group comparison vs baseline|||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90895645|NCT02790073|181657131|OTHER|Within group comparison vs baseline||||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.015
90895646|NCT02790073|181657132|OTHER|Within group comparison vs baseline||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
90895647|NCT00514683|181657133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.086|0.118||The p-value presented is computed in the course of the closing testing procedure.|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with fixed terms for treatment\*time, gender\*height, gender\*age and random terms for patient effect, patient\*time.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||0.118|-0.086|0.8530
91027451|NCT00249821|181939012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||"Month 12: ANCOVA method with covariates height and age at baseline was used to calculate presented p-value."||||0.002
91027452|NCT00249821|181939013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||"Change at Month 6: ANCOVA method with covariates height and age at baseline was used to calculate presented p-value."||||0.029
91027453|NCT00249821|181939014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.972||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||"Change at Month 12: ANCOVA method with covariates height and age at baseline was used to calculate presented p-value."||||0.972
91027454|NCT00249821|181939015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.058||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||"Month 6: ANCOVA method with covariates height and age at baseline was used to calculate presented p-value."||||0.058
91027455|NCT00249821|181939015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||"Month 12: ANCOVA method with covariates height and age at baseline was used to calculate presented p-value."||||0.026
90895648|NCT00514683|181657133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7558||||||The p-value from the hierarchical testing procedure was calculated as a sensitivity analysis|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with fixed terms for treatment\*time, gender\*height, gender\*age and random terms for patient effect, patient\*time.||||||0.7558
91027456|NCT00249821|181939016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.793||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||"Month 6: ANCOVA method with covariates height and age at baseline was used to calculate presented p-value."||||0.793
90835877|NCT00083889|181538767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.263||||0.0318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|2.416|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 13 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G SWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.416|0.110|0.0318
90835878|NCT00083889|181538767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.265||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.083|2.447|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 14 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G SWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.447|0.083|0.0360
90835879|NCT00083889|181538767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.267||||0.0443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.032|2.502|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 14 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G SWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.502|0.032|0.0443
90835880|NCT00083889|181538767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.269||||0.0493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|2.533|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 15 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G SWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.533|0.004|0.0493
90835881|NCT00083889|181538767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.271||||0.0587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.047|2.589|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 15 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G SWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.589|-0.047|0.0587
90835882|NCT00083889|181538767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.273||||0.0642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.075|2.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 16 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G SWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.620|-0.075|0.0642
90835883|NCT00083889|181538767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.275||||0.0746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.127|2.677|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 16 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G SWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.677|-0.127|0.0746
90835884|NCT00083889|181538767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.276||||0.0806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.155|2.708|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 17 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G SWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.708|-0.155|0.0806
90835885|NCT00083889|181538767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.279||||0.0917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.207|2.765|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 17 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G SWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.765|-0.207|0.0917
90895649|NCT00514683|181657133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.051||0.792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.119|0.08||The p-value presented is computed in the course of the closing testing procedure.|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with fixed terms for treatment\*time, gender\*height, gender\*age and random terms for patient effect, patient\*time.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||0.080|-0.119|0.7920
90895650|NCT00514683|181657133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6991||||||The p-value from the hierarchical testing procedure was calculated as a sensitivity analysis|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with fixed terms for treatment\*time, gender\*height, gender\*age and random terms for patient effect, patient\*time.||||||0.6991
90835886|NCT00083889|181538767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.28||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.236|2.797|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 18 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G SWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.797|-0.236|0.0980
90835887|NCT00083889|181538767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.283||||0.1095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.288|2.854|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 18 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G SWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.854|-0.288|0.1095
90835888|NCT00083889|181538767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.284||||0.1161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.318|2.886|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 19 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G SWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.886|-0.318|0.1161
90835889|NCT00083889|181538767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.287||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|2.944|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 19 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G SWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.944|-0.370|0.1280
91027457|NCT00249821|181939016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.055||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||"Month 12: ANCOVA method with covariates height and age at baseline was used to calculate presented p-value."||||0.055
91027458|NCT03212170|181939030|OTHER|Pearson correlation statistical test||||||0.1347|||||||two-sided hypothesis test|||||||0.1347
90895651|NCT00514683|181657133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.028|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.051||0.853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.071|0.128||The p-value presented is computed in the course of the closing testing procedure.|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with fixed terms for treatment\*time, gender\*height, gender\*age and random terms for patient effect, patient\*time.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||0.128|-0.071|0.8530
90895652|NCT00514683|181657133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5736||||||Additionally the p-value from the hierarchical testing procedure was calculated as a sensitivity analysis|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with fixed terms for treatment\*time, gender\*height, gender\*age and random terms for patient effect, patient\*time.||||||0.5736
90895653|NCT00514683|181657133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.131|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053||0.0639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.027|0.235||The p-value presented is computed in the course of the closing testing procedure.|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with fixed terms for treatment\*time, gender\*height, gender\*age and random terms for patient effect, patient\*time.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||0.235|0.027|0.0639
90895654|NCT00514683|181657133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0136||||||Additionally the p-value from the hierarchical testing procedure was calculated as a sensitivity analysis|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with fixed terms for treatment\*time, gender\*height, gender\*age and random terms for patient effect, patient\*time.||||||0.0136
90895655|NCT00514683|181657134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.312||0.2774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|4.01|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||4.01|-1.15|0.2774
90895656|NCT00514683|181657134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.312||0.4014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|3.68|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||3.68|-1.48|0.4014
90895657|NCT00514683|181657134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.324||0.0314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|5.46|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||5.46|0.26|0.0314
90895658|NCT00514683|181657134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.319||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.37|7.56|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||7.56|2.37|0.0002
90895659|NCT00514683|181657135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.046||0.3644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.13|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||0.13|-0.05|0.3644
90895660|NCT00514683|181657135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.046||0.4525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.13|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||0.13|-0.06|0.4525
90895661|NCT00514683|181657135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.046||0.0471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.18|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||0.18|0.00|0.0471
90895662|NCT00514683|181657135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.046||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.26|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||0.26|0.08|0.0004
90895663|NCT00514683|181657136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.702||0.592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.43|4.26|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||4.26|-2.43|0.5920
90895664|NCT00514683|181657136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.702||0.6155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.49|4.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||4.20|-2.49|0.6155
90895665|NCT00514683|181657136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.716||0.0271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|7.18|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||7.18|0.43|0.0271
90895666|NCT00514683|181657136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.71||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.11|8.83|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||8.83|2.11|0.0015
90895667|NCT00514683|181657137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.692||0.5601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|4.31||ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|ANCOVA||Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||4.31|-2.34|0.5601
90895668|NCT00514683|181657137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.694||0.6366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.53|4.13|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||4.13|-2.53|0.6366
90895669|NCT00514683|181657137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.702||0.0246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|7.18|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||7.18|0.49|0.0246
90895670|NCT00514683|181657137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|8.78|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||8.78|2.10|0.0015
90895671|NCT00514683|181657138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.911||||0.7543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.506|1.637|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with fixed terms for treatment, baseline of corresponding continuous value, region.|Odds ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||1.637|0.506|0.7543
91027459|NCT03212170|181939032|OTHER|Bland-Altman statistical test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1308|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.282|0.544||||||||0.544|-0.282|
90835890|NCT00083889|181538767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.288||||0.1346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.399|2.976|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 20 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G SWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.976|-0.399|0.1346
90835891|NCT00083889|181538767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.291||||0.1466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.452|3.034|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 20 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G SWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||3.034|-0.452|0.1466
90835892|NCT00083889|181538768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.929||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.398|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 1 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G) Emotional Well Being (EWB) subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||1.398|0.460|0.0001
90835893|NCT00083889|181538768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.922|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.469|1.375|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 1 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G EWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||1.375|0.469|<.0001
90835894|NCT00083889|181538768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.918|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.471|1.365|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 2 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G EWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||1.365|0.471|<.0001
90835895|NCT00083889|181538768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.911|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.469|1.352|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 2 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G EWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||1.352|0.469|<.0001
90835896|NCT00083889|181538768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.907|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.466|1.348|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 3 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G EWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||1.348|0.466|<.0001
90895672|NCT00514683|181657138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.136||||0.6704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.631|2.045|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with fixed terms for treatment, baseline of corresponding continuous value, region.|Odds ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||2.045|0.631|0.6704
90835897|NCT00083889|181538768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.899|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.453|1.345|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 3 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G EWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||1.345|0.453|<.0001
90835898|NCT00083889|181538768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.895||||0.0001||95.0|0.444|1.347|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 4 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G EWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||1.347|0.444|0.0001
90835899|NCT00083889|181538768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.888||||0.0002||95.0|0.421|1.355|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 4 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G EWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||1.355|0.421|0.0002
90895673|NCT00514683|181657138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.657||||0.1649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.363|1.189|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with fixed terms for treatment, baseline of corresponding continuous value, region.|Odds ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||1.189|0.363|0.1649
90895674|NCT00514683|181657138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.415||||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.227|0.757|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with fixed terms for treatment, baseline of corresponding continuous value, region.|Odds ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||0.757|0.227|0.0041
90895675|NCT00514683|181657139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.278||||0.5882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.526|3.102|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression model with fixed terms for treatment, gender, age, height, region.|Hazard ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||3.102|0.526|0.5882
91027460|NCT03212170|181939033|OTHER|||||||0.2521|||||||Pearson Correlation Statistical Test|||||||0.2521
91027461|NCT01937364|181939036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.4||||0.0334|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7275|-0.0206||One-sided p-value|z-statistic with pooled estimate||RD = Baclofen - Placebo|||-0.0206|-0.7275|0.0334
91027462|NCT01937364|181939037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3744|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baclofen - Placebo; 24 hours||||0.3744
91027463|NCT01937364|181939037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7616|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baclofen - Placebo; 48 hours||||0.7616
91027464|NCT01937364|181939037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1393|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baclofen - Placebo; 72 hours||||0.1393
91027465|NCT01937364|181939038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33||||||Baclofen - Placebo; Peak Ativan 1mg PO equivalent dose|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.33
91027466|NCT01937364|181939038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baclofen - Placebo; Total Ativan 1mg PO equivalent dose||||0.80
91027467|NCT06394973|181939066|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49||||0.376|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.376
91027468|NCT06394973|181939066|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36||||0.518|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.518
90835900|NCT00083889|181538768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.884||||0.0003||95.0|0.406|1.362|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 5 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G EWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||1.362|0.406|0.0003
90835901|NCT00083889|181538768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.877||||0.0006||95.0|0.375|1.379|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 5 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G EWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||1.379|0.375|0.0006
90835902|NCT00083889|181538768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.873||||0.0009||95.0|0.356|1.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 6 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G EWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||1.390|0.356|0.0009
90835903|NCT00083889|181538768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.866||||0.002||95.0|0.318|1.414|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 6 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G EWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||1.414|0.318|0.0020
90835904|NCT00083889|181538768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.862||||0.0029||95.0|0.295|1.428|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 7 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G EWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||1.428|0.295|0.0029
90835905|NCT00083889|181538768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.854||||0.0055||95.0|0.251|1.457|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 7 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G EWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||1.457|0.251|0.0055
90835906|NCT00083889|181538768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.85||||0.0076||95.0|0.226|1.475|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 8 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G EWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||1.475|0.226|0.0076
90835907|NCT00083889|181538768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.843||||0.0129||95.0|0.179|1.508|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 8 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G EWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||1.508|0.179|0.0129
90835908|NCT00083889|181538768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.839||||0.0168||95.0|0.151|1.527|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 9 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G EWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||1.527|0.151|0.0168
90835909|NCT00083889|181538768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.832||||0.0257||95.0|0.101|1.563|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 9 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G EWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||1.563|0.101|0.0257
90835910|NCT00083889|181538768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.828||||0.0318||95.0|0.072|1.583|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 10 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G EWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||1.583|0.072|0.0318
90835911|NCT00083889|181538768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.821||||0.0447||95.0|0.019|1.622|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 10 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G EWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||1.622|0.019|0.0447
90835912|NCT00083889|181538768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.817||||0.0529||95.0|-0.01|1.643|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 11 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G EWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||1.643|-0.010|0.0529
90895676|NCT00514683|181657139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.29||||0.0653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.078|1.081|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression model with fixed terms for treatment, gender, age, height, region.|Hazard ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||1.081|0.078|0.0653
90895677|NCT00514683|181657139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.35||||0.0847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.106|1.154|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression model with fixed terms for treatment, gender, age, height, region.|Hazard ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||1.154|0.106|0.0847
91027469|NCT05550532|181939069|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.23|=|0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.95|1.9|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures Model|||||1.90|-2.95|=0.670
91027470|NCT05550532|181939074|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|1.71||||||||1.71|-1.13|
91027471|NCT04071769|181939084|OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the Xenon MRI measure of RBC-to-Membrane (RBC:M) at baseline vs. 3 months after initiating anti-fibrotic therapy.||||0.27
91027472|NCT04071769|181939085|OTHER|Baseline to 3 months||||||0.23|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.23
90895678|NCT00514683|181657139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.732||||0.5383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.271|1.977|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression model with fixed terms for treatment, gender, age, height, region.|Hazard ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||1.977|0.271|0.5383
90835913|NCT00083889|181538768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.809||||0.0696||95.0|-0.065|1.683|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 11 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G EWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||1.683|-0.065|0.0696
90835914|NCT00083889|181538768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.805||||0.0797||95.0|-0.095|1.706|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 12 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G EWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||1.706|-0.095|0.0797
90835915|NCT00083889|181538768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.798||||0.0994||95.0|-0.151|1.747|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 12 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G EWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||1.747|-0.151|0.0994
90835916|NCT00083889|181538768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.794||||0.111||95.0|-0.182|1.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 13 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G EWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||1.770|-0.182|0.1110
90835917|NCT00083889|181538768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.787||||0.1328||95.0|-0.239|1.813|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 13 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G EWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||1.813|-0.239|0.1328
90835918|NCT00083889|181538768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.783||||0.1454||95.0|-0.271|1.836|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 14 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G EWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||1.836|-0.271|0.1454
90835919|NCT00083889|181538768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.776||||0.1686||95.0|-0.329|1.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 14 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G EWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||1.880|-0.329|0.1686
90835920|NCT00083889|181538768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.771||||0.1817||95.0|-0.361|1.904|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 15 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G EWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||1.904|-0.361|0.1817
90835921|NCT00083889|181538768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.764||||0.2055||95.0|-0.419|1.948|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 15 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G EWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||1.948|-0.419|0.2055
90835922|NCT00083889|181538768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.76||||0.2188||95.0|-0.452|1.972|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 16 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G EWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||1.972|-0.452|0.2188
90835923|NCT00083889|181538768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.753||||0.2427||95.0|-0.51|2.016|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 16 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G EWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||2.016|-0.510|0.2427
90895679|NCT00514683|181657140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.483||0.3658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|1.39|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||1.39|-0.51|0.3658
91027473|NCT04071769|181939085|OTHER|Baseline to 6 months||||||0.26|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.26
90835924|NCT00083889|181538768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.749||||0.2559||95.0|-0.543|2.041|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 17 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G EWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||2.041|-0.543|0.2559
90895680|NCT00514683|181657140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.478||0.4956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|1.27|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||1.27|-0.61|0.4956
91027474|NCT04071769|181939085|OTHER|Baseline to 12 months||||||0.68|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.68
91027475|NCT04071769|181939086|OTHER|Baseline to 3 months||||||0.95|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.95
91027476|NCT04071769|181939086|OTHER|Baseline to 6 months||||||0.92|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.92
91027477|NCT04071769|181939086|OTHER|Baseline to 12 months||||||0.56|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.56
90895681|NCT00514683|181657140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.482||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|2.31|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||2.31|0.41|0.0051
90895682|NCT00514683|181657140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.483||0.0211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|2.07|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||2.07|0.17|0.0211
90895683|NCT00514683|181657141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.428||||0.1021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.155|1.184|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with fixed terms for treatment, baseline of corresponding continuous value, region.|Odds ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||1.184|0.155|0.1021
90895684|NCT00514683|181657141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.682||||0.4318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.262|1.773|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with fixed terms for treatment, baseline of corresponding continuous value, region.|Odds ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||1.773|0.262|0.4318
90835925|NCT00083889|181538768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.742||||0.2794||95.0|-0.602|2.086|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 17 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G EWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||2.086|-0.602|0.2794
91027478|NCT02780661|181939095|OTHER||Least square (LS) mean difference|-0.86||||0.0144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|-0.196||Log10 change from baseline in aerobic bacteria microbial count as response variable, treatment and period as fixed effect, participant level and period level pre-treatment microbial count as covariates and participant as random effect.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment in log10{(count+1)/(baseline+1)} such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|H0: There is no treatment difference between daily and weekly product use. H1: There is a treatment difference between daily and weekly product use.||-0.196|-1.530|0.0144
90835926|NCT00083889|181538768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.738||||0.2923||95.0|-0.635|2.111|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 18 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G EWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||2.111|-0.635|0.2923
90835927|NCT00083889|181538768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.73||||0.3152||95.0|-0.695|2.156|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 18 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G EWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||2.156|-0.695|0.3152
90835928|NCT00083889|181538768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.726||||0.3276||95.0|-0.728|2.181|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 19 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G EWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||2.181|-0.728|0.3276
90835929|NCT00083889|181538768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.719||||0.3497||95.0|-0.788|2.227|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 19 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G EWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||2.227|-0.788|0.3497
90835930|NCT00083889|181538768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.715||||0.3616||95.0|-0.822|2.252|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 20 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G EWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||2.252|-0.822|0.3616
90835931|NCT00083889|181538768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.708||||0.3827||95.0|-0.882|2.298|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 20 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G EWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||2.298|-0.882|0.3827
90835932|NCT00083889|181538769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.897|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.261|2.533|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 1 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G) Functional Well Being (FWB) subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.533|1.261|<.0001
90895685|NCT00514683|181657141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.412||||0.0934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.146|1.161|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with fixed terms for treatment, baseline of corresponding continuous value, region.|Odds ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||1.161|0.146|0.0934
90895686|NCT00514683|181657141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.313||||0.0317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.108|0.903|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with fixed terms for treatment, baseline of corresponding continuous value, region.|Odds ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||0.903|0.108|0.0317
90895687|NCT00514683|181657142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.33||0.6443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.66|3.51|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||3.51|-5.66|0.6443
90895688|NCT00514683|181657142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.28||0.5656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|3.18|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||3.18|-5.80|0.5656
91027479|NCT02780661|181939096|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.48||||0.1879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|0.261||Log10 change from baseline in anaerobic bacteria microbial count as response variable, treatment and period as fixed effect, participant level and period level pre-treatment microbial count as covariates and participant as random effect.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment in log10{(count+1)/(baseline+1)} such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|H0: There is no treatment difference between daily and weekly product use. H1: There is a treatment difference between daily and weekly product use.||0.261|-1.230|0.1879
91027480|NCT01691508|181939110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.39||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|4.56|||Proportional odds model|||||4.56|1.25|0.008
91027481|NCT02489318|181939139|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.484|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.391|0.6|||Log Rank|||||0.600|0.391|<0.0001
91027482|NCT02489318|181939140|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.651|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.534|0.793|||Log Rank|||||0.793|0.534|<0.0001
91027483|NCT02489318|181939141|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.469|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.63|||Log Rank|||||0.630|0.350|<.0001
91027484|NCT02489318|181939142|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.868||||0.1966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.076|||Log Rank|||||1.076|0.700|0.1966
91027485|NCT02489318|181939143|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.794||||0.1563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.576|1.094|||Log Rank|||||1.094|0.576|0.1563
90835933|NCT00083889|181538769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.924|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.309|2.539|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 1 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G FWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||2.539|1.309|<.0001
90835934|NCT00083889|181538769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.939|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.331|2.546|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 2 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G FWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||2.546|1.331|<.0001
90835935|NCT00083889|181538769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.965|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.363|2.568|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 2 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G FWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||2.568|1.363|<.0001
90835936|NCT00083889|181538769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.98|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.376|2.584|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 3 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G FWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||2.584|1.376|<.0001
90835937|NCT00083889|181538769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.007|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.392|2.622|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 3 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G FWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||2.622|1.392|<.0001
90835938|NCT00083889|181538769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.022|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.396|2.647|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 4 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G FWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||2.647|1.396|<.0001
90835939|NCT00083889|181538769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.048|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.397|2.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 4 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G FWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||2.700|1.397|<.0001
90835940|NCT00083889|181538769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.063|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.394|2.732|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 5 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G FWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||2.732|1.394|<.0001
90835941|NCT00083889|181538769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.09|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.383|2.797|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 5 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G FWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||2.797|1.383|<.0001
90835942|NCT00083889|181538769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.105|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.374|2.836|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 6 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G FWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||2.836|1.374|<.0001
90895689|NCT00514683|181657142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.24||0.9181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.18|4.64|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||4.64|-4.18|0.9181
91027486|NCT02489318|181939144|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.857||||0.3608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.615|1.194|||Log Rank|||||1.194|0.615|0.3608
91027487|NCT02261428|181939145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.95|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.79|8.73|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||8.73|1.79|<0.05
91027488|NCT00395226|181939162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.57||||0.284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|1.62||The a priori significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided)|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA used group as a factor and baseline rosacea severity score as a covariate.|The effect of zinc sulfate treatment on rosacea severity score was estimated with baseline rosacea severity score included in the regression model|"The null hypothesis was no group differences. The alternative hypothesis was that the zinc sulfate arm is superior to placebo arm."||1.62|-0.47|0.2840
91027489|NCT02059993|181939163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The sample size was calculated to assess a minimum reduction of 5 ± 5 mm Hg in systolic BPafter CPAP treatment, assuming an alpha error of 5% and a statistical power of 80%.||||<0.05
91027490|NCT02059993|181939164|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
91027491|NCT02655237|181939166|NON_INFERIORITY|The point estimate and 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the difference in the percentage were calculated between Relugolix 40 mg group and leuprorelin group (Relugolix 40 mg group - leuprorelin group), using Farrington and Manning (FM) method. If the lower boundary of the 95% CI was greater or equal to the non-inferiority margin of -15%, then the non-inferiority of Relugolix 40 mg to leuprorelin was concluded.|Difference in percentage|-0.9||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.098|8.346|||Farrington and Manning (FM)||Relugolix 40 mg-Leuprorelin|||8.346|-10.098|0.0013
90895690|NCT00514683|181657142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.387||0.697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.77|5.63|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||5.63|-3.77|0.6970
90895691|NCT00514683|181657143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.49||0.9811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.84|4.96|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||4.96|-4.84|0.9811
90895692|NCT00514683|181657143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.412||0.6772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.74|5.75|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||5.75|-3.74|0.6772
90895693|NCT00514683|181657143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.379||0.8631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.27|5.09|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||5.09|-4.27|0.8631
90895694|NCT00514683|181657143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.523||0.5942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.62|6.31|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||6.31|-3.62|0.5942
90895695|NCT00514683|181657144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.715||0.2716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|2.19|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||2.19|-0.62|0.2716
90895696|NCT00514683|181657144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.696||0.7871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|1.56|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||1.56|-1.18|0.7871
90895697|NCT00514683|181657144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.685||0.8721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|1.24|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||1.24|-1.46|0.8721
90835943|NCT00083889|181538769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.132|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.353|2.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 6 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G FWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||2.910|1.353|<.0001
90835944|NCT00083889|181538769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.146|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.339|2.954|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 7 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G FWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||2.954|1.339|<.0001
90835945|NCT00083889|181538769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.173|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.311|3.036|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 7 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G FWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||3.036|1.311|<.0001
90835946|NCT00083889|181538769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.188|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.294|3.082|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 8 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G FWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||3.082|1.294|<.0001
90835947|NCT00083889|181538769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.215|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.26|3.169|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 8 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G FWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||3.169|1.260|<.0001
90835948|NCT00083889|181538769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.23|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.241|3.219|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 9 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G FWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||3.219|1.241|<.0001
90895698|NCT00514683|181657144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.734||0.8523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|1.31|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||1.31|-1.58|0.8523
90895699|NCT00514683|181657145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.093||||0.7997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.549|2.175|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with fixed terms for treatment, baseline of corresponding continuous value, region.|Odds ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||2.175|0.549|0.7997
90895700|NCT00514683|181657145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.916||||0.7989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.467|1.797|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with fixed terms for treatment, baseline of corresponding continuous value, region.|Odds ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||1.797|0.467|0.7989
90895701|NCT00514683|181657145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78||||0.4596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.403|1.508|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with fixed terms for treatment, baseline of corresponding continuous value, region.|Odds ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||1.508|0.403|0.4596
90895702|NCT00514683|181657145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.665||||0.2548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.341|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with fixed terms for treatment, baseline of corresponding continuous value, region.|Odds ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||1.341|0.330|0.2548
90895703|NCT00514683|181657146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.051||||0.8887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.521|2.122|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with fixed terms for treatment, baseline of corresponding continuous value, region.|Odds ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||2.122|0.521|0.8887
90895704|NCT00514683|181657146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.216||||0.5758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.613|2.41|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with fixed terms for treatment, baseline of corresponding continuous value, region.|Odds ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||2.410|0.613|0.5758
91090720|NCT01091246|182064837|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The noninferior immune response was assessed by evaluating the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence intervals for the strain specific HAI antibody GMT ratios (FluMist divided by Q/LAIV) to the noninferiority margin of 1.5.|Ratio of geometric mean|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.16|||Bootstrapping|||A/H1N1: The statistical hypothesis testing for the primary endpoint for Q/LAIV was: H0: Rj \> 1.5, for any j HA: Rj ≤ 1.5, for all j Where Rj was any of the 4 strain-specific post immunogenicity dose GMT ratios: (FluMist/B/Yamagata + FluMist/B/Victoria) / (Q/LAIV) for A/H1N1 strain||1.16|0.98|
91090721|NCT01091246|182064837|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The noninferior immune response was assessed by evaluating the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence intervals for the strain specific HAI antibody GMT ratios (FluMist divided by Q/LAIV) to the noninferiority margin of 1.5. If the upper bounds of 95% CIs were ≤ 1.5 for all 4 strains, the immunologic noninferiority of Q/LAIV compared to FluMist was declared.|Ratio of geometric means|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.14|||Bootstrapping|||A/H3N2: The statistical hypothesis testing for the primary endpoint for Q/LAIV was: H0: Rj \> 1.5, for any j HA: Rj ≤ 1.5, for all j Where Rj was any of the 4 strain-specific post immunogenicity dose GMT ratios: (FluMist/B/Yamagata + FluMist/B/Victoria) / (Q/LAIV) for A/H3N2 strain||1.14|0.94|
91090722|NCT01091246|182064837|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The noninferior immune response was assessed by evaluating the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence intervals for the strain specific HAI antibody GMT ratios (FluMist divided by Q/LAIV) to the noninferiority margin of 1.5. If the upper bounds of 95% CIs were ≤ 1.5 for all 4 strains, the immunologic noninferiority of Q/LAIV compared to FluMist was declared.|Ratio of geometric mean|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.37||||||B/Yamagata: The statistical hypothesis testing for the primary endpoint for Q/LAIV was: H0: Rj \> 1.5, for any j HA: Rj ≤ 1.5, for all j Where Rj was any of the 4 strain-specific post immunogenicity dose GMT ratios: (FluMist/B/Yamagata) / (Q/LAIV) for B/Yamagata strain||1.37|1.07|
90895705|NCT00514683|181657146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.993||||0.9829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.506|1.949|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with fixed terms for treatment, baseline of corresponding continuous value, region.|Odds ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||1.949|0.506|0.9829
91090723|NCT01091246|182064837|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The noninferior immune response was assessed by evaluating the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence intervals for the strain specific HAI antibody GMT ratios (FluMist divided by Q/LAIV) to the noninferiority margin of 1.5. If the upper bounds of 95% confidence intervals were ≤ 1.5 for all 4 strains, the immunologic noninferiority of Q/LAIV compared to FluMist was declared.|Ratio of geometric mean|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.18||||||B/Victoria: The statistical hypothesis testing for the primary endpoint for Q/LAIV was: H0: Rj \> 1.5, for any j HA: Rj ≤ 1.5, for all j Where Rj was any of the 4 strain-specific post immunogenicity dose GMT ratios: (FluMist/B/Victoria) / (Q/LAIV) for B/Victoria strain||1.18|0.93|
91090724|NCT00596271|182064877|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Non-inferiority of the combined administration is postulated, if the lower bounds of both twosided 95% confidence intervals for the GMT ratios (of combined vaccination over single vaccination) are \> 1/2.~This procedure is equivalent to the approach based on a 1-sided test with a significance level of 2.5% for each comparison with the null hypothesis H0 : ratio ≤ 0.5 versus the alternative hypotheses H1 : ratio \> 0.5."|||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The primary efficacy analysis will compare the IC51+HAVRIX vs. IC51+Placebo group in terms of the GMT for anti- JEV neutralizing antibody at day 56. An observed cases approach will be applied for the primary analysis||||<0.0001
91090725|NCT00596271|182064881|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Non-inferiority of the combined administration is postulated, if the lower bounds of both twosided 95% confidence intervals for the GMT ratios (of combined vaccination over single vaccination) are \> 1/2.~This procedure is equivalent to the approach based on a 1-sided test with a significance level of 2.5% for each comparison with the null hypothesis H0 : ratio ≤ 0.5 versus the alternative hypotheses H1 : ratio \> 0.5."|||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The primary efficacy analysis will compare the IC51+HAVRIX vs. HAVRIX+Placebo group in terms of the GMT for HAV antibody at day 28. An observed cases approach will be applied for the primary analysis.||||<0.0001
91090726|NCT02155985|182064882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.4||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|8.8||While there are co-primary comparisons, due to the pilot nature of the study, no adjustment to the 0.05 type I error was made.|t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference is the percent difference in mean fold changes = ((300 mg mean fold change / placebo mean fold change) - 1) \* 100.|Paired differences between the two aspirin arms and placebo were estimated in a single linear regression model using linear combinations of the estimated means.||8.8|-5.5|0.70
91027492|NCT02655237|181939167|OTHER|The point estimate and 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the difference in the percentage were calculated between relugolix 40 mg group and leuprorelin group, using FM method with the non-inferiority margin of -15%. The confidence interval was presented in a descriptive manner and not for the purpose of statistical inference.|Difference in percentage|32.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.953|44.134|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Leuprorelin|||44.134|20.953|
90835949|NCT00083889|181538769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.256|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.203|3.309|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 9 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G FWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||3.309|1.203|<.0001
90835950|NCT00083889|181538769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.271|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.182|3.361|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 10 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G FWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||3.361|1.182|<.0001
90835951|NCT00083889|181538769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.298|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.142|3.454|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 10 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G FWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||3.454|1.142|<.0001
90835952|NCT00083889|181538769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.313||||0.0001||95.0|1.119|3.507|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 11 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G FWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||3.507|1.119|0.0001
90835953|NCT00083889|181538769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.34||||0.0003||95.0|1.076|3.603|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 11 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G FWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||3.603|1.076|0.0003
90835954|NCT00083889|181538769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.354||||0.0004||95.0|1.052|3.657|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 12 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G FWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||3.657|1.052|0.0004
90835955|NCT00083889|181538769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.381||||0.0007||95.0|1.008|3.754|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 12 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G FWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||3.754|1.008|0.0007
90835956|NCT00083889|181538769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.396||||0.0009||95.0|0.983|3.809|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 13 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G FWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||3.809|0.983|0.0009
90835957|NCT00083889|181538769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.423||||0.0014||95.0|0.938|3.908|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 13 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G FWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||3.908|0.938|0.0014
90835958|NCT00083889|181538769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.438||||0.0017||95.0|0.912|3.963|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 14 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G FWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||3.963|0.912|0.0017
90835959|NCT00083889|181538769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.464||||0.0025||95.0|0.866|4.063|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 14 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G FWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||4.063|0.866|0.0025
90835960|NCT00083889|181538769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.479||||0.003||95.0|0.84|4.119|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 15 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G FWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||4.119|0.840|0.0030
90835961|NCT00083889|181538769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.506||||0.0042||95.0|0.792|4.219|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 15 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G FWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||4.219|0.792|0.0042
90835962|NCT00083889|181538769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.521||||0.0049||95.0|0.766|4.275|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 16 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G FWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||4.275|0.766|0.0049
90835963|NCT00083889|181538769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.547||||0.0064||95.0|0.718|4.377|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 16 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G FWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||4.377|0.718|0.0064
90835964|NCT00083889|181538769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.562||||0.0073||95.0|0.691|4.433|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 17 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G FWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||4.433|0.691|0.0073
90835965|NCT00083889|181538769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.589||||0.0091||95.0|0.643|4.535|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 17 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G FWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||4.535|0.643|0.0091
90895706|NCT00514683|181657146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.972||||0.9375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.476|1.985|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with fixed terms for treatment, baseline of corresponding continuous value, region.|Odds ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||1.985|0.476|0.9375
91027493|NCT02655237|181939168|OTHER|The point estimate and 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the difference in the percentage were calculated between relugolix 40 mg group and leuprorelin group, using FM method with the non-inferiority margin of -15%. The confidence interval was presented in a descriptive manner and not for the purpose of statistical inference.|Difference in percentage|-10.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.337|-2.883|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Leuprorelin|||-2.883|-18.337|
90895707|NCT00514683|181657147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.098|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1456||0.4998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.188|0.385|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||0.385|-0.188|0.4998
90835966|NCT00083889|181538769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.604||||0.0103||95.0|0.616|4.592|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 18 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G FWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||4.592|0.616|0.0103
90835967|NCT00083889|181538769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.631||||0.0125||95.0|0.567|4.695|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 18 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G FWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||4.695|0.567|0.0125
90895708|NCT00514683|181657147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.155|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1399||0.2679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.12|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||0.120|-0.430|0.2679
90835968|NCT00083889|181538769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.645||||0.0138||95.0|0.539|4.752|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 19 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G FWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||4.752|0.539|0.0138
90835969|NCT00083889|181538769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.672||||0.0164||95.0|0.49|4.855|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 19 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G FWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||4.855|0.490|0.0164
90835970|NCT00083889|181538769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.687||||0.0179||95.0|0.462|4.912|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 20 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G FWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||4.912|0.462|0.0179
90835971|NCT00083889|181538769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.714||||0.0208||95.0|0.413|5.015|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 20 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G FWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||5.015|0.413|0.0208
90835972|NCT00083889|181538770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.049||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.022|0.076|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 1 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EuroQoL Five Dimension (EQ-5D): Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||0.076|0.022|0.0004
90835973|NCT00083889|181538770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.048||||0.0003||95.0|0.022|0.075|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 1 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||0.075|0.022|0.0003
90835974|NCT00083889|181538770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.048||||0.0003||95.0|0.022|0.074|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 2 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||0.074|0.022|0.0003
90835975|NCT00083889|181538770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.047||||0.0003||95.0|0.021|0.072|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 2 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||0.072|0.021|0.0003
90835976|NCT00083889|181538770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.046||||0.0004||95.0|0.021|0.072|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 3 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||0.072|0.021|0.0004
90835977|NCT00083889|181538770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.045||||0.0005||95.0|0.02|0.071|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 3 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||0.071|0.020|0.0005
90835978|NCT00083889|181538770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.045||||0.0007||95.0|0.019|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 4 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||0.070|0.019|0.0007
90835979|NCT00083889|181538770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.044||||0.0011||95.0|0.017|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 4 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||0.070|0.017|0.0011
90895709|NCT00514683|181657147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.5678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.355|0.195|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||0.195|-0.355|0.5678
91090727|NCT02155985|182064882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.5||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|13.3||While there are co-primary comparisons, due to the pilot nature of the study, no adjustment to the 0.05 type I error was made.|t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference is the percent difference in mean fold changes = ((100 mg mean fold change / placebo mean fold change) - 1) \* 100.|Paired differences between the two aspirin arms and placebo were estimated in a single linear regression model using linear combinations of the estimated means.||13.3|-1.7|0.14
91090728|NCT04794751|182064920|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-Inferiority was declared if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval of the LSM difference between the Test and Control was below 0.05 logMAR.|least-square mean difference|-0.018|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0106|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.039|0.002|||Linear Mixed Model|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|LS Mean difference was calculated as Test minus Control|Distance (4m)||0.002|-0.039|
91090729|NCT04794751|182064920|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was declared if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval of the LSM difference between the Test and Control was below 0.05 logMAR.|least-square mean difference|-0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0127|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.032|0.018|||Linear Mixed Model|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|LS Mean difference was calculated as Test minus Control|Intermediate (64cm)||0.018|-0.032|
91090730|NCT04794751|182064920|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was declared if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval of the LSM difference between the Test and Control was below 0.05 logMAR.|least-square mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0124|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.034|0.015|||Linear Mixed Model|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|LS Mean difference was calculated as Test minus Control|Near (40cm)||0.015|-0.034|
91090731|NCT04794751|182064921|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the least-square mean difference was greater than -5.|least-square mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.34|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|4.8|||Linear Mixed Model|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|LS Mean difference was calculated as Test minus Control|||4.8|-4.6|
90835980|NCT00083889|181538770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.043||||0.0016||95.0|0.016|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 5 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||0.070|0.016|0.0016
90835981|NCT00083889|181538770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.042||||0.0029||95.0|0.014|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 5 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||0.070|0.014|0.0029
90835982|NCT00083889|181538770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.042||||0.0041||95.0|0.013|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 6 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||0.070|0.013|0.0041
90835983|NCT00083889|181538770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.041||||0.0076||95.0|0.011|0.071|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 6 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||0.071|0.011|0.0076
90895710|NCT00514683|181657147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.121|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1448||0.4053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.406|0.164|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||0.164|-0.406|0.4053
90835984|NCT00083889|181538770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.0105||95.0|0.009|0.071|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 7 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||0.071|0.009|0.0105
90835985|NCT00083889|181538770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.039||||0.0179||95.0|0.007|0.072|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 7 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||0.072|0.007|0.0179
90835986|NCT00083889|181538770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.039||||0.0236||95.0|0.005|0.072|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 8 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||0.072|0.005|0.0236
90895711|NCT00514683|181657148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.892||||0.7307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.465|1.71|||Regression, Logistic|An ordinal logistic regression model with fixed terms for treatment, baseline of corresponding continuous value, region.|Odds ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||1.710|0.465|0.7307
90895712|NCT00514683|181657148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.317||||0.3869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.706|2.458|||Regression, Logistic|An ordinal logistic regression model with fixed terms for treatment, baseline of corresponding continuous value, region.|Odds ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||2.458|0.706|0.3869
90895713|NCT00514683|181657148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.931||||0.8237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.498|1.741|||Regression, Logistic|An ordinal logistic regression model with fixed terms for treatment, baseline of corresponding continuous value, region.|Odds ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||1.741|0.498|0.8237
90835987|NCT00083889|181538770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.038||||0.037||95.0|0.002|0.073|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 8 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||0.073|0.002|0.0370
90835988|NCT00083889|181538770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.037||||0.0464||95.0|0.001|0.074|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 9 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||0.074|0.001|0.0464
90835989|NCT00083889|181538770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.036||||0.0667||95.0|-0.002|0.075|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 9 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||0.075|-0.002|0.0667
90835990|NCT00083889|181538770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.036||||0.08||95.0|-0.004|0.076|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 10 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||0.076|-0.004|0.0800
90835991|NCT00083889|181538770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.035||||0.107||95.0|-0.007|0.077|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 10 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||0.077|-0.007|0.1070
90835992|NCT00083889|181538770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.034||||0.1237||95.0|-0.009|0.078|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 11 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||0.078|-0.009|0.1237
90835993|NCT00083889|181538770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.033||||0.1561||95.0|-0.013|0.079|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 11 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||0.079|-0.013|0.1561
90895714|NCT00514683|181657148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.676||||0.1177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.878|3.202|||Regression, Logistic|An ordinal logistic regression model with fixed terms for treatment, baseline of corresponding continuous value, region.|Odds ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||3.202|0.878|0.1177
91090732|NCT01687218|182064929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.44|||Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)||It shows the rate ratio (RR) based on a GEE model comparing the Daily Rectal regimen with the Oral regimen and controlling for period in the model.|Since some participants have more than one safety event per period of treatment regimen, a Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) model with a Poisson (log) link, exchangeable correlation structure, and robust standard errors were used.||1.44|0.73|0.88
90835994|NCT00083889|181538770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.033||||0.1752||95.0|-0.015|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 12 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||0.080|-0.015|0.1752
90835995|NCT00083889|181538770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.032||||0.2112||95.0|-0.018|0.081|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 12 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||0.081|-0.018|0.2112
90835996|NCT00083889|181538770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.031||||0.2319||95.0|-0.02|0.082|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 13 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||0.082|-0.020|0.2319
90835997|NCT00083889|181538770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.2698||95.0|-0.023|0.084|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 13 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||0.084|-0.023|0.2698
90895715|NCT00514683|181657149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-11.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.089||0.5111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.86|22.37|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||22.37|-44.86|0.5111
90895716|NCT00514683|181657149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.234||0.4176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.11|18.76|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||18.76|-45.11|0.4176
91090733|NCT01687218|182064929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.88||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.21|||Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)||It shows the rate ratio (RR) based on a GEE model comparing the RAI Rectal regimen with the Oral regimen and controlling for period in the model.|Since some participants have more than one safety event per period of treatment regimen, a Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) model with a Poisson (log) link, exchangeable correlation structure, and robust standard errors were used.||1.21|0.64|0.43
90895717|NCT00514683|181657149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.506||0.9454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.6|31.34|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||31.34|-33.60|0.9454
91090734|NCT01687218|182064930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.5|||Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)||Oral regimen is the reference group.|Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) models with a binomial (logit) link, an exchangeable correlation structure and robust errors and with treatment regimen and period as independent variables were used to compare the three treatment regimens for the acceptability endpoints. The oral arm and period 1 were used as the reference group in each of the models.||0.50|0.15|<0.0001
90835998|NCT00083889|181538770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.291||95.0|-0.025|0.085|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 14 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||0.085|-0.025|0.2910
90835999|NCT00083889|181538770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.029||||0.3293||95.0|-0.029|0.086|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 14 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||0.086|-0.029|0.3293
90836000|NCT00083889|181538770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.028||||0.3504||95.0|-0.031|0.087|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 15 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||0.087|-0.031|0.3504
90836001|NCT00083889|181538770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.027||||0.3881||95.0|-0.034|0.089|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 15 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||0.089|-0.034|0.3881
90836002|NCT00083889|181538770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.027||||0.4086||95.0|-0.036|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 16 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||0.090|-0.036|0.4086
90836003|NCT00083889|181538770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.026||||0.4449||95.0|-0.04|0.091|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 16 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||0.091|-0.040|0.4449
90836004|NCT00083889|181538770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.025||||0.4646||95.0|-0.042|0.092|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 17 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||0.092|-0.042|0.4646
90836005|NCT00083889|181538770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.024||||0.499||95.0|-0.046|0.094|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 17 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||0.094|-0.046|0.4990
90836006|NCT00083889|181538770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.024||||0.5176||95.0|-0.048|0.095|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 18 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||0.095|-0.048|0.5176
90895718|NCT00514683|181657149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.98||0.7101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.08|39.72|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||39.72|-27.08|0.7101
90895719|NCT00514683|181657150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.055|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2271||0.809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.392|0.502|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Positive change indicates worsening.|||0.502|-0.392|0.8090
90836007|NCT00083889|181538770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.023||||0.5501||95.0|-0.051|0.097|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 18 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||0.097|-0.051|0.5501
90836008|NCT00083889|181538770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.022||||0.5675||95.0|-0.054|0.098|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 19 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||0.098|-0.054|0.5675
90895720|NCT00514683|181657150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.182|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2158||0.3995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.606|0.242|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Positive change indicates worsening.|||0.242|-0.606|0.3995
91027494|NCT02655237|181939169|OTHER|The point estimate and 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the difference in the percentage were calculated between relugolix 40 mg group and leuprorelin group, using FM method with the non-inferiority margin of -15%. The confidence interval was presented in a descriptive manner and not for the purpose of statistical inference.|Difference in percentage|-13.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.418|-5.118|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Leuprorelin|||-5.118|-21.418|
90836009|NCT00083889|181538770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.021||||0.5979||95.0|-0.057|0.099|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 19 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||0.099|-0.057|0.5979
90836010|NCT00083889|181538770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.021||||0.6141||95.0|-0.059|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 20 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||0.100|-0.059|0.6141
90836011|NCT00083889|181538770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.6424||95.0|-0.063|0.102|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 20 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||0.102|-0.063|0.6424
90836012|NCT00083889|181538771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.026|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.088|5.965|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 1 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline Euro-QoL Visual Analog Scale (EQ-VAS) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||5.965|2.088|<.0001
90836013|NCT00083889|181538771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.165|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.269|6.061|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 1 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-VAS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||6.061|2.269|<.0001
90836014|NCT00083889|181538771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.243|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.358|6.128|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 2 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-VAS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||6.128|2.358|<.0001
90836015|NCT00083889|181538771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.382|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.494|6.269|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 2 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-VAS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||6.269|2.494|<.0001
90836016|NCT00083889|181538771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.459|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.558|6.361|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 3 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-VAS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||6.361|2.558|<.0001
90836017|NCT00083889|181538771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.598|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.65|6.547|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 3 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-VAS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||6.547|2.650|<.0001
90836018|NCT00083889|181538771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.676|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.689|6.662|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 4 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-VAS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||6.662|2.689|<.0001
90895721|NCT00514683|181657150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.033|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2193||0.8822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.399|0.464|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Positive change indicates worsening.|||0.464|-0.399|0.8822
91027495|NCT02655237|181939170|OTHER|The mean differences in the percent changes from baseline between relugolix 40 mg and leuprorelin group and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated.|Mean Difference (Each Visit)|-12.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.778|-4.33|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Leuprorelin|Week 2||-4.330|-19.778|
91027496|NCT02655237|181939170|OTHER|The mean differences in the percent changes from baseline between relugolix 40 mg and leuprorelin group and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated.|Mean Difference (Each Visit)|-2.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.916|6.819|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Leuprorelin|Week 4||6.819|-11.916|
91027497|NCT02655237|181939170|OTHER|The mean differences in the percent changes from baseline between relugolix 40 mg and leuprorelin group and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated.|Mean Difference (Each Visit)|4.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.141|12.529|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Leuprorelin|Week 8||12.529|-3.141|
91027498|NCT02655237|181939170|OTHER|The mean differences in the percent changes from baseline between relugolix 40 mg and leuprorelin group and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated.|Mean Difference (Each Visit)|3.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.433|10.605|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Leuprorelin|Week 12||10.605|-3.433|
91027499|NCT02655237|181939170|OTHER|The mean differences in the percent changes from baseline between relugolix 40 mg and leuprorelin group and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated.|Mean Difference (Each Visit)|3.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.319|11.245|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Leuprorelin|Week 24||11.245|-3.319|
91027500|NCT02655237|181939171|OTHER|The mean differences in the percent changes from baseline between relugolix 40 mg and leuprorelin group and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated.|Mean Difference (Each Visit)|-15.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.786|-9.509|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Leuprorelin|Week 2||-9.509|-20.786|
90836019|NCT00083889|181538771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.815|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.741|6.889|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 4 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-VAS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||6.889|2.741|<.0001
90836020|NCT00083889|181538771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.892|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.76|7.024|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 5 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-VAS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||7.024|2.760|<.0001
90836021|NCT00083889|181538771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.031|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.78|7.283|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 5 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-VAS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||7.283|2.780|<.0001
90836022|NCT00083889|181538771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.109|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.783|7.435|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 6 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-VAS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||7.435|2.783|<.0001
90836023|NCT00083889|181538771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.248|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.776|7.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 6 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-VAS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||7.720|2.776|<.0001
90836024|NCT00083889|181538771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.325|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.767|7.884|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 7 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-VAS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||7.884|2.767|<.0001
90895722|NCT00514683|181657150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.141|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2257||0.5338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.584|0.303|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Positive change indicates worsening.|||0.303|-0.584|0.5338
90895723|NCT00514683|181657151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.112|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3272||0.7329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.532|0.755|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Positive change indicates worsening.|||0.755|-0.532|0.7329
90895724|NCT00514683|181657151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.078|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3109||0.8009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.533|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Positive change indicates worsening.|||0.533|-0.690|0.8009
90836025|NCT00083889|181538771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.464|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.741|8.188|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 7 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-VAS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||8.188|2.741|<.0001
90836026|NCT00083889|181538771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.542||||0.0001||95.0|2.723|8.361|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 8 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-VAS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||8.361|2.723|0.0001
90836027|NCT00083889|181538771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.681||||0.0002||95.0|2.683|8.679|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 8 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-VAS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||8.679|2.683|0.0002
90836028|NCT00083889|181538771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.758||||0.0003||95.0|2.657|8.859|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 9 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-VAS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||8.859|2.657|0.0003
90836029|NCT00083889|181538771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.898||||0.0004||95.0|2.607|9.188|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 9 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-VAS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||9.188|2.607|0.0004
90836030|NCT00083889|181538771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.975||||0.0006||95.0|2.576|9.374|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 10 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-VAS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||9.374|2.576|0.0006
90836031|NCT00083889|181538771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.114||||0.0009||95.0|2.517|9.711|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 10 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-VAS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||9.711|2.517|0.0009
90895725|NCT00514683|181657151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3159||0.6358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.771|0.472|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Positive change indicates worsening.|||0.472|-0.771|0.6358
91090735|NCT01687218|182064930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.37||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.7|||Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)||Oral regimen is the reference group.|Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) models with a binomial (logit) link, an exchangeable correlation structure and robust errors and with treatment regimen and period as independent variables were used to compare the three treatment regimens for the acceptability endpoints. The oral arm and period 1 were used as the reference group in each of the models.||0.70|0.20|0.002
91090736|NCT01687218|182064931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.56||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.08|||Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)||Oral regimen is the reference group.|Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) models with a binomial (logit) link, an exchangeable correlation structure and robust errors and with treatment regimen and period as independent variables were used to compare the three treatment regimens for the acceptability endpoints. The oral arm and period 1 were used as the reference group in each of the models.||1.08|0.29|0.08
91090737|NCT01687218|182064931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.56|||Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)||Oral regimen is the reference group.|Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) models with a binomial (logit) link, an exchangeable correlation structure and robust errors and with treatment regimen and period as independent variables were used to compare the three treatment regimens for the acceptability endpoints. The oral arm and period 1 were used as the reference group in each of the models.||1.56|0.37|0.46
91090738|NCT01687218|182064932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.38||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.65|||Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)||Oral regimen is the reference group.|Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) models with a binomial (logit) link, an exchangeable correlation structure and robust errors and with treatment regimen and period as independent variables were used to compare the three treatment regimens for the acceptability endpoints. The oral arm and period 1 were used as the reference group in each of the models.||0.65|0.22|0.0004
91090739|NCT01687218|182064932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.25|||Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)||Oral regimen is the reference group.|Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) models with a binomial (logit) link, an exchangeable correlation structure and robust errors and with treatment regimen and period as independent variables were used to compare the three treatment regimens for the acceptability endpoints. The oral arm and period 1 were used as the reference group in each of the models.||1.25|0.39|0.23
91090740|NCT01687218|182064933|OTHER||Slope|-1.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|-1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||This comparison is between the daily rectal and oral (reference) groups for tenofovir levels in blood plasma, log10 ng/mL.|Mixed effects models were used to compare the three treatment regimens within participants over time using the oral regimen as the reference group. The models included fixed effects for treatment regimen and period and random effects for participant within sequence. The log 10 transformation was used in the mixed effects models for all PK results to achieve normality.||-1.30|-1.53|<0.001
91090741|NCT01687218|182064933|OTHER||Slope|-1.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|-1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||This comparison is between the RAI rectal and oral (reference) groups for tenofovir levels in blood plasma, log10 ng/mL.|Mixed effects models were used to compare the three treatment regimens within participants over time using the oral regimen as the reference group. The models included fixed effects for treatment regimen and period and random effects for participant within sequence. The log 10 transformation was used in the mixed effects models for all PK results to achieve normality.||-1.70|-1.95|<0.001
90836032|NCT00083889|181538771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.191||||0.0011||95.0|2.482|9.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 11 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-VAS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||9.900|2.482|0.0011
90836033|NCT00083889|181538771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.331||||0.0015||95.0|2.417|10.244|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 11 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-VAS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||10.244|2.417|0.0015
91090742|NCT01687218|182064934|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.83|||Mixed Models Analysis||Oral regimen is the reference group.|Mixed effects models were used to compare the three treatment regimens within participants over time using the oral regimen as the reference group. The models included fixed effects for treatment regimen and period and random effects for participant within sequence. The log 10 transformation was used in the mixed effects models for all PK results to achieve normality.||0.83|0.49|<0.001
91090743|NCT01687218|182064934|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.16||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis||Oral regimen is the reference group.|Mixed effects models were used to compare the three treatment regimens within participants over time using the oral regimen as the reference group. The models included fixed effects for treatment regimen and period and random effects for participant within sequence. The log 10 transformation was used in the mixed effects models for all PK results to achieve normality.||0.15|-0.46|0.31
91090744|NCT01687218|182064935|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.3||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects models were used to compare the three treatment regimens within participants over time using the oral regimen as the reference group. The models included fixed effects for treatment regimen and period and random effects for participant within sequence. The log 10 transformation was used in the mixed effects models for all PK results to achieve normality. Mid period and end period visits only were used in this analysis.||0.50|0.10|0.004
90836034|NCT00083889|181538771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.408||||0.0018||95.0|2.379|10.436|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 12 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-VAS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||10.436|2.379|0.0018
90836035|NCT00083889|181538771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.547||||0.0025||95.0|2.309|10.785|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 12 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-VAS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||10.785|2.309|0.0025
90836036|NCT00083889|181538771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.624||||0.0029||95.0|2.269|10.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 13 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-VAS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||10.980|2.269|0.0029
90895726|NCT00514683|181657151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.333|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3252||0.3064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.973|0.307|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Positive change indicates worsening.|||0.307|-0.973|0.3064
90895727|NCT00514683|181657152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.014||||0.9646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.906|||Regression, Logistic|An ordinal logistic regression model with fixed terms for treatment, baseline of corresponding continuous value, region.|Odds ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo. Negative change indicates worsening.|||1.906|0.540|0.9646
90895728|NCT00514683|181657152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.994||||0.985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.536|1.844|||Regression, Logistic|An ordinal logistic regression model with fixed terms for treatment, baseline of corresponding continuous value, region.|Odds ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo. Negative change indicates worsening.|||1.844|0.536|0.9850
90895729|NCT00514683|181657152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.123||||0.7136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.604|2.089|||Regression, Logistic|An ordinal logistic regression model with fixed terms for treatment, baseline of corresponding continuous value, region.|Odds ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo. Negative change indicates worsening.|||2.089|0.604|0.7136
90895730|NCT00514683|181657152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.551||||0.1705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.828|2.906|||Regression, Logistic|An ordinal logistic regression model with fixed terms for treatment, baseline of corresponding continuous value, region.|Odds ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo. Negative change indicates worsening.|||2.906|0.828|0.1705
90895731|NCT00514683|181657153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.0479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.69|-0.01|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated.|||-0.01|-2.69|0.0479
90895732|NCT00514683|181657153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.0685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.58|0.09|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated.|||0.09|-2.58|0.0685
90895733|NCT00514683|181657153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.684||0.0099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.12|-0.43|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated.|||-0.43|-3.12|0.0099
90895734|NCT00514683|181657153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.683||0.0152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.01|-0.32|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated.|||-0.32|-3.01|0.0152
90895735|NCT00514683|181657154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.253||0.725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.22|3.64|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Positive change indicates worsening.|||3.64|-5.22|0.7250
90895736|NCT00514683|181657154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.213||0.1389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.63|1.07|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Positive change indicates worsening.|||1.07|-7.63|0.1389
90895737|NCT00514683|181657154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.221||0.0741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.35|0.39|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Positive change indicates worsening.|||0.39|-8.35|0.0741
90895738|NCT00514683|181657154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.262||0.0071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.57|-1.67|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Positive change indicates worsening.|||-1.67|-10.57|0.0071
90895739|NCT00514683|181657155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.183||0.337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.32|3.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Positive change indicates worsening.|||3.20|-9.32|0.3370
90895740|NCT00514683|181657155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.126||0.1659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.49|1.81|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Positive change indicates worsening.|||1.81|-10.49|0.1659
90836037|NCT00083889|181538771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.764||||0.0037||95.0|2.195|11.332|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 13 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-VAS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||11.332|2.195|0.0037
90895741|NCT00514683|181657155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.138||0.1897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.29|2.05|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Positive change indicates worsening.|||2.05|-10.29|0.1897
90895742|NCT00514683|181657155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.184||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.86|-3.34|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Positive change indicates worsening.|||-3.34|-15.86|0.0028
90895743|NCT00514683|181657156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.586||0.8458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.59|4.58|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Positive change indicates worsening.|||4.58|-5.59|0.8458
90895744|NCT00514683|181657156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.54||0.3286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.48|2.51|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Positive change indicates worsening.|||2.51|-7.48|0.3286
91090745|NCT01687218|182064935|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|-0.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects models were used to compare the three treatment regimens within participants over time using the oral regimen as the reference group. The models included fixed effects for treatment regimen and period and random effects for participant within sequence. The log 10 transformation was used in the mixed effects models for all PK results to achieve normality.||-0.47|-0.92|<0.001
90836038|NCT00083889|181538771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.841||||0.0042||95.0|2.153|11.529|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 14 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-VAS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||11.529|2.153|0.0042
90836039|NCT00083889|181538771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.98||||0.0053||95.0|2.076|11.884|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 14 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-VAS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||11.884|2.076|0.0053
91090746|NCT01687218|182064936|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.82|-2.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects models were used to compare the three treatment regimens within participants over time using the oral regimen as the reference group. The models included fixed effects for treatment regimen and period and random effects for participant within sequence. The log 10 transformation was used in the mixed effects models for all PK results to achieve normality for the following analysis.||-2.50|-2.82|<0.001
91090747|NCT01687218|182064936|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.81|-2.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects models were used to compare the three treatment regimens within participants over time using the oral regimen as the reference group. The models included fixed effects for treatment regimen and period and random effects for participant within sequence. The log 10 transformation was used in the mixed effects models for all PK results to achieve normality for the following analysis.||-2.49|-2.81|<0.001
91090748|NCT01687218|182064937|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects models were used to compare the three treatment regimens within participants over time using the oral regimen as the reference group. The models included fixed effects for treatment regimen and period and random effects for participant within sequence. The log 10 transformation was used in the mixed effects models for all PK results to achieve normality. End period visits only are used in this analysis.||-0.80|-1.01|<0.001
91090749|NCT01687218|182064937|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects models were used to compare the three treatment regimens within participants over time using the oral regimen as the reference group. The models included fixed effects for treatment regimen and period and random effects for participant within sequence. The log 10 transformation was used in the mixed effects models for all PK results to achieve normality. End period visits only are used in this analysis.||-0.80|-1.01|<0.001
91090750|NCT01687218|182064938|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|-1.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects models were used to compare the three treatment regimens within participants over time using the oral regimen as the reference group. The models included fixed effects for treatment regimen and period and random effects for participant within sequence. The log 10 transformation was used in the mixed effects models for all PK results to achieve normality. Mid period and end period visits only are used in this analysis.||-1.84|-2.16|<0.001
91090751|NCT01687218|182064938|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|-1.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects models were used to compare the three treatment regimens within participants over time using the oral regimen as the reference group. The models included fixed effects for treatment regimen and period and random effects for participant within sequence. The log 10 transformation was used in the mixed effects models for all PK results to achieve normality. Mid period and end period visits only are used in this analysis.||-1.74|-2.07|<0.001
91090752|NCT01687218|182064939|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects models were used to compare the three treatment regimens within participants over time using the oral regimen as the reference group. The models included fixed effects for treatment regimen and period and random effects for participant within sequence. The log 10 transformation was used in the mixed effects models for all PK results to achieve normality.||0.72|0.35|<0.001
90836040|NCT00083889|181538771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.057||||0.0059||95.0|2.032|12.083|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 15 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-VAS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||12.083|2.032|0.0059
90836041|NCT00083889|181538771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.197||||0.0072||95.0|1.953|12.441|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 15 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-VAS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||12.441|1.953|0.0072
90836042|NCT00083889|181538771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.274||||0.0079||95.0|1.908|12.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 16 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-VAS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||12.640|1.908|0.0079
90836043|NCT00083889|181538771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.413||||0.0093||95.0|1.826|13.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 16 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-VAS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||13.000|1.826|0.0093
90836044|NCT00083889|181538771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.491||||0.0101||95.0|1.78|13.201|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 17 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-VAS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||13.201|1.780|0.0101
90836045|NCT00083889|181538771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.63||||0.0117||95.0|1.697|13.562|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 17 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-VAS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||13.562|1.697|0.0117
90895745|NCT00514683|181657156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.548||0.1799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.43|1.59|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Positive change indicates worsening.|||1.59|-8.43|0.1799
90895746|NCT00514683|181657156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.597||0.0948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.46|0.76|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Positive change indicates worsening.|||0.76|-9.46|0.0948
90895747|NCT00514683|181657157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.484||0.9708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.98|4.79|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Positive change indicates worsening.|||4.79|-4.98|0.9708
90895748|NCT00514683|181657157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.44||0.1069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.74|0.85|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Positive change indicates worsening.|||0.85|-8.74|0.1069
91027501|NCT02655237|181939171|OTHER|The mean differences in the percent changes from baseline between relugolix 40 mg and leuprorelin group and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated.|Mean Difference (Each Visit)|-10.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.291|-3.246|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Leuprorelin|Week 4||-3.246|-17.291|
91027502|NCT02655237|181939171|OTHER|The mean differences in the percent changes from baseline between relugolix 40 mg and leuprorelin group and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated.|Mean Difference (Each Visit)|-0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.996|5.209|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Leuprorelin|Week 8||5.209|-6.996|
91027503|NCT02655237|181939171|OTHER|The mean differences in the percent changes from baseline between relugolix 40 mg and leuprorelin group and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated.|Mean Difference (Each Visit)|-0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.964|5.076|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Leuprorelin|Week 12||5.076|-6.964|
90836046|NCT00083889|181538771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.707||||0.0126||95.0|1.65|13.764|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 18 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-VAS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||13.764|1.650|0.0126
90836047|NCT00083889|181538771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.846||||0.0144||95.0|1.565|14.127|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 18 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-VAS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||14.127|1.565|0.0144
90836048|NCT00083889|181538771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.924||||0.0153||95.0|1.518|14.329|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 19 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-VAS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||14.329|1.518|0.0153
90895749|NCT00514683|181657157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.453||0.0682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.31|0.34|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Positive change indicates worsening.|||0.34|-9.31|0.0682
91027504|NCT02655237|181939171|OTHER|The mean differences in the percent changes from baseline between relugolix 40 mg and leuprorelin group and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated.|Mean Difference (Each Visit)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.206|7.935|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Leuprorelin|Week 24||7.935|-6.206|
91027505|NCT02655237|181939172|OTHER|The mean differences in the change from baseline between relugolix 40 mg and leuprorelin groups and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each visit.|Mean Difference (Each Visit)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.015|0.381|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Leuprorelin|Week 4||0.381|0.015|
90836049|NCT00083889|181538771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.063||||0.0172||95.0|1.432|14.693|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 19 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-VAS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||14.693|1.432|0.0172
91027506|NCT02655237|181939172|OTHER|The mean differences in the change from baseline between relugolix 40 mg and leuprorelin groups and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each visit.|Mean Difference (Each Visit)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.135|0.333|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Leuprorelin|Week 8||0.333|-0.135|
91027507|NCT02655237|181939172|OTHER|The mean differences in the change from baseline between relugolix 40 mg and leuprorelin groups and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each visit.|Mean Difference (Each Visit)|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.189|0.323|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Leuprorelin|Week 12||0.323|-0.189|
91027508|NCT02655237|181939172|OTHER|The mean differences in the change from baseline between relugolix 40 mg and leuprorelin groups and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each visit.|Mean Difference (Each Visit)|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.275|0.251|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Leuprorelin|Week 16||0.251|-0.275|
90836050|NCT00083889|181538771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.14||||0.0182||95.0|1.384|14.896|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 20 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-VAS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||14.896|1.384|0.0182
90836051|NCT00083889|181538771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.279||||0.0201||95.0|1.297|15.261|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 20 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-VAS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||15.261|1.297|0.0201
90836052|NCT00960375|181538778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.489|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Smoking reduction outcomes were examined in the randomized sample using data from baseline and post-treatment assessments. The variable examined was self-reported number of cigarettes smoked per day during the last 7 days. This variable was skewed so a natural log transformation was applied before linear mixed model analysis.||||0.489
90836053|NCT00960375|181538779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.685|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||This outcome was examined in the randomized sample. Abstinence was defined as self-reported no smoking in the last 7 days + expired CO ≤ 10 PPM. To assess difference in change between conditions, we tested the significance of the condition-by-time interaction using repeated measured mixed models with a random participant effect. Time was binary: post-treatment versus baseline. We used a logistic model for binary outcomes.||||0.685
90836054|NCT03062358|181538834|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.99||Log-rank test|One-sided p-value|Stratified by macrovascular invasion, α-Fetoprotein and region with all cells that correspond to macrovascular invasion=Yes combined|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate||Stratified by macrovascular invasion (Yes vs. No), α-Fetoprotein (ng/mL) (\< 200 vs. ≥ 200) and region (China vs. ex-China) with all cells that correspond to macrovascular invasion=Yes combined.|0.99|0.63|0.0180
90836055|NCT03062358|181538835|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.92||Log-rank test|One-sided p-value|Stratified by macrovascular invasion, α-Fetoprotein and region with all cells that correspond to macrovascular invasion=Yes combined|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate||Stratified by macrovascular invasion (Yes vs. No), α-Fetoprotein (ng/mL) (\< 200 vs. ≥ 200) and region (China vs. ex-China) with all cells that correspond to macrovascular invasion=Yes combined.|0.92|0.60|0.0032
90836056|NCT03062358|181538836|OTHER||Percent Difference|11.4||||4e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.7|16.0|||One-sided p-value for testing|H0: difference in % =0 versus H1: difference in % \> 0.|Difference in % vs Placebo|Difference in % vs Placebo|Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by macrovascular invasion (Yes vs. No), α-Fetoprotein (ng/mL) (\< 200 vs. \>= 200) and region (China vs. ex-China) with all cells that correspond to macrovascular invasion=Yes combined.|16.0|6.7|0.00004
90836057|NCT03062358|181538838|OTHER||Percent Difference|5.4||||0.13281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|14.8|||One-sided p-value for testing|H0: difference in % =0 versus H1: difference in % \> 0.|Difference in % vs Placebo|Difference in % vs Placebo|Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by macrovascular invasion (Yes vs. No), α-Fetoprotein (ng/mL) (\< 200 vs. ≥ 200) and region (China vs. ex-China) with all cells that correspond to macrovascular invasion=Yes combined.|14.8|-4.1|0.13281
90836058|NCT03062358|181538839|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.9||Log-rank test|One-sided p-value|Stratified by macrovascular invasion, α-Fetoprotein and region with all cells that correspond to macrovascular invasion=Yes combined|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate||Stratified by macrovascular invasion (Yes vs. No), α-Fetoprotein (ng/mL) (\< 200 vs. ≥ 200) and region (China vs. ex-China) with all cells that correspond to macrovascular invasion=Yes combined.|0.90|0.58|0.0019
91027509|NCT02655237|181939172|OTHER|The mean differences in the change from baseline between relugolix 40 mg and leuprorelin groups and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each visit.|Mean Difference (Each Visit)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.386|0.18|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Leuprorelin|Week 20||0.180|-0.386|
91027510|NCT02655237|181939172|OTHER|The mean differences in the change from baseline between relugolix 40 mg and leuprorelin groups and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each visit.|Mean Difference (Each Visit)|-0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.385|0.209|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Leuprorelin|Week 24||0.209|-0.385|
91027511|NCT02655237|181939172|OTHER|The mean differences in the change from baseline between relugolix 40 mg and leuprorelin groups and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each visit.|Mean Difference (Each Visit)|-0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.787|-0.199|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Leuprorelin|Follow up (up to Week 28)||-0.199|-0.787|
91027512|NCT02655237|181939173|OTHER|Two-sided 95% confidence interval of the difference was calculated between relugolix 40 mg and leuprorelin group.|Mean Difference (Each Visit)|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.032|0.174|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Leuprorelin|Week 6 to 12||0.174|-0.032|
90895750|NCT00514683|181657157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.494||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.06|-2.26|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Positive change indicates worsening.|||-2.26|-12.06|0.0043
90895751|NCT00514683|181657158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.54||||0.2698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|3.31|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on an Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test to adjust for region effect.|In case of missing data, patient has been set to non-responder. Odds ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||3.31|0.72|0.2698
90895752|NCT00514683|181657158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.0891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|4.01|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on an Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test to adjust for region effect.|In case of missing data, patient has been set to non-responder. Odds ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||4.01|0.90|0.0891
90895753|NCT00514683|181657158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.7||||0.0069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|5.66|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on an Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test to adjust for region effect.|In case of missing data, patient has been set to non-responder. Odds ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||5.66|1.29|0.0069
90895754|NCT00514683|181657158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2||||0.0341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|4.61|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on an Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test to adjust for region effect.|In case of missing data, patient has been set to non-responder. Odds ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||4.61|1.05|0.0341
90895755|NCT00514683|181657159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1015||0.8288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.178|0.222|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||0.222|-0.178|0.8288
90895756|NCT00514683|181657159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0974||0.1506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.051|0.332|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||0.332|-0.051|0.1506
90895757|NCT00514683|181657159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.158|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0977||0.1059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.034|0.351|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||0.351|-0.034|0.1059
90895758|NCT00514683|181657159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.358|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1008||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.556|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||0.556|0.160|0.0004
90895759|NCT00514683|181657160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068||0.7789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.153|0.115|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Positive change indicates worsening.|||0.115|-0.153|0.7789
90895760|NCT00514683|181657160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.066|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0652||0.3149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.063|0.194|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Positive change indicates worsening.|||0.194|-0.063|0.3149
90895761|NCT00514683|181657160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.025|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0654||0.7062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.104|0.153|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Positive change indicates worsening.|||0.153|-0.104|0.7062
90895762|NCT00514683|181657160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.123|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0675||0.0703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.255|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Positive change indicates worsening.|||0.255|-0.010|0.0703
90895763|NCT00514683|181657161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.063|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0884||0.4792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.111|0.236|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||0.236|-0.111|0.4792
91027513|NCT02655237|181939173|OTHER|Two-sided 95% confidence interval of the difference was calculated between relugolix 40 mg and leuprorelin group.|Mean Difference (Each Visit)|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.089|0.197|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Leuprorelin|Week 2 to 6||0.197|-0.089|
91027514|NCT02655237|181939173|OTHER|Two-sided 95% confidence interval of the difference was calculated between relugolix 40 mg and leuprorelin group.|Mean Difference (Each Visit)|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.086|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Leuprorelin|Week 18 to 24||0.086|-0.060|
91027515|NCT02655237|181939173|OTHER|Two-sided 95% confidence interval of the difference was calculated between relugolix 40 mg and leuprorelin group.|Mean Difference (Each Visit)|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.063|0.099|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Leuprorelin|For 6 Weeks Before the Final Dose (up to Week 24)||0.099|-0.063|
91027516|NCT02655237|181939174|OTHER|The mean differences in the observed values between relugolix 40 mg and leuprorelin group and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each visit.|Mean Difference (Each Visit)|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.39|1.43|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Leuprorelin|Week 4||1.43|-6.39|
91027517|NCT02655237|181939174|OTHER|The mean differences in the observed values between relugolix 40 mg and leuprorelin group and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each visit.|Mean Difference (Each Visit)|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.68|-1.31|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Leuprorelin|Week 8||-1.31|-6.68|
91027518|NCT02655237|181939174|OTHER|The mean differences in the observed values between relugolix 40 mg and leuprorelin group and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each visit.|Mean Difference (Each Visit)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|2.36|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Leuprorelin|Week 12||2.36|-1.99|
90895764|NCT00514683|181657161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.103|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0839||0.2221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.062|0.268|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||0.268|-0.062|0.2221
90895765|NCT00514683|181657161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.121|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0843||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.044|0.287|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||0.287|-0.044|0.1510
90895766|NCT00514683|181657161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.337|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0874||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.165|0.509|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||0.509|0.165|0.0001
90836059|NCT00880698|181538842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.1||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.6|14.8||The pre-specified significance level was 5%. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact||Difference and 95% confidence interval (RotaTeq minus Placebo) in percentage of HIV-uninfected participants experiencing a new grade \>=3 adverse event|||14.8|-20.6|0.62
90836060|NCT00880698|181538842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|23.4||The pre-specified significance level was 5%. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact||Difference and 95% confidence interval (RotaTeq minus Placebo) in percentage of HIV-infected participants experiencing a new grade \>=3 adverse event|||23.4|-21.0|1.00
90836061|NCT00880698|181538843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|29.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.5|46.1||The pre-specified significance level was 5%. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact||Difference (95% confidence interval) in percentage of HIV-1 uninfected participants classified as responders for SNA G1 in RotaTeq group minus Placebo group.|SNA G1||46.1|11.5|<0.001
90836062|NCT00880698|181538843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|49.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.1|68.6||The pre-specified significance level was 5%. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact||Difference (95% confidence interval) in percentage of HIV-1 infected participants classified as responders for SNA G1 in RotaTeq group minus Placebo group.|SNA G1||68.6|27.1|<0.001
90836063|NCT00880698|181538843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.1||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|24.8||The pre-specified significance level was 5%. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact||Difference (95% confidence interval) in percentage of HIV-1 uninfected participants classified as responders for SNA G2 in RotaTeq group minus Placebo group.|SNA G2||24.8|-11.3|0.20
90836064|NCT00880698|181538843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.2||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|36.7||The pre-specified significance level was 5%. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact||Difference (95% confidence interval) in percentage of HIV-1 infected participants classified as responders for SNA G2 in RotaTeq group minus Placebo group.|SNA G2||36.7|-10.6|0.19
90836065|NCT00880698|181538843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|19.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|36.4||The pre-specified significance level was 5%. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact||Difference (95% confidence interval) in percentage of HIV-1 uninfected participants classified as responders for SNA G3 in RotaTeq group minus Placebo group.|SNA G3||36.4|0.9|<0.001
90836066|NCT00880698|181538843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|29.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|50.6||The pre-specified significance level was 5%. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact||Difference (95% confidence interval) in percentage of HIV-1 infected participants classified as responders for SNA G3 in RotaTeq group minus Placebo group.|SNA G3||50.6|4.7|<0.001
90836067|NCT00880698|181538843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|26.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|42.9||The pre-specified significance level was 5%. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact||Difference (95% confidence interval) in percentage of HIV-1 uninfected participants classified as responders for SNA G4 in RotaTeq group minus Placebo group.|SNA G4||42.9|8.0|<0.001
90895767|NCT00514683|181657162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.097|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0609||0.1129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.023|0.217|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||0.217|-0.023|0.1129
90895768|NCT00514683|181657162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.084|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0584||0.1498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.031|0.199|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||0.199|-0.031|0.1498
90895769|NCT00514683|181657162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.109|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0585||0.0632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.006|0.224|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||0.224|-0.006|0.0632
90895770|NCT00514683|181657162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.201|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0604||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.083|0.32|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||0.320|0.083|0.0009
90895771|NCT00514683|181657163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.033|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0676||0.6306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.165|0.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||0.100|-0.165|0.6306
90895772|NCT00514683|181657163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.065||0.7426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.149|0.106|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||0.106|-0.149|0.7426
91027519|NCT02655237|181939174|OTHER|The mean differences in the observed values between relugolix 40 mg and leuprorelin group and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each visit.|Mean Difference (Each Visit)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|3.28|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Leuprorelin|Week 16||3.28|-0.68|
91027520|NCT02655237|181939174|OTHER|The mean differences in the observed values between relugolix 40 mg and leuprorelin group and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each visit.|Mean Difference (Each Visit)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|2.32|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Leuprorelin|Week 20||2.32|-1.80|
91027521|NCT02655237|181939174|OTHER|The mean differences in the observed values between relugolix 40 mg and leuprorelin group and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each visit.|Mean Difference (Each Visit)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|2.52|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Leuprorelin|Week 24||2.52|-1.48|
90895773|NCT00514683|181657163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0651||0.9209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.134|0.121|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||0.121|-0.134|0.9209
90895774|NCT00514683|181657163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0671||0.7701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.112|0.152|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||0.152|-0.112|0.7701
90895775|NCT00514683|181657164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.83||||0.6671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.93||Based on the statistic of ln(risk ratio) having a normal distribution N\[0,\[ (1/number with at least one exacerbation in Nintedanib group) + (1//number with at least one exacerbation in placebo) \] \]|Negative binomial model|Default log link function and adjusted for an off-set variable (logarithm of the follow-up time), for gender, height, age and region as fixed effects.|Risk ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||1.93|0.36|0.6671
90895776|NCT00514683|181657164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.8||||0.5926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.84||Based on the statistic of ln(risk ratio) having a normal distribution N\[0,\[ (1/number with at least one exacerbation in Nintedanib group) + (1//number with at least one exacerbation in placebo) \] \]|Negative binomial model|Default log link function and adjusted for an off-set variable (logarithm of the follow-up time), for gender, height, age and region as fixed effects.|Risk ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||1.84|0.34|0.5926
90895777|NCT00514683|181657164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.48||||0.1381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.27||Based on the statistic of ln(risk ratio) having a normal distribution N\[0,\[ (1/number with at least one exacerbation in Nintedanib group) + (1//number with at least one exacerbation in placebo) \] \]|Negative binomial model|Default log link function and adjusted for an off-set variable (logarithm of the follow-up time), for gender, height, age and region as fixed effects.|Risk ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||1.27|0.18|0.1381
90895778|NCT00514683|181657164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.16||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.7||Based on the statistic of ln(risk ratio) having a normal distribution N\[0,\[ (1/number with at least one exacerbation in Nintedanib group) + (1//number with at least one exacerbation in placebo) \] \]|Negative binomial model|Default log link function and adjusted for an off-set variable (logarithm of the follow-up time), for gender, height, age and region as fixed effects.|Risk ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||0.70|0.03|0.0150
90895779|NCT00514683|181657165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9||||0.8282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.347|2.336|||Negative binomial model||Risk ratio is actually Rate Ratio. Rate ratio is calculated based on Negative binomial model with default log link function and adjusted for an off-set variable and age, height, gender, region (all effects fixed).|||2.336|0.347|0.8282
90895780|NCT00514683|181657165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.73||||0.5326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.278|1.938|||Negative Binomial model||Risk ratio is actually Rate Ratio. Rate ratio is calculated based on Negative binomial model with default log link function and adjusted for an off-set variable and age, height, gender, region (all effects fixed).|||1.938|0.278|0.5326
90895781|NCT00514683|181657165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.49||||0.1944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.167|1.438|||Negative Binomial model||Risk ratio is actually Rate Ratio. Rate ratio is calculated based on Negative binomial model with default log link function and adjusted for an off-set variable and age, height, gender, region (all effects fixed).|||1.438|0.167|0.1944
90895782|NCT00514683|181657165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.22||||0.0324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.056|0.882|||Negative Binomial model||Risk ratio is actually Rate Ratio. Rate ratio is calculated based on Negative binomial model with default log link function and adjusted for an off-set variable and age, height, gender, region (all effects fixed).|||0.882|0.056|0.0324
90895783|NCT00514683|181657166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.758||||0.5206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.326|1.765|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression model with fixed terms for treatment, gender, age, height, region.|Hazard ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||1.765|0.326|0.5206
90895784|NCT00514683|181657166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.841||||0.6862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.362|1.952|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression model with fixed terms for treatment, gender, age, height, region.|Hazard ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||1.952|0.362|0.6862
90895785|NCT00514683|181657166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.517||||0.1891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.193|1.384|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression model with fixed terms for treatment, gender, age, height, region.|Hazard ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||1.384|0.193|0.1891
90895786|NCT00514683|181657166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.158||||0.0161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.035|0.711|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression model with fixed terms for treatment, gender, age, height, region.|Hazard ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||0.711|0.035|0.0161
90895787|NCT00514683|181657167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.173||||0.7449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.448|3.072|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression model with fixed terms for treatment, gender, age, height, region.|Hazard ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||3.072|0.448|0.7449
90895788|NCT00514683|181657167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.316||||0.0925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.083|1.209|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression model with fixed terms for treatment, gender, age, height, region.|Hazard ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||1.209|0.083|0.0925
90895789|NCT00514683|181657167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.19||||0.0379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.911|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression model with fixed terms for treatment, gender, age, height, region.|Hazard ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||0.911|0.040|0.0379
90895790|NCT00514683|181657167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.225||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.048|1.065|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression model with fixed terms for treatment, gender, age, height, region.|Hazard ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||1.065|0.048|0.0600
91027522|NCT02655237|181939174|OTHER|The mean differences in the observed values between relugolix 40 mg and leuprorelin group and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each visit.|Mean Difference (Each Visit)|3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|5.77|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Leuprorelin|Follow-Up (up to Week 28)||5.77|1.08|
91027523|NCT02655237|181939175|OTHER|The mean differences in the observed values between relugolix 40 mg and leuprorelin group and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each visit.|Mean Difference (Each Visit)|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|6.34|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Leuprorelin|Week 4||6.34|-1.66|
90895791|NCT00514683|181657168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.055||||0.7883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.713|1.563|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression model with fixed terms for treatment, gender, age, height, region.|Hazard ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||1.563|0.713|0.7883
90836068|NCT00880698|181538843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|58.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.2|75.9||The pre-specified significance level was 5%. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact||Difference (95% confidence interval) in percentage of HIV-1 infected participants classified as responders for SNA G4 in RotaTeq group minus Placebo group.|SNA G4||75.9|37.2|<0.001
90836069|NCT00880698|181538843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.4||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|34.2||The pre-specified significance level was 5%. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact||Difference (95% confidence interval) in percentage of HIV-1 uninfected participants classified as responders for SNA P1 in RotaTeq group minus Placebo group.|SNA P1||34.2|-1.7|0.024
90836070|NCT00880698|181538843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.7||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|35.5||The pre-specified significance level was 5%. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact||Difference (95% confidence interval) in percentage of HIV-1 infected participants classified as responders for SNA P1 in RotaTeq group minus Placebo group.|SNA P1||35.5|-12.0|0.34
90836071|NCT00880698|181538843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|51.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.3|66.3||The pre-specified significance level was 5%. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact||Difference (95% confidence interval) in percentage of HIV-1 uninfected participants classified as responders for IgA in RotaTeq group minus Placebo group.|IgA||66.3|34.3|<0.001
90836072|NCT00880698|181538843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|65.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.7|81.7||The pre-specified significance level was 5%. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact||Difference (95% confidence interval) in percentage of HIV-1 infected participants classified as responders for IgA in RotaTeq group minus Placebo group.|IgA||81.7|42.7|<0.001
90836073|NCT01766050|181538849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|0.991|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.898|1.093||||||||1.093|0.898|
90836074|NCT01766050|181538849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|0.911|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|1.0||||||||1.000|0.830|
90836075|NCT01766050|181538849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|0.994|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.885|1.116||||||||1.116|0.885|
90836076|NCT01766050|181538867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.976|1.13||||||AUC (0-T)||1.130|0.976|
90836077|NCT01766050|181538867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|0.966|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.889|1.049||||||AUC (0-T)||1.049|0.889|
90836078|NCT01766050|181538867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|1.033|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|1.123||||||AUC (0-T)||1.123|0.950|
90836079|NCT01766050|181538867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|1.049|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.975|1.127||||||AUC (INF)||1.127|0.975|
90836080|NCT01766050|181538867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|0.968|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.892|1.049||||||AUC (INF)||1.049|0.892|
90836081|NCT01766050|181538867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|1.031|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.948|1.121||||||AUC(INF)||1.121|0.948|
90836082|NCT01766050|181538868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|0.991|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.898|1.093||||||||1.093|0.898|
90836083|NCT01766050|181538868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|0.911|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|1.0||||||||1.000|0.830|
90836084|NCT01766050|181538868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|0.994|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.885|1.116||||||||1.116|0.885|
90836085|NCT01766050|181538869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|1.013|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.944|1.088||||||AUC (0-T)||1.088|0.944|
90836086|NCT01766050|181538869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|1.016|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.936|1.103||||||AUC (0-T)||1.103|0.936|
90836087|NCT01766050|181538869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|1.001|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.893|1.121||||||AUC (0-T)||1.121|0.893|
90836088|NCT01766050|181538869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|1.011|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.942|1.085||||||AUC (INF)||1.085|0.942|
90836089|NCT01766050|181538869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|1.016|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.938|1.101||||||AUC (INF)||1.101|0.938|
90836090|NCT01766050|181538869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|1.002|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.896|1.121||||||AUC (INF)||1.121|0.896|
90836091|NCT01766050|181538870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.118|1.421||||||||1.421|1.118|
90836092|NCT01766050|181538870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|1.292|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.09|1.531||||||||1.531|1.090|
90836093|NCT01766050|181538870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|1.178|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.971|1.429||||||||1.429|0.971|
90836094|NCT01766050|181538871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|1.159|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.056|1.272||||||AUC (0-T)||1.272|1.056|
90836095|NCT01766050|181538871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|1.228|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.092|1.381||||||AUC (0-T)||1.381|1.092|
90836096|NCT01766050|181538871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|1.215|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.047|1.41||||||AUC (0-T)||1.410|1.047|
90836097|NCT01766050|181538871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|1.193|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.091|1.304||||||AUC (INF)||1.304|1.091|
90836098|NCT01766050|181538871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|1.227|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.093|1.379||||||AUC (INF)||1.379|1.093|
90836099|NCT01766050|181538871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.141|1.482||||||AUC (INF)||1.482|1.141|
90836100|NCT01766050|181538872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|0.863|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.746|0.997||||||||0.997|0.746|
90836101|NCT01766050|181538872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|0.922|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.793|1.071||||||||1.071|0.793|
90836102|NCT01766050|181538872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|0.856|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.709|1.034||||||||1.034|0.709|
90836103|NCT01766050|181538873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|0.915|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.817|1.024||||||AUC (0-T)||1.024|0.817|
90836104|NCT01766050|181538873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|1.003|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.856|1.175||||||AUC (0-T)||1.175|0.856|
90836105|NCT01766050|181538873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|0.963|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.821|1.13||||||AUC (0-T)||1.130|0.821|
90836106|NCT01766050|181538873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|0.877|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.783|0.982||||||AUC (INF)||0.982|0.783|
90836107|NCT01766050|181538873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|1.031|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.885|1.2||||||AUC (INF)||1.200|0.885|
90836108|NCT01766050|181538873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|1.022|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.839|1.245||||||AUC (INF)||1.245|0.839|
90836109|NCT01766050|181538874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|0.948|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.021||||||||1.021|0.880|
90836110|NCT01766050|181538874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|0.922|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.857|0.993||||||||0.993|0.857|
90836111|NCT01766050|181538874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|0.954|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.885|1.028||||||||1.028|0.885|
90836112|NCT01766050|181538875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|0.941|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.874|1.013||||||AUC (0-T)||1.013|0.874|
90836113|NCT01766050|181538875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|0.986|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.902|1.076||||||AUC (0-T)||1.076|0.902|
90836114|NCT01766050|181538875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|1.027|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.942|1.12||||||AUC (0-T)||1.120|0.942|
90836115|NCT01766050|181538875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|0.939|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.868|1.017||||||AUC (INF)||1.017|0.868|
90836116|NCT01766050|181538875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|1.002|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.914|1.098||||||||1.098|0.914|
90836117|NCT01766050|181538875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|1.036|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|1.142||||||AUC (INF)||1.142|0.940|
90836118|NCT02670811|181538899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05||||||The primary outcome, systolic blood pressure (mmHg), between groups was analyzed using an independent sample student t test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
90836119|NCT02670811|181538899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05||||||The primary outcome, systolic blood pressure (mmHg), was analyzed using a paired student t test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
90836120|NCT02670811|181538900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05||||||The secondary outcome, diastolic blood pressure (mmHg), between groups was analyzed using an independent sample student t test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
90836121|NCT02670811|181538901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05||||||The secondary outcome, total cholesterol (mg/dL), between groups was analyzed using an independent sample student t test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
90836122|NCT02670811|181538902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05||||||The secondary outcome, low density lipoprotein (mg/dL), between groups was analyzed using an independent sample student t test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
90836123|NCT02670811|181538903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05||||||The secondary outcome, high density lipoproteins (mg/dL), between groups were analyzed using an independent sample student t test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
90836124|NCT02670811|181538904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05||||||The secondary outcome, triglycerides (mg/dL), between groups was analyzed using an independent sample student t test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
90836125|NCT01706458|181538909|OTHER|||||||0.906|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.9060
90836126|NCT03547518|181538921|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.111|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.111
90836127|NCT03547518|181538922|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.487|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.487
90836128|NCT03547518|181538923|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0393|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0393
90836129|NCT03547518|181538924|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.242|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.242
90836130|NCT03547518|181538925|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.855|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.855
90836131|NCT02766023|181538930|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.04||||0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.18|||Fisher Exact|||||0.18|-0.10|0.467
90836132|NCT02766023|181538931|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.54||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.95|||Chi-squared|||||0.95|0.30|0.031
90836133|NCT02766023|181538932|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.03||||0.643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.15|||Chi-squared|||Analysis is for self-reported compliance||0.15|-0.08|0.643
90836134|NCT02766023|181538932|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.05||||0.446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.17|||Chi-squared|||Analysis is for compliance assessed by staining.||0.17|-0.07|0.446
90836135|NCT02766023|181538941|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|79.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.02|218.57|||Chi-squared|||||218.57|29.02|<0.001
90836136|NCT02766023|181538949|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|72.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.07|188.66|||Chi-squared|||||188.66|28.07|<0.001
90836137|NCT02766023|181538950|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.54||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.94|||Chi-squared|||||0.94|0.31|0.030
90836138|NCT00286468|181538952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.19||A step-down strategy was used for the primary analysis. First, the 25mg dose was compared to placebo at the 2-sided 0.05 significance level. The 12.5 mg dose was compared to placebo only if the comparison of the 25mg dose to placebo was significant.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for glycosylated hemoglobin as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|Null Hypothesis: No difference between treatment and placebo arms in change from baseline in glycosylated hemoglobin at week 26. Sample size calculated based on normally distributed means. For comparison of either dose vs. placebo (2-sample t-test), study sample size \>=500 subjects had 94% power to detect a treatment difference as small as 0.4% in the supportive per-protocol analysis set assuming SD=0.8%, 2-sided \>0.05 significance level, and \>=80% of subjects meeting per protocol criteria.||-0.19|-0.59|<0.001
90836139|NCT00286468|181538952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.33||A step-down strategy was used for the primary analysis. First, the 25mg dose was compared to placebo at the 2-sided 0.05 significance level. The 12.5 mg dose was compared to placebo only if the comparison of the 25mg dose to placebo was significant.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|Null Hypothesis: No difference between treatment and placebo arms in change from baseline in glycosylated hemoglobin at week 26. Sample size calculated based on normally distributed means. For comparison of either dose vs. placebo (2-sample t-test), study sample size \>=500 subjects had 94% power to detect a treatment difference as small as 0.4% in the supportive per protocol analysis set assuming SD=0.8%, 2-sided \>0.05 significance level and \>=80% of subjects meeting per-protocol criteria.||-0.33|-0.73|<0.001
90895792|NCT00514683|181657168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.958||||0.8293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.646|1.419|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression model with fixed terms for treatment, gender, age, height, region.|Hazard ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||1.419|0.646|0.8293
90836140|NCT00286468|181538953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|-0.13||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.13|-0.33|<0.001
90836141|NCT00286468|181538953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.18||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.18|-0.38|<0.001
90895793|NCT00514683|181657168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.805||||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.534|1.216|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression model with fixed terms for treatment, gender, age, height, region.|Hazard ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||1.216|0.534|0.3030
90895794|NCT00514683|181657168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.6505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.605|1.369|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression model with fixed terms for treatment, gender, age, height, region.|Hazard ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||1.369|0.605|0.6505
91027524|NCT02655237|181939175|OTHER|The mean differences in the observed values between relugolix 40 mg and leuprorelin group and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each visit.|Mean Difference (Each Visit)|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|5.77|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Leuprorelin|Week 8||5.77|-0.37|
91027525|NCT02655237|181939175|OTHER|The mean differences in the observed values between relugolix 40 mg and leuprorelin group and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each visit.|Mean Difference (Each Visit)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|3.61|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Leuprorelin|Week 12||3.61|-1.84|
91027526|NCT02655237|181939175|OTHER|The mean differences in the observed values between relugolix 40 mg and leuprorelin group and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each visit.|Mean Difference (Each Visit)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|2.79|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Leuprorelin|Week 16||2.79|-2.61|
90836142|NCT00286468|181538954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.26||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.26|-0.53|<0.001
91027527|NCT02655237|181939175|OTHER|The mean differences in the observed values between relugolix 40 mg and leuprorelin group and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each visit.|Mean Difference (Each Visit)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|3.41|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Leuprorelin|Week 20||3.41|-1.74|
90836143|NCT00286468|181538954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.33||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.33|-0.61|<0.001
90836144|NCT00286468|181538955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.25||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.25|-0.57|<0.001
90836145|NCT00286468|181538955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.36||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.36|-0.68|<0.001
90836146|NCT00286468|181538956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.19||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.19|-0.54|<0.001
90836147|NCT00286468|181538956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.33||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.33|-0.68|<0.001
90836148|NCT00286468|181538957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.17||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.17|-0.54|<0.001
90836149|NCT00286468|181538957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.34||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.34|-0.71|<0.001
90836150|NCT00286468|181538958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.1||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.8|-3.4||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-3.4|-20.8|0.006
90836151|NCT00286468|181538958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.0|-10.6||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-10.6|-28.0|<0.001
90895795|NCT00643123|181657187|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3||0.45|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.45
90895796|NCT02623855|181657191|SUPERIORITY|Our hypothesis was that park prescriptions with group visits would have a superior result than park prescriptions alone.||||||0.6099|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The study is powered for our primary outcome, caregiver stress as measured by the 10-item perceived stress s score (PSS10). Normative data from population samples show a mean PSS10 score of 13.2 points with a standard deviation of 6.35 points and a within-subject correlation coefficient of 0.77 over 2 weeks.We powered the study to detect a three point difference in the change of the PSS10. This effect size is consistent with other estimates of a clinically significant change.||||0.6099
91027528|NCT02655237|181939175|OTHER|The mean differences in the observed values between relugolix 40 mg and leuprorelin group and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each visit.|Mean Difference (Each Visit)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|2.71|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Leuprorelin|Week 24||2.71|-2.07|
91027529|NCT02655237|181939175|OTHER|The mean differences in the observed values between relugolix 40 mg and leuprorelin group and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each visit.|Mean Difference (Each Visit)|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.96|1.09|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Leuprorelin|Follow-Up (up to Week 28)||1.09|-3.96|
91027530|NCT03679741|181939183|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of -5 points was used. This margin is based on a 10% shift in the distribution of CLUE scores.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.99|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|5.8|||Bayesian multivariate normal random-effe|A 95% Credible Interval for the Posterior mean difference between the Test and Control was used to test for non-inferiority.|Mean difference was calculated as test minus control|It was calculated that 30 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the two lens wear sequences would have at least 80% power to detect a 5 point difference between the test and control lenses with respect to overall comfort at the 2-week follow-up. Sample size was determined using Stroup's Method (alpha=0.05).||5.8|-1.9|
91090753|NCT01687218|182064939|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.01||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects models were used to compare the three treatment regimens within participants over time using the oral regimen as the reference group. The models included fixed effects for treatment regimen and period and random effects for participant within sequence. The log 10 transformation was used in the mixed effects models for all PK results to achieve normality.||0.31|-0.28|0.92
90836152|NCT00286468|181538959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.5|-7.2||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-7.2|-22.5|<0.001
90836153|NCT00286468|181538959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.7|-12.4||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-12.4|-27.7|<0.001
90836154|NCT00286468|181538960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.9||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.3|-2.6||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-2.6|-19.3|0.010
90836155|NCT00286468|181538960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.8|-9.1||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-9.1|-25.8|<0.001
90836156|NCT00286468|181538961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.2|-8.2||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-8.2|-25.2|<0.001
90836157|NCT00286468|181538961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.9|-6.9||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-6.9|-23.9|<0.001
90836158|NCT00286468|181538962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.1||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.2|-1.0||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-1.0|-19.2|0.030
90836159|NCT00286468|181538962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.7||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.8|-2.5||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-2.5|-20.8|0.012
90836160|NCT00286468|181538963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||0.701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|7.8||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||7.8|-11.6|0.701
90836161|NCT00286468|181538963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.0||||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.7|3.7||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||3.7|-15.7|0.228
90836162|NCT00286468|181538964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.0||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.6|1.6||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||1.6|-19.6|0.097
90836163|NCT00286468|181538964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.3||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.9|-2.7||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-2.7|-23.9|0.014
90836164|NCT00286468|181538965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.8||||0.241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.3|4.6||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||4.6|-18.3|0.241
90895797|NCT02623855|181657193|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0085|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0085
91090754|NCT01687218|182064940|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.35||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.63|||Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE)||Oral regimen is the reference group.|Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) models with a binomial (logit) link, an exchangeable correlation structure and robust errors and with treatment regimen and period as independent variables was used to compare the three treatment regimens for the acceptability endpoints. Because the distribution of the adherence percentages were skewed, we did not use a linear mixed effects model as originally planned. Instead, we dichotomized the adherence percentage into\<80% adherence versus\>80% adherence.||0.63|0.19|0.0005
91027531|NCT03679741|181939184|NON_INFERIORITY|A cumulative odds ratio non-inferiority margin of 0.67 was used. This margin is based on no more than a 10% difference in proportion between the Test and the Control lenses. The odds ratio represents the cumulative odds ratio of having a higher rating/experience of the Test lens compared to the Control lens.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.97|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.138|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.27|6.62|||Bayesian multinomial random-effects mode|A 95% Credible Interval for the odds ratio, was used to test for non-inferiority.|Odds ratio was calculated as test over control|||6.62|2.27|
91027532|NCT03679741|181939185|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 0.05 logMAR was used. This margin corresponds to a half line difference. Non-inferiority was declared if the upper bound of the 95% credible interval was below 0.05 logMAR.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.022|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0074|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.037|-0.008|||Bayesian multivariate normal model|with random effects|Mean difference was calculated as Test minus Control|It was calculated that 4 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the two lens types would have at least 80% power to detect non-inferiority with respect to visual acuity (logMAR) at the 2-week follow-up. Sample size was determined using Stroup's method. The analysis presented below, summarizes the low luminance high contrast lighting condition.||-0.008|-0.037|
91103927|NCT03992872|182094613|SUPERIORITY||GMR (Prior Alpha / Naïve Alpha)|1.51||||0.0277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|2.19||P-values were based on an ANOVA model with log10-transformed titer as the dependent variable and study arm, age, and gender as predictors.|ANOVA||Differences in least squares means from the ANOVA model were back-transformed and reported as geometric mean ratios with 95% confidence intervals.|Day 1: Geometric mean ratio (prior alpha group over naïve alpha group) and 95% confidence interval||2.19|1.05|0.0277
90836165|NCT00286468|181538965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.5||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|0.9||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.9|-22.0|0.072
90836166|NCT00286468|181538966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.775||||0.338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.306||no multiplicity adjustments|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline glyburide dose and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||1.306|0.460|0.338
90836167|NCT00286468|181538966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.521||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.306|0.887||no multiplicity adjustments|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||0.887|0.306|0.016
90836168|NCT00286468|181538967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.374||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.194|0.72||no multiplicity adjustments|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline glyburide dose and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||0.720|0.194|0.003
90836169|NCT00286468|181538967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.372||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.193|0.718||no multiplicity adjustments|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline glyburide dose and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||0.718|0.193|0.003
90836170|NCT00286468|181538968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|6.7||No multiplicity adjustments.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||6.7|-6.1|0.923
90836171|NCT00286468|181538968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.7||||0.259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|10.1||No multiplicity adjustments.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||10.1|-2.7|0.259
90836172|NCT00286468|181538969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|5.9||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||5.9|-6.6|0.916
90836173|NCT00286468|181538969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.3||||0.305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|9.5||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||9.5|-3.0|0.305
90836174|NCT00286468|181538970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|5.8||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||5.8|-6.1|0.953
90836175|NCT00286468|181538970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|5.8||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||5.8|-6.1|0.957
90836176|NCT00286468|181538971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|6.6||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||6.6|-5.9|0.908
90895798|NCT02623855|181657195|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1749|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1749
90836177|NCT00286468|181538971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|7.0||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||7.0|-5.6|0.826
90836178|NCT00286468|181538972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|6.8||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||6.8|-5.9|0.894
90836179|NCT00286468|181538972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5||||0.432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|8.9||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||8.9|-3.8|0.432
90836180|NCT00286468|181538973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||0.548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|4.3||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||4.3|-8.1|0.548
90836181|NCT00286468|181538973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|6.2||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||6.2|-6.3|0.986
90836182|NCT00286468|181538974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.26||||0.415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|4.3||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||4.30|-1.78|0.415
90836183|NCT00286468|181538974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.51||||0.332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|4.55||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||4.55|-1.54|0.332
90836184|NCT00286468|181538975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.47|2.85||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||2.85|-2.47|0.890
90836185|NCT00286468|181538975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.19||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|3.86||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||3.86|-1.48|0.380
90957188|NCT02084056|181793861|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (FDC/free combination) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted Geometric Means ratio|101.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.047||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.721|110.202|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|Ratio of (FDC 2000 fed/ L+M 2000 fed)|||110.202|93.721|0.0003
91027533|NCT03679741|181939185|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 0.05 logMAR was used. This margin corresponds to a half line difference. Non-inferiority was declared if the upper bound of the 95% credible interval was below 0.05 logMAR.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.034|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0075|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.049|-0.02|||Bayesian multivariate normal model|with random effect|Mean difference was calculated as Test minus Control|It was calculated that 4 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the two lens types would have at least 80% power to detect non-inferiority with respect to visual acuity (logMAR) at the 2-week follow-up. Sample size was determined using Stroup's method. The analysis presented below, summarizes the high illumination low contrast lighting condition.||-0.020|-0.049|
90836186|NCT00286468|181538976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.35||||0.448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.14|4.85||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||4.85|-2.14|0.448
91027534|NCT03679741|181939186|SUPERIORITY|A superiority margin of 90% was used. Superiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 95% credible interval was above 90%|Mean Percentage of eyes|100.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.002|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.0|100.0|||Bayesian beta- binomial model|for correlated binary data||It was calculated that 65 participants were required to show that the acceptable lens fitting for the Test lens would be superior to 90% with at least 80% power. Sample size was determined using simulations methods for repeated measures.||100.0|99.0|
90836187|NCT00286468|181538976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.02||||0.568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|4.52||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||4.52|-2.48|0.568
90836188|NCT00286468|181538977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.95||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|6.22||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||6.22|-0.32|0.077
90836189|NCT00286468|181538977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.72||||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|4.99||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||4.99|-1.55|0.303
90836190|NCT00286468|181538978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.25||||0.461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.08|4.57||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||4.57|-2.08|0.461
90836191|NCT00286468|181538978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.99||||0.559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|4.32||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||4.32|-2.34|0.559
90836192|NCT00286468|181538979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.04||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|3.62||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||3.62|-1.54|0.430
90836193|NCT00286468|181538979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.03||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|4.61||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||4.61|-0.56|0.124
90836194|NCT00286468|181538980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.056||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.099|-0.013||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.013|-0.099|0.011
90836195|NCT00286468|181538980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.035||||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.078|0.009||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.009|-0.078|0.116
90836196|NCT00286468|181538981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.044||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.081|-0.006||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.006|-0.081|0.024
90895799|NCT00118716|181657221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|5.6||LS Mean Difference, SE, CI, and p-value were from an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, investigator, age stratum, and baseline value.|ANCOVA||LS Mean Diff was calculated as FSC 100/50mcg BID-FP 100mcg BID.|FSC 100/50mcg BID versus FP 100mcg BID for maximal percent change in FEV1 following exercise challenge at Week 4.||5.6|0.5|0.021
90895800|NCT00118716|181657222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.085|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.58||LS Mean Diff, SE, CI, and p-value were from an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, investigator, age stratum, and baseline value.|ANCOVA||LS Mean Diff was calculated as FSC 100/50mcg BID-FP 100mcg BID.|FSC 100/50mcg BID versus FP 100mcg BID for post-dose FEV1 AUC Day 1.||0.58|0.24|<0.001
90895801|NCT00118716|181657223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.83||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|17.6||LS Mean Diff, SE, CI, and p-values were from an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, investigator, age stratum, and baseline value.|ANCOVA||LS Mean Diffs were calculated as FSC 100/50mcg BID-FP 100mcg BID.|FSC 100/50mcg BID versus FP 100mcg BID for AM PEF||17.6|-1.5|0.097
91027535|NCT03679741|181939187|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority cumulative odds ratio margin of 2 was used. This margin corresponds to no more than a 5% difference between the Test and Control lenses assuming the Control reference rate does not exceed 5%. Non-inferiority was declared if the upper bound of the 95% credible interval was below 2.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.001|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.003|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.008|||Bayesian beta-binomial hierarchical||Mean difference was calculated as Test minus Control.|It was calculated that 50 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the two lens wear sequences would have at least 80% power to detect 5% difference between the Test and Control lens with respect to the proportion of eyes with Grade 3 or higher slit lamp findings across all study visits. Sample size was determined using simulations methods.||0.008|-0.004|
91027536|NCT03679741|181939188|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of -5 points was used. This margin is based on a 10% shift in the distribution of CLUE scores.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.29|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|8.1|||Bayesian multivariate normal model|for random effects|Mean difference was calculated as test minus control|Sample size was based on primary endpoints only.||8.1|3.1|
91103928|NCT03992872|182094613|SUPERIORITY||GMR (Prior Alpha / Naïve Alpha)|1.83||||0.0088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|2.86||P-values were based on an ANOVA model with log10-transformed titer as the dependent variable and study arm, age, and gender as predictors.|ANOVA||Differences in least squares means from the ANOVA model were back-transformed and reported as geometric mean ratios with 95% confidence intervals.|Day 22: Geometric mean ratio (prior alpha group over naïve alpha group) and 95% confidence interval||2.86|1.17|0.0088
90836197|NCT00286468|181538981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.037||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.074|0.001||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.001|-0.074|0.059
90836198|NCT00286468|181538982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.028||||0.159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.067|0.011||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.011|-0.067|0.159
90836199|NCT00286468|181538982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.038||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.077|0.001||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.001|-0.077|0.055
90836200|NCT00286468|181538983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.039||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.002||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.002|-0.080|0.062
90836201|NCT00286468|181538983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.043||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.084|-0.002||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.002|-0.084|0.041
90836202|NCT00286468|181538984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.069|0.01||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.010|-0.069|0.148
90836203|NCT00286468|181538984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.031||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.071|0.009||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.009|-0.071|0.135
90836204|NCT00286468|181538985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.026||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.065|0.012||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.012|-0.065|0.177
90836205|NCT00286468|181538985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.026||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.065|0.012||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.012|-0.065|0.177
90836206|NCT00286468|181538986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.162||||0.324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.161|0.486||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.486|-0.161|0.324
90836207|NCT00286468|181538986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.176||||0.284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.147|0.5||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.500|-0.147|0.284
90895802|NCT00118716|181657224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3||0.396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|12.1||LS Mean Diff, SE, CI, and p-values were from an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, investigator, age stratum, and baseline value.|ANCOVA||LS Mean Diffs were calculated as FSC 100/50mcg BID-FP 100mcg BID.|FSC 100/50mcg BID versus FP 100mcg BID PM PEF.||12.1|-4.8|0.396
91027537|NCT03679741|181939189|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of -5 points was used. This margin is based on a 10% shift in the distribution of CLUE scores.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.56|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|5.5|||Bayesian multivariate normal model|for random effects|Mean difference was calculated as test minus control|Sample size was based on primary endpoints only.||5.5|-0.6|
91027538|NCT03679741|181939190|NON_INFERIORITY|A cumulative odds ratio non-inferiority margin of 0.67 was used. This margin is based on no more than a 10% difference in proportion between the Test and the Control lenses. The odds ratio represents the cumulative odds ratio of having a higher rating/experience of the Test lens compared to the Control lens.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.459|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.82|||Bayesian multinomial random-effects|A 95% Credible Interval for the odds ratio, was used to test for non-inferiority.|Odds ratio was calculated as test over control|||2.82|1.00|
91027539|NCT00948675|181939237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.176||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.176
91027540|NCT00948675|181939238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.61||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.610
91027541|NCT00948675|181939239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.615||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.615
91027542|NCT00948675|181939240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.414||95.0|||||Pearson Chi-square Test|||||||0.414
90895803|NCT00118716|181657227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.43||LS Mean Diff, SE, CI, and p-values were from an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, investigator, age stratum, and baseline value.|ANCOVA|||FSC 100/50mcg BID versus FP 100mcg BID for activity limitation at Week 2||0.43|-0.08|0.168
90895804|NCT00118716|181657227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.147||0.465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.4||LS Mean Diff, SE, CI, and p-values were from an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, investigator, age stratum, and baseline value.|ANCOVA|||FSC 100/50mcg BID versus FP 100mcg BID for activity limitation at Week 4.||0.40|-0.18|0.465
90895805|NCT00118716|181657227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.133||0.222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.42||LS Mean Diff, SE, CI, and p-values are from an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, investigator, age stratum, and baseline value.|ANCOVA|||FSC 100/50mcg BID versus FP 100mcg BID for activity limitation at Endpoint.||0.42|-0.10|0.222
90895806|NCT00118716|181657227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.096||0.294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.09||LS Mean Diff, SE, CI, and p-values were from an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, investigator, age stratum, and baseline value.|ANCOVA|||FSC 100/50mcg BID versus FP 100mcg BID for emotional function at Week 2.||0.09|-0.29|0.294
90895807|NCT00118716|181657227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.111||0.828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.19||LS Mean Diff, SE, CI, and p-values were from an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, investigator, age stratum, and baseline value.|ANCOVA|||FSC 100/50mcg BID versus FP 100mcg BID for emotional function at Week 4.||0.19|-0.24|0.828
90895808|NCT00118716|181657227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.103||0.903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.22||LS Mean Diff, SE, CI, and p-values were from an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, investigator, age stratum, and baseline value.|ANCOVA|||FSC 100/50mcg BID versus FP 100mcg BID for emotional function at Endpoint.||0.22|-0.19|0.903
90957189|NCT02084056|181793862|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (FDC/free combination) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted Geometric Means ratio|114.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.038||0.0113|TWO_SIDED|90.0|107.687|121.908|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'|Ratio of (FDC 2000 fasted/ L+M 2000 fasted)|||121.908|107.687|0.0113
91027543|NCT00948675|181939241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.575||95.0|||||Pearson Chi-square Test|||||||0.575
90836208|NCT00286468|181538987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.268||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.54||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.540|-0.004|0.053
90895809|NCT00118716|181657227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.112||0.464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.14|||ANCOVA|LS Mean Diff, SE, CI, and p-values were from an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, investigator, age stratum, and baseline value.||FSC 100/50mcg BID versus FP 100mcg BID for symptoms at Week 2.||0.14|-0.30|0.464
90895810|NCT00118716|181657227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.124||0.551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.17||LS Mean Diff, SE, CI, and p-values were from an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, investigator, age stratum, and baseline value.|ANCOVA|||FSC 100/50mcg BID versus FP 100mcg BID for symptoms at Week 4.||0.17|-0.32|0.551
90895811|NCT00118716|181657227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.123||0.633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.18||LS Mean Diff, SE, CI, and p-values were from an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, investigator, age stratum, and baseline value.|ANCOVA|||FSC 100/50mcg BID versus FP 100mcg BID for symptoms at Endpoint.||0.18|-0.30|0.633
90895812|NCT00118716|181657227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.15||LS Mean Diff, SE, CI, and p-values are from an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, investigator, age stratum, and baseline value.|ANCOVA|||FSC 100/50mcg BID versus FP 100mcg BID for overall score at Week 2.||0.15|-0.22|0.700
90895813|NCT00118716|181657227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.109||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.2||LS Mean Diff, SE, CI, and p-values were from an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, investigator, age stratum, and baseline value.|ANCOVA|||FSC 100/50mcg BID versus FP 100mcg BID for overall score at Week 4.||0.20|-0.23|0.860
90895814|NCT00118716|181657227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.103||0.919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.21||LS Mean Diff, SE, CI, and p-values were from an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, investigator, age stratum, and baseline value.|ANCOVA|||FSC 100/50mcg BID versus FP 100mcg BID for overall score at Endpoint.||0.21|-0.19|0.919
91027544|NCT06331156|181939266|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority (NI) was to be demonstrated if the lower limit (LL) of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the group difference (Co-administration group minus Staggered group) in seroconversion rate is greater than or equal to (\>=) -10% for the anti-poliovirus type 1 antibodies.|Difference in seroconversion rate|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.14|3.76|||||The asymptotic standardized 95% CI for the difference in seroconversion rate for IPV at month 3.5 between Co-administration group minus staggered group is computed using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of IPV when co-administered with HRV PCV-free compared with IPV administered alone in terms of seroconversion rates 1-month post-Dose 3 of IPV (Month 3.5).||3.76|-3.14|
91027545|NCT06331156|181939266|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the LL of the 2-sided 95% CI for the group difference (Co-administration group minus Staggered group) in seroconversion rate is \>= -10% for the anti-poliovirus type 2 antibodies.|Difference in seroconversion rate|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.86|2.3|||||The asymptotic standardized 95% CI for the difference in seroconversion rate for IPV at month 3.5 between Co-administration group minus staggered group is computed using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of IPV when co-administered with HRV PCV-free compared with IPV administered alone in terms of seroconversion rates 1-month post-Dose 3 of IPV (Month 3.5).||2.30|-3.86|
90836209|NCT00286468|181538987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.349||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.077|0.621||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.621|0.077|0.012
90836210|NCT00286468|181538988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.182||||0.196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.094|0.458||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.458|-0.094|0.196
90836211|NCT00286468|181538988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.226||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.051|0.502||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.502|-0.051|0.110
90836212|NCT00286468|181538989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.228||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.517||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.517|-0.060|0.121
90836213|NCT00286468|181538989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.159||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.448||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.448|-0.130|0.280
90836214|NCT00286468|181538990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.015||||0.924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.32||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.320|-0.290|0.924
90836215|NCT00286468|181538990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.138||||0.376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.168|0.444||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.444|-0.168|0.376
90836216|NCT00286468|181538991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.075||||0.642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.242|0.393||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.393|-0.242|0.642
90836217|NCT00286468|181538991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.063||||0.698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.255|0.381||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.381|-0.255|0.698
90836218|NCT00286468|181538992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.503|3.306||no multiplicity adjustments|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline glyburide dose and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||3.306|0.503|0.596
90836219|NCT00286468|181538992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.96||||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.787|4.885||no multiplicity adjustments|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline glyburide dose and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||4.885|0.787|0.148
90836220|NCT00286468|181538993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.925||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.011|3.666||no multiplicity adjustments|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline glyburide dose and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||3.666|1.011|0.046
90836221|NCT00286468|181538993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.505||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.313|4.78||no multiplicity adjustments|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline glyburide dose and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||4.780|1.313|0.005
90836222|NCT00286468|181538994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.955||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.086|3.519||no multiplicity adjustments|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline glyburide dose and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||3.519|1.086|0.025
90836223|NCT00286468|181538994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.707|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.012|6.831||no multiplicity adjustments|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline glyburide dose and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||6.831|2.012|<0.001
90836224|NCT00286468|181538995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.994|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|5.213||no multiplicity adjustments|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline glyburide dose and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||5.213|1.720|<0.001
91090755|NCT01687218|182064940|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.81|||Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE)||Oral regimen is the reference group.|Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) models with a binomial (logit) link, an exchangeable correlation structure and robust errors and with treatment regimen and period as independent variables was used to compare the three treatment regimens for the acceptability endpoints. Because the distribution of the adherence percentages were skewed, we did not use a linear mixed effects model as originally planned. Instead, we dichotomized the adherence percentage into\<80% adherence versus\>80% adherence.||1.81|0.43|0.74
91090756|NCT02175225|182065011|OTHER|The alternative hypothesis, reflecting futility, is that the absolute treatment effect is less than 12% in favor of deferoxamine. In accordance with the futility design, futility was evaluated via the one-sided 90% upper confidence bound (90% UCB) of the treatment effect (absolute adjusted risk difference \[AARD\]); if the upper bound on the risk difference was less than 12% in favour of deferoxamine mesylate, this would be considered evidence of futility.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.006|||||ONE_SIDED|90.0||0.068|||||Futility was evaluated via the one-sided 90% upper confidence bound (90% UCB) of the treatment effect (absolute adjusted risk difference \[AARD\]); if UCB was less than 12% in favour of deferoxamine mesylate, this is considered evidence of futility.|||0.068||
91090757|NCT02175225|182065012|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.16||||||||1.16|0.57|
91090758|NCT02175225|182065013|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.56||||||||1.56|0.57|
91090759|NCT02175225|182065014|OTHER|The alternative hypothesis, reflecting futility, is that the absolute treatment effect is less than 13% in favor of deferoxamine. In accordance with the futility design, futility was evaluated via the one-sided 90% upper confidence bound (90% UCB) of the treatment effect (absolute adjusted risk difference \[AARD\]); if the upper bound on the risk difference was less than13% in favor of deferoxamine mesylate, this would be considered evidence of futility.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.062|||||ONE_SIDED|90.0||0.121|||||Futility was evaluated via the one-sided 90% upper confidence bound (90% UCB) of the treatment effect (absolute adjusted risk difference\[AARD\]); if UCB was less than 12% in favour of deferoxamine mesylate, this is considered evidence of futility.|||0.121||
91090760|NCT02175225|182065015|OTHER|The alternative hypothesis, reflecting futility, is that the absolute treatment effect is less than 12% in favor of deferoxamine. In accordance with the futility design, futility was evaluated via the one-sided 90% upper confidence bound (90% UCB) of the treatment effect (absolute adjusted risk difference \[AARD\]); if the upper bound on the risk difference was less than 12% in favour of deferoxamine mesylate, this would be considered evidence of futility.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.086|||||ONE_SIDED|90.0||0.156|||||Futility was evaluated via the one-sided 90% upper confidence bound (90% UCB) of the treatment effect (absolute adjusted risk difference \[AARD\]); if UCB was less than 12% in favour of deferoxamine mesylate, this is considered evidence of futility.|||0.156||
91090761|NCT02175225|182065016|OTHER|The alternative hypothesis, reflecting futility, is that the absolute treatment effect is less than 13% in favor of deferoxamine. In accordance with the futility design, futility was evaluated via the one-sided 90% upper confidence bound (90% UCB) of the treatment effect (absolute adjusted risk difference \[AARD\]); if the upper bound on the risk difference was less than 13% in favour of deferoxamine mesylate, this would be considered evidence of futility.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.018|||||ONE_SIDED|90.0||0.029|||||Futility was evaluated via the one-sided 90% upper confidence bound (90% UCB) of the treatment effect (absolute adjusted risk difference \[AARD\]); if UCB was less than 13% in favour of deferoxamine mesylate, this is considered evidence of futility.|||0.029||
91090762|NCT02175225|182065017|OTHER|||||||0.83||||||The p value reflects the significance of the interaction term between treatment and onset to treatment time.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.83
91090763|NCT02175225|182065018|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.67|||||The estimation parameter is the adjusted common odds ratio.|||1.67|0.72|
91090764|NCT02175225|182065019|OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.93||||||||1.93|0.82|
91090765|NCT02175225|182065022|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|14.97|||||Confidence interval is exact (rather than asymptotic) due to small number of events.|||14.97|0.0|
90836225|NCT00286468|181538995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.401|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.95|5.933||no multiplicity adjustments|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline glyburide dose and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||5.933|1.950|<0.001
91090766|NCT02175225|182065023|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.54|||||Confidence interval constructed only for all cause owing to small number of events caused by acute respiratory distress syndrome.|||1.54|0.51|
91090767|NCT02175225|182065024|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|5.35||||||||5.35|0.63|
91090768|NCT02668640|182065031|OTHER||||||=|0.0002|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||=0.0002
90836226|NCT00286468|181538996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.776||||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|3.627||no multiplicity adjustments|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline glyburide dose and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||3.627|0.870|0.115
91090769|NCT02668640|182065032|OTHER||||||=|0.0006|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||=0.0006
91090770|NCT02668640|182065033|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Median change from baseline in PCS T-score at Week 12||||<0.0001
91090771|NCT02668640|182065033|OTHER||||||=|0.1233|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Median change from baseline in MCS T-score at Week 12||||=0.1233
91090772|NCT02668640|182065033|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Median change from baseline in PCS T-score at Week 24||||<0.001
91090773|NCT02668640|182065033|OTHER||||||=|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Median change from baseline in MCS T-score at Week 24||||=0.001
91090774|NCT02668640|182065034|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Median Change From Baseline in EQ-5D-3L Index Score at Week 12||||<0.0001
91090775|NCT02668640|182065034|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Median Change From Baseline in EQ-5D-3L Index Score at Week 24||||<0.0001
91090776|NCT02668640|182065035|OTHER||||||=|0.0137|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Median Change from Baseline in WPAI Overall Work Impairment Score at Week 12||||=0.0137
91090777|NCT02668640|182065035|OTHER||||||=|0.0607|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Median Change from Baseline in Overall Work Impairment Score at Week 24||||=0.0607
90836227|NCT00286468|181538996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.416|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.703|6.851||no multiplicity adjustments|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline glyburide dose and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||6.851|1.703|<0.001
90836228|NCT00286468|181538997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.991||||0.986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.365|2.689||no multiplicity adjustments|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline glyburide dose and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||2.689|0.365|0.986
90836229|NCT00286468|181538997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.05||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.808|5.203||no multiplicity adjustments|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline glyburide dose and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||5.203|0.808|0.131
90836230|NCT00286468|181538998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.626||95.0||||no multiplicity adjustments|Mantel Haenszel|OR and 95% CI not estimable using logistic regression model. Tested using extended Mantel-Haenszel test.||||||0.626
90836231|NCT00286468|181538998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.178||||||no multiplicity adjustments|Mantel Haenszel|OR and 95% CI not estimable using logistic regression model. Tested using extended Mantel-Haenszel test.||||||0.178
90836232|NCT00286468|181538999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.16||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||1.16|0.32|<0.001
90836233|NCT00286468|181538999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.59||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.02||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||1.02|0.17|0.006
90836234|NCT00286468|181539000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.69||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.18||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||1.18|0.20|0.006
90836235|NCT00286468|181539000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.52||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|1.01||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||1.01|0.02|0.040
90836236|NCT00286468|181539001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.73||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||1.73|0.47|<0.001
90957190|NCT02084056|181793862|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (FDC/free combination) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted Geometric Means ratio|98.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.075||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.543|111.609|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|Ratio of (FDC 2000 fed/ L+M 2000 fed)|||111.609|86.543|0.0064
91027546|NCT06331156|181939266|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the LL of the 2-sided 95% CI for the group difference (Co-administration group minus Staggered group) in seroconversion rate is \>= -10% for the anti-poliovirus type 3 antibodies.|Difference in seroconversion rate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.63|2.99|||||The asymptotic standardized 95% CI for the difference in seroconversion rate for IPV at Month 3.5 between Co-administration group minus Staggered group is computed using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of IPV when co-administered with HRV PCV-free compared with IPV administered alone in terms of seroconversion rates 1-month post-Dose 3 of IPV (Month 3.5).||2.99|-2.63|
90836237|NCT00286468|181539001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.91||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.55||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||1.55|0.28|0.005
91027547|NCT05845645|181939275|OTHER||GLSM Ratio|0.8269|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7535|0.9076|||||The geometric least square mean (GLSM) ratio was calculated as UCB0599: Non-encapsulated tablet 180 mg divided by UCB0599: Capsule 180 mg.|For normal gastric pH||0.9076|0.7535|
90836238|NCT00286468|181539002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|1.46||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||1.46|0.14|0.018
90836239|NCT00286468|181539002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.88||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.54||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||1.54|0.21|0.010
90836240|NCT00072462|181539016|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.12||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.14|||Regression, Cox|Univariate||||1.14|0.67|0.33
91027548|NCT05845645|181939275|OTHER||GLSM ratio|0.7053|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6427|0.7741|||||The GLSM ratio was calculated as UCB0599: Encapsulated tablet 180 mg divided by UCB0599: Capsule 180 mg.|For Normal gastric pH||0.7741|0.6427|
90895815|NCT00855062|181657228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.026|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.248||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.512|0.46||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||"The null hypothesis was that the 24-week changes of U NP Sum between the minocycline and placebo groups are the same.~The sample size calculation showed that 100 (50 participants in each group) were required to detect the clinically meaningful difference of 0.5 with 85% power, 0.05 Type I error, two-sample and two-sided test."||0.460|-0.512|0.370
90836241|NCT00072462|181539016|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.12||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.15|||Regression, Cox|Covariates included in model: Hormone Replacement Therapy use, Age, BMI, Use of radiotherapy, Extent of margins, Grade(categorical: low, medium, high)||||1.15|0.66|0.33
90836242|NCT00072462|181539017|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.12||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.01|||Regression, Cox|Univariate||||1.01|0.52|0.06
90836243|NCT00072462|181539017|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.13||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.05|||Regression, Cox|Covariates included in model: Hormone Replacement Therapy use, Age, BMI, Use of radiotherapy, Extent of margins, Grade(categorical: low, medium, high)||||1.05|0.52|0.09
90836244|NCT00072462|181539018|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.64|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.54||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.84|||Regression, Cox|Univariate||||2.84|0.75|0.13
90836245|NCT00072462|181539018|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.46|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.5||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.84|||Regression, Cox|Covariates included in model: Hormone Replacement Therapy use, Age, BMI, Use of radiotherapy, Extent of margins, Grade(categorical: low, medium, high)||||2.84|0.75|0.26
90836246|NCT00072462|181539019|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|5.11|||Regression, Cox|Univariate||||5.11|0.21|0.97
90836247|NCT00072462|181539019|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.88||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|5.36|||Regression, Cox|Covariates included in model: Hormone Replacement Therapy use, Age, BMI, Use of radiotherapy, Extent of margins, Grade(categorical: low, medium, high)||||5.36|0.22|0.93
90836248|NCT00072462|181539020|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.17||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.32|||Regression, Cox|Univariate||||1.32|0.65|0.67
90836249|NCT00072462|181539020|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.16||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.22|||Regression, Cox|Covariates included in model: Hormone Replacement Therapy use, Age, BMI, Use of radiotherapy, Extent of margins, Grade(categorical: low, medium, high)||||1.22|0.59|0.38
90836250|NCT04742556|181539046|OTHER||Probability of true DLT rate in [0.33-1]|0.0051||||||||||||||Probability of true DLT rate was determined using a Bayesian 2-parameter logistic regression model with overdose control.||||
90895816|NCT00855062|181657230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.053||||0.613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.043|0.062||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||"The null hypothesis is that the percentage of participants feeling better in the minocycline group after 24 week treatment is the same as the one in the placebo group."||0.062|0.043|0.613
90836251|NCT04742556|181539046|OTHER||Probability of true DLT rate in [0.33-1]|0.03105||||||||||||||Probability of true DLT rate was determined using a Bayesian 2-parameter logistic regression model with overdose control.||||
90836252|NCT04742556|181539046|OTHER||Probability of true DLT rate in [0.33-1]|0.27405||||||||||||||Probability of true DLT rate was determined using a Bayesian 2-parameter logistic regression model with overdose control.||||
90957191|NCT02084056|181793863|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (FDC/free combination) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted Geometric Means ratio|96.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.23|101.97|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'|Ratio of (FDC 2000 fasted/ L+M 2000 fasted)|||101.97|91.23|<0.0001
90836253|NCT03562195|181539072|SUPERIORITY||Posterior probablity|0.9999|||||||||||Bayesian Dynamic Borrowing|A BDB approach was used in the estimation of primary endpoint in the Chinese participants of this study, with information borrowed from MEA115588.|"Pr (rate ratio \<1 \| data)\>0.999. The 'positive result' is defined as if the posterior probability that the rate ratio is less than 1 is at least 0.95"|||||
90836254|NCT03562195|181539072|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis is defined as the rate ratio of events between Mepolizumab 100mg SC versus placebo is less than 1.|Rate Ratio|0.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.5|||Negative binomial model|||||0.50|0.24|<0.001
90836255|NCT02923726|181539091|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.9|0.57|0.92|||Log Rank||Shock only was the reference group. Confidence interval adjusted for interim analyses.|||0.92|0.57|0.005
90836256|NCT02923726|181539092|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.07|||Log Rank||Shock Only was the reference group.|||1.07|0.78|0.284
90836257|NCT02923726|181539093|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.95|||Log Rank||Shock Only arm is reference group.|||0.95|0.56|0.020
90957192|NCT02084056|181793863|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (FDC/free combination) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted Geometric Means ratio|97.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.47|105.63|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|Ratio of (FDC 2000 fed/ L+M 2000 fed)|||105.63|90.47|0.0002
90836258|NCT02923726|181539094|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.97|||Log Rank||Shock Only is the reference group.|||0.97|0.44|0.033
90836259|NCT02923726|181539095|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||0.184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.41|||Log Rank||Shock Only is the reference group.|||1.41|0.94|0.184
90836260|NCT02795117|181539096|EQUIVALENCE|provides 85% power of success|equivalence ratio|96.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.0|105.4||No p-value was calculated for bioequivalence, only a T/R ratio and 90% confidence interval|ANOVA|||||105.4|91.0|
90836261|NCT02795117|181539097|EQUIVALENCE|provides 85% power of success|Equivalence difference|-6.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.31|1.85|||Wald's method|||||1.85|-18.31|
90836262|NCT01168349|181539167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.71||||||||0.71|0.42|
90836263|NCT01168349|181539170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
90836264|NCT02005016|181539219|OTHER|This was a single-group study. A t-test was administered comparing pre- and post-treatment PNT scores (range: 1-175; higher scores are better).|||||<|0.005|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.005
90895817|NCT00855062|181657231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.661||95.0||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis is that the survival curve for the first Grade ≥ 2 toxicity and/or sign and symptoms in the minocycline group is the same as the one in the placebo group.||||0.661
90836265|NCT02005016|181539220|OTHER|This was a single-group study. A t-test was administered comparing pre- and post-treatment CAT modality mean T-scores (range: 30-70, mean: 50; higher scores are better).|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
90836266|NCT02675907|181539242|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0034|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0034
90836267|NCT02675907|181539243|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||Row 1 (SPID6)|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
90836268|NCT02675907|181539243|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||Row 2 (SPID12)|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
90836269|NCT02675907|181539243|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||Row 3 (SPID24)|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
90836270|NCT02675907|181539243|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||Row 4 (SPID12-48)|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
90836271|NCT02675907|181539243|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||Row 5 (SPID24-48)|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
90836272|NCT02675907|181539244|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0076|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0076
90836273|NCT02675907|181539245|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Row 1 (Hour 0-24)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90836274|NCT02675907|181539245|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||Row 2 (Hour 24-48)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.01
90836275|NCT02675907|181539245|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||Row 3 (Hour 0-48)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.01
90836276|NCT02675907|181539246|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||Row 1 (Hour 0-24)|ANCOVA|P-values were derived from ANCOVA models with fixed effects of treatment, baseline PI score, and investigational site||||||<0.05
90836277|NCT02675907|181539246|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||Row 2 (Hour 24-48)|ANCOVA|P-values were derived from ANCOVA models with fixed effects of treatment, baseline PI score, and investigational site||||||<0.05
90836278|NCT02675907|181539246|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||Row 3 (Hour 0-48)|ANCOVA|P-values were derived from ANCOVA models with fixed effects of treatment, baseline PI score, and investigational site||||||<0.05
90895818|NCT00855062|181657232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.941||95.0||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis is that the 48-week survival curve for the first Grade ≥ 2 toxicity and/or sign and symptoms in the minocycline group is the same as the one in the placebo group.||||0.941
90895819|NCT00855062|181657233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.63||0.647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.23|43.45||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|The model was adjusted for the baseline CD4 counts.||The null hypothesis is that the mean 24-week change of CD4 cell counts in the minocycline group is the same as the one in the placebo group.||43.45|-27.23|0.647
90957193|NCT02084056|181793864|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (FDC/free combination) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted Geometric Means ratio|97.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.038|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.046|104.257|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'|Ratio of (FDC 2000 fasted/ L+M 2000 fasted)|||104.257|92.046|<0.0001
90836279|NCT02675907|181539247|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1228|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.1228
90836280|NCT02675907|181539248|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1048|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.1048
90836281|NCT02675907|181539249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0451|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0451
90836282|NCT02675907|181539250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0107|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0107
90836283|NCT02675907|181539251|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0781|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0781
90836284|NCT02675907|181539252|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.043|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0430
90836285|NCT02675907|181539253|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.107|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was derived from comparisons between N1539 and Placebo via General Association of CMH Test controlling for investigational site||||||0.1070
90836286|NCT02675907|181539254|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0046|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was derived from comparisons between N1539 and Placebo via General Association of CMH Test controlling for investigational site||||||0.0046
90836287|NCT01323582|181539255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.7||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.5|28.6|||t-test, 2 sided|Satterthwaite corrected t-test was used|A positive (negative) value would suggest AZI values would tend to be larger (smaller) than EZ values.|Study planned to accrue 50 subjects, but due to difficult recruitment was not able to meet its objective.||28.6|-21.5|0.76
90836288|NCT01323582|181539256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8||0.65||95.0|-4.8|7.5|||t-test, 2 sided|Satterthwaite Correction used|A positive (negative) value would suggest AZI values would tend to be larger (smaller) than EZ values.|Study planned to accrue 50 subjects, but due to difficult recruitment was not able to meet its objective.||7.5|-4.8|0.65
90836289|NCT01323582|181539257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.58|5.19|||t-test, 2 sided|Satterthwaite correction for unequal standard deviations was used|A positive (negative) value would suggest AZI values would tend to be larger (smaller) than EZ values.|Half of the period 2 minus period 1 differences were used, since the difference between these two derived means is an unbiased estimate of the effect size.||5.19|-4.58|0.88
90836290|NCT01323582|181539258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|10.9|||t-test, 2 sided|Satterthwaite Corrected t-test|A positive (negative) value would suggest AZI values would tend to be larger (smaller) than EZ values.|||10.9|-13.9|0.80
90836291|NCT01323582|181539259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.1||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.9|7.3|||t-test, 2 sided||Negative values suggest shorter emptying time post-treatment.|||7.3|-30.9|0.21
90836292|NCT01323582|181539260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-15.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.61||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.7|-1.26|||t-test, 2 sided||Negative values suggest shorter emptying time post-treatment.|||-1.26|-28.7|0.034
90836293|NCT01323582|181539261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.98||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.48|-1.16|||t-test, 2 sided||Lower scores are favorable.|||-1.16|-9.48|0.015
90836294|NCT01323582|181539262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.97|-1.83|||t-test, 2 sided||Lower scores are favorable.|||-1.83|-10.97|0.0083
91090778|NCT02668640|182065036|OTHER||||||=|0.0026|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Median Change from Baseline in WPAI Activity Impairment Score at Week 12||||=0.0026
91090779|NCT02668640|182065036|OTHER||||||=|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Median Change from Baseline in WPAI Activity Impairment Score at Week 24||||=0.0001
91090780|NCT01121263|182065089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.063||||0.8||95.0|0.666|1.697|||Regression, Cox|The Cox proportional hazards regression model was weighted by propensity score to adjust for differences in baseline risk between the two groups.|The Cox model was weighted by propensity score to adjust for differences in baseline risk between the two groups.|This applies to any MACCE||1.697|0.666|0.80
91090781|NCT01121263|182065090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.868||||0.53||95.0|0.556|1.355|||Regression, Cox||The Cox proportional hazards regression model was weighted by the propensity score to account for the difference in baseline risk between groups.|This applies to any MACCE||1.355|0.556|0.53
90836295|NCT00168844|181539263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.142|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis with terms for treatment, smoking status at entry,centre and baseline value.|Tiotropium Respimat 5mcg - Placebo|||||<0.0001
91090782|NCT00723229|182065151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Risk Ratio|0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.25|||Regression, poisson|Adjusted for period effects.||The trial had 80% power to detect a 35% reduction in genital shedding rates for acyclovir 400 mg twice daily.||0.25|0.17|<0.001
90836296|NCT00168844|181539263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.161|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis with terms for treatment, smoking status at entry,centre and baseline value.|Tiotropium Respimat 10mcg - Placebo|||||<0.0001
90836297|NCT00168844|181539264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.269|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.996||0.0011||95.0|||||ANCOVA|The means are adjusted for centre, smoking status at entry and baseline value.|Tiotropium Respimat 5mcg - Placebo|||||0.0011
90836298|NCT00168844|181539264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.242|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.999|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|The means are adjusted for centre, smoking status at entry and baseline value.|Tiotropium Respimat 10mcg - Placebo|||||<0.0001
90836299|NCT00168844|181539265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.053|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.165|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|The means are adjusted for centre, smoking status at entry and baseline value.|Tiotropium Respimat 5mcg - Placebo|||||<0.0001
90836300|NCT00168844|181539265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.075|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.166|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|The means are adjusted for centre, smoking status at entry and baseline value.||||||<0.0001
90836301|NCT00168844|181539266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.782||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.687|0.89|||Poisson regression||Tiotropium Respimat 5mcg - Placebo|||0.890|0.687|0.0002
90836302|NCT00168844|181539266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.725|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.635|0.828|||Poisson regression||Tiotropium Respimat 10mcg - Placebo|||0.828|0.635|<0.0001
90836303|NCT00168844|181539310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.178|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis with terms for treatment, smoking status at entry,centre and baseline value.|Tiotropium Respimat 5mcg - Placebo|Analysis for week 48||||<0.0001
90836304|NCT00168844|181539310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.323|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis with terms for treatment, smoking status at entry,centre and baseline value.|Tiotropium Respimat 10mcg - Placebo|Analysis for week 48||||<0.0001
90895820|NCT00855062|181657234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|32.51||0.813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.07|74.6||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|The model was adjusted for the baseline CD4 counts.||The null hypothesis is that the mean 48-week change in CD4 cell counts in the minocycline group is the same as the one in the placebo group.||74.60|-59.07|0.813
90836305|NCT00168844|181539311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis with terms for treatment, smoking status at entry, centre and baseline value.|Tiotropium Respimat 5mcg - Placebo|Analysis for week 48||||<0.0001
90895821|NCT00855062|181657235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.764||95.0|0.26|6.34||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Logistic|"The model was not adjusted for any covariate (due to small number of being better in both groups."||"The null hypothesis is that the percentage of being better at week 24 compared to baseline in the minocycline group is the same as the one in the placebo group."||6.34|0.26|0.764
91090783|NCT00723229|182065151|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for period effects.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.08|||Regression, Poisson|||Among HIV seronegative individuals.||0.08|0.03|<0.001
90836306|NCT00168844|181539311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.234|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis with terms for treatment, smoking status at entry, centre and baseline value.|Tiotropium Respimat 10mcg - Placebo|Analysis for week 48||||<0.0001
90836307|NCT00168844|181539312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis with terms for treatment, smoking status at entry, centre and baseline value.|Tiotropium Respimat 5mcg - Placebo|Analysis for week 48||||<0.0001
91090784|NCT00723229|182065151|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for period effects.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.6|||Regression, Poisson|||Among HIV seropositive individuals.||0.6|0.4|<0.001
91090785|NCT02900352|182065166|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0130
91090786|NCT02900352|182065167|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.148|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.148
91090787|NCT02900352|182065168|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.054|||||||ANOVA|||||||.054
91090788|NCT02900352|182065169|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.035
91090789|NCT02900352|182065170|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.889|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.889
91090790|NCT02900352|182065171|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.482|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.482
91090791|NCT02900352|182065172|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.04
91090792|NCT02265510|182065209|OTHER|Descriptive Statistics|||||||||||||||||The analysis of the primary endpoint was descriptive i.e. no statistical hypothesis test was performed.|||
91090793|NCT02265510|182065210|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Confidence Intervals for ORR were calculated based on the exact method for binomial distributions. There were no comparison between treatment groups.|||
91090794|NCT02265510|182065211|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Confidence Intervals for response were calculated based on the exact method for binomial distributions. There were no comparison between treatment groups.|||
90836308|NCT00168844|181539312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.419|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis with terms for treatment, smoking status at entry, centre and baseline value.|Tiotropium Respimat 10mcg - Placebo|Analysis for week 48||||<0.0001
90836309|NCT00168844|181539313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.3|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis with terms for treatment, centre,smoking status at entry and baseline value.|Tiotropium Respimat 5mcg - Placebo|Analysis for week 48||||<0.0001
90836310|NCT00168844|181539313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.3|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis with terms for treatment, centre,smoking status at entry and baseline value.|Tiotropium Respimat 10mcg - Placebo|Analysis for week 48||||<0.0001
90836311|NCT00168844|181539314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.6|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis with terms for treatment, centre,smoking status at entry and baseline value.|Tiotropium Respimat 5mcg - Placebo|Analysis for week 48||||<0.0001
90836312|NCT00168844|181539314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|35.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.6|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis with terms for treatment, centre,smoking status at entry and baseline value.|Tiotropium Respimat 10mcg - Placebo|Analysis for week 48||||<0.0001
90836313|NCT00168844|181539315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis with terms for treatment, centre,smoking status at entry and baseline value.|Tiotropium Respimat 5mcg - Placebo|Analysis for week 48||||<0.0001
90836314|NCT00168844|181539315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis with terms for treatment, centre,smoking status at entry and baseline value.|Tiotropium Respimat 10mcg - Placebo|Analysis for week 48||||<0.0001
90836315|NCT00525512|181539335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean ratio|1.13||||0.1062||95.0|0.97|1.32||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.32|0.97|0.1062
90836316|NCT00525512|181539336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean ratio|1.12||||0.008||95.0|1.03|1.23||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.23|1.03|0.008
90836317|NCT00525512|181539337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean ratio|1.1||||0.0597||95.0|1.0|1.21||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.21|1.00|0.0597
90836318|NCT00525512|181539338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean ratio|1.15||||0.0131||95.0|1.03|1.29||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.29|1.03|0.0131
90836319|NCT00525512|181539339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean ratio|1.18||||0.0041||95.0|1.05|1.32||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.32|1.05|0.0041
90836320|NCT00525512|181539340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean ratio|1.11||||0.0945||95.0|0.98|1.26||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.26|0.98|0.0945
90836321|NCT00525512|181539341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean ratio|1.12||||0.0899||95.0|0.98|1.28||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.28|0.98|0.0899
90836322|NCT00525512|181539342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.116|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.073|0.16||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.160|0.073|<0.0001
90836323|NCT00525512|181539343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.082||||0.0005||95.0|0.036|0.128||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.128|0.036|0.0005
90836324|NCT00525512|181539344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.089||||0.0003||95.0|0.041|0.137||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.137|0.041|0.0003
90836325|NCT00525512|181539345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.105|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.058|0.153||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.153|0.058|<0.0001
90836326|NCT00525512|181539346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.0005||95.0|0.04|0.141||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.141|0.040|0.0005
91090795|NCT02265510|182065212|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The analysis of the endpoint was descriptive i.e. no statistical hypothesis test was performed.|||
90836327|NCT00525512|181539347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.094||||0.0002||95.0|0.045|0.144||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.144|0.045|0.0002
90836328|NCT00525512|181539348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.075||||0.0059||95.0|0.022|0.128||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.128|0.022|0.0059
90836329|NCT00525512|181539349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.154|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.11|0.198||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.198|0.110|<0.0001
90836330|NCT00525512|181539350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.162|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.117|0.208||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.208|0.117|<0.0001
90836331|NCT00525512|181539351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.145|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.099|0.192||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.192|0.099|<0.0001
90836332|NCT00525512|181539352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.127|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.077|0.176||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.176|0.077|<0.0001
90836333|NCT00525512|181539353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.134|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.083|0.185||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.185|0.083|<0.0001
90836334|NCT00525512|181539354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.149|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.097|0.202||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.202|0.097|<0.0001
91090796|NCT02265510|182065213|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The analysis of the endpoint was descriptive i.e. no statistical hypothesis test was performed.|||
91090797|NCT02265510|182065214|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The analysis of the endpoint was descriptive i.e. no statistical hypothesis test was performed.|||
91027549|NCT05845645|181939275|OTHER||GLSM ratio|0.8529|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7771|0.9361|||||The GLSM ratio was calculated as UCB0599: Encapsulated tablet 180 mg divided by UCB0599: Non-encapsulated tablet 180 mg.|For Normal gastric pH||0.9361|0.7771|
90836335|NCT00525512|181539355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.077|0.183||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.183|0.077|<0.0001
90836336|NCT00525512|181539356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.217|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.127|0.307||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.307|0.127|<0.0001
90836337|NCT00525512|181539357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.157||||0.0019||95.0|0.058|0.255||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.255|0.058|0.0019
90836338|NCT00525512|181539358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.182||||0.0006||95.0|0.078|0.286||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.286|0.078|0.0006
90836339|NCT00525512|181539359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.234|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.13|0.339||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.339|0.130|<0.0001
90836340|NCT00525512|181539360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.161||||0.009||95.0|0.04|0.281||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.281|0.040|0.009
90836341|NCT00525512|181539361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.212||||0.0002||95.0|0.102|0.322||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.322|0.102|0.0002
90836342|NCT00525512|181539362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.241|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.128|0.355||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.355|0.128|<0.0001
90836343|NCT00525512|181539363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.277|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.179|0.375||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.375|0.179|<0.0001
90836344|NCT00525512|181539364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.325|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.226|0.425||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.425|0.226|<0.0001
90836345|NCT00525512|181539365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.353|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.245|0.461||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.461|0.245|<0.0001
90836346|NCT00525512|181539366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.259|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.154|0.365||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.365|0.154|<0.0001
90836347|NCT00525512|181539367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.194|0.406||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.406|0.194|<0.0001
90836348|NCT00525512|181539368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.254|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.144|0.364||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.364|0.144|<0.0001
90836349|NCT00525512|181539369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.333|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.209|0.456||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.456|0.209|<0.0001
90836350|NCT00525512|181539370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32||||0.1131||95.0|-0.72|0.08||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.08|-0.72|0.1131
91027550|NCT05845645|181939275|OTHER||GLSM ratio|1.563|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.376|1.776|||||The GLSM ratio was calculated as UCB0599: Non-encapsulated tablet 180 mg divided by UCB0599: Capsule 180 mg.|For Elevated gastric pH||1.776|1.376|
90836351|NCT00525512|181539371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.9071||95.0|-0.38|0.33||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.33|-0.38|0.9071
90836352|NCT00525512|181539372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.6878||95.0|-0.35|0.53||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.53|-0.35|0.6878
90836353|NCT00525512|181539373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.36||||||95.0|-2.39|3.11||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.||||||3.11|-2.39|
90836354|NCT00525512|181539374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33||||||95.0|-2.66|3.31||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.||||||3.31|-2.66|
90836355|NCT00525512|181539375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34||||||95.0|-2.91|3.58||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.||||||3.58|-2.91|
90836356|NCT00525512|181539376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23||||||95.0|-2.97|3.43||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.||||||3.43|-2.97|
90836357|NCT00525512|181539377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22||||||95.0|-3.02|3.46||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.||||||3.46|-3.02|
90836358|NCT00525512|181539378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16||||||95.0|-3.1|3.41||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.||||||3.41|-3.10|
90836359|NCT00525512|181539379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17||||||95.0|-3.22|3.55||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.||||||3.55|-3.22|
90836360|NCT00525512|181539380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37||||||95.0|-2.78|3.52||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.||||||3.52|-2.78|
90836361|NCT00525512|181539381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23||||||95.0|-3.05|3.51||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.||||||3.51|-3.05|
90836362|NCT00525512|181539382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||||95.0|-3.4|3.55||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.||||||3.55|-3.40|
91027551|NCT05845645|181939275|OTHER||GLSM ratio|1.415|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.248|1.604|||||The GLSM ratio was calculated as UCB0599: Encapsulated tablet 180 mg divided by UCB0599: Capsule 180 mg.|For Elevated gastric pH||1.604|1.248|
91027552|NCT05845645|181939275|OTHER||GLSM ratio|0.905|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7972|1.027|||||The GLSM ratio was calculated as UCB0599: Encapsulated tablet 180 mg divided by UCB0599: Non-encapsulated tablet 180 mg.|For Elevated gastric pH||1.027|0.7972|
91090798|NCT02265510|182065215|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The analysis of the endpoint was descriptive i.e. no statistical hypothesis test was performed.|||
90836363|NCT00525512|181539383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||||95.0|-3.61|3.92||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.||||||3.92|-3.61|
90836364|NCT00525512|181539384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||||95.0|-3.53|3.9||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.||||||3.90|-3.53|
90836365|NCT00525512|181539385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||||95.0|-3.36|3.71||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.||||||3.71|-3.36|
90836366|NCT00525512|181539386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||||95.0|-3.82|3.96||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.||||||3.96|-3.82|
90836367|NCT00525512|181539387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.03||||0.0072||95.0|-6.97|-1.1||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.10|-6.97|0.0072
90836368|NCT00525512|181539388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.33||||0.2029||95.0|-5.91|1.26||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.26|-5.91|0.2029
90836369|NCT00525512|181539389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.58||||0.0313||95.0|-6.84|-0.32||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.32|-6.84|0.0313
90836370|NCT00525512|181539390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.94||||0.0001||95.0|-13.37|-4.52||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.52|-13.37|0.0001
90836371|NCT00525512|181539391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.94||||0.6541||95.0|0.719|1.23||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Regression, Cox|||||1.230|0.719|0.6541
90836372|NCT00525512|181539392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean ratio|1.06||||0.4443||95.0|0.91|1.25||Based on a ANCOVA analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|ANCOVA|||||1.25|0.91|0.4443
90836373|NCT00525512|181539393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.8644||95.0|-0.05|0.06||Based on a ANCOVA analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|ANCOVA|||||0.06|-0.05|0.8644
90836374|NCT00525512|181539394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.4277||95.0|-0.07|0.17||Based on a ANCOVA analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|ANCOVA|||||0.17|-0.07|0.4277
90836375|NCT00525512|181539395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61||||0.7071||95.0|-3.81|2.59||Based on a ANCOVA analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|ANCOVA|||||2.59|-3.81|0.7071
90836376|NCT00525512|181539396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.89||||0.6556||95.0|-3.03|4.81||Based on a ANCOVA analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|ANCOVA|||||4.81|-3.03|0.6556
90836377|NCT00525512|181539397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.9896||95.0|-3.44|3.48||Based on a ANCOVA analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|ANCOVA|||||3.48|-3.44|0.9896
90836378|NCT00525512|181539398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.33||||0.0807||95.0|-9.19|0.53||Based on a ANCOVA analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|ANCOVA|||||0.53|-9.19|0.0807
90836379|NCT01601535|181539409|OTHER|||||||0.14||||||MYCN Amplified vs. MYCN not Amplified|Fisher Exact|||||||0.14
90836380|NCT01601535|181539409|OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||Fisher Exact|MYCN Amplified or Myc Positive vs. MYCN Non-amplified and Myc Negative||||||0.21
90836381|NCT01601535|181539409|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|Aurora A protein Positive vs. Aurora A protein Negative||||||1.0
90836382|NCT01601535|181539410|OTHER|||||||0.094||||||UGT1A1 6\\6 vs. UGT1A1 6\\7 vs. UGT1A1 7\\7|Fisher Exact|||||||0.094
90836383|NCT01601535|181539410|OTHER|||||||0.63||||||UGT1A1 6\\6 vs. UGT1A1 6\\7 vs. UGT1A1 7\\7|Fisher Exact|||||||0.63
90836384|NCT01601535|181539411|OTHER|||||||0.9||||||AurkA Codon 31 Summary H vs. AurkA Codon 31 Summary V vs. AurkA Codon 31 Summary W|Fisher Exact|||||||0.90
90836385|NCT01601535|181539411|OTHER|||||||1||||||AurkA Codon 57 Summary H vs. AurkA Codon 57 Summary W|Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
90836386|NCT00534365|181539413|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|We chose a non-inferiority margin of 12% based on previously published multicenter trial of mid-urethral slings. Assuming subjective cure rate for TVT of 82%, 127 individuals in each group will provide 80% to reject the null hypothesis that the true difference in cure rates between the two procedures is less than or equal to 2% using a two group large sample normal approximation test of proportions with a one sided 0.05 significance level.||||||0.43|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.43
90836387|NCT00534365|181539416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.64
90836388|NCT00534365|181539417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.015
90836389|NCT04576988|181539419|OTHER||Treatment difference|40.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.53|54.14||A 2-sided p-value was calculated using ARSW test with WHO FC II/III and background PAH therapy as strata.|Aligned Rank Stratified Wilcoxon (ARSW)|Participants who died were assigned the worst rank and who had missing data due to non-fatal clinical worsening event were assigned next worst-rank.|Hodges-Lehmann location-shift estimate of the overall treatment difference with 95% confidence interval (CI) was reported.|||54.14|27.53|<0.001
90836390|NCT04576988|181539422|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|A 2-sided p-value was calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method with WHO FC II/III and background PAH therapy as strata.||||||<0.001
90836391|NCT04576988|181539423|OTHER||Treatment difference|-234.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-288.37|-180.75||A 2-sided p-value was calculated using ARSW test with WHO FC II/III and background PAH therapy as strata.|ARSW test|Participants who died were assigned the worst rank and who had missing data due to non-fatal clinical worsening event were assigned next worst-rank.|Hodges-Lehmann location-shift estimate of the overall treatment difference with 95% CI was reported.|||-180.75|-288.37|<0.001
90836392|NCT04576988|181539424|OTHER||Treatment difference|-441.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-573.54|-309.61||A 2-sided p-value was calculated using ARSW test with WHO FC II/III and background PAH therapy as strata.|ARSW test|Participants who died were assigned the worst rank and who had missing data due to non-fatal clinical worsening event were assigned next worst-rank.|Hodges-Lehmann location-shift estimate of the overall treatment difference with 95% CI was reported.|||-309.61|-573.54|<.001
90836393|NCT04576988|181539425|OTHER|A 2-sided p-value was calculated using CMH method with WHO FC II/III and background PAH therapy as strata.|||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91027553|NCT05845645|181939276|OTHER||GLSM ratio|0.9529|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9052|1.003|||||The GLSM ratio was calculated as UCB0599: Non-encapsulated tablet 180 mg divided by UCB0599: Capsule 180 mg.|For Normal gastric pH||1.003|0.9052|
90836394|NCT04576988|181539426|OTHER|A 2-sided p-value was calculated using Log rank test with WHO FC II/III and background PAH therapy as strata.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.163|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.076|0.347|||Log Rank||Cox proportional hazard model was used to generate hazard ratio (HR) and 95% CI was reported with treatment group as the covariate stratified by the WHO FC II/III and background PAH therapy.|||0.347|0.076|<0.001
90836395|NCT04576988|181539427|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|A 2-sided p-value was calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method with WHO FC II/III and background PAH therapy as strata.||||||<0.001
90836396|NCT04576988|181539428|OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.26||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|-0.04||A 2-sided p-value was calculated using ARSW test with WHO FC II/III and background PAH therapy as strata.|ARSW test|Participants who died were assigned the worst rank and who had missing data due to non-fatal clinical worsening event were assigned next worst-rank.|Hodges-Lehmann location-shift estimate of the overall treatment difference with 95% CI was reported.|||-0.040|-0.490|0.010
90836397|NCT04576988|181539429|OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.13||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.256|-0.014||A 2-sided p-value was calculated using ARSW test with WHO FC II/III and background PAH therapy as strata.|ARSW test|Participants who died were assigned the worst rank and who had missing data due to non-fatal clinical worsening event were assigned next worst-rank.|Hodges-Lehmann location-shift estimate of the overall treatment difference with 95% CI was reported.|||-0.014|-0.256|0.028
90836398|NCT04576988|181539430|OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.16||||0.156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.399|0.084||A 2-sided p-value was calculated using ARSW test with WHO FC II/III and background PAH therapy as strata.|ARSW test|Participants who died were assigned the worst rank and who had missing data due to non-fatal clinical worsening event were assigned next worst-rank.|Hodges-Lehmann location-shift estimate of the overall treatment difference with 95% CI was reported.|||0.084|-0.399|0.156
90836399|NCT03309020|181539432|OTHER|||||||0.802||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Age at enrollment and gender (male or female) were included as covariates in the model||Null hypothesis is no difference in grade between survivor statuses one month after cataract surgery||||0.802
90836400|NCT03309020|181539433|OTHER|||||||0.713||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Age at enrollment and gender (male or female) were included as covariates in the model||Null hypothesis is no difference in grade between survivor statuses three months after cataract surgery||||.713
90836401|NCT03309020|181539434|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.69|||||Odds of eye with at least 20/40 best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) 12 months after cataract surgery for controls vs. EVD survivors|Null hypothesis is no difference in the proportion of participants with at least 20/40 best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) between survivor statuses||0.69|0.01|
90836402|NCT03309020|181539435|OTHER|||||||0.832||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Age at enrollment and gender (male or female) were included as covariates in the model||||||.832
90836403|NCT03309020|181539436|OTHER|||||||0.995||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Age at enrollment and gender (male or female) were included as covariates in the model||||||.995
90836404|NCT03309020|181539437|OTHER|||||||0.441||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Age at enrollment and gender (male or female) were included as covariates in the model||||||0.441
91090799|NCT02265510|182065216|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The analysis of the endpoint was descriptive i.e. no statistical hypothesis test was performed.|||
90836405|NCT03309020|181539438|OTHER|||||||0.892||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Age at enrollment, survivor status (EVD survivor/control) included as covariates; within-subject measurement of distinct eyes treated as independent||||||.892
90836406|NCT03309020|181539439|OTHER|||||||0.913||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Age at enrollment, survivor status (EVD survivor/control) included as covariates; within-subject measurement of distinct eyes treated as independent||||||.913
90836407|NCT03309020|181539440|OTHER|||||||0.106||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Gender (male/female), survivor status (EVD survivor/control) as covariates; within-subject measurement of distinct eyes treated as independent||||||.106
90836408|NCT03309020|181539441|OTHER|||||||0.09||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Gender (male/female), survivor status (EVD survivor/control) as covariates; within-subject measurement of distinct eyes treated as independent||||||0.09
90836409|NCT02919761|181539483|OTHER||||||=|0.242||||||At Week 4|One-sample binomial test|||||||=0.242
90836410|NCT02919761|181539483|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||At Week 8|One-sample binomial test|||||||<0.0001
90836411|NCT02919761|181539483|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sample binomial test|||||||<0.0001
90836412|NCT02919761|181539484|OTHER||||||=|0.313||||||Comparison at Week 12|Pearson's Chi-square test|||||||=0.313
90836413|NCT02919761|181539484|OTHER||||||=|0.439||||||Comparison at Week 16|Pearson's Chi-square test|||||||=0.439
90836414|NCT02919761|181539484|OTHER||||||=|0.028||||||Comparison at Week 20|Pearson's Chi-square test|||||||=0.028
90836415|NCT02919761|181539484|OTHER||||||=|0.019||||||Comparison at Week 24|Pearson's Chi-square test|||||||=0.019
90836416|NCT02994108|181539507|SUPERIORITY||Chi-Square|0.415||||0.601|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||.601
90836417|NCT02994108|181539508|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.249|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.249
90836418|NCT02994108|181539509|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.675|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.675
90836419|NCT02994108|181539510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.43||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|10.08|||Regression, Logistic|||||10.08|1.17|.025
90836420|NCT02994108|181539511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|16.95|||Regression, Logistic|||||16.95|0.08|.923
90836421|NCT02994108|181539512|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11||||0.174|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.174
90836422|NCT02994108|181539513|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.002
90836423|NCT02994108|181539514|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.964|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.964
90836424|NCT02994108|181539515|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0.053|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.053
90836425|NCT02994108|181539516|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.183|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.183
91090800|NCT02265510|182065217|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The analysis of the endpoint was descriptive i.e. no statistical hypothesis test was performed.|||
91090801|NCT02265510|182065218|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The analysis of the endpoint was descriptive i.e. no statistical hypothesis test was performed.|||
90836426|NCT02994108|181539517|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26||||0.064|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.064
90836427|NCT02994108|181539518|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22||||0.147|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.147
90836428|NCT02994108|181539519|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29||||0.096|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.096
90836429|NCT02994108|181539520|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41||||0.013|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.013
90836430|NCT01295814|181539570|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The study had acceptable sensitivity with a statistical power of 0.99 (99%) for the improvement in the adalimumab group from baseline to week 12.~The study had acceptable sensitivity with a statistical power of 0.92 (92%) for the improvement in the placebo group from baseline to week 12."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.9||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|11.8||Statistical improvement in the adalimumab group compared to the placebo group from baseline to week 12.|t-test, 2 sided||Confidence interval was improvement in OSPI in the adalimumab group from baseline to week 12.|Statistical improvement in the adalimumab group compared to the placebo group from baseline to week 12.||11.8|4.0|0.75
90836431|NCT01295814|181539571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|6.3||Statistical improvement in the adalimumab group compared to the placebo group from baseline to week 12.|t-test, 2 sided||Confidence interval was improvement in ICSI in the adalimumab group from baseline to week 12.|Statistical improvement in the adalimumab group compared to the placebo group from baseline to week 12.||6.3|1.7|0.99
90836432|NCT01295814|181539572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.9||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|5.8||Statistical improvement in the adalimumab group compared to the placebo group from baseline to week 12.|t-test, 2 sided||Confidence interval was improvement in ICPI in the adalimumab group from baseline to week 12.|Statistical improvement in the adalimumab group compared to the placebo group from baseline to week 12.||5.8|2.1|0.76
90836433|NCT01295814|181539573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.3||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|10.0||Statistical improvement in the adalimumab group compared to the placebo group from baseline to week 12.|t-test, 2 sided||Confidence interval was improvement in PUF in the adalimumab group from baseline to week 12.|Statistical improvement in the adalimumab group compared to the placebo group from baseline to week 12.||10.0|2.6|0.76
90836434|NCT01295814|181539574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67||95.0||||Statistical improvement in the adalimumab group compared to the placebo group from baseline to week 12.|t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical improvement in the adalimumab group compared to the placebo group from baseline to week 12.||||0.67
90836435|NCT03414983|181539575|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.3022|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.61|1.07||Stratified regular log-rank test|Log Rank||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|Hazard Ratio is Arm A: NIV+mFOLFOX+BEV over Arm B: mFOLFOX+BEV||1.07|0.61|0.3022
90836436|NCT03414983|181539575|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.3022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.23||Stratified regular log-rank test|Log Rank||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|Hazard Ratio is Arm A: NIV+mFOLFOX+BEV over Arm B: mFOLFOX+BEV||1.23|0.53|0.3022
90836437|NCT03414983|181539576|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.19|||||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|Hazard Ratio is Arm A: NIV+mFOLFOX+BEV over Arm B: mFOLFOX+BEV||1.19|0.54|
90836438|NCT03414983|181539591|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.5041|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.67|1.15||Stratified regular log-rank test|Log Rank||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|Hazard Ratio is Arm A: NIV+mFOLFOX+BEV over Arm B: mFOLFOX+BEV||1.15|0.67|0.5041
90836439|NCT03414983|181539591|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.5041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.32||Stratified regular log-rank test|Log Rank||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|Hazard Ratio is Arm A: NIV+mFOLFOX+BEV over Arm B: mFOLFOX+BEV||1.32|0.58|0.5041
90836440|NCT02535481|181539616|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.366||||||At 6 weeks|Fisher Exact|||||||0.366
90836441|NCT02535481|181539616|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24||||||At 3 months|Fisher Exact|||||||0.24
90836442|NCT02535481|181539617|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|Kaplan-Meier analysis of cumulative wound healing followed by a log rank test||||||<0.0001
90836443|NCT02535481|181539618|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.12
90836444|NCT02535481|181539619|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
90836445|NCT02535481|181539620|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||At 6 weeks|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
90836446|NCT02535481|181539620|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||At 3 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
90836447|NCT00248625|181539668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.19
90836448|NCT00248625|181539669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.03
90836449|NCT00248625|181539670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||Pepe and Mori test of CIF difference|||||||0.21
90836450|NCT00248625|181539671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.053|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.053
90836451|NCT00248625|181539672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Armitage trend|||||||0.29
90836452|NCT00248625|181539673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Armitage trend|||||||0.74
90836453|NCT00248625|181539674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Armitage tren|||||||0.54
90836454|NCT00248625|181539675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.86
90836455|NCT00904943|181539677|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of the LS Mean (test/ref x 100)|104.27|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Bioequivalence is established when Ratio of the Mean falls within 80-125.|||||
90836456|NCT00904943|181539678|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of the LS Mean (test/ref x 100)|102.35|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Bioequivalence is established when Ratio of the Least Squares Mean falls within 80-125.|||||
90836457|NCT00904943|181539679|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of the LS Mean (test/ref x 100)|103.66|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Bioequivalence is established when Ratio of the Least Squares Mean falls within 80-125.|||||
90836458|NCT03284710|181539680|OTHER|||||||0.358||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Barnard's test|||IgGAb binding to 1086C\_D7gp120.avi/293F in Group 1 versus Group 2||||0.358
90836459|NCT03284710|181539680|OTHER|||||||1||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Barnard's test|||IgGAb binding to 96ZM651.D11gp120.avi in Group 1 versus Group 2||||1.000
90836460|NCT03284710|181539680|OTHER|||||||0.361||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Barnard's test|||IgGAb binding to TV1c8\_D11gp120.avi/293F in Group 1 versus Group 2||||0.361
90836461|NCT03284710|181539681|OTHER|||||||0.238||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||IgGAb binding to 1086C\_D7gp120.avi/293F in Group 1 versus Group 2||||0.238
90836462|NCT03284710|181539681|OTHER|||||||0.893||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||IgGAb binding to 96ZM651.D11gp120.avi in Group 1 versus Group 2||||0.893
90836463|NCT03284710|181539681|OTHER|||||||0.411||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||IgGAb binding to TV1c8\_D11gp120.avi/293F in Group 1 versus Group 2||||0.411
90836464|NCT03284710|181539682|OTHER|||||||1||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Barnard's test|||IgAAb binding to 1086C\_D7gp120.avi/293F in Group 1 versus Group 3||||1.000
90836465|NCT03284710|181539682|OTHER|||||||0.044||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Barnard's test|||IgAAb binding to 96ZM651.D11gp120.avi in Group 1 versus Group 3||||0.044
90836466|NCT03284710|181539682|OTHER|||||||0.045||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Barnard's test|||IgAAb binding to TV1c8\_D11gp120.avi/293F in Group 1 versus Group 3||||0.045
90836467|NCT03284710|181539683|OTHER|||||||0.215||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||IgAAb binding to 1086C\_D7gp120.avi/293F in Group 1 versus Group 3||||0.215
90836468|NCT03284710|181539683|OTHER|||||||0.683||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||IgAAb binding to 96ZM651.D11gp120.avi in Group 1 versus Group 3||||0.683
90836469|NCT03284710|181539683|OTHER|||||||0.322||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||IgAAb binding to TV1c8\_D11gp120.avi/293F in Group 1 versus Group 3||||0.322
90836470|NCT05316597|181539793|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.914|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Control for that session's baseline included in the mixed model.||||||0.914
90836471|NCT05316597|181539794|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.13||||0.554|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Control for that session's baseline included in the mixed model.||||||.554
90836472|NCT05316597|181539795|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.905|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.905
90895822|NCT00855062|181657236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.766||95.0||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Kruskal-Wallis|The chi-square score was 0.024 and the degree of freedom was 1.||The null hypothesis is that the median log10-transformed HIV RNA viral loads in the minocycline group is the same as the one in the placebo group.||||0.766
90895823|NCT00855062|181657237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.79||0.915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|3.78||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|The model was adjusted for the baseline CES-D and MSK scores.||The null hypothesis is that the mean 24-week change of CES-D score in the minocycline group is the same as the one in the placebo group.||3.78|-3.40|0.915
90836473|NCT05316597|181539796|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.84||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Control for that session's baseline included in the mixed model.||||||0.076
90836474|NCT05316597|181539796|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||Threshold of P \< 0.05 for significance. ANCOVA results of comparing reduced vs. full model over time.|ANOVA|||Exploratory ANOVA results comparing full and reduced models to test the effect of terpene exposure on pattern of outcome over time.||||0.02
90836475|NCT05316597|181539797|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Control for that session's baseline included in the mixed model.||||||0.210
90836476|NCT05316597|181539797|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57||||||Threshold of P \< 0.05 for significance. ANCOVA results of comparing reduced vs. full model over time.|ANOVA|||Exploratory ANOVA results comparing full and reduced models to test the effect of terpene exposure on pattern of outcome over time.||||0.57
90836477|NCT05316597|181539798|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.921|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Control for that session's baseline included in the mixed model.||||||0.921
90836478|NCT05316597|181539798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82||||||Threshold of P \< 0.05 for significance. ANCOVA results of comparing reduced vs. full model over time.|ANOVA|||||||0.82
90836479|NCT05316597|181539799|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Control for that session's baseline included in the mixed model.||||||0.265
90836480|NCT05316597|181539799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63||||||Threshold of P \< 0.05 for significance. ANCOVA results of comparing reduced vs. full model over time.|ANOVA|||||||0.63
90836481|NCT05316597|181539800|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0.724|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Control for that session's baseline included in the mixed model.||||||0.724
90836482|NCT05316597|181539801|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.85||||0.716|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Control for that session's baseline included in the mixed model.||||||0.716
90836483|NCT05316597|181539802|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53||||0.852|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Control for that session's baseline included in the mixed model.||||||0.852
90836484|NCT05316597|181539803|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.79||||0.166|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Control for that session's baseline included in the mixed model.||||||0.166
90836485|NCT05316597|181539804|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Control for that session's baseline included in the mixed model.||||||0.046
90836486|NCT02927301|181539856|SUPERIORITY||Other/Percentage|20.3|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|14.9||||binomial test||||||14.900|<.0001
91090802|NCT02265510|182065219|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The analysis of the endpoint was descriptive i.e. no statistical hypothesis test was performed.|||
91027554|NCT05845645|181939276|OTHER||GLSM ratio|0.922|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8758|0.9706|||||The GLSM ratio was calculated as UCB0599: Encapsulated tablet 180 mg divided by UCB0599: Capsule 180 mg.|For Normal gastric pH||0.9706|0.8758|
91027555|NCT05845645|181939276|OTHER||GLSM ratio|0.9676|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9191|1.019|||||The GLSM ratio was calculated as UCB0599: Encapsulated tablet 180 mg divided by UCB0599: Non-encapsulated tablet 180 mg.|For Normal gastric pH||1.019|0.9191|
91090803|NCT02530385|182065232|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.16
91090804|NCT02530385|182065233|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.70
90836487|NCT02927301|181539857|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.41||||0.0358|ONE_SIDED|80.0|5.279||||Fisher Exact||||||5.279|0.0358
90836488|NCT02927301|181539858|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.363||||0.0395|ONE_SIDED|80.0|6.509||||Chi-squared||||||6.509|0.0395
90836489|NCT02218372|181539876|OTHER||adjusted treatment difference|7.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|23.9||||||Adjusted difference of CCR at EOT + 2 Days. Adjusted treatment difference of proportions was calculated using a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method. Newcombe 95% confidence intervals (CIs) presented for adjusted treatment difference.||23.9|-7.4|
90836490|NCT02218372|181539877|OTHER||adjusted treatment difference|16.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|34.2||||||Adjusted difference of SCR at EOT +9 days. Adjusted treatment difference of proportions was calculated using a stratified CMH method. Newcombe 95% CIs presented for adjusted treatment difference.||34.2|1.8|
90836491|NCT02218372|181539878|OTHER||adjusted treatment difference|21.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|37.7||||||Adjusted difference of GC at EOT +9 days. Adjusted treatment difference of rates was calculated using a stratified CMH method. Newcombe 95% CIs presented for adjusted treatment difference.||37.7|4.5|
90836492|NCT02218372|181539879|OTHER||adjusted treatment difference|-16.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.2|-1.8||||||Adjusted difference of CDAD recurrence at EOT +9 days. Adjusted treatment difference of proportions was calculated using a stratified CMH method. Newcombe 95% CIs presented for adjusted treatment difference.||-1.8|-34.2|
90836493|NCT02218372|181539880|OTHER||adjusted treatment difference|17.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|35.6||||||Adjusted difference of SCR at EOT +16 days. Adjusted treatment difference of proportions was calculated using a stratified CMH method. Newcombe 95% CIs presented for adjusted treatment difference.||35.6|1.9|
90836494|NCT02218372|181539881|OTHER||adjusted treatment difference|19.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|35.9||||||Adjusted difference of GC at EOT +16 days. Adjusted treatment difference of rates was calculated using a stratified CMH method. Newcombe 95% CIs presented for adjusted treatment difference.||35.9|2.3|
90836495|NCT02218372|181539882|OTHER||adjusted treatment difference|-17.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.6|-1.9||||||Adjusted difference of CDAD Recurrence at EOT +16 days. Adjusted treatment difference of proportions was calculated using a stratified CMH method. Newcombe 95% CIs presented for adjusted treatment difference.||-1.9|-35.6|
90836496|NCT02218372|181539883|OTHER||adjusted treatment difference|15.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|34.5||||||Adjusted difference of SCR at EOT +23 days. Adjusted treatment difference of proportions was calculated using a stratified CMH method. Newcombe 95% CIs presented for adjusted treatment difference.||34.5|-0.5|
90836497|NCT02218372|181539884|OTHER||adjusted treatment difference|18.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|35.3||||||Adjusted difference of GC at EOT +23 days. Adjusted treatment difference of rates was calculated using a stratified CMH method. Newcombe 95% CIs presented for adjusted treatment difference.||35.3|1.5|
90836498|NCT02218372|181539885|OTHER||adjusted treatment difference|-15.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.5|0.5||||||Adjusted difference of CDAD Recurrence at EOT +23 days. Adjusted treatment difference of proportions was calculated using a stratified CMH method. Newcombe 95% CIs presented for adjusted treatment difference.||0.5|-34.5|
91027556|NCT05845645|181939276|OTHER||GLSM ratio|1.059|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.001|1.12|||||The GLSM ratio was calculated as UCB0599: Non-encapsulated tablet 180 mg divided by UCB0599: Capsule 180 mg.|For Elevated gastric pH||1.120|1.001|
90836499|NCT02218372|181539886|OTHER||adjusted treatment difference|15.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|34.5||||||Adjusted difference of SCR at EOS (EOT +30 days). Adjusted treatment difference of proportions was calculated using a stratified CMH method. Newcombe 95% CIs presented for adjusted treatment difference.||34.5|-0.5|
90836500|NCT02218372|181539887|OTHER||adjusted treatment difference|18.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|35.3||||||Adjusted difference of GC at EOS (EOT +30 days). Adjusted treatment difference of rates was calculated using a stratified CMH method. Newcombe 95% CIs presented for adjusted treatment difference.||35.3|1.5|
90958928|NCT04874415|181797847|SUPERIORITY|Main effects of each intervention factor were estimated using generalized linear models with log link, including all prespecified two-way interactions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0003|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|2.3|||||Fixed Step Count Goal is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|||2.3|-2.3|
91027557|NCT05845645|181939276|OTHER||GLSM ratio|1.038|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9826|1.097|||||The GLSM ratio was calculated as UCB0599: Encapsulated tablet 180 mg divided by UCB0599: Capsule 180 mg.|For Elevated gastric pH||1.097|0.9826|
91090805|NCT02530385|182065234|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.93
91090806|NCT02530385|182065235|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.90
91090807|NCT02530385|182065236|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.32
91090808|NCT03093181|182065244|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) mean difference|3.12||||0.0128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|5.56||From Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment main effect, age stratum and baseline as covariates|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment (test product) minus second named treatment (negative control) such that a positive value favors the first named treatment (test product).|||5.56|0.68|0.0128
90836501|NCT02218372|181539888|OTHER|Newcombe 95% CIs presented for adjusted treatment difference.|adjusted treatment difference|-15.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.5|0.5||||||Adjusted difference of CDAD recurrence at EOS/EOT +30 days. Adjusted treatment difference of proportions was calculated using a stratified CMH method. Newcombe 95% CIs presented for adjusted treatment difference.||0.5|-34.5|
90836502|NCT02218372|181539889|OTHER|||||||0.579|||||||Log Rank|||Time to resolution of diarrhea.||||0.579
91027558|NCT05845645|181939276|OTHER||GLSM ratio|0.9804|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9273|1.037|||||The GLSM ratio was calculated as UCB0599: Encapsulated tablet 180 mg divided by UCB0599: Non-encapsulated tablet 180 mg.|For Elevated gastric pH||1.037|0.9273|
91090809|NCT03093181|182065244|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.51||||0.2262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|3.96||From ANCOVA with treatment main effect, age stratum and baseline as covariates.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment (test product) minus second named treatment (negative control) such that a positive value favors the first named treatment (test product).|||3.96|-0.95|0.2262
91090810|NCT03093181|182065246|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.85||||0.0243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|3.15|||Odds Ratio|||Analysis of Lay Person Assessment Polarised Image.||3.15|1.08|0.0243
90836503|NCT02218372|181539890|OTHER|||||||0.023|||||||Log Rank|||Time to recurrence of CDAD.||||0.023
90836504|NCT02753283|181539899|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.48||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Using multiple imputation for missing data||||||.007
90836505|NCT02753283|181539899|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09||0.018|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Using multiple imputation for missing data||||||.018
90836506|NCT02753283|181539900|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45||0.014|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Using multiple imputation for missing data||||||.014
90836507|NCT02753283|181539900|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Using multiple imputation for missing data||||||.002
90836508|NCT02753283|181539901|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Using multiple imputation for missing data||||||.060
90836509|NCT02753283|181539901|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.22||0.055|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Using multiple imputation for missing data||||||.055
90895824|NCT04681729|181657238|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.9492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|2.56||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was performed on the association between the ice cube provocation test result and intervention group, stratified by region and background H1-antihistamine regular/daily use (Yes or No). Threshold of significance at 0.01.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the family-wise type-I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the endpoints were reported and continued when primary endpoint was statistically significant at two-sided 0.01.||2.56|0.41|0.9492
90895825|NCT02110901|181657255|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.14|||Log Rank|||||1.14|0.61|0.254
91090811|NCT03093181|182065246|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.8931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.78|||Odds Ratio|||Analysis of Lay Person Assessment Polarised Image.||1.78|0.61|0.8931
91090812|NCT03093181|182065246|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.0181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|3.25|||Odds Ratio|||Analysis of Lay Person Assessment Non-Polarised Image.||3.25|1.12|0.0181
90836510|NCT02753283|181539902|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.37||0.112|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Using multiple imputation for missing data||||||.112
90836511|NCT02753283|181539902|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.34||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Using multiple imputation for missing data||||||.070
90836512|NCT02753283|181539903|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.39||0.904|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Using multiple imputation for missing data||||||.904
90836513|NCT02753283|181539903|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.29||0.616|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Using multiple imputation for missing data||||||.616
90836514|NCT02753283|181539904|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Using multiple imputation for missing data||||||<.001
90836515|NCT02753283|181539904|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Using multiple imputation for missing data||||||.005
90836516|NCT02753283|181539905|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.0||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Using multiple imputation for missing data||||||.001
90836517|NCT02753283|181539905|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9||0.038|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Using multiple imputation for missing data||||||.038
90836518|NCT02546609|181539921|OTHER|||||||0.0572|||||||ANCOVA|||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model: with treatment group as the factor. Placebo is used as the reference group.||||0.0572
90836519|NCT02546609|181539921|OTHER|||||||0.377|||||||ANCOVA|||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model: with treatment group as the factor. Placebo is used as the reference group.||||0.3770
90836520|NCT02546609|181539922|OTHER|||||||0.3811|||||||Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||MMRM model: with treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, the baseline value of the response variable as a covariate, and subject as a random effect. Placebo is used as the reference group.||||0.3811
90836521|NCT02546609|181539922|OTHER|||||||0.8479|||||||Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||MMRM model: with treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, the baseline value of the response variable as a covariate, and subject as a random effect. Placebo is used as the reference group.||||0.8479
90836522|NCT02546609|181539923|OTHER|||||||0.7742|||||||Mixed effect Model Repeat Measurement|||MMRM model: with treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, the baseline value of the response variable as a covariate, and subject as a random effect. Placebo is used as the reference group.||||0.7742
90836523|NCT02546609|181539923|OTHER|||||||0.6666|||||||Mixed effect Model Repeat Measurement|||MMRM model: with treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, the baseline value of the response variable as a covariate, and subject as a random effect. Placebo is used as the reference group.||||0.6666
90836524|NCT02546609|181539924|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||MMRM|||MMRM model: with treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, the baseline value of the response variable as a covariate, and subject as a random effect. Placebo is used as the reference group.||||0.0020
90836525|NCT02546609|181539924|OTHER|||||||0.0164|||||||MMRM|||MMRM model: with treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, the baseline value of the response variable as a covariate, and subject as a random effect. Placebo is used as the reference group.||||0.0164
90836526|NCT02546609|181539925|OTHER|||||||0.4099|||||||MMRM|||MMRM model: with treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, the baseline value of the response variable as a covariate, and subject as a random effect. Placebo is used as the reference group.||||0.4099
90836527|NCT02546609|181539925|OTHER|||||||0.1455|||||||MMRM|||MMRM model: with treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, the baseline value of the response variable as a covariate, and subject as a random effect. Placebo is used as the reference group.||||0.1455
91027559|NCT05845645|181939277|OTHER||GLSM ratio|0.9519|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9011|1.006|||||The GLSM ratio was calculated as UCB0599: Non-encapsulated tablet 180 mg divided by UCB0599: Capsule 180 mg.|For Normal gastric pH||1.006|0.9011|
90836528|NCT02546609|181539926|OTHER|||||||0.2559|||||||MMRM|||MMRM model: with treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, the baseline value of the response variable as a covariate, and subject as a random effect. Placebo is used as the reference group.||||0.2559
90836529|NCT02546609|181539926|OTHER|||||||0.9776|||||||MMRM|||MMRM model: with treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, the baseline value of the response variable as a covariate, and subject as a random effect. Placebo is used as the reference group.||||0.9776
90836530|NCT02546609|181539927|OTHER|||||||0.2265|||||||MMRM|||MMRM model: with treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, the baseline value of the response variable as a covariate, and subject as a random effect. Placebo is used as the reference group.||||0.2265
90836531|NCT02546609|181539927|OTHER|||||||0.8366|||||||MMRM|||MMRM model: with treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, the baseline value of the response variable as a covariate, and subject as a random effect. Placebo is used as the reference group.||||0.8366
90836532|NCT02546609|181539928|OTHER|||||||0.347|||||||MMRM|||MMRM model: with treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, the baseline value of the response variable as a covariate, and subject as a random effect. Placebo is used as the reference group.||||0.3470
91027560|NCT05845645|181939277|OTHER||GLSM ratio|0.9255|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8762|0.9777|||||The GLSM ratio was calculated as UCB0599: Encapsulated tablet 180 mg divided by UCB0599: Capsule 180 mg.|For Normal gastric pH||0.9777|0.8762|
90836533|NCT02546609|181539928|OTHER|||||||0.6221|||||||MMRM|||MMRM model: with treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, the baseline value of the response variable as a covariate, and subject as a random effect. Placebo is used as the reference group.||||0.6221
90836534|NCT02546609|181539929|OTHER|||||||0.347|||||||MMRM|||MMRM model: with treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, the baseline value of the response variable as a covariate, and subject as a random effect. Placebo is used as the reference group.||||0.3470
90836535|NCT02546609|181539929|OTHER|||||||0.6221|||||||MMRM|||MMRM model: with treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, the baseline value of the response variable as a covariate, and subject as a random effect. Placebo is used as the reference group.||||0.6221
90836536|NCT02546609|181539930|OTHER|||||||0.0129|||||||MMRM|||MMRM model: with treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, the baseline value of the response variable as a covariate, and subject as a random effect. Placebo is used as the reference group.||||0.0129
91027561|NCT05845645|181939277|OTHER||GLSM ratio|0.9723|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9204|1.027|||||The GLSM ratio was calculated as UCB0599: Encapsulated tablet 180 mg divided by UCB0599: Non-encapsulated tablet 180 mg.|For Normal gastric pH||1.027|0.9204|
91027562|NCT05845645|181939277|OTHER||GLSM ratio|1.053|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.994|1.116|||||The GLSM ratio was calculated as UCB0599: Non-encapsulated tablet 180 mg divided by UCB0599: Capsule 180 mg.|For Elevated gastric pH||1.116|0.9940|
91027563|NCT05845645|181939277|OTHER||GLSM ratio|1.027|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.971|1.086|||||The GLSM ratio was calculated as UCB0599: Encapsulated tablet 180 mg divided by UCB0599: Capsule 180 mg.|For Elevated gastric pH||1.086|0.9710|
91027564|NCT05845645|181939277|OTHER||GLSM ratio|0.9747|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9208|1.032|||||The GLSM ratio was calculated as UCB0599: Encapsulated tablet 180 mg divided by UCB0599: Non-encapsulated tablet 180 mg.|For Elevated gastric pH||1.032|0.9208|
90836537|NCT02546609|181539930|OTHER|||||||0.4316|||||||MMRM|||MMRM model: with treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, the baseline value of the response variable as a covariate, and subject as a random effect. Placebo is used as the reference group.||||0.4316
90836538|NCT02546609|181539931|OTHER|MMRM model: with treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, the baseline value of the response variable as a covariate, and subject as a random effect. Placebo is used as the reference group.||||||0.1946|||||||MMRM|||||||0.1946
90836539|NCT02546609|181539931|OTHER|||||||0.4697|||||||MMRM|||MMRM model: with treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, the baseline value of the response variable as a covariate, and subject as a random effect. Placebo is used as the reference group.||||0.4697
90836540|NCT02546609|181539932|OTHER|||||||0.3474|||||||MMRM|||MMRM model: with treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, the baseline value of the response variable as a covariate, and subject as a random effect. Placebo is used as the reference group.||||0.3474
90836541|NCT02546609|181539932|OTHER|||||||0.8832|||||||MMRM|||MMRM model: with treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, the baseline value of the response variable as a covariate, and subject as a random effect. Placebo is used as the reference group.||||0.8832
90836542|NCT02212015|181539933|OTHER||Rate|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Question is, if 6 months progression free survival rate (PFS-R) denoted by pPFS is higher than 35%. Test hypothesis is thus formulated as: H0: pPFS ≤0.35 versus H1: pPFS ≥0.35. This hypothesis is tested at the one-side significance level of 0.05. A 6 months PFS-R of 0.55 of cases or more is considered as clinically relevant success rate. The design is chosen such that rates of 0.55 or higher can be detected with a power of at least 0.8.||||
90836543|NCT02212015|181539934|SUPERIORITY||Rate difference|0.486|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90836544|NCT02212015|181539935|SUPERIORITY||Rate difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90836545|NCT02212015|181539936|OTHER||Median|21.6|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"The analysis of secondary endpoints is of descriptive nature and generally consists of summary statistics and interval estimation.~Overall survival (OS) was defined as the time of start of treatment until death (event status=1) or last contact (censoring, event status=0). OS was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier curves. Median survival time is provided alonsgside two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI), if possible."||||
90895826|NCT02110901|181657256|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.0|||Log Rank|||||1.00|0.43|0.048
90895827|NCT02110901|181657257|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.109|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.109
90895828|NCT02110901|181657258|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.035
90895829|NCT00855595|181657263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0903|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0903
90836546|NCT02212015|181539937|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.752|||||||Log Rank|||"The analysis of secondary endpoints is of descriptive nature and generally consists of summary statistics and interval estimation.~Overall survival (OS) for subgroup 1 was defined as the time of start of treatment until death (event status=1) or last contact (censoring, event status=0). OS was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier curves. Median survival time is provided alonsgside two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI), if possible."||||0.752
90836547|NCT02212015|181539938|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.621|||||||Log Rank|||"The analysis of secondary endpoints is of descriptive nature and generally consists of summary statistics and interval estimation.~Overall survival (OS) for subgroup 2 was defined as the time of start of treatment until death (event status=1) or last contact (censoring, event status=0). OS was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier curves. Median survival time is provided alonsgside two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI), if possible."||||0.621
90836548|NCT02212015|181539939|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Frequency of each category is given|||
90836549|NCT02212015|181539940|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.349|||||||Chi squared test, exact|||Response Rate (RR) is given as Best Overall Response (BOR) and given be absolute and relative frequencies. Categories of BOR are CR, PR, SD, PD and NE)|Response Rate (RR) is given as Best Overall Response (BOR) and given be absolute and relative frequencies applied to the total of 26 enrolled subjects.. Categories of BOR are CR, PR, SD, PD and NE).|||0.349
90836550|NCT02212015|181539941|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.385|||||||Chi squared test, exact|||||||0.385
90836551|NCT00988832|181539983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
90836552|NCT00988832|181539984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.0004
90836553|NCT00988832|181539985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0041||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.0041
90836554|NCT00988832|181539986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0423||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.0423
90836555|NCT00988832|181539987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.0006
90836556|NCT00988832|181539988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0014||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.0014
90836557|NCT00988832|181539990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
90836558|NCT03980730|181540026|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2057|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2057
90836559|NCT03125226|181540070|OTHER|Single group mean and standard deviation||||||||||||||||Coordinates in x/y/z planes were assigned to each hydrogel marker on the planning CT and daily CBCT to calculate interfraction motion.|Single group mean and standard deviation|||
90836560|NCT03125226|181540075|OTHER|The Van Herk (VH) margin equation for the planning target volume margin, as a function of systemic and random errors, was calculated such that the CTV receives at least 95%-prescription dose in 90% of patients.|||||||||||||||||The Van Herk (VH) margin equation for the planning target volume margin, as a function of systemic and random errors, was calculated such that the CTV receives at least 95%-prescription dose in 90% of patients.|||
90836561|NCT02787564|181540076|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Comparison of difference of fruit and vegetable variety between intervention group and control group.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90836562|NCT02787564|181540077|OTHER|||||||0.038||||||Comparison of difference of fruit and vegetable amount between intervention group and control group.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.038
90836563|NCT02787564|181540078|OTHER|||||||0.026||||||Comparison of difference of fruit and vegetable variety between intervention group and control group.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.026
90836564|NCT02787564|181540079|OTHER|||||||0.443||||||Comparison of difference of fruit and vegetable amount between intervention group and control group.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.443
90836565|NCT02787564|181540080|OTHER|||||||0.006||||||Comparison of difference of fruit and vegetable variety between intervention group and control group.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.006
90836566|NCT02787564|181540081|OTHER|||||||0.029||||||Comparison of difference of fruit and vegetable amount between intervention group and control group.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.029
90836567|NCT02016781|181540091|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Wald test|Wald test of difference in adjusted OS estimates.||The null hypothesis is that the rates of three-year OS are the same for both treatments. The results posted are from the interim analysis per protocol study design.||||0.0001
90836568|NCT02016781|181540091|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3345||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|pseudo-value regression models|Overall Wald test of interaction terms between response to hypomethylating therapy and treatment assignment in regression model.||This subgroup analysis investigated the differential impact of response to hypomethylating therapy (No Response to Hypomethylation vs. Any Response or Hematologic Improvement to Hypomethylation vs. No Prior Hypomethylation) on the treatment effect for OS at three years post-consent for the HCT arm vs. the non-HCT arm. The analysis was conducted using pseudo-value regression models via an interaction term between the factor and the treatment group with a logit link function.||||0.3345
90836569|NCT02016781|181540091|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7328||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|pseudo-value regression models|Overall Wald test of interaction terms between patient age and treatment assignment in regression model.||This subgroup analysis investigated the differential impact of patient age (\< vs. \>= 65) on the treatment effect for OS at three years post-consent for the HCT arm vs. the non-HCT arm. The analysis was conducted using pseudo-value regression models via an interaction term between the factor and the treatment group with a logit link function.||||0.7328
90836570|NCT02016781|181540091|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6261||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|pseudo-value regression models|Overall Wald test of interaction terms between disease duration and treatment assignment in regression model.||This subgroup analysis investigated the differential impact of disease duration (less than vs. 3 months or more) on the treatment effect for OS at three years post-consent for the HCT arm vs. the non-HCT arm. The analysis was conducted using pseudo-value regression models via an interaction term between the factor and the treatment group with a logit link function.||||0.6261
90836571|NCT02016781|181540091|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4134||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|pseudo-value regression models|Overall Wald test of interaction terms between IPSS score and treatment assignment in regression model.||This subgroup analysis investigated the differential impact of IPSS score (Intermediate-2 vs. High) on the treatment effect for OS at three years post-consent for the HCT arm vs. the non-HCT arm. The analysis was conducted using pseudo-value regression models via an interaction term between the factor and the treatment group with a logit link function.||||0.4134
91090813|NCT03093181|182065246|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.8319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.63|||Odds Ratio|||Analysis of Lay Person Assessment Non-Polarised Image.||1.63|0.55|0.8319
90859916|NCT01461980|181583138|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority criteria margin was 1.5-fold and statistical inference was based on the CIs of the GMT ratios. Non-inferiority was achieved when the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMT ratios after vaccination 1 was greater than 0.67.|GMT Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.09||||||Serogroup Y: CIs for GMT ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (Group 1 - Group 2 for Serogroup Y antigens).||1.09|0.89|
90895830|NCT04581200|181657279|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.59||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|2.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.80|-1.63|0.61
90895831|NCT04581200|181657280|OTHER|This is an exploratory pilot trial|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.66|3.08|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.08|-2.66|0.89
91027565|NCT01199601|181939290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio|1.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.05|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.23|||Regression, Linear|Information provided for crude analysis results; adjustment for significant baseline differences between groups did not change results substantially.||Outcomes were assessed by crude and adjusted risk ratios with log-binomial generalized linear models.||1.23|1.02|<0.05
91027566|NCT01199601|181939291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio|1.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.05|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.18|||Regression, Linear|Outcomes were assessed by crude and adjusted risk ratios with log-binomial generalized linear models.||||1.18|1.02|<0.05
91027567|NCT01199601|181939292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.05||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.25|||Regression, Logistic|The crude analysis result is provided as the odds ratio did not change substantially when adjusted for possible confounders.||||1.25|1.01|0.05
91027568|NCT00814320|181939299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Poisson|0.025|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|99.0||0.046||Testing the null hypothesis of 1 VASBI/year against a one-sided alternative at the 0.01 level of statistical significance.|Poisson|||For SC Administration of IGIV, 10%, with rHuPH20 after ramp-up, only||0.046||<0.0001
91027569|NCT02041702|181939373|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) was calculated using the Clopper-Pearson method.|Ratio|100.0|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.6|100.0|||Clopper-Pearson|Clopper-Pearson CI for the binomial proportion|The null hypothesis would be rejected if the lower bound of the 2-sided 90% confidence interval was greater than 90%.|The hypothesis was: H0: P≤ 90% vs H1: P\>90% P: The proportion of subjects free from MRI scan related complications at 1 month post MRI scan in cardiac MRI scan group||100|97.6|<0.01
91027570|NCT02041702|181939374|NON_INFERIORITY|The 2-sided 90% CI for difference in success rate between 2 groups was calculated by Farrington-Manning method.|Ratio Difference|-0.9||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.6|3.8|||Farrington-Manning Test||The null hypothesis would be rejected if the lower bound of the two-sided 90% confidence interval was greater than -10%.|"The hypothesis was: H0: PMRI - PCTRL≤ -10% vs H1: PMRI - PCTRL\>-10%~* PMRI: the success rate in the Cardiac MRI scan group for the change in right atrial capture threshold @0.5ms at 1month post MRI compared to pre-MRI scan value collected at MRI scan visit~* PCTRL: the success rate in the Control group for the change in right atrial capture threshold @0.5ms at 1month post MRI compared to pre-MRI scan value collected at MRI scan visit"||3.8|-5.6|0.0007
91032643|NCT02549092|181950230|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|2.08||The repeated measures model: change = treatment, country, visit, baseline, treatment \* visit, baseline \* visit. The unstructured variance-covariance structure is used.|Repeated measures model||Difference of LCIG - OMT|Perceptual problems/hallucinations||2.08|-1.30|0.645
91032644|NCT02549092|181950230|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04||0.645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.03|3.14||The repeated measures model: change = treatment, country, visit, baseline, treatment \* visit, baseline \* visit. The unstructured variance-covariance structure is used.|Repeated measures model||Difference of LCIG - OMT|Attention/memory||3.14|-5.03|0.645
91032645|NCT02549092|181950230|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.34||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.25|0.09||The repeated measures model: change = treatment, country, visit, baseline, treatment \* visit, baseline \* visit. The unstructured variance-covariance structure is used.|Repeated measures model||Difference of LCIG - OMT|Gastrointestinal tract||0.09|-5.25|0.058
91032646|NCT02549092|181950230|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.17||0.588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.52|3.15||The repeated measures model: change = treatment, country, visit, baseline, treatment \* visit, baseline \* visit. The unstructured variance-covariance structure is used.|Repeated measures model||Difference of LCIG - OMT|Urinary||3.15|-5.52|0.588
91032647|NCT02549092|181950230|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.88|1.33||The repeated measures model: change = treatment, country, visit, baseline, treatment \* visit, baseline \* visit. The unstructured variance-covariance structure is used.|Repeated measures model||Difference of LCIG - OMT|Sexual function||1.33|-2.88|0.464
91032648|NCT02549092|181950230|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.76||0.468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|2.23||The repeated measures model: change = treatment, country, visit, baseline, treatment \* visit, baseline \* visit. The unstructured variance-covariance structure is used.|Repeated measures model||Difference of LCIG - OMT|Miscellaneous||2.23|-4.80|0.468
91032649|NCT02549092|181950231|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26||0.643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|1.92||The repeated measures model: change = treatment, country, visit, baseline, treatment \* visit, baseline \* visit. The unstructured variance-covariance structure is used.|repeated measures model||Difference of LCIG - OMT|Motor symptoms at night||1.92|-3.09|0.643
91032650|NCT02549092|181950231|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|1.87||The repeated measures model: change = treatment, country, visit, baseline, treatment \* visit, baseline \* visit. The unstructured variance-covariance structure is used.|repeated measures model||Difference of LCIG - OMT|PD symptoms at night||1.87|-1.39|0.769
91032651|NCT02549092|181950231|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|1.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|3.66||The repeated measures model: change = treatment, country, visit, baseline, treatment \* visit, baseline \* visit. The unstructured variance-covariance structure is used.|repeated measures model||Difference of LCIG - OMT|Disturbed sleep||3.66|0.32|0.020
90836572|NCT02016781|181540091|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3147||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|pseudo-value regression models|Overall Wald test of interaction terms between IPSS-R score and treatment assignment in regression model.||Statistical Analysis 6: This subgroup analysis investigated the differential impact of IPSS-R score (Very Low, Low, or Intermediate vs. High vs. Very High) on the treatment effect for OS at three years post-consent for the HCT arm vs. the non-HCT arm. The analysis was conducted using pseudo-value regression models via an interaction term between the factor and the treatment group with a logit link function.||||0.3147
90836573|NCT02016781|181540092|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Wald test|||The null hypothesis is that the rates of three-year LFS are the same for both treatments.||||0.0030
90836574|NCT02016781|181540092|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9908||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|pseudo-value regression models|||This subgroup analysis investigated the differential impact of response to hypomethylating therapy on the treatment effect for LFS at three years post-consent for the HCT arm vs. the non-HCT arm. The analysis was conducted using pseudo-value regression models via an interaction term between the factor and the treatment group with a logit link function.||||0.9908
90836575|NCT02016781|181540092|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8981||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|pseudo-value regression models|||This subgroup analysis investigated the differential impact of patient age (\< or \>= 65) on the treatment effect for LFS at three years post-consent for the HCT arm vs. the non-HCT arm. The analysis was conducted using pseudo-value regression models via an interaction term between the factor and the treatment group with a logit link function.||||0.8981
90836576|NCT02016781|181540092|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1465||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|pseudo-value regression models|||This subgroup analysis investigated the differential impact of disease duration (less than vs. 3 months or more) on the treatment effect for LFS at three years post-consent for the HCT arm vs. the non-HCT arm. The analysis was conducted using pseudo-value regression models via an interaction term between the factor and the treatment group with a logit link function.||||0.1465
90836577|NCT02016781|181540092|SUPERIORITY|Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.||||||0.4991|||||||pseudo-value regression models|||This subgroup analysis investigated the differential impact of IPSS score (Intermediate-2 vs. High) on the treatment effect for LFS at three years post-consent for the HCT arm vs. the non-HCT arm. The analysis was conducted using pseudo-value regression models via an interaction term between the factor and the treatment group with a logit link function.||||0.4991
90836578|NCT02016781|181540092|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4953||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|pseudo-value regression models|||This subgroup analysis investigated the differential impact of IPSS-R score on the treatment effect for LFS at three years post-consent for the HCT arm vs. the non-HCT arm. The analysis was conducted using pseudo-value regression models via an interaction term between the factor and the treatment group with a logit link function.||||0.4953
90836579|NCT02016781|181540093|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2777||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the FACT-G scores are the same at Enrollment for both treatments.||||0.2777
90836580|NCT02016781|181540093|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.225||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|ANOVA|Changes in scores from enrollment were compared between arms using ANOVA models with treatment arm as main effect and enrollment score as a covariate||The null hypothesis is that the changes in FACT-G scores from enrollment are the same at 6 Months for both treatments.||||0.2250
91090814|NCT03093181|182065247|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.0279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.28|||ANOVA|ANOVA= average rate over all raters including effects of treatment and age stratum.||Analysis of Lay Person Assessment Polarised Image.||0.28|0.02|0.0279
90836581|NCT02016781|181540093|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1048||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|ANOVA|Changes in scores from enrollment were compared between arms using ANOVA models with treatment arm as main effect and enrollment score as a covariate||The null hypothesis is that the changes in FACT-G scores from enrollment are the same at 12 Months for both treatments.||||0.1048
90836582|NCT02016781|181540093|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0888||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|ANOVA|Changes in scores from enrollment were compared between arms using ANOVA models with treatment arm as main effect and enrollment score as a covariate||The null hypothesis is that the changes in FACT-G scores from enrollment are the same at 18 Months for both treatments.||||0.0888
90836583|NCT02016781|181540093|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5844||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|ANOVA|Changes in scores from enrollment were compared between arms using ANOVA models with treatment arm as main effect and enrollment score as a covariate||The null hypothesis is that the changes in FACT-G scores from enrollment are the same at 24 Months for both treatments.||||0.5844
90836584|NCT02016781|181540093|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0344||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|ANOVA|Changes in scores from enrollment were compared between arms using ANOVA models with treatment arm as main effect and enrollment score as a covariate||The null hypothesis is that the changes in FACT-G scores from enrollment are the same at 36 Months for both treatments.||||0.0344
90836585|NCT02016781|181540094|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5583||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the MOS SF-36 PCS scores are the same at Enrollment for both treatments.||||0.5583
90836586|NCT02016781|181540094|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.669||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|ANOVA|Changes in scores from enrollment were compared between arms using ANOVA models with treatment arm as main effect and enrollment score as a covariate||The null hypothesis is that the changes in MOS SF-36 PCS scores from enrollment are the same at 6 Months for both treatments.||||0.6690
90836587|NCT02016781|181540094|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2089||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|ANOVA|Changes in scores from enrollment were compared between arms using ANOVA models with treatment arm as main effect and enrollment score as a covariate||The null hypothesis is that the changes in MOS SF-36 PCS scores from enrollment are the same at 12 Months for both treatments.||||0.2089
91090815|NCT03093181|182065247|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.8887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.14|||ANOVA|ANOVA= average rate over all raters including effects of treatment and age stratum.||Analysis of Lay Person Assessment Polarised Image.||0.14|-0.12|0.8887
90836588|NCT02016781|181540094|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4343||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|ANOVA|Changes in scores from enrollment were compared between arms using ANOVA models with treatment arm as main effect and enrollment score as a covariate||The null hypothesis is that the changes in MOS SF-36 PCS scores from enrollment are the same at 18 Months for both treatments.||||0.4343
90836589|NCT02016781|181540094|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5942||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|ANOVA|Changes in scores from enrollment were compared between arms using ANOVA models with treatment arm as main effect and enrollment score as a covariate||The null hypothesis is that the changes in MOS SF-36 PCS scores from enrollment are the same at 24 Months for both treatments.||||0.5942
90836590|NCT02016781|181540094|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1615||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|ANOVA|Changes in scores from enrollment were compared between arms using ANOVA models with treatment arm as main effect and enrollment score as a covariate||The null hypothesis is that the changes in MOS SF-36 PCS scores from enrollment are the same at 36 Months for both treatments.||||0.1615
90836591|NCT02016781|181540094|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5659||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the MOS SF-36 MCS scores are the same at Enrollment for both treatments.||||0.5659
90836592|NCT02016781|181540094|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8555||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|ANOVA|Changes in scores from enrollment were compared between arms using ANOVA models with treatment arm as main effect and enrollment score as a covariate||The null hypothesis is that the changes in MOS SF-36 MCS scores from enrollment are the same at 6 Months for both treatments.||||0.8555
90836593|NCT02016781|181540094|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8995||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|ANOVA|Changes in scores from enrollment were compared between arms using ANOVA models with treatment arm as main effect and enrollment score as a covariate||The null hypothesis is that the changes in MOS SF-36 MCS scores from enrollment are the same at 12 Months for both treatments.||||0.8995
90836594|NCT02016781|181540094|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0105||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|ANOVA|Changes in scores from enrollment were compared between arms using ANOVA models with treatment arm as main effect and enrollment score as a covariate||The null hypothesis is that the changes in MOS SF-36 MCS scores from enrollment are the same at 18 Months for both treatments.||||0.0105
90836595|NCT02016781|181540094|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2596||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|ANOVA|Changes in scores from enrollment were compared between arms using ANOVA models with treatment arm as main effect and enrollment score as a covariate||The null hypothesis is that the changes in MOS SF-36 MCS scores from enrollment are the same at 24 Months for both treatments.||||0.2596
90836596|NCT02016781|181540094|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5022||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|ANOVA|Changes in scores from enrollment were compared between arms using ANOVA models with treatment arm as main effect and enrollment score as a covariate||The null hypothesis is that the changes in MOS SF-36 MCS scores from enrollment are the same at 36 Months for both treatments.||||0.5022
90836597|NCT02016781|181540095|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1768||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the EQ-5D scores are the same at Enrollment for both treatments.||||0.1768
90836598|NCT02016781|181540095|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8318||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|ANOVA|Changes in scores from enrollment were compared between arms using ANOVA models with treatment arm as main effect and enrollment score as a covariate||The null hypothesis is that the changes in EQ-5D scores from enrollment are the same at 6 Months for both treatments.||||0.8318
90836599|NCT02016781|181540095|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4752||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|ANOVA|Changes in scores from enrollment were compared between arms using ANOVA models with treatment arm as main effect and enrollment score as a covariate||The null hypothesis is that the changes in EQ-5D scores from enrollment are the same at 12 Months for both treatments.||||0.4752
90836600|NCT02016781|181540095|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5671||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|ANOVA|Changes in scores from enrollment were compared between arms using ANOVA models with treatment arm as main effect and enrollment score as a covariate||The null hypothesis is that the changes in EQ-5D scores from enrollment are the same at 18 Months for both treatments.||||0.5671
90836601|NCT02016781|181540095|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3009||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|ANOVA|Changes in scores from enrollment were compared between arms using ANOVA models with treatment arm as main effect and enrollment score as a covariate||The null hypothesis is that the changes in EQ-5D scores from enrollment are the same at 24 Months for both treatments.||||0.3009
90836602|NCT02016781|181540095|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3403||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|ANOVA|Changes in scores from enrollment were compared between arms using ANOVA models with treatment arm as main effect and enrollment score as a covariate||The null hypothesis is that the changes in EQ-5D scores from enrollment are the same at 36 Months for both treatments.||||0.3403
90895832|NCT04581200|181657281|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.36||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.58|3.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.30|-2.58|0.81
90895833|NCT04581200|181657282|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.98|2.14|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.14|-2.98|0.75
90836603|NCT02016781|181540096|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Wald test|||The null hypothesis is that the rates of three-year OS are the same for both treatments in treated population.||||< 0.0001
90895834|NCT04581200|181657283|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.74|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.74|-0.57|0.45
90895835|NCT04581200|181657284|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.002||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.13|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.13|-0.13|0.98
90895836|NCT04581200|181657285|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.08
90895837|NCT04581200|181657286|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.69
90895838|NCT04711603|181657289|SUPERIORITY||Placebo difference|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|-0.42|||MMRM|||||-0.42|-1.52|<0.001
91027571|NCT02041702|181939375|NON_INFERIORITY|The 2-sided 90% CI for difference in success rate between 2 groups was calculated by Farrington-Manning method.|Ratio Difference|-1.7||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.2|2.8|||Farrington-Manning test||The null hypothesis would be rejected if the lower bound of the two-sided 90% confidence interval was greater than -10%.|"The hypothesis was: H0: PMRI - PCTRL≤ -10% vs H1: PMRI - PCTRL \>-10%~* PMRI: the success rate in the Cardiac MRI Scan Group for change in RV capture threshold value @0.5ms at 1-Month post MRI scan visit compared to pre-MRI scan value collected at MRI scan visit~* PCTRL: the success rate in Control Group for change in RV capture threshold value @0.5ms at 1-Month post MRI scan visit compared to pre-MRI scan value collected at MRI scan visit"||2.8|-6.2|0.0012
91032652|NCT02549092|181950232|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|1.1||The repeated measures model: change = treatment, country, visit, baseline, treatment \* visit, baseline \* visit. The unstructured variance-covariance structure is used.|repeated measures model||Difference of LCIG - OMT|Part I score||1.10|-0.72|0.672
90836604|NCT02016781|181540097|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Wald test|||The null hypothesis is that the rates of three-year LFS are the same for both treatments in treated population.||||< 0.0001
90836605|NCT04972162|181540125|OTHER|The rm-ANOVA model fitted for the primary analysis was run to confirm if there is a significant interaction for treatment and order. This confirmation of the absence of an interaction effect is needed to validate the pooling of the two periods of Web-App treatment and the two periods of Standard-of-Care treatment, respectively.||||||0.38||||||p\<0.05 would show that there is an interaction effect i.e. results would differ depending on the order in which the participants wore the hearing aids|ANOVA|||"Check for interaction effect for Ease of Communication Subscale (EC)~The statistical analysis method was a repeated-measures ANOVA in which:~* order is a between-subjects effect - i.e., each subject has just one order~* treatment is a within-subjects effect - i.e., each subjects has both treatments because of the cross-over design~* the interaction term treatment x order is a within-subjects effect. The rm-ANOVAs generates a nuisance p-value: that of the interaction effect."||||0.38
90836606|NCT04972162|181540125|OTHER|The rm-ANOVA model fitted for the primary analysis was run to confirm if there is a significant interaction for treatment and order. This confirmation of the absence of an interaction effect is needed to validate the pooling of the two periods of Web-App treatment and the two periods of Standard-of-Care treatment, respectively.||||||0.79||||||p\<0.05 would show that there is an interaction effect i.e. results would differ depending on the order in which the participants wore the hearing aids|ANOVA|||"Check for interaction effect for Background Noise Subscale (BN)~The statistical analysis method was a repeated-measures ANOVA in which:~* order is a between-subjects effect - i.e., each subject has just one order~* treatment is a within-subjects effect - i.e., each subjects has both treatments because of the cross-over design~* the interaction term treatment x order is a within-subjects effect. The rm-ANOVAs generates a nuisance p-value: that of the interaction effect."||||0.79
90836607|NCT04972162|181540125|OTHER|The rm-ANOVA model fitted for the primary analysis was run to confirm if there is a significant interaction for treatment and order. This confirmation of the absence of an interaction effect is needed to validate the pooling of the two periods of Web-App treatment and the two periods of Standard-of-Care treatment, respectively.||||||0.51||||||p\<0.05 would show that there is an interaction effect i.e. results would differ depending on the order in which the participants wore the hearing aids|ANOVA|||"Check for interaction effect for Reverberant Room Subscale (RV)~The statistical analysis method was a repeated-measures ANOVA in which:~* order is a between-subjects effect - i.e., each subject has just one order~* treatment is a within-subjects effect - i.e., each subjects has both treatments because of the cross-over design~* the interaction term treatment x order is a within-subjects effect. The rm-ANOVAs generates a nuisance p-value: that of the interaction effect."||||0.51
90836608|NCT04972162|181540125|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority tests compared the subject´s perceived hearing aid benefit when the hearing aid was standard-of-care fitted compared to Web-App fitted by the subject. The non-inferiority margins are the minimum clinically important differences on each of the 3 communication benefit subscales as described by Cox \& Alexander (Ear and Hearing 1995;16;176-186). These literature values are as follows: Ease of Communication (EC): 26, Background Noise (BN): 27, Reverberant Room (RV): 28|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|5.2||Threshold for statistical significance was p =0.05. p-value was calculated using the estimated difference of benefits, calculating a new t-statistic by subtracting the applicable non-inf. margin from the difference and dividing by standard error.|ANOVA|repeated measures ANOVA where factors are order and treatment is device with patient as a random effect. Added interaction term of treatment and order|Difference calculated as benefit(standard-of-care fit) - benefit(web-app-fit)|Results for Ease of Communication Subscale. Null hypothesis: benefit(standard-of-care fit) - benefit(web-app-fit) \< noninferiority margin for all subscales. Each subscale was analyzed using an rm-ANOVA in which the repeated factors are order \& treatment; no between-group factors. Interaction term was order x treatment. ITT population includes 2 subjects who withdrew. It was concluded that their primary endpoint data was missing for cause and their APHAB benefit scores were imputed as 0.||5.2|-4.3|<0.0001
90859680|NCT02758171|181582716|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence acceptable range of 80.00% to 125.00%.|Adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio|101.71|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.8|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.818|103.644|||ANOVA||"The ratio \[%\] calculated as T \[FDC (10 mg Empagliflozin and 5 mg Linagliptin)\]/R \[Empagliflozin (10 mg) + Linagliptin (5 mg) Single Tablets\].~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\]."|The statistical model used was an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: Sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment. The effect subjects within sequences was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||103.644|99.818|<0.0001
90958929|NCT04874415|181797847|SUPERIORITY|Main effects of each intervention factor were estimated using generalized linear models with log link, including all prespecified two-way interactions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.003|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|3.4|||||Loss Framed Incentive is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|||3.4|-3.4|
91090816|NCT03093181|182065247|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.0224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.28|||ANOVA|ANOVA= average rate over all raters including effects of treatment and age stratum.||Analysis of Lay Person Assessment Non-Polarised Image.||0.28|0.02|0.0224
91027572|NCT02041702|181939376|NON_INFERIORITY|The 2-sided 90% CI for difference in success rate between 2 groups was calculated by Farrington-Manning method.|Ratio Difference|-2.7||||0.0446|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.8|4.3|||Farrington-Manning test||The null hypothesis would be rejected if the lower bound of the two-sided 90% confidence interval was greater than -10%.|"The hypothesis was:H0: PMRI - PCTRL≤ -10% vs H1: PMRI - PCTRL \>-10%~* PMRI: the success rate in MRI Scan Group for change in RA sensing amplitude at 1-Month post MRI scan visit compared to pre-MRI scan value collected at MRI scan visit~* PCTRL: the success rate in Control Group for change in RA sensing amplitude at 1-Month post MRI scan visit compared to pre-MRI scan value collected at MRI scan visit"||4.3|-9.8|0.0446
91090817|NCT03093181|182065247|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.8253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.12|||ANOVA|ANOVA= average rate over all raters including effects of treatment and age stratum.||Analysis of Lay Person Assessment Non-Polarised Image.||0.12|-0.15|0.8253
90836609|NCT04972162|181540125|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority tests compared the subject´s perceived hearing aid benefit when the hearing aid was standard-of-care fitted compared to Web-App fitted by the subject. The non-inferiority margins are the minimum clinically important differences on each of the 3 communication benefit subscales as described by Cox \& Alexander (Ear and Hearing 1995;16;176-186). These literature values are as follows: Ease of Communication (EC): 26, Background Noise (BN): 27, Reverberant Room (RV): 28|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.97|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|7.2||Threshold for statistical significance was p =0.05. p-value was calculated using the estimated difference of benefits, calculating a new t-statistic by subtracting the applicable non-inf. margin from the difference and dividing by standard error.|ANOVA|repeated measures ANOVA where factors are order and treatment is device with patient as a random effect. Added interaction term of treatment and order|Difference calculated as benefit(standard-of-care fit) - benefit(web-app-fit)|Results for Background Noise Subscale. Null hypothesis: benefit(standard-of-care fit) - benefit(web-app-fit) \< noninferiority margin for all subscales. Each subscale was analyzed using an rm-ANOVA in which the repeated factors are order \& treatment; no between-group factors. Interaction term was order x treatment. ITT population includes 2 subjects who withdrew. It was concluded that their primary endpoint data was missing for cause and their APHAB benefit scores were imputed as 0.||7.2|-5.3|<0.0001
90836610|NCT04972162|181540125|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority tests compared the subject´s perceived hearing aid benefit when the hearing aid was standard-of-care fitted compared to Web-App fitted by the subject. The non-inferiority margins are the minimum clinically important differences on each of the 3 communication benefit subscales as described by Cox \& Alexander (Ear and Hearing 1995;16;176-186). These literature values are as follows: Ease of Communication (EC): 26, Background Noise (BN): 27, Reverberant Room (RV): 28|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|6.5||Threshold for statistical significance was p =0.05. p-value was calculated using the estimated difference of benefits, calculating a new t-statistic by subtracting the applicable non-inf. margin from the difference and dividing by standard error.|ANOVA|repeated measures ANOVA where factors are order and treatment is device with patient as a random effect. Added interaction term of treatment and order|Difference calculated as benefit(standard-of-care fit) - benefit(web-app-fit)|Results for Reverberant Room Subscale. Null hypothesis: benefit(standard-of-care fit) - benefit(web-app-fit) \< noninferiority margin for all subscales. Each subscale was analyzed using an rm-ANOVA in which the repeated factors are order \& treatment; no between-group factors. Interaction term was order x treatment. ITT population includes 2 subjects who withdrew. It was concluded that their primary endpoint data was missing for cause and their APHAB benefit scores were imputed as 0.||6.5|-4.6|<0.0001
90836611|NCT03085095|181540143|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference in the cumulative probability of sustained profound castration rate between the 2 treatment groups was calculated with a noninferiority margin of -10%.|Treatment difference|7.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|11.8|||||Treatment difference= Relugolix - Leuprolide acetate|Following statistical analysis of the lower bound of the 95% CI ≥ 90% for the relugolix group, secondary statistical analysis of non-inferiority was conducted.||11.8|4.1|
90836612|NCT03085095|181540143|SUPERIORITY|If non-inferiority was demonstrated, superiority could be claimed if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference in the cumulative probability of sustained profound castration rate between the 2 treatment groups also excluded 0%. The p value was calculated post hoc.|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Two-sided type I error of 0.05.||Following statistical analysis of the lower bound of the 95% CI ≥ 90% for the relugolix group, secondary statistical analysis of superiority was conducted.||||< 0.0001
90836613|NCT03085095|181540144|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistically significance was met if p-value \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Two-sided type I error rate of 0.05.||Alpha-protected statistical analysis.||||< 0.0001
90836614|NCT03085095|181540145|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistically significance was met if p-value \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Two-sided type I error rate of 0.05.||Alpha-protected statistical analysis.||||< 0.0001
90895839|NCT04672941|181657372|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM) assuming random missingness was fitted. The dependent variable was the CAT score at each visit. Visit, Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) group, smoking habits, pack years, sex, age, and comorbidities appearing at a rate greater than 5% were entered as covariates.|Score on a scale|-5.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.67|-4.89|||||Least Square Mean for Visit, change from baseline (3 months - baseline) total CAT Score estimates.|||-4.89|-5.67|
90895840|NCT04672941|181657373|OTHER|The logistic generalized estimating equations (GEE) model with CAT response \>= 10 as dependent variable. Visit, Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) group, smoking habits, pack years, sex, age, and comorbidities appearing at a rate greater than 5% were entered as covariates and unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Odds Ratio (OR)|7.186|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.745|8.987|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio for Visit.|||8.987|5.745|< 0.001
91090818|NCT04210986|182065252|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99|||>|0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|4.02||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact||Odds ratio is for fisetin group, relative to the placebo group.|Null hypothesis: no difference in proportion of participants experiencing any TEAE between Fisetin and Placebo groups.||4.02|0.25|>0.9
91103929|NCT03992872|182094613|SUPERIORITY||GMR (Prior Alpha / Naïve Alpha)|1.68||||0.0475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|2.82||P-values were based on an ANOVA model with log10-transformed titer as the dependent variable and study arm, age, and gender as predictors.|ANOVA||Differences in least squares means from the ANOVA model were back-transformed and reported as geometric mean ratios with 95% confidence intervals.|Day 29: Geometric mean ratio (prior alpha group over naïve alpha group) and 95% confidence interval||2.82|1.01|0.0475
90836615|NCT03085095|181540146|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistically significance was met if p-value \< 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Alpha-protected statistical analysis.||||< 0.0001
90836616|NCT03085095|181540147|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|77.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|73.98|80.83||Statistically significance was met if p-value \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Two-sided type I error rate of 0.05.|Treatment difference= Relugolix - Leuprolide acetate|Alpha-protected statistical analysis.||80.83|73.98|< 0.0001
90836617|NCT03085095|181540148|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistically significance was met if p-value \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Two-sided type I error rate of 0.05.||Alpha-protected statistical analysis.||||< 0.0001
90836618|NCT03085095|181540152|OTHER||Treatment difference|13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|19.1|||||Treatment difference= Relugolix - Leuprolide acetate|||19.1|6.9|
90836619|NCT03085095|181540154|OTHER||Treatment difference|-2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|2.0|||||Treatment difference= Relugolix - Leuprolide acetate|||2.0|-7.8|
90836620|NCT05543265|181540183|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.4|28.8|||Chi-squared|||||28.8|6.4|<0.001
90836621|NCT04090203|181540223|SUPERIORITY||Percentage|75.0||||0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|40.0|||The test was performed at a one-sided significance level of 0.05.|Exact binomial test|The null hypothesis of the exact binomial test was that the percentage of patients who were successfully desensitized was less than or equal to 20%.|The percentage of successfully desensitized participants is presented with a one-sided 95% CI, obtained from the lower bound of the two-sided 90% Clopper-Pearson exact confidence interval.|The null hypothesis was that the percentage of patients who were successfully desensitized was less than or equal to 20%, and the alternative hypothesis was that this percentage was greater than 20%. Assuming 80% of study participants would be successfully desensitized, a sample size of 10 patients would provide greater than 90% power to reject the null hypothesis using a one-sided exact binomial test with a significance level of 0.05.|||40.0|0.001
90836622|NCT01488045|181540230|EQUIVALENCE|We compared patient satisfaction for those receiving the 2 sedation regimens using the Schuirmann 2 one-sided t test procedure.15 The groups were declared to be equivalent in terms of patient satisfaction if the 90% CI for the difference in mean satisfaction had outer boundaries indicating \<5% difference on the 100-point VAS. Nonequivalence was declared if the lower 90% CI boundary for the difference was less than -5.0, or if the upper 90% CI boundary for the difference was \>5.0.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.0741|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.5|-9.6||||||To calculate the required sample size for this study, the equivalence limit was set at 5 units difference on the VAS, with an expected mean difference of 0. The common SD of 16.2 was estimated based on the range of expected scores for the VAS from Ulmer et al. Using these inputs, a total sample size of 262 patients was estimated to have 80% power to reject the null hypothesis that the test and standard were not equivalent and conclude that they were equivalent.||-9.6|-18.5|
90836623|NCT02587221|181540252|OTHER|"VE=1-HR, where HR is the hazard ratio estimated by the Cox proportional hazards model for time to first occurrence of RT-PCR confirmed due to any strain.~An ILI was defined as presence of ≥1 respiratory symptom (e.g. sore throat, cough, sputum production, wheezing, or difficulty breathing) concurrently with ≥1 systemic symptom (temp \>37.2°C/99°F, chills, tiredness, headache, or myalgia) (protocol defined ILI definition)."|Vaccine efficacy (VE)|19.8|||||TWO_SIDED|97.45|-5.27|38.91|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for covariates||The efficacy of aQIV would be demonstrated if the LL of the two-sided multiplicity adjusted 95%CI for the vaccine efficacy is \>40%||38.91|-5.27|
90836624|NCT02587221|181540257|OTHER|"VE=1-HR, where HR is the hazard ratio estimated by the Cox proportional hazards model for time to first occurrence of RT-PCR confirmed due to any strain.~An ILI was defined as the presence of fever (temperature \>37.2°C) with cough or sore throat (modified CDC ILI definition)."|Vaccine efficacy (VE)|32.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.23|48.67|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for covariates||||48.67|10.23|
90836625|NCT02587221|181540258|OTHER|"VE=1-HR, where HR is the hazard ratio estimated by the Cox proportional hazards model for time to first occurrence of culture confirmed influenza due to any strain of influenza antigenically matched to the vaccine strains.~An ILI was defined as the presence of ≥1 respiratory symptom (eg. sore throat, cough, sputum production, wheezing, or difficulty breathing) concurrently with ≥1 systemic symptom (temp \>37.2°C/99°F, chills, tiredness, headache, or myalgia) (protocol defined ILI definition)."|Vaccine efficacy (VE)|49.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.03|79.79|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for covariates||The efficacy of aQIV would be demonstrated if the LL of the two-sided multiplicity adjusted 95%CI for the vaccine efficacy is \>40%||79.79|-24.03|
90836626|NCT02587221|181540259|OTHER|"VE=1-HR, where HR is the hazard ratio estimated by the Cox proportional hazards model for time to first occurrence of culture confirmed influenza due to any strain of influenza antigenically matched to the strains selected for the seasonal vaccine.~An ILI was defined as presence of fever (temperature \>37.2°C) with cough or sore throat (modified CDC ILI definition)."|Vaccine efficacy (VE)|61.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.98|86.28|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for covariates||||86.28|-7.98|
90895841|NCT04672941|181657374|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM) assuming random missingness was fitted. The dependent variable was EQ-VAS score. Visit, Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) group, smoking habits, pack years, sex, age, and comorbidities appearing at a rate greater than 5% were entered as covariates.|Score on a scale|11.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|12.6|||||Least Square Mean for Visit, mean change from Baseline (3 months - baseline) of EQ-VAS based on non-responder imputation.|||12.60|11.00|
90895842|NCT04672941|181657375|OTHER|The logistic generalized estimating equations (GEE) model with mobility as dependent variable. Visit, Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) group, smoking habits, pack years, sex, age, and comorbidities appearing at a rate greater than 5% were entered as covariates and unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|5.14|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio for Visit (3 months / baseline (reference)).|||5.14|3.90|< 0.001
91032653|NCT02549092|181950232|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-2.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.13||0.302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.47|2.04||The repeated measures model: change = treatment, country, visit, baseline, treatment \* visit, baseline \* visit. The unstructured variance-covariance structure is used.|repeated measures model||Difference of LCIG - OMT|Part III score||2.04|-6.47|0.302
91032654|NCT02549092|181950232|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.91|-0.48||The repeated measures model: change = treatment, country, visit, baseline, treatment \* visit, baseline \* visit. The unstructured variance-covariance structure is used.|repeated measures model||Difference of LCIG - OMT|Part IV score||-0.48|-2.91|0.007
91027573|NCT02041702|181939377|NON_INFERIORITY|The 2-sided 90% CI for difference in success rate between 2 groups was calculated by Farrington-Manning method.|Ratio Difference|2.6||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.2|8.4|||Farrington-Manning test||The null hypothesis would be rejected if the lower bound of the two-sided 90% confidence interval was greater than -10%.|"The hypothesis was: H0: PMRI - PCTRL≤ -10% vs H1: PMRI - PCTRL \>-10%~* PMRI: the success rate in the Cardiac MRI Scan Group for change in RV sensing amplitude at 1-Month post MRI scan visit compared to pre-MRI scan value collected at MRI scan visit~* PCTRL: the success rate in the Control Group for change in RV sensing amplitude at 1-Month post MRI scan visit compared to pre-MRI scan value collected at MRI scan visit"||8.4|-3.2|0.0002
90895843|NCT04672941|181657376|OTHER|The logistic generalized estimating equations (GEE) model with self-care as dependent variable. Visit, Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) group, smoking habits, pack years, sex, age, and comorbidities appearing at a rate greater than 5% were entered as covariates and unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.35|2.96|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio for Visit (3 months / baseline (reference)).|||2.96|2.35|< 0.001
90895844|NCT04672941|181657377|OTHER|The logistic generalized estimating equations (GEE) model with usual activities as dependent variable. Visit, Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) group, smoking habits, pack years, sex, age, and comorbidities appearing at a rate greater than 5% were entered as covariates and unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.89|5.12|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio for Visit (3 months / baseline (reference)).|||5.12|3.89|< 0.001
90895845|NCT04672941|181657378|OTHER|The logistic generalized estimating equations (GEE) model with pain/discomfort as dependent variable. Visit, Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) group, smoking habits, pack years, sex, age, and comorbidities appearing at a rate greater than 5% were entered as covariates and unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|3.85|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio for Visit (3 months / baseline (reference)).|||3.85|3.00|< 0.001
91027574|NCT01488578|181939388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91027575|NCT01488578|181939391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.032|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||=0.032
91027576|NCT01488578|181939392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91027577|NCT01488578|181939393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91027578|NCT01488578|181939394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91027579|NCT01488578|181939395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||The Hosmer-Lemeshow Goodness-of-Fit TEST|||||||<0.001
91027580|NCT01488578|181939397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||=0.006
91027581|NCT01488578|181939398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91027582|NCT01488578|181939399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.015|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||=0.015
91027583|NCT01488578|181939400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91027584|NCT01488578|181939401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91027585|NCT02308111|181939403|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio, log|1.01||||0.954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.51||Log rank p-value and hazard ratio are based on stratified analyses, with the randomization stratification factors entered in the interactive web response system (IWRS) as strata|Log Rank|||||1.51|0.68|0.954
91027586|NCT02308111|181939404|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.16||Log rank p-value and hazard ratio are based on stratified analyses, with the randomization stratification factors entered in the IWRS as strata.|Log Rank|||||1.16|0.61|0.304
91103930|NCT03992872|182094614|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|"Day 22.~Note: A subject has a 4-fold rise at a visit if they achieve a titer at that visit that is at least 4-fold higher than their Day 1 titer."||||||1.00
91027587|NCT02308111|181939405|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.52||Log rank p-value and hazard ratio are based on stratified analyses, with the randomization stratification factors entered in the IWRS as strata.|Log Rank|||||1.52|0.69|0.898
91027588|NCT02308111|181939406|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||0.594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.91||Log rank p-value and hazard ratio are based on stratified analyses, with the randomization stratification factors entered in the IWRS as strata.|Log Rank|||||1.91|0.69|0.594
91027589|NCT02308111|181939407|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.26||||0.568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|2.78||Log rank p-value and hazard ratio are based on stratified analyses, with the randomization stratification factors entered in the IWRS as strata.|Log Rank|||||2.78|0.57|0.568
91027590|NCT02308111|181939408|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.07||Gray's test p-value and hazard ratio are based on stratified analyses, with the randomization stratification factors entered in the interactive web response system (IWRS) as strata.|Gray's Test|||||2.07|0.59|0.769
91027591|NCT02308111|181939409|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.67||Gray's test p-value and hazard ratio are based on stratified analyses, with the randomization stratification factors entered in the IWRS as strata.|Gray's Test|||||1.67|0.42|0.599
91027592|NCT02308111|181939410|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|3.43||Gray's test p-value and hazard ratio are based on stratified analyses, with the randomization stratification factors entered in the IWRS as strata.|Gray's Test|||||3.43|0.18|0.745
91027593|NCT02308111|181939411|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.44||Gray's test p-value and hazard ratio are based on stratified analyses, with the randomization stratification factors entered in the IWRS as strata.|Gray's Test|||||1.44|0.43|0.437
91027594|NCT02308111|181939412|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.838|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|2.24||Gray's test p-value and hazard ratio are based on stratified analyses, with the randomization stratification factors entered in the IWRS as strata.|Gray's Test|||||2.24|0.37|0.838
91027595|NCT02308111|181939413|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|4.04||Gray's test p-value and hazard ratio are based on stratified analyses, with the randomization stratification factors entered in the IWRS as strata.|Gray's Test|||||4.04|0.26|0.980
91027596|NCT02308111|181939414|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.83||Gray's test p-value and hazard ratio are based on stratified analyses, with the randomization stratification factors entered in the IWRS as strata.|Gray's Test|||||1.83|0.58|0.933
91027597|NCT02308111|181939415|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.34||Gray's test p-value and hazard ratio are based on stratified analyses, with the randomization stratification factors entered in the IWRS as strata.|Gray's Test|||||1.34|0.53|0.468
91027598|NCT02308111|181939416|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.43||||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.41||Gray's test p-value and hazard ratio are based on stratified analyses, with the randomization stratification factors entered in the IWRS as strata.|Gray's Test|||||1.41|0.13|0.178
90836627|NCT02587221|181540260|OTHER|"VE=1-HR, where HR is the hazard ratio estimated by the Cox proportional hazards model for time to first occurrence of culture confirmed influenza due to any vaccine strain regardless of antigenic match.~An ILI was defined as the presence of ≥1 respiratory symptom (e.g. sore throat, cough, sputum production, wheezing, or difficulty breathing) concurrently with ≥1 systemic symptom (temp \>37.2°C/99°F, chills, tiredness, headache, or myalgia) (protocol defined ILI definition)."|Vaccine efficacy (VE)|28.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|49.08|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for covariates||||49.08|0.05|
90836628|NCT02587221|181540261|OTHER|"VE=1-HR, where HR is the hazard ratio estimated by the Cox proportional hazards model for time to first occurrence of culture confirmed influenza due to any strain of influenza regardless of antigenic match~An ILI was defined as presence of fever (temperature \>37.2°C) with cough or sore throat (modified CDC ILI definition)."|Vaccine efficacy (VE)|33.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.56|54.57|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for covariates||||54.57|2.56|
90836629|NCT02587221|181540262|OTHER|"VE=1-HR, where HR is the hazard ratio estimated by the Cox proportional hazards model for time to first occurrence of culture confirmed influenza due to any strain of influenza antigenically unmatched to the vaccine strains.~An ILI is the presence of ≥1 respiratory symptom (e.g. sore throat, cough, sputum production, wheezing, or difficulty breathing) concurrently with ≥1 systemic symptom (temp \>37.2°C/99°F, chills, tiredness, headache, or myalgia) (protocol defined ILI definition)."|Vaccine efficacy (VE)|23.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.69|47.05|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for covariates||||47.05|-9.69|
91027599|NCT02308111|181939416|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.43||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.41|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.41|0.13|0.190
91027600|NCT02308111|181939417|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.43||||0.443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|3.54||Gray's test p-value and hazard ratio are based on stratified analyses, with the randomization stratification factors entered in the IWRS as strata.|Gray's Test|||||3.54|0.05|0.443
90836630|NCT02587221|181540263|OTHER|"VE=1-HR, where HR is the hazard ratio estimated by the Cox proportional hazards model for time to first occurrence of culture confirmed influenza due to any strain of influenza antigenically unmatched to the strains selected for the seasonal vaccine.~An ILI was defined as presence of fever (temperature \>37.2°C) with cough or sore throat (modified CDC ILI definition)."|Vaccine efficacy (VE)|26.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.71|51.13|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for covariates||||51.13|-11.71|
90836631|NCT02587221|181540268|OTHER|"VE=1-HR, where HR is the hazard ratio estimated by the Cox proportional hazards model for time to first occurrence of RT-PCR confirmed due to any strain.~An ILI was defined as presence of fever (temperature ≥38°C) with cough (WHO ILI definition)."|Vaccine efficacy (VE)|51.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.21|66.67|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for covariates||||66.67|28.21|
90836632|NCT02587221|181540269|OTHER|"VE=1-HR, where HR is the hazard ratio estimated by the Cox proportional hazards model for time to first occurrence of culture confirmed influenza due to any strain of influenza antigenically matched to the strains selected for the seasonal vaccine.~An ILI was defined as presence of fever (temperature ≥38°C) with cough (WHO ILI definition)"|Vaccine efficacy (VE)|74.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.93|94.68|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for covariates||||94.68|-17.93|
90836633|NCT02587221|181540270|OTHER|"VE=1-HR, where HR is the hazard ratio estimated by the Cox proportional hazards model for time to first occurrence of culture confirmed influenza due to any strain of influenza regardless of antigenic match.~An ILI was defined as presence of fever (temperature ≥38°C) with cough (WHO ILI definition)."|Vaccine efficacy (VE)|60.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.19|76.94|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for covariates||||76.94|31.19|
90836634|NCT02587221|181540271|OTHER|"VE=1-HR, where HR is the hazard ratio estimated by the Cox proportional hazards model for time to first occurrence of culture confirmed influenza due to any strain of influenza antigenically unmatched to the strains selected for the seasonal vaccine.~An ILI was defined as presence of fever (temperature ≥38°C) with cough (WHO ILI definition)."|Vaccine efficacy (VE)|57.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.73|76.09|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for covariates||||76.09|22.73|
90836635|NCT03988400|181540272|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||1
90836636|NCT03988400|181540273|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.017
90836637|NCT03988400|181540274|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||1
90836638|NCT03988400|181540275|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.72
90836639|NCT03988400|181540276|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
90836640|NCT03988400|181540277|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.68
90836641|NCT03988400|181540278|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.25
90836642|NCT03988400|181540279|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.69
90836643|NCT03988400|181540280|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.20
91027601|NCT03482713|181939593|OTHER||Difference in least squares means|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|1.93|||||Based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, gender and the log-transformed baseline.|||1.93|-0.34|
91027602|NCT03482713|181939594|OTHER||Difference least squares mean|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|1.88|||||Based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, gender and the log-transformed baseline.|||1.88|-0.35|
91027603|NCT03626857|181939595|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.025|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.025
91027604|NCT03626857|181939596|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.025|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.025
91032655|NCT02549092|181950233|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.52|1.44||The repeated measures model: change = treatment, country, visit, baseline, treatment \* visit, baseline \* visit. The unstructured variance-covariance structure is used.|repeated measures model||Difference of LCIG - OMT|||1.44|-4.52|0.307
91027605|NCT01095003|181939608|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.0426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.99|||Log Rank|||The final analysis of progression free survival was conducted once the required number of events(615 progressions or deaths) was reached.using the IRC assessment of date of progressions following the blinded radiological and clinical review of data. Kaplan-Meier curves and life tables by treatment arm were provided.A stratified Cox proportional model was used to compare the two treatment arms||0.99|0.71|0.0426
90836644|NCT03988400|181540281|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.62
90836645|NCT04913610|181540283|OTHER||||||=|0.036|||||||Mann-Whitney U test|The p-value is for the pairwise comparison of Arm A to Arm E using the Mann-Whitney U test for the percentage per participant.||Part 1: ABBV-4083 400 mg + albendazole pbo for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm A) versus Part 1: ABBV-4083 pbo + albendazole 400 mg for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm E)||||=0.036
90836646|NCT04913610|181540283|OTHER||||||=|0.53||||||The p-value is for the pairwise comparison of Arm B to Arm E using the Mann-Whitney U test for the percentage per participant.|Mann-Whitney U test|||Part 1: ABBV-4083 400 mg + albendazole pbo for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 400 mg for 7 days (Arm B) versus Part 1: ABBV-4083 pbo + albendazole 400 mg for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm E)||||=0.530
90836647|NCT04913610|181540283|OTHER||||||=|0.852||||||The p-value is for the pairwise comparison of Arm C to Arm E using the Mann-Whitney U test for the percentage per participant.|Mann-Whitney U test|||Part 1: ABBV-4083 400 mg + albendazole 400 mg for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm C) versus Part 1: ABBV-4083 pbo + albendazole 400 mg for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm E)||||=0.852
90836648|NCT04913610|181540283|OTHER||||||=|0.366||||||The p-value is for the pairwise comparison of Arm D to Arm E using the Mann-Whitney U test for the percentage per participant.|Mann-Whitney U test|||Part 1: ABBV-4083/albendazole 400 mg 3 d; ABBV-4083 400 mg/albendazole pbo 4 d; ABBV-4083 pbo 7 d (Arm D) versus Part 1: ABBV-4083 pbo + albendazole 400 mg for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm E)||||=0.366
90836649|NCT04913610|181540284|OTHER||||||=|0.869||||||The p-value is for the pairwise comparison of Arm A to Arm E using the Mann-Whitney U test for the percentage per participant.|Mann-Whitney U test|||Part 1: ABBV-4083 400 mg + albendazole pbo for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm A) versus Part 1: ABBV-4083 pbo + albendazole 400 mg for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm E)||||=0.869
90836650|NCT04913610|181540284|OTHER||||||=|0.973||||||The p-value is for the pairwise comparison of Arm B to Arm E using the Mann-Whitney U test for the percentage per participant.|Mann-Whitney U test|||Part 1: ABBV-4083 400 mg + albendazole pbo for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 400 mg for 7 days (Arm B) versus Part 1: ABBV-4083 pbo + albendazole 400 mg for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm E)||||=0.973
90836651|NCT04913610|181540284|OTHER||||||=|0.744||||||The p-value is for the pairwise comparison of Arm C to Arm E using the Mann-Whitney U test for the percentage per participant.|Mann-Whitney U test|||Part 1: ABBV-4083 400 mg + albendazole 400 mg for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm C) versus Part 1: ABBV-4083 pbo + albendazole 400 mg for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm E)||||=0.744
90836652|NCT04913610|181540284|OTHER||||||=|0.794||||||The p-value is for the pairwise comparison of Arm D to Arm E using the Mann-Whitney U test for the percentage per participant.|Mann-Whitney U test|||Part 1: ABBV-4083/albendazole 400 mg 3 d; ABBV-4083 400 mg/albendazole pbo 4 d; ABBV-4083 pbo 7 d (Arm D) versus Part 1: ABBV-4083 pbo + albendazole 400 mg for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm E)||||=0.794
90836653|NCT04913610|181540285|OTHER||||||=|0.559||||||The p-value is for the pairwise comparison of Arm A to Arm E using the using the Chi-square test for the binary response per participant.|Chi-square test|||Part 1: ABBV-4083 400 mg + albendazole pbo for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm A) versus Part 1: ABBV-4083 pbo + albendazole 400 mg for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm E)||||=0.559
90836654|NCT04913610|181540285|OTHER||||||=|0.786||||||The p-value is for the pairwise comparison of Arm B to Arm E using the using the Chi-square test for the binary response per participant.|Chi-square test|||Part 1: ABBV-4083 400 mg + albendazole pbo for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 400 mg for 7 days (Arm B) versus Part 1: ABBV-4083 pbo + albendazole 400 mg for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm E)||||=0.786
90836655|NCT04913610|181540285|OTHER||||||=|0.423||||||The p-value is for the pairwise comparison of Arm C to Arm E using the using the Chi-square test for the binary response per participant.|Chi-square test|||Part 1: ABBV-4083 400 mg + albendazole 400 mg for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm C) versus Part 1: ABBV-4083 pbo + albendazole 400 mg for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm E)||||=0.423
90836656|NCT04913610|181540285|OTHER||||||=|0.92||||||The p-value is for the pairwise comparison of Arm D to Arm E using the using the Chi-square test for the binary response per participant.|Chi-square test|||Part 1: ABBV-4083/albendazole 400 mg 3 d; ABBV-4083 400 mg/albendazole pbo 4 d; ABBV-4083 pbo 7 d (Arm D) versus Part 1: ABBV-4083 pbo + albendazole 400 mg for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm E)||||=0.920
90836657|NCT04913610|181540286|OTHER||||||=|0.981||||||The p-value is for the pairwise comparison of Arm A to Arm E using the using the Chi-square test for the binary response per participant.|Chi-square test|||Part 1: ABBV-4083 400 mg + albendazole pbo for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm A) versus Part 1: ABBV-4083 pbo + albendazole 400 mg for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm E)||||=0.981
90836658|NCT04913610|181540286|OTHER||||||=|0.981||||||The p-value is for the pairwise comparison of Arm B to Arm E using the using the Chi-square test for the binary response per participant.|Chi-square test|||Part 1: ABBV-4083 400 mg + albendazole pbo for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 400 mg for 7 days (Arm B) versus Part 1: ABBV-4083 pbo + albendazole 400 mg for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm E)||||=0.981
90836659|NCT04913610|181540286|OTHER||||||=|0.96||||||The p-value is for the pairwise comparison of Arm C to Arm E using the using the Chi-square test for the binary response per participant.|Chi-square test|||Part 1: ABBV-4083 400 mg + albendazole 400 mg for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm C) versus Part 1: ABBV-4083 pbo + albendazole 400 mg for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm E)||||=0.960
90836660|NCT04913610|181540286|OTHER||||||=|0.96||||||The p-value is for the pairwise comparison of Arm D to Arm E using the using the Chi-square test for the binary response per participant.|Chi-square test|||Part 1: ABBV-4083/albendazole 400 mg 3 d; ABBV-4083 400 mg/albendazole pbo 4 d; ABBV-4083 pbo 7 d (Arm D) versus Part 1: ABBV-4083 pbo + albendazole 400 mg for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm E)||||=0.960
91027606|NCT01095003|181939609|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.7657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.15|||Log Rank|||||1.15|0.83|0.7657
91027607|NCT01095003|181939610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.103|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.103
90836661|NCT04913610|181540287|OTHER||||||=|0.157||||||The p-value is for the pairwise comparison of Arm A to Arm E using the using the Chi-square test for the binary response per participant.|Chi-square test|||Part 1: ABBV-4083 400 mg + albendazole pbo for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm A) versus Part 1: ABBV-4083 pbo + albendazole 400 mg for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm E)||||=0.157
90836662|NCT04913610|181540287|OTHER||||||=|0.15||||||The p-value is for the pairwise comparison of Arm B to Arm E using the using the Chi-square test for the binary response per participant.|Chi-square test|||Part 1: ABBV-4083 400 mg + albendazole pbo for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 400 mg for 7 days (Arm B) versus Part 1: ABBV-4083 pbo + albendazole 400 mg for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm E)||||=0.150
90836663|NCT04913610|181540287|OTHER||||||=|0.15||||||The p-value is for the pairwise comparison of Arm C to Arm E using the using the Chi-square test for the binary response per participant.|Chi-square test|||Part 1: ABBV-4083 400 mg + albendazole 400 mg for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm C) versus Part 1: ABBV-4083 pbo + albendazole 400 mg for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm E)||||=0.150
90836664|NCT04913610|181540287|OTHER||||||=|0.173||||||The p-value is for the pairwise comparison of Arm D to Arm E using the using the Chi-square test for the binary response per participant.|Chi-square test|||Part 1: ABBV-4083/albendazole 400 mg 3 d; ABBV-4083 400 mg/albendazole pbo 4 d; ABBV-4083 pbo 7 d (Arm D) versus Part 1: ABBV-4083 pbo + albendazole 400 mg for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm E)||||=0.173
90836665|NCT04913610|181540288|OTHER||||||=|0.619||||||The p-value is for the pairwise comparison of Arm A to Arm E using the Mann-Whitney U test for the change from baseline in skin microfilarial density per participant.|Mann-Whitney U test|||Part 1: ABBV-4083 400 mg + albendazole pbo for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm A) versus Part 1: ABBV-4083 pbo + albendazole 400 mg for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm E)||||=0.619
90836666|NCT04913610|181540288|OTHER||||||=|0.194||||||The p-value is for the pairwise comparison of Arm B to Arm E using the Mann-Whitney U test for the change from baseline in skin microfilarial density per participant.|Mann-Whitney U test|||Part 1: ABBV-4083 400 mg + albendazole pbo for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 400 mg for 7 days (Arm B) versus Part 1: ABBV-4083 pbo + albendazole 400 mg for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm E)||||=0.194
90836667|NCT04913610|181540288|OTHER||||||=|0.518||||||The p-value is for the pairwise comparison of Arm C to Arm E using the Mann-Whitney U test for the change from baseline in skin microfilarial density per participant.|Mann-Whitney U test|||Part 1: ABBV-4083 400 mg + albendazole 400 mg for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm C) versus Part 1: ABBV-4083 pbo + albendazole 400 mg for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm E)||||=0.518
90836668|NCT04913610|181540288|OTHER||||||=|0.652||||||The p-value is for the pairwise comparison of Arm D to Arm E using the Mann-Whitney U test for the change from baseline in skin microfilarial density per participant.|Mann-Whitney U test|||Part 1: ABBV-4083/albendazole 400 mg 3 d; ABBV-4083 400 mg/albendazole pbo 4 d; ABBV-4083 pbo 7 d (Arm D) versus Part 1: ABBV-4083 pbo + albendazole 400 mg for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm E)||||=0.652
90836669|NCT04913610|181540289|OTHER||||||=|0.386||||||The p-value is for the pairwise comparison of Arm A to Arm E using the Mann-Whitney U test for the change from baseline in skin microfilarial density per participant.|Mann-Whitney U test|||Part 1: ABBV-4083 400 mg + albendazole pbo for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm A) versus Part 1: ABBV-4083 pbo + albendazole 400 mg for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm E)||||=0.386
90836670|NCT04913610|181540289|OTHER||||||=|0.279||||||The p-value is for the pairwise comparison of Arm B to Arm E using the Mann-Whitney U test for the change from baseline in skin microfilarial density per participant.|Mann-Whitney U test|||Part 1: ABBV-4083 400 mg + albendazole pbo for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 400 mg for 7 days (Arm B) versus Part 1: ABBV-4083 pbo + albendazole 400 mg for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm E)||||=0.279
90836671|NCT04913610|181540289|OTHER||||||=|0.385||||||The p-value is for the pairwise comparison of Arm C to Arm E using the Mann-Whitney U test for the change from baseline in skin microfilarial density per participant.|Mann-Whitney U test|||Part 1: ABBV-4083 400 mg + albendazole 400 mg for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm C) versus Part 1: ABBV-4083 pbo + albendazole 400 mg for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm E)||||=0.385
90836672|NCT04913610|181540289|OTHER||||||=|0.755||||||The p-value is for the pairwise comparison of Arm D to Arm E using the Mann-Whitney U test for the change from baseline in skin microfilarial density per participant.|Mann-Whitney U test|||Part 1: ABBV-4083/albendazole 400 mg 3 d; ABBV-4083 400 mg/albendazole pbo 4 d; ABBV-4083 pbo 7 d (Arm D) versus Part 1: ABBV-4083 pbo + albendazole 400 mg for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm E)||||=0.755
90836673|NCT03186209|181540291|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.36||Multiplicity protected by hierarchy testing procedure. First in line hypothesis testing, requiring p-value \<0.05.|Negative binomial|Model with covariates: treatment group, region (China/Non-China), number of exacerbations in previous year, use of maintenance oral corticosteroids||||0.36|0.19|<0.0001
90836674|NCT03186209|181540292|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.34||Test after significant primary endpoint. Two secondary endpoints (change in FEV1 and total asthma symptom score) using Holm's procedure; smaller p-value to be \<0.025, and larger p-value to be \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes Treatment, baseline pre-bronchodilator FEV1, region, use of maintenance oral corticosteroids, visit, and treatment by visit||||0.34|0.17|<0.0001
90836675|NCT03186209|181540293|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||0.0126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.05||Test after significant primary endpoint. Two secondary endpoints (change in FEV1 and total asthma symptom score) using Holm's procedure; smaller p-value to be \<0.025, and larger p-value to be \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes Treatment, baseline total asthma symptom score, region, use of maintenance oral corticosteroids, visit, and treatment by visit||||-0.05|-0.45|0.0126
90836676|NCT03186209|181540294|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.1835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.08||Nominal p-value. Not multiplicity protected by testing procedure.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes Treatment, baseline total asthma rescue medication use, region, use of maintenance oral corticosteroids, visit, treatment\*visit||||0.08|-0.42|0.1835
90836677|NCT03186209|181540295|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|38.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.24|53.07||Nominal p-value. Not multiplicity protected by testing procedure.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes Treatment, baseline morning PEF, region, use of maintenance oral corticosteroids, visit, and treatment by visit||||53.07|24.24|<0.0001
91027608|NCT01095003|181939611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0089|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0089
90836678|NCT03186209|181540296|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|35.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.52|50.18||Nominal p-value. Not multiplicity protected by testing procedure.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes Treatment, baseline evening PEF, region, use of maintenance oral corticosteroids, visit, and treatment by visit||||50.18|21.52|<0.0001
90836679|NCT03186209|181540297|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.3385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.01||Nominal p-value. Not multiplicity protected by testing procedure.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes Treatment, baseline proportion of nights awakening, region, use of maintenance oral corticosteroids, visit, and treatment by visit||||0.01|-0.03|0.3385
90836680|NCT03186209|181540298|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|-0.28||Nominal p-value. Not multiplicity protected by testing procedure.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes Treatment, baseline ACQ-6 score, use of maintenance oral corticosteroids, visit, and treatment by visit||||-0.28|-0.58|<0.0001
90836681|NCT03186209|181540299|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.43||Nominal p-value. Not multiplicity protected by testing procedure.|Regression, Cox|model including covariates treatment group, region, number of exacerbations in the previous year, and use of maintenance oral corticosteroids||||0.43|0.23|<0.0001
90836682|NCT03186209|181540300|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.42||Nominal p-value. Not multiplicity protected by testing procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for region, number of exacerbations in the previous year (2, \>=3), use of OCS||||0.42|0.19|<0.0001
90836683|NCT03186209|181540301|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.79|-5.6||Nominal p-value. Not multiplicity protected by testing procedure.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model with covariates: treatment group, baseline SGRQ total score, region, use of maintenance oral corticosteroids, visit, and treatment by visit||||-5.60|-12.79|<0.0001
90836684|NCT03186209|181540302|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.46||||0.0222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.9||Nominal p-value. Not multiplicity protected by testing procedure.|Negative binomial|Model includes Treatment, use of maintenance oral corticosteroids, categorical variable of ER/UC or hospitalization exacerbations during previous year||||0.90|0.24|0.0222
90836685|NCT03186209|181540306|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-119.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-169.78|-68.84||Nominal p-value. Not multiplicity protected by testing procedure.|Mixed Models Analysis|model includes treatment , baseline eosinophil count, region, use of maintenance oral corticosteroids, visit, and treatment by visit||||-68.84|-169.78|<0.0001
90836686|NCT03186209|181540307|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.83||||0.4519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.35||Nominal p-value. Not multiplicity protected by testing procedure.|Negative binomial|Model with covariates: treatment group, region (China/Non-China), number of exacerbations in previous year, use of maintenance oral corticosteroids||||1.35|0.51|0.4519
90836687|NCT03186209|181540308|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.0214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.22||Nominal p-value. Not multiplicity protected by testing procedure.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes Treatment, baseline pre-bronchodilator FEV1, region, use of maintenance oral corticosteroids, visit, and treatment by visit||||0.22|0.02|0.0214
90836688|NCT03186209|181540309|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21||||0.1589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.08||Nominal p-value. Not multiplicity protected by testing procedure.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes Treatment, baseline total asthma symptom score, region, use of maintenance oral corticosteroids, visit, and treatment by visit||||0.08|-0.51|0.1589
90836689|NCT01446159|181540379|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.991||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.689|1.429|||Log Rank|||||1.429|0.689|0.86
90836690|NCT03174184|181540399|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence tests will be conducted to examine whether the EBA0-14CFU of Arm A is different from the EBA0-14CFU of Arm B. A similar comparison will be done comparing Arm C to Arm D, Arm A to Arm C, Arm D to Arm E, Arm D to Arm F, and Arm E to Arm F.|||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.001
90836691|NCT00537394|181540404|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority margin defined as 15 percentage points. If the confidence interval for the difference in regimen failure between omitting versus adding NRTIs was fully below 15 percentage points, then omitting NRTIs would be concluded to be not inferior to adding NRTIs for this outcome.|Risk Difference (RD)|3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|12.5|||||Endpoint rates with standard errors calculated from Kaplan-Meier curves for each treatment group and stratum. Differences in week 48 failure proportions by treatment calculated weighted by the inverse of the variance in each stratum.|Null Hypothesis was that omitting NRTIs is inferior to adding NRTIs for the outcome of regimen failure through 48 weeks.||12.5|-6.1|
90836692|NCT04267380|181540425|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.73
90836693|NCT04267380|181540426|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.97
90836694|NCT04267380|181540427|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.26
90836695|NCT04267380|181540428|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.23
90836696|NCT04267380|181540429|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.33
90836697|NCT04267380|181540430|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.07
90836698|NCT04267380|181540431|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.68
90836699|NCT04267380|181540432|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.68
90836700|NCT04267380|181540434|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.45
90836701|NCT04267380|181540435|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.53
90836702|NCT04267380|181540436|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.86
90836703|NCT04267380|181540437|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.83
90836704|NCT04267380|181540438|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.67
90836705|NCT04267380|181540439|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.86
90836706|NCT04267380|181540440|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.78
90836707|NCT04267380|181540441|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.99
90836708|NCT04267380|181540442|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.11
90836709|NCT04267380|181540443|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.63
90836710|NCT04267380|181540444|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.25
90958930|NCT04874415|181797847|SUPERIORITY|Main effects of each intervention factor were estimated using generalized linear models with log link, including all prespecified two-way interactions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0005|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5|||||Daily Step Count Goal is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|||0.5|-0.5|
91090819|NCT04210986|182065253|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|-3.5||||0.9728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|3.6||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|DAY 14 ASSESSMENT Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||3.6|-10.6|0.9728
91090820|NCT04210986|182065253|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|-2.5||||0.9728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|2.8||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|DAY 45 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||2.8|-7.8|0.9728
91090821|NCT04210986|182065253|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|-20.5||||0.0829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.7|-3.3||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|MONTH 6 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||-3.3|-37.7|0.0829
91090822|NCT04210986|182065253|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|-0.5||||0.9728|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Contrast of LS Means|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|MONTH 12 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||||0.9728
91090823|NCT04210986|182065254|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|2.52|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.4|54.5||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|DAY 14 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||54.5|-49.4|>0.99
91090824|NCT04210986|182065254|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|11.0|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.8|58.8||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|DAY 45 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||58.8|-36.8|>0.99
91090825|NCT04210986|182065254|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|-40.3||||0.6594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-97.6|17.1||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|MONTH 6 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||17.1|-97.6|0.6594
91090826|NCT04210986|182065254|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|-6.9|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.5|31.7||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|MONTH 12 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||31.7|-45.5|>0.99
91103931|NCT03992872|182094614|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|"Day 29.~Note: A subject has a 4-fold rise at a visit if they achieve a titer at that visit that is at least 4-fold higher than their Day 1 titer."||||||1.00
90836711|NCT00395746|181540470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-1.27|||<|0.0001||95.0|-1.51|1.02||A significance level of a two-sided 5% was used for statistical hypothesis testing.|ANOVA|||"ANOVA model included treatment group and pre-trial SU as fixed effects and HbA1C at baseline as a covariate. Two null hypotheses were statistically tested:~H10: μ0.9 = μSU, H11: μ0.9 ≠ μSU H20: μ0.6 = μSU, H21: μ0.6 ≠ μSU where μ0.6, μ0.9 and μSU are population mean after 24-week treatment for 0.6 mg+SU, 0.9 mg+SU and SU mono, respectively. When the test of comparison between 0.9 mg+SU and SU mono was significant, the test of comparison between 0.6 mg+SU and SU mono was performed."||1.02|-1.51|<0.0001
90836712|NCT00395746|181540470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-1.0|||<|0.0001||95.0|-1.24|-0.75|||ANOVA|A significance level of a two-sided 5% was used for statistical hypothesis testing.||"ANOVA model included treatment group and pre-trial SU as fixed effects and HbA1C at baseline as a covariate. Two null hypotheses were statistically tested:~H10: μ0.9 = μSU, H11: μ0.9 ≠ μSU H20: μ0.6 = μSU, H21: μ0.6 ≠ μSU where μ0.6, μ0.9 and μSU are population mean after 24-week treatment for 0.6 mg+SU, 0.9 mg+SU and SU mono, respectively. When the test of comparison between 0.9 mg+SU and SU mono was significant, the test of comparison between 0.6 mg+SU and SU mono was performed."||-0.75|-1.24|<0.0001
90958931|NCT04874415|181797848|SUPERIORITY|Main effects were estimated using generalized linear models with log link. No interactions were included (failure to converge).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.00000001|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00002|0.00002|||||Once daily text message is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|||0.00002|-0.00002|
90836713|NCT00395746|181540471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-1.33||||||95.0|-1.62|-1.04|||ANOVA|||95% confidence interval for the mean difference (each liraglutide - SU monotherapy) was calculated under an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with treatment group and pre-trial SU as fixed effects and corresponding baseline value as a covariate, and no statistical testing was performed.||-1.04|-1.62|
90836714|NCT00395746|181540471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-0.96||||||95.0|-1.25|-0.67|||ANOVA|||95% confidence interval for the mean difference (each liraglutide - SU monotherapy) was calculated under an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with treatment group and pre-trial SU as fixed effects and corresponding baseline value as a covariate, and no statistical testing was performed.||-0.67|-1.25|
90836715|NCT00395746|181540472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-32.4|||<|0.0001||95.0|-40.5|-24.2||To perform the pairwise comparisons simultaneously, a closed testing procedure was applied. When the hypothesis μ0.9 = μ0.6 = μSU was rejected, the 2 hypotheses of pairwise comparison were tested simultaneously both at significance level of 5%.|ANOVA|||ANOVA model included treatment group and pre-trial SU as fixed effects and corresponding baseline value as a covariate. Two null hypotheses were statistically tested, when the hypothesis μ0.9 = μ0.6 = μSU was rejected at a significance level of 5%: H10: μ0.9 = μSU, H11: μ0.9 ≠ μSU H20: μ0.6 = μSU, H21: μ0.6 ≠ μSU where μ0.6, μ0.9 and μSU are population mean after 24-week treatment for 0.6 mg+SU, 0.9 mg+SU and SU mono, respectively.||-24.2|-40.5|<0.0001
90895846|NCT04672941|181657379|OTHER|The logistic generalized estimating equations (GEE) model with anxiety/depression as dependent variable. Visit, Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) group, smoking habits, pack years, sex, age, and comorbidities appearing at a rate greater than 5% were entered as covariates and unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.95|3.73|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio for Visit (3 months / baseline (reference)).|||3.73|2.95|< 0.001
90895847|NCT04672941|181657385|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM) assuming random missingness was fitted. The dependent variable was the mMRC score. Visit, Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) group, smoking habits, pack years, sex, age, and comorbidities appearing at a rate greater than 5% were entered as covariates.|Score on a scale|-0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.51|||||Least Square Mean for Visit, change from baseline (3 months - baseline) of mMRC based on non-responder imputation.|||-0.51|-0.60|
90895848|NCT00386022|181657396|EQUIVALENCE|null hypothesis will be accepted if there is no difference in the LH response to GnRH as a function of dose in young or old postmenopausal women|||||<|0.001||||||LH % change with dose|Repeated measures ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90895849|NCT00386022|181657396|EQUIVALENCE|null hypothesis will be accepted if there is no difference in the LH response to GnRH between younger and older postmenopausal women|||||<|0.03||||||LH % change with age|Repeated measures ANCOVA|||null hypothesis: there will be no difference in the LH and FSH responses to graded doses of GnRH between younger and older postmenopausal women||||<0.03
90895850|NCT00386022|181657396|EQUIVALENCE|null hypothesis will be accepted if there is no difference in the FSH response to GnRH as a function of dose in younger or older postmenopausal women|||||<|0.001||||||FSH % change with dose|Repeated measures ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90895851|NCT00386022|181657396|EQUIVALENCE|null hypothesis will be accepted if there is no difference in the FSH response to GnRH between young and old postmenopausal women|||||<|0.005||||||FSH % change with age|Repeated measures ANCOVA|||||||<0.005
90895852|NCT00386022|181657397|EQUIVALENCE|null hypothesis will be accepted if there is no effect of estrogen on the LH response to GnRH in younger and older postmenopausal women|||||<|0.01||||||LH amplitude response with estrogen|Repeated measured ANCOVA|||||||<0.01
90895853|NCT00386022|181657397|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis will be accepted if there is no effect of estrogen on the FSH response to GnRH in younger and older postmenopausal women|||||<|0.0001||||||FSH amplitude response with estrogen|Repeated measures ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91027609|NCT02637557|181939613|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.952||||0.6065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.222|8.318||P-value based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||8.318|-14.222|0.6065
91027610|NCT02637557|181939613|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.036||||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.318|2.245||P-value based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||2.245|-20.318|0.1160
90895854|NCT00386022|181657397|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis will be accepted if there is no effect of age on the effect of estrogen on the FSH response to GnRH|||||<|0.02||||||FSH amplitude response to estrogen with age|Repeated measures ANCOVA|||||||<0.02
90895855|NCT00386022|181657397|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis will be accepted if there is no effect of age on the effect of estrogen on the LH response to GnRH|||||=|0.4||||||LH amplitude response to estrogen with age|Repeated measures ANCOVA|||||||=0.4
90895856|NCT03933826|181657438|SUPERIORITY||Average treatment estimate (ATE)|0.9|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|2.4||We tested the hypothesis that the average treatment effect (ATE) is different from zero. This was the only hypothesis test in our primary manuscript, and so no adjustment for multiple comparisons is necessary.|TMLE|TMLE stands for targeted maximum likelihood estimation|The causal mean difference in outcomes if all patients had been treated with radical cystectomy versus with bladder-sparing therapy. A positive value indicates greater physical functioning associated with radical cystectomy.|||2.4|-0.6|<0.05
90895857|NCT03933826|181657441|OTHER|We did not conduct a hypothesis test for this outcome. We presented an estimate of the average treatment effect (ATE).|TMLE|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|2.9|||||The ATE is interpreted as the causal mean difference in outcomes if all patients had been treated with RC versus having been treated with BST. A positive value indicates greater urinary health associated with radical cystectomy.|||2.9|-0.5|
90895858|NCT03933826|181657444|OTHER|We did not conduct a hypothesis test for this outcome. We presented an estimate of average treatment effect (ATE).|TMLE|-11.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|-9.0|||||The ATE is interpreted as the causal mean difference in outcomes if all patients had been treated with RC versus having been treated with BST. A positive value indicates greater sexual health associated with radical cystectomy.|||-9.0|-14.7|
91027611|NCT02637557|181939613|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-11.943||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.334|-0.551||P-value based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-0.551|-23.334|0.0400
91027612|NCT02637557|181939613|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0225||||||Dose trend test performed using linear contrast statement.|trend test|||||||0.0225
90836716|NCT00395746|181540472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-26.4|||<|0.0001||95.0|-34.5|-18.2||To perform the pairwise comparisons simultaneously, a closed testing procedure was applied. When the hypothesis μ0.9 = μ0.6 = μSU was rejected, the 2 hypotheses of pairwise comparison were tested simultaneously both at significance level of 5%.|ANOVA|||ANOVA model included treatment group and pre-trial SU as fixed effects and corresponding baseline value as a covariate. Two null hypotheses were statistically tested, when the hypothesis μ0.9 = μ0.6 = μSU was rejected at a significance level of 5%: H10: μ0.9 = μSU, H11: μ0.9 ≠ μSU H20: μ0.6 = μSU, H21: μ0.6 ≠ μSU where μ0.6, μ0.9 and μSU are population mean after 24-week treatment for 0.6 mg+SU, 0.9 mg+SU and SU mono, respectively.||-18.2|-34.5|<0.0001
90836717|NCT00395746|181540473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-30.2||||||95.0|-39.6|-20.7|||ANOVA|||95% confidence interval for the mean difference (each liraglutide - SU monotherapy) was calculated under an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with treatment group and pre-trial SU as fixed effects and corresponding baseline value as a covariate, and no statistical testing was performed.||-20.7|-39.6|
90836718|NCT00395746|181540473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-24.4||||||95.0|-33.8|-14.9|||ANOVA|||95% confidence interval for the mean difference (each liraglutide - SU monotherapy) was calculated under an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with treatment group and pre-trial SU as fixed effects and corresponding baseline value as a covariate, and no statistical testing was performed.||-14.9|-33.8|
90836719|NCT00395746|181540474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-150.22|||<|0.0001||95.0|-186.32|-114.12||To perform the pairwise comparisons simultaneously, a closed testing procedure was applied. When the hypothesis μ0.9 = μ0.6 = μSU was rejected, the 2 hypotheses of pairwise comparison were tested simultaneously both at significance level of 5%.|ANOVA|||"ANOVA model included treatment group and pre-trial SU as fixed effects and corresponding baseline value as a covariate. Two null hypotheses were statistically tested, when the hypothesis μ0.9 = μ0.6 = μSU was rejected at a significance level of 5%:~H10: μ0.9 = μSU, H11: μ0.9 ≠ μSU H20: μ0.6 = μSU, H21: μ0.6 ≠ μSU where μ0.6, μ0.9 and μSU are population mean after 24-week treatment for 0.6 mg+SU, 0.9 mg+SU and SU mono, respectively."||-114.12|-186.32|<0.0001
90895859|NCT03933826|181657447|OTHER|We did not conduct a hypothesis test for this outcome. We presented an estimate of the average treatment effect (ATE).|TMLE|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-0.3|||||The ATE is interpreted as the causal mean difference in outcomes if all patients had been treated with RC versus having been treated with BST. A negative value indicates worse bowel health associated with radical cystectomy.|||-0.3|-2.5|
90895860|NCT03933826|181657450|OTHER|We did not conduct a hypothesis test for this outcome. We presented an estimate of the average treatment effect (ATE).|TMLE|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.6|||||The ATE is interpreted as the causal mean difference in outcomes if all patients had been treated with RC versus having been treated with BST. A positive value indicates greater financial health associated with radical cystectomy.|||2.6|0.2|
90895861|NCT03933826|181657453|OTHER|We did not conduct a hypothesis test for this outcome. We presented an estimate of the average treatment effect (ATE).|TMLE|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-1.6|||||||The ATE is interpreted as the causal mean difference in outcomes if all patients had been treated with RC versus having been treated with BST. A negative value indicates lower anxiety associated with radical cystectomy.|-1.6|-3.1|
90895862|NCT03933826|181657456|SUPERIORITY|We did not conduct a hypothesis test for this outcome. We presented an estimate of the average treatment effect (ATE).|TMLE|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.3|||||||The ATE is interpreted as the causal mean difference in outcomes if all patients had been treated with RC versus having been treated with BST. A negative value indicates less depression associated with radical cystectomy.|-0.3|-1.8|
90836720|NCT00395746|181540474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-111.15|||<|0.0001||95.0|-147.61|-74.68||To perform the pairwise comparisons simultaneously, a closed testing procedure was applied. When the hypothesis μ0.9 = μ0.6 = μSU was rejected, the 2 hypotheses of pairwise comparison were tested simultaneously both at significance level of 5%.|ANOVA|||"ANOVA model included treatment group and pre-trial SU as fixed effects and corresponding baseline value as a covariate. Two null hypotheses were statistically tested, when the hypothesis μ0.9 = μ0.6 = μSU was rejected at a significance level of 5%:~H10: μ0.9 = μSU, H11: μ0.9 ≠ μSU H20: μ0.6 = μSU, H21: μ0.6 ≠ μSU where μ0.6, μ0.9 and μSU are population mean after 24-week treatment for 0.6 mg+SU, 0.9 mg+SU and SU mono, respectively."||-74.68|-147.61|<0.0001
90836721|NCT00395746|181540475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-127.57||||||95.0|-166.91|-88.24|||ANOVA|||95% confidence interval for the mean difference (each liraglutide - SU monotherapy) was calculated under an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with treatment group and pre-trial SU as fixed effects and corresponding baseline value as a covariate, and no statistical testing was performed.||-88.24|-166.91|
90895863|NCT03933826|181657459|OTHER|We did not conduct a hypothesis test for this outcome. We presented an estimate of the average treatment effect (ATE).|TMLE|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.04|||||||The ATE is interpreted as the causal mean difference in outcomes if all patients had been treated with RC versus having been treated with BST. A positive value indicates greater quality of life associated with radical cystectomy.|0.04|0.01|
90895864|NCT03933826|181657462|OTHER|We did not conduct a hypothesis test for this outcome.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|1.59|||||Inverse probability weighted risk ratios calculated using quasi-Poisson regression. A weighted risk ratio \> 1 implies that participants who choose RC have a greater chance of surviving without recurrence than those who choose BST.|||1.59|1.33|
90895865|NCT03933826|181657465|OTHER|We did not conduct a hypothesis test for this outcome.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.03|||||Inverse probability weighted risk ratios calculated using quasi-Poisson regression. A weighted risk ratio \< 1 implies that participants who choose RC have a lower chance of surviving without metastasis than those who choose BST.|||1.03|0.94|
90895866|NCT03933826|181657468|OTHER|We did not conduct a hypothesis test for this outcome.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.88|||||Inverse probability weighted risk ratios calculated using quasi-Poisson regression. A weighted risk ratio \< 1 implies that participants who choose RC have a lower chance of surviving without cancer progression than those who choose BST.|||0.88|0.73|
90836722|NCT00395746|181540475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-68.68||||||95.0|-108.91|-28.45|||ANOVA|||95% confidence interval for the mean difference (each liraglutide - SU monotherapy) was calculated under an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with treatment group and pre-trial SU as fixed effects and corresponding baseline value as a covariate, and no statistical testing was performed.||-28.45|-108.91|
91090827|NCT04210986|182065255|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|10.5||||0.748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|33.9||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|MONTH 6 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||33.9|-12.9|0.7480
90836723|NCT00395746|181540476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-44.45|||<|0.0001||95.0|-55.02|-33.89||To perform the pairwise comparisons simultaneously, a closed testing procedure was applied. When the hypothesis μ0.9 = μ0.6 = μSU was rejected, the 2 hypotheses of pairwise comparison were tested simultaneously both at significance level of 5%.|ANOVA|||"ANOVA model included treatment group and pre-trial SU as fixed effects and corresponding baseline value as a covariate. Two null hypotheses were statistically tested, when the hypothesis μ0.9 = μ0.6 = μSU was rejected at a significance level of 5%:~H10: μ0.9 = μSU, H11: μ0.9 ≠ μSU H20: μ0.6 = μSU, H21: μ0.6 ≠ μSU where μ0.6, μ0.9 and μSU are population mean after 24-week treatment for 0.6 mg+SU, 0.9 mg+SU and SU mono, respectively."||-33.89|-55.02|<0.0001
90836724|NCT00395746|181540476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-34.3|||<|0.0001||95.0|-45.06|-23.54||To perform the pairwise comparisons simultaneously, a closed testing procedure was applied. When the hypothesis μ0.9 = μ0.6 = μSU was rejected, the 2 hypotheses of pairwise comparison were tested simultaneously both at significance level of 5%.|ANOVA|||"ANOVA model included treatment group and pre-trial SU as fixed effects and corresponding baseline value as a covariate. Two null hypotheses were statistically tested, when the hypothesis μ0.9 = μ0.6 = μSU was rejected at a significance level of 5%:~H10: μ0.9 = μSU, H11: μ0.9 ≠ μSU H20: μ0.6 = μSU, H21: μ0.6 ≠ μSU where μ0.6, μ0.9 and μSU are population mean after 24-week treatment for 0.6 mg+SU, 0.9 mg+SU and SU mono, respectively."||-23.54|-45.06|<0.0001
90836725|NCT00395746|181540477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-34.49||||||95.0|-46.77|-22.22|||ANOVA|||95% confidence interval for the mean difference (each liraglutide - SU monotherapy) was calculated under an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with treatment group and pre-trial SU as fixed effects and corresponding baseline value as a covariate, and no statistical testing was performed.||-22.22|-46.77|
90836726|NCT00395746|181540477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-46.34||||||95.0|-58.49|-34.18|||ANOVA|||95% confidence interval for the mean difference (each liraglutide - SU monotherapy) was calculated under an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with treatment group and pre-trial SU as fixed effects and corresponding baseline value as a covariate, and no statistical testing was performed.||-34.18|-58.49|
90836727|NCT00395746|181540478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-11.37||||0.0433||95.0|-22.4|-0.34||To perform the pairwise comparisons simultaneously, a closed testing procedure was applied. When the hypothesis μ0.9 = μ0.6 = μSU was rejected, the 2 hypotheses of pairwise comparison were tested simultaneously both at significance level of 5%.|ANOVA|||"ANOVA model included treatment group and pre-trial SU as fixed effects and corresponding baseline value as a covariate. Two null hypotheses were statistically tested, when the hypothesis μ0.9 = μ0.6 = μSU was rejected at a significance level of 5%:~H10: μ0.9 = μSU, H11: μ0.9 ≠ μSU H20: μ0.6 = μSU, H21: μ0.6 ≠ μSU where μ0.6, μ0.9 and μSU are population mean after 24-week treatment for 0.6 mg+SU, 0.9 mg+SU and SU mono, respectively."||-0.34|-22.40|0.0433
90836728|NCT00395746|181540478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|6.67||||0.2359||95.0|-4.39|17.73||To perform the pairwise comparisons simultaneously, a closed testing procedure was applied. When the hypothesis μ0.9 = μ0.6 = μSU was rejected, the 2 hypotheses of pairwise comparison were tested simultaneously both at significance level of 5%.|ANOVA|||"ANOVA model included treatment group and pre-trial SU as fixed effects and corresponding baseline value as a covariate. Two null hypotheses were statistically tested, when the hypothesis μ0.9 = μ0.6 = μSU was rejected at a significance level of 5%:~H10: μ0.9 = μSU, H11: μ0.9 ≠ μSU H20: μ0.6 = μSU, H21: μ0.6 ≠ μSU where μ0.6, μ0.9 and μSU are population mean after 24-week treatment for 0.6 mg+SU, 0.9 mg+SU and SU mono, respectively."||17.73|-4.39|0.2359
90836729|NCT00395746|181540479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-13.3||||||95.0|-24.69|-1.9|||ANOVA|||95% confidence interval for the mean difference (each liraglutide - SU monotherapy) was calculated under an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with treatment group and pre-trial SU as fixed effects and corresponding baseline value as a covariate, and no statistical testing was performed.||-1.90|-24.69|
90836730|NCT00395746|181540479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-7.11||||||95.0|-18.42|4.21|||ANOVA|||95% confidence interval for the mean difference (each liraglutide - SU monotherapy) was calculated under an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with treatment group and pre-trial SU as fixed effects and corresponding baseline value as a covariate, and no statistical testing was performed.||4.21|-18.42|
90859917|NCT01461980|181583138|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority criteria margin was 1.5-fold and statistical inference was based on the CIs of the GMT ratios. Non-inferiority was achieved when the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMT ratios after vaccination 1 was greater than 0.67.|GMT Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.04||||||Serogroup W-135: CIs for GMT ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (Group 1 - Group 2 for Serogroup W-135 antigens).||1.04|0.83|
90859918|NCT01461980|181583139|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority criteria margin was 1.5-fold and statistical inference was based on the CIs of the GMT ratios. Non-inferiority was achieved when the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMT ratios after vaccination 1 was greater than 0.67.|GMT Ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.02||||||PMB80 \[A22\]: CIs for GMT ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (Group 1 - Group 2 for hSBA strain titers).||1.02|0.84|
90859919|NCT01461980|181583139|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority criteria margin was 1.5-fold and statistical inference was based on the CIs of the GMT ratios. Non-inferiority was achieved when the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMT ratios after vaccination 1 was greater than 0.67.|GMT Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.0||||||PMB2948 \[B24\]: CIs for GMT ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (Group 1 - Group 2 for hSBA strain titers).||1.00|0.82|
90895867|NCT03933826|181657471|OTHER|We did not conduct a hypothesis test for this outcome.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.01|||||Inverse probability weighted risk ratios calculated using quasi-Poisson regression. A weighted risk ratio \< 1 implies that participants who choose RC have a lower chance of surviving cancer than those who choose BST.|||1.01|0.96|
90895868|NCT03933826|181657474|SUPERIORITY|Inverse probability weighted risk ratios calculated using quasi-Poisson regression|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|2.08|||||A weighted risk ratio \< 1 implies that participants who choose radical cystectomy have a lower chance of surviving than those who choose bladder-sparing therapy.|||2.08|0.38|
90895869|NCT02638948|181657477|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of Difference (%)|4.9||||0.5224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|20.1||Threshold for significance = 0.05|Chi-squared|||||20.1|-10.2|0.5224
90836731|NCT00395746|181540480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|0.75||||0.0071||95.0|0.21|1.3||To perform the pairwise comparisons simultaneously, a closed testing procedure was applied. When the hypothesis μ0.9 = μ0.6 = μSU was rejected, the 2 hypotheses of pairwise comparison were tested simultaneously both at significance level of 5%.|ANOVA|||"ANOVA model included treatment group and pre-trial SU as fixed effects and corresponding baseline value as a covariate. Two null hypotheses were statistically tested, when the hypothesis μ0.9 = μ0.6 = μSU was rejected at a significance level of 5%:~H10: μ0.9 = μSU, H11: μ0.9 ≠ μSU H20: μ0.6 = μSU, H21: μ0.6 ≠ μSU where μ0.6, μ0.9 and μSU are population mean after 24-week treatment for 0.6 mg+SU, 0.9 mg+SU and SU mono, respectively."||1.30|0.21|0.0071
90836732|NCT00395746|181540480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|1.18|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.63|1.73||To perform the pairwise comparisons simultaneously, a closed testing procedure was applied. When the hypothesis μ0.9 = μ0.6 = μSU was rejected, the 2 hypotheses of pairwise comparison were tested simultaneously both at significance level of 5%.|ANOVA|||"ANOVA model included treatment group and pre-trial SU as fixed effects and corresponding baseline value as a covariate. Two null hypotheses were statistically tested, when the hypothesis μ0.9 = μ0.6 = μSU was rejected at a significance level of 5%:~H10: μ0.9 = μSU, H11: μ0.9 ≠ μSU H20: μ0.6 = μSU, H21: μ0.6 ≠ μSU where μ0.6, μ0.9 and μSU are population mean after 24-week treatment for 0.6 mg+SU, 0.9 mg+SU and SU mono, respectively."||1.73|0.63|<0.0001
90836733|NCT00395746|181540481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|1.04||||||95.0|0.42|1.66|||ANOVA|||95% confidence interval for the mean difference (each liraglutide - SU monotherapy) was calculated under an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with treatment group and pre-trial SU as fixed effects and corresponding baseline value as a covariate, and no statistical testing was performed.||1.66|0.42|
90836734|NCT00395746|181540481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|1.13||||||95.0|0.51|1.75|||ANOVA|||95% confidence interval for the mean difference (each liraglutide - SU monotherapy) was calculated under an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with treatment group and pre-trial SU as fixed effects and corresponding baseline value as a covariate, and no statistical testing was performed||1.75|0.51|
90836735|NCT00395746|181540482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|1.59||||||95.0|0.86|2.96|||Negative binomial regression|||The relative risk for 'All hypoglycaemic episodes' and 95% confidence interval are based on a generalised linear negative-binomial model, which included treatment group as a fixed effect and log of exposure time as an offset variable.||2.96|0.86|
90836736|NCT00395746|181540482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|1.18||||||95.0|0.56|2.47|||Negative binomial regression model|||The relative risk for 'Minor episodes' and 95% confidence interval are based on a generalised linear negative-binomial model, which included treatment group as a fixed effect and log of exposure time as an offset variable.||2.47|0.56|
90836737|NCT00395746|181540482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|1.8||||||95.0|0.92|3.54|||Negative binomial regression model|||The relative risk for 'Symptoms only' and 95% confidence interval are based on a generalised linear negative-binomial model, which included treatment group as a fixed effect and log of exposure time as an offset variable.||3.54|0.92|
90836738|NCT00395746|181540482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|1.62||||||95.0|0.85|3.07|||Negative binomial regression model|||The relative risk for 'All hypoglycaemic episodes' and 95% confidence interval are based on a generalised linear negative-binomial model, which included treatment group as a fixed effect and log of exposure time as an offset variable.||3.07|0.85|
90836739|NCT00395746|181540482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|1.48||||||95.0|0.69|3.17|||Negative binomial regression model|||The relative risk for 'Minor episodes' and 95% confidence interval are based on a generalised linear negative-binomial model, which included treatment group as a fixed effect and log of exposure time as an offset variable.||3.17|0.69|
90836740|NCT00395746|181540482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|1.45||||||95.0|0.72|2.91|||Negative binomial regression model|||The relative risk for 'Symptoms only episodes' and 95% confidence interval are based on a generalised linear negative-binomial model, which included treatment group as a fixed effect and log of exposure time as an offset variable.||2.91|0.72|
90836741|NCT00795704|181540529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.079|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.079
90836742|NCT00795704|181540531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
90836743|NCT01247324|181540537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate Ratio|0.536|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.719|||Negative Binomial Model||Rate ratio was calculated as Ocrelizumab ARR/Interferon beta-1a 44 mcg SC ARR.|Adjusted by Geographical Region (US vs. Rest of World) and baseline EDSS (\<4.0 vs. \>=4.0).||0.719|0.4|<0.0001
90836744|NCT01247324|181540538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57|||=|0.0139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.9|||Log Rank|||Time to onset CDP at week 12||0.90|0.37|= 0.0139
90836745|NCT01247324|181540539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted rate ratio|0.058|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.032|0.104|||Negative Binomial Model||Adjusted by baseline T1 Gd lesion (present or not), baseline EDSS (\<4.0 vs. \>=4.0) and geographical region (US vs. rest-of-world). Adjusted rate ratio was calculated as Ocrelizumab adjusted rate/Interferon beta-1a 44 mcg SC adjusted rate.|||0.104|0.032|< 0.0001
90836746|NCT01247324|181540540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted rate ratio|0.229|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.174|0.3|||Negative Binomial Model||Adjusted by baseline T2 lesion (present or not), baseline EDSS (\<4.0 vs. \>=4.0) and geographical region (US vs. rest-of-world). Adjusted rate ratio was calculated as Ocrelizumab adjusted rate/Interferon beta-1a 44 mcg SC adjusted rate.|||0.300|0.174|< 0.0001
90895870|NCT02638948|181657477|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of Difference (%)|11.8||||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|27.2||Threshold for significance = 0.05|Chi-squared|||||27.2|-3.6|0.1360
90895871|NCT02638948|181657477|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of Difference (%)|0.1||||0.9922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.5|20.7||Threshold for significance = 0.05|Chi-squared|||||20.7|-20.5|0.9922
90895872|NCT02638948|181657478|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of Difference (%)|0.1||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|16.5||Threshold for significance = 0.05|Chi-squared|||||16.5|-16.0|1.0000
90895873|NCT02638948|181657478|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of Difference (%)|5.6||||0.2058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|21.9||Threshold for significance = 0.05|Chi-squared|||||21.9|-10.5|0.2058
90895874|NCT02638948|181657478|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of Difference (%)|-0.2||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.5|22.2||Threshold for significance = 0.05|Chi-squared|||||22.2|-22.5|1.0000
90895875|NCT04506775|181657508|NON_INFERIORITY|As per the FDA standard ANSI/AAMI SP10:2008 or the newly adopted ISO 81060-3:2022 standard, the mean error should be \<5mmHg or \<6mmHg and the standard deviation should be \<8mmHg or \<10mmHg respectively.|Mean Error|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|||||As per the FDA standard ANSI/AAMI SP10:2008 or the newly adopted ISO 81060-3:2022 standard, the mean error should be \<5mmHg or \<6mmHg and the standard deviation should be \<8mmHg or \<10mmHg respectively.||||||||
90895876|NCT04506775|181657509|NON_INFERIORITY|As per the FDA standard ANSI/AAMI SP10:2008 or the newly adopted ISO 81060-3:2022 standard, the mean error should be \< 5mmHg or \<6mmHg and the standard deviation should be \<8mmHg or \<10mmHg respectively|Mean Error|0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|||||As per the FDA standard ANSI/AAMI SP10:2008 or the newly adopted ISO 81060-3:2022 standard, the mean error should be \< 5mmHg or \<6mmHg and the standard deviation should be \<8mmHg or \<10mmHg respectively|||As per the FDA standard ANSI/AAMI SP10:2008 or the newly adopted ISO 81060-3:2022 standard, the mean error should be \< 5mmHg or \<6mmHg and the standard deviation should be \<8mmHg or \<10mmHg respectively||As per the FDA standard ANSI/AAMI SP10:2008 or the newly adopted ISO 81060-3:2022 standard, the mean error should be \< 5mmHg or \<6mmHg and the standard deviation should be \<8mmHg or \<10mmHg respectively|||
91027613|NCT02637557|181939614|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.711||||0.4795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.028|6.606||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||6.606|-14.028|0.4795
91027614|NCT02637557|181939614|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.739||||0.602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.066|7.588||P-value based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||7.588|-13.066|0.6020
91027615|NCT02637557|181939614|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-8.602||||0.1055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.03|1.826||P-value based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||1.826|-19.030|0.1055
91027616|NCT02637557|181939614|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1387||||||Dose trend test performed using linear contrast statement.|trend test|||||||0.1387
91027617|NCT02637557|181939615|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.058||||0.7488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.415|0.299||P-value based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.299|-0.415|0.7488
90895877|NCT05007392|181657511|SUPERIORITY||Difference of percentage|35.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.36|44.37|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P value based on a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline SUA level and baseline body mass index (BMI) level.|The difference of percentage and stratified 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) was based on Mantel-Haenszel method.|||44.37|27.36|<0.001
90895878|NCT05007392|181657512|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was -10% in the analysis.|Difference of percentage|5.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.69|14.17|||||The difference of percentage and stratified 95% CI was based on Mantel-Haenszel method.|||14.17|-3.69|
90895879|NCT05805657|181657530|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-7.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|||Immediate TranS-C (Standard/Adapted combined) versus UC-DT on change in sleep disturbance from pre to post.||||<0.001
91027618|NCT02637557|181939615|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.254||||0.1627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.611|0.103||P-value based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.103|-0.611|0.1627
91027619|NCT02637557|181939615|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.417||||0.0237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.777|-0.056||P-value based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-0.056|-0.777|0.0237
91027620|NCT02637557|181939615|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013||||||Dose trend test performed using linear contrast statement.|trend test|||||||0.0130
90895880|NCT05805657|181657530|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|2.22||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|||||Standard TranS-C versus Adapted TranS-C on change in sleep disturbance from pre to post.|Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|||||||0.52
90895881|NCT05805657|181657530|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient|-10.89||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Acceptability of intervention measure (AIM) predicting sleep disturbance.||||0.02
90895882|NCT05805657|181657530|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient|-6.26||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Appropriateness of intervention measure (IAM) predicting sleep disturbance.||||0.04
90895883|NCT05805657|181657530|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient|-10.37||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Feasibility of intervention measure (FIM) predicting sleep disturbance.||||0.001
90836747|NCT01247324|181540541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Relative risk (stratified)|1.61|||=|0.0106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|2.33|||CMH Chi-Squared test (stratified)|CMH (Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel) Chi-Squared test Stratified by Geographical Region (US vs. Rest of World) and Baseline EDSS (\<4.0 vs. \>=4.0)||||2.33|1.11|= 0.0106
91027621|NCT02637557|181939616|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.052||||0.747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.369|0.265||P-value based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.265|-0.369|0.7470
91027622|NCT02637557|181939616|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.047||||0.7699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.364|0.27||P-value based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.270|-0.364|0.7699
91027623|NCT02637557|181939616|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.257||||0.1157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.577|0.064||P-value based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.064|-0.577|0.1157
91027624|NCT02637557|181939616|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1374||||||Dose trend test performed using linear contrast statement.|trend test|||||||0.1374
91027625|NCT02637557|181939617|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.7903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.77||Odds ratio, 95% confidence interval (CI) for the odds ratio and p-value vs. placebo are obtained from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) tests controlling for esophagitis status.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.77|0.47|0.7903
91027626|NCT02637557|181939617|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.3518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.71||Odds ratio, 95% CI for the odds ratio and p-value vs. placebo are obtained from the CMH tests controlling for esophagitis status.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.71|0.70|0.3518
91027627|NCT02637557|181939617|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.64||||0.1544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|3.26||Odds ratio, 95% CI for the odds ratio and p-value vs. placebo are obtained from the CMH tests controlling for esophagitis status.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.26|0.83|0.1544
91027628|NCT02637557|181939618|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.56||||0.1489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.23||Odds ratio, 95% CI for the odds ratio and p-value vs. placebo are obtained from the CMH tests controlling for esophagitis status.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.23|0.25|0.1489
91027629|NCT02637557|181939618|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.8891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|2.19||Odds ratio, 95% CI for the odds ratio and p-value vs. placebo are obtained from the CMH tests controlling for esophagitis status.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.19|0.51|0.8891
91027630|NCT02637557|181939618|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.2237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|3.2||Odds ratio, 95% CI for the odds ratio and p-value vs. placebo are obtained from the CMH tests controlling for esophagitis status.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.20|0.76|0.2237
91027631|NCT02637557|181939619|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.6566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|3.18||Odds ratio, 95% CI (Confidence Interval) for the Odds Ratio and p-value vs. placebo are obtained from the CMH tests controlling for esophagitis status.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.18|0.48|0.6566
91027632|NCT02637557|181939619|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.01||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|4.98||Odds ratio, 95% CI (Confidence Interval) for the Odds Ratio and p-value vs. placebo are obtained from the CMH tests controlling for esophagitis status.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.98|0.81|0.1280
91027633|NCT02637557|181939619|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.97||||0.1463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|4.91||Odds ratio, 95% CI (Confidence Interval) for the Odds Ratio and p-value vs. placebo are obtained from the CMH tests controlling for esophagitis status.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.91|0.79|0.1463
91027634|NCT02637557|181939620|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.298||||0.5504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.279|0.683||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.683|-1.279|0.5504
91027635|NCT02637557|181939620|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.252||||0.6177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.741|1.244||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||1.244|-0.741|0.6177
91027636|NCT02637557|181939620|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.513||||0.3138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.488|1.513||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||1.513|-0.488|0.3138
91027637|NCT02637557|181939621|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.019||||0.9675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.897|0.935||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.935|-0.897|0.9675
91090828|NCT04210986|182065255|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|-0.6||||0.9572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.2|21.1||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|MONTH 12 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||21.1|-22.2|0.9572
91027638|NCT02637557|181939621|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.419||||0.3741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.507|1.345||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||1.345|-0.507|0.3741
91027639|NCT02637557|181939621|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.461||||0.3275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.464|1.385||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||1.385|-0.464|0.3275
90836748|NCT01247324|181540542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57|||=|0.0278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.95|||Log Rank|||Time to onset CDP at week 24||0.95|0.34|= 0.0278
90895884|NCT05805657|181657532|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-6.44||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|||Treatment condition (Standard/Adapted TranS-C versus UC-DT) on change in sleep- related impairment from pre to post.||||0.001
90895885|NCT05805657|181657532|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|1.36||||0.72|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|||Standard TranS-C versus Adapted TranS-C on change in sleep-related impairment from pre to post.||||0.72
91027640|NCT02637557|181939622|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.023||||0.856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.226|0.272||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||0.272|-0.226|0.8560
91027641|NCT02637557|181939622|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.124||||0.3301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.126|0.373||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||0.373|-0.126|0.3301
90836749|NCT01247324|181540543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted rate ratio|0.428|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.328|0.557|||Negative Binomial Model||Adjusted by baseline T1-hypointense lesion count, baseline EDSS (\<4.0 vs. \>=4.0) and geographical region (US vs. rest-of-world). Adjusted rate ratio was calculated as Ocrelizumab adjusted rate/Interferon beta-1a 44 mcg SC adjusted rate.|||0.557|0.328|< 0.0001
90836750|NCT01247324|181540544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.039|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|=|0.3261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.039|0.116|||mixed-effect model of repeated measures|Estimates are from analysis based on mixed-effect model of repeated measures (MMRM) using unstructured covariance matrix.|Difference in adjusted means was calculated as Ocrelizumab adjusted mean at Week 96/ Interferon beta-1a 44 mcg SC adjusted mean at Week 96.|||0.116|-0.039|= 0.3261
90836751|NCT01247324|181540545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.168|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.058|=|0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.053|0.283|||mixed-effect model of repeated measures|Estimates are from analysis based on mixed-effect model of repeated measures (MMRM) using unstructured covariance matrix.|Difference in the rate of brain volume loss: 22.8%. Difference in adjusted means was calculated as Ocrelizumab adjusted mean at Week 96/ Interferon beta-1a 44 mcg SC adjusted mean at Week 96.|||0.283|0.053|= 0.0042
90836752|NCT01247324|181540546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.693|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.564|=|0.2193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.414|1.8|||mixed-effect model of repeated measures|Estimates are from analysis based on mixed-effect model of repeated measures using unstructured covariance matrix.|Difference in adjusted means was calculated as Ocrelizumab adjusted mean at Week 96/ Interferon beta-1a 44 mcg SC adjusted mean at Week 96.|||1.800|-0.414|= 0.2193
90836753|NCT01247324|181540547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Relative risk (stratified)|1.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|2.17|||CMH Chi-Squared test (stratified)|Analyzed using CMH test, stratified by Geographical Region (US vs. rest-of-world) and baseline EDSS (\<4.0 vs. \>=4.0).||||2.17|1.39|< 0.0001
90836754|NCT03474588|181540576|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3||||||Presented is the p value for the interaction between time and treatment.|Regression, Linear|Random Effects Regression Models (RERM), time was log transformed to account for expectation of greater change closer to baseline||||||0.30
90836755|NCT03474588|181540577|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|3.24||presented is the p value for the interaction of treatment and time in the model.|Regression, Linear|||Random Effects Regression Model (RERM), included in the model were treatment, time and the interaction of time and treatment.||3.24|-0.46|0.14
90836756|NCT03474588|181540578|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.097|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.097
90836757|NCT03474588|181540579|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.802|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.802
90836758|NCT01607957|181540580|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.81|||Stratified log-rank test|||||0.81|0.58|<0.0001
90836759|NCT01607957|181540581|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.48|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.57|||Stratified log-rank test|||||0.57|0.41|<0.0001
90836760|NCT03905096|181540592|OTHER|Relative bioavailability|Ratio of the geometric means (T/R) %|92.63|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.34|100.53|||ANOVA|"The statistical model was analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale considering the effects subjects as random and treatment as fixed."|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) T=Test, R=Reference|||100.53|85.34|
90836761|NCT03905096|181540593|OTHER|Relative bioavailability|Ratio of the geometric means (T/R) %|98.64|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.21|104.39|||ANOVA|"The statistical model was ANOVA on the logarithmic scale considering the effect subjects as random and the effect treatment as fixed."|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) T=Test, R=Reference|||104.39|93.21|
90836762|NCT03905096|181540594|OTHER|Relative bioavailability|Ratio of the geometric means (T/R) %|98.48|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.74|106.88|||ANOVA|"The statistical model was ANOVA on the logarithmic scale considering the effect subjects as random and the effect treatment as fixed."|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) T=Test, R=Reference|||106.88|90.74|
90836763|NCT03905096|181540595|OTHER|Relative bioavailability|Ratio of the geometric means (T/R) %|100.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.01|112.68|||ANOVA|"The statistical model was ANOVA on the logarithmic scale considering the effect subjects as random and the effect treatment as fixed."|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) T=Test, R=Reference|||112.68|89.01|
90836764|NCT03905096|181540596|OTHER|Relative bioavailability|Ratio of the geometric means (T/R) %|94.77|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.36|101.64|||ANOVA|"The statistical model was ANOVA on the logarithmic scale considering the effect subjects as random and the effect treatment as fixed."|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) T=Test, R=Reference|||101.64|88.36|
90836765|NCT03905096|181540597|OTHER|Relative bioavailability|Ratio of the geometric means (T/R) %|100.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.56|105.87|||ANOVA|"The statistical model was ANOVA on the logarithmic scale considering the effect subjects as random and the effect treatment as fixed."|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) T=Test, R=Reference|||105.87|94.56|
91027642|NCT02637557|181939622|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.019||||0.8845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.233||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||0.233|-0.270|0.8845
91027643|NCT02637557|181939622|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.02||||0.8879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.262|0.303||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||0.303|-0.262|0.8879
91027644|NCT02637557|181939622|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.017||||0.9072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.266|0.299||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||0.299|-0.266|0.9072
91090829|NCT04210986|182065256|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|0.01|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.49||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|MONTH 6 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||0.49|-0.47|>0.99
91090830|NCT04210986|182065256|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|0.07|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.47||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|MONTH 12 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||0.47|-0.33|>0.99
91090831|NCT04210986|182065257|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|-0.37|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|0.87||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|MONTH 6 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||0.87|-1.61|>0.99
91090832|NCT04210986|182065257|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|0.16|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.13||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|MONTH 12 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||1.13|-0.80|>0.99
91103932|NCT03992872|182094615|SUPERIORITY||GMR (Prior Alpha / Naïve Alpha)|45.17|||||TWO_SIDED|||||"P-values were based on an ANOVA model with log10-transformed titer as the dependent variable and study arm, age, and gender as predictors.~P-value = NE~NE = Not estimable due to lack of response."|||"Differences in least squares means from the ANOVA model were back-transformed and reported as geometric mean ratios with 95% confidence intervals.~95% CI \[NE,NE\]~NE = Not estimable due to lack of response."|Day 1: Geometric mean ratio (prior alpha group over naïve alpha group) and 95% confidence interval||||
90836766|NCT03577275|181540601|OTHER|||||||||||||||||"The primary analysis was based on concentration-QTc modeling of the relationship between icosabutate and delta delta QTcF, with the intent to exclude an effect \> 10 msec at clinically relevant icosabutate plasma concentrations.~Assay sensitivity was evaluated by concentration-QTc analysis of the effect on delta delta QTcF of moxifloxacin using a similar model as for the primary analysis."|The primary analysis was based on concentration-QTc modeling of the relationship between icosabutate and delta delta QTcF, with the intent to exclude an effect \> 10 msec at clinically relevant icosabutate plasma concentrations.|||
90836767|NCT00385671|181540614|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Basis of non-inferiority margin (maximum disadvantage for duloxetine compared to pregabalin not considered meaningful): In 3 previous placebo-controlled trials of duloxetine in DPNP, in the subgroup of patients that had been treated with gabapentin prior to entry, the estimated mean change in pain at Week 12 was -2.74 for duloxetine and -1.09 for placebo, an advantage of about 1.65. The non-inferiority margin represents about half of this previous treatment effect in a similar population.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.49||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|1.04||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week, Kenward-Roger approximation was used.||Null hypothesis: no difference in mean change from baseline to 12 weeks in weekly mean of daily 24 hour average pain score between pregabalin \& duloxetine treatments. Sample size: 125 participants/treatment, 6% increase for 400 planned enrollees. 92% power with 1-sided 97.5% confidence interval; mean change in duloxetine group, -2.7; in pregabalin group, -2.5; standard deviation, 2.3; margin of non-inferiority: -0.8.||1.04|-0.05|0.076
90859920|NCT00100178|181583158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.47|||||||ANCOVA|||"The calculation for the concentration of c-peptide is a weighted average of the 6 timed measurements of c-peptide in nano-moles/Liter. We try to distinguish this calculation from the AUC by referring to it as the AUC mean and may be expressed algebraically as the AUC/(120 min.); thus, the units are the same as the y-axis."||||0.47
91027645|NCT02637557|181939622|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.108||||0.4573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.393|0.177||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||0.177|-0.393|0.4573
91027646|NCT02637557|181939622|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.049||||0.7476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.251||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 3||0.251|-0.350|0.7476
91027647|NCT02637557|181939622|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.062||||0.6873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.362|0.239||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 3||0.239|-0.362|0.6873
91027648|NCT02637557|181939622|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.258||||0.0952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.562|0.045||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 3||0.045|-0.562|0.0952
91027649|NCT02637557|181939622|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.018||||0.9111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.326|0.291||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||0.291|-0.326|0.9111
91027650|NCT02637557|181939622|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.004||||0.9772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.304|0.313||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||0.313|-0.304|0.9772
90836768|NCT00385671|181540615|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Basis of non-inferiority margin (maximum disadvantage for duloxetine compared to pregabalin not considered meaningful): In 3 previous placebo-controlled trials of duloxetine in DPNP, in the subgroup of patients that had been treated with gabapentin prior to entry, the estimated mean change in pain at Week 12 was -2.74 for duloxetine and -1.09 for placebo, an advantage of about 1.65. The non-inferiority margin represents about half of this previous treatment effect in a similar population.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23||||0.417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.78||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week, Kenward-Roger approximation was used.||Null hypothesis: no difference in mean change from baseline to 12 weeks in weekly mean of daily 24 hour average pain score between duloxetine \& duloxetine+gabapentin treatments. Sample size: 125 participants/treatment, 6% increase for 400 planned enrollees. 92% power with 1-sided 97.5% confidence interval; mean change in duloxetine group, -2.7; in pregabalin group, -2.5; standard deviation, 2.3; margin of non-inferiority: -0.8.||0.78|-0.32|0.417
90836769|NCT00385671|181540616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.463||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Weekly mean of nighttime pain severity.||||0.463
90836770|NCT00385671|181540616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Weekly mean of nighttime pain severity.||||0.520
90836771|NCT00385671|181540616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.463||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Weekly mean of nighttime pain severity.||||0.463
90836772|NCT00385671|181540617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.389||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in weekly mean of the daily worst pain severity score.||||0.389
90836773|NCT00385671|181540617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.126||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in weekly mean of the daily worst pain severity score.||||0.126
90836774|NCT00385671|181540617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.489||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in weekly mean of the daily worst pain severity score.||||0.489
90836775|NCT00385671|181540618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.35||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests: Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in CGI severity.||0.35|-0.20|0.602
90895886|NCT05805657|181657532|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient|-3.9||||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Acceptability of intervention measure (AIM) predicting sleep-related impairment.||||0.30
91027651|NCT02637557|181939622|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.235||||0.139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.546|0.077||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||0.077|-0.546|0.1390
91103933|NCT03992872|182094615|SUPERIORITY||GMR (Prior Alpha / Naïve Alpha)|47.34|||||TWO_SIDED|||||"P-values were based on an ANOVA model with log10-transformed titer as the dependent variable and study arm, age, and gender as predictors.~P-value = NE NE = Not estimable due to lack of response."|||"Differences in least squares means from the ANOVA model were back-transformed and reported as geometric mean ratios with 95% confidence intervals.~95% CI \[NE,NE\] NE = Not estimable due to lack of response."|Day 22: Geometric mean ratio (prior alpha group over naïve alpha group) and 95% confidence interval||||
90895887|NCT05805657|181657532|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient|0.79||||0.78|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Appropriateness of intervention measure (IAM) predicting sleep-related impairment.||||0.78
91027652|NCT02637557|181939622|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.017||||0.9215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.349|0.316||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 5||0.316|-0.349|0.9215
91027653|NCT02637557|181939622|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.055||||0.7453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.388|0.278||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 5||0.278|-0.388|0.7453
90836776|NCT00385671|181540618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.37||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in CGI severity.||0.37|-0.17|0.469
90836777|NCT00385671|181540618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.3||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in CGI severity.||0.30|-0.24|0.841
90836778|NCT00385671|181540619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.55||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Variance model and t-tests:~Endpoint = InvestigatorGroup + Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was implemented."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in PGI-Improvement at 12 weeks.||0.55|-0.16|0.276
90836779|NCT00385671|181540619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.37||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Variance model and t-tests:~Endpoint = InvestigatorGroup + Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was implemented."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in PGI-Improvement at 12 weeks.||0.37|-0.33|0.929
90836780|NCT00385671|181540619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.17||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Variance model and t-tests:~Endpoint = InvestigatorGroup + Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was implemented."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in PGI-Improvement at 12 weeks.||0.17|-0.53|0.313
90836781|NCT00385671|181540620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.49||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|1.04||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in BPI-Severity: 24-hour average pain.||1.04|-0.06|0.078
90836782|NCT00385671|181540620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.64||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|1.2||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in BPI-Severity: 24-hour average pain.||1.20|0.08|0.025
90836783|NCT00385671|181540620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.7||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in BPI-Severity: 24-hour average pain.||0.70|-0.41|0.602
90836784|NCT00385671|181540621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.94||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in BPI-severity: worst pain.||0.94|-0.34|0.353
90836785|NCT00385671|181540621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.69||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|1.34||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in BPI-severity: worst pain.||1.34|0.03|0.039
90836786|NCT00385671|181540621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.39||||0.244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|1.04||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in BPI-Severity: Worst Pain.||1.04|-0.27|0.244
91104632|NCT03926247|182095274|OTHER|Within-group longitudinal analysis (no comparison groups)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.061|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|=|0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analyses were conducted using a mixed effects linear model to calculate least square means across the 4 timepoints. This was a longitudinal within-group analysis with 4 timepoints of data nested within 56 individuals. Our hypothesis was that participants' stress would decrease overtime.||-0.000|-0.140|=0.051
90895888|NCT05805657|181657532|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient|-4.45||||0.15|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Feasibility of intervention measure (FIM) predicting sleep-related impairment.||||0.15
90836787|NCT00385671|181540622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28||||0.298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.8||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in BPI-Severity: Least Pain.||0.80|-0.25|0.298
90836788|NCT00385671|181540622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28||||0.304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.81||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in BPI-Severity: Least Pain.||0.81|-0.25|0.304
90836789|NCT00385671|181540622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.54||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in BPI-severity: least pain.||0.54|-0.53|0.989
90836790|NCT00385671|181540623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41||||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.97||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in BPI-severity: pain right now.||0.97|-0.14|0.145
90836791|NCT00385671|181540623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.46||||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|1.03||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in BPI-severity: pain right now.||1.03|-0.11|0.112
90836792|NCT00385671|181540623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.62||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Weekly mean of nighttime pain severity.||0.62|-0.52|0.865
90836793|NCT00385671|181540624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.35||||0.263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.95||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in BPI-interference with general activity.||0.95|-0.26|0.263
90895889|NCT05805657|181657533|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|0.55||||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|||Treatment condition (Standard/Adapted TranS-C versus UC-DT) on change in Composite Sleep Health Score from pre to post.||||0.09
91090833|NCT04210986|182065258|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|-0.022||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.045|0.002||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|MONTH 6 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||0.002|-0.045|0.130
90895890|NCT05805657|181657533|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|1.05||||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|||Standard TranS-C versus Adapted TranS-C on change in sleep health from pre to post.||||0.11
90895891|NCT05805657|181657533|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient|0.45||||0.59|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Acceptability of intervention measure (AIM) predicting sleep health.||||0.59
90895892|NCT05805657|181657533|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient|0.72||||0.14|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Appropriateness of intervention measure (IAM) predicting sleep health.||||0.14
91027654|NCT02637557|181939622|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.393||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.729|-0.057||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 5||-0.057|-0.729|0.0220
91027655|NCT02637557|181939622|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.053||||0.7561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.282|0.387||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||0.387|-0.282|0.7561
91027656|NCT02637557|181939622|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.071||||0.6758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.406|0.263||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||0.263|-0.406|0.6758
90895893|NCT05805657|181657533|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient|0.89||||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Feasibility of intervention measure (FIM) predicting sleep health.||||0.06
91090834|NCT04210986|182065258|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|-0.024||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.049|0.002||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|MONTH 12 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||0.002|-0.049|0.130
91090835|NCT04210986|182065259|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|-0.22||||0.9584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.4||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|MONTH 6 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||0.40|-0.84|0.9584
91090836|NCT04210986|182065259|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|0.12||||0.9584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.92||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|MONTH 12 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||0.92|-0.69|0.9584
91090837|NCT04210986|182065260|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|1.88||||0.5905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.07|8.84||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|MONTH 6 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||8.84|-5.07|0.5905
91090838|NCT04210986|182065260|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|3.86||||0.5414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.08|10.79||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|MONTH 12 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||10.79|-3.08|0.5414
91090839|NCT04210986|182065261|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|0.05|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.85||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|DAY 3 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||0.85|-0.75|>0.99
91090840|NCT04210986|182065261|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|0.44|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|1.34||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|DAY 6 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||1.34|-0.45|>0.99
90836794|NCT00385671|181540624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.86||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|1.49||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in BPI-interference with general activity.||1.49|0.24|0.007
90836795|NCT00385671|181540624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.52||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.13||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in BPI-interference with general activity.||1.13|-0.10|0.102
90836796|NCT00385671|181540625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.55||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in BPI-interference with mood.||0.55|-0.61|0.922
90836797|NCT00385671|181540625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.39||||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.99||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in BPI-interference with mood.||0.99|-0.20|0.195
90895894|NCT05805657|181657534|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-4.33||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|||Treatment condition (Standard/Adapted TranS-C versus UC-DT) on change in functional impairment from pre to post.||||0.002
91027657|NCT02637557|181939622|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.348||||0.0434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.686|-0.01||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||-0.010|-0.686|0.0434
90895895|NCT05805657|181657534|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient of indirect effect|-2.2||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.57|-0.83|||SEM|||Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test whether the relationship between TranS-C condition (Immediate vs. UC-DT) and functional impairment (Sheehan Disability Scale) at post was mediated by sleep disturbance (PROMIS-SD) at post. The parameter of interest was the indirect effect.||-0.83|-3.57|0.002
91027658|NCT02637557|181939622|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.042||||0.8123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.308|0.392||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 7||0.392|-0.308|0.8123
91027659|NCT02637557|181939622|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.044||||0.8038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.394|0.306||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 7||0.306|-0.394|0.8038
91027660|NCT02637557|181939622|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.0954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.654|0.053||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 7||0.053|-0.654|0.0954
91027661|NCT02637557|181939622|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.078||||0.6649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.275||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||0.275|-0.430|0.6649
91027662|NCT02637557|181939622|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.262||||0.1448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.614|0.091||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||0.091|-0.614|0.1448
91027663|NCT02637557|181939622|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.403||||0.0264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.759|-0.048||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||-0.048|-0.759|0.0264
91027664|NCT02637557|181939623|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.102||||0.4137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.143|0.347||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||0.347|-0.143|0.4137
91027665|NCT02637557|181939623|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.147||||0.2395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.098|0.392||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||0.392|-0.098|0.2395
91027666|NCT02637557|181939623|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.036||||0.7729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.284|0.212||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||0.212|-0.284|0.7729
91027667|NCT02637557|181939623|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.079||||0.5824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.205|0.363||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||0.363|-0.205|0.5824
91027668|NCT02637557|181939623|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.028||||0.8466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.256|0.312||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||0.312|-0.256|0.8466
91027669|NCT02637557|181939623|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.118||||0.4192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.405|0.169||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||0.169|-0.405|0.4192
91027670|NCT02637557|181939623|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.035||||0.8192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.333|0.264||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 3||0.264|-0.333|0.8192
91027671|NCT02637557|181939623|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.073||||0.632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.372|0.226||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 3||0.226|-0.372|0.6320
91027672|NCT02637557|181939623|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.345||||0.0254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.647|-0.043||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 3||-0.043|-0.647|0.0254
91027673|NCT02637557|181939623|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.047||||0.7689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.266||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||0.266|-0.360|0.7689
91027674|NCT02637557|181939623|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.117||||0.4631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.196||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||0.196|-0.430|0.4631
91027675|NCT02637557|181939623|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.298||||0.0651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.615|0.019||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||0.019|-0.615|0.0651
91027676|NCT02637557|181939623|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.06||||0.7197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.392|0.271||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 5||0.271|-0.392|0.7197
91027677|NCT02637557|181939623|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.097||||0.5649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.428|0.234||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 5||0.234|-0.428|0.5649
90836798|NCT00385671|181540625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.42||||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|1.02||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in BPI-interference with mood.||1.02|-0.17|0.162
90836799|NCT00385671|181540626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||0.541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.87||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in BPI-interference with walking ability.||0.87|-0.46|0.541
90836800|NCT00385671|181540626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.68||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.36||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in BPI-interference with walking ability.||1.36|-0.00|0.051
90836801|NCT00385671|181540626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47||||0.173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|1.15||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in BPI-interference with walking ability.||1.15|-0.21|0.173
90836802|NCT00385671|181540627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25||||0.451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.9||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Weekly BPI-interference with normal work.||0.90|-0.40|0.451
90836803|NCT00385671|181540627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24||||0.485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.9||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in BPI-interference with normal work.||0.90|-0.43|0.485
90836804|NCT00385671|181540627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.65||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in BPI-interference with normal work.||0.65|-0.68|0.969
90836805|NCT00385671|181540628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.76||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Weekly BPI-interference with relations with other people.||0.76|-0.36|0.479
90836806|NCT00385671|181540628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.87||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in BPI-interference with relations with other people.||0.87|-0.27|0.301
90836807|NCT00385671|181540628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.67||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in BPI-interference with relations with other people.||0.67|-0.47|0.731
90895896|NCT05805657|181657534|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient of indirect effect|-2.76||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.44|-1.08|||SEM|||Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test whether the relationship between TranS-C condition (Immediate vs. UC-DT) and functional impairment (Sheehan Disability Scale) at post was mediated by sleep-related impairment (PROMIS-SRI). The parameter of interest was the indirect effect at post||-1.08|-4.44|0.001
90895897|NCT05805657|181657534|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|0.84||||0.78|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|||Standard TranS-C versus Adapted TranS-C on change in functional impairment from pre to post.||||0.78
90895898|NCT05805657|181657534|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient|-1.41||||0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Acceptability of intervention measure (AIM) predicting functional impairment.||||0.49
90895899|NCT05805657|181657534|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient|-1.62||||0.27|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Appropriateness of intervention measure (IAM) predicting functional impairment.||||0.27
90836808|NCT00385671|181540629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||0.528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.87||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in BPI-interference with sleep.||0.87|-0.45|0.528
90836809|NCT00385671|181540629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.51||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in BPI-interference with sleep.||0.51|-0.84|0.626
90836810|NCT00385671|181540629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|0.3||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in BPI-interference with sleep.||0.30|-1.06|0.270
90836811|NCT00385671|181540630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.52||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.13||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in BPI-interference with enjoyment of life.||1.13|-0.10|0.098
90836812|NCT00385671|181540630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28||||0.383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.9||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in BPI-interference with enjoyment of life.||0.90|-0.35|0.383
90836813|NCT00385671|181540630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.39||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in BPI-interference with enjoyment of life.||0.39|-0.86|0.452
90836814|NCT00385671|181540631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28||||0.309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.82||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in BPI mean interference score.||0.82|-0.26|0.309
91027678|NCT02637557|181939623|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.422||||0.0138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.757|-0.087||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 5||-0.087|-0.757|0.0138
91027679|NCT02637557|181939623|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.06||||0.7202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.269|0.388||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||0.388|-0.269|0.7202
90895900|NCT05805657|181657534|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient|-2.07||||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Feasibility of intervention measure (FIM) predicting functional impairment.||||0.09
91027680|NCT02637557|181939623|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.093||||0.5784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.421|0.236||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||0.236|-0.421|0.5784
91027681|NCT02637557|181939623|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.376||||0.0266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.708|-0.044||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||-0.044|-0.708|0.0266
91027682|NCT02637557|181939623|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.049||||0.777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.391|0.293||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 7||0.293|-0.391|0.7770
91027683|NCT02637557|181939623|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.114||||0.5121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.456|0.228||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 7||0.228|-0.456|0.5121
91027684|NCT02637557|181939623|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.366||||0.0384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.711|-0.02||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 7||-0.020|-0.711|0.0384
90836815|NCT00385671|181540631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.93||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in BPI mean interference score.||0.93|-0.17|0.174
90836816|NCT00385671|181540631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.65||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in BPI mean interference score.||0.65|-0.45|0.717
90836817|NCT00385671|181540632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.975||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Mantel Haenszel|Treatments were compared with stratification defined by InvestigatorGroup. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was implemented.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of participants with ≥ 30% reduction in the weekly mean 24 hour average pain score at 12 weeks.||||0.975
90836818|NCT00385671|181540632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.448||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Mantel Haenszel|Treatments were compared with stratification defined by InvestigatorGroup. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was implemented.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the number of participants with ≥ 30% reduction in the weekly mean 24 hour average pain score at 12 weeks.||||0.448
90836819|NCT00385671|181540632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Mantel Haenszel|Treatments were compared with stratification defined by InvestigatorGroup. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was implemented.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of participants with ≥ 30% reduction in the weekly mean 24 hour average pain score at 12 weeks.||||0.280
90836820|NCT00385671|181540633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.548||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Mantel Haenszel|Treatments were compared with stratification defined by InvestigatorGroup. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was implemented.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of patients with a reduction of ≥ 50% in Weekly mean of 24 hour average pain score.||||0.548
90836821|NCT00385671|181540633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.599||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Mantel Haenszel|Treatments were compared with stratification defined by InvestigatorGroup. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was implemented.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the number of patients with a reduction of ≥ 50% in Weekly mean of 24 hour average pain score.||||0.599
90836822|NCT00385671|181540633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Mantel Haenszel|Treatments were compared with stratification defined by InvestigatorGroup. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was implemented.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference in the number of patients with a reduction of ≥ 50% in Weekly mean of 24 hour average pain score.||||1.00
90836823|NCT00385671|181540634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.905||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Mantel Haenszel|Treatments were compared with stratification defined by InvestigatorGroup. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was implemented.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of Participants with a ≥ 2-points reduction on the weekly average of the daily 24-hour average pain scale at 12 Weeks.||||0.905
90836824|NCT00385671|181540634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.368||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Mantel Haenszel|Treatments were compared with stratification defined by InvestigatorGroup. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was implemented.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the number of Participants with a ≥ 2-points reduction on the weekly average of the daily 24-hour average pain scale at 12 Weeks.||||0.368
90836825|NCT00385671|181540634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Mantel Haenszel|Treatments were compared with stratification defined by InvestigatorGroup. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was implemented.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the number of Participants with a ≥ 2-points reduction on the weekly average of the daily 24-hour average pain scale at 12 Weeks.||||0.200
90958932|NCT04874415|181797848|SUPERIORITY|Main effects were estimated using generalized linear models with log link. No interactions were included (failure to converge).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.00002|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.03|||||Fixed Step Count Goal is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|||0.03|-0.03|
91090841|NCT04210986|182065261|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|0.42|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.54||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|DAY 9 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||1.54|-0.70|>0.99
91027685|NCT02637557|181939623|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.093||||0.5876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.431|0.245||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||0.245|-0.431|0.5876
91090842|NCT04210986|182065261|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|-0.06|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.78||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|DAY 12 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||0.78|-0.91|>0.99
91090843|NCT04210986|182065261|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|-0.47|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.56||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|DAY 15 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||0.56|-1.50|>0.99
91090844|NCT04210986|182065261|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|-0.19|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.77||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|DAY 18 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||0.77|-1.16|>0.99
91090845|NCT04210986|182065261|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|0.19|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.96||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|DAY 21 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||0.96|-0.58|>0.99
91090846|NCT04210986|182065261|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|0.1|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.97||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|DAY 24 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||0.97|-0.76|>0.99
91090847|NCT04210986|182065261|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|0.01|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.76||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|DAY 27 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||0.76|-0.74|>0.99
90895901|NCT05805657|181657535|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-4.25||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|||Treatment condition (Standard/Adapted TranS-C versus UC-DT) on change in psychiatric symptoms from pre to post.||||0.002
91027686|NCT02637557|181939623|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.298||||0.0842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.636|0.04||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||0.040|-0.636|0.0842
91027687|NCT02637557|181939623|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.452||||0.0098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.793|-0.11||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||-0.110|-0.793|0.0098
91090848|NCT04210986|182065261|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|-0.38|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.44||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|DAY 30 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||0.44|-1.20|>0.99
91090849|NCT04210986|182065261|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|0.1|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.89||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|DAY 33 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||0.89|-0.69|>0.99
91103934|NCT03992872|182094615|SUPERIORITY||GMR (Prior Alpha / Naïve Alpha)|55.74|||||TWO_SIDED|||||"P-values were based on an ANOVA model with log10-transformed titer as the dependent variable and study arm, age, and gender as predictors.~P-value = NE NE = Not estimable due to lack of response."|||"Differences in least squares means from the ANOVA model were back-transformed and reported as geometric mean ratios with 95% confidence intervals.~95% CI \[NE,NE\] NE = Not estimable due to lack of response."|Day 29: Geometric mean ratio (prior alpha group over naïve alpha group) and 95% confidence interval||||
90836826|NCT00385671|181540635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.572||95.0||||P-value is for GTS. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in LSEQ GTS scores.||||0.572
90836827|NCT00385671|181540635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.345||95.0||||P-value is for GTS. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 weeks in LSEQ GTS scores.||||0.345
90836828|NCT00385671|181540635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.699||95.0||||P-value is for GTS. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in LSEQ GTS scores.||||0.699
90836829|NCT00385671|181540635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.954||95.0||||P-value is for QOS. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in LSEQ QOS scores.||||0.954
90836830|NCT00385671|181540635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.734||95.0||||P-value is for QOS. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in LSEQ QOS scores.||||0.734
90836831|NCT00385671|181540635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.693||95.0||||P-value is for QOS. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in LSEQ QOS.||||0.693
90836832|NCT00385671|181540635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72||95.0||||P-value is for AFS. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in LSEQ AFS scores.||||0.720
90836833|NCT00385671|181540635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.722||95.0||||P-value is for AFS. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in LSEQ AFS scores.||||0.722
90836834|NCT00385671|181540635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48||95.0||||P-value is for AFS. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in LSEQ AFS scores.||||0.480
90836835|NCT00385671|181540635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.498||95.0||||P-value is for BFW. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in LSEQ BFW scores.||||0.498
90836836|NCT00385671|181540635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.865||95.0||||P-value is for BFW. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in LSEQ BFW scores.||||0.865
90836837|NCT00385671|181540635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.408||95.0||||P-value is for BFW. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in LSEQ BFW scores.||||0.408
90895902|NCT05805657|181657535|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient of indirect effect|-1.95||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.54|-0.36|||SEM|||Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test whether the relationship between TranS-C condition (Immediate vs. UC-DT) and psychiatric symptoms (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Cross-Cutting Symptom Measure) at post was mediated by sleep disturbance (PROMIS-SD) at post. The parameter of interest was the indirect effect.||-0.36|-3.54|0.02
91090850|NCT04210986|182065261|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|-0.2|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|0.61||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|DAY 36 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||0.61|-1.02|>0.99
91090851|NCT04210986|182065261|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|0.11|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.92||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|DAY 39 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||0.92|-0.70|>0.99
91090852|NCT04210986|182065261|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|-0.62|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|0.13||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|DAY 42 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||0.13|-1.36|>0.99
90836838|NCT00385671|181540636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42||||0.635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|1.33||P-value is for total. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in SDS total score.||1.33|-2.18|0.635
90836839|NCT00385671|181540636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.24|0.24||P-value is for total. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in SDS total score.||0.24|-3.24|0.092
90836840|NCT00385671|181540636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.07||||0.221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|0.65||P-value is for total. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in SDS total score.||0.65|-2.80|0.221
90836841|NCT00385671|181540636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.85||P-value is for item 1. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in SDS Item 1 score.||0.85|-0.88|0.974
90836842|NCT00385671|181540636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.75||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|0.13||P-value is for Item 1. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in SDS Item 1 score.||0.13|-1.63|0.093
90836843|NCT00385671|181540636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.74||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|0.12||P-value is for item 1. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in SDS Item 1 score.||0.12|-1.59|0.091
90895903|NCT05805657|181657535|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient of indirect effect|-1.62||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.87|-0.38|||SEM|||Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test whether the relationship between TranS-C condition (Immediate vs. UC-DT) and psychiatric symptoms (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Cross-Cutting Symptom Measure) at post was mediated by sleep-related impairment (PROMIS-SRI) at post. The parameter of interest was the indirect effect.||-0.38|-2.87|0.01
91090853|NCT04210986|182065261|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|-0.23|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|0.55||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|WEEK 7 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||0.55|-1.01|>0.99
91090854|NCT04210986|182065261|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|-0.2|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.49||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|WEEK 8 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||0.49|-0.89|>0.99
90836844|NCT00385671|181540636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11||||0.733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.52||P-value is for item 2. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in SDS Item 2 score.||0.52|-0.75|0.733
90836845|NCT00385671|181540636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|0.11||P-value is for item 2. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in SDS item 2 score.||0.11|-1.15|0.102
90836846|NCT00385671|181540636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41||||0.193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|0.21||P-value is for item 2. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in SDS item 2 score.||0.21|-1.04|0.193
90836847|NCT00385671|181540636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.43||P-value is for item 3. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in SDS item 3 score.||0.43|-0.76|0.584
90836848|NCT00385671|181540636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|0.06||P-value is for item 3. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in SDS item 3 score.||0.06|-1.12|0.077
90836849|NCT00385671|181540636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37||||0.221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.22||P-value is for item 3. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in SDS item 3 score.||0.22|-0.95|0.221
90895904|NCT05805657|181657535|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|1.79||||0.56|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|||Standard TranS-C versus Adapted TranS-C on change in psychiatric symptoms from pre to post.||||0.56
90895905|NCT05805657|181657535|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient|-3.46||||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Acceptability of intervention measure (AIM) predicting psychiatric symptoms.||||0.34
91027688|NCT02637557|181939624|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.054||||0.6663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.193|0.301||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||0.301|-0.193|0.6663
91027689|NCT02637557|181939624|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.148||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.396||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||0.396|-0.100|0.2400
91027690|NCT02637557|181939624|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.023||||0.856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.273|0.227||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||0.227|-0.273|0.8560
90895906|NCT05805657|181657535|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient|-5.54||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Appropriateness of intervention measure (IAM) predicting psychiatric symptoms.||||0.01
90895907|NCT05805657|181657535|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient|-5.65||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Feasibility of intervention measure (FIM) predicting psychiatric symptoms.||||0.01
91027691|NCT02637557|181939624|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.051||||0.7209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.232|0.335||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||0.335|-0.232|0.7209
91027692|NCT02637557|181939624|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.013||||0.9283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.297|0.271||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||0.271|-0.297|0.9283
91027693|NCT02637557|181939624|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.162||||0.2659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.449|0.124||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||0.124|-0.449|0.2659
91027694|NCT02637557|181939624|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.006||||0.968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.298||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 3||0.298|-0.310|0.9680
91027695|NCT02637557|181939624|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.125||||0.4213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.429|0.18||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 3||0.180|-0.429|0.4213
91027696|NCT02637557|181939624|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.311||||0.0471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.618|-0.004||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 3||-0.004|-0.618|0.0471
91090855|NCT04210986|182065261|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|0.02|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.67||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|WEEK 9 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||0.67|-0.63|>0.99
91090856|NCT04210986|182065261|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|-0.17|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.61||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|WEEK 10 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||0.61|-0.95|>0.99
91090857|NCT04210986|182065261|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|-0.42|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|0.34||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|WEEK 11 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||0.34|-1.18|>0.99
91090858|NCT04210986|182065261|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|-0.35|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|0.71||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|WEEK 12 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||0.71|-1.41|>0.99
91090859|NCT04210986|182065262|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|1.86||||0.9106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|6.82||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|MONTH 6 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||6.82|-3.09|0.9106
91090860|NCT04210986|182065262|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|-4.2||||0.4424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.93|1.53||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|MONTH 12 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||1.53|-9.93|0.4424
91090861|NCT04210986|182065262|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|-0.03||||0.9901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.55|5.48||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|MONTH 18 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||5.48|-5.55|0.9901
91090862|NCT04210986|182065263|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|0.69|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.95|32.3||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|"MONTH 6 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.~A priori power calculation was based a standardized mean difference effect size of SMD=0.73 (Mackay, et al, 2018, Osteoarthritis and Cartilage)."||32.3|-30.95|>0.99
91103935|NCT03992872|182094617|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|"Day 22.~Note: A subject has a 4-fold rise at a visit if they achieve a titer at that visit that is at least 4-fold higher than their Day 1 titer."||||||1.0000
90895908|NCT04058353|181657561|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|3.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|4.7|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||4.7|2.2|<0.0001
90895909|NCT04058353|181657562|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-23.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.1|-20.1|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||-20.1|-26.1|<0.0001
90957194|NCT02084056|181793864|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (FDC/free combination) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted Geometric Means ratio|105.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.053||0.003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.705|115.861|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|Ratio of (FDC 2000 fed/ L+M 2000 fed)|||115.861|96.705|0.0030
91027697|NCT02637557|181939624|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.025||||0.8769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.337|0.288||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||0.288|-0.337|0.8769
91103936|NCT03992872|182094617|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|"Day 29.~Note: A subject has a 4-fold rise at a visit if they achieve a titer at that visit that is at least 4-fold higher than their Day 1 titer."||||||1.0000
90895910|NCT04058353|181657564|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|8.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|12.1|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||12.1|5.3|<0.0001
91090863|NCT04210986|182065263|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|-11.3|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.9|24.2||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|"MONTH 12 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.~A priori power calculation was based a standardized mean difference effect size of SMD=0.73 (Mackay, et al, 2018, Osteoarthritis and Cartilage)."||24.2|-46.9|>0.99
91090864|NCT04210986|182065264|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.44||||0.474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|4.21||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05.|Log Rank|Cox proportional hazards model constructed. Score (log rank) test to assess between group difference in hazard rate.|Hazard ratio expresses the hazard rate of the Fisetin group in the numerator and the hazard rate of the Placebo group in the denominator|With only 4 participants that converted to an alternative treatment modality, this analysis is underpowered.||4.21|0.05|0.474
91090865|NCT02984982|182065272|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36||0.2279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.32|1.04||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA||Standard of Care vs Alirocumab|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model which included fixed categorical effects of treatment arm and randomization strata, as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline normalized TAV.||1.04|-4.32|0.2279
91090866|NCT04232839|182065302|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio(%)|85.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.3|91.7|||||Test/reference, intra-individual geometric coefficient of variance (gCV) =13.9.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale, including effects accounting for 'sequence', 'subjects nested within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment' (formulation). The effect 'subjects within sequences' was to be considered as random, while the other effects were to be considered as fixed.||91.7|80.3|
91090867|NCT04232839|182065302|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio(%)|72.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|68.0|77.6|||||Test/reference, intra-individual geometric coefficient of variance (gCV) =13.9.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale, including effects accounting for 'sequence', 'subjects nested within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment' (formulation). The effect 'subjects within sequences' was to be considered as random, while the other effects were to be considered as fixed.||77.6|68.0|
91090868|NCT04232839|182065302|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio(%)|92.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.5|98.8|||||Test/reference, intra-individual geometric coefficient of variance (gCV) =13.9.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale, including effects accounting for 'sequence', 'subjects nested within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment' (formulation). The effect 'subjects within sequences' was to be considered as random, while the other effects were to be considered as fixed.||98.8|86.5|
91090869|NCT04232839|182065302|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio(%)|76.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|71.6|81.8|||||Test/reference, intra-individual geometric coefficient of variance (gCV) =13.9.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale, including effects accounting for 'sequence', 'subjects nested within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment' (formulation). The effect 'subjects within sequences' was to be considered as random, while the other effects were to be considered as fixed.||81.8|71.6|
91090870|NCT04232839|182065302|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio(%)|133.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|117.2|151.9|||||Test/reference, intra-individual geometric coefficient of variance (gCV) =17.6.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale, including effects accounting for 'subjects' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects' were to be considered as random, while the effect 'treatment' was to be considered as fixed.||151.9|117.2|
91090871|NCT04232839|182065302|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio(%)|114.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.3|127.6|||||Test/reference, intra-individual geometric coefficient of variance (gCV) =16.2.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale, including effects accounting for 'subjects' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects' were to be considered as random, while the effect 'treatment' was to be considered as fixed.||127.6|102.3|
91090872|NCT04232839|182065303|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio(%)|85.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.0|91.4|||||Test/reference, intra-individual geometric coefficient of variance (gCV) =14.0.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale, including effects accounting for 'sequence', 'subjects nested within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment' (formulation). The effect 'subjects within sequences' was to be considered as random, while the other effects were to be considered as fixed.||91.4|80.0|
91090873|NCT04232839|182065303|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio(%)|72.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|67.4|77.1|||||Test/reference, intra-individual geometric coefficient of variance (gCV) =14.0.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale, including effects accounting for 'sequence', 'subjects nested within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment' (formulation). The effect 'subjects within sequences' was to be considered as random, while the other effects were to be considered as fixed.||77.1|67.4|
91090874|NCT04232839|182065303|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio(%)|92.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.3|98.6|||||Test/reference, intra-individual geometric coefficient of variance (gCV) =14.0.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale, including effects accounting for 'sequence', 'subjects nested within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment' (formulation). The effect 'subjects within sequences' was to be considered as random, while the other effects were to be considered as fixed.||98.6|86.3|
90895911|NCT00985010|181657569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.0||0.05|||||||Chi-squared||The difference is between the percentage of deaths (males versus females) after six months in the patients with hepatic encephalophathy.|Clinical evolution was reported as percentage (still alive or death after six months of follow up).||||0.05
90958933|NCT04874415|181797848|SUPERIORITY|Main effects were estimated using generalized linear models with log link. No interactions were included (failure to converge).)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.00002|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.03|||||Loss Framed Incentive is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|||0.03|-0.03|
91090875|NCT04232839|182065303|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio(%)|75.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.6|80.7|||||Test/reference, intra-individual geometric coefficient of variance (gCV) =14.0.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale, including effects accounting for 'sequence', 'subjects nested within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment' (formulation). The effect 'subjects within sequences' was to be considered as random, while the other effects were to be considered as fixed.||80.7|70.6|
90836850|NCT00385671|181540638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.82||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.96|0.32||P-value is for male, total. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in male participants in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ) total score.||0.32|-3.96|0.096
90836851|NCT00385671|181540638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.01||||0.353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.16|1.13||P-value is for male, total. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in male participants in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ) total score.||1.13|-3.16|0.353
91090876|NCT04232839|182065303|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio(%)|134.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|117.6|153.0|||||Test/reference, intra-individual geometric coefficient of variance (gCV) =17.9.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale, including effects accounting for 'subjects' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects' were to be considered as random, while the effect 'treatment' was to be considered as fixed.||153.0|117.6|
90836852|NCT00385671|181540638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.81||||0.444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|2.88||P-value is for male, total. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in male participants in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ) total score.||2.88|-1.27|0.444
90836853|NCT00385671|181540638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|3.48||P-value is for female, total. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in female participants in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ) total score.||3.48|-2.29|0.682
90836854|NCT00385671|181540638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.13||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.08|1.82||P-value is for female, total. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in female participants in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ) total score.||1.82|-4.08|0.450
90836855|NCT00385671|181540638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.73||||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.49|1.04||P-value is for female, total. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in female participants in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ) total score.||1.04|-4.49|0.218
90836856|NCT00385671|181540638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.26||P-value is for male, pleasure. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in male participants in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ) pleasure subscore.||0.26|-0.36|0.747
91090877|NCT04232839|182065303|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio(%)|114.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.9|128.1|||||Test/reference, intra-individual geometric coefficient of variance (gCV) =16.1.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale, including effects accounting for 'subjects' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects' were to be considered as random, while the effect 'treatment' was to be considered as fixed.||128.1|102.9|
90836857|NCT00385671|181540638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.45||P-value is for male, pleasure. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in male participants in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ) pleasure subscore.||0.45|-0.18|0.390
90836858|NCT00385671|181540638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19||||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.49||P-value is for male, pleasure. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in male participants in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ) pleasure subscore.||0.49|-0.12|0.228
91090878|NCT04622969|182065305|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-21.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.157|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<.001
91090879|NCT04622969|182065307|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|7.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.05|=|0.56|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||=0.56
91090880|NCT04622969|182065311|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145|=|0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||=0.99
91090881|NCT04622969|182065313|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.264|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<.05
91090882|NCT04622969|182065315|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.573|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.802|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<.01
91090883|NCT04622969|182065317|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.509|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.842|=|0.062|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||=.062
91090884|NCT04622969|182065317|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.047|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|=|0.78|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||=0.78
91090885|NCT01251042|182065327|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Information about the size of the standard deviation (SD) for the change was obtained from an earlier study. The SD for the change from pre-operation until 24 hours after start of transfusion was 0.2305. Due to the imprecise measuring device (if values below 0.3 g/l) and the large SD, a non-inferiority margin (∆) of 0.2 g/l was decided to be used in this study, resulting in a total number of 42 evaluable subjects, i.e. 21 subjects per group.||||||0.6294||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6294
91090886|NCT04249427|182065336|EQUIVALENCE|Test if the change in mean number of days with significant mid-facial pain in Erenuman group differs from that in Placebo group.||||||0.96|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.96
91090887|NCT04249427|182065337|EQUIVALENCE|Test if the change in SNOT-22 score in Erenuman group differs from that in Placebo group.||||||0.19|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.19
91090888|NCT04249427|182065338|EQUIVALENCE|Test if the change in Physical Function as Measured by Migraine Function Impact in Erenuman group differs from that in Placebo group.||||||0.06|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.06
91090889|NCT04249427|182065339|EQUIVALENCE|Test if the change in Usual Activities as Measured by Migraine Function Impact in Erenuman group differs from that in Placebo group.||||||0.08|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.08
91090890|NCT04249427|182065340|EQUIVALENCE|Test if the change in Social Function as Measured by Migraine Function Impact in Erenuman group differs from that in Placebo group.||||||0.058|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.058
90836859|NCT00385671|181540638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.67||P-value is for female, pleasure. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in female participants in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ) pleasure subscore.||0.67|-0.18|0.260
90958934|NCT04874415|181797848|SUPERIORITY|Main effects were estimated using generalized linear models with log link. No interactions were included (failure to converge).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.000003|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.004|||||Daily Step Count Goal is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|||0.004|-0.004|
91090891|NCT04249427|182065341|EQUIVALENCE|Test if the change in Emotional Function as Measured by Migraine Function Impact in Erenuman group differs from that in Placebo group.||||||0.02|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.02
91090892|NCT04249427|182065342|EQUIVALENCE|Test if the change in Overall Impact (global) as Measured by Migraine Function Impact in Erenuman group differs from that in Placebo group.||||||0.0036|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0036
91090893|NCT04249427|182065343|EQUIVALENCE|Test if the change of average number of days per month with significant nasal congestion in Erenuman group differs from that in Placebo group.||||||0.83|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.83
91090894|NCT04249427|182065344|EQUIVALENCE|Test if the change of average number of days per month with significant significant rhinorrhea in Erenuman group differs from that in Placebo group||||||0.83|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.83
91090895|NCT04249427|182065345|EQUIVALENCE|Test if the change in doses of rescue pain medications in Erenuman group differs from that in Placebo group.||||||0.35|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.35
91090896|NCT04249427|182065346|EQUIVALENCE|Test if the change from baseline in mean daily pain score in Erenuman group differs from that in Placebo group.||||||0.85|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.85
91090897|NCT03886272|182065347|OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio (T1/R1)[%]|112.96||||0.0413|TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.7|124.26||P-value for ratio outside 80% -125%.|ANOVA|The model includes fixed effects for 'sequence', 'period', and 'treatment'. 'Subjects within sequences' is included as random effect.|The Adjusted Geometric Mean is geometric mean adjusted by treatment. Ratio is calculated as: T1/R1. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 14.2|Relative bioavailability||124.26|102.70|0.0413
91090898|NCT03886272|182065347|OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio (T2/R2)[%]|115.49||||0.0776|TWO_SIDED|90.0|105.23|126.74||P-value for ratio outside 80% - 125%|ANOVA|The model includes fixed effects for 'sequence', 'period', and 'treatment'. 'Subjects within sequences' is included as random effect.|The Adjusted Geometric Mean is geometric mean adjusted by treatment. Ratio is calculated as T2/R2. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 13.9.|Relative bioavailability||126.74|105.23|0.0776
91090899|NCT03886272|182065347|OTHER||Adj. Geometric Mean Ratio (T3c/R3) [%]|78.05||||0.6443|TWO_SIDED|90.0|69.71|87.38||P-value for ratio outside 80% - 125%|ANOVA|The model includes fixed effects for 'sequence', 'period', and 'treatment'. 'Subjects within sequences' is included as random effect.|The Adjusted Geometric Mean is geometric mean adjusted by treatment. Ratio is calculated as Tc3/R3. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 17.6.|Relative bioavailability||87.38|69.71|0.6443
91090900|NCT03886272|182065347|OTHER||Adj. Geometric Mean Ratio (T3u/R3) [%]|45.97||||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|41.05|51.48||P-value for ratio outside 80% - 125%|ANOVA|The model includes fixed effects for 'sequence', 'period', and 'treatment'. 'Subjects within sequences' is included as random effect.|The Adjusted Geometric Mean is geometric mean adjusted by treatment. Ratio is calculated as T3u/R3. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 17.6.|Relative bioavailability||51.48|41.05|1.00
91090901|NCT03886272|182065348|OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio (T1/R1)[%]|144.62||||0.9485|TWO_SIDED|90.0|124.82|167.57||P-value for ratio outside 80% - 125%|ANOVA|The model includes fixed effects for 'sequence', 'period', and 'treatment'. 'Subjects within sequences' is included as random effect.|The Adjusted Geometric Mean is geometric mean adjusted by treatment. Ratio is calculated as T1/R1. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 22.1|Relative bioavailability||167.57|124.82|0.9485
90836860|NCT00385671|181540638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33||||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.11||P-value is for female, pleasure. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in female participants in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ) pleasure subscore.||0.11|-0.76|0.141
90836861|NCT00385671|181540638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.16||P-value is for female, pleasure. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in female participants in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ) pleasure subscore.||-0.16|-0.98|0.007
91090902|NCT03886272|182065348|OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio (T2/R2)[%]|129.69||||0.7813|TWO_SIDED|90.0|119.51|140.73||P-value for ratio outside 80% - 125%|ANOVA|The model includes fixed effects for 'sequence', 'period', and 'treatment'. 'Subjects within sequences' is included as random effect.|The adjusted geometric mean is geometric mean adjusted by treatment. Ratio is calculated as T2/R2. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 12.2.|Relative Bioavailability||140.73|119.51|0.7813
91090903|NCT03886272|182065348|OTHER||Adj. Geometric Mean Ratio (T3c/R3) [%]|75.09||||0.7616|TWO_SIDED|90.0|64.58|87.32||P-value for ratio outside 80% - 125%|ANOVA|The model includes fixed effects for 'sequence', 'period', and 'treatment'. 'Subjects within sequences' is included as random effect.|The Adjusted Geometric Mean is geometric mean adjusted by treatment. Ratio is calculated as = T3c/3. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 23.5.|Relative Bioavailability||87.32|64.58|0.7616
91090904|NCT03886272|182065348|OTHER||Adj. Geometric Mean Ratio (T3u/R3) [%]|41.45||||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|35.61|48.25||P-value for ratio outside 80% - 125%|ANOVA|The model includes fixed effects for 'sequence', 'period', and 'treatment'. 'Subjects within sequences' is included as random effect.|The adjusted Geometric Mean is geometric mean adjusted by treatment. Ratio is calculated as = T3u/R3. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation = 23.5.|Relative Bioavailability||48.25|35.61|1.00
91090905|NCT03886272|182065349|OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio (T1/R1)[%]|111.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.5||0.0092|TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.87|120.01||P-value for ratio outside 80% - 125%.|ANOVA|The model included fixed effects for 'sequence', 'period', and 'treatment'. 'Subjects within sequences' is included as random effect.|The Adjusted Geometric Mean is geometric mean adjusted by treatment. Ratio is calculated as T1/R1. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 17.6.|Relative Bioavailability||120.01|102.87|0.0092
91090906|NCT03886272|182065349|OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio (T2/R2)[%]|114.13||||0.0442|TWO_SIDED|90.0|104.58|124.56||P-value for ratio outside 80% - 125%.|ANOVA|The model included fixed effects for 'sequence', 'period', and 'treatment'. 'Subjects within sequences' is included as random effect.|The Adjusted Geometric Mean is geometric mean adjusted by treatment. Ratio is calculated as = T2/R2. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 13.0.|Relative Bioavailability||124.56|104.58|0.0442
91090907|NCT03886272|182065349|OTHER||Adj. Geometric Mean Ratio (T3c/R3) [%]|80.1||||0.4928|TWO_SIDED|90.0|71.54|89.68||P-value for ratio outside 80% - 125%|ANOVA|The model included fixed effects for 'sequence', 'period', and 'treatment'. 'Subjects within sequences' is included as random effect.|The Adjusted Geometric Mean is geometric mean adjusted by treatment. Ratio is calculated as = T3c/R3. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 17.6.|Relative Bioavailability||89.68|71.54|0.4928
91090908|NCT03886272|182065349|OTHER||Adj. Geometric Mean Ratio (T3u/R3) [%]|48.83||||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|43.6|54.69||P-value for ratio outside 80% - 125%.|ANOVA|The model included fixed effects for 'sequence', 'period', and 'treatment'. 'Subjects within sequences' is included as random effect.|The Adjusted Geometric Mean is geometric mean adjusted by treatment. Ratio is calculated as T3u/R3. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 17.6.|Relative Bioavailability||54.69|43.60|1.00
91090909|NCT02848664|182065404|OTHER|Same DOSS score before and after device use for 3 months or improved DOSS score after device use for 3 months|||||<|0.025||||||p values adjusted for multiple comparisons (two outcome measures)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Examined change in DOSS for each participant from before to after three months of device use. Examined numbers of participants who showed either worsening of DOSS, no improvement in DOSS or improvement of DOSS.||||<0.025
91090910|NCT02848664|182065405|EQUIVALENCE|Examination of whether the level of swallowing handicap is changed following device use|Mean Difference (Net)|22.571||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.003|39.14|||t-test, 2 sided|||||39.140|6.003|0.016
91090911|NCT02848664|182065406|EQUIVALENCE|whether the degree of laryngeal elevation relative to hyoid elevation became greater or less after device use for 3 months||||||0.046|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.046
91090912|NCT02848664|182065407|EQUIVALENCE|pairwise comparison within subject comparing baseline with 3 months post device use|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-52.78||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.751|-4.809|||ANOVA|||||-4.809|-100.751|0.037
91090913|NCT02849080|182065409|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the in-trial observation period. The estimated treatment effect includes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (treatment policy estimand).|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.89|6.7||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Pattern mixture model||Oral Semaglutide flex / Sitagliptin 100 mg.|The analysis was based on a pattern mixture model using multiple imputation to handle missing week 52 data, assuming that data were missing at random within the groups used for imputation. The imputed data sets were analysed using a logistic regression model with treatment, strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c value as covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete datasets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||6.70|2.89|<0.0001
91103937|NCT03992872|182094618|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||"Null hypothesis for analysis of percentage of subjects with Anti-VEEV PRNT neutralizing activity at or above selected thresholds by time point.~Day 1: Subject with Titer \>= 40"||||<0.0001
90836862|NCT00385671|181540638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.25||P-value is for male, desire/frequency. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in male participants in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ) desire/frequency subscore.||0.25|-0.61|0.409
90836863|NCT00385671|181540638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.35||P-value is for male, desire/frequency. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in male participants in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ) desire/frequency subscore.||0.35|-0.51|0.715
90836864|NCT00385671|181540638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.52||P-value is for male, desire/frequency. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in male participants in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ) desire/frequency subscore.||0.52|-0.32|0.641
90836865|NCT00385671|181540638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.47||P-value is for female, desire/frequency. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in female participants in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ) desire/frequency subscore.||0.47|-0.64|0.767
90895912|NCT00985010|181657570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.72||0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The difference is between manganese levels of women minus manganese levels of men.|Laboratory results were expressed in means and standard deviations. Between group comparisons (female versus male values) were made with the Mann-Whitney U test using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) program version 10 (SPSS Inc., North Carolina, USA).||||0.05
90895913|NCT00316173|181657573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants with CR+PR|30.9||||||95.0|18.7|43.1||||||||43.1|18.7|
90895914|NCT01951638|181657598|OTHER||Log-Scale mean difference|0.137|||=|0.8991|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.04|0.31|||t-test, 1 sided|||For the primary analysis, the three highest active treatment groups BAY1021189 (2.5mg, 2.5 to 5mg, 2.5 to 10mg) were pooled and compared to the assigned placebo treatment group with a one-sided two-sample t-test. The Hochberg procedure was used to test the two primary end points at study-wise significance level of 5%. Results are reported including 90% confidence intervals (CI) for the difference of means. The difference between the comparison groups is difference of means on the log scale.||0.31|-0.04|= 0.8991
90957195|NCT02084056|181793865|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (FDC/free combination) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted Geometric Means ratio|103.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.426|108.79|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'|Ratio of (FDC 2000 fasted/ L+M 2000 fasted)|||108.790|98.426|<0.0001
91027698|NCT02637557|181939624|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.059||||0.7109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.372|0.254||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||0.254|-0.372|0.7109
91027699|NCT02637557|181939624|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.254||||0.1146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.062||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||0.062|-0.570|0.1146
91027700|NCT02637557|181939624|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.048||||0.7736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.281|0.378||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 5||0.378|-0.281|0.7736
91027701|NCT02637557|181939624|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02||||0.9059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.31||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 5||0.310|-0.350|0.9059
91027702|NCT02637557|181939624|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.299||||0.0779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.633|0.034||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 5||0.034|-0.633|0.0779
91103938|NCT03992872|182094618|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||"Null hypothesis for analysis of percentage of subjects with Anti-VEEV PRNT neutralizing activity at or above selected thresholds by time point.~Day 1: Subject with Titer \>= 160"||||<0.0001
91027703|NCT02637557|181939624|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.086||||0.6068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.241|0.412||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||0.412|-0.241|0.6068
91103939|NCT03992872|182094618|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||"Null hypothesis for analysis of percentage of subjects with Anti-VEEV PRNT neutralizing activity at or above selected thresholds by time point.~Day 1: Subject with Titer \>= 640"||||<0.0001
91103940|NCT03992872|182094618|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||"Null hypothesis for analysis of percentage of subjects with Anti-VEEV PRNT neutralizing activity at or above selected thresholds by time point.~Day 22: Subject with Titer \>= 40"||||<0.0001
91090914|NCT02849080|182065409|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The estimated treatment effect excludes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (hypothetical estimand).|Odds Ratio (OR)|5.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.54|8.68||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Logistic||Oral Semaglutide flex / Sitagliptin 100 mg|The analysis was based on multiple imputation, imputing sequentially using post-baseline measurements up to and including week 52. The imputed data sets were analysed using a logistic regression model with treatment, strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c value as covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete datasets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||8.68|3.54|<0.0001
91090915|NCT02849080|182065410|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the in-trial observation period. The estimated treatment effect includes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (treatment policy estimand).|Treatment difference|-1.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-1.2||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0.|Pattern mixture model||Oral semaglutide flex - Sitagliptin 100 mg|The analysis was based on a pattern mixture model using multiple imputation to handle missing week 52 data, assuming that data were missing at random within the groups used for imputation. The imputed data sets were analysed using a logistic regression model with treatment, strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c value as covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete datasets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||-1.2|-2.6|<0.0001
91103941|NCT03992872|182094618|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||"Null hypothesis for analysis of percentage of subjects with Anti-VEEV PRNT neutralizing activity at or above selected thresholds by time point.~Day 22: Subject with Titer \>= 160"||||<0.0001
91103942|NCT03992872|182094618|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||"Null hypothesis for analysis of percentage of subjects with Anti-VEEV PRNT neutralizing activity at or above selected thresholds by time point.~Day 22: Subject with Titer \>=640"||||<0.0001
90836866|NCT00385671|181540638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.52||P-value is for female, desire/frequency. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in female participants in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ) desire/frequency subscore.||0.52|-0.61|0.881
91027704|NCT02637557|181939624|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.024||||0.8838|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.352|0.303||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 5||0.303|-0.352|0.8838
90836867|NCT00385671|181540638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.59||p-value is for female, desire/frequency. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in female participants in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ) desire/frequency subscore.||0.59|-0.51|0.885
90836868|NCT00385671|181540638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32||||0.325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.32||P-value is for male, desire/interest. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in male participants in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ) desire/interest subscore.||0.32|-0.96|0.325
90836869|NCT00385671|181540638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.56||P-value is for male, desire/interest. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in male participants in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ) desire/interest subscore.||0.56|-0.73|0.798
90836870|NCT00385671|181540638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24||||0.461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.87||p-value is for male, desire/interest. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in male participants in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ) desire/interest subscore.||0.87|-0.39|0.461
91103943|NCT03992872|182094618|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||"Null hypothesis for analysis of percentage of subjects with Anti-VEEV PRNT neutralizing activity at or above selected thresholds by time point.~Day 29: Subject with Titer \>= 40"||||<0.0001
91027705|NCT02637557|181939624|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.323||||0.0556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.653|0.008||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||0.008|-0.653|0.0556
91027706|NCT02637557|181939624|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.051||||0.7673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.389|0.287||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 7||0.287|-0.389|0.7673
90836871|NCT00385671|181540638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|0.66||p-value is for female, desire/interest. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in female participants in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ) desire/interest subscore.||0.66|-1.02|0.670
90836872|NCT00385671|181540638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51||||0.243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|0.35||P-value is for female, desire/interest. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in female participants in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ) desire/interest subscore.||0.35|-1.37|0.243
90836873|NCT00385671|181540638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33||||0.423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|0.48||P-value is for female, desire/interest. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in male participants in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ) desire/interest subscore.||0.48|-1.14|0.423
90836874|NCT00385671|181540638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0.333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|0.35||P-value is for male, arousal. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in male participants in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ) arousal subscore.||0.35|-1.04|0.333
90836875|NCT00385671|181540638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35||||0.334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|0.36||P-value is for male, arousal. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in male participants in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ) arousal subscore.||0.36|-1.05|0.334
90836876|NCT00385671|181540638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.68||P-value is for male, arousal. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in male participants in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ) arousal subscore.||0.68|-0.69|0.990
90836877|NCT00385671|181540638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.09||P-value is for female, arousal. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in female participants in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ) arousal subscore.||1.09|-0.70|0.665
90836878|NCT00385671|181540638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.74||P-value is for female, arousal. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in female participants in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ) arousal subscore.||0.74|-1.10|0.700
90836879|NCT00385671|181540638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38||||0.386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|0.48||P-value is for female, arousal. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in female participants in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ) arousal subscore.||0.48|-1.23|0.386
90836880|NCT00385671|181540638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|0.15||P-value is for male, orgasm. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in male participants in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ) orgasm subscore.||0.15|-1.27|0.120
90836881|NCT00385671|181540638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57||||0.119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|0.15||P-value is for male, orgasm. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in male participants in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ) orgasm subscore.||0.15|-1.29|0.119
90836882|NCT00385671|181540638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.69||P-value is for male, arousal. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in male participants in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ) orgasm subscore.||0.69|-0.71|0.976
90836883|NCT00385671|181540638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.17||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|2.2||P-value is for female, orgasm. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in female participants in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ) orgasm subscore.||2.20|0.14|0.026
91027707|NCT02637557|181939624|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05||||0.7709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.389|0.289||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 7||0.289|-0.389|0.7709
91027708|NCT02637557|181939624|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.386||||0.0273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.728|-0.043||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 7||-0.043|-0.728|0.0273
91027709|NCT02637557|181939624|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.044||||0.795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.378|0.289||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||0.289|-0.378|0.7950
91027710|NCT02637557|181939624|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.236||||0.1656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.098||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||0.098|-0.570|0.1656
91027711|NCT02637557|181939624|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.385||||0.0254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.722|-0.048||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||-0.048|-0.722|0.0254
91027712|NCT02637557|181939625|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.093||||0.3788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.114|0.3||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||0.300|-0.114|0.3788
91027713|NCT02637557|181939625|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.189||||0.0761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.397||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||0.397|-0.020|0.0761
91027714|NCT02637557|181939625|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.021||||0.8415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.232|0.189||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||0.189|-0.232|0.8415
91027715|NCT02637557|181939625|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.052||||0.6719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.294||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||0.294|-0.190|0.6719
91027716|NCT02637557|181939625|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.007||||0.9549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.237|0.251||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||0.251|-0.237|0.9549
91027717|NCT02637557|181939625|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.096||||0.4408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.342|0.149||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||0.149|-0.342|0.4408
91027718|NCT02637557|181939625|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.004||||0.9736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.262|0.253||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 3||0.253|-0.262|0.9736
91027719|NCT02637557|181939625|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.146||||0.2703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.405|0.114||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 3||0.114|-0.405|0.2703
91027720|NCT02637557|181939625|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.351||||0.0087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.612|-0.089||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 3||-0.089|-0.612|0.0087
91027721|NCT02637557|181939625|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.026||||0.848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.295|0.243||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||0.243|-0.295|0.8480
91090916|NCT02849080|182065410|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The estimated treatment effect excludes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (hypothetical estimand).|Treatment difference|-2.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-1.5||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0.|Mixed model for repeated measurements||Oral semaglutide flex - Sitagliptin 100 mg|The analysis was based on a Mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM) that assumed data to be missing at random. As dependent variables, the MMRM model included all post-baseline values collected at scheduled visits up to and including week 52. The independent effects were treatment, strata and region as categorical fixed effects and the baseline HbA1c value as a covariate, all nested within visit, and an unstructured residual covariance matrix.||-1.5|-2.9|<0.0001
90836884|NCT00385671|181540638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.36||||0.497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|1.42||P-value is for female, orgasm. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in female participants in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ) orgasm subscore.||1.42|-0.69|0.497
90836885|NCT00385671|181540638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.19||P-value is for female, orgasm. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in female participants in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ) orgasm subscore.||0.19|-1.80|0.112
90836886|NCT00385671|181540639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.486||95.0||||P-value is for male, total. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of male participants with a categorical change in total score from baseline to 12 weeks in the Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ).||||0.486
91090917|NCT02849080|182065427|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.39||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox||Oral semaglutide flex / Sitagliptin 100 mg|Time to initiation of rescue medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment, strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Censoring time was one day before last day on trial product.||0.39|0.09|<0.0001
91103944|NCT03992872|182094618|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||"Null hypothesis for analysis of percentage of subjects with Anti-VEEV PRNT neutralizing activity at or above selected thresholds by time point.~Day 29: Subjects with Titer \>= 160"||||<0.0001
90836887|NCT00385671|181540639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.983||95.0||||P-value is for male, total. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the number of male participants with a categorical change in total score from baseline to 12 weeks in the Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ).||||0.983
90836888|NCT00385671|181540639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.411||95.0||||p-value is for male, total. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of male participants with a categorical change in total score from baseline to 12 weeks in the Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ).||||0.411
90836889|NCT00385671|181540639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.554||95.0||||p-value is for female, total. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of female participants with a categorical change in total score from baseline to 12 weeks in the Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ).||||0.554
91103945|NCT03992872|182094618|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||"Null hypothesis for analysis of percentage of subjects with Anti-VEEV PRNT neutralizing activity at or above selected thresholds by time point.~Day 29 : Subjects with Titer \>=640"||||<0.0001
90836890|NCT00385671|181540639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.128||95.0||||p-value is for female, total. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the number of female participants with a categorical change in total score from baseline to 12 weeks in the Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ).||||0.128
90836891|NCT00385671|181540639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.488||95.0||||p-value is for female, total. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of female participants with a categorical change in total score from baseline to 12 weeks in the Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ).||||0.488
90957196|NCT02084056|181793865|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (FDC/free combination) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted Geometric Means ratio|101.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.062||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.13|112.708|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|Ratio of (FDC 2000 fed/ L+M 2000 fed)|||112.708|91.130|0.0019
91090918|NCT02849080|182065428|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58||||0.0175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.91||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox||Oral Semaglutide flex / Sitagliptin 100 mg|Time to initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment, strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Censoring time was one day before planned end of treatment.||0.91|0.37|0.0175
91090919|NCT02849080|182065447|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.4381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.5||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox||Oral Semaglutide flex- Switch / Sitagliptin 100 mg- Switch|Time to initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment, strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Censoring time was one day before planned end of treatment.||1.50|0.39|0.4381
91090920|NCT02849080|182065448|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.47||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.09||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox||Oral semaglutide flex- Switch / Sitagliptin 100 mg- Switch|Time to initiation of rescue medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment, strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Censoring time was one day before last day on trial product.||1.09|0.20|0.0790
91090921|NCT00402727|182065487|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was set to 10% in the protocol, in agreeance with FDA recommendations. Sample size was estimated using the method as described in Farrington-Manning. Estimation was performed to achieve 85% power, based on the equivalence delta of 10%, and a clinical success rate of 80% in the per protocol population|Difference of cure rates (in percent)|-1.0||||||95.0|-5.3|3.9|||||A positive value indicates an advantage for the treatment group of moxifloxacin, a negative value an advantage for the comparator group.|Calculated were 95% confidence intervals for the difference in success rates between treatment groups (moxifloxacin minus comparator). Method as described in Koch et al.||3.9|-5.3|
91090922|NCT00402727|182065488|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size estimation was based on the primary efficacy variable.|Difference of cure rates (in percent)|1.3||||||95.0|-3.8|6.3|||||A positive value indicates an advantage for the treatment group of moxifloxacin, a negative value an advantage for the comparator group|Calculated were 95% confidence intervals for the difference in success rates between treatment groups (moxifloxacin minus comparator). Method as described in Koch et al.||6.3|-3.8|
91090923|NCT00402727|182065489|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size estimation was based on the primary efficacy variable.|Difference of improvement rates (in %)|-0.7||||||95.0|-1.6|0.6|||||A positive value indicates an advantage for the treatment group of moxifloxacin, a negative value an advantage for the comparator group|Calculated were 95% confidence intervals for the difference in success rates between treatment groups (moxifloxacin minus comparator). Method as described in Koch et al.||0.6|-1.6|
91090924|NCT00402727|182065490|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size estimation was based on the primary efficacy variable.|Difference of improvement rates (in %)|1.4||||||95.0|-1.3|3.9|||||A positive value indicates an advantage for the treatment group of moxifloxacin, a negative value an advantage for the comparator group|Calculated were 95% confidence intervals for the difference in success rates between treatment groups (moxifloxacin minus comparator). Method as described in Koch et al.||3.9|-1.3|
91090925|NCT00402727|182065491|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size estimation was based on the primary efficacy variable.|Difference of resolution rates (in %)|0.2||||||95.0|-3.1|2.4|||||A positive value indicates an advantage for the treatment group of moxifloxacin, a negative value an advantage for the comparator group|Calculated were 95% confidence intervals for the difference in success rates between treatment groups (moxifloxacin minus comparator). Method as described in Koch et al.||2.4|-3.1|
91090926|NCT00402727|182065492|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size estimation was based on the primary efficacy variable.|Difference of resolution rates (in %)|1.6||||||95.0|-2.4|5.3|||||A positive value indicates an advantage for the treatment group of moxifloxacin, a negative value an advantage for the comparator group|Calculated were 95% confidence intervals for the difference in success rates between treatment groups (moxifloxacin minus comparator). Method as described in Koch et al.||5.3|-2.4|
90836892|NCT00385671|181540639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.226||95.0||||p-value is for male, pleasure. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of male participants with a categorical change in pleasure subscore from baseline to 12 weeks in the Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ).||||0.226
90836893|NCT00385671|181540639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71||95.0||||p-value is for male, pleasure. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the number of male participants with a categorical change in pleasure subscore from baseline to 12 weeks in the Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ).||||0.710
90836894|NCT00385671|181540639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.133||95.0||||p-value is for male, pleasure. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of male participants with a categorical change in pleasure subscore from baseline to 12 weeks in the Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ).||||0.133
90836895|NCT00385671|181540639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.257||95.0||||p-value is for female, pleasure. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of female participants with a categorical change in pleasure subscore from baseline to 12 weeks in the Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ).||||0.257
90836896|NCT00385671|181540639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.412||95.0||||p-value is for female, pleasure. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the number of female participants with a categorical change in pleasure subscore from baseline to 12 weeks in the Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ).||||0.412
90836897|NCT00385671|181540639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0||||p-value is for female, pleasure. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of female participants with a categorical change in pleasure subscore from baseline to 12 weeks in the Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ).||||0.030
90836898|NCT00385671|181540639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024||95.0||||p-value is for male, desire/frequency. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of male participants with a categorical change in desire/frequency subscore from baseline to 12 weeks in the Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ).||||0.024
90836899|NCT00385671|181540639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25||95.0||||p-value is for male, desire/frequency. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the number of male participants with a categorical change in desire/frequency subscore from baseline to 12 weeks in the Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ).||||0.250
90836900|NCT00385671|181540639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.489||95.0||||p-value is for male, desire/frequency. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of male participants with a categorical change in desire/frequency subscore from baseline to 12 weeks in the Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ).||||0.489
90836901|NCT00385671|181540639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.682||95.0||||p-value is for female, desire/frequency. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of female participants with a categorical change in desire/frequency subscore from baseline to 12 weeks in the Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ).||||0.682
90836902|NCT00385671|181540639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.953||95.0||||p-value is for female, desire/frequency. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the number of female participants with a categorical change in desire/frequency subscore from baseline to 12 weeks in the Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ).||||0.953
90836903|NCT00385671|181540639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.803||95.0||||p-value is for female, desire/frequency. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of female participants with a categorical change in desire/frequency subscore from baseline to 12 weeks in the Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ).||||0.803
90836904|NCT00385671|181540639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.694||95.0||||p-value is for male, desire/interest. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of male participants with a categorical change in desire/interest subscore from baseline to 12 weeks in the Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ).||||0.694
90836905|NCT00385671|181540639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.835||95.0||||p-value is for male, desire/interest. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the number of male participants with a categorical change in desire/interest subscore from baseline to 12 weeks in the Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ).||||0.835
90836906|NCT00385671|181540639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.435||95.0||||p-value is for male, desire/interest. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of male participants with a categorical change in desire/interest subscore from baseline to 12 weeks in the Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ).||||0.435
90895915|NCT01951638|181657598|OTHER||Log-Scale mean difference|0.076|||=|0.7194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.33|||t-test, 1 sided|||Pairwise comparisons to placebo were performed in a hierarchical manner (from BAY1021189 from 2.5 to 10mg dose arm to BAY1021189 1.25mg dose arm). In accordance with the specification in the protocol these secondary analyses are considered exploratory only, since the primary analyses were not significant.||0.33|-0.18|= 0.7194
91027722|NCT02637557|181939625|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.073||||0.5966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.344|0.198||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||0.198|-0.344|0.5966
91090927|NCT00402727|182065493|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size estimation was based on the primary efficacy variable.|Difference of eradication rates (in %)|-8.5||||||95.0|-17.0|-1.4|||||A positive value indicates an advantage for the treatment group of moxifloxacin, a negative value an advantage for the comparator group|Calculated were 95% confidence intervals for the difference in success rates between treatment groups (moxifloxacin minus comparator). Method as described in Koch et al.||-1.4|-17.0|
91090928|NCT00402727|182065494|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size estimation was based on the primary efficacy variable.|Difference of eradication rates (in %)|-8.6||||||95.0|-17.6|-0.4|||||A positive value indicates an advantage for the treatment group of moxifloxacin, a negative value an advantage for the comparator group|Calculated were 95% confidence intervals for the difference in success rates between treatment groups (moxifloxacin minus comparator). Method as described in Koch et al.||-0.4|-17.6|
90836907|NCT00385671|181540639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.379||95.0||||p-value is for female, desire/interest. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of female participants with a categorical change in desire/interest subscore from baseline to 12 weeks in the Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ).||||0.379
91090929|NCT00402727|182065495|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size estimation was based on the primary efficacy variable.|Difference of eradication rates (in %)|-3.9||||||95.0|-9.5|1.4|||||A positive value indicates an advantage for the treatment group of moxifloxacin, a negative value an advantage for the comparator group|Calculated were 95% confidence intervals for the difference in success rates between treatment groups (moxifloxacin minus comparator). Method as described in Koch et al.||1.4|-9.5|
91090930|NCT00402727|182065496|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size estimation was based on the primary efficacy variable.|Difference of eradication rates (in %)|-5.6||||||95.0|-11.4|-0.8|||||A positive value indicates an advantage for the treatment group of moxifloxacin, a negative value an advantage for the comparator group|Calculated were 95% confidence intervals for the difference in success rates between treatment groups (moxifloxacin minus comparator). Method as described in Koch et al.||-0.8|-11.4|
91090931|NCT00402727|182065497|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size estimation was based on the primary efficacy variable.|Difference of eradication rates (in %)|-0.1||||||95.0|-6.9|5.4|||||A positive value indicates an advantage for the treatment group of moxifloxacin, a negative value an advantage for the comparator group|Calculated were 95% confidence intervals for the difference in success rates between treatment groups (moxifloxacin minus comparator). Method as described in Koch et al.||5.4|-6.9|
91090932|NCT00402727|182065498|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size estimation was based on the primary efficacy variable.|Difference of eradication rates (in %)|-2.9||||||95.0|-9.3|2.2|||||A positive value indicates an advantage for the treatment group of moxifloxacin, a negative value an advantage for the comparator group|Calculated were 95% confidence intervals for the difference in success rates between treatment groups (moxifloxacin minus comparator). Method as described in Koch et al.||2.2|-9.3|
91090933|NCT02360488|182065509|NON_INFERIORITY|The trial aimed to establish comparable efficacy based upon a non-inferiority margin of 30% of the change in Fugl-Meyer score in the In-Clinic group. Under these assumptions at alpha=0.05 and assuming SD=3.8 points, 124 subjects would need to be enrolled to provide 85% power; this sample was pursued independent of subject dropouts.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.06||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.14|2.26|||Regression, Linear|The model was adjusted for study site, age, time post-stroke, stroke subtype, and baseline Fugl-Meyer score.||||2.26|-2.14|.96
91090934|NCT02084511|182065526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.3|131.1|||||Mean difference (final values) is actually the Least square mean|ANCOVA model was used with 'treatment' as fixed effect, 'patient baseline pain intensity (BPI)' as continuous covariate and the residual error term.||131.1|-76.3|
91090935|NCT02084511|182065526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|53.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.2|157.1|||||Mean difference (final values) is actually the Least square mean|ANCOVA model was used with 'treatment' as fixed effect, 'patient baseline pain intensity (BPI)' as continuous covariate and the residual error term.||157.1|-50.2|
90836908|NCT00385671|181540639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.247||95.0||||p-value is for female, desire/interest. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the number of female participants with a categorical change in desire/interest subscore from baseline to 12 weeks in the Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ).||||0.247
90836909|NCT00385671|181540639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.784||95.0||||p-value is for female, desire/interest. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of female participants with a categorical change in desire/interest subscore from baseline to 12 weeks in the Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ).||||0.784
90836910|NCT00385671|181540639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.696||95.0||||p-value is for male, arousal. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of male participants with a categorical change in arousal subscore from baseline to 12 weeks in the Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ).||||0.696
90895916|NCT01951638|181657598|OTHER||Log-Scale mean difference|0.156|||=|0.8653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.43|||t-test, 1 sided|||Pairwise comparisons to placebo were performed in a hierarchical manner (from BAY1021189 from 2.5 to 10mg dose arm to BAY1021189 1.25mg dose arm). In accordance with the specification in the protocol these secondary analyses are considered exploratory only, since the primary analyses were not significant.||0.43|-0.12|= 0.8653
91090936|NCT02084511|182065526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-174.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-278.3|-70.9|||||Mean difference (final values) is actually the Least square mean|ANCOVA model was used with 'treatment' as fixed effect, 'patient baseline pain intensity (BPI)' as continuous covariate and the residual error term.||-70.9|-278.3|
91090937|NCT02084511|182065526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-148.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-252.4|-44.7|||||Mean difference (final values) is actually the Least square mean|ANCOVA model was used with 'treatment' as fixed effect, 'patient baseline pain intensity (BPI)' as continuous covariate and the residual error term.||-44.7|-252.4|
91090938|NCT02084511|182065527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|5.7|||||Mean difference (final values) is actually the Least square mean|ANCOVA model was used with 'treatment' as fixed effect, 'patient baseline pain intensity (BPI)' as continuous covariate and the residual error term.||5.7|-2.3|
91090939|NCT02084511|182065527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|5.0|||||Mean difference (final values) is actually the Least square mean|ANCOVA model was used with 'treatment' as fixed effect, 'patient baseline pain intensity (BPI)' as continuous covariate and the residual error term.||5.0|-3.0|
91090940|NCT02084511|182065527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|-2.2|||||Mean difference (final values) is actually the Least square mean|ANCOVA model was used with 'treatment' as fixed effect, 'patient baseline pain intensity (BPI)' as continuous covariate and the residual error term.||-2.2|-10.3|
91090941|NCT02084511|182065527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|-2.9|||||Mean difference (final values) is actually the Least square mean|ANCOVA model was used with 'treatment' as fixed effect, 'patient baseline pain intensity (BPI)' as continuous covariate and the residual error term.||-2.9|-11.0|
91090942|NCT02084511|182065528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|27.8|||||Mean difference (final values) is actually the Least square mean|ANCOVA model was used with 'treatment' as fixed effect, 'patient baseline pain intensity (BPI)' as continuous covariate and the residual error term.||27.8|-16.0|
91090943|NCT02084511|182065528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|42.5|||||Mean difference (final values) is actually the Least square mean|ANCOVA model was used with 'treatment' as fixed effect, 'patient baseline pain intensity (BPI)' as continuous covariate and the residual error term.||42.5|-1.3|
90836911|NCT00385671|181540639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.725||95.0||||P-value is for male, arousal. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the number of male participants with a categorical change in arousal subscore from baseline to 12 weeks in the Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ).||||0.725
90836912|NCT00385671|181540639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.899||95.0||||P-value is for male, arousal. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of male participants with a categorical change in arousal subscore from baseline to 12 weeks in the Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ).||||0.899
91090944|NCT02084511|182065528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.2|8.6|||||Mean difference (final values) is actually the Least square mean|ANCOVA model was used with 'treatment' as fixed effect, 'patient baseline pain intensity (BPI)' as continuous covariate and the residual error term.||8.6|-35.2|
91090945|NCT02084511|182065528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.6|23.3|||||Mean difference (final values) is actually the Least square mean|ANCOVA model was used with 'treatment' as fixed effect, 'patient baseline pain intensity (BPI)' as continuous covariate and the residual error term.||23.3|-20.6|
91090946|NCT02084511|182065529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2503|||||||Log Rank|||Log rank test used to evaluate the difference between each active treatment and placebo.||||0.2503
91090947|NCT02084511|182065529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1851|||||||Log Rank|||Log rank test used to evaluate the difference between each active treatment and placebo.||||0.1851
91090948|NCT02084511|182065529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0167|||||||Log Rank|||Log rank test used to evaluate the difference between each active treatment and placebo.||||0.0167
91090949|NCT02084511|182065530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.415|||||||Log Rank|||Log rank test used to evaluate the difference between each active treatment and placebo.||||0.4150
91090950|NCT02084511|182065530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3093|||||||Log Rank|||Log rank test used to evaluate the difference between each active treatment and placebo.||||0.3093
91090951|NCT02084511|182065530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0074|||||||Log Rank|||Log rank test used to evaluate the difference between each active treatment and placebo.||||0.0074
91090952|NCT00461734|182065535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4347|||||||two-sided z-test|||||||0.4347
91090953|NCT00461734|182065536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.338|||||||two-sided z-test|||||||0.338
91090954|NCT00461734|182065537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2257|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2257
91090955|NCT00461734|182065538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.548|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5480
91090956|NCT00461734|182065539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8868|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8868
91090957|NCT00461734|182065540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6151|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6151
91090958|NCT00461734|182065544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0525|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0525
91090959|NCT00461734|182065545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1852|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1852
91090960|NCT00461734|182065547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9719|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.9719
91090961|NCT00461734|182065548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8779|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8779
91090962|NCT03204643|182065560|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.02|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.02|0.54|0.06
91090963|NCT03204643|182065561|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.64|0.70|0.76
90836913|NCT00385671|181540639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.782||95.0||||P-value is for female, arousal. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of female participants with a categorical change in arousal subscore from baseline to 12 weeks in the Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ).||||0.782
90836914|NCT00385671|181540639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.307||95.0||||P-value is for female, arousal. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the number of female participants with a categorical change in arousal subscore from baseline to 12 weeks in the Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ).||||0.307
90836915|NCT00385671|181540639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.457||95.0||||P-value is for female, arousal. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of female participants with a categorical change in arousal subscore from baseline to 12 weeks in the Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ).||||0.457
90836916|NCT00385671|181540639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.712||95.0||||P-value is for male, orgasm. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of male participants with a categorical change in orgasm subscore from baseline to 12 weeks in the Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ).||||0.712
90836917|NCT00385671|181540639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.403||95.0||||P-value is for male, orgasm. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the number of male participants with a categorical change in orgasm subscore from baseline to 12 weeks in the Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ).||||0.403
90836918|NCT00385671|181540639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.713||95.0||||P-value is for male, orgasm. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of male participants with a categorical change in orgasm subscore from baseline to 12 weeks in the Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ).||||0.713
90836919|NCT00385671|181540639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.498||95.0||||P-value is for female, orgasm. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of female participants with a categorical change in orgasm subscore from baseline to 12 weeks in the Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ).||||0.498
90836920|NCT00385671|181540639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.963||95.0||||P-value is for female, orgasm. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the number of female participants with a categorical change in orgasm subscore from baseline to 12 weeks in the Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ).||||0.963
90836921|NCT00385671|181540639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.338||95.0||||P-value is for female, orgasm. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of female participants with a categorical change in orgasm subscore from baseline to 12 weeks in the Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ).||||0.338
90836922|NCT00385671|181540640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.645||95.0||||P-value is for total. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Portland Neurotoxicity Scale Total Score.||||0.645
91090964|NCT03204643|182065562|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|2.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.08|0.65|0.62
90836923|NCT00385671|181540640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.248||95.0||||P-value is for total. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Portland Neurotoxicity Scale Total Score.||||0.248
91090965|NCT03204643|182065563|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|0.96|0.96|1.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.90|0.96|0.08
91090966|NCT00944710|182065576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|1.0||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|30.0|||Binomial regression|adjusted for visual acuity at randomization||||30|-10|0.33
91090967|NCT00944710|182065581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.12|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included amblyopic eye visual acuity at randomization as an adjustment covariate.|Positive values favor the Intensified Treatment group|The primary analysis was a treatment group comparison of the masked 10-week amblyopic eye visual acuity using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model, adjusting for visual acuity at randomization. The analysis was a 2-sided test for efficacy to test the null hypothesis of no treatment difference, assuming 90% power and a type I error rate of 5%.||0.12|-0.01|0.12
90895917|NCT01951638|181657598|OTHER||Log-Scale mean difference|0.171|||=|0.9041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.43|||t-test, 1 sided|||Pairwise comparisons to placebo were performed in a hierarchical manner (from BAY1021189 from 2.5 to 10mg dose arm to BAY1021189 1.25mg dose arm). In accordance with the specification in the protocol these secondary analyses are considered exploratory only, since the primary analyses were not significant.||0.43|-0.09|= 0.9041
91090968|NCT00944710|182065589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.43|||ANCOVA|||A treatment group difference in fellow-eye visual acuity change at the 12-week exam was evaluated using an ANCOVA model, adjusting for the fellow-eye visual acuity at randomization.||0.43|-0.23|0.55
91090969|NCT00944710|182065598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of 12-week Randot Preschool Stereoacuity scores was compared between treatment groups using a Wilcoxon rank sum test.||||0.23
91090970|NCT00944710|182065599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of 12-week Randot Preschool Stereoacuity scores was compared between treatment groups using a Wilcoxon rank sum test.||||0.66
91090971|NCT02563899|182065698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference in treatment|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.2|39.9||||||Umeclidinium, 2 mg/cm\^2 of 1.85%, OD Vs Vehicle: \<=-30%||39.9|-42.2|
91090972|NCT02563899|182065698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference in treatment|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.9|42.2||||||Umeclidinium, 2 mg/cm\^2 of 1.85%, OD vs Vehicle: \<=-50%||42.2|-39.9|
91090973|NCT02563899|182065698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference in treatment|9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.2|44.0||||||Umeclidinium, 2 mg/cm\^2 of 1.85%, OD Vs Vehicle: \<=-70%||44.0|-25.2|
90836924|NCT00385671|181540640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47||95.0||||P-value is for total. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Portland Neurotoxicity Scale Total Score.||||0.470
90836925|NCT00385671|181540640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.914||95.0||||P-value is for cognitive toxicity. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Portland Neurotoxicity Cognitive Toxicity Score.||||0.914
90836926|NCT00385671|181540640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.505||95.0||||P-value is for cognitive toxicity. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Portland Neurotoxicity Cognitive Toxicity Score.||||0.505
90836927|NCT00385671|181540640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57||95.0||||P-value is for cognitive toxicity. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Portland Neurotoxicity Cognitive Toxicity Score.||||0.570
90836928|NCT00385671|181540640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43||95.0||||P-value is for somatomotor toxicity. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Portland Neurotoxicity Scale Somatomotor Toxicity Score.||||0.430
91090974|NCT02563899|182065700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference in treatment|27.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|62.6||||||||62.6|-8.5|
91090975|NCT02008526|182065701|SUPERIORITY||F|1.16||||0.3137|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|2 Degrees of Freedom||||||0.3137
91090976|NCT02008526|182065702|SUPERIORITY||F|0.16||||0.8494|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|2 Degrees of Freedom||||||0.8494
91090977|NCT01062308|182065709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference from baseline to day 30|-11.8||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.6|-1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.1|-22.6|0.03
91090978|NCT01062308|182065710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference from baseline to day 30|6.6||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|15.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||15.9|-2.7|0.16
91090979|NCT02322749|182065723|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% confidence intervals for both AUC and Cmax were entirely contained within the limits 80.00% to 125.00% then bioequivalence was concluded.|Geometric Least Squares (LS) Mean Ratio|9.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.25|10.53|||||Selumetinib: Ratio of Treatment B to Treatment A based on a linear mixed-effects model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and volunteer nested within sequence as a random effect.|||10.53|8.25|
91090980|NCT02322749|182065724|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% confidence intervals for both AUC and Cmax were entirely contained within the limits 80.00% to 125.00% then bioequivalence was concluded.|Geometric LS Mean Ratio|24.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|22.62|26.03|||||Selumetinib: Ratio of Treatment B to Treatment A based on a linear mixed-effects model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and volunteer nested within sequence as a random effect.|||26.03|22.62|
91090981|NCT02322749|182065725|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% confidence intervals for both AUC and Cmax were entirely contained within the limits 80.00% to 125.00% then bioequivalence was concluded.|Geometric LS mean ratio|22.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|20.65|23.69|||||Selumetinib: Ratio of Treatment B to Treatment A based on a linear mixed-effects model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and volunteer nested within sequence as a random effect.|||23.69|20.65|
91090982|NCT02322749|182065726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|12.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|11.42|14.65|||||Selumetinib: Ratio of Treatment C to Treatment A based on a linear mixed-effects model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and volunteer nested within sequence as a random effect.|||14.65|11.42|
91090983|NCT02322749|182065727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|26.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|24.44|28.09|||||Selumetinib: Ratio of Treatment C to Treatment A based on a linear mixed-effects model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and volunteer nested within sequence as a random effect.|||28.09|24.44|
91090984|NCT02322749|182065728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|23.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|22.02|25.3|||||Selumetinib: Ratio of Treatment C to Treatment A based on a linear mixed-effects model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and volunteer nested within sequence as a random effect.|||25.30|22.02|
90836929|NCT00385671|181540640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09||95.0||||P-value is for somatomotor toxicity. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Portland Neurotoxicity Scale Somatomotor Toxicity Score.||||0.090
90836930|NCT00385671|181540640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.341||95.0||||P-value is for somatomotor toxicity. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Portland Neurotoxicity Scale Somatomotor Toxicity Score.||||0.341
90836931|NCT00385671|181540641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13||95.0||||P-value is for total. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of participants with a categorial change from baseline to 12 weeks in the Portland Neurotoxicity Scale total score.||||0.130
90836932|NCT00385671|181540641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.192||95.0||||P-value is for total. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the number of participants with a categorial change from baseline to 12 weeks in the Portland Neurotoxicity Scale total score.||||0.192
90836933|NCT00385671|181540641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.936||95.0||||P-value is for total. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of participants with a categorial change from baseline to 12 weeks in the Portland Neurotoxicity Scale total score.||||0.936
90836934|NCT00385671|181540641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48||95.0||||P-value is for cognitive toxicity. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of participants with a categorial change from baseline to 12 weeks in the Portland Neurotoxicity Scale cognitive toxicity score.||||0.480
90836935|NCT00385671|181540641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69||95.0||||P-value is for cognitive toxicity. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the number of participants with a categorial change from baseline to 12 weeks in the Portland Neurotoxicity Scale cognitive toxicity score.||||0.690
90836936|NCT00385671|181540641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.923||95.0||||P-value is for cognitive toxicity. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of participants with a categorial change from baseline to 12 weeks in the Portland Neurotoxicity Scale cognitive toxicity score.||||0.923
90836937|NCT00385671|181540641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.202||95.0||||P-value is for somatomotor toxicity. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of participants with a categorial change from baseline to 12 weeks in the Portland Neurotoxicity Scale somatomotor toxicity score.||||0.202
90836938|NCT00385671|181540641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.114||95.0||||P-value is for somatomotor toxicity. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the number of participants with a categorial change from baseline to 12 weeks in the Portland Neurotoxicity Scale somatomotor toxicity score.||||0.114
90836939|NCT00385671|181540641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.954||95.0||||P-value is for somatomotor toxicity. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of participants with a categorial change from baseline to 12 weeks in the Portland Neurotoxicity Scale somatomotor toxicity score.||||0.954
91090985|NCT02322749|182065729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|9.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.5|10.97|||||N-desmethyl selumetinib: Ratio of Treatment B to Treatment A based on a linear mixed-effects model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and volunteer nested within sequence as a random effect|||10.97|8.5|
91090986|NCT02322749|182065729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|13.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|11.45|14.86|||||N-desmethyl selumetinib: Ratio of Treatment C to Treatment A based on a linear mixed-effects model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and volunteer nested within sequence as a random effect.|||14.86|11.45|
91090987|NCT02322749|182065730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|11.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.8|13.05|||||N-desmethyl selumetinib: Ratio of Treatment B to Treatment A based on a linear mixed-effects model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and volunteer nested within sequence as a random effect.|||13.05|9.80|
90895918|NCT01951638|181657598|OTHER||Log-Scale mean difference|0.052|||=|0.6572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.3|||t-test, 1 sided|||Pairwise comparisons to placebo were performed in a hierarchical manner (from BAY1021189 from 2.5 to 10mg dose arm to BAY1021189 1.25mg dose arm). In accordance with the specification in the protocol these secondary analyses are considered exploratory only, since the primary analyses were not significant.||0.3|-0.2|= 0.6572
90836940|NCT00385671|181540642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.107||95.0||||P-value for Direct Treatment Effect. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for tests of direct and indirect effects.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.107
90836941|NCT00385671|181540643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.968||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in BDI-II total score.||||0.968
90836942|NCT00385671|181540643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.492||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in BDI-II total score.||||0.492
90836943|NCT00385671|181540643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.463||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in BDI-II total score.||||0.463
90836944|NCT00385671|181540646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.103||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Log Rank|Pairwise p-values come from the log-rank test comparing treatment-specific time-to-event curves constructed using the Kaplan-Meier technique.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in time to first ≥ 30% reduction in weekly mean 24 hour average pain score.||||0.103
90836945|NCT00385671|181540646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.167||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Log Rank|Pairwise p-values come from the log-rank test comparing treatment-specific time-to-event curves constructed using the Kaplan-Meier technique.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in time to first ≥ 30% reduction in weekly mean 24 hour average pain score.||||0.167
90836946|NCT00385671|181540646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.919||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Log Rank|Pairwise p-values come from the log-rank test comparing treatment-specific time-to-event curves constructed using the Kaplan-Meier technique.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in time to first ≥ 30% reduction in weekly mean 24 hour average pain score.||||0.919
90836947|NCT00385671|181540649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Log Rank|Pairwise p-values come from the log-rank test comparing treatment-specific time-to-event curves constructed using the Kaplan-Meier technique.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in time to first ≥ 2 points reduction in weekly mean 24 hour average pain score.||||0.008
90836948|NCT00385671|181540649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Log Rank|Pairwise p-values come from the log-rank test comparing treatment-specific time-to-event curves constructed using the Kaplan-Meier technique.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in time to first ≥ 2 points reduction in weekly mean 24 hour average pain score.||||0.033
90895919|NCT01951638|181657599|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.629|||=|0.8156|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.36|4.62|||t-test, 1 sided|||For the primary analysis, the three highest active treatment groups (BAY1021189 2.5mg, BAY1021189 2.5 to 5mg, BAY1021189 2.5 to 10mg) were pooled and compared to the assigned placebo treatment group with a one-sided two-sample t-test. The Hochberg procedure was used to test the two primary end points at study-wise significance level of 5%. Results are reported including 90% confidence intervals (CI) for the difference of means.||4.62|-1.36|= 0.8156
90895920|NCT01951638|181657599|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.707|||=|0.7945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.39|5.8|||t-test, 1 sided|||Pairwise comparisons to placebo were performed in a hierarchical manner (from BAY1021189 from 2.5 to 10mg dose arm to BAY1021189 1.25mg dose arm). In accordance with the specification in the protocol these secondary analyses are considered exploratory only, since the primary analyses were not significant.||5.8|-2.39|= 0.7945
91090988|NCT02322749|182065730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|12.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|11.07|14.8|||||N-desmethyl selumetinib: Ratio of Treatment C to Treatment A based on a linear mixed-effects model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and volunteer nested within sequence as a random effect.|||14.80|11.07|
91103946|NCT03992872|182094619|SUPERIORITY||GMR (Prior Alpha / Naïve Alpha)|23.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.54|46.35||P-values were based on an ANOVA model with log10-transformed titer as the dependent variable and study arm, age, and gender as predictors.|ANOVA||Differences in least squares means from the ANOVA model were back-transformed and reported as geometric mean ratios with 95% confidence intervals.|Day 1: Geometric mean ratio (prior alpha group over naïve alpha group) and 95% confidence interval||46.35|11.54|<0.0001
90836949|NCT00385671|181540649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.688||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Log Rank|Pairwise p-values come from the log-rank test comparing treatment-specific time-to-event curves constructed using the Kaplan-Meier technique.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in time to first ≥ 2 points reduction in weekly mean 24 hour average pain score.||||0.688
90836950|NCT00385671|181540651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28||||0.365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.9||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week with participant is as a random effect, Kenward-Roger approximation.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Weekly mean change from baseline to 12 weeks in 24 hour average pain severity score when analyzing only treatment-compliant participants.||0.90|-0.33|0.365
91090989|NCT01190813|182065736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|11.0||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|28.0|||Fisher Exact|It was not possible to adjust for baseline VA in these secondary analyses due to the small number of subjects meeting secondary outcome criteria.|Treatment group difference calculated as Levodopa - Placebo|A sample size of 129 participants provided 80% power with 1-sided type I error rate of 5% to reject the hypothesis of no difference between groups if the proportion improved was 30% in the levodopa group compared with 10% in the placebo group.||28|-7|0.06
91090990|NCT01190813|182065739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|18.0|||||Levodopa - Placebo|||18|-17|
90836951|NCT00385671|181540651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.46||||0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.13||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week with participant is as a random effect, Kenward-Roger approximation.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Weekly mean change from baseline to 12 weeks in 24 hour average pain severity score when analyzing only treatment-compliant participants.||1.13|-0.20|0.172
90836952|NCT00385671|181540651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.85||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week with participant is as a random effect, Kenward-Roger approximation.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Weekly mean change from baseline to 12 weeks in 24 hour average pain severity score when analyzing only treatment-compliant participants.||0.85|-0.49|0.594
90836953|NCT00385671|181540652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16||||0.622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.8||P-value is for de novo, week 1. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin de novo group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 1.||0.80|-0.48|0.622
90895921|NCT01951638|181657599|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.109|||=|0.7917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.01|7.23|||t-test, 1 sided|||Pairwise comparisons to placebo were performed in a hierarchical manner (from BAY1021189 from 2.5 to 10mg dose arm to BAY1021189 1.25mg dose arm). In accordance with the specification in the protocol these secondary analyses are considered exploratory only, since the primary analyses were not significant.||7.23|-3.01|= 0.7917
90895922|NCT01951638|181657599|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.219|||=|0.7241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.82|5.26|||t-test, 1 sided|||Pairwise comparisons to placebo were performed in a hierarchical manner (from BAY1021189 from 2.5 to 10mg dose arm to BAY1021189 1.25mg dose arm). In accordance with the specification in the protocol these secondary analyses are considered exploratory only, since the primary analyses were not significant.||5.26|-2.82|= 0.7241
90895923|NCT01951638|181657599|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.198|||=|0.7546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|4.63|||t-test, 1 sided|||Pairwise comparisons to placebo were performed in a hierarchical manner (from BAY1021189 from 2.5 to 10mg dose arm to BAY1021189 1.25mg dose arm). In accordance with the specification in the protocol these secondary analyses are considered exploratory only, since the primary analyses were not significant.||4.63|-2.23|= 0.7546
91090991|NCT01190813|182065740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.0|10.0||||||||10|-25|
91090992|NCT01190813|182065741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|13.0|||||Levodopa - Placebo|||13|-22|
91090993|NCT01190813|182065749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.3|||ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated as Levodopa - Placebo|||1.3|-1.9|0.65
91090994|NCT01190813|182065751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.8|||ANCOVA|||||1.8|-1.6|0.44
91090995|NCT01190813|182065753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|2.9|||ANCOVA|||||2.9|-1.2|0.20
91090996|NCT01190813|182065755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9||||0.17|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.17
90836954|NCT00385671|181540652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.49||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|1.16||P-value is for de novo, week 1. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the gabapentin de novo group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 1.||1.16|-0.18|0.153
90836955|NCT00385671|181540652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33||||0.344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|1.0||P-value is for de novo, week 1. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin de novo group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 1.||1.00|-0.35|0.344
90836956|NCT00385671|181540652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.71||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|1.45||P-value is for de novo, week 2. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin de novo group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 2.||1.45|-0.02|0.058
90836957|NCT00385671|181540652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.83||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.59||P-value is for de novo, week 2. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the gabapentin de novo group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 2.||1.59|0.07|0.032
90836958|NCT00385671|181540652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.9||P-value is for de novo, week 2. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin de novo group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 2.||0.90|-0.66|0.762
90836959|NCT00385671|181540652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.91||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.73||P-value is for de novo, week 3. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin de novo group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 3.||1.73|0.09|0.029
90836960|NCT00385671|181540652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.12||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.97||P-value is for de nove, 3 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the gabapentin de novo group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 3.||1.97|0.27|0.010
90836961|NCT00385671|181540652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||0.619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|1.06||P-value is for de nove, 3 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin de novo group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 3.||1.06|-0.63|0.619
90836962|NCT00385671|181540652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.83||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|1.69||P-value is for de novo, 4 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin de novo group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 4.||1.69|-0.03|0.058
90836963|NCT00385671|181540652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.51||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|2.41||P-value is for de novo, 4 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the gabapentin de novo group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 4.||2.41|0.61|0.001
90895924|NCT03764072|181657603|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2107||||||Dose response Model - Linear|Multiple Comparison Procedure-Modelling|||||||0.2107
90895925|NCT03764072|181657603|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0766||||||Dose response Model - Emax|Multiple Comparison Procedure-Modelling|||||||0.0766
90895926|NCT03764072|181657603|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0989||||||Dose response Model - Logistic|Multiple Comparison Procedure-Modelling|||||||0.0989
90895927|NCT03764072|181657603|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0927||||||Dose-response Model - Sigmoid Emax|Multiple Comparison Procedure-Modelling|||||||0.0927
91090997|NCT01190813|182065759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.4||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|3.3||The alpha level was set to 0.0485 for the primary analysis to adjust for alpha spending of 0.015 for one interim analysis for efficacy conducted when outcome data were available for 50% of participants.|ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated as Levodopa - Placebo|With 129 participants, assuming a 1-sided type I error rate of 4.85%, there was 96% power to detect a difference in mean visual acuity between treatment groups at 18 weeks adjusted for baseline and for 1 interim analysis for futility if the true difference was 5 letters with SD of 7 letters and 82% power if the true difference was 3.75 letters||3.3|-0.4|0.06
91090998|NCT04265261|182065787|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.19||||0.8586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.86|14.23|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||14.23|-11.86|0.8586
91090999|NCT04265261|182065787|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.93||||0.6388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.18|9.31|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||9.31|-15.18|0.6388
91091000|NCT04745351|182065805|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.816||||0.6132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.504|1.321||P-value was calculated from stratified log-rank test, stratified by the baseline stratification factors.|Log Rank|||||1.321|0.504|0.6132
91091001|NCT04745351|182065806|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.3881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.497|1.388||P-value was calculated from stratified log-rank test stratified by the baseline stratification factors.|Log Rank|||||1.388|0.497|0.3881
90836964|NCT00385671|181540652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.68||||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|1.58||P-value is for de nove, 4 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin de novo group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 1.||1.58|-0.23|0.142
90836965|NCT00385671|181540652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.85||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|1.76||P-value is for de novo, 5 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin de novo group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 5.||1.76|-0.05|0.065
91091002|NCT04745351|182065807|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.043||||0.9116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.493|2.207||The treatment effect p-value was calculated using Cox model with death as the competing risk and baseline stratification factors as covariates.|Regression, Cox|||||2.207|0.493|0.9116
91091003|NCT04745351|182065810|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8541||||||P-value was analysed from proportional odds model including treatment as the independent variable.|Proportional odds model|||||||0.8541
90895928|NCT03764072|181657605|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3162|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3162
91091004|NCT04745351|182065811|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4974||||||P-value was analysed from proportional odds model including treatment as the independent variable.|Proportional odds model|||||||0.4974
91091005|NCT04745351|182065812|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4283||||||P-value was calculated based on Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4283
90895929|NCT03764072|181657605|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4613|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4613
91091006|NCT04745351|182065813|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk|0.89||||0.2773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.731|1.091||The treatment effect p-value was calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) analysis including baseline stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.091|0.731|0.2773
91091007|NCT04745351|182065814|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk|0.97||||0.7538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.819|1.155||The treatment effect p-value was calculated using CMH analysis including baseline stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.155|0.819|0.7538
90895930|NCT03764072|181657605|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4095|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4095
90895931|NCT03764072|181657605|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.157|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1570
90895932|NCT03764072|181657605|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9843|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.9843
90895933|NCT03764072|181657606|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8714|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.8714
91091008|NCT01248416|182065817|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.006|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.006
91091009|NCT01248416|182065819|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.906|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.906
91091010|NCT01248416|182065820|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.015
91091011|NCT01248416|182065822|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91091012|NCT01248416|182065823|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91091013|NCT01248416|182065824|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0003
91091014|NCT02014272|182065826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|95.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.07|98.94||||||Natural log transformed AUClast of rifampicin was analyzed using mixed effects model with sequence,period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as random effect.The adjusted mean differences and 90% confidence intervals(CIs) for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of ratio of adjusted geometric means(Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios,where FDC tablet were test and single drugs were reference.Values were back-transformed from the log scale.||98.94|92.07|
91091015|NCT02014272|182065826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|103.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.33|107.75||||||Natural log transformed AUClast of isoniazid was analyzed using mixed effects model with sequence,period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as random effect.The adjusted mean differences and 90% confidence intervals(CIs) for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of ratio of adjusted geometric means(Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios,where FDC tablet were test and single drugs were reference.Values were back-transformed from the log scale.||107.75|99.33|
91103947|NCT03992872|182094619|SUPERIORITY||GMR (Prior Alpha / Naïve Alpha)|172.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|106.6|279.19||P-values were based on an ANOVA model with log10-transformed titer as the dependent variable and study arm, age, and gender as predictors.|ANOVA||Differences in least squares means from the ANOVA model were back-transformed and reported as geometric mean ratios with 95% confidence intervals.|Day 22: Geometric mean ratio (prior alpha group over naïve alpha group) and 95% confidence interval||279.19|106.60|<0.0001
90836966|NCT00385671|181540652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.65||P-value is for de novo, 5 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the gabapentin de novo group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 5.||2.65|0.75|<0.001
90836967|NCT00385671|181540652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.85||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.79||P-value is for de novo, 5 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin de novo group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 5.||1.79|-0.10|0.079
90836968|NCT00385671|181540652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.79||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|1.71||P-value is for de novo, 6 week. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin de novo group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 6.||1.71|-0.13|0.093
90836969|NCT00385671|181540652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.56||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.53||P-value is for de novo, 6 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the gabapentin de novo group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 6.||2.53|0.59|0.002
90836970|NCT00385671|181540652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.77||||0.119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.74||P-value is for de novo, 6 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin de novo group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 6.||1.74|-0.20|0.119
90836971|NCT00385671|181540652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.98||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|1.91||P-value is for de novo, 7 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin de novo group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 7.||1.91|0.06|0.036
90836972|NCT00385671|181540652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|2.61||P-value is for de novo, 7 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the gabapentin de novo group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 7.||2.61|0.68|<0.001
90836973|NCT00385671|181540652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.66||||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.63||P-value is for de novo, 7 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin de novo group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 7.||1.63|-0.30|0.178
90836974|NCT00385671|181540652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.81||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|1.75||P-value is for de novo, 8 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin de novo group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 8.||1.75|-0.14|0.093
90895934|NCT03764072|181657606|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5815|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.5815
90895935|NCT03764072|181657606|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4308|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4308
90895936|NCT03764072|181657606|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4434|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4434
90895937|NCT03764072|181657606|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.855|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.8550
90895938|NCT03764072|181657607|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.687|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.6870
90895939|NCT03764072|181657607|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1515|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1515
90895940|NCT03764072|181657607|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.603|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.6030
90895941|NCT03764072|181657607|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1361|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1361
90895942|NCT03764072|181657607|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.564|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.5640
90836975|NCT00385671|181540652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.52||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|2.51||P-value is for de novo, 8 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the gabapentin de novo group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 7.||2.51|0.53|0.003
90836976|NCT00385671|181540652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.72||||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|1.71||P-value is for de novo, 8 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin de novo group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 1.||1.71|-0.28|0.157
90836977|NCT00385671|181540652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.89||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|1.82||P-value is for de novo, 9 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin de novo group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 9.||1.82|-0.05|0.063
90836978|NCT00385671|181540652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.66||P-value is for de novo, 9 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the gabapentin de novo group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 9.||2.66|0.70|<0.001
90836979|NCT00385671|181540652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.79||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|1.77||P-value is for de novo, 9 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin de novo group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 9.||1.77|-0.19|0.114
90836980|NCT00385671|181540652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.51||||0.295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|1.46||P-value is for de novo, 10 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin de novo group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 10.||1.46|-0.44|0.295
90836981|NCT00385671|181540652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.44||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.44||P-value is for de novo, 10 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the gabapentin de novo group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 10.||2.44|0.45|0.005
90895943|NCT03764072|181657608|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.26||||0.5405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.67|||Regression, Cox|||||2.67|0.60|0.5405
90895944|NCT03764072|181657608|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.9011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|2.27|||Regression, Cox|||||2.27|0.49|0.9011
90895945|NCT03764072|181657608|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.9127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|2.26|||Regression, Cox|||||2.26|0.48|0.9127
90895946|NCT03764072|181657608|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.24||||0.5619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.56|||Regression, Cox|||||2.56|0.60|0.5619
90895947|NCT03764072|181657608|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18||||0.709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.79|||Regression, Cox|||||2.79|0.50|0.7090
90895948|NCT03764072|181657609|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.28||||0.5141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|2.72|||Regression, Cox|||||2.72|0.61|0.5141
90895949|NCT03764072|181657609|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.9614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.12|||Regression, Cox|||||2.12|0.45|0.9614
91027723|NCT02637557|181939625|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.324||||0.0203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.596|-0.051||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||-0.051|-0.596|0.0203
90895950|NCT03764072|181657609|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.9756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|2.14|||Regression, Cox|||||2.14|0.46|0.9756
90895951|NCT03764072|181657609|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.24||||0.5582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.57|||Regression, Cox|||||2.57|0.60|0.5582
90895952|NCT03764072|181657609|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||0.7543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|2.71|||Regression, Cox|||||2.71|0.49|0.7543
90895953|NCT01338025|181657614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.03
91027724|NCT02637557|181939625|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.025||||0.854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.294|0.244||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 5||0.244|-0.294|0.8540
91027725|NCT02637557|181939625|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.022||||0.8757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.293|0.25||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 5||0.250|-0.293|0.8757
90836982|NCT00385671|181540652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.94||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|1.94||P-value is for de novo, 10 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin de novo group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 10.||1.94|-0.06|0.066
90836983|NCT00385671|181540652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.62||||0.208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|1.58||P-value is for de novo, 11 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin de novo group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 11.||1.58|-0.35|0.208
90836984|NCT00385671|181540652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|2.51||P-value is for de novo, 11 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the gabapentin de novo group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 11.||2.51|0.49|0.004
90836985|NCT00385671|181540652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.88||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|1.89||P-value is for de novo, 11 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin de novo group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 11.||1.89|-0.13|0.086
90836986|NCT00385671|181540652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.48||||0.328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|1.45||P-value is for de novo, 12 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin de novo group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 12.||1.45|-0.49|0.328
90836987|NCT00385671|181540652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.46||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|2.47||P-value is for de novo, 12 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the gabapentin de novo group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 12.||2.47|0.44|0.005
90836988|NCT00385671|181540652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.98||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|1.99||P-value is for de novo, 12 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin de novo group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 12.||1.99|-0.04|0.059
90836989|NCT00385671|181540652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.35||||0.117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.79||P-value is for prior use, 1 week. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin prior use group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 1.||0.79|-0.09|0.117
90895954|NCT03188055|181657618|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.006
90895955|NCT03188055|181657619|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.709|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.709
90895956|NCT03188055|181657620|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
90895957|NCT03188055|181657621|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.063|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.063
90895958|NCT03188055|181657622|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.892|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.892
90895959|NCT03188055|181657623|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99||||||Using an a priori statistical significance of 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Comparison of concordance status by intervention status (outcome by predictor).||||> . 99
90895960|NCT03188055|181657624|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.188|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.188
90895961|NCT03188055|181657625|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.042|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.042
90895962|NCT03188055|181657627|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.698|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.698
90895963|NCT03188055|181657628|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.15
90895964|NCT01024608|181657634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean treatment diff from placebo|-0.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.5||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05.|ANCOVA|Repeated measures ANCOVA included covariate adjustment for baseline, day, treatment, and the treatment by day interaction.||||-0.5|-1.3|<0.001
90895965|NCT01024608|181657635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean treatment diff from placebo|-0.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.5||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05|ANCOVA|The repeated measures ANCOVA included covariate adjustment for baseline, day, treatment, and the treatment by day interaction.||||-0.5|-1.3|<0.001
90836990|NCT00385671|181540652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.62||P-value is for prior use, 1 week. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the gabapentin prior use group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 1.||0.62|-0.25|0.412
90836991|NCT00385671|181540652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.26||P-value is for prior use, 1 week. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin prior use group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 1.||0.26|-0.60|0.445
90836992|NCT00385671|181540652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.58||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.09||P-value is for prior use, 2 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin prior use group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 2.||1.09|0.07|0.025
90836993|NCT00385671|181540652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29||||0.257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.79||P-value is for prior use, 2 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the gabapentin prior use group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 2.||0.79|-0.21|0.257
90836994|NCT00385671|181540652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29||||0.257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.21||P-value is for prior use, 2 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin prior use group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 2.||0.21|-0.79|0.257
90836995|NCT00385671|181540652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|1.04||P-value is for prior use, 3 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin prior use group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 3.||1.04|-0.05|0.075
90836996|NCT00385671|181540652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.68||P-value is for prior use, 3 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the gabapentin prior use group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 3.||0.68|-0.42|0.634
90836997|NCT00385671|181540652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36||||0.193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.19||P-value is for prior use, 3 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin prior use group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 3.||0.19|-0.91|0.193
90836998|NCT00385671|181540652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.7||P-value is for prior use, 4 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin prior use group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 4.||0.70|-0.46|0.688
90836999|NCT00385671|181540652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.56||P-value is for prior use, 4 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the gabapentin prior use group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 4.||0.56|-0.60|0.944
90895966|NCT01024608|181657636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean treatment diff from placebo|-0.48||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.1||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Results obtained from ANCOVA with treatment, baseline and center in the model.||||-0.1|-0.8|0.005
90837000|NCT00385671|181540652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.45||P-value is for prior use, 4 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin prior use group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 4.||0.45|-0.73|0.640
90837001|NCT00385671|181540652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24||||0.439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.84||P-value is for prior use, 5 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin prior use group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 5.||0.84|-0.37|0.439
90837002|NCT00385671|181540652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23||||0.461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.84||P-value is for prior use, 5 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the gabapentin prior use group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 5.||0.84|-0.38|0.461
90837003|NCT00385671|181540652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.6||P-value is for prior use, 5 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin prior use group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 5.||0.60|-0.62|0.976
90837004|NCT00385671|181540652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.68||P-value is for prior use, 6 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin prior use group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 6.||0.68|-0.55|0.829
90837005|NCT00385671|181540652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.74||P-value is for prior use, 6 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the gabapentin prior use group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 6.||0.74|-0.50|0.713
90837006|NCT00385671|181540652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.67||P-value is for prior use, 6 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin prior use group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 6.||0.67|-0.58|0.878
90837007|NCT00385671|181540652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24||||0.447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.85||P-value is for prior use, 7 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin prior use group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 7.||0.85|-0.38|0.447
90837008|NCT00385671|181540652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||0.511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.83||P-value is for prior use, 7 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the gabapentin prior use group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 7.||0.83|-0.41|0.511
90837009|NCT00385671|181540652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.59||P-value is for prior use, 7 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin prior use group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 7.||0.59|-0.65|0.924
90895967|NCT01024608|181657637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean treatment diff from placebo|-0.56||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.2||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05|ANCOVA|The repeated measures ANCOVA included covariate adjustment for baseline, day, treatment, and the treatment by day interaction||||-0.2|-0.9|0.002
90895968|NCT00685945|181657683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The effect of bradykinin on net t-PA release was determined using general linear model-repeated measures ANOVA in which the between-subject variable was gender, and the within-subjects variables were drug (control, +L-NMMA, +L-NMMA plus isosorbide, or +L-NMMA plus sildenafil) and dose of bradykinin.||||0.04
90895969|NCT00685945|181657684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||<0.001
91027726|NCT02637557|181939625|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.332||||0.0174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.605|-0.059||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 5||-0.059|-0.605|0.0174
91027727|NCT02637557|181939625|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.078||||0.5831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.202|0.358||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||0.358|-0.202|0.5831
91027728|NCT02637557|181939625|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.078||||0.5859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.204||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||0.204|-0.360|0.5859
91027729|NCT02637557|181939625|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.291||||0.0447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.575|-0.007||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||-0.007|-0.575|0.0447
91027730|NCT02637557|181939625|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.093||||0.5365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.203|0.388||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 7||0.388|-0.203|0.5365
91027731|NCT02637557|181939625|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.057||||0.7067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.355|0.241||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 7||0.241|-0.355|0.7067
91027732|NCT02637557|181939625|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.317||||0.0386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.616|-0.017||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 7||-0.017|-0.616|0.0386
91027733|NCT02637557|181939625|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.042||||0.7804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.253|0.336||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||0.336|-0.253|0.7804
91027734|NCT02637557|181939625|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.125||||0.4064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.422|0.171||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||0.171|-0.422|0.4064
91027735|NCT02637557|181939625|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.333||||0.0289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.632|-0.035||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||-0.035|-0.632|0.0289
91027736|NCT02637557|181939626|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.037||||0.7207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.167|0.241||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||0.241|-0.167|0.7207
91027737|NCT02637557|181939626|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.071||||0.4946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.275|0.133||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||0.133|-0.275|0.4946
91027738|NCT02637557|181939626|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.077||||0.4596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.283|0.129||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||0.129|-0.283|0.4596
91027739|NCT02637557|181939626|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.067||||0.5987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.182|0.315||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||0.315|-0.182|0.5987
91027740|NCT02637557|181939626|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.122||||0.3348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.372|0.127||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||0.127|-0.372|0.3348
91027741|NCT02637557|181939626|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.062||||0.6288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.313|0.19||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||0.190|-0.313|0.6288
91027742|NCT02637557|181939626|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.048||||0.7193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.312|0.216||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 3||0.216|-0.312|0.7193
91027743|NCT02637557|181939626|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27||||0.0452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.534|-0.006||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 3||-0.006|-0.534|0.0452
90837010|NCT00385671|181540652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.43||||0.185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.06||P-value is for prior use, 8 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin prior use group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 8.||1.06|-0.20|0.185
90837011|NCT00385671|181540652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27||||0.403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.91||P-value is for prior use, 8 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the gabapentin prior use group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 8.||0.91|-0.37|0.403
91091016|NCT02014272|182065827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|91.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.13|101.01||||||Natural log transformed Cmax of rifampicin was analyzed using mixed effects model with sequence,period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as random effect.The adjusted mean differences and 90% confidence intervals(CIs) for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of ratio of adjusted geometric means(Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios,where FDC tablet were test and single drugs were reference.Values were back-transformed from the log scale.||101.01|83.13|
90837012|NCT00385671|181540652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.49||P-value is for prior use, 8 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin prior use group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 8.||0.49|-0.79|0.636
90837013|NCT00385671|181540652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33||||0.304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.95||P-value is for prior use, 9 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin prior use group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 9.||0.95|-0.30|0.304
90837014|NCT00385671|181540652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34||||0.295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.97||P-value is for prior use, 9 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the gabapentin prior use group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 9.||0.97|-0.29|0.295
90895970|NCT00847405|181657692|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|103.64||||||90.0|95.93|111.97|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||111.97|95.93|
90895971|NCT00847405|181657693|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|102.81||||||90.0|97.95|107.91|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||107.91|97.95|
90895972|NCT00847405|181657694|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|103.25||||||90.0|98.35|108.41|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||108.41|98.35|
90895973|NCT04791761|181657718|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: No difference in average pain scores before medication between opioid and non-opioid groups.||||0.8
90895974|NCT04791761|181657718|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: No difference in average pain scores after medication between opioid and non-opioid groups.||||0.7
90895975|NCT04791761|181657719|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis: There will be no difference in the proportion of patients visiting the emergency department or urgent care post-operatively between opioid and non-opioid groups.||||0.2
90895976|NCT01544998|181657743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This was a within PSD reporting group comparison; between PSD and PDD groups were not compared.||||0.26
90895977|NCT01544998|181657744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This was a within PDD reporting group comparison; between PSD and PDD groups were not compared.||||0.90
90895978|NCT01544998|181657745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This was a within PSD reporting group comparison; between PSD and PDD groups were not compared.||||0.003
90895979|NCT01544998|181657746|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This was a within PDD reporting group comparison; between PSD and PDD groups were not compared.||||0.14
90895980|NCT01544998|181657747|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This was a within PSD reporting group comparison; between PSD and PDD groups were not compared.||||<0.001
90895981|NCT01544998|181657748|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This was a within PDD reporting group comparison; between PSD and PDD groups were not compared.||||<0.001
90837015|NCT00385671|181540652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.64||P-value is for prior use, 9 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin prior use group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 9.||0.64|-0.62|0.975
90837016|NCT00385671|181540652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.93||P-value is for prior use, 10 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin prior use group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 10.||0.93|-0.33|0.349
90837017|NCT00385671|181540652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.94||P-value is for prior use, 10 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the gabapentin prior use group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 10.||0.94|-0.34|0.351
90837018|NCT00385671|181540652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.65||P-value is for prior use, 10 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin prior use group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 10.||0.65|-0.64|0.992
90837019|NCT00385671|181540652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.77||P-value is for prior use, 11 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin prior use group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 11.||0.77|-0.50|0.681
90837020|NCT00385671|181540652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19||||0.569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.83||P-value is for prior use, 11 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the gabapentin prior use group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 11.||0.83|-0.46|0.569
90895982|NCT02487498|181657749|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit (LL) of the 97.5% one -sided confidence interval (CI) \> -20 mL|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0182|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00813||0.415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0342|-0.0023|||Linear Mixed Model|||Ho: QVA149 27.5/12.5 μg b.i.d. is inferior to umeclidinium/vilanterol 62.5/25 μg q.d; Ha: QVA149 27.5/12.5 μg b.i.d. is non-inferior to umeclidinium/vilanterol 62.5/25 μg q.d.||-0.0023|-0.0342|0.415
90895983|NCT02487498|181657750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0182|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00813|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0342|-0.0023||||||||-0.0023|-0.0342|
90895984|NCT02487498|181657751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0091|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01132|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0313|0.0131||||||||0.0131|-0.0313|
90895985|NCT02487498|181657752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0086|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00874|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0086|0.0258||||||||0.0258|-0.0086|
90895986|NCT00676130|181657760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.7|||<|0.05||95.0|-9.3|15.0|||Chi-squared|||The study was powered to detect a difference in cure rate of 98% in the intervention group vs. 85% in the control group, with 2-sided alpha 0.05. This would yield a number needed to treat of 7.7 for intervention vs. control, and required 144 subjects to achieve 80% power. No data were analyzed until study completion.||15|-9.3|<0.05
90895987|NCT00676130|181657761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|6.3|||Chi-squared|||We assessed the rate of progression to abscess in the two groups.||6.3|-6.5|<0.05
91027744|NCT02637557|181939626|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.252||||0.0635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.519|0.014||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 3||0.014|-0.519|0.0635
91027745|NCT02637557|181939626|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.126||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.409|0.156||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||0.156|-0.409|0.3800
91027746|NCT02637557|181939626|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.336||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.053||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||-0.053|-0.620|0.0200
91027747|NCT02637557|181939626|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.328||||0.0244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.614|-0.043||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||-0.043|-0.614|0.0244
91027748|NCT02637557|181939626|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.096||||0.5232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.392|0.2||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 5||0.200|-0.392|0.5232
90837021|NCT00385671|181540652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.7||P-value is for prior use, 11 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin prior use group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 11.||0.70|-0.60|0.871
90837022|NCT00385671|181540652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.78||P-value is for prior use, 12 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin prior use group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 12.||0.78|-0.50|0.675
90837023|NCT00385671|181540652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.72||P-value is for prior use, 12 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the gabapentin prior use group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 12.||0.72|-0.57|0.823
90837024|NCT00385671|181540652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.59||P-value is for prior use, 12 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin prior use group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 12.||0.59|-0.72|0.850
90837025|NCT00385671|181540654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.448||95.0||||P-value is for diastolic. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in diastolic blood pressure.||||0.448
90837026|NCT00385671|181540654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.118||95.0||||P-value is for diastolic. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in diastolic blood pressure.||||0.118
90837027|NCT00385671|181540654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021||95.0||||P-value is for diastolic. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in diastolic blood pressure.||||0.021
90837028|NCT00385671|181540654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.537||95.0||||P-value is for systolic. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in systolic blood pressure.||||0.537
90837029|NCT00385671|181540654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.911||95.0||||P-value is for systolic. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in systolic blood pressure.||||0.911
90895988|NCT01564368|181657762|SUPERIORITY||area under the curve (AUC)|0.53||||0.484|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.61||Bonferroni's correction was used for multiple comparisons adjustment, where p\<0.003 (0.05/15) was considered statistically significant.|Z-test|The empirical AUC was tested by using variance derived from the method of DeLong|Receiver operating characteristic curve and AUC were estimated empirically, and its 95% CI was constructed using variance derived from DeLong's method|Receiver Operating Characteristic curves and the corresponding Area Under the Curve (AUC), were estimated for the change in Apparent Diffusion Coefficients (ADC1 - ADC0)/ADC0 (Test: %change in ADC; Reference: pCR) detect a difference of 0.15 between the AUC under H0: AUC=0.5 and an AUC under the alternative hypothesis of 0.65. It was assumed that the number of pCR non-responders would be approximately 2.7 times greater than the number of complete responders||0.61||0.484
91027749|NCT02637557|181939626|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.282||||0.0623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.579|0.015||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 5||0.015|-0.579|0.0623
91027750|NCT02637557|181939626|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.255||||0.0951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.554|0.045||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 5||0.045|-0.554|0.0951
90837030|NCT00385671|181540654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.627||95.0||||P-value is for systolic. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in systolic blood pressure.||||0.627
90837031|NCT00385671|181540655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.078||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in heart rate.||||0.078
90837032|NCT00385671|181540655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in heart rate.||||0.130
90837033|NCT00385671|181540655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in heart rate.||||0.850
90837034|NCT00385671|181540656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in body weight.||||<0.001
90837035|NCT00385671|181540656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in body weight.||||<0.001
90837036|NCT00385671|181540656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in body weight.||||0.011
90837037|NCT00385671|181540657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83||95.0||||P-value is for diastolic. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in the number of participants with elevated diastolic blood pressure.||||0.830
90837038|NCT00385671|181540657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||P-value is for diastolic. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in the number of participants with elevated diastolic blood pressure.||||1.00
90895989|NCT01564368|181657762|SUPERIORITY||area under the curve|0.6||||0.017|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.68||Bonferroni's correction was used for multiple comparisons adjustment, where p\<0.003 (0.05/15) was considered statistically significant.|Z-test|The empirical AUC was tested by using variance derived from the method of DeLong|Receiver operating characteristic curve and AUC were estimated empirically, and its 95% CI was constructed using variance derived from DeLong's method|Receiver Operating Characteristic curves and the corresponding Area Under the Curve (AUC), were estimated for the change in Apparent Diffusion Coefficients (ADC2 - ADC0)/ADC0 (Test: %change in ADC; Reference: pCR) detect a difference of 0.15 between the AUC under H0: AUC=0.5 and an AUC under the alternative hypothesis of 0.65. It was assumed that the number of pCR non-responders would be approximately 2.7 times greater than the number of complete responders||0.68||0.017
90905091|NCT02886728|181677438|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.0|-3.0|<0.001
90837039|NCT00385671|181540657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||P-value is for diastolic. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in the number of participants with elevated diastolic blood pressure.||||1.00
91091017|NCT02014272|182065827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|107.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.07|120.47||||||Natural log transformed Cmax of isoniazid was analyzed using mixed effects model with sequence,period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as random effect.The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of ratio of adjusted geometric means(Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios,where FDC tablet were test and single drugs were reference.Values were back-transformed from the log scale.||120.47|96.07|
91091018|NCT02014272|182065828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|95.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.54|99.43||||||Natural log transformed AUC(0 - ∞) of rifampicin was analyzed using mixed effects model with sequence,period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as random effect.The adjusted mean differences and 90% confidence intervals(CIs) for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of ratio of adjusted geometric means(Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios,where FDC tablet were test and single drugs were reference.Values were back-transformed from the log scale.||99.43|92.54|
91091019|NCT02014272|182065828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|102.41|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.76|106.19||||||Natural log transformed AUC(0 - ∞) of isoniazid was analyzed using mixed effects model with sequence,period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as random effect.The adjusted mean differences and 90% confidence intervals(CIs) for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of ratio of adjusted geometric means(Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios,where FDC tablet were test and single drugs were reference.Values were back-transformed from the log scale.||106.19|98.76|
90837040|NCT00385671|181540657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0||||P-value is for systolic. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in the number of participants with elevated systolic blood pressure.||||0.060
90837041|NCT00385671|181540657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.502||95.0||||P-value is for systolic. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in the number of participants with elevated systolic blood pressure.||||0.502
90837042|NCT00385671|181540657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.376||95.0||||P-value is for systolic. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in the number of participants with elevated systolic blood pressure.||||0.376
90837043|NCT00385671|181540658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.281||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of participants with treatment-emergent elevated heart rate.||||0.281
90837044|NCT00385671|181540658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the number of participants with treatment-emergent elevated heart rate.||||0.060
90837045|NCT00385671|181540658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.596||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of participants with treatment-emergent elevated heart rate.||||0.596
90837046|NCT00385671|181540659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.332||95.0||||P-value is for high. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of patients with treatment-emergent high body weight.||||0.332
90957197|NCT02084056|181793866|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (FDC/free combination) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted Geometric Means ratio|95.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.73|101.62|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'|Ratio of (FDC 2000 fasted/ L+M 2000 fasted)|||101.62|89.73|<0.0001
90837047|NCT00385671|181540659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.065||95.0||||P-value is for high. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the number of patients with treatment-emergent high body weight.||||0.065
90837048|NCT00385671|181540659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.622||95.0||||P-value is for high. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of patients with treatment-emergent high body weight.||||0.622
90837049|NCT00385671|181540659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.103||95.0||||P-value is for low. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of patients with treatment-emergent low body weight.||||0.103
90837050|NCT00385671|181540659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034||95.0||||P-value is for low. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the number of patients with treatment-emergent low body weight.||||0.034
90895990|NCT01564368|181657762|SUPERIORITY||area under the curve|0.61||||0.013|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.69||Bonferroni's correction was used for multiple comparisons adjustment, where p\<0.003 (0.05/15) is considered statistically significant.|Z-test|The empirical AUC was tested by using variance derived from the method of DeLong|Receiver operating characteristic curve and AUC were estimated empirically, and its 95% CI was constructed using variance derived from DeLong's method|Receiver Operating Characteristic curves and the corresponding Area Under the Curve (AUC), were estimated for the change in Apparent Diffusion Coefficients (ADC3 - ADC0)/ADC0 (Test: %change in ADC; Reference: pCR) detect a difference of 0.15 between the AUC under H0: AUC=0.5 and an AUC under the alternative hypothesis of 0.65. It was assumed that the number of pCR non-responders would be approximately 2.7 times greater than the number of complete responders||0.69||0.013
90837051|NCT00385671|181540659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.808||95.0||||P-value is for low. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of patients with treatment-emergent low body weight.||||0.808
90837052|NCT00385671|181540660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.055||95.0||||P-value is for AST. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|Analysis of Variance model \& t-test: Rank-transformed Change=InvestigatorGroup+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was implemented.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 in AST.||||0.055
90837053|NCT00385671|181540660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.051||95.0||||P-value is for AST. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|Analysis of Variance model \& t-test: Rank-transformed Change=InvestigatorGroup+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was implemented.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 in AST.||||0.051
90837054|NCT00385671|181540660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.993||95.0||||P-value is for AST. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|Analysis of Variance model \& t-test: Rank-transformed Change=InvestigatorGroup+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was implemented.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 in AST.||||0.993
90837055|NCT00385671|181540660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.928||95.0||||P-value is for ALT. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|Analysis of Variance model \& t-test: Rank-transformed Change=InvestigatorGroup+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was implemented.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 in ALT.||||0.928
90837056|NCT00385671|181540660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.609||95.0||||P-value is for ALT. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|Analysis of Variance model \& t-test: Rank-transformed Change=InvestigatorGroup+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was implemented.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 in ALT.||||0.609
90837057|NCT00385671|181540660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.675||95.0||||P-value is for ALT. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|Analysis of Variance model \& t-test: Rank-transformed Change=InvestigatorGroup+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was implemented.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 in ALT.||||0.675
90837058|NCT00385671|181540660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.985||95.0||||P-value is for GGT. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|Analysis of Variance model \& t-test: Rank-transformed Change=InvestigatorGroup+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was implemented.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 in GGT.||||0.985
90957198|NCT02084056|181793866|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (FDC/free combination) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted Geometric Means ratio|98.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.73|106.27|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|Ratio of (FDC 2000 fed/ L+M 2000 fed)|||106.27|90.73|0.0002
91027751|NCT02637557|181939626|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.06||||0.6985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.363|0.243||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||0.243|-0.363|0.6985
91027752|NCT02637557|181939626|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.373||||0.0163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.677|-0.069||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||-0.069|-0.677|0.0163
90837059|NCT00385671|181540660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.847||95.0||||P-value is for GGT. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|Analysis of Variance model \& t-test: Rank-transformed Change=InvestigatorGroup+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was implemented.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 in GGT.||||0.847
91027753|NCT02637557|181939626|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.345||||0.0273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.652|-0.039||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||-0.039|-0.652|0.0273
90895991|NCT01564368|181657763|SUPERIORITY||area under the curve|0.68|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.75||Bonferroni's correction was used for multiple comparisons adjustment, where p\<0.003 (0.05/15) was considered statistically significant.|Z-test|The empirical AUC was tested by using variance derived from the method of DeLong|Receiver operating characteristic curve and AUC were estimated empirically, and its 95% CI was constructed using variance derived from DeLong's method|Receiver Operating Characteristic curves and the corresponding Area Under the Curve (AUC), were estimated for the change in functional tumor volumes (FTV1 - FTV0)/FTV0 (Test: %change in FTV; Reference: pCR) detect a difference of 0.15 between the AUC under H0: AUC=0.5 and an AUC under the alternative hypothesis of 0.65. It was assumed that the number of pCR non-responders would be approximately 2.7 times greater than the number of complete responders||0.75||<0.001
90837060|NCT00385671|181540660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.832||95.0||||P-value is for GGT. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|Analysis of Variance model \& t-test: Rank-transformed Change=InvestigatorGroup+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was implemented.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 in GGT.||||0.832
90837061|NCT00385671|181540660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.169||95.0||||P-value is for AlkPhos. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|Analysis of Variance model \& t-test: Rank-transformed Change=InvestigatorGroup+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was implemented.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 in AlkPhos.||||0.169
90837062|NCT00385671|181540660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.91||95.0||||P-value is for AlkPhos. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|Analysis of Variance model \& t-test: Rank-transformed Change=InvestigatorGroup+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was implemented.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 in AlkPhos.||||0.910
90837063|NCT00385671|181540660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.134||95.0||||P-value is for AlkPhos. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|Analysis of Variance model \& t-test: Rank-transformed Change=InvestigatorGroup+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was implemented.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 in AlkPhos.||||0.134
90837064|NCT00385671|181540661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.285||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|Analysis of Variance model \& t-test: Rank-transformed Change=InvestigatorGroup+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was implemented.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 total bilirubin.||||0.285
90837065|NCT00385671|181540661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.505||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|Analysis of Variance model \& t-test: Rank-transformed Change=InvestigatorGroup+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was implemented.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 in total bilirubin.||||0.505
90837066|NCT00385671|181540661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.679||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|Analysis of Variance model \& t-test: Rank-transformed Change=InvestigatorGroup+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was implemented.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 in total bilirubin.||||0.679
90905092|NCT02886728|181677438|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.0|-3.0|0.005
91027754|NCT02637557|181939626|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.056||||0.7187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.362|0.25||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 7||0.250|-0.362|0.7187
91027755|NCT02637557|181939626|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.29||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.596|0.017||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 7||0.017|-0.596|0.0640
91027756|NCT02637557|181939626|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.484||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.793|-0.175||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 7||-0.175|-0.793|0.0023
91091020|NCT03499795|182065833|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8633|||||||Clopper-Pearson|P-value was calculated based on the exact method of Clopper-Pearson and superiority was concluded if the one-sided p-value is \<0.05.||||||0.8633
90837067|NCT00385671|181540662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|Analysis of Variance model \& t-test: Rank-transformed Change=InvestigatorGroup+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was implemented.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in fasting blood glucose.||||0.047
90837068|NCT00385671|181540662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.232||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|Analysis of Variance model \& t-test: Rank-transformed Change=InvestigatorGroup+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was implemented.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in fasting blood glucose.||||0.232
90837069|NCT00385671|181540662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.424||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|Analysis of Variance model \& t-test: Rank-transformed Change=InvestigatorGroup+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was implemented.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in fasting blood glucose.||||0.424
90837070|NCT00385671|181540663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.298||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|Analysis of Variance model \& t-test: Rank-transformed Change=InvestigatorGroup+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was implemented.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in hemoglobin A1C.||||0.298
90837071|NCT00385671|181540663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.987||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|Analysis of Variance model \& t-test: Rank-transformed Change=InvestigatorGroup+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was implemented.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in hemoglobin A1C.||||0.987
90837072|NCT00385671|181540663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.297||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|Analysis of Variance model \& t-test: Rank-transformed Change=InvestigatorGroup+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was implemented.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in hemoglobin A1C.||||0.297
90837073|NCT00385671|181540664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||P-value is for AST. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of participants with treatment-emergent elevated AST values.||||1.00
90837074|NCT00385671|181540664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.749||95.0||||P-value is for AST. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the number of participants with treatment-emergent elevated AST values.||||0.749
90837075|NCT00385671|181540664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75||95.0||||P-value is for AST. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of participants with treatment-emergent elevated AST values.||||0.750
90837076|NCT00385671|181540664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0||||P-value is for ALT. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of participants with treatment-emergent elevated ALT values.||||0.050
90837077|NCT00385671|181540664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32||95.0||||P-value is for ALT. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the number of participants with treatment-emergent elevated ALT values.||||0.320
90837078|NCT00385671|181540664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44||95.0||||P-value is for ALT. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of participants with treatment-emergent elevated ALT values.||||0.440
90837079|NCT00385671|181540664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.498||95.0||||P-value is for TBili. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of participants with treatment-emergent elevated TBili values.||||0.498
90837080|NCT00385671|181540664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.245||95.0||||P-value is for TBili. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the number of participants with treatment-emergent elevated TBili values.||||0.245
90905093|NCT02886728|181677438|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.0|-4.0|<0.001
91027757|NCT02637557|181939626|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.079||||0.6033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.378|0.22||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||0.220|-0.378|0.6033
91091021|NCT00324155|182065850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.179||||0.4067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.799|1.74|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified for metastasis stage (M0 vs M1a vs M1b vs M1c) and ECOG performance status (0 vs 1) recorded at randomization.||Analysis stratified for metastasis stage (M0 vs M1a vs M1b vs M1c) and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (0 vs 1) recorded at randomization.||1.740|0.799|0.4067
91091022|NCT00324155|182065858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.716||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.588|0.872||p-value was via stratified log-rank test|Log Rank||Hazard ratio via stratified Cox proportional hazards model.|Analysis stratified for metastasis stage (M0 vs M1a vs M1b vs M1c) and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (0 vs 1) recorded at randomization.||0.872|0.588|0.0009
90957199|NCT00324116|181793893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent responders|85.0||||||95.0|76.0|95.0|||||Proportion of responders estimated by Kaplan-Meier analysis. Proportion of responders along with 95% CI calculated directly from estimate of survival distribution function. Percentage denominator = total number of subjects without missing data.|||95|76|
91091023|NCT05412134|182065886|OTHER|||||||0.333|||||||Chi-squared|||Repetition adherence||||0.333
90895992|NCT01564368|181657763|SUPERIORITY||area under the curve|0.63|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.71||Bonferroni's correction was used for multiple comparisons adjustment, where p\<0.003 (0.05/15) was considered statistically significant.|Z-test|The empirical AUC was tested by using variance derived from the method of DeLong|Receiver operating characteristic curve and AUC were estimated empirically, and its 95% CI was constructed using variance derived from DeLong's method|Receiver Operating Characteristic curves and the corresponding Area Under the Curve (AUC), were estimated for the change in functional tumor volumes (FTV2 - FTV0)/FTV0 (Test: %change in FTV; Reference: pCR) detect a difference of 0.15 between the AUC under H0: AUC=0.5 and an AUC under the alternative hypothesis of 0.65. It was assumed that the number of pCR non-responders would be approximately 2.7 times greater than the number of complete responders||0.71||<0.001
90895993|NCT01564368|181657763|SUPERIORITY||area under the curve|0.68|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.75||Bonferroni's correction was used for multiple comparisons adjustment, where p\<0.003 (0.05/15) was considered statistically significant.|Z-test|The empirical AUC was tested by using variance derived from the method of DeLong|Receiver operating characteristic curve and AUC were estimated empirically, and its 95% CI was constructed using variance derived from DeLong's method|Receiver Operating Characteristic curves and the corresponding Area Under the Curve (AUC), were estimated for the change in functional tumor volumes (FTV3 - FTV0)/FTV0 (Test: %change in FTV; Reference: pCR) detect a difference of 0.15 between the AUC under H0: AUC=0.5 and an AUC under the alternative hypothesis of 0.65. It was assumed that the number of pCR non-responders would be approximately 2.7 times greater than the number of complete responders||0.75||<0.001
90895994|NCT01564368|181657764|EQUIVALENCE|no equivalence margin was used.||||||0.032|||||||z-test|||AUC (optimized) = AUC (ΔADC)||||0.032
91027758|NCT02637557|181939626|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.35||||0.0222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.05||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||-0.050|-0.650|0.0222
90837081|NCT00385671|181540664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16||95.0||||P-value is for GGT. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of participants with treatment-emergent elevated GGT values.||||0.160
90837082|NCT00385671|181540664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28||95.0||||P-value is for GGT. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the number of participants with treatment-emergent elevated GGT values.||||0.280
90837083|NCT00385671|181540664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||P-value is for GGT. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of participants with treatment-emergent elevated GGT values.||||1.00
90837084|NCT00385671|181540664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023||95.0||||P-value is for FPG. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of participants with treatment-emergent elevated FPG values.||||0.023
90837085|NCT00385671|181540664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.264||95.0||||P-value is for FPG. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the number of participants with treatment-emergent elevated FPG values.||||0.264
90837086|NCT00385671|181540664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.325||95.0||||P-value is for FPG. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of participants with treatment-emergent elevated FPG values.||||0.325
90837087|NCT00385671|181540664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||P-value is for HbA1C. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of participants with treatment-emergent elevated HbA1C values.||||1.00
90837088|NCT00385671|181540664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.121||95.0||||P-value is for HbA1C. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the number of participants with treatment-emergent elevated HbA1C values.||||0.121
90837089|NCT00385671|181540664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.095||95.0||||P-value is for HbA1C. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of participants with treatment-emergent elevated HbA1C values.||||0.095
90895995|NCT02940574|181657821|OTHER|Linear mixed-effect analyses, exploring whether a single-dose of OT could reduce amygdala connectivity, revealed a tentative effect of 'treatment' (F(1,36)=2.00; p=.08 (one-sided))|||||<|0.08||||||Linear mixed-effect analyses, exploring whether a single-dose of OT could reduce amygdala connectivity, revealed a tentative effect of 'treatment' (F(1,36)=2.00; p=.08 (one-sided))|Mixed Models Analysis|(F(1,36)=2.00; p=.08 (one-sided))||||||<0.08
91027759|NCT02637557|181939626|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.482||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.785|-0.18||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||-0.180|-0.785|0.0019
91091024|NCT05412134|182065886|OTHER|||||||0.626|||||||Chi-squared|||Session adherence||||0.626
91091025|NCT05412134|182065887|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.416|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.416
91091026|NCT05412134|182065888|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.581|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.581
90895996|NCT00520975|181657833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.23|||Regression, Cox|||||1.23|0.43|0.24
90895997|NCT00520975|181657834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.97|||Regression, Cox|||||1.97|0.61|0.75
90895998|NCT04810221|181657844|OTHER|Paired T-test 0|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.54|||Paired T-test 0||||Additional statistical analysis were: Bland Altman plot and linear regression analysis.|0.54|-0.17|0.31
90895999|NCT04810221|181657845|OTHER|Paired T test 0|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.75|||Paired T test 0||||Additional statistical analysis were: Bland Altman plot and linear regression analysis.|0.75|-0.24|0.32
90896000|NCT01342458|181657848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sample size was calculated based on pain WOMAC score and was accomplished using a moderate effect size (f=0.30). Standard deviation estimates were taken from our previous study. A sample size of 56 patients was needed to provide 80% power for detecting a moderate effect difference between the highest and lowest group pain means, with an alpha level of 0.05, a statistical design of F test of repeated measures (between and within effects), and assuming a 10% loss to follow-up.||||0.006
90896001|NCT01342458|181657848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|1.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||post hoc newman keuls|||From baseline to 3rd month.||||<0.001
90896002|NCT01342458|181657848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|1.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||post hoc Newman Keuls|||From baseline to 6th month.||||<0.001
90896003|NCT01342458|181657848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.82||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||post hoc Newman-Keuls|||From baseline to 3rd month.||||0.001
90896004|NCT01342458|181657848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||post hoc Newman-Keuls|||From baseline to 6th month.||||<0.001
90896005|NCT01342458|181657849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||We used a casewise two-way ANOVA for repeated measures (two independent groups and three repeated measures/assessments), followed by a post hoc Newman-Keuls to verify the interaction effect of group vs. time between T0 (baseline), T3 (3th month) and T6 (6th month).||||0.015
91027760|NCT02637557|181939627|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.143||||0.1922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.072|0.357||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||0.357|-0.072|0.1922
90896006|NCT01342458|181657849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||post hoc Newman-Keuls|||From baseline to 3rd month.||||<0.001
90896007|NCT01342458|181657849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||post hoc Newman-Keuls|||From baseline to 6th month.||||<0.001
90896008|NCT01342458|181657849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||post hoc Newman-Keuls|||From baseline to 3rd month.||||<0.001
90896009|NCT01342458|181657849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||post hoc Newman-Keuls|||From baseline to 6th month.||||<0.001
90896010|NCT01342458|181657850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||We used a casewise two-way ANOVA for repeated measures (two independent groups and three repeated measures/assessments), followed by a post hoc Newman-Keuls test to verify the interaction effect of group vs. time between T0 (baseline), T3 (3th month) and T6 (6th month).||||<0.001
90896011|NCT01342458|181657850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|1.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||post hoc Newman-Keuls|||From baseline to 3rd month.||||<0.001
91027761|NCT02637557|181939627|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.072||||0.5091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.143|0.288||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||0.288|-0.143|0.5091
90896012|NCT01342458|181657850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|1.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||post hoc Newman-Keuls|||From baseline to 6th month.||||<0.001
90896013|NCT01342458|181657850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||post hoc Newman-Keuls|||From baseline to 3rd month.||||<0.001
90896014|NCT01342458|181657850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||post hoc Newman-Keuls|||From baseline to 6th month.||||<0.001
90896015|NCT01342458|181657851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||We used a casewise two-way ANOVA for repeated measures (two independent groups and three repeated measures/assessments), followed by a post hoc Newman-Keuls test to verify the interaction effect of group vs. time between T0 (baseline), T3 (3th month) and T6 (6th month).||||<0.001
90896016|NCT01342458|181657851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|1.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||post hoc Newman-Keuls|||From baseline to 3rd month.||||<0.001
90896017|NCT01342458|181657851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|1.69||||0.019|TWO_SIDED||||||post hoc Newman-Keuls|||From baseline to 6th month.||||0.019
90896018|NCT01342458|181657851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||post hoc Newman-Keuls|||From baseline to 3rd month.||||<0.001
90896019|NCT01342458|181657851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||post hoc Newman-Keuls|||From baseline to 6th month.||||<0.001
90896020|NCT01342458|181657852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||We used a casewise two-way ANOVA for repeated measures (two independent groups and three repeated measures/assessments), followed by a post hoc Newman-Keuls test to verify the interaction effect of group vs. time between T0 (baseline), T3 (3th month) and T6 (6th month).||||0.019
90896021|NCT01342458|181657852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|1.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||post hoc Newman-Keuls|||From baseline to 3rd month.||||<0.001
90896022|NCT01342458|181657852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|1.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||post hoc Newman-Keuls|||From baseline to 6th month.||||<0.001
90896023|NCT01342458|181657852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||post hoc Newman-Keuls|||From baseline to 3rd month.||||<0.001
90896024|NCT01342458|181657852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||post hoc Newman-Keuls|||From baseline to 6th month.||||<0.001
90896025|NCT01342458|181657853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.425|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||We used a casewise two-way ANOVA for repeated measures (two independent groups and three repeated measures/assessments), followed by a post hoc Newman-Keuls test to verify the interaction effect of group vs. time between T0 (baseline), T3 (3th month) and T6 (6th month).||||0.425
91091027|NCT05412134|182065889|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.071|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.071
91091028|NCT05412134|182065890|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.356|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.356
90837090|NCT00385671|181540664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||P-value is for AlkPhos. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of participants with treatment-emergent elevated AlkPhos values.||||1.00
90837091|NCT00385671|181540664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72||95.0||||P-value is for AlkPhos. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the number of participants with treatment-emergent elevated AlkPhos values.||||0.720
90837092|NCT00385671|181540664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.722||95.0||||P-value is for AlkPhos. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of participants with treatment-emergent elevated AlkPhos values.||||0.722
90837093|NCT02958917|181540672|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.76|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
90837094|NCT02958917|181540673|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.264|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Cox|||||||<0.05
90837095|NCT02958917|181540674|SUPERIORITY||Slope|2.03|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
90837096|NCT02958917|181540675|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.108|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
90837097|NCT02958917|181540676|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.364|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.05
90837098|NCT02958917|181540677|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.128|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||<0.05
90837099|NCT02958917|181540678|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.05|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
90896026|NCT01342458|181657854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.443|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||We used a casewise two-way ANOVA for repeated measures (two independent groups and three repeated measures/assessments), followed by a post hoc Newman-Keuls test to verify the interaction effect of group vs. time between T0 (baseline), T3 (3th month) and T6 (6th month).||||0.443
90837100|NCT02958917|181540679|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.72|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
90837101|NCT02958917|181540680|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.92|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
90837102|NCT02958917|181540681|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.92|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
90837103|NCT02958917|181540682|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.05|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
90896027|NCT01342458|181657855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|10.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference in paracetamol intake at 6-month.||||<0.001
90837104|NCT02318706|181540733|SUPERIORITY|DS-5565 20 mg and 30 mg are tested against placebo at significance level of 0.025, respectively. If both arms are statistically significant, DS-5565 15 mg arm will be tested at level of 0.05. If neither of the arms is statistically significant, DS-5565 15 mg arm is no longer tested. If either DS-5565 20 mg or DS-5565 30 mg is statistically significant, DS-5565 15 mg arm is tested at level of 0.025.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|-0.03||||0.8773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 14 change from baseline||0.30|-0.35|0.8773
90837105|NCT02318706|181540733|SUPERIORITY|DS-5565 20 mg and 30 mg are tested against placebo at significance level of 0.025, respectively. If both arms are statistically significant, DS-5565 15 mg arm will be tested at level of 0.05. If neither of the arms is statistically significant, DS-5565 15 mg arm is no longer tested. If either DS-5565 20 mg or DS-5565 30 mg is statistically significant, DS-5565 15 mg arm is tested at level of 0.025.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|-0.15||||0.3494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 14 change from baseline||0.17|-0.48|0.3494
90837106|NCT02318706|181540733|SUPERIORITY|DS-5565 20 mg and 30 mg are tested against placebo at significance level of 0.025, respectively. If both arms are statistically significant, DS-5565 15 mg arm will be tested at level of 0.05. If neither of the arms is statistically significant, DS-5565 15 mg arm is no longer tested. If either DS-5565 20 mg or DS-5565 30 mg is statistically significant, DS-5565 15 mg arm is tested at level of 0.025.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|-0.5||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 14 change from baseline||-0.17|-0.82|0.0027
90837107|NCT04328077|181540736|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.44||0.7755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.1|21.5|||ANCOVA|||||21.5|-16.1|0.7755
90837108|NCT04328077|181540736|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.369||0.1798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.3|5.9|||ANCOVA|||||5.9|-31.3|0.1798
90837109|NCT04328077|181540736|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.807||0.4229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.4|11.6|||ANCOVA|||||11.6|-27.4|0.4229
90837110|NCT01456039|181540742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Based on one sample binomial test for dichotomized response proportion against the null hypothesis ( H0 p≤0.1)|Binomial test for dichotomized response|||||||<0.0001
90837111|NCT00313014|181540800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.163|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.35||P value was 2-sided and performed at the 5% error level.|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures mixed linear model with treatment, time, and time by treatment interaction as fixed effects.||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between BTDS 20 or oxycodone HCl immediate-release 40 mg with respect to BTDS 5. The alternative hypothesis was that the BTDS 20 arm was different from the BTDS 5 arm.||-0.35|-0.99|<.001
90905094|NCT02886728|181677438|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||0.0|-2.0|0.063
90896028|NCT01181726|181657859|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|104.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.22|116.25|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||116.25|94.22|
90896029|NCT01181726|181657860|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|97.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.91|101.02|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||101.02|93.91|
91027762|NCT02637557|181939627|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.037||||0.7394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.181|0.254||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||0.254|-0.181|0.7394
91027763|NCT02637557|181939627|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.073||||0.5845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.189|0.334||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||0.334|-0.189|0.5845
91091029|NCT05412134|182065892|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.079|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.079
91091030|NCT00477685|182065912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: the postoperative intraocular pressure at 90 days equals the preoperative intraocular pressure at baseline.||||0.01
90837112|NCT00313014|181540800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.161|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.44||P value was 2-sided and performed at the 5% error level.|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures mixed linear model with treatment, time, and time by treatment interaction as fixed effect.||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between BTDS 20 or oxycodone HCl immediate-release 40 mg with respect to BTDS 5. The alternative hypothesis was that the BTDS 20 arm was different from the BTDS 5 arm.||-0.44|-1.07|<.001
90837113|NCT00313014|181540801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.13||To address the issue of multiplicity and control the family-wise error rate, a gate-keeping strategy and a stepwise approach (Holm's methodology) were used to evaluate the statistical significance of the secondary efficacy analyses.|ANCOVA||The analysis was based on the number of subjects who took \> 1 tablet of supplemental analgesia.|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between BTDS 20 or oxycodone HCl immediate-release 40 mg with respect to BTDS 5. The alternative hypothesis was that the BTDS 20 arm was different from the BTDS 5 arm.||-0.13|-0.90|.006
90837114|NCT00313014|181540801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.09||To address the issue of multiplicity and control the family-wise error rate, a gate-keeping strategy and a stepwise approach (Holm's methodology) were used to evaluate the statistical significance of the secondary efficacy analyses.|ANCOVA||The analysis was based on the number of subjects who took \> 1 tablet of supplemental analgesia.|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between BTDS 20 or oxycodone HCl immediate-release 40 mg with respect to BTDS 5. The alternative hypothesis was that the BTDS 20 arm was different from the BTDS 5 arm.||0.09|-0.70|.158
90837115|NCT00313014|181540802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.72||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.55|0.11||To address the issue of multiplicity and control the family-wise error rate, a gate-keeping strategy and a stepwise approach (Holm's methodology) were used to evaluate the statistical significance of the secondary efficacy analyses.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between BTDS 20 or oxycodone HCl immediate-release 40 mg with respect to BTDS 5. The alternative hypothesis was that the BTDS 20 arm was different from the BTDS 5 arm.||0.11|-3.55|.065
90837116|NCT00313014|181540802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.99||||0.031||95.0|-3.79|-0.18||To address the issue of multiplicity and control the family-wise error rate, a gate-keeping strategy and a stepwise approach (Holm's methodology) were used to evaluate the statistical significance of the secondary efficacy analyses.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between BTDS 20 or oxycodone HCl immediate-release 40 mg with respect to BTDS 5. The alternative hypothesis was that the BTDS 20 arm was different from the BTDS 5 arm.||-0.18|-3.79|.031
90837117|NCT00313014|181540803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.735|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.64|-2.82||To address the issue of multiplicity and control the family-wise error rate, a gate-keeping strategy and a stepwise approach (Holm's methodology) were used to evaluate the statistical significance of the secondary efficacy analyses.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed linear model: treatment, time as fixed effects, screening, prerandomization sleep disturbance subscale as covariates; subject as a random effect||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between BTDS 20 or oxycodone HCl immediate-release 40 mg with respect to BTDS 5. The alternative hypothesis was that the BTDS 20 arm was different from the BTDS 5 arm.||-2.82|-9.64|<.001
91027764|NCT02637557|181939627|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.034||||0.7959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.296|0.228||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||0.228|-0.296|0.7959
91091031|NCT03444584|182065913|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-143.09|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-198.2|-87.98|||ANCOVA|||||-87.98|-198.20|<0.0001
91091032|NCT03444584|182065914|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-22.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.24|-14.1|||ANCOVA|||||-14.10|-30.24|<0.0001
91091033|NCT01038687|182065952|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.059|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.059
91091034|NCT01038687|182065952|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||Dunnett's test|||15mg dose vs placebo||||0.18
91091035|NCT01038687|182065952|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Dunnett's test|||20mg dose vs placebo||||0.04
91091036|NCT01038687|182065953|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.81
91091037|NCT01038687|182065953|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|||||||Dunnett's test|||15mg dose vs placebo||||0.89
91091038|NCT01038687|182065953|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||Dunnett's test|||20mg dose vs placebo||||0.76
91091039|NCT01038687|182065954|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.075|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.075
90837118|NCT00313014|181540803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.709||0.121||95.0|-6.01|0.7||To address the issue of multiplicity and control the family-wise error rate, a gate-keeping strategy and a stepwise approach (Holm's methodology) were used to evaluate the statistical significance of the secondary efficacy analyses.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between BTDS 20 or oxycodone HCl immediate-release 40 mg with respect to BTDS 5. The alternative hypothesis was that BTDS 20 arm was different from the BTDS 5 arm.||0.70|-6.01|.121
90837119|NCT03081117|181540806|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.669|||||||Fisher Exact|||Analysis of Enrolled group.||||0.669
90837120|NCT03081117|181540807|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3914||||0.0366|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 14||Analysis for Intent-to-Treat group.||||0.0366
90837121|NCT03081117|181540807|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5146||||0.0103|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 12||Analysis for Per Protocol group.||||0.0103
90837122|NCT03081117|181540810|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.25||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Wald test, two-sided|||Comparisons of change from W0 to W24 between treatment and placebo are based on a mixed effects regression model using a two-sided Wald test of the interaction term for treatment and time.||||>0.25
90837123|NCT03081117|181540811|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.25|||||||Wald test, two-sided|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.||Comparisons of change from W0 to W24 between treatment and placebo are based on a mixed effects regression model using a two-sided Wald test of the interaction term for treatment and time.||||>0.25
90837124|NCT03081117|181540812|SUPERIORITY||Unstandardized beta coefficient|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.244|TWO_SIDED||||||Wald test, two-sided|||Comparisons of change from W0 to W24 between treatment and placebo are based on a mixed effects regression model using a two-sided Wald test of the interaction term for treatment and time.||||0.244
90837125|NCT03081117|181540813|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.25||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Wald test, two-sided|||Comparisons of change from W0 to W24 between treatment and placebo are based on a mixed effects regression model using a two-sided Wald test of the interaction term for treatment and time.||||>0.25
90837126|NCT03081117|181540814|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.25|||||||Wald test, two-sided|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.||Comparisons of change from W0 to W24 between treatment and placebo are based on a mixed effects regression model using a two-sided Wald test of the interaction term for treatment and time.||||>0.25
90905095|NCT02886728|181677438|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||1.0|-1.0|0.64
91091040|NCT01038687|182065954|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.058|||||||Dunnett's test|||15mg dose vs placebo||||0.058
91091041|NCT01038687|182065954|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.164|||||||Dunnett's test|||20mg dose vs placebo||||0.164
91091042|NCT01038687|182065955|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.084|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.084
90837127|NCT03081117|181540815|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.25|||||||Wald test, two-sided|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.||Comparisons of change from W0 to W24 between treatment and placebo are based on a mixed effects regression model using a two-sided Wald test of the interaction term for treatment and time.||||>0.25
90837128|NCT03081117|181540816|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0031351||||0.366|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 13||Analysis for All Available group (participants who had both Baseline and Week 24 scans).||||0.366
90837129|NCT03081117|181540816|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0025586||||0.505|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees fo freedom = 10||Analysis for Per Protocol group.||||0.505
91091043|NCT01038687|182065955|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||Dunnett's test|||15mg vs placebo||||0.98
90837130|NCT03081117|181540817|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.00000061||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 13||Analysis for All Available group (participants who had both Baseline and Week 24 scans).||||0.98
90837131|NCT03081117|181540817|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0000054||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 10||Analysis for Per Protocol group.||||0.86
90837132|NCT02364700|181540823|EQUIVALENCE|Group means from baseline to discharge were compared to determine if 6-week and training on the Hand of Hope device elicited changes in outcome measures.|||||<|0.05|||||||Friedman Test|||||||<.05
90837133|NCT01428258|181540829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-147.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|39.0||0.0008|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0008
90837134|NCT01428258|181540829|OTHER|||||||0.136|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.136
90837135|NCT01428258|181540829|OTHER|||||||0.044|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.044
90837136|NCT01428258|181540830|OTHER|||||||0.576|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.576
90837137|NCT01428258|181540831|OTHER|||||||0.902|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.902
90837138|NCT01428258|181540832|OTHER|||||||0.797|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.797
90837139|NCT01428258|181540833|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0001
91091044|NCT01038687|182065955|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.079|||||||Dunnett's test|||20mg vs placebo||||0.079
91091045|NCT01038687|182065956|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.058|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.058
91091046|NCT01038687|182065956|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Dunnett's test|||15mg dose vs placebo||||0.32
91091047|NCT01038687|182065956|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.034|||||||Dunnett's test|||20mg dose vs placebo||||0.034
91091048|NCT01038687|182065957|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.001
91091049|NCT01038687|182065957|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Dunnett's test|||15mg dose vs placebo||||0.002
91091050|NCT01038687|182065957|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Dunnett's test|||20mg vs placebo||||0.001
91091051|NCT01038687|182065958|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.091|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.091
91091052|NCT01038687|182065958|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Dunnett's test|||15mg dose vs placebo||||0.99
91027765|NCT02637557|181939627|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.015||||0.9086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.249||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||0.249|-0.280|0.9086
91091053|NCT01038687|182065958|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.103|||||||Dunnett's test|||20mg vs placebo||||0.103
90837140|NCT01231984|181540854|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Two one-sided 95% confidence limits for the difference in HbA1c between the 4mm PN and the 8mm PN was calculated. Equivalence limits for HbA1C were defined a-priori as +/- 0.4% units.|Effect of 4mm versus 8mm PN on HbA1c|-0.076|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.209|0.058|||Two one-sided 95% confidence limits|For equivalence testing, a 95% test is the same as two one-sided 95% confidence limits.||General linear models with baseline as a covariate, needle type, period, and randomization sequence as fixed effects, and subject as random effect were fit to the data.||0.058|-0.209|
90837141|NCT01231984|181540855|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Two one-sided 95% confidence limits for the difference in HbA1c between the 4 mm PN and the longer PNs (pooled) was calculated. Equivalence limits for HbA1c were defined a-priori as +/- 0.4% units.|Effect of 4mm PN vs. longer PN on HbA1c|-0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.051|||Two one-sided 95% confidence limits|For equivalence testing, a 95% test is the same as two one-sided 95% confidence limits.||General linear models with baseline as a covariate, needle type, period, and randomization sequence as fixed effects, and subject as random effect were fit to the data.||0.051|-0.23|
90837142|NCT01231984|181540856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.36|||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.37|||p\< 0.05 was considered statistically significant in this study|t-test, 1 sided|||"Subjects rated the level of pain experienced when using the PN assigned for use during Study Period 2 compared to the PN assigned for use in Study Period 1. By placing a mark on a line, whose midpoint(anchor) was designated as 0, and represented equivalent pain with assigned PNs, ratings on the continuum represented the degree to which the PN used in the second Study Period was less than or greater than the PN used during the first Study Period."|||0.37|<0.05
90837143|NCT01231984|181540857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|30.83|||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0|18.54|||p\< 0.05 was considered statistically significant in this study.|t-test, 1 sided||||||18.54|<0.05
90837144|NCT01231984|181540859|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Two one-sided 95% confidence limits for the difference in HbA1c between the 4mm PN and the 12.7mm PN was calculated. Equivalence limits for HbA1C were defined a-priori as +/- 0.4% units|Effect of 4 mm vs.12.7mm PN on HbA1c|-0.095|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.0|||Two one-sided 95% confidence limit|For equivalence testing, a 95% test is the same as two one-sided 95% confidence limits.||General linear models with baseline as a covariate, needle type, period, and randomization sequence as fixed effects, and subject as random effect were fit to the data.||-0.000|-0.190|
90837145|NCT00333775|181540865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.0318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.98|||Log Rank|||||0.98|0.63|0.0318
90837146|NCT00333775|181540865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio, log|0.72||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.9|||Log Rank|||||0.90|0.57|0.0036
90957200|NCT00324116|181793894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.29||||||95.0|-6.83|-1.75|||||95% CI for the change in mean value obtained from one sample t-test.|6 weeks||-1.75|-6.83|
91027766|NCT02637557|181939627|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08||||0.5334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.333|0.173||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 3||0.173|-0.333|0.5334
91027767|NCT02637557|181939627|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.212||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.466|0.042||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 3||0.042|-0.466|0.1020
90837147|NCT00333775|181540868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.1105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.04|||Log Rank|||||1.04|0.69|0.1105
90837148|NCT00333775|181540868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.0241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.97|||Log Rank|||||0.97|0.65|0.0241
90837149|NCT00333775|181540869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.6962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.37|||Log Rank|||||1.37|0.62|0.6962
90837150|NCT00333775|181540869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.0765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.04|||Log Rank|||||1.04|0.45|0.0765
90837151|NCT03486912|181540902|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.62|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.62|0.30|0.773
90837152|NCT03486912|181540902|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72||||0.544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|2.23|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.23|0.23|0.544
90837153|NCT03486912|181540902|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.62|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.62|0.30|0.811
90837154|NCT03486912|181540903|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.09|0.40|0.836
90837155|NCT03486912|181540903|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.46|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.46|0.30|0.763
90837156|NCT03486912|181540903|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|2.51|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.51|0.32|0.821
90837157|NCT03486912|181540904|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|3.25|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.25|0.39|0.837
90957201|NCT00324116|181793894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.86||||||95.0|-9.06|-2.67|||||95% CI for the change in mean value obtained from one sample t-test.|12 weeks||-2.67|-9.06|
91027768|NCT02637557|181939627|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.357||||0.0066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.613|-0.1||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 3||-0.100|-0.613|0.0066
91027769|NCT02637557|181939627|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.127||||0.3586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.399|0.145||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||0.145|-0.399|0.3586
91091054|NCT01038687|182065959|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.001
91091055|NCT01038687|182065959|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Dunnett's test|||15mg dose vs placebo||||0.002
91091056|NCT01038687|182065959|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Dunnett's test|||20mg dose vs placebo||||0.001
91091057|NCT01038687|182065960|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.002
91091058|NCT01038687|182065960|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.053|||||||Dunnett's test|||15mg dose vs placebo||||0.053
90896030|NCT01181726|181657861|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|97.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.05|101.3|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||101.30|94.05|
90896031|NCT01181726|181657862|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|99.35|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.21|107.06|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||107.06|92.21|
90896032|NCT01181726|181657863|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|95.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.21|99.39|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||99.39|91.21|
90896033|NCT01181726|181657864|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|95.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.18|99.51|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||99.51|91.18|
90896034|NCT01181726|181657865|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|99.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.21|107.0|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||107.00|92.21|
90896035|NCT01181726|181657866|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|95.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.18|99.38|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||99.38|91.18|
90896036|NCT01181726|181657867|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|95.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.17|99.47|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||99.47|91.17|
90896037|NCT01181726|181657868|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|97.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.44|102.61|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||102.61|93.44|
90896038|NCT01181726|181657869|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|97.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.92|101.78|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||101.78|93.92|
90896039|NCT01181726|181657870|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|99.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.42|105.3|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||105.30|94.42|
90896040|NCT01181726|181657871|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|99.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.71|103.87|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||103.87|94.71|
91091059|NCT01038687|182065960|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Dunnett's test|||20mg dose vs placebo||||0.002
91091060|NCT02783911|182065961|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.808|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.808
90896041|NCT01181726|181657872|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|97.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.55|101.21|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||101.21|94.55|
90896042|NCT01181726|181657873|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|98.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.54|101.6|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||101.60|94.54|
91027770|NCT02637557|181939627|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.348||||0.0128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.621|-0.075||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||-0.075|-0.621|0.0128
91027771|NCT02637557|181939627|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.384||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.109||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||-0.109|-0.660|0.0064
91027772|NCT02637557|181939627|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.076||||0.6124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.369|0.218||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 5||0.218|-0.369|0.6124
91027773|NCT02637557|181939627|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.223||||0.1365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.518|0.071||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 5||0.071|-0.518|0.1365
91027774|NCT02637557|181939627|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.355||||0.0193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.652|-0.058||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 5||-0.058|-0.652|0.0193
90837158|NCT03486912|181540904|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53||||0.359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|4.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.40|0.54|0.359
90837159|NCT03486912|181540904|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|3.61|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.61|0.44|0.627
90837160|NCT03486912|181540905|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.16|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.16|0.40|0.864
90837161|NCT03486912|181540905|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|2.49|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.49|0.29|0.743
90837162|NCT03486912|181540905|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|2.29|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.29|0.27|0.630
90837163|NCT03486912|181540906|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|4.25|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.25|0.48|0.477
90837164|NCT03486912|181540906|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|3.44|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.44|0.32|0.814
90837165|NCT03486912|181540906|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.64||||0.367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.93|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.93|0.21|0.367
90837166|NCT03486912|181540907|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.309|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.309
90837167|NCT03486912|181540907|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.146|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.146
90837168|NCT03486912|181540907|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.317|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.317
90837169|NCT03486912|181540908|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.91||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|325.97|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||325.97|0.76|0.054
90837170|NCT03486912|181540908|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.21||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|549.08|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||549.08|1.50|0.004
90837171|NCT03486912|181540908|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.59||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|271.11|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||271.11|0.57|0.087
90837172|NCT02491684|181540909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of proportions|1.29||||0.645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|3.85|||log-binomial regression model|The ratio of proportions was calculated by back-transforming the estimated treatment effect.|AZD9412 versus Placebo|Proportions of patients with exacerbations are compared using a log-binomial regression model with treatment group and region as factors.||3.85|0.43|0.645
90837173|NCT02491684|181540910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of proportions|1.97||||0.411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|9.89|||log-binomial regression model|The ratio of proportions was calculated by back-transforming the estimated treatment effect.|AZD9412 versus Placebo for Days 1 - 7|Proportions of patients with exacerbations are compared using a log-binomial regression model with treatment group and region as factors.||9.89|0.39|0.411
90837174|NCT02491684|181540910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of proportions|1.25||||0.659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|3.41|||log-binomial regression model|The ratio of proportions was calculated by back-transforming the estimated treatment effect.|AZD9412 versus Placebo for Days 1 - 30|Proportions of patients with exacerbations are compared using a log-binomial regression model with treatment group and region as factors.||3.41|0.46|0.659
90837175|NCT02491684|181540911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of proportions|1.1||||0.944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|15.79|||log-binomial regression model|The ratio of proportions was calculated by back-transforming the estimated treatment effect.|AZD9412 versus Placebo for Days 1 - 14|Proportions of patients with exacerbations are compared using a log-binomial regression model with treatment group and region as factors.||15.79|0.08|0.944
90837176|NCT02491684|181540911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of proportions|1.1||||0.944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|15.79|||log-binomial regression model|The ratio of proportions was calculated by back-transforming the estimated treatment effect.|AZD9412 versus Placebo for Days 1 - 30|Proportions of patients with exacerbations are compared using a log-binomial regression model with treatment group and region as factors.||15.79|0.08|0.944
90837177|NCT02491684|181540912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3||||0.634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|3.77|||Regression, Cox|Hazard ratio was calculated adjusting for treatment group and region.|AZD9412 versus Placebo|Analysis of time to first severe exacerbation within 30 days of treatment start.||3.77|0.45|0.634
90896043|NCT01181726|181657874|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|97.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.22|102.74|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||102.74|93.22|
90896044|NCT01181726|181657875|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|97.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.66|102.46|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||102.46|93.66|
90896045|NCT01181726|181657876|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|99.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.17|104.11|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||104.11|94.17|
90896046|NCT01181726|181657877|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|99.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.39|104.1|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||104.10|94.39|
90896047|NCT01181726|181657878|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|97.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.03|101.56|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||101.56|94.03|
90896048|NCT01181726|181657879|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|97.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.11|102.02|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||102.02|94.11|
90896049|NCT01264380|181657880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Mean|4.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.83|7.6||||||The point estimate and 90 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) of vemurafenib plasma AUC geometric means ratios of the Fed to Fasted conditions following an oral administration of a single dose of 960 mg vemurafenib were analyzed.||7.60|2.83|
90896050|NCT01264380|181657881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Mean|5.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.99|8.55||||||The point estimate and 90% CI of vemurafenib plasma AUC geometric means ratios of the Fed to Fasted conditions following an oral administration of a single dose of 960 mg vemurafenib were analyzed.||8.55|2.99|
90896051|NCT01264380|181657882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Mean|2.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.81|3.32||||||The point estimate and 90% CI of vemurafenib plasma Cmax geometric means ratios of the Fed to Fasted conditions following an oral administration of a single dose of 960 mg vemurafenib were analyzed.||3.32|1.81|
91091061|NCT02616783|182065962|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|2.427|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.337|3.517|||ANOVA|P-value was calculated using the ANOVA model with baseline spine BMD score, sex, and treatment as fixed effects.|The 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using the ANOVA model with baseline spine BMD score, sex, and treatment as fixed effects.|||3.517|1.337|<0.001
90896052|NCT04382924|181657892|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.0001|||<|0.025|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.025
90896053|NCT04998604|181657904|SUPERIORITY|At each post-baseline visit, each of the imputed complete data was analyzed by fitting an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with the corresponding baseline value, study treatment (dupilumab, omalizumab), prior surgery (yes, no), ICS doses (low, medium/high), presence of AERD (yes, no), region (EE, ROW) as covariates.|Least squares (LS) mean difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.182|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|-1.25||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the type-I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analysis. Testing was performed sequentially in order the endpoints were reported and continued when primary endpoint was statistically significant at 2-sided 0.05.||-1.25|-1.96|<0.001
90896054|NCT04998604|181657905|SUPERIORITY|At each post-baseline visit, each of the imputed complete data was analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with the corresponding baseline value, study treatment (dupilumab, omalizumab), prior surgery (yes, no), ICS doses (low, medium/high), presence of AERD (yes, no), region (EE, ROW) as covariates.|LS mean difference|8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|9.7||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||9.7|6.3|<0.001
91091062|NCT02616783|182065963|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|2.036|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.168|2.904|||ANOVA|P-value was calculated using the ANOVA model with baseline hip BMD score, sex, and treatment as fixed effects.|The 95% CIs were calculated using the ANOVA model with baseline hip BMD score, sex, and treatment as fixed effects.|||2.904|1.168|<0.001
90837178|NCT02491684|181540913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|16.78|||Regression, Cox|Hazard ratio was calculated adjusting for treatment group and region.|AZD9412 versus Placebo|Analysis of time to first moderate exacerbation within 30 days of treatment start.||16.78|0.07|0.973
90837179|NCT02491684|181540915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|0.09||||0.495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.35|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline is analysed using an Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment and region as factors and baseline value as covariate.|AZD9412 versus Placebo for change from baseline in total score at Visit 4.|Analysis of change from baseline in total score at Visit 4.||0.35|-0.17|0.495
90837180|NCT02491684|181540915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.06||||0.715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.38|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline is analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment and region as factors and baseline value as covariate.|AZD9412 versus Placebo|Analysis of change from baseline in total score at Visit 6.||0.38|-0.26|0.715
90896055|NCT04998604|181657906|SUPERIORITY|Each of the imputed complete data was analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with the corresponding baseline value, study treatment (dupilumab, omalizumab), prior surgery (yes, no), ICS doses (low, medium/high), presence of AERD (yes, no), region (EE, ROW) as covariates.|LS mean difference|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.101|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.61||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-0.61|-1.01|<0.001
91027775|NCT02637557|181939627|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.037||||0.8046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.333|0.258||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||0.258|-0.333|0.8046
91027776|NCT02637557|181939627|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.319||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.616|-0.023||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||-0.023|-0.616|0.0350
91027777|NCT02637557|181939627|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.392||||0.0105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.691|-0.093||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||-0.093|-0.691|0.0105
91027778|NCT02637557|181939627|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.094||||0.5482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.403|0.214||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 7||0.214|-0.403|0.5482
90837181|NCT02491684|181540915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.07||||0.687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.28|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline is analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment and region as factors and baseline value as covariate.|AZD9412 versus Placebo|Analysis of change from baseline in total score at Visit 8.||0.28|-0.42|0.687
90837182|NCT02491684|181540916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.11||||0.516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.45|||ANCOVA|AUC for change from baseline is analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment and region as factors and baseline value as covariate.|AZD9412 versus Placebo|Analysis of AUC for change from baseline in total score over Days 1-14.||0.45|-0.23|0.516
90837183|NCT02491684|181540916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.11||||0.417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.37|||ANCOVA|AUC for change from baseline is analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment and region as factors and baseline value as covariate.|AZD9412 versus Placebo|Analysis of AUC for change from baseline in total score over Days 1-7.||0.37|-0.16|0.417
90837184|NCT02491684|181540916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.01||||0.954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.36|||ANCOVA|AUC for change from baseline is analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment and region as factors and baseline value as covariate.|AZD9412 versus Placebo|Analysis of AUC for change from baseline in total score over Days 8-14.||0.36|-0.34|0.954
90837185|NCT02491684|181540916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.0||||0.985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.35|||ANCOVA|AUC for change from baseline is analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment and region as factors and baseline value as covariate.|AZD9412 versus Placebo|Analysis of AUC for change from baseline in total score over Days 15-30.||0.35|-0.35|0.985
90837186|NCT02491684|181540918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.07||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.24|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline is analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment and region as factors and baseline value as covariate.|AZD9412 versus Placebo|Analysis of change from baseline in overall score at Visit 6.||0.24|-0.38|0.660
90957202|NCT00324116|181793894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.12||||||95.0|-16.28|-5.96|||||95% CI for the change in mean value obtained from one sample t-test.|54 weeks||-5.96|-16.28|
91027779|NCT02637557|181939627|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.377||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.687|-0.068||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 7||-0.068|-0.687|0.0170
91027780|NCT02637557|181939627|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.469||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.781|-0.157||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 7||-0.157|-0.781|0.0034
91027781|NCT02637557|181939627|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.093||||0.5346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.388|0.202||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||0.202|-0.388|0.5346
91027782|NCT02637557|181939627|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.336||||0.0262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.632|-0.04||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||-0.040|-0.632|0.0262
91027783|NCT02637557|181939627|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.545||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.843|-0.246||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||-0.246|-0.843|0.0004
91027784|NCT02637557|181939628|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.098||||0.3007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.088|0.284||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||0.284|-0.088|0.3007
90837187|NCT02491684|181540918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.09||||0.624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.29|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline is analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment and region as factors and baseline value as covariate.|AZD9412 versus Placebo|Analysis of change from baseline in overall score at Visit 8.||0.29|-0.48|0.624
90837188|NCT02491684|181540919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.54||||0.309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|1.59|||ANCOVA|AUC for change from baseline is analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment and region as factors and baseline value as covariate.|AZD9412 versus Placebo|Analysis of AUC for change from baseline over Days 1-14.||1.59|-0.51|0.309
90837189|NCT02491684|181540920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|16.98||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|34.6|||ANCOVA|Analysis uses an ANCOVA model with treatment, region, gender, and smoking status as factors, and baseline value and height as covariates.|AZD9412 versus Placebo|Analysis of AUC for change from baseline over Days 1-14.||34.60|-0.63|0.059
90837190|NCT02491684|181540920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|19.35||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.66|34.05|||ANCOVA|Analysis uses an ANCOVA model with treatment, region, gender, and smoking status as factors, and baseline value and height as covariates.|AZD9412 versus Placebo|Analysis of AUC for change from baseline over Days 1-7.||34.05|4.66|0.010
90837191|NCT02491684|181540920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|14.38||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.44|34.2|||ANCOVA|Analysis uses an ANCOVA model with treatment, region, gender, and smoking status as factors, and baseline value and height as covariates.|AZD9412 versus Placebo|Analysis of AUC for change from baseline over Days 8-14.||34.20|-5.44|0.153
90957203|NCT00324116|181793895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of subjects|5.0||||||95.0|1.61|11.32|||||Proportion of subjects gaining vision was estimated on an observed case basis. Percentage denominator = total number of subjects in the FAS. 95% confidence intervals were calculated from Fleiss quadratic equations|||11.32|1.61|
90957204|NCT00324116|181793896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of subjects|22.5||||||95.0|14.22|32.11|||||Proportion of subjects maintaining vision was estimated on an observed case basis. Percentage denominator = total number of subjects in the FAS. 95% confidence intervals were calculated from Fleiss quadratic equations.|||32.11|14.22|
90957205|NCT00324116|181793897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of subjects|13.75||||||95.0|7.39|22.24|||||Proportion of subjects with severe visual loss was estimated on an observed case basis. Percentage denominator = total number of subjects in the FAS. 95% confidence intervals were calculated from Fleiss quadratic equations.|||22.24|7.39|
91091063|NCT02616783|182065964|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|1.749|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.726|2.771|||ANOVA|P-value was calculated using the ANOVA model with baseline spine BMD score, sex, and treatment as fixed effects.|The 95% CIs were calculated using the ANOVA model with baseline spine BMD score, sex, and treatment as fixed effects.|||2.771|0.726|<0.001
90837192|NCT02491684|181540920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|19.26||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.44|41.97|||ANCOVA|Analysis uses an ANCOVA model with treatment, region, gender, and smoking status as factors, and baseline value and height as covariates.|AZD9412 versus Placebo|Analysis of AUC for change from baseline over Days 15-30.||41.97|-3.44|0.096
90837193|NCT02491684|181540921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.07||||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.17|||ANCOVA|Analysis uses an ANCOVA model with treatment, region, gender, and smoking status as factors, and baseline value and height as covariates.|AZD9412 versus Placebo|Analysis of AUC for change from baseline over Days 1-14.||0.17|-0.03|0.161
90837194|NCT02491684|181540921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.08||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.17|||ANCOVA|Analysis uses an ANCOVA model with treatment, region, gender, and smoking status as factors, and baseline value and height as covariates.|AZD9412 versus Placebo|Analysis of AUC for change from baseline over Days 1-7.||0.17|-0.01|0.087
90837195|NCT02491684|181540921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.06||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.16|||ANCOVA|Analysis uses an ANCOVA model with treatment, region, gender, and smoking status as factors, and baseline value and height as covariates.|AZD9412 versus Placebo|Analysis of AUC for change from baseline over Days 8-14.||0.16|-0.05|0.280
90837196|NCT02491684|181540921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.11||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.24|||ANCOVA|Analysis uses an ANCOVA model with treatment, region, gender, and smoking status as factors, and baseline value and height as covariates.|AZD9412 versus Placebo|Analysis of AUC for change from baseline over Days 15-30.||0.24|-0.02|0.086
90837197|NCT02491684|181540922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|11.69||||0.211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.76|30.14|||ANCOVA|Analysis uses an ANCOVA model with treatment, region, gender, and smoking status as factors, and baseline value and height as covariates.|AZD9412 versus Placebo|Analysis of AUC for change from baseline over Days 1-14.||30.14|-6.76|0.211
90837198|NCT02491684|181540922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|11.19||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.18|25.56|||ANCOVA|Analysis uses an ANCOVA model with treatment, region, gender, and smoking status as factors, and baseline value and height as covariates.|AZD9412 versus Placebo|Analysis of AUC for change from baseline over Days 1-7.||25.56|-3.18|0.125
90837199|NCT02491684|181540922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|11.14||||0.277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.08|31.36|||ANCOVA|Analysis uses an ANCOVA model with treatment, region, gender, and smoking status as factors, and baseline value and height as covariates.|AZD9412 versus Placebo|Analysis of AUC for change from baseline over Days 8-14.||31.36|-9.08|0.277
90837200|NCT02491684|181540922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|17.13||||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.92|41.18|||ANCOVA|Analysis uses an ANCOVA model with treatment, region, gender, and smoking status as factors, and baseline value and height as covariates.|AZD9412 versus Placebo|Analysis of AUC for change from baseline over Days 15-30.||41.18|-6.92|0.161
90837201|NCT02491684|181540923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.06||||0.287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.16|||ANCOVA|Analysis uses an ANCOVA model with treatment, region, gender, and smoking status as factors, and baseline value and height as covariates.|AZD9412 versus Placebo|Analysis of AUC for change from baseline over Days 1-14.||0.16|-0.05|0.287
90957206|NCT00324116|181793898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of subjects|25.97||||||95.0|16.28|34.81|||||Proportion of subjects progressing to \<=20/200 was estimated on an observed case basis. Percentage denominator = total number of subjects in the FAS. 95% confidence intervals were calculated from Fleiss quadratic equations.|||34.81|16.28|
91091064|NCT02616783|182065965|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|1.351|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.602|2.099|||ANOVA|P-value was calculated using the ANOVA model with baseline hip BMD score, sex, and treatment as fixed effects.|The 95% CIs were calculated using the ANOVA model with baseline hip BMD score, sex, and treatment as fixed effects.|||2.099|0.602|<0.001
90837202|NCT02491684|181540923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.04||||0.457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.14|||ANCOVA|Analysis uses an ANCOVA model with treatment, region, gender, and smoking status as factors, and baseline value and height as covariates.|AZD9412 versus Placebo|Analysis of AUC for change from baseline over Days 1-7.||0.14|-0.06|0.457
90837203|NCT02491684|181540923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.05||||0.315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.16|||ANCOVA|Analysis uses an ANCOVA model with treatment, region, gender, and smoking status as factors, and baseline value and height as covariates.|AZD9412 versus Placebo|Analysis of AUC for change from baseline over Days 8-14.||0.16|-0.05|0.315
90837204|NCT02491684|181540923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.09||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.22|||ANCOVA|Analysis uses an ANCOVA model with treatment, region, gender, and smoking status as factors, and baseline value and height as covariates.|AZD9412 versus Placebo|Analysis of AUC for change from baseline over Days 15-30.||0.22|-0.03|0.134
90837205|NCT04739982|181540926|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.27||An independent samples t-test was conducted to compare the change in baseline and follow-up scores of treatment and treatment as usual participants.|t-test, 1 sided|Degrees of freedom=274 Significance level=.05||||.27|-.21|.41
90837206|NCT04739982|181540927|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|0.153|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.39|||t-test, 1 sided|||||.39|-.08|.095
90837207|NCT04739982|181540929|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.47|||t-test, 1 sided|||||.47|-.09|.09
90837208|NCT01283139|181540934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.03|2.71|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.71|1.03|0.057
90896056|NCT04998604|181657907|SUPERIORITY|Each of the imputed complete data was analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with the corresponding baseline value, study treatment (dupilumab, omalizumab), prior surgery (yes, no), ICS doses (low, medium/high), presence of AERD (yes, no), region (EE, ROW) as covariates.|LS mean difference|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.082|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.42||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-0.42|-0.74|<0.001
90896057|NCT04998604|181657908|SUPERIORITY|Each of the imputed complete data was analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with the corresponding baseline value, study treatment (dupilumab, omalizumab), prior surgery (yes, no), ICS doses (low, medium/high), presence of AERD (yes, no), region (EE, ROW) as covariates.|LS mean difference|-1.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|-1.33||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-1.33|-2.15|<0.001
90896058|NCT03525548|181657928|SUPERIORITY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|10.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|12.6|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||12.6|7.4|<0.0001
90896059|NCT03525548|181657929|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-45.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.1|-40.1|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||-40.1|-50.1|<0.0001
90896060|NCT03525548|181657930|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|17.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.8|23.0|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||23.0|11.8|<0.0001
90837209|NCT01283139|181540934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.01|2.54|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.54|1.01|0.094
90837210|NCT01283139|181540934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.84||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.16|2.94|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.94|1.16|0.031
90837211|NCT01283139|181540935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.88||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.13|3.14|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.14|1.13|0.042
90837212|NCT01283139|181540935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.264|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|2.35|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.35|0.85|0.264
90837213|NCT01283139|181540935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.91||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.14|3.19|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.19|1.14|0.038
90837214|NCT01283139|181540936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.808|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.37|3.81|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.81|0.37|0.808
90837215|NCT01283139|181540936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.598|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.45|4.66|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.66|0.45|0.598
90837216|NCT01283139|181540936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.884|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.27|3.02|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.02|0.27|0.884
90837217|NCT01283139|181540937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.92||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.22|7.01|||Regression, Logistic|||||7.01|1.22|0.044
90837218|NCT01283139|181540937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.498|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.62|3.19|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.19|0.62|0.498
90837219|NCT01283139|181540937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.03||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.2|7.68|||Regression, Logistic|||||7.68|1.20|0.049
90837220|NCT01283139|181540938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|2.25|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.25|0.85|0.270
90837221|NCT01283139|181540938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.69||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.04|2.74|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.74|1.04|0.077
90837222|NCT01283139|181540938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.453|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.76|2.05|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.05|0.76|0.453
90837223|NCT00310765|181541039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|The group-by-time interaction result from repeated-measure analysis of variance modeling was used to evaluate whether the two study groups differed regarding the pain score change that occurred across each of the two study phases (weeks 0-7 and weeks 7-10). To conform to the analysis of variance assumption of distributional normality, the pain scores were square root transformed before the analysis.|Mean Difference (Net)|2.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.5|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|4.0|||ANOVA|||The number of patients required per treatment group to achieve a \>80% power with an alpha=0.05 were based on exact rates from reference articles cited in the paper. Patients were randomly assigned to active drug (pregabalin) or look alike placebo.||4.0|0.0|<0.05
90896061|NCT01226511|181657933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-2.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.03|-1.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.27|-4.03|<0.001
90957207|NCT01451827|181793914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.98||||0.0127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.0|||ANCOVA|||Hierarchical tests were used to control the type I error in the primary analysis. They are given in the following order: 1. Pooled tolvaptan treatment groups (IR and MR) versus placebo; 2. Tolvaptan MR 80 mg versus placebo; 3. Tolvaptan MR 50 mg versus placebo; 4. Tolvaptan IR 60/30 mg versus placebo.||1.00|0.96|0.0127
90896062|NCT01972529|181658024|SUPERIORITY||Difference of proportion vs placebo|42.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.2|58.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by the risk of bleeding associated with the elective procedure within each baseline platelet count cohort.|Difference of proportion versus (vs) placebo = proportion of Responders for avatrombopag - proportion of Responders for placebo; 95% CI is calculated based on normal approximation.|The null hypothesis was that the proportion of participants not requiring a platelet transfusion or any rescue procedure for bleeding after randomization and up to 7 days following a scheduled procedure was the same between the 60 mg avatrombopag and matched placebo treatment groups.||58.1|27.2|<0.0001
90896063|NCT01972529|181658024|SUPERIORITY||Difference of proportion vs placebo|49.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.6|68.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by the risk of bleeding associated with the elective procedure within each baseline platelet count cohort.|Difference of proportion vs placebo = proportion of Responders for avatrombopag - proportion of Responders for placebo; 95% CI is calculated based on normal approximation.|The null hypothesis was that the proportion of participants not requiring a platelet transfusion or any rescue procedure for bleeding after randomization and up to 7 days following a scheduled procedure was the same between the avatrombopag and placebo treatment groups.||68.2|31.6|<0.0001
91027785|NCT02637557|181939628|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.143||||0.1295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.042|0.328||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||0.328|-0.042|0.1295
91027786|NCT02637557|181939628|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.028||||0.7671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.216|0.159||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||0.159|-0.216|0.7671
91027787|NCT02637557|181939628|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.01||||0.9308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.217|0.238||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||0.238|-0.217|0.9308
90837224|NCT00310765|181541040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|The group-by-time interaction result from repeated-measures analysis of variance modeling was used to evaluate whether the two study groups differed regarding the sleep score change that occurred during the two study phases (weeks 0-7 and weeks 7-11. to conform to the analysis of variance assumption of distributional normality the sleep scores were square root transformed before the analysis.|Mean Difference (Net)|2.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.5|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|4.0|||ANOVA|||The number of patients required per treatment group to achieve a \>80% power with an alpha=0.05 were based on the exact rates from the reference articles cited in the paper.||4.0|0.0|<0.05
90837225|NCT00301808|181541078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier product limit|0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1423|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.84||||||||0.84|0.48|
90837226|NCT00844844|181541082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean change from baseline|65.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.01|93.36|||ANOVA|Change from baseline were analyzed using a repeated measurement ANOVA model with time and baseline as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||With at least 12 patients enrolled and assuming a null hypothesis of no post-dose change from baseline in mean platelet count, the study had approximately 88% power to detect as statistically significant an effect size (mean change from baseline/standard deviation) of at least 1 when using a one sample t-test with a two-sided α=0.05. All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols:C08-002A (adult) and C08-002B (Adolescent), a similar protocol, for patients \<18 years with aHUS.||93.36|37.01|<0.0001
90837227|NCT00844844|181541083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of platelet count normalization|82.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.0|96.0||||||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: protocol C08-002A for adult patients with aHUS and protocol C08-002B, a similar protocol, for patients \< 18 years of age for adolescent patients with aHUS.||96|57|
90837228|NCT00844844|181541084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of hematologic normalization|76.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.0|93.0||||||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: protocol C08-002A for adult patients with aHUS and protocol C08-002B, a similar protocol, for patients \< 18 years of age for adolescent patients with aHUS.||93|50|
90837229|NCT00844844|181541085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of complete TMA response|65.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.0|86.0||||||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: protocol C08-002A for adult patients with aHUS and protocol C08-002B, a similar protocol, for patients \< 18 years of age for adolescent patients with aHUS.||86|38|
90837230|NCT00844844|181541086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: protocol C08-002A for adult patients with aHUS and protocol C08-002B, a similar protocol, for patients \< 18 years of age for adolescent patients with aHUS.||||<0.0001
90837231|NCT00844844|181541087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean change from baseline|111.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.12|125.13|||ANOVA|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measurement ANOVA model with time and baseline as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: protocol C08-002A for adult patients with aHUS and protocol C08-002B, a similar protocol, for patients \< 18 years of age for adolescent patients with aHUS.||125.13|98.12|<0.0001
90837232|NCT00844844|181541088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of platelet count normalization|88.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.0|99.0||||||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: protocol C08-002A for adult patients with aHUS and protocol C08-002B, a similar protocol, for patients \< 18 years of age for adolescent patients with aHUS.||99|64|
90837233|NCT00844844|181541089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of hematologic normalization|88.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.0|99.0||||||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: protocol C08-002A for adult patients with aHUS and protocol C08-002B, a similar protocol, for patients \< 18 years of age for adolescent patients with aHUS.||99|64|
90837234|NCT00844844|181541090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of complete TMA response|76.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.0|93.0||||||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: protocol C08-002A for adult patients with aHUS and protocol C08-002B, a similar protocol, for patients \< 18 years of age for adolescent patients with aHUS.||93|50|
90837235|NCT00844844|181541091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: protocol C08-002A for adult patients with aHUS and protocol C08-002B, a similar protocol, for patients \< 18 years of age for adolescent patients with aHUS.||||<0.0001
90837236|NCT04886154|181541106|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% CI for the difference in percentages of samples with bactericidal serum activity is above 5% between the ABCWY low dose\_06 group compared to the Control group at 1 month after the last vaccination.|Difference in percentage|4.67|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|3.38|5.97|||||The 97.5% CIs for the difference in percentages between ABCWY low dose\_06 group and the control group is constructed using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|To demonstrate the superiority of the effectiveness of the MenABCWY-2Gen vaccine (low dose) when administered at 0,6-months schedule, compared to the MenB vaccine administered at 0,6-months schedule.||5.97|3.38|
90837237|NCT04886154|181541106|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% CI for the difference in percentages of samples with bactericidal serum activity is above 5% between the ABCWY low dose\_02 group compared to the Control group at 1 month after the last vaccination.|Difference in percentage|-0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.65|1.3|||||The 97.5% CIs for the difference in percentages between ABCWY low dose\_02 group and the control group is constructed using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|To demonstrate the superiority of the effectiveness of the MenABCWY-2Gen vaccine (low dose) when administered at 0,2- months schedule, compared to the MenB vaccine administered at 0,6-months schedule.||1.30|-1.65|
90837238|NCT04886154|181541106|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% CI for the difference in percentages of samples with bactericidal serum activity is above 5% between the ABCWY high dose\_06 group compared to the Control group at 1 month after the last vaccination.|Difference in percentage|4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|3.33|5.89|||||The 97.5% CIs for the difference in percentages between ABCWY high dose\_06 group and the control group is constructed using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|To demonstrate the superiority of the effectiveness of the MenABCWY-2Gen vaccine (high dose) when administered at 0,6- months schedule, compared to the MenB vaccine administered at 0,6-months schedule.||5.89|3.33|
90837239|NCT04886154|181541106|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% CI for the difference in percentages of samples with bactericidal serum activity is above 5% between the ABCWY high dose\_02 group compared to the Control group at 1 month after the last vaccination.|Difference in percentage|2.01|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.6|3.42|||||The 97.5% CIs for the difference in percentages between ABCWY high dose\_02 group and the control group is constructed using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|To demonstrate the superiority of the effectiveness of the MenABCWY-2Gen vaccine (high dose) when administered at 0,2- months schedule, compared to the MenB vaccine administered at 0,6-months schedule.||3.42|0.60|
90837240|NCT04886154|181541107|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority (NI) was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% CI for the difference in percentages of participants achieving a 4-fold rise in hSBA titres is above -10% at 1 month after the last MenABCWY-2Gen vaccination in the ABCWY low dose\_06 group compared to the MenACWY vaccination in the Control group.|Difference in percentage|3.03|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-4.21|10.17|||||The 97.5% CIs for the difference in percentages between ABCWY low dose\_06 group and the control group is constructed using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of the MenABCWY-2Gen vaccine (low dose) administered at 0,6-months schedule compared to the MenACWY vaccine administered at month 0 in the control group (Men A).||10.17|-4.21|
90837241|NCT04886154|181541107|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% CI for the difference in percentages of participants achieving a 4-fold rise in hSBA titres is above -10% at 1 month after the last MenABCWY-2Gen vaccination in the ABCWY low dose\_02 group compared to the MenACWY vaccination in the Control group.|Difference in percentage|4.66|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.71|11.64|||||The 97.5% CIs for the difference in percentages between ABCWY low dose\_02 group and the control group is constructed using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of the MenABCWY-2Gen vaccine (low dose) administered at 0,2-months schedule compared to the MenACWY vaccine administered at month 0 in the control group (Men A).||11.64|-2.71|
90837242|NCT04886154|181541107|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% CI for the difference in percentages of participants achieving a 4-fold rise in hSBA titres is above -10% at 1 month after the last MenABCWY-2Gen vaccination in the ABCWY high dose\_06 group compared to the MenACWY vaccination in the Control group.|Difference in percentage|5.48|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.71|12.25|||||The 97.5% CIs for the difference in percentages between ABCWY high dose\_06 group and the control group is constructed using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of the MenABCWY-2Gen vaccine (high dose) administered at 0,6-months schedule compared to the MenACWY vaccine administered at month 0 in the control group (Men A).||12.25|-0.71|
90837243|NCT04886154|181541107|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% CI for the difference in percentages of participants achieving a 4-fold rise in hSBA titres is above -10% at 1 month after the last MenABCWY-2Gen vaccination in the ABCWY high dose\_02 group compared to the MenACWY vaccination in the Control group.|Difference in percentage|3.87|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.7|10.97|||||The 97.5% CIs for the difference in percentages between ABCWY high dose\_02 group and the control group is constructed using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of the MenABCWY-2Gen vaccine (high dose) administered at 0,2-months schedule compared to the MenACWY vaccine administered at month 0 in the control group (Men A).||10.97|-3.70|
90837244|NCT04886154|181541107|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority (NI) was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% CI for the difference in percentages of participants achieving a 4-fold rise in hSBA titres is above -10% at 1 month after the last MenABCWY-2Gen vaccination in the ABCWY low dose\_06 group compared to the MenACWY vaccination in the Control group.|Difference in percentage|35.03|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|25.22|44.75|||||The 97.5% CIs for the difference in percentages between ABCWY low dose\_06 group and the control group is constructed using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of the MenABCWY-2Gen vaccine (low dose) administered at 0,6-months schedule compared to the MenACWY vaccine administered at month 0 in the control group (Men C).||44.75|25.22|
91027788|NCT02637557|181939628|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.051||||0.6595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.176|0.277||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||0.277|-0.176|0.6595
90837245|NCT04886154|181541107|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% CI for the difference in percentages of participants achieving a 4-fold rise in hSBA titres is above -10% at 1 month after the last MenABCWY-2Gen vaccination in the ABCWY low dose\_02 group compared to the MenACWY vaccination in the Control group.|Difference in percentage|34.16|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|23.76|44.1|||||The 97.5% CIs for the difference in percentages between ABCWY low dose\_02 group and the control group is constructed using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of the MenABCWY-2Gen vaccine (low dose) administered at 0,2-months schedule compared to the MenACWY vaccine administered at month 0 in the control group (Men C).||44.10|23.76|
90837246|NCT04886154|181541107|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% CI for the difference in percentages of participants achieving a 4-fold rise in hSBA titres is above -10% at 1 month after the last MenABCWY-2Gen vaccination in the ABCWY high dose\_06 group compared to the MenACWY vaccination in the Control group.|Difference in percentage|29.88|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|19.26|40.19|||||The 97.5% CIs for the difference in percentages between ABCWY high dose\_06 group and the control group is constructed using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of the MenABCWY-2Gen vaccine (high dose) administered at 0,6-months schedule compared to the MenACWY vaccine administered at month 0 in the control group (Men C).||40.19|19.26|
90837247|NCT04886154|181541107|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% CI for the difference in percentages of participants achieving a 4-fold rise in hSBA titres is above -10% at 1 month after the last MenABCWY-2Gen vaccination in the ABCWY high dose\_02 group compared to the MenACWY vaccination in the Control group.|Difference in percentage|33.54|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|23.09|43.54|||||The 97.5% CIs for the difference in percentages between ABCWY high dose\_02 group and the control group is constructed using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of the MenABCWY-2Gen vaccine (high dose) administered at 0,2-months schedule compared to the MenACWY vaccine administered at month 0 in the control group (Men C).||43.54|23.09|
90837248|NCT04886154|181541107|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority (NI) was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% CI for the difference in percentages of participants achieving a 4-fold rise in hSBA titres is above -10% at 1 month after the last MenABCWY-2Gen vaccination in the ABCWY low dose\_06 group compared to the MenACWY vaccination in the Control group.|Difference in percentage|30.88|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|21.61|40.32|||||The 97.5% CIs for the difference in percentages between ABCWY low dose\_06 group and the control group is constructed using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of the MenABCWY-2Gen vaccine (low dose) administered at 0,6-months schedule compared to the MenACWY vaccine administered at month 0 in the control group (Men W).||40.32|21.61|
90837249|NCT04886154|181541107|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% CI for the difference in percentages of participants achieving a 4-fold rise in hSBA titres is above -10% at 1 month after the MenABCWY-2Gen MenACWY vaccination in the ABCWY low dose\_02 group compared to the MenACWY vaccination in the Control group.|Difference in percentage|29.35|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|19.31|39.08|||||The 97.5% CIs for the difference in percentages between ABCWY low dose\_02 group and the control group is constructed using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of the MenABCWY-2Gen vaccine (low dose) administered at 0,2-months schedule compared to the MenACWY vaccine administered at month 0 in the control group (Men W).||39.08|19.31|
90837250|NCT04886154|181541107|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% CI for the difference in percentages of participants achieving a 4-fold rise in hSBA titres is above -10% at 1 month after the last MenABCWY-2Gen vaccination in the ABCWY high dose\_06 group compared to the MenACWY vaccination in the Control group.|Difference in percentage|29.02|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|19.42|38.67|||||The 97.5% CIs for the difference in percentages between ABCWY high dose\_06 group and the control group is constructed using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of the MenABCWY-2Gen vaccine (high dose) administered at 0,6-months schedule compared to the MenACWY vaccine administered at month 0 in the control group (Men W).||38.67|19.42|
90837251|NCT04886154|181541107|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% CI for the difference in percentages of participants achieving a 4-fold rise in hSBA titres is above -10% at 1 month after the last MenABCWY-2Gen vaccination in the ABCWY high dose\_02 group compared to the MenACWY vaccination in the Control group.|Difference in percentage|25.13|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|14.2|35.45|||||The 97.5% CIs for the difference in percentages between ABCWY high dose\_02 group and the control group is constructed using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of the MenABCWY-2Gen vaccine (high dose) administered at 0,2-months schedule compared to the MenACWY vaccine administered at month 0 in the control group (Men W).||35.45|14.20|
90837252|NCT04886154|181541107|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority (NI) was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% CI for the difference in percentages of participants achieving a 4-fold rise in hSBA titres is above -10% at 1 month after the last MenABCWY-2Gen vaccination in the ABCWY low dose\_06 group compared to the MenACWY vaccination in the Control group.|Difference in percentage|33.38|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|23.08|43.26|||||The 97.5% CIs for the difference in percentages between ABCWY low dose\_06 group and the control group is constructed using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of the MenABCWY-2Gen vaccine (low dose) administered at 0,6-months schedule compared to the MenACWY vaccine administered at month 0 in the control group (Men Y).||43.26|23.08|
90896064|NCT01972529|181658025|SUPERIORITY||Difference of proportion vs placebo|64.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.6|75.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value is stratified by the risk of bleeding associated with the elective procedure within each baseline platelet count cohort.|Difference of proportion vs placebo = proportion of responders for avatrombopag - proportion of responders for placebo; 95% CI is calculated based on normal approximation.|The null hypothesis was that the proportion of participants not requiring a platelet transfusion or any rescue procedure for bleeding after randomization and up to 7 days following a scheduled procedure was the same between the avatrombopag and placebo treatment groups||75.8|53.6|<0.0001
90957208|NCT01451827|181793914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.97||||0.0108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|0.99|||ANCOVA|||Hierarchical tests were used to control the type I error in the primary analysis. They are given in the following order: 1. Pooled tolvaptan treatment groups (IR and MR) versus placebo; 2. Tolvaptan MR 80 mg versus placebo; 3. Tolvaptan MR 50 mg versus placebo; 4. Tolvaptan IR 60/30 mg versus placebo.||0.99|0.95|0.0108
90837253|NCT04886154|181541107|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% CI for the difference in percentages of participants achieving a 4-fold rise in hSBA titres is above -10% at 1 month after the last MenABCWY-2Gen vaccination in the ABCWY low dose\_02 group compared to the MenACWY vaccination in the Control group.|Difference in percentage|28.18|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|16.61|38.86|||||The 97.5% CIs for the difference in percentages between ABCWY low dose\_02 group and the control group is constructed using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of the MenABCWY-2Gen vaccine (low dose) administered at 0,2-months schedule compared to the MenACWY vaccine administered at month 0 in the control group (Men Y).||38.86|16.61|
90837254|NCT04886154|181541107|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% CI for the difference in percentages of participants achieving a 4-fold rise in hSBA titres is above -10% at 1 month after the last MenABCWY-2Gen vaccination in the ABCWY high dose\_06 group compared to the MenACWY vaccination in the Control group.|Difference in percentage|29.37|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|18.67|39.63|||||The 97.5% CIs for the difference in percentages between ABCWY high dose\_06 group and the control group is constructed using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of the MenABCWY-2Gen vaccine (high dose) administered at 0,6-months schedule compared to the MenACWY vaccine administered at month 0 in the control group (Men Y).||39.63|18.67|
90837255|NCT04886154|181541107|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% CI for the difference in percentages of participants achieving a 4-fold rise in hSBA titres is above -10% at 1 month after the last MenABCWY-2Gen vaccination in the ABCWY high dose\_02 group compared to the MenACWY vaccination in the Control group.|Difference in percentage|27.21|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|15.46|38.02|||||The 97.5% CIs for the difference in percentages between ABCWY high dose\_02 group and the control group is constructed using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of the MenABCWY-2Gen vaccine (high dose) administered at 0,2-months schedule compared to the MenACWY vaccine administered at month 0 in the control group (Men Y).||38.02|15.46|
90837256|NCT03919773|181541145|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.629|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Intention-to-treat analysis||||0.629
90837257|NCT03919773|181541146|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.718|||||||Fisher Exact|||comparison of proportion with positive treatment response (as defined) in IVIG group compared to albumin||||0.718
90837258|NCT02977403|181541147|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for AB reaction time measures. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. AB reaction times were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|-1.948|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.79|16.894||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in AB, change scores were computed (post-pre = delta). Positive scores represent an increase in AB from pre- to post- intervention. Negative ∆reaction time scores represent a decrease in AB from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in AB following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||16.894|-20.790|
90837259|NCT02977403|181541147|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.952|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.28|33.377||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||33.377|-35.280|
90896065|NCT01972529|181658025|SUPERIORITY||Difference of percentage vs placebo|67.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.6|83.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value is stratified by the risk of bleeding associated with the elective procedure within each baseline platelet count cohort.|Difference of proportion vs placebo = proportion of responders for avatrombopag - proportion of responders for placebo; 95% CI is calculated based on normal approximation.|The null hypothesis was that the proportion of participants not requiring a platelet transfusion or any rescue procedure for bleeding after randomization and up to 7 days following a scheduled procedure was the same between the avatrombopag and placebo treatment groups||83.4|51.6|<0.0001
91027789|NCT02637557|181939628|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.127||||0.2771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.356|0.102||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||0.102|-0.356|0.2771
90837260|NCT02977403|181541148|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficent|0.047|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.025|0.119||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.119|-0.025|
90837261|NCT02977403|181541148|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.134|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.288|0.019||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.019|-0.288|
91027790|NCT02637557|181939628|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.203||||0.0887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.436|0.031||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 3||0.031|-0.436|0.0887
91091065|NCT02616783|182065966|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|-5.5||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|1.6||P-values for the superiority test comparing the percentages of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL were from the Fisher exact test.|Fisher Exact||Differences in percentages and 95% CI were generated based on exact method.|||1.6|-11.8|0.18
90896066|NCT01972529|181658026|SUPERIORITY||Difference in change of platelet count|27.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.5|32.5|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-value is based on Wilcoxon rank sum test for each avatrombopag treatment group vs placebo within each baseline platelet count cohort.|Difference in change from baseline of platelet count for avatrombopag vs placebo within each baseline platelet count cohort is based on Hodges-Lehmann estimation; 95% confidence interval is the asymptotic (Moses) CI.|||32.5|22.5|<0.0001
91091066|NCT02616783|182065967|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|-1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|9.3|||Fisher Exact|P-values for the superiority test comparing the percentages of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL were from the Fisher exact test.|Differences in percentages and 95% CI were generated based on exact method.|||9.3|-8.5|1.00
90837262|NCT02977403|181541149|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass and height, race and ethnicity.|beta coefficent|-0.002|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.085|0.082||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post-intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.082|-0.085|
90837263|NCT02977403|181541149|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.053|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.177|0.071||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.071|-0.177|
90837264|NCT02977403|181541150|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.022|0.182||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.182|-0.022|
90837265|NCT02977403|181541150|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.018|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.139|0.103||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.103|-0.139|
90837266|NCT02977403|181541151|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|0.013|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.086|0.113||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.113|-0.086|
90957209|NCT01451827|181793914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.98||||0.0155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.0|||ANCOVA|||Hierarchical tests were used to control the type I error in the primary analysis. They are given in the following order: 1. Pooled tolvaptan treatment groups (IR and MR) versus placebo; 2. Tolvaptan MR 80 mg versus placebo; 3. Tolvaptan MR 50 mg versus placebo; 4. Tolvaptan IR 60/30 mg versus placebo.||1.00|0.96|0.0155
90957210|NCT01451827|181793914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.99||||0.2417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.01|||ANCOVA|||Hierarchical tests were used to control the type I error in the primary analysis. They are given in the following order: 1. Pooled tolvaptan treatment groups (IR and MR) versus placebo; 2. Tolvaptan MR 80 mg versus placebo; 3. Tolvaptan MR 50 mg versus placebo; 4. Tolvaptan IR 60/30 mg versus placebo.||1.01|0.97|0.2417
90957211|NCT01451827|181793915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.65||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.99|||ANCOVA|||Urinary Frequency||0.99|0.31|0.0002
91091067|NCT02616783|182065968|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|52.0||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|106.0|||ANOVA|The p-value, difference in least square means (LSM), and its 95% CI were from ANOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect.||||106|-1|0.053
90957212|NCT01451827|181793915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.08|||ANCOVA|||Urinary Frequency||1.08|0.40|< 0.0001
90957213|NCT01451827|181793915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.92|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.25|||ANCOVA|||Urinary Frequency||1.25|0.58|< 0.0001
90837267|NCT02977403|181541151|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.035|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.179|0.109||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.109|-0.179|
90837268|NCT02977403|181541152|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|0.083|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|0.167||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.167|-0.001|
90837269|NCT02977403|181541152|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.069|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.201|0.063||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.063|-0.201|
90837270|NCT02977403|181541153|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity|beta coefficient|0.031|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.059|0.121||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.121|-0.059|
90837271|NCT02977403|181541153|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.002|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.157|0.152||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.152|-0.157|
91027791|NCT02637557|181939628|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.21||||0.0758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.443|0.022||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 3||0.022|-0.443|0.0758
91027792|NCT02637557|181939628|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.298||||0.0132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.534|-0.063||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 3||-0.063|-0.534|0.0132
91027793|NCT02637557|181939628|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.086||||0.4903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.332|0.16||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||0.160|-0.332|0.4903
90837272|NCT02977403|181541154|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|-0.042|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.149|0.065||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.065|-0.149|
90837273|NCT02977403|181541154|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.068|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.266|0.131||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.131|-0.266|
90837274|NCT02977403|181541155|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|-0.034|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.122|0.053||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.053|-0.122|
90837275|NCT02977403|181541155|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.233|0.092||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.092|-0.233|
90837276|NCT02977403|181541156|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|0.042|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.041|0.126||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.126|-0.041|
90837277|NCT02977403|181541156|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.085|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.252|0.082||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.082|-0.252|
90837278|NCT02977403|181541157|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|0.021|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.102||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.102|-0.060|
90837279|NCT02977403|181541157|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.071|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.119||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.119|-0.260|
90837280|NCT02977403|181541158|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|0.107|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.185||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.185|0.030|
90837281|NCT02977403|181541158|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.197|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.346|-0.047||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||-0.047|-0.346|
90837282|NCT02977403|181541159|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|0.092|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.175||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.175|0.010|
90837283|NCT02977403|181541159|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.049|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.204|0.107||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.107|-0.204|
90859681|NCT02758171|181582717|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence acceptable range of 80.00% to 125.00%.|Adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio|99.39|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.29|103.672|||ANOVA||"The ratio \[%\] calculated as T \[FDC (10 mg Empagliflozin and 5 mg Linagliptin)\]/R \[Empagliflozin (10 mg) + Linagliptin (5 mg) Single Tablets\].~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\]."|The statistical model used was an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: Sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment. The effect subjects within sequences was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||103.672|95.290|<0.0001
91027794|NCT02637557|181939628|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.068||||0.5824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.313|0.176||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||0.176|-0.313|0.5824
91027795|NCT02637557|181939628|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.215||||0.0885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.463|0.033||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||0.033|-0.463|0.0885
90837284|NCT02977403|181541160|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|0.046|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.032|0.123||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.123|-0.032|
90837285|NCT02977403|181541160|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|0.007|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.163|0.177||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.177|-0.163|
90837286|NCT02977403|181541161|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|0.041|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.112||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.112|-0.03|
90837287|NCT02977403|181541161|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.014|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.168|0.14||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.140|-0.168|
90837288|NCT02977403|181541162|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|-0.037|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.125|0.052||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.052|-0.125|
90837289|NCT02977403|181541162|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.034|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.196|0.129||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.129|-0.196|
90896067|NCT01972529|181658026|SUPERIORITY||Difference in change of platelet count|33.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.5|41.5|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-value is based on Wilcoxon rank sum test for each avatrombopag treatment group vs placebo within each baseline platelet count cohort.|Difference in change from baseline of platelet count for avatrombopag vs placebo within each baseline platelet count cohort is based on Hodges-Lehmann estimation; 95% confidence interval is the asymptotic (Moses) CI.|||41.5|25.5|<0.0001
90896068|NCT01889186|181658029|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||The ORR for ABT-199 was tested to reject the null hypothesis of ORR = 40%. If the null hypothesis is rejected and the ORR is higher than 40%, then ABT-199 has been shown to have an ORR significantly higher than 40%.The p-value is from the exact binomial distribution comparing ABT-199 ORR to the 40% historical control rate.||||<0.001
91027796|NCT02637557|181939628|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.111||||0.3652|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.352|0.13||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 5||0.130|-0.352|0.3652
90957214|NCT01451827|181793915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.66||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.01|||ANCOVA|||Urinary Urgency||1.01|0.30|0.0004
91027797|NCT02637557|181939628|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.108||||0.3739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.348|0.131||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 5||0.131|-0.348|0.3739
91091068|NCT02616783|182065969|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|57.0||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|115.0|||ANOVA|The p-value, difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were from ANOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect.||||115|0|0.051
90837290|NCT02977403|181541163|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|0.001|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.091|0.093||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.093|-0.091|
90837291|NCT02977403|181541163|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.143|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.286|0.001||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.001|-0.286|
90837292|NCT02977403|181541164|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|0.065|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|0.132||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.132|-0.001|
90837293|NCT02977403|181541164|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.095|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.246|0.055||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.055|-0.246|
90837294|NCT02977403|181541165|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|0.023|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.055|0.101||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.101|-0.055|
90896069|NCT00252538|181658042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||All statistics employed Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) 17.0. Analysis of variances were used to compare viral responses in genotypes of interest, employing Scheffe's post-hoc analyses. Repeated-measure mixed-effect analyses were used to compare changes in subjective symptoms over time, including age, gender, and self identified race as covariates. Kaplan-Meier survival analyses examining time until MDD development were compared using theMantel-Cox log rank test.||||>0.05
90896070|NCT02755597|181658045|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.656|||=|0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.471|0.913|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox proportional hazards model|Stratified Analysis; Stratification factors: Prior exposure to proteasome inhibitors (naïve versus sensitive), and number of prior lines of therapy (1 versus 2 or 3)||0.913|0.471|=0.012
90896071|NCT02755597|181658046|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Stratified Analysis; Stratification factors: Prior exposure to proteasome inhibitors (naïve versus sensitive), and number of prior lines of therapy (1 versus 2 or 3)||||<0.001
90896072|NCT02755597|181658048|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.508|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.343|0.753|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox proportional hazards model|Stratified Analysis; Stratification factors: Prior exposure to proteasome inhibitors (naïve versus sensitive), and number of prior lines of therapy (1 versus 2 or 3)||0.753|0.343|<0.001
90896073|NCT02755597|181658053|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.191|||=|0.385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.802|1.77|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox proportional hazards model|Stratified Analysis; Stratification factors: Prior exposure to proteasome inhibitors (naïve versus sensitive), and number of prior lines of therapy (1 versus 2 or 3)||1.770|0.802|=0.385
90957215|NCT01451827|181793915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.65||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.01|||ANCOVA|||Urinary Urgency||1.01|0.29|0.0004
91027798|NCT02637557|181939628|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27||||0.0294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.512|-0.027||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 5||-0.027|-0.512|0.0294
91027799|NCT02637557|181939628|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.102||||0.4236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.351|0.148||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||0.148|-0.351|0.4236
90837295|NCT02977403|181541165|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.178|0.137||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.137|-0.178|
90837296|NCT02977403|181541166|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|-0.032|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.116|0.051||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.051|-0.116|
90837297|NCT02977403|181541166|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.104|0.223||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.223|-0.104|
90837298|NCT02977403|181541167|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|-0.012|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.078|0.053||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.053|-0.078|
90837299|NCT02977403|181541167|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.064|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.248|0.12||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.120|-0.248|
90837300|NCT02977403|181541168|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|0.089|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|0.174||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.174|0.004|
90837301|NCT02977403|181541168|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|0.021|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.159|0.201||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.201|-0.159|
90859682|NCT02758171|181582718|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence acceptable range of 80.00% to 125.00%.|Adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio|102.33|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.945|106.91|||ANOVA||"The ratio \[%\] calculated as T \[FDC (10 mg Empagliflozin and 5 mg Linagliptin)\]/R \[Empagliflozin (10 mg) + Linagliptin (5 mg) Single Tablets\].~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\]."|The statistical model used was an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: Sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment. The effect subjects within sequences was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||106.910|97.945|<0.0001
90896074|NCT02755597|181658054|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.571|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.405|0.805|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox proportional hazards model|Stratified Analysis; Stratification factors: Prior exposure to proteasome inhibitors (naïve versus sensitive), and number of prior lines of therapy (1 versus 2 or 3)||0.805|0.405|=0.001
90896075|NCT02755597|181658055|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.019|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Stratified Analysis; Stratification factors: Prior exposure to proteasome inhibitors (naïve versus sensitive), and number of prior lines of therapy (1 versus 2 or 3)||||=0.019
90896076|NCT02755597|181658056|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Stratified Analysis; Stratification factors: Prior exposure to proteasome inhibitors (naïve versus sensitive), and number of prior lines of therapy (1 versus 2 or 3)||||<0.001
90896077|NCT04252742|181658057|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-7.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.45|-4.46||Nominal p-value is presented without multiplicity adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value as covariates.|Erenumab 140 mg SC Q4W - Placebo|||-4.46|-11.45|< 0.001
90896078|NCT04252742|181658058|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-7.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|-3.92||Nominal p-value is presented without multiplicity adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value as covariates.|Erenumab 140 mg SC Q4W - Placebo|||-3.92|-10.80|< 0.001
90837302|NCT02977403|181541169|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|-0.016|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.113|0.081||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.081|-0.113|
90837303|NCT02977403|181541169|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.072|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.206|0.062||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.062|-0.206|
90837304|NCT02977403|181541170|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|0.129|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.049|0.209||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.209|0.049|
90837305|NCT02977403|181541170|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.181|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|-0.033||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||-0.033|-0.330|
90837306|NCT02977403|181541171|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|0.126|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.045|0.207||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.207|0.045|
90837307|NCT02977403|181541171|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.056|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.223|0.112||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.112|-0.223|
90837308|NCT02977403|181541172|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|0.115|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.027|0.203||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.203|0.027|
90837309|NCT02977403|181541172|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.058|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.203|0.087||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.087|-0.203|
90859683|NCT02758171|181582719|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence acceptable range of 80.00% to 125.00%.|Adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio|107.51|STANDARD_DEVIATION|27.4||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.561|117.282|||ANOVA||"The ratio \[%\] calculated as T \[FDC (10 mg Empagliflozin and 5 mg Linagliptin)\]/R \[Empagliflozin (10 mg) + Linagliptin (5 mg) Single Tablets\].~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\]."|The statistical model used was an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: Sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment. The effect subjects within sequences was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||117.282|98.561|0.0027
91027800|NCT02637557|181939628|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.105||||0.4071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.353|0.144||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||0.144|-0.353|0.4071
90837310|NCT02977403|181541173|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|0.037|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.053|0.127||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.127|-0.053|
90837311|NCT02977403|181541173|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.085|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.069||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.069|-0.240|
90837312|NCT02977403|181541174|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|-0.021|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.092|0.05||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.050|-0.092|
90837313|NCT02977403|181541174|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.096|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.249|0.056||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.056|-0.249|
90837314|NCT02977403|181541175|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|-0.013|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.095|0.069||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.069|-0.095|
90837315|NCT02977403|181541175|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.078|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.227|0.071||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.071|-0.227|
90837316|NCT02977403|181541176|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|-0.005|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.103|0.092||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.092|-0.103|
90837317|NCT02977403|181541176|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.032|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.173|0.11||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.110|-0.173|
90896079|NCT04252742|181658059|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-7.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.34|-3.87||Nominal p-value is presented without multiplicity adjustment|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value as covariates|Erenumab 140 mg SC Q4W - Placebo|||-3.87|-10.34|< 0.001
90896080|NCT04252742|181658060|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-7.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.76|-3.34||Nominal p-value is presented without multiplicity adjustment|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value as covariates|Erenumab 140 mg SC Q4W - Placebo|||-3.34|-10.76|< 0.001
90957216|NCT01451827|181793915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.34|||ANCOVA|||Urinary Urgency||1.34|0.63|< 0.0001
90837318|NCT02977403|181541177|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.069|0.109||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.109|-0.069|
90837319|NCT02977403|181541177|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.088|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.252|0.077||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.077|-0.252|
90837320|NCT02977403|181541178|OTHER|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.099|0.08||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.080|-0.099|
90837321|NCT02977403|181541178|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.155|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.294|-0.017||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||-0.017|-0.294|
91027801|NCT02637557|181939628|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.259||||0.0434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.008||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||-0.008|-0.510|0.0434
91091069|NCT02439164|182065996|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|23.51|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.16|32.87|||t-test, 2 sided|bonferroni correction was used for post hoc analysis, P value less than 0.05 indicated statistical significance.|this described the difference during midazolam sedation between the glioma and control group without dividing into subgroups.||Oneway Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used to test the difference among hands in a certain time point. General linear model for repeated measures ANOVA was used to analyze the time difference of test before and after drug administration,|32.87|14.16|<0.01
91091070|NCT02314728|182066001|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.99
90837322|NCT02977403|181541179|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|0.013|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.069|0.095||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.095|-0.069|
90837323|NCT02977403|181541179|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.085|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.216|0.047||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.047|-0.216|
90859684|NCT02758171|181582720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio|101.44|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.574|103.336|||ANOVA||"The ratio \[%\] calculated as T \[FDC (10 mg Empagliflozin and 5 mg Linagliptin)\]/R \[Empagliflozin (10 mg) + Linagliptin (5 mg) Single Tablets\].~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\]."|The statistical model used was an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: Sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment. The effect subjects within sequences was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||103.336|99.574|
90896081|NCT04252742|181658061|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-6.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.37|-3.27||Nominal p-value is presented without multiplicity adjustment|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value as covariates|Erenumab 140 mg SC Q4W - Placebo|||-3.27|-10.37|< 0.001
91027802|NCT02637557|181939628|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.103||||0.4172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.354|0.147||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 7||0.147|-0.354|0.4172
91027803|NCT02637557|181939628|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.071||||0.5759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.321|0.179||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 7||0.179|-0.321|0.5759
90837324|NCT02977403|181541180|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|-0.041|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.123|0.041||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.041|-0.123|
90837325|NCT02977403|181541180|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.096|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.213|0.021||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.021|-0.213|
90837326|NCT02977403|181541181|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|-0.038|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.142|0.066||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.066|-0.142|
90837327|NCT02977403|181541181|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.096|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.097||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.097|-0.290|
91027804|NCT02637557|181939628|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.285||||0.0271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.538|-0.033||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 7||-0.033|-0.538|0.0271
91091071|NCT02314728|182066002|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Fisher Exact|||NICU admission||||0.60
91091072|NCT02314728|182066002|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Fisher Exact|||histologic chorioamnionitis||||0.13
90837328|NCT02977403|181541182|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|-0.023|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.105|0.059||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.059|-0.105|
90837329|NCT02977403|181541182|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.124|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.277|0.029||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.029|-0.277|
90896082|NCT04252742|181658062|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.07||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.92|-0.22||Nominal p-value is presented without multiplicity adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value as covariates.|Erenumab 140 mg SC Q4W - Placebo|||-0.22|-1.92|0.013
90957217|NCT01451827|181793915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.86||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.3|||ANCOVA|||Nocturia||1.30|0.42|0.0002
91027805|NCT02637557|181939628|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14||||0.2804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.395|0.115||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||0.115|-0.395|0.2804
91027806|NCT02637557|181939628|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.218||||0.0913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.472|0.035||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||0.035|-0.472|0.0913
91027807|NCT02637557|181939628|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.38||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.637|-0.123||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||-0.123|-0.637|0.0039
91091073|NCT02343224|182066004|OTHER||Kaplan-Meier estimate|76.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.1|100.0||||||This Kaplan-Meier estimate is the conditional probability of event-free survival among study participants at 12 and 24 months.||100|52.1|
91091074|NCT02343224|182066005|OTHER||Kaplan-Meier estimate|75.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.3|100.0||||||This Kaplan-Meier estimate is the conditional probability of overall survival among participants at 12 and 24 months.||100|50.3|
90837330|NCT02977403|181541183|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|-0.057|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.027||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.027|-0.140|
90837331|NCT02977403|181541183|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.161|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.302|-0.02||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||-0.020|-0.302|
90837332|NCT02977403|181541184|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|-0.0002|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.091|0.091||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.091|-0.091|
90837333|NCT02977403|181541184|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.004|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.157|0.149||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.149|-0.157|
90837334|NCT02977403|181541185|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.092|0.071||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.071|-0.092|
90837335|NCT02977403|181541185|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|0.029|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.126|0.183||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.183|-0.126|
90837336|NCT02977403|181541186|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|-0.013|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.101|0.076||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.076|-0.101|
90837337|NCT02977403|181541186|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.106|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.273|0.06||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.060|-0.273|
90896083|NCT04252742|181658063|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.48||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.11||Nominal p-value is presented without multiplicity adjustment|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value as covariates|Erenumab 140 mg SC Q4W - Placebo|||-0.11|-0.85|0.011
90896084|NCT01091948|181658070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|Intubations accomplished with another device due to difficulty with assigned device and those took \>180 s were considered as failed intubations.||||||0.19
90896085|NCT01091948|181658071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Means|0.89||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.35|||ANCOVA||The mean intubation difficulty score was tested after logarithmic transformation, and then back transformed for the estimated treatment effect.|||1.35|0.58|0.58
91091075|NCT03118934|182066006|NON_INFERIORITY|The pre-specified non-inferiority margin is 0.5. With a sample size of 80/group, there was approximately 83% power to reject the null hypothesis of inferiority in fit with assumed standard deviation of 0.6 and expected difference of 0.25 (one-sided alpha=0.05).|LSM Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|||ONE_SIDED|95.0||-0.1||||||||-0.1||
91091076|NCT02557399|182066072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in percent|-6.83||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.88|-1.78||The analysis method was mixed model repeated measures analysis with treatment, center, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline TLs counts, Baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 2. A negative treatment difference indicates a benefit of Duac relative to ADA+CLDM.|||-1.78|-11.88|0.008
90837338|NCT02977403|181541187|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|-0.033|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.043||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.043|-0.110|
90837339|NCT02977403|181541187|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.166|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.335|0.003||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.003|-0.335|
90837340|NCT02977403|181541188|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|0.011|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.069|0.091||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.091|-0.069|
90837341|NCT02977403|181541188|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.167|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.332|-0.002||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||-0.002|-0.332|
90837342|NCT02977403|181541189|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|0.054|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.037|0.146||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.146|-0.037|
90837343|NCT02977403|181541189|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.019|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.127|0.09||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.090|-0.127|
90859685|NCT02758171|181582721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio|98.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.456|103.082|||ANOVA||"The ratio \[%\] calculated as T \[FDC (10 mg Empagliflozin and 5 mg Linagliptin)\]/R \[Empagliflozin (10 mg) + Linagliptin (5 mg) Single Tablets\].~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\]."|The statistical model used was an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: Sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment. The effect subjects within sequences was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||103.082|93.456|
90859686|NCT03840174|181582737|OTHER||GMT Ratio|77.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.9|252.4|||||Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) ratio and 95% CI were estimated using an ANOVA model.|||252.4|23.9|
90859687|NCT02617888|181582756|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.08|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
90896086|NCT01091948|181658072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.13||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.33|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.33|0.95|0.15
90896087|NCT01091948|181658073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.67||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|10.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.2|0.28|0.57
91091077|NCT02557399|182066073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in percent|-0.25||||0.916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.85|4.35||The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with treatment, center, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline TLs counts, Baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 1|||4.35|-4.85|0.916
90837344|NCT02977403|181541190|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|0.002|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.061|0.065||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.065|-0.061|
90837345|NCT02977403|181541190|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.086|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.215|0.042||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.042|-0.215|
90837346|NCT02977403|181541191|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|0.032|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.115||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.115|-0.05|
90837347|NCT02977403|181541191|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.095|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.248|0.058||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.058|-0.248|
90837348|NCT02977403|181541192|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|-0.016|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.075|0.042||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.042|-0.075|
90837349|NCT02977403|181541192|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|0.025|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.18||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.180|-0.130|
90837350|NCT02977403|181541193|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.039|0.099||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).||||Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.099|-0.039|
90837351|NCT02977403|181541193|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.143|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.335|0.049||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.049|-0.335|
90859688|NCT00568685|181582765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0048||95.0||||This is the p value for CGI-ADHD-S score change at endpoint|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0048
90859689|NCT00568685|181582766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0153||95.0||||This is the p value for CGI-ADHD-I score change at endpoint|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0153
91027808|NCT02637557|181939629|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.128||||0.1902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.064|0.319||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||0.319|-0.064|0.1902
91027809|NCT02637557|181939629|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.3021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.091|0.292||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||0.292|-0.091|0.3021
90837352|NCT02977403|181541194|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|-0.016|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.097|0.066||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.066|-0.097|
91027810|NCT02637557|181939629|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.028||||0.775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.221|0.165||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||0.165|-0.221|0.7750
90837353|NCT02977403|181541194|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.162|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.314|-0.01||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||-0.01|-0.314|
90837354|NCT02977403|181541195|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|0.053|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.051|0.156||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.156|-0.051|
90837355|NCT02977403|181541195|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.251|0.111||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.111|-0.251|
90837356|NCT02977403|181541196|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|0.015|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.061|0.091||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.091|-0.061|
90837357|NCT02977403|181541196|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.108|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.044||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.044|-0.260|
90837358|NCT02977403|181541197|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|0.036|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.047|0.119||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.119|-0.047|
90837359|NCT02977403|181541197|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.106|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.276|0.064||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.064|-0.276|
91027811|NCT02637557|181939629|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.099||||0.4022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.133|0.33||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||0.330|-0.133|0.4022
91091078|NCT02557399|182066073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in percent|-5.85||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.29|-1.42||The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with treatment, center, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline TLs counts, Baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 4|||-1.42|-10.29|0.010
90837360|NCT02977403|181541198|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|-0.017|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.092|0.057||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.057|-0.092|
90837361|NCT02977403|181541198|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|0.002|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.153||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.153|-0.150|
90837362|NCT02977403|181541199|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.019|0.159||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.159|-0.019|
90837363|NCT02977403|181541199|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.095|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.07||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.070|-0.260|
90837364|NCT02977403|181541200|SUPERIORITY||beta coefficient|-0.8707|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.766||0.256|TWO_SIDED||||||Generalized estimation equations||Reported variable is a condition by time (pre or post-intervention) interaction term. The model included a Poisson distribution, log link function, exchangeable covariance matrix and was adjusted for age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||||0.256
90837365|NCT04966013|181541213|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.005||||0.9784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.717|1.408|||Regression, Cox|||Log Rank Test and Cox PH Regression analyses were performed unstratified||1.408|0.717|0.9784
90837366|NCT04966013|181541214|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.388||||0.1512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.887|2.172||Log Rank Test and Cox PH Regression analyses were performed unstratified|Regression, Cox|||||2.172|0.887|0.1512
90837367|NCT00781768|181541258|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||The null hypothesis is that there will be a higher proportion of complete responders among those subjects receiving the combination therapy.||||<.001
90837368|NCT04567628|181541261|OTHER||||||=|0.003|||||||Spearman's Rank Correlation|||||||=0.003
90837369|NCT04567628|181541262|OTHER||||||=|0.25||||||A two-sided p-value of \<0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Log Rank|||||||=0.25
90837370|NCT04567628|181541265|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||A two-sided p-value of \<0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Log Rank|||||||<0.001
90837371|NCT04567628|181541267|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||A two-sided p-value of \<0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
90837372|NCT02458313|181541268|SUPERIORITY|DMXB-A vs. Placebo groups compared at baseline||||||0.647|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.647
90837373|NCT02458313|181541268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.679|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||DMXB-A vs. Placebo groups compared post-intervention||||0.679
90837374|NCT02458313|181541269|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.951|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||DMXB-A vs. Placebo groups compared at baseline||||0.951
90837375|NCT02458313|181541269|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.884|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||DMXB-A vs. Placebo groups compared post-intervention||||0.884
90837376|NCT01972217|181541279|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.651||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.438|0.969|||Log Rank|||The 1-sided p-value provides a test for rejecting the null hypothesis of no treatment effect versus the superiority alternative that patients on olaparib have a lower risk of progression compared with placebo.||0.969|0.438|0.017
90837377|NCT01972217|181541292|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.813||||0.309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.285|2.261||The p value was calculated with a 1-sided significance level of 2.5%.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.261|0.285|0.309
91027812|NCT02637557|181939629|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.062||||0.5971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.169|0.293||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||0.293|-0.169|0.5971
90837378|NCT01972217|181541293|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.781||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.13||The p value was calculated with a 1-sided significance level of 2.5%.|Log Rank|||Olapatib + abiraterone versus placebo + abiraterone: TFST||1.130|0.540|0.095
90837379|NCT01972217|181541293|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.809||||0.147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.545|1.201||The p value was calculated with a 1-sided significance level of 2.5%.|Log Rank|||Olaparib + abiraterone versus placebo + abiraterone: TSST||1.201|0.545|0.147
91027813|NCT02637557|181939629|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.045||||0.7024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.279|0.188||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||0.188|-0.279|0.7024
90837380|NCT01972217|181541294|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.911||||0.331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.384||The p value was calculated with a 1-sided significance level of 2.5%.|Log Rank|||||1.384|0.600|0.331
90837381|NCT01972217|181541295|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.788||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.511|1.215||The p value was calculated with a 1-sided significance level of 2.5%.|Log Rank|||||1.215|0.511|0.140
90837382|NCT03714672|181541299|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|-3.4|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline pain intensity, and site as covariates.|LS means, 95% CIs, and pairwise CIs and p-values comparing the combination treatment arm to the monotherapy arm.|Bonferroni-Holm procedure used for determining the statistical significance of the results.||-3.4|-4.8|<0.0001
90837383|NCT03714672|181541299|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|-3.8|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline pain intensity, and site as covariates.|LS means, 95% CIs, and pairwise CIs and p-values comparing the combination treatment arm to the monotherapy arm.|Bonferroni-Holm procedure used for determining the statistical significance of the results.||-3.8|-5.2|<0.0001
90837384|NCT03714672|181541299|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|-2.5|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline pain intensity, and site as covariates.|LS means, 95% CIs, and pairwise CIs and p-values comparing the combination treatment arm to the monotherapy arm.|Bonferroni-Holm procedure used for determining the statistical significance of the results. The planned test was a test for non-inferiority.||-2.5|-3.9|<0.0001
90837385|NCT03714672|181541299|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-2.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline pain intensity, and site as covariates.|LS means, 95% CIs, and pairwise CIs and p-values comparing the combination treatment arm to the monotherapy arm.|Bonferroni-Holm procedure used for determining the statistical significance of the results. The planned test was a test for non-inferiority.||-2.1|-3.5|<0.0001
90837386|NCT00674817|181541321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.039|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0187|=|0.02|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.008|0.069|||Mix model|||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo' at 1 hour||0.069|0.008|=0.020
90837387|NCT00674817|181541321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.139|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0227|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.101|0.176|||Mix model|||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo at 12 hour||0.176|0.101|<0.001
90837388|NCT00674817|181541321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.123|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0217|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.087|0.158|||Mix model|||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo at 24 hour||0.158|0.087|<0.001
90837389|NCT00674817|181541321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.014|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0185|=|0.22|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.016|0.045|||Mix model|||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo at 1 hour||0.045|-0.016|=0.220
90837390|NCT00674817|181541321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.124|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0225|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.087|0.161|||Mix model|||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo at 12 hour||0.161|0.087|<0.001
90837391|NCT00674817|181541321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.141|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0214|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.105|0.176|||Mix model|||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo at 24 hour||0.176|0.105|<0.001
90837392|NCT00674817|181541321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0188||0.155|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.012|0.05|||Mix model|||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo at 1 hour||0.050|-0.012|0.155
90837393|NCT00674817|181541321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.091|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0229|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.053|0.129|||Mix model|||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo at 12 hour||0.129|0.053|<0.001
90837394|NCT00674817|181541321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.126|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.09|0.162|||Mix model|||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo at 24 hour||0.162|0.090|<0.001
90837395|NCT00674817|181541321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.017|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.188|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.015|0.048|||Mix model|||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo at 1 hour||0.048|-0.015|0.188
90837396|NCT00674817|181541321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.055|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|=|0.009|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.017|0.093|||Mix model|||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo at 12 hour||0.093|0.017|=0.009
90837397|NCT00674817|181541321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.122|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0222|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.086|0.159|||Mix model|||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo at 24 hour||0.159|0.086|<0.001
90837398|NCT00674817|181541322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.066|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0616|=|0.856|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.168|0.036|||Mix model|||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo at 1 hour||0.036|-0.168|=0.856
90837399|NCT00674817|181541322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.092|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0496|=|0.033|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.01|0.174|||Mix model|||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo at 12 hour||0.174|0.010|=0.033
90837400|NCT00674817|181541322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.068|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0523|=|0.099|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.019|0.154|||Mix model|||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo at 24 hour||0.154|-0.019|=0.099
90837401|NCT00674817|181541322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.067|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0612|=|0.862|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.168|0.034|||Mix model|||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo at 1 hour||0.034|-0.168|=0.862
90859690|NCT00568685|181582767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45||95.0||||P-value relates to the sum of adverse events leading to discontinuation.|Fisher Exact|||||||.4500
90859691|NCT00568685|181582768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0240
90859692|NCT00568685|181582770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8005||95.0||||This is the p value for heart rate change at endpoint|ANOVA|||||||0.8005
90859693|NCT00568685|181582771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4128||95.0||||This is the p value for temperature change at endpoint|ANOVA|||||||0.4128
90837402|NCT00674817|181541322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0493|=|0.008|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.039|0.201|||Mix model|||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo at 12 hour||0.201|0.039|=0.008
90837403|NCT00674817|181541322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0516||0.027|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.015|0.185|||Mix model|||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo at 24 hour||0.185|0.015|0.027
90837404|NCT00674817|181541322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.052|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0621|=|0.2|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.05|0.155|||Mix model|||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo at 1 hour||0.155|-0.050|=0.200
90837405|NCT00674817|181541322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.094|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|=|0.031|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.011|0.177|||Mix model|||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus SAL versus that due to GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo at 12 hour||0.177|0.011|=0.031
90837406|NCT00674817|181541322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.092|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053|=|0.043|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.004|0.179|||Mix model|||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo at 24 hour||0.179|0.004|=0.043
90837407|NCT00674817|181541322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0625|=|0.637|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.125|0.081|||Mix model|||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo at 1 hour||0.081|-0.125|=0.637
90837408|NCT00674817|181541322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.136|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.053|0.218|||Mix model|||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo at 12 hour||0.218|0.053|=0.004
90837409|NCT00674817|181541322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0534|=|0.031|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.012|0.189|||Mix model|||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo at 24 hour||0.189|0.012|=0.031
90837410|NCT00674817|181541328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.747|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1768|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.547|8.041||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo over 0-4 hours||8.041|-0.547|
90837411|NCT00674817|181541328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.712|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1453|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.521|5.944||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo over 0-4 hours||5.944|-2.521|
90837412|NCT00674817|181541328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.755|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1869|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.559|6.069||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo over 0-4 hours||6.069|-2.559|
90837413|NCT00674817|181541328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.231|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.197|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.565|3.103||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo over 0-4 hours||3.103|-5.565|
90896088|NCT01091948|181658074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.09|0.93|0.79
90896089|NCT01091948|181658075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.76|||Regression, Logistic|proportional odds logistic regression model||||2.76|0.45|0.82
90837414|NCT00674817|181541329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.558|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7064|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.781|9.897||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo over 0-27 hours||9.897|-0.781|
90837415|NCT00674817|181541329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.266|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6691|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.999|7.532||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo over 0-27 hours||7.532|-2.999|
90837416|NCT00674817|181541329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.717|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.429|6.29||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo over 0-27 hours||6.290|-4.429|
90837417|NCT00674817|181541329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.152|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.731|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.539|4.236||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo over 0-27 hours||4.236|-6.539|
90837418|NCT00674817|181541330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.249|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6816|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.069|4.566||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo over 0-4 hours||4.566|-2.069|
90837419|NCT00674817|181541330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.418|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6565|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.85|3.687||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo over 0-4 hours||3.687|-2.850|
90837420|NCT00674817|181541330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.705|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.013|2.714||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo over 0-4 hours||2.714|-4.013|
90837421|NCT00674817|181541330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.949|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7112|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.325|1.427||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo over 0-4 hours||1.427|-5.325|
90837422|NCT00674817|181541331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.198|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5039|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.258|15.139||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours||15.139|5.258|
90837423|NCT00674817|181541331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.686|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4738|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.195|7.567||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours||7.567|-2.195|
90837424|NCT00674817|181541331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.854|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5196|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.883|12.825||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours||12.825|2.883|
90837425|NCT00674817|181541331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.884|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5244|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.864|4.097||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours||4.097|-5.864|
90837426|NCT00674817|181541331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.227|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9782|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.352|17.103||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo during 0-27 hours||17.103|5.352|
90896090|NCT01542957|181658095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.35|1.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.43|-3.35|0.60
90896091|NCT01542957|181658096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|3.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.25|-0.71|0.21
90837427|NCT00674817|181541331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9434|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.418|10.197||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo during 0-27 hours||10.197|-1.418|
90837428|NCT00674817|181541331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.975|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9958|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.065|11.886||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo during 0-27 hours||11.886|0.065|
90837429|NCT00674817|181541331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.083|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0023|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.006|3.84||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo during 0-27 hours||3.840|-8.006|
90837430|NCT00674817|181541332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6941|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.857|8.542||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours||8.542|1.857|
90837431|NCT00674817|181541332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6727|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.294|3.307||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours||3.307|-3.294|
90837432|NCT00674817|181541332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.956|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7178|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.433|6.345||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours||6.345|-0.433|
90837433|NCT00674817|181541332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.683|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7199|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.076|1.711||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours||1.711|-5.076|
90837434|NCT00674817|181541333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.588|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3932|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.839|9.336||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours||9.336|3.839|
90837435|NCT00674817|181541333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.255|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3725|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.453|3.962||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours||3.962|-1.453|
90837436|NCT00674817|181541333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.985|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.396|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.231|9.738||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours||9.738|4.231|
90896092|NCT01542957|181658097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.01||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.12|-0.14|0.84
90837437|NCT00674817|181541333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.255|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4077|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.522|5.031||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours||5.031|-0.522|
90837438|NCT00674817|181541333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.121|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2464|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.662|6.58||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus SAL versus maximal GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo during 0-27 hours||6.580|1.662|
90837439|NCT00674817|181541333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2278|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.142|2.703||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo during 0-27 hours||2.703|-2.142|
90837440|NCT00674817|181541333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.266|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.249|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.802|6.729||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo during 0-27 hours||6.729|1.802|
90837441|NCT00674817|181541333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.621|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2593|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.863|4.106||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo during 0-27 hours||4.106|-0.863|
90837442|NCT00674817|181541334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.094|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.456|5.732||||||GSK961081 400 mcg plus SAL versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours||5.732|2.456|
90837443|NCT00674817|181541334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.646|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8172|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.967|2.258||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours||2.258|-0.967|
90837444|NCT00674817|181541334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8395|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.324|5.636||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours||5.636|2.324|
90837445|NCT00674817|181541334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.934|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.846|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.735|2.603||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours||2.603|-0.735|
90837446|NCT00674817|181541335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.836|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8168|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.42|1.748||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours||1.748|-5.420|
90837447|NCT00674817|181541335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.599|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7809|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.914|4.113||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours||4.113|-2.914|
90837448|NCT00674817|181541335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.324|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8174|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.261|3.909||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours||3.909|-3.261|
90837449|NCT00674817|181541335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.182|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8242|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.781|1.416||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours||1.416|-5.781|
90859694|NCT00568685|181582772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9761||95.0||||This is the p value for systolic change at endpoint|ANOVA|||||||0.9761
90859695|NCT00568685|181582772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6419||95.0||||This is the p value for diastolic change at endpoint|ANOVA|||||||0.6419
90859696|NCT00568685|181582773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2213||95.0||||This is the p value for weight change at endpoint|ANOVA|||||||0.2213
90859697|NCT02787551|181582774|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) mean difference|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.508||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was performed using Mixed-effect model with repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment groups, randomization strata of Week -2 HbA1c (\<8.0%, \>=8.0%), GLP-1 RA subtype at screening, visits, treatment-by-visit interaction, world region as fixed effects, baseline HbA1c value-by-visit interaction as a covariate. Analysis included all scheduled measurements obtained during 26-week randomized treatment period, including those obtained after IMP discontinuation/introduction of rescue medication.||-0.508|-0.770|<0.0001
90837450|NCT00674817|181541335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.266|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7723|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.762|0.23||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo during 0-27 hours||0.230|-6.762|
90837451|NCT00674817|181541335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.077|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7361|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.502|3.348||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo during 0-27 hours||3.348|-3.502|
90837452|NCT00674817|181541335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.827|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7743|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.673|5.327||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo during 0-27 hours||5.327|-1.673|
90837453|NCT00674817|181541335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.232|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.78|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.743|2.279||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo during 0-27 hours||2.279|-4.743|
90837454|NCT00674817|181541335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.394|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3084|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.976|1.187||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours (WMC)||1.187|-3.976|
90837455|NCT00674817|181541335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.181|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2819|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.348|3.71||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours (WMC)||3.710|-1.348|
90837456|NCT00674817|181541335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.106|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3201|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.498|2.71||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours (WMC)||2.710|-2.498|
90837457|NCT00674817|181541335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.713|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3241|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.325|1.899||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours (WMC)||1.899|-3.325|
90837458|NCT00674817|181541336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.561|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2351|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.997|1.876||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours||1.876|-2.997|
90837459|NCT00674817|181541336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.705|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2125|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.687|4.097||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours||4.097|-0.687|
90896093|NCT03183388|181658172|OTHER|Mixed model with time (baseline and endpoint) as within-subjects factor; compare Least Square (LS) estimate of endpoint minus baseline to zero. The best-fitting model was chosen based on information criteria.|Endpoint minus Baseline|-3.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.14|-1.93|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-1.93|-4.14|0.0001
90837460|NCT00674817|181541336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.337|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2341|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.771|1.098||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours||1.098|-3.771|
90837461|NCT00674817|181541336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.067|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2416|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.516|1.382||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours||1.382|-3.516|
90837462|NCT00674817|181541336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.376|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0997|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.545|1.794||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo during 0-27 hours||1.794|-2.545|
90837463|NCT00674817|181541336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0786|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.588|2.668||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo during 0-27 hours||2.668|-1.588|
90837464|NCT00674817|181541336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0999|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.185|2.154||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo during 0-27 hours||2.154|-2.185|
90896094|NCT03183388|181658173|OTHER|Mixed model with time (baseline and midpoint) as within-subjects factor; compare LS estimate of midpoint minus baseline to zero.|Midpoint minus Baseline|-1.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.51||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.97|4.23|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.23|-6.97|0.60
90837465|NCT00674817|181541336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.466|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1058|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.715|2.648||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo during 0-27 hours||2.648|-1.715|
90837466|NCT00674817|181541336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.881|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.918|0.559||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours (WMC)||0.559|-2.918|
90837467|NCT00674817|181541336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.876|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8644|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.829|2.582||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours (WMC)||2.582|-0.829|
90837468|NCT00674817|181541336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.809|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8882|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.561|0.944||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours (WMC)||0.944|-2.561|
90837469|NCT00674817|181541336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8929|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.122|1.401||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours (WMC)||1.401|-2.122|
90837470|NCT00674817|181541337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2352|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.066|0.994||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours||0.994|0.066|
90837471|NCT00674817|181541337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.388|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2318|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.069|0.846||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours||0.846|-0.069|
90837472|NCT00674817|181541337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.309|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2363|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.157|0.775||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours||0.775|-0.157|
90837473|NCT00674817|181541337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.309|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2392|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.163|0.78||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours||0.780|-0.163|
90837474|NCT00674817|181541337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.874|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3099|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.262|1.485||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo during 0-27 hours||1.485|0.262|
90837475|NCT00674817|181541337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.053|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3056|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.656|0.55||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo during 0-27 hours||0.550|-0.656|
90837476|NCT00674817|181541337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.829|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3112|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.215|1.443||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo during 0-27 hours||1.443|0.215|
90837477|NCT00674817|181541337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.567|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3151|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.054|1.189||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo during 0-27 hours||1.189|-0.054|
90837478|NCT00674817|181541337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.312|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1021|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.513||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours (WMC)||0.513|0.110|
90837479|NCT00674817|181541337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.173|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1006|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.025|0.372||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus IPR versus maximum GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours (WMC)||0.372|-0.025|
90837480|NCT00674817|181541337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1035|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.006|0.414||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours (WMC)||0.414|0.006|
90837481|NCT00674817|181541337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.104|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1047|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.103|0.311||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours (WMC)||0.311|-0.103|
90837482|NCT00674817|181541338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.177|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0503|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.276|-0.078||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours||-0.078|-0.276|
90837483|NCT00674817|181541338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.096|0.097||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours||0.097|-0.096|
90837484|NCT00674817|181541338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.076|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0498|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.174|0.022||||||SK961081 1200 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours||0.022|-0.174|
90837485|NCT00674817|181541338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.028|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0507|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.128|0.072||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours||0.072|-0.128|
90837486|NCT00674817|181541338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.166|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0493|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.263|-0.069||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo during 0-27 hours||-0.069|-0.263|
90896095|NCT03183388|181658174|OTHER|Mixed model with time (baseline and endpoint) as within-subjects factor; compare LS estimate of endpoint minus baseline to zero.|Endpoint minus Baseline|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.074|0.146|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.146|0.074|0.0001
90837487|NCT00674817|181541338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.057|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0481|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.152|0.038||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo during 0-27 hours||0.038|-0.152|
90837488|NCT00674817|181541338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.171|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0489|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.267|-0.075||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo during 0-27 hours||-0.075|-0.267|
90837489|NCT00674817|181541338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.009|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0498|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.108|0.089||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo during 0-27 hours||0.089|-0.108|
90837490|NCT00674817|181541338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.108|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0522|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.211|-0.005||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours (WMC)||-0.005|-0.211|
90837491|NCT00674817|181541338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.014|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0509|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.087|0.114||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours||0.114|-0.087|
90837492|NCT00674817|181541338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.077|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.026||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus SAL GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours (WMC)||0.026|-0.180|
90837493|NCT00674817|181541338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0529|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.129|0.08||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours (WMC)||0.080|-0.129|
90837494|NCT00834977|181541344|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Parametric analysis of variance (ANOVA)on AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax; geometric Confidence Intervals for AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax|Ratio of Least Squares Means|101.08||||||90.0|97.23|105.09|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||105.09|97.23|
90837495|NCT00834977|181541345|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Parametric analysis of variance (ANOVA)on AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax; geometric Confidence Intervals for AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax|Ratio of Least Squares Means|99.38||||||90.0|96.63|102.22|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||102.22|96.63|
90837496|NCT00834977|181541346|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Parametric analysis of variance (ANOVA)on AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax; geometric Confidence Intervals for AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax|Ratio of Least Squares Means|98.48||||||90.0|95.8|101.23|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||101.23|95.80|
90837497|NCT00834977|181541347|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Parametric analysis of variance (ANOVA)on AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax; geometric Confidence Intervals for AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax|Ratio of Least Squares Means|98.72||||||90.0|86.95|112.09|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||112.09|86.95|
90837498|NCT00834977|181541348|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Parametric analysis of variance (ANOVA)on AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax; geometric Confidence Intervals for AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax|Ratio of Least Squares Means|95.69||||||90.0|90.54|101.14|||||Metabolite presented for informational purposes only.|||101.14|90.54|
90837499|NCT00834977|181541349|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Parametric analysis of variance (ANOVA)on AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax; geometric Confidence Intervals for AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax|Slope|99.43||||||90.0|96.48|102.46|||||Metabolite presented for informational purposes only.|||102.46|96.48|
90837500|NCT00834977|181541350|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Parametric analysis of variance (ANOVA)on AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax; geometric Confidence Intervals for AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax|Ratio of Least Squares Means|97.2||||||90.0|92.82|101.78|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||101.78|92.82|
91091079|NCT02557399|182066073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in percent|-2.35||||0.257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.42|1.72||The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with treatment, center, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline TLs counts, Baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 8|||1.72|-6.42|0.257
90837501|NCT00834977|181541351|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Parametric analysis of variance (ANOVA)on AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax; geometric Confidence Intervals for AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax|Ratio of Least Squares Means|96.99||||||90.0|92.52|101.68|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||101.68|92.52|
90837502|NCT00834977|181541352|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Parametric analysis of variance (ANOVA)on AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax; geometric Confidence Intervals for AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax|Ratio of Least Squares Means|99.24||||||90.0|96.21|102.35|||||Metabolite presented for informational purposes only.|||102.35|96.21|
90837503|NCT04723056|181541371|OTHER|||||||0.282||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Between-group analysis at week 8||||0.282
90837504|NCT04723056|181541372|OTHER|||||||0.217||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Between-group analysis at week 24||||0.217
90837505|NCT04723056|181541373|OTHER|||||||0.462||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Between-group analysis at week 8||||0.462
90837506|NCT04723056|181541373|OTHER|||||||0.179||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Between-group analysis at week 24||||0.179
90837507|NCT04723056|181541374|OTHER|||||||0.573||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Between-group analysis at week 8||||.573
90837508|NCT04723056|181541374|OTHER|||||||0.606||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Between-group analysis at week 24||||.606
90896096|NCT03183388|181658175|OTHER|Mixed model with time (baseline and midpoint) as within-subjects factor; compare LS estimate of midpoint minus baseline to zero.|Midpoint minus Baseline|0.031|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.095|0.157|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.157|-0.095|0.58
90837509|NCT04723056|181541375|OTHER|||||||0.181||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Between-group analysis at week 24||||.181
90837510|NCT04723056|181541376|OTHER|||||||0.407||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Between-group analysis at week 24||||.407
90896097|NCT00201864|181658202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9102|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.9102
90896098|NCT00803101|181658208|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The non-inferiority margin was -(minus)10%. If the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was \>-10%, then the null-hypothesis was rejected and it was concluded that Beriplex was non-inferior to plasma.~The sample size estimation assumed that hemostatic efficacy would be rated 'effective' in 85% of participants in the plasma group and 90% of participants in the Beriplex group. The power to show non-inferiority with these assumptions was greater than 80% for two treatment groups of 80 participants."|Difference in effective hemostasis (%)|14.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|25.8||No P-value is provided as non-inferiority was assessed via calculation of the 95% CI for the difference (Beriplex minus plasma) in the percentage of participants with effective hemostasis.|95% confidence interval|The Newcombe-Wilson score method was used to estimate the 95% CI for the difference (Beriplex-plasma) in the % participants with effective hemostasis||The analysis of hemostatic efficacy was via calculation of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference (Beriplex minus plasma) in the percentage of participants with effective hemostasis.||25.8|2.8|
91091080|NCT02557399|182066073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in percent|-3.24||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.64|0.16||The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with treatment, center, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline TLs counts, Baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 12|||0.16|-6.64|0.062
91091081|NCT02557399|182066074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in percent|-5.08||||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.41|1.25||The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with treatment, center, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline ILs counts, Baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 1 for ILs. A negative treatment difference indicates a benefit of Duac relative to ADA+CLDM.|||1.25|-11.41|0.115
90837511|NCT04723056|181541377|OTHER|||||||0.643||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Between-group analysis at week 24||||.643
90837512|NCT04723056|181541378|OTHER|||||||0.625||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Between-group analysis at week 8||||.625
90837513|NCT04723056|181541378|OTHER|||||||0.707||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Between-group analysis at week 24||||.707
90837514|NCT05106894|181541380|EQUIVALENCE|Adjusted difference between groups in composite scores calculated using an ordinary least squares linear regression model (with adjustments for sex of child, caregiver educational level, poverty score, birth weight and change in length for age Z score from 0 to 6 months).|Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|5.5||||||||5.5|-7.4|
90837515|NCT05106894|181541381|EQUIVALENCE|Adjusted difference between groups in composite scores calculated using an ordinary least squares linear regression model (with adjustments for sex of child, caregiver educational level, poverty score, birth weight and change in length for age Z score from 0 to 6 months).|Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|3.6||||||||3.6|-8.3|
90837516|NCT05106894|181541382|EQUIVALENCE|Adjusted difference between groups in composite scores calculated using an ordinary least squares linear regression model (with adjustments for sex of child, caregiver educational level, poverty score, birth weight and change in length for age Z score from 0 to 6 months).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|2.1||||||||2.1|-5.6|
90837517|NCT00468169|181541485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1225||||||Log-rank test comparing PFS between two treatment arms|Log Rank|||||||0.1225
90957218|NCT01451827|181793915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.51|||ANCOVA|||Nocturia||1.51|0.63|< 0.0001
90837518|NCT03668873|181541500|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Squares Means|-1.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.88|-0.81||Threshold for significance was p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed models with repeated measures with fixed effects for baseline CSI, treatment, week as a categorical variable, and treatment-week interaction.|Treatment difference = SPT minus SPE.|The null hypothesis was that the SPE and SPT groups did not differ on change in CSI score at 10 weeks. Assuming a standard deviation of 2.5 units and an attrition rate of 10%, an enrollment target of 90 participants would provide 90% power to detect a difference of 1.85 points or greater with a type I error rate of 0.05 using a two-tailed two-sample t-test.||-0.81|-2.88|<0.001
90837519|NCT03668873|181541501|SUPERIORITY||Absolute percent difference|24.0||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|46.0||Threshold for significance was 0.05|Chi-squared||Difference = SPT minus SPE.|The null hypothesis was that the SPE and SPT groups did not differ on the rate of positive response to CGI-I at 10 weeks. Assuming a 25%-40% positive response rate at 10 weeks in the SPE group and 45 patients per group, power was 90% to detect a 32% or greater difference in positive response rate (57%-72% in SPT group, respectively), with a type I error rate of 0.05 using a Chi-square test.||46|2|0.037
90837520|NCT03668873|181541502|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81||||||threshold for significant 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.81
90837521|NCT03668873|181541503|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77||||||Threshold for significance was 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.77
90837522|NCT03668873|181541504|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||Threshold for significance was 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.003
90837523|NCT02183675|181541506|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority limits: 80% - 125%|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|108.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.094|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.081|126.225|||ANOVA|The model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment.|Ratio calculated as T80-A5-H12.5 divided by T80-H12.5|||126.225|93.081|
90837524|NCT02183675|181541506|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority limits: 80% - 125%|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|114.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.097|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.216|134.326|||ANOVA|The model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment.|Ratio calculated as T80-A5-H12.5 divided by T80-A5|||134.326|98.216|
90837525|NCT02183675|181541507|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority limits: 80% - 125%|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|97.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.43|105.19|||ANOVA|The model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment.|Ratio calculated as T80-A5-H12.5 divided by T80-H12.5|||105.19|90.43|
90837526|NCT02183675|181541507|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority limits: 80% - 125%|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|102.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.94|107.4|||ANOVA|The model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment.|Ratio calculated as T80-A5-H12.5 divided by T80-A5|||107.40|96.94|
90837527|NCT02183675|181541508|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority limits: 80% - 125%|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|104.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.016|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.949|107.734|||ANOVA|The model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment.|Ratio calculated as T80-A5-H12.5 divided by T80-H12.5|||107.734|101.949|
90837528|NCT02183675|181541509|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority limits: 80% - 125%|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|103.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.017|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.023|106.964|||ANOVA|The model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment.|Ratio calculated as T80-A5-H12.5 divided by T80-A5|||106.964|101.023|
90837529|NCT02183675|181541510|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority limits: 80% - 125%|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|102.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.014|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.167|104.867|||ANOVA|The model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment.|Ratio calculated as T80-A5-H12.5 divided by T80-A5|||104.867|100.167|
90837530|NCT02183675|181541511|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority limits: 80% - 125%|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|105.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.036|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.23|111.847|||ANOVA|The model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment.|Ratio calculated as T80-A5-H12.5 divided by T80-H12.5|||111.847|99.230|
90837531|NCT02183675|181541512|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority limits: 80% - 125%|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|103.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.028|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.73|108.28|||ANOVA|The model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment.|Ratio calculated as T80-A5-H12.5 divided by T80-H12.5|||108.280|98.730|
90837532|NCT00784563|181541519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Because all treatment arms were designed to deliver a similar average aerobic intensity, we planned to pool a priori all completers from the Continuous and Interval Training Arms for analysis.|Regression, Linear|||Sample size was estimated using 80% power to detect an effect size of 0.66 SD in VO2max (estimated improvement=10% /estimated SD of change=15%) within each arm at alpha=0.05 and an attrition rate of 25%.||||<0.001
90957219|NCT01451827|181793915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.66|||ANCOVA|||Nocturia||1.66|0.80|< 0.0001
91027814|NCT02637557|181939629|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.115||||0.3173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.342|0.111||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 3||0.111|-0.342|0.3173
90837533|NCT00784563|181541520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.001
90837534|NCT00784563|181541521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.029
90837535|NCT00784563|181541522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.271|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.271
90837536|NCT00784563|181541523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|||||unadjusted p-value=0.009|Regression, Linear|||||||0.070
90837537|NCT00784563|181541524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.001
90837538|NCT00784563|181541525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.006
91027815|NCT02637557|181939629|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.151||||0.1906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.378|0.076||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 3||0.076|-0.378|0.1906
90896099|NCT00803101|181658209|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The non-inferiority margin was -(minus)10%. If the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was \>-10%, then the null-hypothesis was rejected and it was concluded that Beriplex was non-inferior to plasma.~The sample size estimation assumed that hemostatic efficacy would be rated 'effective' in 85% of participants in the plasma group and 90% of participants in the Beriplex group. The power to show non-inferiority with these assumptions was greater than 80% for two treatment groups of 80 participants."|Difference in effective hemostasis (%)|45.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.9|56.4||No P-value is provided as non-inferiority was assessed via calculation of the 95% CI for the difference (Beriplex minus plasma) in the percentage of participants with effective hemostasis.|Newcombe-Wilson score method|The Newcombe-Wilson score method was used to estimate the 95% CI for the difference (Beriplex-plasma) in the % pts with rapid decrease of the INR.||The analysis of rapid decrease of the INR was via calculation of the 95% CI for the difference (Beriplex minus plasma) in the percentage of participants with INR ≤ 1.3 at 30 minutes after the end of infusion.||56.4|31.9|
90896100|NCT01782742|181658215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.03|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.03|-0.13|0.22
90896101|NCT01782742|181658216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.428|2.428|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.428|-4.428|0.57
90896102|NCT01782742|181658217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.625||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.029|6.279|||t-test, 2 sided|||||6.279|-5.029|0.83
90896103|NCT01782742|181658218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||||||||0.000|0.000|
90896104|NCT01782742|181658219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.375||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.674|8.924|||t-test, 2 sided|||||8.924|-9.674|0.94
90896105|NCT01782742|181658220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.563||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.975|11.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||11.100|-1.975|0.18
90896106|NCT01782742|181658228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.006||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.021|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.021|-0.010|0.46
91027816|NCT02637557|181939629|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.183||||0.1177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.412|0.046||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 3||0.046|-0.412|0.1177
91027817|NCT02637557|181939629|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05||||0.6936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.297|0.198||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||0.198|-0.297|0.6936
90896107|NCT01782742|181658229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.04|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.040|-0.020|0.53
90896108|NCT01529008|181658230|SUPERIORITY||Proportion treatment responder Differenc|-0.08||||0.539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.18|||Fisher Exact||"Percentage of treatment responders in PREOB® group is 60.9% ((14/23)\*100), compared with 69.2% ((18/26)\*100) in Placebo.~Difference in percentage is -8.3 Difference in treatment responders proportion: PREOB® (0.609) - Placebo (0.692) = -0.08"|||0.18|-0.35|0.539
90896109|NCT04425902|181658246|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|1.32|||||A mixed-effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter.|||1.32|0.94|
90896110|NCT04425902|181658247|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|1.32|||||A mixed-effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter.|||1.32|0.95|
90896111|NCT04425902|181658248|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|1.08|||||A mixed-effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter.|||1.08|0.83|
90896112|NCT04425902|181658251|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.71|2.14|||||A mixed-effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter.|||2.14|0.71|
90896113|NCT04425902|181658252|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.71|2.14|||||A mixed-effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter.|||2.14|0.71|
90896114|NCT04425902|181658253|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.72|1.69|||||A mixed-effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter.|||1.69|0.72|
91027818|NCT02637557|181939629|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.096||||0.4466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.343|0.152||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||0.152|-0.343|0.4466
90896115|NCT04425902|181658256|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.2|||||A mixed-effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter.|||1.20|0.97|
90896116|NCT04425902|181658257|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|1.21|||||A mixed-effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter.|||1.21|0.98|
90896117|NCT04425902|181658258|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.17|||||A mixed-effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter.|||1.17|0.92|
90896118|NCT04425902|181658261|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.18|||||A mixed-effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter.|||1.18|0.88|
90896119|NCT04425902|181658262|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.89|1.19|||||A mixed-effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter.|||1.19|0.89|
90896120|NCT04425902|181658263|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|1.18|||||A mixed-effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter.|||1.18|0.93|
90837539|NCT00784563|181541526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.002
90837540|NCT00784563|181541527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for change in total daily equivalent levodopa dose||||||0.003
90837541|NCT00784563|181541528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.146|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.146
90837542|NCT00784563|181541529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.037|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.037
90837543|NCT00784563|181541530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.057|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.057
90837544|NCT03155724|181541580|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Exact, binomial, one-sided|||The primary endpoint 1 hypothesis was evaluated by performing an exact, binomial test comparing the binomial proportion of 'improved' patients to 3.0% with power of 80% and type 1 error (alpha) of 0.0224. A pre-planned interim analysis at 45 patients required a type 1 error (alpha) of 0.0026 to demonstrate significance.||||<0.0001
90837545|NCT01377584|181541584|OTHER||Effect size|-0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90837546|NCT01377584|181541584|OTHER||Effect size|-0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90837547|NCT01377584|181541584|OTHER||Effect size|-0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91027819|NCT02637557|181939629|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.155||||0.2225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.405|0.095||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||0.095|-0.405|0.2225
90837548|NCT01377584|181541584|OTHER||Effect size|-1.31|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90837549|NCT01377584|181541584|OTHER||Effect size|-0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90837550|NCT01377584|181541584|OTHER||Effect size|-0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90837551|NCT01377584|181541585|OTHER||Effect size|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90837552|NCT01377584|181541585|OTHER||Effect size|0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90837553|NCT01377584|181541585|OTHER||Effect size|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90837554|NCT01377584|181541585|OTHER||Effect size|1.54|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90837555|NCT01377584|181541585|OTHER||Effect size|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90837556|NCT01377584|181541585|OTHER||Effect size|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90837557|NCT01377584|181541586|OTHER||Effect size|-1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90837558|NCT01377584|181541586|OTHER||Effect size|-0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90837559|NCT01377584|181541586|OTHER||Effect size|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90837560|NCT01377584|181541586|OTHER||Effect size|-0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90837561|NCT01377584|181541586|OTHER||Effect size|-0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90837562|NCT01377584|181541586|OTHER||Effect size|-0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90837563|NCT01377584|181541587|OTHER||Effect size|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Comparing 1 week to 1 month|||||
90837564|NCT01377584|181541587|OTHER||Effect size|-0.63|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Comparing 1 month and 3 months|||||
90837565|NCT01377584|181541587|OTHER||Effect size|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Comparing 1 week to 1 month|||||
90837566|NCT01377584|181541587|OTHER||Effect size|-0.63|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Comparing 1 month to 3 months|||||
90837567|NCT01377584|181541587|OTHER||Effect size|-0.92|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Comparing 1 week to 1 month|||||
90837568|NCT01377584|181541587|OTHER||Effect size|-0.26|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Comparing 1 month to 3 months|||||
90837569|NCT00321789|181541604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|8.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model was adjusted for a priori race and cardiovascular disease risk level strata.||||8.3|-3.6|0.44
90837570|NCT00321789|181541605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|-0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|Based on log-transformed values. Model was adjusted for a priori race and cardiovascular disease risk level strata.||||-0.01|-0.23|0.03
90837571|NCT00321789|181541606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.16||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|Based on log-transformed values. Model was adjusted for a priori race and cardiovascular disease risk level strata.||||-0.02|-0.29|0.02
90837572|NCT00321789|181541607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.16||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|-0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|Based on log-transformed values. Model was adjusted for a priori race and cardiovascular disease risk level strata.||||-0.03|-0.29|0.02
90837573|NCT00321789|181541608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|Based on log-transformed values. Model was adjusted for a priori race and cardiovascular disease risk level strata.||||0.03|-0.30|0.11
90837574|NCT00321789|181541609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Based on log-transformed values. Model was adjusted for a priori race and cardiovascular disease risk level strata.||||0.20|-0.06|0.26
90837575|NCT00321789|181541610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||incident rate ratio|1.2||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.5|||generalized estimating equations|Based on log-transformed values. Model was adjusted for a priori race and cardiovascular disease risk level strata.||||1.5|1.0|0.06
90837576|NCT00321789|181541611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||incident rate ratio|1.1||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.4|||generalized estimating equations|Model adjusted for a priori race and cardiovascular disease risk category.||||1.4|0.9|0.37
90837577|NCT00321789|181541612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.11||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.13|-0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for a priori race and cardiovascular disease risk category.||||-0.09|-4.13|0.04
90837578|NCT00321789|181541613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.64||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for a priori race and cardiovascular disease risk category.||||0.10|-1.38|0.09
90837579|NCT00321789|181541614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.7|||Regression, Logistic|Model adjusted for a priori race and cardiovascular disease risk category.||||1.7|0.6|0.87
90837580|NCT01576341|181541619|OTHER||Incidence rate|0.019|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Incidence rate is based on duration of treatment period (years)|||||
90837581|NCT00617734|181541621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0667|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0667
90837582|NCT00617734|181541622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1935|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1935
90837583|NCT00617734|181541624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7455|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.7455
90896121|NCT04425902|181658266|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.72|1.75|||||A mixed-effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter.|||1.75|0.72|
90896122|NCT04425902|181658267|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.54|1.73|||||A mixed-effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter.|||1.73|0.54|
90896123|NCT04425902|181658268|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.73|1.78|||||A mixed-effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter.|||1.78|0.73|
90896124|NCT04425902|181658271|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|1.11|||||A mixed-effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter.|||1.11|0.80|
90896125|NCT04425902|181658272|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.79|1.1|||||A mixed-effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter.|||1.10|0.79|
90896126|NCT04425902|181658273|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.73|1.12|||||A mixed-effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter.|||1.12|0.73|
90896127|NCT04425902|181658276|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|1.22|||||A mixed-effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter.|||1.22|0.94|
90896128|NCT04425902|181658277|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.19|||||A mixed-effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter.|||1.19|0.92|
90896129|NCT04425902|181658278|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.63|||||A mixed-effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter.|||1.63|0.96|
90896130|NCT04425902|181658281|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.52|1.03|||||A mixed-effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter.|||1.03|0.52|
90896131|NCT04425902|181658282|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.45|0.82|||||A mixed-effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter.|||0.82|0.45|
90896132|NCT04425902|181658283|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.54|1.14|||||A mixed-effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter.|||1.14|0.54|
90896133|NCT04425902|181658389|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.49|1.71|||||A mixed-effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter.|||1.71|0.49|
90896134|NCT04425902|181658390|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.74|1.16|||||A mixed-effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter.|||1.16|0.74|
90896135|NCT04425902|181658391|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.43|1.72|||||A mixed-effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter.|||1.72|0.43|
90896136|NCT04425902|181658394|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.75|1.29|||||A mixed-effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter.|||1.29|0.75|
90896137|NCT04425902|181658395|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.75|1.29|||||A mixed-effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter.|||1.29|0.75|
90896138|NCT04425902|181658396|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.73|1.22|||||A mixed-effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter.|||1.22|0.73|
90896139|NCT04425902|181658399|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|1.3|||||A mixed-effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter.|||1.30|0.93|
90896140|NCT04425902|181658400|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|1.19|||||A mixed-effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter.|||1.19|0.83|
90896141|NCT04425902|181658401|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.44|||||A mixed-effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter.|||1.44|0.88|
90896142|NCT04425902|181658404|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.75|1.09|||||A mixed-effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter.|||1.09|0.75|
90896143|NCT04425902|181658405|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.76|1.09|||||A mixed-effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter.|||1.09|0.76|
90896144|NCT04425902|181658406|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.65|1.1|||||A mixed-effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter.|||1.10|0.65|
90896145|NCT00261495|181658427|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Tested using 95% confidence interval approach. The non-inferiority margin was 1.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.29||||0.011||95.0|-0.27|0.84||Statistical significance level was 0.05. Two-sided 95% CI of the treatment difference based on LS means \& error terms obtained from ANCOVA (covariate: baseline; factors: country, previous pain treatment, underlying disease, and treatment).|ANCOVA|If the right side of CI\<1 then the null hypothesis was rejected in favour of the alternative, and non-inferiority of OROS hydromorphone was concluded.|LS mean difference has been presented, which was calculated as hydromorphone minus oxycodone.|"Null hypothesis: Difference in change from baseline with OROS hydromorphone compared with SR oxycodone was less than or equal to 1.~Alternative hypothesis: Difference in change from baseline with OROS hydromorphone compared with SR oxycodone was greater than 1.~Sample size needed to detect a clinically significant difference of 1 was 151 per treatment arm (standard deviation = 2.4, significance level 0.025 one-sided, based on 90% power)."||0.84|-0.27|0.011
90896146|NCT00261495|181658428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.08||||0.706||95.0|-0.32|0.47||A two-sided significance level of 0.05 was used. A closed hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall Type I error. Procedure was stopped here, subsequent tests were exploratory in nature.|ANCOVA|Superiority of OROS hydromorphone compared to SR oxycodone was evaluated.|Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|"Null hypothesis: Difference in change from baseline between hydromorphone and oxycodone was equal to zero.~Alternative hypothesis: Difference in change from baseline between hydromorphone and oxycodone was not equal to zero."||0.47|-0.32|0.706
90896147|NCT00261495|181658429|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Tested using 95% confidence interval approach. The non-inferiority margin was 1.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.53|0.29||Statistical significance level was 0.05. Two-sided 95% CI of the treatment difference based on LS means \& error terms obtained from ANCOVA (covariate: baseline; factors: country, previous pain treatment, underlying disease, and treatment).|ANCOVA|If the right side of CI\<1 then the null hypothesis was rejected in favour of the alternative, and non-inferiority of OROS hydromorphone was concluded.|Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|"Null hypothesis: Difference in change from baseline with OROS hydromorphone compared with SR oxycodone was less than or equal to 1.~Alternative hypothesis: Difference in change from baseline with OROS hydromorphone compared with SR oxycodone was greater than 1.~Sample size needed to detect a clinically significant difference of 1 was 151 per treatment arm (standard deviation = 2.4, significance level 0.025 one-sided, based on 90% power)."||0.29|-0.53|<0.001
90896148|NCT00261495|181658430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.87||||0.065||95.0|-5.94|0.19||A two-sided significance level of 0.05 was used. A closed hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall Type I error. Procedure has been stopped, test is exploratory in nature.|ANCOVA|Superiority of OROS hydromorphone compared to SR oxycodone was evaluated.|Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|"Null hypothesis: Difference in change from baseline between hydromorphone and oxycodone was equal to zero.~Alternative hypothesis: Difference in change from baseline between hydromorphone and oxycodone was not equal to zero."||0.19|-5.94|0.065
90896149|NCT00261495|181658431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.348||95.0|-0.62|0.22||A two-sided significance level of 0.05 was used. A closed hierarchical testing approach was used to control the overall Type I error. Procedure has been stopped, test is exploratory in nature.|ANCOVA|Superiority of OROS hydromorphone compared to SR oxycodone was evaluated.|Mean difference was calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|"Null hypothesis: Difference in change from baseline between hydromorphone and oxycodone was equal to zero.~Alternative hypothesis: Difference in change from baseline between hydromorphone and oxycodone was not equal to zero."||0.22|-0.62|0.348
90957220|NCT01451827|181793916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.97||||0.0209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|0.99|||ANCOVA|||Hierarchical tests were used to control the type I error in the primary analysis. They are given in the following order: 1. Pooled tolvaptan treatment groups (IR and MR) versus placebo; 2. Tolvaptan MR 80 mg versus placebo; 3. Tolvaptan MR 50 mg versus placebo; 4. Tolvaptan IR 60/30 mg versus placebo.||0.99|0.94|0.0209
91027820|NCT02637557|181939629|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.052||||0.6764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.297|0.193||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 5||0.193|-0.297|0.6764
91027821|NCT02637557|181939629|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.061||||0.6243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.306|0.184||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 5||0.184|-0.306|0.6243
91027822|NCT02637557|181939629|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.156||||0.2151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.403|0.091||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 5||0.091|-0.403|0.2151
90896150|NCT00261495|181658432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11||||0.616||95.0|-0.54|0.32||A two-sided significance level of 0.05 was used. A closed hierarchical testing approach was used to control the overall Type I error. Procedure has been stopped, test is exploratory in nature.|ANCOVA|Superiority of OROS hydromorphone compared to SR oxycodone was evaluated.|Mean difference was calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|"Null hypothesis: Difference in change from baseline between hydromorphone and oxycodone was equal to zero.~Alternative hypothesis: Difference in change from baseline between hydromorphone and oxycodone was not equal to zero."||0.32|-0.54|0.616
90957221|NCT01451827|181793916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.96||||0.0287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.0|||ANCOVA|||Hierarchical tests were used to control the type I error in the primary analysis. They are given in the following order: 1. Pooled tolvaptan treatment groups (IR and MR) versus placebo; 2. Tolvaptan MR 80 mg versus placebo; 3. Tolvaptan MR 50 mg versus placebo; 4. Tolvaptan IR 60/30 mg versus placebo||1.00|0.93|0.0287
91027823|NCT02637557|181939629|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.096||||0.4611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.351|0.16||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||0.160|-0.351|0.4611
90837584|NCT02485691|181541628|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measure are reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05. Only the primary and the first 4 secondary outcome measures were included in the procedure.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.73||P-value from 2-sided stratified log-rank test, stratified for ECOG performance status, time from AR- targeted agent initiation progression, timing of AR targeted agent as specified at the time of randomization. Significance threshold was at 0.05.|Log Rank||Cabazitaxel vs Abiraterone Acetate or Enzalutamide|Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox Proportional Hazards regression model. The Cox proportional hazard model was stratified by ECOG performance status, time from AR- targeted agent initiation progression, timing of AR targeted agent as specified at the time of randomization.||0.73|0.40|<0.0001
90837585|NCT02485691|181541629|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measure are reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05. Only the primary and the first 4 secondary outcome measures were included in the procedure.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.89||P-value from two-sided stratified log-rank test, stratified for ECOG performance status, time from AR-targeted agent initiation to progression, timing of AR-targeted agent as specified at the time of randomization. Significance threshold = 0.05.|Log Rank||Cabazitaxel vs Abiraterone Acetate or Enzalutamide|Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox Proportional Hazards regression model. The Cox proportional hazard model was stratified by ECOG performance status, time from AR- targeted agent initiation progression, timing of AR targeted agent as specified at the time of randomization.||0.89|0.46|0.0078
90837586|NCT02485691|181541630|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measure are reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05. Only the primary and the first 4 secondary outcome measures were included in the procedure.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.68||P-value from two-sided stratified log-rank test, stratified for ECOG performance status, time from AR-targeted agent initiation to progression, timing of AR-targeted agent as specified at the time of randomization. Significance threshold = 0.05.|Log Rank||Cabazitaxel vs Abiraterone Acetate or Enzalutamide|Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox Proportional Hazards regression model. The Cox proportional hazard model was stratified by ECOG performance status, time from AR- targeted agent initiation progression, timing of AR targeted agent as specified at the time of randomization.||0.68|0.40|<0.0001
90837587|NCT02485691|181541631|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measure are reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05. Only the primary and the first 4 secondary outcome measures were included in the procedure.||||||0.0003||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by ECOG performance status, time from AR-targeted agent initiation to progression, timing of AR-targeted agent as specified at the time of randomization. Significance threshold = 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0003
90837588|NCT02485691|181541632|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measure are reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05. Only the primary and the first 4 secondary outcome measures were included in the procedure.||||||0.0004||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by ECOG performance status, time from AR-targeted agent initiation to progression, timing of AR-targeted agent as specified at the time of randomization. Significance threshold = 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0004
90837589|NCT03413891|181541678|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.93|||=|0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.42|||Chi-squared|||||1.42|0.60|=0.72
90837590|NCT03413891|181541680|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.76|||=|0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.37|||negative-binomial regression|||||1.37|0.42|=0.36
90837591|NCT03413891|181541681|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.32|||=|0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.89|||negative-binomial regression|||||0.89|0.12|=0.03
90837592|NCT03413891|181541682|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.6|||=|0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.12|||negative-binomial regression|||||1.12|0.32|=0.11
91027824|NCT02637557|181939629|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.139||||0.2849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.394|0.116||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||0.116|-0.394|0.2849
91091082|NCT02557399|182066074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in percent|-8.43||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.35|-2.51||The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with treatment, center, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline ILs counts, Baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 2 for ILs. A negative treatment difference indicates a benefit of Duac relative to ADA+CLDM.|||-2.51|-14.35|0.005
91091083|NCT02557399|182066074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in percent|-9.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.42|-4.33||The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with treatment, center, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline ILs counts, Baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 4 for ILs. A negative treatment difference indicates a benefit of Duac relative to ADA+CLDM.|||-4.33|-14.42|<0.001
90837593|NCT03413891|181541683|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.42|||=|0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.38|||negative-binomial regression|||||1.38|0.13|=0.15
90837594|NCT03413891|181541685|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.57|||=|0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.91|||negative-binomial regression|||||1.91|0.17|=0.37
90837595|NCT03413891|181541686|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.7|||=|0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.91|||Chi-squared|||||1.91|0.26|=0.66
90837596|NCT03413891|181541687|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.4|||=|0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.98|||negative-binomial regression|||||0.98|0.16|=0.04
90837597|NCT03413891|181541688|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.37|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.78|||negative-binomial regression|||||0.78|0.18|<0.01
90837598|NCT04905134|181541694|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Fisher Exact|||Flexible scope compared with the SOC scope||||0.04
91027825|NCT02637557|181939629|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.228||||0.0833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.485|0.03||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||0.030|-0.485|0.0833
90896151|NCT00261495|181658433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.249||||||A two-sided significance level of 0.05 was used. A closed hierarchical testing approach was used to control the overall Type I error. Hierarchical testing procedure has been stopped, test is exploratory in nature.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Chi-squared statistic stratified for country was used.||"Null hypothesis: There is no association between study medication and dose escalation.~Alternative hypothesis: There is an association between study medication and dose escalation."||||0.249
90896152|NCT00261495|181658434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.42||||0.05||95.0|0.0|0.84||0.05 two-sided testing, exploratory comparison|ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||0.84|-0.00|0.050
90896153|NCT00261495|181658435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.105||95.0|-0.06|0.67||0.05 two-sided test|ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||0.67|-0.06|0.105
90896154|NCT00261495|181658436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.39||||0.058||95.0|-0.01|0.79||0.05 two-sided test|ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||0.79|-0.01|0.058
90896155|NCT00261495|181658437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.23||||0.21||95.0|-0.13|0.59||0.05 two-sided test|ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hdromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||0.59|-0.13|0.210
90896156|NCT00261495|181658438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.18||||0.941||95.0|-4.87|4.52||0.05 two-sided test|ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||4.52|-4.87|0.941
91027826|NCT02637557|181939629|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.017||||0.8955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.277|0.242||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 7||0.242|-0.277|0.8955
90896157|NCT00261495|181658439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.31||||0.073||95.0|-0.03|0.65||0.05 two-sided test|ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||0.65|-0.03|0.073
90896158|NCT00261495|181658440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15||||0.431||95.0|-0.52|0.22||0.05 two-sided test|ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||0.22|-0.52|0.431
90896159|NCT00261495|181658441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04||||0.835||95.0|-0.4|0.33||0.05 two-sided test|ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||0.33|-0.40|0.835
90896160|NCT00261495|181658442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.51||||0.837||95.0|-5.36|4.35||0.05 two-sided test|ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||4.35|-5.36|0.837
90896161|NCT00261495|181658443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04||||0.832||95.0|-0.38|0.31||0.05 two-sided test|ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||0.31|-0.38|0.832
90896162|NCT00261495|181658444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.143||95.0|-0.1|0.71||0.05 two-sided test|ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||0.71|-0.10|0.143
90896163|NCT00261495|181658445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.21||||0.345||95.0|-0.23|0.64||0.05 two-sided test|ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||0.64|-0.23|0.345
90896164|NCT00261495|181658446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.14||||0.552||95.0|-0.33|0.61||0.05 two-sided test|ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||0.61|-0.33|0.552
90896165|NCT00261495|181658447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.47||||0.042||95.0|0.02|0.93||0.05 two-sided test|ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||0.93|0.02|0.042
91027827|NCT02637557|181939629|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.052||||0.6916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.312|0.207||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 7||0.207|-0.312|0.6916
91027828|NCT02637557|181939629|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.159||||0.2345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.421|0.103||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 7||0.103|-0.421|0.2345
91027829|NCT02637557|181939629|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.043||||0.7466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.304|0.218||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||0.218|-0.304|0.7466
91027830|NCT02637557|181939629|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.176||||0.1843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.437|0.084||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||0.084|-0.437|0.1843
91027831|NCT02637557|181939629|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.267||||0.0471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.531|-0.003||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||-0.003|-0.531|0.0471
90896166|NCT00261495|181658448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.33||||0.171||95.0|-0.14|0.81||0.05 two-sided test|ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||0.81|-0.14|0.171
90896167|NCT00261495|181658449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17||||0.475||95.0|-0.31|0.65||0.05 two-sided test|ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||0.65|-0.31|0.475
91027832|NCT02637557|181939630|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.088||||0.3258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.088|0.265||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||0.265|-0.088|0.3258
91027833|NCT02637557|181939630|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.084||||0.3483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.092|0.261||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||0.261|-0.092|0.3483
90896168|NCT00261495|181658450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.23||||0.359||95.0|-0.26|0.72||0.05 two-sided test|ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||0.72|-0.26|0.359
90896169|NCT00261495|181658451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11||||0.611||95.0|-0.52|0.3||0.05 two-sided test|ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||0.30|-0.52|0.611
90896170|NCT00261495|181658452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15||||0.526||95.0|-0.6|0.31||0.05 two-sided test|ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||0.31|-0.60|0.526
90896171|NCT00261495|181658453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06||||0.769||95.0|-0.49|0.36||0.05 two-sided test|ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||0.36|-0.49|0.769
90896172|NCT00261495|181658454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04||||0.843||95.0|-0.4|0.49||0.05 two-sided test|ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||0.49|-0.40|0.843
90896173|NCT00261495|181658455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.977||95.0|-0.45|0.44||0.05 two-sided test|ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||0.44|-0.45|0.977
90896174|NCT00261495|181658456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.977||95.0|-0.47|0.49||0.05 two-sided test|ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||0.49|-0.47|0.977
90896175|NCT00261495|181658457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03||||0.902||95.0|-0.51|0.45||0.05 two-sided test|ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||0.45|-0.51|0.902
90896176|NCT00261495|181658459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.36||||0.169||95.0|-5.74|1.02||0.05 two-sided test|ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||1.02|-5.74|0.169
90896177|NCT00261495|181658460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.89||||0.245||95.0|-5.09|1.31||0.05 two-sided test|ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||1.31|-5.09|0.245
90896178|NCT00261495|181658461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.64||||0.071||95.0|-5.51|0.23||0.05 two-sided test|ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||0.23|-5.51|0.071
90896179|NCT00261495|181658462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.03||||0.297||95.0|-5.85|1.8||0.05 two-sided test|ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||1.80|-5.85|0.297
90896180|NCT00261495|181658463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.41||||0.205||95.0|-1.32|6.14||0.05 two-sided test|ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||6.14|-1.32|0.205
90896181|NCT00261495|181658464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.35||||0.107||95.0|-7.43|0.73||0.05 two-sided test|ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||0.73|-7.43|0.107
90896182|NCT00261495|181658465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.6||||0.475||95.0|-2.8|6.0||0.05 two-sided test|ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||6.00|-2.80|0.475
90896183|NCT00261495|181658466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.16||||0.02||95.0|-7.67|-0.65||0.05 two-sided test|ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||-0.65|-7.67|0.020
90957222|NCT01451827|181793916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.96||||0.0298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.0|||ANCOVA|||Hierarchical tests were used to control the type I error in the primary analysis. They are given in the following order: 1. Pooled tolvaptan treatment groups (IR and MR) versus placebo; 2. Tolvaptan MR 80 mg versus placebo; 3. Tolvaptan MR 50 mg versus placebo; 4. Tolvaptan IR 60/30 mg versus placebo||1.00|0.93|0.0298
90896184|NCT00261495|181658467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.88||95.0|-0.3|0.26||0.05 two-sided test|ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||0.26|-0.30|0.880
90896185|NCT00261495|181658468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Exploratory comparison||||0.320
90896186|NCT00261495|181658473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.575|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Exploratory comparison||||0.575
90896187|NCT00261495|181658474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.807|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Exploratory comparison||||0.807
90896188|NCT00261495|181658475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.61||||0.118||95.0|-5.88|0.67|||ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||0.67|-5.88|0.118
90896189|NCT00261495|181658476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08||||0.956||95.0|-3.08|2.91|||ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||2.91|-3.08|0.956
90896190|NCT00261495|181658477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.09||||0.299||95.0|-0.08|0.26|||ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||0.26|-0.08|0.299
90896191|NCT00261495|181658478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.13||||0.471||95.0|-4.2|1.95|||ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxymorphone|Exploratory comparison||1.95|-4.20|0.471
90896192|NCT00261495|181658479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.84||||0.025||95.0|0.48|7.19|||ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||7.19|0.48|0.025
90896193|NCT00261495|181658480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.4||||0.556||95.0|-5.61|10.42|||ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||10.42|-5.61|0.556
90896194|NCT00261495|181658481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.12||||0.551||95.0|-9.11|4.88|||ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||4.88|-9.11|0.551
90896195|NCT00261495|181658482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.98||||0.207||95.0|-7.63|1.66|||ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||1.66|-7.63|0.207
90896196|NCT00261495|181658483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.46||||0.123||95.0|-5.6|0.68|||ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||0.68|-5.60|0.123
90896197|NCT00261495|181658484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9||||0.602||95.0|-4.27|2.48|||ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||2.48|-4.27|0.602
90837599|NCT05366738|181541773|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was concluded if the 90% confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio between the test treatments (20 mg sprinkle capsule, either sprinkled on pudding or on applesauce) and the reference treatment (20 mg tablet) were wholly contained within 80.00% and 125.00% for the vonoprazan PK parameters.|Ratio of Geometric Least Square Means|103.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.64|109.41||||||||109.41|97.64|
91027834|NCT02637557|181939630|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.022||||0.8055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.156|0.201||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||0.201|-0.156|0.8055
91027835|NCT02637557|181939630|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.103||||0.3627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.119|0.326||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||0.326|-0.119|0.3627
90837600|NCT05366738|181541773|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was concluded if the 90% confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio between the test treatments (20 mg sprinkle capsule, either sprinkled on pudding or on applesauce) and the reference treatment (20 mg tablet) were wholly contained within 80.00% and 125.00% for the vonoprazan PK parameters.|Ratio of Geometric Least Square Means|97.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.42|103.56||||||||103.56|92.42|
90837601|NCT05366738|181541774|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was concluded if the 90% confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio between the test treatments (20 mg sprinkle capsule, either sprinkled on pudding or on applesauce) and the reference treatment (20 mg tablet) were wholly contained within 80.00% and 125.00% for the vonoprazan PK parameters.|Ratio of Geometric Least Square Means|102.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.25|108.15||||||||108.15|97.25|
90837602|NCT05366738|181541774|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was concluded if the 90% confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio between the test treatments (20 mg sprinkle capsule, either sprinkled on pudding or on applesauce) and the reference treatment (20 mg tablet) were wholly contained within 80.00% and 125.00% for the vonoprazan PK parameters.|Ratio of Geometric Least Square Means|97.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.55|102.93||||||||102.93|92.55|
90837603|NCT05366738|181541775|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was concluded if the 90% confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio between the test treatments (20 mg sprinkle capsule, either sprinkled on pudding or on applesauce) and the reference treatment (20 mg tablet) were wholly contained within 80.00% and 125.00% for the vonoprazan PK parameters.|Ratio of Geometric Least Square Means|103.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.49|112.0||||||||112.00|96.49|
90837604|NCT05366738|181541775|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was concluded if the 90% confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio between the test treatments (20 mg sprinkle capsule, either sprinkled on pudding or on applesauce) and the reference treatment (20 mg tablet) were wholly contained within 80.00% and 125.00% for the vonoprazan PK parameters.|Ratio of Geometric Least Square Means|100.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.38|108.39||||||||108.39|93.38|
90837605|NCT05024032|181541781|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-12.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|-9.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-9.3|-14.8|<0.001
90837606|NCT05024032|181541781|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-17.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.3|-14.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-14.8|-20.3|<0.001
90896198|NCT00261495|181658485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.65||||0.647||95.0|-2.14|3.44|||ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||3.44|-2.14|0.647
91091084|NCT02557399|182066074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in percent|-6.69||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.21|-2.16||The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with treatment, center, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline ILs counts, Baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 8 for ILs. A negative treatment difference indicates a benefit of Duac relative to ADA+CLDM.|||-2.16|-11.21|0.004
90837607|NCT05024032|181541782|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|23.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.8|60.69|||Regression, Logistic|||||60.69|8.80|<0.001
90837608|NCT05024032|181541782|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|26.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.61|73.24|||Regression, Logistic|||||73.24|9.61|<0.001
90837609|NCT05024032|181541783|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|-5.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.5|-8.8|<0.001
90837610|NCT05024032|181541783|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|-7.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-7.5|-10.9|<0.001
90837611|NCT05024032|181541784|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.63|30.89|||Regression, Logistic|||||30.89|5.63|<0.001
90837612|NCT05024032|181541784|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|28.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.23|72.71|||Regression, Logistic|||||72.71|11.23|<0.001
90837613|NCT05024032|181541785|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|25.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.68|98.49|||Regression, Logistic|||||98.49|6.68|<0.001
90837614|NCT05024032|181541785|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|69.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.69|275.37|||Regression, Logistic|||||275.37|17.69|<0.001
90837615|NCT05024032|181541786|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|-6.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-6.9|-11.5|<0.001
90837616|NCT05024032|181541786|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-13.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|-11.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-11.3|-16.0|<0.001
90837617|NCT05024032|181541787|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-10.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|-8.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.3|-13.5|<0.001
90837618|NCT05024032|181541787|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-16.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.6|-13.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-13.4|-18.6|<0.001
90837619|NCT05024032|181541788|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|-3.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.1|-4.8|<0.001
90837620|NCT05024032|181541788|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|-4.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.8|-6.4|<0.001
90896199|NCT00261495|181658486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03||||0.627||95.0|-0.17|0.1|||ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||0.10|-0.17|0.627
91027836|NCT02637557|181939630|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.087||||0.4404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.135|0.31||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||0.310|-0.135|0.4404
90837621|NCT05024032|181541789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.28|-0.46|<0.001
91027837|NCT02637557|181939630|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.001||||0.9939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.224|0.226||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||0.226|-0.224|0.9939
90837622|NCT05024032|181541789|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.29|-0.48|<0.001
91027838|NCT02637557|181939630|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.128||||0.2716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.356|0.1||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 3||0.100|-0.356|0.2716
91027839|NCT02637557|181939630|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.116||||0.3175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.345|0.112||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 3||0.112|-0.345|0.3175
91027840|NCT02637557|181939630|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.252||||0.0325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.483|-0.021||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 3||-0.021|-0.483|0.0325
91027841|NCT02637557|181939630|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.169||||0.1769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.415|0.077||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||0.077|-0.415|0.1769
91027842|NCT02637557|181939630|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.188||||0.1343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.434|0.058||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||0.058|-0.434|0.1343
90837623|NCT05024032|181541790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.32|-0.61|<0.001
90837624|NCT05024032|181541790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.40|-0.69|<0.001
90837625|NCT05024032|181541791|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.2||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.3|||ANCOVA|||||2.3|0.0|0.044
91027843|NCT02637557|181939630|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.295||||0.0203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.544|-0.046||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||-0.046|-0.544|0.0203
91027844|NCT02637557|181939630|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.152||||0.2543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.415|0.11||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 5||0.110|-0.415|0.2543
91027845|NCT02637557|181939630|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.142||||0.2892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.405|0.121||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 5||0.121|-0.405|0.2892
90837626|NCT05024032|181541791|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.2||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.3|||ANCOVA|||||2.3|0.0|0.050
90837627|NCT05024032|181541792|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|7.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|11.8|||ANCOVA|||||11.8|3.7|<0.001
90837628|NCT05024032|181541792|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|8.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|12.7|||ANCOVA|||||12.7|4.4|<0.001
90837629|NCT05024032|181541793|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|-2.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.7|-6.9|<0.001
90837630|NCT05024032|181541794|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|-3.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.1|-9.1|<0.001
90837631|NCT05024032|181541795|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.11||||||||-0.11|-0.51|
90837632|NCT05024032|181541796|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.14||||||||0.14|0.03|
90837633|NCT05024032|181541797|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.13||||||||0.13|-0.25|
90837634|NCT05024032|181541798|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|-0.16||||||||-0.16|-0.34|
90837635|NCT05024032|181541799|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.37||||||||-0.37|-0.79|
90837636|NCT05024032|181541800|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|-0.01||||||||-0.01|-0.12|
90837637|NCT05024032|181541801|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|-4.0||||||||-4.0|-8.6|
91027846|NCT02637557|181939630|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.306||||0.0243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.571|-0.04||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 5||-0.040|-0.571|0.0243
91027847|NCT02637557|181939630|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.059||||0.6471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.312|0.194||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||0.194|-0.312|0.6471
91027848|NCT02637557|181939630|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.106||||0.4123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.359|0.148||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||0.148|-0.359|0.4123
91027849|NCT02637557|181939630|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.278||||0.0338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.534|-0.021||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||-0.021|-0.534|0.0338
91027850|NCT02637557|181939630|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.095||||0.4841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.362|0.172||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 7||0.172|-0.362|0.4841
91027851|NCT02637557|181939630|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.152||||0.2627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.419|0.115||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 7||0.115|-0.419|0.2627
90837638|NCT01054885|181541812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.046||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.006|0.098|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.098|-0.006|0.085
90837639|NCT01054885|181541812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.041||||0.123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.011|0.093|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.093|-0.011|0.123
90837640|NCT01054885|181541812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.185|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.133|0.237|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.237|0.133|<0.001
90837641|NCT01054885|181541812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.214|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.161|0.266||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.266|0.161|<0.001
90837642|NCT01054885|181541812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.209|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.157|0.261|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.261|0.157|<0.001
90837643|NCT01054885|181541812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.168|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.116|0.22||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.220|0.116|<0.001
90837644|NCT01054885|181541812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.168|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.117|0.219|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.219|0.117|<0.001
90837645|NCT01054885|181541812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.029||||0.274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.023|0.081|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.081|-0.023|0.274
90837646|NCT01054885|181541812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.024||||0.357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.027|0.075|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.075|-0.027|0.357
90837647|NCT01054885|181541813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.044||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.008|0.097|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.097|-0.008|0.095
90837648|NCT01054885|181541813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.008||||0.756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.044|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.060|-0.044|0.756
91027852|NCT02637557|181939630|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.311||||0.0241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.581|-0.041||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 7||-0.041|-0.581|0.0241
90957223|NCT01451827|181793916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.98||||0.2306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.01|||ANCOVA|||Hierarchical tests were used to control the type I error in the primary analysis. They are given in the following order: 1. Pooled tolvaptan treatment groups (IR and MR) versus placebo; 2. Tolvaptan MR 80 mg versus placebo; 3. Tolvaptan MR 50 mg versus placebo; 4. Tolvaptan IR 60/30 mg versus placebo||1.01|0.94|0.2306
91027853|NCT02637557|181939630|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.093||||0.4881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.355|0.17||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||0.170|-0.355|0.4881
91027854|NCT02637557|181939630|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.164||||0.2205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.427|0.099||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||0.099|-0.427|0.2205
91027855|NCT02637557|181939630|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.433||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.699|-0.168||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||-0.168|-0.699|0.0015
90837649|NCT01054885|181541813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.048|0.151|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.151|0.048|<0.001
90837650|NCT01054885|181541813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.144|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.091|0.197||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.197|0.091|<0.001
90837651|NCT01054885|181541813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.131|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.183|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.183|0.080|<0.001
90837652|NCT01054885|181541813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.047|0.152||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.152|0.047|<0.001
90837653|NCT01054885|181541813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.123|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.072|0.174||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.174|0.072|<0.001
90837654|NCT01054885|181541813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.045||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.008|0.097|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.097|-0.008|0.093
90837655|NCT01054885|181541813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.032||||0.224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.019|0.083|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.083|-0.019|0.224
90837656|NCT00804908|181541817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.071|||||||Stratified log-rank|||Comparisons between treatment groups were performed using a Comparisons between treatment groups were performed using a log-rank test stratified by baseline lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) status (0 to 1 ULN; \>1 to ≤ 2 ULN) and history of previously treated brain metastases (with, without). Hochberg testing procedure for multiplicity adjustment.||||=0.071
90837657|NCT00804908|181541817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.233|||||||Stratified log-rank|||Comparisons between treatment groups were performed using a Comparisons between treatment groups were performed using a log-rank test stratified by baseline lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) status (0 to 1 ULN; \>1 to ≤ 2 ULN) and history of previously treated brain metastases (with, without). Hochberg testing procedure for multiplicity adjustment.||||=0.233
90837658|NCT01280903|181541825|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.0001
90837659|NCT01280903|181541826|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13||||||p=0.130 for None to very low|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.130
91027856|NCT02637557|181939631|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.043||||0.6653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.152|0.238||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||0.238|-0.152|0.6653
90837660|NCT01280903|181541826|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.573||||||p=0.573 for Light|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.573
90837661|NCT01280903|181541826|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.197||||||p=0.197 for Moderate-to-vigorous|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.197
90837662|NCT01280903|181541827|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.461|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.461
90837663|NCT01280903|181541828|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.180
90837664|NCT01280903|181541829|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.258|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.258
90837665|NCT01280903|181541830|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.416|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.416
90837666|NCT01280903|181541831|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.0001
90837667|NCT01280903|181541832|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.272||||||p=0.272 for None to very low|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.272
90837668|NCT01280903|181541832|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.823||||||p=0.823 for Light|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.823
90837669|NCT01280903|181541832|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.076||||||p=0.076 for Moderate-to-vigorous|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.076
90837670|NCT01280903|181541833|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.561|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.561
90837671|NCT01280903|181541834|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.856|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.856
90837672|NCT01280903|181541835|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.292|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.292
91027857|NCT02637557|181939631|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.15||||0.1327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.046|0.345||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||0.345|-0.046|0.1327
90837673|NCT01280903|181541836|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.396|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.396
90837674|NCT01280903|181541837|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.424|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.424
90837675|NCT01280903|181541838|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.586|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.586
90837676|NCT01280903|181541839|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.596|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.596
90837677|NCT01280903|181541840|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.639|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.639
90837678|NCT01280903|181541841|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.466|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.466
90837679|NCT01280903|181541842|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.322||||||p=0.322 for Short Form-36v2 Mental Component|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.322
90837680|NCT01280903|181541842|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.979||||||p=0.979 for Short Form-36v2 Physical Component|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.979
90837681|NCT01280903|181541843|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71||||||p=0.710 for Exercise Barriers Self-Efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.710
90837682|NCT01280903|181541843|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.133||||||p=0.133 for Exercise Self-Efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.133
90837683|NCT01280903|181541844|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||p=0.005 for Arthritis Self Efficacy Pain|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.005
90837684|NCT01280903|181541844|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.948||||||p=0.948 for Arthritis Self Efficacy Function|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.948
90837685|NCT01280903|181541844|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.663||||||p=0.663 for Arthritis Self Efficacy Other Symptoms|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.663
90837686|NCT01280903|181541845|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||p=0.001 for Perceived Therapeutic Efficacy of Exercise and Arthritis|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.001
90837687|NCT01280903|181541845|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.031||||||p=0.031 for Perceived Therapeutic Efficacy of Exercise and Hypertension|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.031
90837688|NCT01280903|181541846|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.816|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.816
90837689|NCT01280903|181541847|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.895|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.895
90837690|NCT01280903|181541848|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.260
90837691|NCT01280903|181541849|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.993|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.993
90837692|NCT01280903|181541850|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.947|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.947
90837693|NCT01280903|181541851|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.406||||||p=0.406 for Short Form-36v2 Mental Component|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.406
90837694|NCT01280903|181541851|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.826||||||p=0.826 for Short Form-36v2 Physical Component|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.826
90837695|NCT01280903|181541852|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95||||||p=0.950 for Exercise Barriers Self-Efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.950
90837696|NCT01280903|181541852|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.365||||||p=0.365 for Exercise Self-Efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.365
90837697|NCT01280903|181541853|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.219||||||p=0.219 for Arthritis Self Efficacy Pain|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.219
90837698|NCT01280903|181541853|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34||||||p=0.340 for Arthritis Self Efficacy Function|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.340
90837699|NCT01280903|181541853|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.806||||||p=0.806 for Arthritis Self Efficacy Other Symptoms|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.806
90837700|NCT01280903|181541854|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008||||||p=0.008 for Perceived Therapeutic Efficacy of Exercise and Arthritis|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.008
90837701|NCT01280903|181541854|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12||||||p=0.120 for Perceived Therapeutic Efficacy of Exercise and Hypertension|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.120
90837702|NCT03829228|181541859|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.01||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.01|ANOVA||Treatment Difference= Visit5-Baseline|||2.01|0.62|<0.0001
90837703|NCT03829228|181541860|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.01|Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.0001
90837704|NCT03829228|181541861|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.98||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.01|ANOVA||Treatment difference=Visit5-Baseline|||1.98|0.64|<0.0001
90837705|NCT03829228|181541862|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The threshold for statistical significant was p=0.01.|Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.0001
91027858|NCT02637557|181939631|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.043||||0.6697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.155|0.241||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||0.241|-0.155|0.6697
90896200|NCT00261495|181658487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3||||0.414||95.0|-4.45|1.84|||ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||1.84|-4.45|0.414
90896201|NCT00261495|181658488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.05||||0.01||95.0|0.94|7.16|||ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||7.16|0.94|0.010
90896202|NCT00261495|181658489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.21||||0.955||95.0|-7.2|7.62|||ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||7.62|-7.20|0.955
90896203|NCT00261495|181658490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.31||||0.669||95.0|-4.72|7.34|||ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||7.34|-4.72|0.669
90896204|NCT00261495|181658491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.17||||0.595||95.0|-3.15|5.49|||ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||5.49|-3.15|0.595
90896205|NCT00261495|181658492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.94||||0.543||95.0|-3.98|2.1|||ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||2.10|-3.98|0.543
90896206|NCT05383417|181658517|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.03
90896207|NCT05383417|181658518|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.18
90896208|NCT05383417|181658519|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Day 2||||||0.007
91027859|NCT02637557|181939631|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.021||||0.8598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.251||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||0.251|-0.210|0.8598
90896209|NCT05383417|181658519|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Day 7||||||0.04
90896210|NCT05383417|181658520|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Day 1||||||0.03
90896211|NCT05383417|181658520|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Day 7||||||0.04
90896212|NCT05383417|181658521|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Day 1||||||0.04
90896213|NCT05383417|181658522|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Day2||||||0.02
90896214|NCT05383417|181658523|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
90896215|NCT05383417|181658524|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.007
90896216|NCT05383417|181658525|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
90896217|NCT05383417|181658526|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.39
90896218|NCT05383417|181658527|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
90896219|NCT05383417|181658528|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
90896220|NCT03243422|181658529|SUPERIORITY||change in Standard Deviation|0.002||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.077|0.081|||Mixed Models Analysis|Three-level linear mixed effects model with an unstructured covariance matrix from the baseline and the year 3 in-person neurocognitive assessment||||0.081|-0.077|0.96
90896221|NCT03243422|181658530|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.079||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.029|0.187||Secondary outcomes were evaluated with Hochberg modification to the Bonferroni adjustment estimates are considered statistically significant if the largest p-value is \<0·05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.187|-0.029|0.15
90896222|NCT03243422|181658531|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.02||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.118|0.078||Secondary outcomes were evaluated with Hochberg modification to the Bonferroni adjustment estimates are considered statistically significant if the largest p-value is \<0·05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.078|-0.118|0.69
90896223|NCT03243422|181658532|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.017||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.104||Secondary outcomes were evaluated with Hochberg modification to the Bonferroni adjustment estimates are considered statistically significant if the largest p-value is \<0·05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.104|-0.070|0.70
90896224|NCT03243422|181658533|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.33||Secondary outcomes were evaluated with Hochberg modification to the Bonferroni adjustment estimates are considered statistically significant if the largest p-value is \<0·05.|Regression, Cox|Discrete-time interval model||||1.33|0.61|0.59
90896225|NCT03243422|181658534|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.191||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.022|0.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was restricted to ARIC participants who were enrolled in ACHIEVE||0.360|0.022|0.027
90896226|NCT03243422|181658535|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.061||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.151|0.028|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.028|-0.151|0.18
90896227|NCT01083654|181658549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.56||||0.262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.55|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.55|0.20|.262
90896228|NCT00246337|181658584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015||95.0||||0.05 is the pre-specified significance level.|generalized linear model|The p-value is based on the average response of the MK0974 200mg, 400mg, and 600mg groups vs. placebo.||Only the MK0974 300mg, 400mg, and 600mg groups are included in the comparison with placebo based on the protocol-specified test statistics selection and the fact that all lower doses were discontinued after the interim analysis. Overall power =85%||||0.015
90896229|NCT00246337|181658585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||0.05 is the pre-specified significance level.|generalized linear model|The p-value is based on the average response of the MK0974 200mg, 400mg, and 600mg groups vs. placebo.||Only the MK0974 300mg, 400mg, and 600mg groups are included in the comparison with placebo based on the protocol-specified test statistics selection and the fact that all lower doses were discontinued after the interim analysis.||||<0.001
90896230|NCT00246337|181658586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||0.05 is the pre-specified significance level.|generalized linear model|||Only the MK0974 300mg, 400mg, and 600mg groups are included in the comparison with placebo based on the protocol-specified test statistics selection and the fact that all lower doses were discontinued after the interim analysis.||||<0.001
90896231|NCT00246337|181658587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||0.05 is the pre-specified significance level.|generalized linear model|The p-value is based on the average response of the MK0974 200mg, 400mg, and 600mg groups vs. placebo.||Only the MK0974 300mg, 400mg, and 600mg groups are included in the comparison with placebo based on the protocol-specified test statistics selection and the fact that all lower doses were discontinued after the interim analysis.||||<0.001
91027860|NCT02637557|181939631|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.113||||0.3354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.118|0.344||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||0.344|-0.118|0.3354
90896232|NCT02696564|181658597|SUPERIORITY|We will estimate a 95% confidence interval for the losartan vs placebo mean difference, using the regression estimate and the t-distribution; we will reject the null that losartan is equivalent to placebo if the 95% interval excludes 0.0.||||||0.133|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|P-value based on generalized linear mixed models with covariates for site, baseline value, and for treatment group.||||||0.133
90896233|NCT02696564|181658598|SUPERIORITY|Statistical differences were inferred if the 95% confidence intervals (CI) did not include zero.||||||0.762||||||P-value based on generalized linear mixed models with covariates for site, baseline value, and for treatment group.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.762
90896234|NCT02696564|181658599|SUPERIORITY|Statistical differences were inferred if the 95% confidence intervals (CI) did not include zero.||||||0.834||||||P-value based on generalized linear mixed models with covariates for site, baseline value, and for treatment group.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.834
91027861|NCT02637557|181939631|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.055||||0.6429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.179|0.289||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||0.289|-0.179|0.6429
90896235|NCT02696564|181658600|SUPERIORITY|Statistical differences were inferred if the 95% confidence intervals (CI) did not include zero.||||||0.783||||||P-value based on generalized linear mixed models with covariates for site, baseline value, and for treatment group.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.783
91027862|NCT02637557|181939631|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.101||||0.401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.336|0.135||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 3||0.135|-0.336|0.4010
90837706|NCT02177695|181541863|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.63||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|8.36|||Regression, Logistic|||To determine the relationship of GC COXEN scores to pT0, GC COXEN score (dichotomous, favorable vs. unfavorable) was tested in a logistic regression model predicting the outcome of pT0 within the GC treatment group.||8.36|0.82|0.1
90837707|NCT02177695|181541863|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|2.95|||Regression, Logistic|||To determine the relationship of ddMVAC COXEN scores to pT0, ddMVAC COXEN score (dichotomous, favorable vs. unfavorable) was tested in a logistic regression model predicting the outcome of pT0 within the ddMVAC treatment group.||2.95|0.42|0.82
90837708|NCT02177695|181541864|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.33||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|4.89|||Regression, Logistic|||To determine the relationship of GC COXEN scores to \<= pT1, GC COXEN score (dichotomous, favorable vs. unfavorable) was tested in a logistic regression model predicting the outcome of pT1 or better within the GC treatment group.||4.89|1.11|0.02
90837709|NCT02177695|181541864|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.75|||Regression, Logistic|||To determine the relationship of ddMVAC COXEN scores to \<=pT1, ddMVAC COXEN score (dichotomous, favorable vs. unfavorable) was tested in a logistic regression model predicting the outcome of pT1 or better within the ddMVAC treatment group.||1.75|0.46|0.76
90837710|NCT02844569|181541871|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.11
90837711|NCT02844569|181541872|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.01
90837712|NCT02844569|181541873|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.66
90837713|NCT00744497|181541874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.9009|TWO_SIDED|95.53|0.87|1.13||An interim analysis on survival was performed and the final test was corrected for multiplicity.|Log Rank|||Confidence intervals for median overall survival calculated using Brookmeyer and Crowley method. Compared survival in arms by 2-sided, alpha=0.0447 level, log-rank test, stratified by bisphosphonate intake (yes/no) and urinary N-telopeptide category (\<60 vs ≥60 nmol/mmol creatinine) defined at randomization. Null hypothesis was survival equal in both arms. Power calculations were that ≥858 deaths would lead to ≥90% power at 5% level for rejecting null hypothesis, given true hazard ratio of 0.8.||1.13|0.87|0.9009
90837714|NCT00744497|181541875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.935|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.688|1.271||||||Since superiority of the dasatinib treatment group was not demonstrated for Overall Survival, secondary endpoints were not tested. The odds ratio is presented for experimental to control group.||1.271|0.688|
90837715|NCT00744497|181541876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.02||||||Since superiority of the dasatinib treatment group was not demonstrated for Overall Survival, secondary endpoints were not tested. The hazard ratio is presented for experimental to control group.||1.02|0.64|
91027863|NCT02637557|181939631|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.129||||0.2821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.364|0.106||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 3||0.106|-0.364|0.2821
91027864|NCT02637557|181939631|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.149||||0.2189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.388|0.089||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 3||0.089|-0.388|0.2189
90837716|NCT00744497|181541877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.763||||||Since superiority of the dasatinib treatment group was not demonstrated for Overall Survival, secondary endpoints were not tested. The odds ratio is presented for experimental to control group.||1.763|0.930|
90837717|NCT00744497|181541878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.05||||||Since superiority of the dasatinib treatment group was not demonstrated for Overall Survival, secondary endpoints were not tested. The hazard ratio is presented for experimental to control group.||1.05|0.82|
90837718|NCT00744497|181541879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.01||||||Since superiority of the dasatinib treatment group was not demonstrated for Overall Survival, secondary endpoints were not tested. The hazard ratio is presented for experimental to control group.||1.01|0.79|
90837719|NCT00744497|181541880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.791|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.594|1.052||||||Since superiority of the dasatinib treatment group was not demonstrated for Overall Survival, secondary endpoints were not tested. The odds ratio is presented for of experimental to control group.||1.052|0.594|
90837720|NCT02443688|181541889|OTHER|Single Group Difference from Placebo Mean Change from Baseline with 95% confidence interval (CI)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|4.12|||ANOVA|||||4.12|-1.34|
90837721|NCT02443688|181541889|OTHER|Single Group Difference from Placebo Mean Change from Baseline with 95% CI|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.37|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.78|1.64|||ANOVA|||||1.64|-3.78|
90837722|NCT02443688|181541889|SUPERIORITY|Difference from placebo of pooled arms (100mg CTX-4430 and 50mg CTX-4430) in change from baseline in ppFEV1 at Week 48.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|2.5||0.1 alpha level (2-sided) prespecified|ANOVA|||||2.50|-2.20|0.45
90837723|NCT02443688|181541890|OTHER|Single Group Rate with 95% CI|see Estimation Comment below|1.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|2.02|||||Estimated using negative binomial distribution by treatment group unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|||2.02|1.22|
91027865|NCT02637557|181939631|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.093||||0.4717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.346|0.161||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||0.161|-0.346|0.4717
91027866|NCT02637557|181939631|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.096||||0.4572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.349|0.158||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||0.158|-0.349|0.4572
91027867|NCT02637557|181939631|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.165||||0.2064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.422|0.092||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||0.092|-0.422|0.2064
90837724|NCT02443688|181541890|OTHER|Single Group Rate with 95% CI|see Estimation Comment below|1.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|1.89|||||Estimated using negative binomial distribution by treatment group unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|||1.89|1.13|
90837725|NCT02443688|181541890|OTHER|Single Group Rate with 95% CI|see Estimation Comment below|1.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|2.01|||||Estimated using negative binomial distribution by treatment group unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|||2.01|1.21|
90837726|NCT02443688|181541890|OTHER|Pooled Group Rate with 95% CI|see Estimation Comment below|1.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|1.81|||||Estimated using negative binomial distribution unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|||1.81|1.26|
90837727|NCT02443688|181541891|OTHER|95% 2-sided confidence interval for the Hazard Ratio relative to Placebo unadjusted for multiple comparisons|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.34|||Regression, Cox|||||1.34|0.58|
90837728|NCT02443688|181541891|OTHER|95% 2-sided confidence interval for the Hazard Ratio relative to Placebo unadjusted for multiple comparisons|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.31|||Regression, Cox|||||1.31|0.56|
90837729|NCT02443688|181541891|OTHER|95% 2-sided confidence interval for the Hazard Ratio Relative to Placebo unadjusted for multiple comparisons|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.25|||Regression, Cox|||||1.25|0.61|
90837730|NCT02443688|181541897|OTHER|Single Group Rate with 95% CI|see Estimation Comment below|0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.44|||||Estimated using negative binomial distribution by treatment group unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|||1.44|0.49|
90837731|NCT02443688|181541897|OTHER|Single Group Rate with 95% CI|see Estimation Comment below|1.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.96|||||Estimated using negative binomial distribution by treatment group unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|||1.96|0.84|
90837732|NCT02443688|181541897|OTHER|Single Group Rate with 95% CI|see Estimation Comment below|1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|2.42|||||Estimated using negative binomial distribution by treatment group unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|||2.42|1.07|
90896236|NCT02696564|181658601|SUPERIORITY|Statistical differences were inferred if the 95% confidence intervals (CI) did not include zero.||||||0.053||||||P-value based on generalized linear mixed models with covariates for site, baseline value, and for treatment group.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.053
90957224|NCT01642251|181793941|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.22|0.51||one-sided p value|Regression, Cox|adjusted for ECOG performance status, abnormal protein in the Cox proportional hazard model||The significance test reported here was for treatment arms comparison in patients within the male/abnormal LDH stratum||0.51|0.22|<0.001
91027868|NCT02637557|181939631|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.088||||0.4932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.339|0.164||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 5||0.164|-0.339|0.4932
90837733|NCT02443688|181541897|OTHER|Group Rate with 95% CI|see Estimation Comment below|1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.46|||||Estimated using negative binomial distribution by treatment group unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|||1.46|0.74|
90837734|NCT02443688|181541898|OTHER|95% 2-sided confidence interval for the Hazard Ratio Relative to Placebo unadjusted for multiple comparisons|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.1|||Regression, Cox|||||1.10|0.25|
90896237|NCT02696564|181658602|SUPERIORITY|Statistical differences were inferred if the 95% confidence intervals (CI) did not include zero.||||||0.016||||||P-value based on generalized linear mixed models with covariates for site, baseline value, and for treatment group.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.016
90837735|NCT02443688|181541898|OTHER|95% 2-sided confidence interval for the Hazard Ratio Relative to Placebo unadjusted for multiple comparisons|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.27|||Regression, Cox|||||1.27|0.30|
90837736|NCT02443688|181541898|OTHER|95% 2-sided confidence interval for the Hazard Ratio Relative to Placebo unadjusted for multiple comparisons|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.05|||Regression, Cox|||||1.05|0.31|
90837737|NCT01968447|181541932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.59|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.59
90837738|NCT04196777|181541961|OTHER|We performed a logistic regression analysis that measured the effect of the intervention at site 3. The below results show the interaction term between time and the intervention from this model. Time was measured in days divided by 365, giving an annualized figure for the time coefficient estimate and interaction coefficient.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.089||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.016|0.445|||Regression, Logistic|||To model the primary outcome for site 3, we used a logistic regression model and a set of three explanatory variables: time, a binary indicator for an observation occurring within the intervention phase, and an interaction term between these two main effects (time and intervention).||0.445|0.016|0.004
90837739|NCT04196777|181541961|OTHER|We performed a logistic regression analysis that measured the effect of the intervention at site 1. The below results show the interaction term between time and the intervention from this model. Time was measured in days divided by 365, giving an annualized figure for the time coefficient estimate and interaction coefficient.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.593||||0.259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|3.585|||Regression, Logistic|||To model the primary outcome for site 1, we used a logistic regression model and a set of three explanatory variables: time, a binary indicator for an observation occurring within the intervention phase, and an interaction term between these two main effects (time and intervention).||3.585|0.710|0.259
90896238|NCT02696564|181658603|SUPERIORITY|Statistical differences were inferred if the 95% confidence intervals (CI) did not include zero.||||||0.065||||||P-value based on generalized linear mixed models with covariates for site, baseline value, and for treatment group.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.065
90896239|NCT02696564|181658604|SUPERIORITY|Statistical differences were inferred if the 95% confidence intervals (CI) did not include zero.||||||0.293||||||P-value based on generalized linear mixed models with covariates for site, baseline value, and for treatment group.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.293
91027869|NCT02637557|181939631|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.069||||0.5897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.321|0.183||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 5||0.183|-0.321|0.5897
90837740|NCT04196777|181541961|OTHER|We performed a logistic regression analysis that measured the effect of the intervention at site 2. The below results show the interaction term between time and the intervention from this model. Time was measured in days divided by 365, giving an annualized figure for the time coefficient estimate and interaction coefficient.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.748||||0.738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.135|4.147|||Regression, Logistic|||To model the primary outcome for site 2, we used a logistic regression model and a set of three explanatory variables: time, a binary indicator for an observation occurring within the intervention phase, and an interaction term between these two main effects (time and intervention).||4.147|0.135|0.738
90896240|NCT02696564|181658605|SUPERIORITY|Statistical differences were inferred if the 95% confidence intervals (CI) did not include zero.||||||0.356||||||P-value based on generalized linear mixed models with covariates for site, baseline value, and for treatment group.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.356
90957225|NCT01642251|181793941|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.6|1.09||one-sided p value|Regression, Cox|adjusted for ECOG performance status, abnormal protein in the Cox proportional hazard model||The significance test reported here was for treatment arms comparison in patients not in the male/abnormal LDH stratum.||1.09|0.60|0.18
91027870|NCT02637557|181939631|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.166||||0.2014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.421|0.089||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 5||0.089|-0.421|0.2014
90837741|NCT04196777|181541962|OTHER|The Wilcoxon rank-sum test assessed whether the post-procedural antimicrobial duration significantly differed at site 3 between the baseline and intervention periods.|Rank sum test statistic|1280.5||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The median duration of post-procedural antimicrobial prescriptions at site 3 were compared using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||||0.001
90837742|NCT04196777|181541962|OTHER|The Wilcoxon rank-sum test assessed whether the post-procedural antimicrobial duration significantly differed at site 1 between the baseline and intervention periods.|Rank sum test statistic|28662.0||||0.013|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The median duration of post-procedural antimicrobial prescriptions at site 1 were compared using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test.Type of statistical test||||0.013
90837743|NCT04196777|181541962|OTHER|The Wilcoxon rank-sum test assessed whether the post-procedural antimicrobial duration significantly differed at site 2 between the baseline and intervention periods.|Rank sum test statistic|784.0||||0.14|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The median duration of post-procedural antimicrobial prescriptions at site 2 were compared using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||||0.14
90837744|NCT04196777|181541963|OTHER|We performed a logistic regression model that included patients across all 3 sites.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.99|||Regression, Logistic|||To model this secondary outcome, we used a logistic regression model and a set of four explanatory variables: time, a binary indicator for an observation occurring within the intervention phase, an interaction term between these two main effects (time and intervention), and a binary indicator for the primary outcome. This last variable was included to assess the risk of these secondary outcomes in patients who were not exposed to post-procedural antimicrobials compared to those who were exposed.||0.99|0.58|0.04
90837745|NCT04196777|181541964|OTHER|We performed a logistic regression model that included patients across all 3 sites.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.68|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.87|||Regression, Logistic|||To model this secondary outcome across all sites, we used a logistic regression model and a set of four explanatory variables: time, a binary indicator for an observation occurring within the intervention phase, an interaction term between these two main effects (time and intervention), and a binary indicator for the primary outcome.||0.87|0.53|<0.01
90859698|NCT02787551|181582776|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|36.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.11|43.99||Threshold for significance \<=0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||HbA1c \<7.0%: Insulin Glargine/Lixisenatide FRC vs GLP-1 Receptor Agonist. Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method method stratified on randomization strata of Week -2 HbA1c (\<8.0%, \>=8.0%), and randomization strata of GLP-1 receptor agonist subtype at screening. Hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially per pre-specified order (only HbA1c \< 7% was part of testing).||43.99|28.11|<.0001
90896241|NCT02696564|181658606|SUPERIORITY|Statistical differences were inferred if the 95% confidence intervals (CI) did not include zero.||||||0.009||||||P-value based on generalized linear mixed models with covariates for site, baseline value, and for treatment group.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.009
90896242|NCT02696564|181658607|SUPERIORITY||Relative rate (losartan to placebo)|0.8||||0.892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|18.77|||Negative binomial model|||P-value for rate of mild exacerbations between treatment groups (measured in events per 100 person-years).||18.77|0.03|0.892
91027871|NCT02637557|181939631|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.044||||0.7384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.304|0.215||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||0.215|-0.304|0.7384
90957226|NCT01642251|181793941|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028||||||p value for the interaction by treatment and stratification factor|Regression, Cox|||If there was a significant treatment-by-stratification factor interaction, the results would be reported separately for each stratum. Significance was defined as the p value was less than 0.05.||||0.028
90957227|NCT01642251|181793942|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.64|1.07|||Regression, Cox|stratified on the stratification factors used for randomization||||1.07|0.64|0.17
91027872|NCT02637557|181939631|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.043||||0.7423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.303|0.216||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||0.216|-0.303|0.7423
91027873|NCT02637557|181939631|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.141||||0.2923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.404|0.122||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||0.122|-0.404|0.2923
91027874|NCT02637557|181939631|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.085||||0.5388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.359|0.188||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 7||0.188|-0.359|0.5388
90896243|NCT02696564|181658607|SUPERIORITY||Relative rate (losartan to placebo)|0.91||||0.946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|14.97|||Negative binomial model|||P-value for rate of moderate exacerbations between treatment groups (measured in events per 100 person-years).||14.97|0.05|0.946
90896244|NCT02696564|181658607|SUPERIORITY||Relative rate (losartan to placebo)|0.36||||0.487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|6.51|||Negative binomial model|||P-value for rate of severe exacerbations between treatment groups (measured in events per 100 person-years).||6.51|0.02|0.487
90896245|NCT04067401|181658608|SUPERIORITY||Effect size|-0.13||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusts for class (random effect) and sex, age, race/ethnicity, and Air Force component||||.01|-.29|.062
90896246|NCT04067401|181658609|SUPERIORITY||Effect size|-0.23||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|-0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusts for class (random effect) and sex, age, race/ethnicity, and Air Force component||||-.09|-.39|.001
90896247|NCT04067401|181658610|SUPERIORITY||Effect size|-0.16||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusts for class (random effect) and sex, age, race/ethnicity, and Air Force component||||-.02|-.34|.027
90896248|NCT04067401|181658611|SUPERIORITY||Effect size|-0.24||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusts for class (random effect) and sex, age, race/ethnicity, and Air Force component||||-.08|-.41|.002
90896249|NCT04067401|181658612|SUPERIORITY||Effect size|0.01||||0.821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusts for class (random effect) and sex, age, race/ethnicity, and Air Force component||||.11|-.12|.821
91027875|NCT02637557|181939631|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.008||||0.9565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.266|0.281||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 7||0.281|-0.266|0.9565
91027876|NCT02637557|181939631|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.099||||0.4848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.376|0.179||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 7||0.179|-0.376|0.4848
91027877|NCT02637557|181939631|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.164||||0.2523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.445|0.117||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||0.117|-0.445|0.2523
90896250|NCT04067401|181658613|SUPERIORITY||Effect size|-0.14||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusts for class (random effect) and sex, age, race/ethnicity, and Air Force component||||-.02|-.31|.024
90896251|NCT04067401|181658614|SUPERIORITY||Effect size|0.18||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusts for class (random effect) and sex, age, race/ethnicity, and Air Force component||||.29|.04|.012
90896252|NCT04067401|181658615|SUPERIORITY||Effect size|0.21||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.35||Model adjusts for class (random effect) and sex, age, race/ethnicity, and Air Force component|Mixed Models Analysis|||||.35|.05|.010
91027878|NCT02637557|181939631|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.112||||0.4356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.393|0.17||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||0.170|-0.393|0.4356
91027879|NCT02637557|181939631|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.199||||0.1706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.485|0.086||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||0.086|-0.485|0.1706
90896253|NCT00141739|181658624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test||||||0.001
90896254|NCT02287584|181658626|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|-1.6||adjusted p value, Hochberg procedure|Mixed Models Analysis|||Using Mixed Model for Repeated Measures||-1.6|-9.6|0.007
90896255|NCT02287584|181658626|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.03|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|-6.4||adjusted p-value, Hochberg procedure|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-6.4|-14.4|<0.001
90896256|NCT01892345|181658644|OTHER|Treatment Effect|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.058|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.017|0.197|||Stratified Log-Rank Test||HR based on a stratified Cox proportional hazards model. Confidence interval = Wald confidence interval. HR for eculizumab compared with placebo represented a 94.2% reduction in the risk of relapse, 95% Wald confidence interval (80.3%, 98.3%).|||0.197|0.017|<0.0001
90896257|NCT00659984|181658680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|5.2||||0.363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|13.9|||Cochran Armitage Trend Test|||||13.9|-3.4|0.363
90896258|NCT02657317|181658692|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.1||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|-3.7|||GLMM|||To detect a medium effect (d = 0.50) at 2-sided α = 0.05, 50 participants were needed in each study arm (total N = 100). We anticipated 30% attrition in each arm. Data for the primary aim were analyzed using generalized linear mixed models adjusting for baseline levels of prognostic variable and using random intercepts at the level of participants. The primary analysis was based on intent-to-treat.||-3.7|-14.4|.001
90896259|NCT01800968|181658767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3087|||||||Rank score|||||||0.3087
91027880|NCT02637557|181939632|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02||||0.7689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.155|0.115||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.115|-0.155|0.7689
91027881|NCT02637557|181939632|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.034||||0.6287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.103|0.17||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.170|-0.103|0.6287
91027882|NCT02637557|181939632|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.07||||0.3106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.066|0.207||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.207|-0.066|0.3106
91027883|NCT02637557|181939633|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.9961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.101||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.101|-0.100|0.9961
90896260|NCT01800968|181658768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1549|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.1549
90896261|NCT01800968|181658769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1932|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.1932
90896262|NCT01800968|181658770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9535|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.9535
90896263|NCT01800968|181658771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8548|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.8548
90896264|NCT01800968|181658772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4266|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.4266
90896265|NCT01800968|181658773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1705|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.1705
90896266|NCT01800968|181658774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1309|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.1309
90896267|NCT01800968|181658775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.792|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.7920
90896268|NCT01800968|181658776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7026|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.7026
91027884|NCT02637557|181939633|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.008||||0.8829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.109|0.094||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.094|-0.109|0.8829
90837746|NCT00981656|181541968|OTHER|No testing is done, conclusions are made based on the confidence interval.||||||||||||||||Null hypothesis = this treatment will result in 75% of participants free from radical cystectomy at 3 years. A lower confidence bound of 60% will be promising enough to pursue this regimen further. A sample size of 33 analyzable patients provides a one-sided 97.5% lower bound of 60% relative to the hypothesized 75%. In terms of type I error, this design provides a 2.5% chance of observing a 3-year percentage less than 60% if the true rate is 75%.|If the lower confidence interval (CI) limit was above 60% then the regimen would be considered promising enough to warrant further study for this treatment regimen. If the lower limit was below 25% then the treatment would not be considered worthy of further study. If the lower limit fell between 25% and 60%, the investigators would consider the possibility of further investigation.|||
90896269|NCT01800968|181658777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2662|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.2662
90837747|NCT04026113|181541980|SUPERIORITY||Difference|1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.264|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.651|1.689||ANCOVA model estimates/t-tests comparing specified treatment groups, controlling for age group and baseline value.|ANCOVA|||||1.689|0.651|< 0.0001
90837748|NCT04026113|181541980|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4323||||||Treatment-by-Age Group Interaction P-value: Interaction P-value base on ANCOVA model with treatment, age group, treatment-by-age group interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.4323
90837749|NCT04026113|181541982|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.423|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.109||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.208|0.638||ANCOVA model estimates/t-tests comparing specified treatment groups, controlling for age group and baseline value.|ANCOVA|||||0.638|0.208|0.0001
90837750|NCT04026113|181541982|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4381||||||Treatment-by-Age Group Interaction P-value: Interaction P-value base on ANCOVA model with treatment, age group, treatment-by-age group interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.4381
91027885|NCT02637557|181939633|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.0527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|0.201||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.201|-0.001|0.0527
90837751|NCT00989911|181541988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
90896270|NCT01800968|181658778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6395|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.6395
90896271|NCT01800968|181658779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8218|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.8218
90837752|NCT00837434|181541989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|P-value for testing treatment effect uses week 12 CD27+ switched memory as the outcome variable and adjusts for baseline CD27+ switched memory||Null Hypothesis: Mean percentage of CD27+ switched memory cells in the peripheral blood at Week 12 does not differ between individuals treated with etanercept and those treated with adalimumab after adjusting for baseline CD27+ switched memory cells. Alt. hypothesis: Mean percentage of CD27+ switched memory cells in the peripheral blood at Week 12 in individuals treated with etanercept is lower than in those treated with adalimumab after adjusting for baseline CD27+ switched memory cells.||||0.3
90837753|NCT01709721|181542008|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.147|||||||Chi-squared|Pearson's chi-square test||Superiority of intrathecal hydromorphone hydrochloride as compared to a control arm.||||0.147
90896272|NCT01800968|181658780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1124|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.1124
90896273|NCT01800968|181658781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8088|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.8088
90896274|NCT01800968|181658782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7764|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.7764
90896275|NCT01800968|181658783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1701|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.1701
90896276|NCT01800968|181658784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6532|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.6532
90896277|NCT01800968|181658785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2033|||||||Rank score|||||||0.2033
90896278|NCT00755040|181658796|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.99
90896279|NCT02220894|181658813|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.86||One-sided p-value based on stratified log-rank test|Log Rank||Hazard ratio based on Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region (East Asia vs. non-East Asia), ECOG PS (0 vs. 1), and histology (squamous vs. non-squamous).|||0.86|0.58|0.0003
90896280|NCT02220894|181658814|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.91||One-sided p-value based on stratified log-rank test|Log Rank||Hazard ratio based on Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region (East Asia vs. non-East Asia), ECOG PS (0 vs. 1), PD-L1 expression status (TPS=≥50% vs. TPS=1-49%) and histology (squamous vs. non-squamous).|||0.91|0.65|0.0012
90896281|NCT02220894|181658815|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.93||One-sided p-value based on stratified log-rank test|Log Rank||Hazard ratio based on Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region (East Asia vs. non-East Asia), ECOG PS (0 vs. 1), PD-L1 expression status (TPS=≥50% vs. TPS=1-49%) and histology (squamous vs. non-squamous).|||0.93|0.71|0.0013
90896282|NCT02220894|181658816|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.0||One-sided p-value based on stratified log-rank test|Log Rank||Hazard ratio based on Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region (East Asia vs. non-East Asia), ECOG PS (0 vs. 1) and histology (squamous vs. non-squamous).|||1.00|0.69|0.0260
90837754|NCT01709721|181542009|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0342|||||||ANCOVA|||"P-value by ANCOVA, with randomization group as the factor and initial parameter value as covariate.~Note: For subjects with missing endpoint on Day 119, value is imputed using the Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF).~Note: Baseline for this analysis is the Day 84 visit."||||0.0342
90837755|NCT01709721|181542010|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1642|||||||ANCOVA|||"P-value by ANCOVA, with randomization group as the factor and initial parameter value as covariate.~Note: For subjects with missing endpoint on Day 119, value is imputed using the Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF).~Note: Baseline for this analysis is the Day 84 visit."||||0.1642
90837756|NCT01709721|181542011|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA, with randomization group as the factor and initial parameter value as covariate.||"P-value by ANCOVA, with randomization group as the factor and initial parameter value as covariate.~Note: For subjects with missing endpoint on Day 119, value is imputed using the Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF).~Note: Baseline for this analysis is the Day 84 visit."||||0.0160
90837757|NCT01709721|181542012|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0007|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA, with randomization group as the factor and initial parameter value as covariate.||"P-value by ANCOVA, with randomization group as the factor and initial parameter value as covariate.~Note: For subjects with missing endpoint on Day 119, value is imputed using the Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF).~Note: Baseline for this analysis is the Day 84 visit."||||0.0007
90837758|NCT01709721|181542013|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0088||||||ANCOVA, with randomization group as the factor and initial parameter value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||"P-value by ANCOVA, with randomization group as the factor and initial parameter value as covariate.~Note: For subjects with missing endpoint on Day 119, value is imputed using the Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF).~Note: Baseline for this analysis is the Day 84 visit."||||0.0088
90837759|NCT01709721|181542014|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011||||||Log-rank test for Kaplan-Meier Estimate of Time to Rescue (days).|Log Rank|||||||0.011
90837760|NCT01709721|181542015|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0335|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value by the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel mean score test (using equally spaced scores).||||0.0335
90837761|NCT01709721|181542017|SUPERIORITY|Pearson's chi-square test||||||0.01||||||Pearson's chi-square test|Chi-squared|||||||0.010
90837762|NCT03402217|181542022|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.383|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Pre and post-score paired comparison.||||.383
90837763|NCT03402217|181542023|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Information pre-post paired comparison||||.001
90837764|NCT03402217|181542023|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Motivation pre- and post-paired comparison.||||.07
90837765|NCT03402217|181542023|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Behavior pre and post paired comparison||||.230
90837766|NCT02135861|181542032|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.26||estimates of total lung|ANOVA||||Ve was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.2600|0.0600|0.0029
90837767|NCT02135861|181542032|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1825||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0855|0.2795||estimates of left lung|ANOVA||||Ve was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.2795|0.0855|0.0007
90837768|NCT02135861|181542032|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1565||||0.0093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0419|0.2711||estimates of right lung|ANOVA||||Ve was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.2711|0.0419|0.0093
90837769|NCT02135861|181542032|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1764||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0823|0.2704||estimates of left lung apical|ANOVA||||Ve was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.2704|0.0823|0.0007
90837770|NCT02135861|181542032|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1999||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0894|0.3103||estimates of left lung basal|ANOVA||||Ve was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.3103|0.0894|0.0010
90837771|NCT02135861|181542032|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.136||||0.0159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0276|0.2443||estimates of right lung apical|ANOVA||||Ve was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.2443|0.0276|0.0159
90837772|NCT02135861|181542032|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1748||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0535|0.2961||estimates of right lung basal|ANOVA||||Ve was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.2961|0.0535|0.0064
90837773|NCT02135861|181542033|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0137||||0.7381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0968|0.0695||estimates of total lung|ANOVA||||Ktrans was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.0695|-0.0968|0.7381
90837774|NCT02135861|181542033|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0136||||0.6992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.058|0.0852||estimates of left lung|ANOVA||||Ktrans was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.0852|-0.0580|0.6992
90837775|NCT02135861|181542033|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0258||||0.5778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1201|0.0684||estimates of right lung|ANOVA||||Ktrans was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.0684|-0.1201|0.5778
90957228|NCT01642251|181793944|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.13
90957229|NCT03988920|181793950|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.7439|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.7439
90957230|NCT01942590|181793970|OTHER|||||||0.0512|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0512
90896283|NCT02220894|181658817|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.2134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.1||One-sided p-value based on stratified log-rank test|Log Rank||Hazard ratio based on Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region (East Asia vs. non-East Asia), ECOG PS (0 vs. 1), PD-L1 expression status (TPS=≥50% vs. TPS=1-49%) and histology (squamous vs. non-squamous).|||1.10|0.80|0.2134
90896284|NCT02220894|181658818|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.7964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.19||One-sided p-value based on stratified log-rank test|Log Rank||Hazard ratio based on Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region (East Asia vs. non-East Asia), ECOG PS (0 vs. 1), PD-L1 expression status (TPS=≥50% vs. TPS=1-49%) and histology (squamous vs. non-squamous).|||1.19|0.93|0.7964
90896285|NCT02220894|181658819|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage (DP)|7.0||||0.0353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|14.6||One-sided p-value for testing. H0: difference in percentages=0 vs. H1: difference in percentages \>0|Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen||DP for pembrolizumab vs. chemotherapy based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by geographic region (East Asia vs. non-East Asia), ECOG PS (0 vs. 1) and histology (squamous vs. nonsquamous).|||14.6|-0.6|0.0353
90896286|NCT02220894|181658820|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage (DP)|4.6||||0.0744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|10.9||One-sided p-value for testing. H0: difference in percentages=0 vs. H1: difference in percentages \>0|Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen||DP for pembrolizumab vs. chemotherapy based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by geographic region (East Asia vs. non-East Asia), ECOG PS (0 vs. 1), PD-L1 expression status (TPS=≥50% vs. TPS=1-49%) and histology (squamous vs. non-squamous).|||10.9|-1.7|0.0744
90896287|NCT02220894|181658821|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage (DP)|0.6||||0.406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|5.4||One-sided p-value for testing. H0: difference in percentages=0 vs. H1: difference in percentages \>0|Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen||DP for pembrolizumab vs. chemotherapy based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by geographic region (East Asia vs. non-East Asia), ECOG PS (0 vs. 1), PD-L1 expression status (TPS=≥50% vs. TPS=1-49%) and histology (squamous vs. non-squamous).|||5.4|-4.2|0.4060
90896288|NCT00394355|181658838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.261|||||||ANOVA|||"Least squares mean percent changes were obtained from the two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with treatment and BMD scan center effects. Results shown use percent change as a response.~Pooled Standard deviation from the ANOVA model with treatment effects."||||0.261
90896289|NCT00394355|181658838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.644|||||||ANOVA|||"Least squares mean percent changes were obtained from the two-way ANOVA model with treatment and BMD scan center effects. Results shown use percent change as a response.~Pooled Standard deviation from the ANOVA model with treatment effects."||||0.644
90896290|NCT00394355|181658839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.359|||||||ANOVA|||"Least squares mean percent changes were obtained from the two-way ANOVA model with treatment and BMD scan center effects. Results shown use percent change as a response.~Pooled Standard deviation from the ANOVA model with treatment effects."||||0.359
90896291|NCT00394355|181658839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.39|||||||ANOVA|||"Least squares mean percent changes were obtained from the two-way ANOVA model with treatment and BMD scan center effects. Results shown use percent change as a response.~Pooled Standard deviation from the ANOVA model with treatment effects."||||0.390
91027886|NCT02396381|181939656|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|96.875|1.1|5.09|||Hailperin-Rüger|p-value less than 1.5625% would be considered statistically significant, following test multiplicity adjustment using the Hailperin-Rüger approach||"The analysis will test if the mean level of HDL-C for THS-use is greater than for CC-use. The following hypothesis will be evaluated:~H0: XTHS - XCC ≤ 0.0~HA: XTHS - XCC \> 0.0~where XTHS and XCC are the adjusted means of THS-use and CC-use, respectively. H0 is rejected with a type I error α = 1.5625% (one-sided test)."||5.09|1.10|<0.001
91027887|NCT02396381|181939657|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.42||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|96.875|-0.717|-0.123|||Hailperin-Rüger|p-value less than 1.5625% would be considered statistically significant, following test multiplicity adjustment using the Hailperin-Rüger approach||"The analysis will test if the mean level of WBC for THS-use is lower than for CC-use. The following hypothesis will be evaluated:~H0: XTHS - XCC ≥ 0.0~HA: XTHS - XCC \< 0.0~where XTHS and XCC are the adjusted means of THS-use and CC-use, respectively. H0 is rejected with a type I error α = 1.5625% (one-sided test)."||-0.123|-0.717|0.001
90896292|NCT00394355|181658840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.169|||||||ANOVA|||"Least squares mean percent changes were obtained from the two-way ANOVA model with treatment and BMD scan center effects. Results shown use percent change as a response.~Pooled Standard deviation from the ANOVA model with treatment effects."||||0.169
90896293|NCT00394355|181658840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.526|||||||ANOVA|||"Least squares mean percent changes were obtained from the two-way ANOVA model with treatment and BMD scan center effects. Results shown use percent change as a response.~Pooled Standard deviation from the ANOVA model with treatment effects."||||0.526
90896294|NCT00394355|181658841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Least square means and Pstd (pooled standard deviations) are obtained from the ANOVA model with treatment effects.||||<0.001
90896295|NCT00394355|181658841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.023|||||||ANOVA|||Least square means and Pstd (pooled standard deviations) are obtained from the ANOVA model with treatment effects.||||0.023
90896296|NCT00079001|181658842|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Superiority and futility analysis were conducted for time to first SRE. Lan-Demets analog of the Emerson-Fleming sequential boundary was used to maintain overall significance level of α = .05 while conducting interim analyses on time to first SRE.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.174||Because of early termination, conditional power was performed under the alternative hypothesis. This is the probability that zoledronic acid is superior to placebo, given time to first SRE data at interim analysis under alternative hypothesis.|Log Rank||Patients randomly assigned to zoledronic acid were compared with patients assigned to placebo|The null hypothesis was that the hazard ratio is greater than or equal to 1.0 versus the alternative hypothesis that the hazard ratio is less than 0.77. With a target of 470 SREs, log-rank statistic had 88% power to detect a 23% decrease in hazard of SRE (equivalent to an increase in median time to SRE from 30 months to 39 months), assuming a one-sided type I error rate of .05.||1.174|0|0.385
90896297|NCT00079001|181658843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.12|||Log Rank|Adjusted for stratification factors: performance status, prior SRE, and serum alkaline phosphatase.|Zoledronic acid versus placebo group|||1.12|0.70|0.29
91027888|NCT02396381|181939658|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.28||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|96.875|0.145|2.42|||Hailperin-Rüger|p-value less than 1.5625% would be considered statistically significant, following test multiplicity adjustment using the Hailperin-Rüger approach||"The analysis will test if the mean level of FEV1 for THS-use is greater than for CC-use. The following hypothesis will be evaluated:~H0: XTHS - XCC ≤ 0.0~HA: XTHS - XCC \> 0.0~where XTHS and XCC are the adjusted means of THS-use and CC-use, respectively. H0 is rejected with a type I error α = 1.5625% (one-sided test)."||2.42|0.145|0.008
90837776|NCT02135861|181542033|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0005||||0.9899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0738|0.0747||estimates of left lung apical|ANOVA||||Ktrans was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.0747|-0.0738|0.9899
90837777|NCT02135861|181542033|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0396||||0.2912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.036|0.1153||estimates of left lung basal|ANOVA||||Ktrans was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.1153|-0.0360|0.2912
90837778|NCT02135861|181542033|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0362||||0.4592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1355|0.0631||estimates of right lung apical|ANOVA||||Ktrans was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.0631|-0.1355|0.4592
90837779|NCT02135861|181542033|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0118||||0.7936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1036|0.08||estimates of right lung basal|ANOVA||||Ktrans was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.0800|-0.1036|0.7936
90837780|NCT02135861|181542034|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1148||||0.0156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0236|0.2061||estimates of total lung- Pre-exercise|ANOVA||||Ve was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.2061|0.0236|0.0156
90837781|NCT02135861|181542034|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1366||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0523|0.2209||estimates of left lung- Pre-exercise|ANOVA|estimates of left lung- Pre-exercise|||Ve was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.2209|0.0523|0.0026
90837782|NCT02135861|181542034|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1067||||0.0328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0094|0.204||estimates of right lung- Pre-exercise|ANOVA||||Ve was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.2040|0.0094|0.0328
90837783|NCT02135861|181542034|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1145||||0.0158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0235|0.2056||estimates of left lung apical-Pre-exercise|ANOVA||||Ve was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.2056|0.0235|0.0158
90837784|NCT02135861|181542034|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1776||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0917|0.2635||estimates of left lung basal-Pre-exercise|ANOVA||||Ve was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.2635|0.0917|0.0002
90837785|NCT02135861|181542034|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0956||||0.0658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0067|0.1979||estimates of right lung apical-Pre-exercise|ANOVA||||Ve was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.1979|-0.0067|0.0658
90896298|NCT00079001|181658844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.07|||Log Rank|Adjusted for stratification factors: performance status, prior SRE, and serum alkaline phosphatase.|Zoledronic acid versus placebo group|||1.07|0.74|0.22
91027889|NCT02396381|181939659|SUPERIORITY||% Reduction|2.86||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|96.875|-0.426|6.04|||Hailperin-Rüger|p-value less than 1.5625% would be considered statistically significant, following test multiplicity adjustment using the Hailperin-Rüger approach|Derived as 1 - LS Mean Ratio (THS / CC)|"The analysis of sICAM-1 will test if the mean level of this clinical risk endpoint for THS-use is lower relative to CC-use. The following hypothesis will be evaluated:~H0: XTHS / XCC ≥ 1.0~HA: XTHS / XCC \< 1.0~where XTHS and XCC are the adjusted geometrical means of THS-use and CC-use, respectively. H0 is rejected with a type I error α = 1.5625% (one-sided test)."||6.04|-0.426|0.030
90837786|NCT02135861|181542034|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1194||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0251|0.2137||estimates of right lung basal-Pre-exercise|ANOVA||||Ve was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.2137|0.0251|0.0150
90837787|NCT02135861|181542034|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1428||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0598|0.2259||estimates of total lung-Post-exercise|ANOVA||||Ve was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.2259|0.0598|0.0015
90837788|NCT02135861|181542034|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1776|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1057|0.2496||estimates of left lung-Post-exercise|ANOVA||||Ve was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.2496|0.1057|<.0001
90837789|NCT02135861|181542034|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.126||||0.0114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0308|0.2212||estimates of right lung-Post-exercise|ANOVA||||Ve was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.2212|0.0308|0.0114
90896299|NCT02618616|181658845|OTHER||least square difference|8.7||||0.8495|ONE_SIDED|90.0|8.4|||The 1-sided p-value tests if the ZPL-389 Least square (LS) mean is \< the placebo LS mean.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA of PASI at Week 12|||8.4|0.8495
90837790|NCT02135861|181542034|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1464||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0774|0.2153||estimates of left lung apical-Post-exercise|ANOVA||||Ve was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.2153|0.0774|0.0002
90837791|NCT02135861|181542034|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2137|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1266|0.3008||estimates of left lung basal-Post-exercise|ANOVA||||Ve was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.3008|0.1266|<.0001
90837792|NCT02135861|181542034|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1111||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0151|0.2071||estimates of right lung apical-Post-exercise|ANOVA||||Ve was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.2071|0.0151|0.0250
90837793|NCT02135861|181542034|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1458||||0.0052||95.0|0.0475|0.2442||estimates of right lung basal-Post-exercise|ANOVA||||Ve was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.2442|0.0475|0.0052
90837794|NCT02135861|181542035|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0524||||0.173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1292|0.0244||estimates of total lung-Pre-exercise|ANOVA||||Ktrans was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.0244|-0.1292|0.1730
90837795|NCT02135861|181542035|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0423||||0.2704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1196|0.0349||estimates of left lung-Pre-exercise|ANOVA||||Ktrans was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.0349|-0.1196|0.2704
90837796|NCT02135861|181542035|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0515||||0.2072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1334|0.0303||estimates of right lung-Pre-exercise|ANOVA||||Ktrans was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.0303|-0.1334|0.2072
90837797|NCT02135861|181542035|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0603||||0.1307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1398|0.0191||estimates of left lung apical-Pre-exercise|ANOVA||||Ktrans was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.0191|-0.1398|0.1307
90837798|NCT02135861|181542035|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0078||||0.8427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0879|0.0722||estimates of left lung basal-Pre-exercise|ANOVA||||Ktrans was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.0722|-0.0879|0.8427
90837799|NCT02135861|181542035|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0506||||0.1848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1269|0.0257||estimates of right lung apical-Pre-exercise|ANOVA||||Ktrans was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.0257|-0.1269|0.1848
90837800|NCT02135861|181542035|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0413||||0.3408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1286|0.0461||estimates of right lung basal-Pre-exercise|ANOVA||||Ktrans was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.0461|-0.1286|0.3408
90837801|NCT02135861|181542035|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0267||||0.3682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0866|0.0332||estimates of total lung-Post-excercise|ANOVA||||Ktrans was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.0332|-0.0866|0.3682
90896300|NCT02618616|181658846|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.562||||0.9058|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.27|1.16|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic Regression PASI-50||1.16|0.27|0.9058
91027890|NCT02396381|181939660|SUPERIORITY||% Reduction|4.74||||0.193|TWO_SIDED|96.875|-7.5|15.6|||Hailperin-Rüger|p-value less than 1.5625% would be considered statistically significant, following test multiplicity adjustment using the Hailperin-Rüger approach|Derived as 1 - LS Mean Ratio (THS / CC)|"The analysis of 11-DTX-B2 will test if the mean level of this clinical risk endpoint for THS-use is lower relative to CC-use. The following hypothesis will be evaluated:~H0: XTHS / XCC ≥ 1.0~HA: XTHS / XCC \< 1.0~where XTHS and XCC are the adjusted geometrical means of THS-use and CC-use, respectively. H0 is rejected with a type I error α = 1.5625% (one-sided test)."||15.6|-7.5|0.193
90837802|NCT02135861|181542035|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0201||||0.4531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0744|0.0342||estimates of left lung-Post-excercise|ANOVA||||Ktrans was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.0342|-0.0744|0.4531
90837803|NCT02135861|181542035|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0188||||0.597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0909|0.0533||estimates of right lung-Post-excercise|ANOVA||||Ktrans was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.0533|-0.0909|0.5970
90837804|NCT02135861|181542035|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0159||||0.5472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0693|0.0375||estimates of left lung apical-Post-excercise|ANOVA||||Ktrans was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.0375|-0.0693|0.5472
90896301|NCT02618616|181658846|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.946||||0.5422|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|2.25|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic Regression PASI-75||2.25|0.4|0.5422
90896302|NCT05878197|181658875|OTHER|||||||0.024||||||Linear Mixed Models: time-effect|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.024
90957231|NCT01942590|181793970|OTHER|||||||0.434|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.434
90837805|NCT02135861|181542035|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0125||||0.6793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0742|0.0491||estimates of left lung basal-Post-excercise|ANOVA||||Ktrans was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.0491|-0.0742|0.6793
90837806|NCT02135861|181542035|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0249||||0.4806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0964|0.0466||estimates of right lung apical-Post-excercise|ANOVA||||Ktrans was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.0466|-0.0964|0.4806
90837807|NCT02135861|181542035|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0029||||0.9379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0789|0.0731||estimates of right lung basal-Post-excercise|ANOVA||||Ktrans was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.0731|-0.0789|0.9379
90837808|NCT02992288|181542055|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2297||||||Linear dose-response shape: The multiple comparison procedures (MCP) approach was applied to calculate the adjusted one-sided one-sided p-values of the contrast test.|MCP-Mod method|Dose response relationship was assessed using the MCP-Mod method combining MCP principles with modeling techniques under model uncertainty.||||||0.2297
90837809|NCT02992288|181542055|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4409||||||Sigmoidal Emax 1 dose-response shape: The MCP approach was applied to calculate the adjusted one-sided p-values of the contrast test.|MCP-Mod method|Dose response relationship was assessed using the MCP-Mod method combining MCP principles with modeling techniques under model uncertainty.||||||0.4409
90837810|NCT02992288|181542055|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2842||||||Sigmoidal Emax 2 dose-response shape: The MCP approach was applied to calculate the adjusted one-sided p-values of the contrast test.|MCP-Mod method|Dose response relationship was assessed using the MCP-Mod method combining MCP principles with modeling techniques under model uncertainty.||||||0.2842
90837811|NCT02992288|181542055|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2534||||||Emax dose-response shape: The MCP approach was applied to calculate the adjusted one-sided p-values of the contrast test.|MCP-Mod method|Dose response relationship was assessed using the MCP-Mod method combining MCP principles with modeling techniques under model uncertainty.||||||0.2534
90837812|NCT02992288|181542055|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3842||||||Quadratic dose-response shape: The MCP approach was applied to calculate the adjusted one-sided p-values of the contrast test.|MCP-Mod method|Dose response relationship was assessed using the MCP-Mod method combining MCP principles with modeling techniques under model uncertainty.||||||0.3842
90837813|NCT02992288|181542056|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8966||||||Linear dose-response shape: The MCP approach was applied to calculate the adjusted one-sided p-values of the contrast test.|MCP-Mod method|Dose response relationship was assessed using the MCP-Mod method combining MCP principles with modeling techniques under model uncertainty.||||||0.8966
90837814|NCT02992288|181542056|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9233||||||Sigmoidal Emax 1 dose-response shape: The MCP approach was applied to calculate the adjusted one-sided p-values of the contrast test.|MCP-Mod method|Dose response relationship was assessed using the MCP-Mod method combining MCP principles with modeling techniques under model uncertainty.||||||0.9233
90837815|NCT02992288|181542056|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9296||||||Sigmoidal Emax 2 dose-response shape: The MCP approach was applied to calculate the adjusted one-sided p-values of the contrast test.|MCP-Mod method|Dose response relationship was assessed using the MCP-Mod method combining MCP principles with modeling techniques under model uncertainty.||||||0.9296
90837816|NCT02992288|181542056|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7357||||||Emax dose-response shape: The MCP approach was applied to calculate the adjusted one-sided p-values of the contrast test.|MCP-Mod method|Dose response relationship was assessed using the MCP-Mod method combining MCP principles with modeling techniques under model uncertainty.||||||0.7357
90837817|NCT02992288|181542056|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9083||||||Quadratic dose-response shape: The MCP approach was applied to calculate the adjusted one-sided p-values of the contrast test.|MCP-Mod method|Dose response relationship was assessed using the MCP-Mod method combining MCP principles with modeling techniques under model uncertainty.||||||0.9083
90837818|NCT02992288|181542057|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4596||||||Linear dose-response shape: The MCP approach was applied to calculate the adjusted one-sided p-values of the contrast test.|MCP-Mod method|Dose response relationship was assessed using the MCP-Mod method combining MCP principles with modeling techniques under model uncertainty.||||||0.4596
90837819|NCT02992288|181542057|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7859||||||Sigmoidal Emax1 dose-response shape: The MCP approach was applied to calculate the adjusted one-sided p-values of the contrast test.|MCP-Mod method|Dose response relationship was assessed using the MCP-Mod method combining MCP principles with modeling techniques under model uncertainty.||||||0.7859
90837820|NCT02992288|181542057|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5562||||||Sigmoidal Emax2 dose-response shape: The MCP approach was applied to calculate the adjusted one-sided p-values of the contrast test.|MCP-Mod method|Dose response relationship was assessed using the MCP-Mod method combining MCP principles with modeling techniques under model uncertainty.||||||0.5562
90837821|NCT02992288|181542057|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5338||||||Emax dose-response shape: The MCP approach was applied to calculate the adjusted one-sided p-values of the contrast test.|MCP-Mod method|Dose response relationship was assessed using the MCP-Mod method combining MCP principles with modeling techniques under model uncertainty.||||||0.5338
90837822|NCT02992288|181542057|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7303||||||Quadratic dose-response shape: The MCP approach was applied to calculate the adjusted one-sided p-values of the contrast test.|MCP-Mod method|Dose response relationship was assessed using the MCP-Mod method combining MCP principles with modeling techniques under model uncertainty.||||||0.7303
90837823|NCT02992288|181542058|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5703||||||Linear dose-response shape: The MCP approach was applied to calculate the adjusted one-sided p-values of the contrast test.|MCP-Mod method|Dose response relationship was assessed using the MCP-Mod method combining MCP principles with modeling techniques under model uncertainty.||||||0.5703
90837824|NCT02992288|181542058|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8253||||||Sigmoidal Emax1 dose-response shape: The MCP approach was applied to calculate the adjusted one-sided p-values of the contrast test.|MCP-Mod method|Dose response relationship was assessed using the MCP-Mod method combining MCP principles with modeling techniques under model uncertainty.||||||0.8253
90896303|NCT05878197|181658875|OTHER|||||||0.822||||||Linear mixed models: group-effect|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.822
90837825|NCT02992288|181542058|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6506||||||Sigmoidal Emax2 dose-response shape: The MCP approach was applied to calculate the adjusted one-sided p-values of the contrast test.|MCP-Mod method|Dose response relationship was assessed using the MCP-Mod method combining MCP principles with modeling techniques under model uncertainty.||||||0.6506
90837826|NCT02992288|181542058|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6923||||||Emax dose-response shape: The MCP approach was applied to calculate the adjusted one-sided p-values of the contrast test.|MCP-Mod method|Dose response relationship was assessed using the MCP-Mod method combining MCP principles with modeling techniques under model uncertainty.||||||0.6923
90837827|NCT02992288|181542058|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8036||||||Quadratic dose-response shape: The MCP approach was applied to calculate the adjusted one-sided p-values of the contrast test.|MCP-Mod method|Dose response relationship was assessed using the MCP-Mod method combining MCP principles with modeling techniques under model uncertainty.||||||0.8036
90896304|NCT05878197|181658875|OTHER|||||||0.29||||||Linar mixed models: time\*group-effect|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.290
90837828|NCT02992288|181542059|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9955||||||Linear dose-response shape: The MCP approach was applied to calculate the adjusted one-sided p-values of the contrast test.|MCP-Mod method|Dose response relationship was assessed using the MCP-Mod method combining MCP principles with modeling techniques under model uncertainty.||||||0.9955
90837829|NCT02992288|181542059|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9946||||||Sigmoidal Emax1 dose-response shape: The MCP approach was applied to calculate the adjusted one-sided p-values of the contrast test.|MCP-Mod method|Dose response relationship was assessed using the MCP-Mod method combining MCP principles with modeling techniques under model uncertainty.||||||0.9946
90837830|NCT02992288|181542059|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9913||||||Sigmoidal Emax2 dose-response shape: The MCP approach was applied to calculate the adjusted one-sided p-values of the contrast test.|MCP-Mod method|Dose response relationship was assessed using the MCP-Mod method combining MCP principles with modeling techniques under model uncertainty.||||||0.9913
90837831|NCT02992288|181542059|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9982||||||Emax dose-response shape: The MCP approach was applied to calculate the adjusted one-sided p-values of the contrast test.|MCP-Mod method|Dose response relationship was assessed using the MCP-Mod method combining MCP principles with modeling techniques under model uncertainty.||||||0.9982
90837832|NCT02992288|181542059|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9959||||||Quadratic dose-response shape: The MCP approach was applied to calculate the adjusted one-sided p-values of the contrast test.|MCP-Mod method|Dose response relationship was assessed using the MCP-Mod method combining MCP principles with modeling techniques under model uncertainty.||||||0.9959
90837833|NCT00656513|181542064|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||An effect size of 0.50 was chosen for sample size calculation. On the basis of a 2-sided t test with alpha= 0.05 and 1 interim analysis, 130 patients were required for 80% statistical power. Adjustment by 10% for loss to follow-up and retrospective ineligibility of recruited study participants yielded a sample size of 144 patients. Actual power given only 96 patients was 68.6%||||0.45
90837834|NCT00656513|181542066|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11||||||Two-sided test of values at 4 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.11
90837835|NCT00656513|181542066|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31||||||Two-sided test of values at 6 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.31
91027891|NCT02396381|181939661|SUPERIORITY||% Reduction|6.8||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|96.875|-0.216|13.3|||Hailperin-Rüger|p-value less than 1.5625% would be considered statistically significant, following test multiplicity adjustment using the Hailperin-Rüger approach|Derived as 1 - LS Mean Ratio (THS / CC)|"The analysis of 8-epi-PGF2α will test if the mean level of this clinical risk endpoint for THS-use is lower relative to CC-use. The following hypothesis will be evaluated:~H0: XTHS / XCC ≥ 1.0~HA: XTHS / XCC \< 1.0~where XTHS and XCC are the adjusted geometrical means of THS-use and CC-use, respectively. H0 is rejected with a type I error α = 1.5625% (one-sided test)."||13.3|-0.216|0.018
90837836|NCT00656513|181542066|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21||||||Two-sided test of values at 15 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.21
90837837|NCT00656513|181542067|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35||||||4-month Physical Functioning score; two-sided test, significance level 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.35
90837838|NCT00656513|181542067|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78||||||4 months Pain/Discomfort score; two-sided test, significance level 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.78
90896305|NCT05878197|181658875|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|3.4||Linear mixed models: evolution pre-post|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.4|0.1|0.035
91032656|NCT02549092|181950234|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.84||The repeated measures model: change = treatment, country, visit, baseline, treatment \* visit, baseline \* visit. The unstructured variance-covariance structure is used.|repeated measures model||Difference of LCIG - OMT|||0.84|-0.99|0.868
90837839|NCT00656513|181542067|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12||||||4 months Personal/Psychological Functioning score; two-sided test, significance level 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.12
90837840|NCT00656513|181542067|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28||||||4-month Social Functioning score; two-sided test, significance level 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.28
90837841|NCT00656513|181542067|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98||||||6-month Physical Functioning score; two-sided test, significance level 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.98
90837842|NCT00656513|181542067|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28||||||6-month Pain/Discomfort score; two-sided test, significance level 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.28
90837843|NCT00656513|181542067|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13||||||6-month Personal/Psychological Functioning score; two-sided test, significance level 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.13
90837844|NCT00656513|181542067|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58||||||6-month Social Functioning score; two-sided test, significance level 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.58
90837845|NCT00656513|181542067|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88||||||9-month Physical Functioning score; two-sided test, significance level 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.88
90896306|NCT05878197|181658875|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|3.4||Linear mixed models: evolution pre-post|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.4|0.1|0.038
90896307|NCT05878197|181658875|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.9||Linear mixed models: evolution pre-post|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.9|-1.9|1.000
90837846|NCT00656513|181542067|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09||||||9-month Pain/Discomfort score; two-sided test, significance level 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.09
90837847|NCT00656513|181542067|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49||||||9-month Personal/Psychological Functioning score; two-sided test, significance level 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.49
90837848|NCT00656513|181542067|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45||||||9-month Social Functioning score; two-sided test, significance level 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.45
90837849|NCT00656513|181542067|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45||||||15-month Physical Functioning; two-sided test, significance level 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.45
90837850|NCT00656513|181542067|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3||||||15-month Pain/Discomfort; two-sided test, significance level 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.30
90837851|NCT00656513|181542067|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48||||||15-month Personal/Psychological Functioning; two-sided test, significance level 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.48
90837852|NCT00656513|181542067|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68||||||15-month Social Functioning; two-sided test, significance level 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.68
90837853|NCT00656513|181542068|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97||||||4-month score; two-sided test, significance level 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.97
90837854|NCT00656513|181542068|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83||||||6-months; two-sided test, significance level 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.83
90837855|NCT00656513|181542068|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28||||||9-months; two-sided test, significance level 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.28
90896308|NCT05878197|181658876|OTHER|||||||0.107||||||Linear mixed models: time-effect|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.107
90896309|NCT05878197|181658876|OTHER|||||||0.996||||||Linear mixed models: group-effect|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.996
90896310|NCT05878197|181658876|OTHER|||||||0.639||||||Linear mixed models: time\*group-effect|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.639
90896311|NCT05878197|181658876|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.4||Linear mixed models: evolution pre-post|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.4|-0.6|0.731
90896312|NCT05878197|181658876|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.3||Linear mixed models: evolution pre-post|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.3|-1.1|0.217
91032657|NCT02549092|181950235|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.28||0.728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.68|5.39||The repeated measures model: change = treatment, country, visit, baseline, treatment \* visit, baseline \* visit. The unstructured variance-covariance structure is used.|repeated measures model||Difference of LCIG - OMT|Total score||5.39|-7.68|0.728
90837856|NCT00656513|181542068|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89||||||15-months; two-sided test, significance level 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.89
90837857|NCT00656513|181542069|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54||||||4-months; two-sided test, significance level 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.54
90837858|NCT00656513|181542069|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99||||||6-months; two-sided test, significance level 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.99
90837859|NCT00656513|181542069|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56||||||6-months; two-sided test, significance level 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.56
90837860|NCT00656513|181542069|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58||||||6-months; two-sided test, significance level 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.58
90896313|NCT05878197|181658876|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.3||Linear mixed models: evolution pre-post|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.3|-0.9|0.253
90837861|NCT00656513|181542070|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14||||||Two-sided test, significance level 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.14
90837862|NCT03165617|181542075|SUPERIORITY|Success criterion were met as the LL of the 2-sided 95% CI was above 20%.|Absolute Efficacy|54.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.67|62.12||||||Statistical Analysis title - Absolute Vaccine Efficacy Any Strain. Adjusted aVE for QIVc vs. comparator. Success criteria for the primary efficacy endpoint was met if the LL of the 2-sided 95% CI of the aVE estimate was greater than 20% (primary endpoint) using the protocol definition of ILI for the entire age range (2 to \<18 years of age).||62.12|45.67|
90837863|NCT03165617|181542076|SUPERIORITY|Success criteria was met as the LL of the 2-sided 95% CI of the VE estimate was greater than 30% (co-primary endpoint)|Absolute Vaccine Efficacy|54.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.8|61.71||||||Statistical analysis title - Absolute Vaccine Efficacy, Any Strain Adjusted aVE for QIVc vs. comparator. Success criteria for the primary efficacy endpoint was met if the LL of the 2-sided 95% CI of the aVE estimate was greater than 30% (co-primary endpoint) using the protocol definition of ILI for the entire age range (≥ 3 to \<18 years of age).||61.71|44.8|
90837864|NCT03165617|181542077|SUPERIORITY|"Statistical analysis description:~Absolute Vaccine Efficacy (aVE) for 2 to \<18 Years. Note that no prespecified criteria for success were defined for the secondary efficacy endpoints"|Absolute Vaccine Efficacy|54.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.67|62.12||||||Statistical analysis title Absolute Vaccine Efficacy, Any Strain, 2 to \<18yrs||62.12|45.67|
90837865|NCT03165617|181542077|SUPERIORITY|"Statistical analysis description:~Absolute Vaccine Efficacy (aVE) for 2 to \<9 Years. Note that no prespecified criteria for success were defined for the secondary efficacy endpoints"|Absolute Vaccine Efficacy|50.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.43|60.22||||||Statistical analysis title: Absolute Vaccine Efficacy, Any Strain, 2 to \<9yrs||60.22|38.43|
90896314|NCT05878197|181658877|OTHER|||||||0.024||||||Linear mixed models: time-effect|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.024
90896315|NCT05878197|181658877|OTHER|||||||0.449||||||Linear mixed models: group-effect|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.449
90896316|NCT05878197|181658877|OTHER|||||||0.786||||||Linear mixed models: time\*group-effect|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.786
90896317|NCT05878197|181658877|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.3||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|0.7||Linear mixed models: evolution pre-post|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.7|-7.2|0.099
90896318|NCT05878197|181658877|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.9||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|0.4||Linear mixed models: evolution pre-post|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.4|-8.3|0.074
90896319|NCT05878197|181658877|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|3.2||Linear mixed models: evolution pre-post|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.2|-6.7|0.472
90896320|NCT05878197|181658878|OTHER|||||||0.115||||||Linear mixed models: time-effect|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.115
90896321|NCT05878197|181658878|OTHER|||||||0.516||||||Linear mixed models: group-effect|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.516
90896322|NCT05878197|181658878|OTHER|||||||0.276||||||Linear mixed models: time\*group-effect|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.276
90896323|NCT05878197|181658878|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.5||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|-0.9||Linear mixed models: evolution pre-post|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.9|-12.2|0.025
90837866|NCT03165617|181542077|SUPERIORITY|"Statistical analysis description:~Absolute Vaccine Efficacy (aVE) for 4 to \<18 years. Note that no prespecified criteria for success were defined for the secondary efficacy endpoints"|Absolute Vaccine Efficacy|53.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.38|61.54||||||Statistical analysis title: Absolute Vaccine Efficacy, Any Strain, 4 to \<18yrs||61.54|43.38|
90837867|NCT03165617|181542077|SUPERIORITY|"Statistical analysis description:~Absolute Vaccine Efficacy (aVE) for 9 to \<18 years. Note that no prespecified criteria for success were defined for the secondary efficacy endpoints"|Absolute Vaccine Efficacy|61.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.37|72.34||||||Statistical analysis title Absolute Vaccine Efficacy, Any Strain, 9 to \<18yrs||72.34|47.37|
90896324|NCT05878197|181658878|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|4.9||Linear mixed models: evolution pre-post|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.9|-6.4|0.794
90896325|NCT05878197|181658878|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|5.7||Linear mixed models: evolution pre-post|Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.7|-7.7|0.760
90896326|NCT03421808|181658891|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Chi-squared|||For categorical clinical remission data we performed a chi-square test on the IIT and completer sample using Graph-Pad Prism.||||0.6
90896327|NCT07069764|181658905|OTHER|"This study was not designed as a non-inferiority or equivalence trial. It was powered (80% power, α = 0.05) to detect clinically significant differences in pain reduction between 635 nm and 980 nm diode lasers, based on prior LLLT studies in TMD. Sample size was calculated before recruitment."|Effect size (Kendall's W and r)|0.75||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.79||P-values were adjusted using Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05.|Friedman test, Mann-Whitney U test|Non-parametric tests were used due to non-normal data distribution (Shapiro-Wilk test). Effect size measures were also reported.||"The study was designed to compare the effects of 635 nm and 980 nm low-level laser therapy on pain and jaw function. Statistical analysis methods are described below."|"Shapiro-Wilk test was used to assess normality. Non-parametric tests were applied. Friedman test for within-group comparisons, followed by Bonferroni-adjusted post hoc tests. Mann-Whitney U test for between-group comparisons. Effect sizes were calculated using Kendall's W (within groups) and r (between groups)."|0.79|0.68|0.05
90896328|NCT00071721|181658937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.958||||0.88||95.0|||||Cox Proportional Hazards|||||||0.88
90896329|NCT02026232|181658977|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
90896330|NCT00755222|181658979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.001
90896331|NCT00755222|181658980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.046||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.046
90837868|NCT03165617|181542078|SUPERIORITY|Absolute Vaccine Efficacy (aVE) for 2 to \<18 years. Note that no prespecified criteria for success were defined for the secondary efficacy endpoints|Absolute Vaccine Efficacy|54.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.67|62.12||||||Statistical analysis title Absolute Vaccine Efficacy, Any Strain, 2 to \<18yrs||62.12|45.67|
90837869|NCT03165617|181542078|SUPERIORITY|"Statistical analysis description:~Absolute Vaccine Efficacy (aVE) for 2 to \<9 years. Note that no prespecified criteria for success were defined for the secondary efficacy endpoints"|Absolute Vaccine Efficacy|60.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.01|69.83||||||Statistical analysis title Absolute Vaccine Efficacy, Any Strain, 2 to \<9yrs||69.83|49.01|
90896332|NCT00755222|181658981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.164|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.164
90896333|NCT00755222|181658982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.442|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.442
90896334|NCT00755222|181658983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.095|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.095
90896335|NCT00331344|181658986|OTHER||Dose Level VIa|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Dose level VIa (mitoxantrone hydrochloride 12 mg/m2 IV over 30 minutes, ixabepilone 30mg/m2 IV over 3 hours on day 1, pegfilgrastim 6mg SC on day 2, oral prednisone twice daily on days 1-21) was determined to be MTD, based on 1 event of DLT at VIa.|Cohorts of 3 patients will be enrolled at each dose level; if 1 dose limiting toxicity (DLT) is observed then the cohort will be expanded to 6 patients. If a second DLT is observed, the previous dose level will be considered the MTD. If all observed DLT are due to neuropathy (specific to ixabepilone), then we would consider the previous dose level of Ixabepilone the MTD for that drug, and escalate mitoxantrone hydrochloride as described above to a maximum dose of 12 mg/m\^2.||||
90896336|NCT02228967|181658997|OTHER||||||=|0.274||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|Repeated Measures--General Linear Model|||Data were analyzed using a GLM repeated measures approach. A priori means comparisons tests (usual care vs. SBIRT intervention) with Bonferroni corrections were used to compare mean differences at follow-up.||||=0.274
90896337|NCT02228967|181658998|OTHER||||||=|0.083|||||||Repeated Measures--General Linear Model|||Data were analyzed using a GLM repeated measures approach. A priori means comparisons tests (usual care vs. SBIRT intervention) with Bonferroni corrections were used to compare mean differences at follow-up.||||=0.083
90896338|NCT02228967|181658999|OTHER||||||=|0.028|||||||Repeated Measures--General Linear Model|||Data were analyzed using a GLM repeated measures approach. A priori means comparisons tests (usual care vs. SBIRT intervention) with Bonferroni corrections were used to compare mean differences at follow-up.||||=0.028
90896339|NCT02228967|181659000|OTHER||||||=|0.708|||||||Repeated Measures--General Linear Model|||Data were analyzed using a GLM repeated measures approach. A priori means comparisons tests (usual care vs. SBIRT intervention) with Bonferroni corrections were used to compare mean differences at follow-up.||||=0.708
90896340|NCT02228967|181659001|OTHER||||||=|0.197||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Repeated Measures--General Linear Model|||Data were analyzed using a GLM repeated measures approach. A priori means comparisons tets (usual care vs. SBIRT intervention) with Bonferroni corrections were used to compare mean differences at follow-up.||||=0.197
90896341|NCT02228967|181659002|OTHER||||||=|0.023||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Repeated Measures--General Linear Model|||Data were analyzed using a GLM repeated measures approach. A priori means comparisons tests (usual care vs. SBIRT intervention) with Bonferroni corrections were used to compare mean differences at follow-up.||||=0.023
90896342|NCT02228967|181659003|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Repeated Measures--General Linear Model|||Data were analyzed using a GLM repeated measures approach. A priori means comparisons tests (usual care vs. SBIRT intervention) with Bonferroni corrections were used to compare mean differences at follow-up.||||<0.001
90957232|NCT01942590|181793971|OTHER|||||||0.0816||||||Paired t test comparing each subject's performance at Week 52 to Baseline|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0816
90957233|NCT01942590|181793971|OTHER|||||||0.3318||||||Paired t test comparing each subject's performance at Week 52 to Baseline|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.3318
90837870|NCT03165617|181542078|SUPERIORITY|"Statistical analysis description:~Absolute Vaccine Efficacy (aVE) for 4 to \<18 years. Note that no prespecified criteria for success were defined for the secondary efficacy endpoints"|Absolute Vaccine Efficacy|59.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.08|68.05||||||Statistical analysis title Absolute Vaccine Efficacy, Any Strain, 4 to \<18yrs||68.05|49.08|
90837871|NCT03165617|181542078|SUPERIORITY|"Statistical analysis description:~Absolute Vaccine Efficacy (aVE) for 9 to \<18 years. Note that no prespecified criteria for success were defined for the secondary efficacy endpoints"|Absolute Vaccine Efficacy|60.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.14|73.33||||||Statistical analysis title Absolute Vaccine Efficacy, Any Strain, 9 to \<18yrs||73.33|42.14|
90837872|NCT03165617|181542079|SUPERIORITY|"Statistical analysis description:~Absolute Vaccine Efficacy (aVE) for 2 to \<18 Years. Note that no prespecified criteria for success were defined for the secondary efficacy endpoints"|Absolute Vaccine Efficacy|60.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.3|68.46||||||Statistical analysis title Absolute Vaccine Efficacy, Any Strain, 2 to \<18yrs||68.46|51.3|
90837873|NCT03165617|181542079|SUPERIORITY|"Statistical analysis description:~Absolute Vaccine Efficacy (aVE) for 2 to \<9 Years. Note that no prespecified criteria for success were defined for the secondary efficacy endpoints"|Absolute Vaccine Efficacy|60.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.01|69.83||||||Statistical analysis title Absolute Vaccine Efficacy, Any Strain, 2 to \<9yrs||69.83|49.01|
90837874|NCT03165617|181542079|SUPERIORITY|"Statistical analysis description:~Absolute Vaccine Efficacy (aVE) for 9 to \<18 years. Note that no prespecified criteria for success were defined for the secondary efficacy endpoints"|Absolute Vaccine Efficacy|59.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.08|68.05||||||Statistical analysis title Absolute Vaccine Efficacy, Any Strain, 9 to \<18yrs||68.05|49.08|
90837875|NCT03165617|181542079|SUPERIORITY|"Statistical analysis description:~Absolute Vaccine Efficacy (aVE) for 9 to \<18 years. Note that no prespecified criteria for success were defined for the secondary efficacy endpoints"|Absolute Vaccine Efficacy|60.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.14|73.33||||||Statistical analysis title Absolute Vaccine Efficacy, Any Strain, 9 to \<18yrs||73.33|42.14|
90837876|NCT03165617|181542080|SUPERIORITY|"Statistical analysis description:~Absolute Vaccine Efficacy (aVE) for 2 to \<18 Years. Note that no prespecified criteria for success were defined for the secondary efficacy endpoints"|Absolute Vaccine Efficacy|63.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.64|71.48||||||Statistical analysis title Absolute Vaccine Efficacy, Any Strain, 2 to \<18yrs||71.48|53.64|
90837877|NCT03165617|181542080|SUPERIORITY|"Statistical analysis description:~Absolute Vaccine Efficacy (aVE) for 2 to \<9 Years. Note that no prespecified criteria for success were defined for the secondary efficacy endpoints"|Absolute Vaccine Efficacy|63.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.66|72.32||||||Statistical analysis title Absolute Vaccine Efficacy, Any Strain, 2 to \<9yrs||72.32|50.66|
90837878|NCT03165617|181542080|SUPERIORITY|"Statistical analysis description:~Absolute Vaccine Efficacy (aVE) for 4 to \<18 years. Note that no prespecified criteria for success were defined for the secondary efficacy endpoints"|Absolute Vaccine Efficacy|61.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.25|70.53||||||Statistical analysis title Absolute Vaccine Efficacy, Any Strain, 4 to \<18yrs||70.53|50.25|
90896343|NCT02228967|181659004|OTHER||||||=|0.348||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Repeated Measures--General Linear Model|||Data were analyzed using a GLM repeated measures approach. A priori means comparison tests (usual care vs. SBIRT intervention) with Bonferroni corrections were used to compare means differences at follow-up.||||=0.348
90896344|NCT02228967|181659005|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.345|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.203||0.091|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Repeated Measures GLM|||Data were analyzed using a GLM repeated measures approach. A priori means comparison tests (usual care vs. SBIRT intervention) with Bonferroni corrections were used to compare means differences at follow-up.||||0.091
90837879|NCT03165617|181542080|SUPERIORITY|"Statistical analysis description:~Absolute Vaccine Efficacy (aVE) for 9 to \<18 years. Note that no prespecified criteria for success were defined for the secondary efficacy endpoints"|Absolute Vaccine Efficacy|64.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.84|77.51||||||Statistical analysis title Absolute Vaccine Efficacy, Any Strain, 9 to \<18yrs||77.51|44.84|
90837880|NCT00412984|181542094|SUPERIORITY|With an average 2.1 years follow-up and assuming a stroke rate of 1.20 per hundred patient-years, \~18,000 randomized subjects allocated in a 1:1 ratio to apixaban or warfarin group would be needed to achieve the desired power. These calculations assumed an incidence of 1% loss to follow-up. Non-inferiority for the primary efficacy endpoint will be assessed first. If non-inferiority (using a NI margin of 1.38) is demonstrated then, superiority for the primary efficacy endpoint will be tested|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.0114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.95||2-sided P-value for superiority test|Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Model included treatment group as a covariate; stratified by investigative site and prior warfarin/vitamin K antagonist status. (experienced, naïve).|apixaban / warfarin|With 448 subjects with confirmed strokes or systemic emboli, study would have at least 90% power to meet both regulatory definitions of non-inferiority described in the following: (1) the non-inferiority (NI) of apixaban relative to warfarin was demonstrated if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for relative risk (RR) was less than 1.38; (2) the NI of apixaban relative to warfarin was demonstrated if the upper bound of the two-sided 99% CI for RR was less than 1.44.||.95|.66|0.0114
90837881|NCT00412984|181542096|SUPERIORITY|"4 key objectives were tested using a closed testing procedure. NI for the primary efficacy will be tested 1st. If NI is demonstrated then~1. superiority for the primary efficacy will be tested~2. if superiority for the primary efficacy is~   1. not demonstrated, stop~  2. demonstrated, then superiority for MB will be tested~3. if superiority for MB is~   1. not demonstrated, stop~  2. demonstrated, then superiority for all cause death will be tested All tests will be done at 1-sided α = 0.025"|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.8|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Model included treatment group as a covariate; stratified by investigative site and prior warfarin/vitamin K antagonist status.|apixaban / warfarin|||0.80|0.60|<.0001
90837882|NCT00412984|181542098|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.0465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.0|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Model included treatment group as a covariate; stratified by investigative site and prior warfarin/vitamin K antagonist status.|apixaban / warfarin|"4 key objectives were tested using a closed testing procedure. NI for the primary efficacy will be tested 1st. If NI is demonstrated then~1. superiority for the primary efficacy will be tested~2. if superiority for the primary efficacy is~   1. not demonstrated, stop~  2. demonstrated, then superiority for MB will be tested~3. if superiority for MB is~   1. not demonstrated, stop~  2. demonstrated, then superiority for all cause death will be tested All tests will be done at 1-sided α = 0.025"||1.00|0.80|0.0465
90957234|NCT01942590|181793972|OTHER|||||||0.2074|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.2074
90837883|NCT00412984|181542099|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.13||nominal two-sided p-value was associated with a test of H0: RR=1 vs H1: RR ≠ 1|Cox Proportional Hazards Model||apixaban / warfarin|Ischemic or Unspecified Stroke||1.13|0.74|0.4220
90837884|NCT00412984|181542099|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.75||nominal two-sided p-value was associated with a test of H0: RR=1 vs H1: RR ≠ 1|Cox Proportional Hazards Model||apixaban / warfarin|Hemorrhagic Stroke||0.75|0.35|0.0006
90896345|NCT02228967|181659006|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.393|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.362||0.278|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori alpha set at 0.05|Repeated Measures GLM|||Data were analyzed using a GLM repeated measures approach. A priori means comparison tests (usual care vs. SBIRT intervention) with Bonferroni corrections were used to compare means differences at follow-up.||||.278
90896346|NCT02228967|181659007|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.163|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.44||0.029|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori alpha set at 0.05.|Repeated Measures GLM|||Data were analyzed using a GLM repeated measures approach. A priori means comparison tests (usual care vs. SBIRT intervention) with Bonferroni corrections were used to compare means differences at follow-up.||||0.029
90896347|NCT02228967|181659008|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.015||||0.897|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori alpha set at 0.05.|Repeated Measures GLM|||Data were analyzed using a GLM repeated measures approach. A priori means comparison tests (usual care vs. SBIRT intervention) with Bonferroni corrections were used to compare means differences at follow-up.||||0.897
90896348|NCT02228967|181659009|OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||Linear mixed effects|||Linear mixed-effects models were used to analyze 5 pooled datasets derived from multiple imputation for intent to treat analyses.||||0.15
90896349|NCT02228967|181659010|OTHER|||||||0.2||||||A priori alpha set at 0.05.|Linear mixed effects|||Linear mixed-effects models were used to analyze 5 pooled datasets derived from multiple imputation for intent to treat analyses.||||0.20
90896350|NCT02228967|181659011|OTHER|||||||0.38||||||A priori alpha set at 0.05.|Linear mixed effects|||Linear mixed-effects models were used to analyze 5 pooled datasets derived from multiple imputation for intent to treat analyses.||||0.38
90896351|NCT02228967|181659012|OTHER|A priori alpha set at 0.05||||||0.48|||||||Linear mixed effects|||Linear mixed-effects models were used to analyze 5 pooled datasets derived from multiple imputation for intent to treat analyses.||||0.48
90896352|NCT02228967|181659013|OTHER|A priori alpha set at 0.05.||||||0.09|||||||Linear mixed effects|||Linear mixed-effects models were used to analyze 5 pooled datasets derived from multiple imputation for intent to treat analyses.||||0.09
90896353|NCT02228967|181659014|OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Linear mixed effects|||A priori alpha set at 0.05||||0.08
90896354|NCT02228967|181659015|OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||Linear mixed effects|||A priori alpha set at 0.05||||0.11
90896355|NCT02228967|181659016|OTHER|||||||0.84|||||||Linear mixed effects|||A priori alpha set at 0.05||||0.84
90896356|NCT02466646|181659030|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.01
90896357|NCT02466646|181659031|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.0|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was P=0.05|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||>0.05
90896358|NCT02466646|181659032|OTHER|||||||0.229||||||Threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.229
90837885|NCT00412984|181542099|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.75||nominal two-sided p-value was associated with a test of H0: RR=1 vs H1: RR ≠ 1|Cox Proportional Hazards Model||apixaban / warfarin|Systemic Embolism||1.75|0.44|0.7020
90837886|NCT00412984|181542099|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.17||nominal two-sided p-value was associated with a test of H0: RR=1 vs H1: RR ≠ 1|Cox Proportional Hazards Model||apixaban / warfarin|Myocardial Infarction||1.17|0.66|0.3720
90837887|NCT00412984|181542100|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.86||nominal two-sided p-value was associated with a test of H0: RR=1 vs H1: RR ≠ 1|Cox Proportional Hazards Model||apixaban / warfarin|Composite of Stroke / Systemic Embolism / Major Bleeding||0.86|0.69|<.0001
90837888|NCT00412984|181542100|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.0192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|0.98||nominal two-sided p-value was associated with a test of H0: RR=1 vs H1: RR ≠ 1|Cox Proportional Hazards Model||apixaban / warfarin|Composite of Stroke / Systemic Embolism / All-Cause Death||0.98|0.81|0.0192
90896359|NCT02466646|181659033|OTHER|||||||0.28||||||Threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.280
90896360|NCT02466646|181659034|OTHER|||||||0.712|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|Threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.||||||0.712
90896361|NCT02466646|181659035|OTHER|||||||0.674||||||The threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.674
90896362|NCT02466646|181659036|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|30.0||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.006
90896363|NCT02466646|181659037|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5||||0.373|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.373
90896364|NCT02466646|181659038|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6||||0.528|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.528
90896365|NCT02466646|181659039|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0||||0.208|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.208
90896366|NCT02466646|181659040|OTHER|||||||0.051|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.051
90896367|NCT02466646|181659041|OTHER|||||||0.647||||||The threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.647
90896368|NCT03261271|181659042|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6489||||||P value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.6489
90896369|NCT03261271|181659043|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0323|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0323
90896370|NCT03261271|181659044|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
90896371|NCT03261271|181659045|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
90896372|NCT03261271|181659046|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference between groups from Baseline to Study End.||||0.09
90896373|NCT03261271|181659046|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference between groups from baseline to pre-surgery.||||0.04
90896374|NCT02173054|181659047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||||||This statistical analysis was used to compare number of participants who had erythema among 3 groups.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.001
90896375|NCT02173054|181659047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016||||||This statistical analysis was used to compare number of participants who had dryness among 3 groups|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.016
90896376|NCT02173054|181659047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025||||||This statistical analysis was used to compare number of participants who had scaling among 3 groups.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.025
90896377|NCT02173054|181659047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.571||||||This statistical analysis was used to compare number of participants who had stinging among 3 groups.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.571
91027892|NCT02396381|181939662|SUPERIORITY||% Reduction|43.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|96.875|33.7|51.9|||Hailperin-Rüger|p-value less than 1.5625% would be considered statistically significant, following test multiplicity adjustment using the Hailperin-Rüger approach|Derived as 1 - LS Mean Ratio (THS / CC)|"The analysis of Total NNAL will test if the mean level of this clinical risk endpoint for THS-use is lower relative to CC-use. The following hypothesis will be evaluated:~H0: XTHS / XCC ≥ 1.0~HA: XTHS / XCC \< 1.0~where XTHS and XCC are the adjusted geometrical means of THS-use and CC-use, respectively. H0 is rejected with a type I error α = 1.5625% (one-sided test)."||51.9|33.7|<0.001
91027893|NCT02396381|181939663|SUPERIORITY||% Reduction|32.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|96.875|24.5|39.0|||Hailperin-Rüger|p-value less than 1.5625% would be considered statistically significant, following test multiplicity adjustment using the Hailperin-Rüger approach|Derived as 1 - LS Mean Ratio (THS / CC)|"The analysis will test if the mean level of COHb for THS-use is lower relative to CC-use. The following hypothesis will be evaluated:~H0: XTHS / XCC ≥ 1.0~HA: XTHS / XCC \< 1.0~where XTHS and XCC are the adjusted geometrical means of THS-use and CC-use. H0 is rejected with a type I error α = 1.5625% (one-sided test)."||39|24.5|<0.001
91027894|NCT04033445|181939689|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted treatment difference|33.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.9|46.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi-square||Treatment difference between guselkumab group and placebo group was adjusted with CMH weight.|||46.3|20.9|< 0.001
91027895|NCT04033445|181939689|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted treatment difference|33.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.8|45.4|||CMH chi-square test||Treatment difference between guselkumab group and placebo group was adjusted with CMH weight.|||45.4|20.8|< 0.001
91027896|NCT04033445|181939690|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted treatment difference|14.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.9|19.9|||CMH chi-square test||Treatment difference between guselkumab group and placebo group was adjusted with CMH weight.|||19.9|9.9|< 0.001
91027897|NCT04033445|181939691|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted treatment difference|25.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.4|33.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Treatment difference between guselkumab group and placebo group was adjusted with CMH weight.|||33.9|16.4|< 0.001
91027898|NCT04033445|181939691|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted treatment difference|29.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.9|38.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Treatment difference between guselkumab group and placebo group was adjusted with CMH weight.|||38.1|20.9|< 0.001
91027899|NCT00585780|181939715|OTHER|Expected outcome was that Prazosin will be better than placebo in reducing HDD% among High AW individuals but no differences by medication treatment in the Low AW individuals.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.23||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.55||This is for the apriori hypothesis of significant AWX Treatment X Time effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Simple effects were conducted to assess source of the interaction.||Intent-to-treat (ITT) analyses with baseline AW severity (mean-centered continuous CIWA-Ar scores) as a moderator of Time (Pre-Full Dose(FD): weeks 1-2; Post FD: weeks 3-12) were conducted with linear or generalized linear mixed effect (LME/GLME) piecewise growth models for continuous and binary outcomes. Control variables that were modeled in all analyses. As hypothesized, significant interactions were tested using AW median cut-offs for high and Low AW groups.||0.55|0.1|0.016
91027900|NCT00585780|181939716|OTHER|Expected outcome was that Prazosin will be better than placebo in reducing percent of drinking days (DD%) among High AW individuals but no differences by medication treatment in the Low AW individuals.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.92||This is for apriori hypothesized significant AW X Treatment X Post-full dose time interaction effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Intent-to-treat (ITT) analyses with baseline AW severity (mean-centered continuous CIWA-Ar scores) as a moderator of Time (Pre-Full Dose(FD): weeks 1-2; Post FD: weeks 3-12) were conducted with linear or generalized linear mixed effect (LME/GLME) piecewise growth models for continuous and binary outcomes. Control variables that were modeled in all analyses. As hypothesized, significant interactions were tested using AW median cut-offs for high and Low AW groups.||0.92|0.28|0.002
91027901|NCT02978326|181939750|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.37||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|-1.5||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||-1.5|-6.9|0.0028
91027902|NCT02978326|181939751|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.19||0.0252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|-0.3||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change From Baseline in the HAM-D Total Score at Day 3||-0.3|-5.1|0.0252
91027903|NCT02978326|181939751|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.31||0.0106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|-0.8||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change From Baseline in the HAM-D Total Score at Day 8||-0.8|-6.0|0.0106
91027904|NCT02978326|181939751|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.44||0.0321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|-0.3||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change From Baseline in the HAM-D Total Score at Day 21||-0.3|-6.0|0.0321
91027905|NCT02978326|181939751|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.34||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|-1.4||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change From Baseline in the HAM-D Total Score at Day 45||-1.4|-6.7|0.0027
90896378|NCT02173054|181659047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.449||||||This statistical analysis was used to compare number of participants who had pruritus among 3 groups.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.449
90957235|NCT01942590|181793972|OTHER|||||||0.332|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.332
91091085|NCT02557399|182066074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.5||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|-0.89||The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with treatment, center, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline ILs counts, Baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 12 for ILs|||-0.89|-8.10|0.015
91091086|NCT02557399|182066074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in percent|2.71||||0.382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.38|8.8||The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with treatment, center, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline non-ILs counts, Baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 1 for non-ILs. A negative treatment difference indicates a benefit of Duac relative to ADA+CLDM.|||8.80|-3.38|0.382
91091087|NCT02557399|182066074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in percent|-5.69||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.17|0.78||The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with treatment, center, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline non-ILs counts, Baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 2 for non-ILs. A negative treatment difference indicates a benefit of Duac relative to ADA+CLDM.|||0.78|-12.17|0.085
90837889|NCT00412984|181542100|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|0.92||nominal two-sided p-value was associated with a test of H0: RR=1 vs H1: RR ≠ 1|Cox Proportional Hazards Model||apixaban / warfarin|Composite of Stroke / Systemic Embolism / Major Bleeding / All-Cause Death||0.92|0.78|0.0002
90837890|NCT00412984|181542100|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.0107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.97||nominal two-sided p-value was associated with a test of H0: RR=1 vs H1: RR ≠ 1|Cox Proportional Hazards Model||apixaban / warfarin|Composite of Stroke / Systemic Embolism / MI / All-Cause Death||0.97|0.80|0.0107
90837891|NCT00412984|181542100|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.0432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.0||nominal two-sided p-value was associated with a test of H0: RR=1 vs H1: RR ≠ 1|Cox Proportional Hazards Model||apixaban / warfarin|Composite of Ischemic or Unspecified Stroke / All-Cause Death||1.00|0.82|0.0432
90837892|NCT00412984|181542100|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.0167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.98||nominal two-sided p-value was associated with a test of H0: RR=1 vs H1: RR ≠ 1|Cox Proportional Hazards Model||apixaban / warfarin|Composite of Hemorrhagic Stroke / All-Cause Death||0.98|0.79|0.0167
90837893|NCT00412984|181542100|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.0464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.0||nominal two-sided p-value was associated with a test of H0: RR=1 vs H1: RR ≠ 1|Cox Proportional Hazards Model||apixaban / warfarin|Composite of Systemic Embolism / All-Cause Death||1.00|0.80|0.0464
90837894|NCT00412984|181542100|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.0253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.99||nominal two-sided p-value was associated with a test of H0: RR=1 vs H1: RR ≠ 1|Cox Proportional Hazards Model||apixaban / warfarin|Composite of Myocardial Infarction / All-Cause Death||0.99|0.80|0.0253
90837895|NCT00412984|181542102|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.0098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.95||nominal two-sided p-value was associated with a test of H0: RR=1 vs H1: RR ≠ 1|Cox Proportional Hazards Model||apixaban / warfarin|Composite Stroke/Systemic Embolism/Major Bleeding in Warfarin/Vitamin K Antagonist (VKA) Naive Participants||0.95|0.67|0.0098
90837896|NCT00412984|181542105|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.75||nominal two-sided p-value was associated with a test of H0: RR=1 vs H1: RR ≠ 1|Cox Proportional Hazard Model||apixaban / warfarin|||0.75|0.61|<.0001
90837897|NCT00412984|181542107|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.75||nominal two-sided p-value was associated with a test of H0: RR=1 vs H1: RR ≠ 1|Cox Proportional Hazard Model||apixaban / warfarin|||0.75|0.68|<.0001
90837898|NCT00412984|181542108|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.46|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.6||nominal two-sided p-value was associated with a test of H0: RR=1 vs H1: RR ≠ 1|Cox Proportional Hazard Model||apixaban / warfarin|Severe GUSTO bleeding events||0.60|0.35|<.0001
90837899|NCT00412984|181542108|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.71||nominal two-sided p-value was associated with a test of H0: RR=1 vs H1: RR ≠ 1|Cox Proportional Hazard Model||apixaban / warfarin|Severe or Moderate GUSTO bleeding events||0.71|0.50|<.0001
90837900|NCT00412984|181542109|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.7||nominal two-sided p-value was associated with a test of H0: RR=1 vs H1: RR ≠ 1|Cox Proportional Hazard Model||apixaban / warfarin|Major TIMI bleeding event||0.70|0.46|<.0001
90837901|NCT00412984|181542109|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.75|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||apixaban / warfarin|Major or Minor TIMI bleeding criteria||0.75|0.54|<.0001
91091088|NCT02557399|182066074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in percent|-3.89||||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.67|1.88||The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with treatment, center, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline non-ILs counts, Baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 4 for non-ILs. A negative treatment difference indicates a benefit of Duac relative to ADA+CLDM.|||1.88|-9.67|0.186
91091089|NCT02557399|182066074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in percent|-0.59||||0.818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.61|4.44||The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with treatment, center, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline non-ILs counts, Baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 8 for non-ILs. A negative treatment difference indicates a benefit of Duac relative to ADA+CLDM.|||4.44|-5.61|0.818
91091090|NCT02557399|182066074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in percent|-3.78||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.92|0.35||The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with treatment, center, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline non-ILs counts, Baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 12 for non-ILs. A negative treatment difference indicates a benefit of Duac relative to ADA+CLDM.|||0.35|-7.92|0.073
91091091|NCT02557399|182066075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|4.4||The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with treatment, center, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline TLs counts, Baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 1 for TLs. negative treatment difference indicates a benefit of Duac relative to ADA+CLDM.|||4.4|-4.6|0.961
90837902|NCT00412984|181542111|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.83||nominal two-sided p-value was associated with a test of H0: RR=1 vs H1: RR ≠ 1|Cox Proportional Hazard Model||apixaban / warfarin|||0.83|0.65|<.0001
90837903|NCT04218240|181542112|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared|1 degree of freedom||A nonparametric (Kruskal-Wallis) comparison of the two groups (p=0.049)||||.05
90896379|NCT02173054|181659048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.059||||||This statistical analysis was used to evaluate the change in total lesion counts at baseline and 8th week|wilcoxan signed ranks test|||||||0.059
90896380|NCT02173054|181659048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.697||||||This statistical analysis was used to evaluate the change in total lesion counts at baseline and 8th week|wilcoxan signed ranks test|||||||0.697
90896381|NCT02173054|181659048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028||||||This statistical analysis was used to evaluate the change in total lesion counts at baseline and 8th week.|wilcoxan signed ranks test|||||||0.028
90957236|NCT01942590|181793973|OTHER|||||||0.233||||||Paired t test comparing each subject's performance at Week 52 to Baseline|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.233
91091092|NCT02557399|182066075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.2||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|-1.2||The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with treatment, center, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline TLs counts, Baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 2 for TLs. negative treatment difference indicates a benefit of Duac relative to ADA+CLDM.|||-1.2|-11.2|0.015
91091093|NCT02557399|182066075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.7||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|-0.1||The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with treatment, center, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline TLs counts, Baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 4 for TLs. A negative treatment difference indicates a benefit of Duac relative to ADA+CLDM.|||-0.1|-9.2|0.044
91091094|NCT02557399|182066075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|3.5||The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with treatment, center, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline TLs counts, Baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 8 for TLs. A negative treatment difference indicates a benefit of Duac relative to ADA+CLDM.|||3.5|-4.9|0.747
91091095|NCT02557399|182066075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.7||||0.338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|1.8||The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with treatment, center, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline TLs counts, Baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 12 for TLs. A negative treatment difference indicates a benefit of Duac relative to ADA+CLDM.|||1.8|-5.3|0.338
90896382|NCT02173054|181659048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||||||This statistical analysis was used to evaluate the change in inflammatory lesion counts at baseline and 8th week.|wilcoxan signed ranks test|||||||0.001
91027906|NCT02978326|181939752|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.79||||0.1004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|3.6||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) for binary response model was used for estimation with factors for treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction.|GEE for binary response model|||Percentage of Participants With HAM-D Response at Day 3||3.60|0.89|0.1004
90837904|NCT04218240|181542113|OTHER|Chi-square analysis||||||0.27|||||||Chi-squared|||hypothesis: more people in active PGB/LFX will complete withdrawal CI = 95% P = 0.5||||0.27
90837905|NCT02435212|181542128|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean|2.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.803||0.3598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.99|8.15|||ANCOVA|||||8.15|-2.99|0.3598
90837906|NCT02435212|181542129|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean|176.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|153.933||0.2546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-129.0|481.72|||ANCOVA|||||481.72|-129.00|0.2546
90896383|NCT02173054|181659048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.755||||||This statistical analysis was used to evaluate the change in inflammatory lesion counts at baseline and 8th week.|wilcoxan signed ranks test|||||||0.755
90896384|NCT02173054|181659048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||||||This statistical analysis was used to evaluate the change in inflammatory lesion counts at baseline and 8th week.|wilcoxan signed ranks test|||||||0.003
90896385|NCT02173054|181659048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.205||||||This statistical analysis was used to evaluate the change in non inflammatory lesion counts at baseline and 8th week.|wilcoxan signed ranks test|||||||0.205
90957237|NCT01942590|181793973|OTHER|||||||0.142||||||Paired t test comparing each subject's performance at Week 52 to Baseline|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.142
90957238|NCT01942590|181793974|OTHER|||||||0.019|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.019
90837907|NCT04531176|181542151|NON_INFERIORITY|The results of non-inferiority test results are between pairwise groups. Non-inferiority was tested at the 0.05 level at 1 year and performed pairwise with Bonferroni adjusted significance levels for each paired comparison.||||||0.004||||||The non-inferiority regions were set to be 1% for weight loss change. When both primary endpoints are non-inferior, superiority testing at the 0.025 overall error level with Bonferroni adjustment for each endpoint at 1 year was then performed.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.004
90837908|NCT04531176|181542152|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was tested at the 0.05 level at 1 year and performed pairwise with Bonferroni adjusted significance levels for each paired comparison||||||0.05||||||The non-inferiority regions were set to be 0.5% for A1C. When both primary endpoints are non-inferior, superiority testing at the 0.025 overall error level with Bonferroni adjustment for each endpoint at 1 year was then performed.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.05
90837909|NCT00214045|181542162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were analyzed using Wilcoxon rank sums and Fisher exact tests with Statistical Analysis System (SAS) statistical software version 9.||||||0.39|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.39
90837910|NCT00214045|181542162|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Results were analyzed using Wilcoxon rank sums and Fisher exact tests with Statistical Analysis System (SAS) statistical software version 9.||||||0.37|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.37
90837911|NCT00771914|181542163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The analyses were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test was used to determine significant differences between the closure time effect (clotting)in seconds from baseline compared to four hours after placebo.||||0.00
90837912|NCT00771914|181542163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|12.0||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The analyses were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test was used to determine significant differences between the closure time effect (clotting)in seconds from Aspirin compared to Placebo.||||0.31
90837913|NCT00771914|181542163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.0||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The analyses were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test was used to determine significant differences between the closure time effect (clotting)in seconds from Lovaza compared to Placebo.||||0.49
90837914|NCT00771914|181542163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|30.0||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The analyses were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test was used to determine significant differences between the closure time effect (clotting)in seconds from both Aspirin and Lovaza compared to Placebo.||||0.03
91027907|NCT02978326|181939752|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.31||||0.0127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|4.45||Generalized estimating equations for binary response model was used for estimation with factors for treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction.|GEE for binary response model|||Percentage of Participants With HAM-D Response at Day 8||4.45|1.20|0.0127
91027908|NCT02978326|181939752|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.63||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|5.16||Generalized estimating equations for binary response model was used for estimation with factors for treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction.|GEE for binary response model|||Percentage of Participants With HAM-D Response at Day 15||5.16|1.34|0.0049
91027909|NCT02978326|181939752|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.85||||0.0763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|3.64||Generalized estimating equations for binary response model was used for estimation with factors for treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction.|GEE for binary response model|||Percentage of Participants With HAM-D Response at Day 21||3.64|0.94|0.0763
91027910|NCT02978326|181939752|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.28||||0.0216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|4.6||Generalized estimating equations for binary response model was used for estimation with factors for treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction.|GEE for binary response model|||Percentage of Participants With HAM-D Response at Day 45||4.60|1.13|0.0216
91027911|NCT02978326|181939753|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.89||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|12.23||Generalized estimating equations for binary response model was used for estimation with factors for treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction.|GEE for binary response model|||Percentage of Participants With HAM-D Remission at Day 3||12.23|1.24|0.0200
90837915|NCT00573508|181542164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|9.4|||<|0.0001||95.0|6.6|12.2|||ANCOVA|||Statistical Analysis applies to 'Change at End of Treatment'.||12.2|6.6|<0.0001
90837916|NCT00573508|181542165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Statistical Analysis applies to 'Change at Week 4', 'Change at Week 8' and 'Change at Week 12'.||||<.0001
90837917|NCT00573508|181542166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-Value represents change from Baseline to Week 12.|ANCOVA|||Statistical Analysis applies to 'Change at Week 12'.||||<.0001
90837918|NCT00573508|181542167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0006
90837919|NCT00573508|181542175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-16.8|||<|0.0001||95.0|-22.1|-11.6|||ANCOVA|||Statistical Analysis applies to 'Change at EOT'.||-11.6|-22.1|<.0001
90837920|NCT01743469|181542177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.142||||||One-sided alpha of 0.1.|Exact binomial test|||The PFS rate was compared with the prespecified threshold (\>20%).||||0.142
90837921|NCT01743469|181542177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||One-sided alpha of 0.1.|Exact binomial test|||The PFS rate was compared with the prespecified threshold (\>35%).||||1.000
90837922|NCT01743469|181542177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8||||||One-sided alpha of 0.1|Exact binomial test|||The PFS rate was compared with the prespecified threshold (\>20%).||||0.800
90837923|NCT01743469|181542177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63||||||One-sided alpha of 0.1|Exact binomial test|||The PFS rate was compared with the prespecified threshold (\>15%).||||0.630
90837924|NCT01743469|181542178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5||||||One-sided alpha of 0.1.|Exact binomial test|||The PFS rate was compared with a prespecified threshold (\>20%).||||0.500
90837925|NCT01451606|181542191|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52||||||Note that sample size was well below our target, making this test very low power.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.52
90837926|NCT01451606|181542192|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.84
90837927|NCT01345240|181542200|NON_INFERIORITY|Criteria for non-inferiority: one month post Dose 3, upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the difference in percent seroprotection below 5% between recipients of licensed hepatitis B vaccine (Engerix-B) and recipients of RTS,S/AS01E vaccine.|Difference in percent seroprotection|-3.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.12|-2.16||||||Non-inferiority of the immune response to the hepatitis B antigen induced by RTS,S/AS01E vaccine versus a licensed hepatitis B vaccine.||-2.16|-7.12|
90837928|NCT01345240|181542203|EQUIVALENCE|Criteria for consistency: one month post Dose 3 of RTS,S/AS01E, the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio between all pairs of lots are within \[0.5, 2\].|GMC ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.2|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate the lot-to-lot consistency in terms of anti-HBs immunogenicity between three commercial lots of the RTS,S/AS01E candidate malaria vaccine.||1.20|0.69|
90837929|NCT01345240|181542203|EQUIVALENCE|Criteria for consistency: one month post Dose 3 of RTS,S/AS01E, the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio between all pairs of lots are within \[0.5, 2\].|GMC ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.32|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate the lot-to-lot consistency in terms of anti-HBs immunogenicity between three commercial lots of the RTS,S/AS01E candidate malaria vaccine.||1.32|0.76|
90837930|NCT01345240|181542203|EQUIVALENCE|Criteria for consistency: one month post Dose 3 of RTS,S/AS01E, the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio between all pairs of lots are within \[0.5, 2\].|GMC ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.45|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate the lot-to-lot consistency in terms of anti-HBs immunogenicity between three commercial lots of the RTS,S/AS01E candidate malaria vaccine.||1.45|0.84|
90837931|NCT01345240|181542211|NON_INFERIORITY|Criteria for non-inferiority: one month post Dose 3, upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the GMC ratios of 10 pneumococcal serotypes titers (measured with an ELISA test), is below a limit of 2 for the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine when co-administered with versus without RTS,S/AS01E.|GMC ratio|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.39|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of antibody against serotype 1 responses to the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine when co-administered with versus without RTS,S/AS01E as part of an EPI regimen.||1.39|0.95|
90837932|NCT01345240|181542211|NON_INFERIORITY|Criteria for non-inferiority: one month post Dose 3, upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the GMC ratios of 10 pneumococcal serotypes titers (measured with an ELISA test), is below a limit of 2 for the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine when co-administered with versus without RTS,S/AS01E.|GMC ratio|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.48|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of antibody against serotype 4 responses to the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine when co-administered with versus without RTS,S/AS01E as part of an EPI regimen.||1.48|0.97|
90837933|NCT01345240|181542211|NON_INFERIORITY|Criteria for non-inferiority: one month post Dose 3, upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the GMC ratios of 10 pneumococcal serotypes titers (measured with an ELISA test), is below a limit of 2 for the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine when co-administered with versus without RTS,S/AS01E.|GMC ratio|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.52|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of antibody against serotype 5 responses to the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine when co-administered with versus without RTS,S/AS01E as part of an EPI regimen.||1.52|1.06|
90837934|NCT01345240|181542211|NON_INFERIORITY|Criteria for non-inferiority: one month post Dose 3, upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the GMC ratios of 10 pneumococcal serotypes titers (measured with an ELISA test), is below a limit of 2 for the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine when co-administered with versus without RTS,S/AS01E.|GMC ratio|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.65|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of antibody against serotype 6B responses to the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine when co-administered with versus without RTS,S/AS01E as part of an EPI regimen.||1.65|0.83|
90837935|NCT01345240|181542211|NON_INFERIORITY|Criteria for non-inferiority: one month post Dose 3, upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the GMC ratios of 10 pneumococcal serotypes titers (measured with an ELISA test), is below a limit of 2 for the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine when co-administered with versus without RTS,S/AS01E.|GMC ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.33|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of antibody against serotype 7F responses to the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine when co-administered with versus without RTS,S/AS01E as part of an EPI regimen.||1.33|0.94|
90837936|NCT01345240|181542211|NON_INFERIORITY|Criteria for non-inferiority: one month post Dose 3, upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the GMC ratios of 10 pneumococcal serotypes titers (measured with an ELISA test), is below a limit of 2 for the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine when co-administered with versus without RTS,S/AS01E.|GMC ratio|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.63|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of antibody against serotype 9V responses to the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine when co-administered with versus without RTS,S/AS01E as part of an EPI regimen.||1.63|1.08|
90837937|NCT01345240|181542211|NON_INFERIORITY|Criteria for non-inferiority: one month post Dose 3, upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the GMC ratios of 10 pneumococcal serotypes titers (measured with an ELISA test), is below a limit of 2 for the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine when co-administered with versus without RTS,S/AS01E.|GMC ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.27|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of antibody against serotype 14 responses to the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine when co-administered with versus without RTS,S/AS01E as part of an EPI regimen.||1.27|0.77|
90837938|NCT01345240|181542211|NON_INFERIORITY|Criteria for non-inferiority: one month post Dose 3, upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the GMC ratios of 10 pneumococcal serotypes titers (measured with an ELISA test), is below a limit of 2 for the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine when co-administered with versus without RTS,S/AS01E.|GMC ratio|1.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|2.38|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of antibody against 18C responses to the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine when co-administered with versus without RTS,S/AS01E as part of an EPI regimen.||2.38|1.38|
90837939|NCT01345240|181542211|NON_INFERIORITY|Criteria for non-inferiority: one month post Dose 3, upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the GMC ratios of 10 pneumococcal serotypes titers (measured with an ELISA test), is below a limit of 2 for the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine when co-administered with versus without RTS,S/AS01E.|GMC ratio|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.65|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of antibody against serotype 19F responses to the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine when co-administered with versus without RTS,S/AS01E as part of an EPI regimen.||1.65|0.89|
90957239|NCT01942590|181793974|OTHER|||||||0.366|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.366
90957240|NCT01942590|181793975|OTHER|||||||0.161|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.161
90896386|NCT02173054|181659048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.576||||||This statistical analysis was used to evaluate the change in non inflammatory lesion counts at baseline and 8th week.|wilcoxan signed ranks test|||||||0.576
90837940|NCT01345240|181542211|NON_INFERIORITY|Criteria for non-inferiority: one month post Dose 3, upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the GMC ratios of 10 pneumococcal serotypes titers (measured with an ELISA test), is below a limit of 2 for the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine when co-administered with versus without RTS,S/AS01E.|GMC ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.55|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of antibody against 23F responses to the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine when co-administered with versus without RTS,S/AS01E as part of an EPI regimen.||1.55|0.81|
90837941|NCT01345240|181542217|NON_INFERIORITY|Criteria for non-inferiority: one month post Dose 3, upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the GMC ratios of anti-PT, anti-FHA, anti-PRN antibody concentrations, is below a limit of 2 for the DTPa/Hib vaccine when co-administered with versus without RTS,S/AS01E.|GMC ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.2|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of antibody response to the acellular B pertussis antigen, pertussis toxoid, (PT) of the DTPa/Hib vaccine when co-administered with RTS,S/AS01E as part of an EPI regimen.||1.20|0.97|
90837942|NCT01345240|181542217|NON_INFERIORITY|Criteria for non-inferiority: one month post Dose 3, upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the GMC ratios of anti-PT, anti-FHA, anti-PRN antibody concentrations, is below a limit of 2 for the DTPa/Hib vaccine when co-administered with versus without RTS,S/AS01E.|GMC ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.21|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of antibody response to the acellular B pertussis antigen, filamentous haemagglutinin (FHA), of the DTPa/Hib vaccine when co-administered with RTS,S/AS01E as part of an EPI regimen.||1.21|0.97|
90837943|NCT01345240|181542217|NON_INFERIORITY|Criteria for non-inferiority: one month post Dose 3, upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the GMC ratios of anti-PT, anti-FHA, anti-PRN antibody concentrations, is below a limit of 2 for the DTPa/Hib vaccine when co-administered with versus without RTS,S/AS01E.|GMC ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.22|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of antibody response to the acellular B pertussis antigen, pertactin (anti-PRN), of the DTPa/Hib vaccine when co-administered with RTS,S/AS01E as part of an EPI regimen.||1.22|0.98|
90837944|NCT01345240|181542218|NON_INFERIORITY|Criteria for non-inferiority: one month post Dose 2, upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the geometric mean concentrations (GMC) ratios of rotavirus antibodies (IgA) concentrations is below 2 for the rotavirus vaccine when co-administered with versus without RTS,S/AS01E.|GMC ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.61|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of antibody response to the rotavirus vaccine when co-administered with versus without RTS,S/AS01E as part of an EPI regimen||1.61|0.76|
90837945|NCT01283555|181542248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.487||95.0||||The p-value presented here represents a comparison of the total number of non-iatrogenic findings at baseline and after one week of product use.|Fisher Exact|||Fishers exact test was used to compare the frequency of non-iatrogenic colposcopic findings at baseline and follow-up visits (after one week of twice-daily product use).||||0.4870
90837946|NCT01614249|181542259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|2.6||The p-value was adjusted for baseline variations in the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) regression model. The significance level was set at p-value less than 0.05.|ANCOVA|In ANCOVA, fish oil group was main effect, participant baseline variables were covariates and presence of interaction between covariates was tested.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference in the magnitude of change in BDI-II scores between HIV-seropositive pregnant women on fish oil omega-3 EPA-rich supplements and the control group on soybean oil soft gels. A sample size of 91 women per arm gave an 85% power to detect as statistically significant at 5% level, a true difference of 4 scores in the mean depressive symptom scores between the two arms assuming a within group standard deviation of nine in depressive symptom scores.||2.60|-0.58|0.21
90837947|NCT03094416|181542267|OTHER|Normal distribution of data was tested with Shapiro Wilks. Data were log transformed. A mixed model ANCOVA repeated measures model was used to test differences in means at Visit 4 vs baseline on original data. As covariates the following baseline variables were considered: Age, Sex, BMI and the prescribed Tirosint dosage (dose/Kg).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.783797|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.158271|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||level of significance p-value \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
90896387|NCT02173054|181659048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16||||||This statistical analysis was used to evaluate the change in non inflammatory lesion counts at baseline and 8th week.|wilcoxan signed ranks test|||||||0.160
90896388|NCT02173054|181659049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.078||||||This statistical analysis was used to evaluate the change in skin sebum content at baseline and 8th week of the Adapalene gel group|Paired t-test|||||||0.078
90896389|NCT02173054|181659049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.167||||||This statistical analysis was used to evaluate the change in skin sebum content at baseline and 8th week of the Adapalene gel with placebo moisturizer group|Paired t-test|||||||0.167
91027912|NCT02978326|181939753|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.91||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|4.13||Generalized estimating equations for binary response model was used for estimation with factors for treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction.|GEE for binary response model|||Percentage of Participants With HAM-D Remission at Day 8||4.13|0.89|0.0990
91027913|NCT02978326|181939753|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.53||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|5.17||Generalized estimating equations for binary response model was used for estimation with factors for treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction.|GEE for binary response model|||Percentage of Participants With HAM-D Remission at Day 15||5.17|1.24|0.0110
90896390|NCT02173054|181659049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.134||||||This statistical analysis was used to evaluate the change in skin sebum content at baseline and 8th week of the Adapalene gel with Eucerin group|Paired t-test|||||||0.134
90957241|NCT01942590|181793975|OTHER|||||||0.43|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.43
90957242|NCT01942590|181793976|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline, week 18||||0.01
91027914|NCT02978326|181939753|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.58||||0.1982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|3.19||Generalized estimating equations for binary response model was used for estimation with factors for treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction.|GEE for binary response model|||Percentage of Participants With HAM-D Remission at Day 21||3.19|0.79|0.1982
90896391|NCT02173054|181659049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.978||||||This statistical analysis was used to evaluate the change in skin hydration at baseline and 8th week of the Adapalene gel group|Paired t-test|||||||0.978
90896392|NCT02173054|181659049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.273||||||This statistical analysis was used to evaluate the change in skin hydration at baseline and 8th week of the Adapalene gel with placebo moisturizer group|Paired t-test|||||||0.273
90896393|NCT02173054|181659049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.735||||||This statistical analysis was used to evaluate the change in skin hydration at baseline and 8th week of the Adapalene gel with Eucerin group.|Paired t-test|||||||0.735
90957243|NCT01942590|181793976|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline, week 52||||0.004
90837948|NCT03094416|181542268|OTHER|Normal distribution of data was tested with Shapiro Wilks. Data were log transformed. A mixed model ANCOVA repeated measures model was used to test differences in means at Visit 4 vs baseline on original data. As covariates the following baseline variables were considered: Age, Sex, BMI and the prescribed Tirosint dosage (dose/Kg).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.037312|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026128||0.1607|TWO_SIDED|||||level of significance p-value \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1607
90837949|NCT03094416|181542269|OTHER|Normal distribution of data was tested with Shapiro Wilks. Data were log transformed. A mixed model ANCOVA repeated measures model was used to test differences in means at Visit 4 vs baseline on original data. As covariates the following baseline variables were considered: Age, Sex, BMI and the prescribed Tirosint dosage (dose/Kg).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.397559|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.174962||0.4204|TWO_SIDED|||||level of significance p-value \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.4204
90837950|NCT03094416|181542270|OTHER|Normal distribution of data was tested with Shapiro Wilks. Data were log transformed. A mixed model ANCOVA repeated measures model was used to test differences in means at Visit 4 vs baseline on original data. As covariates the following baseline variables were considered: Age, Sex, BMI and the prescribed Tirosint dosage (dose/Kg).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.055199|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019171||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|||||level of significance p-value \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0062
90837951|NCT03094416|181542271|OTHER|"A mixed model ANCOVA repeated measures model was used to test differences in means at Visit 4 vs baseline on original data. As covariates the following baseline variables were considered: Age, Sex, BMI and the prescribed Tirosint dosage (dose/Kg).~Normal distribution of data was tested with Shapiro Wilks. No data transformation was done."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.100127|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048171||0.0438|TWO_SIDED|||||level of significance p-value \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0438
90837952|NCT03094416|181542272|OTHER|Normal distribution of data was tested with Shapiro Wilks. Data were log transformed. A mixed model ANCOVA repeated measures model was used to test differences in means at Visit 4 vs baseline on original data. As covariates the following baseline variables were considered: Age, Sex, BMI and the prescribed Tirosint dosage (dose/Kg).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.216479|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.093366||0.0254|TWO_SIDED|||||level of significance p-value \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0254
90837953|NCT03094416|181542273|OTHER|Normal distribution of data was tested with Shapiro Wilks. Data were log transformed. A mixed model ANCOVA repeated measures model was used to test differences in means at Visit 4 vs baseline on original data. As covariates the following baseline variables were considered: Age, Sex, BMI and the prescribed Tirosint dosage (dose/Kg).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.011187|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036679||0.7619|TWO_SIDED|||||level of significance p-value \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7619
90837954|NCT03094416|181542274|OTHER|Normal distribution of data was tested with Shapiro Wilks. Data were log transformed. A mixed model ANCOVA repeated measures model was used to test differences in means at Visit 4 vs baseline on original data. As covariates the following baseline variables were considered: Age, Sex, BMI and the prescribed Tirosint dosage (dose/Kg).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.121537|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.064264||0.0655|TWO_SIDED|||||level of significance p-value \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0655
90837955|NCT03094416|181542275|OTHER|Normal distribution of data was tested with Shapiro Wilks. Data were log transformed. A mixed model ANCOVA repeated measures model was used to test differences in means at Visit 4 vs baseline on original data. As covariates the following baseline variables were considered: Age, Sex, BMI and the prescribed Tirosint dosage (dose/Kg).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.031636|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053033||0.5542|TWO_SIDED|||||level of significance p-value \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.5542
90837956|NCT03094416|181542276|OTHER|Normal distribution of data was tested with Shapiro Wilks. Data were log transformed. A mixed model ANCOVA repeated measures model was used to test differences in means at Visit 4 vs baseline on original data. As covariates the following baseline variables were considered: Age, Sex, BMI and the prescribed Tirosint dosage (dose/Kg).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.019322|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.046827||0.682|TWO_SIDED|||||level of significance p-value \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.6820
90896394|NCT02173054|181659050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||||||This statistical analysis was used to evaluate the change in TEWL at baseline and 8th week of the Adapalene gel group.|Paired t-test|||||||0.0002
91027915|NCT02978326|181939753|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.52||||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|5.03||Generalized estimating equations for binary response model was used for estimation with factors for treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction.|GEE for binary response model|||Percentage of Participants With HAM-D Remission at Day 45||5.03|1.26|0.0091
91027916|NCT02978326|181939754|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.41||0.3832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|2.7||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D subscale score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Core: Change from Baseline in HAM-D Subscale Score at Day 3||2.7|-6.9|0.3832
91027917|NCT02978326|181939754|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6||0.0415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|-0.2||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D subscale score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Core: Change from Baseline in HAM-D Subscale Score at Day 8||-0.2|-10.5|0.0415
90896395|NCT02173054|181659050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||||||This statistical analysis was used to evaluate the change in TEWL at baseline and 8th week of the Adapalene gel with placebo moisturizer group.|Paired t-test|||||||0.007
90896396|NCT02173054|181659050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.123||||||This statistical analysis was used to evaluate the change in TEWL at baseline and 8th week of the Adapalene gel with Eucerin group.|Paired t-test|||||||0.123
90896397|NCT02173054|181659051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||||||This statistical analysis was used to evaluate the change in ASI score at baseline and 8th week.|wilcoxan signed ranks test|||||||0.005
91091096|NCT02557399|182066075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.8||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|0.1||The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with treatment, center, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline ILs counts, Baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 1 for ILs. A negative treatment difference indicates a benefit of Duac relative to ADA+CLDM.|||0.1|-3.8|0.068
90896398|NCT02173054|181659051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.606||||||This statistical analysis was used to evaluate the change in ASI score at baseline and 8th week.|wilcoxan signed ranks test|||||||0.606
90896399|NCT02173054|181659051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||||||This statistical analysis was used to evaluate the change in ASI score at baseline and 8th week.|wilcoxan signed ranks test|||||||0.001
91091097|NCT02557399|182066075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.0||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|-1.1||The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with treatment, center, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline ILs counts, Baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 2 for ILs. A negative treatment difference indicates a benefit of Duac relative to ADA+CLDM.|||-1.1|-4.8|0.002
91091098|NCT02557399|182066075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.6||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|-1.0||The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with treatment, center, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline ILs counts, Baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 4 for ILs. A negative treatment difference indicates a benefit of Duac relative to ADA+CLDM.|||-1.0|-4.3|0.002
91091099|NCT02557399|182066075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.9||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-0.4||The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with treatment, center, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline ILs counts, Baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 8 for ILs. A negative treatment difference indicates a benefit of Duac relative to ADA+CLDM.|||-0.4|-3.4|0.012
91091100|NCT02557399|182066075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.1||The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with treatment, center, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline ILs counts, Baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 12 for ILs. A negative treatment difference indicates a benefit of Duac relative to ADA+CLDM.|||0.1|-2.4|0.078
91091101|NCT02557399|182066075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.8||||0.367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|5.7||The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with treatment, center, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline non-ILs counts, Baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 1 for non-ILs. A negative treatment difference indicates a benefit of Duac relative to ADA+CLDM.|||5.7|-2.1|0.367
91091102|NCT02557399|182066075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.1||||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|1.1||The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with treatment, center, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline non-ILs counts, Baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 2 for non-ILs. A negative treatment difference indicates a benefit of Duac relative to ADA+CLDM.|||1.1|-7.4|0.148
90896400|NCT01932697|181659057|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Paired t-test|||||||.01
90896401|NCT01932697|181659058|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
90896402|NCT01932697|181659059|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
90896403|NCT01932697|181659060|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
90957244|NCT01942590|181793976|OTHER|||||||0.154|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline, week 18||||0.154
90957245|NCT01942590|181793976|OTHER|||||||0.211|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline, Week 52||||0.211
90957246|NCT01942590|181793977|OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline, Week 18||||0.006
91091103|NCT02557399|182066075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.0||||0.314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|1.9||The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with treatment, center, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline non-ILs counts, Baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 4 for non-ILs. A negative treatment difference indicates a benefit of Duac relative to ADA+CLDM.|||1.9|-5.9|0.314
91091104|NCT02557399|182066075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.2||||0.494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|4.7||The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with treatment, center, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline non-ILs counts, Baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 8 for non-ILs. A negative treatment difference indicates a benefit of Duac relative to ADA+CLDM.|||4.7|-2.3|0.494
91091105|NCT02557399|182066075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|2.3||The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with treatment, center, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline non-ILs counts, Baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 12 for non-ILs. A negative treatment difference indicates a benefit of Duac relative to ADA+CLDM.|||2.3|-3.5|0.684
91091106|NCT02557399|182066076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|2.3||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|4.6||The P-value was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 1.The participants with missing data at a visit were included in the denominator (n) at the visit. That is, those participants were treated as non-responder at the visit.|||4.6|0.1|0.047
90837957|NCT03094416|181542277|OTHER|Normal distribution of data was tested with Shapiro Wilks. Data were log transformed. A mixed model ANCOVA repeated measures model was used to test differences in means at Visit 4 vs baseline on original data. As covariates the following baseline variables were considered: Age, Sex, BMI and the prescribed Tirosint dosage (dose/Kg).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.049243|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024025||0.0468|TWO_SIDED|||||level of significance p-value \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0468
91091107|NCT02557399|182066076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|3.0||||0.185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|7.3||The P-value was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 2. The participants with missing data at a visit were included in the denominator (n) at the visit. That is, those participants were treated as non-responder at the visit.|||7.3|-1.3|0.185
90837958|NCT03094416|181542278|OTHER|"A mixed model ANCOVA repeated measures model was used to test differences in means at Visit 4 vs baseline on original data. As covariates the following baseline variables were considered: Age, Sex, BMI and the prescribed Tirosint dosage (dose/Kg).~Normal distribution of data was tested with Shapiro Wilks. No data transformation was done."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.213171|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.088103||0.0203|TWO_SIDED|||||level of significance p-value \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0203
91091108|NCT02557399|182066076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|3.7||||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|9.9||The P-value was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 4. The participants with missing data at a visit were included in the denominator (n) at the visit. That is, those participants were treated as non-responder at the visit.|||9.9|-2.5|0.251
91091109|NCT02557399|182066076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|10.2||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|18.0||The P-value was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 8. The participants with missing data at a visit were included in the denominator (n) at the visit. That is, those participants were treated as non-responder at the visit.|||18.0|2.4|0.006
91091110|NCT02557399|182066076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|10.7||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|20.4||The P-value was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 12. The participants with missing data at a visit were included in the denominator (n) at the visit. That is, those participants were treated as non-responder at the visit.|||20.4|0.9|0.022
91091111|NCT02557399|182066077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|1.8||||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|4.3||The P-value was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 1. The participants with missing data at a visit were included in the denominator (n) at the visit. That is, those participants were treated as non-responder at the visit.|||4.3|-0.7|0.129
91091112|NCT02557399|182066077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|1.3||||0.612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|5.9||The P-value was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 2. The participants with missing data at a visit were included in the denominator (n) at the visit. That is, those participants were treated as non-responder at the visit.|||5.9|-3.4|0.612
90837959|NCT03094416|181542279|OTHER|"A mixed model ANCOVA repeated measures model was used to test differences in means at Visit 4 vs baseline on original data. As covariates the following baseline variables were considered: Age, Sex, BMI and the prescribed Tirosint dosage (dose/Kg).~Normal distribution of data was tested with Shapiro Wilks. No data transformation was done."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.030904|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038699||0.4291|TWO_SIDED|||||level of significance p-value \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.4291
90837960|NCT03094416|181542280|OTHER|Normal distribution of data was tested with Shapiro Wilks. Data were log transformed. A mixed model ANCOVA repeated measures model was used to test differences in means at Visit 4 vs baseline on original data. As covariates the following baseline variables were considered: Age, Sex, BMI and the prescribed Tirosint dosage (dose/Kg).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.025502|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047802||0.5967|TWO_SIDED|||||level of significance p-value \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.5967
90837961|NCT02121535|181542360|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To determine whether the 2-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) for the intra-subject ratio of the AUC0-tz were contained in the acceptance range of 80% to 125% for bioequivalence.|Adjusted Mean Ratio|101.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.94|105.08|||||Adjusted Mean Ratio (Test/Reference)|The statistical model used for the analysis of AUC0-tz was a mixed effect model on the logarithmic scale.||105.08|98.94|
90837962|NCT02121535|181542361|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To determine whether the 2-sided 90% CI for the intra-subject ratio of the Cmax were contained in the acceptance range of 80% to 125% for bioequivalence.|Adjusted Mean Ratio|103.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.03|110.99|||||Adjusted Mean Ratio (Test/Reference)|The statistical model used for the analysis of Cmax was a mixed effect model on the logarithmic scale.||110.99|97.03|
90837963|NCT02121535|181542362|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To determine whether the 2-sided 90% CI for the intra-subject ratio of the AUC0-∞ were contained in the acceptance range of 80% to 125% for bioequivalence.|Adjusted Mean Ratio|100.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.8|103.8|||||Adjusted Mean Ratio (Test/Reference)|The statistical model used for the analysis of AUC0--∞ was a mixed effect model on the logarithmic scale.||103.80|96.80|
90837964|NCT02121535|181542363|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To determine whether the 2-sided 90% CI for the intra-subject ratio of the AUC0-∞ were contained in the acceptance range of 80% to 125% for bioequivalence.|Adjusted Mean Ratio|99.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.94|100.93|||||Adjusted Mean Ratio (Test/Reference)|The statistical model used for the analysis of AUC0--∞ was a mixed effect model on the logarithmic scale.||100.93|97.94|
91027918|NCT02978326|181939754|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.71||0.0606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|0.2||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D subscale score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Core: Change from Baseline in HAM-D Subscale Score at Day 15||0.2|-10.5|0.0606
91027919|NCT02978326|181939754|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.91||0.0318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|-0.6||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D subscale score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Core: Change from Baseline in HAM-D Subscale Score at Day 21||-0.6|-12.1|0.0318
91027920|NCT02978326|181939754|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.69||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|-2.4||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D subscale score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Core: Change from Baseline in HAM-D Subscale Score at Day 45||-2.4|-13.0|0.0047
91091113|NCT02557399|182066077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|7.1||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|13.2||The P-value was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 4. The participants with missing data at a visit were included in the denominator (n) at the visit. That is, those participants were treated as non-responder at the visit.|||13.2|1.1|0.016
90837965|NCT02121535|181542364|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To determine whether the 2-sided 90% CI for the intra-subject ratio of the AUC0-tz were contained in the acceptance range of 80% to 125% for bioequivalence.|Adjusted Mean Ratio|99.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.08|100.94|||||Adjusted Mean Ratio (Test/Reference)|The statistical model used for the analysis of AUC0-tz was a mixed effect model on the logarithmic scale.||100.94|98.08|
91091114|NCT02557399|182066077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|7.9||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|15.5||The P-value was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 8. The participants with missing data at a visit were included in the denominator (n) at the visit. That is, those participants were treated as non-responder at the visit.|||15.5|0.3|0.034
90837966|NCT02121535|181542365|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To determine whether the 2-sided 90% CI for the intra-subject ratio of the Cmax were contained in the acceptance range of 80% to 125% for bioequivalence.|Adjusted Mean Ratio|100.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.45|101.72|||||Adjusted Mean Ratio (Test/Reference)|The statistical model used for the analysis of Cmax was a mixed effect model on the logarithmic scale.||101.72|98.45|
91027921|NCT02978326|181939754|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|-2.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D subscale score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Anxiety: Change from Baseline in HAM-D Subscale Score at Day 3||-2.1|-12.0|0.0053
90837967|NCT02121535|181542366|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To determine whether the 2-sided 90% CI for the intra-subject ratio of the Cmax were contained in the acceptance range of 80% to 125% for bioequivalence.|Adjusted Mean Ratio|110.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|106.87|113.54|||||Adjusted Mean Ratio (Test/Reference)|The statistical model used for the analysis of Cmax was a mixed effect model on the logarithmic scale.||113.54|106.87|
90837968|NCT02121535|181542367|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To determine whether the 2-sided 90% CI for the intra-subject ratio of the AUC0-tz were contained in the acceptance range of 80% to 125% for bioequivalence.|Adjusted Mean Ratio|104.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.53|106.1|||||Adjusted Mean Ratio (Test/Reference)|The statistical model used for the analysis of AUC0-tz was a mixed effect model on the logarithmic scale.||106.10|102.53|
90837969|NCT02121535|181542368|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To determine whether the 2-sided 90% CI for the intra-subject ratio of the AUC0-∞ were contained in the acceptance range of 80% to 125% for bioequivalence.|Adjusted Mean Ratio|104.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.68|106.1|||||Adjusted Mean Ratio (Test/Reference)|The statistical model used for the analysis of AUC0--∞ was a mixed effect model on the logarithmic scale.||106.10|102.68|
90837970|NCT04944992|181542369|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squared means|30.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|22.1|38.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||38.7|22.1|<0.0001
90837971|NCT04944992|181542370|OTHER|Difference (Efinopegdutide - Semaglutide) in %|difference in percentage|16.3||||||95.0|3.5|29.1||||||||29.1|3.5|
90896404|NCT02401464|181659063|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Formulations were considered bioequivalent if: 1) 90% Cls of the differences in the means of the natural log-transformed AUC(0-48) and Cmax between commercial and pediatric formulations was within ln(0.80)- ln(1.25);2) Differences in the means of the natural log-transformed AUC(0-48) and Cmax between commercial and pediatric formulations was within ln(0.9)-ln(1.11),and results of the dissolution test met the conditions specified in the Guideline for Bioequivalence Studies of Generic Products.|Least Squares (LS) mean difference (ln)|0.963|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.927|1.001||||||Based on the analysis of variance (ANOVA) in which the natural logarithms of AUC(0-48) of TAK-536 were used as dependent variables, and formulation, sequence (administration order) and administration period were used as fixed effects, bioequivalence was assessed providing two-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the differences between the formulations and between the periods.||1.001|0.927|
90896405|NCT02401464|181659064|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Formulations were considered bioequivalent if: 1)90% Cls of the differences in the means of the natural log-transformed AUC(0-48) and Cmax between commercial and pediatric formulations was within ln(0.80)- ln(1.25);2) Differences in the means of the natural log-transformed AUC(0-48) and Cmax between commercial and pediatric formulations was within ln(0.9)-ln(1.11),and results of the dissolution test met the conditions specified in the Guideline for Bioequivalence Studies of Generic Products.|LS mean difference (ln)|0.906|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|0.933||||||Based on the ANOVA in which the natural logarithms of Cmax of TAK-536 were used as dependent variables, and formulation, sequence (administration order) and administration period were used as fixed effects, bioequivalence was assessed providing two-sided 90% CIs for the differences between the formulations and between the periods.||0.933|0.880|
90896406|NCT02401464|181659065|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Formulations were considered bioequivalent if: 1) 90% Cls of the differences in the means of the natural log-transformed AUC(0-48) and Cmax between commercial and pediatric formulations was within ln(0.80)- ln(1.25);2) Differences in the means of the natural log-transformed AUC(0-48) and Cmax between commercial and pediatric formulations was within ln(0.9)-ln(1.11),and results of the dissolution test met the conditions specified in the Guideline for Bioequivalence Studies of Generic Products.|LS mean difference (ln)|0.985|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.958|1.011||||||Based on the ANOVA in which the natural logarithms of AUC(0-48) of TAK-536 were used as dependent variables, and formulation, sequence (administration order) and administration period were used as fixed effects, bioequivalence was assessed providing two-sided 90% CIs for the differences between the formulations and between the periods.||1.011|0.958|
90896407|NCT02401464|181659066|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Formulations were considered bioequivalent if: 1) 90% Cls of the differences in the means of the natural log-transformed AUC(0-48) and Cmax between commercial and pediatric formulations was within ln(0.80)- ln(1.25);2) Differences in the means of the natural log-transformed AUC(0-48) and Cmax between commercial and pediatric formulations was within ln(0.9)-ln(1.11),and results of the dissolution test met the conditions specified in the Guideline for Bioequivalence Studies of Generic Products.|LS mean difference (ln)|0.979|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.938|1.022||||||Based on the ANOVA in which the natural logarithms of Cmax of TAK-536 were used as dependent variables, and formulation, sequence (administration order) and administration period were used as fixed effects, bioequivalence was assessed providing two-sided 90% CIs for the differences between the formulations and between the periods.||1.022|0.938|
90896408|NCT00215540|181659072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.476||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusting for pooled study center||Null hypothesis: No difference between treatment groups||||0.476
90896409|NCT00215540|181659072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.208||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusting for pooled study center||Null hypothesis: No difference between treatment groups||||0.208
90896410|NCT00215540|181659073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusting for pooled study center||Null hypothesis: No difference between treatment groups||||0.500
90896411|NCT00215540|181659073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.146||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusting for pooled study center||Null hypothesis: No difference between treatment groups||||0.146
90837972|NCT04944992|181542371|OTHER|Difference (Efinopegdutide - Semaglutide) in %|Difference in percentage|5.6||||||95.0|0.4|13.5||||||||13.5|0.4|
90837973|NCT04944992|181542372|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squared means|6.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.6|7.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.7|4.6|<0.001
90896412|NCT00215540|181659074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.267||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusting for pooled study center||||||0.267
90896413|NCT00215540|181659074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.313||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusting for pooled study center||||||0.313
90837974|NCT04944992|181542373|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squared Means|-1.4||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.7|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.1|-2.7|0.085
90837975|NCT04944992|181542374|OTHER|Difference (Efinopegdutide - Semaglutide) in %|Difference in Least Squared Means|-7.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.2|-3.1||||||||-3.1|-11.2|
90837976|NCT04944992|181542375|OTHER|Difference (Efinopegdutide - Semaglutide) in %|Difference in least squared means|-5.7||||||90.0|-10.9|-0.6||||||||-0.6|-10.9|
90957247|NCT01942590|181793977|OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline, Week 52||||0.007
91027922|NCT02978326|181939754|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.76||0.0181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|-1.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D subscale score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Anxiety: Change from Baseline in HAM-D Subscale Score at Day 8||-1.1|-12.1|0.0181
91027923|NCT02978326|181939754|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.82||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.3|-4.2|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Anxiety: Change from Baseline in HAM-D Subscale Score at Day 15||-4.2|-15.3|0.0007
91027924|NCT02978326|181939754|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.79||0.0332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|-0.5|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Anxiety: Change from Baseline in HAM-D Subscale Score at Day 21||-0.5|-11.5|0.0332
91027925|NCT02978326|181939754|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|-2.5||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D subscale score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Anxiety: Change from Baseline in HAM-D Subscale Score at Day 45||-2.5|-13.5|0.0048
91091115|NCT02557399|182066077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|11.3||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|21.3||The P-value was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 12. The participants with missing data at a visit were included in the denominator (n) at the visit. That is, those participants were treated as non-responder at the visit.|||21.3|1.4|0.018
91091116|NCT02557399|182066078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|3.9||||0.379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|12.3||The P-value was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 1 for TLs. The participants with missing data at a visit were included in the denominator (n) at the visit. That is, those participants were treated as non-responder at the visit.|||12.3|-4.5|0.379
90837977|NCT04944992|181542376|OTHER|Difference (Efinopegdutide - Semaglutide) in %|Difference in least squared means|-11.7||||||90.0|-15.8|-7.7||||||||-7.7|-15.8|
90837978|NCT04944992|181542377|OTHER|Difference (Efinopegdutide - Semaglutide) in %|Difference in least squared means|-6.1||||||90.0|-12.0|-0.1||||||||-0.1|-12.0|
90837979|NCT04944992|181542378|OTHER|Difference (Efinopegdutide - Semaglutide) in %|Difference in least squared means|-7.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.3|-0.9||||||||-0.9|-14.3|
90837980|NCT04944992|181542379|OTHER|Difference (Efinopegdutide - Semaglutide) in %|Difference in least squared means|-5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.4|-0.4||||||||-0.4|-10.4|
91091117|NCT02557399|182066078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|4.7||||0.409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|15.1||The P-value was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 2 for TLs. The participants with missing data at a visit were included in the denominator (n) at the visit. That is, those participants were treated as non-responder at the visit.|||15.1|-5.7|0.409
90837981|NCT02798627|181542380|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.97|||||||Chi-squared|||||||=0.97
90837982|NCT03821402|181542382|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7645|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.7645
91027926|NCT02978326|181939754|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.12||0.184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|2.0||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D subscale score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Bech-6: Change from Baseline in HAM-D Subscale Score at Day 3||2.0|-10.3|0.1840
91027927|NCT02978326|181939754|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.31||0.0462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|-0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D subscale score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Bech-6: Change from Baseline in HAM-D Subscale Score at Day 8||-0.1|-13.2|0.0462
90837983|NCT03821402|181542382|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5509|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.5509
90837984|NCT03821402|181542382|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0488|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0488
90837985|NCT03821402|181542383|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3698|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3698
90837986|NCT03821402|181542383|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1972|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1972
90837987|NCT03821402|181542383|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2037|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2037
90837988|NCT03821402|181542388|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4324|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.4324
90837989|NCT03821402|181542388|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3893|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3893
90837990|NCT03821402|181542388|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0002
90837991|NCT03821402|181542389|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0562|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0562
90837992|NCT03821402|181542389|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0150
90837993|NCT03821402|181542389|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0092|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0092
90957248|NCT01942590|181793977|OTHER|||||||0.297|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline, Week 18||||0.297
90957249|NCT01942590|181793977|OTHER|||||||0.196|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline, Week 52||||0.196
90957250|NCT01942590|181793978|OTHER|||||||0.3639|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline Week 18||||0.3639
90957251|NCT01942590|181793978|OTHER|||||||0.0371|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline, Week 52||||0.0371
91027928|NCT02978326|181939754|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-8.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.36||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|-1.6||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D subscale score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Bech-6: Change from Baseline in HAM-D Subscale Score at Day 15||-1.6|-14.9|0.0150
91091118|NCT02557399|182066078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|7.0||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|17.0||The P-value was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 4 for TLs. The participants with missing data at a visit were included in the denominator (n) at the visit. That is, those participants were treated as non-responder at the visit.|||17.0|-3.1|0.180
90837994|NCT02345070|181542390|SUPERIORITY|The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.|Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05|=|0.6339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.56|1.56||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||SAR156597 200mg qw versus Placebo qw|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error. Testing was done sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported. Analyzed using Mixed Model for Repeated Measurements (MMRM) with fixed categorical effects of treatment arm, stratification factor (with/without background therapy), time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, stratification factor-by-treatment-by-time point interaction, and continuous fixed covariate of percent predicted FVC baseline.||1.56|-2.56|= 0.6339
90837995|NCT02345070|181542390|SUPERIORITY|The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.|LS Mean Difference|0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04|=|0.5874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|2.6||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||SAR156597 200mg q2w versus Placebo qw|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error. Testing was performed sequentially in the order outcome measures were reported (q2w dose group compared to placebo). Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed categorical effects of treatment arm, stratification factor (with/without background therapy), time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, stratification factor-by-treatment-by-time point interaction, and continuous fixed covariate of percent predicted FVC baseline.||2.6|-1.47|= 0.5874
90837996|NCT03044106|181542439|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.825|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.308759||0.0068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.058809|6.591192|||t-test, 2 sided|||This is the difference between pre and post KEA in those receiving the active treatment with a history of hamstring strain.||6.591192|1.058809|0.0068
90837997|NCT03044106|181542439|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.431784||0.2185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.869044|3.869044|||t-test, 2 sided|||This is the difference in pre /post KEA means after receiving the sham treatment in those with a history of hamstring strains.||3.869044|-1.869044|0.2185
90837998|NCT03044106|181542439|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6638904|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.450892||0.1281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5037233|1.831504|||t-test, 2 sided|||This is the difference in pre/post KEA means in those receiving the active treatment with no history of hamstring strain.||1.831504|-.5037233|0.1281
90837999|NCT03044106|181542439|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.688237|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.241751||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.557137|3.819337|||t-test, 2 sided|||This is the difference in pre/post KEA means in those receiving the sham treatment who have no history of hamstring strain.||3.819337|1.557137|0.00
90838000|NCT03044106|181542439|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.825||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4543|6.0581|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the mean difference in effect between active and sham in those with a history of hamstring strain||6.0581|-0.4543|0.090
90838001|NCT03044106|181542439|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.024||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4474|-0.3406|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the mean difference of effect between active and sham in those without a history of hamstring strain.||-0.3406|-3.4474|0.018
90838002|NCT03199976|181542466|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||Bonferroni correction was applied in pairwise analyses.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
90838003|NCT03199976|181542467|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.595|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.595
90838004|NCT03199976|181542468|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||Bonferroni correction was applied in pairwise analyses.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
90838005|NCT03199976|181542469|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
90838006|NCT03367793|181542470|OTHER||f statistic|1.1||||0.341|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||It was calculated that 29 participants randomized in a 3x3 within-subject crossover design (repeated measures) achieves at least 89% power to detect an effect size of 0.25. Sample size was determined by a 2-sided f-test (alpha = 0.05) of the overall treatment effect based on a statistical simulation, simulating the repeated measures design. Assumptions included ICC of 0.3.||||0.341
90838007|NCT03367793|181542470|OTHER||least square means|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.36|||||Additional model based estimates for 2-month estimated least square means in binocular visual acuity (logMAR) for PFST.|||0.36|0.26|
90838008|NCT03367793|181542470|OTHER||least square means|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.38|||||Additional model based estimates for 2-month estimated least square means in binocular visual acuity (logMAR) for VSX.|||0.38|0.27|
90838009|NCT03367793|181542470|OTHER||least square means|0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.39|||||Additional model based estimates for 2-month estimated least square means in binocular visual acuity (logMAR) for Clinical Refraction.|||0.39|0.28|
90838010|NCT03367793|181542471|OTHER||f statistic|0.93||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|f test|||It was calculated that 29 participants randomized in a 3x3 within-subject crossover design (repeated measures) achieves at least 89% power to detect an effect size of 0.25. Sample size was determined by a 2-sided f-test (alpha = 0.05) of the overall treatment effect based on a statistical simulation, simulating the repeated measures design. Assumptions included ICC of 0.3.||||0.410
91027929|NCT02978326|181939754|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.53||0.0245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|-1.0||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D subscale score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Bech-6: Change from Baseline in HAM-D Subscale Score at Day 21||-1.0|-15.0|0.0245
90838011|NCT03367793|181542471|OTHER||least square means|0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.41|||||Additional model based estimates for initial visit estimated least square means in binocular visual acuity (logMAR) for PFST.|||0.41|0.28|
90838012|NCT03367793|181542471|OTHER||least square means|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.39|||||Additional model based estimates for initial visit estimated least square means in binocular visual acuity (logMAR) for VSX.|||0.39|0.26|
90957252|NCT01942590|181793979|OTHER|||||||0.268|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline, Week 18||||0.268
91027930|NCT02978326|181939754|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.34||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|-2.8||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D subscale score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Bech-6: Change from Baseline in HAM-D Subscale Score at Day 45||-2.8|-16.0|0.0054
90896414|NCT00215540|181659074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.944||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusting for pooled study center||||||0.944
91027931|NCT02978326|181939754|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.77||0.0972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|0.9||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D subscale score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Meier: Change from Baseline in HAM-D Subscale Score at Day 3||0.9|-10.1|0.0972
91091119|NCT02557399|182066078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-0.5||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|7.7||The P-value was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 8 for TLs. The participants with missing data at a visit were included in the denominator (n) at the visit. That is, those participants were treated as non-responder at the visit.|||7.7|-8.8|0.810
91091120|NCT02557399|182066078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|1.9||||0.648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|9.0||The P-value was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 12 for TLs. The participants with missing data at a visit were included in the denominator (n) at the visit. That is, those participants were treated as non-responder at the visit.|||9.0|-5.2|0.648
90838013|NCT03367793|181542471|OTHER||least square means|0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.41|||||Additional model based estimates for initial visit estimated least square means in binocular visual acuity (logMAR) for Clinical Refraction.|||0.41|0.28|
90838014|NCT03367793|181542472|OTHER||f statistic|1.09||||0.351|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was alpha=0.05.|f test|||It was calculated that 29 participants randomized in a 3x3 within-subject crossover design (repeated measures) achieves at least 89% power to detect an effect size of 0.25. Sample size was determined by a 2-sided f-test (alpha = 0.05) of the overall treatment effect based on a statistical simulation, simulating the repeated measures design. Assumptions included ICC of 0.3.||||0.351
90838015|NCT03367793|181542472|OTHER||least square means|11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.3|12.7|||||Additional model based estimates for two-month wear time estimated least square means in spectacle wear-time (Hours) for PFST.|||12.7|9.3|
90838016|NCT03367793|181542472|OTHER||least square means|10.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.2|12.6|||||Additional model based estimates for two-month wear time estimated least square means in spectacle wear-time (Hours) for VSX.|||12.6|9.2|
90838017|NCT03367793|181542472|OTHER||least square means|11.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.5|12.9|||||Additional model based estimates for two-month wear time estimated least square means in spectacle wear-time (Hours) for Clinical Refraction.|||12.9|9.5|
90838018|NCT03367793|181542473|OTHER||f statistic|0.58||||0.562|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||It was calculated that a sample size of n=28 yields 82% power to detect a difference of 0.4 in proportion of satisfaction (binary outcome of scores of '4' or '5' versus '1 to 3') in comparing two metrics using a two sided McNemar's test (alpha = 0.025 to account for pairwise testing).||||0.562
90838019|NCT03367793|181542473|OTHER||proportion|0.967|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Additional estimates of proportion of 2-month satisfactory responses (binary) for Spectacle Assessment Survey Item 1 for PFST.|||||
90838020|NCT03367793|181542473|OTHER||proportion|0.933|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Additional estimates of proportion of 2-month satisfactory responses (binary) for Spectacle Assessment Survey Item 1 for VSX.|||||
90838021|NCT03367793|181542473|OTHER||proportion|0.897|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Additional estimates of proportion of 2-month satisfactory responses (binary) for Spectacle Assessment Survey Item 1 for Clinical Refraction.|||||
90896415|NCT00215540|181659075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.476||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusting for pooled study center||||||0.476
90838022|NCT03367793|181542474|OTHER||||||>|0.99|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||It was calculated that a sample size of n=28 yields 82% power to detect a difference of 0.4 in proportion of satisfaction (binary outcome of scores of '4' or '5' versus '1 to 3') in comparing two metrics using a two sided McNemar's test (alpha = 0.025 to account for pairwise testing).||||>0.99
90896416|NCT00215540|181659075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.208||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusting for pooled study center||||||0.208
91027932|NCT02978326|181939754|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.95||0.0155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|-1.4||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D subscale score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Meier: Change from Baseline in HAM-D Subscale Score at Day 8||-1.4|-13.1|0.0155
90838023|NCT03367793|181542474|OTHER||proportion|0.967|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Additional estimates of proportion of 2-month satisfactory responses (binary) for 2-month satisfactory responses (binary) for Spectacle Assessment Survey Item 2 for PFST.|||||
90838024|NCT03367793|181542474|OTHER||proportion|0.967|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Additional estimates of proportion of 2-month satisfactory responses (binary) for Spectacle Assessment Survey Item 2 for VSX.|||||
90838025|NCT03367793|181542474|OTHER||proportion|0.966|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Additional estimates of proportion of 2-month satisfactory responses (binary) for Spectacle Assessment Survey Item 2 for Clinical Refraction.|||||
90838026|NCT03367793|181542475|OTHER||||||>|0.99|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||It was calculated that a sample size of n=28 yields 82% power to detect a difference of 0.4 in proportion of satisfaction (binary outcome of scores of '4' or '5' versus '1 to 3') in comparing two metrics using a two sided McNemar's test (alpha = 0.025 to account for pairwise testing).||||>0.99
90896417|NCT00215540|181659075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.046||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusting for pooled study center||||||0.046
90896418|NCT00215540|181659076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.285||95.0|||||ANOVA|On rank adjusting for pooled study center||||||0.285
90896419|NCT00215540|181659076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.229||95.0|||||ANOVA|On rank adjusting for pooled study center||||||0.229
90896420|NCT00215540|181659076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0|||||ANOVA|On rank adjusting for pooled study center||||||0.030
90896421|NCT00215540|181659077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.483||95.0|||||ANOVA|On rank adjusting for pooled study center||||||0.483
91091121|NCT02557399|182066078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|9.1||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|19.6||The P-value was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 1 for ILs. The participants with missing data at a visit were included in the denominator (n) at the visit. That is, those participants were treated as non-responder at the visit.|||19.6|-1.3|0.048
91027933|NCT02978326|181939754|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.03||0.0149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|-1.5||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D subscale score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Meier: Change from Baseline in HAM-D Subscale Score at Day 15||-1.5|-13.4|0.0149
90838027|NCT03367793|181542475|OTHER||proportion|0.967|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Additional estimates of proportion of 2-month satisfactory responses (binary) for Spectacle Assessment Survey Item 3 for PFST.|||||
90838028|NCT03367793|181542475|OTHER||proportion|0.967|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Additional estimates of proportion of 2-month satisfactory responses (binary) for Spectacle Assessment Survey Item 3 for VSX.|||||
90838029|NCT03367793|181542475|OTHER||proportion|0.966|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Additional estimates of proportion of 2-month satisfactory responses (binary) for Spectacle Assessment Survey Item 3 for Clinical Refraction.|||||
90838030|NCT02392637|181542476|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.62
90838031|NCT02392637|181542477|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.39
90838032|NCT01761877|181542480|OTHER|Mixed Models Analysis|||||<|0.05||||||A p value was calculated for change in breast density from baseline to 12 months separately for each study arm.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The study was designed to assess change in breast density using fat/water MRI after 12 months of sulindac intervention in postmenopausal breast cancer patients taking aromatase inhibitors for the treatment of estrogen receptor positive breast cancer. A non-randomized observation arm was included with the same eligibility criteria to assess change in breast density over 12 months using the fat/water MRI method of quantifying breast density. Change was examined separately for each arm.||||<0.05
90838033|NCT01761877|181542481|OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||A p value of \<0.05 was selected for change in each arm. The study did not include a direct comparison between the two arms.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
90838034|NCT01761877|181542482|OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||A p value of \<0.05 was selected for change in each arm. The study did not include a direct comparison between the two arms.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
90838035|NCT00106704|181542503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-90.0|-0.57|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, stratum (on metformin or not), baseline A1C||||-0.57|-90.0|<0.001
90838036|NCT00106704|181542504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-20.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.4|-11.8|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, stratum (on metformin or not at Visit 3), baseline A1C||||-11.8|-28.4|<0.001
90838037|NCT01780506|181542505|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: the E/C/F/TAF group was ≥ 12% worse than the E/C/F/TDF group with respect to the percentage of participants achieving HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL at Week 48; alternative hypothesis: the E/C/F/TAF group was \< 12% worse than the E/C/F/TDF group.|Difference in percentages|0.5||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.002|-3.0|4.0||P-value was from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA (≤ 100,000 or \> 100,000 copies/mL) and region (US vs ex-US).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference in percentages and its 95.002% confidence interval (CI) were calculated based on the Mantel-Haenszel (MH) proportions adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA and region stratum.|||4.0|-3.0|0.78
90838038|NCT01867671|181542536|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|205.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.0|1758.51|||Regression, Logistic|||||1758.51|24.00|<0.0001
90838039|NCT01867671|181542537|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|27.82|||<|0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.07|252.33|||Regression, Logistic|||||252.33|3.07|<0.0031
90838040|NCT01867671|181542538|OTHER|McNemar's Test|Simple Kappa Coefficient|0.162|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0628|0.2612|||McNemar|||||0.2612|0.0628|<0.0001
90838041|NCT01867671|181542539|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1464.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|944.0|1985.0|||Chi-squared|||||1985|944|<0.0001
90838042|NCT04852302|181542552|EQUIVALENCE|We evaluated the same group to determine whether their reported depression was the same, worse, or better at 6-months compared to baseline.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.81|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.81||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.47|0.86||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05. We did not adjust for multiple comparisons as this was exploratory.|paired sample t-Test, 2-sided|||Null hypothesis was that the mean difference between the paired observations is zero.||0.86|-4.47|0.168
90838043|NCT04852302|181542553|EQUIVALENCE|We evaluated the same group to determine whether their reported depression was the same, worse, or better at 3-months compared to baseline.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.59||0.752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|1.69||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05. We did not adjust for multiple comparisons as this was exploratory.|paired sample t-Test, 2-sided|||||1.69|-2.29|0.752
90838044|NCT04852302|181542554|EQUIVALENCE|We evaluated the same group to determine whether their reported anxiety via the Death and Dying Distress Scale was the same, worse, or better at 3-months compared to baseline.|Mean Difference (Net)|-4.67|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.26||0.285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.67|4.34||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05. We did not adjust for multiple comparisons as this was exploratory.|paired sample t-Test, 2-sided|||||4.34|-13.67|0.285
91027934|NCT02978326|181939754|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.14||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|-0.9||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D subscale score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Meier: Change from Baseline in HAM-D Subscale Score at Day 21||-0.9|-13.3|0.0250
90838045|NCT04852302|181542554|EQUIVALENCE|We evaluated the same group to determine whether their reported anxiety via the Death and Dying Distress Scale was the same, worse, or better at 6-months compared to baseline.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.22||0.628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.74|7.34||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05. We did not adjust for multiple comparisons as this was exploratory.|paired sample t-Test, 2-sided|||||7.34|-11.74|0.628
90838046|NCT00135226|181542588|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.88||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.97|||Log Rank|||||0.97|0.79|0.01
90838047|NCT00135226|181542588|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.97||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.08|||Log Rank|||||1.08|0.87|0.55
91027935|NCT02978326|181939754|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.96||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.3|-3.6||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D subscale score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Meier: Change from Baseline in HAM-D Subscale Score at Day 45||-3.6|-15.3|0.0017
91091122|NCT02557399|182066078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|11.2||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|20.6||The P-value was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 2 for ILs. The participants with missing data at a visit were included in the denominator (n) at the visit. That is, those participants were treated as non-responder at the visit.|||20.6|1.8|0.016
91091123|NCT02557399|182066078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|8.6||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|16.9||The P-value was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 4 for ILs. The participants with missing data at a visit were included in the denominator (n) at the visit. That is, those participants were treated as non-responder at the visit.|||16.9|0.4|0.044
91091124|NCT02557399|182066078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|3.6||||0.345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|11.0||The P-value was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 8 for ILs. The participants with missing data at a visit were included in the denominator (n) at the visit. That is, those participants were treated as non-responder at the visit.|||11.0|-3.8|0.345
91091125|NCT02557399|182066078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|2.6||||0.424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|8.7||The P-value was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 12 for ILs. The participants with missing data at a visit were included in the denominator (n) at the visit. That is, those participants were treated as non-responder at the visit.|||8.7|-3.5|0.424
91091126|NCT02557399|182066078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-2.0||||0.527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|5.5||The P-value was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 1 for non-ILs. The participants with missing data at a visit were included in the denominator (n) at the visit. That is, those participants were treated as non-responder at the visit.|||5.5|-9.4|0.527
91091127|NCT02557399|182066078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|3.3||||0.584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|13.4||The P-value was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 2 for non-ILs. The participants with missing data at a visit were included in the denominator (n) at the visit. That is, those participants were treated as non-responder at the visit.|||13.4|-6.7|0.584
91091128|NCT02557399|182066078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|3.9||||0.519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|14.3||The P-value was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 4 for non-ILs. The participants with missing data at a visit were included in the denominator (n) at the visit. That is, those participants were treated as non-responder at the visit.|||14.3|-6.5|0.519
91091129|NCT02557399|182066078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-0.8||||0.766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|8.5||The P-values are based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 8 for non-ILs. The participants with missing data at a visit were included in the denominator (n) at the visit. That is, those participants were treated as non-responder at the visit.|||8.5|-10.1|0.766
91091130|NCT02557399|182066078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3||||0.666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|10.5||The P-value was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 12 for non-ILs. The participants with missing data at a visit were included in the denominator (n) at the visit. That is, those participants were treated as non-responder at the visit.|||10.5|-5.8|0.666
91091131|NCT02557399|182066082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.22||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.04|||mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 2. A negative treatment difference indicates a benefit of Duac relative to ADA+CLDM.|||-0.04|-0.40|0.017
91091132|NCT02557399|182066082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.22||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.04|||mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 4. A negative treatment difference indicates a benefit of Duac relative to ADA+CLDM.|||-0.04|-0.40|0.017
91091133|NCT02557399|182066082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.22||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.03|||mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 8. A negative treatment difference indicates a benefit of Duac relative to ADA+CLDM.|||-0.03|-0.41|0.024
91091134|NCT02557399|182066082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.02|||mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 12. A negative treatment difference indicates a benefit of Duac relative to ADA+CLDM.|||0.02|-0.36|0.080
91091135|NCT01328964|182066086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.974||The p-value is a comparison of the combined hospitalization/emergency department visit endpoint|Regression, Cox|||||0.974|0.51|<0.0001
90896422|NCT00215540|181659077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.123||95.0|||||ANOVA|On rank adjusting for pooled study center||||||0.123
90838048|NCT00135226|181542589|OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.29||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.52|||Log Rank|||||1.52|1.09|0.003
90838049|NCT00135226|181542590|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.97||||||||0.97|0.80|
90838050|NCT00135226|181542590|OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.09||||||||1.09|0.91|
90838051|NCT00135226|181542591|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.24||||||||1.24|0.80|
90838052|NCT00135226|181542592|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.04||||||||1.04|0.85|
90838053|NCT00135226|181542592|OTHER||Risk Ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.05||||||||1.05|0.86|
90838054|NCT00135226|181542593|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.12||||||||1.12|0.66|
90838055|NCT00135226|181542593|OTHER||Rate ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.02||||||||1.02|0.61|
90838056|NCT00135226|181542594|OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.77||||||||1.77|0.7|
90896423|NCT00215540|181659077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0|||||ANOVA|On rank adjusting for pooled study center||||||0.006
91091136|NCT01328964|182066087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|-9.0||P-value is based on the differences in the total monthly asthma costs|Regression, Linear|||||-9|-19|<0.001
91091137|NCT01328964|182066088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.751||||0.0495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.565|0.999||P-value is based on the comparison of combined endpoint of hospitalization/emergency department visits|Regression, Cox|||||0.999|0.565|0.0495
90838057|NCT00135226|181542594|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.5||||||||1.50|0.59|
90838058|NCT00135226|181542595|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.34||||||||1.34|0.68|
90838059|NCT00135226|181542595|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.12||||||||1.12|0.57|
90896424|NCT00215540|181659078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.843||95.0|||||ANOVA|Adjusting for pooled study center||||||0.843
90838060|NCT00135226|181542596|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.15||||||||1.15|0.84|
90838061|NCT00135226|181542596|OTHER||Rate ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.12||||||||1.12|0.82|
90838062|NCT00135226|181542597|OTHER||Rate ratio|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.63||||||||1.63|0.86|
90838063|NCT00135226|181542597|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.28||||||||1.28|0.68|
90838064|NCT00135226|181542598|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.01||||||||1.01|0.64|
90838065|NCT00135226|181542598|OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.59||||||||1.59|1.00|
90838066|NCT00135226|181542599|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.6||||||||1.60|0.46|
90838067|NCT00135226|181542599|OTHER||Rate ratio|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.45||||||||1.45|0.41|
90838068|NCT00135226|181542600|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|3.3||||||||3.30|0.17|
90838069|NCT00135226|181542600|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|3.31||||||||3.31|0.17|
90838070|NCT00135226|181542601|OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.11||||||||1.11|0.92|
90838071|NCT00135226|181542601|OTHER||Risk Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.1||||||||1.10|0.91|
90838072|NCT00135226|181542602|OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.43||||||||1.43|0.78|
90838073|NCT00135226|181542603|OTHER||Rate ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.29||||||||1.29|0.74|
90838074|NCT00135226|181542603|OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.37||||||||1.37|0.79|
90838075|NCT00135226|181542604|OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.32||||||||1.32|0.97|
90838076|NCT00135226|181542604|OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.25||||||||1.25|0.91|
90838077|NCT00135226|181542605|OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.38||||||||1.38|0.76|
90838078|NCT00135226|181542605|OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.58||||||||1.58|0.87|
90838079|NCT00135226|181542606|OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.34||||||||1.34|0.76|
90838080|NCT00135226|181542606|OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.52||||||||1.52|0.86|
90838081|NCT00135226|181542607|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.23||||||||1.23|0.58|
90838082|NCT00135226|181542607|OTHER||Rate ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.48||||||||1.48|0.70|
90838083|NCT00135226|181542608|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.41||||||||1.41|0.49|
90838084|NCT00135226|181542608|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.22||||||||1.22|0.42|
90838085|NCT00135226|181542609|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.41||||||||1.41|0.50|
90838086|NCT00135226|181542609|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.31||||||||1.31|0.46|
90838087|NCT00135226|181542610|OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.54||||||||1.54|0.98|
90838088|NCT00135226|181542611|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.12||||||||1.12|0.63|
90896425|NCT00215540|181659078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.543||95.0|||||ANOVA|Adjusting for pooled study center||||||0.543
90896426|NCT00215540|181659078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.537||95.0|||||ANOVA|Adjusting for pooled study center||||||0.537
90896427|NCT00215540|181659079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.813||95.0|||||ANOVA|Adjusting for pooled study center||||||0.813
90896428|NCT00215540|181659079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.449||95.0|||||ANOVA|Adjusting for pooled study center||||||0.449
90896429|NCT00215540|181659079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.275||95.0|||||ANOVA|Adjusting for pooled study center||||||0.275
90896430|NCT00215540|181659080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.267||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusting for pooled study center||||||0.267
90896431|NCT00215540|181659080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.313||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusting for pooled study center||||||0.313
91091138|NCT01328964|182066089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-28.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.0|-27.0||P-value is based on difference in total monthly asthma costs|Regression, Linear|||||-27|-28|<0.0001
91091139|NCT01257347|182066102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<=|0.001||||||We included a stopping rule in which recruitment would be stopped at the midpoint for futility if the z-score was negative or for efficacy if the z-score was positive and the p-value ≤ 0.001.|GEE model|GEE models (logit link) with clinician as the cluster variable, appropriateness of management as outcome, intervention group as explanatory variable.||The sample size was calculated to have sufficient power to detect meaningful differences in appropriateness of clinician management between intervention and control groups. Each patient-clinician encounter was treated as independent and the sample size was inflated to account for the design effect (DE) of clustering of patients within clinician. GEE stands for generalized estimating equation.||||<=0.001
91091140|NCT03044314|182066119|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.148|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: inhalation with iNO (the gold standard) would provide greater response than the comparator (iloprost).||||0.148
91091141|NCT03044314|182066121|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.346|||||||Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis was that fewer patients receiving iloprost (new agent) would respond compared to iNO (the gold standard).||||0.346
91091142|NCT00264147|182066124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Overall alpha=0.05 for multiple comparisons with a step-down procedure (p-values subsequent to the first non-significant p-value were not reported).|Cochran-Armitage trend test|A step-down procedure and Abelson-Tukey scaling were used for the trend test.||||||<0.001
91091143|NCT00264147|182066124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.057||95.0||||Overall alpha=0.05 for multiple comparisons with a step-down procedure (p-values subsequent to the first non-significant p-value were not reported).|Cochran-Armitage trend test|A step-down procedure and Abelson-Tukey scaling were used for the trend test.||||||0.057
91091144|NCT00264147|182066124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||difference in percentage of patients|18.53||||||95.0|7.84|28.65|||||CI based on the Wilson's score method.|||28.65|7.84|
90838089|NCT02893293|181542639|OTHER|||||||0.002||||||A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model including a random effect term accounting for correlation among the measures with a same patient.||||||0.002
90838090|NCT02893293|181542640|OTHER|||||||0.02||||||A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model including a random effect term accounting for correlation among the measures with a same patient.||||||0.02
90838091|NCT03279081|181542655|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Combined Remission Rate|2.37|||=|0.571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.82|10.55||P-value was based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusting for interactive web response system (IWRS) randomization stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The asymptotic Wald's confidence intervals (CI) are displayed.|||10.55|-5.82|=0.571
90838092|NCT03279081|181542656|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Clinical Remission Rate|2.72|||=|0.515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.47|10.9||P-value was based on stratified CMH test adjusting for IWRS randomization stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The asymptotic Wald's confidence intervals are displayed.|||10.90|-5.47|=0.515
90838093|NCT03279081|181542657|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09|||=|0.374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.32||P-value was based on a stratified log-rank test adjusting for IWRS randomization stratification factors.|Log Rank||Cox Proportional Hazard Regression model was used to estimate the hazard ratio and 95% CI, adjusting for IWRS randomization stratification factors.|||1.32|0.90|=0.374
90838094|NCT03279081|181542658|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Combined Remission Rate|1.27|||=|0.757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.77|9.31||P-value was based on stratified CMH test adjusting for IWRS randomization stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The asymptotic Wald's confidence intervals are displayed.|||9.31|-6.77|=0.757
91091145|NCT00264147|182066124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||difference in percentage of patients|10.0||||||95.0|-0.66|20.46|||||CI based on the Wilson's score method.|||20.46|-0.66|
91091146|NCT00264147|182066124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||difference in percentage of patients|9.18||||||95.0|-1.25|19.39|||||CI based on the Wilson's score method.|||19.39|-1.25|
91091147|NCT00264147|182066124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||difference in percentage of patients|6.49||||||95.0|-3.76|16.61|||||CI based on the Wilson's score method.|||16.61|-3.76|
91091148|NCT00264147|182066125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002||95.0||||Overall alpha=0.05 for multiple comparisons with a step-down procedure (p-values subsequent to the first non-significant p-value were not reported).|ANCOVA|Based on a trend test with a step-down procedure and Abelson-Tukey scaling.||||||0.002
91091149|NCT00264147|182066125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.221||95.0||||Overall alpha=0.05 for multiple comparisons with a step-down procedure (p-values subsequent to the first non-significant p-value were not reported).|ANCOVA|Based on a trend test with a step-down procedure and Abelson-Tukey scaling.||||||0.221
91091150|NCT00264147|182066125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.06||||||95.0|-6.44|-1.68||||||||-1.68|-6.44|
91091151|NCT00264147|182066125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.49||||||95.0|-3.91|0.93||||||||0.93|-3.91|
91091152|NCT00264147|182066125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.74||||||95.0|-5.13|-0.35||||||||-0.35|-5.13|
91091153|NCT00264147|182066125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5||||||95.0|-4.88|-0.12||||||||-0.12|-4.88|
91091154|NCT00264147|182066126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001||95.0||||Overall alpha=0.05 for multiple comparisons with a step-down procedure (p-values subsequent to the first non-significant p-value were not reported).|ANCOVA|Based on a trend test with a step-down procedure and Abelson-Tukey scaling.||||||0.001
90838095|NCT03279081|181542659|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Clinical Remission Rate|1.6|||=|0.697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.46|9.66||P-value was based on stratified CMH test adjusting for IWRS randomization stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The asymptotic Wald's confidence intervals are displayed.|||9.66|-6.46|=0.697
90896432|NCT00215540|181659081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.311||95.0|||||ANOVA|On rank adjusting for pooled study center||||||0.311
90896433|NCT00215540|181659081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.516||95.0|||||ANOVA|On rank adjusting for pooled study center||||||0.516
91091155|NCT00264147|182066126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.125||95.0||||Overall alpha=0.05 for multiple comparisons with a step-down procedure (p-values subsequent to the first non-significant p-value were not reported).|ANCOVA|Based on a trend test with a step-down procedure and Abelson-Tukey scaling.||||||0.125
91091156|NCT00264147|182066126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.24||||||95.0|-3.64|-0.84||||||||-0.84|-3.64|
91091157|NCT00264147|182066126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.02||||||95.0|-2.44|0.41||||||||0.41|-2.44|
91091158|NCT00264147|182066126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.22||||||95.0|-2.63|0.18||||||||0.18|-2.63|
91091159|NCT00264147|182066126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49||||||95.0|-1.89|0.91||||||||0.91|-1.89|
91091160|NCT00264147|182066127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Overall alpha=0.05 for multiple comparisons with a step-down procedure (p-values subsequent to the first non-significant p-value were not reported).|ANCOVA|Based on a trend test with a step-down procedure and Abelson-Tukey scaling.||||||<0.001
91091161|NCT00264147|182066127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Overall alpha=0.05 for multiple comparisons with a step-down procedure (p-values subsequent to the first non-significant p-value were not reported).|ANCOVA|Based on a trend test with a step-down procedure and Abelson-Tukey scaling.||||||<0.001
91091162|NCT00264147|182066127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Overall alpha=0.05 for multiple comparisons with a step-down procedure (p-values subsequent to the first non-significant p-value were not reported).|ANCOVA|Based on a trend test with a step-down procedure and Abelson-Tukey scaling.||||||<0.001
91091163|NCT00264147|182066127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.023||95.0||||Overall alpha=0.05 for multiple comparisons with a step-down procedure (p-values subsequent to the first non-significant p-value were not reported).|ANCOVA|Based on a trend test with a step-down procedure and Abelson-Tukey scaling.||||||0.023
91091164|NCT00264147|182066127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.16||||||95.0|-19.38|-8.95||||||||-8.95|-19.38|
91091165|NCT00264147|182066127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.21||||||95.0|-14.52|-3.9||||||||-3.90|-14.52|
91091166|NCT00264147|182066127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.87||||||95.0|-14.11|-3.63||||||||-3.63|-14.11|
91091167|NCT00264147|182066127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.05||||||95.0|-11.27|-0.83||||||||-0.83|-11.27|
91091168|NCT00264147|182066128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Overall alpha=0.05 for multiple comparisons with a step-down procedure (p-values subsequent to the first non-significant p-value were not reported).|ANCOVA|Based on a trend test with a step-down procedure and Abelson-Tukey scaling.||||||<0.001
91091169|NCT00264147|182066128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Overall alpha=0.05 for multiple comparisons with a step-down procedure (p-values subsequent to the first non-significant p-value were not reported).|ANCOVA|Based on a trend test with a step-down procedure and Abelson-Tukey scaling.||||||<0.001
91091170|NCT00264147|182066128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Overall alpha=0.05 for multiple comparisons with a step-down procedure (p-values subsequent to the first non-significant p-value were not reported).|ANCOVA|Based on a trend test with a step-down procedure and Abelson-Tukey scaling.||||||<0.001
91091171|NCT00264147|182066128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.018||95.0||||Overall alpha=0.05 for multiple comparisons with a step-down procedure (p-values subsequent to the first non-significant p-value were not reported).|ANCOVA|Based on a trend test with a step-down procedure and Abelson-Tukey scaling.||||||0.018
91091172|NCT00264147|182066128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56||||||95.0|-0.77|-0.35||||||||-0.35|-0.77|
91091173|NCT00264147|182066128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||||95.0|-0.55|-0.13||||||||-0.13|-0.55|
91091174|NCT00264147|182066128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||||95.0|-0.61|-0.19||||||||-0.19|-0.61|
91091175|NCT00264147|182066128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||||95.0|-0.46|-0.04||||||||-0.04|-0.46|
90957253|NCT01942590|181793979|OTHER|||||||0.0036|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline, Week 52||||0.0036
91091176|NCT00264147|182066129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Overall alpha=0.05 for multiple comparisons with a step-down procedure (p-values subsequent to the first non-significant p-value were not reported).|ANCOVA|Based on a trend test with a step-down procedure and Abelson-Tukey scaling.||||||<0.001
91091177|NCT00264147|182066129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.018||95.0||||Overall alpha=0.05 for multiple comparisons with a step-down procedure (p-values subsequent to the first non-significant p-value were not reported).|ANCOVA|Based on a trend test with a step-down procedure and Abelson-Tukey scaling.||||||0.018
91091178|NCT00264147|182066129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.017||95.0||||Overall alpha=0.05 for multiple comparisons with a step-down procedure (p-values subsequent to the first non-significant p-value were not reported).|ANCOVA|Based on a trend test with a step-down procedure and Abelson-Tukey scaling.||||||0.017
91091179|NCT00264147|182066129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.08||95.0||||Overall alpha=0.05 for multiple comparisons with a step-down procedure (p-values subsequent to the first non-significant p-value were not reported).|ANCOVA|Based on a trend test with a step-down procedure and Abelson-Tukey scaling.||||||0.080
91091180|NCT00264147|182066129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.44||||||95.0|-19.62|-9.26||||||||-9.26|-19.62|
91091181|NCT00264147|182066129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.22||||||95.0|-11.52|-0.92||||||||-0.92|-11.52|
91091182|NCT00264147|182066129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.32||||||95.0|-11.53|-1.12||||||||-1.12|-11.53|
91091183|NCT00264147|182066129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.63||||||95.0|-9.81|0.55||||||||0.55|-9.81|
91091184|NCT03669588|182066183|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.951|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.213|11.528|||Regression, Logistic|||"Analysis with a 2-sided exact test (using logistic regression) at the 2-sided 5% significance level in the AChR-Ab seropositive population, stratified by Japanese versus (vs) non-Japanese and NSID vs no NSID as concomitant gMG treatment, with cycle baseline MG-ADL total score as covariate.~The treatment effect was presented as the odds ratio. An odds ratio of more than 1 represents a higher response rate for ARGX-113 compared to placebo."||11.528|2.213|<0.0001
91091185|NCT03669588|182066184|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.842|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.179|31.2|||Regression, Logistic|||"Analysis with a 2-sided exact test (using logistic regression) at the 2-sided 5% significance level in the AChR-Ab seropositive population, stratified by Japanese vs non-Japanese and NSID vs no NSID as concomitant gMG treatment, with cycle baseline QMG total score as covariate.~The treatment effect was presented as the odds ratio. An odds ratio of more than 1 represents a higher response rate for ARGX-113 compared to placebo."||31.200|4.179|<0.0001
90896434|NCT00215540|181659081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.094||95.0|||||ANOVA|On rank adjusting for pooled study center||||||0.094
90896435|NCT00674570|181659083|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|=|0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Fear Conditioning Beginning (first trial)||.10|-.15|=.66
90896436|NCT00674570|181659083|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|=|0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Fear Conditioning Beginning (first trial)||.07|-.17|=.41
91027936|NCT02978326|181939755|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.1569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Depressed Mood: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 3||0.1|-0.5|0.1569
91027937|NCT02978326|181939755|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.0||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Depressed Mood: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 8||0.0|-0.7|0.0376
91027938|NCT02978326|181939755|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.1035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Depressed Mood: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 15||0.1|-0.6|0.1035
91027939|NCT02978326|181939755|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.2||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Depressed Mood: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 21||-0.2|-0.9|0.0037
91027940|NCT02978326|181939755|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Depressed Mood: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 45||-0.1|-0.8|0.0061
91027941|NCT02978326|181939755|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.7878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.3||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Feelings of Guilt: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 3||0.3|-0.4|0.7878
91027942|NCT02978326|181939755|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.0||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Feelings of Guilt: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 8||0.0|-0.6|0.0498
91027943|NCT02978326|181939755|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.1719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Feelings of Guilt: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 15||0.1|-0.5|0.1719
91027944|NCT02978326|181939755|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Feelings of Guilt: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 21||-0.1|-0.7|0.0161
91027945|NCT02978326|181939755|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Feelings of Guilt: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 45||-0.1|-0.6|0.0191
91027946|NCT02978326|181939755|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.2537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Suicide: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 3||0.1|-0.2|0.2537
91032658|NCT02549092|181950235|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.35||The repeated measures model: change = treatment, country, visit, baseline, treatment \* visit, baseline \* visit. The unstructured variance-covariance structure is used.|repeated measures model||Difference of LCIG - OMT|Musculoskeletal pain score||1.35|-1.50|0.916
90896437|NCT00674570|181659083|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|=|0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Fear Conditioning End (last trial)||.18|-.07|=.43
90896438|NCT00674570|181659083|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|=|0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Fear Conditioning End (last trial)||.17|-.07|=.47
90896439|NCT00674570|181659083|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|=|0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Fear Extinction Beginning (first trial)||.20|-.01|=.065
90896440|NCT00674570|181659083|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|=|0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Fear Extinction Beginning (first trial)||.15|-.05|=.34
90896441|NCT00674570|181659083|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Extinction End (last trial)||.26|.06|=.003
90896442|NCT00674570|181659083|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Extinction End (last trial)||.22|.02|.02
90957254|NCT01942590|181793979|OTHER|||||||0.286|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline, Week 18||||0.286
90957255|NCT01942590|181793979|OTHER|||||||0.279|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline, Week 52||||0.279
90838096|NCT03279081|181542660|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Clinical Response Rate|3.23|||=|0.428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.76|11.21||P-value was based on stratified CMH test adjusting for IWRS randomization stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The asymptotic Wald's confidence intervals are displayed.|||11.21|-4.76|=0.428
90838097|NCT03279081|181542661|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Clinical Response Rate|2.84|||=|0.497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.35|11.03||P-value was based on stratified CMH test adjusting for IWRS randomization stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The asymptotic Wald's confidence intervals are displayed.|||11.03|-5.35|=0.497
90838098|NCT03279081|181542662|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09|||=|0.363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.32||P-value was based on a stratified log-rank test adjusting for IWRS randomization stratification factors.|Log Rank||Cox Proportional Hazard Regression model was used to estimate hazard ratio and 95% CI, adjusting for IWRS randomization stratification factors.|||1.32|0.90|=0.363
90838099|NCT03279081|181542663|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98|||=|0.833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.18||P-value was based on a stratified log-rank test adjusting for IWRS randomization stratification factors.|Log Rank||Cox Proportional Hazard Regression model was used to estimate hazard ratio and 95% CI, adjusting for IWRS randomization stratification factors.|||1.18|0.82|=0.833
90838100|NCT03279081|181542664|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97|||=|0.717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.16||P-value was based on a stratified log-rank test adjusting for IWRS randomization stratification factors.|Log Rank||Cox Proportional Hazard Regression model was used to estimate hazard ratio and 95% CI, adjusting for IWRS randomization stratification factors.|||1.16|0.81|=0.717
90838101|NCT03279081|181542665|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Relapse Rate|3.03|||=|0.599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.28|14.34||P-value was based on stratified CMH test adjusting for IWRS randomization stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The asymptotic Wald's confidence intervals are displayed.|||14.34|-8.28|=0.599
90838102|NCT02163538|181542671|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0001
90838103|NCT02163538|181542672|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.00
90838104|NCT02163538|181542673|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.582|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.582
90838105|NCT02163538|181542674|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0031|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0031
90838106|NCT02163538|181542675|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0281|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0281
90838107|NCT02163538|181542676|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0821|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.0821
90896443|NCT00674570|181659083|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|=|0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Extinction Retention (first 2 trials) First trials were selected as a test of extinction retention, since repeated presentations of the CS without a UCS were expected to result in additional fear extinction.||.30|.05|=.006
90957256|NCT01942590|181793980|OTHER|||||||0.479|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline, Week 18||||0.479
90838108|NCT02761330|181542859|OTHER|||||||0.016||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed-Ranked Test|||Comparison between the Etomidate + ECT and Ketamine + ECT groups for the recovery rate of Psychomotor Vigilance Task (PVT) reaction time.||||0.016
90838109|NCT02761330|181542859|OTHER|||||||0.012||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed-Ranked Test|||Comparison between the Ketamine + ECT and Ketamine Alone groups for the recovery rate of Psychomotor Vigilance Task (PVT) reaction time.||||0.012
90838110|NCT02761330|181542859|OTHER|||||||0.031||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed-Ranked Test|||Comparison between the Etomidate + ECT and Ketamine + ECT groups for the recovery rate of Digital Symbol Substitution Task (DSST) reaction time.||||0.031
90838111|NCT02761330|181542859|OTHER|||||||0.203||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed-Ranked Test|||Comparison between the Ketamine + ECT and Ketamine Alone groups for the recovery rate of Digital Symbol Substitution Task (DSST) reaction time.||||0.203
90896444|NCT00674570|181659083|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|=|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Extinction retention||.28|.04|=.01
91027947|NCT02978326|181939755|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|-0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Suicide: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 8||-0.1|-0.2|0.0018
91027948|NCT02978326|181939755|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.2878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.0||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Suicide: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 15||0.0|-0.2|0.2878
90838112|NCT02761330|181542859|OTHER|||||||0.008||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed-Ranked Test|||Comparison between the Etomidate + ECT and Ketamine + ECT groups for the recovery rate of Motor Praxis Task (MP) reaction time.||||0.008
90838113|NCT02761330|181542859|OTHER|||||||0.496||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed-Ranked Test|||Comparison between the Ketamine + ECT and Ketamine Alone groups for the recovery rate of Motor Praxis Task (MP) reaction time.||||0.496
90838114|NCT02761330|181542859|OTHER|||||||0.844||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed-Ranked Test|||Comparison between the Etomidate + ECT and Ketamine + ECT groups for the recovery rate of Visual Object Learning Task (VOLT) reaction time.||||0.844
90838115|NCT02761330|181542859|OTHER|||||||0.016||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed-Ranked Test|||Comparison between the Ketamine + ECT and Ketamine Alone groups for the recovery rate of Visual Object Learning Task (VOLT) reaction time.||||0.016
90838116|NCT02761330|181542859|OTHER|||||||0.062||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed-Ranked Test|||Comparison between the Etomidate + ECT and Ketamine + ECT groups for the recovery rate of Abstract Matching task (AM) reaction time.||||0.062
90896445|NCT01337986|181659084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.84|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Per protocol Analysis||||0.84
90896446|NCT01337986|181659084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.29|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in EDTRS between Visits 2 and 3.||||.29
90957257|NCT01942590|181793980|OTHER|||||||0.059|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline, Week 52||||0.059
90957258|NCT01942590|181793980|OTHER|||||||0.152|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline, Week 18||||0.152
90957259|NCT01942590|181793980|OTHER|||||||0.118|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline, Week 52||||0.118
90957260|NCT01226095|181794158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90896447|NCT01337986|181659086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis: there will be no difference in the change relevant to baseline (visit 1) in EDTRS 5% contrast sensitivity with dalfampridine vs placebo.||||.64
90896448|NCT01337986|181659086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.11|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis for period effect: there will be no difference in the change relevant to baseline (visit 1) in EDTRS 5% contrast sensitivity for those who started on dalfampridine and crossed over to placebo, compared to those who started on placebo and crossed over to dalfampridine.||||0.11
90896449|NCT01337986|181659087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.93|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.93
90896450|NCT01337986|181659088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.34|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||.34
90896451|NCT01337986|181659090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|2.1||Probability of being in the lowest quartile for Visual Field Index deficits.|Regression, Logistic||Odds Ratio for Visual Field Index|||2.10|1.02|0.04
90896452|NCT01337986|181659091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.94|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.94
90896453|NCT01337986|181659092|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.39
90896454|NCT01337986|181659093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.72|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.72
90896455|NCT02313909|181659095|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.51884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.33|||Log Rank|||Statistical analysis: Stroke + Systemic embolism: Risk reduction was estimated with the stratified Cox proportional hazards model. Hazard ratios (95% confidence interval) as compared to acetylsalicylic acid arm were reported. Rivaroxaban treatment was compared with the Acetylsalicylic acid control group using a stratified log-rank test. P-values (two-sided) as compared to acetylsalicylic acid arm were based on the log-rank test.||1.33|0.87|0.51884
90896456|NCT02313909|181659096|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.72||||2e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.68|4.39|||Log Rank|||Statistical analysis: ISTH major bleeding events: Risk reduction was estimated with the stratified Cox proportional hazards model. Hazard ratios (95% confidence interval) as compared to acetylsalicylic acid arm were reported. Rivaroxaban treatment was compared with the Acetylsalicylic acid control group using a stratified log-rank test. P-values (two-sided) as compared to acetylsalicylic acid arm were based on the log-rank test.||4.39|1.68|0.00002
91027949|NCT02978326|181939755|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.2594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Suicide: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 21||0.1|-0.2|0.2594
90896457|NCT02313909|181659097|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.56922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.29|||Log Rank|||Statistical analysis: Risk reduction was estimated with the stratified Cox proportional hazards model. Hazard ratios (95% confidence interval) as compared to acetylsalicylic acid arm were reported. Confidence intervals were calculated, if at least 1 event in each treatment arm existed. Rivaroxaban treatment was compared with the Acetylsalicylic acid control group using a stratified log-rank test. P-values (two-sided) as compared to acetylsalicylic acid arm were based on the log-rank test.||1.29|0.87|0.56922
90896458|NCT02313909|181659098|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.26||||0.22078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.81|||Log Rank|||Risk reduction was estimated with the stratified Cox proportional hazards model. Hazard ratios (95% confidence interval) as compared to acetylsalicylic acid arm were reported. Confidence intervals were calculated, if at least 1 event in each treatment arm existed. Rivaroxaban treatment was compared with the Acetylsalicylic acid control group using a stratified log-rank test. P-values (two-sided) as compared to acetylsalicylic acid arm were based on the log-rank test.||1.81|0.87|0.22078
90896459|NCT02313909|181659099|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.4797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.34|||Log Rank|||Statistical analysis 1: Stroke: Risk reduction was estimated with the stratified Cox proportional hazards model. Hazard ratios (95% confidence interval) as compared to acetylsalicylic acid arm were reported. Rivaroxaban treatment was compared with the Acetylsalicylic acid control group using a stratified log-rank test. P-values (two-sided) as compared to acetylsalicylic acid arm were based on the log-rank test.||1.34|0.87|0.47970
90896460|NCT02313909|181659099|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.78738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.29|||Log Rank|||Statistical analysis 2: Ischemic stroke: Risk reduction was estimated with the stratified Cox proportional hazards model. Hazard ratios (95% confidence interval) as compared to acetylsalicylic acid arm were reported. Rivaroxaban treatment was compared with the Acetylsalicylic acid control group using a stratified log-rank test. P-values (two-sided) as compared to acetylsalicylic acid arm were based on the log-rank test.||1.29|0.83|0.78738
90896461|NCT02313909|181659099|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.42||||0.14822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.28|||Log Rank|||Statistical analysis 3: Disabling stroke: Risk reduction was estimated with the stratified Cox proportional hazards model. Hazard ratios (95% confidence interval) as compared to acetylsalicylic acid arm were reported. Rivaroxaban treatment was compared with the Acetylsalicylic acid control group using a stratified log-rank test. P-values (two-sided) as compared to acetylsalicylic acid arm were based on the log-rank test.||2.28|0.88|0.14822
90896462|NCT02313909|181659099|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.48||||0.14051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|2.52|||Log Rank|||Statistical analysis 4:CV death: Risk reduction was estimated with the stratified Cox proportional hazards model. Hazard ratios (95% confidence interval) as compared to acetylsalicylic acid arm were reported. Rivaroxaban treatment was compared with the Acetylsalicylic acid control group using a stratified log-rank test. P-values (two-sided) as compared to acetylsalicylic acid arm were based on the log-rank test.||2.52|0.87|0.14051
90896463|NCT02313909|181659099|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.34284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.38|||Log Rank|||Statistical analysis 5: Myocardial infarction: Risk reduction was estimated with the stratified Cox proportional hazards model. Hazard ratios (95% confidence interval) as compared to acetylsalicylic acid arm were reported. Rivaroxaban treatment was compared with the Acetylsalicylic acid control group using a stratified log-rank test. P-values (two-sided) as compared to acetylsalicylic acid arm were based on the log-rank test.||1.38|0.39|0.34284
91027950|NCT02978326|181939755|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.0086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.0||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Suicide: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 45||0.0|-0.3|0.0086
90838117|NCT02761330|181542859|OTHER|||||||0.039||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed-Ranked Test|||Comparison between the Ketamine + ECT and Ketamine Alone groups for the recovery rate of Abstract Matching task (AM) reaction time.||||0.039
90838118|NCT02761330|181542860|OTHER|||||||0.016||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed-Ranked Test|||Comparison between the Etomidate + ECT and Ketamine + ECT groups for the initial decrement of Psychomotor Vigilance Task (PVT) reaction time.||||0.016
90838119|NCT02761330|181542860|OTHER|||||||0.039||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed-Ranked Test|||Comparison between the Ketamine + ECT and Ketamine Alone groups for the recovery rate of Psychomotor Vigilance Task (PVT) reaction time.||||0.039
90838120|NCT02761330|181542860|OTHER|||||||0.031||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed-Ranked Test|||Comparison between the Etomidate + ECT and Ketamine + ECT groups for the initial decrement of Digital Symbol Substitution Task (DSST) reaction time.||||0.031
90838121|NCT02761330|181542860|OTHER|||||||1||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed-Ranked Test|||Comparison between the Ketamine + ECT and Ketamine Alone groups for the initial decrement of Digital Symbol Substitution Task (DSST) reaction time.||||1.0
90838122|NCT02761330|181542860|OTHER|||||||0.195||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed-Ranked Test|||Comparison between the Etomidate + ECT and Ketamine + ECT groups for the initial decrement of Motor Praxis task (MP) reaction time.||||0.195
90838123|NCT02761330|181542860|OTHER|||||||0.57||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed-Ranked Test|||Comparison between the Ketamine + ECT and Ketamine Alone groups for the initial decrement of Motor Praxis task (MP) reaction time.||||0.570
90838124|NCT02761330|181542860|OTHER|||||||0.031||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed-Ranked Test|||Comparison between the Etomidate + ECT and Ketamine + ECT groups for the initial decrement of Visual Object Learning Task (VOLT) reaction time.||||0.031
90838125|NCT02761330|181542860|OTHER|||||||0.016||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed-Ranked Test|||Comparison between the Ketamine + ECT and Ketamine Alone groups for the initial decrement of Visual Object Learning Task (VOLT) reaction time.||||0.016
90838126|NCT02761330|181542860|OTHER|||||||1||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed-Ranked Test|||Comparison between the Etomidate + ECT and Ketamine + ECT groups for the initial decrement of Abstract Matching (AM) task reaction time.||||1.00
90838127|NCT02761330|181542860|OTHER|||||||0.109||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed-Ranked Test|||Comparison between the Ketamine + ECT and Ketamine Alone groups for the initial decrement of Abstract Matching (AM) task reaction time.||||0.109
90838128|NCT02761330|181542868|OTHER|||||||0.301|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank paired test|||Comparison of relative power in the delta band at baseline compared to T0 following return of responsiveness.||||0.301
90838129|NCT02761330|181542868|OTHER|||||||0.301|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank paired test|||Comparison of relative power in the delta band at baseline compared to T0 following return of responsiveness.||||0.301
90838130|NCT02761330|181542868|OTHER|||||||0.557|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank paired test|||Comparison of relative power in the delta band at baseline compared to T0 following return of responsiveness.||||0.557
91027951|NCT02978326|181939755|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.0||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Insomnia Early - Early Night: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 3||0.0|-0.6|0.0424
90838131|NCT02761330|181542869|OTHER|||||||0.91|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank paired test|||Comparison of relative power in the theta band at baseline compared to T0 following return of responsiveness.||||0.910
90838132|NCT02761330|181542869|OTHER|||||||0.734|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank paired test|||Comparison of relative power in the theta band at baseline compared to T0 following return of responsiveness.||||0.734
91027952|NCT02978326|181939755|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.0||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Insomnia Early - Early Night: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 8||0.0|-0.6|0.0207
91027953|NCT02978326|181939755|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.2||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Insomnia Early - Early Night: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 15||-0.2|-0.7|0.0010
90838133|NCT02761330|181542869|OTHER|||||||0.322|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank paired test|||Comparison of relative power in the theta band at baseline compared to T0 following return of responsiveness.||||0.322
90838134|NCT02761330|181542870|OTHER|||||||0.164|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank paired test|||Comparison of relative power in the alpha band at baseline compared to T0 following return of responsiveness.||||0.164
90838135|NCT02761330|181542870|OTHER|||||||0.039|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank paired test|||Comparison of relative power in the alpha band at baseline compared to T0 following return of responsiveness.||||0.039
90838136|NCT02761330|181542870|OTHER|||||||0.375|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank paired test|||Comparison of relative power in the alpha band at baseline compared to T0 following return of responsiveness.||||0.375
90838137|NCT02761330|181542871|OTHER|||||||0.91|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank paired test|||Comparison of relative power in the beta band at baseline compared to T0 following return of responsiveness.||||0.910
90838138|NCT02761330|181542871|OTHER|||||||0.91|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank paired test|||Comparison of relative power in the beta band at baseline compared to T0 following return of responsiveness.||||0.910
90838139|NCT02761330|181542871|OTHER|||||||0.625|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank paired test|||Comparison of relative power in the beta band at baseline compared to T0 following return of responsiveness.||||0.625
90838140|NCT02761330|181542872|OTHER|||||||0.129|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank paired test|||Comparison of anterior-posterior functional connectivity (coherence) at baseline compared to T0 following return of responsiveness.||||0.129
90838141|NCT02761330|181542872|OTHER|||||||0.91|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank paired test|||Comparison of anterior-posterior functional connectivity (coherence) at baseline compared to T0 following return of responsiveness.||||0.910
90896464|NCT02313909|181659100|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.34||||0.00443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|4.29|||Log Rank|||Statistical analysis: Risk reduction was estimated with the stratified Cox proportional hazards model. Hazard ratios (95% confidence interval) as compared to acetylsalicylic acid arm were reported. Rivaroxaban treatment was compared with the Acetylsalicylic acid control group using a stratified log-rank test. P-values (two-sided) as compared to acetylsalicylic acid arm were based on the log-rank test.||4.29|1.28|0.00443
90896465|NCT02313909|181659101|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.51||||0.00451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|2.0|||Log Rank|||Statistical analysis: Risk reduction was estimated with the stratified Cox proportional hazards model. Hazard ratios (95% confidence interval) as compared to acetylsalicylic acid arm were reported. Rivaroxaban treatment was compared with the Acetylsalicylic acid control group using a stratified log-rank test. P-values (two-sided) as compared to acetylsalicylic acid arm were based on the log-rank test.||2.00|1.13|0.00451
90896466|NCT02313909|181659102|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.01||||0.04409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|4.02|||Log Rank|||Statistical analysis 1: Risk reduction was estimated with the stratified Cox proportional hazards model. Hazard ratios (95% confidence interval) as compared to acetylsalicylic acid arm were reported. Rivaroxaban treatment was compared with the Acetylsalicylic acid control group using a stratified log-rank test. P-values (two-sided) as compared to acetylsalicylic acid arm were based on the log-rank test.||4.02|1.00|0.04409
90896467|NCT02798211|181659109|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.51||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|7.45|||Regression, Logistic|Statistical analysis (logistic regression) of ACR20 response in treatment period 1 (non-responder imputation)||secukinumab 300mg s.c. injection, 16 weeks||7.45|1.65|0.0011
90896468|NCT02798211|181659109|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.92||||0.0961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|4.15|||Regression, Logistic|Statistical analysis (logistic regression) of ACR20 response in treatment period 1 (non-responder imputation)||secukinumab 150 mg s.c. injection, 16 weeks||4.15|0.89|0.0961
90896469|NCT02798211|181659110|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.68|||Regression, Logistic|Statistical analysis (logistic regression) of presence of dactylitis by visit in treatment period 1 (non-responder imputation)||secukinumab 300 mg s.c. injection, 16 weeks||1.68|0.22|0.3330
91091186|NCT03669588|182066185|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.699|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.854|7.578|||Regression, Logistic|||"Analysis with a 2-sided exact test (using logistic regression) at the 2-sided 5% significance level in the overall population, stratified by AChR-Ab status (seropositive vs seronegative), Japanese vs non-Japanese and NSID vs no NSID as concomitant gMG treatment, with cycle baseline MG-ADL total score as covariate.~The treatment effect was presented as the odds ratio. An odds ratio of more than 1 represents a higher response rate for ARGX-113 compared to placebo."||7.578|1.854|<0.0001
91091187|NCT03669588|182066186|SUPERIORITY||Least square means difference|22.065|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.616||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.949|33.181|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) in the AChR-Ab seropositive population with treatment, baseline MG-ADL total score, Japanese vs non-Japanese, and NSID vs no NSID as concomitant gMG treatment as the covariates.||33.181|10.949|0.0001
90838142|NCT02761330|181542872|OTHER|||||||0.625|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank paired test|||Comparison of anterior-posterior functional connectivity (coherence) at baseline compared to T0 following return of responsiveness.||||0.625
90838143|NCT02761330|181542873|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank paired test|||Comparison of anterior-posterior phase-lag (PLI) at baseline compared to T0 following return of responsiveness.||||1.000
90838144|NCT02761330|181542873|OTHER|||||||0.496|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank paired test|||Comparison of anterior-posterior phase-lag (PLI) at baseline compared to T0 following return of responsiveness.||||0.496
90838145|NCT02761330|181542873|OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank paired test|||Comparison of anterior-posterior phase-lag (PLI) at baseline compared to T0 following return of responsiveness.||||0.160
90896470|NCT02798211|181659110|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4||||0.0841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|1.13|||Regression, Logistic|Statistical analysis (logistic regression) of presence of dactylitis in treatment period 1 (non-responder imputation)||secukinumab 150 mg s.c. injection, 16 weeks||1.13|0.14|0.0841
90896471|NCT02798211|181659111|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.52||||0.1618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.3|||Regression, Logistic|Statistical analysis (logistic regression) of presence of enthesitis (SPARCC) in treatment period 1 (non-responder imputation)||secukinumab 300mg s.c. injection, 16 weeks||1.30|0.21|0.1618
90896472|NCT02798211|181659111|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.46||||0.0898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.13|||Regression, Logistic|Statistical analysis (logistic regression) of presence of enthesitis (SPARCC) in treatment period 1 (non-responder imputation)||secukinumab 150mg s.c. injection, 16 weeks||1.13|0.19|0.0898
90896473|NCT02798211|181659112|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.27||||0.0125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.75|||Regression, Logistic|Statistical analysis (logistic regression) of presence of enthesitis (LEI) in treatment period 1 (non-responder imputation)||secukinumab 300mg s.c. injection, 16 weeks||0.75|0.09|0.0125
90896474|NCT02798211|181659112|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.25||||0.0086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.7|||Regression, Logistic|Statistical analysis (logistic regression) of presence of enthesitis (SPARCC) in treatment period 1 (non-responder imputation)||secukinumab 150mg s.c. injection, 16 weeks||0.70|0.09|0.0086
90896475|NCT02798211|181659113|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.35||||0.0338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.92|||Regression, Logistic|Statistical analysis (logistic regression) of presence of enthesitis (SPARCC and LEI) in treatment period 1 (non-responder imputation)||secukinumab 300mg s.c. injection, 16 weeks||0.92|0.13|0.0338
90896476|NCT02798211|181659113|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.36||||0.0359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.93|||Regression, Logistic|Statistical analysis (logistic regression) of presence of enthesitis (SPARCC and LEI) in treatment period 1 (non-responder imputation)||secukinumab 150mg s.c. injection, 16 weeks||0.93|0.14|0.0359
90838146|NCT02761330|181542874|OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Ranked Test|||Comparison of EEG Entropy using Permutation Entropy (PE) measures at baseline compared to T0 following return of responsiveness.||||0.008
90896477|NCT02798211|181659114|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|6.3||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.81|21.88|||Regression, Logistic|Statistical analysis (logistic regression) of ACR50 response in treatment period 1 (non-responder imputation)||secukinumab 300mg s.c. injection, week 16||21.88|1.81|0.0038
90896478|NCT02798211|181659114|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.77||||0.0149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|16.77|||Regression, Logistic|Statistical analysis (logistic regression) of ACR50 response by visit in treatment period 1 (non-responder imputation)||secukinumab 150 mg s.c. injection, week 16||16.77|1.36|0.0149
90838147|NCT02761330|181542874|OTHER|||||||0.359|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Ranked Test|||Comparison of EEG Entropy using Permutation Entropy (PE) measures at baseline compared to T0 following return of responsiveness.||||0.359
90838148|NCT02761330|181542874|OTHER|||||||0.375|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Ranked Test|||Comparison of EEG Entropy using Permutation Entropy (PE) measures at baseline compared to T0 following return of responsiveness.||||0.375
90838149|NCT05712460|181543060|OTHER||Ratio|126.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|106.87|150.1|||||Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with sequence, and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.|||150.10|106.87|
90838150|NCT05712460|181543061|OTHER||Ratio|142.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|117.2|174.32|||||Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with sequence, and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.|||174.32|117.20|
90838151|NCT05560425|181543075|EQUIVALENCE|"The equivalence margin is a range of the compliance score for which the independent training of skills in each group is close enough to be considered equivalent."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.45|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.22|8.79|||t-test, 1 sided|degrees of freedom = 12||Null hypothesis: Compliance with independent training of skills is not equivalent between groups.||8.79|-6.22|<0.05
90838152|NCT03341299|181543117|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric least square means|0.991||||0.7734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.932|1.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.05|0.932|0.7734
90838153|NCT03341299|181543118|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|-14.5||||0.719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-94.38|65.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||65.38|-94.38|0.7190
90896479|NCT02798211|181659115|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|10.5||||0.0243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|81.3|||Regression, Logistic|Statistical analysis (logistic regression) of ACR70 response in treatment period 1 (non-responder imputation)||secukinumab 300mg s.c. injection, week 16||81.30|1.36|0.0243
90896480|NCT02798211|181659115|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.42||||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|43.64|||Regression, Logistic|Statistical analysis (logistic regression) of ACR70 response by visit in treatment period 1 (non-responder imputation)||secukinumab 150 mg s.c. injection, week 16||43.64|0.67|0.1120
90896481|NCT02798211|181659116|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|9.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.73|24.16|||Regression, Logistic|Statistical analysis (logistic regression) of PASI75 response by visit in treatment period 1 (non-responder imputation)||secukinumab 300 mg s.c. injection, week 16||24.16|3.73|<0.0001
90896482|NCT02798211|181659116|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.38||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.51|16.24|||Regression, Logistic|Statistical analysis (logistic regression) of PASI75 response by visit - in treatment period 1 (non-responder imputation)||secukinumab 150 mg s.c. injection, week 16||16.24|2.51|0.0001
90896483|NCT02798211|181659117|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|9.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.19|30.45|||Regression, Logistic|Statistical analysis (logistic regression) of PASI90 response in treatment period 1 (non-responder imputation)||secukinumab 300 mg s.c. injection, week 16||30.45|3.19|<.0001
90838154|NCT05737069|181543180|EQUIVALENCE|The two products were considered to be bioequivalent if 90 percent (%) confidence intervals (CIs) for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) (Test/Reference) for AUC(0-t) were contained within the acceptance interval of 0.8 to 1.25.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.0008|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9698|1.0327||||||||1.0327|0.9698|
90838155|NCT05737069|181543181|EQUIVALENCE|The two products were considered to be bioequivalent if 90% CIs for the GMR (Test/Reference) for AUC (0-inf) were contained within the acceptance interval of 0.8 to 1.25.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.0023|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.971|1.0346||||||||1.0346|0.9710|
90838156|NCT05737069|181543182|EQUIVALENCE|The two products were considered to be bioequivalent if 90% CIs for the GMR (Test/Reference) for Cmax were contained within the acceptance interval of 0.8 to 1.25.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.9825|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9383|1.0288||||||||1.0288|0.9383|
90838157|NCT05737069|181543183|EQUIVALENCE|The two products were considered to be bioequivalent if 90% CIs for the GMR (Test/Reference) for AUC(0-t) were contained within the acceptance interval of 0.8 to 1.25.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.9916|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9755|1.0081||||||||1.0081|0.9755|
90896484|NCT02798211|181659117|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.21||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.68|16.21|||Regression, Logistic|Statistical analysis (logistic regression) of PASI90 response in treatment period 1 (non-responder imputation)||secukinumab 150 mg s.c. injection, week 16||16.21|1.68|0.0043
90896485|NCT02798211|181659118|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|14.38||||0.0107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.86|111.53|||Regression, Logistic|Statistical analysis (logistic regression) of PASI100 response by visit in treatment period 1 (non-responder imputation)||secukinumab 300 mg s.c. injection, week 16||111.53|1.86|0.0107
90896486|NCT02798211|181659118|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.82||||0.0307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|77.9|||Regression, Logistic|Statistical analysis (logistic regression) of PAS100 response by in treatment period 1 (non-responder imputation)||secukinumab 150 mg s.c. injection, week 16||77.90|1.24|0.0307
90896487|NCT02798211|181659119|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Treatment Difference|-1.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|-0.65|||ANCOVA|Statistical analysis (ANCOVA) of change from baseline in DAS28-CRP score in treatment period 1 (LOCF)||secukinumab 300mg s.c. injection, 16 weeks|"Standard Error of Treatment Difference~0.203"|-0.65|-1.45|<.0001
90838158|NCT05737069|181543184|EQUIVALENCE|The two products were considered to be bioequivalent if 90% CIs for the GMR (Test/Reference) for AUC (0-inf) were contained within the acceptance interval of 0.8 to 1.25.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.9776|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9432|1.0133||||||||1.0133|0.9432|
90838159|NCT05737069|181543185|EQUIVALENCE|The two products were considered to be bioequivalent if 90% CIs for the GMR (Test/Reference) for Cmax were contained within the interval of 0.8 to 1.25.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.9982|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9431|1.0567||||||||1.0567|0.9431|
90838160|NCT02392806|181543204|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
90896488|NCT02798211|181659119|SUPERIORITY||LS Means of Treatment Difference|-0.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|-0.43|||ANCOVA|Statistical analysis (ANCOVA) of change from baseline in DAS28-CRP score in treatment period 1 (LOCF)||secukinumab 150 mg s.c. injection|"LS Mean of Treatment Difference~0.207"|-0.43|-1.24|<.0001
90896489|NCT02798211|181659120|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Treatment Difference|-0.21||||0.0107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.05|||ANCOVA|Statistical analysis (ANCOVA) of change from baseline in HAQ-DI score by in treatment period 1 (LOCF)||secukinumab 300mg s.c. injection|"Standard Error of Treatment Difference~0.081"|-0.05|-0.37|0.0107
91027954|NCT02978326|181939755|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.0||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Insomnia Early - Early Night: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 21||0.0|-0.5|0.0871
90896490|NCT02798211|181659120|SUPERIORITY|secukinumab 150 mg s.c. injection|LS Mean Treatment Difference|-0.13||||0.1109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.03|||ANCOVA|Statistical analysis (ANCOVA) of change from baseline in HAQ-DI score by visit - in treatment period 1 (LOCF)|||"Standard Error of Treatment Difference~-0.083"|0.03|-0.30|0.1109
91091188|NCT03669588|182066187|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2604|||||||Log Rank|||Analysis was performed in the AChR-Ab seropositive population and the p-value was calculated using the log-rank test, stratified by Japanese vs non-Japanese and NSID vs no NSID as concomitant gMG treatment.||||0.2604
90838161|NCT03518086|181543206|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.1||||6e-05|TWO_SIDED|99.875|3.2|19.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||19.1|3.2|0.00006
90896491|NCT01287611|181659138|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Group sample sizes of 51 in study group and 65 in control group achieve 98% power to detect a difference between the group proportions of -0.3300. The proportion in study group is assumed to be 0.4800 under the null hypothesis and 0.1500 under the alternative hypothesis. The proportion in control group is 0.4800. The test statistic used is the two-sided Z test with pooled variance. The significance level of the test was targeted at 0.0500.||||||0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0001
90896492|NCT01287611|181659139|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Group sample sizes of 51 in study group and 65 in control group achieve 98% power to detect a difference between the group proportions of -0.3300. The proportion in study group is assumed to be 0.4800 under the null hypothesis and 0.1500 under the alternative hypothesis. The proportion in control group is 0.4800. The test statistic used is the two-sided Z test with pooled variance. The significance level of the test was targeted at 0.0500.||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
90896493|NCT01856712|181659143|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|9.98||||||||9.98|0.35|
91032659|NCT02549092|181950235|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|1.42||The repeated measures model: change = treatment, country, visit, baseline, treatment \* visit, baseline \* visit. The unstructured variance-covariance structure is used.|repeated measures model||Difference of LCIG - OMT|Chronic pain score||1.42|-1.28|0.919
90838162|NCT03518086|181543207|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.4|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|99.875|10.8|32.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||32.0|10.8|<0.00001
90838163|NCT03518086|181543208|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.4|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|99.875|6.3|24.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||24.5|6.3|<0.00001
90838164|NCT03518086|181543209|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|99.875|11.4|23.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||23.6|11.4|<0.001
90838165|NCT03518086|181543210|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.8|26.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||26.6|13.8|<0.001
90838166|NCT03518086|181543211|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.6|18.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||18.7|8.6|<0.001
90838167|NCT03518086|181543212|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|19.5|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.2|25.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||25.8|13.2|<0.00001
90896494|NCT04074590|181659156|OTHER|A Bayesian analysis of clinical remission rate (based on total Mayo score) with binomial distribution, was modelled with baseline total Mayo score and treatment group as explanatory variables, to compare the remission rates between LYS006 and placebo groups.|Posterior estimate treatment difference|-3.29||||0.314|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.02|13.23||Posterior probability that clinical remission rate is better than placebo: Prob (diff\>0)|Bayesian analysis||90% credible intervals are reported on the treatment difference|||13.23|-18.02|0.314
90896495|NCT04074590|181659156|OTHER|A Bayesian analysis of clinical remission rate (based on total Mayo score) with binomial distribution, was modelled with baseline total Mayo score and treatment group as explanatory variables, to compare the remission rates between LYS006 and placebo groups.|Posterior estimate treatment difference|-3.29||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.02|13.23||Posterior probability that clinical remission rate \>15% over placebo: Prob (diff\>0.15)|Bayesian analysis||90% credible intervals are reported on the treatment difference|||13.23|-18.02|0.037
90896496|NCT00509236|181659158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Model terms: treatment, prior diabetes pharmacotherapy (not on oral antihyperglycemic agent, or on oral antihyperglycemic agent), and a covariate for baseline A1c.||||<0.001
90896497|NCT00509236|181659159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in % Affected|-4.8||||0.336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.7|5.6||Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by prior diabetes pharmacotherapy (not on oral antihyperglycemic agent, or on oral antihyperglycemic agent).|Miettinen & Nurminen|||||5.6|-15.7|0.336
90838168|NCT03518086|181543213|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.159|<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|99.875|-1.47|-0.44|||Mixed Models Analysis||The confidence interval of 99.875 % was chosen to match the significance level.|||-0.44|-1.47|<0.00001
90838169|NCT03518086|181543214|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|13.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.005|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.28|17.15|||ANCOVA|||||17.15|9.28|<0.001
90838170|NCT03518086|181543215|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-935.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|218.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1363.64|-507.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-507.55|-1363.64|<0.001
90838171|NCT05565742|181543242|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-40.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.82|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.8|-20.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-20.6|-55.8|<0.001
90838172|NCT05565742|181543242|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-75.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.01|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.4|-68.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-68.5|-80.4|<0.001
90896498|NCT00509236|181659160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in % Affected|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|16.5||||||||16.5|-10.9|
91032660|NCT02549092|181950235|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.53||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.42|3.68||The repeated measures model: change = treatment, country, visit, baseline, treatment \* visit, baseline \* visit. The unstructured variance-covariance structure is used.|repeated measures model||Difference of LCIG - OMT|Fluctuation related pain score||3.68|-2.42|0.680
91091189|NCT01721447|182066202|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
91091190|NCT01721447|182066203|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
91091191|NCT00369343|182066204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.32|||<|0.001||95.0|2.53|6.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Models Repeated Measures (MMRM) used baseline as a covariate and factors for center, week and treatment.|DVS SR adjusted mean change minus placebo adjusted mean change.|||6.11|2.53|<0.001
91091192|NCT00369343|182066205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||DVS SR compared to Placebo for CGI-I scores of either 1 (very much improved) or 2 (much improved).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90838173|NCT05565742|181543242|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-93.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-95.1|-92.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-92.5|-95.1|<0.001
90838174|NCT05565742|181543243|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-38.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.43||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.9|-17.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-17.2|-54.9|0.002
90838175|NCT05565742|181543243|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-77.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.83|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-82.4|-71.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-71.1|-82.4|<0.001
90838176|NCT05565742|181543243|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-95.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-96.1|-93.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-93.6|-96.1|<0.001
90838177|NCT05565742|181543243|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-76.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.94|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-81.9|-70.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-70.2|-81.9|<0.001
91027955|NCT02978326|181939755|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Insomnia Early - Early Night: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 45||0.2|-0.4|0.5680
91027956|NCT02978326|181939755|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Insomnia Middle - Middle Night: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 3||-0.1|-0.6|0.0143
91027957|NCT02978326|181939755|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Insomnia Middle - Middle Night: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 8||-0.1|-0.6|0.0063
91027958|NCT02978326|181939755|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Insomnia Middle - Middle Night: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 15||-0.1|-0.6|0.0042
91027959|NCT02978326|181939755|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Insomnia Middle - Middle Night: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 21||-0.1|-0.6|0.0137
91027960|NCT02978326|181939755|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Insomnia Middle - Middle Night: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 45||-0.1|-0.6|0.0099
91027961|NCT02978326|181939755|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.0||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Insomnia Early Hours - Morning: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 3||0.0|-0.5|0.0507
91027962|NCT02978326|181939755|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.0||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Insomnia Early Hours - Morning: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 8||0.0|-0.5|0.0205
91027963|NCT02978326|181939755|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.1409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Insomnia Early Hours - Morning: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 15||0.1|-0.5|0.1409
91027964|NCT02978326|181939755|SUPERIORITY|MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.2021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Insomnia Early Hours - Morning: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 21||0.1|-0.5|0.2021
91027965|NCT02978326|181939755|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Insomnia Early Hours - Morning: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 45||-0.1|-0.6|0.0117
91027966|NCT02978326|181939755|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.5511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Work and Activities: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 3||0.2|-0.4|0.5511
91027967|NCT02978326|181939755|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.4949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.2||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Work and Activities: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 8||0.2|-0.5|0.4949
91027968|NCT02978326|181939755|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Work and Activities: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 15||-0.1|-0.7|0.0203
90838178|NCT05565742|181543244|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|112.03||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.35|1975.13|||Regression, Logistic|||Lp(a) \<125 nmol/L: Day 60||1975.13|6.35|0.001
90838179|NCT05565742|181543244|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2762.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|142.74|53463.34|||Regression, Logistic|||Lp(a) \<125 nmol/L: Day 60||53463.34|142.74|<0.001
90838180|NCT05565742|181543244|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|50904.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1700.95|1523398.1|||Regression, Logistic|||Lp(a) \<125 nmol/L: Day 60||1523398.10|1700.95|<0.001
90838181|NCT05565742|181543244|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|27.94||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|527.74|||Regression, Logistic|||Lp(a) \<125 nmol/L: Day 180||527.74|1.48|0.026
90838182|NCT05565742|181543244|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|309.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.99|5320.81|||Regression, Logistic|||Lp(a) \<125 nmol/L: Day 180||5320.81|17.99|<0.001
90838183|NCT05565742|181543244|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3060.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|166.84|56127.55|||Regression, Logistic|||Lp(a) \<125 nmol/L: Day 180||56127.55|166.84|<0.001
90838184|NCT05565742|181543244|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|32.91||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|635.94|||Regression, Logistic|||Lp(a) \<75 nmol/L: Day 60||635.94|1.70|0.021
90838185|NCT05565742|181543244|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|579.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.48|10673.41|||Regression, Logistic|||Lp(a) \<75 nmol/L: Day 60||10673.41|31.48|<0.001
90838186|NCT05565742|181543244|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|14659.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|646.35|332498.98|||Regression, Logistic|||Lp(a) \<75 nmol/L: Day 60||332498.98|646.35|<0.001
90896499|NCT00509236|181659161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Change from Baseline in LS Mean|-26.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.0|-15.3|||ANCOVA|||Model terms: treatment, prior diabetes pharmacotherapy (not on oral antihyperglycemic agent, or on oral antihyperglycemic agent), and a covariate for baseline FPG.||-15.3|-38.0|<0.001
90838187|NCT05565742|181543244|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|15.94||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|321.21|||Regression, Logistic|||Lp(a) \<75 nmol/L: Day 180||321.21|0.79|0.071
90896500|NCT00509236|181659161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Change from Baseline in LS Mean|-31.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.6|-19.9|||ANCOVA|||Model terms: treatment, prior diabetes pharmacotherapy (not on oral antihyperglycemic agent, or on oral antihyperglycemic agent), and a covariate for baseline FPG.||-19.9|-42.6|<0.001
91091193|NCT00369343|182066206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.132||||0.008||95.0|1.22|3.74||DVS SR compared with Placebo.|Chi-squared|Logistic regression model with treatment and site as factors and baseline score as a covariate.|Adjusted odds ratio of DVS SR to Placebo. Odds ratio adjusted for baseline, treatment and site.|||3.74|1.22|0.008
90896501|NCT00509236|181659161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|20.7||||||Model terms: treatment, prior diabetes pharmacotherapy (not on oral antihyperglycemic agent, or on oral antihyperglycemic agent), and a covariate for baseline FPG.||20.7|-11.5|
90838188|NCT05565742|181543244|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|86.32||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.07|1468.36|||Regression, Logistic|||Lp(a) \<75 nmol/L: Day 180||1468.36|5.07|0.002
90896502|NCT00509236|181659162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.49|||ANCOVA|||Model terms: treatment, prior diabetes pharmacotherapy (not on oral antihyperglycemic agent, or on oral antihyperglycemic agent), and a covariate for baseline A1c.||0.49|-0.18|
90958935|NCT00701220|181797864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||The data were analyzed using analysis of variance for repeated measures with two groups. The repeated measure was the proportion of circulating blood cells that were positive for aldehyde dehydrogenase using the commercially available Aldofluor assay. The two groups were those with ischemic and non-ischemic cardiomyopathy. This analysis permitted both intergroup and intragroup analysis of the change in aldehyde dehydrogenase positive cells.||||<0.05
90838189|NCT05565742|181543244|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|956.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.75|16422.76|||Regression, Logistic|||Lp(a) \<75 nmol/L: Day 180||16422.76|55.75|<0.001
90838190|NCT05565742|181543245|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|32.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.36|191.58|||Regression, Logistic|||Lp(a) \<125 nmol/L: Day 240||191.58|5.36|<0.001
90838191|NCT05565742|181543245|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|602.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|95.36|3805.22|||Regression, Logistic|||Lp(a) \<125 nmol/L: Day 240||3805.22|95.36|<0.001
90838192|NCT05565742|181543245|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6953.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|527.56|91646.24|||Regression, Logistic|||Lp(a) \<125 nmol/L: Day 240||91646.24|527.56|<0.001
90838193|NCT05565742|181543245|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|347.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.46|2104.62|||Regression, Logistic|||Lp(a) \<125 nmol/L: Day 240||2104.62|57.46|<0.001
90838194|NCT05565742|181543245|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|54.99||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.98|1015.84|||Regression, Logistic|||Lp(a) \<125 nmol/L: Day 360||1015.84|2.98|0.007
90838195|NCT05565742|181543245|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|363.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.83|6332.68|||Regression, Logistic|||Lp(a) \<125 nmol/L: Day 360||6332.68|20.83|<0.001
90838196|NCT05565742|181543245|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2953.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|150.95|57790.71|||Regression, Logistic|||Lp(a) \<125 nmol/L: Day 360||57790.71|150.95|<0.001
90838197|NCT05565742|181543245|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|375.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.46|6571.66|||Regression, Logistic|||Lp(a) \<125 nmol/L: Day 360||6571.66|21.46|<0.001
90838198|NCT05565742|181543245|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.43||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|331.69|||Regression, Logistic|||Lp(a) \<125 nmol/L: Day 540||331.69|0.81|0.068
90838199|NCT05565742|181543245|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|84.97||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.99|1447.48|||Regression, Logistic|||Lp(a) \<125 nmol/L: Day 540||1447.48|4.99|0.002
90838200|NCT05565742|181543245|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|594.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.99|10405.09|||Regression, Logistic|||Lp(a) \<125 nmol/L: Day 540||10405.09|33.99|<0.001
90838201|NCT05565742|181543245|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|110.17||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.47|1875.77|||Regression, Logistic|||Lp(a) \<125 nmol/L: Day 540||1875.77|6.47|0.001
90838202|NCT05565742|181543245|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.61||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.81|74.29|||Regression, Logistic|||Lp(a) \<75 nmol/L: Day 240||74.29|1.81|0.010
90896503|NCT01355458|181659163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||GEE: Logit link function|Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) methods with Logit link function and marginal expectation model.||||||<0.001
91091194|NCT00369343|182066207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.125|||<|0.001||95.0|1.85|5.27||DVS SR compared with Placebo.|Chi-squared|Logistic regression model with treatment and site as factors and baseline score as a covariate.|Adjusted odds ratio of DVS SR to Placebo. Odd ratio adjusted for baseline, treatment and site.|||5.27|1.85|<0.001
91091195|NCT00369343|182066208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.74|||<|0.001||95.0|1.24|4.23||Mixed model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis adjusted mean score for baseline score, time and center.|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted mean difference = Placebo adjusted mean score minus DVS SR adjusted mean score.|||4.23|1.24|<0.001
91091196|NCT00369343|182066209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.18|-0.06||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with treatment and site as factors and baseline as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted mean difference = Placebo adjusted mean score minus DVS SR adjusted mean score.|||-0.06|-0.18|<0.001
91091197|NCT00369343|182066216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.553||||||t-test adjusted by multiple comparison|t-test, 2 sided|||100mg vs. Placebo (0mg) post taper||||0.553
91091198|NCT00369343|182066216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034||||||t-test adjusted by multiple comparison|t-test, 2 sided|||200mg vs. Placebo (0mg) post taper||||0.034
90838203|NCT05565742|181543245|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|233.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.92|1362.79|||Regression, Logistic|||Lp(a) \<75 nmol/L: Day 240||1362.79|39.92|<0.001
90896504|NCT02709005|181659169|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.08||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.08||The test was conducted using a Fisher's exact test at the 5% two-sided level of significance level without adjustment for multiplicity.|Fisher Exact||Difference in Proportion of Participants with Clinical Cure between 5% Monolaurin Vaginal Gel and Placebo Gel|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in participants with clinical cure between study arms, with a two-sided alternative considering the possibility of a difference in either direction. The statistical informational goal for the study of 90 participants eligible in the modified Intent-to-Treat (mITT) efficacy population was an ad-hoc sample size determined by logistical considerations, as there was insufficient pilot data upon which to base more formal sample size calculations.||0.08|-0.26|0.420
90838204|NCT05565742|181543245|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3087.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|331.26|28778.1|||Regression, Logistic|||Lp(a) \<75 nmol/L: Day 240||28778.10|331.26|<0.001
90838205|NCT05565742|181543245|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|144.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.2|829.42|||Regression, Logistic|||Lp(a) \<75 nmol/L: Day 240||829.42|25.20|<0.001
90838206|NCT05565742|181543245|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.16||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|243.85|||Regression, Logistic|||Lp(a) \<75 nmol/L: Day 360||243.85|0.51|0.125
90838207|NCT05565742|181543245|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|148.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.64|2546.89|||Regression, Logistic|||Lp(a) \<75 nmol/L: Day 360||2546.89|8.64|<0.001
90838208|NCT05565742|181543245|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1431.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|77.76|26349.86|||Regression, Logistic|||Lp(a) \<75 nmol/L: Day 360||26349.86|77.76|<0.001
90896505|NCT02709005|181659170|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.14||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.33||The test was conducted using a Fisher's exact test at the 5% two-sided level of significance level without adjustment for multiplicity.|Fisher Exact||Difference in Proportion of Participants Experiencing Solicited Events between 5% Monolaurin Vaginal Gel and Placebo Gel|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in participants with solicited urogenital AEs between study arms, with a two-sided alternative considering the possibility of a difference in either direction.||0.33|-0.06|0.200
90896506|NCT02709005|181659171|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||No SAEs were reported; therefore the Fisher's Exact Test was not performed.||||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in participants with related SAEs between study arms, with a two-sided alternative considering the possibility of a difference in either direction.||||
91091199|NCT01409239|182066221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum was used to determine differences between groups.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Since this was a pilot study no formal power analysis was possible. It was hypothesized that IV insulin would be associated with lower LF/HF HRV.||||0.05
90838209|NCT05565742|181543245|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|147.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.6|2538.95|||Regression, Logistic|||Lp(a) \<75 nmol/L: Day 360||2538.95|8.60|<0.001
90838210|NCT05565742|181543245|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.99||||0.733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|104.02|||Regression, Logistic|||Lp(a) \<75 nmol/L: Day 540||104.02|0.04|0.733
90838211|NCT05565742|181543245|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|34.28||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.98|594.46|||Regression, Logistic|||Lp(a) \<75 nmol/L: Day 540||594.46|1.98|0.015
90896507|NCT02709005|181659172|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.08||The test was conducted using a Fisher's exact test at the 5% two-sided level of significance level without adjustment for multiplicity.|Fisher Exact||Difference in Proportion of Participants with Therapeutic Cure between 5% Monolaurin Vaginal Gel and Placebo Gel|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in participants with therapeutic cure between study arms, with a two-sided alternative considering the possibility of a difference in either direction.||0.08|-0.13|>0.999
91091200|NCT00490919|182066242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.225||0.0104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects general linear model with repeated measures.|Double-blind analysis (comparison between BTDS and placebo TDS) at week 12 of the double-blind phase.|Missing average pain over the last 24 hours scores after treatment discontinuation were imputed using BOCF for adverse event-related withdrawals and LOCF for withdrawals due to other reasons.||-0.14|-1.02|.0104
91091201|NCT00490919|182066243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.124|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0874||0.1586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.296|0.048||To address the issue of multiplicity and control the family-wise error rate, a gate-keeping strategy and a stepwise approach (Holms methodology) were used to evaluate the statistical significance of the secondary efficacy analyses.|ANCOVA||Mean comparison from weeks 2-12 of the double-blind phase.|||0.048|-0.296|.1586
90838212|NCT05565742|181543245|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|159.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.4|2716.42|||Regression, Logistic|||Lp(a) \<75 nmol/L: Day 540||2716.42|9.40|<0.001
90838213|NCT05565742|181543245|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|37.98||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.19|659.75|||Regression, Logistic|||Lp(a) \<75 nmol/L: Day 540||659.75|2.19|0.013
91091202|NCT00490919|182066244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.605||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.55|-1.25||To address the issue of multiplicity and control the family-wise error rate, a gate-keeping strategy and a stepwise approach (Holms methodology) were used to evaluate the statistical significance of the secondary efficacy analyses.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects general linear model with repeated measures.|Treatment comparison over Weeks 4, 8, and 12.|The primary comparison between groups was based on estimates and contrasts for the weeks 4, 8, and 12 mean values.||-1.25|-7.55|.0062
90838214|NCT05565742|181543246|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-47.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.9|-30.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 60||-30.9|-59.9|<0.001
90838215|NCT05565742|181543246|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-80.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.16|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.7|-76.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 60||-76.1|-84.7|<0.001
90838216|NCT05565742|181543246|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-95.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-96.3|-94.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 60||-94.5|-96.3|<0.001
90838217|NCT05565742|181543246|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-95.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-96.3|-94.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 60||-94.5|-96.3|<0.001
90838218|NCT05565742|181543246|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-31.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.1||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.6|-6.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 180||-6.2|-50.6|0.019
90838219|NCT05565742|181543246|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-66.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.52|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.8|-55.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 180||-55.9|-73.8|<0.001
90838220|NCT05565742|181543246|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-90.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-92.6|-88.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 180||-88.3|-92.6|<0.001
90838221|NCT05565742|181543246|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-90.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-92.6|-88.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 180||-88.3|-92.6|<0.001
90896508|NCT02709005|181659173|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.09||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|-0.01||The test was conducted using a Fisher's exact test at the 5% two-sided level of significance level without adjustment for multiplicity.|Fisher Exact||Difference in Proportion of Participants with Therapeutic Cure between 5% Monolaurin Vaginal Gel and Placebo Gel|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in participants with therapeutic cure between study arms, with a two-sided alternative considering the possibility of a difference in either direction.||-0.01|-0.24|0.035
90896509|NCT02709005|181659178|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.14||The test was conducted using a Fisher's exact test at the 5% two-sided level of significance level without adjustment for multiplicity.|Fisher Exact||Difference in Proportion of Participants with Clinical Cure between 5% Monolaurin Vaginal Gel and Placebo Gel|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in participants with clinical cure between study arms, with a two-sided alternative considering the possibility of a difference in either direction.||0.14|-0.18|>0.999
91091203|NCT04350827|182066245|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.433|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.433
91091204|NCT00737178|182066249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<.01
91091205|NCT00737178|182066251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.24
90838222|NCT05565742|181543246|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-47.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.25|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.3|-28.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 240||-28.3|-61.3|<0.001
90838223|NCT05565742|181543246|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-84.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.95|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-88.1|-80.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 240||-80.3|-88.1|<0.001
90838224|NCT05565742|181543246|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-96.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-97.4|-95.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 240||-95.9|-97.4|<0.001
90838225|NCT05565742|181543246|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-84.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.78|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-87.9|-80.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 240||-80.8|-87.9|<0.001
90896510|NCT02634788|181659183|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|81.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.283|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.82|110.04|||ANCOVA|The analysis included treatment and site as main effects and Baseline pain intensity as the covariate.||||110.04|53.82|<0.0001
90896511|NCT02634788|181659183|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|36.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.099||0.0108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.43|63.93|||ANCOVA|The analysis included treatment and site as main effects and Baseline pain intensity as the covariate.||||63.93|8.43|0.0108
90838226|NCT05565742|181543246|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-30.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.45||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.4|-3.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 360||-3.6|-49.4|0.029
90838227|NCT05565742|181543246|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-67.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.35|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.9|-57.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 360||-57.6|-74.9|<0.001
90838228|NCT05565742|181543246|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-91.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-92.9|-88.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 360||-88.5|-92.9|<0.001
90838229|NCT05565742|181543246|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-67.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.96|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.8|-59.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 360||-59.0|-74.8|<0.001
90838230|NCT05565742|181543246|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-19.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.45||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.8|3.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 540||3.7|-37.8|0.093
90838231|NCT05565742|181543246|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-45.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.76|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.0|-33.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 540||-33.2|-56.0|<0.001
91091206|NCT02034006|182066252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|72.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.44|223.42|||Regression, Logistic|||Presence vs. absence of active leakage.||223.42|23.44|<0.0001
91091207|NCT02034006|182066258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.18|27.36|||Regression, Logistic|||Presence vs. absence of macular edema.||27.36|3.18|<0.0001
91091208|NCT02034006|182066259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.76|42.67|||Regression, Logistic|||Presence vs. absence of cysts.||42.67|3.76|<0.0001
91091209|NCT02034006|182066260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|49.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.62|213.5|||Regression, Logistic|||Presence vs. absence of intra-retinal fluid.||213.50|11.62|<0.0001
91091210|NCT02034006|182066261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.1514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.0|||Regression, Logistic|||Change in Central subfield thickness vs previous visit.||1.00|0.99|0.1514
91091211|NCT02034006|182066262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||0.1265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|5.63|||Regression, Logistic|||Change in Central subfield volume vs previous visit.||5.63|0.00|0.1265
90896512|NCT02634788|181659183|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|35.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.02||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.86|63.05|||ANCOVA|The analysis included treatment and site as main effects and Baseline pain intensity as the covariate.||||63.05|7.86|0.0120
90896513|NCT01591382|181659240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0241||||||A P-value of \<0.05 was indicative of statistical significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0241
90838232|NCT05565742|181543246|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-74.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.59|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.8|-68.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 540||-68.5|-78.8|<0.001
90838233|NCT05565742|181543246|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-53.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.67|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.7|-43.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 540||-43.3|-61.7|<0.001
90838234|NCT05565742|181543247|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-10.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.74||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|-2.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 60||-2.6|-17.5|0.010
90838235|NCT05565742|181543247|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-11.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.02|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|-5.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 60||-5.8|-17.7|<0.001
90838236|NCT05565742|181543247|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-14.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.59|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|-8.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 60||-8.8|-19.0|<0.001
90838237|NCT05565742|181543247|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-14.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.59|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|-8.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 60||-8.8|-19.0|<0.001
90838238|NCT05565742|181543247|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-8.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.27||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 180||0.6|-16.2|0.068
90838239|NCT05565742|181543247|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-10.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|-3.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 180||-3.8|-17.1|0.003
90838240|NCT05565742|181543247|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-13.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.89|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.3|-7.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 180||-7.9|-19.3|<0.001
90838241|NCT05565742|181543247|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-13.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.89|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.3|-7.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 180||-7.9|-19.3|<0.001
90838242|NCT05565742|181543247|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-9.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.93||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.7|-1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 240||-1.2|-16.7|0.026
90838243|NCT05565742|181543247|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-15.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.99|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.1|-9.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 240||-9.3|-21.1|<0.001
90838244|NCT05565742|181543247|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-15.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|-9.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 240||-9.6|-21.0|<0.001
90838245|NCT05565742|181543247|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-10.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.03|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|-4.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 240||-4.4|-16.3|<0.001
90838246|NCT05565742|181543247|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.21||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 360||1.7|-14.9|0.111
90838247|NCT05565742|181543247|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-12.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.25|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.1|-5.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 360||-5.3|-18.1|<0.001
90896514|NCT01591382|181659241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4102||||||A P-value of \<0.05 was indicative of statistical significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4102
90896515|NCT01591382|181659242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1085||||||A P-value of \<0.05 was indicative of statistical significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1085
91027969|NCT02978326|181939755|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.2076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Work and Activities: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 21||0.1|-0.6|0.2076
91032661|NCT02549092|181950235|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.24||0.767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.83|2.09||The repeated measures model: change = treatment, country, visit, baseline, treatment \* visit, baseline \* visit. The unstructured variance-covariance structure is used.|repeated measures model||Difference of LCIG - OMT|Nocturnal pain score||2.09|-2.83|0.767
91032662|NCT02549092|181950235|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|0.9||The repeated measures model: change = treatment, country, visit, baseline, treatment \* visit, baseline \* visit. The unstructured variance-covariance structure is used.|repeated measures model||Difference of LCIG - OMT|Orofacial pain score||0.90|-1.15|0.804
90838248|NCT05565742|181543247|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-14.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.11|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|-7.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 360||-7.8|-20.0|<0.001
90838249|NCT05565742|181543247|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-8.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|-1.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||400 mg LY3819469, Placebo||-1.9|-14.9|0.013
90838250|NCT05565742|181543247|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.2||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|5.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 540||5.8|-10.7|0.510
90896516|NCT01591382|181659243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.748|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7480
90896517|NCT01678131|181659327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Percentage Probability|100.0||||||||||||||The posterior percentage probability of the true success rate of the FNA procedure for the 3 combined treatment groups (n=29) was determined by a Bayesian calculation, using a Jeffrey's prior distribution (i.e. Beta \[0.5,0.5\]) on the true success rate. Neither P-values, nor confidence intervals are estimated in this analysis. The primary hypothesis was met if the posterior percentage probability was \> 80% that the true success rate is at least 60%.||||
90896518|NCT00558064|181659328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.98|6.23|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as telmisartan 40 mg plus amlodipine 5 mg fixed-dose combination minus amlodipine 5 mg monotherapy|||6.23|3.98|<0.0001
90838251|NCT05565742|181543247|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.35||0.173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|2.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 540||2.1|-11.1|0.173
90838252|NCT05565742|181543247|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-12.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.01|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.6|-6.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 540||-6.8|-18.6|<0.001
90838253|NCT05565742|181543247|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.27||0.139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 540||1.7|-11.2|0.139
90838254|NCT05565742|181543248|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-17.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.71||0.353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.3|23.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 60||23.3|-44.3|0.353
90838255|NCT05565742|181543248|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.84||0.902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.7|34.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 60||34.7|-28.7|0.902
90838256|NCT05565742|181543248|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.65||0.779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.4|27.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 60||27.1|-27.4|0.779
90838257|NCT05565742|181543248|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.65||0.779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.4|27.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 60||27.1|-27.4|0.779
90838258|NCT05565742|181543248|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.41||0.987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.8|49.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 180||49.7|-32.8|0.987
90838259|NCT05565742|181543248|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-15.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.96||0.316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.7|17.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 180||17.2|-38.7|0.316
90838260|NCT05565742|181543248|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|5.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.37||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.9|40.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 180||40.4|-20.9|0.720
90838261|NCT05565742|181543248|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|5.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.37||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.9|40.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 180||40.4|-20.9|0.720
90838262|NCT05565742|181543248|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-11.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.66||0.461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.1|22.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 240||22.6|-36.1|0.461
90838263|NCT05565742|181543248|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-16.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.29||0.194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.6|9.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 240||9.4|-35.6|0.194
90838264|NCT05565742|181543248|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.87||0.898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.0|27.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 240||27.2|-24.0|0.898
90838265|NCT05565742|181543248|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-9.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.81||0.448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.9|17.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 240||17.0|-29.9|0.448
90838266|NCT05565742|181543248|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|29.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|28.05||0.233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|98.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 360||98.4|-15.4|0.233
90838267|NCT05565742|181543248|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.04||0.891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.6|44.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 360||44.9|-27.6|0.891
90838268|NCT05565742|181543248|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.18||0.984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.0|39.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 360||39.9|-29.0|0.984
90838269|NCT05565742|181543248|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|19.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.52||0.302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|67.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 360||67.5|-14.8|0.302
90838270|NCT05565742|181543248|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-7.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.49||0.684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.9|36.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 540||36.8|-37.9|0.684
90838271|NCT05565742|181543248|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.19||0.933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.6|36.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 540||36.3|-28.6|0.933
90838272|NCT05565742|181543248|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.33||0.962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.7|38.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 540||38.6|-26.7|0.962
90838273|NCT05565742|181543248|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|13.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.52||0.422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.2|56.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 540||56.9|-17.2|0.422
90838274|NCT03563209|181543261|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was set to 0.05/3 (0.0167)|Friedman|||Null hypothesis: no difference between dynamic components of elbow flexor spasticity (spasticity angle) in three different forearm positions. (Comparison groups were Spasticity angle in pronation, Spasticity angle in neutral position and Spasticity angle in supination)||||<0.001
90838275|NCT00303069|181543278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|84.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.2|93.6||P-value \< 0.025 considered significant.|Chi-squared|Normal approximation for testing 2 independent binomial proportions, stratified by age group (\<40 yrs, ≥40 yrs)|Risk Difference is 90 μg minus Placebo and is expressed in percentage points, confidence intervals were computed using the stratified method given by Miettinen and Nurminen|Testing was performed in a sequential manner. First, the response rate of the 90-μg group was compared to placebo and assessed for significance (using a 1-tailed α=0.025). If significant, the response rate of the 30-μg group was compared to placebo and assessed for significance. The testing continued sequentially until a non-significant result was observed or until all V710 groups had been compared with placebo.||93.6|65.2|<0.001
90896519|NCT05361655|181659387|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.87|||Cox proportional hazard model|||||0.87|0.65|<0.0001
90896520|NCT05361655|181659388|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.76|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||0.76|0.62|<0.0001
90896521|NCT05361655|181659390|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||score test|||||||<0.0001
90896522|NCT05361655|181659393|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.72|||Cox proportional hazard model|||||0.72|0.60|<0.0001
90896523|NCT05361655|181659394|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.62|||Cox proportional hazard model|||||0.62|0.51|<0.0001
90896524|NCT05361655|181659395|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.86|||Cox proportional hazard model|||||0.86|0.69|<0.0001
90838276|NCT00303069|181543278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|81.6|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.6|92.0||P-value \< 0.025 considered significant.|Chi-squared|Normal approximation for testing 2 independent binomial proportions, stratified by age group (\<40 yrs, ≥40 yrs)|Risk Difference is 30 μg minus Placebo and is expressed in percentage points, confidence intervals were computed using the stratified method given by Miettinen and Nurminen|Testing was performed in a sequential manner. First, the response rate of the 90-μg group was compared to placebo and assessed for significance (using a 1-tailed α=0.025). If significant, the response rate of the 30-μg group was compared to placebo and assessed for significance. The testing continued sequentially until a non-significant result was observed or until all V710 groups had been compared with placebo.||92.0|61.6|<0.01
90838277|NCT00303069|181543278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|25.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.7|43.8||P-value \< 0.025 considered significant.|Chi-squared|Normal approximation for testing 2 independent binomial proportions, stratified by age group (\<40 yrs, ≥40 yrs)|Risk Difference is 5 μg minus Placebo and is expressed in percentage points, confidence intervals were computed using the stratified method given by Miettinen and Nurminen|Testing was performed in a sequential manner. First, the response rate of the 90-μg group was compared to placebo and assessed for significance (using a 1-tailed α=0.025). If significant, the response rate of the 30-μg group was compared to placebo and assessed for significance. The testing continued sequentially until a non-significant result was observed or until all V710 groups had been compared with placebo.||43.8|6.7|<0.001
90838278|NCT00303069|181543279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|30.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.2|48.3||P-value \< 0.025 considered significant.|Chi-squared|Normal approximation for testing 2 independent binomial proportions, stratified by age group (\<40 yrs, ≥40 yrs)|Risk Difference is 90 μg minus Placebo and is expressed in percentage points, confidence intervals were computed using the stratified method given by Miettinen and Nurminen|Testing was performed in a sequential manner. First, the response rate of the 90-μg group was compared to placebo and assessed for significance (using a 1-tailed α=0.025). If significant, the response rate of the 30-μg group was compared to placebo and assessed for significance. The testing continued sequentially until a non-significant result was observed or until all V710 groups had been compared with placebo.||48.3|17.2|<0.001
90838279|NCT00303069|181543279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|14.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|32.1||P-value \< 0.025 considered significant.|Chi-squared|Normal approximation for testing 2 independent binomial proportions, stratified by age group (\<40 yrs, ≥40 yrs)|Risk Difference is 30 μg minus Placebo and is expressed in percentage points, confidence intervals were computed using the stratified method given by Miettinen and Nurminen|Testing was performed in a sequential manner. First, the response rate of the 90-μg group was compared to placebo and assessed for significance (using a 1-tailed α=0.025). If significant, the response rate of the 30-μg group was compared to placebo and assessed for significance. The testing continued sequentially until a non-significant result was observed or until all V710 groups had been compared with placebo.||32.1|1.6|<0.001
90838280|NCT00303069|181543279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|3.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|16.9||P-value \< 0.025 considered significant.|Chi-squared|Normal approximation for testing 2 independent binomial proportions, stratified by age group (\<40 yrs, ≥40 yrs)|Risk Difference is 5 μg minus Placebo and is expressed in percentage points, confidence intervals were computed using the stratified method given by Miettinen and Nurminen|Testing was performed in a sequential manner. First, the response rate of the 90-μg group was compared to placebo and assessed for significance (using a 1-tailed α=0.025). If significant, the response rate of the 30-μg group was compared to placebo and assessed for significance. The testing continued sequentially until a non-significant result was observed or until all V710 groups had been compared with placebo.||16.9|-8.2|<0.001
90838281|NCT01084655|181543327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square(LS)Means|1.204|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|1.666||||||ANOVA with dose level as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect.||1.666|0.870|
90838282|NCT01084655|181543328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.074|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.793|1.455||||||ANOVA with dose level as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect.||1.455|0.793|
90896525|NCT05361655|181659396|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.7|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||0.70|0.54|<0.0001
90838283|NCT01084655|181543331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.066|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.802|1.417||||||ANOVA with dose level as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect.||1.417|0.802|
90838284|NCT01084655|181543332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.068|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.955|1.195||||||ANOVA with dose level as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect.||1.195|0.955|
90896526|NCT03750006|181659397|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0238||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons, P \< 0.05 is considered significant.|t-test, 2 sided|paired T-test||||||0.0238
90896527|NCT03750006|181659398|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3029|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired, P \< 0.05 is considered significant.||||||0.3029
90896528|NCT03750006|181659399|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1713|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired, P \< 0.05 is considered significant.||||||0.1713
90896529|NCT03750006|181659400|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1261|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired, P \< 0.05 is considered significant.||||||0.1261
90838285|NCT00335777|181543339|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|2 sided McNemar test||||||0.289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||McNemar|2 sided McNemar||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the proportion of subjects who were pain free when treating early, as compared to treating late.||||0.289
90896530|NCT03750006|181659401|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1367|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired, P \< 0.05 is considered significant.||||||0.1367
90896531|NCT03750006|181659402|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0111|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired, P \< 0.05 is considered significant.||||||0.0111
90896532|NCT03750006|181659403|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0219|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired, P \< 0.05 is considered significant.||||||0.0219
90896533|NCT03750006|181659404|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.366|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired, P \< 0.05 considered significant.||||||0.3660
90896534|NCT03750006|181659407|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1563|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired, P \< 0.05 is considered significant.||||||0.1563
90896535|NCT03750006|181659408|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired, P \< 0.05 is considered significant.||||||0.0110
90896536|NCT03750006|181659409|OTHER|||||||0.3282|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired, P \< 0.05 is considered significant.||||||0.3282
90896537|NCT03750006|181659410|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5244|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired, P \< 0.05 is considered significant.||||||0.5244
90896538|NCT03750006|181659411|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5718|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired, P \< 0.05 is considered significant.||||||0.5718
90838286|NCT00335777|181543340|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|2 sided McNemar test||||||1|||||||McNemar|2 sided McNemar test||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the proportion of subjects who had pain relief when treating early, as compared to treating late.||||1.000
90838287|NCT01074814|181543349|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Results for the primary objective - evaluation of GMI - were presented with descriptive statistics as the ration of PFS on current therapy over the PFS on latest therapy. The percentage of patients with GMI greater than 1.3 was displayed along with its corresponding 95% exact confidence interval.|||
90838288|NCT03175367|181543394|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-38.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.5|-20.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-20.6|-56.5|< .0001
90838289|NCT03175367|181543394|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-52.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.7|-35.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-35.1|-70.7|< .0001
90838290|NCT03175367|181543394|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-56.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.7|-38.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-38.3|-73.7|< .0001
90838291|NCT03175367|181543394|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-24.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.3|=|0.0109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.6|-5.7||P-Value is not adjusted for multiplicity|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.7|-42.6|= 0.0109
90838292|NCT03175367|181543394|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-50.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.4|-32.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-32.6|-68.4|< .0001
90838293|NCT03175367|181543395|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-26.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.2|=|0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.9|-12.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-12.4|-40.9|= 0.0003
90896539|NCT00939731|181659433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|92.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.84|101.09||||||Natural log transformed AUClast of PF-02341066 was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||101.09|84.84|
90838294|NCT03175367|181543395|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-42.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.1|-27.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-27.9|-56.1|< 0.0001
90838295|NCT03175367|181543395|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-45.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.5|-31.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-31.5|-59.5|< 0.0001
90838296|NCT03175367|181543395|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-16.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.6|=|0.0132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.7|-3.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.5|-29.7|= 0.0132
90896540|NCT00939731|181659436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|92.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.86|100.68||||||Natural log transformed AUC (0-∞) of PF-02341066 was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||100.68|84.86|
90896541|NCT00939731|181659437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|98.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.18|108.48||||||Natural log transformed Cmax of PF-02341066 was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CI for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||108.48|90.18|
90838297|NCT03175367|181543395|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-39.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.0|-26.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-26.8|-52.0|< 0.0001
90838298|NCT03175367|181543396|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-21.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4|=|0.0111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.4|-5.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.1|-38.4|= 0.0111
90896542|NCT01392300|181659440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||||-0.3|-0.7|<0.001
90896543|NCT01392300|181659441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.5|||ANCOVA|||||0.5|0.1|0.003
90896544|NCT01392300|181659442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.43|7.52|||Regression, Logistic|||||7.52|2.43|<0.001
90896545|NCT01392300|181659443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|4.63|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.63|1.56|<0.001
90838299|NCT03175367|181543396|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-40.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.7|-24.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-24.0|-56.7|< 0.0001
90838300|NCT03175367|181543397|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-39.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.4|-24.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-24.3|-54.4|< 0.0001
90838301|NCT03175367|181543397|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-53.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.8|-38.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-38.9|-68.8|< 0.0001
90838302|NCT03175367|181543397|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-58.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.4|-43.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-43.7|-73.4|< 0.0001
90838303|NCT03175367|181543397|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-23.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.1|=|0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.7|-7.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-7.7|-39.7|= 0.0042
90838304|NCT03175367|181543397|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-50.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.8|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.4|-35.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-35.4|-66.4|< 0.0001
90838305|NCT03175367|181543398|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-30.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.7|=|0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.8|-11.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-11.4|-49.8|= 0.0021
90838306|NCT03175367|181543398|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-54.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.4|-35.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-35.8|-73.4|< 0.0001
90838307|NCT03175367|181543399|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|19.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.1|72.8|||Regression, Logistic|||||72.8|5.1|< 0.0001
90896546|NCT01392300|181659444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.48||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|4.61|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.61|1.33|0.004
90896547|NCT01392300|181659445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.76|5.57|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.57|1.76|<0.001
90896548|NCT01392300|181659446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.92||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|3.34|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.34|1.10|0.021
91091212|NCT02034006|182066264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.91||||0.0103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|30.23|||Regression, Logistic|||Presence vs. absence of clinically significant abnormalities.||30.23|1.58|0.0103
91091213|NCT02034006|182066265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.19||||0.0854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|5.33|||Regression, Logistic|||Gain \< 5 letters vs. Gain \>= 5 letters.||5.33|0.90|0.0854
91091214|NCT02034006|182066266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.52||||0.0114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|5.17|||Regression, Logistic|||Gain \< 10 letters vs. Gain \>= 10 letters.||5.17|1.23|0.0114
91091215|NCT02034006|182066267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.47||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.91|||Regression, Logistic|||Change from baseline in BCVA: Improved vs. No change. For retreated subjects, the last scheduled assessment prior to the first retreatment was considered. For subjects treated only once, the last scheduled assessment available was considered.||0.91|0.25|0.0049
90838308|NCT03175367|181543399|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|23.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.4|89.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||89.2|6.4|< 0.0001
90838309|NCT03175367|181543399|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|22.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|80.5|||Regression, Logistic|||||80.5|6.0|< 0.0001
90838310|NCT03175367|181543399|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|8.5|||=|0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|29.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||29.2|2.5|= 0.0007
90838311|NCT03175367|181543399|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|42.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.4|172.3|||Regression, Logistic|||||172.3|10.4|< 0.0001
90838312|NCT03175367|181543400|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.6|||=|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|53.5|||Regression, Logistic|||||53.5|1.7|= 0.0100
90838313|NCT03175367|181543400|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|24.8|||=|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|129.9|||Regression, Logistic|||||129.9|4.7|= 0.0001
90838314|NCT03175367|181543400|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|36.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.7|194.7|||Regression, Logistic|||||194.7|6.7|< 0.0001
90838315|NCT03175367|181543400|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0|||=|0.3185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|8.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||8.2|0.5|= 0.3185
90838316|NCT03175367|181543400|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|54.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||54.2|3.9|< 0.0001
90838317|NCT03175367|181543401|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.8|||=|0.0718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|26.5|||Regression, Logistic|||||26.5|0.9|= 0.0718
90838318|NCT03175367|181543401|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.4|||=|0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|62.1|||Regression, Logistic|||||62.1|2.1|= 0.0048
90838319|NCT03175367|181543401|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.7|||=|0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|76.8|||Regression, Logistic|||||76.8|2.8|= 0.0015
91091216|NCT02034006|182066267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.53||||0.0461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|44.52|||Regression, Logistic|||Change from baseline in BCVA: Worsened vs. No change||44.52|0.69|0.0461
90838320|NCT03175367|181543401|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7|||=|0.527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|8.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||8.4|0.3|= 0.5270
90838321|NCT03175367|181543401|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.7|||=|0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|31.7|||Regression, Logistic|||||31.7|1.9|= 0.0047
90838322|NCT03175367|181543402|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-32.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.5|=|0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.5|-9.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-9.6|-55.5|= 0.0059
90838323|NCT03175367|181543402|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-54.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.0|-32.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-32.0|-77.0|< 0.0001
90838324|NCT03175367|181543403|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-37.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.4|-25.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-25.8|-48.4|< .0001
90838325|NCT03175367|181543403|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-46.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.5|-35.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-35.2|-57.5|< .0001
90838326|NCT03175367|181543403|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-51.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.5|-40.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-40.4|-62.5|< .0001
90838327|NCT03175367|181543403|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-22.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.2|=|0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.6|-9.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-9.8|-34.6|= 0.0006
90838328|NCT03175367|181543403|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-46.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.4|-34.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-34.4|-58.4|< .0001
90838329|NCT03175367|181543404|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-28.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.1|=|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.6|-14.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-14.3|-42.6|= 0.0001
90838330|NCT03175367|181543404|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-49.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.2|-35.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-35.4|-63.2|< .0001
91091217|NCT02470741|182066268|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.85||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.92|9.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures mixed models, with unstructured co-variance matrix.|Model generated LS Mean Differences|Null hypotheses: Letrozole is not associated with an improvement in the UFSQOL Overall Score.||9.23|-32.92|0.24
91091218|NCT01926028|182066274|EQUIVALENCE|The proportion of patients in each group was summarized with point estimates and their 95% confidence interval|Cox Proportional Hazard|0.39||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.91|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.91|0.17|0.03
91091219|NCT01926028|182066275|EQUIVALENCE|The proportion of patients in each group was summarized with point estimates and their 95% confidence interval|Cox Proportional Hazard|0.55||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.13|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.13|0.27|0.10
91091220|NCT02351934|182066284|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.564|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Significance level of 0.05 was used.||||0.564
91091221|NCT02351934|182066285|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.675|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Significance level of 0.05 was used.||||0.675
91091222|NCT02351934|182066286|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.125|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Significance level of 0.05 was used.||||0.125
91091223|NCT02351934|182066288|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.595|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Significance level of 0.05 was used.||||0.595
91091224|NCT02351934|182066289|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.985|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Significance level of 0.05 was used.||||0.985
91091225|NCT00288912|182066309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference (final values) is based on differences in the outcome between study groups at 12-month follow-up, in the context of the mixed models.|Primary hypothesis: OA self-management intervention results in greater improvement in AIMS2 pain score than usual care or health education control. Sample size estimate based on detecting 0.57 point (14%) difference between groups. Analyses were linear mixed models, intent-to-treat basis.||0.2|-1.0|0.007
91091226|NCT00288912|182066309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference (final values) is based on differences in the outcome between study groups at 12-month follow-up, in the context of the mixed models.|Primary hypothesis: OA self-management intervention results in greater improvement in AIMS2 pain score than usual care or health education control. Sample size estimate based on detecting 0.57 point (14%) difference between groups. Analyses were linear mixed models, intent-to-treat basis.||0.1|-0.8|0.105
91091227|NCT00288912|182066310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference (final values) is based on differences in the outcome between study groups at 12-month follow-up, in the context of the mixed models.|Secondary hypothesis: OA self-management intervention results in greater improvement in AIMS2 function score than usual care or health education control. Analyses were linear mixed models, intent-to-treat basis.||0.0|-0.5|0.093
91091228|NCT00288912|182066310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference (final values) is based on differences in the outcome between study groups at 12-month follow-up, in the context of the mixed models.|Secondary hypothesis: OA self-management intervention results in greater improvement in AIMS2 function score than usual care or health education control. Analyses were linear mixed models, intent-to-treat basis.||0.2|-0.2|0.43
91091229|NCT00288912|182066311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference (final values) is based on differences in the outcome between study groups at 12-month follow-up, in the context of the mixed models.|Secondary hypothesis: OA self-management intervention results in greater improvement in AIMS2 affect score than usual care or health education control. Analyses were linear mixed models, intent-to-treat basis.||0.4|-0.3|0.78
91091230|NCT00288912|182066311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference (final values) is based on differences in the outcome between study groups at 12-month follow-up, in the context of the mixed models.|Secondary hypothesis: OA self-management intervention results in greater improvement in AIMS2 affect score than usual care or health education control. Analyses were linear mixed models, intent-to-treat basis.||0.4|-0.3|0.79
91091231|NCT00288912|182066312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference (final values) is based on differences in the outcome between study groups at 12-month follow-up, in the context of the mixed models.|Secondary hypothesis: OA self-management intervention results in greater improvement in arthritis self-efficacy score than usual care or health education control. Analyses were linear mixed models, intent-to-treat basis.||0.8|0.0|0.043
91091232|NCT00288912|182066312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference (final values) is based on differences in the outcome between study groups at 12-month follow-up, in the context of the mixed models.|Secondary hypothesis: OA self-management intervention results in greater improvement in arthritis self-efficacy score than usual care or health education control. Analyses were linear mixed models, intent-to-treat basis.||0.7|0.0|0.066
91091233|NCT03312738|182066313|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|0.71||||||||0.71|0.40|
91091234|NCT03312738|182066314|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.32|0.67||||||||0.67|0.32|
91091235|NCT03312738|182066315|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|1.89||||||||1.89|0.69|
91091236|NCT04539275|182066359|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.01||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.14|||Fisher Exact|||||0.14|-0.15|1.00
91091237|NCT04539275|182066360|SUPERIORITY||Improvement Rate Ratio|1.08||||0.749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.78|||Log Rank|||||1.78|0.65|0.749
91091238|NCT04539275|182066361|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|4.23|||Log Rank|||||4.23|0.21|0.943
91091239|NCT04539275|182066362|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.08||||0.4014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.1|||Chi-squared|||||0.10|-0.25|0.4014
91091240|NCT04539275|182066363|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59||||0.3762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.96|||Log Rank|||||1.96|0.18|0.3762
91091241|NCT04539275|182066364|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.04||||0.6867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.09|||Fisher Exact|||||0.09|-0.17|0.6867
91091242|NCT04539275|182066365|SUPERIORITY||Improvement Rate Ratio|1.11||||0.6494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.83|||Log Rank|||||1.83|0.68|0.6494
90838331|NCT03175367|181543405|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-46.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.8|-34.3|||Regression, Linear|||||-34.3|-57.8|< .0001
90896549|NCT01392300|181659447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.58||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|5.05|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.05|1.32|0.006
91027970|NCT02978326|181939755|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.0||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Work and Activities: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 45||0.0|-0.8|0.0362
91027971|NCT02978326|181939755|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.3589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.3||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Retardation: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 3||0.3|-0.1|0.3589
91027972|NCT02978326|181939755|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.6991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Retardation: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 8||0.2|-0.2|0.6991
90838332|NCT03175367|181543405|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-55.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.9|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.3|-44.3|||Regression, Linear|||||-44.3|-67.3|< .0001
90838333|NCT03175367|181543405|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-61.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.8|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.9|-50.0|||Regression, Linear|||||-50.0|-72.9|< .0001
90838334|NCT03175367|181543405|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-25.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.5|=|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.0|-12.4|||Regression, Linear|||||-12.4|-38.0|= 0.0001
90838335|NCT03175367|181543405|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-45.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.4|-33.5|||Regression, Linear|||||-33.5|-58.4|< .0001
90838336|NCT03175367|181543406|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-17.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.5|=|0.0228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.8|-2.4|||Regression, Linear|||||-2.4|-31.8|= 0.0228
90838337|NCT03175367|181543406|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-45.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.6|-31.0|||Regression, Linear|||||-31.0|-59.6|< .0001
90838338|NCT03175367|181543407|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-10.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7|=|0.0635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.8|0.6|||Regression, Linear|||||0.6|-21.8|= 0.0635
90838339|NCT03175367|181543407|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-11.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.5|=|0.0314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.8|-1.1|||Regression, Linear|||||-1.1|-22.8|= 0.0314
90838340|NCT03175367|181543407|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-9.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.5|=|0.0923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.9|1.5|||Regression, Linear|||||1.5|-19.9|= 0.0923
90838341|NCT03175367|181543407|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-16.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.3|=|0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.8|-6.2|||Regression, Linear|||||-6.2|-26.8|= 0.0017
90838342|NCT03175367|181543407|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-16.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.9|=|0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.2|-6.8|||Regression, Linear|||||-6.8|-26.2|= 0.0009
90838343|NCT03175367|181543408|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-16.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.8|=|0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.4|-4.7|||Regression, Linear|||||-4.7|-27.4|= 0.0054
90838344|NCT03175367|181543408|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-14.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.5|=|0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.4|-3.7|||Regression, Linear|||||-3.7|-25.4|= 0.0085
90838345|NCT03027609|181543420|SUPERIORITY|comparison between the treatment and placebo|Risk Difference (RD)|-5.54||||0.6154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.9|10.8||P-value was obtained with the stratified CMH test adjusted for baseline randomization strata|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.8|-21.9|0.6154
90838346|NCT03027609|181543421|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.01||||0.8426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.5|10.5||P-value was obtained with the stratified CMH test adjusted for baseline randomization strata|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison between the treatment and placebo||10.5|-18.5|0.8426
90838347|NCT03027609|181543422|SUPERIORITY|comparison between the treatment and placebo|P value CMH|3.6||||0.3562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|20.3||P-value was obtained with the stratified CMH test adjusted for baseline randomization strata|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison between the treatment and placebo||20.3|-13.1|0.3562
90838348|NCT03027609|181543423|SUPERIORITY|Comparison between the treatment and placebo|P value CMH|-2.81||||0.8472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9|13.2||P-value was obtained with the stratified CMH test adjusted for baseline randomization strata|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||13.2|-18.9|0.8472
90838349|NCT03027609|181543424|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.3||||0.4616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|60.6||Marginally statistically significant only if p\<0.1|Chi-squared|||Data for Day 14||60.6|-16.2|0.4616
90838350|NCT03027609|181543424|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.3||||0.4053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|57.8||Data for Day 21|Chi-squared|||Data for Day 21||57.8|-13.3|0.4053
90838351|NCT03027609|181543425|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|38.1||||0.0833|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.8|90.9||Marginally statistically significant only if p\<0.1|Chi-squared|||Data for Day 14||90.9|-14.8|0.0833
90838352|NCT03027609|181543425|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|23.8||||0.5151|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-30.5|78.1||Data for Day 21|Chi-squared|Marginally statistically significant only if p\<0.1 Day 21||Data for Day 21||78.1|-30.5|0.5151
90838353|NCT03182374|181543426|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||ITT Population|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90838354|NCT03182374|181543427|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||PP Population|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90838355|NCT03182374|181543428|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6655||||||PP Population|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6655
90838356|NCT03182374|181543429|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||PP Population|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90838357|NCT03182374|181543430|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||PP population|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
90838358|NCT03182374|181543431|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90838359|NCT01462370|181543432|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The noninferiority margin is -3.7 units.|Difference in LS Means|0.89||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|1.76||A priori threshold for statistical significance = \<0.025 (one-sided).|ANOVA|Adjusted for treatment, period, sequence, patient (sequence), and baseline pain intensity (moderate or severe).||With at least 128 participants, the study had a 92% power to establish that etoricoxib is noninferior to ibuprofen (null hypothesis). The power and sample size were based on the following assumptions: 1) an approximately 15% protocol violation rate, 2) a noninferiority margin of -3.7 units (etoricoxib minus ibuprofen), and 3) an intrapatient standard deviation of 8 units.||1.76|0.03|0.043
90838360|NCT01462370|181543433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.2||||0.768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|1.57||A nominal threshold for statistical significance = \<0.05.|ANOVA|Adjusted for treatment, period, sequence, patient (sequence), and baseline pain intensity (moderate or severe).||||1.57|-1.16|0.768
90838361|NCT01462370|181543434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.26||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.45||A nominal threshold for statistical significance = \<0.05.|ANOVA|Adjusted for treatment, period, sequence, patient (sequence), and baseline pain intensity (moderate or severe).||||0.45|0.07|0.007
90838362|NCT01462370|181543435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.54||A nominal threshold for statistical significance = \<0.05.|ANOVA|Adjusted for treatment, period, sequence, patient (sequence), and baseline pain intensity (moderate or severe).||||0.54|0.17|<0.001
90838363|NCT01462370|181543436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.14||A priori threshold for statistical significance = \<0.05.|Regression, Cox|Adjusted for treatment, period, and baseline pain intensity.||||1.14|0.70|0.371
90838364|NCT01462370|181543437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.1||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.2||A priori threshold for statistical significance = \<0.05.|ANOVA|Adjusted for treatment, period, sequence, patient (sequence), and baseline pain intensity (moderate or severe).||||0.20|-0.00|0.051
90838365|NCT01462370|181543438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference in LS Means|0.17||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.32||A priori threshold for statistical significance = \<0.05.|ANOVA|Adjusted for treatment, period, sequence, patient (sequence), and baseline pain intensity (moderate or severe).||||0.32|0.03|0.019
90838366|NCT01462370|181543440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.31||A priori threshold for statistical significance = \<0.05.|ANOVA|Adjusted for treatment, period, sequence, patient (sequence), and baseline pain intensity (moderate or severe).||||0.31|0.10|<0.001
90838367|NCT01462370|181543441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.28||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.45||A priori threshold for statistical significance = \<0.05.|ANOVA|Adjusted for treatment, period, sequence, patient (sequence), and baseline pain intensity (moderate or severe).||||0.45|0.10|0.002
90838368|NCT01462370|181543442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.11||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.2||A priori threshold for statistical significance = \<0.05.|ANOVA|Adjusted for treatment, period, sequence, patient (sequence), and baseline pain intensity (moderate or severe).||||0.20|0.03|0.011
90838369|NCT01462370|181543443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.26||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.44||A priori threshold for statistical significance = \<0.05.|ANOVA|Adjusted for treatment, period, sequence, patient (sequence), and baseline pain intensity (moderate or severe).||||0.44|0.08|0.004
90838370|NCT01462370|181543444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6||||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.87||A priori threshold for statistical significance = \<0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for treatment, period, and baseline pain intensity.||||2.87|0.90|0.112
90838371|NCT01462370|181543445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.97||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|3.45||A priori threshold for statistical significance = \<0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for treatment, period, and baseline pain intensity.||||3.45|1.12|0.019
90838372|NCT03651479|181543446|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.004
90838373|NCT02399163|181543494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|16.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.061|22.454||From ANOVA: participant (random), treatment (fixed), period (fixed)|ANCOVA||Difference is Placebo dentifrice/Fluoride rinse minus Placebo dentifrice/No rinse such that a positive difference implies a larger response value for the Placebo dentifrice/Fluoride rinse.|||22.454|11.061|<0.0001
90838374|NCT01391546|181543536|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was achieved if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the GMT ratio was greater than 2/3|GMT Ratio|1.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.18|||longitudinal regression model|Model adjusted for pre-vaccination titres and age at vaccination in years|GMT ratio = GMT IM route divided by GMT SC route|||1.18|0.93|<0.001
90838375|NCT01391546|181543537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMFR|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|3.0|||||GMFR = GMT Post-vaccination/GMT Pre-vaccination|Acceptability was demonstrated if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI was \>1.4||3.0|2.4|
91027973|NCT02978326|181939755|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.9655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Retardation: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 15||0.2|-0.2|0.9655
91027974|NCT02978326|181939755|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.8699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Retardation: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 21||0.2|-0.2|0.8699
90838376|NCT00423579|181543616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.5||||0||95.0|-18.9|-10.1|||Student's t test for independent data||Difference in percentage change in mean LDL-C values (change from baseline to week 6) between the two treatment groups. (Ezetimibe \[EZ\]/Simvastatin \[S\] \[10/20mg\] + S \[placebo\] group minus the EZ/S \[10mg/placebo\] + S \[40mg\] group)|||-10.1|-18.9|0.0000
90838377|NCT03697252|181543623|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-11.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.07|-7.05|||Mixed model for repeated measures||||Statistics are from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM). The model includes the treatment group (KarXT or placebo), visit, and the interaction between the treatment group and visit as fixed factors, and baseline PANSS total score, site, age, and gender as covariates. An unstructured covariance matrix is used to model the correlation among repeated measurements and the denominator degrees of freedom are computed using the Kenward-Roger method.|-7.05|-16.07|<0.0001
91032663|NCT02549092|181950235|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.38|-0.23||The repeated measures model: change = treatment, country, visit, baseline, treatment \* visit, baseline \* visit. The unstructured variance-covariance structure is used.|repeated measures model||Difference of LCIG - OMT|Discoloration and edema score||-0.23|-3.38|0.025
91032664|NCT02549092|181950235|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.9||The repeated measures model: change = treatment, country, visit, baseline, treatment \* visit, baseline \* visit. The unstructured variance-covariance structure is used.|repeated measures model||Difference of LCIG - OMT|Radicular pain score||0.90|-0.99|0.930
91032665|NCT02549092|181950236|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.89|-1.87||ANCOVA model: FINAL = treatment, country.|ANCOVA||Difference of LCIG - OMT|||-1.87|-2.89|< 0.001
91032666|NCT00910663|181950239|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|97.01||||||90.0|90.01|104.55|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||104.55|90.01|
91032667|NCT00910663|181950240|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|102.81||||||90.0|100.23|105.45|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||105.45|100.23|
91032668|NCT00910663|181950241|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|103.35||||||90.0|100.51|106.27|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||106.27|100.51|
91032669|NCT01376167|181950254|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.299|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.222|0.404||The Cox proportional hazards model was fitted with region and treatment as covariates.|Cox Proportional Hazards Model||A hazard ratio\<1 indicated a lower chance of relapse compared to CQ only.|||0.404|0.222|<0.001
91032670|NCT01376167|181950254|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.262|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.178|0.387||The Cox proportional hazards model was fitted with region and treatment as covariates.|Cox Proportional Hazards Model||A hazard ratio\<1 indicated a lower chance of relapse compared to CQ only.|||0.387|0.178|<0.001
91032671|NCT01376167|181950254|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.241|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.152|0.382||Logistic regression model was fitted with region and treatment as covariates. Participants with a zero P vivax asexual parasite count at Baseline were excluded from the analysis.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratios \< 1 suggested a smaller chance of recurrence compared to CQ Only.|||0.382|0.152|<0.001
91032672|NCT01376167|181950254|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.198|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.117|0.335||Logistic regression model was fitted with region and treatment as covariates. Participants with a zero P vivax asexual parasite count at Baseline were excluded from the analysis.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratios \< 1 suggested a smaller chance of recurrence compared to CQ Only.|||0.335|0.117|<0.001
91032673|NCT01376167|181950255|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.271|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.195|0.376||The Cox proportional hazards model was fitted with region and treatment as covariates.|Cox Proportional Hazards Model||A hazard ratio\<1 indicated a lower chance of relapse compared to CQ only.|||0.376|0.195|<0.001
91032674|NCT01376167|181950255|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.255|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.167|0.39||The Cox proportional hazards model was fitted with region and treatment as covariates.|Cox Proportional Hazards Model||A hazard ratio\<1 indicated a lower chance of relapse compared to CQ only.|||0.390|0.167|<0.001
91032675|NCT02193165|181950281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.434|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Means and standard deviations. 1 factor ANOVA to balance treatment groups to show no difference between groups. Baseline groups are balanced and baseline scores for each intervention group should not be significantly different. Significance will be determined by p\<0.5||||0.434
91032676|NCT02193165|181950282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||1 factor ANCOVA to determine difference between groups with baseline as covariate. The F statistic is used to determine significance. If significance is found then a Tukey's multiple comparison is done.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups. ANCOVA adjusting for baseline. Significant differences between groups determined by P\<0.05||||<0.001
91032677|NCT02193165|181950283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||1 factor ANCOVA to determine difference between groups with baseline as covariate. The F statistic is used to determine significance. If significance is found then a Tukey's multiple comparison is done.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups. ANCOVA adjusting for baseline. Significant differences between groups will be determined at P\<0.05||||<0.001
91032678|NCT02193165|181950284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.816|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Means and standard deviations. 1 factor ANOVA to balance treatment groups to show no difference between groups. The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups. Differences will be noted at P\<0.05. Baseline groups are balanced and baseline scores for each intervention group should not be significantly different||||0.816
91032679|NCT02193165|181950285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||1 factor ANCOVA to determine difference between groups with baseline as covariate. The F statistic is used to determine significance. If significance is found then a Tukey's multiple comparison is done.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups. ANCOVA adjusting for baseline. Significant differences between intervention groups will be determined @ P\<0.05||||<0.001
91091243|NCT04539275|182066366|SUPERIORITY||Improvement Rate Ratio|0.98||||0.9338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.63|||Log Rank|||||1.63|0.59|0.9338
90838378|NCT03697252|181543625|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of KarXT and Placebo at Week 5||||<0.001
90838379|NCT03253796|181543634|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|50.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.1|63.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Derived based on the stratified Miettinen and Nurminen method with CRP level (\>6 mg/L or ≤ 6 mg/L) as a stratification factor||||63.6|34.1|<0.001
90838380|NCT03253796|181543634|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|34.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.0|49.7|||Meittinen and Nurminen|Derived based on the stratified Miettinen and Nurminen method with CRP level (\>6 mg/L or ≤ 6 mg/L) as a stratification factor||||49.7|17.0|<0.001
90838381|NCT03253796|181543637|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|9.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|19.4|||||Derived based on the stratified Miettinen and Nurminen method with CRP level (\>6 mg/L or ≤ 6 mg/L) as a stratification factor|||19.4|3.3|
90838382|NCT03253796|181543637|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|10.9|||||Derived based on the stratified Miettinen and Nurminen method with CRP level (\>6 mg/L or ≤ 6 mg/L) as a stratification factor|||10.9|-2.8|
90838383|NCT03253796|181543639|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|5.8|||||Derived based on the stratified Miettinen and Nurminen method with CRP level (\>6 mg/L or ≤ 6 mg/L) as a stratification factor|||5.8|-5.9|
90838384|NCT03253796|181543639|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|5.8|||||Derived based on the stratified Miettinen and Nurminen method with CRP level (\>6 mg/L or ≤ 6 mg/L) as a stratification factor|||5.8|-5.9|
90838385|NCT03253796|181543641|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|14.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|29.0|||||Derived based on the stratified Miettinen and Nurminen method with CRP level (\>6 mg/L or ≤ 6 mg/L) as a stratification factor|||29.0|0.2|
90838386|NCT03253796|181543641|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|14.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|29.1|||||Derived based on the stratified Miettinen and Nurminen method with CRP level (\>6 mg/L or ≤ 6 mg/L) as a stratification factor|||29.1|0.2|
90838387|NCT03253796|181543643|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|24.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.5|40.3|||||Derived based on the stratified Miettinen and Nurminen method with CRP level (\>6 mg/L or ≤ 6 mg/L) as a stratification factor|||40.3|8.5|
90838388|NCT03253796|181543643|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|21.3|||||Derived based on the stratified Miettinen and Nurminen method with CRP level (\>6 mg/L or ≤ 6 mg/L) as a stratification factor|||21.3|-9.9|
90896550|NCT01392300|181659448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.06|6.72|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.72|2.06|<0.001
90838389|NCT03253796|181543645|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|24.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.1|39.0|||||Derived based on the stratified Miettinen and Nurminen method with CRP level (\>6 mg/L or ≤ 6 mg/L) as a stratification factor|||39.0|9.1|
90838390|NCT03253796|181543645|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|22.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.3|37.7|||||Derived based on the stratified Miettinen and Nurminen method with CRP level (\>6 mg/L or ≤ 6 mg/L) as a stratification factor|||37.7|7.3|
90838391|NCT03253796|181543649|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|32.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.2|44.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Derived based on the stratified Miettinen and Nurminen method with CRP level (\>6 mg/L or ≤ 6 mg/L) as a stratification factor||||44.5|19.2|<0.001
90838392|NCT03253796|181543650|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|15.9||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|30.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Derived based on the stratified Miettinen and Nurminen method with CRP level (\>6 mg/L or ≤ 6 mg/L) as a stratification factor||||30.5|0.9|0.037
90838393|NCT00528112|181543651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||failure rate|0.009|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.005|0.017||||||Cumulative failure rate (Kaplan-Meier) at 3 years||0.017|0.005|
90838394|NCT00528112|181543651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||failure rate|0.01||||||95.0|0.005|0.018||||||Cumulative failure rate (Kaplan-Meier) at 3 years||0.018|0.005|
90838395|NCT00528112|181543673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||failure rate|0.01445|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.00823|0.02531||||||Cumulative failure rate (Kaplan-Meier) at 5 years||0.02531|0.00823|
90838396|NCT02718898|181543689|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|33.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.39|92.23|||Regression, Logistic|||||92.23|12.39|<0.001
90838397|NCT02718898|181543690|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|102.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.79|461.43|||Regression, Logistic|||||461.43|22.79|<0.001
90838398|NCT02718898|181543691|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.71|46.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||46.40|5.71|<0.001
90838399|NCT02718898|181543692|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.57|40.29|||Regression, Logistic|||||40.29|4.57|<0.001
90838400|NCT02718898|181543693|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.08|31.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||31.40|3.08|<0.001
90838401|NCT02718898|181543694|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|-6.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-6.7|-10.1|<0.001
90838402|NCT02718898|181543695|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.3|-15.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-15.8|-24.3|<0.001
90838403|NCT02718898|181543696|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.12|31.8|||Regression, Logistic|||||31.80|6.12|<0.001
90838404|NCT02718898|181543697|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.506|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1339|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.264|6.748|||ANCOVA|||||6.748|2.264|<0.001
90838405|NCT02718898|181543698|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.797|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0367||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.253|3.847|||ANCOVA|||||3.847|-0.253|0.085
90896551|NCT01392300|181659449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.5||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|4.46|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.46|1.40|0.002
91091244|NCT04539275|182066370|SUPERIORITY||Improvement Rate Ratio|1.14||||0.5682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.86|||Log Rank|||||1.86|0.70|0.5682
91091245|NCT04539275|182066372|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.8642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|2.3|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||2.3|-2.3|0.8642
91091246|NCT00607893|182066376|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.071||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.23|||Regression, Linear||F2-isoprostanes/Cr was log-transformed before analysis. The estimation parameter shows the log-transformed mean difference of the absolute change between groups, while the least square means of two groups are transformed back for presentation.|||0.23|-0.090|0.38
91091247|NCT00607893|182066377|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.83||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.42|21.07|||Regression, Linear|||||21.07|-17.42|0.85
90838406|NCT02718898|181543699|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-28.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.015|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.72|-22.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Total Score||-22.78|-34.72|<0.001
91091248|NCT00607893|182066378|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|2.87|||Regression, Linear|||||2.87|-2.60|0.92
90838407|NCT02718898|181543699|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.399|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|-3.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Itch||-3.02|-4.60|<0.001
90838408|NCT02718898|181543699|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.405|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|-2.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pain||-2.70|-4.30|<0.001
90838409|NCT02718898|181543699|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.66|-3.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Discomfort||-3.04|-4.66|<0.001
90838410|NCT02718898|181543699|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.04|-2.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Stinging||-2.42|-4.04|<0.001
90838411|NCT02718898|181543699|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.397|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.99|-2.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Burning||-2.41|-3.99|<0.001
90838412|NCT02718898|181543699|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.395|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.59|-3.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Redness||-3.03|-4.59|<0.001
90838413|NCT02718898|181543699|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.377|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.53|-3.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Scaling||-3.03|-4.53|<0.001
90896552|NCT01392300|181659450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|3.22|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.22|0.90|0.102
90838414|NCT02718898|181543699|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.385|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.31|-2.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cracking||-2.79|-4.31|<0.001
90896553|NCT01392300|181659451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.67|5.23|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.23|1.67|<0.001
90838415|NCT00979940|181543732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.97
90838416|NCT01668784|181543733|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|98.52|0.57|0.93||The boundary for statistical significance required the p-value to be less than 0.0148 at the interim analyses.|Log Rank|Log-rank Test stratified by the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center risk group, number of prior anti-angiogenic therapies, and the region.|Stratified Cox proportional hazard model. Hazard ratio (HR) was Nivolumab over Everolimus.|||0.93|0.57|0.0018
90838417|NCT01668784|181543737|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.99|||Log Rank|Log-rank Test stratified by the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) risk group, number of prior anti-angiogenic therapies, and the region.|Stratified Cox proportional hazard model. Hazard ratio is nivolumab over everolimus.|||0.99|0.72|0.0340
90838418|NCT01668784|181543743|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Cox Proportional hazard Model|0.74||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.86|||Log Rank|||||0.86|0.63|0.0001
90838419|NCT03137992|181543744|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was declared if the 90% CI was entirely contained within the bioequivalence interval, 0.80 to 1.25.|Least Squared Mean Ratio|0.9369|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.834|1.047|||||Fieller's formula was applied to calculate the 90% confidence interval (CI) for the Lupin Tiotropium and Spiriva Handihaler LS mean ratio.|A blinded interim analysis was performed after 241 subjects had been randomized with measurable AUC data, which estimated 238 patients would be needed to demonstrate BE with 90% power. Therefore, it was planned that approximately 378 patients would be randomized to allow for a potential 30% loss/withdrawal from the PP population.||1.047|0.834|
90838420|NCT03137992|181543745|SUPERIORITY||Least Squared Mean Difference|3.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9386|3.646||Efficacy of the Test (T) product was demonstrated if the T was shown to be statistically superior to Placebo (p\<0.05 \[two-tailed\]).Outcome variable was Difference in Baseline adjusted FEV1 AUC0-24h.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures analysis consisted of effects of treatment, period, and sequence.||||3.646|2.9386|<0.001
90838421|NCT03137992|181543745|SUPERIORITY||Least Squared Mean Difference|3.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0718|3.7797||Study sensitivity was demonstrated if the Reference (R) product was shown to be statistically superior to Placebo (P) (p \<0.05 \[two-tailed\]). Outcome variable was Difference in Baseline adjusted FEV1 AUC0-24h.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures analysis consisted of effects of treatment, period, and sequence.||||3.7797|3.0718|<0.001
90838422|NCT02234843|181543788|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.4||||0.1509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|1.41|||Expl. Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||||1.41|0.11|0.1509
90896554|NCT01392300|181659452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.46||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|4.41|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.41|1.37|0.002
90896555|NCT01392300|181659453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.87||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|3.69|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.69|0.95|0.069
90896556|NCT01392300|181659454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.05||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|4.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.00|1.05|0.034
90896557|NCT01392300|181659455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.61||||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|3.16|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.16|0.82|0.169
90896558|NCT01392300|181659456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|2.18|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.18|0.49|0.920
91091249|NCT00607893|182066379|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.91|||Regression, Linear|||||0.91|-0.48|0.55
91091250|NCT00607893|182066380|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.92|||Regression, Linear|||||0.92|-0.16|0.17
91091251|NCT00607893|182066381|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|5.07|||Regression, Linear|||||5.07|-0.26|0.076
91091252|NCT00607893|182066382|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.062||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.11|||Regression, Linear||sIL-6R was log-transformed before analysis. The estimation parameter shows the log-transformed mean difference of the absolute change between groups, while the least square means of two groups are transformed back for presentation.|||0.11|0.010|0.019
91091253|NCT00607893|182066383|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.99|||Regression, Linear|||||0.99|-0.64|0.68
91091254|NCT00607893|182066384|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.35||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|6.31|||Regression, Linear|||||6.31|-3.60|0.59
90838423|NCT05010707|181543831|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Time x treatment (month 0, and 1 month)||||0.005
90838424|NCT05010707|181543831|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-225.3||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-421.71|-28.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-28.79|-421.71|0.02
90838425|NCT05010707|181543831|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-250.6||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-447.1|-54.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-54.19|-447.10|0.009
90838426|NCT05010707|181543832|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.951|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Time x treatment (month 0 and month 1)||||0.951
90838427|NCT05010707|181543832|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.6|26.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is computed using the model based estimates rather than from the raw data.|||26.4|-29.6|1
90838428|NCT05010707|181543832|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.1||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.1|20.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is computed using the model based estimates rather than from the raw data.|||20.8|-35.1|1
90838429|NCT05010707|181543833|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Time x treatment (month 0 and month 1)||||0.004
90838430|NCT05010707|181543833|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-280.4||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-487.3|-73.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-73.5|-487.3|0.005
90838431|NCT05010707|181543833|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-204.1||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-411.1|2.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.8|-411.1|0.054
90838432|NCT04272242|181543853|EQUIVALENCE|GMRs and associated 90% confidence intervals were calculated to assess the overall effect of 1HP on DTG PK.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|0.93|||||The numerator represents Day 28 and the denominator represents Entry.|Statistical analysis for Cmax, comparing Day 28 to Day 0.||0.93|0.91|
90838433|NCT04272242|181543854|EQUIVALENCE|GMRs and associated 90% confidence intervals were calculated to assess the overall effect of 1HP on DTG PK.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|0.96|||||The numerator represents Day 28 and the denominator represents Entry.|Statistical analysis for AUC0-24, comparing Day 28 to Day 0.||0.96|0.96|
90838434|NCT04272242|181543855|EQUIVALENCE|GMRs and associated 90% confidence intervals were calculated to assess the overall effect of 1HP on DTG PK.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.0|||||The numerator represents Day 28 and the denominator represents Entry.|Statistical analysis for Cmin, comparing Day 28 to Day 0.||1.00|0.97|
90896559|NCT01392300|181659457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.83|6.91|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.91|1.83|<0.001
90896560|NCT01392300|181659458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.41||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|4.56|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.56|1.28|0.007
91091255|NCT00607893|182066385|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.04|10.81|||Regression, Linear|||||10.81|3.04|<0.001
91091256|NCT02669849|182066386|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.69||||0.7519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.08|3.69|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||3.69|-5.08|0.7519
91091257|NCT01799941|182066395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One sample t-test|||The primary analysis tested the null hypothesis that the mean change in CNS-LS score from Baseline to Day 90 visit is equal to zero.||||<0.0001
90838435|NCT02851615|181543897|SUPERIORITY|Power analyses were calculated on the PAM-13, our primary outcome measure. Analyses were conducted using the internal Monte Carlo simulation capabilities of Mplus (Version 1.20). Based on the effect size obtained from published pilot data, we expected the change in baseline/posttreatment Behavioral Activation for the SCThrive intervention group to be n2 = .14 (large effect). Based on these assumptions, the desired sample size was 54 participants (N = 27 per group) to achieve power of .80.|Mean Difference (Net)|7.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.14||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|19.22||The threshold for statistical significance was p =.05|ANCOVA|||We conducted separate mixed ANOVA analyses to assess for the effects of group (SCThrive/SCHealthEd), time (baseline/post-treatment), and group x time interaction for the PAM-13.||19.22|-1.27|.09
90838436|NCT02851615|181543898|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.66||The threshold for significance was p =.05|ANCOVA|||We conducted separate mixed ANOVA analyses to assess for the effects of group (SCThrive/SCHealthEd), time (baseline/post-treatment), and group x time interaction for the TRAQ-5||.66|-.19|.28
90838437|NCT02851615|181543899|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.13||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.018|0.06||The threshold for statistical significance was p =.05|t-test, 2 sided|||We conducted a paired-samples t-test to assess for the effects of time (baseline/post-treatment) for participants (n=16) in the SCThrive intervention arm for the UNC TRxANSITION Scale.||.06|-.018|.27
90838438|NCT02151058|181543928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.659|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0999|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8559|-0.4622||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline value as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-0.4622|-0.8559|<0.001
90838439|NCT02151058|181543928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.993|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1005|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1909|-0.7946||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided). Hypotheses were tested according to a hierarchical strategy.|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline value as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-0.7946|-1.1909|<0.001
90838440|NCT02151058|181543928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.334|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0812|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4937|-0.1737||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided). Hypotheses were tested according to a hierarchical strategy.|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline value as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-0.1737|-0.4937|<0.001
90896561|NCT01392300|181659459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.26||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|4.41|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.41|1.15|0.018
90896562|NCT01392300|181659460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||||-0.2|-0.5|<0.001
90896563|NCT01392300|181659461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||||-0.1|-0.4|0.011
91091258|NCT01799941|182066395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||one-sample t-test|||The primary analysis tested the null hypothesis that the mean change in CNS-LS score from Baseline to Day 90 visit is equal to zero.||||<0.0001
90838441|NCT02151058|181543929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.286|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0809|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.445|-0.1263||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline value as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-0.1263|-0.4450|<0.001
90838442|NCT02151058|181543929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.328|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0811|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4877|-0.1679||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline value as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-0.1679|-0.4877|<0.001
90838443|NCT02151058|181543929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0653||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1709|0.0866||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline value as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.0866|-0.1709|0.520
90838444|NCT02151058|181543930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.513|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0971|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7043|-0.3217||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline value as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-0.3217|-0.7043|<0.001
90838445|NCT02151058|181543930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.685|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0975|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.877|-0.4925||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline value as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-0.4925|-0.8770|<0.001
90838446|NCT02151058|181543930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.172|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0786||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3268|-0.0168||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline value as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-0.0168|-0.3268|0.030
90838447|NCT02151058|181543931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.083|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0369||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1556|-0.0102||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline value as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-0.0102|-0.1556|0.026
90838448|NCT02151058|181543931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0372||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1917|-0.0451||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline value as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-0.0451|-0.1917|0.002
90838449|NCT02151058|181543931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.035|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0297||0.234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.094|0.0231||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline value as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.0231|-0.0940|0.234
90838450|NCT02151058|181543932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.176|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0568||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2882|-0.0644||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline value as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-0.0644|-0.2882|0.002
90896564|NCT01392300|181659462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.0|-0.3|0.032
90896565|NCT01392300|181659463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||||-0.2|-0.6|<0.001
90838451|NCT02151058|181543932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.351|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0573|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4638|-0.2378||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline value as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-0.2378|-0.4638|<0.001
90838452|NCT02151058|181543932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.174|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0458|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2648|-0.0841||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline value as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-0.0841|-0.2648|<0.001
90838453|NCT02151058|181543933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.247|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0631|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3713|-0.1226||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline value as covariates.||Treatment and baseline value as covariates.||-0.1226|-0.3713|<0.001
90838454|NCT02151058|181543933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.498|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0638|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6236|-0.3722||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline value as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-0.3722|-0.6236|<0.001
90896566|NCT01392300|181659464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||||-0.1|-0.5|<0.001
90896567|NCT01392300|181659465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.0|-0.3|0.029
90896568|NCT01392300|181659466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||||-0.2|-0.5|<0.001
90896569|NCT01392300|181659467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.0|-0.4|0.019
91091259|NCT01799941|182066395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sample t-test|||The primary analysis tested the null hypothesis that the mean change in CNS-LS score from Baseline to Day 90 visit is equal to zero.||||<0.0001
91091260|NCT01799941|182066395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sample t-test|||The primary analysis tested the null hypothesis that the mean change in CNS-LS score from Baseline to Day 90 visit is equal to zero.||||<0.0001
90838455|NCT02151058|181543933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.251|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0511|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3516|-0.1503||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline value as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-0.1503|-0.3516|<0.001
90838456|NCT02151058|181543934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.124|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0372||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.197|-0.0504||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline value as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-0.0504|-0.1970|0.001
90838457|NCT02151058|181543934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.168|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0373|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2413|-0.0941||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline value as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-0.0941|-0.2413|<0.001
90838458|NCT02151058|181543934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.044|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0301||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1034|0.0152||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline value as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.0152|-0.1034|0.145
90838459|NCT02151058|181543935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0497|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3282|-0.1321||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline value as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-0.1321|-0.3282|<0.001
90838460|NCT02151058|181543935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.313|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4113|-0.2141||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline value as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-0.2141|-0.4113|<0.001
90838461|NCT02151058|181543935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.083|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0404||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1621|-0.0031||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline value as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-0.0031|-0.1621|0.042
90838462|NCT02151058|181543936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.275|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0543|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.382|-0.1679||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline value as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-0.1679|-0.3820|<0.001
90838463|NCT02151058|181543936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.464|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0548|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5724|-0.3565||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline value as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-0.3565|-0.5724|<0.001
90838464|NCT02151058|181543936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0442|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2767|-0.1023||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline value as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-0.1023|-0.2767|<0.001
90896570|NCT01392300|181659468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.0|-0.3|0.137
91091261|NCT01799941|182066395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|1.45|||||A positive estimate indicates a smaller change in the first group. Observations used =261.|||1.45|-1.37|
91091262|NCT01799941|182066395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ANCOVA|1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|2.68|||||A positive estimate indicates a smaller change in the first group. Observations used =261.|||2.68|-0.46|
91091263|NCT01799941|182066395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ANCOVA|1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|2.69|||||A positive estimate indicates a smaller change in the first group. Observations used =261.|||2.69|-0.39|
91091264|NCT01799941|182066396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sample t-test|||||||<0.0001
90838465|NCT01181349|181543938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.169|||||||Chi-square test or Fisher's Exact Test|||Cross tables were performed between TOF ratio and medications administered. Statistical significance was evaluated using Chi-square test or Fisher's Exact Test. All tests were performed at a significance level of 0.05.||||=0.169
90838466|NCT01181349|181543940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.01|||||||Chi-square test or Fisher's Exact Test|||Cross tables were performed between TOF ratio and medications administered. Statistical significance was evaluated using Chi-square test or Fisher's Exact Test. All tests were performed at a significance level of 0.05.||||=0.01
90838467|NCT00321620|181543942|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A synthesis method was used for the non-inferiority test for the hypothesis that denosumab preserves as least 50% of the effect of zoledronic acid vs. placebo.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.0002||95.0|0.71|0.95|||Regression, Cox||Stratified by the randomization stratification factors (previous skeletal-related event, prostate-specific antigen level, and current chemotherapy)|||0.95|0.71|0.0002
90896571|NCT01392300|181659469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.0|-0.4|0.013
90896572|NCT01392300|181659470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.0|-0.3|0.131
91091265|NCT01799941|182066396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sample t-test|||||||<0.0001
91091266|NCT01799941|182066396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sample t-test|||||||<0.0001
91091267|NCT01799941|182066396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sample t-test|||||||<0.0001
91091268|NCT01799941|182066397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sample t-test|||Day 30 versus Baseline||||<0.0001
91091269|NCT01799941|182066397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sample t-test|||Day 90 versus Baseline||||<0.0001
91091270|NCT01799941|182066397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sample t-test|||Day 30 versus Baseline||||<0.0001
91091271|NCT01799941|182066397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sample t-test|||Day 90 assessment||||<0.0001
91091272|NCT01799941|182066397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sample t-test|||Day 30 versus Baseline||||<0.0001
91091273|NCT01799941|182066397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sample t-test|||Day 90 versus Baseline||||<0.0001
91091274|NCT01799941|182066397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sample t-test|||Day 30 versus Baseline||||<0.0001
91091275|NCT01799941|182066397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sample t-test|||Day 90 versus Baseline||||<0.0001
91091276|NCT01799941|182066399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio|0.425|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.407|0.445|||Mixed Effects Poisson Regreesion Model||Number of observations = 854, Number of participants = 298|Day 30 assessment||0.445|0.407|<0.0001
90838468|NCT00321620|181543943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.0085||95.0|0.71|0.95|||Regression, Cox|P-value was adjusted for multiplicity according to a hierarchical testing strategy and Hochberg procedure.|Stratified by the randomization stratification factors (previous skeletal-related event, prostate-specific antigen level, and current chemotherapy).|||0.95|0.71|0.0085
90896573|NCT01392300|181659471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.2|0.714
91091277|NCT01799941|182066399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio|0.277|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.262|0.293|||Mixed Effects Poisson Regression Model||Number of observations = 854, Number of participants = 298|Day 90 assessment||0.293|0.262|<0.0001
91091278|NCT01799941|182066399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.469|0.534|||Mixed Effects Poisson Regression Model||Number of observations = 318, Number of participants = 108|Day 30 assessment||0.534|0.469|<0.0001
91091279|NCT01799941|182066399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio|0.323|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.299|0.349|||Mixed Effects Poisson Regression Model||Number of observations = 318, Number of participants = 108|Day 90 assessment||0.349|0.299|<0.0001
91091280|NCT01799941|182066399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio|0.351|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.323|0.383|||Mixed Effects Poisson Regression Model||Number of observations = 297, Number of participants = 103|Day 30 assessment||0.383|0.323|<0.0001
91091281|NCT01799941|182066399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio|0.255|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.051|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.231|0.282|||Mixed Effects Poisson Regression Model||Number of observations = 297, Number of participants = 103|Day 90 assessment||0.282|0.231|<0.0001
91091282|NCT01799941|182066399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio|0.387|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.352|0.425|||Mixed Effects Poisson Regression Model||Number of observations = 239, Number of participants = 87|Day 30 assessment||0.425|0.352|<0.0001
91091283|NCT01799941|182066399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio|0.215|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.189|0.245|||Mixed Effects Poisson Regression Model||Number of observations = 239, Number of participants = 87|Day 90 assessment||0.245|0.189|<0.0001
91091284|NCT01799941|182066402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sample t-test|||||||<0.0001
91091285|NCT01799941|182066402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sample t-test|||||||<0.0001
91091286|NCT01799941|182066402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sample t-test|||||||<0.0001
91091287|NCT01799941|182066402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sample t-test|||||||<0.0001
91091288|NCT02369653|182066448|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0403|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0403
91091289|NCT02369653|182066449|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||1.0000
91091290|NCT01587885|182066471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.548|||<|0.048|||||||Regression, Cox|||||||<0.0480
91091291|NCT01603602|182066516|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.938|-0.379||MMRM model with baseline MAS-B score as covariate; factors of age, principal muscle group, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, study center and previous botulinum toxin exposure, stratified by age and principal muscle group categories.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||-0.379|-0.938|<0.001
90896574|NCT01392300|181659472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||||-0.2|-0.5|<0.001
90896575|NCT01392300|181659473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||||-0.1|-0.4|0.008
90896576|NCT01392300|181659474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.0|-0.3|0.062
91091292|NCT01603602|182066516|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.992|-0.426||MMRM model with baseline MAS-B score as covariate; factors of age, principal muscle group, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, study center and previous botulinum toxin exposure, stratified by age and principal muscle group categories.|MMRM|||||-0.426|-0.992|<0.001
91091293|NCT01603602|182066517|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.21||||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.082|0.511||MMRM model with baseline MAS-B score as covariate; factors of age, principal muscle group, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, study center and previous botulinum toxin exposure, stratified by age and principal muscle group categories.|MMRM|||||0.511|-0.082|0.155
91091294|NCT01603602|182066517|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.22||||0.147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.079|0.523||MMRM model with baseline MAS-B score as covariate; factors of age, principal muscle group, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, study center and previous botulinum toxin exposure, stratified by age and principal muscle group categories.|MMRM|||||0.523|-0.079|0.147
91091295|NCT01603602|182066518|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.39||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.861|0.091||ANCOVA model including baseline MAS-B score of finger flexor muscle group as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center, and previous botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||||0.091|-0.861|0.111
90838469|NCT00321620|181543944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.82||||0.0085||95.0|0.71|0.94|||Anderson-Gill model|P-value was adjusted for multiplicity according to a hierarchical testing strategy and Hochberg procedure.|Stratified by the randomization stratification factors (previous skeletal-related event, prostate-specific antigen level, and current chemotherapy).|||0.94|0.71|0.0085
90838470|NCT04613362|181543971|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.97||adjusted for gender which is included as a covariate|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.97|0.34|0.61
90838471|NCT04613362|181543973|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.8028|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.3895||0.1724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.5314|3.9257|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3 month||3.9257|-21.5314|0.1724
90838472|NCT04613362|181543973|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.6533|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.9929||0.4399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5917|7.2851|||Mixed Models Analysis|||6 months||7.2851|-16.5917|0.4399
90838473|NCT04613362|181543974|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|18.7886|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.0826||0.3021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.2261|54.8032|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3 months||54.8032|-17.2261|0.3021
90838474|NCT04613362|181543974|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.1996|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.1338||0.7624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.3245|28.9254|||Mixed Models Analysis|||6 months||28.9254|-39.3245|0.7624
90838475|NCT04613362|181543975|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.9613|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3867||0.1783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7794|14.7019|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3 months||14.7019|-2.7794|0.1783
90838476|NCT04613362|181543975|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2145|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1565||0.959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4965|8.0675|||Mixed Models Analysis|||6 months||8.0675|-8.4965|0.959
90896577|NCT01392300|181659475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||||-0.1|-0.4|0.006
91091296|NCT01603602|182066518|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.44||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.933|0.051||ANCOVA model including baseline MAS-B score of finger flexor muscle group as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center, and previous botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||||0.051|-0.933|0.078
90838477|NCT04613362|181543976|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.6627|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.3097||0.0873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.2243|1.8989|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3 months||1.8989|-27.2243|0.0873
90838478|NCT04613362|181543976|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.3578|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.8559||0.2866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0154|6.2999|||Mixed Models Analysis|||6 months||6.2999|-21.0154|0.2866
90838479|NCT04613362|181543978|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.5655|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4313||0.2776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4168|1.2859|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3 months||1.2859|-4.4168|0.2776
90838480|NCT04613362|181543978|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.7202|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6492||0.6636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5651|4.0055|||Mixed Models Analysis|||6 months||4.0055|-2.5651|0.6636
90838481|NCT04613362|181543979|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.3254|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6911||0.1733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0443|5.695|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3 months||5.695|-1.0443|0.1733
90838482|NCT04613362|181543979|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5408|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.622||0.7398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7726|2.6911|||Mixed Models Analysis|||6 months||2.6911|-3.7726|0.7398
90838483|NCT04613362|181543980|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1491|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5551||0.9239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2476|2.9494|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Physical Component Scale - 3 months||2.9494|-3.2476|0.9239
90838484|NCT04613362|181543980|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2879|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4735||0.8456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2238|2.6481|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Physical Component Scale - 6 months||2.6481|-3.2238|0.8456
90838485|NCT04613362|181543980|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1757|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3798||0.9413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9175|4.5661|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mental Component Scale - 3 months||4.5661|-4.9175|0.9413
90838486|NCT04613362|181543980|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.9597|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2549||0.1934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4526|1.5333|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mental Component Scale - 6 months||1.5333|-7.4526|0.1934
90838487|NCT04613362|181543981|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.0999|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1004||0.1442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0852|7.2849|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3 months||7.2849|-1.0852|0.1442
90838488|NCT04613362|181543981|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.0675|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.036||0.3132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9892|6.1243|||Mixed Models Analysis|||6 months||6.1243|-1.9892|0.3132
90838489|NCT04225897|181544016|OTHER||Difference|-8.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.78|15.74||||||60 hours. Analysis was performed using mixed effects analysis of covariance model on change from baseline in viral load, including a random effect for participant and fixed effects for treatment group, baseline human rhinovirus/enterovirus status (present or absent), visit, vist by treatment group interaction, and baseline viral load as a covariate.||15.74|-31.78|
90838490|NCT04225897|181544016|OTHER||Difference|-15.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.15|9.7|||Mixed effects analysis of covariance|||156 hours. Analysis was performed using mixed effects analysis of covariance model on change from baseline in viral load, including a random effect for participant and fixed effects for treatment group, baseline human rhinovirus/enterovirus status (present or absent), visit, vist by treatment group interaction, and baseline viral load as a covariate.||9.70|-40.15|
90838491|NCT04225897|181544017|OTHER||Difference|14.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-91.68|121.33||||||60 hours. Analysis was performed using mixed effects analysis of covariance model on change from baseline in viral load, including a random effect for participant and fixed effects for treatment group, baseline human rhinovirus/enterovirus status (present or absent), visit, vist by treatment group interaction, and baseline viral load as a covariate.||121.33|-91.68|
90896578|NCT01392300|181659476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.0|-0.3|0.076
90896579|NCT01392300|181659477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.2|0.416
90896580|NCT01392300|181659478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||||-0.1|-0.4|<0.001
91091297|NCT01603602|182066519|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.498|0.305||ANCOVA model including baseline MAS-B score as a covariate; factors of age, principal muscle group, treatment, study center and previous botulinum toxin exposure where age and principal muscle group were represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Week 8, Active Goal||0.305|-0.498|0.636
91091298|NCT01603602|182066519|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.09||||0.658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.502|0.318||ANCOVA model including baseline MAS-B score as a covariate; factors of age, principal muscle group, treatment, study center and previous botulinum toxin exposure where age and principal muscle group were represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Week 8, Active Goal||0.318|-0.502|0.658
90838492|NCT04225897|181544017|OTHER||Difference|-31.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-143.96|81.57||||||156 hours. Analysis was performed using mixed effects analysis of covariance model on change from baseline in viral load, including a random effect for participant and fixed effects for treatment group, baseline human rhinovirus/enterovirus status (present or absent), visit, vist by treatment group interaction, and baseline viral load as a covariate.||81.57|-143.96|
90838493|NCT05172128|181544062|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided||||Paired t-test comparing baseline value to endpoint value revealed a p-value of 0.80.|||>0.05
90838494|NCT05172128|181544063|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
90896581|NCT01392300|181659479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.3|0.175
91091299|NCT01603602|182066519|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.24||||0.243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.162|0.635||ANCOVA model including baseline MAS-B score as a covariate; factors of age, principal muscle group, treatment, study center and previous botulinum toxin exposure where age and principal muscle group were represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Week 8, Passive Goal||0.635|-0.162|0.243
91091300|NCT01603602|182066519|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.17||||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.237|0.576||ANCOVA model including baseline MAS-B score as a covariate; factors of age, principal muscle group, treatment, study center and previous botulinum toxin exposure where age and principal muscle group were represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Week 8, Passive Goal||0.576|-0.237|0.412
91091301|NCT01603602|182066519|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02||||0.904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.408|0.361||ANCOVA model including baseline MAS-B score as a covariate; factors of age, principal muscle group, treatment, study center and previous botulinum toxin exposure where age and principal muscle group were represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Week 12, Active Goal||0.361|-0.408|0.904
90838495|NCT05172128|181544064|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
90838496|NCT05172128|181544065|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
90896582|NCT01392300|181659480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.0|-0.3|0.140
90896583|NCT01392300|181659481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||||-0.1|-0.4|0.007
91091302|NCT01603602|182066519|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.25||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.641|0.135||ANCOVA model including baseline MAS-B score as a covariate; factors of age, principal muscle group, treatment, study center and previous botulinum toxin exposure where age and principal muscle group were represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Week 12, Active Goal||0.135|-0.641|0.200
91091303|NCT01603602|182066519|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.59||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.978||ANCOVA model including baseline MAS-B score as a covariate; factors of age, principal muscle group, treatment, study center and previous botulinum toxin exposure where age and principal muscle group were represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Week 12, Passive Goal||0.978|0.210|0.003
91091304|NCT01603602|182066519|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.19||||0.327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.194|0.58||ANCOVA model including baseline MAS-B score as a covariate; factors of age, principal muscle group, treatment, study center and previous botulinum toxin exposure where age and principal muscle group were represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Week 12, Passive Goal||0.580|-0.194|0.327
91091305|NCT01603602|182066520|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|12.1||||0.117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.089|27.293||ANCOVA model including baseline MTS as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center and botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 2, Elbow||27.293|-3.089|0.117
91091306|NCT01603602|182066520|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|8.41||||0.273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.717|23.527||ANCOVA model including baseline MTS as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center and botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 2, Elbow||23.527|-6.717|0.273
91091307|NCT01603602|182066520|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|14.71||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.958|26.458||ANCOVA model including baseline MTS as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center and botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 4, Elbow||26.458|2.958|0.015
90838497|NCT05172128|181544068|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
90838498|NCT01921205|181544076|SUPERIORITY||Percent reduction over Placebo|31.72|||=|0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.342|44.277|||ANCOVA|Seizure frequency (log transformed) is analyzed using analysis of covariance with terms for treatment, pooled center and Baseline seizure frequency.|Percent reduction over placebo is estimated as 100 x (1-exp\[LSMLacosamide-LSMPlacebo\]). Where LSM is Least Square Mean.|||44.277|16.342|=0.0003
90838499|NCT03416985|181544106|OTHER|||||||0.1561||||||p \< 0.05 considered significant|ANOVA|||Compare groups with respect to plaque level after 30 days||||0.1561
90838500|NCT03416985|181544107|OTHER|||||||0.2161||||||p \< 0.05 considered significant|ANOVA|||Compare groups with respect to Gingival scores at 30 days||||0.2161
90838501|NCT03137381|181544121|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.177|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.177
90896584|NCT01392300|181659482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.0|-0.3|0.018
90896585|NCT01392300|181659483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.0|-0.3|0.105
90896586|NCT01392300|181659484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.0|-0.4|0.016
90896587|NCT01392300|181659485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.0|-0.4|0.014
90896588|NCT01392300|181659486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.2|0.220
90896589|NCT01392300|181659487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.2|0.429
90838502|NCT03137381|181544121|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
90838503|NCT03137381|181544121|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
90838504|NCT01684917|181544123|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||calculated. The reported p-value was calculated, and is not attempting to indicate the threshold for statistical significance|t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline vs 12 weeks||||<0.05
90838505|NCT01684917|181544123|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||calculated. The reported p-value was calculated, and is not attempting to indicate the threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline vs 12 weeks||||<0.05
90896590|NCT01392300|181659488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2|||ANCOVA|||||0.2|-0.2|0.884
90896591|NCT01392300|181659489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2|||ANCOVA|||||0.2|-0.2|0.844
90896592|NCT01147822|181659500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0184|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7658|1.3542|||||The HR was estimated by the Cox regression model using treatment stratification factors as covariates. The HR was adjusted for Karnofsky Performance Scale scores, prior nephrectomy, and Baseline levels of lactate dehydrogenase.|||1.3542|0.7658|
90838506|NCT01684917|181544124|SUPERIORITY|"Statistical Analysis was performed only for the Diet Arm/Group"|||||<|0.05||||||calculated. The reported p-value was calculated, and is not attempting to indicate the threshold for statistical significance|t-test, 2 sided|||"Baseline vs 12 weeks. Statistical Analysis was performed only for the Diet Arm/Group."||||<0.05
90838507|NCT01684917|181544125|SUPERIORITY|"Statistical Analysis was performed only for the Diet Arm/Group"|||||<|0.05||||||calculated. The reported p-value was calculated, and is not attempting to indicate the threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||"Baseline vs 12 weeks. Statistical Analysis was performed only for the Diet Arm/Group."||||<0.05
90838508|NCT01684917|181544126|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The reported p-value was calculated, and is not attempting to indicate the threshold for statistical significance|t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline vs 12 weeks||||<0.05
90838509|NCT01684917|181544126|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The reported p-value was calculated, and is not attempting to indicate the threshold for statistical significance|t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline vs 12 weeks||||<0.05
90838510|NCT01684917|181544126|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The reported p-value was calculated, and is not attempting to indicate the threshold for statistical significance|t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline vs 12 weeks||||<0.05
90838511|NCT01684917|181544128|SUPERIORITY|"Statistical Analysis was performed only for the Diet Arm/Group"|||||<|0.05||||||calculated. The reported p-value was calculated, and is not attempting to indicate the threshold for statistical significance|t-test, 2 sided|||"Baseline vs 12 weeks. Statistical Analysis was performed only for the Diet Arm/Group."||||<0.05
90896593|NCT01147822|181659501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.808|1.441|||Log Rank||Hazard ratios were estimated using the Pike estimator. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with this treatment compared with Sunitinib.|||1.441|0.808|0.604
90896594|NCT03010462|181659507|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.62
90896595|NCT03010462|181659508|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.46
90896596|NCT03010462|181659509|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.54
90896597|NCT03010462|181659510|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.59
90896598|NCT03010462|181659511|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.70
91027975|NCT02978326|181939755|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.3715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Retardation: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 45||0.1|-0.3|0.3715
91027976|NCT02978326|181939755|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.0||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Agitation: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 3||0.0|-0.4|0.0670
91027977|NCT02978326|181939755|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Agitation: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 8||-0.1|-0.5|0.0104
91027978|NCT02978326|181939755|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Agitation: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 15||-0.1|-0.5|0.0122
91027979|NCT02978326|181939755|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.3157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Agitation: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 21||0.1|-0.3|0.3157
91027980|NCT02978326|181939755|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Agitation: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 45||-0.1|-0.5|0.0077
91091308|NCT01603602|182066520|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|11.85||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.203|23.504||ANCOVA model including baseline MTS as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center and botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 4, Elbow||23.504|0.203|0.046
91091309|NCT01603602|182066520|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|20.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.801|33.137||ANCOVA model including baseline MTS as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center and botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 6, Elbow||33.137|8.801|<0.001
90838512|NCT00459316|181544132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.03||||||Two-sided p-value \<0.05 was specified as statistically significant a priori. There were no adjustments for multiple outcomes.|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis was that there would be no difference between CD4% strata.||||0.03
90838513|NCT00459316|181544133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.01||||||Two sided-p-value \<0.05 was specified as statistically significant a priori. No adjustment for multiple primary outcomes was made.|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis was that there were no differences between CD4% strata.||||0.01
90838514|NCT03873116|181544162|SUPERIORITY||negative binomial regression model|-24.6||||0.181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.1|14.0|||negative binomial regression model|||||14.0|-50.1|0.181
90838515|NCT03873116|181544162|SUPERIORITY||negative binomial regression model|-49.1||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.5|-20.4|||negative binomial regression model|||||-20.4|-67.5|0.003
90838516|NCT03873116|181544165|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|0.018||||0.814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.143|0.179|||ANCOVA|||Numerical differences from the placebo treatment in the LSM proportion of the 169 days of treatment with angioedema symptoms.||0.179|-0.143|0.814
91091310|NCT01603602|182066520|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|11.35||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.662|23.362||ANCOVA model including baseline MTS as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center and botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 6, Elbow||23.362|-0.662|0.064
91091311|NCT01603602|182066520|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|15.25||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.317|27.178||ANCOVA model including baseline MTS as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center and botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 8, Elbow||27.178|3.317|0.013
91091312|NCT01603602|182066520|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|7.22||||0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.488|18.934||ANCOVA model including baseline MTS as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center and botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 8, Elbow||18.934|-4.488|0.225
90838517|NCT03873116|181544165|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-0.122||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.036|||ANCOVA|||Numerical differences from the placebo treatment in the LSM proportion of the 169 days of treatment with angioedema symptoms.||0.036|-0.280|0.120
90838518|NCT03873116|181544166|SUPERIORITY||mixed-model repeated measures analysis|24.5||||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|50.3|||mixed-model repeated measures analysis|||In the event that the first secondary endpoint did not meet statistical significance in the hierarchical testing scheme, testing of the second secondary endpoint of rate of expert-confirmed angioedema events during dosing in the effective treatment period for statistical significance would not be completed. Therefore, P-values reported are nominal.||50.3|-14.7|0.188
90838519|NCT03873116|181544166|SUPERIORITY||mixed-model repeated measures analysis|47.6||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.7|66.6|||mixed-model repeated measures analysis|||In the event that the first secondary endpoint did not meet statistical significance in the hierarchical testing scheme, testing of the second secondary endpoint of rate of expert-confirmed angioedema events during dosing in the effective treatment period for statistical significance would not be completed. Therefore, P-values reported are nominal.||66.6|17.7|0.005
90838520|NCT03873116|181544167|SUPERIORITY||mixed-model repeated measures analysis|-12.65||||0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.33|8.03|||mixed-model repeated measures analysis|||Numerical difference in change from baseline of AE-QoL total score between treatment groups. In the event that the first secondary endpoint did not meet statistical significance in the hierarchical testing scheme, testing of the third secondary endpoint of change from baseline in AE-QoL total score at Week 24 for statistical significance would not be completed. P-values that are reported are nominal.||8.03|-33.33|0.213
90838521|NCT03873116|181544167|SUPERIORITY||mixed-model repeated measures analysis|-19.0||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.0|0.99|||mixed-model repeated measures analysis|||Numerical difference in change from baseline of AE-QoL total score between treatment groups. In the event that the first secondary endpoint did not meet statistical significance in the hierarchical testing scheme, testing of the third secondary endpoint of change from baseline in AE-QoL total score at Week 24 for statistical significance would not be completed. P-values that are reported are nominal.||0.99|-39.00|0.061
90838522|NCT02559622|181544245|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) mean difference|1.17||||0.223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|3.06|||ANCOVA|||||3.06|-0.72|0.2230
90838523|NCT00449696|181544267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.91||||0.122||95.0|||||Quadratic Spline Model||Tested superiority of Gel-200 using quadratic spline model for difference between Gel-200 and PBS placebo. Only difference between groups was presented by the pre-specified model as primary endpoint.|||||0.122
90838524|NCT00449696|181544268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.42||||0.071||95.0|||||Quadratic Spline Model||Tested superiority of Gel-200 using quadratic spline model for difference between Gel-200 and PBS placebo. Only difference between groups was presented by the pre-specified model as primary endpoint.|||||0.071
90838525|NCT00449696|181544269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.64||||0.058||95.0|||||Quadratic Spline Model||Tested superiority of Gel-200 using quadratic spline model for difference between Gel-200 and PBS placebo. Only difference between groups was presented by the pre-specified model as primary endpoint.|||||0.058
90838526|NCT00449696|181544270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.59||||0.022||95.0||||P-value for strict OMERACT-OARSI response.|Generalized Estimating Equation Model|||||||0.022
91091313|NCT01603602|182066520|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.5||||0.409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.239|15.236||ANCOVA model including baseline MTS as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center and botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 12, Elbow||15.236|-6.239|0.409
90838527|NCT00449696|181544270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.242||95.0||||P-value for OMERACT-OARSI response.|Generalized Estimating Equation Model|||||||0.242
90838528|NCT00449696|181544271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0||||P-value for physical component scores, physical function subscale, role physical subscale, and bodily pain subscale.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
90838529|NCT00449696|181544272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.39||||0.037||95.0|||||Quadratic Spline Model||Tested superiority of Gel-200 using quadratic spline model for difference between Gel-200 and PBS placebo. Only difference between groups was presented by the pre-specified model as primary endpoint.|||||0.037
90838530|NCT00449696|181544273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.92||||0.746||95.0|||||Quadratic Spline Model||Tested superiority of Gel-200 using quadratic spline model for difference between Gel-200 and PBS placebo. Only difference between groups was presented by the pre-specified model as primary endpoint.|||||0.746
90838531|NCT00449696|181544274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.56||||0.166||95.0|||||Quadratic Spline Model||Tested superiority of Gel-200 using quadratic spline model for difference between Gel-200 and PBS placebo. Only difference between groups was presented by the pre-specified model as primary endpoint.|||||0.166
90838532|NCT00449696|181544275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.041||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.041
90838533|NCT02105740|181544292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.67|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.178||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.224|5.11|||ANOVA|||The clinical significance was considered with a difference of 3 points on the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for both arms with a statistical power of 95%, significance level of 5%. Statistical analysis first compared the difference of means between hypnosis and control groups during three weeks.||5.110|0.224|0.034
90838534|NCT02105740|181544292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.66|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.856||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.253|6.08|||ANOVA|||The clinical significance was considered with a difference of 3 points on the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) with a statistical power of 95%, significance level of 5%. Statistical analysis compared the difference in pain average between the first and the second week in the hypnosis group.||6.080|1.253|0.004
91091314|NCT01603602|182066520|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.86||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.69|14.419||ANCOVA model including baseline MTS as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center and botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 12, Elbow||14.419|-6.690|0.470
91091315|NCT01603602|182066520|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.13||||0.263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.962|4.706||ANCOVA model including baseline MTS as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center and botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 2, Wrist||4.706|-16.962|0.263
91091316|NCT01603602|182066520|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-14.6||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.846|-3.36||ANCOVA model including baseline MTS as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center and botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 2, Wrist||-3.360|-25.846|0.012
91091317|NCT01603602|182066520|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-10.64||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.277|1.996||ANCOVA model including baseline MTS as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center and botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 4, Wrist||1.996|-23.277|0.098
90838535|NCT02105740|181544292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.25|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.827||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.918|7.582|||ANOVA|||The clinical significance was considered with a difference of 3 points on the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) with a statistical power of 95%, significance level of 5%. Statistical analysis compared the difference in pain average between the first and the third week in the hypnosis group.||7.582|2.918|0.000
90838536|NCT02105740|181544293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.39|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Statistical analysis evaluated if the difference of averages of anxiety at the hypnosis and control groups in the third week.||||
90838537|NCT02105740|181544293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Statistical analysis evaluated if the difference of averages of depression at the hypnosis and control groups in the third week.||||
90838538|NCT01075243|181544297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|3.71||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|5.89|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included factors for treatment as a fixed effect and baseline assessment of pain intensity (VAS score) as a covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered no difference in SPRID\^6h between Paracetamol 1000 mg caplet and Paracetamol 650 mg caplet.||5.89|1.53|0.0009
90838539|NCT01075243|181544297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean DIfference|11.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.66|14.0|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included factors for treatment as a fixed effect and baseline assessment of pain intensity (VAS score) as a covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered no difference in SPRID\^6h between Paracetamol 1000 mg caplet and placebo caplet.||14.00|8.66|<0.0001
90838540|NCT01075243|181544297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|7.63|||<|0.0001||95.0|4.94|10.31|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included factors for treatment as a fixed effect and baseline assessment of pain intensity (VAS score) as a covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered no difference in SPRID\^6h between Paracetamol 650 mg caplet and placebo caplet.||10.31|4.94|<0.0001
90838541|NCT00551642|181544312|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.734|TWO_SIDED||||||Wald Chi-square|||||||0.7340
91091318|NCT01603602|182066520|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-13.1||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.26|0.068||ANCOVA model including baseline MTS as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center and botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 4, Wrist||0.068|-26.260|0.051
90838542|NCT05386329|181544316|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of mid-treatment to end-of-treatment|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0308|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5485|=|0.0719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09883|2.1605||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was alpha=.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures were modeled with an unstructured covariance matrix.|The effect is presented as the therapist-guided smartphone-delivered CBT midpoint (week 4) CSQ-8 score compared to the end-point (week 8) CSQ-8 score.|Null hypothesis: there is no significant difference in CSQ-8 total scores between midpoint (week 4) and end-of-treatment (week 8).||2.1605|-0.09883|=.0719
90838543|NCT05386329|181544317|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of mid-treatment (week 4) to baseline|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4296|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8857|=|0.6316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3884|2.2475||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was alpha=.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures were modeled with an unstructured covariance matrix.|The effect is presented as the therapist-guided smartphone-delivered CBT midpoint (week 4) CEQ credibility score compared to the baseline (week 0) CEQ credibility score.|Null hypothesis: there is no significant difference in treatment credibility total scores between baseline (week 0) and midpoint (week 4).||2.2475|-1.3884|=.6316
90838544|NCT05386329|181544318|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of mid-treatment (week 4) to baseline.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1512|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9213|=|0.2225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7422|3.0446||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was alpha=.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures were modeled with an unstructured covariance matrix.|The effect is presented as the therapist-guided smartphone-delivered CBT midpoint (week 4) CEQ expectancy scores compared to the baseline (week 0) CEQ expectancy scores.|Null hypothesis: there is no significant difference in treatment expectancy total scores between baseline (week 0) and midpoint (week 4).||3.0446|-0.7422|=.2225
90838545|NCT05386329|181544320|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of post-treatment (week 8) to mid-treatment (week 4)|Wilcoxon Z|0.2712|||=|0.7873|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was alpha=.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: There is no significant difference in treatment utilization between midpoint (week 4) and end of treatment (week 8).||||=.7873
90838546|NCT05386329|181544321|SUPERIORITY|Pre-post comparison|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.8424|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2858|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4944|-5.1903||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons because this was the pre-specified primary endpoint comparison. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was alpha=.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures were modeled with an unstructured covariance matrix.|The effect is presented as the therapist-guided smartphone-delivered CBT end of treatment (week 8) HAM-D score compared to the baseline (week 0) HAM-D score.|Null hypothesis: there is no significant difference in HAM-D total scores between baseline (week 0) and end of treatment (week 8).||-5.1903|-10.4944|<.0001
91027981|NCT02978326|181939755|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Anxiety Psychic: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 3||-0.1|-0.8|0.0078
91027982|NCT02978326|181939755|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.0||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Anxiety Psychic: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 8||0.0|-0.7|0.0372
91091319|NCT01603602|182066520|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-17.11||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.031|-4.189||ANCOVA model including baseline MTS as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center and botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 6, Wrist||-4.189|-30.031|0.010
91091320|NCT01603602|182066520|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-11.25||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.622|2.131||ANCOVA model including baseline MTS as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center and botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 6, Wrist||2.131|-24.622|0.098
90838547|NCT05386329|181544322|SUPERIORITY|Pre-post comparison|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.9409|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7329|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5043|-6.3776||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons because this was the pre-specified secondary outcome that addresses complementary aspects of the patient experience. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was alpha=.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures were modeled with an unstructured covariance matrix.|The effect is presented as the therapist-guided smartphone-delivered CBT end of treatment (week 8) WSAS scores compared to the baseline (week 0) WSAS scores.|Null hypothesis: there is no significant difference in WSAS total scores between baseline (week 0) and end of treatment (week 8).||-6.3776|-13.5043|<.0001
90896599|NCT01966003|181659512|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Clinical equivalence of the primary endpoint was demonstrated by comparing the 2-sided 90% CI of the risk ratio in objective response rate between ABP 215 and bevacizumab with an equivalence margin of (0.67, 1.5).|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|1.09||||||The risk ratio (ABP 215/Bevacizumab) and 90% confidence interval (CI) were estimated using a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors (region, sex, and ECOG performance status).||1.09|0.80|
90896600|NCT01966003|181659512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.26|3.45||||||Risk difference (ABP 215 - Bevacizumab) and 90% CI were estimated using a generalized linear model adjusted for the randomization stratification factors geographic region, ECOG performance status, and sex.||3.45|-9.26|
90896601|NCT01966003|181659514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|1.29||||||The hazard ratio for ABP 215 relative to bevacizumab was based on a stratified Cox proportional hazards model. Stratification factors are geographic region, ECOG performance status, and sex.||1.29|0.83|
90896602|NCT01966003|181659517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.75|1.61||||||Hazard ratio for ABP 215 relative to bevacizumab, based on a stratified Cox proportional hazards model. Stratification factors are geographic region, ECOG performance status, and sex.||1.61|0.75|
90896603|NCT04026165|181659556|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.1439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|2.81|||Random Slope Model|||Estimates were from a random slope model with change in eGFRcr from treatment-specific Baselines at Weeks 4, 8, 12, 24, 36, 48, 60, 72, and 84 as outcome, including terms for treatment-specific Baseline eGFRcr, pre-run-in urine albumin to creatinine ratio (UACR) category (\< 1500 mg/g vs. \>= 1500 mg/g), concomitant use of sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors at Randomization, treatment group, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, where week has a random effect.||2.81|-0.41|0.1439
90896604|NCT04026165|181659557|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|0.1||||0.8353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|11.4||p-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Randomization stratification factors. Randomization stratification factors= pre-run-in eGFRcr stratum, pre-run-in UACR category and concomitant use of SGLT-2 inhibitors at Randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% exact CI based on the Santner-Snell method was presented for the difference in proportions between SEL and placebo arms.|||11.4|-10.9|0.8353
90896605|NCT04026165|181659558|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.48||||0.201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.72|||Stratified Log-Rank|P-value was calculated using a stratified log-rank test, stratified by randomization stratification factors.|Hazard ratio and 95% CI were estimated using a stratified Cox proportional hazard model, stratified by randomization stratification factors and were reported only for outcomes with more than 10 events, and have at least 1 event in each treatment arm.|||2.72|0.81|0.2010
91091321|NCT01603602|182066520|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-17.71||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.888|-5.537||ANCOVA model including baseline MTS as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center and botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 8, Wrist||-5.537|-29.888|0.005
91091322|NCT01603602|182066520|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-15.74||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.293|-3.194||ANCOVA model including baseline MTS as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center and botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 8, Wrist||-3.194|-28.293|0.015
90896606|NCT04026165|181659560|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.5399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|1.86|||Random Slope Model|||Estimates were from a random slope model with change in eGFRcys from pre-run-in Baseline at Weeks 4, 8, 12, 24, 36, 48, 60, 72, and 84 as outcome, including terms for pre-run-in Baseline eGFRcys, pre-run-in UACR category (\< 1500 mg/g vs. \>= 1500 mg/g), concomitant use of SGLT-2 inhibitors at Randomization, treatment group, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, where week has a random effect.||1.86|-0.97|0.5399
90896607|NCT01257880|181659562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mann-Whitney U test was used to test the null hypothesis that basilar artery vasomotor reactivity was equivalent between the two groups.||||0.39
90896608|NCT01059630|181659569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.7|||Log Rank|||||0.70|0.40|<0.0001
90896609|NCT01059630|181659571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.73|||Log Rank|||||0.73|0.45|<0.0001
90896610|NCT01059630|181659572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in response rate|0.98||||0.9298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.65|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.65|0.58|0.9298
90896611|NCT01059630|181659573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in response rate|-0.9||||0.7857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.44|6.64|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||6.64|-8.44|0.7857
90896612|NCT01059630|181659578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in response rate|2.24||||0.8347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|11.69|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||11.69|-7.20|0.8347
90838548|NCT05386329|181544323|SUPERIORITY|Pre-post comparison|Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.5463|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4152|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.512|28.5806||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons because this was a pre-specified secondary outcome assessing a complementary aspect of the patient experience. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was alpha=.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures were modeled with an unstructured covariance matrix.|The effect is presented as the therapist-guided smartphone-delivered CBT end of treatment (week 8) Q-LES-Q-SF percent scores compared to the baseline (week 0) Q-LES-Q-SF percent scores.|Null hypothesis: there is no significant difference in Q-LES-Q-SF total scores between baseline (week 0) and end of treatment (week 8).||28.5806|14.5120|<.0001
90838549|NCT04973449|181544341|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the GMT ratio of the comparator group and reference group was \> 0.67.|GMT ratio|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.32||||||The analyses were derived using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA).||1.32|1.08|
90838550|NCT04973449|181544342|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio of the comparator group and reference group is \> 0.67.|GMT ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.14||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||1.14|0.90|
90838551|NCT04973449|181544343|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI rate difference in seroresponse between the comparator group and reference group was \> or =-10%.|Seroresponse difference|1.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.11|6.49||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||6.49|-3.11|
90838552|NCT04973449|181544344|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio of the comparator group and reference group is \> 0.67.|GMT ratio|3.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.09|3.89||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||3.89|3.09|
90838553|NCT04973449|181544347|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio of the comparator group and reference group was \> 0.67.|GMT ratio|3.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.06|3.36||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||3.36|3.06|
90838554|NCT04973449|181544348|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio of the comparator group and reference group was \> 0.67.|GMT ratio|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.56||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||0.56|0.45|
90838555|NCT04973449|181544349|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio of the comparator group and reference group was \> 0.67.|GMT ratio|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.35||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||0.35|0.27|
90838556|NCT04973449|181544350|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio of the comparator group and reference group was \> 0.67.|GMT ratio|1.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|1.58||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||1.58|1.25|
90838557|NCT04973449|181544351|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio of the comparator group and reference group was \> 0.67.|GMT ratio|1.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.63|2.08||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||2.08|1.63|
90838558|NCT04973449|181544352|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio of the comparator group and reference group was \> 0.67.|GMT ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|0.99||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||0.99|0.78|
91091323|NCT01603602|182066520|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-15.25||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.01|-2.492||ANCOVA model including baseline MTS as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center and botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 12, Wrist||-2.492|-28.010|0.020
90838559|NCT04973449|181544353|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio of the comparator group and reference group was \> 0.67.|GMT ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|0.97||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||0.97|0.78|
90838560|NCT04973449|181544354|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio of the comparator group and reference group was \> 0.67.|GMT ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.08||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||1.08|0.83|
90838561|NCT04973449|181544355|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio of the comparator group and reference group was \> 0.67.|GMT ratio|6.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.82|7.4||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||7.40|5.82|
90896613|NCT01059630|181659579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in response rate|8.55||||0.0466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|17.32|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||17.32|-0.22|0.0466
90838562|NCT04973449|181544356|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio of the comparator group and reference group was \> 0.67.|GMT ratio|2.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.99|2.47||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||2.47|1.99|
90838563|NCT04973449|181544357|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio of the comparator group and reference group is \> 0.67.|GMT ratio|4.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.86|4.9||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||4.90|3.86|
90838564|NCT04973449|181544358|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio of the comparator group and reference group was \> 0.67.|GMT ratio|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|1.39||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||1.39|1.13|
90838565|NCT04973449|181544359|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio of the comparator group and reference group was \> 0.67.|GMT ratio|4.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.85|5.08||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||5.08|3.85|
90896614|NCT01059630|181659580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.61||||||||0.61|0.31|
90896615|NCT01059630|181659581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.67||||||||0.67|0.39|
90896616|NCT01059630|181659582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.45||||||||0.45|0.04|
90896617|NCT01059630|181659583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.81||||||||0.81|0.29|
90896618|NCT01059630|181659584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.74|||Log Rank|||||0.74|0.44|0.0001
91091324|NCT01603602|182066520|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-13.52||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.797|-0.243||ANCOVA model including baseline MTS as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center and botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 12, Wrist||-0.243|-26.797|0.046
91091325|NCT00316004|182066528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55||95.0||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test compares proportions across all three treatment groups.|test for differences in proportions|||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the percent prevalence of poor outcome between the three groups.||||0.55
91091326|NCT00316004|182066529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59||95.0||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test compares proportions across all three treatment groups.|test for differences in proportions|Adjusted for multiple imputations||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the percent prevalence of poor outcome between the three treatment groups among patients with head AIS≥4.||||0.59
90838566|NCT04973449|181544360|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI rate difference in seroresponse between the comparator group and reference group was \> or =-10%.|Seroresponse difference|-1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.62|3.84||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||3.84|-6.62|
90838567|NCT04973449|181544361|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI rate difference in seroresponse between the comparator group and reference group was \> or =-10%.|Seroresponse difference|16.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.18|23.32||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||23.32|10.18|
90838568|NCT04973449|181544362|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI rate difference in seroresponse between the comparator group and reference group was \> or =-10%.|Seroresponse difference|-18.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.22|-12.07||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||-12.07|-24.22|
90838569|NCT04973449|181544363|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI rate difference in seroresponse between the comparator group and reference group was \> or =-10%.|Seroresponse difference|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.28|7.23||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||7.23|-7.28|
90838570|NCT04973449|181544364|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI rate difference in seroresponse between the comparator group and reference group was \> or =-10%.|Seroresponse difference|31.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.44|37.82||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||37.82|24.44|
90838571|NCT04973449|181544365|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI rate difference in seroresponse between the comparator group and reference group was \> or =-10%.|Seroresponse difference|-3.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|1.9||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||1.90|-9.40|
90838572|NCT04973449|181544366|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI rate difference in seroresponse between the comparator group and reference group was \> or =-10%.|Seroresponse difference|23.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.41|30.23||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||30.23|15.41|
90838573|NCT04973449|181544367|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI rate difference in seroresponse between the comparator group and reference group was \> or =-10%.|Seroresponse difference|-34.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.77|-27.45||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||-27.45|-40.77|
90838574|NCT04973449|181544368|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI rate difference in seroresponse between the comparator group and reference group was \> or =-10%.|Seroresponse difference|6.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|15.1||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||15.10|-1.31|
90838575|NCT04973449|181544369|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI rate difference in seroresponse between the comparator group and reference group was \> or =-10%.|Seroresponse difference|29.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.76|35.81||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||35.81|21.76|
90838576|NCT04973449|181544371|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio of the comparator group and reference group was \> 0.67.|GMT ratio|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|1.42||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||1.42|1.30|
90896619|NCT01059630|181659586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.03|||Log Rank|||||1.03|0.57|0.0810
90896620|NCT00985985|181659631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.3851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.92|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds Ratio based on logistic model (adjusted by center)|Null hypothesis considered no treatment difference in the smoking cessation success rate for the active treatment versus its matching placebo.||1.92|0.78|0.3851
90838577|NCT04973449|181544372|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio of the comparator group and reference group was \> 0.67.|GMT ratio|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.81||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||0.81|0.70|
90838578|NCT04973449|181544373|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio of the comparator group and reference group was \> 0.67.|GMT ratio|3.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|4.39||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||4.39|3.40|
90838579|NCT04973449|181544374|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio of the comparator group and reference group was \> 0.67.|GMT ratio|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.7||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||0.70|0.64|
90838580|NCT04973449|181544375|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI rate difference in seroresponse between the comparator group and reference group was \> or =-10%.|Seroresponse difference|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|2.09||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||2.09|-0.61|
90838581|NCT04973449|181544376|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI rate difference in seroresponse between the comparator group and reference group was \> or =-10%.|Seroresponse difference|-35.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.46|-28.44||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||-28.44|-41.46|
90896621|NCT00985985|181659631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.82||||0.0565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|3.32|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds Ratio based on logistic model (adjusted by center).|Null hypothesis considered no treatment difference in the smoking cessation success rate for the active treatment versus its matching placebo.||3.32|0.99|0.0565
90896622|NCT03720938|181659659|SUPERIORITY|A sample size of 26 children per group was needed with the assumption of Cohen's d = 0.8, the alpha error of 0.05 and a power of 80%.||||||0.001||||||The outcomes of weight was tested for any difference between groups by covariate analysis (ANCOVA) adjusted for the weight at baseline and confounding variable age.|ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable weight.||||0.001
91091327|NCT00316004|182066530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67||95.0||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test compares proportions across all three treatment groups.|test for differences in proportions|Adjusted for multiple imputations.||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the percent prevalence of poor outcome between the three groups.||||0.67
90838582|NCT04973449|181544377|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI rate difference in seroresponse between the comparator group and reference group was \> or =-10%.|Seroresponse difference|-24.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.06|-18.56||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||-18.56|-31.06|
90838583|NCT04973449|181544378|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI rate difference in seroresponse between the comparator group and reference group was \> or =-10%.|Seroresponse difference|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|1.56||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||1.56|-1.63|
90838584|NCT04973449|181544379|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI rate difference in seroresponse between the comparator group and reference group was \> or =-10%.|Seroresponse difference|-19.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.8|-14.98||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||-14.98|-23.80|
90838585|NCT04973449|181544380|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI rate difference in seroresponse between the comparator group and reference group was \> or =-10%.|Seroresponse difference|39.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.68|45.21||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||45.21|32.68|
90838586|NCT04973449|181544381|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI rate difference in seroresponse between the comparator group and reference group was \> or =-10%.|Seroresponse difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|1.62||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||1.62|-1.62|
90838587|NCT04973449|181544382|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio of the comparator group and reference group was \> 0.67.|GMT ratio|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.59||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||0.59|0.45|
90838588|NCT04973449|181544383|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio of the comparator group and reference group was \> 0.67.|GMT ratio|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.86||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||0.86|0.68|
90838589|NCT04973449|181544384|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio of the comparator group and reference group was \> 0.67.|GMT ratio|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|1.79||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||1.79|1.43|
90838590|NCT04973449|181544385|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio of the comparator group and reference group was \> 0.67.|GMT ratio|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.85||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||0.85|0.67|
90838591|NCT04973449|181544386|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI rate difference in seroresponse between the comparator group and reference group was \> or =-10%.|Seroresponse difference|-18.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.13|-12.1||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||-12.10|-24.13|
90838592|NCT04973449|181544387|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI rate difference in seroresponse between the comparator group and reference group was \> or =-10%.|Seroresponse difference|14.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.07|21.71||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||21.71|7.07|
90838593|NCT04973449|181544388|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI rate difference in seroresponse between the comparator group and reference group was \> or =-10%.|Seroresponse difference|-18.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.13|-12.1||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||-12.10|-24.13|
90896623|NCT03720938|181659659|OTHER|||||||0.0002535||||||Linear mixed-effects model fit by maximum likelihood since restricted maximum likelihood assumes a strong normality.|Linear mixed effects model|Adjusted for cluster effect, and small sample sizes in addition to baseline value and age.||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable weight.||||0.0002535
90838594|NCT04973449|181544389|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI rate difference in seroresponse between the comparator group and reference group was \> or =-10%.|Seroresponse difference|16.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.15|23.4||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||23.40|10.15|
90838595|NCT04973449|181544390|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI rate difference in seroresponse between the comparator group and reference group was \> or =-10%.|Seroresponse difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.21|7.21||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||7.21|-7.21|
90838596|NCT04973449|181544391|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio of the comparator group and reference group was \> 0.67.|GMT ratio|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.75|2.28||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||2.28|1.75|
90838597|NCT04973449|181544392|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio of the comparator group and reference group was \> 0.67.|GMT ratio|2.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.64|3.32||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||3.32|2.64|
90896624|NCT03720938|181659659|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.000397||||||Linear mixed-effects model fit by maximum likelihood since restricted maximum likelihood assumes a strong normality.|Linear mixed-effects model|Adjusted by Satterthwaite's degrees of freedom method for cluster effect, and small sample sizes in addition to baseline value and age.||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable weight.||||0.000397
91091328|NCT00316004|182066531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57||95.0||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test compares proportions across all three treatment groups.|test for differences in proportions|Adjusted for multiple imputations||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the percent prevalence of poor outcome between the three treatment groups among patients with head AIS≥2.||||0.57
90838598|NCT04973449|181544393|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio of the comparator group and reference group was \> 0.67.|GMT ratio|1.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|1.69||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||1.69|1.35|
91091329|NCT00316004|182066532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84||95.0||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test compares proportions across all three treatment groups.|test for proportions|Adjusted for multiple imputations||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the percent of patients at any level of disability between the three groups.||||.84
90896625|NCT03720938|181659660|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||The outcome of weight z score was tested for any difference between groups by covariate analysis (ANCOVA) adjusted for the weight at baseline and confounding variable age.|ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable weight z scores.||||0.005
90896626|NCT03720938|181659660|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||Linear mixed-effects model fit by maximum likelihood since restricted maximum likelihood assumes a strong normality.|Linear mixed effects model|Adjusted for cluster effect in addition to baseline value and age.||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable weight z score.||||0.002
90896627|NCT03720938|181659660|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.00386||||||Linear mixed-effects model fit by maximum likelihood since restricted maximum likelihood assumes a strong normality.|Linear mixed effects model|Adjusted by Satterthwaite's degrees of freedom method for cluster effect, and small sample sizes in addition to baseline value and age.||Linear mixed-effects model fit by maximum likelihood since restricted maximum likelihood assumes a strong normality. Adjusted by Satterthwaite's degrees of freedom correction method for cluster effect, and small sample sizes in addition to baseline value and age.||||0.00386
90896628|NCT03720938|181659661|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||The outcomes of weight was tested for any difference between groups by covariate analysis (ANCOVA) adjusted for the body mass index at baseline and confounding variable age.|ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable body mass index.||||0.000
90838599|NCT04973449|181544394|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio of the comparator group and reference group was \> 0.67.|GMT ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|0.94||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||0.94|0.78|
90838600|NCT04973449|181544395|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI rate difference in seroresponse between the comparator group and reference group was \> or =-10%.|Seroresponse difference|-41.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.57|-34.41||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||-34.41|-47.57|
90838601|NCT04973449|181544396|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI rate difference in seroresponse between the comparator group and reference group was \> or =-10%.|Seroresponse difference|6.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|13.77||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||13.77|-1.81|
90838602|NCT04973449|181544397|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI rate difference in seroresponse between the comparator group and reference group was \> or =-10%.|Seroresponse difference|-26.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.1|-19.94||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||-19.94|-33.10|
90896629|NCT03720938|181659661|SUPERIORITY|||||||3.06e-06||||||"Linear mixed-effects model fit by maximum likelihood since restricted maximum likelihood assumes a strong normality.~Adjusted for cluster effect, and small sample sizes, baseline value and age."|Linear mixed effects model|Satterthwaite's correction method for denominator degrees of freedom.||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable body mass index.||||0.00000306
90896630|NCT03720938|181659661|SUPERIORITY|||||||3.67e-06||||||Linear mixed-effects model fit by maximum likelihood since restricted maximum likelihood assumes a strong normality.|Linear mixed effects model|Adjusted by Satterthwaite's degrees of freedom method for cluster effect, and small sample sizes in addition to baseline value and age.||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable body mass index.||||0.00000367
90896631|NCT03720938|181659662|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||The outcome of body mass index z score was tested for any difference between groups by covariate analysis (ANCOVA) adjusted for the body mass index z score at baseline and confounding variable age.|ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable body mass index z score.||||0.000
90838603|NCT04973449|181544398|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI rate difference in seroresponse between the comparator group and reference group was \> or =-10%.|Seroresponse difference|30.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.94|37.9||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||37.90|22.94|
90838604|NCT04973449|181544399|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI rate difference in seroresponse between the comparator group and reference group was \> or =-10%.|Seroresponse difference|14.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.36|22.64||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||22.64|6.36|
90838605|NCT04973449|181544400|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the GMT ratio of the comparator group and reference group was \> 0.67.|GMT ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.96||||||The analyses were derived using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA).||0.96|0.74|
90838606|NCT04973449|181544401|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio of the comparator group and reference group was \> 0.67.|GMT ratio|1.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.62|1.8||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||1.80|1.62|
90896632|NCT03720938|181659662|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001402||||||Linear mixed-effects model fit by maximum likelihood since restricted maximum likelihood assumes a strong normality.|Linear mixed effects model|Adjusted for cluster effect in addition to baseline value and age.||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable body mass index z score.||||0.0001402
90896633|NCT03720938|181659662|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.000235||||||Linear mixed-effects model fit by maximum likelihood since restricted maximum likelihood assumes a strong normality.|Linear mixed-effects model|Adjusted by Satterthwaite's degrees of freedom method for cluster effect, and small sample sizes in addition to baseline value and age.||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable body index z score.||||0.000235
90896634|NCT03720938|181659663|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.259||||||The outcomes of fat ratio was tested for any difference between groups by covariate analysis (ANCOVA) adjusted for the fat ratio at baseline and confounding variable age.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for cluster effect in addition to baseline value and age.||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable fat ratio.||||0.259
90838607|NCT04973449|181544402|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio of the comparator group and reference group was \> 0.67.|GMT ratio|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.56||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||0.56|0.44|
90896635|NCT03720938|181659663|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22||||||Linear mixed-effects model fit by maximum likelihood since restricted maximum likelihood assumes a strong normality.|Linear mixed-effects model|Adjusted for cluster effect in addition to baseline value and age.||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable fat ratio.||||0.220
90896636|NCT03720938|181659663|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.250006||||||Linear mixed-effects model fit by maximum likelihood since restricted maximum likelihood assumes a strong normality.|Linear mixed effects model|Adjusted by Satterthwaite's degrees of freedom method for cluster effect, and small sample sizes in addition to baseline value and age.||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable fat ratio.||||0.250006
91091330|NCT00316004|182066533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88||95.0||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test compares proportions across all three treatment groups.|test for differences in proportions|The numbers differ from the JAMA manuscript because of typos and version control issues that were discovered after publication.||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the percent of patients who were alive on the 28th day after injury between the three groups.||||0.88
91091331|NCT00316004|182066534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88||95.0||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test compares proportions across all three treatment groups.|test for differences in proportions|The numbers differ from the JAMA manuscript because of typos and version control issues that were discovered after publication.||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the percent of patients who were alive on the day discharged from the hospital after injury between the three groups.||||0.88
91091332|NCT00316004|182066535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.91||95.0||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test compares proportions across all three treatment groups.|test for differences in proportions|The numbers differ from the JAMA manuscript because of typos and version control issues that were discovered after publication.||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the percent of patients who were alive and free of ARDS from the day of injury to the 28th day after injury between the three groups.||||0.91
90838608|NCT04973449|181544403|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio of the comparator group and reference group was \> 0.67.|GMT ratio|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.44||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||0.44|0.32|
90838609|NCT02711891|181544471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8|||||||Paired Sample T-test|||||||0.8
90896637|NCT03720938|181659664|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||The outcome of visual reaction time was tested for any difference between groups by covariate analysis.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for the weight at baseline and confounding variable age.||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable visual reaction time.||||0.000
90896638|NCT03720938|181659664|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for the weight at baseline and confounding variable age.||||||1.196e-05||||||Linear mixed-effects model fit by maximum likelihood since restricted maximum likelihood assumes a strong normality.|Linear mixed-effects model|Adjusted for cluster effect in addition to baseline value and age.||The outcome of visual reaction time was tested for any difference between groups by linear mixed-effects model analysis.||||0.00001196
90896639|NCT03720938|181659664|SUPERIORITY||||||‬|2.82e-05||||||Linear mixed-effects model fit by maximum likelihood since restricted maximum likelihood assumes a strong normality.|Linear mixed-effects model|Adjusted by Satterthwaite's degrees of freedom method for cluster effect, and small sample sizes in addition to baseline value and age.||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable visual reaction time.||||0.0000282‬
91091333|NCT00316004|182066536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81||95.0||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test compares averages across all three treatment groups.|ANOVA|The numbers differ from the JAMA manuscript because of typos and version control issues that were discovered after publication.||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in average Worst Multiple Organ Dysfunction Scores (MODS) through day 28 between the three groups.||||0.81
91091334|NCT00316004|182066537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77||95.0||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test compares averages across all three treatment groups.|ANOVA|The numbers differ from the JAMA manuscript because of typos and version control issues that were discovered after publication.||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the average number of Ventilator-free days through day 28 between the three groups.||||0.77
90838610|NCT02711891|181544471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.003|||||||Paired Sample T-test|||||||.003
90838611|NCT02711891|181544471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.002
90896640|NCT03720938|181659665|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||The outcome of visual reaction time of non-dominant hand was tested for any difference between groups.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for the visual reaction time of non-dominant hand at baseline and confounding variable age.||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable visual reaction time of non-dominant hand.||||0.000
90896641|NCT03720938|181659665|SUPERIORITY|||||||9e-08||||||Linear mixed-effects model fit by maximum likelihood since restricted maximum likelihood assumes a strong normality.|Linear mixed-effects model|Adjusted for cluster effect in addition to baseline value and age.||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable visual reaction time of non-dominant hand.||||0.00000009
91091335|NCT00316004|182066538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76||95.0||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test compares averages across all three treatment groups.|ANOVA|The numbers differ from the JAMA manuscript because of typos and version control issues that were discovered after publication.||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the average number of days alive out of the ICU through day 28 between the three groups.||||0.76
90838612|NCT02711891|181544473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.01
90838613|NCT02711891|181544473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|0.05|||||Chi-squared|||||||.001
90838614|NCT02711891|181544475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.876||||||Comparison of mean BPM during lance procedure for L1 vs L2 Loperamide.|t-test, 1 sided|||The population BPM lance one = population BPM mean lance two. Loperamide 1= Loperamide 2. Placebo 1=Placebo 2.||||.876
90896642|NCT03720938|181659665|SUPERIORITY|||||||55||||||Linear mixed-effects model fit by maximum likelihood since restricted maximum likelihood assumes a strong normality.|Linear mixed-effects model|Adjusted by Satterthwaite's degrees of freedom method for cluster effect, and small sample sizes in addition to baseline value and age.||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable visual reaction time of non-dominant hand.||||000000055
90896643|NCT03720938|181659666|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||The outcomes of auditory reaction time of dominant hand was tested for any difference between groups by covariate analysis.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for the auditory reaction time of dominant hand at baseline and confounding variable age.||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable auditory reaction time of dominant hand.||||0.000
90896644|NCT03720938|181659666|SUPERIORITY|||||||1.633e-05||||||The outcomes of auditory reaction time of dominant hand was tested for any difference between groups by linear mixed-effects analysis.|Linear mixed-effects model|Adjusted for cluster effect in addition to baseline value and age.||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable auditory reaction time of dominant hand.||||0.00001633
90896645|NCT03720938|181659666|SUPERIORITY|||||||3.67e-05||||||Linear mixed-effects model fit by maximum likelihood since restricted maximum likelihood assumes a strong normality.|Linear mixed-effects model|Adjusted by Satterthwaite's degrees of freedom method for cluster effect, and small sample sizes in addition to baseline value and age.||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable auditory reaction time of dominant hand.||||0.0000367
90896646|NCT03720938|181659667|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008||||||The outcomes of auditory reaction time of non-dominant hand was tested for any difference between groups by covariate analysis.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for the auditory reaction time of non-dominant hand at baseline and confounding variable age.||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable auditory reaction time of non-dominant hand.||||0.008
90896647|NCT03720938|181659667|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006||||||Linear mixed-effects model fit by maximum likelihood since restricted maximum likelihood assumes a strong normality.|Linear mixed effects model|Adjusted for cluster effect in addition to baseline value and age.||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable auditory reaction time of non-dominant hand.||||0.006
90896648|NCT03720938|181659667|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006602||||||Linear mixed-effects model fit by maximum likelihood since restricted maximum likelihood assumes a strong normality.|Linear mixed-effects model|Adjusted by Satterthwaite's degrees of freedom method for cluster effect, and small sample sizes in addition to baseline value and age.||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable auditory reaction time of non-dominant hand.||||0.006602
90896649|NCT03720938|181659668|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.615648||||||The outcome of self-perception for sports competence was tested for any difference between groups by covariate analysis.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for self-perception for sports competence at baseline and confounding variable age.||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable self-perception of sports competence.||||0.615648
91091336|NCT00316004|182066539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43||95.0||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test compares averages across all three treatment groups.|ANOVA|The numbers differ from the JAMA manuscript because of typos and version control issues that were discovered after publication.||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the average number of days alive out of the hospital through day 28 between the three groups.||||0.43
91091337|NCT00316004|182066540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test compares proportions across all three treatment groups.|test for differences in proportions|||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the percent of patients with any nosocomial infections through hospital stay between the three groups.||||0.06
90896650|NCT03720938|181659668|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.608||||||Linear mixed-effects model fit by maximum likelihood since restricted maximum likelihood assumes a strong normality.|Linear mixed effects model|Adjusted for cluster effect in addition to baseline value and age.||The outcome of self-perception for sports competence was tested for any difference between groups by linear mixed-effects model analysis.||||0.608
90896651|NCT03720938|181659668|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.60938||||||The outcome of self-perception for sports competence was tested for any difference between groups by linear mixed-effects model analysis.|Linear mixed-effects model|Adjusted by Satterthwaite's degrees of freedom method for cluster effect, and small sample sizes in addition to baseline value and age.||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable self-perception of sports competence.||||0.60938
90896652|NCT03720938|181659669|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.094||||||The outcome of self-perception for physical condition competence was tested for any difference between groups by covariate analysis.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for self-perception for physical condition competence at baseline and confounding variable age.||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable self-perception of physical condition competence.||||0.094
90896653|NCT03720938|181659669|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.085||||||The outcome of self-perception for physical condition competence was tested for any difference between groups by linear mixed-effects model analysis.|Linear mixed effects model|Adjusted for cluster effect in addition to baseline value and age.||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable self-perception of physical condition competence.||||0.085
90896654|NCT03720938|181659669|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08818||||||Linear mixed-effects model fit by maximum likelihood since restricted maximum likelihood assumes a strong normality.|Linear mixed-effects model|Adjusted by Satterthwaite's degrees of freedom method for cluster effect, and small sample sizes in addition to baseline value and age.||The outcome of self-perception for sports competence was tested for any difference between groups by linear mixed-effects model analysis.||||0.08818
90896655|NCT03720938|181659670|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.058102||||||The outcome of self-perception for strength competence was tested for any difference between groups by covariate analysis.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for self-perception for strength competence at baseline and confounding variable age.||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable self-perception of strength competence.||||0.058102
90838615|NCT02711891|181544475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.085||||||Comparison of the mean between HR one and HR two during the procedure for lance one will equal the mean HR lance two following loperamide gel application.|ANOVA|df 16.||Mean HR during the procedure for lance one will equal mean HR lance two following loperamide gel applciation||||.085
91091338|NCT00316004|182066540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3||95.0||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test compares proportions across all three treatment groups.|test for differences in proportions|||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the percent of patients with pneumonia through hospital stay between the three groups.||||0.3
90838616|NCT00906204|181544484|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A one-sided alpha = 0.05, 85% power, an event rate of 0.70, equivalence margin of 0.20. Sample size = 75 patients per dose group, a total of 150 patients. Data analyzed will be counts of patients in each group who experience one or more component events of the primary endpoint during postoperative days one through seven. The DSMB requested an interim analysis after 80 patients and recommended ending the trial because the primary endpoint had been robustly reached.||||||0.64|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||The analysis compares the rates at which patients in each of the two groups cumulatively exceed the five composite endpoint thresholds. There are five safety outcomes monitored during the first seven post-transplantation days. The rates of observed vs. possible safety outcomes are compared.||||0.64
90838617|NCT00906204|181544485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.35
90838618|NCT00906204|181544486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.47
90838619|NCT00906204|181544487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.78
90838620|NCT00906204|181544488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.72
90838621|NCT00906204|181544489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.85
90838622|NCT00124943|181544502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.396||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||The statistical testing of treatment difference is for exploratory purposes.||||0.396
90838623|NCT00124943|181544503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.783||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of the number of patients with any treatment emergent adverse event. The statistical testing of treatment difference is for exploratory purposes.||||0.783
90838624|NCT00124943|181544504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.293||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of in-stent binary restenosis. The statistical testing of treatment difference is for exploratory purposes.||||0.293
90838625|NCT00124943|181544504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of in-segment binary restenosis. The statistical testing of treatment difference is for exploratory purposes||||0.400
90838626|NCT00124943|181544505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||The statistical testing of treatment difference is for exploratory purposes.||||>0.999
90838627|NCT00124943|181544506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.061||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||The statistical testing of treatment difference is for exploratory purposes.||||0.061
90838628|NCT00124943|181544507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.709||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of in-stent late lumen loss. The statistical testing of treatment difference is for exploratory purposes.||||0.709
90838629|NCT00124943|181544507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.495||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of in-segment late lumen loss. The statistical testing of treatment difference is for exploratory purposes.||||0.495
90838630|NCT00124943|181544508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.317||95.0|||||ANOVA|P-value testing dose group differences based on an analysis of variance with dose effect in the model.||||||0.317
90838631|NCT03181932|181544509|SUPERIORITY|The primary efficacy endpoint was tested sequentially at Week 4 (end of Cycle 1), Week 12 (end of Cycle 2) and at Week 20 (end of Cycle 3). If a statistically significant difference was observed in favor of vancomycin inhalation powder compared to placebo after Cycle 1, then the mean change in the FEV1 percent predicted during Cycle 2 was to be tested. Similarly, if the effect after Cycle 2 was statistically significant, then the analysis of Baseline to end of Cycle 3 was to be tested.|Least square mean difference|1.4||||0.325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|4.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Based on previous experience, a sample size of 45 participants per arm would provide 89% power to detect a statistically significant difference at alpha level of 0.05. To account for potential dropouts and/or smaller effect size in a 3-cycle trial, a sample size of 75 participants per arm was to be enrolled in the primary analysis population, which if all completed would provide 90% power to detect a difference of 3.4% at 20 weeks assuming the same standard deviation of 6.3%.||4.1|-1.4|0.325
90838632|NCT01887327|181544517|OTHER||LS Mean Difference vs Placebo|-31.64|||=|2.1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.0|-19.283|||LS Mean Difference vs Placebo|||||-19.283|-44.000|=0.0000021
90838633|NCT01887327|181544517|OTHER||LS Mean Difference vs Placebo|-27.4|||=|2.6e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.657|-15.142|||LS Mean Difference vs Placebo|||||-15.142|-39.657|=0.0000260
90838634|NCT00408317|181544534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|34.74|||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||P-values are from a semi-parametric mixed model on ranked CFA% values including sequence, period, and treatment group as fixed effects; participant identification (ID) as random effect.||||<0.0001
90838635|NCT00408317|181544535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.68|||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||P-values are from a semi-parametric mixed model on ranked CNA% values including sequence, period, and treatment group as fixed effects, and participant ID as random effect.||||<0.0001
90838636|NCT02584686|181544539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0049|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparing the mean PSV before \& after treatment in the study group using the t-test.||||0.0049
90838637|NCT02584686|181544539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparing the mean PSV before \& after treatment in the control group using the t-test.||||0.68
90838638|NCT02584686|181544541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01086956|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparing the Erection hardness score before \& after treatment in the study group.||||0.01086956
90838639|NCT02584686|181544541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6618176|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparing the Erection hardness score before \& after treatment in the control group.||||0.6618176
90838640|NCT02584686|181544543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.00751288|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||SHIM Score in the study group before \& after treatment.||||0.00751288
90838641|NCT02584686|181544543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6618176|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||SHIM Score in the control group before \& after treatment.||||0.6618176
90838642|NCT02584686|181544544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027191||||||"Due to the small sample size Fisher exact test was chosen. 7 out of 12 in the treatment group answered yes, while 1 out of 12 in the control group answered yes."|Fisher Exact|||||||0.027191
90838643|NCT02584686|181544546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.109091|||||||Fisher Exact|||"Fisher Exact Test was used to compare the change in the number of in patients who answered Yes in Secondary Outcome 8 (SEP-Q2 Question Before Treatment) to patients who answered Yes in Secondary Outcome 9 (SEP-Q2 Question after Treatment), for both (BTXA) and Saline groups."||||0.109091
90838644|NCT02584686|181544548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||"Fisher Exact Test was used to compare the change in patients who answered Yes in Secondary Outcome 10 (SEP-Q3 Question Before Treatment) to patients who answered Yes in Secondary Outcome 11 (SEP-Q3 Question after Treatment)."||||1
90838645|NCT02703597|181544563|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|4.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Hypothesis: Participants in the GSA-ASPIRE-Network Group will be more likely to decrease in susceptibility to vaping than participants in the ASPIRE group.~The statistical analysis was conducted for 10 out of the 15 participating sites, to avoid bias with respect to the sites that participated in different conditions (i.e., 1 site in a school classroom during class time and 4 sites in the summer camp during summer time)."||4.20|0.32|0.80
90838646|NCT02703597|181544563|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.17|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Hypothesis: Participants in both arms will decrease in susceptibility to vaping over time.~The statistical analysis was conducted for 10 out of the 15 participating sites, to avoid bias with respect to the sites that participated in different conditions (i.e., 1 site in a school classroom during class time and 4 sites in the summer camp during summer time)."||0.43|0.06|<0.01
90838647|NCT02703597|181544564|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|3.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Hypothesis: Adolescents who participated in the GSA-ASPIRE-Network group will be more likely to decrease in susceptibility to using conventional tobacco than adolescents who participated in the ASPIRE group.~The statistical analysis was conducted for 10 out of the 15 participating sites, to avoid bias with respect to the sites that participated in different conditions (i.e., 1 site in a school classroom during class time and 4 sites in the summer camp during summer time)."||3.49|0.16|0.70
90838648|NCT02703597|181544564|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.13|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Hypothesis: Participants in both arms will decrease in susceptibility of using conventional tobacco over time.~The statistical analysis was conducted for 10 out of the 15 participating sites, to avoid bias with respect to the sites that participated in different conditions (i.e., 1 site in a school classroom during class time and 4 sites in the summer camp during summer time)."||0.40|0.04|<0.01
90838649|NCT02006472|181544569|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|1.42||||0.3202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|4.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.23|-1.39|0.3202
90838650|NCT02006472|181544569|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|1.7||||0.2266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|4.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.46|-1.06|0.2266
90838651|NCT02006472|181544569|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.66||||0.6348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|3.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.39|-2.07|0.6348
90838652|NCT02006472|181544569|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|2.04||||0.1447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|4.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.8|-0.71|0.1447
90838653|NCT02006472|181544571|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.87||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.45|0.29|0.0032
90896656|NCT03720938|181659670|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.051||||||Linear mixed-effects model fit by maximum likelihood since restricted maximum likelihood assumes a strong normality.|Linear mixed effects model|Adjusted for cluster effect in addition to baseline value and age.||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable self-perception of strength competence.||||0.051
91091339|NCT00316004|182066540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test compares proportions across all three treatment groups.|test for differences in proportions|||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the percent of patients with bloodstream infections through hospital stay between the three groups.||||0.04
91091340|NCT00316004|182066540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test compares proportions across all three treatment groups.|test for differences in proportions|||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the percent of patients with urinary tract infections through hospital stay between the three groups.||||0.06
91091341|NCT00316004|182066540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88||95.0||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test compares proportions across all three treatment groups.|test for differences in proportions|||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the percent of patients with wound infections through hospital stay between the three groups.||||0.88
90838654|NCT02006472|181544571|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.11||||0.7042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.68|-0.46|0.7042
90838655|NCT02006472|181544571|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.19||||0.5099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.75|-0.37|0.5099
90838656|NCT02006472|181544571|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.24||||0.4061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.82|-0.33|0.4061
90838657|NCT02006472|181544572|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|1.16||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.78|0.54|0.0003
90838658|NCT02006472|181544573|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.003
90838659|NCT02006472|181544574|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.0341||||0.0346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0658|-0.0026|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 26||-0.0026|-0.0658|0.0346
90838660|NCT02006472|181544574|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.0444||||0.0305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0847|-0.0042|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 52||-0.0042|-0.0847|0.0305
90838661|NCT05179785|181544575|OTHER|||||||0.2938909|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Paired t-test examining delayed choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre).~One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task"||||0.29389090
90838662|NCT05179785|181544575|OTHER|||||||0.97863544|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Paired t-test examining immediate choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre).~One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task"||||0.97863544
90838663|NCT05179785|181544575|OTHER|||||||0.60236264|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Paired t-test examining delayed choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre).~One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task"||||0.60236264
91091342|NCT00316004|182066541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68||95.0||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test compares averages across all three treatment groups.|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the average amount of total fluids given within the first 24 hours between the three groups.||||0.68
90838664|NCT05179785|181544575|OTHER|||||||0.35845126|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Paired t-test examining immediate choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre).~One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task"||||0.35845126
90838665|NCT05179785|181544575|OTHER|||||||0.91766025|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Paired t-test examining delayed choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre).~One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task"||||0.91766025
90838666|NCT05179785|181544575|OTHER|||||||0.09605169|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Paired t-test examining immediate choices on the delayed discounting task (post versus pre).~One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delayed discounting task"||||0.09605169
90838667|NCT05179785|181544576|OTHER|||||||0.50030946|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining delayed choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.50030946
90838668|NCT05179785|181544576|OTHER|||||||0.3751738|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining immediate choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.37517380
90838669|NCT05179785|181544576|OTHER|||||||0.47876971|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining delayed choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.47876971
90838670|NCT05179785|181544576|OTHER|||||||0.21798816|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining immediate choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.21798816
90838671|NCT05179785|181544576|OTHER|||||||0.47876971|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining delayed choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.47876971
90838672|NCT05179785|181544576|OTHER|||||||0.21798816|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining immediate choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.21798816
90838673|NCT05179785|181544577|OTHER|||||||0.75298499|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining delayed choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.75298499
90896657|NCT03720938|181659670|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0534||||||The outcome of self-perception for strength competence was tested for any difference between groups by linear mixed-effects model analysis.|Linear mixed-effects model|Adjusted by Satterthwaite's degrees of freedom method for cluster effect, and small sample sizes in addition to baseline value and age.||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable self-perception of strength competence.||||0.0534
90896658|NCT03720938|181659671|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.638505||||||The outcome of self-perception for body attractiveness was tested for any difference between groups by covariate analysis.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for self-perception for body attractiveness at baseline and confounding variable age.||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable self-perception of body attractiveness.||||0.638505
90896659|NCT03720938|181659671|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.632||||||Linear mixed-effects model fit by maximum likelihood since restricted maximum likelihood assumes a strong normality.|Linear mixed effects model|Adjusted for cluster effect in addition to baseline value and age.||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable self-perception of body attractiveness.||||0.632
90838674|NCT05179785|181544577|OTHER|||||||0.16043787|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining immediate choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.16043787
90838675|NCT05179785|181544577|OTHER|||||||0.67902693|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining delayed choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.67902693
90838676|NCT05179785|181544577|OTHER|||||||0.33832977|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining immediate choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.33832977
90838677|NCT05179785|181544577|OTHER|||||||0.67902693|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining delayed choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.67902693
90838678|NCT05179785|181544577|OTHER|||||||0.33832977|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining immediate choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.33832977
90838679|NCT05179785|181544578|OTHER|||||||0.73357221|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Paired t-test examining delayed choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre).~One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task"||||0.73357221
90838680|NCT05179785|181544578|OTHER|||||||0.43954526|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Paired t-test examining immediate choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre).~One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task"||||0.43954526
90838681|NCT05179785|181544578|OTHER|||||||0.4419898|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Paired t-test examining delayed choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre).~One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task"||||0.44198980
90838682|NCT05179785|181544578|OTHER|||||||0.39565784|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Paired t-test examining immediate choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre).~One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task"||||0.39565784
90838683|NCT05179785|181544578|OTHER|||||||0.35602382|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Paired t-test examining delayed choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre).~One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task"||||0.35602382
90838684|NCT05179785|181544578|OTHER|||||||0.30499144|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Paired t-test examining immediate choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre).~One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task"||||0.30499144
90838685|NCT05179785|181544579|OTHER|||||||0.81601415|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining delayed choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.81601415
90838686|NCT05179785|181544579|OTHER|||||||0.20563452|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining immediate choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.20563452
90838687|NCT05179785|181544579|OTHER|||||||0.21947623|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining delayed choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.21947623
90838688|NCT05179785|181544579|OTHER|||||||0.45535329|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining immediate choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.45535329
90838689|NCT05179785|181544579|OTHER|||||||0.21947623|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining delayed choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.21947623
90838690|NCT05179785|181544579|OTHER|||||||0.45535329|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining immediate choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.45535329
90838691|NCT05179785|181544580|OTHER|||||||0.83462055|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Paired t-test examining delayed choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre).~One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task"||||0.83462055
90838692|NCT05179785|181544580|OTHER|||||||0.21582586|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Paired t-test examining immediate choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre).~One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task"||||0.21582586
90838693|NCT05179785|181544580|OTHER|||||||0.59574875|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Paired t-test examining delayed choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre).~One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task"||||0.59574875
90838694|NCT05179785|181544580|OTHER|||||||0.75948776|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Paired t-test examining immediate choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre).~One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task"||||0.75948776
90838695|NCT05179785|181544580|OTHER|||||||0.7238414|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Paired t-test examining delayed choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre).~One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task"||||0.72384140
90896660|NCT03720938|181659671|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6328||||||Linear mixed-effects model fit by maximum likelihood since restricted maximum likelihood assumes a strong normality.|Linear mixed-effects model|Adjusted by Satterthwaite's degrees of freedom method for cluster effect, and small sample sizes in addition to baseline value and age.||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable self-perception of body attractiveness.||||0.63280
90838696|NCT05179785|181544580|OTHER|||||||0.00477281|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Paired t-test examining immediate choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre).~One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task"||||0.00477281
90838697|NCT05179785|181544581|OTHER|||||||0.20047055|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining delayed choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.20047055
90838698|NCT05179785|181544581|OTHER|||||||0.77922802|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining immediate choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.77922802
90838699|NCT05179785|181544581|OTHER|||||||0.29196708|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining delayed choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.29196708
90838700|NCT05179785|181544581|OTHER|||||||0.05605962|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining immediate choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.05605962
90838701|NCT05179785|181544581|OTHER|||||||0.57368284|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining delayed choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.57368284
90838702|NCT05179785|181544581|OTHER|||||||0.56397238|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining immediate choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.56397238
90838703|NCT05179785|181544582|OTHER|||||||0.86107891|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining delayed choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre) (dorsal anterior cingulate cortex). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.86107891
90838704|NCT05179785|181544582|OTHER|||||||0.62228799|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining immediate choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre) (dorsal anterior cingulate cortex). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.62228799
90838705|NCT05179785|181544582|OTHER|||||||0.79477883|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining delayed choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre) (dorsal anterior cingulate cortex). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.79477883
90838706|NCT05179785|181544582|OTHER|||||||0.12634435|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining immediate choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre) (dorsal anterior cingulate cortex). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.12634435
90838707|NCT05179785|181544582|OTHER|||||||0.79477883|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining delayed choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre) (dorsal anterior cingulate cortex). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.79477883
91091343|NCT00316004|182066542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43||95.0||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test compares averages across all three treatment groups.|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the average number of PRBC units given within the first 24 hours between the three groups.||||0.43
90838708|NCT05179785|181544582|OTHER|||||||0.12634435|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining immediate choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre) (dorsal anterior cingulate cortex). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.12634435
90838709|NCT05179785|181544582|OTHER|||||||0.62461968|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining delayed choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre) (posterior parietal cortex). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.62461968
90838710|NCT05179785|181544582|OTHER|||||||0.51324793|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining immediate choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre) (posterior parietal cortex). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.51324793
90838711|NCT05179785|181544582|OTHER|||||||0.60543603|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining delayed choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre) (posterior parietal cortex). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.60543603
90838712|NCT05179785|181544582|OTHER|||||||0.75565448|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining immediate choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre) (posterior parietal cortex). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.75565448
90838713|NCT05179785|181544582|OTHER|||||||0.60543603|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining delayed choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre) (posterior parietal cortex). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.60543603
90838714|NCT05179785|181544582|OTHER|||||||0.75565448|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining immediate choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre) (posterior parietal cortex). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.75565448
90838715|NCT05179785|181544583|OTHER|||||||0.09266386|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining delayed choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.09266386
90838716|NCT05179785|181544583|OTHER|||||||0.53980185|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining immediate choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.53980185
90838717|NCT05179785|181544583|OTHER|||||||0.30223686|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining delayed choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.30223686
90838718|NCT05179785|181544583|OTHER|||||||0.39166649|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining immediate choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.39166649
90838719|NCT05179785|181544583|OTHER|||||||0.30223686|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining delayed choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.30223686
90838720|NCT05179785|181544583|OTHER|||||||0.39166649|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining immediate choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.39166649
90896661|NCT03720938|181659672|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007061||||||The outcome of self-perception of global physical self-worth was tested for any difference between groups by covariate analysis.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for self-perception for global physical self-worth at baseline and confounding variable age.||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable self-perception of global physical self-worth.||||0.007061
91091344|NCT00316004|182066543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88||95.0||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test compares proportions across all three treatment groups.|test for proportions|||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the percent of patients who died during hospitalization between the three groups.||||0.88
91091345|NCT00316004|182066543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26||95.0||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test compares proportions across all three treatment groups.|test for differences in proportions|||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the percent of patients who were discharged alive from the hospital to home between the three groups.||||0.26
90838721|NCT05179785|181544584|OTHER|||||||0.0265|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test (post versus pre)||||0.0265
90838722|NCT05179785|181544584|OTHER|||||||0.1053|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test (post versus pre)||||0.1053
90838723|NCT05179785|181544584|OTHER|||||||0.0033|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test (post versus pre)||||0.0033
90838724|NCT05966142|181544585|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16||||0.5913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.74|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.74|-0.42|0.5913
90838725|NCT05966142|181544586|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6803|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6803
90838726|NCT05966142|181544587|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1228|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1228
90838727|NCT05966142|181544588|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.5252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.9|-1.7|0.5252
90838728|NCT05966142|181544589|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9657|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.9657
90838729|NCT00894803|181544590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.15||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|1.4|||Regression, Logistic|an exact logistic regression was used due to the number of events|Arm 2 (rt-PA and Eptifibitide) represents the numerator, Arm 1 (rt-PA only) the denominator|||1.40|0.01|0.053
90838730|NCT00894803|181544591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|4.31|||Regression, Logistic||Arm 2 (rt-PA and Eptifibitide) represents the numerator, Arm 1 (rt-PA only) the denominator|||4.31|0.70|0.23
90838731|NCT00894803|181544591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|3.71|||Regression, Logistic|adjusting for age, baseline NIHSS score and time to IV rt-PA|Arm 2 (rt-PA and Eptifibitide) represents the numerator, Arm 1 (rt-PA only) the denominator|||3.71|0.51|0.53
90838732|NCT00894803|181544593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.15||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|1.4|||Regression, Logistic|Exact method used due to number of responses|Arm 2 (rt-PA and Eptifibitide) represents the numerator, Arm 1 (rt-PA only) the denominator|||1.40|0.01|0.053
90838733|NCT00894803|181544594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.76||95.0|0.35|8.02|||Regression, Logistic||Arm 2 (rt-PA and Eptifibitide) represents the numerator, Arm 1 (rt-PA only) the denominator|||8.02|0.35|0.76
90838734|NCT00894803|181544595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.99999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|5.92|||Regression, Logistic|Exact method used due to small number of responses|Arm 2 (rt-PA and Eptifibitide) represents the numerator, Arm 1 (rt-PA only) the denominator|||5.92|0.24|0.99999
90838735|NCT00894803|181544596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.99999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|5.92|||Regression, Logistic|Exact method used due to number of responses|Arm 2 (rt-PA and Eptifibitide) represents the numerator, Arm 1 (rt-PA only) the denominator|||5.92|0.24|0.99999
90838736|NCT00894803|181544597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|5.76|||Regression, Logistic|Exact methods used due t number of responses|Arm 2 (rt-PA and Eptifibitide) represents the numerator, Arm 1 (rt-PA only) the denominator|||5.76|0.38|0.78
90838737|NCT00894803|181544598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.99999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|4.18|||Regression, Logistic|Exact method used due to number of responses|Arm 2 (rt-PA and Eptifibitide) represents the numerator, Arm 1 (rt-PA only) the denominator|||4.18|0.26|0.99999
90838738|NCT00894803|181544599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.52||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|3.67|||Regression, Logistic||Arm 2 (rt-PA and Eptifibitide) represents the numerator, Arm 1 (rt-PA only) the denominator|||3.67|0.63|0.35
90838739|NCT00894803|181544599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.02|||Regression, Logistic|adjusting for age, baseline NIHSS and time to IV rt-PA|Arm 2 (rt-PA and Eptifibitide) represents the numerator, Arm 1 (rt-PA only) the denominator|||3.02|0.40|0.85
90838740|NCT00894803|181544600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.59||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|3.88|||Regression, Logistic||Arm 2 (rt-PA and Eptifibitide) represents the numerator, Arm 1 (rt-PA only) the denominator|||3.88|0.65|0.30
90838741|NCT00894803|181544600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|3.24|||Regression, Logistic|adjusting for age, baseline NIHSS and time to IV rt-PA|Arm 2 (rt-PA and Eptifibitide) represents the numerator, Arm 1 (rt-PA only) the denominator|||3.24|0.44|0.73
90838742|NCT00894803|181544601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|4.99|||Regression, Logistic||Arm 2 (rt-PA and Eptifibitide) represents the numerator, Arm 1 (rt-PA only) the denominator|||4.99|0.61|0.31
90838743|NCT00894803|181544602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|4.07|||Regression, Logistic||Arm 2 (rt-PA and Eptifibitide) represents the numerator, Arm 1 (rt-PA only) the denominator|||4.07|0.47|0.55
90838744|NCT00894803|181544603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|2.67|||Regression, Logistic||Arm 2 (rt-PA and Eptifibitide) represents the numerator, Arm 1 (rt-PA only) the denominator|||2.67|0.46|0.82
90838745|NCT00894803|181544604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.44||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|6.64|||Regression, Logistic||Arm 2 (rt-PA and Eptifibitide) represents the numerator, Arm 1 (rt-PA only) the denominator|||6.64|0.90|0.07
90838746|NCT00894803|181544604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.98||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|5.88|||Regression, Logistic|adjusting for age, baseline NIHSS and time to IV rt-PA|Arm 2 (rt-PA and Eptifibitide) represents the numerator, Arm 1 (rt-PA only) the denominator|||5.88|0.67|0.22
90838747|NCT01710345|181544605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.45||0.742|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.742
91091346|NCT00316004|182066543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16||95.0||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test compares proportions across all three treatment groups.|test for differences in proportions|||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the percent of patients who were discharged alive from the hospital to inpatient rehabilitation facilities between the three groups.||||0.16
90838748|NCT01710345|181544605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.47||0.003|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.003
90838749|NCT00627393|181544613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|3.2|||Regression, Logistic|Ordinary multiple logistic regression including treatment arm, infection strata, underlying disease, zubrod score, respiratory symptoms, and age.|Control group is the reference group. Model adjusted for infection strata, underlying disease, zubrod score, respiratory symptoms, and age.|||3.20|0.44|0.73
90838750|NCT00627393|181544616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Log Rank P-Value|0.43||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|||||Competing risks analysis for time to GVHD for subjects with allogeneic HST. The sample size was very small (n=7 in the granulocyte group, and n=8 in the control group).|Competing Risks|||||||0.43
90838751|NCT00627393|181544621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.293|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25885||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.778|2.147|||Log Rank|Log-rank test to compare survival distributions between the control group and treatment group.|The control group is considered the reference group.|||2.147|0.778|0.35
90838752|NCT03337308|181544627|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Squares (LS) means|-38.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.32|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.5|-29.6|||ANCOVA||Standard Error of the Difference of Least Squares (LS) Means|||-29.6|-46.5|<0.001
90838753|NCT03337308|181544627|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS means|-19.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.1|-11.9|||ANCOVA||Standard Error of the Difference of LS Means|||-11.9|-26.1|<0.001
90838754|NCT03337308|181544627|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS means|-13.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.37|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|-6.5|||ANCOVA||Standard Error of the Difference of LS Means|||-6.5|-19.7|<0.001
90838755|NCT03337308|181544628|SUPERIORITY||Location shift|-46.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.22|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-78.75|-15.78||using alpha = 0.01|Wilcoxon rank sum test||Standard Error of the Hodges-Lehmann Median Difference|||-15.78|-78.75|<0.001
90838756|NCT03337308|181544628|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-25.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.14||0.002|TWO_SIDED|98.0|-45.0|-7.15||using alpha = 0.02|Wilcoxon rank sum test||Standard Error of the Hodges-Lehmann Median Difference|||-7.15|-45.00|0.002
90838757|NCT03337308|181544628|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.08||0.734|TWO_SIDED|98.0|-21.35|16.25||using alpha = 0.02|Wilcoxon rank sum test||Standard Error of the Hodges-Lehmann Median Difference|||16.25|-21.35|0.734
91091347|NCT00316004|182066543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17||95.0||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test compares proportions across all three treatment groups.|test for differences in proportions|||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the percent of patients who were discharged alive from the hospital to skilled nursing facilities between the three groups.||||0.17
91091348|NCT01935089|182066548|OTHER|"Hypothesis: 20 weeks of treatment (baseline week 3 to endpoint week 24) will result in a change in the levels of integrated HIV-1 DNA (copies/CD4 T cell Variable name: intDNA).~Test if the mean difference (IntDNA wk24 - IntDNAwk3) is significantly different from zero (i.e. no change) Null hypothesis: Mean (IntDNA wk24 - IntDNAwk3) = 0; reject if p\<0.05"||||||0.0797||||||significant if \<0.05|signed rank test|||||||0.0797
91091349|NCT02932943|182066549|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.3||||0.6482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|1.72|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||1.72|-1.07|0.6482
91091350|NCT02932943|182066550|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|0.87|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||0.87|-1.61|0.5590
90838758|NCT03337308|181544629|SUPERIORITY|using alpha = 0.01|Difference in LS mean|-33.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.97|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-43.9|-23.4|||ANCOVA||Standard Error of the Difference of LS Means|||-23.4|-43.9|<0.001
90838759|NCT03337308|181544629|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS means|-17.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|98.0|-25.1|-10.5||using alpha = 0.02|ANCOVA||Standard Error of the Difference of LS Means|||-10.5|-25.1|<0.001
91091351|NCT02932943|182066551|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.2||||0.8131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|1.95|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||1.95|-1.53|0.8131
91091352|NCT02932943|182066552|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.6108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|1.21|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||1.21|-2.05|0.6108
90838760|NCT03337308|181544629|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS means|-12.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.03|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|98.0|-19.1|-5.0||using alpha = 0.02|ANCOVA||Standard Error of the Difference of LS Means|||-5.0|-19.1|<0.001
91091353|NCT00977197|182066560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||ANCOVA|Intent to Treat analysis; adjusted for age and gender.||||||0.008
91091354|NCT00977197|182066561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||ANCOVA|Intent to Treat analysis; adjusted for age and gender.||||||0.009
91091355|NCT00977197|182066562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.389|||||||ANCOVA|Intent to Treat analysis; adjusted for age and gender; rank scale.||||||0.389
90838761|NCT03337308|181544630|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS means|-27.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.11|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-35.1|-19.1||using alpha = 0.01|ANCOVA||Standard Error of the Difference of LS Means|||-19.1|-35.1|<0.001
90896662|NCT03720938|181659672|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||Linear mixed-effects model fit by maximum likelihood since restricted maximum likelihood assumes a strong normality.|Linear mixed effects model|Adjusted by Satterthwaite's degrees of freedom method for cluster effect, and small sample sizes in addition to baseline value and age.||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable self-perception of global physical self-worth.||||0.005
90896663|NCT03720938|181659672|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.00603||||||Linear mixed-effects model fit by maximum likelihood since restricted maximum likelihood assumes a strong normality.|Linear mixed-effects model|Adjusted by Satterthwaite's degrees of freedom method for cluster effect, and small sample sizes in addition to baseline value and age.||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable self-perception of global physical self-worth.||||0.00603
90838762|NCT03337308|181544630|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS means|-14.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.64|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|98.0|-20.4|-8.1||using alpha = 0.02|ANCOVA||Standard Error of the Difference of LS Means|||-8.1|-20.4|<0.001
90838763|NCT03337308|181544630|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS means|-10.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.48|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|98.0|-16.1|-4.6||using alpha = 0.02|ANCOVA||Standard Error of the Difference of LS Means|||-4.6|-16.1|<0.001
90838764|NCT03337308|181544631|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS means|-30.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.81|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-39.9|-20.3||using alpha = 0.01|ANCOVA||Standard Error of the Difference of LS Means|||-20.3|-39.9|<0.001
90838765|NCT03337308|181544631|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS means|-12.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.23|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|98.0|-20.3|-5.3||using alpha = 0.02|ANCOVA||Standard Error of the Difference of LS Means|||-5.3|-20.3|<0.001
90838766|NCT03337308|181544631|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS means|-9.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.09||0.003|TWO_SIDED|98.0|-16.5|-2.1||using alpha = 0.02|ANCOVA||Standard Error of the Difference of LS Means|||-2.1|-16.5|0.003
90838767|NCT01294553|181544641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|15.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.8|18.1|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with an adverse event.|||18.1|12.8|
91091356|NCT00977197|182066563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049|||||||ANCOVA|Intent to Treat analysis; adjusted for age and gender, rank scale.||||||0.049
91091357|NCT00977197|182066564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.044|||||||ANCOVA|Intent to Treat analysis; adjusted for age and gender.||||||0.044
91091358|NCT00977197|182066565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35||||||Intent to treat analysis, not adjusted for age and gender.|Chi-squared|||||||0.350
91091359|NCT00977197|182066566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||ANCOVA|Intent to Treat analysis; adjusted for age and gender, rank scale.||||||0.020
91091360|NCT00977197|182066567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024|||||||ANCOVA|Intent to Treat analysis; adjusted for age and gender.||||||0.024
91091361|NCT00977197|182066568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.417|||||||ANCOVA|Intent to Treat analysis; adjusted for age and gender, rank scale.||||||0.417
91091362|NCT00977197|182066569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||||||Intent to Treat analysis; adjusted for age and gender, rank scale.|ANCOVA|||||||0.030
91091363|NCT00977197|182066570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016|||||||ANCOVA|Intent to Treat analysis; adjusted for age and gender.||||||0.016
91091364|NCT00977197|182066571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.097||||||Intent to Treat analysis; not adjusted for age and gender.|Chi-squared|||||||0.097
91091365|NCT02295644|182066583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17||||||Interaction test of duty cycle and intensity for self reported pain score|ANOVA|||||||0.17
91091366|NCT02295644|182066583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14||||||Main effect of duty cycle on self reported pain score.|ANOVA|||||||0.14
91091367|NCT02295644|182066583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||Main effect of intensity on self reported pain score.|ANOVA|||||||1.0
91091368|NCT02295644|182066584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24||||||Main effect for duty cycle.|ANOVA|||||||.24
91091369|NCT02295644|182066584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019||||||Main effect for intensity.|ANOVA|||||||0.019
90896664|NCT03720938|181659673|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002879||||||The outcome of self-perception for global self-worth was tested for any difference between groups by covariate analysis.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for self-perception for global self-worth at baseline and confounding variable age.||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable self-perception of global self-worth.||||0.002879
90896665|NCT03720938|181659673|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||The outcome of self-perception for sports competence was tested for any difference between groups by linear mixed-effects model analysis.|Linear mixed effects model|Adjusted by Satterthwaite's degrees of freedom method for cluster effect, and small sample sizes in addition to baseline value and age.||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable self-perception of global self-worth.||||0.002
90896666|NCT03720938|181659673|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.00238||||||The outcome of self-perception for sports competence was tested for any difference between groups by linear mixed-effects model analysis.|Linear mixed-effects model|Adjusted by Satterthwaite's degrees of freedom method for cluster effect, and small sample sizes in addition to baseline value and age.||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable self-perception of global self-worth.||||0.00238
90896667|NCT03720938|181659674|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.194||||||Tested the significance of gender between genders|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Enjoyment scale of physical activity sports in intervention group between male and female genders"||||0.194
90896668|NCT03720938|181659675|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.809|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two genders in the Active video game group for the variable of enjoyment from sports category.||||0.809
90896669|NCT03720938|181659676|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.843|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two genders in the active video game group for the variable of enjoyment from balance category.||||0.843
90896670|NCT03720938|181659677|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.247|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two genders in the active video game group for the variable of enjoyment from aerobic category.||||0.247
90896671|NCT03720938|181659678|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.543|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two genders in the active video game group for the variable of enjoyment from training category.||||0.543
90896672|NCT03532308|181659679|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76||||||This is for the effect of treatment with time, risk stratification and treatment\*time interaction in the model.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.76
91091370|NCT02295644|182066584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||ANOVA|||Interaction of intensity and duty cycle.||||0.17
91091371|NCT02295644|182066585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034||||||Main effect for duty cycle.|ANOVA|||||||0.034
90896673|NCT00499863|181659685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was that there is no difference between MTS and placebo.||||< 0.001
90896674|NCT00499863|181659686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
90896675|NCT00499863|181659687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
90896676|NCT00499863|181659688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
90896677|NCT00499863|181659689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.288||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.288
90896678|NCT00571701|181659719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.57
90896679|NCT00571701|181659720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.43
90896680|NCT00571701|181659721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.3||||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons|Fisher Exact|||||||>0.3
90896681|NCT00571701|181659722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons|Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
90896682|NCT00571701|181659723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.5||||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons|Fisher Exact|||||||> 0.5
90896683|NCT00571701|181659724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.56|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.56
90896684|NCT00691132|181659727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.7||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|-1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||% difference between Placebo and PEITC periods in the ratio of \[pyridine-D4\]Hydroxy acid : \[pyridine-D4\] total NNAL||-1.2|-13.8|0.023
90896685|NCT00691132|181659728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Total ITC||||0.005
90896686|NCT00691132|181659730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Total ITC||||0.017
90896687|NCT00691132|181659731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.039|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.039
90896688|NCT00691132|181659731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.623|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.623
90896689|NCT00691132|181659731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.045|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.045
90896690|NCT04037436|181659829|OTHER|GEE|GEE|1.65||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.44|7.73|||GEE|To model the interaction between exposure to the MoveStrong program and site on secondary outcomes we applied a generalized estimating equation (GEE).||To model the interaction between exposure to the MoveStrong program and site on secondary outcomes we applied a generalized estimating equation (GEE).||7.73|-4.44|0.05
90896691|NCT01859793|181659840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Primary and secondary outcome variables were compared across measurement periods by repeated measures ANOVA and post hoc analyses using Tukey's test were applied if significant differences were detected. A priori sample size calculation demonstrated our study design has 80% power to detect a 1.5% absolute increase in FMD% with 30 subjects completing the entire study protocol at α=0.05.||||<0.05
90896692|NCT01859793|181659841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Outcome variables were compared across measurement periods by repeated measures ANOVA and post hoc analyses using Tukey's test were applied if significant differences were detected||||<0.05
91091372|NCT02295644|182066585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.475|||||||ANOVA|||Main effect for intensity.||||0.475
91091373|NCT02295644|182066585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.178|||||||ANOVA|||Interaction of intensity and duty cycle.||||.178
91091374|NCT01614470|182066631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares (LS) mean difference|10.678|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.2559|14.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||14.1000|7.2559|<0.0001
91091375|NCT01614470|182066632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.6624|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3366|0.9881|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.9881|0.3366|<0.0001
90838768|NCT00795535|181544647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.15|TWO_SIDED|||||To avoid overfitting the models, only predictors with p\<0.15 were included in the final models.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon rank sum tests were used to compare continuous predictors, whereas chi-square tests were used to compare dichotomized predictors between those with and without serious injury. Test characteristics (specificity and positive/negative predictive values) of continuous predictors were reported based on threshold values chosen for a minimum of 80% of sensitivity. Multiple logistic regression models were used to examine the marginal effect of each predictor.||||< 0.15
90838769|NCT01903460|181544648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference from placebo|-40.707||||0.574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-191.679|110.265|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of LUM001 140ug/kg/day||110.265|-191.679|0.5740
90838770|NCT01903460|181544648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference from placebo|-7.231||||0.9147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-148.726|134.264|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of LUM001 280ug/kg/day||134.264|-148.726|0.9147
90838771|NCT01903460|181544648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference from placebo|-23.969||||0.6954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-151.969|104.031|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of all doses of LUM001||104.031|-151.969|0.6954
90838772|NCT01903460|181544649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference from placebo|56.7||||0.0783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|120.6|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of LUM001 140ug/kg/day for ALT||120.6|-7.2|0.0783
90838773|NCT01903460|181544649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference from placebo|7.8||||0.7827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.4|67.0|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of LUM001 280ug/kg/day for ALT||67.0|-51.4|0.7827
90838774|NCT01903460|181544649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference from placebo|32.2||||0.2235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.9|86.3|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of all doses of LUM001 for ALT||86.3|-21.9|0.2235
90838775|NCT01903460|181544649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference from placebo|24.0||||0.2372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|65.5|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of LUM001 140ug/kg/day for AST||65.5|-17.5|0.2372
90838776|NCT01903460|181544649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference from placebo|-15.8||||0.3914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.1|22.4|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of LUM001 280ug/kg/day for AST||22.4|-54.1|0.3914
90838777|NCT01903460|181544649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference from placebo|4.1||||0.8081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.0|39.1|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of all doses of LUM001 for AST||39.1|-31.0|0.8081
90838778|NCT01903460|181544649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference from placebo|51.7||||0.5748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-140.3|243.7|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of LUM001 140ug/kg/day for ALP||243.7|-140.3|0.5748
90896693|NCT01859793|181659842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Outcome variables were compared across measurement periods by repeated measures ANOVA and post hoc analyses using Tukey's test were applied if significant differences were detected||||<0.05
90838779|NCT01903460|181544649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference from placebo|11.9||||0.8835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-158.4|182.2|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of LUM001 280ug/kg/day for ALP||182.2|-158.4|0.8835
90838780|NCT01903460|181544649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference from placebo|31.8||||0.6917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-135.8|199.4|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of all doses of LUM001 for ALP||199.4|-135.8|0.6917
90838781|NCT01903460|181544650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference from placebo|-0.348||||0.6907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.468|1.772|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of LUM001 140ug/kg/day for Patient ItchRO||1.772|-2.468|0.6907
90838782|NCT01903460|181544650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference from placebo|0.202||||0.7897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.647|2.052|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of LUM001 280ug/kg/day for Patient ItchRO||2.052|-1.647|0.7897
90838783|NCT01903460|181544650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference from placebo|-0.073||||0.9203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|1.705|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of all doses of LUM001 for Patient ItchRO||1.705|-1.850|0.9203
90838784|NCT01903460|181544650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference from placebo|-0.21||||0.5966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.038|0.618|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of LUM001 140ug/kg/day for Observer ItchRO||0.618|-1.038|0.5966
90838785|NCT01903460|181544650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference from placebo|0.173||||0.632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.926|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of LUM001 280ug/kg/day for Observer ItchRO||0.926|-0.580|0.6320
90838786|NCT01903460|181544650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference from placebo|-0.019||||0.9547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.673|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of all doses of LUM001 for Observer ItchRO||0.673|-0.710|0.9547
90838787|NCT02059278|181544678|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis at 8 am on Day 15|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.781||||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.195|1.366|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA on change from baseline at 8 am on Day 15|The primary endpoint was measured at 9 separate assessment times (3 time points over a 12 hour period on 3 separate days. The primary analysis was based on a comparison of the IOP change from baseline between the two arms at each assessment.The equivalence margin was tested using an analysis of covariance on change from baseline with pooled site and baseline as a factor. Equivalence was considered to be met if the 95% confidence intervals were within 1.5 mmHg at each of the 9 assessment points.||1.366|0.195|0.0091
90838788|NCT02059278|181544678|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis at 10 am on Day 15|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.664||||0.0098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.161|1.167|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA on change from baseline at 10 am on Day 15|The primary endpoint was measured at 9 separate assessment times (3 time points over a 12 hour period on 3 separate days. The primary analysis was based on a comparison of the IOP change from baseline between the two arms at each assessment.The equivalence margin was tested using an analysis of covariance on change from baseline with pooled site and baseline as a factor. Equivalence was considered to be met if the 95% confidence intervals were within 1.5 mmHg at each of the 9 assessment points.||1.167|0.161|0.0098
90838789|NCT02059278|181544678|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis at 4 pm on Day 15|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.542||||0.0398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.025|1.058|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA on change from baseline at 4 pm on Day 15|The primary endpoint was measured at 9 separate assessment times (3 time points over a 12 hour period on 3 separate days. The primary analysis was based on a comparison of the IOP change from baseline between the two arms at each assessment.The equivalence margin was tested using an analysis of covariance on change from baseline with pooled site and baseline as a factor. Equivalence was considered to be met if the 95% confidence intervals were within 1.5 mmHg at each of the 9 assessment points.||1.058|0.025|0.0398
90896694|NCT01064297|181659871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Wilson Score with Continuity Correction|2.2||||||95.0|1.6|3.1|||||The percentage of infants with MBDs was calculated as: the number of outcomes with MBDs divided by (the number of outcomes with MBDs + the number of live births without defects).|||3.1|1.6|
90896695|NCT01064297|181659871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Wilson Score with Continuity Correction|4.2||||||95.0|1.4|11.0|||||The percentage of infants with MBDs was calculated as: the number of outcomes with MBDs divided by (the number of outcomes with MBDs + the number of live births without defects).|||11.0|1.4|
91091376|NCT01614470|182066634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-49.1667|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.9527|-41.3807|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-41.3807|-56.9527|<0.0001
91091377|NCT01614470|182066637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|9.6105||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4874|14.7336|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||14.7336|4.4874|0.0004
91091378|NCT02175121|182066645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-40.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.75|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-51.49|-29.16||Two-sided p-values are from analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference from placebo adjusted for baseline values is derived from the ANCOVA model.||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||-29.16|-51.49|<0.0001
91091379|NCT02175121|182066645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-45.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.98|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-57.08|-33.99||Two-sided p-values are from analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference from placebo adjusted for baseline values is derived from the ANCOVA model.||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||-33.99|-57.08|<0.0001
90838790|NCT02059278|181544678|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis at 8 am on Day 42|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.478||||0.1008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.093|1.05|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA on change from baseline at 8 am on Day 42|The primary endpoint was measured at 9 separate assessment times (3 time points over a 12 hour period on 3 separate days. The primary analysis was based on a comparison of the IOP change from baseline between the two arms at each assessment.The equivalence margin was tested using an analysis of covariance on change from baseline with pooled site and baseline as a factor. Equivalence was considered to be met if the 95% confidence intervals were within 1.5 mmHg at each of the 9 assessment points.||1.050|-0.093|0.1008
90838791|NCT02059278|181544678|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis at 10 am on Day 42|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.505||||0.0558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.013|1.024|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA on change from baseline at 10 am on Day 42|The primary endpoint was measured at 9 separate assessment times (3 time points over a 12 hour period on 3 separate days. The primary analysis was based on a comparison of the IOP change from baseline between the two arms at each assessment.The equivalence margin was tested using an analysis of covariance on change from baseline with pooled site and baseline as a factor. Equivalence was considered to be met if the 95% confidence intervals were within 1.5 mmHg at each of the 9 assessment points.||1.024|-0.013|0.0558
90838792|NCT02059278|181544678|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis at 4 pm on Day 42|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.538||||0.0491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.002|1.074|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA on change from baseline at 4 pm on Day 42|The primary endpoint was measured at 9 separate assessment times (3 time points over a 12 hour period on 3 separate days. The primary analysis was based on a comparison of the IOP change from baseline between the two arms at each assessment.The equivalence margin was tested using an analysis of covariance on change from baseline with pooled site and baseline as a factor. Equivalence was considered to be met if the 95% confidence intervals were within 1.5 mmHg at each of the 9 assessment points.||1.074|0.002|0.0491
91091380|NCT02175121|182066645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-68.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.73|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-79.92|-57.65||Two-sided p-values are from analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference from placebo adjusted for baseline values is derived from the ANCOVA model.||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||-57.65|-79.92|<0.0001
91091381|NCT02175121|182066645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-68.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.86|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-79.46|-56.78||Two-sided p-values are from analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference from placebo adjusted for baseline values is derived from the ANCOVA model.||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||-56.78|-79.46|<0.0001
91091382|NCT02175121|182066646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.83||0.006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-25.9|-6.6||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 14.||-6.60|-25.90|0.0060
91091383|NCT02175121|182066646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-26.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.94|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-36.81|-17.15||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 14.||-17.15|-36.81|<0.0001
91091384|NCT02175121|182066646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-39.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.8|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-49.2|-30.0||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 14.||-30.00|-49.20|<0.0001
91091385|NCT02175121|182066646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-46.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.89|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-56.46|-36.98||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 14.||-36.98|-56.46|<0.0001
90838793|NCT02059278|181544678|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis at 8 am on Day 84|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.808||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.286|1.329|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA on change from baseline at 8 am on Day 84|The primary endpoint was measured at 9 separate assessment times (3 time points over a 12 hour period on 3 separate days. The primary analysis was based on a comparison of the IOP change from baseline between the two arms at each assessment.The equivalence margin was tested using an analysis of covariance on change from baseline with pooled site and baseline as a factor. Equivalence was considered to be met if the 95% confidence intervals were within 1.5 mmHg at each of the 9 assessment points.||1.329|0.286|0.0025
91091386|NCT02175121|182066646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-27.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.33|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-35.89|-18.25||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 28.||-18.25|-35.89|<0.0001
91091387|NCT02175121|182066646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-36.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.46|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-45.21|-27.14||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 28.||-27.14|-45.21|<0.0001
91091388|NCT02175121|182066646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-51.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.33|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-60.29|-42.65||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 28.||-42.65|-60.29|<0.0001
91091389|NCT02175121|182066646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-57.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.41|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-66.12|-48.22||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 28.||-48.22|-66.12|<0.0001
91091390|NCT02175121|182066647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|12.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.13||0.2063|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.91|29.62||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 14.||29.62|-3.91|0.2063
91091391|NCT02175121|182066647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|13.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.33||0.2087|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.05|30.11||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 14.||30.11|-4.05|0.2087
91091392|NCT02175121|182066647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.1||0.5802|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.11|22.3||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 14.||22.30|-11.11|0.5802
91091393|NCT02175121|182066647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|14.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.25||0.1553|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.32|31.59||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 14.||31.59|-2.32|0.1553
91091394|NCT02175121|182066647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.66||0.7741|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.87|10.47||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 28.||10.47|-14.87|0.7741
91091395|NCT02175121|182066647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.78||0.9588|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.28|12.47||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 28.||12.47|-13.28|0.9588
91091396|NCT02175121|182066647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.61||0.8523|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.17|14.01||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 28.||14.01|-11.17|0.8523
91091397|NCT02175121|182066647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.73||0.4166|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.49|19.08||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 28.||19.08|-6.49|0.4166
90838794|NCT02059278|181544678|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis at 10 am on Day 84|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.627||||0.0113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.143|1.111|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA on change from baseline at 10 am on Day 84|The primary endpoint was measured at 9 separate assessment times (3 time points over a 12 hour period on 3 separate days. The primary analysis was based on a comparison of the IOP change from baseline between the two arms at each assessment.The equivalence margin was tested using an analysis of covariance on change from baseline with pooled site and baseline as a factor. Equivalence was considered to be met if the 95% confidence intervals were within 1.5 mmHg at each of the 9 assessment points.||1.111|0.143|0.0113
90838795|NCT02059278|181544678|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis at 4 pm on Day 84|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.456||||0.0649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.063|0.975|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA on change from baseline at 4 pm on Day 84|The primary endpoint was measured at 9 separate assessment times (3 time points over a 12 hour period on 3 separate days. The primary analysis was based on a comparison of the IOP change from baseline between the two arms at each assessment.The equivalence margin was tested using an analysis of covariance on change from baseline with pooled site and baseline as a factor. Equivalence was considered to be met if the 95% confidence intervals were within 1.5 mmHg at each of the 9 assessment points.||0.975|-0.063|0.0649
90838796|NCT00829426|181544683|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls withi 80-125.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|102.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.74|106.52|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls withi 80-125.|||106.52|98.74|
91091398|NCT02175121|182066648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.22||0.8516|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.73|5.93||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 14.||5.93|-4.73|0.8516
91091399|NCT02175121|182066648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.29||0.2303|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.48|9.42||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 14.||9.42|-1.48|0.2303
90838797|NCT00829426|181544684|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on each of the pharmacokinetic parameters using SAS® software.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|92.88||||||90.0|90.34|95.48|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||95.48|90.34|
90838798|NCT00829426|181544685|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on each of the pharmacokinetic parameters using SAS® software.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|93.92||||||90.0|91.47|96.44|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||96.44|91.47|
90838799|NCT03955146|181544686|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062||0.2926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.19|-0.06|0.2926
90838800|NCT04408989|181544694|EQUIVALENCE|"PK similarity was achieved if the 90% CIs for the biosimilar-to-reference ratios of AUC(0-∞) were within the predefined 0.80-1.25 acceptance similarity criteria.~The PK parameter AUC(0-∞) was log-transformed (base e) prior to analysis and was analysed using an ANCOVA model. The model included treatment as a fixed effect and body weight as a covariate."|Ratio of GLSM|0.943|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.899|0.989|||||For the comparison, MB02 SP represents the numerator and MB02 DM represents the denominator.|||0.989|0.899|
90838801|NCT04408989|181544694|EQUIVALENCE|"PK similarity was achieved if the 90% CIs for the biosimilar-to-reference ratios of AUC(0-∞) were within the predefined 0.80-1.25 acceptance similarity criteria.~The PK parameter AUC(0-∞) was log-transformed (base e) prior to analysis and was analysed using an ANCOVA model. The model included treatment as a fixed effect and body weight as a covariate."|Ratio of GLSM|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.956|1.05|||||For the comparison, MB02 SP represents the numerator and US Avastin represents the denominator.|||1.05|0.956|
90838802|NCT04408989|181544694|EQUIVALENCE|"PK similarity was achieved if the 90% CIs for the biosimilar-to-reference ratios of AUC(0-∞) were within the predefined 0.80-1.25 acceptance similarity criteria.~The PK parameter AUC(0-∞) was log-transformed (base e) prior to analysis and was analysed using an ANCOVA model. The model included treatment as a fixed effect and body weight as a covariate."|Ratio of GLSM|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.01|1.12|||||For the comparison, MB02 DM represents the numerator and US Avastin represents the denominator.|||1.12|1.01|
90838803|NCT04408989|181544695|EQUIVALENCE|"PK similarity was achieved if the 90% CIs for the biosimilar-to-reference ratios of Cmax were within the predefined 0.80-1.25 acceptance similarity criteria.~The PK parameter Cmax was log-transformed (base e) prior to analysis and was analysed using an ANCOVA model. The model included treatment as a fixed effect and body weight as a covariate."|Ratio of GLSM|0.937|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.887|0.989|||||For the comparison, MB02 SP represents the numerator and MB02 DM represents the denominator.|||0.989|0.887|
90838804|NCT04408989|181544695|EQUIVALENCE|"PK similarity was achieved if the 90% CIs for the biosimilar-to-reference ratios of Cmax were within the predefined 0.80-1.25 acceptance similarity criteria.~The PK parameter Cmax was log-transformed (base e) prior to analysis and was analysed using an ANCOVA model. The model included treatment as a fixed effect and body weight as a covariate."|Ratio of GLSM|0.983|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.925|1.05|||||For the comparison, MB02 SP represents the numerator and US Avastin represents the denominator.|||1.05|0.925|
90838805|NCT04408989|181544695|EQUIVALENCE|"PK similarity was achieved if the 90% CIs for the biosimilar-to-reference ratios of Cmax were within the predefined 0.80-1.25 acceptance similarity criteria.~The PK parameter Cmax was log-transformed (base e) prior to analysis and was analysed using an ANCOVA model. The model included treatment as a fixed effect and body weight as a covariate."|Ratio of GLSM|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.991|1.11|||||For the comparison, MB02 DM represents the numerator and US Avastin represents the denominator.|||1.11|0.991|
90838806|NCT04363320|181544704|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.538|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.169||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||a prior threshold 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Slope is per month|Change in new patient counts (Combined MOUD) for Intervention Phase (from baseline to 12 months)||||0.002
90838807|NCT04363320|181544704|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.38|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.113||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Slope is per month.|Change in new patient counts (Buprenorphine) for Intervention Phase (from baseline to 12 months)||||0.0008
90838808|NCT04363320|181544704|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.207|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.129||0.111|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Slope is per month.|Change in new patient counts (Methadone) for Intervention Phase (from baseline to 12 months)||||0.111
90838809|NCT04363320|181544704|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.017|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.014||0.235|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Slope is per month.|Change in new patient counts (Naltrexone) for Intervention Phase (from baseline to 12 months)||||0.235
90838810|NCT04363320|181544705|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.153|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.218||0.485|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Slope is per month|Change in new patient counts (Combined MOUD) for Sustainability Phase (from 13 to 24 months)||||0.485
90838811|NCT04363320|181544705|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.642|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.19||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Slope is per month.|Change in new Justice Involved Person counts (Buprenorphine) for Sustainability Phase (from 13 to 24 months)||||0.0008
90838812|NCT04363320|181544705|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.377|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.154||0.015|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Slope is per month.|Change in new patient counts (Methadone) for Sustainability Phase (from 13 to 24 months)||||0.015
90838813|NCT04363320|181544705|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.017||0.241|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Slope is per month.|Change in new patient counts (Naltrexone) for Sustainability Phase (from 13 to 24 months)||||0.241
90838814|NCT04363320|181544706|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.912|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.438||2e-05|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Slope is per month.|Change in census patient counts (Combined MOUD) for Intervention Phase (from baseline to 12 months)||||0.00002
90838815|NCT04363320|181544706|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.855|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.206||4e-05|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Slope is per month.|Change in census patient counts (Buprenorphine) for Intervention Phase (from baseline to 12 months)||||0.00004
90838816|NCT04363320|181544706|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.322|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.206||0.118|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Slope is per month.|Change in census patient counts (Methadone) for Intervention Phase (from baseline to 12 months)||||0.118
91091400|NCT02175121|182066648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.22||0.7132|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.15|6.52||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 14.||6.52|-4.15|0.7132
90838817|NCT04363320|181544706|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.073|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.031||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Slope is per month.|Change in census patient counts (Naltrexone) for Intervention Phase (from baseline to 12 months)||||0.020
90838818|NCT04363320|181544707|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.617|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.307||0.045|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Slope is per month.|Change in census patient counts (Combined MOUD) for Sustainability Phase (from 13 to 24 months)||||0.045
90838819|NCT04363320|181544707|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.103|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.229||2e-06|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Slope is per month.|Change in census patient counts (Buprenorphine) for Sustainability Phase (from 13 to 24 months)||||0.000002
90838820|NCT04363320|181544707|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.387|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.218||0.076|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Slope is per month|Change in census patient counts (Methadone) for Sustainability Phase (13 to 24 months)||||0.076
90838821|NCT04363320|181544707|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.086|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.036||0.019|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Slope is per month.|Change in census patient counts (Naltrexone) for Sustainability Phase (from 13 to 24 months)||||0.019
90838822|NCT00311766|181544722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ANCOVA|0.8|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||The primary population was the Full Analysis(FA)population. The FA population included all patients who were randomized and received at least one dose of study medication and who had at least one baseline efficacy parameter recorded||||>0.05
90838823|NCT02260934|181544724|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58||||||Two-sided test|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group was the independent variable in the logistic regression.||Week 0 to Week 24||||0.58
90838824|NCT02260934|181544724|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25||||||Two-sided test.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group was the independent variable in the logistic regression.||Week 0 to Week 48||||0.25
90896696|NCT01064297|181659871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Wilson Score with Continuity Correction|2.4||||||95.0|1.7|3.3|||||The percentage of infants with MBDs was calculated as: the number of outcomes with MBDs divided by (the number of outcomes with MBDs + the number of live births without defects).|||3.3|1.7|
90896697|NCT01064297|181659872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Wilson Score with Continuity Correction|10.7||||||95.0|6.4|17.0||||||||17.0|6.4|
90838825|NCT02260934|181544724|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15||||||Two-sided test.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group was the independent variable in the logistic regression.||Week 0 to Week 96.||||0.15
90838826|NCT02260934|181544726|SUPERIORITY|P-value could not be produced because of zero count in at least one of the treatment arms.|||||||||||||Regression, Logistic|Two sided test. P-value could not be produced because of zero count in at least one of the treatment arms.||Week 0 to Week 24|Treatment group was the independent variable in the logistic regression.|||
90838827|NCT02260934|181544726|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||Regression, Logistic|P-value could not be produced because of zero count in at least one of the treatment arms.||Week 0 to Week 48|P-value could not be produced because of zero count in at least one of the treatment arms.|||
90838828|NCT02260934|181544726|SUPERIORITY|P-value could not be produced because of zero count in at least one of the treatment arms|||||||||||||Regression, Logistic|P-value could not be produced because of zero count in at least one of the treatment arms||Week 0 to Week 96 The modified intent to treat population includes all randomized participants who received 1 dose of Solumedrol, 1 dose of rituximab, 1 dose of cyclophosphamide, and, if in the Rituximab/Cyclophosphamide/Belimumab (RCB) arm, 1 dose of belimumab.|P-value could not be produced because of zero count in at least one of the treatment arms|||
90838829|NCT02260934|181544727|SUPERIORITY|Treatment group was the independent variable in the logistic regression.||||||0.66||||||Treatment group was the independent variable in the logistic regression.|Regression, Logistic|2 sided test||Week 24||||0.66
90838830|NCT02260934|181544727|SUPERIORITY|Treatment group was the independent variable in the logistic regression.||||||0.65||||||Treatment group was the independent variable in the logistic regression.|Regression, Logistic|2 sided test||Week 48|Treatment group was the independent variable in the logistic regression.|||0.65
90838831|NCT02260934|181544728|SUPERIORITY|Treatment group was the independent variable in the logistic regression.||||||0.64||||||2 sided test|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group was the independent variable in the logistic regression.||Week 24 Treatment group was the independent variable in the logistic regression.||||0.64
90838832|NCT02260934|181544728|SUPERIORITY|Treatment group was the independent variable in the logistic regression.||||||0.37||||||2 sided test|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group was the independent variable in the logistic regression.||Week 48||||0.37
90838833|NCT02260934|181544728|SUPERIORITY|Treatment group was the independent variable in the logistic regression.||||||0.32|||||||Regression, Logistic|Treatment group was the independent variable in the logistic regression.||Week 96||||0.32
90838834|NCT02260934|181544729|SUPERIORITY|Treatment group was the independent variable in the logistic regression.||||||0.91||||||2 sided test|Regression, Logistic|2 sided test||Week 96||||0.91
91091401|NCT02175121|182066648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.28||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.32|15.16||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 14.||15.16|4.32|0.0034
90838835|NCT02260934|181544730|SUPERIORITY|Treatment group was the independent variable in the logistic regression.||||||0.73||||||2 sided test|Regression, Logistic|2 sided test||Week 0 to Week 24||||.73
90838836|NCT02260934|181544730|SUPERIORITY|Treatment group was the independent variable in the logistic regression.||||||0.26||||||2 sided test|Regression, Logistic|2 sided test||Week 0 to Week 48||||0.26
90896698|NCT01064297|181659872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Wilson Score with Continuity Correction|9.3||||||95.0|5.5|15.2|||||The percentage of infants with MBDs was calculated as: the number of outcomes with MBDs divided by (the number of outcomes with MBDs + the number of live births without defects).|||15.2|5.5|
90896699|NCT01064297|181659873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Wilson Score with Continuity Correction|2.8||||||95.0|1.5|5.0||||||||5.0|1.5|
90838837|NCT02260934|181544730|SUPERIORITY|Treatment group was the independent variable in the logistic regression.||||||0.29||||||2 sided test|Regression, Logistic|2 sided test||Week 0 to Week 96||||0.29
90896700|NCT01064297|181659873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Wilson Score with Continuity Correction|2.8||||||95.0|1.6|4.9|||||The percentage of infants with MBDs was calculated as: the number of outcomes with MBDs divided by (the number of outcomes with MBDs + the number of live births without defects).|||4.9|1.6|
91091402|NCT02175121|182066648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.96||0.7394|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.89|3.92||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 28.||3.92|-5.89|0.7394
91091403|NCT02175121|182066648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.03||0.8652|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.5|5.53||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 28.||5.53|-4.50|0.8652
91091404|NCT02175121|182066648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.97||0.837|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.3|5.52||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 28.||5.52|-4.30|0.8370
91091405|NCT02175121|182066648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.01||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.6|14.58||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 28.||14.58|4.60|0.0018
91091406|NCT02175121|182066649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.25||0.6182|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.15|4.91||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 14.||4.91|-9.15|0.6182
91091407|NCT02175121|182066649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.34||0.7028|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.52|8.84||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 14.||8.84|-5.52|0.7028
91091408|NCT02175121|182066649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.25||0.9445|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.33|6.73||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 14.||6.73|-7.33|0.9445
91091409|NCT02175121|182066649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.32||0.0373|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.93|16.21||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 14.||16.21|1.93|0.0373
91091410|NCT02175121|182066649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.21||0.9448|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.25|6.67||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 28.||6.67|-7.25|0.9448
91091411|NCT02175121|182066649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3||0.9312|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.74|7.49||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 28.||7.49|-6.74|0.9312
90957261|NCT00857272|181794168|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Fifteen percent has been established as an acceptable non-inferiority margin for evaluation of investigational bowel preparations in previous studies of FDA approved preparations (e.g. NuLytely, MoviPrep).|Difference in success rates|-2.5||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|6.8|||Chi-squared|||"The primary endpoint of preparation success was tested using a non-inferiority test based upon the difference D=P1-P2,~Null Hypothesis H0: P1-P2\<=D0 versus Alternative Hypothesis H1: P1-P2=D1\>D0,~Where P1 is the % of patients with successful preps in the HalfLytely 5mg group and P2 is the % of patients with successful preps in the HalfLytely 10mg group and D0 is the acceptable margin of equivalence equal to an absolute margin of 15%."||6.8|-11.9|0.005
91091412|NCT02175121|182066649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.21||0.9791|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.07|6.85||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 28.||6.85|-7.07|0.9791
90838838|NCT02260934|181544731|SUPERIORITY|2 sided test|||||>|0.99||||||2 sided test|Fisher Exact|2 sided test||Week 0 to Week 24||||>0.99
90838839|NCT02260934|181544732|SUPERIORITY|2 sided test||||||0.49||||||2 sided test|Fisher Exact|2 sided test||Week 0 to Week 48||||0.49
90838840|NCT02260934|181544734|SUPERIORITY|2 sided test||||||0.89||||||2 sided test|Regression, Logistic|||Treatment group was the independent variable in the logistic regression.||||0.89
90838841|NCT02260934|181544734|SUPERIORITY|Week 48||||||0.47||||||2 sided test|Regression, Logistic|2 sided test||Treatment group was the independent variable in the logistic regression.||||0.47
90838842|NCT02260934|181544734|SUPERIORITY|Week 96||||||0.94||||||2 sided test|Regression, Logistic|2 sided test||Treatment group was the independent variable in the logistic regression.||||0.94
90838843|NCT02260934|181544735|SUPERIORITY|Week 24||||||0.08||||||2 sided test|Regression, Logistic|2 sided test||Treatment group was the independent variable in the logistic regression.||||0.08
90838844|NCT02260934|181544735|SUPERIORITY|Week 48||||||0.11||||||2 sided test|Regression, Logistic|2 sided test||Treatment group was the independent variable in the logistic regression.||||0.11
90838845|NCT02260934|181544735|SUPERIORITY|Week 96||||||0.05||||||2 sided test|Regression, Logistic|2 sided test||Treatment group was the independent variable in the logistic regression.||||0.05
90838846|NCT02260934|181544736|SUPERIORITY|Week 24||||||0.2||||||2 sided test|Regression, Logistic|2 sided test||Treatment group was the independent variable in the logistic regression.||||.20
90838847|NCT02260934|181544736|SUPERIORITY|Week 48|||||>|0.99||||||2 sided test|Regression, Logistic|2 sided test||Treatment group was the independent variable in the logistic regression.||||>0.99
90838848|NCT02260934|181544736|SUPERIORITY|Week 96||||||0.63||||||2 sided test|Regression, Logistic|2 sided test||Treatment group was the independent variable in the logistic regression.||||0.63
90838849|NCT01436526|181544739|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Using an estimated intra-subject coefficient of variation of less than 20% for AUC and Cmax, and a level of significance of 5%, a sample size of 25 completers was considered sufficient to conclude bioequivalence between 2\*5 mg and 1\*10 mg rivaroxaban with 90% power, if the 2 treatment means differed by 5%.|LS-Mean Ratio, Percent|108.35||||0.0438||90.0|101.59|115.57|||ANOVA|||||115.57|101.59|0.0438
90838850|NCT01436526|181544740|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Using an estimated intra-subject coefficient of variation of less than 20% for AUC and Cmax, and a level of significance of 5%, a sample size of 25 completers was considered sufficient to conclude bioequivalence between 2\*5 mg and 1\*10 mg rivaroxaban with 90% power, if the 2 treatment means differed by 5%.|LS-Mean Ratio, Percent|108.19||||0.0514||90.0|101.31|115.54|||ANOVA|||||115.54|101.31|0.0514
90838851|NCT01436526|181544741|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Using an estimated intra-subject coefficient of variation of less than 20% for AUC and Cmax, and a level of significance of 5%, a sample size of 25 completers was considered sufficient to conclude bioequivalence between 2\*5 mg and 1\*10 mg rivaroxaban with 90% power, if the 2 treatment means differed by 5%.|LS-Mean Ratio, Percent|111.64||||0.0685||90.0|101.14|123.23|||ANOVA|||||123.23|101.14|0.0685
90838852|NCT03605667|181544747|SUPERIORITY|Unstructure covariance structure.|Least square mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93||0.9809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.8|||Mixed model with repeated measures|||Model based summary statistics are from a mixed model with repeated measures, including fixed effects for pooled site ID, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline, baseline-by-visit interaction, mini-mental state examination (MMSE) randomization stratification, apolipoprotein E (APoE) status (carrier/non carrier), as covariates, and repeated measures for visit within participant.||1.8|-1.8|0.9809
90838853|NCT03605667|181544748|SUPERIORITY|Unstructure covariance structure.|Least square mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.4474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.3|||Mixed model with repeated measures|||Model based summary statistics are from a mixed model with repeated measures, including fixed effects for pooled site ID, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline, baseline-by-visit interaction, MMSE randomization stratification, APoE status (carrier/non carrier), as covariates, and repeated measures for visit within participant.||0.3|-0.8|0.4474
90838854|NCT03605667|181544749|SUPERIORITY|Unstructure covariance structure.|Least square mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Model based summary statistics were from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline MMSE total score as covariate.||0.5|-0.6|0.8670
90838855|NCT03605667|181544750|SUPERIORITY|Unstructure covariance structure.|Least square mean difference|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|3.9|||Mixed model with repeated measures|||Model based summary statistics are from a mixed model with repeated measures, including fixed effects for pooled site ID, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline, baseline-by-visit interaction, MMSE randomization stratification, APOE status (carrier/non-carrier), as covariates, and repeated measures for visit within participant.||3.9|-0.8|0.1950
91027983|NCT02978326|181939755|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Anxiety Psychic: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 15||-0.1|-0.7|0.0244
91027984|NCT02978326|181939755|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Anxiety Psychic: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 21||0.1|-0.6|0.0993
91091413|NCT02175121|182066649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|12.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.28||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.26|19.41||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 28.||19.41|5.26|0.0044
90838856|NCT03605667|181544751|SUPERIORITY|Unstructure covariance structure.|Least square mean difference|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.31||0.2583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|4.1|||Mixed model with repeated measures|||Model based summary statistics are from a mixed model with repeated measures, including fixed effects for pooled site ID, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline, baseline-by-visit interaction, MMSE randomization stratification, APOE status (carrier/non-carrier), as covariates, and repeated measures for visit within participant.||4.1|-1.1|0.2583
90838857|NCT03605667|181544752|SUPERIORITY|Unstructure covariance structure.|Least square mean difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.4191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.3|||Mixed model with repeated measures|||Model based summary statistics are from a mixed model with repeated measures, including fixed effects for pooled site ID, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline, baseline-by-visit interaction, MMSE randomization stratification, APOE status (carrier/non-carrier), as covariates, and repeated measures for visit within participant.||1.3|-0.6|0.4191
90838858|NCT03605667|181544754|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Model based summary statistics are from an ANCOVA with baseline MMSE total score as covariate.||0.3|-1.2|0.2240
90838859|NCT03605667|181544755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0161|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0161
90838860|NCT02628873|181544758|EQUIVALENCE|Degree of agreement between the 2 Assessors|Degree of agreement / Kappa|0.48|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Kappa|||||||< 0.01
91091414|NCT02175121|182066650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.96||0.6553|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.78|8.33||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 14.||8.33|-4.78|0.6553
91091415|NCT02175121|182066650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.05||0.2569|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.09|11.3||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 14.||11.30|-2.09|0.2569
90838861|NCT02628873|181544759|SUPERIORITY|T-test to determine whether one method had greater reported pain|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.925|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.71|<|0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.69|1.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.00|-2.69|< 0.30
90838862|NCT02628873|181544760|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.431|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.76|<|0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.56|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test (pre-procedure versus post-procedure)||||1.56|-2.40|< 0.67
90838863|NCT00107653|181544781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||SVR for Study Group Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|-0.08||P-values are calculated based on the difference in proportion between Latino and Non-Latino White group|Normal approximation to the binomial.||The estimated value is the difference in proportion of participants (Latino minus Non-Latino White) with SVR. The 95% Confidence Interval is based on normal approximation to the binomial.|SVR for Latino Versus (VS) Non-Latino White||-0.08|-0.24|<0.0001
90838864|NCT00107653|181544782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Study Group Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031||0.0454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.0|||Normal approximation to the binomial.||The estimated value is the difference in proportion of participants (Latino minus Non-Latino White) with virologic response. The 95% Confidence Interval is based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Virologic Response for Latino VS Non-Latino White at Week 4||-0.00|-0.12|0.0454
90838865|NCT00107653|181544782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Study Group Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|-0.07|||Normal approximation to the binomial.||The estimated value is the Difference in proportion of participants (Latino minus Non-Latino White) with virologic response. the 95% Confidence Interval is based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Virologic Response for Latino VS Non-Latino White at Week 12||-0.07|-0.23|0.0003
90838866|NCT00107653|181544782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Study Group Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|-0.06|||Normal approximation to the binomial.||The estimated value is the difference in proportion of participants (Latino minus Non-Latino White) with virologic response. The 95% Confidence Interval is based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Virologic Response for Latino VS Non-Latino White at Week 24||-0.06|-0.22|0.0004
90838867|NCT00107653|181544782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Study Group Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|-0.09|||Normal approximation to the binomial.||The estimated value is the difference in proportion of participants (Latino minus Non-Latino White) with virologic response. The 95% Confidence Interval is based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Virologic Response for Latino VS Non-Latino White at Week 48||-0.09|-0.24|<0.0001
90838868|NCT00107653|181544782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Study Group Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|-0.09|||Normal approximation to the binomial.||The estimated value is the difference in proportion of participants (Latino minus Non-Latino White) with virologic response. The 95% Confidence Interval is based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Virologic Response for Latino VS Non-Latino White at Week 60||-0.09|-0.25|<0.0001
90838869|NCT00107653|181544782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Study Group Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|-0.08|||Normal approximation to the binomial.||The estimated value is the difference in proportion of participants (Latino minus Non-Latino White) with virologic response. The 95% Confidence Interval is based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Virologic Response for Latino VS Non-Latino White at Week 72||-0.08|-0.24|<0.0001
90838870|NCT00107653|181544783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Study Group Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||0.0353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|-0.01|||Normal approximation to the binomial.||The estimated value is the Difference in proportion of participants (Latino minus Non-Latino White) with virologic response. the 95% Confidence Interval is based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Virologic Response for Latino VS Non-Latino White at Week 4||-0.01|-0.15|0.0353
90838871|NCT00107653|181544784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Study Group Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|-0.04|||Normal approximation to the binomial.||The estimated value is the difference in proportion of participants (Latino minus Non-Latino White) with virologic response. The 95% Confidence Interval is based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Virologic Response for Latino VS Non-Latino White at Week 12||-0.04|-0.17|0.0014
90838872|NCT00107653|181544786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Study Group Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.042||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|-0.06|||Normal approximation to the binomial.||The estimated value is the difference in proportion of participants (Latino minus Non-Latino White) with biochemical response. The 95% Confidence Interval is based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Normal Serum ALT level for Latino VS Non-Latino White at Week 4||-0.06|-0.22|0.0006
90838873|NCT00107653|181544786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Study Group Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|-0.08|||Normal approximation to the binomial.||The estimated value is the difference in proportion of participants (Latino minus Non-Latino White) with biochemical response. The 95% Confidence Interval is based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Normal Serum ALT level for Latino VS Non-Latino White at Week 12||-0.08|-0.24|<0.0001
90838874|NCT00107653|181544786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Study Group Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|-0.07|||Normal approximation to the binomial.||The estimated value is the difference in proportion of participants (Latino minus Non-Latino White) with biochemical response. The 95% Confidence Interval is based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Normal Serum ALT level for Latino VS Non-Latino White at Week 24||-0.07|-0.23|0.0003
90957262|NCT03283072|181794169|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.592|||||||ANCOVA|Within, within repeated measures ANCOVA (gender as co-variate).||||||0.592
91091416|NCT02175121|182066650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.96||0.0553|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.09|14.18||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 14.||14.18|1.09|0.0553
91091417|NCT02175121|182066650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|12.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.01||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.26|19.53||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 14.||19.53|6.26|0.0016
90838875|NCT00107653|181544786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Study Group Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.042||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|-0.06|||Normal approximation to the binomial.||The estimated value is the difference in proportion of participants (Latino minus Non-Latino White) with biochemical response. The 95% Confidence Interval is based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Normal Serum ALT level for Latino VS Non-Latino White at Week 48||-0.06|-0.22|0.0008
90838876|NCT00107653|181544786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Study Group Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|-0.1|||Normal approximation to the binomial.||The estimated value is the difference in proportion of participants (Latino minus Non-Latino White) with biochemical response. The 95% Confidence Interval is based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Normal Serum ALT level for Latino VS Non-Latino White at Week 60||-0.10|-0.26|<0.0001
91091418|NCT02175121|182066650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.58||0.8717|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.35|6.51||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 28.||6.51|-5.35|0.8717
90838877|NCT00107653|181544786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Study Group Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|-0.11|||Normal approximation to the binomial.||The estimated value is the difference in proportion of participants (Latino minus Non-Latino White) with biochemical response. The 95% Confidence Interval is based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Normal Serum ALT level for Latino VS Non-Latino White at Week 72||-0.11|-0.27|<0.0001
90838878|NCT00107653|181544787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Study Group Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.0285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.0|||Normal approximation to the binomial.||The estimated value is the difference in proportion of participants (Latino minus Non-Latino White) with ISHAK HAI response. The 95% Confidence Interval is based on normal approximation to the binomial.|ISHAK HAI Response For Latino VS Non-Latino White||-0.0|-0.2|0.0285
90838879|NCT00107653|181544788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Study Group Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.3|||Normal approximation to the binomial.||The estimated value is the difference in change from baseline of ISHAK HAI activity (necroinflammatory) scores between Latino and Non-Latino White participants. The 95% Confidence Interval is based on normal approximation to the binomial.|ISHAK HAI activity For Latino VS Non-Latino White||1.3|0.5|<0.0001
90838880|NCT00107653|181544797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Study Group Difference|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.162|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.33|||ANCOVA||The estimated value is the difference of change from baseline in FSS scores at week 48 between Latino and Non-Latino White participants. The 95% Confidence Interval is based on normal approximation to the binomial.|FSS Score of Latino VS Non-Latino White at week 48||-0.33|-0.96|<0.0001
90838881|NCT00107653|181544797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Study Group Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.156||0.0921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.04|||ANCOVA||The estimated value is the difference of change from baseline in FSS scores at week 72 between Latino and Non-Latino White participants. The 95% Confidence Interval is based on normal approximation to the binomial.|FSS Score of Latino VS Non-Latino White at week 72||0.04|-0.57|0.0921
91091419|NCT02175121|182066650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.66||0.743|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.86|7.26||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 28.||7.26|-4.86|0.7430
90838882|NCT00107653|181544797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Study Group Difference|-8.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.725||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.07|-3.36|||ANCOVA||The estimated value is the difference of change from baseline in FSS VAS scores at week 48 between Latino and Non-Latino White participants The 95% Confidence Interval is based on normal approximation to the binomial.|FSS VAS Score of Latino VS Non-Latino White at week 48||-3.36|-14.07|0.0015
90838883|NCT00107653|181544797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Study Group Difference|4.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.37||0.0421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|9.49|||ANCOVA||The estimated value is the difference of change from baseline in FSS VAS scores at week 72 between Latino and Non-Latino White participants. The 95% Confidence Interval is based on normal approximation to the binomial.|FSS VAS Score of Latino VS Non-Latino White at week 72||9.49|0.18|0.0421
90896701|NCT00947661|181659877|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of covariance included treatment, site, and intraocular pressure group as a covariate. Two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference between treatment groups in estimated mean change from baseline lease square means was computed for each time point. Non-inferiority of SPARC drug relative to Reference was established if: 95% confidence interval included 0, the upper limit of the 95% CI was \<1.5, and upper limit of 95% CI was \<1 at most (at least 7 of 12) time point.|||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.01
90896702|NCT00511875|181659888|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.70
90838884|NCT00107653|181544798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Study Group Difference|3.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.864|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.79|5.18|||ANCOVA||The estimated value is the difference of change from baseline in standardized physical component score at week 48 between Latino and Non-Latino White participants. The 95% Confidence Interval is based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Standardized Physical Component of Latino VS Non-Latino White at week 48||5.18|1.79|<0.0001
90896703|NCT00511875|181659889|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Foveal Sensitivity||||.33
91091420|NCT02175121|182066650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.58||0.2041|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.36|10.48||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 28.||10.48|-1.36|0.2041
91091421|NCT02175121|182066650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|14.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.63|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.92|20.92||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 28.||20.92|8.92|<0.0001
91091422|NCT02175121|182066651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.08||0.975|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.62|6.87||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 14.||6.87|-6.62|0.9750
91091423|NCT02175121|182066651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.16||0.3396|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.9|10.87||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 14.||10.87|-2.90|0.3396
90838885|NCT00107653|181544798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Study Group Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.808||0.9047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|1.68|||ANCOVA||The estimated value is the difference of change from baseline in standardized physical component score at week 48 between Latino and Non-Latino White participants. The 95% Confidence Interval is based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Standardized Physical Component of Latino VS Non-Latino White at week 72||1.68|-1.49|0.9047
90838886|NCT00107653|181544798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Study Group Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.914||0.9286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|1.71|||ANCOVA||The estimated value is the difference of change from baseline in standardized mental component score at week 48 between Latino and Non-Latino White participants. The 95% Confidence Interval is based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Standardized Mental Component of Latino VS Non-Latino White at week 48||1.71|-1.88|0.9286
90838887|NCT00107653|181544798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Study Group Difference|-1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.888||0.1653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.98|0.51|||ANCOVA||The estimated value is the difference of change from baseline in standardized mental component score at week 72 between Latino and Non-Latino White participants. The 95% Confidence Interval is based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Standardized Mental Component of Latino VS Non-Latino White at week 72||0.51|-2.98|0.1653
90838888|NCT00541658|181544817|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.233|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.812|0.345|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||0.345|-0.812|
90896704|NCT00511875|181659889|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Mean field sensitivity||||.16
90896705|NCT00511875|181659890|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Foveal Sensitivity||||.02
90896706|NCT00511875|181659890|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||mean FDP sensitivity||||.3
90896707|NCT00511875|181659891|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.98
90896708|NCT00511875|181659892|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.46
90896709|NCT00511875|181659893|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.81
91027985|NCT02978326|181939755|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Anxiety Psychic: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 45||-0.1|-0.7|0.0185
90896710|NCT00511875|181659894|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.88
90896711|NCT00511875|181659895|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.75
91027986|NCT02978326|181939755|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.2471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Anxiety Somatic: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 3||0.1|-0.4|0.2471
91027987|NCT02978326|181939755|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.1076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.0||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Anxiety Somatic: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 8||0.0|-0.5|0.1076
91027988|NCT02978326|181939755|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.2782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Anxiety Somatic: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 15||0.1|-0.4|0.2782
91027989|NCT02978326|181939755|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.4646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Anxiety Somatic: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 21||0.2|-0.4|0.4646
91027990|NCT02978326|181939755|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Anxiety Somatic: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 45||0.1|-0.5|0.1600
90838889|NCT00541658|181544817|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.296|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.869|0.277|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||0.277|-0.869|
90838890|NCT00541658|181544818|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.265||||0.2955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.763|0.232|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant used.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||0.232|-0.763|0.2955
90838891|NCT00541658|181544819|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.131|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.674|0.412|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||0.412|-0.674|
90838892|NCT00541658|181544819|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.156|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.382|0.695|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||0.695|-0.382|
90838893|NCT00541658|181544820|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.258|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.836|0.321|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||0.321|-0.836|
90838894|NCT00541658|181544820|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.322|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.256|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||0.256|-0.900|
90838895|NCT00541658|181544821|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|LS Mean Difference|-1.154|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.903|-0.405|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||-0.405|-1.903|
91027991|NCT02978326|181939755|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.0||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Somatic Symptoms Gastrointestinal: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 3||0.0|-0.5|0.0474
90896712|NCT00511875|181659896|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.62
90896713|NCT01349920|181659907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.071|||||||Multiple Linear Regression|||Week 6||||0.071
90896714|NCT01349920|181659907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.381|||||||Multiple Linear Regression|||Week 22||||0.381
91027992|NCT02978326|181939755|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.0||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Somatic Symptoms Gastrointestinal: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 8||0.0|-0.5|0.0446
91027993|NCT02978326|181939755|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Somatic Symptoms Gastrointestinal: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 15||-0.1|-0.6|0.0093
91027994|NCT02978326|181939755|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.2998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Somatic Symptoms Gastrointestinal: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 21||0.1|-0.4|0.2998
91091424|NCT02175121|182066651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.07||0.7142|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.23|5.24||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 14.||5.24|-8.23|0.7142
90838896|NCT00541658|181544821|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|LS Mean Difference|-1.044|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.789|-0.299|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||-0.299|-1.789|
90838897|NCT00541658|181544822|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|LS Mean Difference|-1.059|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.762|-0.355|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||-0.355|-1.762|
90838898|NCT00541658|181544822|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|LS Mean Difference|-0.922|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|-0.223|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||-0.223|-1.620|
90838899|NCT00541658|181544823|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Relative Risk|1.08||||0.0524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.16|||Fisher Exact|||||1.16|1.00|0.0524
90838900|NCT00541658|181544823|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Relative Risk|1.07||||0.1207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.15|||Fisher Exact|||||1.15|0.99|0.1207
90838901|NCT00541658|181544824|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Relative Risk|1.07||||0.0729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.15|||Fisher Exact|||||1.15|1.00|0.0729
90838902|NCT00541658|181544824|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Relative Risk|1.06||||0.1639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.14|||Fisher Exact|||||1.14|0.98|0.1639
90838903|NCT00541658|181544825|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Relative Risk|1.08||||0.0476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.16|||Fisher Exact|||||1.16|1.00|0.0476
90838904|NCT00541658|181544825|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Relative Risk|1.12||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.2|||ANOVA|||||1.20|1.04|0.0014
90896715|NCT03152084|181659926|OTHER|Within-group change|Least square mean|-5.21||||0.4462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.542|9.12||Start of treatment vs baseline|Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.120|-19.542|0.4462
90896716|NCT03152084|181659927|OTHER|Within-group change|Least square mean|3.69||||0.7842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.817|32.195||End of treatment vs baseline|Mixed Models Analysis|||||32.195|-24.817|0.7842
90896717|NCT03152084|181659927|OTHER|Within-group change|Least square mean|-16.72||||0.0581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.109|0.664||Follow-up vs End of treatment|Regression, Linear|||||0.664|-34.109|0.0581
90896718|NCT03152084|181659928|OTHER|Within-group change|Least square mean|344.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|272.785|416.905||Start of treatment vs baseline|Mixed Models Analysis|||||416.905|272.785|<0.0001
90896719|NCT03152084|181659929|OTHER|Within-group change|Least square mean|311.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|224.528|398.064||End of treatment vs baseline|Mixed Models Analysis|||||398.064|224.528|<0.0001
90896720|NCT03152084|181659930|OTHER|Within-group change|Least square mean|-203.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-235.983|-170.162||Follow-up vs end of treatment|Regression, Linear|||||-170.162|-235.983|<0.0001
90838905|NCT00541658|181544826|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Relative Risk|1.08||||0.0547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.16|||ANOVA|||||1.16|1.00|0.0547
91091425|NCT02175121|182066651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.14||0.0192|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.94|16.63||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 14.||16.63|2.94|0.0192
90838906|NCT00541658|181544826|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Relative Risk|1.1||||0.0066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.18|||ANOVA|||||1.18|1.03|0.0066
90838907|NCT00541658|181544827|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.135|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.504|0.234|||ANOVA|Fixed effect for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||0.234|-0.504|
90838908|NCT00541658|181544827|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.072|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.437|0.294|||ANOVA|Fixed effect for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||0.294|-0.437|
90838909|NCT00541658|181544828|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.321|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.724|0.082|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||0.082|-0.724|
90838910|NCT00541658|181544828|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.692|0.112|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||0.112|-0.692|
90838911|NCT00541658|181544829|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.288|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.682|0.106|||ANOVA|Fixed effect for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||0.106|-0.682|
90838912|NCT00541658|181544829|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.681|0.101|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||0.101|-0.681|
90896721|NCT03152084|181659931|OTHER|Within-group change|Least square mean|-5.2658||||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5459|-1.9856||Start of treatment vs baseline|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.9856|-8.5459|0.0047
90896722|NCT03152084|181659932|OTHER|Within-group change|Least square mean|-7.0987||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0379|-4.1595||End of treatment vs baseline|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.1595|-10.0379|0.0003
90896723|NCT03152084|181659933|OTHER|Within-group change|Least square mean|0.7287||||0.5592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9894|3.4468||Follow-up vs end of treatment|Regression, Linear|||||3.4468|-1.9894|0.5592
91091426|NCT02175121|182066651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.85||0.8277|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.2|5.52||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 28.||5.52|-7.20|0.8277
90896724|NCT03152084|181659934|OTHER|Within-group change|Least square mean|0.0315||||0.9288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7274|0.7904||Start of treatment vs baseline|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.7904|-0.7274|0.9288
90896725|NCT03152084|181659935|OTHER|Within-group change|Least square mean|-0.4318||||0.1659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0761|0.2125||End of treatment vs baseline|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.2125|-1.0761|0.1659
90838913|NCT00541658|181544830|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|LS Mean Difference|-0.644|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.179|-0.11|||ANOVA|||||-0.110|-1.179|
90838914|NCT00541658|181544830|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|LS Mean Difference|-0.587|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.116|-0.059|||ANOVA|||||-0.059|-1.116|
90838915|NCT00541658|181544831|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|LS Mean Difference|-0.522|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.014|||ANOVA|||||-0.014|-1.030|
90838916|NCT00541658|181544831|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|LS Mean Difference|-0.468|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.973|0.037|||ANOVA|||||0.037|-0.973|
90838917|NCT00541658|181544832|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.265|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.731|0.201|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled centers and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||0.201|-0.731|
90838918|NCT00541658|181544832|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.126|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.588|0.336|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||0.336|-0.588|
90838919|NCT00541658|181544833|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.328|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.811|0.156|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled centers and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||0.156|-0.811|
90838920|NCT00541658|181544833|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.563|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.045|-0.08|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center, anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||-0.080|-1.045|
90838921|NCT00541658|181544834|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.327|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.793|0.138|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||0.138|-0.793|
90838922|NCT00541658|181544834|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.537|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.074|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||-0.074|-1.000|
90896726|NCT03152084|181659936|OTHER|Within-group change|Least square mean|0.4755||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0963|0.8548||Follow-up vs end of treatment|Regression, Linear|||||0.8548|0.0963|0.0190
90896727|NCT03152084|181659937|OTHER|Within-group change|Least square mean|-0.6713||||0.0157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1914|-0.1511||Start of treatment vs baseline|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.1511|-1.1914|0.0157
90896728|NCT03152084|181659938|OTHER|Within-group change|Least square mean|-0.0324||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4631|0.3984||End of treatment vs baseline|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.3984|-0.4631|0.8700
90896729|NCT03152084|181659939|OTHER|Within-group change|Least square mean|0.1718||||0.2446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1358|0.4795||Follow-up vs end of treatment|Regression, Linear|||||0.4795|-0.1358|0.2446
91091427|NCT02175121|182066651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.93||0.8857|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.93|7.06||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 28.||7.06|-5.93|0.8857
90838923|NCT00541658|181544835|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|LS Mean Difference|-0.578|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.189|0.032|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||0.032|-1.189|
91091428|NCT02175121|182066651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.84||0.8824|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.93|5.79||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 28.||5.79|-6.93|0.8824
90838924|NCT00541658|181544835|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|LS Mean Difference|-0.799|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.403|-0.194|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||-0.194|-1.403|
90838925|NCT00541658|181544836|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|LS Mean Difference|-0.555|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.128|0.018|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||0.018|-1.128|
90838926|NCT00541658|181544836|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|LS Mean Difference|-0.616|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.185|-0.046|||ANOVA|Fixed effect for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||-0.046|-1.185|
90838927|NCT00541658|181544837|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.249|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.363|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||0.363|-0.860|
90896730|NCT03152084|181659940|OTHER|Within-group change|Least square mean|-2.1||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.299|-0.902||Start of treatment vs baseline|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.902|-3.299|0.0023
90896731|NCT03152084|181659940|OTHER|Within-group change|Least square mean|-1.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.929|-1.256||End of treatment vs baseline|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.256|-1.929|<0.0001
90896732|NCT03152084|181659940|OTHER|Within-group change|Least square mean|3.88||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.215|5.553||Follow-up vs end of treatment|Regression, Linear|||||5.553|2.215|0.0002
91091429|NCT02175121|182066651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9||0.0192|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.77|15.69||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 28.||15.69|2.77|0.0192
90896733|NCT00871403|181660014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.2647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.28|||Log Rank||The hazard ratios is estimated using a Pike estimator. The estimated value is the hazard ratio comparing Pazopanib 800 mg plus pemetrexed 500 mg/m\^2 to Cisplatin 75 mg/m\^2 plus pemetrexed 500 mg/m\^2.|||1.28|0.43|0.2647
90896734|NCT00871403|181660017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference in response|-12.0||||0.2113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.6|7.2|||Binomial asymptotic||The estimated value is the percent difference in the response rate comparing Pazopanib 800 mg plus pemetrexed 500 mg/m\^2 to Cisplatin 75 mg/m\^2 plus pemetrexed 500 mg/m\^2.|||7.2|-30.6|0.2113
90896735|NCT03170375|181660027|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Regression, Linear|adjusted for baseline carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity||||||0.28
90896736|NCT03170375|181660028|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Regression, Linear|adjusted for baseline left ventricular mass index||||||0.60
90896737|NCT03170375|181660029|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||Regression, Linear|adjusted for baseline global left ventricular longitudinal strain||||||0.27
91091430|NCT00794664|182066685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance was concluded if p≤0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Based upon prior clinical study experience with mipomersen, it was estimated that the standard deviation of the percent change in LDL-C was approximately 22%. With 15 patients in the control group and 30 patients in the mipomersen-treated group, this study would have at least 80% power to detect a 20 percentage point difference between the 2 treatment groups. Enrollment was to be conducted such that at least 51 patients were randomized to allow for potential exclusions from an analysis set.||||<0.001
90838928|NCT00541658|181544837|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.265|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.871|0.342|||ANOVA|Fixed effect for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||0.342|-0.871|
90838929|NCT00541658|181544838|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.557|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.185|0.071|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||0.071|-1.185|
90838930|NCT00541658|181544838|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.522|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.149|0.105|||ANOVA||LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||0.105|-1.149|
90838931|NCT00541658|181544839|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.546|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|0.078|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||0.078|-1.170|
90838932|NCT00541658|181544839|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.579|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.199|0.042|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||0.042|-1.199|
90838933|NCT00541658|181544840|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|LS Mean Difference|-1.095|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.861|-0.329|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||-0.329|-1.861|
90838934|NCT00541658|181544840|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|LS Mean Difference|-1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.948|-0.432|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||-0.432|-1.948|
90838935|NCT00541658|181544841|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|LS Mean Difference|-0.919|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.655|-0.184|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||-0.184|-1.655|
90838936|NCT00541658|181544841|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|LS Mean Difference|-1.056|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.787|-0.326|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||-0.326|-1.787|
90896738|NCT03170375|181660030|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Regression, Linear|adjusted for baseline carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity||||||0.03
90896739|NCT03170375|181660034|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||generalized estimating equations|Model includes time (baseline, phase 2 month 1, phase 2 month 6), randomization assignment, and time x randomization assignment||||||0.47
90896740|NCT03170375|181660035|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||generalized estimating equation|Model includes time (baseline, phase 2 month 1, phase 2 month 6), randomization assignment, and time x randomization assignment||||||0.28
90896741|NCT03170375|181660036|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||generalized estimating equations|Model includes time (baseline, phase 2 month 1, phase 2 month 6), randomization assignment, and time x randomization assignment||||||0.43
90896742|NCT03170375|181660037|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.94
91091431|NCT00794664|182066687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Inflation of type 1 error was controlled by specifying a small number of secondary parameters and a sequential inferential approach in which inferential conclusions about each successive parameter required statistical significance of the prior one.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91091432|NCT00794664|182066689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Inferential conclusions about this parameter require statistical significance of the previous secondary outcome measure (i.e., percent change from baseline in Apo B at PET).|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91091433|NCT00794664|182066691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Inferential conclusions about this parameter require statistical significance of the previous secondary outcome measure (i.e., percent change from baseline in total cholesterol at PET).|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91091434|NCT00794664|182066693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034||||||Statistical significance was concluded if p ≤0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.034
91091435|NCT00794664|182066695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance was concluded if p ≤0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91091436|NCT00794664|182066697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.032||||||Statistical significance was concluded if p ≤0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.032
91091437|NCT00794664|182066699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance was concluded if p ≤0.05|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||<0.001
91091438|NCT00794664|182066701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.278||||||Statistical significance was concluded if p ≤0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.278
91091439|NCT00794664|182066703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.647||||||Statistical significance was concluded if p ≤0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.647
91091440|NCT00720499|182066713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017||0.8937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.035|0.031|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Olo 5 µg + Tio 5 µg minus Olo 2 µg + Tio 5 µg|Based on a ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, centre, patient within centre and period (all effects fixed).||0.031|-0.035|0.8937
91091441|NCT00720499|182066714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.023|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.2425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.015|0.061|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Olo 5 µg + Tio 5 µg minus Olo 2 µg + Tio 5 µg|Based on a ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, centre, patient within centre and period (all effects fixed).||0.061|-0.015|0.2425
91091442|NCT00720499|182066716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.008||0.5198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.021|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Olo 5 µg + Tio 5 µg minus Olo 2 µg + Tio 5 µg|Test Day 1. Based on a ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, centre, patient within centre and period (all effects fixed).||0.021|-0.010|0.5198
91091443|NCT00720499|182066716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016||0.211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.011|0.051|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Olo 5 µg + Tio 5 µg minus Olo 2 µg + Tio 5 µg|Test Day 15. Based on a ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, centre, patient within centre and period (all effects fixed)||0.051|-0.011|0.2110
91091444|NCT00720499|182066716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014||0.9368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.029|0.027|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Olo 5 µg + Tio 5 µg minus Olo 2 µg + Tio 5 µg|Test day 29. Based on a ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, centre, patient within centre and period (all effects fixed)||0.027|-0.029|0.9368
91091445|NCT00720499|182066717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.5339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.027|0.014|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Olo 5 µg + Tio 5 µg minus Olo 2 µg + Tio 5 µg|Test Day 1. Based on a ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, centre, patient within centre and period (all effects fixed)||0.014|-0.027|0.5339
91091446|NCT00720499|182066717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.2408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.015|0.058|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Olo 5 µg + Tio 5 µg minus Olo 2 µg + Tio 5 µg|Test day 15. Based on a ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, centre, patient within centre and period (all effects fixed)||0.058|-0.015|0.2408
91091447|NCT00720499|182066717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018||0.7139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.029|0.042|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Olo 5 µg + Tio 5 µg minus Olo 2 µg + Tio 5 µg|Test day 29. Based on a ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, centre, patient within centre and period (all effects fixed)||0.042|-0.029|0.7139
91091448|NCT00720499|182066718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015||0.7906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.026|0.034|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Olo 5 µg + Tio 5 µg minus Olo 2 µg + Tio 5 µg|Based on a ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, centre, patient within centre and period (all effects fixed).||0.034|-0.026|0.7906
91091449|NCT00720499|182066719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038||0.8473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.067|0.082|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Olo 5 µg + Tio 5 µg minus Olo 2 µg + Tio 5 µg|Based on a ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, centre, patient within centre and period (all effects fixed).||0.082|-0.067|0.8473
91091450|NCT00720499|182066720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.032|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031||0.2944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.029|0.094|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Olo 5 µg + Tio 5 µg minus Olo 2 µg + Tio 5 µg|Test Day 15. Based on a ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, centre, patient within centre and period (all effects fixed).||0.094|-0.029|0.2944
91091451|NCT00720499|182066720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028||0.718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.046|0.066|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Olo 5 µg + Tio 5 µg minus Olo 2 µg + Tio 5 µg|Test day 29. Based on a ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, centre, patient within centre and period (all effects fixed).||0.066|-0.046|0.7180
90896743|NCT03170375|181660038|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.90
90838937|NCT00541658|181544842|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|3.771|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.885|8.427|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||8.427|-0.885|
90838938|NCT00541658|181544842|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|2.826|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.819|7.471|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||7.471|-1.819|
90838939|NCT00541658|181544843|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|2.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.171|7.431|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||7.431|-2.171|
90838940|NCT00541658|181544843|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|4.617|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.152|9.386|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||9.386|-0.152|
90838941|NCT00541658|181544844|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|5.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.091|9.989|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||9.989|0.091|
90838942|NCT00541658|181544844|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|4.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.293|9.574|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||9.574|-0.293|
90838943|NCT00541658|181544845|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|6.372|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.329|11.414|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||11.414|1.329|
90838944|NCT00541658|181544845|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|4.403|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.619|9.425|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||9.425|-0.619|
90838945|NCT00541658|181544846|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|LS Mean Difference|4.739|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.793|10.271|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||10.271|-0.793|
90896744|NCT02007434|181660043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Placebo-adjusted Difference|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.6803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|1.41|||ANCOVA||Paradigm 1 - Paradigm 2|Pairwise differences between paradigms for the placebo-adjusted differences were conducted using a two-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with factors for treatment, paradigm, treatment-by-paradigm interaction, and covariate of baseline CR-SMFRS score.||1.41|-0.93|0.6803
90957263|NCT03283072|181794170|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.721|||||||ANCOVA|Within, within repeated measures ANCOVA (gender as co-variate).||||||0.721
91091452|NCT00720499|182066722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015||0.9384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.029|0.032|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Olo 5 µg + Tio 5 µg minus Olo 2 µg + Tio 5 µg|Test day 1. Based on a ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, centre, patient within centre and period (all effects fixed)||0.032|-0.029|0.9384
91091453|NCT00720499|182066722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.037|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.1583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.014|0.088|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Olo 5 µg + Tio 5 µg minus Olo 2 µg + Tio 5 µg|Test day 15. Based on a ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, centre, patient within centre and period (all effects fixed).||0.088|-0.014|0.1583
90896745|NCT02007434|181660043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Placebo-adjusted Difference|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.5206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|1.6|||ANCOVA||Paradigm 1 - Paradigm 3|Day 0, 1 Minute. Pairwise differences between paradigms for the placebo-adjusted differences were conducted using a two-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with factors for treatment, paradigm, treatment-by-paradigm interaction, and covariate of baseline CR-SMFRS score.||1.60|-0.82|0.5206
90896746|NCT02007434|181660043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Placebo-adjusted Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.606|TWO_SIDED|395.0|-0.86|1.46|||ANCOVA||Paradigm 1 - Paradigm 4|Pairwise differences between paradigms for the placebo-adjusted differences were conducted using a two-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with factors for treatment, paradigm, treatment-by-paradigm interaction, and covariate of baseline CR-SMFRS score.||1.46|-0.86|0.6060
90957264|NCT03283072|181794171|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.553|||||||ANCOVA|Within, within repeated measures ANVOA (gender as covariate)||||||0.553
91091454|NCT00720499|182066722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.029|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.2914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.025|0.082|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Olo 5 µg + Tio 5 µg minus Olo 2 µg + Tio 5 µg|Test day 29. Based on a ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, centre, patient within centre and period (all effects fixed).||0.082|-0.025|0.2914
91091455|NCT00720499|182066723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.035|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.2485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.024|0.094|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Olo 5 µg + Tio 5 µg minus Olo 2 µg + Tio 5 µg|Based on a ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, centre, patient within centre and period (all effects fixed).||0.094|-0.024|0.2485
90957265|NCT02552368|181794188|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Paired t-Test|||||||0.002
91091456|NCT00720499|182066724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.046|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.2875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.039|0.13|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Olo 5 µg + Tio 5 µg minus Olo 2 µg + Tio 5 µg|Based on a ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, centre, patient within centre and period (all effects fixed).||0.130|-0.039|0.2875
91091457|NCT00720499|182066725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.984|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.038||0.6299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.046|5.015|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Olo 5 µg + Tio 5 µg minus Olo 2 µg + Tio 5 µg|Test day 1. Based on a ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, centre, patient within centre and period (all effects fixed).||5.015|-3.046|0.6299
91091458|NCT00720499|182066725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.311|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.156||0.0475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|12.553|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Olo 5 µg + Tio 5 µg minus Olo 2 µg + Tio 5 µg|Test day 15. Based on a ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, centre, patient within centre and period (all effects fixed).||12.553|0.070|0.0475
91091459|NCT00720499|182066725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.552|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.67||0.562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.729|6.833|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Olo 5 µg + Tio 5 µg minus Olo 2 µg + Tio 5 µg|Test day 29. Based on a ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, centre, patient within centre and period (all effects fixed).||6.833|-3.729|0.5620
91091460|NCT00720499|182066726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.179|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.342||0.9391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.812|4.454|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Olo 5 µg + Tio 5 µg minus Olo 2 µg + Tio 5 µg|Test day 1. Based on a ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, centre, patient within centre and period (all effects fixed).||4.454|-4.812|0.9391
91091461|NCT00720499|182066726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.559||0.0709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|13.52|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Olo 5 µg + Tio 5 µg minus Olo 2 µg + Tio 5 µg|Test day 15. Based on a ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, centre, patient within centre and period (all effects fixed).||13.520|-0.560|0.0709
91091462|NCT00720499|182066726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.099|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.134||0.3245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|9.298|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Olo 5 µg + Tio 5 µg minus Olo 2 µg + Tio 5 µg|Test day 29. Based on a ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, centre, patient within centre and period (all effects fixed).||9.298|-3.100|0.3245
91091463|NCT00720499|182066727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.655||0.8808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.914|8.514|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Olo 5 µg + Tio 5 µg minus Olo 2 µg + Tio 5 µg|Based on a ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, centre, patient within centre and period (all effects fixed).||8.514|-9.914|0.8808
91091464|NCT00720499|182066728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.119|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.177||0.6081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.19|5.429|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Olo 5 µg + Tio 5 µg minus Olo 2 µg + Tio 5 µg|Test week 1. Based on a ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, centre, patient within centre and period (all effects fixed).||5.429|-3.190|0.6081
91091465|NCT00720499|182066728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.339|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.342||0.5686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.296|5.973|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Olo 5 µg + Tio 5 µg minus Olo 2 µg + Tio 5 µg|Test Week 2. Based on a ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, centre, patient within centre and period (all effects fixed).||5.973|-3.296|0.5686
91091466|NCT00720499|182066728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.653|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.294||0.7765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.888|5.194|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Olo 5 µg + Tio 5 µg minus Olo 2 µg + Tio 5 µg|Test Week 3. Based on a ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, centre, patient within centre and period (all effects fixed).||5.194|-3.888|0.7765
91091467|NCT00720499|182066728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.654|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.543||0.5166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.379|6.686|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Olo 5 µg + Tio 5 µg minus Olo 2 µg + Tio 5 µg|Test Week 4. Based on a ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, centre, patient within centre and period (all effects fixed).||6.686|-3.379|0.5166
91091468|NCT00720499|182066729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.303|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.585||0.2037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.813|8.418|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Olo 5 µg + Tio 5 µg minus Olo 2 µg + Tio 5 µg|Test Week 1. Based on a ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, centre, patient within centre and period (all effects fixed).||8.418|-1.813|0.2037
90896747|NCT02007434|181660043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Placebo-adjusted Difference|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.7935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|1.27|||ANCOVA||Paradigm 2 - Paradigm 3|Pairwise differences between paradigms for the placebo-adjusted differences were conducted using a two-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with factors for treatment, paradigm, treatment-by-paradigm interaction, and covariate of baseline CR-SMFRS score.||1.27|-0.98|0.7935
91091469|NCT00720499|182066729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.393|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.738||0.6118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.027|6.813|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Olo 5 µg + Tio 5 µg minus Olo 2 µg + Tio 5 µg|Test Week 2. Based on a ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, centre, patient within centre and period (all effects fixed).||6.813|-4.027|0.6118
91091470|NCT00720499|182066729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.695|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.498||0.4988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.251|6.64|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Olo 5 µg + Tio 5 µg minus Olo 2 µg + Tio 5 µg|Test Week 3. Based on a ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, centre, patient within centre and period (all effects fixed).||6.640|-3.251|0.4988
90838946|NCT00541658|181544846|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|LS Mean Difference|3.999|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.518|9.515|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||9.515|-1.518|
90838947|NCT00541658|181544847|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|LS Mean Difference|4.817|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.693|10.327|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||10.327|-0.693|
90838948|NCT00541658|181544847|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|LS Mean Difference|3.192|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.295|8.68|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled centers and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||8.680|-2.295|
90838949|NCT00541658|181544848|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|4.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|9.16|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||9.160|-0.260|
90838950|NCT00541658|181544848|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|3.723|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.975|8.421|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||8.421|-0.975|
90957266|NCT02552368|181794189|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Signed-Rank Test for Performance COPM between Baseline and 12 weeks||||0.022
91091471|NCT00720499|182066729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.039|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.478||0.6757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.944|3.865|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Olo 5 µg + Tio 5 µg minus Olo 2 µg + Tio 5 µg|Test Week 4. Based on a ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, centre, patient within centre and period (all effects fixed).||3.865|-5.944|0.6757
91091472|NCT00720499|182066730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.8901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.147|0.169|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Olo 5 µg + Tio 5 µg minus Olo 2 µg + Tio 5 µg|Test Week 1. Based on a ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, centre, patient within centre and period (all effects fixed).||0.169|-0.147|0.8901
90838951|NCT00541658|181544849|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|4.798|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.195|9.79|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||9.790|-0.195|
90838952|NCT00541658|181544849|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|4.972|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|9.924|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||9.924|0.020|
90838953|NCT00541658|181544850|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|4.775|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.514|10.065|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||10.065|-0.514|
90838954|NCT00541658|181544850|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|5.638||||||95.0|0.356|10.92|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||10.920|0.356|
90838955|NCT00541658|181544851|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|6.552|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.162|11.942|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||11.942|1.162|
90838956|NCT00541658|181544851|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|5.531|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.164|10.897|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||10.897|0.164|
90838957|NCT00541658|181544852|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|LS Mean Difference|7.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.175|14.485|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||14.485|1.175|
90838958|NCT00541658|181544852|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|LS Mean Difference|8.383|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.757|15.01|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled centers and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||15.010|1.757|
90838959|NCT00541658|181544853|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|LS Mean Difference|7.802|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.385|14.22|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||14.220|1.385|
90838960|NCT00541658|181544853|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|LS Mean Difference|7.301|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.911|13.69|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||13.690|0.911|
90957267|NCT02552368|181794189|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.031|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Signed-Rank Test for Satisfaction COPM between Baseline and 12 weeks||||0.031
90957268|NCT00911768|181794190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.181|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.416|<|0.05||95.0|-0.647|1.008|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.008|-0.647|<0.05
90838961|NCT00541658|181544854|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|1.755|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.145|4.655|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||4.655|-1.145|
90838962|NCT00541658|181544854|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|1.805|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.087|4.698|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||4.698|-1.087|
90838963|NCT00541658|181544855|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|2.407|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.502|5.316|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||5.316|-0.502|
90838964|NCT00541658|181544855|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|1.309|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.576|4.194|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||4.194|-1.576|
90838965|NCT00541658|181544856|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|1.555|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.617|4.727|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||4.727|-1.617|
90838966|NCT00541658|181544856|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|1.612|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.556|4.779|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||4.779|-1.556|
90838967|NCT00541658|181544857|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|1.434|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.652|4.521|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||4.521|-1.652|
90838968|NCT00541658|181544857|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|1.462|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.611|4.535|||ANOVA|Fixed effect for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||4.535|-1.611|
91027995|NCT02978326|181939755|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.0||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Somatic Symptoms Gastrointestinal: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 45||0.0|-0.5|0.0545
91027996|NCT02978326|181939755|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.2177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||General Somatic Symptoms: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 3||0.1|-0.4|0.2177
91027997|NCT02978326|181939755|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||General Somatic Symptoms: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 8||0.1|-0.4|0.2300
91091473|NCT00720499|182066730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.086||0.1647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.05|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Olo 5 µg + Tio 5 µg minus Olo 2 µg + Tio 5 µg|Test Week 2. Based on a ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, centre, patient within centre and period (all effects fixed).||0.050|-0.290|0.1647
90896748|NCT02007434|181660043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Placebo-adjusted Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|1.15|||ANCOVA||Paradigm 2 - Paradigm 4|Pairwise differences between paradigms for the placebo-adjusted differences were conducted using a two-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with factors for treatment, paradigm, treatment-by-paradigm interaction, and covariate of baseline CR-SMFRS score.||1.15|-1.03|0.9140
90896749|NCT02007434|181660043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Placebo-adjusted Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.8754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|1.04|||ANCOVA||Paradigm 3 - Paradigm 4|Pairwise differences between paradigms for the placebo-adjusted differences were conducted using a two-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with factors for treatment, paradigm, treatment-by-paradigm interaction, and covariate of baseline CR-SMFRS score.||1.04|-1.21|0.8754
90896750|NCT03299686|181660060|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.027|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.043||0.7374|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.029|0.082||Probability CJM112 better than placebo|Bayesian linear repeated measures model||||Lower limit and upper limit represents the Credibility Interval from the Bayesian analysis.|0.082|-0.029|0.7374
90896751|NCT03299686|181660061|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.913|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.434||0.263|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.939|2.766||1-sided p-value; p-value smaller than 0.1 is considered as statistically significant|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.766|-0.939|0.263
91091474|NCT00720499|182066730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.9822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.176|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Olo 5 µg + Tio 5 µg minus Olo 2 µg + Tio 5 µg|Test Week 3. Based on a ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, centre, patient within centre and period (all effects fixed).||0.176|-0.180|0.9822
90896752|NCT03299686|181660062|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.061|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.41|-0.04||1-sided p-value; p-value smaller than 0.1 is considered as statistically significant|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.04|-0.41|0.061
90896753|NCT03299686|181660063|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.04|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.4|-0.06||1-sided p-value; p-value smaller than 0.1 is considered as statistically significant|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.06|-0.40|0.040
90896754|NCT01060553|181660069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||for mcs||||.15
90896755|NCT01060553|181660069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||for pcs||||.28
91091475|NCT00720499|182066730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.6542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.218|0.137|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Olo 5 µg + Tio 5 µg minus Olo 2 µg + Tio 5 µg|Test Week 4. Based on a ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, centre, patient within centre and period (all effects fixed).||0.137|-0.218|0.6542
90896756|NCT01060553|181660070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||for sleep duration||||.34
90896757|NCT01060553|181660070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||for sleep disturbance||||.001
90896758|NCT01060553|181660070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||for sleep latency||||.015
90896759|NCT01991821|181660075|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.093||||||The complete response of the primary efficacy analysis occurred in 95 patients (56.2%; 95% confidence interval \[CI\] 48.4 - 63.8%) in the APD421 group and 83 patients (46.6%; 95% CI 39.1- 54.2%) in the placebo group|Chi-squared, Corrected|Pearson square test with Yates's continuity correction and with the two- sided significance level of 5%||The primary efficacy analysis was a complete response which is defined as protection from PONV1, which was absence of any episode of emesis, significant nausea or use of rescue medication with the first 24 hours post-operatively.||||0.093
90838969|NCT00541658|181544858|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|LS Mean Difference|2.749|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.938|6.436|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||6.436|-0.938|
90838970|NCT00541658|181544858|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|LS Mean Difference|3.416|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.255|7.087|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus daily treatment.|||7.087|-0.255|
90838971|NCT00541658|181544859|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|LS Mean Difference|2.197|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.318|5.711|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||5.711|-1.318|
90838972|NCT00541658|181544859|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|LS Mean Difference|2.251|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.248|5.751|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||5.751|-1.248|
90838973|NCT00541658|181544860|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Relative Risk|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|7.05|||Fisher Exact|||||7.05|0.14|1.0000
90838974|NCT00541658|181544860|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Relative Risk|1.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|8.9|||Fisher Exact|||||8.90|0.25|1.0000
90838975|NCT00541658|181544861|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Relative Risk|1.03||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|7.29|||Fisher Exact|||||7.29|0.15|1.0000
90838976|NCT00541658|181544861|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Relative Risk|1.49||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|8.87|||Fisher Exact|||||8.87|0.25|1.0000
90896760|NCT01991821|181660076|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.059||||||Two-sided, significance threshold = 0.05|Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.059
90896761|NCT01991821|181660077|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.053||||||Two-sided, significance threshold = 0.05|Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.053
90896762|NCT01991821|181660078|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26||||||Two-sided, significance threshold = 0.05|Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.26
90896763|NCT01991821|181660079|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06||||||Two-sided, significance threshold = 0.05|Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.06
90896764|NCT01991821|181660080|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.079||||||Two-sided, significance threshold = 0.05|Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.079
90896765|NCT01991821|181660081|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.096|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.096
90896766|NCT03131960|181660085|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0014|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0014
90896767|NCT03131960|181660086|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0077|||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA||||0.0077
90896768|NCT03131960|181660087|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0098|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.0098
90896769|NCT03131960|181660088|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
90896770|NCT01625923|181660092|OTHER|T-test comparing GCSI-DD scores before/after intervention||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.06
90896771|NCT01462162|181660099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Regression, Linear|||change in fatigue score versus change in DAS-28 score||||0.006
90896772|NCT01462162|181660099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|||||||Regression, Linear|||change in fatigue score versus change in sleepiness score||||0.000
90896773|NCT01462162|181660099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|||||||Regression, Linear|||change in fatigue score versus change in depression score||||0.000
90896774|NCT01462162|181660100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023|||||||Regression, Linear|||change in fatigue score versus change in DAS-28 score||||0.023
91027998|NCT02978326|181939755|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.2||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||General Somatic Symptoms: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 15||-0.2|-0.7|0.0001
91091476|NCT00720499|182066731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.114|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116||0.3269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.342|0.115|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Olo 5 µg + Tio 5 µg minus Olo 2 µg + Tio 5 µg|Based on a ANCOVA with terms for treatment, centre, patient within centre and period (all effects fixed).||0.115|-0.342|0.3269
91091477|NCT00720499|182066732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.089||0.9557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.181|0.171|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Olo 5 µg + Tio 5 µg minus Olo 2 µg + Tio 5 µg|Test day 15. Based on a ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, centre, patient within centre and period (all effects fixed).||0.171|-0.181|0.9557
90838977|NCT00541658|181544862|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Relative Risk|0.42||||0.4505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|2.14|||Fisher Exact|||||2.14|0.08|0.4505
90838978|NCT00541658|181544862|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Relative Risk|0.82||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|3.03|||Fisher Exact|||||3.03|0.22|1.0000
90838979|NCT00541658|181544863|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Relative Risk|0.41||||0.4505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|2.11|||Fisher Exact|||||2.11|0.08|0.4505
90838980|NCT00541658|181544863|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Relative Risk|1.2||||0.7719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|3.9|||Fisher Exact|||||3.90|0.37|0.7719
90838981|NCT00541658|181544864|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Relative Risk|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|7.05|||Fisher Exact|||||7.05|0.14|1.0000
90838982|NCT00541658|181544864|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Relative Risk|1.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|8.9|||Fisher Exact|||||8.90|0.25|1.0000
90896775|NCT01462162|181660100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||Regression, Linear|||change in fatigue score versus change in sleepiness score||||0.007
90896776|NCT01462162|181660100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|||||||Regression, Linear|||change in fatigue score versus change in depression score||||0.000
90896777|NCT01462162|181660101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline versus Week 12||||<0.001
90896778|NCT01462162|181660101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline versus Week 24||||<0.001
90896779|NCT01462162|181660102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline for Week 12 versus Week 12||||<0.001
90896780|NCT01462162|181660102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline for Week 24 versus Week 24||||<0.001
90896781|NCT01462162|181660103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Regression, Linear|||change in fatigue score at Week 12 versus change in DAS-28 at Week 12||||0.003
91091478|NCT00720499|182066732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.8096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.178|0.14|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Olo 5 µg + Tio 5 µg minus Olo 2 µg + Tio 5 µg|Test day 29. Based on a ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, centre, patient within centre and period (all effects fixed).||0.140|-0.178|0.8096
90896782|NCT01462162|181660103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Regression, Linear|||change in fatigue score at Week 24 versus change in DAS-28 at Week 24||||0.006
90896783|NCT01462162|181660103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.791|||||||Regression, Linear|||change in fatigue score at Week 12 versus change in serum hemoglobin Week 12||||0.791
90896784|NCT01462162|181660103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.847|||||||Regression, Linear|||change in fatigue score at Week 24 versus change in serum hemoglobin Week 24||||0.847
91027999|NCT02978326|181939755|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||General Somatic Symptoms: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 21||-0.1|-0.5|0.0151
91028000|NCT02978326|181939755|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.0|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||General Somatic Symptoms: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 45||0.0|-0.5|0.0502
90838983|NCT00541658|181544865|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Relative Risk|1.03||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|7.29|||Fisher Exact|||||7.29|0.15|1.0000
90838984|NCT00541658|181544865|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Relative Risk|1.49||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|8.87|||Fisher Exact|||||8.87|0.25|1.0000
90838985|NCT00541658|181544866|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Relative Risk|0.42||||0.4505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|2.14|||Fisher Exact|||||2.14|0.08|0.4505
90838986|NCT00541658|181544866|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Relative Risk|0.82||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|3.03|||Fisher Exact|||||3.03|0.22|1.0000
90838987|NCT00541658|181544867|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Relative Risk|0.41||||0.4505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|2.11|||Fisher Exact|||||2.11|0.08|0.4505
90838988|NCT00541658|181544867|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Relative Risk|1.2||||0.7719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|3.9|||Fisher Exact|||||3.90|0.37|0.7719
90838989|NCT03373240|181544883|OTHER|Examining stop signal reaction time changed across the 4-week training period|Mean Difference (Net)|-8.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.79||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.17|-3.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.06|-14.17|.003
90838990|NCT03373240|181544884|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.075|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.127||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.333|0.184|||ANOVA|||||.184|-.333|.049
90838991|NCT03373240|181544885|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.914|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.011||0.236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.965|0.136|||ANOVA|||||.136|-3.965|.236
90838992|NCT03373240|181544886|OTHER|Examining whether percentage of risky choices decreased across the 4-wwek training period.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.15|-0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-.08|-3.15|.039
90838993|NCT03373240|181544887|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-.13|-3.40|.035
90838994|NCT03373240|181544888|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.12|5.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.39|3.12|<.001
90838995|NCT03373240|181544889|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.933|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.403||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.111|1.755|||ANOVA|||||1.755|.111|.008
90838996|NCT03373240|181544890|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.096||0.077|TWO_SIDED|97.0|-0.177|0.214|||ANOVA|||||.214|-.177|.077
90838997|NCT03373240|181544891|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.964|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.902||0.547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.822|2.895|||ANOVA|||||2.895|-4.822|.547
91103948|NCT03992872|182094619|SUPERIORITY||GMR (Prior Alpha / Naïve Alpha)|118.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.76|227.16||P-values were based on an ANOVA model with log10-transformed titer as the dependent variable and study arm, age, and gender as predictors.|ANOVA||Differences in least squares means from the ANOVA model were back-transformed and reported as geometric mean ratios with 95% confidence intervals.|Day 29: Geometric mean ratio (prior alpha group over naive alpha group) and 95% confidence interval||227.16|61.76|<0.0001
90838998|NCT03373240|181544892|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.532|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.628||0.436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.805|0.742|||ANOVA|||||.742|-1.805|.436
90838999|NCT05178173|181544983|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||SARS CoV-2 N1||||0.59
90839000|NCT05178173|181544983|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||SARS CoV-2 N1||||0.18
90839001|NCT05178173|181544983|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||SARS CoV-2 N2||||0.78
91103949|NCT03992872|182094620|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|"Day 22.~Note: A subject has a 4-fold rise at a visit if they achieve a titer at that visit that is at least 4-fold higher than their Day 1 titer."||||||<0.0001
90896785|NCT01462162|181660103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.182|||||||Regression, Linear|||change in fatigue score at Week 12 versus change in swollen joint count Week 12||||0.182
90896786|NCT01462162|181660103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022|||||||Regression, Linear|||change in fatigue score at Week 24 versus change in swollen joint count Week 24||||0.022
90896787|NCT01462162|181660103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.163|||||||Regression, Linear|||change in fatigue score at Week 12 versus change in morning stiffness Week 12||||0.163
90896788|NCT01462162|181660103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.115|||||||Regression, Linear|||change in fatigue score at Week 24 versus change in morning stiffness Week 24||||0.115
90896789|NCT01462162|181660103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.037|||||||Regression, Linear|||change in fatigue score at Week 12 versus change in degree of pain Week 12||||0.037
90896790|NCT01462162|181660103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.044|||||||Regression, Linear|||change in fatigue score at Week 24 versus change in degree of pain Week 24||||0.044
90896791|NCT01462162|181660103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Regression, Linear|||change in fatigue score at Week 12 versus change in sleepiness at Week 12||||0.003
90896792|NCT01462162|181660103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|||change in fatigue score at Week 24 versus change in sleepiness at Week 24||||0.001
90896793|NCT01462162|181660103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|||change in fatigue score at Week 12 versus change in depression Week 12||||<0.001
90896794|NCT01462162|181660103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|||change in fatigue score at Week 24 versus change in depression at Week 24||||<0.001
91103950|NCT03992872|182094620|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|"Day 29~Note: A subject has a 4-fold rise at a visit if they achieve a titer at that visit that is at least 4-fold higher than their Day 1 titer."||||||<0.0001
90896795|NCT01462162|181660104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.678|||||||Regression, Linear|||change in hemoglobin levels versus change in swollen joint count (Week 12)||||0.678
90896796|NCT01462162|181660104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.348|||||||Regression, Linear|||change in hemoglobin levels versus change in swollen joint count (Week 24)||||0.348
90896797|NCT01462162|181660104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.679|||||||Regression, Linear|||change in hemoglobin levels versus change in morning stiffness (Week 12)||||0.679
90896798|NCT01462162|181660104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.556|||||||Regression, Linear|||change in hemoglobin levels versus change in morning stiffness (Week 24)||||0.556
90896799|NCT01462162|181660104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.692|||||||Regression, Linear|||change in haemoglobin levels versus change in degree of pain (Week 12)||||0.692
90896800|NCT01462162|181660104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.771|||||||Regression, Linear|||change in haemoglobin levels versus change in degree of pain (Week 24)||||0.771
90896801|NCT01462162|181660104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.878|||||||Regression, Linear|||change in haemoglobin levels versus change in sleepiness (Week 12)||||0.878
90896802|NCT01462162|181660104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.139|||||||Regression, Linear|||change in haemoglobin levels versus change in sleepiness (Week 24)||||0.139
90896803|NCT01462162|181660104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.249|||||||Regression, Linear|||change in haemoglobin levels versus change in depression score (Week 12)||||0.249
90896804|NCT01462162|181660104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61|||||||Regression, Linear|||change in hemoglobin levels versus change in depression score (Week 24)||||0.610
90896805|NCT01462162|181660105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.257|||||||Regression, Linear|||change in haemoglobin levels versus change in swollen joint count (Week 12)||||0.257
90896806|NCT01462162|181660105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.487|||||||Regression, Linear|||change in haemoglobin levels versus change in swollen joint count (Week 24)||||0.487
90896807|NCT01462162|181660105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.644|||||||Regression, Linear|||change in hemoglobin levels versus change in morning stiffness (Week 12)||||0.644
91103951|NCT00062764|182094626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||paired t-test|||||||0.004
91103952|NCT00889005|182094653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.927|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.927
91103953|NCT05122143|182094660|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0085||||||Treatment D (A+B) versus Treatment C|ANCOVA|||"Treatment A + B were pooled to Treatment D for the Primary endpoint. The primary objective was to compare the efficacy of the AM-301 nasal spray (treatment D= A+B) and no treatment (C) in reducing nasal symptoms induced from HDM allergen exposure.~The TNSS value from the baseline exposure (at screening exposure visit 2) was subtracted from the TNSS value of the treatment exposure to obtain change from baseline. A lower value resembles less symptoms."||||0.0085
91103954|NCT03766906|182094665|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.03||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Within subjects paired t-tests.|Investigators tested whether pretest to posttest change was significantly greater than 0 at P \< 0.05.|||||.003
91103955|NCT03766906|182094666|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.18||||0.022|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Within subjects paired t-tests.|Investigators tested whether pre-test to post-test change was significantly greater than zero at P\<0.05.|||||.022
91103956|NCT03766906|182094667|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.34||||0.016|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Within subjects paired t-tests|Investigators tested whether pre-test to post-test change was significantly greater than 0 at P\<0.05.|||||.016
91103957|NCT03766906|182094668|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.95||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Within subjects paired t-tests.|Investigators tested whether pre-test to post-test change was significantly greater than 0 at P\<0.05.|||||.002
91103958|NCT03766906|182094669|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38||||0.626|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Within subjects paired t-tests.|Investigators tested whether pre-test to post-test change was significantly greater than 0 at P\<0.05.|The statistical analyses for the Student Self-Efficacy, in terms of type of statistical test, method, and the comments which we state within-subjects paired t-tests, are the same for each of the three subscales that make up Student Self-Efficacy (i.e., Relevance to schoolwork, Future aspirations, and Family support).||||.626
91091479|NCT00492726|182066750|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was set to 10% in the protocol, in agreement with FDA recommendations. Sample size was estimated using the method as described in Farrington-Manning. Estimation was performed to achieve 85% power, based on the equivalence delta of 10%, and a clinical success rate of 80% in the per protocol population.|Difference of cure rates (in percent)|-3.8||||||95.0|-7.9|0.4|||||A positive value indicates an advantage for the treatment group of moxifloxacin, a negative value an advantage for the comparator group.|Calculated were 95% confidence intervals for the difference in success rates between treatment groups (moxifloxacin minus comparator).||0.4|-7.9|
91091480|NCT00492726|182066751|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size estimation was based on the primary efficacy variable.|Difference in improvement rates (in %)|1.1||||||95.0|-0.4|2.7|||||A positive value indicates an advantage for the treatment group of moxifloxacin, a negative value an advantage for the comparator group.|Calculated were 95% confidence intervals for the difference in success rates between treatment groups (moxifloxacin minus comparator).||2.7|-0.4|
91091481|NCT00492726|182066752|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size estimation was based on the primary efficacy variable.|Difference in bact. success rates (in %)|-3.9||||||95.0|-8.8|1.0|||||A positive value indicates an advantage for the treatment group of moxifloxacin, a negative value an advantage for the comparator group. Presumed eradications and eradications without superinfection were considered bacteriological successes.|Calculated were 95% confidence intervals for the difference in success rates between treatment groups (moxifloxacin minus comparator).||1.0|-8.8|
90839002|NCT05178173|181544983|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||SARS CoV-2 N2||||0.08
90839003|NCT04607005|181545013|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.03||p-Value was based on a mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) Model.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.03|-0.89|0.067
90839004|NCT04607005|181545014|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|-0.02||p-Value was based on a mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) Model.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.02|-0.92|0.043
90839005|NCT04607005|181545015|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.43||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.37|-0.5||p-Value was based on a mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) Model.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.50|-2.37|0.003
90839006|NCT04607005|181545016|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.43||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|-0.51||p-Value was based on a mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) Model.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.51|-2.35|0.002
90839007|NCT04607005|181545017|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.54||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|-0.55||p-Value was based on a mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) Model.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.55|-2.52|0.003
90839008|NCT04607005|181545018|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.54||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|-0.57||p-Value was based on a mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) Model.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.57|-2.51|0.002
91091482|NCT00492726|182066753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size estimation was based on the primary efficacy variable.|Difference of cure rates (in percent)|-1.5||||||95.0|-5.0|1.9|||||A positive value indicates an advantage for the treatment group of moxifloxacin, a negative value an advantage for the comparator group.|Calculated were 95% confidence intervals for the difference in success rates between treatment groups (moxifloxacin minus comparator).||1.9|-5.0|
90839009|NCT04607005|181545019|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.63||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-0.37||p-Value was based on a ANCOVA Model.|ANCOVA|||||-0.37|-2.90|0.012
90839010|NCT04607005|181545020|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.67||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.93|-0.42||p-Value was based on a ANCOVA Model.|ANCOVA|||||-0.42|-2.93|0.009
90839011|NCT04607005|181545021|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.17||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|-0.35||p-Value was based on a mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) Model.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.35|-1.99|0.005
90839012|NCT04607005|181545022|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.21||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|-0.4||p-Value was based on a mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) Model.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.40|-2.02|0.004
90839013|NCT04607005|181545023|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.63||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.68|-2.57||p-Value was based on a mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) Model.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.57|-18.68|0.010
90839014|NCT04607005|181545024|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.39||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.19|-3.6||p-Value was based on a mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) Model.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.60|-19.19|0.004
90839015|NCT04607005|181545025|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.82||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|-0.21||p-Value was based on a mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) Model.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.21|-1.43|0.009
90839016|NCT04607005|181545026|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.89||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|-0.28||p-Value was based on a mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) Model.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.28|-1.49|0.004
90839017|NCT04607005|181545027|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.49||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.92||p-Value was based on Cox Proportional Hazards Model.|Cox proportional hazards model|||||0.92|0.26|0.026
90839018|NCT04607005|181545028|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.47||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.88||p-Value was based on Cox Proportional Hazards Model.|Cox proportional hazards model|||||0.88|0.25|0.018
90839019|NCT00091949|181545034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.93||P-value adjusted for interim looks.|Regression, Cox||Pioglitazone arm compared to placebo; CI adjusted for interim looks.|||0.93|0.62|.0067
90839020|NCT00091949|181545035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.1||P-value adjusted for multiplicity (5 secondary outcomes).|Regression, Cox||Pioglitazone arm compared to placebo; conference interval (CI) adjusted for multiplicity (5 secondary outcomes).|||1.1|0.61|0.19
90839021|NCT00091949|181545036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.07||P-value adjusted for multiplicity (5 secondary outcomes).|Regression, Cox||Pioglitazone arm compared to placebo; CI adjusted for multiplicity (5 secondary outcomes).|||1.07|0.52|0.11
90896808|NCT01462162|181660105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.498|||||||Regression, Linear|||change in hemoglobin levels versus change in morning stiffness (Week 24)||||0.498
90896809|NCT01462162|181660105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65|||||||Regression, Linear|||change in hemoglobin levels versus change in degree of pain (Week 12)||||0.650
90896810|NCT01462162|181660105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75|||||||Regression, Cox|||change in hemoglobin levels versus change in degree of pain (Week 24)||||0.750
90896811|NCT01462162|181660105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.936|||||||Regression, Linear|||change in hemoglobin levels versus change in sleepiness (Week 12)||||0.936
90896812|NCT01462162|181660105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.075|||||||Regression, Linear|||change in hemoglobin levels versus change in sleepiness (Week 24)||||0.075
90839022|NCT00091949|181545038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.17||p-value adjusted for multiplicity (5 secondary outcomes)|Regression, Cox||Pioglitazone arm compared to placebo; CI adjusted for multiplicity (5 secondary outcomes).|||1.17|0.73|0.52
90839023|NCT00091949|181545039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.023||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.326|0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis||Pioglitazone arm compared to placebo.|Changes in modified mini-mental examination (3MS) score from baseline (to annual scores) were analyzed using a longitudinal repeated measures mixed effects model.||0.280|-0.326|0.88
90839024|NCT00091949|181545040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.05||P-value adjusted for multiplicity (5 secondary outcomes).|Regression, Cox||Pioglitazone arm compared to placebo; CI adjusted for multiplicity (5 secondary outcomes).|||1.05|0.65|0.11
90839025|NCT01352715|181545059|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Confidence interval estimation was stratified by randomization stratification factors using Greenwood's variance with the inverse of this variance used for the stratum weights. The pre-specified upper confidence bound for non-inferiority was 10 percentage points.|Cumulative probability difference|-3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|1.5||||||Treatment comparison was made using the difference (arm A - arm B) in the stratified Kaplan-Meier estimate for the week 48 cumulative probability of virologic failure with 95% confidence interval.||1.5|-8.4|
90839026|NCT00871975|181545094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Sensitivity (percent)|80.6|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||We found an 80.6% sensitivity for detection of detrusor overactivity on Tetra-NIRS as compared to urodynamics.|A contingency table was used to compare presence or absence of an event (eg. detrusor overactivity) on the urodynamic tracing with interpretation of events on the Tetra-NIRS tracings.||||
90839027|NCT00871975|181545094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Specificity (percent)|28.1|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||We found a 28.1% specificity for detection of detrusor overactivity on Tetra-NIRS as compared to urodynamics.|A contingency table was used to compare presence or absence of an event (eg. detrusor overactivity) on the urodynamic tracing with interpretation of events on the Tetra-NIRS tracings.||||
90839028|NCT01436149|181545098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Mean|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96||0.883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|2.0|||Mixed- effects Model for Repeat Measures|||||2.0|-1.7|0.883
91028001|NCT02978326|181939755|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.3659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Genital Symptoms: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 3||0.1|-0.3|0.3659
91028002|NCT02978326|181939755|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.6003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.2||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Genital Symptoms: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 8||0.2|-0.3|0.6003
91028003|NCT02978326|181939755|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.0||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Genital Symptoms: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 15||0.0|-0.5|0.0785
91028004|NCT02978326|181939755|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.3668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Genital Symptoms: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 21||0.1|-0.4|0.3668
91028005|NCT02978326|181939755|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.1827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Genital Symptoms: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 45||0.1|-0.4|0.1827
91091483|NCT00492726|182066754|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size estimation was based on the primary efficacy variable.|Difference in bact. success rates (in %)|-3.9||||||95.0|-8.8|1.0|||||A positive value indicates an advantage for the treatment group of moxifloxacin, a negative value an advantage for the comparator group. Presumed eradications and eradications without superinfection were considered bacteriological successes.|Calculated were 95% confidence intervals for the difference in success rates between treatment groups (moxifloxacin minus comparator).||1.0|-8.8|
91091484|NCT00492726|182066755|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size estimation was based on the primary efficacy variable.|Difference in bact. success rates (in %)|-3.8||||||95.0|-9.0|1.5|||||A positive value indicates an advantage for the treatment group of moxifloxacin, a negative value an advantage for the comparator group. Presumed eradications and eradications without super- or reinfection were considered bacteriological successes.|Calculated were 95% confidence intervals for the difference in success rates between treatment groups (moxifloxacin minus comparator).||1.5|-9.0|
91091485|NCT00492726|182066756|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size estimation was based on the primary efficacy variable.|Difference of cure rates (in percent)|-2.9||||||95.0|-7.6|1.9|||||A positive value indicates an advantage for the treatment group of moxifloxacin, a negative value an advantage for the comparator group.|Calculated were 95% confidence intervals for the difference in success rates between treatment groups (moxifloxacin minus comparator).||1.9|-7.6|
90896813|NCT01462162|181660105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.098|||||||Regression, Linear|||change in hemoglobin levels versus change in depression score (Week 12)||||0.098
91091486|NCT01100502|182066764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.81|||Log Rank|||||0.81|0.40|0.001
90896814|NCT01462162|181660105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||Regression, Linear|||change in hemoglobin levels versus change in depression score (Week 24)||||0.090
90896815|NCT01462162|181660106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.077|||||||Multiple Regression|||change in hemoglobin levels versus change in swollen joint count (Week 12)||||0.077
90839029|NCT01436149|181545099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.0|||Mixed- effects Model for Repeat Measures|||||1.0|-1.8|0.576
90839030|NCT00307801|181545134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||inverting 2 one-sided tests|||||||< 0.0001
90839031|NCT03431259|181545188|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0574|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.0574
90839032|NCT03431259|181545188|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.570
90839033|NCT03994081|181545229|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.332|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.332
90839034|NCT03994081|181545230|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.790
90839035|NCT03994081|181545231|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.464|||||||Pearson's correlation|||||||0.464
90839036|NCT03994081|181545231|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.765|||||||Pearson's correlation|||||||0.765
90839037|NCT03994081|181545232|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.072|||||||Pearson's correlation|||||||0.072
91028006|NCT02978326|181939755|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.1327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Hypochondriasis: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 3||0.1|-0.4|0.1327
91028007|NCT02978326|181939755|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.0||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Hypochondriasis: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 8||0.0|-0.4|0.0993
91028008|NCT02978326|181939755|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.2||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Hypochondriasis: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 15||-0.2|-0.6|0.0002
91028009|NCT02978326|181939755|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Hypochondriasis: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 21||-0.1|-0.5|0.0056
91028010|NCT02978326|181939755|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Hypochondriasis: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 45||-0.1|-0.5|0.0122
91028011|NCT02978326|181939755|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.1305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.0||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Loss of Weight According to Patient: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 3||0.0|-0.3|0.1305
91028012|NCT02978326|181939755|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.6638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Loss of Weight According to Patient: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 8||0.1|-0.2|0.6638
91028013|NCT02978326|181939755|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.4341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Loss of Weight According to Patient: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 15||0.1|-0.2|0.4341
91028014|NCT02978326|181939755|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.9085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Loss of Weight According to Patient: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 21||0.1|-0.1|0.9085
91028015|NCT02978326|181939755|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Loss of Weight According to Patient: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 45||0.1|-0.3|0.1820
91028016|NCT02978326|181939755|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.1593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.0||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Insight: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 3||0.0|-0.1|0.1593
91028017|NCT02978326|181939755|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.6555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.0||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Insight: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 8||0.0|-0.1|0.6555
91028018|NCT02978326|181939755|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.0||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Insight: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 15||0.0|-0.1|0.0170
91028019|NCT02978326|181939755|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.0||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Insight: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 21||0.0|-0.1|0.0188
90839038|NCT03994081|181545232|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.811|||||||Pearson's correlation|||||||0.811
90839039|NCT05810740|181545265|OTHER||LS-Mean Ratio, Percent|96.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.57|100.46||||||||100.46|92.57|
90839040|NCT05810740|181545266|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|97.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.47|101.06||||||||101.06|93.47|
90839041|NCT05810740|181545267|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|94.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.25|101.33||||||||101.33|87.25|
90839042|NCT00737672|181545309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.530
90839043|NCT00737672|181545312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.475|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.475
90896816|NCT01462162|181660106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.961|||||||Multiple Regression|||change in hemoglobin levels versus change in swollen joint count (Week 24)||||0.961
90896817|NCT01462162|181660107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline for Week 12 versus Week 12||||<0.001
90957269|NCT00911768|181794191|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A non-inferiority analysis was conducted. We just compared the difference of stimulated salivary rates between both groups at 8 weeks, because there were no definition of the effective margin.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.346|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116|<|0.05||95.0|-0.576|-0.115|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.115|-0.576|<0.05
90839044|NCT00737672|181545315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||||||P-value was calculated using Kaplan-Meier methodology with 24-month follow-up data.|Log Rank|||||||0.008
90839045|NCT00737672|181545316|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|One-sided test of non-inferior proportions with delta = 0.15.|||||<|0.001|||||||Z-test|One-sided.||||||<0.001
91091487|NCT01621009|182066772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.61|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|3.36|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.36|.78|>0.05
90839046|NCT00737672|181545317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.035
90839047|NCT00737672|181545320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|Two-tailed.||||||1.000
90957270|NCT00911768|181794192|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A non-inferiority analysis was conducted. We just compared the difference of unstimulated salivary rates between both groups at 8 weeks, because there were no definition of the effective margin.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.086|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|<|0.05||95.0|-0.155|-0.017|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.017|-0.155|<0.05
91091488|NCT01621009|182066772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|2.44|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.44|.52|>0.05
91091489|NCT04356937|182066777|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.81|||Log Rank|||||1.81|0.38|0.64
90839048|NCT00737672|181545321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|Two-tailed.||||||<0.001
90839049|NCT00737672|181545322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|Two-tailed.||||||<0.001
90839050|NCT02735863|181545331|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5352|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.5352
90839051|NCT05452486|181545332|EQUIVALENCE|The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether the mean performance on auditory processing assessments differed depending on whether the tests were administered in Spanish or English.|Slope|-3.89|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Dichotic digits comparison||||<0.01
90839052|NCT05452486|181545332|EQUIVALENCE|The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether the mean performance on auditory processing assessments differed depending on whether the tests were administered in Spanish or English.|Slope|5.18||||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Dichotic words comparison||||0.69
90839053|NCT02867436|181545343|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|205.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-223.0|633.0|||Regression, Linear|||||633|-223|<0.05
90839054|NCT02867436|181545344|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.8|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|-1.6|||Regression, Linear|||||-1.6|-14.1|<0.05
90839055|NCT02867436|181545345|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.01|||Regression, Linear|||||0.01|-0.31|<0.05
90839056|NCT02867436|181545346|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.05
90839057|NCT02867436|181545347|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||After Benjamini-Hochberg correction for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|||||||<0.05
90839058|NCT05720897|181545456|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.399||||||The calculations are based on a Mann Whitney calculation.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The study has an 80% power to detect changes in patient's self-reported anxiety as measured by their responses to the psychometrically validated STAI-S \& T instrument of 3.6 within each group (with an effect size of 0.55) and differences of a 5.0 between groups (with an effect size of 0.77).||||.399
90839059|NCT00400179|181545462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3952||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.3952
90839060|NCT00400179|181545463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.0808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.03|||Log Rank|||||1.03|0.57|0.0808
90839061|NCT00400179|181545464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.9158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.14|||Log Rank|||||1.14|0.86|0.9158
90839062|NCT00400179|181545465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.99|||Log Rank|||||0.99|0.77|0.0320
90839063|NCT00400179|181545466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.1983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.05|||Log Rank|||||1.05|0.80|0.1983
90839064|NCT04780061|181545467|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||An area under the curve approach was used to analyze the primary outcome, whereby participants' scores for each assessment were summed over the 21-day period. For missing values, we imputed the mean of the most recent and first subsequent measurement or carried the last observation forward if there was no subsequent measurement.||||0.53
90896818|NCT01462162|181660107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline for Week 24 versus Week 24||||<0.001
90896819|NCT01462162|181660108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline for Week 12 versus Week 12||||<0.001
90896820|NCT01462162|181660108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline for Week 24 versus Week 24||||<0.001
90896821|NCT01462162|181660109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline for Week 12 versus Week 12||||<0.001
90896822|NCT01462162|181660109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline for Week 24 versus Week 24||||<0.001
90896823|NCT01462162|181660110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline for Week 12 versus Week 12||||<0.001
91091490|NCT04356937|182066778|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.1|||Log Rank|||||2.10|0.59|0.73
91091491|NCT04356937|182066779|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.3|||Log Rank|||||1.30|0.67|0.69
91091492|NCT02100124|182066820|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.36|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.36|0.56|1.0
90839065|NCT04780061|181545469|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.09
90839066|NCT04780061|181545470|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.81
90839067|NCT04050553|181545473|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-0.49||||0.7556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.64|2.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.67|-3.64|0.7556
90839068|NCT04050553|181545474|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-174.77||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-290.34|-59.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-59.21|-290.34|0.0043
90896824|NCT01462162|181660110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline for Week 24 versus Week 24||||<0.001
90896825|NCT01462162|181660111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline for Week 12 versus Week 12||||<0.001
90896826|NCT01462162|181660111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline for Week 24 versus Week 24||||<0.001
90896827|NCT01462162|181660112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline for Week 12 versus Week 12||||<0.001
90839069|NCT04050553|181545475|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-488.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-621.25|-355.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-355.36|-621.25|<0.0001
90839070|NCT04050553|181545476|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.39||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.69|7.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.08|1.69|0.0023
91091493|NCT02100124|182066820|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.83|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.83|0.70|1.0
90839071|NCT04050553|181545477|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.06||||0.0505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Overall Hypoglycemia Symptom Score at concentration of 100 mg/dL.||0.00|-0.13|0.0505
90839072|NCT04050553|181545477|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18||||0.0104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|-0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Overall Hypoglycemia Symptom Score at concentration of 63 mg/dL.||-0.05|-0.31|0.0104
90839073|NCT04050553|181545477|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.19||||0.0068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|-0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Overall Hypoglycemia Symptom Score at concentration of 45 mg/dL.||-0.06|-0.32|0.0068
90896828|NCT01462162|181660112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline for Week 24 versus Week 24||||<0.001
90839074|NCT04050553|181545477|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.11||||0.2302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Overall Hypoglycemia Symptom Score at concentration of 72 mg/dL.||0.08|-0.30|0.2302
90839075|NCT04050553|181545478|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.51||||0.8298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.28|4.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For systolic blood pressure.||4.27|-5.28|0.8298
90839076|NCT04050553|181545478|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.96||||0.1516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|4.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For diastolic blood pressure.||4.67|-0.76|0.1516
90839077|NCT04050553|181545479|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.89||||0.5776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|2.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.33|-4.10|0.5776
90839078|NCT00498940|181545484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14||||||Differences in cardiac index between groups were assessed by an independent 2-sample t test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.14
90839079|NCT02086175|181545486|SUPERIORITY||percent|48.0||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|90.0|31.0|66.0|||Fisher Exact|||"Patients will be accrued in a single stage design, with a goal accrual of 25 patients.~Assuming a 30% response rate with rituximab alone, if the true but unknown rate of CR or PR is 50% with the addition of Imprime PGG, the probability of observing 11 or more patients with a response is 0.79 with 0.098 one-sided type-I error.~Therefore a study with 25 patients, in which an observed response rate of 11/25 (44%) would be considered worthy of further consideration."||66|31|0.044
90839080|NCT04314284|181545497|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.15
90839081|NCT04314284|181545498|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.35
90839082|NCT04314284|181545499|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.22
90839083|NCT04314284|181545503|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.65
90839084|NCT04314284|181545504|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.52
90839085|NCT04314284|181545505|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.51
90896829|NCT01462162|181660113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.172|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline for Week 12 versus Week 12||||0.172
90896830|NCT01462162|181660113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Baseline for Week 24 versus Week 24||||<0.05
90896831|NCT01462162|181660114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.162|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline for Week 12 versus Week 12||||0.162
90896832|NCT01462162|181660114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline for Week 12 versus Week 24||||<0.001
90896833|NCT01462162|181660115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline for Week 12 versus Week 12||||<0.001
90896834|NCT01462162|181660115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.005|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline for Week 24 versus Week 24||||<0.005
90896835|NCT01462162|181660116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline for Week 12 versus Week 12||||<0.001
90896836|NCT01462162|181660116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.005|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline for Week 24 versus Week 24||||<0.005
90896837|NCT01462162|181660117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline for Week 12 versus Week 12||||<0.001
90896838|NCT01462162|181660117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline for Week 24 versus Week 24||||<0.001
90896839|NCT03485911|181660121|SUPERIORITY||negative binomial regression model|30.0||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.6|48.7|||negative binomial regression model|||||48.7|4.6|0.024
90896840|NCT03485911|181660121|SUPERIORITY||negative binomial regression model|44.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.0|59.5|||negative binomial regression model|||||59.5|23.0|<0.001
90896841|NCT03485911|181660123|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.77||||0.453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.08|4.53|||mixed-model repeated measures analysis|||Numerical difference in change from baseline of AE-QoL total score between treatment groups.||4.53|-10.08|0.453
90896842|NCT03485911|181660123|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.9||||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.23|2.43|||mixed-model repeated measures analysis|||Numerical difference in change from baseline of AE-QoL total score between treatment groups.||2.43|-12.23|0.188
91091494|NCT02100124|182066820|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|2.08|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.08|0.82|0.53
91091495|NCT02100124|182066821|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.09|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.09|0.71|0.48
91091496|NCT02100124|182066821|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.35|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.35|0.87|1.0
91091497|NCT02100124|182066821|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.53|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.53|0.99|0.07
91091498|NCT02100124|182066822|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.29|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.29|0.84|1.0
91091499|NCT02100124|182066822|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.26|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.26|0.82|1.0
91091500|NCT02100124|182066822|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.22|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.22|0.79|1.0
91091501|NCT02100124|182066823|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.37|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.37|0.83|1.0
90839086|NCT04314284|181545508|OTHER|2-sided||||||0.71|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.71
90839087|NCT04314284|181545509|OTHER|2-sided||||||0.12|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.12
90839088|NCT04314284|181545511|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.66
90839089|NCT03589859|181545526|OTHER|This was a physiology study, not a treatment trial. The test was for a change in VOR gain.|||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A linear mixed effects model was used to compare pre- and post-training VOR gains||||<0.001
90839090|NCT00626106|181545542|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.07|||ANCOVA|||||0.07|-0.11|0.542
90839091|NCT02201953|181545552|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Primary analyses consisted of non-inferiority test of Group 1 (SOF/VEL 12 weeks) versus Group 2 (SOF+RBV 24 weeks) at the 0.05 significance level. Non-inferiority was assessed using the conventional confidence interval approach and a non-inferiority margin of 10% was applied. The two-sided 95% confidence intervals was constructed using stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel proportions, stratified by the randomization stratification factors (i.e cirrhosis status and prior treatment experience)|Difference in proportions|14.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.2|19.6|||||Difference in proportions between treatment groups and associated 95% confidence intervals (CI) are calculated based on stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel proportions.|||19.6|9.2|
90896843|NCT03485911|181660124|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-0.062||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.117|-0.008|||ANCOVA|||Numerical differences from the placebo treatment in the LSM proportion of the 169 days of treatment with angioedema symptoms. In the event that the first secondary endpoint did not meet statistical significance in the hierarchical testing scheme, testing of the second secondary endpoint of proportion of days with angioedema symptoms through 24 weeks for statistical significance would not be completed. P-values that are reported are nominal.||-0.008|-0.117|0.025
90896844|NCT03485911|181660124|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-0.078||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.133|-0.023|||ANCOVA|||Numerical differences from the placebo treatment in the LSM proportion of the 169 days of treatment with angioedema symptoms. In the event that the first secondary endpoint did not meet statistical significance in the hierarchical testing scheme, testing of the second secondary endpoint of number and proportion of days with angioedema symptoms through 24 weeks for statistical significance would not be completed. P-values that are reported are nominal.||-0.023|-0.133|0.006
90896845|NCT03485911|181660125|SUPERIORITY||negative binomial regression model|30.4||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|49.3|||negative binomial regression model|||In the event that the first secondary endpoint did not meet statistical significance in the hierarchical testing scheme, testing of the third secondary endpoint of rate of expert-confirmed HAE attacks during dosing in the effective treatment period for statistical significance would not be completed. P-values reported are nominal.||49.3|4.3|0.026
90839092|NCT02201953|181545552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by cirrhosis status and prior HCV treatment experience.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||If the lower bound of 95% CI on the difference was \> -10%, the p-value tested for the superiority of SOF/VEL for 12 weeks over SOF+RBV for 24 weeks. Superiority was demonstrated if the two-sided p-value is less than 0.05.||||<0.001
90839093|NCT01148979|181545573|OTHER|A Paired sample t-test was used to test the null hypothesis of no difference in MDAR score change after 4 weeks of treatment with Vyvanse versus placebo.|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The statistical analysis represents a within-subject comparison of change under treatment with Vyvanse versus change under treatment with placebo, using paired t-tests with each subject as their own control. All tests reported are two-tailed.||||<0.05
91091502|NCT02100124|182066823|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.33|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.33|0.81|1.0
91091503|NCT02100124|182066823|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.25|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.25|0.75|1.0
90839094|NCT00565084|181545588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.06||||0.743||90.0|-0.23|0.35|||ANOVA|||Primary efficacy endpoint was assessed by an ANOVA model with terms for treatment, period, sequence, and patients within sequence. Efficacy advantage over placebo was assessed via the treatment difference in the least-squares (LS) means (ibuprofen vs. average of the 2 placebo treatments) from the ANOVA model and the 90% confidence interval (CI; one-sided alpha=0.05) of the LS mean difference will be assessed.||0.35|-0.23|0.743
90839095|NCT02266888|181545602|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.673||||0.514|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.248|1.826|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio estimated for Rituximab vs. Placebo|||1.826|0.248|0.514
90839096|NCT02266888|181545606|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
91091504|NCT00485836|182066842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares means|11.5|||<|0.0001||95.0|7.7|15.3||The Hochberg-Bonferroni multiple comparison procedure was used to adjust for comparisons of the two ranibizumab groups with the sham-injection group to maintain an overall type I error rate of 0.05.|ANOVA|Stratified by baseline visual acuity score (≤ 34, 35-54, ≥ 55 letters).||||15.3|7.7|<0.0001
91091505|NCT00485836|182066842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares means|13.8|||<|0.0001||95.0|10.3|17.4||The Hochberg-Bonferroni multiple comparison procedure was used to adjust for comparisons of the two ranibizumab groups with the sham-injection group to maintain an overall type I error rate of 0.05.|ANOVA|Stratified by baseline visual acuity score (≤ 34, 35-54, ≥ 55 letters).||||17.4|10.3|<0.0001
91091506|NCT00485836|182066843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|29.3|||<|0.0001||95.0|18.8|39.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel χ²|Stratified by baseline visual acuity score (≤ 34, 35-54, ≥ 55 letters).|Weighted estimates adjusted for baseline visual acuity score (≤ 34, 35-54, ≥ 55 letters) using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|||39.7|18.8|<0.0001
91091507|NCT00485836|182066843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|30.3|||<|0.0001||95.0|19.6|40.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel χ²|Stratified by baseline visual acuity score (≤ 34, 35-54, ≥ 55 letters).|Weighted estimates adjusted for baseline visual acuity score (≤ 34, 35-54, ≥ 55 letters) using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|||40.9|19.6|<0.0001
91091508|NCT00485836|182066844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|11.3||||0.0019||95.0|4.3|18.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel χ²|Stratified by baseline visual acuity score (≤ 34, 35-54, ≥ 55 letters).|Weighted estimates adjusted for baseline visual acuity score (≤ 34, 35-54, ≥ 55 letters) using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|||18.2|4.3|0.0019
91091509|NCT00485836|182066844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|13.6|||<|0.0001||95.0|7.2|20.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel χ²|Stratified by baseline visual acuity score (≤ 34, 35-54, ≥ 55 letters).|Weighted estimates adjusted for baseline visual acuity score (≤ 34, 35-54, ≥ 55 letters) using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|||20.1|7.2|<0.0001
91091510|NCT00485836|182066845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|51.9|||<|0.0001||95.0|41.6|62.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel χ²|Stratified by baseline visual acuity score (≤ 34, 35-54, ≥ 55 letters).|Weighted estimates adjusted for baseline visual acuity score (≤ 34, 35-54, ≥ 55 letters) using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|||62.3|41.6|<0.0001
91091511|NCT00485836|182066845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|54.0|||<|0.0001||95.0|44.0|64.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel χ²|Stratified by baseline visual acuity score (≤ 34, 35-54, ≥ 55 letters).|Weighted estimates adjusted for baseline visual acuity score (≤ 34, 35-54, ≥ 55 letters) using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|||64.1|44.0|<0.0001
91091512|NCT00485836|182066846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares means|-272.2|||<|0.0001||95.0|-329.9|-214.5|||ANCOVA|Pairwise ANCOVA models adjusted for baseline visual acuity score (≤ 34, 35-54, ≥ 55 letters) and baseline value of central foveal thickness.||||-214.5|-329.9|<0.0001
91091513|NCT00485836|182066846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares means|-283.8|||<|0.0001||95.0|-337.8|-229.8|||ANCOVA|Pairwise ANCOVA models adjusted for baseline visual acuity score (≤ 34, 35-54, ≥ 55 letters) and baseline value of central foveal thickness.||||-229.8|-337.8|<0.0001
91091514|NCT00485836|182066847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares means|5.8||||0.0019||95.0|2.1|9.4|||ANCOVA|Pairwise ANCOVA models adjusted for baseline visual acuity score (≤ 34, 35-54, ≥ 55 letters) and baseline Near Activities Subscale score.||||9.4|2.1|0.0019
90839097|NCT02266888|181545607|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
90839098|NCT02266888|181545608|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.188|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.188
90839099|NCT02266888|181545611|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.62||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.64|-0.6|||Paired t-Test|||This is not a comparison between treatment groups, but rather a comparison between timepoints.The Rituximab and Placebo groups were combined for purposes of testing the hypothesis that there would be no change in SD between pre-enrollment and 180 days post-enrollment into the TVI.||-0.60|-2.64|0.015
90839100|NCT02266888|181545613|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.502|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.502
90839101|NCT02266888|181545614|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.448|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.448
90839102|NCT01524796|181545671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||paired Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||<0.001
90839103|NCT01524796|181545672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||<0.001
90839104|NCT01524796|181545673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||<0.001
90839105|NCT02121158|181545684|EQUIVALENCE|Unadjusted|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.915||||0.7457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.534|1.568|||Cox Proportional Hazards|||||1.568|0.534|0.7457
90839106|NCT02435992|181545685|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.586||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.938|6.636|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||6.636|1.938|0.0001
90839107|NCT02435992|181545686|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.755||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.767|4.294|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.294|1.767|0.0001
90839108|NCT02224560|181545710|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-21.57||||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.79|-6.67|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Calculated using the Hodges-Lehmann approach|||-6.67|-34.79|0.0047
90839109|NCT02224560|181545710|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-19.19||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.24|-7.69|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Calculated using the Hodges-Lehmann approach|||-7.69|-31.24|0.0016
90839110|NCT02224560|181545711|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.85||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.75|8.47||Calculated using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by age group (2-5, 6-11, 12-17 and 18-55 years)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||8.47|1.75|0.0006
91091515|NCT00485836|182066847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares means|4.9||||0.0099||95.0|1.2|8.6|||ANCOVA|Pairwise ANCOVA models adjusted for baseline visual acuity score (≤ 34, 35-54, ≥ 55 letters) and baseline Near Activities Subscale score.||||8.6|1.2|0.0099
91091516|NCT00485836|182066848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares means|6.3||||0.0002||95.0|3.1|9.5|||ANCOVA|Pairwise ANCOVA models adjusted for baseline visual acuity score (≤ 34, 35-54, ≥ 55 letters) and baseline Distance Activities Subscale score.||||9.5|3.1|0.0002
91091517|NCT00485836|182066848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares means|4.1||||0.0199||95.0|0.7|7.6|||ANCOVA|Pairwise ANCOVA models adjusted for baseline visual acuity score (≤ 34, 35-54, ≥ 55 letters) and baseline Distance Activities Subscale score.||||7.6|0.7|0.0199
91091518|NCT01898078|182066858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|1.12|||||Estimates for each PK parameter were obtained using a mixed effects model of log (PK parameter) with fixed terms for the treatment effect, sequence effect, period effect and random terms for participants within sequence.|The confidence intervals are calculated for the difference in the LS means of the ln-transformed Cmax plain values (difference = Fed/Fasted). Antilogs of the confidence limits for the difference are taken to construct the confidence intervals for the ratio of the geometric means.||1.12|0.85|
91091519|NCT01898078|182066859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Ratio|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.01|1.34|||||Estimates for each PK parameter were obtained using a mixed effects model of log (PK parameter) with fixed terms for the treatment effect, sequence effect, period effect and random terms for participants within sequence.|The confidence intervals are calculated for the difference in the LS means of the ln-transformed AUC(last) plain values (difference = Fed/Fasted). Antilogs of the confidence limits for the difference are taken to construct the confidence intervals for the ratio of the geometric mean.||1.34|1.01|
90839111|NCT02224560|181545711|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.27||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|7.26||Calculated using a CMH test stratified by age group (2-5, 6-11, 12-17 and 18-55 years)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||7.26|1.47|0.0030
90839112|NCT02224560|181545712|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-18.76||||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.8|-4.43|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Calculated using the Hodges-Lehmann approach|||-4.43|-31.80|0.0091
90839113|NCT02224560|181545712|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-19.47||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.37|-7.47|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Calculated using the Hodges-Lehmann approach|||-7.47|-30.37|0.0015
90839114|NCT02224560|181545713|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.83||||0.0439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|3.3|||Regression, Logistic|Ordinal logistic regression model with treatment group as a fixed factor|Odds of participant recording a lower score (improvement) on a continuous scale|||3.30|1.02|0.0439
90839115|NCT02224560|181545713|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.57||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|4.66|||Regression, Logistic|Ordinal logistic regression model with treatment group as a fixed factor|Odds of participant recording a lower score (improvement) on a continuous scale|||4.66|1.41|0.0020
90896846|NCT03485911|181660125|SUPERIORITY||negative binomial regression model|46.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.6|61.5|||negative binomial regression model|||In the event that the first secondary endpoint did not meet statistical significance in the hierarchical testing scheme, testing of the third secondary endpoint of rate of expert-confirmed HAE attacks during dosing in the effective treatment period for statistical significance would not be completed. P-values reported are nominal.||61.5|25.6|<0.001
91091520|NCT01898078|182066860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Ratio|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.39|||||Estimates for each PK parameter were obtained using a mixed effects model of log(PK parameter) with fixed terms for the treatment effect, sequence effect, period effect and random terms for participants within sequence.|The confidence intervals are calculated for the difference in the LS means of the ln-transformed AUC∞ plain values (difference = Fed/Fasted). Antilogs of the confidence limits for the difference are taken to construct the confidence intervals for the ratio of the geometric mean||1.39|0.96|
91091521|NCT01115452|182066872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.32||||0.9347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.14|7.5||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 5% potassium nitrate solution minus 2.5% potassium nitrate solution. Negative difference favored 5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments.||7.50|-8.14|0.9347
90839116|NCT00728689|181545715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4591|||||||ANOVA|||A sample size of 12 subjects was chosen to provide a statistical power of 80% to detect a 25% difference of the Form V mean between the Form I and Form V doses at the 0.05 level (2-sided) for this crossover design. A parametric (normal theory) general linear model was applied and an ANOVA for a 2-way crossover design was employed to examine the differences among the 2 forms.||||0.4591
90896847|NCT00462280|181660179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.61
90896848|NCT01987817|181660216|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|60.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.0|79.0|||Fisher Exact|||||79|35|<0.0001
90839117|NCT00728689|181545716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0048|||||||ANOVA|||A sample size of 12 subjects was chosen to provide a statistical power of 80% to detect a 25% difference of the Form V mean between the Form I and Form V doses at the 0.05 level (2-sided) for this crossover design. Firstly, a parametric (normal theory) general linear model was applied and an ANOVA for a 2-way crossover design was employed to examine the differences among the 2 forms. Secondly, AUC0-τ was analyzed on a log scale, to assess bioequivalence between Form I and Form V.||||0.0048
90839118|NCT00728689|181545717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0997|||||||ANOVA|||A sample size of 12 subjects was chosen to provide a statistical power of 80% to detect a 25% difference of the Form V mean between the Form I and Form V doses at the 0.05 level (2-sided) for this crossover design. Firstly, a parametric (normal theory) general linear model was applied and an ANOVA for a 2-way crossover design was employed to examine the differences among the 2 forms. Secondly, AUC0-∞ was analyzed on a log scale, to assess bioequivalence between Form I and Form V.||||0.0997
90839119|NCT00728689|181545718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0422|||||||ANOVA|||A sample size of 12 subjects was chosen to provide a statistical power of 80% to detect a 25% difference of the Form V mean between the Form I and Form V doses at the 0.05 level (2-sided) for this crossover design. Firstly, a parametric (normal theory) general linear model was applied and an ANOVA for a 2-way crossover design was employed to examine the differences among the 2 forms. Secondly, Cmax was analyzed on a log scale, to assess bioequivalence between Form I and Form V.||||0.0422
90839120|NCT00728689|181545719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8581|||||||ANOVA|||A sample size of 12 subjects was chosen to provide a statistical power of 80% to detect a 25% difference of the Form V mean between the Form I and Form V doses at the 0.05 level (2-sided) for this crossover design. A parametric (normal theory) general linear model was applied and an ANOVA for a 2-way crossover design was employed to examine the differences among the 2 forms.||||0.8581
90839121|NCT01523366|181545720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-167.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-197.0|-137.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model contained treatment group, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and a random effect for participant within sequence|Ticagrelor minus clopidogrel|||-137.4|-197.0|<.001
90896849|NCT01987817|181660217|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|0.912|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5184|1.3065||The p-value is based on the F-test for treatment effect adjusted for MTD from baseline (log10 mg). The p-value and confidence intervals are based on the normality assumption.|ANCOVA|Least squares means and 95% CIs based on ANCOVA model of change from baseline in MTD at Exit DBPCFC (terms for treatment \& MTD at baseline (log10 mg).||MTD for the baseline and Exit DBPCFC are transformed back to log10 scale before calculations. A value of 0.3 mg is substituted for subjects who could not tolerate the lowest DBPCFC dose before log10 transformation.||1.3065|0.5184|<0.0001
90957271|NCT03406078|181794205|SUPERIORITY||Cumulative Odds Ratio|1.28||||0.434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|2.35|||Proportional odds model|Response variable: categorised % reduction from baseline in final OCS dose. Covariates in the model: treatment, region and daily OCS dose at baseline.||||2.35|0.69|0.434
90839122|NCT01523366|181545721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-135.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.23|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-172.3|-98.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model contained treatment group, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and a random effect for participant within sequence|Ticagrelor minus Clopidogrel|Analysis at 0.5 hours after the loading dose||-98.0|-172.3|<.001
90839123|NCT01523366|181545721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-168.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-204.0|-133.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model contained treatment group, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and a random effect for participant within sequence|Ticagrelor minus Clopidogrel|Analysis at 8 hours after the loading dose||-133.7|-204.0|<.001
90839124|NCT01523366|181545722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-150.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.97|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-176.9|-124.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model contained treatment group, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and a random effect for participant within sequence|Ticagrelor minus Clopidogrel|Analysis at 2 hours on Day 7 after multiple doses||-124.1|-176.9|<.001
90839125|NCT01523366|181545722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-140.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.84|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-168.4|-111.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model contained treatment group, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and a random effect for participant within sequence|Ticagrelor minus clopidogrel.|Analysis at 8 hours on Day 7 after multiple doses||-111.9|-168.4|<.001
90839126|NCT01523366|181545722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-130.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.41|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-158.0|-103.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model contained treatment group, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and a random effect for participant within sequence|Ticagrelor minus clopidogrel.|Analysis at end of dosing interval on Day 8||-103.2|-158.0|<.001
90839127|NCT00929695|181545798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.08
90839128|NCT00929695|181545798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4
90839129|NCT00929695|181545806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|1.33||||||||1.33|0.14|
90839130|NCT00929695|181545807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.29||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.74|||Regression, Cox|||||0.74|0.12|0.009
91091522|NCT01115452|182066873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.02||||0.9963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|8.24||Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|ANCOVA|No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 5% potassium nitrate solution minus 2.5% potassium nitrate solution. Negative difference favored 5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||8.24|-8.20|0.9963
91091523|NCT01115452|182066873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|3.9||||0.3582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.45|12.25||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 5% potassium nitrate solution minus water. Negative difference favored 5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||12.25|-4.45|0.3582
91091524|NCT01115452|182066873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|3.88||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.46|12.22||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 2.5% potassium nitrate solution minus water. Negative difference favored 2.5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||12.22|-4.46|0.3600
91091525|NCT01115452|182066874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.91||||0.8265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.13|7.3||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 5% potassium nitrate solution minus 2.5% potassium nitrate solution. Negative difference favored 5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||7.30|-9.13|0.8265
91091526|NCT01115452|182066874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.9||||0.8314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.25|7.45||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 5% potassium nitrate solution minus water. Negative difference favored 5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||7.45|-9.25|0.8314
91091527|NCT01115452|182066874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.01||||0.9978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.33|8.35||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 2.5% potassium nitrate solution minus water. Negative difference favored 2.5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||8.35|-8.33|0.9978
91091528|NCT01115452|182066875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|4.22||||0.3122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|12.44|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 5% potassium nitrate solution minus 2.5% potassium nitrate solution. Negative difference favored 5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||12.44|-4.00|0.3122
91091529|NCT01115452|182066875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.27||||0.7646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.62|7.08||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 5% potassium nitrate solution minus 2.5% potassium nitrate solution. Negative difference favored 5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||7.08|-9.62|0.7646
90839131|NCT00929695|181545809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.74|||Regression, Cox|||||1.74|0.6|0.95
90896850|NCT02612064|181660234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|-0.18||||0.1575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.442|0.072|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline in Schiff Sensitivity Score as response, treatment as a factor and baseline Schiff sensitivity as a covariate.|Difference is first named dentifrice minus second named dentifrice such that a negative difference favours first named dentifrice.|All statistical analyses were conducted under the null hypothesis (H0) of no difference between treatments versus the alternate hypothesis (H1) of a difference between treatments.||0.072|-0.442|0.1575
90896851|NCT00279201|181660257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-value from ANCOVA, baseline value as covariate. Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + thiazolidinedione (TZD) use + Sulfonylurea (sulfo) use.||||||0.005
91091530|NCT01115452|182066875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-5.49||||0.1957||95.0|-13.83|2.85||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 2.5% potassium nitrate solution minus water. Negative difference favored 2.5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||2.85|-13.83|0.1957
90896852|NCT00279201|181660258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||Log Rank|Stratified by country, thiazolidinedione (TZD) use, sulfo use.||||||0.040
90896853|NCT00279201|181660259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.271||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.271
90896854|NCT00279201|181660259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.990
90896855|NCT00279201|181660260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + Sulfo use.||||||0.005
90896856|NCT00279201|181660261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-value for \<=7.0%.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistic controlling for country, TZD use, and sulfo use.||||||0.002
90896857|NCT00279201|181660261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for \<7.0%.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistic controlling for country, TZD use, and sulfo use.||||||<0.001
91091531|NCT01115452|182066876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.35||||0.7472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.62|6.92||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 5% potassium nitrate solution minus 2.5% potassium nitrate solution. Negative difference favored 5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||6.92|-9.62|0.7472
91091532|NCT01115452|182066876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.66||||0.8767||95.0|-7.75|9.08||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 5% potassium nitrate solution minus water. Negative difference favored 5% potassium nitrate solution|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||9.08|-7.75|0.8767
91091533|NCT01115452|182066876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|2.01||||0.6367||95.0|-6.39|10.42||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 2.5% potassium nitrate solution minus water. Negative difference favored 2.5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||10.42|-6.39|0.6367
91091534|NCT01115452|182066877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.95||||0.6417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.22|6.32||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 5% potassium nitrate solution minus 2.5% potassium nitrate solution. Negative difference favored 5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||6.32|-10.22|0.6417
91091535|NCT01115452|182066877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.43||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.99|8.85||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 5% potassium nitrate solution minus water. Negative difference favored 5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||8.85|-7.99|0.9200
91091536|NCT01115452|182066877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|2.38||||0.5766||95.0|-6.02|10.78||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 2.5% potassium nitrate solution minus water. Negative difference favored 2.5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||10.78|-6.02|0.5766
91091537|NCT01115452|182066878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-3.58||||0.393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.65|4.68||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 5% potassium nitrate solution minus 2.5% potassium nitrate solution. Negative difference favored 5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||4.68|-11.65|0.3930
91091538|NCT01115452|182066878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.7||||0.6896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.12|6.71||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 5% potassium nitrate solution minus water. Negative difference favored 5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||6.71|-10.12|0.6896
91091539|NCT01115452|182066878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjustes mean difference|1.88||||0.6591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.52|10.28||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 2.5% potassium nitrate solution minus water. Negative difference favored 2.5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||10.28|-6.52|0.6591
91091540|NCT01115452|182066879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.08||||0.6301||95.0|-10.6|6.45||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 5% potassium nitrate solution minus 2.5% potassium nitrate solution. Negative difference favored 5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||6.45|-10.60|0.6301
91028020|NCT02978326|181939755|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.0726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.0||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Insight: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 45||0.0|-0.2|0.0726
90839132|NCT01409707|181545898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.068||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p = .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Multilevel mixed modeling was employed. The null hypothesis was that there'd be no differences between groups at posttreatment on posttraumatic stress disorder measures or alcohol use measures.||||=.068
90839133|NCT01409707|181545899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.39||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p=.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Multilevel mixed modeling was employed. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences in alcohol use at posttreatment.||||= 0.39
90839134|NCT00632229|181545905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||To evaluate between-group continuous outcomes of the pilot controlled trial, ANCOVAs were performed, where 8-week outcome scores were predicted by treatment condition while covarying for baseline scores.||||<0.05
90839135|NCT00632229|181545906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||To evaluate between-group continuous outcomes of the pilot controlled trial, ANCOVAs were performed, where 8-week outcome scores were predicted by treatment condition while covarying for baseline scores.||||<0.05
91028021|NCT02978326|181939756|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.72||0.0791|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|0.4||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment with treatment, baseline MADRS total score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change From Baseline in MADRS Total Score at Day 3||0.4|-6.5|0.0791
91028022|NCT02978326|181939756|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86||0.0322|TWO_SIDED|1.86|-7.7|-0.3||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment with treatment, baseline MADRS total score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change From Baseline in MADRS Total Score at Day 8||-0.3|-7.7|0.0322
91028023|NCT02978326|181939756|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|-0.8||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment with treatment, baseline MADRS total score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change From Baseline in MADRS Total Score at Day 15||-0.8|-8.3|0.0180
90839136|NCT02667119|181545916|SUPERIORITY||F|4.75||||0.041|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Controlled for baseline scores on the National Stressful Events PTSD Scale||Compared the two groups at 3 months post-baseline||||.041
90839137|NCT02667119|181545917|SUPERIORITY||F|6.89||||0.016|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Controlled for baseline score on the National Stressful Events PTSD Scale||||||.016
91028024|NCT02978326|181939756|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.92||0.0271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|-0.5||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment with treatment, baseline MADRS total score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in MADRS Total Score at 21||-0.5|-8.1|0.0271
91028025|NCT02978326|181939756|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.82||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|-2.2||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment with treatment, baseline MADRS total score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in MADRS Total Score at 45||-2.2|-9.4|0.0018
91028026|NCT02978326|181939757|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.3372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.81||Generalized estimating equations for binary response model was used for estimation with factors for treatment, baseline CGI-S score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction.|GEE for binary response model|||Percentage of Participants With CGI-I Response at Day 3||2.81|0.70|0.3372
90839138|NCT02667119|181545918|SUPERIORITY||t|-2.19||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.04
91091541|NCT01115452|182066879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.76||||0.6888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.46|6.93||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 5% potassium nitrate solution minus water. Negative difference favored 5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||6.93|-10.46|0.6888
91091542|NCT01115452|182066879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.32||||0.9428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.37|9.0||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 2.5% potassium nitrate solution minus water. Negative difference favored 2.5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||9.00|-8.37|0.9428
91091543|NCT01115452|182066880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.58||||0.5504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|5.95||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 5% potassium nitrate solution minus 2.5% potassium nitrate solution. Negative difference favored 5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||5.95|-11.10|0.5504
91091544|NCT01115452|182066880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.1||||0.634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|6.6||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 5% potassium nitrate solution minus water. Negative difference favored 5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||6.60|-10.80|0.6340
91091545|NCT01115452|182066880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.48||||0.9127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|9.16|||ANCOVA|No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 2.5% potassium nitrate solution minus water. Negative difference favored 2.5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||9.16|-8.20|0.9127
91091546|NCT01115452|182066881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.15||||0.6192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.67|6.38||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 5% potassium nitrate solution minus 2.5% potassium nitrate solution. Negative difference favored 5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||6.38|-10.67|0.6192
91091547|NCT01115452|182066881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.6||||0.8912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|9.3||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 5% potassium nitrate solution minus water. Negative difference favored 5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||9.30|-8.10|0.8912
91091548|NCT01115452|182066881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|2.75||||0.5321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.93|11.43||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 2.5% potassium nitrate solution minus water. Negative difference favored 2.5% potassium nitrate solution|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||11.43|-5.93|0.5321
91091549|NCT01115452|182066882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-3.37||||0.4055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.37|4.63||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 5% potassium nitrate solution minus 2.5% potassium nitrate solution. Negative difference favored 5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||4.63|-11.37|0.4055
91091550|NCT01115452|182066882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.74||||0.8573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.42|8.91||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 5% potassium nitrate solution minus water. Negative difference favored 5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||8.91|-7.42|0.8573
90839139|NCT02667119|181545919|SUPERIORITY||F|2.25||||0.148|TWO_SIDED|||||Controlling for baseline score on the Center for Epidemiological Studies-Depressed Mood scale|ANCOVA|||||||.148
90839140|NCT02667119|181545920|SUPERIORITY||F|4.64||||0.043|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Controlling for baseline score on the Center for Epidemiological Studies-Depressed Mood scale||||||.043
90839141|NCT02667119|181545921|SUPERIORITY||F|1.4||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|||||Controlling for baseline score on the Quality of Life Scale|ANCOVA|||||||.250
90839142|NCT02667119|181545922|SUPERIORITY||F|0.45||||0.508|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Controlling for baseline score on the Quality of Life Scale||||||.508
90859699|NCT02787551|181582778|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.168|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.001|-1.341||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was performed using MMRM with treatment groups, randomization strata of Week -2 HbA1c (\<8.0%, \>=8.0%), randomization strata of GLP-1 RA subtype at screening, scheduled visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and world region as fixed effects, and and baseline FPG value-by visit interaction as a covariate. Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (continued only if previous outcome measures were statistically significant).||-1.341|-2.001|<0.0001
90896858|NCT00279201|181660261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.174||95.0||||P-value is for \<=6.5%.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistic controlling for country, TZD use, and sulfo use.||||||0.174
90896859|NCT00279201|181660262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.416||95.0||||P-value for baseline.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.416
90896860|NCT00279201|181660262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Week 12.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + sulfo use.||||||<0.001
90896861|NCT00279201|181660262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||P-value for Week 24.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + sulfo use.||||||0.003
90896862|NCT00279201|181660262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||P-value for endpoint.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + sulfo use.||||||0.005
90896863|NCT00279201|181660263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.179||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline mean fasting blood glucose.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use and sulfo use in model.||||||0.179
90896864|NCT00279201|181660263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for mean fasting blood glucose.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + sulfo use.||||||<0.001
90896865|NCT00279201|181660263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline AM 2-hour postprandial BG.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use and sulfo use in model.||||||0.700
91028027|NCT02978326|181939757|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77||||0.0935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|3.47||Generalized estimating equations for binary response model was used for estimation with factors for treatment, baseline CGI-S score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction.|GEE for binary response model|||Percentage of Participants With CGI-I Response at Day 8||3.47|0.91|0.0935
91028028|NCT02978326|181939757|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.16||||0.0276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|4.28||Generalized estimating equations for binary response model was used for estimation with factors for treatment, baseline CGI-S score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction.|GEE for binary response model|||Percentage of Participants With CGI-I Response at Day 15||4.28|1.09|0.0276
90839143|NCT04672239|181545929|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.3341||||0.0219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0734|13.5948||We used hierarchical linear mixed models with maximum likelihood estimation of all available longitudinal data to handle missing data, then used a planned, pairwise comparison to test for end-of-treatment group differences.|Mixed Models Analysis||Model-estimated difference for the pairwise group difference at week 6 post-quit (end-of-treatment).|This proof-of-concept RCT was powered to detect an effect size of d=0.50 between SiS3 and either of the two control groups. Using SAS PROC POWER, it was determined that a sample size of n=64 per group would be needed to detect this effect in a 2-sided t-test with p=.05. Assuming a retention rate of 85%, it was determined that one needed to enroll n=75 per group in order to retain n=64 by end of treatment.||13.5948|1.0734|0.0219
90839144|NCT04672239|181545929|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.7775||||0.0072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.407|15.148||We used hierarchical linear mixed models with maximum likelihood estimation of all available longitudinal data to handle missing data, then used a planned, pairwise comparison to test for end-of-treatment group differences.|Mixed Models Analysis||Model-estimated difference for the pairwise group difference at week 6 post-quit (end-of-treatment).|This proof-of-concept RCT was powered to detect an effect size of d=0.50 between SiS3 and either of the two control groups. Using SAS PROC POWER, it was determined that a sample size of n=64 per group would be needed to detect this effect in a 2-sided t-test with p=.05. Assuming a retention rate of 85%, it was determined that one needed to enroll n=75 per group in order to retain n=64 by end of treatment.||15.1480|2.4070|0.0072
90896866|NCT00279201|181660263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016||95.0||||P-value for AM 2-hour postprandial blood glucose.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + sulfo use.||||||0.016
90896867|NCT00279201|181660263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.971||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline midday premeal BG.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use and sulfo use in model.||||||0.971
90896868|NCT00279201|181660263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Midday premeal blood glucose (BG).|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + sulfo use.||||||<0.001
90896869|NCT00279201|181660263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.759||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline midday 2-hour postprandial BG|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use and sulfo use in model.||||||0.759
90896870|NCT00279201|181660263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.514||95.0||||P-value Midday 2-hour postprandial BG.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + sulfo use.||||||0.514
90896871|NCT00279201|181660263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.321||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline evening pre-meal BG.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.321
90896872|NCT00279201|181660263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.161||95.0||||P-value for Evening pre-meal blood glucose.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + sulfo use.||||||0.161
90896873|NCT00279201|181660263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.297||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline evening 2hour postprandial.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.297
90896874|NCT00279201|181660263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value Evening 2-hour postprandial BG.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + sulfo use.||||||<0.001
90896875|NCT00279201|181660263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.199||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline 3 AM blood glucose.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.199
90896876|NCT00279201|181660263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.693||95.0||||P-value is for 3 AM blood glucose.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + sulfo use.||||||0.693
90896877|NCT00279201|181660263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline AM 2-hour BG excursion.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.021
90896878|NCT00279201|181660263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for AM 2-hour blood glucose excursion.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + sulfo use.||||||<0.001
90896879|NCT00279201|181660263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.567||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline midday 2-hour BG excursion.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.567
90896880|NCT00279201|181660263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||P-value is for Midday 2-hour blood glucose excursion.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + sulfo use.||||||0.005
91091551|NCT01115452|182066882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|4.12||||0.3193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.03|12.27||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 2.5% potassium nitrate solution minus water. Negative difference favored 2.5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||12.27|-4.03|0.3193
91091552|NCT01115452|182066883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|3.23||||0.4264||95.0|-4.77|11.23||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 5% potassium nitrate solution minus 2.5% potassium nitrate solution. Negative difference favored 5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||11.23|-4.77|0.4264
91091553|NCT01115452|182066883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|1.04||||0.8008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.42|9.21||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 5% potassium nitrate solution minus water. Negative difference favored 5% potassium nitrate solution|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||9.21|-7.42|0.8008
91091554|NCT01115452|182066883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.18||||0.5969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.33|5.97||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 2.5% potassium nitrate solution minus water. Negative difference favored 2.5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||5.97|-10.33|0.5969
91091555|NCT01115452|182066884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-5.14||||0.2059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.14|2.86||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 5% potassium nitrate solution minus 2.5% potassium nitrate solution. Negative difference favored 5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||2.86|-13.14|0.2059
91091556|NCT01115452|182066884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.39||||0.9248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.56|7.77||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 5% potassium nitrate solution minus water. Negative difference favored 5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||7.77|-8.56|0.9248
91091557|NCT01115452|182066884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|4.75||||0.2508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|12.9||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 2.5% potassium nitrate solution minus water. Negative difference favored 2.5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||12.90|-3.40|0.2508
91091558|NCT01115452|182066885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|1.12||||0.7822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.86|9.1||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 5% potassium nitrate solution minus water. Negative difference favored 5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||9.10|-6.86|0.7822
91091559|NCT01115452|182066885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|1.44||||0.7208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.52|9.41||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 2.5% potassium nitrate solution minus water. Negative difference favored 2.5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||9.41|-6.52|0.7208
91091560|NCT01115452|182066886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.36||||0.7318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.18|6.46||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 5% potassium nitrate solution minus 2.5% potassium nitrate solution. Negative difference favored 5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||6.46|-9.18|0.7318
91091561|NCT01115452|182066886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|1.05||||0.7949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.93|9.03||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 5% potassium nitrate solution minus water. Negative difference favored 5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||9.03|-6.93|0.7949
91103959|NCT03766906|182094669|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.909|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Investigators tested whether pre-test to post-test change was significantly greater than 0 at P\<0.05.||The statistical analyses for the Student Self-Efficacy, in terms of type of statistical test, method, and the comments which we state within-subjects paired t-tests, are the same for each of the three subscales that make up Student Self-Efficacy (i.e., Relevance to schoolwork, Future aspirations, and Family support).||||.909
90896881|NCT00279201|181660263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.994||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline PM 2-hour BG excursion.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.994
90839145|NCT04672239|181545930|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5072||||0.2259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7759|2.9281|||Generalized Linear Model|We used a Generalized Linear Model with binomial distribution (abstinent vs. smoking) and logit link with repeated measures over time.|The odds ratio compares the SiS app treatment to the QG app treatment at week 6 post-quit (end-of-treatment).|This was an exploratory aim, so no power analysis was conducted. We hypothesized, that the 30-day point prevalence smoking cessation prevalence would be higher in the SiS app treatment compared to the QuitGuide app treatment. Participants with missing data were assumed to be smoking. We modeled all available data over time and present the cross-sectional group difference test at week 6 post quit (i.e., end-of-treatment).||2.9281|0.7759|0.2259
90896882|NCT00279201|181660263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for PM 2-hour blood glucose excursion.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + sulfo use.||||||<0.001
90839146|NCT04672239|181545930|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.963||||0.0579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9776|3.9415|||Generalized Linear Model|We used a Generalized Linear Model with binomial distribution (abstinent vs. smoking) and logit link with repeated measures over time.|The odds ratio compares the SiS app treatment to the CtA pamphlet at week 6 post-quit (end-of-treatment).|This was an exploratory aim, so no power analysis was conducted. We hypothesized, that the 30-day point prevalence smoking cessation prevalence would be higher in the SiS app treatment compared to the Clearing the Air pamphlet treatment. Participants with missing data were assumed to be smoking. We modeled all available data over time and present the cross-sectional group difference test at week 6 post quit (i.e., post-treatment).||3.9415|0.9776|0.0579
90839147|NCT04672239|181545931|SUPERIORITY||Wilcoxon Z|0.401||||0.9152|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Pairwise Two-Sided Multiple Comparison Analysis Dwass, Steel, Critchlow-Fligner Method|SiS app treatment vs. QuitGuide app treatment at week 6 post-quit (end-of-treatment)|||||0.9152
90896883|NCT00279201|181660263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.436||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline mean all meal time excursions.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.436
90896884|NCT00279201|181660263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Mean of all meal time excursions.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + sulfo use.||||||<0.001
90896885|NCT00279201|181660263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.628||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline mean all 2hour PP BG.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.628
90896886|NCT00279201|181660263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Mean of all 2-hour postprandial BG.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + sulfo use.||||||<0.001
90896887|NCT00279201|181660263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.677||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline AM/PM 2-hour postprandial BG.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.677
90896888|NCT00279201|181660263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for AM/PM 2-hour postprandial BG.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + sulfo use.||||||<0.001
90896889|NCT00279201|181660263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.364||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline mean all premeal BG.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.364
90896890|NCT00279201|181660263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.055||95.0||||P-value is for Mean of all premeal blood glucose.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + sulfo use.||||||0.055
91028029|NCT02978326|181939757|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.79||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|3.54||Generalized estimating equations for binary response model was used for estimation with factors for treatment: Baseline CGI-S score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction.|GEE for binary response model|||Percentage of Participants With CGI-I Response at Day 21||3.54|0.91|0.0920
91028030|NCT02978326|181939757|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76||||0.1109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|3.51||Generalized estimating equations for binary response model was used for estimation with factors for treatment, baseline CGI-S score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction.|GEE for binary response model|||Percentage of Participants With CGI-I Response at Day 45||3.51|0.88|0.1109
91028031|NCT02978326|181939758|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29||0.0169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|-0.6||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-A total score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in HAM-A Total Score at Day 3||-0.6|-5.7|0.0169
90896891|NCT00279201|181660263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.165||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline AM/PM 2-hour BG excursion.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.165
91028032|NCT02978326|181939758|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|-1.8||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-A total score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in HAM-A Total Score at Day 8||-1.8|-7.0|0.0010
91028033|NCT02978326|181939758|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.41||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|-1.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-A total score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in HAM-A Total Score at Day 15||-1.1|-6.7|0.0063
90896892|NCT00279201|181660263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for AM/PM 2-hour blood glucose excursion.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + sulfo use.||||||<0.001
90896893|NCT00279201|181660263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.464||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline mean of all BG values.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.464
91028034|NCT02978326|181939758|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.37||0.0119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|-0.8||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-A total score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in HAM-A Total Score at Day 21||-0.8|-6.2|0.0119
91028035|NCT02978326|181939758|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.28||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|-2.4||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-A total score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in HAM-A Total Score at Day 45||-2.4|-7.5|0.0002
90896894|NCT00279201|181660263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.305||95.0||||P-value is for Mean of all blood glucose values.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + sulfo use.||||||0.305
90896895|NCT00279201|181660264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline, country, TZD use, and sulfo use.||||||0.003
90896896|NCT00279201|181660265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for change from baseline at Week 6.|ANCOVA|Model: Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + sulfonylurea use.||||||<0.001
90896897|NCT00279201|181660265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for change from baseline at Week 12.|ANCOVA|Model: Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + sulfonylurea use.||||||<0.001
90896898|NCT00279201|181660265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for change from baseline at Week 18|ANCOVA|Model: Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + sulfonylurea use.||||||<0.001
90896899|NCT00279201|181660265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for change from baseline at Week 24.|ANCOVA|Model: Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + sulfonylurea use.||||||<0.001
90896900|NCT00279201|181660265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for change from baseline at endpoint.|ANCOVA|Model: Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + sulfonylurea use.||||||<0.001
90896901|NCT00279201|181660266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.497||95.0||||P-value for Actual weight at baseline.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.497
90896902|NCT00279201|181660266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Actual weight at Week 6.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + sulfo use.||||||<0.001
90896903|NCT00279201|181660266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Actual weight at Week 12.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + Sulfo use.||||||<0.001
90896904|NCT00279201|181660266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Actual weight at Week 18.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + Sulfo use.||||||<0.001
90896905|NCT00279201|181660266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Actual weight at Week 24.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + Sulfo use.||||||<0.001
90896906|NCT00279201|181660266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||P-value is for Actual weight at Endpoint.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + Sulfo use.||||||<0.0001
90896907|NCT00279201|181660267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016||95.0||||P-value is for Hypoglycemic episodes endpoint.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistic controlling for country, TZD use, and sulfo use.||||||0.016
90896908|NCT00279201|181660267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.037||95.0||||P-value is for Overall hypoglycemic episodes.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistic controlling for country, TZD use, and sulfo use.||||||0.037
90896909|NCT00279201|181660267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.834||95.0||||P-value is for Nocturnal hypoglycemic episodes endpoint.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistic controlling for country, TZD use, and sulfo use.||||||0.834
90896910|NCT00279201|181660267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.585||95.0||||P-value is for Nocturnal hypoglycemic episodes overall.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistic controlling for country, TZD use, and sulfo use.||||||0.585
91028036|NCT02978326|181939759|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.75||||0.1145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|3.53||Generalized estimating equations for binary response model was used for estimation with factors for treatment, baseline MADRS total score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction.|GEE for binary response model|||Percentage of Participants With MADRS Response at Day 3||3.53|0.87|0.1145
90896911|NCT00279201|181660267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.241||95.0||||P-value is for Severe hypoglycemic episodes endpoint.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistic controlling for country, TZD use, and sulfo use.||||||0.241
90896912|NCT00279201|181660267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08||95.0||||P-value is for Severe hypoglycemic episodes overall. Initiation phase and maintenance phase are included.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistic controlling for country, TZD use, and sulfo use.||||||0.080
90896913|NCT00279201|181660268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0||||P-value is for Nocturnal episodes Endpoint.|ANOVA|Response = Treatment + Country + TZD use + Sulfo use.||||||0.009
90896914|NCT00279201|181660268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42||95.0||||P-value is for Nocturnal episodes Overall.|ANOVA|Response = Treatment + Country + TZD use + Sulfo use.||||||0.420
90896915|NCT00279201|181660268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.165||95.0||||P-value is for Severe episodes Endpoint.|ANOVA|Response = Treatment + Country + TZD use + Sulfo use.||||||0.165
90896916|NCT00279201|181660268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.167||95.0||||P-value is for Severe episodes Overall.|ANOVA|Response = Treatment + Country + TZD use + Sulfo use.||||||0.167
90896917|NCT00279201|181660268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0||||P-value is for Hypoglycemia episodes Endpoint.|ANOVA|Response = Treatment + Country + TZD use + Sulfo use.||||||0.006
90896918|NCT00279201|181660268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Hypoglycemia episodes Overall.|ANOVA|Response = Treatment + Country + TZD use + Sulfo use.||||||<0.001
90896919|NCT00279201|181660269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Week 1.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in the model.||||||<0.001
90896920|NCT00279201|181660269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Week 2.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in the model.||||||<0.001
90896921|NCT00279201|181660269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Week 3.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in the model.||||||<0.001
90896922|NCT00279201|181660269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Week 4.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in the model.||||||<0.001
90896923|NCT00279201|181660269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Week 5.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in the model.||||||<0.001
90896924|NCT00279201|181660269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Week 6.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in the model.||||||<0.001
90896925|NCT00279201|181660269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Week 8.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in the model.||||||<0.001
91091562|NCT01115452|182066886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|2.41||||0.5507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.56|10.37||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 2.5% potassium nitrate solution minus water. Negative difference favored 2.5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||10.37|-5.56|0.5507
91091563|NCT01115452|182066887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.72||||0.8549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.54|7.1||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Investigator applied the participants with 5% potassium nitrate solution on each of the three individual sensitive tooth for two minutes (mins), in each of the five day treatment period|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||7.10|-8.54|0.8549
91091564|NCT01115452|182066887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.15||||0.9705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.13|7.83||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 5% potassium nitrate solution minus water. Negative difference favored 5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||7.83|-8.13|0.9705
91091565|NCT01115452|182066887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.57||||0.8867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.39|8.54||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 2.5% potassium nitrate solution minus water. Negative difference favored 2.5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||8.54|-7.39|0.8867
91091566|NCT03073486|182066944|OTHER|||||||0.2301|||||||ANCOVA|Ranked ANCOVA, Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) Multiple Imputation||||||0.2301
91091567|NCT03073486|182066945|OTHER|||||||0.6888|||||||ANCOVA|Ranked ANCOVA, Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) Multiple Imputation||||||0.6888
91091568|NCT03073486|182066946|OTHER|||||||0.1361|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression (Firth's Penalized Likelihood), MCMC Multiple Imputation||||||0.1361
91091569|NCT01079780|182066954|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91091570|NCT01079780|182066955|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.27
91091571|NCT01079780|182066957|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.55|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.55
91091572|NCT01178294|182066958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||one-sided binomial exact test|||Summary statistics for the percentage of participants with serious bleeding episodes responsive at 24 hours after the initiation of treatment are presented, along with the 95% confidence interval (two-sided 95% Clopper-Pearson confidence interval).||||<0.001
91091573|NCT01663623|182066997|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|2.59||Cox proportional Hazards (Wald Chi Square)|Cox Proportional Hazards model|Analysis was adjusted for ANCA type, disease stage at induction and induction regimen|Analysis performed using a Cox Proportional Hazards model with covariates treatment group, Actual ANCA type, Actual disease stage at induction and Actual induction regimen.|||2.59|0.44|0.884
91091574|NCT01329198|182067002|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.4||0.013|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA||Mean change in YGTSS scores from Baseline to 6 Months across all study participants presented.|||||0.013
91091575|NCT01004614|182067004|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the two formulations was concluded if the 90% confidence intervals for the ratio of adjusted geometric means for both AUCt and Cmax fell wholly within (80%, 125%).|ratios of adjusted geometric mean|98.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.09|104.46|||||Parameter estimate = ratio (%) (test/reference) of adjusted geometric means.|Natural log transformed AUCt was analyzed using a mixed effects model with sequence, period and formulation as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect. Adjusted mean difference (test - reference) and 90% CI was obtained from the model and exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric mean and 90% CI for the ratio. Alternative hypothesis of bioequivalence: (H1: θL \<=µT - µR \<=θU); null hypothesis of inequivalence: (Ho: µT - µR \<θL or µT - µR \>θU).||104.46|93.09|
91091576|NCT01004614|182067004|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the two formulations was concluded if the 90% confidence intervals for the ratio of adjusted geometric means for both AUCt and Cmax fell wholly within (80%, 125%).|ratios of adjusted geometric mean|101.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.28|105.45|||||Parameter estimate = ratio (%) (test/reference) of adjusted geometric means.|Natural log transformed AUCt was analyzed using a mixed effects model with sequence, period and formulation as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect. Adjusted mean difference (test - reference) and 90% CI was obtained from the model and exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric mean and 90% CI for the ratio. Alternative hypothesis of bioequivalence: (H1: θL \<=µT - µR \<=θU); null hypothesis of inequivalence: (Ho: µT - µR \<θL or µT - µR \>θU).||105.45|97.28|
91091577|NCT01004614|182067005|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the two formulations was concluded if the 90% confidence intervals for the ratio of adjusted geometric means for both AUCt and Cmax fell wholly within (80%, 125%).|ratios of adjusted geometric mean|99.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.28|106.28||||Parameter estimate = ratio (%) (test/reference) of adjusted geometric means.||Natural log transformed Cmax was analyzed using a mixed effects model with sequence, period and formulation as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect. Adjusted mean difference (test - reference) and 90% CI was obtained from the model and exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric mean and 90% CI for the ratio. Alternative hypothesis of bioequivalence: (H1: θL \<=µT - µR \<=θU); null hypothesis of inequivalence: (Ho: µT - µR \<θL or µT - µR \>θU).||106.28|92.28|
90839148|NCT04672239|181545931|SUPERIORITY||Wilcoxon Z|1.372||||0.3557|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Pairwise Two-Sided Multiple Comparison Analysis Dwass, Steel, Critchlow-Fligner Method|Pairwise comparison, SiS app treatment vs. CTA pamphlet at week 6 post-quit (end-of-treatment)|||||0.3557
90839149|NCT04672239|181545932|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2936||||0.7469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4983|2.0856||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided||Comparison of SiS app treatment to the QuitGuide treatment as control (Contrast coding SiS 1, QG -1)|||2.0856|-1.4983|0.7469
91091578|NCT01004614|182067005|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the two formulations was concluded if the 90% confidence intervals for the ratio of adjusted geometric means for both AUCt and Cmax fell wholly within (80%, 125%).|ratios of adjusted geometric mean|100.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.93|106.0||||Parameter estimate = ratio (%) (test/reference) of adjusted geometric means.||Natural log transformed Cmax was analyzed using a mixed effects model with sequence, period and formulation as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect. Adjusted mean difference (test - reference) and 90% CI was obtained from the model and exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric mean and 90% CI for the ratio. Alternative hypothesis of bioequivalence: (H1: θL \<=µT - µR \<=θU); null hypothesis of inequivalence: (Ho: µT - µR \<θL or µT - µR \>θU).||106.00|95.93|
91091579|NCT01569022|182067012|EQUIVALENCE|The primary endpoint of the study was tested by comparing difference in residual AHI using the paired t test|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90839150|NCT04672239|181545932|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2569||||0.1747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5628|3.0766||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided||Comparison of SiS app treatment to the Clearing the Air pamphlet treatment as control (Contrast coding SiS 1, CtA -1)|||3.0766|-0.5628|0.1747
90839151|NCT04672239|181545933|SUPERIORITY||Wilcoxon Z|1.9255||||0.1315|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Pairwise Two-Sided Multiple Comparison Analysis Dwass, Steel, Critchlow-Fligner Method||||||0.1315
90839152|NCT04672239|181545933|SUPERIORITY||Wilcoxon Z|1.401||||0.3403|TWO_SIDED|||||the p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Pairwise Two-Sided Multiple Comparison Analysis Dwass, Steel, Critchlow-Fligner Method|SiS app vs. Clearing the Air pamphlet|||||0.3403
90839153|NCT04672239|181545934|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2289||||0.0429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.007364|0.4505||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|t-test, 2 sided||||SiS app vs. QuitGuide app|0.4505|0.007364|0.0429
90839154|NCT04672239|181545934|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1609||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06415|0.386||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|t-test, 2 sided||||SiS app vs. CtA pamphlet|0.3860|-0.06415|0.1600
90839155|NCT04672239|181545935|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.152||||0.1996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08092|0.3848||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|t-test, 2 sided||||SiS app vs. QG app|0.3848|-0.08092|0.1996
90839156|NCT04672239|181545935|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.292||||0.0154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05636|0.5276||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|t-test, 2 sided||||SiS app vs. CtA pamphlet (control)|0.5276|0.05636|0.0154
90839157|NCT04672239|181545936|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.6255||||0.2988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3458|7.5968||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|t-test, 2 sided||||SiS app vs. QuitGuide app (control)|7.5968|-2.3458|0.2988
90839158|NCT04672239|181545936|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.9277||||0.1251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1015|8.9569||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|t-test, 2 sided||||SiS app vs. CtA pamphlet (control)|8.9569|-1.1015|0.1251
90839159|NCT04672239|181545937|SUPERIORITY||Wilcoxon Z|-0.8096||||0.4182|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4182
90839160|NCT04672239|181545938|SUPERIORITY||Wilcoxon Z|1.909||||0.0563|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0563
91091580|NCT01569022|182067013|EQUIVALENCE|t test assuming unequal variance||||||0.97|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||ESS||||0.97
90896926|NCT00279201|181660269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Week 10.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in the model.||||||<0.001
91091581|NCT01569022|182067013|EQUIVALENCE|t test assuming unequal variance||||||0.98|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||PCL||||0.98
91091582|NCT01569022|182067013|EQUIVALENCE|t-test assuming non unequal variance||||||0.31|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||PSQI||||0.31
90839161|NCT04672239|181545939|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1106||||0.5018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2143|0.4354|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.4354|-0.2143|0.5018
90839162|NCT04672239|181545940|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1406||||0.4246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2068|0.488|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.4880|-0.2068|0.4246
90839163|NCT04672239|181545941|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4296||||0.4078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3597|8.2188|||t-test, 2 sided||SiS app vs. QG (control)|||8.2188|-3.3597|0.4078
90839164|NCT04825678|181545967|OTHER||Least squares mean (LSM)|40.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.37|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.05|45.39||P-value is nominal to compare the mean change from Baseline at Week 24 to zero.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Adjusted analysis utilizes a generalized linear mixed model which includes Baseline TSQM overall satisfaction scale score, visit, the prevailing erenumab dose from Week 12 onwards, observed Baseline monthly migraine days (MMD), and selected Baseline characteristics as covariates and assumes a first-order auto regression covariance structure.||45.39|36.05|< 0.001
90839165|NCT04825678|181545967|OTHER||LSM|30.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.53||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|62.98||P-value is nominal to compare the mean change from Baseline at Week 24 to zero.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Adjusted analysis utilizes a generalized linear mixed model which includes Baseline TSQM overall satisfaction scale score, visit, the prevailing erenumab dose from Week 12 onwards, observed Baseline MMD, and selected Baseline characteristics as covariates and assumes a first-order auto regression covariance structure.||62.98|-1.30|0.058
90839166|NCT04825678|181545968|OTHER||LSM|37.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.62|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.62|47.12||P-value is nominal to compare the mean change from Baseline at Week 24 to zero.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Adjusted analysis utilizes a generalized linear mixed model which includes Baseline TSQM overall satisfaction scale score, visit, the prevailing erenumab dose from Week 12 onwards, observed Baseline MMD, and selected Baseline characteristics as covariates and assumes a first-order auto regression covariance structure.||47.12|28.62|< 0.001
90896927|NCT00279201|181660269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in the model.||||||<0.001
90896928|NCT00279201|181660269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Week 18.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in the model.||||||0.001
91091583|NCT01569022|182067014|EQUIVALENCE|t test assuming unequal variance||||||0.54|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.54
91091584|NCT01569022|182067015|EQUIVALENCE|t test assuming unequal variance|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91091585|NCT02111083|182067017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square means|0.986|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.965|1.01||||||||1.01|0.965|
91091586|NCT02111083|182067018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square means|0.872|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.828|0.919||||||||0.919|0.828|
91091587|NCT02111083|182067019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.375||||||||0.375|0|
91091588|NCT02111083|182067020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square means|0.986|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.954|1.02||||||||1.02|0.954|
90896929|NCT00279201|181660269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Week 24.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in the model.||||||<0.001
90896930|NCT00279201|181660269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Endpoint.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in the model.||||||<0.001
90896931|NCT00279201|181660270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA with met goal/did not meet goal, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||<0.001
91091589|NCT02111083|182067021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square means|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.901|1.0||||||||1.00|0.901|
91091590|NCT02111083|182067022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of least squares means|0.424|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.164|0.685||||||||0.685|0.164|
91091591|NCT02111083|182067023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square means|0.992|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.975|1.01||||||||1.01|0.975|
90896932|NCT00279201|181660271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is overall.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country, TZD use, and Sulfo use.||||||<0.001
90896933|NCT00279201|181660272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA with met goal/did not meet goal, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||<0.001
90896934|NCT00279201|181660273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA with met goal/did not meet goal, country, TZD use and Sulfo use in model.||||||<0.001
90896935|NCT00279201|181660274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is overall.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country, TZD use, and sulfo use.||||||<0.001
90896936|NCT00279201|181660275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA with met goal/did not meet goal, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||<0.001
91091592|NCT00644059|182067025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|81.36|||||TWO_SIDED|97.66|49.24|93.16|||Poisson Regression Model|||"Absolute vaccine efficacy (VE) was calculated as (1- the relative risk)100%. Relative Risk for virus-confirmed symptomatic influenza illness in the TIV-adj group vs. the non-flu control group. VE denotes the vaccine efficacy, i.e. 1-Itest/Inon-flu ctrl, where I stands for the population average incidence of influenza.~Absolute efficacy of TIV-adj is at most 40% (i.e. the probability of an influenza in the test group relative to that in the non-flu vaccine group is at least 0.6)"||93.16|49.24|
91091593|NCT00644059|182067028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|81.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.24|93.16|||Poisson Regression Model|||"Absolute vaccine efficacy (VE) was calculated as (1- the relative risk)100%. Relative Risk for virus-confirmed symptomatic influenza illness in the TIV-adj group vs. the non-flu control group. VE denotes the vaccine efficacy, i.e. 1-Itest/Inon-flu ctrl, where I stands for the incidence of influenza.~Absolute efficacy of TIV-adj is at most 40% (i.e. the probability of an influenza in the test group relative to that in the non-flu vaccine group is at least 0.6)"||93.16|49.24|
90896937|NCT00279201|181660276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Pre Meals Blood Glucose.|ANOVA|ANOVA with met goal/did not meet goal, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||<0.001
90896938|NCT00279201|181660276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Post Meals Blood Glucose.|ANOVA|ANOVA with met goal/did not meet goal, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||<0.001
90896939|NCT00279201|181660276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Average of All Blood Glucose.|ANOVA|ANOVA with met goal/did not meet goal, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||<0.001
91091594|NCT00644059|182067028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|95.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|80.92|98.94|||Poisson Regression Model|||"Absolute vaccine efficacy (VE) was calculated as (1- the relative risk)100%. Relative Risk for virus-confirmed symptomatic influenza illness in the TIV-adj group vs. the non-flu control group. VE denotes the vaccine efficacy, i.e. 1-Itest/Inon-flu ctrl, where I stands for the incidence of influenza.~Absolute efficacy of TIV-adj is at most 40% (i.e. the probability of an influenza in the test group relative to that in the non-flu vaccine group is at least 0.6)"||98.94|80.92|
91091595|NCT00644059|182067028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.73|||Mantel Haenszel|||Relative efficacy for TIV-adj was to be calculated as VE = (1-Itest/Ictrl)100%, where I is the incidence of influenza, i.e. percentage of subjects with virus-confirmed symptomatic influenza A or B illness, in the investigational agent (TIV-adj) group or in the flu vaccine control group.||0.73|0.13|
91091596|NCT00644059|182067028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.38|||Mantel Haenszel|||Relative efficacy for TIV-adj was to be calculated as VE = (1-Itest/Ictrl)100%, where I is the incidence of influenza, i.e. percentage of subjects with virus-confirmed symptomatic influenza A or B illness, in the investigational agent (TIV-adj) group or in the flu vaccine control group.||0.38|0.02|
91091597|NCT00644059|182067029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||vaccine Efficacy|79.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.78|90.42|||Poisson Regression Model|||"Absolute vaccine efficacy (VE) was calculated as (1- the relative risk)100%. Relative Risk for virus-confirmed symptomatic influenza illness in the TIV-adj group vs. the non-flu control group. VE denotes the vaccine efficacy, i.e. 1-Itest/Inon-flu ctrl, where I stands for the population average incidence of influenza.~Absolute efficacy of TIV-adj is at most 40% (i.e. the probability of an influenza in the test group relative to that in the non-flu vaccine group is at least 0.6)"||90.42|54.78|
91091598|NCT00644059|182067029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|92.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|77.35|97.24|||Poisson Regression Model|||Absolute vaccine efficacy (VE) was calculated as (1- the relative risk)100%. Relative Risk for virus-confirmed symptomatic influenza illness in the TIV-adj group vs. the non-flu control group. VE denotes the vaccine efficacy, i.e. 1-Itest/Inon-flu ctrl, where I stands for the incidence of influenza. Absolute efficacy of TIV-adj is at most 40% (i.e. the probability of an influenza in the test group relative to that in the non-flu vaccine group is at least 0.6)||97.24|77.35|
91091599|NCT00644059|182067029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|64.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.21|83.28|||Poisson Regression Model|||Relative efficacy for TIV-adj was to be calculated as VE = (1-Itest/Ictrl)100%, where I is the incidence of influenza, i.e. percentage of subjects with virus-confirmed symptomatic influenza A or B illness, in the investigational agent (TIV-adj) group or in the flu vaccine control group.||83.28|23.21|
91091600|NCT00644059|182067029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|85.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.95|94.99|||Poisson Regression Model|||Relative efficacy for TIV-adj was to be calculated as VE = (1-Itest/Ictrl)100%, where I is the incidence of influenza, i.e. percentage of subjects with virus-confirmed symptomatic influenza A or B illness, in the investigational agent (TIV-adj) group or in the flu vaccine control group.||94.99|58.95|
90896940|NCT00279201|181660276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Fasting Blood Glucose.|ANOVA|ANOVA with met goal/did not meet goal, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||<0.001
90896941|NCT00279201|181660277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Sulfonylurea/Metformin.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country only.||||||<0.001
90896942|NCT00279201|181660277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for TZD/Metformin.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country only.||||||<0.001
90896943|NCT00279201|181660277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.969||95.0||||P-value is for Sulfonylurea/TZD.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country only.||||||0.969
90896944|NCT00279201|181660277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.225||95.0||||P-value is for Patients with 3 drugs (Sulfonylurea/TZD/Metformin).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country only.||||||0.225
90896945|NCT00279201|181660278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.204||95.0||||P-value is for Week 0.|ANOVA|ANCOVA used with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in the model.||||||0.204
90896946|NCT00279201|181660278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA used with treatment, baseline HbA1c, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in the model.||||||0.004
90896947|NCT00279201|181660278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.657||95.0||||P-value is for Week 24.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA used with treatment, baseline HbA1c, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in the model.||||||0.657
90896948|NCT00279201|181660278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.595||95.0||||P-value is for Week 36.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA used with treatment, baseline HbA1c, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in the model.||||||0.595
90896949|NCT00279201|181660278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.142||95.0||||P-value for Week 48.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA used with treatment, baseline HbA1c, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in the model.||||||0.142
90896950|NCT00279201|181660278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.551||95.0||||P-value for Week 60.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA used with treatment, baseline HbA1c, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in the model.||||||0.551
90896951|NCT00279201|181660278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.779||95.0||||P-value is for Week 72.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA used with treatment, baseline HbA1c, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in the model.||||||0.779
90896952|NCT00279201|181660278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.175||95.0||||P-value is for Week 84.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA used with treatment, baseline HbA1c, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in the model.||||||0.175
90896953|NCT00279201|181660278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018||95.0||||P-value for Week 96.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA used with treatment, baseline HbA1c, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in the model.||||||0.018
90896954|NCT00279201|181660278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047||95.0||||P-value is for Week 108.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA used with treatment, baseline HbA1c, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in the model.||||||0.047
90896955|NCT00279201|181660278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027||95.0||||P-value is for Week 120.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA used with treatment, baseline HbA1c, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in the model.||||||0.027
90896956|NCT00279201|181660278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017||95.0||||P-value is for Endpoint.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA used with treatment, baseline HbA1c, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in the model.||||||0.017
90896957|NCT00279201|181660279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.218||95.0||||P-value for Baseline mean fasting blood glucose.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.218
90896958|NCT00279201|181660279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Endpoint mean fasting blood glucose.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD + Sulfo use.||||||<0.001
90896959|NCT00279201|181660279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.897||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline AM 2-hour (hr) postprandial.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.897
90896960|NCT00279201|181660279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.138||95.0||||P-value is for Endpoint AM 2-hour postprandial.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD + Sulfo use.||||||0.138
90957272|NCT00467350|181794225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|"Similar to previous studies, the main outcome measure was the change in the child's main symptom. Changes were determined by the question Has your child's main symptom improved, stayed the same or gotten worse? The main symptom was defined as the chief complaint identified during the triage process. For analysis, responses were dichotomized into 2 groups: improved/better versus worse/same."|||||||||||||||||A χ2 test was used to examine the difference in probabilities of experiencing an outcome between treatment arms and differences were expressed by Mantel-Haenszel common OR estimate with 95% confidence interval (CI).|||
90957273|NCT03616977|181794241|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence will be concluded if the 2-sided 90% Confidence Interval is completely contained within the interval (0.80, 1.25).|Ratio of geometric least squares means|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.961|1.06||||||||1.06|0.961|
90957274|NCT00515853|181794244|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Regression, Linear|||CCI final||||0.54
91091601|NCT00644059|182067035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT[A/Brisbane/2007 (A/H1N1)]|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.02|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 1 for strain A/Brisbane/2007 (A/H1N1) in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<36 months by HI assay.||1.02|0.67|
90896961|NCT00279201|181660279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.867||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline midday premeal blood glucose.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.867
91091602|NCT00644059|182067035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT[A/Brisbane/2007 (A/H1N1)]|7.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.42|11.0|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 29 for strain A/Brisbane/2007 (A/H1N1) in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<36 months by HI assay.||11|5.42|
90896962|NCT00279201|181660279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031||95.0||||P-value is for Endpoint midday premeal blood.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD + Sulfo use.||||||0.031
90896963|NCT00279201|181660279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.792||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline midday 2hr postprandial.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.792
90896964|NCT00279201|181660279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51||95.0||||P-value is for Endpoint midday 2hr postprandial.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD + Sulfo use.||||||0.510
90896965|NCT00279201|181660279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.535||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline PM pre-meal blood glucose.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.535
90896966|NCT00279201|181660279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.517||95.0||||P-value is for Endpoint PM pre-meal blood glucose.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD + Sulfo use.||||||0.517
90896967|NCT00279201|181660279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.869||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline PM 2hr postprandial.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.869
90896968|NCT00279201|181660279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Endpoint PM 2hr postprandial.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD + Sulfo use.||||||<0.001
90896969|NCT00279201|181660279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.164||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline 3AM blood glucose.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.164
90896970|NCT00279201|181660279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.234||95.0||||P-value is for Endpoint 3AM blood glucose.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD + Sulfo use.||||||0.234
90896971|NCT00279201|181660279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.175||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline AM 2hr excursion.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.175
90896972|NCT00279201|181660279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Endpoint AM 2hr excursion.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD + Sulfo use.||||||<0.001
90896973|NCT00279201|181660279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.589||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline midday 2hr excursion.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.589
90896974|NCT00279201|181660279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.161||95.0||||P-value is for Endpoint midday 2hr excursion.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD + Sulfo use.||||||0.161
90896975|NCT00279201|181660279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.674||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline PM 2hr excursion.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.674
90896976|NCT00279201|181660279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Endpoint PM 2hr excursion.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD + Sulfo use.||||||<0.001
90896977|NCT00279201|181660279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.201||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline mean all meal time excursions.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.201
90896978|NCT00279201|181660279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Endpoint mean all meal time excursions.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD + Sulfo use.||||||<0.001
90896979|NCT00279201|181660279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.956||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline mean of all 2hr postprandial.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.956
90896980|NCT00279201|181660279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019||95.0||||P-value is for Endpoint mean of all 2hr postprandial.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD + Sulfo use.||||||0.019
90896981|NCT00279201|181660279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.445||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline mean all premeal.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.445
91091603|NCT00644059|182067035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT[A/Brisbane/2007 (A/H1N1)]|15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|21.0|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 50 for strain A/Brisbane/2007 (A/H1N1) in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<36 months by HI assay||21|11|
91091604|NCT00644059|182067035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT[A/Brisbane/2007 (A/H1N1)]|6.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.83|8.68|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 181 for strain A/Brisbane/2007 (A/H1N1) in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<36 months by HI assay||8.68|4.83|
90896982|NCT00279201|181660279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.371||95.0||||P-value is for Endpoint mean all premeal.|ANOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD + Sulfo use.||||||0.371
90896983|NCT00279201|181660279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.848||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline combined AM/PM 2hr postprandial.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.848
90839167|NCT04825678|181545968|OTHER||LSM|43.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.63|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.06|48.44||P-value is nominal to compare the mean change from Baseline at Week 24 to zero.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Adjusted analysis utilizes a generalized linear mixed model which includes Baseline TSQM overall satisfaction scale score, visit, the prevailing erenumab dose from Week 12 onwards, observed Baseline MMD, and selected Baseline characteristics as covariates and assumes a first-order auto regression covariance structure.||48.44|38.06|< 0.001
90839168|NCT04825678|181545977|OTHER|Adjusted analysis utilizes a generalized linear mixed model which includes Baseline function domain score, visit, the prevailing erenumab dose from Week 12 onwards, observed Baseline MMD, and selected Baseline characteristics as covariates and assumes a first-order auto regression covariance structure.|LSM|-44.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.39|-40.41||P-value is nominal to compare the mean change from Baseline at Week 24 to zero.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Continued SoC: Physical Function Domain||-40.41|-49.39|< 0.001
90896984|NCT00279201|181660279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-value is for Endpoint combined AM/PM 2hr postprandial.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD + Sulfo use.||||||0.002
90896985|NCT00279201|181660279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.281||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline AM/PM 2hr postprandial excursion.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.281
90896986|NCT00279201|181660279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Endpoint AM/PM 2hr postprandial excursion.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD + Sulfo use.||||||<0.001
90896987|NCT00279201|181660279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.588||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline mean all blood glucose values.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.588
90896988|NCT00279201|181660279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.217||95.0||||P-value is for Endpoint mean all blood glucose values.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD + Sulfo use.||||||0.217
90896989|NCT00279201|181660280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA used with treatment, Baseline HbA1c, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in the model.||||||0.300
90896990|NCT00279201|181660281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.134||95.0||||P-value for \<=7.0%.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistic controlling for country, TZD use, and sulfo use.||||||0.134
90896991|NCT00279201|181660281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.089||95.0||||P-value is for \<7.0%|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistic controlling for country, TZD use, and sulfo use.||||||0.089
90896992|NCT00279201|181660281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.235||95.0||||P-value is for \<=6.5%.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistic controlling for country, TZD use, and sulfo use.||||||0.235
90896993|NCT00279201|181660282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Change from baseline at Week 24.|ANCOVA|Model: Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + sulfonylurea use.||||||<0.001
90896994|NCT00279201|181660282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Change from baseline at Week 36.|ANCOVA|Model: Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + sulfonylurea use.||||||<0.001
90896995|NCT00279201|181660282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Change from baseline at Week 48.|ANCOVA|Model: Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + sulfonylurea use.||||||<0.001
90896996|NCT00279201|181660282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Change from baseline at Week 60.|ANCOVA|Model: Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + sulfonylurea use.||||||<0.001
90896997|NCT00279201|181660282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Change from baseline at Week 72.|ANCOVA|Model: Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + sulfonylurea use.||||||<0.001
90896998|NCT00279201|181660282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Change from baseline at Week 84.|ANCOVA|Model: Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + sulfonylurea use.||||||<0.001
91091605|NCT00644059|182067035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT[A/Brisbane/2007 (A/H3N2)]|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.21|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 1 for strain A/Brisbane/2007 (A/H3N2) in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<36 months by HI assay.||1.21|0.85|
90896999|NCT00279201|181660282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Change from baseline at Week 96.|ANCOVA|Model: Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + sulfonylurea use.||||||<0.001
90897000|NCT00279201|181660282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Change from baseline at Week 108|ANCOVA|Model: Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + sulfonylurea use.||||||<0.001
90897001|NCT00279201|181660282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-value is for Change from baseline at Week 120.|ANCOVA|Model: Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + sulfonylurea use.||||||0.002
90897002|NCT00279201|181660282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Change from baseline at Endpoint.|ANCOVA|Model: Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + sulfonylurea use.||||||<0.001
90897003|NCT00279201|181660283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.128||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.128
90897004|NCT00279201|181660283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Week 24.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + Sulfo Use.||||||<0.001
90897005|NCT00279201|181660283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Week 36.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + Sulfo Use.||||||<0.001
90897006|NCT00279201|181660283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Week 48.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + Sulfo Use.||||||<0.001
90897007|NCT00279201|181660283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Week 60.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + Sulfo Use.||||||<0.001
90897008|NCT00279201|181660283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Week 72.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + Sulfo Use.||||||<0.001
90897009|NCT00279201|181660283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Week 84.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + Sulfo Use.||||||<0.001
90897010|NCT00279201|181660283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Week 96.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + Sulfo Use.||||||<0.001
90897011|NCT00279201|181660283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Week 108.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + Sulfo Use.||||||<0.001
90897012|NCT00279201|181660283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-value is for Week 120.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + Sulfo Use.||||||0.002
90897013|NCT00279201|181660283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Endpoint.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + Sulfo Use.||||||<0.001
90897014|NCT00279201|181660284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Week 24.|ANOVA|Model: Treatment + Country + TZD use + sulfonylurea use.||||||<0.001
90897015|NCT00279201|181660284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Week 36.|ANOVA|Model: Treatment + Country + TZD use + sulfonylurea use.||||||<0.001
90897016|NCT00279201|181660284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Week 48.|ANOVA|Model: Treatment + Country + TZD use + sulfonylurea use.||||||<0.001
90897017|NCT00279201|181660284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Week 60.|ANOVA|Model: Treatment + Country + TZD use + sulfonylurea use.||||||<0.001
90897018|NCT00279201|181660284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Week 72.|ANOVA|Model: Treatment + Country + TZD use + sulfonylurea use.||||||<0.001
90897019|NCT00279201|181660284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Week 84.|ANOVA|Model: Treatment + Country + TZD use + sulfonylurea use.||||||<0.001
90897020|NCT00279201|181660284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Week 96.|ANOVA|Model: Treatment + Country + TZD use + sulfonylurea use.||||||<0.001
91091606|NCT00644059|182067035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT[A/Brisbane/2007 (A/H3N2)]|9.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.76|12.0|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 29 for strain A/Brisbane/2007 (A/H3N2) in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<36 months by HI assay.||12|7.76|
91091607|NCT00644059|182067035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT[A/Brisbane/2007 (A/H3N2)]|16.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|20.0|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 50 for strain A/Brisbane/2007 (A/H3N2) in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<36 months by HI assay.||20|12|
90897021|NCT00279201|181660284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Week 108.|ANOVA|Model: Treatment + Country + TZD use + sulfonylurea use.||||||<0.001
90897022|NCT00279201|181660284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Week 120.|ANOVA|Model: Treatment + Country + TZD use + sulfonylurea use.||||||<0.001
91091608|NCT00644059|182067035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT[A/Brisbane/2007 (A/H3N2)]|4.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.64|6.65|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 181 for strain A/Brisbane/2007 (A/H3N2) in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<36 months by HI assay.||6.65|3.64|
90897023|NCT00279201|181660284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Endpoint.|ANOVA|Model: Treatment + Country + TZD use + sulfonylurea use.||||||<0.001
90897024|NCT00279201|181660285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37||95.0||||P-value is for Overall hypoglycemic episodes endpoint.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistic controlling for country, TZD use, and sulfo use.||||||0.370
90897025|NCT00279201|181660285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0||||P-Value for Overall hypoglycemia episodes.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for country, TZD use, and sulfo use.||||||0.006
90897026|NCT00279201|181660285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.397||95.0||||P-value is for Nocturnal episodes endpoint.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistic controlling for country, TZD use, and sulfo use.||||||0.397
90897027|NCT00279201|181660285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.253||95.0||||P-value is for Nocturnal episodes overall.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for country, TZD use, and sulfo use.||||||0.253
90897028|NCT00279201|181660285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.893||95.0||||P-value is for Severe episodes endpoint.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for country, TZD use, and sulfo use.||||||0.893
90897029|NCT00279201|181660285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.391||95.0||||P-value is for Severe episodes overall.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistic controlling for country, TZD use, and sulfo use.||||||0.391
90897030|NCT00279201|181660286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.497||95.0||||P-value for Hypoglycemia episodes Endpoint.|ANOVA|Response = Treatment + Country + TZD use + Sulfo use.||||||0.497
90897031|NCT00279201|181660286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.071||95.0||||P-value is for Hypoglycemia episodes Overall.|ANOVA|Response = Treatment + Country + TZD use + Sulfo use.||||||0.071
90897032|NCT00279201|181660286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.065||95.0||||P-value is for Nocturnal episodes Endpoint.|ANOVA|Response = Treatment + Country + TZD use + Sulfo use.||||||0.065
90897033|NCT00279201|181660286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021||95.0||||P-value is for Nocturnal episodes Overall.|ANOVA|Response = Treatment + Country + TZD use + Sulfo use.||||||0.021
90897034|NCT00279201|181660286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2||95.0||||P-value is for Severe episodes Endpoint.|ANOVA|Response = Treatment + Country + TZD use + Sulfo use.||||||0.200
90897035|NCT00279201|181660286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.208||95.0||||P-value is for Severe episodes Overall.|ANOVA|Response = Treatment + Country + TZD use + Sulfo use.||||||0.208
90897036|NCT00279201|181660287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0||||P-value is for Change.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline, country, TZD use and sulfo use.||||||0.004
90897037|NCT00279201|181660288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.204||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline at Week 0.|ANOVA|ANOVA used with treatment, country, TZD use and Sulfo use in the model.||||||0.204
90897038|NCT00279201|181660288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017||95.0||||P-Value is for Change from baseline to endpoint.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA used with treatment, Baseline HbA1c, country, TZD use and sulfo use in the model.||||||0.017
90897039|NCT00279201|181660288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0||||P-value is for Change Week 24 to Week 120 endpoint.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA used with treatment, Baseline HbA1c, country, TZD use and sulfo use in the model.||||||0.020
90897040|NCT00279201|181660289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA with maintained goal/did not maintain goal, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.036
90897041|NCT00279201|181660290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.708||95.0|||||ANOVA|From ANOVA with maintained goal/did not maintain goal, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.708
90897042|NCT00279201|181660291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country, TZD use, and Sulfo use.||||||0.028
90897043|NCT00279201|181660292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.738||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by country, TZD use, and sulfo use.||||||0.738
90897044|NCT00279201|181660293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA with maintained goal/did not maintain goal, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||<0.001
91091609|NCT00644059|182067035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT[B/Florida/2006]|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.1|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 1 for strain B/Florida/2006 in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<36 months by HI assay.||1.1|0.91|
91091610|NCT00644059|182067035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT[B/Florida/2006]|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|1.9|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 29 for strain B/Florida/2006 in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<36 months by HI assay.||1.9|1.19|
91091611|NCT00644059|182067035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT[B/Florida/2006]|6.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.72|8.53|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 50 for strain B/Florida/2006 in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<36 months by HI assay.||8.53|5.72|
91091612|NCT00644059|182067035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT[B/Florida/2006]|2.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.44|3.5|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 181 for strain B/Florida/2006 in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<36 months by HI assay.||3.5|2.44|
90839169|NCT04825678|181545977|OTHER|Adjusted analysis utilizes a generalized linear mixed model which includes Baseline function domain score, visit, the prevailing erenumab dose from Week 12 onwards, observed Baseline MMD, and selected Baseline characteristics as covariates and assumes a first-order auto regression covariance structure.|LSM|-54.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.43|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.43|-34.86||P-value is nominal to compare the mean change from Baseline at Week 24 to zero.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Discontinued SoC: Physical Function Domain||-34.86|-73.43|< 0.001
90839170|NCT04825678|181545977|OTHER|Adjusted analysis utilizes a generalized linear mixed model which includes baseline function domain score, visit, the prevailing erenumab dose from Week 12 onwards, observed baseline MMD, and selected baseline characteristics as covariates and assumes a first-order auto regression covariance structure.|LSM|-44.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.99|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.26|-40.44||P-value is nominal to compare the mean change from baseline at Week 24 to zero.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Continued SoC: Usual Activities Domain||-40.44|-48.26|< 0.001
90839171|NCT04825678|181545977|OTHER|Adjusted analysis utilizes a generalized linear mixed model which includes Baseline function domain score, visit, the prevailing erenumab dose from Week 12 onwards, observed Baseline MMD, and selected Baseline characteristics as covariates and assumes a first-order auto regression covariance structure.|LSM|-43.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.47|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.51|-34.08||P-value is nominal to compare the mean change from Baseline at Week 24 to zero.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Discontinued SoC: Usual Activities Domain||-34.08|-53.51|< 0.001
90839172|NCT04825678|181545977|OTHER|Adjusted analysis utilizes a generalized linear mixed model which includes Baseline function domain score, visit, the prevailing erenumab dose from Week 12 onwards, observed Baseline MMD, and selected Baseline characteristics as covariates and assumes a first-order auto regression covariance structure.|LSM|-44.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.16|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.65|-40.14||P-value is nominal to compare the mean change from Baseline at Week 24 to zero.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Continued SoC: Social Function Domain||-40.14|-48.65|< 0.001
90897045|NCT00279201|181660294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.043||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA with maintained goal/did not maintain goal, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.043
90957275|NCT00943111|181794248|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size for study was based on expected stability rates of 95% for the Imiglucerase group and 85% for the Eliglustat group, power of 85%, a one-sided significance level of 0.025, a non-inferiority margin of 25%, and a 20% non-evaluable/drop-out rate. Eliglustat was declared non-inferior to Imiglucerase if the lower-bound of the 95% confidence interval for the difference was within the non-inferiority margin of 25%.|Difference in Percentage Stable|-8.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6|4.2||||||||4.2|-17.6|
90957276|NCT03798691|181794265|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Mann-Whitney U test|||one month after series completion of two dose series||||0.16
90897046|NCT00279201|181660295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country, TZD use, and sulfo use.||||||<0.001
90957277|NCT04548544|181794272|OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||ANOVA|||timepoint × group interaction|timepoint × group interaction F = 0.77, p = 0.38|||0.38
90957278|NCT00728910|181794273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis was that the sequential addition of a fibrate and niacin to baseline atorvastatin therapy would not have any effect on apo-AI catabolism.||||>0.5
91091613|NCT00644059|182067035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT [A/Solomon Islands/2006 (A/H1N1)]|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.04|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 1 for strain A/Solomon Islands/2006 (A/H1N1) in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<36 months by HI assay.||1.04|0.64|
91091614|NCT00644059|182067035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT[A/Solomon Islands/2006 (A/H1N1)]|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.78|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 29 for strain A/Solomon Islands/2006 (A/H1N1) in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<36 months by HI assay.||1.78|0.83|
91091615|NCT00644059|182067035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT [A/Solomon Islands/2006 (A/H1N1]|7.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.33|11.0|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 50 for strain A/Solomon Islands/2006 (A/H1N1) in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<36 months by HI assay.||11|5.33|
91091616|NCT00644059|182067035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT[A/Solomon Islands/2006 (A/H1N1)]|3.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|4.55|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 181 for strain A/Solomon Islands/2006 (A/H1N1) in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<36 months by HI assay.||4.55|2.4|
91091617|NCT00644059|182067035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT [A/Wisconsin/2009 (A/H3N2)]|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.1|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 1 for strain A/Wisconsin/2009 (A/H3N2) in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<36 months by HI assay.||1.1|0.74|
91091618|NCT00644059|182067035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT[A/Wisconsin/2009 (A/H3N2)]|3.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.78|4.51|||GMT|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 29 for strain A/Wisconsin/2009 (A/H3N2) in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<36 months by HI assay.||4.51|2.78|
90897047|NCT00279201|181660296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.032||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country, TZD use, and sulfo use.||||||0.032
90897048|NCT00279201|181660297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.037||95.0||||P-value is for Sulfonylurea/TZD.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country only.||||||0.037
91091619|NCT00644059|182067035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT [A/Wisconsin/2009 (A/H3N2)]|13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|16.0|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 50 for strain A/Wisconsin/2009 (A/H3N2) in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<36 months by HI assay.||16|10|
91091620|NCT00644059|182067035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT [A/Wisconsin/2009 (A/H3N2)]|3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.61|4.95|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 181 for strain A/Wisconsin/2009 (A/H3N2) in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<36 months by HI assay.||4.95|2.61|
91091621|NCT00644059|182067035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT [B/Brisbane/2008]|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.0|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 1 for strain B/Brisbane/2008 in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<36 months by HI assay.||1|1|
91091622|NCT00644059|182067035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT [B/Brisbane/2008]|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.11|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 29 for strain B/Brisbane/2008 in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<36 months by HI assay.||1.11|1.02|
91091623|NCT00644059|182067035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT [B/Brisbane/2008]|1.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|1.92|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 50 for strain B/Brisbane/2008 in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<36 months by HI assay.||1.92|1.57|
91091624|NCT00644059|182067035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT [B/Brisbane/2008]|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.08|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 181 for strain B/Brisbane/2008 in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<36 months by HI assay.||1.08|0.92|
91091625|NCT00644059|182067038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT [A/Brisbane/2007 (A/H1N1)]|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.19|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 1 for strain A/Brisbane/2007 (A/H1N1) in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<72 months by HI assay.||1.19|0.78|
91091626|NCT00644059|182067038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT [A/Brisbane/2007 (A/H1N1)]|6.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.69|8.76|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 29 for strain A/Brisbane/2007 (A/H1N1) in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<72 months by HI assay.||8.76|4.69|
91091627|NCT00644059|182067038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT [A/Brisbane/2007 (A/H1N1)]|8.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.36|11.0|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 50 for strain A/Brisbane/2007 (A/H1N1) in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<72 months by HI assay.||11|6.36|
90839173|NCT04825678|181545977|OTHER|Adjusted analysis utilizes a generalized linear mixed model which includes Baseline function domain score, visit, the prevailing erenumab dose from Week 12 onwards, observed Baseline MMD, and selected Baseline characteristics as covariates and assumes a first-order auto regression covariance structure.|LSM|-45.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.97|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.28|-29.79||P-value is nominal to compare the mean change from Baseline at Week 24 to zero.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Discontinued SoC: Social Function Domain||-29.79|-60.28|< 0.001
90839174|NCT04825678|181545977|OTHER|Adjusted analysis utilizes a generalized linear mixed model which includes Baseline function domain score, visit, the prevailing erenumab dose from Week 12 onwards, observed Baseline MMD, and selected Baseline characteristics as covariates and assumes a first-order auto regression covariance structure.|LSM|-45.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.44|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.29|-40.7||P-value is nominal to compare the mean change from Baseline at Week 24 to zero.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Continued SoC: Emotional Function Domain||-40.70|-50.29|< 0.001
90897049|NCT00279201|181660297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025||95.0||||P-value is for Sulfonylurea/metformin.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country only.||||||0.025
91091628|NCT00644059|182067038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT [A/Brisbane/2007 (A/H1N1)]|4.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.38|5.65|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 181 for strain A/Brisbane/2007 (A/H1N1) in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<72 months by HI assay.||5.65|3.38|
90839175|NCT04825678|181545977|OTHER|Adjusted analysis utilizes a generalized linear mixed model which includes Baseline function domain score, visit, the prevailing erenumab dose from Week 12 onwards, observed Baseline MMD, and selected Baseline characteristics as covariates and assumes a first-order auto regression covariance structure.|LSM|-60.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.98|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-85.16|-34.96||P-value is nominal to compare the mean change from Baseline at Week 24 to zero.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Discontinued SoC: Emotional Function Domain||-34.96|-85.16|< 0.001
90897050|NCT00279201|181660297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.132||95.0||||P-value is for Metformin/TZD.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country only.||||||0.132
90897051|NCT00279201|181660297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.849||95.0||||P-value is for Sulfonylurea/metformin/TZD.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country only.||||||0.849
91091629|NCT00644059|182067038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT [A/Brisbane/2007 (A/H3N2)]|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.35|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 1 for strain A/Brisbane/2007 (A/H3N2) in terms of Geometric Mean Titers GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<72 months by HI assay.||1.35|0.82|
91091630|NCT00644059|182067038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT [A/Brisbane/2007 (A/H3N2)]|6.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.72|8.73|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 29 for strain A/Brisbane/2007 (A/H3N2) in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<72 months by HI assay.||8.73|4.72|
91091631|NCT00644059|182067038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT [A/Brisbane/2007 (A/H3N2)]|7.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.2|10.0|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 50 for strain A/Brisbane/2007 (A/H3N2) in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<72 months by HI assay.||10|6.2|
91091632|NCT00644059|182067038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT [A/Brisbane/2007 (A/H3N2)]|3.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.42|4.05|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 181 for strain A/Brisbane/2007 (A/H3N2) in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<72 months by HI assay.||4.05|2.42|
90897052|NCT00279201|181660298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0||||P-value is for Sulfonylurea/TZD|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country only.||||||0.006
90897053|NCT00279201|181660298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048||95.0||||P-value is for Sulfonylurea/metformin.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country only.||||||0.048
91091633|NCT00644059|182067038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT [B/Florida/2006]|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.05|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 1 for strain B/Florida/2006 in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<72 months by HI assay.||1.05|0.9|
91091634|NCT00644059|182067038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT [B/Florida/2006]|1.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|1.93|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 29 for strain B/Florida/2006 in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<72 months by HI assay.||1.93|1.26|
91091635|NCT00644059|182067038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT [B/Florida/2006]|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.25|5.88|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 50 for strain B/Florida/2006 in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<72 months by HI assay.||5.88|4.25|
91091636|NCT00644059|182067038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT [B/Florida/2006]|2.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.22|2.93|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 181 for strain B/Florida/2006 in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<72 months by HI assay.||2.93|2.22|
91091637|NCT00644059|182067038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT [A/Solomon Islands/2006 (A/H1N1)]|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.22|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day1 for strain A/Solomon Islands/2006 (A/H1N1) in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<72 months by HI assay.||1.22|0.75|
91091638|NCT00644059|182067038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT [A/Solomon Islands/2006 (A/H1N1)]|1.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|2.51|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 29 for strain A/Solomon Islands/2006 (A/H1N1) in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<72 months by HI assay.||2.51|1.17|
91091639|NCT00644059|182067038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT [A/Solomon Islands/2006 (A/H1N1)]|5.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.08|7.63|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 50 for strain A/Solomon Islands/2006 (A/H1N1) in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<72 months by HI assay.||7.63|4.08|
91091640|NCT00644059|182067038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT [A/Solomon Islands/2006 (A/H1N1)]|3.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|4.2|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 181 for strain A/Solomon Islands/2006 (A/H1N1) in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<72 months by HI assay.||4.2|2.3|
91091641|NCT00644059|182067038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT [A/Wisconsin/2009 (A/H3N2)]|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.3|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 1 for strain A/Wisconsin/2009 (A/H3N2) in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<72 months by HI assay.||1.3|0.74|
91091642|NCT00644059|182067038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT [A/Wisconsin/2009 (A/H3N2)]|3.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.19|4.49|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 29 for strain A/Wisconsin/2009 (A/H3N2) in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<72 months by HI assay.||4.49|2.19|
91091643|NCT00644059|182067038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT [A/Wisconsin/2009 (A/H3N2)]|7.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.51|9.82|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 50 for strain A/Wisconsin/2009 (A/H3N2) in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<72 months by HI assay.||9.82|5.51|
91091644|NCT00644059|182067038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT [A/Wisconsin/2009 (A/H3N2)]|2.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|3.55|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 181 for strain A/Wisconsin/2009 (A/H3N2) in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<72 months by HI assay.||3.55|2|
90839176|NCT04825678|181545978|OTHER|Adjusted analysis utilizes a generalized linear mixed model which includes Baseline function domain score, visit, the prevailing erenumab dose from Week 12 onwards, observed Baseline MMD, and selected Baseline characteristics as covariates and assumes a first-order auto regression covariance structure.|LSM|-34.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.69|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.72|-27.03||P-value is nominal to compare the mean change from Baseline at Week 24 to zero.|Mixed Models Analysis|||EM: Physical Function Domain||-27.03|-41.72|< 0.001
91091645|NCT00644059|182067038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT [B/Brisbane/2008]|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.01|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 1 for strain B/Brisbane/2008 in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<72 months by HI assay.||1.01|0.98|
91091646|NCT00644059|182067038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT [B/Brisbane/2008]|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.22|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 29 for strain B/Brisbane/2008 in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<72 months by HI assay.||1.22|1.05|
91091647|NCT00644059|182067038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT [B/Brisbane/2008]|1.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.63|1.97|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 50 for strain B/Brisbane/2008 in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<72 months by HI assay.||1.97|1.63|
91091648|NCT00644059|182067038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT [B/Brisbane/2008]|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.17|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 181 for strain B/Brisbane/2008 in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<72 months by HI assay.||1.17|1|
91091649|NCT02497469|182067061|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|8.8||||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|15.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||||P-value of the adjusted difference was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method, stratified by concomitant use of oral corticosteroids (Yes/No) and prior use of TNF-alpha antagonist (Yes/No) or the Fisher's exact method if the numerator was \<=5.|15.0|2.5|0.0061
91091650|NCT02497469|182067062|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|11.9||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|18.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||||P-value of the adjusted difference was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method, stratified by concomitant use of oral corticosteroids (Yes/No) and prior use of TNF-alpha antagonist (Yes/No) or the Fisher's exact method if the numerator was \<=5.|18.5|5.3|0.0005
91091651|NCT02497469|182067063|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-9.3||||0.0641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9|0.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||||P-value of the adjusted difference was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method, stratified by prior use of TNF-alpha antagonist (Yes/No) or the Fisher's exact method if the numerator was \<=5.|0.4|-18.9|0.0641
91091652|NCT03558516|182067064|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.315|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.315
91091653|NCT03558516|182067065|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.270
91091654|NCT03558516|182067066|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.299|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.299
91091655|NCT02449434|182067076|OTHER|Using the presence or absence of severe erosive wear as the dependent variable, the unadjusted, sex-and-age- adjusted and fully adjusted associations of the included variables with erosive tooth wear were estimated using unconditional binary logistic regression and reported using odds ratios (OR).|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.25|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Only results from fully adjusted regression models will be deemed as significant|Regression, Logistic|Unconditional binary logistic regression and reported using odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals||A minimum sample size of 490 participants (245 in each group) was needed. This calculation assumed the proportion of adults with high dietary acid intake (3+ times/day) was 55% among cases and 40% among controls (expected odds ratio of 2.25), case- control ratio of 1-to-1, 90% statistical power and 95% significance level.||||<0.05
90839177|NCT04825678|181545978|OTHER|Adjusted analysis utilizes a generalized linear mixed model which includes Baseline function domain score, visit, the prevailing erenumab dose from Week 12 onwards, observed Baseline MMD, and selected Baseline characteristics as covariates and assumes a first-order auto regression covariance structure.|LSM|-49.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.48|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.44|-44.69||P-value is nominal to compare the mean change from Baseline at Week 24 to zero.|Mixed Models Analysis|||CM: Physical Function Domain||-44.69|-54.44|< 0.001
90839178|NCT04825678|181545978|OTHER|Adjusted analysis utilizes a generalized linear mixed model which includes baseline function domain score, visit, the prevailing erenumab dose from Week 12 onwards, observed baseline MMD, and selected baseline characteristics as covariates and assumes a first-order auto regression covariance structure.|LSM|-35.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.88|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.47|-30.06||P-value is nominal to compare the mean change from baseline at Week 24 to zero.|Mixed Models Analysis|||EM: Usual Activities Domain||-30.06|-41.47|< 0.001
90839179|NCT04825678|181545978|OTHER|Adjusted analysis utilizes a generalized linear mixed model which includes Baseline function domain score, visit, the prevailing erenumab dose from Week 12 onwards, observed Baseline MMD, and selected Baseline characteristics as covariates and assumes a first-order auto regression covariance structure.|LSM|-46.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.23|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.1|-42.29||P-value is nominal to compare the mean change from Baseline at Week 24 to zero.|Mixed Models Analysis|||CM: Usual Activities Domain||-42.29|-51.10|< 0.001
90897054|NCT00279201|181660298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.258||95.0||||P-value is for Metformin/TZD.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country only.||||||0.258
90897055|NCT00279201|181660298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.848||95.0||||P-value is for Sulfonylurea/metformin/TZD.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country only.||||||0.848
91028037|NCT02978326|181939759|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.1069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|3.3||Generalized estimating equations for binary response model was used for estimation with factors for treatment, baseline MADRS total score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction.|GEE for binary response model|||Percentage of Participants With MADRS Response at Day 8||3.30|0.89|0.1069
91028038|NCT02978326|181939759|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.67||||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|5.27||Generalized estimating equations for binary response model was used for estimation with factors for treatment, baseline MADRS total score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction.|GEE for binary response model|||Percentage of Participants With MADRS Response at Day 15||5.27|1.36|0.0045
91028039|NCT02978326|181939759|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.01||||0.0421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|3.93||Generalized estimating equations for binary response model was used for estimation with factors for treatment, baseline MADRS total score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction.|GEE for binary response model|||Percentage of Participants With MADRS Response at Day 21||3.93|1.03|0.0421
90839180|NCT04825678|181545978|OTHER|Adjusted analysis utilizes a generalized linear mixed model which includes Baseline function domain score, visit, the prevailing erenumab dose from Week 12 onwards, observed Baseline MMD, and selected Baseline characteristics as covariates and assumes a first-order auto regression covariance structure.|LSM|-36.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.89|-29.96||P-value is nominal to compare the mean change from Baseline at Week 24 to zero.|Mixed Models Analysis|||EM: Social Function Domain||-29.96|-42.89|< 0.001
90839181|NCT04825678|181545978|OTHER|Adjusted analysis utilizes a generalized linear mixed model which includes Baseline function domain score, visit, the prevailing erenumab dose from Week 12 onwards, observed Baseline MMD, and selected Baseline characteristics as covariates and assumes a first-order auto regression covariance structure.|LSM|-46.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.41|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.49|-41.98||P-value is nominal to compare the mean change from Baseline at Week 24 to zero.|Mixed Models Analysis|||CM: Social Function Domain||-41.98|-51.49|< 0.001
90897056|NCT00279201|181660299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA with maintained goal/did not maintain goal, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.004
90897057|NCT00279201|181660300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.553||95.0|||||ANOVA|From ANOVA with maintained goal/did not maintain goal, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.553
90957279|NCT00728910|181794274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The null hypothesis was that sequential addition of fibrate and niacin to baseline atorvastatin therapy would have no effect on apo-A1 production rates||||>0.5
91028040|NCT02978326|181939759|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.99||||0.0541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|4.03||Generalized estimating equations for binary response model was used for estimation with factors for treatment, baseline MADRS total score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction.|GEE for binary response model|||Percentage of Participants With MADRS Response at Day 45||4.03|0.99|0.0541
91091656|NCT02737722|182067078|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5152|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 1 (Visit 2)||||0.5152
91028041|NCT02978326|181939760|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.84||||0.0326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|7.38||Generalized estimating equations for binary response model was used for estimation with factors for treatment, baseline MADRS total score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction.|GEE for binary response model|||Percentage of Participants With MADRS Remission at Day 3||7.38|1.09|0.0326
91028042|NCT02978326|181939760|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.3749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|2.79||Generalized estimating equations for binary response model was used for estimation with factors for treatment, baseline MADRS total score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction.|GEE for binary response model|||Percentage of Participants With MADRS Remission at Day 8||2.79|0.68|0.3749
91091657|NCT02737722|182067078|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 1 (Visit 2)||||1.0000
90839182|NCT04825678|181545978|OTHER|Adjusted analysis utilizes a generalized linear mixed model which includes Baseline function domain score, visit, the prevailing erenumab dose from Week 12 onwards, observed Baseline MMD, and selected Baseline characteristics as covariates and assumes a first-order auto regression covariance structure.|LSM|-41.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.04|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.47|-33.4||P-value is nominal to compare the mean change from Baseline at Week 24 to zero.|Mixed Models Analysis|||EM: Emotional Function Domain||-33.40|-49.47|< 0.001
90839183|NCT04825678|181545978|OTHER|Adjusted analysis utilizes a generalized linear mixed model which includes Baseline function domain score, visit, the prevailing erenumab dose from Week 12 onwards, observed Baseline MMD, and selected Baseline characteristics as covariates and assumes a first-order auto regression covariance structure.|LSM|-47.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.68|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.95|-42.39||P-value is nominal to compare the mean change from Baseline at Week 24 to zero.|Mixed Models Analysis|||CM: Emotional Function Domain||-42.39|-52.95|< 0.001
91091658|NCT02737722|182067078|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 2 (Visit 3)||||1.0000
91091659|NCT02737722|182067078|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 2 (Visit 3)||||1.0000
91091660|NCT02737722|182067078|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 9 (Visit 4)||||1.0000
91091661|NCT02737722|182067078|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 9 (Visit 4)||||1.0000
91091662|NCT02737722|182067078|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 15 (Visit 5)||||1.0000
91091663|NCT02737722|182067078|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3636|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 15 (Visit 5)||||0.3636
91091664|NCT02737722|182067079|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.172|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.172
91091665|NCT02737722|182067079|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.365|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.365
91091666|NCT02737722|182067079|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.619|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.619
91091667|NCT02737722|182067080|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.432|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.432
91091668|NCT02737722|182067080|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.435|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.435
91091669|NCT02737722|182067080|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.715|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.715
91091670|NCT02737722|182067081|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.519|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.519
91091671|NCT02737722|182067081|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.519|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.519
91091672|NCT02737722|182067081|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.153|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.153
90839184|NCT02344108|181545983|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90839185|NCT02344108|181545984|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90839186|NCT02344108|181545985|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.035
90839187|NCT02344108|181545986|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.083|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.083
90897058|NCT00279201|181660301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0||||P-value is for Mean of all post meals blood glucose.|ANOVA|ANOVA with maintained goal/did not maintain goal, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.010
91091673|NCT02737722|182067082|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.464|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.464
90839188|NCT02344108|181545987|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0021|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0021
90897059|NCT00279201|181660301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035||95.0||||P-value is for Average of all blood glucose.|ANOVA|ANOVA with maintained goal/did not maintain goal, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.035
91091674|NCT02737722|182067082|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.464|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.464
91091675|NCT02737722|182067082|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.465|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.465
91091676|NCT02737722|182067083|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.361|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.361
91091677|NCT02737722|182067083|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.519|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.519
91091678|NCT02737722|182067083|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.153|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.153
91091679|NCT02737722|182067084|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.465|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.465
91091680|NCT02737722|182067084|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.464|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.464
91091681|NCT02737722|182067084|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.465|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.465
91091682|NCT02737722|182067086|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.465|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.465
91091683|NCT02737722|182067086|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.464|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.464
91091684|NCT02737722|182067086|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.465|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.465
91091685|NCT04465422|182067103|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|5.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Anaiysis 1 is according to Occupational Performance History Interview - II (OPHI-II) total score.||5.55|1.65|<0.001
91091686|NCT04465422|182067103|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|2.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Analysis 2 is based on Occupational Identity(range 11\~44；higher scores indicates better performance), a sub-domain of OPHI-II. The Occupational Identity scale is designed to measure the degree to which a client has internalized a positive occupational identity (i.e., has values, interests, and confidence; sees self in various occupational roles; has an image of the kind of life desired)||2.37|0.23|0.019
91091687|NCT04465422|182067103|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|2.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Analysis 3 is based on Occupational Competence(range 9\~36；higher scores indicate better performance), a sub-domain of OPHI-II. The Occupational Competence scale is designed to measure the degree to which a client is able to sustain a pattern of occupational behavior that is productive and satisfying.||2.11|0.38|0.006
91091688|NCT04465422|182067103|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|1.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Analysis 4 is based on Occupational Behavior Settings(range 9\~36；higher scores indicate greater performance), a sub-domain of OPHI-II. The Occupational Behavior Settings scale addresses the impact of the environment on the person's occupational life.||1.35|-0.19|0.136
91091689|NCT04465422|182067104|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.53||0.592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|2.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Analysis 1 is based on Lawton Instrumental Activities Daily Living (range 0\~23；the higher scores indicate greater performance) total scores.||2.25|-3.90|0.592
90839189|NCT02344108|181545988|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.764|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.764
90839190|NCT02344108|181545989|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90839191|NCT02344108|181545990|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.467|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.467
90839192|NCT02344108|181545991|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.745|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.745
90839193|NCT02344108|181545992|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.106|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.106
90839194|NCT02344108|181545993|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91028043|NCT02978326|181939760|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.49||||0.0087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|4.92||Generalized estimating equations for binary response model was used for estimation with factors for treatment, baseline MADRS total score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction.|GEE for binary response model|||Percentage of Participants With MADRS Remission at Day 15||4.92|1.26|0.0087
91028044|NCT02978326|181939760|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.18||||0.0257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|4.31||Generalized estimating equations for binary response model was used for estimation with factors for treatment, baseline MADRS total score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction.|GEE for binary response model|||Percentage of Participants With MADRS Remission at Day 21||4.31|1.10|0.0257
91028045|NCT02978326|181939760|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.08||||0.0339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|4.09||Generalized estimating equations for binary response model was used for estimation with factors for treatment, baseline MADRS total score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction.|GEE for binary response model|||Percentage of Participants With MADRS Remission at Day 45||4.09|1.06|0.0339
91028046|NCT03748641|181939771|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.729||||0.0217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.556|0.956|||Log Rank|||||0.956|0.556|0.0217
91028047|NCT03748641|181939772|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.533||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.361|0.789|||Log Rank|||||0.789|0.361|0.0014
91028048|NCT00926289|181939797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.5|||<|0.0001||95.0|-10.6|-6.4|||ANCOVA|Fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, country with the continuous covariates of baseline and baseline-by-week interaction||T80+HCTZ25 versus T80 monotherapy||-6.4|-10.6|<0.0001
91028049|NCT00926289|181939798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.3|||<|0.0001||95.0|-9.3|-5.2|||ANCOVA|Fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, country with the continuous covariates of baseline and baseline-by-week interaction||T80+HCTZ25 versus T80 monotherapy||-5.2|-9.3|<0.0001
91028050|NCT00926289|181939799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.8|||<|0.0001||95.0|-8.8|-4.7|||ANCOVA|Fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, country with the continuous covariates of baseline and baseline-by-week interaction||T80+HCTZ25 versus T80 monotherapy||-4.7|-8.8|<0.0001
91028051|NCT00926289|181939800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.2|||<|0.0001||95.0|-4.5|-1.9|||ANCOVA|Fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, country with the continuous covariates of baseline and baseline-by-week interaction||T80+HCTZ25 versus T80 monotherapy||-1.9|-4.5|<0.0001
91028052|NCT00926289|181939801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.36|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.74|3.21|||Regression, Logistic|Adjustment for continuous covariate of baseline, treatment and country as fixed effects.||T80+HCTZ25 versus T80 monotherapy||3.21|1.74|<0.0001
90839195|NCT02344108|181545994|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90839196|NCT02344108|181545995|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90839197|NCT00911170|181546045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.41||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.86|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The p-value is adjusted for the randomization stratification factors (chemotherapy regimen, geographic region, disease stage).|Odds ratio adjusted for the randomization stratification factors. An OR \< 1.0 indicates a lower event rate for the pegfilgrastim arm relative to the placebo arm.|The primary hypothesis was that the percentage of participants treated with study chemotherapy and bevacizumab who experience grade 3/4 febrile neutropenia (FN) would be lower in participants randomized to the pegfilgrastim arm compared to placebo arm. The study was designed to have at least 90% power at the 2-sided 0.05 significance level to detect a 6% difference in incidence of grade 3/4 FN from 9% to 3%, which is approximately a 66.7% relative reduction.||0.86|0.19|0.014
90839198|NCT00911170|181546046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.36|||Log Rank|P-values based on the log-rank test statistic from the Kaplan-Meier survival analysis stratified by the 3 randomization factors.|Based on Cox proportional Hazard model stratified by chemotherapy regimen, region and disease status. A HR\< 1.0 indicates a lower average event rate and a longer survival time for the pegfilgrastim arm relative to the placebo arm.|||1.36|0.81|0.704
91028053|NCT00926289|181939802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.7|3.12|||Regression, Logistic|Adjustment for continuous covariate of baseline, treatment and country as fixed effects.||T80+HCTZ25 versus T80 monotherapy||3.12|1.70|<0.0001
91028054|NCT00926289|181939803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.19|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.6|3.01|||Regression, Logistic|Adjustment for continuous covariate of baseline, treatment and country as fixed effects.||T80+HCTZ25 versus T80 monotherapy||3.01|1.60|<0.0001
91028055|NCT00926289|181939804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.46|2.73|||Regression, Logistic|Adjustment for continuous covariate of baseline, treatment and country as fixed effects.||T80+HCTZ25 versus T80 monotherapy||2.73|1.46|<0.0001
91028056|NCT00926289|181939805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.02|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.48|2.76|||Regression, Logistic|Adjustment for continuous covariate of baseline, treatment and country as fixed effects.||T80+HCTZ25 versus T80 monotherapy||2.76|1.48|<0.0001
91028057|NCT00926289|181939806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74||||0.0005||95.0|1.28|2.37|||Regression, Logistic|Adjustment for continuous covariate of baseline and fixed effect country||T80+HCTZ25 versus T80 monotherapy||2.37|1.28|0.0005
91028058|NCT00926289|181939807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.39|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.76|3.26|||Regression, Logistic|Adjustment for continuous covariate of baseline (SBP), treatment and country as fixed effects.||T80+HCTZ25 versus T80 monotherapy||3.26|1.76|<0.0001
91028059|NCT00926289|181939808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.42|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.78|3.29|||Regression, Logistic|Adjustment for continuous covariate of baseline (DBP), treatment and country as fixed effects.||T80+HCTZ25 versus T80 monotherapy||3.29|1.78|<0.0001
90839199|NCT00911170|181546047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.26|||Log Rank|P-values are based on the log-rank test statistic from the Kaplan-Meier survival analysis stratified by the 3 randomization factors.|Based on Cox proportional Hazard model stratified by chemotherapy regimen, region and disease status. A HR\< 1.0 indicates a lower average event rate and a longer survival time for the pegfilgrastim arm relative to the placebo arm.|||1.26|0.88|0.552
90839200|NCT00911170|181546048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.29|||Log Rank|P-values are based on the log-rank test statistic from the Kaplan-Meier survival analysis stratified by the 3 randomization factors.|Based on Cox proportional Hazard model stratified by chemotherapy regimen, region and disease status. A HR\< 1.0 indicates a lower average event rate and a longer survival time for the pegfilgrastim arm relative to the placebo arm.|||1.29|0.88|0.502
90839201|NCT00911170|181546049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.39|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The p-value is from the Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test adjusting for the randomization stratification factors.|Odds ratio (OR) adjusted for the randomization stratification factors. An OR \> 1.0 indicates a higher event rate for the pegfilgrastim arm relative to the placebo arm.|||1.39|0.81|0.683
90839202|NCT00911170|181546050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.66||||0.312||95.0|0.29|1.49|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The p-value is from the Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test adjusting for the randomization stratification factors.|Odds ratio (OR) adjusted for the randomization stratification factors. An OR \< 1.0 indicates a lower event rate for the pegfilgrastim arm relative to the placebo arm.|||1.49|0.29|0.312
90839203|NCT00911170|181546051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.18|||<|0.001||95.0|0.1|0.32|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The p-value is from the Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test adjusting for the randomization stratification factors.|Odds ratio (OR) adjusted for the randomization stratification factors. An OR \< 1.0 indicates a lower event rate for the pegfilgrastim arm relative to the placebo arm.|||0.32|0.10|<.001
90839204|NCT00911170|181546052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.56|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The p-value is from the Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test adjusting for the randomization stratification factors.|Odds ratio (OR) adjusted for the randomization stratification factors. An OR \< 1.0 indicates a lower event rate for the pegfilgrastim arm relative to the placebo arm.|||0.56|0.13|<.001
90839205|NCT02677493|181546058|EQUIVALENCE|"All statistical significance testing was performed at a two-sided significance level (α) of 5%.~Exceptionally, non-inferiority was tested at a one-sided CI of 97.5%."||||||0.09135|||||||ANCOVA|||To evaluate if the seroconversion (SCR) and seroprotection (SPR) rates on Day 28 after vaccination of IL-YANG Quadrivalent Influenza Vaccine Inj. meet the following criteria in all age groups of healthy male and female adults at the age of 19 or older.||||0.09135
90839206|NCT03591406|181546083|NON_INFERIORITY|Pre-defined non-inferiority margin of -15%|Difference in proportions|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|4.71|||||2-sided 95% Confidence Interval (CI) was computed using the Wilson score method with continuity correction described by Newcombe.|||4.71|-2.15|
90839207|NCT01389596|181546096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.092||0.2577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Linear Model With Log transformed baseline seizure rate as continuous covariate and geographic regions, treatment groups and weight as fixed effects.||0.08|-0.29|0.2577
90839208|NCT01389596|181546096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094||0.0185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||Linear Model With Log transformed baseline seizure rate as continuous covariate and geographic regions, treatment groups and weight as fixed effects.||-0.04|-0.41|0.0185
90897060|NCT00279201|181660302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.516||95.0||||P-value is for Mean of post-meals blood glucose.|ANOVA|From ANOVA with maintained goal/did not maintain goal, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.516
90839209|NCT01389596|181546097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.036||||0.8024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.528|2.03|||Regression, Logistic|||P-values were from a Logistic Regression Model including fixed effects for treatment, weight group, and geographical region.||2.030|0.528|0.8024
90839210|NCT01389596|181546097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.636||||0.0092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.851|3.147|||Regression, Logistic|||P-values were from a Logistic Regression Model including fixed effects for treatment, weight group, and geographical region.||3.147|0.851|0.0092
90839211|NCT01357850|181546131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0119||||0.7873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0768|0.1005|||ANOVA|||||0.1005|-0.0768|0.7873
90839212|NCT01357850|181546131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0678||||0.0499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.1356|||ANOVA|||||0.1356|0.0000|0.0499
90839213|NCT01357850|181546131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0467||||0.1666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0204|0.1137|||ANOVA|||||0.1137|-0.0204|0.1666
90839214|NCT01357850|181546132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|134.89||||0.9343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3172.05|3441.83|||ANOVA|||||3441.83|-3172.05|0.9343
90839215|NCT01357850|181546132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1278.77||||0.3375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1398.13|3955.68|||ANOVA|||||3955.68|-1398.13|0.3375
90839216|NCT01357850|181546132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|772.7||||0.5582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1887.77|3433.17|||ANOVA|||||3433.17|-1887.77|0.5582
90839217|NCT01357850|181546133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.06||||0.2256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.43|1.3|||ANOVA|||||1.30|-5.43|0.2256
90839218|NCT01357850|181546133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.95||||0.5647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.22|2.32|||ANOVA|||||2.32|-4.22|0.5647
90839219|NCT01357850|181546133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.8942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|2.79|||ANOVA|||||2.79|-2.44|0.8942
90897061|NCT00279201|181660302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.425||95.0||||P-value is for Average of all blood glucose.|ANOVA|From ANOVA with maintained goal/did not maintain goal, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.425
90839220|NCT01298648|181546162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test using observed cases at Baseline and Week 4.||||||<0.0001
90839221|NCT01298648|181546164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Paired t-test using observed values at Baseline and Week 8.||||||<0.0001
90839222|NCT01298648|181546165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test using observed values at Baseline and Week 24.||||||<0.0001
90897062|NCT00279201|181660303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use in model.||||||0.770
90897063|NCT00279201|181660303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99||95.0||||P-value is for Endpoint.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.990
90897064|NCT00279201|181660303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.552||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use in model.||||||0.552
90897065|NCT00279201|181660303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.271||95.0||||P-value is for Endpoint.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.271
90897066|NCT00279201|181660304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027||95.0||||P-value is for \<=7.0%.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.027
90897067|NCT00279201|181660304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021||95.0||||P-value is for \<7.0%.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.021
90897068|NCT00279201|181660304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.799||95.0||||P-value is for \<=6.5%.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.799
90839223|NCT03762993|181546226|OTHER|Changes in phonation threshold pressure were analyzed using a linear mixed effect model. Fixed factors included in the statistical model included time, group, and restoration strategy (controlled phonation or vocal rest). In addition, appropriate interactions were included and participant was added as a random factor in order to control for individual variation.|||||<|0.001||||||P-value is for the effect of time. A priori significance level set at .05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
90839224|NCT03762993|181546227|OTHER|Changes in lung volumes were analyzed using a linear mixed effect model. Fixed factors included in the statistical model included time, group, and restoration strategy (controlled phonation or vocal rest). In addition, appropriate interactions were included and participant was added as a random factor in order to control for individual variation.|||||<|0.01||||||P-value represents effect of group. A priori threshold for significance set at .05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.01
90839225|NCT03038100|181546230|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.2785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.07|||Log Rank|||||1.07|0.79|0.2785
90897069|NCT00279201|181660304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.676||95.0||||P-value is for \<=7.0%.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.676
91028060|NCT00926289|181939809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.62|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.7|4.04|||Regression, Logistic|Adjustment for continuous covariate of baseline, treatment and country as fixed effects.||T80+HCTZ25 versus T80 monotherapy||4.04|1.70|<0.0001
90839226|NCT03038100|181546231|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.0376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.99|||Log Rank|||||0.99|0.65|0.0376
90897070|NCT00279201|181660304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||P-value is for \<7.0%.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
90897071|NCT00279201|181660304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||P-value is for \<=6.5%.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
90897072|NCT00279201|181660305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.241||95.0||||P-value is for Mean fast blood glucose (BG).|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.241
90897073|NCT00279201|181660305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.305||95.0||||P-value is for AM 2-hour postprandial (PP) BG.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.305
90897074|NCT00279201|181660305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.842||95.0||||P-value is for Midday premeal blood glucose.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.842
90897075|NCT00279201|181660305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.917||95.0||||P-value is for Midday 2-hour (hr) PP BG.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.917
91028061|NCT00926289|181939810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.23|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.57|3.16|||Regression, Logistic|Adjustment for continuous covariate of baseline, treatment and country as fixed effects.||T80+HCTZ25 versus T80 monotherapy||3.16|1.57|<0.0001
90897076|NCT00279201|181660305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.648||95.0||||P-value is for PM premeal blood glucose.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.648
90897077|NCT00279201|181660305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.613||95.0||||P-value is for PM 2-hour postprandial BG.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.613
90897078|NCT00279201|181660305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.813||95.0||||P-value is for 3 AM blood glucose.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.813
90897079|NCT00279201|181660305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.953||95.0||||P-value is for AM 2-hour BG excursion.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.953
90897080|NCT00279201|181660305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.933||95.0||||P-value is for Midday 2-hour BG excursion.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.933
90897081|NCT00279201|181660305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.348||95.0||||P-value is for PM 2-hour BG excursion.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.348
90897082|NCT00279201|181660305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.625||95.0||||P-value is for Mean all mealtime excursions.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.625
90897083|NCT00279201|181660305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.573||95.0||||P-value is for Mean all 2-hour PP BG.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.573
90897084|NCT00279201|181660305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.711||95.0||||P-value is for Mean all premeal blood glucose.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.711
90897085|NCT00279201|181660305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.372||95.0||||P-value is for Mean combined AM/PM 2hr PP BG.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.372
90897086|NCT00279201|181660305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.516||95.0||||P-value is for Mean AM/PM 2hr BG excursion.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.516
90897087|NCT00279201|181660305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.639||95.0||||P-value is for Mean all BG values.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.639
90897088|NCT00279201|181660305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.131||95.0||||P-value is for Mean fast blood glucose (BG).|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.131
90897089|NCT00279201|181660305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53||95.0||||P-value is for AM 2-hour postprandial (PP) BG.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.530
90897090|NCT00279201|181660305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.578||95.0||||P-value is for Midday premeal blood glucose.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.578
90897091|NCT00279201|181660305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0||||P-value is for Midday 2-hour (hr) PP BG.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.004
90897092|NCT00279201|181660305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.951||95.0||||P-value is for PM premeal blood glucose.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.951
91028062|NCT00926289|181939811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Van Elteren test stratified for country|||T80+HCTZ25 versus T80 monotherapy||||<0.0001
91091690|NCT04465422|182067104|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.37||0.302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|7.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Analysis 2 is based on Comprehensive Occupational Therapy Evaluation Scale (range 20\~100；the higher scores indicate greater performance) total scores.||7.23|-2.29|0.302
91091691|NCT04465422|182067104|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.25||0.931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.25|6.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Analysis 3 is based on Personal and Social Performance scale (range 1\~100；the higher scores indicate greater performance) total scores.||6.82|-6.25|0.931
91091692|NCT04465422|182067104|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|1.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Analysis 4 is based on Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (range 1\~10；the higher scores indicate greater performance) total scores.||1.69|-1.73|0.981
91091693|NCT00931632|182067143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.427|TWO_SIDED||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.427
91091694|NCT01419314|182067152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|45.19|STANDARD_DEVIATION|20.25||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.33|52.05|||ANOVA|Sphericity was not tenable for the factor pain scores, degrees of freedom were corrected using Huynh-Feldt estimates, df (1.71,56.46).||A repeated measure ANOVA was performed to evaluate the contrasts of interest.||52.05|38.33|0.001
91091695|NCT01419314|182067152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6|<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.8|23.39||Bonferroni adjustment for significance\<0.013.|t-test, 2 sided||Paired t-test contrasting pain scores from baseline to week six of the trial-Splint group. The statistical power for the within splint intervention contrast was calculated to be 0.99.|Null hypothesis: Is there a difference in baseline pain scores compared to those at week 6 in the splinting group?||23.39|8.80|<0.0005
91091696|NCT01419314|182067152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.27||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.93|7.47||Bonferroni adjustment for significance\<0.013.|t-test, 2 sided|df(35)|The statistical power for the between intervention contrast was calculated to be 0.26|Null Hypothesis: There is not difference in pain scores between the liner and splint applications at week three.||7.47|-13.93|0.155
91091697|NCT01419314|182067152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.66||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.2|3.85|||t-test, 2 sided|df(35)||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in pain scores between the liner and splint applications at week six.||3.85|-23.20|0.155
90897093|NCT00279201|181660305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58||95.0||||P-value is for PM 2-hour postprandial BG.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.580
90839227|NCT03038100|181546232|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.3432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.09|||Log Rank|||Stratified by: stage and/or surgical status (Stage III vs. Stage IV), ECOG performance status (0 vs. 1 or 2), tumor PD-L1 status (IC0 vs. IC1/2/3), and treatment strategy (adjuvant vs. neoadjuvant).||1.09|0.78|0.3432
90839228|NCT03038100|181546233|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.1316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.06|||Log Rank|||Stratified by: stage and/or surgical status (Stage III vs. Stage IV), ECOG performance status (0 vs. 1 or 2) and treatment strategy (adjuvant vs. neoadjuvant).||1.06|0.66|0.1316
90897094|NCT00279201|181660305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.071||95.0||||P-value is for 3 AM blood glucose.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.071
90897095|NCT00279201|181660305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.081||95.0||||P-value is for AM 2-hour BG excursion.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.081
90957280|NCT00728910|181794275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis was that sequential addition of fibrate and niacin to baseline atorvastatin therapy would have no effect on post-prandial triglyceride levels following an oral fat load||||<0.0005
90957281|NCT00728910|181794275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0005
91091698|NCT00843492|182067165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.54|||Fisher Exact|||||0.54|0.15|<0.001
91091699|NCT00457730|182067190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.016
91091700|NCT00457730|182067191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.002
91091701|NCT00457730|182067192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.074|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.074
91091702|NCT00721799|182067193|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.47||||0.08|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.08
91091703|NCT00721799|182067193|OTHER||C-statistic|0.73||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.04
90897096|NCT00279201|181660305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Midday 2-hour BG excursion.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||<0.001
90897097|NCT00279201|181660305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.542||95.0||||P-value is for PM 2-hour BG excursion.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.542
90897098|NCT00279201|181660305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||P-value is for Mean all mealtime excursions.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.003
90897099|NCT00279201|181660305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.105||95.0||||P-value is for Mean all 2-hour PP BG.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.105
90957282|NCT02502097|181794281|SUPERIORITY|MMRM model uses the change from baseline as the dependent variable and includes the period, treatment group (Gefapixant 50 mg, Placebo), visit (Day 7 and Day 14 at each Period), all interactions terms as fixed factors, and baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5||||0.5096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|5.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference Day 7|||5.1|-10.1|0.5096
91091704|NCT00721799|182067194|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.42||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.05
91091705|NCT00721799|182067194|OTHER||C-statistic|0.75||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.02
91091706|NCT00721799|182067195|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.44|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||<0.01
91091707|NCT00721799|182067195|OTHER||C-statistic|0.74||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.02
91091708|NCT00721799|182067196|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.73|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.73
91091709|NCT00721799|182067196|OTHER||C-statistic|0.52||||0.88|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.88
91091710|NCT00721799|182067197|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.78|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.78
91091711|NCT00721799|182067197|OTHER||C-statistic|0.45||||0.66|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.66
91091712|NCT00721799|182067198|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.25||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.01
90839229|NCT03038100|181546239|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.9096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.62|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional Functioning, Presurgical/Surgery||1.62|0.58|0.9096
90957283|NCT02502097|181794281|SUPERIORITY|MMRM model uses the change from baseline as the dependent variable and includes the period, treatment group (Gefapixant 50 mg, Placebo), visit (Day 7 and Day 14 at each Period), all interactions terms as fixed factors, and baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.8983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|11.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference Day 14|||11.8|-13.4|0.8983
90957284|NCT02502097|181794285|SUPERIORITY|MMRM model uses the change from baseline as the dependent variable and includes the period, treatment group (Gefapixant 50 mg, Placebo), visit (Day 7 and Day 14 at each Period), all interactions terms as fixed factors, and baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.7||||0.5005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|7.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||LS means difference Day 7|||7.2|-14.6|0.5005
91091713|NCT00721799|182067198|OTHER||C-statistic|0.7||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.05
91091714|NCT00721799|182067199|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.63|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.63
91091715|NCT00721799|182067199|OTHER||C-statistic|0.58||||0.46|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.46
91091716|NCT00721799|182067200|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.58|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.58
91091717|NCT00721799|182067200|OTHER||C-statistic|0.6||||0.36|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.36
91091718|NCT00721799|182067201|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.89|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.89
91091719|NCT00721799|182067201|OTHER||C-statistic|0.59||||0.42|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.42
91091720|NCT00721799|182067202|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.29||||0.43|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.43
90839230|NCT03038100|181546239|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.4662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.01|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional functioning, Cycle 4 Day 1||2.01|0.73|0.4662
90839231|NCT03038100|181546239|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.5237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional functioning, Cycle 6 Day 1||1.40|0.51|0.5237
91091721|NCT00721799|182067202|OTHER||C-statistic|0.47||||0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.80
91091722|NCT00721799|182067203|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.01||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.01
91091723|NCT00721799|182067203|OTHER||C-statistic|0.69||||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.07
91091724|NCT00721799|182067204|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.58||||0.18|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.18
91091725|NCT00721799|182067204|OTHER||C-statistic|0.63||||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.25
91091726|NCT00721799|182067205|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.49||||0.24|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.24
91091727|NCT00721799|182067205|OTHER||C-statistic|0.62||||0.27|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.27
91091728|NCT00721799|182067206|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.99
91091729|NCT00721799|182067206|OTHER||C-statistic|0.48||||0.84|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.84
90839232|NCT03038100|181546239|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.3826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.07|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional functioning, Cycle 8 Day 1||2.07|0.76|0.3826
90839233|NCT03038100|181546239|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.9893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.76|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional Functioning, Cycle 12 Day 1||1.76|0.56|0.9893
91091730|NCT00721799|182067207|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3||||0.41|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.41
91091731|NCT00721799|182067207|OTHER||C-statistic|0.54||||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.69
91091732|NCT00721799|182067208|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.56||||0.17|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.17
91091733|NCT00721799|182067208|OTHER||C-statistic|0.64||||0.18|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.18
91091734|NCT00721799|182067209|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.42||||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.09
91091735|NCT00721799|182067209|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.06
91091736|NCT00721799|182067210|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.36||||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.06
91091737|NCT00721799|182067210|OTHER||C-statistic|0.74||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.04
91091738|NCT00721799|182067211|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.01|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||<0.01
91091739|NCT00721799|182067211|OTHER||C-statistic|0.82|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||<0.01
91091740|NCT00721799|182067212|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.92|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.92
91091741|NCT00721799|182067212|OTHER||C-statistic|0.48||||0.84|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.84
91091742|NCT00721799|182067213|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.76|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.76
91091743|NCT00721799|182067213|OTHER||C-statistic|0.45||||0.68|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.68
91091744|NCT00721799|182067214|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.99|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||<0.01
91091745|NCT00721799|182067214|OTHER||C-statistic|0.74||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.03
91091746|NCT00721799|182067215|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.55|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.55
91091747|NCT00721799|182067215|OTHER||C-statistic|0.61||||0.35|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.35
91091748|NCT00721799|182067216|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.48|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.48
91091749|NCT00721799|182067216|OTHER||C-statistic|0.63||||0.28|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.28
91091750|NCT00721799|182067217|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.67|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.67
91091751|NCT00721799|182067217|OTHER||C-statistic|0.71||||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.11
91091752|NCT00721799|182067218|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.32||||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.40
91091753|NCT00721799|182067218|OTHER||C-statistic|0.48||||0.88|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.88
91091754|NCT00721799|182067219|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.39|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||<0.01
91091755|NCT00721799|182067219|OTHER||C-statistic|0.74||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.03
91091756|NCT00721799|182067220|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.51||||0.26|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.26
91091757|NCT00721799|182067220|OTHER||C-statistic|0.59||||0.46|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.46
91091758|NCT00721799|182067221|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.38||||0.37|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.37
91091759|NCT00721799|182067221|OTHER||C-statistic|0.59||||0.46|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.46
91091760|NCT00721799|182067222|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.90
91091761|NCT00721799|182067222|OTHER||C-statistic|0.52||||0.87|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.87
91091762|NCT00721799|182067223|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.35||||0.36|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.36
90839234|NCT03038100|181546239|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.6892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.61|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional Functioning, Cycle 16 Day 1||1.61|0.49|0.6892
90839235|NCT03038100|181546239|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59||||0.1324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.17|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional Functioning, Cycle 20 Day 1||1.17|0.30|0.1324
90839236|NCT03038100|181546239|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.9176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional Functioning, Completion of Treatment/Early Termination Visit||1.70|0.62|0.9176
90839237|NCT03038100|181546239|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.7861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.68|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional Functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 3 Months||1.68|0.50|0.7861
90839238|NCT03038100|181546239|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.4539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|2.65|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional Functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 6 Months||2.65|0.65|0.4539
90839239|NCT03038100|181546239|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71||||0.4849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.86|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional Functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 9 Months||1.86|0.27|0.4849
90839240|NCT03038100|181546239|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|3.34|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional Functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 12 Months||3.34|0.19|0.7470
90839241|NCT03038100|181546239|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Difference in Proportion of Responders|33.33||||0.0896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.86|100.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional Functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 18 Months||100.00|-44.86|0.0896
90839242|NCT03038100|181546239|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Difference in Proportion of Responders|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-94.3|100.0||||||Emotional Functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 24 Months||100.00|-94.30|
90839243|NCT03038100|181546239|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.7347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical Functioning, Presurgical/Surgery||1.50|0.56|0.7347
90839244|NCT03038100|181546239|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.56||||0.0479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical Functioning, Cycle 4 Day 1||1.00|0.32|0.0479
90839245|NCT03038100|181546239|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.61||||0.0712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.05|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical Functioning, Cycle 6 Day 1||1.05|0.36|0.0712
90839246|NCT03038100|181546239|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.8168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.58|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical Functioning, Cycle 8 Day 1||1.58|0.56|0.8168
90839247|NCT03038100|181546239|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.6417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.52|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical Functioning, Cycle 12 Day 1||1.52|0.50|0.6417
90839248|NCT03038100|181546239|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.8821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.72|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical Functioning, Cycle 16 Day 1||1.72|0.53|0.8821
90839249|NCT03038100|181546239|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.64||||0.2158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical Functioning, Cycle 20 Day 1||1.30|0.32|0.2158
90839250|NCT03038100|181546239|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.4762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.37|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical Functioning, Completion of Treatment/Early Termination Visit||1.37|0.51|0.4762
90839251|NCT03038100|181546239|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.7585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.96|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical Functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 3 Months||1.96|0.61|0.7585
90839252|NCT03038100|181546239|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.9985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.93|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical Functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 6 Months||1.93|0.52|0.9985
90839253|NCT03038100|181546239|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.07||||0.1067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|5.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical Functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 9 Months||5.06|0.85|0.1067
90839254|NCT03038100|181546239|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.6171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|5.61|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical Functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 12 Months||5.61|0.36|0.6171
90839255|NCT03038100|181546239|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.8084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|23.57|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical Functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 18 Months||23.57|0.08|0.8084
90839256|NCT03038100|181546239|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Difference in Proportion of Responders|-50.0||||0.3173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|94.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical Functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 24 Months||94.30|-100.00|0.3173
90839257|NCT03038100|181546239|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.6802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.77|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/QoL, Presurgical/Surgery||1.77|0.69|0.6802
90839258|NCT03038100|181546239|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.29|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/QoL, Cycle 4 Day 1||1.29|0.48|0.3470
90839259|NCT03038100|181546239|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.5564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.41|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/QoL, Cycle 6 Day 1||1.41|0.53|0.5564
90839260|NCT03038100|181546239|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.99|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/QoL, Cycle 8 Day 1||1.99|0.72|0.5000
90839261|NCT03038100|181546239|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.9778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.78|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/QoL, Cycle 12 Day 1||1.78|0.57|0.9778
90839262|NCT03038100|181546239|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.6005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|2.12|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/QoL, Cycle 16 Day 1||2.12|0.65|0.6005
91091763|NCT00721799|182067223|OTHER||C-statistic|0.56||||0.63|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.63
91091764|NCT00721799|182067224|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.56||||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.20
91091765|NCT00721799|182067224|OTHER||C-statistic|0.63||||0.24|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.24
91091766|NCT00447083|182067286|OTHER|||||||0.1811|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.1811
91091767|NCT03363906|182067289|SUPERIORITY||Ratio Geometric Least Squares (LS) Mean|1.04||||0.473|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.949|1.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.14|0.949|0.473
91091768|NCT03363906|182067290|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.14||||0.119|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.993|1.3|||ANOVA|||||1.30|0.993|0.119
91091769|NCT00676143|182067291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|1.22||Primary variable ADAS-Cog/11 total score had to reach statistical significance, p-values had to reach p \<=0.05, in order to be declared effective.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change in ADAS-Cog/11 total score was analyzed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed model for repeated measures.~The number of participants in each group gave 90% power to detect a 2.21 point advantage for the bapineuzumab group over placebo on the ADAS-Cog/11 total score, at the primary time point (Week 78). This calculation was based on a two-sided test with an alpha of 0.05."||1.22|-1.18|0.979
90839263|NCT03038100|181546239|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/QoL, Cycle 20 Day 1||2.00|0.50|0.9900
91091770|NCT00676143|182067292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|2.6||Primary variable DAD total score had to reach statistical significance, p-values had to reach p \<=0.05, in order to be declared effective.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change in DAD total score was analyzed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed model for repeated measures.~The number of participants in each group gave 90% power to detect a 5.39 unit advantage for the bapineuzumab group over placebo on the DAD total score, at the primary time point (Week 78). This calculation was based on a two-sided test with an alpha of 0.05."||2.60|-2.51|0.973
91091771|NCT00676143|182067293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change in PIB PET SUVr was analyzed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed model for repeated measures.~The number of participants gave 90% power to detect a 0.152 unit advantage for the bapineuzumab group over placebo for PiB PET binding at Week 71. The calculations were based on 2-sided tests with alpha set at 0.05."||0.03|-0.17|0.159
91091772|NCT00676143|182067294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.38||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.89|4.13|||ANCOVA|||Change in CSF phospho-tau was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model. The analysis was based on the treatment difference estimated at Week 71 based on appropriate contrasts or LS means. The number of participants gave 90% power to detect a 13-ng/L advantage in phospho-tau for the bapineuzumab group over placebo at Week 71. The calculations were based on 2-sided tests with alpha set at 0.05.||4.13|-6.89|0.620
91091773|NCT00676143|182067295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|1.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change in MRI BBSI was analyzed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed model for repeated measures.~The number of participants gave 90% power to detect a 4.15-cm3 advantage for the bapineuzumab group over placebo on reduction in brain volume as measured by the BBSI at Week 71. The calculations were based on 2-sided tests with alpha set at 0.05."||1.63|-1.89|0.884
91091774|NCT00676143|182067296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|1.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment Difference: Bapineuzumab - Placebo||1.45|-0.97|0.700
91091775|NCT00676143|182067297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|2.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment Difference: Bapineuzumab - Placebo||2.78|-2.61|0.949
90839264|NCT03038100|181546239|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.2634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.15|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/QoL, Completion of Treatment/Early Termination Visit||2.15|0.81|0.2634
90839265|NCT03038100|181546239|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.74|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/QoL, Post-Treatment Follow Up 3 Months||1.74|0.56|0.9640
90839266|NCT03038100|181546239|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.4117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.46|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/QoL, Post-Treatment Follow Up 6 Months||1.46|0.40|0.4117
90839267|NCT03038100|181546239|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.3505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|3.62|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/QoL, Post-Treatment Follow Up 9 Months||3.62|0.63|0.3505
90839268|NCT03038100|181546239|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.28||||0.2439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|9.45|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/QoL, Post-Treatment Follow Up 12 Months||9.45|0.55|0.2439
90839269|NCT03038100|181546239|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Difference in Proportion of Responders|33.33||||0.1573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.86|100.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/QoL, Post-Treatment Follow Up 18 Months||100.00|-44.86|0.1573
90839270|NCT03038100|181546239|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Difference in Proportion of Responders|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-94.3|100.0||||||Global health status/QoL, Post-Treatment Follow Up 24 Months||100.00|-94.30|
90839271|NCT03038100|181546239|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72||||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.16|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role Functioning, Presurgical/Surgery||1.16|0.45|0.1820
90839272|NCT03038100|181546239|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.47||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Cycle 4 Day 1||0.80|0.28|0.0046
90839273|NCT03038100|181546239|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59||||0.0361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.97|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Cycle 6 Day 1||0.97|0.36|0.0361
91091776|NCT00676143|182067298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.684|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.684
91091777|NCT00676143|182067299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.383|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.383
91091778|NCT00676143|182067300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.191|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.191
91091779|NCT00676143|182067301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.478|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.478
91091780|NCT00676143|182067302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11||||0.462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in DS total score was analyzed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed model for repeated measures.||0.13|-0.41|0.462
91091781|NCT00676143|182067304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.086|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.086
91091782|NCT00676143|182067306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.120
91091783|NCT00676143|182067307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in CDR-SOB total score was analyzed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed model for repeated measures.||0.24|-0.55|0.448
91091784|NCT02065557|182067330|SUPERIORITY|one-sample two-sided Chi-square test|||||<|0.001||||||Adjusted p-value from a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure, testing co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints 1st for I-SD+I-HD, then for individual adalimumab dose groups (I-HD, I-SD) against the respective external placebo rate (19.83%)|rejective multiple test procedure|controlling familywise Type I error of 5% in a strong sense||Efficacy analysis was based on the Intent-To-Treat-Efficacy (ITT-E) population for the induction period. The ITT-E population was a subpopulation of the ITT population, which consisted of all participants who received at least one SC injection of the study medication during the induction period. Participants who received open-label high induction dose, because they enrolled after Protocol Amendment 4 was released, were excluded from the ITT-E population.||||< 0.001
91091785|NCT02065557|182067330|SUPERIORITY|one-sample two-sided Chi-square test|||||<|0.001||||||Adjusted p-value from a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure, testing co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints 1st for I-SD+I-HD, then for individual adalimumab dose groups (I-HD, I-SD) against the respective external placebo rate (19.83%)|rejective multiple test procedure|controlling familywise Type I error of 5% in a strong sense||Efficacy analysis was based on the Intent-To-Treat-Efficacy (ITT-E) population for the induction period. The ITT-E population was a subpopulation of the ITT population, which consisted of all participants who received at least one SC injection of the study medication during the induction period. Participants who received open-label high induction dose, because they enrolled after Protocol Amendment 4 was released, were excluded from the ITT-E population.||||< 0.001
91103960|NCT03766906|182094669|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.905|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Investigators tested whether pre-test to post-test change was significantly greater than 0 at P\<0.05.|The statistical analyses for the Student Self-Efficacy, in terms of type of statistical test, method, and the comments which we state within-subjects paired t-tests, are the same for each of the three subscales that make up Student Self-Efficacy (i.e., Relevance to schoolwork, Future aspirations, and Family support).||||.905
90897100|NCT00279201|181660305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.487||95.0||||P-value is for Mean all premeal blood glucose.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.487
90897101|NCT00279201|181660305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.491||95.0||||P-value is for Mean combined AM/PM 2hr PP BG.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.491
90897102|NCT00279201|181660305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.127||95.0||||P-value is for Mean AM/PM 2hr BG excursion.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.127
90897103|NCT00279201|181660305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.861||95.0||||P-value is for Mean all BG values.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.861
90897104|NCT00279201|181660306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.745||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use in model.||||||0.745
90897105|NCT00279201|181660306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.467||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use in model.||||||0.467
91103961|NCT03766906|182094670|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.36||||0.054|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Within subjects paired t-tests.|Investigators tested whether pre-test to post-test change was significantly greater than 0 at P\<0.05.|||||.054
90897106|NCT00279201|181660306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.575||95.0||||P-value is for Week 6.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.575
90897107|NCT00279201|181660306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.726||95.0||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.726
90897108|NCT00279201|181660306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.978||95.0||||P-value is for Week 24.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.978
90897109|NCT00279201|181660306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.345||95.0||||P-value is for Endpoint.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.345
90897110|NCT00279201|181660306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.166||95.0||||P-value is for Week 6.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.166
90897111|NCT00279201|181660306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.064||95.0||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.064
90897112|NCT00279201|181660306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.199||95.0||||P-value is for Week 24.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.199
90897113|NCT00279201|181660306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.098||95.0||||P-value is for Endpoint.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.098
90897114|NCT00279201|181660307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.467||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, and TZD use in model.||||||0.467
90897115|NCT00279201|181660307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.575||95.0||||P-value is for Week 6.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.575
90897116|NCT00279201|181660307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.726||95.0||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.726
90897117|NCT00279201|181660307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.978||95.0||||P-value is for Week 24.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.978
90897118|NCT00279201|181660307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.345||95.0||||P-value is for Endpoint.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.345
90897119|NCT00279201|181660307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.745||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, and TZD use in model.||||||0.745
90897120|NCT00279201|181660307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.166||95.0||||P-value is for Week 6.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.166
90897121|NCT00279201|181660307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.064||95.0||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.064
90897122|NCT00279201|181660307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.199||95.0||||P-value is for Week 24.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.199
90897123|NCT00279201|181660307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.098||95.0||||P-value is for Endpoint.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.098
90897124|NCT00279201|181660308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.837||95.0||||P-value is for Week 1.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use in the model.||||||0.837
90897125|NCT00279201|181660308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.205||95.0||||P-value is for Week 2.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use in the model.||||||0.205
90897126|NCT00279201|181660308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.704||95.0||||P-value is for Week 3.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use in the model.||||||0.704
90839274|NCT03038100|181546239|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.64||||0.0848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Cycle 8 Day 1||1.06|0.39|0.0848
90839275|NCT03038100|181546239|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.64||||0.1224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.13|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Cycle 12 Day 1||1.13|0.37|0.1224
90839276|NCT03038100|181546239|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.3127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.33|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Cycle 16 Day 1||1.33|0.41|0.3127
90839277|NCT03038100|181546239|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.6065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.65|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Cycle 20 Day 1||1.65|0.42|0.6065
90839278|NCT03038100|181546239|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.2173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Completion of Treatment/ Early Termination Visit||1.20|0.45|0.2173
90839279|NCT03038100|181546239|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.64||||0.1316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.15|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 3 Months||1.15|0.35|0.1316
90839280|NCT03038100|181546239|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.7678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.76|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 6 Months||1.76|0.46|0.7678
90839281|NCT03038100|181546239|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.7331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|2.14|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 9 Months||2.14|0.34|0.7331
90839282|NCT03038100|181546239|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.83||||0.1235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|10.92|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 12 Months||10.92|0.73|0.1235
90839283|NCT03038100|181546239|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Difference in Proportion of Responders|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.09|84.09||||||Role functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 18 Months||84.09|-84.09|
90839284|NCT03038100|181546239|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Difference in Proportion of Responders|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-94.3|100.0||||||Role functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 24 Months||100.00|-94.30|
90839285|NCT03038100|181546239|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.7869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.78|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social functioning, Presurgical/Surgery||1.78|0.65|0.7869
90839286|NCT03038100|181546239|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73||||0.2502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.25|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social functioning, Cycle 4 Day 1||1.25|0.43|0.2502
90839287|NCT03038100|181546239|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.5066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.41|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social functioning, Cycle 6 Day 1||1.41|0.50|0.5066
90839288|NCT03038100|181546239|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.8124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.59|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social functioning, Cycle 8 Day 1||1.59|0.56|0.8124
90839289|NCT03038100|181546239|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.4656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.17|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social functioning, Cycle 12 Day 1||2.17|0.70|0.4656
90839290|NCT03038100|181546239|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.6725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.12|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social functioning, Cycle 16 Day 1||2.12|0.62|0.6725
90839291|NCT03038100|181546239|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.64|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social functioning, Cycle 20 Day 1||1.64|0.41|0.5780
90839292|NCT03038100|181546239|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.7611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.76|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social functioning, Completion of Treatment/Early Termination Visit||1.76|0.66|0.7611
90839293|NCT03038100|181546239|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.7588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.94|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 3 Months||1.94|0.62|0.7588
90839294|NCT03038100|181546239|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.1428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.19|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 6 Months||1.19|0.30|0.1428
90839295|NCT03038100|181546239|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.9802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|2.39|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 9 Months||2.39|0.41|0.9802
90839296|NCT03038100|181546239|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.34||||0.1967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|8.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 12 Months||8.70|0.63|0.1967
90839297|NCT03038100|181546239|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Difference in Proportion of Respnders|8.33||||0.4795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.28|85.94|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 18 Months||85.94|-69.28|0.4795
90839298|NCT03038100|181546239|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Difference in Proportion of Responders|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-94.3|100.0||||||Social functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 24 Months||100.00|-94.30|
90839299|NCT03038100|181546240|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.6651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.25|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional functioning, Cycle 3 Day 1||1.25|0.70|0.6651
90839300|NCT03038100|181546240|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.9927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.34|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional functioning, Cycle 5 Day 1||1.34|0.75|0.9927
90839301|NCT03038100|181546240|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.8209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.39|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional functioning, Cycle 8 Day 1||1.39|0.77|0.8209
90839302|NCT03038100|181546240|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.6507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.45|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional functioning, Cycle 12 Day 1||1.45|0.79|0.6507
90839303|NCT03038100|181546240|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.2596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.67|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional functioning, Cycle 16 Day 1||1.67|0.87|0.2596
90839304|NCT03038100|181546240|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.6532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.58|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional functioning, Cycle 20 Day 1||1.58|0.75|0.6532
90839305|NCT03038100|181546240|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.7592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.45|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional functioning, Completion Of Treatment/ Early Termination Visit||1.45|0.76|0.7592
90839306|NCT03038100|181546240|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.7424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 3 Months||1.40|0.62|0.7424
90897127|NCT00279201|181660308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61||95.0||||P-value is for Week 4.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use in the model.||||||0.610
90839307|NCT03038100|181546240|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.1912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|2.19|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 6 Months||2.19|0.85|0.1912
90839308|NCT03038100|181546240|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.5526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.53|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 9 Months||1.53|0.45|0.5526
90839309|NCT03038100|181546240|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||0.3609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.52|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 12 Months||1.52|0.32|0.3609
90839310|NCT03038100|181546240|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.7527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|3.23|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 18 Months||3.23|0.20|0.7527
90839311|NCT03038100|181546240|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Difference in Proportion of Responders|-33.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|75.44||||||Emotional functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 24 Months||75.44|-100.00|
90839312|NCT03038100|181546240|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.3177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.17|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical functioning, Cycle 3 Day 1||1.17|0.62|0.3177
90839313|NCT03038100|181546240|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.4184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.21|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical functioning, Cycle 5 Day 1||1.21|0.63|0.4184
90839314|NCT03038100|181546240|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.24|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical functioning, Cycle 8 Day 1||1.24|0.67|0.5710
90839315|NCT03038100|181546240|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.3973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.19|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical functioning, Cycle 12 Day 1||1.19|0.65|0.3973
90839316|NCT03038100|181546240|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.5163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.55|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical functioning, Cycle 16 Day 1||1.55|0.80|0.5163
90839317|NCT03038100|181546240|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.6897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.35|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical functioning, Cycle 20 Day 1||1.35|0.64|0.6897
90839318|NCT03038100|181546240|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.5735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.25|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical functioning, Completion Of Treatment/ Early Termination Visit||1.25|0.67|0.5735
90839319|NCT03038100|181546240|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.1414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 3 Months||1.10|0.50|0.1414
90839320|NCT03038100|181546240|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.8655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.55|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 6 Months||1.55|0.59|0.8655
90839321|NCT03038100|181546240|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72||||0.3017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.35|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 9 Months||1.35|0.38|0.3017
90839322|NCT03038100|181546240|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.2325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.39|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 12 Months||1.39|0.26|0.2325
90839323|NCT03038100|181546240|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.33||||0.1717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|1.69|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 18 Months||1.69|0.06|0.1717
90839324|NCT03038100|181546240|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analsyis|Difference in Proportion of Responders|16.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.49|79.82||||||Physical functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 24 Months||79.82|-46.49|
90839325|NCT03038100|181546240|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.4745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.46|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/QoL, Cycle 3 Day 1||1.46|0.84|0.4745
90839326|NCT03038100|181546240|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.5499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.22|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/QoL, Cycle 5 Day 1||1.22|0.69|0.5499
90839327|NCT03038100|181546240|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.8436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.29|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/QoL, Cycle 8 Day 1||1.29|0.73|0.8436
90839328|NCT03038100|181546240|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.5798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.46|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/QoL, Cycle 12 Day 1||1.46|0.81|0.5798
90839329|NCT03038100|181546240|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.9094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.39|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/QoL, Cycle 16 Day 1||1.39|0.74|0.9094
90839330|NCT03038100|181546240|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.4006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.67|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/QoL, Cycle 20 Day 1||1.67|0.81|0.4006
90839331|NCT03038100|181546240|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.4024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.19|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/QoL, Completion of Treatment/ Early Termination Visit||1.19|0.65|0.4024
90839332|NCT03038100|181546240|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.8796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.41|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/QoL, Post-Treatment Follow Up 3 Months||1.41|0.67|0.8796
90839333|NCT03038100|181546240|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.32|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/QoL, Post-Treatment Follow Up 6 Months||1.32|0.53|0.4350
90839334|NCT03038100|181546240|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.6225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.56|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/QoL, Post-Treatment Follow Up 9 Months||1.56|0.47|0.6225
90839335|NCT03038100|181546240|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.5775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.77|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/QoL, Post-Treatment Follow Up 12 Months||1.77|0.36|0.5775
90839336|NCT03038100|181546240|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.37||||0.2343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.94|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/QoL, Post-Treatment Follow Up 18 Months||1.94|0.07|0.2343
90839337|NCT03038100|181546240|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Difference in Proportion of Responders|-66.67||||0.0833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|4.39|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/QoL, Post-Treatment Follow Up 24 Months||4.39|-100.00|0.0833
90839338|NCT03038100|181546240|SUPERIORITY|Superiority|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.6012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.21|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Cycle 3 Day 1||1.21|0.71|0.6012
90839339|NCT03038100|181546240|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.2291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.11|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Cycle 5 Day 1||1.11|0.65|0.2291
91091786|NCT02065557|182067330|SUPERIORITY|one-sample two-sided Chi-square test||||||0.382||||||Adjusted p-value from a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure, testing co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints 1st for I-SD+I-HD, then for individual adalimumab dose groups (I-HD, I-SD) against the respective external placebo rate (19.83%)|rejective multiple test procedure|controlling familywise Type I error of 5% in a strong sense||Efficacy analysis was based on the Intent-To-Treat-Efficacy (ITT-E) population for the induction period. The ITT-E population was a subpopulation of the ITT population, which consisted of all participants who received at least one SC injection of the study medication during the induction period. Participants who received open-label high induction dose, because they enrolled after Protocol Amendment 4 was released, were excluded from the ITT-E population.||||0.382
91091787|NCT02065557|182067330|SUPERIORITY|one-sample two-sided Chi-square test|||||<|0.001||||||Adjusted p-value from a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure, testing co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints 1st for I-SD+I-HD, then for individual adalimumab dose groups (I-HD, I-SD) against the respective external placebo rate (19.83%)|rejective multiple test procedure|controlling familywise Type I error of 5% in a strong sense||Efficacy analysis was based on the Intent-To-Treat-Efficacy (ITT-E) population for the induction period. The ITT-E population was a subpopulation of the ITT population, which consisted of all participants who received at least one SC injection of the study medication during the induction period. Participants who received open-label high induction dose, because they enrolled after Protocol Amendment 4 was released, were excluded from the ITT-E population.||||< 0.001
91091788|NCT02065557|182067330|SUPERIORITY|one-sample two-sided Chi-square test|||||<|0.001||||||Adjusted p-value from a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure, testing co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints 1st for I-SD+I-HD, then for individual adalimumab dose groups (I-HD, I-SD) against the respective external placebo rate (19.83%)|rejective multiple test procedure|controlling familywise Type I error of 5% in a strong sense||Efficacy analysis was based on the Intent-To-Treat-Efficacy (ITT-E) population for the induction period. The ITT-E population was a subpopulation of the ITT population, which consisted of all participants who received at least one SC injection of the study medication during the induction period. Participants who received open-label high induction dose, because they enrolled after Protocol Amendment 4 was released, were excluded from the ITT-E population.||||< 0.001
91091789|NCT02065557|182067330|SUPERIORITY|one-sample two-sided Chi-square test||||||0.344||||||Adjusted p-value from a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure, testing co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints 1st for I-SD+I-HD, then for individual adalimumab dose groups (I-HD, I-SD) against the respective external placebo rate (19.83%)|rejective multiple test procedure|controlling familywise Type I error of 5% in a strong sense||Efficacy analysis was based on the Intent-To-Treat-Efficacy (ITT-E) population for the induction period. The ITT-E population was a subpopulation of the ITT population, which consisted of all participants who received at least one SC injection of the study medication during the induction period. Participants who received open-label high induction dose, because they enrolled after Protocol Amendment 4 was released, were excluded from the ITT-E population.||||0.344
91091790|NCT02065557|182067331|SUPERIORITY|one-sample two-sided Chi-square test|||||<|0.001||||||Adjusted p-value from a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure, testing co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints 1st for M-SD+M-HD, then for individual adalimumab dose groups (M-HD, M-SD) against the respective external placebo rate (18.37%)|rejective multiple test procedure|controlling familywise Type I error of 5% in a strong sense||Efficacy analysis was based on the modified Intent-To-Treat-Efficacy (mITT-E) population for the maintenance period. The mITT-E population was a subpopulation of the mITT population, where participants in M-PL arm were excluded.||||< 0.001
91103962|NCT03766906|182094671|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Within subjects paired t-tests.|Investigators tested whether pre-test to post-test change was significantly greater than 0 at P\<0.05.|||||<.001
90839340|NCT03038100|181546240|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.6574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.24|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Cycle 8 Day 1||1.24|0.71|0.6574
90839341|NCT03038100|181546240|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.9217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.35|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Cycle 12 Day 1||1.35|0.76|0.9217
90897128|NCT00279201|181660308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.352||95.0||||P-value is for Week 5.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use in the model.||||||0.352
90839342|NCT03038100|181546240|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.7693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Cycle 16 Day 1||1.30|0.70|0.7693
90839343|NCT03038100|181546240|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.31|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Cycle 20 Day 1||1.31|0.64|0.6470
90897129|NCT00279201|181660308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.636||95.0||||P-value is for Week 6.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use in the model.||||||0.636
91103963|NCT03766906|182094672|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Within subjects paired t-tests.|Investigators tested whether pre-test to post-test change was significantly greater than 0 at P\<0.05.|||||<.001
90839344|NCT03038100|181546240|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.6391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.25|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Completion Of Treatment/ Early Termination Visit||1.25|0.70|0.6391
90839345|NCT03038100|181546240|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73||||0.0892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.05|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 3 Months||1.05|0.51|0.0892
90897130|NCT00279201|181660308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88||95.0||||P-value is for Week 8.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use in the model.||||||0.880
90897131|NCT00279201|181660308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.904||95.0||||P-value is for Week 10.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use in the model.||||||0.904
90897132|NCT00279201|181660308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.859||95.0||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use in the model.||||||0.859
90897133|NCT00279201|181660308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.654||95.0||||P-value is for Week 24.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use in the model.||||||0.654
90897134|NCT00279201|181660308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.566||95.0||||P-value is for Endpoint.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use in the model.||||||0.566
90897135|NCT00279201|181660308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.926||95.0||||P-value is for Week 1.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use in the model.||||||0.926
90897136|NCT00279201|181660308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.902||95.0||||P-value is for Week 2.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use in the model.||||||0.902
90839346|NCT03038100|181546240|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.01|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 6 Months||1.01|0.41|0.0550
90839347|NCT03038100|181546240|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.49||||0.0168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.88|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 9 Months||0.88|0.27|0.0168
90839348|NCT03038100|181546240|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.29||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.65|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 12 Months||0.65|0.13|0.0021
90839349|NCT03038100|181546240|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.7817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|3.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 18 Months||3.80|0.17|0.7817
90839350|NCT03038100|181546240|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|-33.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|75.44||||||Role functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 24 Months||75.44|-100.00|
90839351|NCT03038100|181546240|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.6646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.41|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social functioning, Cycle 3 Day 1||1.41|0.80|0.6646
90897137|NCT00279201|181660308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.766||95.0||||P-value is for Week 3.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use in the model.||||||0.766
90897138|NCT00279201|181660308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.449||95.0||||P-value is for Week 4.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use in the model.||||||0.449
91091791|NCT02065557|182067331|SUPERIORITY|one-sample two-sided Chi-square test|||||<|0.001||||||Adjusted p-value from a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure, testing co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints 1st for M-SD+M-HD, then for individual adalimumab dose groups (M-HD, M-SD) against the respective external placebo rate (18.37%)|rejective multiple test procedure|controlling familywise Type I error of 5% in a strong sense||Efficacy analysis was based on the modified Intent-To-Treat-Efficacy (mITT-E) population for the maintenance period. The mITT-E population was a subpopulation of the mITT population, where participants in M-PL arm were excluded.||||< 0.001
90839352|NCT03038100|181546240|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.8677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social functioning, Cycle 5 Day 1||1.30|0.73|0.8677
90839353|NCT03038100|181546240|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.38|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social functioning, Cycle 8 Day 1||1.38|0.79|0.7670
90839354|NCT03038100|181546240|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.7487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.28|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social functioning, Cycle 12 Day 1||1.28|0.71|0.7487
90839355|NCT03038100|181546240|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.1882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.68|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social functioning, Cycle 16 Day 1||1.68|0.90|0.1882
91103964|NCT00836901|182094673|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of Least Squares Means|97.7||||||90.0|93.19|102.43|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||102.43|93.19|
90839356|NCT03038100|181546240|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.3015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.72|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social functioning, Cycle 20 Day 1||1.72|0.84|0.3015
90839357|NCT03038100|181546240|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.9059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.32|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social functioning, Completion of Treatment/ Early Termination Visit||1.32|0.73|0.9059
90839358|NCT03038100|181546240|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.7125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.35|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 3 Months||1.35|0.65|0.7125
90839359|NCT03038100|181546240|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.68||||0.0947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.07|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 6 Months||1.07|0.43|0.0947
90839360|NCT03038100|181546240|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.58||||0.0686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.05|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 9 Months||1.05|0.32|0.0686
90897139|NCT00279201|181660308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.797||95.0||||P-value is for Week 5.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use in the model.||||||0.797
90839361|NCT03038100|181546240|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.39||||0.0175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.86|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 12 Months||0.86|0.17|0.0175
90839362|NCT03038100|181546240|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.46||||0.3376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|2.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 18 Months||2.30|0.09|0.3376
90839363|NCT03038100|181546240|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion of Responders|-50.0||||0.5637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|23.34|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 24 Months||23.34|-100.00|0.5637
90839364|NCT03038100|181546241|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional Functioning, Cycle 3 Day 1||1.30|0.76|0.9770
90839365|NCT03038100|181546241|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.7317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.37|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional Functioning, Cycle 5 Day 1||1.37|0.80|0.7317
90839366|NCT03038100|181546241|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.6937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.39|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional Functioning, Cycle 8 Day 1||1.39|0.80|0.6937
90839367|NCT03038100|181546241|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.3916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.18|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional Functioning, Cycle 12 Day 1||1.18|0.66|0.3916
90839368|NCT03038100|181546241|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.3363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.17|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional Functioning, Cycle 16 Day 1||1.17|0.63|0.3363
90897140|NCT00279201|181660308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.438||95.0||||P-value is for Week 6.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use in the model.||||||0.438
90897141|NCT00279201|181660308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.602||95.0||||P-value is for Week 8.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use in the model.||||||0.602
90897142|NCT00279201|181660308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.493||95.0||||P-value is for Week 10.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use in the model.||||||0.493
90897143|NCT00279201|181660308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.335||95.0||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use in the model.||||||0.335
90839369|NCT03038100|181546241|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.6761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.55|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional Functioning, Cycle 20 Day 1||1.55|0.75|0.6761
90839370|NCT03038100|181546241|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.6997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.26|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional Functioning, Completion of Treatment/ Early Termination Visit||1.26|0.71|0.6997
90839371|NCT03038100|181546241|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.3592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.72|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional Functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 3 Months||1.72|0.82|0.3592
90839372|NCT03038100|181546241|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.8798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.51|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional Functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 6 Months||1.51|0.62|0.8798
90839373|NCT03038100|181546241|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77||||0.3857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.39|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional Functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 9 Months||1.39|0.43|0.3857
90839374|NCT03038100|181546241|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.6854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.85|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional Functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 12 Months||1.85|0.39|0.6854
90839375|NCT03038100|181546241|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.54||||0.4533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|2.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional Functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 18 Months||2.70|0.11|0.4533
90839376|NCT03038100|181546241|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Difference in Proportion of Responders|-33.33||||0.3173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|75.44|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional Functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 24 Months||75.44|-100.00|0.3173
90839377|NCT03038100|181546241|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.3658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.47|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical functioning, Cycle 3 Day 1||1.47|0.87|0.3658
90839378|NCT03038100|181546241|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.7619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.36|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical functioning, Cycle 5 Day 1||1.36|0.80|0.7619
90839379|NCT03038100|181546241|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical functioning, Cycle 8 Day 1||1.40|0.81|0.6580
90839380|NCT03038100|181546241|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.2726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.57|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical functioning, Cycle 12 Day 1||1.57|0.88|0.2726
90839381|NCT03038100|181546241|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.6973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.29|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical functioning, Cycle 16 Day 1||1.29|0.69|0.6973
90839382|NCT03038100|181546241|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.64|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical functioning, Cycle 20 Day 1||1.64|0.80|0.4470
90839383|NCT03038100|181546241|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.21|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical functioning, Completion of Treatment/ Early Termination Visit||1.21|0.68|0.5150
90897144|NCT00279201|181660308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.398||95.0||||P-value is for Week 24.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use in the model.||||||0.398
90897145|NCT00279201|181660308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.903||95.0||||P-value is for Endpoint.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use in the model.||||||0.903
90897146|NCT00279201|181660309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.953||95.0||||P-value is for Hypoglycemia episodes endpoint.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistic controlling for country and TZD use.||||||0.953
90839384|NCT03038100|181546241|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.2103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.82|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 3 Months||1.82|0.88|0.2103
90839385|NCT03038100|181546241|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.7969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.66|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 6 Months||1.66|0.68|0.7969
90839386|NCT03038100|181546241|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.91|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 9 Months||1.91|0.60|0.8300
90839387|NCT03038100|181546241|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.6987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|2.55|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 12 Months||2.55|0.53|0.6987
90839388|NCT03038100|181546241|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.32||||0.1441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|17.77|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 18 Months||17.77|0.62|0.1441
90839389|NCT03038100|181546241|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Difference in proportion of Responders|-66.67||||0.3173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|4.39|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 24 Months||4.39|-100.00|0.3173
90839390|NCT03038100|181546241|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.7591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.25|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/ QoL, Cycle 3 Day 1||1.25|0.74|0.7591
90839391|NCT03038100|181546241|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.5403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.42|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/ QoL, Cycle 5 Day 1||1.42|0.83|0.5403
90839392|NCT03038100|181546241|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.2654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.55|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/ QoL, Cycle 8 Day 1||1.55|0.89|0.2654
90839393|NCT03038100|181546241|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.5138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.48|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/ QoL, Cycle 12 Day 1||1.48|0.82|0.5138
90839394|NCT03038100|181546241|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.2138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.67|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/ QoL, Cycle 16 Day 1||1.67|0.89|0.2138
90839395|NCT03038100|181546241|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.2114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.82|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/ QoL, Cycle 20 Day 1||1.82|0.88|0.2114
90839396|NCT03038100|181546241|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.3938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.53|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/ QoL, Completion of Treatment/ Early Termination Visit||1.53|0.85|0.3938
90897147|NCT00279201|181660309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.953||95.0||||P-value is for Overall hypoglycemia episodes.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistic controlling for country and TZD use.||||||0.953
90897148|NCT00279201|181660309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.188||95.0||||P-value is for Severe episodes overall.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistic controlling for country and TZD use.||||||0.188
90839397|NCT03038100|181546241|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.7793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.38|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/ QoL, Post-Treatment Follow Up 3 Months||1.38|0.65|0.7793
90839398|NCT03038100|181546241|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.39|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/ QoL, Post-Treatment Follow Up 6 Months||1.39|0.69|0.7370
90839399|NCT03038100|181546241|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.9658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.79|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/ QoL, Post-Treatment Follow Up 9 Months||1.79|0.55|0.9658
90839400|NCT03038100|181546241|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.66||||0.3015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.46|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/ QoL, Post-Treatment Follow Up 12 Months||1.46|0.29|0.3015
90839401|NCT03038100|181546241|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77||||0.7534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|3.94|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/ QoL, Post-Treatment Follow Up 18 Months||3.94|0.15|0.7534
90839402|NCT03038100|181546241|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Difference in Proportion of Responders|16.67||||0.5637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.49|79.82|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/ QoL, Post-Treatment Follow Up 24 Months||79.82|-46.49|0.5637
90839403|NCT03038100|181546241|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.1177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Cycle 3 Day 1||1.06|0.61|0.1177
90839404|NCT03038100|181546241|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.56|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Cycle 5 Day 1||1.56|0.88|0.2730
90839405|NCT03038100|181546241|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.9306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.33|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Cycle 8 Day 1||1.33|0.73|0.9306
90839406|NCT03038100|181546241|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.8631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.32|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Cycle 12 Day 1||1.32|0.72|0.8631
90839407|NCT03038100|181546241|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.0977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.86|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Cycle 16 Day 1||1.86|0.95|0.0977
90839408|NCT03038100|181546241|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.0726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|2.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Cycle 20 Day 1||2.10|0.97|0.0726
90839409|NCT03038100|181546241|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.9974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.38|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Completion of Treatment/ Early Termination Visit||1.38|0.73|0.9974
90839410|NCT03038100|181546241|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.7069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.63|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 3 Months||1.63|0.72|0.7069
90839411|NCT03038100|181546241|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.3068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.16|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 6 Months||2.16|0.78|0.3068
90839412|NCT03038100|181546241|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.64||||0.1375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|3.16|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 9 Months||3.16|0.85|0.1375
90839413|NCT03038100|181546241|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|2.29|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 12 Months||2.29|0.46|0.9540
90839414|NCT03038100|181546241|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.53||||0.4283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.64|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 18 Months||2.64|0.10|0.4283
90839415|NCT03038100|181546241|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Difference in Proportion of Responders|16.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-95.56|100.0||||||Role functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 24 Months||100.00|-95.56|
90839416|NCT03038100|181546241|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.2153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social Functioning, Cycle 3 Day 1||1.10|0.64|0.2153
90839417|NCT03038100|181546241|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.7878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.27|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social Functioning, Cycle 5 Day 1||1.27|0.73|0.7878
90839418|NCT03038100|181546241|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.1544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.08|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social Functioning, Cycle 8 Day 1||1.08|0.61|0.1544
90839419|NCT03038100|181546241|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.8017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social Functioning, Cycle 12 Day 1||1.40|0.77|0.8017
90839420|NCT03038100|181546241|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.4295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.21|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social Functioning, Cycle 16 Day 1||1.21|0.63|0.4295
90839421|NCT03038100|181546241|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio, log|0.99||||0.954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.44|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social Functioning, Cycle 20 Day 1||1.44|0.68|0.9540
90839422|NCT03038100|181546241|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.7494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social Functioning, Completion of Treatment/ Early Termination Visit||1.30|0.69|0.7494
90839423|NCT03038100|181546241|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.6412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.62|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social Functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 3 Months||1.62|0.74|0.6412
90839424|NCT03038100|181546241|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.8652|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.67|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social Functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 6 Months||1.67|0.65|0.8652
90839425|NCT03038100|181546241|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.6912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.18|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social Functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 9 Months||2.18|0.60|0.6912
90839426|NCT03038100|181546241|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.5834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.86|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social Functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 12 Months||1.86|0.33|0.5834
90839427|NCT03038100|181546241|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.9578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|16.05|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social Functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 18 Months||16.05|0.05|0.9578
90839428|NCT03038100|181546241|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Difference in Proportion of Responders|16.67||||0.5637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.49|79.82|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social Functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 24 Months||79.82|-46.49|0.5637
90839429|NCT03038100|181546242|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.6063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.63|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional functioning, Cycle 3 Day 1||1.63|0.75|0.6063
90839430|NCT03038100|181546242|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.5739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.29|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional functioning, Cycle 5 Day 1||1.29|0.63|0.5739
91091792|NCT02065557|182067331|SUPERIORITY|one-sample two-sided Chi-square test||||||0.382||||||Adjusted p-value from a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure, testing co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints 1st for M-SD+M-HD, then for individual adalimumab dose groups (M-HD, M-SD) against the respective external placebo rate (18.37%)|rejective multiple test procedure|controlling familywise Type I error of 5% in a strong sense||Efficacy analysis was based on the modified Intent-To-Treat-Efficacy (mITT-E) population for the maintenance period. The mITT-E population was a subpopulation of the mITT population, where participants in M-PL arm were excluded.||||0.382
91091793|NCT02065557|182067331|SUPERIORITY|one-sample two-sided Chi-square test|||||<|0.001||||||Adjusted p-value from a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure, testing co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints 1st for M-SD+M-HD, then for individual adalimumab dose groups (M-HD, M-SD) against the respective external placebo rate (18.37%)|rejective multiple test procedure|controlling familywise Type I error of 5% in a strong sense||Efficacy analysis was based on the modified Intent-To-Treat-Efficacy (mITT-E) population for the maintenance period. The mITT-E population was a subpopulation of the mITT population, where participants in M-PL arm were excluded.||||< 0.001
90839431|NCT03038100|181546242|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.3792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.25|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional functioning, Cycle 8 Day 1||1.25|0.56|0.3792
90839432|NCT03038100|181546242|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.6022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.73|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional functioning, Cycle 12 Day 1||1.73|0.73|0.6022
90839433|NCT03038100|181546242|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.7893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.49|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional functioning, Cycle 16 Day 1||1.49|0.59|0.7893
90839434|NCT03038100|181546242|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71||||0.2125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.22|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional functioning, Cycle 20 Day 1||1.22|0.42|0.2125
90839435|NCT03038100|181546242|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.9661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.46|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional functioning, Completion of Treatment/ Early Termination Visit||1.46|0.70|0.9661
90839436|NCT03038100|181546242|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.4299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.32|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 3 Months||1.32|0.52|0.4299
90839437|NCT03038100|181546242|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65||||0.1542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.18|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 6 Months||1.18|0.36|0.1542
90839438|NCT03038100|181546242|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.65||||0.0363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|6.76|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 9 Months||6.76|1.04|0.0363
90839439|NCT03038100|181546242|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.75||||0.0814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|8.93|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 12 Months||8.93|0.85|0.0814
90897149|NCT00279201|181660309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.226||95.0||||P-value is for Nocturnal episodes endpoint.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistic controlling for country and TZD use.||||||0.226
90839440|NCT03038100|181546242|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.03||||0.1915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|38.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 18 Months||38.00|0.43|0.1915
90839441|NCT03038100|181546242|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Difference in Proportion of Responders|66.67||||0.3173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.39|100.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 24 Months||100.00|-4.39|0.3173
90839442|NCT03038100|181546242|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.9818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.35|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical functioning, Cycle 3 Day 1||1.35|0.73|0.9818
90839443|NCT03038100|181546242|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.6263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.45|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical functioning, Cycle 5 Day 1||1.45|0.80|0.6263
90839444|NCT03038100|181546242|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.9407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical functioning, Cycle 8 Day 1||1.40|0.73|0.9407
90839445|NCT03038100|181546242|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.39|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical functioning, Cycle 12 Day 1||1.39|0.64|0.7700
90839446|NCT03038100|181546242|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.8458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.45|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical functioning, Cycle 16 Day 1||1.45|0.63|0.8458
90839447|NCT03038100|181546242|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.7028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.46|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical functioning, Cycle 20 Day 1||1.46|0.57|0.7028
90839448|NCT03038100|181546242|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.1391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.83|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical functioning, Completion of Treatment/ Early Termination Visit||1.83|0.92|0.1391
90839449|NCT03038100|181546242|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.8002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.62|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 3 Months||1.62|0.69|0.8002
90839450|NCT03038100|181546242|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.9751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.68|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 6 Months||1.68|0.60|0.9751
90839451|NCT03038100|181546242|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.3811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|2.78|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 9 Months||2.78|0.68|0.3811
90839452|NCT03038100|181546242|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|3.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 12 Months||3.90|0.58|0.3950
90839453|NCT03038100|181546242|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.8993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|5.12|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 18 Months||5.12|0.16|0.8993
90839454|NCT03038100|181546242|SUPERIORITY|Stratified|Difference in Proportion of Responders|50.0||||0.3173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.34|100.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 24 Months||100.00|-23.34|0.3173
90897150|NCT00279201|181660309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.855||95.0||||P-value is for Nocturnal episodes overall.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistic controlling for country and TZD use.||||||0.855
90839455|NCT03038100|181546242|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.5988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.25|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/QoL, Cycle 3 Day 1||1.25|0.68|0.5988
91028063|NCT02292238|181939825|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.8691|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.5727||0.125|TWO_SIDED|||||Univariable (unadjusted) and a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Equal variance t-test.||Power was calculated based on expected difference in change on the ADAS-Cog of 3 points between the treatment and control groups. Estimates based on using a two-sided alpha of 0.05 and a standard deviation of 4, enrolling 29 patients per group, (N = 58) suggest 80% power to detect a mean change of 3 between treatment and placebo.||||0.125
91028064|NCT02292238|181939826|OTHER|Univariable (unadjusted) and a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.00184|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0225||0.7529|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Equal variance t-test.||||||0.7529
91028065|NCT02292238|181939827|OTHER|Univariable (unadjusted) and a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0636|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.8176||0.3687|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Equal variance t-test.||||||0.3687
91028066|NCT02292238|181939828|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.8203|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.8988||0.485|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Equal variance t-test.||||||0.4850
91028067|NCT02292238|181939829|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1907|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.3097||0.0337|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Equal variance t-test.||||||0.0337
91028068|NCT02292238|181939830|OTHER|Univariable (unadjusted) and a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.6161|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.6812||0.315|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Equal variance t-test.||||||0.315
91091794|NCT02065557|182067331|SUPERIORITY|one-sample two-sided Chi-square test|||||<|0.001||||||Adjusted p-value from a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure, testing co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints 1st for M-SD+M-HD, then for individual adalimumab dose groups (M-HD, M-SD) against the respective external placebo rate (18.37%)|rejective multiple test procedure|controlling familywise Type I error of 5% in a strong sense||Efficacy analysis was based on the modified Intent-To-Treat-Efficacy (mITT-E) population for the maintenance period. The mITT-E population was a subpopulation of the mITT population, where participants in M-PL arm were excluded.||||< 0.001
90839456|NCT03038100|181546242|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.8859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.34|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/QoL, Cycle 5 Day 1||1.34|0.72|0.8859
90839457|NCT03038100|181546242|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.2531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.16|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified Analysis||Global health status/QoL, Cycle 8 Day 1||1.16|0.58|0.2531
90839458|NCT03038100|181546242|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||0.0785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.04|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/QoL, Cycle 12 Day 1||1.04|0.46|0.0785
90839459|NCT03038100|181546242|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67||||0.0641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.03|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/QoL, Cycle 16 Day 1||1.03|0.43|0.0641
90839460|NCT03038100|181546242|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.48||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/QoL, Cycle 20 Day 1||0.80|0.29|0.0046
90839461|NCT03038100|181546242|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.8928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.37|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/QoL, Completion of Treatment/ Early Termination Visit||1.37|0.70|0.8928
90839462|NCT03038100|181546242|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.6106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.74|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/QoL, Post-Treatment Follow Up 3 Months||1.74|0.72|0.6106
90839463|NCT03038100|181546242|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.6159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.95|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/QoL, Post-Treatment Follow Up 6 Months||1.95|0.67|0.6159
91028069|NCT00491504|181939855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.625|||||||ANCOVA|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used with treatment as effect and Baseline as a covariate.||||||0.625
91028070|NCT01364870|181939859|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016||||||The p value was adjusted using Bonferroni's method to account for the multiple comparisons.|Kruskal-Wallis|||There were instances of missing data due to patient time restraints and patient refusal.||||0.016
91028071|NCT01364870|181939860|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008||||||P-value was adjusted using Bonferroni's method to account for multiple comparisons.|Kruskal-Wallis|||There were instances of missing data due to patient time restraints and patient refusal.||||0.008
91028072|NCT03977584|181939863|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Annualized Rate of Change|-0.013|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00993||0.1953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0327|0.0068|||RCRM|||Analysis was based on RCRM using unstructured covariance matrix: GTP1 PET = Treatment \* Analysis Year + Interactive Voice or Web Response System (IxRS) defined Age Group + IxRS defined Education History + IxRS defined apolipoprotein (APOE4) Carrier Status + IxRS defined Clinical Dementia Rating Global Score.||0.0068|-0.0327|0.1953
91028073|NCT00745251|181939884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.95||0.0084|ONE_SIDED|95.0||-4.84|||ANCOVA|||||-4.84||0.0084
91028074|NCT00745251|181939885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.64||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.37|-2.74|||ANCOVA|||||-2.74|-9.37|0.0006
91028075|NCT03390504|181939886|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65|||=|0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.86|||Log Rank|||||0.86|0.48|=0.0031
91028076|NCT03390504|181939886|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16|||=|0.2121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.48|||Stratified log-rank test|||||1.48|0.92|=0.2121
91028077|NCT01618305|181939946|SUPERIORITY|P-value was calculated using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by gestational age at entry (20-\<28 weeks; 28-\<31 weeks; 31-\<34 weeks; 34-\<37 weeks)||||||0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.001
91028078|NCT01618305|181939947|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.557|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by gestational age at entry (20-\<28 weeks; 28-\<31 weeks; 31-\<34 weeks; 34-\<37 weeks)||||||0.557
91028079|NCT01618305|181939948|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.909|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by gestational age at entry (20-\<28 weeks; 28-\<31 weeks; 31-\<34 weeks; 34-\<37 weeks).||||||0.909
91028080|NCT01618305|181939949|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.938|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by maternal gestational age at entry (20-\<28 weeks; 28-\<31 weeks; 31-\<34 weeks; 34-\<37 weeks).||||||0.938
91091795|NCT02065557|182067331|SUPERIORITY|one-sample two-sided Chi-square test||||||0.344||||||Adjusted p-value from a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure, testing co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints 1st for M-SD+M-HD, then for individual adalimumab dose groups (M-HD, M-SD) against the respective external placebo rate (18.37%)|rejective multiple test procedure|controlling familywise Type I error of 5% in a strong sense||Efficacy analysis was based on the modified Intent-To-Treat-Efficacy (mITT-E) population for the maintenance period. The mITT-E population was a subpopulation of the mITT population, where participants in M-PL arm were excluded.||||0.344
91091796|NCT02065557|182067332|SUPERIORITY|one-sample two-sided Chi-square test|||||<|0.001||||||Adjusted p-value from a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure, testing co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints 1st for M-SD+M-HD, then for individual adalimumab dose groups (M-HD, M-SD) against the respective external placebo rate (26.10%)|rejective multiple test procedure|controlling familywise Type I error of 5% in a strong sense||Efficacy analysis was based on the modified Intent-To-Treat-Efficacy (mITT-E) population for the maintenance period. The mITT-E population was a subpopulation of the mITT population, where participants in M-PL arm were excluded.||||< 0.001
91091797|NCT02065557|182067332|SUPERIORITY|one-sample two-sided Chi-square test|||||<|0.001||||||Adjusted p-value from a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure, testing co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints 1st for M-SD+M-HD, then for individual adalimumab dose groups (M-HD, M-SD) against the respective external placebo rate (26.10%)|Chi-squared|controlling familywise Type I error of 5% in a strong sense||Efficacy analysis was based on the modified Intent-To-Treat-Efficacy (mITT-E) population for the maintenance period. The mITT-E population was a subpopulation of the mITT population, where participants in M-PL arm were excluded.||||< 0.001
91091798|NCT02065557|182067332|SUPERIORITY|one-sample two-sided Chi-square test||||||0.008||||||Adjusted p-value from a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure, testing co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints 1st for M-SD+M-HD, then for individual adalimumab dose groups (M-HD, M-SD) against the respective external placebo rate (26.10%)|Chi-squared|controlling familywise Type I error of 5% in a strong sense||Efficacy analysis was based on the modified Intent-To-Treat-Efficacy (mITT-E) population for the maintenance period. The mITT-E population was a subpopulation of the mITT population, where participants in M-PL arm were excluded.||||0.008
90839464|NCT03038100|181546242|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.5372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.49|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified Analysis||Global health status/QoL, Post-Treatment Follow Up 9 Months||2.49|0.62|0.5372
90839465|NCT03038100|181546242|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.22||||0.0845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|5.58|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/QoL, Post-Treatment Follow Up 12 Months||5.58|0.89|0.0845
90839466|NCT03038100|181546242|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.67||||0.1344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|21.56|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/QoL, Post-Treatment Follow Up 18 Months||21.56|0.62|0.1344
90839467|NCT03038100|181546242|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Difference in Proportion of Responders|50.0||||0.3173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.34|100.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/QoL, Post-Treatment Follow Up 24 Months||100.00|-23.34|0.3173
90839468|NCT03038100|181546242|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.92|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Cycle 3 Day 1||1.92|1.04|0.0260
90839469|NCT03038100|181546242|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.9179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.37|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Cycle 5 Day 1||1.37|0.75|0.9179
90839470|NCT03038100|181546242|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.53|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Cycle 8 Day 1||1.53|0.79|0.5820
90839471|NCT03038100|181546242|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.9772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.47|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Cycle 12 Day 1||1.47|0.67|0.9772
90839472|NCT03038100|181546242|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Cycle 16 Day 1||1.10|0.49|0.1300
90839473|NCT03038100|181546242|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.66||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.08|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Cycle 20 Day 1||1.08|0.40|0.0990
90839474|NCT03038100|181546242|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.7133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Completion of Treatment/ Early Termination Visit||1.50|0.76|0.7133
90839475|NCT03038100|181546242|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.1384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.11|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 3 Months||2.11|0.90|0.1384
90839476|NCT03038100|181546242|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.2895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.26|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 6 Months||2.26|0.78|0.2895
90839477|NCT03038100|181546242|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.2221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|3.14|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 9 Months||3.14|0.77|0.2221
90839478|NCT03038100|181546242|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|7.37||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.08|26.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 12 Months||26.10|2.08|0.0005
90839479|NCT03038100|181546242|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.72||||0.2171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|34.56|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 18 Months||34.56|0.40|0.2171
90839480|NCT03038100|181546242|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Difference in Proportion of Responders|16.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.49|79.82||||||Role functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 24 Months||79.82|-46.49|
90897151|NCT00279201|181660309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25||95.0||||P-value is for Hypoglycemia episodes at endpoint.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistic controlling for country and TZD use.||||||0.250
90839481|NCT03038100|181546242|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.4647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.48|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social functioning, Cycle 3 Day 1||1.48|0.84|0.4647
90839482|NCT03038100|181546242|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.7676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social functioning, Cycle 5 Day 1||1.40|0.78|0.7676
90839483|NCT03038100|181546242|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.1983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.71|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social functioning, Cycle 8 Day 1||1.71|0.89|0.1983
90839484|NCT03038100|181546242|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.9874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.44|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social functioning, Cycle 12 Day 1||1.44|0.69|0.9874
90839485|NCT03038100|181546242|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.4716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.29|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social functioning, Cycle 16 Day 1||1.29|0.58|0.4716
90839486|NCT03038100|181546242|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.2041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.18|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social functioning, Cycle 20 Day 1||1.18|0.46|0.2041
90839487|NCT03038100|181546242|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.7771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.45|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social functioning, Completion of Treatment/ Early Termination Visit||1.45|0.76|0.7771
90839488|NCT03038100|181546242|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.8542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.45|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 3 Months||1.45|0.64|0.8542
90839489|NCT03038100|181546242|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 6 Months||2.50|0.90|0.1230
90839490|NCT03038100|181546242|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72||||0.1089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|3.34|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 9 Months||3.34|0.88|0.1089
90839491|NCT03038100|181546242|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|5.82||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.85|18.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 12 Months||18.30|1.85|0.0011
90839492|NCT03038100|181546242|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.51||||0.295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|14.74|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 18 Months||14.74|0.43|0.2950
90839493|NCT03038100|181546242|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Difference in Proportion of Responders|33.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.72|100.0||||||Social functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 24 Months||100.00|-37.72|
90839494|NCT00918255|181546247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022||95.0||||When this initial overall comparison of the 3 treatment groups was significant, pairwise comparisons of each adalimumab dose group versus placebo were performed.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.022
90839495|NCT00918255|181546247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analyzed using CMH test stratified by Hurley Stage.||||||0.025
90839496|NCT00918255|181546247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.252||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analyzed using CMH test stratified by Hurley Stage.||||||0.252
90897152|NCT00279201|181660309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.123||95.0||||P-value is for Overall hypoglycemia episodes.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistic controlling for country and TZD use.||||||0.123
91028081|NCT01618305|181939950|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by gestational age at entry (20-\<28 weeks; 28-\<31 weeks; 31-\<34 weeks; 34-\<37 weeks).||||||<0.001
91028082|NCT01618305|181939951|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by gestational age at entry (20-\<28 weeks; 28-\<31 weeks; 31-\<34 weeks; 34-\<37 weeks).||||||<0.001
91028083|NCT01618305|181939956|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.623|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.623
91028084|NCT01618305|181939957|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.63
91028085|NCT01618305|181939958|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.54
91028086|NCT01618305|181939959|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.99
91028087|NCT01618305|181939960|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.99
91028088|NCT01618305|181939961|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.064|||||||Fisher Exact|||The proportion of HIV-infected infants among those who had a determinable HIV-infection status was compared between arms.||||0.064
90897153|NCT00279201|181660309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.166||95.0||||P-value is for Severe episodes overall.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistic controlling for country and TZD use.||||||0.166
90897154|NCT00279201|181660309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.273||95.0||||P-value is for Nocturnal episodes endpoint.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistic controlling for country and TZD use.||||||0.273
90897155|NCT00279201|181660309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.039||95.0||||P-value is for Nocturnal episodes overall.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistic controlling for country and TZD use.||||||0.039
90897156|NCT00279201|181660310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.623||95.0||||P-value is for Hypoglycemia episodes Endpoint.|ANOVA|Response = Treatment + Country + TZD use + Sulfo use.||||||0.623
91028089|NCT02192905|181940067|OTHER|One-sample t-test testing the mean positive problem solving change from baseline to week 8.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.64|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.31||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.34|2.05|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.05|-3.34|.63
91028090|NCT02192905|181940068|OTHER|One-sample t-test testing the mean within-person percent weight change from baseline to week 8.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.019|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.03|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0285|-0.0096|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-.0096|-.0285|<0.001
91028091|NCT02192905|181940069|OTHER|One-sample t-test testing the mean within-person percent weight change from baseline to week 16.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.017|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.011||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.039|0.006|||t-test, 2 sided|||||.006|-.039|0.143
91028092|NCT02192905|181940070|OTHER|One-sample t-test testing the mean positive problem solving change from baseline to week 16.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.76|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.07||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.11|3.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.6|-5.11|.73
91028093|NCT00862979|181940087|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|-6.1|||ANCOVA|||||-6.1|-16.5|<.0001
91028094|NCT00862979|181940088|OTHER|difference||||||0.203|||||||Fisher Exact|||Month 6 to Month 9||||0.203
91028095|NCT00862979|181940088|OTHER|difference||||||0.002|||||||Fisher Exact|||Month 9 to Month 18||||0.002
91028096|NCT00862979|181940090|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.6|-8.3|||ANCOVA|||Month 12||-8.3|-19.6|<.0001
91028097|NCT00862979|181940090|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|-6.1|||ANCOVA|||Month 18||-6.1|-16.5|<.0001
91028098|NCT00862979|181940092|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.008
90897157|NCT00279201|181660310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.949||95.0||||P-value is for Hypoglycemic episodes Overall.|ANOVA|Response = Treatment + Country + TZD use + Sulfo use.||||||0.949
90897158|NCT00279201|181660310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73||95.0||||P-value is for Hypoglycemia episodes Endpoint.|ANOVA|Response = Treatment + Country + TZD use + Sulfo use.||||||0.730
90897159|NCT00279201|181660310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.445||95.0||||P-value is for Hypoglycemia episodes Overall.|ANOVA|Response = Treatment + Country + TZD use + Sulfo use.||||||0.445
90897160|NCT00279201|181660310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.949||95.0||||P-value is for Nocturnal episodes Endpoint.|ANOVA|Response = Treatment + Country + TZD use + Sulfo use.||||||0.949
91028099|NCT00992407|181940100|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|80% of power and 0.05 of significance level was used|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61||||0.8595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|6.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline in Personal and Social Performance (PSP) Scale Score at Week 52||6.3|-7.5|0.8595
91028100|NCT00992407|181940101|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|80% of power and 0.05 of significance level was used|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.29||||0.8118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|12.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) Score at Week 52||12.2|-9.6|0.8118
91028101|NCT00992407|181940110|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|80% of power and 0.05 of significance level was used|Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.0||||0.1768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|24.8|||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline in Psychosocial Well-being Index (PWI) Score at Week 52||24.8|-4.8|0.1768
91028102|NCT00992407|181940111|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|80% of power and 0.05 of significance level was used|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33||||0.9569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|12.2|||Student's t-test|||||12.2|-12.8|0.9569
91091799|NCT02065557|182067332|SUPERIORITY|one-sample two-sided Chi-square test|||||<|0.001||||||Adjusted p-value from a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure, testing co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints 1st for M-SD+M-HD, then for individual adalimumab dose groups (M-HD, M-SD) against the respective external placebo rate (26.10%)|rejective multiple test procedure|controlling familywise Type I error of 5% in a strong sense||Efficacy analysis was based on the modified Intent-To-Treat-Efficacy (mITT-E) population for the maintenance period. The mITT-E population was a subpopulation of the mITT population, where participants in M-PL arm were excluded.||||< 0.001
91091800|NCT02065557|182067332|SUPERIORITY|one-sample two-sided Chi-square test|||||<|0.001||||||Adjusted p-value from a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure, testing co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints 1st for M-SD+M-HD, then for individual adalimumab dose groups (M-HD, M-SD) against the respective external placebo rate (26.10%)|rejective multiple test procedure|controlling familywise Type I error of 5% in a strong sense||Efficacy analysis was based on the modified Intent-To-Treat-Efficacy (mITT-E) population for the maintenance period. The mITT-E population was a subpopulation of the mITT population, where participants in M-PL arm were excluded.||||< 0.001
91091801|NCT02065557|182067332|SUPERIORITY|one-sample two-sided Chi-square test||||||0.038||||||Adjusted p-value from a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure, testing co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints 1st for M-SD+M-HD, then for individual adalimumab dose groups (M-HD, M-SD) against the respective external placebo rate (26.10%)|rejective multiple test procedure|controlling familywise Type I error of 5% in a strong sense||Efficacy analysis was based on the modified Intent-To-Treat-Efficacy (mITT-E) population for the maintenance period. The mITT-E population was a subpopulation of the mITT population, where participants in M-PL arm were excluded.||||0.038
91091802|NCT02065557|182067333|SUPERIORITY|one-sample two-sided Chi-square test|||||<|0.001||||||Adjusted p-value from a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure, testing co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints 1st for M-SD+M-HD, then for individual adalimumab dose groups (M-HD, M-SD) against the respective external placebo rate (22.03%)|rejective multiple test procedure|controlling familywise Type I error of 5% in a strong sense||Efficacy analysis was based on the modified Intent-To-Treat-Efficacy (mITT-E) population for the maintenance period. The mITT-E population was a subpopulation of the mITT population, where participants in M-PL arm were excluded.||||< 0.001
91091803|NCT02065557|182067333|SUPERIORITY|one-sample two-sided Chi-square test|||||<|0.001||||||Adjusted p-value from a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure, testing co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints 1st for M-SD+M-HD, then for individual adalimumab dose groups (M-HD, M-SD) against the respective external placebo rate (22.03%)|rejective multiple test procedure|controlling familywise Type I error of 5% in a strong sense||Efficacy analysis was based on the modified Intent-To-Treat-Efficacy (mITT-E) population for the maintenance period. The mITT-E population was a subpopulation of the mITT population, where participants in M-PL arm were excluded.||||< 0.001
91091804|NCT02065557|182067333|SUPERIORITY|one-sample two-sided Chi-square test||||||0.382||||||Adjusted p-value from a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure, testing co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints 1st for M-SD+M-HD, then for individual adalimumab dose groups (M-HD, M-SD) against the respective external placebo rate (22.03%)|rejective multiple test procedure|controlling familywise Type I error of 5% in a strong sense||Efficacy analysis was based on the modified Intent-To-Treat-Efficacy (mITT-E) population for the maintenance period. The mITT-E population was a subpopulation of the mITT population, where participants in M-PL arm were excluded.||||0.382
91091805|NCT02065557|182067333|SUPERIORITY|one-sample two-sided Chi-square test|||||<|0.001||||||Adjusted p-value from a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure, testing co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints 1st for M-SD+M-HD, then for individual adalimumab dose groups (M-HD, M-SD) against the respective external placebo rate (22.03%)|rejective multiple test procedure|controlling familywise Type I error of 5% in a strong sense||Efficacy analysis was based on the modified Intent-To-Treat-Efficacy (mITT-E) population for the maintenance period. The mITT-E population was a subpopulation of the mITT population, where participants in M-PL arm were excluded.||||< 0.001
91091806|NCT02065557|182067333|SUPERIORITY|one-sample two-sided Chi-square test|||||<|0.001||||||Adjusted p-value from a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure, testing co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints 1st for M-SD+M-HD, then for individual adalimumab dose groups (M-HD, M-SD) against the respective external placebo rate (22.03%)|rejective multiple test procedure|controlling familywise Type I error of 5% in a strong sense||Efficacy analysis was based on the modified Intent-To-Treat-Efficacy (mITT-E) population for the maintenance period. The mITT-E population was a subpopulation of the mITT population, where participants in M-PL arm were excluded.||||< 0.001
91091807|NCT02065557|182067333|SUPERIORITY|one-sample two-sided Chi-square test||||||0.344||||||Adjusted p-value from a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure, testing co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints 1st for M-SD+M-HD, then for individual adalimumab dose groups (M-HD, M-SD) against the respective external placebo rate (22.03%)|rejective multiple test procedure|controlling familywise Type I error of 5% in a strong sense||Efficacy analysis was based on the modified Intent-To-Treat-Efficacy (mITT-E) population for the maintenance period. The mITT-E population was a subpopulation of the mITT population, where participants in M-PL arm were excluded.||||0.344
91091808|NCT02065557|182067334|SUPERIORITY|one-sample two-sided Chi-square test|||||<|0.001||||||Adjusted p-value from a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure, testing co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints 1st for M-SD+M-HD, then for individual adalimumab dose groups (M-HD, M-SD) against the respective external placebo rate (14.79%)|rejective multiple test procedure|controlling familywise Type I error of 5% in a strong sense||Efficacy analysis was based on the modified Intent-To-Treat-Efficacy (mITT-E) population for the maintenance period. The mITT-E population was a subpopulation of the mITT population, where participants in M-PL arm were excluded.||||< 0.001
90839497|NCT00918255|181546248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.062||95.0||||When this initial overall comparison of the 3 treatment groups was significant, pairwise comparisons of each adalimumab dose group versus placebo were performed.|ANCOVA|||||||0.062
90839498|NCT00918255|181546248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analyzed using ANCOVA adjusting for Baseline Hurley Stage (I/II vs III).||||||0.019
90839499|NCT00918255|181546248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.286||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analyzed using ANCOVA adjusting for Baseline Hurley Stage (I/II vs III).||||||0.286
90839500|NCT00918255|181546249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||When this initial overall comparison of the 3 treatment groups was significant, pairwise comparisons of each adalimumab dose group versus placebo were performed.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||1.000
91028103|NCT00992407|181940112|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|80% of power and 0.05 of significance level was used|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.58||||0.5294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|2.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.9|-5.5|0.5294
91028104|NCT01521559|181940126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|26.6||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.0|40.1||P-value was calculated using 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted by regions (Japan vs North America) and baseline Best Corrected Visual Acuity (BCVA ≤20/200 and BCVA \>20/200).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference was IAI group minus laser group; Difference and confidence interval were calculated using Mantel-Haenszel weighting scheme adjusted by regions (Japan vs North America) and baseline BCVA (BCVA ≤20/200 and BCVA \>20/200).|||40.1|13.0|0.0003
91028105|NCT01521559|181940127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|10.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.1|14.0|||ANCOVA|||Difference was IAI group minus laser group. P-value, Point estimate and 95% confidence interval (CI) were based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline measurement as covariate and treatment group, region, and baseline Best Corrected Visual Acuity (BCVA ≤20/200 and BCVA \>20/200) as fixed factors.||14.0|7.1|<0.0001
91028106|NCT01521559|181940128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-148.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-179.8|-117.4|||ANCOVA|||Difference was IAI group minus laser group; P-value, Point estimate, and 95% CI, were based on an ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and treatment group, region, and baseline Best Corrected Visual Acuity (BCVA ≤20/200 and BCVA \>20/200) as fixed factors.||-117.4|-179.8|<0.0001
91028107|NCT01521559|181940129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.6||||0.0833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|5.5|||ANCOVA|||Difference was IAI group minus laser group; P-value, Point estimate, and 95% CI, were based on an ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and treatment group, region, and baseline Best Corrected Visual Acuity (BCVA ≤20/200 and BCVA \>20/200) as fixed factors.||5.5|-0.3|0.0833
91028108|NCT03197064|181940139|OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in left upper extremity amplitude between baseline (pre-dose) and 30 minutes post-dose||||0.35
91028109|NCT03197064|181940139|OTHER|||||||0.47|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in left upper extremity amplitude between baseline (pre-dose) and 60 minutes post-dose||||0.47
91028110|NCT03197064|181940139|OTHER|||||||0.066|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in left upper extremity amplitude between baseline (pre-dose) and 90 minutes post-dose||||0.066
91028111|NCT03197064|181940140|OTHER|||||||0.72|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in right upper extremity amplitude between baseline (pre-dose) and 30 minutes post-dose||||0.72
91028112|NCT03197064|181940140|OTHER|||||||0.72|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in right upper extremity amplitude between baseline (pre-dose) and 60 minutes post-dose||||0.72
91028113|NCT03197064|181940140|OTHER|||||||0.78|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in right upper extremity amplitude between baseline (pre-dose) and 90 minutes post-dose||||0.78
91028114|NCT03197064|181940141|OTHER|||||||0.93|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in left lower extremity amplitude between baseline (pre-dose) and 30 minutes post-dose||||0.93
91028115|NCT03197064|181940141|OTHER|||||||0.39|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in left lower extremity amplitude between baseline (pre-dose) and 60 minutes post-dose||||0.39
91028116|NCT03197064|181940141|OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in left lower extremity amplitude between baseline (pre-dose) and 90 minutes post-dose||||0.08
91028117|NCT03197064|181940142|OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in right lower extremity amplitude between baseline (pre-dose) and 30 minutes post-dose||||0.42
91091809|NCT02065557|182067334|SUPERIORITY|one-sample two-sided Chi-square test|||||<|0.001||||||Adjusted p-value from a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure, testing co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints 1st for M-SD+M-HD, then for individual adalimumab dose groups (M-HD, M-SD) against the respective external placebo rate (14.79%)|rejective multiple test procedure|controlling familywise Type I error of 5% in a strong sense||Efficacy analysis was based on the modified Intent-To-Treat-Efficacy (mITT-E) population for the maintenance period. The mITT-E population was a subpopulation of the mITT population, where participants in M-PL arm were excluded.||||< 0.001
91028118|NCT03197064|181940142|OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in right lower extremity amplitude between baseline (pre-dose) and 60 minutes post-dose||||0.37
91028119|NCT03197064|181940142|OTHER|||||||0.49|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in right lower extremity amplitude between baseline (pre-dose) and 90 minutes post-dose||||0.49
91028120|NCT03197064|181940143|OTHER|||||||0.386|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in left upper extremity amplitude between baseline (pre-dose) and 30 minutes post-dose||||0.386
91028121|NCT03197064|181940143|OTHER|||||||0.388|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in left upper extremity amplitude between baseline (pre-dose) and 60 minutes post-dose||||0.388
91028122|NCT03197064|181940143|OTHER|||||||0.247|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in left upper extremity amplitude between baseline (pre-dose) and 90 minutes post-dose||||0.247
91028123|NCT00757601|181940145|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"To assess the effect of food at the 30 mg dose, a point estimate was constructed for the geometric mean ratio for the fed/fasted states (GMR\[fed/fasted\]) of MK1006 AUC (0-∞).~The GMR (fed/fasted) was calculated using the geometric mean AUC (0-∞) of the fed state divided by the geometric mean AUC (0-∞) fasted state.~A GMR (fed/fasted) point estimate value within 20% of unity (1.00) was considered consistent with an absence of a clinically significant food effect."|Geometric Mean Ratio (fed/fasted)|1.03||||||95.0|||||Mixed-Effect Model|||A linear mixed-effect model was used to estimate the geometric mean AUC (0-∞) for MK1006 at every dose level.||||
91028124|NCT00757601|181940146|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"To assess the effect of food at the 30 mg dose, a point estimate was constructed for the geometric mean ratio for the fed/fasted states (GMR\[fed/fasted\]) of MK1006 Cmax.~The GMR (fed/fasted) was calculated using the geometric mean Cmax of the fed state divided by the geometric mean Cmax fasted state.~A GMR (fed/fasted) point estimate value within 20% of unity (1.00) was considered consistent with an absence of a clinically significant food effect."|Geometric Mean Ratio (fed/fasted)|1.14||||||95.0|||||Mixed-effect Model|||A linear mixed-effect model was used to estimate the geometric mean Cmax for MK1006 at every dose level.||||
91028125|NCT04543136|181940151|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|45.0||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|94.5||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||94.5|-4.5|0.074
90839501|NCT00918255|181546249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analyzed using CMH test stratified by Hurley Stage.||||||1.000
90839502|NCT00918255|181546249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.097||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analyzed using CMH test stratified by Hurley Stage.||||||0.097
90839503|NCT00918255|181546250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.044||95.0||||When this initial overall comparison of the 3 treatment groups was significant, pairwise comparisons of each adalimumab dose group versus placebo were performed.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.044
90839504|NCT00918255|181546250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.051||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analyzed using CMH test stratified by Hurley Stage.||||||0.051
90839505|NCT00918255|181546250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analyzed using CMH test stratified by Hurley Stage.||||||0.320
90839506|NCT00918255|181546251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||When this initial overall comparison of the 3 treatment groups was significant, pairwise comparisons of each adalimumab dose group versus placebo were performed.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||1.000
90839507|NCT00918255|181546251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analyzed using CMH test stratified by Hurley Stage.||||||1.000
90839508|NCT00918255|181546251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.673||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analyzed using CMH test stratified by Hurley Stage.||||||0.673
90839509|NCT00918255|181546252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||95.0||||When this initial overall comparison of the 3 treatment groups was significant, pairwise comparisons of each adalimumab dose group versus placebo were performed.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.012
90839510|NCT00918255|181546252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analyzed using CMH test stratified by Hurley Stage.||||||0.020
90839511|NCT00918255|181546252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.721||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analyzed using CMH test stratified by Hurley Stage.||||||0.721
90839512|NCT00918255|181546253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.045||95.0||||When this initial overall comparison of the 3 treatment groups was significant, pairwise comparisons of each adalimumab dose group versus placebo were performed.|Van Elteren test|||||||0.045
90839513|NCT00918255|181546253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014||95.0|||||Van Elteren test|Analyzed using Van Elteren test stratified by Hurley Stage.||||||0.014
90839514|NCT00918255|181546253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.169||95.0|||||Van Elteren test|Analyzed using Van Elteren test stratified by Hurley Stage.||||||0.169
90839515|NCT01116986|181546256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.954||||0.312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.871|1.045|||Regression, Cox|||The Cox regression model effects consisted of six treatment effects, 15 two-way treatment interactions, and three covariates : gender and two items from the Fagerstrom Test of Nicotine Dependence (Item 1: time to first cigarette; Item 4: cigarettes per day).||1.045|.871|.312
90839516|NCT01116986|181546256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.98||||0.664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.894|1.074|||Regression, Cox|||The Cox regression model effects consisted of six treatment effects, 15 two-way treatment interactions, and three covariates : gender and two items from the Fagerstrom Test of Nicotine Dependence (Item 1: time to first cigarette; Item 4: cigarettes per day).||1.074|.894|.664
90839517|NCT01116986|181546256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.989||||0.814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.903|1.084|||Regression, Cox|||The Cox regression model effects consisted of six treatment effects, 15 two-way treatment interactions, and three covariates : gender and two items from the Fagerstrom Test of Nicotine Dependence (Item 1: time to first cigarette; Item 4: cigarettes per day).||1.084|.903|.814
90839518|NCT01116986|181546256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.925||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.844|1.013|||Regression, Cox|||The Cox regression model effects consisted of six treatment effects, 15 two-way treatment interactions, and three covariates : gender and two items from the Fagerstrom Test of Nicotine Dependence (Item 1: time to first cigarette; Item 4: cigarettes per day).||1.013|.844|.093
90839519|NCT01116986|181546256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.983||||0.716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.898|1.077|||Regression, Cox|||The Cox regression model effects consisted of six treatment effects, 15 two-way treatment interactions, and three covariates : gender and two items from the Fagerstrom Test of Nicotine Dependence (Item 1: time to first cigarette; Item 4: cigarettes per day).||1.077|.898|.716
90839520|NCT01116986|181546256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.031||||0.511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.941|1.13|||Regression, Cox|||The Cox regression model effects consisted of six treatment effects, 15 two-way treatment interactions, and three covariates : gender and two items from the Fagerstrom Test of Nicotine Dependence (Item 1: time to first cigarette; Item 4: cigarettes per day).||1.130|.941|.511
90897161|NCT00279201|181660310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59||95.0||||P-value is for Nocturnal episodes Overall.|ANOVA|Response = Treatment + Country + TZD use + Sulfo use.||||||0.590
90839521|NCT01116986|181546257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.087||||0.341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.916|1.29|||Regression, Logistic|||The logistic regression model effects consisted of six treatment main effects and 15 two-way treatment interactions. The main effects provide direct tests of the primary aim of the study, i.e., determining whether or not more intensive treatments (compared to less intensive treatments; e.g., No Pre-Quit Nicotine Patch vs. Pre-Quit Nicotine Patch) would result in significantly higher abstinence at 16 weeks post-quit.||1.290|.916|.341
90839522|NCT01116986|181546257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.117||||0.207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.941|1.325|||Regression, Logistic|||The logistic regression model effects consisted of six treatment main effects and 15 two-way treatment interactions. The main effects provide direct tests of the primary aim of the study, i.e., determining whether or not more intensive treatments (compared to less intensive treatments; e.g., No Pre-Quit Nicotine Gum vs. Pre-Quit Nicotine Gum) would result in significantly higher abstinence at 16 weeks post-quit.||1.325|.941|.207
90839523|NCT01116986|181546257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.196||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.008|1.42|||Regression, Logistic|||The logistic regression model effects consisted of six treatment main effects and 15 two-way treatment interactions. The main effects provide direct tests of the primary aim of the study, i.e., determining whether or not more intensive treatments (compared to less intensive treatments; e.g., No Counseling Before the Quit Attempt vs. Counseling Before the Quit Attempt) would result in significantly higher abstinence at 16 weeks post-quit.||1.420|1.008|.041
90897162|NCT00279201|181660310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.657||95.0||||P-value is for Nocturnal episodes Endpoint.|ANOVA|Response = Treatment + Country + TZD use + Sulfo use.||||||0.657
90897163|NCT00279201|181660310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.108||95.0||||P-value is for Nocturnal episodes Overall.|ANOVA|Response = Treatment + Country + TZD use + Sulfo use.||||||0.108
90839524|NCT01116986|181546257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.056||||0.536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.889|1.254|||Regression, Logistic|||The logistic regression model effects consisted of six treatment main effects and 15 two-way treatment interactions. The main effects provide direct tests of the primary aim of the study, i.e., determining whether or not more intensive treatments (compared to less intensive treatments; e.g., Minimal In-person Counseling During the Quit Attempt vs. Intensive In-person Counseling During the Quit Attempt) would result in significantly higher abstinence at 16 weeks post-quit.||1.254|.889|.536
90839525|NCT01116986|181546257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.049||||0.587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.883|1.246|||Regression, Logistic|||The logistic regression model effects consisted of six treatment main effects and 15 two-way treatment interactions. The main effects provide direct tests of the primary aim of the study, i.e., determining whether or not more intensive treatments (compared to less intensive treatments; e.g., Minimal Phone Counseling During the Quit Attempt vs. Intensive Phone Counseling During the Quit Attempt) would result in significantly higher abstinence at 16 weeks post-quit.||1.246|.883|.587
90839526|NCT01116986|181546257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.078||||0.389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.909|1.278|||Regression, Logistic|||The logistic regression model effects consisted of six treatment main effects and 15 two-way treatment interactions. The main effects provide direct tests of the primary aim of the study, i.e., determining whether or not more intensive treatments (compared to less intensive treatments; e.g., Short Term (8 Weeks) Postquit Nicotine Patch + Nicotine Gum vs. Long Term (26 Weeks) Postquit Nicotine Patch + Nicotine Gum) would result in significantly higher abstinence at 16 weeks post-quit.||1.278|.909|.389
90839527|NCT02392624|181546279|SUPERIORITY||Clinical Worsening Rate Difference|-39.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.5|-22.5|||Chi-squared|||For participants who transitioned to open-label omalizumab, data prior to the date of transitioning was used for analysis.||-22.5|-54.5|<0.0001
90839528|NCT02392624|181546280|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||For participants who transitioned to open-label omalizumab, data prior to the date of transitioning was used for analysis.||||<0.0001
90839529|NCT02392624|181546281|SUPERIORITY||Clinical Worsening Rate Difference|-32.1||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.9|-14.9|||Chi-squared|||For participants who transitioned to open-label omalizumab, data prior to the date of transitioning was used for analysis.||-14.9|-47.9|0.0004
90839530|NCT02392624|181546282|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sample t-test, 1 sided|The p-value from this test was used to determine the importance of continued treatment in this study. P-value is one-sided with alpha = 0.05.||The null hypothesis for this test was that the mean change from Week 24 to Week 48 in UAS7 score was \>/=5 and the alternative hypothesis was that the mean change from Week 24 to Week 48 in UAS7 score was \<5.||||<0.0001
90839531|NCT02392624|181546283|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sample t-test, 2 sided|The p-value from this test was used to evaluate the importance of retreatment after experiencing clinical worsening.||The null hypothesis for this test was that the mean change from the time of retreatment to 12 weeks after retreatment in UAS7 was zero and the alternative hypothesis was that this change was non-zero.||||<0.0001
90839532|NCT03841604|181546286|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.1695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|0.32|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||0.32|-1.75|0.1695
90839533|NCT03841604|181546287|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.0784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.12|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||0.12|-2.1|0.0784
90839534|NCT03841604|181546288|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.23||||0.0744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.01|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-0.01|-0.45|0.0744
90839535|NCT03841604|181546289|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.7247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.49|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||0.49|-0.70|0.7247
90839536|NCT03841604|181546290|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.9052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.38|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||0.38|-0.43|0.9052
90839537|NCT03841604|181546291|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.7115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.88|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||0.88|-0.61|0.7115
90839538|NCT03841604|181546292|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.04||||0.1967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.12|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.12|-0.04|0.1967
90839539|NCT03841604|181546293|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.06||||0.5122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.26|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.26|-0.13|0.5122
90839540|NCT03841604|181546295|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29||0.7376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.03|2.16|||ANCOVA|||||2.16|-3.03|0.7376
90839541|NCT03841604|181546296|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.92||0.5349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.33|5.43|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||5.43|-10.33|0.5349
90839542|NCT01337960|181546297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.01
90839543|NCT01337960|181546298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<.02
90839544|NCT01337960|181546299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.17|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||=0.17
90839545|NCT01337960|181546300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.35|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||=0.35
90839546|NCT03763877|181546303|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.926||0.9883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.42|15.66|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model using a multiple imputation procedure based on the fully conditional specification method.|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in Least Squares (LS) Means estimated in the ANCOVA model.|||15.66|-15.42|0.9883
90839547|NCT03763877|181546303|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.609||0.0842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.06|1.78|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model using a multiple imputation procedure based on the fully conditional specification method.|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the ANCOVA model.|||1.78|-28.06|0.0842
90839548|NCT03763877|181546303|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.636||0.0763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.51|1.43|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model using a multiple imputation procedure based on the fully conditional specification method.|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the ANCOVA model.|||1.43|-28.51|0.0763
90839549|NCT03763877|181546304|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.265||0.8283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.01|12.85|||ANCOVA||Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the ANCOVA model.|||12.85|-16.01|0.8283
90839550|NCT03763877|181546304|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.221||0.0698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.6|1.1|||ANCOVA||Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the ANCOVA model.|||1.10|-27.60|0.0698
91028126|NCT04543136|181940151|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|58.8||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.5|109.1||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||109.1|8.5|0.022
90897164|NCT00279201|181660310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.161||95.0||||P-value is for Severe episodes Overall.|ANOVA|Response = Treatment + Country + TZD use + Sulfo use.||||||0.161
90897165|NCT00279201|181660310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.178||95.0||||P-value is for Severe episodes Overall.|ANOVA|Response = Treatment + Country + TZD use + Sulfo use.||||||0.178
90897166|NCT00279201|181660311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.917||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use in model.||||||0.917
91028127|NCT04543136|181940151|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.8||||0.587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.2|36.6||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||36.6|-64.2|0.587
90839551|NCT03763877|181546304|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.207||0.0184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.63|-2.99|||ANCOVA||Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the ANCOVA model.|||-2.99|-31.63|0.0184
90839552|NCT03763877|181546305|SUPERIORITY||Location Shift|-4.22||||0.5537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.64|8.65|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||8.65|-15.64|0.5537
90839553|NCT03763877|181546305|SUPERIORITY||Location Shift|-13.64||||0.1005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.19|1.88|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.88|-26.19|0.1005
90839554|NCT03763877|181546305|SUPERIORITY||Location Shift|-18.72||||0.0387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.95|-1.58|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||-1.58|-31.95|0.0387
90839555|NCT03763877|181546306|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5733||0.5733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|32.51|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model using a multiple imputation procedure based on the fully conditional specification method.|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the ANCOVA model.|||32.51|-18.00|0.5733
90839556|NCT03763877|181546306|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.236||0.3861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.6|13.38|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model using a multiple imputation procedure based on the fully conditional specification method.|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the ANCOVA model.|||13.38|-34.60|0.3861
91103965|NCT00836901|182094674|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of Least Squares Means|99.28||||||90.0|97.09|101.53|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||101.53|97.09|
90839557|NCT03763877|181546306|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.916||0.1019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.46|4.19|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model using a multiple imputation procedure based on the fully conditional specification method.|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the ANCOVA model.|||4.19|-46.46|0.1019
90839558|NCT03763877|181546307|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.242|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3873||0.8617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.961|2.478|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model using a multiple imputation procedure based on the fully conditional specification method|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the ANCOVA model.|||2.478|-2.961|0.8617
90897167|NCT00279201|181660311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.754||95.0||||P-value for Baseline.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use in model.||||||0.754
90897168|NCT00279201|181660311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42||95.0||||P-value is for Change.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline, country, and TZD use.||||||0.420
90897169|NCT00279201|181660311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.514||95.0||||P-value for Change.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline, country, and TZD use.||||||0.514
90839559|NCT03763877|181546307|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.571|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3712||0.0609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.26|0.117|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model using a multiple imputation procedure based on the fully conditional specification method|||Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the ANCOVA model.|0.117|-5.260|0.0609
90839560|NCT03763877|181546307|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.414|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3633||0.0766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.087|0.258|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA using a multiple imputation procedure based on the fully conditional specification method|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the ANCOVA model.|||0.258|-5.087|0.0766
90839561|NCT03763877|181546308|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.744||||0.5592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|11.267|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with multiple imputation||||11.267|0.270|0.5592
90839562|NCT03763877|181546308|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.287||||0.3747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.368|14.208|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with multiple imputation||||14.208|0.368|0.3747
90839563|NCT03763877|181546308|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.669||||0.0501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|32.149|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with multiple imputation||||32.149|1.000|0.0501
90839564|NCT03763877|181546309|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.71||0.8013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|6.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||6.4|-8.3|0.8013
90897170|NCT00279201|181660312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use in model.||||||0.770
90897171|NCT00279201|181660312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.566||95.0||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.566
90897172|NCT00279201|181660312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.812||95.0||||P-value is for Week 24.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.812
90897173|NCT00279201|181660312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99||95.0||||P-value is for Endpoint.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.990
90897174|NCT00279201|181660312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.552||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use in model.||||||0.552
90897175|NCT00279201|181660312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.179||95.0||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.179
90897176|NCT00279201|181660312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.377||95.0||||P-value is for Week 24.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.377
90897177|NCT00279201|181660312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.271||95.0||||P-value is for Endpoint.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.271
90897178|NCT00916032|181660313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.103||95.0|||||paired t-test done on the Log(AUC 0-48h)|||||||0.103
90897179|NCT00916032|181660314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.162||95.0|||||paired t-test done on the Log(AUC 0-48h)|||||||0.162
90839565|NCT03763877|181546309|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.81||0.8694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|7.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|7.0|-8.2|0.8694
90839566|NCT03763877|181546309|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8||0.0581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|0.3|-14.9|0.0581
90839567|NCT03763877|181546310|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.44||0.6681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|5.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||5.9|-3.8|0.6681
90839568|NCT03763877|181546310|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.51||0.8224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|5.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||5.5|-4.4|0.8224
90839569|NCT03763877|181546310|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.0924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||0.7|-9.2|0.0924
90839570|NCT03763877|181546311|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.256||0.5148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||0.34|-0.68|0.5148
90839571|NCT03763877|181546311|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.261||0.0434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||-0.02|-1.05|0.0434
90839572|NCT03763877|181546311|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.261||0.0494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||0.00|-1.04|0.0494
90839573|NCT03763877|181546312|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.111||0.2449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.09|||ANCOVA||Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the ANOVA model.|||0.09|-0.35|0.2449
90839574|NCT03763877|181546312|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.115||0.0502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the ANOVA model.|||0.00|-0.46|0.0502
90839575|NCT03763877|181546312|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.113||0.0123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.06|||ANCOVA||Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the ANOVA model.|||-0.06|-0.51|0.0123
90839576|NCT03763877|181546313|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.251|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2172||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.682|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||0.180|-0.682|0.2510
90897180|NCT00696384|181660362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.78|-5.78||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Includes participants with both a double-blind baseline and postbaseline value.|ANCOVA|||||-5.78|-9.78|<0.001
90897181|NCT00696384|181660363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.47|-9.29||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Includes participants with both a double-blind baseline and postbaseline value.|ANCOVA|||||-9.29|-15.47|<0.001
90839577|NCT03763877|181546313|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.049|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2202||0.8246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.486|0.388|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||0.388|-0.486|0.8246
90897182|NCT05559866|181660372|OTHER|Variance|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.53|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.74|||t-test, 2 sided|||Scores from the proximal stomach, mid-stomach and distal stomach in the control and treatment groups were analyzed to determine if there was a significant difference between the mean difference in durability scores for the control and treatment groups.||.74|.31|<0.01
90839578|NCT03763877|181546313|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.026|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2216||0.9067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.466|0.414|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||0.414|-0.466|0.9067
90839579|NCT03763877|181546314|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.018|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0468||0.6951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.111|0.075|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||0.075|-0.111|0.6951
90839580|NCT03763877|181546314|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.078|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0472||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.171|0.016|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||0.016|-0.171|0.1030
90839581|NCT03763877|181546314|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0471||0.8583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.085|0.102|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||0.102|-0.085|0.8583
90839582|NCT03763877|181546315|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.105|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1777||0.5576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.457|0.248|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||0.248|-0.457|0.5576
90839583|NCT03763877|181546315|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.144|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1799||0.4261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.213|0.501|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||0.501|-0.213|0.4261
90839584|NCT03763877|181546315|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.081|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1822||0.6571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.281|0.443|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||0.443|-0.281|0.6571
90839585|NCT03763877|181546316|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.161|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2851||0.5732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.727|0.405|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||0.405|-0.727|0.5732
90839586|NCT03763877|181546316|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.139|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2884||0.6312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.712|0.434|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||0.434|-0.712|0.6312
90839587|NCT03763877|181546316|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.201|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2865||0.4857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.769|0.368|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||0.368|-0.769|0.4857
90839588|NCT03763877|181546317|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.074||0.5737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.19|||ANCOVA||Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the ANCOVA model.|||0.19|-0.11|0.5737
90839589|NCT03763877|181546317|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.074||0.7563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.17|||ANCOVA||Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the ANCOVA model.|||0.17|-0.12|0.7563
90839590|NCT03763877|181546317|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.075||0.5695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.11|||ANCOVA||Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the ANCOVA model.|||0.11|-0.19|0.5695
90839591|NCT03763877|181546318|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.659||0.9552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|1.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||1.27|-1.34|0.9552
90839592|NCT03763877|181546318|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.674||0.2633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||0.58|-2.10|0.2633
90839593|NCT03763877|181546318|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.673||0.1962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|0.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||0.46|-2.21|0.1962
90839594|NCT03763877|181546319|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.353||||0.8245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.094|19.554|||Regression, Logistic|||||19.554|0.094|0.8245
90839595|NCT03763877|181546319|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.791||||0.414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.238|32.752|||Regression, Logistic|||||32.752|0.238|0.4140
90839596|NCT03763877|181546319|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.872||||0.0341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.226|180.452|||Regression, Logistic|||||180.452|1.226|0.0341
90839597|NCT03763877|181546320|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.84||0.4626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.1|7.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||7.5|-16.1|0.4626
90839598|NCT03763877|181546320|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.88||0.316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.9|5.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||5.9|-17.9|0.3160
90839599|NCT03763877|181546320|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.19||0.0204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.4|-2.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||-2.4|-27.4|0.0204
90839600|NCT03763877|181546321|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.91||0.4601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|5.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||5.0|-10.8|0.4601
90839601|NCT03763877|181546321|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.95||0.9782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|7.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||7.9|-8.1|0.9782
90839602|NCT03763877|181546321|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.13||0.0205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.3|-1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||-1.6|-18.3|0.0205
90839603|NCT03763877|181546322|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.538||0.9529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|1.05|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||1.05|-1.12|0.9529
90839604|NCT03763877|181546322|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.532||0.1285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||0.25|-1.90|0.1285
90839605|NCT03763877|181546322|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.565||0.0417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.32|-0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||-0.05|-2.32|0.0417
90839606|NCT03763877|181546323|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.228||0.3141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.23|||ANCOVA||Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the ANOVA model.|||0.23|-0.69|0.3141
90839607|NCT03763877|181546323|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.226||0.0656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.03|||ANCOVA||Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the ANOVA model.|||0.03|-0.88|0.0656
90839608|NCT03763877|181546323|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.237||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|-0.16|||ANCOVA||Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the ANOVA model.|||-0.16|-1.12|0.0101
90839609|NCT01774721|181546336|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.589|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.469|0.739|||1-sided stratified log-rank test||Based on stratified Cox regression model|||0.739|0.469|<0.0001
90839610|NCT01774721|181546337|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.748||||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.591|0.947|||1-sided stratified log-rank test||Based on stratified Cox Regression model|||0.947|0.591|0.0077
90839611|NCT01774721|181546339|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.622|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.497|0.779|||1-sided stratified log-rank test||Based on stratified Cox regression model|||0.779|0.497|<0.0001
91028128|NCT04543136|181940152|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|54.9||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|104.4||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||104.4|5.3|0.030
90839612|NCT01774721|181546342|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.403|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.307|0.529|||1-sided stratified log-rank test||Based on stratified Cox regression model|Comparison of dacomitinib vs gefitinib based on IRC review||0.529|0.307|<0.0001
90839613|NCT01774721|181546342|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.545|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.418|0.711|||1-sided stratified log-rank test||Based on stratified Cox regression model|Comparison of dacomitinib vs gefitinib based on Investigator assessment||0.711|0.418|<0.0001
90839614|NCT01774721|181546343|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1942|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1942
90839615|NCT01774721|181546344|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0924|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0924
90839616|NCT01774721|181546351|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.173||||0.1641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.928|1.483|||Unstratified Log-rank Test|||||1.483|0.928|0.1641
90839617|NCT02930824|181546364|SUPERIORITY|We will test the hypothesis that CYP2C19 rapid metabolizers or ultra rapid metabolizers (1 or 2 gain-of-function alleles) in the genotype-supported arm have better gastroesophageal reflux disease and symptom control than CYP2C19 rapid metabolizers or ultra rapid metabolizers in the conventional treatment group because they will have their dose increased based on their genotype.||||||0.78||||||Analysis was done of adult patients enrolled that have a CYP2C19 Rapid or Ultra-rapid metabolizer result.|t-test, 2 sided|||We will test the hypothesis that CYP2C19 rapid metabolizers or ultra rapid metabolizers (1 or 2 gain-of-function alleles) in the genotype-supported arm have better gastroesophageal reflux disease and symptom control than CYP2C19 rapid metabolizers or ultra rapid metabolizers in the conventional treatment group because they will have their dose increased based on their genotype.||||0.78
90839618|NCT02930824|181546365|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.031||||||Adjusted for baseline score, race, baseline proton pump inhibitor use, baseline histamine receptor antagonist use. A sensitivity analysis of participants only on omeprazole revealed similar findings.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Adjusted these end points for covariates, including the baseline score, race, and baseline medications using logistic regression||||||0.031
90839619|NCT02930824|181546366|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.42||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|6.3||unadjusted|Log Rank|||||6.3|0.9|0.07
90839620|NCT02930824|181546367|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97||||||If a participant did not complete a follow-up questionnaire during their third to fifth week of proton pump inhibitor therapy, their questionnaire results were excluded from the analyses.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||If a participant did not complete a follow-up questionnaire during their third to fifth week of proton pump inhibitor therapy, their questionnaire results were excluded from the analyses.||||0.97
90839621|NCT02930824|181546368|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||If a participant did not complete a follow-up questionnaire during their third to fifth week of proton pump inhibitor therapy, their questionnaire results were excluded from the analyses.||||0.83
90839622|NCT00084136|181546376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.51|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|2.04||Not adjusted for multiple interim analyses. Peto-Haybittle spending function was used as a basis for calculating the repeated confidence intervals used in interim monitoring.|Log Rank|Log-rank test was stratified by country and screening RNA (\< 100,000 c/mL vs \>= 100,000 copies/mL).|The HR is for ddI+FTC+ATV vs. ZDV/3TC+EFV.|||2.04|1.12|<0.01
90839623|NCT00084136|181546377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.27|||Other||The HR is for TDF/FTC+EFV vs. ZDV/3TC+EFV.|While original study design specified a non-inferiority test, study follow-up stopped early, not due to treatment effect size or futility, but due to slowing accumulation of primary outcome events. Therefore, 2-sided, 95% confidence intervals about the estimated treatment effect (relative effect estimated by a hazard ratio) are provided.||1.27|0.72|
90897183|NCT05559866|181660373|OTHER|Variance|Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.125|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0000013||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.125|19.125|||ANCOVA|||||19.125|19.125|1.00
90839624|NCT03773978|181546425|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.241|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.128|0.453|||Log Rank|||||0.453|0.128|<0.001
90839625|NCT03773978|181546426|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.72||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|7.46|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 16||7.46|0.99|0.052
90839626|NCT03773978|181546426|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.64||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|8.28|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 20||8.28|1.60|0.002
90839627|NCT03773978|181546426|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|9.41|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 24||9.41|2.00|<0.001
90897184|NCT05559866|181660374|OTHER|Variance||||||0.757||||||alpha = 0.05|ANCOVA|1 degree of freedom||||||0.757
90839628|NCT03773978|181546426|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.37||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.62|7.01|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 28||7.01|1.62|0.001
90839629|NCT03773978|181546426|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.0||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|6.07|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 32||6.07|1.48|0.002
90839630|NCT03773978|181546426|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.62|6.52|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 36||6.52|1.62|<0.001
90839631|NCT03773978|181546426|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.85|7.41|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 40||7.41|1.85|<0.001
90839632|NCT03773978|181546426|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|6.5|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 44||6.50|1.65|<0.001
90839633|NCT03773978|181546427|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.65|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 16||2.65|0.59|0.568
90839634|NCT03773978|181546427|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.92||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|6.09|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 20||6.09|1.40|0.004
90897185|NCT05559866|181660375|OTHER|Variance||||||0.271||||||Alpha = 0.05|ANCOVA|1 degree of freedom||||||0.271
90897186|NCT05559866|181660376|OTHER|Variance||||||0.29||||||alpha = 0.05|ANCOVA|1 degree of freedom||||||0.29
90897187|NCT05559866|181660377|OTHER|Variance||||||0.72||||||alpha = 0.05|ANCOVA|1 degree of freedom||||||0.72
90897188|NCT05559866|181660378|OTHER|Variance||||||0.41||||||alpha = 0.05|ANCOVA|1 degree of freedom||||||0.41
90897189|NCT05559866|181660379|OTHER|Variance||||||0.53||||||alpha = 0.05|ANCOVA|1 degree of freedom||||||0.53
91091810|NCT02065557|182067334|SUPERIORITY|one-sample two-sided Chi-square test||||||0.292||||||Adjusted p-value from a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure, testing co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints 1st for M-SD+M-HD, then for individual adalimumab dose groups (M-HD, M-SD) against the respective external placebo rate (14.79%)|rejective multiple test procedure|controlling familywise Type I error of 5% in a strong sense||Efficacy analysis was based on the modified Intent-To-Treat-Efficacy (mITT-E) population for the maintenance period. The mITT-E population was a subpopulation of the mITT population, where participants in M-PL arm were excluded.||||0.292
90839635|NCT03773978|181546427|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|9.15|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 24||9.15|2.10|<0.001
90839636|NCT03773978|181546427|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.09||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|6.32|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 28||6.32|1.51|0.002
90839637|NCT03773978|181546427|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.99||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|6.11|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 32||6.11|1.47|0.003
90839638|NCT03773978|181546427|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.84||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|5.6|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 36||5.60|1.44|0.003
90839639|NCT03773978|181546427|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.74|6.97|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 40||6.97|1.74|<0.001
90839640|NCT03773978|181546427|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.87||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|5.66|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 44||5.66|1.46|0.002
90839641|NCT03773978|181546428|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.87|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 16||1.87|0.52|0.972
90839642|NCT03773978|181546428|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.47||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|4.81|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 20||4.81|1.27|0.008
90839643|NCT03773978|181546428|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.57||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|4.97|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 24||4.97|1.33|0.005
90839644|NCT03773978|181546428|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|5.94|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 28||5.94|1.57|<0.001
90839645|NCT03773978|181546428|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.42||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|4.71|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 32||4.71|1.25|0.009
90839646|NCT03773978|181546428|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.8||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|5.47|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 36||5.47|1.43|0.003
90839647|NCT03773978|181546428|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.93||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|5.83|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 40||5.83|1.47|0.002
90839648|NCT03773978|181546428|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.93||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|3.74|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 44||3.74|0.99|0.052
90839649|NCT03773978|181546429|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.75|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 16||2.75|0.66|0.409
90839650|NCT03773978|181546429|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.13||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|4.23|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 20||4.23|1.07|0.030
90839651|NCT03773978|181546429|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.36||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|4.92|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 24||4.92|1.13|0.022
90839652|NCT03773978|181546429|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.05||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|4.08|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 28||4.08|1.03|0.040
90839653|NCT03773978|181546429|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.13||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|4.24|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 32||4.24|1.07|0.032
90839654|NCT03773978|181546429|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|3.42|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 36||3.42|0.85|0.132
90839655|NCT03773978|181546429|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.02||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|4.1|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 40||4.10|1.00|0.050
90839656|NCT03773978|181546429|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.32||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|4.71|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 44||4.71|1.15|0.019
90839657|NCT03773978|181546430|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.92|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 16||1.92|0.33|0.620
90839658|NCT03773978|181546430|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|2.78|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 20||2.78|0.61|0.492
90839659|NCT03773978|181546430|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.75|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 24||2.75|0.50|0.715
90839660|NCT03773978|181546430|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.99|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 28||2.99|0.66|0.384
90839661|NCT03773978|181546430|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|3.1|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 32||3.10|0.70|0.311
90839662|NCT03773978|181546430|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.58||||0.231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|3.34|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 36||3.34|0.75|0.231
90839663|NCT03773978|181546430|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.82||||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|3.95|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 40||3.95|0.84|0.129
90839664|NCT03773978|181546430|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.23||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|4.84|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 44||4.84|1.02|0.043
90839665|NCT03773978|181546431|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.98|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 16||2.98|0.40|0.853
90839666|NCT03773978|181546431|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.71|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 20||1.71|0.29|0.432
90839667|NCT03773978|181546431|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|2.31|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 24||2.31|0.41|0.960
90839668|NCT03773978|181546431|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|4.01|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 28||4.01|0.73|0.215
90839669|NCT03773978|181546431|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|4.22|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 32||4.22|0.77|0.173
90839670|NCT03773978|181546431|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46||||0.367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|3.33|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 36||3.33|0.64|0.367
90839671|NCT03773978|181546431|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|4.67|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 40||4.67|0.77|0.162
90839672|NCT03773978|181546431|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.96||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|4.5|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 44||4.50|0.85|0.113
90839673|NCT03773978|181546432|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.55|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 16||1.55|0.42|0.511
90839674|NCT03773978|181546432|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.64||||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|3.2|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 20||3.20|0.84|0.145
90897190|NCT05559866|181660380|OTHER|Variance||||||0.91||||||alpha = 0.05|ANCOVA|1 degree of freedom||||||0.91
90897191|NCT05559866|181660381|OTHER|||||||0.307|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-Square: 1.043478||||||0.307
90897192|NCT05559866|181660382|OTHER|Association|||||||||||||||||Unable to perform Chi-Square test as data in both categorical sets was identical - there is no variation to test.|||
90897193|NCT00856167|181660396|SUPERIORITY||Regression coefficient|-0.6||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||Regression coefficient of TCM indicator variable, with change in CFP as the outcome, and controlling for start of treatment values: CFP, depression, gender, age, site|Regression, Linear|||Participants were allocated to one of the two treatments in order to balance baseline CFP, a depression score, age, gender, and site (Tucson or Portland).|"Since some participants could appear in both the 1st and 2nd period, the regression included random effects to account for correlation between measures on the same person.~In the 1st period, participants could either be allocated to TCM or SC, or if their pain scores were below 5, simply assigned to continuing self-care. Comparisons from this period were only between the allocated TCM and SC groups. In the 2nd period, those allocated or assigned to SC in the 1st period could be allocated to TCM or SC, or again assigned to continuing SC if their pain scores were too low. Comparisons from this period were only between the allocated TCM and SC groups."|||0.020
90897194|NCT01061333|181660399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS mean|16.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|10.74|21.69||p-value not adjusted for simultaneous multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|||||21.69|10.74|<0.0001
90897195|NCT01061333|181660399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|15.51||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|10.0|21.02||p-value not adjusted for simultaneous multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|||||21.02|10.00|0.0001
90897196|NCT01061333|181660399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|8.49||||0.0432|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.78|15.2||p-value not adjusted for simultaneous multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|||||15.20|1.78|0.0432
90897197|NCT01061333|181660400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geom. Mean Ratio of fold over baseline|1.27||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.05|1.54||p-Value not adjusted for simultaneous multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|concentrations evaluated at log scale||||1.54|1.05|0.0430
91028129|NCT04543136|181940152|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|61.8||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.5|111.2||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||111.2|12.5|0.015
90897198|NCT01061333|181660400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geom. Mean Ratio of fold over baseline|1.41||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.15|1.72||p-Value not adjusted for simultaneous multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|concentrations evaluated at log scale||||1.72|1.15|0.0100
90897199|NCT01061333|181660400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geom. Mean Ratio of fold over baseline|1.3||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.01|1.67||p-Value not adjusted for simultaneous multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|concentrations evaluated at log scale||||1.67|1.01|0.0860
90897200|NCT01061333|181660401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geom. Mean Ratio of fold over baseline|0.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|0.7||p-Value not adjusted for simultaneous multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|concentrations evaluated at log scale||||0.70|0.50|<0.0001
90897201|NCT01061333|181660401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geom. Mean Ratio of fold over baseline|0.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.49|0.7||p-Value not adjusted for simultaneous multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|concentrations evaluated at log scale||||0.70|0.49|<0.0001
90897202|NCT01061333|181660401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geom. Mean Ratio of fold over baseline|0.87||||0.2679|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|1.08||p-Value not adjusted for simultaneous multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|concentrations evaluated at log scale||||1.08|0.69|0.2679
90897203|NCT01061333|181660402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geom. Mean Ratio of fold over baseline|0.9||||0.7622|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.51|1.59||p-Value not adjusted for simultaneous multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|concentrations evaluated at log scale||||1.59|0.51|0.7622
90897204|NCT01061333|181660402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geom. Mean Ratio of fold over baseline|0.94||||0.8468|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.53|1.65||p-Value not adjusted for simultaneous multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|concentrations evaluated on log scale||||1.65|0.53|0.8468
90897205|NCT01061333|181660402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geom. Mean Ratio of fold over baseline|0.91||||0.614|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.65|1.26||p-Value not adjusted for simultaneous multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|concentrations evaluated at log scale||||1.26|0.65|0.6140
90897206|NCT01061333|181660403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geom. Mean Ratio of fold over baseline|0.67||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.57|0.8||p-Value not adjusted for simultaneous multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|concentrations evaluated at log scale||||0.80|0.57|0.0006
90897207|NCT01061333|181660403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geom. Mean Ratio of fold over baseline|0.79||||0.0291|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.67|0.94||p-Value not adjusted for simultaneous multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|concentrations evaluated at log scale||||0.94|0.67|0.0291
90897208|NCT01061333|181660403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geom. Mean Ratio of fold over baseline|0.92||||0.3738|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.77|1.08||p-Value not adjusted for simultaneous multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|concentrations evaluated at log scale||||1.08|0.77|0.3738
90897209|NCT01061333|181660404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geom. mean of fold change over Placebo|1.03||||0.7501||90.0|0.88|1.2||p-Value not adjusted for simultaneous multiple comparisons|ANOVA|concentrations evaluated at log scale||||1.20|0.88|0.7501
90897210|NCT01061333|181660404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geom. mean of fold change over Placebo|1.01||||0.941|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|1.25||p-Value not adjusted for simultaneous multiple comparisons|ANOVA|concentrations evaluated at log scale||||1.25|0.81|0.9410
90897211|NCT01061333|181660404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geom. mean of fold change over Placebo|0.89||||0.1165|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.79|1.01||p-Value not adjusted for simultaneous multiple comparisons|ANOVA|concentrations evaluated at log scale||||1.01|0.79|0.1165
90897212|NCT01061333|181660405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geom. mean of fold change over Placebo|1.03||||0.8616|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.76|1.41||p-Value not adjusted for simultaneous multiple comparisons|ANOVA|concentrations evaluated at log scale||||1.41|0.76|0.8616
90897213|NCT01061333|181660405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geom. mean of fold change over Placebo|1.06||||0.7512|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.77|1.45||p-Value not adjusted for simultaneous multiple comparisons|ANOVA|concentrations evaluated at log scale||||1.45|0.77|0.7512
90897214|NCT01061333|181660405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geom. mean of fold change over Placebo|0.99||||0.9723|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.72|1.37||p-Value not adjusted for simultaneous multiple comparisons|ANOVA|concentrations evaluated at log scale||||1.37|0.72|0.9723
91091811|NCT02065557|182067334|SUPERIORITY|one-sample two-sided Chi-square test|||||<|0.001||||||Adjusted p-value from a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure, testing co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints 1st for M-SD+M-HD, then for individual adalimumab dose groups (M-HD, M-SD) against the respective external placebo rate (14.79%)|rejective multiple test procedure|controlling familywise Type I error of 5% in a strong sense||Efficacy analysis was based on the modified Intent-To-Treat-Efficacy (mITT-E) population for the maintenance period. The mITT-E population was a subpopulation of the mITT population, where participants in M-PL arm were excluded.||||< 0.001
91091812|NCT02065557|182067334|SUPERIORITY|one-sample two-sided Chi-square test|||||<|0.001||||||Adjusted p-value from a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure, testing co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints 1st for M-SD+M-HD, then for individual adalimumab dose groups (M-HD, M-SD) against the respective external placebo rate (14.79%)|rejective multiple test procedure|controlling familywise Type I error of 5% in a strong sense||Efficacy analysis was based on the modified Intent-To-Treat-Efficacy (mITT-E) population for the maintenance period. The mITT-E population was a subpopulation of the mITT population, where participants in M-PL arm were excluded.||||< 0.001
91091813|NCT02065557|182067334|SUPERIORITY|one-sample two-sided Chi-square test||||||0.292||||||Adjusted p-value from a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure, testing co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints 1st for M-SD+M-HD, then for individual adalimumab dose groups (M-HD, M-SD) against the respective external placebo rate (14.79%)|rejective multiple test procedure|controlling familywise Type I error of 5% in a strong sense||Efficacy analysis was based on the modified Intent-To-Treat-Efficacy (mITT-E) population for the maintenance period. The mITT-E population was a subpopulation of the mITT population, where participants in M-PL arm were excluded.||||0.292
91091814|NCT02065557|182067335|SUPERIORITY|one-sample two-sided Chi-square test||||||0.382||||||Adjusted p-value from a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure, testing co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints 1st for M-SD+M-HD, then for individual adalimumab dose groups (M-HD, M-SD) against the respective external placebo rate (24.08%)|rejective multiple test procedure|controlling familywise Type I error of 5% in a strong sense||Efficacy analysis was based on the modified Intent-To-Treat-Efficacy (mITT-E) population for the maintenance period. The mITT-E population was a subpopulation of the mITT population, where participants in M-PL arm were excluded.||||0.382
91091815|NCT02065557|182067335|SUPERIORITY|one-sample two-sided Chi-square test||||||1||||||Adjusted p-value from a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure, testing co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints 1st for M-SD+M-HD, then for individual adalimumab dose groups (M-HD, M-SD) against the respective external placebo rate (24.08%)|rejective multiple test procedure|controlling familywise Type I error of 5% in a strong sense||Efficacy analysis was based on the modified Intent-To-Treat-Efficacy (mITT-E) population for the maintenance period. The mITT-E population was a subpopulation of the mITT population, where participants in M-PL arm were excluded.||||1.000
91091816|NCT02065557|182067335|SUPERIORITY|one-sample two-sided Chi-square test||||||1||||||Adjusted p-value from a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure, testing co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints 1st for M-SD+M-HD, then for individual adalimumab dose groups (M-HD, M-SD) against the respective external placebo rate (24.08%)|rejective multiple test procedure|controlling familywise Type I error of 5% in a strong sense||Efficacy analysis was based on the modified Intent-To-Treat-Efficacy (mITT-E) population for the maintenance period. The mITT-E population was a subpopulation of the mITT population, where participants in M-PL arm were excluded.||||1.000
90897215|NCT01061333|181660406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geom. mean of fold change over Placebo|1.3||||0.1983|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.82||p-Value not adjusted for simultaneous multiple comparisons|ANOVA|concentrations evaluated at log scale||||1.82|0.92|0.1983
91028130|NCT04543136|181940152|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.9||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.5|42.5||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||42.5|-56.5|0.780
91028131|NCT04543136|181940153|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.3||||0.281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.9|11.2||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||11.2|-37.9|0.281
91028132|NCT04543136|181940153|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.6||||0.597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.3|31.7||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||31.7|-18.3|0.597
90839675|NCT03773978|181546432|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.72|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 24||2.72|0.70|0.349
90839676|NCT03773978|181546432|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|3.25|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 28||3.25|0.82|0.167
90839677|NCT03773978|181546432|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|3.07|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 32||3.07|0.78|0.212
90839678|NCT03773978|181546432|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.39|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 36||2.39|0.62|0.577
90839679|NCT03773978|181546432|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.95|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 40||2.95|0.78|0.225
90839680|NCT03773978|181546432|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.96||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|3.9|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 44||3.90|0.98|0.055
90839681|NCT03773978|181546434|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-4.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.328||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.95|-1.7|||ANCOVA|||||-1.70|-6.95|0.001
90839682|NCT03773978|181546435|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-12.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.262||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.39|-4.55|||ANCOVA|||||-4.55|-21.39|0.003
90839683|NCT03773978|181546436|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.526||0.574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.62|1.91|||ANCOVA|||||1.91|-2.62|0.574
90839684|NCT03773978|181546437|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.348||0.208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|1.15|||ANCOVA|||||1.15|-0.26|0.208
90839685|NCT03773978|181546438|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.438||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|-0.19|||ANCOVA|||||-0.19|-1.98|0.019
90839686|NCT00198822|181546456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.65||||0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.99||We set an a priori level of statistical significance of p equal to 0.05.|generalized estimating equations|RR with 95% CIs were estimated by GEE binomial regression, with a log link function and exchangeable correlation appropriate for binary data.|The vitamin A group and the Beta-carotene group were compared to the placebo group.|Sample size was based on an expected placebo group MR of 600/100,000 pregnancies, requiring 18,000 pregnancies to detect a 35% reduction in all-cause mortality, with a 5% type I error, 80% power, 1.21 design effect, 15% early pregnancy loss and 10% loss to follow-up. A mid-study DSMB analysis suggested a lower MR, leading the SS to be increased to 67,740. However, with no mortality difference evident at a DSMB meeting in Dec 2006, the trial was halted leaving 59,721 in the trial cohort.||0.99||0.05
90839687|NCT03818256|181546491|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.11||||0.8511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|1.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.24|-1.03|0.8511
90839688|NCT03818256|181546495|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.8169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|4.474|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.474|0.150|0.8169
90839689|NCT03818256|181546496|SUPERIORITY||Location shift|0.175||||0.9285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.86|2.78|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||2.780|-2.860|0.9285
90839690|NCT03818256|181546497|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.007||||0.5669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.018|0.033|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.033|-0.018|0.5669
90839691|NCT01342211|181546498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares (LS) Mean Difference|-5.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.759||0.5661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.09|13.83|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with fixed effects for treatment, background statin, treatment by background statin interaction, and baseline.||13.83|-25.09|0.5661
90839692|NCT01342211|181546498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.422||0.808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.08|16.49|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with fixed effects for treatment, background statin, treatment by background statin interaction, and baseline.||16.49|-21.08|0.8080
90839693|NCT01342211|181546498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-37.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.404||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.47|-18.97|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with fixed effects for treatment, background statin, treatment by background statin interaction, and baseline.||-18.97|-56.47|0.0001
90839694|NCT01342211|181546498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-49.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.514|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.08|-30.14|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with fixed effects for treatment, background statin, treatment by background statin interaction, and baseline.||-30.14|-68.08|<0.0001
90839695|NCT01342211|181546499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.172||||0.8998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|13.92|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 29, \<70 mg/dL: The standard logistic regression model was used to assess treatment effect.||13.92|0.10|0.8998
90839696|NCT01342211|181546499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.063||||0.5273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|19.48|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 29, \<70 mg/dL: The standard logistic regression model was used to assess treatment effect.||19.48|0.22|0.5273
91028133|NCT04543136|181940153|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.0||||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.1|5.0||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||5.0|-45.1|0.116
90839697|NCT01342211|181546499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|53.924||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.93|490.67|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 29, \<70 mg/dL: The standard logistic regression model was used to assess treatment effect.||490.67|5.93|0.0004
90839698|NCT01342211|181546499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|280.366|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.65|4214.35|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 29, \<70 mg/dL: The standard logistic regression model was used to assess treatment effect.||4214.35|18.65|<0.0001
90839699|NCT01342211|181546499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.262||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|1.21|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 29, \<100 mg/dL: The standard logistic regression model was used to assess treatment effect.||1.21|0.06|0.0860
90839700|NCT01342211|181546499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.579||||0.4308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|2.25|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 29, \<100 mg/dL: The standard logistic regression model was used to assess treatment effect.||2.25|0.15|0.4308
90839701|NCT01342211|181546499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.272||||0.0127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|43.56|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 29, \<100 mg/dL: The standard logistic regression model was used to assess treatment effect.||43.56|1.57|0.0127
90839702|NCT01342211|181546499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.528||||0.0096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.89|97.0|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 29, \<100 mg/dL: The standard logistic regression model was used to assess treatment effect.||97.00|1.89|0.0096
90839703|NCT01342211|181546499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.131||||0.9519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|61.54|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 57, \<70 mg/dL: The standard logistic regression model was used to assess treatment effect.||61.54|0.02|0.9519
90839704|NCT01342211|181546499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.069||||0.974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|58.0|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 57, \<70 mg/dL: The standard logistic regression model was used to assess treatment effect.||58.00|0.02|0.9740
90839705|NCT01342211|181546499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|28.286||||0.0273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|549.78|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 57, \<70 mg/dL: The standard logistic regression model was used to assess treatment effect.||549.78|1.46|0.0273
90839706|NCT01342211|181546499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|114.508||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.5|2384.03|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 57, \<70 mg/dL: The standard logistic regression model was used to assess treatment effect.||2384.03|5.50|0.0022
90839707|NCT01342211|181546499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.216||||0.0684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|1.12|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 57, \<100 mg/dL: The standard logistic regression model was used to assess treatment effect.||1.12|0.04|0.0684
90839708|NCT01342211|181546499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.081||||0.9068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|3.99|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 57, \<100 mg/dL: The standard logistic regression model was used to assess treatment effect.||3.99|0.29|0.9068
90839709|NCT01342211|181546499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.251||||0.2235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|8.31|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 57, \<100 mg/dL: The standard logistic regression model was used to assess treatment effect.||8.31|0.61|0.2235
91028134|NCT04543136|181940154|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.3||||0.787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.2|27.9||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||27.9|-21.2|0.787
90839710|NCT01342211|181546499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.25||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|42.82|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 57, \<100 mg/dL: The standard logistic regression model was used to assess treatment effect.||42.82|1.59|0.0120
90839711|NCT01342211|181546499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.359||||0.5449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|9.92|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 85, \<70 mg/dL: The standard logistic regression model was used to assess treatment effect.||9.92|0.01|0.5449
90839712|NCT01342211|181546499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.914||||0.5585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|16.85|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 85, \<70 mg/dL: The standard logistic regression model was used to assess treatment effect.||16.85|0.22|0.5585
90839713|NCT01342211|181546499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|21.059||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|147.65|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 85, \<70 mg/dL: The standard logistic regression model was used to assess treatment effect.||147.65|3.00|0.0022
90839714|NCT01342211|181546499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|22.851||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.15|165.99|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 85, \<70 mg/dL: The standard logistic regression model was used to assess treatment effect.||165.99|3.15|0.0020
90839715|NCT01342211|181546499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.844||||0.375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|7.12|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 85, \<100 mg/dL: The standard logistic regression model was used to assess treatment effect.||7.12|0.48|0.3750
90839716|NCT01342211|181546499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.078||||0.914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|4.23|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 85, \<100 mg/dL: The standard logistic regression model was used to assess treatment effect.||4.23|0.28|0.9140
90839717|NCT01342211|181546499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.548||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.09|43.57|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 85, \<100 mg/dL: The standard logistic regression model was used to assess treatment effect.||43.57|2.09|0.0036
90839718|NCT01342211|181546499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.093||||0.0149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|26.1|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 85, \<100 mg/dL: The standard logistic regression model was used to assess treatment effect.||26.10|1.42|0.0149
90839719|NCT01342211|181546500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.674||||0.5436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|8.83|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 29: The standard logistic regression model was used to assess treatment effect.||8.83|0.32|0.5436
90839720|NCT01342211|181546500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.734||||0.742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|4.63|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 29: The standard logistic regression model was used to assess treatment effect.||4.63|0.12|0.7420
90839721|NCT01342211|181546500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|28.151||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.73|167.62|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 29: The standard logistic regression model was used to assess treatment effect.||167.62|4.73|0.0002
91028135|NCT04543136|181940154|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.8||||0.576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6|31.3||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||31.3|-17.6|0.576
90839722|NCT01342211|181546500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|71.214||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.88|643.42|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 29: The standard logistic regression model was used to assess treatment effect.||643.42|7.88|0.0001
90839723|NCT01342211|181546500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.203||||0.321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|4.74|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 57: The standard logistic regression model was used to assess treatment effect.||4.74|0.01|0.3210
90839724|NCT01342211|181546500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.175||||0.3786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|12.27|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 57: The standard logistic regression model was used to assess treatment effect.||12.27|0.39|0.3786
90839725|NCT01342211|181546500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.576||||0.0144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|38.38|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 57: The standard logistic regression model was used to assess treatment effect.||38.38|1.50|0.0144
90839726|NCT01342211|181546500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|20.465||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.59|116.6|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 57: The standard logistic regression model was used to assess treatment effect.||116.60|3.59|0.0007
90839727|NCT01342211|181546500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.161||||0.8626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|6.3|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 85: The standard logistic regression model was used to assess treatment effect.||6.30|0.21|0.8626
90839728|NCT01342211|181546500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.497||||0.6237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|7.51|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 85: The standard logistic regression model was used to assess treatment effect.||7.51|0.30|0.6237
90839729|NCT01342211|181546500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.029||||0.0072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.76|36.65|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 85: The standard logistic regression model was used to assess treatment effect.||36.65|1.76|0.0072
90839730|NCT01342211|181546500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|20.557||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.73|113.2|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 85: The standard logistic regression model was used to assess treatment effect.||113.20|3.73|0.0005
90839731|NCT03593044|181546563|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Photopic pupil size||||0.002
90897216|NCT01061333|181660406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geom. mean of fold change over Placebo|1.57||||0.0872|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.02|2.42||p-Value not adjusted for simultaneous multiple comparisons|ANOVA|concentrations evaluated at log scale||||2.42|1.02|0.0872
90839732|NCT03593044|181546563|OTHER|||||||0.66|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Mesopic pupil size||||0.66
90839733|NCT03593044|181546564|OTHER|||||||0.96|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||High contrast distance visual acuity||||0.96
90839734|NCT03593044|181546564|OTHER|||||||0.77|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||High contrast near visual acuity||||0.77
90839735|NCT03593044|181546564|OTHER|||||||0.82|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Low contrast distance visual acuity||||0.82
90839736|NCT03593044|181546565|OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Accommodative amplitude||||0.10
90839737|NCT03593044|181546565|OTHER|||||||0.66|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Accommodative lag||||0.66
90839738|NCT03593044|181546565|OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Accommodative facility||||0.24
90839739|NCT03593044|181546566|OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Glare||||0.3
90839740|NCT03593044|181546566|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Ghost images||||0.5
90839741|NCT03593044|181546566|OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Strain/tiredness||||0.9
90897217|NCT01061333|181660406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geom. mean of fold change over Placebo|1.22||||0.2499|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.62||p-Value not adjusted for simultaneous multiple comparisons|ANOVA|concentrations evaluated at log scale||||1.62|0.91|0.2499
90839742|NCT03593044|181546566|OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Changing vision||||0.9
90839743|NCT03593044|181546566|OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Headache frequency||||0.3
90839744|NCT03593044|181546566|OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Distance clarity||||0.7
90839745|NCT03593044|181546566|OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Computer clarity||||0.3
90839746|NCT03593044|181546566|OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Small print clarity||||0.1
90839747|NCT03593044|181546566|OTHER|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Vision during sports/hobbies||||1.0
90839748|NCT03593044|181546566|OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Overall vision||||0.2
90839749|NCT03593044|181546566|OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Light sensitivity||||0.7
90839750|NCT03593044|181546566|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Discomfort during bright light||||0.002
90839751|NCT03593044|181546567|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Right eye intraocular pressure||||0.001
90839752|NCT03593044|181546567|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Left eye intraocular pressure||||0.05
90839753|NCT02144610|181546590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||MI at 0-6 Months||||>0.999
90839754|NCT02144610|181546590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4889|||||||Fisher Exact|||MI at 0-12 Months||||0.4889
90839755|NCT02144610|181546590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4889|||||||Fisher Exact|||MI at 0-18 Months||||0.4889
90839756|NCT02144610|181546590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||Stroke at 0-6 Months||||>0.999
90839757|NCT02144610|181546590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||Stroke at 0-12 Months||||>0.999
90839758|NCT02144610|181546590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||Stroke at 0-18 Months||||>0.999
90839759|NCT02144610|181546590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7381|||||||Fisher Exact|||Major amputation at 0-6 Months||||0.7381
90839760|NCT02144610|181546590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||Major amputation at 0-12 Months||||>0.999
90839761|NCT02144610|181546590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||Major amputation at 0-18 Months||||>0.999
90839762|NCT02144610|181546590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||Revascularization at 0-6 Months||||>0.999
90839763|NCT02144610|181546590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4591|||||||Fisher Exact|||Revascularization at 0-12 Months||||0.4591
90839764|NCT02144610|181546590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4591|||||||Fisher Exact|||Revascularization at 0-18 Months||||0.4591
90839765|NCT02144610|181546590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||All-cause death at 0-6 Months||||>0.999
90839766|NCT02144610|181546590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||All-cause death at 0-12 Months||||>0.999
90839767|NCT02144610|181546590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||All-cause death at 0-18 Months||||>0.999
91091817|NCT02065557|182067335|SUPERIORITY|one-sample two-sided Chi-square test||||||0.344||||||Adjusted p-value from a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure, testing co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints 1st for M-SD+M-HD, then for individual adalimumab dose groups (M-HD, M-SD) against the respective external placebo rate (24.08%)|rejective multiple test procedure|controlling familywise Type I error of 5% in a strong sense||Efficacy analysis was based on the modified Intent-To-Treat-Efficacy (mITT-E) population for the maintenance period. The mITT-E population was a subpopulation of the mITT population, where participants in M-PL arm were excluded.||||0.344
90839768|NCT02144610|181546590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5136|||||||Fisher Exact|||0-6 Months (Major Amputation or Death)||||0.5136
90839769|NCT02144610|181546590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7575|||||||Fisher Exact|||0-12 Months (Major Amputation or Death)||||0.7575
90839770|NCT02144610|181546590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||0-18 Months (Major Amputation or Death)||||>0.999
90839771|NCT02144610|181546590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7575|||||||Fisher Exact|||0-6 Months (Major Amputation or Revascularization)||||0.7575
90839772|NCT02144610|181546590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||0-12 Months (Major Amputation or Revascularization)||||>0.999
90839773|NCT02144610|181546590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||0-18 Months (Major Amputation or Revascularization)||||>0.999
90839774|NCT02144610|181546591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.514|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Month 3||||0.514
90839775|NCT02144610|181546591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.445|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Month 6||||0.445
90839776|NCT02144610|181546591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.863|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Month 9||||0.863
90839777|NCT02144610|181546591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.111|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Month 12||||0.111
90839778|NCT02144610|181546591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.153|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Month 15||||0.153
90839779|NCT02144610|181546591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at last observation carried forward (LOCF)||||0.002
90839780|NCT02144610|181546594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.733|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline at Month 3 (right brachial)||||0.733
90839781|NCT02144610|181546594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.808|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline at Month 6 (right brachial)||||0.808
90839782|NCT02144610|181546594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.487|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline at Month 9 (right brachial)||||0.487
90839783|NCT02144610|181546594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.216|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline at Month 12 (right brachial)||||0.216
90839784|NCT02144610|181546594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.896|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline at Month 15 (right brachial)||||0.896
91091818|NCT02065557|182067335|SUPERIORITY|one-sample two-sided Chi-square test||||||0.559||||||Adjusted p-value from a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure, testing co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints 1st for M-SD+M-HD, then for individual adalimumab dose groups (M-HD, M-SD) against the respective external placebo rate (24.08%)|rejective multiple test procedure|controlling familywise Type I error of 5% in a strong sense||Efficacy analysis was based on the modified Intent-To-Treat-Efficacy (mITT-E) population for the maintenance period. The mITT-E population was a subpopulation of the mITT population, where participants in M-PL arm were excluded.||||0.559
90839785|NCT02144610|181546594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.167|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline at last observation carried forward (LOCF) (right brachial)||||0.167
90839786|NCT02144610|181546594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.378|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline at Month 3 (left brachial)||||0.378
90839787|NCT02144610|181546594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline at Month 6 (left brachial)||||0.390
90839788|NCT02144610|181546594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.521|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline at Month 9 (left brachial)||||0.521
90839789|NCT02144610|181546594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.044|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline at Month 12 (left brachial)||||0.044
90839790|NCT02144610|181546594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.423|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline at Month 15 (left brachial)||||0.423
90839791|NCT02144610|181546594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.989|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline at LOCF (left brachial)||||0.989
90839792|NCT02144610|181546595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.803|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Month 3 (Dorsalis Pedis)||||0.803
90839793|NCT02144610|181546595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.668|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Month 6 (Dorsalis Pedis)||||0.668
90839794|NCT02144610|181546595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.789|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Month 9 (Dorsalis Pedis)||||0.789
90839795|NCT02144610|181546595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Month 12 (Dorsalis Pedis)||||0.280
90839796|NCT02144610|181546595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.324|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at LOCF (Dorsalis Pedis)||||0.324
90839797|NCT02144610|181546595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.759|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Month 3 (Posterior Tibial)||||0.759
90839798|NCT02144610|181546595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.414|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Month 6 (Posterior Tibial)||||0.414
90839799|NCT02144610|181546595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.886|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Month 9 (Posterior Tibial)||||0.886
90839800|NCT02144610|181546595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.114|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Month 12 (Posterior Tibial)||||0.114
90839801|NCT02144610|181546595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.051|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at LOCF (Posterior Tibial)||||0.051
90839802|NCT02144610|181546596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.211|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Month 3||||0.211
90839803|NCT02144610|181546596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Month 6||||0.036
90839804|NCT02144610|181546596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.725|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Month 9||||0.725
90839805|NCT02144610|181546596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.468|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Month 12||||0.468
90839806|NCT02144610|181546596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.854|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Month 15||||0.854
90839807|NCT02144610|181546596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.233|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at LOCF||||0.233
90839808|NCT02144610|181546597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.268|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Month 3||||0.268
90839809|NCT02144610|181546597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Month 6||||0.320
90839810|NCT02144610|181546597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.315|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Month 9||||0.315
91091819|NCT02065557|182067335|SUPERIORITY|one-sample two-sided Chi-square test||||||0.815||||||Adjusted p-value from a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure, testing co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints 1st for M-SD+M-HD, then for individual adalimumab dose groups (M-HD, M-SD) against the respective external placebo rate (24.08%)|rejective multiple test procedure|controlling familywise Type I error of 5% in a strong sense||Efficacy analysis was based on the modified Intent-To-Treat-Efficacy (mITT-E) population for the maintenance period. The mITT-E population was a subpopulation of the mITT population, where participants in M-PL arm were excluded.||||0.815
91091820|NCT01462942|182067346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.125|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted by pre- and post-bronchodilator, age, and baseline FEV1 as covariates, and treatment group, sex, and smoking-status as fixed effect factors||||0.160|0.090|<0.0001
91091821|NCT01462942|182067346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.069||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.034|0.105|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted by pre- and post-bronchodilator, age, and baseline FEV1 as covariates, and treatment group, sex, and smoking-status as fixed effect factors||||0.105|0.034|0.0001
91091822|NCT01462942|182067347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.085|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.051|0.119|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted by pre- and post-bronchodilator, age, and baseline FEV1 as covariates, and treatment group, sex, and smoking-status as fixed effect factors||||0.119|0.051|<0.0001
91091823|NCT01462942|182067347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.053||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.019|0.087|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted by pre- and post-bronchodilator, age, and baseline FEV1 as covariates, and treatment group, sex, and smoking-status as fixed effect factors||||0.087|0.019|0.0022
91091824|NCT01462942|182067348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|1.293|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.728|1.859|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted by BDI baseline score and age as covariates, with treatment group, gender, smoking-status, visit, and group-by-visit as fixed effect factors||||1.859|0.728|<0.0001
91091825|NCT01462942|182067348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.162|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.593|1.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Adjusted by BDI baseline score and age as covariates, with treatment group, gender, smoking-status, visit, and group-by-visit as fixed effect factors||1.730|0.593|<0.0001
90897218|NCT01691521|181660420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.72||Hochberg procedure with a gamma parameter of 1 used for multiplicity adjustment.|Negative binomial model||Number of exacerbations per year in the mepolizumab 75mg IV arm divided by the number of exacerbations per year in the placebo arm.|||0.72|0.40|<0.001
91091826|NCT01462942|182067349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.653||||0.598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.082|1.776|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted by SGRQ baseline score and age as covariates, with treatment group, gender, smoking-status, visit, and group-by-visit as fixed effect factors||||1.776|-3.082|0.5980
91091827|NCT01462942|182067349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-1.828||||0.1406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.259|0.604|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted by SGRQ baseline score and age as covariates, with treatment group, gender, smoking-status, visit, and group-by-visit as fixed effect factors||||0.604|-4.259|0.1406
91091828|NCT01026493|182067353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.48|||Log Rank|Two-sided test|Reference level = Arm 1/BEV-NAIVE|||1.48|0.66|0.95
91091829|NCT01026493|182067353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.53|||Log Rank|Two-sided test|Reference level = Arm 1/BEV-FAILURE|||1.53|0.57|0.93
91103966|NCT00836901|182094675|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of Least Squares Means|97.64||||||90.0|96.12|99.19|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||99.19|96.12|
91103967|NCT00836901|182094676|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of Least Squares Means|94.59||||||90.0|85.64|104.47|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||104.47|85.64|
91103968|NCT00836901|182094677|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of Least Squares Means|94.44||||||90.0|87.83|101.54|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||101.54|87.83|
91103969|NCT00836901|182094678|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of Least Squares Means|94.08||||||90.0|87.19|101.52|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||101.52|87.19|
91103970|NCT01220687|182094679|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.0||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0012
91103971|NCT01220687|182094680|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|1.91|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.68|2.18|||Poisson|||||2.18|1.68|<0.0001
91103972|NCT04250207|182094691|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0065|||||||Other (Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test)|||||||0.0065
91103973|NCT04250207|182094691|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0344|||||||Other (Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test)|||||||0.0344
91103974|NCT04250207|182094692|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3587|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Baseline||||0.3587
91103975|NCT04250207|182094692|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5724|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Baseline||||0.5724
91103976|NCT04250207|182094692|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3703|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 1||||0.3703
91103977|NCT04250207|182094692|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 1||||> 0.9999
91103978|NCT04250207|182094692|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3703|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 2||||0.3703
91103979|NCT04250207|182094692|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 2||||> 0.9999
91103980|NCT04250207|182094692|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0257|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 3||||0.0257
91103981|NCT04250207|182094692|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7263|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.7263
91103982|NCT04250207|182094692|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0607|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 5||||0.0607
91103983|NCT04250207|182094692|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 5||||0.0460
91103984|NCT04250207|182094692|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0111|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 7||||0.0111
91103985|NCT04250207|182094692|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0011|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 7||||0.0011
91091830|NCT02662569|182067354|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-70.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.61|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.43|-65.16||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||-65.16|-75.43|<0.0001
91091831|NCT02662569|182067354|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-70.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.35|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.67|-65.41||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||-65.41|-74.67|<0.0001
90897219|NCT01691521|181660420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.64||Hochberg procedure with a gamma parameter of 1 used for multiplicity adjustment.|Negative binomial model||Number of exacerbations per year in the mepolizumab 100 mg SC arm divided by the number of exacerbations per year in the placebo arm.|||0.64|0.35|<0.001
91091832|NCT02662569|182067355|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-71.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.97|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.61|-65.93||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||-65.93|-77.61|<0.0001
90839811|NCT02144610|181546597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.327|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Month 12||||0.327
90839812|NCT02144610|181546597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.643|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Month 15||||0.643
90839813|NCT02144610|181546597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at LOCF||||0.740
90839814|NCT02144610|181546598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.147|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Month 3||||0.147
90839815|NCT02144610|181546598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.032|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Month 6||||0.032
90839816|NCT02144610|181546598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.709|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Month 9||||0.709
90839817|NCT02144610|181546598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.771|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Month 12||||0.771
90839818|NCT02144610|181546598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Month 15||||0.830
90839819|NCT02144610|181546598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at LOCF||||0.033
90839820|NCT02144610|181546599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.105|||||||ANCOVA|||Pain (LOCF)||||0.105
90839821|NCT02144610|181546599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.557|||||||ANCOVA|||Symptom (LOCF)||||0.557
90839822|NCT02144610|181546599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.94|||||||ANCOVA|||Activities (LOCF)||||0.940
90839823|NCT02144610|181546599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.905|||||||ANCOVA|||Social (LOCF)||||0.905
90839824|NCT02144610|181546599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.782|||||||ANCOVA|||Emotional Functioning (LOCF)||||0.782
90839825|NCT02144610|181546599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.802|||||||ANCOVA|||Composite Overall (LOCF)||||0.802
90839826|NCT02144610|181546600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.941|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Month 3||||0.941
90839827|NCT02144610|181546600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.584|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Month 6||||0.584
90839828|NCT02144610|181546600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Month 9||||0.100
90839829|NCT02144610|181546600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.916|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Month 12||||0.916
90839830|NCT02144610|181546600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.486|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Month 15||||0.486
90839831|NCT02144610|181546600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.835|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at LOCF||||0.835
90839832|NCT03881852|181546628|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value calculated from LSMean|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
90897220|NCT00560612|181660432|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7054|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7054
90839833|NCT00904033|181546685|OTHER|||||||0.86|||||||ANCOVA|Main Effects Results only for No Exercise vs Exercise||||||0.86
90839834|NCT00904033|181546686|OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.19
90839835|NCT00904033|181546687|OTHER|||||||0.49|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.49
90839836|NCT00904033|181546688|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.01
90839837|NCT00904033|181546689|OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.16
90839838|NCT00904033|181546690|OTHER|||||||0.84|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.84
90839839|NCT00904033|181546691|OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.38
90839840|NCT00904033|181546692|OTHER|||||||0.92|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.92
90839841|NCT03077412|181546711|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference in Percentages|22.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.9|50.0|||||The 90% exact confidence interval (CI) was calculated based on binomial distribution (Clopper-Pearson method).|||50.0|-9.9|
90839842|NCT03077412|181546711|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference in Percentages|4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-26.5|34.3|||||The 90% exact CI was calculated based on binomial distribution (Clopper-Pearson method).|||34.3|-26.5|
90839843|NCT03077412|181546712|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference in Percentages|30.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.3|57.3|||||The 90% exact CI was calculated based on binomial distribution (Clopper-Pearson method).|||57.3|-1.3|
90839844|NCT03077412|181546712|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference in Percentages|8.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.5|38.1|||||The 90% exact CI was calculated based on binomial distribution (Clopper-Pearson method).|||38.1|-22.5|
90839845|NCT03077412|181546713|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.64|2.49|||||Hazard ratio was derived from Cox Proportional-Hazards model.|||2.49|0.64|
90839846|NCT03077412|181546713|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.47|1.75|||||Hazard ratio was derived from Cox Proportional-Hazards model.|||1.75|0.47|
90839847|NCT03077412|181546714|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|4.01|||||Hazard ratio was derived from Cox Proportional-Hazards model.|||4.01|0.87|
90839848|NCT03077412|181546714|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.65|2.92|||||Hazard ratio was derived from Cox Proportional-Hazards model.|||2.92|0.65|
90897221|NCT00560612|181660433|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4583|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4583
90897222|NCT00560612|181660434|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7443|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7443
90897223|NCT00560612|181660435|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.065|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.065
91091833|NCT02662569|182067355|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-64.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.56|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.97|-59.89||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||-59.89|-69.97|<0.0001
91091834|NCT02662569|182067356|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-62.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.2|-56.9||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||-56.9|-68.2|<0.0001
91091835|NCT02662569|182067356|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-63.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.4|-57.8||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||-57.8|-68.4|<0.0001
91091836|NCT02662569|182067357|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-63.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.7|-57.6||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||-57.6|-69.7|<0.0001
91091837|NCT02662569|182067357|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-58.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.3|-53.3||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||-53.3|-64.3|<0.0001
91091838|NCT02662569|182067358|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-60.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.35|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.51|-56.29||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||-56.29|-65.51|<0.0001
91091839|NCT02662569|182067358|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-59.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.52|-55.29||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||-55.29|-63.52|<0.0001
91091840|NCT02662569|182067359|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-61.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.64|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.82|-56.45||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||-56.45|-66.82|<0.0001
90839849|NCT03077412|181546715|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference in Percentages|-18.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-55.6|21.3|||||The 90% exact CI was calculated based on binomial distribution (Clopper-Pearson method).|||21.3|-55.6|
90839850|NCT03077412|181546715|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference in Percentages|-13.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-51.0|24.1|||||The 90% exact CI was calculated based on binomial distribution (Clopper-Pearson method).|||24.1|-51.0|
90839851|NCT00248040|181546727|SUPERIORITY|The model included fixed effect terms for center, time point, and treatment. Time point was specified as a repeated measurement.|Difference between means|-0.275||||0.9076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|4.45|||Other|||This analysis refers to the 1-3 hours time point||4.45|-5.00|0.9076
90839852|NCT00248040|181546727|SUPERIORITY|The model included fixed effect terms for center, time point, and treatment. Time point was specified as a repeated measurement.|Difference between means|2.444||||0.3084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.32|7.21|||Other|||This analysis refers to the 1-3 hours timepoint.||7.21|-2.32|0.3084
90839853|NCT00248040|181546727|OTHER||Difference between means|-2.719||||0.2565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.47|2.03|||Other|||||2.03|-7.47|0.2565
90839854|NCT00248040|181546727|SUPERIORITY|The model included fixed effect terms for center, time point, and treatment. Time point was specified as a repeated measurement.|Difference between means|-0.063||||0.9855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.91|6.79|||Other|||This analysis refers to the 10-12 hours time point.||6.79|-6.91|0.9855
90839855|NCT00248040|181546727|SUPERIORITY|The model included fixed effect terms for center, time point, and treatment. Time point was specified as a repeated measurement.|Difference between means|4.519||||0.1934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.36|11.39|||Other|||This analysis refers to the 10-12 hours timepoint.||11.39|-2.36|0.1934
90839856|NCT00248040|181546727|OTHER|The model included fixed effect terms for center, time point, and treatment. Time point was specified as a repeated measurement.|Difference between means|-4.582||||0.1797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|2.17|||Other|||This analysis refers to the 10-12 hours time point.||2.17|-11.3|0.1797
91091841|NCT02662569|182067359|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-54.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.28|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.7|-49.74||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||-49.74|-58.70|<0.0001
90839857|NCT00118417|181546741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0||95.0||||Paired t-test between endpoint and baseline PDSS|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of Freedom = 38||||||0.0000
90839858|NCT00118417|181546742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97||95.0||||T-test of PDSS change score|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of Freedom = 22||||||0.97
91091842|NCT02662569|182067360|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-56.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.93|-52.93||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||-52.93|-60.93|<0.0001
91091843|NCT02662569|182067360|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-54.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.87|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.52|-51.18||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||-51.18|-58.52|<0.0001
91091844|NCT02662569|182067361|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-57.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.59|-52.54||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||-52.54|-61.59|<0.0001
91091845|NCT02662569|182067361|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-49.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.98|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.31|-45.53||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||-45.53|-53.31|<0.0001
91091846|NCT02662569|182067362|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-41.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.74|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.95|-38.1||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||-38.10|-44.95|<0.0001
91091847|NCT02662569|182067362|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-39.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.51|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.47|-36.53||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||-36.53|-42.47|<0.0001
91091848|NCT02662569|182067363|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-42.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.02|-38.42||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||-38.42|-46.02|<0.0001
91091849|NCT02662569|182067363|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-35.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.64|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.12|-32.67||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||-32.67|-39.12|<0.0001
91091850|NCT02662569|182067364|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-44.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.81|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.64|-40.54||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||-40.54|-47.64|<0.0001
91091851|NCT02662569|182067364|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-43.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.64|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.9|-40.44||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||-40.44|-46.90|<0.0001
91091852|NCT02662569|182067365|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-43.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.02|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.9|-39.97||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||-39.97|-47.90|<0.0001
91091853|NCT02662569|182067365|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-40.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.79|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.08|-37.04||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||-37.04|-44.08|<0.0001
91103986|NCT04250207|182094692|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 9||||0.0200
91103987|NCT04250207|182094692|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0476|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 9||||0.0476
91103988|NCT04250207|182094692|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0065|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 12||||0.0065
91103989|NCT04250207|182094692|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0344|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 12||||0.0344
91103990|NCT04250207|182094692|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.025|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 16||||0.0250
91103991|NCT04250207|182094692|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0733|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 16||||0.0733
91103992|NCT04250207|182094692|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0072|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 20||||0.0072
91103993|NCT04250207|182094692|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1124|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 20||||0.1124
91103994|NCT04250207|182094692|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0199|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 24||||0.0199
90839859|NCT00118417|181546743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.061||95.0||||T-test of PDSS change between baseline and endpoint of Phase 3|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of Freedom = 17||||||0.061
91103995|NCT04250207|182094692|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2331|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 24||||0.2331
91103996|NCT04250207|182094692|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0024|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 38||||0.0024
91103997|NCT04250207|182094692|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1672|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 38||||0.1672
91103998|NCT04250207|182094692|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0047|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 52||||0.0047
91103999|NCT04250207|182094692|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0625|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 52||||0.0625
91104000|NCT04250207|182094693|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2434|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 1||||0.2434
91104001|NCT04250207|182094693|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2126|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 1||||0.2126
91091854|NCT02662569|182067366|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-58.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.01|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.15|-54.25||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||-54.25|-62.15|<0.0001
91091855|NCT02662569|182067366|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-56.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.53|-52.93||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||-52.93|-60.53|<0.0001
91091856|NCT02662569|182067367|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-58.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.23|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.59|-53.84||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||-53.84|-62.59|<0.0001
91091857|NCT02662569|182067367|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-51.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.81|-47.59||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||-47.59|-55.81|<0.0001
91091858|NCT02662569|182067368|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|68.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.4|74.8||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by entry statin therapy and geographic region.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||74.8|60.4|<0.0001
91091859|NCT02662569|182067368|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|71.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.1|77.9||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by entry statin therapy and geographic region.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||77.9|64.1|<0.0001
91091860|NCT02662569|182067369|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|67.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.9|73.9||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by entry statin therapy and geographic region.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||73.9|58.9|<0.0001
91091861|NCT02662569|182067369|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|68.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.6|75.3||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by entry statin therapy and geographic region.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||75.3|60.6|<0.0001
91091862|NCT02662569|182067370|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-55.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.85|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-92.64|-18.4||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||-18.40|-92.64|<0.0001
91091863|NCT02662569|182067370|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-50.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.63|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.82|-37.72||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||-37.72|-63.82|<0.0001
91091864|NCT02662569|182067371|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-62.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|24.64|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-110.89|-14.03||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||-14.03|-110.89|<0.0001
91091865|NCT02662569|182067371|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-45.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.42|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.87|-28.77||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||-28.77|-61.87|<0.0001
91091866|NCT02662569|182067372|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-18.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.01||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.89|-10.14||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||-10.14|-25.89|0.0002
91091867|NCT02662569|182067372|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-15.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.69|-9.58||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||-9.58|-21.69|<0.0001
91091868|NCT02662569|182067373|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-16.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.18||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.63|-8.19||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||-8.19|-24.63|0.0002
91104002|NCT04250207|182094693|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.079|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 2||||0.0790
91104003|NCT04250207|182094693|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3043|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 2||||0.3043
91104004|NCT04250207|182094693|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0357|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 3||||0.0357
90839860|NCT02978781|181546745|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.227||0.9143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.49|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Least squares mean difference from Randomization (SAGE-217 - placebo)|Change from Randomization at Day 14 (predose)|MMRM model was used for analysis with change from randomization of the Kinesia kinetic tremor combined scores as the dependent variable, treatment group by study visit/time point interaction as fixed effects, and randomization value as a covariate.|0.49|-0.44|0.9143
90839861|NCT02978781|181546746|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.815||0.0529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|0.03|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Least squares mean difference from Baseline (SAGE-217)|Change from Baseline at Day 15|MMRM model was used for analysis with change from randomization of the Kinesia kinetic tremor combined scores as the dependent variable, treatment group by study visit/time point interaction as fixed effects, and randomization value as a covariate.|0.03|-3.50|0.0529
90839862|NCT02978781|181546752|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.326||0.7795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.47|2.7|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Least squares mean difference from Randomization (SAGE-217 - placebo)|Change from Randomization at Day 14|MMRM model was used for analysis with change from randomization of the Kinesia kinetic tremor combined scores as the dependent variable, treatment group by study visit/time point interaction as fixed effects, and randomization value as a covariate.|2.70|-3.47|0.7795
90839863|NCT02978781|181546753|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.473||0.4846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|1.33|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Least squares mean difference from Randomization (SAGE-217 - placebo)|Change from Randomization in Forward outstretched postural tremor (FOPT) at Day 14|MMRM model was used for analysis with change from randomization of the Kinesia kinetic tremor combined scores as the dependent variable, treatment group by study visit/time point interaction as fixed effects, and randomization value as a covariate.|1.33|-0.65|0.4846
90839864|NCT02978781|181546753|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.845||0.4567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|1.36|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Least squares mean difference from Randomization (SAGE-217 - placebo)|"Change from Randomization in Lateral wing beating postural tremor (LWBPT) at Day 14"|MMRM model was used for analysis with change from randomization of the Kinesia kinetic tremor combined scores as the dependent variable, treatment group by study visit/time point interaction as fixed effects, and randomization value as a covariate.|1.36|-2.70|0.4567
90839865|NCT02978781|181546754|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.3771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|0.96|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Least squares mean difference from Randomization (SAGE-217 - placebo)|Change from Randomization at Day 14|MMRM model was used for analysis with change from randomization of the Kinesia kinetic tremor combined scores as the dependent variable, treatment group by study visit/time point interaction as fixed effects, and randomization value as a covariate.|0.96|-2.48|0.3771
90839866|NCT02978781|181546755|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.415||0.7302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|0.69|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Least squares mean difference from Randomization (SAGE-217 - placebo)|Change from Randomization in Forward outstretched postural tremor (FOPT) at Day 14|MMRM model was used for analysis with change from randomization of the Kinesia kinetic tremor combined scores as the dependent variable, treatment group by study visit/time point interaction as fixed effects, and randomization value as a covariate.|0.69|-0.97|0.7302
90839867|NCT02978781|181546755|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.467||0.7916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.85|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Least squares mean difference from Randomization (SAGE-217 - placebo)|"Change from Randomization in Lateral wing beating postural tremor (LWBPT) at Day 14"|MMRM model was used for analysis with change from randomization of the Kinesia kinetic tremor combined scores as the dependent variable, treatment group by study visit/time point interaction as fixed effects, and randomization value as a covariate.|0.85|-1.10|0.7916
90839868|NCT02978781|181546756|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.1807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|0.23|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Least squares mean difference from Randomization (SAGE-217 - placebo)|Change from Randomization at Day 14|MMRM model was used for analysis with change from randomization of the Kinesia kinetic tremor combined scores as the dependent variable, treatment group by study visit/time point interaction as fixed effects, and randomization value as a covariate.|0.23|-1.17|0.1807
90839869|NCT02978781|181546757|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.8709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.9|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Least squares mean difference from Baseline(SAGE-217 - placebo)|Change from Baseline in Archimedes Spirals (AS) at Day 14|MMRM model was used for analysis with change from randomization of the Kinesia kinetic tremor combined scores as the dependent variable, treatment group by study visit/time point interaction as fixed effects, and randomization value as a covariate.|1.9|-1.7|0.8709
90839870|NCT02978781|181546757|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.7843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.4|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Least squares mean difference from Baseline (SAGE-217 - placebo)|Change from Baseline in Handwriting at Day 14|MMRM model was used for analysis with change from randomization of the Kinesia kinetic tremor combined scores as the dependent variable, treatment group by study visit/time point interaction as fixed effects, and randomization value as a covariate.|1.4|-1.8|0.7843
90839871|NCT02978781|181546757|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.984||0.7604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.72|2.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Least squares mean difference from Baseline (SAGE-217 - placebo|Change from Baseline in Dot approximation task (DAT) at Day 14|MMRM model was used for analysis with change from randomization of the Kinesia kinetic tremor combined scores as the dependent variable, treatment group by study visit/time point interaction as fixed effects, and randomization value as a covariate.|2.10|-2.72|0.7604
91104005|NCT04250207|182094693|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0803|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 3||||0.0803
91104006|NCT04250207|182094693|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 5||||0.0150
91104007|NCT04250207|182094693|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0012|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 5||||0.0012
91104008|NCT04250207|182094693|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0314|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 7||||0.0314
91104009|NCT04250207|182094693|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0019|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 7||||0.0019
91104010|NCT04250207|182094693|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 9||||0.0170
91091869|NCT02662569|182067373|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-12.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.28|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.76|-5.86||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||-5.86|-18.76|<0.0001
91091870|NCT02662569|182067374|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|6.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.36|9.33||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||9.33|3.36|0.0003
91091871|NCT02662569|182067374|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|7.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.41|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.1|10.65||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||10.65|5.10|<0.0001
91091872|NCT02662569|182067375|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|5.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.72||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.49|9.27||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||9.27|2.49|0.0003
91104011|NCT04250207|182094693|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0021|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 9||||0.0021
90839872|NCT02978781|181546758|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.301||0.1333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|0.17|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Least squares mean difference from Baseline (SAGE-217)|Change from Baseline in Forward outstretched postural tremor (FOPT) at Day 15|MMRM model was used for analysis with change from randomization of the Kinesia kinetic tremor combined scores as the dependent variable, treatment group by study visit/time point interaction as fixed effects, and randomization value as a covariate.|0.17|-1.13|0.1333
90839873|NCT02978781|181546758|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.389||0.0572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|0.03|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Least squares mean difference from Baseline (SAGE-217)|"Change from Baseline in Lateral wing beating postural tremor (LWBPT) at Day 15"|MMRM model was used for analysis with change from randomization of the Kinesia kinetic tremor combined scores as the dependent variable, treatment group by study visit/time point interaction as fixed effects, and randomization value as a covariate.|0.03|-1.64|0.0572
90839874|NCT02978781|181546758|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.255||0.0707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|0.05|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Least squares mean difference from Baseline (SAGE-217)|Change from Baseline in Kinetic tremor (KT) at Day 15|MMRM model was used for analysis with change from randomization of the Kinesia kinetic tremor combined scores as the dependent variable, treatment group by study visit/time point interaction as fixed effects, and randomization value as a covariate.|0.05|-1.05|0.0707
90839875|NCT02978781|181546759|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.628||0.0278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.87|-0.19|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Least squares mean difference from Baseline (SAGE-217)|Change from Baseline at Day 15|MMRM model was used for analysis with change from randomization of the Kinesia kinetic tremor combined scores as the dependent variable, treatment group by study visit/time point interaction as fixed effects, and randomization value as a covariate.|-0.19|-2.87|0.0278
90839876|NCT02978781|181546760|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.258||0.9579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.54|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Least squares mean difference from Baseline (SAGE-217)|Change from Baseline in Forward outstretched postural tremor (FOPT) at Day 15|MMRM model was used for analysis with change from randomization of the Kinesia kinetic tremor combined scores as the dependent variable, treatment group by study visit/time point interaction as fixed effects, and randomization value as a covariate.|0.54|-0.57|0.9579
90839877|NCT02978781|181546760|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.234||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|-0.3|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Least squares mean difference from Baseline (SAGE-217)|"Change from Baseline in Lateral wing beating postural tremor (LWBPT) at Day 15"|MMRM model was used for analysis with change from randomization of the Kinesia kinetic tremor combined scores as the dependent variable, treatment group by study visit/time point interaction as fixed effects, and randomization value as a covariate.|-0.30|-1.31|0.0039
90839878|NCT02978781|181546760|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.223||0.0099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|-0.19|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Least squares mean difference from Baseline (SAGE-217)|Change from Baseline in Kinetic tremor (KT) at Day 15|MMRM model was used for analysis with change from randomization of the Kinesia kinetic tremor combined scores as the dependent variable, treatment group by study visit/time point interaction as fixed effects, and randomization value as a covariate.|-0.19|-1.14|0.0099
90839879|NCT02978781|181546761|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.1595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.3|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Least squares mean difference from Baseline (SAGE-217)|Change from Baseline in Archimedes spirals (AS) at Day 15|MMRM model was used for analysis with change from randomization of the Kinesia kinetic tremor combined scores as the dependent variable, treatment group by study visit/time point interaction as fixed effects, and randomization value as a covariate.|0.3|-1.5|0.1595
90839880|NCT02978781|181546761|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Least squares mean difference from Baseline (SAGE-217)|Change from Baseline in Handwriting at Day 15|MMRM model was used for analysis with change from randomization of the Kinesia kinetic tremor combined scores as the dependent variable, treatment group by study visit/time point interaction as fixed effects, and randomization value as a covariate.|-0.1|-0.9|0.0126
91104012|NCT04250207|182094693|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0127|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 12||||0.0127
91104013|NCT04250207|182094693|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0014|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 12||||0.0014
91104014|NCT04250207|182094693|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0677|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 16||||0.0677
91091873|NCT02662569|182067375|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|8.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.58|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.03|11.25||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||11.25|5.03|<0.0001
91091874|NCT02662569|182067376|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-27.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.57|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.2|-20.17||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||-20.17|-34.20|<0.0001
90897224|NCT00861601|181660449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0104||95.0||||Linearity. This analysis is based on each participants' change in platelet count.|ANCOVA|No adjustment for multiplicity was made because this analysis was exploratory.||||||0.0104
91104015|NCT04250207|182094693|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0243|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 16||||0.0243
90897225|NCT00861601|181660449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0057||95.0||||Saturation at the medium dose. This analysis is based on each participants' change in platelet count.|ANCOVA|No adjustment for multiplicity was made because this analysis was exploratory.||||||0.0057
91104016|NCT04250207|182094693|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1867|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 20||||0.1867
91104017|NCT04250207|182094693|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.025|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 20||||0.0250
91104018|NCT04250207|182094693|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3213|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 24||||0.3213
91104019|NCT04250207|182094693|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0298|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 24||||0.0298
91104020|NCT04250207|182094693|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1449|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 38||||0.1449
91104021|NCT04250207|182094693|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0947|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 38||||0.0947
91104022|NCT04250207|182094693|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5181|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 52||||0.5181
91104023|NCT04250207|182094693|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1898|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 52||||0.1898
91104024|NCT04250207|182094694|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0021|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0021
91104025|NCT04250207|182094694|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1696|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.1696
91104026|NCT04250207|182094695|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.4872|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 5||||0.4872
91104027|NCT04250207|182094695|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.4634|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 5||||0.4634
91104028|NCT04250207|182094695|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.605|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 7||||0.6050
91104029|NCT04250207|182094695|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.4762|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 7||||0.4762
91104030|NCT04250207|182094695|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.|||||>|0.9999|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 9||||> 0.9999
91104031|NCT04250207|182094695|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.|||||>|0.9999|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 9||||> 0.9999
91104032|NCT04250207|182094695|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.4227|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 12||||0.4227
91104033|NCT04250207|182094695|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.6796|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 12||||0.6796
91104034|NCT04250207|182094695|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.4642|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 16||||0.4642
91104035|NCT04250207|182094695|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.4645|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 16||||0.4645
91104036|NCT04250207|182094695|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.2744|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 20||||0.2744
91104037|NCT04250207|182094695|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.7026|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 20||||0.7026
91091875|NCT02662569|182067376|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-24.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.99|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.88|-18.14||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||-18.14|-29.88|<0.0001
91091876|NCT03154086|182067439|OTHER||Ratio|0.8||||0.204|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.594|1.077|||ANOVA|||||1.077|0.5940|0.204
90839881|NCT02978781|181546761|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.151||0.1536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Least squares mean difference from Baseline (SAGE-217)|Change from Baseline in Dot approximation task (DAT) at Day 15|MMRM model was used for analysis with change from randomization of the Kinesia kinetic tremor combined scores as the dependent variable, treatment group by study visit/time point interaction as fixed effects, and randomization value as a covariate.|0.10|-0.55|0.1536
90839882|NCT01383356|181546770|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence|Geometric mean ratio (GMR) in percent|118.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|111.0|125.0|||||Lina/Met 2.5mg/500mg versus (vs.) Lina 2.5mg plus Met 500mg.|The two formulations are shown to be bioequivalent if the geometric mean ratio is contained within the 80 to 125 percent range both on measured data (statistical analysis 1) and on potency corrected data (percent potency of label claim) (statistical analysis 2). ANOVA was applied to log-transformed Cmax and included study, subject-within-study, period-within-study, treatment and study-by-treatment interaction.||125|111|
91091877|NCT03154086|182067440|OTHER||Ratio|0.7325||||0.118|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5267|1.019|||ANOVA|||||1.019|0.5267|0.118
91091878|NCT03154086|182067441|OTHER||Ratio|0.6502||||0.157|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.3876|1.091|||ANOVA|||||1.091|0.3876|0.157
91091879|NCT00572832|182067518|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The formula used for calculating sample size for the treatment arm (NT) is NT = (1 + 1/u) (Zα + Zβ)2 σ2 /\[log (RGMC) -δ0\] where u is the ratio of the size of the control and treatment arms, one sided alpha that is divided by 4, a non-inferiority margin (δ0 of natural log 0.5), the expected ratio of geometric mean concentrations RGMC set at 0.8, and a standard deviation of 1.26 (the largest for HPV-16). The calculated sample size for a power of 80% was 75 participants in each arm.||||||0.025||95.0||||Non-inferiority was tested against a one-sided null hypothesis (alpha=.025) that the post Dose 3 GMT ratio of the Alternate to Standard schedule was ≤ 0.5 for each HPV type. Results: GMT ratios were 2.23, 3,17, 2.14, and 1.68 for types 6,11,16,\& 18.|ANOVA|Log transformed the data and calculated GMTs. Tested if post Dose 3 GMT ratio of the Alternate to Standard schedule was ≤ 0.5 for each HPV type||Non-inferiority tested against 1-sided null hypothesis (alpha=.025) that the post Dose 3 GMT ratio of the Alternate to Standard schedule was ≤ 0.5 for each HPV type||||.025
91104038|NCT04250207|182094695|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.7817|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 24||||0.7817
91104039|NCT04250207|182094695|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.9285|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 24||||0.9285
90897226|NCT00861601|181660449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0808||95.0||||Onset of response at the higher dose. This analysis is based on each participants' change in platelet count.|ANCOVA|No adjustment for multiplicity was made because this analysis was exploratory.||||||0.0808
90897227|NCT00861601|181660450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0116||95.0||||Linearity. This analysis is based on each participants' change in platelet count.|ANCOVA|No adjustment for multiplicity was made because this analysis was exploratory.||||||0.0116
90897228|NCT00861601|181660450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0066||95.0||||Saturation at the medium dose. This analysis is based on each participants' change in platelet count.|ANCOVA|No adjustment for multiplicity was made because this analysis was exploratory.||||||0.0066
90897229|NCT00861601|181660450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0846||95.0||||Onset of response at the higher dose. This analysis is based on each participants' change in platelet count.|ANCOVA|No adjustment for multiplicity was made because this analysis was exploratory.||||||0.0846
90897230|NCT01674621|181660483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0066||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Dunnett's test|P-value from Dunnett's test comparing percent change of BMD from baseline to end-of-treatment to each transdermal dose group versus placebo.||||||0.0066
90897231|NCT01674621|181660483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0005||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Dunnett's test|P-value from Dunnett's test comparing percent change of BMD from baseline to end-of-treatment to each transdermal dose group versus placebo.||||||0.0005
90897232|NCT01674621|181660483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Dunnett's test|P-value from Dunnett's test comparing percent change of BMD from baseline to end-of-treatment to each transdermal dose group versus placebo.||||||<0.0001
90897233|NCT01674621|181660483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.555|-2.305|||||Mean difference of percent change of BMD from baseline to end-of-treatment between treatment groups (transdermal and SC injection).|||-2.305|-5.555|
90897234|NCT01674621|181660483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.104|-1.837|||||Mean difference of percent change of BMD from baseline to end-of-treatment between treatment groups (transdermal and SC injection).|||-1.837|-5.104|
90897235|NCT01674621|181660483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.856|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.519|-1.193|||||Mean difference of percent change of BMD from baseline to end-of-treatment between treatment groups (transdermal and SC injection).|||-1.193|-4.519|
90897236|NCT01674621|181660484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0547||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Dunnett's test|P-value from Dunnett's test comparing percent change of BMD from baseline to end-of-treatment to each transdermal dose group versus placebo.||||||0.0547
90897237|NCT01674621|181660484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0056||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Dunnett's test|P-value from Dunnett's test comparing percent change of BMD from baseline to end-of-treatment to each transdermal dose group versus placebo.||||||0.0056
90897238|NCT01674621|181660484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0018||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Dunnett's test|P-value from Dunnett's test comparing percent change of BMD from baseline to end-of-treatment to each transdermal dose group versus placebo.||||||0.0018
90897239|NCT01674621|181660484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.768|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.864|-0.672|||||Mean difference of percent change off BMD from baseline to end-of-treatment between active treatment groups (transdermal and SC injection).|||-0.672|-2.864|
90897240|NCT01674621|181660484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.522|-0.318|||||Mean difference of percent change of BMD from baseline to end-of-treatment between treatment groups (transdermal and SC injection).|||-0.318|-2.522|
90897241|NCT01674621|181660484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.247|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.368|-0.126|||||Mean difference of percent change of BMD from baseline to end-of-treatment between treatment groups (transdermal and SC injection).|||-0.126|-2.368|
90897242|NCT01674621|181660485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9493||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Dunnett's test|P-value from Dunnett's test comparing percent change of BMD from baseline to end-of treatment to each transdermal dose group versus placebo.||||||0.9493
90897243|NCT01674621|181660485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9806||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Dunnett's test|P-value from Dunnett's test comparing percent change of BMD from baseline to end-of treatment to each transdermal dose group versus placebo.||||||0.9806
90897244|NCT01674621|181660485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5191||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Dunnett's test|P-value from Dunnett's test comparing percent change of BMD from baseline to end-of treatment to each transdermal dose group versus placebo.||||||0.5191
91091880|NCT01041859|182067592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.234|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.415|-0.493||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used with treatment, dose level, and pooled analysis center as factors and baseline pain intensity score as a covariate|ANCOVA||Mean Difference is least squares mean change in DB Tapentadol ER group minus least squares mean change in DB Placebo group (based on ANCOVA model)|The primary null hypothesis to be tested for the study was that the tapentadol ER group was not different from the placebo group for the primary endpoint. Assuming the mean treatment group difference of 1.0 with an SD of 2.6, 144 subjects per treatment group were estimated to provide 90% power to show that the tapentadol ER group was statistically different from placebo at an alpha level of 0.05. The total number of subjects to be randomly assigned to a DB treatment group for the study was 300.||-0.493|-1.415|<0.001
90839883|NCT01383356|181546770|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence|GMR, potency corrected (percent)|122.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|114.0|130.0|||||Lina/Met 2.5mg/500mg vs. Lina 2.5mg plus Met 500mg.|ANOVA was applied to log-transformed Cmax and included study, subject-within-study, period-within-study, treatment and study-by-treatment interaction. Results were potency corrected (GMR multiplied by the quotient of drug potency (DP) of Met in single tablet and DP of Met in combination tablet).||130|114|
90839884|NCT01383356|181546771|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence|Geometric mean ratio (percent)|105.0||||||90.0|101.0|108.0|||||Lina/Met 2.5mg/500mg vs. Lina 2.5mg plus Met 500mg.|The two formulations are shown to be bioequivalent if the 90 percent confidence interval of geometric mean ratio is entirely contained within the 80 to125 percent range both on measured data (statistical analysis 1) and potency corrected data (percent potency of label claim) (statistical analysis 2). ANOVA was applied to log-transformed AUC0-t and included study, subject-within-study, period-within-study, treatment and study-by-treatment interaction.||108|101|
90839885|NCT01383356|181546771|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence|GMR, potency corrected (percent)|108.0||||||90.0|105.0|112.0|||||Lina/Met 2.5mg/500mg vs.Lina 2.5mg plus Met 500mg.|ANOVA was applied to log-transformed AUC0-t and included study, subject-within-study, period-within-study, treatment and study-by-treatment interaction. Results were potency corrected (GMR multiplied by the quotient of DP of Met in single tablet and DP of Met in combination tablet).||112|105|
90839886|NCT01383356|181546772|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence (BE), AUC0-inf was no BE criteria|Geometric mean ratio (percent)|105.0||||||90.0|101.0|108.0|||||Lina/Met 2.5mg/500mg vs. Lina 2.5mg plus Met 500mg.|ANOVA was applied to log-transformed AUC0-inf and included study, subject-within-study, period-within-study, treatment and study-by-treatment interaction.||108|101|
90839887|NCT01383356|181546772|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|BE, AUC0-inf was no BE criteria|GMR, potency corrected (percent)|108.0||||||90.0|105.0|112.0|||||Lina/Met 2.5mg/500mg vs. Lina 2.5mg plus Met 500mg.|ANOVA was applied to log-transformed AUC0-inf and included study, subject-within-study, period-within-study, treatment and study-by-treatment interaction. Results were potency corrected (GMR multiplied by the quotient of DP of Met in single tablet and DP of Met in combination tablet).||112|105|
90839888|NCT02054104|181546778|OTHER|||||||0.36|||||||Mann-Whitney U test|||||||0.36
90839889|NCT00836693|181546794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|5.5||p-value is for Week 12 Change. The null hypothesis concerning tadalafil versus placebo was to be rejected if, and only if, the three primary hypotheses (H01, H02, and H03) were all rejected therefore no adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|ANCOVA|Change = Endpoint - Baseline.||Model included terms for baseline value of efficacy variable, treatment group, country, and the baseline-by-treatment-group interaction. In any model,if the interaction was not significant (if p≥0.10), then the interaction term was removed and the main effects model was used to calculate the between-treatment-group p-value. All tests were based on type 3 sums of squares.||5.5|2.2|<0.001
90839890|NCT00836693|181546795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.35|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.1|18.3||p-value is for Week 12 Change. The null hypothesis concerning tadalafil versus placebo was to be rejected if, and only if, the three primary hypotheses (H01, H02, and H03) were all rejected therefore no adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|ANCOVA|Change = Endpoint - Baseline.||Model included terms for baseline value of efficacy variable, treatment group, country, and the baseline-by-treatment-group interaction. In any model,if the interaction was not significant (if p≥0.10), then the interaction term was removed and the main effects model was used to calculate the between-treatment-group p-value. All tests were based on type 3 sums of squares.||18.3|5.1|<0.001
90897245|NCT01674621|181660485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.564|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.168|1.04|||||Mean difference of percent change off BMD from baseline to end-of-treatment between active treatment groups (transdermal and SC injection).|||1.040|-2.168|
90839891|NCT00836693|181546796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.9|27.0||p-value is for Week 12 Change. The null hypothesis concerning tadalafil versus placebo was to be rejected if, and only if, the three primary hypotheses (H01, H02, and H03) were all rejected therefore no adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|ANCOVA|Change = Endpoint - Baseline.||Model included terms for baseline value of efficacy variable, treatment group, country, and the baseline-by-treatment-group interaction. In any model,if the interaction was not significant (if p≥0.10), then the interaction term was removed and the main effects model was used to calculate the between-treatment-group p-value. All tests were based on type 3 sums of squares.||27.0|8.9|<0.001
90859700|NCT02787551|181582780|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.157|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.325|-0.708||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was performed using MMRM with treatment groups, randomization strata of Week -2 HbA1c (\<8.0%, \>=8.0%), randomization strata of GLP-1 RA subtype at screening, scheduled visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and world region as fixed effects, and baseline average SMPG value-by-visit interaction as a covariate. Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (continued only if previous outcome measures were statistically significant).||-0.708|-1.325|<0.0001
90897246|NCT01674621|181660485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.483|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.115|1.15|||||Mean difference of percent change off BMD from baseline to end-of-treatment between active treatment groups (transdermal and SC injection).|||1.150|-2.115|
90897247|NCT01674621|181660485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.517|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.106|2.139|||||Mean difference of percent change off BMD from baseline to end-of-treatment between active treatment groups (transdermal and SC injection).|||2.139|-1.106|
91091881|NCT02027025|182067598|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.4532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|0.78|||ANCOVA|||||0.78|-1.73|0.4532
91091882|NCT02027025|182067598|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.4704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|0.82|||ANCOVA|||||0.82|-1.76|0.4704
91091883|NCT02027025|182067599|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.3013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.17|||ANCOVA|||||0.17|-0.56|0.3013
91091884|NCT02027025|182067599|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.2994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.18|||ANCOVA|||||0.18|-0.58|0.2994
90897248|NCT01674621|181660486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2549||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Dunnett's test|P-value from Dunnett's test comparing percent change of BSAP from baseline to end-of-treatment to each transdermal dose group versus placebo.||||||0.2549
90897249|NCT01674621|181660486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9115||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Dunnett's test|P-value from Dunnett's test comparing percent change of BSAP from baseline to end-of-treatment to each transdermal dose group versus placebo.||||||0.9115
91091885|NCT02027025|182067600|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3815|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3815
90897250|NCT01674621|181660486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.239||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Dunnett's test|P-value from Dunnett's test comparing percent change of BSAP from baseline to end-of-treatment to each transdermal dose group versus placebo.||||||0.2390
90897251|NCT01674621|181660486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.146|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.501|-3.79|||||Mean difference of percent change from baseline to end-of-treatment between active treatment groups (transdermal and SC injection).|||-3.790|-40.501|
91091886|NCT02027025|182067600|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7491|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7491
91091887|NCT02027025|182067601|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8991|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.8991
91091888|NCT02027025|182067601|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8829|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.8829
91091889|NCT00828711|182067631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|12.2||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for site effect|MVI 200 - MVI 100|The primary objective of this study is to compare the efficacy of MVI 100 and MVI 200 based on the proportion of vaginal deliveries within 24 hours. A minimum sample size of approximately 120 subjects per arm would provide 84 subjects per arm with vaginal delivery, which would ensure \>80% power (with two-sided alpha of 5%) to detect a 20% improvement in the proportion of women delivering vaginally within 24 hours||||0.057
91091890|NCT00828711|182067632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-563.0||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank||MVI 200 - MVI 100|Subjects who underwent a cesarean delivery during the first hospitalization were censored using the longest time interval from study drug administration to cesarean delivery during the first hospitalization, independent of treatment group. Subjects who, in their first hospitalization, were discharged prior to delivery or withdrew consent prior to delivery were censored using the longest time interval from study drug administration to labor and delivery discharge, independent of treatment group.||||0.018
90897252|NCT01674621|181660486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.086|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.543|6.372|||||Mean difference of percent change from baseline to end-of-treatment between active treatment groups (transdermal and SC injection).|||6.372|-30.543|
90897253|NCT01674621|181660486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.828|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.614|-4.041|||||Mean difference of percent change from baseline to end-of-treatment between active treatment groups (transdermal and SC injection).|||-4.041|-41.614|
90897254|NCT01674621|181660487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1632||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Dunnett's test|P-value from Dunnett's test comparing percent change of PICP from baseline to end-of-treatment to each transdermal dose group versus placebo.||||||0.1632
90897255|NCT01674621|181660487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9834||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Dunnett's test|P-value from Dunnett's test comparing percent change of PICP from baseline to end-of-treatment to each transdermal dose group versus placebo.||||||0.9834
90897256|NCT01674621|181660487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2179||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Dunnett's test|P-value from Dunnett's test comparing percent change of PICP from baseline to end-of-treatment (EOT) to each transdermal dose group versus placebo.||||||0.2179
90897257|NCT01674621|181660487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.541|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.557|-6.525|||||Mean difference of percent change from baseline to end of treatment between the active treatment groups (transdermal and SC injection).|||-6.525|-48.557|
91091891|NCT00828711|182067634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|-8.46||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact||MVI 200 - MVI 100|||||0.153
90839892|NCT00836693|181546800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.37|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.5|22.8||P-value is for Week 12 change. For secondary endpoints, all tests of hypotheses (null hypothesis versus the alternative hypothesis) were performed as two-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level (α=0.05) unless otherwise stated.|ANCOVA|Change = Endpoint - Baseline.||The change from baseline to endpoint in morning erection percentages was analyzed with an ANCOVA model including terms for baseline value, treatment group, country, age and the baseline-by-treatment-group interaction. In any model, if the interaction was not significant (at p≥0.10), then the interaction term was removed from the model and the main effects model was used to calculate the between-treatment-group p-value. All tests were based on type 3 sums of squares.||22.8|9.5|<0.001
90839893|NCT00836693|181546801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.11|>|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.9|26.1||p-value is for Week 12 Change. For secondary endpoints, all tests of hypotheses were performed as two-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level (α=0.05) unless otherwise stated.|ANOVA|||The models included terms for baseline value of the efficacy variable,treatment group,country, and the baseline-by-treatment-group interaction.In any model, if the interaction was not significant (at p≥0.10), then the interaction term was removed from the model and the main effects model was used to calculate the between-treatment-group p-value. All tests were based on type 3 sums of squares.||26.1|13.9|>0.001
90897258|NCT01674621|181660487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.702|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.835|2.43|||||Mean difference of percent change from baseline to end of treatment between the active treatment groups (transdermal and SC injection).|||2.430|-39.835|
90897259|NCT01674621|181660487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.914|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.424|-5.405|||||Mean difference of percent change from baseline to end of treatment between the active treatment groups (transdermal and SC injection).|||-5.405|-48.424|
90897260|NCT01674621|181660488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Dunnett's test|P-value from Dunnett's test comparing percent change of serum osteocalcin from baseline to EOT to each transdermal dose group versus placebo.||||||1.0000
90897261|NCT01674621|181660488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.12||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Dunnett's test|P-value from Dunnett's test comparing percent change of serum osteocalcin from baseline to EOT to each transdermal dose group versus placebo.||||||0.1200
90897262|NCT01674621|181660488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9998||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Dunnett's test|P-value from Dunnett's test comparing percent change of serum osteocalcin from baseline to EOT to each transdermal dose group versus placebo.||||||0.9998
90897263|NCT01674621|181660488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-73.906|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-96.926|-50.886|||||Mean difference of percent change from baseline to end of treatment between the active treatment groups (transdermal and SC injection).|||-50.886|-96.926|
90897264|NCT01674621|181660488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-62.872|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-86.019|-39.725|||||Mean difference of percent change from baseline to end of treatment between the active treatment groups (transdermal and SC injection).|||-39.725|-86.019|
90897265|NCT01674621|181660488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-73.367|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-96.927|-49.807|||||Mean difference of percent change from baseline to end of treatment between the active treatment groups (transdermal and SC injection).|||-49.807|-96.927|
90897266|NCT01674621|181660489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8569||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Dunnett's test|P-value from Dunnett's test comparing percent change of PINP from baseline to end-of-treatment to each transdermal dose group versus placebo.||||||0.8569
90897267|NCT01674621|181660489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6091||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Dunnett's test|P-value from Dunnett's test comparing percent change of PINP from baseline to end-of-treatment to each transdermal dose group versus placebo.||||||0.6091
90897268|NCT01674621|181660489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9999||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Dunnett's test|P-value from Dunnett's test comparing percent change of PINP from baseline to EOT to each transdermal dose group versus placebo.||||||0.9999
90897269|NCT01674621|181660489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-110.398|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-156.966|-63.831|||||Mean difference of percent change from baseline to end of treatment between the active treatment groups (transdermal and SC injection).|||-63.831|-156.966|
91091892|NCT00828711|182067635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|2.37||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for site effect|MVI 200 - MVI 100|||||0.65
91091893|NCT00828711|182067636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|-22.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for site effect|MVI 200 - MVI 100|||||<.001
91091894|NCT00828711|182067638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-368.0||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank||MVI 200 - MVI 100|Subjects who never went into active labor during the first hospitalization were censored using the longest time interval from study drug administration to delivery during the first hospitalization, independent of treatment group. Subjects who, in their first hospitalization, were discharged prior to delivery or withdraw consent prior to delivery will be censored using the longest time interval from study drug administration to labor and delivery discharge, independent of treatment group.||||0.007
91091895|NCT01618968|182067639|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioavailability comparisons were performed at each dose level.|Test / Reference Ratio|127.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|121.61|134.7||||||To compare the relative bioavailability of methotrexate (MTX) following oral administration to that obtained after subcutaneous (SC) injection into the abdomen using the VIBEX MTX device by measuring the area under the curve from time zero to the last measurable concentration AUC(0-inf).||134.70|121.61|
91091896|NCT01618968|182067639|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioavailability comparisons were performed at each dose level.|Test / Reference Ratio|125.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|119.43|131.84||||||To compare the relative bioavailability of MTX following oral administration to that obtained after SC injection into the thigh using the VIBEX MTX device by measuring the AUC(0-Inf).||131.84|119.43|
91091897|NCT01618968|182067639|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Test of bioequivalence was performed at each dose level.|Test / Reference ratio|101.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.41|104.36||||||To compare the relative bioavailability of MTX following SC injection into the abdomen to that obtained after SC injection into the thigh using the VIBEX MTX device by measuring the AUC(0-inf)||104.36|99.41|
90897270|NCT01674621|181660489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-96.115|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-142.94|-49.29|||||Mean difference of percent change from baseline to end of treatment between the active treatment groups (transdermal and SC injection).|||-49.290|-142.940|
90897271|NCT01674621|181660489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-104.418|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-152.079|-56.758|||||Mean difference of percent change from baseline to end of treatment between the active treatment groups (transdermal and SC injection).|||-56.758|-152.079|
90897272|NCT01674621|181660490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3483||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Dunnett's test|P-value from Dunnett's test comparing percent change of CTXI from baseline to end-of-treatment to each transdermal dose group versus placebo.||||||0.3483
90897273|NCT01674621|181660490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6839||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Dunnett's test|P-value from Dunnett's test comparing percent change of CTXI from baseline to end-of-treatment to each transdermal dose group versus placebo.||||||0.6839
91091898|NCT01618968|182067640|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioavailability comparisons were performed at each dose level.|Test / Reference Ratio|127.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|121.28|134.36||||||To compare the relative bioavailability of methotrexate (MTX) following oral administration to that obtained after subcutaneous (SC) injection into the abdomen using the VIBEX MTX device by measuring the area under the curve from time zero to the 24 hour concentration AUC(0-24)||134.36|121.28|
91091899|NCT01618968|182067640|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioavailability comparisons were performed at each dose level.|Test / Reference ratio|125.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|119.16|131.55||||||To compare the relative bioavailability of methotrexate (MTX) following oral administration to that obtained after subcutaneous (SC) injection into the thigh using the VIBEX MTX device by measuring the area under the curve from time zero to the 24 hour concentration AUC(0-24)||131.55|119.16|
91091900|NCT01618968|182067640|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Test of bioequivalence was performed at each dose level.|Test / Reference Ratio|101.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.39|104.31||||||To compare the relative bioavailability of MTX following SC injection into the abdomen to that obtained after SC injection into the thigh using the VIBEX MTX device by measuring the area under the curve from time zero to the 24 hour concentration AUC(0-24)||104.31|99.39|
90839894|NCT00836693|181546802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.5|18.0||p-value is for Total (Change). For secondary endpoints, all tests of hypotheses (null hypothesis versus the alternative hypothesis) were performed as two-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level (α=0.05) unless otherwise stated.|ANCOVA|Change = Endpoint - Baseline.||The model included terms for baseline value of the efficacy variable, treatment group, country, and the baseline-by-treatment-group interaction. In any model, if the interaction was not significant (at p≥0.10), then the interaction term was removed from the model and the main effects model was used to calculate the between-treatment-group p-value. All tests were based on type 3 sums of squares.||18.0|5.5|<0.001
90897274|NCT01674621|181660490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1067||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Dunnett's test|P-value from Dunnett's test comparing percent change of CTXI from baseline to end-of-treatment to each transdermal dose group versus placebo.||||||0.1067
90897275|NCT01674621|181660490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-43.721|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.748|-11.694|||||Mean difference of percent change from baseline to end of treatment between the active treatment groups (transdermal and SC injection).|||-11.694|-75.748|
90897276|NCT01674621|181660490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-39.461|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.665|-7.257|||||Mean difference of percent change from baseline to end of treatment between the active treatment groups (transdermal and SC injection).|||-7.257|-71.665|
91091901|NCT01618968|182067641|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioavailability comparisons were performed at each dose level.|Test / Reference ratio|94.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.42|104.06||||||To compare the relative bioavailability of methotrexate (MTX) following oral administration to that obtained after subcutaneous (SC) injection into the abdomen using the VIBEX MTX device by measuring the maximum observed concentration (Cmax)||104.06|86.42|
90897277|NCT01674621|181660490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-49.334|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-82.113|-16.555|||||Mean difference of percent change from baseline to end of treatment between the active treatment groups (transdermal and SC injection).|||-16.555|-82.113|
90897278|NCT01725386|181660501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.895|||||||Log Rank (Mantel-Cox)|||||||0.895
90897279|NCT04750655|181660503|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Used the Kruskal-Wallis (nonparametric one-way ANOVA), comparing all 3 arms. Note that for each individual, a single number (normalized read) is obtained.||||1
91091902|NCT01618968|182067641|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioavailability comparisons were performed at each dose level.|Test / Reference Ratio|82.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.16|88.55||||||To compare the relative bioavailability of methotrexate (MTX) following oral administration to that obtained after subcutaneous (SC) injection into the thigh using the VIBEX MTX device by measuring the maximum observed concentration (Cmax)||88.55|76.16|
91091903|NCT01618968|182067641|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Test of bioequivalence was performed at each dose level.|Test / Reference Ratio|115.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|108.83|122.86||||||To compare the relative bioavailability of MTX following SC injection into the abdomen to that obtained after SC injection into the thigh using the VIBEX MTX device by measuring the maximum observed concentration (Cmax)||122.86|108.83|
90897280|NCT00879996|181660513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9134||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4156|2.007|||Log Rank|||Null hypothesis: Methadone and buprenorphine treatment do not differ in treatment retention.||2.007|0.4156|0.77
90897281|NCT00879996|181660514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||<|0.043||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: Methadone treatment is as effective as buprenorphine treatment in reducing pain.||||<0.043
90897282|NCT00879996|181660515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0|<|0.665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||null-hypothesis: methadone and buprenorphine treatment are equally effective in reducing self-reported functioning at 6 months.||||<0.665
90897283|NCT00879996|181660516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0|<|0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis: methadone or buprenorphine treatment equally reduce illicit drug use.||||<0.039
90839895|NCT00836693|181546802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.36|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.6|19.8||p-value is for Sexual Relationship Domain(Change).For secondary endpoints, all tests of hypotheses (null hypothesis versus the alternative hypothesis) were performed as two-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level (α=0.05) unless otherwise stated.|ANCOVA|Change = Endpoint - Baseline.||The model included terms for baseline value of the efficacy variable, treatment group, country, and the baseline-by-treatment-group interaction. In any model, if the interaction was not significant (at p≥0.10), then the interaction term was removed from the model and the main effects model was used to calculate the between-treatment-group p-value. All tests were based on type 3 sums of squares.||19.8|6.6|<0.001
90839896|NCT00836693|181546802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.34||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|16.5||p-value is for Confidence Domain (Change).For secondary endpoints, all tests of hypotheses (null hypothesis versus the alternative hypothesis) were performed as two-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level (α=0.05) unless otherwise stated.|ANCOVA|Change = Endpoint - Baseline.||The model included terms for baseline value of the efficacy variable, treatment group, country, and the baseline-by-treatment-group interaction. In any model, if the interaction was not significant (at p≥0.10), then the interaction term was removed from the model and the main effects model was used to calculate the between-treatment-group p-value. All tests were based on type 3 sums of squares.||16.5|3.3|0.0034
90839897|NCT00836693|181546802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.52||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|17.9||p-value is for Self-Esteem Domain (Change).For secondary endpoints, all tests of hypotheses (null hypothesis versus the alternative hypothesis) were performed as two-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level (α=0.05) unless otherwise stated.|ANCOVA|Change = Endpoint - Baseline.||The model included terms for baseline value of the efficacy variable, treatment group, country, and the baseline-by-treatment-group interaction. In any model, if the interaction was not significant (at p≥0.10), then the interaction term was removed from the model and the main effects model was used to calculate the between-treatment-group p-value. All tests were based on type 3 sums of squares.||17.9|4.1|0.0020
90839898|NCT00836693|181546802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.07||0.0653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|15.6||p-value is for Overall Relationship Domain(Change).For secondary endpoints, all tests of hypotheses (null hypothesis versus the alternative hypothesis) were performed as two-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level (α=0.05) unless otherwise stated.|ANCOVA|Change = Endpoint - Baseline.||The model included terms for baseline value of the efficacy variable, treatment group, country, and the baseline-by-treatment-group interaction. In any model, if the interaction was not significant (at p≥0.10), then the interaction term was removed from the model and the main effects model was used to calculate the between-treatment-group p-value. All tests were based on type 3 sums of squares.||15.6|-0.5|0.0653
90839899|NCT00836693|181546803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.9||p-value is for Week 12 Change.For secondary endpoints, all tests of hypotheses were performed as two-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level (α=0.05) unless otherwise stated.|ANCOVA|Change = Endpoint - Baseline.||Model included terms for baseline value of efficacy variable, treatment group, country, and the baseline-by-treatment-group interaction. In any model,if the interaction was not significant (if p≥0.10), then the interaction term was removed and the main effects model was used to calculate the between-treatment-group p-value. All tests were based on type 3 sums of squares.||1.9|0.7|<0.001
90839900|NCT00836693|181546804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.1||p-value is for Week 12 Change. For secondary endpoints, all tests of hypotheses were performed as two-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level (α=0.05) unless otherwise stated.|ANCOVA|Change = Endpoint - Baseline.||Model included terms for baseline value of efficacy variable, treatment group, country, and the baseline-by-treatment-group interaction. In any model,if the interaction was not significant (if p≥0.10), then the interaction term was removed and the main effects model was used to calculate the between-treatment-group p-value. All tests were based on type 3 sums of squares.||1.1|0.2|0.0089
90839901|NCT00836693|181546805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.0461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.5||p-value is for Week 12 Change. For secondary endpoints, all tests of hypotheses were performed as two-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level (α=0.05) unless otherwise stated.|ANCOVA|Change = Endpoint - Baseline.||Model included terms for baseline value of efficacy variable, treatment group, country, and the baseline-by-treatment-group interaction. In any model,if the interaction was not significant (if p≥0.10), then the interaction term was removed and the main effects model was used to calculate the between-treatment-group p-value. All tests were based on type 3 sums of squares.||1.5|0.0|0.0461
90839902|NCT00836693|181546806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.9||p-value is for Week 12 Change. For secondary endpoints, all tests of hypotheses were performed as two-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level (α=0.05) unless otherwise stated.|ANCOVA|Change = Endpoint - Baseline.||Model included terms for baseline value of efficacy variable, treatment group, country, and the baseline-by-treatment-group interaction. In any model,if the interaction was not significant (if p≥0.10), then the interaction term was removed and the main effects model was used to calculate the between-treatment-group p-value. All tests were based on type 3 sums of squares.||1.9|0.7|<0.001
90839903|NCT00836693|181546807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.22||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|10.7||p-value is for Week 12 Change. For secondary endpoints, all tests of hypotheses were performed as two-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level (α=0.05) unless otherwise stated.|ANCOVA|Baseline = Visit 2; Endpoint = the last non-missing post-baseline value until Visit 5; Change = Endpoint - Baseline.||The model included terms for baseline value of the efficacy variable, treatment group, country, and the baseline-by-treatment-group interaction. In any model, if the interaction was not significant (that is, if p≥0.10), then the interaction term was removed from the model and the main effects model was used to calculate the between-treatment-group p-value. All tests were based on the type 3 sums of squares.||10.7|2.0|0.0047
91091904|NCT02753881|182067689|OTHER|||||||0.036||||||Two-sided p-values \<0.05 considered statistically significant.|Kruskal-Wallis|||To achieve high probability (80% power) to detect 50% change with 5% significance level, calculated total sample size was 30 participants for dose normalized doxorubicin.||||.036
90839904|NCT00836693|181546808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.99|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.6|34.3||p-value is for Week 12 Change.For secondary endpoints, all tests of hypotheses were performed as two-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level (α=0.05) unless otherwise stated.|ANCOVA|Baseline = Visit 2; Endpoint = the last non-missing post-baseline value until Visit 5; Change = Endpoint - Baseline.||The model included terms for baseline value of the efficacy variable, treatment group, country, and the baseline-by-treatment-group interaction. In any model, if the interaction was not significant (that is, if p≥0.10), then the interaction term was removed from the model and the main effects model was used to calculate the between-treatment-group p-value. All tests were based on the type 3 sums of squares.||34.3|14.6|<0.001
90839905|NCT00836693|181546809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.96|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.7|33.2||p-value is for Week 12 Change.For secondary endpoints, all tests of hypotheses were performed as two-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level (α=0.05) unless otherwise stated.|ANCOVA|Baseline = Visit 2; Endpoint = the last non-missing post-baseline value until Visit 5; Change = Endpoint - Baseline.||The model included terms for baseline value of the efficacy variable, treatment group, country, and the baseline-by-treatment-group interaction. In any model, if the interaction was not significant (that is, if p≥0.10), then the interaction term was removed from the model and the main effects model was used to calculate the between-treatment-group p-value. All tests were based on the type 3 sums of squares.||33.2|13.7|<0.001
90839906|NCT00836693|181546810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||p-value is for Global Assessment Questions GAQ1. For secondary endpoints, all tests of hypotheses were performed as two-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level (α=0.05) unless otherwise stated.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon's rank sum test was used to compare responses to GAQs between treatment groups.||||<0.0001
90839907|NCT00836693|181546811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||p-value is for Global Assessment Question GAQ2.For secondary endpoints, all tests of hypotheses were performed as two-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level (α=0.05) unless otherwise stated.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon's rank sum test was used to compare responses to GAQs between treatment groups.||||<0.0001
90839908|NCT02633306|181546818|OTHER|||||||||||||||||In an exploratory trial with such a small number of participants no statistical analysis beyond descriptive statistics of the findings is appropriate. The descriptive statistics are reported.|In an exploratory trial with such a small number of participants no statistical analysis beyond descriptive statistics of the findings is appropriate. The descriptive statistics are reported.|||
90839909|NCT02633306|181546819|OTHER|||||||||||||||||In an exploratory trial with such a small number of participants no statistical analysis beyond descriptive statistics of the findings is appropriate. The descriptive statistics are reported.|In an exploratory trial with such a small number of participants no statistical analysis beyond descriptive statistics of the findings is appropriate. The descriptive statistics are reported.|||
90839910|NCT02633306|181546820|OTHER|||||||||||||||||In an exploratory trial with such a small number of participants no statistical analysis beyond descriptive statistics of the findings is appropriate. The descriptive statistics are reported.|In an exploratory trial with such a small number of participants no statistical analysis beyond descriptive statistics of the findings is appropriate. The descriptive statistics are reported.|||
90839911|NCT02633306|181546821|OTHER|||||||||||||||||In an exploratory trial with such a small number of participants no statistical analysis beyond descriptive statistics of the findings is appropriate. The descriptive statistics are reported.|In an exploratory trial with such a small number of participants no statistical analysis beyond descriptive statistics of the findings is appropriate. The descriptive statistics are reported.|||
90839912|NCT02633306|181546822|OTHER|||||||||||||||||In an exploratory trial with such a small number of participants no statistical analysis beyond descriptive statistics of the findings is appropriate. The descriptive statistics are reported.|In an exploratory trial with such a small number of participants no statistical analysis beyond descriptive statistics of the findings is appropriate. The descriptive statistics are reported.|||
90839913|NCT02633306|181546823|OTHER|||||||||||||||||In an exploratory trial with such a small number of participants no statistical analysis beyond descriptive statistics of the findings is appropriate. The descriptive statistics are reported.|In an exploratory trial with such a small number of participants no statistical analysis beyond descriptive statistics of the findings is appropriate. The descriptive statistics are reported.|||
90839914|NCT02633306|181546824|OTHER|||||||||||||||||In an exploratory trial with such a small number of participants no statistical analysis beyond descriptive statistics of the findings is appropriate. The descriptive statistics are reported.|In an exploratory trial with such a small number of participants no statistical analysis beyond descriptive statistics of the findings is appropriate. The descriptive statistics are reported.|||
90839915|NCT01122238|181546825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.665|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|The mean values tested and reported consist of residualized change scores from the ANCOVA.||The ANCOVA model included intervention main effects and intervention interactions plus baseline cigarettes per day, education, race, and time to first daily cigarette as covariates. Intervention main effects included Nicotine Patch vs. No Nicotine Patch; Nicotine Gum vs. No Nicotine Gum; Smoking Reduction vs. No Smoking Reduction; and Motivational Interviewing vs. No Motivational Interviewing.||||.665
90839916|NCT01122238|181546825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.562|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|The mean values tested and reported consist of residualized change scores from the ANCOVA.||The ANCOVA model included intervention main effects and intervention interactions plus baseline cigarettes per day, education, race, and time to first daily cigarette as covariates. Intervention main effects included Nicotine Patch vs. No Nicotine Patch; Nicotine Gum vs. No Nicotine Gum; Smoking Reduction vs. No Smoking Reduction; and Motivational Interviewing vs. No Motivational Interviewing.||||.562
90957285|NCT02502097|181794285|SUPERIORITY|MMRM model uses the change from baseline as the dependent variable and includes the period, treatment group (Gefapixant 50 mg, Placebo), visit (Day 7 and Day 14 at each Period), all interactions terms as fixed factors, and baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.8382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.8|16.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||LS means difference Day 14|||16.1|-19.8|0.8382
91091905|NCT02753881|182067689|OTHER|||||||0.002||||||Two-sided p-values \<0.05 considered statistically significant.|Kruskal-Wallis|||To achieve high probability (80% power) to detect 50% change with 5% significance level, calculated total sample size was 30 participants for dose normalized doxorubicinol.||||0.002
90839917|NCT01122238|181546825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.536|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|The mean values tested and reported consist of residualized change scores from the ANCOVA.||The ANCOVA model included intervention main effects and intervention interactions plus baseline cigarettes per day, education, race, and time to first daily cigarette as covariates. Intervention main effects included Nicotine Patch vs. No Nicotine Patch; Nicotine Gum vs. No Nicotine Gum; Smoking Reduction vs. No Smoking Reduction; and Motivational Interviewing vs. No Motivational Interviewing.||||.536
90839918|NCT01122238|181546825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.206|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|The mean values tested and reported consist of residualized change scores from the ANCOVA.||The ANCOVA model included intervention main effects and intervention interactions plus baseline cigarettes per day, education, race, and time to first daily cigarette as covariates. Intervention main effects included Nicotine Patch vs. No Nicotine Patch; Nicotine Gum vs. No Nicotine Gum; Smoking Reduction vs. No Smoking Reduction; and Motivational Interviewing vs. No Motivational Interviewing.||||.206
90839919|NCT01122238|181546826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized Regression Coefficient|0.0||||0.98|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The linear regression model effects consisted of four treatment main effects, six two-way treatment interactions, four three-way treatment interactions, and one four-way interaction. Only the results for the treatment main effects are being reported in ClinicalTrials.gov.||||.98
90839920|NCT01122238|181546826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized Regression Coefficient|-0.04||||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The linear regression model effects consisted of four treatment main effects, six two-way treatment interactions, four three-way treatment interactions, and one four-way interaction. Only the results for the treatment main effects are being reported in ClinicalTrials.gov.||||.40
90839921|NCT01122238|181546826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized Regression Coefficient|0.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The linear regression model effects consisted of four treatment main effects, six two-way treatment interactions, four three-way treatment interactions, and one four-way interaction. Only the results for the treatment main effects are being reported in ClinicalTrials.gov.||||.99
90839922|NCT01122238|181546826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized Regression Coefficient|-0.04||||0.33|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The linear regression model effects consisted of four treatment main effects, six two-way treatment interactions, four three-way treatment interactions, and one four-way interaction. Only the results for the treatment main effects are being reported in ClinicalTrials.gov.||||.33
90839923|NCT00129402|181546827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
90839924|NCT00129402|181546828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
90897284|NCT01216163|181660517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-squares (LS) mean difference|17.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.08|22.27||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR), gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms.|ANOVA|||Treatment difference(Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and 95 percent(%) confidence interval(CI):based on LS means from Analysis of Variance(ANOVA).Type I error controlled at 5% significance level(2-sided) by testing co-primary endpoints sequentially:Ibuprofen sodium(IBU Na) versus(vs) Placebo(PBO), IBU Na vs Acetaminophen(APAP), APAP vs PBO for SPRID 0-6 then time to meaningful relief at each comparison.If comparison at preceding step was significant only then subsequent comparisons were significant.||22.27|13.08|<0.001
90839925|NCT00129402|181546829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
90839926|NCT00129402|181546830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.48||95.0|||||non-parametric model|||||||.48
90839927|NCT00129402|181546831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
90839928|NCT00129402|181546832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.95||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||.95
90839929|NCT00089752|181546845|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size was designed to achieve at least 80% power, using n 1⁄4 123 per group with an effect size of at least 0.36|Adjusted difference in mean change|-1.76||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|0.3||a priori threshold was p\<0.05|ANCOVA|||Intent to Treat analysis with Last Observation Carried Forward.||0.3|-3.8|0.09
90839930|NCT03879772|181546874|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.95
90839931|NCT03879772|181546874|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.78
90839932|NCT03879772|181546874|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.98
90839933|NCT03879772|181546874|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.01
90839934|NCT03879772|181546874|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.82
90839935|NCT03879772|181546874|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.98
90839936|NCT03879772|181546874|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.01
90839937|NCT03879772|181546874|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.8
90839938|NCT03879772|181546874|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.02
90839939|NCT03879772|181546874|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.01
90839940|NCT03879772|181546875|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.56
90839941|NCT03879772|181546875|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.74
90839942|NCT03879772|181546875|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.68
90839943|NCT03879772|181546875|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||<0.01
90839944|NCT03879772|181546875|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.81
90839945|NCT03879772|181546875|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.33
90839946|NCT03879772|181546875|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.01
90839947|NCT03879772|181546875|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.46
91091906|NCT02753881|182067691|OTHER|||||||0.023||||||Two-sided p-values \<0.05 considered statistically significant.|Kruskal-Wallis|||To achieve high probability (80% power) to detect 50% change with 5% significance level, calculated total sample size was 30 participants for time-concentration-curves for doxorubicin.||||0.023
90839948|NCT03879772|181546875|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||<0.01
90839949|NCT03879772|181546875|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||<0.01
90839950|NCT03879772|181546876|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.8
90839951|NCT03879772|181546876|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.45
90897285|NCT01216163|181660517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|4.96||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|8.72||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms.|ANOVA|||Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and 95% CI: based on LS means from ANOVA. Type I error controlled at 5% significance level(2-sided) by testing co-primary endpoints sequentially:IBU Na vs PBO, IBU Na vs APAP, APAP vs PBO for SPRID 0-6 then time to meaningful relief at each comparison.If comparison at preceding step was significant only then subsequent comparisons were significant.||8.72|1.21|0.010
91091907|NCT02753881|182067691|OTHER|||||||0.041||||||Two-sided p-values \<0.05 considered statistically significant.|Kruskal-Wallis|||To achieve high probability (80% power) to detect 50% change with 5% significance level, calculated total sample size was 30 participants for time-concentration-curves for doxorubicinol.||||0.041
90839952|NCT03879772|181546876|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.12
90839953|NCT03879772|181546876|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.36
90839954|NCT03879772|181546876|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.6
90839955|NCT03879772|181546876|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.17
90839956|NCT03879772|181546876|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.23
90839957|NCT03879772|181546876|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.42
90839958|NCT03879772|181546876|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.09
90839959|NCT03879772|181546876|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.01
90839960|NCT03879772|181546877|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.03
90839961|NCT03879772|181546877|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.04
90839962|NCT03879772|181546877|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.08
90839963|NCT03879772|181546877|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.49
90839964|NCT03879772|181546877|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.93
90839965|NCT03879772|181546877|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.75
90839966|NCT03879772|181546877|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||<0.01
90839967|NCT03879772|181546877|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.71
90839968|NCT03879772|181546877|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||<0.01
90839969|NCT03879772|181546877|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.01
90839970|NCT03879772|181546878|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.16
90839971|NCT03879772|181546878|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.22
90839972|NCT03879772|181546878|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.14
90839973|NCT03879772|181546878|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.14
90839974|NCT03879772|181546878|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.85
90839975|NCT03879772|181546878|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.96
90839976|NCT03879772|181546878|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||<0.01
90839977|NCT03879772|181546878|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.81
90839978|NCT03879772|181546878|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||<0.01
90839979|NCT03879772|181546878|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||<0.01
90839980|NCT03879772|181546879|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.05
90839981|NCT03879772|181546879|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.07
90839982|NCT03879772|181546879|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.11
90839983|NCT03879772|181546879|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.31
91091908|NCT01296412|182067761|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sitagliptin-based treatment paradigm was to be declared non-inferior to the liraglutide-based treatment paradigm in lowering A1C at Week 26 if the upper bound of 95% confidence intervals of between group difference was less than the non-inferiority margin of 0.4%.|Difference in least squares mean|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.23|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included a term for treatment paradigm and a covariate for baseline value.||||0.23|-0.05|
91091909|NCT01296412|182067762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|11.4|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included a term for treatment paradigm and a covariate for baseline value.||||11.4|0.5|
91091910|NCT01296412|182067763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percent|-9.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.4|-1.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||-1.5|-17.4|
91091911|NCT01296412|182067764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percent|-4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|3.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||3.7|-12.7|
90839984|NCT03879772|181546879|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.94
90839985|NCT03879772|181546879|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.73
90839986|NCT03879772|181546879|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||<0.01
90839987|NCT03879772|181546879|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.79
91091912|NCT02160626|182067765|OTHER|||||||0.0003|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0003
91091913|NCT02160626|182067765|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||.0001
91091914|NCT02160626|182067766|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||mean change from baseline to Visit 8 PLA will be performed using Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline PLA as the covariate.||||0.0001
90839988|NCT03879772|181546879|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||<0.01
90839989|NCT03879772|181546879|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||<0.01
90839990|NCT04916587|181547016|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.6|12.6||||||||12.6|10.6|
90839991|NCT04916587|181547017|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.6|8.3||||||||8.3|6.6|
90839992|NCT04916587|181547018|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.36||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.14|0.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.89|0.14|0.03
90839993|NCT04322526|181547047|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Changes in BOLD signal in the rACC during the processing of contextual cues (pleasant \> unpleasant).||||0.01
90839994|NCT04322526|181547048|OTHER|Mechanistic hypothesis: naltrexone will block contextual processing.||||||0.0002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Changes in BOLD fMRI signal from the Placebo vs. the Naltrexone session.||||0.0002
90839995|NCT05523089|181547090|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-1.2||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|0.0||alpha = 0.025 one-sided|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.0|-5.7|0.0390
90839996|NCT05523089|181547092|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.4||||0.0185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|0.0||alpha = 0.025 one-sided|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||-0.0|-2.9|0.0185
90839997|NCT05523089|181547094|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0613||||||alpha = 0.025 one-sided|Gehan-Wilcoxon|||||||0.0613
90839998|NCT05523089|181547095|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|0.0||||0.1587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.0||alpha = 0.025 one-sided|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.0|-2.4|0.1587
90839999|NCT05523089|181547097|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1||||0.0236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.1||alpha = 0.025 one-sided|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||-0.1|-2.0|0.0236
90840000|NCT05523089|181547099|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1282||||||alpha = 0.025 one-sided|Gehan-Wilcoxon|||||||0.1282
90840001|NCT05523089|181547100|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.4||||0.2877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|0.3||alpha = 0.025 one-sided|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.3|-11.2|0.2877
90840002|NCT05523089|181547102|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.8||||0.2517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|0.6||alpha = 0.025 one-sided|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.6|-4.1|0.2517
90840003|NCT05523089|181547106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9024||||||alpha = 0.025 one-sided|Gehan-Wilcoxon|||||||0.9024
90840004|NCT05523089|181547107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0248||||||alpha = 0.025 one-sided|Fisher Exact|||||||0.0248
90840005|NCT05523089|181547109|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1224||||||alpha = 0.025 one-sided|Fisher Exact|||||||0.1224
90840006|NCT05523089|181547111|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1023||||||alpha = 0.025 one-sided|Fisher Exact|||||||0.1023
90840007|NCT05523089|181547113|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1477||||||alpha = 0.025 one-sided|Fisher Exact|||||||0.1477
90840008|NCT05523089|181547115|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1645||||||alpha = 0.025 one-sided|Fisher Exact|||||||0.1645
90957286|NCT02502097|181794286|SUPERIORITY|MMRM model uses the change from baseline as the dependent variable and includes the period, treatment group (Gefapixant 50 mg, Placebo), visit (Day 7 and Day 14 at each Period), all interactions terms as fixed factors, and baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.8008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|9.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||LS means difference Day 7|||9.2|-11.9|0.8008
91091915|NCT02160626|182067766|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||mean change from baseline to Visit 8 PLA will be performed using Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline PLA as the covariate.||||0.0001
91091916|NCT02160626|182067767|OTHER|||||||0.0016||||||For all analyses, two-tail alpha will be set to 0.05 with no adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|For all analyses, two-tail alpha will be set to 0.05 with no adjustment for multiple comparisons.||"Secondary efficacy analyses will also be conducted based on the proportion of subjects who have at least 3 of 4 target lesions judged to be clear on the PLA (PLA=0) at Visit 8.~A separate comparison will be made between each active treatment group and the vehicle treatment group using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) tests stratified by site."||||0.0016
91091917|NCT02160626|182067767|OTHER|For all analyses, two-tail alpha will be set to 0.05 with no adjustment for multiple comparisons.||||||0.0004||||||For all analyses, two-tail alpha will be set to 0.05 with no adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0004
91091918|NCT05471505|182067768|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.752|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.719|0.787|||COX Proportional Hazards Regression|||||0.787|0.719|<0.001
91091919|NCT05471505|182067769|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.747|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.687|0.813|||COX Proportional Hazards Regression|||||0.813|0.687|<0.001
91091920|NCT05471505|182067770|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.909|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.862|0.958|||COX Proportional Hazards Regression|||||0.958|0.862|<0.001
91091921|NCT05471505|182067771|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.948||||0.378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.842|1.067|||COX Proportional Hazards Regression|||||1.067|0.842|0.378
91091922|NCT05471505|182067772|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.259|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.229|0.294|||COX Proportional Hazards Regression|||||0.294|0.229|<0.001
91091923|NCT05471505|182067773|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.767|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.84|||COX Proportional Hazards Regression|||||0.840|0.700|<0.001
91091924|NCT05471505|182067774|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.932||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.877|0.99|||COX Proportional Hazards Regression|||||0.990|0.877|0.022
91091925|NCT03427892|182067809|OTHER|Within subjects design; single group. Intent-to-treat (ITT) sample was used in the analysis, such that all participants who completed the baseline visit and at least one post-baseline assessment were included in the analysis.|||||<|0.001||||||To analyze mood symptoms, cognitive performance, and side effects, separate one-way repeated measures analyses of variance (ANVOA) were performed. Time (bsl, wk 4, and wk 8) was included as the within-subject factor.|ANOVA|One-way repeated measures analyses of variance (ANVOA) were performed. Time (bsl, wk 4, wk8) was included as the within-subject factor.||Primary Aim is to determine if brexpiprazole is associated with a reduction in depressive symptom severity in bipolar disorder outpatients. A sample size of 17 provides 80% power for a paired t-test to compare baseline to exit change scores on the MADRS of 7 (SD 10) (a more conservative change than with even the low 1 mg dose of brexpiprazole in Thase et. al. (2015)) with alpha=.05. A sample size of n=20 will allow for some early withdrawals without postbaseline data (10).||||<.001
90957287|NCT02502097|181794286|SUPERIORITY|MMRM model uses the change from baseline as the dependent variable and includes the period, treatment group (Gefapixant 50 mg, Placebo), visit (Day 7 and Day 14 at each Period), all interactions terms as fixed factors, and baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.9805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6|18.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||LS means difference Day 14|||18.0|-17.6|0.9805
91091926|NCT03427892|182067810|OTHER|Within subjects design; single group. Intent-to-treat (ITT) sample was used in the analysis, such that all participants who completed the baseline visit and at least one post-baseline assessment were included in the analysis.||||||0.93||||||To analyze mood symptoms, cognitive performance, and side effects, separate one-way repeated measures analyses of variance (ANVOA) were performed. Time (bsl, wk 4, and wk 8) was included as the within-subject factor.|ANOVA|One-way repeated measures analyses of variance (ANVOA) were performed. Time (bsl, wk 4, wk8) was included as the within-subject factor.||Primary Aim is to determine if brexpiprazole is associated with a reduction in depressive symptom severity in bipolar disorder outpatients. A sample size of 17 provides 80% power for a paired t-test to compare baseline to exit change scores on the MADRS of 7 (SD 10) (a more conservative change than with even the low 1 mg dose of brexpiprazole in Thase et. al. (2015)) with alpha=.05. A sample size of n=20 will allow for some early withdrawals without postbaseline data (10).||||.93
91104040|NCT04250207|182094695|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.0135|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 38||||0.0135
91104041|NCT04250207|182094695|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.6992|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 38||||0.6992
91104042|NCT04250207|182094695|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.0135|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 52||||0.0135
91104043|NCT04250207|182094695|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.5154|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 52||||0.5154
91104044|NCT04250207|182094696|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1209|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.1209
91104045|NCT04250207|182094696|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7116|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.7116
91104046|NCT04250207|182094697|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.0915|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 3||||0.0915
91104047|NCT04250207|182094697|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.3282|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 3||||0.3282
91104048|NCT04250207|182094697|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.0648|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 5||||0.0648
91104049|NCT04250207|182094697|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.031|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 5||||0.0310
91104050|NCT04250207|182094697|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.0187|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 7||||0.0187
91104051|NCT04250207|182094697|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.0036|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 7||||0.0036
90840009|NCT02230995|181547127|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based on 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios (test to reference treatment) of the adjusted geometric means (gMeans) of the primary endpoints, using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted gMean ratio|98.22|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.0|<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.11|100.39|||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including random effects for 'subjects within sequences' \& fixed effect for 'sequence', 'period' \& 'treatment'.|Relative bioavailability of empagliflozin was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted gMean of Fed 25mg+1000mg FDC divided by Fed 25mg+1000mg Single. Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|||100.39|96.11|<0.00001
90840010|NCT02230995|181547128|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based on 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios (test to reference treatment) of the adjusted geometric means (gMeans) of the primary endpoints, using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted gMean ratio|102.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.9|<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.65|105.76|||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including random effects for 'subjects within sequences' \& fixed effect for 'sequence', 'period' \& 'treatment'.|Relative bioavailability of metformin was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted gMean of Fed 25mg+1000mg FDC divided by Fed 25mg+1000mg Single. Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|||105.76|98.65|<0.00001
90840011|NCT02230995|181547129|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based on 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios (test to reference treatment) of the adjusted geometric means (gMeans) of the primary endpoints, using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted gMean ratio|98.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.3|<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.51|104.17|||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including random effects for 'subjects within sequences' \& fixed effect for 'sequence', 'period' \& 'treatment'.|Relative bioavailability of empagliflozin was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted gMean of Fed 25mg+1000mg FDC divided by Fed 25mg+1000mg Single. Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|||104.17|93.51|<0.00001
90840012|NCT02230995|181547130|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based on 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios (test to reference treatment) of the adjusted geometric means (gMeans) of the primary endpoints, using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted gMean ratio|105.69|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.9|<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.78|110.84|||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including random effects for 'subjects within sequences' \& fixed effect for 'sequence', 'period' \& 'treatment'.|Relative bioavailability of metformin was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted gMean of Fed 25mg+1000mg FDC divided by Fed 25mg+1000mg Single. Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|||110.84|100.78|<0.00001
90840013|NCT02230995|181547131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio|98.32|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.16|100.53|||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including random effects for 'subjects within sequences' \& fixed effect for 'sequence', 'period' \& 'treatment'.|Relative bioavailability of empagliflozin was estimated by ratios of adjusted geometric means (gMean) of Fed 25mg+1000mg FDC divided by Fed 25mg+1000mg Single. Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|||100.53|96.16|
90840014|NCT02230995|181547132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio|104.66|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.36|108.07|||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including random effects for 'subjects within sequences' \& fixed effect for 'sequence', 'period' \& 'treatment'.|Relative bioavailability of metformin was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean) of Fed 25mg+1000mg FDC divided by Fed 25mg+1000mg Single. Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|||108.07|101.36|
90840015|NCT00554216|181547133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.476|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.43|10.3||Intersection-union method applied in a step-down testing approach|ANCOVA|||With at least 250 subjects in each of the 3 arms in this trial, the trial has more than 90% power to detect a difference of at least 3.1% between combination and placebo treatment assuming a standard deviation of 5.3% and a significance level of 0.05.||10.30|8.43|<0.0001
91028136|NCT04543136|181940154|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.5||||0.775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.1|21.0||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||21.0|-28.1|0.775
91028137|NCT04543136|181940155|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.52||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.52|-0.70|0.766
91028138|NCT04543136|181940155|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.06||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||-0.06|-1.30|0.032
91028139|NCT04543136|181940155|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.59||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|1.21||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||1.21|-0.03|0.063
91028140|NCT04543136|181940156|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.54||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.54|-0.12|0.213
91028141|NCT04543136|181940156|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.51||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.51|-0.16|0.291
90840016|NCT00554216|181547133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.596|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.38|4.71||Intersection-union method applied in a step-down testing approach|ANCOVA|||With at least 250 subjects in each of the 3 arms in this trial, the trial has more than 90% power to detect a difference of at least 3.1% between combination and placebo treatment assuming a standard deviation of 5.3% and a significance level of 0.05.||4.71|2.38|<0.0001
90840017|NCT00554216|181547133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.596|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.65|6.99||Intersection-union method applied in a step-down testing approach|ANCOVA|||With at least 250 subjects in each of the 3 arms in this trial, the trial has more than 90% power to detect a difference of at least 3.1% between combination and placebo treatment assuming a standard deviation of 5.3% and a significance level of 0.05.||6.99|4.65|<0.0001
90840018|NCT00554216|181547134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.463|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.13|12.95||Intersection-union method applied in a step-down testing approach|Regression, Logistic|||With at least 250 subjects in each of the 3 arms in this trial, the trial has more than 90% power to detect a difference of at least 3.1% between combination and placebo treatment assuming a standard deviation of 5.3% and a significance level of 0.05.||12.95|7.13|<0.0001
90840019|NCT00554216|181547134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.706|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|5.63||Intersection-union method applied in a step-down testing approach|Regression, Logistic|||With at least 250 subjects in each of the 3 arms in this trial, the trial has more than 90% power to detect a difference of at least 3.1% between combination and placebo treatment assuming a standard deviation of 5.3% and a significance level of 0.05.||5.63|2.80|<0.0001
90840020|NCT00554216|181547134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.394|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.76|3.33||Intersection-union method applied in a step-down testing approach|Regression, Logistic|||With at least 250 subjects in each of the 3 arms in this trial, the trial has more than 90% power to detect a difference of at least 3.1% between combination and placebo treatment assuming a standard deviation of 5.3% and a significance level of 0.05.||3.33|1.76|<0.0001
90840021|NCT01347112|181547169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034||||||1 tailed fisher's exact test|Fisher Exact|1 tailed||||||0.034
90840022|NCT01347112|181547170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.044||||||1 tailed fisher's exact|Fisher Exact|1 tailed||||||0.044
90840023|NCT01347112|181547171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.7|2.1|||||data were analyzed using analysis of covariance with treatment as the independent variable and the baseline value included as the co-variate|||2.1|-4.7|
90840024|NCT05462756|181547173|NON_INFERIORITY|The sample size provided \>99% statistical power to show noninferiority assuming a 0.4% noninferiority margin (NIM), in insulin efsitora doses compared to insulin glargine, in a 1:1 randomization, a standard deviation (SD) of 1.1%, and a dropout rate of 15%.|LS Mean Difference|-0.012|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.116||||||Least Squares (LS) Mean was determined using ANCOVA model with Baseline + Country + Personal Use of CGM or FGM at Randomization + Treatment (Type III sum of squares) as variables. Missing data at Week 26 were imputed by return-to-baseline multiple imputations approach. A total of 100 datasets were imputed.||0.116|-0.140|
90840025|NCT05462756|181547174|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.012||||0.855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.116|||ANCOVA|||Least Squares (LS) Mean was determined using ANCOVA model with Baseline + Country + Personal Use of CGM or FGM at Randomization + Treatment (Type III sum of squares) as variables. Missing data at Week 26 were imputed by return-to-baseline multiple imputations approach. A total of 100 datasets were imputed.||0.116|-0.140|0.855
90840026|NCT05462756|181547175|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.52|||Chi-squared|||||1.52|0.81|0.504
90840027|NCT05462756|181547176|SUPERIORITY||Relative rate|0.67||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.01|||Negative binomial model||Relative rate is the ratio of the group means (Insulin Efsitora vs Insulin Glargine).|Group mean is determined by Negative Binomial Model using Number of episodes = Baseline hypoglycemia rate + Hemoglobin A1c at Baseline (%) + Treatment, with log (exposure in days/365.25) as an offset variable.||1.01|0.44|0.058
90840028|NCT05462756|181547177|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.29||||0.104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.461|0.886|||ANCOVA|||LS Mean was determined using ANCOVA model using Baseline + Country + Personal Use of CGM or FGM at Randomization + Hemoglobin A1c Stratum at Baseline + Treatment (Type III sum of squares) as variables. Missing data at Baseline were imputed with multiple imputation with assumption of missing at random. Missing data at Week 26 were imputed by return-to-baseline multiple imputations approach. A total of 100 datasets were imputed with one for each of the 100 datasets imputed at Baseline.||0.886|-9.461|0.104
90840029|NCT05462756|181547178|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.35||||0.337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.404|4.101|||ANCOVA|||LS Mean was determined using ANCOVA model using Baseline + Country + Personal Use of CGM or FGM at Randomization + Hemoglobin A1c Stratum at Baseline + Treatment (Type III sum of squares) as variables. Missing data at Baseline were imputed with multiple imputation with assumption of missing at random. Missing data at Week 22-Week 26 were imputed by return-to-baseline multiple imputations approach. A total of 100 datasets were imputed with one for each of the 100 datasets imputed at Baseline.||4.101|-1.404|0.337
90957288|NCT02502097|181794289|SUPERIORITY|MMRM model uses the change from baseline as the dependent variable and includes the period, treatment group (Gefapixant 50 mg, Placebo), visit (Day 7 and Day 14 at each Period), all interactions terms as fixed factors, and baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4||||0.3279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|2.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||LS means difference Day 7|||2.4|-7.1|0.3279
91028142|NCT04543136|181940156|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.36||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.36|-0.31|0.868
91028143|NCT04543136|181940157|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.55||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.55|-0.35|0.661
91104052|NCT04250207|182094697|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.0687|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 9||||0.0687
90840030|NCT05462756|181547179|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.59||||0.104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.327|3.508|||ANCOVA|||LS Mean was determined by ANCOVA model using Baseline + Country + Personal Use of CGM or FGM at Randomization + Hemoglobin A1c Stratum at Baseline + Treatment (Type III sum of squares) as variables. Missing data at Baseline were imputed with multiple imputation with assumption of missing at random. Missing data at Week 22-Week 26 were imputed by return-to-baseline multiple imputations approach. A total of 100 datasets were imputed with one for each of the 100 datasets imputed at Baseline.||3.508|-0.327|0.104
90840031|NCT05462756|181547180|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.5||||0.304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.358|1.36|||ANCOVA|||LS Mean was determined by ANCOVA model using Baseline + Country + Personal Use of CGM or FGM at Randomization + Hemoglobin A1c Stratum at Baseline + Treatment (Type III sum of squares). Missing data at Baseline were imputed with multiple imputation with assumption of missing at random. Missing data at Week 22-Week 26 were imputed by return-to-baseline multiple imputations approach. A total of 100 datasets were imputed with one for each of the 100 datasets imputed at Baseline.||1.360|-4.358|0.304
90840032|NCT05462756|181547181|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.23||||0.523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS Mean was determined by MMRM model with BASELINE + Hemoglobin A1c Stratum at Baseline + Country + Personal Use CGM or FGM at Randomization + Treatment + Time + Treatment\*Time (Type III sum of squares) as variables. Unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||0.95|-0.48|0.523
90840033|NCT05462756|181547182|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-35.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.57|-14.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS Mean was determined by Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) model using BASELINE + Hemoglobin A1c Stratum at Baseline + Country + Personal Use CGM or FGM at Randomization + Treatment + Time + Treatment\*Time (Type III sum of squares) as variables. Variance-covariance structure was set as compound symmetry.||-14.50|-55.57|<0.001
90840034|NCT05462756|181547183|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.79|-4.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS Mean was determined by MMRM model using BASELINE + Hemoglobin A1c Stratum at Baseline + Country + Personal Use CGM or FGM at Randomization + Treatment + Time + Treatment\*Time (Type III sum of squares) as variables. Variance-covariance structure was set as compound symmetry.||-4.30|-10.79|<0.001
90840035|NCT05462756|181547184|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-73.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-107.81|-39.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS Mean was determined by MMRM model using BASELINE + Hemoglobin A1c Stratum at Baseline + Country + Personal Use CGM or FGM at Randomization + Treatment + Time + Treatment\*Time (Type III sum of squares) as variables. Variance-covariance structure was set as compound symmetry.||-39.20|-107.81|<0.001
90840036|NCT05462756|181547185|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.49|5.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS Mean was determined by MMRM model using BASELINE + Hemoglobin A1c Stratum at Baseline + Country + Personal Use CGM or FGM at Randomization + Treatment + Time + Treatment\*Time (Type III sum of squares) as variables. Variance-covariance structure was set as compound symmetry.||5.58|1.49|<0.001
90840037|NCT05462756|181547186|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.11||||0.442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.44|||Negative binomial model|||Group mean was reported and determined by Negative binomial method using Baseline hypoglycemia rate + Hemoglobin A1c at Baseline (%) + Treatment, with log (exposure in days/365.25) as variables.||1.44|0.85|0.442
90840038|NCT05462756|181547187|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.14||||0.543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS Mean was determined by MMRM model using BASELINE + Treatment + Time + Treatment\*Time (Type III sum of squares) as variables.||0.60|-0.32|0.543
90840039|NCT05462756|181547188|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.8||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|4.0|||ANCOVA|||LS Mean was determined by ANCOVA model using Country + Personal Use CGM or FGM at Randomization + Hemoglobin A1c Stratum at Baseline + Treatment (Type III sum of squares) as variables.||4.0|-0.3|0.099
90840040|NCT01432730|181547194|SUPERIORITY||Log mean difference (Active - Placebo)|-0.6027||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9049|-0.3005|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model included terms for treatment sequence, participant within sequence, treatment \& period. Average \& period baseline covariates included.||||-0.3005|-0.9049|0.0003
90840041|NCT01432730|181547195|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.57||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.53|-9.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model fitting terms for treatment sequence, participant within sequence, treatment, and period.||||-9.62|-41.53|0.003
90840042|NCT01432730|181547196|SUPERIORITY||Log mean difference (Active - Placebo)|-0.4212||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8568|0.01438|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model included terms for treatment sequence, participant within sequence, treatment \& period. Average \& period baseline covariates included.||||0.01438|-0.8568|0.057
90840043|NCT01432730|181547197|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.53||||0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.93|3.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model fitting terms for treatment sequence, participant within sequence, treatment, and period.||||3.87|-20.93|0.172
90840044|NCT01432730|181547198|SUPERIORITY||Log mean difference (Active - Placebo)|-0.582||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8934|-0.2707|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model included terms for treatment sequence, participant within sequence, treatment \& period. Average \& period baseline covariates included.||||-0.2707|-0.8934|0.001
90840045|NCT01432730|181547199|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.538||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.849|-0.227|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model fitting terms for treatment sequence, participant within sequence, treatment, and period.||||-0.227|-4.849|0.033
90840046|NCT01432730|181547200|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.267||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.523|-0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model fitting terms for treatment sequence, participant within sequence, treatment, and period.||||-0.010|-4.523|0.049
90840047|NCT01432730|181547201|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.237||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.759|-1.716|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model fitting terms for treatment sequence, participant within sequence, treatment, and period.||||-1.716|-16.759|0.018
90840048|NCT01432730|181547202|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.25||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.96|-1.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model fitting terms for treatment sequence, participant within sequence, treatment, and period.||||-1.54|-40.96|0.035
91091927|NCT03427892|182067811|OTHER|Within subjects design; single group. Intent-to-treat (ITT) sample was used in the analysis, such that all participants who completed the baseline visit and at least one post-baseline assessment were included in the analysis.||||||0.49||||||To analyze mood symptoms, cognitive performance, and side effects, separate one-way repeated measures analyses of variance (ANVOA) were performed. Time (bsl, wk 4, and wk 8) was included as the within-subject factor. The above reported is RAVLT Score|ANOVA|One-way repeated measures analyses of variance (ANVOA) were performed. Time (bsl, wk 4, wk8) was included as the within-subject factor.||Primary Aim is to determine if brexpiprazole is associated with a reduction in depressive symptom severity in bipolar disorder outpatients. A sample size of 17 provides 80% power for a paired t-test to compare baseline to exit change scores on the MADRS of 7 (SD 10) (a more conservative change than with even the low 1 mg dose of brexpiprazole in Thase et. al. (2015)) with alpha=.05. A sample size of n=20 will allow for some early withdrawals without postbaseline data (10).||||.49
91091928|NCT03427892|182067811|OTHER|Within subjects design; single group. Intent-to-treat (ITT) sample was used in the analysis, such that all participants who completed the baseline visit and at least one post-baseline assessment were included in the analysis.||||||0.56||||||Within subjects design; single group. Intent-to-treat (ITT) sample was used in the analysis, such that all participants who completed the baseline visit and at least one post-baseline assessment were included in the analysis.Reported is delay score|ANOVA|One-way repeated measures analyses of variance (ANVOA) were performed. Time (bsl, wk 4, wk8) was included as the within-subject factor.||Primary Aim is to determine if brexpiprazole is associated with a reduction in depressive symptom severity in bipolar disorder outpatients. A sample size of 17 provides 80% power for a paired t-test to compare baseline to exit change scores on the MADRS of 7 (SD 10) (a more conservative change than with even the low 1 mg dose of brexpiprazole in Thase et. al. (2015)) with alpha=.05. A sample size of n=20 will allow for some early withdrawals without postbaseline data (10).||||.56
90840049|NCT01421719|181547210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0087||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t test comparison of baseline number of urinary leaks per day versus number of leaks per day at 6 month evaluation after treatment.||||0.0087
90840050|NCT02653417|181547212|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Regimen 1 = 5 mg vs Regimen 4 = placebo||||
91091929|NCT03427892|182067812|OTHER|Within subjects design; single group. Intent-to-treat (ITT) sample was used in the analysis, such that all participants who completed the baseline visit and at least one post-baseline assessment were included in the analysis.||||||0.221||||||To analyze mood symptoms, cognitive performance, and side effects, separate one-way repeated measures analyses of variance (ANVOA) were performed. Time (bsl, wk 4, and wk 8) was included as the within-subject factor. Reported is CW score.|ANOVA|One-way repeated measures analyses of variance (ANVOA) were performed. Time (bsl, wk 4, wk8) was included as the within-subject factor.||Primary Aim is to determine if brexpiprazole is associated with a reduction in depressive symptom severity in bipolar disorder outpatients. A sample size of 17 provides 80% power for a paired t-test to compare baseline to exit change scores on the MADRS of 7 (SD 10) (a more conservative change than with even the low 1 mg dose of brexpiprazole in Thase et. al. (2015)) with alpha=.05. A sample size of n=20 will allow for some early withdrawals without postbaseline data (10).||||.221
91091930|NCT03427892|182067812|OTHER|Within subjects design; single group. Intent-to-treat (ITT) sample was used in the analysis, such that all participants who completed the baseline visit and at least one post-baseline assessment were included in the analysis.||||||0.306||||||To analyze mood symptoms, cognitive performance, and side effects, separate one-way repeated measures analyses of variance (ANVOA) were performed. Time (bsl, wk 4, and wk 8) was included as the within-subject factor.Reported is Inter. score|ANOVA|One-way repeated measures analyses of variance (ANVOA) were performed. Time (bsl, wk 4, wk8) was included as the within-subject factor.||Primary Aim is to determine if brexpiprazole is associated with a reduction in depressive symptom severity in bipolar disorder outpatients. A sample size of 17 provides 80% power for a paired t-test to compare baseline to exit change scores on the MADRS of 7 (SD 10) (a more conservative change than with even the low 1 mg dose of brexpiprazole in Thase et. al. (2015)) with alpha=.05. A sample size of n=20 will allow for some early withdrawals without postbaseline data (10).||||.306
91091931|NCT03427892|182067813|OTHER|Within subjects design; single group. Intent-to-treat (ITT) sample was used in the analysis, such that all participants who completed the baseline visit and at least one post-baseline assessment were included in the analysis.||||||0.07||||||To analyze mood symptoms, cognitive performance, and side effects, separate one-way repeated measures analyses of variance (ANVOA) were performed. Time (bsl, wk 4, and wk 8) was included as the within-subject factor. The above reported is TMT A.|ANOVA|One-way repeated measures analyses of variance (ANVOA) were performed. Time (bsl, wk 4, wk8) was included as the within-subject factor.||Primary Aim is to determine if brexpiprazole is associated with a reduction in depressive symptom severity in bipolar disorder outpatients. A sample size of 17 provides 80% power for a paired t-test to compare baseline to exit change scores on the MADRS of 7 (SD 10) (a more conservative change than with even the low 1 mg dose of brexpiprazole in Thase et. al. (2015)) with alpha=.05. A sample size of n=20 will allow for some early withdrawals without postbaseline data (10).||||.07
91091932|NCT03427892|182067813|OTHER|Within subjects design; single group. Intent-to-treat (ITT) sample was used in the analysis, such that all participants who completed the baseline visit and at least one post-baseline assessment were included in the analysis.||||||0.19||||||To analyze mood symptoms, cognitive performance, and side effects, separate one-way repeated measures analyses of variance (ANVOA) were performed. Time (bsl, wk 4, and wk 8) was included as the within-subject factor.The above reported is TMT B.|ANOVA|One-way repeated measures analyses of variance (ANVOA) were performed. Time (bsl, wk 4, wk8) was included as the within-subject factor.||Primary Aim is to determine if brexpiprazole is associated with a reduction in depressive symptom severity in bipolar disorder outpatients. A sample size of 17 provides 80% power for a paired t-test to compare baseline to exit change scores on the MADRS of 7 (SD 10) (a more conservative change than with even the low 1 mg dose of brexpiprazole in Thase et. al. (2015)) with alpha=.05. A sample size of n=20 will allow for some early withdrawals without postbaseline data (10).||||.19
91104053|NCT04250207|182094697|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.0016|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 9||||0.0016
91091933|NCT03427892|182067814|OTHER|Within subjects design; single group. Intent-to-treat (ITT) sample was used in the analysis, such that all participants who completed the baseline visit and at least one post-baseline assessment were included in the analysis.|||||<|0.001||||||To analyze mood symptoms, cognitive performance, and side effects, separate one-way repeated measures analyses of variance (ANVOA) were performed. Time (bsl, wk 4, and wk 8) was included as the within-subject factor.|ANOVA|One-way repeated measures analyses of variance (ANVOA) were performed. Time (bsl, wk 4, wk8) was included as the within-subject factor.||Primary Aim is to determine if brexpiprazole is associated with a reduction in depressive symptom severity in bipolar disorder outpatients. A sample size of 17 provides 80% power for a paired t-test to compare baseline to exit change scores on the MADRS of 7 (SD 10) (a more conservative change than with even the low 1 mg dose of brexpiprazole in Thase et. al. (2015)) with alpha=.05. A sample size of n=20 will allow for some early withdrawals without postbaseline data (10).||||<.001
91091934|NCT03427892|182067815|OTHER|Within subjects design; single group. Intent-to-treat (ITT) sample was used in the analysis, such that all participants who completed the baseline visit and at least one post-baseline assessment were included in the analysis.||||||0.022||||||To analyze separate one-way repeated measures analyses of variance (ANOVA) were performed. Time (baseline, week 4, week 8) was included as the within-subject factor.Above is from baseline to week 8 for C-SSRS AA, IA, and ABA.|ANOVA|One-way repeated measures (ANOVA) were performed. Time (baseline, wk 4, wk 8) included as within-subject factor. Above is for C-SSRS AA,IA, and ABA.||Primary Aim is to determine if brexpiprazole is associated with a reduction in depressive symptom severity in bipolar disorder outpatients. A sample size of 17 provides 80% power for a paired t-test to compare baseline to exit change scores on the MADRS of 7 (SD 10) (a more conservative change than with even the low 1 mg dose of brexpiprazole in Thase et. al. (2015)) with alpha=.05. A sample size of n=20 will allow for some early withdrawals without postbaseline data (10).||||.022
91091935|NCT03427892|182067815|OTHER|Within subjects design; single group. Intent-to-treat (ITT) sample was used in the analysis, such that all participants who completed the baseline visit and at least one post-baseline assessment were included in the analysis.||||||0.163||||||To analyze mood symptoms, cognitive performance, and side effects, separate one-way repeated measures analyses of variance (ANVOA) were performed. Time (bsl, wk 4, and wk 8) was included as the within-subject factor.|ANOVA|One-way repeated measures analyses of variance (ANVOA) were performed. Time (bsl, wk 4, wk8) was included as the within-subject factor.||Primary Aim is to determine if brexpiprazole is associated with a reduction in depressive symptom severity in bipolar disorder outpatients. A sample size of 17 provides 80% power for a paired t-test to compare baseline to exit change scores on the MADRS of 7 (SD 10) (a more conservative change than with even the low 1 mg dose of brexpiprazole in Thase et. al. (2015)) with alpha=.05. A sample size of n=20 will allow for some early withdrawals without postbaseline data (10).||||.163
90840051|NCT02653417|181547212|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Regimen 2 = 10 mg vs Regimen 4 = placebo||||
90840052|NCT02653417|181547212|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Regimen 3 = 20 mg vs Regimen 4 = placebo||||
90840053|NCT04226742|181547230|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.58||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.71|4.88||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.88|-3.71|0.79
90840054|NCT04226742|181547231|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|4.32||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.32|-2.52|.61
90840055|NCT04226742|181547232|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.68||Significance threshold of alpha = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.68|-0.05|0.088
90840056|NCT04226742|181547233|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.68||||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.62|31.99||Threshold for statistical significance of alpha = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||31.99|-4.62|0.142
90840057|NCT04226742|181547234|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.87||||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.28|1.54||Threshold for statistical significance of alpha = .05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.54|-15.28|0.109
90840058|NCT04226742|181547235|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.01||||0.736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.92|4.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.89|-6.92|0.736
90840059|NCT02492763|181547242|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.39||||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.11|||Longitudinal data analysis|Terms for treatment, time, A1C (\<8.5%, ≥8.5%), BMI (\<30 kg/m\^2, ≥30 kg/m\^2) and AHA washout status (Yes, No), and the interaction of time by treatment||||0.11|-0.88|0.126
90840060|NCT02492763|181547242|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.6||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|1.08|||Longitudinal data analysis|Terms for treatment, time, A1C (\<8.5%, ≥8.5%), BMI (\<30 kg/m\^2, ≥30 kg/m\^2) and AHA washout status (Yes, No), and the interaction of time by treatment||||1.08|0.11|0.017
90840061|NCT02492763|181547242|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.61||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|-0.1|||Longitudinal data analysis|Terms for treatment, time, A1C (\<8.5%, ≥8.5%), BMI (\<30 kg/m\^2, ≥30 kg/m\^2) and AHA washout status (Yes, No), and the interaction of time by treatment||||-0.10|-1.12|0.018
90840062|NCT02492763|181547242|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.37||||0.146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.87|||Longitudinal data analysis|Terms for treatment, time, A1C (\<8.5%, ≥8.5%), BMI (\<30 kg/m\^2, ≥30 kg/m\^2) and AHA washout status (Yes, No), and the interaction of time by treatment||||0.87|-0.13|0.146
90840063|NCT02492763|181547242|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|-0.48||Terms for treatment, time, A1C (\<8.5%, ≥8.5%), BMI (\<30 kg/m\^2, ≥30 kg/m\^2) and AHA washout status (Yes, No), and the interaction of time by treatment|Longitudinal data analysis|||||-0.48|-1.49|<0.001
90840064|NCT02492763|181547245|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % vs Placebo|-2.3||||0.301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|5.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||5.6|-12.1|0.301
90840065|NCT02492763|181547245|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % vs Placebo|2.2||||0.573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|13.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||13.2|-8.1|0.573
91091936|NCT03427892|182067816|OTHER|Within subjects design; single group. Intent-to-treat (ITT) sample was used in the analysis, such that all participants who completed the baseline visit and at least one post-baseline assessment were included in the analysis.||||||0.133||||||To analyze mood symptoms, cognitive performance, and side effects, separate one-way repeated measures analyses of variance (ANVOA) were performed. Time (bsl, wk 4, and wk 8) was included as the within-subject factor.|ANOVA|One-way repeated measures analyses of variance (ANVOA) were performed. Time (bsl, wk 4, wk8) was included as the within-subject factor.||Primary Aim is to determine if brexpiprazole is associated with a reduction in depressive symptom severity in bipolar disorder outpatients. A sample size of 17 provides 80% power for a paired t-test to compare baseline to exit change scores on the MADRS of 7 (SD 10) (a more conservative change than with even the low 1 mg dose of brexpiprazole in Thase et. al. (2015)) with alpha=.05. A sample size of n=20 will allow for some early withdrawals without postbaseline data (10).||||.133
91104054|NCT04250207|182094697|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.0218|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 12||||0.0218
90840066|NCT02492763|181547245|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % vs Liraglutide|-2.4||||0.295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|5.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||5.5|-12.4|0.295
90840067|NCT02492763|181547245|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % vs Liraglutide|2.2||||0.587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|13.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||13.2|-8.4|0.587
90840068|NCT02492763|181547246|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the LS Means vs. Placebo|6.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.42|10.37|||||Terms for treatment, time, A1C (\<8.5%, ≥8.5%), BMI (\<30 kg/m\^2, ≥30 kg/m\^2) and AHA washout status (Yes, No), and the interaction of time by treatment||Longitudinal data analysis|10.37|3.42|
90840069|NCT02492763|181547246|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means vs. Liraglutide|3.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|7.33|||||Terms for treatment, time, A1C (\<8.5%, ≥8.5%), BMI (\<30 kg/m\^2, ≥30 kg/m\^2) and AHA washout status (Yes, No), and the interaction of time by treatment||Longitudinal data analysis|7.33|0.35|
90840070|NCT02492763|181547246|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means vs. Placebo|7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.17|11.23|||||Terms for treatment, time, A1C (\<8.5%, ≥8.5%), BMI (\<30 kg/m\^2, ≥30 kg/m\^2) and AHA washout status (Yes, No), and the interaction of time by treatment||Longitudinal data analysis|11.23|4.17|
90840071|NCT02492763|181547246|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means vs. Liraglutide|4.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|8.19|||||Terms for treatment, time, A1C (\<8.5%, ≥8.5%), BMI (\<30 kg/m\^2, ≥30 kg/m\^2) and AHA washout status (Yes, No), and the interaction of time by treatment||Longitudinal data analysis|8.19|1.11|
90840072|NCT02492763|181547247|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.7||||0.285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.6|||Longitudinal data analysis|Terms for treatment, time, A1C (\<8.5%, ≥8.5%), BMI (\<30 kg/m\^2, ≥30 kg/m\^2) and AHA washout status (Yes, No), and the interaction of time by treatment||||0.6|-2.0|0.285
90840073|NCT02492763|181547247|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.9||||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|2.2|||Longitudinal data analysis|Terms for treatment, time, A1C (\<8.5%, ≥8.5%), BMI (\<30 kg/m\^2, ≥30 kg/m\^2) and AHA washout status (Yes, No), and the interaction of time by treatment||||2.2|-0.4|0.183
90840074|NCT02492763|181547247|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.8||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-0.4|||Longitudinal data analysis|Terms for treatment, time, A1C (\<8.5%, ≥8.5%), BMI (\<30 kg/m\^2, ≥30 kg/m\^2) and AHA washout status (Yes, No), and the interaction of time by treatment||||-0.4|-3.1|0.010
90840075|NCT02492763|181547247|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.2||||0.811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.2|||Longitudinal data analysis|Terms for treatment, time, A1C (\<8.5%, ≥8.5%), BMI (\<30 kg/m\^2, ≥30 kg/m\^2) and AHA washout status (Yes, No), and the interaction of time by treatment||||1.2|-1.5|0.811
91104055|NCT04250207|182094697|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.0013|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 12||||0.0013
90840076|NCT02492763|181547247|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-1.6||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-0.3||Terms for treatment, time, A1C (\<8.5%, ≥8.5%), BMI (\<30 kg/m\^2, ≥30 kg/m\^2) and AHA washout status (Yes, No), and the interaction of time by treatment|Longitudinal data analysis|||||-0.3|-2.9|0.018
90840077|NCT02492763|181547248|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-8.6||||0.385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.2|10.9|||Longitudinal data analysis|Terms for treatment, time, A1C (\<8.5%, ≥8.5%), BMI (\<30 kg/m\^2, ≥30 kg/m\^2) and AHA washout status (Yes, No), and the interaction of time by treatment||||10.9|-28.2|0.385
90840078|NCT02492763|181547248|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|29.1||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.7|48.6|||Longitudinal data analysis|Terms for treatment, time, A1C (\<8.5%, ≥8.5%), BMI (\<30 kg/m\^2, ≥30 kg/m\^2) and AHA washout status (Yes, No), and the interaction of time by treatment||||48.6|9.7|0.004
90840079|NCT02492763|181547248|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-29.5||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.6|-9.4|||Longitudinal data analysis|Terms for treatment, time, A1C (\<8.5%, ≥8.5%), BMI (\<30 kg/m\^2, ≥30 kg/m\^2) and AHA washout status (Yes, No), and the interaction of time by treatment||||-9.4|-49.6|0.004
90840080|NCT02492763|181547248|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|8.3||||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|28.2|||Longitudinal data analysis|Terms for treatment, time, A1C (\<8.5%, ≥8.5%), BMI (\<30 kg/m\^2, ≥30 kg/m\^2) and AHA washout status (Yes, No), and the interaction of time by treatment||||28.2|-11.7|0.416
90840081|NCT02492763|181547248|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-37.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.5|-18.0||Terms for treatment, time, A1C (\<8.5%, ≥8.5%), BMI (\<30 kg/m\^2, ≥30 kg/m\^2) and AHA washout status (Yes, No), and the interaction of time by treatment|Longitudinal data analysis|||||-18.0|-57.5|<0.001
90840082|NCT02492763|181547252|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-3.7||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|1.4|||Longitudinal data analysis|Terms for treatment, time, A1C (\<8.5%, ≥8.5%), BMI (\<30 kg/m\^2, ≥30 kg/m\^2) and AHA washout status (Yes, No), and the interaction of time by treatment||||1.4|-8.8|0.151
90897286|NCT01216163|181660517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|12.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.12|17.3||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms.|ANOVA|||Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and 95% CI: based on LS means from ANOVA. Type I error controlled at 5% significance level(2-sided) by testing co-primary endpoints sequentially:IBU Na vs PBO, IBU Na vs APAP, APAP vs PBO for SPRID 0-6 then time to meaningful relief at each comparison.If comparison at preceding step was significant only then subsequent comparisons were significant.||17.30|8.12|<0.001
90897287|NCT01216163|181660518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|11.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.13|27.36||p-value was calculated using PH model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms.|Proportional hazards model|||Hazard Ratio (HR) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the proportional hazards (PH) model. Type I error controlled at 5% significance level(2-sided) by testing co-primary endpoints sequentially:IBU Na vs PBO, IBU Na vs APAP, APAP vs PBO for SPRID 0-6 then time to meaningful relief at each comparison.If comparison at preceding step was significant only then subsequent comparisons were significant.||27.36|5.13|<0.001
91028144|NCT04543136|181940157|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29||||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.17||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.17|-0.75|0.218
91028145|NCT04543136|181940157|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.39||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.85||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.85|-0.08|0.100
91028146|NCT04543136|181940158|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.54||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.54|-0.80|0.701
91028147|NCT04543136|181940158|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27||||0.438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.42||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.42|-0.96|0.438
91028148|NCT04543136|181940158|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.83||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.83|-0.55|0.689
91028149|NCT04543136|181940159|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31||||0.309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.3||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.30|-0.92|0.309
91028150|NCT04543136|181940159|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49||||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.11||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.11|-1.10|0.109
90840083|NCT02492763|181547252|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.1||||0.682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|4.1|||Longitudinal data analysis|Terms for treatment, time, A1C (\<8.5%, ≥8.5%), BMI (\<30 kg/m\^2, ≥30 kg/m\^2) and AHA washout status (Yes, No), and the interaction of time by treatment||||4.1|-6.2|0.682
90840084|NCT02492763|181547252|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-2.5||||0.344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|2.7|||Longitudinal data analysis|Terms for treatment, time, A1C (\<8.5%, ≥8.5%), BMI (\<30 kg/m\^2, ≥30 kg/m\^2) and AHA washout status (Yes, No), and the interaction of time by treatment||||2.7|-7.7|0.344
90840085|NCT02492763|181547252|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.2||||0.948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|5.4|||Longitudinal data analysis|Terms for treatment, time, A1C (\<8.5%, ≥8.5%), BMI (\<30 kg/m\^2, ≥30 kg/m\^2) and AHA washout status (Yes, No), and the interaction of time by treatment||||5.4|-5.0|0.948
90840086|NCT02492763|181547252|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-2.7||||0.306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|2.5||Terms for treatment, time, A1C (\<8.5%, ≥8.5%), BMI (\<30 kg/m\^2, ≥30 kg/m\^2) and AHA washout status (Yes, No), and the interaction of time by treatment|Longitudinal data analysis|||||2.5|-7.8|0.306
90840087|NCT02492763|181547253|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|1.5||||0.347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|4.8|||Longitudinal data analysis|Terms for treatment, time, A1C (\<8.5%, ≥8.5%), BMI (\<30 kg/m\^2, ≥30 kg/m\^2) and AHA washout status (Yes, No), and the interaction of time by treatment||||4.8|-1.7|0.347
90840088|NCT02492763|181547253|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.1||||0.963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|3.2|||Longitudinal data analysis|Terms for treatment, time, A1C (\<8.5%, ≥8.5%), BMI (\<30 kg/m\^2, ≥30 kg/m\^2) and AHA washout status (Yes, No), and the interaction of time by treatment||||3.2|-3.3|0.963
90840089|NCT02492763|181547253|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|1.4||||0.394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|4.7|||Longitudinal data analysis|Terms for treatment, time, A1C (\<8.5%, ≥8.5%), BMI (\<30 kg/m\^2, ≥30 kg/m\^2) and AHA washout status (Yes, No), and the interaction of time by treatment||||4.7|-1.9|0.394
90840090|NCT02492763|181547253|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.2||||0.905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|3.1|||Longitudinal data analysis|Terms for treatment, time, A1C (\<8.5%, ≥8.5%), BMI (\<30 kg/m\^2, ≥30 kg/m\^2) and AHA washout status (Yes, No), and the interaction of time by treatment||||3.1|-3.5|0.905
90840091|NCT02492763|181547253|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|1.6||||0.325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|4.9|||Longitudinal data analysis|Terms for treatment, time, A1C (\<8.5%, ≥8.5%), BMI (\<30 kg/m\^2, ≥30 kg/m\^2) and AHA washout status (Yes, No), and the interaction of time by treatment||||4.9|-1.6|0.325
90897288|NCT01216163|181660518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.6||p-value was calculated using PH model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms.|Proportional hazards model|||HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model. Type I error controlled at 5% significance level(2-sided) by testing co-primary endpoints sequentially:IBU Na vs PBO, IBU Na vs APAP, APAP vs PBO for SPRID 0-6 then time to meaningful relief at each comparison.If comparison at preceding step was significant only then subsequent comparisons were significant.||1.60|0.81|0.468
91091937|NCT03427892|182067817|OTHER|Within subjects design; single group. Intent-to-treat (ITT) sample was used in the analysis, such that all participants who completed the baseline visit and at least one post-baseline assessment were included in the analysis.||||||0.002||||||To analyze mood symptoms, cognitive performance, and side effects, separate one-way repeated measures analyses of variance (ANVOA) were performed. Time (bsl, wk 4, and wk 8) was included as the within-subject factor.|ANOVA|One-way repeated measures analyses of variance (ANVOA) were performed. Time (bsl, wk 4, wk8) was included as the within-subject factor.||Primary Aim is to determine if brexpiprazole is associated with a reduction in depressive symptom severity in bipolar disorder outpatients. A sample size of 17 provides 80% power for a paired t-test to compare baseline to exit change scores on the MADRS of 7 (SD 10) (a more conservative change than with even the low 1 mg dose of brexpiprazole in Thase et. al. (2015)) with alpha=.05. A sample size of n=20 will allow for some early withdrawals without postbaseline data (10).||||.002
91091938|NCT03427892|182067818|OTHER|Within subjects design; single group. Intent-to-treat (ITT) sample was used in the analysis, such that all participants who completed the baseline visit and at least one post-baseline assessment were included in the analysis.||||||0.002||||||To analyze mood symptoms, cognitive performance, and side effects, separate one-way repeated measures analyses of variance (ANVOA) were performed. Time (bsl, wk 4, and wk 8) was included as the within-subject factor.|ANOVA|One-way repeated measures analyses of variance (ANVOA) were performed. Time (bsl, wk 4, wk8) was included as the within-subject factor.||Primary Aim is to determine if brexpiprazole is associated with a reduction in depressive symptom severity in bipolar disorder outpatients. A sample size of 17 provides 80% power for a paired t-test to compare baseline to exit change scores on the MADRS of 7 (SD 10) (a more conservative change than with even the low 1 mg dose of brexpiprazole in Thase et. al. (2015)) with alpha=.05. A sample size of n=20 will allow for some early withdrawals without postbaseline data (10).||||.002
91091939|NCT03427892|182067819|OTHER|Within subjects design; single group. Intent-to-treat (ITT) sample was used in the analysis, such that all participants who completed the baseline visit and at least one post-baseline assessment were included in the analysis.||||||0.005||||||Pairwise comparisons were also performed to determine which time points were significantly different from one another. Baseline to week 8 is reported above.|t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons were also performed to determine which time points were significantly different from one another.||Primary Aim is to determine if brexpiprazole is associated with a reduction in depressive symptom severity in bipolar disorder outpatients. A sample size of 17 provides 80% power for a paired t-test to compare baseline to exit change scores on the MADRS of 7 (SD 10) (a more conservative change than with even the low 1 mg dose of brexpiprazole in Thase et. al. (2015)) with alpha=.05. A sample size of n=20 will allow for some early withdrawals without postbaseline data (10).||||.005
90840092|NCT01193244|181547254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.707|||<|1e-05||95.0|0.626|0.799|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio is based on a stratified Cox's proportional hazard regression model with stratification factors of region and radiographic disease progression at baseline with treatment as a factor in the model. A hazard ratio less than (\<) 1 indicated better prevention of death in the orteronel group compared to the placebo group. From log-rank test stratified by region and radiographic disease progression at Baseline.||0.799|0.626|<0.00001
90840093|NCT01193244|181547255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.963||||0.59755||95.0|0.838|1.107|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio is based on a stratified Cox's proportional hazard regression model with stratification factors of region and radiographic disease progression at baseline with treatment as a factor in the model. A hazard ratio \<1 indicated better prevention of death in the orteronel group compared to the placebo group. From log-rank test stratified by region and radiographic disease progression at baseline.||1.107|0.838|0.59755
90840094|NCT01193244|181547256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.166|||<|0.001||95.0|1.724|2.721|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression model with prognostic factors: region; radiographic disease progression at baseline; age; race; baseline Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) score; Gleason score at initial diagnosis; baseline PSA, natural log scale; presence of visceral disease; alkaline phosphatase; lactate dehydrogenase; and hemoglobin. Odds ratio greater than (\>)1 favored orteronel. P-values tested for odds ratio equal to 1.||2.721|1.724|<0.001
90840095|NCT01193244|181547257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.712||||0.001||95.0|1.235|2.373|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression model with prognostic factors: region; radiographic disease progression at baseline; age; race; baseline ECOG score; Gleason score at initial diagnosis; baseline PSA, natural log scale; presence of visceral disease; alkaline phosphatase; lactate dehydrogenase; and hemoglobin. Odds ratio \> 1 favored orteronel. P-values tested for odds ratio equal to 1.||2.373|1.235|0.001
90840096|NCT01193244|181547258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.885||||0.33906||95.0|0.688|1.138|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio is based on a stratified Cox's proportional hazard regression model with stratification factors of region and radiographic disease progression at baseline with treatment as a factor in the model. A hazard ratio less than (\<) 1 indicated better prevention of death in the orteronel group compared to the placebo group. From log-rank test stratified by region and radiographic disease progression at baseline.||1.138|0.688|0.33906
90840097|NCT02494323|181547297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||P value is adjusted for the comparison of subjects who benefited, were satisfied and willing to continue using the Segmented Electrodes versus subjects who didn't benefit, wern't satisfied ans were not willing to continue using the Segmented Eletrode|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.01
90840098|NCT03847896|181547305|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|60.5||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|113.4|||ANCOVA|||Only includes data from date of first dose up to date of last dose of randomized treatment. A sequential testing strategy is used such that the primary hypothesis tests are listed in ascending order of sequence. A null hypothesis can only be rejected if all preceding null hypotheses are also rejected. Tests are each conducted at the 5% level of significance.||113.4|7.7|0.025
90897289|NCT01216163|181660518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|10.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|24.17||p-value was calculated using PH model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms.|Proportional hazards model|||HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model. Type I error controlled at 5% significance level(2-sided) by testing co-primary endpoints sequentially:IBU Na vs PBO, IBU Na vs APAP, APAP vs PBO for SPRID 0-6 then time to meaningful relief at each comparison.If comparison at preceding step was significant only then subsequent comparisons were significant.||24.17|4.50|<0.001
90897290|NCT01216163|181660519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|14.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.02|32.8||p-value was calculated using PH model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Proportional hazards model|||HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model.||32.80|6.02|<0.001
90897291|NCT01216163|181660519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19||||0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.68||p-value was calculated using PH model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Proportional hazards model|||HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model.||1.68|0.84|0.323
90897292|NCT01216163|181660519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|11.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.06|27.59||p-value was calculated using PH model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Proportional hazards model|||HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model.||27.59|5.06|<0.001
90897293|NCT01216163|181660520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.83||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||0.25 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.83|0.24|<0.001
90897294|NCT01216163|181660520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.2||||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.44||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||0.25 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.44|-0.04|0.101
90897295|NCT01216163|181660520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.33||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.62||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||0.25 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.62|0.03|0.029
90897296|NCT01216163|181660520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.87||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.87|1.01|<0.001
91104056|NCT04250207|182094697|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.0348|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 16||||0.0348
91104057|NCT04250207|182094697|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.1028|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 16||||0.1028
90897297|NCT01216163|181660520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.24||||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.59||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.59|-0.11|0.178
90897298|NCT01216163|181660520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.63||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.63|0.77|<0.001
90897299|NCT01216163|181660520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.64|2.49||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||2.49|1.64|<0.001
90897300|NCT01216163|181660520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.44||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.78||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.78|0.09|0.014
90897301|NCT01216163|181660520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|2.06||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||2.06|1.21|<0.001
90897302|NCT01216163|181660520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.79|2.7||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||2.70|1.79|<0.001
91091940|NCT03427892|182067820|OTHER|Within subjects design; single group. Intent-to-treat (ITT) sample was used in the analysis, such that all participants who completed the baseline visit and at least one post-baseline assessment were included in the analysis.|||||<|0.001||||||To analyze mood symptoms, cognitive performance, and side effects, separate one-way repeated measures analyses of variance (ANVOA) were performed. Time (bsl, wk 4, and wk 8) was included as the within-subject factor.|ANOVA|One-way repeated measures analyses of variance (ANVOA) were performed. Time (bsl, wk 4, wk8) was included as the within-subject factor.||Primary Aim is to determine if brexpiprazole is associated with a reduction in depressive symptom severity in bipolar disorder outpatients. A sample size of 17 provides 80% power for a paired t-test to compare baseline to exit change scores on the MADRS of 7 (SD 10) (a more conservative change than with even the low 1 mg dose of brexpiprazole in Thase et. al. (2015)) with alpha=.05. A sample size of n=20 will allow for some early withdrawals without postbaseline data (10).||||<.001
91091941|NCT03427892|182067821|OTHER|Within subjects design; single group. Intent-to-treat (ITT) sample was used in the analysis, such that all participants who completed the baseline visit and at least one post-baseline assessment were included in the analysis.||||||0.295||||||Pairwise comparisons were also performed to determine which time points were significantly different from one another. Baseline to week 8 is reported above.|t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons were also performed to determine which time points were significantly different from one another.||Primary Aim is to determine if brexpiprazole is associated with a reduction in depressive symptom severity in bipolar disorder outpatients. A sample size of 17 provides 80% power for a paired t-test to compare baseline to exit change scores on the MADRS of 7 (SD 10) (a more conservative change than with even the low 1 mg dose of brexpiprazole in Thase et. al. (2015)) with alpha=.05. A sample size of n=20 will allow for some early withdrawals without postbaseline data (10).||||.295
90840099|NCT03847896|181547305|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|161.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|109.4|214.5|||ANCOVA|||Only includes data from date of first dose up to date of last dose of randomized treatment. A sequential testing strategy is used such that the primary hypothesis tests are listed in ascending order of sequence. A null hypothesis can only be rejected if all preceding null hypotheses are also rejected. Tests are each conducted at the 5% level of significance.||214.5|109.4|<0.001
90840100|NCT03847896|181547305|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|80.7||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.4|132.9|||ANCOVA|||Only includes data from date of first dose up to date of last dose of randomized treatment. A sequential testing strategy is used such that the primary hypothesis tests are listed in ascending order of sequence. A null hypothesis can only be rejected if all preceding null hypotheses are also rejected. Tests are each conducted at the 5% level of significance.||132.9|28.4|0.003
90840101|NCT03847896|181547306|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|73.3||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|142.2|||ANCOVA|||Only includes data from date of first dose up to date of last dose of randomized treatment. A sequential testing strategy is used such that the primary hypothesis tests are listed in ascending order of sequence. A null hypothesis can only be rejected if all preceding null hypotheses are also rejected. Tests are each conducted at the 5% level of significance.||142.2|4.4|0.037
90840102|NCT03847896|181547306|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|99.9||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.9|168.8|||ANCOVA|||Only includes data from date of first dose up to date of last dose of randomized treatment. A sequential testing strategy is used such that the primary hypothesis tests are listed in ascending order of sequence. A null hypothesis can only be rejected if all preceding null hypotheses are also rejected. Tests are each conducted at the 5% level of significance.||168.8|30.9|0.005
90840103|NCT03847896|181547306|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|132.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.6|201.9|||ANCOVA|||Only includes data from date of first dose up to date of last dose of randomized treatment. A sequential testing strategy is used such that the primary hypothesis tests are listed in ascending order of sequence. A null hypothesis can only be rejected if all preceding null hypotheses are also rejected. Tests are each conducted at the 5% level of significance.||201.9|63.6|<0.001
90840104|NCT03847896|181547306|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|87.9||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.8|156.9|||ANCOVA|||Only includes data from date of first dose up to date of last dose of randomized treatment. A sequential testing strategy is used such that the primary hypothesis tests are listed in ascending order of sequence. A null hypothesis can only be rejected if all preceding null hypotheses are also rejected. Tests are each conducted at the 5% level of significance.||156.9|18.8|0.013
90840105|NCT03847896|181547306|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|120.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.5|190.1|||ANCOVA|||Only includes data from date of first dose up to date of last dose of randomized treatment. A sequential testing strategy is used such that the primary hypothesis tests are listed in ascending order of sequence. A null hypothesis can only be rejected if all preceding null hypotheses are also rejected. Tests are each conducted at the 5% level of significance.||190.1|51.5|<0.001
90840106|NCT03847896|181547307|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|1.0||||||Not type-I error controlled. The estimated median difference and 95% CIs are calculated using the Hodges-Lehmann method.||1|-6|
90840107|NCT03847896|181547307|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|9.0||||||Not type-I error controlled. The estimated median difference and 95% CIs are calculated using the Hodges-Lehmann method.||9|-3|
90840108|NCT03847896|181547307|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|0.0||||||Not type-I error controlled. The estimated median difference and 95% CIs are calculated using the Hodges-Lehmann method.||0|-9|
91028151|NCT04543136|181940159|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.79||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.79|-0.43|0.555
91028152|NCT04543136|181940160|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.31||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.31|-0.35|0.896
91028153|NCT04543136|181940160|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.16||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.16|-0.49|0.320
91028154|NCT04543136|181940160|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.47||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.47|-0.19|0.390
91091942|NCT00720278|182067895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.47|<|0.001||95.0|-2.98|-1.14|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA is being used due to a covariate being included in the model. The covariate is baseline TNSS score.||Change in baseline to Day 14||-1.14|-2.98|<0.001
91028155|NCT04543136|181940161|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.4||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.40|-0.51|0.802
91091943|NCT00720278|182067895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.465|<|0.001||95.0|-3.91|-2.09|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA is being used due to a covariate being included in the model. The covariate is baseline TNSS score.||Change in baseline to Day 14||-2.09|-3.91|<0.001
91091944|NCT00720278|182067896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.78|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.479|<|0.001||95.0|-2.72|-0.84|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA is being used due to a covariate being included in the model. The covariate is baseline TNSS score.||Change in baseline to Day 14||-0.84|-2.72|<0.001
91091945|NCT00720278|182067896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.668|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.4735|<|0.001||95.0|-3.6|-1.74|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA is being used due to a covariate being included in the model. The covariate is baseline TNSS score.||Change in baseline to Day 14||-1.74|-3.60|<0.001
91091946|NCT00720278|182067897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.376|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.418||0.001||95.0|-2.2|-0.56|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA is being used due to a covariate being included in the model. The covariate is baseline TNSS score.||Change in baseline to Day 14||-0.56|-2.20|0.001
91091947|NCT00720278|182067897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.432|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.4145|<|0.001||95.0|-3.24|-1.62|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA is being used due to a covariate being included in the model. The covariate is baseline TNSS score.||Change in baseline to Day 14||-1.62|-3.24|<0.001
91091948|NCT01075048|182067908|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3815|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.3815
91091949|NCT01075048|182067908|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Peto-Peto-Prentice|||||||0.1900
91091950|NCT01075048|182067908|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1986|||||||Generalized Wilcoxon|||||||0.1986
91091951|NCT01075048|182067908|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2617|||||||Tarone-Ware|||||||0.2617
90840109|NCT03847896|181547307|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|0.0||||||Not type-I error controlled. The estimated median difference and 95% CIs are calculated using the Hodges-Lehmann method.||0|-9|
90840110|NCT03847896|181547307|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|0.0||||||Not type-I error controlled. The estimated median difference and 95% CIs are calculated using the Hodges-Lehmann method.||0|-3|
91091952|NCT01075048|182067909|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4488|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.4488
91091953|NCT01075048|182067909|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2887|||||||Peto-Peto-Prentice|||||||0.2887
91091954|NCT01075048|182067909|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1851|||||||Generalized Wilcoxon|||||||0.1851
91091955|NCT01075048|182067909|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2495|||||||Tarone-Ware|||||||0.2495
91091956|NCT01075048|182067911|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2804|||||||Log Rank|||OS data cutoff as of 12 Oct 2012||||0.2804
91091957|NCT01075048|182067911|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2469|||||||Log Rank|||OS data cutoff as of 29 Mar 2013||||0.2469
91091958|NCT01075048|182067911|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1334|||||||Log Rank|||OS data cutoff as of 25 Jul 2013||||0.1334
91091959|NCT01075048|182067911|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2159|||||||Log Rank|||OS data cutoff as of 20 Feb 2015||||0.2159
91091960|NCT01677286|182067941|OTHER|P-values and confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiple testing|Mean outcome change|171.0||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.1|328.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|degrees of freedom = 12||BNP pg/mL, baseline versus end study values||328|14.1|0.035
91091961|NCT01677286|182067942|OTHER|P-values and confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiple testing|Mean outcome change|0.0072||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.009|0.0234|||Mixed Models Analysis|degrees of freedom = 12||Troponin I ng/mL, baseline versus end study levels.||0.0234|-0.009|0.340
91091962|NCT01677286|182067943|OTHER|P-values and confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiple testing|Change in outcome measure|-7.39||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.12|-1.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|degrees of freedom = 10||Creatinine clearance, baseline versus end study levels.||-1.67|-13.12|0.017
91091963|NCT01677286|182067944|OTHER|P-values and confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiple testing|Change in outcome measure|0.091||||0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.285|0.466|||Mixed Models Analysis|degrees of freedom = 10||Proteinuria (g/24 hours), baseline versus end study levels.||0.466|-0.285|0.603
91091964|NCT00408499|182067945|OTHER|Maximum tolerated dose was derived from toxicity data obtained from dose level 1-4.|Maximum tolerated dose|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Maximum tolerated dose was determined to be dose level 4: 150 mg Erlotinib, 250 mg/m2 Cetuximab|||||
90840111|NCT03847896|181547307|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.0||||||Not type-I error controlled. The estimated median difference and 95% CIs are calculated using the Hodges-Lehmann method.||0|-2|
91028156|NCT04543136|181940161|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.05||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.05|-0.85|0.082
91028157|NCT04543136|181940161|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34||||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.8||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.80|-0.11|0.137
91028158|NCT04543136|181940162|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22||||0.525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.46||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.46|-0.89|0.525
91028159|NCT04543136|181940162|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|0.11||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.11|-1.24|0.098
91028160|NCT04543136|181940162|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.35||||0.306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|1.02||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||1.02|-0.33|0.306
91028161|NCT04309474|181940192|OTHER|A statistical test was not performed.|Area under the curve (AUC)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.764|2.175|||||"AUC analyses based on trapezoidal rule using contrast derived from MMRM with stratification factors, treatment, visit, and a treatment by visit interaction included in the model.~Posterior probability that the difference in AUC exceeds 0.6 = 0.557"|||2.175|-0.764|
91028162|NCT04309474|181940193|OTHER|A statistical test was not performed.|Odds Ratio of LS Means|1.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|4.24|||||Point estimate for responder rate (defined as having an mRS score of 0, 1, or 2), odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals based on a generalized linear mixed model (GLMM).|||4.24|0.71|
91028163|NCT04684524|181940200|SUPERIORITY||Least squares (LS) Mean Difference|-7.36|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.38|-5.35|||ANCOVA|||Each of the imputed complete data were analyzed by fitting an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with the corresponding baseline value, intervention group, time from last surgery (\<=2 years, \>2 years), and region (Americas and Asia) as covariates.||-5.35|-9.38|<0.0001
91028164|NCT04684524|181940201|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|-0.56|||ANCOVA|||Each of the imputed complete data were analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with the corresponding baseline value, intervention group, time from last surgery (\<=2 years, \>2 years), and region (Americas and Asia) as covariates.||-0.56|-1.18|<0.0001
91028165|NCT04684524|181940202|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.36|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.31|-1.41|||ANCOVA|||Each of the imputed complete data were analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with the corresponding baseline value, intervention group, time from last surgery (\<=2 years, \>2 years), and region (Americas and Asia) as covariates.||-1.41|-3.31|<0.0001
91028166|NCT04684524|181940203|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.48|-3.43|||ANCOVA|||Each of the imputed complete data were analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with the corresponding baseline value, intervention group, time from last surgery (\<=2 years, \>2 years), and region (Americas and Asia) as covariates.||-3.43|-7.48|<0.0001
91028167|NCT04684524|181940204|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.04|-1.32|||ANCOVA|||Each of the imputed complete data were analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with the corresponding baseline value, intervention group, time from last surgery (\<=2 years, \>2 years), and region (Americas and Asia) as covariates.||-1.32|-3.04|<0.0001
91028168|NCT04684524|181940205|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.46||||0.0392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|8.71|||ANCOVA|||Each of the imputed complete data were analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with the corresponding baseline value, intervention group, time from last surgery (\<=2 years, \>2 years), and region (Americas and Asia) as covariates.||8.71|0.22|0.0392
91091965|NCT01258374|182067949|OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The PK paramaters reported as geometric means, were calculated using noncompartmental modelinf techniques (WinNolin; Pharsight Corporation, Mountain View, CA)|Noncompartmental modeling techniques||||The pharmacokinetic parameters calculated for DRV, RTV and RAL were trough plasma concentration (C trough), defined as the concentration at 24 or 12 h after observed dose, the maximum observed plasma concentration (C max), the area under the plasma concentration-time curve from 0 to 24 H (AUC 0-24) or 0 to 12 h (AUC 0-12) and the elimination half-life (t1/2). AUC and t1/2 were calculated using non using noncompartmental modeling techniques (WinNolin; Pharsight Corporation, Mountain View, CA). All of these PK parameters are reported as geometric means.|||<0.01
91091966|NCT04596293|182067957|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
91091967|NCT04596293|182067957|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
91091968|NCT04596293|182067958|OTHER|||||||0.6351|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6351
91091969|NCT04596293|182067958|OTHER|||||||0.3108|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.3108
91091970|NCT04596293|182067959|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
91091971|NCT04596293|182067959|OTHER|||||||0.6594|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6594
91091972|NCT04596293|182067960|OTHER|||||||0.5808|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.5808
91091973|NCT04596293|182067960|OTHER|||||||0.2143|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2143
91091974|NCT01287936|182067977|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||<0.001
91091975|NCT01287936|182067979|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.004
90840112|NCT03847896|181547307|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|-2.0||||||Not type-I error controlled. The estimated median difference and 95% CIs are calculated using the Hodges-Lehmann method.||-2|-11|
90840113|NCT03847896|181547307|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|-2.0||||||Not type-I error controlled. The estimated median difference and 95% CIs are calculated using the Hodges-Lehmann method.||-2|-11|
90840114|NCT03847896|181547307|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.0||||||Not type-I error controlled. The estimated median difference and 95% CIs are calculated using the Hodges-Lehmann method.||1|-1|
91028169|NCT04684524|181940206|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.89|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|-0.49|||ANCOVA|||Each of the imputed complete data were analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with the corresponding baseline value, intervention group, time from last surgery (\<=2 years, \>2 years), and region (Americas and Asia) as covariates.||-0.49|-1.29|<0.0001
90840115|NCT03847896|181547309|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.699||||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.445|1.096|||Regression, Logistic|||Comparison is not type-I error controlled.||1.096|0.445|0.118
90840116|NCT03847896|181547309|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.386||||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.878|2.187|||Regression, Logistic|||Comparison is not type-I error controlled.||2.187|0.878|0.161
90840117|NCT03847896|181547309|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.605||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.013|2.541|||Regression, Logistic|||Comparison is not type-I error controlled.||2.541|1.013|0.044
90840118|NCT03847896|181547309|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.626||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.024|2.584|||Regression, Logistic|||Comparison is not type-I error controlled.||2.584|1.024|0.039
90840119|NCT03847896|181547309|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.297|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.456|3.626|||Regression, Logistic|||Comparison is not type-I error controlled.||3.626|1.456|<0.001
91028170|NCT04684524|181940207|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.77|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.82|-1.72|||ANCOVA|||Each of the imputed complete data were analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with the corresponding baseline value, intervention group, time from last surgery (\<=2 years, \>2 years), and region (Americas and Asia) as covariates.||-1.72|-3.82|<0.0001
90840120|NCT03847896|181547309|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.328|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.471|3.687|||Regression, Logistic|||Comparison is not type-I error controlled.||3.687|1.471|<0.001
90840121|NCT03847896|181547309|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.158||||0.532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.731|1.835|||Regression, Logistic|||Comparison is not type-I error controlled.||1.835|0.731|0.532
90840122|NCT03847896|181547309|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.174||||0.499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.737|1.868|||Regression, Logistic|||Comparison is not type-I error controlled.||1.868|0.737|0.499
90840123|NCT03847896|181547309|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.014||||0.955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.635|1.618|||Regression, Logistic|||Comparison is not type-I error controlled.||1.618|0.635|0.955
91028171|NCT04684524|181940208|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|-1.02|||ANCOVA|||Each of the imputed complete data were analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with the corresponding baseline value, intervention group, time from last surgery (\<=2 years, \>2 years), and region (Americas and Asia) as covariates.||-1.02|-1.77|<0.0001
91028172|NCT04684524|181940209|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-17.3||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.86|-7.74|||ANCOVA|||Each of the imputed complete data were analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with the corresponding baseline value, intervention group, time from last surgery (\<=2 years, \>2 years), and region (Americas and Asia) as covariates.||-7.74|-26.86|0.0004
91028173|NCT04684524|181940210|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-36.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.59|-27.03|||ANCOVA|||Each of the imputed complete data were analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with the corresponding baseline value, intervention group, time from last surgery (\<=2 years, \>2 years), and region (Americas and Asia) as covariates.||-27.03|-45.59|<0.0001
91028174|NCT04684524|181940211|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-29.1||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.42|-11.79|||Mantel Haenszel|||Risk difference was estimated using Mantel-Haenszel estimate and confidence limits, with Mantel-Haenszel stratum weights for time from last surgery (\<=2 years, \>2 years) and region (Americas and Asia) and the Sato variance estimator.||-11.79|-46.42|0.0010
91028175|NCT04684524|181940212|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-15.11||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.15|-5.07|||ANCOVA|||Each of the imputed complete data were analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with the corresponding baseline value, intervention group, time from last surgery (\<=2 years, \>2 years), and region (Americas and Asia) as covariates.||-5.07|-25.15|0.0032
90840124|NCT03847896|181547310|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-42.1||||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-101.9|17.8|||ANCOVA|||Comparison is not type-I error controlled.||17.8|-101.9|0.169
90840125|NCT03847896|181547310|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|52.1||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|111.5|||ANCOVA|||Comparison is not type-I error controlled.||111.5|-7.4|0.086
90840126|NCT03847896|181547310|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|30.7||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.6|90.1|||ANCOVA|||Comparison is not type-I error controlled.||90.1|-28.6|0.31
90840127|NCT03847896|181547310|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|65.9||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|125.4|||ANCOVA|||Comparison is not type-I error controlled.||125.4|6.3|0.03
90840128|NCT03847896|181547310|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|72.8||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.1|132.5|||ANCOVA|||Comparison is not type-I error controlled.||132.5|13.1|0.017
91028176|NCT04684524|181940213|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-80.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-112.82|-48.61|||ANCOVA|||Each of the imputed complete data were analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with the corresponding baseline value, intervention group, time from last surgery (\<=2 years, \>2 years), and region (Americas and Asia) as covariates.||-48.61|-112.82|<0.0001
90840129|NCT03847896|181547310|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|107.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.1|167.8|||ANCOVA|||Comparison is not type-I error controlled.||167.8|48.1|<0.001
90840130|NCT03847896|181547310|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.3||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.5|37.9|||ANCOVA|||Comparison is not type-I error controlled.||37.9|-80.5|0.48
91028177|NCT03466411|181940235|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|124.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.8|158.7|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measure||LS Mean difference between the treatment groups and p-values for the comparisons of each guselkumab treatment group with the placebo group were based on MMRM analysis.|||158.7|89.8|<0.001
91028178|NCT03466411|181940235|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|102.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.5|136.9|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measure||LS Mean difference between the treatment groups and p-values for the comparisons of each guselkumab treatment group with the placebo group were based on MMRM analysis.|||136.9|68.5|<0.001
91091976|NCT00427934|182068025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|-1.73||||0.79||90.0|-15.13|8.68|||Barnard/Pearson chi-square test||Percentage Difference = maraviroc responders divided by the number of maraviroc participants analyzed minus placebo responders divided by the number of placebo participants analyzed.|Week 1||8.68|-15.13|0.790
91091977|NCT00427934|182068025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.43||||0.477||90.0|-13.67|11.64|||Barnard/Pearson chi-square test||Percentage Difference = maraviroc responders divided by the number of maraviroc participants analyzed minus placebo responders divided by the number of placebo participants analyzed.|Week 2||11.64|-13.67|0.477
91091978|NCT00427934|182068025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|3.03||||0.37||90.0|-12.85|16.77|||Barnard/Pearson chi-square test||Percentage Difference = maraviroc responders divided by the number of maraviroc participants analyzed minus placebo responders divided by the number of placebo participants analyzed.|Week 4||16.77|-12.85|0.370
91091979|NCT00427934|182068025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|8.66||||0.175||90.0|-7.07|22.03|||Barnard/Pearson chi-square test||Percentage Difference = maraviroc responders divided by the number of maraviroc participants analyzed minus placebo responders divided by the number of placebo participants analyzed.|Week 8||22.03|-7.07|0.175
90840131|NCT03847896|181547310|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.8||||0.648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.6|73.2|||ANCOVA|||Comparison is not type-I error controlled.||73.2|-45.6|0.648
90840132|NCT03847896|181547310|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|35.1||||0.246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.2|94.5|||ANCOVA|||Comparison is not type-I error controlled.||94.5|-24.2|0.246
90840133|NCT01039376|181547311|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.7|||Stratified log rank test||Hazard ratios were obtained using the Pike estimator. A hazard ratio of \<1 indicated a lower risk with ofatumumab maintenance compared with no further treatment.|||0.70|0.43|<0.0001
90840134|NCT01039376|181547312|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.68|||Stratified log rank test||Hazard ratios were obtained using the Pike estimator. A hazard ratio of \<1 indicated a lower risk with ofatumumab maintenance compared with no further treatment.|||0.68|0.42|<0.0001
91028179|NCT03466411|181940235|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|108.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|73.9|143.5|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measure||LS Mean difference between the treatment groups and p-values for the comparisons of each guselkumab treatment group with the placebo group were based on MMRM analysis.|||143.5|73.9|<0.001
91091980|NCT00427934|182068026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|1.3||||0.42||90.0|-6.34|6.01|||Barnard/Pearson chi-square test||Percentage Difference = maraviroc responders divided by the number of maraviroc participants analyzed minus placebo responders divided by the number of placebo participants analyzed.|Week 1||6.01|-6.34|0.420
90840135|NCT01039376|181547313|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.6046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.25|||Stratified log rank test||Hazard ratios were obtained using the Pike estimator. A hazard ratio of \<1 indicated a lower risk with ofatumumab maintenance compared with no further treatment.|||1.25|0.69|0.6046
90840136|NCT01039376|181547315|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.0178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.96|||Stratified log rank test||Hazard ratios were obtained using the Pike estimator. A hazard ratio of \<1 indicated a lower risk with ofatumumab maintenance compared with no further treatment.|||0.96|0.62|0.0178
90840137|NCT01039376|181547316|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.3136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.32|||log rank test||Hazard ratios were obtained using the Pike estimator. A hazard ratio of \<1 indicated a lower risk with ofatumumab maintenance compared with no further treatment.|||1.32|0.42|0.3136
91028180|NCT03466411|181940236|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted treatment difference|38.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.3|48.9|||Mantel Haenszel||Treatment difference between guselkumab group and placebo group was based on the common risk difference by use of Mantel- Haenszel stratum weights and the Sato variance estimator.|||48.9|27.3|<0.001
91028181|NCT03466411|181940236|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted treatment difference|42.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.6|53.9|||Mantel Haenszel||Treatment difference between guselkumab group and placebo group was based on the common risk difference by use of Mantel-Haenszel stratum weights and the Sato variance estimator.|||53.9|31.6|<0.001
91091981|NCT00427934|182068026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|2.6||||0.258||90.0|-5.08|7.95|||Barnard/Pearson chi-square test||Percentage Difference = maraviroc responders divided by the number of maraviroc participants analyzed minus placebo responders divided by the number of placebo participants analyzed.|Week 2||7.95|-5.08|0.258
91091982|NCT00427934|182068026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|-3.46||||1||90.0|-14.39|3.42|||Barnard/Pearson chi-square test||Percentage Difference = maraviroc responders divided by the number of maraviroc participants analyzed minus placebo responders divided by the number of placebo participants analyzed.|Week 4||3.42|-14.39|1.000
90840138|NCT01039376|181547317|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59||||0.1603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.19|||log rank test||Hazard ratios were obtained using the Pike estimator. A hazard ratio of \<1 indicated a lower risk with ofatumumab maintenance compared with no further treatment.|||1.19|0.29|0.1603
90840139|NCT01039376|181547318|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.19||||0.0199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.04|-0.35||The analysis is adjusted for BL score, actual strata, age group, BL ECOG performance status and Binet stage at Screening using mixed-model (Proc Mixed) repeated with intercept, BL score by time and treatment by time interaction.|Repeated measures analysis of covariance||Disease Effects Scale|||-0.35|-4.04|0.0199
91091983|NCT00427934|182068026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|-1.3||||0.899||90.0|-13.56|7.92|||Barnard/Pearson chi-square test||Percentage Difference = maraviroc responders divided by the number of maraviroc participants analyzed minus placebo responders divided by the number of placebo participants analyzed.|Week 8||7.92|-13.56|0.899
91091984|NCT00427934|182068026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|1.3||||0.489||90.0|-11.24|10.96|||Barnard/Pearson chi-square test||Percentage Difference = maraviroc responders divided by the number of maraviroc participants analyzed minus placebo responders divided by the number of placebo participants analyzed.|Week 12||10.96|-11.24|0.489
91091985|NCT00427934|182068027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|-3.03||||1||90.0|-13.59|1.28|||Barnard/Pearson chi-square test||Percentage Difference = maraviroc responders divided by the number of maraviroc participants analyzed minus placebo responders divided by the number of placebo participants analyzed.|Week 4||1.28|-13.59|1.000
91091986|NCT00427934|182068027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|2.6||||0.258||90.0|-5.08|7.95|||Barnard/Pearson chi-square test||Percentage Difference = maraviroc responders divided by the number of maraviroc participants analyzed minus placebo responders divided by the number of placebo participants analyzed.|Week 8||7.95|-5.08|0.258
90840140|NCT01039376|181547318|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.79||||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.61|-0.97||The analysis is adjusted for BL score, actual strata, age group, BL ECOG performance status and Binet stage at Screening using mixed-model (Proc Mixed) repeated with intercept, BL score by time and treatment by time interaction.|Repeated measures analysis of covariance||Fatigue Scale|||-0.97|-6.61|0.0085
90840141|NCT01039376|181547318|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.58||||0.0642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.37|0.21||The analysis is adjusted for BL score, actual strata, age group, BL ECOG performance status and Binet stage at Screening using mixed-model (Proc Mixed) repeated with intercept, BL score by time and treatment by time interaction.|Repeated measures analysis of covariance||Future Health Scale|||0.21|-7.37|0.0642
90840142|NCT01039376|181547318|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.52||||0.6398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|2.72||The analysis is adjusted for BL score, actual strata, age group, BL ECOG performance status and Binet stage at Screening using mixed-model (Proc Mixed) repeated with intercept, BL score by time and treatment by time interaction.|Repeated measures analysis of covariance||Infection Scale|||2.72|-1.67|0.6398
90840143|NCT01039376|181547318|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.32||||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.37|-1.28||The analysis is adjusted for BL score, actual strata, age group, BL ECOG performance status and Binet stage at Screening using mixed-model (Proc Mixed) repeated with intercept, BL score by time and treatment by time interaction.|Repeated measures analysis of covariance||Social Problems Scale|||-1.28|-7.37|0.0055
90840144|NCT01039376|181547318|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.49||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.27|-0.71||The analysis is adjusted for BL score, actual strata, age group, BL ECOG performance status and Binet stage at Screening using mixed-model (Proc Mixed) repeated with intercept, BL score by time and treatment by time interaction.|Repeated measures analysis of covariance||Side Effects Scale|||-0.71|-4.27|0.0063
90840145|NCT01039376|181547319|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.48||||0.1816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.64|0.69||The analysis is adjusted for BL score, actual strata, age group, BL ECOG performance status and Binet stage at Screening using mixed-model (Proc Mixed) repeated with intercept, BL score by time and treatment by time interaction.|Repeated measures analysis of covariance||Appetite Loss|||0.69|-3.64|0.1816
90840146|NCT01039376|181547319|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4||||0.2863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|3.97||The analysis is adjusted for BL score, actual strata, age group, BL ECOG performance status and Binet stage at Screening using mixed-model (Proc Mixed) repeated with intercept, BL score by time and treatment by time interaction.|Repeated measures analysis of covariance||Cognitive Functioning|||3.97|-1.18|0.2863
90840147|NCT01039376|181547319|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.97||||0.0932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.28|0.33||The analysis is adjusted for BL score, actual strata, age group, BL ECOG performance status and Binet stage at Screening using mixed-model (Proc Mixed) repeated with intercept, BL score by time and treatment by time interaction.|Repeated measures analysis of covariance||Constipation|||0.33|-4.28|0.0932
91091987|NCT00427934|182068027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|-3.03||||1||90.0|-13.59|1.28|||Barnard/Pearson chi-square test||Percentage Difference = maraviroc responders divided by the number of maraviroc participants analyzed minus placebo responders divided by the number of placebo participants analyzed.|Week 12||1.28|-13.59|1.000
90840148|NCT01039376|181547319|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.6533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|2.66||The analysis is adjusted for BL score, actual strata, age group, BL ECOG performance status and Binet stage at Screening using mixed-model (Proc Mixed) repeated with intercept, BL score by time and treatment by time interaction.|Repeated measures analysis of covariance||Diarrhoea|||2.66|-1.67|0.6533
90840149|NCT01039376|181547319|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.32||||0.0963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.06|0.42||The analysis is adjusted for BL score, actual strata, age group, BL ECOG performance status and Binet stage at Screening using mixed-model (Proc Mixed) repeated with intercept, BL score by time and treatment by time interaction.|Repeated measures analysis of covariance||Dyspnoea|||0.42|-5.06|0.0963
90840150|NCT01039376|181547319|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.89||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|6.51||The analysis is adjusted for BL score, actual strata, age group, BL ECOG performance status and Binet stage at Screening using mixed-model (Proc Mixed) repeated with intercept, BL score by time and treatment by time interaction.|Repeated measures analysis of covariance||Emotional Functioning|||6.51|1.27|0.0037
90840151|NCT01039376|181547319|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.63||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.45|-1.82||The analysis is adjusted for BL score, actual strata, age group, BL ECOG performance status and Binet stage at Screening using mixed-model (Proc Mixed) repeated with intercept, BL score by time and treatment by time interaction.|Repeated measures analysis of covariance||Fatigue|||-1.82|-7.45|0.0013
91091988|NCT00427934|182068028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.335||90.0|-0.79|2.99||This analysis was carried out using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline tender/painful joint count as the covariate, treatment, region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||2.99|-0.79|0.335
90897303|NCT01216163|181660520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.37||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.74||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.74|-0.01|0.055
91091989|NCT00427934|182068028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.816||90.0|-1.82|2.41||This analysis was carried out using ANCOVA with baseline tender/painful joint count as the covariate, treatment, region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||2.41|-1.82|0.816
91091990|NCT00427934|182068028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.996||90.0|-2.35|2.36||This analysis was carried out using ANCOVA with baseline tender/painful joint count as the covariate, treatment, region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||2.36|-2.35|0.996
91028182|NCT03466411|181940237|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted treatment difference|33.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.1|43.2|||Mantel Haenszel||Treatment difference between guselkumab group and placebo group was based on the common risk difference by use of Mantel- Haenszel stratum weights and the Sato variance estimator.|||43.2|24.1|<0.001
91028183|NCT03466411|181940237|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted treatment difference|32.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.5|42.4|||Mantel Haenszel||Treatment difference between guselkumab group and placebo group was based on the common risk difference by use of Mantel-Haenszel stratum weights and the Sato variance estimator.|||42.4|23.5|<0.001
91028184|NCT03466411|181940238|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted treatment difference|34.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.2|45.3|||Mantel Haenszel||Treatment difference between guselkumab group and placebo group was based on the common risk difference by use of Mantel- Haenszel stratum weights and the Sato variance estimator.|||45.3|23.2|<0.001
91028185|NCT03466411|181940238|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted treatment difference|35.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.5|46.5|||Mantel Haenszel||Treatment difference between guselkumab group and placebo group was based on the common risk difference by use of Mantel-Haenszel stratum weights and the Sato variance estimator.|||46.5|23.5|<0.001
91028186|NCT03466411|181940239|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted treatment difference|27.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.7|37.1|||Mantel Haenszel||Treatment difference between guselkumab group and placebo group was based on the common risk difference by use of Mantel-Haenszel stratum weights and the Sato variance estimator.|||37.1|18.7|<0.001
91028187|NCT03466411|181940239|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted treatment difference|30.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.3|40.3|||Mantel Haenszel||Treatment difference between guselkumab group and placebo group was based on the common risk difference by use of Mantel-Haenszel stratum weights and the Sato variance estimator.|||40.3|21.3|<0.001
91028188|NCT03466411|181940240|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted treatment difference|25.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.1|36.2|||Mantel Haenszel||Treatment difference between combined guselkumab group and placebo group was based on the common risk difference by use of Mantel- Haenszel stratum weights and the Sato variance estimator.|||36.2|14.1|<0.001
91028189|NCT03466411|181940241|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted treatment difference|27.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.3|36.1|||Mantel Haenszel||Treatment difference between combined guselkumab group and placebo group was based on the common risk difference by use of Mantel- Haenszel stratum weights and the Sato variance estimator.|||36.1|19.3|<0.001
90840152|NCT01039376|181547319|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.76||||0.2902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.02|1.51||The analysis is adjusted for BL score, actual strata, age group, BL ECOG performance status and Binet stage at Screening using mixed-model (Proc Mixed) repeated with intercept, BL score by time and treatment by time interaction.|Repeated measures analysis of covariance||Financial Difficulties|||1.51|-5.02|0.2902
91091991|NCT00427934|182068028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.61||||0.263||90.0|-3.98|0.76||This analysis was carried out using ANCOVA with baseline tender/painful joint count as the covariate, treatment, region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||0.76|-3.98|0.263
91091992|NCT00427934|182068028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.48||||0.294||90.0|-3.82|0.85||This analysis was carried out using ANCOVA with baseline tender/painful joint count as the covariate, treatment, region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||0.85|-3.82|0.294
90840153|NCT01039376|181547319|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.22||||0.0606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.49|0.05||The analysis is adjusted for BL score, actual strata, age group, BL ECOG performance status and Binet stage at Screening using mixed-model (Proc Mixed) repeated with intercept, BL score by time and treatment by time interaction.|Repeated measures analysis of covariance||Nausea and Vomiting|||0.05|-2.49|0.0606
90840154|NCT01039376|181547319|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.04||||0.0393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.93|-0.15||The analysis is adjusted for BL score, actual strata, age group, BL ECOG performance status and Binet stage at Screening using mixed-model (Proc Mixed) repeated with intercept, BL score by time and treatment by time interaction.|Repeated measures analysis of covariance||Pain|||-0.15|-5.93|0.0393
90840155|NCT01039376|181547319|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.81||||0.0968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|3.96||The analysis is adjusted for BL score, actual strata, age group, BL ECOG performance status and Binet stage at Screening using mixed-model (Proc Mixed) repeated with intercept, BL score by time and treatment by time interaction.|Repeated measures analysis of covariance||Physical Functioning|||3.96|-0.33|0.0968
90840156|NCT01039376|181547319|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.78||||0.1449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|4.17||The analysis is adjusted for BL score, actual strata, age group, BL ECOG performance status and Binet stage at Screening using mixed-model (Proc Mixed) repeated with intercept, BL score by time and treatment by time interaction.|Repeated measures analysis of covariance||Global Health Status/QOL|||4.17|-0.61|0.1449
90840157|NCT01039376|181547319|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.56||||0.0259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|6.7||The analysis is adjusted for BL score, actual strata, age group, BL ECOG performance status and Binet stage at Screening using mixed-model (Proc Mixed) repeated with intercept, BL score by time and treatment by time interaction.|Repeated measures analysis of covariance||Role Functioning|||6.70|0.43|0.0259
90840158|NCT01039376|181547319|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.65||||0.0175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|6.65||The analysis is adjusted for BL score, actual strata, age group, BL ECOG performance status and Binet stage at Screening using mixed-model (Proc Mixed) repeated with intercept, BL score by time and treatment by time interaction.|Repeated measures analysis of covariance||Social Functioning|||6.65|0.64|0.0175
90840159|NCT01039376|181547319|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.79||||0.3209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.33|1.75||The analysis is adjusted for BL score, actual strata, age group, BL ECOG performance status and Binet stage at Screening using mixed-model (Proc Mixed) repeated with intercept, BL score by time and treatment by time interaction.|Repeated measures analysis of covariance||Insomnia|||1.75|-5.33|0.3209
90840160|NCT01039376|181547320|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.06||The analysis is adjusted for BL score, actual strata, age group, BL ECOG performance status and Binet stage at Screening using mixed-model (Proc Mixed) repeated with intercept, BL score by time and treatment by time interaction.|Repeated measures analysis of covariance||Utility Score|||0.06|0.01|0.0110
90840161|NCT01039376|181547320|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.38||||0.1999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|3.49||The analysis is adjusted for BL score, actual strata, age group, BL ECOG performance status and Binet stage at Screening using mixed-model (Proc Mixed) repeated with intercept, BL score by time and treatment by time interaction.|Repeated measures analysis of covariance||Thermometer Score|||3.49|-0.73|0.1999
90840162|NCT01039376|181547332|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.547|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.051|2.276|||||HR estimated for Cytogenetics Group (based on \>=20% cut-off) with 6q-, or +12q or 13q-/no abberation|||2.276|1.051|
90840163|NCT01039376|181547332|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|9.303|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.934|17.54|||||HR estimated for Cytogenetics Group (based on \>=20% cut-off) with 17p-/no abberation|||17.540|4.934|
90957289|NCT02502097|181794289|SUPERIORITY|MMRM model uses the change from baseline as the dependent variable and includes the period, treatment group (Gefapixant 50 mg, Placebo), visit (Day 7 and Day 14 at each Period), all interactions terms as fixed factors, and baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5||||0.7772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|12.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||LS means difference Day 14|||12.3|-9.2|0.7772
91091993|NCT00427934|182068029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32||||0.7||90.0|-1.7|1.06||This analysis was carried out using ANCOVA baseline swollen joint count as the covariate, treatment, region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||1.06|-1.70|0.700
90840164|NCT01039376|181547332|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.219|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.468|7.21|||||HR estimated for Cytogenetics Group (based on \>=20% cut-off) with 11q-/no abberation|||7.210|2.468|
90840165|NCT01039376|181547332|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.832|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.434|2.339|||||HR estimated for B2 Microglobulin Group 2 with 3500 as cut off: \>3500 ug/L/\<=3500 ug/L|||2.339|1.434|
90840166|NCT01039376|181547332|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.573|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.432|0.76|||||HR estimated for IgVH Mutational Status 1 Mutated/Unmutated|||0.760|0.432|
90840167|NCT01039376|181547332|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.301|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.692|2.448|||||HR estimated for VH3-21 Usage Flag Yes/No.|||2.448|0.692|
90840168|NCT00785785|181547338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.466||||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.104|1.945|||Hazard Ratio|||||1.945|1.104|0.0081
91091994|NCT00427934|182068029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26||||0.799||90.0|-1.45|1.97||This analysis was carried out using ANCOVA baseline swollen joint count as the covariate, treatment, region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||1.97|-1.45|0.799
91091995|NCT00427934|182068029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.867||90.0|-1.35|1.66||This analysis was carried out using ANCOVA baseline swollen joint count as the covariate, treatment, region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||1.66|-1.35|0.867
91091996|NCT00427934|182068029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.45||||0.167||90.0|-3.17|0.28||This analysis was carried out using ANCOVA baseline swollen joint count as the covariate, treatment, region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||0.28|-3.17|0.167
91091997|NCT00427934|182068029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.966||90.0|-1.91|1.81||This analysis was carried out using ANCOVA baseline swollen joint count as the covariate, treatment, region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||1.81|-1.91|0.966
90840169|NCT01244893|181547344|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This study uses -0.05 LogMAR as the non-inferiority margin.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.003|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00092|0.01045|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as the test lens - control lens.|"Ho: after time period (6-8 days of lens wear), the test lens - control lens will be greater than or equal to the non-inferiority margin specified .~Ha: after time period, test-control will be less than the margin specified concluding that the test lens will be inferior to control lens in terms of LogMAR scale"||0.01045|-0.00092|
90840170|NCT00357552|181547348|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Success of the strategy is assessed according to whether the lower bound of the exact 90% confidence interval of this proportion is greater than 65%.|proportion|87.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.0|92.0|||confidence interval|Success was determined by whether the lower bound of the 90% exact confidence interval was greater than 65%.|exact confidence interval|The null hypothesis was that LPV/r monotherapy provides at least a 65% short-term virologic response. The target sample size was 120 subjects. Assuming an underlying true 24 week success rate of 76%, this sample size was chosen in order to provide at least 90% power to show that the true 24 week virologic success rate of LPV/r monotherapy in this population is greater than 65%.||92|81|
90840171|NCT03089281|181547371|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.17
90840172|NCT03089281|181547372|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.011
90840173|NCT03089281|181547373|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.029
90840174|NCT03089281|181547375|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.050
90840175|NCT03089281|181547376|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||||||0.49
90840176|NCT03089281|181547377|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.36
90840177|NCT03089281|181547378|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.21
90840178|NCT03089281|181547379|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.34
90840179|NCT03089281|181547380|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.46
91091998|NCT00427934|182068030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0.925||90.0|-6.41|5.72||This analysis was carried out using ANCOVA with baseline patient's assessment of arthritis pain as the covariate, treatment, region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||5.72|-6.41|0.925
90840180|NCT03089281|181547381|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.45
90840181|NCT03089281|181547382|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.90
90840182|NCT03089281|181547383|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.59
90840183|NCT04555616|181547384|OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||Fisher Exact|||Primary outcome analyzed via success rates among groups.||||0.12
90840184|NCT02282605|181547394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.792|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.792
90840185|NCT02282605|181547394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.887|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.887
90840186|NCT02282605|181547395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0058||||||For timepoint Day 3 (12 hours after last dose)|Fisher Exact|||||||0.0058
90840187|NCT02282605|181547397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028||||||The adjusted means were compared for the two-day treatment period.|ANCOVA|||||||0.028
90840188|NCT02282605|181547397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The adjusted means were compared for the two-day treatment period to discharge.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90840189|NCT02282605|181547397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||||||The adjusted means were compared for the two-day treatment period through to discharge|ANCOVA|||||||0.005
90840190|NCT03038880|181547438|OTHER|The focus of this trial was estimation rather than hypothesis testing.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.8|2.6|||||The difference was calculated as Faricimab Q12W arm minus Ranibizumab Q4W arm.|||2.6|-6.8|
90840191|NCT03038880|181547438|OTHER|The focus of this trial was estimation rather than hypothesis testing.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.4|5.5|||||The difference was calculated as Faricimab Q16W arm minus Ranibizumab Q4W arm.|||5.5|-3.4|
90840192|NCT03038880|181547439|OTHER|The focus of this trial was estimation rather than hypothesis testing.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.09|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.75|2.56|||||The difference was calculated as Faricimab Q12W arm minus Ranibizumab Q4W arm.|Week 40: Faricimab Q12W vs. Ranibizumab Q4W||2.56|-6.75|
90840193|NCT03038880|181547439|OTHER|The focus of this trial was estimation rather than hypothesis testing.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.4|5.49|||||The difference was calculated as Faricimab Q16W arm minus Ranibizumab Q4W arm.|Week 40: Faricimab Q16W vs. Ranibizumab Q4W||5.49|-3.40|
90840194|NCT03038880|181547439|OTHER|The focus of this trial was estimation rather than hypothesis testing.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.26|5.25|||||The difference was calculated as Faricimab Q12W arm minus Ranibizumab Q4W arm.|Week 52: Faricimab Q12W vs. Ranibizumab Q4W||5.25|-4.26|
90840195|NCT03038880|181547439|OTHER|The focus of this trial was estimation rather than hypothesis testing.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.83|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.71|6.37|||||The difference was calculated as Faricimab Q16W arm minus Ranibizumab Q4W arm.|Week 52: Faricimab Q16W vs. Ranibizumab Q4W||6.37|-2.71|
90840196|NCT03038880|181547441|OTHER|The focus of this trial was estimation rather than hypothesis testing.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|4.76|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-15.92|25.44|||||The difference was calculated as Faricimab Q12W arm minus Ranibizumab Q4W arm.|Week 40: Faricimab Q12W vs. Ranibizumab Q4W||25.44|-15.92|
91091999|NCT00427934|182068030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.26||||0.239||90.0|-12.62|2.11||This analysis was carried out using ANCOVA with baseline patient's assessment of arthritis pain as the covariate, treatment, region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||2.11|-12.62|0.239
91092000|NCT00427934|182068030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.73||||0.872||90.0|-6.79|8.25||This analysis was carried out using ANCOVA with baseline patient's assessment of arthritis pain as the covariate, treatment, region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||8.25|-6.79|0.872
91092001|NCT00427934|182068030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.63||||0.745||90.0|-9.91|6.65||This analysis was carried out using ANCOVA with baseline patient's assessment of arthritis pain as the covariate, treatment, region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||6.65|-9.91|0.745
91092002|NCT00427934|182068030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.22||||0.644||90.0|-10.14|5.71||This analysis was carried out using ANCOVA with baseline patient's assessment of arthritis pain as the covariate, treatment, region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||5.71|-10.14|0.644
91092003|NCT00427934|182068031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.36||||0.524||90.0|-8.49|3.77||This analysis was carried out using ANCOVA with baseline Patient's Global Assessment of Arthritis as the covariate, treatment, region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||3.77|-8.49|0.524
90840197|NCT03038880|181547441|OTHER|The focus of this trial was estimation rather than hypothesis testing.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|5.95|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-13.62|25.53|||||The difference was calculated as Faricimab Q16W arm minus Ranibizumab Q4W arm.|Week 40: Faricimab Q16W vs. Ranibizumab Q4W||25.53|-13.62|
90840198|NCT03038880|181547441|OTHER|The focus of this trial was estimation rather than hypothesis testing.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|-4.17|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-24.52|16.19|||||The difference was calculated as Faricimab Q12W arm minus Ranibizumab Q4W arm.|Week 52: Faricimab Q12W vs. Ranibizumab Q4W||16.19|-24.52|
90840199|NCT03038880|181547441|OTHER|The focus of this trial was estimation rather than hypothesis testing.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|8.93|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-10.73|28.59|||||The difference was calculated as Faricimab Q16W arm minus Ranibizumab Q4W arm.|Week 52: Faricimab Q16W vs. Ranibizumab Q4W||28.59|-10.73|
90840200|NCT03038880|181547443|OTHER|The focus of this trial was estimation rather than hypothesis testing.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|-4.76|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-10.72|1.19|||||The difference was calculated as Faricimab Q12W arm minus Ranibizumab Q4W arm.|Week 40: Faricimab Q12W vs. Ranibizumab Q4W||1.19|-10.72|
90840201|NCT03038880|181547443|OTHER|The focus of this trial was estimation rather than hypothesis testing.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|-3.57|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-8.07|0.92|||||The difference was calculated as Faricimab Q16W arm minus Ranibizumab Q4W arm.|Week 40: Faricimab Q16W vs. Ranibizumab Q4W||0.92|-8.07|
90840202|NCT03038880|181547443|OTHER|The focus of this trial was estimation rather than hypothesis testing.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|0.0|||||||||||||The difference was calculated as Faricimab Q12W arm minus Ranibizumab Q4W arm.|Week 52: Faricimab Q12W vs. Ranibizumab Q4W||||
90840203|NCT03038880|181547443|OTHER|The focus of this trial was estimation rather than hypothesis testing.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|-3.57|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-8.07|0.92|||||The difference was calculated as Faricimab Q16W arm minus Ranibizumab Q4W arm.|Week 52: Faricimab Q16W vs. Ranibizumab Q4W||0.92|-8.07|
90840204|NCT03038880|181547444|OTHER|The focus of this trial was estimation rather than hypothesis testing.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|21.9|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.76|43.05|||||The difference was calculated as Faricimab Q12W arm minus Ranibizumab Q4W arm.|Week 40: Faricimab Q12W vs. Ranibizumab Q4W||43.05|0.76|
90840205|NCT03038880|181547444|OTHER|The focus of this trial was estimation rather than hypothesis testing.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|38.57|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|19.56|57.59|||||The difference was calculated as Faricimab Q16W arm minus Ranibizumab Q4W arm.|Week 40: Faricimab Q16W vs. Ranibizumab Q4W||57.59|19.56|
90840206|NCT03038880|181547444|OTHER|The focus of this trial was estimation rather than hypothesis testing.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|19.64|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.14|40.43|||||The difference was calculated as Faricimab Q12W arm minus Ranibizumab Q4W arm.|Week 52: Faricimab Q12W vs. Ranibizumab Q4W||40.43|-1.14|
91092004|NCT00427934|182068031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.96||||0.338||90.0|-10.8|2.87||This analysis was carried out using ANCOVA with baseline Patient's Global Assessment of Arthritis as the covariate, treatment, region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||2.87|-10.80|0.338
91092005|NCT00427934|182068031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.98||||0.83||90.0|-8.55|6.58||This analysis was carried out using ANCOVA with baseline Patient's Global Assessment of Arthritis as the covariate, treatment, region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||6.58|-8.55|0.830
91092006|NCT00427934|182068031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.68||||0.118||90.0|-15.76|0.4||This analysis was carried out using ANCOVA with baseline Patient's Global Assessment of Arthritis as the covariate, treatment, region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||0.40|-15.76|0.118
90840207|NCT03038880|181547444|OTHER|The focus of this trial was estimation rather than hypothesis testing.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|33.93|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|14.95|52.91|||||The difference was calculated as Faricimab Q16W arm minus Ranibizumab Q4W arm.|Week 52: Faricimab Q16W vs. Ranibizumab Q4W||52.91|14.95|
90840208|NCT03038880|181547445|OTHER|The focus of this trial was estimation rather than hypothesis testing.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|0.0|||||||||||||The difference was calculated as Faricimab Q12W arm minus Ranibizumab Q4W arm.|Week 40: Faricimab Q12W vs. Ranibizumab Q4W||||
90840209|NCT03038880|181547445|OTHER|The focus of this trial was estimation rather than hypothesis testing.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|3.57|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.92|8.07|||||The difference was calculated as Faricimab Q16W arm minus Ranibizumab Q4W arm.|Week 40: Faricimab Q16W vs. Ranibizumab Q4W||8.07|-0.92|
90840210|NCT03038880|181547445|OTHER|The focus of this trial was estimation rather than hypothesis testing.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|4.76|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.19|10.72|||||The difference was calculated as Faricimab Q12W arm minus Ranibizumab Q4W arm.|Week 52: Faricimab Q12W vs. Ranibizumab Q4W||10.72|-1.19|
90840211|NCT03038880|181547445|OTHER|The focus of this trial was estimation rather than hypothesis testing.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|3.57|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.92|8.07|||||The difference was calculated as Faricimab Q16W arm minus Ranibizumab Q4W arm.|Week 52: Faricimab Q16W vs. Ranibizumab Q4W||8.07|-0.92|
91092007|NCT00427934|182068031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.78||||0.712||90.0|-9.73|6.18||This analysis was carried out using ANCOVA with baseline Patient's Global Assessment of Arthritis as the covariate, treatment, region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||6.18|-9.73|0.712
91092008|NCT00427934|182068032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.54||90.0|-0.28|0.13||This analysis was carried out using ANCOVA with baseline Physician's Global Assessment of Arthritis as the covariate, treatment, region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||0.13|-0.28|0.540
91092009|NCT00427934|182068032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.757||90.0|-0.28|0.19||This analysis was carried out using ANCOVA with baseline Physician's Global Assessment of Arthritis as the covariate, treatment, region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||0.19|-0.28|0.757
90840212|NCT03038880|181547446|OTHER|The focus of this trial was estimation rather than hypothesis testing.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-29.81|30.71|||||The difference was calculated as Faricimab Q12W arm minus Ranibizumab Q4W arm.|Week 40: Faricimab Q12W vs. Ranibizumab Q4W||30.71|-29.81|
90840213|NCT03038880|181547446|OTHER|The focus of this trial was estimation rather than hypothesis testing.|Mean Difference (Net)|14.68|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-14.29|43.65|||||The difference was calculated as Faricimab Q16W arm minus Ranibizumab Q4W arm.|Week 40: Faricimab Q16W vs. Ranibizumab Q4W||43.65|-14.29|
90840214|NCT03038880|181547446|OTHER|The focus of this trial was estimation rather than hypothesis testing.|Mean Difference (Net)|-4.85|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-30.57|20.87|||||The difference was calculated as Faricimab Q12W arm minus Ranibizumab Q4W arm.|Week 52: Faricimab Q12W vs. Ranibizumab Q4W||20.87|-30.57|
90840215|NCT03038880|181547446|OTHER|The focus of this trial was estimation rather than hypothesis testing.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-23.57|25.8|||||The difference was calculated as Faricimab Q16W arm minus Ranibizumab Q4W arm.|Week 52: Faricimab Q16W vs. Ranibizumab Q4W||25.80|-23.57|
90840216|NCT03038880|181547447|OTHER|The focus of this trial was estimation rather than hypothesis testing.|Mean Difference (Net)|-12.23|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-36.6|12.15|||||The difference was calculated as Faricimab Q12W arm minus Ranibizumab Q4W arm.|Week 40: Faricimab Q12W vs. Ranibizumab Q4W||12.15|-36.60|
90840217|NCT03038880|181547447|OTHER|The focus of this trial was estimation rather than hypothesis testing.|Mean Difference (Net)|4.98|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-18.5|28.45|||||The difference was calculated as Faricimab Q16W arm minus Ranibizumab Q4W arm.|Week 40: Faricimab Q16W vs. Ranibizumab Q4W||28.45|-18.50|
90840218|NCT03038880|181547447|OTHER|The focus of this trial was estimation rather than hypothesis testing.|Mean Difference (Net)|-8.64|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-30.42|13.14|||||The difference was calculated as Faricimab Q12W arm minus Ranibizumab Q4W arm.|Week 52: Faricimab Q12W vs. Ranibizumab Q4W||13.14|-30.42|
90897304|NCT01216163|181660520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|2.34||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||2.34|1.43|<0.001
91092010|NCT00427934|182068032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.767||90.0|-0.31|0.21||This analysis was carried out using ANCOVA with baseline Physician's Global Assessment of Arthritis as the covariate, treatment, region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||0.21|-0.31|0.767
90840219|NCT03038880|181547447|OTHER|The focus of this trial was estimation rather than hypothesis testing.|Mean Difference (Net)|7.36|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-13.65|28.37|||||The difference was calculated as Faricimab Q16W arm minus Ranibizumab Q4W arm.|Week 52: Faricimab Q16W vs. Ranibizumab Q4W||28.37|-13.65|
90840220|NCT03926611|181547465|SUPERIORITY|LOU064 10 mg q.d.|LS Mean|-13.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.334|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.51|-9.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment contrast in LS mean (Change)||||-9.81|-17.51|<0.0001
90840221|NCT03926611|181547465|SUPERIORITY|LOU064 35 mg q.d.|LS Mean|-13.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.336|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.49|-9.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment contrast in LS mean (Change)||||-9.78|-17.49|<0.0001
90840222|NCT03926611|181547465|SUPERIORITY|LOU064 100 mg q.d.|LS Mean|-9.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.277|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.97|-5.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment contrast in LS mean (Change)||||-5.45|-12.97|<0.0001
91092011|NCT00427934|182068032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26||||0.112||90.0|-0.52|0.01||This analysis was carried out using ANCOVA with baseline Physician's Global Assessment of Arthritis as the covariate, treatment, region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||0.01|-0.52|0.112
91092012|NCT00427934|182068032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.49||90.0|-0.42|0.17||This analysis was carried out using ANCOVA with baseline Physician's Global Assessment of Arthritis as the covariate, treatment, region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||0.17|-0.42|0.490
91092013|NCT00427934|182068033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.464||90.0|-0.19|0.07||This analysis was carried out using ANCOVA with HAQ-DI as the covariate, treatment, region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||0.07|-0.19|0.464
90840223|NCT03926611|181547465|SUPERIORITY|LOU064 10 mg b.i.d.|LS Mean|-10.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.319|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.38|-6.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment contrast in LS mean (Change)||||-6.72|-14.38|<0.0001
90840224|NCT03926611|181547465|SUPERIORITY|LOU064 25 mg b.i.d.|LS Mean|-14.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.334|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.43|-10.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment contrast in LS mean (Change)||||-10.73|-18.43|<0.0001
90840225|NCT03926611|181547465|SUPERIORITY|LOU064 100 mg b.i.d.|LS Mean|-12.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.327|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.45|-8.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment contrast in LS mean (Change)||||-8.78|-16.45|<0.0001
90840226|NCT03926611|181547466|SUPERIORITY|LOU064 10 mg q.d.|LS Mean|-10.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.71|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.72|-5.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment contrast in LS mean (Change)||||-5.77|-14.72|<0.0001
90840227|NCT03926611|181547466|SUPERIORITY|LOU064 35 mg q.d.|LS Mean|-10.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.711||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.58|-5.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment contrast in LS mean (Change)||||-5.63|-14.58|0.0001
90840228|NCT03926611|181547466|SUPERIORITY|LOU064 100 mg q.d.|LS Mean|-7.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.635||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.75|-3.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment contrast in LS mean (Change)||||-3.05|-11.75|0.0027
90840229|NCT03926611|181547466|SUPERIORITY|LOU064 10 mg b.i.d.|LS Mean|-9.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.696||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.25|-5.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment contrast in LS mean (Change)||||-5.35|-14.25|0.0002
90840230|NCT03926611|181547466|SUPERIORITY|LOU064 25 mg b.i.d.|LS Mean|-12.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.714|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.82|-7.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment contrast in LS mean (Change)||||-7.87|-16.82|<0.0001
90840231|NCT03926611|181547466|SUPERIORITY|LOU064 100 mg b.i.d.|LS Mean|-9.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.733||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.03|-5.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment contrast in LS mean (Change)||||-5.01|-14.03|0.0003
91092014|NCT00427934|182068033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.068||90.0|-0.35|-0.02||This analysis was carried out using ANCOVA with HAQ-DI as the covariate, treatment, region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||-0.02|-0.35|0.068
91092015|NCT00427934|182068033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.532||90.0|-0.23|0.11||This analysis was carried out using ANCOVA with HAQ-DI as the covariate, treatment, region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||0.11|-0.23|0.532
90957290|NCT02502097|181794290|SUPERIORITY|MMRM model uses the change from baseline as the dependent variable and includes the period, treatment group (Gefapixant 50 mg, Placebo), visit (Day 7 and Day 14 at each Period), all interactions terms as fixed factors, and baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.2||||0.3493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|3.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||LS means difference Day 7|||3.6|-10.1|0.3493
90840232|NCT01744977|181547483|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|With an assumed adherence proportion in the Control arm of 0.50, there is 80% power to detect a difference between Control and the intervention arms of 17% or more with 125 patients in each arm.||||||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.300
90840233|NCT01744977|181547484|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|With an assumed adherence proportion in the Control arm of 0.50, there is 80% power to detect a difference between Control and the intervention arms of 17% or more with 125 patients in each arm.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|6.5||As measured at 12m|Mixed Models Analysis||This value summarizes the full 12 month period so Mean Difference (Final Values) is appropriate.|||6.5|-8.0|0.839
90840234|NCT01750229|181547491|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Variables included in the Mixed Model were: baseline VAS back pain score, treatment group, and period.||||||0.002
90840235|NCT00912808|181547501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Means and standard deviations were calculated to describe the subject baseline characteristics. Paired t-tests evaluated the difference between baseline and end of treatment frequency of falls. Changes post-treatment from baseline in secondary measures were also compared between the donepezil and placebo phases with paired t-tests or Wilcoxon signed rank tests when data was nonparametric. SPSS was used for the analysis.||||0.049
90840236|NCT00912808|181547502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Means and standard deviations were calculated to describe the subject baseline characteristics. Paired t-tests evaluated the difference between baseline and end of treatment frequency of falls. Changes post-treatment from baseline in secondary measures were also compared between the donepezil and placebo phases with paired t-tests or Wilcoxon signed rank tests when data was nonparametric. SPSS was used for the analysis.||||0.27
90840237|NCT02900378|181547504|OTHER||Differences of least square means|5.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.89||0.2464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.93|15.29||The comparison of treatment groups were out using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model adjusting for treatment and baseline NYHA class (NYHA II vs. III/IV) and the 6MWT baseline value as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Change from BL at Week 12 (FAS)||15.29|-3.93|0.2464
90840238|NCT02900378|181547504|OTHER||Differences of least square means|8.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.58||0.0503|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.31|19.27||The comparison of treatment groups were out using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model adjusting for treatment and baseline NYHA class (NYHA II vs. III/IV) and the 6MWT baseline value as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Change from BL at Week 12 (FAS without AE/SAE)||19.27|-1.31|0.0503
90840239|NCT02900378|181547505|OTHER||Differences of least square means|-6.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.61||0.4769|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-25.7|13.41||The comparison of treatment groups were carried out using an ANCOVA model adjusting for treatment, baseline NYHA class (NYHA II vs. III/IV) and the daily non-sedentary daytime activity baseline value as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Change from BL at Week 12 (FAS with MI)||13.41|-25.70|0.4769
90840240|NCT02900378|181547505|OTHER||Differences of least square means|-5.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.01||0.3463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.48|6.14||The comparison of treatment groups were carried out using an ANCOVA model adjusting for treatment, baseline NYHA class (NYHA II vs. III/IV) and the daily non-sedentary daytime activity baseline value as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Change from BL at Week 12 (FAS with LOCF)||6.14|-17.48|0.3463
90840241|NCT02900378|181547505|OTHER||Differences of least square means|-6.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.69||0.3513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.39|6.91||The comparison of treatment groups were carried out using an ANCOVA model adjusting for treatment, baseline NYHA class (NYHA II vs. III/IV) and the daily non-sedentary daytime activity baseline value as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Change from BL at Week 12 (FAS without MI/LOCF)||6.91|-19.39|0.3513
90840242|NCT02900378|181547506|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.228|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.882|1.708||||||FAS population||1.708|0.882|
90840243|NCT02900378|181547507|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.251|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.895|1.748||||||FAS subset without AE/SAE||1.748|0.895|
90840244|NCT02900378|181547508|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.634|2.464||||||FAS population||2.464|0.634|
90897305|NCT01216163|181660520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|2.83||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||2.83|1.80|<0.001
90840245|NCT02900378|181547509|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.644|2.544||||||FAS subset without AE/SAE||2.544|0.644|
90840246|NCT02900378|181547510|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.863|1.811||||||FAS population||1.811|0.863|
91028190|NCT03466411|181940242|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted treatment difference|31.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.1|41.3|||Mantel Haenszel||Treatment difference between combined guselkumab group and placebo group was based on the common risk difference by use of Mantel- Haenszel stratum weights and the Sato variance estimator.|||41.3|21.1|<0.001
90840247|NCT02900378|181547511|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.865|1.834||||||FAS subset without AE/SAE||1.834|0.865|
90840248|NCT02900378|181547512|OTHER|||||||0.1814|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 4 (FAS)||||0.1814
90840249|NCT02900378|181547512|OTHER|||||||0.3315|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 4 (FAS without AE/SAE)||||0.3315
90840250|NCT02900378|181547512|OTHER|||||||0.2414|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 8 (FAS)||||0.2414
90840251|NCT02900378|181547512|OTHER|||||||0.1793|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 8 (FAS without AE/SAE)||||0.1793
90840252|NCT02900378|181547513|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.821|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.462|1.457||||||Increased levels (\>= 10% increase) of non sedentary daytime physical activity at Week 12||1.457|0.462|
90840253|NCT02900378|181547514|OTHER|||||||0.0516|||||||Chi-squared|||Week 4||||0.0516
90840254|NCT02900378|181547514|OTHER|||||||0.9025|||||||Chi-squared|||Week 8||||0.9025
90840255|NCT02900378|181547514|OTHER|||||||0.6713|||||||Chi-squared|||Week 12||||0.6713
90840256|NCT02900378|181547515|OTHER|||||||0.0029|||||||Chi-squared|||Week 4||||0.0029
90840257|NCT02900378|181547515|OTHER|||||||0.7754|||||||Chi-squared|||Week 8||||0.7754
90840258|NCT02900378|181547515|OTHER|||||||0.2172|||||||Chi-squared|||Week 12||||0.2172
90840259|NCT02900378|181547516|OTHER|||||||0.0008|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 1||||0.0008
90840260|NCT02900378|181547516|OTHER|||||||0.0008|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 2||||0.0008
90840261|NCT02900378|181547516|OTHER|||||||0.0297|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 3||||0.0297
90957291|NCT02502097|181794290|SUPERIORITY|MMRM model uses the change from baseline as the dependent variable and includes the period, treatment group (Gefapixant 50 mg, Placebo), visit (Day 7 and Day 14 at each Period), all interactions terms as fixed factors, and baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.8952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|16.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||LS means difference Day 14|||16.3|-14.3|0.8952
90840262|NCT02900378|181547516|OTHER|||||||0.0069|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 4||||0.0069
90840263|NCT02900378|181547516|OTHER|||||||0.2275|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 5||||0.2275
90840264|NCT02900378|181547516|OTHER|||||||0.3486|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 6||||0.3486
90840265|NCT02900378|181547516|OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 7||||0.6800
90840266|NCT02900378|181547516|OTHER|||||||0.7184|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 8||||0.7184
90840267|NCT02900378|181547516|OTHER|||||||0.5301|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 9||||0.5301
90840268|NCT02900378|181547516|OTHER|||||||0.6019|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 10||||0.6019
90840269|NCT02900378|181547516|OTHER|||||||0.8229|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 11||||0.8229
90840270|NCT02900378|181547516|OTHER|||||||0.8229|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 12||||0.8229
90840271|NCT02900378|181547517|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 2||||0.0001
90840272|NCT02900378|181547517|OTHER|||||||0.0123|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 4||||0.0123
90840273|NCT02900378|181547517|OTHER|||||||0.256|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 6||||0.2560
90840274|NCT02900378|181547517|OTHER|||||||0.5865|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 8||||0.5865
90840275|NCT02900378|181547517|OTHER|||||||0.5463|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 10||||0.5463
90840276|NCT02900378|181547517|OTHER|||||||0.3212|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 12||||0.3212
90840277|NCT02900378|181547518|OTHER|||||||0.0004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 1||||0.0004
90840278|NCT02900378|181547518|OTHER|||||||0.0009|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 2||||0.0009
90840279|NCT02900378|181547518|OTHER|||||||0.0094|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 3||||0.0094
91092016|NCT00427934|182068033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22||||0.063||90.0|-0.41|-0.03||This analysis was carried out using ANCOVA with HAQ-DI as the covariate, treatment, region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||-0.03|-0.41|0.063
90840280|NCT02900378|181547518|OTHER|||||||0.0301|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 4||||0.0301
90840281|NCT02900378|181547518|OTHER|||||||0.1557|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 5||||0.1557
90840282|NCT02900378|181547518|OTHER|||||||0.6461|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 6||||0.6461
90840283|NCT02900378|181547518|OTHER|||||||0.9759|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 7||||0.9759
90840284|NCT02900378|181547518|OTHER|||||||0.3941|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 8||||0.3941
90840285|NCT02900378|181547518|OTHER|||||||0.7209|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 9||||0.7209
90840286|NCT02900378|181547518|OTHER|||||||0.4444|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 10||||0.4444
90840287|NCT02900378|181547518|OTHER|||||||0.7247|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 11||||0.7247
90840288|NCT02900378|181547518|OTHER|||||||0.2933|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 12||||0.2933
90840289|NCT02900378|181547519|OTHER|||||||0.0854|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 1||||0.0854
90840290|NCT02900378|181547519|OTHER|||||||0.0528|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 2||||0.0528
90840291|NCT02900378|181547519|OTHER|||||||0.4137|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 3||||0.4137
90840292|NCT02900378|181547519|OTHER|||||||0.0082|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 4||||0.0082
90840293|NCT02900378|181547519|OTHER|||||||0.7908|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 5||||0.7908
90840294|NCT02900378|181547519|OTHER|||||||0.6499|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 6||||0.6499
90840295|NCT02900378|181547519|OTHER|||||||0.5547|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 7||||0.5547
90840296|NCT02900378|181547519|OTHER|||||||0.6961|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 8||||0.6961
90840297|NCT02900378|181547519|OTHER|||||||0.5946|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 9||||0.5946
90840298|NCT02900378|181547519|OTHER|||||||0.8957|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 10||||0.8957
90840299|NCT02900378|181547519|OTHER|||||||0.8468|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 11||||0.8468
90840300|NCT02900378|181547519|OTHER|||||||0.1711|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 12||||0.1711
90840301|NCT02900378|181547520|OTHER|||||||0.0065|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 1||||0.0065
90840302|NCT02900378|181547520|OTHER|||||||0.0316|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 2||||0.0316
90840303|NCT02900378|181547520|OTHER|||||||0.1342|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 3||||0.1342
90840304|NCT02900378|181547520|OTHER|||||||0.0252|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 4||||0.0252
90840305|NCT02900378|181547520|OTHER|||||||0.9024|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 5||||0.9024
90840306|NCT02900378|181547520|OTHER|||||||0.9052|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 6||||0.9052
90840307|NCT02900378|181547520|OTHER|||||||0.287|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 7||||0.2870
90840308|NCT02900378|181547520|OTHER|||||||0.3174|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 8||||0.3174
90840309|NCT02900378|181547520|OTHER|||||||0.502|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 9||||0.5020
90840310|NCT02900378|181547520|OTHER|||||||0.4037|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 10||||0.4037
90840311|NCT02900378|181547520|OTHER|||||||0.4823|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 11||||0.4823
90840312|NCT02900378|181547520|OTHER|||||||0.109|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 12||||0.1090
90840313|NCT02900378|181547521|OTHER|||||||0.0061|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 1||||0.0061
90840314|NCT02900378|181547521|OTHER|||||||0.0143|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 2||||0.0143
90840315|NCT02900378|181547521|OTHER|||||||0.0708|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 3||||0.0708
90840316|NCT02900378|181547521|OTHER|||||||0.075|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 4||||0.0750
90840317|NCT02900378|181547521|OTHER|||||||0.8017|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 5||||0.8017
91028191|NCT03466411|181940243|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted treatment difference|22.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.2|31.9|||Mantel Haenszel||Treatment difference between combined guselkumab group and placebo group was based on the common risk difference by use of Mantel- Haenszel stratum weights and the Sato variance estimator.|||31.9|12.2|<0.001
90840318|NCT02900378|181547521|OTHER|||||||0.7956|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 6||||0.7956
90840319|NCT02900378|181547521|OTHER|||||||0.3499|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 7||||0.3499
90840320|NCT02900378|181547521|OTHER|||||||0.1192|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 8||||0.1192
90840321|NCT02900378|181547521|OTHER|||||||0.5237|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 9||||0.5237
90840322|NCT02900378|181547521|OTHER|||||||0.3902|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 10||||0.3902
90840323|NCT02900378|181547521|OTHER|||||||0.4228|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 11||||0.4228
90840324|NCT02900378|181547521|OTHER|||||||0.1571|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 12||||0.1571
90840325|NCT02900378|181547522|OTHER|||||||0.3231|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 1||||0.3231
90840326|NCT02900378|181547522|OTHER|||||||0.3519|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 2||||0.3519
90840327|NCT02900378|181547522|OTHER|||||||0.8335|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 3||||0.8335
90840328|NCT02900378|181547522|OTHER|||||||0.0465|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 4||||0.0465
90840329|NCT02900378|181547522|OTHER|||||||0.5016|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 5||||0.5016
90840330|NCT02900378|181547522|OTHER|||||||0.5941|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 6||||0.5941
90840331|NCT02900378|181547522|OTHER|||||||0.2019|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 7||||0.2019
90840332|NCT02900378|181547522|OTHER|||||||0.4125|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 8||||0.4125
90840333|NCT02900378|181547522|OTHER|||||||0.5702|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 9||||0.5702
90840334|NCT02900378|181547522|OTHER|||||||0.4752|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 10||||0.4752
91028192|NCT00319956|181940274|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.20
91028193|NCT02607800|181940278|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in SVR12 was greater than -5%. If the lower bound of the CI was greater than -5% (ie, the noninferiority null hypothesis was rejected), a 2-sided stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was to be used to test for the superiority of SOF/VEL/VOX for 8 weeks over SOF/VEL for 12 weeks at a significance level of 0.05.|Difference in proportions|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|-0.4|||||Difference in proportions between treatment groups and associated 95% CI were calculated based on stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel proportions.|||-0.4|-6.0|
91028194|NCT02974153|181940291|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.45|-1.74|||ANCOVA|||||-1.74|-3.45|<0.0001
91028195|NCT02974153|181940291|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.88|-1.18|||ANCOVA|||||-1.18|-2.88|<0.0001
91028196|NCT02974153|181940292|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|24.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||24.3|12.0|<0.0001
91028197|NCT02974153|181940292|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.7||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.8|17.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||17.5|5.8|0.0001
91028198|NCT02974153|181940293|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.0|27.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||27.6|15.0|<0.0001
91028199|NCT02974153|181940293|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.3|21.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.4|9.3|<0.0001
91028200|NCT02974153|181940294|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.9|29.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||29.2|14.9|<0.0001
91028201|NCT02974153|181940294|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.1|25.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||25.4|11.1|<0.0001
91028202|NCT02974153|181940295|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91028203|NCT02974153|181940295|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91028204|NCT02974153|181940296|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|-0.87|||ANCOVA|||||-0.87|-1.88|<0.0001
91028205|NCT02974153|181940296|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|-0.65|||ANCOVA|||||-0.65|-1.66|<0.0001
91028206|NCT02974153|181940297|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.88|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.91|-1.84|||ANCOVA|||||-1.84|-3.91|<0.0001
91028207|NCT02974153|181940297|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.73||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.76|-0.7|||ANCOVA|||||-0.70|-2.76|0.0010
91028208|NCT02974153|181940298|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.22|-7.77|||Repeated Measures Model|||||-7.77|-14.22|<0.0001
91028209|NCT02974153|181940298|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.48|-5.05|||Repeated Measures Model|||||-5.05|-11.48|<0.0001
91028210|NCT01202747|181940318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005||||||p\<0.05 considered statistically significant|Regression, Linear|||||||0.0005
91028211|NCT04471428|181940348|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis: Stratification factors include histology, and prior NSCLC treatment regimens|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.884||||0.3668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.676|1.156|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression model.|||1.156|0.676|0.3668
91028212|NCT04471428|181940348|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.907||||0.4709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.696|1.182|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression model.|Unstratified Analysis||1.182|0.696|0.4709
91028213|NCT04471428|181940349|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.735||||0.0079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.585|0.923|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression model.|Stratified Analysis; Stratification factors include histology, and prior NSCLC treatment regimens||0.923|0.585|0.0079
91028214|NCT04471428|181940349|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.731||||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.583|0.915|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression model.|Unstratified analysis||0.915|0.583|0.0061
91028215|NCT04471428|181940350|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|-1.51||||0.6846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.85|5.84|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CIs was computed using the Wald method.|Stratified analysis; stratification factors- histology, prior NSCLC treatment regimens||5.84|-8.85|0.6846
91092017|NCT00427934|182068033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.396||90.0|-0.36|0.12||This analysis was carried out using ANCOVA with HAQ-DI as the covariate, treatment, region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||0.12|-0.36|0.396
90840335|NCT02900378|181547522|OTHER|||||||0.5343|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 11||||0.5343
91092018|NCT00427934|182068034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2||||0.481||90.0|-7.36|2.96||This analysis was carried out using ANCOVA with CRP as the covariate, treatment, region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||2.96|-7.36|0.481
91092019|NCT00427934|182068034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.33||||0.698||90.0|-4.34|6.99||This analysis was carried out using ANCOVA with CRP as the covariate, treatment, region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||6.99|-4.34|0.698
91092020|NCT00427934|182068034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.65||||0.233||90.0|-1.79|11.1||This analysis was carried out using ANCOVA with CRP as the covariate, treatment, region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||11.10|-1.79|0.233
91092021|NCT00427934|182068034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.48||||0.32||90.0|-2.29|9.25||This analysis was carried out using ANCOVA with CRP as the covariate, treatment, region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||9.25|-2.29|0.320
91092022|NCT00427934|182068034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41||||0.912||90.0|-5.81|6.64||This analysis was carried out using ANCOVA with CRP as the covariate, treatment, region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||6.64|-5.81|0.912
91092023|NCT00427934|182068035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.653||90.0|-0.31|0.18||This analysis was carried out using ANCOVA with baseline DAS28-4 (CRP) as the covariate, treatment, country as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||0.18|-0.31|0.653
91092024|NCT00427934|182068035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.703||90.0|-0.41|0.26||This analysis was carried out using ANCOVA with baseline DAS28-4 (CRP) as the covariate, treatment, country as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||0.26|-0.41|0.703
91092025|NCT00427934|182068035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.968||90.0|-0.37|0.39||This analysis was carried out using ANCOVA with baseline DAS28-4 (CRP) as the covariate, treatment, country as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||0.39|-0.37|0.968
91092026|NCT00427934|182068035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31||||0.21||90.0|-0.72|0.1||This analysis was carried out using ANCOVA with baseline DAS28-4 (CRP) as the covariate, treatment, country as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||0.10|-0.72|0.210
91092027|NCT00427934|182068035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.696||90.0|-0.53|0.33||This analysis was carried out using ANCOVA with baseline DAS28-4 (CRP) as the covariate, treatment, country as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||0.33|-0.53|0.696
91092028|NCT00427934|182068037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|9.09||||0.155||90.0|-6.16|21.83||p-value (one-sided) was based on Barnard exact test if more than 20% of expected cell counts were \< 5 otherwise Pearson chi-square test.|Barnard/Pearson chi-square test||Percentage Difference = maraviroc responders divided by the number of maraviroc participants analyzed minus placebo responders divided by the number of placebo participants analyzed.|||21.83|-6.16|0.155
91092029|NCT00427934|182068043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.57||||0.698||90.0|-1.87|3.01||This analysis was carried out ANCOVA with baseline SF-36 score as the covariate, treatment, region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||3.01|-1.87|0.698
91092030|NCT00427934|182068043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.68||||0.344||90.0|-4.62|1.26||This analysis was carried out ANCOVA with baseline SF-36 score as the covariate, treatment, region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||1.26|-4.62|0.344
90840336|NCT02900378|181547522|OTHER|||||||0.0985|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 12||||0.0985
90840337|NCT02900378|181547523|OTHER|||||||0.4525|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 2||||0.4525
90840338|NCT02900378|181547523|OTHER|||||||0.0445|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 4||||0.0445
90840339|NCT02900378|181547523|OTHER|||||||0.1158|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 6||||0.1158
90840340|NCT02900378|181547523|OTHER|||||||0.3901|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 8||||0.3901
90840341|NCT02900378|181547523|OTHER|||||||0.7725|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 12||||0.7725
90840342|NCT01134055|181547529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1974||||||Adjusted p-Value has been presented.|ANOVA|||Statistics for Injection Rate at 28 Weeks is presented||||0.1974
91092031|NCT00427934|182068044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.734||90.0|-2.71|4.11||This analysis was carried out ANCOVA with baseline SF-36 score as the covariate, treatment, region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||4.11|-2.71|0.734
91092032|NCT00427934|182068044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.56||||0.818||90.0|-3.5|4.62||This analysis was carried out ANCOVA with baseline SF-36 score as the covariate, treatment, region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||4.62|-3.50|0.818
91092033|NCT00427934|182068045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.649||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.649
91092034|NCT00427934|182068046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9826||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.9826
91092035|NCT02683109|182068050|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of the Tio+Olo FDC versus the Tio/Olo free combination was tested at the one-sided α-level of 0.025 using a non-inferiority margin of 0.1 L.|Adjusted mean|0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.067|||ANCOVA|||The primary analysis was conducted using an Analysis of Covariance \[ANCOVA\] model including treatment as fixed categorical effect and baseline as continuous covariate.||0.067|-0.020|<0.0001
91092036|NCT02683109|182068051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean|0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034||0.8648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.061|0.073|||ANCOVA|||The secondary analysis was conducted using an ANCOVA model including treatment as fixed categorical effect and baseline as continuous covariate.||0.073|-0.061|0.8648
91092037|NCT02683109|182068052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean|-0.327|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.536||0.542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.384|0.729|||ANCOVA|||The secondary analysis was conducted using an ANCOVA model including treatment as fixed categorical effect and baseline as continuous covariate.||0.729|-1.384|0.5420
91104058|NCT04250207|182094697|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.8677|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 20||||0.8677
91092038|NCT00368251|182068053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann-estimator of difference|0.15|||=|0.942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.12|24.96||All hypotheses are tested at the 5 % level. The multiplicity scheme (hierarchical testing procedure) assures strong control of the type I error at the 5 % level.|stratified Wilcoxon Test|Estimates and confidence intervals from Hodges-Lehmann (unstratified).|Difference versus Placebo was calculated.|"The first hypothesis for the primary efficacy variable compares placebo versus Brivaracetam (BRV) 150 mg/day.~The second hypothesis for the primary efficacy variable compares placebo versus BRV 5 mg/day. However, this second hypothesis will only be tested when all the hypotheses for placebo versus BRV 150 mg/day are significant for the primary three UMRS related secondary endpoints.~The hypotheses will be tested using nonparametric analysis. The study was designed to have 80 % power."||24.96|-26.12|=0.942
90840343|NCT01134055|181547529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8263||||||Adjusted p-Value has been presented.|ANOVA|||Statistics for Injection Rate at 28 Weeks is presented||||0.8263
90897306|NCT01216163|181660520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.51||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.93||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.93|0.08|0.019
91092039|NCT00368251|182068053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann-estimator of difference|-18.05|||=|0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.31|4.86||Tested at the 5 % level - given the primary endpoint and the three UMRS related secondary endpoints comparing placebo versus Brivaracetam (BRV) 150 mg/day are significant at the 5 % level (hierarchical testing procedure).|stratified Wilcoxon Test|Estimates and confidence intervals from Hodges-Lehmann (unstratified).|Difference versus Placebo.|||4.86|-39.31|=0.105
91092040|NCT00368251|182068054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann-estimator of difference|1.24|||=|0.672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.9|31.06||Tested at the 5 % level - given the Primary Outcome testing Placebo versus BRV 150 mg/day is significant at the 5 % level (hierarchical testing procedure).|stratified Wilcoxon Test|Estimates and confidence intervals are obtained from Hodges-Lehmann(unstratified).|Difference versus Placebo.|If primary efficacy is proven for Brivaracetam (BRV) 150 mg/day, the following secondary endpoints will be tested for Placebo versus BRV 150 mg/day. The testing scheme will be hierarchical, thus statistical significance at 5 % on BRV 150 mg/day on a secondary endpoint is needed to continue testing BRV 150 mg/day at 5 % significance level for the next secondary endpoint.||31.06|-21.90|=0.672
91092041|NCT00368251|182068054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann-estimator of difference|0.0|||=|0.806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.33|18.75||Tested at the 5 % level - given the primary endpoint testing Placebo versus Brivaracetam (BRV) 5 mg/day is significant at the 5 % level (hierarchical testing procedure).|stratified Wilcoxon Test|Estimates and confidence intevals are obtained from Hodges-Lehmann (unstratified).|Difference versus Placebo.|"In case the three endpoints are significant for placebo versus Brivaracetam (BRV) 150 mg/day, the primary endpoint will be tested for Placebo versus BRV 5 mg/day. In case of significance, the three UMRS related secondary endpoints will be tested for Placebo versus BRV 5 mg/day, provided the previous is significant at 5 %. Secondary endpoints are tested in the following order:~* Functional Disability~* Stimulus Sensitivity~* Myoclonus Patient Questionnaire"||18.75|-33.33|=0.806
91092042|NCT00368251|182068055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann-estimator of difference|0.0|||=|0.549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.0|100.0||Tested at the 5 % level - given the Functional Disability Score comparing Placebo versus Brivaracetam (BRV) 150 mg/day is significant at the 5 % level (hierarchical testing procedure).|stratified Willcoxon Test|Estimates and confidence intervals are obtained from Hodges-Lehmann (unstratified).|Difference versus Placebo.|||100.00|-25.00|=0.549
91092043|NCT00368251|182068055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann-estimator of difference|0.0|||=|0.654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.0|66.67||Tested at the 5 % level - given the Functional Disability Score comparing Placebo versus Brivaracetam (BRV) 5 mg/day is significant at the 5 % level (hierarchical testing procedure).|stratified Wilcoxon Test|Estimates and confidence intervals are obtained from Hodges-Lehmann (unstratified).|Difference versus Placebo.|||66.67|-50.00|=0.654
91092044|NCT00368251|182068056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann-estimator of difference|14.29|||=|0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|39.39||Tested at the 5 % level - given the Functional Disability Score comparing Placebo versus Brivaracetam (BRV) 150 mg/day is significant at the 5 % level (hierarchical testing procedure).|stratified Wilcoxon Test|Estimates and confidence intervals are obtained from Hodges-Lehmann (unstratified).|Difference versus Placebo.|||39.39|-1.76|=0.037
91092045|NCT00368251|182068056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann-estimator of difference|10.0|||=|0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.56|30.0||Tested at the 5 % level - given the Functional Disability Score comparing Placebo versus Brivaracetam (BRV) 5 mg/day is significant at the 5 % level (hierarchical testing procedure).|stratified Wilcoxon Test|Estimates and confidence intervals are obtained from Hodges-Lehmann (unstratified).|Difference versus Placebo.|||30.00|-5.56|=0.111
91092046|NCT00368251|182068057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.931||||||The Global Evaluation Scale by Investigator (I-GES) was compared between placebo and each dose at 5 % significance level independently from the previous secondary endpoints.|Stratified Wilcoxon test|||||||=0.931
91092047|NCT00368251|182068057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.253||||||The Global Evaluation Scale by Investigator (I-GES) was compared between placebo and each dose at 5 % significance level independently from the previous secondary endpoints.|Stratified Wilcoxon test|||P-value for pairwise comparison of each Brivaracetam dose versus Placebo.||||=0.253
90840344|NCT01134055|181547529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8263||||||Adjusted p-Value has been presented.|ANOVA|||Statistics for Injection Rate at 28 Weeks is presented||||0.8263
90840345|NCT01134055|181547529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8263||||||Adjusted p-Value has been presented.|ANOVA|||Statistics for Injection Rate at 28 Weeks is presented||||0.8263
90840346|NCT01134055|181547529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7418||||||Adjusted p-Value has been presented.|ANOVA|||Statistics for Injection Rate at 28 Weeks is presented||||0.7418
90840347|NCT01134055|181547529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2429||||||Adjusted p-Value has been presented.|ANOVA|||Statistics for Overall Injection Rate at 52 weeks is presented||||0.2429
90840348|NCT01134055|181547529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97||||||Adjusted p-Value has been presented.|ANOVA|||Statistics for Overall Injection Rate at 52 weeks is presented||||0.9700
90840349|NCT01134055|181547529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97||||||Adjusted p-Value has been presented.|ANOVA|||Statistics for Overall Injection Rate at 52 weeks is presented||||0.9700
90840350|NCT01134055|181547529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97||||||Adjusted p-Value has been presented.|ANOVA|||Statistics for Overall Injection Rate at 52 weeks is presented||||0.9700
90840351|NCT01134055|181547529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7673||||||Adjusted p-Value has been presented.|ANOVA|||Statistics for Overall Injection Rate at 52 weeks is presented||||0.7673
91028216|NCT04471428|181940350|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.63|||||Odds ratios were estimated by logistic regression. 95% CIs was computed using the Wald method.|Stratified analysis; stratification factors- histology, prior NSCLC treatment regimens||1.63|0.47|
90840352|NCT00001959|181547568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: GFR Decrease during baseline period and treatment period are same||||<0.01
90840353|NCT00001959|181547569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||H0: Proteinuria during baseline and treatment periods are same||||0.16
90840354|NCT03592186|181547571|SUPERIORITY|In zero-inflated distributions, two outcomes can be specified: 1) probability of being an excess zero (falling outside expected negative binomial distribution), and 2) count value, if not an excess zero. Our focal effect of interest was Time\*Condition in the count distribution, i.e. effect of condition over time on predicting the percent of days used greater than zero.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.57||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models with zero-inflated distributions evaluated whether there was a Time\*Condition interaction, using data from the baseline, 12-week, and 24-week assessments. Full maximum likelihood estimation was used. We tested the primary outcome (percent of days of use over the past 90 days, adjusted for time in a controlled environment) for overall number of days of use.||1.36|.97|.12
90840355|NCT03592186|181547572|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models using a linear distribution evaluated whether change in substance-related problems differed by condition. The focal effect was a Time\*Condition interaction, using data from the baseline, 12-week, and 24-week assessments. Full maximum likelihood estimation was used.||.07|-.34|.19
90840356|NCT03592186|181547573|SUPERIORITY||Chi-square value|0.01||||0.92|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of the count of positive urine screens by condition at 12 weeks||||.92
90840357|NCT03755934|181547574|SUPERIORITY||LS mean estimate|-1.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.961||0.0437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.87|-0.06||ANCOVA by dose using NRS baseline value and co-medication as covariates, with CFB to Week 12 (LOCF) as dependent variable was used to derive p-value.|ANCOVA|||||-0.06|-3.87|0.0437
90840358|NCT03755934|181547574|SUPERIORITY||LS mean estimate|0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.541||0.1878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|1.79||ANCOVA by dose using NRS baseline value and co-medication as covariates, with CFB to Week 12 (LOCF) as dependent variable was used to derive p-value.|ANCOVA|||||1.79|-0.36|0.1878
91028217|NCT04471428|181940350|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|-1.51||||0.7216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.85|5.84|||Chi-squared, Corrected||95% CIs was computed using the Wald method.|Unstratified Analysis||5.84|-8.85|0.7216
91028218|NCT04471428|181940350|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.62|||||Odds ratios were estimated by logistic regression. 95% CIs was computed using the Wald method.|Unstratified Analysis||1.62|0.47|
91028219|NCT04471428|181940352|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.16|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression model.|Stratified Analysis: Stratification factors include histology, and prior NSCLC treatment regimens||1.16|0.59|0.2700
91028220|NCT04471428|181940352|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.3031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.17|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression model.|Unstratified Analysis||1.17|0.60|0.3031
90897307|NCT01216163|181660520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|2.32||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||2.32|1.29|<0.001
90897308|NCT01216163|181660520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|2.66||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||2.66|1.53|<0.001
90897309|NCT01216163|181660520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.59||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.05||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.05|0.13|0.013
90897310|NCT01216163|181660520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.07||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||2.07|0.95|<0.001
90897311|NCT01216163|181660520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|2.56||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||2.56|1.39|<0.001
90897312|NCT01216163|181660520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.63||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.1||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.10|0.15|0.010
90897313|NCT01216163|181660520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.93||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.93|0.77|<0.001
90897314|NCT01216163|181660520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.14||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||2.14|0.95|<0.001
90897315|NCT01216163|181660520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.42||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.91||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.91|-0.06|0.088
90897316|NCT01216163|181660520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.71||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.71|0.52|<0.001
90897317|NCT01216163|181660520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|2.07||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||2.07|0.85|<0.001
90897318|NCT01216163|181660520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.47||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.97||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.97|-0.02|0.061
90897319|NCT01216163|181660520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.98||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.59||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.59|0.38|0.002
90897320|NCT01216163|181660521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.49||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||0.25 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.49|0.13|<0.001
90897321|NCT01216163|181660521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.06||||0.387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.21||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||0.25 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.21|-0.08|0.387
90957292|NCT02502097|181794291|SUPERIORITY|MMRM model uses the change from baseline as the dependent variable and includes the period, treatment group (Gefapixant 50 mg, Placebo), visit (Day 7 and Day 14 at each Period), all interactions terms as fixed factors, and baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.6597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|5.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||LS means difference Day 7|||5.2|-8.1|0.6597
90897322|NCT01216163|181660521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.25||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.42||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||0.25 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.42|0.07|0.007
90897323|NCT01216163|181660521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.15||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.15|0.64|<0.001
90897324|NCT01216163|181660521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.25||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.46||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.46|0.04|0.019
91028221|NCT04471428|181940353|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.24||||0.2408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.79|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression model.|Stratification factors include histology, and prior NSCLC treatment regimens||1.79|0.86|0.2408
91028222|NCT04471428|181940353|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.26||||0.1992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.81|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression model.|Unstratified Analysis||1.81|0.88|0.1992
91028223|NCT04471428|181940354|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|15.85||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.12|25.59|||z-test||The 95% CI for the difference in PFS rates were estimated using the normal approximation method, with standard errors computed using the Greenwood method.|At 6 months||25.59|6.12|0.0014
91028224|NCT04471428|181940354|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|6.32||||0.0719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|13.21|||z-test||The 95% CI for the difference in PFS rates were estimated using the normal approximation method, with standard errors computed using the Greenwood method.|At 1 year||13.21|-0.56|0.0719
91028225|NCT04471428|181940355|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|-0.85||||0.8767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.63|9.92|||z-test||The 95% CI for the difference in OS rates were estimated using the normal approximation method, with standard errors computed using the Greenwood method.|At 1 year||9.92|-11.63|0.8767
91028226|NCT03504852|181940362|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.72||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.45|27.98||One-sided p-value|Regression, Logistic|||||27.98|7.45|0.0003
91028227|NCT03504852|181940362|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.33||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|3.78||One-sided p-value|Regression, Logistic|||||3.78|1.44|0.0003
91028228|NCT03504852|181940363|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.28||||0.0498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|18.2||One-sided p-value|Regression, Logistic|||||18.20|-1.65|0.0498
91028229|NCT03504852|181940363|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.0498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.47||One-sided p-value|Regression, Logistic|||||2.47|0.92|0.0498
91028230|NCT00663871|181940389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.19|||ANOVA|||||0.19|-0.27|0.59
91028231|NCT00663871|181940390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.19|||ANOVA|||||0.19|-0.24|0.21
91028232|NCT00663871|181940391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.5||The model included effects of treatment (fish oil, placebo), time (baseline, post-intervention), and interaction terms of treatment with time. The Negative Affect scores were categorized by quartiles of the baseline measures.|Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized Linear Mixed Modeling was used with a multinomial distribution with cumulative link.||||1.50|0.69|0.92
91028233|NCT00663871|181940392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|1.44||The model included effects of treatment (fish oil, placebo), time (baseline, post-intervention), and interaction terms of treatment with time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.44|-1.21|0.86
90897325|NCT01216163|181660521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.9||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.90|0.38|<0.001
91092048|NCT03098979|182068099|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5183||||||Linear dose-response shape: The multiple comparison procedures (MCP) approach was applied to calculate the adjusted one-sided p-values of the contrast test.|MCP-Mod method|Dose response relationship was assessed using the MCP-Mod method combining MCP principles with modeling techniques.||||||0.5183
91092049|NCT03098979|182068099|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33||||||Sigmoidal Emax 1 dose-response shape: The MCP approach was applied to calculate the adjusted one-sided p-values of the contrast test.|MCP-Mod method|Dose response relationship was assessed using the MCP-Mod method combining MCP principles with modeling techniques||||||0.3300
91028234|NCT00663871|181940393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.31||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|0.94||The model included effects of treatment (fish oil, placebo), time (baseline, post-intervention), and interaction terms of treatment with time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.94|-1.57|0.63
91028235|NCT00663871|181940394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.32||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|0.61||The model included effects of treatment (fish oil, placebo), time (baseline, post-intervention), and interaction terms of treatment with time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.61|-1.25|0.50
91028236|NCT00663871|181940395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.33||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.88||The model included effects of treatment (fish oil, placebo), time (baseline, post-intervention), and interaction terms of treatment with time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.88|-0.23|0.25
91028237|NCT00663871|181940396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.45||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|0.92||The model included effects of treatment (fish oil, placebo), time (baseline, post-intervention), and interaction terms of treatment with time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.92|-1.83|0.52
91028238|NCT00663871|181940397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|2.24||The model included effects for treatment (fish oil, placebo), time (baseline, post-intervention), and interaction terms of treatment with time. The Type A personality scores were categorized by quartiles of the baseline measures.|Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized Linear Mixed Modeling was used with a multinomial distribution with cumulative link.||||2.24|0.67|0.52
91028239|NCT00663871|181940398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.1||The model included effects for treatment (fish oil, placebo), time (baseline, post-intervention), and interaction terms of treatment with time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.10|-0.16|0.68
91028240|NCT00663871|181940399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|The model included effects for treatment (fish oil, placebo), time (baseline, post-intervention), and interaction terms of treatment with time.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.07|-0.41|0.16
91028241|NCT00663871|181940400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|The model included effects for treatment (fish oil, placebo), time (baseline, post-intervention), and interaction terms of treatment with time.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.14|-0.24|0.59
91028242|NCT00663871|181940401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|The model included effects for treatment (fish oil, placebo), time (baseline, post-intervention), and interaction terms of treatment with time.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.06||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.18|-0.06|0.35
91028243|NCT00663871|181940402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|The model included effects for treatment (fish oil, placebo), time (baseline, post-intervention), and interaction terms of treatment with time.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.04||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.25|-0.18|0.74
91028244|NCT00663871|181940403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|The model included effects for treatment (fish oil, placebo), time (baseline, post-intervention), and interaction terms of treatment with time.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.08|-0.27|0.28
91028245|NCT00663871|181940404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||standardized mean difference|0.15||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.39|||Repeated Measures MANOVA|||||0.39|-0.09|0.76
91028246|NCT00663871|181940405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||standardized mean difference|0.06||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.3|||Repeated Measures MANOVA|||||0.30|-0.18|0.62
91028247|NCT00663871|181940406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||standardized mean difference|0.03||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.26|||Repeated Measures MANOVA|||||0.26|-0.21|0.42
91028248|NCT00663871|181940407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Standardized mean difference|-0.06||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.18|||Repeated Measures MANOVA|Repeated Measures MANOVA||||0.18|-0.30|0.54
91028249|NCT00582309|181940410|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Original Power Analysis: The expected differences in mean blood glucose concentration between groups are \> 30 mg/dL. Assuming two-tailed alpha of .05, a standard deviation of approximately 40, and a one-to-one allocation and no subject attrition, fifty patients per treatment group (150 total) will be sufficient to achieve 90% power for group mean comparisons allowing for multiple comparisons.|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||All results obtained by ANOVA are verified by the nonparametric Kruskal-Wallis test. Statistical significance will be judged by P-values \< 0.05.|ANOVA|||Demographic and baseline measurements are reported as either means and standard deviations or as frequency and percentages. These and the outcome measures are compared among the three groups by 1-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) for means or by Fisher's Exact test for frequencies as appropriate. If there is an overall significant difference, the post hoc multiple comparisons will be done by Fisher's least significant difference method.||||<0.05
91028250|NCT00455533|181940418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8921||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.8921
91028251|NCT00455533|181940418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.8966|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6|1.55|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.55|0.60|0.8966
91028252|NCT00455533|181940418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in pCR|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|6.7|||||The difference in pCR rates and the confidence interval computed using the method of DerSimonian and Laird stratified by tumor size at baseline, estrogen receptor status, and clinical response to AC.|||6.7|-7.9|
91028253|NCT00455533|181940421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6186||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6186
91028254|NCT00455533|181940421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.5806|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.56|1.34|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.34|0.56|0.5806
91028255|NCT00455533|181940421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.0|6.0|||||The difference in pCR/RCB-I rates and the confidence interval computed using the method of DerSimonian and Laird stratified by tumor size at baseline, estrogen receptor status, and clinical response to AC.|||6.0|-11|
91092050|NCT03098979|182068099|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6232||||||Sigmoidal Emax 2 dose-response shape: The MCP approach was applied to calculate the adjusted one-sided p-values of the contrast test.|MCP-Mod method|Dose response relationship was assessed using the MCP-Mod method combining MCP principles with modeling techniques||||||0.6232
91092051|NCT03098979|182068099|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0918||||||Emax dose-response shape: The MCP approach was applied to calculate the adjusted one-sided p-values of the contrast test.|MCP-Mod method|Dose response relationship was assessed using the MCP-Mod method combining MCP principles with modeling techniques||||||0.0918
91092052|NCT03098979|182068099|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2701||||||Quadratic dose-response shape: The MCP approach was applied to calculate the adjusted one-sided p-values of the contrast test.|MCP-Mod method|Dose response relationship was assessed using the MCP-Mod method combining MCP principles with modeling techniques||||||0.2701
91092053|NCT02202252|182068104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.490
91092054|NCT02202252|182068105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.035
91092055|NCT02202252|182068106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.819|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.819
91092056|NCT04459338|182068107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||All continuous data are summarized as means ± SEM. Area Under the Curve (AUC) was calculated using the trapezoidal rule. A paired, two-way Student t-test (parametric) or a Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test (non-parametric) was used to examine differences between study days. A p-value \<0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||0.02
91092057|NCT01829347|182068152|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.31||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.085|1.133|||Log Rank|||The primary endpoint was assessed using a Kaplan-Meier survival analysis of the Intent-to-Treat (ITT) population utilizing a log-rank test.||1.133|0.085|0.076
91092058|NCT01829347|182068153|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
91092059|NCT00250588|182068169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|7.4||Bonferroni adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for child's age, race/ethnicity, Spanish, mother's education.||The primary effects of interest, condition and condition by time are fixed effects. PedsQL™ scores were analyzed as continuous normal outcomes with mixed effects regression models, which accounts for repeated measures over time for T2 and T3. Independent variables included baseline measure, time, asthma severity, condition, and condition by time interaction. We report the differences across groups in the adjusted mean changes over time.||7.4|0.63|0.05
91092060|NCT00250588|182068169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.1||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|6.4||Bonferroni adjustment|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for child's age, race/ethnicity, Spanish, mother's education.||The primary effects of interest, condition and condition by time are fixed effects. PedsQL™ scores were analyzed as continuous normal outcomes with mixed effects regression models, which accounts for repeated measures over time for T2 and T3. Independent variables included baseline measure, time, asthma severity, condition, and condition by time interaction. We report the differences across groups in the adjusted mean changes over time.||6.4|-0.21|0.05
91092061|NCT00250588|182068170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.49||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.38|||Regression, Logistic|Adjustment for age, race/ethnicity, Spanish language and mother's education||||1.38|0.18|0.21
91092062|NCT00250588|182068170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|2.83||adjustment for age, race/ethnicity, Spanish language and mother's education|Regression, Logistic|||||2.83|0.53|0.85
91092063|NCT00250588|182068171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.33||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.82|||Regression, Logistic|All analyses accounted for repeated measures and included the same terms in the model described previously.||Symptom frequency and utilization were analyzed using generalized linear mixed models (GLMM), with appropriate distribution and link functions. Nighttime symptoms is a dichotomous outcome and a logistic model was constructed.||0.82|0.13|0.011
91092064|NCT02330341|182068190|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of postprandial glucose on Artemisia Dracunculus group||||0.380
91092065|NCT02330341|182068190|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.695|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of postprandial glucose on placebo group||||0.695
91092066|NCT02330341|182068191|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of fasting glucose on Artemisia Dracunculus group||||0.110
91092067|NCT02330341|182068191|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of fasting glucose on placebo group||||0.910
91092068|NCT02330341|182068192|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of glucosylated hemoglobin on Artemisia Dracunculus group||||0.010
91028256|NCT00455533|181940422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4115||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||ABCB1 (209993\_at)||||0.4115
91092069|NCT02330341|182068192|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.938||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of glucosylated hemoglobin on placebo group||||0.938
91092070|NCT02330341|182068193|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.733||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of first phase of insulin secretion on Artemisia Dracunculus group||||0.733
91092071|NCT02330341|182068193|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of first phase of insulin secretion on placebo group||||1.0
91092072|NCT02330341|182068194|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of total insulin secretion on Artemisia Dracunculus group||||0.03
91092073|NCT02330341|182068194|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of total insulin secretion on placebo group||||0.900
91092074|NCT02330341|182068195|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.519||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of insulin sensitivity on Artemisia Dracunculus group||||0.519
91092075|NCT02330341|182068195|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.922||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of insulin sensitivity on placebo group||||0.922
91092076|NCT02330341|182068196|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.605||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of weight on Artemisia Dracunculus group||||0.605
91092077|NCT02330341|182068196|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.105||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of weight on placebo group||||0.105
91092078|NCT02330341|182068197|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.687||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of BMI on Artemisia Dracunculus group||||0.687
91092079|NCT02330341|182068197|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.021||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of BMI on placebo group||||0.021
91092080|NCT02330341|182068198|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.339||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of total cholesterol on Artemisia Dracunculus group||||0.339
91092081|NCT02330341|182068198|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.246||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of total cholesterol on placebo group||||0.246
91092082|NCT02330341|182068199|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.775||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of triglycerides on Artemisia Dracunculus group||||0.775
91092083|NCT02330341|182068199|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.195||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of triglycerides on placebo group||||0.195
90840359|NCT03755934|181547574|SUPERIORITY||LS mean estimate|-1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.407||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.19|-0.58||ANCOVA by dose using NRS baseline value and co-medication as covariates, with CFB to Week 12 (LOCF) as dependent variable was used to derive p-value.|ANCOVA|||||-0.58|-2.19|0.0009
91092084|NCT02330341|182068200|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of HDL-c on Artemisia Dracunculus group||||0.040
91092085|NCT02330341|182068200|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of HDL-c on placebo group||||1.000
91092086|NCT02330341|182068201|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.021||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of ALT on Artemisia Dracunculus group||||0.021
91092087|NCT02330341|182068201|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of ALT on placebo group||||0.080
91092088|NCT02330341|182068202|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.465||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of AST on Artemisia Dracunculus group||||0.465
91092089|NCT02330341|182068202|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.574||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of AST on placebo group||||0.574
91092090|NCT02330341|182068203|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of creatinine on Artemisia Dracunculus group||||0.480
90840360|NCT04266717|181547603|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.016
90840361|NCT00940771|181547608|OTHER|Friedman's Test|Chi Square|12.3||||0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||Friedman's Test|3 degrees of freedom.||||||.006
90840362|NCT00940771|181547608|OTHER|Post Hoc testing Post hoc Wilcoxon Signed Rank tests||||||0.007|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank|Z=-2.701||Nul lHypothesis that there is no difference between specific time points.||||.007
90840363|NCT00940771|181547609|OTHER|Friedman's test with 3 df||||||0.356|||||||Friedman's Test|3 degrees of freedom||||||.356
90840364|NCT00940771|181547610|OTHER||Chi-square|1.0||||0.801|TWO_SIDED||||||Friedman's test|3 degrees of freedom|1.0 is the actual calculated Chi-X value, not the p value.|The null hypothesis was that there was a difference. We were looking for no difference between before and after switch.||||.801
91028257|NCT00455533|181940422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1629||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||ABCB1 209993\_at||||0.1629
90840365|NCT00940771|181547611|OTHER|Friedman's test||||||0.075||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance 0.05|Friedman's test|3 degrees of freedom||||||.075
91028258|NCT00455533|181940422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5074||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||ABCB1 209993\_at||||0.5074
91028259|NCT00455533|181940422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.553||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||ABCB1 /// ABCB4 209994\_s\_at||||0.5530
91028260|NCT00455533|181940422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1845||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||ABCB1 /// ABCB4 209994\_s\_at||||0.1845
91028261|NCT00455533|181940422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3538||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||ABCB1 /// ABCB4 209994\_s\_at||||0.3538
91028262|NCT00455533|181940422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9751||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||BRCA1 211851\_x\_at||||0.9751
91028263|NCT00455533|181940422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8874||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||BRCA1 211851\_x\_at||||0.8874
91028264|NCT00455533|181940422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6907||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||BRCA1 211851\_x\_at||||0.6907
91028265|NCT00455533|181940422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8052||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||BRCA1 204531\_s\_at||||0.8052
91028266|NCT00455533|181940422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5031||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||BRCA1 204531\_s\_at||||0.5031
91028267|NCT00455533|181940422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7588||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||BRCA1 204531\_s\_at||||0.7588
91092091|NCT02330341|182068203|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.383||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of creatinine on placebo group||||0.383
91092092|NCT02330341|182068204|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.034||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of uric acid on Artemisia Dracunculus group||||0.034
91092093|NCT02330341|182068204|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of uric acid on placebo group||||0.080
90840366|NCT01353898|181547635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.62|||||||||||||Geometric mean ratio of HIV-1/Healthy. Analyzed using a linear mixed model with fixed factors: dose, health-status and the interaction between dose and health-status.|Compared to historical data for AUC0-24hrs measured on Day 7 for healthy participants treated with 200 mg MK-1972 once daily||||
90840367|NCT01353898|181547635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.84|||||||||||||Geometric mean ratio of HIV-1/Healthy. Analyzed using a linear mixed model with fixed factors: dose, health-status and the interaction between dose and health-status.|Compared to historical data for AUC0-24hrs measured on Day 7 for healthy participants treated with 800 mg MK-1972 once daily||||
90840368|NCT01353898|181547636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||||||||||||||||
91028268|NCT00455533|181940422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1542||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||ERCC1 203719\_at||||0.1542
91028269|NCT00455533|181940422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0235||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||ERCC1 203719\_at||||0.0235
91028270|NCT00455533|181940422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3612||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||ERCC1 203719\_at||||0.3612
91028271|NCT00455533|181940422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.184||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||ERCC1 203720\_s\_at||||0.1840
91028272|NCT00455533|181940422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0942||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||ERCC1 203720\_s\_at||||0.0942
91092094|NCT02330341|182068205|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of systolic blood pressure on Artemisia Dracunculus group||||0.017
91092095|NCT02330341|182068205|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.082||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of systolic blood pressure on placebo group||||0.082
91092096|NCT02330341|182068206|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of diastolic blood pressure on Artemisia Dracunculus group||||0.170
91092097|NCT02330341|182068206|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.199||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of diastolic blood pressure placebo group||||0.199
91092098|NCT03555149|182068223|OTHER||Difference in Overall Response Rate|6.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.92|25.25|||||The difference in ORR was calculated as the experimental arm (Atezolizumab + Regorafenib) subtracted from the control arm (Regorafenib).|||25.25|-11.92|
91092099|NCT03555149|182068223|OTHER||Difference in Overall Response Rate|6.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.92|25.25|||||The difference in ORR was calculated as the experimental arm (Atezolizumab + Regorafenib + AB928) subtracted from the control arm (Regorafenib).|||25.25|-11.92|
91092100|NCT03555149|182068224|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|2.73||||||||2.73|0.67|
91092101|NCT03555149|182068224|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|4.88||||||||4.88|1.08|
91092102|NCT03555149|182068224|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|2.18||||||||2.18|0.29|
91092103|NCT03555149|182068224|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|6.24||||||||6.24|0.64|
91092104|NCT03555149|182068224|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|3.63||||||||3.63|0.83|
91092105|NCT03555149|182068224|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.63||||||||1.63|0.39|
91092106|NCT03555149|182068224|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|5.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|33.82||||||||33.82|0.94|
91092107|NCT03555149|182068225|OTHER|Kaplan-Meier|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.93||||||Atezolizumab + Imprime PGG + Bevacizumab vs. Regorafenib (Control) Hazard Ratio for OS||2.93|0.71|
91092108|NCT03555149|182068225|OTHER|Kaplan-Meier|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|2.81||||||Atezolizumab + Isatuximab vs. Regorafenib (Control) Hazard Ratio for OS||2.81|0.68|
91092109|NCT03555149|182068225|OTHER|Kaplan-Meier|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.72||||||Atezolizumab + Selicrelumab + Bevacizumab vs. Regorafenib (Control) Hazard Ratio for OS||2.72|0.30|
91092110|NCT03555149|182068225|OTHER|Kaplan-Meier|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|3.84||||||Atezolizumab + Idasanutlin vs. Regorafenib (Control) Hazard Ratio for OS||3.84|0.42|
91092111|NCT03555149|182068225|OTHER|Kaplan-Meier|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.88||||||Atezolizumab + Regorafenib vs. Regorafenib (Control) Hazard Ratio for OS||1.88|0.39|
91092112|NCT03555149|182068225|OTHER|Kaplan-Meier|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.96||||||Atezolizumab + Regorafenib + AB928 vs. Regorafenib (Control) Hazard Ratio for OS||1.96|0.43|
91092113|NCT03555149|182068225|OTHER|Kaplan-Meier|Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|24.85||||||Atezolizumab + LOAd703 vs. Regorafenib (Control) Hazard Ratio for OS||24.85|0.33|
91092114|NCT03555149|182068226|OTHER||Difference in OS Event-Free Rate|15.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|32.19||||||Difference in OS event-free rate at 3 months for the Atezolizumab + Imprime PGG + Bevacizumab vs. Regorafenib (Control) arms||32.19|-0.61|
91092115|NCT03555149|182068226|OTHER||Difference in OS Event-Free Rate|-16.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.78|16.79||||||Difference in OS event-free rate at 6 months for the Atezolizumab + Imprime PGG + Bevacizumab vs. Regorafenib (Control) arms||16.79|-49.78|
91092116|NCT03555149|182068226|OTHER||Difference in OS Event-Free Rate|-14.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.37|15.47||||||Difference in OS event-free rate at 12 months for the Atezolizumab + Imprime PGG + Bevacizumab vs. Regorafenib (Control) arms||15.47|-44.37|
91092117|NCT03555149|182068226|OTHER||Difference in OS Event-Free Rate|-10.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.25|11.14||||||Difference in OS event-free rate at 18 months for the Atezolizumab + Imprime PGG + Bevacizumab vs. Regorafenib (Control) arms||11.14|-32.25|
91092118|NCT03555149|182068226|OTHER||Difference in OS Event-Free Rate|-10.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.62|16.87||||||Difference in OS event-free rate at 3 months for the Atezolizumab + Isatuximab vs. Regorafenib (Control) arms||16.87|-38.62|
91092119|NCT03555149|182068226|OTHER||Difference in OS Event-Free Rate|-23.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.1|9.78||||||Difference in OS event-free rate at 6 months for the Atezolizumab + Isatuximab vs. Regorafenib (Control) arms||9.78|-56.10|
91092120|NCT03555149|182068226|OTHER||Difference in OS Event-Free Rate|-7.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.19|23.62||||||Difference in OS event-free rate at 12 months for the Atezolizumab + Isatuximab vs. Regorafenib (Control) arms||23.62|-39.19|
91092121|NCT03555149|182068226|OTHER||Difference in OS Event-Free Rate|2.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.08|29.63||||||Difference in OS event-free rate at 18 months for the Atezolizumab + Isatuximab vs. Regorafenib (Control) arms||29.63|-24.08|
91092122|NCT03555149|182068226|OTHER||Difference in OS Event-Free Rate|15.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|32.19||||||Difference in OS event-free rate at 3 months for the Atezolizumab + Selicrelumab + Bevacizumab vs. Regorafenib (Control) arms||32.19|-0.61|
91092123|NCT03555149|182068226|OTHER||Difference in OS Event-Free Rate|16.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.39|58.07||||||Difference in OS event-free rate at 6 months for the Atezolizumab + Selicrelumab + Bevacizumab vs. Regorafenib (Control) arms||58.07|-24.39|
90840369|NCT01353898|181547636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.54||||||||||||||||||
90840370|NCT01353898|181547636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.99||||||||||||||||||
90840371|NCT01353898|181547636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53||||||||||||||||||
90840372|NCT01353898|181547636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.83||||||||||||||||||
90840373|NCT02072668|181547637|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6281|||||||Student t-test followed by ANOVA|Student t-test subsequently followed by crossover ANOVA model testing carry-over effect and treatment effect||||||0.6281
90840374|NCT02072668|181547638|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7973|||||||Student t-test followed by ANOVA|Student t-test subsequently followed by crossover ANOVA model testing carry-over effect and treatment effect||||||0.7973
90840375|NCT02072668|181547639|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4442|||||||Student t-test followed by ANOVA|Student t-test subsequently followed by crossover ANOVA model testing carry-over effect and treatment effect||||||0.4442
91092124|NCT03555149|182068226|OTHER||Difference in OS Event-Free Rate|18.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.53|72.3||||||Difference in OS event-free rate at 12 months for the Atezolizumab + Selicrelumab + Bevacizumab vs. Regorafenib (Control) arms||72.30|-34.53|
91092125|NCT03555149|182068226|OTHER||Difference in OS Event-Free Rate|9.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.19|57.08||||||Difference in OS event-free rate at 18 months for the Atezolizumab + Selicrelumab + Bevacizumab vs. Regorafenib (Control) arms||57.08|-38.19|
91092126|NCT03555149|182068226|OTHER||Difference in OS Event-Free Rate|-9.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.7|36.28||||||Difference in OS event-free rate at 3 months for the Atezolizumab + Idasanutlin vs. Regorafenib (Control) arms||36.28|-54.70|
91092127|NCT03555149|182068226|OTHER||Difference in OS Event-Free Rate|-13.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.74|40.43||||||Difference in OS event-free rate at 6 months for the Atezolizumab + Idasanutlin vs. Regorafenib (Control) arms||40.43|-66.74|
91092128|NCT03555149|182068226|OTHER||Difference in OS Event-Free Rate|-9.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.26|38.36||||||Difference in OS event-free rate at 12 months for the Atezolizumab + Idasanutlin vs. Regorafenib (Control) arms||38.36|-57.26|
91092129|NCT03555149|182068226|OTHER||Difference in OS Event-Free Rate|7.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.18|53.73||||||Difference in OS event-free rate at 18 months for the Atezolizumab + Idasanutlin vs. Regorafenib (Control) arms||53.73|-38.18|
91092130|NCT03555149|182068226|OTHER||Difference in OS Event-Free Rate|-5.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.03|21.56||||||Difference in OS event-free rate at 3 months for the Atezolizumab + Regorafenib vs. Regorafenib (Control) arms||21.56|-32.03|
91092131|NCT03555149|182068226|OTHER||Difference in OS Event-Free Rate|8.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.33|40.6||||||Difference in OS event-free rate at 6 months for the Atezolizumab + Regorafenib vs. Regorafenib (Control) arms||40.60|-23.33|
91092132|NCT03555149|182068226|OTHER||Difference in OS Event-Free Rate|5.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.19|40.06||||||Difference in OS event-free rate at 12 months for the Atezolizumab + Regorafenib vs. Regorafenib (Control) arms||40.06|-29.19|
91092133|NCT03555149|182068226|OTHER||Difference in OS Event-Free Rate|6.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.64|36.06||||||Difference in OS event-free rate at 18 months for the Atezolizumab + Regorafenib vs. Regorafenib (Control) arms||36.06|-22.64|
91092134|NCT03555149|182068226|OTHER||Difference in OS Event-Free Rate|2.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.31|26.22||||||Difference in OS event-free rate at 3 months for the Atezolizumab + Regorafenib + AB928 vs. Regorafenib (Control) arms||26.22|-21.31|
91092135|NCT03555149|182068226|OTHER||Difference in OS Event-Free Rate|10.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.99|41.34||||||Difference in OS event-free rate at 6 months for the Atezolizumab + Regorafenib + AB928 vs. Regorafenib (Control) arms||41.34|-20.99|
91092136|NCT03555149|182068226|OTHER||Difference in OS Event-Free Rate|-1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.59|31.36||||||Difference in OS event-free rate at 12 months for the Atezolizumab + Regorafenib + AB928 vs. Regorafenib (Control) arms||31.36|-33.59|
91092137|NCT03555149|182068226|OTHER||Difference in OS Event-Free Rate|9.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.06|37.94||||||Difference in OS event-free rate at 18 months for the Atezolizumab + Regorafenib + AB928 vs. Regorafenib (Control) arms||37.94|-19.06|
91092138|NCT03555149|182068226|OTHER||Difference in OS Event-Free Rate|15.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|32.19||||||Difference in OS event-free rate at 3 months for the Atezolizumab +LOAd703 vs. Regorafenib (Control) arms||32.19|-0.61|
91092139|NCT02965924|182068230|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
91092140|NCT00808340|182068265|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin = -0.5.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1249|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1464|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.4143|0.1644|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference is calculated as senofilcon A multifocal prod minus senofilcon A multifocal test.|Alternative hypothesis is that senofilcon A multifocal prod is non-inferior to senofilcon A multifocal test.||0.1644|-0.4143|
91092141|NCT00808340|182068265|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin = -0.5|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3693|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1464|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.6587|-0.07996|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference was calculated as balafilcon A multifocal minus senofilcon A multifocal prod.|Alternative hypothesis is that senofilcon A multifocal prod is non-inferior to balafilcon A multifocal.||-0.07996|-0.6587|
91092142|NCT00808340|182068266|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin = -0.5|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04083|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1464|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.2485|0.3302|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as senofilcon A multifocal prod minus senofilcon A multifocal test.|Alternative hypothesis is that senofilcon A multifocal prod is non-inferior to senofilcon A multifocal test.||0.3302|-0.2485|
91092143|NCT00808340|182068266|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin = -0.5|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4608|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1464|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.7502|-0.1714|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference was calculated as senofilcon A multifocal prod minus balafilcon A multifocal.|Alternative hypothesis is that senofilcon A multifocal prod is non-inferior to balafilcon A multifocal.||-0.1714|-0.7502|
91104059|NCT04250207|182094697|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.4401|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 20||||0.4401
91104060|NCT04250207|182094697|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.5926|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 24||||0.5926
91104061|NCT04250207|182094697|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.0732|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 24||||0.0732
91104062|NCT04250207|182094697|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.2497|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 38||||0.2497
91104063|NCT04250207|182094697|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.2453|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 38||||0.2453
90840376|NCT02072668|181547640|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2545|||||||Student t-test followed by ANOVA|Student t-test subsequently followed by crossover ANOVA model testing carry-over effect and treatment effect||||||0.2545
90840377|NCT02072668|181547646|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4374|||||||Student t-test followed by ANOVA|Student t-test subsequently followed by crossover ANOVA model testing carry-over effect and treatment effect||||||0.4374
90957293|NCT02502097|181794291|SUPERIORITY|MMRM model uses the change from baseline as the dependent variable and includes the period, treatment group (Gefapixant 50 mg, Placebo), visit (Day 7 and Day 14 at each Period), all interactions terms as fixed factors, and baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1||||0.788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|17.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||LS means difference Day 14|||17.2|-13.1|0.7880
91028273|NCT00455533|181940422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5327||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||ERCC1 203720\_s\_at||||0.5327
91028274|NCT00455533|181940422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8847||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||GTSE1 204315\_s\_at||||0.8847
91028275|NCT00455533|181940422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8947||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||GTSE1 204315\_s\_at||||0.8947
91028276|NCT00455533|181940422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4085||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||GTSE1 204315\_s\_at||||0.4085
91028277|NCT00455533|181940422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1119||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||GTSE1 204317\_at||||0.1119
91028278|NCT00455533|181940422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||GTSE1 204317\_at||||0.0250
91028279|NCT00455533|181940422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3569||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||GTSE1 204317\_at||||0.3569
91028280|NCT00455533|181940422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4103||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||GTSE1 215942\_s\_at||||0.4103
91028281|NCT00455533|181940422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.149||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||GTSE1 215942\_s\_at||||0.1490
91028282|NCT00455533|181940422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.559||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||GTSE1 215942\_s\_at||||0.5590
91028283|NCT00455533|181940422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4796||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||GTSE1 204318\_s\_at||||0.4796
91028284|NCT00455533|181940422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2794||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||GTSE1 204318\_s\_at||||0.2794
91028285|NCT00455533|181940422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1646||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||GTSE1 204318\_s\_at||||0.1646
91028286|NCT00455533|181940422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0782||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||GTSE1 211040\_x\_at||||0.0782
91028287|NCT00455533|181940422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1407||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||GTSE1 211040\_x\_at||||0.1407
91028288|NCT00455533|181940422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2369||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||GTSE1 211040\_x\_at||||0.2369
91028289|NCT00455533|181940422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7756||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||KLK10 209792\_s\_at||||0.7756
90840378|NCT02072668|181547647|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.347|||||||Student t-test followed by ANOVA|Student t-test subsequently followed by crossover ANOVA model testing carry-over effect and treatment effect||||||0.3470
90840379|NCT02072668|181547648|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0755|||||||Student t-test followed by ANOVA|Student t-test subsequently followed by crossover ANOVA model testing carry-over effect and treatment effect||||||0.0755
90840380|NCT02072668|181547650|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0708|||||||Student t-test followed by ANOVA|Student t-test subsequently followed by crossover ANOVA model testing carry-over effect and treatment effect||||||0.0708
90840381|NCT02072668|181547651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4501|||||||Student t-test followed by ANOVA|Student t-test subsequently followed by crossover ANOVA model testing carry-over effect and treatment effect||||||0.4501
91092144|NCT00808340|182068267|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin = 0.5|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02941|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02656|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.08153|0.02271|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as senofilcon A multifocal prod minus senofilcon A multifocal test.|Alternative hypothesis is senofilcon A multifocal prod is non-inferior to senofilcon A multifocal test.||0.02271|-0.08153|
91092145|NCT00808340|182068267|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin = 0.5|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06765|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02656|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.1198|-0.01553|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as senfilcon A multifocal prod minus balafilcon A multifocal.|Alternative hypothesis is senofilcon A multifocal prod is non-inferior to balafilcon A multifocal.||-0.01553|-0.1198|
91092146|NCT00808340|182068268|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin = -0.5|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3304|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2243|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.779|0.1183|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as senofilcon A multifocal prod minus senofilcon A multifocal test.|Alternative hyposthesis is that senofilcon A multifocal prod is non-inferior to senofilcon A multifocal test.||0.1183|-0.779|
90840382|NCT02072668|181547652|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0767|||||||Student t-test followed by ANOVA|Student t-test subsequently followed by crossover ANOVA model testing carry-over effect and treatment effect||||||0.0767
90840383|NCT02072668|181547653|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.725|||||||Student t-test followed by ANOVA|Student t-test subsequently followed by crossover ANOVA model testing carry-over effect and treatment effect||||||0.7250
91092147|NCT00808340|182068268|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin = -0.5|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2281|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2243|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.6767|0.2206|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as senofilcon A multifocal prod minus balafilcon A multifocal.|Alternativie hypothesis is that senofilcon A multifocal prod is non-inferior to balafilcon A multifocal.||0.2206|-0.6767|
91092148|NCT00251758|182068277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05||||||The overall 0.0025 level of significance for the multiple comparisons of each dexlansoprazole MR dose to placebo was controlled using Hochberg's method.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The comparison between the two treatment groups was made using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||||<0.00001
91092149|NCT00251758|182068277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05||||||The overall 0.0025 level of significance for the multiple comparisons of each dexlansoprazole MR dose to placebo was controlled using Hochberg's method.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The comparison between the two treatment groups was made using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||||<0.00001
91092150|NCT00251758|182068277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15505||||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.0025 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The comparison between the two treatment groups was made using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||||0.15505
91092151|NCT00251758|182068279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1e-05||||||The overall 0.0025 level of significance for the multiple comparisons of each dexlansoprazole MR dose to placebo was controlled using Hochberg's method.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The comparison between the two treatment groups was made using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||||0.00001
91092152|NCT00251758|182068279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05||||||The overall 0.0025 level of significance for the multiple comparisons of each dexlansoprazole MR dose to placebo was controlled using Hochberg's method.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The comparison between the two treatment groups was made using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||||<0.00001
91028290|NCT00455533|181940422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2623||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||KLK10 209792\_s\_at||||0.2623
91092153|NCT00251758|182068279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3874||||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.0025 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The comparison between the two treatment groups was made using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||||0.38740
90840384|NCT02668653|181547654|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.776||||0.0324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.615|0.979|||Log Rank|Stratification factors include region, age, and WBC count at the time of diagnosis of AML.||||0.979|0.615|0.0324
91092154|NCT01387269|182068291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Superiority analysis||||< 0.0001
91092155|NCT01387269|182068292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1475|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Superiority analysis||||0.1475
91092156|NCT01387269|182068293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Superiority analysis||||0.0004
91092157|NCT01387269|182068294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0544|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Superiority analysis||||0.0544
91092158|NCT01387269|182068295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Superiority analysis||||< 0.0001
90840385|NCT04040933|181547739|OTHER|Change from Baseline in TEWL measurements was analyzed within-treatment and between-treatment. The within-treatment comparison was performed at each baseline score within each treatment using paired t-test. The between-treatment comparison was performed by comparing the change from baseline between treatments using a mixed effect analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model.||||||0.86|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.860
90840386|NCT04040933|181547739|OTHER|Change from Baseline in TEWL measurements was analyzed within-treatment and between-treatment. The within-treatment comparison was performed at each baseline score within each treatment using paired t-test. The between-treatment comparison was performed by comparing the change from baseline between treatments using a mixed effect analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model.||||||0.051|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.051
91092159|NCT02858908|182068319|OTHER|Analysis of change in efficacy variables from baseline to week 12 were performed using mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with baseline value as a covariate, dose group and visit as fixed effects and a treatment-by-visit interaction. Adjusted least square mean estimates were produced by dose group and study visit and were presented with two-sided 95% confidence intervals and p-values.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6696||||0.0484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.334|-0.0051|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is an adjusted Least Square Mean|Change from baseline to week 12 in the time taken (seconds) to complete 10-metre walk/run test at the preferred speed||-0.0051|-1.3340|0.0484
91104064|NCT04250207|182094697|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.|||||>|0.9999|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 52||||> 0.9999
90897326|NCT01216163|181660521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.59||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.59|1.01|<0.001
91028291|NCT00455533|181940422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3147||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||KLK10 209792\_s\_at||||0.3147
91028292|NCT00455533|181940422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2885||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||KLK10 215808\_at||||0.2885
91028293|NCT00455533|181940422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7187||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||KLK10 215808\_at||||0.7187
91028294|NCT00455533|181940422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6017||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||KLK10 215808\_at||||0.6017
91028295|NCT00455533|181940422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||KLK5 222242\_s\_at||||0.4500
91028296|NCT00455533|181940422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0952||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||KLK5 222242\_s\_at||||0.0952
91028297|NCT00455533|181940422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7069||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||KLK5 222242\_s\_at||||0.7069
91028298|NCT00455533|181940422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4767||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||KLK6 204733\_at||||0.4767
91028299|NCT00455533|181940422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6191||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||KLK6 204733\_at||||0.6191
91028300|NCT00455533|181940422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5276||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||KLK6 204733\_at||||0.5276
91028301|NCT00455533|181940422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3323||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||RRM1 201476\_s\_at||||0.3323
91028302|NCT00455533|181940422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1025||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||RRM1 201476\_s\_at||||0.1025
91028303|NCT00455533|181940422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1715||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||RRM1 201476\_s\_at||||0.1715
91028304|NCT00455533|181940422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.107||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||RRM1 201477\_s\_at||||0.1070
91028305|NCT00455533|181940422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2751||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Biomarker + Treatment|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||RRM1 201477\_s\_at||||0.2751
91028306|NCT00455533|181940422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0276||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||RRM1 201477\_s\_at||||0.0276
91028307|NCT00455533|181940422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1689||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB 211714\_x\_at||||0.1689
91028308|NCT00455533|181940422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0769||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB 211714\_x\_at||||0.0769
91028309|NCT00455533|181940422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1058||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB 211714\_x\_at||||0.1058
91028310|NCT00455533|181940422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6406||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB 212320\_at||||0.6406
91104065|NCT04250207|182094697|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.|||||>|0.9999|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 52||||> 0.9999
91092160|NCT02858908|182068319|OTHER|Analysis of change in efficacy variables from baseline to week 12 were performed using mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with baseline value as a covariate, dose group and visit as fixed effects and a treatment-by-visit interaction. Adjusted least square mean estimates were produced by dose group and study visit and were presented with two-sided 95% confidence intervals and p-values.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6449||||0.0565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3094|0.0195|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is an adjusted Least Square Mean|Change from baseline to week 12 in the time taken (seconds) to complete 10-metre walk/run test at the preferred speed||0.0195|-1.3094|0.0565
91092161|NCT02858908|182068320|OTHER|Analysis of change in efficacy variables from baseline to week 12 were performed using mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with baseline value as a covariate, dose group and visit as fixed effects and a treatment-by-visit interaction. Adjusted least square mean estimates were produced by dose group and study visit and were presented with two-sided 95% confidence intervals and p-values.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.9102||||0.3732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1526|2.973|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is an adjusted Least Square Mean|Change from baseline to week 12 in grip strength (kg)||2.9730|-1.1526|0.3732
91092162|NCT02858908|182068320|OTHER|Analysis of change in efficacy variables from baseline to week 12 were performed using mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with baseline value as a covariate, dose group and visit as fixed effects and a treatment-by-visit interaction. Adjusted least square mean estimates were produced by dose group and study visit and were presented with two-sided 95% confidence intervals and p-values.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3897||||0.1782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4525|0.6731|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is an adjusted Least Square Mean|Change from baseline to week 12 in grip strength (kg)||0.6731|-3.4525|0.1782
91092163|NCT02858908|182068321|OTHER|Analysis of change in efficacy variables from baseline to week 12 were performed using mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with baseline value as a covariate, dose group and visit as fixed effects and a treatment-by-visit interaction. Adjusted least square mean estimates were produced by dose group and study visit and were presented with two-sided 95% confidence intervals and p-values.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0213||||0.8886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3368|0.2941|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is an adjusted Least Square Mean|Change from baseline to week 12 in FVC (litres)||0.2941|-0.3368|0.8886
91092164|NCT02858908|182068321|OTHER|Analysis of change in efficacy variables from baseline to week 12 were performed using mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with baseline value as a covariate, dose group and visit as fixed effects and a treatment-by-visit interaction. Adjusted least square mean estimates were produced by dose group and study visit and were presented with two-sided 95% confidence intervals and p-values.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.0152||||0.9204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3003|0.3307|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is an adjusted Least Square Mean|Change from baseline to week 12 in FVC (litres)||0.3307|-0.3003|0.9204
91092165|NCT02858908|182068322|OTHER|The exact Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to test for a change in the DXA scan total lean muscle mass (g) from baseline to end of treatment|Median Difference (Net)|-42.75||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1270.0|2178.5|||ANCOVA||Hodges-Lehmann estimates for the median and confidence intervals are presented|Changes from baseline to week 12 in the DXA scan total lean muscle mass (g)||2178.50|-1270.00|1.0000
91092166|NCT02858908|182068322|OTHER|The exact Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to test for a change in the DXA scan total lean muscle mass (g) from baseline to end of treatment|Median Difference (Net)|426.75||||0.3125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-289.5|1198.5|||ANCOVA||Hodges-Lehmann estimates for the median and confidence intervals are presented|Changes from baseline to week 12 in the DXA scan total lean muscle mass (g)||1198.50|-289.50|0.3125
91092167|NCT02858908|182068324|OTHER|A mixed effect model repeated measure (MMRM) was fitted to the observed values at week12. The model included dose group and visit as fixed effects, and the treatment-by-visit interaction. F-tests from PROC MIXED were based on Kenward-Roger's adjusted degrees of freedom.|Mean Difference (Net)|3.1||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|3.7||The p-value is presented for the comparison of adjusted Least Square Means to a score of 4, representing 'No change'|Mixed Models Analysis|||Observed value at week 12 in Clinical Global Impression Global Improvement Scale (CGI-I)||3.7|2.6|0.0030
91092168|NCT02858908|182068324|OTHER|A mixed effect model repeated measure (MMRM) was fitted to the observed values at week12. The model included dose group and visit as fixed effects, and the treatment-by-visit interaction. F-tests from PROC MIXED were based on Kenward-Roger's adjusted degrees of freedom.|Mean Difference (Net)|3.0||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|3.6||The p-value is presented for the comparison of adjusted Least Square Means to a score of 4, representing 'No change'|Mixed Models Analysis|||Observed value at week 12 in Clinical Global Impression Global Improvement Scale (CGI-I)||3.6|2.4|0.0009
91092169|NCT02858908|182068325|OTHER|Analysis of change in efficacy variables from baseline to week 12 were performed using mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with baseline value as a covariate, dose group and visit as fixed effects and a treatment-by-visit interaction. Adjusted least square mean estimates were produced by dose group and study visit and were presented with two-sided 95% confidence intervals and p-values.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.132||||0.1857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.066|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is an adjusted Least Square Mean|Change from baseline to week 12 in the weekly total number of 3 minute bouts of activity per hour wear time||0.066|-0.330|0.1857
91092170|NCT02858908|182068325|OTHER|Analysis of change in efficacy variables from baseline to week 12 were performed using mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with baseline value as a covariate, dose group and visit as fixed effects and a treatment-by-visit interaction. Adjusted least square mean estimates were produced by dose group and study visit and were presented with two-sided 95% confidence intervals and p-values.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.325||||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.549|-0.102|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is an adjusted Least Square Mean|Change from baseline to week 12 in the weekly total number of 3 minute bouts of activity per hour wear time||-0.102|-0.549|0.0054
91092171|NCT02858908|182068328|OTHER|Analysis of change in efficacy variables from baseline to week 12 were performed using mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with baseline value as a covariate, dose group and visit as fixed effects and a treatment-by-visit interaction. Adjusted least square mean estimates were produced by dose group and study visit and were presented with two-sided 95% confidence intervals and p-values.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.162||||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.731|-0.593|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is an adjusted Least Square Mean|Change from baseline to week 12 in the time taken (seconds) to complete the nine hole peg test for the dominant arm||-0.593|-3.731|0.0111
91092172|NCT02858908|182068328|OTHER|Analysis of change in efficacy variables from baseline to week 12 were performed using mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with baseline value as a covariate, dose group and visit as fixed effects and a treatment-by-visit interaction. Adjusted least square mean estimates were produced by dose group and study visit and were presented with two-sided 95% confidence intervals and p-values.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.955||||0.2088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.525|0.614|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is an adjusted Least Square Mean|Change from baseline to week 12 in the time taken (seconds) to complete the nine hole peg test for the dominant arm||0.614|-2.525|0.2088
91092173|NCT02858908|182068329|OTHER|Analysis of change in efficacy variables from baseline to week 12 were performed using mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with baseline value as a covariate, dose group and visit as fixed effects and a treatment-by-visit interaction. Adjusted least square mean estimates were produced by dose group and study visit and were presented with two-sided 95% confidence intervals and p-values.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.77||||0.0728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.71|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is an adjusted Least Square Mean|Change from baseline to week 12 in the subject top three concerns VAS total score (cm)||0.18|-3.71|0.0728
91092174|NCT02858908|182068329|OTHER|Analysis of change in efficacy variables from baseline to week 12 were performed using mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with baseline value as a covariate, dose group and visit as fixed effects and a treatment-by-visit interaction. Adjusted least square mean estimates were produced by dose group and study visit and were presented with two-sided 95% confidence intervals and p-values.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.99||||0.0456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.94|-0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is an adjusted Least Square Mean|Change from baseline to week 12 in the subject top three concerns VAS total score (cm)||-0.04|-3.94|0.0456
91092175|NCT02858908|182068329|OTHER|Analysis of change in efficacy variables from baseline to week 12 were performed using mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with baseline value as a covariate, dose group and visit as fixed effects and a treatment-by-visit interaction. Adjusted least square mean estimates were produced by dose group and study visit and were presented with two-sided 95% confidence intervals and p-values.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.41||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.03|-0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is an adjusted Least Square Mean|Change from baseline to week 12 in the caregiver top three concerns VAS total score (cm)||-0.80|-4.03|0.0058
91092176|NCT02858908|182068329|OTHER|Analysis of change in efficacy variables from baseline to week 12 were performed using mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with baseline value as a covariate, dose group and visit as fixed effects and a treatment-by-visit interaction. Adjusted least square mean estimates were produced by dose group and study visit and were presented with two-sided 95% confidence intervals and p-values.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.95||||0.0208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.56|-0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is an adjusted Least Square Mean|Change from baseline to week 12 in the caregiver top three concerns VAS total score (cm)||-0.34|-3.56|0.0208
91092177|NCT02858908|182068330|OTHER|Analysis of change in efficacy variables from baseline to week 12 were performed using mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with baseline value as a covariate, dose group and visit as fixed effects and a treatment-by-visit interaction. Adjusted least square mean estimates were produced by dose group and study visit and were presented with two-sided 95% confidence intervals and p-values.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.054||||0.0068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.092|-0.017|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is an adjusted Least Square Mean|Change from baseline to week 12 in the OSU Autism Rating Scale - DSM-IV (OARS-4) total impairment mean||-0.017|-0.092|0.0068
91092178|NCT02858908|182068330|OTHER|Analysis of change in efficacy variables from baseline to week 12 were performed using mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with baseline value as a covariate, dose group and visit as fixed effects and a treatment-by-visit interaction. Adjusted least square mean estimates were produced by dose group and study visit and were presented with two-sided 95% confidence intervals and p-values.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.009||||0.609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.047|0.028|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is an adjusted Least Square Mean|Change from baseline to week 12 in the OSU Autism Rating Scale - DSM-IV (OARS-4) total impairment mean||0.028|-0.047|0.6090
91092179|NCT02858908|182068331|OTHER|A mixed effect model repeated measure (MMRM) was fitted to the observed values at week12 in OSU CGI-I. The model included dose group and visit as fixed effects, and the treatment-by-visit interaction. F-tests from PROC MIXED were based on Kenward-Roger's adjusted degrees of freedom. A compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for the repeated visits within subject.|Mean Difference (Net)|3.4||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|3.7||p-values are presented for the comparison of adjusted Least Square Means to a score of 4, representing 'No change'|Mixed Models Analysis|||Observed value at week 12 in OSU global improvement scale for autism (OSU CGI-I)||3.7|3.0|0.0011
91092180|NCT02858908|182068331|OTHER|A mixed effect model repeated measure (MMRM) was fitted to the observed values at week12 in OSU CGI-I. The model included dose group and visit as fixed effects, and the treatment-by-visit interaction. F-tests from PROC MIXED were based on Kenward-Roger's adjusted degrees of freedom. A compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for the repeated visits within subject.|Mean Difference (Net)|4.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.6|4.4||p-values are presented for the comparison of adjusted Least Square Means to a score of 4, representing 'No change'|Mixed Models Analysis|||Observed value at week 12 in OSU global improvement scale for autism (OSU CGI-I)||4.4|3.6|1.0000
90897327|NCT01216163|181660521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.33||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.57||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.57|0.09|0.006
91092181|NCT02858908|182068332|OTHER|Analysis of change in efficacy variables from baseline to week 12 were performed using mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with baseline value as a covariate, dose group and visit as fixed effects and a treatment-by-visit interaction. Adjusted least square mean estimates were produced by dose group and study visit and were presented with two-sided 95% confidence intervals and p-values.|Mean Difference (Net)|-5.91|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.35|-3.47|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is an adjusted Least Square Mean|Change from baseline at week 12 in the clinician-completed domain specific causes for concern VAS total score (cm)||-3.47|-8.35|<0.0001
91092182|NCT02858908|182068332|OTHER|Analysis of change in efficacy variables from baseline to week 12 were performed using mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with baseline value as a covariate, dose group and visit as fixed effects and a treatment-by-visit interaction. Adjusted least square mean estimates were produced by dose group and study visit and were presented with two-sided 95% confidence intervals and p-values.|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.27||||0.0116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.71|-0.83|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is an adjusted Least Square Mean|Change from baseline at week 12 in the clinician-completed domain specific causes for concern VAS total score (cm)||-0.83|-5.71|0.0116
91092183|NCT02858908|182068333|OTHER|An ANCOVA was fitted to the change in the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test age-based standard score from baseline to end of treatment. The model included the baseline value as a covariate and dose group as a fixed effect.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1||||0.6631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|4.3|||ANCOVA||The mean difference is an adjusted Least Square Mean|Change from baseline to week 12 in the peabody picture vocabulary test age-based standard score||4.3|-6.5|0.6631
91092184|NCT02858908|182068333|OTHER|An ANCOVA was fitted to the change in the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test age-based standard score from baseline to end of treatment. The model included the baseline value as a covariate and dose group as a fixed effect.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.9546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|5.2|||ANCOVA||The mean difference is an adjusted Least Square Mean|Change from baseline to week 12 in the peabody picture vocabulary test age-based standard score||5.2|-5.5|0.9546
91028311|NCT00455533|181940422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1733||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB 212320\_at||||0.1733
91092185|NCT01265498|182068366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.9||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p values and relative benefit were calculated with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test, stratified by clinic and diabetes status.|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||2.8|1.3|0.0002
91092186|NCT01265498|182068367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.5||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p values and relative benefit were calculated with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test, stratified by clinic and diabetes status|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||2.6|0.9|0.08
91092187|NCT01265498|182068368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.8||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p values and relative benefit were calculated with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test, stratified by clinic and diabetes status|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||2.7|1.1|0.004
91092188|NCT01265498|182068369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.1|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||-0.1|-0.6|0.01
91092189|NCT01265498|182068370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.5|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||-0.5|-1.3|<0.0001
91092190|NCT01265498|182068371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.5||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p values and relative benefit were calculated with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test, stratified by clinic and diabetes status|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||2.1|1.0|0.03
91092191|NCT01265498|182068372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.0|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||0.0|-0.5|0.03
91092192|NCT01265498|182068373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.7||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p values and relative benefit were calculated with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test, stratified by clinic and diabetes status|obeticholic acid vs. placebo|||2.3|1.2|0.001
91092193|NCT01265498|182068374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.2|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||-0.2|-0.6|0.0004
90840387|NCT04040933|181547740|OTHER|Change from Baseline in Erythema measurements was analyzed within-treatment and between-treatment. The within-treatment comparison was performed at each post-baseline time point by comparing the post-baseline scores with the baseline score within each treatment using the paired t-test. The between-treatment comparison was performed by comparing the change from baseline between treatments using a mixed effect analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model.||||||0.259|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.259
90897328|NCT01216163|181660521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.26||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.26|0.68|<0.001
90897329|NCT01216163|181660521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.74||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.74|1.12|<0.001
90957294|NCT02502097|181794295|SUPERIORITY|MMRM model uses the change from baseline as the dependent variable and includes the period, treatment group (Gefapixant 50 mg, Placebo), visit (Day 7 and Day 14 at each Period), all interactions terms as fixed factors, and baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5||||0.1856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference Day 7|||1.3|-6.3|0.1856
91028312|NCT00455533|181940422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2631||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB 212320\_at||||0.2631
91028313|NCT00455533|181940422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.217||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB 209026\_x\_at||||0.2170
91028314|NCT00455533|181940422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0868||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB 209026\_x\_at||||0.0868
91028315|NCT00455533|181940422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1117||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB 209026\_x\_at||||0.1117
91028316|NCT00455533|181940422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4943||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB1 (208601\_s\_at)||||0.4943
91028317|NCT00455533|181940422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.519||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB1 208601\_s\_at||||0.5190
91028318|NCT00455533|181940422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.735||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB1 208601\_s\_at||||0.7350
91028319|NCT00455533|181940422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.382||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB2A 204141\_at||||0.3820
91028320|NCT00455533|181940422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.929||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB2A 204141\_at||||0.9290
91092194|NCT01265498|182068375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.6||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p values and relative benefit were calculated with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test, stratified by clinic and diabetes status|obeticholic acid vs. placebo|||2.2|1.1|0.006
91028321|NCT00455533|181940422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0699||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB2A 204141\_at||||0.0699
91028322|NCT00455533|181940422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3515||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB2A /// TUBB2B 209372\_x\_at||||0.3515
91028323|NCT00455533|181940422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2128||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB2A /// TUBB2B 209372\_x\_at||||0.2128
91028324|NCT00455533|181940422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1275||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB2A /// TUBB2B 209372\_x\_at||||0.1275
91028325|NCT00455533|181940422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2158||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB2B 214023\_x\_at||||0.2158
91028326|NCT00455533|181940422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0266||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB2B 214023\_x\_at||||0.0266
91028327|NCT00455533|181940422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3636||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB2B 214023\_x\_at||||0.3636
90840388|NCT04040933|181547740|OTHER|Change from Baseline in Erythema measurements was analyzed within-treatment and between-treatment. The within-treatment comparison was performed at each post-baseline time point by comparing the post-baseline scores with the baseline score within each treatment using the paired t-test. The between-treatment comparison was performed by comparing the change from baseline between treatments using a mixed effect analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model.||||||0.451|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.451
90840389|NCT04040933|181547741|OTHER|Change from Baseline in Edema measurements was analyzed within-treatment and between-treatment. The within-treatment comparison was performed at each post-baseline time point by comparing the post-baseline scores with the baseline score within each treatment using the paired t-test. The between-treatment comparison was performed by comparing the change from baseline between treatments using a mixed effect analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model.|||||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.999
90840390|NCT04040933|181547741|OTHER|Change from Baseline in Edema measurements was analyzed within-treatment and between-treatment. The within-treatment comparison was performed at each post-baseline time point by comparing the post-baseline scores with the baseline score within each treatment using the paired t-test. The between-treatment comparison was performed by comparing the change from baseline between treatments using a mixed effect analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model.||||||0.739|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.739
90840391|NCT04040933|181547742|OTHER|Change from Baseline in Composite Scar Score Measurements was analyzed within-treatment and between-treatment. The within-treatment comparison was performed at each post-baseline time point by comparing the post-baseline scores with the baseline score within each treatment using the paired t-test. The between-treatment comparison was performed by comparing the change from baseline between treatments using a mixed effect analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model.|||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90840392|NCT04040933|181547742|OTHER|Change from Baseline in Composite Scar Score Measurements was analyzed within-treatment and between-treatment. The within-treatment comparison was performed at each post-baseline time point by comparing the post-baseline scores with the baseline score within each treatment using the paired t-test. The between-treatment comparison was performed by comparing the change from baseline between treatments using a mixed effect analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model.||||||0.053|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.053
90840393|NCT04040933|181547743|OTHER|Change in Baseline in Painful Score with Arm Resting by Side was analyzed within-treatment and between-treatment. The within-treatment comparison was performed at each post-baseline time point by comparing the post-baseline scores with the baseline score within each treatment using the paired t-test. The between-treatment comparison was performed by comparing the change from baseline between treatments using a mixed effect analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model.||||||0.666|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.666
90840394|NCT04040933|181547743|OTHER|Change in Baseline in Painful Score with Arm Resting by Side was analyzed within-treatment and between-treatment. The within-treatment comparison was performed at each post-baseline time point by comparing the post-baseline scores with the baseline score within each treatment using the paired t-test. The between-treatment comparison was performed by comparing the change from baseline between treatments using a mixed effect analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model.||||||0.473|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.473
90840395|NCT04040933|181547744|OTHER|Change from Baseline In Painful Score with Arm in Normal Motion was analyzed within-treatment and between-treatment. The within-treatment comparison was performed at each post-baseline time point by comparing the post-baseline scores with the baseline score within each treatment using the paired t-test. The between-treatment comparison was performed by comparing the change from baseline between treatments using a mixed effect analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model.||||||0.761|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.761
90840396|NCT04040933|181547744|OTHER|Change from Baseline In Painful Score with Arm in Normal Motion was analyzed within-treatment and between-treatment. The within-treatment comparison was performed at each post-baseline time point by comparing the post-baseline scores with the baseline score within each treatment using the paired t-test. The between-treatment comparison was performed by comparing the change from baseline between treatments using a mixed effect analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model.||||||0.456|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.456
90840397|NCT04040933|181547745|OTHER|Change from Baseline In Itchy Score was analyzed within-treatment and between-treatment. The within-treatment comparison was performed at each post-baseline time point by comparing the post-baseline scores with the baseline score within each treatment using the paired t-test. The between-treatment comparison was performed by comparing the change from baseline between treatments using a mixed effect analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model.||||||0.019|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.019
90840398|NCT04040933|181547745|OTHER|Change from Baseline In Itchy Score was analyzed within-treatment and between-treatment. The within-treatment comparison was performed at each post-baseline time point by comparing the post-baseline scores with the baseline score within each treatment using the paired t-test. The between-treatment comparison was performed by comparing the change from baseline between treatments using a mixed effect analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model.||||||0.325|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.325
90957295|NCT02502097|181794295|SUPERIORITY|MMRM model uses the change from baseline as the dependent variable and includes the period, treatment group (Gefapixant 50 mg, Placebo), visit (Day 7 and Day 14 at each Period), all interactions terms as fixed factors, and baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.7||||0.5658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|12.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference Day 14|||12.1|-6.6|0.5658
91028328|NCT00455533|181940422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9479||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB2C 208977\_x\_at||||0.9479
91028329|NCT00455533|181940422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3753||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB2C 208977\_x\_at||||0.3753
91028330|NCT00455533|181940422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5477||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB2C 208977\_x\_at||||0.5477
91028331|NCT00455533|181940422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.476||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB2C 213726\_x\_at||||0.4760
90840399|NCT04040933|181547746|OTHER|Time to complete healing was analyzed using a survival analysis method. The survival function (cumulative percentage of wounds healed at each time point) was estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method for each treatment separately. The median time to complete healing was derived from the estimated survival functions and be compared using the bootstrap re-sampling method.|||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||no adjustments|Boot-strap sampling method|||All hypothesis tests was conducted at 0.05 level without adjustment of multiple comparisons||||<0.001
91092195|NCT01265498|182068376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.1|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||-0.1|-0.5|0.0006
91092196|NCT01265498|182068377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p values and relative benefit were calculated with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test, stratified by clinic and diabetes status|obeticholic acid vs. placebo|||1.7|0.6|0.90
91092197|NCT01265498|182068378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||0.2|-0.1|0.59
91092198|NCT01265498|182068379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-20.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.0|-11.0|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||-11|-28|<0.0001
91092199|NCT01265498|182068380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.0||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|-6.0|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||-6|-18|0.0001
91092200|NCT01265498|182068381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|18.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.0|24.0|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||24|13|<0.0001
90840400|NCT04040933|181547746|OTHER|Time to complete healing was analyzed using a survival analysis method. The survival function (cumulative percentage of wounds healed at each time point) was estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method for each treatment separately. The median time to complete healing was derived from the estimated survival functions and be compared using the bootstrap re-sampling method.|||||<|0.001||||||no adjustments|Boot-strap sampling method|||||||<0.001
90840401|NCT02066181|181547749|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|11.3|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|5.7||||Log Rank||||||5.7|<0.001
91092201|NCT01265498|182068382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-24.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.0|-14.0|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||-14|-35|<0.0001
91092202|NCT01265498|182068383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.5||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.5|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||-0.5|-2.4|0.002
91092203|NCT01265498|182068384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.38||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.6|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||0.60|0.16|0.0009
91092204|NCT01265498|182068385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|-0.01|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||-0.01|-0.10|0.01
91092205|NCT01265498|182068386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.65|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||0.65|0.26|<0.0001
91092206|NCT01265498|182068387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.3|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||0.30|-0.35|0.88
91092207|NCT01265498|182068388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|2.6|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||2.6|-1.8|0.72
90840402|NCT05764785|181547773|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.182||||||Assumption of Sphericity was violated and Greenhouse-Geisser was above .75, thus Huynh-Feldt correction was used.|Mixed ANOVA|||||||.182
90840403|NCT05764785|181547774|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.461||||||Assumption of Sphericity was violated and Greenhouse-Geisser was above .75, thus Huynh-Feldt correction was used.|Mixed ANOVA|||||||.461
91092208|NCT01265498|182068389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.01|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||0.01|-0.01|0.71
91092209|NCT01265498|182068390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.4|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||-0.4|-1.8|0.002
91092210|NCT01265498|182068391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.4|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||0.4|-0.2|0.40
90840404|NCT05764785|181547775|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.228||||||Assumption of Sphericity was violated and Greenhouse-Geisser was above .75, thus Huynh-Feldt correction was used.|Mixed ANOVA|||||||.228
90840405|NCT05764785|181547776|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.295||||||Assumption of Sphericity was violated and Greenhouse-Geisser was above .75, thus Huynh-Feldt correction was used.|Mixed ANOVA|||||||.295
90840406|NCT05764785|181547777|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.915||||||Assumption of Sphericity was violated and Greenhouse-Geisser was above .75, thus Huynh-Feldt correction was used.|Mixed ANOVA|||||||.915
91092211|NCT01265498|182068392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|16.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|26.0|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||26|7|0.001
91028332|NCT00455533|181940422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3314||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB2C 213726\_x\_at||||0.3314
90840407|NCT05764785|181547778|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.226||||||Assumption of Sphericity was violated and Greenhouse-Geisser was above .75, thus Huynh-Feldt correction was used.|Mixed ANOVA|||||||.226
91028333|NCT00455533|181940422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1005||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB2C 213726\_x\_at||||0.1005
91028334|NCT00455533|181940422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.118||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB4 212664\_at||||0.1180
91028335|NCT00455533|181940422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.158||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB4 212664\_at||||0.1580
91028336|NCT00455533|181940422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4385||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB4 212664\_at||||0.4385
91028337|NCT00455533|181940422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7324||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB6 209191\_at||||0.7324
91028338|NCT00455533|181940422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2657||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB6 209191\_at||||0.2657
91028339|NCT00455533|181940422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5637||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB6 209191\_at||||0.5637
91028340|NCT00455533|181940422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4473||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TYMS 202589\_at||||0.4473
91028341|NCT00455533|181940422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3292||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TYMS 202589\_at||||0.3292
91028342|NCT00455533|181940422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2054||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TYMS 202589\_at||||0.2054
91028343|NCT00455533|181940422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5226||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TYMS 217684\_at||||0.5226
91028344|NCT00455533|181940422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.172||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TYMS 217684\_at||||0.1720
91092212|NCT01265498|182068393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.1|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||-0.1|-1.4|0.03
91028345|NCT00455533|181940422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3346||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TYMS 217684\_at||||0.3346
91028346|NCT00455533|181940423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5604||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||ABCB1 209993\_at||||0.5604
91028347|NCT00455533|181940423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2715||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||ABCB1 209993\_at||||0.2715
91028348|NCT00455533|181940423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5268||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||ABCB1 209993\_at||||0.5268
91028349|NCT00455533|181940423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6058||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||ABCB1 /// ABCB4 209994\_s\_at||||0.6058
91028350|NCT00455533|181940423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1918||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||ABCB1 /// ABCB4 209994\_s\_at||||0.1918
91028351|NCT00455533|181940423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6712||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||ABCB1 /// ABCB4 209994\_s\_at||||0.6712
91028352|NCT00455533|181940423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9195||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||BRCA1 211851\_x\_at||||0.9195
90897330|NCT01216163|181660521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.32||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.58||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.58|0.07|0.014
91028353|NCT00455533|181940423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7021||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||BRCA1 211851\_x\_at||||0.7021
91028354|NCT00455533|181940423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.391||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||BRCA1 211851\_x\_at||||0.3910
91028355|NCT00455533|181940423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2909||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||BRCA1 204531\_s\_at||||0.2909
91028356|NCT00455533|181940423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3336||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||BRCA1 204531\_s\_at||||0.3336
91092213|NCT01265498|182068394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.04|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||0.04|0.00|0.04
90840408|NCT02141295|181547788|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91|||=|0.6753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.39||log-rank|Regression, Cox|||Kaplan-Meier methods were used to estimate median PFS for each treatment arm and the 95% CIs for median PFS were computed using the Brookmeyer and Crowley method. The stratified Cox proportional hazard was used to estimate the hazard ratio (i.e., the magnitude of the treatment effect) and the corresponding 95% confidence interval. The stratification factors are number of metastatic sites (1 vs. \>1) and country/region (USA vs rest of the world).||1.39|0.60|= 0.6753
90840409|NCT02141295|181547791|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85|||=|0.574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.49|||Log Rank|||Kaplan-Meier methods were used to estimate median OS for each treatment arm and the 95% CIs for median OS were computed using the Brookmeyer and Crowley method. The stratified Cox proportional hazard was used to estimate the hazard ratio (i.e., the magnitude of the treatment effect) and the corresponding 95% confidence interval. The stratification factors are number of metastatic sites (1 vs. \>1) and country/region (USA vs rest of the world).||1.49|0.49|= 0.5740
90840410|NCT00071890|181547813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.025
90840411|NCT00071890|181547814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.069||95.0||||Biphasic decline of CD4 after week 24 : first slope before W32 and weaker decline until W168.Slopes significantly different (all p values ≤0.0001) between the 2 groups, more pronounced in the IL-2 groups|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.069
90840412|NCT02904954|181547835|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|46.6||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.7|66.6||Testing at alpha = 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test performed to compare the MPR proportion between the two treatment arms. Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the MPR proportion between the two arms.||66.6|26.7|0.0001
90840413|NCT02904954|181547836|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|||||||Log Rank|||Kaplan-Meier survival analysis comparing the two arms.||||0.89
90840414|NCT02904954|181547837|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|43.4||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.4|62.3||Testing at alpha = 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test performed to compare the objective clinical response proportion between the two treatment arms. Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the objective clinical response proportion between the two arms. Objective clinical response proportion is defined as the proportion of patients in each arm who have complete response or partial response.||62.3|24.4|0.0001
90840415|NCT00753506|181547839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||F|1.59|||>|0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||Repeated measures analaysis of variance||||>0.10
90840416|NCT03819114|181547841|EQUIVALENCE|Confidence Interval (CI) on Geometric Mean Ratio compared to reference interval (0.7, 1.43).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|1.2|||||The ratios of the geometric means (group B / group C) and its 90% CI were obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|||1.20|0.81|
90840417|NCT03819114|181547841|EQUIVALENCE|Confidence Interval on Geometric Mean Ratio compared to reference interval (0.7, 1.43).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.12|1.6|||||The ratios of the geometric means (group D / group C) and its 90% CI were obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|||1.60|1.12|
91028357|NCT00455533|181940423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.236||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||BRCA1 204531\_s\_at||||0.2360
91028358|NCT00455533|181940423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0281||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||ERCC1 203719\_at||||0.0281
91092214|NCT01265498|182068395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.05|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||0.05|-0.03|0.53
91092215|NCT01265498|182068396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.6||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|5.0|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||5.0|0.2|0.03
91028359|NCT00455533|181940423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0434||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||ERCC1 203719\_at||||0.0434
91092216|NCT01265498|182068397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|14.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|29.0|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||29|0|0.05
91092217|NCT01265498|182068398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.2|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||0.2|-1.2|0.13
91092218|NCT01265498|182068399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.6|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||1.6|-0.5|0.31
91092219|NCT01265498|182068400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.1|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||0.1|-0.6|0.16
90840418|NCT03819114|181547841|SUPERIORITY|Confidence Interval on Geometric Mean Ratio excluding 1.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.27|2.18|||||The ratios of the geometric means (group B / group A) and its 90% CI were obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|||2.18|1.27|
91092220|NCT01265498|182068401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|-0.01|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||-0.01|-0.04|0.002
91092221|NCT01265498|182068402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.8|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||0.8|-0.2|0.26
91092222|NCT01265498|182068403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|38.0||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|69.0|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||69|6|0.02
91028360|NCT00455533|181940423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0283||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||ERCC1 203719\_at||||0.0283
91028361|NCT00455533|181940423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0151||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||ERCC1 203720\_s\_at||||0.0151
91028362|NCT00455533|181940423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1999||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||ERCC1 203720\_s\_at||||0.1999
91092223|NCT01265498|182068404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|13.0||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|23.0|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||23|3|0.01
91028363|NCT00455533|181940423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0146||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||ERCC1 203720\_s\_at||||0.0146
91092224|NCT01265498|182068405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|2.6|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||2.6|-1.7|0.71
91092225|NCT01265498|182068406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.2||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|-0.6|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||-0.6|-3.7|0.008
91092226|NCT01265498|182068407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.2|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||-0.2|-1.3|0.01
91028364|NCT00455533|181940423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1185||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||GTSE1 204315\_s\_at||||0.1185
91028365|NCT00455533|181940423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8705||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||GTSE1 204315\_s\_at||||0.8705
91092227|NCT01265498|182068408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.5|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||1.5|-2.2|0.70
91092228|NCT01265498|182068409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.02|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||0.02|-0.01|0.57
90840419|NCT03819114|181547841|SUPERIORITY|Confidence Interval on Geometric Mean Ratio excluding 1.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.45|0.78|||||The ratios of the geometric means (group A / group C) and its 90% CI were obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|||0.78|0.45|
90840420|NCT03819114|181547842|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. Statistical significance was declared if p\<0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
91092229|NCT01265498|182068410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|0.0|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||0|-7|0.05
91092230|NCT01265498|182068411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|1.0|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||1|-4|0.23
91092231|NCT01265498|182068412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|3.0|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||3|-1|0.22
91092232|NCT01265498|182068413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|2.0|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||2|-3|0.65
91092233|NCT05994963|182068415|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|58.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|40.45|85.6|||||The ratio (test/reference) and 90% CIs are expressed as percentages. Treatment A = reference; treatment B = test.|Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within the sequence as a random effect.||85.60|40.45|
91092234|NCT05994963|182068416|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|56.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|38.71|83.73|||||The ratio (test/reference) and 90% CIs are expressed as percentages. Treatment A = reference; treatment B = test.|Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within the sequence as a random effect.||83.73|38.71|
91092235|NCT05994963|182068417|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|50.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|33.01|76.13|||||The ratio (test/reference) and 90% CIs are expressed as percentages. Treatment A = reference; treatment B = test.|Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within the sequence as a random effect.||76.13|33.01|
90840421|NCT03819114|181547843|OTHER|No hypothesis testing was performed.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.41|||||The ratios of the geometric means (group B / group C) and its 90% CI were obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|||1.41|0.96|
90840422|NCT03819114|181547843|OTHER|No hypothesis testing was performed.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.21|1.69|||||The ratios of the geometric means (group D / group C) and its 90% CI were obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|||1.69|1.21|
90840423|NCT03819114|181547843|OTHER|No hypothesis testing was performed.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.17|1.96|||||The ratios of the geometric means (group B / group A) and its 90% CI were obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|||1.96|1.17|
90840424|NCT03819114|181547843|OTHER|No hypothesis testing was performed.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6|1.0|||||The ratios of the geometric means (group A / group C) and its 90% CI were obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|||1.00|0.60|
90840425|NCT03819114|181547844|OTHER|No hypothesis testing was performed.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.22|0.61|||||The ratios of the geometric means (group B / group C) and its 90% CI were obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|||0.61|0.22|
90840426|NCT03819114|181547844|OTHER|No hypothesis testing was performed.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.15|0.44|||||The ratios of the geometric means (group D / group C) and its 90% CI were obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|||0.44|0.15|
91092236|NCT05994963|182068418|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|202.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|138.43|296.27|||||The ratio (test/reference) and 90% CIs are expressed as percentages. Treatment B = reference; treatment C = test.|Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within the sequence as a random effect.||296.27|138.43|
91092237|NCT05994963|182068419|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|196.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|131.01|293.55|||||The ratio (test/reference) and 90% CIs are expressed as percentages. Treatment B = reference; treatment C = test.|Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within the sequence as a random effect.||293.55|131.01|
91092238|NCT05994963|182068420|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|230.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|145.53|364.2|||||The ratio (test/reference) and 90% CIs are expressed as percentages. Treatment B = reference; treatment C = test.|Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within the sequence as a random effect.||364.20|145.53|
91092239|NCT05994963|182068421|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|122.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.61|161.19|||||The ratio (test/reference) and 90% CIs are expressed as percentages. Treatment B = reference; treatment D= test.|Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within the sequence as a random effect.||161.19|93.61|
91092240|NCT05994963|182068422|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|104.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.54|115.94|||||The ratio (test/reference) and 90% CIs are expressed as percentages. Treatment B = reference; treatment D= test.|Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within the sequence as a random effect.||115.94|94.54|
90840427|NCT03819114|181547844|OTHER|No hypothesis testing was performed.|Geometric Mean Ratio|2.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.2|3.7|||||The ratios of the geometric means (group B / group A) and its 90% CI were obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|||3.70|1.20|
90897331|NCT01216163|181660521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.42||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.42|0.80|<0.001
90897332|NCT01216163|181660521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.78||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.78|1.09|<0.001
90897333|NCT01216163|181660521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.31||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.59||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.59|0.03|0.030
90897334|NCT01216163|181660521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.46||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.46|0.78|<0.001
90897335|NCT01216163|181660521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.66||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.66|0.91|<0.001
90897336|NCT01216163|181660521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.42||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.73||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.73|0.12|0.007
91028366|NCT00455533|181940423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0284||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||GTSE1 204315\_s\_at||||0.0284
91028367|NCT00455533|181940423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0399||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||GTSE1 204317\_at||||0.0399
91028368|NCT00455533|181940423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0136||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||GTSE1 204317\_at||||0.0136
91028369|NCT00455533|181940423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0576||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||GTSE1 204317\_at||||0.0576
90897337|NCT01216163|181660521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.24||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.24|0.49|<0.001
91028370|NCT00455533|181940423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2245||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||GTSE1 215942\_s\_at||||0.2245
90897338|NCT01216163|181660521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.65||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.65|0.89|<0.001
90897339|NCT01216163|181660521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.45||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.76||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.76|0.15|0.004
91028371|NCT00455533|181940423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1388||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||GTSE1 215942\_s\_at||||0.1388
91028372|NCT00455533|181940423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0692||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||GTSE1 215942\_s\_at||||0.0692
91028373|NCT00455533|181940423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1058||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||GTSE1 204318\_s\_at||||0.1058
91028374|NCT00455533|181940423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2688||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||GTSE1 204318\_s\_at||||0.2688
90840428|NCT03819114|181547844|OTHER|No hypothesis testing was performed.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.09|0.32|||||The ratios of the geometric means (group A / group C) and its 90% CI were obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|||0.32|0.09|
90840429|NCT03819114|181547845|OTHER|No hypothesis testing was performed.|Geometric Mean Ratio|4.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.17|5.12|||||The ratios of the geometric means (group B / group C) and its 90% CI were obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|||5.12|3.17|
90840430|NCT03819114|181547845|OTHER|No hypothesis testing was performed.|Geometric Mean Ratio|2.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.33|3.65|||||The ratios of the geometric means (group D / group C) and its 90% CI were obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|||3.65|2.33|
90840431|NCT03819114|181547845|OTHER|No hypothesis testing was performed.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.82|1.52|||||The ratios of the geometric means (group B / group A) and its 90% CI were obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|||1.52|0.82|
90840432|NCT03819114|181547845|OTHER|No hypothesis testing was performed.|Geometric Mean Ratio|3.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.65|4.93|||||The ratios of the geometric means (group A / group C) and its 90% CI were obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|||4.93|2.65|
90840433|NCT03819114|181547846|OTHER|No hypothesis testing was performed.|Geometric Mean Ratio|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.66|2.65|||||The ratios of the geometric means (group B / group C) and its 90% CI were obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|||2.65|1.66|
90840434|NCT03819114|181547846|OTHER|No hypothesis testing was performed.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.89|1.39|||||The ratios of the geometric means (group D / group C) and its 90% CI were obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|||1.39|0.89|
90840435|NCT03819114|181547846|OTHER|No hypothesis testing was performed.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|1.66|||||The ratios of the geometric means (group B / group A) and its 90% CI were obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|||1.66|0.87|
90897340|NCT01216163|181660521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.19||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.19|0.44|<0.001
91028375|NCT00455533|181940423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0192||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||GTSE1 204318\_s\_at||||0.0192
91028376|NCT00455533|181940423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0033||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||GTSE1 211040\_x\_at||||0.0033
91028377|NCT00455533|181940423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2053||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||GTSE1 211040\_x\_at||||0.2053
91092241|NCT05994963|182068423|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|124.59|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.46|166.09|||||The ratio (test/reference) and 90% CIs are expressed as percentages. Treatment B = reference; treatment D= test.|Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within the sequence as a random effect.||166.09|93.46|
90840436|NCT03819114|181547846|OTHER|No hypothesis testing was performed.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.24|2.45|||||The ratios of the geometric means (group A / group C) and its 90% CI were obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|||2.45|1.24|
90840437|NCT03819114|181547847|OTHER|No hypothesis testing was performed.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.46|0.59|||||The ratios of the geometric means (group B / group C) and its 90% CI were obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|||0.59|0.46|
90840438|NCT03819114|181547847|OTHER|No hypothesis testing was performed.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.34|0.43|||||The ratios of the geometric means (group D / group C) and its 90% CI were obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|||0.43|0.34|
90840439|NCT03819114|181547847|OTHER|No hypothesis testing was performed.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|1.25|||||The ratios of the geometric means (group B / group A) and its 90% CI were obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|||1.25|0.93|
90840440|NCT03819114|181547847|OTHER|No hypothesis testing was performed.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.41|0.56|||||The ratios of the geometric means (group A / group C) and its 90% CI were obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|||0.56|0.41|
90840441|NCT03819114|181547849|OTHER|No hypothesis testing was performed.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6|0.93|||||The ratios of the geometric means (group B / group C) and its 90% CI were obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|||0.93|0.60|
91028378|NCT00455533|181940423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0032||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||GTSE1 211040\_x\_at||||0.0032
91028379|NCT00455533|181940423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6783||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||KLK10 209792\_s\_at||||0.6783
91028380|NCT00455533|181940423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.163||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||KLK10 209792\_s\_at||||0.1630
90840442|NCT03819114|181547849|OTHER|No hypothesis testing was performed.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.36|||||The ratios of the geometric means (group D / group C) and its 90% CI were obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|||1.36|0.90|
90840443|NCT03819114|181547849|OTHER|No hypothesis testing was performed.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.29|2.33|||||The ratios of the geometric means (group B / group A) and its 90% CI were obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|||2.33|1.29|
90840444|NCT03819114|181547849|OTHER|No hypothesis testing was performed.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.32|0.58|||||The ratios of the geometric means (group A / group C) and its 90% CI were obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|||0.58|0.32|
90840445|NCT03819114|181547850|OTHER|No hypothesis testing was performed.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.49|0.78|||||The ratios of the geometric means (group B / group C) and its 90% CI were obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|||0.78|0.49|
90897341|NCT01216163|181660521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.31||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.31|0.54|<0.001
90897342|NCT01216163|181660521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.28||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.59||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.59|-0.04|0.084
90897343|NCT01216163|181660521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.65||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.03||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.03|0.27|0.001
90897344|NCT01216163|181660521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.32||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.32|0.54|<0.001
90897345|NCT01216163|181660521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.38||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.69||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.69|0.06|0.020
91028381|NCT00455533|181940423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2944||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||KLK10 209792\_s\_at||||0.2944
91028382|NCT00455533|181940423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3727||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||KLK10 215808\_at||||0.3727
91028383|NCT00455533|181940423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8796||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||KLK10 215808\_at||||0.8796
90840446|NCT03819114|181547850|OTHER|No hypothesis testing was performed.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.71|1.1|||||The ratios of the geometric means (group D / group C) and its 90% CI were obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|||1.10|0.71|
90840447|NCT03819114|181547850|OTHER|No hypothesis testing was performed.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.31|2.4|||||The ratios of the geometric means (group B / group A) and its 90% CI were obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|||2.40|1.31|
90840448|NCT03819114|181547850|OTHER|No hypothesis testing was performed.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.26|0.47|||||The ratios of the geometric means (group A / group C) and its 90% CI were obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|||0.47|0.26|
90840449|NCT03819114|181547851|OTHER|No hypothesis testing was performed.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.39|0.63|||||The ratios of the geometric means (group B / group C) and its 90% CI were obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|||0.63|0.39|
90840450|NCT03819114|181547851|OTHER|No hypothesis testing was performed.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.55|0.86|||||The ratios of the geometric means (group D / group C) and its 90% CI were obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|||0.86|0.55|
90897346|NCT01216163|181660521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.56||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.94||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.94|0.17|0.005
91028384|NCT00455533|181940423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8344||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||KLK10 215808\_at||||0.8344
91028385|NCT00455533|181940423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||KLK5 222242\_s\_at||||0.2700
91028386|NCT00455533|181940423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2624||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||KLK5 222242\_s\_at||||0.2624
91028387|NCT00455533|181940423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.083||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||KLK5 222242\_s\_at||||0.0830
91028388|NCT00455533|181940423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0849||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||KLK6 204733\_at||||0.0849
91028389|NCT00455533|181940423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6578||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||KLK6 204733\_at||||0.6578
91028390|NCT00455533|181940423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0396||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||KLK6 204733\_at||||0.0396
91092242|NCT01373164|182068499|SUPERIORITY|The planned primary analysis for this study utilized a Bayesian exponential-likelihood model, incorporating historical overall survival (OS) data from 2 studies (Oettle et al. 2005; Saif et al. 2009). The primary analysis was performed using strong borrowing from the historical data. The model was estimated to borrow approximately 37 events from the historical studies.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.794|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.085|||Bayesian Analysis|Primary comparison was to be considered successful if there was at least 0.85 posterior probability that the hazard ratio (HR) for OS of LY+Gem is \<1.|This is a Credible Interval estimated from the Bayesian analysis.|||1.085|0.590|
91092243|NCT01125930|182068515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 24 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess redness.||||0.93
91092244|NCT01125930|182068516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 24 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess telangiectasia.||||0.79
91092245|NCT01125930|182068517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.94|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values to address non-normality of data.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 2 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other.||||0.94
91092246|NCT01125930|182068517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values to address non-normality of data.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 6 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other.||||0.57
91092247|NCT01125930|182068517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values to address non-normality of data.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 12 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other.||||0.66
91092248|NCT01125930|182068517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values to address non-normality of data.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 18 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other.||||0.38
91092249|NCT01125930|182068517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values to address non-normality of data.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 24 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other.||||0.24
91092250|NCT01125930|182068518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 24 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess photodamage.||||0.87
91092251|NCT01125930|182068519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values||Group comparisons were done at the Week 2 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess ocular manifestations of rosacea.||||1.00
91092252|NCT01125930|182068519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values||Group comparisons were done at the Week 6 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess ocular manifestations of rosacea||||0.62
91028391|NCT00455533|181940423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1657||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||RRM1 201476\_s\_at||||0.1657
91028392|NCT00455533|181940423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0675||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||RRM1 201476\_s\_at||||0.0675
91028393|NCT00455533|181940423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1071||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||RRM1 201476\_s\_at||||0.1071
90897347|NCT01216163|181660522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.28||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||0.25 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.28|0.40|<0.001
91028394|NCT00455533|181940423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0142||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||RRM1 201477\_s\_at||||0.0142
91028395|NCT00455533|181940423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2465||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||RRM1 201477\_s\_at||||0.2465
91028396|NCT00455533|181940423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0031||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||RRM1 201477\_s\_at||||0.0031
91028397|NCT00455533|181940423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1231||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB 211714\_x\_at||||0.1231
91028398|NCT00455533|181940423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0849||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB 211714\_x\_at||||0.0849
91028399|NCT00455533|181940423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.274||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB 211714\_x\_at||||0.2740
91028400|NCT00455533|181940423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2383||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB 212320\_at||||0.2383
91028401|NCT00455533|181940423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0644||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB 212320\_at||||0.0644
91028402|NCT00455533|181940423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2866||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB 212320\_at||||0.2866
91028403|NCT00455533|181940423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1259||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB 209026\_x\_at||||0.1259
91028404|NCT00455533|181940423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0718||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB 209026\_x\_at||||0.0718
91028405|NCT00455533|181940423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.317||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB 209026\_x\_at||||0.3170
91028406|NCT00455533|181940423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7844||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB1 208601\_s\_at||||0.7844
91028407|NCT00455533|181940423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4688||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB1 208601\_s\_at||||0.4688
91028408|NCT00455533|181940423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8553||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB1 208601\_s\_at||||0.8553
91028409|NCT00455533|181940423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6926||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB2A 204141\_at||||0.6926
91028410|NCT00455533|181940423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2222||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB2A 204141\_at||||0.2222
91028411|NCT00455533|181940423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4676||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB2A 204141\_at||||0.4676
91028412|NCT00455533|181940423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2036||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB2A /// TUBB2B 209372\_x\_at||||0.2036
91028413|NCT00455533|181940423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4197||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB2A /// TUBB2B 209372\_x\_at||||0.4197
91028414|NCT00455533|181940423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0776||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB2A /// TUBB2B 209372\_x\_at||||0.0776
91028415|NCT00455533|181940423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4076||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB2B 214023\_x\_at||||0.4076
90897348|NCT01216163|181660522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.27||||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.63||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||0.25 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.63|-0.10|0.148
91028416|NCT00455533|181940423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0629||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB2B 214023\_x\_at||||0.0629
91028417|NCT00455533|181940423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2547||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB2B 214023\_x\_at||||0.2547
90840451|NCT03819114|181547851|OTHER|No hypothesis testing was performed.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.32|2.45|||||The ratios of the geometric means (group B / group A) and its 90% CI were obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|||2.45|1.32|
90840452|NCT03819114|181547851|OTHER|No hypothesis testing was performed.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.2|0.38|||||The ratios of the geometric means (group A / group C) and its 90% CI were obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|||0.38|0.20|
90840453|NCT00865566|181547872|OTHER|Score test|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.84|||Regression, Cox||HR is vaccine / placebo|Cox proportional hazards model to assess the association between treatment assignment and dropout||0.84|0.63|<0.001
90840454|NCT00865566|181547873|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.0||Score test|Regression, Cox||HR is vaccine / placebo|Cox PH model to assess the association between treatment assignment and dropout||1|0.59|0.05
90840455|NCT00865566|181547874|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.84||Score test|Regression, Cox||HR is vaccine / placebo|Assess the association between treatment assignment and dropout||0.84|0.60|<0.001
90897349|NCT01216163|181660522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.57||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.02||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||0.25 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.02|0.13|0.011
91028418|NCT00455533|181940423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7125||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB2C 208977\_x\_at||||0.7125
91028419|NCT00455533|181940423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6001||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB2C 208977\_x\_at||||0.6001
91028420|NCT00455533|181940423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5398||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB2C 208977\_x\_at||||0.5398
91028421|NCT00455533|181940423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.397||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB2C 213726\_x\_at||||0.3970
91028422|NCT00455533|181940423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5085||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB2C 213726\_x\_at||||0.5085
91028423|NCT00455533|181940423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1213||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB2C 213726\_x\_at||||0.1213
90840456|NCT00865566|181547875|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.42||Score test|Regression, Cox|Adjusted for age, behavioral risk score, square of behavioral risk score, race, and BMI|HR is vaccine / placebo|||1.42|0.73|0.903
90840457|NCT00865566|181547876|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.58||Adjusted for ave, behavioral risk score, square of behavioral risk score, and BMI|Regression, Cox|Score test|HR is vaccine / placebo|||1.58|0.71|0.783
90840458|NCT02453321|181547880|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.355|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.355
90840459|NCT02453321|181547881|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.065|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.065
90840460|NCT02230670|181547915|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0817||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.302|0.023|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was conducted using an ANCOVA model adjusting for baseline value.||0.023|-0.302|0.091
90840461|NCT02230670|181547915|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.01|||ANCOVA|||The analysis was conducted using an ANCOVA model adjusting for baseline value, baseline MELD score, and etiology. The significance was assessed using Type II Sums of Squares from this ANCOVA model.||0.01|-0.41|0.041
90840462|NCT02230670|181547916|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.333||0.466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.42|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was conducted using an ANCOVA model adjusting for baseline value.||0.42|-0.91|0.466
90897350|NCT01216163|181660522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.68|2.99||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||2.99|1.68|<0.001
91028424|NCT00455533|181940423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0999||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB4 212664\_at||||0.0999
91028425|NCT00455533|181940423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1201||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB4 212664\_at||||0.1201
91028426|NCT00455533|181940423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1172||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB4 212664\_at||||0.1172
91028427|NCT00455533|181940423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6596||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB6 209191\_at||||0.6596
90840463|NCT02230670|181547916|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.42||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.61|-0.77|||ANCOVA|calculated from the estimated least square means for the treatment by BL MELD category interaction term.||BL MELD \>= 15 subgroup results (N=19), as analyzed from the adjusted analysis ANCOVA model adjusting for baseline value, baseline MELD score, and etiology.||-0.77|-3.61|0.003
90840464|NCT02230670|181547916|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.46||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|-0.17|||ANCOVA|calculated from the estimated least square means for the treatment by etiology interaction term.||NASH Etiology subgroup results (N=20), as analyzed from the adjusted analysis ANCOVA model adjusting for baseline value, baseline MELD score, and etiology.||-0.17|-3.09|0.029
90957296|NCT02502097|181794296|SUPERIORITY|MMRM model uses the change from baseline as the dependent variable and includes the period, treatment group (Gefapixant 50 mg, Placebo), visit (Day 7 and Day 14 at each Period), all interactions terms as fixed factors, and baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.0||||0.0847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.2|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference Day 7|||1.1|-17.2|0.0847
91028428|NCT00455533|181940423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3289||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB6 209191\_at||||0.3289
91028429|NCT00455533|181940423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3657||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB6 209191\_at||||0.3657
91028430|NCT00455533|181940423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0275||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TYMS 202589\_at||||0.0275
91028431|NCT00455533|181940423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3946||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TYMS 202589\_at||||0.3946
91028432|NCT00455533|181940423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0074||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TYMS 202589\_at||||0.0074
91028433|NCT00455533|181940423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2341||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TYMS 217684\_at||||0.2341
91028434|NCT00455533|181940423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0933||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TYMS 217684\_at||||0.0933
91028435|NCT00455533|181940423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2016||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TYMS 217684\_at||||0.2016
91028436|NCT00455533|181940424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (bootstrap method)|-0.145|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.27|-0.017|||||ixabepilone - paclitaxel|Mem+Cyto Threshold/Negative Biomarker Status||-0.017|-0.27|
91028437|NCT00455533|181940424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (bootstrap method)|0.064|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.064|0.197|||||ixabepilone - paclitaxel|Mem+Cyto Threshold/Positive Biomarker STatus||0.197|-0.064|
91092253|NCT01125930|182068519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank-sum test with exact p-values||Group comparisons were done at the Week 12 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess ocular manifestations of rosacea||||1.00
91028438|NCT00455533|181940424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (bootstrap method)|-0.056|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.152|0.046|||||ixabepilone - paclitaxel|Membrane Threshold/Negative Biomarker Status||0.046|-0.152|
91028439|NCT00455533|181940424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (bootstrap method)|0.116|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.13|0.37|||||ixabepilone - paclitaxel|Membrane Threshold/Positive Biomarker Status||0.37|-0.13|
91028440|NCT00455533|181940425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (bootstrap method)|-0.114|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.258|0.22|||||ixabepilone - paclitaxel|Mem+Cyto/Negative Biomarker Status||0.22|-0.258|
91028441|NCT00455533|181940425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||DIfference (bootstrap method)|0.009|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.137|0.155|||||ixabepilone - paclitaxel|Mem+Cyto Threshold/Positive Biomarker Status||0.155|-0.137|
91028442|NCT00455533|181940425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (bootstrap method)|-0.058|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.167|0.053|||||ixabepilone - paclitaxel|Membrane Threshold/Negative Biomarker Status||0.053|-0.167|
91028443|NCT00455533|181940425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (bootstrap method)|0.049|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.227|0.309|||||ixabepilone - paclitaxel|Membrane Threshold/Positive Biomarker Status||0.309|-0.227|
91028444|NCT00455533|181940426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (bootstrap method)|-0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.482|-0.094|||||ixabepilone - paclitaxel|Mem+Cyto Threshold/Negative Biomarker Status||-0.094|-0.482|
91028445|NCT00455533|181940426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (boostrap method)|0.106|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.073|0.291|||||ixabepilone - paclitaxel|Mem+Cyto Threshold/Positive Biomarker Status||0.291|-0.073|
91028446|NCT00455533|181940426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (bootstrap method)|-0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.236|0.067|||||ixabepilone - paclitaxel|Membrane Threshold/Negative Biomarker Status||0.067|-0.236|
91028447|NCT00455533|181940426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (bootsrap method)|0.117|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.218|0.469|||||ixabepilone - paclitaxel|Mem+Cyto Threshold/Positive Biomarker Status||0.469|-0.218|
91028448|NCT01497938|181940454|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 0.4% was used for sample size calculation. sample size is based on two-sample t test with one-sided type 1 error of 2.5%. Assuming a same mean of change in A1C for the treatment arm and control arm and a common standard deviation of 1% for both treatment groups, it showed that a total of 200 subjects will provide over 80% power to detect the non-inferiority with a margin of 0.4%|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5||0.15|||ANCOVA|||||0.15||
91028449|NCT01497938|181940455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-588.0|||<|0.025||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.025
90840465|NCT01907854|181547922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Superiority of liraglutide over sitagliptin was concluded if the 95% Confidence Interval for the treatment difference was entirely below 0%.||Changes in HbA1c from baseline to the 26 weeks measurements were analysed using MMRM, with treatment, baseline HbA1c level (≤8.5% and \>8.5%), metformin dose (\<1500 mg/day and ≥1500 mg/day), the interaction between baseline HbA1c level and metformin dose, and country as factors and the HbA1c value at baseline as a covariate, all variables nested within week as a factor.||-0.40|-0.82|<0.0001
90897351|NCT01216163|181660522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.49||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|1.03||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.03|-0.04|0.071
90840466|NCT01907854|181547923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-1.67|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|-0.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|Superiority of liraglutide over sitagliptin was concluded if the 95% Confidence Interval for the treatment difference was entirely below 0%.||Change in body weight from baseline to the 26 weeks measurements was analysed using MMRM, with treatment, baseline HbA1c level (≤8.5% and \>8.5%), metformin dose (\<1500 mg/day and ≥1500 mg/day), the interaction between baseline HbA1c level and metformin dose, and country as factors and the body weight at baseline as a covariate and all variables nested within week as a factor.||-0.99|-2.34|<0.0001
90897352|NCT01216163|181660522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|2.5||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||2.50|1.19|<0.001
91028450|NCT03708211|181940456|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean|0.9359|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8084|1.0835||||||Following log-transformation, PK parameters were analyzed by analysis of variance (ANOVA) fitting terms for treatment group, sequence and period. Participants within sequence were treated as a random effect. The obtained point estimates and adjusted 90 percent (%) confidence intervals (CIs) for difference in treatment were exponentially back transformed to provide point and confidence interval estimates for the ratios of interest appropriately.||1.0835|0.8084|
91028451|NCT03708211|181940457|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean|1.0036|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8992|1.1201||||||Following log-transformation, PK parameters were analyzed by ANOVA fitting terms for treatment group, sequence and period. Participants within sequence were treated as a random effect. The obtained point estimates and adjusted 90% CIs for difference in treatment were exponentially back transformed to provide point and confidence interval estimates for the ratios of interest appropriately.||1.1201|0.8992|
91028452|NCT03708211|181940458|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean|1.0071|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9033|1.1227||||||Following log-transformation, PK parameters were analyzed by ANOVA fitting terms for treatment group, sequence and period. Participants within sequence were treated as a random effect. The obtained point estimates and adjusted 90% CIs for difference in treatment were exponentially back transformed to provide point and confidence interval estimates for the ratios of interest appropriately.||1.1227|0.9033|
90957297|NCT02502097|181794296|SUPERIORITY|MMRM model uses the change from baseline as the dependent variable and includes the period, treatment group (Gefapixant 50 mg, Placebo), visit (Day 7 and Day 14 at each Period), all interactions terms as fixed factors, and baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.8||||0.3083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|5.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference Day 14|||5.4|-17.0|0.3083
91028453|NCT00365352|181940469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.5||||0.0015||95.0|-5.6|-1.3|||ANCOVA||Mean difference was adjusted for Baseline value, treatment pooled sites, and treatment by pool site interaction.|||-1.3|-5.6|0.0015
91028454|NCT00365352|181940470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.287||||0.0001||95.0|2.338|7.861|||Regression, Logistic|A logistic regression model was used with treatment and pooled center as explanatory factors.||||7.861|2.338|0.0001
91028455|NCT05328375|181940498|OTHER||Mean|0.91|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.62||||||The estimate is based on the number of participants enrolled per month over the 11-month recruitment period of the trial. A 1-sided 95% lower confidence limit was computed.||||0.62|
91028456|NCT05328375|181940499|OTHER||Mean|0.87|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.66||||||The estimate is based on the mean proportion of cardiac rehabilitation sessions completed by THCR participants. A 1-sided 95% lower confidence limit was computed.||||0.66|
91028457|NCT05328375|181940500|OTHER||Proportion|1.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.55||||||The estimate is based on the proportion of participants in the Telehealth-enhanced Hybrid CR arm who attended at least one cardiac rehabilitation session after randomization. A 1-sided 95% lower confidence limit was computed.||||0.55|
91028458|NCT05328375|181940500|OTHER||Proportion|1.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.55||||||The estimate is based on the proportion of participants in the Traditional CR arm who attended at least one cardiac rehabilitation session after randomization. A 1-sided 95% lower confidence limit was computed.||||0.55|
91028459|NCT05328375|181940501|OTHER||Mean|0.69|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.4||||||The estimate is based on the mean proportion of cardiac rehabilitation sessions completed by participants in the Traditional CR arm. A 1-sided 95% lower confidence limit was computed.||||0.40|
91028460|NCT05328375|181940502|OTHER||Proportion|1.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.55||||||Adequate feasibility was defined as a mean score ≥4 across four post-program items. A 1-sided 95% lower confidence limit was calculated.||||0.55|
91028461|NCT01739790|181940558|OTHER|||||||0.45|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.45
91028462|NCT01893905|181940559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0307|||||||Pocock approach|||||||<0.0307
91028463|NCT00976664|181940570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0007|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Group differences in VAS for low back pain from randomization visit to 6-week visit were assessed via the Wilcoxon rank sums test.||||||.0007
91028464|NCT00976664|181940570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3913|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Group differences in VAS for low back pain from randomization visit to 12-week visit were assessed via the Wilcoxon rank sums test.||||||.3913
91028465|NCT00976664|181940571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Group differences in ODI for low back pain from randomization visit to 6-week visit were assessed using the Wilcoxon rank sums test.||||||.002
90840467|NCT02215252|181547929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.355|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|0.17||||||Statistical analysis is only for week 4. Mixed Models Repeated Measures analysis including all data up to Week 4 ,incorporating Bayesian priors separately on the placebo response and pregabalin effect.||0.17|-1.00|
90897353|NCT01216163|181660522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|3.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.67|4.06||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||4.06|2.67|<0.001
90840468|NCT02215252|181547929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.23|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.91|-0.2||||||Statistical analysis is only for week 4. Mixed Models Repeated Measures analysis including all data up to Week 4 ,incorporating Bayesian priors separately on the placebo response and pregabalin effect.||-0.20|-0.91|
90840469|NCT02215252|181547930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.78|4.69||||||Statistical analysis is only for Week 4. Logistic Regression using all data up to Week 4.||4.69|0.78|
90840470|NCT02215252|181547930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.06|6.56||||||Statistical analysis is only for Week 4. Logistic Regression using all data up to Week 4.||6.56|1.06|
90897354|NCT01216163|181660522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.77||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.33||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.33|0.20|0.008
90897355|NCT01216163|181660522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.91|3.3||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||3.30|1.91|<0.001
90840471|NCT02215252|181547931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.33|4.74||||||Statistical analysis is only for Week 4. Logistic Regression using all data up to Week 4.||4.74|0.33|
90840472|NCT02215252|181547931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.43|15.81||||||Statistical analysis is only for Week 4. Logistic Regression using all data up to Week 4.||15.81|1.43|
90840473|NCT02215252|181547932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.75|-0.32||||||Statistical analysis is only for Week 4. Mixed Models Repeated Measures analysis including all data up to Week 4.||-0.32|-1.75|
91028466|NCT00976664|181940571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0336|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Group differences in ODI for low back pain from randomization visit to 12-week visit were assessed using the Wilcoxon rank sums test.||||||.0336
90840474|NCT02215252|181547932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.43|0.04||||||Statistical analysis is only for Week 4. Mixed Models Repeated Measures analysis including all data up to Week 4||0.04|-1.43|
90840475|NCT02215252|181547933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.86|0.43||||||Statistical analysis is only for Week 4. Mixed Models Repeated Measures analysis including all data up to Week 4||0.43|-0.86|
91028467|NCT02688400|181940575|NON_INFERIORITY|"Non-inferiority of Diacerein versus Celecoxib was assessed by computing the difference in the adjusted mean change from baseline (Visit 2) in WOMAC Pain subscale score after 182 days of treatment between Diacerein and Celecoxib treatment groups from a MMRM.~Assuming that:~* Non inferiority margin of 10 points for the absolute change in WOMAC Pain Subscale Score (scale 0-100)~* SD of 26 in the two treatment groups,~* Type I error: α = 0.025 (one-sided condition) and power equal to 90%"|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.67|||<|0.025|ONE_SIDED|95.0||3.18||MMRM. Non-inferiority claim:Diacerein to be non-inferior to Celecoxib if upper bound of the the difference in the adjusted mean change was inferior to 5 cm on the PPS.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.18||<0.025
91028468|NCT02688400|181940576|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
91028469|NCT02688400|181940577|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
91028470|NCT02688400|181940578|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.05
91028471|NCT02688400|181940579|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.05
91028472|NCT02688400|181940580|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.05
91028473|NCT02688400|181940581|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
91028474|NCT02688400|181940582|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
91028475|NCT02688400|181940583|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
91028476|NCT01027143|181940612|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.05
91028477|NCT03068273|181940620|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.146|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.1460
91028478|NCT03068273|181940620|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
91028479|NCT03068273|181940620|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.338|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.331|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
91028480|NCT03068273|181940621|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|9.141|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.838||0.0615|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.0615
91028481|NCT03068273|181940622|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|11.257|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.775||0.0404|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.0404
91028482|NCT03068273|181940623|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.155|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.354||0.268|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.2680
91028483|NCT03068273|181940624|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.412|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.839||0.0403|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.0403
91028484|NCT02207231|181940640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|||||||<0.001
91028485|NCT02207231|181940641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|||||||<0.001
91028486|NCT02207231|181940642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|||Week 24||||< 0.001
91028487|NCT02207231|181940642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|||Week 48||||< 0.001
90897356|NCT01216163|181660522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|3.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.92|4.43||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||4.43|2.92|<0.001
90897357|NCT01216163|181660522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.69||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.3||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.30|0.07|0.028
90897358|NCT01216163|181660522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.24|3.74||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||3.74|2.24|<0.001
90897359|NCT01216163|181660522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|3.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|4.59||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||4.59|2.90|<0.001
90897360|NCT01216163|181660522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.82||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.51||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.51|0.13|0.020
90897361|NCT01216163|181660522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.09|3.77||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||3.77|2.09|<0.001
90897362|NCT01216163|181660522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|3.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.46|4.3||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||4.30|2.46|<0.001
90897363|NCT01216163|181660522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.01||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.76||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.76|0.26|0.009
90897364|NCT01216163|181660522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|3.3||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||3.30|1.46|<0.001
90897365|NCT01216163|181660522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|3.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|4.19||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||4.19|2.30|<0.001
91028488|NCT02207231|181940643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|||Week 24||||< 0.001
91028489|NCT02207231|181940643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|||Week 48||||< 0.001
91028490|NCT02207231|181940644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|||Week 24||||< 0.001
91028491|NCT02207231|181940644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|||Week 48||||< 0.001
91028492|NCT02207231|181940645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||p value is based on analysis of variance (ANOVA) model stratified by investigator site (pooled).||||< 0.001
91028493|NCT02207231|181940646|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|non-inferiority margin= 10.0%|Difference in Percentage|19.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.9|25.7|||MH Z-test|||p value is based on 1-sided Mantel Haenszel (MH) Z-test adjusted for investigator site (pooled).||25.7|12.9|< 0.001
91028494|NCT02207231|181940646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|||p value is based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by investigator site (pooled).||||< 0.001
91028495|NCT02207231|181940647|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|non-inferiority margin= 10.0%|Difference in Percentage|24.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.0|31.0|||MH Z-test|||p value is based on 1-sided MH Z-test adjusted for investigator site (pooled).||31.0|17.0|< 0.001
91028496|NCT02207231|181940647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|||p value is based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by investigator site (pooled).||||< 0.001
91028497|NCT02207231|181940648|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|non-inferiority margin= 10%|Difference in percentage|18.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.4|23.8|||MH Z-test|||p value is based on 1-sided MH Z-test adjusted for investigator site (pooled).||23.8|12.4|< 0.001
91028498|NCT02207231|181940648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|||p value is based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by investigator site (pooled).||||< 0.001
91028499|NCT02207231|181940649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|||p value is based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by investigator site (pooled).||||< 0.001
91028500|NCT02207231|181940650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||p value is based on ANOVA model stratified by investigator site (pooled).||||< 0.001
91092254|NCT01125930|182068519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values||Group comparisons were done at the Week 18 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess ocular manifestations of rosacea||||1.00
91028501|NCT02207231|181940651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|||p value is based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by investigator site (pooled).||||< 0.001
91028502|NCT00797108|181940699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Clinical Cure Difference|27.5|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.0|55.3||||||Two-sided 80% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in the clinical cure response rates between treatement group and the comparator was formed using the exact methods.||55.3|-4.0|
91092255|NCT01125930|182068519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 24 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess ocular manifestations of rosacea||||0.45
90840476|NCT02215252|181547933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.33|0.0||||||Statistical analysis is only for Week 4. Mixed Models Repeated Measures analysis including all data up to Week 4||0.00|-1.33|
90840477|NCT02215252|181547934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.87|0.67||||||Statistical analysis is only for Week 4. Mixed Models Repeated Measures analysis including all data up to Week 4.||0.67|-0.87|
90840478|NCT02215252|181547934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.36|0.2||||||Statistical analysis is only for Week 4. Mixed Models Repeated Measures analysis including all data up to Week 4.||0.20|-1.36|
90840479|NCT02215252|181547935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.49|0.67||||||Statistical analysis is only for Week 4. Mixed Models Repeated Measures analysis including all data up to Week 4.||0.67|-0.49|
91092256|NCT01125930|182068520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 2 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess phymatous changes of rosacea.||||0.53
91092257|NCT01125930|182068520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 6 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess phymatous changes of rosacea.||||0.53
90840480|NCT02215252|181547935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.05|0.13||||||Statistical analysis is only for Week 4. Mixed Models Repeated Measures analysis including all data up to Week 4.||0.13|-1.05|
91028503|NCT00797108|181940699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Clinical Cure Difference|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-13.1|57.9||||||Two-sided 80% CI for the difference in the clinical cure response rates between treatement group and the comparator was formed using the exact methods.||57.9|-13.1|
91092258|NCT01125930|182068520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values||Group comparisons were done at the Week 12 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess phymatous changes of rosacea.||||0.53
90840481|NCT02215252|181547936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.09|0.39||||||Statistical analysis is only for Week 4. Mixed Models Repeated Measures analysis including all data up to Week 4.||0.39|-1.09|
90840482|NCT02215252|181547936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|0.51||||||Statistical analysis is only for Week 4. Mixed Models Repeated Measures analysis including all data up to Week 4.||0.51|-1.00|
90840483|NCT02215252|181547937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.92|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.12|4.57||||||Statistical analysis is only for Week 4. Mixed Models Repeated Measures analysis including all data up to Week 4.||4.57|-5.12|
90897366|NCT01216163|181660522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.08||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.85||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.85|0.31|0.006
91092259|NCT01125930|182068520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 18 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess phymatous changes of rosacea.||||0.53
90840484|NCT02215252|181547937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.99|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.57|-0.66||||||Statistical analysis is only for Week 4. Mixed Models Repeated Measures analysis including all data up to Week 4.||-0.66|-10.57|
90840485|NCT02215252|181547938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.34|1.45||||||Statistical analysis is only for Week 4. Proportional Odds Logistic Regression including all data up to week 4.||1.45|0.34|
91028504|NCT03238677|181940720|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.0||||0.132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.2|3.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Main effect of biofeedback at 10 weeks||3.1|-23.2|.132
91028505|NCT03238677|181940720|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.7||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.9|-1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Main effect of Practice Distribution at 10 weeks||-1.5|-25.9|.028
91028506|NCT03238677|181940720|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.0||||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.9|5.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Main effect comparing telepractice vs face-to-face treatment||5.0|-24.9|.187
91028507|NCT03238677|181940720|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.22||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|46.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Interaction of biofeedback and practice distribution at 10 weeks|η2 =.054|46.3|-5.8|.125
90840486|NCT02215252|181547938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.24|1.07||||||Statistical analysis is only for Week 4. Proportional Odds Logistic Regression including all data up to week 4.||1.07|0.24|
90840487|NCT02215252|181547939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.16|-0.02||||||Statistical analysis is only for Week 4. Mixed Models Repeated Measures analysis including all data up to Week 4.||-0.02|-1.16|
90840488|NCT02215252|181547939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.57|-0.43||||||Statistical analysis is only for Week 4. Mixed Models Repeated Measures analysis including all data up to Week 4.||-0.43|-1.57|
90840489|NCT02215252|181547940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|192.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|816.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1161.0|1544.0||||||Statistical analysis is only for Week 4. Mixed Models Repeated Measures analysis including all data up to Week 4.||1544|-1161|
91028508|NCT03462719|181940776|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.216|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.131|0.357|||Log Rank|||||0.357|0.131|<0.0001
91092260|NCT01125930|182068520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 24 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess phymatous changes of rosacea.||||1.00
90840490|NCT02215252|181547940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|611.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|812.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-735.0|1956.0||||||Statistical analysis is only for Week 4. Mixed Models Repeated Measures analysis including all data up to Week 4.||1956|-735|
90840491|NCT02215252|181547944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.03|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.98|13.01||||||Statistical analysis is only for Week 4. Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis including all data up to Week 4.||13.01|2.98|
91028509|NCT04799158|181940791|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|28.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.84|35.55|||Fisher Exact|||||35.55|21.84|<0.0001
91028510|NCT04799158|181940791|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|33.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.28|40.23|||Fisher Exact|||||40.23|26.28|<0.0001
91028511|NCT04799158|181940791|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|42.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.92|49.42|||Fisher Exact|||||49.42|35.92|<0.0001
91028512|NCT04799158|181940792|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|30.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.41|37.09|||Fisher Exact|||||37.09|23.41|<0.0001
91028513|NCT04799158|181940792|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|23.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.67|31.05|||Fisher Exact|||||31.05|16.67|<0.0001
91028514|NCT04799158|181940792|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|37.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.0|44.35|||Fisher Exact|||||44.35|31.00|<0.0001
91092261|NCT01125930|182068521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values to address non-normality of data.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 2 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other.||||1.00
90840492|NCT02215252|181547944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.14|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.46|5.95||||||Statistical analysis is only for Week 4. Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis including all data up to Week 4.||5.95|-4.46|
90840493|NCT02215252|181547945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.19|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.94|20.17||||||Statistical analysis is only for Week 4. Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis including all data up to Week 4.||20.17|2.94|
90840494|NCT02215252|181547945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.38|6.54||||||Statistical analysis is only for Week 4. Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis including all data up to Week 4.||6.54|-11.38|
90957298|NCT02502097|181794297|SUPERIORITY|MMRM model uses the change from baseline as the dependent variable and includes the period, treatment group (Gefapixant 50 mg, Placebo), visit (Day 7 and Day 14 at each Period), all interactions terms as fixed factors, and baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference Day 7|||1.3|-5.3|0.2290
91028515|NCT04799158|181940793|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1771|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.1771
91028516|NCT04799158|181940793|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1551|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.1551
91028517|NCT04799158|181940793|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0094|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.0094
91028518|NCT04799158|181940794|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3395|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.3395
91028519|NCT04799158|181940794|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4882|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.4882
91028520|NCT04799158|181940794|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0722|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.0722
91028521|NCT04799158|181940795|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|-3.9||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.41|16.52|||Fisher Exact|||||16.52|-24.41|0.8300
91028522|NCT04799158|181940795|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|1.4|||>|0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.28|22.16|||Fisher Exact|||||22.16|-19.28|>0.9999
91028523|NCT04799158|181940795|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|2.3|||>|0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.22|22.88|||Fisher Exact|||||22.88|-18.22|>0.9999
91028524|NCT04799158|181940796|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4684|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.4684
91028525|NCT04799158|181940796|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.656|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.6560
91028526|NCT04799158|181940796|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6324|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.6324
91028527|NCT04799158|181940797|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9896|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.9896
91028528|NCT04799158|181940797|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6916|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.6916
91028529|NCT04799158|181940797|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9316|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.9316
91028530|NCT00601484|181940823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.503|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.203|-0.51||||||Analysis was based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with terms for treatment, age, gender, body mass index (BMI), baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||-0.510|-2.203|
91028531|NCT00601484|181940824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.363|0.011||||||Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||0.011|-1.363|
90840495|NCT01746901|181547954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|30.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.4|36.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||36.6|24.4|<0.0001
90840496|NCT01746901|181547954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.7||||0.0132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|13.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||13.7|1.6|0.0132
90840497|NCT01746901|181547954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|15.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.3|21.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||21.4|9.3|<0.0001
90840498|NCT01746901|181547954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|22.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.8|28.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||28.9|16.8|<0.0001
90840499|NCT01746901|181547954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|15.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.3|21.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||21.4|9.3|<0.0001
91028532|NCT00601484|181940824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.498|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.969|-0.297||||||Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||-0.297|-1.969|
91028533|NCT00601484|181940824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.559|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.79|0.09||||||Week 10: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||0.090|-1.790|
91028534|NCT00601484|181940824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.538|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.356|0.457||||||Week 16: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||0.457|-1.356|
91028535|NCT00601484|181940825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-8.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.727|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-19.954|2.601||||||Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||2.601|-19.954|
91028536|NCT00601484|181940825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-17.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.47|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-31.948|-3.523||||||Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||-3.523|-31.948|
91028537|NCT00601484|181940825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-20.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.138|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-34.347|-6.971||||||Week 6: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||-6.971|-34.347|
91028538|NCT00601484|181940825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-13.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.532|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-29.612|2.452||||||Week 10: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||2.452|-29.612|
91028539|NCT00601484|181940825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-7.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.807|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.58|7.08||||||Week 16: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||7.080|-22.580|
91028540|NCT00601484|181940826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.721|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.768|0.65||||||Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||0.650|-1.768|
91028541|NCT00601484|181940826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.898|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.723|0.297||||||Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||0.297|-2.723|
91092262|NCT01125930|182068521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values to address non-normality of data.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 6 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other.||||0.41
90840500|NCT01746901|181547954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|18.5||||18.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.5|24.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||24.6|12.5|18.5
91028542|NCT00601484|181940826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.311|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.682|0.752||||||Week 6: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||0.752|-3.682|
91028543|NCT00601484|181940826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.11|2.198||||||Week 10: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||2.198|-1.110|
91028544|NCT00601484|181940826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.114|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.904|0.922||||||Week 16: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||0.922|-2.904|
91028545|NCT00601484|181940827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-4.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.51|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.65|4.826||||||Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||4.826|-13.650|
90840501|NCT01746901|181547955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|49.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.2|59.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||59.5|39.2|<0.0001
91092263|NCT01125930|182068521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values to address non-normality of data.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 12 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other.||||0.66
91092264|NCT01125930|182068521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values to address non-normality of data.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 18 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other.||||0.92
91092265|NCT01125930|182068521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values to address non-normality of data.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 24 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other.||||0.80
91092266|NCT01125930|182068522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons of TAC1 at Week 24 visit were made using fold change data.||||0.003
91092267|NCT01125930|182068522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons of CXCR4 at Week 24 visit were made using fold change data.||||0.35
91092268|NCT01125930|182068522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons of CXCL12 at Week 24 visit were made using fold change data.||||0.68
91092269|NCT01125930|182068522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons of TNFa at Week 24 visit were made using fold change data.||||0.76
90840502|NCT01746901|181547955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.9994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|10.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||10.1|-10.1|0.9994
90840503|NCT01746901|181547955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|22.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.1|32.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||32.4|12.1|<0.0001
90840504|NCT01746901|181547955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|27.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.0|37.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||37.3|17.0|<0.0001
90840505|NCT01746901|181547955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|23.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.8|33.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||33.1|12.8|<0.0001
90840506|NCT01746901|181547955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|18.2||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.1|28.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||28.4|8.1|0.0005
90840507|NCT01746901|181547956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|63.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.5|74.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||74.9|51.5|<0.0001
90840508|NCT01746901|181547956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|12.3||||0.0402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|24.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||24.1|0.6|0.0402
90897367|NCT01216163|181660522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|3.1||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||3.10|1.22|<0.001
90897368|NCT01216163|181660522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|3.43||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||3.43|1.51|<0.001
91092270|NCT01125930|182068523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons of COL-1 at Week 24 visit were made using fold change data.||||1.00
91092271|NCT01125930|182068523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons of COL-3 at Week 24 visit were made using fold change data.||||0.25
91092272|NCT01125930|182068523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons of MMP-1 at Week 24 visit were made using fold change data.||||0.41
91092273|NCT01125930|182068523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons of MMP-3 at Week 24 visit were made using fold change data.||||0.02
91092274|NCT01125930|182068523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons of MMP-9 at Week 24 visit were made using fold change data.||||0.61
91092275|NCT01125930|182068524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values||Group comparisons were done at the Week 2 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess redness.||||1.00
91092276|NCT01125930|182068524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values||Group comparisons were done at the Week 6 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess redness.||||0.44
91092277|NCT01125930|182068524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values||Group comparisons were done at the Week 12 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess redness.||||0.41
91092278|NCT01125930|182068524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.94|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values||Group comparisons were done at the Week 18 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess redness.||||0.94
91092279|NCT01125930|182068525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 24 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess facial edema.||||0.15
91092280|NCT01125930|182068526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 24 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess dry skin.||||0.13
91092281|NCT01125930|182068527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Group comparison at Week 24 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other.||||1.00
91092282|NCT01125930|182068528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 24 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess self-reported facial burning.||||0.75
91092283|NCT01125930|182068529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 24 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess self-reported facial stinging.||||0.68
91092284|NCT01125930|182068530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 24 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to provide an overall self-assessment of product tolerance.||||0.77
91092285|NCT01125930|182068531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values||Group comparisons were done at the Week 2 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess telangiectasia.||||0.41
91092286|NCT01125930|182068531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values||Group comparisons were done at the Week 6 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess telangiectasia.||||1.00
91092287|NCT01125930|182068531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values||Group comparisons were done at the Week 12 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess telangiectasia.||||0.96
90840509|NCT01746901|181547956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|32.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.1|44.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||44.7|21.1|<0.0001
90957299|NCT02502097|181794297|SUPERIORITY|MMRM model uses the change from baseline as the dependent variable and includes the period, treatment group (Gefapixant 50 mg, Placebo), visit (Day 7 and Day 14 at each Period), all interactions terms as fixed factors, and baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.9794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|3.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference Day 14|||3.4|-3.5|0.9794
91092288|NCT01125930|182068531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.91|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values||Group comparisons were done at the Week 18 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess telangiectasia.||||0.91
91092289|NCT01125930|182068532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values||Group comparisons were done at the Week 2 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess facial edema.||||0.29
91092290|NCT01125930|182068532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values||Group comparisons were done at the Week 6 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess facial edema.||||0.29
91092291|NCT01125930|182068532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values||Group comparisons were done at the Week 12 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess facial edema.||||0.15
91092292|NCT01125930|182068532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values||Group comparisons were done at the Week 18 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess facial edema.||||0.29
91092293|NCT01125930|182068533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values||Group comparisons were done at the Week 2 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess dry skin.||||0.54
91092294|NCT01125930|182068533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values||Group comparisons were done at the Week 6 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess dry skin.||||0.06
91092295|NCT01125930|182068533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values||Group comparisons were done at the Week 12 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess dry skin.||||0.02
91092296|NCT01125930|182068533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values||Group comparisons were done at the Week 18 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess dry skin.||||0.09
90840510|NCT01746901|181547956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|42.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.9|54.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||54.4|30.9|<0.0001
91092297|NCT01125930|182068534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||Fisher Exact|||Group comparison at Week 2 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have different values than the other.||||0.18
91092298|NCT01125930|182068534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||Fisher Exact|||Group comparison at Week 6 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have different values than the other.||||0.70
91092299|NCT01125930|182068534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||Fisher Exact|||Group comparison at Week 12 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have different values than the other.||||0.70
91092300|NCT01125930|182068534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||Fisher Exact|||Group comparison at Week 18 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have different values than the other.||||0.35
91092301|NCT01125930|182068535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 2 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess self-reported facial burning.||||0.80
91092302|NCT01125930|182068535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 6 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess self-reported facial burning.||||0.31
91092303|NCT01125930|182068535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 12 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess self-reported facial burning.||||0.25
90840511|NCT01746901|181547956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|32.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.3|43.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||43.9|20.3|<0.0001
90840512|NCT01746901|181547956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|36.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.6|48.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||48.1|24.6|<0.0001
91092304|NCT01125930|182068535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 18 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess self-reported facial burning.||||0.46
91092305|NCT01125930|182068536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 2 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess self-reported facial stinging.||||0.41
91092306|NCT01125930|182068536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 6 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess self-reported facial stinging.||||0.05
91092307|NCT01125930|182068536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 12 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess self-reported facial stinging.||||0.16
91092308|NCT01125930|182068536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 18 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess self-reported facial stinging.||||0.14
91104066|NCT04250207|182094698|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.0093|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 3||||0.0093
91028546|NCT00601484|181940827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-8.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.041|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.493|3.192||||||Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||3.192|-20.493|
91028547|NCT00601484|181940827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-9.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.089|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-26.775|7.343||||||Week 6: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||7.343|-26.775|
91028548|NCT00601484|181940827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|3.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.532|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.95|16.465||||||Week 10: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||16.465|-8.950|
91028549|NCT00601484|181940827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-8.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.906|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.299|4.851||||||Week 16: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||4.851|-22.299|
91028550|NCT00601484|181940828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.609|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.776|1.265||||||Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||1.265|-0.776|
91028551|NCT00601484|181940828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.674|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.22|1.044||||||Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||1.044|-1.220|
91028552|NCT00601484|181940828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.009|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.124|2.269||||||Week 6: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||2.269|-1.124|
91028553|NCT00601484|181940828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.019|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.441|1.988||||||Week 10: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||1.988|-1.441|
91028554|NCT00601484|181940828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.769|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.307|2.283||||||Week 16: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||2.283|-0.307|
91028555|NCT00601484|181940829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehman median difference|-1.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.05|5.76||||||Week 2: Van elteren test was used to compare the percent change from baseline between tanezumab and placebo using baseline average daily pain score (moderate \[4 to less than 7\] or severe \[greater than or equal to 7\]) as stratification variable.||5.76|-9.05|
91028556|NCT00601484|181940829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehman median difference|-2.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.65|4.24||||||Week 4: Van elteren test was used to compare the percent change from baseline between tanezumab and placebo using baseline average daily pain score (moderate \[4 to less than 7\] or severe \[greater than or equal to 7\]) as stratification variable.||4.24|-12.65|
91028557|NCT00601484|181940829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehman median difference|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.96|7.9||||||Week 6: Van elteren test was used to compare the percent change from baseline between tanezumab and placebo using baseline average daily pain score (moderate \[4 to less than 7\] or severe \[greater than or equal to 7\]) as stratification variable.||7.90|-8.96|
91092309|NCT01125930|182068537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 2 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to provide an overall self-assessment of product tolerance.||||0.36
91092310|NCT01125930|182068537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 6 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to provide an overall self-assessment of product tolerance.||||0.88
91028558|NCT00601484|181940829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehman median difference|-1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.57|8.28||||||Week 10: Van elteren test was used to compare the percent change from baseline between tanezumab and placebo using baseline average daily pain score (moderate \[4 to less than 7\] or severe \[greater than or equal to 7\]) as stratification variable.||8.28|-11.57|
91028559|NCT00601484|181940829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehman median difference|3.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.82|13.02||||||Week 16: Van elteren test was used to compare the percent change from baseline between tanezumab and placebo using baseline average daily pain score (moderate \[4 to less than 7\] or severe \[greater than or equal to 7\]) as stratification variable.||13.02|-6.82|
91028560|NCT00601484|181940830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.01|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.414|0.983||||||Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||0.983|-2.414|
91028561|NCT00601484|181940830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.169|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.548|2.384||||||Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||2.384|-1.548|
91028562|NCT00601484|181940830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.821|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.075|2.693||||||Week 6: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||2.693|-0.075|
91028563|NCT00601484|181940830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.093|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.178|1.512||||||Week 10: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||1.512|-2.178|
91028564|NCT00601484|181940830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.208|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.038|4.112||||||Week 16: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||4.112|0.038|
91028565|NCT00601484|181940831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehman median difference|-6.41|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-33.33|18.68||||||Week 2: Van elteren test was used to compare the percent change from baseline between tanezumab and placebo using baseline average daily pain score (moderate \[4 to less than 7\] or severe \[greater than or equal to 7\]) as stratification variable.||18.68|-33.33|
91028566|NCT00601484|181940831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehman median difference|15.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.12|41.18||||||Week 4: Van elteren test was used to compare the percent change from baseline between tanezumab and placebo using baseline average daily pain score (moderate \[4 to less than 7\] or severe \[greater than or equal to 7\]) as stratification variable.||41.18|-14.12|
91028567|NCT00601484|181940831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehman median difference|19.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|38.1||||||Week 6: Van elteren test was used to compare the percent change from baseline between tanezumab and placebo using baseline average daily pain score (moderate \[4 to less than 7\] or severe \[greater than or equal to 7\]) as stratification variable.||38.10|0.00|
91028568|NCT00601484|181940831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehman median difference|-0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-30.95|32.73||||||Week 10: Van elteren test was used to compare the percent change from baseline between tanezumab and placebo using baseline average daily pain score (moderate \[4 to less than 7\] or severe \[greater than or equal to 7\]) as stratification variable.||32.73|-30.95|
91028569|NCT00601484|181940831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehman median difference|34.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.57|70.0||||||Week 16: Van elteren test was used to compare the percent change from baseline between tanezumab and placebo using baseline average daily pain score (moderate \[4 to less than 7\] or severe \[greater than or equal to 7\]) as stratification variable.||70.00|-4.57|
91028570|NCT00601484|181940832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.529|0.61||||||Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||0.610|-0.529|
91028571|NCT00601484|181940832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.334|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.077|0.043||||||Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||0.043|-1.077|
91028572|NCT00601484|181940832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.366|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.835|0.396||||||Week 6: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||0.396|-0.835|
91028573|NCT00601484|181940832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.294|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.718|0.273||||||Week 10: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||0.273|-0.718|
91028574|NCT00601484|181940832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.442|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.044|0.445||||||Week 16: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||0.445|-1.044|
91028575|NCT00601484|181940833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehman median difference|-1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.56|5.37||||||Week 2: Van elteren test was used to compare the percent change from baseline between tanezumab and placebo using baseline average daily pain score (moderate \[4 to less than 7\] or severe \[greater than or equal to 7\]) as stratification variable.||5.37|-27.56|
91028576|NCT00601484|181940833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehman median difference|-22.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-56.39|0.0||||||Week 4: Van elteren test was used to compare the percent change from baseline between tanezumab and placebo using baseline average daily pain score (moderate \[4 to less than 7\] or severe \[greater than or equal to 7\]) as stratification variable.||0.00|-56.39|
91028577|NCT00601484|181940833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehman median difference|-16.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-40.44|0.0||||||Week 6: Van elteren test was used to compare the percent change from baseline between tanezumab and placebo using baseline average daily pain score (moderate \[4 to less than 7\] or severe \[greater than or equal to 7\]) as stratification variable.||0.00|-40.44|
91028578|NCT00601484|181940833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehman median difference|-14.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-50.71|0.0||||||Week 10: Van elteren test was used to compare the percent change from baseline between tanezumab and placebo using baseline average daily pain score (moderate \[4 to less than 7\] or severe \[greater than or equal to 7\]) as stratification variable.||0.00|-50.71|
91028579|NCT00601484|181940833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehman median difference|-8.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-36.87|4.64||||||Week 16: Van elteren test was used to compare the percent change from baseline between tanezumab and placebo using baseline average daily pain score (moderate \[4 to less than 7\] or severe \[greater than or equal to 7\]) as stratification variable.||4.64|-36.87|
91028580|NCT00601484|181940834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.495|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.852|26.044||||||Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||26.044|-15.852|
91028581|NCT00601484|181940834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|4.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.802|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.216|25.764||||||Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||25.764|-17.216|
91028582|NCT00601484|181940834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-2.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.741|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-25.917|20.307||||||Week 6: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||20.307|-25.917|
91028583|NCT00601484|181940834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.416|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.626|20.162||||||Week 10: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||20.162|-21.626|
91092311|NCT01125930|182068537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 12 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to provide an overall self-assessment of product tolerance.||||0.18
91092312|NCT01125930|182068537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 18 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to provide an overall self-assessment of product tolerance.||||0.17
91092313|NCT01125930|182068538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 2 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to provide an assessment of skin irritation by facial stinging upon product application.||||0.21
91092314|NCT01125930|182068538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 6 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to provide an assessment of skin irritation by facial stinging upon product application.||||<0.01
91092315|NCT01125930|182068538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 12 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to provide an assessment of skin irritation by facial stinging upon product application.||||0.04
91092316|NCT01125930|182068538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 18 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to provide an assessment of skin irritation by facial stinging upon product application.||||0.10
91092317|NCT01125930|182068539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 2 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to provide an assessment of skin irritation by facial itching upon product application.||||1.00
91092318|NCT01125930|182068539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 6 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to provide an assessment of skin irritation by facial itching upon product application.||||0.02
91092319|NCT01125930|182068539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 12 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to provide an assessment of skin irritation by facial itching upon product application.||||0.08
90840513|NCT01746901|181547957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|108.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.6|124.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||124.5|91.6|<0.0001
90840514|NCT01746901|181547957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.8||||0.4125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|23.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||23.3|-9.6|0.4125
90840515|NCT01746901|181547957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|46.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.6|62.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||62.5|29.6|<0.0001
90897369|NCT01216163|181660522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.7||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|1.49||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.49|-0.09|0.080
90897370|NCT01216163|181660522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.73||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||2.73|0.81|<0.001
91092320|NCT01125930|182068539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 18 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to provide an assessment of skin irritation by facial itching upon product application.||||0.15
91104067|NCT04250207|182094698|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.|||||>|0.9999|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 3||||> 0.9999
90840516|NCT01746901|181547957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|68.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.4|85.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||85.2|52.4|<0.0001
90840517|NCT01746901|181547957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|56.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.3|73.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||73.2|40.3|<0.0001
90840518|NCT01746901|181547957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|52.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.2|69.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||69.0|36.2|<0.0001
90840519|NCT01746901|181547958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|32.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.8|43.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||43.7|21.8|<0.0001
90840520|NCT01746901|181547958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.6||||0.6434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|13.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||13.5|-8.4|0.6434
91092321|NCT01125930|182068540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 2 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to provide an assessment of skin irritation by facial burning upon product application.||||0.67
91092322|NCT01125930|182068540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 6 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to provide an assessment of skin irritation by facial burning upon product application.||||0.18
91092323|NCT01125930|182068540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 21 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to provide an assessment of skin irritation by facial burning upon product application.||||0.02
91092324|NCT01125930|182068540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 18 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to provide an assessment of skin irritation by facial burning upon product application.||||0.42
91092325|NCT02741284|182068541|NON_INFERIORITY|A noninferiority margin of 30% (mean difference \<1.0 mmol/l) was pre-specified as it corresponds to an upper umbilical artery lactate cut-off value of 4.5 mmol/L, above which there is an increased risk of neonatal morbidity|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.7|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.7|-0.5|0.69
91092326|NCT02741284|182068542|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority margin 30%|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.03|||t-test, 2 sided|||pH||0.03|-0.01|<0.05
91092327|NCT02741284|182068543|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.32|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.48|||Chi-squared|||Cesarean delivery||1.48|0.07|<0.05
90840521|NCT01746901|181547958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|9.0||||0.1072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|20.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||20.0|-2.0|0.1072
90840522|NCT01746901|181547958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|26.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.4|37.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||37.3|15.4|<0.0001
90840523|NCT01746901|181547958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|25.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.7|36.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||36.6|14.7|<0.0001
91092328|NCT02741284|182068543|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Chi-squared|||Cesarean delivery for non reassuring fetal status||0|0|<0.05
91092329|NCT02741284|182068543|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|5.65|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|45.2|||Chi-squared|||Operative vaginal delivery||45.20|0.71|<0.05
91092330|NCT02741284|182068544|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.5||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|2.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.4|-5.4|0.44
91092331|NCT02741284|182068545|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.7||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|0.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.1|-9.6|0.06
91092332|NCT02741284|182068546|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.0|-1.0|0.99
90840524|NCT01746901|181547958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|11.9||||0.0335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|22.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||22.9|0.9|0.0335
90840525|NCT01746901|181547959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|35.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.0|46.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||46.0|24.0|<0.0001
90840526|NCT01746901|181547959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.9811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|10.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||10.8|-11.1|0.9811
90840527|NCT01746901|181547959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|9.0||||0.1083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|19.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||19.9|-2.0|0.1083
91092333|NCT01516216|182068607|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.07
91092334|NCT01516216|182068608|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.43
91092335|NCT01516216|182068609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.27
91092336|NCT01516216|182068611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.68
91092337|NCT01516216|182068614|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9801|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.9801
91092338|NCT01516216|182068615|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7444|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7444
90840528|NCT01746901|181547959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|25.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.9|36.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||36.9|14.9|<0.0001
90840529|NCT01746901|181547959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|23.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.3|34.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||34.2|12.3|<0.0001
90840530|NCT01746901|181547959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|11.5||||0.0408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|22.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||22.4|0.5|0.0408
90897371|NCT01216163|181660522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|3.37||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||3.37|1.41|<0.001
90897372|NCT01216163|181660522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.85||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|1.65||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.65|0.05|0.037
90897373|NCT01216163|181660522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.54||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|2.52||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||2.52|0.57|0.002
91092339|NCT02419807|182068632|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence is defined as the difference in the proportions of nodes flagged between the Tc and ICG methods falling within an interval (-δ, +δ), where δ is taken to be 5%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.036|0.151||||||||0.151|0.036|
91092340|NCT01499511|182068649|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.624|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.624
91092341|NCT01499511|182068650|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.004
91092342|NCT01499511|182068651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.304|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.304
91092343|NCT01499511|182068652|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.641|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.641
91092344|NCT01499511|182068653|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.915|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.915
90840531|NCT01746901|181547960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|36.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.2|48.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||48.7|25.2|<0.0001
90897374|NCT01216163|181660523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.88|2.88||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPID 0-2: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||2.88|1.88|<0.001
91092345|NCT00853385|182068670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|24.24|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.18|35.31||A step-down procedure was used to control for multiple comparisons. In order for the comparison to 5 mg to be statistically significant, the comparison to 10 mg had to be statistically significant.|Normal approximation|||Normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the superiority of CP-690,550 10 mg to placebo and 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was evaluated for the difference in percentages.||35.31|13.18|<0.0001
91092346|NCT00853385|182068670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|23.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.16|34.29||A step-down procedure was used to control for multiple comparisons. In order for the comparison to 5 mg to be statistically significant, the comparison to 10 mg had to be statistically significant.|Normal approximation|||Normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the superiority of CP-690,550 5 mg to placebo and 2-sided 95% CI was evaluated for the difference in percentages.||34.29|12.16|<0.0001
91092347|NCT00853385|182068670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|18.93||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.9|29.96||Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Normal approximation|||Normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the superiority of adalimumab to placebo and 2-sided 95% CI was evaluated for the difference in percentages.||29.96|7.90|0.0007
91092348|NCT00853385|182068671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.25||A step-down procedure was used to control for multiple comparisons. For the comparison of 10 mg to placebo to be statistically significant in this measure, the comparison of 10 mg to placebo in ACR20 had to be significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Least squares (LS) mean difference and corresponding 95% CI was calculated using a mixed-effect repeated measure model with treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect and participant as random effect.||-0.25|-0.50|<0.0001
91092349|NCT00853385|182068671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.19||Step-down procedure: For the comparison of 5 mg to placebo to be statistically significant in this measure, the comparison of 10 mg to placebo as well as the comparison of 5 mg to placebo in ACR20 had to be statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI was calculated using a mixed-effect repeated measure model with treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect and participant as random effect.||-0.19|-0.43|<0.0001
90840532|NCT01746901|181547960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.2||||0.5968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|8.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||8.6|-14.9|0.5968
90840533|NCT01746901|181547960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|8.7||||0.1471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|20.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||20.4|-3.1|0.1471
90840534|NCT01746901|181547960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|9.5||||0.1136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|21.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||21.3|-2.3|0.1136
91092350|NCT00853385|182068671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.13||Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI was calculated using a mixed-effect repeated measure model with treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect and participant as random effect.||-0.13|-0.37|<0.0001
91092351|NCT00853385|182068672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|11.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.08|16.73||A step-down procedure was used to control for multiple comparisons. For comparison of 10 mg to placebo to be statistically significant in this measure, comparison of 10 mg to placebo in HAQ-DI had to be significant.|Normal approximation|||Normal approximation to the binomial distribution was used to test the superiority of CP-690,550 10 mg to placebo and two-sided 95% CI was evaluated for the difference in percentages.||16.73|6.08|<0.0001
91028584|NCT00601484|181940834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|10.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.469|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.858|34.868||||||Week 16: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||34.868|-13.858|
91028585|NCT00601484|181940835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|3.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.968|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.049|15.316||||||Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||15.316|-8.049|
91028586|NCT00601484|181940835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|3.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.353|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.153|15.533||||||Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||15.533|-9.153|
91028587|NCT00601484|181940835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.651|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.806|11.932||||||Week 6: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||11.932|-13.806|
91028588|NCT00601484|181940835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|6.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.543|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.901|19.486||||||Week 10: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||19.486|-5.901|
91028589|NCT00601484|181940835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|4.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.31|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.221|18.765||||||Week 16: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||18.765|-9.221|
91028590|NCT00601484|181940836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.407|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.546|-0.182||||||Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||-0.182|-1.546|
91028591|NCT00601484|181940836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.484|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.196|-0.57||||||Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||-0.570|-2.196|
91092352|NCT00853385|182068672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|5.12||||0.0151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|9.26||Step-down procedure: For the comparison of 5 mg to placebo to be statistically significant in this measure, the comparison of 10 mg to placebo as well as comparison of 5 mg to placebo in HAQ-DI had to be statistically significant.|Normal approximation|||Normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the superiority of CP-690,550 5 mg to placebo and 2-sided 95% CI was evaluated for the difference in percentages.||9.26|0.98|0.0151
91092353|NCT00853385|182068672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|5.65||||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|9.9||Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Normal approximation|||Normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the superiority of adalimumab to placebo and 2-sided 95% CI was evaluated for the difference in percentages.||9.90|1.40|0.0091
90840535|NCT01746901|181547960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|22.4||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.6|34.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||34.2|10.6|0.0002
90840536|NCT01746901|181547960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|9.5||||0.1136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|21.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||21.3|-2.3|0.1136
91028592|NCT00601484|181940836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.204|-0.388||||||Week 6: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||-0.388|-2.204|
91028593|NCT00601484|181940836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.553|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.032|-0.172||||||Week 10: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||-0.172|-2.032|
91028594|NCT00601484|181940836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.512|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.878|-0.152||||||Week 16: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||-0.152|-1.878|
91028595|NCT00601484|181940837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-16.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.064|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-29.757|-2.718||||||Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||-2.718|-29.757|
90840537|NCT01746901|181547962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|28.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.6|37.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||37.4|19.6|<0.0001
90840538|NCT01746901|181547962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.2||||0.6209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|11.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||11.1|-6.7|0.6209
90840539|NCT01746901|181547962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.5||||0.0997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|16.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||16.3|-1.4|0.0997
90840540|NCT01746901|181547962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|23.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.4|32.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||32.1|14.4|<0.0001
90840541|NCT01746901|181547962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|16.6||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|25.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||25.5|7.7|0.0003
90840542|NCT01746901|181547962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|13.3||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|22.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||22.2|4.4|0.0036
90897375|NCT01216163|181660523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.56||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.97||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPID 0-2: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.97|0.15|0.007
90897376|NCT01216163|181660523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|2.32||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPID 0-2: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||2.32|1.32|<0.001
90897377|NCT01216163|181660523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|3.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.85|4.49||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPID 0-3: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||4.49|2.85|<0.001
91028596|NCT00601484|181940837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-27.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.059|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-44.846|-11.075||||||Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||-11.075|-44.846|
91028597|NCT00601484|181940837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-25.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.508|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-45.079|-6.369||||||Week 6: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||-6.369|-45.079|
91028598|NCT00601484|181940837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-19.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.157|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-40.017|0.902||||||Week 10: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||0.902|-40.017|
91028599|NCT00601484|181940837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-21.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.124|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-40.633|-3.171||||||Week 16: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||-3.171|-40.633|
91028600|NCT00601484|181940838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.942|-0.057||||||Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||-0.057|-2.942|
91028601|NCT00601484|181940838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-2.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.458|-0.705||||||Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||-0.705|-3.458|
91092354|NCT03435055|182068758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test were conducted on subject specific beta maps to identify changes in connectivity associated with nitrous oxide in SPM12. Hypothesis was that the results would be deemed significant at false discovery rate (FDR) cluster level corrected p \< 0.05 derived from a voxel-wise uncorrected p-value \< 0.001.||||0.001
90840543|NCT01746901|181547963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|29.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.1|38.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||38.8|21.1|<0.0001
90840544|NCT01746901|181547963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.4||||0.5951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|6.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||6.4|-11.2|0.5951
91028602|NCT00601484|181940838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-2.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.267|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.265|-0.004||||||Week 6: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||-0.004|-4.265|
91028603|NCT00601484|181940838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.531|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.029|1.124||||||Week 10: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||1.124|-4.029|
91092355|NCT03435055|182068759|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test were conducted on subject specific beta maps to identify changes in connectivity associated with nitrous oxide in SPM12. Hypothesis was that results would be deemed significant at false discovery rate (FDR) cluster level corrected p \< 0.05 derived from a voxel-wise uncorrected p-value \< 0.001.||||0.006
91092356|NCT03435055|182068760|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired-t tests were conducted to determine whether changes in stimulus intensity: post stimulus at baseline and under subanesthetic dose of nitrous oxide. Statistical tests were completed in SPSS 26 and determined by p \< 0.05.||||<0.01
90840545|NCT01746901|181547963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.8||||0.0841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|16.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||16.6|-1.1|0.0841
90840546|NCT01746901|181547963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|19.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|28.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||28.6|11.0|<0.0001
91092357|NCT03435055|182068761|OTHER|Paired T-test comparing baseline to nitrous||||||0.0622|||||||Paired t-test|||Delta||||0.0622
91092358|NCT03435055|182068761|OTHER|Paired T-test comparing baseline to nitrous||||||0.0292|||||||Paired t-test|||Theta||||0.0292
91092359|NCT03435055|182068761|OTHER|Paired T-test comparing baseline to nitrous||||||0.5905|||||||Paired t-test|||Alpha comparison||||0.5905
91028604|NCT00601484|181940838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-2.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.293|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.419|-0.063||||||Week 16: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||-0.063|-4.419|
91028605|NCT00601484|181940839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehman median difference|-7.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.32|11.32||||||Week 2: Van elteren test was used to compare the percent change from baseline between tanezumab and placebo using baseline average daily pain score (moderate \[4 to less than 7\] or severe \[greater than or equal to 7\] as stratification variable.||11.32|-27.32|
91028606|NCT00601484|181940839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehman median difference|-17.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-42.04|4.37||||||Week 4: Van elteren test was used to compare the percent change from baseline between tanezumab and placebo using baseline average daily pain score (moderate \[4 to less than 7\] or severe \[greater than or equal to 7\] as stratification variable.||4.37|-42.04|
91028607|NCT00601484|181940839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehman median difference|-24.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-51.58|0.67||||||Week 6: Van elteren test was used to compare the percent change from baseline between tanezumab and placebo using baseline average daily pain score (moderate \[4 to less than 7\] or severe \[greater than or equal to 7\] as stratification variable.||0.67|-51.58|
91028608|NCT00601484|181940839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehman median difference|-7.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-41.71|17.33||||||Week 10: Van elteren test was used to compare the percent change from baseline between tanezumab and placebo using baseline average daily pain score (moderate \[4 to less than 7\] or severe \[greater than or equal to 7\] as stratification variable.||17.33|-41.71|
91028609|NCT00601484|181940839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehman median difference|-21.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-54.76|7.92||||||Week 16: Van elteren test was used to compare the percent change from baseline between tanezumab and placebo using baseline average daily pain score (moderate \[4 to less than 7\] or severe \[greater than or equal to 7\] as stratification variable.||7.92|-54.76|
91092360|NCT01668797|182068778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|The log-rank test was based on time to exacerbation of psychotic symptoms/impending relapse.||The total number of exacerbation of psychotic symptoms/impending relapse was estimated using a 1:1 (brexpiprazole:placebo) randomization ratio.||||<0.0001
91092361|NCT01668797|182068779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||The percentage of participants with impending relapse in treatment groups (Brexpiprazole and placebo) in final analysis for participants meeting at least one of the criteria.||||<0.0001
91092362|NCT01668797|182068780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2296|||||||Chi-squared|||Statistical analysis at Week 6.||||0.2296
91092363|NCT01668797|182068780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2051|||||||Chi-squared|||Statistical analysis at Week 12.||||0.2051
91092364|NCT01668797|182068780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7354|||||||Chi-squared|||Statistical analysis at Week 24.||||0.7354
91092365|NCT01668797|182068780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1977|||||||Chi-squared|||Statistical analysis at Week 36.||||0.1977
91092366|NCT01668797|182068780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8734|||||||Chi-squared|||Statistical analysis at Week 52.||||0.8734
90840547|NCT01746901|181547963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|14.5||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|23.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||23.4|5.7|0.0014
91028610|NCT00601484|181940840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.165|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.591|-0.04||||||Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||-0.040|-0.591|
91028611|NCT00601484|181940840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.225|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.734|0.02||||||Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||0.020|-0.734|
91028612|NCT00601484|181940840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.211|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.724|-0.015||||||Week 6: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||-0.015|-0.724|
91092367|NCT01668797|182068780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0007|||||||Chi-squared|||Statistical analysis at Last Visit.||||0.0007
91092368|NCT01668797|182068781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.3||||0.0664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.82|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of treatment comparisons at Week 6.||0.23|-6.82|0.0664
91092369|NCT01668797|182068781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.31||||0.0301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|-0.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of treatment comparisons at Week 12.||-0.52|-10.1|0.0301
90897378|NCT01216163|181660523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.98||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.66||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPID 0-3: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.66|0.31|0.004
90897379|NCT01216163|181660523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.87|3.51||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPID 0-3: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||3.51|1.87|<0.001
90897380|NCT01216163|181660523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|6.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.96|8.64||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPID 0-6: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||8.64|4.96|<0.001
91028613|NCT00601484|181940840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.238|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.806|-0.005||||||Week 10: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||-0.005|-0.806|
91028614|NCT00601484|181940840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.206|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.47|0.223||||||Week 16: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||0.223|-0.470|
91028615|NCT00601484|181940841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-15.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.425|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-29.468|-1.209||||||Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||-1.209|-29.468|
91028616|NCT00601484|181940841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-16.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.102|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-35.608|1.665||||||Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||1.665|-35.608|
91028617|NCT00601484|181940841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-18.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.358|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-35.476|-0.613||||||Week 6: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||-0.613|-35.476|
91028618|NCT00601484|181940841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-19.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.631|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-42.418|3.46||||||Week 10: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||3.460|-42.418|
91028619|NCT00601484|181940841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-9.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.097|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-26.174|7.849||||||Week 16: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||7.849|-26.174|
91028620|NCT00601484|181940842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.404|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.394|0.03||||||Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||0.030|-1.394|
91092370|NCT01668797|182068781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.77||||0.0226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.86|-0.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of treatment comparisons at Week 24.||-0.68|-8.86|0.0226
90897381|NCT01216163|181660523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.09||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|3.59||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPID 0-6: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||3.59|0.59|0.007
90897382|NCT01216163|181660523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|4.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.87|6.54||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPID 0-6: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||6.54|2.87|<0.001
90897383|NCT01216163|181660524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|3.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.05|4.57||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 0-2: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||4.57|3.05|<0.001
91028621|NCT00601484|181940842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.454|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.149|0.468||||||Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||0.468|-1.149|
91028622|NCT00601484|181940842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.449|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.443|0.156||||||Week 6: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||0.156|-1.443|
91028623|NCT00601484|181940842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.546|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.046|0.931||||||Week 10: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||0.931|-1.046|
91028624|NCT00601484|181940842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.673|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.876|0.592||||||Week 16: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||0.592|-1.876|
90897384|NCT01216163|181660524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.76||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|1.38||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 0-2: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.38|0.14|0.016
90897385|NCT01216163|181660524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|3.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.29|3.8||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 0-2: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||3.80|2.29|<0.001
90897386|NCT01216163|181660524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|5.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.66|7.15||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 0-3: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||7.15|4.66|<0.001
90957300|NCT02502097|181794298|SUPERIORITY|MMRM model uses the change from baseline as the dependent variable and includes the period, treatment group (Gefapixant 50 mg, Placebo), visit (Day 7 and Day 14 at each Period), all interactions terms as fixed factors, and baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference Week 1|||-0.4|-1.5|0.0009
91092371|NCT01668797|182068781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.03||||0.0086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|-1.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of treatment comparisons at Week 36.||-1.59|-10.5|0.0086
91092372|NCT01668797|182068781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.31||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.1|5.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of treatment comparisons at Week 52.||5.46|-18.1|0.2800
91092373|NCT01668797|182068781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.42||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.01|-1.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at across visits||-1.82|-7.01|0.0011
91092374|NCT01668797|182068782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.04||||0.0683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.31|0.23|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 6.||0.23|-6.31|0.0683
91092375|NCT01668797|182068782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.05||||0.0174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|-0.9|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 12.||-0.90|-9.20|0.0174
91092376|NCT01668797|182068782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.59||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|-3.18|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 24.||-3.18|-12.0|0.0008
90897387|NCT01216163|181660524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.35||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|2.37||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 0-3: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||2.37|0.33|0.010
90897388|NCT01216163|181660524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|4.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.31|5.8||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 0-3: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||5.80|3.31|<0.001
90957301|NCT02502097|181794298|SUPERIORITY|MMRM model uses the change from baseline as the dependent variable and includes the period, treatment group (Gefapixant 50 mg, Placebo), visit (Day 7 and Day 14 at each Period), all interactions terms as fixed factors, and baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference Week 2|||-0.3|-1.7|0.0050
90957302|NCT02502097|181794299|SUPERIORITY|MMRM model uses the change from baseline as the dependent variable and includes the period, treatment group (Gefapixant 50 mg, Placebo), visit (Day 7 and Day 14 at each Period), all interactions terms as fixed factors, and baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.8||||0.2938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|2.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference Day 7|||2.5|-8.2|0.2938
90957303|NCT02502097|181794299|SUPERIORITY|MMRM model uses the change from baseline as the dependent variable and includes the period, treatment group (Gefapixant 50 mg, Placebo), visit (Day 7 and Day 14 at each Period), all interactions terms as fixed factors, and baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0||||0.1319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference Day 14|||1.2|-9.2|0.1319
91092377|NCT01668797|182068782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.02||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|-3.59|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 36.||-3.59|-12.4|0.0005
91092378|NCT01668797|182068782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.95||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|-3.41|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 52.||-3.41|-12.5|0.0007
91092379|NCT01668797|182068783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.11||||0.0507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 6.||0.00|-2.23|0.0507
91092380|NCT01668797|182068783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.87||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.24|-0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 12.||-0.50|-3.24|0.0080
91092381|NCT01668797|182068783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.56||||0.0215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.89|-0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 24.||-0.24|-2.89|0.0215
91092382|NCT01668797|182068783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.88||||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.19|-0.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 36.||-0.58|-3.19|0.0053
91092383|NCT01668797|182068783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.71||||0.339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|-0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 52.||-0.22|-5.20|0.339
91092384|NCT01668797|182068783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.32|-0.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at across visits.||-0.88|-2.32|< 0.0001
91092385|NCT01668797|182068784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.94||||0.1093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.21|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 6.||0.21|-2.10|0.1093
91092386|NCT01668797|182068784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.86||||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.25|-0.47|||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 12.||-0.47|-3.25|0.0089
91092387|NCT01668797|182068784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.74||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.26|-1.22|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 24.||-1.22|-4.26|0.0005
91028625|NCT00601484|181940843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-34.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.509|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-72.879|4.375||||||Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||4.375|-72.879|
90840548|NCT01746901|181547963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|10.8||||0.0172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|19.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||19.6|1.9|0.0172
90840549|NCT01746901|181547964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|30.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.0|39.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||39.9|21.0|<0.0001
90840550|NCT01746901|181547964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.9||||0.2166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|3.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||3.5|-15.4|0.2166
90840551|NCT01746901|181547964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|8.5||||0.0777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|18.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||18.0|-1.0|0.0777
90840552|NCT01746901|181547964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|16.0||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|25.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||25.4|6.5|0.0011
90840553|NCT01746901|181547964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|12.7||||0.0086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|22.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||22.2|3.3|0.0086
91092388|NCT01668797|182068784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.94||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.43|-1.44|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 36.||-1.44|-4.43|0.0001
90840554|NCT01746901|181547964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|8.5||||0.0775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|18.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||18.0|-0.9|0.0775
90897389|NCT01216163|181660524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|10.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.05|13.7||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 0-6: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||13.70|8.05|<0.001
91092389|NCT01668797|182068784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|-1.66|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 52||-1.66|-4.70|<0.0001
91092390|NCT01668797|182068785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69||||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 6.||0.29|-1.66|0.1650
90840555|NCT01746901|181547966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|61.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.8|73.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||73.6|48.8|<0.0001
90840556|NCT01746901|181547966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|18.8||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.4|31.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||31.2|6.4|0.0032
90840557|NCT01746901|181547966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|32.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.5|45.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||45.3|20.5|<0.0001
90840558|NCT01746901|181547966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|47.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.8|59.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||59.6|34.8|<0.0001
90897390|NCT01216163|181660524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.87||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|5.18||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 0-6: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||5.18|0.57|0.015
91092391|NCT01668797|182068785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.78||||0.2001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.97|0.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 12.||0.42|-1.97|0.2001
91092392|NCT01668797|182068785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.95||||0.0939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 24.||0.16|-2.07|0.0939
90840559|NCT01746901|181547966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|73.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.1|86.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||86.0|61.1|<0.0001
91092393|NCT01668797|182068785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.05||||0.1396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 36.||0.35|-2.44|0.1396
90840560|NCT01746901|181547966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|38.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.0|50.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||50.8|26.0|<0.0001
91092394|NCT01668797|182068785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.43||||0.847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.14|5.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 52.||5.00|-4.14|0.8470
91092395|NCT01668797|182068785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47||||0.2258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at across visits.||0.3|-1.24|0.2258
91092396|NCT01668797|182068786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.76||||0.0981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|0.14|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 6.||0.14|-1.65|0.0981
91092397|NCT01668797|182068786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.22||||0.0264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.15|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 12.||-0.15|-2.30|0.0264
90840561|NCT01746901|181547967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|43.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.0|51.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||51.8|36.0|<0.0001
90840562|NCT01746901|181547967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.3||||0.4154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|11.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||11.2|-4.6|0.4154
90840563|NCT01746901|181547967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|21.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.9|29.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||29.7|13.9|<0.0001
90840564|NCT01746901|181547967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|25.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.5|33.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||33.3|17.5|<0.0001
90840565|NCT01746901|181547967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|20.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.3|28.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||28.1|12.3|<0.0001
91092398|NCT01668797|182068786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.55||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.69|-0.42|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 24.||-0.42|-2.69|0.0078
91092399|NCT01668797|182068786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.57||||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.77|-0.38|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 36.||-0.38|-2.77|0.0101
91092400|NCT01668797|182068786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.24||||0.0516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 52||0.01|-2.50|0.0516
90840566|NCT01746901|181547967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|18.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|26.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||26.8|11.0|<0.0001
90840567|NCT01746901|181547967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|114.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|97.1|131.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||131.3|97.1|<0.0001
90840568|NCT01746901|181547967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.3||||0.3985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|24.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||24.4|-9.8|0.3985
90840569|NCT01746901|181547967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|55.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.5|72.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||72.8|38.5|<0.0001
91092401|NCT01668797|182068787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28||||0.0279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 6.||-0.03|-0.53|0.0279
90840570|NCT01746901|181547967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|65.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.8|83.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||83.0|48.8|<0.0001
90840571|NCT01746901|181547967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|55.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.5|72.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||72.7|38.5|<0.0001
91092402|NCT01668797|182068787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39||||0.0117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 12.||-0.09|-0.68|0.0117
90840572|NCT01746901|181547967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|54.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.0|71.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||71.2|37.0|<0.0001
90840573|NCT01746901|181547967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|302.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|248.8|356.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||356.8|248.8|<0.0001
90840574|NCT01746901|181547967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|47.8||||0.0824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|101.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||101.7|-6.2|0.0824
90840575|NCT01746901|181547967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|188.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|134.6|242.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||242.5|134.6|<0.0001
90957304|NCT02502097|181794300|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.2175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference Day 7|||0.4|-1.5|0.2175
91092403|NCT01668797|182068787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37||||0.0105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|-0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 24.||-0.09|-0.64|0.0105
91092404|NCT01668797|182068787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 36.||-0.25|-0.87|0.0007
91092405|NCT01668797|182068787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 52.||0.06|-1.09|0.0780
91092406|NCT01668797|182068787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at across visits.||-0.15|-0.54|0.0006
91092407|NCT01668797|182068788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||0.0284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 6.||-0.03|-0.47|0.0284
91092408|NCT01668797|182068788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36||||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 12.||-0.11|-0.62|0.0056
91092409|NCT01668797|182068788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 24.||-0.24|-0.76|0.0002
90840576|NCT01746901|181547967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|162.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|108.0|216.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||216.0|108.0|<0.0001
90840577|NCT01746901|181547967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|141.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|87.9|195.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||195.8|87.9|<0.0001
90840578|NCT01746901|181547967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|135.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|81.7|189.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||189.6|81.7|<0.0001
90840579|NCT01746901|181547967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|287.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|219.1|356.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||356.1|219.1|<0.0001
90840580|NCT01746901|181547967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|101.4||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.9|169.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||169.8|32.9|0.0040
90840581|NCT01746901|181547967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|218.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|150.0|287.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||287.0|150.0|<0.0001
90840582|NCT01746901|181547967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|170.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|102.0|239.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||239.0|102.0|<0.0001
90840583|NCT01746901|181547967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|158.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|90.1|227.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||227.1|90.1|<0.0001
90840584|NCT01746901|181547967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|152.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|83.7|220.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||220.7|83.7|<0.0001
90840585|NCT01746901|181547967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|185.9||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|90.1|281.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||281.8|90.1|0.0002
90957305|NCT02502097|181794300|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.5312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference Day 14|||0.7|-1.4|0.5312
91028626|NCT00601484|181940843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-30.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|24.418|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-75.23|13.285||||||Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||13.285|-75.230|
91028627|NCT00601484|181940843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-37.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|28.74|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-90.62|16.265||||||Week 6: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||16.265|-90.620|
91028628|NCT00601484|181940843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|5.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|43.222|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-74.604|86.142||||||Week 10: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||86.142|-74.604|
91028629|NCT00601484|181940843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-21.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|70.862|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-164.142|121.438||||||Week 16: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||121.438|-164.142|
91028630|NCT00601484|181940846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.788|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.562|0.081||||||Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||0.081|-2.562|
91092410|NCT01668797|182068788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 36.||-0.30|-0.82|<.0001
91092411|NCT01668797|182068788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.26|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 52||-0.26|-0.79|0.0002
90840586|NCT01746901|181547967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|205.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|109.2|300.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||300.8|109.2|<0.0001
90840587|NCT01746901|181547967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|221.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|125.2|316.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||316.7|125.2|<0.0001
91028631|NCT00601484|181940846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.986|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.782|0.535||||||Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||0.535|-2.782|
91028632|NCT00601484|181940846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.036|0.819||||||Week 6: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||0.819|-3.036|
91028633|NCT00601484|181940846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.816|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.534|1.221||||||Week 10: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||1.221|-1.534|
91092412|NCT01668797|182068789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31||||0.0387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical analysis at Week 6.||-0.20|-0.60|0.0387
91092413|NCT01668797|182068789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41||||0.0185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.07|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical analysis at Week 12.||-0.07|-0.75|0.0185
90840588|NCT01746901|181547967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|170.0||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|74.1|265.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||265.8|74.1|0.0006
91092414|NCT01668797|182068789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.24|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical analysis at Week 24.||-0.24|-0.97|0.0010
91092415|NCT01668797|182068789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical analysis at Week 36.||-0.30|-1.02|0.0004
91092416|NCT01668797|182068789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.61||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.25|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical analysis at Week 52.||-0.25|-0.96|0.0009
91092417|NCT01668797|182068790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.01||||0.6525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.47|5.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 24.||5.49|-3.47|0.6525
91092418|NCT01668797|182068790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.08||||0.1677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.71|14.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 52.||14.87|-2.71|0.1677
91092419|NCT01668797|182068790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.55||||0.2347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|9.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at across visits.||9.5|-2.41|0.2347
91092420|NCT01668797|182068791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.79||||0.0285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|7.17|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 24.||7.17|0.40|0.0285
91092421|NCT01668797|182068791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.75||||0.0071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|8.18|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 52.||8.18|1.31|0.0071
90897391|NCT01216163|181660524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|8.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.18|10.83||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 0-6: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||10.83|5.18|<0.001
91092422|NCT01668797|182068792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.61||||0.329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|4.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 12.||4.88|-1.65|0.3290
90840589|NCT01746901|181547967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|185.7||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.9|281.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||281.5|89.9|0.0002
90840590|NCT01746901|181547967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|144.9||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.1|240.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||240.8|49.1|0.0033
91092423|NCT01668797|182068792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.66||||0.1765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|6.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 24.||6.54|-1.22|0.1765
91092424|NCT01668797|182068792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.5||||0.0331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|8.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 36.||8.63|0.38|0.0331
91092425|NCT01668797|182068792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.88||||0.0522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|11.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 52.||11.82|-0.06|0.0522
91092426|NCT01668797|182068792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.66||||0.0281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|6.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at across visits.||6.92|0.41|0.0281
91092427|NCT01668797|182068793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.88||||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|6.86|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 12.||6.86|0.90|0.0111
91092428|NCT01668797|182068793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.36||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|8.62|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 24.||8.62|2.10|0.0014
91092429|NCT01668797|182068793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.61|10.0|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 36.||10.00|3.61|<.0001
91092430|NCT01668797|182068793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.55||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.28|9.83|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 52.||9.83|3.28|0.0001
91092431|NCT01668797|182068794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0014
91092432|NCT01668797|182068795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43||||0.1577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 6.||0.17|-1.02|0.1577
91092433|NCT01668797|182068795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66||||0.1685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 12.||0.28|-1.61|0.1685
91092434|NCT01668797|182068795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.2815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|0.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 24.||0.42|-1.43|0.2815
91092435|NCT01668797|182068795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.14||||0.0286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|-0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 36.||-0.12|-2.16|0.0286
91092436|NCT01668797|182068795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.03||||0.1803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.58|0.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 52.||0.51|-2.58|0.1803
91092437|NCT01668797|182068795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.65||||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|-0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at across visits.||-0.17|-1.12|0.0077
91092438|NCT01668797|182068796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42||||0.1852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|0.21|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 6.||0.21|-1.06|0.1852
91092439|NCT01668797|182068796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.63||||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|0.21|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 12.||0.21|-1.47|0.1430
91092440|NCT01668797|182068796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.08||||0.0323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|-0.09|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 24.||-0.09|-2.06|0.0323
90840591|NCT01746901|181547967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|170.0||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.2|274.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||274.9|65.2|0.0017
91092441|NCT01668797|182068796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.34||||0.0071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.31|-0.37|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 36.||-0.37|-2.31|0.0071
91092442|NCT01668797|182068796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.54||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|-0.56|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 52.||-0.56|-2.52|0.0023
91092443|NCT01668797|182068797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.34||||0.0288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|-0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 6.||-0.14|-2.54|0.0288
91092444|NCT01668797|182068797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.02||||0.0128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|-0.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 12.||-0.44|-3.60|0.0128
91092445|NCT01668797|182068797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.59||||0.0462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.15|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 24.||0.03|-3.15|0.0462
91092446|NCT01668797|182068797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.29||||0.0074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.94|-0.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 36.||-0.64|-3.94|0.0074
91092447|NCT01668797|182068797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.4||||0.0136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.05|-0.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 52||-0.75|-6.05|0.0136
91092448|NCT01668797|182068797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.91||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.84|-0.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at across visits.||-0.97|-2.84|0.0001
91092449|NCT01668797|182068798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.08||||0.0695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|0.09|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 6.||0.09|-2.26|0.0695
91092450|NCT01668797|182068798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.93||||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.38|-0.49|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 12.||-0.49|-3.38|0.0089
91092451|NCT01668797|182068798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.83||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.39|-1.27|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 24.||-1.27|-4.39|0.0004
91092452|NCT01668797|182068798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.09||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.63|-1.54|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 36.||-1.54|-4.63|0.0001
90840592|NCT01746901|181547967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|211.4||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|106.6|316.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||316.2|106.6|0.0001
90840593|NCT01746901|181547967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|219.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|114.5|324.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||324.0|114.5|<0.0001
91092453|NCT01668797|182068798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.99|-1.89|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 52.||-1.89|-4.99|<0.0001
91092454|NCT01668797|182068799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66||||0.1969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 6.||0.35|-1.66|0.1969
91092455|NCT01668797|182068799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.2007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|0.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 12.||0.43|-2.04|0.2007
91092456|NCT01668797|182068799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.17||||0.0436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 24.||-0.03|-2.30|0.0436
91092457|NCT01668797|182068799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.51||||0.0444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.97|-0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 36.||-0.04|-2.97|0.0444
91092458|NCT01668797|182068799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31||||0.8927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|5.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 52.||5.02|-4.40|0.8927
90840594|NCT01746901|181547967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|162.2||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.3|267.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||267.0|57.3|0.0027
91092459|NCT01668797|182068799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52||||0.2154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at across visits.||0.31|-1.34|0.2154
91092460|NCT01668797|182068800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85||||0.0707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 6.||0.07|-1.78|0.0707
91092461|NCT01668797|182068800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.24||||0.0276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|-0.14|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 12.||-0.14|-2.35|0.0276
91092462|NCT01668797|182068800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.59||||0.0065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.72|-0.45|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 24.||-0.45|-2.72|0.0065
91092463|NCT01668797|182068800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.63||||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.84|-0.42|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 36.||-0.42|-2.84|0.0085
91092464|NCT01668797|182068800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.23||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 52.||0.07|-2.52|0.0630
91092465|NCT01668797|182068801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51||||0.2251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 6.||0.31|-1.33|0.2251
91092466|NCT01668797|182068801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.13||||0.0368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.19|-0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 12.||-0.07|-2.19|0.0368
91092467|NCT01668797|182068801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.53||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|-0.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 24.||-0.56|-2.51|0.0024
91092468|NCT01668797|182068801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.48||||0.0293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 36.||-0.15|-2.80|0.0293
91092469|NCT01668797|182068801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.9632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.32|3.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 52.||3.17|-3.32|0.9632
91092470|NCT01668797|182068801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.99||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|-0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at across visits.||-0.34|-1.63|0.0029
91092471|NCT01668797|182068802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.65||||0.1062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|0.14|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 6.||0.14|-1.44|0.1062
91092472|NCT01668797|182068802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.37||||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|-0.42|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 12.||-0.42|-2.33|0.0051
91092473|NCT01668797|182068802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.05||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.08|-1.01|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 24.||-1.01|-3.08|0.0001
91092474|NCT01668797|182068802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.94||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-0.89|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 36.||-0.89|-3.00|0.0004
91092475|NCT01668797|182068802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.69||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.81|-0.56|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 52.||-0.56|-2.81|0.0035
91092476|NCT01668797|182068803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36||||0.1465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 6.||0.13|-0.85|0.1465
91092477|NCT01668797|182068803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49||||0.2154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 12.||0.29|-1.27|0.2154
91092478|NCT01668797|182068803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44||||0.2696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 24.||0.35|-1.23|0.2696
91092479|NCT01668797|182068803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.07||||0.0179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|-0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 36.||-0.19|-1.95|0.0179
91092480|NCT01668797|182068803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.14||||0.0875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.46|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 52.||0.18|-2.46|0.0875
91092481|NCT01668797|182068803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at across visits.||-0.24|-1.08|0.0021
91092482|NCT01668797|182068804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33||||0.2135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 6.||0.19|-0.86|0.2135
91092483|NCT01668797|182068804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42||||0.2437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|0.29|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 12.||0.29|-1.13|0.2437
91092484|NCT01668797|182068804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.81||||0.0635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 24.||0.05|-1.66|0.0635
90840595|NCT01746901|181547967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|185.9||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|81.1|290.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||290.7|81.1|0.0006
90840596|NCT01746901|181547967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|135.5||||0.0116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.7|240.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||240.4|30.7|0.0116
90840597|NCT01746901|181547968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|-1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-1.5|-4.3|<0.0001
90840598|NCT01746901|181547968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.8||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|4.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||4.2|1.4|0.0001
91092485|NCT01668797|182068804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.07||||0.0144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.92|-0.22|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 36.||-0.22|-1.92|0.0144
91092486|NCT01668797|182068804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.26||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|-0.39|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 52.||-0.39|-2.12|0.0046
91092487|NCT01668797|182068805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 6.||0.19|-1.14|0.1640
91092488|NCT01668797|182068805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.5466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|0.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 12.||0.55|-1.04|0.5466
91092489|NCT01668797|182068805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.9417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 24.||0.87|-0.81|0.9417
91092490|NCT01668797|182068805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||0.6257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|0.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 36.||0.76|-1.25|0.6257
91092491|NCT01668797|182068805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0.7437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|1.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 52.||1.21|-1.68|0.7437
91092492|NCT01668797|182068805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.4506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at across visits.||0.28|-0.62|0.4506
91092493|NCT01668797|182068806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.67||||0.0467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|-0.06|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 6.||-0.06|-1.32|0.0467
91092494|NCT01668797|182068806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55||||0.1599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|0.22|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 12.||0.22|-1.33|0.1599
91092495|NCT01668797|182068806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.58||||0.1417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 24.||0.19|-1.35|0.1417
91092496|NCT01668797|182068806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.0724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 36.||0.06|-1.47|0.0724
91092497|NCT01668797|182068806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.72||||0.0608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 52.||0.03|-1.47|0.0608
91092498|NCT01027845|182068861|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparability to the 105553 study in terms of non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper limit (UL) of the two-sided 95% confidence interval(CI) on the GMC ratios (GMCs from 105553 10Pn Group over GMCs from 10Pn Group) were below a limit of 2-fold for all 10 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes. Number of participants analysed =1100 in the 105553 10Pn Group; GMC= 1.05 µg/mL with 95% CI = (1.00 to 1.10).|GMC ratio|0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.18||||||"Immune response of Synflorix vaccine tested between subjects of the 10Pn Group of the study and healthy European subjects from the 10PN-PD-DIT-001 (105553) study (with following indication: 3-dose primary vaccination of infants between 6 to 12 weeks of age at the time of the first vaccination with Synflorix), that formed the 105553 10Pn Group.~At 1 month after primary immunization (post-dose 3), ELISA GMC ratio (105553 10Pn Group over 10Pn Group) was calculated for pneumococcal serotype 1."||0.18|0.14|
91092499|NCT01027845|182068861|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparability to the 105553 study in terms of non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper limit (UL) of the two-sided 95% confidence interval(CI) on the GMC ratios (GMCs from 105553 10Pn Group over GMCs from 10Pn Group) were below a limit of 2-fold for all 10 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes. Number of participants analysed =1106 in the 105553 10Pn Group; GMC= 1.45 µg/mL with 95% CI = (1.38 to 1.53).|GMC ratio|0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.25||||||"Immune response of Synflorix vaccine tested between subjects of the 10Pn Group of the study and healthy European subjects from the 10PN-PD-DIT-001 (105553) study (with following indication: 3-dose primary vaccination of infants between 6 to 12 weeks of age at the time of the first vaccination with Synflorix), that formed the 105553 10Pn Group.~At 1 month after primary immunization (post-dose 3), ELISA GMC ratio (105553 10Pn Group over 10Pn Group) was calculated for pneumococcal serotype 4."||0.25|0.2|
91092500|NCT01027845|182068861|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparability to the 105553 study in terms of non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper limit (UL) of the two-sided 95% confidence interval(CI) on the GMC ratios (GMCs from 105553 10Pn Group over GMCs from 10Pn Group) were below a limit of 2-fold for all 10 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes. Number of participants analysed =1104 in the 105553 10Pn Group; GMC= 1.70 µg/mL with 95% CI = (1.62 to 1.78).|GMC ratio|0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.29||||||"Immune response of Synflorix vaccine tested between subjects of the 10Pn Group of the study and healthy European subjects from the 10PN-PD-DIT-001 (105553) study (with following indication: 3-dose primary vaccination of infants between 6 to 12 weeks of age at the time of the first vaccination with Synflorix), that formed the 105553 10Pn Group.~At 1 month after primary immunization (post-dose 3), ELISA GMC ratio (105553 10Pn Group over 10Pn Group) was calculated for pneumococcal serotype 5."||0.29|0.23|
91092501|NCT01027845|182068861|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparability to the 105553 study in terms of non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper limit (UL) of the two-sided 95% confidence interval(CI) on the GMC ratios (GMCs from 105553 10Pn Group over GMCs from 10Pn Group) were below a limit of 2-fold for all 10 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes. Number of participants analysed =1100 in the 105553 10Pn Group; GMC= 0.33 µg/mL with 95% CI = (0.30 to 0.36).|GMC ratio|0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.23||||||"Immune response of Synflorix vaccine tested between subjects of the 10Pn Group of the study and healthy European subjects from the 10PN-PD-DIT-001 (105553) study (with following indication: 3-dose primary vaccination of infants between 6 to 12 weeks of age at the time of the first vaccination with Synflorix), that formed the 105553 10Pn Group.~At 1 month after primary immunization (post-dose 3), ELISA GMC ratio (105553 10Pn Group over 10Pn Group) was calculated for pneumococcal serotype 6B."||0.23|0.16|
91092502|NCT01027845|182068861|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparability to the 105553 study in terms of non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper limit (UL) of the two-sided 95% confidence interval(CI) on the GMC ratios (GMCs from 105553 10Pn Group over GMCs from 10Pn Group) were below a limit of 2-fold for all 10 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes. Number of participants analysed =1107 in the 105553 10Pn Group; GMC= 1.72 µg/mL with 95% CI = (1.64 to 1.80).|GMC ratio|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.31||||||"Immune response of Synflorix vaccine tested between subjects of the 10Pn Group of the study and healthy European subjects from the 10PN-PD-DIT-001 (105553) study (with following indication: 3-dose primary vaccination of infants between 6 to 12 weeks of age at the time of the first vaccination with Synflorix), that formed the 105553 10Pn Group.~At 1 month after primary immunization (post-dose 3), ELISA GMC ratio (105553 10Pn Group over 10Pn Group) was calculated for pneumococcal serotype 7F."||0.31|0.25|
90840599|NCT01746901|181547968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.7005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||1.1|-1.7|0.7005
90840600|NCT01746901|181547968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||1.5|-1.3|0.8440
90840601|NCT01746901|181547968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.7295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||1.1|-1.6|0.7295
90897392|NCT01216163|181660525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|6.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.96|7.43||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPRID 0-2: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||7.43|4.96|<0.001
90840602|NCT01746901|181547968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.8757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||1.5|-1.3|0.8757
90897393|NCT01216163|181660525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.33||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|2.33||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPRID 0-2: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||2.33|0.32|0.010
90840603|NCT01746901|181547969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|60.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.4|72.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||72.9|47.4|<0.0001
91092503|NCT01027845|182068861|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparability to the 105553 study in terms of non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper limit (UL) of the two-sided 95% confidence interval(CI) on the GMC ratios (GMCs from 105553 10Pn Group over GMCs from 10Pn Group) were below a limit of 2-fold for all 10 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes. Number of participants analysed =1103 in the 105553 10Pn Group; GMC= 1.32 µg/mL with 95% CI = (1.25 to 1.38).|GMC ratio|0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.27||||||"Immune response of Synflorix vaccine tested between subjects of the 10Pn Group of the study and healthy European subjects from the 10PN-PD-DIT-001 (105553) study (with following indication: 3-dose primary vaccination of infants between 6 to 12 weeks of age at the time of the first vaccination with Synflorix), that formed the 105553 10Pn Group.~At 1 month after primary immunization (post-dose 3), ELISA GMC ratio (105553 10Pn Group over 10Pn Group) was calculated for pneumococcal serotype 9V."||0.27|0.22|
91092504|NCT01027845|182068861|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparability to the 105553 study in terms of non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper limit (UL) of the two-sided 95% confidence interval(CI) on the GMC ratios (GMCs from 105553 10Pn Group over GMCs from 10Pn Group) were below a limit of 2-fold for all 10 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes. Number of participants analysed =1100 in the 105553 10Pn Group; GMC= 2.90 µg/mL with 95% CI = (2.75 to 3.05).|GMC ratio|0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.33||||||"Immune response of Synflorix vaccine tested between subjects of the 10Pn Group of the study and healthy European subjects from the 10PN-PD-DIT-001 (105553) study (with following indication: 3-dose primary vaccination of infants between 6 to 12 weeks of age at the time of the first vaccination with Synflorix), that formed the 105553 10Pn Group.~At 1 month after primary immunization (post-dose 3), ELISA GMC ratio (105553 10Pn Group over 10Pn Group) was calculated for pneumococcal serotype 14."||0.33|0.25|
91092505|NCT01027845|182068861|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparability to the 105553 study in terms of non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper limit (UL) of the two-sided 95% confidence interval(CI) on the GMC ratios (GMCs from 105553 10Pn Group over GMCs from 10Pn Group) were below a limit of 2-fold for all 10 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes. Number of participants analysed =1102 in the 105553 10Pn Group; GMC= 1.66 µg/mL with 95% CI = (1.56 to 1.77).|GMC ratio|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.12||||||"Immune response of Synflorix vaccine tested between subjects of the 10Pn Group of the study and healthy European subjects from the 10PN-PD-DIT-001 (105553) study (with following indication: 3-dose primary vaccination of infants between 6 to 12 weeks of age at the time of the first vaccination with Synflorix), that formed the 105553 10Pn Group.~At 1 month after primary immunization (post-dose 3), ELISA GMC ratio (105553 10Pn Group over 10Pn Group) was calculated for pneumococcal serotype 18C."||0.12|0.09|
91092506|NCT01027845|182068861|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparability to the 105553 study in terms of non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper limit (UL) of the two-sided 95% confidence interval(CI) on the GMC ratios (GMCs from 105553 10Pn Group over GMCs from 10Pn Group) were below a limit of 2-fold for all 10 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes. Number of participants analysed =1104 in the 105553 10Pn Group; GMC= 1.84 µg/mL with 95% CI = (1.71 to 1.98).|GMC ratio|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.12||||||"Immune response of Synflorix vaccine tested between subjects of the 10Pn Group of the study and healthy European subjects from the 10PN-PD-DIT-001 (105553) study (with following indication: 3-dose primary vaccination of infants between 6 to 12 weeks of age at the time of the first vaccination with Synflorix), that formed the 105553 10Pn Group.~At 1 month after primary immunization (post-dose 3), ELISA GMC ratio (105553 10Pn Group over 10Pn Group) was calculated for pneumococcal serotype 19F."||0.12|0.09|
91104068|NCT04250207|182094698|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.0006|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 5||||0.0006
90840604|NCT01746901|181547969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|12.6||||0.0514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|25.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||25.4|-0.1|0.0514
90840605|NCT01746901|181547969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|29.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.0|42.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||42.4|17.0|<0.0001
90840606|NCT01746901|181547969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|43.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.3|55.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||55.8|30.3|<0.0001
90840607|NCT01746901|181547969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|33.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.0|46.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||46.4|21.0|<0.0001
90840608|NCT01746901|181547969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|36.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.7|49.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||49.1|23.7|<0.0001
90840609|NCT01746901|181547970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|39.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.8|47.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||47.2|31.8|<0.0001
90897394|NCT01216163|181660525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|4.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.63|6.1||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPRID 0-2: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||6.10|3.63|<0.001
90840610|NCT01746901|181547970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.3||||0.2739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|12.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||12.0|-3.4|0.2739
90840611|NCT01746901|181547970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|16.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.7|24.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||24.1|8.7|<0.0001
90840612|NCT01746901|181547970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|27.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.7|35.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||35.0|19.7|<0.0001
91092507|NCT01027845|182068861|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparability to the 105553 study in terms of non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper limit (UL) of the two-sided 95% confidence interval(CI) on the GMC ratios (GMCs from 105553 10Pn Group over GMCs from 10Pn Group) were below a limit of 2-fold for all 10 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes. Number of participants analysed =1102 in the 105553 10Pn Group; GMC= 0.53 µg/mL with 95% CI = (0.50 to 0.57).|GMC ratio|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.29||||||"Immune response of Synflorix vaccine tested between subjects of the 10Pn Group of the study and healthy European subjects from the 10PN-PD-DIT-001 (105553) study (with following indication: 3-dose primary vaccination of infants between 6 to 12 weeks of age at the time of the first vaccination with Synflorix), that formed the 105553 10Pn Group.~At 1 month after primary immunization (post-dose 3), ELISA GMC ratio (105553 10Pn Group over 10Pn Group) was calculated for pneumococcal serotype 23F."||0.29|0.21|
91092508|NCT00062166|182068896|NON_INFERIORITY|Time dependent risk for requiring an intervention for pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PNET), among 63 patients with PNETs with diameter \>1.2 and \<3 cm, and a known position of germline VHL pathogenic variant (n=63). Comparison between exon 3 vs exon 1 and 2.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.3||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|9.1|||Regression, Cox|||||9.1|1.2|0.02
91092509|NCT06119854|182068900|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.207|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.406|3.59|||||The CBT arm is the numerator and the standard arm is the denominator.|||3.590|0.406|
91092510|NCT06119854|182068900|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.003|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.013|0.018|||||RD was calculated as the risk in the CBT arm minus the risk in the standard arm.|||0.018|-0.013|
91092511|NCT06119854|182068900|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.687|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.194|2.436|||||The inoculation arm is the numerator and the standard arm is the denominator.|||2.436|0.194|
90840613|NCT01746901|181547970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|20.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.8|28.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||28.2|12.8|<0.0001
90840614|NCT01746901|181547970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|19.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|27.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||27.4|12.0|<0.0001
90897395|NCT01216163|181660525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|9.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.54|11.61||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPRID 0-3: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||11.61|7.54|<0.001
90957306|NCT05398237|181794380|OTHER|A self-contained, subject-level permutation test for changes of all analytes in a pathway, assuming all analyte levels increasing after SSL exposure.||||||0.0122||||||Change in pathway from baseline to 1 hour post-SSL. Threshold for p-value of each test is 0.05/4=0.0125 based on Bonferroni adjustment for four tests, with two time points and two pathways (TLR4 and TOPK/PRPK).|Permutation test|The self-contained, subject-level permutation test comparing the pre- and post-SSL levels of all analytes in the pathway.||This is a single-arm study||||0.0122
90957307|NCT05398237|181794380|OTHER|A self-contained, subject-level permutation test for changes of all analytes in a pathway, assuming all analyte levels increasing after SSL exposure.||||||0.009||||||Change in pathway from baseline to 24 hours post-SSL. Threshold for p-value of each test is 0.05/4=0.0125 based on Bonferroni adjustment for four tests, with two time points and two pathways (TLR4 and TOPK/PRPK)|Permutation test|The self-contained, subject-level permutation test comparing the pre- and post-SSL levels of all analytes in the pathway.||This is a single-arm study.||||0.009
90957308|NCT05398237|181794381|OTHER|A self-contained, subject-level permutation test for changes of all analytes in a pathway, assuming all analyte levels increasing after SSL exposure.||||||0.0063||||||Change in pathway from baseline to 1 hour post-SSL. Threshold for p-value of each test is 0.05/4=0.0125 based on Bonferroni adjustment for four tests, with two time points and two pathways (TLR4 and TOPK/PRPK)|Permutation test|The self-contained, subject-level permutation test comparing the pre- and post-SSL levels of all analytes in the pathway.||This is a single-arm study||||0.0063
91092512|NCT06119854|182068900|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.004|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.018|0.01|||||RD was calculated as the risk in the inoculation arm minus the risk in the standard arm.|||0.010|-0.018|
91092513|NCT06119854|182068901|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.992|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.785|1.253|||||The CBT arm is the numerator and the standard arm is the denominator.|||1.253|0.785|
91092514|NCT06119854|182068901|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.003|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.063|0.058|||||RD was calculated as the risk in the CBT arm minus the risk in the standard arm.|||0.058|-0.063|
91092515|NCT06119854|182068901|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.227|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.981|1.534|||||The inoculation arm is the numerator and the standard arm is the denominator.|||1.534|0.981|
91092516|NCT06119854|182068901|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.008|0.133|||||RD was calculated as the risk in the inoculation arm minus the risk in the standard arm.|||0.133|0.008|
91092517|NCT06119854|182068902|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.063|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.527|||||CBT group represents the numerator and standard (conventional) represents the denominator|||1.527|0.740|
91092518|NCT06119854|182068902|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.008|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.037|0.053|||||RD was calculated as the risk in the CBT arm minus the risk in the standard arm|||0.053|-0.037|
90840615|NCT01746901|181547970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|104.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|87.7|121.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||121.8|87.7|<0.0001
90840616|NCT01746901|181547970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.3||||0.4003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|24.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||24.3|-9.8|0.4003
90840617|NCT01746901|181547970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|43.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.6|60.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||60.7|26.6|<0.0001
90840618|NCT01746901|181547970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|68.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.3|85.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||85.4|51.3|<0.0001
91092519|NCT06119854|182068902|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.262|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.892|1.784|||||The inoculation arm is the numerator and the standard arm is the denominator.|||1.784|0.892|
91092520|NCT06119854|182068902|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.034|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.013|0.08|||||RD was calculated as the risk in the inoculation arm minus the risk in the standard arm.|||0.080|-0.013|
91092521|NCT06119854|182068903|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.131|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.911|1.406|||||CBT arm is the numerator and the standard arm is the denominator.|||1.406|0.911|
91092522|NCT06119854|182068903|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.045|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.019|0.109|||||RD was calculated as the risk in the CBT arm minus the risk in the standard arm.|||0.109|-0.019|
91092523|NCT06119854|182068903|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.323|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.074|1.631|||||the inoculation arm is the numerator and the standard arm is the denominator.|||1.631|1.074|
91092524|NCT06119854|182068903|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.111|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.045|0.176|||||RD was calculated as the risk in the inoculation arm minus the risk in the standard arm.|||0.176|0.045|
91092525|NCT06494761|182068905|OTHER||Ratios of adjusted geometric means [%]|110.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.9|127.1|||||Ratio calculated as test/reference\*100. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 22.1|The relative bioavailability of Repaglinide was assessed by comparing Repaglinide administered with a single dose of zongertinib (Test Treatment 1) to Repaglinide administered alone (Reference Treatment 1). The ratio of geometric means (Test/Reference) with 90% two-sided confidence intervals (CIs) was calculated. The log-transformed difference (log\[T\]-log\[R\]) was estimated using least squares means from ANOVA and then back-transformed to the original scale.||127.10|96.90|
91092526|NCT06494761|182068905|OTHER||Ratios of adjusted geometric means [%]|130.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|110.35|153.39|||||Ratio calculated as test/reference\*100. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 25.2|The relative bioavailability of Repaglinide was assessed by comparing Repaglinide administered after multiple doses of zongertinib (Test Treatment 3) to Repaglinide administered alone (Reference Treatment 1). The ratio of geometric means (Test/Reference) with 90% two-sided confidence intervals (CIs) was calculated. The log-transformed difference (log\[T\]-log\[R\]) was estimated using least squares means from ANOVA and then back-transformed to the original scale.||153.39|110.35|
91092527|NCT06494761|182068906|OTHER||Ratios of adjusted geometric means [%]|107.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.57|117.9|||||Ratio calculated as test/reference\*100. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 13.5|The relative bioavailability of midazolam was assessed by comparing Midazolam + Omeprazole with a single dose of zongertinib (Test Treatment 2) to Midazolam + Omeprazole (Reference Treatment 2). The ratio of geometric means (Test/Reference) with 90% two-sided confidence intervals (CIs) was calculated. The log-transformed difference (log\[T\]-log\[R\]) was estimated using least squares means from ANOVA and then back-transformed to the original scale.||117.90|98.57|
91092528|NCT06494761|182068906|OTHER||Ratios of adjusted geometric means [%]|105.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.41|116.93|||||Ratio calculated as test/reference\*100. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 15.4|The relative bioavailability of midazolam was assessed by comparing Midazolam + Omeprazole after multiple doses of zongertinib (Test Treatment 4) to Midazolam + Omeprazole (Reference Treatment 2). The ratio of geometric means (Test/Reference) with 90% two-sided confidence intervals (CIs) was calculated. The log-transformed difference (log\[T\]-log\[R\]) was estimated using least squares means from ANOVA and then back-transformed to the original scale.||116.93|95.41|
90840619|NCT01746901|181547970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|54.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.3|71.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||71.4|37.3|<0.0001
90958936|NCT00069108|181797874|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The pre-specified non-inferiority margin (1.30) was compared with the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the hazard ratio (HR, XELOX vs FOLFOX-4) in the population|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.00584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.24|||Chi-squared||The pre-specified non-inferiority margin (1.30) was compared with the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the hazard ratio (HR, XELOX vs FOLFOX-4) in the population|||1.24|0.87|0.00584
91092529|NCT06494761|182068907|OTHER||Ratios of adjusted geometric means [%]|96.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.96|122.72|||||Ratio calculated as test/reference\*100. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 24.5|The relative bioavailability of omeprazole was assessed by comparing Midazolam + Omeprazole with a single dose of zongertinib (Test Treatment 2) to Midazolam + Omeprazole (Reference Treatment 2). The ratio of geometric means (Test/Reference) with 90% two-sided confidence intervals (CIs) was calculated. The log-transformed difference (log\[T\]-log\[R\]) was estimated using least squares means from ANOVA and then back-transformed to the original scale.||122.72|75.96|
91092530|NCT06494761|182068907|OTHER||Ratios of adjusted geometric means [%]|89.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|61.86|130.2|||||Ratio calculated as test/reference\*100. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 39.6|The relative bioavailability of omeprazole was assessed by comparing Midazolam + Omeprazole after multiple doses of zongertinib (Test Treatment 4) to Midazolam + Omeprazole (Reference Treatment 2). The ratio of geometric means (Test/Reference) with 90% two-sided confidence intervals (CIs) was calculated. The log-transformed difference (log\[T\]-log\[R\]) was estimated using least squares means from ANOVA and then back-transformed to the original scale.||130.20|61.86|
91092531|NCT06494761|182068908|OTHER||Ratios of adjusted geometric means [%]|117.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|105.56|129.84|||||Ratio calculated as test/reference\*100. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 16.8|The relative bioavailability of Repaglinide was assessed by comparing Repaglinide administered with a single dose of zongertinib (Test Treatment 1) to Repaglinide administered alone (Reference Treatment 1). The ratio of geometric means (Test/Reference) with 90% two-sided confidence intervals (CIs) was calculated. The log-transformed difference (log\[T\]-log\[R\]) was estimated using least squares means from ANOVA and then back-transformed to the original scale.||129.84|105.56|
91092532|NCT06494761|182068908|OTHER||Ratios of adjusted geometric means [%]|144.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|123.53|168.71|||||Ratio calculated as test/reference\*100. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 23.9|The relative bioavailability of Repaglinide was assessed by comparing Repaglinide administered after multiple doses of zongertinib (Test Treatment 3) to Repaglinide administered alone (Reference Treatment 1). The ratio of geometric means (Test/Reference) with 90% two-sided confidence intervals (CIs) was calculated. The log-transformed difference (log\[T\]-log\[R\]) was estimated using least squares means from ANOVA and then back-transformed to the original scale.||168.71|123.53|
91092533|NCT06494761|182068909|OTHER||Ratios of adjusted geometric means [%]|110.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.92|121.52|||||Ratio calculated as test/reference\*100. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 14.1|The relative bioavailability of midazolam was assessed by comparing Midazolam + Omeprazole with a single dose of zongertinib (Test Treatment 2) to Midazolam + Omeprazole (Reference Treatment 2). The ratio of geometric means (Test/Reference) with 90% two-sided confidence intervals (CIs) was calculated. The log-transformed difference (log\[T\]-log\[R\]) was estimated using least squares means from ANOVA and then back-transformed to the original scale.||121.52|100.92|
91092534|NCT06494761|182068909|OTHER||Ratios of adjusted geometric means [%]|117.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|108.3|126.81|||||Ratio calculated as test/reference\*100. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 11.9|The relative bioavailability of midazolam was assessed by comparing Midazolam + Omeprazole after multiple doses of zongertinib (Test Treatment 4) to Midazolam + Omeprazole (Reference Treatment 2). The ratio of geometric means (Test/Reference) with 90% two-sided confidence intervals (CIs) was calculated. The log-transformed difference (log\[T\]-log\[R\]) was estimated using least squares means from ANOVA and then back-transformed to the original scale.||126.81|108.30|
91092535|NCT06494761|182068910|OTHER||Ratios of adjusted geometric means [%]|79.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|49.9|126.3|||||Ratio calculated as test/reference\*100. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 77.6|The relative bioavailability of omeprazole was assessed by comparing Midazolam + Omeprazole with a single dose of zongertinib (Test Treatment 2) to Midazolam + Omeprazole (Reference Treatment 2). The ratio of geometric means (Test/Reference) with 90% two-sided confidence intervals (CIs) was calculated. The log-transformed difference (log\[T\]-log\[R\]) was estimated using least squares means from ANOVA and then back-transformed to the original scale.||126.30|49.90|
90957309|NCT05398237|181794381|OTHER|A self-contained, subject-level permutation test for changes of all analytes in a pathway, assuming all analyte levels increasing after SSL exposure.||||||0.0056||||||Change in pathway from baseline to 24 hours post-SSL. Threshold for p-value of each test is 0.05/4=0.0125 based on Bonferroni adjustment for four tests, with two time points and two pathways (TLR4 and TOPK/PRPK)|Permutation test|The self-contained, subject-level permutation test comparing the pre- and post-SSL levels of all analytes in the pathway.||This is a single-arm study.||||0.0056
91092536|NCT06494761|182068910|OTHER||Ratios of adjusted geometric means [%]|62.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|44.69|86.2|||||Ratio calculated as test/reference\*100. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 49.1|The relative bioavailability of omeprazole was assessed by comparing Midazolam + Omeprazole after multiple doses of zongertinib (Test Treatment 4) to Midazolam + Omeprazole (Reference Treatment 2). The ratio of geometric means (Test/Reference) with 90% two-sided confidence intervals (CIs) was calculated. The log-transformed difference (log\[T\]-log\[R\]) was estimated using least squares means from ANOVA and then back-transformed to the original scale.||86.20|44.69|
91092537|NCT06494761|182068911|OTHER||Ratios of adjusted geometric means [%]|110.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.58|127.24|||||Ratio calculated as test/reference\*100. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 22.5|The relative bioavailability of Repaglinide was assessed by comparing Repaglinide administered with a single dose of zongertinib (Test Treatment 1) to Repaglinide administered alone (Reference Treatment 1). The ratio of geometric means (Test/Reference) with 90% two-sided confidence intervals (CIs) was calculated. The log-transformed difference (log\[T\]-log\[R\]) was estimated using least squares means from ANOVA and then back-transformed to the original scale.||127.24|96.58|
90840620|NCT01746901|181547970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|53.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.0|70.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||70.1|36.0|<0.0001
90840621|NCT01746901|181547970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|292.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|240.0|345.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||345.1|240.0|<0.0001
91104069|NCT04250207|182094698|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.3449|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 5||||0.3449
90840622|NCT01746901|181547970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|32.2||||0.2277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.3|84.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||84.7|-20.3|0.2277
90840623|NCT01746901|181547970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|173.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|120.5|225.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||225.6|120.5|<0.0001
90840624|NCT01746901|181547970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|151.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.1|204.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||204.2|99.1|<0.0001
90840625|NCT01746901|181547970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|129.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|77.2|182.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||182.3|77.2|<0.0001
91104070|NCT04250207|182094698|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.0028|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 7||||0.0028
90840626|NCT01746901|181547970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|122.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|70.0|175.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||175.1|70.0|<0.0001
90840627|NCT01746901|181547970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|295.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|228.3|362.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||362.2|228.3|<0.0001
90840628|NCT01746901|181547970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|69.6||||0.0416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|136.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||136.5|2.7|0.0416
91092538|NCT06494761|182068911|OTHER||Ratios of adjusted geometric means [%]|129.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|109.7|153.59|||||Ratio calculated as test/reference\*100. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 25.8|The relative bioavailability of Repaglinide was assessed by comparing Repaglinide administered after multiple doses of zongertinib (Test Treatment 3) to Repaglinide administered alone (Reference Treatment 1). The ratio of geometric means (Test/Reference) with 90% two-sided confidence intervals (CIs) was calculated. The log-transformed difference (log\[T\]-log\[R\]) was estimated using least squares means from ANOVA and then back-transformed to the original scale.||153.59|109.70|
91092539|NCT06494761|182068912|OTHER||Ratios of adjusted geometric means [%]|108.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.79|119.41|||||Ratio calculated as test/reference\*100. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 14.3|The relative bioavailability of midazolam was assessed by comparing Midazolam + Omeprazole with a single dose of zongertinib (Test Treatment 2) to Midazolam + Omeprazole (Reference Treatment 2). The ratio of geometric means (Test/Reference) with 90% two-sided confidence intervals (CIs) was calculated. The log-transformed difference (log\[T\]-log\[R\]) was estimated using least squares means from ANOVA and then back-transformed to the original scale.||119.41|98.79|
91092540|NCT06494761|182068912|OTHER||Ratios of adjusted geometric means [%]|106.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.49|117.73|||||Ratio calculated as test/reference\*100. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 15.9|The relative bioavailability of midazolam was assessed by comparing Midazolam + Omeprazole after multiple doses of zongertinib (Test Treatment 4) to Midazolam + Omeprazole (Reference Treatment 2). The ratio of geometric means (Test/Reference) with 90% two-sided confidence intervals (CIs) was calculated. The log-transformed difference (log\[T\]-log\[R\]) was estimated using least squares means from ANOVA and then back-transformed to the original scale.||117.73|95.49|
91092541|NCT06494761|182068913|OTHER||Ratios of adjusted geometric means [%]|108.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.9|146.35|||||Ratio calculated as test/reference\*100. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 44.9|The relative bioavailability of omeprazole was assessed by comparing Midazolam + Omeprazole with a single dose of zongertinib (Test Treatment 2) to Midazolam + Omeprazole (Reference Treatment 2). The ratio of geometric means (Test/Reference) with 90% two-sided confidence intervals (CIs) was calculated. The log-transformed difference (log\[T\]-log\[R\]) was estimated using least squares means from ANOVA and then back-transformed to the original scale.||146.35|79.90|
91092542|NCT06494761|182068913|OTHER||Ratios of adjusted geometric means [%]|97.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.01|127.53|||||Ratio calculated as test/reference\*100. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 38.5|The relative bioavailability of omeprazole was assessed by comparing Midazolam + Omeprazole after multiple doses of zongertinib (Test Treatment 4) to Midazolam + Omeprazole (Reference Treatment 2). The ratio of geometric means (Test/Reference) with 90% two-sided confidence intervals (CIs) was calculated. The log-transformed difference (log\[T\]-log\[R\]) was estimated using least squares means from ANOVA and then back-transformed to the original scale.||127.53|75.01|
91092543|NCT04865289|182068914|OTHER|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.41||||||||1.41|0.51|
91092544|NCT04865289|182068915|OTHER|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.21||||||||1.21|0.48|
91092545|NCT04865289|182068916|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis for the non-inferiority test was that the hazard ratio was equal to 1.1.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.5831415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|2.15|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test.|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method for tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|||2.15|0.64|0.5831415
90840629|NCT01746901|181547970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|204.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|137.5|271.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||271.3|137.5|<0.0001
90840630|NCT01746901|181547970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|160.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.5|227.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||227.4|93.5|<0.0001
90957310|NCT04193436|181794396|OTHER||Ratio (%) of Adjusted Means|92.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|68.15|126.6||||||The effect of the hepatic impairment on PK parameter AUCinf were assessed by constructing 90% confidence intervals around the estimated difference between each of the Test (impaired) cohorts and the Reference (without hepatic impairment) cohort using a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) model based on natural log transformed data.||126.60|68.15|
91092546|NCT04865289|182068916|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.6980186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|2.15|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test.|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method for tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|||2.15|0.64|0.6980186
91092547|NCT04865289|182068917|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.52046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.8|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test.|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method for tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|||1.80|0.57|0.52046
91092548|NCT04865289|182068918|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-10.5||||0.8497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.2|9.3|||Miettinen & Nurminen|One sided p value for testing. H0: difference in % = 0 versus H1: difference in % \> 0.||||9.3|-29.2|0.8497
91092549|NCT04865289|182068919|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-9.1||||0.8522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.5|8.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen|One sided p value for testing. H0: difference in % = 0 versus H1: difference in % \> 0.||||8.0|-25.5|0.8522
91092550|NCT04865289|182068920|OTHER|Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction.|Difference in Least Square Means|-2.14||||0.6138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.54|6.27|||cLDA model|||||6.27|-10.54|0.6138
91092551|NCT04865289|182068921|OTHER|Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction.|Difference in Least Square Means|-0.73||||0.8398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.93|6.46|||cLDA model|||||6.46|-7.93|0.8398
91092552|NCT03104374|182068926|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of primary and ranked key secondary endpoints was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|Response Rate Difference|32.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.0|41.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the main stratification factor of current DMARD use (yes/no).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||41.6|24.0|<0.0001
91092553|NCT03104374|182068926|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of primary and ranked key secondary endpoints was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|Response Rate Difference|39.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.1|48.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the main stratification factor of current DMARD use (yes/no).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||48.3|31.1|<0.0001
91028634|NCT00601484|181940846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.083|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.398|1.32||||||Week 16: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||1.320|-2.398|
91028635|NCT00601484|181940847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-10.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.718|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.25|0.277||||||Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||0.277|-22.250|
91028636|NCT00601484|181940847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-8.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.66|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.001|6.132||||||Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||6.132|-23.001|
91028637|NCT00601484|181940847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-8.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.737|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-24.602|8.327||||||Week 6: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||8.327|-24.602|
91028638|NCT00601484|181940847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.406|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.948|11.04||||||Week 10: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||11.040|-13.948|
91028639|NCT00601484|181940847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-7.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.352|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.884|8.234||||||Week 16: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||8.234|-23.884|
91028640|NCT00601484|181940848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.064|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.709|15.007||||||Week 6: Analysis was based on proportional odds analysis, to determine the odds ratio for the odds of responding (compared to not responding) on Tanezumab vs placebo.||15.007|1.709|
91028641|NCT00601484|181940848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.722|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.756|9.795||||||Week 16: Analysis was based on proportional odds analysis, to determine the odds ratio for the odds of responding (compared to not responding) on Tanezumab vs placebo.||9.795|0.756|
91028642|NCT02928848|181940869|OTHER|||||||0.14||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|ANOVA|||Repeated-measures analysis of variance (RM-ANOVA) with Condition (active, sham) and time point (baseline, 0-week) as within-subject factors. Analysis tests whether active vs. sham stimulation confers a greater improvement in overall language ability, as measured by the Western Aphasia Battery Aphasia Quotient (WAB-AQ), that endures over time.||||0.14
91028643|NCT02928848|181940870|OTHER|||||||0.02||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|ANOVA|||Repeated-measures analysis of variance (RM-ANOVA) with Condition (active, sham) and time point (baseline, 0-weeks) as within-subject factors. Analysis tests whether active vs. sham stimulation confers a greater improvement in naming ability, as measured by the naming subtest of the WAB, that endures over time.||||.02
91028644|NCT00955747|181940884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.4|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||All tests will be two-tailed. Unless specified otherwise, p-values less than or equal to O.050, when rounded to four decimal places,will be considered statistically significant.||||<0.05
91028645|NCT00097695|181940885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.142||95.0|||||Wilcoxon version of the log-rank test|The Wilcoxon version of the log-rank test of SAS was used to calculate statistical significance between p- vs icatibant group and placebo group.||||||0.142
91028646|NCT00097695|181940886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon version of the log-rank test|The median time to onset is calculated using Kaplan-Meier methodology. The Wilcoxon version of the log-rank test of SAS is used.||||||< 0.001
91028647|NCT00097695|181940887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.079||95.0|||||Wilcoxon version of the log-rank test|The median time to almost complete symptom relief was calculated using Kaplan-Meier methodology.The Wilcoxon version of the log-rank test of SAS used.||||||= 0.079
91028648|NCT02708290|181940904|OTHER|Participants in the MITA group were matched to those in Control (treatment-as-usual) group using propensity score analysis based on age and all four ATEC subscales at baseline. Least squares means were calculated for all subscales at all visits.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||"The concept of a Visit was developed by dividing the three-year-long observation interval into 3-month periods. All evaluations were mapped into 3-month-long bins (Reference: Mahapatra, S. et al. Autism Dev. Disord. 2018, 1). It was then hypothesized that there was a three-way interaction between an age group, Visit, and treatment. This hypothesis was modeled by applying the Linear Model with repeated measures, where a three-way interaction term was introduced to test the hypothesis."||||<0.0001
91028649|NCT00234078|181940908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.385||||||versus placebo|t-test, 2 sided|a general linear model||||||0.385
91028650|NCT00234078|181940909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.601||||||versus placebo|t-test, 2 sided|a general linear model||||||0.601
91028651|NCT00234078|181940910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.084||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.084
91028652|NCT00234078|181940910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.020
91028653|NCT00234078|181940910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.421||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.421
91028654|NCT00234078|181940911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.087||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.087
91028655|NCT00234078|181940911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004
91028656|NCT00234078|181940911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.029
91092554|NCT03104374|182068927|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of primary and ranked key secondary endpoints was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.12|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM analysis including treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, current DMARD use (yes/no) as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-0.12|-0.30|<0.0001
91092555|NCT03104374|182068927|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of primary and ranked key secondary endpoints was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|LS Mean Difference|-0.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.22|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM analysis including treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, current DMARD use (yes/no) as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-0.22|-0.40|<0.0001
91092556|NCT03104374|182068928|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of primary and ranked key secondary endpoints was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|Response Rate Difference|27.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.2|36.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the main stratification factor of current DMARD use (yes/no).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||36.1|19.2|<0.0001
91092557|NCT03104374|182068928|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of primary and ranked key secondary endpoints was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|Response Rate Difference|31.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.3|39.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the main stratification factor of current DMARD use (yes/no).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||39.8|22.3|<0.0001
91092558|NCT03104374|182068929|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of primary and ranked key secondary endpoints was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|Response Rate Difference|36.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.6|46.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the main stratification factor of current DMARD use (yes/no).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||46.9|25.6|<0.0001
91092559|NCT03104374|182068929|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of primary and ranked key secondary endpoints was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|Response Rate Difference|40.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.9|51.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the main stratification factor of current DMARD use (yes/no).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||51.0|29.9|<0.0001
90840631|NCT01746901|181547970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|133.0||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|66.1|199.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||199.9|66.1|0.0001
90897396|NCT01216163|181660525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.33||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|4.0||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPRID 0-3: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||4.00|0.67|0.006
90897397|NCT01216163|181660525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|7.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.21|9.28||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPRID 0-3: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||9.28|5.21|<0.001
90957311|NCT04193436|181794396|OTHER||Ratio (%) of Adjusted Means|134.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.61|183.17||||||The effect of the hepatic impairment on PK parameter AUCinf were assessed by constructing 90% confidence intervals around the estimated difference between each of the Test (impaired) cohorts and the Reference (without hepatic impairment) cohort using a one-way ANOVA model based on natural log transformed data.||183.17|98.61|
90957312|NCT04193436|181794396|OTHER||Ratio (%) of Adjusted Means|139.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.69|192.78||||||The effect of the hepatic impairment on PK parameter AUCinf were assessed by constructing 90% confidence intervals around the estimated difference between each of the Test (impaired) cohorts and the Reference (without hepatic impairment) cohort using a one-way ANOVA model based on natural log transformed data.||192.78|100.69|
91092560|NCT03104374|182068930|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of primary and ranked key secondary endpoints was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|LS Mean Difference|3.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.07|4.98|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM analysis including treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, current DMARD use (yes/no) as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||4.98|2.07|<0.0001
91092561|NCT03104374|182068930|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of primary and ranked key secondary endpoints was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|LS Mean Difference|5.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.99|6.88|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM analysis including treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, current DMARD use (yes/no) as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||6.88|3.99|<0.0001
90840632|NCT01746901|181547970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|140.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|73.1|207.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||207.0|73.1|<0.0001
90840633|NCT01746901|181547970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|219.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|127.6|311.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||311.3|127.6|<0.0001
90840634|NCT01746901|181547970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|145.0||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.2|236.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||236.8|53.2|0.0022
91092562|NCT03104374|182068931|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of primary and ranked key secondary endpoints was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|LS Mean Difference|3.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|5.4|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM analysis including treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, current DMARD use (yes/no) as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||5.4|2.0|<0.0001
91092563|NCT03104374|182068931|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|6.4|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM analysis including treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, current DMARD use (yes/no) as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|The overall type I error rate of primary and ranked key secondary endpoints was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.||6.4|3.1|<0.0001
90840635|NCT01746901|181547970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|200.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|108.4|292.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||292.0|108.4|<0.0001
90840636|NCT01746901|181547970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|164.3||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|72.4|256.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||256.1|72.4|0.0005
90840637|NCT01746901|181547970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|146.6||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.8|238.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||238.4|54.8|0.0019
90840638|NCT01746901|181547970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|132.7||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.8|224.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||224.5|40.8|0.0049
90840639|NCT01746901|181547970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|209.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|108.3|310.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||310.3|108.3|<0.0001
90840640|NCT01746901|181547970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|145.7||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.7|246.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||246.6|44.7|0.0050
90957313|NCT04193436|181794397|OTHER||Ratio (%) of Adjusted Means|87.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|63.61|119.53||||||The effect of the hepatic impairment on PK parameter Cmax were assessed by constructing 90% confidence intervals around the estimated difference between each of the Test (impaired) cohorts and the Reference (without hepatic impairment) cohort using a one-way ANOVA model based on natural log transformed data.||119.53|63.61|
91028657|NCT03471078|181940912|OTHER|The primary efficacy endpoint was tested between avatrombopag and placebo using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel 2-sided test at α=0.05, adjusting for the number of eligible chemotherapy agents as collected in IWRS (1 or ≥2 permissible chemotherapy agents).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0||||0.7186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.7|15.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||15.6|-21.7|0.7186
90840641|NCT01746901|181547970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|200.7||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.7|301.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||301.6|99.7|0.0001
90840642|NCT01746901|181547970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|154.3||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.3|255.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||255.3|53.3|0.0030
90840643|NCT01746901|181547970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|146.8||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.9|247.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||247.8|45.9|0.0046
90840644|NCT01746901|181547970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|123.3||||0.0171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.3|224.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||224.3|22.3|0.0171
90840645|NCT01746901|181547971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.3||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|-0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-0.9|-3.7|0.0016
90840646|NCT01746901|181547971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.9||||0.0105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||3.3|0.4|0.0105
91028658|NCT03471078|181940913|OTHER|||||||0.8372|||||||Van Elteren Test|||||||0.8372
91092564|NCT03104374|182068932|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of primary and ranked key secondary endpoints was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|Response Rate Difference|22.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.0|28.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the main stratification factor of current DMARD use (yes/no).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||28.6|16.0|<0.0001
91092565|NCT03104374|182068932|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of primary and ranked key secondary endpoints was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|Response Rate Difference|26.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.7|32.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the main stratification factor of current DMARD use (yes/no).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||32.5|19.7|<0.0001
91092566|NCT03104374|182068933|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of primary and ranked key secondary endpoints was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|LS Mean Difference|-22.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.4|-18.4|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM analysis including treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, current DMARD use (yes/no) as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-18.4|-27.4|<0.0001
91092567|NCT03104374|182068933|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of primary and ranked key secondary endpoints was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|LS Mean Difference|-28.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.7|-23.8|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM analysis including treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, current DMARD use (yes/no) as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-23.8|-32.7|<0.0001
91092568|NCT03104374|182068934|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|27.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.1|33.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the main stratification factor of current DMARD use (yes/no).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||33.9|20.1|<0.0001
91092569|NCT03104374|182068934|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|32.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.9|39.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the main stratification factor of current DMARD use (yes/no).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||39.9|25.9|<0.0001
91092570|NCT03104374|182068935|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|8.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|11.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the main stratification factor of current DMARD use (yes/no).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||11.9|4.2|<0.0001
91092571|NCT03104374|182068935|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|16.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|21.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the main stratification factor of current DMARD use (yes/no).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||21.1|11.0|<0.0001
91092572|NCT03104374|182068936|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|21.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.3|29.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the main stratification factor of current DMARD use (yes/no).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||29.4|14.3|<0.0001
91092573|NCT03104374|182068936|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|22.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.1|30.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the main stratification factor of current DMARD use (yes/no).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||30.2|15.1|<0.0001
91092574|NCT04609514|182069008|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|10.95||||0.51|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.51
91092575|NCT04609514|182069009|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||<0.001
90840647|NCT01746901|181547971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.7259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||1.2|-1.7|0.7259
90840648|NCT01746901|181547971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.7813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||1.2|-1.6|0.7813
90840649|NCT01746901|181547971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.5235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||1.0|-1.9|0.5235
90840650|NCT01746901|181547971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.8512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||1.3|-1.6|0.8512
91092576|NCT04609514|182069014|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39||||||A robust Yuen's test was conducted with an apriori threshold of 0.05 for statistical significance. No covariates were introduced in the model.|Robust Yuen's test|||||||0.39
91092577|NCT04609514|182069015|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Robust Yuen's test|||||||0.40
91092578|NCT04609514|182069016|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.478|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|Wilcoxon rank sum test with continuity correction.||||||0.478
91092579|NCT04609514|182069017|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|Wilcoxon rank sum test with continuity correction.||||||0.51
91092580|NCT04609514|182069019|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.185||||0.8392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|6.119|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.119|0.23|0.8392
91092581|NCT04609514|182069020|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Pearson's Chi-squared test|Pearson's Chi-squared test with Yates' continuity correction.||||||1.00
91092582|NCT00885118|182069022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|42828.482|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6487.174|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29936.586|55720.378|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate.||Difference calculated as empa 1mg minus placebo||55720.378|29936.586|<0.0001
90840651|NCT01746901|181547972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|11.1||||0.0883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|23.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||23.9|-1.7|0.0883
91028659|NCT01545076|181940949|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percent|-24.6|||=|0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.7|-6.21|||Fisher Exact|||||-6.21|-40.7|=0.007
90840652|NCT01746901|181547972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|14.8||||0.0241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|27.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||27.6|2.0|0.0241
90840653|NCT01746901|181547972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|14.8||||0.0235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|27.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||27.6|2.0|0.0235
90840654|NCT01746901|181547972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|11.1||||0.0901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|23.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||23.9|-1.7|0.0901
91028660|NCT01545076|181940949|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percent|-30.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.0|-12.2|||Fisher Exact|||||-12.2|-46.0|<0.001
91028661|NCT01545076|181940950|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0|||=|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon rank sum|||||0|-1|=0.005
91028662|NCT01545076|181940950|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon rank sum|||||0|-1|<0.001
91028663|NCT01545076|181940951|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|7.6|||=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|14.0|||Wilcoxon rank sum|||||14|2|=0.004
91028664|NCT01545076|181940951|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|5.7|||=|0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|11.7|||Wilcoxon rank sum|||||11.7|0.7|=0.014
91028665|NCT01545076|181940952|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.0|||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|4.0|||Wilcoxon rank sum|||||4|1|=0.003
91028666|NCT01545076|181940952|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.0|||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|4.0|||Wilcoxon rank sum|||||4|1|=0.002
91028667|NCT01545076|181940953|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|3.0|||=|0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|9.0|||Wilcoxon rank sum|||||9|0|=0.03
91028668|NCT01545076|181940953|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|5.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|9.0|||Wilcoxon rank sum|||||9|2|<0.001
91092583|NCT00885118|182069022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|80964.677|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6303.82|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|68437.16|93492.194|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate||Difference calculated as empa 5mg minus placebo||93492.194|68437.160|<0.0001
90840655|NCT01746901|181547972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|9.8||||0.1313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|22.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||22.6|-3.0|0.1313
90840656|NCT01746901|181547972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|10.8||||0.0982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|23.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||23.6|-2.0|0.0982
90840657|NCT01746901|181547973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.3||||0.0351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|6.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||6.3|0.2|0.0351
90840658|NCT01746901|181547973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.8751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|2.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||2.8|-3.3|0.8751
91028669|NCT02433665|181941018|NON_INFERIORITY|The primary end point for this study was a comparison between fixed-dose and customized-dose contrast material injection CT protocols for vascular and parenchymal enhancement by using a noninferiority approach. The limit of noninferiority was set at 0.1 before the initiation of the study on the basis of a similar study that examined contrast media dose optimization for CT angiography examinations.|Odds Ratio, log|0.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.35|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|0.38|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>0.05
91028670|NCT03194464|181941019|OTHER|||||||0.15||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was established at p \<.05 (non-adjusted).|ANOVA|||We performed repeated measures analysis of variance (RM-ANOVA) to determine if intracortical inhibition, as measured by SICI, in the ipsilesional hemisphere was altered by less affected hand exercise to task-failure and to determine the time course and recovery of this effect.||||0.15
91028671|NCT03194464|181941020|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83||||||Statistical Significance established as p \<.05|ANOVA|Repeated-Measures ANOVA||We performed repeated measures analysis of variance (RM-ANOVA) to determine if intracortical inhibition, as measured by SICI, in the ipsilesional hemisphere was altered by repeated sessions of less affected hand exercise to task-failure. Pre-exercise SICI was compared between Session1 and Session8.||||.83
91028672|NCT03194464|181941021|OTHER|||||||0.204|||||||ANOVA|||RM-ANOVA||||0.204
91028673|NCT03194464|181941022|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||statistical significance was established a priori at p \<.05|ANOVA|repeated measures ANOVA comparing Session8 vs. Session1 performance||We performed repeated measures analysis of variance (RM-ANOVA) to determine if motor dexterity, as measured by the BBT, was improved by repeated sessions of non-paretic hand exercise to task-failure. BBT performance was compared between Session1 and Session8.||||.004
91028674|NCT02456532|181941023|OTHER|analyses of variance comparing the three treatment gropus|||||=|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||=0.05
91028675|NCT02456532|181941024|OTHER|ANOVA|||||=|0.643|||||||ANOVA|||||||=0.643
91028676|NCT02750761|181941039|OTHER|Bioavailability: Geometric least squares mean ratio between the Oral Group's and IV Group's dose normalized AUC from time zero to infinity.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|1.35|||||The Oral Group represented the numerator in the bioavailability ratio, and the IV Group represented the denominator.|||1.35|0.93|
91028677|NCT01860976|181941043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimate of Difference|17.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.7|25.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||25.6|8.7|<0.001
91028678|NCT02362594|181941111|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.4|0.43|0.74||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test.|Regression, Cox|||Comparison of RFS time-to-event distribution between the 2 treatment arms was based on Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by stage (IIIA \[\>1 mm metastasis\] vs. IIIB vs. IIIC 1-3 nodes vs. IIIC ≥4 nodes) as indicated at randomization.||0.74|0.43|<0.0001
91028679|NCT02362594|181941112|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.69||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test.|Regression, Cox|||Comparison of RFS time-to-event distribution between the 2 treatment arms (PD-L1-positive participants) was based on Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by stage (IIIA \[\>1 mm metastasis\] vs. IIIB vs. IIIC 1-3 nodes vs. IIIC ≥4 nodes) as indicated at randomization.||0.69|0.42|<0.0001
90840659|NCT01746901|181547973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.7||||0.0795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|5.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||5.8|-0.3|0.0795
90840660|NCT01746901|181547973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.8382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|3.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||3.4|-2.7|0.8382
90840661|NCT01746901|181547973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.4||||0.0289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|6.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||6.4|0.4|0.0289
90840662|NCT01746901|181547973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.7878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|3.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||3.5|-2.6|0.7878
90840663|NCT01746901|181547973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|14.8||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.6|24.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||24.0|5.6|0.0019
90840664|NCT01746901|181547973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.1||||0.821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|10.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||10.3|-8.1|0.821
90840665|NCT01746901|181547973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|12.3||||0.0094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|21.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||21.5|3.1|0.0094
90840666|NCT01746901|181547973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.6||||0.4454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|12.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||12.8|-5.6|0.4454
91028680|NCT01807871|181941145|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.48
91028681|NCT01807871|181941147|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of number of participants who reported removing the nicotine patch due to a side effect||||0.24
91028682|NCT03019965|181941148|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.95||||0.156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.02|||Chi-squared||||The efficacy of the maneuver was evaluated by calculating the absolute risk reduction and the number needed to treat.|1.02|0.87|0.156
91028683|NCT03019965|181941149|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.98||||0.722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|28.45|||Chi-squared|||||28.45|0.31|0.722
91028684|NCT01569451|181941151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0493|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0493
91028685|NCT01569451|181941152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0268|||||||Peto|||||||0.0268
91028686|NCT01569451|181941153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0189|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0189
91028687|NCT01569451|181941154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3167|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3167
91092584|NCT00885118|182069022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|88589.764|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6544.604|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|75583.738|101595.79|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate||Difference calculated as empa 10mg minus placebo||101595.790|75583.738|<0.0001
91028688|NCT01569451|181941155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.094|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0940
91028689|NCT01569451|181941156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3507|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.3507
91028690|NCT01569451|181941157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
91028691|NCT01569451|181941158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4904|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test||||0.4904
91028692|NCT01569451|181941159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4073|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.4073
91028693|NCT01569451|181941160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8677|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8677
91028694|NCT01569451|181941161|OTHER|Mean difference between treatment groups.||||||0.3974|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3974
91028695|NCT03552757|181941165|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-6.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.28|-5.15|||ANCOVA|||Results are based on the data from in-trial observation period. Week 68 responses were analysed using an analysis of covariance model (ANCOVA) with randomised treatment, stratification groups (oral anti-diabetic (OAD) treatment status and HbA1c category at screening) and the interaction between stratification groups as factors and baseline body weight as covariate.||-5.15|-7.28|<0.0001
91028696|NCT03552757|181941165|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-7.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.56|-6.58|||MMRM|||Results are based on the data from on-treatment observation period. All responses prior to first discontinuation of treatment (or initiation of other anti-obesity medication or bariatric surgery) were included in a mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM) with randomised treatment, stratification groups (OAD treatment status and HbA1c category at screening) and the interaction between stratification groups as factors and baseline body weight as covariate, all nested within visit.||-6.58|-8.56|<0.0001
91028697|NCT03552757|181941166|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.88|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.58|6.64|||Regression, Logistic|||Results are based on the data from in-trial observation period. Week 68 responses were analysed using a binary logistic regression model with randomised treatment, stratification groups (OAD treatment status and HbA1c category at screening) and the interaction between stratification groups as factors and baseline body weight as covariate.||6.64|3.58|<0.0001
91028698|NCT03552757|181941166|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.31|11.97|||Regression, Logistic|||Results are based on the data from on-treatment observation period. All responses prior to first discontinuation of treatment (or initiation of other anti-obesity medication or bariatric surgery) were included in a MMRM with randomised treatment, stratification groups (OAD treatment status and HbA1c category at screening) and the interaction between stratification groups as factors and baseline body weight as covariate, all nested within visit.||11.97|6.31|<0.0001
91028699|NCT00571428|181941206|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was defined a priori such that 90%CI for the difference between therapies had to fall entirely within +/- 0.07L.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.011||||||90.0|-0.015|0.037|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment group, treatment sequence, predose FEV1, \& Visit number are fixed effects; subject within treatment sequence is a random effect.||||0.037|-0.015|
91092585|NCT00885118|182069022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|85620.348|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6610.091|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|72484.181|98756.515|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate||Difference calculated as empa 25mg minus placebo||98756.515|72484.181|<0.0001
91092586|NCT00885118|182069023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.155||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.936|-4.424|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate||Difference calculated as empa 1mg minus placebo||-4.424|-20.936|0.0030
91092587|NCT00885118|182069023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.919|-11.921|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate||Difference calculated as empa 5mg minus placebo||-11.921|-27.919|<0.0001
91092588|NCT00885118|182069023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.208|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.168|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.49|-17.925|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate||Difference calculated as empa 10mg minus placebo||-17.925|-34.490|<0.0001
91092589|NCT00885118|182069023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.235|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.202|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.586|-18.884|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate||Difference calculated as empa 25mg minus placebo||-18.884|-35.586|<0.0001
91092590|NCT00885118|182069024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.883|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.861||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.529|-6.236|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate||Difference calculated as empa 1mg minus placebo||-6.236|-29.529|0.0030
91092591|NCT00885118|182069024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.487|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.445|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.308|-11.665|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate||Difference calculated as empa 5mg minus placebo||-11.665|-33.308|<0.0001
90840667|NCT01746901|181547973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.9||||0.0934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|17.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||17.1|-1.3|0.0934
91092592|NCT00885118|182069024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.265|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.785|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.762|-14.768|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate||Difference calculated as empa 10mg minus placebo||-14.768|-37.762|<0.0001
91092593|NCT00885118|182069024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-28.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.699|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.665|-17.015|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate||Difference calculated as empa 25mg minus placebo||-17.015|-39.665|<0.0001
91092594|NCT00885118|182069025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.239|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.498|-0.02|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate||Difference calculated as empa 1mg minus placebo||-0.020|-0.498|0.0705
90840668|NCT01746901|181547973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.0||||0.1358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|16.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||16.2|-2.2|0.1358
91092595|NCT00885118|182069025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.296|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.125||0.0203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.545|-0.047|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate||Difference calculated as empa 5mg minus placebo||-0.047|-0.545|0.0203
91092596|NCT00885118|182069025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.429|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.687|-0.17|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate||Difference calculated as empa 10mg minus placebo||-0.170|-0.687|0.0014
91092597|NCT00885118|182069025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.395|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.131||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.654|-0.135|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate||Difference calculated as empa 25mg minus placebo||-0.135|-0.654|0.0033
91092598|NCT00885118|182069026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.527|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.755||0.4823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.757|47.811|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate||Difference calculated as empa 1mg minus placebo||47.811|-22.757|0.4823
91092599|NCT00885118|182069026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.984|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.313||0.7305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.422|40.39|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate||Difference calculated as empa 5mg minus placebo||40.390|-28.422|0.7305
91092600|NCT00885118|182069026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.858|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.903||0.3213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.438|17.721|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate||Difference calculated as empa 10mg minus placebo||17.721|-53.438|0.3213
91092601|NCT00885118|182069026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.838|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.13||0.2768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.869|16.192|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate||Difference calculated as empa 25mg minus placebo||16.192|-55.869|0.2768
90840669|NCT01746901|181547973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|59.8||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.0|92.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||92.7|27.0|0.0004
90840670|NCT01746901|181547973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|19.7||||0.2365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|52.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||52.6|-13.1|0.2365
90840671|NCT01746901|181547973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|43.9||||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.1|76.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||76.7|11.1|0.0091
90840672|NCT01746901|181547973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|35.7||||0.0335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|68.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||68.5|2.8|0.0335
90840673|NCT01746901|181547973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|30.8||||0.0661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|63.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||63.6|-2.1|0.0661
90897398|NCT01216163|181660526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|21.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.99|29.84||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||29.84|12.99|<0.001
90897399|NCT01216163|181660526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|1.58||||0.799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.54|13.7||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||13.70|-10.54|0.799
91028700|NCT00571428|181941207|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was defined a priori such that 90%CI for the difference between therapies has to fall entirely within +/- 0.07L.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.062||||||90.0|0.035|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment group, treatment sequence, pre-dose FEV1, \& Visit Number are fixed effects; subjects within treatment sequence is a random effect.||||0.090|0.035|
91028701|NCT00571428|181941208|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was defined a priori such that 90%CI for the difference between therapies has to fall entirely within +/- 0.07L.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.035||||||90.0|-0.079|0.008|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment group, treatment sequence, pre-dose FEV1, \& Visit Number are fixed effects; subjects within treatment sequence is a random effect.||||0.008|-0.079|
91028702|NCT00571428|181941209|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was defined a priori such that 90%CI for the difference between therapies has to fall entirely within +/- 0.07L.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||||90.0|-0.086|0.026|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment group, treatment sequence, pre-dose FEV1, \& Visit Number are fixed effects; subjects within treatment sequence is a random effect.||||0.026|-0.086|
91028703|NCT00571428|181941214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.694||||||90.0|0.525|2.862|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment group, treatment sequence, pre-dose FEV1, \& Visit number are fixed effects; subject within treatment sequence is a random effect.||||2.862|0.525|
91028704|NCT00571428|181941215|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was defined a priori such that 90%CI for the difference between therapies had to fall entirely within +/- 0.07L.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.052||||||90.0|0.015|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment group, treatment sequence, pre-dose FEV1, \& Visit number are fixed effects; subject within treatment sequence is a random effect||||0.090|0.015|
91028705|NCT00386009|181941221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.068||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline to 12 Week Endpoint. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.068
90840674|NCT01746901|181547973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|26.9||||0.1074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|59.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||59.8|-5.9|0.1074
90840675|NCT01746901|181547973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|55.3||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.8|94.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||94.9|15.8|0.0064
90840676|NCT01746901|181547973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|38.8||||0.0543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|78.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||78.3|-0.7|0.0543
90840677|NCT01746901|181547973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|50.2||||0.0131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.7|89.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||89.7|10.7|0.0131
90840678|NCT01746901|181547973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|43.9||||0.0297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|83.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||83.5|4.4|0.0297
91028706|NCT00386009|181941222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.626||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline to 12 Week Endpoint. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.626
91028707|NCT00386009|181941223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.113||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline to 12 Week Endpoint. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.113
91028708|NCT00386009|181941224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.837||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline to 12 Week Endpoint. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.837
91028709|NCT00386009|181941225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline to 12 Week Endpoint. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.400
91028710|NCT00386009|181941226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.864||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline to 12 Week Endpoint. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.864
91028711|NCT00386009|181941227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline to 12 Week Endpoint. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.340
90897400|NCT01216163|181660526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|20.09||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.45|28.72||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||28.72|11.45|0.001
90840679|NCT01746901|181547973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|41.3||||0.0407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|80.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||80.8|1.8|0.0407
90840680|NCT01746901|181547973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|27.5||||0.171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|67.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||67.1|-12.0|0.1710
90840681|NCT01746901|181547973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-35.0||||0.3362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-106.7|36.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||36.7|-106.7|0.3362
90840682|NCT01746901|181547973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|126.9||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.2|198.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||198.5|55.2|0.0006
90840683|NCT01746901|181547973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|53.2||||0.1449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.5|124.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||124.8|-18.5|0.1449
90840684|NCT01746901|181547973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|38.7||||0.2882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.0|110.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||110.4|-33.0|0.2882
90840685|NCT01746901|181547973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|55.0||||0.1314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|126.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||126.7|-16.6|0.1314
90840686|NCT01746901|181547973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|20.1||||0.5808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.6|91.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||91.8|-51.6|0.5808
90840687|NCT01746901|181547973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-66.2||||0.1415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-154.6|22.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||22.3|-154.6|0.1415
90840688|NCT01746901|181547973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|149.1||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.7|237.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||237.5|60.7|0.0011
90957314|NCT04193436|181794397|OTHER||Ratio (%) of Adjusted Means|102.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.59|140.15||||||The effect of the hepatic impairment on PK parameter Cmax were assessed by constructing 90% confidence intervals around the estimated difference between each of the Test (impaired) cohorts and the Reference (without hepatic impairment) cohort using a one-way ANOVA model based on natural log transformed data.||140.15|74.59|
91028712|NCT00386009|181941228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.838||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline to 12 Week Endpoint. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.838
90840689|NCT01746901|181547973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|52.5||||0.2423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.9|140.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||140.9|-35.9|0.2423
90840690|NCT01746901|181547973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|30.4||||0.498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.0|118.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||118.8|-58.0|0.4980
90840691|NCT01746901|181547973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|54.5||||0.2253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.9|142.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||142.9|-33.9|0.2253
90840692|NCT01746901|181547973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|11.7||||0.7945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.8|100.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||100.1|-76.8|0.7945
90840693|NCT01746901|181547974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.8||||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-0.6|-5.1|0.0129
90840694|NCT01746901|181547974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.2||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|6.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||6.5|2.0|0.0003
90840695|NCT01746901|181547974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.7||||0.5483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||2.9|-1.6|0.5483
90840696|NCT01746901|181547974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.7||||0.5284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||2.9|-1.5|0.5284
90840697|NCT01746901|181547974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.7||||0.1331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|3.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||3.9|-0.5|0.1331
90840698|NCT01746901|181547974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.8732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||2.4|-2.1|0.8732
91028713|NCT00386009|181941229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.609||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline to 12 Week Endpoint. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.609
91092602|NCT00885118|182069027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.192|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.728|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.653|-2.731|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate||Difference calculated as empa 1mg minus placebo||-2.731|-5.653|<0.0001
91092603|NCT00885118|182069027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.609|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.756|<|0.0001||95.0|-6.126|-3.091|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate||Difference calculated as empa 5mg minus placebo||-3.091|-6.126|<0.0001
91092604|NCT00885118|182069027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.036|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.762|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.565|-2.508|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate||Difference calculated as empa 10mg minus placebo||-2.508|-5.565|<0.0001
91092605|NCT00885118|182069027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.887|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.076|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.048|-2.726|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate||Difference calculated as empa 25mg minus placebo||-2.726|-7.048|<0.0001
91092606|NCT00885118|182069028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.414||0.2498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.302|0.343|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate||Difference calculated as empa 1mg minus placebo||0.343|-1.302|0.2498
91092607|NCT00885118|182069028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.379|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.408||0.3544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.189|0.43|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate||Difference calculated as empa 5mg minus placebo||0.430|-1.189|0.3544
91092608|NCT00885118|182069028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.343|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.416||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.171|-0.516|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate||Difference calculated as empa 10mg minus placebo||-0.516|-2.171|0.0018
91092609|NCT00885118|182069028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.257|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.421||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.094|-0.419|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate||Difference calculated as empa 25mg minus placebo||-0.419|-2.094|0.0037
91092610|NCT00885118|182069029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-95.414|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.388|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-125.995|-64.833|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate||Difference calculated as empa 1mg minus placebo||-64.833|-125.995|<0.0001
91092611|NCT00885118|182069029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-109.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.67|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-138.633|-80.327|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate||Difference calculated as empa 5mg minus placebo||-80.327|-138.633|<0.0001
91092612|NCT00885118|182069029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-131.336|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.354|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-161.848|-100.824|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate||Difference calculated as empa 10mg minus placebo||-100.824|-161.848|<0.0001
91092613|NCT00885118|182069029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-136.341|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.357|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-166.86|-105.823|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate||Difference calculated as empa 25mg minus placebo||-105.823|-166.860|<0.0001
90840699|NCT01746901|181547975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.6||||0.4555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|13.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||13.2|-5.9|0.4555
91092614|NCT00885118|182069030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.668|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.152||0.0883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.47|48.805|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate||Difference calculated as empa 1mg minus placebo||48.805|-3.470|0.0883
91092615|NCT00885118|182069030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|30.576|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.941||0.0203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.859|56.293|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate||Difference calculated as empa 5mg minus placebo||56.293|4.859|0.0203
91092616|NCT00885118|182069030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.974|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.289||0.6541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.434|32.382|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate||Difference calculated as empa 10mg minus placebo||32.382|-20.434|0.6541
91092617|NCT00885118|182069030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.612||0.4206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.036|38.066|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate||Difference calculated as empa 25mg minus placebo||38.066|-16.036|0.4206
91092618|NCT00885118|182069031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.869|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.066||0.0318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.949|-0.789|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate||Difference calculated as empa 1mg minus placebo||-0.789|-16.949|0.0318
91092619|NCT00885118|182069031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.344|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.966||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.225|-6.462|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate||Difference calculated as empa 5mg minus placebo||-6.462|-22.225|0.0005
91092620|NCT00885118|182069031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.642|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.131||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.853|-7.432|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate||Difference calculated as empa 10mg minus placebo||-7.432|-23.853|0.0003
91092621|NCT00885118|182069031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.137||0.0164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.339|-1.897|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate||Difference calculated as empa 25mg minus placebo||-1.897|-18.339|0.0164
91092622|NCT00921024|182069086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|6.8|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91092623|NCT00921024|182069087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91092624|NCT02325414|182069116|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|10.61||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||||One-year data analysis were carried out using linear mixed-effects models. Covariate adjustments for baseline value of the corresponding outcome and ambulatory status (measured by WISCI) were performed by fitting these variables as fixed factors. The repeated measures were addressed using participant identification as random intercepts in the model.|||0.05
91092625|NCT02775851|182069120|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||One-sided Exact Binomial|||We assumed a null pCR rate of 5% and powered the study assuming an alternative hypothesis of 25%. This single stage design had an alpha of 3.4% (i.e. probability of declaring the regimen warrants further study when the true CR is 5%) and a power of 90% (probability of declaring the regimen warrants further study when the true pCR is 25%) with 25 eligible participants.||||<0.001
90840700|NCT01746901|181547975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.9||||0.1495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|16.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||16.4|-2.5|0.1495
91028714|NCT00386009|181941230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.427||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline to 12 Week Endpoint. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.427
90840701|NCT01746901|181547975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|11.4||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|20.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||20.9|1.8|0.0200
90840702|NCT01746901|181547975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.8||||0.8668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|8.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||8.7|-10.3|0.8668
90840703|NCT01746901|181547975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.1||||0.3904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|13.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||13.6|-5.3|0.3904
90840704|NCT01746901|181547975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.2||||0.6524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|11.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||11.6|-7.3|0.6524
90840705|NCT01746901|181547976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.8||||0.1771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|2.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||2.1|-0.4|0.1771
90840706|NCT01746901|181547976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.3944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||0.7|-1.7|0.3944
90840707|NCT01746901|181547976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.8||||0.1778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|2.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||2.1|-0.4|0.1778
90840708|NCT01746901|181547976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||0.7|-1.7|0.3960
90897401|NCT01216163|181660526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|53.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.92|63.53||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||63.53|42.92|<0.001
90840709|NCT01746901|181547976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.6125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||1.5|-0.9|0.6125
90840710|NCT01746901|181547976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.9059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||1.3|-1.1|0.9059
90840711|NCT01746901|181547976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.7||||0.4585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|6.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||6.3|-2.9|0.4585
90840712|NCT01746901|181547976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.8986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|4.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||4.8|-4.2|0.8986
90840713|NCT01746901|181547976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.1||||0.3641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|6.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||6.7|-2.5|0.3641
90840714|NCT01746901|181547976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.9674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|4.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||4.4|-4.6|0.9674
90840715|NCT01746901|181547976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.3||||0.5744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|5.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||5.8|-3.2|0.5744
90840716|NCT01746901|181547976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.2||||0.3457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|6.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||6.7|-2.4|0.3457
90840717|NCT01746901|181547976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.7||||0.6664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|20.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||20.8|-13.3|0.6664
90897402|NCT01216163|181660526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-2.98||||0.695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.67|11.7||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||11.70|-17.67|0.695
91028715|NCT00386009|181941231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.838||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline to 12 Week Endpoint. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.838
91028716|NCT00386009|181941232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline to 12 Week Endpoint. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.090
90840718|NCT01746901|181547976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|11.1||||0.1949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|28.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||28.0|-5.8|0.1949
90840719|NCT01746901|181547976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|11.1||||0.2009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|28.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||28.1|-6.0|0.2009
90840720|NCT01746901|181547976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.8||||0.6595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|20.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||20.7|-13.1|0.6595
91028717|NCT00386009|181941233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.113||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline to 12 Week Endpoint. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.113
90840721|NCT01746901|181547976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|8.6||||0.3176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|25.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||25.5|-8.3|0.3176
90840722|NCT01746901|181547976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.0||||0.6423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|20.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||20.9|-12.9|0.6423
90840723|NCT01746901|181547976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.8||||0.4358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|24.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||24.2|-10.5|0.4358
90840724|NCT01746901|181547976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|11.7||||0.1789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|28.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||28.9|-5.4|0.1789
90897403|NCT01216163|181660526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|57.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.53|67.6||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||67.60|46.53|<0.001
90840725|NCT01746901|181547976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|14.0||||0.1131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|31.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||31.3|-3.3|0.1131
90840726|NCT01746901|181547976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.6||||0.5965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|21.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||21.8|-12.6|0.5965
90840727|NCT01746901|181547976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|8.7||||0.3175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|25.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||25.9|-8.5|0.3175
90840728|NCT01746901|181547976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.9||||0.6551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|21.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||21.0|-13.3|0.6551
90897404|NCT01216163|181660526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|70.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.28|80.88||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||80.88|60.28|<0.001
90840729|NCT01746901|181547976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-45.3||||0.0354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-87.5|-3.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-3.1|-87.5|0.0354
90840730|NCT01746901|181547976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|55.2||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.4|97.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||97.0|13.4|0.0100
90840731|NCT01746901|181547976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|13.2||||0.5379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.0|55.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||55.4|-29.0|0.5379
90840732|NCT01746901|181547976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.3||||0.8768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.1|38.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||38.5|-45.1|0.8768
90840733|NCT01746901|181547976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|8.1||||0.7031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.8|49.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||49.9|-33.8|0.7031
90840734|NCT01746901|181547976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.0||||0.8507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.8|37.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||37.8|-45.8|0.8507
90840735|NCT01746901|181547976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-62.3||||0.0381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-121.2|-3.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-3.5|-121.2|0.0381
91028718|NCT00386009|181941236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline to 12 Week Endpoint. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90840736|NCT01746901|181547976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|64.0||||0.0318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|122.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||122.3|5.7|0.0318
90840737|NCT01746901|181547976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|15.2||||0.6095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.6|74.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||74.1|-43.6|0.6095
90840738|NCT01746901|181547976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-13.6||||0.647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.9|44.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||44.8|-71.9|0.6470
90840739|NCT01746901|181547976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.0||||0.8136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.4|65.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||65.4|-51.4|0.8136
90840740|NCT01746901|181547976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-12.6||||0.6699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.0|45.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||45.7|-71.0|0.6699
90840741|NCT01746901|181547977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.6||||0.1728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||0.7|-3.9|0.1728
90840742|NCT01746901|181547977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.3||||0.2616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|3.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||3.6|-1.0|0.2616
91028719|NCT02129348|181941242|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect Difference|0.7||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|2.7||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Lithium will significantly reduce agitation/aggression compared to placebo. In intent-to-treat analyses, linear mixed effect models (MEM) were used to estimate means of change scores (baseline versus 12 weeks) by treatment group, lithium versus placebo, for continuous outcomes. The MEM method was used to incorporate all time-points of assessment and deal with missing data for participants who did not reach the 12-week time-point.||2.7|-1.4|0.53
91028720|NCT02129348|181941243|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect Difference|2.11||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|6.13||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Chi-squared||Odds ratio and its 95% confidence interval were computed.|Change in both NPI core score (≥30% versus \<30%) and CGI behavior change (1 or 2 versus ≥3) were required for response; these two measures were then analyzed separately. A x² test was used to identify whether there was a change in NPI core scores and CGI scores from baseline to week 12.||6.13|0.73|0.26
91028721|NCT02129348|181941244|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect Difference|1.79||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|5.04||The threshold of statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Chi-squared|||CGI behavior change scores were categorized into responders versus non-responders (1 or 2 versus ≥3) using the last variable observation for drop-outs. A x² test was used to identify the percentage of participants in each group, lithium versus placebo, that improved from baseline to week 12.||5.04|0.64|0.25
90840743|NCT01746901|181547977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.7307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|2.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||2.7|-1.9|0.7307
90840744|NCT01746901|181547977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.7||||0.5473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||1.6|-3.0|0.5473
90840745|NCT01746901|181547977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.8||||0.4999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||1.5|-3.1|0.4999
90840746|NCT01746901|181547977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.7||||0.5592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||1.6|-3.0|0.5592
90897405|NCT01216163|181660526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|7.99||||0.261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.85|21.84||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||21.84|-5.85|0.261
90840747|NCT01746901|181547978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|13.3||||0.0217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|24.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||24.6|2.0|0.0217
90840748|NCT01746901|181547978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.4||||0.5513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|14.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||14.6|-7.8|0.5513
90840749|NCT01746901|181547978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|11.5||||0.0469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|22.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||22.8|0.2|0.0469
90840750|NCT01746901|181547978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.2||||0.3604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|16.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||16.4|-6.0|0.3604
90840751|NCT01746901|181547978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.2||||0.2725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|17.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||17.4|-5.0|0.2725
90840752|NCT01746901|181547978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.4||||0.3461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|16.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||16.6|-5.8|0.3461
90840753|NCT01746901|181547979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.4||||0.1828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|5.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||5.8|-1.1|0.1828
90840754|NCT01746901|181547979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.5||||0.3908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|1.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||1.9|-5.0|0.3908
90840755|NCT01746901|181547979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.0||||0.2513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|5.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||5.5|-1.5|0.2513
90840756|NCT01746901|181547979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.2||||0.5035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||2.3|-4.6|0.5035
90840757|NCT01746901|181547979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.6||||0.1452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|6.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||6.0|-0.9|0.1452
90840758|NCT01746901|181547979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.9303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|3.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||3.3|-3.6|0.9303
90840759|NCT01746901|181547979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|8.8||||0.0283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|16.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||16.7|0.9|0.0283
90840760|NCT01746901|181547979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.7||||0.4861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|5.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||5.0|-10.5|0.4861
90897406|NCT01216163|181660526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|62.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.78|73.99||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||73.99|51.78|<0.001
90897407|NCT01216163|181660526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|66.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.77|78.71||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||78.71|53.77|<0.001
90840761|NCT01746901|181547979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.3||||0.1809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|13.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||13.2|-2.5|0.1809
90840762|NCT01746901|181547979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.7||||0.856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|8.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||8.5|-7.1|0.8560
90840763|NCT01746901|181547979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.7||||0.2385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|12.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||12.4|-3.1|0.2385
90840764|NCT01746901|181547979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.7||||0.3479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|11.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||11.5|-4.1|0.3479
90840765|NCT01746901|181547979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|27.7||||0.0185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|50.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||50.6|4.7|0.0185
90840766|NCT01746901|181547979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.9||||0.5471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.8|29.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||29.7|-15.8|0.5471
90840767|NCT01746901|181547979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|24.5||||0.0367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|47.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||47.4|1.5|0.0367
90840768|NCT01746901|181547979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|10.1||||0.3797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|32.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||32.9|-12.6|0.3797
90840769|NCT01746901|181547979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|16.4||||0.1557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|39.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||39.1|-6.3|0.1557
90840770|NCT01746901|181547979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|12.2||||0.2904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|34.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||34.9|-10.5|0.2904
90840771|NCT01746901|181547979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|26.0||||0.0467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|51.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||51.6|0.4|0.0467
90840772|NCT01746901|181547979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|10.7||||0.4056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|36.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||36.0|-14.6|0.4056
91092626|NCT02775851|182069121|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||One-sided Exact Binomial|||We assumed a null CR rate of 5% and powered the study assuming an alternative hypothesis of 20%. This single stage design had an alpha of 8.5% (i.e. probability of declaring the regimen warrants further study when the true CR is 5%) and a power of 82% (probability of declaring the regimen warrants further study when the true CR is 20%) with 21 eligible participants.||||<0.001
90840773|NCT01746901|181547979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|23.3||||0.0738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|48.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||48.9|-2.3|0.0738
90840774|NCT01746901|181547979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|13.4||||0.2987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|38.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||38.7|-12.0|0.2987
90840775|NCT01746901|181547979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|22.9||||0.0763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|48.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||48.2|-2.4|0.0763
90840776|NCT01746901|181547979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|12.3||||0.3396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|37.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||37.6|-13.1|0.3396
90840777|NCT01746901|181547979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-33.2||||0.2425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-89.1|22.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||22.7|-89.1|0.2425
90840778|NCT01746901|181547979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|62.1||||0.0281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|117.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||117.5|6.8|0.0281
90840779|NCT01746901|181547979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|22.9||||0.4189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.0|78.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||78.8|-33.0|0.4189
90840780|NCT01746901|181547979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.0||||0.831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.4|61.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||61.4|-49.4|0.8310
90840781|NCT01746901|181547979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|34.8||||0.2161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.6|90.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||90.1|-20.6|0.2161
90897408|NCT01216163|181660526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|4.38||||0.522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.89|17.64||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||17.64|-8.89|0.522
91092627|NCT03055013|182069131|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.95||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.22|||Log Rank|stratified logrank test (one-sided)|hazard ratio : arm A vs. arm B|||1.22|0.74|0.34
90840782|NCT01746901|181547979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.9||||0.8905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.5|59.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||59.2|-51.5|0.8905
90840783|NCT01746901|181547979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-51.8||||0.1597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-124.2|20.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||20.6|-124.2|0.1597
90840784|NCT01746901|181547979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|70.9||||0.0525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|142.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||142.6|-0.8|0.0525
90840785|NCT01746901|181547979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|23.1||||0.5294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.3|95.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||95.4|-49.3|0.5294
90840786|NCT01746901|181547979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.0||||0.9126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.7|67.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||67.7|-75.7|0.9126
90840787|NCT01746901|181547979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|34.6||||0.3418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.1|106.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||106.3|-37.1|0.3418
90840788|NCT01746901|181547979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.3||||0.8833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.0|66.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||66.4|-77.0|0.8833
90840789|NCT01746901|181547980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.6||||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|-1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-1.2|-6.1|0.0041
90840790|NCT01746901|181547980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.3||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|6.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||6.8|1.9|0.0006
90840791|NCT01746901|181547980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.8765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||2.3|-2.7|0.8765
90840792|NCT01746901|181547980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.9||||0.4746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|3.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||3.3|-1.6|0.4746
91092628|NCT02765035|182069172|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||C-Leg 3 vs. NMPK (Baseline)||||0.01
90840793|NCT01746901|181547980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.9||||0.4607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||1.5|-3.3|0.4607
90840794|NCT01746901|181547980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.5||||0.2316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|3.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||3.9|-1.0|0.2316
90840795|NCT01746901|181547981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|38.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.4|51.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||51.3|26.4|<0.0001
90840796|NCT01746901|181547981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|15.8||||0.0136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|28.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||28.3|3.3|0.0136
90840797|NCT01746901|181547981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|18.5||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.1|31.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||31.0|6.1|0.0039
90840798|NCT01746901|181547981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|36.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.6|48.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||48.5|23.6|<0.0001
90840799|NCT01746901|181547981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|15.4||||0.0157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|27.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||27.8|2.9|0.0157
90840800|NCT01746901|181547981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|32.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.5|45.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||45.3|20.5|<0.0001
90840801|NCT01746901|181547982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|12.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.4|18.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||18.6|6.4|<0.0001
90840802|NCT01746901|181547982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.5||||0.255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|9.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||9.6|-2.6|0.2550
90897409|NCT01216163|181660526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|61.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.06|74.8||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||74.80|49.06|<0.001
90840803|NCT01746901|181547982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|10.4||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|16.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||16.4|4.3|0.0010
90840804|NCT01746901|181547982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.7||||0.0667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|11.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||11.8|-0.4|0.0667
90840805|NCT01746901|181547982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|8.3||||0.0075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|14.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||14.4|2.3|0.0075
90840806|NCT01746901|181547982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.6||||0.1354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|10.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||10.7|-1.5|0.1354
90840807|NCT01746901|181547982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|50.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.2|67.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||67.5|34.2|<0.0001
90840808|NCT01746901|181547982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.3||||0.3905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|24.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||24.0|-9.4|0.3905
90840809|NCT01746901|181547982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|28.6||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.9|45.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||45.3|11.9|0.0009
90840810|NCT01746901|181547982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|29.6||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.9|46.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||46.3|12.9|0.0006
90840811|NCT01746901|181547982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|22.9||||0.0072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|39.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||39.5|6.3|0.0072
90840812|NCT01746901|181547982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|25.0||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.4|41.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||41.6|8.4|0.0035
90840813|NCT01746901|181547982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|248.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|188.6|308.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||308.3|188.6|<0.0001
90840814|NCT01746901|181547982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|68.2||||0.0263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.2|128.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||128.2|8.2|0.0263
90840815|NCT01746901|181547982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|151.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.3|211.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||211.1|91.3|<0.0001
90840816|NCT01746901|181547982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|165.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|105.6|225.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||225.3|105.6|<0.0001
90840817|NCT01746901|181547982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|97.9||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.3|157.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||157.6|38.3|0.0015
90840818|NCT01746901|181547982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|138.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.7|198.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||198.2|78.7|<0.0001
90840819|NCT01746901|181547982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|241.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|162.8|319.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||319.9|162.8|<0.0001
90840820|NCT01746901|181547982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|121.1||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.4|199.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||199.9|42.4|0.0028
90840821|NCT01746901|181547982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|164.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|85.8|243.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||243.1|85.8|<0.0001
90840822|NCT01746901|181547982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|198.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|119.4|276.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||276.6|119.4|<0.0001
90840823|NCT01746901|181547982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|111.1||||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.8|189.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||189.4|32.8|0.0057
90840824|NCT01746901|181547982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|168.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.7|246.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||246.6|89.7|<0.0001
90840825|NCT01746901|181547982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|128.4||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.5|248.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||248.3|8.5|0.0360
90957315|NCT04193436|181794397|OTHER||Ratio (%) of Adjusted Means|83.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.18|116.62||||||The effect of the hepatic impairment on PK parameter Cmax were assessed by constructing 90% confidence intervals around the estimated difference between each of the Test (impaired) cohorts and the Reference (without hepatic impairment) cohort using a one-way ANOVA model based on natural log transformed data.||116.62|60.18|
90840826|NCT01746901|181547982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|221.5||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|101.2|341.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||341.7|101.2|0.0004
90840827|NCT01746901|181547982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|126.7||||0.0388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.6|246.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||246.8|6.6|0.0388
90840828|NCT01746901|181547982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|223.2||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|103.2|343.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||343.2|103.2|0.0003
90840829|NCT01746901|181547982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|107.2||||0.0787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|226.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||226.8|-12.4|0.0787
90840830|NCT01746901|181547982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|181.3||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.5|301.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||301.0|61.5|0.0033
90840831|NCT01746901|181547982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|96.1||||0.1688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.2|233.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||233.3|-41.2|0.1688
90840832|NCT01746901|181547982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|220.3||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|82.6|358.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||358.0|82.6|0.0019
90840833|NCT01746901|181547982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|106.0||||0.1298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.5|243.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||243.5|-31.5|0.1298
90840834|NCT01746901|181547982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|210.4||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|73.0|347.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||347.8|73.0|0.0029
90840835|NCT01746901|181547982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|108.7||||0.1189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.3|245.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||245.7|-28.3|0.1189
90840836|NCT01746901|181547982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|153.6||||0.0284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.4|290.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||290.8|16.4|0.0284
91092629|NCT02765035|182069172|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||C-Leg 4 vs. NMPK (Baseline)||||0.04
91092630|NCT01259245|182069196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.017||||0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.046|0.012||Regression coefficients from ANCOVA for Tai Chi intervention (PRP as reference) at 6 months after adjusted for baseline value of the outcome variable, age, sex, BMI, smoking and education|ANCOVA|||||0.012|-0.046|0.252
91092631|NCT01259245|182069197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.005|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.442||0.984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.438|0.447|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline values, age, sex, education, BMI and smoking||power0.80 for a medium effect size at 5% level of significance||0.447|-0.438|0.984
91092632|NCT01259245|182069198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.372|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.433||0.869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.061|4.805|||ANCOVA|adjusted for baseline values, age, sex, education, BMI and education||power of 0.80 for a medium effect size at 5% level of significance||4.805|-4.061|0.869
91092633|NCT01259245|182069199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.295|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.706||0.588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.001|3.411|||ANCOVA|adjusted for baseline values, age, sex, BMI, education and smoking||power of 0.80 for medium size effect at 5% level of significance||3.411|-6.001|0.588
91092634|NCT01259245|182069200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.477||0.345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.627|2.327|||ANCOVA|adjusted for baseline values, age, sex, BMI, education and smoking||power of 0.80 for medium effect size at 5% level of significance||2.327|-6.627|0.345
91092635|NCT01259245|182069201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.69|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.062||0.413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.753|2.372|||ANCOVA|adjusted for baseline value, age, sex, BMI, education and smoking||power of 0.80 for medium effect size at 5% level of significance||2.372|-5.753|0.413
91092636|NCT01259245|182069202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.049|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.89||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.159|21.939|||ANCOVA|adjusted for baseline value, age, sex, BMI, education and smoking||power of 0.80 for medium effect size at 5% level of significance||21.939|4.159|0.004
91092637|NCT01259245|182069203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.042|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.226||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.184|||ANCOVA|adjusted for baseline value, age, sex, BMI, education and smoking||power of 0.80 for medium effect size at 5% level of significance||0.184|-0.100|0.560
91092638|NCT01259245|182069204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.037|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.088||0.425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.054|0.128|||ANCOVA|adjusted for baseline value, age, sex, BMI, education and smoking||power of 0.80 for medium effect size at 5% level of significance||0.128|-0.054|0.425
91092639|NCT01259245|182069205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.2||0.528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|6.8|||ANCOVA|adjusted for baseline value, age, sex, BMI, education and smoking||power of 0.80 for medium effect size at 5% level of significance||6.8|-3.5|0.528
91092640|NCT01142336|182069251|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53||||||Threshold for significance: 0.05, adjust for 3 primary outcomes using Holm Correction|ANCOVA|Response variable was Aβ42 in CSF at 1 year, and predictor variables were Aβ42 in CSF at baseline, treatment group, age, sex, and APOE e4 allele.||||||0.53
91092641|NCT01142336|182069252|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36||||||Threshold for significance: 0.05, adjusted for 3 primary outcomes using Holm correction|ANCOVA|Response variable was total tau in CSF at 1 year, and predictor were total tau in at baseline, treatment group, age, sex, and APOE e4 allele status||||||0.36
91092642|NCT01142336|182069253|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25||||||Threshold for significance: 0.05, adjusted for 3 primary outcomes using Holm correction.|ANCOVA|Response variable was p-tau181 in CSF at 1 year, and predictor were p-tau181 in at baseline, treatment group, age, sex, and APOE e4 allele status||||||0.25
91092643|NCT03040726|182069266|OTHER|||||||0.98|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.98
91092644|NCT03040726|182069267|OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.40
91092645|NCT03040726|182069268|OTHER|||||||0.79|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.79
91092646|NCT03040726|182069269|OTHER|||||||0.57|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.57
91092647|NCT01123655|182069278|EQUIVALENCE|P less than 0.05 was the criteria for equivalence.||||||0.5179|||||||Fisher Exact|||Specified to be a reduction from baseline values of net IFNƔ concentration of ≥ 25% in αl(ll)-stimulated PBMC culture supernatants (calculated as αI(II)-IFNƔ-PBS IFNƔ in patients receiving APL A12 compared to placebo.||||0.5179
91092648|NCT01123655|182069278|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis was that the response rate in the APL treated groups is not significantly difference from the 50% spontaneous response rate.||||||0.0114|||||||Exact Test|||||||0.0114
91092649|NCT01123655|182069278|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis was that the response rate in the placebo group is not significantly difference from the 50% spontaneous response rate.||||||0.4142|||||||Exact Test|||||||0.4142
91092650|NCT01123655|182069280|EQUIVALENCE|P greater than 0.05 was the criteria for equivalence.|||||>|0.05||||||P value is applicable for baseline and follow-up data.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>0.05
91092651|NCT01123655|182069281|EQUIVALENCE|p value greater than 0.05 was the criteria for equivalence.|||||>|0.05||||||P value is applicable to IL-17a, IL-10, IL-1b, IL-9, IL-13, IL-5, IL-21, IL-6, TNFa, TGFb, MIP3a.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91092652|NCT05063448|182069321|OTHER|Reliable change is calculated by multiplying the standard deviation of the measure by Cronbach's alpha reliability to determine the standard error of the measure. The standard error of the measure is multiplied by 1.96 to calculate a confidence interval around the line of no change, when the slope of pre-test to post-test = 1. Using time 3 parameters, the reliable change index for this scale was ±2.47. Cases that fall outside of the confidence interval are considered to show reliable change.|Slope|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|3.47|||||Five cases fell outside of the upper confidence interval.|Reliable change indices compare participants to themselves from Time 1 (baseline) and Time 3 (post-intervention). Reliable change indices measure whether the score change of individual participants is more than would be expected based on measurement error alone. Reliable change results are presented as number of participants who fell outside of the reliable change confidence interval in each direction indicating reliable increases or decreases in score.||3.47|-1.47|
90897410|NCT01216163|181660526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|66.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.61|79.09||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||79.09|53.61|<0.001
90897411|NCT01216163|181660526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|5.46||||0.415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.53|18.44||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||18.44|-7.53|0.415
91028722|NCT02129348|181941245|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect Difference|2.0||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|5.1||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||In intent-to-treat analyses, linear mixed effect models (MEM) were used to estimate means of change scores (baseline versus 12 weeks) by treatment group, lithium versus placebo, for continuous outcomes. The MEM method was used to incorporate all time-points of assessment and deal with missing data for participants who did not reach the 12-week time-point.||5.1|-1.1|0.21
90840837|NCT01746901|181547983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.8||||0.0327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-0.1|-3.4|0.0327
90840838|NCT01746901|181547983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.6||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|4.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||4.2|1.0|0.0019
90840839|NCT01746901|181547983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.7508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||1.4|-1.9|0.7508
90840840|NCT01746901|181547983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.1||||0.1868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|2.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||2.7|-0.5|0.1868
90840841|NCT01746901|181547983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.9944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||1.6|-1.6|0.9944
90840842|NCT01746901|181547983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.0||||0.2322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|2.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||2.6|-0.6|0.2322
90840843|NCT01746901|181547984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|28.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.8|39.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||39.6|16.8|<0.0001
90840844|NCT01746901|181547984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|8.4||||0.1421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|19.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||19.6|-2.8|0.1421
90840845|NCT01746901|181547984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|20.9||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.5|32.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||32.2|9.5|0.0004
90840846|NCT01746901|181547984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|15.8||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|27.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||27.0|4.5|0.0064
90840847|NCT01746901|181547984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.4||||0.1974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|18.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||18.6|-3.9|0.1974
90840848|NCT01746901|181547984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|19.5||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.3|30.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||30.8|8.3|0.0008
90840849|NCT01746901|181547985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|12.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.1|17.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||17.4|7.1|<0.0001
90840850|NCT01746901|181547985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.0||||0.6868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|6.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||6.2|-4.1|0.6868
90840851|NCT01746901|181547985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.3||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|12.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||12.5|2.2|0.0058
90840852|NCT01746901|181547985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.9||||0.0229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|11.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||11.1|0.8|0.0229
90897412|NCT01216163|181660526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|60.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.65|74.19||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||74.19|47.65|<0.001
90897413|NCT01216163|181660526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|65.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.18|78.46||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||78.46|52.18|<0.001
91028723|NCT02129348|181941246|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect Difference|-0.1||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|2.4||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||In intent-to-treat analyses, linear mixed effect models (MEM) were used to estimate means of change scores (baseline versus 12 weeks) by treatment group, lithium versus placebo, for continuous outcomes. The MEM method was used to incorporate all time-points of assessment and deal with missing data for participants who did not reach the 12-week time-point.||2.4|-2.6|0.91
91028724|NCT02129348|181941247|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect Difference|0.1||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.4||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Effect size (d)= -0.02 (Cohen's D)|In intent-to-treat analyses, linear mixed effect models (MEM) were used to estimate means of change scores (baseline versus 12 weeks) by treatment group, lithium versus placebo, for continuous outcomes. The MEM method was used to incorporate all time-points of assessment and deal with missing data for participants who did not reach the 12-week time-point.||1.4|-1.5|0.94
90897414|NCT01216163|181660526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|4.21||||0.519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.39|16.81||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||16.81|-8.39|0.519
90957316|NCT04193436|181794398|OTHER||Ratio (%) of Adjusted Means|121.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.69|167.31||||||The effect of the hepatic impairment on PK parameter AUCinf,u were assessed by constructing 90% confidence intervals around the estimated difference between each of the Test (impaired) cohorts and the Reference (without hepatic impairment) cohort using a one-way ANOVA model based on natural log transformed data.||167.31|88.69|
91092653|NCT05063448|182069321|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022||||||This is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori alpha is set at 95% with two tails.|t-test, 2 sided|t = 2.547, df = 16. N at time 3 = 18.||Paired samples t-test was used to compare group average pretest (time 1) and posttest (time 3) scores of self-perceptions of the parental role, a measure of parenting confidence.||||0.022
90840853|NCT01746901|181547985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.2||||0.2168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|8.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||8.3|-1.9|0.2168
91092654|NCT05063448|182069322|OTHER|Reliable change is calculated by multiplying the standard deviation of the measure by Cronbach's alpha reliability to determine the standard error of the measure. The standard error of the measure is multiplied by 1.96 to calculate a confidence interval around the line of no change, when the slope of pre-test to post-test = 1. Using time 3 parameters, the reliable change index for this scale was ±1.84. Cases that fall outside of the confidence interval are considered to show reliable change.|Slope|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|2.84|||||Three cases fell outside of the upper confidence interval.|Reliable change indices compare participants to themselves from Time 1 (baseline) and Time 3 (post-intervention). Reliable change indices measure whether the score change of individual participants is more than would be expected based on measurement error alone. Reliable change results are presented as number of participants who fell outside of the reliable change confidence interval in each direction indicating reliable increases or decreases in score.||2.84|-0.84|
91092655|NCT05063448|182069323|OTHER|Reliable change is calculated by multiplying the standard deviation of the measure by Cronbach's alpha reliability to determine the standard error of the measure. The standard error of the measure is multiplied by 1.96 to calculate a confidence interval around the line of no change, when the slope of pre-test to post-test = 1. Using time 3 parameters, the reliable change index for this scale was ±5.97. Cases that fall outside of the confidence interval are considered to show reliable change.|Slope|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.97|6.97||||Two cases demonstrated reliable and one case demonstrated a reliable increase in work-family role conflict at posttest.|Two cases fell outside of the upper confidence interval and one case fell outside of the lower confidence interval.|Reliable change indices compare participants to themselves from Time 1 (baseline) and Time 3 (post-intervention). Reliable change indices measure whether the score change of individual participants is more than would be expected based on measurement error alone. Reliable change results are presented as number of participants who fell outside of the reliable change confidence interval in each direction indicating reliable increases or decreases in score.||6.97|-4.97|
91092656|NCT05063448|182069324|OTHER|Reliable change is calculated by multiplying the standard deviation of the measure by Cronbach's alpha reliability to determine the standard error of the measure. The standard error of the measure is multiplied by 1.96 to calculate a confidence interval around the line of no change, when the slope of pre-test to post-test = 1. Using time 3 parameters, the reliable change index for this scale was ±4.78.|Slope|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.78|5.78|||||Three cases fell below the confidence interval and two cases fell above the confidence interval.|Reliable change indices compare participants to themselves from Time 1 (baseline) and Time 3 (post-intervention). Reliable change indices measure whether the score change of individual participants is more than would be expected based on measurement error alone. Reliable change results are presented as number of participants who fell outside of the reliable change confidence interval in each direction indicating reliable increases or decreases in score..||5.78|-3.78|
91092657|NCT05063448|182069325|OTHER|Reliable change is calculated by multiplying the standard deviation of the measure by Cronbach's alpha reliability to determine the standard error of the measure. The standard error of the measure is multiplied by 1.96 to calculate a confidence interval around the line of no change, when the slope of pre-test to post-test = 1. Using time 3 parameters, the reliable change index for this scale was ±3.37. Cases that fall outside of the confidence interval are considered to show reliable change.|Slope|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.27|4.37|||||Three cases fell below the lower confidence interval and two cases fell above the upper confidence interval.|Reliable change indices compare participants to themselves from Time 1 (baseline) and Time 3 (post-intervention). Reliable change indices measure whether the score change of individual participants is more than would be expected based on measurement error alone. Reliable change results are presented as number of participants who fell outside of the reliable change confidence interval in each direction indicating reliable increases or decreases in score.||4.37|-2.27|
91092658|NCT05063448|182069326|OTHER|Reliable change is calculated by multiplying the standard deviation of the measure by Cronbach's alpha reliability to determine the standard error of the measure. The standard error of the measure is multiplied by 1.96 to calculate a confidence interval around the line of no change, when the slope of pre-test to post-test = 1. Using time 3 parameters, the reliable change index for this scale was ±2.80. Cases that fall outside of the confidence interval are considered to show reliable change.|Slope|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|3.8|||||Two cases fell below the lower confidence interval and two cases fell above the upper confidence interval.|Reliable change indices compare participants to themselves from Time 1 (baseline) and Time 3 (post-intervention). Reliable change indices measure whether the score change of individual participants is more than would be expected based on measurement error alone. Reliable change results are presented as number of participants who fell outside of the reliable change confidence interval in each direction indicating reliable increases or decreases in score.||3.80|-1.80|
91092659|NCT05063448|182069328|OTHER|Reliable change is calculated by multiplying the standard deviation of the measure by Cronbach's alpha reliability to determine the standard error of the measure. The standard error of the measure is multiplied by 1.96 to calculate a confidence interval around the line of no change, when the slope of pre-test to post-test = 1. Using time 3 parameters, the reliable change index for this scale was ±4.03. Cases that fall outside of the confidence interval are considered to show reliable change.|Slope|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.03|5.03|||||One case fell outside of the upper confidence interval, while 5 participants fell below the lower confidence interval.|Reliable change indices compare participants to themselves from Time 1 (baseline) and Time 3 (post-intervention). Reliable change indices measure whether the score change of individual participants is more than would be expected based on measurement error alone. Reliable change results are presented as number of participants who fell outside of the reliable change confidence interval in each direction indicating reliable increases or decreases in score.||5.03|-3.03|
90897415|NCT01216163|181660526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|61.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.6|74.68||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||74.68|47.60|<0.001
90897416|NCT01216163|181660526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|66.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.38|79.51||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||79.51|53.38|<0.001
90897417|NCT01216163|181660526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|5.31||||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.22|17.83||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||17.83|-7.22|0.412
90897418|NCT01216163|181660526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|61.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.6|74.68||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||74.68|47.60|<0.001
90897419|NCT01216163|181660526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|66.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.38|79.51||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||79.51|53.38|<0.001
90897420|NCT01216163|181660526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|5.31||||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.22|17.83||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||17.83|-7.22|0.412
90897421|NCT01216163|181660526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|61.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.6|74.68||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||74.68|47.60|<0.001
90897422|NCT01216163|181660527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|26.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.87|36.93||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.25 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||36.93|15.87|<0.001
90897423|NCT01216163|181660527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|3.53||||0.602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.85|16.91||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.25 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||16.91|-9.85|0.602
90897424|NCT01216163|181660527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|22.72||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.39|33.05||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.25 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||33.05|12.39|0.001
90897425|NCT01216163|181660527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|60.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.61|72.12||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||72.12|48.61|<0.001
90897426|NCT01216163|181660527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|2.25||||0.761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|16.59||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||16.59|-12.10|0.761
90897427|NCT01216163|181660527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|58.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.59|70.05||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||70.05|46.59|<0.001
90897428|NCT01216163|181660527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|67.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.91|80.12||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||80.12|54.91|<0.001
91028725|NCT02129348|181941248|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect Difference|0.2||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.8||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||In intent-to-treat analyses, linear mixed effect models (MEM) were used to estimate means of change scores (baseline versus 12 weeks) by treatment group, lithium versus placebo, for continuous outcomes. The MEM method was used to incorporate all time-points of assessment and deal with missing data for participants who did not reach the 12-week time-point.||0.8|-0.4|0.63
91092660|NCT02368132|182069337|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-8.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.57|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated difference in least square means between Usual Care (reference) and Group Delivered TEP arm at 3 months.|||||<0.001
91092661|NCT02368132|182069337|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-5.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.42||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated difference in least square means between Usual Care (reference) and Individual Delivered TEP arm at 3 months.|||||0.04
91092662|NCT02475369|182069340|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.271|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.271
91092663|NCT02475369|182069341|OTHER|In order to calculate a correlation between baseline fecal elastase-1 and total CeD-GSRS score on PES treatment vs. placebo treatment, we calculated a Spearman's rank correlation coefficient between the two independent variables.||||||0.995|||||||Spearman rank coefficient|||||||0.995
91092664|NCT02475369|182069342|OTHER|In order to evaluate the estimated difference of the effect of Pancreatic Enzyme Supplement versus Placebo for the Celiac Symptom Index (CSI) scores, we used a linear mixed effects model with the nlme package.||||||0.08|||||||Linear Mixed Effects model|||||||0.08
91092665|NCT01991795|182069378|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.0378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|0.99||The hypothesis will be tested at the 4.96% two-sided significance level to account for the planned interim analysis with the overall type I error preserved at 5%. A hierarchical test sequence will be used to address the issue of multiple testing|Regression, Cox|||||0.99|0.81|0.0378
91092666|NCT01991795|182069379|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.7883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.18||The hypothesis will be tested at the 4.96% two-sided significance level to account for the planned interim analysis with the overall type I error preserved at 5%. A hierarchical test sequence will be used to address the issue of multiple testing|Regression, Cox|||||1.18|0.88|0.7883
91092667|NCT01991795|182069380|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.0294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.98||The hypothesis will be tested at the 4.96% two-sided significance level to account for the planned interim analysis with the overall type I error preserved at 5%. A hierarchical test sequence will be used to address the issue of multiple testing|Regression, Cox|||||0.98|0.71|0.0294
91092668|NCT01991795|182069381|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.0375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.99||The hypothesis will be tested at the 4.96% two-sided significance level to account for the planned interim analysis with the overall type I error preserved at 5%. A hierarchical test sequence will be used to address the issue of multiple testing|Regression, Cox|||||0.99|0.64|0.0375
91092669|NCT01991795|182069382|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.6846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.1|||Regression, Cox|||||1.10|0.87|0.6846
91092670|NCT01991795|182069383|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.82|2.94|||Regression, Cox|||||2.94|1.82|<0.0001
91092671|NCT01991795|182069384|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|3.07|||Regression, Cox|||||3.07|2.02|<0.0001
91092672|NCT01991795|182069385|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.98|2.93|||Regression, Cox|||||2.93|1.98|<0.0001
91092673|NCT01991795|182069386|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.32|4.92|||Regression, Cox|||||4.92|3.32|<0.0001
90897429|NCT01216163|181660527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|5.42||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.34|18.18||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||18.18|-7.34|0.410
90897430|NCT01216163|181660527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|62.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.96|75.29||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||75.29|48.96|<0.001
90897431|NCT01216163|181660527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|68.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.11|81.16||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||81.16|56.11|<0.001
90897432|NCT01216163|181660527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|5.31||||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.22|17.83||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||17.83|-7.22|0.412
90897433|NCT01216163|181660527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|63.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.32|76.35||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||76.35|50.32|<0.001
90897434|NCT01216163|181660527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|66.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.38|79.51||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||79.51|53.38|<0.001
90897435|NCT01216163|181660527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|5.31||||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.22|17.83||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||17.83|-7.22|0.412
90897436|NCT01216163|181660527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|61.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.6|74.68||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||74.68|47.60|<0.001
90897437|NCT01216163|181660527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|66.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.38|79.51||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||79.51|53.38|<0.001
90897438|NCT01216163|181660527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|5.31||||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.22|17.83||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||17.83|-7.22|0.412
91028726|NCT02129348|181941249|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect Difference|3.2||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|8.4||The threshold of statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Effect size (d)= 0.44 (Cohen's D)|In intent-to-treat analyses, linear mixed effect models (MEM) were used to estimate means of change scores (baseline versus 12 weeks) by treatment group, lithium versus placebo, for continuous outcomes. The MEM method was used to incorporate all time-points of assessment and deal with missing data for participants who did not reach the 12-week time-point.||8.4|-2.1|0.24
91092674|NCT01981616|182069388|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"With 55 evaluable participants in each group, the study would have at least 80% power to exclude the non-inferiority margin of 15% with the lower bound of the 1-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the difference in proportions between vedolizumab- and placebo-treated participants, assuming a 90% seroconversion rate (anti-HBs of 10 IU/L) for hepatitis B vaccine.~If the lower bound of this interval was less than -15% (ie, more negative), then the null hypothesis was accepted."|Difference from placebo|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|9.1||||||||9.1|-12.7|
91092675|NCT01981616|182069389|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size of 55 evaluable subjects in the vedolizumab 750 mg IV group and 55 evaluable participants in the placebo group provided at least 71% power to exclude the non-inferiority margin of 15% with the lower bound of the 1-sided 95% CI on the difference in proportions between vedolizumab- and placebo-treated participants, assuming an 85% seroconversion rate to the oral cholera vaccine (Dukoral).|Difference from placebo|-14.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.6|-3.9||||||||-3.9|-24.6|
91092676|NCT02717195|182069398|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.9196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.37|2.13||Multiplicity adjustment was planned for the testing of the primary enpoint, but was not applied since all p-values\>0.05.|Mixed model repeated measures|||The mean changes from Randomization in PANSS total score was analysed using a MMRM approach. The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, country, week, treatment-by-week interaction, PC Period treatment, PC Period treatment-by-week interaction, and the continuous covariates of Randomization score and Randomization score-by-week interaction with an unstructured covariance structure to model the within-patient errors.||2.13|-2.37|0.9196
91092677|NCT02717195|182069398|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.67||||0.1474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|3.94||Multiplicity adjustment was planned for the testing of the primary endpoint, but was not applied since all p-values\>0.05.|Mixed model repeated measures|||The mean changes from Randomization in PANSS total score was analysed using a MMRM approach. The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, country, week, treatment-by-week interaction, PC Period treatment, PC Period treatment-by-week interaction, and the continuous covariates of Randomization score and Randomization score-by-week interaction with an unstructured covariance structure to model the within-patient errors.||3.94|-0.59|0.1474
90840854|NCT01746901|181547985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.8||||0.0096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|11.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||11.9|1.7|0.0096
90840855|NCT01746901|181547985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|33.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.0|45.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||45.9|20.0|<0.0001
90840856|NCT01746901|181547985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.6||||0.8009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|14.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||14.4|-11.2|0.8009
90840857|NCT01746901|181547985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|17.4||||0.0086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|30.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||30.3|4.5|0.0086
90840858|NCT01746901|181547985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|17.2||||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|30.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||30.0|4.4|0.0089
90840859|NCT01746901|181547985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.2||||0.4224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|18.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||18.0|-7.6|0.4224
90840860|NCT01746901|181547985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|22.6||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.8|35.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||35.5|9.8|0.0006
90897439|NCT01216163|181660527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|61.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.6|74.68||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||74.68|47.60|<0.001
90897440|NCT01216163|181660527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|66.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.38|79.51||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||79.51|53.38|<0.001
91092678|NCT02717195|182069399|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.96||||0.2998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|2.78||Multiplicity adjustment was planned for the testing of the primary endpoint, but was not applied since all p-values\>0.05.|Mixed model repeated measures|||The mean changes from Randomization in PSP score was analysed using a MMRM approach. The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, country, week, treatment-by-week interaction, PC Period treatment, PC Period treatment-by-week interaction, and the continuous covariates of Randomization score and Randomization score-by-week interaction with an unstructured covariance structure to model the within-patient errors.||2.78|-0.86|0.2998
91104071|NCT04250207|182094698|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.0028|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 7||||0.0028
91028727|NCT02129348|181941250|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect Difference|0.0||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.8||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Cohen's d=0.01|In intent-to-treat analyses, linear mixed effect models (MEM) were used to estimate means of change scores (baseline versus 12 weeks) by treatment group, lithium versus placebo, for continuous outcomes. The MEM method was used to incorporate all time-points of assessment and deal with missing data for participants who did not reach the 12-week time-point.||1.8|-1.7|0.96
90840861|NCT01746901|181547985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|96.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.9|134.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||134.2|57.9|<0.0001
90840862|NCT01746901|181547985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|21.9||||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.8|59.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||59.7|-15.8|0.2530
90840863|NCT01746901|181547985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|78.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.5|116.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||116.8|40.5|<0.0001
90840864|NCT01746901|181547985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|39.3||||0.0414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|77.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||77.1|1.6|0.0414
90840865|NCT01746901|181547985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|28.9||||0.1329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|66.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||66.6|-8.9|0.1329
90840866|NCT01746901|181547985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|45.5||||0.0187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|83.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||83.2|7.7|0.0187
90840867|NCT01746901|181547985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|76.9||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.9|121.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||121.9|31.9|0.0009
90840868|NCT01746901|181547985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|45.4||||0.0456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|89.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||89.9|0.9|0.0456
90840869|NCT01746901|181547985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|82.8||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.8|127.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||127.7|37.8|0.0004
90840870|NCT01746901|181547985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|39.6||||0.0812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|84.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||84.1|-5.0|0.0812
90897441|NCT01216163|181660527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|5.31||||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.22|17.83||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||17.83|-7.22|0.412
90897442|NCT01216163|181660527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|61.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.6|74.68||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||74.68|47.60|<0.001
90957317|NCT04193436|181794398|OTHER||Ratio (%) of Adjusted Means|178.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|129.96|245.18||||||The effect of the hepatic impairment on PK parameter AUCinf,u were assessed by constructing 90% confidence intervals around the estimated difference between each of the Test (impaired) cohorts and the Reference (without hepatic impairment) cohort using a one-way ANOVA model based on natural log transformed data.||245.18|129.96|
91092679|NCT02717195|182069399|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71||||0.4478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|1.12||Multiplicity adjustment was planned for the testing of the primary endpoint, but was not applied since all p-values\>0.05.|Mixed model repeated measures|||The mean changes in PSP score was analysed using a MMRM approach. The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, country, week, treatment-by-week interaction, PC Period treatment, PC Period treatment-by-week interaction, and the continuous covariates of Randomization score and Randomization score-by-week interaction with an unstructured covariance structure to model the within-patient errors.||1.12|-2.54|0.4478
91092680|NCT00855218|182069415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.797||||0.072||95.0|0.588|1.08||stratified one-sided (alpha=0.15). adjusted for region and Alfa-fetoprotein (AFP) level at baseline.|Log Rank|||||1.080|0.588|0.072
91092681|NCT00855218|182069416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.898||||0.295||95.0|0.606|1.33|||Log Rank|stratified one-sided (alpha=0.15). adjusted for region and AFP level at baseline.||||1.330|0.606|0.295
90840871|NCT01746901|181547985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|35.5||||0.1174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|80.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||80.0|-9.0|0.1174
90840872|NCT01746901|181547985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|46.1||||0.0427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|90.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||90.6|1.5|0.0427
90840873|NCT01746901|181547985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.0||||0.9318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.9|73.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||73.0|-66.9|0.9318
90840874|NCT01746901|181547985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|110.4||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.2|179.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||179.6|41.2|0.0020
91092682|NCT00855218|182069417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.586||||0.999||95.0|1.2|2.096|||Log Rank|startified one-sided (alpha=0.15), adjusted for region and AFP level at baseline||||2.096|1.200|0.999
91092683|NCT00855218|182069418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.621||||0.076||95.0|0.321|1.2|||Log Rank|stratified one sided (alpha=0.15), adjusted on region and AFP level at baseline||||1.200|0.321|0.076
90957318|NCT04193436|181794398|OTHER||Ratio (%) of Adjusted Means|195.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|140.31|273.03||||||The effect of the hepatic impairment on PK parameter AUCinf,u were assessed by constructing 90% confidence intervals around the estimated difference between each of the Test (impaired) cohorts and the Reference (without hepatic impairment) cohort using a one-way ANOVA model based on natural log transformed data.||273.03|140.31|
90957319|NCT04193436|181794399|OTHER||Ratio (%) of Adjusted Means|114.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.13|148.63||||||The effect of the hepatic impairment on PK parameter Cmax,u were assessed by constructing 90% confidence intervals around the estimated difference between each of the Test (impaired) cohorts and the Reference (without hepatic impairment) cohort using a one-way ANOVA model based on natural log transformed data.||148.63|88.13|
91092684|NCT00506675|182069432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.30
90840875|NCT01746901|181547985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|81.5||||0.0226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.6|151.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||151.4|11.6|0.0226
90840876|NCT01746901|181547985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|32.0||||0.3629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.3|101.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||101.2|-37.3|0.3629
90840877|NCT01746901|181547985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|35.9||||0.3077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.4|105.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||105.1|-33.4|0.3077
90840878|NCT01746901|181547985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|39.1||||0.2662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.1|108.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||108.4|-30.1|0.2662
91092685|NCT00506675|182069433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.30
91092686|NCT00506675|182069434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.30
91092687|NCT01773928|182069450|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The probability that the modified process is noninferior to the current one (i.e. lower limit of the 95% CI of the ratio of geometric means \[modified vs. current\] is greater than or equal to 0.67) is above 99% for one strain, and it is around 97% for all three strains (considering the three strains to be independent, 0.99 x 0.99 x 0.99=0.97)|ANCOVA|0.67|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.67||||||||||0.67|
91092688|NCT01773928|182069452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ANCOVA|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.5||||||"The overall power to prove the similarity between the three lots for all three strains is approximately 99%.~For the two primary co-analyses (Noninferiority and Lot Consistency), the overall power of the immunogenicity analyses is approximately 96% (calculated as 0.97 x 0.99=0.96)."||1.5|0.67|
91092689|NCT01773928|182069453|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|"Differences between fever incidences (95% CI) between treatment groups VCIV Modified (Total) and TIV was computed for each age cohort separately. The Confidence Interval estimation method was the method of Miettinen \& Nurminen, as described in the StatXact User Manual (i.e. the score statistics, also called Chan's method, page 283).~Noninferiority will be concluded if the upper limit of the 95% CI (VCIV modified-TIV) is \<5%."|Method of Miettinen & Nurminen|1.8||||||95.0|0.1|3.3||||||||3.3|0.1|
91092690|NCT01149655|182069459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.461||||0.0161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.242|0.879|||Log Rank|The log-rank test was based on time to exacerbation of psychotic symptoms/impending relapse.|Hazard ratios and their 95% confidence intervals were derived from the Cox Proportional Hazard model with treatment as term. Hazard ratio \< 1 is in favor of oral aripiprazole 10-30 mg group for superiority test.|The total number of exacerbation of psychotic symptoms/impending relapse was estimated using a 2:1 (aripiprazole:placebo) randomization ratio to achieve at least 80% power and to preserve an overall nominal alpha level of 0.05 (2-sided).||0.879|0.242|0.0161
91092691|NCT01149655|182069461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0962|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|p-value was derived using Chi-square test.||Statistical Analysis for Last Visit. The total number of exacerbation of psychotic symptoms/impending relapse was estimated using a 2:1 (aripiprazole:placebo) randomization ratio to achieve at least 80% power and to preserve an overall nominal alpha level of 0.05 (2-sided).||||0.0962
91092692|NCT01149655|182069462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9025|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|p-value was derived using Chi-square test.||The expected total number of exacerbation of psychotic symptoms/impending relapse was estimated using a 2:1 (aripiprazole:placebo) randomization ratio to achieve at least 80% power and to preserve an overall nominal alpha level of 0.05 (2-sided).||||0.9025
91092693|NCT01149655|182069463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0076|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|p-value was derived from the log-rank tests.||The expected total number of exacerbation of psychotic symptoms/impending relapse was estimated using a 2:1 (aripiprazole:placebo) randomization ratio to achieve at least 80% power and to preserve an overall nominal alpha level of 0.05 (2-sided).||||0.0076
91092694|NCT01149655|182069466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3862|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH method was based on raw mean score statistics.||Statistical analysis at Baseline. The expected total number of exacerbation of psychotic symptoms/impending relapse was estimated using a 2:1 (aripiprazole:placebo) randomization ratio to achieve at least 80% power and to preserve an overall nominal alpha level of 0.05 (2-sided).||||0.3862
90840879|NCT01746901|181547985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-11.4||||0.7875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-94.7|71.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||71.9|-94.7|0.7875
91092695|NCT01149655|182069466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8861|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH method was based on raw mean score statistics.||Statistical analysis for Week 1. The expected total number of exacerbation of psychotic symptoms/impending relapse was estimated using a 2:1 (aripiprazole:placebo) randomization ratio to achieve at least 80% power and to preserve an overall nominal alpha level of 0.05 (2-sided).||||0.8861
90840880|NCT01746901|181547985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|115.0||||0.0066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.6|197.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||197.4|32.6|0.0066
90840881|NCT01746901|181547985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|81.7||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|164.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||164.9|-1.4|0.0540
91092696|NCT01149655|182069466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8189|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH method was based on raw mean score statistics.||Statistical analysis for Week 2. The expected total number of exacerbation of psychotic symptoms/impending relapse was estimated using a 2:1 (aripiprazole:placebo) randomization ratio to achieve at least 80% power and to preserve an overall nominal alpha level of 0.05 (2-sided).||||0.8189
91092697|NCT01149655|182069466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3689|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH method was based on raw mean score statistics.||Statistical analysis for Week 3. The expected total number of exacerbation of psychotic symptoms/impending relapse was estimated using a 2:1 (aripiprazole:placebo) randomization ratio to achieve at least 80% power and to preserve an overall nominal alpha level of 0.05 (2-sided).||||0.3689
91092698|NCT01149655|182069466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9723|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH method was based on raw mean score statistics.||Statistical analysis for Week 4. The expected total number of exacerbation of psychotic symptoms/impending relapse was estimated using a 2:1 (aripiprazole:placebo) randomization ratio to achieve at least 80% power and to preserve an overall nominal alpha level of 0.05 (2-sided).||||0.9723
90840882|NCT01746901|181547985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|21.8||||0.6014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.6|104.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||104.3|-60.6|0.6014
90840883|NCT01746901|181547985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|36.1||||0.3885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.3|118.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||118.5|-46.3|0.3885
90840884|NCT01746901|181547985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|29.5||||0.4801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.9|112.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||112.0|-52.9|0.4801
90840885|NCT01746901|181547986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.5494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||1.4|-2.5|0.5494
91092699|NCT01149655|182069466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2985|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH method was based on raw mean score statistics.||Statistical analysis for Week 6. The expected total number of exacerbation of psychotic symptoms/impending relapse was estimated using a 2:1 (aripiprazole:placebo) randomization ratio to achieve at least 80% power and to preserve an overall nominal alpha level of 0.05 (2-sided).||||0.2985
91092700|NCT01149655|182069466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0883|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH method was based on raw mean score statistics.||Statistical analysis for Week 8. The expected total number of exacerbation of psychotic symptoms/impending relapse was estimated using a 2:1 (aripiprazole:placebo) randomization ratio to achieve at least 80% power and to preserve an overall nominal alpha level of 0.05 (2-sided).||||0.0883
90840886|NCT01746901|181547986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.8||||0.0626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|3.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||3.8|-0.1|0.0626
90840887|NCT01746901|181547986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.7216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||2.3|-1.6|0.7216
90840888|NCT01746901|181547986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.9||||0.3647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||2.8|-1.0|0.3647
90840889|NCT01746901|181547986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.7||||0.4456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||1.2|-2.7|0.4456
90840890|NCT01746901|181547986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.9||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||3.9|0.0|0.0500
90840891|NCT01746901|181547987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-0.34|-0.69|<0.0001
90840892|NCT01746901|181547987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|-1.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-1.52|-1.86|<0.0001
90840893|NCT01746901|181547987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-0.63|-0.97|<0.0001
90840894|NCT01746901|181547987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|-1.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-1.23|-1.58|<0.0001
90840895|NCT01746901|181547987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-0.56|-0.91|<0.0001
90840896|NCT01746901|181547987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|-1.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-1.11|-1.46|<0.0001
90840897|NCT01746901|181547988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|-1.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-1.42|-1.75|<0.0001
90840898|NCT01746901|181547988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.08||||0.3309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||0.08|-0.24|0.3309
90840899|NCT01746901|181547988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-0.42|-0.74|<0.0001
90840900|NCT01746901|181547988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.09|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|-0.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-0.92|-1.25|<0.0001
90840901|NCT01746901|181547988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-0.26|-0.59|<0.0001
90840902|NCT01746901|181547988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|-0.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-0.88|-1.21|<0.0001
90840903|NCT01746901|181547988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.37|-3.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-3.69|-4.37|<0.0001
90840904|NCT01746901|181547988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.2475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||0.14|-0.54|0.2475
90840905|NCT01746901|181547988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|-1.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-1.27|-1.96|<0.0001
90840906|NCT01746901|181547988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.96|-2.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-2.27|-2.96|<0.0001
90897443|NCT01216163|181660527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|66.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.38|79.51||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||79.51|53.38|<0.001
90897444|NCT01216163|181660527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|5.31||||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.22|17.83||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||17.83|-7.22|0.412
90897445|NCT01216163|181660527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|61.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.6|74.68||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||74.68|47.60|<0.001
90840907|NCT01746901|181547988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|-1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-1.00|-1.68|<0.0001
90840908|NCT01746901|181547988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.76|-2.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-2.08|-2.76|<0.0001
90897446|NCT01216163|181660527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|66.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.38|79.51||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||79.51|53.38|<0.001
90897447|NCT01216163|181660527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|5.31||||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.22|17.83||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||17.83|-7.22|0.412
90897448|NCT01216163|181660527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|61.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.6|74.68||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||74.68|47.60|<0.001
90897449|NCT01216163|181660528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.22||p-value was calculated using PH model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Proportional hazards model|||HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model.||0.22|0.08|<0.001
90840909|NCT01746901|181547988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-11.91|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.21|-10.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-10.60|-13.21|<0.0001
90840910|NCT01746901|181547988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.54|-5.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-5.93|-8.54|<0.0001
90897450|NCT01216163|181660528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.28||p-value was calculated using PH model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Proportional hazards model|||HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model.||1.28|0.45|0.303
91028728|NCT02129348|181941251|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect Difference|2.2||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|6.6||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Cohen's d=0.35|In intent-to-treat analyses, linear mixed effect models (MEM) were used to estimate means of change scores (baseline versus 12 weeks) by treatment group, lithium versus placebo, for continuous outcomes. The MEM method was used to incorporate all time-points of assessment and deal with missing data for participants who did not reach the 12-week time-point.||6.6|-2.3|0.35
91028729|NCT00936975|181941265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-6.6084|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7644|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||GEEs were used to model the change in tumor uptake between baseline and 12 weeks. GEEs were used to adjust for the correlation of 37 tumors in 12 patients measured at 2 time points and to adjust for age as a confounder.|GEE||GEEs, rather than a simple mean difference, were used to account for the multiple (clustered) bone measurement values within a patient and to adjust for age so that appropriate SE estimates (and thus p-values) were produced.|This was an exploratory study and no a priori assumptions were employed.||||<0.001
91032680|NCT02193165|181950286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||1 factor ANCOVA to determine difference between groups with baseline as covariate. The F statistic is used to determine significance. If significance is found then a Tukey's multiple comparison is done.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups. ANCOVA adjusting for baseline. Significant differences between intervention groups will be determined @ P\<0.05||||<0.001
91032681|NCT01546545|181950297|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|No power calculation was performed. This was the first pilot and feasibility study. This data will be used to power future studies.||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
90840911|NCT01746901|181547988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|-6.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-6.59|-9.20|<0.0001
91028730|NCT00936975|181941266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.0115|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0089||0.1945|TWO_SIDED|||||GEEs were used to model the change in tumor uptake between baseline and 12 weeks. GEEs were used to adjust for the correlation of 37 tumors in 12 patients measured at 2 time points and to adjust for age as a confounder.|GEE|GEE was used to model the change, accounting for 37 tumors in 12 patients measured at 2 time points.|GEEs, rather than a simple mean difference, were used to account for the multiple (clustered) bone measurement values within a patient and to adjust for age so that appropriate SE estimates (and thus p-values) were produced.|the difference in Patlak flux in tumor bone between baseline and 12 weeks, accounting for the fact that each participant could contribute more than one tumor bone.||||0.1945
91028731|NCT00936975|181941267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3274||0.32|TWO_SIDED|||||GEEs were used to model the change in tumor uptake between baseline and 12 weeks. GEEs were used to adjust for the correlation of 37 tumors in 12 patients measured at 2 time points and to adjust for age as a confounder.|Generalized Estimating Equation|GEE was used to model the change, accounting for 37 tumors in 12 patients measured at 2 time points.|GEEs, rather than a simple mean difference, were used to account for the multiple (clustered) bone measurement values within a patient and to adjust for age so that appropriate SE estimates (and thus p-values) were produced.|||||0.32
91028732|NCT00936975|181941267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|6.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6943|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||GEEs were used to model the change in tumor uptake between baseline and 12 weeks. GEEs were used to adjust for the correlation of 37 tumors in 12 patients measured at 2 time points and to adjust for age as a confounder.|Generalized Estimating Equations|Age was included in the model as a confounder|Estimated value is the slope of the Normal bone. Tumor Bone was used as reference category. GEEs, rather than a simple mean difference, were used to account for clustering and correlation of bone measurement values within a patient|H0: No difference in uptake b/w normal \& tumor bones||||<0.001
91028733|NCT00936975|181941268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.0177|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0125||0.16|TWO_SIDED|||||GEEs were used to model the change in tumor uptake between baseline and 12 weeks. GEEs were used to adjust for the correlation of 37 tumors in 12 patients measured at 2 time points and to adjust for age as a confounder.|Generalized Estimating Equations|GEE was used to model the change, accounting for 37 tumors in 12 patients measured at 2 time points.|GEEs, rather than a simple mean difference, were used to account for the multiple (clustered) bone measurement values within a patient and to adjust for age so that appropriate SE estimates (and thus p-values) were produced.|||||0.16
91028734|NCT00936975|181941269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.0017|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0027||0.53|TWO_SIDED||||||Generalized Estimating Equation|GEE was used to model the change, accounting for 37 tumors in 12 patients measured at 2 time points.|GEEs, rather than a simple mean difference, were used to account for the multiple (clustered) bone measurement values within a patient and to adjust for age so that appropriate SE estimates (and thus p-values) were produced.|||||0.53
91028735|NCT00936975|181941269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.0205|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0128||0.1095|TWO_SIDED|||||GEEs were used to model the change in tumor uptake between baseline and 12 weeks. GEEs were used to adjust for the correlation of 37 tumors in 12 patients measured at 2 time points and to adjust for age as a confounder.|Generalized estimating equations|Age was included in the model as a confounder|Estimated value is the slope of the Normal bone. Tumor Bone was used as reference category. GEEs, rather than a simple mean difference, were used to account for clustering and correlation of bone measurement values within a patient|H0: influx(Ki) is the same in normal and tumor bones||||0.1095
91028736|NCT00936975|181941270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.0061|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0021||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|||||GEEs were used to model the change in tumor uptake between baseline and 12 weeks. GEEs were used to adjust for the correlation of 37 tumors in 12 patients measured at 2 time points and to adjust for age as a confounder.|Generalized Estimating Equations|GEE was used to model the change, accounting for 37 bones in 12 patients measured at 2 time points.|GEEs, rather than a simple mean difference, were used to account for the multiple (clustered) bone measurement values within a patient and to adjust for age so that appropriate SE estimates (and thus p-values) were produced.|||||0.0033
91028737|NCT00936975|181941270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.0177|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0097||0.067|TWO_SIDED|||||GEEs were used to model the change in tumor uptake between baseline and 12 weeks. GEEs were used to adjust for the correlation of 37 tumors in 12 patients measured at 2 time points and to adjust for age as a confounder.|Generalized estimating equations|Age was included in the model as a confounder|GEEs, rather than a simple mean difference, were used to account for the multiple (clustered) bone measurement values within a patient and to adjust for age so that appropriate SE estimates (and thus p-values) were produced.|H0: Change Patlak Flux from TP1 to TP2 is the same in normal and tumor bones||||0.0670
91028738|NCT00936975|181941270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|32.3288|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.6956||0.0278|TWO_SIDED|||||GEEs were used to model the change in tumor uptake between baseline and 12 weeks. GEEs were used to adjust for the correlation of 37 tumors in 12 patients measured at 2 time points and to adjust for age as a confounder.|Generalized estimating equations||Estimated value is the slope of the Normal bone. Tumor Bone was used as reference category. GEEs, rather than a simple mean difference, were used to account for clustering and correlation of bone measurement values within a patient|H0: %Change in Patlak Flux between timepoint 1 and 2 is the same for Normal and Tumor bones||||0.0278
91028739|NCT01656889|181941288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5896|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value is based on the chi-squared proportion of wounds closed in each group.||||||0.5896
91028740|NCT01656889|181941289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3675|TWO_SIDED|0.0|||||Regression, Cox|||||||.3675
91028741|NCT01656889|181941290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6426|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment Week 01||||0.6426
91028742|NCT01656889|181941290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3843|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment Week 02||||.3843
91028743|NCT01656889|181941290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2792|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment Week 03||||0.2792
91028744|NCT01656889|181941290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1502|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment Week 04||||0.1502
91028745|NCT01656889|181941290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3823|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment Week 05||||0.3823
91028746|NCT01656889|181941290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5528|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment Week 06||||0.5528
90840912|NCT01746901|181547988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-11.24|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.55|-9.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-9.94|-12.55|<0.0001
90840913|NCT01746901|181547988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.65|-5.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-5.05|-7.65|<0.0001
90840914|NCT01746901|181547988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-10.36|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.67|-9.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-9.05|-11.67|<0.0001
90840915|NCT01746901|181547988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-11.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.16|-9.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-9.58|-13.16|<0.0001
90840916|NCT01746901|181547988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-16.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.86|-14.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-14.28|-17.86|<0.0001
90840917|NCT01746901|181547988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-11.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.53|-9.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-9.93|-13.53|<0.0001
90840918|NCT01746901|181547988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-15.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.51|-13.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-13.91|-17.51|<0.0001
90840919|NCT01746901|181547988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-8.88|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.67|-7.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-7.09|-10.67|<0.0001
90840920|NCT01746901|181547988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-14.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.99|-12.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-12.39|-15.99|<0.0001
90840921|NCT01746901|181547988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.26||||0.8784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.63|3.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||3.11|-3.63|0.8784
90840922|NCT01746901|181547988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-41.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.02|-38.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-38.29|-45.02|<0.0001
90840923|NCT01746901|181547988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-19.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.01|-16.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-16.25|-23.01|<0.0001
90897451|NCT01216163|181660528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.28||p-value was calculated using PH model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Proportional hazards model|||HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model.||0.28|0.10|<0.001
90840924|NCT01746901|181547988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-22.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.67|-18.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-18.90|-25.67|<0.0001
90840925|NCT01746901|181547988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-12.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.86|-9.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-9.14|-15.86|<0.0001
90840926|NCT01746901|181547988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-20.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.98|-17.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-17.21|-23.98|<0.0001
90840927|NCT01746901|181547988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|10.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.75|15.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||15.54|5.75|<0.0001
90840928|NCT01746901|181547988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-57.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.63|-52.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-52.85|-62.63|<0.0001
90840929|NCT01746901|181547988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-22.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.09|-17.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-17.27|-27.09|<0.0001
90840930|NCT01746901|181547988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-24.91|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.83|-20.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-20.00|-29.83|<0.0001
90840931|NCT01746901|181547988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-13.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.41|-8.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-8.64|-18.41|<0.0001
90840932|NCT01746901|181547988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-23.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.62|-18.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-18.78|-28.62|<0.0001
90840933|NCT01746901|181547989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-9.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|-7.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-7.57|-11.90|<0.0001
90897452|NCT01216163|181660529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-40.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.39|-24.8||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-24.80|-55.39|<0.001
90897453|NCT01216163|181660529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-0.12||||0.958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.52|4.28||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||4.28|-4.52|0.958
90897454|NCT01216163|181660529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-40.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.51|-24.87||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-24.87|-55.51|<0.001
90897455|NCT01216163|181660529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-63.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.81|-48.99||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-48.99|-77.81|<0.001
90897456|NCT01216163|181660529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-7.17||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.91|1.57||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||1.57|-15.91|0.108
91092701|NCT01149655|182069466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0228|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH method was based on raw mean score statistics.||Statistical analysis for Week 10. The expected total number of exacerbation of psychotic symptoms/impending relapse was estimated using a 2:1 (aripiprazole:placebo) randomization ratio to achieve at least 80% power and to preserve an overall nominal alpha level of 0.05 (2-sided).||||0.0228
90840934|NCT01746901|181547989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.99|7.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||7.32|2.99|<0.0001
90840935|NCT01746901|181547989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.03||||0.9766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|2.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||2.20|-2.13|0.9766
90840936|NCT01746901|181547989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.78|-2.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-2.44|-6.78|<0.0001
90840937|NCT01746901|181547989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.39||||0.7242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.55|1.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||1.78|-2.55|0.7242
90897457|NCT01216163|181660529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-56.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.68|-41.09||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-41.09|-71.68|<0.001
90897458|NCT01216163|181660529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-71.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.09|-57.93||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-57.93|-84.09|<0.001
91028747|NCT01656889|181941290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02913|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment Week 07||||.02913
91092702|NCT01149655|182069466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0274|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH method was based on raw mean score statistics.||Statistical analysis for Week 12. The expected total number of exacerbation of psychotic symptoms/impending relapse was estimated using a 2:1 (aripiprazole:placebo) randomization ratio to achieve at least 80% power and to preserve an overall nominal alpha level of 0.05 (2-sided).||||0.0274
90840938|NCT01746901|181547989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.62|-2.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-2.28|-6.62|<0.0001
90840939|NCT01746901|181547990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|19.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.6|23.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||23.5|14.6|<0.0001
90840940|NCT01746901|181547990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.6||||0.8048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|5.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||5.0|-3.9|0.8048
90840941|NCT01746901|181547990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|8.6||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|13.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||13.1|4.2|0.0002
90840942|NCT01746901|181547990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|11.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|15.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||15.4|6.5|<0.0001
91092703|NCT01149655|182069466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0135|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH method was based on raw mean score statistics.||Statistical analysis for Week 14. The expected total number of exacerbation of psychotic symptoms/impending relapse was estimated using a 2:1 (aripiprazole:placebo) randomization ratio to achieve at least 80% power and to preserve an overall nominal alpha level of 0.05 (2-sided).||||0.0135
90840943|NCT01746901|181547990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.1||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|11.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||11.6|2.7|0.0019
90840944|NCT01746901|181547990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.6||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|12.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||12.1|3.2|0.0010
90840945|NCT01746901|181547990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|127.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.6|161.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||161.2|93.6|<0.0001
90840946|NCT01746901|181547990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.7||||0.7837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.1|38.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||38.5|-29.1|0.7837
90840947|NCT01746901|181547990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|65.8||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.0|99.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||99.6|32.0|0.0002
90840948|NCT01746901|181547990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|66.3||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.5|100.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||100.1|32.5|0.0002
90840949|NCT01746901|181547990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|60.3||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.5|94.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||94.1|26.5|0.0006
90840950|NCT01746901|181547990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|31.9||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|65.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||65.7|-1.9|0.0640
90840951|NCT01746901|181547990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|142.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.5|190.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||190.7|94.5|<0.0001
90840952|NCT01746901|181547990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|15.8||||0.5169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.3|63.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||63.9|-32.3|0.5169
90840953|NCT01746901|181547990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|81.3||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.2|129.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||129.3|33.2|0.0011
90840954|NCT01746901|181547990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|77.1||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.1|125.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||125.2|29.1|0.0018
90840955|NCT01746901|181547990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|63.6||||0.0098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.6|111.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||111.7|15.6|0.0098
90840956|NCT01746901|181547990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|39.4||||0.1078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|87.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||87.4|-8.7|0.1078
90840957|NCT01746901|181547990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|196.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|116.9|275.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||275.1|116.9|<0.0001
90840958|NCT01746901|181547990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.4||||0.9726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.7|80.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||80.5|-77.7|0.9726
90840959|NCT01746901|181547990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|114.1||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.0|193.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||193.2|35.0|0.0050
90840960|NCT01746901|181547990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|83.3||||0.0392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|162.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||162.4|4.2|0.0392
90840961|NCT01746901|181547990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|68.7||||0.0883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|147.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||147.8|-10.4|0.0883
90840962|NCT01746901|181547990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|64.4||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|143.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||143.5|-14.7|0.1100
90957320|NCT04193436|181794399|OTHER||Ratio (%) of Adjusted Means|136.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|104.75|176.67||||||The effect of the hepatic impairment on PK parameter Cmax,u were assessed by constructing 90% confidence intervals around the estimated difference between each of the Test (impaired) cohorts and the Reference (without hepatic impairment) cohort using a one-way ANOVA model based on natural log transformed data.||176.67|104.75|
91028748|NCT01656889|181941290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3896|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment Week 08||||0.3896
91028749|NCT01656889|181941290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3989|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment Week 09||||0.3989
91092704|NCT01149655|182069466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0059|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH method was based on raw mean score statistics.||Statistical analysis for Week 16. The expected total number of exacerbation of psychotic symptoms/impending relapse was estimated using a 2:1 (aripiprazole:placebo) randomization ratio to achieve at least 80% power and to preserve an overall nominal alpha level of 0.05 (2-sided).||||0.0059
90840963|NCT01746901|181547990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|242.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|138.6|347.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||347.2|138.6|<0.0001
90840964|NCT01746901|181547990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-21.0||||0.6906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-125.3|83.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||83.2|-125.3|0.6906
90840965|NCT01746901|181547990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|118.7||||0.0259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.5|223.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||223.0|14.5|0.0259
90840966|NCT01746901|181547990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|103.2||||0.0525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|207.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||207.5|-1.1|0.0525
90840967|NCT01746901|181547990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|60.2||||0.2558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.1|164.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||164.4|-44.1|0.2558
90840968|NCT01746901|181547990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|88.6||||0.0952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.7|192.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||192.9|-15.7|0.0952
90840969|NCT01746901|181547991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.8||||0.0298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-0.2|-3.3|0.0298
90840970|NCT01746901|181547991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.7||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|4.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||4.3|1.1|0.0008
90840971|NCT01746901|181547991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||1.2|-2.0|0.6450
90840972|NCT01746901|181547991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.3||||0.0962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|2.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||2.9|-0.2|0.0962
90840973|NCT01746901|181547991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.0||||0.193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||0.5|-2.6|0.1930
90897459|NCT01216163|181660529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-9.82||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.18|1.16||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||1.16|-20.18|0.083
90840974|NCT01746901|181547991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.7||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|3.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||3.3|0.2|0.0310
90840975|NCT01746901|181547992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|41.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.9|49.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||49.0|33.9|<0.0001
90897460|NCT01216163|181660529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-61.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.4|-46.87||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-46.87|-75.40|<0.001
91028750|NCT01656889|181941290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8682|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment Week 10||||0.8682
91028751|NCT01656889|181941290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8083|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment Week 11||||0.8083
90840976|NCT01746901|181547992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.4||||0.3763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|10.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||10.9|-4.2|0.3763
90840977|NCT01746901|181547992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|18.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.7|25.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||25.8|10.7|<0.0001
90840978|NCT01746901|181547992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|26.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.1|34.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||34.1|19.1|<0.0001
90840979|NCT01746901|181547992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|20.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.1|28.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||28.2|13.1|<0.0001
91028752|NCT01656889|181941290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6687|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment Week 12||||0.6687
91028753|NCT01656889|181941292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3601|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 01||||0.3601
91028754|NCT01656889|181941292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9398|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 02||||0.9398
91092705|NCT01149655|182069466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0076|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH method was based on raw mean score statistics.||Statistical analysis for Week 18. The expected total number of exacerbation of psychotic symptoms/impending relapse was estimated using a 2:1 (aripiprazole:placebo) randomization ratio to achieve at least 80% power and to preserve an overall nominal alpha level of 0.05 (2-sided).||||0.0076
91092706|NCT01149655|182069466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0065|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH method was based on raw mean score statistics.||Statistical analysis for Week 20. The expected total number of exacerbation of psychotic symptoms/impending relapse was estimated using a 2:1 (aripiprazole:placebo) randomization ratio to achieve at least 80% power and to preserve an overall nominal alpha level of 0.05 (2-sided).||||0.0065
91092707|NCT01149655|182069466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0175|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH method was based on raw mean score statistics.||Statistical analysis for Week 22. The expected total number of exacerbation of psychotic symptoms/impending relapse was estimated using a 2:1 (aripiprazole:placebo) randomization ratio to achieve at least 80% power and to preserve an overall nominal alpha level of 0.05 (2-sided).||||0.0175
91092708|NCT01149655|182069466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0107|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH method was based on raw mean score statistics.||Statistical analysis for Week 24. The expected total number of exacerbation of psychotic symptoms/impending relapse was estimated using a 2:1 (aripiprazole:placebo) randomization ratio to achieve at least 80% power and to preserve an overall nominal alpha level of 0.05 (2-sided).||||0.0107
91092709|NCT01149655|182069466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0118|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH method was based on raw mean score statistics.||Statistical analysis for Week 26. The expected total number of exacerbation of psychotic symptoms/impending relapse was estimated using a 2:1 (aripiprazole:placebo) randomization ratio to achieve at least 80% power and to preserve an overall nominal alpha level of 0.05 (2-sided).||||0.0118
91092710|NCT01149655|182069466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0232|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH method was based on raw mean score statistics.||Statistical analysis for Week 28. The expected total number of exacerbation of psychotic symptoms/impending relapse was estimated using a 2:1 (aripiprazole:placebo) randomization ratio to achieve at least 80% power and to preserve an overall nominal alpha level of 0.05 (2-sided).||||0.0232
90840980|NCT01746901|181547992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|19.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.8|26.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||26.8|11.8|<0.0001
90840981|NCT01746901|181547992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|284.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|232.9|335.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||335.8|232.9|<0.0001
90840982|NCT01746901|181547992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|31.2||||0.2336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.4|82.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||82.8|-20.4|0.2336
90840983|NCT01746901|181547992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|167.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|115.7|218.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||218.9|115.7|<0.0001
90897461|NCT01216163|181660529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-66.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.08|-52.66||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-52.66|-80.08|<0.001
90957321|NCT04193436|181794399|OTHER||Ratio (%) of Adjusted Means|117.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.61|155.03||||||The effect of the hepatic impairment on PK parameter Cmax,u were assessed by constructing 90% confidence intervals around the estimated difference between each of the Test (impaired) cohorts and the Reference (without hepatic impairment) cohort using a one-way ANOVA model based on natural log transformed data.||155.03|89.61|
91092711|NCT01149655|182069466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0337|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH method was based on raw mean score statistics.||Statistical analysis for Week 30. The expected total number of exacerbation of psychotic symptoms/impending relapse was estimated using a 2:1 (aripiprazole:placebo) randomization ratio to achieve at least 80% power and to preserve an overall nominal alpha level of 0.05 (2-sided).||||0.0337
91092712|NCT01149655|182069466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0507|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH method was based on raw mean score statistics.||Statistical analysis for Week 32. The expected total number of exacerbation of psychotic symptoms/impending relapse was estimated using a 2:1 (aripiprazole:placebo) randomization ratio to achieve at least 80% power and to preserve an overall nominal alpha level of 0.05 (2-sided).||||0.0507
91092713|NCT01149655|182069466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0791|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH method was based on raw mean score statistics.||Statistical analysis for Week 34. The expected total number of exacerbation of psychotic symptoms/impending relapse was estimated using a 2:1 (aripiprazole:placebo) randomization ratio to achieve at least 80% power and to preserve an overall nominal alpha level of 0.05 (2-sided).||||0.0791
91092714|NCT01149655|182069466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0898|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH method was based on raw mean score statistics.||Statistical analysis for Week 36. The expected total number of exacerbation of psychotic symptoms/impending relapse was estimated using a 2:1 (aripiprazole:placebo) randomization ratio to achieve at least 80% power and to preserve an overall nominal alpha level of 0.05 (2-sided).||||0.0898
90840984|NCT01746901|181547992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|148.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.8|199.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||199.7|96.8|<0.0001
90840985|NCT01746901|181547992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|135.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|84.0|187.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||187.2|84.0|<0.0001
91092715|NCT01149655|182069466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0686|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH method was based on raw mean score statistics.||Statistical analysis for Week 38. The expected total number of exacerbation of psychotic symptoms/impending relapse was estimated using a 2:1 (aripiprazole:placebo) randomization ratio to achieve at least 80% power and to preserve an overall nominal alpha level of 0.05 (2-sided).||||0.0686
91092716|NCT01149655|182069466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0833|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH method was based on raw mean score statistics.||Statistical analysis for Week 40. The expected total number of exacerbation of psychotic symptoms/impending relapse was estimated using a 2:1 (aripiprazole:placebo) randomization ratio to achieve at least 80% power and to preserve an overall nominal alpha level of 0.05 (2-sided).||||0.0833
90840986|NCT01746901|181547992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|113.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.1|165.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||165.0|62.1|<0.0001
90840987|NCT01746901|181547992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|278.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|213.2|343.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||343.3|213.2|<0.0001
90840988|NCT01746901|181547992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|71.3||||0.0322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.1|136.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||136.5|6.1|0.0322
90840989|NCT01746901|181547992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|195.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|130.2|260.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||260.5|130.2|<0.0001
90840990|NCT01746901|181547992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|154.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.2|219.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||219.3|89.2|<0.0001
90840991|NCT01746901|181547992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|143.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.0|208.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||208.4|78.0|<0.0001
90840992|NCT01746901|181547992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|126.7||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.7|191.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||191.8|61.7|0.0002
90840993|NCT01746901|181547992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|202.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|118.4|286.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||286.4|118.4|<0.0001
90840994|NCT01746901|181547992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|137.6||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.3|221.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||221.8|53.3|0.0015
90840995|NCT01746901|181547992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|192.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|108.7|277.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||277.2|108.7|<0.0001
90840996|NCT01746901|181547992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|147.0||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.0|231.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||231.1|63.0|0.0007
90897462|NCT01216163|181660529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-11.03||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.37|1.21||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||1.21|-23.37|0.079
90897463|NCT01216163|181660529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-55.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.12|-40.85||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-40.85|-70.12|<0.001
91028755|NCT01656889|181941292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.905|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 03||||0.905
90840997|NCT01746901|181547992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|148.1||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.9|232.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||232.4|63.9|0.0007
90840998|NCT01746901|181547992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|109.6||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.5|193.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||193.6|25.5|0.0110
90840999|NCT01746901|181547992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|196.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|107.4|284.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||284.6|107.4|<0.0001
90841000|NCT01746901|181547992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|133.9||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.0|222.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||222.8|45.0|0.0034
91028756|NCT01656889|181941292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4471|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 04||||0.4471
91028757|NCT01656889|181941292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3004|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 05||||0.3004
91028758|NCT01656889|181941292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1815|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 06||||0.1815
91028759|NCT01656889|181941292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.399|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 07||||0.399
90841001|NCT01746901|181547992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|190.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|102.1|279.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||279.8|102.1|<0.0001
90841002|NCT01746901|181547992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|138.9||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.3|227.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||227.6|50.3|0.0023
90841003|NCT01746901|181547992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|147.8||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.0|236.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||236.7|59.0|0.0013
90841004|NCT01746901|181547992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|100.0||||0.0273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.3|188.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||188.6|11.3|0.0273
90841005|NCT01746901|181547993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|-1.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-1.8|-5.0|<0.0001
90841006|NCT01746901|181547993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.9||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|4.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||4.4|1.3|0.0004
90841007|NCT01746901|181547993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.8478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||1.4|-1.7|0.8478
90841008|NCT01746901|181547993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.6192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||1.2|-1.9|0.6192
90841009|NCT01746901|181547993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.8857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||1.4|-1.7|0.8857
90841010|NCT01746901|181547993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.5092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||1.0|-2.1|0.5092
90841011|NCT02106390|181548016|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if, at one month following the fourth vaccination, the lower limits of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the between-group ratios of GMTs (rMenB+OMV NZ + MenACWY versus rMenB+OMV NZ is \> 0.5 for all serogroup B indicator strains.|GMT ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.1|||ANOVA|The 2-sided 95% CI for each between groups ratio of GMTs was constructed from an analysis of ANOVA with vaccine group \& center as factors in the model||"H44/76- The comparison of adjusted GMTs ratio (rMenB+OMV NZ + MenACWY versus rMenB+OMV NZ) was performed for the H44/76 serogroup B indicator strain,at one month after the fourth vaccination."||1.10|0.71|
90841012|NCT02106390|181548016|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if, at one month following the fourth vaccination, the lower limits of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the between-group ratios of GMTs (rMenB+OMV NZ + MenACWY versus rMenB+OMV NZ is \> 0.5 for all serogroup B indicator strains.|GMT ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.45|||ANOVA|The 2-sided 95% CI for each between groups ratio of GMTs was constructed from an analysis of ANOVA with vaccine group \& center as factors in the model||5/99-The comparison of adjusted GMTs ratio (rMenB+OMV NZ + MenACWY versus rMenB+OMV NZ) was performed for the 5/99 serogroup B indicator strain,at one month after the fourth vaccination.||1.45|0.74|
90841013|NCT02106390|181548016|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if, at one month following the fourth vaccination, the lower limits of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the between-group ratios of GMTs (rMenB+OMV NZ + MenACWY versus rMenB+OMV NZ is \> 0.5 for all serogroup B indicator strains.|GMT ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.25|||ANOVA|The 2-sided 95% CI for each between groups ratio of GMTs was constructed from an analysis of ANOVA with vaccine group \& center as factors in the model||NZ98/254-The comparison of adjusted GMTs ratio (rMenB+OMV NZ + MenACWY versus rMenB+OMV NZ) was performed for the NZ98/254 serogroup B indicator strain,at one month after the fourth vaccination.||1.25|0.82|
90841014|NCT02106390|181548016|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if, at one month following the fourth vaccination, the lower limits of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the between-group ratios of GMTs (rMenB+OMV NZ + MenACWY versus rMenB+OMV NZ is \> 0.5 for all serogroup B indicator strains.|GMT ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.4|||ANOVA|The 2-sided 95% CI for each between groups ratio of GMTs was constructed from an analysis of ANOVA with vaccine group \& center as factors in the model||M10713-The comparison of adjusted GMTs ratio (rMenB+OMV NZ + MenACWY versus rMenB+OMV NZ) was performed for the M10713 serogroup B indicator strain,at one month after the fourth vaccination.||1.40|0.77|
90859701|NCT02787551|181582782|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.42|-2.279||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment groups, randomization strata of Week -2 HbA1c (\<8.0%, \>=8.0%), randomization strata of GLP-1 RA subtype (once/twice daily formulations, once weekly formulations) at screening, and world region as fixed effects and baseline 2-hour PPG value as a covariate. Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (continued only if previous endpoints were statistically significant).||-2.279|-3.420|<0.0001
90859702|NCT02787551|181582784|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.244|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.468|-0.508||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of Week -2 HbA1c (\<8.0%, \>=8.0%), randomization strata of GLP-1 receptor agonist subtype (once/twice daily formulations, once weekly formulations) at screening, and world region as fixed effects and baseline 2-hour plasma glucose excursion value as a covariate. Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (continued only if previous endpoints were statistically significant).||-0.508|-1.468|<0.0001
90859703|NCT00620464|181582815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.05||90.0||||Applies to all parameters.|Bioequivalence Testing|||||||0.05
90841015|NCT02106390|181548017|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if, at one month following the fourth vaccination, the lower limits of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the between-group ratios of GMTs (rMenB+OMVNZ + MenACWY versus MenACWY) was \> 0.5 for all serogroups A, C, W-135 and Y.|GMT ratio|2.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.97|3.11|||ANOVA|The 2-sided 95% CI for each between groups ratio of GMTs was constructed from an analysis of ANOVA with vaccine group \& center as factors in the model||Serogroup A-The comparison of adjusted GMTs ratio (rMenB+OMV NZ + Men ACWY versus MenACWY) was performed for serogroup A at one month after the fourth vaccination.||3.11|1.97|
90841016|NCT02106390|181548017|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if, at one month following the fourth vaccination, the lower limits of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the between-group ratios of GMTs (rMenB+OMVNZ + MenACWY versus MenACWY) was \> 0.5 for all serogroups A, C, W-135 and Y.|GMT ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.38|||ANOVA|The 2-sided 95% CI for each between groups ratio of GMTs was constructed from an analysis of ANOVA with vaccine group \& center as factors in the model||Serogroup C-The comparison of adjusted GMTs ratio (rMenB+OMV NZ + Men ACWY versus MenACWY) was performed for the serogroup C at one month after the fourth vaccination.||1.38|0.83|
90841017|NCT02106390|181548017|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if, at one month following the fourth vaccination, the lower limits of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the between-group ratios of GMTs (rMenB+OMVNZ + MenACWY versus MenACWY) was \> 0.5 for all serogroups A, C, W-135 and Y.|GMT ratio|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.74|||ANOVA|The 2-sided 95% CI for each between groups ratio of GMTs was constructed from an analysis of ANOVA with vaccine group \& center as factors in the model||Serogroup W-The comparison of adjusted GMTs ratio (rMenB+OMV NZ + Men ACWY versus MenACWY) was performed for the serogroup W-135 at one month after the fourth vaccination.||1.74|1.04|
90841018|NCT02106390|181548017|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if, at one month following the fourth vaccination, the lower limits of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the between-group ratios of GMTs (rMenB+OMVNZ + MenACWY versus MenACWY) was \> 0.5 for all serogroups A, C, W-135 and Y.|GMT ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.35|||ANOVA|The 2-sided 95% CI for each between groups ratio of GMTs was constructed from an analysis of ANOVA with vaccine group \& center as factors in the model||Serogroup Y-The comparison of adjusted GMTs ratio (rMenB+OMV NZ + Men ACWY versus MenACWY) was performed for the serogroup Y at one month after the fourth vaccination.||1.35|0.82|
90841019|NCT03594110|181548049|SUPERIORITY|"Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the effect of placebo and the effect of empagliflozin.~Two-sided significance level of \<0.0017 required at interim analysis."|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.83|0.59|0.89|||Regression, Cox||Comparison vs. Placebo|Hazard ratio (HR) of the time to first occurrence of kidney disease progression or CV death. HR is based on a Cox regression model with terms for age, sex, screening diabetes status, local screening estimated glomerular filtration rate Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (eGFR (CKD-EPI)), local screening Urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR), region and treatment.||0.89|0.59|<0.0001
90841020|NCT03594110|181548050|SUPERIORITY|"Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the effect of placebo and the effect of empagliflozin.~Two-sided significance level of \<0.0145 required at interim analysis."|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.1363|TWO_SIDED|98.55|0.63|1.12|||Regression, Cox||Comparison vs. Placebo|Hazard ratio (HR) of the time to first hospitalization for heart failure or cardiovascular death. HR is based on a Cox regression model with terms for age, sex, screening diabetes status, local screening estimated glomerular filtration rate Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (eGFR (CKD-EPI)), local screening Urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR), region and treatment.||1.12|0.63|0.1363
90841021|NCT03594110|181548051|SUPERIORITY|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the effect of placebo and the effect of empagliflozin. Two-sided significance level of \<0.0097 required at interim analysis.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|99.03|0.76|0.98|||Joint frailty model||Comparison vs. Placebo|Hazard ratio (HR) of the time to occurrences of all-cause hospitalizations (first and recurrent combined). HR based on an analysis of recurrent events accounting for terminal events using a joint frailty model with terms for age, log(local screening UACR), local screening Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (eGFR (CKD-EPI)), treatment, sex, screening diabetes status, region.||0.98|0.76|0.0022
90841022|NCT03594110|181548052|SUPERIORITY|"Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the effect of placebo and the effect of empagliflozin.~Two-sided significance level of \<0.0290 required at interim analysis."|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.2122|TWO_SIDED|97.1|0.68|1.11|||Regression, Cox||Comparison vs. Placebo|Hazard ratio (HR) of the time to death from any cause. HR is based on a Cox regression model with terms for age, sex, screening diabetes status, local screening estimated glomerular filtration rate Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (eGFR (CKD-EPI)), local screening Urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR), region and treatment.||1.11|0.68|0.2122
91028760|NCT01656889|181941292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8027|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 08||||0.8027
91028761|NCT01656889|181941292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4913|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 09||||0.4913
91028762|NCT01656889|181941292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5227|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.5227
91028763|NCT01656889|181941292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7032|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 11||||0.7032
91028764|NCT01656889|181941292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9366|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.9366
91028765|NCT01656889|181941293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9853|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 01||||0.9853
91028766|NCT01656889|181941293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7083|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 02||||0.7083
91028767|NCT01656889|181941293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6744|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 03||||0.6744
91028768|NCT01656889|181941293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2891|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2891
91028769|NCT01656889|181941293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9923|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 05||||0.9923
91028770|NCT01656889|181941293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1775|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 06||||0.1775
91028771|NCT01656889|181941293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.499|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 07||||0.499
91028772|NCT01656889|181941293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4423|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 08||||0.4423
91028773|NCT01656889|181941293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5138|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 09||||0.5138
91028774|NCT01656889|181941293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3409|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.3409
91028775|NCT01656889|181941293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6358|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 11||||0.6358
91028776|NCT01656889|181941293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6753|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.6753
91092717|NCT01149655|182069466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0824|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH method was based on raw mean score statistics.||Statistical analysis for Week 42. The expected total number of exacerbation of psychotic symptoms/impending relapse was estimated using a 2:1 (aripiprazole:placebo) randomization ratio to achieve at least 80% power and to preserve an overall nominal alpha level of 0.05 (2-sided).||||0.0824
90841023|NCT03594110|181548053|SUPERIORITY|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the effect of placebo and the effect of empagliflozin.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.81|||Regression, Cox||Comparison vs. Placebo|Hazard ratio (HR) of the time to first occurrence of kidney disease progression. HR is based on a Cox regression model with terms for age, sex, screening diabetes status, local screening estimated glomerular filtration rate Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (eGFR (CKD-EPI)), local screening urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR), region and treatment.||0.81|0.62|<0.0001
90841024|NCT03594110|181548054|SUPERIORITY|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the effect of placebo and the effect of empagliflozin.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.2932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.17|||Regression, Cox||Comparison vs. Placebo|Hazard ratio (HR) of the time to cardiovascular death. HR is based on a Cox regression model with terms for age, sex, screening diabetes status, local screening estimated glomerular filtration rate Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (eGFR (CKD-EPI)), local screening urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR), region and treatment.||1.17|0.59|0.2932
90841025|NCT03594110|181548055|SUPERIORITY|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the effect of placebo and the effect of empagliflozin.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.89|||Regression, Cox||Comparison vs. Placebo|Hazard ratio (HR) of the time to first occurrence cardiovascular death or end stage kidney disease (ESKD). HR is based on a Cox regression model with terms for age, sex, screening diabetes status, local screening estimated glomerular filtration rate Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (eGFR (CKD-EPI)), local screening urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR), region and treatment.||0.89|0.59|0.0017
90841026|NCT03594110|181548056|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.87|||||Comparison vs. Placebo|Hazard ratio (HR) of the time to first occurrence of kidney disease progression or CV death. HR is based on a Cox regression model with terms for age, sex, screening diabetes status, local screening estimated glomerular filtration rate Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (eGFR (CKD-EPI)), local screening Urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR), region and treatment.||0.87|0.72|
90841027|NCT03594110|181548057|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.87|||||Comparison vs. Placebo|Hazard ratio (HR) of the time to first occurrence of kidney disease progression. HR is based on a Cox regression model with terms for age, sex, screening diabetes status, local screening estimated glomerular filtration rate Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (eGFR (CKD-EPI)), local screening urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR), region and treatment.||0.87|0.72|
90841028|NCT03594110|181548058|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.9|||||Comparison vs. Placebo|Hazard ratio (HR) of the time to first occurrence of death from any cause or ESKD. HR is based on a Cox regression model with terms for age, sex, screening diabetes status, local screening estimated glomerular filtration rate Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (eGFR (CKD-EPI)), local screening urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR), region and treatment.||0.90|0.72|
90841029|NCT03594110|181548059|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.87|||||Comparison vs. Placebo|Hazard ratio (HR) of ESKD. HR is based on a Cox regression model with terms for age, sex, screening diabetes status, local screening estimated glomerular filtration rate Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (eGFR (CKD-EPI)), local screening urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR), region and treatment.||0.87|0.64|
90841030|NCT03594110|181548060|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis||\[Comparator\] - \[Placebo\]|A mixed model of repeated measures (MMRM) with terms for baseline, age, sex, screening diabetes status, local screening eGFR, local screening UACR, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction and baseline-by-time interaction.||-0.11|-0.38|< 0.001
90841031|NCT03594110|181548061|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.0||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.0|17.0|||Regression, Linear||\[Comparator\]-\[Placebo\]|Differences in MRI measurements between treatment groups were assessed using a linear regression with terms for age, sex, screening diabetes status, local screening eGFR, local screening UACR was used in the analysis.||17|-42|0.41
90841032|NCT02177032|181548069|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The non-inferiority in immune response of the 4-sites, 1-week (4-4-4-0-0) ID PEP regimen compared to the currently recommended 2-sites TRC (2-2-2-0-2) ID PEP regimen, with or without HRIG, will be established If the lower bound of the two sided 95% confidence interval around the differences of the percentage of subject with RVNA titer ≥ 0.5 IU/ml at day 50 is \> -0.05 (non-inferiority margin)."|Protection Rate Differences|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.0|||Fisher Exact|||||0|-2.4|
90859704|NCT00620464|181582816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<=|0.05||95.0|||||Bioequivalence Testing|||||||<=0.05
90859705|NCT01224665|181582828|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.4||Using an intention-to-treat analysis, we specified a stratified log-rank test with a one-sided alpha of 0.025.|Log Rank|Adjustments were made for the following stratification factors: neoadjuvant chemotherapy, clinical T stage, and Zubrod performance score.|Adjustments were made for the following stratification factors: neoadjuvant chemotherapy, clinical T stage, and Zubrod performance score.|3-year DFS estimates of 55% among participants undergoing SLND and 65% undergoing ELND were used to estimate the target HR. Assuming exponential DFS distribution, 5 years of enrollment, 3 years of follow-up, and 564 eligible participants, the trial would have 85% power to detect a 28% lower risk of recurrence or death with ELND than SLND.||1.40|0.86|0.45
90859706|NCT01224665|181582829|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.45|||||Adjustments were made for the following stratification factors: neoadjuvant chemotherapy, clinical T stage, and Zubrod performance score.|We assumed that the standard lymphadenectomy arm has 5-year survival of 55%, so we had 83% statistical power to detect a hazard ratio of 0.72 (55% vs. 65% survival at 5 years).||1.45|0.88|
90859707|NCT04246372|181582856|OTHER||Effect size (Cohen's d)|-0.84||||6.21e-06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Two-sided paired Student t test comparing the values for each participant at Baseline and 16 weeks.||||||0.00000621
90859708|NCT04246372|181582857|OTHER||Effect size (Cohen's d)|-0.91||||6.1e-07||||||Two-sided paired Student t test comparing the values for each participant at Baseline and 16 weeks.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.00000061
91092718|NCT01149655|182069466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0686|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH method was based on raw mean score statistics.||Statistical analysis for Week 44. The expected total number of exacerbation of psychotic symptoms/impending relapse was estimated using a 2:1 (aripiprazole:placebo) randomization ratio to achieve at least 80% power and to preserve an overall nominal alpha level of 0.05 (2-sided).||||0.0686
90841033|NCT02177032|181548070|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The investigational regimen 4-sites, 1-week ID PEP will be declared as non-inferior to currently recommended 2-sites TRC ID PEP regimen if the lower bound of the two sided 95% confidence interval around of the observed GMC ratio is greater than 0.667."|Vaccine Group Ratios|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.58|||ANOVA|||||0.58|0.37|
90841034|NCT02177032|181548071|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The investigational regimen 4-sites, 1-week ID PEP will be declared as non-inferior to currently recommended 2-sites TRC ID PEP regimen if the lower bound of the two sided 95% confidence interval around of the observed GMC ratio is greater than 0.667 (Day 8)"|Vaccine Group Ratios|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.29|||ANOVA|||||1.29|0.84|
90841035|NCT02177032|181548071|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The investigational regimen 4-sites, 1-week ID PEP will be declared as non-inferior to currently recommended 2-sites TRC ID PEP regimen if the lower bound of the two sided 95% confidence interval around of the observed GMC ratio is greater than 0.667 (Day 15)"|Vaccine Group Ratios|1.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|2.1|||ANOVA|||||2.1|1.35|
90841036|NCT02177032|181548071|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The investigational regimen 4-sites, 1-week ID PEP will be declared as non-inferior to currently recommended 2-sites TRC ID PEP regimen if the lower bound of the two sided 95% confidence interval around of the observed GMC ratio is greater than 0.667 (Day 91)."|Vaccine Group Ratios|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.85|||ANOVA|||||0.85|0.54|
90841037|NCT02177032|181548071|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The investigational regimen 4-sites, 1-week ID PEP will be declared as non-inferior to currently recommended 2-sites TRC ID PEP regimen if the lower bound of the two sided 95% confidence interval around of the observed GMC ratio is greater than 0.667 (Day 181)"|Vaccine Group Ratios|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.59|||ANOVA|||||1.59|0.94|
90841038|NCT02177032|181548071|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The investigational regimen 4-sites, 1-week ID PEP will be declared as non-inferior to currently recommended 2-sites TRC ID PEP regimen if the lower bound of the two sided 95% confidence interval around of the observed GMC ratio is greater than 0.667 (Day 366)"|Vaccine Group Ratios|1.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|2.19|||ANOVA|||||2.19|1.27|
90841039|NCT02177032|181548072|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The non-inferiority in immune response of the 4-sites, 1-week (4-4-4-0-0) ID PEP regimen compared to the currently recommended 2-sites TRC (2-2-2-0-2) ID PEP regimen, with or without HRIG, will be established If the lower bound of the two sided 95% confidence interval around the differences of the percentage of subject with RVNA titer ≥ 0.5 IU/ml at Day 8 is \> -0.05 (non-inferiority margin)."|Protection Rate Differences|9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|13.9|||Fisher Exact|||||13.9|3.8|
90841040|NCT02177032|181548072|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The non-inferiority in immune response of the 4-sites, 1-week (4-4-4-0-0) ID PEP regimen compared to the currently recommended 2-sites TRC (2-2-2-0-2) ID PEP regimen, with or without HRIG, will be established If the lower bound of the two sided 95% confidence interval around the differences of the percentage of subject with RVNA titer ≥ 0.5 IU/ml at Day 15 is \> -0.05 (non-inferiority margin)."|Protection Rate Differences|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.6|||Fisher Exact|||||1.6|-1|
90841041|NCT02177032|181548072|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The non-inferiority in immune response of the 4-sites, 1-week (4-4-4-0-0) ID PEP regimen compared to the currently recommended 2-sites TRC (2-2-2-0-2) ID PEP regimen, with or without HRIG, will be established If the lower bound of the two sided 95% confidence interval around the differences of the percentage of subject with RVNA titer ≥ 0.5 IU/ml at Day 91 is \> -0.05 (non-inferiority margin)."|Protection Rate Differences|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|-1.4|||Fisher Exact|||||-1.4|-6|
90841042|NCT02177032|181548072|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The non-inferiority in immune response of the 4-sites, 1-week (4-4-4-0-0) ID PEP regimen compared to the currently recommended 2-sites TRC (2-2-2-0-2) ID PEP regimen, with or without HRIG, will be established If the lower bound of the two sided 95% confidence interval around the differences of the percentage of subject with RVNA titer ≥ 0.5 IU/ml at Day 181 is \> -0.05 (non-inferiority margin)."|Protection Rate Differences|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|3.2|||Fisher Exact|||||3.2|-4.5|
90841043|NCT02177032|181548072|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The non-inferiority in immune response of the 4-sites, 1-week (4-4-4-0-0) ID PEP regimen compared to the currently recommended 2-sites TRC (2-2-2-0-2) ID PEP regimen, with or without HRIG, will be established If the lower bound of the two sided 95% confidence interval around the differences of the percentage of subject with RVNA titer ≥ 0.5 IU/ml at Day 366 is \> -0.05 (non-inferiority margin)."|Protection Rate Differences|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|11.5|||Fisher Exact|||||11.5|1.3|
90841044|NCT02177032|181548073|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The non-inferiority in immune response of the 4-sites, 1-week (4-4-4-0-0) ID PEP regimen of the PCEC vaccine, with HRIG administration, compared to that of the new 4-sites, 1-week (4-4-4-0-0) ID PEP regimen of the PCEC vaccine, without HRIG administration, in adult subjects will be established if the lower bound of the two sided 95% confidence interval around the differences of the percentage of subject with RVNA titer ≥ 0.5 IU/ml at Day 8 is \> -0.05 (non-inferiority margin)."|Protection Rate Differences|-11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.6|-1.0|||Fisher Exact|||||-1|-19.6|
90841045|NCT02177032|181548073|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The non-inferiority in immune response of the 4-sites, 1-week (4-4-4-0-0) ID PEP regimen of the PCEC vaccine, with HRIG administration, compared to that of the new 4-sites, 1-week (4-4-4-0-0) ID PEP regimen of the PCEC vaccine, without HRIG administration, in adult subjects will be established if the lower bound of the two sided 95% confidence interval around the differences of the percentage of subject with RVNA titer ≥ 0.5 IU/ml at Day 15 is \> -0.05 (non-inferiority margin)."|Protection Rate Differences|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|2.6|||Fisher Exact|||||2.6|-5.6|
90859709|NCT04246372|181582858|OTHER||Effect size (Cohen's d)|-1.03||||4e-08|TWO_SIDED|||||Two-sided paired Student t test comparing the values for each participant at Baseline and 16 weeks.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.00000004
91028777|NCT01656889|181941294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Kaplan-Meier Survival analysis|||||||< 0.05
91092719|NCT01149655|182069466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0737|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH method was based on raw mean score statistics.||Statistical analysis for Week 46. The expected total number of exacerbation of psychotic symptoms/impending relapse was estimated using a 2:1 (aripiprazole:placebo) randomization ratio to achieve at least 80% power and to preserve an overall nominal alpha level of 0.05 (2-sided).||||0.0737
90841046|NCT02177032|181548073|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The non-inferiority in immune response of the 4-sites, 1-week (4-4-4-0-0) ID PEP regimen of the PCEC vaccine, with HRIG administration, compared to that of the new 4-sites, 1-week (4-4-4-0-0) ID PEP regimen of the PCEC vaccine, without HRIG administration, in adult subjects will be established if the lower bound of the two sided 95% confidence interval around the differences of the percentage of subject with RVNA titer ≥ 0.5 IU/ml at Day 91 is \> -0.05 (non-inferiority margin)."|Protection Rate Differences|-15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.0|-7.1|||Fisher Exact|||||-7.1|-26|
91092720|NCT01149655|182069466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0893|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH method was based on raw mean score statistics.||Statistical analysis for Week 48. The expected total number of exacerbation of psychotic symptoms/impending relapse was estimated using a 2:1 (aripiprazole:placebo) randomization ratio to achieve at least 80% power and to preserve an overall nominal alpha level of 0.05 (2-sided).||||0.0893
91092721|NCT01149655|182069466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0706|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH method was based on raw mean score statistics.||Statistical analysis for Week 50. The expected total number of exacerbation of psychotic symptoms/impending relapse was estimated using a 2:1 (aripiprazole:placebo) randomization ratio to achieve at least 80% power and to preserve an overall nominal alpha level of 0.05 (2-sided).||||0.0706
91092722|NCT01149655|182069466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0657|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH method was based on raw mean score statistics.||Statistical analysis for Week 52. The expected total number of exacerbation of psychotic symptoms/impending relapse was estimated using a 2:1 (aripiprazole:placebo) randomization ratio to achieve at least 80% power and to preserve an overall nominal alpha level of 0.05 (2-sided).||||0.0657
91092723|NCT04030598|182069489|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|-90.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-96.0|-76.0|||Wald Chi-Square||The percentage difference in mean investigator-confirmed HAE attack rate between donidalorsen 80 mg and placebo was calculated as 100 percentage (%) × (mean rate ratio -1).|||-76.00|-96.00|0.001
91092724|NCT04030598|182069490|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|-89.0||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-95.0|-77.0|||Wald Chi-Square||The percentage difference in mean investigator-confirmed HAE attack rate between donidalorsen 80 mg and placebo was calculated as 100% × (mean rate ratio -1).|||-77.00|-95.00|0.003
91092725|NCT04030598|182069491|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|-96.0||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|-65.0|||Wald Chi-Square||The percentage difference in mean investigator-confirmed HAE attack rate between donidalorsen 80 mg and placebo was calculated as 100% × (mean rate ratio -1).|||-65.00|-100.00|0.004
90841047|NCT02177032|181548073|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The non-inferiority in immune response of the 4-sites, 1-week (4-4-4-0-0) ID PEP regimen of the PCEC vaccine, with HRIG administration, compared to that of the new 4-sites, 1-week (4-4-4-0-0) ID PEP regimen of the PCEC vaccine, without HRIG administration, in adult subjects will be established if the lower bound of the two sided 95% confidence interval around the differences of the percentage of subject with RVNA titer ≥ 0.5 IU/ml at Day 181 is \> -0.05 (non-inferiority margin)."|Protection Rate Differences|-17.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.0|-7.1|||Fisher Exact|||||-7.1|-29|
90859710|NCT04246372|181582860|OTHER||Effect size (Cohen's d)|-1.14||||3.93e-05||||||Two-sided paired Student t test comparing the values for each participant at Baseline and 16 weeks.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0000393
91092726|NCT04030598|182069492|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|66.7||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.5|95.7|||Fisher Exact|||For ≥ 50% reduction from Baseline in the HAE attack rate.||95.7|17.5|0.004
91092727|NCT04030598|182069492|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|75.6||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.8|96.5|||Fisher Exact|||For ≥ 70% reduction from Baseline in the HAE attack rate.||96.5|26.8|0.003
91092728|NCT04030598|182069492|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|92.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.0|99.8|||Fisher Exact|||For ≥ 90% reduction from Baseline in the HAE attack rate.||99.8|48.0|<0.001
91092729|NCT04030598|182069493|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|-95.0||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-99.0|-52.0|||Wald Chi-Square|||||-52.00|-99.00|0.009
91092730|NCT04030598|182069496|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-14.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.1|33.9|||Fisher Exact|||Week 9||33.9|-59.1|1.000
91092731|NCT04030598|182069496|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-21.4||||0.521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.9|27.1|||Fisher Exact|||Week 17||27.1|-64.9|0.521
91092732|NCT04030598|182069497|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-25.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.1|-14.74||||||Week 9||-14.74|-37.10|
91092733|NCT04030598|182069497|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-20.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.7|-8.68||||||Week 17||-8.68|-32.70|
91092734|NCT01419535|182069498|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures were analyzed by repeated-measures ANOVA including treatment group, time, and treatment\*time interaction as factors.||||||0.60
91092735|NCT01419535|182069499|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures were analyzed by repeated-measures ANOVA including treatment group, time, and treatment\*time interaction as factors.||||||<0.001
91092736|NCT01419535|182069500|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures were analyzed by repeated-measures ANOVA including treatment group, time, and treatment\*time interaction as factors.||||||<0.001
91092737|NCT01419535|182069501|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures were analyzed by repeated-measures ANOVA including treatment group, time, and treatment\*time interaction as factors.||||||<0.001
91092738|NCT01419535|182069502|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures were analyzed by repeated-measures ANOVA including treatment group, time, and treatment\*time interaction as factors.||||||0.004
91092739|NCT01419535|182069503|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures were analyzed by repeated-measures ANOVA including treatment group, time, and treatment\*time interaction as factors.||||||0.002
91092740|NCT02543840|182069504|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|1.5||Adjusted for multiple comparisons (Bonferroni four comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.5|-1.26|<0.01
91092741|NCT02543840|182069504|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.24|7.82||Adjusted for comparisons (Bonferroni for 4 comparisons.)|Regression, Linear|||Among Veteran participants,we used a linear contrast comparing a) those with complex clinical presentations, defined as receiving treatment for three or more mental health diagnoses in the prior year to b) those with two or fewer diagnoses during the facilitation year from T0 to T12..||7.82|2.24|<0.001
91092742|NCT02543840|182069505|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|||<|0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|2.3||Adjusted for comparison (Bonferroni for four comparisons.)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.3|0.04|<0.04
90841048|NCT02177032|181548073|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The non-inferiority in immune response of the 4-sites, 1-week (4-4-4-0-0) ID PEP regimen of the PCEC vaccine, with HRIG administration, compared to that of the new 4-sites, 1-week (4-4-4-0-0) ID PEP regimen of the PCEC vaccine, without HRIG administration, in adult subjects will be established if the lower bound of the two sided 95% confidence interval around the differences of the percentage of subject with RVNA titer ≥ 0.5 IU/ml at Day 366 is \> -0.05 (non-inferiority margin)."|Protection Rate Differences|-25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.8|-13.2|||Fisher Exact|||||-13.2|-37.8|
90841049|NCT01598532|181548083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.004|||||||ANOVA|Univariate, one-way, repeated measure ANOVA with trend analysis||linear trend over time for the effect of LED treatments||||<0.004
90841050|NCT01598532|181548084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.003|||||||ANOVA|Univariate, one-way, repeated measure ANOVA with trend analysis||linear trend over time for the effect of LED treatments||||<0.003
90841051|NCT01598532|181548085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.003|||||||ANOVA|Univariate, one-way, repeated measure ANOVA with trend analysis||linear trend over time for effect of LED treatments||||<0.003
90841052|NCT01598532|181548086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.006|||||||ANOVA|Univariate, one-way, repeated measure ANOVA with trend analysis||linear trend over time for the effects of LED treatments||||<0.006
90841053|NCT01967940|181548122|SUPERIORITY|Enrollment into this study was stopped early due to the challenge of recruiting a sufficient number of participants who met the eligibility criteria. The actual number of enrolled is 55, among them 43 enrolled in the Randomized Cohort. Based on the actual enrollment numbers, the power to detect a 35% difference drops to 51%, under the same assumptions in the original sample size calculations.|Difference in proportions|60.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.6|78.8|||Fisher Exact||The 95% confidence interval was estimated based on unconditional exact method using 2 inverted 1-sided tests with the standardized statistic.|A sample size of 90 participants, randomized in a 2:1 ratio, achieves 89% power to detect a 35% difference in the proportion of participants with HIV-1 RNA decreases from baseline exceeding 0.5 log10 between the TAF and placebo arms at Day 10. Sample size and power computation was based on the assumption that 50% of participants in the TAF arm and 15% of participants in the placebo arm achieved a reduction exceeding 0.5 log10 HIV-1 RNA.||78.8|42.6|<0.001
90841054|NCT04109547|181548138|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-1.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-1.3||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0.|MMRM|||||-1.3|-1.8|<0.0001
90841055|NCT04109547|181548138|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-1.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-1.2||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0.|MMRM|||||-1.2|-1.6|<0.0001
90841056|NCT04109547|181548138|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-1.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.8||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0.|MMRM|||||-0.8|-1.2|<0.0001
90841057|NCT05567783|181548202|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk reduction (RRR, %)|15.85||||0.5552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.27|52.56||two-sided, alpha=0.05|Poisson regression|Estimated using Poisson regression of multiple imputed data with treatment group the only factor in the model|RRR and 95% CI estimated using Poisson regression of multiple imputed data with treatment group was the only factor in the model|||52.56|-49.27|0.5552
90841058|NCT05567783|181548202|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk reduction (RRR, %)|3.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.23|44.63|||||RRR and 95% CI estimated using Poisson regression of multiple imputed data with treatment group the only factor in the model; 95% CI are nominal and not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|||44.63|-67.23|
90841059|NCT05567783|181548210|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk reduction (RRR, %)|57.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|82.15|||||RRR and 95% CI estimated using Poisson regression of multiple imputed data with treatment group the only factor in the model; 95%CI are nominal and not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|||82.15|-2.51|
90841060|NCT05567783|181548210|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk reduction (RRR, %)|11.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.25|55.51|||||RRR and 95% CI estimated using Poisson regression of multiple imputed data with treatment group the only factor in the model; 95% CI are nominal and not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|||55.51|-76.25|
90841061|NCT05567783|181548211|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk reduction (RRR, %)|44.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.49|79.26|||||RRR and 95% CI estimated using Poisson regression of multiple imputed data with treatment group the only factor in the model; 95%CI are nominal and not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|||79.26|-50.49|
90841062|NCT05567783|181548211|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk reduction (RRR, %)|-9.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-147.41|51.27|||||RRR and 95% CI estimated using Poisson regression of multiple imputed data with treatment group the only factor in the model; 95% CI are nominal and not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|||51.27|-147.41|
90841063|NCT02593006|181548220|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.3|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|23.8|||Propensity weighted regression model|||||23.8|-3.2|>0.05
90841064|NCT02593006|181548221|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||Global test of interaction between time and treatment group.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.04
90841065|NCT01929317|181548233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change from Baseline|-4.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|-3.2|||t-test, 1 sided|||||-3.2|-6.3|<0.001
90841066|NCT01929317|181548234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|2.0|||||Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in Japanese UPDRS Part III total score for Week 2.|||2.0|-2.4|
90841067|NCT01929317|181548234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|3.1|||||Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in Japanese UPDRS Part III total score for Week 4.|||3.1|-1.9|
90841068|NCT01929317|181548234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|3.0|||||Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in Japanese UPDRS Part III total score for Week 6.|||3.0|-2.3|
90841069|NCT01929317|181548234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|2.0|||||Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in Japanese UPDRS Part III total score for Week 8.|||2.0|-3.4|
90841070|NCT01929317|181548234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|3.9|||||Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in Japanese UPDRS Part III total score for Week 12.|||3.9|-2.0|
90841071|NCT01929317|181548236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.3|||||Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in Japanese UPDRS Part 1 total score for Week 2.|||0.3|-0.2|
90841072|NCT01929317|181548236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.4|||||Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in Japanese UPDRS Part 1 total score for Week 4.|||0.4|-0.2|
90841073|NCT01929317|181548236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.3|||||Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in Japanese UPDRS Part 1 total score for Week 6.|||0.3|-0.4|
90841074|NCT01929317|181548236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3|||||Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in Japanese UPDRS Part 1 total score for Week 8.|||0.3|-0.3|
90841075|NCT01929317|181548236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.6|||||Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in Japanese UPDRS Part 1 total score for Week 12.|||0.6|-0.2|
90841076|NCT01929317|181548237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.1|||||Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in Japanese UPDRS Part 2 total score for Week 2, On status.|||0.1|-1.8|
90841077|NCT01929317|181548237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.1|||||Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in Japanese UPDRS Part 2 total score for Week 4, On status.|||0.1|-2.4|
90841078|NCT01929317|181548237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.3|||||Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in Japanese UPDRS Part 2 total score for Week 6, On status.|||0.3|-2.6|
90841079|NCT01929317|181548237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|0.3|||||Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in Japanese UPDRS Part 2 total score for Week 8, On status.|||0.3|-2.8|
90841080|NCT01929317|181548237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|0.7|||||Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in Japanese UPDRS Part 2 total score for Week 12, On status.|||0.7|-2.7|
90841081|NCT01929317|181548237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.5|||||Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in Japanese UPDRS Part 2 total score for Week 2, Off status.|||0.5|-1.8|
90841082|NCT01929317|181548237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.8|||||Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in Japanese UPDRS Part 2 total score for Week 4, Off status.|||0.8|-2.6|
90841083|NCT01929317|181548237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|1.0|||||Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in Japanese UPDRS Part 2 total score for Week 6, Off status.|||1.0|-2.8|
90841084|NCT01929317|181548237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.8|||||Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in Japanese UPDRS Part 2 total score for Week 8, Off status.|||1.8|-2.1|
90841085|NCT01929317|181548237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|2.1|||||Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in Japanese UPDRS Part 2 total score for Week 12, Off status.|||2.1|-2.2|
90841086|NCT01929317|181548238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.4|||||Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in Japanese UPDRS Part 4 total score for Week 2.|||0.4|-0.7|
90841087|NCT01929317|181548238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.6|||||Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in Japanese UPDRS Part 4 total score for Week 4.|||0.6|-0.7|
90841088|NCT01929317|181548238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.8|||||Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in Japanese UPDRS Part 4 total score for Week 6.|||0.8|-0.7|
90841089|NCT01929317|181548238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.7|||||Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in Japanese UPDRS Part 4 total score for Week 8.|||0.7|-0.7|
90841090|NCT01929317|181548238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.5|||||Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in Japanese UPDRS Part 4 total score for Week 12.|||0.5|-0.9|
90841091|NCT01929317|181548251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|1.04|||||"Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in actual hours of awake time spent Off for Week 2."|||1.04|-1.65|
91092743|NCT02543840|182069506|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.9|-0.2|>0.05
90841092|NCT01929317|181548251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|1.45|||||"Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in actual hours of awake time spent Off for Week 4."|||1.45|-1.34|
90841093|NCT01929317|181548251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|1.24|||||"Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in actual hours of awake time spent Off for Week 6."|||1.24|-1.95|
90841094|NCT01929317|181548251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|0.75|||||"Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in actual hours of awake time spent Off for Week 8."|||0.75|-2.44|
90841095|NCT01929317|181548251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.73|0.58|||||"Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in actual hours of awake time spent Off for Week 12."|||0.58|-2.73|
90841096|NCT01929317|181548252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.77|6.71|||||"Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in the proportion of awake time spent Off for Week 2."|||6.71|-8.77|
90841097|NCT01929317|181548252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.94|8.22|||||"Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in the proportion of awake time spent Off for Week 4."|||8.22|-7.94|
90841098|NCT01929317|181548252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.06|6.49|||||"Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in the proportion of awake time spent Off for Week 6."|||6.49|-12.06|
90841099|NCT01929317|181548252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.06|5.14|||||"Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in the proportion of awake time spent Off for Week 8."|||5.14|-14.06|
90841100|NCT01929317|181548252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.92|3.96|||||"Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in the proportion of awake time spent Off for Week 12."|||3.96|-15.92|
91028778|NCT02114307|181941306|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
91092744|NCT02543840|182069507|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.3|-1.3|>0.05
91092745|NCT02543840|182069508|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.8|-0.6|>0.05
90841101|NCT01929317|181548253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|1.21|||||"Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in actual hours of awake time spent On for Week 2."|||1.21|-1.07|
90841102|NCT01929317|181548253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|1.7|||||"Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in actual hours of awake time spent On for Week 4."|||1.70|-0.75|
90841103|NCT01929317|181548253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|1.86|||||"Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in actual hours of awake time spent On for Week 6."|||1.86|-0.65|
90841104|NCT01929317|181548253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|2.22|||||"Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in actual hours of awake time spent On for Week 8."|||2.22|-0.52|
90841105|NCT01929317|181548253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|2.26|||||"Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in actual hours of awake time spent On for Week 12."|||2.26|-0.55|
90841106|NCT01929317|181548254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|1.36|||||"Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in actual hours of awake time spent On without troublesome dyskinesias for Week 2."|||1.36|-0.98|
90841107|NCT01929317|181548254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|1.78|||||"Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in actual hours of awake time spent On without troublesome dyskinesias for Week 4."|||1.78|-0.64|
90841108|NCT01929317|181548254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|1.84|||||"Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in actual hours of awake time spent On without troublesome dyskinesias for Week 6."|||1.84|-0.71|
90841109|NCT01929317|181548254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|2.39|||||"Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in actual hours of awake time spent On without troublesome dyskinesias for Week 8."|||2.39|-0.47|
90841110|NCT01929317|181548254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|2.33|||||"Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in actual hours of awake time spent On without troublesome dyskinesias for Week 12."|||2.33|-0.63|
90957322|NCT01749904|181794434|NON_INFERIORITY|The 2 treatments were compared for each time point by visit. LS mean of each treatment group, the difference in the LS mean, and the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference were obtained. Noninferiority could be claimed if the upper limit of the CIs \<1.5 mmHg at all time points of each visit and \<1.00 mmHg for at least 5 out of the 9 time points. If noninferiority was determined, superiority at each time point could be claimed if the upper limit of the 95% CI\<0 mmHg at all time points of each visit.|||||<|0.01||||||The ANCOVA results for the comparison of LS means of mean IOP between treatment groups demonstrated noninferiority of BOL-303259-X to timolol and also superiority of BOL-303259-X to timolol|ANCOVA|||||||<0.01
91092746|NCT02543840|182069509|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.005|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.074|0.084|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired.||||0.084|-0.074|>0.05
91092747|NCT02543840|182069510|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.011|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.206|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.056|0.077|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired.||||0.077|-0.056|>0.05
91092748|NCT02543840|182069511|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.153|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.044|0.262|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired||||0.262|0.044|<0.001
91092749|NCT02543840|182069512|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.186|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.083|0.289|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired.||||0.289|0.083|<0.01
90841111|NCT02205736|181548278|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8084||||||Each of the 25 co-primary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 1 at Baseline and Post-Intervention; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire.||||0.8084
90841112|NCT02205736|181548278|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Each of the 25 co-primary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 2 at Baseline and Post-Intervention; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire.||||<.0001
90859711|NCT04246372|181582861|OTHER||Effect size (Cohen's d)|-0.67||||0.00399||||||Two-sided paired Student t test comparing the values for each participant at Baseline and 16 weeks.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.00399
91092750|NCT02543840|182069513|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|-0.07||Repeated patient binary outcome models for hospitalized (0/1) across 8 quarters.|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted (Bonferroni four comparisons).||||-0.07|-0.16|<0.001
90859712|NCT04246372|181582862|OTHER||Effect size (Cohen's d)|-3.04||||0.146||||||Two-sided paired Student t test comparing the values for each participant at Baseline and 16 weeks.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.146
90859713|NCT04246372|181582864|OTHER||Effect size (Cohen's d)|-1.05||||9e-08||||||Two-sided paired Student t test comparing the values for each participant at Baseline and 16 weeks.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.00000009
90859714|NCT00257608|181582866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio, log|0.708||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.864|||Log Rank|||||0.864|0.580|0.0006
90859715|NCT00257608|181582872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.917||||0.5341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.698|1.205|||Log Rank|||||1.205|0.698|0.5341
91092751|NCT03114150|182069514|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.02|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger adjustments for degrees of freedom|Parameter is the interaction term for the interaction of group, learning rate, and session.|We tested the prediction that learning rate would increase more so for the moderate-to-vigorous training group compared to the light intensity training group. This prediction was tested with a linear mixed model, according to our statistical analysis plan.||.01|-.04|<.05
91092752|NCT03114150|182069515|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger adjustments for degrees of freedom|Parameter is the interaction term for the interaction of exercise condition (intensity) and session.|We tested the prediction that hippocampal-cortical functional connectivity would change more for the moderate-to-vigorous acute condition compared to the light intensity condition. This prediction was tested with a linear mixed model, according to our statistical analysis plan.||.02|-.01|<.05
90841113|NCT02205736|181548278|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0036||||||Each of the 25 co-primary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 3 at Baseline and Post-Intervention; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire.||||0.0036
91092753|NCT03114150|182069516|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger adjustments for degrees of freedom||We tested the prediction that functional connectivity strength would increase more so for the moderate-to-vigorous training group compared to the light intensity training group. This prediction was tested with a linear mixed model, according to our statistical analysis plan.|Parameter is the interaction term for the interaction of group and session.|.02|-.03|<.05
90841114|NCT02205736|181548278|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0033||||||Each of the 25 co-primary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 4 at Baseline and Post-Intervention; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire.||||0.0033
90841115|NCT02205736|181548278|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Each of the 25 co-primary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 5 at Baseline and Post-Intervention; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire.||||<.0001
90841116|NCT02205736|181548278|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Each of the 25 co-primary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 6 at Baseline and Post-Intervention; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire.||||<.0001
90841117|NCT02205736|181548278|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Each of the 25 co-primary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 7 at Baseline and Post-Intervention; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire.||||<.0001
90841118|NCT02205736|181548278|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Each of the 25 co-primary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 8 at Baseline and Post-Intervention; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire.||||<.0001
90841119|NCT02205736|181548278|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Each of the 25 co-primary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 9 at Baseline and Post-Intervention; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire.||||<.0001
90957323|NCT01749904|181794435|OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.005
90957324|NCT01749904|181794436|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.001
90957325|NCT01749904|181794437|OTHER||||||||||||||||||No statistical analysis was performed on these proportions.|||
91028779|NCT02114307|181941307|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0023|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Sham Group - 6 week Time Point - Pre-stimulation versus Post-Stimulation||||0.0023
91028780|NCT02114307|181941307|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0815|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Test Group - 6 week Time Point - Pre-stimulation versus Post-Stimulation||||0.0815
90841120|NCT02205736|181548278|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Each of the 25 co-primary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 10 at Baseline and Post-Intervention; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire.||||<.0001
90841121|NCT02205736|181548278|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Each of the 25 co-primary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 11 at Baseline and Post-Intervention; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire.||||<.0001
90841122|NCT02205736|181548278|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0124||||||Each of the 25 co-primary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 12 at Baseline and Post-Intervention; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire.||||0.0124
90841123|NCT02205736|181548278|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Each of the 25 co-primary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 13 at Baseline and Post-Intervention; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire.||||<.0001
90841124|NCT02205736|181548278|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0588||||||Each of the 25 co-primary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 14 at Baseline and Post-Intervention; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire.||||0.0588
90841125|NCT02205736|181548278|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0143||||||Each of the 25 co-primary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 15 at Baseline and Post-Intervention; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire.||||0.0143
90841126|NCT02205736|181548278|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1025||||||Each of the 25 co-primary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 16 at Baseline and Post-Intervention; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire.||||0.1025
90841127|NCT02205736|181548278|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001||||||Each of the 25 co-primary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 17 at Baseline and Post-Intervention; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire.||||0.0001
90841128|NCT02205736|181548278|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1138||||||Each of the 25 co-primary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 18 at Baseline and Post-Intervention; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire.||||0.1138
90897464|NCT01216163|181660529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-57.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.9|-42.77||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-42.77|-71.90|<0.001
91028781|NCT02114307|181941308|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.127|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.127
91032682|NCT01546545|181950298|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|No power calculation was performed. This was a pilot and feasibility study.||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
90897465|NCT01216163|181660529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-7.73||||0.263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.08|5.63||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||5.63|-21.08|0.263
90841129|NCT02205736|181548278|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0011||||||Each of the 25 co-primary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 19 at Baseline and Post-Intervention; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire.||||0.0011
90841130|NCT02205736|181548278|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Each of the 25 co-primary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 20 at Baseline and Post-Intervention; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire.||||<.0001
90841131|NCT02205736|181548278|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0522||||||Each of the 25 co-primary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 21 at Baseline and Post-Intervention; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire.||||0.0522
90841132|NCT02205736|181548278|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8185||||||Each of the 25 co-primary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 22 at Baseline and Post-Intervention; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire.||||0.8185
90841133|NCT02205736|181548278|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005||||||Each of the 25 co-primary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 24 at Baseline and Post-Intervention; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire.||||0.0005
90841134|NCT02205736|181548278|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Each of the 25 co-primary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Subjects recorded True/False answers to Q25 at Baseline and Post-Intervention; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The contingency table of 329 responses to Q25 displayed the following: N=260 Correct at Baseline and Correct at Post-Intervention (79.0%), N=7 Correct at Baseline and Incorrect at Post-Intervention (2.1%), N=49 Incorrect at Baseline and Correct at Post-Intervention (14.9%), N=13 Incorrect at Baseline and Incorrect at Post-Intervention (4.0%).||||<.0001
90841135|NCT02205736|181548279|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2482||||||Each of the 25 co-secondary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 1 at Baseline and 3-Month Contact; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire.||||0.2482
90841136|NCT02205736|181548279|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Each of the 25 co-secondary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 2 at Baseline and 3-Month Contact; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire.||||<.0001
90897466|NCT01216163|181660529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-49.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.74|-35.12||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-35.12|-64.74|<0.001
90897467|NCT01216163|181660529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-52.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.62|-37.88||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-37.88|-67.62|<0.001
91032683|NCT01214850|181950299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.185||||0.3828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.809|1.737|||Regression, Logistic|||Vaccine Group Odds Ratios for carriage of virulent ST strain of N. meningitidis group B in 4CMenB group as compared to the control group at 1 month after receiving the 2nd rMenB+OMV NZ vaccination||1.737|0.809|0.3828
90841137|NCT02205736|181548279|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||Each of the 25 co-secondary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 3 at Baseline and 3-Month Contact; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire.||||0.0050
90841138|NCT02205736|181548279|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0423||||||Each of the 25 co-secondary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 4 at Baseline and 3-Month Contact; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire.||||0.0423
90841139|NCT02205736|181548279|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Each of the 25 co-secondary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 5 at Baseline and 3-Month Contact; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire.||||<.0001
90841140|NCT02205736|181548279|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Each of the 25 co-secondary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 6 at Baseline and 3-Month Contact; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire.||||<.0001
90841141|NCT02205736|181548279|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Each of the 25 co-secondary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 7 at Baseline and 3-Month Contact; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire.||||<.0001
90841142|NCT02205736|181548279|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002||||||Each of the 25 co-secondary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 8 at Baseline and 3-Month Contact; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire.||||0.0002
90841143|NCT02205736|181548279|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7456||||||Each of the 25 co-secondary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 9 at Baseline and 3-Month Contact; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire.||||0.7456
90841144|NCT02205736|181548279|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Each of the 25 co-secondary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 10 at Baseline and 3-Month Contact; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire.||||<.0001
90841145|NCT02205736|181548279|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0028||||||Each of the 25 co-secondary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 11 at Baseline and 3-Month Contact; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire.||||0.0028
90957326|NCT01383499|181794475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.087|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.042|0.132||First step of closed testing procedure, where the active treatments are compared to placebo. If this statistical test significant at the 0.05 alpha level then proceed to comparison of the next lower dose to placebo.|Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|This MMRM model includes treatment, period and baseline as fixed effects, and patient as random effect.||Tio R5 minus Placebo||0.132|0.042|0.0002
90957327|NCT01383499|181794475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.104|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.059|0.149||Second step of closed testing procedure. If this statistical test significant at the 0.05 alpha level then proceed to comparison of the next lower dose to placebo.|Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|This MMRM model includes treatment, period and baseline as fixed effects, and patient as random effect.||Tio R2.5 minus Placebo||0.149|0.059|<.0001
91028782|NCT02275364|181941318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|15.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.32|18.25||Obtained from ANOVA model with Treatment and Period as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.|ANOVA||Adjusted Mean Difference is the treatment difference defined as the Adjusted Mean of Test Nasal Strip minus Adjusted Mean of Placebo Strip.|||18.25|12.32|<0.0001
91028783|NCT02275364|181941319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.93||||0.7366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.43|4.57||Obtained from ANOVA with treatment, period and region of interest as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.|ANCOVA||Adjusted Mean Difference is the Treatment difference defined as the Adjusted Mean of Test Nasal Strip minus Adjusted Mean of Placebo Strip.|||4.57|-6.43|0.7366
91104072|NCT04250207|182094698|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.0001|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 9||||0.0001
90841146|NCT02205736|181548279|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0707||||||Each of the 25 co-secondary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 12 at Baseline and 3-Month Contact; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire.||||0.0707
90841147|NCT02205736|181548279|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0026||||||Each of the 25 co-secondary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 13 at Baseline and 3-Month Contact; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire.||||0.0026
90841148|NCT02205736|181548279|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1797||||||Each of the 25 co-secondary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 14 at Baseline and 3-Month Contact; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire.||||0.1797
90841149|NCT02205736|181548279|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6547||||||Each of the 25 co-secondary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 15 at Baseline and 3-Month Contact; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire.||||0.6547
90841150|NCT02205736|181548279|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1797||||||Each of the 25 co-secondary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 16 at Baseline and 3-Month Contact; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire.||||0.1797
90841151|NCT02205736|181548279|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.285||||||Each of the 25 co-secondary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 17 at Baseline and 3-Month Contact; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire.||||0.2850
90841152|NCT02205736|181548279|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0606||||||Each of the 25 co-secondary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 18 at Baseline and 3-Month Contact; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire.||||0.0606
90841153|NCT02205736|181548279|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0045||||||Each of the 25 co-secondary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 19 at Baseline and 3-Month Contact; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire.||||0.0045
91028784|NCT02275364|181941320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1533.74||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|794.16|2273.32||Obtained from ANOVA model with Treatment and Period as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.|ANOVA||Adjusted Mean Difference is the Treatment difference defined as the Adjusted Mean of Test Nasal Strip minus Adjusted Mean of Placebo Strip.|||2273.32|794.16|0.0004
91092754|NCT03114150|182069517|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.42|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|2.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|Residualized change model, as reported in our protocol paper.||We tested the prediction that cardiorespiratory fitness would increase more so for the moderate-to-vigorous training group compared to the light intensity training group. This prediction was tested with a linear mixed model, as reported in our protocol paper.||2.59|.27|<.05
90841154|NCT02205736|181548279|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9068||||||Each of the 25 co-secondary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 20 at Baseline and 3-Month Contact; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire.||||0.9068
90841155|NCT02205736|181548279|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4142||||||Each of the 25 co-secondary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 21 at Baseline and 3-Month Contact; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire.||||0.4142
90841156|NCT02205736|181548279|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5637||||||Each of the 25 co-secondary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 22 at Baseline and 3-Month Contact; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire.||||0.5637
90841157|NCT02205736|181548279|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002||||||Each of the 25 co-secondary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 23 at Baseline and 3-Month Contact; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire.||||0.0002
90841158|NCT02205736|181548279|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0196||||||Each of the 25 co-secondary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 24 at Baseline and 3-Month Contact; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire.||||0.0196
90841159|NCT02205736|181548279|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||This outcome measure for Q25 was tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5% in the analyses of 25 questions.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 25 at Baseline and 3-Month Contact; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire.||||<.0001
90841160|NCT04684836|181548309|SUPERIORITY|The analysis leveraged a difference-in-differences research design in an intent-to-treat framework, comparing outcomes for patients receiving care at high-telehealth practices with patients at comparable low-telehealth practices, before relative to after the onset of the pandemic (when telehealth use increased significantly).|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0255||||0.0793|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|All models included practice and year-quarter fixed effects, and clustered standard errors at the practice level.|This is the Unadjusted model, which included only an indicator for high telemedicine practice, post-period, and its two-way interaction.|||||0.0793
91028785|NCT02275364|181941321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.46||||0.7278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.06|2.14||Obtained from ANOVA model with Treatment and Period as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.|ANOVA||Adjusted Mean Difference is the Treatment difference defined as the Adjusted Mean of Test Nasal Strip minus Adjusted Mean of Placebo Strip.|||2.14|-3.06|0.7278
91092755|NCT03675308|182069518|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|24.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.0|30.0||All primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment via a fixed sequence testing procedure to control the family-wise type I error rate at α=0.05 (two- sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test adjusted for the stratification factors of current csDMARD use, presence of dactylitis, enthesitis and extent of psoriasis at Baseline.|Response Rate Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|The comparison between the risankizumab and placebo treatment groups for the primary efficacy endpoint (ACR20 at Week 24) was performed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusting for the stratification factors of baseline psoriasis (≥ 3%/\< 3% body surface area), presence of dactylitis (yes/no), presence of enthesitis (yes/no) and current csDMARD use (0/≥ 1).||30.0|18.0|<0.001
90841161|NCT04684836|181548309|SUPERIORITY|Difference-in-differences model|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0786||||0.5739|TWO_SIDED|||||This is the fully adjusted regression model, which controlled for patient age group, gender, dual status, race, average percent of 65+ patients, risk score category, rural vs urban, and zip-code level characteristics.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.5739
90957328|NCT01383499|181794475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.075|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.12|||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|This MMRM model includes treatment, period and baseline as fixed effects, and patient as a random effect.||Tio R1.25 minus Placebo||0.120|0.030|0.0011
90841162|NCT04684836|181548310|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0014||||0.3261|TWO_SIDED|||||This is an adjusted model, which included only an indicator for high telemedicine practice, post-period, and its two-way interaction.|Regression, Linear|||Difference-in-differences model||||0.3261
90897468|NCT01216163|181660529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-5.51||||0.439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.27|8.25||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||8.25|-19.27|0.439
90841163|NCT04684836|181548310|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0806|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||This is a fully adjusted regression model, which controlled for patient age group, gender, dual status, race, average percent of 65+ patients, risk score category, rural vs urban, and zip-code level characteristics.|Regression, Linear|||Difference-in-differences model||||<0.01
90841164|NCT04684836|181548311|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0217||||0.1101|TWO_SIDED|||||This is an adjusted unadjusted model, which included only an indicator for high telemedicine practice, post-period, and its two-way interaction.|Regression, Linear|||Difference-in-differences||||0.1101
90841165|NCT04684836|181548311|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5551||||0.4618|TWO_SIDED|||||This is a fully adjusted regression model, which controlled for patient age group, gender, dual status, race, average percent of 65+ patients, risk score category, rural vs urban, and zip-code level characteristics.|Regression, Linear|||Difference-in-differences||||0.4618
90841166|NCT04684836|181548313|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0012||||0.8577|TWO_SIDED|||||This is an unadjusted model, which included only an indicator for high telemedicine practice, post-period, and its two-way interaction|Regression, Linear|||Difference-in-differences||||0.8577
90841167|NCT04684836|181548313|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2014||||0.5954|TWO_SIDED|||||This is the fully adjusted regression model, which controlled for patient age group, gender, dual status, race, average percent of 65+ patients, risk score category, rural vs urban, and zip-code level characteristics.|Regression, Linear|||Difference-in-differences||||0.5954
90841168|NCT05571605|181548359|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.05
90841169|NCT01285323|181548408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||CAE rate ratio (reslizumab vs placebo)|0.4063|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2819|0.5855||The treatment effect was tested using the likelihood based Chi-square test at the 0.05 significance level.|Chi-squared|||The frequency of CAEs was analyzed using the generalized linear model (GLM) for data from the negative binomial distributions that is commonly referred to as the negative binomial (NB) regression model. The primary NB model included the treatment group and randomization stratification factors as model factors and the logarithm of follow up time excluding the summed duration of exacerbations in the treatment period as an offset variable.||0.5855|0.2819|<0.0001
91104073|NCT04250207|182094698|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.0028|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 9||||0.0028
90841170|NCT01285323|181548409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.101|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0397||0.0109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.023|0.179||Statistical significance at \<=0.05.|Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|Fixed Factors: treatment, visit, trt by visit interaction, region, OCS at enrollment, sex. Random: covariates for height, baseline value and patient|active - placebo|A pre-specified fixed sequence multiple testing procedure was implemented to test the secondary endpoints while controlling the overall Type I error rate at 0.05. At the point where p\>0.05, no further comparisons were interpreted inferentially.||0.179|0.023|0.0109
90841171|NCT01285323|181548410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.093|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0317||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.155||Statistical significance at \<=0.05.|Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|Fixed Factors: treatment, visit, trt by visit interaction, region, OCS at enrollment, sex. Random: covariates for height, baseline value and patient|active-placebo|A pre-specified fixed sequence multiple testing procedure was implemented to test the secondary endpoints while controlling the overall Type I error rate at 0.05. At the point where p\>0.05, no further comparisons were interpreted inferentially.||0.155|0.030|0.0037
90841172|NCT01285323|181548411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.209|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.937||0.0259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.025|0.393||Statistical significance at \<=0.05.|Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|Fixed Factors: treatment, visit, trt by visit interaction, region, OCS at enrollment, sex. Random: covariates for height, baseline value and patient|active - placebo|A pre-specified fixed sequence multiple testing procedure was implemented to test the secondary endpoints while controlling the overall Type I error rate at 0.05. At the point where p\>0.05, no further comparisons were interpreted inferentially.||0.393|0.025|0.0259
90841173|NCT01285323|181548412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.196|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0664||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.327|-0.066||Statistical significance at \<=0.05.|Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|Fixed Factors: treatment, visit, trt by visit interaction, region, OCS at enrollment, sex. Random: covariates for height, baseline value and patient|active - placebo|A pre-specified fixed sequence multiple testing procedure was implemented to test the secondary endpoints while controlling the overall Type I error rate at 0.05. At the point where p\>0.05, no further comparisons were interpreted inferentially.||-0.066|-0.327|0.0032
90897469|NCT01216163|181660529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-47.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.62|-32.83||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-32.83|-62.62|<0.001
90957329|NCT01383499|181794475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.034|0.057|||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|||Tio R5 minus Tio R1.25||0.057|-0.034|
90957330|NCT01383499|181794475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.017|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.063|0.028|||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|||Tio R5 minus Tio R2.5||0.028|-0.063|
90841174|NCT01285323|181548413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.486|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.353|0.67|||Regression, Cox|Stratified by baseline usage of oral corticosteroid (yes or no) and geographical region (US or other).|Reslizumab vs placebo|Kaplan-Meier estimate of probability (5) of not experiencing a CAE by week 52. The first CAEs for each patient occurring after randomization and up to 2 weeks after the end of treatment period were analyzed. Patients without a CAE within this time frame were censored at two weeks after the treatment completion date or study discontinuation, whichever came first.||0.670|0.353|<0.0001
90897470|NCT01216163|181660530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-1.21||||0.294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.59|1.17||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.25 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||1.17|-3.59|0.294
90897471|NCT01216163|181660530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|1.21||||0.458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|3.58||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.25 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||3.58|-1.16|0.458
90897472|NCT01216163|181660530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|6.81||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|12.06||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||12.06|1.57|0.073
90897473|NCT01216163|181660530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|1.96||||0.583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.94|8.85||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||8.85|-4.94|0.583
90897474|NCT01216163|181660530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|4.81||||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|9.49||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||9.49|0.14|0.137
90897475|NCT01216163|181660530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|23.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.81|32.91||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||32.91|14.81|<0.001
90897476|NCT01216163|181660530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|8.45||||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.43|20.33||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||20.33|-3.43|0.165
90897477|NCT01216163|181660530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|15.46||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.66|23.26||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||23.26|7.66|0.006
91028786|NCT02275364|181941322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|191.72||||0.1639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.62|462.06||Obtained from ANOVA model with Treatment and Period as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.|ANCOVA||Adjusted Mean Difference is the Treatment difference defined as the Adjusted Mean of Test Nasal Strip minus Adjusted Mean of Placebo Strip.|||462.06|-78.62|0.1639
90897478|NCT01216163|181660530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|29.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.78|39.05||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||39.05|19.78|<0.001
90957331|NCT01383499|181794475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.029|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.016|0.074|||Mixed models repeated measures (MMRM)|||Tio R2.5 minus Tio R1.25||0.074|-0.016|
91028787|NCT02275364|181941323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.02||||0.4621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.07||Obtained from ANOVA with treatment, period and region of interest as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.|ANOVA||Adjusted Mean Difference is the Treatment difference defined as the Adjusted Mean of Test Nasal Strip minus Adjusted Mean of Placebo Strip.|||0.07|-0.03|0.4621
91028788|NCT01463683|181941333|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Incidence of seroprotection with V232-2XP SC is non-inferior to V232-1XP SC if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval of the difference is greater than -10%|Difference in percentage of participants|7.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|13.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||13.6|1.9|
91028789|NCT01463683|181941334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|4.9||||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|11.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||11.9|-2.0|0.162
91028790|NCT01463683|181941334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|11.0||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|21.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||21.6|1.1|0.028
91028791|NCT01463683|181941334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|6.0||||0.246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|16.8|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||16.8|-4.0|0.246
91028792|NCT01463683|181941335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|-0.7||||0.659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|2.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||2.4|-3.8|0.659
91028793|NCT01463683|181941335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|-1.6||||0.459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|2.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||2.2|-7.7|0.459
91028794|NCT01463683|181941335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|-0.9||||0.686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|3.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||3.0|-7.1|0.686
90897479|NCT01216163|181660530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|4.61||||0.497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.78|17.99||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||17.99|-8.78|0.497
90897480|NCT01216163|181660530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|25.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.81|34.46||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||34.46|15.81|<0.001
90897481|NCT01216163|181660530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|31.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.03|43.53||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||43.53|20.03|<0.001
90897482|NCT01216163|181660530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|6.7||||0.349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.38|20.79||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||20.79|-7.38|0.349
90897483|NCT01216163|181660530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|25.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.73|36.94||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||36.94|13.73|<0.001
90897484|NCT01216163|181660530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|37.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.47|49.81||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||49.81|25.47|<0.001
90897485|NCT01216163|181660530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|8.85||||0.233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.72|23.42||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||23.42|-5.72|0.233
90897486|NCT01216163|181660530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|28.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.17|40.75||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||40.75|17.17|<0.001
91092756|NCT03675308|182069519|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|-0.14||All primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment via a fixed sequence testing procedure to control the family-wise type I error rate at α=0.05 (two- sided).|Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM analysis including treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and stratification factors as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||-0.14|-0.26|<0.001
90897487|NCT01216163|181660530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|38.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.87|51.6||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||51.60|25.87|<0.001
90897488|NCT01216163|181660530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|9.83||||0.189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|24.45||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||24.45|-4.80|0.189
90897489|NCT01216163|181660530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|29.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.71|41.66||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||41.66|16.71|<0.001
90897490|NCT01216163|181660530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|36.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.22|49.88||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||49.88|23.22|<0.001
90897491|NCT01216163|181660530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|9.83||||0.189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|24.45||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||24.45|-4.80|0.189
90897492|NCT01216163|181660530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|26.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.0|39.94||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||39.94|14.00|<0.001
91092757|NCT03675308|182069520|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|42.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.6|49.3||All primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment via a fixed sequence testing procedure to control the family-wise type I error rate at α=0.05 (two- sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test adjusted for the stratification factors of current csDMARD use, presence of dactylitis, enthesitis and extent of psoriasis at Baseline.|Response Rate Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||49.3|35.6|<0.001
90841175|NCT01285323|181548414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.035|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.011|0.059||Statistical significance at \<=0.05.|Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|Fixed Factors: treatment, visit, trt by visit interaction, region, OCS at enrollment, sex. Random: covariates for height, baseline value and patient|active - placebo|A pre-specified fixed sequence multiple testing procedure was implemented to test the secondary endpoints while controlling the overall Type I error rate at 0.05. At the point where p\>0.05, no further comparisons were interpreted inferentially.||0.059|0.011|0.0037
90841176|NCT01285323|181548415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.062|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1775||0.7263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.411|0.287||Statistical significance at \<=0.05.|Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|Fixed Factors: treatment, visit, trt by visit interaction, region, OCS at enrollment, sex. Random: covariates for height, baseline value and patient|active - placebo|A pre-specified fixed sequence multiple testing procedure was implemented to test the secondary endpoints while controlling the overall Type I error rate at 0.05. At the point where p\>0.05, no further comparisons were interpreted inferentially.||0.287|-0.411|0.7263
90841177|NCT01285323|181548418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||CAE rate ratio (reslizumab vs placebo)|0.3893|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2621|0.5782||The treatment effect was tested using the likelihood based Chi-square test at the 0.05 significance level.|Chi-squared|||CAE Due to Requiring Systemic Corticosteroids The frequency of CAEs was analyzed using the generalized linear model (GLM) for data from the negative binomial distributions that is commonly referred to as the negative binomial (NB) regression model. The primary NB model included the treatment group and randomization stratification factors as model factors and the logarithm of follow up time excluding the summed duration of exacerbations in the treatment period as an offset variable.||0.5782|0.2621|<0.0001
90841178|NCT01285323|181548418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||CAE rate ratio|0.6686||||0.402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2878|1.6479||The treatment effect was tested using the likelihood based Chi-square test at the 0.05 significance level.|Chi-squared|||CAE Due to Hospitalization or ER visit The frequency of CAEs was analyzed using the generalized linear model (GLM) for data from the negative binomial distributions that is commonly referred to as the negative binomial (NB) regression model. The primary NB model included the treatment group and randomization stratification factors as model factors and the logarithm of follow up time excluding the summed duration of exacerbations in the treatment period as an offset variable.||1.6479|0.2878|0.4020
90841179|NCT02606643|181548422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.814|||||||Chi-squared|||an alpha level of .05, and a level of power of 80%. These parameters required a sample size of 63 patients per group||||0.814
90841180|NCT02158546|181548430|SUPERIORITY||Least square means difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.6|-2.1|0.782
90841181|NCT03418714|181548435|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T test on the change in network activity across all networks, from before to after salvinorin A administration.||||.006
90841182|NCT03418714|181548436|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T test on the change in within- and between-network connectivity across all values, from before to after salvinorin A administration.||||.001
91032684|NCT01214850|181950300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.555|1.273|||Regression, Logistic|||Vaccine Group Odds Ratios for carriage of combined N. meningitidis serogroups A, C, W, Y in the MenACWY-CRM group compared to Control group at 1 month after receiving 1 injection of MenACWY vaccine||1.273|0.555|
90841183|NCT03060096|181548449|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.29
90841184|NCT03060096|181548450|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.8
90841185|NCT03060096|181548451|OTHER||Rate|0.764|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.6783||||||||||0.6783|
90841186|NCT01055197|181548476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.44||||0.2103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|2.53|||Log Rank|||The null hypothesis (H0) was that PCI + RT is not effective versus the alternative hypothesis (H1) that PCI + RT is effective. Assumptions were that PCI alone would have hazard rate λc of 1.204 and PCI + RT a hazard rate λc of 0.799 (hazard ratio λt/λc = 0.663). At each planned analysis, the p-value from the log-rank test statistic assessing overall survival was compared to the nominal significance level. The final targeted accrual was 154.||2.53|0.82|0.2103
90841187|NCT01055197|181548477|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||Fisher Exact|2-sided significance level of 0.05||||||0.24
90841188|NCT01055197|181548479|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0102|||||||Log Rank|2-sided significance level of 0.05||||||0.0102
90841189|NCT02504151|181548493|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.284|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.01||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28|1.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models was used with treatment, time and time\*treatment interaction in the model.|This is the estimated difference between treatment groups (cbd - placebo).|The p value is based on the interaction of treatment and time.||1.71|-2.28|0.08
90841190|NCT02504151|181548494|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis||This is the estimated difference between treatment groups (cbd - placebo).|The p value is based on the interaction of treatment and time.||0.07|-0.12|0.48
90897493|NCT01216163|181660530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|37.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.36|51.07||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||51.07|24.36|<0.001
91032685|NCT03221374|181950346|OTHER|Linear mixed effect model to test the overall BCI learning between MBSR and control groups||||||0.003||||||The threshold for statistical analysis was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.003
91032686|NCT03221374|181950346|EQUIVALENCE|This independent t-test will test if the two groups (MBSR, control) exhibit a statistically significant difference in terms of BCI performance from baseline.|Mean Difference (Net)|8.98||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical analysis was p = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided||The difference between BCI performance improvement in MBSR cohort and control cohort.|||||0.024
91092758|NCT03675308|182069521|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|23.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.8|29.4||All primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment via a fixed sequence testing procedure to control the family-wise type I error rate at α=0.05 (two- sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test adjusted for the stratification factors of current csDMARD use, presence of dactylitis, enthesitis and extent of psoriasis at Baseline.|Response Rate Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||29.4|16.8|<0.001
91092759|NCT03675308|182069522|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|14.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.2|19.4||All primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment via a fixed sequence testing procedure to control the family-wise type I error rate at α=0.05 (two- sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test adjusted for the stratification factors of current csDMARD use, presence of dactylitis, enthesitis and extent of psoriasis at Baseline.|Response Rate Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||19.4|10.2|<0.001
90841191|NCT02504151|181548495|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.47||0.485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.87|-0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis||This is the estimated difference between treatment groups (cbd - placebo).|The p value is based on the interaction of treatment and time.||-0.06|-9.87|0.485
91092760|NCT03675308|182069523|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|-2.68||All primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment via a fixed sequence testing procedure to control the family-wise type I error rate at α=0.05 (two- sided).|Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM analysis including treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and stratification factors as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||-2.68|-5.70|<0.001
91092761|NCT03675308|182069524|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.3||All primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment via a fixed sequence testing procedure to control the family-wise type I error rate at α=0.05 (two- sided).|Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM analysis including treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and stratification factors as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||-0.3|-0.6|<0.001
91092762|NCT03675308|182069525|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|13.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.6|20.2||All primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment via a fixed sequence testing procedure to control the family-wise type I error rate at α=0.05 (two- sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test adjusted for the stratification factors of current csDMARD use and extent of psoriasis at Baseline and study.|Response Rate Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|The pre-specified analysis for the resolution of enthesitis included pooled data from KEEPsAKE 1 (this study) and KEEPsAKE 2 (M15-998; NCT03671148).||20.2|7.6|<0.001
91092763|NCT03675308|182069526|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|16.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.5|26.4||All primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment via a fixed sequence testing procedure to control the family-wise type I error rate at α=0.05 (two- sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test adjusted for the stratification factors of current csDMARD use, extent of psoriasis at Baseline, and study.|Response Rate Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|The pre-specified analysis for the resolution of dactylitis included pooled data from KEEPsAKE 1 (this study) and KEEPsAKE 2 (M15-998; NCT03671148).||26.4|7.5|<0.001
91092764|NCT03675308|182069527|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.09||||0.496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.17||All primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment via a fixed sequence testing procedure to control the family-wise type I error rate at α=0.05 (two- sided).|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including treatment and the stratification factors and baseline value as covariates.|Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||0.17|-0.36|0.496
91092765|NCT03675308|182069528|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.42|4.22||This comparison was not tested for statistical significance because the hierarchical testing procedures stopped at the change from Baseline in PsA-mTSS comparison.|Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM analysis including treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and stratification factors as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||4.22|2.42|<0.001
91092766|NCT03675308|182069529|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|3.7||This comparison was not tested for statistical significance because the hierarchical testing procedures stopped at the change from Baseline in PsA-mTSS comparison.|Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM analysis including treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and stratification factors as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||3.7|1.5|<0.001
91092767|NCT03675308|182069530|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|22.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.3|27.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test adjusted for the stratification factors of current csDMARD use, presence of dactylitis, enthesitis and extent of psoriasis at Baseline.|Response Rate Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||27.2|17.3|<0.001
90841192|NCT02504151|181548496|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.05||0.994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|8.19|||Mixed Models Analysis||This is the estimated difference between treatment groups (cbd - placebo).|The p value is based on the interaction of treatment and time.||8.19|0.07|0.994
90841193|NCT00538902|181548497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.19||||0.026||95.0|1.09|4.39||Each comparison was tested at the 2-sided alpha level of 0.05. Subjects with missing data were imputed to be non-responders. The overall type I error rate was preserved by a hierarchical stepwise closed testing procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A sample size of 42 subjects in the placebo group and 84 subjects in each of the adalimumab groups was needed to achieve 98% power to detect that the ACR20 response rate in the 80 mg adalimumab group was different from placebo and to achieve 84% power to detect that the 40 mg adalimumab group was different from placebo.||4.39|1.09|0.026
90841194|NCT00538902|181548497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.68||||0.004||95.0|1.35|5.3||Each comparison was tested at the 2-sided alpha level of 0.05. Subjects with missing data were imputed to be non-responders. The overall type I error rate was preserved by a hierarchical stepwise closed testing procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A sample size of 42 subjects in the placebo group and 84 subjects in each of the adalimumab groups was needed to achieve 98% power to detect that the ACR20 response rate in the 80 mg adalimumab group was different from placebo and to achieve 84% power to detect that the 40 mg adalimumab group was different from placebo.||5.30|1.35|0.004
91092768|NCT03675308|182069531|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|10.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|14.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test adjusted for the stratification factors of current csDMARD use, presence of dactylitis, enthesitis and extent of psoriasis at Baseline.|Response Rate Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||14.2|6.9|<0.001
91092769|NCT04817189|182069543|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|2.49|||generalized linear model||||"The model-based statistics were used to calculate the difference in the probability to experience a per cycle complete response between the treatment arms."|2.49|1.12|<0.05
91092770|NCT04817189|182069545|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.17|||generalized linear model||Reference category is set to Sleep ≥ 7 h, compared to Sleep \< 7 h.|"The hypothesis states that the potential risk factor of \< 7 h of sleep the night before chemotherapy increases the risk of CINV, defined as any occurrence of nausea or a vomiting episode.~This potential risk factor was included in the generalized linear model as covariate, and its effect was evaluated using odds ratios."||1.17|0.68|0.412
90841195|NCT00538902|181548498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||||||The between-treatment comparison between each adalimumab group vs. placebo was performed at the 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level, without using a stepwise testing procedure or alpha adjustment.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Percentage ACR responders at Week 12 were compared between adalimumab and placebo groups, where missing ACR responses were imputed as non-responder.||||||0.009
90841196|NCT00538902|181548498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.121|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.121
90897494|NCT01216163|181660530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|10.97||||0.144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.67|25.61||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||25.61|-3.67|0.144
90897495|NCT01216163|181660530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|26.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.0|39.94||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||39.94|14.00|<0.001
91092771|NCT04817189|182069545|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.8|||generalized linear model||Reference category is set to Without history, compared to With history.|"The hypothesis states that the potential risk factor of History of any nausea and vomiting such as motion sickness, vestibular dysfunction, … increases the risk of CINV, defined as any occurrence of nausea or a vomiting episode.~This potential risk factor was included in the generalized linear model as covariate, and its effect was evaluated using odds ratios."||1.80|0.71|0.592
90957332|NCT00477334|181794496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.26||||0.4161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.98|||Hodges-Lehman Shift Model||Difference in time to healing= time to healing for Famciclovir-time to healing for Placebo. Hodges-Lehman shift model is used to estimate the difference in treatment effect. P-value is from the Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Participants who discontinued from the study before healing of non-aborted lesions was confirmed and participants who completed the study 21 days since treatment initiation without non-aborted lesion stages and without a final assessment on aborted lesion status are imputed according to the distribution of the time to healing among the subjects in the placebo group whose time to healing is greater than or equal to the observed discontinuation time. (Censor time)||0.98|-0.40|0.4161
90958937|NCT00069108|181797875|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|While the study was not designed to demonstrate non-inferiority in PFS based on IRC assessments the pre-specified margin (1.30) was compared with the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the hazard ratio (HR, XELOX vs FOLFOX-4) in the population.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.00223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.17|||Chi-squared||The pre-specified non-inferiority margin (1.30) was compared with the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the hazard ratio (HR, XELOX vs FOLFOX-4) in the population|||1.17|0.74|0.00223
91092772|NCT04817189|182069545|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.65|||generalized linear model||Reference category is set to No anticipatory, compared to Anticipatory.|"The hypothesis states that the potential risk factor of Anticipatory nausea and/or vomiting increases the risk of CINV, defined as any occurrence of nausea or a vomiting episode.~This potential risk factor was included in the generalized linear model as covariate, and its effect was evaluated using odds ratios."||1.65|0.80|0.458
90897496|NCT01216163|181660531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|0.96||P-value was calculated using CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and the associated CI were calculated based on the weighted Gamma statistic.||0.96|0.78|<0.001
90841197|NCT02148874|181548520|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.73|||Regression, Logistic|Cumulative logistic regression model|Cumulative logistic regression model, OR for obese vs. non-obese. Model adjusted for mother's age, parity, gestational age at vaccination, vaccination season, and prior year vaccination (Y/N).|Statistical analysis for influenza strain A/H1N1.||1.73|0.64|0.84
90841198|NCT02148874|181548520|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.75|||Regression, Logistic|Cumulative logistic regression model|Cumulative logistic regression model, OR for obese vs. non-obese. Model adjusted for mother's age, parity, gestational age at vaccination, vaccination season, and prior year vaccination (Y/N).|Statistical analysis for influenza strain A/H3N2||1.75|0.65|0.79
90841199|NCT02148874|181548520|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.24|||Regression, Logistic|Cumulative logistic regression model|Cumulative logistic regression model, OR for obese vs. non-obese. Model adjusted for mother's age, parity, gestational age at vaccination, vaccination season, and prior year vaccination (Y/ N).|Statistical analysis for influenza strain B/Massachusetts||2.24|0.71|0.43
90841200|NCT02148874|181548520|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.87|||Regression, Logistic||Cumulative logistic regression model, OR for obese vs. non-obese. Model adjusted for mother's age, parity, gestational age at vaccination, vaccination season, and prior year vaccination (Y/ N).|Statistical analysis for influenza strain B/Brisbane||1.87|0.63|0.77
91092773|NCT04817189|182069545|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.56|||generalized linear model||Reference category is set to No anxiety, compared to Anxiety.|"The hypothesis states that the potential risk factor of Anxiety over the past 24hrs increases the risk of CINV, defined as any occurrence of nausea or a vomiting episode.~This potential risk factor was included in the generalized linear model as covariate, and its effect was evaluated using odds ratios."||1.56|0.75|0.663
90841201|NCT02148874|181548521|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.32|||Regression, Logistic|Cumulative logistic regression model|Cumulative logistic regression model, OR for obese vs. non-obese. Model adjusted for mother's age, parity, gestational age at vaccination, vaccination season, and prior year vaccination (Y/N).|Statistical analysis for influenza strain A/H1N1||2.32|0.84|0.20
90841202|NCT02148874|181548521|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.8|||Regression, Logistic|Cumulative logistic regression model|Cumulative logistic regression model, OR for obese vs. non-obese. Model adjusted for mother's age, parity, gestational age at vaccination, vaccination season, and prior year vaccination (Y/N).|Statistical analysis for influenza strain A/H3N2||1.80|0.66|0.74
90841203|NCT02148874|181548521|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.89||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|3.44|||Regression, Logistic|Cumulative logistic regression model|Cumulative logistic regression model, OR for obese vs. non-obese. Model adjusted for mother's age, parity, gestational age at vaccination, vaccination season, and prior year vaccination (Y/N).|Statistical analysis for influenza strain B/Massachusetts||3.44|1.04|0.04
90841204|NCT02148874|181548521|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|3.04|||Regression, Logistic|Cumulative logistic regression model|Cumulative logistic regression model, OR for obese vs. non-obese. Model adjusted for mother's age, parity, gestational age at vaccination, vaccination season, and prior year vaccination (Y/N).|Statistical analysis for influenza strain B/Brisbane||3.04|0.87|0.13
90841205|NCT02148874|181548522|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.48|||Regression, Logistic|Cumulative logistic regression model|Cumulative logistic regression model, OR for obese vs. non-obese. Model adjusted for mother's age, parity, gestational age at vaccination, vaccination season, and prior year vaccination (Y/N).|Statistical analysis for influenza strain A/H1N1||1.48|0.53|0.64
90841206|NCT02148874|181548522|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.5|||Regression, Logistic|Cumulative logistic regression model|Cumulative logistic regression model, OR for obese vs. non-obese. Model adjusted for mother's age, parity, gestational age at vaccination, vaccination season, and prior year vaccination (Y/N).|Statistical analysis for influenza strain A/H3N2||1.50|0.53|0.67
90841207|NCT02148874|181548522|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.46|||Regression, Logistic|Cumulative logistic regression model|Cumulative logistic regression model, OR for obese vs. non-obese. Model adjusted for mother's age, parity, gestational age at vaccination, vaccination season, and prior year vaccination (Y/N).|Statistical analysis for influenza strain B/Massachusetts||2.46|0.88|0.14
90841208|NCT02148874|181548522|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.24|||Regression, Logistic|Cumulative logistic regression model|Cumulative logistic regression model, OR for obese vs. non-obese. Model adjusted for mother's age, parity, gestational age at vaccination, vaccination season, and prior year vaccination (Y/N).|Statistical analysis for influenza strain B/Brisbane||1.24|0.44|0.25
90841209|NCT01782378|181548523|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||without adjustment for multiple comparisons Mixed effects model with the assumption that 'subject factor' was a random effect. p-value threshold of p\<.10|ANOVA|Adjusted for baseline scores; co-variate adjustments did not affect any of the results||||||<0.01
91092774|NCT04817189|182069545|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.68|||generalized linear model||Reference category is set to \< 10 units per week, compared to \>= 10 units per week.|"The hypothesis states that the potential risk factor of Alcohol intake (\>= 10 units per week vs \< 10 units per week) increases the risk of CINV, defined as any occurrence of nausea or a vomiting episode.~This potential risk factor was included in the generalized linear model as covariate, and its effect was evaluated using odds ratio."||1.68|0.46|0.691
91092775|NCT04817189|182069545|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|2.14|||generalized linear model||Reference category is set to Male, compared to Female.|"The hypothesis states that the potential risk factor of Gender increases the risk of CINV, defined as any occurrence of nausea or a vomiting episode.~This potential risk factor was included in the generalized linear model as covariate, and its effect was evaluated using odds ratios."||2.14|1.02|0.037
90841210|NCT01782378|181548524|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88||0.88|TWO_SIDED|||||without adjustment for multiple comparisons Mixed effects model with the assumption that 'subject factor' was a random effect. p-value threshold of p\<.10|ANOVA|Adjusted for baseline scores; co-variate adjustments did not affect any of the results.||||||0.88
90841211|NCT01782378|181548525|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.81|TWO_SIDED|||||without adjustment for multiple comparisons Mixed effects model with the assumption that 'subject factor' was a random effect. p-value threshold of p\<.10|ANOVA|Adjusted for baseline scores; co-variate adjustments did not affect any of the results.||||||0.81
90841212|NCT01782378|181548526|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.88||0.23|TWO_SIDED|||||without adjustment for multiple comparisons Mixed effects model with the assumption that 'subject factor' was a random effect. p-value threshold of p\<.10|ANOVA|Adjusted for baseline scores; co-variate adjustments did not affect any of the results||||||0.23
90841213|NCT01782378|181548527|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.08|<|0.12|TWO_SIDED|||||without adjustment for multiple comparisons Mixed effects model with the assumption that 'subject factor' was a random effect. p-value threshold of p\<.10|ANOVA|Adjusted for baseline scores; co-variate adjustments did not affect any of the results.||||||<0.12
90958938|NCT00069108|181797876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.37||||||||1.37|0.91|
90958939|NCT00069108|181797877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.47||||||||1.47|0.95|
91032687|NCT03221374|181950347|EQUIVALENCE|This WRS test will determine if the MBSR group breath counting accuracy was significantly greater than the postintervention levels of controls.|Mean Difference (Net)|15.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical analysis was p = 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90841214|NCT01782378|181548528|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.93|<|0.52|TWO_SIDED|||||without adjustment for multiple comparisons Mixed effects model with the assumption that 'subject factor' was a random effect. p-value threshold of p\<.10|ANOVA|Adjusted for baseline scores; co-variate adjustments did not affect any of the results.||||||<0.52
90841215|NCT01782378|181548529|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.51|<|0.27|TWO_SIDED|||||without adjustment for multiple comparisons Mixed effects model with the assumption that 'subject factor' was a random effect. p-value threshold of p\<.10|ANOVA|Adjusted for baseline scores; co-variate adjustments did not affect any of the results.||||||<0.27
90841216|NCT01782378|181548530|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26|<|0.37|TWO_SIDED|||||without adjustment for multiple comparisons Mixed effects model with the assumption that 'subject factor' was a random effect. p-value threshold of p\<.10|ANOVA|Adjusted for baseline scores; co-variate adjustments did not affect any of the results.||||||<0.37
90841217|NCT01782378|181548531|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78|<|0.36|TWO_SIDED|||||without adjustment for multiple comparisons Mixed effects model with the assumption that 'subject factor' was a random effect. p-value threshold of p\<.10|ANOVA|Adjusted for baseline scores; co-variate adjustments did not affect any of the results.||||||<0.36
90841218|NCT01782378|181548532|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68|<|0.46|TWO_SIDED|||||without adjustment for multiple comparisons Mixed effects model with the assumption that 'subject factor' was a random effect. p-value threshold of p\<.10|ANOVA|Adjusted for baseline scores; co-variate adjustments did not affect any of the results||||||<0.46
90841219|NCT01782378|181548533|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83|<|0.84|TWO_SIDED|||||without adjustment for multiple comparisons Mixed effects model with the assumption that 'subject factor' was a random effect. p-value threshold of p\<.10|ANOVA|Adjusted for baseline scores; co-variate adjustments did not affect any of the results.||||||<0.84
90841220|NCT01782378|181548534|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75|<|0.93|TWO_SIDED|||||without adjustment for multiple comparisons Mixed effects model with the assumption that 'subject factor' was a random effect. p-value threshold of p\<.10|ANOVA|Adjusted for baseline scores; co-variate adjustments did not affect any of the results.||||||<0.93
90841221|NCT01782378|181548535|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.02|<|0.85|TWO_SIDED|||||without adjustment for multiple comparisons Mixed effects model with the assumption that 'subject factor' was a random effect. p-value threshold of p\<.10|ANOVA|Adjusted for baseline scores; co-variate adjustments did not affect any of the results.||||||<0.85
90841222|NCT01782378|181548536|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for baseline scores; co-variate adjustments did not affect any of the results.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.54|<|0.26|TWO_SIDED|||||without adjustment for multiple comparisons Mixed effects model with the assumption that 'subject factor' was a random effect. p-value threshold of p\<.10|ANOVA|Adjusted for baseline scores; co-variate adjustments did not affect any of the results that were considered credible.||||||<0.26
90841223|NCT01782378|181548537|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7|<|0.45|TWO_SIDED|||||without adjustment for multiple comparisons Mixed effects model with the assumption that 'subject factor' was a random effect. p-value threshold of p\<.10|ANOVA|Adjusted for baseline scores; co-variate adjustments did not affect any of the results.||||||<0.45
90841224|NCT01782378|181548538|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18|<|0.46|TWO_SIDED|||||without adjustment for multiple comparisons Mixed effects model with the assumption that 'subject factor' was a random effect. p-value threshold of p\<.10|ANOVA|Adjusted for baseline scores; co-variate adjustments did not affect any of the results.||||||<0.46
90841225|NCT01782378|181548539|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.44|<|0.64|TWO_SIDED|||||without adjustment for multiple comparisons Mixed effects model with the assumption that 'subject factor' was a random effect. p-value threshold of p\<.10|ANOVA|Adjusted for baseline scores; co-variate adjustments did not affect any of the results.||||||<0.64
90841226|NCT01782378|181548540|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63|<|0.82|TWO_SIDED|||||without adjustment for multiple comparisons Mixed effects model with the assumption that 'subject factor' was a random effect. p-value threshold of p\<.10|ANOVA|Adjusted for baseline scores; co-variate adjustments did not affect any of the results||||||<0.82
90841227|NCT01782378|181548541|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.53|<|0.43|TWO_SIDED|||||without adjustment for multiple comparisons Mixed effects model with the assumption that 'subject factor' was a random effect. p-value threshold of p\<.10|ANOVA|Adjusted for baseline scores; co-variate adjustments did not affect any of the results||||||<0.43
90958940|NCT00069108|181797878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.4028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.77||p-value is for difference between response rates.|Chi-squared|||||1.77|0.79|0.4028
91032688|NCT03221374|181950348|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is that the FMI scores of the two groups have equal medians.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.9|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||significant if p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
91032689|NCT03221374|181950348|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is that the MAAS scores of the two groups have equal medians.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.69|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91032690|NCT03221374|181950348|OTHER|This statistical test is about the correlation between baseline up-down BCI performance and the FMI score. A linear regression model is used to test if the slope is non-zero.|correlation coefficient|0.42|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||significant if p\<0.05|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
91032691|NCT03221374|181950348|OTHER|This statistical test is about the correlation between baseline up-down BCI performance and the MAAS score. A linear regression model is used to test if the slope is non-zero.|correlation coefficient|0.41|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
90841228|NCT01782378|181548542|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62|<|0.15|TWO_SIDED|||||without adjustment for multiple comparisons Mixed effects model with the assumption that 'subject factor' was a random effect. p-value threshold of p\<.10|ANOVA|Adjusted for baseline scores; co-variate adjustments did not affect any of the results||||||<0.15
90841229|NCT01782378|181548543|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86||0.08|TWO_SIDED|||||without adjustment for multiple comparisons Mixed effects model with the assumption that 'subject factor' was a random effect. p-value threshold of p\<.10|ANOVA|Adjusted for baseline scores; co-variate adjustments did not affect any of the results||||||.08
90841230|NCT01782378|181548544|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83|<|0.7|TWO_SIDED|||||without adjustment for multiple comparisons Mixed effects model with the assumption that 'subject factor' was a random effect. p-value threshold of p\<.10|ANOVA|Adjusted for baseline scores; co-variate adjustments did not affect any of the results.||||||<0.7
90841231|NCT01782378|181548545|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|<|0.48|TWO_SIDED|||||without adjustment for multiple comparisons Mixed effects model with the assumption that 'subject factor' was a random effect. p-value threshold of p\<.10|ANOVA|Adjusted for baseline scores; co-variate adjustments did not affect any of the results||||||<0.48
90841232|NCT01782378|181548546|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||without adjustment for multiple comparisons Mixed effects model with the assumption that 'subject factor' was a random effect. p-value threshold of p\<.10|ANOVA|Adjusted for baseline scores; co-variate adjustments did not affect any of the results.||||||<0.02
90841233|NCT01782378|181548547|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.174|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.36|TWO_SIDED|||||without adjustment for multiple comparisons Mixed effects model with the assumption that 'subject factor' was a random effect. p-value threshold of p\<.10|ANOVA|Adjusted for baseline scores; co-variate adjustments did not affect any of the results.||||||<0.36
90841234|NCT01782378|181548548|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88|<|0.82|TWO_SIDED|||||without adjustment for multiple comparisons Mixed effects model with the assumption that 'subject factor' was a random effect. p-value threshold of p\<.10|ANOVA|Adjusted for baseline scores; co-variate adjustments did not affect any of the results.||||||<0.82
90841235|NCT01782378|181548549|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84|<|0.2|TWO_SIDED|||||without adjustment for multiple comparisons Mixed effects model with the assumption that 'subject factor' was a random effect. p-value threshold of p\<.10|ANOVA|Adjusted for baseline scores; co-variate adjustments did not affect any of the results.||||||<0.2
90841236|NCT01782378|181548550|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86|<|0.71|TWO_SIDED|||||without adjustment for multiple comparisons Mixed effects model with the assumption that 'subject factor' was a random effect. p-value threshold of p\<.10|ANOVA|Adjusted for baseline scores; co-variate adjustments did not affect any of the results||||||<0.71
90841237|NCT01782378|181548551|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73|<|0.85|TWO_SIDED|||||without adjustment for multiple comparisons Mixed effects model with the assumption that 'subject factor' was a random effect. p-value threshold of p\<.10|ANOVA|Adjusted for baseline scores; co-variate adjustments did not affect any of the results.||||||<0.85
90841238|NCT01782378|181548552|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94|<|0.44|TWO_SIDED|||||without adjustment for multiple comparisons Mixed effects model with the assumption that 'subject factor' was a random effect. p-value threshold of p\<.10|ANOVA|Adjusted for baseline scores; co-variate adjustments did not affect any of the results.||||||<0.44
90841239|NCT00705016|181548553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.59||The Type I error was not taken into account, since the sample size calculation is based on selection theory.|Cox proportional hazards model|Stratification factor: Karnofsky performance status (KPS) \<80/\>=80||Sample size of 177 subjects was estimated such that the treatment group with the best PFS result had a 90% probability of emerging as the one with the smaller observed log Hazard ratio (HR), if there was an underlying difference of 2.2 months between the arms in the median PFS (7.8 months in the best group and 5.6 months in the other 2 groups). It was assumed that the accrual and follow-up time would take 1 year each, and that the drop-out rate was 8%.||1.59|0.67|0.885
90841240|NCT00705016|181548553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.55||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|2.43||The Type I error was not taken into account, since the sample size calculation is based on selection theory.|Cox proportional hazards model|Stratification factor: Karnofsky performance status (KPS) \<80/\>=80||Sample size of 177 subjects was estimated such that the treatment group with the best PFS result had a 90% probability of emerging as the one with the smaller observed log HR, if there was an underlying difference of 2.2 months between the arms in the median PFS (7.8 months in the best group and 5.6 months in the other 2 groups). It was assumed that the accrual and follow-up time would take 1 year each, and that the drop-out rate was 8%.||2.43|0.99|0.054
90841241|NCT00705016|181548554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.47||Secondary analyses of efficacy were performed to support the results of the primary analysis and considered as purely exploratory and no adjustment for multiplicity has been done.|Cox proportional hazards model|||||1.47|0.61|0.800
90841242|NCT00705016|181548554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.63|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||1.63|0.66|0.878
91092776|NCT04817189|182069545|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.42|||generalized linear model||Reference category is set to No fatigue experience, compared to Fatigue experience.|"The hypothesis states that the potential risk factor of Fatigue experience (symptom) increases the risk of CINV, defined as any occurrence of nausea or a vomiting episode.~This potential risk factor was included in the generalized linear model as covariate, and its effect was evaluated using odds ratios."||1.42|0.84|0.514
90841243|NCT00705016|181548555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.595||||0.205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.776|3.276||Secondary analyses of efficacy were performed to support the results of the primary analysis and considered as purely exploratory and no adjustment for multiplicity has been done.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.276|0.776|0.205
90841244|NCT00705016|181548555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.671||||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.307|1.465||Secondary analyses of efficacy were performed to support the results of the primary analysis and considered as purely exploratory and no adjustment for multiplicity has been done.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.465|0.307|0.317
90841245|NCT00705016|181548556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.396||||0.476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.551|3.539||Secondary analyses of efficacy were performed to support the results of the primary analysis and considered as purely exploratory and no adjustment for multiplicity has been done.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.539|0.551|0.476
90841246|NCT00705016|181548556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.668||||0.347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.287|1.555||Secondary analyses of efficacy were performed to support the results of the primary analysis and considered as purely exploratory and no adjustment for multiplicity has been done.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.555|0.287|0.347
90841247|NCT00705016|181548557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.23||||0.294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.81||Secondary analyses of efficacy were performed to support the results of the primary analysis and considered as purely exploratory and no adjustment for multiplicity has been done.|Cox proportional hazards model|||||1.81|0.84|0.294
90841248|NCT00705016|181548557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.73||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|2.57||Secondary analyses of efficacy were performed to support the results of the primary analysis and considered as purely exploratory and no adjustment for multiplicity has been done.|Cox proportional hazards model|||||2.57|1.16|0.007
90841249|NCT00705016|181548558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3||||0.391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.39||Secondary analyses of efficacy were performed to support the results of the primary analysis and considered as purely exploratory and no adjustment for multiplicity has been done.|Cox proportional hazards model|||||2.39|0.71|0.391
90841250|NCT00705016|181548558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.6||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|5.21||Secondary analyses of efficacy were performed to support the results of the primary analysis and considered as purely exploratory and no adjustment for multiplicity has been done.|Cox proportional hazards model|||||5.21|1.30|0.007
90841251|NCT02233517|181548560|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.84|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Baseline to post-treatment. The reference condition is the present centered therapy arm.|||||0.84
90841252|NCT02233517|181548560|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52|<|0.44|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Baseline to 3 months post-treatment. The reference condition is the present centered therapy arm.|||||<0.44
90841253|NCT02233517|181548560|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.33|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Baseline to 6 months post-treatment. The reference condition is the present centered therapy arm.|||||0.33
90841254|NCT02233517|181548561|SUPERIORITY|Estimation parameter is interaction of session by therapy, or estimate of difference in mean between CBT and PCT per time point. Positive value is less decrease over time in CBT arm (greater decrease in anger over time in PCT).|Mean Difference (Net)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.26|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Multilevel model of therapy type (1=CBT, 2=PCT), gender, and time on DAR scores, using data from baseline, 12 sessions, post-treatment, 3-month and 6-month follow up.||||0.26
90841255|NCT02233517|181548562|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Baseline to post-treatment. The reference condition is the present centered therapy arm.|||||0.90
91104074|NCT04250207|182094698|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 12||||< 0.0001
90841256|NCT02233517|181548562|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16||0.85|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Baseline to 3 months post-treatment. The reference condition is the present centered therapy arm.|||||0.85
90841257|NCT02233517|181548562|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16||0.79|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Baseline to 6 months post-treatment. The reference condition is the present centered therapy arm.|||||0.79
90841258|NCT02233517|181548563|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.2||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|-0.002|||t-test, 2 sided|||This is the comparison of change in means for cognitive-behavioral vs. present-centered therapy from baseline to post-treatment for the Extent of Participation scale.||-.002|-4.5|0.05
90841259|NCT02233517|181548563|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.47|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.09||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.03|1.08|||t-test, 2 sided|||This is the comparison of change in means for cognitive-behavioral vs. present-centered therapy from baseline to post-treatment for the Perceived Limitations scale.||1.08|-2.03|0.53
90841260|NCT02233517|181548563|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.58|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.42||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.14|||t-test, 2 sided|||This is the comparison of change in means for cognitive-behavioral vs. present-centered therapy from baseline to post-treatment for the Satisfaction scale.||1.14|-2.30|0.50
90841261|NCT02233517|181548564|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||The estimation parameter of 0.28 indicates that at each of the 16 time points, participants in the CBT arm had 0.28 point less of a decrease in disability than those in PCT arm.|Estimation parameter is interaction of session by therapy, or estimate of difference in mean between CBT and PCT per time point. Positive value is less decrease over time in CBT arm (greater decrease in anger over time in PCT).||||<0.0001
90841262|NCT02233517|181548565|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.71||0.59|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Baseline to post-treatment. The reference condition is the present centered therapy arm.|||||0.59
90841263|NCT02233517|181548565|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.71||0.61|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Baseline to 3 months post-treatment. The reference condition is the present centered therapy arm.|||||0.61
90841264|NCT02233517|181548565|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.71||0.74|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Baseline to 6 months post-treatment. The reference condition is the present centered therapy arm.|||||0.74
90841265|NCT02233517|181548566|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Baseline to post-treatment. The reference condition is the present centered therapy arm.|||||0.25
90841266|NCT02233517|181548566|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.97|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Baseline to 3 months post-treatment. The reference condition is the present centered therapy arm.|||||0.97
91092777|NCT04817189|182069545|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.08|||generalized linear model||Reference category is set to Non smoker, compared to Former smoker or smoker.|"The hypothesis states that the potential risk factor of Smoking status increases the risk of CINV, defined as any occurrence of nausea or a vomiting episode.~This potential risk factor was included in the generalized linear model as covariate, and its effect was evaluated using odds ratios."||1.08|0.52|0.127
91092778|NCT04817189|182069545|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.97|||generalized linear model||The OR was calculated as the change in weight per 10 kg.|"The hypothesis states that the potential risk factor of Weight increases the risk of CINV, defined as any occurrence of nausea or a vomiting episode.~This potential risk factor was included in the generalized linear model as covariate, and its effect was evaluated using odds ratios."||0.97|0.77|0.014
91092779|NCT04817189|182069552|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.5|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|6.96|||generalized linear model||||"The model-based statistics were used to calculate the difference in the score per cycle between the treatment arms."|6.96|0.05|<0.05
91092780|NCT04817189|182069563|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.01|||generalized linear model||Number of vomiting episodes - acute phase|||0.01|-0.13|<0.05
91092781|NCT04817189|182069563|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.31|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.12|||generalized linear model||Number of vomiting episodes - delayed phase|||-0.12|-0.50|<0.05
90897497|NCT01216163|181660531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.45||P-value was calculated using CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and the associated CI were calculated based on the weighted Gamma statistic.||0.45|0.05|0.020
91092782|NCT04817189|182069563|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|-0.02|||generalized linear model||||Number of vomiting episodes - Day 2|-0.02|-0.21|<0.05
91092783|NCT04817189|182069563|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.04|||generalized linear model||Number of vomiting episodes - Day 3|||0.04|-0.17|<0.05
91092784|NCT04817189|182069563|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.05|||generalized linear model||Number of vomiting episodes - Day 4|||0.05|-0.16|<0.05
90841267|NCT02233517|181548566|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Baseline to 6 months post-treatment. The reference condition is the present centered therapy arm.|||||0.69
90841268|NCT02233517|181548567|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.29|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Baseline to post-treatment. The reference condition is the present centered therapy arm.|||||0.29
90841269|NCT02233517|181548567|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.44|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Baseline to 3 months post-treatment. The reference condition is the present centered therapy arm.|||||0.44
90841270|NCT02233517|181548567|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Baseline to 6 months post-treatment. The reference condition is the present centered therapy arm.|||||0.11
90841271|NCT02233517|181548568|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Estimation parameter is interaction of session by therapy, or estimate of difference in mean between CBT and PCT per time point. Positive value is less decrease over time in CBT arm (greater decrease in PTSD in PCT).|Multilevel model of therapy type (1=CBT, 2=PCT), gender, and time on PCL Total scores, using data from baseline, 12 sessions, post-treatment, 3-month and 6-month follow up.||||0.16
90841272|NCT02233517|181548569|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.45|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Baseline to post-treatment. The reference condition is the present centered therapy arm.|||||0.45
90841273|NCT02233517|181548569|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.55|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Baseline to 3 months post-treatment. The reference condition is the present centered therapy arm.|||||0.55
90841274|NCT02233517|181548569|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.87|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Baseline to 6 months post-treatment. The reference condition is the present centered therapy arm.|||||0.87
90841275|NCT02233517|181548570|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Baseline to post-treatment.|||||0.49
90841276|NCT02233517|181548570|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.7|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Baseline to 3 months post-treatment. The reference condition is the present centered therapy arm.|||||0.70
90841277|NCT02233517|181548570|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.45|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Baseline to 6 months post-treatment. The reference condition is the present centered therapy arm.|||||0.45
90841278|NCT00942604|181548571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.001
90841279|NCT00942604|181548572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.001
90897498|NCT01216163|181660531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.91||P-value was calculated using CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and the associated CI were calculated based on the weighted Gamma statistic.||0.91|0.63|<0.001
90841280|NCT00817843|181548608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.295||0.766||95.0|||||ANOVA|||"Between treatment difference in the change in FMD from the fasting to the post-fat load state.~Null hypothesis was that combination therapy (simvastatin/ezetimibe) would protect the FMD in the post-fat load phase and would therefore be associated with a smaller drop in FMD~Power calculation was based on the results from a pilot study. To detect a 1.0% difference between treatments with a SD of 2.7% and a power of 90% (alfa 0.05, two tailed) 80 evaluable patients were needed."||||0.766
90841281|NCT01721044|181548609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|If logistic regression sample size requirements are not met, the p-value from Fisher's exact test is used instead.||||||0.001
90841282|NCT01721044|181548610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.001
90897499|NCT01148862|181660575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.2||||0.006|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.006
90841283|NCT01721044|181548611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.001
90841284|NCT01721044|181548612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.14|||||||Regression, Logistic|If logistic regression sample size requirements are not met, the p-value from Fisher's exact test is used instead.||||||0.140
90841285|NCT01721044|181548613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|If logistic regression sample size requirements are not met, the p-value from Fisher's exact test is used instead.||||||0.001
90841286|NCT01721044|181548614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.001
90841287|NCT01721044|181548615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.001
90841288|NCT01721044|181548616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.723|||||||Regression, Logistic|If logistic regression sample size requirements are not met, the p-value from Fisher's exact test is used instead.||||||0.723
90841289|NCT01721044|181548617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided \<=0.05|Regression, Logistic|If logistic regression sample size requirements are not met, the p-value from Fisher's exact test is used instead.||||||0.001
90841290|NCT01721044|181548617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided \<=0.05|Regression, Logistic|If logistic regression sample size requirements are not met, the p-value from Fisher's exact test is used instead.||||||0.001
90841291|NCT01721044|181548618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.05|Regression, Logistic|If logistic regression sample size requirements are not met, the p-value from Fisher's exact test is used instead.||Week 12||||0.001
90841292|NCT01721044|181548618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.05|Regression, Logistic|If logistic regression sample size requirements are not met, the p-value from Fisher's exact test is used instead.||Week 12||||0.002
90897500|NCT01148862|181660576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.015||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.015
90897501|NCT02583763|181660642|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Significance value stated as p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired sample T test were used to analyse normally distributed data.||||>0.05
91092785|NCT04817189|182069563|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.05|||generalized linear model||Number of vomiting episodes - Day 5|||0.05|-0.13|<0.05
90841293|NCT01721044|181548618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.05|Regression, Logistic|If logistic regression sample size requirements are not met, the p-value from Fisher's exact test is used instead.||Week 24||||0.001
90841294|NCT01721044|181548618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.05|Regression, Logistic|If logistic regression sample size requirements are not met, the p-value from Fisher's exact test is used instead.||Week 24||||0.015
90841295|NCT01721044|181548619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.05|Regression, Logistic|If logistic regression sample size requirements are not met, the p-value from Fisher's exact test is used instead.||Week 12||||0.002
90841296|NCT01721044|181548619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.05|Regression, Logistic|If logistic regression sample size requirements are not met, the p-value from Fisher's exact test is used instead.||Week 12||||0.001
90841297|NCT01721044|181548619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.05|Regression, Logistic|If logistic regression sample size requirements are not met, the p-value from Fisher's exact test is used instead.||Week 24||||0.001
90841298|NCT01721044|181548619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.05|Regression, Logistic|If logistic regression sample size requirements are not met, the p-value from Fisher's exact test is used instead.||Week 24||||0.001
90841299|NCT01721044|181548620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.05|ANCOVA|||||||0.001
90841300|NCT01721044|181548620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.05|ANCOVA|||||||0.001
90841301|NCT01721044|181548621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.05|ANCOVA|||||||0.001
90841302|NCT01721044|181548621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.05|ANCOVA|||||||0.009
90841303|NCT01721044|181548622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.05|ANCOVA|||||||0.001
90841304|NCT01721044|181548622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.05|ANCOVA|||||||0.003
90841305|NCT01721044|181548623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.05|Regression, Logistic|If logistic regression sample size requirements are not met, the p-value from Fisher's exact test is used instead.||||||0.012
91092786|NCT04817189|182069563|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.37|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.14|||generalized linear model||Number of vomiting episodes - overall phase|||-0.14|-0.60|<0.05
91092787|NCT02058095|182069658|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.04
90841306|NCT01721044|181548623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.104|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.05|Regression, Logistic|If logistic regression sample size requirements are not met, the p-value from Fisher's exact test is used instead.||||||0.104
90841307|NCT01721044|181548624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
90841308|NCT01721044|181548624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.004
90841309|NCT01721044|181548625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.05|ANCOVA|||||||0.001
90841310|NCT01721044|181548625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.05|ANCOVA|||||||0.018
90841311|NCT01721044|181548626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.05|ANCOVA|||||||0.001
90841312|NCT01721044|181548626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.05|ANCOVA|||||||0.001
90841313|NCT01721044|181548627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.05|ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.005
90841314|NCT01721044|181548627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.05|ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.004
90841315|NCT01721044|181548627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.05|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.002
90841316|NCT01721044|181548627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.05|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.026
90841317|NCT01721044|181548628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.448|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||MCS Week 12||||0.448
90841318|NCT01721044|181548628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.058|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||MCS Week 12||||0.058
90841319|NCT01721044|181548628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.446|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||MCS Week 24||||0.446
91092788|NCT02058095|182069660|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.01
91092789|NCT00148798|182069667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Stratified Log Rank|||Primary efficacy analysis: To test equality of OS time between treatment groups, applying the two-sided stratified log-rank test (Stage IIIb vs IV, ECOG 0/1 vs 2) (α=5%).||||0.0441
91092790|NCT00148798|182069668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Stratified Log Rank|||To test equality of progression free survival time between treatment groups, applying the two-sided stratified log-rank test (α=5%).||||0.3869
90841320|NCT01721044|181548628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.401|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||MCS Week 24||||0.401
90841321|NCT01721044|181548628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||PCS Week 12||||0.001
90841322|NCT01721044|181548628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||PCS Week 12||||0.001
90841323|NCT01721044|181548628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||PCS Week 24||||0.001
90841324|NCT01721044|181548628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||PCS Week 24||||0.001
90841325|NCT01721044|181548629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.05|ANCOVA|||Week 12, US Algorithm||||0.001
90841326|NCT01721044|181548629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.05|ANCOVA|||Week 12, US Algorithm||||0.001
90841327|NCT01721044|181548629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.05|ANCOVA|||Week 24, US Algorithm||||0.001
90841328|NCT01721044|181548629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.05|ANCOVA|||Week 24, US Algorithm||||0.003
90841329|NCT01721044|181548629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.05|ANCOVA|||Week 12, UK Algorithm||||0.001
90841330|NCT01721044|181548629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.05|ANCOVA|||Week 12, UK Algorithm||||0.001
90841331|NCT01721044|181548629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.05|ANCOVA|||Week 24, UK Algorithm||||0.001
90841332|NCT01721044|181548629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.05|ANCOVA|||Week 24, UK Algorithm||||0.002
90841333|NCT01721044|181548630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.362|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Absenteeism Week 12||||0.362
90841334|NCT01721044|181548630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.17|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Absenteeism Week 12||||0.170
90841335|NCT01721044|181548630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.753|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Absenteeism Week 24||||0.753
90841336|NCT01721044|181548630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.715|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Absenteeism Week 24||||0.715
90897502|NCT02583763|181660643|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Significance value was stated as p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
90897503|NCT02583763|181660644|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||Significance value was set to p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
90841337|NCT01721044|181548630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.077|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Presenteeism Week 12||||0.077
90841338|NCT01721044|181548630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.058|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Presenteeism Week 12||||0.058
90841339|NCT01721044|181548630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.232|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Presenteeism Week 24||||0.232
90841340|NCT01721044|181548630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.534|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Presenteeism Week 24||||0.534
90841341|NCT01721044|181548630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.079|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Work Productivity Loss Week 12||||0.079
90841342|NCT01721044|181548630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Work Productivity Loss Week 12||||0.070
90841343|NCT01721044|181548630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.327|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Work Productivity Loss Week 24||||0.327
90841344|NCT01721044|181548630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.479|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Work Productivity Loss Week 24||||0.479
90841345|NCT01721044|181548630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Activity Impairment Week 12||||0.001
90841346|NCT01721044|181548630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Activity Impairment Week 12||||0.005
90841347|NCT01721044|181548630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Activity Impairment Week 24||||0.001
90841348|NCT01721044|181548630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Activity Impairment Week 24||||0.030
90841349|NCT04634253|181548633|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.361||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.16|-1.60|0.017
90841350|NCT04634253|181548633|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|-0.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.46|-1.73|<0.001
90841351|NCT04634253|181548634|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|3.44|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.44|0.29|0.997
90841352|NCT04634253|181548634|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.4||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|10.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||10.40|1.11|0.032
90841353|NCT04634253|181548635|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.29||||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|2.25|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.25|0.04|0.235
90841354|NCT04634253|181548635|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|5.61|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.61|0.33|0.661
90841355|NCT04634253|181548636|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|4.28|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.28|0.22|0.965
90841356|NCT04634253|181548636|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.91||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|10.33|||Regression, Logistic|||||10.33|0.82|0.098
90841357|NCT04634253|181548637|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-11.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.71||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.65|-3.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.87|-18.65|0.003
90841358|NCT04634253|181548637|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-13.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.265|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.61|-6.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-6.60|-19.61|<0.001
90841359|NCT04634253|181548638|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-10.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.782||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.83|-2.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.77|-17.83|0.008
90841360|NCT04634253|181548638|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-11.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.282|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.29|-5.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.22|-18.29|<0.001
90841361|NCT04634253|181548639|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.365||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.63|1.77|||ANCOVA|||Mental Component Score (MCS)||1.77|-7.63|0.218
90958941|NCT00069108|181797879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28||||0.2911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.01||p-value is for difference between response rates.|Chi-squared|||||2.01|0.81|0.2911
90958942|NCT00069108|181797880|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The pre-specified non-inferiority margin (1.30) was compared with the upper limit of the 95% CI of the hazard ratio (HR, XELOX vs FOLFOX-4) in the population.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.23||||||||1.23|0.87|
90841362|NCT04634253|181548639|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.065||0.578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.95|5.26|||ANCOVA|||Mental Component Score (MCS)||5.26|-2.95|0.578
90841363|NCT04634253|181548639|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.368||0.396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.69|6.73|||ANCOVA|||Physical Component Score (PCS)||6.73|-2.69|0.396
90841364|NCT04634253|181548639|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.057||0.493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.67|5.5|||ANCOVA|||Physical Component Score (PCS)||5.50|-2.67|0.493
90841365|NCT01499355|181548650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.367||||||P-Value from Cox proportional hazard model, including the variable for treatment, adjusted for the covariates including region (Latin America, Asia, rest of world \[ROW\]) and renal response at Run-in Week 12 (partial and non-response).|Cox proportional hazard|||||||0.367
90841366|NCT01499355|181548650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.283||||||P-Value from Cox proportional hazard model, including the variable for treatment, adjusted for the covariates including region (Latin America, Asia, ROW) and renal response at Run-in Week 12 (partial and non-response).|Cox proportional hazard|||||||0.283
90841367|NCT01499355|181548651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0486||||||Model includes the variable for treatment, adjusted for the covariates including region (Latin America, Asia, ROW) and renal response at Run-in Week 12 (partial and non-response).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0486
90841368|NCT01499355|181548651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0668||||||Model includes the variable for treatment, adjusted for the covariates including region (Latin America, Asia, ROW) and renal response at Run-in Week 12 (partial and non-response).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0668
90841369|NCT01499355|181548652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0628||||0.0456|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0081|0.4843||Model includes the variable for treatment, adjusted for the covariates including region (Latin America, Asia, ROW) and renal response at Run-in Week 12 (partial and non-response).|Regression, Logistic|||||0.4843|0.0081|0.0456
90841370|NCT01499355|181548652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4344||||0.5455|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0996|1.8941||Model includes the variable for treatment, adjusted for the covariates including region (Latin America, Asia, ROW) and renal response at Run-in Week 12 (partial and non-response).|Regression, Logistic|||||1.8941|0.0996|0.5455
90841371|NCT01499355|181548652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0252|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0252
90841372|NCT01499355|181548652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2876|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2876
90841373|NCT01499355|181548655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.863|||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.863
90841374|NCT01499355|181548655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.769|||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.769
90841375|NCT01499355|181548655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.907|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.907
90841376|NCT01499355|181548655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.996|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.996
90841377|NCT02048670|181548662|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Condition 1 - eyes open, visual surround locked, platform locked||||0.005
90841378|NCT02048670|181548662|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Condition 2 - eyes closed, visual surround locked, platform locked||||0.006
90841379|NCT02048670|181548662|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.051|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Condition 3 - eyes open, visual surround unlocked, platform locked||||0.051
90841380|NCT02048670|181548662|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.173|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Condition 4 - eyes open, visual surround locked, platform unlocked||||0.173
90841381|NCT02048670|181548662|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.985|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Condition 5 - eyes closed, visual surround locked, platform unlocked||||0.985
90841382|NCT02048670|181548662|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Condition 6 - eyes open, visual surround unlocked, platform unlocked||||0.003
90841383|NCT00999102|181548700|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|2.86|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was performed since each participant received both interventions in a crossover design.|Direction of Comparison: Mean Global Fatigue Score for Nebivolol 5 mg minus Mean Global Fatigue Score for Metoprolol 50 mg.|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the Global Fatigue Score after 4 weeks of Nebivolol 5 mg (lower dose) vs. 4 weeks of Metoprolol 50 mg (lower dose).||2.86|-1.86|0.67
90841384|NCT00999102|181548700|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.17|4.55|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was performed since each participant received both interventions in a crossover design.|Direction of Comparison: Mean Global Fatigue Score for Nebivolol 10 mg minus Mean Global Fatigue Score for Metoprolol 100 mg.|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the Global Fatigue Score after 4 weeks of Nebivolol 10 mg (higher dose) vs. 4 weeks of Metoprolol 100 mg (higher dose).||4.55|-3.17|0.72
90841385|NCT00999102|181548701|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.03||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-108.99|94.92|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was performed since each participant received both interventions in a crossover design.|Direction of Comparison: Mean Treadmill Exercise Time for Nebivolol 5 mg minus Mean Treadmill Exercise Time for Metoprolol 50 mg.|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in Treadmill Exercise Time after 4 weeks of Nebivolol 5 mg (lower dose) vs. 4 weeks of Metoprolol 50 mg (lower dose).||94.92|-108.99|0.89
90841386|NCT00999102|181548701|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.9||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-91.55|39.75|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was performed since each participant received both interventions in a crossover design.|Direction of Comparison: Mean Treadmill Exercise Time for Nebivolol 10 mg minus Mean Treadmill Exercise Time for Metoprolol 100 mg.|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in Treadmill Exercise Time after 4 weeks of Nebivolol 10 mg (higher dose) vs. 4 weeks of Metoprolol 100 mg (higher dose).||39.75|-91.55|0.43
90841387|NCT01198977|181548769|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Power analyses were conducted with GPower 3 evaluating the a priori sample size required to detect a medium-sized effect (f= .25, Cohen, 1988) for Group XTime interaction on primary DV. Assuming two-tailed alpha=.05 and autocorrelations between repeated measures of r=.50, adequate power (.80) to detect medium sized. Group Time effect (f=.25) would be achieved with a total sample size of 28. Given the sample size of 64, observed power more than adequate (.99).||||||0.013||||||Baseline and 3-month follow-up for arm 1 and arm 2.|ANOVA|||||||.013
90841388|NCT01198977|181548769|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Power analyses were conducted with GPower 3 evaluating the a priori sample size required to detect a medium-sized effect (f= .25, Cohen, 1988) for Group XTime interaction on primary DV. Assuming two-tailed alpha=.05 and autocorrelations between repeated measures of r=.50, adequate power (.80) to detect medium sized. Group Time effect (f=.25) would be achieved with a total sample size of 28. Given the sample size of 64, observed power more than adequate (.99).||||||0.005||||||Comparing baseline to 6-month follow-up.|ANOVA|||||||0.005
90841389|NCT01198977|181548769|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Power analyses were conducted with GPower 3 evaluating the a priori sample size required to detect a medium-sized effect (f= .25, Cohen, 1988) for Group XTime interaction on primary DV. Assuming two-tailed alpha=.05 and autocorrelations between repeated measures of r=.50, adequate power (.80) to detect medium sized. Group Time effect (f=.25) would be achieved with a total sample size of 28. Given the sample size of 64, observed power more than adequate (.99).||||||0.01||||||The interaction effect between the two conditions across time. Baseline, 3-month, 6-month.|ANOVA|||||||0.010
90841390|NCT01198977|181548770|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Power analyses were conducted with GPower 3 evaluating the a priori sample size required to detect a medium-sized effect (f= .25, Cohen, 1988) for Group XTime interaction on primary DV. Assuming two-tailed alpha=.05 and autocorrelations between repeated measures of r=.50, adequate power (.80) to detect medium sized. Group Time effect (f=.25) would be achieved with a total sample size of 28. Given the sample size of 64, observed power more than adequate (.99).||||||0.009||||||Comparing depression scores for the telephone counseling and education counseling groups at 6 months.|ANOVA|||||||0.009
90841391|NCT01198977|181548770|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Power analyses were conducted with GPower 3 evaluating the a priori sample size required to detect a medium-sized effect (f= .25, Cohen, 1988) for Group X Time interaction on primary DV. Assuming two-tailed alpha=.05 and autocorrelations between repeated measures of r=.50, adequate power (.80) to detect medium sized. Group Time effect (f=.25) would be achieved with a total sample size of 28. Given the sample size of 64, observed power more than adequate (.99).||||||0.032||||||Interaction effects between the telephone counseling and education counseling groups over time (baseline, 3 months, 6 months).|ANOVA|||||||.032
90841392|NCT01198977|181548771|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Power analyses were conducted with GPower 3 evaluating the a priori sample size required to detect a medium-sized effect (f= .25, Cohen, 1988) for Group XTime interaction on primary DV. Assuming two-tailed alpha=.05 and autocorrelations between repeated measures of r=.50, adequate power (.80) to detect medium sized. Group Time effect (f=.25) would be achieved with a total sample size of 28. Given the sample size of 64, observed power more than adequate (.99).||||||0.049||||||Physical Activity Interaction effect between the Telephone Counseling and Education Counseling Group over time (baseline, 3 months, 6 months).|ANOVA|||||||0.049
90841393|NCT01198977|181548771|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Power analyses were conducted with GPower 3 evaluating the a priori sample size required to detect a medium-sized effect (f= .25, Cohen, 1988) for Group XTime interaction on primary DV. Assuming two-tailed alpha=.05 and autocorrelations between repeated measures of r=.50, adequate power (.80) to detect medium sized. Group Time effect (f=.25) would be achieved with a total sample size of 28. Given the sample size of 64, observed power more than adequate (.99).||||||0.014||||||Comparing physical activity scores for the telephone counseling and education counseling groups at 6 months.|ANOVA|||||||.014
90841394|NCT02855125|181548796|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||0.2744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.88|||Log Rank|1-sided stratified log-rank test.|Based on stratified Cox regression model .|||1.88|0.71|0.2744
90841395|NCT02855125|181548797|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.31||||0.1431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.14|||Log Rank|1-sided stratified log-rank test.|Based on stratified Cox regression model.|||2.14|0.80|0.1431
90841396|NCT04467905|181548802|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.3|-19.3|||ANCOVA||The mean difference is the difference in adjusted means for the change between baseline value and nadir in the placebo group and the change between baseline and nadir in the etripamil group.|||-19.3|-40.3|<0.0001
90841397|NCT00664443|181548803|OTHER||Sensitivity|65.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.5|68.2||||||||68.2|63.5|
90841398|NCT00664443|181548804|OTHER||Specificity|32.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.0|35.9||||||||35.9|29.0|
90841399|NCT02153632|181548835|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.75||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|-0.5|||ANCOVA|||||-0.5|-10.5|0.031
90841400|NCT02153632|181548835|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.71||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|-1.5|||ANCOVA|||||-1.5|-11.5|0.011
90841401|NCT04586205|181548846|OTHER|||||||0.024|||||||ANOVA|||The baseline measurement for this analysis is the Sternberg Sorting Task (SST) at Baseline. This task is designed to assess how individuals store and retrieve random information from short-term memory. This task was administered to all participants before they were randomized into one of two groups (active TMS first then sham TMS or sham TMS first then active TMS).||||0.024
90841402|NCT04586205|181548847|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.18|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||The difference in means between High-Load IAPS (.69) and Low-Load IAPS (.67) in the group that received active then sham TMS.|The baseline measurement for this analysis is the International Affective Picture System (IAPS) at baseline. This is an emotional task using IAPS picture that will also compare low load and high load conditions. The number of images will vary by condition load, but for both the high-load \& low-load conditions, participants will look at IAPS pictures and answer questions about the images. We compare mean High-Load IAPS and Low-Load IAPS scores in the group that received active then sham TMS.||||0.18
90841403|NCT04586205|181548848|OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||Chi-squared|||The outcome measure for this analysis was the International Affective Picture System (IAPS).||||0.19
90841404|NCT04586205|181548849|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.67
90841405|NCT04953728|181548878|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77306724|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in maximum tolerance in mmHg of the rectum during ST36 100Hz when compared to baseline||||0.77306724
90841406|NCT04953728|181548878|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in maximum tolerance in mmHg of the rectum during ST36 25Hz when compared to baseline||||0.24
90841407|NCT04953728|181548878|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in maximum tolerance in mmHg of the rectum during PC6 100Hz when compared to baseline||||0.45
90841408|NCT04953728|181548878|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in maximum tolerance in mmHg of the rectum during PC6 25Hz when compared to baseline||||0.13
90841409|NCT04953728|181548878|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in maximum tolerance in mmHg of the rectum during Sham when compared to baseline||||0.14
90841410|NCT04953728|181548879|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81019363|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in average maximum tolerance of ST36 100Hz when compared to ST36 25Hz||||0.81019363
90841411|NCT04953728|181548879|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in average maximum tolerance of ST36 100Hz when compared to PC6 100Hz||||0.18
90841412|NCT04953728|181548879|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in average maximum tolerance of ST36 100Hz when compared to PC6 25Hz||||0.21
90841413|NCT04953728|181548879|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in average maximum tolerance of ST36 100Hz when compared to Sham||||0.58
90841414|NCT04953728|181548879|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in average maximum tolerance of ST36 25Hz when compared to PC6 100Hz||||0.18
90841415|NCT04953728|181548879|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in average maximum tolerance of ST36 25Hz when compared to PC6 25Hz||||0.18
90841416|NCT04953728|181548879|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in average maximum tolerance of ST36 25Hz when compared to sham||||0.78
90841417|NCT04953728|181548879|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in average maximum tolerance of PC6 100Hz when compared to PC6 25Hz||||0.89
90841418|NCT04953728|181548879|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in average maximum tolerance of PC6 100Hz when compared to sham||||0.05
90841419|NCT04953728|181548879|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in average maximum tolerance of PC6 25Hz when compared to sham||||0.07
90841420|NCT04953728|181548880|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.00046998|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||ST36 100Hz: Difference of VAS sums between 15 and 50 mmHg between pre and post stimulation||||0.00046998
90841421|NCT04953728|181548880|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74369428|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||ST36 25Hz: Difference of VAS sums between 15 and 50 mmHg between pre and post stimulation||||0.74369428
90841422|NCT04953728|181548880|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09854383|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||PC6 100Hz: Difference of VAS sums between 15 and 50 mmHg between pre and post stimulation||||0.09854383
90841423|NCT04953728|181548880|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24872746|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||PC6 25Hz: Difference of VAS sums between 15 and 50 mmHg between pre and post stimulation||||0.24872746
90841424|NCT04953728|181548880|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04828889|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Sham: Difference of VAS sums between 15 and 50 mmHg between pre and post stimulation||||0.04828889
90841425|NCT04953728|181548881|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||ST36 100Hz compared to ST36 25Hz||||0.02
90841426|NCT04953728|181548881|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||ST36 100Hz compared to PC6 100Hz||||0.11
90841427|NCT04953728|181548881|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||ST36 100Hz compared to PC6 25Hz||||0.01
90841428|NCT04953728|181548881|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||ST36 100Hz compared to Sham||||0.04
90841429|NCT04953728|181548881|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||ST36 25Hz compared to PC6 100Hz||||0.11
90841430|NCT04953728|181548881|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||ST36 25Hz compared to PC6 25Hz||||0.23
90841431|NCT04953728|181548881|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||ST36 25Hz compared to Sham||||0.17
90841432|NCT04953728|181548881|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||PC6 100Hz compared to PC6 25Hz||||0.15
90897504|NCT03815019|181660650|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|7.2218|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13083.0|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Participants in the megestrol group who successfully transitioned to oral feeding.|Analysis conducted using Generalized Linear Mixed Models with a logit link within SAS Proc GLIMMIX to model the binary outcome of transitioned to oral feeding (y/n) defined as at least 90 percent of calories consumed orally. Fixed effects (dummy variables) will be entered for each site as described by McNeish and Stapleton (2016) to account for the clustering of the participants within sites. This will result in essentially, a logistic regression model with appropriate standard errors.||||
90958943|NCT00069108|181797882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.68||||||||1.68|0.79|
90841433|NCT04953728|181548881|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||PC6 100Hz compared to Sham||||0.43
90841434|NCT04953728|181548881|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||PC6 25Hz compared to Sham||||0.19
90841435|NCT04953728|181548882|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in maximum volume in mL of the rectum during ST36 100Hz when compared to baseline||||0.87
90841436|NCT04953728|181548882|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in maximum volume in mL of the rectum during ST36 25Hz when compared to baseline||||0.13
90841437|NCT04953728|181548882|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in maximum volume in mL of the rectum during PC6 100Hz when compared to baseline||||0.17
90841438|NCT04953728|181548882|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in maximum volume in mL of the rectum during PC6 25Hz when compared to baseline||||0.88
90841439|NCT04953728|181548882|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in maximum volume in mL of the rectum during sham when compared to baseline||||0.14
90841440|NCT04953728|181548883|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in first sensation in mmHg of the rectum during ST36 100Hz when compared to baseline||||0.007
90841441|NCT04953728|181548883|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in first sensation in mmHg of the rectum during ST36 25Hz when compared to baseline||||0.83
90841442|NCT04953728|181548883|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in first sensation in mmHg of the rectum during PC6 100Hz when compared to baseline||||0.87
90841443|NCT04953728|181548883|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in first sensation in mmHg of the rectum during PC6 25Hz when compared to baseline||||0.004
90841444|NCT04953728|181548883|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.056|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in first sensation in mmHg of the rectum during sham when compared to baseline||||0.056
90841445|NCT01646125|181548884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.35|1.63||||||||1.63|0.35|
90841446|NCT02085161|181548936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment ratio|1.458|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.147||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.196|1.777||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|Mean and 95% confidence limits were transformed from log10 back to the original scale. SE was back transformed using the delta method.|Ratio of means calculated as back transformation of difference on log 10 scale between Tio+Olo (5/5 μg) FDC with exercise training (ET) and BM minus Placebo with behavioural modification (BM).|This treatment comparison is the first one in the alpha-protected hierarchical testing chain.||1.777|1.196|0.0002
90841447|NCT02085161|181548936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment ratio|1.292|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129||0.0109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.061|1.573||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|Mean and 95% confidence limits were transformed from log10 back to the original scale. SE was back transformed using the delta method.|Ratio of means calculated as back transformation of difference on log 10 scale between Tiotropium + olodaterol (Olo) (5/5 μg) FDC with BM minus Placebo with behavioural modification (BM).|This treatment comparison is the second one in the alpha-protected hierarchical testing chain.||1.573|1.061|0.0109
91092791|NCT00148798|182069669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The best overall response rate was compared in the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (two-sided with α=5%).||||0.0101
90841448|NCT02085161|181548936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment ratio|1.041|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.106||0.6895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.853|1.272||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|Mean and 95% confidence limits were transformed from log10 back to the original scale. SE was back transformed using the delta method.|Ratio of means calculated as back transformation of difference on log 10 scale between Tiotropium (Tio) 5 micro-grams (μg) with BM minus Placebo with behavioural modification (BM).|This treatment comparison is the third one in the alpha-protected hierarchical testing chain. Since the p-value for this treatment comparison is \>0.05, the hierarchical testing chain is broken and all of the following hypothesis tests in this hierarchical chain are considered as descriptive only.||1.272|0.853|0.6895
90897505|NCT03815019|181660650|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|9.1544|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13083.0|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Participants in the placebo group who successfully transitioned to oral feeding.|Analysis conducted using Generalized Linear Mixed Models with a logit link within SAS Proc GLIMMIX to model the binary outcome of transitioned to oral feeding (y/n) defined as at least 90 percent of calories consumed orally. Fixed effects (dummy variables) will be entered for each site as described by McNeish and Stapleton (2016) to account for the clustering of the participants within sites. This will result in essentially, a logistic regression model with appropriate standard errors.||||
90897506|NCT03815019|181660652|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Pr(\>F) = 0.7846, Nested model using site as a predictor|||||
90897507|NCT03815019|181660653|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Pr(\>F) = 0.7025, Nested model using site as a predictor|||||
90841449|NCT02085161|181548936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment ratio|1.128|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.2188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.931|1.368||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|Mean and 95% confidence limits were transformed from log10 back to the original scale. SE was back transformed using the delta method.|Ratio of means calculated as back transformation of difference on log 10 scale between Tio+Olo (5/5 μg) FDC with exercise training (ET) and BM minus Tiotropium + olodaterol (Olo) (5/5 μg) FDC with BM.|||1.368|0.931|0.2188
90841450|NCT02085161|181548936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment ratio|1.241|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.123||0.0303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.021|1.507||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|Mean and 95% confidence limits were transformed from log10 back to the original scale. SE was back transformed using the delta method.|Ratio of means calculated as back transformation of difference on log 10 scale between Tiotropium + olodaterol (Olo) (5/5 μg) FDC with BM minus Tiotropium (Tio) 5 micro-grams (μg) with BM.|||1.507|1.021|0.0303
90841451|NCT02085161|181548937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference|-331.975|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|296.375||0.2639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-916.015|252.064||An ANCOVA model with categorical effects of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||The LSMean Difference is calculated as Tio+Olo (5/5 μg) FDC with exercise training (ET) and BM minus Placebo with behavioural modification (BM)|||252.064|-916.015|0.2639
90841452|NCT02085161|181548937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference|161.072|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|293.506||0.5837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-417.314|739.459||An ANCOVA model with categorical effects of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||The LSMean Difference is calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol (Olo) (5/5 μg) FDC with BM minus Placebo with behavioural modification (BM)|||739.459|-417.314|0.5837
90841453|NCT02085161|181548937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference|-524.926|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|296.802||0.0783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1109.806|59.954||An ANCOVA model with categorical effects of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||The LSMean Difference is calculated as Tiotropium (Tio) 5 micro-grams (μg) with BM minus Placebo with behavioural modification (BM)|||59.954|-1109.806|0.0783
90841454|NCT02085161|181548937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference|-493.048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|289.566||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1063.67|77.575||An ANCOVA model with categorical effects of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||The LSMean Difference is calculated as Tio+Olo (5/5 μg) FDC with exercise training (ET) and BM minus Tiotropium + olodaterol (Olo) (5/5 μg) FDC with BM|||77.575|-1063.670|0.0900
90897508|NCT03815019|181660654|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Pr(\>F) = 0.6764, Nested model using site as a predictor|||||
90897509|NCT03815019|181660655|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Pr(\>F) = 0.7649, Nested model using site as a predictor|||||
90897510|NCT03815019|181660656|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Pr(\>F) = 0.9487, Nested model using site as a predictor|||||
90897511|NCT03815019|181660657|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Pr(\>F) = 0.7669, Nested model using site as a predictor|||||
90897512|NCT03815019|181660658|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Pr(\>F) = 0.5883, Nested model using site as a predictor|||||
90897513|NCT03815019|181660659|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Pr(\>F) = 0.4749, Nested model using site as a predictor|||||
90897514|NCT03815019|181660660|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Pr(\>F) = 0.8781, Nested model using site as a predictor|||||
90958944|NCT00069108|181797883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.12||||||||1.12|0.81|
91092792|NCT00148798|182069670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The disease control rate was compared in the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (two-sided with α=5%).||||0.6801
91092793|NCT01588509|182069684|SUPERIORITY||Percent Change from Baseline|2.13||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.05|3.2|||ANOVA|||||3.20|1.05|0.002
91092794|NCT01588509|182069684|SUPERIORITY||Percent Change from Baseline|2.08||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.02|3.14|||ANOVA|||||3.14|1.02|0.002
91092795|NCT01588509|182069685|SUPERIORITY||Percent Change from Baseline|2.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.07|3.05|||ANOVA|||||3.05|1.07|<0.001
91092796|NCT01588509|182069685|SUPERIORITY||Percent Change from Baseline|1.92||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|2.89|||ANOVA|||||2.89|0.95|0.002
91092797|NCT01588509|182069686|SUPERIORITY||Percent Change from Baseline|1.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|1.95|||ANOVA|||||1.95|0.81|<0.001
90841455|NCT02085161|181548937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference|685.998|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|289.435||0.0186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|115.635|1256.362||An ANCOVA model with categorical effects of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||The LSMean Difference is calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol (Olo) (5/5 μg) FDC with BM minus Tiotropium (Tio) 5 micro-grams (μg) with BM|||1256.362|115.635|0.0186
90841456|NCT02085161|181548938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference|-0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.004||0.5186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.005||An ANCOVA model with categorical effects of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||The LSMean Difference is calculated as Tio+Olo (5/5 μg) FDC with exercise training (ET) and BM minus Placebo with behavioural modification (BM)|||0.005|-0.010|0.5186
90841457|NCT02085161|181548938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference|0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.004||0.6436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.006|0.009||An ANCOVA model with categorical effects of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||The LSMean Difference is calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol (Olo) (5/5 μg) FDC with BM minus Placebo with behavioural modification (BM)|||0.009|-0.006|0.6436
90841458|NCT02085161|181548938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference|-0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.004||0.1081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.014|0.001||An ANCOVA model with categorical effects of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||The LSMean Difference is calculated as Tiotropium (Tio) 5 micro-grams (μg) with BM minus Placebo with behavioural modification (BM)|||0.001|-0.014|0.1081
90841459|NCT02085161|181548938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference|-0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.004||0.2612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.011|0.003||An ANCOVA model with categorical effects of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||The LSMean Difference is calculated as Tio+Olo (5/5 μg) FDC with exercise training (ET) and BM minus Tiotropium + olodaterol (Olo) (5/5 μg) FDC with BM|||0.003|-0.011|0.2612
90841460|NCT02085161|181548938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference|0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.004||0.0361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.015||An ANCOVA model with categorical effects of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||The LSMean Difference is calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol (Olo) (5/5 μg) FDC with BM minus Tiotropium (Tio) 5 micro-grams (μg) with BM|||0.015|0.001|0.0361
90841461|NCT02085161|181548939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference|0.076|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056||0.1727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.034|0.187||An ANCOVA model with categorical effects of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||The LSMean Difference is calculated as Tio+Olo (5/5 μg) FDC with exercise training (ET) and BM minus Placebo with behavioural modification (BM)|||0.187|-0.034|0.1727
90841462|NCT02085161|181548939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference|0.143|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055||0.0097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.035|0.252||An ANCOVA model with categorical effects of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||The LSMean Difference is calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol (Olo) (5/5 μg) FDC with BM minus Placebo with behavioural modification (BM)|||0.252|0.035|0.0097
90841463|NCT02085161|181548939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference|0.016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056||0.7815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.095|0.126||An ANCOVA model with categorical effects of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||The LSMean Difference is calculated as Tiotropium (Tio) 5 micro-grams (μg) with BM minus Placebo with behavioural modification (BM)|||0.126|-0.095|0.7815
90841464|NCT02085161|181548939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference|-0.067|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054||0.2183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.174|0.04||An ANCOVA model with categorical effects of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||The LSMean Difference is calculated as Tio+Olo (5/5 μg) FDC with exercise training (ET) and BM minus Tiotropium + olodaterol (Olo) (5/5 μg) FDC with BM|||0.040|-0.174|0.2183
90841465|NCT02085161|181548939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference|0.128|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055||0.0203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.236||An ANCOVA model with categorical effects of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||The LSMean Difference is calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol (Olo) (5/5 μg) FDC with BM minus Tiotropium (Tio) 5 micro-grams (μg) with BM|||0.236|0.020|0.0203
90841466|NCT02085161|181548940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment ratio|1.333|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.142||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.645||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|Mean and 95% confidence limits were transformed from log10 back to the original scale. SE was back transformed using the delta method.|Ratio of means calculated as back transformation of difference on log 10 scale between Tio+Olo (5/5 μg) FDC with exercise training (ET) and BM minus Placebo with behavioural modification (BM).|||1.645|1.080|0.0077
90841467|NCT02085161|181548940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment ratio|1.244|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.131||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.011|1.53||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|Mean and 95% confidence limits were transformed from log10 back to the original scale. SE was back transformed using the delta method.|Ratio of means calculated as back transformation of difference on log 10 scale between Tiotropium + olodaterol (Olo) (5/5 μg) FDC with BM minus Placebo with behavioural modification (BM).|||1.530|1.011|0.0390
90841468|NCT02085161|181548940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment ratio|1.051|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.113||0.6452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.299||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|Mean and 95% confidence limits were transformed from log10 back to the original scale. SE was back transformed using the delta method.|Ratio of means calculated as back transformation of difference on log 10 scale between Tiotropium (Tio) 5 micro-grams (μg) with BM minus Placebo with behavioural modification (BM).|||1.299|0.850|0.6452
90958945|NCT01616056|181797890|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.01
90958946|NCT01616056|181797892|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
90958947|NCT01616056|181797894|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
91092798|NCT01588509|182069686|SUPERIORITY||Percent Change from Baseline|1.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|1.96|||ANOVA|||||1.96|0.84|<0.001
91092799|NCT02842866|182069721|NON_INFERIORITY|The 95 percent (%) confidence internal (CI) of the difference in percentage was computed using the Wilson Score method without continuity correction. The overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than (\>) -10 percent (%) for all four serogroups.|Difference in percentage|15.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.08|22.2||||||Serogroup A||22.2|9.08|
91092800|NCT02842866|182069721|NON_INFERIORITY|The 95% CI of the difference in percentage was computed using the Wilson Score method without continuity correction. The overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was \>-10% for all four serogroups.|Difference in percentage|27.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.2|33.5||||||Serogroup C||33.5|21.2|
91092801|NCT02842866|182069721|NON_INFERIORITY|The 95% CI of the difference in percentage was computed using the Wilson Score method without continuity correction. The overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was \>-10% for all four serogroups.|Difference in percentage|31.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.6|37.0||||||Serogroup Y||37.0|24.6|
90841469|NCT02085161|181548940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment ratio|1.071|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.111||0.5048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.874|1.313||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|Mean and 95% confidence limits were transformed from log10 back to the original scale. SE was back transformed using the delta method.|Ratio of means calculated as back transformation of difference on log 10 scale between Tio+Olo (5/5 μg) FDC with exercise training (ET) and BM minus Tiotropium + olodaterol (Olo) (5/5 μg) FDC with BM.|||1.313|0.874|0.5048
91092802|NCT02842866|182069721|NON_INFERIORITY|The 95% CI of the difference in percentage was computed using the Wilson Score method without continuity correction. The overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was \>-10% for all four serogroups.|Difference in percentage|17.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.2|24.2||||||Serogroup W||24.2|11.2|
90841470|NCT02085161|181548940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment ratio|1.184|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.123||0.1066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.964|1.453||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|Mean and 95% confidence limits were transformed from log10 back to the original scale. SE was back transformed using the delta method.|Ratio of means calculated as back transformation of difference on log 10 scale between Tiotropium + olodaterol (Olo) (5/5 μg) FDC with BM minus Tiotropium (Tio) 5 micro-grams (μg) with BM.|||1.453|0.964|0.1066
90841471|NCT02085161|181548941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference|0.329|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.255|0.403||Mixed effect Model Repeat Measurement (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect|Mixed Models Analysis|Compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation and Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom|The LSMean Difference is calculated as Tio+Olo (5/5 μg) FDC with exercise training (ET) and BM minus Placebo with behavioural modification (BM)|||0.403|0.255|<0.0001
90841472|NCT02085161|181548941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference|0.356|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.282|0.429||MMRM model including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect|Mixed Models Analysis|Compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation and Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom|The LSMean Difference is calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol (Olo) (5/5 μg) FDC with BM minus Placebo with behavioural modification (BM)|||0.429|0.282|<0.0001
90841473|NCT02085161|181548941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference|0.174|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.099|0.249||MMRM model including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect|Mixed Models Analysis|Compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation and Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom|The LSMean Difference is calculated as Tiotropium (Tio) 5 micro-grams (μg) with BM minus Placebo with behavioural modification (BM)|||0.249|0.099|<0.0001
90897515|NCT04270747|181660687|OTHER|A pre-specified similarity margin of (-3, 3) ETDRS letters was used to demonstrate clinical similarity for the mean change from Baseline in BCVA at Week 8.|Difference between means|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.1|1.3|||||Estimated using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 8.||1.3|-1.1|
90897516|NCT04270747|181660688|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.2|2.2|||||Estimated using the stratified Newcombe confidence limits (with Mantel-Haenszel weights) adjusting for stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA (BCVA \< 64 letters, BCVA ≥ 64 letters).|Risk difference in percentage of participants who maintained vision at Week 52.||2.2|-5.2|
90897517|NCT04270747|181660688|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.2|2.8|||||Estimated using the stratified Newcombe confidence limits (with Mantel-Haenszel weights) adjusting for stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA (BCVA \< 64 letters, BCVA ≥ 64 letters).|Risk difference in percentage of participants who maintained vision at Week 52.||2.8|-6.2|
90897518|NCT04270747|181660689|OTHER||Difference between means|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.3|1.2|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 4.||1.2|-1.3|
90897519|NCT04270747|181660689|OTHER||Difference between means|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.3|0.7|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 8.||0.7|-2.3|
90897520|NCT04270747|181660689|OTHER||Difference between means|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.9|1.2|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 16.||1.2|-1.9|
90897521|NCT04270747|181660689|OTHER||Difference between means|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.3|2.1|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 24.||2.1|-1.3|
91092803|NCT02842866|182069722|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|2.2||||||Serogroup A||2.20|1.40|
91092804|NCT02842866|182069722|OTHER||GMT Ratio|4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.16|5.33||||||Serogroup C||5.33|3.16|
91092805|NCT02842866|182069722|OTHER||GMT Ratio|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.57|4.23||||||Serogroup Y||4.23|2.57|
91092806|NCT02842866|182069722|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|2.31||||||Serogroup W||2.31|1.42|
91092807|NCT03720119|182069730|OTHER|Analysis of Variance for repeated measurements.|day effect F|27.83||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The calculated P-Value represents the repeated measurement/Day (all times versus Day 1)|Dunnett's post-hoc test|||||||0.0001
91092808|NCT01944423|182069732|SUPERIORITY||Logit difference (final values)|0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|0.97||p=ns 2-sided|two-phase growth curve model|||||0.97|-2.25|
91092809|NCT01944423|182069733|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.87||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|7.94||2-sided|two-phase growth curve model|||At end-of-treatment||7.94|0.25|.038
91092810|NCT01944423|182069734|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|5.26||2-sided|two-phase growth curve model|||At 6 month follow-up||5.26|1.15|.003
91092811|NCT02897349|182069735|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference (%)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.16|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Based on Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) including fixed effects treatment, week, type of insulin, and treatment by week interaction, linear covariates baseline HbA1c, baseline HbA1c by week interaction and random effect for patient. Within-patient errors are modelled by unstructured covariance matrix. Adjusted mean is based on all patients in the model (not only patients with a baseline and week 24 measurement).||-0.16|-0.65|0.0016
91092812|NCT02897349|182069736|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference (mg/dL)|-6.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.1||0.2241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|3.8|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Based on MMRM including fixed effects treatment, week, type of insulin, and treatment by week interaction, linear covariates baseline HbA1c, baseline FPG baseline FPG by week interaction and random effect for patient. Within-patient errors are modelled by unstructured covariance matrix. Adjusted mean is based on all patients in the model (not only patients with a baseline and week 24 measurement).||3.8|-16.2|0.2241
91092813|NCT02897349|182069737|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference (mg/dL)|-31.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.2||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.15|-15.75|||ANCOVA|||Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including fixed effect treatment and type of insulin, and linear covariates baseline HbA1c and baseline 2-h PPG.||-15.75|-48.15|0.0001
91092814|NCT02897349|182069738|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.793||||0.2431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.673|4.78|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression model with terms for treatment and type of insulin as fixed effect and continuous linear covariates baseline HbA1c||4.780|0.673|0.2431
90958948|NCT01616056|181797897|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.005
91092815|NCT02897349|182069739|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.481||||0.6235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.309|7.105|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression model with terms for treatment and type of insulin as fixed effect and continuous linear covariates baseline HbA1c||7.105|0.309|0.6235
91092816|NCT02897349|182069740|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.293||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.286|4.091|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression model with terms for treatment and type of insulin as fixed effect and continuous linear covariates baseline HbA1c||4.091|1.286|0.0049
91092817|NCT01225055|182069785|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84||||||calculated p-value indicating the effect of different treatment groups|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.84
91092818|NCT01225055|182069785|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64||||||calculated p-value indicating the effect of different time points|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.64
91092819|NCT01225055|182069785|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26||||||calculated p-value indicating the effect of different treatment groups and time points|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.26
91092820|NCT01225055|182069786|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64||||||calculated p-value indicating the effect of different treatment groups|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.64
91092821|NCT01225055|182069786|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||calculated p-value indicating the effect of different time points|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.00
91092822|NCT01225055|182069786|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09||||||calculated p-value indicating the effect of different treatment groups and time points|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.09
91092823|NCT01225055|182069787|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72||||||calculated p-value indicating the effect of different treatment groups|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.72
91092824|NCT01225055|182069787|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58||||||calculated p-value indicating the effect of different time points|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.58
91092825|NCT01225055|182069787|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44||||||calculated p-value indicating the effect of different treatment groups and time points|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.44
91092826|NCT01225055|182069788|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||calculated p-value indicating the effect of different treatment groups|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.02
91092827|NCT01225055|182069788|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1||||||calculated p-value indicating the effect of different time points|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.10
91092828|NCT01225055|182069788|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||calculated p-value indicating the effect of different treatment groups and time points|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.04
91092829|NCT01225055|182069789|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||calculated p-value indicating the effect of different treatment groups|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.01
91092830|NCT01225055|182069789|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34||||||calculated p-value indicating the effect of different time points|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.34
91092831|NCT01225055|182069789|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2||||||calculated p-value indicating the effect of different treatment groups and time points|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.20
91092832|NCT01225055|182069790|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||calculated p-value indicating the effect of different treatment groups|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.00
91092833|NCT01225055|182069790|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||calculated p-value indicating the effect of different time points|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.01
91092834|NCT01225055|182069790|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||calculated p-value indicating the effect of different treatment groups and time points|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.04
91104075|NCT04250207|182094698|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.0028|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 12||||0.0028
91104076|NCT04250207|182094698|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 16||||< 0.0001
91104077|NCT04250207|182094698|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.0011|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 16||||0.0011
91028795|NCT03384745|181941343|SUPERIORITY|A sample size of 300 subjects has 99% power to detect a statistically significant difference between any treatment arm and placebo in the IGA score of 0 or 1 rate at Week 12, with a two-sided, unadjusted type I error of 0.05. Calculations assume IGA score 0 or 1 rates \>88% for study drug and \<=7% for placebo.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypotheses were tested at Week 12 (individual M1095 treatment arms would not be different from placebo with respect to achievement of IGA scores of 0 or 1). The primary analysis was based on the intent-to-treat (ITT) population using a non-responder imputation (NRI) for missing values. Primary treatment comparisons versus placebo were made with the two-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by actual prior biologic use (yes/no) and body weight (\<=90; \>90kg).|At Week 12, none (0.0% \[95% CI 0.0-6.8\]) of the 52 participants in the placebo group had an IGA score of 0 or 1 versus 25 (48.1% \[34.0-62.4\], p\<0.0001) of 52 participants in the M1095 30mg treatment group. Odds ratio could not be calculated due to the placebo group containing no responders.|||<0.0001
90841474|NCT02085161|181548941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference|-0.027|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.4677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.099|0.045||MMRM model including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect|Mixed Models Analysis|Compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation and Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom|The LSMean Difference is calculated as Tio+Olo (5/5 μg) FDC with exercise training (ET) and BM minus Tiotropium + olodaterol (Olo) (5/5 μg) FDC with BM|||0.045|-0.099|0.4677
90841475|NCT02085161|181548941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference|0.182|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.109|0.255||MMRM model including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect|Mixed Models Analysis|Compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation and Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom|The LSMean Difference is calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol (Olo) (5/5 μg) FDC with BM minus Tiotropium (Tio) 5 micro-grams (μg) with BM|||0.255|0.109|<0.0001
90841476|NCT02085161|181548942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference|0.478|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.065|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.606||Mixed effect Model Repeat Measurement (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect|Mixed Models Analysis|Compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation and Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom|The LSMean Difference is calculated as Tio+Olo (5/5 μg) FDC with exercise training (ET) and BM minus Placebo with behavioural modification (BM)|||0.606|0.350|<0.0001
90841477|NCT02085161|181548942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference|0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.064|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.403|0.657||MMRM model including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect|Mixed Models Analysis|Compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation and Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom|The LSMean Difference is calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol (Olo) (5/5 μg) FDC with BM minus Placebo with behavioural modification (BM)|||0.657|0.403|<0.0001
90841478|NCT02085161|181548942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference|0.286|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.157|0.415||MMRM model including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect|Mixed Models Analysis|Compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation and Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom|The LSMean Difference is calculated as Tiotropium (Tio) 5 micro-grams (μg) with BM minus Placebo with behavioural modification (BM)|||0.415|0.157|<0.0001
90841479|NCT02085161|181548942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference|-0.052|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063||0.4107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.176|0.072||MMRM model including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect|Mixed Models Analysis|Compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation and Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom|The LSMean Difference is calculated as Tio+Olo (5/5 μg) FDC with exercise training (ET) and BM minus Tiotropium + olodaterol (Olo) (5/5 μg) FDC with BM|||0.072|-0.176|0.4107
90841480|NCT02085161|181548942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference|0.244|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.064||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.119|0.37||MMRM model including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect|Mixed Models Analysis|Compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation and Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom|The LSMean Difference is calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol (Olo) (5/5 μg) FDC with BM minus Tiotropium (Tio) 5 micro-grams (μg) with BM|||0.370|0.119|0.0002
90897522|NCT04270747|181660689|OTHER||Difference between means|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.1|0.5|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 32.||0.5|-3.1|
90897523|NCT04270747|181660689|OTHER||Difference between means|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.3|1.4|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 40.||1.4|-2.3|
91092835|NCT05469438|182069808|OTHER|We assessed prediction accuracy of our system using the R\^2 from leave-one-out cross-validation of predicted Fugl-Meyer scores, which were obtained from models predicting recovery based on baseline data.|||||||||||||||||We assessed prediction accuracy of our system using the R\^2 from leave-one-out cross-validation of predicted Fugl-Meyer scores, which were obtained from models predicting recovery based on baseline data.|||
91092836|NCT00471497|182069809|OTHER||Difference in response rate|22.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.5|29.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||29.6|14.5|<0.0001
90841481|NCT02085161|181548943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference|0.318|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.071|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.179|0.457||Mixed effect Model Repeat Measurement (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect|Mixed Models Analysis|Compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation and Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom|The LSMean Difference is calculated as Tio+Olo (5/5 μg) FDC with exercise training (ET) and BM minus Placebo with behavioural modification (BM)|||0.457|0.179|<0.0001
90841482|NCT02085161|181548943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference|0.302|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.165|0.439||MMRM model including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect|Mixed Models Analysis|Compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation and Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom|The LSMean Difference is calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol (Olo) (5/5 μg) FDC with BM minus Placebo with behavioural modification (BM)|||0.439|0.165|<0.0001
90841483|NCT02085161|181548943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference|0.174|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.071||0.0145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.035|0.314||MMRM model including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect|Mixed Models Analysis|Compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation and Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom|The LSMean Difference is calculated as Tiotropium (Tio) 5 micro-grams (μg) with BM minus Placebo with behavioural modification (BM)|||0.314|0.035|0.0145
90841484|NCT02085161|181548943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference|0.016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068||0.815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.118|0.151||MMRM model including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect|Mixed Models Analysis|Compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation and Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom|The LSMean Difference is calculated as Tio+Olo (5/5 μg) FDC with exercise training (ET) and BM minus Tiotropium + olodaterol (Olo) (5/5 μg) FDC with BM|||0.151|-0.118|0.8150
90841485|NCT02085161|181548943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference|0.128|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.069||0.0642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.008|0.263||MMRM model including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect|Mixed Models Analysis|Compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation and Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom|The LSMean Difference is calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol (Olo) (5/5 μg) FDC with BM minus Tiotropium (Tio) 5 micro-grams (μg) with BM|||0.263|-0.008|0.0642
90841486|NCT03537404|181548949|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.103|0.142|||||Cmax parameters were logarithmically transformed|||0.142|-0.103|
90841487|NCT03537404|181548949|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|-0.022|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.22|0.175|||||Cmax parameters were logarithmically transformed|||0.175|-0.220|
90841488|NCT03537404|181548950|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.041|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.075|0.157|||||AUCtau parameters were logarithmically transformed.|||0.157|-0.075|
90841489|NCT03537404|181548950|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|-0.069|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.201|0.064|||||AUCtau parameters were logarithmically transformed|||0.064|-0.201|
90841490|NCT03537404|181548951|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.271|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.159|0.383|||||Cmax parameters were logarithmically transformed|||0.383|0.159|
90841491|NCT03537404|181548952|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.074|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.016|0.132|||||AUCtau parameters were logarithmically transformed|||0.132|0.016|
90897524|NCT04270747|181660689|OTHER||Difference between means|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.2|0.8|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 48.||0.8|-3.2|
90897525|NCT04270747|181660689|OTHER||Difference between means|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|2.0|-3.4|0.5|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 52.||0.5|-3.4|
91092837|NCT00471497|182069809|OTHER||Difference in response rate|20.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.9|28.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||28.0|12.9|<0.0001
91092838|NCT00471497|182069810|OTHER||Difference in response rate|14.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|27.5||||||(Low)||27.5|2.1|
91092839|NCT00471497|182069810|OTHER||Difference in response rate|27.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.6|40.2||||||(Low)||40.2|14.6|
90841492|NCT03537404|181548953|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|-0.148|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.45|0.153|||||Cmax parameters were logarithmically transformed|||0.153|-0.450|
90841493|NCT03537404|181548954|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|-0.093|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.354|0.168|||||AUCtau parameters were logarithmically transformed|||0.168|-0.354|
90841494|NCT00068692|181548959|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35||||||One-sided p value was reported|Log Rank|stratified on ECOG performance status, clinical stage, timing of chemoradiotherapy, and regimen administration||||||0.35
90841495|NCT00068692|181548959|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69||||||one-sided p value was reported|Log Rank|stratified on ECOG performance status, clinical stage, timing of chemoradiaotherapy, regimen administration||||||0.69
90841496|NCT02540629|181548993|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test||||||0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.01
90841497|NCT00123422|181549057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical tests were 2-sided and a p value of \< 0.05 was the criterion for statistical significance.|ANCOVA|The baseline value was the co-variate in this analysis.||||||0.015
91092840|NCT00471497|182069810|OTHER||Difference in response rate|27.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.0|40.4||||||(Intermediate)||40.4|15.0|
91092841|NCT00471497|182069810|OTHER||Difference in response rate|17.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.6|29.8||||||(Intermediate)||29.8|4.6|
91092842|NCT00471497|182069810|OTHER||Difference in response rate|24.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.7|38.1||||||(High)||38.1|10.7|
91092843|NCT00471497|182069810|OTHER||Difference in response rate|15.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|28.6||||||(High)||28.6|2.1|
90841498|NCT00123422|181549058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|The baseline value was the co-variate in this analysis.||||||<0.05
91092844|NCT00471497|182069811|OTHER||Difference in response rate|21.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.9|28.8||||||||28.8|13.9|
90841499|NCT03584789|181549113|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.93|1.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.80|.93|.08
90841500|NCT03584789|181549113|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.86|1.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.79|.86|.18
90841501|NCT03584789|181549114|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.2|9.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.44|.20|.71
90841502|NCT03584789|181549114|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.21|11.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.00|.21|.62
90841503|NCT03584789|181549115|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.07||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||.12|-0.26|.38
90897526|NCT04270747|181660689|OTHER||Difference between means|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.0|0.0|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 4.||0.0|-3.0|
90897527|NCT04270747|181660689|OTHER||Difference between means|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.6|-0.2|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 8.||-0.2|-3.6|
90841504|NCT03584789|181549115|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.03||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||.17|-0.24|.70
90841505|NCT03584789|181549116|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||.50|-0.79|.65
90897528|NCT04270747|181660689|OTHER||Difference between means|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.1|1.5|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 16.||1.5|-2.1|
90841506|NCT03584789|181549116|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.29||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||.41|-0.99|.41
90841507|NCT00602472|181549140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.73|-0.5|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin vs. Placebo||-0.50|-0.73|<0.0001
90841508|NCT00602472|181549141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.56|-0.41|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin vs. Placebo||-0.41|-0.56|<0.0001
90841509|NCT00602472|181549142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.78|-0.58|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin vs. Placebo||-0.58|-0.78|<0.0001
90841510|NCT00602472|181549143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.8|-0.59|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin vs. Placebo||-0.59|-0.80|<0.0001
90897529|NCT04270747|181660689|OTHER||Difference between means|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.9|2.0|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 24.||2.0|-1.9|
91092845|NCT00471497|182069811|OTHER||Difference in response rate|18.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.3|26.0||||||||26.0|11.3|
91092846|NCT00471497|182069813|OTHER||Absolute difference|-1.6||||0.6987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|6.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||6.6|-9.8|0.6987
91092847|NCT01232283|182069858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|23.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.3|29.6|||Chi-squared|||||29.6|16.3|<0.0001
91092848|NCT01232283|182069859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.2|21.9|||Chi-squared|||||21.9|10.2|<0.0001
90841511|NCT00602472|181549144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8|<|0.0001||95.0|-18.1|-7.3|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin vs. Placebo||-7.3|-18.1|<0.0001
90841512|NCT00602472|181549145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3|<|0.0001||95.0|-22.4|-13.2|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin vs. Placebo||-13.2|-22.4|<0.0001
90841513|NCT00602472|181549146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4|<|0.0001||95.0|-20.3|-11.1|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin vs. Placebo||-11.1|-20.3|<0.0001
90841514|NCT00602472|181549147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6|<|0.0001||95.0|-17.2|-7.1|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin vs. Placebo||-7.1|-17.2|<0.0001
90841515|NCT00602472|181549148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.51|||<|0.0001||95.0|3.332|9.111|||Regression, Logistic|||"Linagliptin vs. Placebo~The odds-ratio is based on a logistic regression model including baseline HbA1c and previous antidiabetes medication."||9.111|3.332|<0.0001
90841516|NCT00602472|181549150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.818|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.989|7.327|||Regression, Logistic|||"Linagliptin vs. Placebo~The odds-ratio is based on a logistic regression model including baseline HbA1c and previous antidiabetes medication."||7.327|1.989|<0.0001
90841517|NCT00602472|181549152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.36|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.474|4.562|||Regression, Logistic|||"Linagliptin vs. Placebo~The odds-ratio is based on a logistic regression model including baseline HbA1c and previous antidiabetes medication."||4.562|2.474|<0.0001
90841518|NCT02446899|181549163|SUPERIORITY|The difference in estimates and associated 95% CI are weighted and are calculated using a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) approach, with stratification factors (SLEDAI-2K score at screening \[\<10 points vs \>= 10 points\], Week 0 OCS dose \[\<10 mg/day vs \>=10 mg/day prednisone or equivalent\] and type I IFN gene signature test result at screening \[high vs low\]).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.3||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|26.3||Nominal p-value.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||26.3|6.3|0.0013
90897530|NCT04270747|181660689|OTHER||Difference between means|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.0|0.2|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 32.||0.2|-4.0|
91092849|NCT01232283|182069860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Mean|-42.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.11|-33.2|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. The estimation and p-value were adjusted by the covariate.||||-33.20|-51.11|<0.0001
90897531|NCT04270747|181660689|OTHER||Difference between means|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.2|2.2|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 40.||2.2|-2.2|
90897532|NCT04270747|181660689|OTHER||Difference between means|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.9|1.7|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 48.||1.7|-2.9|
91028796|NCT03384745|181941343|SUPERIORITY|A sample size of 300 subjects has 99% power to detect a statistically significant difference between any treatment arm and placebo in the IGA score of 0 or 1 rate at Week 12, with a two-sided, unadjusted type I error of 0.05. Calculations assume IGA score 0 or 1 rates \>88% for study drug and \<=7% for placebo.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypotheses were tested at Week 12 (individual M1095 treatment arms would not be different from placebo with respect to achievement of IGA scores of 0 or 1). The primary analysis was based on the intent-to-treat (ITT) population using a non-responder imputation (NRI) for missing values. Primary treatment comparisons versus placebo were made with the two-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by actual prior biologic use (yes/no) and body weight (\<=90; \>90kg).|At Week 12, none (0.0% \[95% CI 0.0-6.8\]) of the 52 participants in the placebo group had an IGA score of 0 or 1 versus 44 (84.6% \[71.9-93.1\], p\<0.0001) of 52 participants in the M1095 60mg treatment group. Odds ratio could not be calculated due to the placebo group containing no responders.|||<0.0001
91028797|NCT03384745|181941343|SUPERIORITY|A sample size of 300 subjects has 99% power to detect a statistically significant difference between any treatment arm and placebo in the IGA score of 0 or 1 rate at Week 12, with a two-sided, unadjusted type I error of 0.05. Calculations assume IGA score 0 or 1 rates \>88% for study drug and \<=7% for placebo.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypotheses were tested at Week 12 (individual M1095 treatment arms would not be different from placebo with respect to achievement of IGA scores of 0 or 1). The primary analysis was based on the intent-to-treat (ITT) population using a non-responder imputation (NRI) for missing values. Primary treatment comparisons versus placebo were made with the two-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by actual prior biologic use (yes/no) and body weight (\<=90; \>90kg).|At Week 12, none (0.0% \[95% CI 0.0-6.8\]) of the 52 participants in the placebo group had an IGA score of 0 or 1 versus 41 (77.4% \[63.8-87.7\], p\<0.0001) of 53 participants in the M1095 120mg normal load treatment group. Odds ratio could not be calculated due to the placebo group containing no responders.|||<0.0001
91092850|NCT01232283|182069861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-34.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.4|-27.2|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. The estimation and p-value were adjusted by the covariate.||||-27.2|-42.4|<0.0001
90841519|NCT02446899|181549164|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.3||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|28.2||Adjusted p-value.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The difference in estimates and associated 95% CI are weighted and are calculated using a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) approach, with stratification factors (SLEDAI-2K score at screening \[\<10 points vs \>= 10 points\], Week 0 OCS dose \[\<10 mg/day vs \>=10 mg/day prednisone or equivalent\] and type I IFN gene signature test result at screening \[high vs low\]).||28.2|6.5|0.0022
90841520|NCT02446899|181549165|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.2||||0.0135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|35.7||Adjusted p-value.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The difference in estimates and associated 95% CI are weighted and are calculated using a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) approach, with stratification factors (SLEDAI-2K score at screening \[\<10 points vs \>= 10 points\], Week 0 OCS dose \[\<10 mg/day vs \>=10 mg/day prednisone or equivalent\] and type I IFN gene signature test result at screening \[high vs low\]).||35.7|6.8|0.0135
90841521|NCT02446899|181549166|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.0||||0.0392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|43.6||Adjusted p-value.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The difference in estimates and associated 95% CI are weighted and are calculated using a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) approach, with stratification factors (SLEDAI-2K score at screening \[\<10 points vs \>= 10 points\], Week 0 OCS dose \[\<10 mg/day vs \>=10 mg/day prednisone or equivalent\] and type I IFN gene signature test result at screening \[high vs low\]).||43.6|4.3|0.0392
90841522|NCT02446899|181549167|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.7||||0.5469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|20.0||Adjusted p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The difference in estimates and associated 95% CI are weighted and are calculated using a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) approach, with stratification factors (SLEDAI-2K score at screening \[\<10 points vs \>= 10 points\], Week 0 OCS dose \[\<10 mg/day vs \>=10 mg/day prednisone or equivalent\] and type I IFN gene signature test result at screening \[high vs low\]).||20.0|-10.6|0.5469
90841523|NCT02446899|181549168|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.67||||0.0809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.94||Adjusted p-value.|Negative binomial regression|||Analysed using a negative binomial regression model. The response variable in the model is the number of flares over the 52-week treatment period. The model includes covariates of treatment group, and the stratification factors (SLEDAI-2K score at screening \[\<10 points vs \>=10 points\], Week 0 OCS dose \[\<10 mg/day vs \>=10 mg/day prednisone or equivalent\] and type I IFN gene signature test result at screening \[high vs low\]). The logarithm of the follow-up time is used as an offset variable.||0.94|0.48|0.0809
90841524|NCT01002339|181549173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.02|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.02
90841525|NCT01002339|181549174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.06|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.06
90841526|NCT01002339|181549175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.9
90841527|NCT01002339|181549176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.07|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.07
90841528|NCT01002339|181549177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.2
90841529|NCT01002339|181549178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.4
90841530|NCT01002339|181549179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.8
90841531|NCT01002339|181549180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.56|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.56
90841532|NCT01002339|181549181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.8
90841533|NCT01002339|181549182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.66|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.66
90841534|NCT01002339|181549183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.37|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.37
90841535|NCT01002339|181549184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.45|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.45
90841536|NCT01002339|181549185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.50
90897533|NCT04270747|181660689|OTHER||Difference between means|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.5|1.1|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 52.||1.1|-3.5|
90897534|NCT04270747|181660690|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.8|3.1|||||Estimated using the stratified Newcombe confidence limits (with Mantel-Haenszel weights) adjusting for stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA (BCVA \< 64 letters, BCVA ≥ 64 letters).|Risk difference in percentage of participants who gained at least 10 letters of vision at Week 8.||3.1|-9.8|
90897535|NCT04270747|181660691|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.6|2.5|||||Estimated using the stratified Newcombe confidence limits (with Mantel-Haenszel weights) adjusting for stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA (BCVA \< 64 letters, BCVA ≥ 64 letters).|Risk difference in percentage of participants who gained at least 15 letters of vision at Week 52.||2.5|-13.6|
90897536|NCT04270747|181660691|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.4|4.2|||||Estimated using the stratified Newcombe confidence limits (with Mantel-Haenszel weights) adjusting for stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA (BCVA \< 64 letters, BCVA ≥ 64 letters).|Risk difference in percentage of participants who gained at least 15 letters of vision at Week 52.||4.2|-14.4|
90897537|NCT04270747|181660692|OTHER||Difference between means|-0.048|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.734|0.638|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model with treatment, Baseline CNV measurement and the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA (BCVA \< 64 letters, BCVA ≥ 64 letters) as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 8.||0.638|-0.734|
90897538|NCT04270747|181660692|OTHER||Difference between means|0.431|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.367|1.229|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model with treatment, Baseline CNV measurement and the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA (BCVA \< 64 letters, BCVA ≥ 64 letters) as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 16.||1.229|-0.367|
90897539|NCT04270747|181660692|OTHER||Difference between means|0.197|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.625|1.019|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model with treatment, Baseline CNV measurement and the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA (BCVA \< 64 letters, BCVA ≥ 64 letters) as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 24.||1.019|-0.625|
90897540|NCT04270747|181660692|OTHER||Difference between means|0.156|||||TWO_SIDED|2.0|-0.561|0.872|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model with treatment, Baseline CNV measurement and the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA (BCVA \< 64 letters, BCVA ≥ 64 letters) as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 52.||0.872|-0.561|
90897541|NCT04270747|181660692|OTHER||Difference between means|0.105|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.682|0.891|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model with treatment, Baseline CNV measurement and the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA (BCVA \< 64 letters, BCVA ≥ 64 letters) as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 8.||0.891|-0.682|
90897542|NCT04270747|181660692|OTHER||Difference between means|0.245|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.667|1.158|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model with treatment, Baseline CNV measurement and the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA (BCVA \< 64 letters, BCVA ≥ 64 letters) as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 16.||1.158|-0.667|
90897543|NCT04270747|181660692|OTHER||Difference between means|-0.116|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.065|0.834|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model with treatment, Baseline CNV measurement and the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA (BCVA \< 64 letters, BCVA ≥ 64 letters) as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 24.||0.834|-1.065|
90897544|NCT04270747|181660692|OTHER||Difference between means|0.647|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.186|1.479|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model with treatment, Baseline CNV measurement and the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA (BCVA \< 64 letters, BCVA ≥ 64 letters) as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 52.||1.479|-0.186|
90897545|NCT04270747|181660693|OTHER||Difference between means|6.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.6|17.9|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model with treatment, Baseline CST measurement and the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA (BCVA \< 64 letters, BCVA ≥ 64 letters) as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 4.||17.9|-5.6|
90897546|NCT04270747|181660693|OTHER||Difference between means|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.0|13.5|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model with treatment, Baseline CST measurement and the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA (BCVA \< 64 letters, BCVA ≥ 64 letters) as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 8.||13.5|-11.0|
90958949|NCT03339570|181797899|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.3|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Student's t test was used if they were variables adjusted to a normal distribution, or the Mann-Whitney U test if they were non-normal variables.||||<0.01
91028798|NCT03384745|181941343|SUPERIORITY|A sample size of 300 subjects has 99% power to detect a statistically significant difference between any treatment arm and placebo in the IGA score of 0 or 1 rate at Week 12, with a two-sided, unadjusted type I error of 0.05. Calculations assume IGA score 0 or 1 rates \>88% for study drug and \<=7% for placebo.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypotheses were tested at Week 12 (individual M1095 treatment arms would not be different from placebo with respect to achievement of IGA scores of 0 or 1). The primary analysis was based on the intent-to-treat (ITT) population using a non-responder imputation (NRI) for missing values. Primary treatment comparisons versus placebo were made with the two-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by actual prior biologic use (yes/no) and body weight (\<=90; \>90kg).|At Week 12, none (0.0% \[95% CI 0.0-6.8\]) of the 52 participants in the placebo group had an IGA score of 0 or 1 versus 45 (88.2% \[76.1-95.6\], p\<0.0001) of 51 participants in the M1095 120mg augmented load treatment group. Odds ratio could not be calculated due to the placebo group containing no responders.|||<0.0001
91032692|NCT03693430|181950365|SUPERIORITY|Week 104 responses were analysed using an analysis of covariance model with randomised treatment as factor and baseline body weight as covariate. Missing observations were multiple (x1000) imputed from retrieved subjects of the same randomised treatment arm.|Treatment difference|-12.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.33|-9.77|||ANCOVA|||Treatment policy estimand||-9.77|-15.33|<.0001
90958950|NCT01718353|181797961|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||ANOVA|||%ARNL change from baseline at Cycle 1 Day 8 in participants with ≥50% decrease in PSA at Cycle 4 was compared with that of participants who did not have ≥50% decrease in PSA at Cycle 4||||0.02
91092851|NCT01232283|182069862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|35.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.9|44.7|||Chi-squared|||||44.7|26.9|< 0.0001
91092852|NCT01232283|182069863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-21.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.4|-14.2|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. The estimation and p-value were adjusted by the covariate.||||-14.2|-28.4|<0.0001
91092853|NCT01232283|182069864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-4.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|-2.8|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. The estimation and p-value were adjusted by the covariate.||||-2.8|-5.3|<0.0001
91092854|NCT01232283|182069865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|2.63||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|4.56|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. The estimation and p-value were adjusted by the covariate.||||4.56|0.69|0.0078
91092855|NCT01232283|182069866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.5|20.0|||Chi-squared|||||20.0|8.5|<0.0001
91092856|NCT01232283|182069867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|7.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.408|17.399|||Log Rank|||||17.399|3.408|<0.0001
91092857|NCT01141608|182069925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|||||||Linear mixed effects model|||||||<0.05
91092858|NCT02941640|182069935|OTHER|Anova|||||<|0.0001||||||Significant when P\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
90841537|NCT01002339|181549186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.17|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.17
90841538|NCT01002339|181549187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.5
90841539|NCT01002339|181549188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.9
90841540|NCT01106690|181549222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.095|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.811|-0.437|||ANCOVA|||||-0.437|-0.811|<0.001
90841541|NCT01106690|181549222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.096|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.951|-0.575|||ANCOVA|||||-0.575|-0.951|<0.001
90841542|NCT01106690|181549223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.4||||0.007||95.0|1.26|4.57|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.57|1.26|0.007
90841543|NCT01106690|181549223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.73|10.6|||Regression, Logistic|||||10.60|2.73|<0.001
90841544|NCT01106690|181549224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-29.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.857|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.96|-21.78|||ANCOVA|||||-21.78|-36.96|<0.001
90841545|NCT01106690|181549224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-35.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.861|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.3|-28.11|||ANCOVA|||||-28.11|-43.30|<0.001
90841546|NCT01106690|181549225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|14.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.521|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.315|19.236|||ANCOVA|||||19.236|9.315|<0.001
90841547|NCT01106690|181549225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|17.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.509|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.293|22.166|||ANCOVA|||||22.166|12.293|<0.001
90841548|NCT01106690|181549226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|-1.8|||ANCOVA|||||-1.8|-3.6|<0.001
90841549|NCT01106690|181549226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|-2.8|||ANCOVA|||||-2.8|-4.6|<0.001
90841550|NCT01106690|181549227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-4.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.43||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.879|-1.251|||ANCOVA|||||-1.251|-6.879|0.005
90841551|NCT01106690|181549227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-3.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.433||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.281|-0.643|||ANCOVA|||||-0.643|-6.281|0.016
90841552|NCT01106690|181549228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-12.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|-0.9|||ANCOVA|||||-0.9|-12.1|0.034
90841553|NCT01106690|181549228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-16.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.1|-5.8|||ANCOVA|||||-5.8|-28.1|0.003
90841554|NCT01106690|181549229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|8.5|||ANCOVA|||||8.5|1.2|0.010
90841555|NCT01106690|181549229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|6.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|10.2|||ANCOVA|||||10.2|2.8|<0.001
90841556|NCT02683577|181549239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least square (LS) mean ratio|1.695|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.904|3.176|||||A repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed using a linear mixed effects model, with hepatic function group as a fixed term. Geometric LS mean ratios were derived for each HI group (Test) versus healthy control group (Reference).|Comparison of mild HI group (Test) versus healthy control group (Reference) for Cmax values for telotristat ethyl.||3.176|0.904|
90841557|NCT02683577|181549239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS mean ratio|2.462|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.579|3.837|||||A repeated-measures ANOVA was performed using a linear mixed effects model, with hepatic function group as a fixed term. Geometric LS mean ratios were derived for each HI group (Test) versus healthy control group (Reference).|Comparison of moderate HI group (Test) versus healthy control group (Reference) for Cmax values for telotristat ethyl.||3.837|1.579|
90841558|NCT02683577|181549240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median difference|0.0|||=|1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The Tmax was analysed using a non-parametric analysis (Walsh averages and appropriate quantile of the Wilcoxon signed rank test statistic). The median difference between the mild HI group (Test) versus healthy control group (Reference) and the corresponding 90% CIs were calculated by Hodges-Lehmann estimation.||0.000|0.000|=1.0000
90841559|NCT02683577|181549240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median difference|0.0|||=|1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The Tmax was analysed using a non-parametric analysis (Walsh averages and appropriate quantile of the Wilcoxon signed rank test statistic). The median difference between the moderate HI group (Test) versus healthy control group (Reference) and the corresponding 90% CIs were calculated by Hodges-Lehmann estimation.||0.000|0.000|=1.0000
90841560|NCT02683577|181549241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS mean ratio|2.294|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.144|4.598|||||A repeated-measures ANOVA was performed using a linear mixed effects model, with hepatic function group as a fixed term. Geometric LS mean ratios were derived for each HI group (Test) versus healthy control group (Reference).|Comparison of mild HI group (Test) versus healthy control group (Reference) for AUC(0-tlast) values for telotristat ethyl.||4.598|1.144|
90841561|NCT02683577|181549241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS mean ratio|3.168|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.715|5.852|||||A repeated-measures ANOVA was performed using a linear mixed effects model, with hepatic function group as a fixed term. Geometric LS mean ratios were derived for each HI group (Test) versus healthy control group (Reference).|Comparison of moderate HI group (Test) versus healthy control group (Reference) on AUC(0-tlast) values for telotristat ethyl.||5.852|1.715|
90841562|NCT02683577|181549243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS mean ratio|1.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.11|2.65|||||A repeated-measures ANOVA was performed using a linear mixed effects model, with hepatic function group as a fixed term. Geometric LS mean ratios were derived for each HI group (Test) versus healthy control group (Reference).|Comparison of mild HI group (Test) versus healthy control group (Reference) for Cmax values for LP-778902.||2.65|1.11|
90841563|NCT02683577|181549243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS mean ratio|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.51|2.66|||||A repeated-measures ANOVA was performed using a linear mixed effects model, with hepatic function group as a fixed term. Geometric LS mean ratios were derived for each HI group (Test) versus healthy control group (Reference).|Comparison of moderate HI group (Test) versus healthy control group (Reference) on Cmax values for LP-778902.||2.66|1.51|
90841564|NCT02683577|181549244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median difference|0.0|||=|0.316|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The Tmax was analysed using a non-parametric analysis (Walsh averages and appropriate quantile of the Wilcoxon signed rank test statistic). The median differences between the hepatic impaired group (Test) versus the healthy control group (Reference) and the corresponding 90% CIs were calculated by Hodges-Lehmann estimation.||1.000|0.000|=0.3160
90841565|NCT02683577|181549244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median difference|0.0|||=|0.4671|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The Tmax was analysed using a non-parametric analysis (Walsh averages and appropriate quantile of the Wilcoxon signed rank test statistic). The median differences between the hepatic impaired group (Test) versus the healthy control group (Reference) and the corresponding 90% CIs were calculated by Hodges-Lehmann estimation.||1.000|0.000|=0.4671
90841566|NCT02683577|181549245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS mean ratio|2.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.45|3.94|||||A repeated-measures ANOVA was performed using a linear mixed effects model, with hepatic function group as a fixed term. Geometric LS mean ratios were derived for each HI group (Test) versus healthy control group (Reference).|Comparison of mild HI group (Test) versus healthy control group (Reference) on AUC(0-tlast) values for LP-778902.||3.94|1.45|
90841567|NCT02683577|181549245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS mean ratio|3.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.45|5.03|||||A repeated-measures ANOVA was performed using a linear mixed effects model, with hepatic function group as a fixed term. Geometric LS mean ratios were derived for each HI group (Test) versus healthy control group (Reference).|Comparison of moderate HI group (Test) versus healthy control group (Reference) on AUC(0-tlast) values for LP-778902.||5.03|2.45|
90841568|NCT02683577|181549246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS mean ratio|2.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.33|3.82|||||A repeated-measures ANOVA was performed using a linear mixed effects model, with hepatic function group as a fixed term. Geometric LS mean ratios were derived for each HI group (Test) versus healthy control group (Reference).|Comparison of mild HI group (Test) versus healthy control group (Reference) on ln transformed AUC(0-inf) values for LP-778902.||3.82|1.33|
90841569|NCT02683577|181549246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS mean ratio|3.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.3|4.8|||||A repeated-measures ANOVA was performed using a linear mixed effects model, with hepatic function group as a fixed term. Geometric LS mean ratios were derived for each HI group (Test) versus healthy control group (Reference).|Comparison of moderate HI group (Test) versus healthy control group (Reference) on AUC(0-inf) values for LP-778902.||4.80|2.30|
90897547|NCT04270747|181660693|OTHER||Difference between means|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.9|16.6|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model with treatment, Baseline CST measurement and the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA (BCVA \< 64 letters, BCVA ≥ 64 letters) as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 16.||16.6|-12.9|
90841570|NCT03219528|181549249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline||||0.78
90841571|NCT03219528|181549249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 5||||0.88
90841572|NCT03219528|181549258|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline||||0.77
90841573|NCT03219528|181549258|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 5||||0.58
90841574|NCT00790842|181549260|OTHER|Recommended Phase 2 dose for Group A|Dose in milligrams per day|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Because no dose limiting toxicities were noted, the recommended phase 2 dose for patients with creatinine clearance of 30 to 60 mL/min is 25 mg/day|Recommended Phase 2 dose for Group A||||
90841575|NCT00790842|181549260|OTHER|Recommended phase 2 dose for patients in Group B|Dose in milligrams/day|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Because no dose limiting toxicities were noted, the recommended phase 2 dose of lenalidomide is 25 mg/day for patients with creatinine clearance \< 30 mL/minute who are not on dialysis|Recommended phase 2 dose for patients in Group B||||
90841576|NCT00790842|181549260|OTHER|Recommended phase 2 dose for Group C|Lenalidomide dose in mg/day|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Because no dose limiting toxicities were observed, the recommended phase 2 dose of lenalidomide is 25 mg/day for patients with creatinine clearance \< 30 mL/min who are receiving dialysis|Recommended phase 2 dose for Group C||||
90958951|NCT01718353|181797969|OTHER|||||||0.0927|||||||ANOVA|||MTB change from baseline at Cycle 1 Day 8 in participants with ≥30% decrease in PSA at Cycle 4 was compared with that of participants who did not have ≥30% decrease in PSA at Cycle 4||||0.0927
91092859|NCT02941640|182069935|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||Significant when P\<0.05.|Tukey post hoc test|||Post hoc analysis was done by Tukey test.||||0.001
91092860|NCT02941640|182069935|OTHER|Tukey post hoc test|||||<|0.0001||||||Significant when P\<0.05|Tukey post hoc test|||||||<0.0001
90841577|NCT01208207|181549349|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The etoricoxib dose (90 mg) will be considered non-inferior to naproxen 1000 mg if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval of the between-treatment difference in the least squares (LS) mean (etoricoxib minus naproxen 1000 mg) is no larger than 8 mm VAS (non-inferiority margin).|Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.47|4.19|||ANCOVA|||||4.19|-5.47|
90841578|NCT01208207|181549350|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The etoricoxib dose (60 mg) will be considered non-inferior to naproxen 1000 mg if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval of the between-treatment difference in the LS mean (etoricoxib minus naproxen 1000 mg) is no larger than 8 mm VAS (non-inferiority margin).|Difference in Least Squares Mean|1.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.19|5.37|||ANCOVA|||||5.37|-2.19|
90841579|NCT01208207|181549351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-1.58||||0.396|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.96|0.81|||ANCOVA|||||0.81|-3.96|0.396
90841580|NCT01208207|181549352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-2.7||||0.112||80.0|-4.88|-0.52|||ANCOVA|||||-0.52|-4.88|0.112
90841581|NCT01656408|181549368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8||0.978|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.4|6.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 1||6.6|-6.4|0.978
90841582|NCT01656408|181549368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-9.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2||0.005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.4|-4.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 1||-4.5|-15.4|0.005
90841583|NCT01656408|181549368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-14.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-19.8|-8.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 1||-8.4|-19.8|0.000
90841584|NCT01656408|181549368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2||0.03|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.0|-1.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 1||-1.9|-13.0|0.030
90841585|NCT01656408|181549368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.9||0.484|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.9|11.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 10||11.9|-4.9|0.484
90841586|NCT01656408|181549368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0||0.169|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.3|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 10||0.9|-9.3|0.169
90958952|NCT01959516|181797970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0250
90841587|NCT01656408|181549368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-8.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6||0.023|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.9|-2.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 10||-2.6|-14.9|0.023
90841588|NCT01656408|181549368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.6||0.605|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.4|5.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 10||5.5|-10.4|0.605
90841589|NCT01656408|181549369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9||0.635|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.9|8.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 1||8.7|-4.9|0.635
90841590|NCT01656408|181549369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8||0.077|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.1|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 1||-0.4|-10.1|0.077
90841591|NCT01656408|181549369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-10.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.0|-5.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 1||-5.7|-15.0|0.001
90841592|NCT01656408|181549369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5||0.556|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.0|3.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 1||3.9|-8.0|0.556
90841593|NCT01656408|181549369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3||0.527|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.5|2.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 10||2.5|-5.5|0.527
90841594|NCT01656408|181549369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8||0.234|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.1|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 10||1.4|-8.1|0.234
90841595|NCT01656408|181549369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-8.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.7|-4.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 10||-4.1|-12.7|0.002
90841596|NCT01656408|181549369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1||0.726|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.2|6.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 10||6.5|-4.2|0.726
90841597|NCT01656408|181549370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5||0.855|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.0|7.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 1||7.3|-9.0|0.855
90841598|NCT01656408|181549370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.1||0.658|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.8|18.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 6||18.1|-10.8|0.658
90841599|NCT01656408|181549370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.1||0.392|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.3|18.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 15||18.9|-6.3|0.392
90841600|NCT01656408|181549371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.563|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.0|3.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 1||3.0|-6.0|0.563
90841601|NCT01656408|181549371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.381|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8|2.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 6||2.5|-0.8|0.381
90841602|NCT01656408|181549371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.387|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.7|5.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 15||5.2|-1.7|0.387
90841603|NCT01656408|181549372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.7||0.357|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.9|12.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 1||12.8|-3.9|0.357
90841604|NCT01656408|181549372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.8||0.15|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.2|15.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 6||15.9|-1.2|0.150
91092861|NCT02941640|182069935|OTHER|||||||0.044||||||Significant when P\<0.05|Tukey post hoc test|||||||0.044
90958953|NCT01959516|181797971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1439|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1439
91092862|NCT02941640|182069935|OTHER||||||<|0.272||||||Significant when P\<0.05.|Tukey post hoc test|||||||<0.272
91092863|NCT02941640|182069935|OTHER|||||||0.835||||||Significant when P\<0.05.|Tukey post hoc test|||||||0.835
91092864|NCT02941640|182069935|OTHER|||||||0.199||||||Significant when P\<0.05.|Tukey post hoc test|||||||0.199
91092865|NCT02941640|182069936|OTHER|Anova|||||<|0.0001||||||Significant when P\<0.05.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91092866|NCT02941640|182069936|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Significant when P\<0.05|Tukey post hoc test|||||||<0.0001
91092867|NCT02941640|182069936|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Significant when P\<0.05|Tukey post hoc test|||||||<0.0001
90841605|NCT01656408|181549372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.2||0.578|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.3|12.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 15||12.3|-6.3|0.578
90841606|NCT01656408|181549373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0||0.942|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.1|5.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 1||5.5|-5.1|0.942
90841607|NCT01656408|181549373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7||0.627|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.8|8.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 6||8.5|-4.8|0.627
90841608|NCT01656408|181549373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.046|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|7.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 15||7.6|0.9|0.046
90841609|NCT01656408|181549374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-10.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8||0.025|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.0|-3.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 1||-3.6|-18.0|0.025
90841610|NCT01656408|181549374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6||0.055|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.0|-1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 28||-1.1|-11.0|0.055
90841611|NCT01656408|181549375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6||0.999|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.4|4.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 1||4.4|-4.4|0.999
90841612|NCT01656408|181549375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2||0.934|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.7|5.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 8||5.2|-5.7|0.934
90841613|NCT01656408|181549375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4||0.547|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.7|7.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 15||7.9|-3.7|0.547
90841614|NCT01656408|181549375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9||0.906|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.2|4.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 22||4.5|-5.2|0.906
90841615|NCT01656408|181549375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1||0.682|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.0|6.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 28||6.6|-4.0|0.682
90897548|NCT04270747|181660693|OTHER||Difference between means|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.1|14.4|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model with treatment, Baseline CST measurement and the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA (BCVA \< 64 letters, BCVA ≥ 64 letters) as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 24.||14.4|-14.1|
91092868|NCT02941640|182069936|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Significant when P\<0.05.|Tukey post hoc test|||||||<0.0001
91092869|NCT02941640|182069936|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Tukey post hoc test|||||||<0.0001
91092870|NCT02941640|182069936|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Significant when P\<0.05.|Tukey post hoc test|||||||<0.0001
91092871|NCT02941640|182069936|OTHER|||||||1||||||Significant when P\<0.05|Tukey post hoc test|||||||1.00
91092872|NCT03658980|182069940|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.233|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.131|0.415|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.415|0.131|<0.001
91092873|NCT03141359|182069944|SUPERIORITY||Rate|0.627||||0.388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.492|0.75|||Fisher Exact||Confidence interval estimated using the Clopper Pearson method.|We used a single-stage design to test null hypothesis (H0) that 1-yr PFS is \<= 0.60. Assuming one-sided α= 0.10, 60 patients provided 98% power to reject H0, assuming the true 1-yr PFS is 0.80. Since not all enrolled subjects received durva, study power was affected. For patients who did not receive durva, H0 was assumed to be 0.40 versus an alternative of 0.60. Including these subjects reduced power from 98%. The conditional power given that 13 evaluable subjects didn't receive durva was 88%.||0.750|0.492|.388
90841616|NCT01656408|181549376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8||0.099|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.1|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 1||0.0|-11.1|0.099
90841617|NCT01656408|181549376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.034|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.1|-1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 10||-1.7|-10.1|0.034
90841618|NCT01656408|181549377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.281|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.5|1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 1||1.6|-6.5|0.281
90841619|NCT01656408|181549377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.333|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.2|4.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 10||4.0|-1.2|0.333
90841620|NCT01656408|181549378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4||0.279|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.7|2.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 1||2.1|-9.7|0.279
90841621|NCT01656408|181549378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4||0.817|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.9|5.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 28||5.2|-6.9|0.817
90841622|NCT01656408|181549379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.756|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.2|4.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 1||4.7|-3.2|0.756
90841623|NCT01656408|181549379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8||0.158|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|8.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 8||8.6|-0.7|0.158
90897549|NCT04270747|181660693|OTHER||Difference between means|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.3|12.9|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model with treatment, Baseline CST measurement and the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA (BCVA \< 64 letters, BCVA ≥ 64 letters) as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 32.||12.9|-15.3|
91092874|NCT03141359|182069947|OTHER|Estimation only|Rate|0.571|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.422|0.712|||||Confidence interval estimated using the Clopper Pearson method.|||0.712|0.422|
91092875|NCT03141359|182069948|OTHER|Estimation only|Rate|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.621|0.853|||||Confidence interval estimated using the Clopper Pearson method.|||0.853|0.621|
90897550|NCT04270747|181660693|OTHER||Difference between means|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.7|14.1|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model with treatment, Baseline CST measurement and the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA (BCVA \< 64 letters, BCVA ≥ 64 letters) as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 40.||14.1|-13.7|
91092876|NCT03141359|182069956|OTHER|Estimation only|Rate|0.164|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.082|0.281|||||Confidence interval estimated using the Clopper Pearson method.|||0.281|0.082|
91092877|NCT03141359|182069957|OTHER|Estimation only|Rate|0.246|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.145|0.373|||||Confidence interval estimated using the Clopper Pearson method.|||0.373|0.145|
91092878|NCT05079321|182069963|OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.25
91092879|NCT05079321|182069964|OTHER|||||||0.36|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.36
90897551|NCT04270747|181660693|OTHER||Difference between means|7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.4|21.4|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model with treatment, Baseline CST measurement and the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA (BCVA \< 64 letters, BCVA ≥ 64 letters) as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 48.||21.4|-7.4|
91092880|NCT05079321|182069965|OTHER|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||1.0
91092881|NCT05079321|182069966|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.06
91092882|NCT05079321|182069967|OTHER|||||||0.49|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.49
91092883|NCT05079321|182069968|OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.07
91092884|NCT05079321|182069969|OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.33
91092885|NCT05079321|182069970|OTHER|||||||0.65|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.65
91092886|NCT05079321|182069972|OTHER|||||||0.91|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.91
91092887|NCT05079321|182069973|OTHER|||||||0.71|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.71
91092888|NCT05079321|182069974|OTHER|||||||0.97|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.97
91092889|NCT05079321|182069975|OTHER|||||||0.75|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.75
91092890|NCT05079321|182069976|OTHER|||||||0.59|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.59
91092891|NCT05079321|182069977|OTHER|||||||0.69|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.69
91092892|NCT01081626|182069978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0135||||0.956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1325|0.1637|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||0.1637|-0.1325|0.9560
90897552|NCT04270747|181660693|OTHER||Difference between means|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|2.0|-9.3|12.5|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model with treatment, Baseline CST measurement and the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA (BCVA \< 64 letters, BCVA ≥ 64 letters) as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 52.||12.5|-9.3|
91092893|NCT01081626|182069979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.088||||0.7924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7642|1.549|||Chi-squared|||||1.5490|0.7642|0.7924
91092894|NCT01081626|182069983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5331||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5331
91092895|NCT01081626|182069984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.015||||0.9351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7175|1.435|||Chi-squared|||||1.4350|0.7175|0.9351
91092896|NCT00032591|182070015|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A target of 363 patients with primary events required to discern a 32% relative drop in annual primary event rates with 90% power (from 5.5% for HQACM to 3.75% for PST) was based on a sample size of 3200 patients with 1 year of enrollment and a minimum of 2 years follow-up. Due to slower than planned enrollment, we randomized 2922 patients over 2.75 years, with a mean follow-up of 3 years.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.14|||||||Log Rank|||The null hypothesis was the hazard ratio was equal to 1.||||0.14
91092897|NCT04953338|182070101|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.32|||||Calculated as the relative risk of a person diagnosed with vitiligo having a depression episode versus people not diagnosed with vitiligo|||1.32|0.92|
91092898|NCT04953338|182070104|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.51|||||Calculated as the relative risk of a person diagnosed with vitiligo having with anxiety disorder versus people not diagnosed with vitiligo|||1.51|1.01|
91092899|NCT04953338|182070105|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.56|||||Calculated as the relative risk of a person diagnosed with vitiligo having with recurrent depressive disorder versus people not diagnosed with vitiligo|||1.56|1.01|
91092900|NCT01721798|182070106|NON_INFERIORITY|Primary Outcome Analysis: Proportion of women with detectable genital viral load across 24 months|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.62|||GEE|||C-IUD is comparator group.||1.62|0.47|0.66
91092901|NCT01721798|182070107|NON_INFERIORITY|Secondary Outcome Analysis of Proportion with Detectable plasma viral load users at 24 months|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.86|||GEE|Adjusted as-treated analysis||C-IUD is comparator group.||1.86|0.37|0.64
91092902|NCT01721798|182070109|NON_INFERIORITY|Secondary Outcome Analysis of Allocated IUC continuation at 24 months|Hazard Ratio (HR)|8.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.03|24.4|||Regression, Cox|||C-IUD is comparator group.||24.4|3.03|<0.001
91092903|NCT03979313|182070126|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk Reduction (RRR)|62.15||||0.0708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.57|86.8|||Poisson Model||RRR of Medi8897 versus placebo; 95% CI and p-value estimated with Poisson regression with robust variance (including stratification factors \[age at randomisation\] as covariate) obtained after multiple imputation|||86.80|-8.57|0.0708
90897553|NCT04270747|181660693|OTHER||Difference between means|6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.4|20.0|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model with treatment, Baseline CST measurement and the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA (BCVA \< 64 letters, BCVA ≥ 64 letters) as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 4.||20.0|-7.4|
90841624|NCT01656408|181549379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8||0.404|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.4|7.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 15||7.1|-2.4|0.404
90841625|NCT01656408|181549379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.214|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|7.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 22||7.1|-1.0|0.214
90841626|NCT01656408|181549379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9||0.086|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.2|10.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 28||10.0|0.2|0.086
90841627|NCT01656408|181549380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-11.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1||0.003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.8|-5.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 1||-5.9|-16.8|0.003
90841628|NCT01656408|181549380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5||0.105|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.3|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 28||0.1|-12.3|0.105
90841629|NCT01656408|181549381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6||0.691|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.5|4.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 1||4.6|-7.5|0.691
90897554|NCT04270747|181660693|OTHER||Difference between means|-5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-19.3|9.1|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model with treatment, Baseline CST measurement and the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA (BCVA \< 64 letters, BCVA ≥ 64 letters) as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 8.||9.1|-19.3|
90897555|NCT04270747|181660693|OTHER||Difference between means|-3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.9|13.3|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model with treatment, Baseline CST measurement and the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA (BCVA \< 64 letters, BCVA ≥ 64 letters) as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 16.||13.3|-20.9|
91092904|NCT03979313|182070127|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk Reduction (RRR)|74.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.63|87.12|||Poisson Model||RRR of Medi8897 versus placebo; 95% CI and p-value estimated with Poisson regression with robust variance (including stratification factors \[age at randomisation\] as covariate) obtained after multiple imputation|||87.12|49.63|<0.0001
90897556|NCT04270747|181660693|OTHER||Difference between means|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.6|10.6|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model with treatment, Baseline CST measurement and the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA (BCVA \< 64 letters, BCVA ≥ 64 letters) as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 24.||10.6|-22.6|
90897557|NCT04270747|181660693|OTHER||Difference between means|-7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.3|9.3|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model with treatment, Baseline CST measurement and the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA (BCVA \< 64 letters, BCVA ≥ 64 letters) as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 32.||9.3|-23.3|
90841630|NCT01656408|181549381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9||0.57|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.3|8.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 8||8.8|-4.3|0.570
90841631|NCT01656408|181549381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4||0.666|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.2|7.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 15||7.1|-4.2|0.666
90841632|NCT01656408|181549381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.7||0.534|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.9|4.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 22||4.9|-10.9|0.534
90841633|NCT01656408|181549381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0||0.528|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.1|9.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 28||9.2|-4.1|0.528
90841634|NCT01656408|181549406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.848|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.8|3.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 1||3.0|-3.8|0.848
90841635|NCT01656408|181549406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.0|-4.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 1||-4.0|-8.0|<0.0001
90841636|NCT01656408|181549406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-8.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5||0.025|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.4|-2.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 1||-2.4|-14.4|0.025
90841637|NCT01656408|181549406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.044|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.0|-0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 1||-0.8|-7.0|0.044
90841638|NCT01656408|181549406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.139|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|6.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 10||6.6|-0.4|0.139
90841639|NCT01656408|181549406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.088|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.9|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 10||-0.2|-8.9|0.088
90841640|NCT01656408|181549406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2||0.023|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.3|-1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 10||-1.6|-9.3|0.023
90841641|NCT01656408|181549406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.878|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.5|3.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 10||3.8|-4.5|0.878
90841642|NCT01656408|181549407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2||0.512|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.4|7.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||7.7|-3.4|0.512
90841643|NCT01656408|181549407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0||0.429|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.5|2.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||2.7|-7.5|0.429
90841644|NCT01656408|181549407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9||0.166|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.3|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||0.8|-9.3|0.166
90841645|NCT01656408|181549407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8||0.591|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.6|4.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||4.5|-8.6|0.591
90841646|NCT01656408|181549408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.7||0.248|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.5|13.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||13.5|-2.5|0.248
90841647|NCT01656408|181549408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9||0.836|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.6|4.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||4.4|-5.6|0.836
90841648|NCT01656408|181549408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2||0.109|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.7|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||0.1|-10.7|0.109
90841649|NCT01656408|181549408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7||0.785|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.4|7.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||7.5|-5.4|0.785
90897558|NCT04270747|181660693|OTHER||Difference between means|-6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.8|9.8|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model with treatment, Baseline CST measurement and the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA (BCVA \< 64 letters, BCVA ≥ 64 letters) as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 40.||9.8|-22.8|
90897559|NCT04270747|181660693|OTHER||Difference between means|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.3|16.2|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model with treatment, Baseline CST measurement and the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA (BCVA \< 64 letters, BCVA ≥ 64 letters) as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 48.||16.2|-17.3|
91028799|NCT03384745|181941343|SUPERIORITY|A sample size of 300 subjects has 99% power to detect a statistically significant difference between any treatment arm and placebo in the IGA score of 0 or 1 rate at Week 12, with a two-sided, unadjusted type I error of 0.05. Calculations assume IGA score 0 or 1 rates \>88% for study drug and \<=7% for placebo.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypotheses were tested at Week 12 (individual M1095 treatment arms would not be different from placebo with respect to achievement of IGA scores of 0 or 1). The primary analysis was based on the intent-to-treat (ITT) population using a non-responder imputation (NRI) for missing values. Primary treatment comparisons versus placebo were made with the two-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by actual prior biologic use (yes/no) and body weight (\<=90; \>90kg).|At Week 12, none (0.0% \[95% CI 0.0-6.8\]) of the 52 participants in the placebo group had an IGA score of 0 or 1 versus 41 (77.4% \[63.8-87.7\], p\<0.0001) of 53 participants in the secukinumab 300mg treatment group. Odds ratio could not be calculated due to the placebo group containing no responders.|||<0.0001
91032693|NCT03693430|181950365|SUPERIORITY|All responses prior to first discontinuation of treatment (or initiation of other anti-obesity medication or bariatric surgery) were included in a mixed model for repeated measurements with randomised treatment as factor and baseline body weight as covariate, all nested within visit.|Treatment difference|-16.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.64|-13.45|||MMRM (Mixed model repeated measurement)|||Hypothetical estimand||-13.45|-18.64|<0.0001
90897560|NCT04270747|181660693|OTHER||Difference between means|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.5|15.0|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model with treatment, Baseline CST measurement and the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA (BCVA \< 64 letters, BCVA ≥ 64 letters) as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 52.||15.0|-10.5|
90897561|NCT02134925|181660730|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0004
90841650|NCT01656408|181549409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2||0.365|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.5|8.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||8.3|-2.5|0.365
90841651|NCT01656408|181549409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9||0.424|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.4|2.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||2.6|-7.4|0.424
90841652|NCT01656408|181549409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2||0.025|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.3|-2.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-2.2|-13.3|0.025
90841653|NCT01656408|181549409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1||0.475|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.5|3.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||3.0|-7.5|0.475
90841654|NCT01656408|181549410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4||0.715|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.4|4.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 1||4.8|-7.4|0.715
90841655|NCT01656408|181549410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3||0.338|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.9|3.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 6||3.4|-11.9|0.338
90841656|NCT01656408|181549410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4||0.281|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.0|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 15||2.3|-10.0|0.281
90841657|NCT01656408|181549411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8||0.317|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.1|7.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||7.9|-2.1|0.317
90841658|NCT01656408|181549412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6||0.09|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.2|13.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||13.2|0.2|0.090
90841659|NCT01656408|181549413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.128|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|6.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||6.8|-0.3|0.128
90841660|NCT01656408|181549414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1||0.477|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.9|3.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 1||3.3|-7.9|0.477
90841661|NCT01656408|181549414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0||0.09|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.0|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 6||-0.2|-11.0|0.090
90841662|NCT01656408|181549414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0||0.028|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.0|-2.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 15||-2.2|-13.0|0.028
90897562|NCT02134925|181660735|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0001
90897563|NCT02036645|181660811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.04|||Regression, Linear||Since an Estimation approach was taken for the statistical analysis, no p-values were calculated|||1.04|0.82|
91092905|NCT03979313|182070128|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk Reduction (RRR)|76.36|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.27|85.18|||Poisson Model||RRR of Medi8897 versus placebo; 95% CI and p-value estimated with Poisson regression with robust variance (including stratification factors \[age at randomisation\] as covariate) obtained after multiple imputation|||85.18|62.27|<0.0001
91092906|NCT03979313|182070129|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk Reduction (RRR)|76.84||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.36|89.41|||Poisson Model||RRR of Medi8897 versus placebo; 95% CI and p-value estimated with Poisson regression with robust variance (including stratification factors \[age at randomisation\] as covariate) obtained after multiple imputation|||89.41|49.36|0.0002
91092907|NCT00089648|182070133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Objective Response Rate (ORR) (percent)|23.0||||||95.0|13.2|35.5|||||ORR=proportion of subjects with confirmed CR or PR, relative to total number of subjects who received at least 1 dose of study medication, were refractory to bevacizumab, had a baseline disease assessment and had the correct histological cancer type.|||35.5|13.2|
91092908|NCT03183908|182070147|NON_INFERIORITY|The one-sided non-inferiority test with the alpha level set at 0.025 and non-inferiority margin of 5%, stratified by site.|Difference in proportions|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|0.4|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|The null hypothesis is allV3 is inferior (i.e., allV3 will have higher rates of moderate/severe injection site pain) to IIV3-HD in regards to the proportion of subjects having moderate or severe injection site pain in the first week post vaccination.||0.4|-5.8|
91092909|NCT03183908|182070149|OTHER|The comparison of the number of participants with reported SAEs regardless of relationship to study product were made using 95% confidence intervals. Results were reported using exact binomial confidence intervals.|Comparison of Frequencies|2.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|4.47||||||||4.47|1.09|
91092910|NCT03183908|182070149|OTHER|The comparison of the number of participants with reported SAEs regardless of relationship to study product were made using 95% confidence intervals. Results were reported using exact binomial confidence intervals.|Comparison of Frequencies|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|2.23||||||||2.23|0.16|
91092911|NCT03183908|182070150|NON_INFERIORITY|This objective will be assessed using a one-sided noninferiority test with the alpha level set at 0.025 and noninferiority margin of 10%. The null hypothesis is the allV3 H3N2 seroconversion rate is inferior to IIV3-HD seroconversion rate.|Difference in Proportions|-0.0579||||0.1245|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-0.1291||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The directional comparison was the lower bound of the confidence interval using a 10% non-inferiority margin.||||-.1291|0.1245
90841663|NCT01656408|181549415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.877|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.9|4.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||4.1|-4.9|0.877
90841664|NCT01656408|181549416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.6||0.827|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.3|7.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||7.2|-9.3|0.827
90841665|NCT01656408|181549417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5||0.161|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.4|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||1.0|-11.4|0.161
90841666|NCT01656408|181549418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-10.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.4||0.046|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.8|-2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 1||-2.3|-18.8|0.046
90841667|NCT01656408|181549418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-12.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.2|-8.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 28||-8.6|-17.2|0.001
91092912|NCT03183908|182070151|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.01 level to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Difference in proportions|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|98.0|-5.0|1.0|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Redness||1.0|-5.0|
91092913|NCT03183908|182070151|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.01 level to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Difference in proportions|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|98.0|-3.1|4.3|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Shoulder Pain||4.3|-3.1|
91092914|NCT03183908|182070151|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.01 level to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Difference in proportions|-3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|98.0|-7.5|-0.3|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Swelling||-0.3|-7.5|
91092915|NCT03183908|182070151|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.01 level to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Difference in proportions|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|98.0|-2.7|5.9|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Tenderness||5.9|-2.7|
90841668|NCT01656408|181549419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6||0.91|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.6|5.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||5.2|-4.6|0.910
90841669|NCT01656408|181549420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6||0.906|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.6|5.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||5.7|-6.6|0.906
90841670|NCT01656408|181549421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.87|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.4|3.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||3.7|-4.4|0.870
90841671|NCT01656408|181549422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.0|-3.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 1||-3.7|-5.0|<0.0001
90841672|NCT01656408|181549422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-8.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.7|-5.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 10||-5.7|-10.7|0.001
90841673|NCT01656408|181549423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.038|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.9|-0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-0.8|-4.9|0.038
91092916|NCT03183908|182070152|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.025 level.|Difference in proportions|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|0.2|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Redness||0.2|-5.2|
90841674|NCT01656408|181549424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.238|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.0|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||1.2|-6.0|0.238
90841675|NCT01656408|181549425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.048|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.7|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-0.6|-4.7|0.048
90841676|NCT01656408|181549426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.83|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.2|2.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 1||2.5|-3.2|0.830
90841677|NCT01656408|181549426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9||0.063|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.8|-0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 28||-0.7|-10.8|0.063
90841678|NCT01656408|181549427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7||0.892|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.1|6.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||6.1|-7.1|0.892
90841679|NCT01656408|181549428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1||0.571|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.4|6.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||6.9|-3.4|0.571
90897564|NCT02036645|181660811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.3|||Regression, Linear||Since an Estimation approach was taken for the statistical analysis, no p-values were calculated|||1.30|0.71|
90841680|NCT01656408|181549429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8||0.816|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.4|4.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||4.0|-5.4|0.816
90841681|NCT01656408|181549430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2||0.061|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.4|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 1||-0.6|-8.4|0.061
90841682|NCT01656408|181549430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6||0.161|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.3|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 28||0.7|-8.3|0.161
90841683|NCT01656408|181549431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.786|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.0|2.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||2.9|-4.0|0.786
90841684|NCT01656408|181549432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3||0.263|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.3|1.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||1.8|-9.3|0.263
90841685|NCT01656408|181549433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.565|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.4|2.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||2.1|-4.4|0.565
90841686|NCT02420821|181549440|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.0205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.95|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression.|Stratified Analysis: Strata were presence of liver metastases, Motzer score, PD-L1 level per interactive voice/web response system (IxRS).||0.95|0.57|0.0205
91032694|NCT03693430|181950366|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.95|8.42|||Regression, Logistic|||Treatment policy estimand||8.42|2.95|<0.0001
90841687|NCT02420821|181549442|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.2675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.08|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression.|Stratified Analysis: Strata were presence of liver metastases, Motzer score, PD-L1 level per interactive voice/web response system (IxRS).||1.08|0.76|0.2675
90841688|NCT02420821|181549444|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.13|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression.|Stratified Analysis: Strata were presence of liver metastases, Motzer score, PD-L1 level per interactive voice/web response system (IxRS).||1.13|0.64|0.263
90841689|NCT02420821|181549446|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.1218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.04|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression.|Stratified Analysis: Strata were presence of liver metastases, Motzer score, PD-L1 level per interactive voice/web response system (IxRS).||1.04|0.74|0.1218
90897565|NCT02036645|181660812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|0.98|||Regression, Linear||Since an Estimation approach was taken for the statistical analysis, no p-values were calculated|||0.98|0.81|
90897566|NCT02036645|181660812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.27|||Regression, Linear||Since an Estimation approach was taken for the statistical analysis, no p-values were calculated|||1.27|0.65|
90897567|NCT00811382|181660884|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.97
91032695|NCT03693430|181950366|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|18.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.04|32.49|||MMRM|||Hypothetical estimand||32.49|10.04|<0.0001
91032696|NCT02373098|181950406|OTHER|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||CCL5=RANTES||||0.000
91032697|NCT02373098|181950406|OTHER|||||||0.035|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||IL17A||||0.035
91032698|NCT02373098|181950406|OTHER|||||||0.911|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||CXCL13||||0.911
91032699|NCT02373098|181950406|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||IL6||||1.000
91032700|NCT02373098|181950406|OTHER|||||||0.934|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||IL8||||0.934
91032701|NCT02373098|181950406|OTHER|||||||0.727|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||IL13||||0.727
91032702|NCT02373098|181950406|OTHER|||||||0.179|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||IL23||||0.179
91032703|NCT02373098|181950406|OTHER|||||||0.208|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||VLA4||||0.208
91032704|NCT02373098|181950406|OTHER|||||||0.73|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||CXCL10=IP-10 (CXCR3 ligand)||||0.730
91032705|NCT02373098|181950406|OTHER|||||||0.725|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||CCL2=MCP-1||||0.725
91032706|NCT02373098|181950406|OTHER|||||||0.057|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||IL4||||0.057
91032707|NCT02373098|181950406|OTHER|||||||0.724|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||TNF alpha||||0.724
91032708|NCT02373098|181950406|OTHER|||||||0.662|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||IL22||||0.662
91032709|NCT02373098|181950407|OTHER|||||||0.256|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||CD3 abs||||0.256
91032710|NCT02373098|181950407|OTHER|||||||0.587|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||CD19 abs||||0.587
91032711|NCT02373098|181950407|OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||NK abs||||0.300
91032712|NCT02373098|181950407|OTHER|||||||0.096|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||NKT abs||||0.096
91032713|NCT02373098|181950407|OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Hi CD16CD56 abs||||0.270
91032714|NCT02373098|181950407|OTHER|||||||0.902|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||CD4CD25||||0.902
91032715|NCT02373098|181950407|OTHER|||||||0.283|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Hi CD4CD25||||0.283
91032716|NCT02373098|181950410|OTHER|||||||0.017|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||CD3 %||||0.017
90841690|NCT02420821|181549448|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.6138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.21|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression.|Stratified Analysis: Strata were presence of liver metastases, Motzer score, PD-L1 level per interactive voice/web response system (IxRS).||1.21|0.72|0.6138
90841691|NCT02420821|181549449|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|3.3||||0.2733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|9.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for difference in response rates was constructed using Wald method.|Stratified Analysis: Strata were presence of liver metastases, Motzer score, PD-L1 level per interactive voice/web response system (IxRS).||9.70|-3.09|0.2733
90841692|NCT02420821|181549451|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|1.96||||0.5121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.32|8.24|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for difference in response rates was constructed using Wald method.|Stratified Analysis: Strata were presence of liver metastases, Motzer score, PD-L1 level per interactive voice/web response system (IxRS).||8.24|-4.32|0.5121
90841693|NCT02420821|181549454|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.0606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.01|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression.|Stratified Analysis: Strata were presence of liver metastases, Motzer score, PD-L1 level per interactive voice/web response system (IxRS).||1.01|0.71|0.0606
90841694|NCT02420821|181549455|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|5.09||||0.1011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|11.58|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for difference in response rates was constructed using Wald method.|Stratified Analysis: Strata were presence of liver metastases, Motzer score, PD-L1 level per interactive voice/web response system (IxRS).||11.58|-1.40|0.1011
90841695|NCT02420821|181549458|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.0254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.98|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression.|Stratified Analysis: Strata were presence of liver metastases, Motzer score, PD-L1 level per interactive voice/web response system (IxRS).||0.98|0.70|0.0254
90897568|NCT03881696|181660937|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|27.853|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.1274|111.2144||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0001 at the interim analysis OR p \< 0.05 at the final analysis. Gatekeeping and multiple testing strategies were performed to ensure the overall family-wise error rate was ≤ 5%.|Fisher Exact||The odds ratio (OR) represents the odds of success among subjects randomized to omalizumab (numerator) compared to the odds of success among subjects randomized to placebo (denominator, reference group).|The null hypothesis is that the odds of 'success' (defined as consumption of a single dose of ≥600 mg of peanut protein without dose-limiting symptoms during the DBPCFC at the end of Stage 1) in omalizumab and placebo for omalizumab arms are equal. Participants missing the blinded OFC to peanut at the end of Stage 1 will be considered a 'failure' for the primary efficacy endpoint.||111.2144|9.1274|<0.00001
90897569|NCT05690776|181661034|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.2|15.0|||paired t-test|||||15.0|9.2|<0.0001
90841696|NCT02420821|181549460|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.79|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression.|Stratified Analysis: Strata were presence of liver metastases, Motzer score, PD-L1 level per interactive voice/web response system (IxRS).||0.79|0.34|0.0020
90841697|NCT02420821|181549462|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.0497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.0|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression.|Stratified Analysis: Strata were presence of liver metastases, Motzer score, PD-L1 level per interactive voice/web response system (IxRS).||1.00|0.43|0.0497
90841698|NCT02420821|181549463|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.43|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 1 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||-0.43|-1.06|<0.0001
90841699|NCT02420821|181549463|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.2085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.11|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 2 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.11|-0.51|0.2085
90841700|NCT02420821|181549463|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.71|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 2 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||-0.71|-1.33|<0.0001
90897570|NCT05690776|181661035|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.133|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.053|0.128|||paired t-test|||||0.128|0.053|<0.0001
90897571|NCT05690776|181661037|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.9|24.5|||paired t-test|||||24.5|16.9|<0.0001
91032717|NCT02373098|181950410|OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||CD19 %||||0.300
91032718|NCT02373098|181950410|OTHER|||||||0.657|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||NK %||||0.657
91032719|NCT02373098|181950410|OTHER|||||||0.439|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||NKT %||||0.439
91032720|NCT02373098|181950410|OTHER|||||||0.449|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Hi CD16CD56 %||||0.449
91032721|NCT02373098|181950410|OTHER|||||||0.356|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||CD3CD4||||0.356
91032722|NCT02373098|181950410|OTHER|||||||0.787|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||CD3CD8||||0.787
91032723|NCT02373098|181950410|OTHER|||||||0.121|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||CD3CD4||||0.121
91032724|NCT02373098|181950410|OTHER|||||||0.209|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||CD3CD8||||0.209
91032725|NCT02373098|181950410|OTHER|||||||0.069|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||CD4+IFNg+ (in CD4+)||||0.069
91032726|NCT02373098|181950410|OTHER|||||||0.402|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||CD4+IL17+ (in CD4+)||||0.402
91032727|NCT02373098|181950410|OTHER|||||||0.017|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||CD8+IFNg+ (in CD8+)||||0.017
91032728|NCT02373098|181950410|OTHER|||||||0.017|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||CD8+IL17+ (in CD8+)||||0.017
91032729|NCT02373098|181950410|OTHER|||||||0.026|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||IFNg+ (in CD4+CD25+)||||0.026
91028800|NCT02260492|181941369|EQUIVALENCE|"Equivalence test compares the Test/Reference with confidence bounds set at standard 80-125%.~Superiority test compares Test with Placebo (p\<0.05) Superiority test compares Reference with Placebo (p\<0.05) (p\<0.05)"|Test/Reference|1.0799|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|1.25|||ANCOVA|||"Primary analyses were conducted on BL subtracted values (pre-dose - post-dose). The two one-sided tests method of interval analysis is standard for bioequivalence testing and employs 2 sets of one-sided hypotheses as follows, performed at the 5% alpha level:~H01: uT-uR \< -0.20 uR vs. Ha1: -0.20 uR \</= uT- uR (the lower tail) and H02: uT-uR \>0.25 uR vs. Ha2: uT- uR \</=0.25 uR (the upper tail) When uT is the LSM SOLIS, uR is the LSM of ADVAIR DISKUS"|"Day 1 superiority to placebo:~Solis vs. Placebo p=0.004 Advair vs. Placebo p=0.012"|1.25|.8|<0.05
91028801|NCT02260492|181941370|EQUIVALENCE|Standard bioequivalence 90% confidence bounds set at 0.8-1.25.|Test/Reference|1.0475|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|1.25|||ANOVA|||Same as the Day 1 analyses|"Week 4 superiority to placebo:~Solis vs. Placebo p=0.019 Advair vs. Placebo p=0.035"|1.25|.8|<0.05
91028802|NCT02683187|181941372|EQUIVALENCE|Insulin secretion, determined by insulin or C-peptide values in the 10 minutes after arginine infusion will be compared as a repeated measure for each subject in a 2 x 2 analysis of sitagliptin/placebo and Exendin-9/saline.|Median Difference (Final Values)|371.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.05
91028803|NCT05665595|181941373|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.8|||||Hazard Ratio based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by melanoma risk-based stage (IIB/IIC/clinical IIB and IIC/IIIA/IIIB vs IIIC/IIID/IV) and region of enrollment (Asia vs ROW).|||1.80|0.87|
91028804|NCT02581345|181941376|EQUIVALENCE|Per Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the equivalence testing was made using 90% confidence interval and an equivalence margin of 18%|Difference in proportion (M923 - EU RPP)|0.014|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.043|0.072||||||||0.072|-0.043|
91028805|NCT02581345|181941376|EQUIVALENCE|Per European Medicines Agency (EMA), the equivalence testing was made using 95% confidence interval and an equivalence margin of 15%|Difference in proportion (M923 - EU RPP)|0.014|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.054|0.082||||||||0.082|-0.054|
91028806|NCT02581345|181941377|OTHER|No formal hypothesis testing of equivalence was performed for the comparison between M923 and EU RPP using the secondary efficacy outcome measures. Confidence Interval for difference in proportion in original scale was calculated using stratified Newcombe method.|Difference in proportion (M923 - EU RPP)|0.031|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.048|0.11||||||||0.110|-0.048|
91028807|NCT02581345|181941378|OTHER|No formal hypothesis testing of equivalence was performed for the comparison between M923 and EU RPP using the secondary efficacy outcome measures. Confidence Interval for difference in proportion in original scale calculated using stratified Newcombe method. Protocol defined margins are: \[-0.18;+0.18\] for 90% confidence interval.|Difference in proportion (M923 - EU RPP)|-0.022|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.061|0.016||||||||0.016|-0.061|
91028808|NCT02581345|181941378|OTHER|No formal hypothesis testing of equivalence was performed for the comparison between M923 and EU RPP using the secondary efficacy outcome measures. Confidence Interval for difference in proportion in original scale calculated using stratified Newcombe method. Protocol defined margins are: \[-0.15;+0.15\] for 95% confidence interval.|Difference in proportion (M923 - EU RPP)|-0.022|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.069|0.024||||||||0.024|-0.069|
91028809|NCT02581345|181941381|OTHER|No formal hypothesis testing of equivalence was performed for the comparison between M923 and EU RPP using the secondary efficacy outcome measures. Confidence Interval for difference in proportion in original scale calculated using stratified Newcombe method. Protocol defined margins are: \[-0.18;+0.18\] for 90% confidence interval.|Difference in proportion (M923 - EU RPP)|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.01|0.149||||||||0.149|0.010|
91028810|NCT02581345|181941381|OTHER|No formal hypothesis testing of equivalence was performed for the comparison between M923 and EU RPP using the secondary efficacy outcome measures. Confidence Interval for difference in proportion in original scale calculated using stratified Newcombe method. Protocol defined margins are:\[-0.15;+0.15\] for 95% confidence interval.|Difference in proportion (M923 - EU RPP)|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.162||||||||0.162|-0.004|
91028811|NCT02122796|181941422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||Means of pre- and post-treatment measurements were compared using paired, two-sided Student's t tests. P values were calculated comparing acupuncture and control mean change scores using unpaired two-sided Student's t tests.|t-test, 2 sided|P values were calculated comparing acupuncture and control mean change scores using unpaired two-sided Student's t tests.||||||<0.01
91028812|NCT02122796|181941423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||Means of pre- and post-treatment measurements were compared using paired, two-sided Student's t tests. P values were calculated comparing acupuncture and control mean change scores using unpaired two-sided Student's t tests.|t-test, 2 sided|P values were calculated comparing acupuncture and control mean change scores using unpaired two-sided Student's t tests.||||||<0.01
91028813|NCT02122796|181941425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||Means of pre- and post-treatment measurements were compared using paired, two-sided Student's t tests. P values were calculated comparing acupuncture and control mean change scores using unpaired two-sided Student's t tests.|t-test, 2 sided|P values were calculated comparing acupuncture and control mean change scores using unpaired two-sided Student's t tests.||||||<0.01
91032730|NCT02373098|181950410|OTHER|||||||0.168|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||IL17+ (in CD4+CD25+)||||0.168
91032731|NCT02373098|181950410|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||CD4+IL10+ (in CD4+)||||0.004
91032732|NCT02373098|181950410|OTHER|||||||0.013|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||CD4+IL4+ (in CD4+)||||0.013
91032733|NCT02373098|181950410|OTHER|||||||0.171|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||CD4-CD8-IL4+ (in CD4-CD8-)||||0.171
91032734|NCT02373098|181950410|OTHER|||||||0.013|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||CD8+IL10+ (in CD8+)||||0.013
91032735|NCT02373098|181950410|OTHER|||||||0.013|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||CD8+IL4+ (in CD8+)||||0.013
91032736|NCT02373098|181950410|OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||IL10+ (in CD4+CD25+)||||0.007
91032737|NCT02373098|181950410|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||IL4+ (in CD4+CD25+)||||0.001
91032738|NCT02373098|181950410|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||CD4+TNFa+ (in CD4+)||||0.002
91032739|NCT02373098|181950410|OTHER|||||||0.107|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||CD4+IL9+ (in CD4+)||||0.107
90841701|NCT02420821|181549463|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.51||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.2|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 3 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||-0.20|-0.82|0.0013
90841702|NCT02420821|181549463|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|-0.7|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 3 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||-0.70|-1.34|<0.0001
90841703|NCT02420821|181549463|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.43||||0.0098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.1|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 4 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||-0.10|-0.76|0.0098
90841704|NCT02420821|181549463|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|-0.65|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 4 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||-0.65|-1.32|<0.0001
90897572|NCT02202434|181661041|NON_INFERIORITY|10.5% non-inferiority margin|Difference in Percentages|3.1||||0.0027|ONE_SIDED|97.5||8.32|||Farrington-Manning|||||8.32||0.0027
91028814|NCT00502775|181941433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.001||95.0|-1.2|-0.6||Symptom scores were grouped in 3 families: nasal, ocular, instantaneous. Within each family, results of hypothesis tests were adjusted using Hochberg's method.|ANCOVA|No other strata or covariates, other than investigator, were defined.|Mean Difference = Mean Change in Fluticasone Furoate - Mean Change in Fexofenadine|The primary efficacy measure, mean change from baseline over the two-week treatment period in NSS compared between fluticasone furoate and fexofenadine, was assessed at a significance level of α=0.05. If the null hypothesis of this comparison was rejected, then the secondary measures were subject to hypothesis testing. The study was powered at 90%.||-0.6|-1.2|<0.001
91028815|NCT00502775|181941433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.001||95.0|-1.1|-0.4|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Mean Change in Fluticasone Furoate - Mean Change in Placebo|||-0.4|-1.1|<0.001
91028816|NCT00502775|181941433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.374||95.0|-0.2|0.5|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Mean Change in Fexofenadine - Mean Change in Placebo|||0.5|-0.2|0.374
90841705|NCT02420821|181549463|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.46||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.12|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 5 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||-0.12|-0.80|0.0080
90897573|NCT02202434|181661042|NON_INFERIORITY|9.5% Non-Inferiority margin|Difference in Percentages|-10.1|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|97.5||-4.41|||Farrington-Manning|||||-4.41||<0.0001
90897574|NCT02202434|181661042|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|-10.2||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|-4.0|||Chi-squared|||"Superiority analysis was only to be run if the non-inferiority analysis was met.~Superiority analysis was run on Intent to Treat Population."||-4.0|-16.3|0.0006
90897575|NCT02202434|181661043|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|-6.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|-2.6|||Chi-squared|||||-2.6|-9.6|<0.0001
90897576|NCT00332332|181661073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|73.5||||||95.0|67.2|79.1||||||||79.1|67.2|
91032740|NCT02373098|181950410|OTHER|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||CD8+TNFa+ (in CD8+)||||0.000
91032741|NCT02373098|181950410|OTHER|||||||0.022|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||CD8+IL9+ (in CD8+)||||0.022
91032742|NCT02373098|181950410|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||TNFa+ (in CD4+CD25+)||||0.001
91032743|NCT02373098|181950410|OTHER|||||||0.127|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||IL9+ (in CD4+CD25+)||||0.127
91032744|NCT03966365|181950442|OTHER|||||||0.706|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.706
91032745|NCT03966365|181950443|OTHER|||||||0.622|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.622
91032746|NCT03966365|181950444|OTHER|||||||0.081|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Green lissamine treatment groups||||0.081
91032747|NCT03966365|181950444|OTHER|||||||0.49|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Fluorescein treatment groups||||0.490
91032748|NCT03966365|181950445|OTHER|||||||0.253|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.253
91032749|NCT03966365|181950446|OTHER|||||||0.031|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.031
91032750|NCT03966365|181950448|OTHER|||||||0.651|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.651
91032751|NCT00323193|181950461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.720
91032752|NCT00323193|181950462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.710
91032753|NCT03929367|181950612|OTHER|Modeling of change of plasma oxytocin concentration over time using nonlinear canonical compartment model.|Bayesian information criterion|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91032754|NCT03929367|181950623|SUPERIORITY|Light touch detection frequency was compared over time in comparison to baseline using a one way analysis of variance for repeated measures. A power analysis was not performed for this secondary outcome measure.||||||0.89||||||No effect|ANOVA|||||||.89
91092917|NCT03183908|182070152|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.025 level.|Difference in proportions|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|4.9|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Shoulder Pain||4.9|-2.3|
90841706|NCT02420821|181549463|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|-0.44|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 5 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||-0.44|-1.13|<0.0001
90841707|NCT02420821|181549463|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.21||||0.2512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.15|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 6 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.15|-0.56|0.2512
90841708|NCT02420821|181549463|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.65||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.28|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 6 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||-0.28|-1.01|0.0005
90841709|NCT02420821|181549463|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.43||||0.0247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.05|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 7 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||-0.05|-0.80|0.0247
90841710|NCT02420821|181549463|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.77|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|-0.39|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 7 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||-0.39|-1.15|<0.0001
90841711|NCT02420821|181549463|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.29||||0.1411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.1|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 8 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.10|-0.68|0.1411
90897577|NCT03091673|181661087|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was computed using a t-test to determine if change in plasma glucose from baseline to 30 minutes was zero.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90897578|NCT02670538|181661106|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-2.5||||0.0417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|-0.4||Adjusted p-value: adjustment was performed using matched parallel gatekeeping procedure to control the overall type I error rate for multiple comparisons of 2 active doses versus placebo at Week 6.|Contrast t-test|||||-0.4|-4.6|0.0417
91092918|NCT03183908|182070152|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.025 level.|Difference in proportions|-4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|-1.1|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Swelling||-1.1|-8.1|
90897579|NCT02670538|181661106|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.8||||0.1051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|0.4||Adjusted p-value: adjustment was performed using matched parallel gatekeeping procedure to control the overall type I error rate for multiple comparisons of 2 active doses versus placebo at Week 6.|Contrast t-test|||||0.4|-3.9|0.1051
91092919|NCT03183908|182070152|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.025 level.|Difference in proportions|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|5.9|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Tenderness||5.9|-2.7|
91092920|NCT03183908|182070152|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.025 level.|Difference in proportions|-3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|0.4|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Injection Site Pain||0.4|-6.9|
91092921|NCT03183908|182070153|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.025 level.|Difference in proportions|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|7.3|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Redness||7.3|-7.3|
90841712|NCT02420821|181549463|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.65||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.25|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 8 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||-0.25|-1.05|0.0014
90897580|NCT02670538|181661107|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.0417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.1||Adjusted p-value: adjustment was performed using matched parallel gatekeeping procedure to control the overall type I error rate for multiple comparisons of 2 active doses versus placebo at Week 6.|Contrast t-test|||||-0.1|-0.6|0.0417
91092922|NCT03183908|182070153|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.025 level.|Difference in proportions|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|5.7|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Shoulder Pain||5.7|-9.5|
91092923|NCT03183908|182070153|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.025 level.|Difference in proportions|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|6.1|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Swelling||6.1|-8.6|
90841713|NCT02420821|181549463|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.37||||0.0728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.03|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 9 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.03|-0.78|0.0728
90841714|NCT02420821|181549463|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|-0.49|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 9 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||-0.49|-1.32|<0.0001
90841715|NCT02420821|181549463|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.62||||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.2|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 10 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||-0.20|-1.05|0.0041
90841716|NCT02420821|181549463|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|-0.55|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 10 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||-0.55|-1.46|<0.0001
90841717|NCT02420821|181549463|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.0353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.03|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 11 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||-0.03|-0.96|0.0353
90841718|NCT02420821|181549463|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.85||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|-0.34|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 11 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||-0.34|-1.35|0.0011
90897581|NCT02670538|181661107|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1||Adjusted p-value: adjustment was performed using matched parallel gatekeeping procedure to control the overall type I error rate for multiple comparisons of 2 active doses versus placebo at Week 6.|Contrast t-test|||||0.1|-0.4|0.1370
90897582|NCT02243202|181661108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|-1.8|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||-1.8|-5.3|<0.001
90897583|NCT02243202|181661108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|0.4|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.4|-3.1|0.142
91092924|NCT03183908|182070153|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.025 level.|Difference in proportions|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|8.3|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Tenderness||8.3|-5.7|
90841719|NCT02420821|181549463|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.0582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|0.02|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 12 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.02|-1.01|0.0582
90841720|NCT02420821|181549463|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.76||||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|-0.19|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 12 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||-0.19|-1.32|0.0089
90897584|NCT02243202|181661108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-6.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|-5.2|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||-5.2|-8.6|<0.001
90897585|NCT02243202|181661109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.15||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|10.14|||Generalized linear Mixed Model|||||10.14|1.70|0.002
90897586|NCT02243202|181661109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.825|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|3.06|||Generalized linear Mixed Model|||||3.06|0.41|0.825
90841721|NCT02420821|181549463|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.02||||0.9575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.61|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 13 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.61|-0.57|0.9575
90841722|NCT02420821|181549463|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.36||||0.2745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|0.29|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 13 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.29|-1.01|0.2745
90841723|NCT02420821|181549463|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.13||||0.7088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.55|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 14 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.55|-0.81|0.7088
91028817|NCT00810368|181941474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|||||2-tailed paired Student's t-tests between Week 0 and Week 12 responses (above) were anticipated to show significant benefits with carnosine treatment but no change with placebo. There were no corrections for multiple comparisons in the reported data.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Description of Power Calculation: The planned sample size completing each arm was based on individual incremental improvements in the primary outcomes of : A) CFS Severity Scores (Baraniuk et al., Annals Allergy Astma Immunol, 1998), B) Instantaneous Fatigue (Kim et al. Journal of Rehab Res Dev, 2010), and C) increased accuracy of 4/35 letters for 2 back working memory task (Owen, Human Brain Mapping, 2005).||||0.30
90841724|NCT02420821|181549463|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.39||||0.3077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|0.36|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 14 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.36|-1.13|0.3077
90897587|NCT02243202|181661109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.15|25.05|||Generalized linear Mixed Model|||||25.05|4.15|<0.001
91028818|NCT00810368|181941474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.40
91028819|NCT00810368|181941475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|||||Using Fisher's Exact Test, we determined whether there was a significant difference in the number of participants complaining of IBS symptoms.|Fisher Exact|2 by 2 Fisher's Exact Test||||||0.018
91028820|NCT00810368|181941476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0018
91092925|NCT03183908|182070153|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.025 level.|Difference in proportions|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|5.4|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Injection Site Pain||5.4|-7.9|
90841725|NCT02420821|181549463|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.15||||0.7112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.63|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 15 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.63|-0.93|0.7112
90841726|NCT02420821|181549463|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.79||||0.0837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|0.11|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 15 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.11|-1.69|0.0837
90897588|NCT02243202|181661110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|4.8|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||4.8|-2.1|0.456
90897589|NCT02243202|181661110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|3.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||3.1|-3.9|0.827
90897590|NCT02243202|181661110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|-0.8|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||-0.8|-7.7|0.015
90897591|NCT02243202|181661111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|-1.7|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||-1.7|-5.3|<0.001
91028821|NCT00810368|181941476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.60
91028822|NCT00810368|181941478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5
91028823|NCT00810368|181941479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5
91028824|NCT00810368|181941480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.50
91028825|NCT03365375|181941481|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0||||0.82|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.82
91028826|NCT03179345|181941537|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.141|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.0275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.266|-0.016|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within Sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|||-0.016|-0.266|0.0275
91092926|NCT03183908|182070154|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.01 level to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Difference in proportions|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|98.0|-1.7|5.4|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Arthralgia||5.4|-1.7|
91028827|NCT03179345|181941537|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.0611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.006|0.245|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|||0.245|-0.006|0.0611
91028828|NCT03179345|181941538|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.102|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.1103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.227|0.024|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|||0.024|-0.227|0.1103
91028829|NCT03179345|181941538|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.0611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.006|0.245|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|||0.245|-0.006|0.0611
91028830|NCT03179345|181941539|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.9946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.02|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|||0.02|-0.02|0.9946
91028831|NCT03179345|181941539|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0125||0.1673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.04|||ANCOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|||0.04|-0.01|0.1673
91028832|NCT03179345|181941539|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0125||0.6208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.03|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|||0.03|-0.02|0.6208
91028833|NCT03179345|181941540|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6||0.8799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.59|4.8|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|||4.80|-5.59|0.8799
91028834|NCT03179345|181941540|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.61||0.9277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.97|5.45|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|||5.45|-4.97|0.9277
91028835|NCT03179345|181941540|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.73||||0.1587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.94|1.49|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|||1.49|-8.94|0.1587
91028836|NCT03179345|181941541|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0125||0.7111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.02|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|||0.02|-0.03|0.7111
90957333|NCT00477334|181794496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.01||||0.9372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.39|||Kaplan-Meier & Cox Regression||"Hazard ratio in time to healing=hazard rate of Famciclovir/hazard rate of Placebo.~Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment, pooled center and gender as explanatory variables."|Participants who discontinued from the study before healing of non-aborted lesions was confirmed and participants who completed the study after 21 days since treatment initiation without non-aborted lesion stages and without a final assessment on aborted lesion status were censored at the time of the last clinical lesion observation.||1.39|0.74|0.9372
91028837|NCT03179345|181941541|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.9048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.02|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|||0.02|-0.02|0.9048
91028838|NCT03179345|181941541|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.3262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.01|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|||0.01|-0.03|0.3262
91028839|NCT03179345|181941542|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86||0.595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|1.26|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|||1.26|-2.18|0.5950
91028840|NCT03179345|181941542|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.865||0.7057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|2.06|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|||2.06|-1.40|0.7057
91028841|NCT03179345|181941542|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.865||0.6741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|2.1|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|||2.10|-1.36|0.6741
91032755|NCT03929367|181950630|SUPERIORITY|Sustained heat score at the end of each 5 minute session was compared to baseline across time using a one-way analysis of variance for repeated measures. Power analysis was not performed for this secondary outcome measure.||||||0.014|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.014
91032756|NCT00515203|181950649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0019|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0019
91032757|NCT00515203|181950650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3651|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3651
91032758|NCT00515203|181950651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0008|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0008
91032759|NCT00515203|181950652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0008|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0008
91032760|NCT00515203|181950653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2098|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2098
90841727|NCT02420821|181549463|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.08||||0.8655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|1.04|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 16 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||1.04|-0.88|0.8655
91028842|NCT03179345|181941543|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0175||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|-0.01|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|||-0.01|-0.08|0.0070
91028843|NCT03179345|181941543|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0175||0.5183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.05|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|||0.05|-0.02|0.5183
91028844|NCT03179345|181941543|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0175||0.5084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.02|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|||0.02|-0.05|0.5084
91028845|NCT03179345|181941544|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.307||0.1026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.104|1.124|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|||1.124|-0.104|0.1026
91028846|NCT03179345|181941544|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.094|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.309||0.7634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.711|0.523|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|||0.523|-0.711|0.7634
91028847|NCT03179345|181941544|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.309||0.1041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.107|1.127|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|||1.127|-0.107|0.1041
91028848|NCT03179345|181941545|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.286|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.521|-0.051|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Vision||-0.051|-0.521|0.0177
91028849|NCT03179345|181941545|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.157|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.536|0.222|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Energy Level||0.222|-0.536|0.4120
91028850|NCT03179345|181941545|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.046|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.7724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.362|0.27|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Memory||0.270|-0.362|0.7724
91028851|NCT03179345|181941545|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.121|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.4255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.423|0.18|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Walking Balance||0.180|-0.423|0.4255
91092927|NCT03183908|182070154|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.01 level to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Difference in proportions|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|98.0|-2.8|2.3|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Chills/Shivering||2.3|-2.8|
91028852|NCT03179345|181941545|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.017|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.8925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.229|0.262|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Interest in activities||0.262|-0.229|0.8925
91028853|NCT03179345|181941545|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.212|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.1293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.487|0.063|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Coordination||0.063|-0.487|0.1293
91028854|NCT03179345|181941545|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.0304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.266|-0.014|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Tremor||-0.014|-0.266|0.0304
91092928|NCT03183908|182070154|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.01 level to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Difference in proportions|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|98.0|-4.0|1.5|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Diarrhea||1.5|-4.0|
91028855|NCT03179345|181941545|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.084|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.5811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.384|0.217|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Concentration||0.217|-0.384|0.5811
90897592|NCT02243202|181661111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|0.5|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.5|-3.1|0.153
90897593|NCT02243202|181661111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|<|0.001||95.0|-8.5|-4.9|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||-4.9|-8.5|<0.001
90897594|NCT02207725|181661130|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehman estimate of shift|-74.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.39|-66.28|||2-sided test exact Wilcoxon rank-sum tes|||||-66.28|-78.39|<0.0001
90897595|NCT02207725|181661130|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehman estimate of shift|-59.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.1|-55.17|||2-sided test exact Wilcoxon rank-sum tes|||||-55.17|-64.10|<0.0001
91092929|NCT03183908|182070154|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.01 level to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Difference in proportions|3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|98.0|-0.8|7.3|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Fatigue||7.3|-0.8|
91092930|NCT03183908|182070154|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.01 level to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Difference in proportions|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|98.0|-2.5|2.0|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Fever||2.0|-2.5|
90841728|NCT02420821|181549463|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.02||||0.9725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|1.11|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 16 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||1.11|-1.07|0.9725
90957334|NCT02469389|181794524|SUPERIORITY|Based on randomization to treatment condition, the model assumed no differences at BL (any difference was assumed due to random sampling error).||||||0.295|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Post-hoc mixed effects model analyses of all outcomes were performed adjusting for BL CAINS MAP score.||Analyses of the primary and secondary outcomes utilized a linear mixed effects model accounting for random therapy group effects and included all available data at baseline (BL), post-treatment (PT; 12-week), and follow-up (FU; 24-week) timepoints (TPs). Error terms across TPs were assumed correlated with unstructured correlation matrix. To test time specific hypotheses, terms in the mean model included separate indicators for PT \& FU \& interaction terms between these indicators and conditions.||||0.295
91028856|NCT03179345|181941545|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.098|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.1144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.024|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Speech||0.024|-0.220|0.1144
91092931|NCT03183908|182070154|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.01 level to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Difference in proportions|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|98.0|-3.0|2.4|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Headache||2.4|-3.0|
91092932|NCT03183908|182070154|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.01 level to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Difference in proportions|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|98.0|-1.7|5.4|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Malaise||5.4|-1.7|
91092933|NCT03183908|182070154|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.01 level to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Difference in proportions|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|98.0|-3.3|4.4|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Myalgia||4.4|-3.3|
91092934|NCT03183908|182070154|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.01 level to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Difference in proportions|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|98.0|-3.1|1.6|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Nausea||1.6|-3.1|
90841729|NCT02420821|181549463|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.38||||0.5285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.55|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 17 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||1.55|-0.80|0.5285
90841730|NCT02420821|181549463|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.03||||0.9663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|1.4|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 17 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||1.40|-1.34|0.9663
90841731|NCT02420821|181549463|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.01||||0.9914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|1.63|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 18 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||1.63|-1.61|0.9914
90841732|NCT02420821|181549463|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.22||||0.8345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|2.3|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 18 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||2.30|-1.85|0.8345
91092935|NCT03183908|182070154|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.01 level to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|98.0|-1.8|1.8|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Vomiting||1.8|-1.8|
91092936|NCT03183908|182070155|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.025 level.|Difference in proportions|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|5.8|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Arthralgia||5.8|-1.1|
91092937|NCT03183908|182070155|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.025 level.|Difference in proportions|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|2.0|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Chills/Shivering||2.0|-3.0|
90897596|NCT02207725|181661131|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehman estimate of shift|-77.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-79.98|-74.04|||2-sided test exact Wilcoxon rank-sum tes|||||-74.04|-79.98|<0.0001
91028857|NCT03179345|181941545|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.109|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.3774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.352|0.135|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Forgetfulness||0.135|-0.352|0.3774
91028858|NCT03179345|181941545|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.057|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.8658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.613|0.727|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Sleepiness||0.727|-0.613|0.8658
91092938|NCT03183908|182070155|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.025 level.|Difference in proportions|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|1.8|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Diarrhea||1.8|-3.5|
90897597|NCT02207725|181661133|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehman estimate of shift|-7.09|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.86|-5.42|||2-sided test exact Wilcoxon rank-sum tes|||||-5.42|-8.86|<0.0001
90897598|NCT02207725|181661133|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehman estimate of shift|-3.02||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.66|-1.25|||2-sided test exact Wilcoxon rank-sum tes|||||-1.25|-5.66|0.0002
90897599|NCT02207725|181661134|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehman estimate of shift|1227.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|984.01|1456.38|||2-sided test exact Wilcoxon rank-sum tes|||||1456.38|984.01|<0.0001
90957335|NCT02469389|181794525|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.182|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.182
91092939|NCT03183908|182070155|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.025 level.|Difference in proportions|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|7.0|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Fatigue||7.0|-1.1|
91092940|NCT03183908|182070155|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.025 level.|Difference in proportions|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-0.4|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Fever||-0.4|-3.0|
91092941|NCT03183908|182070155|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.025 level.|Difference in proportions|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|2.4|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Headache||2.4|-3.2|
91092942|NCT03183908|182070155|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.025 level.|Difference in proportions|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|4.5|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Malaise||4.5|-2.5|
91092943|NCT03183908|182070155|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.025 level.|Difference in proportions|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|4.3|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Myalgia||4.3|-3.1|
91092944|NCT03183908|182070155|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.025 level.|Difference in proportions|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|1.3|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Nausea||1.3|-3.3|
90897600|NCT02207725|181661134|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehman estimate of shift|999.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|819.5|1200.53|||2-sided test exact Wilcoxon rank-sum tes|||||1200.53|819.50|<0.0001
91092945|NCT03183908|182070155|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.025 level.|Difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.8|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Vomiting||1.8|-1.8|
91092946|NCT03183908|182070156|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.025 level.|Difference in proportions|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|6.4|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Arthralgia||6.4|-7.2|
90897601|NCT02799472|181661141|OTHER||Ratio|14.201|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.251|32.262|||Repeated measures analysis|||GM-CSF - Complex, Week 1||32.262|6.251|<0.001
90897602|NCT02799472|181661141|OTHER||Ratio|32.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.828|66.156|||Repeated measures analysis|||GM-CSF - Complex, Week 2||66.156|15.828|<0.001
90897603|NCT02799472|181661141|OTHER||Ratio|55.772|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.646|121.287|||Repeated measures analysis|||GM-CSF - Complex, Week 4||121.287|25.646|<0.001
90897604|NCT02799472|181661141|OTHER||Ratio|48.336|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.341|120.798|||Repeated measures analysis|||GM-CSF - Complex, Week 6||120.798|19.341|<0.001
90957336|NCT02469389|181794526|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.114|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.114
90957337|NCT02469389|181794527|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.220
91092947|NCT03183908|182070156|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.025 level.|Difference in proportions|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|-0.6|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Diarrhea||-0.6|-8.1|
91092948|NCT03183908|182070156|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.025 level.|Difference in proportions|3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|10.9|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Fatigue||10.9|-3.6|
91092949|NCT03183908|182070156|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.025 level.|Difference in proportions|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|6.6|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Fever||6.6|-2.4|
91092950|NCT03183908|182070156|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.025 level.|Difference in proportions|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|12.2|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Malaise||12.2|2.0|
91092951|NCT03183908|182070156|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.025 level.|Difference in proportions|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|7.3|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Myalgia||7.3|-7.3|
91092952|NCT03183908|182070157|SUPERIORITY|Non-parametric testing was used to evaluate the changes from baseline to compare between groups. A two-sided alpha level set at 0.01 with no adjustments set for multiple comparisons.||||||0.5862|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Activity Limitation Changes for Day 1 to Day 3 Group Comparisons||||0.5862
91092953|NCT03183908|182070157|SUPERIORITY|Non-parametric testing was used to evaluate the changes from baseline to compare between groups. A two-sided alpha level set at 0.01 with no adjustments set for multiple comparisons.||||||0.5648|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Daily Activities Changes for Day 1 to Day 3 Group Comparisons||||0.5648
91092954|NCT03183908|182070157|SUPERIORITY|Non-parametric testing was used to evaluate the changes from baseline to compare between groups. A two-sided alpha level set at 0.01 with no adjustments set for multiple comparisons.||||||0.4196|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Basic Mobility Changes from Day 1 to Day 3 Group Comparisons||||0.4196
91092955|NCT03183908|182070157|SUPERIORITY|Non-parametric testing was used to evaluate the changes from baseline to compare between groups. A two-sided alpha level set at 0.01 with no adjustments set for multiple comparisons.||||||0.2418|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Participation Restriction Changes from Day 1 to Day 3 Group Comparisons||||0.2418
90841733|NCT02420821|181549463|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.5||||0.7725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|3.91|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 19 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||3.91|-2.90|0.7725
90841734|NCT02420821|181549464|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.49||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Pain: Mixed-effects model, assuming unstructured covariance matrix, with a term for treatment group, a term for visit time as a continuous variable, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model. The random effects are intercept and slope of visit time.||-0.20|-0.77|0.0010
91092956|NCT03183908|182070157|SUPERIORITY|Non-parametric testing was used to evaluate the changes from baseline to compare between groups. A two-sided alpha level set at 0.01 with no adjustments set for multiple comparisons.||||||0.0746|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Social Roles Changes for Day 1 to Day 3 Group Comparisons||||0.0746
91092957|NCT03183908|182070157|SUPERIORITY|Non-parametric testing was used to evaluate the changes from baseline to compare between groups. A two-sided alpha level set at 0.01 with no adjustments set for multiple comparisons.||||||0.5497|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Instrumental Roles Changes for Day 1 to Day 3 Group Comparisons||||0.5497
91092958|NCT03183908|182070158|SUPERIORITY|Non-parametric testing was used to evaluate the changes from baseline to compare between groups. A two-sided alpha level set at 0.05 with no adjustments set for multiple comparisons.||||||0.6278|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Activity Limitation Changes for Day 1 to Day 3 Group Comparisons||||0.6278
90897605|NCT02799472|181661141|OTHER||Ratio|34.635|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.69|87.629|||Repeated measures analysis|||GM-CSF - Complex, Week 8||87.629|13.690|<0.001
91092959|NCT03183908|182070158|SUPERIORITY|Non-parametric testing was used to evaluate the changes from baseline to compare between groups. A two-sided alpha level set at 0.05 with no adjustments set for multiple comparisons.||||||0.5622|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Daily Activities Changes for Day 1 to Day 3 Group Comparisons||||0.5622
91092960|NCT03183908|182070158|SUPERIORITY|Non-parametric testing was used to evaluate the changes from baseline to compare between groups. A two-sided alpha level set at 0.05 with no adjustments set for multiple comparisons.||||||0.5538|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Basic Mobility Changes for Day 1 to Day 3 Group Comparisons||||0.5538
91092961|NCT03183908|182070158|SUPERIORITY|Non-parametric testing was used to evaluate the changes from baseline to compare between groups. A two-sided alpha level set at 0.05 with no adjustments set for multiple comparisons.||||||0.231|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Participation Restriction Changes from Day 1 to Day 3 Group Comparisons||||0.2310
91092962|NCT03183908|182070158|SUPERIORITY|Non-parametric testing was used to evaluate the changes from baseline to compare between groups. A two-sided alpha level set at 0.05 with no adjustments set for multiple comparisons.||||||0.0435|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Social Roles Changes from Day 1 to Day 3 Group Comparisons||||0.0435
90897606|NCT02799472|181661141|OTHER||Ratio|23.249|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.579|63.005|||Repeated measures analysis|||GM-CSF - Complex, Week 12||63.005|8.579|<0.001
90897607|NCT02799472|181661141|OTHER||Ratio|1.233||||0.401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.742|2.048|||Repeated measures analysis|||GM-CSF - Complex, 12-Week FU||2.048|0.742|0.401
90897608|NCT02799472|181661142|OTHER||Ratio|0.943||||0.193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.861|1.032|||Repeated measures analysis|||14-3-3 ETA Protein, Week 1||1.032|0.861|0.193
90957338|NCT02469389|181794528|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.018
91092963|NCT03183908|182070158|SUPERIORITY|Non-parametric testing was used to evaluate the changes from baseline to compare between groups. A two-sided alpha level set at 0.05 with no adjustments set for multiple comparisons.||||||0.6519|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Instrumental Roles Changes from Day 1 to Day 3 Group Comparisons||||0.6519
91092964|NCT03183908|182070159|SUPERIORITY|Non-parametric testing was used to evaluate the changes from baseline to compare between groups. A two-sided alpha level set at 0.05 with no adjustments set for multiple comparisons.||||||0.7483|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Activity Limitation Changes from Day 1 to Day 3 Group Comparisons||||0.7483
91092965|NCT03183908|182070159|SUPERIORITY|Non-parametric testing was used to evaluate the changes from baseline to compare between groups. A two-sided alpha level set at 0.05 with no adjustments set for multiple comparisons.||||||0.7483|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Daily Activities Changes for Day 1 to Day 3 Group Comparisons||||0.7483
91092966|NCT03183908|182070159|SUPERIORITY|Non-parametric testing was used to evaluate the changes from baseline to compare between groups. A two-sided alpha level set at 0.05 with no adjustments set for multiple comparisons.||||||0.4953|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Basic Mobility Changes for Day 1 to Day 3 Group Comparisons||||0.4953
91092967|NCT03183908|182070159|SUPERIORITY|Non-parametric testing was used to evaluate the changes from baseline to compare between groups. A two-sided alpha level set at 0.05 with no adjustments set for multiple comparisons.||||||0.8669|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Participation Restriction Changes for Day 1 to Day 3 Group Comparisons||||0.8669
90897609|NCT02799472|181661142|OTHER||Ratio|1.028||||0.842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.776|1.362|||Repeated measures analysis|||14-3-3 ETA Protein, Week 2||1.362|0.776|0.842
91092968|NCT03183908|182070159|SUPERIORITY|Non-parametric testing was used to evaluate the changes from baseline to compare between groups. A two-sided alpha level set at 0.05 with no adjustments set for multiple comparisons.||||||0.8451|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Social Roles Changes for Day 1 to Day 3 Group Comparisons||||0.8451
91092969|NCT03183908|182070159|SUPERIORITY|Non-parametric testing was used to evaluate the changes from baseline to compare between groups. A two-sided alpha level set at 0.05 with no adjustments set for multiple comparisons.||||||0.7376|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Instrumental Roles Changes for Day 1 to Day 3 Group Comparisons||||0.7376
90841735|NCT02420821|181549464|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Fatigue: Mixed-effects model, assuming unstructured covariance matrix, with a term for treatment group, a term for visit time as a continuous variable, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model. The random effects are intercept and slope of visit time.||-0.34|-0.91|<0.0001
90841736|NCT02420821|181549464|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.91|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|-0.69|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Nausea: Mixed-effects model, assuming unstructured covariance matrix, with a term for treatment group, a term for visit time as a continuous variable, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model. The random effects are intercept and slope of visit time.||-0.69|-1.13|<0.0001
90897610|NCT02799472|181661142|OTHER||Ratio|0.743||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.505|1.093|||Repeated measures analysis|||14-3-3 ETA Protein, Week 4||1.093|0.505|0.127
90897611|NCT02799472|181661142|OTHER||Ratio|0.762||||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.531|1.095|||Repeated measures analysis|||14-3-3 ETA Protein, Week 6||1.095|0.531|0.137
90897612|NCT02799472|181661142|OTHER||Ratio|0.886||||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.623|1.259|||Repeated measures analysis|||14-3-3 ETA Protein, Week 8||1.259|0.623|0.488
91092970|NCT03183908|182070160|SUPERIORITY|Non-parametric testing was used to evaluate the changes from baseline to compare between groups. A two-sided alpha level set at 0.01 with no adjustments set for multiple comparisons.||||||0.7407|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||US Index Score Changes for Day 1 to Day 3 Group Comparisons||||0.7407
91092971|NCT03183908|182070161|SUPERIORITY|Non-parametric testing was used to evaluate the changes from baseline to compare between groups. A two-sided alpha level set at 0.05 with no adjustments set for multiple comparisons.||||||0.4032|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||US Index Score Changes for Day 1 to Day 3 Group Comparisons||||0.4032
91092972|NCT03183908|182070162|SUPERIORITY|Non-parametric testing was used to evaluate the changes from baseline to compare between groups. A two-sided alpha level set at 0.05 with no adjustments set for multiple comparisons.||||||0.4079|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||US Index Score Changes from Day 1 to Day 3 Group Comparisons||||0.4079
90897613|NCT02799472|181661142|OTHER||Ratio|0.793||||0.338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.488|1.29|||Repeated measures analysis|||14-3-3 ETA Protein, Week 12||1.290|0.488|0.338
90897614|NCT02799472|181661142|OTHER||Ratio|0.859||||0.582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.491|1.502|||Repeated measures analysis|||14-3-3 ETA Protein, 12-Week FU||1.502|0.491|0.582
90897615|NCT02799472|181661142|OTHER||Ratio|0.999||||0.996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.699|1.427|||Repeated measures analysis|||S100 CBP A8 and A9, Week 1||1.427|0.699|0.996
90897616|NCT02799472|181661142|OTHER||Ratio|0.944||||0.745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.662|1.346|||Repeated measures analysis|||S100 CBP A8 and A9, Week 2||1.346|0.662|0.745
90897617|NCT02799472|181661142|OTHER||Ratio|1.017||||0.939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.649|1.593|||Repeated measures analysis|||S100 CBP A8 and A9, Week 4||1.593|0.649|0.939
90897618|NCT02799472|181661142|OTHER||Ratio|0.981||||0.937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.595|1.617|||Repeated measures analysis|||S100 CBP A8 and A9, Week 6||1.617|0.595|0.937
90897619|NCT02799472|181661142|OTHER||Ratio|1.067||||0.787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.659|1.727|||Repeated measures analysis|||S100 CBP A8 and A9, Week 8||1.727|0.659|0.787
90897620|NCT02799472|181661142|OTHER||Ratio|1.267||||0.342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.769|2.086|||Repeated measures analysis|||S100 CBP A8 and A9, Week 12||2.086|0.769|0.342
90897621|NCT02799472|181661142|OTHER||Ratio|1.748||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.076|2.838|||Repeated measures analysis|||S100 CBP A8 and A9, 12-Week FU||2.838|1.076|0.026
90897622|NCT02799472|181661143|OTHER||Ratio|0.774||||0.632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.261|2.29|||Repeated measures analysis|||Amyloid A, Week 12||2.290|0.261|0.632
90897623|NCT02799472|181661143|OTHER||Ratio|1.176||||0.685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.519|2.663|||Repeated measures analysis|||Amyloid A, 12-Week FU||2.663|0.519|0.685
90897624|NCT02799472|181661144|OTHER||Ratio|0.692||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.445|1.074|||Repeated measures analysis|||CL17, Week 1||1.074|0.445|0.097
90897625|NCT02799472|181661144|OTHER||Ratio|0.713||||0.229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.407|1.249|||Repeated measures analysis|||CL17, Week 2||1.249|0.407|0.229
91092973|NCT03183908|182070163|SUPERIORITY|Non-parametric testing was used to evaluate the changes from baseline to compare between groups. A two-sided alpha level set at 0.01 with no adjustments set for multiple comparisons.||||||0.7948|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EQ VAS Changes for Day 1 to Day 3 Group Comparisons||||0.7948
90841737|NCT02420821|181549464|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.52||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Disturbed sleep: Mixed-effects model, assuming unstructured covariance matrix, with a term for treatment group, a term for visit time as a continuous variable, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model. The random effects are intercept and slope of visit time.||-0.25|-0.79|0.0002
90841738|NCT02420821|181549464|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Feelings of being distressed: Mixed-effects model, assuming unstructured covariance matrix, with a term for treatment group, a term for visit time as a continuous variable, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model. The random effects are intercept and slope of visit time.||-0.29|-0.84|<0.0001
90841739|NCT02420821|181549464|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Shortness of breath: Mixed-effects model, assuming unstructured covariance matrix, with a term for treatment group, a term for visit time as a continuous variable, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model. The random effects are intercept and slope of visit time.||-0.32|-0.81|<0.0001
90841740|NCT02420821|181549464|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.33||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Remembering things: Mixed-effects model, assuming unstructured covariance matrix, with a term for treatment group, a term for visit time as a continuous variable, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model. The random effects are intercept and slope of visit time.||-0.11|-0.56|0.0036
90841741|NCT02420821|181549464|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|-0.91|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Lack of appetite: Mixed-effects model, assuming unstructured covariance matrix, with a term for treatment group, a term for visit time as a continuous variable, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model. The random effects are intercept and slope of visit time.||-0.91|-1.46|<0.0001
90841742|NCT02420821|181549464|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.54||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Drowsy: Mixed-effects model, assuming unstructured covariance matrix, with a term for treatment group, a term for visit time as a continuous variable, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model. The random effects are intercept and slope of visit time.||-0.27|-0.81|0.0001
90841743|NCT02420821|181549464|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|-0.71|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Dry mouth: Mixed-effects model, assuming unstructured covariance matrix, with a term for treatment group, a term for visit time as a continuous variable, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model. The random effects are intercept and slope of visit time.||-0.71|-1.28|<0.0001
90841744|NCT02420821|181549464|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Feeling sad: Mixed-effects model, assuming unstructured covariance matrix, with a term for treatment group, a term for visit time as a continuous variable, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model. The random effects are intercept and slope of visit time.||-0.33|-0.87|<0.0001
90841745|NCT02420821|181549464|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Vomiting: Mixed-effects model, assuming unstructured covariance matrix, with a term for treatment group, a term for visit time as a continuous variable, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model. The random effects are intercept and slope of visit time.||-0.41|-0.75|<0.0001
90841746|NCT02420821|181549464|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.34||||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Numbness or tingling: Mixed-effects model, assuming unstructured covariance matrix, with a term for treatment group, a term for visit time as a continuous variable, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model. The random effects are intercept and slope of visit time.||-0.10|-0.58|0.0051
90897626|NCT02799472|181661144|OTHER||Ratio|0.608||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.365|1.012|||Repeated measures analysis|||CL17, Week 4||1.012|0.365|0.055
90897627|NCT02799472|181661144|OTHER||Ratio|0.755||||0.307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.435|1.309|||Repeated measures analysis|||CL17, Week 6||1.309|0.435|0.307
90897628|NCT02799472|181661144|OTHER||Ratio|0.557||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.348|0.894|||Repeated measures analysis|||CL17, Week 8||0.894|0.348|0.017
90897629|NCT02799472|181661144|OTHER||Ratio|0.52||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.294|0.922|||Repeated measures analysis|||||0.922|0.294|0.026
90897630|NCT02799472|181661144|OTHER||Ratio|0.947||||0.839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.548|1.636|||Repeated measures analysis|||CL17, 12-Week FU||1.636|0.548|0.839
91092974|NCT03183908|182070164|SUPERIORITY|Non-parametric testing was used to evaluate the changes from baseline to compare between groups. Alpha level set at 0.05 with no adjustments set for multiple comparisons.||||||0.7953|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EQ VAS Changes from Day 1 to Day 3 Group Comparisons||||0.7953
90841747|NCT02420821|181549464|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.83|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Rash/Skin Changes: Mixed-effects model, assuming unstructured covariance matrix, with a term for treatment group, a term for visit time as a continuous variable, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model. The random effects are intercept and slope of visit time.||-0.83|-1.33|<0.0001
90841748|NCT02420821|181549464|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05||||0.6541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Headache: Mixed-effects model, assuming unstructured covariance matrix, with a term for treatment group, a term for visit time as a continuous variable, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model. The random effects are intercept and slope of visit time.||0.16|-0.26|0.6541
90841749|NCT02420821|181549464|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|-0.76|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Mouth/Throat Sores: Mixed-effects model, assuming unstructured covariance matrix, with a term for treatment group, a term for visit time as a continuous variable, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model. The random effects are intercept and slope of visit time.||-0.76|-1.28|<0.0001
90841750|NCT02420821|181549464|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|-0.88|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Diarrhea: Mixed-effects model, assuming unstructured covariance matrix, with a term for treatment group, a term for visit time as a continuous variable, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model. The random effects are intercept and slope of visit time.||-0.88|-1.27|<0.0001
90841751|NCT02420821|181549467|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.87|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 1 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.87|0.58|<0.0001
90841752|NCT02420821|181549467|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.57|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 2 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.57|0.28|<0.0001
90841753|NCT02420821|181549467|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.84|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 2 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.84|0.55|<0.0001
90841754|NCT02420821|181549467|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.73|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 3 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.73|0.44|<0.0001
90841755|NCT02420821|181549467|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.77|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.92|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 3 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.92|0.62|<0.0001
90841756|NCT02420821|181549467|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.78|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 4 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.78|0.46|<0.0001
90841757|NCT02420821|181549467|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.97|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 4 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.97|0.66|<0.0001
90841758|NCT02420821|181549467|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.81|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 5 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.81|0.49|<0.0001
90897631|NCT02799472|181661144|OTHER||Ratio|0.764||||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.1|||Repeated measures analysis|||CL13, Week 1||1.100|0.530|0.142
91092975|NCT03183908|182070165|SUPERIORITY|Non-parametric testing was used to evaluate the changes from baseline to compare between groups. A two-sided alpha level set at 0.05 with no adjustments set for multiple comparisons.||||||0.9329|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EQ VAS Changes from Day 1 to Day 3 Group Comparisons||||0.9329
91092976|NCT00393367|182070175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44||95.0||||The difference in median improvement between treatment groups was expected to be greater than 2.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.44
91092977|NCT00393367|182070176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.14|||Chi-squared|||||0.14|-0.14|0.97
90841759|NCT02420821|181549467|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.99|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 5 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.99|0.66|<0.0001
91092978|NCT00393367|182070177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|6.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||6|-7|
90841760|NCT02420821|181549467|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.8|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 6 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.80|0.46|<0.0001
90841761|NCT02420821|181549467|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.89|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 6 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.89|0.54|<0.0001
90841762|NCT02420821|181549467|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.65|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 7 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.65|0.30|<0.0001
90841763|NCT02420821|181549467|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.86|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 7 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.86|0.49|<0.0001
90841764|NCT02420821|181549467|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.66|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 8 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.66|0.29|<0.0001
90841765|NCT02420821|181549467|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.79|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 8 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.79|0.41|<0.0001
90841766|NCT02420821|181549467|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.68|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 9 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.68|0.29|<0.0001
90841767|NCT02420821|181549467|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.91|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 9 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.91|0.52|<0.0001
90957339|NCT02469389|181794529|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.903|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.903
91092979|NCT00393367|182070178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|3.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3|-3|
91092980|NCT00393367|182070179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1|-1|
90957340|NCT02469389|181794530|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.535|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.535
90957341|NCT02469389|181794531|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.010
90957342|NCT02469389|181794532|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.692|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.692
91092981|NCT00393367|182070180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.03||||0.69||95.0|-0.2|0.14|||Chi-squared|||||0.14|-0.20|0.69
91092982|NCT00393367|182070181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.22||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.47|||Chi-squared|||||0.47|-0.02|0.08
91092983|NCT00393367|182070182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.14||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.08|||Chi-squared|||||0.08|-0.37|0.22
90841768|NCT02420821|181549467|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.73|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 10 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.73|0.33|<0.0001
90841769|NCT02420821|181549467|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.96|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 10 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.96|0.51|<0.0001
90841770|NCT02420821|181549467|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.86|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 11 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.86|0.41|<0.0001
90841771|NCT02420821|181549467|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.99|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 11 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.99|0.49|<0.0001
90841772|NCT02420821|181549467|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.42||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.68|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 12 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.68|0.17|0.0010
90841773|NCT02420821|181549467|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.89|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 12 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.89|0.32|<0.0001
90841774|NCT02420821|181549467|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.52||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.82|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 13 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.82|0.23|0.0005
90841775|NCT02420821|181549467|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.56||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.88|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 13 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.88|0.23|0.0008
90841776|NCT02420821|181549467|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.33||||0.0591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.67|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 14 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.67|-0.01|0.0591
90841777|NCT02420821|181549467|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.67||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.05|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 14 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||1.05|0.29|0.0005
90841778|NCT02420821|181549467|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.1378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.68|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 15 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.68|-0.09|0.1378
90897632|NCT02799472|181661144|OTHER||Ratio|1.005||||0.976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.726|1.39|||Repeated measures analysis|||CL13, Week 2||1.390|0.726|0.976
90897633|NCT02799472|181661144|OTHER||Ratio|1.236||||0.244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.859|1.778|||Repeated measures analysis|||CL13, Week 4||1.778|0.859|0.244
90897634|NCT02799472|181661144|OTHER||Ratio|1.237||||0.278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.836|1.83|||Repeated measures analysis|||CL13, Week 6||1.830|0.836|0.278
91092984|NCT00393367|182070184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.8|-0.6|0.78
90957343|NCT02469389|181794533|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.498|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.498
91092985|NCT00204737|182070202|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||Fisher Exact|||comparison at 2 Weeks||||0.06
91092986|NCT00204737|182070202|OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison at 6 Weeks||||0.18
90957344|NCT02469389|181794534|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.079|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.079
91092987|NCT00204737|182070202|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison at 12 weeks||||0.5
91092988|NCT00486044|182070238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.966||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.966
91092989|NCT00486044|182070239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.015
91092990|NCT00486044|182070240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.113||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.113
91092991|NCT00486044|182070241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.210
91092992|NCT02701634|182070242|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99||||||P-value was calculated using the stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||||||0.99
91092993|NCT02701634|182070247|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.67
91092994|NCT02701634|182070248|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33||||||P-value was calculated using the two sample proportion t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.33
91092995|NCT02701634|182070249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49||||||P-value was calculated using the two sample proportion t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.49
91092996|NCT02701634|182070250|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|2.18||P-value was calculated using the log-rank test and stratified for disease severity and usage of calcineurin inhibitor or mycophenolate mofetil (MMF).|Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated from Cox regression model adjusted for treatment and stratified for disease severity and usage of calcineurin inhibitor or MMF|||2.18|0.55|0.800
91092997|NCT01206764|182070254|OTHER|Kaplan Meier|Median Difference (Net)|27.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.86|35.29||||||Single arm open label study||35.29|21.86|
91092998|NCT01206764|182070258|OTHER|Kaplan Meier|Median Difference (Net)|45.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.29|106.43||||||The median overall survival was not evaluable, this presents the 25th percentile of overall survival||106.43|31.29|
91092999|NCT00997893|182070271|OTHER|||||||0.004||||||treatment x time p=.004|Mixed Models Analysis||||A mixed effects regression model (Estimation method=maximum likelihood; Random intercept) was conducted to compare the effects of phytoestrogens and estradiol to placebo. Primary predictor variables in the model included treatment and time, as well the treatment by time interaction.|||.004
91093000|NCT00997893|182070272|OTHER|||||||0.98||||||visit x time x treatment interaction p=.98|Mixed Models Analysis||||A mixed effects regression model (Estimation method=maximum likelihood; Random intercept) was conducted to compare the effects of phytoestrogens and estradiol to placebo before and after a psychosocial stressor. Predictor variables in the model included treatment, time (before and after the psychosocial stressor), visit (Baseline, 12 weeks), and all two and three way interactions.|||.98
91093001|NCT00997893|182070273|OTHER|||||||0.68||||||treatment x time (before and after the psychosocial stressor) x visit p=.68|Mixed Models Analysis||||A mixed effects regression model (Estimation method=maximum likelihood; Random intercept) was conducted to compare the effects of phytoestrogens and estradiol to placebo on emotional memory following a laboratory induced stress. Primary predictor variables in the model included treatment, time (before and after the psychosocial stressor), visit (Baseline, 12 weeks), and all two and three way interactions.|||.68
91093002|NCT00997893|182070274|OTHER|||||||0.11||||||treatment x time p=.11|Mixed Models Analysis||||A mixed effects regression model (Estimation method=maximum likelihood; Random intercept) was conducted to compare the effects of phytoestrogens and estradiol to placebo on verbal memory (logical memory; immediate). Primary predictor variables in the model included treatment and time, as well the treatment by time interaction.|||.11
91093003|NCT00997893|182070275|OTHER|||||||0.86||||||treatment x time p=.86|Mixed Models Analysis||||A mixed effects regression model (Estimation method=maximum likelihood; Random intercept) was conducted to compare the effects of phytoestrogens and estradiol to placebo on verbal memory (logical memory; immediate)Primary predictor variables in the model included treatment and time, as well the treatment by time interaction.|||.86
91093004|NCT03620162|182070276|OTHER|Estimated differences, confidence intervals (CIs), and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percentage|-3.4|||=|0.525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|7.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference in Percentage: Erythema(Group 5 vs 1)||7.0|-13.6|= 0.525
91093005|NCT03620162|182070276|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percentage|-4.5|||=|0.396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|5.8|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference in Percentage: Erythema(Group 4 vs 1)||5.8|-14.7|= 0.396
91093006|NCT03620162|182070276|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percentage|-8.7|||=|0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.8|1.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference in Percentage: Erythema(Group 3 vs 1)||1.6|-18.8|= 0.097
91093007|NCT03620162|182070276|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percentage|-9.9|||=|0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.9|0.3|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference in Percentage: Erythema(Group 2 vs 1)||0.3|-19.9|= 0.057
91093008|NCT03620162|182070276|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percentage|-8.4|||=|0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|1.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference in Percentage: Induration(Group 5 vs 1)||1.2|-17.8|= 0.085
91093009|NCT03620162|182070276|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percentage|-9.5|||=|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9|0.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference in Percentage: Induration(Group 4 vs 1)||-0.0|-18.9|= 0.050
91093010|NCT03620162|182070276|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percentage|-6.5|||=|0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.1|3.1|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference in Percentage: Induration(Group 3 vs 1)||3.1|-16.1|= 0.183
91093011|NCT03620162|182070276|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percentage|-8.7|||=|0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.1|0.8|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference in Percentage: Induration(Group 2 vs 1)||0.8|-18.1|= 0.074
91093012|NCT03620162|182070276|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percentage|3.4|||=|0.525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|13.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference in Percentage: Tenderness(Group 5 vs 1)||13.6|-7.0|= 0.525
90841779|NCT02420821|181549467|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.43||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.89|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 15 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.89|-0.03|0.0650
90841780|NCT02420821|181549467|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.48||||0.0531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.96|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 16 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.96|-0.01|0.0531
90841781|NCT02420821|181549467|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.93||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.49|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 16 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||1.49|0.37|0.0011
90841782|NCT02420821|181549467|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.55||||0.0708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|1.14|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 17 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||1.14|-0.05|0.0708
90841783|NCT02420821|181549467|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.58||||0.1078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|1.29|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 17 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||1.29|-0.13|0.1078
90841784|NCT02420821|181549467|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.62||||0.1487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|1.47|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 18 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||1.47|-0.22|0.1487
90841785|NCT02420821|181549467|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.33||||0.5537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|1.43|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 18 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||1.43|-0.77|0.5537
90957345|NCT02469389|181794535|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.539|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.539
90957346|NCT01079663|181794536|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49||||0.1629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.20|-1.19|0.1629
90841786|NCT02420821|181549467|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.52||||0.5743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|2.33|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 19 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||2.33|-1.29|0.5743
90841787|NCT00926237|181549490|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.74||||0.04|ONE_SIDED|||||t value = -1.40|Mixed Models Analysis||1Hz active rTMS - Sham rTMS|||||.04
90841788|NCT00926237|181549490|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.77||||0.02|ONE_SIDED|||||t value = -2.03|Mixed Models Analysis||10 Hz active rTMS - Sham rTMS|||||.02
90841789|NCT00926237|181549490|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.73||||0.2|ONE_SIDED|||||t value = -1..28|Mixed Models Analysis||10 Hz washout - sham washout period|||||.20
90841790|NCT00926237|181549490|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.19||||0.19|ONE_SIDED|||||t value = -1.29|Mixed Models Analysis||1Hz washout - sham washout|||||.19
90841791|NCT03085797|181549514|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Medians|-0.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.34||p-Value was based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Quantile regression with covariates: treatment,region,Baseline score,Baseline eosinophilcount(BEC). Par. with nasal surgery prior to Wk52/withdrew early with no nasal surgery assigned their worst observed score prior to nasal surgery/study withdrawal|||-0.34|-1.11|<0.001
90957347|NCT01079663|181794537|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.76||||0.0347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|-0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.06|-1.46|0.0347
90957348|NCT01014143|181794574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
90957349|NCT03536143|181794606|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0216|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0216
90957350|NCT03536143|181794607|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0009|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0009
90897635|NCT02799472|181661144|OTHER||Ratio|1.118||||0.677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.651|1.92|||Repeated measures analysis|||CL13, Week 8||1.920|0.651|0.677
91093013|NCT03620162|182070276|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percentage|-0.6|||=|0.915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|9.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference in Percentage: Tenderness(Group 4 vs 1)||9.7|-10.8|= 0.915
90897636|NCT02799472|181661144|OTHER||Ratio|1.165||||0.661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.573|2.369|||Repeated measures analysis|||CL13, Week 12||2.369|0.573|0.661
90897637|NCT02799472|181661144|OTHER||Ratio|1.581||||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.832|3.007|||Repeated measures analysis|||CL13, 12-Week FU||3.007|0.832|0.154
90897638|NCT02799472|181661144|OTHER||Ratio|0.903||||0.751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.471|1.729|||Repeated measures analysis|||Interleukin 6, Week 1||1.729|0.471|0.751
90897639|NCT02799472|181661144|OTHER||Ratio|0.72||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.367|1.413|||Repeated measures analysis|||Interleukin 6, Week 2||1.413|0.367|0.330
90957351|NCT01878214|181794608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.76
91028859|NCT03179345|181941545|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.018|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.8543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.179|0.216|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Moodiness||0.216|-0.179|0.8543
91093014|NCT03620162|182070276|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percentage|1.9|||=|0.714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|12.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference in Percentage: Tenderness(Group 3 vs 1)||12.2|-8.4|= 0.714
91093015|NCT03620162|182070276|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percentage|-0.5|||=|0.926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|9.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference in Percentage: Tenderness(Group 2 vs 1)||9.7|-10.7|= 0.926
91093016|NCT03620162|182070276|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percentage|0.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|8.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference in Percentage: Swelling(Group 5 vs 1)||8.7|-8.7|> 0.999
90897640|NCT02799472|181661144|OTHER||Ratio|0.822||||0.519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.447|1.512|||Repeated measures analysis|||Interleukin 6, Week 4||1.512|0.447|0.519
90897641|NCT02799472|181661144|OTHER||Ratio|0.659||||0.147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.372|1.167|||Repeated measures analysis|||Interleukin 6, Week 6||1.167|0.372|0.147
90897642|NCT02799472|181661144|OTHER||Ratio|0.684||||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.396|1.18|||Repeated measures analysis|||Interleukin 6, Week 8||1.180|0.396|0.166
90897643|NCT02799472|181661144|OTHER||Ratio|1.221||||0.432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.734|2.031|||Repeated measures analysis|||Interleukin 6, Week 12||2.031|0.734|0.432
90897644|NCT02799472|181661144|OTHER||Ratio|1.602||||0.216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|3.423|||Repeated measures analysis|||Interleukin 6, 12-Week FU||3.423|0.750|0.216
90897645|NCT02799472|181661144|OTHER||Ratio|0.926||||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.823|1.042|||Repeated measures analysis|||MDC, Week 1||1.042|0.823|0.195
91093017|NCT03620162|182070276|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percentage|-2.2|||=|0.609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|6.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference in Percentage: Swelling(Group 4 vs 1)||6.4|-10.8|= 0.609
90897646|NCT02799472|181661144|OTHER||Ratio|0.984||||0.851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.829|1.168|||Repeated measures analysis|||MDC, Week 2||1.168|0.829|0.851
90897647|NCT02799472|181661144|OTHER||Ratio|0.956||||0.637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.158|||Repeated measures analysis|||MDC, Week 4||1.158|0.790|0.637
90897648|NCT02799472|181661144|OTHER||Ratio|1.01||||0.915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.833|1.225|||Repeated measures analysis|||MDC, Week 6||1.225|0.833|0.915
90897649|NCT02799472|181661144|OTHER||Ratio|0.857||||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.064|||Repeated measures analysis|||MDC, Week 8||1.064|0.690|0.157
90897650|NCT02799472|181661144|OTHER||Ratio|0.849||||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.681|1.059|||Repeated measures analysis|||MDC, Week 12||1.059|0.681|0.142
90897651|NCT02799472|181661144|OTHER||Ratio|1.013||||0.929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.745|1.378|||Repeated measures analysis|||MDC, 12-Week FU||1.378|0.745|0.929
90897652|NCT02799472|181661145|OTHER||Ratio|0.887||||0.463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.231|||Repeated measures analysis|||Chitinase 3 Like 1, Week 1||1.231|0.640|0.463
90897653|NCT02799472|181661145|OTHER||Ratio|0.953||||0.782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.672|1.352|||Repeated measures analysis|||Chitinase 3 Like 1, Week 2||1.352|0.672|0.782
90897654|NCT02799472|181661145|OTHER||Ratio|1.132||||0.533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.759|1.69|||Repeated measures analysis|||Chitinase 3 Like 1, Week 4||1.690|0.759|0.533
90897655|NCT02799472|181661145|OTHER||Ratio|1.149||||0.473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.779|1.694|||Repeated measures analysis|||Chitinase 3 Like 1, Week 6||1.694|0.779|0.473
90897656|NCT02799472|181661145|OTHER||Ratio|1.112||||0.608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.733|1.687|||Repeated measures analysis|||Chitinase 3 Like 1, Week 8||1.687|0.733|0.608
90897657|NCT02799472|181661145|OTHER||Ratio|1.005||||0.985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.613|1.645|||Repeated measures analysis|||Chitinase 3 Like 1, Week 12||1.645|0.613|0.985
90897658|NCT02799472|181661145|OTHER||Ratio|1.386||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.934|2.057|||Repeated measures analysis|||Chitinase 3 Like 1, 12-Week FU||2.057|0.934|0.102
90897659|NCT02799472|181661145|OTHER||Ratio|0.915||||0.259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.781|1.071|||Repeated measures analysis|||MMP-3, Week 1||1.071|0.781|0.259
90897660|NCT02799472|181661145|OTHER||Ratio|0.959||||0.621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.809|1.137|||Repeated measures analysis|||MMP-3, Week 2||1.137|0.809|0.621
90957352|NCT01878214|181794609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.79
90957353|NCT01878214|181794610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Smoking frequency||||0.63
90957354|NCT01878214|181794610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Smoking quantity||||0.30
90841792|NCT03085797|181549515|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Medians|-3.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.09|-2.18||p-Value was based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Quantile regression with covariates: treatment, region, Baseline score, Baseline BEC. Par. with nasal surgery prior to Wks 49-52/withdrew early with no nasal surgery assigned their worst observed 4-wk mean prior to nasal surgery/study withdrawal.|||-2.18|-4.09|<0.001
90841793|NCT03085797|181549516|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (Mepolizumab/Placebo)|0.43||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.76||p-Value was based on Cox Proportional Hazards Model.|Cox Proportional Hazards Model||Analysis using a Cox Proportional Hazards Model with covariates of treatment, geographic region, Baseline total endoscopic score (centrally read), Baseline nasal obstruction VAS, Baseline BEC, number of previous surgeries (1, 2, \>2 as ordinal).|||0.76|0.25|0.003
90841794|NCT03085797|181549517|OTHER||Difference in Medians|-3.18||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|-2.26||p-Value was based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test and is adjusted for multiplicity.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Quantile regression with covariates: treatment, region, Baseline score, Baseline BEC. Par. with nasal surgery prior to Wks 49-52/withdrew early with no nasal surgery assigned their worst observed 4-wk mean prior to nasal surgery/study withdrawal.|||-2.26|-4.10|0.003
90841795|NCT03085797|181549518|OTHER||Difference in Medians|-16.49||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.57|-9.42||p-Value was based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test and is adjusted for multiplicity.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Quantile regression with covariates: treatment, region, Baseline score, Baseline BEC. Par. with nasal surgery prior to Wk 52/withdrew early with no nasal surgery assigned their worst observed score prior to nasal surgery/study withdrawal.|||-9.42|-23.57|0.003
90841796|NCT03085797|181549519|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.58||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.92||p-Value was based on logistic regression model and is adjusted for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic||Covariates: treatment group, geographic region, number of oral corticosteroids courses for NP in last 12 months(0,1,\>1 as ordinal), Baseline total endoscopic score(centrally read),Baseline nasal obstruction VAS score,log(e) Baseline eosinophil count.|||0.92|0.36|0.020
90897661|NCT02799472|181661145|OTHER||Ratio|0.914||||0.354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.752|1.11|||Repeated measures analysis|||MMP-3, Week 4||1.110|0.752|0.354
90897662|NCT02799472|181661145|OTHER||Ratio|0.8||||0.448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.443|1.444|||Repeated measures analysis|||MMP-3, Week 6||1.444|0.443|0.448
90841797|NCT03085797|181549520|OTHER||Difference in Medians|-2.68||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.44|-1.91||p-Value was based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test and is adjusted for multiplicity.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Quantile regression with covariates: treatment, region, Baseline score, Baseline BEC. Par. with nasal surgery prior to Wks 49-52/withdrew early with no nasal surgery assigned their worst observed 4-wk mean prior to nasal surgery/study withdrawal.|||-1.91|-3.44|0.020
90841798|NCT03085797|181549521|OTHER||Difference in Medians|-0.37||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.08||p-Value was based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test and is adjusted for multiplicity.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Quantile regression with covariates: treatment, region, Baseline score, Baseline BEC. Par. with nasal surgery prior to Wks 49-52/withdrew early with no nasal surgery assigned their worst observed 4-wk mean prior to nasal surgery/study withdrawal.|||-0.08|-0.65|0.020
90841799|NCT04730271|181549529|NON_INFERIORITY|Test of non-inferiority: Absolute value deviation from plan with ROBOTIC is less than it is with manual instruments (not using ROBOTIC) under a non-inferiority margin of 1.5 degrees|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
90841800|NCT04730271|181549530|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0058|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0058
90841801|NCT04730271|181549531|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0282|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0282
90841802|NCT04730271|181549532|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0004
90841803|NCT04730271|181549533|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90841804|NCT04730271|181549534|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.633|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison between the proportion of Robotic and Manual subjects who had a local adverse event within 1 year of the procedure.||||0.6330
90841805|NCT04730271|181549534|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between the proportion of Robotic and Manual subjects who had a serious local adverse event within 1 year of the procedure.||||0.0400
90841806|NCT04730271|181549534|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4079|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison between the proportion of Robotic and Manual subjects who had a local adverse event within 90 days of the procedure.||||0.4079
90841807|NCT04730271|181549534|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1262|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison between the proportion of Robotic and Manual subjects who had a local serious adverse event within 90 days of the procedure.||||0.1262
90841808|NCT04730271|181549536|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6662|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test P-value for difference in change from baseline between ROBOTIC and MANUAL at 1 year||||0.6662
90841809|NCT04730271|181549536|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8154|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test P-value for difference in change from baseline between ROBOTIC and MANUAL at 12 weeks||||0.8154
90841810|NCT04730271|181549537|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0165|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of FJS at 12 weeks||||0.0165
90841811|NCT04730271|181549537|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1331|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of FJS at 1 year||||0.1331
90841812|NCT04730271|181549538|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1596|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test P-value for difference in change from baseline between ROBOTIC and MANUAL at 1 year||||0.1596
90841813|NCT04730271|181549538|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6834|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test P-value for difference in change from baseline between ROBOTIC and MANUAL at 12 weeks||||0.6834
90841814|NCT04730271|181549539|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5675|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test P-value for difference in change from baseline between ROBOTIC and MANUAL at 1 year||||0.5675
90841815|NCT04730271|181549539|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.924|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test P-value for difference in change from baseline between ROBOTIC and MANUAL at 12 weeks||||0.9240
90841816|NCT04730271|181549540|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4586|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test P-value for difference in change from baseline between ROBOTIC and MANUAL at 1 year||||0.4586
90841817|NCT04730271|181549540|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6951|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test P-value for difference in change from baseline between ROBOTIC and MANUAL at 12 weeks||||0.6951
90841818|NCT04730271|181549541|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test P-value for difference in change from baseline between ROBOTIC and MANUAL at 1 year||||0.8000
90897663|NCT02799472|181661145|OTHER||Ratio|1.16||||0.402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.813|1.653|||Repeated measures analysis|||MMP-3, Week 8||1.653|0.813|0.402
90897664|NCT02799472|181661145|OTHER||Ratio|0.951||||0.745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.695|1.301|||Repeated measures analysis|||MMP-3, Week 12||1.301|0.695|0.745
90897665|NCT02799472|181661145|OTHER||Ratio|1.226||||0.279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.837|1.796|||Repeated measures analysis|||MMP-3, 12-Week FU||1.796|0.837|0.279
91093018|NCT03620162|182070276|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percentage|1.8|||=|0.688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|10.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference in Percentage: Swelling(Group 3 vs 1)||10.7|-7.1|= 0.688
91093019|NCT03620162|182070276|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percentage|-4.1|||=|0.336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|4.3|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference in Percentage: Swelling(Group 2 vs 1)||4.3|-12.6|= 0.336
91093020|NCT03620162|182070277|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percentage|-1.1|||=|0.825|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|8.8|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference in Percentage:Appetite lost(Group5 vs1)||8.8|-11.0|= 0.825
90841819|NCT04730271|181549541|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.973|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test P-value for difference in change from baseline between ROBOTIC and MANUAL at 12 weeks||||0.9730
90841820|NCT04730271|181549542|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4636|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test P-value for difference in change from baseline between ROBOTIC and MANUAL at 1 year||||0.4636
90841821|NCT04730271|181549542|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8088|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test P-value for difference in change from baseline between ROBOTIC and MANUAL at 12 weeks||||0.8088
90841822|NCT04730271|181549543|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4851|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-Test P-value tests the significance of the difference between ROBOTIC and MANUAL at 12 weeks||||0.4851
90897666|NCT02799472|181661146|OTHER||Ratio|1.098||||0.621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.606|||Repeated measures analysis|||ARGS Neo-Epitope, Week 1||1.606|0.750|0.621
91028860|NCT03179345|181941545|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.153|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.4294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.537|0.231|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Alertness||0.231|-0.537|0.4294
91093021|NCT03620162|182070277|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percentage|-0.6|||=|0.912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|9.3|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference in Percentage:Appetite lost(Group4 vs1)||9.3|-10.4|= 0.912
90841823|NCT04730271|181549543|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6486|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-Test P-value tests the significance of the difference between ROBOTIC and MANUAL at 1 year||||0.6486
90841824|NCT04730271|181549544|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8887|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test P-value for difference in change from baseline for Pain at rest between ROBOTIC and MANUAL at 1 year||||0.8887
90841825|NCT04730271|181549544|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test P-value for difference in change from baseline for pain at rest between ROBOTIC and MANUAL at 12 weeks||||0.4007
90841826|NCT04730271|181549544|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0074|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-Test P-value tests the significance of the difference between ROBOTIC and MANUAL for pain at rest at 12 weeks||||0.0074
90841827|NCT04730271|181549544|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0663|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-Test P-value tests the significance of the difference between ROBOTIC and MANUAL for Pain at rest at 1 year||||0.0663
90841828|NCT04730271|181549544|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7096|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test P-value for difference in change from baseline between ROBOTIC and MANUAL for Pain with Activity at 1 year||||0.7096
90841829|NCT04730271|181549544|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5321|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test P-value for difference in change from baseline between ROBOTIC and MANUAL for pain with activity at 12 weeks||||0.5321
90841830|NCT04730271|181549544|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0709|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-Test P-value tests the significance of the difference between ROBOTIC and MANUAL for Pain with activity at 12 weeks||||0.0709
90841831|NCT04730271|181549544|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1274|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-Test P-value tests the significance of the difference between ROBOTIC and MANUAL for Pain with activity at 1 year||||0.1274
90841832|NCT04730271|181549545|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6745|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between the accuracy achieved in the first 10 cases compared to the subsequent cases||||0.6745
90841833|NCT02350296|181549563|EQUIVALENCE|Acceptance criterion for bioequivalence was a 94.12% confidence interval for the test/reference ratio of the geometric means within the 80.00-125.00% range, according to the current guidelines for bioequivalence studies.|geometric means ratio|108.12||||0.1455|TWO_SIDED|94.12|97.57|119.81||"treatment P value reported"|ANOVA||Estimated value and limits are expressed in %|||119.81|97.57|0.1455
90841834|NCT02350296|181549564|EQUIVALENCE|Acceptance criterion for bioequivalence was a 94.12% confidence interval for the test/reference ratio of the geometric means within the 80.00-125.00% range, according to the current guidelines for bioequivalence studies.|geometric means ratio|110.62||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|94.12|104.26|117.38||"Treatment P value is reported"|ANOVA||Estimated value and limits are expressed in %|||117.38|104.26|0.0023
90841835|NCT02350296|181549565|EQUIVALENCE|Acceptance criterion for bioequivalence was a 94.12% confidence interval for the test/reference ratio of the geometric means within the 80.00-125.00% range, according to the current guidelines for bioequivalence studies.|geometric means ratio|110.69||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|94.12|104.35|117.41||"treatment P value is reported"|ANOVA||Estimated value and limits are expressed in %|||117.41|104.35|0.0021
90841836|NCT02350296|181549566|EQUIVALENCE|Acceptance criterion for bioequivalence was a 94.12% confidence interval for the test/reference ratio of the geometric means within the 80.00-125.00% range, according to the current guidelines for bioequivalence studies.||||||0.0201|||||||Friedman|||||||0.0201
90841837|NCT01544335|181549570|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Correlation coefficient|The correlation between RVC and ΔL-Dex values was plotted, and the correlation strength was assessed using the Pearson correlation coefficient, r.||||||<0.001
90841838|NCT01532986|181549572|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.189|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.157|0.222|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.222|0.157|>0.05
90841839|NCT01532986|181549573|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.08|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.08|-0.04|>0.05
90841840|NCT01532986|181549574|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.57|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.57|-0.52|>0.05
90897667|NCT02799472|181661146|OTHER||Ratio|1.581||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.046|2.388|||Repeated measures analysis|||ARGS Neo-Epitope, Week 2||2.388|1.046|0.031
90841841|NCT01532986|181549575|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.10|-0.34|>0.05
91028861|NCT03179345|181941545|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.113|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.3613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.357|0.132|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Attention Span||0.132|-0.357|0.3613
91028862|NCT03179345|181941545|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.047|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.7201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.305|0.212|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Motivation||0.212|-0.305|0.7201
91028863|NCT03179345|181941545|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.213|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.448|0.023|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Vision||0.023|-0.448|0.0767
91028864|NCT03179345|181941545|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.216|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.2618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.597|0.165|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Energy Level||0.165|-0.597|0.2618
91028865|NCT03179345|181941545|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.7633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.366|0.269|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Memory||0.269|-0.366|0.7633
91028866|NCT03179345|181941545|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.198|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.1968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.502|0.105|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Walking Balance||0.105|-0.502|0.1968
91028867|NCT03179345|181941545|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.6891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.296|0.197|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Interest in Activities||0.197|-0.296|0.6891
91028868|NCT03179345|181941545|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.171|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.2229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.447|0.106|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Coordination||0.106|-0.447|0.2229
91028869|NCT03179345|181941545|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.072|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.2591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.197|0.054|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Tremor||0.054|-0.197|0.2591
91028870|NCT03179345|181941545|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.057|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.7099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.359|0.246|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Concentration||0.246|-0.359|0.7099
91028871|NCT03179345|181941545|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.031|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.6215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.154|0.092|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Speech||0.092|-0.154|0.6215
91093022|NCT03620162|182070277|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percentage|-8.8|||=|0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.3|0.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference in Percentage:Appetite lost(Group3 vs1)||0.9|-18.3|= 0.074
91093023|NCT03620162|182070277|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Percentage of Participants|-3.7|||=|0.458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|6.1|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference in Percentage:Appetite lost(Group2 vs1)||6.1|-13.4|= 0.458
91093024|NCT03620162|182070277|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percentage|2.8|||=|0.568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|12.3|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference in Percentage:Irritability(Group 5 vs1)||12.3|-6.8|= 0.568
91093025|NCT03620162|182070277|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percentage|0.6|||=|0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|10.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference in Percentage:Irritability(Group 4 vs1)||10.2|-9.1|= 0.910
91093026|NCT03620162|182070277|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percentage|-4.7|||=|0.354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|5.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference in Percentage:Irritability(Group 3 vs1)||5.2|-14.5|= 0.354
91093027|NCT03620162|182070277|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percentage|-6.8|||=|0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|3.1|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference in Percentage:Irritability(Group 2 vs1)||3.1|-16.6|= 0.178
90841842|NCT01532986|181549576|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.88|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|0.29|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.29|-2.04|>0.05
90841843|NCT01532986|181549577|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.22|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.02|10.46|||t-test, 2 sided|||||10.46|-8.02|>0.05
90841844|NCT01532986|181549578|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.34|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.34|0.00|>0.05
90841845|NCT01532986|181549579|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|1.33|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.33|-1.45|>0.05
91093028|NCT03620162|182070277|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percentage|3.4|||=|0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|13.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference in Percentage: Drowsiness(Group 5 vs 1)||13.5|-6.8|= 0.520
90897668|NCT02799472|181661146|OTHER||Ratio|1.222||||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.817|1.827|||Repeated measures analysis|||ARGS Neo-Epitope, Week 4||1.827|0.817|0.317
91093029|NCT03620162|182070277|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percentage|0.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|10.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference in Percentage: Drowsiness(Group 4 vs 1)||10.2|-10.2|> 0.999
91093030|NCT03620162|182070277|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percentage|-0.2|||=|0.963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|10.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference in Percentage: Drowsiness(Group 3 vs 1)||10.0|-10.5|= 0.963
91093031|NCT03620162|182070277|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percentage|-1.2|||=|0.821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|9.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference in Percentage: Drowsiness(Group 2 vs 1)||9.0|-11.4|= 0.821
91093032|NCT03620162|182070277|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percentage|-0.6|||=|0.836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|5.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference in Percentage: Hives(Group 5 vs 1)||5.0|-6.1|= 0.836
91093033|NCT03620162|182070277|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percentage|1.7|||=|0.562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|7.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference in Percentage: Hives(Group 4 vs 1)||7.6|-4.2|= 0.562
91093034|NCT03620162|182070277|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percentage|-1.6|||=|0.527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|3.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference in Percentage: Hives(Group 3 vs 1)||3.7|-7.1|= 0.527
91093035|NCT03620162|182070277|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percentage|-3.4|||=|0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|1.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference in Percentage: Hives(Group 2 vs 1)||1.5|-8.6|= 0.160
91093036|NCT03620162|182070278|OTHER|Estimated differences and CIs are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.1||||||Difference in Percentage (Group 5 vs 1)||2.1|-2.1|
91093037|NCT03620162|182070278|OTHER|Estimated differences and CIs are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.1||||||Difference in Percentage (Group 4 vs 1)||2.1|-2.1|
91093038|NCT03620162|182070278|OTHER|Estimated differences and CIs are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percentage|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|3.1||||||Difference in Percentage (Group 3 vs 1)||3.1|-1.6|
91093039|NCT03620162|182070278|OTHER|Estimated differences and CIs are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.1||||||Difference in Percentage (Group 2 vs 1)||2.1|-2.1|
91093040|NCT03620162|182070279|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.0||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 1 (Group 4 vs 1)||1.00|0.69|
91093041|NCT03620162|182070279|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.12||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 1 (Group 3 vs 1)||1.12|0.77|
91093042|NCT03620162|182070279|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.0||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 1 (Group 2 vs 1)||1.00|0.70|
91093043|NCT03620162|182070279|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.19||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 3 (Group 4 vs 1)||1.19|0.86|
90897669|NCT02799472|181661146|OTHER||Ratio|1.302||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.936|1.81|||Repeated measures analysis|||ARGS Neo-Epitope, Week 6||1.810|0.936|0.113
90957355|NCT01878214|181794611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.28
90897670|NCT02799472|181661146|OTHER||Ratio|1.45||||0.217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.795|2.645|||Repeated measures analysis|||ARGS Neo-Epitope, Week 8||2.645|0.795|0.217
91028872|NCT03179345|181941545|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.057|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.6422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.302|0.187|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Forgetfulness||0.187|-0.302|0.6422
91028873|NCT03179345|181941545|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.483|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.1574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.157|0.19|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Sleepiness||0.190|-1.157|0.1574
91028874|NCT03179345|181941545|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.084|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.4039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.115|0.282|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Moodiness||0.282|-0.115|0.4039
91028875|NCT03179345|181941545|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.309|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.1145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.695|0.076|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Alertness||0.076|-0.695|0.1145
91028876|NCT03179345|181941545|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.127|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.3083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.372|0.119|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Attention Span||0.119|-0.372|0.3083
91028877|NCT03179345|181941545|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.183|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.1638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.443|0.0776|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Motivation||0.0776|-0.443|0.1638
91028878|NCT03179345|181941545|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.078|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.5101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.314|0.157|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Vision||0.157|-0.314|0.5101
91028879|NCT03179345|181941545|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.233|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.2285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.614|0.149|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Energy Level||0.149|-0.614|0.2285
91028880|NCT03179345|181941545|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.4612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.436|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Memory||0.436|-0.200|0.4612
91028881|NCT03179345|181941545|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.099|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.205|0.402|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Walking Balance||0.402|-0.205|0.5190
91028882|NCT03179345|181941545|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.8479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.271|0.223|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Interest in Activities||0.223|-0.271|0.8479
91028883|NCT03179345|181941545|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.039|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.7808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.316|0.238|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Coordination||0.238|-0.316|0.7808
91028884|NCT03179345|181941545|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.171|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.296|-0.045|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Tremor||-0.045|-0.296|0.0083
91028885|NCT03179345|181941545|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.101|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.5068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.404|0.201|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Concentration||0.201|-0.404|0.5068
91028886|NCT03179345|181941545|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.068|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.2725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.191|0.055|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Speech||0.055|-0.191|0.2725
91028887|NCT03179345|181941545|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.039|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.7498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.206|0.284|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Forgetfulness||0.284|-0.206|0.7498
91028888|NCT03179345|181941545|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.152|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.6554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.522|0.826|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Sleepiness||0.826|-0.522|0.6554
90897671|NCT02799472|181661146|OTHER||Ratio|1.266||||0.147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.916|1.75|||Repeated measures analysis|||ARGS Neo-Epitope, Week 12||1.750|0.916|0.147
90897672|NCT02799472|181661146|OTHER||Ratio|0.996||||0.985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.662|1.499|||Repeated measures analysis|||ARGS Neo-Epitope, 12-Week FU||1.499|0.662|0.985
90897673|NCT02799472|181661146|OTHER||Ratio|0.892||||0.681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.511|1.56|||Repeated measures analysis|||CMDV, Week 1||1.560|0.511|0.681
90897674|NCT02799472|181661146|OTHER||Ratio|0.87||||0.668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.454|1.669|||Repeated measures analysis|||CMDV, Week 2||1.669|0.454|0.668
91093044|NCT03620162|182070279|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.12||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 3 (Group 3 vs 1)||1.12|0.80|
91093045|NCT03620162|182070279|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.25||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 3 (Group 2 vs 1)||1.25|0.90|
91093046|NCT03620162|182070279|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.0||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 4 (Group 4 vs 1)||1.00|0.66|
91093047|NCT03620162|182070279|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.03||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 4 (Group 3 vs 1)||1.03|0.68|
91093048|NCT03620162|182070279|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.08||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 4 (Group 2 vs 1)||1.08|0.72|
91093049|NCT03620162|182070279|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.98||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 5 (Group 4 vs 1)||0.98|0.64|
90897675|NCT02799472|181661146|OTHER||Ratio|1.12||||0.717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.597|2.101|||Repeated measures analysis|||CMDV, Week 4||2.101|0.597|0.717
90897676|NCT02799472|181661146|OTHER||Ratio|0.661||||0.227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.333|1.31|||Repeated measures analysis|||CMDV, Week 6||1.310|0.333|0.227
90897677|NCT02799472|181661146|OTHER||Ratio|0.817||||0.471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.464|1.437|||Repeated measures analysis|||CMDV, Week 8||1.437|0.464|0.471
91093050|NCT03620162|182070279|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.29||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 5 (Group 3 vs 1)||1.29|0.84|
91093051|NCT03620162|182070279|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.14||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 5 (Group 2 vs 1)||1.14|0.75|
91093052|NCT03620162|182070279|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.98||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 6A (Group 4 vs 1)||0.98|0.66|
91093053|NCT03620162|182070279|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.37||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 6A (Group 3 vs 1)||1.37|0.91|
91093054|NCT03620162|182070279|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.36||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 6A (Group 2 vs 1)||1.36|0.92|
90841846|NCT01532986|181549580|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.52|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.42|-2.62|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-2.62|-20.42|<0.05
90841847|NCT01532986|181549581|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.98|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|0.24|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.24|-4.20|>0.05
90841848|NCT03408392|181549582|EQUIVALENCE|Bio-equivalence analysis comparing cefixime test and reference product has been presented.|Percentage ratio|105.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.11|115.54||||||||115.54|96.11|
90841849|NCT03408392|181549583|EQUIVALENCE|Bio-equivalence analysis comparing cefixime test and reference product has been presented.|Percentage ratio|101.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.37|109.55||||||||109.55|93.37|
90841850|NCT03408392|181549584|EQUIVALENCE|Bio-equivalence analysis comparing cefixime test and reference product has been presented.|Percentage ratio|105.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.31|114.78||||||||114.78|96.31|
90897678|NCT02799472|181661146|OTHER||Ratio|0.816||||0.541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.417|1.597|||Repeated measures analysis|||CMDV, Week 12||1.597|0.417|0.541
91093055|NCT03620162|182070279|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.31||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 6B (Group 4 vs 1)||1.31|0.88|
91093056|NCT03620162|182070279|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.32||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 6B (Group 3 vs 1)||1.32|0.88|
91093057|NCT03620162|182070279|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.49||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 6B (Group 2 vs 1)||1.49|1.02|
91093058|NCT03620162|182070279|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.95||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 7F (Group 4 vs 1)||0.95|0.64|
91093059|NCT03620162|182070279|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.21||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 7F (Group 3 vs 1)||1.21|0.81|
91093060|NCT03620162|182070279|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.35||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 7F (Group 2 vs 1)||1.35|0.92|
90897679|NCT02799472|181661146|OTHER||Ratio|0.822||||0.544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.422|1.602|||Repeated measures analysis|||CMDV, 12-Week FU||1.602|0.422|0.544
90897680|NCT02799472|181661146|OTHER||Ratio|1.051||||0.537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.895|1.233|||Repeated measures analysis|||MMP-Degraded CRP, Week 1||1.233|0.895|0.537
90897681|NCT02799472|181661146|OTHER||Ratio|1.031||||0.635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.906|1.173|||Repeated measures analysis|||MMP-Degraded CRP, Week 2||1.173|0.906|0.635
90897682|NCT02799472|181661146|OTHER||Ratio|1.012||||0.866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.879|1.165|||Repeated measures analysis|||MMP-Degraded CRP, Week 4||1.165|0.879|0.866
90897683|NCT02799472|181661146|OTHER||Ratio|0.979||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.842|1.139|||Repeated measures analysis|||MMP-Degraded CRP, Week 6||1.139|0.842|0.780
91093061|NCT03620162|182070279|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.01||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 9V (Group 4 vs 1)||1.01|0.70|
91093062|NCT03620162|182070279|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.06||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 9V (Group 3 vs 1)||1.06|0.73|
91093063|NCT03620162|182070279|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.13||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 9V (Group 2 vs 1)||1.13|0.79|
91093064|NCT03620162|182070279|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.28||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 14 (Group 4 vs 1)||1.28|0.83|
90841851|NCT00885170|181549606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|2.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|4.17|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis||Baseline measurement and post-baseline percent changes from baseline, with fixed effects for treatment, time, duration of prior alendronate use (3-5 years, \>5 years), geographic region, machine type (Lunar/Hologic) and treatment-by-time interaction|The primary hypothesis of the study was met if; in postmenopausal women previously treated with alendronate with low BMD, two years of treatment with odanacatib 50 mg significantly increased BMD at the femoral neck site compared to placebo (p-value \< 0.001).||4.17|1.17|<0.001
90897684|NCT02799472|181661146|OTHER||Ratio|1.113||||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.938|1.32|||Repeated measures analysis|||MMP-Degraded CRP, Week 8||1.320|0.938|0.212
90897685|NCT02799472|181661146|OTHER||Ratio|1.102||||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.934|1.3|||Repeated measures analysis|||MMP-Degraded CRP, Week 12||1.300|0.934|0.242
90897686|NCT02799472|181661146|OTHER||Ratio|1.05||||0.597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.267|||Repeated measures analysis|||MMP-Degraded CRP, 12-Week FU||1.267|0.870|0.597
90897687|NCT02799472|181661146|OTHER||Ratio|0.795||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.634|0.997|||Repeated measures analysis|||MD1C, Week 1||0.997|0.634|0.047
90897688|NCT02799472|181661146|OTHER||Ratio|0.883||||0.367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.668|1.165|||Repeated measures analysis|||MD1C, Week 2||1.165|0.668|0.367
90897689|NCT02799472|181661146|OTHER||Ratio|0.784||||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.558|1.102|||Repeated measures analysis|||MD1C, Week 4||1.102|0.558|0.155
91093065|NCT03620162|182070279|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|1.78||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 14 (Group 3 vs 1)||1.78|1.15|
91093066|NCT03620162|182070279|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|1.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|1.71||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 14 (Group 2 vs 1)||1.71|1.13|
90841852|NCT00885170|181549607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages vs. Placebo|-5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.9|6.0|||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||6.0|-16.9|
90841853|NCT00885170|181549608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Percentage vs. Placebo|5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|12.6|||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||12.6|-0.4|
90897690|NCT02799472|181661146|OTHER||Ratio|0.638||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.477|0.855|||Repeated measures analysis|||MD1C, Week 6||0.855|0.477|0.004
90897691|NCT02799472|181661146|OTHER||Ratio|0.799||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.591|1.08|||Repeated measures analysis|||MD1C, Week 8||1.080|0.591|0.140
90897692|NCT02799472|181661146|OTHER||Ratio|0.891||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.647|1.228|||Repeated measures analysis|||MD1C, Week 12||1.228|0.647|0.470
90897693|NCT02799472|181661146|OTHER||Ratio|0.869||||0.401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.621|1.217|||Repeated measures analysis|||MD1C, 12-Week FU||1.217|0.621|0.401
90897694|NCT02799472|181661146|OTHER||Ratio|0.981||||0.887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.742|1.296|||Repeated measures analysis|||MD2C, Week 1||1.296|0.742|0.887
90897695|NCT02799472|181661146|OTHER||Ratio|0.97||||0.814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.744|1.263|||Repeated measures analysis|||MD2C, Week 2||1.263|0.744|0.814
90897696|NCT02799472|181661146|OTHER||Ratio|0.969||||0.794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.762|1.233|||Repeated measures analysis|||MD2C, Week 4||1.233|0.762|0.794
90897697|NCT02799472|181661146|OTHER||Ratio|0.919||||0.539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.696|1.213|||Repeated measures analysis|||MD2C, Week 6||1.213|0.696|0.539
90897698|NCT02799472|181661146|OTHER||Ratio|0.937||||0.623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.719|1.221|||Repeated measures analysis|||MD2C, Week 8||1.221|0.719|0.623
90897699|NCT02799472|181661146|OTHER||Ratio|0.913||||0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.711|1.173|||Repeated measures analysis|||MD2C, Week 12||1.173|0.711|0.467
90897700|NCT02799472|181661146|OTHER||Ratio|0.778||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.061|||Repeated measures analysis|||MD2C, 12-Week FU||1.061|0.570|0.108
90897701|NCT02799472|181661146|OTHER||Ratio|1.01||||0.897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.868|1.175|||Repeated measures analysis|||MD3C, Week 1||1.175|0.868|0.897
90897702|NCT02799472|181661146|OTHER||Ratio|1.037||||0.644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.884|1.218|||Repeated measures analysis|||MD3C, Week 2||1.218|0.884|0.644
90897703|NCT02799472|181661146|OTHER||Ratio|0.943||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.139|||Repeated measures analysis|||MD3C, Week 4||1.139|0.780|0.530
90897704|NCT02799472|181661146|OTHER||Ratio|0.882||||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.733|1.063|||Repeated measures analysis|||MD3C, Week 6||1.063|0.733|0.182
90897705|NCT02799472|181661146|OTHER||Ratio|0.96||||0.691|TWO_SIDED|10.0|0.779|1.182|||Repeated measures analysis|||MD3C, Week 8||1.182|0.779|0.691
90841854|NCT00885170|181549609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least Squares Means|0.88||||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|2.14|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis||Baseline measurement and post-baseline percent changes from baseline, with fixed effects for treatment, time, duration of prior alendronate use (3-5 years, \>5 years), geographic region, machine type (Lunar/Hologic) and treatment-by-time interaction|||2.14|-0.37|0.166
90841855|NCT00885170|181549610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|3.18||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|5.17|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis||Baseline measurement and post-baseline percent changes from baseline, with fixed effects for treatment, time, duration of prior alendronate use (3-5 years, \>5 years), geographic region, machine type (Lunar/Hologic) and treatment-by-time interaction|||5.17|1.19|0.002
90841856|NCT00885170|181549611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|1.0||||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|2.35|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis||Baseline measurement and post-baseline percent changes from baseline, with fixed effects for treatment, time, duration of prior alendronate use (3-5 years, \>5 years), geographic region, machine type (Lunar/Hologic) and treatment-by-time interaction|||2.35|-0.34|0.142
90897706|NCT02799472|181661146|OTHER||Ratio|0.979||||0.843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.214|||Repeated measures analysis|||MD3C, Week 12||1.214|0.790|0.843
90897707|NCT02799472|181661146|OTHER||Ratio|1.075||||0.524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.855|1.351|||Repeated measures analysis|||MD3C, 12-Week FU||1.351|0.855|0.524
90897708|NCT02799472|181661147|OTHER||Ratio|0.953||||0.558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.809|1.123|||Repeated measures analysis|||Helper/Suppressor, Week 1||1.123|0.809|0.558
90897709|NCT02799472|181661147|OTHER||Ratio|0.947||||0.515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.801|1.12|||Repeated measures analysis|||Helper/Suppressor, Week 4||1.120|0.801|0.515
90897710|NCT02799472|181661147|OTHER||Ratio|1.046||||0.565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.895|1.222|||Repeated measures analysis|||Helper/Suppressor, Week 12||1.222|0.895|0.565
90957356|NCT01878214|181794612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Motivation to quit||||0.09
91028889|NCT03179345|181941545|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.082|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.4143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.116|0.28|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Moodiness||0.280|-0.116|0.4143
90841857|NCT00885170|181549612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|2.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|4.0|||cLDA||Baseline measurement and post-baseline percent changes from baseline, with fixed effects for treatment, time, duration of prior alendronate use (3-5 years, \>5 years), geographic region, machine type (Lunar/Hologic) and treatment-by-time interaction|||4.00|1.41|<0.001
90841858|NCT00885170|181549613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|1.06||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.98|||cLDA||Baseline measurement and post-baseline percent changes from baseline, with fixed effects for treatment, time, duration of prior alendronate use (3-5 years, \>5 years), geographic region, machine type (Lunar/Hologic) and treatment-by-time interaction|||1.98|0.15|0.023
90841859|NCT00885170|181549614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|2.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|3.89|||cLDA||Baseline measurement and post-baseline percent changes from baseline, with fixed effects for treatment, time, duration of prior alendronate use (3-5 years, \>5 years), geographic region, machine type (Lunar/Hologic) and treatment-by-time interaction|||3.89|1.26|<0.001
90841860|NCT00885170|181549615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|0.8||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|1.77|||cLDA||Baseline measurement and post-baseline percent changes from baseline, with fixed effects for treatment, time, duration of prior alendronate use (3-5 years, \>5 years), geographic region, machine type (Lunar/Hologic) and treatment-by-time interaction|||1.77|-0.16|0.103
90841861|NCT00885170|181549616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|0.22||||0.763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|1.67|||cLDA||Baseline measurement and post-baseline percent changes from baseline, with fixed effects for treatment, time, duration of prior alendronate use (3-5 years, \>5 years), geographic region, machine type (Lunar/Hologic) and treatment-by-time interaction|||1.67|-1.23|0.763
90841862|NCT00885170|181549617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|0.38||||0.578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|1.72|||cLDA||Baseline measurement and post-baseline percent changes from baseline, with fixed effects for treatment, time, duration of prior alendronate use (3-5 years, \>5 years), geographic region, machine type (Lunar/Hologic) and treatment-by-time interaction|||1.72|-0.96|0.578
90897711|NCT02799472|181661147|OTHER||Ratio|1.013||||0.897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.822|1.249|||Repeated measures analysis|||Helper/Suppressor, 12-Week FU||1.249|0.822|0.897
90897712|NCT02799472|181661148|OTHER||Ratio|1.037||||0.786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.794|1.354|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD16+CD56+, Week 1||1.354|0.794|0.786
90897713|NCT02799472|181661148|OTHER||Ratio|0.818||||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.603|1.109|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD16+CD56+, Week 4||1.109|0.603|0.188
90897714|NCT02799472|181661148|OTHER||Ratio|0.763||||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.536|1.087|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD16+CD56+, Week 12||1.087|0.536|0.129
90897715|NCT02799472|181661148|OTHER||Ratio|0.709||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.499|1.006|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD16+CD56+, 12-Week FU||1.006|0.499|0.054
90897716|NCT02799472|181661148|OTHER||Ratio|1.119||||0.383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.863|1.45|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD19, Week 1||1.450|0.863|0.383
90897717|NCT02799472|181661148|OTHER||Ratio|0.89||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.623|1.271|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD19, Week 4||1.271|0.623|0.510
90957357|NCT01878214|181794612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Thinking about quitting||||0.04
91028890|NCT03179345|181941545|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.055|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.7761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.441|0.33|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Alertness||0.330|-0.441|0.7761
91028891|NCT03179345|181941545|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.9697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.241|0.251|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Attention Span||0.251|-0.241|0.9697
90841863|NCT00885170|181549618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|10.16||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.39|39.72|||cLDA||Log-transformed baseline and post-baseline measurements up to Month 24, with fixed effects for treatment, time, duration of prior alendronate use, geographical region, the interaction of time-by-treatment and the time-by-factor interactions.|||39.72|-19.39|0.500
90841864|NCT00885170|181549619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-5.82||||0.709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.29|24.65|||cLDA||Log-transformed baseline and post-baseline measurements up to Month 24, with fixed effects for treatment, time, duration of prior alendronate use, geographical region, the interaction of time-by-treatment and the time-by-factor interactions.|||24.65|-36.29|0.709
90841865|NCT00885170|181549620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-47.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.4|-31.67|||cLDA||Log-transformed baseline and post-baseline measurements up to Month 24, with fixed effects for treatment, time, duration of prior alendronate use, geographical region, the interaction of time-by-treatment and the time-by-factor interactions.|||-31.67|-62.40|<0.001
90841866|NCT00885170|181549621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-46.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.43|-31.15|||cLDA||Log-transformed baseline and post-baseline measurements up to Month 24, with fixed effects for treatment, time, duration of prior alendronate use, geographical region, the interaction of time-by-treatment and the time-by-factor interactions.|||-31.15|-61.43|<0.001
90897718|NCT02799472|181661148|OTHER||Ratio|0.952||||0.724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.718|1.262|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD19, Week 12||1.262|0.718|0.724
90897719|NCT02799472|181661148|OTHER||Ratio|0.958||||0.831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.635|1.443|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD19, 12-Week FU||1.443|0.635|0.831
91028892|NCT03179345|181941545|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.086|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.5118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.346|0.174|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||Motivation|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|0.174|-0.346|0.5118
91028893|NCT03179345|181941546|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.116|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.8293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.178|0.947|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|||0.947|-1.178|0.8293
91093067|NCT03620162|182070279|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.3||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 18C (Group 4 vs 1)||1.30|0.88|
90841867|NCT00885170|181549622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|10.96||||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.29|27.22|||cLDA||Log-transformed baseline and post-baseline measurements up to Month 24, with fixed effects for treatment, time, duration of prior alendronate use, geographical region, the interaction of time-by-treatment and the time-by-factor interactions.|||27.22|-5.29|0.186
90841868|NCT00885170|181549623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|12.82||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.54|23.1|||cLDA||Log-transformed baseline and post-baseline measurements up to Month 24, with fixed effects for treatment, time, duration of prior alendronate use, geographical region, the interaction of time-by-treatment and the time-by-factor interactions.|||23.10|2.54|0.015
90841869|NCT00885170|181549624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|31.17||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.13|55.21|||cLDA||Log-transformed baseline and post-baseline measurements up to Month 24, with fixed effects for treatment, time, duration of prior alendronate use, geographical region, the interaction of time-by-treatment and the time-by-factor interactions.|||55.21|7.13|0.011
90841870|NCT00885170|181549625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|24.01||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|48.94|||cLDA||Log-transformed baseline and post-baseline measurements up to Month 24, with fixed effects for treatment, time, duration of prior alendronate use, geographical region, the interaction of time-by-treatment and the time-by-factor interactions.|||48.94|-0.93|0.059
90841871|NCT00885170|181549626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|0.11||||0.846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|1.16|||cLDA||Log-transformed baseline and post-baseline measurements up to Month 24, with fixed effects for treatment, time, duration of prior alendronate use, geographical region, the interaction of time-by-treatment and the time-by-factor interactions.|||1.16|-0.95|0.846
90841872|NCT00885170|181549627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|1.38||||0.413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|4.67|||cLDA||Log-transformed baseline and post-baseline measurements up to Month 24, with fixed effects for treatment, time, duration of prior alendronate use, geographical region, the interaction of time-by-treatment and the time-by-factor interactions.|||4.67|-1.91|0.413
90841873|NCT00885170|181549628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-5.91||||0.326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.66|5.85|||cLDA||Log-transformed baseline and post-baseline measurements up to Month 24, with fixed effects for treatment, time, duration of prior alendronate use, geographical region, the interaction of time-by-treatment and the time-by-factor interactions.|||5.85|-17.66|0.326
90841874|NCT00885170|181549629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|1.47||||0.835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.37|15.32|||cLDA||Log-transformed baseline and post-baseline measurements up to Month 24, with fixed effects for treatment, time, duration of prior alendronate use, geographical region, the interaction of time-by-treatment and the time-by-factor interactions.|||15.32|-12.37|0.835
90897720|NCT02799472|181661148|OTHER||Ratio|1.082||||0.437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.882|1.328|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD3, Week 1||1.328|0.882|0.437
90897721|NCT02799472|181661148|OTHER||Ratio|0.937||||0.632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.711|1.234|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD3, Week 4||1.234|0.711|0.632
90897722|NCT02799472|181661148|OTHER||Ratio|1.088||||0.413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.885|1.336|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD3, Week 12||1.336|0.885|0.413
90897723|NCT02799472|181661148|OTHER||Ratio|1.062||||0.567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.858|1.316|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD3, 12-Week FU||1.316|0.858|0.567
91028894|NCT03179345|181941546|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.9705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.089|1.049|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|||1.049|-1.089|0.9705
91093068|NCT03620162|182070279|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|1.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|1.76||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 18C (Group 3 vs 1)||1.76|1.18|
90841875|NCT00885170|181549630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-3.13||||0.376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.04|3.78|||cLDA||Log-transformed baseline and post-baseline measurements up to Month 24, with fixed effects for treatment, time, duration of prior alendronate use, geographical region, the interaction of time-by-treatment and the time-by-factor interactions.|||3.78|-10.04|0.376
90841876|NCT03771664|181549631|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.23||0.1537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|7.7||Average change from baseline in SE was analyzed by analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with explanatory (treatment, baseline antidepressant use, baseline SE) and response variables \[change from baseline in sleep efficiency at Day 14 (EODBT)\].|ANCOVA|||||7.7|-1.2|0.1537
90841877|NCT03771664|181549632|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-13.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.07||0.1126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.0|3.1||Change from BL in overall WASO was analyzed by ANCOVA with explanatory variables: Treatment, BL antidepressant use, BL PSG-derived sleep variables score; Response variable: Change from BL in PSG-derived sleep variables at Day 14 (EODBT).|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline (BL) in overall WASO||3.1|-29.0|0.1126
90841878|NCT03771664|181549632|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63||0.9819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|3.2||Change from BL in WASO was analyzed by ANCOVA with explanatory variables: Treatment, BL antidepressant use, BL PSG-derived sleep variables score; Response variable: Change from BL in PSG-derived sleep variables at Day 14 (EODBT).|ANCOVA|||Change from BL in WASO in quarter 1||3.2|-3.3|0.9819
90841879|NCT03771664|181549632|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.19||0.1838|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|2.1||Change from BL in WASO was analyzed by ANCOVA with explanatory variables: Treatment, BL antidepressant use, BL PSG-derived sleep variables score; Response variable: Change from BL in PSG-derived sleep variables at Day 14 (EODBT).|ANCOVA|||Change from BL in WASO in quarter 2||2.1|-10.6|0.1838
90841880|NCT03771664|181549632|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.97||0.0797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|0.9||Change from BL in WASO was analyzed by ANCOVA with explanatory variables: Treatment, BL antidepressant use, baseline PSG-derived sleep variables score; Response variable: Change from BL in PSG-derived sleep variables at Day 14 (EODBT).|ANCOVA|||Change from BL in WASO in quarter 3||0.9|-15.0|0.0797
90841881|NCT03771664|181549632|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.24||0.1559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|2.4||Change from BL in WASO was analyzed by ANCOVA with explanatory variables: Treatment, BL antidepressant use, baseline PSG-derived sleep variables score; Response variable: Change from BL in PSG-derived sleep variables at Day 14 (EODBT).|ANCOVA|||Change from BL in WASO in quarter 4||2.4|-14.5|0.1559
90841882|NCT03771664|181549633|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|15.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.67||0.1441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|37.0||Change from BL in TST was analyzed by ANCOVA with explanatory variables: Treatment, BL antidepressant use, BL PSG-derived sleep variables score; Response variable: Change from BL in PSG-derived sleep variables at Day 14 (EODBT).|ANCOVA|||Change from BL in overall TST||37.0|-5.5|0.1441
90841883|NCT03771664|181549633|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.47||0.3951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|15.6||Change from BL in TST was analyzed by ANCOVA with explanatory variables: Treatment, BL antidepressant use, BL PSG-derived sleep variables score; Response variable: Change from BL in PSG-derived sleep variables at Day 14 (EODBT).|ANCOVA|||Change from BL in TST in quarter 1||15.6|-6.2|0.3951
90841884|NCT03771664|181549633|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.16||0.3705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|12.0||Change from BL in TST was analyzed by ANCOVA with explanatory variables: Treatment, BL antidepressant use, BLPSG-derived sleep variables score; Response variable: Change from BL in PSG-derived sleep variables at Day 14 (EODBT).|ANCOVA|||Change from BL in TST in quarter 2||12.0|-4.5|0.3705
90841885|NCT03771664|181549633|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.04||0.1412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|14.0||Change from BL in TST was analyzed by ANCOVA with explanatory variables: Treatment, BL antidepressant use, BL PSG-derived sleep variables score; Response variable: Change from BL in PSG-derived sleep variables at Day 14 (EODBT).|ANCOVA|||Change from BL in TST in quarter 3||14.0|-2.0|0.1412
91093069|NCT03620162|182070279|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|1.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|1.83||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 18C (Group 2 vs 1)||1.83|1.25|
90841886|NCT03771664|181549633|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|6.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.24||0.1298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|15.0||Change from BL in TST was analyzed by ANCOVA with explanatory variables: Treatment, BL antidepressant use, BL PSG-derived sleep variables score; Response variable: Change from BL in PSG-derived sleep variables at Day 14 (EODBT).|ANCOVA|||Change from BL in TST in quarter 4||15.0|-2.0|0.1298
90841887|NCT03771664|181549634|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.87||0.7526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.2|13.2||Change from BL in LPS was analyzed by ANCOVA with explanatory variables: Treatment, BL antidepressant use, BL PSG-derived sleep variables score; Response variable: Change from BL in PSG-derived sleep variables at Day 14 (EODBT).|ANCOVA|||||13.2|-18.2|0.7526
90841888|NCT03771664|181549635|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.6769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.3||Change from BL in NAW was analyzed by ANCOVA with explanatory variables: Treatment, BL antidepressant use, BL PSG-derived sleep variables score; Response variable: Change from BL in PSG-derived sleep variables at Day 14 (EODBT).|ANCOVA|||||1.3|-2.0|0.6769
90841889|NCT03771664|181549636|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.0824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|0.4||Change from BL in MDA was analyzed by ANCOVA with explanatory variables: Treatment, BL antidepressant use, BL PSG-derived sleep variables score; Response variable: Change from BL in PSG-derived sleep variables at Day 14 (EODBT).|ANCOVA|||Change from BL in mean duration of awakenings (MDA) in total||0.4|-6.4|0.0824
90897724|NCT02799472|181661148|OTHER||Ratio|1.069||||0.547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.855|1.338|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD3+CD4+, Week 1||1.338|0.855|0.547
90897725|NCT02799472|181661148|OTHER||Ratio|0.907||||0.512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.673|1.223|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD3+CD4+, Week 4||1.223|0.673|0.512
90897726|NCT02799472|181661148|OTHER||Ratio|1.064||||0.573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.853|1.328|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD3+CD4+, Week 12||1.328|0.853|0.573
90897727|NCT02799472|181661148|OTHER||Ratio|1.031||||0.789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.818|1.3|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD3+CD4+, 12-Week FU||1.300|0.818|0.789
90897728|NCT02799472|181661149|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.036||||0.428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.056|0.128|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD3+CD8+, Week 1||0.128|-0.056|0.428
90897729|NCT02799472|181661149|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.023||||0.733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.159|0.113|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD3+CD8+, Week 4||0.113|-0.159|0.733
90897730|NCT02799472|181661149|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02||||0.677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.076|0.115|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD3+CD8+, Week 12||0.115|-0.076|0.677
90897731|NCT02799472|181661149|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.033||||0.569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.084|0.151|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD3+CD8+, 12-Week FU||0.151|-0.084|0.569
90897732|NCT02799472|181661149|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.103||||0.569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.263|0.469|||Repeated measures analysis|||T Cell B Cell NKL, Week 1||0.469|-0.263|0.569
91028895|NCT03179345|181941547|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.488|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.3666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.556|0.581|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|||0.581|-1.556|0.3666
91093070|NCT03620162|182070279|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.01||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 19A (Group 4 vs 1)||1.01|0.69|
91093071|NCT03620162|182070279|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.07||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 19A (Group 3 vs 1)||1.07|0.72|
90897733|NCT02799472|181661149|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.157||||0.534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.668|0.354|||Repeated measures analysis|||T Cell B Cell NKL, Week 4||0.354|-0.668|0.534
90897734|NCT02799472|181661149|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.087||||0.668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.323|0.498|||Repeated measures analysis|||T Cell B Cell NKL, Week 12||0.498|-0.323|0.668
90897735|NCT02799472|181661149|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.021||||0.934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.526|0.484|||Repeated measures analysis|||T Cell B Cell NKL, 12-Week FU||0.484|-0.526|0.934
90897736|NCT02799472|181661150|OTHER||Ratio|1.112||||0.369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.876|1.412|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD3+ CD4+, Week 1||1.412|0.876|0.369
90897737|NCT02799472|181661150|OTHER||Ratio|0.941||||0.641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.721|1.228|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD3+ CD4+, Week 4||1.228|0.721|0.641
90897738|NCT02799472|181661150|OTHER||Ratio|1.024||||0.844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.804|1.303|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD3+ CD4+, Week 12||1.303|0.804|0.844
90897739|NCT02799472|181661150|OTHER||Ratio|1.082||||0.558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.821|1.427|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD3+ CD4+, 12-Week FU||1.427|0.821|0.558
90897740|NCT02799472|181661150|OTHER||Ratio|1.111||||0.363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.402|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD3+ CD8+, Week 1||1.402|0.880|0.363
91028896|NCT03179345|181941547|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.9705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.089|1.049|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|||1.049|-1.089|0.9705
90897741|NCT02799472|181661150|OTHER||Ratio|0.957||||0.751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.724|1.265|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD3+ CD8+, Week 4||1.265|0.724|0.751
90897742|NCT02799472|181661150|OTHER||Ratio|1.076||||0.537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.846|1.37|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD3+ CD8+, Week 12||1.370|0.846|0.537
90897743|NCT02799472|181661150|OTHER||Ratio|1.032||||0.806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.797|1.335|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD3+ CD8+, 12-Week FU||1.335|0.797|0.806
90897744|NCT02799472|181661150|OTHER||Ratio|1.101||||0.405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.872|1.391|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD3+, Week 1||1.391|0.872|0.405
90897745|NCT02799472|181661150|OTHER||Ratio|0.907||||0.519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.668|1.232|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD3+, Week 4||1.232|0.668|0.519
90897746|NCT02799472|181661150|OTHER||Ratio|1.036||||0.748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.831|1.291|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD3+, Week 12||1.291|0.831|0.748
90897747|NCT02799472|181661150|OTHER||Ratio|1.049||||0.704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.811|1.356|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD3+, 12-Week FU||1.356|0.811|0.704
90897748|NCT02799472|181661151|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.5||||0.501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|26.1|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD3+CD4+CD25+CD127-, Week 1||26.1|-13.1|0.501
90897749|NCT02799472|181661151|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.8||||0.852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.6|18.0|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD3+CD4+CD25+CD127-, Week 4||18.0|-21.6|0.852
90897750|NCT02799472|181661151|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.3||||0.572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|29.0|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD3+CD4+CD25+CD127-, Week 12||29.0|-16.4|0.572
90897751|NCT02799472|181661151|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|10.5||||0.363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|34.1|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD3+CD4+CD25+CD127-, 12-Week FU||34.1|-13.0|0.363
90897752|NCT02799472|181661151|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.0||||0.788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|17.0|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD3+CD4+foxP3+CD25+CD127-, Week 1||17.0|-13.0|0.788
90897753|NCT02799472|181661151|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.2||||0.786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.8|14.4|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD3+CD4+foxP3+CD25+CD127-, Week 4||14.4|-18.8|0.786
90897754|NCT02799472|181661151|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.1||||0.433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.4|11.2|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD3+CD4+foxP3+CD25+CD127-, Week 12||11.2|-25.4|0.433
90897755|NCT02799472|181661151|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.1||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|18.0|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD3+CD4+foxP3+CD25+CD127-, 12-Week FU||18.0|-9.8|0.550
90897756|NCT02799472|181661152|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|14.6||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.9|46.1|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD45+3+8-4+CCR6+CXCR3+38+DR+, Week 1||46.1|-16.9|0.350
90897757|NCT02799472|181661152|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.4||||0.697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.3|52.0|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD45+3+8-4+CCR6+CXCR3+38+DR+, Week 4||52.0|-35.3|0.697
90897758|NCT02799472|181661152|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-49.2||||0.249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-135.2|36.8|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD45+3+8-4+CCR6+CXCR3+38+DR+, Week 12||36.8|-135.2|0.249
91028897|NCT00290745|181941574|OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in Tumor volume between baseline and Month 6||||0.07
90897759|NCT02799472|181661152|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-30.1||||0.119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.6|8.3|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD45+3+8-4+CCR6+CXCR3+38+DR+, 12-Week FU||8.3|-68.6|0.119
91093072|NCT03620162|182070279|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.13||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 19A (Group 2 vs 1)||1.13|0.77|
90841890|NCT03771664|181549636|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.07||0.4269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|1.3||Change from BL in MDA was analyzed by ANCOVA with explanatory variables: Treatment, BL antidepressant use, BL PSG-derived sleep variables score; Response variable: Change from BL in PSG-derived sleep variables at Day 14 (EODBT).|ANCOVA|||Change from BL in MDA in quarter 1||1.3|-3.0|0.4269
90841891|NCT03771664|181549636|SUPERIORITY|Change from BL in MDA was analyzed by ANCOVA with explanatory variables: Treatment, BL antidepressant use, BL PSG-derived sleep variables score; Response variable: Change from BL in PSG-derived sleep variables at Day 14 (EODBT).|LS Mean Difference|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.02||0.2482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|2.5|||ANCOVA|||Change from BL in MDA in quarter 2||2.5|-9.5|0.2482
90841892|NCT03771664|181549636|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.34||0.3076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|3.2||Change from BL in MDA was analyzed by ANCOVA with explanatory variables: Treatment, BL antidepressant use, BL PSG-derived sleep variables score; Response variable: Change from BL in PSG-derived sleep variables at Day 14 (EODBT).|ANCOVA|||Change from BL in MDA in quarter 3||3.2|-10.1|0.3076
90841893|NCT03771664|181549636|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.4491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.8||Change from BL in MDA was analyzed by ANCOVA with explanatory variables: Treatment, BL antidepressant use, BL PSG-derived sleep variables score; Response variable: Change from BL in PSG-derived sleep variables at Day 14 (EODBT).|ANCOVA|||Change from BL in MDA in quarter 4||0.8|-1.9|0.4491
90841894|NCT03771664|181549637|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.47||0.8724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|5.3||Change from BL in DS N1 sleep was analyzed by ANCOVA with explanatory variables: Treatment, BL antidepressant use, BL PSG-derived sleep variables score; Response variable: Change from BL in PSG-derived sleep variables at Day 14 (EODBT).|ANCOVA|||Change from BL in duration of stage (DS) N1 sleep||5.3|-4.5|0.8724
90841895|NCT03771664|181549637|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|18.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.08||0.0238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|34.7||Change from BL in DS N2 sleep was analyzed by ANCOVA with explanatory variables: Treatment, BL antidepressant use, BL PSG-derived sleep variables score; Response variable: Change from BL in PSG-derived sleep variables at Day 14 (EODBT).|ANCOVA|||Change from BL in DS N2 sleep||34.7|2.5|0.0238
90841896|NCT03771664|181549637|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.62||0.3863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|16.1||Change from BL in DS N3 sleep was analyzed by ANCOVA with explanatory variables: Treatment, BL antidepressant use, BL PSG-derived sleep variables score; Response variable: Change from BL in PSG-derived sleep variables at Day 14 (EODBT).|ANCOVA|||Change from BL in DS N3 sleep||16.1|-6.3|0.3863
91093073|NCT03620162|182070279|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.15||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 19F (Group 4 vs 1)||1.15|0.81|
90841897|NCT03771664|181549637|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-10.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.69||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.6|-0.9||Change from BL in REM sleep duration was analyzed by ANCOVA with explanatory (Treatment, BL antidepressant use, BL PSG-derived sleep variables score) and response variables \[Change from BL in PSG-derived sleep variables at Day 14(EODBT)\].|ANCOVA|||Change from BL in duration of REM sleep||-0.9|-19.6|0.0320
90841898|NCT03771664|181549638|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.9524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.6||Change from BL in PS N1 sleep time was analyzed by ANCOVA with explanatory variables: Treatment, BL antidepressant use, BL PSG-derived sleep variables score;Response variable: Change from BL in PSG-derived sleep variables at Day 14 (EODBT).|ANCOVA|||Change from BL in percentage of stage (PS) N1 sleep time||1.6|-1.7|0.9524
90897760|NCT02799472|181661152|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.5||||0.403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|22.4|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD45+3+8-4+CCR6+CXCR3-38+DR+, Week 1||22.4|-9.3|0.403
90897761|NCT02799472|181661152|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.1||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.4|35.2|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD45+3+8-4+CCR6+CXCR3-38+DR+, Week 4||35.2|-39.4|0.910
91093074|NCT03620162|182070279|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.26||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 19F (Group 3 vs 1)||1.26|0.88|
90841899|NCT03771664|181549638|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.55||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|5.7||Change from BL in PS N2 sleep time was analyzed by ANCOVA with explanatory variables: Treatment, BL antidepressant use, BL PSG-derived sleep variables score; Response variable: Change from BL in PSG-derived sleep variables at Day 14 (EODBT).|ANCOVA|||Change from BL in PS N2 sleep time||5.7|-0.5|0.0930
90841900|NCT03771664|181549638|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52||0.4427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|4.2||Change from BL in PS N3 sleep time was analyzed by ANCOVA with explanatory variables: Treatment, BL antidepressant use, BL PSG-derived sleep variables score; Response variable: Change from BL in PSG-derived sleep variables at Day 14 (EODBT).|ANCOVA|||Change from BL in PS N3 sleep time||4.2|-1.9|0.4427
90897762|NCT02799472|181661152|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.5||||0.718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.1|30.1|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD45+3+8-4+CCR6+CXCR3-38+DR+, Week 12||30.1|-43.1|0.718
90897763|NCT02799472|181661152|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.7||||0.687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.4|23.0|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD45+3+8-4+CCR6+CXCR3-38+DR+, 12-Week FU||23.0|-34.4|0.687
90897764|NCT02799472|181661152|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-56.0||||0.559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-249.8|137.7|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD45+3+8-4+CCR6-CXCR3+38+DR+, Week 1||137.7|-249.8|0.559
90897765|NCT02799472|181661152|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|51.6||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-93.9|197.0|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD45+3+8-4+CCR6-CXCR3+38+DR+, Week 4||197.0|-93.9|0.470
91028898|NCT00290745|181941575|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in Tumor volume between baseline and Month 6||||<0.001
91093075|NCT03620162|182070279|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.21||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 19F (Group 2 vs 1)||1.21|0.86|
90841901|NCT03771664|181549638|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|-1.7||Change from BL in % of REM sleep duration was analyzed by ANCOVA with explanatory (Treatment, BL antidepressant use, BL PSG-derived sleep variables score) and response variables \[Change from BL in PSG-derived sleep variables at Day 14 (EODBT)\].|ANCOVA|||Change from BL in percentage (%) of REM sleep time||-1.7|-5.9|0.0006
90841902|NCT03771664|181549639|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|33.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.42||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.9|58.4||Change from BL in latency to first REM period was analyzed by ANCOVA with explanatory (Treatment, BL antidepressant use, BL PSG-derived sleep variables score) and response variables \[Change from BL in PSG-derived sleep variables at Day 14 (EODBT)\].|ANCOVA|||Change from BL in latency to the first REM period||58.4|8.9|0.0083
90841903|NCT03771664|181549639|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|43.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.95||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.3|65.0||Change from BL in latency to second REM period was analyzed by ANCOVA with explanatory (Treatment, BL antidepressant use, BL PSG-derived sleep variables score) and response variables \[Change from BL in PSG-derived sleep variables at Day 14 (EODBT)\].|ANCOVA|||Change from BL in latency to the second REM period||65.0|21.3|0.0002
90841904|NCT03771664|181549639|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|38.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.99||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.2|60.2||Change from BL in latency to third REM period was analyzed by ANCOVA with explanatory (Treatment, BL antidepressant use, BL PSG-derived sleep variables score) and response variables \[Change from BL in PSG-derived sleep variables at Day 14 (EODBT)\].|ANCOVA|||Change from BL in latency to the third REM period||60.2|16.2|0.0009
90841905|NCT03771664|181549639|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|26.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.84||0.0899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|56.3||Change from BL in latency to fourth REM period was analyzed by ANCOVA with explanatory (Treatment, BL antidepressant use, BL PSG-derived sleep variables score) and response variables \[Change from BL in PSG-derived sleep variables at Day 14 (EODBT)\].|ANCOVA|||Change from BL in latency to the fourth REM period||56.3|-4.3|0.0899
90841906|NCT03771664|181549640|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-171.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|46.06||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-262.9|-79.4||Change from BL in REM density was analyzed by ANCOVA with explanatory (Treatment, BL antidepressant use, BL PSG-derived sleep variables score) and response variables \[Change from BL in PSG-derived sleep variables at Day 14 (EODBT)\].|ANCOVA|||||-79.4|-262.9|0.0004
90841907|NCT03771664|181549641|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-288.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|68.81|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-425.1|-151.0||Change from BL in REMA was analyzed by ANCOVA with explanatory (Treatment, BL antidepressant use, baseline PSG-derived sleep variables score) and response variables \[Change from BL in PSG-derived sleep variables at Day 14 (EODBT)\].|ANCOVA|||||-151.0|-425.1|<0.0001
90841908|NCT03771664|181549643|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|10.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.65||0.4814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.8|39.5||Change from BL in sTST was analyzed by Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with treatment baseline antidepressant use, baseline CSD-C value, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|MMRM|||Change from BL in sTST||39.5|-18.8|0.4814
90841909|NCT03771664|181549643|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-10.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.45||0.0964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.7|2.0||Change from BL in sWASO was analyzed by MMRM with treatment baseline antidepressant use, baseline CSD-C value, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|MMRM|||Change from BL in sWASO||2.0|-23.7|0.0964
90841910|NCT03771664|181549643|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.32||0.3672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|21.2||Change from BL in sSL was analyzed by MMRM with treatment baseline antidepressant use, baseline CSD-C value, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|MMRM|||Change from BL in sSL||21.2|-7.9|0.3672
90841911|NCT02120898|181549655|EQUIVALENCE|90% CI interval was -0.20 to +0.20 for therapeutic equivalence.|Percentage difference|-1.16||||0.0702|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.93|5.62|||Fisher Exact|||Analysis was performed using 90% Wald's confidence interval (CI) with a continuity correction or the difference (generic imiquimod - Zyclara) in complete clearance rates.||5.62|-7.93|0.0702
90897766|NCT02799472|181661152|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-141.5||||0.675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-829.2|546.3|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD45+3+8-4+CCR6-CXCR3+38+DR+, Week 12||546.3|-829.2|0.675
91093076|NCT03620162|182070279|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.96||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 23F (Group 4 vs 1)||0.96|0.61|
90841912|NCT02120898|181549656|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|0.14||||0.0318|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.08|6.35||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Fisher Exact|||Analysis was performed using 90% Wald's CI with a continuity correction or the difference (generic imiquimod - Zyclara) in complete clearance rates.||6.35|-6.08|0.0318
90841913|NCT00561925|181549660|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of nevirapine XR to nevirapine IR was established if the lower bound of the confidence interval was greater than -10%|Cochran's statistic|4.9|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.1|10.0|||Cochran's statistic||Weighted treatment difference and corresponding variance were calculated based on Cochran's statistic.|||10.0|-0.1|<0.0001
90841914|NCT00561925|181549662|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of nevirapine XR to nevirapine IR was established if the lower bound of the confidence interval was greater than -2%|Cochran's statistic|4.84|||<|0.0001||95.0|-1.11|10.79|||Cochran's statistic||Weighted treatment difference and corresponding variance were calculated based on Cochran's statistic.|||10.79|-1.11|<0.0001
90841915|NCT00561925|181549664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.7719||95.0|-0.08|0.06|||ANCOVA|Means adjusted for baseline HIV-1 viral load stratum||||0.06|-0.08|0.7719
90841916|NCT00561925|181549665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.87||||0.0078||95.0|8.67|57.06|||ANCOVA|Means adjusted for baseline HIV-1 viral load stratum||||57.06|8.67|0.0078
90897767|NCT02799472|181661152|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-137.9||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-294.0|18.2|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD45+3+8-4+CCR6-CXCR3+38+DR+, 12-Week FU||18.2|-294.0|0.080
90841917|NCT00561925|181549673|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|equivalence test with 80% -125% boundaries|adjusted gMean|79.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.5542||90.0|74.62|84.86||p-value for ratio outside the interval 80%-125%|ANOVA||Inter-individual gCV = 49.9|adjusted geometric mean ratio NVP XR : NVP IR||84.86|74.62|0.5542
90841918|NCT00684021|181549675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|3.9|||t-test, 2 sided|Stem cell treatment arm combined (Day 3 and Day7); placebo group also combined.||||3.9|-4.1|0.959
90841919|NCT00684021|181549676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.96||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|2.23|||Fisher Exact|||Clinical and Safety Outcomes including death, reinfarction, repeat revascularization, hospitalization for heart failure and ICD placement. The relative incidences of events are compared between the active and placebo groups.However the paucity of events precluded a reliable time to event analysis.||2.23|0.42|0.93
90841920|NCT00684021|181549677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.8||0.585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|6.9|||Regression, Linear|||Day 3 Stem Cell Arm and Day 7 Stem Cell Arm were combined and compared to the combination of Day 3 Placebo and Day 7 Placebo arms.||6.9|-12.2|0.585
90841921|NCT00684021|181549678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7||0.831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|8.2|||Regression, Linear|||Day 3 Stem Cell Arm and Day 7 Stem Cell Arm were combined and compared to the combination of Day 3 Placebo and Day 7 Placebo arms.||8.2|-6.6|0.831
90841922|NCT00684021|181549679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7||0.817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|7.0|||Regression, Linear|||Day 3 Stem Cell Arm and Day 7 Stem Cell Arm were combined and compared to the combination of Day 3 Placebo and Day 7 Placebo arms.||7.0|-5.5|0.817
90841923|NCT00684021|181549680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.27||0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|3.67|||Regression, Linear|||Day 3 Stem Cell Arm and Day 7 Stem Cell Arm were combined and compared to the combination of Day 3 Placebo and Day 7 Placebo arms.||3.67|-13.7|0.272
90841924|NCT00684021|181549681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|1.2|||t-test, 2 sided|Stem cell treatment arm combined (Day 3 and Day7); placebo group also combined.||||1.2|-3.0|0.409
90841925|NCT00684021|181549681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|100.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.0|1000.0|||Regression, Linear|||||1000|15|0.02
90841926|NCT00684021|181549682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|2.9|||t-test, 2 sided|Stem cell treatment arm combined (Day 3 and Day7); placebo group also combined.||||2.9|-3.9|0.777
90841927|NCT00847210|181549751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.095||95.0||||There was no statistical significant difference (p-value \>0.05) in Tmax between the 30 mg and 60 mg dose group. Both age group and site did not have statistically significant effects on Tmax.|ANOVA|||This study was not powered for any hypothesis testing. For Tmax, an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model was fitted that included fixed effect of age group, regimen and interaction of age group and regimen. If the interaction term was not statistically significant, it was not included in the final model. The site effect was also tested in the model, and was not included in the final model if it was not statistically significant (P\>0.05). Pairwise comparisons between regimens were conducted.||||0.095
90841928|NCT00847210|181549752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of the central values for Cmax|1.21||||0.289|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.897|1.63|||ANOVA||Ninety percent confidence intervals for assessing the dose proportionality of dexlansoprazole pharmacokinetics between regimens were computed based on the frame work of ANOVA.|This study was not powered for any hypothesis testing. For natural logarithm of dose-normalized Cmax, an ANOVA model was fitted that included fixed effect of age group, regimen and interaction of age group and regimen. If the interaction term was not statistically significant, it was not included in the final model. Site effect was tested in the model, and was not included in the final model if not statistically significant (P\>0.05). Pairwise comparisons between regimens were conducted.||1.630|0.897|0.289
90841929|NCT00847210|181549753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of the dose-normalized AUC(0-tlqc)|1.158||||0.402|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.864|1.551|||ANOVA||Ninety percent confidence intervals for assessing the dose proportionality of dexlansoprazole AUC(0-tlqc) between regimens were computed based on the frame work of ANOVA.|This study was not powered for any hypothesis testing. For Tmax, an ANOVA model was fitted that included fixed effect of age group (12-14 years and 15 17 years), regimen and interaction of age group and regimen. If the interaction term was not statistically significant, it was not included in the final model. The site effect was also tested in the model, and was not included in the final model if it was not statistically significant (P\>0.05). Pairwise comparisons between regimens were conducted.||1.551|0.864|0.402
90841930|NCT00847210|181549754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of the central values for dose-nor|1.168||||0.388|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.864|1.579|||ANOVA||Ninety percent confidence intervals for assessing the dose proportionality of dexlansoprazole AUC(0-24) between regimens were computed based on the frame work of ANOVA.|This study was not powered for any hypothesis testing. For Tmax, an ANOVA model was fitted that included fixed effect of age group (12-14 years and 15 17 years), regimen and interaction of age group and regimen. If the interaction term was not statistically significant, it was not included in the final model. The site effect was also tested in the model, and was not included in the final model if it was not statistically significant (P\>0.05). Pairwise comparisons between regimens were conducted.||1.579|0.864|0.388
90841931|NCT03739203|181549780|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88||0.6798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.37||p-value estimated by Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure from test of no difference between cariprazine dose group and placebo at Week 6.|MMRM|MMRM=Fixed effects:treatment group(TG),ADT failure category,visit,TG-by-visit;Covariates:Baseline(BL)value\& BL by-visit interaction.||||1.37|-2.10|0.6798
90897768|NCT02799472|181661152|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4||||0.989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.5|61.3|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD45+3+8-4+CCR6-CXCR3-38+DR+, Week 1||61.3|-60.5|0.989
90897769|NCT02799472|181661152|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-17.4||||0.634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-94.3|59.6|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD45+3+8-4+CCR6-CXCR3-38+DR+, Week 4||59.6|-94.3|0.634
90897770|NCT02799472|181661152|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|59.4||||0.789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-395.2|513.9|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD45+3+8-4+CCR6-CXCR3-38+DR+, Week 12||513.9|-395.2|0.789
90897771|NCT02799472|181661152|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-47.2||||0.249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-135.5|41.0|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD45+3+8-4+CCR6-CXCR3-38+DR+, 12-Week FU||41.0|-135.5|0.249
90841932|NCT03739203|181549780|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89||0.1245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.11|0.38||p-value estimated by Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure from test of no difference between cariprazine dose group and placebo at Week 6.|MMRM|MMRM=Fixed effects:treatment group(TG), ADT failure category,visit,TG-by-visit;Covariates:Baseline(BL)value\& BL by-visit interaction.||||0.38|-3.11|0.1245
90841933|NCT03739203|181549781|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.5152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.15||p-value estimated by Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure from test of no difference between cariprazine dose group and placebo at Week 6.|MMRM|MMRM=Fixed effects:treatment group(TG),ADT failure category,visit,TG-by-visit;Covariates:Baseline(BL)value\& BL by-visit interaction.||||0.15|-0.29|0.5152
90841934|NCT03739203|181549781|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.01||p-value estimated by Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure from test of no difference between cariprazine dose group and placebo at Week 6.|MMRM|MMRM=Fixed effects:treatment group(TG), ADT failure category,visit,TG-by-visit;Covariates:Baseline(BL)value\& BL by-visit interaction.||||0.01|-0.43|0.0573
90841935|NCT00363480|181549799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage diffrence|-30.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.89|-23.29|||McNemar|||Comparison between GOAL and ACT response||-23.29|-37.89|<0.0001
90841936|NCT00363480|181549800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||t-Distribution|50.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.15|57.32||||||||57.32|43.15|
90841937|NCT05465317|181549816|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.86|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||0.86|0.65|<0.001
90841938|NCT05465317|181549816|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.86|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||0.86|0.52|0.001
90841939|NCT05465317|181549816|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.94|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||0.94|0.67|0.008
90841940|NCT05465317|181549817|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.91|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||0.91|0.60|0.005
90841941|NCT05465317|181549817|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.91|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||0.91|0.41|0.02
90841942|NCT05465317|181549817|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.03|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||1.03|0.63|0.08
90841943|NCT05465317|181549818|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.0|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||1.00|0.46|0.05
90841944|NCT05465317|181549818|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.09|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||1.09|0.35|0.09
90897772|NCT02799472|181661152|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3682.3||||0.234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2511.9|9876.5|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD45+CD3+CD8-CD4+, Week 1||9876.5|-2511.9|0.234
90841945|NCT05465317|181549818|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.29|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||1.29|0.43|0.30
90841946|NCT05465317|181549819|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.08|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||1.08|0.49|0.11
90897773|NCT02799472|181661152|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-547.6||||0.875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7612.6|6517.3|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD45+CD3+CD8-CD4+, Week 4||6517.3|-7612.6|0.875
90897774|NCT02799472|181661152|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1106.0||||0.815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10706.0|8494.1|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD45+CD3+CD8-CD4+, Week 12||8494.1|-10706.0|0.815
90897775|NCT02799472|181661152|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3631.0||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9738.9|2476.8|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD45+CD3+CD8-CD4+, 12-Week FU||2476.8|-9738.9|0.230
90897776|NCT02799472|181661152|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-515.6||||0.489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2021.4|990.1|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD45+CD3+CD8-CD4+CCR6+CXCR3+, Week 1||990.1|-2021.4|0.489
90897777|NCT02799472|181661152|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-199.8||||0.822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2001.7|1602.0|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD45+CD3+CD8-CD4+CCR6+CXCR3+, Week 4||1602.0|-2001.7|0.822
90841947|NCT05465317|181549819|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.12|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||1.12|0.35|0.12
90841948|NCT05465317|181549819|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.42|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||1.42|0.50|0.52
90841949|NCT05465317|181549821|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.97|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||0.97|0.72|0.02
90841950|NCT05465317|181549821|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.05|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||1.05|0.65|0.12
90841951|NCT05465317|181549821|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.03|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||1.03|0.70|0.10
90841952|NCT05465317|181549822|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.11|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||1.11|0.72|0.32
90841953|NCT05465317|181549822|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.24|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||1.24|0.65|0.50
90841954|NCT05465317|181549822|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.2|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||1.20|0.68|0.50
90841955|NCT05465317|181549823|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.92|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||0.92|0.62|0.005
90841956|NCT05465317|181549823|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.96|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||0.96|0.49|0.03
90841957|NCT05465317|181549823|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.02|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||1.02|0.63|0.074
90841958|NCT05465317|181549824|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.12|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||1.12|0.95|0.46
90897778|NCT02799472|181661152|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-253.5||||0.784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2136.7|1629.7|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD45+CD3+CD8-CD4+CCR6+CXCR3+, Week 12||1629.7|-2136.7|0.784
90897779|NCT02799472|181661152|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|225.1||||0.804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1633.1|2083.2|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD45+CD3+CD8-CD4+CCR6+CXCR3+, 12-Week FU||2083.2|-1633.1|0.804
90897780|NCT02799472|181661152|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|162.7||||0.719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-754.5|1079.9|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD45+CD3+CD8-CD4+CCR6+CXCR3-, Week 1||1079.9|-754.5|0.719
90897781|NCT02799472|181661152|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-183.5||||0.742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1317.4|950.3|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD45+CD3+CD8-CD4+CCR6+CXCR3-, Week 4||950.3|-1317.4|0.742
90897782|NCT02799472|181661152|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-268.5||||0.658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1507.5|970.5|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD45+CD3+CD8-CD4+CCR6+CXCR3-, Week 12||970.5|-1507.5|0.658
90897783|NCT02799472|181661152|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-197.6||||0.755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1499.3|1104.2|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD45+CD3+CD8-CD4+CCR6+CXCR3-, 12-Week FU||1104.2|-1499.3|0.755
90897784|NCT02799472|181661152|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1150.0||||0.333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1250.0|3550.0|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD45+CD3+CD8-CD4+CCR6-CXCR3+, Week 1||3550.0|-1250.0|0.333
90897785|NCT02799472|181661152|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-268.0||||0.891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4269.2|3733.3|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD45+CD3+CD8-CD4+CCR6-CXCR3+, Week 4||3733.3|-4269.2|0.891
91028899|NCT00290745|181941578|OTHER|||||||0.538|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.538
91093077|NCT03620162|182070279|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.99||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 23F (Group 3 vs 1)||0.99|0.63|
91093078|NCT03620162|182070279|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.17||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 23F (Group 2 vs 1)||1.17|0.76|
91093079|NCT03620162|182070280|NON_INFERIORITY|The statistical criterion for non-inferiority requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (Group 5/Group 1+Group 2) to be \>-10 percentage points.|Difference in Percentage|-0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|2.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference in Percentage (Group 5 vs Group 1+2)||2.0|-3.7|< 0.001
90841959|NCT05465317|181549824|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.2|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||1.20|0.90|0.63
90841960|NCT05465317|181549824|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.14|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||1.14|0.94|0.52
90841961|NCT05465317|181549825|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.94|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||0.94|0.70|0.007
90841962|NCT05465317|181549825|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.97|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||0.97|0.57|0.03
90841963|NCT05465317|181549825|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.03|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||1.03|0.71|0.10
90841964|NCT05465317|181549826|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.37||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|2.1|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||2.10|0.89|0.15
90841965|NCT05465317|181549826|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.72|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||2.72|0.40|0.93
90841966|NCT05465317|181549826|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.47||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|2.38|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||2.38|0.91|0.113
90841967|NCT05465317|181549827|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.16|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||1.16|0.71|0.43
91093080|NCT03620162|182070281|NON_INFERIORITY|The statistical criterion for non-inferiority requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMT ratio (Group 5/Group 1+Group 2) to be \>0.5.|GMT Ratio|0.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.34|||ANCOVA|||GMT Ratio (Group 5 vs Group 1+2)||1.34|0.70|< 0.001
91093081|NCT03620162|182070284|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.86||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 1 (Group 5 vs 1)||0.86|0.60|
90841968|NCT05465317|181549827|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.24|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||1.24|0.51|0.32
90841969|NCT05465317|181549827|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.3|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||1.30|0.71|0.81
90841970|NCT05465317|181549828|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.33|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||1.33|0.65|0.69
91093082|NCT03620162|182070284|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.44||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 3 (Group 5 vs 1)||1.44|1.04|
90841971|NCT05465317|181549828|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.7|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||1.70|0.51|0.82
90841972|NCT05465317|181549828|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.45|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||1.45|0.60|0.76
90841973|NCT05465317|181549829|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.62|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||1.62|0.29|0.39
90841974|NCT05465317|181549829|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.46||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|2.27|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||2.27|0.09|0.34
90841975|NCT05465317|181549829|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|2.33|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||2.33|0.29|0.72
90841976|NCT05465317|181549830|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.66|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||1.66|0.43|0.62
90841977|NCT05465317|181549830|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.64|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||1.64|0.21|0.31
90841978|NCT05465317|181549830|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|2.92|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||2.92|0.46|0.76
90841979|NCT05465317|181549831|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|1.88|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||1.88|1.58|<0.001
90897786|NCT02799472|181661152|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1347.4||||0.633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7073.1|4378.3|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD45+CD3+CD8-CD4+CCR6-CXCR3+, Week 12||4378.3|-7073.1|0.633
90897787|NCT02799472|181661152|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1688.9||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5864.1|2486.2|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD45+CD3+CD8-CD4+CCR6-CXCR3+, 12-Week FU||2486.2|-5864.1|0.410
90841980|NCT05465317|181549831|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|2.3|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||2.30|1.48|<0.001
90841981|NCT05465317|181549831|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|1.87|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||1.87|1.54|<0.001
90841982|NCT01356277|181549832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.66||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|2.39|||Regression, Logistic|Unadjusted, ordinal logistic regression|An odds ratio greater than 1.0 indicates higher adherence in Intervention participants compared with controls.|We estimated a sample size of 75 participants per group to have 85% power to detect a 20% difference in taking adherence between groups, using 2-sided tests and setting alpha at 0.05, assuming a common standard deviation of 40%. Targeted enrollment of 176 participants accounted for 15% drop-out. Only participants with electronic pillbox data could be included. For participants who withdrew or stopped using the pillbox, all available pillbox data were included.||2.39|1.15|0.006
90841983|NCT01356277|181549833|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|2.5|||Regression, Logistic|Unadjusted ordinal logistic regression|An odds ratio greater than 1.0 indicates higher adherence in Intervention participants compared with controls.|||2.50|1.21|0.003
90897788|NCT02799472|181661152|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3276.8||||0.196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1786.0|8339.6|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD45+CD3+CD8-CD4+CCR6-CXCR3-, Week 1||8339.6|-1786.0|0.196
90897789|NCT02799472|181661152|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-447.3||||0.894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7285.5|6390.8|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD45+CD3+CD8-CD4+CCR6-CXCR3-, Week 4||6390.8|-7285.5|0.894
91028900|NCT00290745|181941579|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.02
91093083|NCT03620162|182070284|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.1||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 4 (Group 5 vs 1)||1.10|0.73|
91093084|NCT03620162|182070284|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.97||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 5 (Group 5 vs 1)||0.97|0.64|
91093085|NCT03620162|182070284|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.84||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 6A (Group 5 vs 1)||0.84|0.57|
90897790|NCT02799472|181661152|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1435.3||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4101.4|6972.0|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD45+CD3+CD8-CD4+CCR6-CXCR3-, Week 12||6972.0|-4101.4|0.600
90897791|NCT02799472|181661152|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1210.2||||0.534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5213.1|2792.7|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD45+CD3+CD8-CD4+CCR6-CXCR3-, 12-Week FU||2792.7|-5213.1|0.534
90897792|NCT02799472|181661153|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2756.3||||0.328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2953.7|8466.3|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD14-HLA-DR+CD11cbr+CD123-, Week 1||8466.3|-2953.7|0.328
90897793|NCT02799472|181661153|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-487.5||||0.895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8003.7|7028.6|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD14-HLA-DR+CD11cbr+CD123-, Week 4||7028.6|-8003.7|0.895
90897794|NCT02799472|181661153|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-277.4||||0.961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12001.0|11446.2|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD14-HLA-DR+CD11cbr+CD123-, Week 12||11446.2|-12001.0|0.961
91093086|NCT03620162|182070284|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.15||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 6B (Group 5 vs 1)||1.15|0.78|
91093087|NCT03620162|182070284|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.82||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 7F (Group 5 vs 1)||0.82|0.55|
91093088|NCT03620162|182070284|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.18||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 9V (Group 5 vs 1)||1.18|0.82|
90897795|NCT02799472|181661153|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-311.6||||0.956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11960.5|11337.4|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD14-HLA-DR+CD11cbr+CD123-, 12-Week FU||11337.4|-11960.5|0.956
90897796|NCT02799472|181661153|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6866.9||||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4230.7|17964.6|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD14br+CD16+, Week 1||17964.6|-4230.7|0.212
90897797|NCT02799472|181661153|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8359.6||||0.227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5533.3|22252.5|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD14br+CD16+, Week 4||22252.5|-5533.3|0.227
90897798|NCT02799472|181661153|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-22683.6||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44298.5|-1068.8|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD14br+CD16+, Week 12||-1068.8|-44298.5|0.040
90897799|NCT02799472|181661153|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3757.2||||0.741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27146.0|19631.6|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD14br+CD16+, 12-Week FU||19631.6|-27146.0|0.741
91093089|NCT03620162|182070284|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.07||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 14 (Group 5 vs 1)||1.07|0.70|
91093090|NCT03620162|182070284|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.25||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 18C (Group 5 vs 1)||1.25|0.85|
91093091|NCT03620162|182070284|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.95||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 19A (Group 5 vs 1)||0.95|0.65|
91093092|NCT03620162|182070284|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.02||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 19F (Group 5 vs 1)||1.02|0.72|
90897800|NCT02799472|181661153|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-22417.0||||0.628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-116677.8|71843.8|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD14br+CD16-, Week 1||71843.8|-116677.8|0.628
90897801|NCT02799472|181661153|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|27659.7||||0.321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28567.8|83887.1|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD14br+CD16-, Week 4||83887.1|-28567.8|0.321
90897802|NCT02799472|181661153|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|16182.9||||0.704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70377.0|102742.9|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD14br+CD16-, Week 12||102742.9|-70377.0|0.704
90897803|NCT02799472|181661153|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-63419.4||||0.232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-170364.9|43526.1|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD14br+CD16-, 12-Week FU||43526.1|-170364.9|0.232
90897804|NCT02799472|181661153|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6913.6||||0.366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22588.4|8761.1|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD14lo+CD16br+, Week 1||8761.1|-22588.4|0.366
90897805|NCT02799472|181661153|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2231.6||||0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10976.8|6513.6|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD14lo+CD16br+, Week 4||6513.6|-10976.8|0.603
90897806|NCT02799472|181661153|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-10179.1||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21827.4|1469.2|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD14lo+CD16br+, Week 12||1469.2|-21827.4|0.084
90897807|NCT02799472|181661153|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-20744.2||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38771.8|-2716.5|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD14lo+CD16br+, 12-Week FU||-2716.5|-38771.8|0.026
90897808|NCT02799472|181661154|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|178.2||||0.564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-448.3|804.6|||Repeated measures analysis|||Week 1||804.6|-448.3|0.564
90897809|NCT02799472|181661154|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|540.4||||0.216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-335.7|1416.5|||Repeated measures analysis|||Week 4||1416.5|-335.7|0.216
91093093|NCT03620162|182070284|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.91||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 23F (Group 5 vs 1)||0.91|0.59|
90841984|NCT01356277|181549834|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||Wilcoxon ranksum|||Null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the SD of tacrolimus trough levels between intervention and control.||||0.49
90841985|NCT01356277|181549835|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.15
90841986|NCT01356277|181549836|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.15
90841987|NCT01356277|181549837|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Chi-squared|||Rates were compared between intervention and control groups using Chi square||||0.26
90841988|NCT01356277|181549838|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.45
90841989|NCT03486834|181549847|OTHER|The incidence rate per 100 person years (100 x number of CMVi cases/total person-years to CMVi or end of follow-up) is presented along with 95% confidence interval (CI).|Incidence Rate Estimate|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|4.9||||||||4.9|1.6|
90841990|NCT03486834|181549847|OTHER|The incidence rate per 100 person years (100 x number of CMVi cases/total person-years to CMVi or end of follow-up) is presented along with 95% CI.|Incidence Rate Estimate|5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|7.6||||||||7.6|3.3|
90841991|NCT03486834|181549847|OTHER|The statistical criterion for success requires the lower limit of the 95% CI of vaccine efficacy (VE) to be greater than 0%.|Vaccine Efficacy|42.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|71.1||||||||71.1|-13.5|
90841992|NCT03486834|181549848|OTHER||Difference in Percent|59.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.8|63.5||||||||63.5|55.8|
90841993|NCT03486834|181549848|OTHER||Difference in Percent|57.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.5|61.5||||||||61.5|53.5|
90841994|NCT03486834|181549849|OTHER||Difference in Percent|15.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.7|20.1||||||||20.1|11.7|
90841995|NCT03486834|181549849|OTHER||Difference in Percent|17.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.3|21.6||||||||21.6|13.3|
91093094|NCT05352815|182070323|SUPERIORITY|Change in HbA1c from baseline to week 52 is analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with region and randomised treatment as fixed factors and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Missing HbA1c values at week 52 are imputed by using multiple imputation. Each imputed dataset is analysed separately and estimates are combined using Rubin's rules.|Treatment difference|-0.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.57|||ANCOVA|||||-0.57|-0.76|<0.0001
90841996|NCT03486834|181549850|OTHER||Difference in Percent|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5||||||||0.5|-0.5|
90841997|NCT03486834|181549850|OTHER||Difference in Percent|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5||||||||0.5|-0.5|
90841998|NCT03486834|181549851|OTHER|The incidence rate per 100 person years (100 x number of CMVi cases/total person-years to CMVi or end of follow-up) is presented along with 95% CI.|Incidence Rate Estimate|6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.6|9.5||||||||9.5|4.6|
90841999|NCT03486834|181549851|OTHER|The incidence rate per 100 person years (100 x number of CMVi cases/total person-years to CMVi or end of follow-up) is presented along with 95% CI.|Incidence Rate Estimate|5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|7.6||||||||7.6|3.3|
90842000|NCT03486834|181549851|OTHER|The statistical criterion for success requires the lower limit of the 95% CI of vaccine efficacy (VE) to be greater than 0%.|Vaccine Efficacy|-32.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-135.0|25.0||||||||25.0|-135.0|
90842001|NCT00888940|181549858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
90842002|NCT02141204|181549864|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit (LL) of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the ratio of anti-RV IgA antibody GMCs between HRV Liq Group over the HRV Lyo Group should be greater than or equal to (≥) 0.5.|GMC ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.34|||ANCOVA|95% CI for the adjusted GMC ratio and the logarithm of baseline concentration were used as fixed effects in this ANCOVA model.||Anti-RV IgA GMCs (non-inferiority): Non-inferiority comparison between GSK Biologicals' HRV liquid vaccine (HRV Liq Group) and GSK Biologicals' HRV lyophilized vaccine (HRV Lyo Group) in terms of geometric mean concentrations (GMCs) for anti-RV antibodies, one month after the administration of the second dose of study vaccine.||1.34|0.65|
90842003|NCT02379091|181549880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.351||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|0.09||MMRM model with main effects for study site, treatment, visit, and previously failed medication with interactions between visit and treatment, visit and previously failed medication, and visit and baseline value.|ANOVA|Baseline values were used as a covariate and participant as a random effect with an unstructured covariance structure.|Namilumab - Placebo|||0.09|-1.31|0.086
90842004|NCT02379091|181549880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.366||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|0.13||MMRM model with main effects for study site, treatment, visit, and previously failed medication with interactions between visit and treatment, visit and previously failed medication, and visit and baseline value.|ANOVA|Baseline values were used as a covariate and subject as a random effect with an unstructured covariance structure.|Namilumab - Placebo|||0.13|-1.32|0.107
90842005|NCT02379091|181549880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.347||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|-0.23||MMRM model with main effects for study site, treatment, visit, and previously failed medication with interactions between visit and treatment, visit and previously failed medication, and visit and baseline value.|ANOVA|Baseline values were used as a covariate and subject as a random effect with an unstructured covariance structure.|Namilumab - Placebo|||-0.23|-1.61|0.010
90842006|NCT03326713|181549895|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|15.2|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic Regression Model Results for Intervention Effects on CGRA Within 6 Months (TP vs TCN)||15.2|2.5|<.0001
90842007|NCT03326713|181549895|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|19.4|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic Regression Model Results for Intervention Effects on CGRA Within 6 Months (UC vs TCN)||19.4|2.8|<.0001
90842008|NCT03326713|181549895|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||1.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|4.0|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic Regression Model Results for Intervention Effects on CGRA Within 6 Months (UC vs TP)||4.0|0.4|1.2
90897810|NCT02799472|181661154|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-252.6||||0.629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1326.0|820.8|||Repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||820.8|-1326.0|0.629
90842009|NCT00935584|181549944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The null hypothesis states that there is no significant change in outcome from pre-intervention clinical visit (baseline) to post-intervention clinic visit.||||>0.05
90842010|NCT00935584|181549944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||The null hypothesis states that there is no significant change in outcome from pre-intervention clinical visit (baseline) to post-intervention clinic visit.||||>0.05
90842011|NCT00935584|181549945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The null hypothesis is that there is no significant change in outcome from pre to post visit.||||>0.05
90842012|NCT00935584|181549945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wicoxon signed rank test|||The null hypothesis is that there is no significant change in outcome from pre to post visit.||||>0.05
90842013|NCT00935584|181549946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The null hypothesis is that there is no significant change in patient engagement from pre to post visit.||||>0.05
90842014|NCT00935584|181549946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||The null hypothesis is that there is no significant change in patient engagement from pre to post visit.||||>0.05
90842015|NCT00935584|181549947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The null hypothesis states that there is no significant change in outcome from pre-intervention clinical visit (baseline) to post-intervention clinic visit.||||<0.05
90897811|NCT02799472|181661154|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|41.6||||0.932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-962.2|1045.5|||Repeated measures analysis|||12-Week FU||1045.5|-962.2|0.932
90842016|NCT00935584|181549947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||The null hypothesis states that there is no significant change in outcome from pre-intervention clinical visit (baseline) to post-intervention clinic visit.||||<0.05
90842017|NCT00935584|181549948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The null hypothesis is that there is no significant change in outcome from pre to post visit.||||<0.05
90842018|NCT00935584|181549948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||The null hypothesis is that there is no significant change in outcome from pre to post visit.||||<0.05
90842019|NCT00935584|181549949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The null hypothesis states that there is no significant change in outcome from pre-intervention clinical visit (baseline) to post-intervention clinic visit.||||<0.05
90842020|NCT00935584|181549949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||The null hypothesis states that there is no significant change in outcome from pre-intervention clinical visit (baseline) to post-intervention clinic visit.||||<0.05
90842021|NCT02129699|181549977|SUPERIORITY|Pre-specified analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.19|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression model for treatment effect, analysis adjusted for stratification factors||||1.19|0.78|0.355
90842022|NCT02129699|181549978|SUPERIORITY|Pre-specified analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.19|||Regression, Cox|||||1.19|0.82|0.459
90842023|NCT05786651|181550013|EQUIVALENCE|Comparison of conditions|||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<.05
90897812|NCT02799472|181661162|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.13||||0.547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.32|2.23|||Repeated Measures Bayesian Model|||Week 4, For Posterior Probability Difference \<0||2.23|-2.32|0.547
90897813|NCT02799472|181661162|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-2.18||||0.948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.77|0.51|||Repeated Measures Bayesian Model|||Week 12, For Posterior Probability Difference \<0||0.51|-4.77|0.948
90842024|NCT05786651|181550014|EQUIVALENCE|Comparisons of mean values of conditions|||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<.05
90842025|NCT01732718|181550031|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||Student t-test followed by ANOVA|Student t-test subsequently followed by crossover ANOVA model testing carry-over effect and treatment effect||||||0.51
90842026|NCT01732718|181550032|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.74
90842027|NCT01732718|181550034|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.31
90842028|NCT01732718|181550036|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||see comments for explanation|albuminuria examined as continuous variable (linear mixed model to analyze effect) and categorical generalized variable (estimating equation approach)||||||0.57
90842029|NCT01732718|181550040|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.64
90842030|NCT01732718|181550041|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1469|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison of the change in AMC||||0.1469
90842031|NCT01732718|181550041|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2382|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison of the change in ALC||||0.2382
90842032|NCT01732718|181550041|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5833|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison of the change in ANC||||0.5833
90842033|NCT01732718|181550044|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5184|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5184
90842034|NCT02873702|181550046|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority to lansoprazole if the lower bound of confidence interval (CI) for the treatment difference is greater than -10%.|Difference in Percentage|-2.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.59|21.3||||||Healing Period: Dexlansoprazole 60 mg versus Healing Period: Lansoprazole 30 mg||21.30|-26.59|
90842035|NCT04050202|181550110|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.45|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||The post-intervention score is subtracted from the baseline score.|||||<0.01
90842036|NCT04050202|181550111|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|13.97|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||The post-intervention score is subtracted from the baseline score|||||<0.01
90842037|NCT01554241|181550112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Results presented were Bonferonni-corrected for a mid-point safety analysis||Comparisons of concentrations in D3 dosing groups at study end were made by ANOVA. Adherence of 80% was pre-specified for inclusion in analyses. .||||<.0001
90897814|NCT02799472|181661162|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-2.28||||0.949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.02|0.45|||Repeated Measures Bayesian Model|||12-Week FU, For Posterior Probability Difference \<0||0.45|-5.02|0.949
90897815|NCT02799472|181661162|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.13||||0.453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.32|2.23|||Repeated Measures Bayesian Model|||Week 4, For Posterior Probability Difference \>0||2.23|-2.32|0.453
90897816|NCT02799472|181661162|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-2.18||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.77|0.51|||Repeated Measures Bayesian Model|||Week 12, For Posterior Probability Difference \>0||0.51|-4.77|0.052
91093095|NCT01258049|182070333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|54.85|||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.25|67.45|||Regression, Logistic|||In ART003, the parasite success rate for quinine was 67.7%. On the assumption that the parasite success rate was 70% for quinine in this study and in order to demonstrate that ArTiMist™ is superior to quinine by at least 20% the success rate for ArTiMist™ should be at least 90%. Using these figures, and assuming a power of 80%, an alpha of 0.05 (two sided) and based on an equal allocation to the ArTiMist™ and quinine treatment arms, the number of subjects (n) required on each treatment was 59.||67.45|42.25|<0.005
91093096|NCT01258049|182070334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-38.97|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.22|-15.72|||ANCOVA|||||-15.72|-62.22|<0.05
90842038|NCT01554241|181550112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.56|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Bonferroni/Dunn adjustment||||||=.56
90842039|NCT01554241|181550112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0009|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Bonferroni/Dunn adjustment||||||<.0009
90842040|NCT01554241|181550112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Bonferroni/Dunn adjustment||||||<.0001
90842041|NCT01554241|181550112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Bonferroni/Dunn adjustment||||||<.006
90842042|NCT01554241|181550112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Bonferroni/Dunn adjustment||||||<.0001
90842043|NCT01554241|181550112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Bonferroni/Dunn adjustment||||||<.0001
90842044|NCT01554241|181550113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||analyses were corrected for multiple comparisons (Bonferroni)|ANOVA|||||||<.0001
90842045|NCT01554241|181550113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.47|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Bonferroni/Dunn adjustment||||||=0.47
90842046|NCT01554241|181550113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Bonferroni/Dunn adjustment||||||<.002
90842047|NCT01554241|181550113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Bonferroni/Dunn adjustment||||||<.0001
90842048|NCT01554241|181550113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Bonferroni/Dunn adjustment||||||<.02
90842049|NCT01554241|181550113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Bonferroni/Dunn adjustment||||||<.0001
90842050|NCT01554241|181550113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0003|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Bonferroni/Dunn adjustment||||||<.0003
90842051|NCT03198507|181550121|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Statistical testing was 2 sided and performed using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0001
90897817|NCT02799472|181661162|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-2.28||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.02|0.45|||Repeated Measures Bayesian Model|||12-Week FU, For Posterior Probability Difference \>0||0.45|-5.02|0.051
90897818|NCT02799472|181661163|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.3|||Repeated measures analysis|||Week 4||0.3|-0.2|0.940
90842052|NCT03198507|181550124|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0001
90842053|NCT01411891|181550132|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|8.4||||||||8.4|0.3|
90842054|NCT01411891|181550133|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.8||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.6|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.6|0.4|0.65
90842055|NCT01075685|181550134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0279||95.0|||||Type 3 tests of fixed effects|||||||0.0279
90842056|NCT01075685|181550135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0189||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0189
90842057|NCT01075685|181550136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.009
90842058|NCT01075685|181550137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.082||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.082
90842059|NCT00643162|181550206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.15||0.68|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.68
90842060|NCT05038982|181550209|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|78.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.09|118.48||Threshold of significance at 0.05.|ANOVA||Percent PP-NRS reduction comparing subject's values at Week 0 to values at Week 12|||118.48|38.09|<0.001
90842061|NCT05038982|181550209|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|53.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.12||0.0142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.55|98.76||Threshold of significance at 0.05.|ANOVA||Percent PP-NRS reduction comparing subject's values at Week 0 to values at Week 12|||98.76|8.55|0.0142
90842062|NCT05038982|181550211|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|9.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.37||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|12.5||Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Wilcoxon matched pairs signed rank test|||We are comparing baseline scores at Week 0 to scores taken at the end of the treatment period in Week 12.||12.5|6.3|0.002
90842063|NCT05038982|181550211|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.99||0.0215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|10.6||Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Wilcoxon matched pairs signed rank test|||We are comparing baseline scores at Week 0 to scores taken at the end of the treatment period in Week 12.||10.6|1.6|0.0215
90842064|NCT05038982|181550212|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|10.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.9|14.3||Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Wilcoxon matched pairs signed rank test|||We are comparing baseline scores at Week 0 to scores taken at the end of the treatment period in Week 12.||14.3|5.9|0.002
90897819|NCT02799472|181661163|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8||||0.521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|1.6|||Repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||1.6|-3.2|0.521
90897820|NCT02799472|181661163|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3||||0.396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|1.8|||Repeated measures analysis|||12-Week FU||1.8|-4.4|0.396
90897821|NCT02799472|181661164|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.2|||Repeated measures analysis|||Week 4||1.2|-1.1|0.945
91028901|NCT00290745|181941580|OTHER|||||||0.714|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.714
91093097|NCT01258049|182070335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.91|||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.38|-8.44|||ANCOVA|||||-8.44|-17.38|<0.005
91093098|NCT01258049|182070336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.16|||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.71||||Regression, Cox|||||- 6.61|-11.71|<0.005
91093099|NCT01258049|182070337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|54.02|||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.05|80.98|||ANCOVA|||||80.98|27.05|<0.005
91093100|NCT01258049|182070338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|174.09||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.44|358.61|||ANCOVA||mean parasite counts increased in the first 12 hours for patients on quinine treatment|||358.61|-10.44|0.06
91093101|NCT01258049|182070339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.96||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.16|12.08|||Regression, Cox|||||12.08|-10.16|0.86
91093102|NCT01258049|182070340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.99||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|2.36|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.36|0.42|0.99
91093103|NCT01258049|182070343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|55.01|||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.44|67.58|||Regression, Linear|||||67.58|42.44|<0.005
90842065|NCT05038982|181550212|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.74||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|8.6||Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Wilcoxon matched pairs signed rank test|||We are comparing baseline scores at Week 0 to scores taken at the end of the treatment period in Week 12.||8.6|0.77|0.02
90842066|NCT05038982|181550213|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|8.18||Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Wilcoxon matched pairs signed rank test|||We are comparing baseline scores at Week 0 to scores taken at the end of the treatment period in Week 12.||8.18|2.70|0.0078
90842067|NCT05038982|181550214|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|12.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.16||0.0098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.57|19.89||Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Wilcoxon matched pairs signed rank test|||We are comparing baseline scores at Week 0 to scores taken at the end of the treatment period in Week 12.||19.89|5.57|0.0098
90842068|NCT05038982|181550214|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|9.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0||0.0117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|16.66||Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Wilcoxon matched pairs signed rank test|||We are comparing baseline scores at Week 0 to scores taken at the end of the treatment period in Week 12.||16.66|3.10|0.0117
90842069|NCT05038982|181550215|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|10.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.54||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.46|15.94||Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Wilcoxon matched pairs signed rank test|||We are comparing baseline scores at Week 0 to scores taken at the end of the treatment period in Week 12.||15.94|4.46|0.002
90842070|NCT05038982|181550216|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.63||Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Wilcoxon matched pairs signed rank test|||We are comparing baseline scores at Week 0 to scores taken at the end of the treatment period in Week 12.||1.63|0.57|0.0078
90842071|NCT05038982|181550217|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055||0.0391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.025|0.27||Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Wilcoxon matched pairs signed rank test|||We are comparing baseline scores at Week 0 to scores taken at the end of the treatment period in Week 12.||0.27|0.025|0.0391
90842072|NCT05038982|181550217|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.086||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.31||Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Wilcoxon matched pairs signed rank test|||We are comparing baseline scores at Week 0 to scores taken at the end of the treatment period in Week 12.||0.31|-.080|0.28
91093104|NCT00961415|182070349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.69|||Log Rank|||||0.69|0.37|<0.001
90842073|NCT05038982|181550218|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.607||0.0684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.035|7.235||Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Wilcoxon matched pairs signed rank test|||We are comparing baseline scores at Week 0 to scores taken at the end of the treatment period in Week 12.||7.235|0.035|0.0684
90842074|NCT05038982|181550218|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.13||0.375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.656|1.456||Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Wilcoxon matched pairs signed rank test|||||1.456|-3.656|0.375
90842075|NCT05038982|181550219|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.212||0.207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.44|2.04||Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Wilcoxon matched pairs signed rank test|||We are comparing baseline scores at Week 0 to scores taken at the end of the treatment period in Week 12.||2.04|-3.44|0.207
90897822|NCT02799472|181661164|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.7|||Repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||0.7|-1.5|0.475
91093105|NCT00961415|182070350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.2|||Log Rank|||||1.20|0.47|0.230
90842076|NCT05038982|181550219|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.498||0.8125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.389|3.389||Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Wilcoxon matched pairs signed rank test|||We are comparing baseline scores at Week 0 to scores taken at the end of the treatment period in Week 12.||3.389|-3.389|0.8125
90842077|NCT05038982|181550220|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.009||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.52|7.08||Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Wilcoxon matched pairs signed rank test|||We are comparing baseline scores at Week 0 to scores taken at the end of the treatment period in Week 12.||7.08|2.52|0.0039
90842078|NCT05038982|181550220|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.033||0.0547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0376|4.638||Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Wilcoxon matched pairs signed rank test|||We are comparing baseline scores at Week 0 to scores taken at the end of the treatment period in Week 12.||4.638|-0.0376|0.0547
90842079|NCT05038982|181550221|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|9.0||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.93|11.07||Threshold of significance at 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||We are comparing baseline scores at Week 0 to scores taken at the end of the treatment period in Week 12.||11.07|6.93|0.0003
90842080|NCT05038982|181550222|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.429|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.011|8.846||Threshold of significance at 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||8.846|4.011|<0.0001
90842081|NCT05038982|181550224|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.33||Threshold of significance set at 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||This is a comparison of Th1 GSVA from RNA sequencing (RNASeq) performed on skin biopsies. The comparison is for CPUO patient skin at Week 0 versus Week 12 (end of treatment) The CPUO patients only had one biopsy collected at the timepoints because there are no visible lesions. CPUO patients only had one biopsy taken which will be referred to as Lesional sites. CPUO will compare Lesional biopsies at week 0 to Lesional biopsies at week 12.||-0.33|-0.83|<0.0001
90897823|NCT02799472|181661164|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.1|||Repeated measures analysis|||12-Week FU||0.1|-2.0|0.086
90897824|NCT02799472|181661165|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|211.4||||0.874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2589.2|3012.0|||Repeated measures analysis|||Week 4||3012.0|-2589.2|0.874
90897825|NCT02799472|181661165|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-504.8||||0.749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3730.4|2720.9|||Repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||2720.9|-3730.4|0.749
90897826|NCT02799472|181661165|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1536.0||||0.352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4884.2|1812.1|||Repeated measures analysis|||12-Week FU||1812.1|-4884.2|0.352
91093106|NCT00961415|182070352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.84|||Log Rank|||||0.84|0.34|0.006
91093107|NCT00961415|182070353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.7|||Log Rank|||||0.70|0.38|<0.001
91093108|NCT02309359|182070358|OTHER|Under the assumption of monotonicity, a Cochran-Armitage trend test was performed as the primary efficacy analysis. Data were analyzed according to the intent-to-treat (ITT) principle; thus, subjects were analyzed according to the treatment to which they were assigned. Subjects with missing ACR20 response at Week 12 were treated as non responders (non responder imputation approach).||||||0.172|||||||Cochran-Armitage trend test|||The null hypothesis of this test was that there is no difference in the percentage of subjects achieving ACR20 response between the treatment groups and the alternative hypothesis was that the percentage of subjects achieving ACR20 response increases with increasing dose level.||||0.172
90842082|NCT05038982|181550224|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.091||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.18||The threshold for significance is set at 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||This is a comparison of Th2 GSVA from RNASeq performed on skin biopsies. The comparison is for CPUO patient skin at Week 0 versus Week 12 (end of treatment) The CPUO patients only had one biopsy collected at the timepoints because there are no visible lesions. CPUO patients only had one biopsy taken which will be referred to as Lesional sites. CPUO will compare Lesional biopsies at week 0 to Lesional biopsies at week 12.||-0.18|-0.56|0.0003
90842083|NCT05038982|181550224|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.039||The threshold for significance is set at 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||This is a comparison of Th17 GSVA from RNASeq performed on skin biopsies. The comparison is for CPUO patient skin at Week 0 versus Week 12 (end of treatment) The CPUO patients only had one biopsy collected at the timepoints because there are no visible lesions. CPUO patients only had one biopsy taken which will be referred to as Lesional sites. CPUO will compare Lesional biopsies at week 0 to Lesional biopsies at week 12.||0.039|-0.47|0.0952
90842084|NCT05038982|181550224|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|-0.13||Threshold for significance is set at 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||This is a comparison of Th22 GSVA from RNASeq performed on skin biopsies. The comparison is for CPUO patient skin at Week 0 versus Week 12 (end of treatment) The CPUO patients only had one biopsy collected at the timepoints because there are no visible lesions. CPUO patients only had one biopsy taken which will be referred to as Lesional sites. CPUO will compare Lesional biopsies at week 0 to Lesional biopsies at week 12.||-0.13|-0.64|0.004
90842085|NCT05038982|181550224|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.053||The threshold of significance is set at 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||This is a comparison of Th1 GSVA from RNASeq performed on skin biopsies. The comparison is for lesional PN patient skin at Week 0 versus non lesional PN patient skin at week 0.||-0.053|-0.81|0.0277
90842086|NCT05038982|181550224|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.049||The threshold of significance is set at 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||This is a comparison of Th1 GSVA from RNASeq performed on skin biopsies. The comparison is for lesional PN patient skin at Week 12 versus non lesional PN patient skin at week 12.||0.049|-0.85|0.077
91093109|NCT04649359|182070439|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Exact binominal|||Null hypothesis of ORR by BICR for cohort A was 30%.||||<0.0001
90842087|NCT05038982|181550224|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|-0.024||The threshold of significance is set at 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||This is a comparison of Th2 GSVA from RNASeq performed on skin biopsies. The comparison is for lesional PN patient skin at Week 0 versus non lesional PN patient skin at Week 0.||-0.024|-0.64|0.0363
90842088|NCT05038982|181550224|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.062||The threshold of significance is set at 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||This is a comparison of Th2 GSVA from RNASeq performed on skin biopsies. The comparison is for lesional PN patient skin at Week 12 versus non lesional PN patient skin at Week 12.||0.062|-0.63|0.10
90842089|NCT05038982|181550224|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.27||The threshold for significance is set at 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||This is a comparison of Th17 GSVA from RNASeq performed on skin biopsies. The comparison is for lesional PN patient skin at Week 0 versus non lesional PN patient skin at Week 0.||-0.27|-0.89|0.0009
90842090|NCT05038982|181550224|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.2326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.2||The threshold for significance is set at 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||This is a comparison of Th17 GSVA from RNASeq performed on skin biopsies. The comparison is for lesional PN patient skin at Week 12 versus non lesional PN patient skin at Week 12.||0.20|-0.77|0.2326
90897827|NCT02799472|181661166|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0128||||0.291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0123|0.038|||Repeated measures analysis|||Week 4||0.0380|-0.0123|0.291
90897828|NCT02799472|181661166|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0036||||0.375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0046|0.0118|||Repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||0.0118|-0.0046|0.375
90897829|NCT02799472|181661166|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.001||||0.588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0028|0.0049|||Repeated measures analysis|||12-Week FU||0.0049|-0.0028|0.588
90842091|NCT05038982|181550224|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.18||The threshold for significance is set at 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||This is a comparison of Th22 GSVA from RNASeq performed on skin biopsies. The comparison is for lesional PN patient skin at Week 0 versus non lesional PN patient skin at Week 0.||-0.18|-0.85|0.0047
90842092|NCT05038982|181550224|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.0076||The threshold for significance is set at 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||This is a comparison of Th22 GSVA from RNASeq performed on skin biopsies. The comparison is for lesional PN patient skin at Week 12 versus non lesional PN patient skin at Week 12.||0.0076|-0.83|0.0539
90897830|NCT02799472|181661167|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0002||||0.915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0033|0.0029|||Repeated measures analysis|||Week 4||0.0029|-0.0033|0.915
90897831|NCT02799472|181661167|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0004||||0.771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0028|0.0021|||Repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||0.0021|-0.0028|0.771
90897832|NCT02799472|181661167|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0005||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0048|0.0058|||Repeated measures analysis|||12-Week FU||0.0058|-0.0048|0.850
90897833|NCT02801669|181661168|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.339||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.188|0.608|||Regression, Cox|The treatment groups were compared using a Cox proportional hazard model with the CHADS2 score (\<= 2 or \>= 3) as covariate.||This statistical analysis assesses the annual incidence of composite event of stroke and SEE between treatment groups.||0.608|0.188|0.0003
91093110|NCT04649359|182070439|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Exact binominal|||Null hypothesis of ORR by BICR for cohort B was 15%.||||<0.0001
90842093|NCT00472576|181550226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.291|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.693||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.911|3.671|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean differences reflect groups differences at end point.|A linear mixed model with restricted maximum likelihood estimation was used to examine the effects of treatment (MK-0657 and placebo) over time (treatment day) with the baseline of each phase as a covariate. A main effect for phase of study was also included. Schwarz's Bayesian criteria was used to determine the best fitting variance-covariance structure which was an autoregressive moving average model. Bonferroni adjusted simple effects tests were used to evaluate significant effects.||3.671|0.911|.001
90842094|NCT00472576|181550227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.479||0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.981|2.901||This test is a comparison of the MK-0657 condition to the placebo condition.|Mixed Models Analysis||The primary outcome of interest is whether the groups differ at the end of the study, so the means represent values at that point in time.|A linear mixed model with restricted maximum likelihood estimation was used to examine the effects of treatment (MK-0657 and placebo) over time (treatment day) with the baseline of each phase as a covariate. A main effect for phase of study was also included. Schwarz's Bayesian criteria was used to determine the best fitting variance-covariance structure which was an autoregressive moving average model. Bonferroni adjusted simple effects tests were used to evaluate significant effects.||2.901|-6.981|.272
90842095|NCT02592798|181550228|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.8|33.3|||||Abatacept - Placebo for Double-Blind Period Day 113|||33.3|-46.8|
90842096|NCT02592798|181550228|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.3|24.3|||||Abatacept - Placebo for Open Label Period Day 113|||24.3|-63.3|
90842097|NCT02592798|181550229|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6495|2.3855|||||Abatacept - Placebo for Double-Blind Period Day 113|||2.3855|-1.6495|
90842098|NCT02592798|181550229|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7933|5.6954|||||Abatacept - Placebo for Open Label Period Day 113|||5.6954|-1.7933|
90842099|NCT02592798|181550230|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1483|0.4119|||||Abatacept - Placebo for Double-Blind Period Day 113|||0.4119|-0.1483|
90842100|NCT02592798|181550230|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5107|0.7551|||||Abatacept - Placebo for Open Label Period Day 113|||0.7551|-0.5107|
90842101|NCT02592798|181550231|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.7|44.7|||||Abatacept - Placebo for Open Label Period Day 113|||44.7|-44.7|
90842102|NCT02592798|181550232|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1395|6.7645|||||Abatacept - Placebo for Fatigue|||6.7645|-8.1395|
91028902|NCT00290745|181941581|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.001
91093111|NCT04649359|182070440|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Exact binominal|||Null hypothesis of ORR by BICR for cohort A was 12%.||||<0.0001
90842103|NCT02592798|181550232|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9402|6.5402|||||Abatacept - Placebo for Pain interference|||6.5402|-13.9402|
90842104|NCT02592798|181550232|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5736|4.5736|||||Abatacept - Placebo for Physical function|||4.5736|-6.5736|
90842105|NCT02592798|181550233|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.595|29.485|||||Abatacept - Placebo for Fatigue|||29.4850|-4.5950|
90842106|NCT02592798|181550233|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5917|16.8717|||||Abatacept - Placebo for Pain interference|||16.8717|-2.5917|
91028903|NCT00290745|181941582|OTHER|||||||0.906|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.906
90842107|NCT02592798|181550233|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1068|10.3468|||||Abatacept - Placebo for Mobility|||10.3468|-12.1068|
90842108|NCT01285557|181550324|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.9312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.28|||Unstratified Log-rank|||S-1+Cisplatin and 5FU+Cisplatin were compared using the unstratified log-rank test. The hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox's regression approach and survival was summarized using Kaplan Meier estimates along with 2-sided 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the estimates.||1.28|0.76|0.9312
90842109|NCT01285557|181550325|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.3039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.14|||Log Rank|||S-1+Cisplatin and 5FU+Cisplatin were compared using the log-rank test. The hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox's regression approach and survival was summarized using Kaplan Meier estimates along with 2-sided 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the estimates.||1.14|0.65|0.3039
90842110|NCT01285557|181550326|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.1683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.08|||Log Rank|||S-1+Cisplatin and 5FU+Cisplatin were compared using the log-rank test. The hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox's regression approach and survival was summarized using Kaplan Meier estimates along with 2-sided 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the estimates.||1.08|0.66|0.1683
90842111|NCT06482125|181550335|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|40.955||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.098|118.972|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||118.972|14.098|0.001
90842112|NCT06482125|181550336|EQUIVALENCE|The threshold for statistical significance is p \< 0.05||||||0.345|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.345
90842113|NCT06482125|181550337|EQUIVALENCE|The threshold for statistical significance is p \< 0.05||||||0.45|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.450
90842114|NCT06482125|181550338|EQUIVALENCE|Reject H0 = the means are equivalent|Median Difference (Net)|1.0||||0.356|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.356
91028904|NCT00626925|181941588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.001
91028905|NCT00626925|181941589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.01
91028906|NCT00626925|181941591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.004
91028907|NCT00626925|181941592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.04
91028908|NCT00626925|181941593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.001
91093112|NCT04649359|182070441|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Exact binominal|||Null hypothesis of ORR by BICR for cohort A was 38%.||||<0.0001
91093113|NCT03307174|182070461|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.74
91093114|NCT05911841|182070475|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.6|6.6||||||||6.6|-30.6|
91093115|NCT05911841|182070475|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|19.2||||||||19.2|-19.4|
91093116|NCT05911841|182070475|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.6|1.7||||||||1.7|-31.6|
90842115|NCT06482125|181550339|EQUIVALENCE|Reject H0 = the means are equivalent|Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.202||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.31|14.095|||t-test, 2 sided|||||14.095|2.310|0.07
91093117|NCT05911841|182070476|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6|8.7||||||||8.7|-17.6|
91093118|NCT05911841|182070476|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|15.1||||||||15.1|-12.3|
90842116|NCT04701762|181550356|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|99.32|0.14|0.29|||GLM cumulative logit GEE model|||||0.29|0.14|<0.001
90842117|NCT04701762|181550357|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|99.32|0.03|0.14|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.14|0.03|<0.001
90842118|NCT04701762|181550358|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.87||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|99.32|0.48|1.58|||GLM log-binomial model (log link)|||||1.58|0.48|0.53
90842119|NCT04701762|181550359|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|3.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.1|0.92|<0.001
90842120|NCT04701762|181550360|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.2|-0.34|0.27
90842121|NCT03397966|181550383|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.063||||||The investigators tested the effect of treatment (BNP vs. control) on the primary endpoint using mixed effects modeling, adjusting for treatment sequence, to assess the effect of treatment on each endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The primary endpoint is change in resting energy expenditure, calculated as final resting energy expenditure adjusted for baseline level, using linear regression. The null hypothesis is that there will be no significant effect of treatment on each endpoint. The investigators adhered to intention-to-treat principles. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.063
90842122|NCT03397966|181550384|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07||||||Paired t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that there will be no significant effect of BNP on adipose gene expression of UCP1 compared with placebo. The alternative hypothesis is that UCP1 expression would be significantly higher after BNP treatment compared with placebo.||||0.07
90842123|NCT04614974|181550434|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3
90842124|NCT04614974|181550435|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8
90842125|NCT04614974|181550436|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||McNemar|||Noisy breathing pre/post||||0.5
90897834|NCT02801669|181661169|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.299|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.157|0.57|||||The treatment groups were compared using a Cox proportional hazard model with the CHADS2 score (\<= 2 or \>= 3) as covariate.|This statistical analysis assesses the annual incidence of stroke between treatment groups.||0.570|0.157|
90897835|NCT02801669|181661169|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.503|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.126|2.011|||||The treatment groups were compared using a Cox proportional hazard model with the CHADS2 score (\<= 2 or \>= 3) as covariate.|This statistical analysis assesses the annual incidence of SEE between treatment groups.||2.011|0.126|
91093119|NCT05911841|182070476|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.8|1.9||||||||1.9|-21.8|
91093120|NCT02326064|182070525|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mac-Nemar paired Chi-2 test|||||||<0.001
91093121|NCT02326064|182070526|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mac-Nemar paired Chi-2 test|||||||<0.001
90842126|NCT04614974|181550436|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||McNemar|||Noisy breathing pre/post||||0.01
90842127|NCT04614974|181550436|OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||McNemar|||Stridor pre/post||||0.2
90842128|NCT04614974|181550436|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||McNemar|||Stridor pre/post||||0.02
90842129|NCT04614974|181550436|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||McNemar|||Chest wall retractions pre/post||||0.5
90842130|NCT04614974|181550436|OTHER|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||Chest wall retractions pre/post||||1.0
90842131|NCT04614974|181550436|OTHER|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||Apnea pre/post||||1.0
90842132|NCT04614974|181550437|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||McNemar|||Emesis pre/post||||0.5
90842133|NCT04614974|181550437|OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||McNemar|||Emesis pre/post||||0.07
90842134|NCT04614974|181550437|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||McNemar|||Choking pre/post||||0.06
90842135|NCT04614974|181550437|OTHER|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||Choking pre/post||||1.0
90842136|NCT04614974|181550437|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||McNemar|||Coughing pre/post||||0.02
90842137|NCT04614974|181550437|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Coughing pre/post||||1.0
90842138|NCT04614974|181550437|OTHER|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||Gagging pre/post||||1.0
90842139|NCT04614974|181550438|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3
90842140|NCT04614974|181550439|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
90842141|NCT00658359|181550444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|2.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.12||0.6694|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-2.12|6.5|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib LI minus CsA. Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 15||6.50|-2.12|0.6694
90842142|NCT00658359|181550444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|10.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.26||0.0873|TWO_SIDED|60.0|5.44|15.98|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib MI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 15||15.98|5.44|0.0873
90897836|NCT02801669|181661169|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.306|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.585|||||The treatment groups were compared using a Cox proportional hazard model with the CHADS2 score (\<= 2 or \>= 3) as covariate.|This statistical analysis assesses the annual incidence of ischemic stroke between treatment groups.||0.585|0.160|
91093122|NCT03191552|182070527|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
91093123|NCT03191552|182070528|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027||||||Mann-Whitney U test was used to test the significance of pairwise differences using Bonferroni correction to adjust for multiple comparisons.p value of less than 0.05/3 was determined as the level of statistical significance.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.027
91093124|NCT03191552|182070529|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008||||||Mann-WhitneyU test was used to test the significance of pairwise differences using Bonferroni correction to adjust for multiple comparisons.p value of less than 0.05/3 was determined as the level of statistical significance.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.008
90842143|NCT00658359|181550444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|3.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.71||0.4912|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-0.87|8.74|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib LI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 18||8.74|-0.87|0.4912
90842144|NCT00658359|181550444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|11.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.61||0.0942|TWO_SIDED|60.0|5.5|16.62|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib MI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 18||16.62|5.50|0.0942
90842145|NCT00658359|181550444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|7.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.36||0.2499|TWO_SIDED|60.0|1.96|12.66|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib LI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 24||12.66|1.96|0.2499
90842146|NCT00658359|181550444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|13.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.1||0.058|TWO_SIDED|60.0|7.49|19.45|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib MI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 24||19.45|7.49|0.0580
90897837|NCT02801669|181661169|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.347|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.193|0.624|||||The treatment groups were compared using a Cox proportional hazard model with the CHADS2 score (\<= 2 or \>= 3) as covariate.|This statistical analysis assesses the annual incidence of ischemic stroke/SEE between treatment groups.||0.624|0.193|
90897838|NCT00615264|181661189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2851|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Calculated with terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline C-peptide and country with the unstructured option for the matrix||||||0.2851
90897839|NCT00615264|181661190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.769|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Calculated with terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline C-peptide and country with the unstructured option for the matrix||||||0.7690
90897840|NCT02884414|181661211|OTHER|Paired Student's t-test.||||||0.44|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.44
90842147|NCT00658359|181550444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|12.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.09||0.075|TWO_SIDED|60.0|6.66|18.59|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib LI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 30||18.59|6.66|0.0750
90897841|NCT01982435|181661212|OTHER|Measures were summarized using means, range and standard error of the means (SEM).|||||<|0.05||||||Two-sided paired t-tests and two-sided unpaired t-tests were respectively conducted to analyze efficacy endpoints between study initiation to end, and between monthly and TAE injection regimens.|t-test, 2 sided|||All analyses were performed with a significance level of 0.05 being assumed for all tests.||||<0.05
90897842|NCT00708435|181661242|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The non-inferiority margin was -(minus)10%. If the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was \>-10%, then the null-hypothesis was rejected and it was concluded that Beriplex was non-inferior to plasma.~The sample size estimation assumed that hemostatic efficacy would be rated 'effective' in 85% of participants in the plasma group and 90% of participants in the Beriplex group. The power to show non-inferiority with these assumptions was greater than 80% for two treatment groups of 83 participants."|Difference in effective hemostasis (%)|7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|19.9||Both primary endpoints had to be non-inferior for Beriplex to be non-inferior. No P-value is entered as non-inferiority was assessed via the 95% CI calculation for the difference (Beriplex minus plasma) in the % of subjects with effective hemostasis.|95% confidence interval|Farrington and Manning's method was used to estimate the 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of participants with hemostasis.|Both primary endpoints had to be non-inferior for Beriplex to be non-inferior. There is no P-value as non-inferiority was assessed via the 95% CI calculation for the difference (Beriplex minus plasma) in the % of subjects with effective hemostasis.|The analysis of hemostatic efficacy was via calculation of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference (Beriplex minus plasma) in the percentage of participants with effective hemostasis.||19.9|-5.8|
90905096|NCT02886728|181677438|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.0|-3.0|<0.001
90905097|NCT02886728|181677438|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.0|-3.0|<0.001
91028909|NCT00626925|181941594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.06
91028910|NCT00626925|181941595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.01
91028911|NCT00625807|181941600|OTHER||||||>|0.1||||||Cohen's d = 0.5|ANOVA|||ANOVA for group by time interaction||||> 0.1
91028912|NCT00625807|181941601|OTHER|||||||0.103|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.103
91028913|NCT00625807|181941602|OTHER|||||||0.022|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||within group change pre to week 8||||.022
91028914|NCT00625807|181941602|OTHER|within group change from pre to week 8|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
90842148|NCT00658359|181550444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|16.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.75||0.0316|TWO_SIDED|60.0|10.14|23.19|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib MI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 30||23.19|10.14|0.0316
90842149|NCT00658359|181550444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|13.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.5||0.0783|TWO_SIDED|60.0|6.9|19.53|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib LI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 36||19.53|6.90|0.0783
90842150|NCT00658359|181550444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|20.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.14||0.0266|TWO_SIDED|60.0|12.58|27.96|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib MI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 36||27.96|12.58|0.0266
90842151|NCT00658359|181550444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|13.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.5||0.0783|TWO_SIDED|60.0|6.9|19.53|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib LI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 42||19.53|6.90|0.0783
91093125|NCT03191552|182070530|SUPERIORITY|Mann-WhitneyU test was used to test the significance of pairwise differences using Bonferroni correction to adjust for multiple comparisons.p value of less than 0.05/3 was determined as the level of statistical significance.||||||0.004||||||Mann-WhitneyU test was performed to test the significance of pairwise differences using Bonferroni correction to adjust for multiple comparisons.p value of less than 0.05/3 was determined as the level of statistical significance.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.004
90897843|NCT00708435|181661243|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The non-inferiority margin was -(minus)10%. If the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was \>-10%, then the null-hypothesis was rejected and it was concluded that Beriplex was non-inferior to plasma.~The sample size estimation assumed that hemostatic efficacy would be rated 'effective' in 85% of participants in the plasma group and 90% of participants in the Beriplex group. The power to show non-inferiority with these assumptions was greater than 80% for two treatment groups of 83 participants."|Difference in the decrease of INR (%)|52.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.4|65.9||Both primary endpoints had to be non-inferior for Beriplex to be non-inferior. No P-value is entered as non-inferiority was assessed via the 95% CI for the difference (Beriplex minus plasma) in the % of subjects with a rapid decrease of the INR.|95% confidence interval|Farrington and Manning's method was used to estimate the 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of participants with a rapid decrease of the INR.|Both primary endpoints had to be non-inferior for Beriplex to be non-inferior. There is no P-value as non-inferiority was assessed via the 95% CI for the difference (Beriplex minus plasma) in the % of subjects with a rapid decrease of the INR.|The analysis of the percentage of participants who had a rapid decrease of the INR was via calculation of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference (Beriplex minus plasma) in the percentage of participants with a rapid decrease of the INR.||65.9|39.4|
90897844|NCT04766086|181661257|OTHER||Risk difference|0.0||||||95.0|-3.8|3.7||||||||3.7|-3.8|
90897845|NCT04766086|181661258|OTHER||GMR|0.546|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.405|0.736||||||GMR for Anti-PT Antibody: GMR for GBS6 + Tdap/Placebo + Tdap was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the 2 measures on the logarithmic scale.||0.736|0.405|
90897846|NCT04766086|181661258|OTHER||GMR|0.567|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.455|0.707||||||GMR for Anti-FHA Antibody: GMR for GBS6 + Tdap/Placebo + Tdap was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the 2 measures on the logarithmic scale.||0.707|0.455|
91028915|NCT00625807|181941603|OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||within group change from pre to week 8||||.015
91093126|NCT03191552|182070531|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.837|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.837
91093127|NCT03191552|182070532|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.570
90842152|NCT00658359|181550444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|20.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.14||0.0266|TWO_SIDED|60.0|12.58|27.96|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib MI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 42||27.96|12.58|0.0266
90842153|NCT00658359|181550444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|11.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.74||0.1545|TWO_SIDED|60.0|4.51|17.54|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib LI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 48||17.54|4.51|0.1545
90842154|NCT00658359|181550444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|18.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.34||0.0528|TWO_SIDED|60.0|10.22|25.94|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib MI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 48||25.94|10.22|0.0528
90897847|NCT04766086|181661258|OTHER||GMR|0.588|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.451|0.766||||||GMR for Anti-PRN Antibody: GMR for GBS6 + Tdap/Placebo + Tdap was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the 2 measures on the logarithmic scale.||0.766|0.451|
90897848|NCT04766086|181661259|OTHER||GMR|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|2.089||||||GMR for serotype Ia: GMR for GBS6 + GBS6/Placebo + Tdap was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the 2 measures on the logarithmic scale.||2.089|0.380|
90897849|NCT04766086|181661259|OTHER||GMR|1.149|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.455|2.901||||||GMR for serotype Ib: GMR for GBS6 + GBS6/Placebo + Tdap was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the 2 measures on the logarithmic scale.||2.901|0.455|
90897850|NCT04766086|181661259|OTHER||GMR|1.032||||||95.0|0.551|1.931||||||GMR for serotype II: GMR for GBS6 + GBS6/Placebo + Tdap was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the 2 measures on the logarithmic scale.||1.931|0.551|
90897851|NCT04766086|181661259|OTHER||GMR|0.635|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.303|1.329||||||GMR for serotype III: GMR for GBS6 + GBS6/Placebo + Tdap was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the 2 measures on the logarithmic scale.||1.329|0.303|
90897852|NCT04766086|181661259|OTHER||GMR|1.474|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.842|2.58||||||GMR for serotype IV: GMR for GBS6 + GBS6/Placebo + Tdap was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the 2 measures on the logarithmic scale.||2.580|0.842|
91028916|NCT00625807|181941603|OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||within group change from pre to week 8||||.53
91093128|NCT03191552|182070533|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.334|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.334
90842155|NCT00658359|181550444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|14.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.45||0.0968|TWO_SIDED|60.0|6.92|21.14|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib LI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 54||21.14|6.92|0.0968
90897853|NCT04766086|181661259|OTHER||GMR|0.559|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.232|1.349||||||GMR for serotype V: GMR for GBS6 + GBS6/Placebo + Tdap was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the 2 measures on the logarithmic scale.||1.349|0.232|
91028917|NCT00625807|181941604|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||within group change from pre to week 8||||.06
91028918|NCT00625807|181941604|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||within group change from pre to post||||<.001
91093129|NCT03191552|182070534|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
91093130|NCT03191552|182070535|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.77
91093131|NCT03191552|182070536|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.889|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.889
91093132|NCT03191552|182070537|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.956|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.956
91093133|NCT03191552|182070538|SUPERIORITY||||||,|0||||||Mann-WhitneyU test was used to test the significance of pairwise differences using Bonferroni correction to adjust for multiple comparisons.p value of less than 0.05/3 was determined as the level of statistical significance.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0,001
91093134|NCT03191552|182070539|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.14
91093135|NCT03191552|182070540|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.08
91093136|NCT03191552|182070541|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.314|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.314
91093137|NCT03191552|182070542|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.244|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.244
91093138|NCT03191552|182070543|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.27
91093139|NCT01499810|182070544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||<0.0001
91093140|NCT01499810|182070546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||<0.0001
91093141|NCT01499810|182070547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||<0.0001
91093142|NCT01499810|182070548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||<0.0001
91093143|NCT01499810|182070549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||<0.0001
91093144|NCT01499810|182070550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||<0.0001
91093145|NCT01499810|182070551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0001||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||0.0001
91093146|NCT01499810|182070552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||<0.0001
91093147|NCT01499810|182070553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.35||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||0.35
91093148|NCT01499810|182070554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.12||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||0.12
91093149|NCT01499810|182070555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||7e-05||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||0.00007
91093150|NCT01499810|182070556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||9e-05||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||0.00009
91093151|NCT01499810|182070557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||4e-05||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||0.00004
91093152|NCT01499810|182070558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0001||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||0.0001
91093153|NCT01499810|182070559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0007||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||0.0007
91093154|NCT01499810|182070560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||0.001
91093155|NCT01499810|182070561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0004||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||0.0004
91093156|NCT01499810|182070562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0002||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||0.0002
91093157|NCT01499810|182070563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.57||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||0.57
91093158|NCT01499810|182070564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.54||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||0.54
91093159|NCT01499810|182070565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.87||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||0.87
91093160|NCT01499810|182070566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.77||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||0.77
91093161|NCT01499810|182070567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.06||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||0.06
91093162|NCT01499810|182070568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.07||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||0.07
91093163|NCT01499810|182070569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.32||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||0.32
91093164|NCT01499810|182070570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.12||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||0.12
91093165|NCT01499810|182070571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.72||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||0.72
91093166|NCT01499810|182070572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.37||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||0.37
91093167|NCT01499810|182070573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.99||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||0.99
91093168|NCT01499810|182070574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.76||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||0.76
91093169|NCT01499810|182070575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.08||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||0.08
91093170|NCT01499810|182070576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.35||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||0.35
91093171|NCT01499810|182070577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.22||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||0.22
91093172|NCT01499810|182070578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.29||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||0.29
91093173|NCT01499810|182070579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.89||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||0.89
91093174|NCT01499810|182070580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.65||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||0.65
91093175|NCT01499810|182070581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.76||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||0.76
91093176|NCT01499810|182070582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.35||||||Repeated measures analysis|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||0.35
91093177|NCT01499810|182070583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.92||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||0.92
90897854|NCT00532155|181661276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.8985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.868|1.174|||Stratified log-rank test|Stratified on ECOG Performance Status (0 vs 1 vs 2) and Prior Bevacizumab (yes vs no) according to IVRS.||||1.174|0.868|0.8985
90897855|NCT00532155|181661277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Stratified Hazard ratio|0.819||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.716|0.937|||Stratified Log-Rank test|Stratified on ECOG Performance Status (0 vs 1 vs 2) and Prior Bevacizumab (yes vs no) according to IVRS.|Stratified on ECOG Performance Status (0 vs 1 vs 2) and Prior Bevacizumab (yes vs no) according to IVRS.|||0.937|0.716|0.0035
90897856|NCT04843930|181661299|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for statistical significance: p \< 0.05. Exploratory efficacy analysis - p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom for the group x timepoint interaction: 3, 261.|Linear mixed effects interaction reported for group (intervention vs. waitlist control) and timepoint (all measures baseline to week 6).|"Linear Mixed Effects Model: main effects of arm group (intervention vs. waitlist control) and timepoint (all measures from baseline to week 6), arm group x timepoint interaction.~Modified intent-to-treat analysis with all participants who were randomized and completed at least the baseline study visit included in the analysis.~Participants in the intervention hypothesized to improve relative to waitlist control."||||0.54
90897857|NCT04843930|181661300|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.83||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for statistical significance: p \< 0.05. Exploratory efficacy analysis - p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom for the group x timepoint interaction: 3, 239.|Linear mixed effects interaction reported for group (intervention vs. waitlist control) and timepoint (all measures baseline to week 6).|"Linear Mixed Effects Model: main effects of arm group (intervention vs. waitlist control) and timepoint (all measures from baseline to week 6), arm group x timepoint interaction.~Modified intent-to-treat analysis with all participants who were randomized and completed at least the baseline study visit included in the analysis."||||0.04
90897858|NCT04843930|181661301|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for statistical significance: p \< 0.05. Exploratory efficacy analysis - p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom for the group x timepoint interaction: 3, 229.|Linear mixed effects interaction reported for group (intervention vs. waitlist control) and timepoint (all measures baseline to week 6).|"Linear Mixed Effects Model: main effects of arm group (intervention vs. waitlist control) and timepoint (all measures from baseline to week 6), arm group x timepoint interaction.~Modified intent-to-treat analysis with all participants who were randomized and completed at least the baseline study visit included in the analysis.~Participants in the intervention hypothesized to improve relative to waitlist control."||||0.79
90897859|NCT04843930|181661302|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.89||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for statistical significance: p \< 0.05. Exploratory efficacy analysis - p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom for the group x timepoint interaction: 3, 269.|Linear mixed effects interaction reported for group (intervention vs. waitlist control) and timepoint (all measures baseline to week 6).|"Linear Mixed Effects Model: main effects of arm group (intervention vs. waitlist control) and timepoint (all measures from baseline to week 6), arm group x timepoint interaction.~Modified intent-to-treat analysis with all participants who were randomized and completed at least the baseline study visit included in the analysis.~Participants in the intervention hypothesized to improve relative to waitlist control."||||0.45
90897860|NCT04843930|181661303|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.0||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for statistical significance: p \< 0.05. Exploratory efficacy analysis - p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom for the group x timepoint interaction: 3, 236.|Linear mixed effects interaction reported for group (intervention vs. waitlist control) and timepoint (all measures baseline to week 6).|"Linear Mixed Effects Model: main effects of arm group (intervention vs. waitlist control) and timepoint (all measures from baseline to week 6), arm group x timepoint interaction.~Modified intent-to-treat analysis with all participants who were randomized and completed at least the baseline study visit included in the analysis.~Participants in the intervention hypothesized to improve relative to waitlist control."||||0.02
91093178|NCT01499810|182070584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.32||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||0.32
90897861|NCT04843930|181661304|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for statistical significance: p \< 0.05. Exploratory efficacy analysis - p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom for the group x timepoint interaction: 3, 257.|Linear mixed effects interaction reported for group (intervention vs. waitlist control) and timepoint (all measures baseline to week 6).|"Linear Mixed Effects Model: main effects of arm group (intervention vs. waitlist control) and timepoint (all measures from baseline to week 6), arm group x timepoint interaction.~Modified intent-to-treat analysis with all participants who were randomized and completed at least the baseline study visit included in the analysis.~Participants in the intervention hypothesized to improve relative to waitlist control."||||0.96
91028919|NCT00266409|181941607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1143||95.0|||||Generalized Wilcoxon|||This analysis refers to the test of the null hypothesis that there is no difference in the survival distribution function between the treatment groups.||||0.1143
91028920|NCT00266409|181941607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4544||95.0|||||Generalized Wilcoxon|||This analysis refers to the test of the null hypothesis that there is no difference in the survival distribution function between the treatment groups.||||0.4544
91028921|NCT00266409|181941608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0173||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline total HAM-A score as a covariate||||0.0173
91093179|NCT01499810|182070585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||0.40
91093180|NCT01499810|182070586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.17||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||0.17
91093181|NCT01499810|182070587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.014||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||0.014
91104078|NCT04250207|182094698|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.0094|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 20||||0.0094
90897862|NCT04843930|181661305|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.78||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for statistical significance: p \< 0.05. Exploratory efficacy analysis - p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom for the group x timepoint interaction: 3, 262.|Linear mixed effects interaction reported for group (intervention vs. waitlist control) and timepoint (all measures baseline to week 6).|"Linear Mixed Effects Model: main effects of arm group (intervention vs. waitlist control) and timepoint (all measures from baseline to week 6), arm group x timepoint interaction.~Modified intent-to-treat analysis with all participants who were randomized and completed at least the baseline study visit included in the analysis.~Participants in the intervention hypothesized to improve relative to waitlist control."||||0.04
90897863|NCT04843930|181661306|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.62||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for statistical significance: p \< 0.05. Exploratory efficacy analysis - p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom for the group x timepoint interaction: 3, 227.|Linear mixed effects interaction reported for group (intervention vs. waitlist control) and timepoint (all measures baseline to week 6).|"Linear Mixed Effects Model: main effects of arm group (intervention vs. waitlist control) and timepoint (all measures from baseline to week 6), arm group x timepoint interaction.~Modified intent-to-treat analysis with all participants who were randomized and completed at least the baseline study visit included in the analysis.~Participants in the intervention hypothesized to improve relative to waitlist control."||||0.60
90897864|NCT04843930|181661307|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.77||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for statistical significance: p \< 0.05. Exploratory efficacy analysis - p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom for the group x timepoint interaction: 1, 89.|Linear mixed effects interaction reported for group (intervention vs. waitlist control) and timepoint (all measures baseline to week 6).|"Linear Mixed Effects Model: main effects of arm group (intervention vs. waitlist control) and timepoint (all measures from baseline to week 6), arm group x timepoint interaction.~Modified intent-to-treat analysis with all participants who were randomized and completed at least the baseline study visit included in the analysis.~Participants in the intervention hypothesized to improve relative to waitlist control."||||0.06
90897865|NCT04843930|181661308|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.37||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for statistical significance: p \< 0.05. Exploratory efficacy analysis - p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom for the group x timepoint interaction: 1, 73.|Linear mixed effects interaction reported for group (intervention vs. waitlist control) and timepoint (all measures baseline to week 6).|"Linear Mixed Effects Model: main effects of arm group (intervention vs. waitlist control) and timepoint (all measures from baseline to week 6), arm group x timepoint interaction.~Modified intent-to-treat analysis with all participants who were randomized and completed at least the baseline study visit included in the analysis.~Participants in the intervention hypothesized to improve relative to waitlist control."||||0.04
90897866|NCT02552238|181661309|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0067|||||||McNemar|||Sensitivity: superiority test comparing CE-DSE and UE-DSE based on the difference||||0.0067
90897867|NCT02552238|181661309|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||McNemar|||Specificity: superiority test comparing CE-DSE and UE-DSE based on the difference||||<0.0001
90897868|NCT01576718|181661313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0604||||||If the Fp MDPI showed a significantly positive trend, then contrasts for pairwise comparisons of each Fp MDPI dose versus placebo were done in the sequence of highest to lowest Fp MDPI dose.|Regression, Linear|||A linear in log-dose trend contrast was constructed to evaluate the time-averaged dose-response trend, where the logarithm of dose was defined as log(dose+1) to accommodate the case of a zero dose (placebo). A fixed-sequence testing procedure was employed to control the overall Type I error rate at the 0.05 level. Specifically, the 2-sided linear in log-dose time-averaged trend test was first performed at the 0.05 level of significance.||||0.0604
90897869|NCT01576718|181661313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|0.072||||0.0637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.149||Significance at the 0.05 level.|mixed model for repeated measures||Fp 400 - Placebo|No explicit structure was assumed for the covariance among the repeated measures. Analyses for comparison of Fp MDPI to placebo did not contain FLOVENT DISKUS data.||0.149|-0.004|0.0637
91093182|NCT02555254|182070642|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||Wilcoxon's rank test|||||||0.55
91093183|NCT05172609|182070659|EQUIVALENCE|Margin difference of 1 standard deviation (SD) or higher was considered evidence of non-equivalence comparison||||||0.47|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-tests between EBIS and IAU conditions at 12-week follow up for AIM||||.47
91093184|NCT05172609|182070660|EQUIVALENCE|Margin difference of 1 SD or higher was considered evidence of non-equivalence comparison||||||0.88|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-tests between EBIS and IAU conditions at 12-week follow up for FIM||||.88
90897870|NCT01576718|181661313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|0.056||||0.1585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.022|0.133||Significance at the 0.05 level|mixed model for repeated measures||Fp 200 - Placebo|No explicit structure was assumed for the covariance among the repeated measures. Analyses for comparison of Fp MDPI to placebo did not contain FLOVENT DISKUS data.||0.133|-0.022|0.1585
90897871|NCT01576718|181661313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|0.048||||0.2221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.029|0.124||Significance at the 0.05 level|mixed model for repeated measures||Fp 100 - Placebo|No explicit structure was assumed for the covariance among the repeated measures. Analyses for comparison of Fp MDPI to placebo did not contain FLOVENT DISKUS data.||0.124|-0.029|0.2221
90897872|NCT01576718|181661313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|0.006|||=|0.8694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.083||Significance at the 0.05 level|mixed model for repeated measures||Fp 50 - Placebo|No explicit structure was assumed for the covariance among the repeated measures. Analyses for comparison of Fp MDPI to placebo did not contain FLOVENT DISKUS data.||0.083|-0.070|=0.8694
91093185|NCT05172609|182070661|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Test of superiority between EBIS and IAU groups comparing SUDS screening rating at Time 3: two weeks after completing the training||||.46
91093186|NCT05172609|182070661|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Test of superiority between EBIS and IAU groups comparing SUDS screening rating at Time 4: 12 weeks after completing the training||||.40
91093187|NCT05172609|182070661|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Test of superiority between EBIS and IAU groups comparing SUDS planning rating at Time 3: two weeks after completing the training||||.56
91093188|NCT05172609|182070661|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Test of superiority between EBIS and IAU groups comparing SUDS planning rating at Time 4: 12 weeks after completing the training||||.68
91093189|NCT05172609|182070661|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||ANCOVA|||Repeated measures analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), controlling for organization: SUDS screening at timepoints 1, 3, and 4||||.87
90842156|NCT00658359|181550444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|15.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.53||0.0966|TWO_SIDED|60.0|7.81|23.85|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib MI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 54||23.85|7.81|0.0966
91093190|NCT05172609|182070661|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||ANCOVA|||repeated measures analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), controlling for organization: SUDS planning at timepoints 1, 3, and 4||||.43
91093191|NCT05172609|182070662|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Test of superiority between EBIS and IAU groups comparing screening self-efficacy rating at Time 3: two weeks after completing the training||||.59
91093192|NCT05172609|182070662|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Test of superiority between EBIS and IAU groups comparing screening self-efficacy rating at Time 4: 12 weeks after completing the training||||.59
91093193|NCT05172609|182070662|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Test of superiority between EBIS and IAU groups comparing intervening self-efficacy rating at Time 3: two weeks after completing the training||||.25
91093194|NCT05172609|182070662|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Test of superiority between EBIS and IAU groups comparing intervening self-efficacy rating at Time 4: 12 weeks after completing the training||||.35
91093195|NCT05172609|182070662|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||ANCOVA|||repeated measures analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), controlling for organization: Self-efficacy screening at timepoints 1, 3, and 4||||.88
90842157|NCT00658359|181550444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|17.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.74||0.0507|TWO_SIDED|60.0|9.72|24.42|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib LI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 60||24.42|9.72|0.0507
90842158|NCT00658359|181550444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|15.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.53||0.0966|TWO_SIDED|60.0|7.81|23.85|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib MI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 60||23.85|7.81|0.0966
90842159|NCT00658359|181550444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|17.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.74||0.0507|TWO_SIDED|60.0|9.72|24.42|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib LI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 66||24.42|9.72|0.0507
90842160|NCT00658359|181550444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|15.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.53||0.0966|TWO_SIDED|60.0|7.81|23.85|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib MI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 66||23.85|7.81|0.0966
90897873|NCT01576718|181661314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1512||||||If the Fp MDPI showed a significantly positive trend, then contrasts for pairwise comparisons of each Fp MDPI dose versus placebo were done in the sequence of highest to lowest Fp MDPI dose.|Regression, Linear|||A linear in log-dose trend contrast was constructed to evaluate the time-averaged dose-response trend, where the logarithm of dose was defined as log(dose+1) to accommodate the case of a zero dose (placebo). A fixed-sequence testing procedure was employed to control the overall Type I error rate at the 0.05 level. Specifically, the 2-sided linear in log-dose time-averaged trend test was first performed at the 0.05 level of significance.||||0.1512
91028922|NCT00266409|181941608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0516||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline total HAM-A score as a covariate||||0.0516
90842161|NCT00658359|181550444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|18.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.56||0.0574|TWO_SIDED|60.0|10.12|26.22|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib LI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 72||26.22|10.12|0.0574
90842162|NCT00658359|181550444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|21.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.84||0.0749|TWO_SIDED|60.0|11.12|31.04|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib MI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 72||31.04|11.12|0.0749
90842163|NCT00658359|181550444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|3.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.44||0.4116|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-0.09|7.38|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib LI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 12||7.38|-0.09|0.4116
91093196|NCT05172609|182070662|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||ANCOVA|||repeated measures analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), controlling for organization: Self-efficacy intervening at timepoints 1, 3, and 4||||.71
91093197|NCT05172609|182070663|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Test of superiority between EBIS and IAU groups comparing screening use at Time 3: two weeks after completing the training||||.88
91093198|NCT05172609|182070663|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Test of superiority between EBIS and IAU groups comparing screening use at Time 4: 12 weeks after completing the training||||.55
91093199|NCT05172609|182070663|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||ANCOVA|||repeated measures analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), controlling for organization: CSR screening at timepoints 1, 3, and 4||||.36
90842164|NCT00658359|181550444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.69||0.7895|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-4.09|2.12|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib MI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 12||2.12|-4.09|0.7895
91093200|NCT05172609|182070664|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Test of superiority between EBIS and IAU groups comparing total SPIRS score at Time 3: two weeks after completing the training||||.24
91093201|NCT05172609|182070664|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Test of superiority between EBIS and IAU groups comparing total SPIRS score at Time 4: 12 weeks after completing the training||||.88
91093202|NCT05172609|182070664|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||ANCOVA|||repeated measures analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), controlling for organization: SPIRS at timepoints 3 and 4||||.10
91093203|NCT00042289|182070684|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.62||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.44|0.88||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.88|0.44|0.055
91093204|NCT00042289|182070684|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.55|0.73||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.73|0.55|<0.001
91093205|NCT00042289|182070684|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.68||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.44|1.04||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||1.04|0.44|0.22
91093206|NCT00042289|182070684|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.49|0.72||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.72|0.49|<0.001
90897874|NCT01576718|181661314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|7.36||||0.2361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.83|19.56||Significance at the 0.05 level|Regression, Linear|||No explicit structure was assumed for the covariance among the repeated measures. Analyses for comparison of Fp MDPI to placebo did not contain FLOVENT DISKUS data.||19.56|-4.83|0.2361
90897875|NCT01576718|181661314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|7.78||||0.2169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.59|20.15|||Regression, Linear|Significance at the 0.05 level||No explicit structure was assumed for the covariance among the repeated measures. Analyses for comparison of Fp MDPI to placebo did not contain FLOVENT DISKUS data.||20.15|-4.59|0.2169
90897876|NCT01576718|181661314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|7.09||||0.2523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.07|19.26||Significance at the 0.05 level|Regression, Linear|||No explicit structure was assumed for the covariance among the repeated measures. Analyses for comparison of Fp MDPI to placebo did not contain FLOVENT DISKUS data.||19.26|-5.07|0.2523
90897877|NCT01576718|181661314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|8.23||||0.1858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.98|20.45||Significance at the 0.05 level|Regression, Linear|||No explicit structure was assumed for the covariance among the repeated measures. Analyses for comparison of Fp MDPI to placebo did not contain FLOVENT DISKUS data.||20.45|-3.98|0.1858
90897878|NCT01576718|181661315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2879||||||If the Fp MDPI showed a significantly positive trend, then contrasts for pairwise comparisons of each Fp MDPI dose versus placebo were done in the sequence of highest to lowest Fp MDPI dose.|Regression, Linear|||A linear in log-dose trend contrast was constructed to evaluate the time-averaged dose-response trend, where the logarithm of dose was defined as log(dose+1) to accommodate the case of a zero dose (placebo). A fixed-sequence testing procedure was employed to control the overall Type I error rate at the 0.05 level. Specifically, the 2-sided linear in log-dose time-averaged trend test was first performed at the 0.05 level of significance.||||0.2879
90897879|NCT01576718|181661315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|7.56||||0.2166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.45|19.56||Significance at the 0.05 level|Regression, Linear|||No explicit structure was assumed for the covariance among the repeated measures. Analyses for comparison of Fp MDPI to placebo did not contain FLOVENT DISKUS data.||19.56|-4.45|0.2166
91093207|NCT00042289|182070684|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.76|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.64|0.89||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.89|0.64|<0.05
91093208|NCT00042289|182070684|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.71|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.57|0.88||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.88|0.57|<0.05
91093209|NCT00042289|182070684|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.98||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.71|1.35||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||1.35|0.71|0.78
90842165|NCT00658359|181550445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.9||0.683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|13.9|||Chi-squared||Tofacitinib LI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|||13.9|-9.1|0.683
90842166|NCT00658359|181550445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.2||0.529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|16.1|||Chi-squared||Tofacitinib MI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|||16.1|-8.3|0.529
90897880|NCT01576718|181661315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|4.03||||0.5167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.17|16.23||Significance at the 0.05 level|Regression, Linear|||No explicit structure was assumed for the covariance among the repeated measures. Analyses for comparison of Fp MDPI to placebo did not contain FLOVENT DISKUS data.||16.23|-8.17|0.5167
90897881|NCT01576718|181661315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|2.99||||0.6258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.06|15.05||Significance at the 0.05 level|Regression, Linear|||No explicit structure was assumed for the covariance among the repeated measures. Analyses for comparison of Fp MDPI to placebo did not contain FLOVENT DISKUS data.||15.05|-9.06|0.6258
90897882|NCT01576718|181661315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|0.39||||0.9487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|12.39||Significance at the 0.05 level|Regression, Linear|||No explicit structure was assumed for the covariance among the repeated measures. Analyses for comparison of Fp MDPI to placebo did not contain FLOVENT DISKUS data.||12.39|-11.60|0.9487
90897883|NCT01576718|181661316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0341||||||Significance level of 0.05.|Log Rank|||P-value for comparison of survival curve to placebo||||0.0341
90842167|NCT00658359|181550446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.04||0.0699|TWO_SIDED|60.0|4.97|13.49|||Mixed Models Analysis||Tofacitinib LI minus CsA|||13.49|4.97|0.0699
90897884|NCT01576718|181661316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034||||||Significance level of 0.05.|Log Rank|||P-value for comparison of survival curve to placebo||||0.0340
90897885|NCT01576718|181661316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0058||||||Significance level of 0.05.|Log Rank|||P-value for comparison of survival curve to placebo||||0.0058
91093210|NCT00042289|182070685|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.51|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.42|0.63||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.63|0.42|<0.05
90842168|NCT00658359|181550446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.32||0.1958|TWO_SIDED|60.0|2.89|13.58|||Mixed Models Analysis||Tofacitinib MI minus CsA|||13.58|2.89|0.1958
90842169|NCT00658359|181550448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|2.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.12||0.6694|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-2.12|6.5|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib LI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 15||6.50|-2.12|0.6694
90897886|NCT01576718|181661316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0018||||||Significance level of 0.05.|Log Rank|||P-value for comparison of survival curve to placebo||||0.0018
90897887|NCT01576718|181661316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1006||||||Significance level of 0.05.|Log Rank|||P-value for comparison of survival curve to placebo||||0.1006
90897888|NCT01576718|181661317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.88116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.12|12.91||Significance at the 0.05 level|Regression, Linear|||Estimates computed from a generalized linear logistic model with gender and age as covariates and allows correlation between estimates on the same subject. Interpretation of the estimates is that they are the average over the population at the average level of continuous covariate (age) averaged over discrete covariate (gender).||12.91|-11.12|0.88116
91093211|NCT00042289|182070685|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.73|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.63|0.84||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.84|0.63|<0.05
91093212|NCT00042289|182070685|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.58||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.34|0.98||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.98|0.34|0.03
91093213|NCT00042289|182070685|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.67||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.51|0.89||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.89|0.51|0.001
91093214|NCT00042289|182070685|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|1.34||||0.0684|TWO_SIDED|||||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum \[Note: Comparison of 2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum was not done due to low sample size.\]|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.0684
91093215|NCT00042289|182070685|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.58|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.49|0.68||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.68|0.49|<0.05
91093216|NCT00042289|182070685|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.6|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.53|0.68||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.68|0.53|<0.05
90842170|NCT00658359|181550448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.89||0.934|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-4.52|3.71|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib MI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 15||3.71|-4.52|0.9340
90842171|NCT00658359|181550448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.32||0.9106|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-3.88|5.08|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib LI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 18||5.08|-3.88|0.9106
90842172|NCT00658359|181550448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-1.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.1||0.696|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-6.29|2.3|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib MI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 18||2.30|-6.29|0.6960
90842173|NCT00658359|181550448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.32||0.9106|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-3.88|5.08|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib LI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 24||5.08|-3.88|0.9106
90842174|NCT00658359|181550448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-1.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.1||0.696|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-6.29|2.3|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib MI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 24||2.30|-6.29|0.6960
90842175|NCT00658359|181550448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.32||0.9106|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-3.88|5.08|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib LI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 30||5.08|-3.88|0.9106
90842176|NCT00658359|181550448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-1.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.1||0.696|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-6.29|2.3|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib MI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 30||2.30|-6.29|0.6960
90842177|NCT00658359|181550448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.56||0.8322|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-5.86|3.5|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib LI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 36||3.50|-5.86|0.8322
90842178|NCT00658359|181550448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-3.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.35||0.4809|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-8.27|0.73|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib MI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 36||0.73|-8.27|0.4809
90842179|NCT00658359|181550448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-3.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.89||0.5704|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-8.31|1.62|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib LI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 42||1.62|-8.31|0.5704
90842180|NCT00658359|181550448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-5.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7||0.2972|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-10.73|-1.14|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib MI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 42||-1.14|-10.73|0.2972
91093217|NCT00042289|182070686|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.72||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6|0.88||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|t-test, 2 sided|Paired sample t-test on natural log-transformed PK parameter||||0.88|0.60|0.008
91093218|NCT00042289|182070687|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.63||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.52|0.75||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.75|0.52|0.002
90842181|NCT00658359|181550448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-3.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.89||0.5704|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-8.31|1.62|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib LI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 48||1.62|-8.31|0.5704
90842182|NCT00658359|181550448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-5.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7||0.2972|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-10.73|-1.14|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib MI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 48||-1.14|-10.73|0.2972
90842183|NCT00658359|181550448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-3.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.89||0.5704|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-8.31|1.62|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib LI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 54||1.62|-8.31|0.5704
90842184|NCT00658359|181550448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-5.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7||0.2972|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-10.73|-1.14|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib MI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 54||-1.14|-10.73|0.2972
91093219|NCT00042289|182070687|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.71||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.63|0.81||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.81|0.63|0.0003
91093220|NCT00042289|182070687|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.57||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.34|0.98||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.98|0.34|0.09
91093221|NCT00042289|182070687|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.67||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.54|0.82||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.82|0.54|0.004
91093222|NCT00042289|182070687|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.79||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|1.27||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||1.27|0.50|0.27
91093223|NCT00042289|182070687|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.86||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.66|1.12||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||1.12|0.66|0.70
91093224|NCT00042289|182070687|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.62||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.29|1.34||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||1.34|0.29|0.46
91093225|NCT00042289|182070687|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.94||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.63|1.39||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||1.39|0.63|0.50
91093226|NCT00042289|182070687|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.76|||<|0.1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.57|1.0||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||1.0|0.57|<0.10
91028923|NCT00266409|181941609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0361||95.0||||P-value based on ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline total HAM-A score as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.0361
91028924|NCT00266409|181941609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0366||95.0||||P-value based on ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline total HAM-A score as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.0366
91093227|NCT00042289|182070687|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.56|||<|0.1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.42|0.73||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.73|0.42|<0.10
91093228|NCT00042289|182070687|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.47|||<|0.1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.33|0.68||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.68|0.33|<0.10
91093229|NCT00042289|182070687|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.44|||<|0.1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.36|0.54||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.54|0.36|<0.10
91093230|NCT00042289|182070687|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.74||||0.1875|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.53|1.04||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||1.04|0.53|0.1875
91093231|NCT00042289|182070687|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.46||||0.1563|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.19|1.11||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||1.11|0.19|0.1563
91028925|NCT00266409|181941610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.739||95.0||||P-value based on ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline total HAM-A score as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.7390
91028926|NCT00266409|181941610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6735||95.0||||P-value based on ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline total HAM-A score as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.6735
91028927|NCT00266409|181941611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4261||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline total HAM-A score as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.4261
91028928|NCT00266409|181941611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0231||95.0||||P-value based on ANCOVA with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAM-A score as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.0231
91093232|NCT00042289|182070687|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.94||||0.241|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|1.03||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||1.03|0.85|0.241
91093233|NCT00042289|182070687|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|1.09||||0.837|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.32||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||1.32|0.90|0.837
91093234|NCT00042289|182070687|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.7|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.55|0.88||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum \[Note: Comparison of 2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum was not done due to low sample size.\]|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.88|0.55|<0.05
91093235|NCT00042289|182070687|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.8||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.72|0.89||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum \[Note: Comparison of 2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum was not done due to low sample size.\]|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.89|0.72|0.0046
91093236|NCT00042289|182070687|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.66|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.52|0.85||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum \[Note: Comparison of 2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum was not done due to low sample size.\]|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.85|0.52|<0.05
91093237|NCT00042289|182070687|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||<0.05
91093238|NCT00042289|182070687|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||<0.05
91093239|NCT00042289|182070687|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||>0.05
91093240|NCT00042289|182070687|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||>0.05
91093241|NCT00042289|182070687|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||<0.05
91093242|NCT00042289|182070687|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||<0.05
91093243|NCT00042289|182070688|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.97||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|1.13||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||1.13|0.83|0.07
90842185|NCT00658359|181550448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-3.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.89||0.5704|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-8.31|1.62|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib LI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 60||1.62|-8.31|0.5704
91093244|NCT00042289|182070688|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.77|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.61|0.96||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.96|0.61|<0.05
91093245|NCT00042289|182070688|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.8|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.62|1.03||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||1.03|0.62|<0.05
91093246|NCT00042289|182070689|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean of ratio|0.81||||0.148|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.64|1.01||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||1.01|0.64|0.148
91093247|NCT00042289|182070689|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean of ratio|0.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.62|0.81||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.81|0.62|<0.001
91093248|NCT00042289|182070689|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean of ratio|0.74||||0.0098|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.61|0.89||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.89|0.61|0.0098
91093249|NCT00042289|182070689|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean of ratio|0.75||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.64|0.88||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||0.88|0.64|0.0025
91093250|NCT00042289|182070689|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean of ratio|0.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.46|0.64||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||0.64|0.46|<0.0001
91093251|NCT00042289|182070689|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean of ratio|0.56||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.41|0.76||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||0.76|0.41|0.0024
91093252|NCT00042289|182070689|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean of ratio|0.795||||0.438|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.499|1.269||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||1.269|0.499|0.438
91093253|NCT00042289|182070689|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean of ratio|0.531||||0.219|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.186|1.512||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||1.512|0.186|0.219
90842186|NCT00658359|181550448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-5.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7||0.2972|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-10.73|-1.14|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib MI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 60||-1.14|-10.73|0.2972
90842187|NCT00658359|181550448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-3.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.89||0.5704|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-8.31|1.62|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib LI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 66||1.62|-8.31|0.5704
91093254|NCT00042289|182070689|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean of ratio|1.05||||0.296|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|1.18||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||1.18|0.94|0.296
91093255|NCT00042289|182070689|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean of ratio|1.26||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.01|1.56||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||1.56|1.01|0.007
91093256|NCT00042289|182070689|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean of ratio|0.83||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.56|1.22||2nd Trimester vs Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||FPV was analyzed as the form of amprenavir (APV). FPV is the prodrug of APV.||1.22|0.56|0.16
91093257|NCT00042289|182070689|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean of ratio|0.74||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.58|0.93|||Wilcoxson signed rank test|||FPV was analyzed in the form of amprenavir (APV). FPV is the prodrug of APV.||0.93|0.58|0.03
91093258|NCT00042289|182070689|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean of ratio|0.86|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.68|1.08||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum (No comparison was done for 2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum since the sample size for 2nd trimester was 1)|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||This analysis was for ATV.||1.08|0.68|>0.05
91093259|NCT00042289|182070689|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean of ratio|0.89||||0.1636|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.79|1.01||Third Trimester vs. Postpartum (No comparison was done for Second Trimester vs. Postpartum since only 4 participants had Second Trimester data)|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||1.01|0.79|0.1636
91093260|NCT00042289|182070689|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean of ratio|0.69|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.53|0.91||3rd Trimester vs Postpartum (No comparison was done for Second Trimester vs. Postpartum since only 4 participants had Second Trimester data)|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||This analysis was for ATV.||0.91|0.53|<0.05
91093261|NCT00042289|182070689|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean of ratio|1.11||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.99|1.24||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum (No comparison was done for Second Trimester vs. Postpartum since there was no Second Trimester data available)|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||1.24|0.99|0.16
91093262|NCT00042289|182070689|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||<0.05
91093263|NCT00042289|182070689|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||<0.05
91093264|NCT00042289|182070689|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||<0.05
91093265|NCT00042289|182070689|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||<0.05
91093266|NCT00042289|182070689|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||>0.05
91093267|NCT00042289|182070689|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||>0.05
91093268|NCT00042289|182070689|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||<0.05
91093269|NCT00042289|182070689|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||<0.05
91093270|NCT00042289|182070689|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean of ratio|1.06||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|1.34||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum (No comparison was done for Second Trimester vs. Postpartum since only 2 participants had Second Trimester data)|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||1.34|0.85|0.67
91093271|NCT00042289|182070689|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean of ratio|0.73||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.59|0.91||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||0.91|0.59|0.08
91093272|NCT00042289|182070689|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean of ratio|0.63|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.55|0.72||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||0.72|0.55|<0.01
91093273|NCT00042289|182070690|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean of ratio|0.57|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.48|0.68||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||0.68|0.48|<0.05
91093274|NCT00042289|182070690|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean of ratio|0.73|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.62|0.85||3rd Trimester vs.Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||0.85|0.62|<0.05
91093275|NCT00042289|182070690|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09||||||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.09
90842188|NCT00658359|181550448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-5.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7||0.2972|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-10.73|-1.14|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib MI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 66||-1.14|-10.73|0.2972
90842189|NCT00658359|181550448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-3.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.89||0.5704|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-8.31|1.62|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib LI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 72||1.62|-8.31|0.5704
90842190|NCT00658359|181550448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-5.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7||0.2972|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-10.73|-1.14|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib MI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 72||-1.14|-10.73|0.2972
90842191|NCT00658359|181550448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|3.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.91||0.4455|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-0.39|7.89|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib LI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 12||7.89|-0.39|0.4455
90842192|NCT00658359|181550448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.34||0.873|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-4.35|2.96|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib MI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 12||2.96|-4.35|0.8730
90842193|NCT00658359|181550449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-10.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.71||0.0654|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-15.33|-5.71|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib LI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 15||-5.71|-15.33|0.0654
90842194|NCT00658359|181550449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-6.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.37||0.3398|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-11.43|-0.72|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib MI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 15||-0.72|-11.43|0.3398
90842195|NCT00658359|181550449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-8.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.23||0.1601|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-13.99|-3.51|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib LI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 18||-3.51|-13.99|0.1601
90842196|NCT00658359|181550449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-7.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.49||0.239|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-13.1|-2.18|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib MI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 18||-2.18|-13.10|0.2390
90842197|NCT00658359|181550449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-7.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.4||0.2685|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-12.47|-1.7|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib LI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 24||-1.70|-12.47|0.2685
90842198|NCT00658359|181550449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-7.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.49||0.239|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-13.1|-2.18|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib MI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 24||-2.18|-13.10|0.2390
90842199|NCT00658359|181550449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-8.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.55||0.1785|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-14.32|-3.3|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib LI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 30||-3.30|-14.32|0.1785
90842200|NCT00658359|181550449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-9.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.63||0.158|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-14.95|-3.78|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib MI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 30||-3.78|-14.95|0.1580
90842201|NCT00658359|181550449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-12.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.81||0.0718|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-18.0|-6.53|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib LI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 36||-6.53|-18.00|0.0718
90842202|NCT00658359|181550449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-12.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.9||0.0629|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-18.63|-7.02|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib MI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 36||-7.02|-18.63|0.0629
90842203|NCT00658359|181550449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate differences|-15.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.07||0.0246|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-21.84|-9.94|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib LI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 42||-9.94|-21.84|0.0246
90842204|NCT00658359|181550449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-16.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.15||0.0214|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-22.46|-10.43|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib MI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 42||-10.43|-22.46|0.0214
90842205|NCT00658359|181550449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-15.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.07||0.0246|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-21.84|-9.94|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib LI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 48||-9.94|-21.84|0.0246
90842206|NCT00658359|181550449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-16.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.15||0.0214|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-22.46|-10.43|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib MI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 48||-10.43|-22.46|0.0214
90842207|NCT00658359|181550449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-18.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.24||0.0128|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-24.12|-11.93|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib LI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 54||-11.93|-24.12|0.0128
91093276|NCT00042289|182070690|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.003
91093277|NCT00042289|182070690|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean of ratio|1.34||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|||||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum (No comparison was done for Second Trimester vs. Postpartum since only 5 participants had Second Trimester data)|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.036
91093278|NCT00042289|182070690|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean of ratio|0.84|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|1.02||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||1.02|0.69|>0.05
91093279|NCT00042289|182070690|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean of ratio|0.83|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.68|1.01||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||1.01|0.68|>0.05
91093280|NCT00042289|182070691|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean of ratio|0.61||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.34|1.09||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||1.09|0.34|0.14
91093281|NCT00042289|182070691|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean of ratio|0.64||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|0.81||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||0.81|0.50|0.002
91093282|NCT00042289|182070691|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean of ratio|0.77||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.49|1.23||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||1.23|0.49|0.24
91093283|NCT00042289|182070691|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean of ratio|0.84||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6|1.17||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||1.17|0.60|0.53
91093284|NCT00042289|182070691|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean of ratio|0.58||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.3|1.11||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||1.11|0.30|0.2
91093285|NCT00042289|182070691|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean of ratio|0.95||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.58|1.55||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||1.55|0.58|0.12
91093286|NCT00042289|182070691|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean of ratio|0.92||||0.358|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.71|1.2||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||1.2|0.71|0.358
91093287|NCT00042289|182070691|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean of ratio|0.72||||0.0156|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.55|0.93||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||0.93|0.55|0.0156
91093288|NCT00042289|182070692|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean of ratio|0.7||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.58|0.85||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum (No comparison was done for Second Trimester vs. Postpartum since no Second Trimester data was available)|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||0.85|0.58|0.007
91093289|NCT00042289|182070693|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.66||||0.109|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.39|1.12||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||1.12|0.39|0.109
91093290|NCT00042289|182070693|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.49|0.69||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.69|0.49|<0.001
91093291|NCT00042289|182070693|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.48||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.14|1.65||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||1.65|0.14|0.44
91093292|NCT00042289|182070693|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.43|0.72||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.72|0.43|<0.001
91093293|NCT00042289|182070693|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.83||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.63|1.1||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||1.10|0.63|0.43
91093294|NCT00042289|182070693|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|1.0||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|1.44||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||1.44|0.69|0.31
91093295|NCT00042289|182070693|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.9||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.71|1.16||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||1.16|0.71|0.49
91093296|NCT00042289|182070694|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.45|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.32|0.63||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.63|0.32|<0.05
91093297|NCT00042289|182070694|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.72|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.58|0.88||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.88|0.58|<0.05
91093298|NCT00042289|182070694|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.42||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.23|0.78||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.78|0.23|0.02
91093299|NCT00042289|182070694|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.78||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.56|1.08||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||1.08|0.56|0.3
91093300|NCT00042289|182070694|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|1.41||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|||||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum \[Note: Comparison of 2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum was not done due to low sample size.\]|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.036
91093301|NCT00042289|182070694|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.41|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.32|0.52||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.52|0.32|<0.05
91093302|NCT00042289|182070694|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.48|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.41|0.57||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.57|0.41|<0.05
91093303|NCT00042289|182070695|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.85||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.72|1.01||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|t-test, 2 sided|Paired sample t-test on natural log-transformed PK parameter||||1.01|0.72|0.10
91093304|NCT00042289|182070696|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.49||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.35|0.68||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.68|0.35|0.0039
91093305|NCT00042289|182070696|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.66||||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.52|0.84||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.84|0.52|0.0062
91093306|NCT00042289|182070696|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.1||||||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||<0.10
91093307|NCT00042289|182070696|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.1||||||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||<0.10
91093308|NCT00042289|182070696|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.15|||<|0.1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.08|0.3||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.30|0.08|<0.10
91093309|NCT00042289|182070696|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.21|||<|0.1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.12|0.36||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.36|0.12|<0.10
91093310|NCT00042289|182070696|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.32|||<|0.1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.2|0.51||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.51|0.20|<0.10
91093311|NCT00042289|182070696|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.32|||>|0.1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.11|0.94||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.94|0.11|>0.10
91093312|NCT00042289|182070696|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.87||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.78|0.97||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.97|0.78|0.079
90842208|NCT00658359|181550449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-18.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.32||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-24.74|-12.42|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib MI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 54||-12.42|-24.74|0.0111
90842209|NCT00658359|181550449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-18.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.24||0.0128|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-24.12|-11.93|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib LI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 60||-11.93|-24.12|0.0128
90842210|NCT00658359|181550449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-18.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.32||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-24.74|-12.42|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib MI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 60||-12.42|-24.74|0.0111
90842211|NCT00658359|181550449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-18.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.24||0.0128|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-24.12|-11.93|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib LI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 66||-11.93|-24.12|0.0128
90842212|NCT00658359|181550449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-18.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.32||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-24.74|-12.42|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib MI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 66||-12.42|-24.74|0.0111
90842213|NCT00658359|181550449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-18.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.24||0.0128|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-24.12|-11.93|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib LI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 72||-11.93|-24.12|0.0128
90897889|NCT01576718|181661317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.98||||0.05977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.64|0.68||Significance at the 0.05 level|Regression, Linear|||Estimates computed from a generalized linear logistic model with gender and age as covariates and allows correlation between estimates on the same subject. Interpretation of the estimates is that they are the average over the population at the average level of continuous covariate (age) averaged over discrete covariate (gender).||0.68|-22.64|0.05977
90897890|NCT01576718|181661317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.74||||0.90426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.02|11.54||Significance at the 0.05 level|Regression, Linear|||Estimates computed from a generalized linear logistic model with gender and age as covariates and allows correlation between estimates on the same subject. Interpretation of the estimates is that they are the average over the population at the average level of continuous covariate (age) averaged over discrete covariate (gender).||11.54|-13.02|0.90426
91093313|NCT00042289|182070696|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.92||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.77|1.09||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||1.09|0.77|0.01
91093314|NCT00042289|182070696|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.51|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.37|0.72||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum \[Note: Comparison of 2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum was not done due to low sample size.\]|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.72|0.37|<0.05
90842214|NCT00658359|181550449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-18.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.32||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-24.74|-12.42|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib MI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 72||-12.42|-24.74|0.0111
90842215|NCT00658359|181550449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-7.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.41||0.1715|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-11.95|-2.84|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib LI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 12||-2.84|-11.95|0.1715
91093315|NCT00042289|182070696|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.82||||0.0325|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.71|0.96||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum \[Note: Comparison of 2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum was not done due to low sample size.\]|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.96|0.71|0.0325
90842216|NCT00658359|181550449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.87||0.4131|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-9.74|0.14|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib MI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 12||0.14|-9.74|0.4131
90842217|NCT00658359|181550450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|2.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.12||0.6694|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-2.12|6.5|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 15||6.50|-2.12|0.6694
90842218|NCT00658359|181550450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|1.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.18||0.7799|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-2.91|5.8|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 15||5.80|-2.91|0.7799
90842219|NCT00658359|181550450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.51||0.8572|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-5.63|3.65|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 18||3.65|-5.63|0.8572
90842220|NCT00658359|181550450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-1.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.56||0.7555|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-6.41|2.95|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 18||2.95|-6.41|0.7555
90842221|NCT00658359|181550450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.51||0.8572|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-5.63|3.65|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 24||3.65|-5.63|0.8572
90842222|NCT00658359|181550450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|3.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.22||0.539|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-1.41|9.06|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 24||9.06|-1.41|0.5390
91028929|NCT00266409|181941612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.182||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and total HAM-A score as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.1820
90842223|NCT00658359|181550450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-2.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7||0.6432|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-7.44|2.16|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 30||2.16|-7.44|0.6432
91093316|NCT00042289|182070696|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.65|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.54|0.77||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum \[Note: Comparison of 2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum was not done due to low sample size.\]|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.77|0.54|<0.05
91093317|NCT00042289|182070696|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||<0.05
91093318|NCT00042289|182070696|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||<0.05
91093319|NCT00042289|182070696|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||>0.05
91093320|NCT00042289|182070696|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||>0.05
91093321|NCT00042289|182070696|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||<0.05
90842224|NCT00658359|181550450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|2.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.39||0.7336|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-3.2|7.55|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 30||7.55|-3.20|0.7336
90842225|NCT00658359|181550450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.57||0.9099|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-6.28|4.79|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 36||4.79|-6.28|0.9099
90842226|NCT00658359|181550450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.87||0.9106|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-5.01|6.56|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 36||6.56|-5.01|0.9106
90842227|NCT00658359|181550450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.91||0.5244|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-10.22|1.42|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 42||1.42|-10.22|0.5244
90842228|NCT00658359|181550450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.38||0.9029|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-7.11|5.31|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 42||5.31|-7.11|0.9029
90842229|NCT00658359|181550450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-2.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.38||0.7267|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-8.78|3.63|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 48||3.63|-8.78|0.7267
90842230|NCT00658359|181550450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-2.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.52||0.7168|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-9.06|3.6|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 48||3.60|-9.06|0.7168
90842231|NCT00658359|181550450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.51||0.5574|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-10.72|1.91|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 54||1.91|-10.72|0.5574
90842232|NCT00658359|181550450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-4.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.65||0.5515|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-10.99|1.88|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 54||1.88|-10.99|0.5515
90842233|NCT00658359|181550450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.51||0.5574|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-10.72|1.91|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 60||1.91|-10.72|0.5574
91093322|NCT00042289|182070696|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||<0.05
90897891|NCT01576718|181661317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.38||||0.4731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.57|7.82||Significance at the 0.05 level|Regression, Linear|||Estimates computed from a generalized linear logistic model with gender and age as covariates and allows correlation between estimates on the same subject. Interpretation of the estimates is that they are the average over the population at the average level of continuous covariate (age) averaged over discrete covariate (gender).||7.82|-16.57|0.47310
90842234|NCT00658359|181550450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.87||0.7704|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-8.92|4.33|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 60||4.33|-8.92|0.7704
90842235|NCT00658359|181550450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.51||0.5574|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-10.72|1.91|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 66||1.91|-10.72|0.5574
90842236|NCT00658359|181550450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.87||0.7704|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-8.92|4.33|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 66||4.33|-8.92|0.7704
90842237|NCT00658359|181550450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.83||0.9551|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-7.03|6.15|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 72||6.15|-7.03|0.9551
90897892|NCT01576718|181661324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|0.019|||=|0.6161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.057|0.096||0.05 level of significance.|mixed model for repeated measures|||||0.096|-0.057|=0.6161
91093323|NCT00042289|182070697|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.88|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.73|1.06||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||1.06|0.73|<0.05
90842238|NCT00658359|181550450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.87||0.7704|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-8.92|4.33|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 72||4.33|-8.92|0.7704
90842239|NCT00658359|181550450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.91||0.4455|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-0.39|7.89|||Wald Test|||Month 12||7.89|-0.39|0.4455
90842240|NCT00658359|181550450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.34||0.873|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-4.35|2.96|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 12||2.96|-4.35|0.8730
90842241|NCT00658359|181550451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-6.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.67||0.2957|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-12.6|-1.36|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 15||-1.36|-12.60|0.2957
90897893|NCT01576718|181661324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|0.004||||0.9245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.973|0.08||0.05 level of significance.|mixed model for repeated measures|||||0.080|-0.973|0.9245
91093324|NCT00042289|182070697|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.7|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.55|0.9||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.90|0.55|<0.05
91093325|NCT00042289|182070697|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.84|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.57|1.23||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||1.23|0.57|<0.05
91093326|NCT00042289|182070701|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean of ratio|1.24||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.59||Before ENG initiation vs. after ENG initiation|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||The statistical analysis is for LPV PK.||1.59|0.97|0.114
90897894|NCT01576718|181661324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|-0.008||||0.8434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.083|0.068||0.05 level of significance.|mixed model for repeated measures|||||0.068|-0.083|0.8434
91093327|NCT00042289|182070702|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean of ratio|1.1||||0.367|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|1.44||Before ENG initiation vs. after ENG initiation|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||The statistical test is for ATV PK.||1.44|0.84|0.367
91028930|NCT00266409|181941612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2187||95.0||||P-value based on ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline total HAM-A score as covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.2187
91093328|NCT00042289|182070702|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean of ratio|1.02||||0.561|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.13|||Wilcoxon signed rank test|Before ENG initiation vs. after ENG initiation||The statistical test is for EFV PK.||1.13|0.92|0.561
91093329|NCT00498550|182070728|SUPERIORITY||difference in treatment means|-4.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.57||0.088|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||We report the estimated coefficient for difference in treatment means in a mixed model and its standard error.|||||.088
90842242|NCT00658359|181550451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-3.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.14||0.6097|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-9.66|2.37|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 15||2.37|-9.66|0.6097
90842243|NCT00658359|181550451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-8.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.79||0.2064|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-14.28|-2.86|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 18||-2.86|-14.28|0.2064
90842244|NCT00658359|181550451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-5.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.25||0.4696|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-11.34|0.86|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 18||0.86|-11.34|0.4696
90842245|NCT00658359|181550451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-8.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.04||0.2238|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-14.5|-2.64|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 24||-2.64|-14.50|0.2238
90842246|NCT00658359|181550451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-4.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.52||0.5093|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-11.29|1.37|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 24||1.37|-11.29|0.5093
90842247|NCT00658359|181550451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-8.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.04||0.2238|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-14.5|-2.64|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 30||-2.64|-14.50|0.2238
90842248|NCT00658359|181550451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-2.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.89||0.7846|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-8.8|4.48|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 30||4.48|-8.80|0.7846
90842249|NCT00658359|181550451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-10.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.16||0.1501|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-16.33|-4.28|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 36||-4.28|-16.33|0.1501
90842250|NCT00658359|181550451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-3.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.0||0.6263|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-10.62|2.84|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 36||2.84|-10.62|0.6263
90842251|NCT00658359|181550451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-12.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.35||0.0905|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-18.62|-6.25|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 42||-6.25|-18.62|0.0905
90842252|NCT00658359|181550451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-6.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.16||0.4604|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-12.9|0.84|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 42||0.84|-12.90|0.4604
90842253|NCT00658359|181550451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-12.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.35||0.0905|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-18.62|-6.25|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 48||-6.25|-18.62|0.0905
90842254|NCT00658359|181550451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-6.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.16||0.4604|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-12.9|0.84|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 48||0.84|-12.90|0.4604
90842255|NCT00658359|181550451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-12.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.35||0.0905|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-18.62|-6.25|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 54||-6.25|-18.62|0.0905
90897895|NCT01576718|181661324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|-0.047||||0.2241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.122|0.029||0.05 level of significance.|mixed model for repeated measures|||||0.029|-0.122|0.2241
91028931|NCT00266409|181941613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1456||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline total HAM-A score as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.1456
91028932|NCT00266409|181941613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3618||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline total HAM-A score as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.3618
91028933|NCT00266409|181941614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3535||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline total HAM-A score as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.3535
91028934|NCT00266409|181941614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.566||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline total HAM-A score as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.5660
91093330|NCT00274456|182070750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.224||95.0||||"A step-down approach was used to compare treatment regimens. First an overall test of treatment difference (a 3-degree-of -freedom test) was performed. Pairwise comparisons were performed only if this test was significant."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test was stratified by study site||Independent reader assessed ORR. As per the protocol, if the conclusions from the investigator and independent assessments of response rate were the same, the investigator assessment was considered the primary analysis of response rate. If the conclusions were different, the independent radiology reader assessment was considered the primary analysis of response rate. The conclusions were different.||||0.224
91093331|NCT00274456|182070750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||"A step-down approach was used to compare treatment regimens. First an overall test of treatment difference (a 3-degree-of -freedom test) was performed. Pairwise comparisons were performed only if this test was significant."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH was stratified by study site||Investigator assessed ORR. As per the protocol, if the conclusions from the investigator and independent assessments of response rate were the same, the investigator assessment was considered the primary analysis of response rate. If the conclusions were different, the independent radiology reader assessment was considered the primary analysis of response rate. The conclusions were different.||||<0.001
91093332|NCT00274456|182070750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test was stratified by study site||Investigator assessed ORR||||0.002
91093333|NCT00274456|182070750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test was stratified by study site.||Investigator assessed ORR||||<0.001
90842256|NCT00658359|181550451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-6.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.16||0.4604|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-12.9|0.84|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 54||0.84|-12.90|0.4604
90842257|NCT00658359|181550451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-12.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.35||0.0905|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-18.62|-6.25|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 60||-6.25|-18.62|0.0905
90842258|NCT00658359|181550451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-6.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.16||0.4604|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-12.9|0.84|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 60||0.84|-12.90|0.4604
90842259|NCT00658359|181550451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-12.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.35||0.0905|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-18.62|-6.25|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 66||-6.25|-18.62|0.0905
90842260|NCT00658359|181550451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-6.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.16||0.4604|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-12.9|0.84|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 66||0.84|-12.90|0.4604
90842261|NCT00658359|181550451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-12.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.35||0.0905|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-18.62|-6.25|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 72||-6.25|-18.62|0.0905
90842262|NCT00658359|181550451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-6.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.16||0.4604|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-12.9|0.84|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 72||0.84|-12.90|0.4604
90842263|NCT00658359|181550451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-2.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.31||0.7166|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-7.61|3.02|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 12||3.02|-7.61|0.7166
90842264|NCT00658359|181550451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-4.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.24||0.4692|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-9.76|0.73|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 12||0.73|-9.76|0.4692
90842265|NCT00658359|181550452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|1.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.68||0.3132|TWO_SIDED|60.0|0.28|3.11|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 30||3.11|0.28|0.3132
90842266|NCT00658359|181550452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|1.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.68||0.3132|TWO_SIDED|60.0|0.28|3.11|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 30||3.11|0.28|0.3132
90842267|NCT00658359|181550452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|3.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.44||0.1503|TWO_SIDED|60.0|1.46|5.57|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 36||5.57|1.46|0.1503
90842268|NCT00658359|181550452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|3.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.44||0.1503|TWO_SIDED|60.0|1.46|5.57|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 36||5.57|1.46|0.1503
90842269|NCT00658359|181550452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|3.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.44||0.1503|TWO_SIDED|60.0|1.46|5.57|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 42||5.57|1.46|0.1503
90842270|NCT00658359|181550452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|3.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.44||0.1503|TWO_SIDED|60.0|1.46|5.57|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 42||5.57|1.46|0.1503
90842271|NCT00658359|181550452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|3.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.44||0.1503|TWO_SIDED|60.0|1.46|5.57|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 48||5.57|1.46|0.1503
90897896|NCT01576718|181661324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|-0.053||||0.1822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.025||0.05 level of significance.|mixed model for repeated measures|||||0.025|-0.130|0.1822
90842272|NCT00658359|181550452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|3.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.44||0.1503|TWO_SIDED|60.0|1.46|5.57|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 48||5.57|1.46|0.1503
90842273|NCT00658359|181550452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|3.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.44||0.1503|TWO_SIDED|60.0|1.46|5.57|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 54||5.57|1.46|0.1503
90897897|NCT01576718|181661325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|-5.56||||0.3568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.42|6.29||0.05 level of significance.|Regression, Linear|||||6.29|-17.42|0.3568
90897898|NCT01576718|181661325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|-5.68||||0.3531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.67|6.32||0.05 level of significance.|Regression, Linear|||||6.32|-17.67|0.3531
91093334|NCT00274456|182070750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test was stratified by study site||Investigator assessed ORR||||>0.05
91093335|NCT00274456|182070750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.024||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test was stratified by study site.||Investigator assessed ORR||||0.024
91093336|NCT00274456|182070750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.099||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test was stratified by study site.||Investigator assessed ORR||||0.099
91028935|NCT00266409|181941615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3414||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline total HAM-A score as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.3414
91028936|NCT00266409|181941615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7344||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline total HAM-A score as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.7344
90842274|NCT00658359|181550452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|3.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.44||0.1503|TWO_SIDED|60.0|1.46|5.57|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 54||5.57|1.46|0.1503
90842275|NCT00658359|181550452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|3.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.44||0.1503|TWO_SIDED|60.0|1.46|5.57|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 60||5.57|1.46|0.1503
90842276|NCT00658359|181550452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|3.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.44||0.1503|TWO_SIDED|60.0|1.46|5.57|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 60||5.57|1.46|0.1503
90842277|NCT00658359|181550452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|3.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.44||0.1503|TWO_SIDED|60.0|1.46|5.57|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 66||5.57|1.46|0.1503
90842278|NCT00658359|181550452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|3.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.44||0.1503|TWO_SIDED|60.0|1.46|5.57|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 66||5.57|1.46|0.1503
90842279|NCT00658359|181550452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|3.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.44||0.1503|TWO_SIDED|60.0|1.46|5.57|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 72||5.57|1.46|0.1503
90842280|NCT00658359|181550453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-1.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.83||0.3128|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-3.4|-0.31|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 15||-0.31|-3.40|0.3128
90842281|NCT00658359|181550453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|1.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.57||0.3134|TWO_SIDED|60.0|0.26|2.91|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 18||2.91|0.26|0.3134
90842282|NCT00658359|181550453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.42||0.9129|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-2.3|1.77|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 18||1.77|-2.30|0.9129
90842283|NCT00658359|181550453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|1.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.57||0.3134|TWO_SIDED|60.0|0.26|2.91|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 24||2.91|0.26|0.3134
90842284|NCT00658359|181550453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-4.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.61||0.2447|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-7.23|-1.16|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 24||-1.16|-7.23|0.2447
90842285|NCT00658359|181550453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|1.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.57||0.3134|TWO_SIDED|60.0|0.26|2.91|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 30||2.91|0.26|0.3134
90897899|NCT01576718|181661325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|-6.58||||0.2724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.35|5.19||0.05 level of significance.|Regression, Linear|||||5.19|-18.35|0.2724
90842286|NCT00658359|181550453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-4.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.61||0.2447|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-7.23|-1.16|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 30||-1.16|-7.23|0.2447
90842287|NCT00658359|181550453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|1.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.57||0.3134|TWO_SIDED|60.0|0.26|2.91|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 36||2.91|0.26|0.3134
90842288|NCT00658359|181550453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-7.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.74||0.1164|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-11.43|-3.45|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 36||-3.45|-11.43|0.1164
90842289|NCT00658359|181550453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|3.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.62||0.1545|TWO_SIDED|60.0|1.52|5.93|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 42||5.93|1.52|0.1545
90842290|NCT00658359|181550453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.18||0.3061|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-9.66|-0.94|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 42||-0.94|-9.66|0.3061
90897900|NCT01576718|181661325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|-5.11|||=|0.3964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.95|6.72||0.05 level of significance.|Regression, Linear|||||6.72|-16.95|=0.3964
91028937|NCT00266409|181941616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1197||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline total HAM-A score as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.1197
91028938|NCT00266409|181941616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4416||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline total HAM-A score as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.4416
91028939|NCT00266409|181941617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Analysis refers to test of differences in response rates.||||0.0350
91028940|NCT00266409|181941617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4205||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Analysis refers to test of differences in response rates.||||0.4205
91028941|NCT00266409|181941618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2645||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Analysis refers to test of differences in response rates.||||0.2645
91028942|NCT00266409|181941618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5369||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Analysis refers to test of differences in response rates.||||0.5369
91028943|NCT00266409|181941619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9988||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Analysis refers to test of differences in response rates.||||0.9988
91093337|NCT00274456|182070750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test was stratified by study site.||Investigator assessed ORR||||0.002
91093338|NCT00274456|182070751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.027|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test was stratified by study site.||Independent assessed DCR||||0.027
91093339|NCT00274456|182070751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.009|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test was stratified by study site.||Independent assessed DCR||||0.009
90842291|NCT00658359|181550453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|3.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.62||0.1545|TWO_SIDED|60.0|1.52|5.93|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 48||5.93|1.52|0.1545
90842292|NCT00658359|181550453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.18||0.3061|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-9.66|-0.94|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 48||-0.94|-9.66|0.3061
90842293|NCT00658359|181550453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|5.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.35||0.0774|TWO_SIDED|60.0|3.1|8.73|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 54||8.73|3.10|0.0774
90842294|NCT00658359|181550453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-3.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.59||0.5772|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-7.82|1.59|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 54||1.59|-7.82|0.5772
90842295|NCT00658359|181550453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|5.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.35||0.0774|TWO_SIDED|60.0|3.1|8.73|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 60||8.73|3.10|0.0774
90842296|NCT00658359|181550453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-3.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.59||0.5772|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-7.82|1.59|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 60||1.59|-7.82|0.5772
90842297|NCT00658359|181550453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|5.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.35||0.0774|TWO_SIDED|60.0|3.1|8.73|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 66||8.73|3.10|0.0774
90842298|NCT00658359|181550453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-3.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.59||0.5772|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-7.82|1.59|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 66||1.59|-7.82|0.5772
90842299|NCT00658359|181550453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|5.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.35||0.0774|TWO_SIDED|60.0|3.1|8.73|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 72||8.73|3.10|0.0774
90842300|NCT00658359|181550453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-3.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.59||0.5772|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-7.82|1.59|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 72||1.59|-7.82|0.5772
90842301|NCT00658359|181550455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.15||0.0786|TWO_SIDED|60.0|7.49|21.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 15||21.22|7.49|0.0786
90842302|NCT00658359|181550455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.5||0.736|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-10.03|4.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 15||4.29|-10.03|0.7360
90842303|NCT00658359|181550455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.19||0.1377|TWO_SIDED|60.0|5.27|19.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18||19.05|5.27|0.1377
90842304|NCT00658359|181550455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.56||0.4131|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-14.21|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18||0.20|-14.21|0.4131
90842305|NCT00658359|181550455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.35||0.1057|TWO_SIDED|60.0|6.49|20.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24||20.55|6.49|0.1057
90842306|NCT00658359|181550455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.95||0.1402|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-20.75|-5.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24||-5.68|-20.75|0.1402
90842307|NCT00658359|181550455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.13||0.0542|TWO_SIDED|60.0|9.91|25.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 30||25.29|9.91|0.0542
90842308|NCT00658359|181550455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.09||0.3866|TWO_SIDED|60.0|0.24|17.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 30||17.24|0.24|0.3866
90842309|NCT00658359|181550455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.72||0.1981|TWO_SIDED|60.0|4.33|20.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36||20.71|4.33|0.1981
90842310|NCT00658359|181550455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.07||0.6397|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-15.81|4.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36||4.51|-15.81|0.6397
90842311|NCT00658359|181550455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.19||0.0508|TWO_SIDED|60.0|11.35|28.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 42||28.51|11.35|0.0508
90842312|NCT00658359|181550455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.9||0.5143|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-2.45|19.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 42||19.28|-2.45|0.5143
91093340|NCT00274456|182070751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.017|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test was stratified by study site.||Independent assessed DCR||||0.017
91093341|NCT00274456|182070751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test was stratified by study site.||Independent assessed DCR||||>0.05
91093342|NCT00274456|182070751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test was stratified by study site.||Independent assessed DCR||||>0.05
91093343|NCT00274456|182070751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test was stratified by study site.||Independent assessed DCR||||>0.05
91093344|NCT00274456|182070751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.085|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test was stratified by study site.||Independent assessed DCR||||0.085
91093345|NCT00274456|182070751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.007||||||"A step-down approach was used to compare treatment regimens. First an overall test of treatment difference (a 3-degree-of -freedom test) was performed. Pairwise comparison was performed only if this test was significant."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test was stratified by study site.||Investigator assessed disease control rate (DCR), ie, SD \>= 16 weeks, or CR or PR||||0.007
91093346|NCT00274456|182070751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test was stratified by study site.||Investigator assessed DCR||||>0.05
91093347|NCT00274456|182070751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.009|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test was stratified by study site.||Investigator assessed DCR||||0.009
91093348|NCT00274456|182070751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test was stratified by study site.||Investigator assessed DCR||||0.005
91093349|NCT00274456|182070751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test was stratified by study site.||Investigator assessed DCR||||>0.05
91028944|NCT00266409|181941619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7729||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Analysis refers to test of differences in response rates.||||0.7729
91028945|NCT00266409|181941620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7338||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Analysis refers to test of differences in response rates.||||0.7338
91093350|NCT00274456|182070751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.098||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test was stratified by study site.||Investigator assessed DCR||||0.098
91093351|NCT00274456|182070751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.014||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test was stratified by study site.||Investigator assessed DCR||||0.014
91093352|NCT00274456|182070752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0498||||||"A step-down approach was used to compare treatment regimens. First an overall test of treatment difference (a 3-degree-of -freedom test) was performed. Pairwise comparisons were performed only if this test was significant."|Log Rank|||Independent assessment||||0.0498
90842313|NCT00658359|181550455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.45||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|60.0|23.46|41.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 48||41.06|23.46|0.0021
90842314|NCT00658359|181550455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.47||0.5661|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-19.07|3.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 48||3.61|-19.07|0.5661
90842315|NCT00658359|181550455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|29.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.54||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|60.0|20.33|38.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 54||38.08|20.33|0.0057
90842316|NCT00658359|181550455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.89||0.4504|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-22.18|1.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 54||1.21|-22.18|0.4504
90842317|NCT00658359|181550455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|30.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.39||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|60.0|20.78|39.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 60||39.96|20.78|0.0078
90842318|NCT00658359|181550455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.44||0.6802|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-18.11|6.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 60||6.20|-18.11|0.6802
90842319|NCT00658359|181550455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.08||0.0216|TWO_SIDED|60.0|17.61|37.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 66||37.95|17.61|0.0216
90842320|NCT00658359|181550455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.12||0.9026|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-14.58|10.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 66||10.88|-14.58|0.9026
90842321|NCT00658359|181550455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.91||0.1146|TWO_SIDED|60.0|9.51|31.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 72||31.24|9.51|0.1146
90842322|NCT00658359|181550455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.48||0.6918|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-19.18|6.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 72||6.90|-19.18|0.6918
91028946|NCT00266409|181941620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0897||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Analysis refers to test of differences in response rates.||||0.0897
91028947|NCT00266409|181941621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6501||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Analysis refers to test of differences in response rates.||||0.6501
91028948|NCT00266409|181941621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8196||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Analysis refers to test of differences in response rates.||||0.8196
91093353|NCT00274456|182070752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.607||||0.0524|||||||Log Rank|||Independent assessment||||0.0524
91093354|NCT00274456|182070752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.495||||0.0065|||||||Log Rank|||Independent assessment||||0.0065
91093355|NCT00274456|182070752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|||||||Log Rank|||Independent assessment||||>0.05
91093356|NCT00274456|182070752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|||||||Log Rank|||Independent assessment||||>0.05
91093357|NCT00274456|182070752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|||||||Log Rank|||Independent assessment||||>0.05
91093358|NCT00274456|182070752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|||||||Log Rank|||Independent assessment||||>0.05
91093359|NCT00274456|182070752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.008||||||"A step-down approach was used to compare treatment regimens. First an overall test of treatment difference (a 3-degree-of -freedom test) was performed. Pairwise comparisons was performed only if this test was significant."|Log Rank|||Investigator assessment||||0.008
91093360|NCT00274456|182070752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|||||||Log Rank|||Investigator assessment||||>0.05
91093361|NCT00274456|182070752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|||||||Log Rank|||Investigator assessment||||>0.05
91093362|NCT00274456|182070752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.568||||0.012|||||||Log Rank|||Investigator assessment||||0.012
91093363|NCT00274456|182070752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.972||||0.001|||||||Log Rank|||Investigator assessment||||0.001
91093364|NCT00274456|182070752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.702||||0.076|||||||Log Rank|||Investigator assessment||||0.076
91093365|NCT00274456|182070752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|||||||Log Rank|||Investigator assessment||||>0.05
91093366|NCT00274456|182070753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05||||||"A step-down approach was used to compare treatment regimens. First an overall test of treatment difference (a 3-degree-of -freedom test) was performed. Pairwise comparisons was performed only if this test was significant."|Log Rank|||Independent assessment||||>0.05
91093367|NCT00274456|182070754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.013||||||"A step-down approach was used to compare treatment regimens. First an overall test of treatment difference (a 3-degree-of -freedom test) was performed. Pairwise comparisons was performed only if this test was significant."|Log Rank|||Investigator assessment||||0.013
91093368|NCT00274456|182070754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.022|||||||Log Rank|||Investigator assessment||||0.022
91093369|NCT00274456|182070754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|||||||Log Rank|||Investigator assessment||||>0.05
91093370|NCT00274456|182070754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|||||||Log Rank|||Investigator assessment||||>0.05
91093371|NCT00274456|182070754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.005|||||||Log Rank|||Investigator assessment||||0.005
91093372|NCT00274456|182070754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|||||||Log Rank|||Investigator assessment||||>0.05
91093373|NCT00274456|182070754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|||||||Log Rank|||Investigator assessment||||>0.05
91093374|NCT00274456|182070755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.047||95.0||||"A step-down approach was used to compare treatment regimens. First an overall test of treatment difference (a 3-degree-of -freedom test) was performed. Pairwise comparisons were performed only if this test was significant."|Log Rank|||||||0.047
91093375|NCT00274456|182070755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||>0.05
91093376|NCT00274456|182070755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||>0.05
91093377|NCT00274456|182070755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||>0.05
90842323|NCT00658359|181550456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.57||0.3139|TWO_SIDED|60.0|1.09|12.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 15||12.14|1.09|0.3139
91093378|NCT00274456|182070755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.686||||0.069||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.069
91093379|NCT00274456|182070755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||>0.05
91093380|NCT00274456|182070755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.74||||0.008||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.008
91093381|NCT04460885|182070765|NON_INFERIORITY|The response and change from baseline in response after 52 weeks are analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment and region as fixed factors, and baseline response as covariate.|Treatment difference|-0.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||||-0.03|-0.36|<0.0001
91093382|NCT00534469|182070783|OTHER|Two-sided test.||||||0.43||||||Log-rank test (Mantel-Haenszel test). This p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Log Rank|||Null hypothesis: All four groups are drawn from the same distribution. Alternative hypothesis: At least one of the groups has measurably different survival from the others.||||0.43
91093383|NCT02592824|182070784|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.086|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Two-sided Student's t-test used for sample size estimation which was based on data from the first GLUTAMICS trial.||||0.086
91093384|NCT02592824|182070785|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.97
91093385|NCT02592824|182070786|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.36
91093386|NCT02592824|182070791|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.007
91093387|NCT01704261|182070792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.38|||Difference in the least squares means|Based on a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) method with a restriction of the same baseline mean across treatment groups.||||-0.38|-0.85|<0.001
91093388|NCT01704261|182070793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in % Omarigliptin vs Placebo|9.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|20.8||||||||20.8|-1.4|
91093389|NCT01704261|182070794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in % Omarigliptin vs Placebo|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|4.3||||||||4.3|-4.3|
91093390|NCT01704261|182070795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of the least squares means|-16.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.5|-7.8|||Difference in the least squares means|Based on a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) method with a restriction of the same baseline mean across treatment groups.||||-7.8|-25.5|<0.001
91093391|NCT01704261|182070796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Between-group Rate Difference|19.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.7|27.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|Between-group confidence intervals and p-value (%) A1C \<7.0%; estimated using standard multiple imputation techniques.||||27.6|11.7|<0.001
91093392|NCT01704261|182070796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Between-group Rate Difference (%)|8.0||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|14.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|Between-group confidence intervals and p-value (%) A1C \<7.0%; estimated using standard multiple imputation techniques.||||14.5|2.7|0.005
91093393|NCT02855268|182070798|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.27||0.9472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.92|6.48||Threshold of significance was 1-sided \<0.025.|Linear mixed effect model|||Annualized rate of change in eGFR during the placebo-controlled treatment period was compared between lademirsen and placebo using a random coefficient linear mixed effect model which included time as a continuous variable.||6.48|-6.92|0.9472
91093394|NCT03704064|182070827|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32||0.14|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.14
91093395|NCT03704064|182070828|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.4|0.4|0.89
91093396|NCT03704064|182070829|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.7||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|14.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||14.7|1.0|0.06
91028949|NCT00266409|181941622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6404||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Analysis refers to test of differences in response rates.||||0.6404
91028950|NCT00266409|181941622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8263||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Analysis refers to test of differences in response rates.||||0.8263
90842324|NCT00658359|181550456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.75||0.5176|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-10.06|1.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 15||1.31|-10.06|0.5176
91028951|NCT00266409|181941623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6946||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Analysis refers to test of differences in response rates.||||0.6946
91028952|NCT00266409|181941623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9629||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Analysis refers to test of differences in response rates.||||0.9629
91028953|NCT00266409|181941624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8617||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Analysis refers to test of differences in response rates.||||0.8617
91028954|NCT00266409|181941624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7555||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Analysis refers to test of differences in response rates.||||0.7555
91028955|NCT00266409|181941625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5836||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Analysis refers to test of differences in response rates.||||0.5836
91028956|NCT00266409|181941625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9096||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Analysis refers to test of differences in response rates.||||0.9096
90842325|NCT00658359|181550456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.56||0.3191|TWO_SIDED|60.0|1.02|12.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18||12.06|1.02|0.3191
91028957|NCT00266409|181941626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||95.0|||||van Elteren test|||van Elteren test stratified by CGI-Severity score at baseline and testing between treatment differences in percentages based on non-missing responses within a timepoint. CGI-Severity score categorizes severity at baseline as normal,not at all ill, borderline mentally ill, mildly ill, moderately ill, markedly ill, severely ill, among the most extremely ill.||||0.0002
91028958|NCT00266409|181941626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006||95.0|||||van Elteren test|||van Elteren test stratified by CGI-Severity score at baseline and testing between treatment differences in percentages based on non-missing responses within a timepoint. CGI-Severity score categorizes severity at baseline as normal,not at all ill, borderline mentally ill, mildly ill, moderately ill, markedly ill, severely ill, among the most extremely ill.||||0.0006
91093397|NCT03704064|182070830|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.07
91093398|NCT03704064|182070831|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.42|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.42
91093399|NCT03704064|182070832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|6.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.3|0.6|0.24
91093400|NCT03704064|182070833|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|8.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.1|0.6|0.24
91093401|NCT03704064|182070834|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.0||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|9.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.6|0.9|0.07
91093402|NCT03704064|182070835|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.6||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|11.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.4|0.6|0.21
90842326|NCT00658359|181550456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.73||0.6608|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-8.62|2.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18||2.71|-8.62|0.6608
91093403|NCT03704064|182070836|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.8||0.62|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MVPA per day with 10 minute bouts||||0.62
91093404|NCT03704064|182070836|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5||0.92|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MVPA per day with 20 minute bouts||||0.92
91093405|NCT03704064|182070836|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|13.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.6||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Moderate activity per day||||0.16
90842327|NCT00658359|181550456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.7||0.2319|TWO_SIDED|60.0|2.37|13.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24||13.66|2.37|0.2319
90842328|NCT00658359|181550456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.04||0.3554|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-12.43|-0.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24||-0.58|-12.43|0.3554
91093406|NCT03704064|182070836|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|15.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.8||0.41|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Light activity per day||||0.41
91093407|NCT03704064|182070837|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.1||0.46|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MVPA per day with 10 minute bouts||||0.46
91093408|NCT03704064|182070837|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.9||0.87|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MVPA per day with 20 minute bouts||||0.87
90842329|NCT00658359|181550456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.27||0.0113|TWO_SIDED|60.0|12.33|24.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 30||24.57|12.33|0.0113
90842330|NCT00658359|181550456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.99||0.479|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-1.07|12.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 30||12.39|-1.07|0.4790
90842331|NCT00658359|181550456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.75||0.1776|TWO_SIDED|60.0|3.93|16.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36||16.99|3.93|0.1776
90842332|NCT00658359|181550456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.5||0.7307|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-11.27|4.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36||4.73|-11.27|0.7307
91093409|NCT03704064|182070837|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|18.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.1||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Moderate activity per day||||0.07
91093410|NCT03704064|182070837|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|30.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.5||0.17|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Light activity per day||||0.17
91093411|NCT03704064|182070838|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7||0.63|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MVPA per day with 10 minute bouts||||0.63
91093412|NCT03704064|182070838|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7||0.72|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MVPA per day with 20 minute bouts||||0.72
91093413|NCT03704064|182070838|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.4||0.52|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Moderate activity per day||||0.52
91093414|NCT03704064|182070838|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-21.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.4||0.27|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Light activity per day||||0.27
90842333|NCT00658359|181550456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.25||0.1625|TWO_SIDED|60.0|4.59|18.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 42||18.48|4.59|0.1625
90842334|NCT00658359|181550456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.12||0.2876|TWO_SIDED|60.0|2.25|19.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 42||19.29|2.25|0.2876
90842335|NCT00658359|181550456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.41||0.027|TWO_SIDED|60.0|11.54|25.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 48||25.70|11.54|0.0270
91093415|NCT03704064|182070839|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|7.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|151.2||0.84|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.84
91093416|NCT03704064|182070840|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-111.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|137.2||0.53|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.53
91093417|NCT03704064|182070841|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|163.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|154.0||0.27|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.27
91093418|NCT03704064|182070842|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.6||0.22|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.22
91093419|NCT03704064|182070843|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.6||0.24|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.24
91093420|NCT03704064|182070844|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5||0.48|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.48
91093421|NCT03704064|182070845|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.16
91093422|NCT03704064|182070846|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4||0.045|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.045
91093423|NCT03704064|182070847|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4||0.27|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.27
91093424|NCT03704064|182070848|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.4||0.72|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.72
91093425|NCT03704064|182070849|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.1||0.67|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.67
91093426|NCT03704064|182070850|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Systolic Blood Pressure||||0.80
91028959|NCT00266409|181941627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0255||95.0|||||van Elteren test|||van Elteren test stratified by CGI-Severity score at baseline and testing between treatment differences in percentages based on non-missing responses within a timepoint, CGI-Severity score categorizes severity at baseline as normal,not at all ill, borderline mentally ill, mildly ill, moderately ill, markedly ill, severely ill, among the most extremely ill.||||0.0255
91093427|NCT03704064|182070850|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.94|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Diastolic Blood Pressure||||0.94
91093428|NCT03704064|182070851|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Systolic Blood Pressure||||0.07
91093429|NCT03704064|182070851|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.96|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Diastolic Blood Pressure||||0.96
91093430|NCT03704064|182070852|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.30
91093431|NCT03704064|182070853|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.67|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.67
91093432|NCT03704064|182070854|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.45|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.45
91093433|NCT03704064|182070855|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|5.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.9|0.5|0.38
91093434|NCT03704064|182070856|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.3|0.3|0.95
90842336|NCT00658359|181550456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.54||0.7444|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-12.31|5.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 48||5.44|-12.31|0.7444
90842337|NCT00658359|181550456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.44||0.0122|TWO_SIDED|60.0|14.08|28.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 54||28.29|14.08|0.0122
90842338|NCT00658359|181550456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.86||0.3288|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-19.75|-1.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 54||-1.47|-19.75|0.3288
90842339|NCT00658359|181550456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.15||0.0453|TWO_SIDED|60.0|10.63|26.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 60||26.05|10.63|0.0453
90842340|NCT00658359|181550456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.28||0.5016|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-17.09|1.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 60||1.91|-17.09|0.5016
90842341|NCT00658359|181550456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.69||0.0453|TWO_SIDED|60.0|11.27|27.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 66||27.59|11.27|0.0453
90897901|NCT01576718|181661325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|-13.45||||0.0296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.57|-1.33||0.05 level of significance.|Regression, Linear|||||-1.33|-25.57|0.0296
91093435|NCT03704064|182070857|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.1|0.3|0.99
90842342|NCT00658359|181550456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.84||0.8747|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-11.83|8.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 66||8.10|-11.83|0.8747
90897902|NCT01576718|181661326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|-0.69||||0.9101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.59|11.22||0.05 level of significance.|Regression, Linear|||||11.22|-12.59|0.9101
91093436|NCT03704064|182070858|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||WSSQ-Total||||0.06
91093437|NCT03704064|182070858|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||WSSQ-SD||||0.06
91093438|NCT03704064|182070858|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.19|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||WSSQ-FE||||0.19
91093439|NCT03704064|182070859|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||WSSQ-Total||||0.05
91093440|NCT03704064|182070859|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.18|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||WSSQ-SD||||0.18
91093441|NCT03704064|182070859|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.046|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||WSSQ-FE||||0.046
91093442|NCT03704064|182070860|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||WSSQ-Total||||0.07
90842343|NCT00658359|181550456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.34||0.4997|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-1.72|15.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 72||15.69|-1.72|0.4997
90842344|NCT00658359|181550456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.1||0.2804|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-23.26|-2.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 72||-2.88|-23.26|0.2804
90842345|NCT00658359|181550457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|60.0|7.68|11.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 15||11.90|7.68|<0.0001
90842346|NCT00658359|181550457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.61||0.0418|TWO_SIDED|60.0|3.12|7.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 15||7.52|3.12|0.0418
90842347|NCT00658359|181550457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.51||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|60.0|7.28|11.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18||11.51|7.28|0.0002
90897903|NCT01576718|181661326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|-4.51||||0.4634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|7.57||0.05 level of significance.|Regression, Linear|||||7.57|-16.6|0.4634
90897904|NCT01576718|181661326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|-5.88||||0.3333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|6.05||0.05 level of significance.|Regression, Linear|||||6.05|-17.8|0.3333
91028960|NCT00266409|181941627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0065||95.0|||||van Elteren test|||van Elteren test stratified by CGI-Severity score at baseline and testing between treatment differences in percentages based on non-missing responses within a timepoint. CGI-Severity score categorizes severity at baseline as normal,not at all ill, borderline mentally ill, mildly ill, moderately ill, markedly ill, severely ill, among the most extremely ill.||||0.0065
91093443|NCT03704064|182070860|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||WSSQ-SD||||0.11
91093444|NCT03704064|182070860|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.15|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||WSSQ-FE||||0.15
91093445|NCT03704064|182070861|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Overall treatment acceptability||||0.04
91028961|NCT00266409|181941628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.037||95.0|||||van Elteren test|||van Elteren test stratified by CGI-Severity score at baseline and testing between treatment differences in percentages on non-missing responses within a timepoint. CGI-Severity score categorizes severity at baseline as normal,not at all ill, borderline mentally ill, mildly ill, moderately ill, markedly ill, severely ill, among the most extremely ill.||||0.0370
91028962|NCT00266409|181941628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9569||95.0|||||van Elteren test|||van Elteren test stratified by CGI-Severity score at baseline and testing between treatment differences in percentages based on non-missing responses within a timepoint. CGI-Severity score categorizes severity at baseline as normal,not at all ill, borderline mentally ill, mildly ill, moderately ill, markedly ill, severely ill, among the most extremely ill.||||0.9569
91028963|NCT00266409|181941629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0978||95.0|||||van Elteren test|||van Elteren test stratified by CGI-Severity score at baseline and testing between treatment differences in percentages based on non-missing responses within a timepoint. CGI-Severity score categorizes severity at baseline as normal,not at all ill, borderline mentally ill, mildly ill, moderately ill, markedly ill, severely ill, among the most extremely ill.||||0.0978
91028964|NCT00266409|181941629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7096||95.0|||||van Elteren test|||van Elteren test stratified by CGI-Severity score at baseline and testing between treatment differences in percentages based on non-missing responses within a timepoint. CGI-Severity score categorizes severity at baseline as normal,not at all ill, borderline mentally ill, mildly ill, moderately ill, markedly ill, severely ill, among the most extremely ill.||||0.7096
91028965|NCT00266409|181941630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||van Elteren test|||van Elteren test stratified by CGI-Severity score at baseline and testing between treatment differences in percentages based on non-missing responses within a timepoint. CGI-Severity score categorizes severity at baseline as normal,not at all ill, borderline mentally ill, mildly ill, moderately ill, markedly ill, severely ill, among the most extremely ill.||||0.0001
91028966|NCT00266409|181941630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003||95.0|||||van Elteren test|||van Elteren test stratified by CGI-Severity score at baseline and testing between treatment differences in percentages based on non-missing responses within a timepoint. CGI-Severity score categorizes severity at baseline as normal,not at all ill, borderline mentally ill, mildly ill, moderately ill, markedly ill, severely ill, among the most extremely ill.||||0.0003
91028967|NCT00266409|181941631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0025||95.0|||||van Elteren test|||van Elteren test stratified by CGI-Severity score at baseline and testing between treatment differences in percentages based on non-missing responses within a timepoint. CGI-Severity score categorizes severity at baseline as normal,not at all ill, borderline mentally ill, mildly ill, moderately ill, markedly ill, severely ill, among the most extremely ill.||||0.0025
91028968|NCT00266409|181941631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0101||95.0|||||van Elteren test|||van Elteren test stratified by CGI-Severity score at baseline and testing between treatment differences in percentages based on non-missing responses within a timepoint. CGI-Severity score categorizes severity at baseline as normal,not at all ill, borderline mentally ill, mildly ill, moderately ill, markedly ill, severely ill, among the most extremely ill.||||0.0101
91028969|NCT00266409|181941632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0095||95.0|||||van Elteren test|||van Elteren test stratified by CGI-Severity score at baseline and testing between treatment differences in percentages based on non-missing responses within a timepoint. CGI-Severity score categorizes severity at baseline as normal,not at all ill, borderline mentally ill, mildly ill, moderately ill, markedly ill, severely ill, among the most extremely ill.||||0.0095
91028970|NCT00266409|181941632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.039||95.0|||||van Elteren test|||van Elteren test stratified by CGI-Severity score at baseline and testing between treatment differences in percentages based on non-missing responses within a timepoint. CGI-Severity score categorizes severity at baseline as normal,not at all ill, borderline mentally ill, mildly ill, moderately ill, markedly ill, severely ill, among the most extremely ill.||||0.0390
91028971|NCT00266409|181941633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016||95.0|||||van Elteren test|||van Elteren test stratified by CGI-Severity score at baseline and testing between treatment differences in percentages based on non-missing responses within a timepoint. CGI-Severity score categorizes severity at baseline as normal,not at all ill, borderline mentally ill, mildly ill, moderately ill, markedly ill, severely ill, among the most extremely ill.||||0.0160
91028972|NCT00266409|181941633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1024||95.0|||||van Elteren test|||van Elteren test stratified by CGI-Severity score at baseline and testing between treatment differences in percentages based on non-missing responses within a timepoint. CGI-Severity score categorizes severity at baseline as normal,not at all ill, borderline mentally ill, mildly ill, moderately ill, markedly ill, severely ill, among the most extremely ill.||||0.1024
91093446|NCT03704064|182070861|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.35|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||BWL component acceptability||||0.35
91093447|NCT03704064|182070861|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||BIAS vs recipe component acceptability||||<0.001
91093448|NCT03704064|182070861|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||BWL skill acquisition||||0.01
91093449|NCT03704064|182070861|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Stigma-related skill acquisition||||<0.001
91093450|NCT03704064|182070861|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Stigma-related skill use||||<0.001
91093451|NCT03704064|182070862|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.24|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Overall treatment acceptability||||0.24
91093452|NCT03704064|182070862|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.28|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||BWL component acceptability||||0.28
91093453|NCT03704064|182070862|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||BIAS vs recipe component acceptability||||<0.001
91093454|NCT03704064|182070862|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||BWL skill acquisition||||0.34
91093455|NCT03704064|182070862|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Stigma-related skill acquisition||||0.008
91028973|NCT00266409|181941634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0761||95.0|||||van Elteren test|||van Elteren test stratified by CGI-Severity score at baseline and testing between treatment differences in percentages based on non-missing responses within a timepoint. CGI-Severity score categorizes severity at baseline as normal,not at all ill, borderline mentally ill, mildly ill, moderately ill, markedly ill, severely ill, among the most extremely ill.||||0.0761
91028974|NCT00266409|181941634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0376||95.0|||||van Elteren test|||van Elteren test stratified by CGI-Severity score at baseline and testing between treatment differences in percentages based on non-missing responses within a timepoint. CGI-Severity score categorizes severity at baseline as normal,not at all ill, borderline mentally ill, mildly ill, moderately ill, markedly ill, severely ill, among the most extremely ill.||||0.0376
91028975|NCT00266409|181941635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1196||95.0|||||van Elteren test|||van Elteren test stratified by CGI-Severity score at baseline and testing between treatment differences in percentages based on non-missing responses within a timepoint. CGI-Severity score categorizes severity at baseline as normal,not at all ill, borderline mentally ill, mildly ill, moderately ill, markedly ill, severely ill, among the most extremely ill.||||0.1196
91028976|NCT00266409|181941635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0029||95.0|||||van Elteren test|||van Elteren test stratified by CGI-Severity score at baseline and testing between treatment differences in percentages based on non-missing responses within a timepoint.CGI-Severity score categorizes severity at baseline as normal,not at all ill, borderline mentally ill, mildly ill, moderately ill, markedly ill, severely ill, among the most extremely ill.||||0.0029
91028977|NCT00266409|181941636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6323||95.0|||||van Elteren test|||van Elteren test stratified by CGI-Severity score at baseline and testing between treatment differences in percentages based on non-missing responses within a timepoint. CGI-Severity score categorizes severity at baseline as normal,not at all ill, borderline mentally ill, mildly ill, moderately ill, markedly ill, severely ill, among the most extremely ill.||||0.6323
91028978|NCT00266409|181941636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5533||95.0|||||van Elteren test|||van Elteren test stratified by CGI-Severity score at baseline and testing between treatment differences in percentages based on non-missing responses within a timepoint. CGI-Severity score categorizes severity at baseline as normal,not at all ill, borderline mentally ill, mildly ill, moderately ill, markedly ill, severely ill, among the most extremely ill.||||0.5533
91028979|NCT00266409|181941637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1705||95.0|||||van Elteren test|||van Elteren test stratified by CGI-Severity score at baseline and testing between treatment differences in percentages based on non-missing responses within a timepoint. CGI-Severity score categorizes severity at baseline as normal,not at all ill, borderline mentally ill, mildly ill, moderately ill, markedly ill, severely ill, among the most extremely ill.||||0.1705
90842348|NCT00658359|181550457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.63||0.0437|TWO_SIDED|60.0|3.09|7.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18||7.51|3.09|0.0437
91028980|NCT00266409|181941637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3196||95.0|||||van Elteren test|||van Elteren test stratified by CGI-Severity score at baseline and testing between treatment differences in percentages based on non-missing responses within a timepoint. CGI-Severity score categorizes severity at baseline as normal,not at all ill, borderline mentally ill, mildly ill, moderately ill, markedly ill, severely ill, among the most extremely ill.||||0.3196
91093456|NCT03704064|182070862|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Stigma-related skill use||||0.001
90842349|NCT00658359|181550457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.56||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|60.0|6.21|10.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24||10.53|6.21|0.0011
91028981|NCT00266409|181941638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0419||95.0|||||van Elteren test|||van Elteren test stratified by CGI-Severity score at baseline and testing between treatment differences in percentages based on non-missing responses within a timepoint. CGI-Severity score categorizes severity at baseline as normal,not at all ill, borderline mentally ill, mildly ill, moderately ill, markedly ill, severely ill, among the most extremely ill.||||0.0419
91028982|NCT00266409|181941638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2541||95.0|||||van Elteren test|||van Elteren test stratified by CGI-Severity score at baseline and testing between treatment differences in percentages based on non-missing responses within a timepoint. CGI-Severity score categorizes severity at baseline as normal,not at all ill, borderline mentally ill, mildly ill, moderately ill, markedly ill, severely ill, among the most extremely ill.||||0.2541
91028983|NCT00266409|181941639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0677||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAM-A insomnia subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.0677
91028984|NCT00266409|181941639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0273||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAM-A insomnia subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.0273
91028985|NCT00266409|181941640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5153||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAM-A insomnia subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.5153
91028986|NCT00266409|181941640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0122||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAM-A insomnia subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.0122
91028987|NCT00266409|181941641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4648||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAM-A insomnia subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.4648
91093457|NCT00111761|182070897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|25.0||||||95.0|9.8|46.7||||||||46.7|9.8|
91093458|NCT00111761|182070898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|58.0||||||95.0|34.0|80.0||||||||80|34|
91093459|NCT00111761|182070899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|33.3||||||95.0|15.6|55.3||||||||55.3|15.6|
91093460|NCT00111761|182070904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|47.4||||||95.0|24.4|71.1||||||||71.1|24.4|
91093461|NCT00914069|182070917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||||||Threshold for significance was p less than or equal to 0.05 by a one-tailed Fisher Exact Test.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.05
91093462|NCT00914069|182070920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.8
90842350|NCT00658359|181550457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.75||0.4565|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-0.27|4.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24||4.36|-0.27|0.4565
90842351|NCT00658359|181550457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|60.0|8.54|13.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 30||13.26|8.54|0.0001
91093463|NCT00071981|182070924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Compare CTL response rate among four arms. The null hypothesis is that CTL response is same in all four arms. Alternative hypothesis is that CTL response rate is different in at least one arm compared to other arms.||||<0.001
91093464|NCT00071981|182070925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Compare HTL response rate to 6MHP among four arms. The null hypothesis is that HTL response is same in all four arms. Alternative hypothesis is that HTL response rate is different in at least one arm compared to other arms.||||<0.001
91093465|NCT00071981|182070926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Compare HTL response rate to tetanus peptide among four arms. The null hypothesis is that HTL response is same in all four arms. Alternative hypothesis is that HTL response rate is different in at least one arm compared to other arms.||||<0.001
91093466|NCT00071981|182070927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Compare objective response rate among four arms. The null hypothesis is that objective response rate is same in all four arms. Alternative hypothesis is that objective response rate is different in at least one arm compared to other arms.||||0.741
91093467|NCT00071981|182070928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||Compare overall survival curves among four arms.||||0.532
91093468|NCT00833755|182070940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.274|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.274
91093469|NCT00833755|182070941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.552|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.552
91093470|NCT00833755|182070942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.004
91093471|NCT04108468|182070943|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|0.03|||Regression, Linear|"Adjusted for baseline PASDAS and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The mean difference was adjusted pre-specified covariates, and calculated following multiple imputation. The individual group means reported were unadjusted, available case estimates. The placebo/methotrexate arm was the reference category.|||0.03|-1.12|0.064
91093472|NCT04108468|182070944|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.86||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|-0.24|||Regression, Linear|"Adjusted for baseline BASDAS and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The mean difference was adjusted pre-specified covariates, and calculated following multiple imputation. The individual group means reported were unadjusted, available case estimates. The placebo/methotrexate arm was the reference category.|||-0.24|-1.48|0.007
91104079|NCT04250207|182094698|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.1281|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 20||||0.1281
91104080|NCT04250207|182094698|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.0051|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 24||||0.0051
90842352|NCT00658359|181550457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.09||0.1654|TWO_SIDED|60.0|1.69|6.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 30||6.89|1.69|0.1654
90842353|NCT00658359|181550457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.98||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|60.0|6.95|11.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36||11.96|6.95|0.0015
90842354|NCT00658359|181550457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.69||0.2636|TWO_SIDED|60.0|1.02|7.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36||7.23|1.02|0.2636
90842355|NCT00658359|181550457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.12||0.052|TWO_SIDED|60.0|3.45|8.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 42||8.71|3.45|0.0520
90842356|NCT00658359|181550457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.95||0.176|TWO_SIDED|60.0|2.02|8.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 42||8.67|2.02|0.1760
90842357|NCT00658359|181550457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2||0.0274|TWO_SIDED|60.0|4.38|9.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 48||9.77|4.38|0.0274
90842358|NCT00658359|181550457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.13||0.8018|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-4.51|2.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 48||2.44|-4.51|0.8018
90842359|NCT00658359|181550457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.23||0.0819|TWO_SIDED|60.0|2.91|8.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 54||8.35|2.91|0.0819
90842360|NCT00658359|181550457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.26||0.6103|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-5.75|1.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 54||1.41|-5.75|0.6103
90842361|NCT00658359|181550457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.49||0.1168|TWO_SIDED|60.0|2.54|8.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 60||8.41|2.54|0.1168
90842362|NCT00658359|181550457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.43||0.3357|TWO_SIDED|60.0|0.54|7.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 60||7.99|0.54|0.3357
90842363|NCT00658359|181550457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7||0.0448|TWO_SIDED|60.0|4.31|10.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 66||10.54|4.31|0.0448
90842364|NCT00658359|181550457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.64||0.7642|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-2.51|5.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 66||5.29|-2.51|0.7642
90842365|NCT00658359|181550457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.95||0.1295|TWO_SIDED|60.0|2.67|9.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 72||9.32|2.67|0.1295
90842366|NCT00658359|181550457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.75||0.654|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-1.87|6.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 72||6.13|-1.87|0.6540
90842367|NCT00658359|181550458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.53||0.7543|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-22.55|10.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 15||10.33|-22.55|0.7543
90842368|NCT00658359|181550458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.33||0.6249|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-27.07|7.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 15||7.17|-27.07|0.6249
90842369|NCT00658359|181550458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.61||0.3415|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-35.17|-2.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18||-2.15|-35.17|0.3415
90842370|NCT00658359|181550458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-36.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.47||0.072|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-54.1|-19.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18||-19.63|-54.10|0.0720
90842371|NCT00658359|181550458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.99||0.2937|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-37.83|-4.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24||-4.17|-37.83|0.2937
90842372|NCT00658359|181550458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-41.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.38||0.0512|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-59.72|-23.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24||-23.73|-59.72|0.0512
90842373|NCT00658359|181550458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-45.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.76||0.037|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-63.75|-27.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 30||-27.11|-63.75|0.0370
90842374|NCT00658359|181550458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|24.0||0.8701|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-24.13|16.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 30||16.28|-24.13|0.8701
90842375|NCT00658359|181550458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-28.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|23.15||0.2146|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-48.24|-9.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36||-9.25|-48.24|0.2146
90842376|NCT00658359|181550458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|28.58||0.462|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-45.09|3.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36||3.03|-45.09|0.4620
90842377|NCT00658359|181550458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|24.28||0.8639|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-16.28|24.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 42||24.60|-16.28|0.8639
90842378|NCT00658359|181550458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-30.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|30.65||0.323|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-56.11|-4.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 42||-4.50|-56.11|0.3230
90842379|NCT00658359|181550458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|30.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|24.92||0.2214|TWO_SIDED|60.0|9.51|51.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 48||51.47|9.51|0.2214
90842380|NCT00658359|181550458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|32.08||0.7492|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-37.26|16.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 48||16.75|-37.26|0.7492
90842381|NCT00658359|181550458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|25.15||0.8236|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-15.57|26.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 54||26.79|-15.57|0.8236
90842382|NCT00658359|181550458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|33.1||0.6578|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-13.2|42.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 54||42.54|-13.20|0.6578
90842383|NCT00658359|181550458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|27.12||0.5326|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-5.9|39.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 60||39.76|-5.90|0.5326
90842384|NCT00658359|181550458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|34.44||0.6845|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-42.99|15.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 60||15.00|-42.99|0.6845
90842385|NCT00658359|181550458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|28.73||0.7713|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-15.83|32.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 66||32.54|-15.83|0.7713
90842386|NCT00658359|181550458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|36.06||0.8438|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-37.47|23.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 66||23.26|-37.47|0.8438
90842387|NCT00658359|181550458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|30.7||0.4724|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-3.78|47.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 72||47.91|-3.78|0.4724
90842388|NCT00658359|181550458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|36.98||0.6218|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-12.89|49.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 72||49.38|-12.89|0.6218
90842389|NCT00658359|181550462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.93||0.7693|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-9.01|4.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 15||4.35|-9.01|0.7693
90842390|NCT00658359|181550462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.28||0.7396|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-4.22|9.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 15||9.73|-4.22|0.7396
90842391|NCT00658359|181550462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.92||0.3881|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-13.51|-0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18||-0.17|-13.51|0.3881
90842392|NCT00658359|181550462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.28||0.5114|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-12.42|1.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18||1.53|-12.42|0.5114
90842393|NCT00658359|181550462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.06||0.5829|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-11.21|2.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24||2.36|-11.21|0.5829
90842394|NCT00658359|181550462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.58||0.2559|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-16.99|-2.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24||-2.53|-16.99|0.2559
90842395|NCT00658359|181550462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.78||0.7548|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-4.65|10.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 30||10.14|-4.65|0.7548
90842396|NCT00658359|181550462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.57||0.7998|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-5.63|10.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Match 30||10.49|-5.63|0.7998
90842397|NCT00658359|181550462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.08||0.2531|TWO_SIDED|60.0|2.74|18.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36||18.03|2.74|0.2531
90842398|NCT00658359|181550462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.2||0.365|TWO_SIDED|60.0|0.72|19.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36||19.57|0.72|0.3650
90842399|NCT00658359|181550462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.34||0.4328|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-0.53|15.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 42||15.19|-0.53|0.4328
90842400|NCT00658359|181550462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.35||0.2547|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-22.5|-3.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 42||-3.38|-22.50|0.2547
90842401|NCT00658359|181550462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.46||0.3572|TWO_SIDED|60.0|0.75|16.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 48||16.69|0.75|0.3572
90842402|NCT00658359|181550462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.64||0.8009|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-6.86|12.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 48||12.74|-6.86|0.8009
91028988|NCT00266409|181941641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5502||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAM-A insomnia subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.5502
91028989|NCT00266409|181941642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9093||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAM-A insomnia subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.9093
90842403|NCT00658359|181550462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.44||0.6814|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-11.82|4.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 54||4.07|-11.82|0.6814
90842404|NCT00658359|181550462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.93||0.2803|TWO_SIDED|60.0|2.84|22.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 54||22.93|2.84|0.2803
90842405|NCT00658359|181550462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.23||0.7613|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-11.72|5.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 60||5.50|-11.72|0.7613
90842406|NCT00658359|181550462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.35||0.8554|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-12.65|8.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 60||8.15|-12.65|0.8554
90842407|NCT00658359|181550462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.7||0.9132|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-10.18|7.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 66||7.84|-10.18|0.9132
90842408|NCT00658359|181550462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.79||0.7465|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-6.63|14.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 66||14.90|-6.63|0.7465
90842409|NCT00658359|181550462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.34||0.8747|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-11.34|7.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 72||7.76|-11.34|0.8747
90842410|NCT00658359|181550462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.96||0.5793|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-18.1|3.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 72||3.72|-18.10|0.5793
90842411|NCT00658359|181550464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.79|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|60.0|10.4|15.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 15||15.11|10.40|<0.0001
90842412|NCT00658359|181550464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.88|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|60.0|10.96|15.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 15||15.82|10.96|<0.0001
90842413|NCT00658359|181550464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|60.0|8.95|14.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18||14.00|8.95|0.0002
90842414|NCT00658359|181550464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.09||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|60.0|9.37|14.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18||14.59|9.37|0.0002
90842415|NCT00658359|181550464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|60.0|10.32|15.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24||15.39|10.32|<0.0001
90842416|NCT00658359|181550464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|60.0|11.08|16.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24||16.35|11.08|<0.0001
90842417|NCT00658359|181550464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.35|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|60.0|13.03|18.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 30||18.69|13.03|<0.0001
90842418|NCT00658359|181550464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.56||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|60.0|10.61|16.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 30||16.61|10.61|0.0002
90842419|NCT00658359|181550464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.61||0.001|TWO_SIDED|60.0|9.12|15.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36||15.21|9.12|0.0010
90842420|NCT00658359|181550464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.98||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|60.0|9.2|15.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36||15.92|9.20|0.0019
90842421|NCT00658359|181550464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.38||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|60.0|9.56|15.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 42||15.27|9.56|0.0004
90842422|NCT00658359|181550464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.76||0.0182|TWO_SIDED|60.0|5.81|12.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 42||12.16|5.81|0.0182
90842423|NCT00658359|181550464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.77||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|60.0|9.22|15.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 48||15.58|9.22|0.0013
90842424|NCT00658359|181550464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.29||0.0782|TWO_SIDED|60.0|3.99|11.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 48||11.22|3.99|0.0782
90842425|NCT00658359|181550464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.02||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|60.0|10.64|17.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 54||17.43|10.64|0.0007
90842426|NCT00658359|181550464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.72||0.0322|TWO_SIDED|60.0|6.24|14.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 54||14.22|6.24|0.0322
90842427|NCT00658359|181550464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7||0.0399|TWO_SIDED|60.0|4.59|10.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 60||10.86|4.59|0.0399
90842428|NCT00658359|181550464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.28||0.3391|TWO_SIDED|60.0|0.49|7.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 60||7.73|0.49|0.3391
90842429|NCT00658359|181550464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.23||0.0702|TWO_SIDED|60.0|4.17|11.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 66||11.33|4.17|0.0702
90842430|NCT00658359|181550464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.89||0.221|TWO_SIDED|60.0|1.89|10.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 66||10.15|1.89|0.2210
90842431|NCT00658359|181550464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.25||0.015|TWO_SIDED|60.0|8.59|17.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 72||17.46|8.59|0.0150
90842432|NCT00658359|181550464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.13||0.4875|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-0.91|9.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 72||9.45|-0.91|0.4875
90842433|NCT00658359|181550465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.33||0.001|TWO_SIDED|60.0|10.83|18.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 15||18.13|10.83|0.0010
90842434|NCT00658359|181550465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.47||0.001|TWO_SIDED|60.0|11.16|18.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 15||18.70|11.16|0.0010
90897905|NCT01576718|181661326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|-8.19||||0.1763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.06|3.69||0.05 level of significance.|Regression, Linear|||||3.69|-20.06|0.1763
90897906|NCT01576718|181661326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-9.05||||0.1469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.3|3.19||0.05 level of significance.|Regression, Linear|||||3.19|-21.3|0.1469
90897907|NCT01742364|181661337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.475|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of all adverse events (both injection site and systemic AEs).||||0.475
90897908|NCT01742364|181661337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.187|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of all adverse events (both injection site and systemic AEs).||||0.187
90897909|NCT01742364|181661339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.205|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.205
90897910|NCT01742364|181661340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.325|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.325
90897911|NCT01742364|181661341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.001
90842435|NCT00658359|181550465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|60.0|10.16|17.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18||17.76|10.16|0.0023
90842436|NCT00658359|181550465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.64||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|60.0|9.65|17.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18||17.48|9.65|0.0039
90842437|NCT00658359|181550465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.72||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|60.0|11.04|19.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24||19.00|11.04|0.0017
90842438|NCT00658359|181550465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.88||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|60.0|10.81|19.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24||19.04|10.81|0.0026
90842439|NCT00658359|181550465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.06||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|60.0|14.27|22.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 30||22.81|14.27|0.0003
90842440|NCT00658359|181550465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.29||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|60.0|11.99|20.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 30||20.91|11.99|0.0022
90842441|NCT00658359|181550465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.51||0.0065|TWO_SIDED|60.0|10.55|19.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36||19.84|10.55|0.0065
90842442|NCT00658359|181550465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.0||0.0137|TWO_SIDED|60.0|9.87|19.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36||19.99|9.87|0.0137
90842443|NCT00658359|181550465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.12||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|60.0|11.99|20.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 42||20.64|11.99|0.0018
90897912|NCT01742364|181661341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.130
90897913|NCT01742364|181661342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.001
90842444|NCT00658359|181550465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.65||0.0316|TWO_SIDED|60.0|7.47|17.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 42||17.01|7.47|0.0316
90842445|NCT00658359|181550465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.64||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|60.0|11.57|21.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 48||21.09|11.57|0.0043
90842446|NCT00658359|181550465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.31||0.1226|TWO_SIDED|60.0|4.47|15.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 48||15.12|4.47|0.1226
90842447|NCT00658359|181550465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|60.0|12.17|21.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 54||21.78|12.17|0.0034
90842448|NCT00658359|181550465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.52||0.0724|TWO_SIDED|60.0|6.29|17.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 54||17.29|6.29|0.0724
90842449|NCT00658359|181550465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.92||0.1782|TWO_SIDED|60.0|3.02|13.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 60||13.03|3.02|0.1782
90842450|NCT00658359|181550465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.86||0.5947|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-2.14|9.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 66||9.46|-2.14|0.5947
90842451|NCT00658359|181550465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.68||0.081|TWO_SIDED|60.0|5.2|14.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 66||14.79|5.20|0.0810
90842452|NCT00658359|181550465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.38||0.3965|TWO_SIDED|60.0|0.04|10.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 66||10.81|0.04|0.3965
90897914|NCT01742364|181661342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.003
90897915|NCT02821819|181661364|NON_INFERIORITY|The sample size was calculated assuming a non-inferiority margin of 5 eggs SD 6.7. A unilateral alpha level of 0.05 was stablished. With the aim to show that the difference in the mean number of collected eggs will not exceed 5, a statistical power of 80% required 30 patients per group (1:1 allocation, total sample: 60).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.1||0.8|ONE_SIDED|||||a priori threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|t-test, 1 sided|||The sample size was calculated assuming a non-inferiority margin of 5 eggs and a standard deviation (SD) of 6.7. A unilateral alpha level of 0.05 was stablished. With the aim to show that the difference in the mean number of collected eggs will not exceed 5, a statistical power of 80% required 30 patients per group (1:1 allocation, total sample: 60).|"Since the number of collected eggs constitutes the main outcome of the study, the sample size was calculated assuming a non-inferiority margin of 5 eggs with an standard deviation of 6.7. A unilateral alpha level of 0.05 was stablished. With the aim to show that the difference in the mean number of collected eggs will not exceed 5, a statistical power of 80% required 30 patients per group (1:1 allocation, total sample: 60).~Statistical analysis was performed using t-student test for continuous variables and chi-square test for categorical parameters. A P value of \<.05 was considered significant."|||0.8
90905098|NCT02886728|181677438|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||0.0|-2.0|0.095
91028990|NCT00266409|181941642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1354||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAM-A insomnia subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.1354
91093473|NCT04108468|182070945|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.58||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|0.11|||Regression, Linear|"Adjusted for baseline PASDAS and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The mean difference was adjusted pre-specified covariates, and calculated following multiple imputation. The individual group means reported were unadjusted, available case estimates. The placebo/methotrexate arm was the reference category.|||0.11|-1.26|0.096
91093474|NCT04108468|182070946|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.59|||Regression, Linear|"Adjusted for baseline PASDAS and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The mean difference was adjusted pre-specified covariates, and calculated following multiple imputation. The individual group means reported were unadjusted, available case estimates. The placebo/methotrexate arm was the reference category.|||0.59|-0.72|0.844
91093475|NCT04108468|182070947|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.96||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|-0.04|||Regression, Linear|"Adjusted for baseline CPDAI and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The mean difference was adjusted pre-specified covariates, and calculated following multiple imputation. The individual group means reported were unadjusted, available case estimates. The placebo/methotrexate arm was the reference category.|||-0.04|-1.88|0.041
91093476|NCT04108468|182070948|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44||||0.375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|0.54|||Regression, Linear|"Adjusted for baseline CPDAI and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The mean difference was adjusted pre-specified covariates, and calculated following multiple imputation. The individual group means reported were unadjusted, available case estimates. The placebo/methotrexate arm was the reference category.|||0.54|-1.41|0.375
91093477|NCT04108468|182070949|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44||||0.392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|0.58|||Regression, Linear|"Adjusted for baseline CPDAI and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The mean difference was adjusted pre-specified covariates, and calculated following multiple imputation. The individual group means reported were unadjusted, available case estimates. The placebo/methotrexate arm was the reference category.|||0.58|-1.46|0.392
91093478|NCT04108468|182070950|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32||||0.541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|0.71|||Regression, Linear|"Adjusted for baseline CPDAI and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The mean difference was adjusted pre-specified covariates, and calculated following multiple imputation. The individual group means reported were unadjusted, available case estimates. The placebo/methotrexate arm was the reference category.|||0.71|-1.34|0.541
90905099|NCT02886728|181677438|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.0|-3.0|<0.001
91093479|NCT04108468|182070951|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.35||||0.633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.14|7.43|||Regression, Linear|"Adjusted for baseline score and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The mean difference was adjusted pre-specified covariates, and calculated following multiple imputation. The individual group means reported were unadjusted, available case estimates. The placebo/methotrexate arm was the reference category.|||7.43|-12.14|0.633
91093480|NCT04108468|182070952|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.24||||0.826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.95|12.43|||Regression, Linear|"Adjusted for baseline score and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The mean difference was adjusted pre-specified covariates, and calculated following multiple imputation. The individual group means reported were unadjusted, available case estimates. The placebo/methotrexate arm was the reference category.|||12.43|-9.95|0.826
91093481|NCT04108468|182070953|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.24||||0.268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|6.25|||Regression, Linear|"Adjusted for baseline score and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The mean difference was adjusted pre-specified covariates, and calculated following multiple imputation. The individual group means reported were unadjusted, available case estimates. The placebo/methotrexate arm was the reference category.|||6.25|-1.76|0.268
91093482|NCT04108468|182070954|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.21||||0.605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.42|5.83|||Regression, Linear|"Adjusted for baseline score and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The mean difference was adjusted pre-specified covariates, and calculated following multiple imputation. The individual group means reported were unadjusted, available case estimates. The placebo/methotrexate arm was the reference category.|||5.83|-3.42|0.605
91028991|NCT00266409|181941643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7434||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAM-A insomnia subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.7434
91093483|NCT04108468|182070955|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.23|2.54|||Regression, Linear|"Adjusted for baseline score and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The mean difference was adjusted pre-specified covariates, and calculated following multiple imputation. The individual group means reported were unadjusted, available case estimates. The placebo/methotrexate arm was the reference category.|||2.54|-4.23|0.620
91093484|NCT04108468|182070956|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.39||||0.449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.02|2.24|||Regression, Linear|"Adjusted for baseline score and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The mean difference was adjusted pre-specified covariates, and calculated following multiple imputation. The individual group means reported were unadjusted, available case estimates. The placebo/methotrexate arm was the reference category.|||2.24|-5.02|0.449
91104081|NCT04250207|182094698|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.1313|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 24||||0.1313
91093485|NCT04108468|182070957|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.72||||0.364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|5.48|||Regression, Linear|"Adjusted for baseline score and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The mean difference was adjusted pre-specified covariates, and calculated following multiple imputation. The individual group means reported were unadjusted, available case estimates. The placebo/methotrexate arm was the reference category.|||5.48|-2.04|0.364
91093486|NCT04108468|182070958|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.51||||0.806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|4.61|||Regression, Linear|"Adjusted for baseline score and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The mean difference was adjusted pre-specified covariates, and calculated following multiple imputation. The individual group means reported were unadjusted, available case estimates. The placebo/methotrexate arm was the reference category.|||4.61|-3.60|0.806
91093487|NCT04108468|182070959|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.05||||0.588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.79|4.89|||Regression, Linear|"Adjusted for baseline score and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The mean difference was adjusted pre-specified covariates, and calculated following multiple imputation. The individual group means reported were unadjusted, available case estimates. The placebo/methotrexate arm was the reference category.|||4.89|-2.79|0.588
91093488|NCT04108468|182070960|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.76||||0.372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.45|0.93|||Regression, Linear|"Adjusted for baseline score and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The mean difference was adjusted pre-specified covariates, and calculated following multiple imputation. The individual group means reported were unadjusted, available case estimates. The placebo/methotrexate arm was the reference category.|||0.93|-2.45|0.372
90842453|NCT00658359|181550465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.77||0.0128|TWO_SIDED|60.0|11.44|22.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 72||22.88|11.44|0.0128
91093489|NCT04108468|182070961|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||0.781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|1.55|||Regression, Linear|"Adjusted for baseline score and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The mean difference was adjusted pre-specified covariates, and calculated following multiple imputation. The individual group means reported were unadjusted, available case estimates. The placebo/methotrexate arm was the reference category.|||1.55|-2.05|0.781
91093490|NCT04108468|182070962|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.26||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.39|-0.14|||Regression, Linear|"Adjusted for baseline score and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The mean difference was adjusted pre-specified covariates, and calculated following multiple imputation. The individual group means reported were unadjusted, available case estimates. The placebo/methotrexate arm was the reference category.|||-0.14|-4.39|0.037
91093491|NCT04108468|182070963|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.95||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|0.03|||Regression, Linear|"Adjusted for baseline score and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The mean difference was adjusted pre-specified covariates, and calculated following multiple imputation. The individual group means reported were unadjusted, available case estimates. The placebo/methotrexate arm was the reference category.|||0.03|-1.93|0.058
90842454|NCT00658359|181550465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.83||0.5487|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-1.91|11.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 72||11.33|-1.91|0.5487
90842455|NCT00658359|181550466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.86|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|60.0|13.46|18.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 15||18.29|13.46|<0.0001
90842456|NCT00658359|181550466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.95|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|60.0|11.49|16.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 15||16.46|11.49|<0.0001
90842457|NCT00658359|181550466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.33|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|60.0|10.71|16.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18||16.34|10.71|<0.0001
90842458|NCT00658359|181550466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.43||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|60.0|8.67|14.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18||14.45|8.67|0.0009
90842459|NCT00658359|181550466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.44|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|60.0|12.72|18.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24||18.53|12.72|<0.0001
90842460|NCT00658359|181550466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.54||0.001|TWO_SIDED|60.0|8.91|14.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24||14.88|8.91|0.0010
90842461|NCT00658359|181550466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.86|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|60.0|16.03|22.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 30||22.55|16.03|<0.0001
90842462|NCT00658359|181550466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.97||0.0082|TWO_SIDED|60.0|7.27|13.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 30||13.98|7.27|0.0082
90842463|NCT00658359|181550466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.31||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|60.0|11.09|18.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36||18.36|11.09|0.0008
90842464|NCT00658359|181550466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.43||0.0462|TWO_SIDED|60.0|5.16|12.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36||12.64|5.16|0.0462
90842465|NCT00658359|181550466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.25||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|60.0|11.11|18.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 42||18.28|11.11|0.0007
90842466|NCT00658359|181550466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.37||0.0519|TWO_SIDED|60.0|4.87|12.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 42||12.24|4.87|0.0519
90842467|NCT00658359|181550466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.65||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|60.0|9.66|17.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 48||17.50|9.66|0.0039
90842468|NCT00658359|181550466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.78||0.058|TWO_SIDED|60.0|5.09|13.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 48||13.15|5.09|0.0580
90842469|NCT00658359|181550466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.74||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|60.0|12.62|20.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 54||20.61|12.62|0.0006
91093492|NCT04108468|182070964|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|0.35|||Regression, Linear|"Adjusted for baseline score and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The mean difference was adjusted pre-specified covariates, and calculated following multiple imputation. The individual group means reported were unadjusted, available case estimates. The placebo/methotrexate arm was the reference category.|||0.35|-1.54|0.213
91093493|NCT04108468|182070965|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31||||0.606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|1.5|||Regression, Linear|"Adjusted for baseline score and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The mean difference was adjusted pre-specified covariates, and calculated following multiple imputation. The individual group means reported were unadjusted, available case estimates. The placebo/methotrexate arm was the reference category.|||1.50|-0.88|0.606
91093494|NCT04108468|182070966|SUPERIORITY||Incidence-rate ratio|1.01||||0.971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|2.14|||Negative binomial regression|"Adjusted for baseline score and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The placebo/methotrexate arm was the reference category.|||2.14|0.48|0.971
91093495|NCT04108468|182070967|SUPERIORITY||Incidence-rate ratio|1.1||||0.817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|2.46|||Negative binomial regression|"Adjusted for baseline score and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||2.46|0.49|0.817
90842470|NCT00658359|181550466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.87||0.0136|TWO_SIDED|60.0|8.04|16.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 54||16.26|8.04|0.0136
90842471|NCT00658359|181550466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.74||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|60.0|9.39|17.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 60||17.39|9.39|0.0053
90842472|NCT00658359|181550466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.87||0.0736|TWO_SIDED|60.0|4.66|12.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 60||12.88|4.66|0.0736
90842473|NCT00658359|181550466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.8||0.005|TWO_SIDED|60.0|9.58|17.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 66||17.67|9.58|0.0050
90897916|NCT02821819|181661364|NON_INFERIORITY|The sample size was calculated assuming a non-inferiority margin of 5 eggs SD 6.7. A unilateral alpha level of 0.05 was stablished. With the aim to show that the difference in the mean number of collected eggs will not exceed 5, a statistical power of 80% required 30 patients per group (1:1 allocation, total sample: 60). Statistical analysis used t-student test for continuous variables and chi-square test for categorical parameters.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|82.0||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|Chi-squared|||The sample size was calculated assuming a non-inferiority margin of 5 eggs SD 6.7. A unilateral alpha level of 0.05 was stablished. With the aim to show that the difference in the mean number of collected eggs will not exceed 5, a statistical power of 80% required 30 patients per group (1:1 allocation, total sample: 60). Statistical analysis used t-student test for continuous variables and chi-square test for categorical parameters.||||0.8
90897917|NCT02821819|181661365|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical analysis was performed using t-student test for continuous variables and chi-square test for categorical parameters. A P value of \<.05 was considered significant.|Median Difference (Final Values)|71.1|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
90897918|NCT02439749|181661405|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p\<0.05 required for significance|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90897919|NCT02439749|181661409|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.026||||||p\<0.05 required for significance.|ANCOVA|||||||0.026
91093496|NCT04108468|182070968|SUPERIORITY||Incidence-rate ratio|1.35||||0.441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.93|||Negative binomial regression|"Adjusted for baseline score and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||2.93|0.63|0.441
90842474|NCT00658359|181550466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.93||0.0491|TWO_SIDED|60.0|5.61|13.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 66||13.93|5.61|0.0491
90842475|NCT00658359|181550466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.04||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|60.0|10.4|18.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 72||18.91|10.40|0.0041
90842476|NCT00658359|181550466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.19||0.066|TWO_SIDED|60.0|5.22|13.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 72||13.97|5.22|0.0660
90842477|NCT00658359|181550467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.73||0.2393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.45|1.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24: Physical Functioning||1.36|-5.45|0.2393
90842478|NCT00658359|181550467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.89||0.0595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.29|0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24: Physical Functioning||0.14|-7.29|0.0595
90842479|NCT00658359|181550467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.5182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.77|5.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24: Role Physical||5.49|-2.77|0.5182
90842480|NCT00658359|181550467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3||0.3938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.49|2.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24: Role Physical||2.56|-6.49|0.3938
90842481|NCT00658359|181550467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.12||0.8932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.89|4.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24: Bodily Pain||4.46|-3.89|0.8932
90842482|NCT00658359|181550467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.33||0.9673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.48|4.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24: Bodily Pain||4.67|-4.48|0.9673
90842483|NCT00658359|181550467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.78||0.329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|5.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24: General Health||5.23|-1.76|0.3290
90842484|NCT00658359|181550467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.95||0.578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.75|4.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24: General Health||4.92|-2.75|0.5780
90842485|NCT00658359|181550467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.87||0.9799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.72|3.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24: Vitality||3.62|-3.72|0.9799
90897920|NCT02439749|181661410|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.052||||||p\<0.05 required for significance.|ANCOVA|||||||0.052
91093497|NCT04108468|182070969|SUPERIORITY||Incidence-rate ratio|1.29||||0.563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|3.03|||Negative binomial regression|"Adjusted for baseline score and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||3.03|0.55|0.563
91093498|NCT04108468|182070970|SUPERIORITY||Incidence-rate ratio|0.17||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|1.26|||Negative binomial regression|"Adjusted for baseline score and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||1.26|0.02|0.083
91093499|NCT04108468|182070971|SUPERIORITY||Incidence-rate ratio|0.26||||0.432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|7.64|||Negative binomial regression|"Adjusted for baseline score and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||7.64|0.01|0.432
91093500|NCT04108468|182070972|SUPERIORITY||Incidence-rate ratio|0.11||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|1.21|||Negative binomial regression|"Adjusted for baseline score and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||1.21|0.01|0.071
91093501|NCT04108468|182070973|SUPERIORITY||Incidence-rate ratio|0.06||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.84|||Negative binomial regression|"Adjusted for baseline score and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||0.84|0.00|0.037
91093502|NCT04108468|182070974|SUPERIORITY||Incidence-rate ratio|0.68||||0.296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.41|||Negative binomial regression|"Adjusted for baseline score and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||1.41|0.32|0.296
91093503|NCT04108468|182070975|SUPERIORITY||Incidence-rate ratio|0.51||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.09|||Negative binomial regression|"Adjusted for baseline score and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||1.09|0.23|0.081
91093504|NCT04108468|182070976|SUPERIORITY||Incidence-rate ratio|0.75||||0.458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.59|||Negative binomial regression|"Adjusted for baseline score and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||1.59|0.36|0.458
91093505|NCT04108468|182070977|SUPERIORITY||Incidence-rate ratio|1.12||||0.798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|2.72|||Negative binomial regression|"Adjusted for baseline score and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||2.72|0.46|0.798
90842486|NCT00658359|181550467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.07||0.396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.31|5.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24: Vitality||5.83|-2.31|0.3960
90842487|NCT00658359|181550467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.98||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.05|3.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24: Social Functioning||3.75|-4.05|0.9400
90842488|NCT00658359|181550467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2||0.8583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.94|4.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24: Social Functioning||4.72|-3.94|0.8583
90897921|NCT02439749|181661411|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07||||||p\<0.05 required for significance.|ANCOVA|||||||0.070
90897922|NCT02439749|181661412|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009||||||p=\<0.05 required for significance.|ANCOVA|||||||0.009
91093506|NCT04108468|182070978|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.38||||0.512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|0.77|||Quantile (median) regression|"Adjusted for baseline score and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||0.77|-1.53|0.512
91093507|NCT04108468|182070979|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.44||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|0.44|||Quantile (median) regression|"Adjusted for baseline score and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||0.44|-1.33|0.320
91093508|NCT04108468|182070980|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.47||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|0.28|||Quantile (median) regression|"Adjusted for baseline score and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||0.28|-1.22|0.220
91093509|NCT04108468|182070981|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.95|||Quantile (median) regression|"Adjusted for baseline score and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||0.95|-0.85|0.912
90842489|NCT00658359|181550467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.31||0.0997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|8.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24: Role Emotional||8.37|-0.73|0.0997
90842490|NCT00658359|181550467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.54||0.852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.47|4.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24: Role Emotional||4.52|-5.47|0.8520
90842491|NCT00658359|181550467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.01||0.4023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.64|2.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24: Mental Health||2.27|-5.64|0.4023
90842492|NCT00658359|181550467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.22||0.1092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|7.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24: Mental Health||7.92|-0.80|0.1092
90842493|NCT00658359|181550467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.1754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24: TR Scale Score||0.52|-0.10|0.1754
90842494|NCT00658359|181550467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.1802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24: TR Scale Score||0.57|-0.11|0.1802
90905100|NCT02886728|181677439|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.0|-3.0|<0.001
90897923|NCT02332590|181661425|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.077|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.361|-0.793||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Sarilumab 200 mg vs. Adalimumab 40 mg|Analysis was performed using MMRM approach with treatment, region, visits, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline DAS28-ESR score as a continuous covariate. Hierarchical testing procedure was used to control overall alpha error rate at 0.05 level and handle multiple endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in order endpoints are reported. Hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||-0.793|-1.361|<0.0001
90897924|NCT02332590|181661426|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.879|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.536|9.389||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Sarilumab 200 mg vs. Adalimumab 40 mg|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method stratified by region.||9.389|2.536|<0.0001
90897925|NCT02332590|181661427|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.976||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.289|3.028||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Sarilumab 200 mg vs. Adalimumab 40 mg|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method stratified by region.||3.028|1.289|0.0017
90897926|NCT02332590|181661428|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.286||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|4.02||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Sarilumab 200 mg vs. Adalimumab 40 mg|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method stratified by region.||4.020|1.300|0.0036
90897927|NCT02332590|181661429|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.0074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.168|2.773||Threshold for significance 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Sarilumab 200 mg vs. Adalimumab 40 mg|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method stratified by region.||2.773|1.168|0.0074
90897928|NCT02332590|181661430|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.182||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.305|-0.059||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Sarilumab 200 mg vs. Adalimumab 40 mg|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using MMRM approach with treatment, region, visits, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline HAQ-DI score as a continuous covariate.||-0.059|-0.305|0.0037
90897929|NCT02332590|181661431|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.65||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.147|4.153||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Sarilumab 200 mg vs. Adalimumab 40 mg|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using MMRM approach with treatment, region, visits, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline SF-36 PCS score as a continuous covariate.||4.153|1.147|0.0006
90897930|NCT02332590|181661432|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.768||||0.0689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.137|3.674||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Sarilumab 200 mg vs. Adalimumab 40 mg|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using MMRM approach with treatment, region, visits, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline FACIT-F score as a continuous covariate.||3.674|-0.137|0.0689
90897931|NCT01806584|181661478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.138|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value based on log rank test stratified by diabetic status at surgery comparing the 2 treatment groups.|Log Rank|||Analysis of time to loss of patency||||0.138
90897932|NCT01806584|181661479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.312|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value based on log-rank test stratified by diabetic status at surgery comparing the 2 treatment groups.|Log Rank|||Analysis of time to loss of patency||||0.312
90897933|NCT01806584|181661480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value based on log-rank test stratified by diabetic status at surgery comparing the 2 treatment groups.|Log Rank|||Analysis of time to loss of patency||||0.093
90897934|NCT01806584|181661481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean treatment difference|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.942|1.402||||||||1.402|-0.942|
91028992|NCT00266409|181941643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1148||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAM-A insomnia subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.1148
90897935|NCT04022889|181661515|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis of inferiority was to be rejected in favor of the alternative hypothesis of non-inferiority at the two-sided 0.05 significance level if the lower bound of a two-sided 95% CI for the mean treatment difference (Test - 0.66 × Control) was greater than or equal to zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|6.2|||||The mean treatment difference is defined as Test recovery - (0.66 × Control recovery).|||6.2|-3.5|
90897936|NCT04022889|181661515|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis of inferiority was to be rejected in favor of the alternative hypothesis of non-inferiority at the two-sided 0.05 significance level if the lower bound of a two-sided 95% CI for the mean treatment difference (Test - 0.66 × Control) was greater than or equal to zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|4.8|||||The mean treatment difference is defined as Test recovery - (0.66 × Control recovery).|||4.8|-6.4|
90897937|NCT04022889|181661515|OTHER|Variant 1-BEST = Test Variant 1 Endpoint - Test BEST Endpoint|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|8.7|||||The mean treatment difference is defined as Test recovery - (0.66 × Control recovery).|||8.7|-5.0|
91028993|NCT00266409|181941644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9346||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAMA-A insomnia subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.9346
90897938|NCT04022889|181661515|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis of inferiority was to be rejected in favor of the alternative hypothesis of non-inferiority at the two-sided 0.05 significance level if the lower bound of a two-sided 95% CI for the mean treatment difference (Test - 0.66 × Control) was greater than or equal to zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|2.6|||||The mean treatment difference is defined as Test recovery - (0.66 × Control recovery).|||2.6|-2.5|
91028994|NCT00266409|181941644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2709||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAM-A insomnia subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.2709
91093510|NCT04108468|182070982|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|0.42|||Quantile (median) regression|"Adjusted for baseline score and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||0.42|-1.42|0.281
91093511|NCT04108468|182070983|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|1.47|||Quantile (median) regression|"Adjusted for baseline score and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||1.47|-1.44|0.985
90842495|NCT00658359|181550467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.68||0.9966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.31|3.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24: Physical Component Summary||3.29|-3.31|0.9966
90842496|NCT00658359|181550467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.84||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.04|1.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24: Physical Component Summary||1.19|-6.04|0.1880
90842497|NCT00658359|181550467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.92||0.6154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.81|4.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24: Mental Component Summary||4.73|-2.81|0.6154
90842498|NCT00658359|181550467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.12||0.1248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|7.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24: Mental Component Summary||7.43|-0.91|0.1248
90842499|NCT00658359|181550467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.03||0.4174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.63|2.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36: Physical Functioning||2.34|-5.63|0.4174
90842500|NCT00658359|181550467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6||0.3486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.54|2.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36: Physical Functioning||2.66|-7.54|0.3486
90842501|NCT00658359|181550467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.47||0.8335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.33|5.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36: Role Physical||5.37|-4.33|0.8335
91028995|NCT00266409|181941645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3827||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAM-A insomnia subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.3827
91093512|NCT04108468|182070984|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.6|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable). Multiple imputation addressed missing data.|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||2.60|0.45|0.869
91093513|NCT04108468|182070985|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|2.13|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable). Multiple imputation addressed missing data.|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||2.13|0.38|0.802
90842502|NCT00658359|181550467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.18||0.5291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.24|4.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36: Role Physical||4.24|-8.24|0.5291
90842503|NCT00658359|181550467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.4033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.82|7.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36: Bodily Pain||7.00|-2.82|0.4033
90842504|NCT00658359|181550467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.24||0.9078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.74|5.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36: Bodily Pain||5.99|-6.74|0.9078
90842505|NCT00658359|181550467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.08||0.3947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.31|5.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36: General Health||5.86|-2.31|0.3947
90842506|NCT00658359|181550467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.66||0.7165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.26|6.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36: General Health||6.20|-4.26|0.7165
90842507|NCT00658359|181550467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.19||0.5112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.87|5.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36: Vitality||5.75|-2.87|0.5112
90842508|NCT00658359|181550467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.86||0.1218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|10.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36: Vitality||10.04|-1.18|0.1218
90842509|NCT00658359|181550467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.33||0.2895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|7.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36: Social Functioning||7.05|-2.11|0.2895
90842510|NCT00658359|181550467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.03||0.8349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.58|5.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36: Social Functioning||5.32|-6.58|0.8349
90842511|NCT00658359|181550467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.72||0.0393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|10.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36: Role Emotional||10.97|0.28|0.0393
90842512|NCT00658359|181550467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.52||0.7266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.69|8.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36: Role Emotional||8.16|-5.69|0.7266
90842513|NCT00658359|181550467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.36||0.4916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.02|6.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36: Mental Health||6.27|-3.02|0.4916
90842514|NCT00658359|181550467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.05||0.9008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.62|6.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36: Mental Health||6.38|-5.62|0.9008
90842515|NCT00658359|181550467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.2965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36: TR Scale Score||0.55|-0.17|0.2965
90842516|NCT00658359|181550467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.1147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36: TR Scale Score||0.84|-0.09|0.1147
90842517|NCT00658359|181550467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.97||0.7786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.42|3.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36: Physical Component Summary||3.31|-4.42|0.7786
90842518|NCT00658359|181550467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.53||0.5582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.45|3.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36: Physical Component Summary||3.49|-6.45|0.5582
91028996|NCT00266409|181941645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2513||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAM-A insomnia subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.2513
90897939|NCT04022889|181661516|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis of inferiority was to be rejected in favor of the alternative hypothesis of non-inferiority at the two-sided 0.05 significance level if the lower bound of a two-sided 95% CI for the mean treatment difference (Test - 0.58 × Control) was greater than or equal to zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.5|39.4|||||The mean treatment difference is defined as Test survival - (0.58 × Control survival).|||39.4|18.5|
90897940|NCT04022889|181661516|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis of inferiority was to be rejected in favor of the alternative hypothesis of non-inferiority at the two-sided 0.05 significance level if the lower bound of a two-sided 95% CI for the mean treatment difference (Test - 0.58 × Control) was greater than or equal to zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|25.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.5|41.6|||||The mean treatment difference is defined as Test survival - (0.58 × Control survival).|||41.6|9.5|
90897941|NCT04022889|181661516|EQUIVALENCE|Variant 1-BEST = Test Variant 1 Endpoint - Test BEST Endpoint|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|21.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|15.8|||||The mean treatment difference is defined as Test survival - (0.58 × Control survival).|||15.8|-12.7|
90897942|NCT04022889|181661516|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis of inferiority was to be rejected in favor of the alternative hypothesis of non-inferiority at the two-sided 0.05 significance level if the lower bound of a two-sided 95% CI for the mean treatment difference (Test - 0.58 × Control) was greater than or equal to zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|29.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|18.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.8|37.8|||||The mean treatment difference is defined as Test survival - (0.58 × Control survival).|||37.8|21.8|
90897943|NCT04858802|181661561|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.19|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.08||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|8.6||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean FSO cross-sectional area minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean FSO cross-sectional area|The null hypothesis was that there would no difference in FSO cross-sectional area between treatment and control sides at Day 45.||8.6|-0.2|0.059
90897944|NCT04858802|181661562|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.48|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.98||0.328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|4.5||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean FSO cross-sectional area change from baseline to Day 45 minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean FSO cross-sectional area change from baseline to Day 45|Day 45||4.5|-1.5|0.328
90897945|NCT04858802|181661562|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.64||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|0.2||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean FSO cross-sectional area change from baseline to Day 180 minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean FSO cross-sectional area change from baseline to Day 180|Day 180||0.2|-5.7|0.063
90897946|NCT04858802|181661563|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|50.94|STANDARD_DEVIATION|430.8||0.306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.5|149.4||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean FSOT volume minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean FSOT volume|Day 45||149.4|-47.5|0.306
90897947|NCT04858802|181661563|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.44|STANDARD_DEVIATION|413.22||0.567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-122.5|67.6|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean FSOT volume minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean FSOT volume|Day 180||67.6|-122.5|0.567
90897948|NCT04858802|181661564|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.48|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.92||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.9||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean FSO minimum diameter minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean FSO minimum diameter|Day 45||0.9|0.0|0.031
90897949|NCT04858802|181661564|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.27||0.943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean FSO minimum diameter minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean FSO minimum diameter|Day 180||0.5|-0.5|0.943
90897950|NCT04858802|181661565|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.24||0.715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.2|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean Zinreich's modified Lund-Mackay score for the frontal sinus minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean Zinreich's modified Lund-Mackay score for the frontal sinus|Day 45||0.2|-0.3|0.715
91028997|NCT00266409|181941646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.393||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAM-A insomnia subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.3930
90842519|NCT00658359|181550467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.25||0.0727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|8.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36: Mental Component Summary||8.47|-0.37|0.0727
90842520|NCT00658359|181550467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.91||0.3264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.86|8.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36: Mental Component Summary||8.59|-2.86|0.3264
90842521|NCT00658359|181550468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.3093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24 Limited Physical Capacity||0.33|-0.10|0.3093
90842522|NCT00658359|181550468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.3223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24 Limited Physical Capacity||0.36|-0.12|0.3223
90842523|NCT00658359|181550468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.4858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24 Limited Cognitive Capacity||0.30|-0.14|0.4858
90842524|NCT00658359|181550468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.3679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24 Limited Cognitive Capacity||0.36|-0.13|0.3679
90842525|NCT00658359|181550468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.6416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24 Cardiac and Renal Dysfunction||0.17|-0.27|0.6416
91028998|NCT00266409|181941646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5461||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAM-A insomnia subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.5461
91093514|NCT04108468|182070986|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|2.72|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable). Multiple imputation addressed missing data.|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||2.72|0.48|0.767
90842526|NCT00658359|181550468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.4241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24 Cardiac and Renal Dysfunction||0.14|-0.34|0.4241
90842527|NCT00658359|181550468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.2133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24 Side Effects of Corticosteroids||0.39|-0.09|0.2133
91028999|NCT00266409|181941647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0722||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAM-A insomnia subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.0722
91029000|NCT00266409|181941647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4639||95.0||||P-values based on an ANCOVA with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAM-A insomnia subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.4639
90842528|NCT00658359|181550468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.1918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24 Side Effects of Corticosteroids||0.44|-0.09|0.1918
90842529|NCT00658359|181550468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24 Increased Growth of Gum and Hair||-0.14|-0.55|0.0010
90897951|NCT04858802|181661565|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.96||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.4|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean Zinreich's modified Lund-Mackay score for the frontal sinus minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean Zinreich's modified Lund-Mackay score for the frontal sinus|Day 180||0.4|0.0|0.129
91029001|NCT00266409|181941648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0075||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAMA-A psychic factors subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.0075
91029002|NCT00266409|181941648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1641||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAM-A psychic factors subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.1641
91029003|NCT00266409|181941649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0932||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAMA-A psychic factors subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.0932
91029004|NCT00266409|181941649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0852||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAMA-A psychic factors subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.0852
91029005|NCT00266409|181941650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7896||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAMA-A psychic factors subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.7896
91029006|NCT00266409|181941650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9651||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAMA-A psychic factors subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.9651
91029007|NCT00266409|181941651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.828||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAMA-A psychic factors subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.8280
91093515|NCT04108468|182070987|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.63||||0.315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.55|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable). Multiple imputation addressed missing data.|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||1.55|0.26|0.315
90842530|NCT00658359|181550468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24 Increased Growth of Gum and Hair||-0.13|-0.59|0.0020
90842531|NCT00658359|181550468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.2012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24 Transplantation-Associated Psychological Distress||0.40|-0.08|0.2012
90842532|NCT00658359|181550468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.8986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24 Transplantation-Associated Psychological Distress||0.29|-0.25|0.8986
90842533|NCT00658359|181550468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.6724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24 Global Score||0.20|-0.13|0.6724
90842534|NCT00658359|181550468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.9297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24 Global Score||0.19|-0.18|0.9297
90842535|NCT00658359|181550468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.8682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36 Limited Physical Capacity||0.23|-0.28|0.8682
90842536|NCT00658359|181550468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.3392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36 Limited Physical Capacity||0.53|-0.18|0.3392
90842537|NCT00658359|181550468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.6545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36 Limited Cognitive Capacity||0.32|-0.20|0.6545
90842538|NCT00658359|181550468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.3253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36 Limited Cognitive Capacity||0.55|-0.18|0.3253
90897952|NCT04858802|181661566|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|3.6||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Day 21||3.60|0.28|1.00
91029008|NCT00266409|181941651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0936||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAMA-A psychic factors subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.0936
91029009|NCT00266409|181941652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3539||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAMA-A psychic factors subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.3539
91029010|NCT00266409|181941652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4672||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAMA-A psychic factors subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.4672
91029011|NCT00266409|181941653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.255||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAMA-A psychic factors subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.2550
91093516|NCT04108468|182070988|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|3.27|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable). Multiple imputation addressed missing data.|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||3.27|0.55|0.516
90897953|NCT04858802|181661566|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.73||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Day 45||1.73|0.36|0.453
90897954|NCT04858802|181661566|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71||||0.219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.61||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Day 90||1.61|0.31|0.219
90897955|NCT04858802|181661566|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71||||0.289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.61|||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 180||1.61|0.31|0.289
90897956|NCT04858802|181661567|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|21.12||0.971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|4.8||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean FSO cross-sectional area minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean FSO cross-sectional area|Day 180||4.8|-4.9|0.971
90897957|NCT04858802|181661568|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.56||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Day 45|Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean Lund-Mackay score for the frontal sinus at Day 45 minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean Lund-Mackay score for the frontal sinus at Day 45|0.1|-0.1|1.00
90897958|NCT04858802|181661568|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.42||0.288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.1||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean Lund-Mackay score for the frontal sinus at Day 180 minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean Lund-Mackay score for the frontal sinus at Day 180|Day 180||0.1|0.0|0.288
90897959|NCT04858802|181661569|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.64||0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean Lund-Mackay score for the frontal sinus at Day 45 minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean Lund-Mackay score for the frontal sinus at Day 45|Day 45||0.1|-0.2|0.225
90897960|NCT04858802|181661569|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.65||0.388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean Lund-Mackay score for the frontal sinus at Day 180 minus balloon sinus dilation alone modified Lund-Mackay score for the frontal sinus at Day 180|Day 180||0.1|-0.2|0.388
90897961|NCT04858802|181661570|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.68||0.537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean adhesion/scarring grade in the frontal recess/FSO minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean adhesion/scarring grade in the frontal recess/FSO|Day 21||0.1|-0.2|0.537
91093517|NCT04108468|182070989|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|2.38|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable). Multiple imputation addressed missing data.|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||2.38|0.39|0.939
90897962|NCT04858802|181661570|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.54||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.0||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean adhesion/scarring grade in the frontal recess/FSO minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean adhesion/scarring grade in the frontal recess/FSO|Day 45||0.0|-0.3|0.010
90897963|NCT04858802|181661570|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.7||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.1||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean adhesion/scarring grade in the frontal recess/FSO minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean adhesion/scarring grade in the frontal recess/FSO|Day 90||-0.1|-0.4|0.003
91093518|NCT04108468|182070990|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|2.94|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable). Multiple imputation addressed missing data.|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||2.94|0.48|0.701
90897964|NCT04858802|181661570|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.66||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.1||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean adhesion/scarring grade in the frontal recess/FSO minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean adhesion/scarring grade in the frontal recess/FSO|Day 180||-0.1|-0.4|0.007
90897965|NCT04858802|181661571|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.46|STANDARD_DEVIATION|35.55||0.634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|7.9||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean inflammation score in the frontal recess/FSO minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean inflammation score in the frontal recess/FSO|Day 21||7.9|-12.8|0.634
90897966|NCT04858802|181661571|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.63|STANDARD_DEVIATION|29.04||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|-0.1||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean inflammation score in the frontal recess/FSO minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean inflammation score in the frontal recess/FSO|Day 45||-0.1|-15.2|0.048
90897967|NCT04858802|181661571|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.78|STANDARD_DEVIATION|28.79||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|-0.9||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean inflammation score in the frontal recess/FSO minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean inflammation score in the frontal recess/FSO|Day 90||-0.9|-14.7|0.028
90897968|NCT04858802|181661571|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.76|STANDARD_DEVIATION|27.99||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|-0.3||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean inflammation score in the frontal recess/FSO minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean inflammation score in the frontal recess/FSO|Day 180||-0.3|-13.2|0.041
91029012|NCT00266409|181941653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3125||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAMA-A psychic factors subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.3125
91093519|NCT04108468|182070991|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.48||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.22|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable). Multiple imputation addressed missing data.|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||1.22|0.19|0.124
90842539|NCT00658359|181550468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.9698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36 Cardiac and Renal Dysfunction||0.25|-0.26|0.9698
90842540|NCT00658359|181550468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.3065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36 Cardiac and Renal Dysfunction||0.54|-0.17|0.3065
90842541|NCT00658359|181550468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.7147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36 Side Effects of Corticosteroids||0.23|-0.33|0.7147
90842542|NCT00658359|181550468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.4852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36 Side Effects of Corticosteroids||0.53|-0.25|0.4852
90842543|NCT00658359|181550468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36 Increased Growth of Gum and Hair||0.03|-0.46|0.0888
90842544|NCT00658359|181550468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36 Increased Growth of Gum and Hair||0.03|-0.65|0.0719
90842545|NCT00658359|181550468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.7531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36 Transplantation-Associated Psychological Distress||0.33|-0.24|0.7531
90842546|NCT00658359|181550468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.6412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36 Transplantation-Associated Psychological Distress||0.30|-0.49|0.6412
90842547|NCT00658359|181550468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.9186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36 Global Score||0.18|-0.20|0.9186
90842548|NCT00658359|181550468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.6629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36 Global Score||0.33|-0.21|0.6629
91093520|NCT04108468|182070992|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.89||||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|4.63|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable). Multiple imputation addressed missing data.|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||4.63|0.78|0.161
91093521|NCT04108468|182070993|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67||||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|4.02|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable). Multiple imputation addressed missing data.|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||4.02|0.70|0.251
90842549|NCT00658359|181550469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.72||0.2826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.22|1.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24 Pain Intensity Total Converted Score||1.53|-5.22|0.2826
90842550|NCT00658359|181550469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.97||0.5371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.65|5.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24 Pain Intensity Total Converted Score||5.09|-2.65|0.5371
90842551|NCT00658359|181550469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.7503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|1.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24 Non-Pain Symptoms Converted Score||1.02|-1.41|0.7503
90842552|NCT00658359|181550469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|2.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24 Non-Pain Symptoms Converted Score||2.21|-0.60|0.2610
90842553|NCT00658359|181550469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98||0.3656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|2.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24 Satisfaction Converted Score||2.82|-1.04|0.3656
90842554|NCT00658359|181550469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15||0.4405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.16|1.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24 Satisfaction Converted Score||1.37|-3.16|0.4405
90842555|NCT00658359|181550469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.96||0.4135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.45|2.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36 Pain Intensity Total Converted Score||2.25|-5.45|0.4135
90842556|NCT00658359|181550469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.75||0.7272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.45|6.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36 Pain Intensity Total Converted Score||6.37|-4.45|0.7272
90842557|NCT00658359|181550469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.8111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|1.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36 Non-Pain symptoms Converted Score||1.22|-1.56|0.8111
90842558|NCT00658359|181550469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02||0.2636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|3.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36 Non-Pain Symptoms Converted Score||3.13|-0.86|0.2636
90842559|NCT00658359|181550469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.13||0.689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|2.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36 Satisfaction Converted Score||2.67|-1.77|0.6890
90842560|NCT00658359|181550469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.62||0.4853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.31|2.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36 Satisfaction Converted Score||2.05|-4.31|0.4853
90859716|NCT03673046|181582873|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.1255|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5705|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2532|-6.9978||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons because this was the pre-specified primary endpoint comparison. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was alpha=.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures were modeled with a compound symmetry with heterogeneous variance covariance matrix.|The effect is presented as the Smartphone-delivered CBT for BDD group outcome compared to the 12-eeek waitlist control group outcome at the trial end-point (week 12).|Null hypothesis: there is no significant difference in BDD-YBOCS total scores between the treatment groups at endpoint (week 12).||-6.9978|-13.2532|<.0001
91029013|NCT00266409|181941654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3174||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAMA-A psychic factors subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.3174
91093522|NCT04108468|182070994|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|3.6|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable). Multiple imputation addressed missing data.|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||3.60|0.63|0.363
91093523|NCT04108468|182070995|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.46|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable). Multiple imputation addressed missing data.|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||2.46|0.40|0.991
90897969|NCT04858802|181661572|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.96||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.0||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean polypoid edema grade in the frontal recess/FSO minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean polypoid edema grade in the frontal recess/FSO|Day 21||0.0|-0.5|0.063
91093524|NCT04108468|182070996|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.12||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|9.1|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable). Multiple imputation addressed missing data.|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||9.10|1.07|0.037
90842561|NCT02754440|181550472|OTHER|A procedure is a success if the subject's platelet product has a residual WBC count of \< 5.0 × 10\^6 for the single platelet product group. The FDA requirements are met if the lower one-sided 95% confidence interval for the procedure success rate is at least 95%.|Simple Sample Proportion|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0|||ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.968||||||When estimated proportion is 100%, standard error of the mean is estimated as 0.|Up to 450 healthy adult subjects will be enrolled in this study to ensure 93 evaluable single platelet product collections, 93 evaluable double platelet product collections, and 93 evaluable triple platelet product collections. This number was chosen to meet the FDA requirements of at least 95% of platelet units with an acceptable residual WBC level with 95% confidence. With 93 platelet products, this allowed for at most 1 failure.|||0.968|
90842562|NCT02754440|181550472|OTHER|A procedure is a success if the subject's platelet product has a residual WBC count of \< 8.0 × 10\^6 for the double platelet product group, or \< 5.0 × 10\^6 for each transfusable unit . The FDA requirements are met if the lower one-sided 95% confidence interval for the procedure success rate is at least 95%.|Simple Sample Proportion|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0|||ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.968||||||When estimated proportion is 100%, standard error of the mean is estimated as 0.|Up to 450 healthy adult subjects will be enrolled in this study to ensure 93 evaluable single platelet product collections, 93 evaluable double platelet product collections, and 93 evaluable triple platelet product collections. This number was chosen to meet the FDA requirements of at least 95% of platelet units with an acceptable residual WBC level with 95% confidence. With 93 platelet products, this allowed for at most 1 failure.|||0.968|
90842563|NCT02754440|181550472|OTHER|A procedure is a success if the subject's platelet product has a residual WBC count of \< 12.0 × 10\^6 for the triple platelet product group, or \< 5.0 × 10\^6 for each transfusable unit . The FDA requirements are met if the lower one-sided 95% confidence interval for the procedure success rate is at least 95%.|Simple Sample Proportion|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0|||ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.968||||||When estimated proportion is 100%, standard error of the mean is estimated as 0.|Up to 450 healthy adult subjects will be enrolled in this study to ensure 93 evaluable single platelet product collections, 93 evaluable double platelet product collections, and 93 evaluable triple platelet product collections. This number was chosen to meet the FDA requirements of at least 95% of platelet units with an acceptable residual WBC level with 95% confidence. With 93 platelet products, this allowed for at most 1 failure.|||0.968|
90842564|NCT02754440|181550473|OTHER|A procedure is a success if the subject's platelet product has a platelet yield of ≥ 3.0 × 10\^11 for the single platelet product group. The requirements are met if the lower one-sided 95% confidence interval for the procedure success rate is at least 75%.|Simple Sample Proportion|0.957|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|||ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.904|||||||Up to 450 healthy subjects were enrolled to ensure 93 evaluable single, double, and triple platelet product collections. With 93 platelet products being collected, 16 failures or less was required to show that the proportion of units with an acceptable platelet yield is at least 75% with 95% confidence.|||0.904|
90842565|NCT02754440|181550473|OTHER|A procedure is a success if the subject's platelet product has a platelet yield of ≥ 6.2 × 10\^11 for the double platelet product group. The requirements are met if the lower one-sided 95% confidence interval for the procedure success rate is at least 75%.|Simple Sample Proportion|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0|||ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.968||||||When estimated proportion is 100%, standard error of the mean is estimated as 0.|Up to 450 healthy subjects were enrolled to ensure 93 evaluable single, double, and triple platelet product collections. With 93 platelet products being collected, 16 failures or less was required to show that the proportion of units with an acceptable platelet yield is at least 75% with 95% confidence.|||0.968|
90897970|NCT04858802|181661572|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.77||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.1||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean polypoid edema grade in the frontal recess/FSO minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean polypoid edema grade in the frontal recess/FSO|Day 45||-0.1|-0.4|0.015
91029014|NCT00266409|181941654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9427||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAMA-A psychic factors subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.9427
91029015|NCT00266409|181941655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3252||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAMA-A psychic factors subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.3252
91029016|NCT00266409|181941655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.609||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAMA-A psychic factors subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.6090
91093525|NCT04108468|182070997|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.5||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|6.4|||Regression, Logistic||The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||6.40|0.98|0.056
91093526|NCT04108468|182070998|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72||||0.277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|4.57|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable). Multiple imputation addressed missing data.|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||4.57|0.65|0.277
91093527|NCT04108468|182070999|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|3.92|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable). Multiple imputation addressed missing data.|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||3.92|0.48|0.548
90897971|NCT04858802|181661572|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.78||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.1||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean polypoid edema grade in the frontal recess/FSO minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean polypoid edema grade in the frontal recess/FSO|Day 90||-0.1|-0.4|0.007
90897972|NCT04858802|181661572|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.75||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.0||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean polypoid edema grade in the frontal recess/FSO minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean polypoid edema grade in the frontal recess/FSO|Day 180||0.0|-0.4|0.034
90897973|NCT04858802|181661573|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.65||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean adhesion/scarring grade in the ethmoid sinus minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean adhesion/scarring grade in the ethmoid sinus|Day 21||0.2|-0.2|0.830
90897974|NCT04858802|181661573|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.59||0.829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean adhesion/scarring grade in the ethmoid sinus minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean adhesion/scarring grade in the ethmoid sinus|Day 45||0.1|-0.2|0.829
90897975|NCT04858802|181661573|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.64||0.132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.0||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean adhesion/scarring grade in the ethmoid sinus minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean adhesion/scarring grade in the ethmoid sinus|Day 90||0.0|-0.3|0.132
90897976|NCT04858802|181661573|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.79||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean adhesion/scarring grade in the ethmoid sinus minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean adhesion/scarring grade in the ethmoid sinus|Day 180||0.1|-0.3|0.310
90897977|NCT04858802|181661574|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.48||0.666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean polyp grade in the ethmoid sinus minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean polyp grade in the ethmoid sinus|Day 21||0.1|-0.2|0.666
90897978|NCT04858802|181661574|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.46||0.497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean polyp grade in the ethmoid sinus minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean polyp grade in the ethmoid sinus|Day 45||0.1|-0.2|0.497
90897979|NCT04858802|181661574|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.5||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.0||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean polyp grade in the ethmoid sinus minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean polyp grade in the ethmoid sinus|Day 90||0.0|-0.2|0.235
90897980|NCT04858802|181661574|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.41||0.677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean polyp grade in the ethmoid sinus minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean polyp grade in the ethmoid sinus|Day 180||0.1|-0.1|0.677
91029017|NCT00266409|181941656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1247||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAMA-A psychic factors subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.1247
91029018|NCT00266409|181941656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.843||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAMA-A psychic factors subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.8430
91029019|NCT00266409|181941657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1031||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAMA-A somatic subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.1031
91093528|NCT04108468|182071000|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.7||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|10.97|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable). Multiple imputation addressed missing data.|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||10.97|1.25|0.018
91093529|NCT04108468|182071001|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|4.02|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable). Multiple imputation addressed missing data.|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||4.02|0.28|0.926
90897981|NCT04858802|181661575|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.48||0.868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.6||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean CRS side-specific symptom total score minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean CRS side-specific symptom total score|Day 21||0.6|-0.7|0.868
90897982|NCT04858802|181661575|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.3||0.823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.7||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean CRS side-specific symptom total score minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean CRS side-specific symptom total score|Day 45||0.7|-0.5|0.823
90897983|NCT04858802|181661575|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.26||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean CRS side-specific symptom total score minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean CRS side-specific symptom total score|Day 90||0.5|-0.5|1.00
91029020|NCT00266409|181941657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0543||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAMA-A somatic subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.0543
91029021|NCT00266409|181941658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0508||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAMA-A somatic subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.0508
91029022|NCT00266409|181941658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0871||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAMA-A somatic subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.0871
91029023|NCT00266409|181941659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8318||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAMA-A somatic subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.8318
91093530|NCT04108468|182071002|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73||||0.385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|5.94|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable). Multiple imputation addressed missing data.|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||5.94|0.50|0.385
91093531|NCT04108468|182071003|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|2.12|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable). Multiple imputation addressed missing data.|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||2.12|0.32|0.684
91093532|NCT04108468|182071004|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.72||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|326.19|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable). Multiple imputation addressed missing data.|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||326.19|0.86|0.063
91093533|NCT04108468|182071005|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.9||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|72.42|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable). Multiple imputation addressed missing data.|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||72.42|1.09|0.041
90897984|NCT04858802|181661575|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.16||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.2||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean CRS side-specific symptom total score minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean CRS side-specific symptom total score|Day 180||0.2|-0.8|0.188
90897985|NCT04858802|181661579|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.28|STANDARD_DEVIATION|18.12||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|11.7||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean FSO cross-sectional area minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean FSO cross-sectional area|||11.7|0.8|0.025
90897986|NCT04858802|181661580|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.98|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.49||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|7.8||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean FSO cross-sectional area change from baseline to Day 45 minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean FSO cross-sectional area change from baseline to Day 45|Day 45||7.8|0.2|0.04
90897987|NCT04858802|181661580|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-3.45|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.02||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|0.6||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean FSO cross-sectional area change from baseline to Day 180 minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean FSO cross-sectional area change from baseline to Day 180|Day 180||0.6|-7.5|0.09
90897988|NCT04858802|181661581|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|61.54|STANDARD_DEVIATION|460.18||0.375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.7|199.8||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean FSOT volume minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean FSOT volume|Day 45||199.8|-76.7|0.375
90897989|NCT04858802|181661581|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-51.98|STANDARD_DEVIATION|434.64||0.432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-184.1|80.2||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean FSOT volume minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean FSOT volume|Day 180||80.2|-184.1|0.432
91093534|NCT04108468|182071006|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.71||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|52.14|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable). Multiple imputation addressed missing data.|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||52.14|0.86|0.069
91029024|NCT00266409|181941659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5375||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAMA-A somatic subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.5375
91029025|NCT00266409|181941660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2186||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAMA-A somatic subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.2186
91029026|NCT00266409|181941660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0422||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAMA-A somatic subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.0422
90897990|NCT04858802|181661582|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.74|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.13||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.4||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean FSO minimum diameter minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean FSO minimum diameter|Day 45||1.4|0.1|0.023
90897991|NCT04858802|181661582|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.24||0.646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.5||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean FSO minimum diameter minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean FSO minimum diameter|Day 180||0.5|-0.8|0.646
91029027|NCT00266409|181941661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1164||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAMA-A somatic subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.1164
91029028|NCT00266409|181941661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1935||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAMA-A somatic subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.1935
91029029|NCT00266409|181941662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1244||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAMA-A somatic subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.1244
91029030|NCT00266409|181941662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6182||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAMA-A somatic subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.6182
91093535|NCT04108468|182071007|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.34||||0.397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|16.66|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable). Multiple imputation addressed missing data.|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||16.66|0.33|0.397
91093536|NCT04108468|182071008|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.33||||0.309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|2.83|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable). Multiple imputation addressed missing data.|The placebo/methotrexate arm was the reference category.|||2.83|0.04|0.309
91093537|NCT04108468|182071009|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|4.6|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable). Multiple imputation addressed missing data.|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||4.60|0.17|0.871
91093538|NCT04108468|182071010|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.48||||0.555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|5.52|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable). Multiple imputation addressed missing data.|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||5.52|0.04|0.555
90842566|NCT02754440|181550473|OTHER|A procedure is a success if the subject's platelet product has a platelet yield of ≥ 9.3 × 10\^11 for the triple platelet product group. The requirements are met if the lower one-sided 95% confidence interval for the procedure success rate is at least 75%.|Simple Sample Proportion|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0|||ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.968||||||When estimated proportion is 100%, standard error of the mean is estimated as 0.|Up to 450 healthy subjects were enrolled to ensure 93 evaluable single, double, and triple platelet product collections. With 93 platelet products being collected, 16 failures or less was required to show that the proportion of units with an acceptable platelet yield is at least 75% with 95% confidence.|||0.968|
90842567|NCT01189032|181550486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||||||It's the p-value of linear trend. It's adjusted for multiplicity.|maximum contrast method|To confirm dose-response relation, two contrasts were provided; linear trend (-1, 0, 1), and saturated at 1% DE-089 ophthalmic solution (-2, 1, 1).||||||0.004
90842568|NCT01189032|181550486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||||||It's the p-value of Saturated at 1% DE-089. It's adjusted for multiplicity.|maximum contrast method|To confirm dose-response relation, two contrasts were provided; linear trend (-1, 0, 1), and saturated at 1% DE-089 ophthalmic solution (-2, 1, 1).||||||0.006
90842569|NCT01995838|181550488|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.51||||0.0651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|1.06|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||||1.06|-0.03|0.0651
90842570|NCT01995838|181550488|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.13||||0.649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.7|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||||0.70|-0.44|0.6490
90842571|NCT01995838|181550488|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.43||||0.1059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.94|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||||0.94|-0.09|0.1059
90842572|NCT01995838|181550488|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.01||||0.9818|TWO_SIDED|95.0||0.55|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||||0.55|-0. 54|0. 9818
90842573|NCT01995838|181550488|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.38||||0.1071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.85|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||||0.85|-0.08|0. 1071
90842574|NCT01995838|181550488|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.68||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.17|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||||1.17|0.19|0.0063
90842575|NCT01995838|181550489|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.57||||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|7.94|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 1-2||7.94|1.19|0.0083
90842576|NCT01995838|181550489|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.44||||0.0151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|8.01|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 1-2||8.01|0.86|0.0151
90842577|NCT01995838|181550489|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.74||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.54|8.93|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 1-2||8.93|2.54|0.0005
90897992|NCT02714868|181661593|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||For goal attainment, we calculated independent t-tests to compare GAS t-scores across groups at outcome. Lowest score is 0, highest score is 100. 100 is highest goal attainment.||||.05
90897993|NCT05056870|181661604|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was declared if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval of was below 0.00 logMAR.|Mean Difference|-0.097|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.008|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.113|-0.081|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger method was used for denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|||-0.081|-0.113|
90842578|NCT01995838|181550489|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|8.09|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.73|11.45|||ANCOVA|||Days 1-2||11.45|4.73|<0.0001
90842579|NCT01995838|181550489|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|10.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.2|12.93|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 1-2||12.93|7.20|<0.0001
90842580|NCT01995838|181550489|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|10.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.18|13.08|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 1-2||13.08|7.18|<0.0001
90842581|NCT01995838|181550489|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.34||||0.8505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.22|3.9|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 14-15||3.90|-3.22|0.8505
90842582|NCT01995838|181550489|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.94||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|7.66|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 14-15||7.66|0.22|0.0380
90842583|NCT01995838|181550489|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.76||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|9.12|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 14-15||9.12|2.40|0.0008
90842584|NCT01995838|181550489|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|7.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.24|11.32|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 14-15||11.32|4.24|<0.0001
90842585|NCT01995838|181550489|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|7.89|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.86|10.92|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 14-15||10.92|4.86|<0.0001
90842586|NCT01995838|181550489|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|8.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.72|12.02|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 14-15||12.02|5.72|<0.0001
90842587|NCT01995838|181550490|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.77||||0.1407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.09|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 1-2||1.09|0.54|0.1407
90842588|NCT01995838|181550490|SUPERIORITY|Days 1-2|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.55||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.8|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||||0.80|0.38|0.0018
90842589|NCT01995838|181550490|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.6||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.83|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 1-2||0.83|0.43|0.0025
90842590|NCT01995838|181550490|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.54||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.76|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 1-2||0.76|0.38|0.0006
90842591|NCT01995838|181550490|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.7|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 1-2||0.70|0.38|<0.0001
90842592|NCT01995838|181550490|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.54|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 1-2:||0.54|0.29|<0.0001
90842593|NCT01995838|181550490|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.73||||0.1158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.08|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 14-15||1.08|0.49|0.1158
90842594|NCT01995838|181550490|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.49||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.75|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 14-15||0.75|0.33|0.0010
90842595|NCT01995838|181550490|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.69|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 14-15||0.69|0.32|<0.0001
90842596|NCT01995838|181550490|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.47|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 14-15||0.47|0.21|<0.0001
90842597|NCT01995838|181550490|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.57|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 14-15||0.57|0.29|<0.0001
90842598|NCT01995838|181550490|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.48|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 14-15||0.48|0.24|<0.0001
90842599|NCT01995838|181550491|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-11.08||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.48|2.33|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 1-2||2.33|-24.48|0.1050
90842600|NCT01995838|181550491|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.29||||0.7501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.46|11.87|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 1-2||11.87|-16.46|0.7501
90842601|NCT01995838|181550491|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-11.26||||0.0818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.94|1.43|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 1-2||1.43|-23.94|0.0818
90842602|NCT01995838|181550491|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-19.81||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.18|-6.43|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 1-2||-6.43|-33.18|0.0038
90842603|NCT01995838|181550491|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-29.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.75|17.93|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 1-2||17.93|-40.75|<0.0001
90842604|NCT01995838|181550491|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-25.84|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.59|-14.09|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 1-2||-14.09|-37.59|<0.0001
90842605|NCT01995838|181550491|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.4642||||0.4642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|20.98|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 14-15||20.98|-9.60|0.4642
90842606|NCT01995838|181550491|SUPERIORITY|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.|LS Mean Difference|-2.31||||0.7754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.27|13.64|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 14-15||13.64|-18.27|0.7754
90842607|NCT01995838|181550491|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-10.69||||0.1461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.14|3.75|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 14-15||3.75|-25.14|0.1461
90842608|NCT01995838|181550491|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-14.73||||0.0581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.97|0.51|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 14-15||0.51|-29.97|0.0581
90842609|NCT01995838|181550491|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-20.8||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.86|-7.74|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 14-15||-7.74|-33.86|0.0019
90842610|NCT01995838|181550491|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-21.52||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.12|-7.91|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 14-15||-7.91|-35.12|0.0020
90842611|NCT01995838|181550495|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.05||||0.1483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|1.09|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 16-17||1.09|-7.20|0.1483
90842612|NCT01995838|181550495|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.64||||0.772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.96|3.69|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 16-17||3.69|-4.96|0.7720
90842613|NCT01995838|181550495|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.5||||0.4548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|5.44|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 16-17||5.44|-2.44|0.4548
90842614|NCT01995838|181550495|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.39||||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.51|1.72|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 16-17||1.72|-6.51|0.2530
90842615|NCT01995838|181550495|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.41||||0.1794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|5.93|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 16-17||5.93|-1.11|0.1794
90842616|NCT01995838|181550495|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.94||||0.6148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.74|4.63|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 16-17||4.63|-2.74|0.6148
90897994|NCT05056870|181661605|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was declared if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of was above 0.|Mean Difference|28.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.69|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.6|33.3|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger method was used for denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|||33.3|22.6|
90842617|NCT02858362|181550528|OTHER|Difference in least square means. All 23 participants in the population were included in the statistical analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.023|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.002|0.048||||||Week 24 Change from Baseline||0.048|-0.002|
90842618|NCT02858362|181550528|OTHER|Difference in least square means. All 16 participants in the population were included in the statistical analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.006|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.042||||||Week 48 Change from Baseline||0.042|-0.03|
90842619|NCT02858362|181550529|OTHER|Difference in least square means. All 24 participants in the population were included in the statistical analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.611|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.324|-0.898||||||Week 24 Change from Baseline||-0.898|-4.324|
90842620|NCT02858362|181550529|OTHER|Difference in least square means. All 16 participants in the population were included in the statistical analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.166|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.103|3.435||||||Week 48 Change from Baseline||3.435|-1.103|
90842621|NCT02858362|181550530|OTHER|Difference in least square means. All 24 participants in the population were included in the statistical analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.837|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.989|0.315||||||Week 24 Change from Baseline||0.315|-3.989|
90842622|NCT02858362|181550530|OTHER|Difference in least square means. All 16 participants in the population were included in the statistical analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.096|4.324||||||Week 48 Change from Baseline||4.324|0.096|
90842623|NCT01821118|181550547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.984|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.112|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.82|1.184|||||SE of mean is presented in log e scale.|ROI1: Analysis of the change from baseline in log(slope) was carried out using a Bayesian linear model (ANCOVA). Treatment was a fixed effect within the model and the log(slope) at baseline was included as a covariate.||1.184|0.820|
90842624|NCT01821118|181550547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.934|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.075|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.825|1.056|||||SE of mean is presented in log e scale.|ROI2: Analysis of the change from baseline in log(slope) was carried out using a Bayesian linear model (ANCOVA). Treatment was a fixed effect within the model and the log(slope) at baseline was included as a covariate.||1.056|0.825|
90842625|NCT01821118|181550548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.852|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.091|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.735|0.989|||||SE of mean is presented on log e scale.|ROI1: Analysis of the change from baseline in log(slope) was carried out using a Bayesian linear model (ANCOVA). Treatment was a fixed effect within the model and the log(slope) at baseline was included as a covariate.||0.989|0.735|
90897995|NCT05056870|181661606|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-Inferiority was declared if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval of was below 0.05 logMAR.|Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0061|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.032|-0.008|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger method was used for denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|||-0.008|-0.032|
90897996|NCT05056870|181661607|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was declared if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of was above 1.|Mean Ratio|2.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.73|5.11|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model||Mean Ratio was calculated as Test over Control|||5.11|1.73|
91029031|NCT00266409|181941663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4589||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAMA-A somatic subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.4589
90897997|NCT01373931|181661649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|0.976|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.907|1.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|Ratio of Geometric LS mean is for ethinyl estradiol.||||1.05|0.907|
90897998|NCT01373931|181661649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|0.914|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.842|0.991|||Mixed Models Analysis|Ratio of Geometric LS mean is for norelgestromin.||||0.991|0.842|
91093539|NCT04108468|182071011|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.28||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.72|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable). Multiple imputation addressed missing data.|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||0.72|0.11|0.009
90842626|NCT01821118|181550548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.902|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.082|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.788|1.031|||||SE of mean presented on log e scale.|ROI2: Analysis of the change from baseline in log(slope) was carried out using a Bayesian linear model (ANCOVA). Treatment was a fixed effect within the model and the log(slope) at baseline was included as a covariate.||1.031|0.788|
90842627|NCT01821118|181550549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.046|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.933|1.086|||||SE of mean presented on log e scale.|ROI1, Day 2: Analysis of the change from baseline in log(time to peak) was carried out using a Bayesian linear model (ANCOVA). Treatment was a fixed effect within the model and the log(time to peak) at baseline was included as a covariate.||1.086|0.933|
90842628|NCT01821118|181550549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.049|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.99|1.114|||||SE of mean presented on log e scale.|ROI1, Day 90: Analysis of the change from baseline in log(time to peak) was carried out using a Bayesian linear model (ANCOVA). Treatment was a fixed effect within the model and the log(time to peak) at baseline was included as a covariate.||1.114|0.990|
90842629|NCT01821118|181550549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.998|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.947|1.052|||||SE of mean presented on log e scale.|ROI2, Day 2: Analysis of the change from baseline in log(time to peak) was carried out using a Bayesian linear model (ANCOVA). Treatment was a fixed effect within the model and the log(time to peak) at baseline was included as a covariate.||1.052|0.947|
90842630|NCT01821118|181550549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.063|||||SE of mean presented on log e scale.|ROI2, Day 90: Analysis of the change from baseline in log(time to peak) was carried out using a Bayesian linear model (ANCOVA). Treatment was a fixed effect within the model and the log(time to peak) at baseline was included as a covariate.||1.063|0.960|
90842631|NCT01821118|181550550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Treatment Difference (log e)|0.0602|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1281|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1576|0.2781||||||ROI1, Day 2: Analysis of the change from baseline in log(amplitude) was carried out using a linear model (ANCOVA). Treatment was a fixed effect within the model and the log(amplitude) at baseline was included as a covariate.||0.2781|-0.1576|
90842632|NCT01821118|181550550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Treatment Difference (log e)|-0.0859|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1165|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2843|0.1124||||||ROI1, Day 90: Analysis of the change from baseline in log(amplitude) was carried out using a linear model (ANCOVA). Treatment was a fixed effect within the model and the log(amplitude) at baseline was included as a covariate.||0.1124|-0.2843|
90842633|NCT01821118|181550550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Treatment Difference (log e)|-0.0488|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0902|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2018|0.1042||||||ROI2, Day 2: Analysis of the change from baseline in log(amplitude) was carried out using a linear model (ANCOVA). Treatment was a fixed effect within the model and the log(amplitude) at baseline was included as a covariate.||0.1042|-0.2018|
90842634|NCT01821118|181550550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Treatment Difference (log e)|-0.0888|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1061|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2689|0.0914||||||ROI2, Day 90: Analysis of the change from baseline in log(amplitude) was carried out using a linear model (ANCOVA). Treatment was a fixed effect within the model and the log(amplitude) at baseline was included as a covariate.||0.0914|-0.2689|
90842635|NCT01821118|181550551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Treatment Difference (log e)|0.0464|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0395|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0207|0.1136||||||ROI1, Day 2: Analysis of the change from baseline in log(time to return to baseline) was carried out using a linear model (ANCOVA). Treatment was a fixed effect within the model and the log(time to return to baseline) at baseline was included as a covariate.||0.1136|-0.0207|
90897999|NCT01373931|181661650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.73|0.51|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|Median difference is for ethinyl estradiol.||||0.51|-0.73|
90842636|NCT01821118|181550551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Treatment Difference (log e)|0.0737|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0383|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0084|0.139||||||ROI1, Day 90: Analysis of the change from baseline in log(time to return to baseline) was carried out using a linear model (ANCOVA). Treatment was a fixed effect within the model and the log(time to return to baseline) at baseline was included as a covariate.||0.1390|0.0084|
90842637|NCT01821118|181550551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Treatment Difference (log e)|0.0219|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0337|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0352|0.079||||||ROI2, Day 2: Analysis of the change from baseline in log(time to return to baseline) was carried out using a linear model (ANCOVA). Treatment was a fixed effect within the model and the log(time to return to baseline) at baseline was included as a covariate.||0.0790|-0.0352|
90842638|NCT01821118|181550551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Treatment Difference (log e)|0.0117|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.046|0.0694||||||ROI2, Day 90: Analysis of the change from baseline in log(time to return to baseline) was carried out using a linear model (ANCOVA). Treatment was a fixed effect within the model and the log(time to return to baseline) at baseline was included as a covariate.||0.0694|-0.0460|
90842639|NCT00346697|181550591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.01
90842640|NCT00346697|181550592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.80
90898000|NCT01373931|181661650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|0.5|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|Median difference is for norelgestromin.||||0.50|-0.50|
91093540|NCT00909870|182071045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|6.5||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||This p-value did not meet the prespecified threshold for statistical significance of \< 0.05|Chi-squared|Unadjusted||"H0: the proportion of responders in the Dermagraft group = the proportion of responders in the Control group.~HA: the proportion of responders in the Dermagraft group ≠ the proportion of responders in the Control group.~The proportion of responders in the Dermagraft group was compared with the proportion of responders in the control group using the uncorrected chi-square test for 2x2 contingency tables. The difference between the groups was expected to be 13%."||||0.1030
91093541|NCT00909870|182071046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|6.0||||0.4046||95.0||||This p-value did not meet the prespecified threshold for statistical significance of \< 0.05|Log Rank|||||||0.4046
91093542|NCT00909870|182071047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|10.0||||0.0239||95.0||||Unadjusted|Chi-squared|Unadjusted||Pre-specified subgroup analysis of the primary endpoint||||0.0239
90842641|NCT00346697|181550593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.72
90842642|NCT00346697|181550594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.16
90842643|NCT00346697|181550595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.96
90842644|NCT00346697|181550596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.70
90842645|NCT00346697|181550597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.20
90842646|NCT00346697|181550598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.006
90842647|NCT00346697|181550599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.04
90842648|NCT00346697|181550600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.89
90842649|NCT00346697|181550601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.89
90842650|NCT00346697|181550602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.25
90842651|NCT00346697|181550603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.14
90842652|NCT00346697|181550604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.12
90842653|NCT00346697|181550605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.30
90898001|NCT01373931|181661651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.07||||||90.0|1.0|1.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|Ratio of Geometric LS mean is for ethinyl estradiol.||||1.15|1.00|
90842654|NCT02691507|181550646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||<0.001
90842655|NCT02691507|181550646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||0.002
90842656|NCT02691507|181550646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.795||0.616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.196|1.998||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as response, baseline score as covariate and treatment as factor.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.998|-1.196|0.616
90842657|NCT02691507|181550647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||<0.001
90842658|NCT02691507|181550647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||<0.001
90842659|NCT02691507|181550647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.803||0.297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.767|2.46||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as response, baseline score as covariate and treatment as factor.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||2.460|-0.767|0.297
90842660|NCT02691507|181550648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||<0.001
90842661|NCT02691507|181550648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||<0.001
90842662|NCT02691507|181550648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.846||0.394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.973|2.426||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as response, baseline score as covariate and treatment as factor.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||2.426|-0.973|0.394
90842663|NCT02691507|181550649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||<0.001
90842664|NCT02691507|181550649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||<0.001
90842665|NCT02691507|181550649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.708||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|1.709||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as response, baseline score as covariate and treatment as factor.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.709|-1.140|0.690
90842666|NCT02691507|181550650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||<0.001
90842667|NCT02691507|181550650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||<0.001
90898002|NCT01373931|181661651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.0||||||90.0|0.944|1.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|Ratio of Geometric LS mean is for norelgestromin.||||1.07|0.944|
91029032|NCT00266409|181941663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.393||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAMA-A somatic subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.3930
90842668|NCT02691507|181550650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.735||0.914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.556|1.397||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as response, baseline score as covariate and treatment as factor.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.397|-1.556|0.914
90842669|NCT02691507|181550651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||<0.001
90842670|NCT02691507|181550651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||<0.001
90842671|NCT02691507|181550651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.774||0.757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.796|1.314||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as response, baseline score as covariate and treatment as factor.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.314|-1.796|0.757
90842672|NCT02691507|181550652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||<0.001
90842673|NCT02691507|181550652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||<0.001
90842674|NCT02691507|181550652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.798||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.075|1.129||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as response, baseline score as covariate and treatment as factor.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.129|-2.075|0.556
90842675|NCT02691507|181550653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||<0.001
90842676|NCT02691507|181550653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||<0.001
90898003|NCT01175148|181661670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.15|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||The study used a minimax Simon two-stage design to test the null hypothesis Ho: P \> 0.35 versus the alternative H1: \< 0.15, where P is the probability of grade 2 to 4 acute GVHD at day + 100.||||<0.05
90842677|NCT02691507|181550653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.772||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.824|0.278||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as response, baseline score as covariate and treatment as factor.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.278|-2.824|0.106
90898004|NCT01010477|181661687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.632||||||threshold for statistical significance: p\< 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Fisher Exact test (2-sided)||||0.632
90905101|NCT02886728|181677439|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.0|-3.0|0.002
90842678|NCT02691507|181550654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||<0.001
90842679|NCT02691507|181550654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||<0.001
90842680|NCT02691507|181550654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|26.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.681|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.407|40.247||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as response, baseline score as covariate and treatment as factor.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||40.247|13.407|<0.001
90842681|NCT02691507|181550655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||<0.001
90842682|NCT02691507|181550655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||0.004
90842683|NCT02691507|181550655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.996|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.301|27.352||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as response, baseline score as covariate and treatment as factor.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||27.352|11.301|<0.001
90842684|NCT02691507|181550656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||<0.001
91093543|NCT03699748|182071052|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|10.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.27|14.58|||Type III F test|||||14.58|7.27|<0.001
91093544|NCT03699748|182071055|OTHER||Effect Estimate for 4 Months|12.88|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||12.88 (9.49 - 16.28)||Effect estimates were expected mean differences in Patient Activation Measure scores between groups from baseline. Effect estimates were estimated using generalized estimating equations (GEE) models as a function of treatment group, categorical time (baseline, 4 months and 12 months), and an interaction term between treatment group and time with an exchangeable correlation clustered within person. The effect estimate column shows the difference between change in the intervention group from baseline and the change in the control group from baseline.|||
91093545|NCT03699748|182071056|OTHER||Effect Estimate for 12 Months|20.65|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||20.65 (6.97 - 24.32)||Effect estimates were expected mean differences in Patient Activation Measure scores between groups from baseline. Effect estimates were estimated using generalized estimating equations (GEE) models as a function of treatment group, categorical time (baseline, 4 months and 12 months), and an interaction term between treatment group and time with an exchangeable correlation clustered within person.|||
91093546|NCT03699748|182071057|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|11.05||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.09|15.0|||Type III F-test|||||15.00|7.09|0.001
90842685|NCT02691507|181550656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||0.009
90842686|NCT02691507|181550656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.072|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.829|24.187||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as response, baseline score as covariate and treatment as factor.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||24.187|7.829|<0.001
90842687|NCT02691507|181550657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||<0.001
90842688|NCT02691507|181550657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||0.003
90842689|NCT02691507|181550657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.764|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.684|20.82||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as response, baseline score as covariate and treatment as factor.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||20.820|5.684|<0.001
90842690|NCT02691507|181550658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||<0.001
90842691|NCT02691507|181550658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||0.049
90842692|NCT02691507|181550658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.138||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.766|22.387||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as response, baseline score as covariate and treatment as factor.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||22.387|5.766|0.001
91029033|NCT00266409|181941664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.445||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAMA-A somatic subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.4450
90842693|NCT02691507|181550659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||<0.001
90842694|NCT02691507|181550659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||0.024
90842695|NCT02691507|181550659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.679||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.862|23.66||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as response, baseline score as covariate and treatment as factor.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||23.660|4.862|0.004
90842696|NCT02691507|181550660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||<0.001
90842697|NCT02691507|181550660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||0.015
91029034|NCT00266409|181941664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2924||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAMA-A somatic subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.2924
91093547|NCT03699748|182071059|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||0.91 (0.40-2.09)||Odds Ratios for any emergency room use and any hospitalization use were estimated using logistic regression models.|||
91093548|NCT03699748|182071060|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.27|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||0.27 (0.03 - 2.85)||Odds Ratios for any ED Use were estimated using logistic regression models.|||
91093549|NCT03699748|182071061|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||0.38 (0.18-0.76)||Odds Ratios for any emergency room use and any hospitalization use were estimated using logistic regression models.|||
90842698|NCT02691507|181550660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.222||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.291|21.252||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as response, baseline score as covariate and treatment as factor.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||21.252|4.291|0.004
90842699|NCT02691507|181550661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||<0.001
90842700|NCT02691507|181550661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||0.034
90842701|NCT02691507|181550661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.925||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.805|24.621||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as response, baseline score as covariate and treatment as factor.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||24.621|0.805|0.037
90842702|NCT02557139|181550711|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% confidence interval for the comparison of fed vs. fasted is within the acceptance range 80.00% to 125.00%, then it is concluded that there is no effect of food on belumosudil tablets.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means (%)|100.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.0|125.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Cmax null hypothesis: Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means = 100%|Intra-subject variability: 48.00%|125.00|80.00|< 0.001
90842703|NCT02557139|181550711|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% confidence interval for the comparison of belumosudil tablet (test drug) vs. the belumosudil capsule (reference drug) is within the acceptance range 80.00% to 125.00%, then it is concluded that there is no effect on the use of belumosudi tablet compared to belumosudil capsule.|Ratio of Geometric Means (%)|100.0||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.0|125.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Cmax null hypothesis: Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means = 100%|Intra-subject variability: 48.00%|125.00|80.00|0.23
90842704|NCT02557139|181550712|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% confidence interval for the comparison of fed vs. fasted is within the acceptance range 80.00% to 125.00%, then it is concluded that there is no effect of food on belumosudil tablets.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means (%)|100.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.0|125.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||AUC(0-inf) Null Hypothesis: Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means = 100%|Intra-subject variability: 34.25%|125.00|80.00|<0.001
90842705|NCT02557139|181550712|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% confidence interval for the comparison of belumosudil tablet (test drug) vs. the belumosudil capsule (reference drug) is within the acceptance range 80.00% to 125.00%, then it is concluded that there is no effect on the use of belumosudi tablet compared to belumosudil capsule.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means (%)|100.0||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.0|125.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||AUC(0-inf) Null Hypothesis: Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means = 100%|Intra-subject variability;|125.00|80.00|0.16
90842706|NCT02557139|181550712|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% confidence interval for the comparison of fed vs. fasted is within the acceptance range 80.00% to 125.00%, then it is concluded that there is no effect of food on belumosudil tablets.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means (%)|100.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.0|125.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||AUC(0-last) Null Hypothesis: Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means = 100%|Intra-subject variability = 38.16%|125.00|80.00|< 0.001
90842707|NCT02557139|181550712|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% confidence interval for the comparison of belumosudil tablet (test drug) vs. the belumosudil capsule (reference drug) is within the acceptance range 80.00% to 125.00%, then it is concluded that there is no effect on the use of belumosudi tablet compared to belumosudil capsule.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means (%)|100.0||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.0|125.0|||t-test, 2 sided||Intra-subject variability = 38.16%|AUC(0-last) Null Hypothesis: Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means = 100%|Intra-subject variability = 38.16%|125.00|80.00|0.18
90842708|NCT02284243|181550719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0180
90842709|NCT02284243|181550720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||Applies to SPID 0-6, SPID 0-12, and SPID 0-24|ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
90842710|NCT02284243|181550721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||Applies to perceptible and meaningful pain relief|Log Rank|||||||<0.05
90842711|NCT02284243|181550722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||Applies to ≥30% and ≥50% reduction in pain|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Test for general association stratified by site||||||<0.05
90842712|NCT02284243|181550724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0009|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0009
91029035|NCT00266409|181941665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2184||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAMA-A somatic subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.2184
90842713|NCT02284243|181550725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7718|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.7718
90842714|NCT01216189|181550726|SUPERIORITY||Mean change|-0.138||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.232|-0.044||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Model adjusted for menopausal status.||The change in serum testosterone levels between baseline and 1 year was assessed using longitudinal regression analysis (GEE).||-0.044|-0.232|0.004
91029036|NCT00266409|181941665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1281||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAMA-A psychic factors subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.1281
91029037|NCT00266409|181941666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6602||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||test of difference in percentage of subjects reporting any panic attack||||0.6602
91029038|NCT00266409|181941667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5544||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||test of difference in percentage of subjects reporting any panic attack||||0.5544
91029039|NCT00266409|181941668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9269||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||test of difference in percentage of subjects reporting any panic attack||||0.9269
91029040|NCT00266409|181941669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5271||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||test of difference in percentage of subjects reporting any panic attack||||0.5271
91029041|NCT00266409|181941670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1447||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||test of difference in percentage of subjects reporting any panic attack||||0.1447
91029042|NCT00266409|181941671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9375||95.0||||P-value from a Chi-squared test|Chi-squared|||||||0.9375
91029043|NCT00266409|181941672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9883||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||test of difference in percentage of subjects reporting any panic attack||||0.9883
91029044|NCT00266409|181941673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3093||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||test of difference in percentage of subjects reporting any panic attack||||0.3093
90842715|NCT01216189|181550726|SUPERIORITY||Mean change|-0.011||||0.805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.097|0.075||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Regression, Linear|Model adjusted for menopausal status.||The change in serum testosterone levels between baseline and 1 year was assessed using longitudinal regression analysis (GEE).||0.075|-0.097|0.805
90842716|NCT01216189|181550727|SUPERIORITY||Mean change in FSFI scores|-9.33||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.66|-1.99||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Regression, Linear|Model adjusted for Age, Psychological General Well-being total score and relationship with partner.||"The association between mean change in total FSFI score and preoperative RT was assessed using longitudinal regression analysis (GEE), using no preoperative radiotherapy as the reference group."||-1.99|-16.66|0.013
90842717|NCT04032093|181550736|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.3|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|A 50%: Before vaccination||1.3|0.9|
90842718|NCT04032093|181550736|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.1|24.7|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|A 50%: 2 Weeks after vaccination||24.7|16.1|
90842719|NCT04032093|181550736|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|15.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.9|20.4|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|A 50%: 1 Month after vaccination||20.4|11.9|
90842720|NCT04032093|181550736|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|11.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.7|14.5|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|A 50%: At delivery||14.5|8.7|
90842721|NCT04032093|181550736|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.3|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|B 50%: Before vaccination||1.3|0.9|
90842722|NCT04032093|181550736|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|24.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.5|31.7|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|B 50%: 2 Weeks after vaccination||31.7|18.5|
90898005|NCT01114204|181661688|NON_INFERIORITY|The 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated using the large sample assumption. The pre-defined non-inferiority margin for testing the difference between treatment groups was -15%.|Treatment Difference|2.58||||0.2833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.89|9.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The p-value is the result of the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusted for Baseline hemoglobin level and underlying condition.|The treatment difference (ferumoxytol - iron sucrose) was expressed as a percentage.|"Participants who achieved a ≥2.0 g/dL increase in hemoglobin from Baseline up to Week 5 were analyzed. Statistical comparison was performed for data up to Week 5 only.~Baseline was defined as the Day 1 value (prior to injection of study drug). The screening or most recent value prior to Day 1 was used for any participant with missing Day 1 information."||9.06|-3.89|0.2833
91029045|NCT00266409|181941674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5824||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||test of difference in percentage of subjects reporting any panic attack||||0.5824
91029046|NCT00266409|181941675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.044||95.0|||||Generalized Wilcoxon Test|||This analysis refers to the test of the null hypothesis that there is no difference in the survival distribution function between the treatment groups.||||0.044
91029047|NCT00266409|181941675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6587||95.0|||||Generalized Wilcoxon Test|||This analysis refers to the test of the null hypothesis that there is no difference in the survival distribution function between the treatment groups.||||0.6587
91029048|NCT00108732|181941678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent|62.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|48.3|75.3||||||||75.3|48.3|
91029049|NCT00108732|181941679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response rate (percent)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|7.2||||||||7.2|0|
91029050|NCT00108732|181941680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||median of difference|0.45||||0.003||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|The Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to test the difference between day 4 PSA and day 15 PSA.||||||0.003
91029051|NCT00108732|181941681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||median of difference|-0.04||||0.02||95.0||||The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to test the difference between pre and post-treatment PSA slopes assessed by multiple PSA values on natural log scale using a piecewise linear model with a common knot point at the date of registration.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.02
91029052|NCT01901055|181941687|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.04||F-test statistics for group X time = 4.27|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment Difference = Active CPAP - Sham CPAP|Statistical analyses were revised from the original protocol for reporting results at 24 week because unable to recruit an adequate sample size at this time point of participants originally on CPAP for 24 weeks and those who were in the original sham-CPAP group who crossed over to CPAP and completed 24 weeks of treatment.||0.04|-0.68|0.017
91029053|NCT01901055|181941688|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.99||0.307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.66|5.09||F test statistics for group X time = 1.20|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment Difference = Active CPAP - Sham CPAP|||5.09|-38.66|0.307
91029054|NCT01901055|181941689|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.35||F test statistics for group X time = 0.31|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment Difference = Active CPAP - Sham CPAP|||0.35|-0.85|0.732
91029055|NCT01901055|181941690|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.65||0.919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|8.92||F test statistics for group X time = 0.01|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment Difference = Active CPAP - Sham CPAP|||8.92|-1.62|0.919
91029056|NCT01901055|181941691|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|0.96||F-test statistics for group X time = 2.12|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment Difference = Active CPAP - Sham CPAP|||0.96|-1.18|0.125
91029057|NCT01901055|181941692|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|87.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|529.1||0.639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-936.1|1137.5||F-test statistics for group X time = 0.45|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment Difference = Active CPAP - Sham CPAP|||1137.50|-936.10|0.639
91093550|NCT03699748|182071062|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||0.42 (0.22-0.79)||Odds Ratios for any emergency room use and any hospitalization use were estimated using logistic regression models.|||
90898006|NCT00991341|181661696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.26|||ANCOVA|The treatment groups were compared with respect to the change in MODS, adjusting for baseline MODS.|The longer storage red blood cell units arm is the reference category. After adjusting for baseline MODS, the difference in the means was -0.17, positive values are in favor of longer storage duration.|||0.26|-0.60|0.44
90898007|NCT00991341|181661697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.43|||Regression, Cox|The treatment groups were compared with respect to all-cause mortality, adjusting for baseline MODS.|The longer storage duration arm is the reference category.|||1.43|0.48|0.50
90898008|NCT00991341|181661698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.32||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.17|||ANCOVA|The treatment groups were compared with respect to 28-day change in MODS, adjusting for baseline MODS.|The longer storage red blood cell units arm is the reference category. After adjusting for baseline MODS, the difference in the means was -0.32; positive values are in favor of longer storage duration.|||0.17|-0.82|0.20
90898009|NCT00991341|181661699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.018||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.033|0.069|||Fisher Exact||The difference in proportions between the two treatment arms was computed as the proportion of subjects with the event in the shorter storage duration arm minus the proportion of subjects with the event in the longer storage duration arm.|||0.069|-0.033|0.50
90898010|NCT00991341|181661700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.027||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.035|||Fisher Exact||The difference in proportions between the two treatment arms was computed as the proportion of subjects with the event in the shorter storage duration arm minus the proportion of subjects with the event in the longer storage duration arm.|||0.035|-0.090|0.40
90898011|NCT00991341|181661701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.018||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.059|0.023|||Fisher Exact||The difference in proportions between the two treatment arms was computed as the proportion of subjects with the event in the shorter storage duration arm minus the proportion of subjects with the event in the longer storage duration arm.|||0.023|-0.059|0.41
90898012|NCT00991341|181661702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.37|||Kruskal-Wallis|||||0.37|-0.62|0.75
90898013|NCT00991341|181661703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.05|||ANCOVA|The treatment arms were compared with respect to the change in creatinine, adjusting for the baseline creatinine value.|The longer storage red blood cell units arm is the reference category. After adjusting for baseline creatinine, the difference in the means was -0.02, positive values are in favor of longer storage duration.|||0.05|-0.08|0.62
90898014|NCT00991341|181661704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.93||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|5.98||The treatment arms were compared with respect to the change in troponin-I, adjusting for the baseline troponin-I value.|ANCOVA||The longer storage red blood cell units arm is the reference category. After adjusting for baseline troponin-I, the change in troponin-I values was 1.9 ng/mL higher in the shorter storage red blood cell units arm.|Troponin-I values recorded as 'too low to detect' were recoded as 0 since the median value of the minimum quantitative troponin-I value obtained among all participating sites was 0.01.||5.98|-2.11|0.35
90898015|NCT00991341|181661705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.10
90898016|NCT00991341|181661706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.65|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.41|||ANCOVA||The longer storage red blood cell units arm is the reference category. After adjusting for baseline bilirubin, the change in bilirubin values was 0.65 mg/dL lower in the shorter storage red blood cell units arm.|||-0.41|-0.89|<0.01
90898017|NCT00991341|181661708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.25||The treatment groups were compared with respect to days to first post-operative bowel movement, adjusting for baseline MODS.|Regression, Cox||The longer storage duration arm is reference category.|||1.25|0.98|0.11
90898018|NCT00991341|181661709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.22|||Regression, Cox|The treatment groups were compared with respect to days to first post-operative solid food, adjusting for baseline MODS.|The longer storage duration arm is reference category.|||1.22|0.96|0.22
90898019|NCT00991341|181661710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.21||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|1.0|||Kruskal-Wallis||The longer storage duration arm is reference category.|||1.00|-0.59|0.71
90898020|NCT00991341|181661711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.015||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.057|0.027|||Fisher Exact||The difference in proportions between the two treatment arms was computed as the proportion of subjects with the event in the shorter storage duration arm minus the proportion of subjects with the event in the longer storage duration arm.|||0.027|-0.057|0.53
90898021|NCT03315936|181661757|OTHER||geometric mean (gMean) ratio (T/R) %|110.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.73|120.79|||||To get, gMean ratio (T/R) and confidence interval, least square estimates of log-transformed PK endpoint for T and R were back transformed to original scale. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (%) = 12.3.|The analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale including 'sequence', 'period', and 'treatment' as fixed effects and 'subject within sequence' as random effect. No hypothesis was tested and no acceptance range was specified. This was an intra-individual assessment and actually 12 subjects were analyzed||120.79|100.73|
90898022|NCT03315936|181661758|OTHER||gMean ratio (T/R) %|110.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.2|121.38|||||To get, gMean ratio (T/R) and confidence interval, least square estimates of log-transformed PK endpoint for T and R were back transformed to original scale. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (%) = 12.3.|The analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale including 'sequence', 'period', and 'treatment' as fixed effects and 'subject within sequence' as random effect. No hypothesis was tested and no acceptance range was specified. This was an intra-individual assessment and actually only 12 subjects were analyzed.||121.38|101.20|
90905102|NCT02886728|181677439|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.0|-4.0|<0.001
91093551|NCT03699748|182071063|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||0.38 (0.08-1.75)||Odds Ratios for Hospitalization Use were estimated using logistic regression models.|||
91093552|NCT03699748|182071064|OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|5.86|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Odds Ratios for Goals of Care Documentation, Advance Directive Documentation, and Physician Order for Life Sustaining Treatment Documentation were estimated based on assessments 4-months and 12-months post-enrollment with logistic regression.|||||
91093553|NCT03699748|182071065|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.09|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Odds Ratios for Goals of Care Documentation, Advance Directive Documentation, and Physician Order for Life Sustaining Treatment Documentation were estimated based on assessments 4-months and 12-months post-enrollment with logistic regression.|||||
91093554|NCT03699748|182071066|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.82|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||6.82 (2.46-18.93)||Odds Ratios for Physician Order for Life Sustaining Treatment Documentation were estimated based on assessments 4-months post-enrollment with logistic regression.|||
91093555|NCT03699748|182071067|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.62|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||3.62 (1.73-7.60)||Odds Ratios for Physician Order for Life Sustaining Treatment Documentation were estimated based on assessments at 12-months post-enrollment with logistic regression.|||
90898023|NCT03315936|181661759|OTHER||gMean ratio (T/R) %|110.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.74|135.96|||||To get, gMean ratio (T/R) and confidence interval, least square estimates of log-transformed PK endpoint for T and R were back transformed to original scale. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (%) = 28.6.|The analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale including 'sequence', 'period', and 'treatment' as fixed effects and 'subject within sequence' as random effect. No hypothesis was tested and no acceptance range was specified. This was an intra-individual assessment and actually only 12 subjects were analyzed.||135.96|89.74|
90898024|NCT03541044|181661760|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was determined if the 90% CIs of the GMRs for AUC0-t fell completely within the 0.80 - 1.25 range.|Geometric mean ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.0|||||GMR= (Prototype mini Lozenge/ Nicorette mini Lozenge)|||1.00|0.91|
90898025|NCT03541044|181661761|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was determined if the 90% CIs of the GMRs for AUC(0-inf) fell completely within the 0.80 - 1.25 range.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.89|1.0|||||GMR = (Prototype mini Lozenge/Nicorette mini Lozenge)|||1.00|0.89|
91093556|NCT03699748|182071068|OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|8.56|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Odds Ratios for Goals of Care Documentation, Advance Directive Documentation, and Physician Order for Life Sustaining Treatment Documentation were estimated based on assessments 4-months and 12-months post-enrollment with logistic regression.|||||
90842723|NCT04032093|181550736|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|20.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.7|26.6|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|B 50%: 1 Month after vaccination||26.6|15.7|
90842724|NCT04032093|181550736|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|13.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.1|18.4|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|B 50%: At delivery||18.4|10.1|
90842725|NCT04032093|181550736|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.3|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|A 50%: Before vaccination||1.3|0.9|
90842726|NCT04032093|181550736|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|19.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.3|25.7|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|A 50%: 2 Weeks after vaccination||25.7|15.3|
90898026|NCT03541044|181661762|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was determined if the 90% CIs of the GMRs for Cmax fell completely within the 0.80 - 1.25 range.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.82|0.98|||||GMR = (Prototype mini Lozenge/Nicorette mini Lozenge)|||0.98|0.82|
90905103|NCT02886728|181677439|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-2.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|Mixed effects model for repeated measure|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-2.0|-4.0|<0.001
91093557|NCT03699748|182071069|OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|19.55|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Odds Ratios for Goals of Care Documentation, Advance Directive Documentation, and Physician Order for Life Sustaining Treatment Documentation were estimated based on assessments at 12-months post-enrollment with logistic regression.|||||
91093558|NCT03699748|182071070|OTHER||Effect Estimate|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||0.65 (0.44-0.98)||Proportional change in total health care costs are expressed as referent to the control group and were modeled using a generalized linear model with gamma link-log function to account for skewed cost data after adjustment for length of follow-up.|||
91093559|NCT03699748|182071071|OTHER||Effect Estimate|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||0.57 (0.28 - 1.18)||Proportional change in total health care costs are expressed as referent to the control group and were modeled using a generalized linear model with gamma link-log function to account for skewed cost data.|||
91093560|NCT03699748|182071072|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.82|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||6.82 (2.46-18.93)||Odds Ratios for palliative care receipt and hospice receipt were estimated based on assessments 4-months and 12-months post-enrollment compared with baseline (time of enrollment) using logistic regression.|||
91093561|NCT03699748|182071073|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.62|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||3.62 (1.73-7.60)||Odds Ratios for palliative care receipt and hospice receipt were estimated based on assessments 4-months and 12-months post-enrollment compared with baseline (time of enrollment) using logistic regression.|||
91093562|NCT03699748|182071074|OTHER||Effect Estimate|5.71|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||5.71 (1.56-20.93)||Odds Ratios for any ED Use and any Palliative Care were estimated using logistic regression models. Incidence Rate Ratios (IRR) were estimated using Poisson models. All ratios are expressed as referent to the control group.|||
91093563|NCT03699748|182071075|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.33|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||4.33 (0.89-21.08)||Odds Ratios for palliative care receipt and hospice receipt were estimated based on assessments 4-months and 12-months post-enrollment compared with baseline (time of enrollment) using logistic regression.|||
90957358|NCT00495586|181794613|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.5|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|24.3|||Chi-squared|||For the comparison of the efficacy of antibiotic versus placebo, we accepted a null hypothesis if the cure rate in the intervention group was the same or ±7% as that observed in the placebo arm. Based on previous studies, the expected rate of cure among patients assigned to antibiotic therapy was 90%. For an alpha of 0.05 and a beta of 0.2 and accepting possible losses of 15%, we calculated that the sample size is 677 patients in total.||24.3|3.7|<0.05
91093564|NCT03699748|182071076|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.76|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||2.76 (1.01-7.55)||Odds Ratios for palliative care receipt and hospice receipt were estimated based on assessments at 12-months post-enrollment compared with baseline (time of enrollment) using logistic regression.|||
91093565|NCT03699748|182071077|OTHER||Effect Estimate|5.71|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||5.71 (1.56-20.93)||Odds Ratios for any ED Use and any Hospice Receipt were estimated using logistic regression models. Incidence Rate Ratios (IRR) were estimated using Poisson models. All ratios are expressed as referent to the control group.|||
90898027|NCT00860067|181661816|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response of Q/LAIV was to be declared noninferior to that of trivalent FluMist if the upper bound of the 95% CI for post dose A/H1N1 GMT ratio was ≤ 1.5. This corresponded to the statistical hypothesis of: Ho: Rj \> 1.5 for any j and Ha: Rj ≤ 1.5 for all j, where Rj was the A/H1N1 post-dose GMT ratio: (FluMist B/Yamagata A/H1N1 + FluMist B/Victoria A/H1N1) divided by Q/LAIV A/H1N1.|Ratio of geometric mean|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.18|||Bootstrapping|Confidence intervals calculated based on bootstrapping method.||A/H1N1: Noninferior immune response was assessed by evaluating the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of A/H1N1 GMTs for the specified comparison. Geometric mean titers for the A/H1N1 influenza antibody measurements were calculated as: GMT = antilog\^e (mean \[log\^e x\]) where x was the assay result and e was the natural logarithm.||1.18|1.01|
90898028|NCT00860067|181661816|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response of Q/LAIV was to be declared noninferior to that of trivalent FluMist if the upper bound of the 95% CI for post dose A/H3N2 GMT ratio was ≤ 1.5. This corresponded to the statistical hypothesis of: Ho: Rj \> 1.5 for any j and Ha: Rj ≤ 1.5 for all j, where Rj was the A/H3N2 post-dose GMT ratio: (FluMist B/Yamagata A/H3N2 + FluMist B/Victoria A/H3N2) divided by Q/LAIV A/H3N2.|Ratio of geometric means|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.14|||Bootstrapping|Confidence intervals calculated based on bootstrapping method.||A/H3N2: Noninferior immune response was assessed by evaluating the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of A/H3N2 GMTs for the specified comparison. Geometric mean titers for the A/H3N2 influenza antibody measurements were calculated as: GMT = antilog\^e (mean \[log\^e x\]) where x was the assay result and e was the natural logarithm.||1.14|0.96|
90898029|NCT00860067|181661816|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response of Q/LAIV was to be declared noninferior to that of trivalent FluMist if the upper bound of the 95% CI for post dose B/Yamagata GMT ratio was ≤ 1.5. This corresponded to the statistical hypothesis of: Ho: Rj \> 1.5 for any j and Ha: Rj ≤ 1.5 for all j, where Rj was the B/Yamagata post-dose GMT ratio: (FluMist B/Yamagata) divided by (Q/LAIV B/Yamagata).|Ratio of geometric mean|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.25|||Bootstrapping|Confidence intervals calculated based on bootstrapping method.||Noninferior immune response was assessed by evaluating the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of B/Yamagata GMTs for the specified comparison. Geometric mean titers for the B/Yamagata influenza antibody measurements were calculated as: GMT = antilog\^e (mean \[log\^e x\]) where x was the assay result and e was the natural logarithm.||1.25|0.97|
90898030|NCT00860067|181661816|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response of Q/LAIV was to be declared noninferior to that of trivalent FluMist if the upper bound of the 95% CI for post dose B/Victoria GMT ratio was ≤ 1.5. This corresponded to the statistical hypothesis of: Ho: Rj \> 1.5 for any j and Ha: Rj ≤ 1.5 for all j, where Rj was the B/Victoria post-dose GMT ratio: (FluMist B/Victoria) divided by (Q/LAIV B/Victoria).|Ratio of geometric means|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.03|||Bootstrapping|Confidence intervals were calculated based on bootstrapping method.||Noninferior immune response was assessed by evaluating the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of B/Victoria GMTs for the specified comparison. Geometric mean titers for the B/Victoria influenza antibody measurements were calculated as: GMT = antilog\^e (mean \[log\^e x\]) where x was the assay result and e was the natural logarithm.||1.03|0.82|
90898031|NCT00770432|181661864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0595||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel adjusted for study site (the smallest study sites were pooled according to a pre-specified rule).||||||0.0595
90842727|NCT04032093|181550736|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.9|25.1|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|A 50%: 1 Month after vaccination||25.1|15.9|
90842728|NCT04032093|181550736|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.9|18.9|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|A 50%: At delivery||18.9|11.9|
90842729|NCT04032093|181550736|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.3|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|B 50%: Before vaccination||1.3|0.8|
90842730|NCT04032093|181550736|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|22.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.9|30.1|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|B 50%: 2 Weeks after vaccination||30.1|16.9|
90898032|NCT00988221|181661887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean - Placebo|-22.3||||||||||The analysis was adjusted for the randomization stratification factors background use of methotrexate and background use of oral corticosteroids. The analysis was also adjusted for the pain visual analog scale score at Baseline.|ANOVA|||||||
90957359|NCT03406260|181794628|NON_INFERIORITY|A p-value \< 0.05 indicates lasmiditan can be declared noninferior to placebo with noninferiority margin of 10 mmHg, i.e. the difference lasmiditan mean minus placebo mean is less than 10 mmHg.|LS Mean Difference (Final Vaules)|-1.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1000.0|1.81|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|||||1.81|-1000|<0.0001
90842731|NCT04032093|181550736|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|22.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.6|28.7|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|B 50%: 1 Month after vaccination||28.7|17.6|
90842732|NCT04032093|181550736|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|16.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.7|22.3|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|B 50%: At delivery||22.3|12.7|
90842733|NCT04032093|181550736|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.2|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|A 50%: Before vaccination||1.2|0.8|
90842734|NCT04032093|181550736|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|21.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.6|26.5|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|A 50%: 2 Weeks after vaccination||26.5|16.6|
90842735|NCT04032093|181550736|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|15.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.6|20.1|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|A 50%: 1 Month after vaccination||20.1|11.6|
90842736|NCT04032093|181550736|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|10.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.1|14.0|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|A 50%: At delivery||14.0|8.1|
90842737|NCT04032093|181550736|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.3|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|B 50%: Before vaccination||1.3|0.8|
90842738|NCT04032093|181550736|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|26.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.5|34.6|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|B 50%: 2 Weeks after vaccination||34.6|20.5|
90842739|NCT04032093|181550736|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|18.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.5|24.1|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|B 50%: 1 Month after vaccination||24.1|13.5|
90842740|NCT04032093|181550736|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.1|18.0|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|B 50%: At delivery||18.0|10.1|
90842741|NCT04032093|181550736|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.3|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|A 50%: Before vaccination||1.3|0.9|
90842742|NCT04032093|181550736|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.9|31.3|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|A 50%: 2 Weeks after vaccination||31.3|19.9|
90898033|NCT00988221|181661887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean - Tocilizumab|-32.4||||||||||The analysis was adjusted for the randomization stratification factors background use of methotrexate and background use of oral corticosteroids. The analysis was also adjusted for the pain visual analog scale score at Baseline.|ANOVA|||||||
90898034|NCT00988221|181661887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.2||||0.0076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6|-2.7||The analysis was adjusted for the randomization stratification factors background use of methotrexate and background use of oral corticosteroids. The analysis was also adjusted for the pain visual analog scale score at Baseline.|ANOVA|||||-2.7|-17.6|0.0076
90842743|NCT04032093|181550736|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|18.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.5|22.8|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|A 50%: 1 Month after vaccination||22.8|14.5|
90842744|NCT04032093|181550736|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|13.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.8|17.5|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|A 50%: At delivery||17.5|10.8|
90842745|NCT04032093|181550736|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.4|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|B 50%: Before vaccination||1.4|0.9|
90898035|NCT00988221|181661888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference|18.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|32.0||1.000 is used here as the test was considered as not significant due to the break in the hierarchical testing chain.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was adjusted for the randomization stratification factors background use of methotrexate and background use of oral corticosteroids.||The analysis used the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the randomization stratification factors background use of methotrexate and background use of oral corticosteroids.||32|5|1.000
90898036|NCT01453348|181661907|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(GMC anti-HAV + MenACWY-CRM / GMC anti-HAV)|Ratio of GMC|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.32||The testing was done by assessing the confidence interval of the ratio|ANCOVA|The Analysis of variance (ANCOVA) model included vaccine group and center as factors, age as covariate and was adjusted for baseline.||The primary criterion for immunogenicity was that the lower-limit of the two-sided 95% Confidence Interval (CI) on the ratio of Enzyme-linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA) GMCs (Hep A/B + MenACWY-CRM to Hep A/B) is below or equal to 0.5.||1.32|0.6|
90842746|NCT04032093|181550736|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|34.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.0|44.4|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|B 50%: 2 Weeks after vaccination||44.4|27.0|
90842747|NCT04032093|181550736|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|23.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.2|29.6|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|B 50%: 1 Month after vaccination||29.6|18.2|
90842748|NCT04032093|181550736|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|21.7|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|B 50%: At delivery||21.7|12.0|
90842749|NCT04032093|181550738|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|10.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.1|14.1|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|A 50%: At birth||14.1|8.1|
90842750|NCT04032093|181550738|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|8.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.5|14.5|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|A 50%: 1 Month after birth||14.5|5.5|
90842751|NCT04032093|181550738|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|15.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.7|23.4|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|A 50%: 2 Months after birth||23.4|10.7|
90842752|NCT04032093|181550738|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|5.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|9.0|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|A 50%: 4 Months after birth||9.0|3.5|
90842753|NCT04032093|181550738|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|6.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|9.6|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|A 50%: 6 Months after birth||9.6|4.5|
90842754|NCT04032093|181550738|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|14.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.1|19.9|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|B 50%: At birth||19.9|11.1|
90842755|NCT04032093|181550738|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|18.6|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|B 50%: 1 Month after birth||18.6|6.5|
90842756|NCT04032093|181550738|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|19.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.1|28.0|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|B 50%: 2 Months after birth||28.0|13.1|
90842757|NCT04032093|181550738|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|6.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|11.4|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|B 50%: 4 Months after birth||11.4|4.2|
90842758|NCT04032093|181550738|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|7.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|11.8|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|B 50%: 6 Months after birth||11.8|4.5|
90842759|NCT04032093|181550738|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.3|14.2|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|A 50%: At birth||14.2|8.3|
90842760|NCT04032093|181550738|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|9.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|14.5|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|A 50%: 1 Month after birth||14.5|6.5|
90842761|NCT04032093|181550738|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|10.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.1|15.9|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|A 50%: 2 Months after birth||15.9|7.1|
90842762|NCT04032093|181550738|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|8.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.2|12.9|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|A 50%: 4 Months after birth||12.9|5.2|
90842763|NCT04032093|181550738|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|7.5|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|A 50%: 6 Months after birth||7.5|3.1|
90842764|NCT04032093|181550738|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|14.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.5|18.7|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|B 50%: At birth||18.7|10.5|
90842765|NCT04032093|181550738|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|11.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|18.7|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|B 50%: 1 Month after birth||18.7|7.4|
90842766|NCT04032093|181550738|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|11.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|18.3|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|B 50%: 2 Months after birth||18.3|7.7|
90842767|NCT04032093|181550738|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|8.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.5|14.5|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|B 50%: 4 Months after birth||14.5|5.5|
90957360|NCT03406260|181794628|NON_INFERIORITY|A p-value \< 0.05 indicates lasmiditan can be declared noninferior to placebo with noninferiority margin of 10 mmHg, i.e. the difference lasmiditan mean minus placebo mean is less than 10 mmHg.|LS Mean Difference (Final Vaules)|-1.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1000.0|2.06|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|||||2.06|-1000|<0.0001
90842768|NCT04032093|181550738|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|8.8|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|B 50%: 6 Months after birth||8.8|3.3|
90842769|NCT04032093|181550738|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|9.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|12.3|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|A 50%: At birth||12.3|7.4|
90842770|NCT04032093|181550738|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|8.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|12.4|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|A 50%: 1 Month after birth||12.4|5.7|
90842771|NCT04032093|181550738|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|9.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.4|15.4|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|A 50%: 2 Months after birth||15.4|6.4|
91093566|NCT03818854|182071081|SUPERIORITY|Using the change in oxygenation index over 36 hours from the baseline as the primary outcome with measurements taken at 6 time points, the trial was estimated to have 80% power to detect an effect size difference of 0.43 between the trial arms.||||||0.34||||||The mixed model included the following variables: treatment arm, 6 time-points, sites, pre-defined randomization stratifications and the baseline characteristics with bivariate analyses P \< 0.20.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.34
91093567|NCT03818854|182071082|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The analysis is for the change of LIS from the baseline to day 1.||||0.92
90842772|NCT04032093|181550738|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|6.8|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|A 50%: 4 Months after birth||6.8|2.9|
90842773|NCT04032093|181550738|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|6.3|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|A 50%: 6 Months after birth||6.3|2.5|
90842774|NCT04032093|181550738|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|12.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.2|16.6|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|B 50%: At birth||16.6|9.2|
90842775|NCT04032093|181550738|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|11.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.1|17.9|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|B 50%: 1 Month after birth||17.9|7.1|
90957361|NCT02527343|181794634|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Mean|-66.83||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-104.17|-29.48|||ANCOVA|||||-29.48|-104.17|0.0009
91093568|NCT03818854|182071082|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The analysis is for the change of LIS from the baseline to day 2.||||0.37
91093569|NCT03818854|182071082|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The analysis is for the change of LIS from the baseline to day 3.||||0.54
91093570|NCT03818854|182071082|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The analysis is for the change of LIS from the baseline to day 7.||||0.19
91093571|NCT03818854|182071084|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The analysis is for the change in RALE scores from the baseline to day 1.||||0.35
91093572|NCT03818854|182071084|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The analysis is for the change in RALE scores from the baseline to day 2.||||0.25
91093573|NCT03818854|182071084|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The analysis is for the change in RALE scores from the baseline to day 3.||||0.69
90898037|NCT01453348|181661907|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(GMC anti-HBsAg + MenACWY-CRM / GMC anti-HBsAg)|Ratio of GMC|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.37||The testing was done by assessing the confidence interval of the ratio|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included vaccines group and center as factors, age as covariate and was adjusted for baseline.||The primary criterion for immunogenicity was that the the lower-limit of the two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of ELISA GMCs (Hep A/B + MenACWY-CRM to Hep A/B) is below or equal to 0.5.||2.37|0.59|
90957362|NCT02527343|181794635|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Mean|-25.69||||0.0736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.03|2.65|||ANCOVA|||Month 6||2.65|-54.03|0.0736
91029058|NCT01901055|181941693|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|0.35||F-test statistics for group X time = 0.78|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment Difference = Active CPAP - Sham CPAP|||0.35|-1.61|0.461
91093574|NCT03818854|182071084|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The analysis is for the change in RALE scores from the baseline to day 7.||||0.08
91093575|NCT03818854|182071085|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||P-value was given by ordered logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.01
90957363|NCT02527343|181794635|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Mean|-53.33||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-87.71|-18.95|||ANCOVA|||Month 12||-18.95|-87.71|0.0039
91029059|NCT01901055|181941694|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.94||0.776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.78|10.86||F-test statistics for group X time= 0.25|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment Difference = Active CPAP - Sham CPAP|||10.86|-4.78|0.776
91093576|NCT03818854|182071086|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||P-value was given by ordered logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.02
91093577|NCT03818854|182071087|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.01
91093578|NCT03818854|182071088|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.35
91093579|NCT03818854|182071089|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||Fisher Exact|||The analysis is for the percentages of patients who developed incision/wound infection events by day 14.||||0.36
91093580|NCT03818854|182071089|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Fisher Exact|||The analysis is for the percentages of patients who developed organ/space infection events by day 14.||||0.50
91093581|NCT03818854|182071089|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Fisher Exact|||The analysis is for the percentages of patients who developed ventilator-associated pneumonia by day 14.||||0.20
91093582|NCT03818854|182071090|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.56
91093583|NCT03818854|182071091|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The analysis for the SOFA score between two arms at Day 3.||||0.32
91093584|NCT03818854|182071091|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The analysis for the SOFA score between two arms at Day 7.||||0.33
91093585|NCT03818854|182071092|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The analysis is for non-pulmonary SOFA scores between the two arms at Day 3.||||0.39
91093586|NCT03818854|182071092|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The analysis is for non-pulmonary SOFA scores between the two arms at Day 7.||||0.26
91093587|NCT03818854|182071093|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Chi-squared|||The analysis is for the mortality between two arms at Day 14.||||0.29
91093588|NCT03818854|182071093|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||Chi-squared|||The analysis is for the mortality between the two arms at Day 28.||||0.83
91093589|NCT03818854|182071093|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||Chi-squared|||The analysis is for the mortality between the two arms at Day 60.||||0.56
91093590|NCT03818854|182071094|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.41
91093591|NCT03818854|182071095|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Plasma angiopoietin-2 changes from the baseline between two arms at 6 hours since the initiation of the study product infusion.||||0.56
91093592|NCT03818854|182071095|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Plasma angiopoietin-2 changes from the baseline between two arms at 24 hours since the initiation of the study product infusion.||||0.79
91093593|NCT03818854|182071095|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Plasma angiopoietin-2 changes from the baseline between two arms at 48 hours since the initiation of the study product infusion.||||0.62
91093594|NCT03818854|182071095|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Plasma angiopoietin-2 changes from the baseline between two arms at 72 hours since the initiation of the study product infusion.||||0.67
91093595|NCT03818854|182071096|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Plasma RAGE changes from the baseline between two arms at 6 hours since the initiation of the study product infusion.||||0.60
91029060|NCT01901055|181941695|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|1.89||F-test statistics for group X time = 0.98|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment Difference = Active CPAP - Sham CPAP|||1.89|-1.24|0.378
91093596|NCT03818854|182071096|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Plasma RAGE changes from the baseline between two arms at 24 hours since the initiation of the study product infusion.||||0.04
91093597|NCT03818854|182071096|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Plasma RAGE changes from the baseline between two arms at 48 hours since the initiation of the study product infusion.||||0.09
91093598|NCT03818854|182071096|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Plasma RAGE changes from the baseline between two arms at 72 hours since the initiation of the study product infusion.||||0.38
91093599|NCT03818854|182071097|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Plasma IL-6 changes from the baseline between two arms at 6 hours since the initiation of the study product infusion.||||0.28
91093600|NCT03818854|182071097|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Plasma IL-6 changes from the baseline between two arms at 24 hours since the initiation of the study product infusion.||||0.10
91093601|NCT03818854|182071097|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Plasma IL-6 changes from the baseline between two arms at 48 hours since the initiation of the study product infusion.||||0.15
91093602|NCT03818854|182071097|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Plasma IL-6 changes from the baseline between two arms at 72 hours since the initiation of the study product infusion.||||0.34
91093603|NCT03818854|182071098|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Plasma IL-8 changes from the baseline between two arms at 6 hours since the initiation of the study product infusion.||||0.85
91093604|NCT03818854|182071098|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Plasma IL-8 changes from the baseline between two arms at 24 hours since the initiation of the study product infusion.||||0.50
91093605|NCT03818854|182071098|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Plasma IL-8 changes from the baseline between two arms at 48 hours since the initiation of the study product infusion.||||0.64
91093606|NCT03818854|182071098|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Plasma IL-8 changes from the baseline between two arms at 72 hours since the initiation of the study product infusion.||||0.70
91093607|NCT03818854|182071099|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The analysis for the changes of TNFR-1 at 6 hours since the initiation of study product infusion from the baseline.||||0.32
91093608|NCT03818854|182071099|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The analysis for the changes of TNFR-1 at 24 hours since the initiation of study product infusion from the baseline.||||0.02
90898038|NCT01498822|181661928|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The primary analysis of this study aimed to demonstrate that LEV was noninferior to OXC with respect to the treatment failure rate in the Per Protocol Set. The noninferiority margin was 15 %.|Absolut difference|-10.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.2|-1.2|||Wald methodology||"Absolute difference in treatment failure rates of LEV versus OXC is defined as Treatment Failure Rate LEV minus Treatment Failure Rate OXC."|||-1.2|-20.2|
90898039|NCT03592277|181661932|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.344|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.344
90898040|NCT03592277|181661933|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.526|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.526
90898041|NCT03592277|181661934|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.123|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.123
90898042|NCT03592277|181661935|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.660
90898043|NCT03592277|181661936|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.745|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.745
90898044|NCT03592277|181661937|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.236|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.236
91093609|NCT03818854|182071099|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The analysis for the changes of TNFR-1 at 48 hours since the initiation of study product infusion from the baseline.||||0.02
90842776|NCT04032093|181550738|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|10.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|15.2|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|B 50%: 2 Months after birth||15.2|7.0|
90842777|NCT04032093|181550738|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|9.0|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|B 50%: 4 Months after birth||9.0|3.7|
90842778|NCT04032093|181550738|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|7.0|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|B 50%: 6 Months after birth||7.0|2.7|
90842779|NCT04032093|181550738|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|11.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.6|14.9|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|A 50%: At birth||14.9|8.6|
90898045|NCT02917265|181661955|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.05
90898046|NCT02481375|181661960|OTHER||Marginal means|0.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Marginal means (95% CI) of ferritin concentrations at 12-weeks using a generalized mixed-effects model with adjustments for baseline values and village clusters||||<0.05
90898047|NCT05436912|181661971|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|168.9||||0.3601|TWO_SIDED|90.0|61.3|465.3|||t-test, 2 sided||Geometric mean ratio for natural log transformed parameter (expressed as a percent) and 90% confidence interval for geometric mean ratio of natural log transformed parameter (expressed as a percent), natural log transformed back to the linear scale.|||465.3|61.3|0.3601
91029061|NCT01901055|181941696|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.24||0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.19|17.56||F-test statistics for group X time = 1.57|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment Difference = Active CPAP - Sham CPAP|||17.56|-11.19|0.213
90842780|NCT04032093|181550738|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|10.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|14.0|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|A 50%: 1 Month after birth||14.0|7.4|
90842781|NCT04032093|181550738|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.2|22.1|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|A 50%: 2 Months after birth||22.1|10.2|
90842782|NCT04032093|181550738|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|6.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|9.6|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|A 50%: 4 Months after birth||9.6|3.9|
90898048|NCT05436912|181661971|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|92.2||||0.9146|TWO_SIDED|90.0|23.0|368.9|||t-test, 2 sided||Geometric mean ratio for natural log transformed parameter (expressed as a percent) and 90% confidence interval for geometric mean ratio of natural log transformed parameter (expressed as a percent), natural log transformed back to the linear scale.|||368.9|23.0|0.9146
90898049|NCT05436912|181661971|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|119.6||||0.7478|TWO_SIDED|90.0|43.4|329.3|||t-test, 2 sided||Geometric mean ratio for natural log transformed parameter (expressed as a percent) and 90% confidence interval for geometric mean ratio of natural log transformed parameter (expressed as a percent), natural log transformed back to the linear scale.|||329.3|43.4|0.7478
90898050|NCT05436912|181661973|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|126.1||||0.4279|TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.8|212.8|||t-test, 2 sided||Geometric mean ratio for natural log transformed parameter (expressed as a percent) and 90% confidence interval for geometric mean ratio of natural log transformed parameter (expressed as a percent), natural log transformed back to the linear scale.|||212.8|74.8|0.4279
90898051|NCT05436912|181661973|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|92.4||||0.8341|TWO_SIDED|90.0|46.4|183.9|||t-test, 2 sided||Geometric mean ratio for natural log transformed parameter (expressed as a percent) and 90% confidence interval for geometric mean ratio of natural log transformed parameter (expressed as a percent), natural log transformed back to the linear scale.|||183.9|46.4|0.8341
90898052|NCT05436912|181661973|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|169.1||||0.1159|TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.1|294.6|||t-test, 2 sided||Geometric mean ratio for natural log transformed parameter (expressed as a percent) and 90% confidence interval for geometric mean ratio of natural log transformed parameter (expressed as a percent), natural log transformed back to the linear scale.|||294.6|97.1|0.1159
90957364|NCT02527343|181794637|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Mean|0.3||||0.4108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|1.03|||ANCOVA|||Month 3||1.03|-0.43|0.4108
91093610|NCT03818854|182071099|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The analysis for the changes of TNFR-1 at 72 hours since the initiation of study product infusion from the baseline.||||0.19
91093611|NCT03818854|182071100|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The analysis for the changes of Protein C at 6 hours since the initiation of study product infusion from the baseline.||||0.16
91029062|NCT01901055|181941697|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|1.28||F-test statistics for group X time = 5.66|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment Difference = Active CPAP - Sham CPAP|||1.28|-1.27|0.005
91093612|NCT03818854|182071100|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The analysis for the changes of Protein C at 24 hours since the initiation of study product infusion from the baseline.||||0.64
91029063|NCT01915732|181941721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.5||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|-1.6|||ANCOVA|||||-1.6|-7.4|0.002
91093613|NCT03818854|182071100|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The analysis for the changes of Protein C at 48 hours since the initiation of study product infusion from the baseline.||||0.80
91093614|NCT03818854|182071100|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The analysis for the changes of Protein C at 72 hours since the initiation of study product infusion from the baseline.||||0.40
91093615|NCT03818854|182071101|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The analysis for the changes of ANG-1 at 6 hours since the initiation of study product infusion from the baseline.||||0.85
91093616|NCT03818854|182071101|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The analysis for the changes of ANG-1 at 24 hours since the initiation of study product infusion from the baseline.||||0.22
91093617|NCT03818854|182071101|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The analysis for the changes of ANG-1 at 48 hours since the initiation of study product infusion from the baseline.||||0.61
91093618|NCT03818854|182071101|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The analysis for the changes of ANG-1 at 72 hours since the initiation of study product infusion from the baseline.||||0.98
91093619|NCT03818854|182071107|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.99
91093620|NCT01420536|182071109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.569|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||P values less than 0.05 would be considered statistically significant in this study.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Statistical analysis was performed by a researcher who was unaware of all procedures performed. The questionnaire about denture satisfaction originated a general score that was compared using the Wilcoxon test, according to the two tested conditions.||||0.569
91093621|NCT01420536|182071110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.339|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||P values less than 0.05 would be considered statistically significant in this study.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||For the kinesiographic assessment, the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to evaluate whether the variables had normal distribution, which was positive in the majority of cases. A comparison between the values obtained for both groups was performed by means of the paired sample t-test.||||0.339
91093622|NCT01420536|182071111|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.515||||||P values less than 0.05 would be considered statistically significant in this study.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||For the kinesiographic assessment, the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to evaluate whether the variables had normal distribution, which was positive in the majority of cases. A comparison between the values obtained for both groups was performed by means of the paired sample t-test.||||0.515
91093623|NCT01420536|182071112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.485||||||P values less than 0.05 would be considered statistically significant in this study.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t test.||For the kinesiographic assessment, the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to evaluate whether the variables had normal distribution, which was positive in the majority of cases. A comparison between the values obtained for both groups was performed by means of the paired sample t-test.||||0.485
91093624|NCT01420536|182071113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.111||||||P values less than 0.05 would be considered statistically significant in this study.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||For the kinesiographic assessment, the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to evaluate whether the variables had normal distribution, which was positive in the majority of cases. A comparison between the values obtained for both groups was performed by means of the paired sample t-test.||||0.111
91029064|NCT01915732|181941722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|-1.9|||ANCOVA|||||-1.9|-7.3|<0.001
91093625|NCT01420536|182071114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.399||||||P values less than 0.05 would be considered statistically significant in this study.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||For the kinesiographic assessment, the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to evaluate whether the variables had normal distribution, which was positive in the majority of cases. A comparison between the values obtained for both groups was performed by means of the paired sample t-test.||||0.399
91093626|NCT01420536|182071115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.55||||||P values less than 0.05 would be considered statistically significant in this study.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||For the kinesiographic assessment, the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to evaluate whether the variables had normal distribution, which was positive in the majority of cases. A comparison between the values obtained for both groups was performed by means of the paired sample t-test.||||0.550
91093627|NCT01420536|182071116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.609||||||P values less than 0.05 would be considered statistically significant in this study.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||For the kinesiographic assessment, the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to evaluate whether the variables had normal distribution, which was positive in the majority of cases. A comparison between the values obtained for both groups was performed by means of the paired sample t-test.||||0.609
91093628|NCT01420536|182071117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6||||||P values less than 0.05 would be considered statistically significant in this study.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||For the kinesiographic assessment, the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to evaluate whether the variables had normal distribution, which was positive in the majority of cases. A comparison between the values obtained for both groups was performed by means of the paired sample t-test.||||0.600
90898053|NCT05436912|181661974|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|126.0||||0.4289|TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.8|212.4|||t-test, 2 sided||Geometric mean ratio for natural log transformed parameter (expressed as a percent) and 90% confidence interval for geometric mean ratio of natural log transformed parameter (expressed as a percent), natural log transformed back to the linear scale.|||212.4|74.8|0.4289
90842783|NCT04032093|181550738|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|6.9|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|A 50%: 6 Months after birth||6.9|2.9|
90842784|NCT04032093|181550738|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.5|21.2|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|B 50%: At birth||21.2|12.5|
90842785|NCT04032093|181550738|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|12.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.6|19.1|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|B 50%: 1 Month after birth||19.1|8.6|
90842786|NCT04032093|181550738|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|17.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.9|26.2|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|B 50%: 2 Months after birth||26.2|11.9|
90842787|NCT04032093|181550738|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|14.4|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|B 50%: 4 Months after birth||14.4|5.7|
90842788|NCT04032093|181550738|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|6.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|9.9|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|B 50%: 6 Months after birth||9.9|3.9|
90842789|NCT01209325|181550841|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.112||||||Two-sided p-value|Exact poisson test|||||||0.112
90842790|NCT01209325|181550841|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.447||||||One-sided test|Exact Poisson calculation|||This study's Naive to HPV 6 group was compared to the per-protocol Merck 020 historical placebo group naive to HPV 6 (NCT00090285), 0.0 events per 100 person years (PY) versus 3.4 events per 100 PY, respectively.||||0.447
90842791|NCT01209325|181550842|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.224||||||Two-sided p-value.|Exact poisson test|||||||0.224
90842792|NCT01209325|181550842|SUPERIORITY|One-sided p-value.||||||0.361|||||||Exact Poisson calculation|||This study's Naive to HPV 11 group was compared to the per-protocol Merck 020 historical placebo group naive to HPV 11 (NCT00090285), 0.0 events per 100 person years (PY) versus 2.0 events per 100 PY, respectively.||||0.361
90842793|NCT01209325|181550843|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.079||||||Two-sided p-value.|Exact poisson test|||||||0.079
91029065|NCT01915732|181941723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.018
90842794|NCT01209325|181550843|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35||||||One-sided p-value.|Exact Poisson calculation|||This study's Naive to HPV 16 group was compared to the per-protocol Merck 020 historical placebo group naive to HPV 16 (NCT00090285), 0.0 events per 100 person years (PY) versus 1.8 events per 100 PY, respectively.||||0.350
90842795|NCT01209325|181550844|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.162|||||||Exact poisson test|||||||0.162
90842796|NCT01209325|181550844|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49||||||One-sided p-value|Exact Poisson calculation|||This study's Naive to HPV 18 group was compared to the Merck 020 per-protocol historical placebo group naive to HPV 18 (NCT00090285), 0.0 events per 100 person years (PY) versus 1.0 events per 100 PY, respectively.||||0.490
90842797|NCT01209325|181550845|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.671||||||Two-sided p-value is comparing naive and prior exposure groups for HPV 6.|Exact Poisson calculation|||||||0.671
90842798|NCT01209325|181550845|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.312||||||One-sided p-value.|Exact Poisson calculation|||This study's Naive to HPV 6 group was compared to the per-protocol Merck 020 historical placebo group naive to HPV 6 (NCT00090285), 1.8 events per 100 person years (PY) versus 4.5 events per 100 PY, respectively.||||0.312
90842799|NCT01209325|181550846|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999||||||Two-sided p-value.|Exact Poisson calculation|||||||>0.999
90842800|NCT01209325|181550846|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.209||||||One-sided p-value.|Exact Poisson calculation|||This study's Naive to HPV 11 group was compared to the per-protocol Merck 020 historical placebo group naive to HPV 11 (NCT00090285), 0.0 events per 100 person years (PY) versus 1.7 events per 100 PY, respectively.||||0.209
90842801|NCT01209325|181550847|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.386||||||Two-sided p-value.|Exact Poisson calculation|||||||0.386
90842802|NCT01209325|181550847|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.305||||||One-sided test|Exact Poisson calculation|||This study's Naive to HPV 16 group was compared to the per-protocol Merck 020 historical placebo group naive to HPV 16 (NCT00090285), 2.9 events per 100 person years (PY) versus 4.9 events per 100 PY, respectively.||||0.305
90842803|NCT01209325|181550848|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.622||||||Two-sided p-value.|Exact Poisson calculation|||||||0.622
90842804|NCT01209325|181550848|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15||||||One-sided p-value.|Exact Poisson calculation|||This study's Naive to HPV 18 group was compared to the per-protocol Merck 020 historical placebo group naive to HPV 18 (NCT00090285), 0.7 events per 100 person years (PY) versus 2.7 events per 100 PY, respectively.||||0.150
90842805|NCT01209325|181550849|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.064||||||Two-sided p-value.|Exact Poisson calculation|||||||0.064
90842806|NCT01209325|181550850|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.745||||||Two-sided test.|Exact Poisson calculation|||||||0.745
90842807|NCT01209325|181550851|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||Exact Poisson calculation|||||||0.014
90842808|NCT01209325|181550852|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.166||||||Two-sided p-value.|Exact Poisson calculation|||||||0.166
90842809|NCT01209325|181550853|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.789||||||Two-sided p-value.|Exact Poisson calculation|||||||0.789
90842810|NCT01209325|181550854|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.809||||||Two-sided p-value.|0.809|||||||0.809
90842811|NCT01209325|181550855|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.422||||||Two-sided p-value.|Exact Poisson calculation|||||||0.422
90842812|NCT01209325|181550856|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.423||||||Two-sided p-value.|Exact Poisson calculation|||||||0.423
90898054|NCT05436912|181661974|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|92.3||||0.8322|TWO_SIDED|90.0|46.5|183.3|||t-test, 2 sided||Geometric mean ratio for natural log transformed parameter (expressed as a percent) and 90% confidence interval for geometric mean ratio of natural log transformed parameter (expressed as a percent), natural log transformed back to the linear scale.|||183.3|46.5|0.8322
90957365|NCT02527343|181794637|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Mean|0.19||||0.7308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|1.34|||ANCOVA|||Month 6||1.34|-0.95|0.7308
91029066|NCT01915732|181941724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.013
91093629|NCT01420536|182071118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.611||||||P values less than 0.05 would be considered statistically significant in this study.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||For the kinesiographic assessment, the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to evaluate whether the variables had normal distribution, which was positive in the majority of cases. A comparison between the values obtained for both groups was performed by means of the paired sample t-test.||||0.611
91093630|NCT01420536|182071119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.044||||||P values less than 0.05 would be considered statistically significant in this study.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||For the kinesiographic assessment, the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to evaluate whether the variables had normal distribution, which was positive in the majority of cases. A comparison between the values obtained for both groups was performed by means of the paired sample t-test.||||0.044
91029067|NCT01915732|181941725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.1|||ANCOVA||Statistical data for the category=IL.|||0.1|-1.8|0.077
91029068|NCT01915732|181941725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.4||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|-1.1|||ANCOVA||Statistical data for the category=NIL.|||-1.1|-5.7|0.004
91029069|NCT01915732|181941726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.1|||ANCOVA||Statistical data for the category=IL.|||-0.1|-2.0|0.028
91093631|NCT01420536|182071120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.677||||||P values less than 0.05 would be considered statistically significant in this study.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||For the kinesiographic assessment, the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to evaluate whether the variables had normal distribution, which was positive in the majority of cases. A comparison between the values obtained for both groups was performed by means of the paired sample t-test.||||0.677
90898055|NCT05436912|181661974|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|169.6||||0.1131|TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.6|294.6|||t-test, 2 sided||Geometric mean ratio for natural log transformed parameter (expressed as a percent) and 90% confidence interval for geometric mean ratio of natural log transformed parameter (expressed as a percent), natural log transformed back to the linear scale.|||294.6|97.6|0.1131
90898056|NCT03885011|181662011|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.103||||0.8445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.413|2.949|||Regression, Logistic|||This analysis relates to Day 8 up to when pilocarpine HCl 0.2% either in CSF-1-FDC or as pilocarpine alone was administered for one week.||2.949|0.413|0.8445
90898057|NCT03885011|181662011|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.646||||0.266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.684|3.958|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.958|0.684|0.2660
90898058|NCT03885011|181662012|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.664||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.646|8.154|||Regression, Logistic|||||8.154|1.646|0.0015
90898059|NCT03885011|181662012|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.745||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.088|10.786|||Regression, Logistic|||||10.786|2.088|0.0002
90898060|NCT03885011|181662013|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1145|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1145
90898061|NCT03885011|181662013|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0616|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0616
90898062|NCT03885011|181662014|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0074|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0074
90898063|NCT03885011|181662014|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0001
90898064|NCT02413463|181662060|SUPERIORITY|Chi-square test||||||0.18||||||This is the calculated p-value for the success rate in the Augmented Group Vs. Faden Group|Chi-squared|||An estimation of sample size was performed considering a study power of 0.8 with an alpha error of 0.05 aiming to detect a difference of 5 Δ in the postoperative angle disparity between the 2 groups, assuming a postoperative standard deviation of 6 Δ. Based on this estimation, a total of 24 eyes were found to be adequate in each group, and considering a 25% dropout during the follow-up, recruitment of 30 study subjects in each group was targeted||||0.18
91029070|NCT01915732|181941726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.4||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|-1.2|||ANCOVA||Statistical data for the category=NIL.|||-1.2|-5.5|0.002
91029071|NCT01915732|181941727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.0|||ANCOVA||Statistical data for the category=IL.|||0.00|-0.06|0.080
91029072|NCT01915732|181941727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|-0.02|||ANCOVA||Statistical data for the category=NIL.|||-0.02|-0.12|0.004
90898065|NCT02413463|181662061|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22||||||This is the calculated p-value for the postoperative angle of deviation with spectacles for distance in Augmented recession vs. Faden group (First row)|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.22
90898066|NCT02413463|181662062|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||This is the calculated p-value for the postoperative angle of deviation without spectacles for near in Augmented recession vs. Faden group (Second row)|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
90898067|NCT02413463|181662063|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||This is the calculated p-value for the postoperative angle disparity in the Augmented Group Vs. Faden Group|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
90898068|NCT02413463|181662064|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||This is the calculated p-value for the intraoperative time in the Augmented Group Vs. Faden Group|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
91029073|NCT01915732|181941727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|-0.02|||ANCOVA||Statisticial data for the category=Total.|||-0.02|-0.09|0.003
91029074|NCT01915732|181941728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.0|||ANCOVA||Statistical data for the category=IL.|||-0.00|-0.07|0.025
90898069|NCT04203537|181662088|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0004
90898070|NCT04203537|181662089|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
90898071|NCT04203537|181662089|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0026|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0026
90898072|NCT05652036|181662104|OTHER|||||||0.21||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in NPS score pre- and post-procedure||||0.21
90898073|NCT05652036|181662105|OTHER|||||||0.07||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in overactive bladder symptom bother before and after treatment||||.07
90898074|NCT05652036|181662105|OTHER|||||||0.16||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in overactive bladder HRQL mean before and after treatment||||0.16
90898075|NCT05652036|181662106|OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||Chi-squared|||Participant rated procedural satisfaction assessed 30-days post-procedure.||||0.21
90898076|NCT05652036|181662107|OTHER|Clinical Global Impression of Improvement scale sores reported by participants as very much improved after treatment||||||0.79|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.79
90898077|NCT05652036|181662107|OTHER|Clinical Global Impression of Improvement scale sores reported by participants as much improved after treatment||||||0.27|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.27
90898078|NCT05652036|181662107|OTHER|Clinical Global Impression of Improvement scale sores reported by participants as minimally improved after treatment||||||0.14|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.14
90898079|NCT05652036|181662107|OTHER|Clinical Global Impression of Improvement scale sores reported by participants as no difference after treatment||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.0
90898080|NCT05652036|181662108|OTHER|Rates of urinary retention observed in participants after BTX-A treatment.||||||0.5|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5
90898081|NCT05652036|181662108|OTHER|Rates of urinary tract infection observed in participants after BTX-A treatment.||||||0.24|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.24
90898082|NCT05652036|181662108|OTHER|Rates of bleeding requiring evaluation observed in participants after BTX-A treatment.||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.0
90898083|NCT05652036|181662108|OTHER|Rates of hematuria observed in participants after BTX-A treatment.||||||0.46|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.46
91029075|NCT01915732|181941728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|-0.04|||ANCOVA||Statistical data for the category=NIL.|||-0.04|-0.14|<0.001
91029076|NCT01915732|181941728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|-0.03|||ANCOVA||Statistical data for the category=Total.|||-0.03|-0.10|<0.001
91093632|NCT01420536|182071121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.885||||||P values less than 0.05 would be considered statistically significant in this study.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||For the kinesiographic assessment, the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to evaluate whether the variables had normal distribution, which was positive in the majority of cases. A comparison between the values obtained for both groups was performed by means of the paired sample t-test.||||0.885
91093633|NCT04935879|182071143|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.95||||0.6967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.25|||Negative binomial regression model||Rate ratio = Ratio of rate of VOC for inclacumab group to placebo group.|Adjusted rates are based on estimate from a negative binomial model with the independent variable of treatment group (inclacumab, placebo) and adjusted for baseline hydroxyurea (HU) use (yes, no), number of VOCs in 12 months prior to screening visit (2-4, 5-10), and geographic region (North America, sub-Saharan Africa, Europe/rest of world).||1.25|0.71|0.6967
91093634|NCT04935879|182071144|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.4298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.22|||Log Rank|||Analysis was stratified by baseline HU use (yes, no), number of VOCs in 12 months prior to screening visit (2-4, 5-10), and geographic region (North America, sub-Saharan Africa, Europe/rest of world).||1.22|0.63|0.4298
91093635|NCT04935879|182071146|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|10.3||||0.0912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|22.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by baseline HU use (yes, no), number of VOCs in the 12 months prior to study entry (2-4, 5-10), and geographic region (North America, sub-Saharan Africa, Europe/rest of world).||22.2|-1.6|0.0912
91093636|NCT04935879|182071147|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|1.02||||0.9246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.47|||Negative binomial regression model||Rate ratio = Ratio of rate of VOC for inclacumab group to placebo group.|Adjusted rates are based on estimate from a negative binomial model with the independent variable of treatment group (inclacumab, placebo) and adjusted for baseline HU use (yes, no), number of VOCs in the 12 months prior to screening visit (2-4, 5-10), and geographic region (North America, sub-Saharan Africa, Europe/rest of the world).||1.47|0.71|0.9246
91093637|NCT04935879|182071148|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.92|||=|0.8263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.87|||Negative binomial regression model||Rate ratio = Ratio of rate of VOC for inclacumab group to placebo group.|Adjusted rates are based on estimate from a negative binomial model with the independent variable of treatment group (inclacumab, placebo) and adjusted for baseline HU use (yes, no), number of VOCs in 12 months prior to screening visit (2-4, 5-10), and geographic region (North America, sub-Saharan Africa, Europe/rest of world).||1.87|0.46|=0.8263
90842813|NCT02000115|181550951|NON_INFERIORITY|8.0% non-inferiority margin|Difference in percentages between groups|1.5||||0.006|ONE_SIDED|95.0||5.7||p for non-inferiority|Kaplan-Meier estimates|Kaplan-Meier was used as the method for calculating the endpoint rate|Non-inferiority of the Portico valve to commercially available valves was shown if the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval (1-sided) for the difference in event rates between groups was less than the non-inferiority margin (8·0%)|We analysed the primary effectiveness endpoint in the intention-to- treat (ITT) population using the Kaplan-Meier method to estimate event rates, the Greenwood method to calculate the standard error of the Kaplan-Meier estimates, and assuming an asymptotic normal distribution for event rate estimates.||5.7||0.006
90842814|NCT02000115|181550952|NON_INFERIORITY|8.5% non-inferiority margin|Difference in percentages between groups|4.2||||0.03|ONE_SIDED|95.0||8.1||p for non-inferiority|Kaplan-Meier estimates|Kaplan-Meier was used as the method for calculating the endpoint rate|Non-inferiority of the Portico valve to commercially available valves was shown if the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval (1-sided) for the difference in event rates between groups was less than the non-inferiority margin (8·5%)|We analysed the primary safety endpoint in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population using the Kaplan-Meier method to estimate event rates, the Greenwood method to calculate the standard error of the Kaplan-Meier estimates, and assuming an asymptotic normal distribution for event rate estimates.||8.1||0.03
90842815|NCT02000115|181550954|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin of 4%|Difference in percentages between groups|0.4||||0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||2.3||p for non-inferiority|Farrington-Manning test|The test statistic is based on the Farrington-Manning method of testing non-inferiority of proportions.|If the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (1-sided) for the difference of proportions (Portico - CAV) is \< 4%, then non inferiority is demonstrated.|||2.3||0.001
90842816|NCT02000115|181550955|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin of 10 points|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|||p for non-inferiority|two-sample t-test|The test statistic is based on two sample t-test|If the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (1-sided) for the difference of (Portico - CAV) is \> -10, then non inferiority is demonstrated.||||-3.5|<0.0001
90842817|NCT02000115|181550956|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin of 6%|Difference in percentages between groups|5.6||||0.4|ONE_SIDED|95.0||8.5||p for non-inferiority|Farrington-Manning test|The test statistic is based on the Farrington-Manning method of testing non-inferiority of proportions|If the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (1-sided) for the difference of proportions (Portico - CAV) is \< 6%, then non inferiority is demonstrated.|||8.5||0.40
91029077|NCT01915732|181941729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91093638|NCT03054428|182071150|SUPERIORITY||percentage difference|22.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.2|31.87||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error. Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by baseline disease severity (IGA=3 vs IGA=4) and baseline weight group (less than \[\<\] 60 kilogram \[kg\] vs greater than or equal to \[≥\] 60 kg).||31.87|12.2|< 0.0001
91093639|NCT03054428|182071150|SUPERIORITY||percentage difference|15.5|||=|0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.7|24.31||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error. Analysis was performed using CMH test stratified by baseline disease severity (IGA=3 vs IGA=4) and baseline weight group (\<60 kg vs ≥60 kg).||24.31|6.7|= 0.0007
90898084|NCT05652036|181662108|OTHER|Rates of bladder pain observed in participants after BTX-A treatment.||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.0
90898085|NCT05652036|181662108|OTHER|Rates of ER department evaluations observed in participants after BTX-A treatment.||||||0.5|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5
90898086|NCT05454410|181662109|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.6|-0.7|||ANCOVA||Placebo adjusted means (MIJ821-Placebo). 90% CIs are nominal and not adjusted for multiplicity.|||-0.7|-9.6|
90842818|NCT02000115|181550957|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin on -36 meters|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.5||||0.0003|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|||p for non-inferiority|two sample t-test|The test statistic is based on a two-sample t-test|If the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (1-sided) for the difference of (Portico - CAV) is \> -36, then non inferiority is demonstrated.||||-15.4|0.0003
90842819|NCT05006573|181550962|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.14||||0.5911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.82|||negative binomial model|marginal standardization method|The rate ratio (Benralizumab/Placebo) and its 95% CI are estimated using a negative binomial model. The covariates include treatment arm, baseline blood eosinophil category, and number of exacerbations from previous year.|||1.82|0.71|0.5911
90842820|NCT05006573|181550963|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.6677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.91|||Regression, Cox||The analysis is performed using cox proportional hazards model with covariates of treatment group, number of exacerbations in previous year and baseline eosinophil category.|||1.91|0.67|0.6677
90842821|NCT04922216|181550993|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom (2,622)|Standard dietary monitoring coded as 0 (reference) and simplified dietary monitoring coded as 1; a positive estimation parameter indicates that the reference group had greater (more negative) weight loss.|ITT analysis for factor 1 (dietary self-monitoring) using linear mixed models comparing the effect of standard dietary monitoring to simplified dietary monitoring on weight change over time (from baseline to 6 months).||1.20|-0.61|0.52
90842822|NCT04922216|181550993|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.28||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|0.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom (2,622)|Weekly adaptive goals coded as 0 (reference) and daily adaptive goals coded as 1; a positive estimation parameter indicates that the reference group had greater (more negative) weight loss.|ITT analysis for factor 2 (adaptive activity goals) using linear mixed models comparing the effect of weekly adaptive activity goals versus daily adaptive activity goals on weight change over time (from baseline to 6 months).||0.63|-1.19|0.54
90842823|NCT04922216|181550993|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom (2,622)|Fixed message decision points coded as 0 (reference) and adaptive message decision points coded as 1; a positive estimation parameter indicates that the reference group had greater (more negative) weight loss.|ITT analysis for factor 3 (message decision points) using linear mixed models comparing the effect of weekly adaptive activity goals versus daily adaptive activity goals on weight change over time (from baseline to 6 months).||1.31|-0.50|0.39
90842824|NCT04922216|181550993|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.39||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom (2,622)|Standard decision rules coded as 0 (reference) and adaptive decision rules coded as 1; a positive estimation parameter indicates that the reference group had greater (more negative) weight loss.|ITT analysis for factor 4 (message decision rules) using linear mixed models comparing the effect of standard decision rules to adaptive decision rules on weight change over time (from baseline to 6 months).||1.30|-0.52|0.70
90842825|NCT04922216|181550993|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.55||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|0.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom (2,622)|No choice points coded as 0 (reference) and Choice coded as 1; a positive estimation parameter indicates that the reference group had greater (more negative) weight loss.|ITT analysis for factor 5 (participant choice) using linear mixed models comparing the effect of no participant message choice versus participant message choice on weight change over time (from baseline to 6 months).||0.36|-1.45|0.47
90842826|NCT04922216|181550994|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.24||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|DF (2,622)|Standard dietary monitoring coded as 0 (reference) and simplified dietary monitoring coded as 1; a positive estimation parameter indicates that the reference group had greater (more negative) weight loss.|ITT analysis for factor 1 (dietary self-monitoring) using linear mixed models comparing the effect of standard dietary monitoring to simplified dietary monitoring on weight change over time (from baseline to 3 months).||0.84|-0.36|0.43
90898087|NCT05454410|181662109|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.0|2.1|||ANCOVA||Placebo adjusted means (MIJ821-Placebo). 90% CIs are nominal and not adjusted for multiplicity.|||2.1|-7.0|
90842827|NCT04922216|181550994|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.42||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|DF (2,622)|Weekly adaptive goals coded as 0 (reference) and daily adaptive goals coded as 1; a positive estimation parameter indicates that the reference group had greater (more negative) weight loss.|ITT analysis for factor 2 (adaptive activity goals) using linear mixed models comparing the effect of weekly adaptive activity goals versus daily adaptive activity goals on weight change over time (from baseline to 3 months).||0.18|-1.01|0.17
90842828|NCT04922216|181550994|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.53||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|1.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|DF (2,622)|Fixed message decision points coded as 0 (reference) and adaptive message decision points coded as 1; a positive estimation parameter indicates that the reference group had greater (more negative) weight loss.|ITT analysis for factor 3 (message decision points) using linear mixed models comparing the effect of weekly adaptive activity goals versus daily adaptive activity goals on weight change over time (from baseline to 3 months).||1.13|-0.06|0.08
90898088|NCT05454410|181662109|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.0|5.1|||ANCOVA||Placebo adjusted means (MIJ821-Placebo). 90% CIs are nominal and not adjusted for multiplicity.|||5.1|-4.0|
90898089|NCT05454410|181662115|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0242||||||P-value for the selected model best representing the underlying DR (the lowest p-value out of the 6 candidate models), adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Multiple contrast test|||MCP-Mod was used to check if there was a DR relationship between the change from baseline to 24 hours in MADRS total score and the doses received. The Least squares means under the primary estimand were used to test the null hypothesis of a flat DR relationship at a one-sided significance level of 5% against the alternative hypothesis of a non-flat DR curve. Six candidate DR curves were used to derive the optimal model contrasts for the multiple contrast tests. A monotone DR was assumed.||||0.0242
90842829|NCT04922216|181550994|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.32||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|DF (2,622)|Standard decision rules coded as 0 (reference) and adaptive decision rules coded as 1; a positive estimation parameter indicates that the reference group had greater (more negative) weight loss.|ITT analysis for factor 4 (message decision rules) using linear mixed models comparing the effect of standard decision rules to adaptive decision rules on weight change over time (from baseline to 3 months).||0.91|-0.28|0.58
91093640|NCT03054428|182071151|SUPERIORITY||percentage difference|33.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.07|45.39||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error. Analysis was performed using CMH test stratified by baseline disease severity (IGA=3 vs IGA=4) and baseline weight group (\<60 kg vs ≥60 kg).||45.39|21.07|< 0.0001
91093641|NCT03054428|182071151|SUPERIORITY||percentage difference|29.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.94|41.78||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error. Analysis was performed using CMH test stratified by baseline disease severity (IGA=3 vs IGA=4) and baseline weight group (\<60 kg vs ≥60 kg).||41.78|17.94|< 0.0001
91093642|NCT03054428|182071152|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean difference|-42.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.6|-29.04||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error. The confidence interval (CI) with p-value is based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs. Placebo) of the LS mean percent change using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, randomization strata (baseline disease severity \[IGA=3 vs IGA=4\] and baseline weight group \[\<60 kg vs ≥60 kg\]) as fixed factors.||-29.04|-55.6|< 0.0001
91093643|NCT03054428|182071152|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-41.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.44|-28.02||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error. The confidence interval (CI) with p-value is based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs. Placebo) of the LS mean percent change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, randomization strata (baseline disease severity \[IGA=3 vs IGA=4\] and baseline weight group \[\<60 kg vs ≥60 kg\]) as fixed factors.||-28.02|-54.44|< 0.0001
91093644|NCT03054428|182071153|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-29.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.54|-18.38||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error. The confidence interval (CI) with p-value is based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs. Placebo) of the LS mean percent change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, randomization strata (baseline disease severity \[IGA=3 vs IGA=4\] and baseline weight group \[\<60 kg vs ≥60 kg\]) as fixed factors.||-18.38|-39.54|< 0.0001
90842830|NCT04922216|181550994|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.32||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|DF (2,622)|No choice points coded as 0 (reference) and Choice coded as 1; a positive estimation parameter indicates that the reference group had greater (more negative) weight loss.|ITT analysis for factor 5 (participant choice) using linear mixed models comparing the effect of no participant message choice versus participant message choice on weight change over time (from baseline to 3 months).||0.28|-0.91|0.55
90842831|NCT04922216|181550995|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.39|||Chi-squared|DF (1)|Standard dietary monitoring coded as 0 (reference) and simplified dietary monitoring coded as 1; an odds ratio \> 1 indicates that the odds of achieving 5% weight loss are higher in the group coded as 1.|Chi-square test of the difference in proportion reaching 5% weight loss from baseline to 6 months between standard dietary monitoring and simplified dietary monitoring (factor 1).||1.39|0.70|0.95
90842832|NCT04922216|181550995|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.05|||Chi-squared|DF (1)|Weekly adaptive activity goals coded as 0 (reference) and daily adaptive activity goals coded as 1; an odds ratio \> 1 indicates that the odds of achieving 5% weight loss are higher in the group coded as 1.|Chi-square test of the difference in proportion reaching 5% weight loss from baseline to 6 months between weekly adaptive activity goals and daily adaptive activity goals (factor 2).||2.05|1.03|0.03
90842833|NCT04922216|181550995|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.2|||Chi-squared|DF (1)|Fixed decision points coded as 0 (reference) and adaptive decision points coded as 1; an odds ratio \> 1 indicates that the odds of achieving 5% weight loss are higher in the group coded as 1.|Chi-square test of the difference in proportion reaching 5% weight loss from baseline to 6 months between fixed message decision points and adaptive message decision points (factor 3).||1.20|0.60|0.36
90842834|NCT04922216|181550995|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.42|||Chi-squared|DF (1)|Standard decision rules coded as 0 (reference) and adaptive decision rules coded as 1; an odds ratio \> 1 indicates that the odds of achieving 5% weight loss are higher in the group coded as 1.|Chi-square test of the difference in proportion reaching 5% weight loss from baseline to 6 months between standard message decision rules and adaptive message decision rules (factor 4).||1.42|0.72|0.95
90842835|NCT04922216|181550995|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.69|||Chi-squared|DF (1)|No message choice coded as 0 (reference) and message choice coded as 1; an odds ratio \> 1 indicates that the odds of achieving 5% weight loss are higher in the group coded as 1.|Chi-square test of the difference in proportion reaching 5% weight loss from baseline to 6 months between no message choice and message choice (factor 5).||1.69|0.85|0.29
91093645|NCT03054428|182071153|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-26.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.45|15.63||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error. The confidence interval (CI) with p-value is based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs. Placebo) of the LS mean percent change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, randomization strata (baseline disease severity \[IGA=3 vs IGA=4\] and baseline weight group \[\<60 kg vs ≥60 kg\]) as fixed factors.||15.63|-37.45|< 0.0001
90842836|NCT01136980|181551017|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.028|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.028
90842837|NCT02605122|181551032|OTHER||Proportion experiencing TEAE or TESAE|34.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.0|47.0||No p-value was performed. Study prematurely discontinued. Clopper-Pearson analysis was used to determine confidence intervals.|Clopper-Pearson|||||47|23|
90842838|NCT02605122|181551033|OTHER||Achievement of ECR|62.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.0|74.0||No p-value was performed. Study prematurely discontinued. Clopper-Pearson analysis was used to determine confidence intervals.|Clopper-Pearson|||||74|49|
90842839|NCT02605122|181551034|OTHER||Achievement of Clinical Improvement|68.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.0|78.0||No p-value was performed. Study prematurely discontinued. Clopper-Pearson analysis was used to determine confidence intervals.|Clopper-Pearson|||||78|58|
91093646|NCT03054428|182071154|SUPERIORITY||percentage difference|39.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.9|51.84||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error. Difference is Dupilumab minus Placebo. C.I. = Confidence interval calculated using normal approximation. P-values were derived by CMH test stratified by baseline disease severity \[IGA=3 vs IGA=4\] and baseline weight group \[\<60 kg vs ≥60 kg\].||51.84|26.9|< 0.0001
91093647|NCT03054428|182071154|SUPERIORITY||percentage difference|29.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.97|41.32||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error. Difference is Dupilumab minus Placebo. C.I. = Confidence interval calculated using normal approximation. P-values were derived by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by baseline disease severity \[IGA=3 vs IGA=4\] and baseline weight group \[\<60 kg vs ≥60 kg\].||41.32|16.97|< 0.0001
91093648|NCT03054428|182071155|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|31.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.45|43.2||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error. Difference is Dupilumab minus Placebo. C.I. = Confidence interval calculated using normal approximation. P-values were derived by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by baseline disease severity \[IGA=3 vs IGA=4\] and baseline weight group \[\<60 kg vs ≥60 kg\].||43.2|20.45|< 0.0001
91093649|NCT03054428|182071155|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|21.7|||=|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.21|32.28||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error. Difference is Dupilumab minus Placebo. C.I. = Confidence interval calculated using normal approximation. P-values were derived by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by baseline disease severity \[IGA=3 vs IGA=4\] and baseline weight group \[\<60 kg vs ≥60 kg\].||32.28|11.21|= 0.0001
91093650|NCT03880474|182071184|OTHER||Relative Risk|1.52||||0.1146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.55|||Log Binominal Model|||||2.55|0.90|0.1146
91093651|NCT03880474|182071184|OTHER||Relative Risk|1.52||||0.1146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.55|||Poisson Model with Robust Variance|||||2.55|0.90|0.1146
91093652|NCT03880474|182071185|OTHER||Relative Risk|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.15|||Log Binomial Model|||The Analysis concerns the Incidence of Influenza-like Illness (ILI)||1.15|0.86|1.0000
91093653|NCT03880474|182071185|OTHER||Relative Risk|1.0||||0.9799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.15|||Poisson Model with Robust Variance|||The Analysis concerns the Incidence of Influenza-like Illness (ILI)||1.15|0.86|0.9799
91093654|NCT03880474|182071187|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-287.1||||0.3284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-872.75|298.59|||ANCOVA|||Titers of influenza-specific neutralizing antibodies against Influenza A/H3N2 (HI) at Day 28||298.59|-872.75|0.3284
90842840|NCT02605122|181551035|OTHER||Achievement of Clinical Cure|62.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.0|73.0||No p-value was performed. Study prematurely discontinued. Clopper-Pearson was used to determine confidence intervals.|Clopper-Pearson|||||73|50|
91093655|NCT03880474|182071187|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-13.39||||0.8468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-152.26|125.47|||ANCOVA|||Titers of influenza-specific neutralizing antibodies against Influenza A/H3N2 (HI) at Week26||125.47|-152.26|0.8468
91093656|NCT03880474|182071187|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-465.7||||0.5087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1875.21|943.75|||ANCOVA|||Titers of influenza-specific neutralizing antibodies against Influenza A/H3N2 (MN) at Day 28||943.75|-1875.21|0.5087
90957366|NCT02527343|181794637|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Mean|-0.2||||0.7511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|1.06|||ANCOVA|||Month 9||1.06|-1.45|0.7511
91093657|NCT03880474|182071187|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-83.68||||0.7509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-611.67|444.32|||ANCOVA|||Titers of influenza-specific neutralizing antibodies against Influenza A/H3N2 (MN) at Week 26||444.32|-611.67|0.7509
90957367|NCT02527343|181794637|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Mean|-0.19||||0.7659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|1.13|||ANCOVA|||Month 12||1.13|-1.52|0.7659
91093658|NCT03880474|182071187|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-81.17||||0.3398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-250.72|88.39|||ANOVA|||Titers of influenza-specific neutralizing antibodies against Influenza A/H1N1pdm at Day 28||88.39|-250.72|0.3398
91093659|NCT03880474|182071187|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|26.15||||0.4154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.95|90.26|||ANCOVA|||Titers of influenza-specific neutralizing antibodies against Influenza A/H1N1pdm at Week 26||90.26|-37.95|0.4154
90842841|NCT00990704|181551036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between arms in percentage|13.6||||0.518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.36|49.63|||Fisher Exact|||||49.63|-22.36|0.518
90842842|NCT01399372|181551050|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.95||One-sided significance level = 0.15|Log Rank||Reference arm = Chemotherapy|Sample size of 89 provided 80% power to detect a hazard ratio of 0.63 at a one-sided alpha level of 0.15.||0.95|0.27|0.015
90842843|NCT01399372|181551051|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.58||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Log Rank||Reference arm = Chemotherapy|||1.58|0.38|0.48
91093660|NCT03880474|182071187|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|22.84||||0.7193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-104.5|150.18|||ANCOVA|||Titers of neutralizing antibodies against Influenza B/ Victoria at Day 28||150.18|-104.50|0.7193
91093661|NCT03880474|182071187|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|52.38||||0.1496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.59|124.35|||ANCOVA|||Titers of influenza-specific neutralizing antibodies against Influenza B/ Victoria at Week 26||124.35|-19.59|0.1496
91093662|NCT03880474|182071187|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-16.76||||0.9044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-296.57|263.06|||ANCOVA|||Titers of influenza-specific neutralizing antibodies against Influenza B/Yamagata at Day 28||263.06|-296.57|0.9044
91093663|NCT03880474|182071187|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|38.64||||0.4198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.97|134.24|||ANCOVA|||Titers of influenza-specific neutralizing antibodies against Influenza B/Yamagata at Week 26||134.24|-56.97|0.4198
91093664|NCT03880474|182071188|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.4159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.28|||Regression, Cox|||||1.28|0.90|0.4159
91093665|NCT03880474|182071189|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (Active vs Placebo)|0.99||||0.955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.19|||ANOVA|||Time Weight Area Under the Curve (AUC) for Symptoms of Influenza - Symptom: Feeling Hot (AUC)||1.19|0.83|0.9550
91093666|NCT03880474|182071189|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (Active vs Placebo)|1.0||||0.8933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.0|||ANOVA|||Time Weight Area Under the Curve (AUC) for Symptoms of Influenza - Symptom: Temperature (AUC)||1|1|0.8933
91093667|NCT03880474|182071189|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (Active vs Placebo)|0.87||||0.2156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.09|||ANOVA|||Time Weight Area Under the Curve (AUC) for Symptoms of Influenza - Symptom: Cough (AUC)||1.09|0.7|0.2156
91093668|NCT03880474|182071189|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (Active vs Placebo)|0.88||||0.2216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.1|||ANOVA|||Time Weight Area Under the Curve (AUC) for Symptoms of Influenza - Symptom: Sore Throat AUC||1.10|0.71|0.2216
91093669|NCT03880474|182071189|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (Active vs Placebo)|0.87||||0.2306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.09|||ANOVA|||Time Weight Area Under the Curve (AUC) for Symptoms of Influenza - Symptom: Blocked Nose AUC||1.09|0.69|0.2306
90957368|NCT00523640|181794735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion responding|0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.44||||||||0.44|0.10|
91093670|NCT03880474|182071189|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (Active vs Placebo)|0.99||||0.8038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.13|||ANOVA|||Time Weight Area Under the Curve (AUC) for Symptoms of Influenza - Symptom: Chest Pain AUC||1.13|0.97|0.8038
91093671|NCT03880474|182071189|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (Active vs Placebo)|1.01||||0.9319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.21|||ANOVA|||Time Weight Area Under the Curve (AUC) for Symptoms of Influenza - Symptom: Muscle Pain AUC||1.21|0.84|0.9319
91093672|NCT03880474|182071189|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (Active vs Placebo)|1.01||||0.8399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.19|||ANOVA|||Time Weight Area Under the Curve (AUC) for Symptoms of Influenza - Symptom: Shortness of Breath AUC||1.19|0.86|0.8399
90842844|NCT01399372|181551053|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed effects model of EORTC QLQ-C30 GHS was run with independent variables treatment arm, time, baseline Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) class, and baseline neurologic symptoms (none/minor vs. moderate/severe), including the interaction of treatment and time, representing difference in the longitudinal trajectory of the scores between the treatment arms. Prospectively, the interaction effect was of most interest and is reported here,||||0.005
90898090|NCT00895622|181662128|OTHER||Kappa statistic|0.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.87|||Z test|||"The Kappa (κ) coefficient was used to assess the measure of agreement between the reviewers. κ can be interpreted as follows (κ / Agreement):~\< 0 / Less than chance agreement; 0.01-0.20 / Slight agreement; 0.21-0.40 / Fair agreement; 0.41-0.60 / Moderate agreement; 0.61-0.80 / Substantial agreement; 0.81-0.99 / Almost perfect agreement.~The asymptotic test of the null hypothesis: κ=0 will be performed using the Z-statistic to determine the strength of agreement."||0.87|0.71|<0.0001
91029078|NCT01915732|181941730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90842845|NCT01399372|181551054|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.31|||Gray's test||Reference arm = Chemotherapy arm|||1.31|0.21|0.18
90842846|NCT03284307|181551083|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.012|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance defined by p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimate is a slope from a linear mixed effects model representing the difference in occipital delta power between unconsciousness and disconnected consciousness after adjusting for within-subject effects.|Dexmedetomidine, Unconsciousness vs Disconnected Consciousness||||0.012
90842847|NCT03284307|181551083|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.238|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.199||0.236|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance defined by p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimate is a slope from a linear mixed effects model representing the difference in occipital delta power between unconsciousness and disconnected consciousness after adjusting for within-subject effects.|Ketamine, Unconsciousness vs Disconnected Consciousness||||0.236
90842848|NCT03284307|181551083|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.166|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.174|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance defined by p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimate is a slope from a linear mixed effects model representing the difference in occipital delta power between unconsciousness and disconnected consciousness after adjusting for within-subject effects.|Propofol, Unconsciousness vs Disconnected Consciousness||||0.174
90842849|NCT03284307|181551083|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.052|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.111||0.64|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance defined by p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimate is a slope from a linear mixed effects model representing the difference in occipital delta power between unconsciousness and disconnected consciousness after adjusting for within-subject effects.|Sleep, Unconsciousness vs Disconnected Consciousness||||0.640
90842850|NCT03284307|181551085|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.134||||||Statistical significance defined by p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|3 degrees of freedom||NIH Toolbox Card Sorting Score||||0.134
90842851|NCT03284307|181551085|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012||||||Statistical significance defined by p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|6 degrees of freedom||NIH Toolbox Card Sorting Score||||0.012
90842852|NCT03284307|181551085|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.487||||||Statistical significance defined by p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|1 degree of freedom||NIH Toolbox Card Sorting Score||||0.487
90842853|NCT03284307|181551085|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046||||||Statistical significance defined by p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|3 degrees of freedom||NIH Toolbox Flanker Score||||0.046
90842854|NCT03284307|181551085|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||Statistical significance defined by p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|6 degrees of freedom||NIH Toolbox Flanker Score||||0.010
90842855|NCT03284307|181551085|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.356||||||Statistical significance defined by p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||NIH Toolbox Flanker Score||||0.356
90842856|NCT03284307|181551086|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance defined by p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|17 degrees of freedom||Predictive Coding Task Accuracy||||<0.001
90842857|NCT03284307|181551086|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance defined by p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|14 degrees of freedom||Predictive Coding Task Accuracy||||<0.001
90842858|NCT03284307|181551086|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.067||||||Statistical significance defined by p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|4 degrees of freedom||Predictive Coding Task Accuracy||||0.067
90898091|NCT03635489|181662147|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.53|||Regression, Cox|||||0.53|0.17|<.0001
90842859|NCT03284307|181551087|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5||||||Statistical significance defined by p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|17 degrees of freedom||Null hypothesis is a 50% recall rate.||||0.5
90842860|NCT03284307|181551087|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37||||||Statistical significance defined by p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|11 degrees of freedom||Null hypothesis is a 50% recall rate.||||0.37
90842861|NCT03284307|181551087|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12||||||Statistical significance defined by p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|4 degrees of freedom||Null hypothesis is a 50% recall rate.||||0.12
90842862|NCT03249116|181551095|SUPERIORITY||F statistic|0.33||||0.723|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<.05|ANOVA|dependent variable: self-reported anxiety between-subjects factors: condition, social anxiety within-subjects factor: time||||||.723
90842863|NCT03249116|181551096|SUPERIORITY||F statistic|1.34||||0.271|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<.05|ANOVA|dependent variable: electrodermal activity between-subjects factors: condition, social anxiety within-subjects factor: time||||||.271
90842864|NCT03249116|181551097|SUPERIORITY||F statistic|0.45||||0.638|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<.05|ANOVA|dependent variable: heart rate between-subjects factors: condition, social anxiety within-subjects factor: time||||||.638
90898092|NCT03635489|181662147|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.58|||Regression, Cox|||||0.58|0.20|<.0001
91029079|NCT00698685|181941731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||actuarial probability of engraftment|70.0||||||95.0|||||||Actuarial probability of engraftment at day +100 is calculated according to the product-limit estimate method.|||||
91029080|NCT01325207|181941733|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The Maximum Tolerated Dose (MTD) was determined to be 80mg IT every two weeks. This is based on no DLTs being seeing in Cohorts 1-4 with lower doses and 1 DLT out of 7 patients observed at 80mg IT in Cohort 5.|||
91093673|NCT03880474|182071190|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|743.78||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|443.71|1043.84|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis was performed for Total(NP+M) (SFU/10\^6 PBMC) at Day 28 Nucleoprotein = NP, matrix1 = M1||1043.84|443.71|0
91093674|NCT03880474|182071190|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|177.1||||0.0673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.14|367.33|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis was performed for Total(NP+M) (SFU/10\^6 PBMC) at Week 26 Nucleoprotein = NP, matrix1 = M1||367.33|-13.14|0.0673
90898093|NCT03635489|181662148|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.21||||||||1.21|0.30|
90898094|NCT00361439|181662169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.02||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||< 0.02
90898095|NCT00361439|181662170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.023||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.023
90898096|NCT00361439|181662171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.002||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.002
91093675|NCT06070610|182071211|OTHER|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. The pharmacokinetic endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|101.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.59|111.1|||||Ratio calculated as test/reference\*100. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 12.3|||111.10|93.59|
90898097|NCT00361439|181662172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.010
91093676|NCT06070610|182071212|OTHER|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. The pharmacokinetic endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|101.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.6|109.65|||||Ratio calculated as test/reference\*100. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 11.4|||109.65|93.60|
91093677|NCT06070610|182071213|OTHER|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. The pharmacokinetic endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|101.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.36|117.02|||||Ratio calculated as test/reference\*100. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 21.4|||117.02|87.36|
91093678|NCT06070610|182071214|OTHER|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. The pharmacokinetic endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|108.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.58|114.49|||||Ratio calculated as test/reference\*100. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 7.5|||114.49|102.58|
91093679|NCT06070610|182071215|OTHER|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. The pharmacokinetic endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|108.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.54|115.49|||||Ratio calculated as test/reference\*100. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 7.7|||115.49|102.54|
91093680|NCT06070610|182071216|OTHER|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. The pharmacokinetic endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|87.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.27|101.11|||||Ratio calculated as test/reference\*100. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 20.5|||101.11|75.27|
90898098|NCT01313286|181662183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square means|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|Ratio of test formulation (HCl salt) to reference formulation (free base).||||1.16|1.00|
90898099|NCT01313286|181662184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square means|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.07|1.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|Ratio of test formulation (HCl salt) to reference formulation (free base).||||1.31|1.07|
90898100|NCT03549234|181662203|NON_INFERIORITY|"We tested the noninferiority of ESPB compared to PVB (paravertebral block) using the 95% confidence interval (CI) associated with the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney Exact test. If the lower limit of the 95% CI for median average recovery room pain scores was greater than -1.25 (based on PVB minus ESPB), we concluded noninferiority. The noninferiority of ESPBs with regard to opioid consumption was similarly tested with a predefined noninferiority margin of 2 mg intravenous morphine equivalents."||||||0.0011|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We hypothesized that 1) analgesia would be noninferior in the recovery room as measured on a Numeric Rating Scale with ESPB (erector spinae plane block), and 2) opioid consumption would be noninferior in the operating and recovery rooms with ESPB. We simulated pain scores from a discrete distribution with median (interquartile range) 2 (0-3). The sample size of 50 per group provided 81% power to detect noninferiority in pain.||||0.0011
91093681|NCT05352763|182071262|OTHER|No statistical analysis performed|||||||||||||||||The classical summary of count and percentages will be provided for basic safety tabulations and dispositions as appropriate. All data will be presented in by-subject data listings. No inferential statistics will be produced.|||
91093682|NCT05539131|182071275|SUPERIORITY|The LMM analysis results refer to the F-statistics and associated p-values derived from linear mixed-effects models (LMMs), including fixed effects for time, group, and their interaction.||||||0.862||||||This is p-valu regarding time and group.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.862
91093683|NCT05539131|182071276|SUPERIORITY|The LMM analysis results refer to the F-statistics and associated p-values derived from linear mixed-effects models (LMMs), including fixed effects for time, group, and their interaction.||||||0.662||||||This is p-valu regarding time and group.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.662
91093684|NCT05539131|182071277|SUPERIORITY|The LMM analysis results refer to the F-statistics and associated p-values derived from linear mixed-effects models (LMMs), including fixed effects for time, group, and their interaction.||||||0.318||||||This is p-valu regarding time and group.|ANOVA|||||||0.318
91093685|NCT05539131|182071278|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.273|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.273
91093686|NCT05539131|182071279|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.639|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.639
91093687|NCT05539131|182071280|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.452|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.452
91093691|NCT04780659|182071308|OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||The reported p-value was calculated.|Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.05
90957369|NCT06377488|181794738|SUPERIORITY||least-square mean estimate|-0.085|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0139|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.115|-0.056|||Mixed Model Analysis|The Satterthwaite Method was used for the calculation of the denominator degrees of freedom.|Visual Acuity scores at distance was estimated using 95% confidence intervals (CI) constructed for the least-square mean (LSM).|It was calculated using a 1-sided one-sample mean t-test with a family wise type I error rate of 5% with at least 99% statistical power, that 9, 6 and 29 subjects were required to test the primary hypotheses for distance, intermediate and near, respectively.||-0.056|-0.115|
91093692|NCT04780659|182071311|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||< 0.05
91093693|NCT04780659|182071312|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||< 0.05
91093694|NCT03729362|182071314|SUPERIORITY|Analysis used a mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM). The model included terms for treatment, baseline 6MWD, age, height, weight (all as continuous covariates), enzyme replacement therapy (ERT) status (ERT-naïve versus ERT-experienced), gender, time, and treatment-by-time interaction. Time was used as a repeated measure, and an unstructured covariance approach was applied.|LS Mean Difference|14.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.481||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|31.02||1-sided significance level of 0.025.|MMRM|||"The primary and key secondary endpoints were tested in hierarchical order as follows:~The test for the primary endpoint was conducted first at the 1-sided 0.025 significance level, and if significant, the ordered key secondary endpoints were similarly tested. If at any point the null hypothesis for superiority failed to be rejected, then that comparison and any other comparison below it could not be claimed as successful and would be considered nominal."||31.02|-2.6|0.048
91093695|NCT03729362|182071315|SUPERIORITY|The analysis used an Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model adjusted for the baseline value (as a continuous covariate) and ERT status (ERT-naïve versus ERT-experienced), as well as baseline age, gender, baseline height, and baseline weight.|LS Mean Difference|2.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.156||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|4.95||1-sided significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline to Week 52 in sitting FVC was the first of 6 key secondary efficacy endpoints, which were analyzed according to a hierarchical order.||4.95|0.37|0.012
91093696|NCT03729362|182071316|SUPERIORITY|The analysis used an ANCOVA model adjusted for the baseline value (as a continuous covariate) and ERT status (ERT-naïve versus ERT-experienced), as well as baseline age, gender, baseline height, and baseline weight.|LS Mean Difference|0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.727||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|2.4||1-sided significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline to Week 52 in the MMT score for the lower extremities was the second of 6 key secondary efficacy endpoints, which were analyzed according to a hierarchical order.||2.4|-0.48|0.095
91093697|NCT03729362|182071317|SUPERIORITY|The analysis used an ANCOVA model adjusted for the baseline value (as a continuous covariate) and ERT status (ERT-naïve versus ERT-experienced), as well as baseline age, gender, baseline height, and baseline weight.|LS Mean Difference|8.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.261||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.24|20.57||1-sided significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline to Week 26 in 6MWD was the third of 6 key secondary efficacy endpoints, which were analyzed according to a hierarchical order.||20.57|-4.24|0.097
91104082|NCT04250207|182094698|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.0268|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 38||||0.0268
91104083|NCT04250207|182094698|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.3652|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 38||||0.3652
91104084|NCT04250207|182094698|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.1854|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 52||||0.1854
91104085|NCT04250207|182094698|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.|||||>|0.9999|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 52||||> 0.9999
91104086|NCT04250207|182094699|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0259|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.0259
91104087|NCT04250207|182094699|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0068|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.0068
91104088|NCT04250207|182094700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4435|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 1||||0.4435
91104089|NCT04250207|182094700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3402|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 1||||0.3402
91104090|NCT04250207|182094700|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 2||||> 0.9999
91104091|NCT04250207|182094700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0655|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 3||||0.0655
91104092|NCT04250207|182094700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0903|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 3||||0.0903
91104093|NCT04250207|182094700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0216|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 5||||0.0216
91104094|NCT04250207|182094700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 5||||0.0020
91104095|NCT04250207|182094700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0676|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 7||||0.0676
91104096|NCT04250207|182094700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0029|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 7||||0.0029
91104097|NCT04250207|182094700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0335|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 9||||0.0335
91104098|NCT04250207|182094700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0053|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 9||||0.0053
91104099|NCT04250207|182094700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0608|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 12||||0.0608
91104100|NCT04250207|182094700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0071|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 12||||0.0071
91104101|NCT04250207|182094700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4406|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 16||||0.4406
90898101|NCT03549234|181662204|NON_INFERIORITY|"We tested the noninferiority of ESPB compared to PVB using the 95% confidence interval (CI) associated with the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney Exact test. If the lower limit of the 95% CI for median average recovery room pain scores was greater than -1.25 (based on PVB minus ESPB), we concluded noninferiority. The noninferiority of ESPBs with regard to opioid consumption was similarly tested with a predefined noninferiority margin of 2 mg intravenous morphine equivalents."||||||0.0043|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0043
90898102|NCT00975221|181662209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) statistic|39.866|||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90898103|NCT00975221|181662210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH statistic|40.953|||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90898104|NCT00975221|181662211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-13.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.34|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.23|-10.88|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline corrected serum calcium and baseline bisphosphonate included as covariates.|Treatment difference: cinacalcet-placebo|||-10.88|-16.23|<0.001
90898105|NCT00975221|181662212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-22.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.61|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.01|-11.57|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline corrected serum calcium and baseline bisphosphonate included as covariates.|Treatment difference: cinacalcet-placebo|||-11.57|-34.01|<0.001
90898106|NCT01265030|181662213|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.75||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|4.04|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.04|-2.54|0.63
90898107|NCT01265030|181662213|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.95||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.08|2.19|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.19|-6.08|0.31
90898108|NCT01265030|181662214|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.063||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.286|0.411|||t-test, 2 sided|||The mean difference in pain score at week 1 and before surgery||0.411|-.286|0.68
90898109|NCT01590771|181662226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Robust regression|-0.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.44||The ANCOVA model controlled for treatment, metformin strata (on or not on metformin), and baseline A1C value.|ANCOVA||Based on robust regression using M-estimation with terms for treatment, metformin strata (on or not on metformin), and baseline A1C value.|||-0.44|-0.77|<0.001
90898110|NCT01590771|181662227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-32.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.4|-20.4||The ANCOVA model controlled for treatment, metformin strata (on or not on metformin), and baseline 2-hr PMG value.|ANCOVA|||||-20.4|-45.4|<0.001
91093698|NCT03729362|182071318|SUPERIORITY|The analysis used an ANCOVA model adjusted for the baseline value (as a continuous covariate) and ERT status (ERT-naïve versus ERT-experienced), as well as baseline age, gender, baseline height, and baseline weight.|LS Mean Difference|1.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.706||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|5.25||1-sided significance level of 0.025|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline to Week 52 in the total score for the PROMIS® - Physical Function was the fourth of 6 key secondary efficacy endpoints, which were analyzed according to a hierarchical order.||5.25|-1.51|0.138
90898111|NCT01590771|181662228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimate difference|-16.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.3|-10.2||Based on robust regression using M-estimation with terms for treatment, metformin strata (on or not on metformin), and baseline FPG value.|Robust regression|||||-10.2|-23.3|<0.001
91104102|NCT04250207|182094700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1716|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 16||||0.1716
90898112|NCT01590771|181662229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-0.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.2||The ANCOVA model controlled for treatment and baseline A1C value.|ANCOVA|||||-0.20|-0.63|<0.001
90898113|NCT01590771|181662230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.53||The ANCOVA model controlled for treatment and baseline A1C value.|ANCOVA|||||-0.53|-1.07|<0.001
90898114|NCT01590771|181662231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimate difference|-27.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.2|-13.2||Based on robust regression using M-estimation with terms for treatment and baseline 2-hr PMG value.|Robust regression|||||-13.2|-41.2|<0.001
90898115|NCT01590771|181662232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-37.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.9|-18.4||The ANCOVA model controlled for treatment and baseline 2-hr PMG value.|ANCOVA|||||-18.4|-56.9|<0.001
91104103|NCT04250207|182094700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9856|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 20||||0.9856
90898116|NCT01590771|181662233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimate Difference|-16.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.3|-7.8||Based on robust regression using M-estimation with terms for treatment and baseline FPG value.|Robust Regression|||||-7.8|-25.3|<0.001
90898117|NCT01590771|181662234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimate Difference|-17.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.9|-7.1||Based on robust regression using M-estimation with terms for treatment and baseline FPG value.|Robust Regression|||||-7.1|-26.9|<0.001
90898118|NCT00584701|181662248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Dfiference in exon expression|1.5|||<|0.001||||||"Expression difference \>\|1.5\| with p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons."|ANCOVA|Between-group gene expression profiles compared between high versus low responders, controlling for age, gender and batch.||||||<.001
90898119|NCT01250119|181662264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED||||||Wald Test|Test for difference in incidence of EGFR mutations for each subgroup controlled for histopathology; Univariate analysis.||||||0.0000
90898120|NCT01250119|181662264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1038|TWO_SIDED||||||Wald Test|Test for difference in incidence of EGFR mutations for each subgroup controlled for histopathology; Multivariate analysis (6 main effects only).||||||0.1038
90898121|NCT01250119|181662264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0588|TWO_SIDED||||||Wald Test|Test for difference in incidence of EGFR mutations for each subgroup controlled for stage of disease; Univariate analysis.||||||0.0588
90898122|NCT01250119|181662264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4802|TWO_SIDED||||||Wald Test|Test for difference in incidence of EGFR mutations for each subgroup controlled for stage of disease; Multivariate analysis (6 main effects only).||||||0.4802
90898123|NCT01250119|181662264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0147|TWO_SIDED||||||Wald Test|Test for difference in incidence of EGFR mutations for each subgroup controlled for age at consent; Multivariate analysis (6 main effects only).||||||0.0147
91104104|NCT04250207|182094700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2229|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 20||||0.2229
91104105|NCT04250207|182094700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8817|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 24||||0.8817
91104106|NCT04250207|182094700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2081|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.2081
91104107|NCT04250207|182094700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7335|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 38||||0.7335
91104108|NCT04250207|182094700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5367|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 38||||0.5367
91093699|NCT03729362|182071319|SUPERIORITY|The analysis used an ANCOVA model adjusted for the baseline value (as a continuous covariate) and ERT status (ERT-naïve versus ERT-experienced), as well as baseline age, gender, baseline height, and baseline weight.|LS Mean Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.092||0.515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|2.2||1-sided significance level of 0.025|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline to Week 52 in the total score for the PROMIS® - Fatigue was the fifth of 6 key secondary efficacy endpoints, which were analyzed according to a hierarchical order.||2.2|-2.12|0.515
90842865|NCT03249116|181551098|SUPERIORITY||F statistic|0.14||||0.868|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<.05|ANOVA|dependent variable: number of errors between-subjects factors: condition, social anxiety||||||.868
90842866|NCT03249116|181551099|SUPERIORITY||F statistic|0.21||||0.809|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<.05|ANOVA|dependent variable: lowest number reached/highest number of correct responses between-subjects factors: condition, social anxiety||||||.809
90842867|NCT00221117|181551106|OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.015
90842868|NCT00221117|181551107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||The subject's impairment and demographic characteristics were analyzed using descriptive statistics for parametric and nonparametric data. The baseline outcome data of the intervention and control groups were compared using Fisher exact test (for categorical variables) and Mann-Whitney U test (for continuous variables). Comparisons between the intervention and control groups were carried out using linear regression analysis adjusted for the baseline degree of disability (baseline AIS).||||0.05
90842869|NCT00499616|181551111|OTHER||Log Rank Test Statistic|0.9841||||0.3212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||The event-free survival distributions of patients between 12-18 months of age with Stage 4 neuroblastoma and favorable biological features on ANBL0531 and patients less than 12 months of age with Stage 4 neuroblastoma on A3961 were compared using the log-rank test.||||.3212
90898124|NCT01250119|181662264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1181|TWO_SIDED||||||Wald Test|Test for difference in incidence of EGFR mutations for each subgroup controlled for age at consent; Multivariate analysis (6 main effects only).||||||0.1181
90842870|NCT00499616|181551115|OTHER||Log-Rank Test Statistic|5.0049||||0.0253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||The event-free survival distributions of patients with complete surgical resection and patients without complete surgical resection were compared using the log-rank test.||||.0253
90842871|NCT00499616|181551116|OTHER|The overall survival distributions of patients with complete surgical resection and patients without complete surgical resection were compared using the log-rank test.|Log Rank Test Statistic|2.6709||||0.1022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||.1022
90842872|NCT00499616|181551117|OTHER||Chi-Square Test Statistic|9.9111||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||The association between extent of surgical resection with occurrence of complications was determined using the chi-square test.||||.0016
90842873|NCT02223858|181551127|SUPERIORITY|A sample size of 360 patients (180 non-Hispanic white and 180 non-Hispanic African American) was chosen based on a priori power calculations to detect a 3-way interaction between treatment group, race, and time, assuming a 20% change in baseline, the WOMAC pain subscales, and a 80% power.||||||0.791|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|All models adjusted for site.||||||0.791
90842874|NCT02223858|181551128|SUPERIORITY|A sample size of 360 (180 non-Hispanic white and 180 non-Hispanic African American) was chosen based on a priori power calculations to detect a 3-way interaction between treatment group, race, and time, assuming a 20% change in baseline, the WOMAC pain subscales, and a 80% power.||||||0.88|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|All models adjusted for site.||||||0.880
90842875|NCT02223858|181551129|SUPERIORITY|A sample size of 360 (180 non-Hispanic white and 180 non-Hispanic African American) was chosen based on a priori power calculations to detect a 3-way interaction between treatment group, race, and time, assuming a 20% change in baseline, the WOMAC pain subscale, and a 80% power.||||||0.901|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|All models adjusted for site.||||||0.901
90842876|NCT00241839|181551136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.24||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|8.7|||t-test, 2 sided|Satterthwaite correction for possibly unequal variance was made|A positive value of the estimated value would favor the allopurinol arm. The analysis is limited to those with both baseline and 8-10 week data on this variable.|We compared the drop in baseline of diastolic BP for the two treatment groups Allopurinol vs. Placebo by a Satterthwaite corrected t-test.||8.7|-0.17|0.059
91104109|NCT04250207|182094700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.555|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 52||||0.5550
91104110|NCT04250207|182094700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8718|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 52||||0.8718
90842877|NCT00241839|181551137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.59||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|4.3||Positive numbers indicate a drop. We compared baseline minus value at treatment end for the two treatments.|t-test, 2 sided|Satterthwaite correction was used for potentially unequal variances.|The analysis is limited to those with both baseline and 8-10 week data on this variable.|||4.3|-2.0|0.47
90842878|NCT00241839|181551138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-6.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.11||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|-2.6|||t-test, 2 sided|Sattherthwaite correction was used|The analysis is limited to those with both baseline and 8-10 week data on this variable. The 24 hour was in the opposite direction of the cuff.|||-2.6|-11.0|0.0020
90842879|NCT00241839|181551139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|2.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|2.59|||t-test, 2 sided|Satterthwaite correction was used.|Allopurinol was associated with a significant decrease in uric acid over the treatment period as compared to placebo. The analysis is limited to those with both baseline and 8-10 week data on this variable.|We expected allopurinol to be associated with a decrease in uric acid.||2.59|1.72|<0.001
90842880|NCT04954833|181551140|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 0.05 logMAR. A value of 0.05 logMAR is approximately 2.5 letters on the ETDRS chart.|LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.006|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.02|||Mixed Model Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|LS Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|||0.02|-0.01|
90898125|NCT01250119|181662264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED||||||Wald Test|Test for difference in incidence of EGFR mutations for each subgroup controlled for gender; Univariate analysis.||||||0.0000
90898126|NCT01250119|181662264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED||||||Wald Test|Test for difference in incidence of EGFR mutations for each subgroup controlled for gender; Multivariate analysis (6 main effects only).||||||0.0006
90898127|NCT01250119|181662264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED||||||Wald Test|Test for difference in incidence of EGFR mutations for each subgroup controlled for race; Univariate analysis.||||||0.0004
90898128|NCT01250119|181662264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3371|TWO_SIDED||||||Wald Test|Test for difference in incidence of EGFR mutations for each subgroup controlled for race; Multivariate analysis (6 main effects only).||||||0.3371
90898129|NCT01250119|181662264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED||||||Wald Test|Test for difference in incidence of EGFR mutations for each subgroup controlled for smoking history; Univariate analysis.||||||0.0000
90898130|NCT01250119|181662264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wald Test|Test for difference in incidence of EGFR mutations for each subgroup controlled for smoking history; Multivariate analysis (6 main effects only).||||||0.0001
90898131|NCT01703702|181662275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|2.38|||Chi-squared|||||2.38|1.22|0.002
90898132|NCT01703702|181662276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.35||||0.568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|0.84|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for: Baseline ADAS-Cog score, study arm, Alzheimer's treatment, country, and interaction between study arm and Alzheimer's treatment.||||0.84|-1.54|0.568
90898133|NCT01703702|181662277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|43.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.0|96.12|||Chi-squared|||||96.12|20|<0.001
90898134|NCT01703702|181662278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|20.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.95|22.43|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for: Cognitive status (mild impairment/dementia), physician/practice type, country and florbetapir F18 PET scan result (Aß+/Aß-)||Comparison of change in diagnostic confidence at follow-up (3 months)||22.43|18.95|<0.001
90898135|NCT01703702|181662279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28||||0.144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.78|||Chi-squared|||||1.78|0.92|0.144
90898136|NCT01703702|181662280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.16||||0.925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|3.53|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for: Baseline scale, Cognitive status (mild impairment/dementia), country and florbetapir F18 PET scan result (Aß+/Aß-).||||3.53|-3.20|0.925
90898137|NCT01703702|181662281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.54|||Chi-squared|||Major Diagnostic Tests||1.54|0.70|0.857
90898138|NCT01703702|181662281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|2.81|||Chi-squared|||Alzheimer's/Cognitive Medication||2.81|1.36|<0.001
90898139|NCT01703702|181662281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|2.64|||Chi-squared|||Neuropsychological Tests||2.64|0.97|0.063
90898140|NCT01703702|181662281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.7|||Chi-squared|||Physician Follow-up for Re-evaluation||1.70|0.69|0.741
90898141|NCT01703702|181662281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|2.08|||Chi-squared|||Specialist Referral||2.08|1.01|0.046
91093700|NCT03729362|182071320|SUPERIORITY|The analysis used an ANCOVA model adjusted for the baseline value (as a continuous covariate) and ERT status (ERT-naïve versus ERT-experienced), as well as baseline age, gender, baseline height, and baseline weight.|LS Mean Difference|-1.414|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.528||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.463|-0.364||1-sided significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline to Week 52 in the total score for the GSGC was the sixth of 6 key secondary efficacy endpoints, which were analyzed according to a hierarchical order.||-0.364|-2.463|0.004
91093701|NCT03405870|182071348|OTHER|Determined maximum tolerated dose|Value of Maximum Tolerated Dose (g/kg)|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Using sequential dose escalation, participants received 2 doses of 1.0 to 1.6 g/kg of lipid emulsion (Smoflipid 20% lipid emulsion) within 48 hours of enrollment to test the maximum tolerated dose of study drug. The maximum tolerated dose was defined by patients exhibiting specific dose-related toxicities from administration of escalating doses of the study drug. Of 9 patients, adverse events were only considered dose-limiting toxicities if they met the predefined study protocol criteria.||||
90842881|NCT04954833|181551141|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 10% was used. A 10% of difference in the rate of lens fit acceptance is considered clinically significant.|Posterior mean difference of proportions|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0048|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.009|0.01|||Bayesian hierarchical model|A 95% credible interval for the posterior mean difference between the Test and Control (Test - Control) was used to evaluate non-inferiority.|Interval presented is a 95% Credible interval|||0.010|-0.009|
90842882|NCT05021978|181551174|OTHER|||||||0.1048||||||Change from baseline to Day 7 in TETRAS Upper Limb Score|Mixed Models Analysis|Includes timepoint as fixed effect and baseline TETRAS score as a covariate. Within subject variability modeled using unstructured covariance pattern.||Sample size is a convenience sample determined according to feasibility to provide sufficient and safety data to inform the development of future controlled studies with PRAX-944. In the open-label phase of the trial (Part A ), at least 10 participants would provide an 80% probability of observing at least 1 AE with an underlying incidence of 15% or greater and provide approximately 80% power to detect an effect size of 1.0 on the primary endpoint change from baseline in TETRAS Upper Limb score.||||0.1048
90842883|NCT05021978|181551174|OTHER|||||||0.0028||||||Change from baseline to Day 14 in TETRAS UL score|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0028
90842884|NCT05021978|181551178|OTHER|||||||0.4025|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Change from baseline to Day 7||||||0.4025
90842885|NCT05021978|181551178|OTHER|||||||0.0766||||||Change from baseline to Day 14|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0766
90842886|NCT05021978|181551179|OTHER|||||||0.2501||||||Change from baseline to Day 7|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2501
90842887|NCT05021978|181551179|OTHER|||||||0.1874||||||Chnage from baseline to Day 14|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1874
90842888|NCT05021978|181551180|OTHER|||||||0.4722||||||Item 6 Archimedes Spiral (right) change from baseline to Day 7|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.4722
90842889|NCT05021978|181551180|OTHER|||||||0.6215||||||Item 6 Archimedes Spiral (left) change from baseline to Day 7|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.6215
90842890|NCT05021978|181551180|OTHER|||||||0.9648||||||Item 7 Handwriting change from baseline to Day 7|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.9648
90842891|NCT05021978|181551180|OTHER|||||||0.2855||||||Item 7 Handwriting change from baseline to Day 14|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2855
90842892|NCT05021978|181551180|OTHER|||||||0.205||||||Item 6 Archimedes Spiral (right) change from baseline to Day 14|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2050
90842893|NCT05021978|181551180|OTHER|||||||0.2364||||||Item 6 Archimedes Spiral (left) change from baseline to Day 14|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2364
90842894|NCT05021978|181551184|OTHER|||||||0.0216|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0216
90842895|NCT05021978|181551185|OTHER|||||||0.1042||||||Change from baseline Day 7|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1042
91104111|NCT05263791|182094705|NON_INFERIORITY|The primary objective to prove the non-inferiority in between the Airmod and reference device is determined by the difference between AirRR and ManCRR.|||||<|0.001|||||||Paired t Test|||Hypothesis: airRR-mancRR ≦ -3, In the target of p\<0.05 indicates significance.||||<0.001
90842896|NCT05021978|181551185|OTHER|||||||0.0257||||||Change from baseline Day 21|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0257
90842897|NCT05021978|181551186|OTHER|||||||0.2971||||||Change from baseline to Day 7|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2971
90842898|NCT05021978|181551186|OTHER|||||||0.2034||||||Change from baseline Day 21|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2034
90842899|NCT05021978|181551186|OTHER|||||||0.1105||||||Change from baseline to Day 42|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1105
90842900|NCT05021978|181551187|OTHER|||||||0.005||||||Change from baseline to Day 7|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0050
90842901|NCT05021978|181551187|OTHER|||||||0.0018||||||Change from baseline to Day 21|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0018
90842902|NCT05021978|181551187|OTHER|||||||0.0061||||||Change from baseline to Day 42|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0061
90898142|NCT01559454|181662283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|35.4167||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7519|79.5852|||t-test, 2 sided|||||79.5852|-8.7519|0.097
90842903|NCT05021978|181551188|OTHER|||||||0.9776||||||Item 6 Archimedes Spiral (right) change from baseline to Day 7|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.9776
90842904|NCT05021978|181551188|OTHER|||||||0.1962||||||Item 6 Archimedes Spiral (left) change from baseline to Day 7|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1962
90842905|NCT05021978|181551188|OTHER|||||||0.9419||||||Item 7 Handwriting change from baseline to Day 7|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.9419
90842906|NCT05021978|181551188|OTHER|||||||0.0668||||||Item 6 Archimedes Spiral (right) change from baseline to Day 21|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0668
90842907|NCT05021978|181551188|OTHER|||||||0.9191||||||Item 6 Archimedes Spiral (left) change from baseline to Day 21|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.9191
90842908|NCT05021978|181551188|OTHER|||||||0.6075||||||Item 7 Handwriting change from baseline to Day 21|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.6075
90842909|NCT05021978|181551188|OTHER|||||||0.246||||||Item 6 Archimedes Spiral (right) change from baseline to Day 42|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2460
90842910|NCT05021978|181551188|OTHER|||||||0.6736||||||Item 6 Archimedes Spiral (left) change from baseline to Day 42|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.6736
90842911|NCT05021978|181551188|OTHER|||||||0.8511||||||Item 7 Handwriting change from baseline to Day 42|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8511
90898143|NCT01559454|181662284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0713|1.8248|||Fisher Exact|||||1.8248|0.0713|1.00
90898144|NCT01559454|181662285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.55075||||0.348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.37051|51.34968|||t-test, 2 sided|||||51.34968|-20.37051|0.348
90898145|NCT01559454|181662286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|39.5833||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9653|87.132|||t-test, 2 sided|||||87.1320|-7.9653|0.088
90898146|NCT01559454|181662287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.1499||||0.895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.3965|27.0632|||t-test, 2 sided|||||27.0632|-30.3965|0.895
91104112|NCT05263791|182094706|NON_INFERIORITY|The hypothesis tested is demonstrated airRR non-inferior to acoRR when the capnostream is less sensitive.|||||<|0.001|||||||Paired t Test|||"In this study, a non-inferiority test was conducted during periods of reduced sensitivity in capnography to compare respiratory rate measurements using the Airmod device (airRR) versus manually scored auscultation sounds (referred to as acoRR, implying manARR in the statistical analysis plan). The research physician identified periods of reduced sensitivity in capnography."||||<0.001
91104113|NCT05263791|182094708|SUPERIORITY|This analysis were examined to assess the responsiveness of Airmod and Capnography.|||||<|0.001|||||||Paired t Test|||The hypothesis tested whether the response times obtained with the Airmod device were equal to those recorded with Capnography.||||<0.001
90842912|NCT05021978|181551189|OTHER|||||||0.1505||||||Change from baseline to Day 7|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1505
90842913|NCT05021978|181551189|OTHER|||||||0.0543||||||Change from baseline to Day 21|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0543
90842914|NCT05021978|181551189|OTHER|||||||0.0015||||||Change from baseline to Day 42|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0015
90842915|NCT05021978|181551190|OTHER|||||||0.8638||||||Change from baseline to Day 7|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8638
90842916|NCT05021978|181551190|OTHER|||||||0.0605||||||Change from baseline to Day 21|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0605
90842917|NCT05021978|181551190|OTHER|||||||0.0871||||||Change from baseline to Day 42|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0871
90842918|NCT00043979|181551207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003||||||7 participants who did not receive a transplant compared with 21 participants transplanted.|Kaplan-Meier|||||||.0003
90842919|NCT03096288|181551221|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.0||||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|52.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||52|-9|0.169
90842920|NCT03096288|181551221|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|17.0||||0.236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|45.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||45|-11|0.236
90842921|NCT00414596|181551283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The primary pain end-point was assessed by a mixed effect model with time (visit) and as fixed effects and subject as random effect.||"Hypothesis: Patients with chronic low back pain who undergo spinal decompression with a standardized 6-week regimen consisting of 20 treatments with the spinal decompression system would experience \>50% reduction in their verbal score of pain intensity.~Power Analysis: Mean pain scores at time of enrollment were assumed to equal 6 with potential reduction in pain of 50%. To obtain 80% power at an alpha level of 0.05, sample size was estimated as 20 patients."||||.0001
90842922|NCT02558296|181551304|SUPERIORITY|Rejection of the null hypothesis would imply that the mean change in baseline HbA1c from baseline to Week 24 was less than the mean change in the placebo arm by a value that could not be attributed to chance alone.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.48|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.39||P-value is based on one sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance.|Mixed-effects repeated measures|Region, baseline eGFR categories and BMI, history of heart failure, insulin use (Y/N), treatment, visit and baseline HbA1c as fixed effect covariate.||The null hypothesis for the primary endpoint was that the mean change in HbA1c from baseline to Week 24 in the bexagliflozin arm would be equal to or greater than the mean change in the placebo arm.||-0.39|-0.56|<0.0001
90842923|NCT02558296|181551305|SUPERIORITY|Rejection of the null hypothesis would imply that the mean change in baseline HbA1c from baseline to Week 24 was less than the mean change in the placebo arm by a value that could not be attributed to chance alone.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.4||P-value is based on one sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance.|Mixed-effects repeated measures|Region, baseline eGFR categories, history of heart failure, treatment, visit and baseline HbA1c as fixed effect covariate.||The null hypothesis for the secondary endpoint was that the mean change in HbA1c from baseline to Week 24 in the bexagliflozin arm would be equal to or greater than the mean change in the placebo arm.||-0.40|-0.65|<0.0001
90842924|NCT02558296|181551306|SUPERIORITY|Rejection of the null hypothesis would imply that the mean change in body weight from baseline to Week 48 was less than the mean change in the placebo arm by a value that could not be attributed to chance alone.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.07|-2.24||P-value is presented based on one-sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance.|Mixed-effects repeated measures|Region, baseline HbA1c and eGFR, history of heart failure, insulin use (Y/N), treatment, visit and baseline body weight as fixed effect covariate.||The null hypothesis for the secondary endpoint was that the mean change in body weight from baseline to Week 48 in the bexagliflozin arm would be equal to or greater than the mean change in the placebo arm.||-2.24|-3.07|<0.0001
90842925|NCT02558296|181551307|SUPERIORITY|Rejection of the null hypothesis would imply that the mean change in systolic blood pressure from baseline to Week 24 was less than the mean change in the placebo arm by a value that could not be attributed to chance alone.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.96||||0.0112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.51|-0.42||P-value is presented based on one-sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance.|Mixed-effects repeated measures|Region, baseline HbA1c, GFR categories, BMI, history of heart failure, insulin use (Y/N), treatment, visit and baseline SBP as fixed effect covariate.||The null hypothesis for the secondary endpoint was that the mean change in systolic blood pressure from baseline to Week 24 in the bexagliflozin arm would be equal to or greater than the mean change in the placebo arm.||-0.42|-5.51|0.0112
90842926|NCT02558296|181551308|SUPERIORITY|Rejection of the null hypothesis would imply that the mean change in baseline HbA1c from baseline to Week 6 was less than that in the placebo arm by a value that could not be attributed to chance alone.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.39||P-value is based on one sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance.|Mixed-effects repeated measures|Region, baseline eGFR categories and BMI, history of heart failure, insulin use (Y/N), treatment, visit and baseline HbA1c as fixed effect covariate.||The null hypothesis for the exploratory endpoint was that the mean change in HbA1c from baseline to Week 6 in the bexagliflozin arm would be equal to or greater than the mean change in the placebo arm.||-0.39|-0.50|<0.0001
90842927|NCT02558296|181551308|NON_INFERIORITY|Rejection of the null hypothesis would imply that the mean change in baseline HbA1c from baseline to Week 12 was less than that in the placebo arm by a value that could not be attributed to chance alone.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.49||P-value is based on one sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance.|Mixed-effects repeated measures|Region, baseline eGFR categories and BMI, history of heart failure, insulin use (Y/N), treatment, visit and baseline HbA1c as fixed effect covariate.||The null hypothesis for the exploratory endpoint was that the mean change in HbA1c from baseline to Week 12 in the bexagliflozin arm would be equal to or greater than the mean change in the placebo arm.||-0.49|-0.63|<0.0001
90842928|NCT02558296|181551308|NON_INFERIORITY|Rejection of the null hypothesis would imply that the mean change in baseline HbA1c from baseline to Week 24 was less than that in the placebo arm by a value that could not be attributed to chance alone.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.38||P-value is based on one sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance.|Mixed-effects repeated measures|Region, baseline eGFR categories and BMI, history of heart failure, insulin use (Y/N), treatment, visit and baseline HbA1c as fixed effect covariate.||The null hypothesis for the exploratory endpoint was that the mean change in HbA1c from baseline to Week 24 in the bexagliflozin arm would be equal to or greater than the mean change in the placebo arm.||-0.38|-0.56|<0.0001
90842929|NCT02558296|181551308|NON_INFERIORITY|Rejection of the null hypothesis would imply that the mean change in baseline HbA1c from baseline to Week 36 was less than that in the placebo arm by a value that could not be attributed to chance alone.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.38||P-value is based on one sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance.|Mixed-effects repeated measures|Region, baseline eGFR categories and BMI, history of heart failure, insulin use (Y/N), treatment, visit and baseline HbA1c as fixed effect covariate.||The null hypothesis for the exploratory endpoint was that the mean change in HbA1c from baseline to Week 36 in the bexagliflozin arm would be equal to or greater than the mean change in the placebo arm.||-0.38|-0.56|<0.0001
90842930|NCT02558296|181551308|NON_INFERIORITY|Rejection of the null hypothesis would imply that the mean change in baseline HbA1c from baseline to Week 48 was less than that in the placebo arm by a value that could not be attributed to chance alone.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.37||P-value is based on one sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance.|Mixed-effects repeated measures|Region, baseline eGFR categories and BMI, history of heart failure, insulin use (Y/N), treatment, visit and baseline HbA1c as fixed effect covariate.||The null hypothesis for the exploratory endpoint was that the mean change in HbA1c from baseline to Week 48 in the bexagliflozin arm would be equal to or greater than the mean change in the placebo arm.||-0.37|-0.56|<0.0001
90842931|NCT02558296|181551308|NON_INFERIORITY|Rejection of the null hypothesis would imply that the mean change in baseline HbA1c from baseline to Week 72 was less than that in the placebo arm by a value that could not be attributed to chance alone.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.31||P-value is based on one sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance.|Mixed-effects repeated measures|Region, baseline eGFR categories and BMI, history of heart failure, insulin use (Y/N), treatment, visit and baseline HbA1c as fixed effect covariate.||The null hypothesis for the exploratory endpoint was that the mean change in HbA1c from baseline to Week 72 in the bexagliflozin arm would be equal to or greater than the mean change in the placebo arm.||-0.31|-0.54|<0.0001
90842932|NCT02558296|181551308|NON_INFERIORITY|Rejection of the null hypothesis would imply that the mean change in baseline HbA1c from baseline to Week 96 was less than that in the placebo arm by a value that could not be attributed to chance alone.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.27||P-value is based on one sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance.|Mixed-effects repeated measures|Region, baseline eGFR categories and BMI, history of heart failure, insulin use (Y/N), treatment, visit and baseline HbA1c as fixed effect covariate.||The null hypothesis for the exploratory endpoint was that the mean change in HbA1c from baseline to Week 96 in the bexagliflozin arm would be equal to or greater than the mean change in the placebo arm.||-0.27|-0.51|<0.0001
90842933|NCT02558296|181551308|NON_INFERIORITY|Rejection of the null hypothesis would imply that the mean change in baseline HbA1c from baseline to Week 120 was less than that in the placebo arm by a value that could not be attributed to chance alone.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.3||P-value is based on one sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance.|Mixed-effects repeated measures|Region, baseline eGFR categories and BMI, history of heart failure, insulin use (Y/N), treatment, visit and baseline HbA1c as fixed effect covariate.||The null hypothesis for the exploratory endpoint was that the mean change in HbA1c from baseline to Week 120 in the bexagliflozin arm would be equal to or greater than the mean change in the placebo arm.||-0.30|-0.56|<0.0001
90842934|NCT02558296|181551308|NON_INFERIORITY|Rejection of the null hypothesis would imply that the mean change in baseline HbA1c from baseline to Week 144 was less than that in the placebo arm by a value that could not be attributed to chance alone.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.23||P-value is based on one sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance.|Mixed-effects repeated measures|Region, baseline eGFR categories and BMI, history of heart failure, insulin use (Y/N), treatment, visit and baseline HbA1c as fixed effect covariate.||The null hypothesis for the exploratory endpoint was that the mean change in HbA1c from baseline to Week 144 in the bexagliflozin arm would be equal to or greater than the mean change in the placebo arm.||-0.23|-0.54|<0.0001
90898147|NCT01559454|181662288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.6999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.127|2.8352|||Fisher Exact|||||2.8352|0.127|0.6999
90898148|NCT00431184|181662289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.22
90898149|NCT00431184|181662290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.83
90898150|NCT00462670|181662313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|-0.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.60|-1.58|<0.0001
90898151|NCT00462670|181662314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|-0.92|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.92|-2.54|<0.0001
91104114|NCT05263791|182094709|NON_INFERIORITY|The objective to prove the non-inferiority in between the Airmod and reference device is determined by the difference between AirRR and ManCRR by subjects.|||||<|0.05|||||||Paired t Test|||Hypothesis: airRR-mancRR ≦ -2, In the target of p\<0.05 indicates significance.||||<0.05
90898152|NCT00548132|181662315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.46|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.05||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|This was calculated based on the assumption that only 85% of eligible patients will consent to the study.|The standard of care is the numerator and the intervention group is the denominator|The null hypothesis is that the Bloostream infection per 1000 catheter days will be similar in both groups. In 2004, 6122 catheter days occurred in by both ICUs. If 15% of these were excluded, then 5203 catheter days/year will be eligible for analysis. The difference in infection rates will reach statistical significance at 12 months with a P-value of 0.04. At 24 months, the P-value will be more significant at 0.006.||0.90|0.24|0.05
90898153|NCT01187914|181662317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|0.13||||0.48||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.48
91093702|NCT02807259|182071351|EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations did not account for stratification used in the randomisation or include adjustment for baseline levels of the outcome, since the correlation over time was not known. Results suggested that the trial had \>80% power to detect a risk ratio of 0.77, if the coefficient of between-cluster variation was between 0.15 and 0.25.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|3.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Power calculations were conducted assuming an IPV prevalence (past 12 months) of 47% and consistent condom use (past 12 months) of 38% based on initial assessments. The power calculation was performed by analysing simulated data from 800 women, distributed across clusters using empirical data with a range in variance across cluster-level proportions of IPV (15% to 25% of the total variation) and a narrow range of effect sizes (risk ratio= 0.75-0.80).||3.01|0.71|0.298
91093703|NCT02807259|182071352|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|2.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.81|0.68|0.378
91093704|NCT02807259|182071353|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.47|0.58|0.748
91093705|NCT02807259|182071354|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.62||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.94|0.4|0.025
91093706|NCT02807259|182071355|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.07||||0.372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|10.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||10.26|0.42|0.372
91093707|NCT02807259|182071356|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.50|0.61|0.845
91093708|NCT02807259|182071357|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.69||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|2.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.82|1.02|0.042
91093709|NCT00849056|182071363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.75|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.56|||ANCOVA|||||-0.56|-0.95|<0.0001
91093710|NCT04588259|182071371|NON_INFERIORITY|The upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference between faster aspart and NovoRapid was compared to a non-inferiority margin of 0.4%. If it was below or equal to 0.4%, non-inferiority was considered to be established and effect demonstrated.|Treatment difference|-0.05||||0.5102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.09||p-values are from the 2-sided test for treatment difference evaluated at the 5% level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The outcome measure was analysed using mixed-effect model for repeated measurement (MMRM) where all calculated changes in HbA1c from baseline at visits were included in analysis. Model included treatment and stratification of type 1 diabetes mellitus/ type 2 diabetes mellitus (T1DM/T2DM) as fixed factors, HbA1c at baseline as covariate and interactions between all fixed factors and visit. An unstructured covariance matrix described the variability for the repeated measurements for a participant.||0.09|-0.19|0.5102
91093711|NCT04588259|182071372|NON_INFERIORITY|The upper limit of the 95% CI for the difference between faster aspart and NovoRapid was compared to a non-inferiority margin of 0.4%. If it was below or equal to 0.4%, non-inferiority was considered to be established and effect demonstrated.|Treatment Difference|-0.52||||0.5102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.08|1.03||p-values are from the 2-sided test for treatment difference evaluated at the 5% level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The outcome measure was analysed using a mixed-effect model for repeated measurements (MMRM) where all calculated changes in HbA1c from baseline at visits are included in the analysis. The model includes treatment and stratification (T1DM/T2DM) as fixed factors, HbA1c at baseline as covariate and interactions between all fixed factors and visit. An unstructured covariance matrix is used to describe the variability for the repeated measurements for a participant.||1.03|-2.08|0.5102
91093712|NCT02314546|182071400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.99
91093713|NCT02314546|182071401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.99
91093714|NCT02314546|182071402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.26
91093715|NCT02314546|182071403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.02
91093716|NCT02314546|182071404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.04
91093717|NCT02314546|182071405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.73
91093718|NCT02314546|182071406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.73
91104115|NCT04135443|182094730|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.027||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.511|2.063|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.063|0.511|0.94
91104116|NCT04135443|182094732|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.064||||0.455|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold set to p\<0.05.|Regression, Linear|See analysis plan for covariates screened into model.||||||0.455
91104117|NCT04135443|182094733|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.026||||0.702|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold set to p\<0.05.|Regression, Linear|See analysis plan for covariates screened into model.||||||0.702
91104118|NCT04135443|182094734|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.049||||0.375|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold set to p\<0.05.|Regression, Linear|See analysis plan for covariates screened into model.||||||0.375
91104119|NCT04135443|182094735|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.076||||0.313|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold set to p\<0.05.|Regression, Linear|See analysis plan for covariates screened into model.||||||0.313
91104120|NCT04135443|182094736|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.01||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold set to p\<0.05.|Regression, Linear|See analysis plan for covariates screened into model.||||||0.890
91104121|NCT02554474|182094758|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in mean change|9.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|19.3||||||We performed an intent-to-treat analysis. For the main comparison, we used analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) to estimate an adjusted mean difference comparing time in MVPA at 9 weeks (primary end point) between groups, adjusting for baseline MVPA, diagnosis, and blocking.||19.3|-0.5|
91104122|NCT02554474|182094759|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in mean change|-10.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.4|32.6||||||We performed an intent-to-treat analysis. For the main comparison, we used analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) to estimate an adjusted mean difference comparing sedentary time at 9 weeks (primary end point) between groups, adjusting for baseline sedentary time, diagnosis, and blocking.||32.6|-53.4|
91093719|NCT02100631|182071412|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower limit of the two sided 95% Wald CI on the difference in seroconversion rate was estimated by inverting a Z test with pooled variance. The lower limit of the CI had be greater than -10 percentage points to prove non-inferiority. The lower bound of the CI on the older adults serconversion rate was required to exceed 70%.|Risk Difference (RD)|-3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|0.4||||||||0.4|-6.7|
91093720|NCT02100631|182071413|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.57||||||||0.57|0.34|
91093721|NCT02100631|182071414|NON_INFERIORITY|Analysis for information only. No non-inferiority margin specified.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|3.5||||||||3.5|-2.2|
91093722|NCT02100631|182071415|NON_INFERIORITY|Analysis for information only. No non-inferiority margin specified.||||||0.0062|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0062
91093723|NCT04476043|182071418|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean (LSM) difference|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.23||0.0277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|-0.3|||MMRM|||||-0.3|-5.2|0.0277
91093724|NCT04476043|182071418|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|-1.9|||MMRM|||||-1.9|-6.8|0.0006
91093725|NCT04476043|182071418|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.22||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|-1.4|||MMRM|||||-1.4|-6.2|0.0021
91093726|NCT04476043|182071419|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3||||0.0445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|5.3|||Wald test||Logistic regression model with treatment group and stratification factors (disease severity and geographical region).|||5.3|1.0|0.0445
91093727|NCT04476043|182071419|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rate|19.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.35|||||||||||Standard error of difference between response rates was from normal approximation.|||||
90842935|NCT02558296|181551308|NON_INFERIORITY|Rejection of the null hypothesis would imply that the mean change in baseline HbA1c from baseline to Week 168 was less than that in the placebo arm by a value that could not be attributed to chance alone.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27||||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.07||P-value is based on one sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance.|Mixed-effects repeated measures|Region, baseline eGFR categories and BMI, history of heart failure, insulin use (Y/N), treatment, visit and baseline HbA1c as fixed effect covariate.||The null hypothesis for the exploratory endpoint was that the mean change in HbA1c from baseline to Week 168 in the bexagliflozin arm would be equal to or greater than the mean change in the placebo arm.||-0.07|-0.47|0.0045
91093728|NCT04476043|182071419|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.0998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|4.6|||Wald test||Logistic regression model with treatment group and stratification factors (disease severity and geographical region).|||4.6|0.9|0.0998
91093729|NCT04476043|182071419|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rate|15.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.32|||||||||||Standard error of difference between response rates was from normal approximation.|||||
91093730|NCT04476043|182071419|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1||||0.0829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|4.7|||Wald test||Logistic regression model with treatment group and stratification factors (disease severity and geographical region).|||4.7|0.9|0.0829
91093731|NCT04476043|182071419|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rate|16.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.29|||||||||||Standard error of difference between response rates was from normal approximation.|||||
91093732|NCT00336544|182071429|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Delta will be determined by the highest clinical cure-rate between the Cethromycin treatment group and the Clarithromycin treatment group, as follows: Greater than or equal to 90%, delta = -10%; Greater than or equal to 80% and less than 90%, delta = -15%, Greater than or equal to 70% and less than 80%, -20%)|Mean Difference (Net)|-5.7||||0.0769||95.0|-11.9|0.6|||Fisher Exact|||The rate of clinical cure in each treatment group was calculated (number of cures/number of patient eligible for analysis). Non-inferiority will be demonstrated when the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in the clinical cure rate at the Test-of-Cure visit between treatment groups (Cethromycin -Clarithromycin) is greater than delta, and includes zero, for both Per-Protocol (PP) and Intent-to-Treat (ITT) analyses.||0.6|-11.9|0.0769
91093733|NCT00336544|182071431|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Delta will be determined by the highest clinical cure-rate between the Cethromycin treatment group and the Clarithromycin treatment group, as follows: Greater than or equal to 90%, delta = -10%; Greater than or equal to 80% and less than 90%, delta = -15%, Greater than or equal to 70% and less than 80%, -20%)|Mean Difference (Net)|-4.4||||0.0775||95.0|-9.1|0.3|||Fisher Exact|||The rate of clinical cure in each treatment group was calculated (number of cures/number of patient eligible for analysis). Non-inferiority will be demonstrated when the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in the clinical cure rate at the Test-of-Cure visit between treatment groups (Cethromycin -Clarithromycin) is greater than delta, and includes zero, for both Per-Protocol (PP) and Intent-to-Treat (ITT) analyses.||0.3|-9.1|0.0775
91093734|NCT00576758|182071438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.26||||0.1587|TWO_SIDED|60.0|3.9|18.7|||Chi-squared|||||18.7|3.9|0.1587
91093735|NCT00576758|182071439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|16.6||||||||16.6|-2.9|
91093736|NCT00576758|182071443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|18.3||||||||18.3|-13.9|
91093737|NCT00576758|182071444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.44||||||||1.44|0.62|
91093738|NCT00576758|182071446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.5||||||||1.50|0.67|
91093739|NCT03427411|182071467|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was defined as response rates which were sufficiently similar (p\>0.20 by Fisher's exact test).||||||0.6143||||||The p value was calculated and was 0.6143 which is \> 0.2 (pre-defined threshold).|Fisher Exact|||||||0.6143
91093740|NCT02631057|182071495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|-2.484|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.629|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.717|-1.251|||Abadie-Imbens|LoS Average Treatment Effect on the Treated (ATET) \[Dabigatran group\], dispersion analysed with Abadie-Imbens's standard error.|The ATET of LoS from oral anticoagulant initiation to hospital discharge was calculated as \[Dabigatran - Warfarin\] in the matched cohort of matching ratio 1:3.|||-1.251|-3.717|<0.001
91093741|NCT02690727|182071496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (%)|128.49||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|119.13|138.59|||ANOVA|||||138.59|119.13|0.0002
91093742|NCT02690727|182071498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (%)|139.27||||0.0278|TWO_SIDED|90.0|111.01|174.73|||ANOVA|||||174.73|111.01|0.0278
91093743|NCT04757636|182071499|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.861409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.84|||MMRM|||||1.84|-2.20|0.861409
91093744|NCT04757636|182071499|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.029||0.416264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.86|1.18|||MMRM|||||1.18|-2.86|0.416264
90898154|NCT02948959|181662333|SUPERIORITY|To control the type-I error rate for the analysis of outcome measure, a hierarchical testing procedure was applied at a 2-sided 5% significant level. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order endpoints were reported. Hierarchical testing sequence continued only if the previous endpoint was statistically significant.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.353|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.222|0.562||Threshold for statistical significance at 5% significant level.|Negative binomial model||Risk ratio, also called relative risk compares the risk (rate) of an event among one group with the risk (rate) among another group.|Risk ratio and p-value was derived using negative binomial model with total number of events onset from randomization up to Week 52 visit or last contact date (whichever comes earlier) as response variable, with treatment group, age, baseline weight group, region, baseline eosinophil level, baseline FeNO level, baseline ICS dose level and number of severe exacerbation events within 1 year prior to study as covariates and log-transformed standardized observation duration as an offset variable.||0.562|0.222|<0.0001
90898155|NCT02948959|181662334|SUPERIORITY|Testing was performed according to the hierarchical testing procedure (continued only if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.407|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.274|0.605||Threshold for statistical significance at 5% significant level.|Negative binomial model||Risk ratio, also called relative risk compares the risk (rate) of an event among one group with the risk (rate) among another group.|Risk ratio and p-value was derived using negative binomial model with total number of events onset from randomization up to Week 52 visit or last contact date (whichever comes earlier) as response variable, with treatment group, age, baseline weight group, region, baseline eosinophil level, baseline FeNO level, baseline ICS dose level and number of severe exacerbation events within 1 year prior to study as covariates and log-transformed standardized observation duration as an offset variable.||0.605|0.274|<0.0001
90842936|NCT02558296|181551309|NON_INFERIORITY|Rejection of the null hypothesis would imply that the mean change in baseline FPG from baseline to Week 6 was less than that in the placebo arm by a value that could not be attributed to chance alone.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|-1.15||P-value is based on one sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance.|Mixed-effects repeated measures|Region, baseline eGFR categories \& BMI, history of HF, insulin use, treatment, visit, hypoglycemic use and baseline FPG as fixed effect covariate.||The null hypothesis for the exploratory endpoint was that the mean change in FPG from baseline to Week 6 in the bexagliflozin arm would be equal to or greater than the mean change in the placebo arm.||-1.15|-1.55|<0.0001
90842937|NCT02558296|181551309|NON_INFERIORITY|Rejection of the null hypothesis would imply that the mean change in baseline FPG from baseline to Week 12 was less than that in the placebo arm by a value that could not be attributed to chance alone.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|-1.18||P-value is based on one sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance.|Mixed-effects repeated measures|Region, baseline eGFR categories \& BMI, history of HF, insulin use, treatment, visit, hypoglycemic use and baseline FPG as fixed effect covariate.||The null hypothesis for the exploratory endpoint was that the mean change in FPG from baseline to Week 12 in the bexagliflozin arm would be equal to or greater than the mean change in the placebo arm.||-1.18|-1.61|<0.0001
90842938|NCT02558296|181551309|NON_INFERIORITY|Rejection of the null hypothesis would imply that the mean change in baseline FPG from baseline to Week 24 was less than that in the placebo arm by a value that could not be attributed to chance alone.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|-1.16||P-value is based on one sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance.|Mixed-effects repeated measures|Region, baseline eGFR categories \& BMI, history of HF, insulin use, treatment, visit, hypoglycemic use and baseline FPG as fixed effect covariate.||The null hypothesis for the exploratory endpoint was that the mean change in FPG from baseline to Week 24 in the bexagliflozin arm would be equal to or greater than the mean change in the placebo arm.||-1.16|-1.61|<0.0001
90842939|NCT02558296|181551309|NON_INFERIORITY|Rejection of the null hypothesis would imply that the mean change in baseline FPG from baseline to Week 36 was less than that in the placebo arm by a value that could not be attributed to chance alone.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|-0.89||P-value is based on one sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance.|Mixed-effects repeated measures|Region, baseline eGFR categories \& BMI, history of HF, insulin use, treatment, visit, hypoglycemic use and baseline FPG as fixed effect covariate.||The null hypothesis for the exploratory endpoint was that the mean change in FPG from baseline to Week 36 in the bexagliflozin arm would be equal to or greater than the mean change in the placebo arm.||-0.89|-1.41|<0.0001
90842940|NCT02558296|181551309|NON_INFERIORITY|Rejection of the null hypothesis would imply that the mean change in baseline FPG from baseline to Week 48 was less than that in the placebo arm by a value that could not be attributed to chance alone.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|-0.98||P-value is based on one sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance.|Mixed-effects repeated measures|Region, baseline eGFR categories \& BMI, history of HF, insulin use, treatment, visit, hypoglycemic use and baseline FPG as fixed effect covariate.||The null hypothesis for the exploratory endpoint was that the mean change in FPG from baseline to Week 48 in the bexagliflozin arm would be equal to or greater than the mean change in the placebo arm.||-0.98|-1.48|<0.0001
90898156|NCT02948959|181662335|SUPERIORITY|Testing was performed according to the hierarchical testing procedure (continued only if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).|LS mean difference|5.32||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.76|8.88||Threshold for statistical significance at 5% significant level.|Mixed-effect model with repeated measure|||P-value and LS mean difference were derived from MMRM model with change from baseline in pre-bronchodilator % predicted FEV1 value up to Week 12 as the response variable, and treatment, baseline weight group, region, ethnicity, baseline eosinophil level, baseline FeNO level, baseline ICS dose level, visit, treatment by-visit interaction, baseline % predicted FEV1 value and baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates.||8.88|1.76|0.0036
91093745|NCT04757636|182071500|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.1||||0.981348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|7.7|||Mantel Haenszel||The rate/rate differences are estimated and compared by aggregating the MH estimates adjusted for the Baseline BCVA category and baseline lesion type read by independent reading center on each of the 100 multiple imputed datasets using Rubin's rule.|||7.7|-7.5|0.981348
90898157|NCT02948959|181662336|SUPERIORITY|Testing was performed according to the hierarchical testing procedure (continued only if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).|LS mean difference|5.21||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.14|8.27||Threshold for statistical significance at 5% significant level.|Mixed-effect model with repeated measure|||P-value and LS mean difference were derived from MMRM model with change from baseline in pre-bronchodilator % predicted FEV1 value up to Week 12 as the response variable, and treatment, baseline weight group, region, ethnicity, baseline eosinophil level, baseline FeNO level, baseline ICS dose level, visit, treatment by-visit interaction, baseline % predicted FEV1 value and baseline-by visit interaction as covariates.||8.27|2.14|0.0009
90898158|NCT02948959|181662337|SUPERIORITY|Testing was performed according to the hierarchical testing procedure (continued only if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).|LS mean difference|-0.46|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.26||Threshold for statistical significance at 5% significant level.|Mixed-effect model with repeated measure|||P-value and LS mean difference were derived from MMRM model with change from baseline in ACQ-7-IA up to Week 52 as the response variable, and treatment, age, weight group, region, baseline eosinophil level, baseline FeNO level, baseline ICS dose level, visit, treatment by-visit interaction, baseline ACQ-7-IA and baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates.||-0.26|-0.66|<0.0001
91093746|NCT04757636|182071500|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.7||||0.856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|7.0|||Mantel Haenszel||The rate/rate differences are estimated and compared by aggregating the MH estimates adjusted for the Baseline BCVA category and baseline lesion type read by independent reading center on each of the 100 multiple imputed datasets using Rubin's rule.|||7.0|-8.5|0.856000
91093747|NCT04757636|182071501|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.7||||0.655104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|5.6|||Mantel Haenszel||The rate/rate differences are estimated and compared by aggregating the MH estimates adjusted for the Baseline BCVA category and baseline lesion type read by independent reading center on each of the 100 multiple imputed datasets using Rubin's rule.|||5.6|-8.9|0.655104
91093748|NCT04757636|182071501|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.8||||0.821257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|6.5|||Mantel Haenszel||The rate/rate differences are estimated and compared by aggregating the MH estimates adjusted for the Baseline BCVA category and baseline lesion type read by independent reading center on each of the 100 multiple imputed datasets using Rubin's rule.|||6.5|-8.2|0.821257
91093749|NCT04757636|182071502|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.234||0.199828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.16|||MMRM|||||0.16|-0.76|0.199828
91093750|NCT04757636|182071502|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.235||0.188725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.15|||MMRM|||||0.15|-0.77|0.188725
91093751|NCT04757636|182071503|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.5||||0.84781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|4.6|||Mantel Haenszel||The rate/rate differences are estimated and compared by aggregating the MH estimates adjusted for the Baseline BCVA category and baseline lesion type read by independent reading center on each of the 100 multiple imputed datasets using Rubin's rule.|||4.6|-5.6|0.847810
91093752|NCT04757636|182071503|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.9||||0.718699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|6.1|||Mantel Haenszel||The rate/rate differences are estimated and compared by aggregating the MH estimates adjusted for the Baseline BCVA category and baseline lesion type read by independent reading center on each of the 100 multiple imputed datasets using Rubin's rule.|||6.1|-4.2|0.718699
91093753|NCT00091819|182071504|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin of 10% was specified based on historical regulatory precedent.|Risk Difference (RD)|1.0||||||95.0|-4.8|6.8||p-values were not calculated in deference to confidence intervals.|||"Statistical analysis applies to cure"|||6.8|-4.8|
91093754|NCT00701363|182071536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||One subject (Group B) had missing IGF-1 value at Week 48. One subject (Group A) had missing IGF-1 value at Baseline.||||0.0013
91093755|NCT00701363|182071536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91093756|NCT00701363|182071536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91093757|NCT00701363|182071537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0009
91093758|NCT00701363|182071537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91093759|NCT00701363|182071537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91093760|NCT00701363|182071537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0170
91093761|NCT00701363|182071538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0103|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in baseline IGF-1 levels between 108 subjects with normalized IGF-1 levels at week 24 (A+B+C) and 14 subjects with uncontrolled IGF-1 levels at week 24.||||0.0103
91093762|NCT05033041|182071556|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence is based on an equivalence hypothesis of -17mL \<difference in differences \< 17mL.||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison of the means using two one-sided t tests (TOST)||||.001
91093763|NCT00560404|182071620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Mean Hb within target range during efficacy evaluation period within plus or minus 1 g/dL of their reference Hb and between the target range with a non-inferiority limit of -0.15.|Difference of response rates|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.2||||||||0.20|-0.25|
91093764|NCT03260023|182071659|OTHER|Enough participants will be treated to obtain 22 evaluable as a first stage. If at least 3/22 participants are considered responders, the enrolment will be continued, otherwise it will be stopped. For the second stage of the trial, enough participants will be treated to obtain a total of 40 evaluable participants and consider the study positive if at least 8/40 of them are considered responders.||||||||||||||||A Simon's two-stage design will be used. The null hypothesis for response rate H0 is set at 10% corresponding to the response rate observed in second line participants, the alternate hypothesis of efficacy is set at HA=25%, the type I error α is set at 5% one sided, the type II error β is set at 20% (power=80%).|With a hierarchical strategy on the final analysis, a subgroup analysis performed in oropharyngeal SCCHN patients and with a null hypothesis for response rate (H0) set at 10% and the alternative hypothesis of efficacy set at HA = 35%, 18 oropharyngeal SCCHN patients would have been needed to reach a power of 81% and actual alpha at 2.8%. This analysis would have been considered positive with at least 5 responders among the 18 SCCHN patients. The second stage of the Simon's design has not been done following the decision to exclude oropharyngeal SCCHN and to change to a randomized controlled two-arms study (phase II part 2).|||
91093765|NCT03260023|182071660|SUPERIORITY|Statistical analysis is performed using a one-sided log-rank unstratified test to compare Progression-Free Survival of TG4001 in combination with avelumab vs avelumab alone in participants with recurrent or metastatic (R/M) HPV-16 positive advanced malignancies and without liver metastases at baseline. PFS will be evaluated based on RECIST1.1.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.281|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.59|1.29|||Log Rank|Unstratified with one-sided p-value||Efficacy will be evaluated by comparing the PFS between TG4001 arm versus TG4001 \& avelumab arm with an adaptive approach. With one-sided type I error α at 5%, 76 events are needed to reach a power of 95%, corresponding to around 80 participants enrolled. To stick with initial timelines for final analyses and limiting the loss of statistical power, PFS analysis will be performed based on at least 69 events.||1.29|0.59|0.2810
90842941|NCT02558296|181551309|NON_INFERIORITY|Rejection of the null hypothesis would imply that the mean change in baseline FPG from baseline to Week 72 was less than that in the placebo arm by a value that could not be attributed to chance alone.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|-0.72||P-value is based on one sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance.|Mixed-effects repeated measures|Region, baseline eGFR categories \& BMI, history of HF, insulin use, treatment, visit, hypoglycemic use and baseline FPG as fixed effect covariate.||The null hypothesis for the exploratory endpoint was that the mean change in FPG from baseline to Week 72 in the bexagliflozin arm would be equal to or greater than the mean change in the placebo arm.||-0.72|-1.27|<0.0001
90842942|NCT02558296|181551309|NON_INFERIORITY|Rejection of the null hypothesis would imply that the mean change in baseline FPG from baseline to Week 96 was less than that in the placebo arm by a value that could not be attributed to chance alone.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.9||P-value is based on one sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance.|Mixed-effects repeated measures|Region, baseline eGFR categories \& BMI, history of HF, insulin use, treatment, visit, hypoglycemic use and baseline FPG as fixed effect covariate.||The null hypothesis for the exploratory endpoint was that the mean change in FPG from baseline to Week 96 in the bexagliflozin arm would be equal to or greater than the mean change in the placebo arm.||-0.90|-1.50|<0.0001
90842943|NCT02558296|181551309|NON_INFERIORITY|Rejection of the null hypothesis would imply that the mean change in baseline FPG from baseline to Week 120 was less than that in the placebo arm by a value that could not be attributed to chance alone.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|-0.82||P-value is based on one sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance.|Mixed-effects repeated measures|Region, baseline eGFR categories \& BMI, history of HF, insulin use, treatment, visit, hypoglycemic use and baseline FPG as fixed effect covariate.||The null hypothesis for the exploratory endpoint was that the mean change in FPG from baseline to Week 120 in the bexagliflozin arm would be equal to or greater than the mean change in the placebo arm.||-0.82|-1.49|<0.0001
90842944|NCT02558296|181551309|NON_INFERIORITY|Rejection of the null hypothesis would imply that the mean change in baseline FPG from baseline to Week 144 was less than that in the placebo arm by a value that could not be attributed to chance alone.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.63||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.24||P-value is based on one sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance.|Mixed-effects repeated measures|Region, baseline eGFR categories \& BMI, history of HF, insulin use, treatment, visit, hypoglycemic use and baseline FPG as fixed effect covariate.||The null hypothesis for the exploratory endpoint was that the mean change in FPG from baseline to Week 144 in the bexagliflozin arm would be equal to or greater than the mean change in the placebo arm.||-0.24|-1.01|0.0008
90898159|NCT02948959|181662338|SUPERIORITY|Testing was performed according to the hierarchical testing procedure (continued only if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).|LS mean difference|-0.33||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.16||Threshold for statistical significance at 5% significant level.|Mixed-effect model with repeated measure|||P-value and LS mean difference were derived from MMRM model with change from baseline in ACQ-7-IA up to Week 52 as the response variable, and treatment, age, weight group, region, baseline eosinophil level, baseline FeNO level, baseline ICS dose level, visit, treatment by-visit interaction, baseline ACQ-7-IA and baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates.||-0.16|-0.50|0.0001
91093766|NCT03260023|182071662|OTHER|||||||0.832||||||At level 0.05 without adjustments for multiplicity testing, pvalue is calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Chi-Square test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||In Phase II part 2 cohort A, statistical Test stratified by indication to compare the Overall Response Rate between TG4001+Avelumab versus Avelumab alone.||||0.832
90898160|NCT02948959|181662339|SUPERIORITY|Testing was performed according to the hierarchical testing procedure (continued only if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).|LS mean difference|-20.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.6|-16.59||Threshold for statistical significance at 5% significant level.|Mixed-effect model with repeated measure|||P-value and LS mean difference were derived from MMRM model with change from baseline in FeNO up to Week 12 as the response variable, and treatment, age, weight group, region, baseline eosinophil level, baseline ICS dose level, visit, treatment by-visit interaction, baseline FeNO value and baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates.||-16.59|-24.60|<0.0001
90898161|NCT02948959|181662340|SUPERIORITY|Testing was performed according to the hierarchical testing procedure (continued only if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).|LS mean difference|-17.84|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.05|-14.63||Threshold for statistical significance at 5% significant level.|Mixed-effect model with repeated measure|||P-value and LS mean difference were derived from MMRM model with change from baseline in FeNO up to Week 12 as the response variable, and treatment, age, weight group, region, baseline eosinophil level, baseline ICS dose level, visit, treatment by-visit interaction, baseline FeNO value and baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates.||-14.63|-21.05|<0.0001
91093767|NCT04220021|182071680|SUPERIORITY|For the sign and binomial test our two outcomes are decreased (success) percentage change in RAN protein levels and increased (failure) percentage change in RAN protein levels.||||||0.0245||||||A priori test for significance is p less than or equal to 0.05|Sign test|One-tailed sign and binomial test||Sign and binomial test with one-tail analysis where the null hypothesis predicts a 50/50 split (p=0.5) for two outcomes.||||0.0245
91093768|NCT04513366|182071682|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.23|0.64|||Mantel Haenszel|||||0.64|0.23|<.0001
91093769|NCT04513366|182071682|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.32|0.73|||Mantel Haenszel|||||0.73|0.32|<.0001
91093770|NCT04513366|182071683|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-5.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-7.18|-3.42|||ANCOVA|||||-3.42|-7.18|<.001
91093771|NCT04513366|182071683|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-7.57|-3.7|||ANCOVA|||||-3.70|-7.57|<.001
91093772|NCT04513366|182071684|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-64.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-87.85|-40.85|||ANCOVA|||||-40.85|-87.85|<.001
90842945|NCT02558296|181551309|NON_INFERIORITY|Rejection of the null hypothesis would imply that the mean change in baseline FPG from baseline to Week 168 was less than that in the placebo arm by a value that could not be attributed to chance alone.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.0462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|0.08||P-value is based on one sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance.|Mixed-effects repeated measures|Region, baseline eGFR categories \& BMI, history of HF, insulin use, treatment, visit, hypoglycemic use and baseline FPG as fixed effect covariate.||The null hypothesis for the exploratory endpoint was that the mean change in FPG from baseline to Week 168 in the bexagliflozin arm would be equal to or greater than the mean change in the placebo arm.||0.08|-1.09|0.0462
90842946|NCT02558296|181551310|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.41||P-value is based on one sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance.|Regression, Logistic|Region, baseline eGFR categories \& BMI, history of heart failure, insulin use (Y/N), treatment and baseline HbA1c as fixed effect covariate.|Odds ratio is calculated as the odds ratio of bexagliflozin over placebo.|||0.41|0.22|<0.0001
90842947|NCT02558296|181551311|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.49||P-value is based on one sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance.|Regression, Cox|Region, baseline eGFR categories \& BMI, history of heart failure, insulin use (Y/N), treatment and baseline HbA1c as fixed effect covariate.|Hazard ratio and p-value were estimated using Cox regression model for time to first event in the bexagliflozin arm vs. placebo arm during entire study.|||0.49|0.35|<0.0001
90842948|NCT02558296|181551312|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.04||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|3.11||P-value is based on one sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance.|Regression, Logistic|Region, baseline eGFR categories \& BMI, history of heart failure, insulin use (Y/N), treatment and baseline HbA1c as fixed effect covariate.|Odds ratio is calculated as the ratio of bexagliflozin over placebo.|||3.11|1.33|0.0005
90842949|NCT02558296|181551313|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|2.38||P-value is based on one sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance.|Regression, Cox|Region, baseline eGFR categories \& BMI, history of heart failure, insulin use (Y/N), treatment and baseline HbA1c as fixed effect covariate.|Hazard ratio and p-value were estimated using Cox regression model for time to first event in the bexagliflozin arm vs. placebo arm during the entire study.|||2.38|1.40|<0.0001
90842950|NCT02558296|181551314|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.63||||0.0803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.2||P-value is based on one sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance.|Regression, Logistic|Region, baseline eGFR categories \& BMI, history of heart failure, insulin use (Y/N), treatment and baseline HbA1c as fixed effect covariate.|Odds ratio is calculated as the odds ratio of bexagliflozin over placebo.|||1.20|0.33|0.0803
90842951|NCT02558296|181551314|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.47||||0.0272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.01||P-value is based on one sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance.|Regression, Logistic|Region, baseline eGFR categories \& BMI, history of heart failure, insulin use (Y/N), treatment and baseline HbA1c as fixed effect covariate.|Odds ratio is calculated as the odds ratio of bexagliflozin over placebo.|||1.01|0.22|0.0272
90842952|NCT02558296|181551314|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63||||0.0757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.18||P-value is based on one sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance.|Regression, Cox|Region, baseline eGFR categories \& BMI, history of heart failure, insulin use (Y/N), treatment and baseline HbA1c as fixed effect covariate.|Hazard ratio and p-value were estimated using Cox regression model for treatment comparison vs. placebo.|||1.18|0.34|0.0757
90842953|NCT02558296|181551314|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.49||||0.0273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.01||P-value is based on one sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance.|Regression, Cox|Region, baseline eGFR categories \& BMI, history of heart failure, insulin use (Y/N), treatment and baseline HbA1c as fixed effect covariate.|Hazard ratio and p-value were estimated using Cox regression model for treatment comparison vs. placebo.|||1.01|0.23|0.0273
90842954|NCT02919995|181551324|OTHER||Contrast ratio|1.038||||0.0196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.007|1.07|||ANCOVA|||||1.07|1.007|0.0196
90842955|NCT02919995|181551324|OTHER||Contrast ratio|1.024||||0.0802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.997|1.052|||ANCOVA|||||1.052|0.997|0.0802
90842956|NCT02919995|181551324|OTHER||Contrast ratio|0.986||||0.3487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.957|1.017|||ANCOVA|||||1.017|0.957|0.3487
90898162|NCT02150837|181662401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Within group comparison (for each group) using a non-parametric paired Wilcoxon signed rank test comparing repeated measures in a single sample.||||||<0.0001
91093773|NCT04513366|182071684|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-69.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-92.16|-47.35|||ANCOVA|||||-47.35|-92.16|<.001
91093774|NCT04513366|182071685|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.090
91093775|NCT04513366|182071685|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.472|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.472
91093776|NCT04513366|182071686|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.58||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.25|0.91|||Chi-squared|||||0.91|0.25|0.0003
91093777|NCT04513366|182071686|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.25||||0.1895|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.36|0.86|||Chi-squared|||||0.86|-0.36|0.1895
90842957|NCT02919995|181551325|OTHER||Contrast ratio|1.072||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.026|1.12|||ANCOVA|||||1.12|1.026|0.0043
90842958|NCT02919995|181551325|OTHER||Contrast ratio|1.055||||0.0109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.014|1.096|||ANCOVA|||||1.096|1.014|0.0109
90842959|NCT02919995|181551325|OTHER||Contrast ratio|0.984||||0.4306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.942|1.027|||ANCOVA|||||1.027|0.942|0.4306
90842960|NCT02919995|181551326|OTHER||Contrast ratio|1.065||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.021|1.11|||ANCOVA|||||1.11|1.021|0.0064
90842961|NCT02919995|181551326|OTHER||Contrast ratio|1.049||||0.0149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.011|1.089|||ANCOVA|||||1.089|1.011|0.0149
90898163|NCT02424591|181662533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.86
91093778|NCT04513366|182071687|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.43||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.14|0.72|||Chi-squared|||||0.72|0.14|0.0035
91093779|NCT04513366|182071687|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.28||||0.0428|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.02|0.57|||Chi-squared|||||0.57|-0.02|0.0428
90842962|NCT02919995|181551326|OTHER||Contrast ratio|0.945||||0.466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.945|1.027|||ANCOVA|||||1.027|0.945|0.466
90842963|NCT02919995|181551327|OTHER||Contrast ratio|1.061||||0.0093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.017|1.107|||ANCOVA|||||1.107|1.017|0.0093
90842964|NCT02919995|181551327|OTHER||Contrast ratio|1.042||||0.0333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.004|1.082|||ANCOVA|||||1.082|1.004|0.0333
90898164|NCT02424591|181662534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.79
90898165|NCT02424591|181662535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.74
91029081|NCT01890915|181941778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||"Due to impaired thermoregulatory mechanisms secondary to spinal cord injury, subjects with tetraplegia were hypothesized to have a significant rise in core temperature after exposure to warm ambient temperatures, while control subjects were hypothesized to maintain constant core temperature.~Percent change in core temperature of subjects in each group were compared to determine if they were significantly different from baseline to warm exposure."||||0.0001
91093780|NCT04513366|182071688|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.517|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.1|0.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.61|-1.10|0.517
91093781|NCT04513366|182071688|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.39|1.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.28|-0.39|0.230
91093782|NCT04513366|182071689|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.35|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.12|-0.35|0.250
90842965|NCT02919995|181551327|OTHER||Contrast ratio|0.982||||0.3693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.941|1.024|||ANCOVA|||||1.024|0.941|0.3693
90898166|NCT00818363|181662536|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.64||||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|0.47|||ANCOVA|Includes treatment group and trial site as factors and age as a covariate.||||0.47|-1.74|0.303
91093783|NCT04513366|182071689|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.506|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.16|0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.29|-0.16|0.506
91029082|NCT01890915|181941779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||We hypothesized that subjects with tetraplegia would demonstrate a change in cognitive performance after heat exposure if they had demonstrated a significant increase in core body temperature - as was hypothesized in our primary hypothesis. Cognitive performance was measured, in part, by Interference T-scores derived from the Stroop Color and Word Test.||||0.006
90842966|NCT01263197|181551374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.96|8.49||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the maximum changes in heart rate on Day 1, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 1) treatment arm.||8.49|-3.96|
90898167|NCT00818363|181662537|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-10.25||||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.04|9.55|||ANCOVA|Includes treatment group and trial site as factors and age as a covariate.||||9.55|-30.04|0.303
91093784|NCT04513366|182071690|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.653|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.55|0.37|||ANOVA|||||0.37|-0.55|0.653
91093785|NCT04513366|182071690|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.629|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.36|0.56|||ANOVA|||||0.56|-0.36|0.629
91093786|NCT04513366|182071691|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.731|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.4|0.54|||ANOVA|||Treatment Periods 1-3 (Months 1-3)||0.54|-0.40|0.731
91093787|NCT04513366|182071691|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.583|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.35|0.58|||ANOVA|||Treatment Periods 1-3 (Month 1-3)||0.58|-0.35|0.583
91093788|NCT00269152|182071703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Feasibility Response Rate (percentage)|59.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.4|71.5||||||||71.5|46.4|
91093789|NCT00269152|182071703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Feasibility Response Rate (percentage)|50.0||||||95.0|36.1|63.9||||||||63.9|36.1|
91093790|NCT03043053|182071708|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.3||||||||1.3|-1.4|
91093791|NCT03043053|182071709|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-141.9|82.6|||||Controlled for lean mass. Reported values are outputted by STATA.|||82.6|-141.9|
90842967|NCT01263197|181551374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.198|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.19|3.59||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the minimum changes in heart rate on Day 1, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 1) treatment arm.||3.59|-3.19|
90842968|NCT01263197|181551374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|5.35||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the average changes in heart rate on Day 1, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 1) treatment arm.||5.35|-2.25|
90842969|NCT01263197|181551374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.7|26.2||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the maximum changes in heart rate on Day 1, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the albuterol treatment arm.||26.2|13.7|
90842970|NCT01263197|181551374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|6.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|9.58||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the minimum changes in heart rate on Day 1, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the albuterol treatment arm.||9.58|2.80|
90898168|NCT00633919|181662543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Linear mixed effect (LME) model|||The null hypothesis is the hypothesis of no difference and the alternative to the null hypothesis is the hypothesis of a difference.||||0.85
90898169|NCT00633919|181662544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Linear mixed effect (LME) model|||The null hypothesis is the hypothesis of no difference and the alternative to the null hypothesis is the hypothesis of a difference.||||0.52
90898170|NCT00633919|181662545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||Proportional odds regression|||The null hypothesis is the hypothesis of no difference and the alternative to the null hypothesis is the hypothesis of a difference.||||>0.05
91029083|NCT01890915|181941780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Due to impaired thermoregulatory mechanisms, subjects with tetraplegia were hypothesized to have diminished increases in sweat rate in comparison to controls after heat exposure.||||0.015
91093792|NCT03043053|182071710|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|196.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1036.0|1428.0||||||||1428|-1036|
91093793|NCT03043053|182071711|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-152.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-302.3|-1.7||||||||-1.7|-302.3|
91093794|NCT02139540|182071715|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The primary outcome (HDRS-21) was analyzed with a repeated-measures mixed effects linear model using restricted maximum likelihood estimation. To adjust for the observed carryover effect, the model included a randomization group term and a three-way interaction (treatment × time × randomization group)||||<0.05
90898171|NCT00633919|181662546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0486||95.0|||||Proportional odds regression|||The null hypothesis is the hypothesis of no difference and the alternative to the null hypothesis is the hypothesis of a difference.||||0.0486
90898172|NCT00633919|181662547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||Proportional odds regression|||The null hypothesis is the hypothesis of no difference and the alternative to the null hypothesis is the hypothesis of a difference.||||>0.05
90898173|NCT02255032|181662560|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-164.44|STANDARD_DEVIATION|173.148||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-256.7|-72.2||The primary analysis of the primary efficacy endpoint was the comparison between the Baseline and Month 2 values for the 4 mg treatment group. No adjustments for multiplicity were necessary.|Paired t-test, two-sided|||"A paired t-test was used to assess the statistical significance of the change between Baseline and Month 2.~A sample size of 16 subjects would have 80% power to detect a difference of 75, assuming a standard deviation of 100, using a paired t-test with a 0.050 two-sided significance level."||-72.2|-256.7|0.0017
90898174|NCT02037438|181662561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Provider-Effect Adjusted Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.075||0.687|TWO_SIDED||||||see Comments|Finite-Mixture Models with Fixed Effects for Providers||||||0.687
91093795|NCT02139540|182071716|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
90898175|NCT02037438|181662562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Provider-Effect Adjusted Difference|-0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.539||0.989|TWO_SIDED||||||see Comments|Heteroscedasticity-Consistent Linear Regression with Fixed Effects for Providers and Baseline Covariate||||||0.989
90898176|NCT02037438|181662563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Provider-Effect Adjusted Difference|0.114|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141||0.417|TWO_SIDED||||||see Comments|Finite-Mixture Models with Fixed Effects for Providers||||||0.417
90898177|NCT02037438|181662564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Provider-Effect Adjusted Difference|0.057|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.078||0.468|TWO_SIDED||||||see Comments|Finite-Mixture Models with Fixed Effects for Providers||||||0.468
90898178|NCT02037438|181662565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Provider-Effect Adjusted Difference|0.177|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||see Comments|Finite-Mixture Models with Fixed Effects for Providers||||||0.003
90898179|NCT00125593|181662597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.83||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.94|||Log Rank|||All analyses by intention to treat||0.94|0.74|0.0021
90898180|NCT00125593|181662598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.85||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.94|||Log Rank|||All analyses by intention to treat||0.94|0.77|0.0012
90898181|NCT00125593|181662599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.84||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|0.93|||Log Rank|||All analyses by intention to treat||0.93|0.75|0.001
90898182|NCT00125593|181662600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.92||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.11|||Log Rank|||All analyses by intention to treat||1.11|0.76|0.37
91093796|NCT03533751|182071717|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|7.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.235||0.4498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4066|27.8983|||ANCOVA|The p-value was obtained using a mixed effect analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as fixed effect and Baseline EASI as covariate.|Difference = Etokimab - Placebo|||27.8983|-12.4066|0.4498
90898183|NCT00125593|181662601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.75||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.94|||Log Rank|||All analyses by intention to treat||0.94|0.60|0.01
91093797|NCT03533751|182071717|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.39||0.501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.774|12.1262|||ANCOVA|The p-value was obtained using a mixed effect ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and Baseline EASI as covariate.|Difference = Etokimab - Placebo|||12.1262|-24.7740|0.5010
91093798|NCT03533751|182071717|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.454||0.8349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6037|20.5476|||ANCOVA|The p-value was obtained using a mixed effect ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and Baseline EASI as covariate.|Difference = Etokimab - Placebo|||20.5476|-16.6037|0.8349
91093799|NCT03533751|182071717|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.154||0.6662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1892|26.8275|||ANCOVA|The p-value was obtained using a mixed effect ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and Baseline EASI as covariate.|Difference = Etokimab - Placebo|||26.8275|-17.1892|0.6662
91093800|NCT03533751|182071718|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.7992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.9509|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with treatment as fixed effect and Baseline EASI as a covariate.||||1.9509|0.4200|0.7992
91093801|NCT03533751|182071718|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.59||||0.2197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.757|3.3572|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with treatment as fixed effect and Baseline EASI as a covariate.||||3.3572|0.7570|0.2197
90898184|NCT00125593|181662602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.79||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.93|||Log Rank|||All analyses by intention to treat||0.93|0.68|0.0036
90898185|NCT00125593|181662603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.97||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.05|||Log Rank|||All analyses by intention to treat||1.05|0.89|0.41
90898186|NCT04146896|181662604|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.704|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.704
90898187|NCT04146896|181662605|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.684|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.684
90898188|NCT04146896|181662606|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.743|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.743
90898189|NCT04146896|181662607|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.483|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.483
90898190|NCT04146896|181662608|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.199|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.199
90898191|NCT04146896|181662609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.273|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.273
90898192|NCT04146896|181662610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.668|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.668
90898193|NCT03107377|181662611|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.81||||0.0256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.02|-0.61|||Chi-squared|||||-0.61|-9.02|0.0256
90898194|NCT03107377|181662612|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.53||||0.0316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.84|-0.23|||Chi-squared|||||-0.23|-4.84|0.0316
90898195|NCT03107377|181662616|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||A comparison of infection rates between the treatment arms amongst subjects with =0% adherence||||1.0000
90898196|NCT03107377|181662616|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||A comparison of infection rates between the treatment arms amongst subjects with \>0% adherence||||1.0000
90898197|NCT03107377|181662616|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6278|||||||Fisher Exact|||A comparison of infection rates between the treatment arms amongst subjects with \>=20% adherence||||.6278
91093802|NCT03533751|182071718|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.7197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5345|2.4774|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with treatment as fixed effect and Baseline EASI as a covariate.||||2.4774|0.5345|0.7197
91093803|NCT03533751|182071718|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.6772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.391|1.8404|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with treatment as fixed effect and Baseline EASI as a covariate.||||1.8404|0.3910|0.6772
90842971|NCT01263197|181551374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|11.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.87|15.5||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the average changes in heart rate on Day 1, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the albuterol treatment arm.||15.5|7.87|
90842972|NCT01263197|181551374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-13.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9|-8.8||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the maximum changes in heart rate on Day 1, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 2) treatment arm.||-8.80|-18.9|
90842973|NCT01263197|181551374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-4.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.67|-1.56||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the minimum changes in heart rate on Day 1, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 2) treatment arm.||-1.56|-7.67|
90842974|NCT01263197|181551374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-8.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|-5.33||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the average changes in heart rate on Day 1, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 2) treatment arm.||-5.33|-11.5|
90842975|NCT01263197|181551374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|7.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.72|12.9||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the maximum changes in heart rate on Day 1, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the propranolol treatment arm.||12.9|2.72|
90842976|NCT01263197|181551374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|4.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|7.46||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the minimum changes in heart rate on Day 1, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the propranolol treatment arm.||7.46|1.30|
90842977|NCT01263197|181551374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|5.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.93|8.18||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the average changes in heart rate on Day 1, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the propranolol treatment arm.||8.18|1.93|
90842978|NCT01263197|181551374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.905|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.49|7.3||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the maximum changes in heart rate on Day 3 where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 1) treatment arm.||7.30|-5.49|
90842979|NCT01263197|181551374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.96|1.54||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the minimum changes in heart rate on Day 3 where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 1) treatment arm.||1.54|-6.96|
90842980|NCT01263197|181551374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.85|6.16||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the average changes in heart rate on Day 3, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 1) treatment arm.||6.16|-2.85|
90842981|NCT01263197|181551374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|17.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.2|23.8||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the maximum changes in heart rate on Day 3 where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the albuterol treatment arm.||23.8|11.2|
90842982|NCT01263197|181551374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|6.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.32|10.7||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the minimum changes in heart rate on Day 3, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the albuterol treatment arm.||10.7|2.32|
90842983|NCT01263197|181551374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|14.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.75|18.7||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the average changes in heart rate on Day 3, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the albuterol treatment arm.||18.7|9.75|
90842984|NCT01263197|181551374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-9.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|-5.34||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the maximum changes in heart rate on Day 3, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 2) treatment arm.||-5.34|-14.6|
90842985|NCT01263197|181551374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-3.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.22|0.297||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the minimum changes in heart rate on Day 3, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 2) treatment arm.||0.297|-7.22|
90842986|NCT01263197|181551374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-8.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|-4.71||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the average changes in heart rate on Day 3, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 2) treatment arm.||-4.71|-11.6|
90842987|NCT01263197|181551374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|12.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.39|16.8||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the maximum changes in heart rate on Day 3, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the propranolol treatment arm.||16.8|7.39|
90842988|NCT01263197|181551374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.91|10.5||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the minimum changes in heart rate on Day 3, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the propranolol treatment arm.||10.5|2.91|
90842989|NCT01263197|181551374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|10.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.88|13.8||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the average changes in heart rate on Day 3, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the propranolol treatment arm.||13.8|6.88|
91093804|NCT03533751|182071719|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.9537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3922|2.6994|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with treatment as fixed effect and Baseline EASI as a covariate.||||2.6994|0.3922|0.9537
91093805|NCT03533751|182071719|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.57||||0.3316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6323|3.8895|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with treatment as fixed effect and Baseline EASI as a covariate.||||3.8895|0.6323|0.3316
91093806|NCT03533751|182071719|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.5166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5331|3.4944|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with treatment as fixed effect and Baseline EASI as a covariate.||||3.4944|0.5331|0.5166
90842990|NCT01263197|181551374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.41|5.3||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the maximum changes in heart rate on Day 5, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 1) treatment arm.||5.30|-7.41|
90842991|NCT01263197|181551374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|6.56||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the minimum changes in heart rate on Day 5, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 1) treatment arm.||6.56|-2.15|
90842992|NCT01263197|181551374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.23|5.47||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the average changes in heart rate on Day 5, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 1) treatment arm.||5.47|-3.23|
90842993|NCT01263197|181551374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|19.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.2|25.6||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the maximum changes in heart rate on Day 5 where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the albuterol treatment arm.||25.6|13.2|
90842994|NCT01263197|181551374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|9.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.78|13.3||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the minimum changes in heart rate on Day 5 where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the albuterol treatment arm.||13.3|4.78|
90842995|NCT01263197|181551374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|14.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.4|18.9||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the average changes in heart rate on Day 5, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the albuterol treatment arm.||18.9|10.4|
90842996|NCT01263197|181551374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-10.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.6|-5.52||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the maximum changes in heart rate on Day 5, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 2) treatment arm.||-5.52|-15.6|
90842997|NCT01263197|181551374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-4.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.26|0.764||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the minimum changes in heart rate on Day 5, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 2) treatment arm.||0.764|-9.26|
90842998|NCT01263197|181551374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-8.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|-4.87||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the average changes in heart rate on Day 5, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 2) treatment arm.||-4.87|-12.6|
90842999|NCT01263197|181551374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|12.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.17|17.4||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the maximum changes in heart rate on Day 5, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the propranolol treatment arm.||17.4|7.17|
90843000|NCT01263197|181551374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|5.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.917|11.0||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the minimum changes in heart rate on Day 5, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the propranolol treatment arm.||11.0|0.917|
91093807|NCT03533751|182071719|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.7426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4545|3.0223|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with treatment as fixed effect and Baseline EASI as a covariate.||||3.0223|0.4545|0.7426
90843001|NCT01263197|181551374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|9.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.98|13.8||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the average changes in heart rate on Day 5, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the propranolol treatment arm.||13.8|5.98|
90843002|NCT01263197|181551375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|5.06||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the maximum changes in systolic blood pressure on Day 1, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 1) treatment arm.||5.06|-1.81|
91093808|NCT03533751|182071720|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76||||0.4543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3998|7.7615|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with treatment as fixed effect and Baseline EASI as a covariate.||||7.7615|0.3998|0.4543
90843003|NCT01263197|181551375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|6.85||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the minimum changes in systolic blood pressure on Day 1, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 1) treatment arm.||6.85|-1.38|
90843004|NCT01263197|181551375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.209|5.56||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the average changes in systolic blood pressure on Day 1, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 1) treatment arm.||5.56|-0.209|
91093809|NCT03533751|182071720|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.57||||0.1874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6314|10.4827|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with treatment as fixed effect and Baseline EASI as a covariate.||||10.4827|0.6314|0.1874
90843005|NCT01263197|181551375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.541|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.94|4.02||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the maximum changes in systolic blood pressure on Day 1, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the albuterol treatment arm.||4.02|-2.94|
90843006|NCT01263197|181551375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|5.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|9.43||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the minimum changes in systolic blood pressure on Day 1, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the albuterol treatment arm.||9.43|1.09|
90843007|NCT01263197|181551375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.322|5.52||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the average changes in systolic blood pressure on Day 1, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the albuterol treatment arm.||5.52|-0.322|
90843008|NCT01263197|181551375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-6.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|-1.41||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the maximum changes in systolic blood pressure on Day 1, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 2) treatment arm.||-1.41|-11.5|
90843009|NCT01263197|181551375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.171|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.21|5.56||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the minimum changes in systolic blood pressure on Day 1, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 2) treatment arm.||5.56|-5.21|
90898198|NCT03107377|181662616|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6404|||||||Fisher Exact|||A comparison of infection rates between the treatment arms amongst subjects with \>=40% adherence||||.6404
91093810|NCT03533751|182071720|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.69||||0.1721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6506|11.0814|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with treatment as fixed effect and Baseline EASI as a covariate.||||11.0814|0.6506|0.1721
91093811|NCT03533751|182071720|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.68||||0.6755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1086|4.2141|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with treatment as fixed effect and Baseline EASI as a covariate.||||4.2141|0.1086|0.6755
91093812|NCT03533751|182071721|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.6058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2481|2.2543|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline vIGA-AD score as covariate.||||2.2543|0.2481|0.6058
91093813|NCT03533751|182071721|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.9521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3356|2.7923|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with treatment as fixed effect and Baseline vIGA-AD score as a covariate.||||2.7923|0.3356|0.9521
91093814|NCT03533751|182071721|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.6905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4457|3.3878|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with treatment as fixed effect and Baseline vIGA-AD score as a covariate.||||3.3878|0.4457|0.6905
91093815|NCT03533751|182071721|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.9399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3671|2.9518|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with treatment as fixed effect and Baseline vIGA-AD score as a covariate.||||2.9518|0.3671|0.9399
91093816|NCT03533751|182071722|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.7659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.329|4.5268|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with treatment as fixed effect and Baseline vIGA-AD score as covariate.||||4.5268|0.3290|0.7659
91093817|NCT03533751|182071722|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.6273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3895|4.776|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline vIGA-AD score as covariate.||||4.7760|0.3895|0.6273
91093818|NCT03533751|182071722|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.88||||0.2967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5734|6.1879|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline vIGA-AD score as covariate.||||6.1879|0.5734|0.2967
90843010|NCT01263197|181551375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-3.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.73|0.557||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the average changes in systolic blood pressure on Day 1, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 2) treatment arm.||0.557|-6.73|
91093819|NCT03533751|182071722|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46||||0.5544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4152|5.1476|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline vIGA-AD score as covariate.||||5.1476|0.4152|0.5544
91093820|NCT03533751|182071723|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3175|3.9513|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with treatment as fixed effect and Baseline peak weekly averaged NRS as covariate.||||3.9513|0.3175|0.8600
91093821|NCT03533751|182071723|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.84||||0.3222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5511|6.1214|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with treatment as fixed effect and Baseline peak weekly averaged NRS as covariate.||||6.1214|0.5511|0.3222
91093822|NCT03533751|182071723|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.98||||0.2564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6089|6.431|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with treatment as fixed effect and Baseline peak weekly averaged NRS as covariate.||||6.4310|0.6089|0.2564
91093823|NCT03533751|182071723|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.89||||0.2912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5806|6.1275|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with treatment as fixed effect and Baseline peak weekly averaged NRS as covariate.||||6.1275|0.5806|0.2912
91093824|NCT03533751|182071724|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.679||0.8927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.2117|15.8686|||ANCOVA|Mixed effect ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and Baseline weekly averaged peak NRS as covariate.|Difference = Etokimab - Placebo|||15.8686|-18.2117|0.8927
91093825|NCT03533751|182071724|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.019||0.7035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.2767|21.1463|||ANCOVA|Mixed effect ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and Baseline weekly averaged peak NRS as covariate.|Difference = Etokimab - Placebo|||21.1463|-14.2767|0.7035
91093826|NCT03533751|182071724|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.608||0.2819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.159|7.6237|||ANCOVA|Mixed effect ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and Baseline weekly averaged peak NRS as covariate.|Difference = Etokimab - Placebo|||7.6237|-26.1590|0.2819
91093827|NCT03533751|182071724|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.557||0.4793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.8452|10.7333|||ANCOVA|Mixed effect ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and Baseline weekly averaged peak NRS as covariate.|Difference = Etokimab - Placebo|||10.7333|-22.8452|0.4793
91093828|NCT03533751|182071725|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|6.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.677||0.3262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5723|19.7054|||ANCOVA|Mixed effect ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and Baseline SCORAD as covariate.|Difference = Etokimab - Placebo|||19.7054|-6.5723|0.3262
91093829|NCT03533751|182071725|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.366||0.8465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7439|11.2782|||ANCOVA|Mixed effect ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and Baseline SCORAD as covariate.|Difference = Etokimab - Placebo|||11.2782|-13.7439|0.8465
90843011|NCT01263197|181551375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.61|6.53||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the maximum changes in systolic blood pressure on Day 1, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the propranolol treatment arm.||6.53|-3.61|
90843012|NCT01263197|181551375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|11.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.99|16.8||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the minimum changes in systolic blood pressure on Day 1, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the propranolol treatment arm.||16.8|5.99|
90843013|NCT01263197|181551375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|7.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.49|10.8||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the average changes in systolic blood pressure on Day 1, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the propranolol treatment arm.||10.8|3.49|
90898199|NCT03107377|181662616|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5008|||||||Fisher Exact|||A comparison of infection rates between the treatment arms amongst subjects with \>=60% adherence||||.5008
90898200|NCT03107377|181662616|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1818|||||||Chi-squared|||A comparison of infection rates between the treatment arms amongst subjects with \>=80% adherence||||.1818
90898201|NCT03107377|181662616|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0012|||||||Chi-squared|||A comparison of infection rates between the treatment arms amongst subjects with =100% adherence||||0.0012
90898202|NCT03107377|181662617|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||A comparison of infection rates between the treatment arms amongst subjects with =0% adherence||||1.0000
90898203|NCT03107377|181662617|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4375|||||||Fisher Exact|||A comparison of infection rates between the treatment arms amongst subjects with \>0% adherence||||0.4375
90898204|NCT03107377|181662617|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4444|||||||Fisher Exact|||A comparison of infection rates between the treatment arms amongst subjects with \>=20% adherence||||0.4444
90898205|NCT03107377|181662617|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1836|||||||Fisher Exact|||A comparison of infection rates between the treatment arms amongst subjects with \>=60% adherence||||0.1836
90898206|NCT03107377|181662617|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5006|||||||Fisher Exact|||A comparison of infection rates between the treatment arms amongst subjects with \>=80% adherence||||0.5006
90898207|NCT03107377|181662617|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||A comparison of infection rates between the treatment arms amongst subjects with =100% adherence||||1.000
90898208|NCT01597505|181662620|NON_INFERIORITY|Surotomycin minus Vancomycin. For surotomycin to be non-inferior to vancomycin the lower bound of a 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between treatment groups had to be ≥ -10%.|Difference in percentage of participants|-4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|1.9|||||The 95% confidence interval (CI) were stratified Wilson intervals for the treatment group percentages and a stratified Newcombe interval for the treatment difference, constructed using the MRc stratum weights.|Difference in percentage of participants||1.9|-11.0|
90898209|NCT01597505|181662621|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.832||||||Log-rank test of equality of survival times, stratified by age group (\< 75, \>= 75 years) and number of CDAD episodes (0, \>= 1). Significance cut-off = 0.05|Log Rank|||Stratified log-rank test p-value||||0.832
91093830|NCT03533751|182071725|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.396||0.6947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0587|15.082|||ANCOVA|Mixed effect ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and Baseline SCORAD as covariate.||||15.0820|-10.0587|0.6947
91093831|NCT03533751|182071725|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|6.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.909||0.3288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8451|20.3626|||ANCOVA|Mixed effect ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and Baseline SCORAD as covariate.|Difference = Etokimab - Placebo|||20.3626|-6.8451|0.3288
91093832|NCT03533751|182071726|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.355||0.8497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4081|2.9218|||ANCOVA|Mixed effect ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and Baseline DLQI score as covariate.|Difference = Etokimab - Placebo|||2.9218|-2.4081|0.8497
90898210|NCT01597505|181662622|SUPERIORITY|Surotomycin - Vancomycin. For surotomycin to be considered superior to vancomycin the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI had to be \> 0%.|Difference in percentage of participants|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|7.1|||||The 95% CI was stratified Wilson intervals for group percentages and a stratified Newcombe interval for the difference, using the MRc stratum weights. Stratified by age group and number of CDAD episodes.|Difference in percentage of participants||7.1|-8.8|
90898211|NCT01597505|181662626|SUPERIORITY|Surotomycin - Vancomycin. For surotomycin to be considered superior to vancomycin the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI had to be \> 0%.|Difference in percentage of participants|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|8.3|||||The 95% CI was stratified Wilson intervals for group percentages and a stratified Newcombe interval for the difference, using the MRc stratum weights. Stratified by age group and number of CDAD episodes.|Difference in percentage of participants||8.3|-7.2|
91093833|NCT03533751|182071726|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.35||0.5016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5636|1.7473|||ANCOVA|Mixed effect ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and Baseline DLQI score as covariate.|Difference = Etokimab - Placebo|||1.7473|-3.5636|0.5016
91029084|NCT00635154|181941794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion of confirmed responses (%)|1.8||||||95.0|0.5|10.0|||||95% Confidence intervals were calculated for the true confirmed response rate using properties of the binomial distribution.|Proportion of confirmed responses to Anakinra alone was estimated by the number of patients who achieved a confirmed response divided by the total number of assessable patients.||10|0.5|
91029085|NCT03312257|181941801|OTHER|Repeated measures analyses using mixed linear models in STATA (version 15) were undertaken to model myopia progression (primary outcome) and axial elongation (secondary outcome) to account for the clusters of correlated data due to repeated participant outcome measures.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.21|||Repeated measures analyses|||||0.21|-0.14|0.70
91029086|NCT03312257|181941802|OTHER|Repeated measures analyses using mixed linear models in STATA (version 15) were undertaken to model myopia progression (primary outcome) and axial elongation (secondary outcome) to account for the clusters of correlated data due to repeated participant outcome measures.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.002|||Repeated measures analyses|||||0.002|-0.16|0.054
91029087|NCT02660242|181941812|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model w/ repeated measures to account for correlation from cross-over design and multiple measures, adjusting for baseline glucose and period.||The mini-dose glucagon (MDG) condition was compared with each of the conditions. In the event that exercise was terminated early due to glucose \<70 mg/dL and the participant was treated for hypoglycemia (or if participant was treated for hypoglycemia during early recovery \[prior to the meal\]), the nadir glucose value was carried forward through the end of early recovery.||||<0.001
91029088|NCT02660242|181941813|OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for subject effect, exercise session, and baseline blood glucose||||||0.99
91093834|NCT03533751|182071726|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.386||0.7511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.167|2.287|||ANCOVA|Mixed effect ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and Baseline DLQI score as covariate.|Difference = Etokimab - Placebo|||2.2870|-3.1670|0.7511
90843014|NCT01263197|181551375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.0309|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.28|5.34||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the maximum changes in systolic blood pressure on Day 3, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 1) treatment arm.||5.34|-5.28|
90843015|NCT01263197|181551375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.93|3.59||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the minimum changes in systolic blood pressure on Day 3, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 1) treatment arm.||3.59|-5.93|
90843016|NCT01263197|181551375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.333|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.35|3.68||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the average changes in systolic blood pressure on Day 3, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 1) treatment arm.||3.68|-4.35|
90843017|NCT01263197|181551375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.42|3.2||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the maximum changes in systolic blood pressure on Day 3, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the albuterol treatment arm.||3.20|-7.42|
90843018|NCT01263197|181551375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|4.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.404|9.12||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the minimum changes in systolic blood pressure on Day 3, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the albuterol treatment arm.||9.12|-0.404|
90843019|NCT01263197|181551375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.119|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.14|3.9||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the average changes in systolic blood pressure on Day 3, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the albuterol treatment arm.||3.90|-4.14|
90843020|NCT01263197|181551375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-4.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.69|1.37||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the maximum changes in systolic blood pressure on Day 3, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 2) treatment arm.||1.37|-9.69|
90843021|NCT01263197|181551375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-4.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|0.718||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the minimum changes in systolic blood pressure on Day 3, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 2) treatment arm.||0.718|-10.2|
90843022|NCT01263197|181551375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.71|0.32||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the average changes in systolic blood pressure on Day 3, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 2) treatment arm.||0.320|-8.71|
90843023|NCT01263197|181551375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|8.74||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the maximum changes in systolic blood pressure on Day 3, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the propranolol treatment arm.||8.74|-2.34|
90898212|NCT01597505|181662627|SUPERIORITY|Surotomycin - Vancomycin. For surotomycin to be considered superior to vancomycin the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI had to be \> 0%.|Difference in percentage of participants|-3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|3.0|||||The 95% CI was stratified Wilson intervals for group percentages and a stratified Newcombe interval for the difference, using the MRc stratum weights. Stratified by age group and number of CDAD episodes.|Difference in percentage of participants||3.0|-10.0|
91029089|NCT02660242|181941814|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for subject effect, exercise session, and baseline blood glucose||||||0.15
91029090|NCT02660242|181941815|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Accounted for correlation due to cross-over design and adjusted for exercise session||||||0.99
90843024|NCT01263197|181551375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|3.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|9.43||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the minimum changes in systolic blood pressure on Day 3, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the propranolol treatment arm.||9.43|-1.54|
90843025|NCT01263197|181551375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|4.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.319|9.37||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the average changes in systolic blood pressure on Day 3, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the propranolol treatment arm.||9.37|0.319|
90843026|NCT01263197|181551375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.44|8.12||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the maximum changes in systolic blood pressure on Day 5, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 1) treatment arm.||8.12|-3.44|
90843027|NCT01263197|181551375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.22|7.0||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the minimum changes in systolic blood pressure on Day 5, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 1) treatment arm.||7.00|-3.22|
90843028|NCT01263197|181551375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|5.52||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the average changes in systolic blood pressure on Day 5, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 1) treatment arm.||5.52|-1.85|
91029091|NCT02660242|181941816|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Accounted for correlation due to cross-over design and adjusted for exercise session||||||0.43
91029092|NCT02660242|181941817|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Accounted for correlation due to cross-over design and adjusted for exercise session||||||0.16
91029093|NCT02660242|181941818|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Accounted for correlation due to cross-over design and adjusted for exercise session||||||0.69
91093835|NCT03533751|182071726|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.396||0.7558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3133|3.1824|||ANCOVA|Mixed effect ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and Baseline DLQI score as covariate.|Difference = Etokimab - Placebo|||3.1824|-2.3133|0.7558
91093836|NCT01732692|182071761|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The primary endpoint was analyzed by a non-inferiority test using the exact Farrington-Manning method. Non-inferiority of the two treatments was to be concluded if the lower end of the confidence interval of the difference the experimental treatment group (morning-only dose) - control treatment group (split dose) was above a non-inferiority margin of -0.15%.|Treatment Difference|0.0286|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.097||||Exact Farrington - Manning||Treatment Difference is the difference in proportion of participants with successful colon cleansing between treatments -experimental vs. control||||-0.097|<0.001
91093837|NCT02030600|182071770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment ratio|0.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.8|||Poisson||Superiority was considered confirmed if the 95% confidence interval for the rate ratio (IDeg/IGlar) was entirely below 1.0.|"Stepwise hierarchical testing procedure was applied for confirmatory endpoints:~Step 1: Primary analysis: Number of treatment emergent severe or BG confirmed symptomatic hypoglycaemic episodes during the maintenance period"||0.80|0.61|<0.0001
91093838|NCT02030600|182071771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment ratio|0.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.74|||Poisson||Superiority was considered confirmed if the 95% confidence interval for the rate ratio (IDeg/IGlar) was entirely below 1.0.|"Stepwise hierarchical testing procedure was applied for confirmatory endpoints:~Step 2: Number of treatment-emergent severe or BG confirmed symptomatic nocturnal hypoglycaemic episodes during the maintenance period."||0.74|0.46|<0.0001
91093839|NCT02030600|182071772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3458||||||Superiority was confirmed if the p-value was less than 0.025.|McNemar|||"Stepwise hierarchical testing procedure:~Step 3: Proportion of subjects with one or more severe hypoglycaemic episodes in the maintenance period."||||0.3458
91093840|NCT02030600|182071774|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of IDeg against IGlar was considered confirmed if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval was below or equal to 0.40%.|Treatment contrast|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.23||||||"Change from baseline in HbA1c at week 32 (treatment period 1). Before the primary endpoint was tested, the secondary supportive efficacy endpoint Change from baseline in HbA1c after 32 weeks of treatment was tested for non-inferiority as prerequisite for testing the primary endpoint. Analysis was performed using a mixed model for repeated measurement (MMRM) with treatment, sex, antidiabetic therapy at screening, visit and dosing time as fixed effects, and age and baseline HbA1c as covariates."||0.23|-0.04|
91093841|NCT02030600|182071774|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was considered confirmed if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval was below or equal to 0.40%|Treatment contrast|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.18||||||"Change from baseline in HbA1c at week 64 (treatment period 2). The baseline values are week 32 values. Before the primary endpoint was tested, the secondary supportive efficacy endpoint Change from baseline in HbA1c after 32 weeks of treatment was tested for non-inferiority as prerequisite for testing the primary endpoint. Analysis was performed using a MMRM with treatment, sex, antidiabetic therapy at screening, visit and dosing time as fixed effects, and age and baseline HbA1c as covariates."||0.18|-0.07|
91093842|NCT01107015|182071782|OTHER|Sample size was determined on the basis of the primary outcome, change in glycated hemoglobin. The comparison of UC, which included 56 patients from nine practices, to CPDS, which included 62 patients from seven practices, had 80% power to detect a difference in mean glycated hemoglobin changes of 0.65 SD, corresponding to 1.0% if SD was 1.58%, using a two-sided test with 0.05 type I error after accounting for a within cluster correlation of 0.10.||||||0.027||||||CO (P = 0.027) and CPP (0.40) mean HbA1c levels decreased over 12 months.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed-effects models were used to compare mean changes in primary and secondary outcomes between UC and each active intervention. The primary analysis examined 12-month changes for glycated hemoglobin. Secondary analyses jointly compared 3-, 6-, 9-, and 12-month changes between groups. Random effects accounted for within-practice clustering and within-patient correlation.||||0.027
91093843|NCT01107015|182071782|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed-effects models were used to compare mean changes in primary and secondary outcomes between UC and each active intervention. The primary analysis examined 12-month changes for glycated hemoglobin.||||0.001
90843029|NCT01263197|181551375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.327|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.45|6.1||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the maximum changes in systolic blood pressure on Day 5, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the albuterol treatment arm.||6.10|-5.45|
91093844|NCT01155323|182071783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference is calculated as etafilcon A minus omafilcon A.|The alternative hypothesis was that etafilcon A would be superior to omafilcon A for comfort.||0.23|-0.21|
91093845|NCT01155323|182071784|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin = -0.50|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as etafilcon A minus omafilcon A.|The alternative hypothesis was that etafilcon A would be non-inferior to omafilcon A for vision.||0.25|-0.19|
91093846|NCT01155323|182071785|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin = -0.50|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.22|||||The mean difference is calculated as etafilcon A minus omafilcon A.|The alternative hypothesis was that etafilcon A would be non-inferior to omafilcon A for lens handling.||0.22|-0.22|
90843030|NCT01263197|181551375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|3.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|8.29||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the minimum changes in systolic blood pressure on Day 5, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the albuterol treatment arm.||8.29|-1.93|
90843031|NCT01263197|181551375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|5.81||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the average changes in systolic blood pressure on Day 5, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the albuterol treatment arm.||5.81|-1.56|
90843032|NCT01263197|181551375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.79|3.59||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the maximum changes in systolic blood pressure on Day 5, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 2) treatment arm.||3.59|-6.79|
91029094|NCT02660242|181941819|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Accounted for correlation due to cross-over design and adjusted for exercise session||||||0.67
90843033|NCT01263197|181551375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.163|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|4.68||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the minimum changes in systolic blood pressure on Day 5, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 2) treatment arm.||4.68|-5.00|
90843034|NCT01263197|181551375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.829|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|3.54||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the average changes in systolic blood pressure on Day 5, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 2) treatment arm.||3.54|-5.20|
90843035|NCT01263197|181551375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.27|7.17||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the maximum changes in systolic blood pressure on Day 5, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the propranolol treatment arm.||7.17|-3.27|
90843036|NCT01263197|181551375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|3.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|8.59||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the minimum changes in systolic blood pressure on Day 5, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the propranolol treatment arm.||8.59|-1.17|
90843037|NCT01263197|181551375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|4.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.103|8.67||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the average changes in systolic blood pressure on Day 5, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the propranolol treatment arm.||8.67|-0.103|
90843038|NCT01263197|181551376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|1.44||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the maximum changes in diastolic blood pressure on Day 1, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 1) treatment arm.||1.44|-3.90|
90843039|NCT01263197|181551376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|4.02||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the minimum changes in diastolic blood pressure on Day 1, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 1) treatment arm.||4.02|-1.91|
90843040|NCT01263197|181551376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.199|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.58|2.18||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the average changes in diastolic blood pressure on Day 1, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 1) treatment arm.||2.18|-2.58|
90843041|NCT01263197|181551376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|4.07||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the maximum changes in diastolic blood pressure on Day 1, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the albuterol treatment arm.||4.07|-1.34|
90843042|NCT01263197|181551376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|3.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.674|6.69||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the minimum changes in diastolic blood pressure on Day 1, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the albuterol treatment arm.||6.69|0.674|
90843043|NCT01263197|181551376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0178|4.81||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the average changes in diastolic blood pressure on Day 1, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the albuterol treatment arm.||4.81|-0.0178|
90843044|NCT01263197|181551376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-4.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.83|-0.619||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the maximum changes in diastolic blood pressure on Day 1, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 2) treatment arm.||-0.619|-7.83|
90843045|NCT01263197|181551376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.335|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.45|5.12||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the minimum changes in diastolic blood pressure on Day 1, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 2) treatment arm.||5.12|-4.45|
91029095|NCT02660242|181941820|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Accounted for correlation due to cross-over design and adjusted for exercise session||||||0.84
90843046|NCT01263197|181551376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.81|0.969||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the average changes in diastolic blood pressure on Day 1, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 2) treatment arm.||0.969|-4.81|
90843047|NCT01263197|181551376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|6.1||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the maximum changes in diastolic blood pressure on Day 1, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the propranolol treatment arm.||6.10|-1.15|
90843048|NCT01263197|181551376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|9.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|13.9||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the minimum changes in diastolic blood pressure on Day 1, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the propranolol treatment arm.||13.9|4.30|
90843049|NCT01263197|181551376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|6.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.12|8.94||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the average changes in diastolic blood pressure on Day 1, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the propranolol treatment arm.||8.94|3.12|
91029096|NCT02660242|181941821|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Accounted for correlation due to cross-over design and adjusted for exercise session||||||0.63
90843050|NCT01263197|181551376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.913|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.65|2.82||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the maximum changes in diastolic blood pressure on Day 3, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 1) treatment arm.||2.82|-4.65|
90843051|NCT01263197|181551376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.444|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.33|3.44||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the minimum changes in diastolic blood pressure on Day 3, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 1) treatment arm.||3.44|-4.33|
90843052|NCT01263197|181551376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.378|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|2.95||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the average changes in diastolic blood pressure on Day 3, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 1) treatment arm.||2.95|-2.20|
90843053|NCT01263197|181551376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.878|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.86|4.62||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the maximum changes in diastolic blood pressure on Day 3, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the albuterol treatment arm.||4.62|-2.86|
91029097|NCT02660242|181941822|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Accounted for correlation due to cross-over design and adjusted for exercise session||||||0.24
90843054|NCT01263197|181551376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.966|6.8||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the minimum changes in diastolic blood pressure on Day 3, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the albuterol treatment arm.||6.80|-0.966|
90843055|NCT01263197|181551376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.366|5.52||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the average changes in diastolic blood pressure on Day 3, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the albuterol treatment arm.||5.52|0.366|
90843056|NCT01263197|181551376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.84|1.07||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the maximum changes in diastolic blood pressure on Day 3, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 2) treatment arm.||1.07|-6.84|
90843057|NCT01263197|181551376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.975|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.39|3.44||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the minimum changes in diastolic blood pressure on Day 3, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 2) treatment arm.||3.44|-5.39|
90843058|NCT01263197|181551376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|1.66||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the average changes in diastolic blood pressure on Day 3, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 2) treatment arm.||1.66|-5.30|
90843059|NCT01263197|181551376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|5.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.63|9.56||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the maximum changes in diastolic blood pressure on Day 3, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the propranolol treatment arm.||9.56|1.63|
90843060|NCT01263197|181551376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|7.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.39|12.3||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the minimum changes in diastolic blood pressure on Day 3, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the propranolol treatment arm.||12.3|3.39|
90843061|NCT01263197|181551376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|6.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.11|10.1||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the average changes in diastolic blood pressure on Day 3, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the propranolol treatment arm.||10.1|3.11|
90843062|NCT01263197|181551376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.847|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.23|4.92||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the maximum changes in diastolic blood pressure on Day 5, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 1) treatment arm.||4.92|-3.23|
90843063|NCT01263197|181551376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-3.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.17|1.21||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the minimum changes in diastolic blood pressure on Day 5, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 1) treatment arm.||1.21|-8.17|
90843064|NCT01263197|181551376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.372|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.88|2.14||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the average changes in diastolic blood pressure on Day 5, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 1) treatment arm.||2.14|-2.88|
90843065|NCT01263197|181551376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.17|5.98||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the maximum changes in diastolic blood pressure on Day 5, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the albuterol treatment arm.||5.98|-2.17|
90843066|NCT01263197|181551376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.62|5.76||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the minimum changes in diastolic blood pressure on Day 5, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the albuterol treatment arm.||5.76|-3.62|
90843067|NCT01263197|181551376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|3.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.522|5.55||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the average changes in diastolic blood pressure on Day 5, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the albuterol treatment arm.||5.55|0.522|
90843068|NCT01263197|181551376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.737|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|5.38||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the maximum changes in diastolic blood pressure on Day 5, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 2) treatment arm.||5.38|-3.90|
90843069|NCT01263197|181551376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.36|2.47||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the minimum changes in diastolic blood pressure on Day 5, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 2) treatment arm.||2.47|-6.36|
90843070|NCT01263197|181551376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.79|2.45||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the average changes in diastolic blood pressure on Day 5, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 2) treatment arm.||2.45|-4.79|
90843071|NCT01263197|181551376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|7.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.59|11.9||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the maximum changes in diastolic blood pressure on Day 5, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the propranolol treatment arm.||11.9|2.59|
90843072|NCT01263197|181551376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|5.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|10.0||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the minimum changes in diastolic blood pressure on Day 5, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the propranolol treatment arm.||10.0|1.13|
90843073|NCT01263197|181551376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|5.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.89|9.16||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the average changes in diastolic blood pressure on Day 5, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the propranolol treatment arm.||9.16|1.89|
90843074|NCT02908672|181551467|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.0224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.97|||Log Rank||Stratified Hazard Ratio|||0.97|0.64|0.0224
90843075|NCT02908672|181551468|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.1607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.07|||Log Rank||Stratified Hazard Ratio|||1.07|0.67|0.1607
90843076|NCT02908672|181551469|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rate|1.63||||0.6997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|10.15|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.15|-6.90|0.6997
90843077|NCT02908672|181551471|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.1191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.05|||Log Rank|||||1.05|0.67|0.1191
90843078|NCT02908672|181551472|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|8.2||||0.0693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|17.04|||Z-test|||||17.04|-0.65|0.0693
91093847|NCT01155323|182071786|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Margin = +/-0.50|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as etafilcon A minus omafilcon A.|The alternative hypothesis was that etafilcon A would be equivalent to omafilcon A for corneal staining.||0.01|-0.03|
91093848|NCT01155323|182071787|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin = -0.50|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as etafilcon A minus omafilcon A.|The alternative hypothesis was that etafilcon A would be non-inferior to omafilcon A for quality perceptions.||0.29|-0.15|
91093849|NCT01155323|182071788|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Margin = +/- 0.50|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as etafilcon A minus omafilcon A.|The alternative hypothesis was that etafilcon A would be equivalent to omafilcon A from limbal hyperemia.||0.06|-0.01|
91093850|NCT01208051|182071792|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26||||||p-value is stratified by randomization factors.|Log Rank|The conditional power was 7.8%, reaching the futility boundary of \<15%. Patients on the combination arm were then crossed over to cediranib alone.||||||0.26
91093851|NCT01208051|182071793|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.36
91093852|NCT01208051|182071795|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.80
90843079|NCT01424072|181551481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023||95.0||||It was verified the normality of data distribution and the homogeneity of variance.|ANOVA|||The main objective was to compare the difference among the control group, seeds and needles and to recognize significant outcomes of auriculotherapy by seeds or needles.||||0.023
90843080|NCT01424072|181551482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||,|0||95.0||||It was verified the normality of data distribution and the homogeneity of variance.|ANOVA|This result was only to the domain Social Support.||It was carried out the analysis of variance (ANOVA) among the groups in the 3rd assessment (after 60 days) and at the follow up (after 75 days). The main objective was to compare the difference among the control group, seeds and needles and to recognize significant outcomes of auriculotherapy by seeds or needles.||||0,022
90843081|NCT01424072|181551483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.039||95.0||||It was verified the normality of data distribution and the homogeneity of variance.|ANOVA|||It was carried out the analysis of variance (ANOVA) among the groups at the follow up (after 75 days). The main objective was to compare the difference among the control group, seeds and needles and to recognize significant outcomes of auriculotherapy by seeds or needles.||||0.039
90843082|NCT01424072|181551483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029||95.0|||||ANOVA|It was carried out the analysis of variance (ANOVA) among the groups at the follow up and then it was used the post hoc test.||Coping Strategy: Confrontation domain||||0.029
90843083|NCT02876601|181551499|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.408|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.408
90843084|NCT02876601|181551500|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.148|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.148
90898213|NCT01597505|181662628|SUPERIORITY|Surotomycin was superior to vancomycin if the p-value was less than 0.05||||||0.431||||||Log-rank test of equality of survival times, stratified by age group (\< 75, \>= 75 years) and number of CDAD episodes (0, \>= 1). Significance cut-off = 0.05|Log Rank|||Stratified Log-Rank p-Value||||0.431
91093853|NCT01208051|182071796|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.83
91093854|NCT00973973|182071807|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.107||0.0262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.03|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including baseline value as a covariate.||Comparison of Change from Baseline at Week 4||-0.03|-0.45|0.0262
91093855|NCT00973973|182071807|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.152|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.46|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model, including baseline value as a covariate.||Comparison of change from baseline at week 8||-0.46|-1.06|< 0.0001
90843085|NCT02876601|181551501|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.039|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.039
90898214|NCT01597505|181662629|SUPERIORITY|Surotomycin was superior to vancomycin if the p-value was less than 0.05||||||0.011||||||Log-rank test of equality of survival times, stratified by age group (\< 75, \>= 75 years) and number of CDAD episodes (0, \>= 1). Significance cut-off = 0.05|Log Rank|||Stratified Log-Rank p-Value||||0.011
91029098|NCT02660242|181941823|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Accounted for correlation due to cross-over design and adjusted for exercise session||||||0.26
90843086|NCT02876601|181551502|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.642|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.642
90843087|NCT02876601|181551503|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.026|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.026
90843088|NCT02876601|181551504|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.326|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.326
90843089|NCT02876601|181551505|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.796|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.796
90843090|NCT02876601|181551506|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.918|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.918
90843091|NCT02876601|181551507|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.877|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.877
90843092|NCT02876601|181551508|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.423|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.423
90843093|NCT02876601|181551509|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.938|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.938
91029099|NCT00982553|181941824|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratios|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.0||||||||1.00|0.62|
91029100|NCT00982553|181941825|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratios|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.86||||||||1.86|0.73|
91029101|NCT00982553|181941826|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratios|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.18||||||||1.18|0.87|
91093856|NCT00973973|182071809|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.086||0.0163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.04|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including baseline value as a covariate.||Comparison of change from baseline at week 4||-0.04|-0.38|0.0163
91093857|NCT00973973|182071809|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.101||0.0066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.08|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including baseline value as a covariate.||Comparison of change from baseline at week 8||-0.08|-0.48|0.0066
91093858|NCT00973973|182071811|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.082||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.06|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including baseline value as a covariate.||Comparison of change from baseline at week 4||-0.06|-0.38|0.0089
91093859|NCT00973973|182071811|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.14|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including baseline value as a covariate.||Comparison of change from baseline at week 8||-0.14|-0.53|0.0011
91093860|NCT00973973|182071813|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.127||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.02|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including baseline value as a covariate.||Comparison of change form baseline at week 4||-0.02|-0.52|0.0360
91093861|NCT00973973|182071813|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.11|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including baseline value as a covariate.||Comparison of change from baseline at week 8||-0.11|-0.65|0.0070
91029102|NCT00982553|181941827|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratios|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.85||||||||1.85|0.36|
91093862|NCT00973973|182071819|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.939||0.0137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.63|-2.05|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including baseline value as a covariate.||Comparison of change from baseline at week 4||-2.05|-17.63|0.0137
91093863|NCT00973973|182071819|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-12.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.913||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.19|-4.7|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including baseline value as a covariate.||Comparison of change from baseline at week 8||-4.70|-20.19|0.0019
91093864|NCT00973973|182071821|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.728||0.0244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.61|-0.81|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including baseline value as a covariate.||Comparison of change from baseline at week 4||-0.81|-11.61|0.0244
91093865|NCT00973973|182071821|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.549||0.0141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.39|-1.3|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including baseline value as a covariate.||Comparison of change from baseline at week 8||-1.30|-11.39|0.0141
91093866|NCT00973973|182071823|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.821||0.0893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.72|0.49|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including baseline value as a covariate.||Comparison of change from baseline at week 4||0.49|-6.72|0.0893
90843094|NCT02864394|181551523|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.1276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.14|||Log Rank|||Treatment comparison (Hazard Ratio, HR) based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate. One-sided p-value was based on log-rank test.||1.14|0.61|0.1276
90843095|NCT02864394|181551524|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.0076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.95|||Log Rank|||OS was not formally tested. Treatment comparison (HR) based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by PD-L1 expression status (TPS ≥50% vs. TPS 1-49%). A nominal one-sided p-value for testing was based on log-rank test stratified by PD-L1 expression status (TPS ≥50% vs. TPS 1-49%).||0.95|0.60|0.0076
90843096|NCT02864394|181551525|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.0534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.07|||Log Rank|||PFS was not formally tested. Treatment comparison (HR) based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate. A nominal one-sided p-value for testing was based on log-rank test.||1.07|0.54|0.0534
90843097|NCT02864394|181551526|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.0847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.08|||Log Rank|||PFS was not formally tested. Treatment comparison (HR) based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by PD-L1 expression status (TPS ≥50% vs. TPS 1-49%). A nominal one-sided p-value for testing was based on log-rank test stratified by PD-L1 expression status (TPS ≥50% vs. TPS 1-49%).||1.08|0.66|0.0847
90843098|NCT02864394|181551527|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|21.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.5|30.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen Method|||ORR was not formally tested. Treatment comparison was based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method. A nominal one-sided p-value for testing was calculated.||30.7|11.5|<0.0001
90898215|NCT01597505|181662630|SUPERIORITY|Surotomycin - Vancomycin. For surotomycin to be considered superior to vancomycin the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI had to be \> 0%.|Difference in percentage of participants|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|14.8|||||Treatment group percentages were stratified by age group (\< 75, ≥ 75) and number of previous CDAD episodes (0, ≥ 1). The 95% CIs were stratified Wilson intervals for the treatment group percentages.|Difference in percentage of participants||14.8|-10.7|
91093867|NCT00973973|182071823|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.938||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.35|0.32|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including baseline value as a covariate.||Comparison of change from baseline at week 8||0.32|-7.35|0.0720
91093868|NCT00973973|182071825|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.505|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.26|-1.26|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including baseline value as a covariate.||Comparison of the change from baseline in CPSSS total score||-1.26|-3.26|< 0.0001
91093869|NCT00973973|182071825|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|-0.69|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including baseline value as a covariate.||Comparison of change from baseline in CPSSS component of dysmenorrhea score||-0.69|-1.41|< 0.0001
91093870|NCT00973973|182071825|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.143||0.0139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|-0.07|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including baseline value as a covariate.||Comparison of change from baseline in CPSSS component of non-menstrual pelvic pain score||-0.07|-0.64|0.0139
91093871|NCT00973973|182071825|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.173||0.1052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.06|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including baseline value as a covariate.||Comparison of change from baseline in CPSSS component of dyspareunia score||0.06|-0.63|0.1052
90843099|NCT02864394|181551528|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|15.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.8|21.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen Method|||ORR was not formally tested. Treatment comparison was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by PD-L1 expression status (TPS\>=50% vs. TPS 1-49%). If no participants were in one of the treatment arms involved in a comparison for a particular stratum, then that stratum was excluded from the treatment comparison. A nominal one-sided p-value for testing was calculated.||21.6|8.8|<0.0001
90843100|NCT00905164|181551536|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of the LS mean (test/ref x 100)|99.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.27|105.03|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125|||105.03|94.27|
90843101|NCT00905164|181551537|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of the LS mean (test/ref x 100)|100.13||||||90.0|97.6|102.72|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||102.72|97.60|
90843102|NCT00905164|181551538|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of the LS Mean (test/ref x 100)|101.53||||||90.0|99.01|104.12|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||104.12|99.01|
90859717|NCT03673046|181582874|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.2648|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0346||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3275|-1.2022||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons because this was a pre-specified secondary endpoint comparison. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was alpha=.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures were modeled with an auto-correlation with heterogeneous variance (ARH(1)) covariance matrix.|The effect is presented as the Smartphone-delivered CBT for BDD group outcome compared to the 12-week waitlist control group outcome at the trial end-point (week 12).|Null hypothesis: there is no significant difference in QIDS-SR total scores between the treatment groups at endpoint (week 12).||-1.2022|-5.3275|0.0023
91093872|NCT00973973|182071825|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.143||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including baseline value as a covariate.||Comparison of change from baseline in CPSSS component of pelvic tenderness score||-0.10|-0.67|0.0081
90843103|NCT03751657|181551541|OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.18||||0.0818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The response and change from baseline in response after 26 weeks are analysed using a linear mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with an unstructured covariance matrix and treatment, region, use of DPP-4 inhibitor and visit as fixed factors, and baseline response as covariate. Furthermore, the model includes the interaction between visit and all explanatory variables.||0.02|-0.38|0.0818
90843104|NCT03751657|181551555|OTHER||Treatment difference|-1.97||||0.0818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.19|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The response and change from baseline in response after 26 weeks are analysed using a linear MMRM with an unstructured covariance matrix and treatment, region, use of DPP-4 inhibitor and visit as fixed factors, and baseline response as covariate.Furthermore, the model includes the interaction between visit and all explanatory variables.||0.25|-4.19|0.0818
90843105|NCT04603027|181551557|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean difference|-5.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.28|7.12||||||||7.12|-20.28|
90843106|NCT04603027|181551557|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean difference|-8.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.07|5.04||||||||5.04|-22.07|
90843107|NCT04603027|181551557|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean difference|-9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.22|4.65||||||||4.65|-23.22|
90843108|NCT04603027|181551558|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean difference|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.91|9.9||||||||9.90|-13.91|
90843109|NCT04603027|181551558|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean difference|-3.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.21|8.52||||||||8.52|-15.21|
91029103|NCT02796664|181941828|OTHER|Equality test||||||0.462|||||||Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that there is no relationship between ginseng administration and cerebral ischemic events including ischemic stroke and transient ischemic attack. The number of participants who suffered ischemic stroke and the number of paticipants who suffered transient ischemic attack were analyzed together to test the null hypothesis in two by two table.||||0.462
90843110|NCT04603027|181551558|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean difference|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.33|11.53||||||||11.53|-12.33|
90843111|NCT04603027|181551559|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean difference|-0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|0.46||||||||0.46|-1.88|
90843112|NCT04603027|181551559|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean difference|-0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|0.45||||||||0.45|-1.82|
90843113|NCT04603027|181551559|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean difference|-0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|0.33||||||||0.33|-2.05|
90843114|NCT04603027|181551560|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|6.94||||||||6.94|1.01|
90843115|NCT04603027|181551560|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|7.37||||||||7.37|1.17|
90843116|NCT04603027|181551560|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|4.7||||||||4.70|0.63|
90843117|NCT04603027|181551561|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||nonparametric survival analysis|Method used was a nonparametric survival analysis for interval censored data||||||0.100
90843118|NCT04603027|181551561|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.034|||||||nonparametric survival analysis|Method used was a nonparametric survival analysis for interval censored data||||||0.034
90843119|NCT04603027|181551561|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.094|||||||nonparametric survival analysis|Method used was a nonparametric survival analysis for interval censored data||||||0.094
90843120|NCT04603027|181551565|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Odds Ratio|2.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|10.96||||||||10.96|0.45|
90843121|NCT04603027|181551565|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Odds Ratio|2.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|8.78||||||||8.78|0.42|
90843122|NCT04603027|181551565|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Odds Ratio|2.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|9.51||||||||9.51|0.46|
90843123|NCT04603027|181551566|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||There were not enough responders to model using GLMM or a Bayesian logistic model, and no treatment difference analysis was conducted.|||
90843124|NCT04603027|181551566|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||There were not enough responders to model using GLMM or a Bayesian logistic model, and no treatment difference analysis was conducted.|||
90843125|NCT04603027|181551566|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||There were not enough responders to model using GLMM or a Bayesian logistic model, and no treatment difference analysis was conducted.|||
90843126|NCT04603027|181551567|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean difference|-9.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.22|12.4||||||||12.40|-30.22|
90843127|NCT04603027|181551567|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean difference|2.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.41|18.15||||||||18.15|-23.41|
90843128|NCT04603027|181551567|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean difference|-17.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.29|3.25||||||||3.25|-38.29|
90843129|NCT04603027|181551568|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean difference|-2.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.79|1.52||||||||1.52|-6.79|
90843130|NCT04603027|181551568|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean difference|-0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|3.16||||||||3.16|-4.70|
90843131|NCT04603027|181551568|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean difference|-3.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.49|0.63||||||||0.63|-7.49|
90843132|NCT04603027|181551569|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean difference|-9.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.22|12.4||||||||12.40|-30.22|
90843133|NCT04603027|181551569|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean difference|-2.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.41|18.15||||||||18.15|-23.41|
90843134|NCT04603027|181551569|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean difference|-17.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.29|3.25||||||||3.25|-38.29|
90843135|NCT04603027|181551570|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean difference|-2.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.79|1.52||||||||1.52|-6.79|
90843136|NCT04603027|181551570|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean difference|-0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|3.16||||||||3.16|-4.70|
90843137|NCT04603027|181551570|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean difference|-3.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.49|0.63||||||||0.63|-7.49|
90843138|NCT04603027|181551571|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean difference|2.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.99|28.84||||||||28.84|-19.99|
90843139|NCT04603027|181551571|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean difference|-2.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.47|21.55||||||||21.55|-26.47|
90843140|NCT04603027|181551571|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean difference|13.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.03|36.92||||||||36.92|-12.03|
90843141|NCT04603027|181551572|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean difference|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.3||||||||2.30|-1.10|
90843142|NCT04603027|181551572|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean difference|-0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|1.37||||||||1.37|-1.96|
90843143|NCT04603027|181551572|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean difference|-0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|1.75||||||||1.75|-1.73|
90843144|NCT04603027|181551573|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean difference|13.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.62|73.35||||||||73.35|-50.62|
90843145|NCT04603027|181551573|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean difference|73.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.69|126.92||||||||126.92|21.69|
90843146|NCT04603027|181551573|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean difference|8.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.58|56.81||||||||56.81|-44.58|
90843147|NCT04603027|181551574|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean difference|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.3||||||||2.30|-1.10|
90843148|NCT04603027|181551574|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean difference|-0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|1.37||||||||1.37|-1.96|
90843149|NCT04603027|181551574|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean difference|-0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|1.75||||||||1.75|-1.73|
90843150|NCT03894813|181551578|NON_INFERIORITY|The relevant parameters were determined as follows: test level α=0.05, test power 1-β=0.80, Pt=0.90, Pc=0.75, Nt:Nc=1:1, boundary value Δ= -0.0.068 (excellent), and Fisher's exact test. As a result, the sample size of each group was calculated as 50 patients, 100 patients in total. Considering a loss to follow-up rate of 20%, a sample size of 120 patients was finally determined, with 60 patients in each group.|||||<|0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.01
90843151|NCT03894813|181551579|NON_INFERIORITY|The relevant parameters were determined as follows: test level α=0.05, test power 1-β=0.80, Pt=0.90, Pc=0.75, Nt:Nc=1:1, boundary value Δ= -0.0.068 (excellent), and Fisher's exact test. As a result, the sample size of each group was calculated as 50 patients, 100 patients in total. Considering a loss to follow-up rate of 20%, a sample size of 120 patients was finally determined, with 60 patients in each group.|||||<|0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.01
90843152|NCT03894813|181551580|NON_INFERIORITY|The relevant parameters were determined as follows: test level α=0.05, test power 1-β=0.80, Pt=0.90, Pc=0.75, Nt:Nc=1:1, boundary value Δ= -0.0.068 (excellent), and Fisher's exact test. As a result, the sample size of each group was calculated as 50 patients, 100 patients in total. Considering a loss to follow-up rate of 20%, a sample size of 120 patients was finally determined, with 60 patients in each group.|||||<|0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.01
90843153|NCT03894813|181551581|NON_INFERIORITY|The relevant parameters were determined as follows: test level α=0.05, test power 1-β=0.80, Pt=0.90, Pc=0.75, Nt:Nc=1:1, boundary value Δ= -0.0.068 (excellent), and Fisher's exact test. As a result, the sample size of each group was calculated as 50 patients, 100 patients in total. Considering a loss to follow-up rate of 20%, a sample size of 120 patients was finally determined, with 60 patients in each group.|||||<|0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.01
90843154|NCT03894813|181551582|NON_INFERIORITY|The relevant parameters were determined as follows: test level α=0.05, test power 1-β=0.80, Pt=0.90, Pc=0.75, Nt:Nc=1:1, boundary value Δ= -0.0.068 (excellent), and Fisher's exact test. As a result, the sample size of each group was calculated as 50 patients, 100 patients in total. Considering a loss to follow-up rate of 20%, a sample size of 120 patients was finally determined, with 60 patients in each group.|||||<|0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.01
90843155|NCT02223702|181551633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Friedman Test|All rows were compared to eachother||||||<0.01
90843156|NCT02223702|181551634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|All rows were compared to eachother||||||<0.01
90843157|NCT02948634|181551664|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.43
90843158|NCT02948634|181551665|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.32
90843159|NCT02948634|181551666|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
90843160|NCT01255436|181551705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.2||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|1.0||p-value\<0.05 is considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||||1.0|-9.4|0.06
90843161|NCT01255436|181551706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|1.3||p-value \< 0.05 considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||||1.3|-4.1|0.14
90843162|NCT01255436|181551707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.3||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.6|||Fisher Exact||Numerator is Treatment Group (SMS reminders) and Denominator is Control Group (No SMS reminders)|||1.6|1.0|0.045
91029104|NCT02796664|181941829|OTHER|Equality test||||||0.34|||||||Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that there is no relationship between ginseng administration and modified Rankin Scale at follow-up.||||0.34
91029105|NCT02796664|181941830|OTHER|Equality test||||||0.13|||||||Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that there is no relationship between ginseng administration and flow change in steno-occlusive lesion.||||0.13
90843163|NCT01255436|181551708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.3||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.53|||Fisher Exact|||||1.53|1.04|0.014
90843164|NCT04816669|181551709|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR is greater than 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.77|||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference of the logarithms of the concentrations BNT162b2 lyophilized SDV - BNT162b2 frozen-liquid MDV and the corresponding CI (based on the Student t distribution).|||0.77|0.60|
90843165|NCT04816669|181551717|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR is greater than 0.67|Geometric mean ratio|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.68|||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference of the logarithms of the concentrations BNT162b2 frozen-liquid LNP - BNT162b2 frozen-liquid RTU and the corresponding CI (based on the Student t distribution).|||1.68|0.77|
90843166|NCT01229267|181551725|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine Efficacy|0.638|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.484|0.746|||||Point estimate and 95% CI of vaccine efficacy were obtained from a Cox proportional hazards regression model, adjusting for age (\<50 versus ≥50 years of age), and intended duration of antiviral prophylaxis (≤3 versus 3 to 6 months after auto-HCT).|Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 minus the hazard ratio of HZ in the V212 consistency lot group versus the placebo group. The success criterion for vaccine efficacy required that the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) is \>0.25.||0.746|0.484|
90843167|NCT01229267|181551726|OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|0.695|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.818|||||Point estimate and 95% CI of vaccine efficacy were obtained from a Cox proportional hazards regression model, adjusting for age (\<50 versus ≥50 years of age), and intended duration of antiviral prophylaxis (≤3 versus 3 to 6 months after auto-HCT).|Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 minus the hazard ratio of HZ in the V212 consistency lot group versus the placebo group. The success criterion for vaccine efficacy required that the lower bound of the 95% CI is \>0.25.||0.818|0.490|
90843168|NCT01229267|181551727|OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|0.735|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.498|0.86|||||Point estimate and 95% CI of vaccine efficacy were obtained from a Cox proportional hazards regression model, adjusting for age (\<50 versus ≥50 years of age), and intended duration of antiviral prophylaxis (≤3 versus 3 to 6 months after auto-HCT).|Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 minus the hazard ratio of HZ in the V212 consistency lot group versus the placebo group. The success criterion for vaccine efficacy required that the lower bound of the 95% CI is \>0.25.||0.860|0.498|
91029106|NCT02796664|181941830|OTHER|Equality test||||||0.17|||||||Chi-squared|||The null hypothesis is that there is no relationship between ginseng administration and flow change in collateral vessel.||||0.17
91093873|NCT00973973|182071825|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.125||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.04|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including baseline value as a covariate.||Comparison of change from baseline in CPSSS component of induration score||-0.04|-0.53|0.0240
91093874|NCT00973973|182071827|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.3|||ANOVA|||Comparison of Patient Global Impression of Change at week 4||-0.3|-1.2|0.0012
91093875|NCT00973973|182071827|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.5|||ANOVA|||Comparison of Patient Global Impression of Change at week 8||-0.5|-1.5|0.0002
91093876|NCT00973973|182071829|SUPERIORITY||Difference|19.4||||0.0136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|34.4|||Pearson chi-squared|||Comparison of response rates at week 4||34.4|4.4|0.0136
91093877|NCT00973973|182071829|SUPERIORITY||Difference|30.2||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.6|46.7|||Pearson chi-squared|||Comparison of response rates at week 8||46.7|13.6|0.0007
91093878|NCT02471339|182071835|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance. Analyses for primary and secondary outcomes were two-tailed and alpha was set to 0.05. An a priori analysis suggested that, to detect a change of .68 standard deviation on the primary outcome measure between the two groups at .80 power, 41 patients per group would be needed.||||0.05
91093879|NCT02471339|182071836|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.05
90843169|NCT01229267|181551728|OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|0.837|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.446|0.952|||||Point estimate and 95% CI of vaccine efficacy were obtained from a Cox proportional hazards regression model, adjusting for age (\<50 versus ≥50 years of age), and intended duration of antiviral prophylaxis (≤3 versus 3 to 6 months after auto-HCT).|Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 minus the hazard ratio of HZ in the V212 consistency lot group versus the placebo group. The success criterion for vaccine efficacy required that the lower bound of the 95% CI is \>0.25.||0.952|0.446|
90843170|NCT01229267|181551729|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.2||||0.942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|5.5|||Normal approximation||Miettinen \& Nurminen|||5.5|-5.1|0.942
91093880|NCT02471339|182071839|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test|||||||.05
91093881|NCT02471339|182071843|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.042|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.042
91093882|NCT02110693|182071923|OTHER|Concurrent validity of the interviewer and self-administered versions of the TAPS Tool compared to the reference standard was assessed for Alcohol Use Disorder using receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves.|Sensitivity|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.75||||||Each administration approach (interviewer and tablet) was tested separately against the reference measure.||.75|.64|
91093883|NCT02110693|182071923|OTHER|Concurrent validity of the interviewer and self-administered versions of the TAPS Tool compared to the reference standard was assessed for Alcohol Use Disorder using receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves.|Sensitivity|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.79||||||Each administration approach (interviewer and tablet) was tested separately against the reference measure.||.79|.68|
91093884|NCT02110693|182071924|OTHER|Concurrent validity of the interviewer and self-administered versions of the TAPS Tool compared to the reference standard was assessed for Cannabis Use Disorder using receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves.|Sensitivity|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.79||||||Each administration approach (interviewer and tablet) were separately tested against the reference measure.||.79|.63|
91093885|NCT02110693|182071924|OTHER|Concurrent validity of the interviewer and self-administered versions of the TAPS Tool compared to the reference standard was assessed for Cannabis Use Disorder using receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves.|Sensitivity|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.77||||||Each administration approach (interviewer and tablet) were separately tested against the reference measure.||.77|.62|
91093886|NCT02110693|182071925|OTHER|Concurrent validity of the interviewer and self-administered versions of the TAPS Tool compared to the reference standard was assessed for Cocaine and Amphetamine (Stimulant) Disorder using receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves.|Sensitivity|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.67||||||Each administration approach (interviewer and tablet) were tested separately against the reference measure.||.67|.47|
90843171|NCT01837823|181551743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|-0.231||||0.054|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.054
90843172|NCT01837823|181551744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.074||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson correlation coefficient|||for minimum lumen area site||||0.50
90843173|NCT06170242|181551786|SUPERIORITY|P-values are from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment group as main effect and the baseline value as a covariate. The baseline value is defined as the qRT-PCR viral load value at the time of first dose of IMP.|Difference in least square (LS) means|-540.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-680.8|-400.33|||ANCOVA|||High Dose versus (vs) Placebo||-400.33|-680.80|<0.0001
91029107|NCT02796664|181941831|OTHER|Equality test||||||0.74|||||||Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that there is no relationship between ginseng administration and periventricular white matter lesions at follow-up.||||0.74
91093887|NCT02110693|182071925|OTHER|Concurrent validity of the interviewer and self-administered versions of the TAPS Tool compared to the reference standard was assessed for Cocaine and Amphetamine (Stimulant) Use Disorder using receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves.|Sensitivity|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.69||||||Each administration approach (interviewer and tablet) were separately tested against the reference measure.||.69|.50|
91093888|NCT02110693|182071926|OTHER|Concurrent validity of the interviewer and self-administered versions of the TAPS Tool compared to the reference standard was assessed for Heroin Use Disorder using receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves.|sensivity|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.77||||||Each administration approach (interviewer and tablet) were tested separately against the reference measure.||.77|.53|
91093889|NCT02110693|182071926|OTHER|Concurrent validity of the interviewer and self-administered versions of the TAPS Tool compared to the reference standard was assessed for Heroin Use Disorder using receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves.|Sensivity|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.77||||||Each administration approach (interviewer and tablet) were tested separately against the reference measure.||.77|.53|
90843174|NCT06170242|181551786|SUPERIORITY|P-values are from ANCOVA with treatment group as main effect and the baseline value as a covariate. The baseline value is defined as the qRT-PCR viral load value at the time of first dose of IMP.|Difference in LS mean|-523.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-674.46|-371.78|||ANCOVA|||Low Dose vs Placebo||-371.78|-674.46|<0.0001
90843175|NCT06170242|181551786|SUPERIORITY|P-values are from ANCOVA with treatment group as main effect and the baseline value as a covariate. The baseline value is defined as the qRT-PCR viral load value at the time of first dose of IMP.|Difference in LS means|-536.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-641.71|-430.89|||ANCOVA|||Pooled EDP-323 vs Placebo||-430.89|-641.71|<0.0001
90843176|NCT06170242|181551787|SUPERIORITY|P-values are from ANCOVA with treatment group as main effect and the baseline value as a covariate. The baseline value is defined as the qRT-PCR viral load value at the time of first dose of IMP.|Difference in LS mean|-3.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.85|-2.81|||ANCOVA|||High Dose vs Placebo||-2.81|-4.85|<0.0001
90843177|NCT06170242|181551787|SUPERIORITY|P-values are from ANCOVA with treatment group as main effect and the baseline value as a covariate. The baseline value is defined as the qRT-PCR viral load value at the time of first dose of IMP.|Difference in LS mean|-4.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.44|-2.89|||ANCOVA|||Low Dose vs Placebo||-2.89|-5.44|<0.0001
90843178|NCT06170242|181551788|SUPERIORITY|P-values are from ANCOVA with treatment group as main effect and the baseline value as a covariate. The baseline value is defined as the qRT-PCR viral load value at the time of first dose of IMP.|Difference in LS mean|-0.29||||0.633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.92|||ANCOVA|||High Dose vs Placebo||0.92|-1.50|0.6330
90843179|NCT06170242|181551788|SUPERIORITY|P-values are from ANCOVA with treatment group as main effect and the baseline value as a covariate. The baseline value is defined as the qRT-PCR viral load value at the time of first dose of IMP.|Difference in LS mean|-0.14||||0.8309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|1.17|||ANCOVA|||Lose Dose vs Placebo||1.17|-1.46|0.8309
90843180|NCT06170242|181551790|SUPERIORITY|P-values are from ANCOVA with treatment group as main effect and the baseline value as a covariate. The baseline value is defined as the qRT-PCR viral load value at the time of first dose of IMP.|Difference in LS mean|-1.57||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.53|-0.61|||ANCOVA|||High Dose vs Placebo.||-0.61|-2.53|0.0021
90843181|NCT06170242|181551790|SUPERIORITY|P-values are from ANCOVA with treatment group as main effect and the baseline value as a covariate. The baseline value is defined as the qRT-PCR viral load value at the time of first dose of IMP.|Difference in LS mean|-1.09||||0.0905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|0.18|||ANCOVA|||Lose Dose vs Placebo||0.18|-2.35|0.0905
90843182|NCT06170242|181551793|SUPERIORITY|P-values are from ANCOVA with treatment group as main effect and the baseline value as a covariate. The baseline value is defined as the cell culture viral load value at the time of first dose of IMP.|Difference in LS mean|-203.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-272.18|-135.07|||ANCOVA|||High Dose vs Placebo||-135.07|-272.18|<0.0001
90843183|NCT06170242|181551793|SUPERIORITY|P-values are from ANCOVA with treatment group as main effect and the baseline value as a covariate. The baseline value is defined as the cell culture viral load value at the time of first dose of IMP.|Difference in LS mean|-215.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-288.84|-141.22|||ANCOVA|||Low Dose vs Placebo||-141.22|-288.84|<0.0001
90843184|NCT06170242|181551794|SUPERIORITY|P-values are from ANCOVA with treatment group as main effect and the baseline value as a covariate. The baseline value is defined as the cell culture viral load value at the time of first dose of IMP.|Difference in LS mean|-3.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.05|-2.4|||ANCOVA|||High Dose vs Placebo||-2.40|-4.05|<0.0001
90843185|NCT06170242|181551794|SUPERIORITY|P-values are from ANCOVA with treatment group as main effect and the baseline value as a covariate. The baseline value is defined as the cell culture viral load value at the time of first dose of IMP.|Difference in LS mean|-3.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.11|-2.34|||ANCOVA|||Low Dose vs Placebo||-2.34|-4.11|<0.0001
90843186|NCT06170242|181551795|SUPERIORITY|P-values are from ANCOVA with treatment group as main effect and the baseline value as a covariate. The baseline value is defined as the cell culture viral load value at the time of first dose of IMP.|Difference in LS mean|1.44||||0.0238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.68|||ANCOVA|||High Dose vs Placebo||2.68|0.20|0.0238
90843187|NCT06170242|181551795|SUPERIORITY|P-values are from ANCOVA with treatment group as main effect and the baseline value as a covariate. The baseline value is defined as the cell culture viral load value at the time of first dose of IMP.|Difference in LS mean|1.68||||0.0134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|2.99|||ANCOVA|||Low Dose vs Placebo||2.99|0.36|0.0134
90843188|NCT06170242|181551797|SUPERIORITY|P-values are from ANCOVA with treatment group as main effect and the baseline value as a covariate. The baseline value is defined as the cell culture viral load value at the time of first dose of IMP.|Difference in LS mean|-2.18||||0.0389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.23|-0.12|||ANCOVA|||High Dose vs Placebo||-0.12|-4.23|0.0389
90843189|NCT06170242|181551797|SUPERIORITY|P-values are from ANCOVA with treatment group as main effect and the baseline value as a covariate. The baseline value is defined as the cell culture viral load value at the time of first dose of IMP.|Difference in LS mean|-1.31||||0.2713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.73|1.1|||ANCOVA|||Low Dose vs Placebo||1.10|-3.73|0.2713
91029108|NCT02796664|181941831|OTHER|Equality test||||||0.95|||||||Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that there is no relationship between ginseng administration and deep white matter lesions at follow-up.||||0.95
91029109|NCT02796664|181941832|OTHER|Equality test||||||0.23|||||||Chi-squared|||The null hypothesis is that there is no relationship between ginseng administration and parenchymal ischemic lesions at follow-up.||||0.23
91029110|NCT02796664|181941833|OTHER|Equality test||||||0.79|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis is that there is no relationship between ginseng administration and drug compliance at follow-up.||||0.79
91029111|NCT02566135|181941856|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.4628||||0.5033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6401|3.3428|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Chi square test was applied to see weather there is a statistical significant difference between group I and group C for attempt for supraglottic airway insertion.||3.3428|0.6401|0.5033
90843190|NCT06170242|181551799|SUPERIORITY|P-values are from ANCOVA with treatment group as main effect and the baseline value as a covariate. The baseline value is defined as the TSS value at the time of first dose of IMP.|Difference in LS mean|-280.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-404.44|-156.77|||ANCOVA|||High Dose vs Placebo||-156.77|-404.44|<0.0001
90843191|NCT06170242|181551799|SUPERIORITY|P-values are from ANCOVA with treatment group as main effect and the baseline value as a covariate. The baseline value is defined as the TSS value at the time of first dose of IMP.|Difference in LS mean|-301.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-428.53|-173.76|||ANCOVA|||Low Dose vs Placebo||-173.76|-428.53|<0.0001
90843192|NCT06170242|181551800|SUPERIORITY|P-values are from ANCOVA with treatment group as main effect and the baseline value as a covariate. The baseline value is defined as the TSS value at the time of first dose of IMP.|Difference in LS mean|-3.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.26|-2.02|||ANCOVA|||High Dose vs Placebo||-2.02|-5.26|<0.0001
90843193|NCT06170242|181551800|SUPERIORITY|P-values are from ANCOVA with treatment group as main effect and the baseline value as a covariate. The baseline value is defined as the TSS value at the time of first dose of IMP.|Difference in LS mean|-3.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.35|-2.05|||ANCOVA|||Low Dose vs Placebo||-2.05|-5.35|<0.0001
90843194|NCT06170242|181551801|SUPERIORITY|P-values are from ANCOVA with treatment group as main effect and the baseline value as a covariate. The baseline value is defined as the TSS value at the time of first dose of IMP.|Difference in LS mean|-1.08||||0.0552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.19|0.03|||ANCOVA|||High Dose vs Placebo||0.03|-2.19|0.0552
90843195|NCT06170242|181551801|SUPERIORITY|P-values are from ANCOVA with treatment group as main effect and the baseline value as a covariate. The baseline value is defined as the TSS value at the time of first dose of IMP.|Difference in LS mean|-0.38||||0.5599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|0.92|||ANCOVA|||Low Dose vs Placebo||0.92|-1.69|0.5599
90843196|NCT06170242|181551802|SUPERIORITY|P-values are from ANCOVA with treatment group as main effect and the baseline value as a covariate. The baseline value is defined as the TSS value at the time of first dose of IMP.|Difference in LS mean|-1.04||||0.0307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.97|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||High Dose vs Placebo||-0.10|-1.97|0.0307
90843197|NCT06170242|181551802|SUPERIORITY|P-values are from ANCOVA with treatment group as main effect and the baseline value as a covariate. The baseline value is defined as the TSS value at the time of first dose of IMP.|Difference in LS mean|-0.53||||0.4119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|0.76|||ANCOVA|||||0.76|-1.81|0.4119
90843198|NCT06170242|181551803|SUPERIORITY|P-values are from ANCOVA with treatment group as main effect and the baseline value as a covariate. The baseline value is defined as the biospecimen value at the time of first dose of IMP.|Difference in LS mean|-13.37||||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.34|-4.4|||ANCOVA|||High Dose vs Placebo||-4.40|-22.34|0.0042
90843199|NCT06170242|181551803|SUPERIORITY|P-values are from ANCOVA with treatment group as main effect and the baseline value as a covariate. The baseline value is defined as the biospecimen value at the time of first dose of IMP.|Difference in LS mean|-13.19||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.38|-4.0|||ANCOVA|||Low Dose vs Placebo||-4.00|-22.38|0.0058
90843200|NCT06170242|181551804|SUPERIORITY|P-values are from ANCOVA with treatment group as main effect and the baseline value as a covariate. The baseline value is defined as the biospecimen value at the time of first dose of IMP.|Difference in LS mean|-18.72||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.61|-6.84|||ANCOVA|||High Dose vs Placebo||-6.84|-30.61|0.0026
90843201|NCT06170242|181551804|SUPERIORITY|P-values are from ANCOVA with treatment group as main effect and the baseline value as a covariate. The baseline value is defined as the biospecimen value at the time of first dose of IMP.|Difference in LS mean|-19.28||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.3|-7.26|||ANCOVA|||||-7.26|-31.30|0.0022
90843202|NCT00531661|181551828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||95.0|||||Negative Binomial Regression|||||||0.0002
90843203|NCT00531661|181551829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||exact test of binomial proportions|P-value from exact test of binomial proportions compared proportion of all implantation cases free from DSRC to OPC of 0.80.||"Analysis of DSRC was based on the following pre-specified objective performance criteria: the lower limit of the two-sided 95.2% confidence interval on the freedom from DSRC rate for all implantation cases was at least 80%. The statistical hypotheses were:~Null: (Freedom from device / system-related complications) ≤ 80%~Alternative: (Freedom from device / system-related complications) \> 80%"||||<0.0001
90843204|NCT00531661|181551830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||exact test of binomial proportions|P-value from exact test of binomial proportions compared proportion of all implanted patients free from pressure sensor failure to OPC of 0.90.||"Analysis of sensor failures was based on the following pre-specified objective performance criteria: the lower limit of the two-sided 95.2% confidence interval on the freedom from pressure sensor failure rate for all patients implanted was at least 90%. The statistical hypotheses were:~Null: (Freedom from device / system-related complications) ≤ 90%~Alternative: (Freedom from device / system-related complications) \> 90%"||||<0.0001
90843205|NCT00531661|181551831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0077||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0077
90843206|NCT00531661|181551832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0292||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0292
90843207|NCT00531661|181551833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0280
90898216|NCT01597505|181662631|SUPERIORITY|Surotomycin - Vancomycin. For surotomycin to be considered superior to vancomycin the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI had to be \> 0%.|Difference in percentage of participants|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|3.0|||||Treatment group proportions were stratified by age group (\< 75, ≥ 75) and number of previous CDAD episodes (0, ≥1). The 95% CIs were stratified Wilson intervals for the treatment group proportions.|Difference in percentage of participants||3.0|-7.8|
90843208|NCT00531661|181551834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0236||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0236
90843209|NCT00531661|181551835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Negative Binomial Regression|||||||<0.0001
90843210|NCT00531661|181551836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||exact test of binomial proportions|P-value from exact test of binomial proportions compared proportion of all implanted patients free from DSRC to OPC of 0.80.||"Analysis of DSRC was based on the following pre-specified objective performance criteria: the lower limit of the two-sided 95.2% confidence interval on the freedom from DSRC rate for all implanted patients was at least 80%. The statistical hypotheses were:~Null: (Freedom from device / system-related complications) ≤ 80%~Alternative: (Freedom from device / system-related complications) \> 80%"||||<0.0001
90843211|NCT00531661|181551837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||exact test of binomial proportions|P-value from exact test of binomial proportions compared proportion of all implanted patients free from pressure sensor failure to OPC of 0.90.||"Analysis of sensor failures was based on the following pre-specified objective performance criteria: the lower limit of the two-sided 95.2% confidence interval on the freedom from pressure sensor failure rate for all implanted patients was at least 90%. The statistical hypotheses were:~Null: (Freedom from device / system-related complications) ≤ 90%~Alternative: (Freedom from device / system-related complications) \> 90%"||||<0.0001
91093890|NCT02110693|182071930|OTHER|The association on the interviewer and tablet computer administered versions of the TAPS Tool compared to the reference standard AUDIT-C score was assessed using Spearman Correlation.|Spearman Correlation|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.66|||||The estimated value is a Spearman Correlation point estimate between TAPS Tool Alcohol Score and the AUDIT-C score. A Confidence Interval rather than a dispersion value is therefore reported.|Each administration approach (interviewer and tablet) were tested separately against the reference measure.||.66|.59|
90843212|NCT02839200|181551857|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Multiple Comparison Procedure-Model|||"Multiple Comparison Procedure-Modeling (MCP-Mod) was used to assess a dose-response across placebo and all ACT-541468 doses. The null hypothesis of no dose-response was rejected if at least one of the six Multiple Contrasts Tests (MCTs) had a multiplicity adjusted p-value \<0.05. The analysis was performed using the R-package DoseFinding (Bornkamp B, Pinheiro J, Bretz F. Planning and analyzing dose finding experiments. 2016. Available from: cranrprojects.org/web/packages/DoseFinding.)"||||<0.001
90843213|NCT02839200|181551857|OTHER||LS mean difference|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.95||0.241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.7|4.7|||ANCOVA||Parameter Dispersion Type and Dispersion Value: Standard error of the LS mean|||4.7|-18.7|0.241
90843214|NCT02839200|181551857|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-10.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.0||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.6|1.0|||ANCOVA||Parameter Dispersion Type and Dispersion Value: Standard error of the LS mean|||1|-22.6|0.072
90843215|NCT02839200|181551857|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-16.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.95||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.9|-4.5|||ANCOVA||Parameter Dispersion Type and Dispersion Value: Standard error of the LS mean|||-4.5|-27.9|0.007
90843216|NCT02839200|181551857|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-25.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.92|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.3|-13.9|||ANCOVA||Parameter Dispersion Type and Dispersion Value: Standard error of the LS mean|||-13.9|-37.3|< 0.001
90843217|NCT02839200|181551857|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-8.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.97||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.4|3.3|||ANCOVA||Parameter Dispersion Type and Dispersion Value: Standard error of the LS mean|||3.3|-20.4|0.155
90843218|NCT02952820|181551861|SUPERIORITY||least squares geometric mean (LSGM)ratio|0.732|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.636|0.843|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was based on mixed effect model repeated measurement analysis (MMRM) model with log transformation of sSOL and factors for age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 6), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the study baseline sSOL as a covariate. Missing values are imputed using multiple imputation and assumed to be missing not at random (missing not at random/complete case missing value \[MNAR/CCMV\]).||0.843|0.636|<.0001
90843219|NCT02952820|181551861|SUPERIORITY||LSGM ratio|0.701|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.607|0.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was based on MMRM model with log transformation of sSOL and factors for age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 6), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the study baseline sSOL as a covariate. Missing values are imputed using multiple imputation and assumed to be missing not at random (MNAR/CCMV).||0.810|0.607|<.0001
90843220|NCT02952820|181551862|SUPERIORITY||LSGM ratio|0.781|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.725|0.842|||Mixed Models Analysis|||First 7 nights after the first dose (Statistical analysis 1): Based on MMRM model with log transformation of sSOL and factors for age group, region, treatment, visit (First 7 nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the study baseline sSOL as a covariate. Missing values are imputed using multiple imputation and assumed to be missing not at random (MNAR/CCMV).||0.842|0.725|<.0001
90843221|NCT02952820|181551862|SUPERIORITY||LSGM ratio|0.752|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.698|0.811|||Mixed Models Analysis|||First 7 nights after the first dose (Statistical analysis 2): Based on MMRM model with log transformation of sSOL and factors for age group, region, treatment, visit (First 7 nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the study baseline sSOL as a covariate. Missing values are imputed using multiple imputation and assumed to be missing not at random (MNAR/CCMV).||0.811|0.698|<.0001
90843222|NCT02952820|181551862|SUPERIORITY||LSGM ratio|0.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.735|0.893|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1 (Statistical analysis 3): Based on MMRM model with log transformation of sSOL and factors for age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 1), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the study baseline sSOL as a covariate. Missing values are imputed using multiple imputation and assumed to be missing not at random (MNAR/CCMV).||0.893|0.735|<.0001
90843223|NCT02952820|181551862|SUPERIORITY||LSGM ratio|0.77|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.698|0.848|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1 (Statistical analysis 4): Based on MMRM model with log transformation of sSOL and factors for age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 1), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the study baseline sSOL as a covariate. Missing values are imputed using multiple imputation and assumed to be missing not at random (MNAR/CCMV).||0.848|0.698|<.0001
90843224|NCT02952820|181551862|SUPERIORITY||LSGM ratio|0.778|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.878|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3 (Statistical analysis 5): Based on MMRM model with log transformation of sSOL and factors for age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 3), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the study baseline sSOL as a covariate. Missing values are imputed using multiple imputation and assumed to be missing not at random (MNAR/CCMV).||0.878|0.690|<.0001
90843225|NCT02952820|181551862|SUPERIORITY||LSGM ratio|0.77|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.681|0.869|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3 (Statistical analysis 6): Based on MMRM model with log transformation of sSOL and factors for age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 3), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the study baseline sSOL as a covariate. Missing values are imputed using multiple imputation and assumed to be missing not at random (MNAR/CCMV).||0.869|0.681|<.0001
90843226|NCT02952820|181551863|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|4.299|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.848|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.638|5.961|||Mixed Models Analysis|||First 7 nights (Statistical analysis 1): Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (First 7 nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the study baseline sSE as a covariate. Missing values are imputed using multiple imputation and assumed to be missing not at random (MNAR/CCMV).||5.961|2.638|<.0001
90843227|NCT02952820|181551863|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|5.793|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.846|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.133|7.452|||Mixed Models Analysis|||First 7 nights (Statistical analysis 2): Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (First 7 nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the study baseline sSE as a covariate. Missing values are imputed using multiple imputation and assumed to be missing not at random (MNAR/CCMV).||7.452|4.133|<.0001
91029112|NCT02566135|181941857|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.8972|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4858|1.6569|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||We had applied chi square to see the statistical significant difference between group I and group C for number of attempt for ventilating bougie insertion.||1.6569|0.4858|>0.05
91029113|NCT02566135|181941858|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||>0.05
90843228|NCT02952820|181551863|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|2.227|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.979||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.307|4.146|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1 (Statistical analysis 3): Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 1), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the study baseline sSE as a covariate. Missing values are imputed using multiple imputation and assumed to be missing not at random (MNAR/CCMV).||4.146|0.307|0.0230
90843229|NCT02952820|181551863|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|3.615|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.01||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.635|5.595|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1 (Statistical analysis 4): Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 1), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the study baseline sSE as a covariate. Missing values are imputed using multiple imputation and assumed to be missing not at random (MNAR/CCMV).||5.595|1.635|0.0003
90843230|NCT02952820|181551863|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|4.222|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.099||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.068|6.377|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3 (Statistical analysis 5): Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 3), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the study baseline sSE as a covariate. Missing values are imputed using multiple imputation and assumed to be missing not at random (MNAR/CCMV).||6.377|2.068|0.0001
90843231|NCT02952820|181551863|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|4.361|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.092|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.22|6.501|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3 (Statistical analysis 6): Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 3), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the study baseline sSE as a covariate. Missing values are imputed using multiple imputation and assumed to be missing not at random (MNAR/CCMV).||6.501|2.220|<.0001
90843232|NCT02952820|181551863|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|4.549|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.179||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.236|6.861|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6 (Statistical analysis 7): Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 6), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the study baseline sSE as a covariate. Missing values are imputed using multiple imputation and assumed to be missing not at random (MNAR/CCMV).||6.861|2.236|0.0001
90843233|NCT02952820|181551863|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|4.667|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.373|6.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6 (Statistical analysis 8): Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 6), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the study baseline sSE as a covariate. Missing values are imputed using multiple imputation and assumed to be missing not at random (MNAR/CCMV).||6.960|2.373|<.0001
90843234|NCT02952820|181551864|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean (LSM) Difference|-14.328|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.614|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.411|-7.245|||Mixed Models Analysis|||First 7 nights (Statistical analysis 1): Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (First 7 nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the study baseline sWASO as a covariate. Missing values are imputed using multiple imputation and assumed to be missing not at random (MNAR/CCMV).||-7.245|-21.411|<.0001
90843235|NCT02952820|181551864|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-16.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.619|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.813|-9.626|||Mixed Models Analysis|||First 7 nights (Statistical analysis 2): Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (First 7 nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the study baseline sWASO as a covariate. Missing values are imputed using multiple imputation and assumed to be missing not at random (MNAR/CCMV).||-9.626|-23.813|<.0001
90843236|NCT02952820|181551864|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-5.514|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.109||0.1796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.568|2.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1 (Statistical analysis 3): Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 1), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the study baseline sWASO as a covariate. Missing values are imputed using multiple imputation and assumed to be missing not at random (MNAR/CCMV).||2.540|-13.568|0.1796
90843237|NCT02952820|181551864|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-7.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.129||0.0898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.098|1.088|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1 (Statistical analysis 4): Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 1), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the study baseline sWASO as a covariate. Missing values are imputed using multiple imputation and assumed to be missing not at random (MNAR/CCMV).||1.088|-15.098|0.0898
90898217|NCT01597505|181662632|SUPERIORITY|Surotomycin - Vancomycin. For surotomycin to be considered superior to vancomycin the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI had to be \> 0%.|Difference in percentage of participants|14.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|30.7|||||Treatment group percentages were stratified by age group (\< 75, ≥ 75) and number of previous CDAD episodes (0, ≥ 1). The 95% CIs were stratified Wilson intervals for the treatment group percentages.|Difference in percentage of participants||30.7|-2.7|
90898218|NCT01597505|181662633|SUPERIORITY|Surotomycin - Vancomycin. For surotomycin to be considered superior to vancomycin the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI had to be \> 0%.|Difference in percentage of participants|4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|12.7|||||Treatment group proportions were stratified by age group (\< 75, ≥ 75) and number of previous CDAD episodes (0, ≥1). The 95% CIs were stratified Wilson intervals for the treatment group proportions.|Difference in percentage of participants||12.7|-4.2|
90843238|NCT02952820|181551864|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-13.424|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.486||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.218|-4.631|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3 (Statistical analysis 5): Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 3), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the study baseline sWASO as a covariate. Missing values are imputed using multiple imputation and assumed to be missing not at random (MNAR/CCMV).||-4.631|-22.218|0.0028
90843239|NCT02952820|181551864|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-10.079|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.578||0.0277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.053|-1.104|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3 (Statistical analysis 6): Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 3), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the study baseline sWASO as a covariate. Missing values are imputed using multiple imputation and assumed to be missing not at random (MNAR/CCMV).||-1.104|-19.053|0.0277
90898219|NCT01320943|181662673|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022||||||Log-rank test statistic was used to compare the time to HBsAg loss between the two treatment arms.|Log Rank|||||||0.022
91093891|NCT02110693|182071930|OTHER|The association on the interviewer and tablet administered versions of the TAPS Tool compared to the reference standard of the AUDIT C score was assessed using Spearman Correlation.|Spearman Correlation|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.68|||||The estimated value is a Spearman Correlation point estimate between TAPS Tool Alcohol Score and the AUDIT-C Score. A Confidence Interval rather than a dispersion value is therefore reported.|Each administration approach (interviewer and tablet) was tested separately against the reference measure.||.68|.61|
91093892|NCT02110693|182071932|OTHER|The association on the interviewer and tablet computer administered versions of the TAPS Tool compared to the reference standard Smokeless Tobacco Questionnaire was assessed using Spearman Correlation.|Spearman Correlation|0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.33|||||The estimated value is a Spearman Correlation point estimate between the TAPS Tool Tobacco Score and the Smokeless Tobacco Questionnare. Confidence Interval rather than a dispersion value is therefore reported.|Each administration approach (interviewer and tablet computer) was tested separately against the reference measure.||.33|.25|
90843240|NCT02952820|181551864|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-17.474|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.014||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.306|-7.643|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6 (Statistical analysis 7): Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 6), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the study baseline sWASO as a covariate. Missing values are imputed using multiple imputation and assumed to be missing not at random (MNAR/CCMV).||-7.643|-27.306|0.0005
90843241|NCT02952820|181551864|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-12.671|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.951||0.0105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.378|-2.964|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6 (Statistical analysis 8): Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 6), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the study baseline sWASO as a covariate. Missing values are imputed using multiple imputation and assumed to be missing not at random (MNAR/CCMV).||-2.964|-22.378|0.0105
90843242|NCT02952820|181551865|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|22.034|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.354|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.488|30.579|||Mixed Models Analysis|||First 7 Nights After the First Dose (Statistical analysis 1): Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (First 7 nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the study baseline sTST as a covariate. Missing values are not imputed and assumed to be MAR.||30.579|13.488|<.0001
90843243|NCT02952820|181551865|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|31.796|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.35|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.258|40.334|||Mixed Models Analysis|||First 7 nights after the first dose (Statistical analysis 2): Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (First 7 nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the study baseline sTST as a covariate. Missing values are not imputed and assumed to be MAR.||40.334|23.258|<.0001
90843244|NCT02952820|181551865|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|11.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.269||0.0259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.418|22.102|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1 (Statistical analysis 3): Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 1), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the study baseline sTST as a covariate. Missing values are not imputed and assumed to be MAR.||22.102|1.418|0.0259
90843245|NCT02952820|181551865|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|22.131|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.286|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.757|32.505|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1 (Statistical analysis 4): Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 1), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the study baseline sTST as a covariate. Missing values are not imputed and assumed to be MAR.||32.505|11.757|<.0001
90843246|NCT02952820|181551865|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|17.374|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.906||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.781|28.968|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3 (Statistical analysis 5): Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 3), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the study baseline sTST as a covariate. Missing values are not imputed and assumed to be MAR.||28.968|5.781|0.0034
90843247|NCT02952820|181551865|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|21.686|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.946||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.014|33.359|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3 (Statistical analysis 6): Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 3), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the study baseline sTST as a covariate. Missing values are not imputed and assumed to be MAR.||33.359|10.014|0.0003
90843248|NCT02952820|181551865|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|18.555|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.324||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.14|30.969|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6 (Statistical analysis 7): Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 6), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the study baseline sTST as a covariate. Missing values are not imputed and assumed to be missing at random (MAR).||30.969|6.140|0.0034
90843249|NCT02952820|181551865|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|22.686|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.392||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.137|35.234|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6 (Statistical analysis 8): Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 6), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the study baseline sTST as a covariate. Missing values are not imputed and assumed to be MAR.||35.234|10.137|0.0004
90843250|NCT02952820|181551866|SUPERIORITY||Difference of percentage|13.67||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.24|21.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Sleep onset responders: Statistical analysis 1||21.10|6.24|0.0004
90843251|NCT02952820|181551866|SUPERIORITY||Difference of percentage|12.53||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.2|19.86|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Sleep Onset Responders: Statistical analysis 2||19.86|5.20|0.0009
90843252|NCT02952820|181551866|SUPERIORITY||Difference of percentage|14.65||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.97|22.33|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Sleep Maintenance Responders: Statistical analysis 3||22.33|6.97|0.0002
90843253|NCT02952820|181551866|SUPERIORITY||Difference of percentage|9.82||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.29|17.35|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Sleep Maintenance Responders: Statistical analysis 4||17.35|2.29|0.0110
90898220|NCT02404389|181662690|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|p value is provided|Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.07||0.515|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.12|0.12|||Posterior mean|||||0.12|-0.12|0.515
90898221|NCT02404389|181662690|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|p value is provided|Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.07||0.517|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.12|0.13|||posterior mean|||||0.13|-0.12|0.517
90843254|NCT02952820|181551868|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.287||0.0137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|-0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1 (Statistical analysis 1): Based on MMRM model with factors for age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 1), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and study baseline ISI score as a covariate. Missing values are not imputed and assumed to be MAR.||-0.15|-1.27|0.0137
90843255|NCT02952820|181551868|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.289||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|-0.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1 (Statistical analysis 2): Based on MMRM model with factors for age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 1), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and study baseline ISI score as a covariate. Missing values are not imputed and assumed to be MAR.||-0.38|-1.51|0.0011
90843256|NCT02952820|181551868|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.302||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|-0.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3 (Statistical analysis 3): Based on MMRM model with factors for age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 3), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and study baseline ISI score as a covariate. Missing values are not imputed and assumed to be MAR.||-0.57|-1.75|0.0001
90843257|NCT02952820|181551868|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.305|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|-0.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3 (Statistical analysis 4): Based on MMRM model with factors for age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 3), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and study baseline ISI score as a covariate. Missing values are not imputed and assumed to be MAR.||-0.76|-1.96|<.0001
90843258|NCT02952820|181551868|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.302|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6 (Statistical analysis 5): Based on MMRM model with factors for age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 6), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and study baseline ISI score as a covariate. Missing values are not imputed and assumed to be MAR.||-0.71|-1.90|<.0001
90843259|NCT02952820|181551868|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.307|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.92|-0.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6 (Statistical analysis 6): Based on MMRM model with factors for age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 6), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and study baseline ISI score as a covariate. Missing values are not imputed and assumed to be MAR.||-0.71|-1.92|<.0001
90843260|NCT02952820|181551869|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.905||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.44|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1 (Statistical analysis 1): Based on MMRM model with factors for age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 1), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and study baseline FSS score as a covariate. Missing values are not imputed and assumed to be MAR.||0.12|-3.44|0.0670
90843261|NCT02952820|181551869|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-2.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.913||0.0257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.83|-0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1 (Statistical analysis 2): Based on MMRM model with factors for age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 1), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and study baseline FSS score as a covariate. Missing values are not imputed and assumed to be MAR.||-0.25|-3.83|0.0257
90843262|NCT02952820|181551869|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-2.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.939||0.0206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.02|-0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3 (Statistical analysis 3): Based on MMRM model with factors for age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 3), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and study baseline FSS score as a covariate. Missing values are not imputed and assumed to be MAR.||-0.34|-4.02|0.0206
90898222|NCT00335257|181662696|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size calculations were based on a non-inferiority test of two exponential survival curves.These calculations are based on the following assumptions: 1) one-sided α 0.025; 2) power (1-β) of 0.90; 3) VTE incidence rate of 9/10.000 WY and 4) non-inferiority limit hazard ratio of 2. Furthermore, a study of this size would exclude a threefold risk of ATE.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.3|||||Hazard ratio was adjusted for age, BMI, duration of current use, family history of VTE|Tested null hypotheses: the VTE hazard ratio for DRSP(24d) vs. Non-DRSP is higher or equal to 2||1.3|0.5|
90898223|NCT00658138|181662719|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|No power calculation done - pilot study|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Hypothesis was no difference between adhesives tested at one year. Restorations were scored using USPHS subjective clinical criteria.||||0.05
90843263|NCT02952820|181551869|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-3.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.91|-1.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3 (Statistical analysis 4): Based on MMRM model with factors for age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 3), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and study baseline FSS score as a covariate. Missing values are not imputed and assumed to be MAR.||-1.18|-4.91|0.0014
90898224|NCT00658138|181662719|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|No power calculation done - pilot study|percentage of Alpha values||||>|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is adhesives are not different in clinical performance at one year||||>0.05
91029114|NCT02566135|181941859|OTHER|||||||0.44|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Heart rate beats per minute measured at base line among the group I and group C.||||0.44
90843264|NCT02952820|181551869|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.112||0.0134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.48|-0.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6 (Statistical analysis 5): Based on MMRM model with factors for age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 6), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and study baseline FSS score as a covariate. Missing values are not imputed and assumed to be MAR.||-0.52|-4.48|0.0134
90843265|NCT02952820|181551869|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-2.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.026||0.0128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.57|-0.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6 (Statistical analysis 6): Based on MMRM model with factors for age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 6), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and study baseline FSS score as a covariate. Missing values are not imputed and assumed to be MAR.||-0.54|-4.57|0.0128
90843266|NCT02952820|181551870|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.205|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.076||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.057|0.353|||Mixed Models Analysis|||First 7 nights (Statistical analysis): Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (First 7 nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the study baseline Mean Rating on Morning Sleepiness as a covariate. Missing values are not imputed and assumed to be MAR.||0.353|0.057|0.0067
91029115|NCT02566135|181941859|OTHER|||||||0.58|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Heart rate beats per minute is measured following Dexmedetomidine injection among the group I and group C.||||0.58
91029116|NCT02566135|181941859|OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Heart rate beats per minute measured following induction of anaesthesia among the group I and group C.||||0.16
90898225|NCT03857230|181662734|EQUIVALENCE|The 90% CIs of the ratios of geometric means of log-transformed baseline AUC0-192 were used to assess bioequivalence between Primapur and Gonal-F (bioequivalence range of 80.00% to 125.00%)|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|93.31||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.25|99.79|||ANOVA|||Statistical comparison of the obtained results comprised the calculation of parametric bilateral 90 % CIs for the ratios of the corresponding mean values of the pharmacokinetic parameters of the study and comparator drug. The equivalence of the pharmacokinetics of the drug products will be proven if the limits of the evaluated CIs for the ratios of the mean values are in the range of 80.00-125.00%.||99.79|87.25|0.05
90898226|NCT03857230|181662735|EQUIVALENCE|The 90% CIs of the ratios of geometric means of log-transformed baseline Cmax were used to assess bioequivalence between Primapur and Gonal-F (bioequivalence range of 80.00% to 125.00%)|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|87.93||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.85|93.33|||ANOVA|||||93.33|82.85|0.05
90898227|NCT00552786|181662739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0||||Two-sided|ANOVA|Assessing the bioequivalence on temporary threshold shift at3k,4k,6k Hz between NAC and Placebo was carried out using ANOVA for 2×2 crossover design.||||||<0.05
90898228|NCT00552786|181662740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|Assessing the bioequivalence on temporary threshold shift at 3k,4k,6k Hz between NAC and Placebo was carried out using ANOVA for 2×2 crossover design.||||||<0.05
90898229|NCT00856934|181662749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.05
91093893|NCT02110693|182071932|OTHER||Spearman Correlation|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.32|||||The estimated value is a Spearman Correlation point estimate between TAPS Tool Tobacco Score and the score on the Smokeless Tobacco Questionnaire. A Confidence Interval rather than a dispersion value is therefore reported.|Each administration approach (interviewer and tablet) were tested separately against the reference measure.||.32|.24|
90898230|NCT00856934|181662750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.05
90898231|NCT03285295|181662768|SUPERIORITY||Clinical Specificity (%)|99.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.92|99.99|||Binomial Distribution|Specificity sample size is a minimum of 15,000 donors.||||99.99|99.92|
90898232|NCT03285295|181662769|OTHER|95% Confidence Interval provided.|Point Estimate|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.15|100.0|||Sensitivity|||||100.00|99.15|
90898233|NCT03285295|181662770|SUPERIORITY||Clinical Specificity (%)|99.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.95|100.0|||Binomial Distribution|||||100.00|99.95|
90898234|NCT03285295|181662771|OTHER|95% Confidence Interval provided.|Point Estimate|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.48|100.0|||Sensitivity|||||100.00|99.48|
90898235|NCT03285295|181662772|SUPERIORITY||Clinical Specificity (%)|99.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.86|99.95|||Binomial Distribution|||||99.95|99.86|
90898236|NCT03285295|181662773|OTHER|95% Confidence Interval provided.|Point Estimate|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.09|100.0|||Sensitivity|||||100.00|99.09|
90898237|NCT03285295|181662774|SUPERIORITY||Clinical Specificity (%)|99.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.87|99.96|||Binomial Exact|||||99.96|99.87|
90898238|NCT03285295|181662775|OTHER|95% Confidence Interval provided.|Point Estimate|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.72|100.0|||Sensitivity|||||100.00|99.72|
90898239|NCT03285295|181662776|SUPERIORITY||Clinical Specificity (%)|99.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.84|99.94|||Binomial Exact|||||99.94|99.84|
90898240|NCT03285295|181662777|OTHER|95% Confidence Interval provided.|Point Estimate|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.09|100.0|||Sensitivity|||||100.00|99.09|
90898241|NCT03285295|181662778|SUPERIORITY||Clinical Specificity (%)|99.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.94|100.0|||Binomial Exact|||||100.00|99.94|
90898242|NCT03285295|181662779|OTHER|95% Confidence Interval provided.|Point Estimate|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.85|100.0|||Sensitivity|||||100.00|98.85|
90898243|NCT03285295|181662784|OTHER|95% Confidence Interval provided.|Point Estimate|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|95.98|100.0|||Sensitivity|||Sensitivity||100.00|95.98|
90898244|NCT03285295|181662786|OTHER|95% Confidence Interval provided.|Point Estimate|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|92.75|100.0|||Sensitivity|||Sensitivity||100.00|92.75|
90898245|NCT03285295|181662787|OTHER|95% Confidence Interval provided.|Point Estimate|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.87|100.0|||Sensitivity|||Sensitivity||100.00|94.87|
90898246|NCT03285295|181662788|OTHER|95% Confidence Interval provided.|Point Estimate|98.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|95.2|99.84|||Sensitivity|||Sensitivity||99.84|95.20|
91029117|NCT02566135|181941859|OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Heart rate beats per minute measured following supraglottic airway insertion among the group I and group C.||||0.22
91029118|NCT02566135|181941859|OTHER|||||||0.059|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Heart rate beats per minute measured following ventilating bougie insertion among the group I and group C.||||0.059
91093894|NCT02110693|182071933|OTHER|The association on the interviewer and tablet computer administered versions of the TAPS Tool compared to the reference standard of the results of the oral fluid test was assessed using Spearman Correlation.|Spearman Correlation|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.48|||||The estimated value is a Spearman Correlation point estimate between TAPS Tool Cannabis Score and the results of the Oral Fluid Test. Confidence Interval rather than a dispersion value is therefore reported.|Each administration approach (interviewer and tablet) were tested separately against the reference measure.||.48|.35|
91093895|NCT02110693|182071933|OTHER||Spearman Correlation|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.46|||||The estimated value is a point estimate of the Spearman Correlation between the TAPS Tool Cannabis Score and the Oral Fluid Cannabis Screen. A Confidence Interval rather than a dispersion value is therefore reported.|||.46|.33|
91093896|NCT02054156|182071946|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.83|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model||The estimate is adjusted for age strata (\>=6 months - 3 years, \>3 - 6 years, \>6 - 12 years, and \>12 - 18 years).|||0.83|0.37|0.0043
91093897|NCT02054156|182071947|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.9915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.55|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model||The estimate is adjusted for age strata (\>=6 months - 3 years, \>3 - 6 years, \>6 - 12 years, and \>12 - 18 years).|||1.55|0.64|0.9915
91093898|NCT02054156|182071948|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % of Participants with SAE|-2.5||||0.7531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|8.7|||Fisher Exact||95% confidence interval calculated using the Newcombe-Wilson method without continuity correction.|||8.7|-13.7|0.7531
91093899|NCT02054156|182071948|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % of Participants with AE|4.4||||0.3593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|12.6|||Fisher Exact||95% confidence interval calculated using the Newcombe-Wilson.|||12.6|-3.5|0.3593
91104123|NCT02554474|182094760|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in mean change|-0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.01||||||We performed an intent-to-treat analysis. For the main comparison, we used analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) to estimate an adjusted mean difference comparing time in the Fatigue Severity Scale at 9 weeks (primary end point) between groups, adjusting for baseline fatigue score, diagnosis, and blocking.||0.01|-0.63|
90843267|NCT02952820|181551870|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.171|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.076||0.0237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.023|0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||First 7 nights (Statistical analysis 2): Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (First 7 nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the study baseline Mean Rating on Morning Sleepiness as a covariate. Missing values are not imputed and assumed to be MAR.||0.320|0.023|0.0237
90843268|NCT02952820|181551870|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.077|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.107|0.261|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1 (Statistical analysis 3): Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 1), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the study baseline Mean Rating on Morning Sleepiness as a covariate. Missing values are not imputed and assumed to be MAR.||0.261|-0.107|0.4120
90843269|NCT02952820|181551870|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.073|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094||0.4347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.111|0.258|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1 (Statistical analysis 4): Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 1), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the study baseline Mean Rating on Morning Sleepiness as a covariate. Missing values are not imputed and assumed to be MAR.||0.258|-0.111|0.4347
90843270|NCT02952820|181551870|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.074|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.109||0.4992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.141|0.289|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3 (Statistical analysis 5): Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 3), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the study baseline Mean Rating on Morning Sleepiness as a covariate. Missing values are not imputed and assumed to be MAR.||0.289|-0.141|0.4992
90843271|NCT02952820|181551870|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.255|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.039|0.471|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3 (Statistical analysis 6): Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 3), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the study baseline Mean Rating on Morning Sleepiness as a covariate. Missing values are not imputed and assumed to be MAR.||0.471|0.039|0.0208
90843272|NCT02952820|181551870|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.144|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.119||0.2248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.089|0.378|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6 (Statistical analysis 7): Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 6), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the study baseline Mean Rating on Morning Sleepiness as a covariate. Missing values are not imputed and assumed to be MAR.||0.378|-0.089|0.2248
90843273|NCT02952820|181551870|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.261|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.026|0.497|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6 (Statistical analysis 8): Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 6), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the study baseline Mean Rating on Morning Sleepiness as a covariate. Missing values are not imputed and assumed to be MAR.||0.497|0.026|0.0298
90843274|NCT03070964|181551888|SUPERIORITY||Exact binomial estimator|16.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|48.4||||||||48.4|2.1|
90843275|NCT01094119|181551890|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0069|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.0069
90843276|NCT01587924|181551895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0135||95.0||||The p-value is showing the interaction of each subgroup by treatment and by day|Regression, Linear|||Modeled Hgb change from baseline in participants with Baseline Hgb \<10.80 versus modeled Hgb change from baseline in participants with Baseline Hgb \>= 10.80||||0.0135
90843277|NCT01587924|181551895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5082||95.0||||The p-value is showing the interaction of each subgroup by treatment and by day|Regression, Linear|||Modeled Hgb change from baseline in participants with Baseline weight \<= 80.5 Kg versus modeled Hgb change from baseline in participants with Baseline weight \> 80.5||||0.5082
90843278|NCT01587924|181551895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.977||95.0||||The p-value is showing the interaction of each subgroup by treatment and by day|Regression, Linear|||Modeled Hgb change from baseline in participants with ethnicity non-Hispanic or Latino versus modeled Hgb change from baseline in participants with ethnicity non-Hispanic or Latino||||0.9770
90843279|NCT01587924|181551895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0618||95.0||||The p-value is showing the interaction of each subgroup by treatment and by day|Regression, Linear|||Modeled Hgb change from baseline in participants with Baseline geographic ancestry as African American versus modeled Hgb change from baseline in participants with no geographic ancestry as African American||||0.0618
90843280|NCT01587924|181551895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7495||95.0||||The p-value is showing the interaction of each subgroup by treatment and by day|Regression, Linear|||Modeled Hgb change from baseline in participants with Baseline gender as male versus modeled Hgb change from baseline in participants with Baseline gender female||||0.7495
90843281|NCT01587924|181551895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7865||95.0||||The p-value is showing the interaction of each subgroup by treatment and by day|Regression, Linear|||Modeled Hgb change from baseline in participants with Baseline age \<65 years versus modeled Hgb change from baseline in participants with Baseline age \>=65 years||||0.7865
90843282|NCT01587924|181551895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0622||95.0||||The p-value is showing the interaction of each subgroup by treatment and by day|Regression, Linear|||Modeled Hgb change from baseline in participants with Baseline co-ad with food versus modeled Hgb change from baseline in participants with Baseline co-ad without food||||0.0622
91029119|NCT02566135|181941859|OTHER||||||>|0.33|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Heart rate beats per minute measured at endotracheal intubation among the group I and group C.||||>0.33
90843283|NCT01587924|181551895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2044||95.0||||The p-value is showing the interaction of each subgroup by treatment and by day|Regression, Linear|||Modeled Hgb change from baseline in participants with Baseline diabetes presence versus modeled Hgb change from baseline in participants with no Baseline diabetes||||0.2044
90843284|NCT01587924|181551895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8537||95.0||||The p-value is showing the interaction of each subgroup by treatment and by day|Regression, Linear|||Modeled Hgb change from baseline in participants with Baseline region as the US and Canada versus modeled Hgb change from baseline in participants with Baseline region as not the US and Canada||||0.8537
90843285|NCT00357903|181551944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized incidence rate|0.0||||||95.0|0.0|53.87||||||||53.87|0.00|
90843286|NCT00357903|181551944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized incidence rate|1.3||||||95.0|0.97|1.71||||||||1.71|0.97|
91093900|NCT02054156|182071949|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.86||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.94|||Poisson Regression|||Rate Ratio for Adverse Events calculated using Poisson Regression with an offset for the log of follow-up time in months. The total number of follow-up months of all participants (not per participant) in the trial was as follows: in the Azithromycin group was 1267.73 and in the Placebo group was 1193.72.||0.94|0.80|0.0004
91093901|NCT02054156|182071949|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|1.25||||0.2098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.78|||Poisson Regression|||Rate Ratio for Serious Adverse Events calculated using Poisson Regression with an offset for the log of follow-up time in months. The total number of follow-up months of all participants (not per participant) in the trial was as follows: in the Azithromycin group was 1267.73 and in the Placebo group was 1193.72.||1.78|0.88|0.2098
90898247|NCT01015807|181662789|OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||ANOVA|||We estimated that 25 subjects per group would allow us to detect a reduction of this area from 7.5 cm2 in our placebo group to 3.5 cm2 in the CloTAP group, with SD = 5 cm2 in both groups, owing to improved overall analgesia and reduced pain sensitization in women allocated to receive a TAP block with clonidine (2-tailed \[alpha\] = 0.05, 80% power). To allow for failed TAP blocks and/or exclusions of cases, we included 30 patients per group (n = 90)||||0.48
90898248|NCT04867785|181662846|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.38||||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.18|-0.94|0.188
90898249|NCT04867785|181662846|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|-0.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.85|-1.84|<0.001
91093902|NCT04154956|182071950|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.143||||0.8204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.864|1.512||One-sided significance level was 0.01|Log Rank||Hazard ratio and confidence intervals (CIs) were computed from a stratified Cox model according to stratification factors as per IRT.|||1.512|0.864|0.8204
90843287|NCT00606593|181551946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square means treatment effect|-10.4||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|-3.9|||Linear model|||||-3.9|-17.0|0.0018
90843288|NCT00606593|181551946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square means treatment effect|-19.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.7|-12.6|||Linear model|||||-12.6|-25.7|<0.0001
90843289|NCT00606593|181551946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square means treatment effect|-31.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.0|-24.9|||Linear model|||||-24.9|-38.0|<0.0001
90898250|NCT04867785|181662846|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|-0.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.65|-1.85|<0.001
90898251|NCT04867785|181662846|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|-1.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.43|-2.44|<0.001
90898252|NCT04867785|181662846|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.42|-1.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.24|-2.42|<0.001
90898253|NCT04867785|181662846|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.43|-1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.50|-2.43|<0.001
91093903|NCT04154956|182071951|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.846||||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.644|1.109||One-sided significance level was 0.00174.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio and CIs were computed from a stratified Cox model according to stratification factors as per IRT.|||1.109|0.644|0.1120
91093904|NCT04154956|182071952|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.6972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.42||P-value is provided for information only, there is no statistical inference based on this P-value.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio and its 2-sided CI were provided from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified according to the stratification factors.|||1.42|0.55|0.6972
90898254|NCT04867785|181662847|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.43|0.52|<0.001
90843290|NCT00606593|181551946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square means treatment effect|-46.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.3|-39.9|||Linear model|||||-39.9|-53.3|<0.0001
90843291|NCT00606593|181551947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square means treatment effect|14.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|21.2|||Linear model|||||21.2|7.4|<0.0001
90898255|NCT04867785|181662847|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.01||||0.935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.37|-0.34|0.935
90843292|NCT00606593|181551947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square means treatment effect|21.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.6|28.4|||Linear model|||||28.4|14.6|<0.0001
90843293|NCT00606593|181551947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square means treatment effect|34.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.8|41.6|||Linear model|||||41.6|27.8|<0.0001
90843294|NCT00606593|181551947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square means treatment effect|55.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.2|62.0|||Linear model|||||62.0|48.2|<0.0001
90898256|NCT04867785|181662847|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.11||||0.668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.60|-0.39|0.668
90898257|NCT04867785|181662847|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.58||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.21|-0.95|0.002
90898258|NCT04867785|181662847|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.47||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.01|-0.95|0.056
90898259|NCT04867785|181662847|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|-0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.29|-0.93|<0.001
90898260|NCT04867785|181662848|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.24||||0.448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.38|-0.85|0.448
90898261|NCT04867785|181662848|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.99||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.38|-1.60|0.001
90898262|NCT04867785|181662848|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.59|-1.80|<0.001
90898263|NCT04867785|181662848|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|-1.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.24|-2.41|<0.001
90898264|NCT04867785|181662848|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.27|-0.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.99|-2.27|<0.001
90898265|NCT04867785|181662848|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.39|-1.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.31|-2.39|<0.001
90898266|NCT04867785|181662848|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.29|0.35|<0.001
90898267|NCT04867785|181662848|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.06||||0.796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.53|-0.41|0.796
90898268|NCT04867785|181662848|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.14||||0.548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.32|-0.61|0.548
90843295|NCT01600170|181551949|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.01|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis focused on a comparison of change in response over 12 wks for each treatment under a 2x2 crossover design. Mixed effects model was used to estimate within subject treatment differences, trends over time \& at each wk(0,2,6,12). Log-transformations were applied to meet normality assumption \& models adjusted for period \& sequence effects. Primary outcomes were pre-specified to use p\<0.01 for statistical significance. All other analyses used p\<0.05 after adjustment for multiple comparisons.||||0.39
90843296|NCT01600170|181551950|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.45||||||Threshold of statistical significance was p=0.01|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis focused on a comparison of change in response over 12 wks for each treatment under a 2x2 crossover design. Mixed effects model was used to estimate within subject treatment differences, trends over time \& at each wk(0,2,6,12). Log-transformations were applied to meet normality assumption \& models adjusted for period \& sequence effects. Primary outcomes were pre-specified to use p\<0.01 for statistical significance. All other analyses used p\<0.05 after adjustment for multiple comparisons.||||<0.45
90843297|NCT01600170|181551951|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.01|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis focused on a comparison of change in response over 12 wks for each treatment under a 2x2 crossover design. Mixed effects model was used to estimate within subject treatment differences, trends over time \& at each wk(0,2,6,12). Log-transformations were applied to meet normality assumption \& models adjusted for period \& sequence effects. Primary outcomes were pre-specified to use p\<0.01 for statistical significance. All other analyses used p\<0.05 after adjustment for multiple comparisons.||||0.80
90843298|NCT01600170|181551952|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||The threshold of statistical significance was p=0.01|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis focused on a comparison of change in response over 12 wks for each treatment under a 2x2 crossover design. Mixed effects model was used to estimate within subject treatment differences, trends over time \& at each wk(0,2,6,12). Log-transformations were applied to meet normality assumption \& models adjusted for period \& sequence effects. Primary outcomes were pre-specified to use p\<0.01 for statistical significance. All other analyses used p\<0.05 after adjustment for multiple comparisons.||||0.04
90843299|NCT01600170|181551953|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15||||||The threshold of statistical significance was p=0.01|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis focused on a comparison of change in response over 12 wks for each treatment under a 2x2 crossover design. Mixed effects model was used to estimate within subject treatment differences, trends over time \& at each wk(0,2,6,12). Log-transformations were applied to meet normality assumption \& models adjusted for period \& sequence effects. Primary outcomes were pre-specified to use p\<0.01 for statistical significance. All other analyses used p\<0.05 after adjustment for multiple comparisons.||||0.15
90843300|NCT01600170|181551954|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis focused on a comparison of change in response over 12 wks for each treatment under a 2x2 crossover design. Mixed effects model was used to estimate within subject treatment differences, trends over time \& at each wk(0,2,6,12). Log-transformations were applied to meet normality assumption \& models adjusted for period \& sequence effects. Secondary outcome analyses used p\<0.05 for statistical significance after adjustment for multiple comparisons.||||0.63
90843301|NCT01600170|181551955|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035||||||Threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis focused on a comparison of change in response over 12 wks for each treatment under a 2x2 crossover design. Mixed effects model was used to estimate within subject treatment differences, trends over time \& at each wk(0,2,6,12). Log-transformations were applied to meet normality assumption \& models adjusted for period \& sequence effects. Secondary outcome analyses used p\<0.05 for statistical significance after adjustment for multiple comparisons.||||0.035
90898269|NCT04867785|181662848|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|-0.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.36|-1.19|<0.001
90898270|NCT04867785|181662848|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.57||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.07|-1.08|0.025
91029120|NCT02566135|181941859|OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Heart rate beats per minute measured after 3 minute of ETT insertion among the group I and group C.||||0.63
91029121|NCT02566135|181941859|OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Heart rate beats per minute measured after 5 minute of ETT insertion among the group I and group C.||||0.29
90843302|NCT01600170|181551956|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62||||||The threshold of statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis focused on a comparison of change in response over 12 wks for each treatment under a 2x2 crossover design. Mixed effects model was used to estimate within subject treatment differences, trends over time \& at each wk(0,2,6,12). Log-transformations were applied to meet normality assumption \& models adjusted for period \& sequence effects. Secondary outcome analyses used p\<0.05 for statistical significance after adjustment for multiple comparisons.||||0.62
90898271|NCT04867785|181662848|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|-0.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.44|-1.16|<0.001
90898272|NCT04867785|181662849|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.14||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.32|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.32|-0.04|0.121
90898273|NCT04867785|181662849|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.36||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.59|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.59|0.13|0.002
90898274|NCT04867785|181662849|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.68|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.68|0.28|<0.001
90898275|NCT04867785|181662849|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.87|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.87|0.53|<0.001
91029122|NCT02566135|181941859|OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Heart rate beats per minute measured after 7 minute of ETT insertion among the group I and group C.||||0.18
91029123|NCT02566135|181941859|OTHER|||||||0.98|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Heart rate beats per minute measured after 10 minute of ETT insertion among the group I and group C.||||0.98
91029124|NCT02566135|181941859|OTHER|||||||0.49|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Heart rate beats per minute measured after 15 minute of ETT insertion among the group I and group C.||||0.49
91029125|NCT02566135|181941860|OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Systolic blood pressure measured and compared at base line between group I and group C.||||0.24
90898276|NCT04867785|181662849|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.82|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.82|0.39|<0.001
91029126|NCT02566135|181941860|OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Systolic blood pressure measured and compared following Dexmedetomidine injection between group I and group C.||||0.11
90843303|NCT01600170|181551957|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99||||||The threshold of statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis focused on a comparison of change in response over 12 wks for each treatment under a 2x2 crossover design. Mixed effects model was used to estimate within subject treatment differences, trends over time \& at each wk(0,2,6,12). Log-transformations were applied to meet normality assumption \& models adjusted for period \& sequence effects. Secondary outcome analyses used p\<0.05 for statistical significance after adjustment for multiple comparisons.||||0.99
91093905|NCT04154956|182071953|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.729||||0.0157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.546|0.972||P-value is provided for information only, there is no statistical inference based on this P-value.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio and CIs were computed from a stratified Cox model according to stratification factors as per IRT.|||0.972|0.546|0.0157
91093906|NCT04154956|182071954|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.544||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.388|0.763||P-value is provided for information only, there is no statistical inference based on this P-value.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio and CIs were computed from a stratified Cox model according to stratification factors as per IRT.|||0.763|0.388|0.0002
91093907|NCT04154956|182071955|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.735||||0.0305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.533|1.014||P-value is provided for information only, there is no statistical inference based on this P-value.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio and CIs were computed from a stratified Cox model according to stratification factors as per IRT.|||1.014|0.533|0.0305
90843304|NCT00607373|181551958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance was concluded if p≤0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Based upon prior clinical study experience with mipomersen, it was estimated that the standard deviation of the percent change in LDL-C is approximately 22%. With 15 patients in the control group and 30 patients in the mipomersen-treated group, this study would have at least 80% power to detect a 20 percentage point difference between the 2 treatment groups. Fifty-one patients were enrolled to allow for patient withdrawals and potential exclusions from analysis sets.||||<0.001
90843305|NCT00607373|181551959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Inflation of type 1 error was controlled by specifying a small number of secondary parameters and a sequential inferential approach in which inferential conclusions about each successive parameter required statistical significance of the prior one.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90843306|NCT00607373|181551961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Inferential conclusions about this parameter require statistical significance of the previous secondary outcome measure (i.e., percent change from baseline in Apo B at PET).|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90843307|NCT00607373|181551964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Inferential conclusions about this parameter require statistical significance of the previous secondary outcome measure (i.e., percent change from baseline in total cholesterol at PET).|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90843308|NCT00607373|181551966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013||||||Statistical significance was concluded if p ≤0.05|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.013
90843309|NCT00607373|181551968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||||||Statistical significance was concluded if p ≤0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
90843310|NCT00607373|181551970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||||||Statistical significance was concluded if p ≤0.05|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.009
90843311|NCT00607373|181551972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance was concluded if p ≤0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90843312|NCT00607373|181551974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.328||||||Statistical significance was concluded if p ≤0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.328
90843313|NCT00607373|181551976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035||||||Statistical significance was concluded if p ≤0.05|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.035
90843314|NCT05232682|181551987|OTHER||F-test|2.41||||0.1183|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha value for significance set at p \< .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1183
90843315|NCT05232682|181551988|OTHER||F-test|0.07||||0.9308|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha value for significance set at p \< .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.9308
90843316|NCT05232682|181551989|OTHER||F-test|2.1||||0.1517|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha value for significance set at p \< .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1517
90843317|NCT05232682|181551990|OTHER||F-test|0.14||||0.8747|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha value for significance set at p \< .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8747
91093908|NCT04810962|182071970|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
90843318|NCT05232682|181551991|OTHER||F-test|1.19||||0.3269|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha value for significance set at p \< .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.3269
90843319|NCT05232682|181551992|OTHER||F-test|1.14||||0.3411|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha value for significance set at p \< .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.3411
90843320|NCT02656693|181552001|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.00017|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.00017
90843321|NCT02656693|181552003|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.001
90843322|NCT02656693|181552005|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.001
90843323|NCT02656693|181552006|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.01
90843324|NCT02656693|181552008|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
90843325|NCT02656693|181552009|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.20
90843326|NCT02656693|181552010|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0001
90843327|NCT02656693|181552011|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.19
90843328|NCT02656693|181552012|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.35
90843329|NCT02656693|181552013|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.20
90843330|NCT02656693|181552014|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.33
90843331|NCT02656693|181552015|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.43
90843332|NCT02656693|181552016|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.40
90843333|NCT02656693|181552017|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.16
90843334|NCT02656693|181552018|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.61
90843335|NCT02656693|181552019|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.61
90843336|NCT02656693|181552020|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.46
90843337|NCT02656693|181552021|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.68
90843338|NCT02656693|181552022|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.54
90843339|NCT02656693|181552023|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.09
90843340|NCT02656693|181552024|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.42
90843341|NCT02656693|181552025|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.23
90843342|NCT02656693|181552026|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.20
91093909|NCT04810962|182071971|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91093910|NCT04810962|182071973|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
90843343|NCT00826462|181552075|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||linear generalized estimating equations||||A linear GEE regression model adjusted for the significant covariates at p \< 0.05 from the univariate GEE logistic regression models calculated for success|||<0.01
90843344|NCT00826462|181552075|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||linear generalized estimating equations|||||||<0.01
91093911|NCT04810962|182071974|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91093912|NCT04810962|182071975|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
90843345|NCT00826462|181552079|OTHER||||||||||||||||||linear generalized estimating equations (GEE) regression model adjusted for significant covariates; between groups estimated odds ratio (OR) for no pain on two isometric movements using logistic GEE regression model adjusted for significant covariates; 99 % confidence intervals|||
90843346|NCT00337675|181552087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate reduction|5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.3||0.51||95.0|-11.4|19.6||Multiplicity adjustment across regimens was addressed through step-down testing. Daily montelukast versus placebo was tested first; if this comparison was significant, intermittent montelukast versus placebo was tested. The significance level was 5%.|Regression, Poisson|A Poisson regression model containing factors for treatment, age group, and geographic region, and an offset for number of days in study was used.|Rate reduction = (1 - montelukast-adjusted annual rate/placebo-adjusted annual rate) x 100%|The primary hypothesis stated that montelukast (daily regimen, or \[intermittent and daily regimens\]), compared with placebo, results in a decrease in the number of asthma episodes culminating in asthma attack in pediatric patients aged 6 months to 5 years with episodic asthma and treated over 1 year. A sample size of 450 evaluable patients per arm allowed the detection of a difference in rate of 23% with 90% power.||19.6|-11.4|0.510
90843347|NCT00337675|181552087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate reduction|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.8||0.884||95.0|-19.2|14.0||Multiplicity adjustment across regimens was addressed through step-down testing. Daily montelukast versus placebo was tested first; if this comparison was significant, intermittent montelukast versus placebo was tested. The significance level was 5%.|Regression, Poisson|A Poisson regression model containing factors for treatment, age group, and geographic region, and an offset for number of days in study was used.|Rate reduction = (1 - montelukast-adjusted annual rate/placebo-adjusted annual rate) x 100%|The primary hypothesis stated that montelukast (daily regimen, or \[intermittent and daily regimens\]), compared with placebo, results in a decrease in the number of asthma episodes culminating in asthma attack in pediatric patients aged 6 months to 5 years with episodic asthma and treated over 1 year. A sample size of 450 evaluable patients per arm allowed the detection of a difference in rate of 23% with 90% power.||14.0|-19.2|0.884
90898277|NCT04867785|181662849|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.85|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.85|0.51|<0.001
90898278|NCT04867785|181662849|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.21||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|-0.02|||Regression, Logistic|||||-0.02|-0.39|0.030
90898279|NCT04867785|181662849|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.01||||0.938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.24|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.24|-0.22|0.938
91093913|NCT04810962|182071976|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91093914|NCT04810962|182071977|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91093915|NCT04810962|182071978|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91093916|NCT04810962|182071979|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91093917|NCT04810962|182071980|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91093918|NCT04810962|182071981|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-1.0|||ANCOVA||Treatment Difference = APP13007-Placebo. Mean Difference Is the least-squares mean difference from the ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.|||-1.0|-1.4|<0.001
91093919|NCT04810962|182071982|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.3|||ANCOVA||Treatment Difference = APP13007-Placebo. Mean Difference Is the least-squares mean difference from the ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.|||-0.3|-0.7|<0.001
90898280|NCT04867785|181662849|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.13||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.33|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.33|-0.07|0.209
90898281|NCT04867785|181662849|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.53|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.53|0.18|<0.001
90898282|NCT04867785|181662849|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.26||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.48|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.48|0.03|0.024
90898283|NCT04867785|181662849|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.51|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.51|0.16|<0.001
91093920|NCT04810962|182071983|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.3|||ANCOVA||Treatment Difference = APP13007-Placebo. Mean Difference Is the least-squares mean difference from the ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.|||-0.3|-0.5|<0.001
91093921|NCT04810962|182071984|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|-0.02|||ANCOVA||Treatment Difference = APP13007-Placebo. Mean Difference Is the least-squares mean difference from the ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.|||-0.02|-0.07|<0.001
91093922|NCT04810962|182071985|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|-0.05|||ANCOVA||Treatment Difference = APP13007-Placebo. Mean Difference Is the least-squares mean difference from the ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.|||-0.05|-0.10|<0.001
91093923|NCT04810962|182071986|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|-0.05|||ANCOVA||Treatment Difference = APP13007-Placebo. Mean Difference Is the least-squares mean difference from the ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.|||-0.05|-0.11|<0.001
91093924|NCT04810962|182071987|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91093925|NCT01348269|182071989|OTHER|T-test (with MITT, omitting outlier value of one patient in placebo group)|||||=|0.006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.006
91093926|NCT01348269|182071989|OTHER|Mann-Whitney-Test|||||=|0.015|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||=0.015
91093927|NCT00920816|182072014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.767|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.559|1.053||||||First-line participants: hazard ratio was stratified by eastern cooperative oncology group (ECOG) performance status (0 versus 1).||1.053|0.559|
90843348|NCT00337675|181552088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.176||95.0|-0.46|0.09||Multiplicity adjustment across regimens and across primary and secondary endpoints was addressed through step-down testing. Within the 2 endpoints assessing severity, adjustment for multiplicity was performed using Hochberg's method.|ANOVA|An ANOVA model containing factors for treatment, age group, and geographical region was used.||The secondary hypothesis stated that montelukast (daily regimen, or \[intermittent and daily regimens\]), compared with placebo, results in improvement of respiratory symptoms assessed over 3 days prior to asthma attacks, or assessed over the 12-day treatment period of asthma episodes in pediatric patients aged 6 months to 5 years with episodic asthma and treated over 1 year.||0.09|-0.46|0.176
90843349|NCT00337675|181552088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.202||95.0|-0.44|0.09||Multiplicity adjustment across regimens and across primary and secondary endpoints was addressed through step-down testing. Within the 2 endpoints assessing severity, adjustment for multiplicity was performed using Hochberg's method.|ANOVA|An ANOVA model containing factors for treatment, age group, and geographical region was used.||The secondary hypothesis stated that montelukast (daily regimen, or \[intermittent and daily regimens\]), compared with placebo, results in improvement of respiratory symptoms assessed over 3 days prior to asthma attacks, or assessed over the 12-day treatment period of asthma episodes in pediatric patients aged 6 months to 5 years with episodic asthma and treated over 1 year.||0.09|-0.44|0.202
90843350|NCT00337675|181552089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.045||95.0|-0.24|0.0||Multiplicity adjustment across regimens and across primary and secondary endpoints was addressed through step-down testing. Within the family of secondary endpoints, adjustment for multiplicity was performed using Hochberg's method.|ANOVA|An ANOVA model containing factors for treatment, age group, and geographical region was used.||The secondary hypothesis stated that montelukast (daily regimen, or \[intermittent and daily regimens\]), compared with placebo, results in improvement of respiratory symptoms assessed over 3 days prior to asthma attacks, or assessed over the 12-day treatment period of asthma episodes in pediatric patients aged 6 months to 5 years with episodic asthma and treated over 1 year.||0.00|-0.24|0.045
90843351|NCT00337675|181552089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.061||95.0|-0.23|0.0||Multiplicity adjustment across regimens and across primary and secondary endpoints was addressed through step-down testing. Within the family of secondary endpoints, adjustment for multiplicity was performed using Hochberg's method.|ANOVA|An ANOVA model containing factors for treatment, age group, and geographical region was used.||The secondary hypothesis stated that montelukast (daily regimen, or \[intermittent and daily regimens\]), compared with placebo, results in improvement of respiratory symptoms assessed over 3 days prior to asthma attacks, or assessed over the 12-day treatment period of asthma episodes in pediatric patients aged 6 months to 5 years with episodic asthma and treated over 1 year.||0.00|-0.23|0.061
91093928|NCT00920816|182072015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.731|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.506|1.058||||||Second-line participants: hazard ratio was stratified by eastern cooperative oncology group (ECOG) performance status (0 versus 1) and prior treatment (sunitinib versus cytokine-containing regimen).||1.058|0.506|
90843352|NCT00880919|181552090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||ANOVA|||Mean changes were calculated using each groups linear and quadratic effects||||.015
90843353|NCT02015637|181552099|NON_INFERIORITY|Two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using the Wald test was constructed for comparisons between delafloxacin and ceftriaxone. A hierarchical approach was implemented for the primary and secondary analyses to control for the overall type 1 error rate of 0.05 due to multiple comparisons.|Difference in cure rate|-5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.18|1.36||||||||1.36|-13.18|
90898284|NCT04867785|181662850|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.14||||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.35|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.35|-0.06|0.169
90898285|NCT04867785|181662850|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.39||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.63|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.63|0.15|0.001
90898286|NCT04867785|181662850|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.37||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.6|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.60|0.14|0.002
90898287|NCT04867785|181662850|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.79|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.79|0.39|<0.001
90843354|NCT02015637|181552100|NON_INFERIORITY|Two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using the Wald test was constructed for comparisons between delafloxacin and ceftriaxone. A hierarchical approach was implemented for the primary and secondary analyses to control for the overall type 1 error rate of 0.05 due to multiple comparisons.|Difference in cure rates|-9.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.03|-3.87||||||||-3.87|-16.03|
90843355|NCT02863419|181552102|NON_INFERIORITY|This hypothesis was controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the in-trial observation period. The estimated treatment effect includes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (treatment policy estimand). A value of 0.4% (the non-inferiority margin) was added to imputed values at week 26 for the oral semaglutide treatment arm only.|Mean treatment difference|-0.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.0||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from the non-inferiority margin. The non-inferiority margin was 0.4%|Pattern mixture model||Oral semaglutide 14 mg - Liraglutide 1.8 mg|The analysis was based on a pattern mixture model using multiple imputation to handle missing week 26 data, assuming that data were missing at random within the groups used for imputation. The imputed data sets were analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c value as covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete data sets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||0.0|-0.3|<0.0001
90898288|NCT04867785|181662850|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.78|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.78|0.34|<0.001
90898289|NCT04867785|181662850|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.76|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.76|0.38|<0.001
90898290|NCT04867785|181662850|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.23||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.02|||Regression, Logistic|||||-0.02|-0.44|0.029
90898291|NCT04867785|181662850|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.02||||0.898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.25|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.25|-0.22|0.898
90898292|NCT04867785|181662850|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||0.968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.23|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.23|-0.24|0.968
90898293|NCT04867785|181662850|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.22||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.42|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.42|0.02|0.033
90843356|NCT02863419|181552102|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the in-trial observation period. The estimated treatment effect includes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (treatment policy estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-0.1||||0.0645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.0||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0 (superiority).|Pattern mixture model||Oral semaglutide 14 mg - Liraglutide 1.8 mg|The analysis was based on a pattern mixture model using multiple imputation to handle missing week 26 data, assuming that data were missing at random within the groups used for imputation. The imputed data sets were analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment, strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c value as covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete data sets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||0.0|-0.3|0.0645
91029127|NCT02566135|181941860|OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Systolic blood pressure measured and compared following induction os anaesthesia between group I and group C.||||0.07
90843357|NCT02863419|181552102|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the in-trial observation period. The estimated treatment effect includes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (treatment policy estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-1.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.9||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0 (superiority).|Pattern mixture model||Oral semaglutide 14 mg - Placebo|The analysis was based on a pattern mixture model using multiple imputation to handle missing week 26 data, assuming that data were missing at random within the groups used for imputation. The imputed data sets were analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment, strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c value as covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete data sets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||-0.9|-1.2|<0.0001
90843358|NCT02863419|181552102|NON_INFERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The estimated treatment effect excludes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (hypothetical estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-0.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.1||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from the non-inferiority margin (non-inferiority). The non-inferiority margin was 0.4%.|MMRM||Oral semaglutide 14 mg - Liraglutide 1.8 mg|The analysis was based on a mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM) that assumed data to be missing at random. As dependent variables, the MMRM model included all post-baseline values collected at scheduled visits up to and including week 26. The independent effects were treatment, strata and region as categorical fixed effects and the baseline HbA1c value as a covariate, all nested within visit, and an unstructured residual covariance matrix.||-0.1|-0.3|<0.0001
90843359|NCT02863419|181552102|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The estimated treatment effect excludes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (hypothetical estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-0.2||||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.1||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0 (superiority).|MMRM||Oral semaglutide 14 mg - Liraglutide 1.8 mg|The analysis was based on a mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM) that assumed data to be missing at random. As dependent variables, the MMRM model included all post-baseline values collected at scheduled visits up to and including week 26. The independent effects were treatment, strata and region as categorical fixed effects and the baseline HbA1c value as a covariate, all nested within visit, and an unstructured residual covariance matrix.||-0.1|-0.3|0.0056
90843360|NCT02863419|181552102|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The estimated treatment effect excludes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (hypothetical estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-1.2||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-1.0||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0 (superiority).|MMRM||Oral semaglutide 14 mg - Placebo|The analysis was based on a mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM) that assumed data to be missing at random. As dependent variables, the MMRM model included all post-baseline values collected at scheduled visits up to and including week 26. The independent effects were treatment, strata and region as categorical fixed effects and the baseline HbA1c value as a covariate, all nested within visit, and an unstructured residual covariance matrix.||-1.0|-1.4|0.0001
90859718|NCT03673046|181582875|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.8412|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1195|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0698|-2.6126||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons because this was a pre-specified secondary endpoint comparison. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was alpha=.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures were modeled with a compound symmetry with heterogeneous variance covariance matrix.|The effect is presented as the Smartphone-delivered CBT for BDD group outcome compared to the 12-week waitlist control group outcome at the trial end-point (week 12).|Null hypothesis: there is no significant difference in BABS total scores between the treatment groups at endpoint (week 12).||-2.6126|-7.0698|<.0001
91029128|NCT02566135|181941860|OTHER|||||||0.85|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Systolic blood pressure measured and compared following supraglottic airway insertion between group I and group C.||||0.85
91029129|NCT02566135|181941860|OTHER|||||||0.055|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Systolic blood pressure measured and compared following ventilating bougie insertion between group I and group C.||||0.055
91093929|NCT03185208|182072030|SUPERIORITY||treatment x time interaction coefficient|0.69||||0.048|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.048
91029130|NCT02566135|181941860|OTHER|||||||0.71|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Systolic blood pressure measured and compared at ETT insertion time between group I and group C.||||0.71
91093930|NCT03185208|182072031|SUPERIORITY||treatment x time interaction coefficient|-0.08835||||0.78|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.78
91029131|NCT02566135|181941860|OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Systolic blood pressure measured and compared 3 minutes after ETT insertion between group I and group C.||||0.20
91093931|NCT03185208|182072032|SUPERIORITY||treatment x time interaction coefficient|0.08738||||0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.80
91093932|NCT03185208|182072034|SUPERIORITY||treatment x time interaction coefficient|0.012||||0.93|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.93
91093933|NCT03185208|182072035|SUPERIORITY||treatment x time interaction coefficient|-351.8||||0.78|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.78
91029132|NCT02566135|181941860|OTHER|||||||0.86|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Systolic blood pressure measured and compared 5 minutes after ETT insertion between group I and group C.||||0.86
91029133|NCT02566135|181941860|OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Systolic blood pressure measured and compared 7 minutes after ETT insertion between group I and group C.||||0.68
91029134|NCT02566135|181941860|OTHER|||||||0.98|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Systolic blood pressure measured and compared 10 minutes after ETT insertion between group I and group C.||||0.98
91029135|NCT02566135|181941860|OTHER|||||||0.49|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Systolic blood pressure measured and compared 15 minutes after ETT insertion between group I and group C.||||0.49
91029136|NCT02566135|181941861|OTHER|||||||0.34|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Diastolic blood pressure measured and compared at base line between group I and group C.||||0.34
91029137|NCT02566135|181941861|OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Diastolic blood pressure measured and compared following Dexmedetomidine injection between group I and group C.||||0.27
91029138|NCT02566135|181941861|OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Diastolic blood pressure measured and compared following induction of anaesrthesia between group I and group C.||||0.22
91029139|NCT02566135|181941861|OTHER|||||||0.96|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Diastolic blood pressure measured and compared following supraglottic airway insertion between group I and group C.||||0.96
91029140|NCT02566135|181941861|OTHER|||||||0.71|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Diastolic blood pressure measured and compared following ventilating bougie insertion between group I and group C.||||0.71
91029141|NCT02566135|181941861|OTHER|||||||0.55|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Diastolic blood pressure measured and compared the time of endotracheal tube insertion between group I and group C.||||0.55
90898294|NCT04867785|181662850|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.19||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.41|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.41|-0.04|0.099
91029142|NCT02566135|181941861|OTHER|||||||0.49|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Diastolic blood pressure measured and compared 3 minutes after endotracheal tube insertion between group I and group C.||||0.49
91029143|NCT02566135|181941861|OTHER|||||||0.49|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Diastolic blood pressure measured and compared 5 minutes after endotracheal tube insertion between group I and group C.||||0.49
90898295|NCT04867785|181662850|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.2||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.39|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.39|0.01|0.044
90898296|NCT04867785|181662851|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.12||||0.823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.73|16.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||16.48|-20.73|0.823
91029144|NCT02566135|181941861|OTHER|||||||0.76|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Diastolic blood pressure measured and compared 7 minutes after endotracheal tube insertion between group I and group C.||||0.76
91029145|NCT02566135|181941861|OTHER|||||||0.69|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Diastolic blood pressure measured and compared 10 minutes after endotracheal tube insertion between group I and group C.||||0.69
91029146|NCT02566135|181941861|OTHER|||||||0.81|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Diastolic blood pressure measured and compared 15 minutes after endotracheal tube insertion between group I and group C.||||0.81
91029147|NCT02566135|181941862|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We had compared time of insertion for supraglottic airway between group I and group C.||||<0.0001
91029148|NCT02566135|181941863|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91029149|NCT04634409|181941864|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.37||||0.009273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.78|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.78|0.18|0.009273
91029150|NCT04634409|181941864|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.32||||0.000271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.59|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.59|0.18|0.000271
91029151|NCT04634409|181941864|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.23||||0.000257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.51|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.51|0.10|0.000257
91029152|NCT04634409|181941864|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.44||||0.013378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.84|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.84|0.23|0.013378
91029153|NCT04634409|181941864|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.24||||0.000318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.52|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.52|0.11|0.000318
91029154|NCT04634409|181941864|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.35||||0.140563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.41|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.41|0.09|0.140563
91029155|NCT04634409|181941865|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.27||||0.000835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.58|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.58|0.12|0.000835
91029156|NCT04634409|181941866|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.56||||0.097231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.11|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.11|0.28|0.097231
91093934|NCT03185208|182072036|SUPERIORITY||treatment x time interaction coefficient|58.95||||0.087|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.087
90843361|NCT02863419|181552103|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the in-trial observation period. The estimated treatment effect includes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (treatment policy estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-1.2||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.6||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0 (superiority).|Pattern mixture model||Oral semaglutide 14 mg - Liraglutide 1.8 mg|The analysis was based on a pattern mixture model using multiple imputation to handle missing week 26 data, assuming that data were missing at random within the groups used for imputation. The imputed data sets were analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment, strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline body weight value as covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete data sets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||-0.6|-1.9|0.0003
90843362|NCT02863419|181552103|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the in-trial observation period. The estimated treatment effect includes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (treatment policy estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-3.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|-3.0||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0 (superiority).|Pattern mixture model||Oral semaglutide 14 mg - Placebo|The analysis was based on a pattern mixture model using multiple imputation to handle missing week 26 data, assuming that data were missing at random within the groups used for imputation. The imputed data sets were analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment, strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline body weight value as covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete data sets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||-3.0|-4.7|<0.0001
90843363|NCT02863419|181552103|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The estimated treatment effect excludes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (hypothetical estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-1.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.9||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0 (superiority).|MMRM||Oral semaglutide 14 mg - Liraglutide 1.8 mg|The analysis was based on a MMRM that assumed data to be missing at random. As dependent variables, the MMRM model included all post-baseline values collected at scheduled visits up to and including week 26. The independent effects were treatment, strata and region as categorical fixed effects and the baseline body weight value as a covariate, all nested within visit, and an unstructured residual covariance matrix.||-0.9|-2.2|<0.0001
90843364|NCT02863419|181552103|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The estimated treatment effect excludes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (hypothetical estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-4.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|-3.2||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0 (superiority).|MMRM||Oral sema 14 mg - Placebo|The analysis was based on a MMRM that assumed data to be missing at random. As dependent variables, the MMRM model included all post-baseline values collected at scheduled visits up to and including week 26. The independent effects were treatment, strata and region as categorical fixed effects and the baseline body weight value as a covariate, all nested within visit, and an unstructured residual covariance matrix.||-3.2|-4.8|<0.0001
90843365|NCT02863419|181552124|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.4915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.8||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox||Oral semaglutide 14 mg / Liraglutide 1.8 mg|Time to initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment, strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Withdrawal for any reason or lost to follow-up contributed to the analysis as events (initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication). Censoring time was one day before planned end of treatment.||1.80|0.75|0.4915
90843366|NCT02863419|181552124|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.48||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox||Oral semaglutide 14 mg / Placebo|Time to initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment, strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Withdrawal for any reason or lost to follow-up contributed to the analysis as events (initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication). Censoring time was one day before planned end of treatment.||0.48|0.21|<0.0001
90843367|NCT02863419|181552125|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.6252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.22||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox||Oral semaglutide 14 mg / Liraglutide 1.8 mg|Time to initiation of rescue medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment, strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Censoring time was one day before last day on trial product.||2.22|0.62|0.6252
90843368|NCT02863419|181552125|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.26||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox||Oral semaglutide 14 mg / Placebo|Time to initiation of rescue medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment, strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Censoring time was one day before last day on trial product.||0.26|0.09|<0.0001
90843369|NCT00912795|181552142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|6.3||||||||6.3|0.62|
90843370|NCT00912795|181552143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.2||||||||3.2|0.50|
90843371|NCT00912795|181552144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|7.5||||||||7.5|0.81|
90843372|NCT00912795|181552145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|6.3||||||||6.3|.62|
90843373|NCT00297258|181552146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|46.0||||0.653||90.0|11.0|47.6|||binomial exact method||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with a CR, a PR, or SD.|||47.6|11.0|0.653
91104124|NCT02554474|182094761|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in mean change|-2.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.78|-0.13||||||We performed an intent-to-treat analysis. For the main comparison, we used analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) to estimate an adjusted mean difference comparing pain at 9 weeks (primary end point) between groups, adjusting for pain score, diagnosis, and blocking.||-0.13|-4.78|
91029157|NCT04634409|181941866|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59||||0.13236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.17|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.17|0.30|0.132360
91029158|NCT04634409|181941872|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.62||||0.769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|15.57|||Regression, Logistic|||||15.57|0.02|0.769
91093935|NCT05824026|182072094|OTHER||||||||||||||||||"The purpose of the primary analysis was to show non-inferiority to the performance of a historical control (a silver containing gelling fiber) on proportion of wounds healed, 77%, with a non-inferiority margin of 20%. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval is above 57%. An exact confidence interval for the proportion was applied. In the primary analysis missing data was not included. In the post hoc sensitivity analysis missing data was imputed using multiple imputation for 3 wounds where data was assumed to be missing at random, and otherwise imputed as wound not healed.~The supplemental analysis addressed a more conservative analysis than performed for the historical control. Hence, no formal non-inferiority criteria was applied for this analysis."|||
90843374|NCT00297258|181552146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|41.0||||0.003||90.0|28.4|55.5|||binomial exact method||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with a CR, a PR, or SD.|||55.5|28.4|0.003
90843375|NCT00297258|181552146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|49.0|||<|0.001||90.0|34.3|63.2|||binomial exact method||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with a CR, a PR, or SD.|||63.2|34.3|<0.001
90843376|NCT00297258|181552146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|41.0||||0.003||90.0|28.4|55.5|||binomial exact method||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with a CR, a PR, or SD.|||55.5|28.4|0.003
90843377|NCT00473382|181552156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage at Month 24|20.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.4|30.2||An adjustment was made for multiple treatment comparisons of the ranibizumab dose groups with the control group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was stratified by baseline BCVA score (≤55, \>55 letters), baseline HbA1c (≤8%, \>8%), and prior therapy for ME in the study eye (yes, no).|The percentage for each group and the difference in percentage between groups were estimated using the weighted average of the observed percentages and the differences in observed percentages over the strata using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|||30.2|11.4|<0.0001
90843378|NCT00473382|181552156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage at Month 24|33.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.8|42.8||An adjustment was made for multiple treatment comparisons of the ranibizumab dose groups with the control group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was stratified by baseline BCVA score (≤55, \>55 letters), baseline HbA1c (≤8%, \>8%), and prior therapy for ME in the study eye (yes, no).|The percentage for each group and the difference in percentage between groups were estimated using the weighted average of the observed percentages and the differences in observed percentages over the strata using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|||42.8|23.8|<0.0001
90843379|NCT00473382|181552157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.4|11.5||To manage the type I error rate while testing multiple secondary efficacy endpoints for statistical significance, a type I error management plan was implemented. Secondary endpoints were prioritized and tested using a hierarchical testing procedure.|ANOVA|The analysis was stratified by baseline BCVA score (≤55, \>55 letters), baseline HbA1c (≤8%, \>8%), and prior therapy for ME in the study eye (yes, no).||The analysis summarized in this section is for the Month 24 time point, comparing the outcome for patients randomized to ranibizumab versus sham injections during the controlled treatment period. The statistical analysis for the Outcome Measure at Month 36 is not shown here. The statistical analysis was not performed at Month 48.||11.5|5.4|<0.0001
90843380|NCT00473382|181552157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.4|13.3||To manage the type I error rate while testing multiple secondary efficacy endpoints for statistical significance, a type I error management plan was implemented. Secondary endpoints were prioritized and tested using a hierarchical testing procedure.|ANOVA|The analysis was stratified by baseline BCVA score (≤55, \>55 letters), baseline HbA1c (≤8%, \>8%), and prior therapy for ME in the study eye (yes, no).||The analysis summarized in this section is for the Month 24 time point, comparing the outcome for patients randomized to ranibizumab versus sham injections during the controlled treatment period. The statistical analysis for the Outcome Measure at Month 36 is not shown here. The statistical analysis was not performed at Month 48.||13.3|6.4|<0.0001
90898297|NCT04867785|181662851|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-19.6||||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.29|8.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.10|-47.29|0.165
90843381|NCT00473382|181552158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage at Month 24|21.4||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.8|31.9||To manage the type I error rate while testing multiple secondary efficacy endpoints for statistical significance, a type I error management plan was implemented. Secondary endpoints were prioritized and tested using a hierarchical testing procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was stratified by baseline BCVA score (≤55, \>55 letters), baseline HbA1c (≤8%, \>8%), and prior therapy for ME in the study eye (yes, no).|The percentage for each group and the difference in percentage between groups were estimated using the weighted average of the observed percentages and the differences in observed percentages over the strata using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|The analysis summarized in this section is for the Month 24 time point, comparing the outcome for patients randomized to ranibizumab versus sham injections during the controlled treatment period. The statistical analysis for the Outcome Measure at Month 36 is not shown here. The statistical analysis was not performed at Month 48.||31.9|10.8|0.0002
90898298|NCT04867785|181662851|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-33.3||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.56|-13.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-13.04|-53.56|0.001
90898299|NCT04867785|181662851|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-55.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.77|-41.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-41.22|-69.77|<0.001
90898300|NCT04867785|181662851|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-29.22||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.84|-5.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.59|-52.84|0.015
90898301|NCT04867785|181662851|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-54.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.63|-39.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-39.59|-69.63|<0.001
90898302|NCT04867785|181662851|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|33.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.26|48.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||48.82|18.26|<0.001
91029159|NCT04634409|181941872|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.32||||0.494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|8.12|||Regression, Logistic|||||8.12|0.01|0.494
91029160|NCT04634409|181941872|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5||||0.671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|12.51|||Regression, Logistic|||||12.51|0.02|0.671
91093936|NCT01129128|182072104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-173.0||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|controlled for baseline levels and performed log transformation of TNF alpha levels to account for skewed distribution of values||comparison of peak level of TNF alpha after controlling for baseline level. Based on data from 20 participants in a group, there was a power of 0.9 to detect a difference of 1000 pg/ml with a standard deviation of 700 pg/ml||||0.87
91093937|NCT01129128|182072104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|705.0||||0.82||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|controlled for baseline levels and performed log transformation of TNF alpha levels to account for skewed distribution of values||comparison of peak level of TNF alpha after controlling for baseline level. Based on data from 20 participants in a group, there was a power of .9 to detect a difference of 1000 pg/ml with a standard deviation of 700 pg/ml||||0.82
90843382|NCT00473382|181552158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage at Month 24|27.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.4|37.9||To manage the type I error rate while testing multiple secondary efficacy endpoints for statistical significance, a type I error management plan was implemented. Secondary endpoints were prioritized and tested using a hierarchical testing procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was stratified by baseline BCVA score (≤55, \>55 letters), baseline HbA1c (≤8%, \>8%), and prior therapy for ME in the study eye (yes, no).|The percentage for each group and the difference in percentage between groups were estimated using the weighted average of the observed percentages and the differences in observed percentages over the strata using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|The analysis summarized in this section is for the Month 24 time point, comparing the outcome for patients randomized to ranibizumab versus sham injections during the controlled treatment period. The statistical analysis for the Outcome Measure at Month 36 is not shown here. The statistical analysis was not performed at Month 48.||37.9|16.4|<0.0001
90843383|NCT00473382|181552159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage at Month 24|7.1||||0.0119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|12.6||To manage the type I error rate while testing multiple secondary efficacy endpoints for statistical significance, a type I error management plan was implemented. Secondary endpoints were prioritized and tested using a hierarchical testing procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was stratified by baseline BCVA score (≤55, \>55 letters), baseline HbA1c (≤8%, \>8%), and prior therapy for ME in the study eye (yes, no).|The percentage for each group and the difference in percentage between groups were estimated using the weighted average of the observed percentages and the differences in observed percentages over the strata using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|The analysis summarized in this section is for the Month 24 time point, comparing the outcome for patients randomized to ranibizumab versus sham injections during the controlled treatment period. The statistical analysis for the Outcome Measure at Month 36 is not shown here. The statistical analysis was not performed at Month 48.||12.6|1.7|0.0119
90843384|NCT00473382|181552159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage at Month 24|4.5||||0.1384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|10.1||To manage the type I error rate while testing multiple secondary efficacy endpoints for statistical significance, a type I error management plan was implemented. Secondary endpoints were prioritized and tested using a hierarchical testing procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was stratified by baseline BCVA score (≤55, \>55 letters), baseline HbA1c (≤8%, \>8%), and prior therapy for ME in the study eye (yes, no).|The percentage for each group and the difference in percentage between groups were estimated using the weighted average of the observed percentages and the differences in observed percentages over the strata using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|The analysis summarized in this section is for the Month 24 time point, comparing the outcome for patients randomized to ranibizumab versus sham injections during the controlled treatment period. The statistical analysis for the Outcome Measure at Month 36 is not shown here. The statistical analysis was not performed at Month 48.||10.1|-1.2|0.1384
90843385|NCT00473382|181552160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.3||||0.0102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|14.6||To manage the type I error rate while testing multiple secondary efficacy endpoints for statistical significance, a type I error management plan was implemented. Secondary endpoints were prioritized and tested using a hierarchical testing procedure.|ANOVA|The analysis was stratified by baseline BCVA score (≤55, \>55 letters), baseline HbA1c (≤8%, \>8%), and prior therapy for ME in the study eye (yes, no).||The analysis summarized in this section is for the Month 24 time point, comparing the outcome for patients randomized to ranibizumab versus sham injections during the controlled treatment period. The statistical analysis for the Outcome Measure at Month 36 is not shown here.||14.6|2.0|0.0102
90898303|NCT04867785|181662851|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|16.07||||0.231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.25|42.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||42.39|-10.25|0.231
90898304|NCT04867785|181662851|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|2.37||||0.804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.28|21.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||21.01|-16.28|0.804
90898305|NCT04867785|181662851|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-19.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.01|-8.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.65|-31.01|<0.001
90898306|NCT04867785|181662851|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|6.45||||0.586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.75|29.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||29.65|-16.75|0.586
90898307|NCT04867785|181662851|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-18.94||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.93|-6.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-6.96|-30.93|0.002
90898308|NCT04867785|181662852|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.25||||0.984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.57|24.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||24.07|-24.57|0.984
90898309|NCT04867785|181662852|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-4.2||||0.804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.44|29.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||29.03|-37.44|0.804
90898310|NCT04867785|181662852|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-21.47||||0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.91|8.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.98|-51.91|0.167
90898311|NCT04867785|181662852|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-51.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.09|-27.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-27.59|-76.09|<0.001
91093938|NCT01129128|182072105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15793.0||||0.82||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|controlled for baseline levels and performed log transformation of IL-6 levels to account for skewed distribution of values||||||0.82
91093939|NCT01129128|182072105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23472.0||||0.68||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|controlled for baseline levels and performed log transformation of IL-6 levels to account for skewed distribution of values||||||0.68
91093940|NCT01129128|182072106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.0||||0.9||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|controlled for baseline levels and performed log transformation of Interferon gamma levels to account for skewed distribution of values||||||0.90
90843386|NCT00473382|181552160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.2||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.1|17.3||To manage the type I error rate while testing multiple secondary efficacy endpoints for statistical significance, a type I error management plan was implemented. Secondary endpoints were prioritized and tested using a hierarchical testing procedure.|ANOVA|The analysis was stratified by baseline BCVA score (≤55, \>55 letters), baseline HbA1c (≤8%, \>8%), and prior therapy for ME in the study eye (yes, no).||The analysis summarized in this section is for the Month 24 time point, comparing the outcome for patients randomized to ranibizumab versus sham injections during the controlled treatment period. The statistical analysis for the Outcome Measure at Month 36 is not shown here.||17.3|5.1|0.0005
90843387|NCT00473382|181552161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-111.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-151.6|-72.0||To manage the type I error rate while testing multiple secondary efficacy endpoints for statistical significance, a type I error management plan was implemented. Secondary endpoints were prioritized and tested using a hierarchical testing procedure.|ANCOVA|The analysis was stratified by baseline BCVA score (≤55, \>55 letters), baseline HbA1c (≤8%, \>8%), and prior therapy for ME in the study eye (yes, no).||The analysis summarized in this section is for the Month 24 time point, comparing the outcome for patients randomized to ranibizumab versus sham injections during the controlled treatment period. The statistical analysis for the Outcome Measure at Month 36 is not shown here. The statistical analysis was not performed at Month 48.||-72.0|-151.6|<0.0001
90843388|NCT00473382|181552161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-132.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-169.7|-94.8||To manage the type I error rate while testing multiple secondary efficacy endpoints for statistical significance, a type I error management plan was implemented. Secondary endpoints were prioritized and tested using a hierarchical testing procedure.|ANCOVA|The analysis was stratified by baseline BCVA score (≤55, \>55 letters), baseline HbA1c (≤8%, \>8%), and prior therapy for ME in the study eye (yes, no).||The analysis summarized in this section is for the Month 24 time point, comparing the outcome for patients randomized to ranibizumab versus sham injections during the controlled treatment period. The statistical analysis for the Outcome Measure at Month 36 is not shown here. The statistical analysis was not performed at Month 48.||-94.8|-169.7|<0.0001
90843389|NCT00473382|181552162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage at Month 24|-4.3||||0.0853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|0.8||To manage the type I error rate while testing multiple secondary efficacy endpoints for statistical significance, a type I error management plan was implemented. Secondary endpoints were prioritized and tested using a hierarchical testing procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was stratified by baseline BCVA score (≤55, \>55 letters), baseline HbA1c (≤8%, \>8%), and prior therapy for ME in the study eye (yes, no).|The percentage for each group and the difference in percentage between groups were estimated using the weighted average of the observed percentages and the differences in observed percentages over the strata using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|The analysis summarized in this section is for the Month 24 time point, comparing the outcome for patients randomized to ranibizumab versus sham injections during the controlled treatment period. The statistical analysis for the Outcome Measure at Month 36 is not shown here.||0.8|-9.3|0.0853
90843390|NCT00473382|181552162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage at Month 24|-5.8||||0.0073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|-1.7||To manage the type I error rate while testing multiple secondary efficacy endpoints for statistical significance, a type I error management plan was implemented. Secondary endpoints were prioritized and tested using a hierarchical testing procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was stratified by baseline BCVA score (≤55, \>55 letters), baseline HbA1c (≤8%, \>8%), and prior therapy for ME in the study eye (yes, no).|The percentage for each group and the difference in percentage between groups were estimated using the weighted average of the observed percentages and the differences in observed percentages over the strata using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|The analysis summarized in this section is for the Month 24 time point, comparing the outcome for patients randomized to ranibizumab versus sham injections during the controlled treatment period. The statistical analysis for the Outcome Measure at Month 36 is not shown here.||-1.7|-9.8|0.0073
90843391|NCT00473382|181552163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage at Month 24|14.0||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|21.1||To manage the type I error rate while testing multiple secondary efficacy endpoints for statistical significance, a type I error management plan was implemented. Secondary endpoints were prioritized and tested using a hierarchical testing procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was stratified by baseline BCVA score (≤55, \>55 letters), baseline HbA1c (≤8%, \>8%), and prior therapy for ME in the study eye (yes, no).|The percentage for each group and the difference in percentage between groups were estimated using the weighted average of the observed percentages and the differences in observed percentages over the strata using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|||21.1|6.8|0.0002
90843392|NCT00473382|181552163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage at Month 24|28.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.2|36.4||To manage the type I error rate while testing multiple secondary efficacy endpoints for statistical significance, a type I error management plan was implemented. Secondary endpoints were prioritized and tested using a hierarchical testing procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was stratified by baseline BCVA score (≤55, \>55 letters), baseline HbA1c (≤8%, \>8%), and prior therapy for ME in the study eye (yes, no).|The percentage for each group and the difference in percentage between groups were estimated using the weighted average of the observed percentages and the differences in observed percentages over the strata using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|||36.4|20.2|<0.0001
90843393|NCT00473382|181552164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.5||To manage the type I error rate while testing multiple secondary efficacy endpoints for statistical significance, a type I error management plan was implemented. Secondary endpoints were prioritized and tested using a hierarchical testing procedure.|ANOVA|The analysis was stratified by baseline BCVA score (≤55, \>55 letters), baseline HbA1c (≤8%, \>8%), and prior therapy for ME in the study eye (yes, no).||The analysis summarized in this section is for the Month 24 time point, comparing the outcome for patients randomized to ranibizumab versus sham injections during the controlled treatment period. The statistical analysis for the Outcome Measure at Month 36 is not shown here.||-0.5|-1.3|<0.0001
90898312|NCT04867785|181662852|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-23.94||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.94|10.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||10.06|-57.94|0.168
91093941|NCT01129128|182072106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.0||||0.76||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|controlled for baseline levels and performed log transformation of Interferon gamma levels to account for skewed distribution of values||||||0.76
91093942|NCT01129128|182072107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.98||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|controlled for baseline levels||||||0.98
90843394|NCT00473382|181552164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-1.0||To manage the type I error rate while testing multiple secondary efficacy endpoints for statistical significance, a type I error management plan was implemented. Secondary endpoints were prioritized and tested using a hierarchical testing procedure.|ANOVA|The analysis was stratified by baseline BCVA score (≤55, \>55 letters), baseline HbA1c (≤8%, \>8%), and prior therapy for ME in the study eye (yes, no).||The analysis summarized in this section is for the Month 24 time point, comparing the outcome for patients randomized to ranibizumab versus sham injections during the controlled treatment period. The statistical analysis for the Outcome Measure at Month 36 is not shown here.||-1.0|-1.6|<0.0001
90843395|NCT01166282|181552202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-51.17|||=|0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-99.69|-2.66|||ANCOVA|||||-2.66|-99.69|=0.039
90843396|NCT01166282|181552203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.62|||=|0.382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.32|2.08|||1-way ANOVA|||||2.08|-5.32|=0.382
90843397|NCT01166282|181552204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.4|||=|0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.78|1.97|||1-way ANOVA|||||1.97|-8.78|=0.209
90843398|NCT01166282|181552205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.12|||=|0.509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.49|2.26|||1-way ANOVA|||||2.26|-4.49|=0.509
90843399|NCT01166282|181552206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.0|||=|0.514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.5|40.5|||Fisher Exact|||||40.5|-18.5|=0.514
90843400|NCT01166282|181552207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.7|||=|0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|57.5|||Fisher Exact|||||57.5|-2.0|=0.111
90843401|NCT01166282|181552208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|34.8|||=|0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.1|61.6|||Fisher Exact|||||61.6|8.1|=0.031
90843402|NCT02023697|181552220|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.057||||0.7047|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.878|1.272|||Log Rank||Arm B / Arm (A+C)|||1.272|0.878|0.7047
90843403|NCT02023697|181552222|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.26||||0.3134|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.939|1.69|||Log Rank||Arm C /Arm A|||1.690|0.939|0.3134
90843404|NCT02023697|181552226|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.075||||0.6205|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.892|1.297|||Log Rank||Arm B/Arm (A+C)|||1.297|0.892|0.6205
90843405|NCT02023697|181552228|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.999||||0.9958|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.744|1.341|||Log Rank||Arm C/Arm A|||1.341|0.744|0.9958
90843406|NCT02023697|181552232|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.068||||0.7461|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.823|1.385|||Log Rank||Arm B/Arm (A+C)|||1.385|0.823|0.7461
90898313|NCT04867785|181662852|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-50.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.94|-26.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-26.22|-74.94|<0.001
90843407|NCT02023697|181552234|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.549||||0.155|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.041|2.306|||Log Rank||Arm C/Arm A|||2.306|1.041|0.1550
90843408|NCT02023697|181552238|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.969||||0.8284|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.805|1.167|||Log Rank||Arm B/Arm (A+C)|||1.167|0.805|0.8284
90843409|NCT02023697|181552240|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.059||||0.7896|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.804|1.396|||Log Rank||Arm C/Arm A|||1.396|0.804|0.7896
90843410|NCT02023697|181552244|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.986||||0.9274|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.803|1.21|||Log Rank||Arm B/Arm (A+C)|||1.210|0.803|0.9274
90843411|NCT02023697|181552246|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.134||||0.5754|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.85|1.514|||Log Rank||Arm C/Arm A|||1.514|0.850|0.5754
90843412|NCT02023697|181552252|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.898||||0.6214|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.678|1.188|||Log Rank||Arm B/Arm (A+C)|||1.188|0.678|0.6214
90843413|NCT02023697|181552254|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.863||||0.7214|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.505|1.475|||Log Rank||Arm C/Arm A|||1.475|0.505|0.7214
90843414|NCT00541385|181552259|OTHER|"Analysis of the PCR-corrected ACPR response rate on Day 28 for the PA group. Null hypothesis: The PCR-corrected ACPR response rate on Day 28 for the PA group is ≤90%.~Was tested versus the alternative:~Alternative hypothesis: The PCR-corrected ACPR response rate on Day 28 for the PA group is \>90%."|||||<|0.0001||||||The threshold for significance was ≤0.025.|Exact binomial test|||||||<0.0001
90843415|NCT00541385|181552259|NON_INFERIORITY|The secondary efficacy analysis tested the non-inferiority of PA compared to the AL group with regard to the PCR-corrected ACPR response rate on Day 28 using a 2-sided 95% confidence interval (Newcombe Wilson score method without continuity correction) and a 10% non-inferiority margin for the EE population. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in 28-day PCR-corrected ACPR was not lower than 10%.|ACPR percent difference|-1.2||||0.3728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|2.1||If non-inferiority of PA was demonstrated, the p-value associated with a superiority test was calculated based on a 2-sided Chi-Square test. If the calculated p-value was \<0.05, then the superiority of PA over AL was statistically demonstrated.|Chi-squared|||"Null hypothesis: The PCR-corrected ACPR response rate on Day 28 for the PA group is inferior to the PCR-corrected ACPR response rate for the AL group.~Was tested versus the alternative:~Alternative hypothesis: The PCR-corrected ACPR response rate on Day 28 for the PA group is not inferior to the PCR-corrected ACPR response rate for the AL group."||2.1|-3.6|0.3728
90843416|NCT01469377|181552267|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.9||||0.2404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.6||p-values were from an mixed-effects model for repeated measures with treatment group, pooled study center, visit, and treatment-group-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and the baseline value and baseline value-by-visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed-effect model for repeated measures|p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the matched parallel gate-keeping procedure.||||0.6|-2.4|0.2404
90898314|NCT04867785|181662852|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|10.02||||0.362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.55|31.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||31.60|-11.55|0.362
90898315|NCT04867785|181662852|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|6.07||||0.696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.34|36.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||36.48|-24.34|0.696
91093943|NCT01129128|182072107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|39.0||||0.34||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|controlled for baseline levels||||||0.34
91093944|NCT01311661|182072118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.191|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.152|0.229|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2.5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.229|0.152|<0.0001
90843417|NCT01469377|181552267|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-2.2||||0.0114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|-0.6||p-values were from an mixed-effects model for repeated measures with treatment group, pooled study center, visit, and treatment-group-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and the baseline value and baseline value-by-visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed-effect model for repeated measures|p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the matched parallel gate-keeping procedure.||||-0.6|-3.7|0.0114
90843418|NCT01469377|181552268|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-1.1||||0.2404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.3||p-values were from an mixed-effects model for repeated measures with treatment group, pooled study center, visit, and treatment-group-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and the baseline value and baseline value-by-visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed-effect model for repeated measures|p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the matched parallel gate-keeping procedure.||||0.3|-2.5|0.2404
90843419|NCT01469377|181552268|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-1.4||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|0.0||p-values were from an mixed-effects model for repeated measures with treatment group, pooled study center, visit, and treatment-group-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and the baseline value and baseline value-by-visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed-effect model for repeated measures|p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the matched parallel gate-keeping procedure.||||0.0|-2.8|0.1140
90843420|NCT01526733|181552271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|2.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.71|2.71||Comparison of Day 1 Insulin (Aspart or Lispro)-rHuPH20 versus Day 1 Insulin-sham.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, day, and interaction of treatment with day was performed using a compound symmetric covariance matrix.||||2.71|1.71|<0.0001
90843421|NCT01526733|181552271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|2.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.08|3.29||Comparison of Day 4 Insulin (Aspart or Lispro)-rHuPH20 versus Day 1 Insulin-sham.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, day, and interaction of treatment with day was performed using a compound symmetric covariance matrix.||||3.29|2.08|<0.0001
90843422|NCT02453711|181552282|OTHER||Treatment difference (%-points)|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.13|=|0.0055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.55|-0.85|||ANCOVA||Semaglutide 0.05 mg - placebo pool|J2R-MI: Analysis of in-trial data with missing observations imputed from the pooled placebo arms based on a jump to reference multiple (x1000) imputation (J2R-MI) approach. Week 52 responses were analysed using an analysis of covariance model with treatment, region and sex as factors and baseline body weight as covariate. Dunnett's method was used to adjust for multiple comparisons.||-0.85|-6.55|=0.0055
90843423|NCT02453711|181552282|OTHER||Treatment difference (%-points)|-6.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.16|-3.49|||ANCOVA||Semaglutide 0.1 mg - placebo pool|J2R-MI: Analysis of in-trial data with missing observations imputed from the pooled placebo arms based on a jump to reference multiple (x1000) imputation (J2R-MI) approach. Week 52 responses were analysed using an analysis of covariance model with treatment, region and sex as factors and baseline body weight as covariate. Dunnett's method was used to adjust for multiple comparisons.||-3.49|-9.16|<0.0001
90843424|NCT02453711|181552282|OTHER||Treatment difference (%-points)|-9.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.15|-6.46|||ANCOVA||Semaglutide 0.2 mg - placebo pool|J2R-MI: Analysis of in-trial data with missing observations imputed from the pooled placebo arms based on a jump to reference multiple (x1000) imputation (J2R-MI) approach. Week 52 responses were analysed using an analysis of covariance model with treatment, region and sex as factors and baseline body weight as covariate. Dunnett's method was used to adjust for multiple comparisons.||-6.46|-12.15|<0.0001
90843425|NCT02453711|181552282|OTHER||Treatment difference (%-points)|-8.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.72|-6.03|||ANCOVA||Semaglutide 0.3 mg - placebo pool|J2R-MI: Analysis of in-trial data with missing observations imputed from the pooled placebo arms based on a jump to reference multiple (x1000) imputation (J2R-MI) approach. Week 52 responses were analysed using an analysis of covariance model with treatment, region and sex as factors and baseline body weight as covariate. Dunnett's method was used to adjust for multiple comparisons.||-6.03|-11.72|<0.0001
90843426|NCT02453711|181552282|OTHER||Treatment difference (%-points)|-11.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.38|-8.72|||ANCOVA||Semaglutide 0.4 mg - placebo pool|J2R-MI: Analysis of in-trial data with missing observations imputed from the pooled placebo arms based on a jump to reference multiple (x1000) imputation (J2R-MI) approach. Week 52 responses were analysed using an analysis of covariance model with treatment, region and sex as factors and baseline body weight as covariate. Dunnett's method was used to adjust for multiple comparisons.||-8.72|-14.38|<0.0001
90843427|NCT04546672|181552334|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.1||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.1|55.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||||55.4|-31.1|0.58
90843428|NCT04546672|181552335|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.2|15.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||||15.4|9.2|<0.001
90843429|NCT04546672|181552336|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|6.2|||Fisher Exact|||||6.2|0.9|0.087
90843430|NCT04546672|181552337|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.9||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.4|12.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||12.6|-26.4|0.48
91029161|NCT04634409|181941872|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.49||||0.663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|12.27|||Regression, Logistic|||||12.27|0.02|0.663
90843431|NCT04546672|181552338|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.7||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|31.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||31.1|2.3|0.02
90843432|NCT04546672|181552339|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|8.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||8.3|-2.2|0.27
90843433|NCT01397968|181552343|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum|||||||<0.0001
90843434|NCT01397968|181552344|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.0001
90843435|NCT02970162|181552345|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004||||||LS means|Least square means|Fixed effects treatment and QMG at Baseline. Between-treatment difference in LS means (95% CI) -6.54 (-9.78, -3.29).||||||0.0004
91029162|NCT04634409|181941872|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.51||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|12.76|||Regression, Logistic|||||12.76|0.02|0.680
90843436|NCT02970162|181552346|SUPERIORITY||LS means|2.95||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|4.38||CFB for SGI score was modeled as the response, with fixed effects terms for treatment and SGI at Baseline|Fixed effects linear model|This statistical test applies to the change from baseline SGI scores to Day 4 values row.||||4.38|1.53|0.0003
90843437|NCT02970162|181552347|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.0020
90843438|NCT02970162|181552348|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0112|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0112
90843439|NCT00750438|181552363|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.972|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.972
90843440|NCT00750438|181552364|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.559|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline and 24 weeks||||0.559
90843441|NCT00750438|181552364|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.062|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 24 weeks||||0.062
90843442|NCT00750438|181552364|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.099|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.099
90843443|NCT00750438|181552365|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.036
90843444|NCT00750438|181552366|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 24 weeks||||0.001
90843445|NCT00750438|181552366|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.723|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 24 weeks||||0.723
90843446|NCT00750438|181552366|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.027
90843447|NCT00750438|181552367|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.372|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.372
90843448|NCT00750438|181552367|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.644|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.644
90843449|NCT00750438|181552367|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.549|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.549
90898316|NCT04867785|181662852|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-11.19||||0.436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.38|16.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||16.99|-39.38|0.436
90843450|NCT03848728|181552368|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.16|||TMLE|||||1.16|1.03|0.0019
90843451|NCT00298558|181552397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|0.06||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-0.14|0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|The blom transformation was used to reduce skewness in the measures. The design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model.|Blom transformed outcome was used and the design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model to get the adjusted means. After that, the effect size (defined in the Additional details) was calculated using the adjusted means and SD.|Effect size was defined as training improvement from baseline to year 10 minus control improvement from baseline to year 10 divided by the intrasubject standard deviation (SD) of the composite score. Positive effect sizes indicate improvement.||0.27|-0.14|0.43
90843452|NCT00298558|181552397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|-0.11||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-0.31|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|The blom transformation was used to reduce skewness in the measures. The design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model.|Blom transformed outcome was used and the design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model to get the adjusted means. After that, the effect size (defined in the Additional details) was calculated using the adjusted means and SD.|Effect size was defined as training improvement from baseline to year 10 minus control improvement from baseline to year 10 divided by the intrasubject standard deviation (SD) of the composite score. Positive effect sizes indicate improvement.||0.10|-0.31|0.17
90843453|NCT00298558|181552397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|-0.05||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-0.25|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|The blom transformation was used to reduce skewness in the measures. The design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model.|Blom transformed outcome was used and the design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model to get the adjusted means. After that, the effect size (defined in the Additional details) was calculated using the adjusted means and SD.|Effect size was defined as training improvement from baseline to year 10 minus control improvement from baseline to year 10 divided by the intrasubject standard deviation (SD) of the composite score. Positive effect sizes indicate improvement.||0.15|-0.25|0.52
90843454|NCT00298558|181552400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|-0.02||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-0.17|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|The blom transformation was used to reduce skewness in the measures. The design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model.|Blom transformed outcome was used and the design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model to get the adjusted means. After that, the effect size (defined in the Additional details) was calculated using the adjusted means and SD.|Effect size was defined as training improvement from baseline to year 10 minus control improvement from baseline to year 10 divided by the intrasubject standard deviation (SD) of the composite score. Positive effect sizes indicate improvement.||0.12|-0.17|0.69
90843455|NCT00298558|181552400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|0.23|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.09|0.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|The blom transformation was used to reduce skewness in the measures. The design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model.|Blom transformed outcome was used and the design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model to get the adjusted means. After that, the effect size (defined in the Additional details) was calculated using the adjusted means and SD.|Effect size was defined as training improvement from baseline to year 10 minus control improvement from baseline to year 10 divided by the intrasubject standard deviation (SD) of the composite score. Positive effect sizes indicate improvement.||0.38|0.09|<0.01
90843456|NCT00298558|181552400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|-0.06||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-0.2|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|The blom transformation was used to reduce skewness in the measures. The design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model.|Blom transformed outcome was used and the design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model to get the adjusted means. After that, the effect size (defined in the Additional details) was calculated using the adjusted means and SD.|Effect size was defined as training improvement from baseline to year 10 minus control improvement from baseline to year 10 divided by the intrasubject standard deviation (SD) of the composite score. Positive effect sizes indicate improvement.||0.08|-0.20|0.27
90898317|NCT04867785|181662852|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-41.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.89|-20.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-20.25|-62.89|<0.001
90898318|NCT04867785|181662852|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-13.67||||0.418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.75|19.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||19.42|-46.75|0.418
90898319|NCT04867785|181662852|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-40.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.77|-19.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-19.85|-60.77|<0.001
90898320|NCT04867785|181662853|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.49||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|1.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.08|-2.07|0.540
90898321|NCT04867785|181662853|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-4.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.69|-2.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.13|-6.69|<0.001
91029163|NCT04634409|181941872|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.51||||0.584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|67.88|||Regression, Logistic|||||67.88|0.09|0.584
91029164|NCT04634409|181941874|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|6.06|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.06|0.17|0.979
91093945|NCT01311661|182072118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.111|0.189|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.189|0.111|<0.0001
90843457|NCT00298558|181552402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|-0.07||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-0.29|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|The blom transformation was used to reduce skewness in the measures. The design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model.|Blom transformed outcome was used and the design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model to get the adjusted means. After that, the effect size (defined in the Additional details) was calculated using the adjusted means and SD.|Effect size was defined as training improvement from baseline to year 10 minus control improvement from baseline to year 10 divided by the intrasubject standard deviation (SD) of the composite score. Positive effect sizes indicate improvement.||0.16|-0.29|0.45
90843458|NCT00298558|181552402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|0.005||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-0.22|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|The blom transformation was used to reduce skewness in the measures. The design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model.|Blom transformed outcome was used and the design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model to get the adjusted means. After that, the effect size (defined in the Additional details) was calculated using the adjusted means and SD.|Effect size was defined as training improvement from baseline to year 10 minus control improvement from baseline to year 10 divided by the intrasubject standard deviation (SD) of the composite score. Positive effect sizes indicate improvement.||0.23|-0.22|0.95
90843459|NCT00298558|181552402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|0.66|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.43|0.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|The blom transformation was used to reduce skewness in the measures. The design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model.|Blom transformed outcome was used and the design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model to get the adjusted means. After that, the effect size (defined in the Additional details) was calculated using the adjusted means and SD.|Effect size was defined as training improvement from baseline to year 10 minus control improvement from baseline to year 10 divided by the intrasubject standard deviation (SD) of the composite score. Positive effect sizes indicate improvement.||0.88|0.43|<0.01
90843460|NCT00298558|181552403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|0.48|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.12|0.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|The blom transformation was used to reduce skewness in the measures. The design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model.|Blom transformed outcome was used and the design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model to get the adjusted means. After that, the effect size (defined in the Additional details) was calculated using the adjusted means and SD.|Effect size was defined as training improvement from baseline to year 10 minus control improvement from baseline to year 10 divided by the intrasubject standard deviation (SD) of the composite score. Positive effect sizes indicate improvement.||0.84|0.12|<0.01
90843461|NCT00298558|181552403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|0.38|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.02|0.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|The blom transformation was used to reduce skewness in the measures. The design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model.|Blom transformed outcome was used and the design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model to get the adjusted means. After that, the effect size (defined in the Additional details) was calculated using the adjusted means and SD.|Effect size was defined as training improvement from baseline to year 10 minus control improvement from baseline to year 10 divided by the intrasubject standard deviation (SD) of the composite score. Positive effect sizes indicate improvement.||0.74|0.02|<0.01
90843462|NCT00298558|181552403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|0.36|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.01|0.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|The blom transformation was used to reduce skewness in the measures. The design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model.|Blom transformed outcome was used and the design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model to get the adjusted means. After that, the effect size (defined in the Additional details) was calculated using the adjusted means and SD.|Effect size was defined as training improvement from baseline to year 10 minus control improvement from baseline to year 10 divided by the intrasubject standard deviation (SD) of the composite score. Positive effect sizes indicate improvement.||0.72|0.01|<0.01
90843463|NCT00298558|181552404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|0.004||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-0.23|0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|The blom transformation was used to reduce skewness in the measures. The design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model.|Blom transformed outcome was used and the design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model to get the adjusted means. After that, the effect size (defined in the Additional details) was calculated using the adjusted means and SD.|Effect size was defined as training improvement from baseline to year 10 minus control improvement from baseline to year 10 divided by the intrasubject standard deviation (SD) of the composite score. Positive effect sizes indicate improvement.||0.24|-0.23|0.97
90898322|NCT04867785|181662853|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-6.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.47|-4.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.09|-9.47|<0.001
90898323|NCT04867785|181662853|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-10.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.24|-8.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.03|-12.24|<0.001
90898324|NCT04867785|181662853|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-12.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.06|-9.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-9.06|-15.06|<0.001
91029165|NCT04634409|181941874|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|7.39|||Regression, Logistic|||||7.39|0.27|0.675
91029166|NCT04634409|181941877|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.67||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|-0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.17|-1.17|0.009
91029167|NCT04634409|181941877|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.65||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.24|-1.06|0.002
91093946|NCT01311661|182072118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.228|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.19|0.266|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.266|0.190|<0.0001
90843464|NCT00298558|181552404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|-0.02||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-0.25|0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|The blom transformation was used to reduce skewness in the measures. The design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model.|Blom transformed outcome was used and the design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model to get the adjusted means. After that, the effect size (defined in the Additional details) was calculated using the adjusted means and SD.|Effect size was defined as training improvement from baseline to year 10 minus control improvement from baseline to year 10 divided by the intrasubject standard deviation (SD) of the composite score. Positive effect sizes indicate improvement.||0.22|-0.25|0.86
90843465|NCT00298558|181552404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|0.008||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-0.23|0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|The blom transformation was used to reduce skewness in the measures. The design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model.|Blom transformed outcome was used and the design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model to get the adjusted means. After that, the effect size (defined in the Additional details) was calculated using the adjusted means and SD.|Effect size was defined as training improvement from baseline to year 10 minus control improvement from baseline to year 10 divided by the intrasubject standard deviation (SD) of the composite score. Positive effect sizes indicate improvement.||0.24|-0.23|0.93
90843466|NCT00298558|181552405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|0.02||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-0.19|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|The blom transformation was used to reduce skewness in the measures. The design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model.|Blom transformed outcome was used and the design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model to get the adjusted means. After that, the effect size (defined in the Additional details) was calculated using the adjusted means and SD.|Effect size was defined as training improvement from baseline to year 10 minus control improvement from baseline to year 10 divided by the intrasubject standard deviation (SD) of the composite score. Positive effect sizes indicate improvement.||0.23|-0.19|0.78
90843467|NCT00298558|181552405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|-0.004||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-0.21|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|The blom transformation was used to reduce skewness in the measures. The design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model.|Blom transformed outcome was used and the design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model to get the adjusted means. After that, the effect size (defined in the Additional details) was calculated using the adjusted means and SD.|Effect size was defined as training improvement from baseline to year 10 minus control improvement from baseline to year 10 divided by the intrasubject standard deviation (SD) of the composite score. Positive effect sizes indicate improvement.||0.21|-0.21|0.96
90843468|NCT00298558|181552405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|-0.05||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-0.26|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|The blom transformation was used to reduce skewness in the measures. The design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model.|Blom transformed outcome was used and the design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model to get the adjusted means. After that, the effect size (defined in the Additional details) was calculated using the adjusted means and SD.|Effect size was defined as training improvement from baseline to year 10 minus control improvement from baseline to year 10 divided by the intrasubject standard deviation (SD) of the composite score. Positive effect sizes indicate improvement.||0.16|-0.26|0.56
90843469|NCT02581410|181552406|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority will be demonstrated if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval of the adjusted geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio (No prev- Zvax over Prev-Zvax) 1 month post-dose 2 is below 1.5 in terms of anti-gE antibodies.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.17|||ANCOVA|||To compare humoral immune responses at 1 month after dose 2 of GSK1437173A (Month 3) in subjects ≥ 65 years of age who received Zostavax ≥ 5 years earlier (Prev-Zvax) as compared to subjects who have never received Zostavax (No prev-Zvax).||1.17|0.92|
90843470|NCT00354432|181552426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3455|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed effects repeated measures analysis of variance was used with the baseline means constrained to be equal in the four groups.||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the hot flash severity score at 12 weeks.||||.3455
90843471|NCT00354432|181552427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2081|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis was that there was no difference in quality of life between the four groups at 12 weeks.||||0.2081
90843472|NCT03863080|181552444|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-56.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison between Placebo and RVT-1401 340 mg/week of Total IgG levels has been presented.|||||<0.0001
90843473|NCT03863080|181552444|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-74.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison between Placebo and RVT-1401 680 mg/week of Total IgG levels has been presented.|||||<0.0001
90843474|NCT03863080|181552445|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-62.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison between Placebo and RVT-1401 340 mg/week of IgG 1 subclass has been presented.|||||<0.001
90843475|NCT03863080|181552445|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-73.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison between Placebo and RVT-1401 680 mg/week of IgG 1 subclass has been presented.|||||<0.001
90843476|NCT03863080|181552445|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-52.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison between Placebo and RVT-1401 340 mg/week of IgG 2 subclass has been presented.|||||<0.001
90898325|NCT04867785|181662853|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-10.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.24|-8.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.73|-13.24|<0.001
90898326|NCT04867785|181662853|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.19||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.75|0.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.37|-2.75|0.135
90898327|NCT04867785|181662853|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-5.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.36|-2.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.86|-7.36|<0.001
90898328|NCT04867785|181662853|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-7.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.19|-4.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.77|-10.19|<0.001
90898329|NCT04867785|181662853|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-10.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.89|-8.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.77|-12.89|<0.001
91029168|NCT04634409|181941877|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.26||||0.263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.20|-0.72|0.263
91029169|NCT04634409|181941877|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.41||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.05|-0.87|0.083
91029170|NCT04634409|181941877|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.40|-1.35|<0.001
90843477|NCT03863080|181552445|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-61.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison between Placebo and RVT-1401 680 mg/week of IgG 2 subclass has been presented.|||||<0.001
90843478|NCT03863080|181552445|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-66.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison between Placebo and RVT-1401 340 mg/week of IgG 3 subclass has been presented.|||||<0.001
90843479|NCT03863080|181552445|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-80.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison between Placebo and RVT-1401 680 mg/week of IgG 3 subclass has been presented.|||||<0.001
90843480|NCT03863080|181552445|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-44.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison between Placebo and RVT-1401 340 mg/week of IgG 4 subclass has been presented.|||||<0.001
90843481|NCT03863080|181552445|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-61.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison between Placebo and RVT-1401 680 mg/week of IgG 4 subclass has been presented.|||||<0.001
90843482|NCT03863080|181552446|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-62.58||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison between Placebo and RVT-1401 340 mg/week of Anti-AChR-IgG has been presented.|||||0.0009
90843483|NCT03863080|181552446|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-101.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison between Placebo and RVT-1401 680 mg/week of Anti-AChR-IgG has been presented.|||||<0.0001
90843484|NCT01322945|181552462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
90843485|NCT05307692|181552470|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square (LS) Means|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.47||0.308|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.41|0.39|||Mixed model repeated measures|||||0.39|-3.41|0.308
90843486|NCT05307692|181552471|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square (LS) Means|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.42||0.282|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.33|0.29|||Mixed model repeated measures|||||0.29|-3.33|0.282
90843487|NCT01077050|181552498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Sensitivity to Melanoma|96.6|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|94.2|||The point estimate of the observed sensitivity that is based on generalized linear mixed model is equal to that calculated in the usual manner.|Clopper-Pearson 1-sided||||||94.2|
90843488|NCT01077050|181552498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Sensitivity to Basal Cell Carcinoma|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|92.6|100.0|||Clopper-Pearson 2-sided|Point estimate of the observed sensitivity for Basal Cell Carcinoma||||100|92.6|
90843489|NCT01077050|181552498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Observed sensitivity for squamous cell c|93.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.1|99.8|||Clopper-Pearson 2-sided|Point estimate of the observed sensitivity for squamous cell carcinoma||||99.8|68.1|
90843490|NCT01077050|181552498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.6|25.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Note that calculating odds ratio adjusting for subjects having multiple lesions, yields similar result.||||25.5|6.6|<0.0001
90843491|NCT05475483|181552500|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.27|||=|0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|-0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.03|-2.51|= 0.045
90843492|NCT05475483|181552501|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.22|||=|0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|5.37|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.37|0.91|= 0.078
90843493|NCT05475483|181552502|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.95||||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|4.76|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.76|0.80|0.143
90843494|NCT05475483|181552503|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.78|||=|0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.16|-3.40|= 0.032
91029171|NCT04634409|181941877|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.64||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.23|-1.52|0.149
91029172|NCT04634409|181941878|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.82||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.31|-1.33|0.002
91029173|NCT04634409|181941879|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.14||||0.606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.41|-0.70|0.606
91029174|NCT04634409|181941879|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.38||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.17|-0.93|0.170
91093947|NCT01311661|182072118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.209|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.17|0.247|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.247|0.170|<0.0001
90843495|NCT00684060|181552504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.6|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.05|0.95||Threshold 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|No adjustment for multiple comparisons||Comparison of change in global LVEF in the active group minus change in global LVEF in the control group. 80 percent power based on BOOST results||.95|-7.05|<0.05
90843496|NCT00684060|181552505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.3|||<|0.05||95.0|0.08|1.17|||Fisher Exact|||comparison of the proportion of events in patients in the active group to those in patients in the control group||1.17|0.08|<0.05
90843497|NCT00684060|181552506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.2|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|6.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of change in the active group minus change in global LVEF in the control group.||6.8|-9.3|<0.05
90843498|NCT00684060|181552507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.8|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|10.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of change in the active group minus change in global LVEF in the control group.||10.9|-9.5|<0.05
90843499|NCT00684060|181552508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.2|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|9.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of change in the active group minus change in the control group.||9.2|-4.1|<0.05
90843500|NCT00684060|181552509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.7|<|0.05||95.0|-9.9|6.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of change in the active group minus change in the control group.||6.9|-9.9|<0.05
91093948|NCT01311661|182072119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.15|0.229|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2.5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.229|0.150|<0.0001
90843501|NCT00684060|181552510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.4|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|1.3||Unadjusted|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of change in infarct zone wall motion in the active group minus change in global LVEF in the control group. 80 percent power based on BOOST results||1.3|-2.8|<0.05
90843502|NCT00684060|181552511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.9|<|0.05||95.0|-6.0|0.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of change in border zone wall motion in the active group minus change in global LVEF in the control group. 80 percent power based on BOOST results||0.8|-6.0|<0.05
90843503|NCT00702715|181552512|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 95% confidence interval for the estimated median treatment difference in recovery time must have fallen entirely within the pre-specified interval between -60 sec to +60 sec in order to claim equivalence|Median Difference (Final Values)|78.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.0|143.0|||Hodges-Lehmann and Moses||Estimated median treatment difference (severe renal impairment minus normal renal function) in recovery time (seconds)|||143.0|36.0|
90843504|NCT00702715|181552513|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For the secondary endpoint no equivalence margin was specified (i.e., no formal null-hypothesis was specified); the median difference and associated 95% CI were to further characterize the efficacy of severe renal impaired subjects and controls.|Median Difference (Final Values)|68.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.0|120.0|||Hodges-Lehmann and Moses||Estimated median treatment difference (severe renal impairment minus normal renal function) in recovery time (seconds)|||120.0|36.0|
90843505|NCT00702715|181552514|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For the secondary endpoint no equivalence margin was specified (i.e., no formal null-hypothesis was specified); the median difference and associated 95% CI were to further characterize the efficacy of severe renal impaired subjects and controls.|Median Difference (Final Values)|60.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.0|103.0|||Hodges-Lehmann and Moses||Estimated median treatment difference (severe renal impairment minus normal renal function) in recovery time (seconds)|||103.0|31.0|
90843506|NCT02641561|181552534|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.04
90843507|NCT00689260|181552535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.908||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||P-Value based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank-sum test for difference in medians between log aware and log unaware||||0.908
90843508|NCT02563067|181552563|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.69||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.96|||negative binomial regression model|adjusted p-value, closed testing procedure across the primary and key secondary null hypotheses. Overall type I error rate controlled at two-sided 5%.||||0.96|0.50|0.059
90843509|NCT02563067|181552563|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.72||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.01|||negative binomial regression model|adjusted p-value, closed testing procedure across the primary and key secondary null hypotheses. Overall type I error rate controlled at two-sided 5%.||||1.01|0.52|0.114
90843510|NCT02563067|181552564|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.15||||0.369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.32|||ANCOVA|adjusted p-value, closed testing procedure across the primary and key secondary null hypotheses. Overall type I error rate controlled at two-sided 5%.||||0.32|-0.02|0.369
90843511|NCT02563067|181552564|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.13||||0.824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.3|||ANCOVA|adjusted p-value, closed testing procedure across the primary and key secondary null hypotheses. Overall type I error rate controlled at two-sided 5%.||||0.30|-0.04|0.824
90843512|NCT02563067|181552565|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17||||0.369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.01|||ANCOVA|adjusted p-value, closed testing procedure across the primary and key secondary null hypotheses. Overall type I error rate controlled at two-sided 5%.||||0.01|-0.36|0.369
90843513|NCT02563067|181552565|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09||||0.824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.1|||ANCOVA|adjusted p-value, closed testing procedure across the primary and key secondary null hypotheses. Overall type I error rate controlled at two-sided 5%.||||0.10|-0.28|0.824
91029175|NCT04634409|181941885|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.73|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.73|0.53|0.890
91029176|NCT04634409|181941885|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|2.29|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.29|0.89|0.141
91093949|NCT01311661|182072119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.121|0.199|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.199|0.121|<0.0001
91093950|NCT01311661|182072119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.214|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.175|0.253|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.253|0.175|<0.0001
91029177|NCT04634409|181941885|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.98|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.98|0.67|0.603
91029178|NCT04634409|181941885|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.69||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.84|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.84|1.00|0.048
91093951|NCT01311661|182072119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.219|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.181|0.258|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.258|0.181|<0.0001
91093952|NCT01311661|182072120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.196|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.153|0.238|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2.5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.238|0.153|<0.0001
91093953|NCT01311661|182072120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.144|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.102|0.187|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.187|0.102|<0.0001
90843514|NCT02563067|181552566|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.068||||0.369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.018|0.154|||ANCOVA|adjusted p-value, closed testing procedure across the primary and key secondary null hypotheses. Overall type I error rate controlled at two-sided 5%.||||0.154|-0.018|0.369
90843515|NCT02563067|181552566|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.038||||0.824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.048|0.124|||ANCOVA|adjusted p-value, closed testing procedure across the primary and key secondary null hypotheses. Overall type I error rate controlled at two-sided 5%.||||0.124|-0.048|0.824
90843516|NCT02563067|181552567|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.82||||0.369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.07|||negative binomial regression model|adjusted p-value, closed testing procedure across the primary and key secondary null hypotheses. Overall type I error rate controlled at two-sided 5%.||||1.07|0.62|0.369
90843517|NCT02563067|181552567|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.76||||0.348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.0|||negative binomial regression model|adjusted p-value, closed testing procedure across the primary and key secondary null hypotheses. Overall type I error rate controlled at two-sided 5%.||||1.00|0.58|0.348
90843518|NCT02563067|181552568|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07||||0.824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.21|||ANCOVA|adjusted p-value, closed testing procedure across the primary and key secondary null hypotheses. Overall type I error rate controlled at two-sided 5%.||||0.21|-0.07|0.824
90843519|NCT02563067|181552568|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12||||0.824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.26|||ANCOVA|adjusted p-value, closed testing procedure across the primary and key secondary null hypotheses. Overall type I error rate controlled at two-sided 5%.||||0.26|-0.02|0.824
90843520|NCT02563067|181552569|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12||||0.824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.03|||ANCOVA|adjusted p-value, closed testing procedure across the primary and key secondary null hypotheses. Overall type I error rate controlled at two-sided 5%.||||0.03|-0.28|0.824
90843521|NCT02563067|181552569|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07||||0.824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.08|||ANCOVA|adjusted p-value, closed testing procedure across the primary and key secondary null hypotheses. Overall type I error rate controlled at two-sided 5%.||||0.08|-0.23|0.824
90843522|NCT02563067|181552570|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.019|0.119|||ANCOVA|adjusted p-value, closed testing procedure across the primary and key secondary null hypotheses. Overall type I error rate controlled at two-sided 5%.||||0.119|-0.019|0.369
90843523|NCT02563067|181552570|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.061||||0.595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.008|0.13|||ANCOVA|adjusted p-value, closed testing procedure across the primary and key secondary null hypotheses. Overall type I error rate controlled at two-sided 5%.||||0.130|-0.008|0.595
90843524|NCT01499277|181552602|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the observed difference in the primary outcome measures (clinical cure rates) between ceftaroline group and vancomycin plus aztreonam group were calculated in both MITT and CE Populations at the TOC visit. Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 95% CI was higher than -10% in both MITT and CE Populations.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|5.41||||RD is the difference in clinical cure rates (Ceftaroline minus Vancomycin/Aztreonam). CI was calculated by unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen CI.|CI for risk difference was estimated by 95% using unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen CI.|The primary objective of this study was to determine the noninferiority in the clinical cure rate for ceftaroline compared vancomycin plus azreonam group at TOC in both MITT and CE populations.||5.41|-6.9|
90843525|NCT01499277|181552603|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the observed difference in the primary outcome measures (clinical cure rates) between ceftaroline group and vancomycin plus aztreonam group were calculated in both MITT and CE Populations at the TOC visit. Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 95% CI was higher than -10% in both MITT and CE Populations. If non-inferioirity was achieved then a test of superioirty was conducted if lower limit of 95% CI for the difference was \>0%.|Risk Difference (RD)|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.32|7.48||||RD is the difference in clinical cure rates (Ceftaroline minus Vancomycin/Aztreonam).CI was calculated by unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen CI.|CI for risk difference was estimated by 95% using unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen CI.|The primary objective of this study was to determine the noninferiority in the clinical cure rate for ceftaroline compared vancomycin plus azreonam group at TOC in both MITT and CE populations.||7.48|-4.32|
90843526|NCT01499277|181552604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|1.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.21|10.39||||RD is the difference in favorable rates (Ceftaroline minus Vancomycin/Aztreonam).CI was calculated by unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen CI.|CI for risk difference was estimated by 95% using unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen CI.|||10.39|-6.21|
90843527|NCT01499277|181552605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|4.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|12.86||||RD is the difference in favorable rates (Ceftaroline minus Vancomycin/Aztreonam).CI was calculated by unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen CI.|CI for risk difference was estimated by 95% using unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen CI.|||12.86|-2.11|
91093954|NCT01311661|182072120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.242|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.2|0.285|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.285|0.200|<0.0001
91093955|NCT01311661|182072120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.198|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.156|0.241|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.241|0.156|<0.0001
91093956|NCT01311661|182072121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.183|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001||95.0|0.138|0.228|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2.5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.228|0.138|<0.0001
91093957|NCT01311661|182072121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.153|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001||95.0|0.108|0.198|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.198|0.108|<0.0001
90843528|NCT01499277|181552606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.05|7.06||||RD is the difference in cure rates (Ceftaroline minus Vancomycin/Aztreonam).CI was calculated by unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen CI.|CI for risk difference was estimated by 95% using unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen CI.|||7.06|-4.05|
90843529|NCT01499277|181552607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.19|8.73||||RD is the difference in cure rates (Ceftaroline minus Vancomycin/Aztreonam).CI was calculated by unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen CI.|CI for risk difference was estimated by 95% using unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen CI.|||8.73|-2.19|
90843530|NCT01499277|181552608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.98|1.18||||RD is the difference in relapse rates (Ceftaroline minus Vancomycin/Aztreonam).CI was calculated by unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen CI.|CI for risk difference was estimated by 95% using unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen CI.|||1.18|-3.98|
90843531|NCT01499277|181552609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.34|3.15||||RD is the difference in success rates (Ceftaroline minus Vancomycin/Aztreonam).CI was calculated by unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen CI.|CI for risk difference was estimated by 95% using unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen CI.|||3.15|-6.34|
90843532|NCT02974543|181552620|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
90843533|NCT02974543|181552621|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
90843534|NCT00220636|181552624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||t statistic|4.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|df=13||Null hypothesis would be no change in the HDRS score pre- to post- treatment with aripiprazole.||||<.001
90843535|NCT00220636|181552626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||t statistic|-3.1||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|df=13||Null hypothesis would be no change in the GAFS score pre- to post- treatment with aripiprazole.||||.009
91093958|NCT01311661|182072121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.222|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001||95.0|0.177|0.267|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.267|0.177|<0.0001
90843536|NCT00220636|181552627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||t statistic|3.1||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|df=13||Null hypothesis would be no change in the BDI score pre- to post- treatment with aripiprazole.||||.008
90843537|NCT03682770|181552666|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|20.23||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.266|39.189||The p-value was derived by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by screening peanut-specific IgE level and baseline body weight.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in percentage derived by Mantel-Haenszel (MH) method|||39.189|1.266|0.0420
90843538|NCT03682770|181552667|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.67||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.031|1.305||P-value is based on treatment difference (dupilumab + AR101 vs placebo + AR101) of the LS mean change using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model.|ANCOVA|||||1.305|0.031|0.0400
90843539|NCT03682770|181552668|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|11.91||||0.0806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.612|27.44||P-values were derived by CMH test stratified by screening peanut-specific IgE level (\<=100 kilo allergy unit per liter \[kUA/L\] vs \>100 kUA/L) and body weight (\<30 kg, \>=30 and \<60 kg, or \>=60 kg).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in percentage derived by MH method|||27.440|-3.612|0.0806
90843540|NCT03682770|181552670|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|10.4||||0.353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.668|32.474||P-values were derived by CMH test stratified by screening peanut-specific IgE level (\<=100 kUA/L vs \>100 kUA/L) and baseline body weight (\<30 kg, \>=30 kg and \<60 kg, or \>=60 kg).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in percentage derived by MH method|||32.474|-11.668|0.3530
90843541|NCT03682770|181552671|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.37||||0.2628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.281|1.029||P-value is based on treatment difference of the LS mean change using ANCOVA model with baseline tolerated cumulative amount of peanut protein DBPCFC (log transformed) as covariate and the treatment screening peanut-specific IgE level and baseline.|ANCOVA|||||1.029|-0.281|0.2628
90843542|NCT03682770|181552672|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-2.36||||0.814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.004|20.282||P-values were derived by CMH test stratified by screening peanut-specific IgE level (\<=100 kUA/L vs \>100 kUA/L) and baseline body weight (\<30 kg, \>=30 kg and \<60 kg, or \>=60 kg).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in percentage derived by MH method|||20.282|-25.004|0.8140
90843543|NCT03682770|181552673|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.05||||0.8805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.699|0.599||P-value is based on treatment difference of the LS mean change using ANCOVA model with baseline tolerated cumulative amount of peanut protein DBPCFC (log transformed) as covariate and the treatment screening peanut-specific IgE level and baseline.|ANCOVA|||||0.599|-0.699|0.8805
90898330|NCT04867785|181662853|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-12.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.74|-9.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-9.77|-15.74|<0.001
90898331|NCT04867785|181662853|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-11.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|-9.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-9.47|-13.90|<0.001
90898332|NCT04867785|181662854|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.03||||0.979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|2.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.12|-2.18|0.979
91093959|NCT01311661|182072121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001||95.0|0.165|0.255|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.255|0.165|<0.0001
91093960|NCT01311661|182072122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.156|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001||95.0|0.109|0.203|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2.5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.203|0.109|<0.0001
90843544|NCT03682770|181552675|SUPERIORITY||Difference percentage|-85.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-99.47|-73.91||P-value was based on treatment difference (vs. Continuously on Placebo + AR101) in percent change from baseline using rank-based ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate,- and stratification factors and the treatment as fixed factors.|ANCOVA||Median difference and its 95% CIs were estimated with the Hodges-Lehmann method.|||-73.91|-99.47|<0.0001
90843545|NCT03682770|181552676|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-68.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-86.71|-56.4||P-value was based on treatment difference (vs. Continuously on Placebo + AR101) in percent change from baseline using rank-based ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate, and stratification factors and the treatment as fixed factors.|ANCOVA||Median difference and its 95% CIs were estimated with the Hodges-Lehmann method.|||-56.40|-86.71|<0.0001
90843546|NCT02362282|181552677|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.54
90843547|NCT02004093|181552679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3967|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.3967
90843548|NCT02004093|181552679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4552|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4552
90843549|NCT02004093|181552679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.3972|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.92|1.49||p-value resulting from Wald test of null hypothesis that the hazard ratio equals (=) 1|Wald test|||||1.49|0.92|0.3972
90843550|NCT02004093|181552680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Response Rates|6.32||||0.3943|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.9|16.6|||Chi-squared|||||16.6|-3.9|0.3943
90843551|NCT02004093|181552680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.86|2.17|||||approximate 80% confidence interval (CI) for difference of two rates using Hauck-Anderson method|||2.17|0.86|
90843552|NCT02004093|181552681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3655|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.3655
90843553|NCT02004093|181552681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1319|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1319
90843554|NCT02004093|181552681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.22||||0.3679|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.92|1.61|||Wald test|p-value resulting from Wald test of null hypothesis that the hazard ratio=1||||1.61|0.92|0.3679
90843555|NCT02004093|181552684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8129|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.8129
90843556|NCT02004093|181552684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.692|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6920
90843557|NCT02004093|181552684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.8137|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.82|1.32|||Wald test|p-value resulting from Wald test of null hypothesis that the hazard ratio=1||||1.32|0.82|0.8137
90843558|NCT02004093|181552687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5726|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.5726
91093961|NCT01311661|182072122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.101|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001||95.0|0.054|0.148|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.148|0.054|<0.0001
90843559|NCT02004093|181552687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3903|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3903
90843560|NCT02004093|181552687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.587|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.87|1.43|||Wald test|p-value resulting from Wald test of null hypothesis that the hazard ratio=1||||1.43|0.87|0.5870
90843561|NCT02004093|181552689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9261|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.9261
90843562|NCT02004093|181552689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8591|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8591
90843563|NCT02004093|181552689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.9262|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.74|1.41||p-value resulting from Wald test of null hypothesis that the hazard ratio=1|Wald test|||||1.41|0.74|0.9262
90843564|NCT01317277|181552697|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68||||||In between-group analyses, overall MEMS adherence was defined as % of doses taken.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Non-parametric methods.||Randomization strategy for target 75 participants of 2:1 \[iTAB(n=50):CTRL(n=25)\], resulting in 80% power to detect effect size of .71 for difference of adherence rates between groups (Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney critical t=1.99, df=69.6). Final # analyzed: iTAB (n=43) \& CTRL (n=23).||||0.68
90843565|NCT01317277|181552698|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95||||||MEMS adherence based on dose timing was examined for between-group differences.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Non-parametric methods||Randomization strategy for target 75 participants of 2:1 \[iTAB(n=50):CTRL(n=25)\], resulting in 80% power to detect effect size of .71 for difference of adherence rates between groups (Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney critical t=1.99, df=69.6). Final # analyzed: iTAB (n=43) \& CTRL (n=23).||||0.95
90843566|NCT01317277|181552699|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||Z = -1.97|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Non-parametric methods; P-Value is calculated.||Text-reported METH use days||||0.05
90843567|NCT02688777|181552707|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio, log|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90898333|NCT04867785|181662854|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-4.0||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.32|-0.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.68|-7.32|0.018
90843568|NCT02688777|181552708|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.37|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for significance is p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.37
90843569|NCT02688777|181552709|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.13|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold set for p \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.13
90843570|NCT02688777|181552710|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.4|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold p \< 0.05 for statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.40
90843571|NCT02688777|181552711|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.12
90843572|NCT02688777|181552712|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.43|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold set at p \< 0.05 for statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.43
90898334|NCT04867785|181662854|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-7.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.46|-3.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.71|-10.46|<0.001
90898335|NCT04867785|181662854|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-13.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.74|-9.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-9.66|-16.74|<0.001
91029179|NCT04634409|181941885|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|2.04|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.04|0.69|0.533
90843573|NCT02688777|181552713|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||A prior threshold for significance set at p \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
90843574|NCT02688777|181552714|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.9||0.28|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.28
90843575|NCT02688777|181552715|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.22|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.22
90843576|NCT02688777|181552716|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.10
90843577|NCT02688777|181552717|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.09
90843578|NCT02688777|181552718|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.11
90843579|NCT02688777|181552719|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.28
90843580|NCT02549365|181552720|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|13.9|||||Incidence of laboratory confirmed influenza is compared between those vaccinated and household controls. VE will be calculated as 1 - RR with 95% confidence intervals using Poisson regression.|||13.9|0.6|
90843581|NCT01262989|181552730|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This is a bioequivalence study performed to support the register of tamsulosin hydrochloride, produced by Synthon BV, as a branded generic, to be marketed by GlaxoSmithKline Brasil Ltda., according to the requirements of the Brazilian Regulatory Agency - National Agency of Sanitary Surveillance (ANVISA).|Ratio T formulation/R formulation|102.95||||||90.0|97.17|109.07|||||The ratios between the geometric means of the test (T) and reference (R) formulations was calculated.|||109.07|97.17|
90843582|NCT01262989|181552731|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This is a bioequivalence study performed to support the register of tamsulosin hydrochloride, produced by Synthon BV, as a branded generic, to be marketed by GlaxoSmithKline Brasil Ltda., according to the requirements of the Brazilian Regulatory Agency - National Agency of Sanitary Surveillance (ANVISA).|Ratio T formulation/R formulation|102.79||||||90.0|96.99|108.93|||||The ratios between the geometric means of the test (T) and reference (R) formulations was calculated.|||108.93|96.99|
90843583|NCT01262989|181552732|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This is a bioequivalence study performed to support the register of tamsulosin hydrochloride, produced by Synthon BV, as a branded generic, to be marketed by GlaxoSmithKline Brasil Ltda., according to the requirements of the Brazilian Regulatory Agency - National Agency of Sanitary Surveillance (ANVISA).|Ratio T formulation/R formulation|94.47||||||90.0|87.59|101.9|||||The ratios between the geometric means of the test (T) and reference (R) formulations was calculated.|||101.90|87.59|
90843584|NCT03599089|181552733|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.005
90843585|NCT03599089|181552734|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0245|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.0245
91029180|NCT04634409|181941885|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.99|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.99|0.40|0.869
90843586|NCT03599089|181552735|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0019|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0019
90843587|NCT03511937|181552763|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-31.4||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.9|-5.0||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Two-part regression model with robust SE|Analyses controlled for overweight/obese status and Hispanic ethnicity, which were unbalanced between arms, and estimated Huber-White robust SEs.||||-5.0|-57.9|0.02
90843588|NCT03511937|181552764|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-69.4||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-295.5|156.6||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Analyses controlled for overweight/obese status and Hispanic ethnicity, which were unbalanced between arms, and estimated Huber-White robust SEs.||||156.6|-295.5|0.55
90843589|NCT03511937|181552765|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.0||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.0|-4.0||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Analyses controlled for overweight/obesity status and Hispanic ethnicity, which were unbalanced between treatment arms.|Analyses used logistic regression to calculate mean difference in predicted probability of purchasing a sugar-sweetened beverage.|||-4|-23|0.006
90843590|NCT03511937|181552766|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.1||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Negative binomial regression|Analyses controlled for overweight/obesity status and Hispanic ethnicity, which were unbalanced between arms, and estimated Huber-White robust SEs.||||-0.1|-0.4|0.010
90843591|NCT03511937|181552767|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.5||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Analyses controlled for obesity status and Hispanic ethnicity, which were unbalanced between arms, and estimated Huber-White robust standard errors.||||0.5|-0.2|0.403
90843592|NCT03511937|181552768|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.8||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Analyses controlled for overweight/obese status and Hispanic ethnicity, which were unbalanced between arms, and estimated Huber-White robust SEs.||||0.8|0.1|0.005
90843593|NCT03511937|181552769|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|37.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.0|43.0||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Analyses controlled for overweight/obese status and Hispanic ethnicity, which were unbalanced between treatment arms.|Analyses used logistic regression to calculate mean difference in predicted probability of purchasing a sugar-sweetened beverage.|||43|32|<0.001
90843594|NCT03511937|181552770|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|1.9||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Analyses controlled for overweight/obese status and Hispanic ethnicity, which were unbalanced between arms, and estimated Huber-White robust SEs.||||1.9|1.4|<0.001
90843595|NCT03511937|181552771|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.5||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Analyses controlled for overweight/obese status and Hispanic ethnicity, which were unbalanced between arms, and estimated Huber-White robust SEs.||||0.5|0.3|<0.001
90898336|NCT04867785|181662854|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-12.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|-9.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-9.18|-16.50|<0.001
91029181|NCT04634409|181941886|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.35|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.35|0.72|0.374
91029182|NCT04634409|181941887|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.87||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|3.08|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.08|1.13|0.015
91093962|NCT01311661|182072122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.196|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001||95.0|0.149|0.243|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.243|0.149|<0.0001
91093963|NCT01311661|182072122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.172|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001||95.0|0.125|0.219|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.219|0.125|<0.0001
91093964|NCT01311661|182072123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.136|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001||95.0|0.091|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2.5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.180|0.091|<0.0001
90843596|NCT03511937|181552772|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.3||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Analyses controlled for overweight/obese status and Hispanic ethnicity, which were unbalanced between arms, and estimated Huber-White robust SEs.||||1.3|0.9|<0.001
90843597|NCT03511937|181552773|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.1||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Analyses controlled for overweight/obese status and Hispanic ethnicity, which were unbalanced between arms, and estimated Huber-White robust SEs.||||1.1|0.7|<0.001
90843598|NCT03511937|181552774|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|0.13||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Analyses controlled for overweight/obese status and Hispanic ethnicity, which were unbalanced between arms, and estimated Huber-White robust SEs.||||0.13|-0.001|0.055
90843599|NCT03511937|181552775|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.07||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Analyses controlled for overweight/obese status and Hispanic ethnicity, which were unbalanced between arms, and estimated Huber-White robust SEs.||||0.07|-0.27|0.258
90843600|NCT03511937|181552776|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.13||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Analyses controlled for overweight/obese status and Hispanic ethnicity, which were unbalanced between arms, and estimated Huber-White robust SEs.||||0.13|-0.30|0.416
90843601|NCT03511937|181552777|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.24||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Analyses controlled for overweight/obese status and Hispanic ethnicity, which were unbalanced between arms, and estimated Huber-White robust SEs.||||0.24|-0.14|0.609
90843602|NCT03511937|181552778|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.5||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Analyses controlled for overweight/obese status and Hispanic ethnicity, which were unbalanced between arms, and estimated Huber-White robust SEs.||||0.5|0.1|0.002
90843603|NCT03511937|181552779|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|2.3||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Analyses controlled for overweight/obese status and Hispanic ethnicity, which were unbalanced between arms, and estimated Huber-White robust SEs.||||2.3|1.8|<0.001
90843604|NCT03511937|181552780|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.07||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Analyses controlled for overweight/obese status and Hispanic ethnicity, which were unbalanced between arms, and estimated Huber-White robust SEs.||||0.07|-0.23|0.311
90843605|NCT03511937|181552781|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11||||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.08||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Analyses controlled for overweight/obese status and Hispanic ethnicity, which were unbalanced between arms, and estimated Huber-White robust SEs.||||0.08|-0.30|0.253
90843606|NCT03511937|181552782|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.14||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Analyses controlled for overweight/obese status and Hispanic ethnicity, which were unbalanced between arms, and estimated Huber-White robust SEs.||||0.14|-0.22|0.658
90843607|NCT03511937|181552783|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-49.5||||0.661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-271.3|172.3||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Analyses controlled for overweight/obese status and Hispanic ethnicity, which were unbalanced between arms, and estimated Huber-White robust SEs.||||172.3|-271.3|0.661
90898337|NCT04867785|181662854|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-13.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|-10.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-10.71|-17.10|<0.001
91093965|NCT01311661|182072123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.122|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001||95.0|0.078|0.167|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.167|0.078|<0.0001
90843608|NCT03511937|181552784|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.5||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|26.6||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Two-part regression model with robust SE|Analyses controlled for overweight/obese status and Hispanic ethnicity, which were unbalanced between arms, and estimated Huber-White robust SEs.||||26.6|-1.6|0.082
90843609|NCT02983552|181552785|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.7||a priori threshold for statistical significance: 2-sided type I error rate of 5%|ANOVA|Adjusted for baseline amblyopic-eye visual acuity.|A 2-sided 95% confidence interval was computed on the adjusted treatment group difference evaluating change in amblyopic-eye visual acuity from baseline to the 4 week visit.|A modified intent-to-treat analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model to compare the effectiveness of two treatments (2-sided hypothesis test), adjusting for baseline visual acuity. The primary outcome measure was change in amblyopic-eye VA from baseline to 4 weeks. A 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was computed on the adjusted treatment group difference at 4 weeks. There was no imputation for missing data.||1.7|-2.2|0.71
90898338|NCT04867785|181662854|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.34||||0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.45|0.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.77|-3.45|0.213
90898339|NCT04867785|181662854|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-5.31||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.66|-1.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.97|-8.66|0.002
91093966|NCT01311661|182072123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.142|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.098|0.186|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.186|0.098|<0.0001
91093967|NCT01311661|182072123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.147|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.103|0.191|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.191|0.103|<0.0001
90843610|NCT02983552|181552787|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|98.3|-2.4|2.1|||||A 2-sided 98.3% confidence interval was computed on the adjusted treatment group difference evaluating change in amblyopic-eye visual acuity from baseline to the 8-week visit.|||2.1|-2.4|
90843611|NCT02983552|181552793|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|98.3|-13.0|9.0||||||Binomial regression was used for the treatment group comparison of the proportion of participants classified as improving 2 or more logMAR lines (10 or more letters if E-ETDRS) from baseline at the 4-week visit, adjusted for visual acuity at randomization.||9|-13|
90843612|NCT02983552|181552794|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|98.3|-15.0|12.0||||||Binomial regression was used for the treatment group comparison of the proportion of participants classified as improving 2 or more logMAR lines (10 or more letters if E-ETDRS) from baseline at the 8-week visit, adjusted for visual acuity at randomization.|For secondary visual acuity outcomes, which included the 8-week treatment group comparison, a Bonferroni adjustment was used to control for multiple testing (3 outcomes tested) to preserve the overall type I error rate at 5% (2-sided alpha=0.017 per test).|12|-15|
90843613|NCT02983552|181552796|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38||||||The exact Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to compare the change in stereoacuity levels from baseline to the 4-week visit by treatment group.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.38
90843614|NCT02983552|181552798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53||||||The exact Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to compare the change in stereoacuity levels from baseline to the 8-week visit by treatment group.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.53
90843615|NCT02983552|181552800|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19||||||The exact Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to compare the change in stereoacuity levels from baseline to the 4-week visit by treatment group for participants without strabismus.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.19
90843616|NCT02983552|181552802|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74||||||The exact Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to compare the change in stereoacuity levels from baseline to the 8-week visit by treatment group for participants without strabismus.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.74
90843617|NCT02983552|181552807|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|-2.5|0.4|||||Statistical significance of the treatment group comparison was based on a 2-sided alpha=0.01.|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used to compute the treatment group difference in the mean change in fellow-eye visual acuity (letters) from baseline to 4 weeks, adjusting for fellow-eye visual acuity at randomization. A 2-sided 99% confidence interval was computed on the adjusted treatment group difference.||0.4|-2.5|
90843618|NCT02983552|181552808|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|-2.3|0.3|||||Statistical significance of the treatment group comparison was based on a 2-sided alpha=0.01.|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used to compute the treatment group difference in the mean change in fellow-eye visual acuity (letters) from baseline to 8 weeks, adjusting for fellow-eye visual acuity at randomization. A 2-sided 99% confidence interval was computed on the adjusted treatment group difference.||0.3|-2.3|
90843619|NCT02983552|181552809|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to perform the treatment group comparison of the proportion of participants who developed a new ocular deviation and/or worsening of a pre-existing ocular deviation by 10 prism diopters at the 4-week visit.||||0.37
90843620|NCT02983552|181552810|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to perform the treatment group comparison of the proportion of participants who developed a new ocular deviation and/or worsening of a pre-existing ocular deviation by 10 prism diopters at the 8-week visit.||||0.99
90843621|NCT02983552|181552811|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Cochran-Armitage trend test|||The frequency of diplopia, across categories of diplopia, was compared between the treatment groups using the Cochran-Armitage trend test.||||0.20
90843622|NCT02983552|181552812|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Cochran-Armitage trend test|||The frequency of diplopia, across categories of diplopia, was compared between the treatment groups using the Cochran-Armitage trend test.||||>0.99
90843623|NCT02983552|181552813|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exact Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to compare the change in diplopia frequency levels from baseline to the 4-week visit by treatment group.||||0.44
91093968|NCT01311661|182072124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.158|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001||95.0|0.11|0.206|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2.5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.206|0.110|<0.0001
91093969|NCT01311661|182072124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.137|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001||95.0|0.09|0.185|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.185|0.090|<0.0001
91029183|NCT04634409|181941887|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.11|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.11|0.78|0.317
90843624|NCT02983552|181552814|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exact Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to compare the change in diplopia frequency levels from baseline to the 8-week visit by treatment group.||||>0.99
90843625|NCT02983552|181552815|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Cochran-Armitage trend test|||The frequency of diplopia, across categories of diplopia, was compared between the treatment groups using the Cochran-Armitage trend test.||||0.12
90843626|NCT02983552|181552816|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Cochran-Armitage trend test|||The frequency of diplopia, across categories of diplopia, was compared between the treatment groups using the Cochran-Armitage trend test.||||>0.99
90843627|NCT02983552|181552817|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exact Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to compare the change in diplopia frequency levels from baseline to the 4-week visit by treatment group.||||0.12
91029184|NCT04634409|181941890|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.62||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|2.81|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.81|0.94|0.082
90898340|NCT04867785|181662854|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-8.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.76|-5.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.04|-11.76|<0.001
91093970|NCT01311661|182072124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001||95.0|0.123|0.218|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.218|0.123|<0.0001
90898341|NCT04867785|181662854|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-14.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|-11.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-11.01|-18.00|<0.001
90898342|NCT04867785|181662854|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-14.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.77|-10.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-10.54|-17.77|<0.001
91093971|NCT01311661|182072124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.135|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001||95.0|0.087|0.182|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.182|0.087|<0.0001
90843628|NCT02983552|181552818|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exact Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to compare the change in diplopia frequency levels from baseline to the 8-week visit by treatment group.||||>0.99
90843629|NCT02983552|181552821|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For each Symptom Survey item, the exact Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to compare the change in symptom frequency level from baseline to the 4-week visit by treatment group.||||0.07
90843630|NCT02983552|181552822|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For each Symptom Survey item, the exact Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to compare the change in symptom frequency level from baseline to the 8-week visit by treatment group. This was utilized for each item in the survey.||||0.06
90843631|NCT02983552|181552825|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.01||||||Statistical significance of the interaction term was based on a 2-sided alpha=0.01.|ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was performed to test the 2-way interaction between treatment group with each factor (baseline age and visual acuity were treated as continuous factors), adjusting for baseline amblyopic-eye visual acuity and the nested terms from the interaction term. Formal subgroup analyses were only performed if there was a minimum of 20 participants in every subgroup category across both treatment groups for factors treated as categorical variables in the model.||||>0.01
90843632|NCT02637037|181552849|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CIs for both dapagliflozin and metformin geometric mean ratio of AUC is entirely contained within an 80.00% to 125.00% interval, it will be concluded the 2 manufacturing sites are bioequivalent.|Ratios of Geometric means|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|0.99||||||Dapagliflozin: Statistical Assessment of Bioequivalence for Dapagliflozin following administration Dapagliflozin/Metformin XR 5/500 mg for Treatment A and B.||0.99|0.93|
90843633|NCT02637037|181552849|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CIs for both dapagliflozin and metformin geometric mean ratio of AUC is entirely contained within an 80.00% to 125.00% interval, it will be concluded the 2 manufacturing sites are bioequivalent.|Ratios of Geometric means|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.01||||||Dapagliflozin: Statistical Assessment of Bioequivalence for Dapagliflozin following administration Dapagliflozin/Metformin XR 5/500 mg for Treatment C and D.||1.01|0.96|
90843634|NCT02637037|181552849|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CIs for both dapagliflozin and metformin geometric mean ratio of AUC is entirely contained within an 80.00% to 125.00% interval, it will be concluded the 2 manufacturing sites are bioequivalent.|Ratios of Geometric means|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|1.0||||||Dapagliflozin: Statistical Assessment of Bioequivalence for Dapagliflozin following administration Dapagliflozin/Metformin XR 10/1000 mg for Treatment E and F.||1.00|0.94|
90843635|NCT02637037|181552849|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CIs for both dapagliflozin and metformin geometric mean ratio of AUC is entirely contained within an 80.00% to 125.00% interval, it will be concluded the 2 manufacturing sites are bioequivalent.|Ratios of Geometric means|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|1.0||||||Dapagliflozin: Statistical Assessment of Bioequivalence for Dapagliflozin following administration Dapagliflozin/Metformin XR 10/1000 mg for Treatment G and H.||1.00|0.95|
90843636|NCT02637037|181552849|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CIs for both dapagliflozin and metformin geometric mean ratio of AUC is entirely contained within an 80.00% to 125.00% interval, it will be concluded the 2 manufacturing sites are bioequivalent.|Ratios of Geometric means|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.06||||||Metformin: Statistical Assessment of Bioequivalence for Metformin following administration Dapagliflozin/Metformin XR 5/500 mg for Treatment A and B.||1.06|0.96|
90843637|NCT02637037|181552849|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CIs for both dapagliflozin and metformin geometric mean ratio of AUC is entirely contained within an 80.00% to 125.00% interval, it will be concluded the 2 manufacturing sites are bioequivalent.|Ratios of Geometric means|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|1.07||||||Metformin: Statistical Assessment of Bioequivalence for Metformin following administration Dapagliflozin/Metformin XR 5/500 mg for Treatment C and D.||1.07|0.93|
90898343|NCT04867785|181662854|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-15.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.36|-12.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-12.07|-18.36|<0.001
90898344|NCT01486758|181662856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.6
90898345|NCT01486758|181662860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.048
90898346|NCT03926065|181662883|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.126|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Standard Palatability (Standard Portion Size and Larger Portion Size) compared to Enhanced Palatability (Standard Portion Size and Larger Portion Size)||||0.1260
90898347|NCT03926065|181662883|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Standard Portion Size (Standard Palatability and Enhanced Palatability) compared to Larger Portion Size (Standard Palatability and Enhanced Palatability)||||<0.0001
90898348|NCT03926065|181662883|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0992|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Interaction between Portion Size and Palatability||||0.0992
90898349|NCT03926065|181662884|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5502|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Standard Palatability (Standard Portion Size and Larger Portion Size) compared to Enhanced Palatability (Standard Portion Size and Larger Portion Size)||||0.5502
90898350|NCT03926065|181662884|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0072|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Standard Portion Size (Standard Palatability and Enhanced Palatability) compared to Larger Portion Size (Standard Palatability and Enhanced Palatability)||||0.0072
91029185|NCT04634409|181941890|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.86||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|3.11|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.11|1.11|0.018
90843638|NCT02637037|181552849|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CIs for both dapagliflozin and metformin geometric mean ratio of AUC is entirely contained within an 80.00% to 125.00% interval, it will be concluded the 2 manufacturing sites are bioequivalent.|Ratios of Geometric means|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.99|1.11||||||Metformin: Statistical Assessment of Bioequivalence for Metformin following administration Dapagliflozin/Metformin XR 10/1000 mg for Treatment E and F.||1.11|0.99|
90843639|NCT02637037|181552849|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CIs for both dapagliflozin and metformin geometric mean ratio of AUC is entirely contained within an 80.00% to 125.00% interval, it will be concluded the 2 manufacturing sites are bioequivalent.|Ratios of Geometric means|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.1||||||Metformin: Statistical Assessment of Bioequivalence for Metformin following administration Dapagliflozin/Metformin XR 10/1000 mg for Treatment G and H.||1.10|0.96|
90843640|NCT02637037|181552850|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CIs for both dapagliflozin and metformin geometric mean ratio of AUC is entirely contained within an 80.00% to 125.00% interval, it will be concluded the 2 manufacturing sites are bioequivalent.|Ratios of Geometric means|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|0.99||||||Dapagliflozin: Statistical Assessment of Bioequivalence for Dapagliflozin following administration Dapagliflozin/Metformin XR 5/500 mg for Treatment A and B.||0.99|0.94|
90843641|NCT02637037|181552850|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CIs for both dapagliflozin and metformin geometric mean ratio of AUC is entirely contained within an 80.00% to 125.00% interval, it will be concluded the 2 manufacturing sites are bioequivalent.|Ratios of Geometric means|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.02||||||Dapagliflozin: Statistical Assessment of Bioequivalence for Dapagliflozin following administration Dapagliflozin/Metformin XR 5/500 mg for Treatment C and D.||1.02|0.97|
90843642|NCT02637037|181552850|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CIs for both dapagliflozin and metformin geometric mean ratio of AUC is entirely contained within an 80.00% to 125.00% interval, it will be concluded the 2 manufacturing sites are bioequivalent.|Ratios of Geometric means|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|0.98||||||Dapagliflozin: Statistical Assessment of Bioequivalence for Dapagliflozin following administration Dapagliflozin/Metformin XR 10/1000 mg for Treatment E and F.||0.98|0.93|
90843643|NCT02637037|181552850|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CIs for both dapagliflozin and metformin geometric mean ratio of AUC is entirely contained within an 80.00% to 125.00% interval, it will be concluded the 2 manufacturing sites are bioequivalent.|Ratios of Geometric means|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|1.0||||||Dapagliflozin: Statistical Assessment of Bioequivalence for Dapagliflozin following administration Dapagliflozin/Metformin XR 10/1000 mg for Treatment G and H.||1.00|0.95|
90843644|NCT02637037|181552850|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CIs for both dapagliflozin and metformin geometric mean ratio of AUC is entirely contained within an 80.00% to 125.00% interval, it will be concluded the 2 manufacturing sites are bioequivalent.|Ratios of Geometric means|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.08||||||Metformin: Statistical Assessment of Bioequivalence for Metformin following administration Dapagliflozin/Metformin XR 5/500 mg for Treatment A and B.||1.08|0.97|
90843645|NCT02637037|181552850|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CIs for both dapagliflozin and metformin geometric mean ratio of AUC is entirely contained within an 80.00% to 125.00% interval, it will be concluded the 2 manufacturing sites are bioequivalent.|Ratios of Geometric means|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|1.06||||||Metformin: Statistical Assessment of Bioequivalence for Metformin following administration Dapagliflozin/Metformin XR 5/500 mg for Treatment C and D.||1.06|0.95|
90843646|NCT02637037|181552850|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CIs for both dapagliflozin and metformin geometric mean ratio of AUC is entirely contained within an 80.00% to 125.00% interval, it will be concluded the 2 manufacturing sites are bioequivalent.|Ratios of geometric means|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.09||||||Metformin: Statistical Assessment of Bioequivalence for Metformin following administration Dapagliflozin/Metformin XR 10/1000 mg for Treatment E and F.||1.09|0.97|
90843647|NCT02637037|181552850|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CIs for both dapagliflozin and metformin geometric mean ratio of AUC is entirely contained within an 80.00% to 125.00% interval, it will be concluded the 2 manufacturing sites are bioequivalent.|Ratios of Geometric means|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|1.07||||||Metformin: Statistical Assessment of Bioequivalence for Metformin following administration Dapagliflozin/Metformin XR 10/1000 mg for Treatment G and H.||1.07|0.95|
90843648|NCT02637037|181552851|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CIs for both dapagliflozin and metformin geometric mean ratio of AUC is entirely contained within an 80.00% to 125.00% interval, it will be concluded the 2 manufacturing sites are bioequivalent.|Ratios of Geometric means|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|1.03||||||Dapagliflozin: Statistical Assessment of Bioequivalence for Dapagliflozin following administration Dapagliflozin/Metformin XR 5/500 mg for Treatment A and B.||1.03|0.93|
90843649|NCT02637037|181552851|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CIs for both dapagliflozin and metformin geometric mean ratio of AUC is entirely contained within an 80.00% to 125.00% interval, it will be concluded the 2 manufacturing sites are bioequivalent.|Ratios of Geometric means|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.06||||||Dapagliflozin: Statistical Assessment of Bioequivalence for Dapagliflozin following administration Dapagliflozin/Metformin XR 5/500 mg for Treatment C and D.||1.06|0.90|
90898351|NCT03926065|181662885|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.103|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Standard Palatability (Standard Portion Size and Larger Portion Size) compared to Enhanced Palatability (Standard Portion Size and Larger Portion Size)||||0.1030
90898352|NCT03926065|181662885|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0178|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Standard Portion Size (Standard Palatability and Enhanced Palatability) compared to Larger Portion Size (Standard Palatability and Enhanced Palatability)||||0.0178
90898353|NCT03926065|181662885|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.241|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Interaction between Portion Size and Palatability||||0.2410
91093972|NCT01311661|182072125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.145|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.102|0.188|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2.5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.188|0.102|<0.0001
90898354|NCT03926065|181662886|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0012|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Standard Palatability (Standard Portion Size and Larger Portion Size) compared to Enhanced Palatability (Standard Portion Size and Larger Portion Size)||||0.0012
91093973|NCT01311661|182072125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.128|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.085|0.171|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.171|0.085|<0.0001
91093974|NCT01311661|182072125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.156|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.113|0.198|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.198|0.113|<0.0001
91093975|NCT01311661|182072125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.098|0.182|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.182|0.098|<0.0001
90843650|NCT02637037|181552851|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CIs for both dapagliflozin and metformin geometric mean ratio of AUC is entirely contained within an 80.00% to 125.00% interval, it will be concluded the 2 manufacturing sites are bioequivalent.|Ratios of Geometric means|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.89|1.05||||||Dapagliflozin: Statistical Assessment of Bioequivalence for Dapagliflozin following administration Dapagliflozin/Metformin XR 10/1000 mg for Treatment E and F.||1.05|0.89|
90843651|NCT02637037|181552851|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CIs for both dapagliflozin and metformin geometric mean ratio of AUC is entirely contained within an 80.00% to 125.00% interval, it will be concluded the 2 manufacturing sites are bioequivalent.|Ratios of Geometric means|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|1.03||||||Dapagliflozin: Statistical Assessment of Bioequivalence for Dapagliflozin following administration Dapagliflozin/Metformin XR 10/1000 mg for Treatment G and H.||1.03|0.87|
90843652|NCT02637037|181552851|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CIs for both dapagliflozin and metformin geometric mean ratio of AUC is entirely contained within an 80.00% to 125.00% interval, it will be concluded the 2 manufacturing sites are bioequivalent.|Ratios of Geometric means|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.07||||||Metformin: Statistical Assessment of Bioequivalence for Metformin following administration Dapagliflozin/Metformin XR 5/500 mg for Treatment A and B.||1.07|0.96|
90843653|NCT02637037|181552851|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CIs for both dapagliflozin and metformin geometric mean ratio of AUC is entirely contained within an 80.00% to 125.00% interval, it will be concluded the 2 manufacturing sites are bioequivalent.|Ratios of Geometric means|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.04||||||Metformin: Statistical Assessment of Bioequivalence for Metformin following administration Dapagliflozin/Metformin XR 5/500 mg for Treatment C and D.||1.04|0.92|
90843654|NCT02637037|181552851|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CIs for both dapagliflozin and metformin geometric mean ratio of AUC is entirely contained within an 80.00% to 125.00% interval, it will be concluded the 2 manufacturing sites are bioequivalent.|Ratios of geometric means|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|1.06||||||Metformin: Statistical Assessment of Bioequivalence for Metformin following administration Dapagliflozin/Metformin XR 10/1000 mg for Treatment E and F.||1.06|0.95|
90843655|NCT02637037|181552851|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CIs for both dapagliflozin and metformin geometric mean ratio of AUC is entirely contained within an 80.00% to 125.00% interval, it will be concluded the 2 manufacturing sites are bioequivalent.|Ratios of Geometric means|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|1.1||||||Metformin: Statistical Assessment of Bioequivalence for Metformin following administration Dapagliflozin/Metformin XR 10/1000 mg for Treatment G and H.||1.10|0.94|
90843656|NCT02819011|181552959|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||priori threshold for statistical significance= 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Repeated measures to compare changes in two groups from baseline to 6 months||||0.040
90843657|NCT02819011|181552960|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Repeated measures to compare the changes in both groups from baseline to 6 months||||0.005
90843658|NCT02819011|181552961|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Repeated measures to compare the changes in both groups from baseline to 6 months||||0.019
90843659|NCT02819011|181552963|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.572||||||priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Repeated measures to compare the changes of both groups from pre-intervention to post-intervention year.||||0.572
90843660|NCT02819011|181552964|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Repeated measures to compare the changes between groups from baseline to 6 months||||0.650
90843661|NCT02819011|181552965|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.756||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Repeated measures to compare the changes between groups from baseline to 6 months||||0.756
91029186|NCT04634409|181941890|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|2.71|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.71|1.09|0.021
91093976|NCT01311661|182072126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.136|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001||95.0|0.084|0.187|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2.5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.187|0.084|<0.0001
91093977|NCT01311661|182072126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.124|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001||95.0|0.073|0.176|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.176|0.073|<0.0001
90843662|NCT02819011|181552968|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.769||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Repeated measures to compare the changes between groups from baseline to 6 months||||0.769
90843663|NCT02819011|181552969|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.857||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Repeated measures to compare the changes between groups from baseline to 6 months||||0.857
90843664|NCT02819011|181552970|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.829||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Repeated measures to compare the changes between groups from baseline to 6 months||||0.829
90843665|NCT02260180|181553039|SUPERIORITY|2-tail alpha was set to 0.05 with no adjustment for multiple comparisons.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
90843666|NCT02260180|181553039|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|2-tail alpha was set to 0.05 with no adjustment for multiple comparisons.||||||<0.0001
90843667|NCT02260180|181553040|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made.|ANCOVA|Baseline PLA was the covariate. Comparisons were performed within the model using least-squares means and the common error term.||||||<0.0001
91029187|NCT04634409|181941890|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.93||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|3.22|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.22|1.16|0.011
91029188|NCT04634409|181941890|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.17||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|3.6|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.60|1.30|0.003
90898355|NCT03926065|181662886|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Standard Portion Size (Standard Palatability and Enhanced Palatability) compared to Larger Portion Size (Standard Palatability and Enhanced Palatability)||||<0.0001
90898356|NCT02687412|181662915|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.141|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.141
90843668|NCT02260180|181553040|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were conducted.|ANCOVA|Baseline PLA was the covariate. Comparisons were performed within the model using least-squares means and the common error term.||The primary efficacy analysis of mean change from baseline to Visit 8 PLA was performed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline PLA as the covariate. Comparisons between vehicle and each A-101 group were performed within the model using least-squares means and the common error term.||||<0.0001
90843669|NCT01193257|181553041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.875||||0.12085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.739|1.036|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio is based on a stratified Cox's proportional hazard regression model with stratification factors region (North America, Europe and Rest of World) and brief pain inventory-short form (BPI-SF) worst pain score at screening (\[less than or equal to\] \<=4, greater than \[\>\] 4) with treatment as a factor in the model. A hazard ratio less than 1 for the treatment indicates better prevention of the death in the Orteronel arm as compared to placebo arm.||1.036|0.739|0.12085
90843670|NCT01193257|181553042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.00038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.653|0.885|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio is based on a stratified Cox's proportional hazard regression model with stratification factors region (North America, Europe and Rest of World) and brief pain inventory-short form (BPI-SF) worst pain score at screening (\<=4, \>4) with treatment as a factor in the model. A hazard ratio less than 1 for the treatment indicates better prevention of the death in the Orteronel arm as compared to placebo arm.||0.885|0.653|0.00038
90843671|NCT01193257|181553043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||P-values test for odds ratio equal to 1.||||< 0.0001
90843672|NCT01193257|181553044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12778|||||||Regression, Logistic|||P-values test for odds ratio equal to 1.||||0.12778
90843673|NCT00839319|181553072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|Correlations between serum hormone levels and IT hormones, and between IT hormones were performed on 23 subjects in 4 groups using Spearmen technique.||||||<0.05
90843674|NCT00539942|181553080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.0|||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Unable to analyze data||||<.05
90843675|NCT02910986|181553086|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||The percentage with improved knowledge (defined as having an incorrect response at T0 and a correct response at T1) was compared between study groups with chi-square tests.||||> 0.05
90898357|NCT02687412|181662916|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4041.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1831.042||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7672.301|-411.065|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-411.065|-7672.301|0.029
90843676|NCT02910986|181553087|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56||||||The priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|Chi-squared|||||||0.56
90843677|NCT02910986|181553088|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||> 0.05
90843678|NCT02910986|181553088|OTHER||difference between EC and UC|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|98.3|-6.0|11.2||||||||11.2|-6.0|
91029189|NCT04634409|181941890|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|3.48|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.48|0.52|0.546
91093978|NCT01311661|182072126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.144|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001||95.0|0.093|0.195|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.195|0.093|<0.0001
90843679|NCT02910986|181553088|OTHER||difference between INT and UC|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|98.3|-4.3|14.3||||||||14.3|-4.3|
90843680|NCT02910986|181553088|OTHER||difference between INT and ENH|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|98.3|-7.0|11.9||||||||11.9|-7.0|
90843681|NCT02304367|181553090|OTHER|||||||0.0428|||||||t-test|||The null hypothesis that the mean change from Baseline to Week 48 in osteoid thickness is zero was tested using a t-test.||||0.0428
90843682|NCT02304367|181553091|OTHER|||||||0.977|||||||t-test|||The null hypothesis that the mean change from Baseline to Week 48 in OS/BS is zero was tested using a t-test.||||0.9770
90843683|NCT02304367|181553092|OTHER|||||||0.0858|||||||t-test|||The null hypothesis that the mean change from Baseline to Week 48 in OV/BV is zero was tested using a t-test.||||0.0858
90843684|NCT02304367|181553093|OTHER|||||||0.4077|||||||t-test|||The null hypothesis that the mean change from Baseline to Week 48 in Mlt is zero was tested using a t-test.||||0.4077
90843685|NCT02304367|181553100|OTHER|||||||0.016|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline 1,25(OH)2D.||Week 24||||0.016
90843686|NCT02304367|181553100|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline 1,25(OH)2D.||Week 48||||0.030
90843687|NCT02304367|181553100|OTHER|||||||0.259|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline 1,25(OH)2D.||Week 96||||0.259
90843688|NCT02304367|181553100|OTHER|||||||0.346|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline 1,25(OH)2D.||Week 144||||0.346
90843689|NCT02304367|181553100|OTHER|||||||0.213|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline 1,25(OH)2D.||Week 168||||0.213
90843690|NCT02304367|181553100|OTHER|||||||0.873|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline 1,25(OH)2D.||Week 192||||0.873
90843691|NCT02304367|181553100|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline 1,25(OH)2D.||Week 216||||0.001
90898358|NCT02687412|181662917|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.3739|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.4198||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.6414|33.1065|||t-test, 2 sided|||||33.1065|7.6414|0.002
90898359|NCT02687412|181662918|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.014
90898360|NCT02687412|181662919|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.034|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.034
90898361|NCT02687412|181662920|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1
90898362|NCT02687412|181662921|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1
90898363|NCT02687412|181662922|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1
91029190|NCT04634409|181941891|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.82|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.82|0.60|0.888
90898364|NCT02687412|181662923|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1
90898365|NCT02687412|181662924|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.10046|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1915||0.601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4819|0.2817|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.2817|-0.4819|0.601
90898366|NCT02687412|181662925|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|164.746|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|317.79||0.605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-465.0|794.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||794|-465|0.605
90898367|NCT00981474|181662935|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.96||||0.752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.121|||Chi-squared|||||1.121|.82|.752
91029191|NCT04634409|181941892|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.88||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|3.13|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.13|1.13|0.014
90898368|NCT00981474|181662936|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.55||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.93|||Chi-squared|||||.93|.32|.053
91029192|NCT04634409|181941892|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|2.71|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.71|0.98|0.057
90843692|NCT02304367|181553100|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline 1,25(OH)2D.||Week 240||||0.040
90843693|NCT02304367|181553101|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline total FGF23.||Week 24||||<0.0001
90843694|NCT02304367|181553101|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline total FGF23.||Week 48||||<0.0001
90843695|NCT02304367|181553101|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline total FGF23.||Week 96||||0.001
90843696|NCT02304367|181553101|OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline total FGF23.||Week 144||||0.007
90843697|NCT02304367|181553101|OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline total FGF23.||Week 168||||0.005
90843698|NCT02304367|181553101|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline total FGF23.||Week 192||||0.004
90843699|NCT02304367|181553101|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline total FGF23.||Week 216||||0.002
90898369|NCT00981474|181662937|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.454||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.17|||Chi-squared|||||1.17|.18|.149
90898370|NCT00981474|181662938|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.581||||0.144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.13|||Chi-squared|||||1.13|.30|.144
90843700|NCT02304367|181553101|OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline total FGF23.||Week 240||||0.006
90898371|NCT00981474|181662939|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.724||||0.439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.41|||Chi-squared|||||1.41|.37|.439
90957370|NCT06377488|181794738|SUPERIORITY||least-square mean estimate|-0.023|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0131|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.005|||Mixed Model Analysis|The Satterthwaite Method was used for the calculation of the denominator degrees of freedom.|Visual Acuity scores at intermediate was estimated using 95% confidence intervals (CI) constructed for the least-square mean (LSM).|It was calculated using a 1-sided one-sample mean t-test with a family wise type I error rate of 5% with at least 99% statistical power, that 9, 6 and 29 subjects were required to test the primary hypotheses for distance, intermediate and near, respectively.||0.005|-0.050|
91093979|NCT01311661|182072126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.126|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001||95.0|0.075|0.177|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.177|0.075|<0.0001
91093980|NCT01311661|182072127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028||0.0001||95.0|0.055|0.165|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2.5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.165|0.055|0.0001
90843701|NCT02304367|181553102|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline free FGF23.||Week 24||||< 0.001
90843702|NCT02304367|181553102|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline free FGF23.||Week 48||||< 0.001
90843703|NCT02304367|181553102|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline free FGF23.||Week 96||||<0.001
90898372|NCT00981474|181662940|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.872||||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.11|||Chi-squared|||||1.11|.69|.311
90898373|NCT00981474|181662941|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.247||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.005|1.18|||Fisher Exact|Fisher exact test used due to the small number of events.||||1.18|.005|.103
90898374|NCT00981474|181662942|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.102||||0.608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.5|||Chi-squared|||||1.5|.81|.608
90898375|NCT00981474|181662943|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.564||||0.541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.97|||Fisher Exact|Fisher exact test used due to the small number of events.||||1.97|.16|.541
90898376|NCT00981474|181662944|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.247||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|1.18|||Fisher Exact|Fisher exact test used due to small number of events.||||1.18|.05|.103
90898377|NCT00981474|181662945|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.409||||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.14|||Chi-squared|||||1.14|.15|.129
90898378|NCT03239873|181662946|NON_INFERIORITY|The conclusion of non-inferiority (similarity) is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI on the risk difference excluding a decrease equal to or more than the prespecified criterion of 10.0 percentage points for Varicella zoster virus.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|2.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||2.8|-2.7|<0.001
90898379|NCT03239873|181662946|OTHER|Acceptability|Antibody Response Rate|98.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|95.9|99.6|||Exact CI method/binomial proportion|||The conclusion of acceptability is based on the lower bound of the 95% Confidence Interval (CI) being \>76%, and implies that the value of the parameter is statistically significantly greater than the prespecified acceptability criterion (76%).||99.6|95.9|<0.001
91029193|NCT00076102|181941919|OTHER|||||||0.0301||||||The reported F statistic and p-value are representative of the difference in the Parent proxy Form and the Child Self-Report Form response for Adaptive Behavior.|ANOVA|||F=5.45 under the null hypothesis||||0.0301
90843704|NCT02304367|181553102|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline free FGF23.||Week 144||||< 0.001
90843705|NCT02304367|181553102|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline free FGF23.||Week 168||||< 0.001
90843706|NCT02304367|181553102|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline free FGF23.||Week 192||||< 0.001
90843707|NCT02304367|181553102|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline free FGF23.||Week 216||||< 0.001
91029194|NCT00076102|181941919|OTHER|||||||0.0186||||||The reported p-value is representative of the difference in the Parent proxy Form and the Child Self-Report Form response for Emotional Functioning.|ANOVA|||F = 6.56 under the null hypothesis||||0.0186
90843708|NCT02304367|181553102|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline free FGF23.||Week 240||||< 0.001
90843709|NCT02304367|181553103|OTHER|||||||0.659|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline 24-hour urinary phosphorus.||Week 24||||0.659
90898380|NCT03239873|181662947|NON_INFERIORITY|The statistical criterion for noninferiority of the GMT corresponds to the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI on the GMT ratio \[VARIVAX® PE34 process/VARIVAX® 2016 commercial product\] being \>0.67.|Risk Difference (RD)|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||1.1|0.9|<0.001
90898381|NCT03239873|181662948|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|2.0||||0.436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|7.1|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Up to 42 days after Vaccination 1||7.1|-3.1|0.436
91029195|NCT00076102|181941919|OTHER|||||||0.0032||||||The reported p-value is representative of the difference in the Parent proxy Form and the Child Self-Report Form response for Medical/Physical Status.|ANOVA|||F=11.23 under the null hypothesis||||0.0032
91029196|NCT00076102|181941920|OTHER|||||||0.6263|||||||ANOVA|||F=0.25 under the null hypothesis||||0.6263
90843710|NCT02304367|181553103|OTHER|||||||0.752|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline 24-hour urinary phosphorus.||Week 48||||0.752
90843711|NCT02304367|181553103|OTHER|||||||0.594|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline 24-hour urinary phosphorus.||Week 96||||0.594
90843712|NCT02304367|181553103|OTHER|||||||0.614|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline 24-hour urinary phosphorus.||Week 144||||0.614
90843713|NCT02304367|181553103|OTHER|||||||0.542|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline 24-hour urinary phosphorus.||Week 168||||0.542
90843714|NCT02304367|181553103|OTHER|||||||0.067|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline 24-hour urinary phosphorus.||Week 192||||0.067
91029197|NCT00076102|181941920|OTHER|||||||0.3625|||||||ANOVA|||F= 0.87 under the null hypothesis||||0.3625
91029198|NCT00076102|181941920|OTHER|||||||0.5877|||||||ANOVA|||F=0.31 under the null hypothesis||||0.5877
91029199|NCT00076102|181941920|OTHER|||||||0.2767|||||||ANOVA|||F=1.27 under the null hypothesis||||0.2767
91093981|NCT01311661|182072127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.092|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028||0.001||95.0|0.037|0.147|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.147|0.037|0.0010
90843715|NCT02304367|181553103|OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline 24-hour urinary phosphorus.||Week 216||||0.330
90843716|NCT02304367|181553103|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.161|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline 24-hour urinary phosphorus.||Week 240||||0.161
90843717|NCT02304367|181553104|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline TRP.||Week 24||||< 0.001
90843718|NCT02304367|181553104|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline TRP.||Week 48||||< 0.001
90843719|NCT02304367|181553104|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline TRP.||Week 96||||0.001
90843720|NCT02304367|181553104|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline TRP.||Week 144||||< 0.001
91093982|NCT01311661|182072127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.0001||95.0|0.063|0.172|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.172|0.063|<0.0001
90898382|NCT03239873|181662948|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|2.9||||0.204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|7.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Up to 42 days after Vaccination 2||7.5|-1.6|0.204
90898383|NCT03239873|181662949|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-1.3||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|0.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Measles-like rash||0.4|-3.5|0.102
91029200|NCT00076102|181941920|OTHER|||||||0.8466|||||||ANOVA|||F=0.04 under the null hypothesis||||0.8466
91029201|NCT00076102|181941920|OTHER|||||||0.6774|||||||ANOVA|||F=0.18 under the null hypothesis||||0.6774
91029202|NCT00414466|181941938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.802||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05, two-sided.|Williams test for minimum effective dose|||Williams' test for Minimum Effective Dose was used to compare each active group to the placebo.||||0.802
91029203|NCT00414466|181941938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.874||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05, two-sided.|Williams test for minimum effective dose|||Williams' test for Minimum Effective Dose was used to compare each active group to the placebo.||||0.874
91029204|NCT00414466|181941938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.899||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05, two-sided.|Williams test for minimum effective dose|||Williams' test for Minimum Effective Dose was used to compare each active group to the placebo.||||0.899
90843721|NCT02304367|181553104|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline TRP.||Week 168||||< 0.001
91029205|NCT00414466|181941939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05, two-sided. Hochberg's adjustment for multiple comparisons was used.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
91029206|NCT00414466|181941939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05, two-sided. Hochberg's adjustment for multiple comparisons was used.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
91029207|NCT00414466|181941939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05, two-sided. Hochberg's adjustment for multiple comparisons was used.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
91029208|NCT00414466|181941940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.083||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05, two-sided. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were used.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.083
91029209|NCT00414466|181941940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05, two-sided. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were used.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
90843722|NCT02304367|181553104|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline TRP.||Week 192||||< 0.001
90843723|NCT02304367|181553104|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline TRP.||Week 216||||< 0.001
90843724|NCT02304367|181553104|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline TRP.||Week 240||||< 0.001
90843725|NCT02304367|181553105|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline TmP/GFR||Week 24||||< 0.001
90898384|NCT03239873|181662949|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.3||||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Rubella-like rash||1.9|-0.9|0.317
91029210|NCT00414466|181941940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.352||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05, two-sided. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were used.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.352
90843726|NCT02304367|181553105|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline TmP/GFR||Week 48||||< 0.001
90843727|NCT02304367|181553105|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline TmP/GFR||Week 96||||0.002
90843728|NCT02304367|181553105|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline TmP/GFR||Week 144||||< 0.001
90843729|NCT02304367|181553105|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline TmP/GFR.||Week 168||||< 0.001
90843730|NCT02304367|181553105|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline TmP/GFR.||Week 192||||< 0.001
90843731|NCT02304367|181553105|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline TmP/GFR.||Week 216||||< 0.001
90843732|NCT02304367|181553105|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline TmP/GFR.||Week 240||||< 0.001
91029211|NCT02016300|181941947|OTHER|||||||0.162|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference between baseline and month 6.||||0.162
91029212|NCT02016300|181941947|OTHER|||||||0.094|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference between baseline and month 12.||||0.094
91029213|NCT02016300|181941947|OTHER|||||||0.043|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference between baseline and month 24.||||0.043
91029214|NCT02016300|181941948|OTHER|||||||0.387|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference between baseline and month 6.||||0.387
91029215|NCT02016300|181941948|OTHER|||||||0.34|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference between baseline and month 12.||||0.340
91029216|NCT02016300|181941948|OTHER|||||||0.179|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference between baseline and month 24.||||0.179
91029217|NCT02016300|181941949|OTHER|||||||0.729|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference between baseline and month 6.||||0.729
91029218|NCT02016300|181941949|OTHER|||||||0.958|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference between baseline and month 12.||||0.958
91029219|NCT02016300|181941949|OTHER|||||||0.634|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference between baseline and month 24.||||0.634
91029220|NCT02016300|181941950|OTHER|||||||0.733|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference between baseline and month 6.||||0.733
91029221|NCT02016300|181941950|OTHER|||||||0.666|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference between baseline and month 12.||||0.666
91029222|NCT02016300|181941950|OTHER|||||||0.854|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference between baseline and month 24.||||0.854
90843733|NCT02304367|181553106|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline FEP.||Week 24||||< 0.001
90843734|NCT02304367|181553106|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline FEP.||Week 48||||< 0.001
90843735|NCT02304367|181553106|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline FEP.||Week 96||||< 0.001
90843736|NCT02304367|181553106|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline FEP.||Week 144||||< 0.001
90898385|NCT03239873|181662949|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|1.3||||0.241||95.0|-1.0|4.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Varicella-like rash||4.0|-1.0|0.241
90898386|NCT03239873|181662949|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-0.3||||0.318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Zoster-like rash||0.9|-1.9|0.318
91029223|NCT02016300|181941951|OTHER|||||||0.774|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference between baseline and month 12.||||0.774
91029224|NCT02016300|181941951|OTHER|||||||0.414|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference between baseline and month 24.||||0.414
91029225|NCT02016300|181941952|OTHER|||||||0.064|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference between baseline and month 12.||||0.064
91029226|NCT02016300|181941952|OTHER|||||||0.276|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference between baseline and month 24.||||0.276
91029227|NCT02016300|181941953|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference between baseline and month 12.||||0.020
90843737|NCT02304367|181553106|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline FEP.||Week 168||||< 0.001
90843738|NCT02304367|181553106|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline FEP.||Week 192||||< 0.001
90843739|NCT02304367|181553106|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline FEP.||Week 216||||< 0.001
90843740|NCT02304367|181553106|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline FEP.||Week 240||||< 0.001
90843741|NCT02304367|181553107|OTHER|||||||0.878|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline ALP.||Week 24||||0.878
90843742|NCT02304367|181553107|OTHER|||||||0.081|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline ALP.||Week 48||||0.081
90843743|NCT02304367|181553107|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline ALP.||Week 96||||0.001
90843744|NCT02304367|181553107|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline ALP.||Week 144||||< 0.001
90843745|NCT02304367|181553107|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline ALP.||Week 168||||< 0.001
90843746|NCT02304367|181553107|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline ALP.||Week 192||||< 0.001
90843747|NCT02304367|181553107|OTHER|||||||0.055|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline ALP.||Week 216||||0.055
90843748|NCT02304367|181553107|OTHER|||||||0.041|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline ALP.||Week 240||||0.041
90843749|NCT02304367|181553108|OTHER|||||||0.817|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline BALP.||Week 24||||0.817
90843750|NCT02304367|181553108|OTHER|||||||0.042|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline BALP.||Week 48||||0.042
90843751|NCT02304367|181553108|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline BALP.||Week 96||||< 0.001
90843752|NCT02304367|181553108|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline BALP.||Week 144||||< 0.001
91093983|NCT01311661|182072127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.111|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.0001||95.0|0.057|0.166|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.166|0.057|<0.0001
90843753|NCT02304367|181553108|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline BALP.||Week 168||||< 0.001
90843754|NCT02304367|181553108|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline BALP.||Week 192||||< 0.001
90843755|NCT02304367|181553108|OTHER|||||||0.174|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline BALP.||Week 216||||0.174
90843756|NCT02304367|181553108|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline BALP.||Week 240||||< 0.001
90843757|NCT02304367|181553109|OTHER|||||||0.694|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline BALP.||Week 24||||0.694
90843758|NCT02304367|181553109|OTHER|||||||0.047|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline BALP.||Week 48||||0.047
90843759|NCT02304367|181553109|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline BALP.||Week 96||||< 0.001
90843760|NCT02304367|181553109|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline BALP.||Week 144||||< 0.001
90843761|NCT02304367|181553109|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline BALP.||Week 168||||< 0.001
90843762|NCT02304367|181553109|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline BALP.||Week 192||||< 0.001
90843763|NCT02304367|181553109|OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline BALP.||Week 216||||0.170
90843764|NCT02304367|181553109|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline BALP.||Week 240||||< 0.001
90843765|NCT02304367|181553110|OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline CTx.||Week 24||||0.090
90843766|NCT02304367|181553110|OTHER|||||||0.226|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline CTx.||Week 48||||0.226
90843767|NCT02304367|181553110|OTHER|||||||0.918|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline CTx.||Week 96||||0.918
90843768|NCT02304367|181553110|OTHER|||||||0.616|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline CTx.||Week 144||||0.616
90843769|NCT02304367|181553110|OTHER|||||||0.041|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline CTx.||Week 168||||0.041
90898387|NCT03239873|181662950|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|1.1||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|3.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Measles-like rash||3.4|-0.7|0.170
90898388|NCT03239873|181662950|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-0.3||||0.576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Varicella-like rash||1.4|-2.2|0.576
90843770|NCT02304367|181553110|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline CTx.||Week 192||||0.002
90843771|NCT02304367|181553110|OTHER|||||||0.137|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline CTx.||Week 216||||0.137
90843772|NCT02304367|181553110|OTHER|||||||0.368|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline CTx.||Week 240||||0.368
90843773|NCT02304367|181553111|OTHER|||||||0.018|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline CTx.||Week 24||||0.018
90843774|NCT02304367|181553111|OTHER|||||||0.133|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline CTx.||Week 48||||0.133
90843775|NCT02304367|181553111|OTHER|||||||0.321|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline CTx.||Week 96||||0.321
90843776|NCT02304367|181553111|OTHER|||||||0.218|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline CTx.||Week 144||||0.218
90843777|NCT02304367|181553111|OTHER|||||||0.788|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline CTx.||Week 168||||0.788
90898389|NCT03239873|181662950|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.4||||0.312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Zoster-like rash||2.0|-1.0|0.312
90898390|NCT03239873|181662951|OTHER||Difference of Percentage|-1.0||||0.696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|4.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Injection site erythema||4.0|-5.9|0.696
90898391|NCT03239873|181662951|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.7||||0.796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|6.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Injection site pain||6.2|-4.7|0.796
91029228|NCT02016300|181941953|OTHER|||||||0.091|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference between baseline and month 24.||||0.091
90843778|NCT02304367|181553111|OTHER|||||||0.156|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline CTx.||Week 192||||0.156
90843779|NCT02304367|181553111|OTHER|||||||0.155|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline CTx.||Week 216||||0.155
90843780|NCT02304367|181553111|OTHER|||||||0.58|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline CTx.||Week 240||||0.580
90843781|NCT02304367|181553112|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline P1NP.||Week 24||||0.002
90843782|NCT02304367|181553112|OTHER|||||||0.273|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline P1NP.||Week 48||||0.273
90843783|NCT02304367|181553112|OTHER|||||||0.469|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline P1NP.||Week 96||||0.469
90843784|NCT02304367|181553112|OTHER|||||||0.828|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline P1NP.||Week 144||||0.828
90843785|NCT02304367|181553112|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline P1NP.||Week 168||||< 0.001
90843786|NCT02304367|181553112|OTHER|||||||0.141|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline P1NP.||Week 192||||0.141
90843787|NCT02304367|181553112|OTHER|||||||0.606|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline P1NP.||Week 216||||0.606
90843788|NCT02304367|181553112|OTHER|||||||0.907|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline P1NP.||Week 240||||0.907
90843789|NCT02304367|181553113|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline P1NP.||Week 24||||0.001
90843790|NCT02304367|181553113|OTHER|||||||0.149|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline P1NP.||Week 48||||0.149
90843791|NCT02304367|181553113|OTHER|||||||0.372|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline P1NP.||Week 96||||0.372
90843792|NCT02304367|181553113|OTHER|||||||0.116|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline P1NP.||Week 144||||0.116
90843793|NCT02304367|181553113|OTHER|||||||0.013|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline P1NP.||Week 168||||0.013
90843794|NCT02304367|181553113|OTHER|||||||0.962|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline P1NP.||Week 192||||0.962
90843795|NCT02304367|181553113|OTHER|||||||0.664|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline P1NP.||Week 216||||0.664
90843796|NCT02304367|181553113|OTHER|||||||0.79|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline P1NP.||Week 240||||0.790
90898392|NCT03239873|181662951|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-2.7||||0.111||95.0|-6.2|0.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Injection site swelling||0.7|-6.2|0.111
90898393|NCT03239873|181662952|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-0.3||||0.931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|6.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Injection site erythema||6.4|-6.9|0.931
90898394|NCT03239873|181662952|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-1.6||||0.523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|3.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Injection site pain||3.4|-6.6|0.523
90898395|NCT03239873|181662952|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|2.0||||0.415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|6.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Injection site swelling||6.9|-2.9|0.415
90898396|NCT03239873|181662953|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|6.7|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen|||6.7|-3.4|
91093984|NCT01311661|182072128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.629|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.065|<|0.0001||95.0|0.5|0.757|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2.5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.757|0.500|<0.0001
91093985|NCT01311661|182072128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.601|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.065|<|0.0001||95.0|0.473|0.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.730|0.473|<0.0001
91093986|NCT01311661|182072128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.631|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.065|<|0.0001||95.0|0.503|0.758|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.758|0.503|<0.0001
91093987|NCT01311661|182072128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.685|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.065|<|0.0001||95.0|0.558|0.813|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.813|0.558|<0.0001
90843797|NCT02304367|181553114|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline osteocalcin.||Week 24||||0.050
90843798|NCT02304367|181553114|OTHER|||||||0.526|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline osteocalcin.||Week 48||||0.526
90843799|NCT02304367|181553114|OTHER|||||||0.845|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline osteocalcin.||Week 96||||0.845
90843800|NCT02304367|181553114|OTHER|||||||0.782|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline osteocalcin.||Week 144||||0.782
90843801|NCT02304367|181553114|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline osteocalcin.||Week 168||||0.020
90843802|NCT02304367|181553114|OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline osteocalcin.||Week 192||||0.005
90898397|NCT03239873|181662954|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|2.6|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen|||2.6|-2.5|
91093988|NCT01311661|182072129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.665|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068|<|0.0001||95.0|0.532|0.799|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2.5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.799|0.532|<0.0001
91093989|NCT01311661|182072129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.564|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068|<|0.0001||95.0|0.431|0.698|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.698|0.431|<0.0001
90843803|NCT02304367|181553114|OTHER|||||||0.136|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline osteocalcin.||Week 216||||0.136
90843804|NCT02304367|181553114|OTHER|||||||0.101|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline osteocalcin.||Week 240||||0.101
90843805|NCT02304367|181553115|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline osteocalcin.||Week 24||||< 0.001
90843806|NCT02304367|181553115|OTHER|||||||0.238|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline osteocalcin.||Week 48||||0.238
90843807|NCT02304367|181553115|OTHER|||||||0.286|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline osteocalcin.||Week 96||||0.286
90843808|NCT02304367|181553115|OTHER|||||||0.093|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline osteocalcin.||Week 144||||0.093
90843809|NCT02304367|181553115|OTHER|||||||0.89|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline osteocalcin.||Week 168||||0.890
90843810|NCT02304367|181553115|OTHER|||||||0.059|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline osteocalcin.||Week 192||||0.059
90843811|NCT02304367|181553115|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.623||||||Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline osteocalcin.|GEE model|||Week 216||||0.623
90843812|NCT02304367|181553115|OTHER|||||||0.411|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline osteocalcin.||Week 240||||0.411
90843813|NCT02304367|181553116|OTHER|||||||0.8209|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 24||||0.8209
90843814|NCT02304367|181553116|OTHER|||||||0.2851|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 24||||0.2851
90843815|NCT02304367|181553116|OTHER|||||||0.6689|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 48||||0.6689
90843816|NCT02304367|181553116|OTHER|||||||0.1612|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 48||||0.1612
90843817|NCT02304367|181553117|OTHER|||||||0.4093|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 24||||0.4093
90843818|NCT02304367|181553117|OTHER|||||||0.572|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 24||||0.5720
90898398|NCT03239873|181662955|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|9.8|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen|||9.8|-6.1|
90898399|NCT03239873|181662956|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|9.2|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen|||9.2|-4.7|
90898400|NCT03239873|181662961|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.3|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen|||1.3|-1.3|
90898401|NCT03239873|181662962|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.3|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen|||1.3|-1.3|
91093990|NCT01311661|182072129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.702|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068|<|0.0001||95.0|0.569|0.835|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.835|0.569|<0.0001
91077891|NCT02913105|182041136|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.0||||0.9572|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.12|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Triglycerides: Day 28||1.12|0.88|0.9572
90843819|NCT02304367|181553117|OTHER|||||||0.3501|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 48||||0.3501
90843820|NCT02304367|181553117|OTHER|||||||0.5172|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 48||||0.5172
90843821|NCT02304367|181553118|OTHER|||||||0.0046|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline STS measurement.||Week 24||||0.0046
90843822|NCT02304367|181553118|OTHER|||||||0.0012|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline STS measurement.||Week 48||||0.0012
90843823|NCT02304367|181553119|OTHER|||||||0.6475|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 24||||0.6475
90843824|NCT02304367|181553119|OTHER|||||||0.5319|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 24||||0.5319
90843825|NCT02304367|181553119|OTHER|||||||0.9206|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 48||||0.9206
90843826|NCT02304367|181553119|OTHER|||||||0.153|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 48||||0.1530
90843827|NCT02304367|181553120|OTHER|||||||0.2125|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 24||||0.2125
90843828|NCT02304367|181553120|OTHER|||||||0.1241|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 48||||0.1241
90843829|NCT02304367|181553121|OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 24||||0.410
90843830|NCT02304367|181553121|OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 48||||0.210
90843831|NCT02304367|181553121|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 96||||0.060
90843832|NCT02304367|181553121|OTHER|||||||0.076|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 144||||0.076
90843833|NCT02304367|181553121|OTHER|||||||0.171|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 168||||0.171
90843834|NCT02304367|181553121|OTHER|||||||0.141|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 192||||0.141
90843835|NCT02304367|181553121|OTHER|||||||0.263|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 216||||0.263
90843836|NCT02304367|181553121|OTHER|||||||0.32|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 240||||0.320
90843837|NCT02304367|181553122|OTHER|||||||0.407|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 24||||0.407
90898402|NCT03239873|181662965|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|10.3|||||Miettinen and Nurminen|||10.3|-4.6|
91077892|NCT02913105|182041136|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.98||||0.7372|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|1.1|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Triglycerides: Day 42||1.10|0.87|0.7372
91077893|NCT02913105|182041136|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.04||||0.6015|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.17|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Triglycerides: Day 56||1.17|0.92|0.6015
91077894|NCT02913105|182041136|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.03||||0.7261|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.89|1.19|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Triglycerides: Day 84||1.19|0.89|0.7261
91077895|NCT02913105|182041136|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.0||||0.9892|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|1.15|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Triglycerides: Day 112 (EOS)||1.15|0.87|0.9892
91093991|NCT01311661|182072129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.599|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067|<|0.0001||95.0|0.467|0.732|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.732|0.467|<0.0001
90898403|NCT01480596|181662970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.592||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.08|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||Standard error of mean is for adjusted difference.|||1.40|-5.08|0.256
90898404|NCT01480596|181662971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.81||||0.082||95.0|0.87|19.02|||exact methods|||||19.02|0.87|0.082
90898405|NCT01480596|181662972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.55||||0.827||95.0|0.05|4.35|||exact methods|||||4.35|0.05|0.827
90898406|NCT01480596|181662973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.51||||0.184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|10.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.10|0.62|0.184
90898407|NCT01480596|181662975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.228||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||Analysis for Week 28. Standard error of mean is for adjusted difference.|||0.80|-4.20|0.175
90898408|NCT01480596|181662975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.267||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.89|1.28|||Mixed Models Analysis||Analysis for Week 32. Standard error of mean is for adjusted difference.|||1.28|-3.89|0.310
90898409|NCT01480596|181662975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.272||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.88|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||Analysis for Week 36. Standard error of mean is for adjusted difference.|||0.30|-4.88|0.081
90898410|NCT01480596|181662976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.486||0.972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.97|3.07|||Mixed Models Analysis||Standard error of mean is for adjusted difference.|||3.07|-2.97|0.972
90898411|NCT01480596|181662977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|5.48|||exact methods|||||5.48|0.26|1.000
90898412|NCT01480596|181662978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|2.89|||exact methods|||||2.89|0.03|0.530
90898413|NCT01480596|181662979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.7||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|11.46|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||11.46|0.64|0.175
90843838|NCT02304367|181553122|OTHER|||||||0.192|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 48||||0.192
90843839|NCT02304367|181553122|OTHER|||||||0.106|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 96||||0.106
90898414|NCT01480596|181662981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.245||0.423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.56|1.53|||Mixed Models Analysis||Analysis for Week 28. Standard error of mean is for adjusted difference.|||1.53|-3.56|0.423
91093992|NCT01311661|182072130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.641|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063|<|0.0001||95.0|0.516|0.765|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2.5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.765|0.516|<0.0001
90898415|NCT01480596|181662981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.361||0.986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.76|2.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||Analysis for Week 32. Standard error of mean is for adjusted difference.|||2.80|-2.76|0.986
90843840|NCT02304367|181553122|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 144||||0.020
90843841|NCT02304367|181553122|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 168||||0.002
90843842|NCT02304367|181553122|OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 192||||0.220
90843843|NCT02304367|181553122|OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 216||||0.230
90843844|NCT02304367|181553122|OTHER|||||||0.232|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 240||||0.232
90898416|NCT01480596|181662981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.43||0.848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.21|2.65|||Mixed Models Analysis||Analysis for Week 36. Standard error of mean is for adjusted difference.|||2.65|-3.21|0.848
90898417|NCT01480596|181662987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.707||0.483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|0.93|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical analysis is presented for Week 12. Standard error of mean is for adjusted mean difference.|||0.93|-1.94|0.483
90898418|NCT01480596|181662987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.844||0.711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.03|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical analysis is presented for Week 24. Standard error of mean is for adjusted mean difference.|||1.40|-2.03|0.711
90898419|NCT01480596|181662988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.757||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Analysis for Week 28. Standard error of mean is for adjusted difference.|||-0.20|-3.30|0.028
90898420|NCT01480596|181662988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.887||0.756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.55|||Mixed Models Analysis||Analysis for Week 32. Standard error of mean is for adjusted difference.|||1.55|-2.10|0.756
90898421|NCT01480596|181662988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.909||0.775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|1.59|||Mixed Models Analysis||Analysis for Week 36. Standard error of mean is for adjusted difference.|||1.59|-2.12|0.775
90898422|NCT03338621|181662993|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|2.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.17|3.96|||Log Rank|||||3.96|2.17|<0.001
90898423|NCT05375955|181663007|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|12.4||||0.0711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|29.4|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||||29.4|-4.1|0.0711
90898424|NCT05375955|181663007|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|10.1||||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|26.8|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||||26.8|-6.1|0.1290
90898425|NCT05375955|181663008|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|6.3||||0.2712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|24.3|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||||24.3|-10.8|0.2712
90843845|NCT02304367|181553123|OTHER|||||||0.082|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 24||||0.082
90843846|NCT02304367|181553123|OTHER|||||||0.176|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 48||||0.176
90843847|NCT02304367|181553123|OTHER|||||||0.047|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 96||||0.047
90843848|NCT02304367|181553123|OTHER|||||||0.017|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 144||||0.017
90843849|NCT02304367|181553123|OTHER|||||||0|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 168||||0.000
90843850|NCT02304367|181553123|OTHER|||||||0.057|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 192||||0.057
90843851|NCT02304367|181553123|OTHER|||||||0.071|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 216||||0.071
90843852|NCT02304367|181553123|OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 240||||0.070
90843853|NCT02304367|181553124|OTHER|||||||0.014|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 24||||0.014
90843854|NCT02304367|181553124|OTHER|||||||0.309|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 48||||0.309
90843855|NCT02304367|181553124|OTHER|||||||0.036|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 96||||0.036
91093993|NCT01311661|182072130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.577|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063|<|0.0001||95.0|0.453|0.701|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.701|0.453|<0.0001
90843856|NCT02304367|181553124|OTHER|||||||0.096|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 144||||0.096
90843857|NCT02304367|181553124|OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 168||||0.005
90843858|NCT02304367|181553124|OTHER|||||||0.022|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 192||||0.022
90843859|NCT02304367|181553124|OTHER|||||||0.022|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 216||||0.022
90843860|NCT02304367|181553124|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 240||||0.004
90843861|NCT02304367|181553125|OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 24||||0.005
90843862|NCT02304367|181553125|OTHER|||||||0.019|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 48||||0.019
90843863|NCT02304367|181553125|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 96||||< 0.001
90843864|NCT02304367|181553125|OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 144||||0.006
90843865|NCT02304367|181553125|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 168||||< 0.001
90843866|NCT02304367|181553125|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 192||||< 0.001
90843867|NCT02304367|181553125|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 216||||0.002
90843868|NCT02304367|181553125|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 240||||0.002
90843869|NCT02304367|181553126|OTHER|||||||0.016|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 24||||0.016
90843870|NCT02304367|181553126|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 48||||0.004
90843871|NCT02304367|181553126|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 96||||< 0.001
90843872|NCT02304367|181553126|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 144||||< 0.001
90843873|NCT02304367|181553126|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 168||||< 0.001
90843874|NCT02304367|181553126|OTHER|||||||0.036|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 192||||0.036
90843875|NCT02304367|181553126|OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 216||||0.008
90843876|NCT02304367|181553126|OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 240||||0.008
90843877|NCT02304367|181553127|OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 24||||0.006
90843878|NCT02304367|181553127|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 48||||0.003
91029229|NCT00655642|181941954|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Based on the aforementioned values, we calculated a sample size for each treatment arm of 131 patients. We increased this sample estimate to 150 per treatment arm (total of 600 patients) to account for anticipated study attrition. Based on an unplanned interim conditional power futility analysis done at 30% information fraction, the decision was made to end the trial early.The futility analysis found the observed differences were far less than what was deemed clinically important.|Median Difference (Final Values)|12.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|25.0||0.16||||||Being aware of the multiple comparison issues, we deliberately chose the 0.01 alpha level following a Bonferroni type of correction so that the overall type I error rate is about 0.05.|Kruskal-Wallis|We computed the effect of the 3 treatments relative to ondansetron.|Change in VAS score was calculated as (VAS 30 min - VAS baseline). We calculated the differences in median VAS reductions for each arm relative to ondansetron.|The null hypothesis is that ondanestron is not more effective in reducing nausea than metoclopramide, promethazine or isotonic normal saline. The sample size was chosen to detect a 12-mm difference in VAS improvement between ondanestron and any other treatment arm (assuming a SD of 25mm) at 90% power and 0.01 alpha significance level. We chose the 0.01 alpha level following a Bonferroni type of correction so that the overall type I error rate is about 0.05.||||0.16
91029230|NCT01546987|181941964|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.48||One-sided significance level = 0.05|Log Rank||Reference level = ADT + RT|Revised protocol due to early accrual closure (September 2014) computes that seventy events with five years of additional follow-up after early accrual closure provides 70% power (at one-sided alpha = 0.05) to detect a 40% reduction in the assumed rate control arm rate of is 0.08/year.||1.48|0.47|0.55
90843879|NCT02304367|181553127|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 96||||<0.001
90843880|NCT02304367|181553127|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 144||||< 0.001
90843881|NCT02304367|181553127|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 168||||< 0.001
90843882|NCT02304367|181553127|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 192||||0.007
90843883|NCT02304367|181553127|OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 216||||0.005
90843884|NCT02304367|181553127|OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 240||||0.006
90843885|NCT02304367|181553128|OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 24||||0.009
90843886|NCT02304367|181553128|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 48||||0.020
90898426|NCT05375955|181663008|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|28.3||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|47.5|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||||47.5|7.7|0.0028
90843887|NCT02304367|181553128|OTHER|||||||0.044|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 96||||0.044
90898427|NCT05375955|181663008|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|36.6||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.7|56.4|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||||56.4|14.7|0.0003
90843888|NCT02304367|181553128|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 144||||< 0.001
90843889|NCT02304367|181553128|OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 168||||0.015
90843890|NCT02304367|181553128|OTHER|||||||0.125|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 192||||0.125
90843891|NCT02304367|181553128|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 216||||0.004
90843892|NCT02304367|181553128|OTHER|||||||0.018|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 240||||0.018
90843893|NCT02304367|181553129|OTHER|||||||0.148|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 24||||0.148
90843894|NCT02304367|181553129|OTHER|||||||0.295|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 48||||0.295
90843895|NCT02304367|181553129|OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 96||||0.005
90843896|NCT02304367|181553129|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 144||||< 0.001
90843897|NCT02304367|181553129|OTHER|||||||0.014|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 168||||0.014
90843898|NCT02304367|181553129|OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 192||||0.140
90843899|NCT02304367|181553129|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 216||||< 0.001
90843900|NCT02304367|181553129|OTHER|||||||0.142|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 240||||0.142
90898428|NCT05375955|181663009|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.1||||0.5701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|10.7|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 1||10.7|-10.2|0.5701
90898429|NCT05375955|181663009|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.5||||0.3269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|14.1|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 1||14.1|-8.4|0.3269
90843901|NCT02304367|181553130|OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 24||||0.005
90843902|NCT02304367|181553130|OTHER|||||||0.077|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 48||||0.077
90843903|NCT02304367|181553130|OTHER|||||||0.046|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 96||||0.046
90843904|NCT02304367|181553130|OTHER|||||||0.049|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 144||||0.049
90843905|NCT02304367|181553130|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 168||||0.003
90898430|NCT05375955|181663009|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|9.6||||0.0532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|23.7|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 2||23.7|-2.0|0.0532
90898431|NCT05375955|181663009|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|4.9||||0.1705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|17.6|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 2||17.6|-6.1|0.1705
91029231|NCT01546987|181941965|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.31||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Log Rank||Reference level = ADT + RT|Revised protocol due to early accrual closure (September 2014) computes that 5-year survival of 78% and annual hazard rate of 0.055 for ADT + RT arm, with five years of additional follow-up after early accrual closure provides 28% power (at two-sided alpha = 0.05) to detect a 33% reduction in failure rate.||1.31|0.38|0.27
90843906|NCT02304367|181553130|OTHER|||||||0.073|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 192||||0.073
90843907|NCT02304367|181553130|OTHER|||||||0.109|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 216||||0.109
90843908|NCT02304367|181553130|OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 240||||0.006
90843909|NCT02304367|181553131|OTHER|||||||0.328|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 24||||0.328
90843910|NCT02304367|181553131|OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 48||||0.015
90843911|NCT02304367|181553131|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 96||||0.020
90843912|NCT02304367|181553131|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 144||||0.004
90843913|NCT02304367|181553131|OTHER|||||||0.021|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 168||||0.021
90843914|NCT02304367|181553131|OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 192||||0.080
90843915|NCT02304367|181553131|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 216||||< 0.001
90843916|NCT02304367|181553131|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 240||||0.003
90843917|NCT02304367|181553132|OTHER|||||||0.207|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 24||||0.207
90843918|NCT02304367|181553132|OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 48||||0.008
90843919|NCT02304367|181553132|OTHER|||||||0.598|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 96||||0.598
90843920|NCT02304367|181553132|OTHER|||||||0.237|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 144||||0.237
91029232|NCT01546987|181941966|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|3.4|||Log Rank||Reference level = ADT + RT arm|||3.40|1.54|<0.001
90843921|NCT02304367|181553132|OTHER|||||||0.899|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 168||||0.899
90843922|NCT02304367|181553132|OTHER|||||||0.585|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 192||||0.585
90843923|NCT02304367|181553132|OTHER|||||||0.461|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 216||||0.461
90843924|NCT02304367|181553132|OTHER|||||||0.583|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 240||||0.583
90843925|NCT02304367|181553133|OTHER|||||||0.654|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 24||||0.654
90843926|NCT02304367|181553133|OTHER|||||||0.579|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 48||||0.579
90843927|NCT02304367|181553133|OTHER|||||||0.123|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 96||||0.123
90843928|NCT02304367|181553133|OTHER|||||||0.712|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 144||||0.712
90843929|NCT02304367|181553133|OTHER|||||||0.258|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 168||||0.258
90898432|NCT05375955|181663009|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.5||||0.5123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|15.7|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 4||15.7|-14.4|0.5123
90898433|NCT05375955|181663009|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.3||||0.2751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|22.1|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 4||22.1|-10.7|0.2751
90843930|NCT02304367|181553133|OTHER|||||||0.851|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 192||||0.851
90843931|NCT02304367|181553133|OTHER|||||||0.849|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 216||||0.849
90843932|NCT02304367|181553133|OTHER|||||||0.153|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 240||||0.153
90843933|NCT02304367|181553134|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 24||||0.002
90843934|NCT02304367|181553134|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 48||||0.030
90898434|NCT05375955|181663009|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|7.8||||0.2736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|24.8|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 6||24.8|-8.9|0.2736
91029233|NCT01546987|181941967|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|3.13|||Log Rank|||||3.13|0.33|0.99
90843935|NCT02304367|181553134|OTHER|||||||0.011|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 96||||0.011
90843936|NCT02304367|181553134|OTHER|||||||0.186|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 144||||0.186
90843937|NCT02304367|181553134|OTHER|||||||0.027|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 168||||0.027
90843938|NCT02304367|181553134|OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 192||||0.330
90843939|NCT02304367|181553134|OTHER|||||||0.072|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 216||||0.072
90843940|NCT02304367|181553134|OTHER|||||||0.045|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 240||||0.045
90843941|NCT02304367|181553135|OTHER|||||||0.369|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 24||||0.369
90843942|NCT02304367|181553135|OTHER|||||||0.026|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 48||||0.026
90843943|NCT02304367|181553135|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 96||||< 0.001
90843944|NCT02304367|181553135|OTHER|||||||0.235|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 144||||0.235
90843945|NCT02304367|181553135|OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 168||||0.009
90898435|NCT05375955|181663009|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|3.0||||0.3967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|19.8|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 6||19.8|-13.0|0.3967
91093994|NCT01311661|182072130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.667|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063|<|0.0001||95.0|0.544|0.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.790|0.544|<0.0001
90843946|NCT02304367|181553135|OTHER|||||||0.278|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 192||||0.278
90843947|NCT02304367|181553135|OTHER|||||||0.046|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 216||||0.046
90843948|NCT02304367|181553135|OTHER|||||||0.035|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 240||||0.035
90843949|NCT02304367|181553136|OTHER|||||||0.442|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 24||||0.442
90843950|NCT02304367|181553136|OTHER|||||||0.677|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 48||||0.677
90843951|NCT02304367|181553136|OTHER|||||||0.027|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 96||||0.027
90843952|NCT02304367|181553136|OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 144||||0.420
90843953|NCT02304367|181553136|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 168||||0.027
90843954|NCT02304367|181553136|OTHER|||||||0.312|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 192||||0.312
90843955|NCT02304367|181553136|OTHER|||||||0.249|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 216||||0.249
90843956|NCT02304367|181553136|OTHER|||||||0.102|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 240||||0.102
90843957|NCT02304367|181553137|OTHER|||||||0.856|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 24||||0.856
90843958|NCT02304367|181553137|OTHER|||||||0.898|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 48||||0.898
90898436|NCT05375955|181663009|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|3.1||||0.3997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|20.2|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 8||20.2|-13.6|0.3997
90898437|NCT05375955|181663009|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.6||||0.5461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|15.3|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 8||15.3|-17.7|0.5461
90898438|NCT05375955|181663009|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|7.8||||0.2736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|24.8|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 10||24.8|-8.9|0.2736
91029234|NCT01546987|181941968|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.75||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Log Rank||Reference level = ADT + RT arm|Revised protocol due to early accrual closure (September 2014) computes that 5-year survival of 78% and annual hazard rate of 0.02 for ADT + RT arm, with five years of additional follow-up after early accrual closure provides 32% power (at two-sided alpha = 0.05) to detect a 50% reduction in failure rate.||1.75|0.29|0.48
90843959|NCT02304367|181553137|OTHER|||||||0.785|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 96||||0.785
90843960|NCT02304367|181553137|OTHER|||||||0.932|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 144||||0.932
90843961|NCT02304367|181553137|OTHER|||||||0.545|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 168||||0.545
90843962|NCT02304367|181553137|OTHER|||||||0.58|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 192||||0.580
90843963|NCT02304367|181553137|OTHER|||||||0.462|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 216||||0.462
90843964|NCT02304367|181553137|OTHER|||||||0.26|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 240||||0.260
90843965|NCT00573144|181553158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.97
90843966|NCT00573144|181553159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.35
90843967|NCT00573144|181553160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.26
91029235|NCT01546987|181941969|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.63||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Log Rank||Reference level = ADT + RT|||1.63|0.45|0.65
91093995|NCT01311661|182072130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.643|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063|<|0.0001||95.0|0.519|0.766|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.766|0.519|<0.0001
91093996|NCT01311661|182072131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.591|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.079|<|0.0001||95.0|0.436|0.746|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2.5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.746|0.436|<0.0001
90843968|NCT04308291|181553189|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||||<0.0001
90843969|NCT01931566|181553220|OTHER|||||||0.023|||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.023
90843970|NCT01931566|181553221|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.307|||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.307
90843971|NCT00638014|181553233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.41
90843972|NCT01869764|181553269|OTHER|||||||0.93|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.93
90843973|NCT01869764|181553270|OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.29
90843974|NCT02469870|181553320|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.598|||||||ANCOVA|||To address hypotheses predicting differential change in outcome measures between condition over time we used analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models that allow for examination of cross-sectional effects and mean adjusted outcomes. The ANCOVA models (adjusted for baseline scores) were used for analyses of change in the outcome measures at posttest.||||.598
90843975|NCT02469870|181553321|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||ANCOVA|||. To address hypotheses predicting differential change in outcome measures between condition over time we used analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models that allow for examination of cross-sectional effects and mean adjusted outcomes. The ANCOVA models (adjusted for baseline scores) were used for analyses of change in the outcome measures at posttest.||||.81
90843976|NCT02469870|181553322|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.404|||||||ANCOVA|||. To address hypotheses predicting differential change in outcome measures between condition over time we used analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models that allow for examination of cross-sectional effects and mean adjusted outcomes. The ANCOVA models (adjusted for baseline scores) were used for analyses of change in the outcome measures at posttest.||||.404
90843977|NCT02469870|181553323|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.246|||||||ANCOVA|||. To address hypotheses predicting differential change in outcome measures between condition over time we used analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models that allow for examination of cross-sectional effects and mean adjusted outcomes. The ANCOVA models (adjusted for baseline scores) were used for analyses of change in the outcome measures at posttest.||||.246
90843978|NCT02469870|181553324|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||ANCOVA|||. To address hypotheses predicting differential change in outcome measures between condition over time we used analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models that allow for examination of cross-sectional effects and mean adjusted outcomes. The ANCOVA models (adjusted for baseline scores) were used for analyses of change in the outcome measures at posttest.||||.007
90843979|NCT02469870|181553325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.045|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Two-sample t-test||||.045
91093997|NCT01311661|182072131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.522|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.079|<|0.0001||95.0|0.366|0.677|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.677|0.366|<0.0001
90843980|NCT00092443|181553337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Efficacy = 1-Relative Risk|72.5|||<|0.001||95.0|50.6|85.6|||Exact Binomial Test||Efficacy = 1-RR, expressed as a percentage; the RR is the incidence in the vaccine group / the incidence in the placebo group.|||85.6|50.6|<0.001
90843981|NCT00092443|181553338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of Participants|56.7||||||95.0|44.0|66.8||||||||66.8|44.0|
90843982|NCT00092443|181553338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of Participants|2.7||||||95.0|0.3|9.5||||||||9.5|0.3|
90843983|NCT00092443|181553338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of Participants|14.5||||||95.0|6.9|25.8||||||||25.8|6.9|
90843984|NCT00092443|181553338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of Participants|0.0||||||95.0|0.0|5.1||||||||5.1|0.0|
90843985|NCT00092443|181553338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of Participants|9.0||||||95.0|3.4|18.5||||||||18.5|3.4|
90843986|NCT00092443|181553338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of Participants|0.0||||||95.0|0.0|4.8||||||||4.8|0.0|
90843987|NCT00092443|181553338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of Participants|39.7||||||95.0|27.6|52.8||||||||52.8|27.6|
90843988|NCT00092443|181553338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of Participants|1.4||||||95.0|0.0|7.7||||||||7.7|0.0|
90843989|NCT00092443|181553338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of Participants|24.6||||||95.0|14.5|37.3||||||||37.3|14.5|
91029236|NCT01546987|181941971|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||One hundred thirty evaluable participants (arms combined), provides 81% power to detect a moderate effect size of 0.5 using a two-sample test of the difference in means with a two-sided type I error of 0.05.||||0.76
91093998|NCT01311661|182072131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.594|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.079|<|0.0001||95.0|0.439|0.749|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.749|0.439|<0.0001
90843990|NCT00092443|181553338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of Participants|2.9||||||95.0|0.4|10.1||||||||10.1|0.4|
90843991|NCT04717336|181553340|SUPERIORITY||Mean of Paired Differences|0.002||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.23|||Paired T-Test|A paired t-test was applied across both periods because this is a cross-over study where each participant serves at their own control.||The aim of this analysis is to test whether there is a statistically significant difference in Pulse Wave Velocity when participants are on sodium chloride vs. placebo, regardless of period.||0.23|-0.22|0.98
90843992|NCT02039843|181553341|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.052||||||Two-sided a priori alpha level was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed repeated measures analysis on group difference in WHO-DAS score adjusted for gender, site, baseline score, time \& timeXgroup interaction||||||0.052
90843993|NCT02039843|181553342|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.421||||||2-sided a priori alpha level was 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed repeated measures analysis on group difference in PCS score adjusted for gender, site, baseline score, time, and timeXgroup||||||0.421
90843994|NCT02039843|181553343|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.606||||||2-sided a priori alpha level was 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed repeated measures analysis on group difference in MCS score adjusted for gender, site, baseline score, time, and timeXgroup||||||0.606
90843995|NCT02039843|181553344|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21||||||2-sided a priori alpha level was 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed repeated measures analysis on group difference in PSQI score adjusted for gender, site, baseline score, time, and timeXgroup||||||0.210
91029237|NCT01546987|181941972|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||\[Bowel domain\] One hundred thirty evaluable participants (arms combined), provides 81% power to detect a moderate effect size of 0.5 using a two-sample test of the difference in means with a two-sided type I error of 0.05.||||0.44
91029238|NCT01546987|181941972|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||\[Urinary domain\] One hundred thirty evaluable participants (arms combined), provides 81% power to detect a moderate effect size of 0.5 using a two-sample test of the difference in means with a two-sided type I error of 0.05.||||0.13
91093999|NCT01311661|182072131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.623|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.079|<|0.0001||95.0|0.468|0.777|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.777|0.468|<0.0001
90843996|NCT02039843|181553345|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036||||||2-sided a priori alpha level was 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed repeated measures analysis on group difference in PCL-5 score adjusted for gender, site, baseline score, time, and timeXgroup||||||0.036
90843997|NCT02039843|181553346|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.079||||||2-sided a priori alpha level was 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed repeated measures analysis on group difference in PHQ-9 score adjusted for gender, site, baseline score, time, and timeXgroup||||||0.079
91094000|NCT01311661|182072132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.529|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068|<|0.0001||95.0|0.396|0.662|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2.5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.662|0.396|<0.0001
91094001|NCT01311661|182072132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068|<|0.0001||95.0|0.277|0.543|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.543|0.277|<0.0001
91094002|NCT01311661|182072132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.603|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067|<|0.0001||95.0|0.471|0.736|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.736|0.471|<0.0001
91094003|NCT01311661|182072132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.481|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067|<|0.0001||95.0|0.349|0.613|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.613|0.349|<0.0001
91094004|NCT01311661|182072133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.957|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.18|<|0.0001||95.0|26.709|39.206|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2.5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||39.206|26.709|<0.0001
91094005|NCT01311661|182072133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.632|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.167|<|0.0001||95.0|26.409|38.855|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||38.855|26.409|<0.0001
91094006|NCT01311661|182072133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|31.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.161|<|0.0001||95.0|25.448|37.872|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||37.872|25.448|<0.0001
91094007|NCT01311661|182072133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.895|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.161|<|0.0001||95.0|22.683|35.107|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||35.107|22.683|<0.0001
91094008|NCT01311661|182072134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.046|<|0.0001||95.0|22.884|34.856|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2.5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||34.856|22.884|<0.0001
91094009|NCT01311661|182072134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.056|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.034|<|0.0001||95.0|26.094|38.018|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||38.018|26.094|<0.0001
90843998|NCT02039843|181553347|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.155||||||2-sided a priori alpha level was 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed repeated measures analysis on group difference in DAR score adjusted for gender, site, baseline score, time, and timeXgroup||||||0.155
90843999|NCT02039843|181553348|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.157||||||2-sided a priori alpha level was 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed repeated measures analysis on group difference in SBI adjusted for gender, site, baseline SBI, time, and timeXgroup||||||0.157
90844000|NCT02039843|181553349|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43||||||p-value from random effects regression controlling for month and baseline outcome|Regression, Linear|||||||0.430
90844001|NCT02039843|181553350|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.358||||||p-value from random effects regression controlling for month and baseline outcome|Regression, Linear|||||||0.358
90844002|NCT02039843|181553351|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39||||||p-value from random effects regression controlling for month and baseline outcome|Regression, Linear|||||||0.39
90844003|NCT02039843|181553361|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.383||||||p-value from random effects regression controlling for month and baseline outcome|Regression, Linear|||||||0.383
90844004|NCT02039843|181553362|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.932|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.932
90844005|NCT01958164|181553367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|73.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.3|89.3|||||Difference calculated as actilyse minus saline solution|||89.3|23.3|
90844006|NCT01958164|181553368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|66.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.7|90.3|||||Difference calculated as actilyse minus saline solution|||90.3|20.7|
90844007|NCT00740857|181553372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Proportional hazards model|Adjusted with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR), and gender terms.||||||<0.001
90844008|NCT00740857|181553372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Proportional hazards model|Adjusted with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR), and gender terms.||||||0.001
90844009|NCT00740857|181553372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Proportional hazards model|Adjusted with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR), and gender terms.||||||<0.001
90844010|NCT00740857|181553373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.118|||||||ANOVA|With treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR), and gender terms.||15 minutes||||0.118
90844011|NCT00740857|181553373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|With treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR), and gender terms.||The 30, 45, 60....||||<0.001
90844012|NCT00740857|181553374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.041|||||||ANOVA|With treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR), and gender terms.||15 minutes||||0.041
90844013|NCT00740857|181553374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|With treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR), and gender terms.||The 30, 45, 60, 90, 120, 180, 240, 300 and 360 minute individual time points all have the same P-value score.||||<0.001
90844014|NCT00740857|181553375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|With treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR), and gender terms.||||||<0.001
90844015|NCT00740857|181553376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.056|||||||ANOVA|Adjusted with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR), and gender terms.||15 minutes||||0.056
91029239|NCT01546987|181941972|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||\[Sexual domain\] One hundred thirty evaluable participants (arms combined), provides 81% power to detect a moderate effect size of 0.5 using a two-sample test of the difference in means with a two-sided type I error of 0.05.||||0.50
90844016|NCT00740857|181553376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|Adjusted with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR), and gender terms.||The 30, 45, 60, 90, 120, 180, 240, 300 and 360 minute individual time points all have the same P-value score.||||<0.001
90844017|NCT00740857|181553377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|Adjusted with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR), and gender terms.||||||<0.001
90844018|NCT00740857|181553378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|Adjusted with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR), and gender terms.||||||<0.001
90844019|NCT00740857|181553379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||proportional hazards model|Adjusted with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR), and gender terms.||||||<0.001
90844020|NCT02963506|181553380|OTHER||Correlation statistic|17.9|||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistic and p-value were calculated using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (test for non-zero correlation statistic) based on modified ridit scores and including geographic region and prior Tumor Necrosis Factor (TNF) inhibitor exposure as stratification factors.||||<0.001
90844021|NCT02963506|181553380|OTHER|The pairwise testing of each bimekizumab dose versus placebo accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure with each bimekizumab dose being tested sequentially from the highest dose to the lowest dose. If the sequential testing failed to reach significance at a significance level of alpha=0.05, then the pairwise testing continued and the comparison was seen as non-significant.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.6|||=|0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|6.48||The p-values were displayed as nominal p-values.|Regression, Logistic|||For differences in relation to placebo: Odds Ratio, confidence interval and p-value were derived from a logistic regression model including fixed effects for treatment, geographic region and prior tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor exposure.||6.48|1.04|=0.040
90844022|NCT02963506|181553380|OTHER|The pairwise testing of each bimekizumab dose versus placebo accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure with each bimekizumab dose being tested sequentially from the highest dose to the lowest dose. If the sequential testing failed to reach significance at a significance level of alpha=0.05, then the pairwise testing continued and the comparison was seen as non-significant.|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.5|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.83|10.86||The p-values were displayed as nominal p-values.|Regression, Logistic|||For differences in relation to placebo: Odds Ratio, confidence interval and p-value were derived from a logistic regression model including fixed effects for treatment, geographic region and prior TNF inhibitor exposure.||10.86|1.83|=0.001
90898439|NCT05375955|181663009|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.4||||0.2754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|22.1|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 10||22.1|-11.0|0.2754
90898440|NCT05375955|181663009|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|12.6||||0.0977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|30.3|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 12||30.3|-4.8|0.0977
91029240|NCT01546987|181941972|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||\[Hormonal domain\] One hundred thirty evaluable participants (arms combined), provides 81% power to detect a moderate effect size of 0.5 using a two-sample test of the difference in means with a two-sided type I error of 0.05.||||0.96
91029241|NCT01546987|181941983|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51||||0.0104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.89|||Log Rank||Reference arm = ADT + RT arm|||0.89|0.29|0.0104
91029242|NCT02270736|181941985|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean (LS-mean) difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|=|0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|-0.03|||MMRM|||Least square mean (LS-Mean) is from a mixed model repeated measurement (MMRM) analysis with treatment group, pooled investigation sites, and age groups as fixed factors, visit\*treatment as interaction term, visit as repeated factor, and baseline uSFR score as covariate.||-0.03|-0.1|= 0.0012
91029243|NCT02270736|181941986|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean (LS-mean) difference|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.127|=|0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.53|||MMRM|||LS-Mean is from a MMRM analysis model with treatment group, pooled investigation sites, and age groups as fixed factors, visit\*treatment as interaction term, visit as repeated factor, and baseline Modified Teacher Drooling Scale (mTDS) score as covariate.||0.53|0.02|= 0.032
90844023|NCT02963506|181553380|OTHER|The pairwise testing of each bimekizumab dose versus placebo accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure with each bimekizumab dose being tested sequentially from the highest dose to the lowest dose. If the sequential testing failed to reach significance at a significance level of alpha=0.05, then the pairwise testing continued and the comparison was seen as non-significant.|Odds Ratio (OR)|5.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.27|13.48||The p-values were displayed as nominal p-values.|Regression, Logistic|||For differences in relation to placebo: Odds Ratio, confidence interval and p-value were derived from a logistic regression model including fixed effects for treatment, geographic region and prior TNF inhibitor exposure.||13.48|2.27|<0.001
90844024|NCT02963506|181553380|OTHER|The pairwise testing of each bimekizumab dose versus placebo accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure with each bimekizumab dose being tested sequentially from the highest dose to the lowest dose. If the sequential testing failed to reach significance at a significance level of alpha=0.05, then the pairwise testing continued and the comparison was seen as non-significant.|Odds Ratio (OR)|5.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.19|12.92||The p-values were displayed as nominal p-values.|Regression, Logistic|||For differences in relation to placebo: Odds Ratio, confidence interval and p-value were derived from a logistic regression model including fixed effects for treatment, geographic region and prior TNF inhibitor exposure.||12.92|2.19|<0.001
90844025|NCT02963506|181553381|OTHER||LS Mean Difference vs placebo|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||Least squares (LS) Mean, standard error, confidence interval and p-value were derived using the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, geographic region and prior TNF inhibitor exposure as fixed effects and the Baseline value as covariate.||-0.24|-0.86|<0.001
90844026|NCT02963506|181553381|OTHER||LS Mean Difference vs placebo|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|-0.83|||ANCOVA|||LS Mean, standard error, confidence interval and p-value were derived using the ANCOVA model with treatment, geographic region and prior TNF inhibitor exposure as fixed effects and the Baseline value as covariate.||-0.83|-1.47|<0.001
91029244|NCT02270736|181941988|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean (LS-mean) difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|-0.05|||MMRM|||Statistical analysis at Week 8: LS-Mean is from a MMRM analysis with treatment group, pooled investigation sites, and age groups as fixed factors, visit\*treatment as interaction term, visit as repeated factor, and baseline uSFR score as covariate.||-0.05|-0.12|<0.0001
91029245|NCT02270736|181941988|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean (LS-mean) difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|-0.06|||MMRM|||Statistical analysis at Week 12: LS-Mean is from a MMRM analysis with treatment group, pooled investigation sites, and age groups as fixed factors, visit\*treatment as interaction term, visit as repeated factor, and baseline uSFR score as covariate.||-0.06|-0.14|<0.0001
91029246|NCT02270736|181941989|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean (LS-mean) difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116|=|0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.63|||MMRM|||Statistical analysis at Week 8: LS-Mean is from a MMRM analysis model with treatment group, pooled investigation sites, and age groups as fixed factors, visit\*treatment as interaction term, visit as repeated factor, and baseline mTDS score as covariate.||0.63|0.17|=0.0008
90844027|NCT02963506|181553381|OTHER||LS Mean Difference vs placebo|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|-0.72|||ANCOVA|||LS Mean, standard error, confidence interval and p-value were derived using the ANCOVA model with treatment, geographic region and prior TNF inhibitor exposure as fixed effects and the Baseline value as covariate.||-0.72|-1.35|<0.001
90844028|NCT02963506|181553381|OTHER||LS Mean Difference vs placebo|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|-0.82|||ANCOVA|||LS Mean, standard error, confidence interval and p-value were derived using the ANCOVA model with treatment, geographic region and prior TNF inhibitor exposure as fixed effects and the Baseline value as covariate.||-0.82|-1.45|<0.001
91029247|NCT02270736|181941989|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean (LS-mean) difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.132|=|0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.66|||MMRM|||Statistical analysis at Week 12: LS-Mean is from a MMRM analysis model with treatment group, pooled investigation sites, and age groups as fixed factors, visit\*treatment as interaction term, visit as repeated factor, and baseline mTDS score as covariate.||0.66|0.14|=0.0026
91029248|NCT00262600|181941994|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Comparisons between treatment groups were performed using a Cox regression analysis with treatment in the model.|Cox Proportional Hazard|0.9|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.74|1.1||p-value for protocol specified margin of 1.46|Regression, Cox|||Non-inferiority comparison of dabigatran 110 mg to warfarin||1.10|0.74|<.0001
91029249|NCT00262600|181941994|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Comparisons between treatment groups were performed using a Cox regression analysis with treatment in the model.|Cox Proportional Hazard|0.65|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.52|0.81||p-value for protocol specified margin of 1.46|Regression, Cox|||Non-inferiority comparison of dabigatran 150 mg to warfarin||0.81|0.52|<.0001
91029250|NCT00262600|181941995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.93||||0.2206||95.0|0.83|1.04||p-value is for superiority testing|Regression, Cox|Comparisons between treatment groups were performed using a Cox regression analysis with treatment in the model.||||1.04|0.83|0.2206
91029251|NCT00262600|181941995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.83||||0.0015||95.0|0.74|0.93||p-value is for superiority testing|Regression, Cox|Comparisons between treatment groups were performed using a Cox regression analysis with treatment in the model.||||0.93|0.74|0.0015
91029252|NCT00262600|181941996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.98||||0.7508||95.0|0.87|1.11||p-value is for superiority testing|Regression, Cox|Comparisons between treatment groups were performed using a Cox regression analysis with treatment in the model.||||1.11|0.87|0.7508
91029253|NCT00262600|181941996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.84||||0.0093||95.0|0.74|0.96||p-value is for superiority testing|Regression, Cox|Comparisons between treatment groups were performed using a Cox regression analysis with treatment in the model.||||0.96|0.74|0.0093
90844029|NCT02963506|181553382|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7|||=|0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|3.67||The p-values were displayed as nominal p-values.|Regression, Logistic|||For differences in relation to placebo: Odds Ratio, confidence interval and p-value were derived from a logistic regression model including fixed effects for treatment, geographic region and prior TNF inhibitor exposure.||3.67|0.80|=0.163
90844030|NCT02963506|181553382|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.84|8.48||The p-values were displayed as nominal p-values.|Regression, Logistic|||For differences in relation to placebo: Odds Ratio, confidence interval and p-value were derived from a logistic regression model including fixed effects for treatment, geographic region and prior TNF inhibitor exposure.||8.48|1.84|<0.001
90844031|NCT02963506|181553382|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.5|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|7.61||The p-values were displayed as nominal p-values.|Regression, Logistic|||For differences in relation to placebo: Odds Ratio, confidence interval and p-value were derived from a logistic regression model including fixed effects for treatment, geographic region and prior TNF inhibitor exposure.||7.61|1.66|=0.001
90844032|NCT02963506|181553382|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.92|14.28||The p-values were displayed as nominal p-values.|Regression, Logistic|||For differences in relation to placebo: Odds Ratio, confidence interval and p-value were derived from a logistic regression model including fixed effects for treatment, geographic region and prior TNF inhibitor exposure.||14.28|2.92|<0.001
90844033|NCT02963506|181553383|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.3|||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.74|15.96||The p-values were displayed as nominal p-values.|Regression, Logistic|||For differences in relation to placebo: Odds Ratio, confidence interval and p-value were derived from a logistic regression model including fixed effects for treatment, geographic region and prior TNF inhibitor exposure.||15.96|1.74|=0.003
90844034|NCT02963506|181553383|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.03|35.38||The p-values were displayed as nominal p-values.|Regression, Logistic|||For differences in relation to placebo: Odds Ratio, confidence interval and p-value were derived from a logistic regression model including fixed effects for treatment, geographic region and prior TNF inhibitor exposure.||35.38|4.03|<0.001
90844035|NCT02963506|181553383|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.81|42.46||The p-values were displayed as nominal p-values.|Regression, Logistic|||For differences in relation to placebo: Odds Ratio, confidence interval and p-value were derived from a logistic regression model including fixed effects for treatment, geographic region and prior TNF inhibitor exposure.||42.46|4.81|<0.001
90898441|NCT05375955|181663009|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|14.9||||0.0542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|33.2|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 12||33.2|-2.8|0.0542
91029254|NCT00262600|181941997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.8||||0.0026||95.0|0.7|0.93||p-value is for superiority testing|Regression, Cox|Comparisons between treatment groups were performed using Cox regression analysis with treatment in the model.||Analysis is for adjudicated major bleeds||0.93|0.70|0.0026
90844036|NCT02963506|181553383|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.02|44.27||The p-values were displayed as nominal p-values.|Regression, Logistic|||For differences in relation to placebo: Odds Ratio, confidence interval and p-value were derived from a logistic regression model including fixed effects for treatment, geographic region and prior TNF inhibitor exposure.||44.27|5.02|<0.001
90844037|NCT02963506|181553384|OTHER||LS Mean Difference vs placebo|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|=|0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|0.1|||ANCOVA|||LS Mean, standard error, confidence interval and p-value were derived using the ANCOVA model with treatment, geographic region and prior TNF inhibitor exposure as fixed effects and the Baseline value as covariate.||0.10|-1.31|=0.094
90844038|NCT02963506|181553384|OTHER||LS Mean Difference vs placebo|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|-0.91|||ANCOVA|||LS Mean, standard error, confidence interval and p-value were derived using the ANCOVA model with treatment, geographic region and prior TNF inhibitor exposure as fixed effects and the Baseline value as covariate.||-0.91|-2.34|<0.001
90844039|NCT02963506|181553384|OTHER||LS Mean Difference vs placebo|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|-0.91|||ANCOVA|||LS Mean, standard error, confidence interval and p-value were derived using the ANCOVA model with treatment, geographic region and prior TNF inhibitor exposure as fixed effects and the Baseline value as covariate.||-0.91|-2.35|<0.001
90898442|NCT05375955|181663010|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|3.0||||0.2578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|15.8|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 1||15.8|-7.8|0.2578
90898443|NCT05375955|181663010|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|10.1|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 1||10.1|-10.6|1.0000
90898444|NCT05375955|181663010|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|9.1||||0.0436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|24.3|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 1||24.3|-2.1|0.0436
90898445|NCT05375955|181663010|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|9.1||||0.0436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|24.3|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 2||24.3|-2.1|0.0436
90898446|NCT05375955|181663010|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.9||||0.2697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|14.9|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 2||14.9|-7.8|0.2697
91029255|NCT00262600|181941997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.93||||0.3146||95.0|0.81|1.07||p-value is for superiority testing|Regression, Cox|Comparisons between treatment groups were performed using Cox regression analysis with treatment in the model.||Analysis is for adjudicated major bleeds||1.07|0.81|0.3146
91029256|NCT00262600|181941998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.3|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.19|0.45||p-value is for superiority testing|Regression, Cox|Comparisons between treatment groups were performed using Cox regression analysis with treatment in the model.||Analysis of ICH||0.45|0.19|<0.0001
91029257|NCT00262600|181941998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.41|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.28|0.6||p-value is for superiority testing|Regression, Cox|Comparisons between treatment groups were performed using Cox regression analysis with treatment in the model.||Analysis of ICH||0.60|0.28|<0.0001
91029258|NCT05381948|181942005|OTHER||Least Square (LS) Mean|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.199||0.919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|2.24|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||2.24|-2.48|0.919
91029259|NCT05381948|181942005|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.187||0.795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.63|2.02|||MMRM|||||2.02|-2.63|0.795
90844040|NCT02963506|181553384|OTHER||LS Mean Difference vs placebo|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-1.18|||ANCOVA|||LS Mean, standard error, confidence interval and p-value were derived using the ANCOVA model with treatment, geographic region and prior TNF inhibitor exposure as fixed effects and the Baseline value as covariate.||-1.18|-2.60|<0.001
90844041|NCT02963506|181553385|OTHER||LS Mean Difference vs placebo|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|=|0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|0.07|||ANCOVA|||LS Mean, standard error, confidence interval and p-value were derived using the ANCOVA model with treatment, geographic region and prior TNF inhibitor exposure as fixed effects and the Baseline value as covariate.||0.07|-1.35|=0.075
90844042|NCT02963506|181553385|OTHER||LS Mean Difference vs placebo|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.79|-0.37|||ANCOVA|||LS Mean, standard error, confidence interval and p-value were derived using the ANCOVA model with treatment, geographic region and prior TNF inhibitor exposure as fixed effects and the Baseline value as covariate.||-0.37|-1.79|=0.003
90844043|NCT02963506|181553385|OTHER||LS Mean Difference vs placebo|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|-0.42|||ANCOVA|||LS Mean, standard error, confidence interval and p-value were derived using the ANCOVA model with treatment, geographic region and prior TNF inhibitor exposure as fixed effects and the Baseline value as covariate.||-0.42|-1.84|=0.002
90844044|NCT02963506|181553385|OTHER||LS Mean Difference vs placebo|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|-0.81|||ANCOVA|||LS Mean, standard error, confidence interval and p-value were derived using the ANCOVA model with treatment, geographic region and prior TNF inhibitor exposure as fixed effects and the Baseline value as covariate.||-0.81|-2.22|<0.001
90844045|NCT01724346|181553389|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.155|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.22||P-value is from stratified log-rank test.|Log Rank|||||0.220|0.110|< 0.0001
90844046|NCT01724346|181553392|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.087|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.054|0.141||P value is from stratified log-rank test.|Log Rank|||||0.141|0.054|< 0.0001
90898447|NCT05375955|181663010|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|15.2||||0.0104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|32.0|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 2||32.0|3.2|0.0104
91094010|NCT01311661|182072134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|31.816|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.028|<|0.0001||95.0|25.864|37.767|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||37.767|25.864|<0.0001
90844047|NCT01724346|181553393|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|2.496|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.99|3.131||Rate ratio and p-value are based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG; 0-1 vs 2) and Rai stage (0/I/II vs III/IV) at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.131|1.990|< 0.0001
91029260|NCT00520741|181942032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Predicted exit rate at 112 days|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.246|0.355|||Kaplan-Meier|Subjects who dropped out due to non-exit criteria reasons over the 10 % censoring maximum were to be counted as an exit.||The upper limit of the Confidence Interval for the estimate of the Lacosamide (LCM) 400 mg/day exit rate was compared with the lower bound of the 95 % prediction interval for the historical-control of 0.653; hereafter referred to as the historical-control exit rate. The LCM 400 mg/day dose group would be declared an effective conversion to monotherapy treatment if the upper 95 % confidence limit for the estimate of the exit rate was less than 0.653.||0.355|0.246|
90844048|NCT00525161|181553401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Clinical Response Rate at 3 months|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Defined as complete response/partial response after 3 months of adding sorafenib to endocrine therapy|Based on known historical response rate to sorafenib of no better than 5-10%, the study was designed to test the null hypothesis that the clinical response rate is no better than 10% versus the alternative hypothesis that it is at least 25% when sorafenib is added to endocrine therapy. In the first stage, 18 patients were planned for enrollment, and if two or fewer responses were observed, the trial would be terminated. The study stopped after 11 due to slow accrual and withdrawal of funding.||||
90844049|NCT00525161|181553402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Progression Free Survival|6.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|11.3||||||||11.3|2.6|
91029261|NCT00520741|181942034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||predicted exit rate at 112 days|0.323|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.268|0.378|||Kaplan-Meier|Subjects who dropped out due to non-exit criteria reasons over the 10 % censoring maximum were to be counted as an exit.||The upper limit of the Confidence Interval for the estimate of the Lacosamide (LCM) 400 mg/day exit rate was compared with the historical-control exit rate. The LCM 400 mg/day dose group would be declared an effective conversion to monotherapy treatment if the upper 95 % confidence limit for the estimate of the exit rate was less than 0.653.||0.378|0.268|
91094011|NCT01311661|182072134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.327|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.028|<|0.0001||95.0|27.375|39.278|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||39.278|27.375|<0.0001
90844050|NCT00943072|181553410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|44.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.0|56.6||P-value for the primary endpoint was calculated using 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted by regions (North America vs. Rest of World) and baseline BCVA (BCVA \> 20/200 and BCVA ≤ 20/200)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH adjusted difference|The Risk Difference (RD) indicates the difference between the IAI (EYLEA, VEGF Trap-Eye) Treatment group minus the Sham Treatment group.|||56.6|33.0|< 0.0001
90844051|NCT00943072|181553411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|21.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.36|26.04|||ANCOVA||RD is the IAI group minus sham group. 95% confidence interval is for the RD.|||26.04|17.36|< 0.0001
90844052|NCT00943072|181553411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean|16.36|||||||||||ANCOVA||LS Mean indicates is the IAI (EYLEA, VEGF Trap-Eye) Treatment group minus the Sham Treatment group.|||||
90844053|NCT00943072|181553412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-311.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-389.4|-234.4|||ANCOVA||The Risk Difference (RD) indicates the difference between the IAI (EYLEA, VEGF Trap-Eye) Treatment group minus the Sham Treatment group. 95% confidence interval is for the RD.|||-234.4|-389.4|< 0.0001
90898448|NCT05375955|181663010|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|15.2||||0.0104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|32.0|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 4||32.0|3.2|0.0104
91029262|NCT03702621|181942038|OTHER|P values are from mixed model least squares (LS) means differences with Sidak adjustment for multiple comparisons.||||||0.54|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Sidak adjustment||||||0.54
90844054|NCT00943072|181553412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean|-487.1|||||||||||ANCOVA||The Least Square Mean indicates the difference between the IAI (EYLEA, VEGF Trap-Eye) Treatment group minus the Sham Treatment group.|||||
90844055|NCT00943072|181553413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.6||||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|-1.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH adjusted difference|The Risk Difference (RD) indicates the difference between the IAI (EYLEA, VEGF Trap-Eye) Treatment group minus the Sham Treatment group. 95% confidence interval is for the RD.|||-1.1|-12.2|0.0059
90844056|NCT00943072|181553414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|6.26||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.61|9.91|||ANCOVA||The Risk Difference (RD) indicates the difference between the IAI (EYLEA, VEGF Trap-Eye) Treatment group minus the Sham Treatment group. 95% confidence interval is for the RD.|||9.91|2.61|0.0009
91094012|NCT01311661|182072135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.581|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.346|<|0.0001||95.0|-2.262|-0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2.5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||-0.900|-2.262|<0.0001
91094013|NCT01311661|182072135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.426|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.345|<|0.0001||95.0|-2.104|-0.748|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.748|-2.104|<0.0001
91094014|NCT01311661|182072135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.738|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.344|<|0.0001||95.0|-2.415|-1.062|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||-1.062|-2.415|<0.0001
91094015|NCT01311661|182072135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.689|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.344||0.0458||95.0|-1.366|-0.013|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.013|-1.366|0.0458
91094016|NCT01311661|182072136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|173.391|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.484|<|0.0001||95.0|135.099|211.682|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2.5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||211.682|135.099|<0.0001
91094017|NCT01311661|182072136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|155.097|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.406|<|0.0001||95.0|116.961|193.234|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||193.234|116.961|<0.0001
90844057|NCT00943072|181553414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean|8.8|||||||||||ANCOVA||Least Square Mean indicates the difference between the IAI (EYLEA, VEGF Trap-Eye) Treatment group minus the Sham Treatment group.|||||
91094018|NCT01311661|182072136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|149.268|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.369|<|0.0001||95.0|111.204|187.333|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||187.333|111.204|<0.0001
91094019|NCT01311661|182072136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|150.441|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.369|<|0.0001||95.0|112.377|188.505|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||188.505|112.377|<0.0001
90844058|NCT00373113|181553485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.47||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.156|1.869||2-sided log-rank test with the same set of stratification factors. The set of stratification factors included those used in the randomization except study sites.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio was calculated by the stratified Cox proportional hazards model.|Null hypothesis is that PFS (median=4.2 months) for sunitinib arm equals PFS for capecitabine arm. The study was designed to have 90% power to detect statistical difference in PFS between two treatment groups assuming the hazard ratio (sunitinib/capecitabine) is 0.75 and both arms follow exponential distribution.||1.869|1.156|0.002
90844059|NCT00373113|181553486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.516|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.188|1.933||2-sided log-rank test with the same set of stratification factors that was used in the randomization except study sites.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio was calculated by the stratified Cox proportional hazards model.|||1.933|1.188|<0.001
90844060|NCT00373113|181553487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Objective Response Rate (ORR) (percent)|11.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.6|16.1||||||||16.1|7.6|
90844061|NCT00373113|181553487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Objective Response Rate (ORR) (percent)|16.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|21.6||||||||21.6|12.0|
91029263|NCT03702621|181942039|OTHER|P values are from mixed model LS means differences with Sidak adjustment for multiple comparisons.||||||0.59|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.59
91094020|NCT01311661|182072137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|142.251|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.997|<|0.0001||95.0|104.916|179.586|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2.5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||179.586|104.916|<0.0001
90844062|NCT00373113|181553487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.049||||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|1.1|||Pearson Chi-Square Test|||||1.1|-11.2|0.109
90844063|NCT00373113|181553488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.788||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.042|7.459|||Log Rank|||||7.459|1.042|0.037
90844064|NCT00373113|181553490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.202||||0.219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.896|1.611||2-sided log-rank test with the same set of stratification factors that were used in the randomization except study sites.|Log Rank|||||1.611|0.896|0.219
90844065|NCT04693234|181553524|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0054|||||||Binomial Exact Test|The p-value was calculated from the binomial exact test of tislelizumab combined with ociperlimab versus historical rate of 0.15.||||||0.0054
90844066|NCT04693234|181553525|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0127|||||||Binomial Exact Test|The p-value was calculated from the binomial exact test of tislelizumab combined with ociperlimab versus historical rate of 0.15.||||||0.0127
91029264|NCT03702621|181942040|OTHER|P values are from mixed model LS means differences with Sidak adjustment for multiple comparisons||||||0.98||||||P values are from mixed model LS means differences with Sidak adjustment for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Sidak adjustment||||||0.98
91094021|NCT01311661|182072137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|132.138|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.92|<|0.0001||95.0|94.954|169.322|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||169.322|94.954|<0.0001
91029265|NCT03702621|181942041|OTHER|P values are from mixed model LS means differences with Sidak adjustment for multiple comparisons||||||0.94||||||P values are from mixed model LS means differences with Sidak adjustment for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Sidak adjustment||||||0.94
91029266|NCT03702621|181942042|OTHER|P values are from mixed model LS means differences with Sidak adjustment for multiple comparisons||||||0.86|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Sidak adjustment||P values are from mixed model LS means differences with Sidak adjustment for multiple comparisons||||0.86
90844067|NCT05814367|181553544|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 0.05 logMAR was used.|Least-square Mean Difference|-0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.025|0.014|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger Method was used for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as Test minus Control|The sample size of 38 was calculated to provide at least 90% statistical power to test Non-inferiority of the Test lens compared to the Control lens using a paired t-test with a two-sided type I error rate of 5%.||0.014|-0.025|
90844068|NCT00439517|181553627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.677||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.515|0.889|||Stratified log rank|Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate median PFS time. HR was calculated using Cox proportional hazards model stratified by randomization strata.||||0.889|0.515|0.0048
90844069|NCT00439517|181553628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.756||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|2.777|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified odds ratio and Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel (CMH) statistics were calculated considering the randomization strata.||||2.777|1.110|0.016
90844070|NCT00439517|181553629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.855||||0.3797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.603|1.213|||Stratified log rank|Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate median OS time. HR was calculated using Cox proportional hazards model stratified by randomization strata.||||1.213|0.603|0.3797
90844071|NCT00439517|181553630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.977||||0.8575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.755|1.263|||Stratified log rank||Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate median OS time. HR was calculated using Cox proportional hazards model stratified by randomization strata.|||1.263|0.755|0.8575
90844072|NCT02289157|181553638|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.4|||Regression, Logistic|Ho: There is no difference between number of patients with wound complications between the study (icNPT) and comparison groups.||||1.4|0.5|0.54
90844073|NCT02289157|181553639|OTHER|||||||0.31|||||||Chi-squared|Pearson Chi-squared, df (3)||Ho: There is no difference between the types wound morbidity in the study (icNPT) and comparison groups.||||0.31
90844074|NCT02289157|181553640|OTHER|||||||0.54||||||Ho: There is no difference between initial length of stay between the study (icNPT) and comparison groups.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.54
90844075|NCT02289157|181553641|OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Ho: There is no difference in length of stay after readmission for wound morbidity between the study (icNPT) and comparison groups.||||0.41
90844076|NCT02289157|181553642|OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||Chi-squared|||Ho: There is no difference between the number of ER visits made per person between the study (icNPT) and comparison groups.||||0.38
90844077|NCT02289157|181553643|OTHER|||||||0.48||||||Ho: There is no difference between the number of visits made to the clinic for wound morbidity per patient between the study (icNPT) and comparison groups.|Chi-squared|||||||0.48
90844078|NCT02289157|181553644|OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Ho: There is no difference between number of readmissions between the study (icNPT) and comparison groups.||||0.52
90844079|NCT02289157|181553644|OTHER|||||||0.45|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Ho: There is no difference in the use of post operative antimicrobials between the the study (icNPT) and comparison groups.||||0.45
90844080|NCT02289157|181553644|OTHER|||||||0.44|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Ho: There is no difference in the number of patients with Incision and Drainage and/or Extirpation between the study (icNPT) and comparison groups.||||0.44
90844081|NCT02289157|181553645|OTHER|Cochran-Mantel-Haenzel test for interactions between different risk factors: scheduled vs unscheduled cesarean section and icNPT vs Standard dressing||||||0.68||||||Ho: There is no difference between patients with wound morbidity that is significantly affected by the use of icNPT and whether or not the cesarean is scheduled or unscheduled.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.68
90844082|NCT02289157|181553646|OTHER|Cochran-Mantel-Haenzel test for interactions between different risk factors: pfannenstiel vs midline abdominal incision and icNPT vs Standard dressing||||||0.27|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.27
90844083|NCT02289157|181553647|OTHER|Cochran-Mantel-Haenzel test for interactions between different risk factors: ruptured vs unruptured membranes and icNPT vs Standard dressing||||||0.55|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.55
90844084|NCT02289157|181553648|OTHER|Cochran-Mantel-Haenzel test for interactions between labor vs no labor stratified by icNPT vs Standard dressing||||||0.49|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.49
90844085|NCT02289157|181553649|OTHER|Cochran-Mantel-Haenzel measure used to estimate interaction between patients with hypertension versus no hypertension stratified by icNPT versus standard dressing in wound morbidity||||||0.92|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.92
90844086|NCT02289157|181553650|OTHER|Cochran-Mantel-Haenzel measure used to estimate interaction in icNPT and Standard wound dressings stratified by women with insulin requiring diabetes and no insulin requiring Diabetes.||||||0.22|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.22
90844087|NCT02289157|181553651|OTHER|Cochran-Mantel-Haenzel measure used to estimate interaction between chorioamnionitis and no chorioamnionitis stratified by icNPT and standard dressing, for wound morbidity||||||0.74|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.74
90844088|NCT01388335|181553653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.691|0.95|||||Ratio of Geometric LS mean is for S-warfarin.|||0.950|0.691|
90844089|NCT01388335|181553653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio|0.912|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.815|1.02|||||Ratio of Geometric LS mean is for R-warfarin.|||1.02|0.815|
90844090|NCT01388335|181553654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.76|3.5|||||Median Difference (Final Values) is for S-warfarin.|||3.50|0.76|
90844091|NCT01388335|181553654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|6.84|||||Median Difference (Final Values) is for R-warfarin.|||6.84|-1.00|
90844092|NCT01388335|181553655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.14|1.44|||||Ratio of Geometric LS mean is for S-warfarin.|||1.44|1.14|
91029267|NCT03702621|181942043|OTHER|P values are from mixed model LS means differences with Sidak adjustment for multiple comparisons||||||1||||||P values are from mixed model LS means differences with Sidak adjustment for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Sidak adjustment||||||1.0
91029268|NCT03702621|181942044|OTHER|P values are from mixed model LS means differences with Sidak adjustment for multiple comparisons.||||||0.99|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.99
91029269|NCT03702621|181942045|OTHER|P values are from mixed model LS means differences with Sidak adjustment for multiple comparisons.||||||0.99|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.99
91029270|NCT03702621|181942046|OTHER|P values are from mixed model LS means differences with Sidak adjustment for multiple comparisons.||||||0.72|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.72
91029271|NCT03702621|181942047|OTHER|P values are from mixed model LS means differences with Sidak adjustment for multiple comparisons.||||||0.29|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.29
91029272|NCT03702621|181942048|OTHER|P values are from mixed model LS means differences with Sidak adjustment for multiple comparisons.||||||0.46|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.46
91029273|NCT03702621|181942049|OTHER|P values are from mixed model LS means differences with Sidak adjustment for multiple comparisons.||||||0.77|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.77
90844093|NCT01388335|181553655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.08|1.47|||||Ratio of Geometric LS mean is for R-warfarin.|||1.47|1.08|
90844094|NCT01388335|181553660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.86|1.0|||||Ratio of Geometric LS mean.|||1.00|0.86|
91029274|NCT00721409|181942098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.488||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.319|0.748||1-sided p-value from the log-rank test stratified by stratification factors per randomization and Part.|Log Rank|||The primary hypothesis to be tested was H0: λ=1 versus. HA: λ\<1, where λ was the palbociclib plus letrozole:letrozole alone hazard ratio (HR). A HR less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Palbociclib + Letrozole. Stratified analysis was presented above.||0.748|0.319|0.0004
91029275|NCT00721409|181942098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.299|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.156|0.572||1-sided p-value from the log-rank test.|Log Rank|||The primary hypothesis to be tested was H0: λ=1 versus. HA: λ\<1, where λ was the palbociclib plus letrozole:letrozole alone hazard ratio (HR). A HR less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Palbociclib + Letrozole. Unstratified analysis was presented above.||0.572|0.156|<0.0001
91029276|NCT00721409|181942098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.508||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.303|0.853||1-sided p-value from the log-rank test.|Log Rank|||The primary hypothesis to be tested was H0: λ=1 versus. HA: λ\<1, where λ was the palbociclib plus letrozole:letrozole alone hazard ratio (HR). A HR less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Palbociclib + Letrozole. Unstratified analysis was presented above.||0.853|0.303|0.0046
91029277|NCT00721409|181942111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.897||||0.2812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.623|1.294||1-sided p-value from the log-rank test stratified by Part (α = 0.10).|Log Rank|||Stratified analysis was presented above. Hazard ratio was assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicated a reduction in hazard rate in favor of palbociclib + letrozole.||1.294|0.623|0.2812
90844095|NCT01388335|181553661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|1.02|||||Ratio of Geometric LS mean.|||1.02|0.95|
91029278|NCT00721409|181942111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.837||||0.2803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.458|1.527||1-sided p-value from the unstratified log-rank test (α=0.10).|Log Rank|||Unstratified analysis was presented above.||1.527|0.458|0.2803
90844096|NCT01388335|181553664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.03||||||90.0|0.99|1.08|||||Ratio of Geometric LS mean for Period 2, Day 14, 0 hours.|||1.08|0.99|
91029279|NCT00721409|181942111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.935||||0.3875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.48||1-sided p-value from the unstratified log-rank test (α=0.10).|Log Rank|||Unstratified analysis was presented above.||1.480|0.590|0.3875
91029280|NCT00721409|181942112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.1347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.97||1-sided p-value is from the stratified exact test (1-sided, α =0.10)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Objective Response CI was calculated using the exact Clopper-Pearson method. The stratified analysis presented above was based on CMH test stratified by Part. An Odds Ratio \>1 means better response in favor of palbociclib + letrozole arm.||2.97|0.76|0.1347
91029281|NCT00721409|181942112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.37||||0.0849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|7.84||Chi-square test was used (1-sided, α=0.10)|Chi-squared|||Unstratified analysis was presented above. Exact CI was based on Clopper-Pearson method.||7.84|0.74|0.0849
90844097|NCT01388335|181553664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|1.06|||||Ratio of Geometric LS mean for Period 2, Day 14, 4 hours.|||1.06|0.98|
90898449|NCT05375955|181663010|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|14.3||||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|30.3|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 4||30.3|2.6|0.0129
90898450|NCT05375955|181663010|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|21.2||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|38.9|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 4||38.9|8.0|0.0024
91029282|NCT00721409|181942112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.4515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|2.76||Chi-square test was used (1-sided, α=0.10)|Chi-squared|||Unstratified analysis was presented above. Exact CI was based on Clopper-Pearson method.||2.76|0.48|0.4515
91029283|NCT00721409|181942113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.93||||0.0471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|4.08||1-sided p-value is from the stratified exact test (1-sided, α =0.10)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Objective Response CI was calculated using the exact Clopper-Pearson method. The stratified analysis presented above was based on CMH test stratified by Part. An Odds Ratio \>1 means better response in favor of palbociclib + letrozole arm.||4.08|0.91|0.0471
91029284|NCT00721409|181942113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.34||||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|8.66||Chi-square test was used (1-sided, α=0.10)|Chi-squared|||Unstratified analysis was presented above. Exact CI was based on Clopper-Pearson method.||8.66|0.65|0.1180
91029285|NCT00721409|181942113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72||||0.1631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|4.54||Chi-square test was used (1-sided, α=0.10)|Chi-squared|||Unstratified analysis was presented above. Exact CI was based on Clopper-Pearson method.||4.54|0.65|0.1631
91029286|NCT00721409|181942115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.18||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|6.98||1-sided p-value is from the stratified exact test (1-sided, α =0.10).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CBR CI was calculated using the exact Clopper-Pearson method. The stratified analysis presented above was based on CMH test stratified by Part. An Odds Ratio \>1 means better response in favor of palbociclib + letrozole arm.||6.98|1.48|0.0009
91029287|NCT00721409|181942115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.18||||0.0065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|13.9||Chi-square test was used (1-sided, α=0.10)|Chi-squared|||Unstratified analysis was presented above. Exact CI was based on Clopper-Pearson method.||13.90|1.30|0.0065
90844098|NCT00976560|181553670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.99|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|1.35|||BMMRM|Bayesian Mixed Effects Model Repeated Measures (BMMRM)|Prior distribution of N(-4.1, 6.4009) incorporated into the posterior for the treatment difference at Week 6. The presented Confidence Interval is Highest Probability Density (HPD).||Posterior probability of the treatment difference being greater than 1.6 points in favor of GW856553 7.5mg BID as compared to placebo at Week 6 is 15.46 and for 0 is 72.98 and for 2 is 7.87.|1.35|-2.54|
90844099|NCT00125164|181553693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.0001||95.0|1.19|2.39||The two-sided p-values for the comparisons are adjusted for multiple comparisons using Dunnett's method.|ANCOVA|||The analysis compares each of the 80 and 120 µg/kg BID groups with the untreated control group using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), where the covariates are the baseline height SD score stratum used in the randomization, the pretreatment height velocity, the baseline bone age, the baseline chronological age, and sex.||2.39|1.19|<0.0001
90844100|NCT00125164|181553693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.0001||95.0|1.99|3.16||The two-sided p-values for the comparisons are adjusted for multiple comparisons using Dunnett's method.|ANCOVA|||The analysis compares each of the 80 and 120 µg/kg BID groups with the untreated control group using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), where the covariates are the baseline height SD score stratum used in the randomization, the pretreatment height velocity, the baseline bone age, the baseline chronological age, and sex.||3.16|1.99|< 0.0001
90844101|NCT00125164|181553693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.0032||95.0|0.27|1.31|||ANCOVA|||The analysis compares the 80 and 120 µg/kg BID groups using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), where the covariates are the baseline height SD score stratum used in the randomization, the pretreatment height velocity, the baseline bone age, the baseline chronological age, and sex.||1.31|0.27|0.0032
90844102|NCT00125164|181553694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001||95.0|0.24|0.5||The two-sided p-values for the comparisons are adjusted for multiple comparisons using Dunnett's method.|ANCOVA|||The analysis compares each of the 80 and 120 µg/kg BID groups with the untreated control group using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), where the covariates are the baseline height SD score stratum used in the randomization, the pretreatment height velocity, the baseline bone age, the baseline chronological age, and sex.||0.50|0.24|< 0.0001
90844103|NCT00125164|181553694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.0001||95.0|0.34|0.6||The two-sided p-values for the comparisons are adjusted for multiple comparisons using Dunnett's method.|ANCOVA|||The analysis compares each of the 80 and 120 µg/kg BID groups with the untreated control group using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), where the covariates are the baseline height SD score stratum used in the randomization, the pretreatment height velocity, the baseline bone age, the baseline chronological age, and sex.||0.60|0.34|< 0.0001
90844104|NCT00125164|181553694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.0495||95.0|0.0|0.22|||ANCOVA|||The analysis compares the 80 and 120 µg/kg BID groups using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), where the covariates are the baseline height SD score stratum used in the randomization, the pretreatment height velocity, the baseline bone age, the baseline chronological age, and sex.||0.22|0.00|0.0495
90844105|NCT00125164|181553702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.0001||95.0|1.26|2.4||The two-sided p-values for the comparisons are adjusted for multiple comparisons using Dunnett's method.|ANCOVA|||The analysis compares each of the 80 and 120 µg/kg BID groups with the untreated control group using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), where the covariates are the baseline height SD score stratum used in the randomization, the pretreatment height velocity, the baseline bone age, the baseline chronological age, and sex.||2.40|1.26|<0.0001
90844106|NCT00125164|181553702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.0001||95.0|2.26|3.39||The two-sided p-values for the comparisons are adjusted for multiple comparisons using Dunnett's method.|ANCOVA|||The analysis compares each of the 80 and 120 µg/kg BID groups with the untreated control group using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), where the covariates are the baseline height SD score stratum used in the randomization, the pretreatment height velocity, the baseline bone age, the baseline chronological age, and sex.||3.39|2.26|<0.0001
90844107|NCT00125164|181553702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.0002||95.0|0.5|1.51|||ANCOVA|||The analysis compares the 80 and 120 µg/kg BID groups using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), where the covariates are the baseline height SD score stratum used in the randomization, the pretreatment height velocity, the baseline bone age, the baseline chronological age, and sex.||1.51|0.50|0.0002
90844108|NCT00125164|181553703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.0001||95.0|0.25|0.5||The two-sided p-values for the comparisons are adjusted for multiple comparisons using Dunnett's method.|ANCOVA|||The analysis compares each of the 80 and 120 µg/kg BID groups with the untreated control group using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), where the covariates are the baseline height SD score stratum used in the randomization, the pretreatment height velocity, the baseline bone age, the baseline chronological age, and sex.||0.50|0.25|<0.0001
90844109|NCT00125164|181553703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.0001||95.0|0.39|0.64||The two-sided p-values for the comparisons are adjusted for multiple comparisons using Dunnett's method.|ANCOVA|||The analysis compares each of the 80 and 120 µg/kg BID groups with the untreated control group using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), where the covariates are the baseline height SD score stratum used in the randomization, the pretreatment height velocity, the baseline bone age, the baseline chronological age, and sex.||0.64|0.39|<0.0001
90844110|NCT00125164|181553703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.0071||95.0|0.04|0.26|||ANCOVA|||The analysis compares the 80 and 120 µg/kg BID groups using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), where the covariates are the baseline height SD score stratum used in the randomization, the pretreatment height velocity, the baseline bone age, the baseline chronological age, and sex.||0.26|0.04|0.0071
90844111|NCT01243580|181553727|EQUIVALENCE|Comparing Ortho-Cyclen to Ag200-15|||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
90844112|NCT01243580|181553728|EQUIVALENCE|Comparison of AG200-15 and Ortho-Cyclen|||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
90844113|NCT01243580|181553729|EQUIVALENCE|Comparison of AG200-15 and Ortho-Cyclen||||||0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0001
90844114|NCT01243580|181553730|EQUIVALENCE|Comparison of Ortho-Cylen and AG200-15||||||0.0532|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0532
91029288|NCT00721409|181942115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.55||||0.0442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|7.7||Chi-square test was used (1-sided, α=0.10)|Chi-squared|||Unstratified analysis was presented above. Exact CI was based on Clopper-Pearson method.||7.70|0.89|0.0442
91094022|NCT01311661|182072137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|142.136|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.885|<|0.0001||95.0|105.021|179.251|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||179.251|105.021|<0.0001
90844115|NCT01243580|181553731|EQUIVALENCE|Comparison of Ortho-Cyclen and AG200-15||||||0.0009|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0009
90844116|NCT01243580|181553732|EQUIVALENCE|Comparison of Ortho-Cyclen and AG200-15||||||0.0167|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0167
90844117|NCT01243580|181553733|EQUIVALENCE|Comparison of Ortho-Cyclen and AG200-15||||||0.0007|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0007
90844118|NCT01243580|181553734|EQUIVALENCE|Comparison of Ortho-Cyclen and AG200-15||||||0.0175|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0175
90844119|NCT01243580|181553735|EQUIVALENCE|Comparison of Ortho-Cyclen and AG200-15||||||0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0001
90844120|NCT01243580|181553736|EQUIVALENCE|Comparison of Ortho-Cyclen and AG200-15||||||0.0532|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0532
90844121|NCT01301027|181553740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.047
90844122|NCT01301027|181553741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.059|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.059
90844123|NCT01301027|181553742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.508|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.508
90844124|NCT01301027|181553743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.984|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.984
90844125|NCT04939415|181553744|SUPERIORITY||ratio of frequencies|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected||The Chi-square metric represents the difference between the expected and observed frequencies of an event, therefore it is the ratio of frequencies.|||||1.000
90844126|NCT04939415|181553745|SUPERIORITY||ratio of frequencies|1.023||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected||The Chi-square metric represents the difference between the expected and observed frequencies of an event, therefore it is the ratio of frequencies.|||||1.000
90844127|NCT04939415|181553747|SUPERIORITY||ratio of frequencies|1.073||||0.488|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected||The Chi-square metric represents the difference between the expected and observed frequencies of an event, therefore it is the ratio of frequencies.|||||0.488
90844128|NCT04939415|181553748|SUPERIORITY||ratio of frequencies|2.1||||0.488|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected||The Chi-square metric represents the difference between the expected and observed frequencies of an event, therefore it is the ratio of frequencies.|||||0.488
90844129|NCT04939415|181553750|SUPERIORITY||ratio of frequencies|3.243||||0.231|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected||The Chi-square metric represents the difference between the expected and observed frequencies of an event, therefore it is the ratio of frequencies.|||||0.231
90844130|NCT04939415|181553751|SUPERIORITY||ratio of frequencies|0.034||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|The Chi-square metric represents the difference between the expected and observed frequencies of an event, therefore it is the ratio of frequencies.||||||1.000
91094023|NCT01311661|182072137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|157.306|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.885|<|0.0001||95.0|120.192|194.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||194.420|120.192|<0.0001
90844131|NCT04939415|181553752|OTHER||ratio of frequencies|0.083||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|The Chi-square metric represents the difference between the expected and observed frequencies of an event, therefore it is the ratio of frequencies.||||||1.000
90844132|NCT04939415|181553754|SUPERIORITY||ratio of frequencies|1.213||||0.462|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected||The Chi-square metric represents the difference between the expected and observed frequencies of an event, therefore it is the ratio of frequencies.|||||0.462
90844133|NCT04939415|181553755|SUPERIORITY||ratio of frequencies|0.153||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected||The Chi-square metric represents the difference between the expected and observed frequencies of an event, therefore it is the ratio of frequencies.|||||1.000
90844134|NCT04939415|181553756|SUPERIORITY||F value|0.185||||0.668|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Group by Day interaction||||||0.668
90844135|NCT04939415|181553757|SUPERIORITY||F value|0.032||||0.86|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group by Day interaction|||||0.860
90844136|NCT04939415|181553758|SUPERIORITY||F value|0.035||||0.853|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group by Day interaction|||||0.853
90844137|NCT04939415|181553759|SUPERIORITY||F value|0.0||||0.995|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||group by day interaction|||||0.995
90844138|NCT04939415|181553760|SUPERIORITY||F value|1.27||||0.266|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.266
90844139|NCT04939415|181553761|SUPERIORITY||F value|4.533||||0.039|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||group by day interaction is reported.|||||0.039
90844140|NCT04939415|181553761|SUPERIORITY||F Ratio|13.897|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Degrees of freedom: 1,23||day 0 to day 14 for the mQFPD group were examined.||||<0.001
90844141|NCT04939415|181553761|SUPERIORITY||F ratio|0.41||||0.529|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom: 1,20||day 0 to day 14 for the Placebo Group were examined.||||0.529
90844142|NCT04939415|181553762|SUPERIORITY||ratio of frequencies|0.14||||0.71|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||group by day interaction|||||0.710
90844143|NCT04939415|181553763|SUPERIORITY||F value|2.855||||0.099|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||group by day interaction|||||0.099
90844144|NCT04939415|181553764|SUPERIORITY||F value|1.497||||0.228|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||group by day interaction|||||0.228
90844145|NCT04939415|181553765|SUPERIORITY||F value|2.537||||0.119|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||group by day interaction|||||0.119
90844146|NCT04939415|181553766|SUPERIORITY||F value|0.219||||0.643|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||group by day interaction|||||0.643
90844147|NCT04939415|181553767|SUPERIORITY||F value|0.054||||0.817|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.817
90844148|NCT04939415|181553768|SUPERIORITY||F value|0.315||||0.578|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||group by day interaction|||||0.578
90844149|NCT04939415|181553769|SUPERIORITY||F value|0.215||||0.643|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||day by group interaction|||||.643
90844150|NCT04939415|181553770|SUPERIORITY||F value|1.987||||0.159|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||day by group interaction|||||.159
90844151|NCT01354314|181553776|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.893|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.893
91029289|NCT00721409|181942116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.399|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.265|0.601||1-sided p-value is from the stratified log-rank test (α =0.10).|Log Rank|||Kaplan-Meier method was applied for median and 95% CI. Hazard ratio was based on assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of palbociclib + letrozole.||0.601|0.265|<0.0001
90844152|NCT01354314|181553776|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.594|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.594
90844153|NCT01354314|181553776|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.712|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.712
90844154|NCT01354314|181553777|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.673|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.673
90844155|NCT01354314|181553777|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.153|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.153
90844156|NCT01354314|181553777|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.282|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.282
90844157|NCT01354314|181553778|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.327|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.327
90844158|NCT01354314|181553778|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.178|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.178
90844159|NCT01354314|181553778|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.480
90844160|NCT01354314|181553779|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.267|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.267
90844161|NCT01354314|181553779|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.368|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.368
90844162|NCT01354314|181553779|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.672|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.672
90844163|NCT00478023|181553808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least square mean difference|18.1|||<|0.0001||95.0|10.9|25.3||Adjusted. The Hochberg procedure used for multiplicity comparisons|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and centre as fixed effects and baseline pain as covariate.|Only pain intensity assessments collected prior to the first dose of any additional analgesic medication considered. Afterwards LOCF used.|The null hypothesis is that all CG5503 IR dose groups are equal to the placebo group based on the mean sum of pain intensity difference at 24 hours (SPID24). The alternative hypothesis is that at least one CG5503 IR dose group is different from the placebo group based on the mean SPID24.||25.3|10.9|<0.0001
90844164|NCT00478023|181553808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least square mean difference|20.8|||<|0.0001||95.0|13.7|28.0||Adjusted. The Hochberg procedure used for multiplicity comparisons|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and centre as fixed effects and baseline pain as covariate.|Only pain intensity assessments collected prior to the first dose of any additional analgesic medication considered. Afterwards LOCF used.|The null hypothesis is that all CG5503 IR dose groups are equal to the placebo group based on the mean sum of pain intensity difference at 24 hours (SPID24). The alternative hypothesis is that at least one CG5503 IR dose group is different from the placebo group based on the mean SPID24.||28.0|13.7|<0.0001
90844165|NCT00478023|181553808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least square mean difference|23.3|||<|0.0001||95.0|16.3|30.4||Adjusted. The Hochberg procedure used for multiplicity comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and centre as fixed effects and baseline pain as covariate.|Only pain intensity assessments collected prior to the first dose of any additional analgesic medication considered. Afterwards LOCF used.|The null hypothesis is that all CG5503 IR dose groups are equal to the placebo group based on the mean sum of pain intensity difference at 24 hours (SPID24). The alternative hypothesis is that at least one CG5503 IR dose group is different from the placebo group based on the mean SPID24.||30.4|16.3|<0.0001
90844166|NCT00478023|181553808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least square mean difference|20.6|||<|0.0001||95.0|13.4|27.8||No multiplicity adjustment used.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and centre as fixed effects and baseline pain as covariate.|Only pain intensity assessments collected prior to the first dose of any additional analgesic medication considered. Afterwards LOCF used.|Null hypothesis of no treatment difference.||27.8|13.4|<0.0001
90844167|NCT00478023|181553809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least square mean difference|37.1|||<|0.0001||95.0|21.6|52.6||Adjusted. The Hochberg procedure used for multiplicity comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and centre as fixed effects and baseline pain as covariate.|Only pain intensity assessments collected prior to the first dose of any additional analgesic medication considered. Afterwards LOCF used.|The null hypothesis is that all CG5503 IR dose groups are equal to the placebo group based on the mean sum of pain intensity difference at 48 hours (SPID48). The alternative hypothesis is that at least one CG5503 IR dose group is different from the placebo group based on the mean SPID48.||52.6|21.6|<0.0001
90844168|NCT00478023|181553809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least square mean difference|44.0|||<|0.0001||95.0|28.6|59.5||Adjusted. The Hochberg procedure used for multiplicity comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and centre as fixed effects and baseline pain as covariates.|Only pain intensity assessments collected prior to the first dose of any additional analgesic medication considered. Afterwards LOCF used.|The null hypothesis is that all CG5503 IR dose groups are equal to the placebo group based on the mean sum of pain intensity difference at 48 hours (SPID48). The alternative hypothesis is that at least one CG5503 IR dose group is different from the placebo group based on the mean SPID48.||59.5|28.6|<0.0001
90844169|NCT00478023|181553809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least square mean difference|51.4|||<|0.0001||95.0|36.1|66.7||Adjusted. The Hochberg procedure used for multiplicity comparisons.|ANCOVA||Only pain intensity assessments collected prior to the first dose of any additional analgesic medication considered. Afterwards LOCF used.|The null hypothesis is that all CG5503 IR dose groups are equal to the placebo group based on the mean sum of pain intensity difference at 48 hours (SPID48). The alternative hypothesis is that at least one CG5503 IR dose group is different from the placebo group based on the mean SPID48.||66.7|36.1|<0.0001
90844170|NCT00478023|181553809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least square mean difference|46.9|||<|0.0001||95.0|31.4|62.4||No multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and centre as fixed effects and baseline pain as a covariate.|Only pain intensity assessments collected prior to the first dose of any additional analgesic medication considered. Afterwards LOCF used.|Null hypothesis of no treatment difference.||62.4|31.4|<0.0001
90844171|NCT05019521|181553821|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) mean difference|0.058|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0413||0.9205|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.01|0.126|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.126|-0.010|0.9205
90844172|NCT05019521|181553821|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0425||0.9205|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.086|0.055|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.055|-0.086|0.9205
90844173|NCT05019521|181553821|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.037|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0422||0.9205|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.033|0.106|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.106|-0.033|0.9205
91094024|NCT01311661|182072138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.554|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.115|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.78|-0.329|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2.5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||-0.329|-0.780|<0.0001
91094025|NCT01311661|182072138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.637|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.114|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.862|-0.412|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.412|-0.862|<0.0001
91094026|NCT01311661|182072138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.588|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.114|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.813|-0.364|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||-0.364|-0.813|<0.0001
91094027|NCT01311661|182072138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.546|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.114|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.77|-0.322|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.322|-0.770|<0.0001
91094028|NCT01311661|182072143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.357|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.461|-0.253|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2.5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||-0.253|-0.461|<0.0001
91094029|NCT01311661|182072143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.296|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.4|-0.192|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.192|-0.400|<0.0001
90844174|NCT00611026|181553850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Comparison fesoterodine vs tolterodine ER performed only if statistical significance favoring fesoterodine achieved for fesoterodine vs placebo to preserve overall alpha level at 5%; pairwise comparison also performed for tolterodine ER vs placebo.|Van Elteren's Test|P-value based on Van Elteren's Test (a stratified Wilcoxon-Mann Whitney test) adjusted by baseline UUI quartile.||"Treatment difference fesoterodine versus (vs) placebo at Week 12. Treatment effects estimated by Winsorized means (5% of the tails were censored, ie, replaced with the value at the fifth (5th) and ninety-fifth (95th) percentile, respectively).~If normality assumptions were severely violated (proportion of non normal observations \> 5%) a non-parametric analysis was to be conducted using Van Elteren's test stratified by baseline quartile of the diary variable analyzed."||||<0.0001
90844175|NCT00611026|181553850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0228|TWO_SIDED|||||Comparison fesoterodine vs tolterodine ER performed only if statistical significance favoring fesoterodine achieved for fesoterodine vs placebo to preserve overall alpha level at 5%; pairwise comparison also performed for tolterodine ER vs placebo.|Van Elteren's Test|P-value based on Van Elteren's Test (a stratified Wilcoxon-Mann Whitney test) adjusted by baseline UUI quartile.||Treatment difference tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 12. Treatment effects estimated by Winsorized means (5% of the tails were censored, ie, replaced with the value at the 5th and 95th percentile, respectively).||||0.0228
90844176|NCT00611026|181553850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0072|TWO_SIDED|||||Comparison fesoterodine vs tolterodine ER performed only if statistical significance favoring fesoterodine achieved for fesoterodine vs placebo to preserve overall alpha level at 5%; pairwise comparison also performed for tolterodine ER vs placebo.|Van Elteren's test|P-value based on Van Elteren's Test (a stratified Wilcoxon-Mann Whitney test) adjusted by baseline UUI quartile.||Treatment difference fesoterodine vs tolterodine ER at Week 12. Treatment effects estimated by Winsorized means (5% of the tails were censored, ie, replaced with the value at the 5th and 95th percentile, respectively).||||0.0072
90844177|NCT00611026|181553851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Van Elteren's Test|P-value based on Van Elteren's Test (a stratified Wilcoxon-Mann Whitney test) adjusted by baseline quartile of voided volume.||"Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 1. Treatment effects estimated by Winsorized means (5% of the tails were censored, ie, replaced with the value at the 5th and 95th percentile, respectively).~If normality assumptions were severely violated (proportion of non normal observations \> 5%) a non-parametric analysis was to be conducted using Van Elteren's test stratified by baseline quartile of the diary variable analyzed."||||0.0020
90844178|NCT00611026|181553851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0519|TWO_SIDED||||||Van Elteren's Test|P-value based on Van Elteren's Test (a stratified Wilcoxon-Mann Whitney test) adjusted by baseline quartile of voided volume.||Treatment difference tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 1. Treatment effects estimated by Winsorized means (5% of the tails were censored, ie, replaced with the value at the 5th and 95th percentile, respectively).||||0.0519
90844179|NCT00611026|181553851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1503|TWO_SIDED||||||Van Elteren's Test|P-value based on Van Elteren's Test (a stratified Wilcoxon-Mann Whitney test) adjusted by baseline quartile of voided volume.||Treatment difference fesoterodine vs tolterodine ER at Week 1. Treatment effects estimated by Winsorized means (5% of the tails were censored, ie, replaced with the value at the 5th and 95th percentile, respectively).||||0.1503
90844180|NCT00611026|181553851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Van Elteren's Test|P-value based on Van Elteren's Test (a stratified Wilcoxon-Mann Whitney test) adjusted by baseline quartile of voided volume.||Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 4. Treatment effects estimated by Winsorized means (5% of the tails were censored, ie, replaced with the value at the 5th and 95th percentile, respectively).||||<0.0001
90844181|NCT00611026|181553851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED||||||Van Elteren's Test|P-value based on Van Elteren's Test (a stratified Wilcoxon-Mann Whitney test) adjusted by baseline quartile of voided volume.||Treatment difference tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 4. Treatment effects estimated by Winsorized means (5% of the tails were censored, ie, replaced with the value at the 5th and 95th percentile, respectively).||||0.0002
91094030|NCT01311661|182072143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.301|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.405|-0.198|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||-0.198|-0.405|<0.0001
90898451|NCT05375955|181663010|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|21.2||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|38.9|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 6||38.9|8.0|0.0024
90898452|NCT05375955|181663010|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|22.9||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.5|40.1|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 6||40.1|9.5|0.0018
90898453|NCT05375955|181663010|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|33.3||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.8|51.8|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 6||51.8|17.8|0.0001
90898454|NCT05375955|181663010|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|15.2||||0.0259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|32.5|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 8||32.5|-0.1|0.0259
90898455|NCT05375955|181663010|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|22.8||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|40.4|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 8||40.4|6.3|0.0038
90898456|NCT05375955|181663010|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|30.4||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.2|48.9|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 8||48.9|12.2|0.0007
91094031|NCT01311661|182072143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.302|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.405|-0.198|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.198|-0.405|<0.0001
91094032|NCT01900314|182072145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||ANCOVA|||Repeated measures ANCOVA at 4 weeks with baseline MADRS as co-variate||||0.16
91094033|NCT01900314|182072146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||ANCOVA|||Repeated measures ANCOVA with baseline MADRS as co-variate||||0.04
91029290|NCT00721409|181942116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.299|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.156|0.572||1-sided p-value is from unstratified log-rank test (α=0.10).|Log Rank|||Unstratified analysis was presented above. Kaplan-Meier method was applied for median and 95% CI.||0.572|0.156|<0.0001
90844182|NCT00611026|181553851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013|TWO_SIDED||||||Van Elteren's|P-value based on Van Elteren's Test (a stratified Wilcoxon-Mann Whitney test) adjusted by baseline quartile of voided volume.||Treatment difference fesoterodine vs tolterodine ER at Week 4. Treatment effects estimated by Winsorized means (5% of the tails were censored, ie, replaced with the value at the 5th and 95th percentile, respectively).||||0.0130
90844183|NCT00611026|181553851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Van Elteren's Test|P-value based on Van Elteren's Test (a stratified Wilcoxon-Mann Whitney test) adjusted by baseline quartile of voided volume.||Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 12. Treatment effects estimated by Winsorized means (5% of the tails were censored, ie, replaced with the value at the 5th and 95th percentile, respectively).||||<0.0001
90844184|NCT00611026|181553851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED||||||Van Elteren's Test|P-value based on Van Elteren's Test (a stratified Wilcoxon-Mann Whitney test) adjusted by baseline quartile of voided volume.||Treatment difference tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 12. Treatment effects estimated by Winsorized means (5% of the tails were censored, ie, replaced with the value at the 5th and 95th percentile, respectively).||||0.0021
90844185|NCT00611026|181553851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0525|TWO_SIDED||||||Van Elteren's Test|P-value based on Van Elteren's Test (a stratified Wilcoxon-Mann Whitney test) adjusted by baseline quartile of voided volume.||Treatment difference fesoterodine vs tolterodine ER at Week 12. Treatment effects estimated by Winsorized means (5% of the tails were censored, ie, replaced with the value at the 5th and 95th percentile, respectively).||||0.0525
90844186|NCT00611026|181553852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.1|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|"Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type:~standard error of the mean."|Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 1.||-0.1|-0.5|0.0161
90844187|NCT00611026|181553852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.0|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|"Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type:~standard error of the mean."|Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 1.||0.0|-0.4|0.0944
90844188|NCT00611026|181553852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.3613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|"Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type:~standard error of the mean."|Treatment difference fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 1.||0.1|-0.3|0.3613
90844189|NCT00611026|181553852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.4|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|"Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type:~standard error of the mean."|Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 4.||-0.4|-0.9|<0.0001
90898457|NCT05375955|181663010|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|21.5||||0.0146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|41.2|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 10||41.2|2.1|0.0146
90898458|NCT05375955|181663010|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|19.7||||0.0205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|38.9|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 10||38.9|1.0|0.0205
90898459|NCT05375955|181663010|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|39.7||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.1|59.3|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 10||59.3|17.1|0.0002
90898460|NCT05375955|181663010|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|12.6||||0.1245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|32.6|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 12||32.6|-7.8|0.1245
91029291|NCT00721409|181942116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.486||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.288|0.822||1-sided p-value is from unstratified log-rank test (α=0.10).|Log Rank|||Unstratified analysis was presented above. Kaplan-Meier method was applied for median and 95% CI.||0.822|0.288|0.0030
90898461|NCT05375955|181663010|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|11.0||||0.1431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|31.5|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 12||31.5|-9.1|0.1431
90844190|NCT00611026|181553852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.1|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|"Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type:~standard error of the mean."|Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 4.||-0.1|-0.6|0.0043
90898462|NCT05375955|181663010|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|36.8||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.2|56.8|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 12||56.8|12.2|0.0007
90898463|NCT05375955|181663011|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.5||||0.3269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|14.1|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 1||14.1|-8.4|0.3269
90898464|NCT05375955|181663011|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.5||||0.3269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|14.1|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 1||14.1|-8.4|0.3269
90898465|NCT05375955|181663011|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|4.9||||0.1705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|17.6|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 2||17.6|-6.1|0.1705
90898466|NCT05375955|181663011|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|7.3||||0.1118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|20.5|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 2||20.5|-3.9|0.1118
90898467|NCT05375955|181663011|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.2||||0.2751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|20.5|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 4||20.5|-9.5|0.2751
90898468|NCT05375955|181663011|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.8||||0.3857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|17.6|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 4||17.6|-11.4|0.3857
90898469|NCT05375955|181663011|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|7.5||||0.1429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|22.6|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 6||22.6|-6.4|0.1429
91029292|NCT00721409|181942117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.0||P-values are based on 2-sample t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis presented above is for Pain Severity Scale.||1.0|-0.7|0.6900
91104125|NCT02554474|182094762|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in mean change|-0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|1.35||||||We performed an intent-to-treat analysis. For the main comparison, we used analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) to estimate an adjusted mean difference comparing the PHQ-9 scores at 9 weeks (primary end point) between groups, adjusting for baseline score, diagnosis, and blocking.||1.35|-1.78|
90957371|NCT06377488|181794738|SUPERIORITY||least-square mean estimate|0.083|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0152|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.051|0.116|||Mixed Model Analysis|The Satterthwaite Method was used for the calculation of the denominator degrees of freedom.|Visual Acuity scores at near was estimated using 95% confidence intervals (CI) constructed for the least-square mean (LSM).|It was calculated using a 1-sided one-sample mean t-test with a family wise type I error rate of 5% with at least 99% statistical power, that 9, 6 and 29 subjects were required to test the primary hypotheses for distance, intermediate and near, respectively.||0.116|0.051|
91029293|NCT00721409|181942117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.7125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.2||P-values are based on 2-sample t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis presented above is for Pain Severity Scale.||1.2|-1.8|0.7125
91104126|NCT02554474|182094763|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in mean change|1.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|4.18||||||We performed an intent-to-treat analysis. For the main comparison, we used analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) to estimate an adjusted mean difference comparing the Partners In Health Scale scores at 9 weeks (primary end point) between groups, adjusting for baseline score, diagnosis, and blocking.||4.18|-1.02|
91104127|NCT02554474|182094764|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in mean change|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.16||||||We performed an intent-to-treat analysis. For the main comparison, analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used to estimate an adjusted mean difference comparing the Sitting at Work index scores at 9 weeks (primary end point) between groups, adjusting for baseline score, diagnosis, and blocking.||0.16|-0.05|
90898470|NCT05375955|181663011|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|7.5||||0.1429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|22.6|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 6||22.6|-6.4|0.1429
90898471|NCT05375955|181663011|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|9.8||||0.1119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|25.3|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 8||25.3|-4.4|0.1119
90898472|NCT05375955|181663011|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.7||||0.3755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|16.7|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 8||16.7|-10.7|0.3755
90898473|NCT05375955|181663011|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|7.7||||0.2547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|24.3|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 10||24.3|-8.4|0.2547
90898474|NCT05375955|181663011|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.9||||0.3928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|18.6|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 10||18.6|-12.7|0.3928
90898475|NCT05375955|181663012|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|11.0|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 1||11.0|-10.6|1.0000
91029294|NCT00721409|181942117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.4012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.5||P-values are based on 2-sample t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis presented above is for Pain Severity Scale.||1.5|-0.6|0.4012
91029295|NCT00721409|181942118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.3346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.3||P-values are based on 2-sample t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis presented above is for Pain Interference Scale.||1.3|-0.5|0.3346
90844191|NCT00611026|181553852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.0|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|"Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type:~standard error of the mean."|Treatment difference fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 4.||-0.0|-0.5|0.0186
90844192|NCT00611026|181553852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.4|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|"Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type:~standard error of the mean."|Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 12.||-0.4|-0.9|<0.0001
90844193|NCT00611026|181553852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.0|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|"Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type:~standard error of the mean."|Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 12.||-0.0|-0.6|0.0407
90844194|NCT00611026|181553852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.1|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|"Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type:~standard error of the mean."|Treatment difference fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 12.||-0.1|-0.6|0.0016
90844195|NCT00611026|181553853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0217|TWO_SIDED|||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 1.||||0.0217
90844196|NCT00611026|181553853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 4.||||<0.0001
90844197|NCT00611026|181553853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 4.||||0.0020
90844198|NCT00611026|181553853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0217|TWO_SIDED|||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment difference fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 4.||||0.0217
90844199|NCT00611026|181553853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 12.||||<0.0001
90844200|NCT00611026|181553853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0421|TWO_SIDED|||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 12.||||0.0421
90844201|NCT00611026|181553853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment difference fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 12.||||0.0023
90844202|NCT00611026|181553854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.3823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|"Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type:~standard error of the mean."|Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 1.||0.1|-0.1|0.3823
90844203|NCT00611026|181553854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.4802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|"Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type:~standard error of the mean."|Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 1.||0.1|-0.1|0.4802
90844204|NCT00611026|181553854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0.8355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|"Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type:~standard error of the mean."|Treatment difference fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 1.||0.1|-0.1|0.8355
90844205|NCT00611026|181553854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.0|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|"Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type:~standard error of the mean."|Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 4.||-0.0|-0.12|0.0286
90844206|NCT00611026|181553854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.0|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|"Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type:~standard error of the mean."|Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 4.||0.0|-0.2|0.0794
90844207|NCT00611026|181553854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0.5906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|"Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type:~standard error of the mean."|Treatment difference fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 4.||0.1|-0.1|0.5906
90844208|NCT00611026|181553854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.0|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|"Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type:~standard error of the mean."|Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 12.||-0.0|-0.3|0.0134
90844209|NCT00611026|181553854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.1759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.0|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|"Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type:~standard error of the mean."|Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 12.||0.0|-0.2|0.1759
90844210|NCT00611026|181553854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0.1661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.0|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|"Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type:~standard error of the mean."|Treatment difference fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 12.||0.0|-0.2|0.1661
90844211|NCT00611026|181553855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 4.||||0.0021
90844212|NCT00611026|181553855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 12.||||0.0200
90844213|NCT00611026|181553856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED||||||Van Elteren's Test|P-value based on Van Elteren's Test (a stratified Wilcoxon-Mann Whitney test) adjusted by baseline UUI quartile.||"Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 1. Winsorized means (5% of the tails were censored, ie, replaced with the value at the 5th and 95th percentile, respectively).~If normality assumptions were severely violated (proportion of non normal observations \> 5%) a non-parametric analysis was to be conducted using Van Elteren's test stratified by baseline quartile of the diary variable analyzed."||||0.0006
90844214|NCT00611026|181553856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0202|TWO_SIDED||||||Van Elteren's Test|P-value based on Van Elteren's Test (a stratified Wilcoxon-Mann Whitney test) adjusted by baseline UUI quartile.||Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 1. Winsorized means (5% of the tails were censored, ie, replaced with the value at the 5th and 95th percentile, respectively).||||0.0202
90844215|NCT00611026|181553856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2126|TWO_SIDED||||||Van Elteren's Test|P-value based on Van Elteren's Test (a stratified Wilcoxon-Mann Whitney test) adjusted by baseline UUI quartile.||Treatment difference fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 1. Winsorized means (5% of the tails were censored, ie, replaced with the value at the 5th and 95th percentile, respectively).||||0.2126
90844216|NCT00611026|181553856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Van Elteren's Test|P-value based on Van Elteren's Test (a stratified Wilcoxon-Mann Whitney test) adjusted by baseline UUI quartile.||Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 4. Winsorized means (5% of the tails were censored, ie, replaced with the value at the 5th and 95th percentile, respectively).||||<0.0001
91029296|NCT00721409|181942118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.9||P-values are based on 2-sample t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis presented above is for Pain Interference Scale.||1.9|-1.0|0.5630
91029297|NCT00721409|181942118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.4427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.6||P-values are based on 2-sample t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis presented above is for Pain Severity Scale.||1.6|-0.7|0.4427
90844217|NCT00611026|181553856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED||||||Van Elteren's Test|P-value based on Van Elteren's Test (a stratified Wilcoxon-Mann Whitney test) adjusted by baseline UUI quartile.||Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 4. Winsorized means (5% of the tails were censored, ie, replaced with the value at the 5th and 95th percentile, respectively).||||0.0019
90844218|NCT00611026|181553856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0148|TWO_SIDED||||||Van Elteren's Test|P-value based on Van Elteren's Test (a stratified Wilcoxon-Mann Whitney test) adjusted by baseline UUI quartile.||Treatment difference fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 4. Winsorized means (5% of the tails were censored, ie, replaced with the value at the 5th and 95th percentile, respectively).||||0.0148
90844219|NCT00611026|181553857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 1.||||0.0012
90844220|NCT00611026|181553857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0205|TWO_SIDED|||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 1.||||0.0205
90844221|NCT00611026|181553857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 4.||||<0.0001
90844222|NCT00611026|181553857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 4.||||0.0038
90844223|NCT00611026|181553857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0219|TWO_SIDED|||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs Fesoterodine at Week 4.||||0.0219
90844224|NCT00611026|181553857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 12.||||0.0001
90844225|NCT00611026|181553857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0805|TWO_SIDED|||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 12.||||0.0805
90844226|NCT00611026|181553857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0093|TWO_SIDED|||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs Fesoterodine at Week 12.||||0.0093
91029298|NCT01024738|181942167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
90844227|NCT00611026|181553858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.0|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 1.||-0.0|-0.7|0.0374
90844228|NCT00611026|181553858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.3161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.2|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 1.||0.2|-0.5|0.3161
90844229|NCT00611026|181553858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.1817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs Fesoterodine at Week 1.||0.1|-0.5|0.1817
91029299|NCT02483975|181942169|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the geometric mean ratio of each dose of fluticasone furoate 50 µg versus placebo was greater than 0.8.|Least square Geometric Mean ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.804|1.0505||||||||1.0505|0.8040|
91029300|NCT02483975|181942170|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the geometric mean ratio of each dose of fluticasone furoate 50 µg versus placebo was greater than 0.8.|Least square Geometric Mean ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8096|1.062||||||||1.0620|0.8096|
91029301|NCT02483975|181942171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least square Geometric Mean ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.06||||||||1.06|0.81|
91094034|NCT00392223|182072234|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Analysis performed to assess non-inferiority by calculation \& examination of 95% CI. Analysis conducted via analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including corresponding baseline value and centre as covariates. Non-inferiority margin was chosen as largest clinically acceptable difference. This was set as difference of 3 in GAGS global score. Azithromycin declared non-inferior to minocycline when two-sided 95% confidence interval for difference lied entirely to right of non-inferiority margin.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47||||||95.0|-2.48|1.54|||||Comparison between treatment groups was performed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) method, with treatment, center, and baseline value GAGS global score included as covariates.|||1.54|-2.48|
91094035|NCT00392223|182072238|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Analysis performed to assess non-inferiority by calculation \& examination of 95% CI. Analysis conducted via analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including corresponding baseline value and centre as covariates. Non-inferiority margin was chosen as largest clinically acceptable difference. This was set as difference of 3 in GAGS global score. Azithromycin declared non-inferior to minocycline when two-sided 95% confidence interval for difference lied entirely to right of non-inferiority margin.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.87||||||95.0|-2.58|0.84|||||ANCOVA adjusted for baseline, center and treatment.|||0.84|-2.58|
91094036|NCT02908347|182072248|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.64||||0.8785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|3.36|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||3.36|-2.09|0.8785
91094037|NCT02908347|182072251|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||PASI 30 - Day 29||||1
90898476|NCT05375955|181663012|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|10.1|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 1||10.1|-10.6|1.0000
91094038|NCT02908347|182072251|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||PASI 50 - Day 29||||1
91094039|NCT02908347|182072251|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5136|||||||Fisher Exact|||PASI 30 - Day 43||||0.5136
91094040|NCT02908347|182072251|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||PASI 50 - Day 43||||1
91094041|NCT05816070|182072259|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is -10% based on the general standard of antibacterial drug. Non-inferiority is established when P\<0.05.||||||0.0137|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0137
90898477|NCT05375955|181663012|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|3.0||||0.2578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|15.8|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 1||15.8|-7.8|0.2578
90898478|NCT05375955|181663012|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|6.1||||0.0993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|20.7|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 2||20.7|-4.9|0.0993
91094042|NCT05516758|182072266|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.88||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|3.11|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.11|1.14|0.014
91094043|NCT05516758|182072266|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.52|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.52|0.92|0.098
91094044|NCT05516758|182072266|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.23|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.23|0.66|0.534
90844230|NCT00611026|181553858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.8|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 4.||-0.8|-1.6|<0.0001
90844231|NCT00611026|181553858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.2|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 4.||-0.2|-1.0|0.0054
90844232|NCT00611026|181553858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.3|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs Fesoterodine at Week 4.||-0.3|-0.9|0.0005
90844233|NCT00611026|181553858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.6|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 12.||-0.6|-1.5|<0.0001
90844234|NCT00611026|181553858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.1467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.1|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 12.||0.1|-0.7|0.1467
90898479|NCT05375955|181663012|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.7||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|19.2|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 2||19.2|-5.3|0.1140
90898480|NCT05375955|181663012|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|9.1||||0.0436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|24.3|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 2||24.3|-2.1|0.0436
90898481|NCT05375955|181663012|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|6.1||||0.0993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|20.7|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 4||20.7|-4.9|0.0993
90844235|NCT00611026|181553858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.4|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs Fesoterodine at Week 12.||-0.4|-1.1|<0.0001
90844236|NCT00611026|181553859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0828|TWO_SIDED|||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 1.||||0.0828
90844237|NCT00611026|181553859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 4.||||<0.0001
90898482|NCT05375955|181663012|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|17.1||||0.0071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|33.9|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 4||33.9|4.9|0.0071
90844238|NCT00611026|181553859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 4.||||0.0008
90898483|NCT05375955|181663012|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|15.2||||0.0104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|32.0|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 4||32.0|3.2|0.0104
90898484|NCT05375955|181663012|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|15.2||||0.0104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|32.0|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 6||32.0|3.2|0.0104
90898485|NCT05375955|181663012|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|17.1||||0.0071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|33.9|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 6||33.9|4.9|0.0071
90898486|NCT05375955|181663012|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|24.2||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.4|42.3|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 6||42.3|10.4|0.0011
90898487|NCT05375955|181663012|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|9.1||||0.0436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|24.3|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 8||24.3|-2.1|0.0436
90898488|NCT05375955|181663012|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|28.6||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.2|46.3|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 8||46.3|14.2|0.0003
90898489|NCT05375955|181663012|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|27.3||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.9|45.8|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 8||45.8|12.9|0.0007
90898490|NCT05375955|181663012|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|9.3||||0.1256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|26.4|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 10||26.4|-6.6|0.1256
90898491|NCT05375955|181663012|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|25.5||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|44.8|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 10||44.8|7.0|0.0038
90898492|NCT05375955|181663012|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|33.5||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.8|52.6|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 10||52.6|12.8|0.0007
90898493|NCT05375955|181663013|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.5||||0.3269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|14.1|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 1||14.1|-8.4|0.3269
90898494|NCT05375955|181663013|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.5||||0.3269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|14.1|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 1||14.1|-8.4|0.3269
90898495|NCT05375955|181663013|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.6||||0.3585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|15.5|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 2||15.5|-9.2|0.3585
90898496|NCT05375955|181663013|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|7.4||||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|22.1|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 2||22.1|-5.3|0.1290
90898497|NCT05375955|181663013|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.3||||0.2751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|22.1|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 4||22.1|-10.7|0.2751
91029302|NCT02483975|181942172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least square Geometric Mean ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.03||||||||1.03|0.61|
91029303|NCT02483975|181942173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least square Geometric Mean ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.07||||||||1.07|0.72|
90844239|NCT00611026|181553859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs Fesoterodine at Week 4.||||0.0022
90844240|NCT00611026|181553859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 12.||||<0.0001
90844241|NCT00611026|181553859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs Fesoterodine at Week 12.||||0.0008
90844242|NCT00611026|181553860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0576|TWO_SIDED||||||Van Elteren's Test|P-value based on Van Elteren's Test (a stratified Wilcoxon-Mann Whitney test) adjusted by baseline quartile of severe urgency episodes.||"Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 1. Treatment effects estimated by Winsorized means (5% of the tails were censored, ie, replaced with the value at the 5th and 95 percentile, respectively).~If normality assumptions were severely violated (proportion of non normal observations \> 5%) a non-parametric analysis was to be conducted using Van Elteren's test stratified by baseline quartile of the diary variable analyzed."||||0.0576
90844243|NCT00611026|181553860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.223|TWO_SIDED||||||Van Elteren's Test|P-value based on Van Elteren's Test (a stratified Wilcoxon-Mann Whitney test) adjusted by baseline quartile of severe urgency episodes.||Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 1. Treatment effects estimated by Winsorized means (5% of the tails were censored, ie, replaced with the value at the 5th and 95 percentile, respectively).||||0.2230
90844244|NCT00611026|181553860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3555|TWO_SIDED||||||Van Elteren's Test|P-value based on Van Elteren's Test (a stratified Wilcoxon-Mann Whitney test) adjusted by baseline quartile of severe urgency episodes.||Treatment difference fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 1. Treatment effects estimated by Winsorized means (5% of the tails were censored, ie, replaced with the value at the 5th and 95 percentile, respectively).||||0.3555
90844245|NCT00611026|181553860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Van Elteren's Test|P-value based on Van Elteren's Test (a stratified Wilcoxon-Mann Whitney test) adjusted by baseline quartile of severe urgency episodes.||Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 4. Treatment effects estimated by Winsorized means (5% of the tails were censored, ie, replaced with the value at the 5th and 95 percentile, respectively).||||<0.0001
90844246|NCT00611026|181553860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED||||||Van Elteren's Test|P-value based on Van Elteren's Test (a stratified Wilcoxon-Mann Whitney test) adjusted by baseline quartile of severe urgency episodes.||Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 4. Treatment effects estimated by Winsorized means (5% of the tails were censored, ie, replaced with the value at the 5th and 95 percentile, respectively).||||0.0009
90844247|NCT00611026|181553860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0071|TWO_SIDED||||||Van Elteren's Test|P-value based on Van Elteren's Test (a stratified Wilcoxon-Mann Whitney test) adjusted by baseline quartile of severe urgency episodes.||Treatment difference fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 4. Treatment effects estimated by Winsorized means (5% of the tails were censored, ie, replaced with the value at the 5th and 95 percentile, respectively).||||0.0071
90844248|NCT00611026|181553860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Van Elteren's Test|P-value based on Van Elteren's Test (a stratified Wilcoxon-Mann Whitney test) adjusted by baseline quartile of severe urgency episodes.||Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 12. Treatment effects estimated by Winsorized means (5% of the tails were censored, ie, replaced with the value at the 5th and 95 percentile, respectively).||||<0.0001
90844249|NCT00611026|181553860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1764|TWO_SIDED||||||Van Elteren's Test|P-value based on Van Elteren's Test (a stratified Wilcoxon-Mann Whitney test) adjusted by baseline quartile of severe urgency episodes.||Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 12. Treatment effects estimated by Winsorized means (5% of the tails were censored, ie, replaced with the value at the 5th and 95 percentile, respectively).||||0.1764
90898498|NCT05375955|181663013|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|7.7||||0.2547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|24.3|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 4||24.3|-8.4|0.2547
90898499|NCT05375955|181663013|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.2||||0.2751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|20.5|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 6||20.5|-9.5|0.2751
91029304|NCT00818883|181942174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|-2.9||Overall type I error rate controlled using stepwise testing procedure. First treatment test done at Week 6. If statistically significant at significance level of 5%, then treatment comparison at Week 10 was performed. Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate was performed using Week 6 data.||-2.9|-8.3|<0.001
91029305|NCT00818883|181942174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.0|||<|0.001||95.0|-7.5|-2.5||Overall type I error rate controlled using stepwise testing procedure. First treatment test done at Week 6. If statistically significant at significance level of 5%, then treatment comparison at Week 10 was performed. Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate was performed using Week 10 data.||-2.5|-7.5|<0.001
91094045|NCT00402831|182072281|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was declared when the lower bounds of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the group difference in response rates was greater than -10%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|2.6||||||Measles difference||2.6|-2.5|
91094046|NCT00402831|182072281|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was declared when the lower bounds of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the group difference in response rates was greater than -10%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|3.3||||||Mumps difference||3.3|-3.0|
90844250|NCT00611026|181553860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Van Elteren's Test|P-value based on Van Elteren's Test (a stratified Wilcoxon-Mann Whitney test) adjusted by baseline quartile of severe urgency episodes.||Treatment difference fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 12. Treatment effects estimated by Winsorized means (5% of the tails were censored, ie, replaced with the value at the 5th and 95 percentile, respectively).||||0.0001
90844251|NCT00611026|181553861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 4.||||<0.0001
90844252|NCT00611026|181553861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 4.||||0.0003
90844253|NCT00611026|181553861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0302|TWO_SIDED|||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs Fesoterodine at Week 4.||||0.0302
90844254|NCT00611026|181553861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 12.||||<0.0001
90844255|NCT00611026|181553861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs Fesoterodine at Week 12.||||0.0007
90844256|NCT00611026|181553862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0.0701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.0|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment with baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 1.||0.0|-0.1|0.0701
90844257|NCT00611026|181553862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0.4823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.0|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment with baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 1.||0.0|-0.1|0.4823
90844258|NCT00611026|181553862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0.1702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.0|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment with baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs Fesoterodine at Week 1.||0.0|-0.1|0.1702
90844259|NCT00611026|181553862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.1|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment with baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 4.||-0.1|-0.3|<0.0001
90844260|NCT00611026|181553862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.0|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment with baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 4.||-0.0|-0.2|0.0059
90898500|NCT05375955|181663013|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|12.3||||0.0658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|28.8|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 6||28.8|-3.8|0.0658
90898501|NCT05375955|181663013|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.3||||0.2751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|22.1|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 8||22.1|-10.7|0.2751
90898502|NCT05375955|181663013|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.3||||0.2751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|22.1|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 8||22.1|-10.7|0.2751
91094047|NCT00402831|182072281|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was declared when the lower bounds of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the group difference in response rates was greater than -10%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|4.1||||||Rubella difference||4.1|-2.3|
91094048|NCT00402831|182072281|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was declared when the lower bounds of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the group difference in response rates was greater than -10%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|4.1||||||Varicella||4.1|-2.1|
91094049|NCT02814526|182072305|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.078||||0.29|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.29
91094050|NCT02814526|182072306|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.031||||0.74|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.74
90898503|NCT05375955|181663013|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|3.1||||0.3997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|20.2|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 10||20.2|-13.6|0.3997
90844261|NCT00611026|181553862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.0|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment with baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs Fesoterodine at Week 4.||-0.0|-0.2|0.0014
90844262|NCT00611026|181553862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.1|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment with baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 12.||-0.1|-0.3|<0.0001
90898504|NCT05375955|181663013|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|3.1||||0.3997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|20.2|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 10||20.2|-13.6|0.3997
91029306|NCT00818883|181942175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|-2.2||Overall type I error rate controlled using stepwise testing procedure. First treatment test done at Week 6. If statistically significant at significance level of 5%, then treatment comparison at Week 10 was performed. Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate was performed using Week 6 data.||-2.2|-5.2|<0.001
91029307|NCT00818883|181942175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|-1.3||Overall type I error rate controlled using stepwise testing procedure. First treatment test done at Week 6. If statistically significant at significance level of 5%, then treatment comparison at Week 10 was performed. Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate was performed using Week 10 data.||-1.3|-4.1|<0.001
91029308|NCT00818883|181942176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|-4.2||Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate was performed using Week 6 data.||-4.2|-10.5|<0.001
91029309|NCT00818883|181942176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.2||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|-1.7||Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate was performed using Week 10 data.||-1.7|-6.8|0.001
91029310|NCT00818883|181942177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|-2.3||Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate was performed using Week 6 data.||-2.3|-6.3|<0.001
91029311|NCT00818883|181942177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|-0.7||Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate was performed using Week 10 data.||-0.7|-4.2|0.006
91029312|NCT00818883|181942178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|-3.2||Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate was performed using Week 6 data.||-3.2|-8.4|<0.001
91094051|NCT02814526|182072307|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.009447||||0.8284|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.8284
91094052|NCT02814526|182072308|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02024||||0.7086|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.7086
91094053|NCT02814526|182072309|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.29||||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.06
91094054|NCT02814526|182072310|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17||||0.33|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.33
91094055|NCT02814526|182072311|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.49
91094056|NCT02814526|182072312|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.61|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.61
91094057|NCT02814526|182072313|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.78|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.78
91094058|NCT02814526|182072314|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04||||0.31|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.31
91094059|NCT02814526|182072315|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0005||||0.817|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.817
91094060|NCT02814526|182072316|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.002||||0.64|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.64
91094061|NCT02814526|182072317|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.97|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.97
91094062|NCT02814526|182072318|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17||||0.94|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.94
91094063|NCT02485860|182072325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.094|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.094
91094064|NCT03454555|182072354|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.6||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|5.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.3|-16.6|0.31
91094065|NCT03454555|182072355|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|10.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||10.7|-10.3|0.963
91094066|NCT03454555|182072356|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.2||||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.8|4.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.4|-16.8|0.253
91094067|NCT03454555|182072357|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|11.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.5|-10.1|0.90
91094068|NCT03454555|182072358|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.6||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|8.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.6|-13.7|0.65
91094069|NCT03454555|182072359|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.4||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|20.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||20.8|-1.9|0.102
91094070|NCT03454555|182072360|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|Used a logistic mixed model for repeated measures||||1.75|0.50|0.83
91094071|NCT03454555|182072361|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Used a logistic mixed model for repeated measures||||1.50|0.42|0.47
91094072|NCT03454555|182072362|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|Used a logistic mixed model for repeated measures||||1.90|0.54|0.96
91094073|NCT03454555|182072363|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|Used a logistic mixed model for repeated measures||||1.33|0.38|0.28
90898505|NCT05375955|181663013|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|7.9||||0.2736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|25.7|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 12||25.7|-9.5|0.2736
90898506|NCT05375955|181663013|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|12.7||||0.1119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|31.0|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 12||31.0|-5.6|0.1119
90898507|NCT05375955|181663014|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|11.0|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 1||11.0|-10.6|1.0000
90898508|NCT05375955|181663014|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.9||||0.2697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|14.9|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 1||14.9|-7.8|0.2697
90898509|NCT05375955|181663014|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|3.0||||0.2578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|15.8|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 1||15.8|-7.8|0.2578
91029313|NCT00818883|181942178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|-2.0||Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate was performed using Week 10 data.||-2.0|-6.4|<0.001
90844263|NCT00611026|181553862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.0|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment with baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 12.||0.0|-0.1|0.3110
90844264|NCT00611026|181553862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|-0.1|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment with baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs Fesoterodine at Week 12.||-0.1|-0.2|0.0004
90844265|NCT00611026|181553863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.0136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.3|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 1.||-0.3|-2.7|0.0136
90844266|NCT00611026|181553863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.1918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.4|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 1.||0.4|-2.0|0.1918
90844267|NCT00611026|181553863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.1505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.3|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs Fesoterodine at Week 1.||0.3|-1.7|0.1505
90844268|NCT00611026|181553863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|-2.6|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 4.||-2.6|-5.2|<0.0001
90898510|NCT05375955|181663014|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|6.1||||0.0993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|20.7|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 2||20.7|-4.9|0.0993
90957372|NCT06377488|181794739|SUPERIORITY||Mean Population Estimate|62.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.7|67.5|||Mixed Model Analysis|The Satterthwaite Method was used for the calculation of the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean estimates were conducted for myopes only using two-sided confidence intervals (CI) constructed for the least square mean.|It was calculated using a 1-sided one-sample mean t-test with a family wise type I error rate of 5% with at least 99% statistical power, that 23 and 29 subjects were required to test for superiority for CLUE vision scores for hyperopes and myopes, respectively.||67.5|56.7|
90898511|NCT05375955|181663014|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.7||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|19.2|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 2||19.2|-5.3|0.1140
90898512|NCT05375955|181663014|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|9.1||||0.0436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|24.3|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 2||24.3|-2.1|0.0436
90898513|NCT05375955|181663014|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|6.1||||0.0993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|20.7|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 4||20.7|-4.9|0.0993
90898514|NCT05375955|181663014|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|17.1||||0.0071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|33.9|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 4||33.9|4.9|0.0071
90898515|NCT05375955|181663014|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|15.2||||0.0104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|32.0|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 4||32.0|3.2|0.0104
90898516|NCT05375955|181663014|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|15.2||||0.0104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|32.0|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 6||32.0|3.2|0.0104
90898517|NCT05375955|181663014|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|17.1||||0.0071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|33.9|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 6||33.9|4.9|0.0071
90898518|NCT05375955|181663014|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|24.2||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.4|42.3|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 6||42.3|10.4|0.0011
90898519|NCT05375955|181663014|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|9.1||||0.0436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|24.3|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 8||24.3|-2.1|0.0436
90898520|NCT05375955|181663014|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|28.6||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.2|46.3|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 8||46.3|14.2|0.0003
90898521|NCT05375955|181663014|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|27.3||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.9|45.8|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 8||45.8|12.9|0.0007
90898522|NCT05375955|181663014|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|6.3||||0.2712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|24.3|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 10||24.3|-10.8|0.2712
90898523|NCT05375955|181663014|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|25.5||||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.4|44.8|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 10||44.8|5.4|0.0056
90898524|NCT05375955|181663014|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|30.6||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.7|50.5|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 10||50.5|9.7|0.0017
91029314|NCT00818883|181942179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|-2.1||Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate was performed using Week 6 data.||-2.1|-5.5|<0.001
90898525|NCT05375955|181663014|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|3.4||||0.3929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|21.6|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 12||21.6|-14.9|0.3929
90844269|NCT00611026|181553863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-0.7|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 4.||-0.7|-3.3|0.0034
90844270|NCT00611026|181553863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-0.8|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs Fesoterodine at Week 4.||-0.8|-3.0|0.0006
90844271|NCT00611026|181553863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|-2.3|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 12.||-2.3|-5.0|<0.0001
90844272|NCT00611026|181553863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.0859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.2|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 12.||0.2|-2.5|0.0859
90844273|NCT00611026|181553863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|-1.4|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs Fesoterodine at Week 12.||-1.4|-3.6|<0.0001
90844274|NCT00611026|181553864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline UUI quartile.||Treatment difference in continent rate for fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 1.||||0.0008
90844275|NCT00611026|181553864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline UUI quartile.||Treatment difference in continent rate for Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 1.||||0.0024
90844276|NCT00611026|181553864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6514|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline UUI quartile.||Treatment difference in continent rate for fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 1.||||0.6514
90844277|NCT00611026|181553864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline UUI quartile.||Treatment difference in continent rate for fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 4.||||<0.0001
90844278|NCT00611026|181553864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline UUI quartile.||Treatment difference in continent rate for Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 4.||||0.0063
90844279|NCT00611026|181553864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0494|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline UUI quartile.||Treatment difference in continent rate for fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 4.||||0.0494
91029315|NCT00818883|181942179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|-1.1||Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate was performed using Week 10 data.||-1.1|-4.1|<0.001
90844280|NCT00611026|181553864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline UUI quartile.||Treatment difference in continent rate for fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 12.||||0.0003
90844281|NCT00611026|181553864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0991|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline UUI quartile.||Treatment difference in continent rate for Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 12.||||0.0991
90844282|NCT00611026|181553864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0169|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline UUI quartile.||Treatment difference in continent rate for fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 12.||||0.0169
90844283|NCT00611026|181553865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (CMH) with modified ridit scoring and stratified by country.||Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 1.||||0.0009
90844284|NCT00611026|181553865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0279|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (CMH) with modified ridit scoring and stratified by country.||Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 1.||||0.0279
90844285|NCT00611026|181553865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2817|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (CMH) with modified ridit scoring and stratified by country.||Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs Fesoterodine at Week 1.||||0.2817
90844286|NCT00611026|181553865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (CMH) with modified ridit scoring and stratified by country.||Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 4.||||<0.0001
90898526|NCT05375955|181663014|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|28.2||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|47.7|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 12||47.7|7.0|0.0040
90898527|NCT05375955|181663014|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|33.7||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.4|53.7|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 12||53.7|10.4|0.0012
90898528|NCT05375955|181663017|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.8||||0.3255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|15.8|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 1||15.8|-8.5|0.3255
90898529|NCT05375955|181663017|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.5||||0.7181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|8.3|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 1||8.3|-13.3|0.7181
90898530|NCT05375955|181663017|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|18.4||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|34.3|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 2||34.3|7.0|0.0022
91029316|NCT02684578|181942193|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Linear mixed-effects regression|||||||0.39
91029317|NCT02684578|181942194|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Linear mixed-effects|||||||0.97
91029318|NCT02684578|181942195|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Linear mixed-effects|||||||0.12
90844287|NCT00611026|181553865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (CMH) with modified ridit scoring and stratified by country.||Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 4.||||0.0001
90844288|NCT00611026|181553865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0177|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (CMH) with modified ridit scoring and stratified by country.||Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs Fesoterodine at Week 4.||||0.0177
90844289|NCT00611026|181553865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (CMH) with modified ridit scoring and stratified by country.||Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 12.||||<0.0001
90844290|NCT00611026|181553865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0107|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (CMH) with modified ridit scoring and stratified by country.||Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 12.||||0.0107
90844291|NCT00611026|181553865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (CMH) with modified ridit scoring and stratified by country.||Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs Fesoterodine at Week 12.||||0.0005
90844292|NCT00611026|181553866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (CMH) with modified ridit scoring and stratified by country.||Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 1.||||0.0011
90844293|NCT00611026|181553866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0072|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (CMH) with modified ridit scoring and stratified by country.||Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 1.||||0.0072
90844294|NCT00611026|181553866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3713|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (CMH) with modified ridit scoring and stratified by country.||Treatment difference fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 1.||||0.3713
90844295|NCT00611026|181553866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (CMH) with modified ridit scoring and stratified by country.||Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 4.||||0.0002
90844296|NCT00611026|181553866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1485|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (CMH) with modified ridit scoring and stratified by country.||Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 4.||||0.1485
90844297|NCT00611026|181553866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (CMH) with modified ridit scoring and stratified by country.||Treatment difference fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 4.||||0.0040
90844298|NCT00611026|181553866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (CMH) with modified ridit scoring and stratified by country.||Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 12.||||<0.0001
90844299|NCT00611026|181553866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (CMH) with modified ridit scoring and stratified by country.||Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 12.||||0.0060
90844300|NCT00611026|181553866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (CMH) with modified ridit scoring and stratified by country.||Treatment difference fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 12.||||0.0016
90844301|NCT00611026|181553867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|-4.7|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 12.||-4.7|-9.5|<0.0001
90844302|NCT00611026|181553867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.0458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|0.0|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 12.||-0.0|-4.8|0.0458
90844303|NCT00611026|181553867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|-2.7|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs Fesoterodine at Week 12.||-2.7|-6.6|<0.0001
91029319|NCT03879239|181942198|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0011||||||Responder Rate on Weekly CSBM1 in the ITT (Intention to Treat) analysis set. (For details, refer to the primary outcome description).|Chi-squared|||||||0.0011
91029320|NCT03879239|181942198|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0085||||||Responder Rate on Weekly CSBM2 in the ITT (Intention to Treat) analysis set. (For details, refer to the primary outcome description).|Chi-squared|||||||0.0085
91029321|NCT01966042|181942216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Friedman test (n=13)|||||||< 0.001
91029322|NCT03267264|181942220|NON_INFERIORITY|Two-sided 95% confidence intervals is calculated for the average relative rating. A linear model was used to evaluate the pen needle group effect on the response to test whether the groups can be combined (a p-value \< 0.05 for the pen needle group effect indicates non-poolability) and to adjust for the order effect. The order of the pen needles used and the group to which the subject belongs were used as covariates. If the lower bound of the CI is \> -10mm, we can conclude in non-inferiority.|Overall Mean|17.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.3|24.7||||||||24.7|10.3|
91094074|NCT03454555|182072364|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|Used a logistic mixed model for repeated measures||||1.71|0.47|0.75
91094075|NCT03454555|182072365|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.68||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|Used a logistic mixed model for repeated measures||||1.31|0.35|0.25
90898531|NCT05375955|181663017|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|14.7||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|31.1|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 2||31.1|3.7|0.0064
91029323|NCT03267264|181942221|NON_INFERIORITY|Two-sided 95% confidence intervals is calculated for the average relative rating. A linear model was used to evaluate the pen needle group effect on the response to test whether the groups can be combined (a p-value \< 0.05 for the pen needle group effect indicates non-poolability) and to adjust for the order effect. The order of the pen needles used and the group to which the subject belongs were used as covariates. If the lower bound of the CI is \> -10mm, we can conclude in non-inferiority.|Overall Mean|30.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.8|44.3||||||||44.3|16.8|
90844304|NCT00611026|181553868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|7.9|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo: HRQL scale score total.||7.9|3.4|<0.0001
90844305|NCT00611026|181553868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.0429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|4.6|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs Placebo: HRQL scale score total.||4.6|0.1|0.0429
90844306|NCT00611026|181553868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|5.2|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER: HRQL scale score total.||5.2|1.5|0.0003
90844307|NCT00611026|181553868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|9.2|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo: HRQL concern domain.||9.2|4.0|<0.0001
90844308|NCT00611026|181553868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.0795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|4.9|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Placebo vs Tolterodine ER: HRQL concern domain.||4.9|-0.3|0.0795
90844309|NCT00611026|181553868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|6.3|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER: HRQL concern domain.||6.3|2.1|<0.0001
90844310|NCT00611026|181553868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|9.6|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo: HRQL coping domain.||9.6|4.3|<0.0001
90844311|NCT00611026|181553868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.0229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|5.7|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo: HRQL coping domain.||5.7|0.4|0.0229
90844312|NCT00611026|181553868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|6.0|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER: HRQL coping domain.||6.0|1.7|0.0004
90844313|NCT00611026|181553868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|6.9|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo: HRQL sleep domain.||6.9|2.0|0.0003
90898532|NCT05375955|181663017|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|13.7||||0.0659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|31.5|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 4||31.5|-3.4|0.0659
90898533|NCT05375955|181663017|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|19.4||||0.0189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|38.5|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 4||38.5|0.9|0.0189
91094076|NCT03454555|182072366|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.4|-0.9|0.70
90898534|NCT05375955|181663017|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|3.6||||0.3962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|22.3|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 6||22.3|-14.9|0.3962
90898535|NCT05375955|181663017|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|9.0||||0.2333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|29.1|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 6||29.1|-10.4|0.2333
90898536|NCT05375955|181663017|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|3.6||||0.3962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|22.3|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 8||22.3|-14.9|0.3962
90898537|NCT05375955|181663017|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|11.9||||0.1353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|32.7|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 8||32.7|-7.9|0.1353
90898538|NCT05375955|181663017|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|6.2||||0.2791|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|25.7|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 10||25.7|-12.8|0.2791
90898539|NCT05375955|181663017|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|9.0||||0.2333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|29.1|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 10||29.1|-10.4|0.2333
90898540|NCT05375955|181663017|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|11.3||||0.1295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|30.6|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 12||30.6|-7.3|0.1295
90898541|NCT05375955|181663017|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|20.3||||0.0247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|40.2|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 12||40.2|0.1|0.0247
91094077|NCT03454555|182072367|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.2|-1.1|0.92
90844314|NCT00611026|181553868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.0923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|4.5|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo: HRQL sleep domain.||4.5|-0.3|0.0923
90844315|NCT00611026|181553868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|4.4|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs Fesoterodine: HRQL sleep domain.||4.4|0.4|0.0180
90844316|NCT00611026|181553868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|5.1|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo: HRQL social interaction domain.||5.1|1.3|0.0011
90844317|NCT00611026|181553868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.2208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|3.1|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo: HRQL social interaction domain.||3.1|-0.7|0.2208
90844318|NCT00611026|181553868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.0117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.5|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs Fesoterodine: HRQL social interaction domain.||3.5|0.4|0.0117
90844319|NCT04625101|181553892|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4326|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.4326
90844320|NCT02817464|181553913|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.44|2.36||||||||2.36|1.44|
90844321|NCT02817464|181553914|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.33|1.33||||||||1.33|0.33|
90844322|NCT02817464|181553916|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.33|2.09||||||||2.09|1.33|
90844323|NCT02817464|181553917|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.3|2.01||||||||2.01|1.30|
90844324|NCT02817464|181553918|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.04|1.4||||||||1.40|1.04|
90844325|NCT02817464|181553919|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.23|1.13||||||||1.13|0.23|
90844326|NCT02817464|181553921|OTHER|||||||0.0073|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0073
90898542|NCT05375955|181663018|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.3||||0.7278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.9|11.5|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 1||11.5|-21.9|0.7278
91029324|NCT03267264|181942221|NON_INFERIORITY|Two-sided 95% confidence intervals is calculated for the average relative rating. A linear model was used to evaluate the pen needle group effect on the response to test whether the groups can be combined (a p-value \< 0.05 for the pen needle group effect indicates non-poolability) and to adjust for the order effect. The order of the pen needles used and the group to which the subject belongs were used as covariates. If the lower bound of the CI is \> -10mm, we can conclude in non-inferiority.|Overall|20.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|37.1||||||||37.1|4.1|
90844327|NCT04674761|181553943|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.277||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|-0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The analysis is based on a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML) with baseline score as a covariate, and baseline age stratification, baseline direct bilirubin, treatment group, time (in months), and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects. One-sided p-value was reported.||-0.33|-1.44|0.0012
90844328|NCT04674761|181553944|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-112.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|32.864||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-178.78|-46.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The analysis is based on a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML) with baseline serum bile acid (sBA) concentration data as a covariate, and baseline age stratification, treatment group, visits (Weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects. The comparison of treatment difference in change from baseline to the average of Week 20 and Week 24 is estimated and tested using contrast. One-sided p-value was reported.||-46.69|-178.78|0.0006
90844329|NCT01500720|181553949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|2.169|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.563|3.01||P-value was calculated from stratified two-sided log-rank test, stratifying for brain metastases and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) level at the time of randomization.|Stratified Two-Sided Log-Rank Test||Hazard ratio was estimated using a COX Proportional Hazards regression model, stratifying for brain metastases and LDH level at the time of randomization.|||3.01|1.563|<0.0001
90844330|NCT03532451|181553998|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|||Null hypothesis is the change in CD8+ cell density is not significantly different from zero.||||0.08
90844331|NCT03532451|181553998|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|||||||0.002
90844332|NCT03532451|181553999|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.88
90844333|NCT04845568|181554029|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.08||0.592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.16|5.43||A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 25||This analysis is for the outcome: Change in Self-Efficacy for Physical Activity. It is an independent samples t test. It is testing the null hypothesis that the mean change in self-efficacy for physical activity does not differ between conditions.||5.43|-3.16|0.592
90898543|NCT05375955|181663018|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|8.2||||0.2548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|28.2|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 1||28.2|-11.5|0.2548
90898544|NCT05375955|181663018|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.9||||0.5162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|21.9|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 1||21.9|-17.5|0.5162
90898545|NCT05375955|181663018|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|9.3||||0.1663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|30.7|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 2||30.7|-11.4|0.1663
90898546|NCT05375955|181663018|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|16.5||||0.0605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|38.3|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 2||38.3|-4.2|0.0605
90898547|NCT05375955|181663018|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|16.7||||0.0592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|41.6|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 2||41.6|-5.4|0.0592
90844334|NCT04845568|181554029|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.56||0.453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.39|2.02||A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 25||This analysis is for the outcome: Change in Self-Efficacy for Healthy Eating. It is an independent samples t test. It is testing the null hypothesis that the mean change in self-efficacy for healthy eating does not differ between conditions.||2.02|-4.39|0.453
90844335|NCT04845568|181554030|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.275|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.342|0.892||A priori threshold for statistical significance set at p\< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 25||This analysis is for the outcome: Change in Caregiver Readiness to Change Child's Eating. It is an independent samples t test. It is testing the null hypothesis that the mean change in readiness for healthy eating does not differ between conditions.||.892|-.342|.368
90844336|NCT04845568|181554030|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.126|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.575|0.827||A priori threshold for statistical significance set at p\< .05.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 25||This analysis is for the outcome: Change in Caregiver Readiness for Physical Activity. It is an independent samples t test. It is testing the null hypothesis that the mean change in caregiver intentions to help child improve physical activity from baseline to two-week follow up does not differ between conditions.||.827|-.575|.714
90844337|NCT04845568|181554031|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.522|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.88||0.783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.39|3.34||A priori threshold for statistical significance set at p\<.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 25||This analysis is for the outcome: Change in child attitudes toward healthy eating. It is an independent samples t test. It is testing the null hypothesis that the mean change in child attitudes toward healthy eating from baseline to post-intervention does not differ between conditions.||3.34|-4.39|.783
90844338|NCT04845568|181554031|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.97||0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.05|2.07||A priori threshold for statistical significance set at p\<.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 25||This analysis is for the outcome: Change in child intentions toward healthy eating. It is an independent samples t test. It is testing the null hypothesis that the mean change in child intentions toward healthy eating from baseline to post-intervention does not differ between conditions.||2.07|-6.05|.323
90844339|NCT04845568|181554031|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.89||0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.79|6.01||A priori threshold for statistical significance is set at p\<.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 25||This analysis is for the outcome: Change in caregiver intentions toward helping their child engage in healthy eating. It is an independent samples t test. It is testing the null hypothesis that the mean change in caregiver intentions from baseline to post-intervention does not differ between conditions.||6.01|-1.79|.276
90844340|NCT04845568|181554032|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.247|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|1.08||A priori threshold for statistical significance set at p\<.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 25||This analysis is for the outcome: Change in child intake of fruits. It is an independent samples t test. It is testing the null hypothesis that the mean change in child fruit servings per week from baseline to two-week follow up does not differ between conditions.||1.08|-.59|.547
90844341|NCT04845568|181554032|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.86||A priori threshold for statistical significance set at p\<.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 25||This analysis is for the outcome: Change in child intake of vegetables. It is an independent samples t test. It is testing the null hypothesis that the mean change in child vegetable servings per week from baseline to two-week follow up does not differ between conditions.||.86|-.87|.990
90844342|NCT04845568|181554032|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.203|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.45||A priori threshold for statistical significance set at p\<.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 25||This analysis is for the outcome: Change in child intake of fast food. It is an independent samples t test. It is testing the null hypothesis that the mean change in child fast food servings per week from baseline to two-week follow up does not differ between conditions.||.45|-.86|.527
90844343|NCT04845568|181554033|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.159|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|1.01||A priori threshold for statistical significance set at p\<.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 25||This analysis is for the outcome: Change in child weekly intake of breakfast. It is an independent samples t test. It is testing the null hypothesis that the mean change in child breakfast meals per week from baseline to two-week follow up does not differ between conditions.||1.01|-1.33|.777
90844344|NCT04845568|181554033|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.736|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|0.79||A priori threshold for statistical significance set at p\<.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 25||This analysis is for the outcome: Change in child intake of family dinners. It is an independent samples t test. It is testing the null hypothesis that the mean change in child family dinners per week from baseline to two-week follow up does not differ between conditions.||.79|-2.26|.329
90844345|NCT04845568|181554034|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.99||A priori threshold for statistical significance set at p\<.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 25||This analysis is for the outcome: Change in child screentime. It is an independent samples t test. It is testing the null hypothesis that the mean change in child screentime per week from baseline to two-week follow up does not differ between conditions.||.99|-0.07|.086
90844346|NCT04845568|181554034|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.4||A priori threshold for statistical significance set at p\<.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 25||This analysis is for the outcome: Change in child active hours. It is an independent samples t test. It is testing the null hypothesis that the mean change in child active hours per week from baseline to two-week follow up does not differ between conditions.||.40|-.64|.64
90844347|NCT00630838|181554035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.897|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.897
90844348|NCT01287741|181554066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.4753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.12|||Log Rank|Stratified by International Prognostic Index (IPI) score (low/low-intermediate (excluding participants having an IPI score 0 without bulky disease).||||1.12|0.78|0.4753
90844349|NCT01287741|181554067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.2736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.1|||Log Rank|Stratified by International Prognostic Index (IPI) score (low/low-intermediate (excluding participants having an IPI score 0 without bulky disease).||||1.10|0.72|0.2736
90844350|NCT02930018|181554082|SUPERIORITY|It is hypothesized that the cleavage of nerinetide by plasmin which is activated by tissue plasminogen activators, such as alteplase results in a treatment modification of nerinetide in AIS (Acute Ischemic Stroke) patients with prior administration of alteplase as part of standard-of-care.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.146||||0.335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.869|1.511||2 sided 0.05 significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||The primary hypothesis was that administration of nerinetide (NA-1) would result in an increase in the proportion of responders. The primary analysis was a Wald test for treatment group difference in the primary outcome from a logistic regression adjusted for the 2 stratification variables (alteplase use, first declared thrombectomy device), and the 6 covariates used in the minimization. The trial was designed to have 80% power to detect an 8.7% absolute difference between groups.||1.511|0.869|0.335
90844351|NCT02930018|181554083|SUPERIORITY|It is hypothesized that the cleavage of nerinetide by plasmin which is activated by tissue plasminogen activators, such as alteplase results in a treatment modification of nerinetide in AIS patients with prior administration of alteplase as part of standard-of-care.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.024||||0.866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.781|1.342||2 sided 0.05 significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.342|0.781|0.866
90844352|NCT02930018|181554084|SUPERIORITY|It is hypothesized that the cleavage of nerinetide by plasmin which is activated by tissue plasminogen activators, such as alteplase results in a treatment modification of nerinetide in AIS patients with prior administration of alteplase as part of standard-of-care.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.776||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.527|1.143||2 sided 0.05 significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.143|0.527|0.199
90844353|NCT02930018|181554085|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.657||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.055|2.603|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.603|1.055|0.028
90844354|NCT02930018|181554085|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Risk Difference (%)|9.6|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||The unadjusted absolute risk difference in % between nerinetide and placebo in the no-alteplase subgroup.|||||
90844355|NCT02930018|181554085|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk Difference (%)|19.3|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||The unadjusted relative risk difference in % between nerinetide and placebo in the no-alteplase subgroup.|||||
90844356|NCT02930018|181554086|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.482||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.943|2.329|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.329|0.943|0.088
90844357|NCT02930018|181554086|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Risk Difference (%)|9.1|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||The unadjusted absolute risk difference in % between nerinetide and placebo in the no-alteplase subgroup.|||||
90844358|NCT02930018|181554086|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk Difference (%)|18.3|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||The unadjusted relative risk difference in % between nerinetide and placebo in the no-alteplase subgroup.|||||
90844359|NCT02930018|181554087|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.572||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.323|1.013|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.013|0.323|0.055
90844360|NCT02930018|181554087|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Risk Difference (%)|7.5|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||The unadjusted absolute risk difference in % between nerinetide and placebo in the no-alteplase subgroup.|||||
90844361|NCT02930018|181554087|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk Difference (%)|39.7|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||The unadjusted relative risk difference in % between nerinetide and placebo in the no-alteplase subgroup.|||||
90844362|NCT02930018|181554088|SUPERIORITY|It is hypothesized that the cleavage of nerinetide by plasmin which is activated by tissue plasminogen activators, such as alteplase results in a treatment modification of nerinetide in AIS patients with prior administration of alteplase as part of standard-of-care.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.887||||0.529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.612|1.286|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.286|0.612|0.529
90844363|NCT02930018|181554089|SUPERIORITY|It is hypothesized that the cleavage of nerinetide by plasmin which is activated by tissue plasminogen activators, such as alteplase results in a treatment modification of nerinetide in AIS patients with prior administration of alteplase as part of standard-of-care.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.782||||0.181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.545|1.121|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.121|0.545|0.181
90844364|NCT02930018|181554090|SUPERIORITY|It is hypothesized that the cleavage of nerinetide by plasmin which is activated by tissue plasminogen activators, such as alteplase results in a treatment modification of nerinetide in AIS patients with prior administration of alteplase as part of standard-of-care.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.588|1.874|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.874|0.588|0.869
91094078|NCT03454555|182072368|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.2|-0.7|0.64
90844365|NCT02685267|181554130|OTHER|The study was terminated after only 9 patients enrolled, 5 to the standard of care docetaxel/prednisone arm and 4 to experimental docetaxel/prednisone/enzalutamide arm.|log-rank test|0.6761||||0.6761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||The study was terminated after only 9 patients enrolled, 5 to the standard of care docetaxel/prednisone arm and 4 to experimental docetaxel/prednisone/enzalutamide arm.||||0.6761
90844366|NCT01027806|181554140|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
90844367|NCT02923921|181554162|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.045||||0.6565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.863|1.265|||Log Rank|||The primary test to compare overall survival between treatment arms was the two-sided log-rank test, stratified by region and prior therapy. The estimate of the hazard ration (HR) - (Pegilodecakin + FOLFOX Arm / FOLFOX Arm) and the corresponding 95% CI was computed using a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by randomization stratification factors. Randomization stratification factors were based on the data recorded in interactive voice response system (IVRS).||1.265|0.863|0.6565
90844368|NCT02923921|181554163|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.981||||0.8144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.808|1.19|||Log Rank|||The estimate of hazard ratio (HR) was stratified by region and prior therapy.||1.190|0.808|0.8144
90844369|NCT02923921|181554164|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.7044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.7||P-value is calculated by Exact Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by the randomization strata Prior Therapy - interactive voice response system (IVRS), Geographic Region - IVRS.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.7|0.4|0.7044
90898548|NCT05375955|181663018|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|14.0||||0.1246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|37.4|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 4||37.4|-8.6|0.1246
90898549|NCT05375955|181663018|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|16.3||||0.0789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|39.7|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 4||39.7|-7.3|0.0789
91094079|NCT03454555|182072369|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.1|-0.8|0.75
91094080|NCT03454555|182072370|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.4|-0.9|0.69
91094081|NCT03454555|182072371|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.8|-0.6|0.33
91094082|NCT03454555|182072372|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.5|-1.8|0.86
91094083|NCT03454555|182072373|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.9|-1.4|0.76
91094084|NCT03454555|182072374|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.1|-2.0|0.55
91094085|NCT03454555|182072375|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.1|-2.1|0.52
91094086|NCT03454555|182072376|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.4|-0.2|0.37
91094087|NCT03454555|182072377|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.3|-0.3|0.91
91094088|NCT03454555|182072378|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.6|-0.2|0.33
90844370|NCT02923921|181554165|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.1463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.8||P-value is calculated by Exact Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by the randomization strata Prior Therapy - interactive voice response system (IVRS), Geographic Region - IVRS.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.8|0.9|0.1463
90844371|NCT02923921|181554166|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.008||||0.9952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|2.741|||Log Rank|||The estimate of hazard ratio (HR) was stratified by region and prior therapy.||2.741|0.370|0.9952
90844372|NCT02923921|181554167|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.4||||0.2298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|2.8|||Log Rank|||||2.8|-11.6|0.2298
90844373|NCT00479687|181554172|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038||||||There was a single primary variable and the a-prior threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|mixed effects repeated measure model with baseline VAS, treatment, and week as fixed effects and subject nested within site as a random effect.||||||0.0380
90844374|NCT01474239|181554181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4291|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was assessed with a one-sided alpha error of 10 percent (%).|Exact Binomial Test|||The 6-month OS rate (OS-6) for bevacizumab was compared to the expected proportion of 0.60 under null hypothesis (ineffective treatment) with the application of the exact binomial test. The one-tailed statistical hypotheses was p0 less than or equal to (≤) 0.60 (null hypothesis) versus pA greater than or equal to (≥) 0.77 (alternative hypothesis), where p is the estimated probability of survival at 6 months.||||0.4291
91094089|NCT03454555|182072379|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.6|-0.3|0.46
91029325|NCT03267264|181942221|NON_INFERIORITY|Two-sided 95% confidence intervals is calculated for the average relative rating. A linear model was used to evaluate the pen needle group effect on the response to test whether the groups can be combined (a p-value \< 0.05 for the pen needle group effect indicates non-poolability) and to adjust for the order effect. The order of the pen needles used and the group to which the subject belongs were used as covariates. If the lower bound of the CI is \> -10mm, we can conclude in non-inferiority.|overal mean|6.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|19.5||||||||19.5|-7.2|
91094090|NCT03454555|182072380|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.02||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.04|||Chi-squared|||||0.04|-0.08|0.52
90844375|NCT02082119|181554205|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.05
91094091|NCT03454555|182072381|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|2.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|Used a generalized logistic model for repeated measurements; modeled the outcome of intention to taper.||||2.59|0.85|0.17
91094092|NCT03454555|182072382|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|Used a generalized logistic model for repeated measurements; modeled the outcome of intention to taper.||||2.31|0.71|0.41
91094093|NCT03454555|182072383|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.79
91094094|NCT03454555|182072384|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.67
91094095|NCT00375752|182072443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.7||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|31.1|||Fisher Exact|||||31.1|-1.8|0.106
91094096|NCT01140906|182072453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.66|-3.4||Since p-value \<0.025, hierarchically testing continued.|MMRM||To adjust for multiplicity the two doses of vortioxetine were tested separately versus placebo in the primary and key secondary efficacy analyses at a Bonferroni-corrected significance level of 0.025.|As soon as an endpoint was non-significant at the 0.025 level of significance, the testing procedure was stopped for all subsequent endpoints.||-3.40|-7.66|<0.0001
91094097|NCT01140906|182072453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.21|-4.97||Since p-value \<0.025, hierarchically testing continued.|MMRM||To adjust for multiplicity the two doses of vortioxetine were tested separately versus placebo in the primary and key secondary efficacy analyses at a Bonferroni-corrected significance level of 0.025.|As soon as an endpoint was non-significant at the 0.025 level of significance, the testing procedure was stopped for all subsequent endpoints.||-4.97|-9.21|<0.0001
91094098|NCT01140906|182072453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.55|-7.35||This treatment arm was not in the testing sequence. A nominal p-value is provided.|MMRM|||||-7.35|-11.55|<0.0001
91094099|NCT01140906|182072454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.76|4.47||Wald's test. Since p-value \<0.025, hierarchically testing continued.|Adjusted Odds Ratio||To adjust for multiplicity the two doses of vortioxetine were tested separately versus placebo in the primary and key secondary efficacy analyses at a Bonferroni-corrected significance level of 0.025.|As soon as an endpoint was non-significant at the 0.025 level of significance, the testing procedure was stopped for all subsequent endpoints.||4.47|1.76|<0.0001
91094100|NCT01140906|182072454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.36|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|5.36||Wald's test. Since p-value \<0.025, hierarchically testing continued.|Adjusted Odds Ratio||To adjust for multiplicity the two doses of vortioxetine were tested separately versus placebo in the primary and key secondary efficacy analyses at a Bonferroni-corrected significance level of 0.025.|As soon as an endpoint was non-significant at the 0.025 level of significance, the testing procedure was stopped for all subsequent endpoints.||5.36|2.10|<0.0001
91094101|NCT01140906|182072454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.94|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.61|9.78||This treatment arm was not in the testing sequence. A nominal p-value is provided.|Adjusted Odds Ratio|||||9.78|3.61|<0.0001
91094102|NCT01140906|182072455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.44||Since p-value \<0.025, hierarchically testing continued.|MMRM||To adjust for multiplicity the two doses of vortioxetine were tested separately versus placebo in the primary and key secondary efficacy analyses at a Bonferroni-corrected significance level of 0.025.|As soon as an endpoint was non-significant at the 0.025 level of significance, the testing procedure was stopped for all subsequent endpoints.||-0.44|-0.94|<0.0001
91094103|NCT01140906|182072455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.7||Since p-value \<0.025, hierarchically testing continued.|MMRM||To adjust for multiplicity the two doses of vortioxetine were tested separately versus placebo in the primary and key secondary efficacy analyses at a Bonferroni-corrected significance level of 0.025.|As soon as an endpoint was non-significant at the 0.025 level of significance, the testing procedure was stopped for all subsequent endpoints.||-0.70|-1.20|<0.0001
91094104|NCT01140906|182072455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|-0.87||This treatment arm was not in the testing sequence. A nominal p-value is provided.|MMRM|||||-0.87|-1.36|<0.0001
91094105|NCT01140906|182072456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.53||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.25|-2.22||Since p-value \<0.025, hierarchically testing continued.|MMRM||To adjust for multiplicity the two doses of vortioxetine were tested separately versus placebo in the primary and key secondary efficacy analyses at a Bonferroni-corrected significance level of 0.025.|As soon as an endpoint was non-significant at the 0.025 level of significance, the testing procedure was stopped for all subsequent endpoints.||-2.22|-8.25|0.0007
91094106|NCT01140906|182072456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.58|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.53|-3.31||Since p-value \<0.025, hierarchically testing continued.|MMRM||To adjust for multiplicity the two doses of vortioxetine were tested separately versus placebo in the primary and key secondary efficacy analyses at a Bonferroni-corrected significance level of 0.025.|As soon as an endpoint was non-significant at the 0.025 level of significance, the testing procedure was stopped for all subsequent endpoints.||-3.31|-9.53|<0.0001
91094107|NCT01140906|182072456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.54|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.73|-5.69||This treatment arm was not in the testing sequence. A nominal p-value is provided.|MMRM|||||-5.69|-11.73|<0.0001
90844376|NCT02840799|181554226|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1309108|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2619326||0.6191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6552259|0.3934043||A two-sided α=0.05 was determined by the power calculation.|t-test, 2 sided|t = -0.49979, df = 58. N=59 due to analyzing participants with complete data for Phase 1 and Phase 2 that crossovered.|Only participants that successfully crossed over were included in the t-test (N=59).|We considered an increase in peak VO2 of \~0.6 ml/kg/min to be the minimum clinically significant change. Assuming a 90% retention rate, enrolling 84 subjects in this cross-over trial will have 80% power to detect such an effect size in the intervention induced change of our study endpoints with a two-sided α=0.05. PASS11157 was used to perform power calculations.||0.3934043|-0.6552259|0.6191
90844377|NCT02840799|181554226|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.1||||0.711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.043|0.62||Assuming a 90% retention rate, enrolling 84 subjects in this cross-over trial will have 80% power to detect such an effect size in the intervention induced change of our study endpoints, with a two-sided α=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The mixed model analysis provided an assessment of the treatment effect on each continuous outcome of interest while controlling for effects of other covariates such as period, sequence, and a random subject effect.||0.62|-.043|0.711
91029326|NCT03267264|181942221|NON_INFERIORITY|Two-sided 95% confidence intervals is calculated for the average relative rating. A linear model was used to evaluate the pen needle group effect on the response to test whether the groups can be combined (a p-value \< 0.05 for the pen needle group effect indicates non-poolability) and to adjust for the order effect. The order of the pen needles used and the group to which the subject belongs were used as covariates. If the lower bound of the CI is \> -10mm, we can conclude in non-inferiority.|Overall Mean|12.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|26.7||||||||26.7|-1.1|
91029327|NCT03267264|181942222|NON_INFERIORITY|Two-sided 95% confidence intervals is calculated for the average relative rating. A linear model was used to evaluate the pen needle group effect on the response to test whether the groups can be combined (a p-value \< 0.05 for the pen needle group effect indicates non-poolability) and to adjust for the order effect. The order of the pen needles used and the group to which the subject belongs were used as covariates. If the lower bound of the CI is \> -10mm, we can conclude in non-inferiority.|Overall mean|18.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.3|24.7||||||Overall Comfort||24.7|11.3|
91029328|NCT03267264|181942222|NON_INFERIORITY|Two-sided 95% confidence intervals is calculated for the average relative rating. A linear model was used to evaluate the pen needle group effect on the response to test whether the groups can be combined (a p-value \< 0.05 for the pen needle group effect indicates non-poolability) and to adjust for the order effect. The order of the pen needles used and the group to which the subject belongs were used as covariates. If the lower bound of the CI is \> -10mm, we can conclude in non-inferiority.|Overall Mean|15.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.9|21.8||||||Anxiety Associated with a Needle Stick Injury||21.8|9.9|
91104128|NCT02554474|182094765|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in mean change|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.37||||||We performed an intent-to-treat analysis. For the main comparison, analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used to estimate an adjusted mean difference comparing the Sitting at Leisure index scores at 9 weeks (primary end point) between groups, adjusting for baseline score, diagnosis, and blocking.||0.37|-0.37|
90844378|NCT02840799|181554227|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.217657|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.065196||0.2871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.910612|6.3459261|||t-test, 2 sided|t = 1.0738, df = 62, p-value = 0.2871, N=63 due to analyzing participants with complete data for Phase 1 and Phase 2 that crossovered.||A two-sided α=0.05 was determined by the power calculation.||6.3459261|-1.910612|0.2871
90844379|NCT02840799|181554227|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.12||||0.2935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.12|1.88||Assuming a 90% retention rate, enrolling 84 subjects in this cross-over trial will have 80% power to detect such an effect size in the intervention induced change of our study endpoints, with a two-sided α=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The mixed model analysis provided an assessment of the treatment effect on each continuous outcome of interest while controlling for effects of other covariates such as period, sequence, and a random subject effect. Randomization sequence was not included in the final model due to lack of evidence for a carry over effect. Phase 1 data for participants that did not crossover due to IDS were considered for the model (N=74).||1.88|-6.12|0.2935
90844380|NCT02840799|181554228|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1859922|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.578944||0.171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9674467|5.3392901||Assuming a 90% retention rate, enrolling 84 subjects in this cross-over trial will have 80% power to detect such an effect size in the intervention induced change of our study endpoints, with a two-sided α=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|t=1.3844, df=65, p=0.171. N=66 due to analyzing participants with complete data for Phase 1 and Phase 2 that crossover correctly.||||5.3392901|-0.9674467|0.171
90844381|NCT02840799|181554228|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.51||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.62|0.61||Assuming a 90% retention rate, enrolling 84 subjects in this cross-over trial will have 80% power to detect such an effect size in the intervention induced change of our study endpoints, with a two-sided α=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The mixed model analysis provided an assessment of the treatment effect on each continuous outcome of interest while controlling for effects of other covariates such as period, sequence, and a random subject effect.||0.61|-5.62|0.113
90844382|NCT02840799|181554229|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.776572|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.99464||0.4905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.264221|10.817366||Assuming a 90% retention rate, enrolling 84 subjects in this cross-over trial will have 80% power to detect such an effect size in the intervention induced change of our study endpoints, with a two-sided α=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|t = 0.69507, df=46, p=.4905. N=47 due to only analyzed participants that correctly crossovered.||||10.817366|-5.264221|0.4905
90844383|NCT02840799|181554229|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.088||||0.796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|9.48||Assuming a 90% retention rate, enrolling 84 subjects in this cross-over trial will have 80% power to detect such an effect size in the intervention induced change of our study endpoints, with a two-sided α=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The mixed model analysis provided an assessment of the treatment effect on each continuous outcome of interest while controlling for effects of other covariates such as period, sequence, and a random subject effect.||9.48|-7.30|0.796
90844384|NCT02840799|181554230|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-38.11189|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|43.84245||0.4017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-133.63637|57.41259|||t-test, 2 sided|t=-0.86929,, df=12, p=0.4017||||57.41259|-133.63637|0.4017
90844385|NCT02840799|181554230|SUPERIORITY||Slope|61.77||||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.15|157.69||Assuming a 90% retention rate, enrolling 84 subjects in this cross-over trial will have 80% power to detect such an effect size in the intervention induced change of our study endpoints, with a two-sided α=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||157.69|-34.15|0.183
90844386|NCT02840799|181554231|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.202782|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.202782||0.5636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4959279|0.9014918||Assuming a 90% retention rate, enrolling 84 subjects in this cross-over trial will have 80% power to detect such an effect size in the intervention induced change of our study endpoints, with a two-sided α=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|t=0.58074, df=59, p=0.5636||||0.9014918|-0.4959279|0.5636
90844387|NCT02840799|181554231|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.3118||||0.361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.37||Assuming a 90% retention rate, enrolling 84 subjects in this cross-over trial will have 80% power to detect such an effect size in the intervention induced change of our study endpoints, with a two-sided α=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The mixed model analysis provided an assessment of the treatment effect on each continuous outcome of interest while controlling for effects of other covariates such as period, sequence, and a random subject effect.||0.37|-0.99|0.361
90844388|NCT02840799|181554232|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1532142|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|-0.1532142||0.7707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1998786|0.8934502||Assuming a 90% retention rate, enrolling 84 subjects in this cross-over trial will have 80% power to detect such an effect size in the intervention induced change of our study endpoints, with a two-sided α=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|t= -0.29271, df=61, p=0.7707||||0.8934502|-1.1998786|0.7707
90844389|NCT02840799|181554232|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.18872||||0.724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|1.25||Assuming a 90% retention rate, enrolling 84 subjects in this cross-over trial will have 80% power to detect such an effect size in the intervention induced change of our study endpoints, with a two-sided α=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The mixed model analysis provided an assessment of the treatment effect on each continuous outcome of interest while controlling for effects of other covariates such as period, sequence, and a random subject effect.||1.25|-0.88|0.724
90844390|NCT02840799|181554233|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3262821|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2333465||0.1680825|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1421806|0.7947447||Assuming a 90% retention rate, enrolling 84 subjects in this cross-over trial will have 80% power to detect such an effect size in the intervention induced change of our study endpoints, with a two-sided α=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|t=1.3983, df=51, p=0.1681||||0.7947447|-0.1421806|0.1680825
90844391|NCT02840799|181554233|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.4082||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.07||Assuming a 90% retention rate, enrolling 84 subjects in this cross-over trial will have 80% power to detect such an effect size in the intervention induced change of our study endpoints, with a two-sided α=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.07|-0.88|0.0930
91104129|NCT02554474|182094766|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in mean change|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.99||||||We performed an intent-to-treat analysis. For the main comparison, analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used to estimate an adjusted mean difference comparing the Walking index scores at 9 weeks (primary end point) between groups, adjusting for baseline score, diagnosis, and blocking.||0.99|0.08|
90844392|NCT02840799|181554234|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.116437|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.176768||0.07984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4966754|0.2638017||Assuming a 90% retention rate, enrolling 84 subjects in this cross-over trial will have 80% power to detect such an effect size in the intervention induced change of our study endpoints, with a two-sided α=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||t = -1.7985, df=39, p=0.07984|||0.2638017|-4.4966754|0.07984
90844393|NCT02840799|181554234|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.68||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|3.9||Assuming a 90% retention rate, enrolling 84 subjects in this cross-over trial will have 80% power to detect such an effect size in the intervention induced change of our study endpoints, with a two-sided α=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.90|-0.54|0.135
90844394|NCT02840799|181554235|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0192733|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01295984||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0454871|0.0069404||Assuming a 90% retention rate, enrolling 84 subjects in this cross-over trial will have 80% power to detect such an effect size in the intervention induced change of our study endpoints, with a two-sided α=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.00694040|-0.0454871|0.1450
90844395|NCT02840799|181554235|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.01324||||0.3047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.04||Assuming a 90% retention rate, enrolling 84 subjects in this cross-over trial will have 80% power to detect such an effect size in the intervention induced change of our study endpoints, with a two-sided α=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.04|-0.01|0.3047
90844396|NCT02840799|181554236|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.506681|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.494971||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.598617|5.585256||Assuming a 90% retention rate, enrolling 84 subjects in this cross-over trial will have 80% power to detect such an effect size in the intervention induced change of our study endpoints, with a two-sided α=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||5.585256|-12.598617|0.44
90844397|NCT02840799|181554236|SUPERIORITY||Slope|3.39106||||0.39911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.66|11.44||Assuming a 90% retention rate, enrolling 84 subjects in this cross-over trial will have 80% power to detect such an effect size in the intervention induced change of our study endpoints, with a two-sided α=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.44|-4.66|0.39911
90844398|NCT03983317|181554239|OTHER|We tested if the average drinks consumed was statistically different in Week 2 of the Treatment Phase vs. the Baseline Phase. This was evaluated via a paired t-test.||||||0.026|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.026
90844399|NCT03983317|181554241|OTHER|We tested if the average craving intensity was statistically different in Week 2 of the Treatment Phase vs. the Baseline Phase. This was evaluated via a paired t-test.||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.001
90844400|NCT02642315|181554255|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|36.0||||0.0131|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0131
90844401|NCT02642315|181554256|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|36.0||||0.0131|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0131
90844402|NCT01864603|181554279|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.17||||||Comparison of Phase 1 arms||1.17|0.77|
90844403|NCT01864603|181554280|OTHER||Rate ratio|0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.75||||||||0.75|0.09|
90898550|NCT05375955|181663018|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|17.6||||0.0889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|43.7|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 4||43.7|-6.4|0.0889
90898551|NCT05375955|181663018|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|27.5||||0.0097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|50.7|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 6||50.7|4.2|0.0097
90898552|NCT05375955|181663018|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|20.7||||0.0294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|43.6|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 6||43.6|-0.8|0.0294
90898553|NCT05375955|181663018|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|37.8||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.9|62.2|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 6||62.2|10.9|0.0018
91104130|NCT02770365|182094776|EQUIVALENCE|provides 85% power of success|Equivalence ratio|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.92|12.53|||Wald's method|||||12.53|-2.92|
91029329|NCT03267264|181942222|NON_INFERIORITY|Two-sided 95% confidence intervals is calculated for the average relative rating. A linear model was used to evaluate the pen needle group effect on the response to test whether the groups can be combined (a p-value \< 0.05 for the pen needle group effect indicates non-poolability) and to adjust for the order effect. The order of the pen needles used and the group to which the subject belongs were used as covariates. If the lower bound of the CI is \> -10mm, we can conclude in non-inferiority.|Overall Mean|15.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.9|22.1||||||Injection Pain||22.1|8.9|
91029330|NCT03267264|181942222|NON_INFERIORITY|Two-sided 95% confidence intervals is calculated for the average relative rating. A linear model was used to evaluate the pen needle group effect on the response to test whether the groups can be combined (a p-value \< 0.05 for the pen needle group effect indicates non-poolability) and to adjust for the order effect. The order of the pen needles used and the group to which the subject belongs were used as covariates. If the lower bound of the CI is \> -10mm, we can conclude in non-inferiority.|Overall Mean|19.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.8|25.7||||||Ease of Use||25.7|13.8|
91104131|NCT02770365|182094777|EQUIVALENCE|the proportion of subjects with treatment success based on the improvement of the Most Bothersome Symptom (MBS) of vulvo-vaginal atrophy at Day 8.|equivalence ratio|0.94||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.35|4.31|||Wald's method|||||4.31|-12.35|0.05
90844404|NCT04661579|181554298|OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|35.9||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.3|54.2|||Wald test||Vaccine efficacy (VE) is defined as the percent reduction in the hazard, i.e. one minus the hazard ratio (HR, RTS,S/AS01E Vaccine vs. Rabies vaccine).|Vaccine efficacy against the first PCR-positive P. falciparum infection among adults who were P. falciparum positive at baseline was assessed using Cox proportional hazards regression model with a covariate for group assignment to compare Groups 1 and 4. HIV status, Age (tertiles), and sleep under a bednet were included as covariates.||54.2|10.3|0.009
90898554|NCT05375955|181663018|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|23.5||||0.0495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|48.9|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 8||48.9|-3.8|0.0495
90898555|NCT05375955|181663018|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|7.6||||0.289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|32.4|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 8||32.4|-17.3|0.2890
91104132|NCT00489476|182094778|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0212|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0212
91104133|NCT00489476|182094778|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0106|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0106
91104134|NCT00489476|182094779|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0123|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0123
91104135|NCT00489476|182094779|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0228|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0228
90898556|NCT05375955|181663018|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|35.2||||0.0103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.1|62.0|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 8||62.0|5.1|0.0103
90898557|NCT05375955|181663018|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|19.0||||0.1088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|44.8|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 10||44.8|-7.8|0.1088
91104136|NCT00489476|182094780|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0409|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0409
91104137|NCT04003389|182094787|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.21||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with change from baseline at Week 52 timepoint as response, treatment \& smoking status (current vs former/never) as fixed effects with baseline weight \& baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||LSMeans (LSM), standard errors (SE), confidence intervals (CI)||0.21|-0.36|0.0604
91104138|NCT04003389|182094787|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.11||The LSM, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline at the Week 52 timepoint as response, treatment and smoking status (current vs former/never) as fixed effects with baseline weight and baseline as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||0.11|-0.45|0.239
91104139|NCT04003389|182094789|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.003||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.014||The LSM, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline at the Week 52 timepoint as response, treatment and smoking status (current vs former/never) as fixed effects with baseline weight and baseline as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Hip (Femoral Neck)||0.014|0.001|0.029
91104140|NCT04003389|182094789|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.003||0.867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.006|0.007||The LSM, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline at the Week 52 timepoint as response, treatment and smoking status (current vs former/never) as fixed effects with baseline weight and baseline as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Hip (Femoral Neck)||0.007|-0.006|0.867
91104141|NCT04003389|182094789|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.003||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.012||The LSM, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline at the Week 52 timepoint as response, treatment and smoking status (current vs former/never) as fixed effects with baseline weight and baseline as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Hip (Femur)||0.012|0.001|0.027
91104142|NCT04003389|182094789|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.003||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.003|0.008||The LSM, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline at the Week 52 timepoint as response, treatment and smoking status (current vs former/never) as fixed effects with baseline weight and baseline as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Hip (Femur)||0.008|-0.003|0.410
91104143|NCT04003389|182094789|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.003||0.087||95.0|-0.001|0.011||The LSM, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline at the Week 52 timepoint as response, treatment and smoking status (current vs former/never) as fixed effects with baseline weight and baseline as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Hip (Trochanter)||0.011|-0.001|0.087
91104144|NCT04003389|182094789|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.003||0.259||95.0|-0.002|0.009||The LSM, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline at the Week 52 timepoint as response, treatment and smoking status (current vs former/never) as fixed effects with baseline weight and baseline as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Hip (Trochanter)||0.009|-0.002|0.259
91104145|NCT04003389|182094790|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.006|0.102||The LSM, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline at the Week 52 timepoint as response, treatment and smoking status (current vs former/never) as fixed effects with baseline weight and baseline as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Hip (Femoral Neck)||0.102|-0.006|0.079
91104146|NCT04003389|182094790|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.052|0.053||The LSM, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline at the Week 52 timepoint as response, treatment and smoking status (current vs former/never) as fixed effects with baseline weight and baseline as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Hip (Femoral Neck)||0.053|-0.052|0.980
91094108|NCT01140906|182072457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.32||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|3.91||Wald's test. Since p-value \<0.025, hierarchically testing continued.|Adjusted Odds Ratio||To adjust for multiplicity the two doses of vortioxetine were tested separately versus placebo in the primary and key secondary efficacy analyses at a Bonferroni-corrected significance level of 0.025.|As soon as an endpoint was non-significant at the 0.025 level of significance, the testing procedure was stopped for all subsequent endpoints.||3.91|1.37|0.0016
91094109|NCT01140906|182072457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.65||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|4.44||Wald's test. Since p-value \<0.025, hierarchically testing continued.|Adjusted Odds Ratio||To adjust for multiplicity the two doses of vortioxetine were tested separately versus placebo in the primary and key secondary efficacy analyses at a Bonferroni-corrected significance level of 0.025.|As soon as an endpoint was non-significant at the 0.025 level of significance, the testing procedure was stopped for all subsequent endpoints.||4.44|1.58|0.0002
91094110|NCT01140906|182072457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.99|8.37||Wald's test. This treatment arm was not in the testing sequence. A nominal p-value is provided.|Adjusted for Odds Ratio|||||8.37|2.99|<0.0001
90844405|NCT04661579|181554299|OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|-24.0||||0.369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-97.0|22.2|||Wald test||Vaccine efficacy (VE) is defined as the percent reduction in the hazard, i.e. one minus the hazard ratio (HR, RTS,S/AS01E Vaccine vs. Rabies vaccine).|Vaccine efficacy against the first PCR-positive P. falciparum infection among adults who were P. falciparum positive at baseline was assessed using Cox proportional hazards regression model with a covariate for group assignment to compare Groups 2 and 5. HIV status, Age (tertiles), and sleep under a bednet were included as covariates.||22.2|-97|0.369
90844406|NCT04335136|181554306|OTHER|||||||0.5207||||||The level of significance was 5% (2-sided).|Chi-squared|||"Hypothesis tested: H0: pAPN01 = pPlacebo; H1: pAPN01 ≠ pPlacebo (with p=proportion of patients with event).~A total of 186 patients (93 per group) was estimated to yield 80% power to detect a 20% absolute risk reduction in the primary, from 50% in the placebo group to 30% in the APN01 group, at a 2-sided alpha of 0.05. To consider patients who would be randomized but not treated, a total of 200 patients (100 per group) were planned to be enrolled."||||0.5207
90844407|NCT04335136|181554306|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.63||||0.3588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.7|||Regression, Logistic|Degree of freedom: 1||||1.70|0.23|0.3588
90844408|NCT01396447|181554323|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||0.1292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|0.5||The analysis included treatment group, pooled study center, visit, and treatment-group-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and the baseline value and baseline value-by-visit interaction as covariates.|Repeated measures mixed-effects model||Cariprazine 0.75 mg vs Placebo|||0.5|-4.3|0.1292
90844409|NCT01396447|181554323|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|-1.6||The analysis included treatment group, pooled study center, visit, and treatment-group-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and the baseline value and baseline value-by-visit interaction as covariates.|Repeated measures mixed-effects model||Cariprazine 1.5 mg vs Placebo|||-1.6|-6.3|0.0010
90844410|NCT01396447|181554323|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5||||0.0374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|-0.1||The analysis included treatment group, pooled study center, visit, and treatment-group-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and the baseline value and baseline value-by-visit interaction as covariates.|Repeated measures mixed-effects model||Cariprazine 3.0 mg vs Placebo|||-0.1|-4.9|0.0374
90844411|NCT01396447|181554324|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.3025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1|||Repeated measures mixed-effects model||Cariprazine 0.75 mg vs Placebo|The analysis included treatment group, pooled study center, visit, and treatment-group-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and the baseline value and baseline value-by-visit interaction as covariates.||0.1|-0.4|0.3025
90844412|NCT01396447|181554324|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.2|||Repeated measures mixed-effects model||Cariprazine 1.5 mg vs Placebo|The analysis included treatment group, pooled study center, visit, and treatment-group-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and the baseline value and baseline value-by-visit interaction as covariates.||-0.2|-0.6|0.0044
90844413|NCT01396447|181554324|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.0489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.0|||Repeated measures mixed-effects model||Cariprazine 3.0 mg vs Placebo|The analysis included treatment group, pooled study center, visit, and treatment-group-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and the baseline value and baseline value-by-visit interaction as covariates.||-0.0|-0.5|0.0489
90844414|NCT00408200|181554357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
90844415|NCT00670306|181554358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.1|<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90844416|NCT04292899|181554509|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.1563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.507|1.115||P-value was calculated using a proportional odds model with treatment as the independent variable and baseline clinical status as a continuous covariate.|Proportional odds model|||||1.115|0.507|0.1563
90844417|NCT04292899|181554509|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67||||0.0368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.458|0.976||P-value was calculated using a proportional odds model with treatment as the independent variable.|Proportional odds model|||||0.976|0.458|0.0368
90844418|NCT04292899|181554510|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|1.3||||0.7678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|10.0||P-value for comparison of the percentages between the two groups was calculated using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified on baseline clinical status.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.0|-7.4|0.7678
90844419|NCT00948441|181554511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||matched pairs T test to compare infection rates during the two study periods||||0.012
90844420|NCT05340478|181554523|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
90844421|NCT01032889|181554526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from placebo|-0.3||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.0|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment group and the baseline covariate.||There was no formal hypothesis testing and no adjustments for multiple comparisons.||0.00|-0.61|0.052
90844422|NCT01032889|181554526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from placebo|-0.5||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.16|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment group and the baseline covariate.||There was no formal hypothesis testing and no adjustments for multiple comparisons.||-0.16|-0.77|0.003
91094111|NCT01140906|182072458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.51|-0.97||Since p-value \<0.025, hierarchically testing continued.|MMRM||To adjust for multiplicity the two doses of vortioxetine were tested separately versus placebo in the primary and key secondary efficacy analyses at a Bonferroni-corrected significance level of 0.025.|As soon as an endpoint was non-significant at the 0.025 level of significance, the testing procedure was stopped for all subsequent endpoints.||-0.97|-5.51|0.0054
90898558|NCT05375955|181663018|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|11.8||||0.2719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|36.2|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 10||36.2|-14.0|0.2719
91094112|NCT01140906|182072458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.11|-1.73||Since p-value \<0.025, hierarchically testing continued.|MMRM||To adjust for multiplicity the two doses of vortioxetine were tested separately versus placebo in the primary and key secondary efficacy analyses at a Bonferroni-corrected significance level of 0.025.|As soon as an endpoint was non-significant at the 0.025 level of significance, the testing procedure was stopped for all subsequent endpoints.||-1.73|-6.11|0.0005
90844423|NCT01032889|181554527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from placebo|-0.2||||0.117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.06|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment group and the baseline covariate.||There was no formal hypothesis testing and no adjustments for multiple comparisons.||0.06|-0.55|0.117
90844424|NCT01032889|181554527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from placebo|-0.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.3|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment group and the baseline covariate.||There was no formal hypothesis testing and no adjustments for multiple comparisons.||-0.30|-0.91|<0.001
90844425|NCT01032889|181554528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from placebo|-1.4||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|-0.46|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment group and the baseline covariate.||There was no formal hypothesis testing and no adjustments for multiple comparisons.||-0.46|-2.44|0.005
90844426|NCT01032889|181554528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from placebo|-2.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.48|-1.48|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment group and the baseline covariate.||There was no formal hypothesis testing and no adjustments for multiple comparisons.||-1.48|-3.48|<0.001
90844427|NCT01032889|181554529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from placebo|-606.0||||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1482.0|269.3|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment group and the baseline covariate.||||269.3|-1482|0.166
90844428|NCT01032889|181554529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from placebo|-110.0||||0.803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1013.0|792.6|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment group and the baseline covariate.||||792.6|-1013|0.803
90844429|NCT01032889|181554530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from placebo|-1.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.32|-0.69|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment group and the baseline covariate.||||-0.69|-2.32|<0.001
90844430|NCT01032889|181554530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from placebo|-1.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.46|-0.85|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment group and the baseline covariate.||||-0.85|-2.46|<0.001
90844431|NCT00256997|181554534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5498||||||P-value was calculated by Cox proportional hazard model stratified for positive and negative symptom scale.|Cox proportional hazard model|||||||0.5498
90844432|NCT04672655|181554553|OTHER|||||||0.8875||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|linear mixed effects models|||A linear mixed effects model (LMM) was used to examine outcomes measured at 3, 6, and 12 months. An unstructured covariance matrix was specified to model within-subject correlations across repeated measurements. To address missing data, the LMM utilized a likelihood-based approach under the missing-at-random (MAR) assumption, which incorporates all available data, thereby minimizing bias from incomplete follow-up measurements.||||0.8875
90844433|NCT04672655|181554554|OTHER|||||||0.4811||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|linear mixed effects models|||A linear mixed effects model (LMM) was used to examine outcomes measured at 3, 6, and 12 months. An unstructured covariance matrix was specified to model within-subject correlations across repeated measurements. To address missing data, the LMM utilized a likelihood-based approach under the missing-at-random (MAR) assumption, which incorporates all available data, thereby minimizing bias from incomplete follow-up measurements.||||0.4811
90844434|NCT04672655|181554555|OTHER|||||||0.754||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|linear mixed effects models|||A linear mixed effects model (LMM) was used to examine outcomes measured at 3, 6, and 12 months. An unstructured covariance matrix was specified to model within-subject correlations across repeated measurements. To address missing data, the LMM utilized a likelihood-based approach under the missing-at-random (MAR) assumption, which incorporates all available data, thereby minimizing bias from incomplete follow-up measurements.||||0.754
90844435|NCT04672655|181554556|OTHER|||||||0.0406||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|linear mixed effects models|||A linear mixed effects model (LMM) was used to examine outcomes measured at 3, 6, and 12 months. An unstructured covariance matrix was specified to model within-subject correlations across repeated measurements. To address missing data, the LMM utilized a likelihood-based approach under the missing-at-random (MAR) assumption, which incorporates all available data, thereby minimizing bias from incomplete follow-up measurements.||||0.0406
90844436|NCT04672655|181554557|OTHER|||||||0.9032||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|linear mixed effects models|||A linear mixed effects model (LMM) was used to examine outcomes measured at 3, 6, and 12 months. An unstructured covariance matrix was specified to model within-subject correlations across repeated measurements. To address missing data, the LMM utilized a likelihood-based approach under the missing-at-random (MAR) assumption, which incorporates all available data, thereby minimizing bias from incomplete follow-up measurements.||||0.9032
90898559|NCT05375955|181663018|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|30.0||||0.0227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|56.6|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 10||56.6|0.4|0.0227
90898560|NCT05375955|181663018|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|23.5||||0.0495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|48.9|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 12||48.9|-3.8|0.0495
90898561|NCT05375955|181663018|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|15.9||||0.1246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|40.6|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 12||40.6|-10.6|0.1246
90898562|NCT05375955|181663018|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|30.0||||0.0227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|56.6|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 12||56.6|0.4|0.0227
91094113|NCT01140906|182072458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.16|-4.7||This treatment arm was not in the testing sequence. A nominal p-value is provided.|MMRM|||||-4.70|-9.16|<0.0001
90844437|NCT01326104|181554558|SUPERIORITY||comparing two curves|0.286||||0.927|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.107|0.764||This is the p-value comparing Group A with historical control.|Log Rank|One sample log rank.||Based on published literature, PFS-12 for patients with recurrent disease after initiating treatment with HDC + PBSCT or standard salvage therapy was 33% (95% confidence interval of 10%, 59%). The study was designed to differentiate between a PFS-12 rate of 33% (null hypothesis) and 55% (alternative hypothesis). If 35 patients enrolled, this assessment has 90% power assuming a type I error rate of 0.10. We assume that PFS of historical controls follows exponential distribution.||0.764|0.107|0.927
90844438|NCT01326104|181554558|SUPERIORITY||compare two curves|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||This is the p-value comparing Group B with historical control.|Log Rank|||Based on published literature, PFS-12 for patients with recurrent disease after initiating treatment with HDC + PBSCT or standard salvage therapy was 33% (95% confidence interval of 10%, 59%). The study was designed to differentiate between a PFS-12 rate of 33% (null hypothesis) and 55% (alternative hypothesis). If 35 patients enrolled, this assessment has 90% power assuming a type I error rate of 0.10. We assume that PFS of historical controls follows exponential distribution.||||<0.001
90844439|NCT01326104|181554558|SUPERIORITY||Comparing two curves|0.091|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.03|0.276||This is the p-value comparing Groups A and B combined with historical control.|Log Rank|||||0.276|0.03|<0.001
90844440|NCT03843541|181554564|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.24|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.763|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the superiority comparisons of NAC vs. placebo, the Bonferroni correction was used.||||<0.001
90844441|NCT03843541|181554565|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.29|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.783||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the superiority comparisons of NAC vs. placebo, the Bonferroni correction was used.||||0.002
90844442|NCT03843541|181554566|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.239|||||||Stratified Mann-Whitney U Statistic|||||||0.239
90844443|NCT03843541|181554567|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.037|||||||Stratified Mann-Whitney U Statistic|||For the superiority comparisons of NAC vs. placebo, the Bonferroni correction was used.||||0.037
90844444|NCT03843541|181554568|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.093|||||||Stratified Mann Whitney U Statistic|||||||0.093
90844445|NCT03843541|181554568|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.118|||||||Stratified Mann Whitney U Statistic|||||||0.118
90844446|NCT03843541|181554569|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022|||||||Stratified Mann Whitney U Statistic|||||||0.022
90844447|NCT03843541|181554569|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Stratified Mann Whitney U Statistic|||||||0.110
90844448|NCT03843541|181554570|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022|||||||Stratified Mann Whitney U Statistic|||||||0.022
90844449|NCT03843541|181554570|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.402|||||||Stratified Mann Whitney U Statistic|||||||0.402
90898563|NCT05458024|181663053|SUPERIORITY||Beta coefficient|-0.14||||0.83|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.83
90844450|NCT03843541|181554571|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was declared if the one-sided confidence interval was within the interval.|Probability scale treatment difference|0.5||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.43|1.0|||Modified Mann-Whitney U Statistic||The point estimates of treatment differences in probability scale together with associated one-side confidence interval (97.5% or 98.75%) were computed according to Hochberg if both superiority contrasts were found statistically significant.|||1.00|0.43|0.002
90844451|NCT03843541|181554572|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was declared if the one-sided confidence interval was within the interval.|Probability scale treatment difference|0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|98.75|0.45|1.0|||Modified Mann-Whitney U Statistic||"The point estimates of treatment differences in probability scale together with associated one-side confidence interval (97.5% or 98.75%) were computed according to Hochberg if both superiority contrasts were found statistically significant.~."|||1.00|0.45|<0.001
90844452|NCT03843541|181554573|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.356|||||||Modified Mann-Whitney U Statistic|||||||0.356
90844453|NCT03843541|181554573|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Modified Mann-Whitney U Statistic|||||||0.007
90844454|NCT03843541|181554574|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||Modified Mann-Whitney U Statistic|||||||0.380
90844455|NCT03843541|181554574|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018|||||||Modified Mann-Whitney U Statistic|||||||0.018
90844456|NCT03843541|181554575|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.366|||||||Modified Mann-Whitney U Statistic|||||||0.366
90844457|NCT03843541|181554575|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027|||||||Modified Mann-Whitney U Statistic|||||||0.027
90844458|NCT03843541|181554576|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.052|||||||Modified Mann-Whitney U Statistic|||||||0.052
90844459|NCT03843541|181554576|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.058|||||||Modified Mann-Whitney U Statistic|||||||0.058
90844460|NCT03843541|181554577|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.309|||||||Modified Mann-Whitney U Statistic|||||||0.309
90844461|NCT03843541|181554577|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||Modified Mann-Whitney U Statistic|||||||0.006
90844462|NCT04301193|181554591|OTHER||Correlation - R value|0.93|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Using standard techniques for estimating sample size, a Delong's test indicated that a total of 61 samples would be sufcient to detect a 0.2 increase in the AUROC from the null hypothesis 0.5, assuming an alpha level of 5% and 90% power \[12\]. The manuscript was referenced against the STROBE checklist for cohort studies. Descriptive statistics were used to present.||||<0.05
90844463|NCT04301193|181554591|OTHER||Correlation - R value|0.77|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
90898564|NCT05458024|181663054|SUPERIORITY||Beta coefficient|-1.41||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|||||Analyses were adjusted for sex, baseline pain, and baseline vitamin D levels.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.21
90844464|NCT04193189|181554643|NON_INFERIORITY|Pre-specified non-inferiority margin (2-CpG minus 3-alum): -10%.|Common proportion difference|12.5|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|4.1|20.9|||||Common SPR proportion (expressed as percentage of participants) difference (2-CpG minus 3-alum) with two-sided 97.5% Newcombe confidence interval stratified by sex at birth and diabetes status; Mantel-Haenszel weights were used.|Primary objective of Group A||20.9|4.1|
90898565|NCT05807919|181663057|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
90898566|NCT05807919|181663058|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.39
90898567|NCT05807919|181663059|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.18
90898568|NCT05807919|181663060|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.02
90898569|NCT05807919|181663061|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.39
90844465|NCT04193189|181554643|SUPERIORITY||Common proportion difference|18.4|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|10.4|26.2|||||Common SPR proportion (expressed as percentage of participants) difference (3-CpG minus 3-alum) with two-sided 97.5% Newcombe repeated confidence interval stratified by sex at birth and diabetes status; Mantel-Haenszel weights were used.|Primary objective of Group A||26.2|10.4|
90844466|NCT04193189|181554643|SUPERIORITY||Common proportion difference|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.2|11.8|||||Common SPR proportion (expressed as percentage of participants) difference (3-CpG minus 2-CpG) with two-sided 97.5% Newcombe confidence interval stratified by sex at birth and diabetes status; Mantel-Haenszel weights were used.|Secondary objective of Group A||11.8|-0.2|
90898570|NCT05807919|181663062|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.48
90898571|NCT02277743|181663084|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|27.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.18|35.17||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo|Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity.||35.17|20.18|< 0.0001
90898572|NCT02277743|181663084|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|27.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.47|34.44||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs Placebo|Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity.||34.44|19.47|< 0.0001
90898573|NCT02277743|181663085|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|36.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.58|44.63||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.025 level. Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity.||44.63|28.58|< 0.0001
90898574|NCT02277743|181663085|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|37.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.7|45.77||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs Placebo|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.025 level. Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity.||45.77|29.70|< 0.0001
90898575|NCT02277743|181663086|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|28.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.64|36.52||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||36.52|20.64|< 0.0001
90898576|NCT02277743|181663086|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|28.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.94|36.13||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||36.13|19.94|< 0.0001
90898577|NCT02277743|181663087|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|29.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.36|37.88||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous outcome measure was statistically significant).||37.88|21.36|< 0.0001
90844467|NCT04193189|181554645|SUPERIORITY||Common proportion difference|9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.1|18.1|||||Common SPR proportion (expressed as percentage of participants) difference (2-CpG minus 3-alum) with two-sided 97.5% Newcombe confidence interval stratified by sex at birth and diabetes status; Mantel-Haenszel weights were used.|Comparison of Group A 2-CpG and 3-alum at 4 weeks post last scheduled vaccination (Week 8 in 2-CpG, Week 28 in 3-alum)||18.1|0.1|
90898578|NCT02277743|181663087|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|34.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.08|42.84||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous outcome measure was statistically significant).||42.84|26.08|< 0.0001
90898579|NCT02277743|181663088|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) mean difference|-24.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.26|-17.52||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous outcome measure was statistically significant).||-17.52|-32.26|< 0.0001
90898580|NCT02277743|181663088|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-22.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.33|-15.33||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous outcome measure was statistically significant).||-15.33|-30.33|< 0.0001
90898581|NCT02277743|181663089|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|9.8||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.95|15.71||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous outcome measure was statistically significant).||15.71|3.95|0.0012
90898582|NCT02277743|181663089|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|17.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.57|23.93||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous outcome measure was statistically significant).||23.93|10.57|< 0.0001
90898583|NCT02277743|181663090|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|6.1||||0.0097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.49|10.68||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous outcome measure was statistically significant).||10.68|1.49|0.0097
90898584|NCT02277743|181663090|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|6.2||||0.0094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|10.86||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous outcome measure was statistically significant).||10.86|1.45|0.0094
90898585|NCT02277743|181663091|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.75|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.236|-1.26||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous outcome measure was statistically significant).||-1.260|-2.236|< 0.0001
90957373|NCT06377488|181794739|SUPERIORITY||Mean Population Estimate|57.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.7|64.0|||Mixed Model Analysis|The Satterthwaite Method was used for the calculation of the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean estimates were conducted for hyperopes only using two-sided confidence intervals (CI) constructed for the least square mean.|It was calculated using a 1-sided one-sample mean t-test with a family wise type I error rate of 5% with at least 99% statistical power, that 23 and 29 subjects were required to test for superiority for CLUE vision scores for hyperopes and myopes, respectively.||64.0|51.7|
90844468|NCT04193189|181554645|SUPERIORITY||Common proportion difference|19.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|10.0|27.9|||||Common SPR proportion (expressed as percentage of participants) difference (2-CpG minus 3-alum) with two-sided 97.5% Newcombe confidence interval stratified by sex at birth and diabetes status; Mantel-Haenszel weights were used.|Comparison of Group A 2-CpG and 3-alum at 8 weeks post last scheduled vaccination (Week 12 in 2-CpG, Week 32 in 3-alum)||27.9|10.0|
90844469|NCT04193189|181554645|SUPERIORITY||Common proportion difference|27.8|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|17.7|37.2|||||Common SP proportion (expressed as percentage of participants) difference (2-CpG minus 3-alum) with two-sided 97.5% Newcombe confidence interval stratified by sex at birth and diabetes status; Mantel-Haenszel weights were used.|Comparison of Group A 2-CpG and 3-alum at 24 weeks post last scheduled vaccination (Week 28 in 2-CpG, Week 48 in 3-alum)||37.2|17.7|
90844470|NCT04193189|181554645|SUPERIORITY||Common proportion difference|32.3|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|21.3|42.3|||||Common SPR proportion (expressed as percentage of participants) difference (2-CpG minus 3-alum) with two-sided 97.5% Newcombe confidence interval stratified by sex at birth and diabetes status; Mantel-Haenszel weights were used.|Comparison of Group A 2-CpG and 3-alum at 48 weeks post last scheduled vaccination (Week 52 in 2-CpG, Week 72 in 3-alum)||42.3|21.3|
90844471|NCT04193189|181554645|SUPERIORITY||Common proportion difference|23.8|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|15.5|32.3|||||Common SPR proportion (expressed as percentage of participants) difference (3-CpG minus 3-alum) with two-sided 97.5% Newcombe confidence interval stratified by sex at birth and diabetes status; Mantel-Haenszel weights were used.|Comparison of Group A 3-CpG and 3-alum at 8 weeks post last scheduled vaccination (Week 32)||32.3|15.5|
90844472|NCT04193189|181554645|SUPERIORITY||Common proportion difference|32.3|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|23.2|41.2|||||Common SPR proportion (expressed as percentage of participants) difference (3-CpG minus 3-alum) with two-sided 97.5% Newcombe confidence interval stratified by sex at birth and diabetes status; Mantel-Haenszel weights were used.|Comparison of Group A 3-CpG and 3-alum at 24 weeks post last scheduled vaccination (Week 48)||41.2|23.2|
90844473|NCT04193189|181554645|SUPERIORITY||Common proportion difference|38.8|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|28.9|48.1|||||Common SPR proportion (expressed as percentage of participants) difference (3-CpG minus 3-alum) with two-sided 97.5% Newcombe confidence interval stratified by sex at birth and diabetes status; Mantel-Haenszel weights were used.|Comparison of Group A 3-CpG and 3-alum at 48 weeks post last scheduled vaccination (Week 72)||48.1|28.9|
90844474|NCT04193189|181554645|SUPERIORITY||Common proportion difference|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|3.1|16.4|||||Common SPR proportion (expressed as percentage of participants) difference (3-CpG minus 2-CpG) with two-sided 97.5% Newcombe confidence interval stratified by sex at birth and diabetes status; Mantel-Haenszel weights were used.|Comparison of Group A 3-CpG and 2-CpG at 4 weeks post last scheduled vaccination (Week 28 in 3-CpG, Week 8 in 2-CpG)||16.4|3.1|
90844475|NCT04193189|181554645|SUPERIORITY||Common proportion difference|4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.8|10.5|||||Common SPR proportion (expressed as percentage of participants) difference (3-CpG minus 2-CpG) with two-sided 97.5% Newcombe confidence interval stratified by sex at birth and diabetes status; Mantel-Haenszel weights were used.|Comparison of Group A 3-CpG and 2-CpG at 8 weeks post last scheduled vaccination (Week 32 in 3-CpG, Week 12 in 2-CpG)||10.5|-0.8|
90844476|NCT04193189|181554645|SUPERIORITY||Common proportion difference|4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.8|11.2|||||Common SPR proportion (expressed as percentage of participants) difference (3-CpG minus 2-CpG) with two-sided 97.5% Newcombe confidence interval stratified by sex at birth and diabetes status; Mantel-Haenszel weights were used.|Comparison of Group A 3-CpG and 2-CpG at 24 weeks post last scheduled vaccination (Week 48 in 3-CpG, Week 28 in 2-CpG)||11.2|-0.8|
90844477|NCT04193189|181554645|SUPERIORITY||Common proportion difference|7.2|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.7|14.2|||||Common SPR proportion (expressed as percentage of participants) difference (3-CpG minus 2-CpG) with two-sided 97.5% Newcombe confidence interval stratified by sex at birth and diabetes status; Mantel-Haenszel weights were used.|Comparison of Group A 3-CpG and 2-CpG at 48 weeks post last scheduled vaccination (Week 72 in 3-CpG, Week 52 in 2-CpG)||14.2|0.7|
90844478|NCT01243242|181554650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0093||95.0||||p value for the difference between groups in change from Screening to Termination was calculated using the median test for independent samples|Median|||For the primary endpoint (CAARS change), median test was applied as the primary analysis due to outlier numbers observed ; secondary analysis of the primary endpoint utilized ANCOVA with adjustment to age, gender and site (which is usually expected to influence the endpoint) as well as baseline values. Additional parametric T-test was applied, but was found less effective due to outlier values.||||0.0093
90844479|NCT01243242|181554651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0195||95.0||||p value for the difference between groups in change from Screening to Termination was calculated using ANCOVA, adjusted for baseline score, gender, site and age|ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) was applied for comparing the differences in changes from screening/baseline (Visit 1) to termination (Visit 6) and to Visits 3 through 5 in the primary endpoint, CAARS, and secondary endpoint scales, CGI-S, TOVA and AAQoL between the study groups with adjustment to confounders (baseline score, site, age, gender, dose and past exposure to any other ADHD drug).||||0.0195
90844480|NCT01243242|181554652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0093||95.0||||p value for the difference between groups in change from Screening to Termination was calculated using ANCOVA, adjusted for baseline score, gender, site and age.|ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was applied for comparing the differences in changes from screening/baseline (Visit 1) to termination (Visit 6) between the study groups with adjustment to confounders (baseline score, site, age, gender, dose and past exposure to any other ADHD drug).||||0.0093
90844481|NCT00662675|181554670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|The p-value is from ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline percent COA-fat as a covariate.||The power calculation was based on the assumption that the true mean difference between the active and the placebo group was 31.2% with a common standard deviation of 22.6% using a 2-sided, 2-sample, t-test with a 5% significance level.||||<0.001
91094114|NCT01140906|182072459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.2524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|0.48||A nominal p-value is provided.|MMRM||No correction for multiplicity was made.|||0.48|-1.83|0.2524
90844482|NCT00662675|181554671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The p-value is from ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline percent COA-protein(nitrogen) as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90844483|NCT00552188|181554681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline value||||0.34
90844484|NCT00552188|181554682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline||||0.15
90898586|NCT02277743|181663091|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.189|-1.186||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous outcome measure was statistically significant).||-1.186|-2.189|< 0.0001
90898587|NCT02277743|181663092|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-34.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.35|-26.88||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous outcome measure was statistically significant).||-26.88|-42.35|< 0.0001
90898588|NCT02277743|181663092|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-34.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.17|-26.56||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous outcome measure was statistically significant).||-26.56|-42.17|< 0.0001
90898589|NCT02277743|181663093|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|44.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.91|52.48||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous outcome measure was statistically significant).||52.48|35.91|< 0.0001
90898590|NCT02277743|181663093|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|36.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.9|44.96||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous outcome measure was statistically significant).||44.96|27.90|< 0.0001
90898591|NCT02277743|181663094|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|28.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.96|35.29||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous outcome measure was statistically significant).||35.29|20.96|< 0.0001
90898592|NCT02277743|181663094|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|25.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.51|32.68||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous outcome measure was statistically significant).||32.68|18.51|< 0.0001
90898593|NCT02277743|181663095|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-17.92|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.487|-13.353||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous outcome measure was statistically significant).||-13.353|-22.487|< 0.0001
90898594|NCT02277743|181663095|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-18.89|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.125|-14.65||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous outcome measure was statistically significant).||-14.650|-23.125|< 0.0001
90898595|NCT02277743|181663096|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-28.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.79|-21.54||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous outcome measure was statistically significant).||-21.54|-35.79|< 0.0001
90957374|NCT06377488|181794740|SUPERIORITY||Central Posterior Mean Estimate|0.943|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0155|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.908|0.968|||Bayesian beta-binomial model|Bayesian beta-binomial model with correlated binary data||It was calculated using a Bayesian beta-binomial model for correlated data with a reference rate of 0.902 and an intraclass correlation of 0.70, that 140 subjects were required to test for superiority to achieve a minimum statistical power of 96% with 95% central posterior credible interval.||0.968|0.908|
90844485|NCT01256294|181554683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.09||||||||1.09|0.96|
90844486|NCT01256294|181554683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|1.02||||0.486|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.08||ANOVA model for the dose-normalized log transformed values with treatment, period and sequence as fixed factors and subjects nested within sequences as a random factor.|ANOVA|||To compare the bioavailability of generic tacrolimus to branded tacrolimus, the 90% confidence intervals of the ratios of geometric means of AUC0-12h were assessed relative to the interval \[80%, 125%\].||1.08|0.97|0.486
90844487|NCT01256294|181554688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.2|||||Ratio of geometric means: Generic tacrolimus/Branded tacrolimus|||1.20|1.00|
90844488|NCT01256294|181554688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|1.09||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.01|1.18||ANOVA model for the dose-normalized log transformed values with treatment, period and sequence as fixed factors and subjects nested within sequences as a random factor.|ANOVA|||To compare the bioavailability of generic tacrolimus to branded tacrolimus, the 90% confidence intervals of the ratios of geometric means of Cmax were assessed relative to the interval \[80%, 125%\].||1.18|1.01|0.057
91094115|NCT01140906|182072459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.4186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|0.68||A nominal p-value is provided.|MMRM||No correction for multiplicity was made.|||0.68|-1.64|0.4186
90844489|NCT03860818|181554719|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||Rate of inpatient hospitalization during study||||<.001
90844490|NCT03860818|181554719|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<.0001
90898596|NCT02277743|181663096|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-28.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.09|-20.87||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous outcome measure was statistically significant).||-20.87|-35.09|< 0.0001
91094116|NCT01140906|182072460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.7372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.67||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA|||||0.67|-0.95|0.7372
91029331|NCT03267264|181942223|NON_INFERIORITY|Two-sided 95% confidence intervals is calculated for the average relative rating. A linear model was used to evaluate the pen needle group effect on the response to test whether the groups can be combined (a p-value \< 0.05 for the pen needle group effect indicates non-poolability) and to adjust for the order effect. The order of the pen needles used and the group to which the subject belongs were used as covariates. If the lower bound of the CI is \> -10mm, we can conclude in non-inferiority.|Overall Mean|27.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.9|40.7||||||Overall Comfort||40.7|14.9|
90844491|NCT03860818|181554720|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Statistical analysis applies to all rows.||||||<0.001
90898597|NCT02277743|181663097|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-4.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.16|-2.8||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous outcome measure was statistically significant).||-2.80|-5.16|< 0.0001
91029332|NCT03267264|181942223|NON_INFERIORITY|Two-sided 95% confidence intervals is calculated for the average relative rating. A linear model was used to evaluate the pen needle group effect on the response to test whether the groups can be combined (a p-value \< 0.05 for the pen needle group effect indicates non-poolability) and to adjust for the order effect. The order of the pen needles used and the group to which the subject belongs were used as covariates. If the lower bound of the CI is \> -10mm, we can conclude in non-inferiority.|Overall Mean|20.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.9|31.6||||||Anxiety Associated with a needle stick injury||31.6|8.9|
91029333|NCT03267264|181942223|NON_INFERIORITY|Two-sided 95% confidence intervals is calculated for the average relative rating. A linear model was used to evaluate the pen needle group effect on the response to test whether the groups can be combined (a p-value \< 0.05 for the pen needle group effect indicates non-poolability) and to adjust for the order effect. The order of the pen needles used and the group to which the subject belongs were used as covariates. If the lower bound of the CI is \> -10mm, we can conclude in non-inferiority.|Overall Mean|16.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|28.8||||||Injection Pain||28.8|3.4|
91029334|NCT03267264|181942223|NON_INFERIORITY|Two-sided 95% confidence intervals is calculated for the average relative rating. A linear model was used to evaluate the pen needle group effect on the response to test whether the groups can be combined (a p-value \< 0.05 for the pen needle group effect indicates non-poolability) and to adjust for the order effect. The order of the pen needles used and the group to which the subject belongs were used as covariates. If the lower bound of the CI is \> -10mm, we can conclude in non-inferiority.|Overall Mean|30.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.3|42.1||||||Ease of Use||42.1|19.3|
91029335|NCT03267264|181942223|NON_INFERIORITY|Two-sided 95% confidence intervals is calculated for the average relative rating. A linear model was used to evaluate the pen needle group effect on the response to test whether the groups can be combined (a p-value \< 0.05 for the pen needle group effect indicates non-poolability) and to adjust for the order effect. The order of the pen needles used and the group to which the subject belongs were used as covariates. If the lower bound of the CI is \> -10mm, we can conclude in non-inferiority.|Overall Mean|20.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|36.1||||||Overall Comfort||36.1|5.3|
90844492|NCT03860818|181554721|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9064|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.9064
90844493|NCT03860818|181554722|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.51
90844494|NCT00505778|181554749|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish non-inferiority for primary efficacy variable at 2-sided upper confidence bound of 95% with 90% power, 442 patients per treatment group were required to be analyzable for primary efficacy analysis. Assuming 10% enrolled would not be analyzable, 1000 patients would be enrolled. If the 95% confidence interval's upper bound interval for the difference between the Asacol BID and Asacol QD group is \<10%, then non-inferiority of Asacol QD is claimed.|BID-QD Difference in Remission Rates|1.3||||0.5016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|4.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by prior Asacol dose Category||Assumed true remission rate is 70% with no difference in remission rates between QD and BID dosing.The non-inferiority margin used in hypothesis testing was set to 10%.||4.9|-2.3|0.5016
90844495|NCT00505778|181554750|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish non-inferiority for primary efficacy variable at 2-sided upper confidence bound of 95% with 90% power, 442 patients per treatment group were required to be analyzable for primary efficacy analysis. Assuming 10% enrolled would not be analyzable, 1000 patients would be enrolled. If the 95% confidence interval's upper bound interval for the difference between the Asacol BID and Asacol QD group is \<10%, then non-inferiority of Asacol QD is claimed.|BID-QD Difference in Remission Rates|0.8||||0.5426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|3.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by prior Asacol dose Category||Assumed true remission rate is 70% with no difference in remission rates between QD and BID dosing.The non-inferiority margin used in hypothesis testing was set to 10%.||3.5|-1.8|0.5426
90844496|NCT00505778|181554751|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish non-inferiority for primary efficacy variable at 2-sided upper confidence bound of 95% with 90% power, 442 patients per treatment group were required to be analyzable for primary efficacy analysis. Assuming 10% enrolled would not be analyzable, 1000 patients would be enrolled. If the 95% confidence interval's upper bound interval for the difference between the Asacol BID and Asacol QD group is \<10%, then non-inferiority of Asacol QD is claimed.|BID-QD Difference in Remission Rates|0.0||||0.977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|4.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by prior Asacol dose Category||Assumed true remission rate is 70% with no difference in remission rates between QD and BID dosing.The non-inferiority margin used in hypothesis testing was set to 10%.||4.7|-4.6|0.9770
90844497|NCT00505778|181554752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.4726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.762|1.796|||Log Rank|Stratified by prior Asacol dose Category||||1.796|0.762|0.4726
90844498|NCT00505778|181554753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference BID-QD in Least Square Mean|-0.45||||0.1753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|0.2|||ANOVA|ANOVA with prior Asacol dose category as factor.||||0.20|-1.09|0.1753
90844499|NCT00505778|181554754|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish non-inferiority for primary efficacy variable at 2-sided upper confidence bound of 95% with 90% power, 442 patients per treatment group were required to be analyzable for primary efficacy analysis. Assuming 10% enrolled would not be analyzable, 1000 patients would be enrolled. If the 95% confidence interval's upper bound interval for the difference between the Asacol BID and Asacol QD group is \<10%, then non-inferiority of Asacol QD is claimed.|Difference BID-QD Remission Rates|3.6||||0.1557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|8.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by prior Asacol dose Category||Assumed true remission rate is 70% with no difference in remission rates between QD and BID dosing.The non-inferiority margin used in hypothesis testing was set to 10%.||8.5|-1.3|0.1557
91094117|NCT01140906|182072460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|1.37||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA|||||1.37|-0.24|0.1690
90844500|NCT01621802|181554758|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority criterion for sub cohort 1: Lower limit (LL) of the 2-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for group difference (Inv\_MMR\_CO Group minus pooled Com\_MMR\_CO Group) in seroresponse rates to measles, mumps and rubella viruses is ≥ -5%.|Difference in seroresponse rate (%)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.72|1.98|||||Difference in percentage (Inv\_MMR\_CO Group minus Com\_MMR\_CO Group) in percentage of subjects with an anti-measles antibody concentration ≥ 200 mIU/mL.|"Power obtained using PASS 2005 (Likelihood Score \[Miettienen and Nurminen approach\]), one-sided non-inferiority test for the difference of two independent proportions, under the alternative associated to the reference value \& alpha=1.25%.~The global power to reach all non-inferiority objectives of Priorix vs. M-M-R II in sub-cohort 1 should be at least 94.04% (=100%- the sum of type II errors associated to cohort 1."||1.98|-0.72|
90844501|NCT01621802|181554758|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority criterion for sub cohort 2: The LL of the 2-sided 97.5% CI for group difference (Inv\_MMR\_I group minus pooled Com\_MMR\_I group) in seroresponse rates to measles, mumps and rubella viruses was ≥ -5%.|Difference in Seroresponse rate (%)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.02|2.97|||||Difference in percentage (Inv\_MMR\_I Group minus Com\_MMR\_I Group) in percentage of subjects with an anti-Measles antibody concentration ≥ 200 mIU/mL.|"Power obtained using PASS 2005 (Likelihood Score \[Miettienen and Nurminen approach\]), one-sided non-inferiority test for the difference of two independent proportions, under the alternative associated to the reference value \& alpha=1.25%.~The global power to reach all non-inferiority objectives of Priorix vs. M-M-R II in sub-cohort 2 should be at least 98.88% (=100%- the sum of type II error associated to cohort 2."||2.97|0.02|
90844502|NCT01621802|181554759|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority criterion for sub cohort 1: The LL of the 2-sided 97.5% CI for group difference (Inv\_MMR\_CO Group minus pooled Com\_MMR\_CO Group) in seroresponse rates to measles, mumps and rubella viruses was ≥ -5%.|Difference in seroresponse rate (%)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.72|1.97|||||Difference in percentage (Inv\_MMR\_CO Group minus Com\_MMR\_CO Group) in percentage of subjects with an anti-mumps antibody concentration ≥ 10 EU/mL.|"Power obtained using PASS 2005 (Likelihood Score \[Miettienen and Nurminen approach\]), one-sided non-inferiority test for the difference of two independent proportions, under the alternative associated to the reference value \& alpha=1.25%.~The global power to reach all non-inferiority objectives of Priorix vs. M-M-R II in sub-cohort 1 should be at least 94.04% (=100%- the sum of type II errors associated to cohort 1."||1.97|-0.72|
90844503|NCT01621802|181554759|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority criterion for sub cohort 2: The LL of the 2-sided 97.5% CI for group difference (Inv\_MMR\_I group minus pooled Com\_MMR\_I group) in seroresponse rates to measles, mumps and rubella viruses was ≥ -5%.|Difference in Seroresponse rate (%)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.68|1.75|||||Difference in percentage (Inv\_MMR\_I Group minus Com\_MMR\_I Group) in percentage of subjects with an anti-mumps antibody concentration ≥ 10 EU/mL.|"Power obtained using PASS 2005 (Likelihood Score \[Miettienen and Nurminen approach\]), one-sided non-inferiority test for the difference of two independent proportions, under the alternative associated to the reference value \& alpha=1.25%.~The global power to reach all non-inferiority objectives of Priorix vs. M-M-R II in sub-cohort 2 should be at least 98.88% (=100%- the sum of type II error associated to cohort 2."||1.75|-0.68|
90844504|NCT01621802|181554760|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority criterion for sub cohort 1: The LL of the 2-sided 97.5% CI for group difference (Inv\_MMR\_CO group minus pooled Com\_MMR\_CO group) in seroresponse rates to measles, mumps and rubella viruses was ≥ -5%.|Difference in seroresponse rate (%)|-0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.98|1.84|||||Difference in percentage (Inv\_MMR\_CO Group minus Com\_MMR\_CO Group) in percentage of subjects with an anti-rubella antibody concentration ≥ 10 IU/mL.|"Power obtained using PASS 2005 (Likelihood Score \[Miettienen and Nurminen approach\]), one-sided non-inferiority test for the difference of two independent proportions, under the alternative associated to the reference value \& alpha=1.25%.~The global power to reach all non-inferiority objectives of Priorix vs. M-M-R II in sub-cohort 1 should be at least 94.04% (=100%- the sum of type II errors associated to cohort 1."||1.84|-0.98|
90844505|NCT01621802|181554760|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority criterion for sub cohort 2: The LL of the 2-sided 97.5% CI for group difference (Inv\_MMR\_I group minus pooled Com\_MMR\_I group) in seroresponse rates to measles, mumps and rubella viruses was ≥ -5%.|Difference in seroresponse rate (%)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.68|1.75|||||Difference in percentage (Inv\_MMR\_I Group minus Com\_MMR\_I Group) in percentage of subjects with an anti-rubella antibody concentration ≥ 10 IU/mL.|"Power obtained using PASS 2005 (Likelihood Score \[Miettienen and Nurminen approach\]), one-sided non-inferiority test for the difference of two independent proportions, under the alternative associated to the reference value \& alpha=1.25%.~The global power to reach all non-inferiority objectives of Priorix vs. M-M-R II in sub-cohort 2 should be at least 98.88% (=100%- the sum of type II error associated to cohort 2."||1.75|-0.68|
90844506|NCT01621802|181554761|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority criterion for sub cohort 1: The LL of the 2-sided 97.5% CI for the adjusted GMC ratio (Inv\_MMR\_CO group divided by pooled Com\_MMR\_CO group) was ≥ 0.67 for antibodies to measles, mumps and rubella viruses.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.92|1.06|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline concentration - pooled variance|The GMCs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMCs, which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMC ratio with 97.5% confidence interval.|||1.06|0.92|
90898598|NCT02277743|181663097|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.87|-2.49||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous outcome measure was statistically significant).||-2.49|-4.87|< 0.0001
91094118|NCT01649765|182072461|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|3.46||||||||3.46|0.64|
91094119|NCT01649765|182072462|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|6.54|||||Definition 1|||6.54|1.15|
91094120|NCT01649765|182072462|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|7.17|||||Definition 2|||7.17|1.19|
91094121|NCT02469233|182072473|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-3.18||||0.025|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||Treatment effect on change from pre to post, which is 9-14 weeks after the beginning of treatment.||||0.025
90844507|NCT01621802|181554761|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority criterion for sub cohort 2: The LL of the 2-sided 97.5% CI for the adjusted GMC ratio (Inv\_MMR\_I group divided by pooled Com\_MMR\_I group) was ≥ 0.67 for antibodies to measles, mumps and rubella viruses.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.96|1.1|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline concentration country - pooled variance|The GMCs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMCs, which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMC ratio with 97.5% confidence interval.|||1.10|0.96|
90844508|NCT01621802|181554762|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The LL of the 2-sided 97.5% CI for the adjusted GMC ratio (Inv\_MMR\_CO group divided by pooled Com\_MMR\_CO group) was ≥ 0.67 for antibodies to measles, mumps and rubella viruses.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.83|1.0|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline concentration - pooled variance|The GMCs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMCs, which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMC ratio with 97.5% confidence interval.|||1.00|0.83|
90844509|NCT01621802|181554762|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The LL of the 2-sided 97.5% CI for the adjusted GMC ratio (Inv\_MMR\_I group divided by pooled Com\_MMR\_I group) was ≥ 0.67 for antibodies to measles, mumps and rubella viruses.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.87|1.06|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline concentration - pooled variance.|The GMCs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMCs, which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMC ratio with 97.5% confidence interval.|||1.06|0.87|
90844510|NCT01621802|181554763|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority criterion for sub cohort 1: The LL of the 2-sided 97.5% CI for the adjusted GMC ratio (Inv\_MMR\_CO group divided by pooled Com\_MMR\_CO group) was ≥ 0.67 for antibodies to measles, mumps and rubella viruses.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.97|1.09|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline concentration - pooled variance.|The GMCs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMCs, which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMC ratio with 97.5% confidence interval.|Adjusted geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio (Inv\_MMR\_CO group divided by Com\_MMR\_CO group) for antibodies to rubella virus.||1.09|0.97|
90898599|NCT02277743|181663098|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-6.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.02|-5.01||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-5.01|-8.02|< 0.0001
90898600|NCT02277743|181663098|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-5.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.44|-4.32||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous outcome measure was statistically significant).||-4.32|-7.44|< 0.0001
90898601|NCT02277743|181663099|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.2||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.44|-0.95||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous outcome measure was statistically significant).||-0.95|-3.44|0.0006
90898602|NCT02277743|181663099|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.2||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.46|-1.03||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous outcome measure was statistically significant).||-1.03|-3.46|0.0003
90898603|NCT02277743|181663100|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-27.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.04|-18.91||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous outcome measure was statistically significant).||-18.91|-35.04|< 0.0001
90844511|NCT01621802|181554763|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority criterion for sub cohort 2: The LL of the 2-sided 97.5% CI for the adjusted GMC ratio (Inv\_MMR\_I group divided by pooled Com\_MMR\_I group) was ≥ 0.67 for antibodies to measles, mumps and rubella viruses.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.95|1.07|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline concentration - pooled variance.|The GMCs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMCs, which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMC ratio with 97.5% confidence interval.|||1.07|0.95|
90844512|NCT01149148|181554787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3333|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.626||0.678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|2.02||A prior threshold for statistical significance is p \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided||The difference between baseline and three months is (baseline - 3 month). The difference in control and intervention is (intervention - control), which in this case is (unblinded - blinded).|The goal was to determine whether cerebral oximetry monitoring during surgery affected cognitive outcomes. Cerebral Oximetry Monitoring unblinded (intervention), and Cerebral Oxymetry Monitoring blinded (control) were given Mini Mental State Exam prior to surgery and three months after surgery. The differences between baseline and 3 month were calculated and compared between the intervention and control groups using t-test.||2.02|-1.36|0.678
90844513|NCT03436082|181554789|OTHER|We used Stata version 14.2 (StataCorp LP) to perform chi-square tests to compare syncing of the Fitbit device and response rate for the postprocedure recovery PROMs and disease-specific PROMs between patients in the bariatric surgery and atrial fibrillation ablation groups, using a p value \< 0.05 to denote statistical significance.||||||0.04|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.04
90898604|NCT02277743|181663100|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-25.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.06|-18.12||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous outcome measure was statistically significant).||-18.12|-33.06|< 0.0001
91029336|NCT03267264|181942223|NON_INFERIORITY|Two-sided 95% confidence intervals is calculated for the average relative rating. A linear model was used to evaluate the pen needle group effect on the response to test whether the groups can be combined (a p-value \< 0.05 for the pen needle group effect indicates non-poolability) and to adjust for the order effect. The order of the pen needles used and the group to which the subject belongs were used as covariates. If the lower bound of the CI is \> -10mm, we can conclude in non-inferiority.|Overall Mean|19.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|32.8||||||Anxiety Associated with a needle stick||32.8|6|
91029337|NCT03267264|181942223|NON_INFERIORITY|Two-sided 95% confidence intervals is calculated for the average relative rating. A linear model was used to evaluate the pen needle group effect on the response to test whether the groups can be combined (a p-value \< 0.05 for the pen needle group effect indicates non-poolability) and to adjust for the order effect. The order of the pen needles used and the group to which the subject belongs were used as covariates. If the lower bound of the CI is \> -10mm, we can conclude in non-inferiority.|Overall Mean|18.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.6|33.7||||||Injection Pain||33.7|3.6|
91029338|NCT03267264|181942223|NON_INFERIORITY|Two-sided 95% confidence intervals is calculated for the average relative rating. A linear model was used to evaluate the pen needle group effect on the response to test whether the groups can be combined (a p-value \< 0.05 for the pen needle group effect indicates non-poolability) and to adjust for the order effect. The order of the pen needles used and the group to which the subject belongs were used as covariates. If the lower bound of the CI is \> -10mm, we can conclude in non-inferiority.|Overall Mean|18.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|31.9||||||Ease of Use||31.9|4.9|
91029339|NCT03267264|181942223|NON_INFERIORITY|Two-sided 95% confidence intervals is calculated for the average relative rating. A linear model was used to evaluate the pen needle group effect on the response to test whether the groups can be combined (a p-value \< 0.05 for the pen needle group effect indicates non-poolability) and to adjust for the order effect. The order of the pen needles used and the group to which the subject belongs were used as covariates. If the lower bound of the CI is \> -10mm, we can conclude in non-inferiority.|Overall Mean|8.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|20.9||||||Overall Comfort||20.9|-4.0|
90844514|NCT03436082|181554791|OTHER|We used Stata version 14.2 (StataCorp LP) to perform chi-square tests to compare syncing of the Fitbit device and response rate for the postprocedure recovery PROMs and disease-specific PROMs between patients in the bariatric surgery and atrial fibrillation ablation groups, using a p value \< 0.05 to denote statistical significance.||||||0.85|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.85
90844515|NCT02917642|181554801|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis is that the irrigation protocol used after the chemo-mechanical preparation does not influence the reduction of bacteria within the root canal system.||||0.04
90844516|NCT02917642|181554802|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis is that the irrigation protocol used after the chemo-mechanical preparation does not influence the reduction of endotoxin within the root canal system.||||0.94
90844517|NCT02249832|181554803|EQUIVALENCE|A 3x3 repeated measures ANOVA was performed with group (mean gait speed in the low, moderate, and high groups) and time (admission, discharge (week 6), and follow-up (overall week 18) in each condition) as factors. Null hypothesis was that there was no difference in mean gait speed over time across the three groups. A significance level of 0.05 was used (two-sided).|||||<|0.001||||||A significance level of 0.05 was used (two-sided).|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90844518|NCT02249832|181554804|EQUIVALENCE|A significance level of 0.05 was used (two-sided).|||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||A 3x3 repeated measures ANOVA was performed with group (mean gait speed in the low, moderate, and high groups) and time (admission, discharge (week 6), and follow-up (overall week 18) in each condition) as factors. Null hypothesis was that there was no difference in mean gait speed over time across the three groups. A significance level of 0.05 was used (two-sided).||||<0.001
90844519|NCT02249832|181554805|EQUIVALENCE|A 3x3 repeated measures ANOVA was performed with group (mean distance walked in the low, moderate, and high groups) and time (admission, discharge (week 6), and follow-up (overall week 18) in each condition) as factors. Null hypothesis was that there was no difference in mean gait speed over time across the three groups. A significance level of 0.05 was used (two-sided).||||||0.001||||||A significance level of 0.05 was used (two-sided).|ANOVA|||||||0.001
90844520|NCT04881942|181554823|EQUIVALENCE|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."|Mean Difference (Net)|89.44||||0.0184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.77|163.11|||ANCOVA||Mean value is sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham)|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."||163.11|15.77|0.0184
90844521|NCT04881942|181554823|EQUIVALENCE|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."|Mean Difference (Net)|195.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|122.01|269.38|||ANCOVA||Mean value is sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham).|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."||269.38|122.01|<.0001
90844522|NCT04881942|181554823|EQUIVALENCE|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."|Mean Difference (Net)|168.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|95.17|242.5|||ANCOVA||Mean value is sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham).|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."||242.50|95.17|<.0001
91094122|NCT02469233|182072473|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-1.52||||0.28|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||Treatment effect on change from pre to 6-month follow-up||||0.28
90844523|NCT04881942|181554823|EQUIVALENCE|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."|Mean Difference (Net)|182.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|108.63|256.67|||ANCOVA||Mean value is sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham).|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."||256.67|108.63|<.0001
90844524|NCT04881942|181554826|EQUIVALENCE|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."|Mean Difference (Net)|5972.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4191.1|7753.6|||ANCOVA||Mean value is sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham).|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."||7753.6|4191.1|<.0001
90844525|NCT04881942|181554826|EQUIVALENCE|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."|Mean Difference (Net)|6099.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4317.8|7881.2|||ANCOVA||Mean value is sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham).|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."||7881.2|4317.8|<.0001
90844526|NCT04881942|181554826|EQUIVALENCE|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."|Mean Difference (Net)|6484.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4701.7|8267.6|||ANCOVA||Mean value is sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham).|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."||8267.6|4701.7|<.0001
90844527|NCT04881942|181554826|EQUIVALENCE|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."|Mean Difference (Net)|5366.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3575.9|7157.7|||ANCOVA||Mean value is sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham).|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."||7157.7|3575.9|<.0001
90844528|NCT04881942|181554829|EQUIVALENCE|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."|Mean Difference (Net)|0.17||||0.915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.92|3.25|||ANCOVA||Mean value is sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0.|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."||3.25|-2.92|0.9150
90844529|NCT04881942|181554829|EQUIVALENCE|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."|Mean Difference (Net)|0.35||||0.8217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|3.4|||ANCOVA||Mean value is sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham).|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."||3.40|-2.70|0.8217
90844530|NCT04881942|181554829|EQUIVALENCE|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."|Mean Difference (Net)|21.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.06|24.16|||ANCOVA||Mean value is sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0.|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."||24.16|18.06|<.0001
91077896|NCT02913105|182041137|OTHER|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.91||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|0.95|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||HDL Cholesterol: Day 7||0.95|0.87|0.0005
90844531|NCT04881942|181554829|EQUIVALENCE|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."|Mean Difference (Net)|31.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.91|34.12|||ANCOVA||Mean value is sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham).|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."||34.12|27.91|<.0001
90844532|NCT04881942|181554832|EQUIVALENCE|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."|Mean Difference (Net)|1678.4||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|592.14|2764.6|||ANCOVA||Mean value is sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham).|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."||2764.6|592.14|.0031
90844533|NCT04881942|181554832|EQUIVALENCE|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."|Mean Difference (Net)|1199.7||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|113.74|2285.7|||ANCOVA||Mean value is sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham).|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."||2285.7|113.74|.0310
90844534|NCT04881942|181554832|EQUIVALENCE|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."|Mean Difference (Net)|3354.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2266.6|4442.3|||ANCOVA||Mean value is sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham).|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."||4442.3|2266.6|<.0001
90844535|NCT04881942|181554832|EQUIVALENCE|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."|Mean Difference (Net)|2511.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1416.1|3605.9|||ANCOVA||Mean value is sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham).|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."||3605.9|1416.1|<.0001
90844536|NCT04881942|181554835|EQUIVALENCE|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."|Mean Difference (Net)|0.25||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.38|||ANCOVA||Mean value is sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0.|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."||0.38|0.12|.0002
90898605|NCT02277743|181663101|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-16.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.08|-11.9||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous outcome measure was statistically significant).||-11.90|-21.08|< 0.0001
90898606|NCT02277743|181663101|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-15.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.62|-10.5||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous outcome measure was statistically significant).||-10.50|-19.62|< 0.0001
90898607|NCT01622010|181663114|EQUIVALENCE|P value 0.05 used||||||0.487|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.487
90898608|NCT01622010|181663116|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|a non-inferiority margin calculation was not performed for this study prior to its start.||||||0.628|||||||Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis: Standard care is better than standard care with video enhancement.||||0.628
90898609|NCT01622010|181663117|EQUIVALENCE|P Value 0.05 used||||||0.647|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.647
91029340|NCT03267264|181942223|NON_INFERIORITY|Two-sided 95% confidence intervals is calculated for the average relative rating. A linear model was used to evaluate the pen needle group effect on the response to test whether the groups can be combined (a p-value \< 0.05 for the pen needle group effect indicates non-poolability) and to adjust for the order effect. The order of the pen needles used and the group to which the subject belongs were used as covariates. If the lower bound of the CI is \> -10mm, we can conclude in non-inferiority.|Overall Mean|12.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|23.8||||||Anxiety Associated with a Needle stick injury||23.8|1.9|
91029341|NCT03267264|181942223|NON_INFERIORITY|Two-sided 95% confidence intervals is calculated for the average relative rating. A linear model was used to evaluate the pen needle group effect on the response to test whether the groups can be combined (a p-value \< 0.05 for the pen needle group effect indicates non-poolability) and to adjust for the order effect. The order of the pen needles used and the group to which the subject belongs were used as covariates. If the lower bound of the CI is \> -10mm, we can conclude in non-inferiority.|Overall Mean|7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|19.4||||||Injection Pain||19.4|-5.3|
90898610|NCT03976466|181663118|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.049|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.015|0.168|||Chi-squared, Corrected||For the Relative risk the control Study group was the numerator and control group denominator. In the 2X2 contingency table the rows correspond to groups and columns for the presence or abscence of periprosthetic infection.|"H0.- There is no significant difference in the incidence of periprosthetic infection in patients with non-modifiable risk factors and prophylactic application of antibiotic loaded calcium sulfate compared with patients without prophylactic treatment with calcium sulfate.~The presence of periprosthetic infection in both groups was evaluated by chi2 and Lambda tests for dichotomous nominal and qualitative variables with longitudinal direction and relative risk factor test."||0.168|0.015|<0.05
90898611|NCT03976466|181663119|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||The statistical test of t was performed for the variable length of hospital stay, finding a significant difference with a p value \< 0.01|t-test, 2 sided|||Lenght of stay was the variable that compares both groups and was a continous variable (t-test).||||<0.01
90898612|NCT02247336|181663144|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.2||A priori threshold was 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|generalized estimating equation|Generalized estimating equation models were used with a logit link function and an exchangeable correlation structure to account for clustering of participants within provider. Fay and Graubard small sample bias correction was applied.|Using alpha=0.05, 80% power, and a risk-appropriate screening referral rate for the delayed arm ranging from 60% to 70%, n = 250 participants with a completed a family health history assessment per arm with 40 providers was needed to detect differences between arms in appropriate referral ranging from 12% to 13.2%. Sample size calculations accounted for provider clustering using an intra-class correlation coefficient of 0.02 to adjust variance for a Z-test of the difference of two proportions.||1.2|0.4|0.16
90898613|NCT02247336|181663145|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|1.2||The a priori threshold was 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|generalized estimating equation|Generalized estimating equation models were used with a logit link function and an exchangeable correlation structure to account for clustering of participants within provider. Fay and Graubard small sample bias correction was applied.|||1.2|.04|0.23
91029342|NCT03267264|181942223|NON_INFERIORITY|Two-sided 95% confidence intervals is calculated for the average relative rating. A linear model was used to evaluate the pen needle group effect on the response to test whether the groups can be combined (a p-value \< 0.05 for the pen needle group effect indicates non-poolability) and to adjust for the order effect. The order of the pen needles used and the group to which the subject belongs were used as covariates. If the lower bound of the CI is \> -10mm, we can conclude in non-inferiority.|Overall Mean|17.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.7|28.8||||||Ease of Use||28.8|6.7|
91029343|NCT03267264|181942223|NON_INFERIORITY|Two-sided 95% confidence intervals is calculated for the average relative rating. A linear model was used to evaluate the pen needle group effect on the response to test whether the groups can be combined (a p-value \< 0.05 for the pen needle group effect indicates non-poolability) and to adjust for the order effect. The order of the pen needles used and the group to which the subject belongs were used as covariates. If the lower bound of the CI is \> -10mm, we can conclude in non-inferiority.|Overall Mean|15.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|28.1||||||Overall Comfort||28.1|2.1|
90844537|NCT04881942|181554835|EQUIVALENCE|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."|Mean Difference (Net)|0.25||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.38|||ANCOVA||Mean value is sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham).|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."||0.38|0.12|0.0003
90844538|NCT04881942|181554835|EQUIVALENCE|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."|Mean Difference (Net)|0.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.47|||ANCOVA||Mean value is sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham).|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."||0.47|0.21|<.0001
90898614|NCT00733499|181663201|OTHER|||||||0.9478|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9478
90898615|NCT00733499|181663202|OTHER|||||||0.549|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5490
90898616|NCT00733499|181663203|OTHER|||||||0.5312|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5312
90898617|NCT00733499|181663204|OTHER|||||||0.3549|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3549
90898618|NCT00733499|181663205|OTHER|||||||0.0513|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0513
90898619|NCT00733499|181663206|OTHER|||||||0.0629|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0629
90898620|NCT00733499|181663207|OTHER|||||||0.0327|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0327
90898621|NCT00733499|181663208|OTHER|||||||0.0883|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0883
90898622|NCT00733499|181663209|OTHER|||||||0.6801|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6801
90898623|NCT00733499|181663210|OTHER|||||||0.4779|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4779
90898624|NCT00733499|181663211|OTHER|||||||0.8007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.8007
90898625|NCT00733499|181663212|OTHER|||||||0.3317|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3317
90898626|NCT00733499|181663213|OTHER|||||||0.8955|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.8955
90898627|NCT00733499|181663214|OTHER|||||||0.2116|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2116
90844539|NCT04881942|181554835|EQUIVALENCE|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."|Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.43|||ANCOVA||Mean value is sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham).|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."||0.43|0.17|<.0001
90844540|NCT04881942|181554842|EQUIVALENCE|Null Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is equal to 0. Alternate Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is not equal to 0.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.035|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.031|0.039|||ANOVA|||Null Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is equal to 0. Alternate Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is not equal to 0.||0.039|0.031|<.0001
90844541|NCT04881942|181554842|EQUIVALENCE|Null Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is equal to 0. Alternate Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is not equal to 0.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.034|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.038|||ANOVA|||Null Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is equal to 0. Alternate Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is not equal to 0.||0.038|0.030|<.0001
90844542|NCT04881942|181554842|EQUIVALENCE|Null Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is equal to 0. Alternate Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is not equal to 0.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.036|0.044|||ANOVA|||Null Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is equal to 0. Alternate Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is not equal to 0.||0.044|0.036|<.0001
90844543|NCT04881942|181554842|EQUIVALENCE|Null Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is equal to 0. Alternate Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is not equal to 0.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.037|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.033|0.041|||ANOVA|||Null Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is equal to 0. Alternate Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is not equal to 0.||0.041|0.033|<.0001
90844544|NCT04881942|181554843|EQUIVALENCE|Null Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is equal to 0. Alternate Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is not equal to 0.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.036|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.031|0.04|||ANOVA|||Null Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is equal to 0. Alternate Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is not equal to 0.||0.040|0.031|<.0001
90844545|NCT04881942|181554843|EQUIVALENCE|Null Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is equal to 0. Alternate Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is not equal to 0.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.036|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.032|0.041|||ANOVA|||Null Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is equal to 0. Alternate Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is not equal to 0.||0.041|0.032|<.0001
90844546|NCT04881942|181554843|EQUIVALENCE|Null Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is equal to 0. Alternate Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is not equal to 0.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.041|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.037|0.046|||ANOVA|||Null Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is equal to 0. Alternate Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is not equal to 0.||0.046|0.037|<.0001
90844547|NCT04881942|181554843|EQUIVALENCE|Null Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is equal to 0. Alternate Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is not equal to 0.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.038|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.033|0.042|||ANOVA|||Null Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is equal to 0. Alternate Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is not equal to 0.||0.042|0.033|<.0001
90844548|NCT04881942|181554844|EQUIVALENCE|Null Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is equal to 0. Alternate Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is not equal to 0.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.536|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.407|0.665|||ANCOVA||LSM calculated from mixed models. Each model includes fixed effect terms for product, period and sequence.|Null Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is equal to 0. Alternate Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is not equal to 0.||0.665|0.407|<.0001
90844549|NCT04881942|181554844|EQUIVALENCE|Null Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is equal to 0. Alternate Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is not equal to 0.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.408|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.537|||ANCOVA||LSM calculated from mixed models. Each model includes fixed effect terms for product, period and sequence.|Null Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is equal to 0. Alternate Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is not equal to 0.||0.537|0.280|<.0001
90844550|NCT04881942|181554844|EQUIVALENCE|Null Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is equal to 0. Alternate Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is not equal to 0.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.468|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.339|0.596|||ANCOVA||LSM calculated from mixed models. Each model includes fixed effect terms for product, period and sequence.|Null Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is equal to 0. Alternate Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is not equal to 0.||0.596|0.339|<.0001
90844551|NCT04881942|181554844|EQUIVALENCE|Null Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is equal to 0. Alternate Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is not equal to 0.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.43|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.301|0.559|||ANCOVA||LSM calculated from mixed models. Each model includes fixed effect terms for product, period and sequence.|Null Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is equal to 0. Alternate Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is not equal to 0.||0.559|0.301|<.0001
90844552|NCT04881942|181554846|EQUIVALENCE|Null Hypothesis: Mean Puff Count is equal to 0 Alternative Hypothesis: Mean Puff Count is not equal to 0|Mean Difference (Final Values)|277.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|213.62|341.96|||ANCOVA||LSM calculated from mixed models. Each model includes fixed effect terms for product, period and sequence.|Null Hypothesis: Mean Puff Count is equal to 0 Alternative Hypothesis: Mean Puff Count is not equal to 0||341.96|213.62|<.0001
90844553|NCT04881942|181554846|EQUIVALENCE|Null Hypothesis: Mean Puff Count is equal to 0 Alternative Hypothesis: Mean Puff Count is not equal to 0|Mean Difference (Final Values)|241.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|176.99|305.64|||ANCOVA||LSM calculated from mixed models. Each model includes fixed effect terms for product, period and sequence.|Null Hypothesis: Mean Puff Count is equal to 0 Alternative Hypothesis: Mean Puff Count is not equal to 0||305.64|176.99|<.0001
90898628|NCT00733499|181663215|OTHER|||||||0.4776|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4776
90898629|NCT00733499|181663217|OTHER|||||||0.2935|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2935
91094123|NCT02469233|182072474|SUPERIORITY||time by treatment interaction coeff.|-5.88||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||Treatment effect on change from pre to post, which is 9-14 weeks after the beginning of treatment.||||0.001
91094124|NCT02469233|182072474|SUPERIORITY||maximum likelihood estimation|-3.9||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||Treatment effect on change from pre to 6-month follow-up||||0.03
90844554|NCT04881942|181554846|EQUIVALENCE|Null Hypothesis: Mean Puff Count is equal to 0 Alternative Hypothesis: Mean Puff Count is not equal to 0|Mean Difference (Final Values)|248.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|184.01|312.43|||ANCOVA||LSM calculated from mixed models. Each model includes fixed effect terms for product, period and sequence.|Null Hypothesis: Mean Puff Count is equal to 0 Alternative Hypothesis: Mean Puff Count is not equal to 0||312.43|184.01|<.0001
90844555|NCT04881942|181554846|EQUIVALENCE|Null Hypothesis: Mean Puff Count is equal to 0 Alternative Hypothesis: Mean Puff Count is not equal to 0|Mean Difference (Final Values)|257.92|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|193.58|322.26|||ANCOVA||LSM calculated from mixed models. Each model includes fixed effect terms for product, period and sequence.|Null Hypothesis: Mean Puff Count is equal to 0 Alternative Hypothesis: Mean Puff Count is not equal to 0||322.26|193.58|<.0001
90844556|NCT04881942|181554847|EQUIVALENCE|Null Hypothesis: Mean Average Puff Duration is equal to 0 Alternative Hypothesis: Mean Average Puff Duration is not equal to 0|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.223|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.915|2.58|||ANCOVA||LSM calculated from mixed models. Each model includes fixed effect terms for product, period and sequence.|Null Hypothesis: Mean Average Puff Duration is equal to 0 Alternative Hypothesis: Mean Average Puff Duration is not equal to 0||2.580|1.915|<.0001
90844557|NCT04881942|181554847|EQUIVALENCE|Null Hypothesis: Mean Average Puff Duration is equal to 0 Alternative Hypothesis: Mean Average Puff Duration is not equal to 0|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.203|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.897|2.557|||ANCOVA||LSM calculated from mixed models. Each model includes fixed effect terms for product, period and sequence.|Null Hypothesis: Mean Average Puff Duration is equal to 0 Alternative Hypothesis: Mean Average Puff Duration is not equal to 0||2.557|1.897|<.0001
90844558|NCT04881942|181554847|EQUIVALENCE|Null Hypothesis: Mean Average Puff Duration is equal to 0 Alternative Hypothesis: Mean Average Puff Duration is not equal to 0|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.101|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.81|2.439|||ANCOVA||LSM calculated from mixed models. Each model includes fixed effect terms for product, period and sequence.|Null Hypothesis: Mean Average Puff Duration is equal to 0 Alternative Hypothesis: Mean Average Puff Duration is not equal to 0||2.439|1.810|<.0001
90844559|NCT04881942|181554847|EQUIVALENCE|Null Hypothesis: Mean Total Puff Duration is equal to 0 Alternative Hypothesis: Mean Total Puff Duration is not equal to 0|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.052|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.767|2.382|||ANCOVA||LSM calculated from mixed models. Each model includes fixed effect terms for product, period and sequence.|Null Hypothesis: Mean Average Puff Duration is equal to 0 Alternative Hypothesis: Mean Average Puff Duration is not equal to 0||2.382|1.767|<.0001
90844560|NCT04881942|181554848|EQUIVALENCE|Null Hypothesis: Mean Total Puff Duration is equal to 0 Alternative Hypothesis: Mean Total Puff Duration is not equal to 0|Mean Difference (Final Values)|709.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|549.19|870.54|||ANCOVA||LSM calculated from mixed models. Each model includes fixed effect terms for product, period and sequence.|Null Hypothesis: Mean Total Puff Duration is equal to 0 Alternative Hypothesis: Mean Total Puff Duration is not equal to 0||870.54|549.19|<.0001
90844561|NCT04881942|181554848|EQUIVALENCE|Null Hypothesis: Mean Total Puff Duration is equal to 0 Alternative Hypothesis: Mean Total Puff Duration is not equal to 0|Mean Difference (Final Values)|568.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|407.18|729.51|||ANCOVA||LSM calculated from mixed models. Each model includes fixed effect terms for product, period and sequence.|Null Hypothesis: Mean Total Puff Duration is equal to 0 Alternative Hypothesis: Mean Total Puff Duration is not equal to 0||729.51|407.18|<.0001
90844562|NCT04881942|181554848|EQUIVALENCE|Null Hypothesis: Mean Total Puff Duration is equal to 0 Alternative Hypothesis: Mean Total Puff Duration is not equal to 0|Mean Difference (Final Values)|562.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|401.34|722.67|||ANCOVA||LSM calculated from mixed models. Each model includes fixed effect terms for product, period and sequence.|Null Hypothesis: Mean Total Puff Duration is equal to 0 Alternative Hypothesis: Mean Total Puff Duration is not equal to 0||722.67|401.34|<.0001
90844563|NCT04881942|181554848|EQUIVALENCE|Null Hypothesis: Mean Total Puff Duration is equal to 0 Alternative Hypothesis: Mean Total Puff Duration is not equal to 0|Mean Difference (Final Values)|517.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|356.11|678.34|||ANCOVA||LSM calculated from mixed models. Each model includes fixed effect terms for product, period and sequence.|Null Hypothesis: Mean Total Puff Duration is equal to 0 Alternative Hypothesis: Mean Total Puff Duration is not equal to 0||678.34|356.11|<.0001
90844564|NCT02136069|181554869|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference in Remission Rates|-0.9||||0.8114||95.0|-8.7|6.83|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||6.83|-8.70|0.8114
90844565|NCT02136069|181554870|NON_INFERIORITY|with margin -12.5%|Adjusted Difference in Remission Rates|-12.0||||0.1293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.5|-3.26||p-values are not multiplicity adjusted|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|A Farrington-Manning non-inferiority test was used to determine the nominal p-value.||||-3.26|-20.50|0.1293
90844566|NCT02136069|181554871|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference in Remission Rates|-3.4||||0.4056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.53|4.74||p-values are not multiplicity adjusted|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.74|-11.53|0.4056
90844567|NCT02136069|181554872|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference in Remission Rates|-2.4||||0.4591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.88|4.14||p-value has not been adjusted for multiplicity|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.14|-8.88|0.4591
90844568|NCT02136069|181554873|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference in Remission Rates|5.3||||0.4196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.54|18.13||p-value has not been adjusted for multiplicity|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||18.13|-7.54|0.4196
90844569|NCT02136069|181554874|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference in Response Rates|-12.4||||0.0118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.84|-2.66||p-value has not been adjusted for multiplicity|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-2.66|-21.84|0.0118
90844570|NCT02136069|181554875|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference in Response Rates|-4.9||||0.2845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.76|4.12||p-value has not been adjusted for multiplicity|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.12|-13.76|0.2845
90844571|NCT02136069|181554876|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference in Response Rates|-6.3||||0.1234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|1.84||p-value has not been adjusted for multiplicity|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.84|-14.30|0.1234
90844572|NCT02136069|181554877|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference in Remission Rates|-5.0||||0.2168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.84|2.94||p-value has not been adjusted for multiplicity|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.94|-12.84|0.2168
90844573|NCT02136069|181554878|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference in Response Rates|-9.5||||0.0564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.06|0.29||p-value has not been adjusted for multiplicity|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.29|-19.06|0.0564
90844574|NCT02136069|181554879|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference in Response Rates|-6.0||||0.1729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.51|2.7||p-value has not been adjusted for multiplicity|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.70|-14.51|0.1729
90844575|NCT02136069|181554880|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference in Remission Rates|-0.8||||0.8941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.01|10.68||p-value has not been adjusted for multiplicity|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.68|-12.01|0.8941
90844576|NCT02136069|181554889|SUPERIORITY|Week 10|Difference in Adjusted Means|-3.1||||0.4106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|4.3||p-value has not been adjusted for multiplicity|ANCOVA|||||4.3|-10.6|0.4106
90844577|NCT02136069|181554889|SUPERIORITY|Week 30|Difference in Adjusted Means|-5.7||||0.1434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|1.9||p-value has not been adjusted for multiplicity|ANCOVA|||||1.9|-13.3|0.1434
90844578|NCT02136069|181554889|SUPERIORITY|Week 54|Difference in Adjusted Means|-6.1||||0.1103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|1.4||p-value has not been adjusted for multiplicity|ANCOVA|||||1.4|-13.6|0.1103
90898630|NCT00733499|181663218|OTHER|||||||0.0062|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0062
90898631|NCT00733499|181663219|OTHER|||||||0.6896|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6896
90898632|NCT00733499|181663220|OTHER|||||||0.1076|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1076
90844579|NCT04154189|181554905|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54||||0.0396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.08||One-sided P value|Log Rank||Hazard ratio was based on Cox Proportional Hazard Model including treatment group as a factor and stratified by Age (less than \[\<\]18 years, more than or equal to \[\>=\]18 years) in interactive response technology (IRT). Efron method was used for ties.|||1.08|0.27|0.0396
90844580|NCT04154189|181554906|OTHER|Difference in PFS rates, and 2-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs): CI and p-value constructed using the difference of the 2 Kaplan-Meier PFS rates (4 months) and the 2 corresponding Greenwood standard errors.|Difference in Percentage|10.2||||0.1683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|31.1||One-sided P value|Kaplan-Meier Method|||||31.1|-10.6|0.1683
90844581|NCT04154189|181554908|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.3924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.62||Nominal p-value from stratified log-rank test adjusted for the randomization stratification factor, that is, age.|Stratified Log-rank One-sided Test||Hazard ratio was based on a Cox Proportional Hazard Model including treatment group as a factor and stratified by Age (\<18 years, \>=18 years) in IRT. Efron method was used for ties.|||1.62|0.53|0.3924
90844582|NCT04154189|181554909|OTHER|Difference and 95% CI: difference of 2 Kaplan-Meier OS-1y rates and corresponding Greenwood standard errors.|Difference in Percentage|-22.9||||0.0352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.6|1.9||One-sided P value|Kaplan Meier Method|||||1.9|-47.6|0.0352
90844583|NCT04154189|181554910|OTHER|Difference calculated as Treatment Arm A: Lenvatinib + Ifosfamide + Etoposide minus Treatment Arm B: Ifosfamide + Etoposide. 2-sided 95% CI: Miettinen-Nurminen (Score) confidence limits, stratified by randomization stratification factor age (\<18 and \>=18 years).|Difference in Percentage|7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|22.3||||||||22.3|-6.4|
90844584|NCT04154189|181554911|OTHER|Difference calculated as Treatment Arm A: Lenvatinib + Ifosfamide + Etoposide minus Treatment Arm B: Ifosfamide + Etoposide. 2-sided 95% CI: Miettinen-Nurminen (Score) confidence limits, stratified by randomization stratification factor age (\<18 and \>=18 years).|Difference in Percentage|5.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|20.0||||||||20.0|-10.3|
90844585|NCT01056016|181554917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|32.4|||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The percentage of patients with whom pediatrician in each group utilized each practice behavior at baseline and 6-months was computed. The reported statistical analysis did not account potential clustering due to the small number of practices in this study.||||=.003
90844586|NCT04758637|181554945|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.62||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|13.59||The calculated p-value is 7.62E-10.|Zero-inflated Poisson mixed regression|Model estimates were used to derive estimated difference in difference value. Confidence intervals were bootstrapped using 1000 repetitions.||Null hypothesis is the difference in difference in estimated mean pill counts from the last week of baseline (week 26) to the last week of the intervention period (week 53) between control and non-fatal is 0.||13.59|2.4|0
90844587|NCT04758637|181554945|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.65||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.14|-6.97||The calculated p-value is 2E-16.|Zero-inflated Poisson mixed regression|Model estimates were used to derive estimated difference in difference value. Confidence intervals were bootstrapped using 1000 repetitions.||Null hypothesis is the difference in difference in estimated means from the study start (week 0) to the study end (week 23) between control and fatal is 0.||-6.97|-25.14|0
90844588|NCT04758637|181554946|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.72||||0.219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|1.86|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.86|-0.43|0.219
90844589|NCT04758637|181554946|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.72||||0.229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.46|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.46|-1.9|0.229
90844590|NCT02395081|181554957|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7||||||SBP wk 16-20|ANOVA|||||||0.70
90844591|NCT02395081|181554959|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.49
90898633|NCT00733499|181663221|OTHER|||||||0.9042|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9042
90898634|NCT00733499|181663222|OTHER|||||||0.9637|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9637
90898635|NCT00733499|181663223|OTHER|||||||0.0485|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0485
90898636|NCT00733499|181663224|OTHER|||||||0.9813|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9813
90898637|NCT00733980|181663228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2479||||0.703||80.0|-0.5887|1.0846|||Mixed-Model Repeated-Measure analysis|||||1.0846|-0.5887|0.703
90898638|NCT00733980|181663229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0169||||0.966|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.5231|0.4893|||Mixed Models Analysis|||GSK561679 Vs Placebo, Week 1||0.4893|-0.5231|0.966
90898639|NCT00733980|181663229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4299||||0.386|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.2063|1.0661|||Mixed Models Analysis|||GSK561679 Vs Placebo, Week 2||1.0661|-0.2063|0.386
90844592|NCT02395081|181554960|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.79
90844593|NCT02395081|181554962|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.83
90844594|NCT02395081|181554963|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.39
90844595|NCT02395081|181554964|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.24
90844596|NCT02395081|181554965|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.39
90844597|NCT02395081|181554966|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.89
90844598|NCT02395081|181554967|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.95
90844599|NCT02721966|181554969|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.72|7.01|||Regression, Logistic|95% confidence interval for odds ratio||"Up to week 12, all participants in the group placebo AIN457 took placebo only"||7.01|2.72|<.0001
90844600|NCT02721966|181554969|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.41|6.1|||Regression, Logistic|95% confidence interval for odds ratio||"Up to week 12, all participants in the group placebo AIN457 took placebo only"||6.10|2.41|<.0001
90844601|NCT02721966|181554970|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.72|7.01|||Regression, Logistic|95% confidence interval for odds ratio||"Up to week 12, all participants in the group placebo AIN457 took placebo only"||7.01|2.72|<.0001
90844602|NCT02721966|181554971|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.67|8.33|||Regression, Logistic|95% confidence interval for odds ratio|||Odds ratio, 95% CI for odds ratio, and p-value are from a logistic regression model with treatment (3 treatment groups), methotrexate usage status (yes, no) as explanatory variables|8.33|2.67|<.0001
90844603|NCT02721966|181554971|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|9.84|||Regression, Logistic|95% confidence interval for odds ratio|||Odds ratio, 95% CI for odds ratio, and p-value are from a logistic regression model with treatment (3 treatment groups), methotrexate usage status (yes, no) as explanatory variables|9.84|3.20|<.0001
90844604|NCT02721966|181554972|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.43|8.33|||Regression, Logistic|95% confidence interval for odds ratio||"Up to week 12, all participants in the group placebo AIN457 took placebo only"|Odds ratio, 95% CI for odds ratio, and p-value are from a logistic regression model with treatment (3 treatment groups), methotrexate usage status (yes, no) as explanatory variables|8.33|2.43|<.0001
90844605|NCT02721966|181554972|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.04|10.21|||Regression, Logistic|95% confidence interval for odds ratio||"Up to week 12, all participants in the group placebo AIN457 took placebo only"|Odds ratio, 95% CI for odds ratio, and p-value are from a logistic regression model with treatment (3 treatment groups), methotrexate usage status (yes, no) as explanatory variables|10.21|3.04|<.0001
90844606|NCT02721966|181554973|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Treatment Difference|-14.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.62|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|-9.7|||ANCOVA||||Least squares (LS) mean, LS mean treatment difference, 95% confidence interval (CI) for treatment difference, and p-value are from MMRM (mixed model for repeated measures) with treatment group, visit, treatment\*visit, baseline\*visit and concomitant MTX intake status, as factors and baseline measurement in VAS as continuous covariate|-9.7|-20.0|<.0001
90844607|NCT02721966|181554973|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Treatment Difference|-12.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.59|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|-7.8|||ANCOVA||||Least squares (LS) mean, LS mean treatment difference, 95% confidence interval (CI) for treatment difference, and p-value are from MMRM (mixed model for repeated measures) with treatment group, visit, treatment\*visit, baseline\*visit and concomitant MTX intake status, as factors and baseline measurement in VAS as continuous covariate|-7.8|-18.0|<.0001
90844608|NCT02721966|181554974|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Treatment Difference|-15.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.71|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.4|-9.7|||ANCOVA|||"Up to week 12, all participants in the group placebo AIN457 took placebo only"|Least squares (LS) mean, LS mean treatment difference, 95% confidence interval (CI) for treatment difference, and p-value are from MMRM (mixed model for repeated measures) with treatment group, visit, treatment\*visit, baseline\*visit and concomitant MTX intake status, as factors and baseline measurement in VAS as continuous covariate|-9.7|-20.4|<.0001
90844609|NCT02721966|181554974|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Treatment Difference|-15.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.68|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.3|-9.8|||ANCOVA|||"Up to week 12, all participants in the group placebo AIN457 took placebo only"|Least squares (LS) mean, LS mean treatment difference, 95% confidence interval (CI) for treatment difference, and p-value are from MMRM (mixed model for repeated measures) with treatment group, visit, treatment\*visit, baseline\*visit and concomitant MTX intake status, as factors and baseline measurement in VAS as continuous covariate|-9.8|-20.3|<.0001
90844610|NCT02721966|181554975|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Treatment Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.0971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.1|||ANCOVA||||Least squares (LS) mean, LS mean treatment difference, 95% confidence interval (CI) for treatment difference, and p-value are from MMRM (mixed model for repeated measures) with treatment group, visit, treatment\*visit, baseline\*visit and concomitant MTX intake status, as factors and baseline SPARCC index as continuous covariate.|0.1|-1.1|0.0971
90844611|NCT02721966|181554975|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Treatment Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.0207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.1|||ANCOVA||||Least squares (LS) mean, LS mean treatment difference, 95% confidence interval (CI) for treatment difference, and p-value are from MMRM (mixed model for repeated measures) with treatment group, visit, treatment\*visit, baseline\*visit and concomitant MTX intake status, as factors and baseline measurement in VAS as continuous covariate|-0.1|-1.3|0.0207
90844612|NCT02721966|181554976|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Treatment Difference|-0.175|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0502||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.273|-0.076|||ANCOVA||||Least squares (LS) mean, LS mean treatment difference, 95% confidence interval (CI) for treatment difference, and p-value are from MMRM (mixed model for repeated measures) with treatment group, visit, treatment\*visit, baseline\*visit and concomitant MTX intake status, as factors and baseline HAQ-DI index as continuous covariate|-0.076|-0.273|0.0005
90844613|NCT02721966|181554976|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Treatment Difference|-0.234|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0497|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.331|-0.136|||ANCOVA||||Least squares (LS) mean, LS mean treatment difference, 95% confidence interval (CI) for treatment difference, and p-value are from MMRM (mixed model for repeated measures) with treatment group, visit, treatment\*visit, baseline\*visit and concomitant MTX intake status, as factors and baseline HAQ-DI index as continuous covariate|-0.136|-0.331|<.0001
91094125|NCT02469233|182072475|SUPERIORITY||time by treatment interaction coeff.|-5.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||Treatment effect on change from pre to post, which is 9-14 weeks after the beginning of treatment.||||<0.0001
90844614|NCT02721966|181554977|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Treatment Difference|3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.01||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|5.7|||ANCOVA|||week 12|Least squares (LS) mean, LS mean treatment difference, 95% confidence interval (CI) for treatment difference, and p-value are from MMRM (mixed model for repeated measures) with treatment group, visit, treatment\*visit, baseline\*visit and concomitant MTX intake status, as factors and baseline FACIT Fatigue© score as continuous covariate|5.7|1.8|0.0002
90844615|NCT02721966|181554977|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Treatment Difference|3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|5.3|||ANCOVA|||week 12|Least squares (LS) mean, LS mean treatment difference, 95% confidence interval (CI) for treatment difference, and p-value are from MMRM (mixed model for repeated measures) with treatment group, visit, treatment\*visit, baseline\*visit and concomitant MTX intake status, as factors and baseline FACIT Fatigue© score as continuous covariate|5.3|1.4|0.0007
90844616|NCT02721966|181554978|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Treatment Difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-0.9|||ANCOVA|||"Up to week 12, all participants in the group placebo AIN457 took placebo only"|Least squares (LS) mean, LS mean treatment difference, 95% confidence interval (CI) for treatment difference, and p-value are from MMRM (mixed model for repeated measures) with treatment group,visit, treatment\*visit, baseline\*visit and concomitant MTX intake status, as factors and baseline ASAS health index as continuous covariate.|-0.9|-2.5|<.0001
90844617|NCT02721966|181554978|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Treatment Difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.9|||ANCOVA|||"Up to week 12, all participants in the group placebo AIN457 took placebo only"|Least squares (LS) mean, LS mean treatment difference, 95% confidence interval (CI) for treatment difference, and p-value are from MMRM (mixed model for repeated measures) with treatment group,visit, treatment\*visit, baseline\*visit and concomitant MTX intake status, as factors and baseline ASAS health index as continuous covariate.|-0.9|-2.4|<.0001
90844618|NCT02721966|181554979|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.31|9.95|||Regression, Logistic|95% confidence interval for odds ratio|||"Odds ratio, 95% CI for odds ratio, and p-value are from a logistic regression model with treatment (3 treatment groups), methotrexate usage status (yes, no) as explanatory variables.~Missing ACR20 response variables were imputed by multiple imputation approach"|9.95|3.31|<.0001
90844619|NCT02721966|181554979|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.83|8.16|||Regression, Logistic|95% confidence interval for odds ratio|||"Odds ratio, 95% CI for odds ratio, and p-value are from a logistic regression model with treatment (3 treatment groups), methotrexate usage status (yes, no) as explanatory variables.~Missing ACR20 response variables were imputed by multiple imputation approach"|8.16|2.83|<.0001
90844620|NCT00806819|181555055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.0435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.99|||Regression, Cox||HR below 1 favors nintedanib|HR, CI and p-value obtained from the proportional hazards model stratified by baseline ECOG PS (0 vs 1), tumour histology (adenocarcinoma vs. non-adenocarcinoma), brain metastases at baseline (yes vs no) and prior treatment with bevacizumab (yes vs no).||0.99|0.70|0.0435
90844621|NCT00806819|181555056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.21|||Regression, Cox||HR below 1 favors nintedanib|HR, CI and p-value obtained from the prop. hazards model stratified by baseline ECOG PS (0 vs 1), tumour histology (adenocarcinoma vs non-adenocarcinoma), brain metastases at baseline (yes vs no) and prior treatment with bevacizumab (yes vs no).||1.21|0.85|0.8940
90898640|NCT00733980|181663229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9413||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.2203|1.6624|||Mixed Models Analysis|||GSK561679 Vs Placebo, Week 4||1.6624|0.2203|0.095
90844622|NCT00806819|181555057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.0506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.0|||Regression, Cox||HR below 1 favors nintedanib|HR, CI and p-value obtained from the proportional hazards model stratified by baseline ECOG PS (0 vs 1), tumour histology (adenocarcinoma vs. non-adenocarcinoma), brain metastases at baseline (yes vs no) and prior treatment with bevacizumab (yes vs no)||1.00|0.70|0.0506
90844623|NCT00806819|181555058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.0865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.02|||Regression, Cox||HR below 1 favors nintedanib|HR, CI and p-value obtained from the proportional hazards model stratified by baseline ECOG PS (0 vs 1), tumour histology (adenocarcinoma vs. non-adenocarcinoma), brain metastases at baseline (yes vs no) and prior treatment with bevacizumab (yes vs no)||1.02|0.73|0.0865
90844624|NCT00806819|181555059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.7279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.85||Odds ratio and p-value are obtained from logistic regression model adjusted for baseline ECOG PS (0 vs 1)|Regression, Logistic||An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit to nintedanib|Analysis based on the central independent review||1.85|0.65|0.7279
90898641|NCT00733980|181663230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9495||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.0185|1.9175|||Mixed Models Analysis|||GSK561679 350 mg Vs Placebo, Week 1||1.9175|-0.0185|0.209
90844625|NCT00806819|181555059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.76||Odds ratio and p-value are obtained from logistic regression model adjusted for baseline ECOG PS (0 vs 1)|Regression, Logistic||An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit to nintedanib|Analysis based on the investigator's assessment||1.76|0.75|0.5180
90844626|NCT00806819|181555062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.0387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.85||Odds ratio and p-value are obtained from logistic regression model adjusted for baseline ECOG PS (0 vs 1)|Regression, Logistic||An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit to nintedanib|Analysis based on the central independent review||1.85|1.02|0.0387
90898642|NCT00733980|181663230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.7638||||0.409|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.4243|1.9519|||Mixed Models Analysis|||GSK561679 350 mg Vs Placebo, Week 2||1.9519|-0.4243|0.409
90898643|NCT00733980|181663230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.5363||||0.156|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.1485|2.9241|||Mixed Models Analysis|||GSK561679 350 mg Vs Placebo, Week 4||2.9241|0.1485|0.156
90898644|NCT00733980|181663230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6327||||0.599|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.9135|2.1789|||Mixed Models Analysis|||GSK561679 350 mg Vs Placebo, Week 6||2.1789|-0.9135|0.599
90844627|NCT00806819|181555062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.1071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.75||Odds ratio and p-value are obtained from logistic regression model adjusted for baseline ECOG PS (0 vs 1)|Regression, Logistic||An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit to nintedanib|Analysis based on investigator's assessment||1.75|0.95|0.1071
90844628|NCT00806819|181555064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1558|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value generated from ANOVA model adjusted for baseline ECOG PS (0 vs. 1), tumour histology (adenocarcinoma vs. non-adenocarcinoma), brain metastases at baseline (yes vs no) and prior treatment with bevacizumab (yes vs no)|ANOVA|||Analysis based on the central independent review||||0.1558
90844629|NCT00806819|181555064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0565|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value generated from ANOVA model adjusted for baseline ECOG PS (0 vs. 1), tumour histology (adenocarcinoma vs. non-adenocarcinoma), brain metastases at baseline (yes vs no) and prior treatment with bevacizumab (yes vs no)|ANOVA|||Analysis based on the investigator's assessment||||0.0565
90844630|NCT00806819|181555065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.5068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.16|||Regression, Cox||HR below 1 favors nintedanib|HR, CI and p-value obtained from the proportional hazards model stratified by baseline ECOG PS (0 vs 1), tumour histology (adenocarcinoma vs. non-adenocarcinoma), brain metastases at baseline (yes vs no) and prior treatment with bevacizumab (yes vs no).||1.16|0.74|0.5068
90844631|NCT00806819|181555066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.1181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.05|||Regression, Cox||HR below 1 favors nintedanib|Analysis evaluating the time to deterioration of cough. HR, CI and p-value obtained from the prop. hazards model stratified by baseline ECOG PS (0 vs \>=1), tumour histology (adenocarcinoma vs. non-adenocarcinoma), brain metastases at baseline (yes vs no) and prior treatment with bevacizumab (yes vs no)||1.05|0.66|0.1181
90844632|NCT00806819|181555066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.4264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.12|||Regression, Cox||HR below 1 favors nintedanib|Analysis evaluating the time to deterioration of dyspnoea. HR, CI and p-value obtained from the prop. hazards model stratified by baseline ECOG PS (0 vs \>=1), tumour histology (adenocarcinoma vs. non-adenocarcinoma), brain metastases at baseline (yes vs no) and prior treatment with bevacizumab (yes vs no).||1.12|0.77|0.4264
90844633|NCT00806819|181555066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.8929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.23|||Regression, Cox||HR below 1 favors nintedanib|Analysis evaluating the time to deterioration of pain. HR, CI and p-value obtained from the prop. hazards model stratified by baseline ECOG PS (0 vs \>= 1), tumour histology (adenocarcinoma vs. non-adenocarcinoma), brain metastases at baseline (yes vs no) and prior treatment with bevacizumab (yes vs no).||1.23|0.84|0.8929
90844634|NCT02840461|181555074|EQUIVALENCE|Therapeutic equivalence of the Test product to the Reference product based on the primary endpoint was evaluated in the PP population. If the confidence interval is within 80-125% for the primary endpoint, then the Test and Reference treatments are considered therapeutically equivalent.|Mean Difference (Net)|103.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.95|110.0||||||||110.00|97.95|
90844635|NCT02840461|181555074|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.83||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.24|-3.42|||ANOVA|||||-3.42|-16.24|0.0027
90844636|NCT02840461|181555074|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.83||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.25|-3.4|||ANOVA|||||-3.40|-16.25|0.0028
90844637|NCT02840461|181555075|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% confidence interval (with Yates correction) for the difference between the proportion of patients in the Test and Reference groups considered to be a clinical success was contained within the pre-defined equivalence limits \[-20%, +20%\], the therapeutic equivalence of the Test to Reference product was considered supported.|Mean Difference (Net)|5.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.7|14.2||||||||14.2|-2.7|
90844638|NCT03801044|181555096|OTHER|||||||0.039|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.039
90844639|NCT03036215|181555136|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Pilot study, no power analysis applicable; no statistical test||||
90844640|NCT03036215|181555137|OTHER|pilot study; no statistical test performed|Mean Difference (Net)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Pilot study; no statistical test run||||
90844641|NCT03036215|181555138|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.2|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Pilot study; no statistical test for significance run||||
90844642|NCT04857320|181555141|SUPERIORITY|||||||1.6e-05|||||||ANOVA|Degrees of Freedom = 5||Glucose was monitored by means of a wearable Continuous Glucose Monitor for several days prior to, during and post dosing. Measurements were gathered for each subject and averaged within-subject data. Our null hypothesis was that post prandial serum glucose would not vary significantly from their baseline values.||||0.000016
90844643|NCT04857320|181555142|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Degrees of Freedom = 3||Subject received doses applied to the skin of 0.075, 0.10 and 0.15 IUs / Kilogram on successive days. The Subject's average Serum Glucose for these 3 days were compared against the Subject's baseline unmedicated Serum Glucose on non-dosed days.||||0
90844644|NCT04857320|181555142|SUPERIORITY|||||||3e-06|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Subject received doses applied to the skin of 0.075, 0.10 and 0.15 IUs / Kilogram on successive days. The Subject's average Serum Glucose for these 3 days were compared against the Subject's baseline unmedicated Serum Glucose on non-dosed days.||||0.000003
90844645|NCT04857320|181555142|SUPERIORITY|||||||2e-06|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Degrees of Freedom = 3||||||0.000002
90844646|NCT04857320|181555142|SUPERIORITY|||||||3.5e-05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Degrees of Freedom = 3||||||0.000035
90844647|NCT04857320|181555142|SUPERIORITY|||||||4e-06|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Degrees of Freedom = 3||||||0.000004
90844648|NCT04857320|181555143|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||ANOVA|||||||0
90844649|NCT00243269|181555144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.932||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The primary analyses consisted of calculating means and standard deviations on nausea for the four study arms to generate an effect size estimate for a later R01. We also planned to use a 2 x 2 (i.e., two levels of expectancy CDs and two levels of expectancy handouts) full factorial analysis of variance (ANOVA) to examine the efficacy of these two methods of expectancy enhancement in reducing Average Nausea as well as any interaction effects.||||0.932
90844650|NCT00243269|181555145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84||95.0|||||ANOVA|||ANOVA to compare means of the four groups was used.||||0.84
90844651|NCT02914301|181555159|OTHER|We compared outcomes between study arms using t-tests for continuous outcomes.|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90844652|NCT01147627|181555230|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|108 patients in each group was needed to provide 90% power to detect non-inferiority of exenatide, shown by a mean difference of 0.4% in HbA1c change from baseline.|||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
90844653|NCT03328208|181555238|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.724|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91094126|NCT02469233|182072475|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-4.92|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||Treatment effect on change from pre to 6-month follow-up||||<0.0001
90844654|NCT03328208|181555239|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.038|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
90844655|NCT03656380|181555290|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.14
90844656|NCT03656380|181555291|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.95
90844657|NCT03656380|181555292|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.20
90844658|NCT03656380|181555293|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90844659|NCT03656380|181555294|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||\<15 eos/hpf||||<0.001
90844660|NCT03656380|181555294|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Chi-squared|||≤6 eos/hpf||||0.02
90844661|NCT03656380|181555294|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||Chi-squared|||≤1 eos/hpf||||0.27
91094127|NCT02469233|182072476|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-9.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||Treatment effect on change from pre to post, which is 9-14 weeks after the beginning of treatment.||||<0.0001
91094128|NCT02469233|182072476|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-5.37||||0.027|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||Treatment effect on change from pre to 6-month follow-up||||0.027
91094129|NCT02469233|182072477|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-0.95||||0.32|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||Treatment effect on change from pre to post, which is 9-14 weeks after the beginning of treatment.||||0.32
91094130|NCT02469233|182072477|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-1.67||||0.08|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||Treatment effect on change from pre to 6-month follow-up||||0.08
91094131|NCT02469233|182072478|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-0.09||||0.72|TWO_SIDED||||||intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||Treatment effect on change from pre to post, which is 9-14 weeks after the beginning of treatment.||||0.72
91094132|NCT02469233|182072478|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-0.08||||0.74|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||Treatment effect on change from pre to 6-month follow-up||||0.74
91094133|NCT02469233|182072479|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-2.46||||0.73|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||Treatment effect on change from pre to post, which is 9-14 weeks after the beginning of treatment.||||0.73
91094134|NCT02469233|182072479|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-17.52||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||Treatment effect on change from pre to 6-month follow-up||||0.02
91094135|NCT02469233|182072480|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|5.68||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||SE mean (min): Treatment effect on change from pre to post, which is 9-14 weeks after the beginning of treatment.||||0.03
91094136|NCT02469233|182072480|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|5.89||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||SE mean (min): Treatment effect on change from pre to 6-month follow-up.||||0.03
91094137|NCT02469233|182072480|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-1.45||||0.43|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||SE variability (min): Treatment effect on change from pre to post, which is 9-14 weeks after the beginning of treatment.||||0.43
91094138|NCT02469233|182072480|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-1.55||||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||SE variability (min): Treatment effect on change from pre to 6-month follow-up.||||0.40
91094139|NCT02469233|182072481|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-12.68||||0.59|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||TST mean (min): Treatment effect on change from pre to post, which is 9-14 weeks after the beginning of treatment.||||0.59
91094140|NCT02469233|182072481|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-28.33||||0.22|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||TST mean (min): Treatment effect on change from pre to 6-month follow-up.||||0.22
91094141|NCT02469233|182072481|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|4.65||||0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||TST variability (min) : Treatment effect on change from pre to post, which is 9-14 weeks after the beginning of treatment.||||0.80
91094142|NCT02469233|182072481|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-7.57||||0.68|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||TST variability (min): Treatment effect on change from pre to 6-month follow-up.||||0.68
90844662|NCT03656380|181555295|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.03
90844663|NCT03656380|181555296|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.44
90844664|NCT01727024|181555297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.451|||||||Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||||0.451
90844665|NCT02028208|181555311|OTHER|Concordance between 0.40 mg/cm2 mercury and 1.0% ammoniated mercury in petrolatum|Kappa statistic|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.67||||||Concordance between Investigational and Reference Allergen presented for allergen doses which met the minimum criteria of 70% with positive reactions.||0.67|0.08|
90844666|NCT02028208|181555311|OTHER|Concordance between 0.40 mercury and 0.5% elemental mercury in petrolatum|Kappa statistic|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.99||||||Concordance between Investigational and Reference Allergen presented for allergen doses which met the minimum criteria of 70% with positive reactions.||0.99|0.35|
90844667|NCT02028208|181555311|OTHER|Concordance between 0.36 mg/cm2 mercury and 1.0% ammoniated mercury in petrolatum|Kappa statistic|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.76||||||Concordance between Investigational and Reference Allergen presented for allergen doses which met the minimum criteria of 70% with positive reactions.||0.76|0.15|
90844668|NCT02028208|181555311|OTHER|Concordance between 0.36 mg/cm2 mercury and 0.5% elemental mercury in petrolatum|Kappa statistic|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.93||||||Concordance between Investigational and Reference Allergen presented for allergen doses which met the minimum criteria of 70% with positive reactions.||0.93|0.21|
90844669|NCT02028208|181555311|OTHER|Concordance between 0.10 mg/cm2 palladium and 3.0% sodium tetrachloropalladate in petrolatum|Kappa statistic|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.9||||||Concordance between Investigational and Reference Allergen presented for allergen doses which met the minimum criteria of 70% with positive reactions.||0.90|0.05|
91094143|NCT02469233|182072482|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-76.85||||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||Waking activity count mean (min): Treatment effect on change from pre to post, which is 9-14 weeks after the beginning of treatment.||||0.34
90844670|NCT02028208|181555311|OTHER|Concordance between 0.10 mg/cm2 palladium and 1.0% palladium chloride in petrolatum|Kappa statistic|0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.68||||||Concordance between Investigational and Reference Allergen presented for allergen doses which met the minimum criteria of 70% with positive reactions.||0.68|0.10|
90844671|NCT02028208|181555311|OTHER||Kappa statistic|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.0||||||Concordance between 0.30 mg/cm2 palladium and 3.0% sodium tetrachloropalladate in petrolatum||1.00|0.50|
90844672|NCT02028208|181555311|OTHER|Concordance between 0.30 mg/cm2 palladium and 1.0% palladium chloride in petrolatum|Kappa statistic|0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.39||||||Concordance between Investigational and Reference Allergen presented for allergen doses which met the minimum criteria of 70% with positive reactions.||0.39|-0.02|
90844673|NCT02028208|181555311|OTHER|Concordance between 0.60 mg/cm2 palladium and 3.0% sodium tetrachloropalladate in petrolatum|Kappa statistic|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.0||||||Concordance between Investigational and Reference Allergen presented for allergen doses which met the minimum criteria of 70% with positive reactions.||1.00|0.50|
90844674|NCT02028208|181555311|OTHER||Kappa statistic|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.17||||Concordance between 0.60 mg/cm2 palladium and 1.0 palladium chloride in petrolatum||Concordance between Investigational and Reference Allergen presented for allergen doses which met the minimum criteria of 70% with positive reactions.||0.17|-0.05|
90844675|NCT03776812|181555380|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.3293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.22|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||1.22|0.56|0.3293
90844676|NCT03776812|181555380|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.0384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.98|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||0.98|0.44|0.0384
90844677|NCT04643158|181555496|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.0236||||0.828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1934|0.2406|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.2406|-0.1934|0.828
90844678|NCT04643158|181555496|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.196||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0143|0.3778|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.3778|0.0143|0.035
90844679|NCT04643158|181555516|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|-38.31||||0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.11|31.72|||Mixed Models Analysis||Analyses were done on the natural log scale and the results were back-transformed to linear scale.|||31.72|-71.11|0.202
90844680|NCT04643158|181555516|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|-15.43||||0.596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.57|60.96|||Mixed Models Analysis||Analyses were done on the natural log scale and the results were back-transformed to linear scale.|||60.96|-55.57|0.596
90844681|NCT02197078|181555522|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.03||||||||1.03|0.66|
90898645|NCT00733980|181663231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.9866||||0.181|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.8876|-0.0856|||Mixed Models Analysis|||GSK561679 350 mg Vs Placebo, Week 1||-0.0856|-3.8876|0.181
90844682|NCT02197078|181555522|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.1||||||||1.10|0.65|
90844683|NCT02197078|181555522|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.86||||||||0.86|0.49|
90844684|NCT02197078|181555522|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.1||||||||1.10|0.83|
90844685|NCT02197078|181555522|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.19||||||||1.19|0.85|
90844686|NCT02197078|181555522|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.96||||||||0.96|0.66|
90844687|NCT02197078|181555523|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.23||||||||1.23|0.66|
90844688|NCT02197078|181555523|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.16||||||||1.16|0.57|
90844689|NCT02197078|181555523|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.01||||||||1.01|0.48|
90844690|NCT02197078|181555523|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.28||||||||1.28|0.85|
90844691|NCT02197078|181555523|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.28||||||||1.28|0.79|
90844692|NCT02197078|181555523|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.06||||||||1.06|0.62|
90844693|NCT02197078|181555524|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.94||||||||0.94|0.51|
90844694|NCT02197078|181555524|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.9||||||||0.90|0.44|
90844695|NCT02197078|181555524|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.88||||||||0.88|0.41|
90844696|NCT02197078|181555524|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.17||||||||1.17|0.81|
90844697|NCT02197078|181555524|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.19||||||||1.19|0.77|
90844698|NCT02197078|181555524|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.97||||||||0.97|0.60|
91094144|NCT02469233|182072482|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-87.15||||0.28|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||Waking activity count mean (min): Treatment effect on change from pre to 6-month follow-up.||||0.28
91094145|NCT02469233|182072482|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-0.15||||0.18|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||Waking activity count variability (min) : Treatment effect on change from pre to post, which is 9-14 weeks after the beginning of treatment.||||0.18
91094146|NCT02469233|182072482|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-0.27||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||Waking activity count variability (min): Treatment effect on change from pre to 6-month follow-up.||||0.02
90844699|NCT02197078|181555525|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.38||||||||1.38|0.58|
90844700|NCT02197078|181555525|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.64||||||||1.64|0.60|
90844701|NCT02197078|181555525|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.78||||||||0.78|0.24|
90898646|NCT00733980|181663231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2538||||0.889|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.5922|2.0846|||Mixed Models Analysis|||GSK561679 350 mg Vs Placebo, Week 2||2.0846|-2.5922|0.889
91094147|NCT02469233|182072483|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-7.19||||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||Treatment effect on change from pre to post, which is 9-14 weeks after the beginning of treatment.||||0.09
91094148|NCT02469233|182072483|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-1.13||||0.79|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcome.||Treatment effect on change from pre to 6-month follow-up||||0.79
91094149|NCT02469233|182072484|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|0.16||||0.46|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcome,||Treatment effect on change from pre to post, which is 9-14 weeks after the beginning of treatment.||||0.46
91094150|NCT02469233|182072484|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-0.34||||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||Treatment effect on change from pre to 6-month follow-up||||0.10
90844702|NCT02197078|181555525|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.25||||||||1.25|0.73|
90844703|NCT02197078|181555525|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.52||||||||1.52|0.78|
90844704|NCT02197078|181555525|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.05||||||||1.05|0.52|
90844705|NCT02197078|181555526|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.18||||||||2.18|1.10|
90844706|NCT02197078|181555526|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|3.03||||||||3.03|1.19|
90844707|NCT02197078|181555526|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.68||||||||1.68|0.73|
90844708|NCT02197078|181555526|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.29||||||||1.29|0.76|
90844709|NCT02197078|181555526|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.56||||||||1.56|0.77|
90844710|NCT02197078|181555526|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.14||||||||1.14|0.54|
90844711|NCT02197078|181555527|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|2.0||||||||2.00|0.97|
90844712|NCT02197078|181555527|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|2.72||||||||2.72|1.07|
90844713|NCT02197078|181555527|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.79||||||||1.79|0.75|
90844714|NCT02197078|181555527|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.76||||||||1.76|1.01|
90844715|NCT02197078|181555527|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|2.27||||||||2.27|1.02|
90844716|NCT02197078|181555527|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.71||||||||1.71|0.81|
90844717|NCT02197078|181555528|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.47||||||||1.47|1.04|
90844718|NCT02197078|181555528|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.61||||||||1.61|1.06|
90844719|NCT02197078|181555528|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.29||||||||1.29|0.84|
90844720|NCT02197078|181555528|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.19||||||||1.19|0.91|
90844721|NCT02197078|181555528|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.27||||||||1.27|0.90|
90898647|NCT00733980|181663231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3242||||0.867|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.8165|2.1681|||Mixed Models Analysis|||GSK561679 350 mg Vs Placebo, Week 3||2.1681|-2.8165|0.867
91094151|NCT02469233|182072485|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|0.91||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||Treatment effect on change from pre to post, which is 9-14 weeks after the beginning of treatment.||||0.002
91094152|NCT02469233|182072485|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|0.64||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||Treatment effect on change from pre to 6-month follow-up.||||0.03
91094153|NCT02469233|182072486|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|24.85||||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||Means of Total sleep time: Treatment effect on change from pre to post, which is 9-14 weeks after the beginning of treatment.||||0.23
91094154|NCT02469233|182072486|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|34.31||||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||Means of total sleep time: Treatment effect on change from pre to 6-month follow-up||||0.09
90844722|NCT02197078|181555528|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.09||||||||1.09|0.75|
90844723|NCT02197078|181555529|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|4.06||||||||4.06|0.64|
90844724|NCT02197078|181555529|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|4.58||||||||4.58|0.61|
90844725|NCT02197078|181555529|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|5.48||||||||5.48|0.62|
90844726|NCT02197078|181555529|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|2.4||||||||2.40|0.57|
90844727|NCT02197078|181555529|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|2.43||||||||2.43|0.38|
90844728|NCT02197078|181555529|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|4.27||||||||4.27|0.64|
90844729|NCT00622440|181555530|OTHER||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Effect Size|0.275||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank sum||The wilcoxon rank sum effect size ranges in strength of effect from small (0.10 - \< 0.30), to medium (0.30 - \< 0.50), to large (\>=0.50) with a total range of 0 to 1|Estimated Effect Size for Phase 3 Trial||||.042
90844730|NCT02223377|181555534|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.78|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.78|0.56|0.997
90898648|NCT00733980|181663231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8107||||0.721|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.1036|3.7251|||Mixed Models Analysis|||GSK561679 350 mg Vs Placebo, Week 4||3.7251|-2.1036|0.721
91029344|NCT03267264|181942223|NON_INFERIORITY|Two-sided 95% confidence intervals is calculated for the average relative rating. A linear model was used to evaluate the pen needle group effect on the response to test whether the groups can be combined (a p-value \< 0.05 for the pen needle group effect indicates non-poolability) and to adjust for the order effect. The order of the pen needles used and the group to which the subject belongs were used as covariates. If the lower bound of the CI is \> -10mm, we can conclude in non-inferiority.|Overall Mean|11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|22.4||||||Anxiety Associated with a Needle Stick Injury||22.4|-0.5|
90844731|NCT02223377|181555539|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.73||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|-0.03|||ANOVA|||||-0.03|-1.43|0.040
90844732|NCT00856518|181555556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.899||||||EMST arm vs. Sham arm baseline MEP value comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.899
90844733|NCT00856518|181555556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.946|||||||Plum Ordinal Regression Test|EMST arm vs. Sham arm group comparison of treatment response||||||0.946
90844734|NCT00856518|181555556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.00042|||||||t-test, 2 sided|EMST arm post vs. pre-MEP comparison||||||0.00042
90844735|NCT00856518|181555556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0019||||||Sham arm post vs. pre-MEP comparison|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0019
90844736|NCT00856518|181555558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||EMST arm vs. Sham arm baseline total score and subscale score comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||> 0.05
90844737|NCT00856518|181555558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Plum Ordinal Regression Test|EMST arm vs. Sham arm group comparison of treatment response for total score and all subscale scores except for Burden and Pharyngeal domains||||||> 0.05
90844738|NCT00856518|181555558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014|||||||Plum Ordinal Regression Test|EMST arm vs. Sham arm group comparison of treatment response in Burden domain||||||0.014
90844739|NCT00856518|181555558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022|||||||Plum Ordinal Regression test|EMST arm vs. Sham arm group comparison of treatment response in Pharyngeal domain||||||0.022
90844740|NCT00856518|181555558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Sham arm post vs. pre-treatment comparison for the total SWAL-QOL score and subscale scores except for the Burden and Mental Health domains.|Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||||||>0.05
90844741|NCT00856518|181555558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|Sham arm post vs. pre-treatment comparison in Burden domain||||||0.038
90844742|NCT00856518|181555558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|Sham arm post vs. pre-treatment comparison in Mental Health domain||||||0.031
90844743|NCT00856518|181555558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|EMST arm post vs. pre-treatment comparison in Burden domain||||||0.027
90844744|NCT00856518|181555558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|EMST arm post vs. pre-treatment comparison in Mental Health domain||||||0.016
90844745|NCT00856518|181555558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|EMST arm post vs. pre-treatment comparison in Pharyngeal domain||||||0.007
90844746|NCT00856518|181555558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|EMST arm post vs. pre-treatment comparison in Saliva domain||||||0.036
90844747|NCT00856518|181555558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|EMST arm post vs. pre-treatment comparison in Fear domain||||||0.004
90844748|NCT00856518|181555558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|EMST arm post vs. pre-treatment comparison in Total SWAL-QOL score||||||0.016
90844749|NCT02867384|181555559|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0008|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0008
90844750|NCT02105961|181555570|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio (Mepolizumab 100/Placebo)|0.8||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.98||Adjusted p-value; Family wise type I error controlled within each endpoint using a Hochberg testing procedure|Negative binomial model||Analysis using a negative binomial model with covariates of treatment, geographic region, no. of moderate/severe exacerbations in previous year, Baseline percent predicted FEV1, smoking status and offset of log (time in on- and off- treatment period)|||0.98|0.65|0.068
90844751|NCT02105961|181555570|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio (Mepolizumab 100/Placebo)|0.8||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.98||Unadjusted p-value|Negative binomial model||Analysis using a negative binomial model with covariates of treatment, geographic region, no. of moderate/severe exacerbations in previous year, Baseline percent predicted FEV1, smoking status and offset of log (time in on- and off- treatment period)|||0.98|0.65|0.034
90844752|NCT02105961|181555570|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio (Mepolizumab 300/Placebo)|0.86||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.05||Adjusted p-value; Family wise type I error controlled within each endpoint using a Hochberg testing procedure|Negative binomial model||Analysis using a negative binomial model with covariates of treatment, geographic region, no. of moderate/severe exacerbations in previous year, Baseline percent predicted FEV1, smoking status and offset of log (time in on- and off- treatment period|||1.05|0.70|0.140
90898649|NCT00733980|181663231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6273||||0.801|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.8337|2.5791|||Mixed Models Analysis|||GSK561679 350 mg Vs Placebo, Week 6||2.5791|-3.8337|0.801
90898650|NCT00733980|181663232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.644||||0.355|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.2498|1.5378|||Mixed Models Analysis|||GSK561679 350 mg Vs Placebo, Week 1||1.5378|-0.2498|0.355
91094155|NCT02469233|182072486|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-19.9||||0.19|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||Variability of Total sleep time: Treatment effect on change from pre to post, which is 9-14 weeks after the beginning of treatment.||||0.19
90898651|NCT00733980|181663232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0524||||0.249|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.1194|2.2243|||Mixed Models Analysis|||GSK561679 350 mg Vs Placebo, Week 2||2.2243|-0.1194|0.249
90898652|NCT00733980|181663232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.6473||||0.116|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.3078|2.9868|||Mixed Models Analysis|||GSK561679 350 mg Vs Placebo, Week 4||2.9868|0.3078|0.116
90898653|NCT00733980|181663232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.7283||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.8353|2.292|||Mixed Models Analysis|||GSK561679 350 mg Vs Placebo, Week 6||2.2920|-0.8353|0.550
90898654|NCT00733980|181663236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6359||||0.3588|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.3378|1.1968|||Logistic Model|||GSK561679 350 mg Vs Placebo, Week 2||1.1968|0.3378|0.3588
90898655|NCT00733980|181663236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7347||||0.4088|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.4554|1.1853|||Logistic Model|||GSK561679 350 mg Vs Placebo, Week 4||1.1853|0.4554|0.4088
90898656|NCT00733980|181663236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Logistic Model|0.9211||||0.8156|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.5863|1.4471|||Logistic Model|||GSK561679 350 mg Vs Placebo, Week 6/ Early withdrawal||1.4471|0.5863|0.8156
90898657|NCT00733980|181663237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.4466||||0.361|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.3986|8.2917|||ANCOVA|||||8.2917|-1.3986|0.361
90898658|NCT00733980|181663238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1167||||0.932|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.6387|1.8722|||ANCOVA|||||1.8722|-1.6387|0.932
90898659|NCT01552954|181663251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|||||for albuminuria changes from week 8 at week 16 (week 8 - week 16)|t-test, 2 sided|||Differences with two-tailed P\<0.05 were considered statistically significant.||||0.006
91094156|NCT02469233|182072486|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-1.76||||0.91|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||Variability of Total sleep time: Treatment effect on change from pre to 6-month follow-up||||0.91
90844753|NCT02105961|181555570|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio (Mepolizumab 300/Placebo)|0.86||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.05||Unadjusted p-value|Negative binomial model||Analysis using a negative binomial model with covariates of treatment, geographic region, no. of moderate/severe exacerbations in previous year, Baseline percent predicted FEV1, smoking status and offset of log (time in on- and off- treatment period)|||1.05|0.70|0.140
90844754|NCT02105961|181555571|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio(Mepolizumab 100/Placebo)|0.82||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.04||Adjusted p-value; Family wise type I error controlled within each endpoint using a Hochberg testing procedure|Cox Proportional Hazards Model||Analysis performed using a Cox Proportional Hazards Model with covariates of treatment, geographic region, number of moderate/severe exacerbations in previous year, Baseline percent predicted FEV1 and smoking status|||1.04|0.64|0.140
90844755|NCT02105961|181555571|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (Mepolizumab/Placebo)|0.82||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.04||Unadjusted p-value|Cox Proportional Hazards Model||Analysis performed using a Cox Proportional Hazards Model with covariates of treatment, geographic region, number of moderate/severe exacerbations in previous year, Baseline percent predicted FEV1 and smoking status|||1.04|0.64|0.103
90844756|NCT02105961|181555571|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (Mepolizumab 300/Placebo)|0.77||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.97||Adjusted p-value; Family wise type I error controlled within each endpoint using a Hochberg testing procedure|Cox Proportional Hazards Model||Analysis performed using a Cox Proportional Hazards Model with covariates of treatment, geographic region, number of moderate/severe exacerbations in previous year, Baseline percent predicted FEV1 and smoking status|||0.97|0.60|0.140
90844757|NCT02105961|181555571|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (Mepolizumab 300/Placebo)|0.77||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.97||Unadjusted p-value|Cox Proportional Hazards Model||Analysis performed using a Cox Proportional Hazards Model with covariates of treatment, geographic region, number of moderate/severe exacerbations in previous year, Baseline percent predicted FEV1 and smoking status|||0.97|0.60|0.030
90844758|NCT02105961|181555572|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio (Mepolizumab 100/Placebo)|0.59||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.98||Adjusted p-value; Family wise type I error controlled within each endpoint using a Hochberg testing procedure|Negative binomial model||Analysis using a negative binomial model with covariates of treatment, geographic region, no. of moderate/severe exacerbations in previous year, Baseline percent predicted FEV1, smoking status and offset of log (time in on- and off- treatment period)|||0.98|0.35|0.140
90844759|NCT02105961|181555572|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio (Mepolizumab 100/Placebo)|0.59||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.98||Unadjusted p-value|Negative binomial model||Analysis using a negative binomial model with covariates of treatment, geographic region, no. of moderate/severe exacerbations in previous year, Baseline percent predicted FEV1, smoking status and offset of log (time in on- and off- treatment period)|||0.98|0.35|0.042
90844760|NCT02105961|181555572|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio (Mepolizumab 300/Placebo)|0.83||||0.447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.34||Adjusted p-value; Family wise type I error controlled within each endpoint using a Hochberg testing procedure|Negative binomial model||Analysis using a negative binomial model with covariates of treatment, geographic region, no. of moderate/severe exacerbations in previous year, Baseline percent predicted FEV1, smoking status and offset of log (time in on- and off- treatment period)|||1.34|0.51|0.447
90844761|NCT02105961|181555572|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio (Mepolizumab 300/Placebo)|0.83||||0.447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.34||Unadjusted p-value|Negative binomial model||Analysis using a negative binomial model with covariates of treatment, geographic region, no. of moderate/severe exacerbations in previous year, Baseline percent predicted FEV1, smoking status and offset of log (time in on- and off- treatment period)|||1.34|0.51|0.447
90844762|NCT02105961|181555573|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference(Mepolizumab 100-Placebo)|-1.8||||0.447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|0.8||Adjusted p-value; Family wise type I error controlled within each endpoint using a Hochberg testing procedure|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Analysis performed using mixed model repeated measures with covariates of Baseline SGRQ total score, geographic region, smoking status, treatment and visit, plus interaction terms for visit by Baseline and visit by treatment group.|||0.8|-4.5|0.447
90844763|NCT02105961|181555573|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference(Mepolizumab 100-Placebo)|-1.8||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|0.8||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Analysis performed using mixed model repeated measures with covariates of Baseline SGRQ total score, geographic region, smoking status, treatment and visit, plus interaction terms for visit by Baseline and visit by treatment group.|||0.8|-4.5|0.180
90844764|NCT02105961|181555573|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference(Mepolizumab 300-Placebo)|-0.1||||0.926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|2.6||Adjusted p-value; Family wise type I error controlled within each endpoint using a Hochberg testing procedure|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Analysis performed using mixed model repeated measures with covariates of Baseline SGRQ total score, geographic region, smoking status, treatment and visit, plus interaction terms for visit by Baseline and visit by treatment group.|||2.6|-2.8|0.926
90844765|NCT02105961|181555573|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference(Mepolizumab 300-Placebo)|-0.1||||0.926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|2.6||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Analysis performed using mixed model repeated measures with covariates of Baseline SGRQ total score, geographic region, smoking status, treatment and visit, plus interaction terms for visit by Baseline and visit by treatment group.|||2.6|-2.8|0.926
90844766|NCT02105961|181555574|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference(Mepolizumab 100-Placebo)|-1.1||||0.926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.0||Adjusted p-value; Family wise type I error controlled within each endpoint using a Hochberg testing procedure|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Analysis performed using mixed model repeated measures with covariates of Baseline CAT score, geographic region, smoking status, treatment and visit, plus interaction terms for visit by Baseline and visit by treatment group.|||0.0|-2.3|0.926
90844767|NCT02105961|181555574|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference(Mepolizumab 100-Placebo)|-1.1||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.0||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Analysis performed using mixed model repeated measures with covariates of Baseline CAT score, geographic region, smoking status, treatment and visit, plus interaction terms for visit by Baseline and visit by treatment group.|||0.0|-2.3|0.055
90844768|NCT02105961|181555574|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference(Mepolizumab 300-Placebo)|-0.4||||0.926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.8||Adjusted p-value; Family wise type I error controlled within each endpoint using a Hochberg testing procedure|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Analysis performed using mixed model repeated measures with covariates of Baseline CAT score, geographic region, smoking status, treatment and visit, plus interaction terms for visit by Baseline and visit by treatment group.|||0.8|-1.5|0.926
90898660|NCT01552954|181663251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|||||for 24-hour urine albumin excretion between 8 weeks and 16 weeks|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.99
90898661|NCT01552954|181663251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||for 24-hour urine albumin excretion between 8 weeks and 16 weeks in intensive education group|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.001
90898662|NCT01552954|181663252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.187|TWO_SIDED|||||for hemoglobin changes from week 0 at week 16 (week 0 - week 16)|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.187
90898663|NCT01552954|181663253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||||||for changes from week 8 at week 16 (week 8 - week 16)|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
90898664|NCT01552954|181663254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||for sBP changes from week 8 at week 16 (week 8 - week 16)|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
90898665|NCT01552954|181663254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.585|TWO_SIDED|||||for dBP changes from week 8 at week 16 (week 8 - week 16)|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.585
90898666|NCT01986101|181663262|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|-1.0||Hochberg-adjusted|Mixed Models Analysis||A negative difference in least square mean change from baseline between SM-13496 group and placebo indicates a greater improvement in the SM-13496 group over the placebo group.|||-1.0|-4.9|0.007
90898667|NCT01986101|181663262|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|0.1||Hochberg-adjusted.|Mixed Models Analysis||A negative difference in least square mean change from baseline between SM-13496 group and placebo indicates a greater improvement in the SM-13496 group over the placebo group.|||0.1|-4.0|0.057
90898668|NCT01986101|181663263|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.127||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis||A negative difference in least square mean change from baseline between SM-13496 group and placebo indicates a greater improvement in the SM-13496 group over the placebo group.|||-0.15|-0.65|0.002
91029345|NCT03267264|181942223|NON_INFERIORITY|Two-sided 95% confidence intervals is calculated for the average relative rating. A linear model was used to evaluate the pen needle group effect on the response to test whether the groups can be combined (a p-value \< 0.05 for the pen needle group effect indicates non-poolability) and to adjust for the order effect. The order of the pen needles used and the group to which the subject belongs were used as covariates. If the lower bound of the CI is \> -10mm, we can conclude in non-inferiority.|Overall Mean|20.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|33.1||||||Injection Pain||33.1|7.4|
91029346|NCT03267264|181942223|NON_INFERIORITY|Two-sided 95% confidence intervals is calculated for the average relative rating. A linear model was used to evaluate the pen needle group effect on the response to test whether the groups can be combined (a p-value \< 0.05 for the pen needle group effect indicates non-poolability) and to adjust for the order effect. The order of the pen needles used and the group to which the subject belongs were used as covariates. If the lower bound of the CI is \> -10mm, we can conclude in non-inferiority.|Overall Mean|12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|23.5||||||Eae of Use||23.5|0.5|
91029347|NCT03522948|181942252|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|-0.71||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||within-subject t-test||||.03
91094157|NCT02469233|182072487|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-39.33||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||TWT mean (min): Treatment effect on change from pre to post, which is 9-14 weeks after the beginning of treatment.||||0.04
91094158|NCT02469233|182072487|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-28.56||||0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||TWT mean (min): Treatment effect on change from pre to 6-month follow-up.||||0.13
90898669|NCT01986101|181663263|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis||A negative difference in least square mean change from baseline between SM-13496 group and placebo indicates a greater improvement in SM-13496 group over the placebo group.|||-0.05|-0.56|0.019
90898670|NCT01986101|181663264|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|-0.1|||ANCOVA||A negative difference in least square mean change from baseline between SM-13496 group and placebo indicates a greater improvement in the SM-13496 group over the placebo group.|||-0.1|-3.6|0.037
90898671|NCT01986101|181663264|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.92||0.223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|0.7|||ANCOVA||A negative difference in least square mean change from baseline between SM-13496 group and placebo indicates a greater improvement in the SM-13496 group over the placebo group.|||0.7|-2.9|0.223
91029348|NCT03522948|181942253|SUPERIORITY||t-test|-1.34|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.2||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||||d = -0.51|||0.23
91029349|NCT03522948|181942254|SUPERIORITY||t-test|1.35|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|2.41|||t-test, 2 sided|||GSAB self-efficacy||2.41|-0.69|<.05
90898672|NCT01986101|181663265|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.262||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis||A negative difference in least square mean change from baseline between SM-13496 group and placebo indicates a greater improvement in the SM-13496 group over the placebo group.|||0.05|-0.98|0.076
90898673|NCT01986101|181663265|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.269||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis||A negative difference in least square mean change from baseline between SM-13496 group and placebo indicates a greater improvement in the SM-13496 group over the placebo group.|||0.05|-1.01|0.075
90898674|NCT01986101|181663266|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-0.3|||ANCOVA||A negative difference in least square mean change from baseline between SM-13496 group and placebo indicates a greater improvement in the SM-13496 group over the placebo group.|||-0.3|-3.1|0.016
91094159|NCT02469233|182072487|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-17.57||||0.21|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||TWT variability (min) : Treatment effect on change from pre to post, which is 9-14 weeks after the beginning of treatment.||||0.21
90844769|NCT02105961|181555574|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference(Mepolizumab 300-Placebo)|-0.4||||0.547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.8||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Analysis performed using mixed model repeated measures with covariates of Baseline CAT score, geographic region, smoking status, treatment and visit, plus interaction terms for visit by Baseline and visit by treatment group.|||0.8|-1.5|0.547
90844770|NCT04380519|181555582|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.012||||0.434|ONE_SIDED|97.5|0.88|||Hochberg adjustment was applied for p-values|Maximal Likelihood Estimator (MLE) model||||||0.880|0.434
90844771|NCT04380519|181555582|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.125||||0.073|ONE_SIDED|97.5|0.989|||Hochberg adjustment was applied for p-values|Maximal Likelihood Estimator (MLE) model||||||0.989|0.073
90844772|NCT04380519|181555584|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.019||||0.393|ONE_SIDED|97.5|0.892|||unadjusted|Maximal Likelihood Estimator (MLE) model||||||0.892|0.393
90844773|NCT04380519|181555584|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.098||||0.061|ONE_SIDED|97.5|0.975|||unadjusted|Maximal Likelihood Estimator (MLE) model||||||0.975|0.061
90844774|NCT04380519|181555585|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.44||||||||1.44|0.31|
90844775|NCT04380519|181555585|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.89||||||||0.89|0.12|
90844776|NCT04380519|181555585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.49||||||||1.49|0.28|
90844777|NCT04380519|181555585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.87||||||||0.87|0.11|
90844778|NCT04380519|181555586|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|5.92||||||||5.92|0.93|
90844779|NCT04380519|181555586|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|4.09||||||||4.09|0.55|
90844780|NCT04380519|181555586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|6.81||||||||6.81|0.94|
90844781|NCT04380519|181555586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|4.46||||||||4.46|0.53|
90844782|NCT04173494|181555587|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|15.67||||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.54|25.81|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||25.81|5.54|0.0095
90844783|NCT04173494|181555588|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the confidence interval (CI) is greater than 0, MMB was to be declared non-inferior to DAN.|Non-inferiority difference|13.58||||0.0116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.86|25.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Non-inferiority difference, defined as p(MMB) - (0.8) \*p(DAN) where p(MMB) is percentage of participants with TI status in MMB arm and p(DAN) is percentage of participants with TI status in DAN arm.|||25.30|1.86|0.0116
90844784|NCT04173494|181555589|OTHER||Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|33.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.59|43.51|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||43.51|22.59|< 0.0001
90844785|NCT04173494|181555590|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.22||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|-2.43|||mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)|||||-2.43|-10.0|0.0014
90844786|NCT04173494|181555591|OTHER||Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|18.18||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.77|26.59|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||26.59|9.77|0.0011
90844787|NCT04173494|181555592|OTHER||Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|17.2||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.99|26.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||26.40|7.99|0.0012
90844788|NCT04173494|181555593|OTHER||Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|10.62||||0.1133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|23.64|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||23.64|-2.40|0.1133
90844789|NCT04173494|181555596|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.556||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.397|0.778|||Anderson & Gill proportional means model|||||0.778|0.397|0.0006
90844790|NCT04173494|181555597|OTHER||Stratified CMH|-8.26||||0.1602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.18|3.66|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.66|-20.18|0.1602
90844791|NCT04173494|181555598|OTHER||Stratified CMH|19.0||||0.0124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.68|33.32|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||\>=1g/dL Increase in Hemoglobin response|||33.32|4.68|0.0124
90844792|NCT04173494|181555598|OTHER||Stratified CMH|15.68||||0.0282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.47|28.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||\>=1.5g/dL Increase in Hemoglobin response|||28.90|2.47|0.0282
90844793|NCT04173494|181555598|OTHER||Stratified CMH|6.97||||0.2844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.41|19.35|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||\>=2g/dL Increase in Hemoglobin response|||19.35|-5.41|0.2844
90844794|NCT04173494|181555603|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.6879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.504|1.572|||Log Rank|||||1.572|0.504|0.6879
90844795|NCT04173494|181555604|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.804||||0.432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.466|1.386|||Log Rank|||||1.386|0.466|0.4320
90844796|NCT04173494|181555605|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.71||||0.0513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|0.0|||MMRM|||||0.00|-1.42|0.0513
90844797|NCT04173494|181555606|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-10.82||||0.0113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.15|-2.48|||MMRM|||||-2.48|-19.15|0.0113
90844798|NCT04173494|181555607|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.31||||0.357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|4.11|||MMRM|||||4.11|-1.49|0.3570
90844799|NCT06026124|181555626|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||LSD test|||||||<0.00001
90844800|NCT06026124|181555626|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||LSD test|||||||<0.00001
90844801|NCT06026124|181555627|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||LSD test|||||||<0.00001
90844802|NCT06026124|181555627|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||LSD test|||||||<0.00001
91029350|NCT03522948|181942255|SUPERIORITY||t-test|2.93|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|3.41|||t-test, 2 sided|||Test of GSAB self-efficacy subscale for condom use||3.41|0.31|<.05
90844803|NCT06026124|181555628|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||LSD test|||||||<0.00001
90844804|NCT06026124|181555628|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||LSD test|||||||<0.00001
90844805|NCT06026124|181555629|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||LSD test|||||||<0.0001
90844806|NCT06026124|181555629|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||LSD test|||||||<0.00001
90844807|NCT06026124|181555630|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.17|||||||LSD test|||||||=0.17
90844808|NCT06026124|181555630|SUPERIORITY||||||=|1|||||||LSD test|||||||=1.00
90844809|NCT06026124|181555631|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||LSD test|||||||<0.0001
90844810|NCT06026124|181555632|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.51|||||||LSD test|||||||=0.51
90844811|NCT03023813|181555635|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.50
90844812|NCT03023813|181555636|OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.25
90844813|NCT03023813|181555637|OTHER|||||||0.39|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.39
90844814|NCT03023813|181555638|OTHER|||||||0.59|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.59
90844815|NCT03023813|181555639|OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.53
90844816|NCT03023813|181555640|OTHER|||||||0.91|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.91
91029351|NCT01984242|181942288|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.9819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.45|||Log Rank|||||1.45|0.69|0.9819
90844817|NCT03023813|181555641|OTHER|Percent change in weight (lbs.) since the baseline encounter|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.96||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.18|2.26|||Mixed Models Analysis||Result for intervention arm minus control arm|Among participants whose individualized preventive care recommendations included weight loss||2.26|-8.18|0.27
90898675|NCT01986101|181663266|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.7|||ANCOVA||A negative difference in least square mean change from baseline between SM-13496 group and placebo indicates a greater improvement in the SM-13496 group over the placebo group.|||0.7|-2.1|0.294
90898676|NCT03324880|181663274|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares (LS) Mean|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.189|=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.15||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM||||MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in HypoPT-SD symptom subscale score as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect, with adjustment for baseline HypoPT-SD symptom subscale score.|-0.15|-0.90|=0.003
90898677|NCT03324880|181663275|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|10.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.1|15.9||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM||||MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in FACIT-Fatigue total score as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect with adjustment for baseline FACIT-Fatigue total score.|15.9|5.1|<0.001
90898678|NCT03324880|181663276|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|4.242|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9219|=|0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.413|8.072||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM||||MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in SF-36 PCS score as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect with adjustment for baseline SF-36 PCS score.|8.072|0.413|=0.015
91029352|NCT01984242|181942288|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19||||0.358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.71|||Log Rank|||||1.71|0.82|0.3580
91029353|NCT01984242|181942290|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64||||0.0952||95.0|0.38|1.08|||Log Rank|||||1.08|0.38|0.0952
90844818|NCT03023813|181555641|OTHER|Change in systolic blood pressure since the baseline encounter (mmHg)|Mean Difference (Net)|-6.42||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.12|3.27|||Mixed Models Analysis||Result for intervention arm minus control arm|Among participants whose individualized preventive care recommendations included blood pressure control||3.27|-16.12|0.19
90844819|NCT03023813|181555641|OTHER|Percentage point change in HbA1c (%) since the baseline encounter|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.68||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|0.45|||Mixed Models Analysis||Result for intervention arm minus control arm|Among participants whose individualized preventive care recommendations included glycemic control||0.45|-1.82|0.24
90844820|NCT03023813|181555641|OTHER|Percentage point change in 10-year atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk (%), as estimated by the American College of Cardiology Pooled Cohort Equations, since the baseline encounter|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.65|1.26|||Generalized linear mixed regression||Result for intervention arm minus control arm|Among participants whose individualized preventive care recommendations included lipids control||1.26|-3.65|0.34
90898679|NCT03324880|181663277|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.112|=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.1||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM||||MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in HypoPT-SD impact subscale score as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect, with adjustment for baseline HypoPT-SD impact subscale score.|-0.10|-0.55|=0.002
90898680|NCT03324880|181663278|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.125|=|0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.04||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM|||Impact on Sleep|MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in HypoPT-SD impact item score as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect, with adjustment for baseline HypoPT-SD impact item score.|-0.04|-0.53|=0.013
90898681|NCT03324880|181663278|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.128|=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.11||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM|||Ability to Exercise|MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in HypoPT-SD impact item score as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect, with adjustment for baseline HypoPT-SD impact item score.|-0.11|-0.61|=0.003
91029354|NCT01984242|181942290|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.9172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.67|||Log Rank|||||1.67|0.63|0.9172
90844821|NCT03023813|181555641|OTHER|Change in low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol (mg/dL) since the baseline encounter|Mean Difference (Net)|-8.46||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.63|9.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||Result for intervention arm minus control arm|Among participants whose individualized preventive care recommendations included lipids control||9.70|-26.63|0.36
90844822|NCT03023813|181555641|OTHER|Change in smoking intensity (defined as a change in smoking status from Current Every Day to either Current Some Days or Quit; or from Current Some Days to Quit) since the baseline encounter.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|45.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed regression with logit link|Result for intervention arm relative to control arm. OR \<1 indicates reduction in smoking intensity; OR \>1 indicates increase in smoking intensity.|Among participants whose individualized preventive care recommendations included tobacco cessation||45.56|0.03|0.92
90844823|NCT03023813|181555641|OTHER|Receipt of colorectal cancer screening since the baseline encounter|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.52||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|1000.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed regression with logit link|Result for intervention arm relative to control arm. Lower limit estimate was \<0.001 and upper limit estimate was \>1000 (ClinicalTrials.gov does not allow \< or \> to be entered into the confidence interval lower limit or upper limit fields).|Among participants whose individualized preventive care recommendations included colorectal cancer screening||1000|0.001|0.99
90844824|NCT05300763|181555650|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval is above 1.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|3.22|||Linear Mixed Model||Odds Ratio was calculated as Test over Control.|||3.22|1.25|
91029355|NCT01984242|181942292|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.48||||0.0153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.87|||Log Rank|||||0.87|0.26|0.0153
91029356|NCT01984242|181942292|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.5545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.46|||Log Rank|||||1.46|0.48|0.5545
91029357|NCT01984242|181942294|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.49||||0.0086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.84|||Log Rank|||||0.84|0.28|0.0086
91029358|NCT01984242|181942294|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.7675||95.0|0.56|1.53|||Log Rank|||||1.53|0.56|0.7675
91029359|NCT01984242|181942296|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.1973||95.0|0.44|1.18|||Log Rank|||||1.18|0.44|0.1973
91029360|NCT01984242|181942296|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.7738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.76|||Log Rank|||||1.76|0.65|0.7738
91029361|NCT01984242|181942298|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.083||95.0|0.43|1.06|||Log Rank|||||1.06|0.43|0.0830
91094160|NCT02469233|182072487|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-16.05||||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||TWT variability (min): Treatment effect on change from pre to 6-month follow-up.||||0.25
90844825|NCT05300763|181555651|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided adjusted (96.25%) confidence interval is above 1.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|96.25|1.18|3.41|||Linear Mixed Model||Odds Ratio was calculated as Test over Control.|||3.41|1.18|
90844826|NCT05300763|181555652|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided adjusted (97.5 %) confidence interval is above 1.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.17|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.3|3.64|||Linear Mixed Model||Odds Ratio was calculated as Test over Control.|||3.64|1.30|
90844827|NCT05300763|181555653|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval is above 1.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|3.02|||Linear Mixed Model||Odds Ratio was calculated as Test over Control.|||3.02|1.04|
90844828|NCT01485172|181555654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33||||0.864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.41|4.05||P-values are from a Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.05|-3.41|0.864
90844829|NCT01485172|181555654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85||||0.539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.61|1.9||P-values are from a Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.90|-3.61|0.539
91029362|NCT01984242|181942298|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.7141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.69|||Log Rank|||||1.69|0.70|0.7141
91029363|NCT01984242|181942300|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.2541||95.0|0.59|1.15|||Log Rank|||||1.15|0.59|0.2541
91029364|NCT01984242|181942300|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18||||0.3103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.63|||Log Rank|||||1.63|0.86|0.3103
90844830|NCT01485172|181555654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.21|0.39||P-values are from a Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.39|-5.21|0.091
90844831|NCT01485172|181555654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.16||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.93|0.6||P-values are from a Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.60|-4.93|0.124
90844832|NCT01485172|181555654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.92||||0.658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.04|3.19||P-values are from a Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.19|-5.04|0.658
90844833|NCT01485172|181555654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.439||95.0||||P-values are from nonparametric rank ANCOVA without stratifications.|ANCOVA|||||||0.439
90844834|NCT01485172|181555654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.177||95.0||||P-values are from nonparametric rank ANCOVA without stratifications.|ANCOVA|||||||0.177
90844835|NCT01485172|181555654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0||||P-values are from nonparametric rank ANCOVA without stratifications.|ANCOVA|||||||0.060
90844836|NCT01485172|181555654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047||95.0||||P-values are from nonparametric rank ANCOVA without stratifications.|ANCOVA|||||||0.047
90844837|NCT01485172|181555654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.407||95.0||||P-values are from nonparametric rank ANCOVA without stratifications.|ANCOVA|||||||0.407
90844838|NCT01485172|181555655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.003||||0.397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|9.98|||Generalized Estimating Equations model|||||9.98|0.40|0.397
91029365|NCT01984242|181942302|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.0351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.97|||Log Rank|||||0.97|0.37|0.0351
91029366|NCT01984242|181942302|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.9769||95.0|0.64|1.54|||Log Rank|||||1.54|0.64|0.9769
90844839|NCT01485172|181555655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.242||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|6.4|||Generalized Estimating Equations model|||||6.40|0.79|0.131
90844840|NCT01485172|181555655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.515||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|9.92|||Generalized Estimating Equations model|||||9.92|1.25|0.018
90844841|NCT01485172|181555655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.607||||0.02||95.0|1.22|10.64|||Generalized Estimating Equations model|||||10.64|1.22|0.020
90844842|NCT01485172|181555655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.679||||0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|12.16|||Generalized Estimating Equations model|||||12.16|0.59|0.202
90844843|NCT01485172|181555656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.544||||0.662||95.0|0.22|10.84|||Generalized Estimating Equations model|||||10.84|0.22|0.662
90844844|NCT01485172|181555656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.485||||0.557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|5.55|||Generalized Estimating Equations model|||||5.55|0.40|0.557
91029367|NCT01984242|181942303|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|2.97||||0.6492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.68|16.62|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||16.62|-10.68|0.6492
91029368|NCT01984242|181942303|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-3.47||||0.5433||95.0|-16.63|9.69|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||9.69|-16.63|0.5433
91029369|NCT01984242|181942304|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|19.33||||0.0141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|38.94|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||38.94|-0.28|0.0141
91029370|NCT01984242|181942304|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|1.11||||0.8719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.02|19.24|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||19.24|-17.02|0.8719
91029371|NCT01984242|181942305|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|1.98||||0.8068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.04|16.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||16.00|-12.04|0.8068
91029372|NCT01984242|181942305|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-9.37||||0.1321||95.0|-22.61|3.87|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.87|-22.61|0.1321
91029373|NCT01984242|181942306|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|19.67||||0.0199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|39.44|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||39.44|-0.10|0.0199
91029374|NCT01984242|181942306|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-2.41||||0.7836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.5|15.68|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||15.68|-20.50|0.7836
90844845|NCT01485172|181555656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.855||||0.347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|6.72|||Generalized Estimating Equations model|||||6.72|0.51|0.347
90844846|NCT01485172|181555656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.776||||0.379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|6.38|||Generalized Estimating Equations model|||||6.38|0.49|0.379
90844847|NCT01485172|181555656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.194||||0.851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|7.63|||Generalized Estimating Equations model|||||7.63|0.19|0.851
90844848|NCT01485172|181555658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.591||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|7.03|||Generalized Estimating Equations model|||||7.03|0.36|0.540
90844849|NCT01485172|181555658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.473||||0.494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|4.47|||Generalized Estimating Equations model|||||4.47|0.49|0.494
90844850|NCT01485172|181555658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.391||||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|7.06|||Generalized Estimating Equations model|||||7.06|0.81|0.115
90844851|NCT01485172|181555658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.96||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|8.55|||Generalized Estimating Equations model|||||8.55|1.02|0.045
90844852|NCT01485172|181555658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.506||||0.221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|10.9|||Generalized Estimating Equations model|||||10.90|0.58|0.221
90898682|NCT03324880|181663278|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.123|=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.12||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM|||Ability to Complete Work|MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in HypoPT-SD impact item score as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect, with adjustment for baseline HypoPT-SD impact item score.|-0.12|-0.61|=0.002
90898683|NCT03324880|181663278|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121|=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.13||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM|||Impact Family Relationships|MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in HypoPT-SD impact item score as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect, with adjustment for baseline HypoPT-SD impact item score.|-0.13|-0.61|=0.002
91029375|NCT01984242|181942307|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|3.96||||0.6231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.23|18.15|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||18.15|-10.23|0.6231
90844853|NCT01485172|181555659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.07||||0.662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.78|5.93||P-values are from a Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.93|-3.78|0.662
90844854|NCT01485172|181555659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.93||||0.621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.63|2.77||P-values are from a Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.77|-4.63|0.621
90844855|NCT01485172|181555659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.75||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|1.01||P-values are from a Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.01|-6.50|0.150
90844856|NCT01485172|181555659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.74||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.43|-0.04||P-values are from a Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.04|-7.43|0.048
90844857|NCT01485172|181555659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.99||||0.715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.32|4.35||P-values are from a Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.35|-6.32|0.715
90844858|NCT01485172|181555660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.17||||0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|2.81||P-values are from a Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.81|-0.46|0.158
90844859|NCT01485172|181555660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47||||0.446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|0.76||P-values are from a Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.76|-1.71|0.446
90844860|NCT01485172|181555660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.87||||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.36||P-values are from a Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.36|-2.10|0.163
90844861|NCT01485172|181555660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.01||||0.117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.27|0.25||P-values are from a Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.25|-2.27|0.117
90844862|NCT01485172|181555660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.73||||0.456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.67|1.2||P-values are from a Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.20|-2.67|0.456
90844863|NCT01485172|181555661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.56||||0.823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.38|5.5||P-values are from a Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.50|-4.38|0.823
90844864|NCT01485172|181555661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.09||||0.568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.86|2.68||P-values are from a Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.68|-4.86|0.568
90844865|NCT01485172|181555661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.19||||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.01|0.63||P-values are from a Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.63|-7.01|0.101
90844866|NCT01485172|181555661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.94||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|-0.18||P-values are from a Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.18|-7.70|0.040
90844867|NCT01485172|181555661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66||||0.811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.08|4.77||P-values are from a Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.77|-6.08|0.811
90844868|NCT01485172|181555662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.08||P-values are from a Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.08|-0.86|0.102
90844869|NCT01485172|181555662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.29||P-values are from a Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.29|-0.41|0.723
90844870|NCT01485172|181555662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.04||P-values are from a Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.04|-0.66|0.084
90844871|NCT01485172|181555662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.28||P-values are from a Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.28|-0.42|0.697
90844872|NCT01485172|181555662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.97||P-values are from a Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.97|-0.06|0.086
90844873|NCT01485172|181555663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.769||||0.733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|3.49|||Generalized Estimating Equations model|||||3.49|0.17|0.733
90898684|NCT03324880|181663279|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.203|=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.15||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM||||MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in HypoPT-SD anxiety item score as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect, with adjustment for baseline HypoPT-SD anxiety item score.|-0.15|-0.96|=0.004
90898685|NCT03324880|181663280|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|-0.14||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM||||MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in HypoPT-SD sadness or depression item score as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect, with adjustment for baseline HypoPT-SD sadness or depression item score.|-0.14|-0.93|=0.004
90898686|NCT03324880|181663281|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.218|=|0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.12||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM|||Muscle Cramps|MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in HypoPT-SD symptom item score as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect, with adjustment for baseline HypoPT-SD symptom item score.|-0.12|-0.99|=0.006
90898687|NCT03324880|181663281|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.213|=|0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.12||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM|||Tingling|MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in HypoPT-SD symptom item score as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect, with adjustment for baseline HypoPT-SD symptom item score.|-0.12|-0.96|=0.007
90844874|NCT01485172|181555663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.411||||0.519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|4.02|||Generalized Estimating Equations model|||||4.02|0.50|0.519
90844875|NCT01485172|181555663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.204||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|12.07|||Generalized Estimating Equations model|||||12.07|1.46|0.008
90844876|NCT01485172|181555663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.456||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.93|15.46|||Generalized Estimating Equations model|||||15.46|1.93|0.001
90844877|NCT01485172|181555663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.281||||0.752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|5.98|||Generalized Estimating Equations model|||||5.98|0.27|0.752
90898688|NCT03324880|181663281|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.231|=|0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.02||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM||||MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in HypoPT-SD symptom item score as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect, with adjustment for baseline HypoPT-SD symptom item score.|-0.02|-0.94|=0.020
90898689|NCT03324880|181663281|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.219|=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.18||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM|||Muscle Spasms|MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in HypoPT-SD symptom item score as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect, with adjustment for baseline HypoPT-SD symptom item score.|-0.18|-1.05|=0.003
90898690|NCT03324880|181663281|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.229|=|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.07||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM|||Feelings of Heaviness|MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in HypoPT-SD symptom item score as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect, with adjustment for baseline HypoPT-SD symptom item score.|0.07|-0.83|=0.050
91029376|NCT01984242|181942307|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-8.42||||0.1816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.86|5.02|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.02|-21.86|0.1816
91029377|NCT01984242|181942308|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|22.0||||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.11|41.89|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||41.89|2.11|0.0111
91094161|NCT02469233|182072488|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-0.55||||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||Bedtime (BT) mean: Treatment effect on change from pre to post, which is 9-14 weeks after the beginning of treatment.||||0.10
90844878|NCT00838513|181555668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of TMA event-free responders|80.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.0|94.0||||||"With a total of 20 patients enrolled between both protocols and, assuming that the true expected probability of TMA Event-Free for eculizumab-treated patients is 40%, then the study had 93.5% power to detect a statistically significant difference. Up to approximately 30 patients were to be enrolled.~All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: C08-003A (adult) and C08-003B (adolescent), a similar protocol, for patients \<18 years with aHUS."||94|56|
90844879|NCT00838513|181555669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of hematologic normalization|90.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.0|99.0||||||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: C08-003A (adult) and C08-003B (adolescent), a similar protocol, for patients \<18 years with aHUS.||99|68|
90844880|NCT00838513|181555670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of complete TMA response|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.0|49.0||||||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: C08-003A (adult) and C08-003B (adolescent), a similar protocol, for patients \<18 years with aHUS.||49|9|
90844881|NCT00838513|181555671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: C08-003A (adult) and C08-003B (adolescent), a similar protocol, for patients \<18 years with aHUS.||||<0.0001
90844882|NCT00838513|181555672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean change from baseline|6.75||||0.5423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.73|29.23|||ANOVA|Change from baseline were analyzed using a repeated measurement ANOVA model with time and baseline as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: C08-003A (adult) and C08-003B (adolescent), a similar protocol, for patients \<18 years||29.23|-15.73|0.5423
90844883|NCT00838513|181555673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of platelet count normalization|90.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.0|99.0||||||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: C08-003A (adult) and C08-003B (adolescent), a similar protocol, for patients \<18 years||99|68|
90844884|NCT00838513|181555674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of TMA event-free responders|95.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|75.0|100.0||||||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: C08-003A (adult) and C08-003B (adolescent), a similar protocol, for patients \<18 years with aHUS.||100|75|
90844885|NCT00838513|181555675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of hematologic normalization|90.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.0|99.0||||||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: C08-003A (adult) and C08-003B (adolescent), a similar protocol, for patients \<18 years with aHUS.||99|68|
91029378|NCT01984242|181942308|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-2.22||||0.8209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.63|16.19|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||16.19|-20.63|0.8209
91029379|NCT01984242|181942310|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.0863||95.0|0.5|1.05|||Log Rank|||||1.05|0.50|0.0863
90844886|NCT00838513|181555676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of complete TMA response|55.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.0|77.0||||||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: C08-003A (adult) and C08-003B (adolescent), a similar protocol, for patients \<18 years with aHUS.||77|32|
90844887|NCT00838513|181555677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: C08-003A (adult) and C08-003B (adolescent), a similar protocol, for patients \<18 years with aHUS.||||<0.0001
90844888|NCT00838513|181555678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean change from baseline|-3.68||||0.7307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.15|17.79|||ANOVA|Change from baseline were analyzed using a repeated measurement ANOVA model with time and baseline as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: C08-003A (adult) and C08-003B (adolescent), a similar protocol, for patients \<18 years with aHUS.||17.79|-25.15|0.7307
90844889|NCT00838513|181555679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of platelet count normalization|90.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.0|99.0||||||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: C08-003A (adult) and C08-003B (adolescent), a similar protocol, for patients \<18 years||99|68|
90844890|NCT03051178|181555694|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||All post-hoc comparisons were Bonferroni corrected.|ANOVA|||TRS scores measured across different stimulation conditions were assessed using a mixed model ANOVA with the participant as a random effect. All post-hoc comparisons were Bonferroni corrected.||||<0.01
90844891|NCT01009619|181555758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||The frequency or rate of specific events (i.e. acute rejection, cytomegalovirus (CMV) and non-CMV infections) was calculated by determining the number of events per year of study time for each subject, correcting for CMV-mismatch status.||||<0.05
90844892|NCT01009619|181555759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||The frequency or rate of specific events (i.e. acute rejection, cytomegalovirus (CMV) and non-CMV infections) was calculated by determining the number of events per year of study time for each subject, correcting for CMV-mismatch status.||||<0.05
90844893|NCT00048074|181555778|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The IV dosing regimen (2mg q 2 mo IV) was considered non-inferior to the 2.5 mg daily regimen if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI on the difference in mean percent change in BMD was greater or equal to -1 percentage point.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.257|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.701|1.814|||ANOVA||Treatment effect is the difference in the mean values of the IV regimen (2mg q 2 mo IV) and the active-control.|The primary hypothesis was that the difference in the effects of daily oral ibandronate and IV ibandronate (2mg q 2 mo IV) on the relative change in lumbar spine BMD (L2 - L4) was small, no more than 1%, the margin of clinical equivalence.||1.814|0.701|<0.001
90844894|NCT00048074|181555778|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The IV dosing regimen (3mg q 3 mo IV) was considered non-inferior to the 2.5 mg daily regimen if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI on the difference in mean percent change in BMD was greater or equal to -1 percentage point.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.025|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.471|1.578|||ANOVA||Treatment effect is the difference in the mean values of the IV regimen (3mg q 3 mo IV) and the active-control.|The primary hypothesis was that the difference in the effects of daily oral ibandronate and IV ibandronate (3mg q 3 mo IV) on the relative change in lumbar spine BMD (L2 - L4) was small, no more than 1%, the margin of clinical equivalence.||1.578|0.471|<0.001
90844895|NCT00356304|181555811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<.05
90844896|NCT02504216|181555815|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85|||=|0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.96|||Log Rank|P-value (1-sided) is based on the log rank test stratified by type of procedure and clopidogrel use per IxRS assignment with treatment as a factor.||IxRS: Interactive web/voice response system||0.96|0.76|=0.0043
90844897|NCT02504216|181555816|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.43|||=|0.0695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|2.1|||Log Rank|P-value (2-sided) is based on the log rank test stratified by type of procedure and clopidogrel use per IxRS assignment with treatment as a factor.||||2.10|0.97|=0.0695
90844898|NCT02504216|181555817|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||=|0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.91||P-value (1-sided) is based on the log rank test stratified by type of procedure and clopidogrel use per IxRS assignment with treatment as a factor.|Log Rank|||||0.91|0.71|=0.0004
90844899|NCT02504216|181555818|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88|||=|0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.99||P-value (1-sided) is based on the log rank test stratified by type of procedure and clopidogrel use per IxRS assignment with treatment as a factor.|Log Rank|||||0.99|0.79|=0.0140
90844900|NCT02504216|181555819|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.85||P-value (1-sided) is based on the log rank test stratified by type of procedure and clopidogrel use per IxRS assignment with treatment as a factor.|Log Rank|||||0.85|0.62|<0.0001
90844901|NCT02504216|181555820|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89|||=|0.0145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.99||P-value (1-sided) is based on the log rank test stratified by type of procedure and clopidogrel use per IxRS assignment with treatment as a factor.|Log Rank|||||0.99|0.79|=0.0145
90844902|NCT02504216|181555821|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86|||=|0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.96||P-value (1-sided) is based on the log rank test stratified by type of procedure and clopidogrel use per IxRS assignment with treatment as a factor.|Log Rank|||||0.96|0.76|=0.0051
90844903|NCT02504216|181555822|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08|||=|0.8322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.27||P-value (1-sided) is based on the log rank test stratified by type of procedure and clopidogrel use per IxRS assignment with treatment as a factor.|Log Rank|||||1.27|0.92|=0.8322
91029380|NCT01984242|181942310|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.5922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.57|||Log Rank|||||1.57|0.77|0.5922
91029381|NCT01984242|181942312|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.43||||0.0021||95.0|0.25|0.75|||Log Rank|||||0.75|0.25|0.0021
90844904|NCT02504216|181555823|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61|||=|0.0235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.0||P-value (1-sided) is based on the log rank test stratified by type of procedure and clopidogrel use per IxRS assignment with treatment as a factor.|Log Rank|||||1.00|0.37|=0.0235
90844905|NCT02504216|181555824|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.42|||=|0.0068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.84|||Log Rank|||||1.84|1.10|=0.0068
90844906|NCT02504216|181555825|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.29|||=|0.0979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.76|||Log Rank|||||1.76|0.95|=0.0979
90844907|NCT03237286|181555853|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.0004
90844908|NCT00104520|181555890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||0.0||||Analysis based on 2-sided test with 0.05 a priori threshold for statistical significance. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|||H0: no difference between AZLI and placebo (pooled treatment groups) in time to need for inhaled or IV antibiotics. Assuming 2-sided significance level of 0.05, \~210 subjects (70 in each AZLI group, 35 in each placebo group) provided \>90% power to reject null hypothesis based on Lakatos normal approximation method with weights being one. Therefore, 250 subjects were to be randomized at Visit 2 (Day -28) to ensure at least 210 participants entered double-blind treatment period at Day 0.||||0.0070
90844909|NCT00104520|181555891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.01||||0.0196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|9.21||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment and baseline value.||Null hypothesis was there is no difference between 75 mg AZLI and placebo (pooled treatment groups) in change from baseline in CFQ-R RSS scores.||9.21|0.81|0.0196
90844910|NCT00104520|181555892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.28||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|10.06||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment and baseline value.||Null hypothesis was there is no difference between 75 mg AZLI and placebo (pooled treatment groups) in percent change from baseline in FEV1 (L).||10.060|2.500|0.0012
90844911|NCT00104520|181555894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.659||||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.125|-0.193|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment and baseline highest MIC of aztreonam for PA (\<=2, 4-8, 16-128 or \>=256 μg/mL) value.||Null hypothesis was there is no difference between 75 mg AZLI and placebo (pooled treatment groups) in mean change from baseline in log10 PA CFUs in sputum.||-0.193|-1.125|0.0059
90844912|NCT03523988|181555900|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||P-value for pain scores among the three comparison groups with jaw at rest.|ANOVA|||||||0.04
90844913|NCT03523988|181555900|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63||||||P-value for pain scores among the three comparison groups while lightly biting.|ANOVA|||||||0.63
90844914|NCT03523988|181555900|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41||||||P-value for pain scores among the three comparison groups while chewing paraffin wax.|ANOVA|||||||0.41
90844915|NCT03523988|181555901|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65||||||P-value for pain scores among the three comparison groups with jaw at rest.|ANOVA|||||||0.65
90844916|NCT03523988|181555901|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82||||||P-value for pain scores among the three comparison groups while lightly biting.|ANOVA|||||||0.82
90844917|NCT03523988|181555901|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69||||||P-value for pain scores among the three comparison groups while chewing paraffin wax.|ANOVA|||||||0.69
90844918|NCT03523988|181555902|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53||||||P-value for pain scores among the three comparison groups with jaw at rest.|ANOVA|||||||0.53
90844919|NCT03523988|181555902|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31||||||P-value for pain scores among the three comparison groups while lightly biting.|ANOVA|||||||0.31
90844920|NCT03523988|181555902|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37||||||P-value for pain scores among the three comparison groups while chewing paraffin wax.|ANOVA|||||||0.37
90844921|NCT00912197|181555903|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.135|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.135
90844922|NCT00912197|181555904|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.688|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.688
90844923|NCT00912197|181555905|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.715|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||after treatment, 56 days||||0.715
90844924|NCT00912197|181555906|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.578|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.578
90844925|NCT00912197|181555906|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||baseline to after treatment, at 56 days||||0.007
90844926|NCT00912197|181555906|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||calculated|t-test, 2 sided|||baseline to after treatment, at 56 days||||0.05
90844927|NCT00912197|181555910|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024|||||||ANCOVA|||Acetate||||0.024
90844928|NCT00756613|181555916|EQUIVALENCE|We considered a 20% reduction in primary events to be a reasonable goal of intensive glycemic control over the anticipated 15-year study time period. This effect size was chosen by taking into consideration both the probability of observing an effect of that size given the level of achieved A1c separation, and the perceived value to the patient of this level of benefit relative to the risk and burden of intensive glycemic control.|Cox Proportional Hazard|0.91||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.06|||Regression, Cox|||To determine the long term effects of intensive glycemic control in type 2 diabetes on major cardiovascular events.||1.06|0.78|0.24
90844929|NCT00756613|181555917|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin is expected 20% reduction for the intensive treatment group compared to the standard treatment group.|Cox Proportional Hazard|1.02||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.18|||Regression, Cox|||||1.18|0.88|0.81
90844930|NCT00756613|181555918|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin is 20% reduction of intensive treatment group versus standard treatment group.|Cox Proportional Hazard|0.9||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.2|||Regression, Cox|||||1.20|0.67|0.48
90844931|NCT00756613|181555920|EQUIVALENCE|T-test comparing between the two groups of treatment using the average score of last two surveys.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.61||||0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.172
90844932|NCT04901715|181555929|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.002
90844933|NCT04901715|181555929|OTHER|||||||0.054|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.054
90844934|NCT04901715|181555929|OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.27
90844935|NCT04901715|181555930|OTHER|||||||0.014|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.014
90844936|NCT04901715|181555930|OTHER|||||||0.066|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.066
90844937|NCT04901715|181555930|OTHER|||||||0.58|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.58
90844938|NCT04976192|181555989|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|0.94||||||||0.94|-1.56|
90844939|NCT04976192|181555990|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.37|0.58||||||||0.58|-1.37|
91029382|NCT01984242|181942312|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.6566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.44|||Log Rank|||||1.44|0.56|0.6566
91029383|NCT01984242|181942320|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3||||0.2867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.13|||Log Rank|||||2.13|0.80|0.2867
91094162|NCT02469233|182072488|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-0.71||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||BT mean: Treatment effect on change from pre to 6-month follow-up.||||0.04
90898691|NCT03324880|181663281|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.227|=|0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.1||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM|||Physical Fatigue|MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in HypoPT-SD symptom item score as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect, with adjustment for baseline HypoPT-SD symptom item score.|-0.10|-1.01|=0.008
90898692|NCT03324880|181663281|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.186|=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.14||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM|||Brain Fog|MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in HypoPT-SD symptom item score as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect, with adjustment for baseline HypoPT-SD symptom item score.|-0.14|-0.87|=0.004
90898693|NCT03324880|181663283|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.235|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|-0.43||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM||||MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in HypoPT-SD most bothersome symptom score as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect, with adjustment for baseline HypoPT-SD most bothersome symptom score.|-0.43|-1.37|<0.001
90844940|NCT04976192|181555990|OTHER||Relative Potency|0.89|||||||||||||Relative potency of TEV-45779 and XOLAIR is a co-primary efficacy endpoint for FDA submission.|The relative potency of the test drug to the reference drug was defined as the dose of the test drug that produced the same biological response as 1 unit of the dose of the reference drug. Relative potency was demonstrated if the 90% confidence interval (CI) for relative potency fell entirely within the equivalence margins.||||
90844941|NCT00147069|181556057|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.1
90844942|NCT00147069|181556058|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||The reported p value was calculated|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.05
90844943|NCT00147069|181556059|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.05
90844944|NCT00147069|181556060|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.05
90898694|NCT03324880|181663284|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.07|=|0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|4.3||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM||||MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in FACT-Cog Perceived Cognitive Impairments Subscale score as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect with adjustment for baseline FACT-Cog Perceived Cognitive Impairments Subscale score.|4.3|0.0|=0.024
90898695|NCT03324880|181663285|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.07|=|0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|4.3||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM||||MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in FACT-Cog QoL Subscale score as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect with adjustment for baseline FACT-Cog QoL Subscale score.|4.3|0.0|=0.024
90898696|NCT03324880|181663286|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|7.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1376|=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.951|11.469||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM|||Standard-Bodily Pain|MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in SF-36 domain score as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect with adjustment for baseline SF-36 domain score.|11.469|2.951|=0.001
91029384|NCT01984242|181942320|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.8039||95.0|0.65|1.73|||Log Rank|||||1.73|0.65|0.8039
91029385|NCT01984242|181942322|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.7879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.78|||Log Rank|||||1.78|0.47|0.7879
90844945|NCT00122980|181556064|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Based on pilot data, the efficacy of hydroxyurea to reduce secondary stroke rate was not predicted to be equivalent to transfusions. Therefore, an increased stroke rate (non-inferiority margin = 0.20) was allowed by study design. This acceptable stroke margin was predicted to be offset by the likelihood of significantly greater improvement in the management of iron overload through elimination of transfusions along with serial phlebotomy in the Hydroxyurea/Phlebotomy arm."||||||0.214||95.0|||||Log Rank|||Concluding that Hydroxyurea/Phlebotomy group is better than the Transfusion/Chelation group required rejecting the STROKE null hypothesis in favor of the alternative: Hydroxyurea/Phlebotomy recurrent stroke rate is less than Transfusion/Chelation rate plus 0.20, the non-inferiority margin, AND rejecting the IRON null hypothesis in favor of the alternative: Hydroxyurea/Phlebotomy baseline-adjusted mean LIC is less than for Transfusion/Chelation (see next primary endpoint analysis).||||0.214
90844946|NCT00122980|181556065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.144||95.0||||The a priori defined LOCF approach was deemed to be biased due to the study's early termination, and was replaced by this mixed models analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|Including main effects of age at consent, baseline iron, and treatment group, on observed change from baseline Log10 transformed values only.||Concluding that Hydroxyurea/Phlebotomy group is better than the Transfusion/Chelation group required rejecting the STROKE null hypothesis (see previous primary endpoint analysis) in favor of the alternative: Hydroxyurea/Phlebotomy recurrent stroke rate is less than Transfusion/Chelation rate plus 0.20 AND rejecting the IRON null hypothesis in favor of the alternative: Hydroxyurea/Phlebotomy baseline-adjusted mean log10 transformed LIC is less than for Transfusion/Chelation.||||0.144
90844947|NCT00122980|181556066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|The change-from-baseline scores for each scale were analyzed with an analysis of variance model (ANOVA) with treatment as stratum.||The change-from-baseline scores were analyzed with an analysis of variance model (ANOVA) with treatment as stratum, testing the hypothesis that the average change from baseline scores do not differ between the treatment groups.||||>0.05
90844948|NCT00122980|181556067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|The change-from-baseline scores for each scale were analyzed with an analysis of variance model (ANOVA) with treatment as stratum.||The change-from-baseline scores were analyzed with an analysis of variance model (ANOVA) with treatment as stratum.||||>0.05
90844949|NCT00122980|181556068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.841||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The change-from-baseline to endpoint scores were analyzed with an analysis of variance model (ANOVA) with treatment as stratum.||||0.841
91029386|NCT01984242|181942322|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.9065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.8|||Log Rank|||||1.80|0.52|0.9065
91029387|NCT00449150|181942337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means estimate|-0.198||||0.7424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|0.98|||ANOVA|||||0.98|-1.38|0.7424
90844950|NCT00122980|181556069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The change-from-baseline scores were analyzed with an analysis of variance model (ANOVA) with treatment as stratum, testing the hypothesis that the average change from baseline scores do not differ between the treatment groups.||||>0.05
90844951|NCT00122980|181556070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.039||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The change-from-baseline scores were analyzed with an analysis of variance model (ANOVA) with treatment as stratum, testing the hypothesis that the average change from baseline scores do not differ between the treatment groups.||||0.039
90844952|NCT00122980|181556071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis controlling for baseline value and time on study.||||||0.033
90844953|NCT00122980|181556072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Controlling for baseline value and time on study||||||<0.01
90844954|NCT00459732|181556076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.13
90844955|NCT00459732|181556077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|Repeated measures||||||0.44
90844956|NCT00459732|181556078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|Repeated measures analysis of variance adjusted for baseline osteocalcin level.||||||0.16
90844957|NCT00724711|181556088|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"This study was designed to show noninferiority (change of \< 12%) in regard of proportions of responders (TLOVR) at Week 48.~With 170 subjects in each group, the lower limit of observed one-sided 97.5% confidence interval was expected to be greater than -0.120 with 80% power when the proportion of responders in both treatment groups is 0.820 (82%) at Week 48.~312 subjects were enrolled, representing 8% less than planned (n = 340). As a result, power to claim non-inferiority decreased to 78%."|Difference in percentages between groups|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|11.2|||Inverted two one-sided tests|Inverted two one-sided tests with the standardized statistic||"Null hypothesis: The TVD group is at least 12% worse than the ABC/3TC group with respect to the percentage of subjects maintaining HIV-1 RNA \< 200 copies/mL through Week 48 (responder rate, as defined by the TLOVR algorithm)~Alternative hypothesis: The TVD group is less than 12% worse than the ABC/3TC group with respect to the percentage of subjects maintaining HIV-1 RNA \< 200 copies/mL through Week 48 (responder rate, as defined by the TLOVR algorithm)"||11.2|-5.1|
90844958|NCT00535288|181556144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-1.2|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.2||Confidence intervals and p-values were adjusted by (2-sided) Dunnett many-to-one comparison at 0.05 overall Type 1 error rate.|ANCOVA|Factors for treatment group and (pooled) center and a covariate for the baseline frequency||||-0.2|-2.2|<0.01
90844959|NCT00535288|181556144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-1.7|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.7||Confidence intervals and p-values were adjusted by (2-sided) Dunnett many-to-one comparison at 0.05 overall Type 1 error rate.|ANCOVA|Factors for treatment group and (pooled) center and a covariate for the baseline frequency||||-0.7|-2.7|<0.01
90844960|NCT00535288|181556144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-1.4|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.4||Confidence intervals and p-values were adjusted by (2-sided) Dunnett many-to-one comparison at 0.05 overall Type 1 error rate|ANCOVA|Factors for treatment group and (pooled) center and a covariate for the baseline frequency||||-0.4|-2.4|<0.01
90844961|NCT00535288|181556144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-1.9|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-0.9||Confidence intervals and p-values were adjusted by (2-sided) Dunnett many-to-one comparison at 0.05 overall Type 1 error rate|ANCOVA|Factors for treatment group and (pooled) center and a covariate for the baseline frequency||||-0.9|-2.9|<0.01
90844962|NCT00535288|181556145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-0.07|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|-0.01||Confidence intervals and p-values were adjusted by (2-sided) Dunnett many-to-one comparison at 0.05 overall Type 1 error rate.|ANCOVA|Factors for treatment group and (pooled) center and a covariate for the baseline severity||||-0.01|-0.12|<0.01
91029388|NCT00449150|181942337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means estimate|0.055||||0.926||95.0|-1.1|1.21|||ANOVA|||||1.21|-1.10|0.926
91029389|NCT00449150|181942337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means estimate|-0.252||||0.6699||95.0|-1.41|0.91|||ANOVA|||||0.91|-1.41|0.6699
91029390|NCT04087395|181942345|NON_INFERIORITY|To achieve non-inferiority, the observed p-value must be \<= 0.5 taking into account of the non-inferiority margin (i.e., 10mm difference in Pain VAS between the two treatment groups).|||||<|0.0001||||||One-sided paired student t-test|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
90844963|NCT00535288|181556145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-0.06||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|-0.01||Confidence intervals and p-values were adjusted by (2-sided) Dunnett many-to-one comparison at 0.05 overall Type 1 error rate.|ANCOVA|Factors for treatment group and (pooled) center and a covariate for the baseline severity||||-0.01|-0.11|0.02
90844964|NCT00535288|181556145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-0.07|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|-0.02||Confidence intervals and p-values were adjusted by (2-sided) Dunnett many-to-one comparison at 0.05 overall Type 1 error rate.|ANCOVA|Factors for treatment group and (pooled) center and a covariate for the baseline severity||||-0.02|-0.13|<0.01
90844965|NCT00535288|181556145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-0.08|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|-0.03||Confidence intervals and p-values were adjusted by (2-sided) Dunnett many-to-one comparison at 0.05 overall Type 1 error rate.|ANCOVA|Factors for treatment group and (pooled) center and a covariate for the baseline severity||||-0.03|-0.14|<0.01
91029391|NCT01626079|181942415|NON_INFERIORITY|Two thousand (2000) simulations were performed to calculate sample size and power for the primary safety endpoint. Assuming 22% mortality and 7.5% attrition at 12 months, a total of 305 subjects in the Device group will provide \> 95% power to reject the null hypothesis at the one-sided significance level of 5%.|Kaplan Meier|0.966|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011|<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.948||||Z test Using Kaplan Meier Survival|P-value calculated from Z test using Kaplan Meier survival estimate together with Greenwood method estimated variance|||||0.948|<0.0001
91029392|NCT01626079|181942448|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76|||<|0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.96|||Joint Fraility Model|||||0.96|0.60|<0.02
91029393|NCT01626079|181942449|SUPERIORITY||Win Ratio|1.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|2.04|||Finkelstein-Schoenfeld Analysis|||||2.04|1.29|<0.0001
91094163|NCT02469233|182072488|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-0.31||||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||BT variability: Treatment effect on change from pre to post, which is 9-14 weeks after the beginning of treatment.||||0.20
90844966|NCT00535288|181556146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-1.0||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.1||Confidence intervals and p-values were adjusted by (2-sided) Dunnett many-to-one comparison at 0.05 overall Type 1 error rate.|ANCOVA|Factors for treatment group and (pooled) center and a covariate for the baseline frequency||||0.1|-2.1|0.08
90844967|NCT00535288|181556146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-1.6|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.5||Confidence intervals and p-values were adjusted by (2-sided) Dunnett many-to-one comparison at 0.05 overall Type 1 error rate.|ANCOVA|Factors for treatment group and (pooled) center and a covariate for the baseline frequency||||-0.5|-2.7|<0.01
90844968|NCT00535288|181556146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-1.5|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.4||Confidence intervals and p-values were adjusted by (2-sided) Dunnett many-to-one comparison at 0.05 overall Type 1 error rate.|ANCOVA|Factors for treatment group and (pooled) center and a covariate for the baseline frequency||||-0.4|-2.7|<0.01
90844969|NCT00535288|181556146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-2.0|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-0.9||Confidence intervals and p-values were adjusted by (2-sided) Dunnett many-to-one comparison at 0.05 overall Type 1 error rate.|ANCOVA|Factors for treatment group and (pooled) center and a covariate for the baseline frequency||||-0.9|-3.1|<0.01
90844970|NCT00535288|181556149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-0.06||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.0||Confidence intervals and p-values were adjusted by (2-sided) Dunnett many-to-one comparison at 0.05 overall Type 1 error rate.|ANCOVA|Factors for treatment group and (pooled) center and a covariate for the baseline severity||||0.00|-0.12|0.07
90844971|NCT00535288|181556149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-0.05||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.02||Confidence intervals and p-values were adjusted by (2-sided) Dunnett many-to-one comparison at 0.05 overall Type 1 error rate.|ANCOVA|Factors for treatment group and (pooled) center and a covariate for the baseline severity||||0.02|-0.11|0.24
90844972|NCT00535288|181556149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-0.04||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.02||Confidence intervals and p-values were adjusted by (2-sided) Dunnett many-to-one comparison at 0.05 overall Type 1 error rate.|ANCOVA|Factors for treatment group and (pooled) center and a covariate for the baseline severity||||0.02|-0.11|0.29
90844973|NCT00535288|181556149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-0.07||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|-0.01||Confidence intervals and p-values were adjusted by (2-sided) Dunnett many-to-one comparison at 0.05 overall Type 1 error rate.|ANCOVA|Factors for treatment group and (pooled) center and a covariate for the baseline severity||||-0.01|-0.14|0.02
90844974|NCT02283762|181556170|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS means|-2.34||||0.0815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.99|0.3|||MMRM (Method 1)|||||0.30|-4.99|0.0815
90844975|NCT02283762|181556171|SUPERIORITY|The pre-specified test was for superiority but ONLY if the primary endpoint and secondary endpoints were meeting statistical significance (hierarchical testing).|%|0.2||||0.977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.68|14.09|||Mantel Haenszel|||||14.09|-13.68|0.9770
90844976|NCT02283762|181556172|SUPERIORITY|The pre-specified test was for superiority but ONLY if the primary endpoint and secondary endpoints were meeting statistical significance (hierarchical testing).|Difference in LS means|-0.07||||0.3529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.08|||MMRM (Method 1)|||change from baseline||0.08|-0.23|0.3529
90844977|NCT02283762|181556173|SUPERIORITY|The pre-specified test was for superiority but ONLY if the primary endpoint and secondary endpoints were meeting statistical significance (hierarchical testing).|Difference in LS means|0.79||||0.0887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|1.69|||MMRM (Method 1)|||Change from baseline||1.69|-0.12|0.0887
90844978|NCT02283762|181556174|SUPERIORITY|The pre-specified test was for superiority but ONLY if the primary endpoint and secondary endpoints were meeting statistical significance (hierarchical testing).|Difference in LS means|0.83||||0.0241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|1.54|||MMRM (Method 1)|||Change from baseline||1.54|0.11|0.0241
90844979|NCT02283762|181556175|SUPERIORITY|The pre-specified test was for superiority but ONLY if the primary endpoint and secondary endpoints were meeting statistical significance (hierarchical testing).|Difference in LS means|-0.2||||0.901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|3.0|||MMRM (Method 1)|||change from baseline||3.00|-3.40|0.9010
90844980|NCT00202878|181556186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.936||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.887|0.988|||Cox proportional hazard model|Covariates of the stratification factors (EARLY ACS trial, chronic prescription lipid-lowering experience, and high-risk ACS diagnosis) and treatment.|Model includes events from randomization to last study visit.|||0.988|0.887|0.016
90844981|NCT00202878|181556187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.948||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.903|0.996|||Cox proportional hazard model|Covariates of the stratification factors (EARLY ACS trial, chronic prescription lipid-lowering experience, and high-risk ACS diagnosis) and treatment.|Model includes events from randomization to last study visit.|||0.996|0.903|0.035
90844982|NCT00202878|181556188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.912||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.847|0.983|||Cox proportional hazard model|Covariates of the stratification factors (EARLY ACS trial, chronic prescription lipid-lowering experience, and high-risk ACS diagnosis) and treatment.|Model includes events from randomization to last study visit.|||0.983|0.847|0.016
90844983|NCT00202878|181556189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.945||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.897|0.996|||Cox proportional hazard model|Covariates of the stratification factors (EARLY ACS trial, chronic prescription lipid-lowering experience, and high-risk ACS diagnosis) and treatment|Model includes events from randomization to last study visit.|||0.996|0.897|0.035
90844984|NCT00918736|181556193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Previous report using 5 weekly injections, mean AOS score reduction is 2.6 with the SD of 1.8 in 75 patients. To test whether AOS reduction would be \> 1 using pair t-test after 3 weekly injections, investigators need \> 42 patients to give \> 90% power to reject the null hypothesis-mean AOS score reduction \<1 at 6 months, given that both the mean and standard deviation of AOS score reduction equal to 2. Considering possible dropout of participants, investigators decide to include 50 patients||||<0.05
90844985|NCT01594528|181556200|OTHER|||||||0.992||||||comparison between groups for body indicators|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.992
90844986|NCT01594528|181556200|OTHER|||||||0.8||||||comparison between groups facial indicators|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8
90844987|NCT01594528|181556200|OTHER|||||||0.586||||||comparison between groups for vocal indicators|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.586
90844988|NCT00035932|181556201|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The time-averaged difference (TAD) in the reduction of log10 HIV RNA levels from baseline through Week 24 was compared pairwise for each atazanavir regimen to the lopinavir/RTV regimen, and assessed using a two-sided 97.5% confidence interval. The primary efficacy analysis was to declare two treatment regimens similar if the upper limit of this 97.5% confidence interval for the difference (atazanavir-lopinavir/RTV) was less than 0.5 log10.|Time-Averaged Difference|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.09|0.37||||||||0.37|-0.09|
90844989|NCT00035932|181556201|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The time-averaged difference (TAD) in the reduction of log10 HIV RNA levels from baseline through Week 24 was compared pairwise for each atazanavir regimen to the lopinavir/RTV regimen, and assessed using a two-sided 97.5% confidence interval. The primary efficacy analysis was to declare two treatment regimens similar if the upper limit of this 97.5% confidence interval for the difference (atazanavir-lopinavir/RTV) was less than 0.5 log10.|Time-Averaged Difference|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.07|0.55||||||||0.55|0.07|
90844990|NCT00035932|181556202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.3||||||||0.30|-0.04|
90844991|NCT00035932|181556202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.35||||||||0.35|-0.01|
90844992|NCT00035932|181556205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Time-Averaged Difference|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.12|0.39||||||||0.39|-0.12|
90844993|NCT00035932|181556205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Time-Averaged Distance|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.07|0.6||||||||0.60|0.07|
90844994|NCT00035932|181556206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference estimate|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|12.3|||||ATV 300/RTV - LPV/RTV|Randomized participants||12.3|-13.3|
90844995|NCT00035932|181556207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|14.1||||||||14.1|-7.0|
90844996|NCT00035932|181556207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-11.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.9|0.4||||||||0.4|-22.9|
90844997|NCT00035932|181556209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.9|7.0||||||||7.0|-16.9|
90844998|NCT00035932|181556209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-16.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.5|-3.7||||||||-3.7|-28.5|
90844999|NCT00035932|181556211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|13.2|||||ATV 300/RTV - LPV/RTV|||13.2|-12.5|
90845000|NCT00035932|181556212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|15.4||||||||15.4|-9.1|
90845001|NCT00035932|181556212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-16.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.4|-4.0||||||||-4.0|-29.4|
90845002|NCT00035932|181556213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|11.4||||||||11.4|-13.7|
90845003|NCT00035932|181556213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-17.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.6|-5.3||||||||-5.3|-30.6|
90845004|NCT00035932|181556214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|10.3|||Chi-squared, Corrected||ATV 300/RTV - LPV/RTV|||10.3|-15.0|
90845005|NCT00035932|181556215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|10.0||||||||10.0|-14.6|
90845006|NCT00035932|181556215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-18.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.7|-7.1||||||||-7.1|-30.7|
90845007|NCT00035932|181556216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-6.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.7|5.8||||||||5.8|-18.7|
90845008|NCT00035932|181556216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-17.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.9|-5.9||||||||-5.9|-29.9|
90845009|NCT00035932|181556218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Time-Averaged Difference|-18.4|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-44.3|7.5||||||||7.5|-44.3|
90845010|NCT00035932|181556218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Time-Averaged Difference|-44.9|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-74.5|-15.3||||||||-15.3|-74.5|
90845011|NCT00035932|181556219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Time-Averaged Difference|-17.5|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-45.6|10.6||||||||10.6|-45.6|
90845012|NCT00035932|181556219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Time-Averaged Difference|-47.6|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-79.2|-16.1||||||||-16.1|-79.2|
90845013|NCT00035932|181556221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0||||P-value was based on a t-distribution.|t-test, 1 sided|||Correlation between IQ (\<10; \>=10) of ATV 300 mg / RTV and HIV RNA||||<0.05
90845014|NCT00035932|181556221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0||||P-value was based on a t-distribution.|t-test, 1 sided|||Correlation between number of PI Mutations at baseline (\<4; \>=4) of ATV 400 mg / SQV and HIV RNA||||<0.05
90845015|NCT00035932|181556223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0||||P-value was based on a t-distribution.|t-test, 1 sided|||Correlation between ATV Cmin of ATV 300 mg / RTV and CD4 Cell Count||||<0.05
90845016|NCT00035932|181556223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0||||P-value was based on a t-distribution.|t-test, 1 sided|||Correlation between IQ (\<10; \>=10) of ATV 300 mg / RTV and CD4 Cell Count||||<0.05
90845017|NCT00035932|181556223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0||||P-value was based on a t-distribution.|t-test, 1 sided|||Correlation between # of PI Mutations at baseline (\<4; \>=4) of ATV 300 mg / RTV and CD4 Cell Count||||<0.05
90845018|NCT00035932|181556225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-10.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5|-6.0||||||Total Cholesterol||-6.0|-15.5|
90845019|NCT00035932|181556225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-12.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.9|-7.6||||||Total Cholesterol||-7.6|-16.9|
90845020|NCT00035932|181556225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|0.7||||||HDL cholesterol||0.7|-13.6|
90845021|NCT00035932|181556225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|8.1||||||HDL Cholesterol||8.1|-9.3|
90845022|NCT00035932|181556225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-6.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.6|3.0||||||Fasting LDL Cholesterol||3.0|-15.6|
90845023|NCT00035932|181556225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-7.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5|1.8||||||Fasting LDL Cholesterol||1.8|-15.5|
90845024|NCT00035932|181556225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-24.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.0|-13.2||||||Fasting Triglycerides||-13.2|-35.0|
90845025|NCT00035932|181556225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-34.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.4|-23.4||||||Fasting Triglycerides||-23.4|-43.4|
90845026|NCT00035932|181556226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-12.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|-7.2||||||Total Cholesterol||-7.2|-17.0|
90845027|NCT00035932|181556226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.4|-6.5||||||Total Cholesterol||-6.5|-17.4|
90845028|NCT00035932|181556226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|3.5||||||HDL Cholesterol||3.5|-12.4|
90898697|NCT03324880|181663286|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|5.545|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0542|=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.452|9.638||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM|||Standard-General Health|MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in SF-36 domain score as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect with adjustment for baseline SF-36 domain score.|9.638|1.452|=0.004
90898698|NCT03324880|181663286|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|7.857|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2913|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.292|12.423||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM|||Standard-Mental Health|MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in SF-36 domain score as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect with adjustment for baseline SF-36 domain score.|12.423|3.292|<0.001
90898699|NCT03324880|181663286|SUPERIORITY||MMRM|4.554|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1123|=|0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.345|8.763||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM|||Standard-Physical Functioning|MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in SF-36 domain score as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect with adjustment for baseline SF-36 domain score.|8.763|0.345|=0.017
90898700|NCT03324880|181663286|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|8.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3186|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|13.04||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM|||Standard-Role-Emotional|MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in SF-36 domain score as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect with adjustment for baseline SF-36 domain score.|13.040|3.800|<0.001
90898701|NCT03324880|181663286|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|4.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2489|=|0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.251|8.711||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM|||Standard-Role-Physical|MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in SF-36 domain score as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect with adjustment for baseline SF-36 domain score.|8.711|-0.251|=0.032
90898702|NCT03324880|181663286|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|3.809|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6658|=|0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.502|9.121||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM|||Standard-Social Functioning|MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in SF-36 domain score as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect with adjustment for baseline SF-36 domain score.|9.121|-1.502|=0.079
91094164|NCT02469233|182072488|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-0.45||||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||BT variability: Treatment effect on change from pre to 6-month follow-up.||||0.07
90845029|NCT00035932|181556226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||DIfference Estimate|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|9.3||||||HDL Cholesterol||9.3|-11.0|
90845030|NCT00035932|181556226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-8.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|1.2||||||Fasting LDL CHolesterol||1.2|-19.0|
90845031|NCT00035932|181556226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-7.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|3.0||||||Fasting LDL Cholesterol||3.0|-17.7|
90845032|NCT00035932|181556226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-29.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.6|-17.7||||||Fasting Triglycerides||-17.7|-41.6|
90845033|NCT00035932|181556226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-38.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.7|-27.1||||||Fasting Triglycerides||-27.1|-49.7|
90845034|NCT00035932|181556227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-14.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.1|-8.3|||||ATV 300/RTV - LPV/RTV|Observed values, Total Cholesterol||-8.3|-20.1|
90845035|NCT00035932|181556227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.1|-1.3|||||ATV 400/SQV - LPV/RTV|observed values, total cholesterol||-1.3|-16.1|
90845036|NCT00035932|181556227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.9|-1.2|||||ATV 300/RTV - LPV/RTV|observed values, HDL cholesterol||-1.2|-19.9|
90845037|NCT00035932|181556227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|7.0|||||ATV 400/SQV - LPV/RTV|Observed values, HDL cholesterol||7.0|-14.0|
90845038|NCT00035932|181556227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-12.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.3|-1.8|||||ATV 300/RTV - LPV/RTV|observed cases, fasting LDL||-1.8|-22.3|
90845039|NCT00035932|181556227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-7.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|4.8|||||ATV 400/SQV - LPV/RTV|Observed Cases, Fasting LDL cholesterol||4.8|-19.0|
90845040|NCT00035932|181556227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-24.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.6|-8.0|||||ATV 300/RTV - LPV/RTV|observed cases, fasting triglycerides||-8.0|-38.6|
90845041|NCT00035932|181556227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-19.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.5|1.3|||||ATV 400/SQV - LPV/RTV|observed cases, fasting triglycerides||1.3|-36.5|
90845042|NCT00035932|181556238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||time-averaged difference|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.13|0.41|||||ATV 300/RTV - LPV/RTV|overall||0.41|-0.13|
90845043|NCT00035932|181556238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||time-averaged difference|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.16|0.38|||||ATV 300/RTV - LPV/RTV|last observation carried forward||0.38|-0.16|
90845044|NCT02268175|181556246|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.151||||||1-sided|Fisher Exact|||The hypothesis was that treatment with ARM 1 will have a pCR/MRD rate of 35% compared with Arm 2 rate of 10%. Given 75 men randomized in 2:1 ratio to Arm 1 (N=50) or Arm 2 (N=25), there was 84% power to detect this difference, using Fisher's exact test with one-sided type I error of 0.1.||||0.151
90845045|NCT02100696|181556292|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in response rates|12.2||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.95|17.67|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||17.67|3.95|0.0033
90845046|NCT02100696|181556293|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|3.8||||0.4956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.13|14.56|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||14.56|-7.13|0.4956
90845047|NCT02100696|181556294|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference in Remission Rates|12.5||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.19|17.94||Nominal P-value reported (not adjusted for multiplicity)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||17.94|4.19|0.0028
90845048|NCT02100696|181556295|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference in Response Rates|14.3||||0.0241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.21|24.14||Multiplicity P-value reported (adjusted for multiplicity)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||24.14|3.21|0.0241
90845049|NCT02100696|181556296|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference in Response Rates|8.1||||0.1605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|17.22||Multiplicity P-value reported (adjusted for multiplicity)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||17.22|-2.54|0.1605
90845050|NCT02100696|181556297|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference in Remission Rates|7.6||||0.3881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|13.66||Multiplicity P-value reported (adjusted for multiplicity)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||13.66|-1.22|0.3881
90845051|NCT02100696|181556298|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference in Remission Rates|4.9||||0.5879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.78|14.69||Multiplicity P-value reported (adjusted for multiplicity)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||14.69|-6.78|0.5879
90845052|NCT02100696|181556299|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Unadjusted Means|-0.2||||0.0351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.0||Multiplicity P-value reported (adjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|||||-0.0|-0.5|0.0351
90845053|NCT02100696|181556300|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Unadjusted Means|-0.2||||0.2698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1||Multiplicity P-value reported (adjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.4|0.2698
90845054|NCT02100696|181556301|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-1.6||||0.2698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-0.3||Multiplicity P-value reported (adjusted for multiplicity)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.3|-2.9|0.2698
90845055|NCT02100696|181556302|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-0.5||||0.3881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||Multiplicity P-value reported (adjusted for multiplicity)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.0|-1.0|0.3881
90845056|NCT02100696|181556303|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|9.1||||0.0445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|17.9||Nominal P-value reported (not adjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|||||17.9|0.2|0.0445
90845057|NCT02100696|181556304|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference in Remission Rates|0.1||||0.9959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.67|19.88||Nominal P-value reported (not adjusted for multiplicity)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||19.88|-19.67|0.9959
90845058|NCT02100696|181556305|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference in Remission Rates|3.8||||0.5014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.26|14.7||Nominal P-value reported (not adjusted for multiplicity)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||14.70|-7.26|0.5014
90845059|NCT02100696|181556306|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference in Remission Rates|0.6||||0.9538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.08|20.35||Nominal P-value reported (not adjusted for multiplicity)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||20.35|-19.08|0.9538
90845060|NCT02100696|181556307|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference in Response Rates|14.5||||0.0153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.66|25.78||Nominal P-value reported (not adjusted for multiplicity)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||25.78|2.66|0.0153
90898703|NCT03324880|181663286|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|7.942|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.353|=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.253|12.63||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM|||Standard-Vitality|MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in SF-36 domain score as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect with adjustment for baseline SF-36 domain score.|12.630|3.253|=0.001
90845061|NCT02100696|181556308|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference in Remission Rates|16.8||||0.0073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.44|28.41||Nominal P-value reported (not adjusted for multiplicity)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||28.41|4.44|0.0073
90845062|NCT02100696|181556309|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference in Remission Rates|11.9||||0.0174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.87|21.71||Nominal P-value reported (not adjusted for multiplicity)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.71|1.87|0.0174
90845063|NCT02100696|181556310|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference in Remission Rates|7.3||||0.3015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.83|21.6||Nominal P-value reported (not adjusted for multiplicity)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.60|-6.83|0.3015
90845064|NCT02100696|181556311|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference in Remission Rates|7.4||||0.2787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.23|21.17||Nominal P-value reported (not adjusted for multiplicity)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.17|-6.23|0.2787
90845065|NCT02100696|181556312|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-1.5||||0.0763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|0.2||Nominal P-value reported (not adjusted for multiplicity)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.2|-3.1|0.0763
90845066|NCT02100696|181556313|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-0.2||||0.5329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.5||Nominal P-value reported (not adjusted for multiplicity)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.5|-1.0|0.5329
90845067|NCT02100696|181556314|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-4.9||||0.2228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|3.0||Nominal P-value reported (not adjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|||||3.0|-12.7|0.2228
91029394|NCT00865709|181942780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.884||||0.2309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.635|1.231||1-sided p-value from stratified log-rank test, stratified by factors of # metastatic sites and liver metastasis determined by Principal Investigator|Log Rank||The relative risk (sorafenib to placebo) was estimated by the hazard ratio from stratified Cox regression with a 95% confidence interval.|A sample size of 120 PFS events would provide a \> 85% power at a target HR = 0.65 between sorafenib and matching placebo, with a 1-sided alpha = 0.10, for testing the null hypothesis H0: HR ≥ 1 versus the alternative hypothesis H1: HR \< 1 based on the log-rank test. The test was conducted using the intent-to-treat (ITT) population, defined as all subjects who were randomized to treatment.||1.231|0.635|0.2309
90845068|NCT00078897|181556328|OTHER|Negative binomial regression|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.16|||Negative binomial regression|||||1.16|0.91|0.68
90845069|NCT02954172|181556401|EQUIVALENCE|the equivalence margin of the ORR ratio was set at (0.75, 1.33).|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.756|1.077||||||||1.077|0.756|
90845070|NCT02954172|181556402|EQUIVALENCE|||||||0.7066|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.7066
90845071|NCT02954172|181556403|EQUIVALENCE|||||||0.3497|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.3497
90845072|NCT00233064|181556404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Overall percentage of immune reactivity|0.0||||||95.0|0.0|1.9|||||The number and percentage of subjects with immune reactivity at Study Day 240-300 were constructed using the Clopper-Pearson Method.|The subject number of 200 per treatment group was derived to demonstrate a percentage of immune reactivity in either the liquid or lyophilized formulations of palivizumab of \<2-3% based on 95% confidence intervals \[(0%; 0.00, 1.83), (0.5%; 0.01, 2.75), (1%; 0.12, 3.57)\].||1.9|0.0|
90845073|NCT00233064|181556404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Overall percentage of immune reactivity|0.5||||||95.0|0.0|2.9|||||The number and percentage of subjects with immune reactivity at Study Day 240-300 were constructed using the Clopper-Pearson Method.|The subject number of 200 per treatment group was derived to demonstrate a percentage of immune reactivity in either the liquid or lyophilized formulations of palivizumab of \<2-3% based on 95% confidence intervals \[(0%; 0.00, 1.83), (0.5%; 0.01, 2.75), (1%; 0.12, 3.57)\].||2.9|0.0|
90845074|NCT00233064|181556404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Overall percentage of immune reactivity|0.3||||||95.0|0.0|1.5|||||The number and percentage of subjects with immune reactivity at Study Day 240-300 were constructed using the Clopper-Pearson Method.|The subject number of 200 per treatment group was derived to demonstrate a percentage of immune reactivity in either the liquid or lyophilized formulations of palivizumab of \<2-3% based on 95% confidence intervals \[(0%; 0.00, 1.83), (0.5%; 0.01, 2.75), (1%; 0.12, 3.57)\].||1.5|0.0|
90845075|NCT01120964|181556449|OTHER|Analyses presented herein are for re-intubation time included.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.0||||0.0222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|73.4||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Total duration of postoperative invasive mechanical ventilation was analyzed by treatment group using summary statistics, and was compared between citrulline and placebo groups using an ANOVA.~Kaplan-Meier analyses were performed for: 1) zero durations censored, 2) zero durations uncensored, 3) patients with zero duration excluded. The same analyses were performed with re-intubation time removed."||73.4|-9.5|0.0222
90845076|NCT01120964|181556450|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.0||||0.0222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|73.4||Re-intubation time included. Threshold for significance was p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Analyses presented herein are for re-intubation time included.||73.4|-9.5|0.0222
90845077|NCT01120964|181556451|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|50.7||||0.0418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.4|96.0||The threshold for significance was P\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||96.0|5.4|0.0418
90845078|NCT01120964|181556452|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.7||||0.0727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|28.1||The threshold for significance was p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||28.1|-2.6|0.0727
90845079|NCT01120964|181556453|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|559.8||||0.1271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-193.5|1313.2|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1313.2|-193.5|0.1271
90845080|NCT01120964|181556454|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.5||||0.972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|14.1|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||14.1|-7.0|0.9720
90845081|NCT01120964|181556455|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.2||||0.8884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|18.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||18.0|-7.7|0.8884
90845082|NCT01120964|181556456|OTHER|Total number of postoperative hours spent in PICU|Mean Difference (Final Values)|69.14||||0.1891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.39|187.67||The threshold for significance was p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||187.67|-49.39|0.1891
90845083|NCT01120964|181556457|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|30.2||||0.0479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|71.1||Duration including re-intubation time. Threshold for significance was p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||71.1|-10.8|0.0479
90845084|NCT01120964|181556458|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.7||||0.2637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|9.7|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||9.7|-2.2|0.2637
90898704|NCT03324880|181663287|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|8.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2642|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.788|12.811||1-sided p-value|MMRM||||MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in SF-36 MCS score as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect with adjustment for baseline SF-36 MCS score.|12.811|3.788|<0.001
90898705|NCT03324880|181663288|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|3.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.578|=|0.627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.33|22.6||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM|||Percent Work Time Missed Due to Problem|MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in WPAI score as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect with adjustment for baseline WPAI score.|22.60|-16.33|=0.627
90845085|NCT01120964|181556460|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.5||||0.6431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.9|41.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||41.0|-25.9|0.6431
90845086|NCT01120964|181556461|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|39.5||||0.6408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-134.2|213.1|||ANOVA|||||213.1|-134.2|0.6408
90845087|NCT00826202|181556473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|cohen's d= 0.67||||||0.07
90845088|NCT00826202|181556474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.056|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|cohen's d=0.84||||||.056
90845089|NCT00826202|181556475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Cohen's d=0.68||||||0.03
90845090|NCT00826202|181556476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|cohen's d=0.93||||||0.12
90845091|NCT04421027|181556502|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.08|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.08|0.67|0.1800
90845092|NCT04421027|181556503|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.16|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.16|0.58|0.7280
90845093|NCT04421027|181556504|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.5444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.34|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.34|0.86|0.5444
90845094|NCT04421027|181556505|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (net)|0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.399||0.0586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.5|||ANOVA|||||1.5|-0.0|0.0586
90845095|NCT04421027|181556506|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.1453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.24|||Log Rank|||||1.24|0.99|0.1453
90845096|NCT04421027|181556507|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.0464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.47|||Proportional Odds Model|||Day 4||1.47|1.00|0.0464
90845097|NCT04421027|181556508|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.0172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.49|||Proportional Odds Model|||||1.49|1.04|0.0172
90845098|NCT04421027|181556509|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.0921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.41|||Proportional Odds Model|||||1.41|0.97|0.0921
90845099|NCT04421027|181556510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28||||0.0168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.56|||Proportional Odds Model|||||1.56|1.05|0.0168
90845100|NCT04421027|181556511|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Net)|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.408||0.0626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.0|||ANOVA|||||0.0|-1.6|0.0626
90845101|NCT04421027|181556512|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.63|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.63|0.81|0.4290
90845102|NCT04421027|181556513|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.78|||Log Rank|||||0.78|0.41|0.0018
90845103|NCT04421027|181556514|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.323||0.9526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.65|||ANOVA|||||0.65|-0.62|0.9526
90845104|NCT04421027|181556515|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.887||||0.1831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.741|1.061|||Log Rank|||||1.061|0.741|0.1831
90845105|NCT04421027|181556516|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.202||||0.0243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.017|1.421|||Log Rank|||||1.421|1.017|0.0243
90845106|NCT04421027|181556517|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.128||0.191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 4||0.08|-0.42|0.191
90845107|NCT04421027|181556517|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.161||0.278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7||0.14|-0.49|0.278
90845108|NCT04421027|181556517|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.187||0.496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 10||0.24|-0.49|0.496
90845109|NCT04421027|181556517|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.226||0.263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14||0.19|-0.70|0.263
90845110|NCT04421027|181556519|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.6436|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.6436
91094165|NCT02469233|182072489|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-0.33||||0.39|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||WT mean: Treatment effect on change from pre to post, which is 9-14 weeks after the beginning of treatment.||||0.39
90845111|NCT04421027|181556520|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.124||||0.127|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.1270
90845112|NCT04421027|181556521|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Net)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.228||0.3058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.21|||ANOVA|||||0.21|-0.68|0.3058
90845113|NCT04421027|181556522|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Net)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.306||0.7073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.72|||ANOVA|||||0.72|-0.49|0.7073
90845114|NCT00494676|181556523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.2|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|21.0|||McNemar||The marginal odds ratio based on discordant pairs was computed.|The analysis used a McNemar test for data combined across both periods of the crossover. We estimated that 70% and 35% of participants would say yes to the real and sham prisms, respectively. For a 2-tailed test, the minimum sample size to detect a 35% difference in yes responses to real and sham prisms was 57 participants, assuming 30% overlap (30% said yes to both pairs of glasses), power of 90% and α of 1%. Assuming an attrition rate of 20%, we planned to enroll 68 participants.||21.0|1.8|= 0.001
90845115|NCT00494676|181556524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.6|=|0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||Mobility improvement scores were normally distributed. A paired t-test was used to conduct a within-subjects comparison of the crossover differences in mobility scores between real and sham prism glasses. An alpha level of 5% was used to indicate statistical significance for secondary analyses||1.3|-0.1|= 0.09
90845116|NCT00494676|181556525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.7|=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|3.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.0|0.7|= 0.002
90845117|NCT00494676|181556526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.1|=|0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.3|-1.2|= 0.21
90845118|NCT04073225|181556527|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-33.8||||0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.9|33.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects models were fit including fixed effects for intervention arm, visit (baseline, 12 week) and intervention by visit interaction; and random intercepts and slopes for each participant.||33.2|-100.9|.323
90845119|NCT04073225|181556528|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-81.3||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-165.2|2.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects models were fit including fixed effects for intervention arm, visit (baseline, 12 week) and intervention by visit interaction; and random intercepts and slopes for each participant.||2.5|-165.2|.057
90845120|NCT04073225|181556529|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.1||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|6.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects models were fit including fixed effects for intervention arm, visit (baseline, 12 week) and intervention by visit interaction; and random intercepts and slopes for each participant.||6.08|0.03|.047
90845121|NCT04073225|181556530|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.59||||0.565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|2.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects models were fit including fixed effects for intervention arm, visit (baseline, 12 week) and intervention by visit interaction; and random intercepts and slopes for each participant.||2.6|-1.4|.565
90845122|NCT04073225|181556531|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.825||0.147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|3.03|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.03|-0.50|0.147
90845123|NCT04073225|181556532|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|99.4||||0.605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-334.3|533.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||We conducted t-tests of differences in volumetric change comparing intervention to control arms.||533.0|-334.3|.605
90845124|NCT04073225|181556533|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|130.8||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-259.7|248.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||We conducted t-tests of differences in volumetric change comparing intervention to control arms.||248.6|-259.7|.590
90845125|NCT04073225|181556534|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-24.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|73.85||0.743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-183.11|133.68|||t-test, 2 sided|||||133.68|-183.11|.743
90845126|NCT04073225|181556535|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.13||0.731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.91|5.71|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.71|-7.91|0.731
90859719|NCT03673046|181582876|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.8847|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.676||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2237|-2.5458||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons because this was a pre-specified secondary endpoint comparison. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was alpha=.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures were modeled with an auto-correlation with heterogeneous variance (ARH(1)) covariance matrix.|The effect is presented as the Smartphone-delivered CBT for BDD group outcome compared to the 12-week waitlist control group outcome at the trial end-point (week 12).|Null hypothesis: there is no significant difference in SDS total scores between the treatment groups at endpoint (week 12).||-2.5458|-9.2237|.0008
91077897|NCT02913105|182041137|OTHER|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.89||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|0.94|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||HDL Cholesterol: Day 14||0.94|0.84|0.0005
91077898|NCT02913105|182041137|OTHER|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.91||||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.86|0.96|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||HDL Cholesterol: Day 28||0.96|0.86|0.0062
91094166|NCT02469233|182072489|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-0.02||||0.96|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||WT mean: Treatment effect on change from pre to 6-month follow-up.||||0.96
90845127|NCT05407064|181556536|SUPERIORITY|Mean change from baseline and mean difference between MM120 dose groups and placebo were estimated using model averaging method (of 3 models). The minimally efficacious dose was defined as a placebo-adjusted improvement of 2.5 points on the HAM-A, with a statistical significance set at an alpha level of 0.05.||||||||||||||||The primary endpoint was evaluated by determining if there was a dose-response relationship between the change from baseline to Week 4 in total HAM-A score and the dose administered using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) methodology. Several candidate parametric models were assumed, and multiple comparison techniques were used to choose the model(s) likely to present the true underlying dose-response curve.|A test statistic was derived from the data using an ANCOVA model with change from Baseline to Week 4 for the HAM-A Total Score as a response variable, treatment arm and Baseline value of HAM-A Total Score as covariates. The ANCOVA model was repeated for each imputed dataset, which resulted in a set of LS mean estimates for all dose groups and the related covariance matrices. Rubin's rule was used to combine the multiple sets of LS mean estimates and the related covariance matrices to a single set of LS mean estimates of change from Baseline to Week 4 for HAM-A Total Score for all dose groups and the related covariance matrix. The SAS procedure PROC MIANALYZE was used to combine the results from imputed datasets.|||
91094167|NCT02469233|182072489|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-0.39||||0.047|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||WT variability: Treatment effect on change from pre to post, which is 9-14 weeks after the beginning of treatment.||||0.047
90845128|NCT05407064|181556537|SUPERIORITY|Mean change from baseline and mean difference between MM120 dose groups and placebo were estimated using model averaging method (of 3 models). The minimally efficacious dose was defined as a placebo-adjusted improvement of 2.5 points on the HAM-A, with a statistical significance set at an alpha level of 0.05.||||||||||||||||The primary endpoint was evaluated by determining if there was a dose-response relationship between the change from baseline to Week 8 in total HAM-A score and the dose administered using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) methodology. Several candidate parametric models were assumed, and multiple comparison techniques were used to choose the model(s) likely to present the true underlying dose-response curve.|A test statistic was derived from the data using an ANCOVA model with change from Baseline to Week 8 for the HAM-A Total Score as a response variable, treatment arm and Baseline value of HAM-A Total Score as covariates. The ANCOVA model was repeated for each imputed dataset, which resulted in a set of LS mean estimates for all dose groups and the related covariance matrices. Rubin's rule was used to combine the multiple sets of LS mean estimates and the related covariance matrices to a single set of LS mean estimates of change from Baseline to Week 8 for HAM-A Total Score for all dose groups and the related covariance matrix. The SAS procedure PROC MIANALYZE was used to combine the results from imputed datasets.|||
90845129|NCT05407064|181556538|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1157|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline: ANCOVA determination of Least Squares (LS) Mean and difference in LS Mean from placebo||||0.1157
90845130|NCT05407064|181556538|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.663|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline: ANCOVA determination of Least Squares (LS) Mean and difference in LS Mean from placebo||||0.6630
90845131|NCT05407064|181556538|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline: ANCOVA determination of Least Squares (LS) Mean and difference in LS Mean from placebo||||0.0004
90845132|NCT05407064|181556538|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline: ANCOVA determination of Least Squares (LS) Mean and difference in LS Mean from placebo||||0.0100
90845133|NCT05407064|181556539|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2309|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline: ANCOVA determination of Least Squares (LS) Mean and difference in LS Mean from placebo||||0.2309
90845134|NCT05407064|181556539|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7218|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline: ANCOVA determination of Least Squares (LS) Mean and difference in LS Mean from placebo||||0.7218
90845135|NCT05407064|181556539|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0637|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline: ANCOVA determination of Least Squares (LS) Mean and difference in LS Mean from placebo||||0.0637
90845136|NCT05407064|181556539|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0216|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline: ANCOVA determination of Least Squares (LS) Mean and difference in LS Mean from placebo||||0.0216
90845137|NCT05407064|181556540|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1006|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline: ANCOVA determination of Least Squares (LS) Mean and difference in LS Mean from placebo||||0.1006
90845138|NCT05407064|181556540|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2225|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline: ANCOVA determination of Least Squares (LS) Mean and difference in LS Mean from placebo||||0.2225
90845139|NCT05407064|181556540|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0025|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline: ANCOVA determination of Least Squares (LS) Mean and difference in LS Mean from placebo||||0.0025
90845140|NCT05407064|181556540|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0042|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline: ANCOVA determination of Least Squares (LS) Mean and difference in LS Mean from placebo||||0.0042
90845141|NCT05407064|181556541|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6258|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total MADRS scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test)||||0.6258
90845142|NCT05407064|181556541|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total MADRS scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test)||||0.95
90845143|NCT05407064|181556541|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0174|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total MADRS scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test)||||0.0174
90845144|NCT05407064|181556541|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0206|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total MADRS scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test)||||0.0206
91094168|NCT02469233|182072489|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|0.2||||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||WT variability: Treatment effect on change from pre to 6-month follow-up.||||0.30
90845145|NCT05407064|181556542|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5538|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Assessment of change from baseline in total MADRS scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test)||||0.5538
90845146|NCT05407064|181556542|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.665|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total MADRS scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test)||||0.6650
90845147|NCT05407064|181556542|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total MADRS scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test)||||0.0190
91029395|NCT00865709|181942782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.829||||0.1437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.586|1.174||1-sided p-value from stratified log-rank test, stratified by factors of # metastatic sites and liver metastasis determined by Principal Investigator|Log Rank||The relative risk (sorafenib to placebo) was estimated by the hazard ratio from stratified Cox regression with a 95% confidence interval.|A sample size of 120 PDs would provide a \> 85% power at a target HR = 0.65 between sorafenib and matching placebo, with a 1-sided alpha = 0.10, for testing H0: HR ≥ 1 versus H1: HR \< 1 based on the log-rank test. The test was conducted using the intent-to-treat (ITT) population (all subjects who were randomized).||1.174|0.586|0.1437
91029396|NCT00865709|181942783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023||95.0||||1-sided p-value from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusting for the stratification factors of # metastatic sites and liver metastasis determined by Principal Investigator|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The proportion of subjects achieving overall response (CR or PR), when confirmation of response was not required, was estimated with a 95% confidence interval for each treatment group. The treatment groups were compared with respect to overall response rate using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusting for the stratification factors.||||0.023
91029397|NCT00429923|181942785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0014||95.0|||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.0014
91029398|NCT03740165|181942824|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.83||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary) and bevacizumab use (Yes vs No)|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling; treatment as covariate stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary) and bevacizumab use (Yes vs No)|||0.83|0.53|0.0002
91029399|NCT03740165|181942824|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.3339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.19||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary) and bevacizumab use (Yes vs No)|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling; treatment as covariate stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary) and bevacizumab use (Yes vs No)|||1.19|0.77|0.3339
91029400|NCT03740165|181942825|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.84||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary), bevacizumab use (Yes vs No), and PD-L1 CPS (\<10 vs ≥10)|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling; treatment as covariate stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary), bevacizumab use (Yes vs No), and PD-L1 CPS (\<10 vs ≥10)|||0.84|0.61|<0.0001
90845148|NCT05407064|181556542|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0034|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total MADRS scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test)||||0.0034
90898706|NCT03324880|181663288|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-14.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.52|=|0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.9|0.7||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM|||Percent Impairment While Working Due to Problem|MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in WPAI score as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect with adjustment for baseline WPAI score.|0.7|-29.9|=0.031
91029401|NCT03740165|181942825|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.5527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.18||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary), bevacizumab use (Yes vs No), and PD-L1 CPS (\<10 vs ≥10)|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling; treatment as covariate stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary), bevacizumab use (Yes vs No), and PD-L1 CPS (\<10 vs ≥10)|||1.18|0.87|0.5527
91029402|NCT03740165|181942826|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.4314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.27||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary) and bevacizumab use (Yes vs No)|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling; treatment as covariate stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary) and bevacizumab use (Yes vs No)|||1.27|0.75|0.4314
91029403|NCT03740165|181942826|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.3107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.22||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary) and bevacizumab use (Yes vs No)|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling; treatment as covariate stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary) and bevacizumab use (Yes vs No)|||1.22|0.72|0.3107
91029404|NCT03740165|181942827|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.6716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.25||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary), bevacizumab use (Yes vs No), and PD-L1 CPS (\<10 vs ≥10)|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling; treatment as covariate stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary), bevacizumab use (Yes vs No), and PD-L1 CPS (\<10 vs ≥10)|||1.25|0.87|0.6716
90845149|NCT05407064|181556543|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7236|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Assessment of change from baseline in total CGI-S scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test)||||0.7236
90845150|NCT05407064|181556543|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9738|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Assessment of change from baseline in total CGI-S scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test)||||0.9738
90845151|NCT05407064|181556543|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0338|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Assessment of change from baseline in total CGI-S scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test)||||0.0338
90845152|NCT05407064|181556543|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0282|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Assessment of change from baseline in total CGI-S scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test)||||0.0282
90845153|NCT05407064|181556544|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9302|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total MADRS scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.9302
90845154|NCT05407064|181556544|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6763|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total MADRS scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.6763
90845155|NCT05407064|181556544|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0816|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total MADRS scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.0816
90898707|NCT03324880|181663288|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-14.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.146|=|0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.42|-2.39||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM|||Percent Overall Work Impairment Due to Problem|MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in WPAI score as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect with adjustment for baseline WPAI score.|-2.39|-27.42|=0.011
90898708|NCT03324880|181663288|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-13.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.78|=|0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.5|-1.5||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM|||Percent Activity Impairment Due to Problem|MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in WPAI score as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect with adjustment for baseline WPAI score.|-1.5|-24.5|=0.014
90898709|NCT03324880|181663289|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|=|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.1||1-sided p-value|MMRM||||MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in PGI-S score as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect with adjustment for baseline PGI-S score.|-0.1|-1.0|=0.010
91029405|NCT03740165|181942827|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.7448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.27||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary), bevacizumab use (Yes vs No), and PD-L1 CPS (\<10 vs ≥10)|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling; treatment as covariate stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary), bevacizumab use (Yes vs No), and PD-L1 CPS (\<10 vs ≥10)|||1.27|0.89|0.7448
91094169|NCT02469233|182072490|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-4.42||||0.66|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||TWT mean (min): Treatment effect on change from pre to post, which is 9-14 weeks after the beginning of treatment.||||0.66
91094170|NCT02469233|182072490|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-13.34||||0.19|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||TWT mean (min): Treatment effect on change from pre to 6-month follow-up.||||0.19
91094171|NCT02469233|182072490|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-0.05||||0.77|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||TWT variability (min): Treatment effect on change from pre to post, which is 9-14 weeks after the beginning of treatment.||||0.77
91094172|NCT02469233|182072490|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-0.22||||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||TWT variability (min): Treatment effect on change from pre to 6-month follow-up.||||0.20
90845156|NCT05407064|181556544|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total MADRS scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.0190
90845157|NCT05407064|181556545|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5647|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total MADRS scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.5647
90845158|NCT05407064|181556545|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3497|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total MADRS scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.3497
90845159|NCT05407064|181556545|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0229|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total MADRS scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.0229
90845160|NCT05407064|181556545|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0073|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total MADRS scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.0073
90845161|NCT05407064|181556546|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0158|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total CGI-S scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.0158
90845162|NCT05407064|181556546|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0429|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total CGI-S scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.0429
90845163|NCT05407064|181556546|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total CGI-S scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.0001
91094173|NCT00855582|182072542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58|<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed using a Dunnett-Bonferroni gatekeeping procedure for multiple hypothesis testing. The pre-specified alpha level of 0.0271 was used.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||<0.001
90898710|NCT03324880|181663291|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.01|||=|0.516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.05|||ANCOVA|From an Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment group (rhPTH(l-84), placebo) as the predictor and Baseline score as a covariate.||Detection||0.05|-0.03|=0.516
90898711|NCT03324880|181663291|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.02|||=|0.275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.06|||ANCOVA|From an ANCOVA with treatment group (rhPTH(l-84), placebo) as the predictor and Baseline score as a covariate.||Identification||0.06|-0.02|=0.275
91029406|NCT03740165|181942828|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.86||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary) and bevacizumab use (Yes vs No)|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling; treatment as covariate stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary) and bevacizumab use (Yes vs No)|||0.86|0.50|0.0012
91029407|NCT03740165|181942828|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.4366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.27||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary) and bevacizumab use (Yes vs No)|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling; treatment as covariate stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary) and bevacizumab use (Yes vs No)|||1.27|0.75|0.4366
91029408|NCT03740165|181942829|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.89||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary), bevacizumab use (Yes vs No), and PD-L1 CPS (\<10 vs ≥10)|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling; treatment as covariate stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary), bevacizumab use (Yes vs No), and PD-L1 CPS (\<10 vs ≥10)|||0.89|0.61|0.0008
91029409|NCT03740165|181942829|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.7174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.27||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary), bevacizumab use (Yes vs No), and PD-L1 CPS (\<10 vs ≥10)|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling; treatment as covariate stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary), bevacizumab use (Yes vs No), and PD-L1 CPS (\<10 vs ≥10)|||1.27|0.88|0.7174
91029410|NCT03740165|181942830|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.0228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.0||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary) and bevacizumab use (Yes vs No)|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling; treatment as covariate stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary) and bevacizumab use (Yes vs No)|||1.00|0.62|0.0228
90845164|NCT05407064|181556546|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total CGI-S scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.0000
90845165|NCT05407064|181556547|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0804|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total CGI-S scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.0804
90845166|NCT05407064|181556547|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0532|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total CGI-S scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.0532
90845167|NCT05407064|181556547|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total CGI-S scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.0001
90845168|NCT05407064|181556547|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total CGI-S scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.0000
90845169|NCT05407064|181556548|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2152|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Assessment of change from baseline in total CGI-S scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.2152
90845170|NCT05407064|181556548|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3369|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Assessment of change from baseline in total CGI-S scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.3369
90845171|NCT05407064|181556548|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Assessment of change from baseline in total CGI-S scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.0010
90845172|NCT05407064|181556548|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0046|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Assessment of change from baseline in total CGI-S scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.0046
90845173|NCT05407064|181556549|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4489|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total CGI-S scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.4489
90845174|NCT05407064|181556549|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7326|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total CGI-S scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.7326
90845175|NCT05407064|181556549|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0492|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total CGI-S scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.0492
90845176|NCT05407064|181556549|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0131|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total CGI-S scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.0131
90845177|NCT05407064|181556550|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.333|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total CGI-S scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.3330
90845178|NCT05407064|181556550|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1193|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total CGI-S scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.1193
90898712|NCT03324880|181663291|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.01|||=|0.777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.07|||ANCOVA|From an ANCOVA with treatment group (rhPTH(l-84), placebo) as the predictor and Baseline score as a covariate.||One Card Learning||0.07|-0.05|=0.777
91094174|NCT00855582|182072543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66|<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed using a Dunnett-Bonferroni gatekeeping procedure for multiple hypothesis testing. The pre-specified alpha level of 0.0271 was used.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||<0.001
91094175|NCT00855582|182072544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.181||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed using a Dunnett-Bonferroni gatekeeping procedure for multiple hypothesis testing. The pre-specified alpha level of 0.0271 was used.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||0.181
90845179|NCT05407064|181556550|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0032|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total CGI-S scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.0032
90845180|NCT05407064|181556550|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0127|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total CGI-S scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.0127
90845181|NCT05407064|181556551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0046|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean CGI-I total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test.||||0.0046
90845182|NCT05407064|181556551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0052|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean CGI-I total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test.||||0.0052
90845183|NCT05407064|181556551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean CGI-I total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test.||||0.0000
90845184|NCT05407064|181556551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean CGI-I total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test.||||0.0000
90845185|NCT05407064|181556552|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0567|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean CGI-I total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test.||||0.0567
90845186|NCT05407064|181556552|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0235|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean CGI-I total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test.||||0.0235
90845187|NCT05407064|181556552|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean CGI-I total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test.||||0.0000
90845188|NCT05407064|181556552|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean CGI-I total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test.||||0.0000
90898713|NCT03324880|181663291|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.01|||=|0.831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.05|||ANCOVA|From an ANCOVA with treatment group (rhPTH(l-84), placebo) as the predictor and Baseline score as a covariate.||One Back (ONB)||0.05|-0.04|=0.831
90845189|NCT05407064|181556553|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2632|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean CGI-I total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test.||||0.2632
90845190|NCT05407064|181556553|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2962|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean CGI-I total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test.||||0.2962
90845191|NCT05407064|181556553|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0013|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean CGI-I total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test.||||0.0013
90845192|NCT05407064|181556553|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0547|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean CGI-I total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test.||||0.0547
90845193|NCT05407064|181556554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0937|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean CGI-I total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test.||||0.0937
90845194|NCT05407064|181556554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.823|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean CGI-I total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test.||||0.8230
90845195|NCT05407064|181556554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0032|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean CGI-I total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test.||||0.0032
90845196|NCT05407064|181556554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0129|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean CGI-I total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test.||||0.0129
90845197|NCT05407064|181556555|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1889|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean CGI-I total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test.||||0.1889
90845198|NCT05407064|181556555|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1589|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean CGI-I total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test.||||0.1589
90845199|NCT05407064|181556555|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0008|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean CGI-I total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test.||||0.0008
90845200|NCT05407064|181556555|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0194|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean CGI-I total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test.||||0.0194
90845201|NCT05407064|181556556|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0057|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total PGI-S scores and the difference in means between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.0057
90845202|NCT05407064|181556556|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0168|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total PGI-S scores and the difference in means between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.0168
90845203|NCT05407064|181556556|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0000
90845204|NCT05407064|181556556|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total PGI-S scores and the difference in means between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.0000
90845205|NCT05407064|181556557|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0958|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total PGI-S scores and the difference in means between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.0958
90845206|NCT05407064|181556557|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0544|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total PGI-S scores and the difference in means between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.0544
90845207|NCT05407064|181556557|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0029|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total PGI-S scores and the difference in means between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.0029
91029411|NCT03740165|181942830|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.3935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.22||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary) and bevacizumab use (Yes vs No)|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling; treatment as covariate stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary) and bevacizumab use (Yes vs No)|||1.22|0.77|0.3935
91029412|NCT03740165|181942831|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.0573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.03||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary), bevacizumab use (Yes vs No), and PD-L1 CPS (\<10 vs ≥10)|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling; treatment as covariate stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary), bevacizumab use (Yes vs No), and PD-L1 CPS (\<10 vs ≥10)|||1.03|0.74|0.0573
91029413|NCT03740165|181942831|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.7234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.23||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary), bevacizumab use (Yes vs No), and PD-L1 CPS (\<10 vs ≥10)|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling; treatment as covariate stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary), bevacizumab use (Yes vs No), and PD-L1 CPS (\<10 vs ≥10)|||1.23|0.89|0.7234
91029414|NCT03740165|181942832|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means (LSM)|0.26||||0.8481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|2.97|||t-test, 2 sided||Based on cLDA model with scores as response variable; covariates for treatment by time interaction and stratification factors (debulking surgery \[planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary\], bevacizumab use, and PD-L1 CPS)|||2.97|-2.44|0.8481
91029415|NCT03740165|181942832|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.1||||0.4335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.87|1.66|||t-test, 2 sided||Based on cLDA model with scores as response variable; covariates for treatment by time interaction and stratification factors (debulking surgery \[planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary\], bevacizumab use, and PD-L1 CPS)|||1.66|-3.87|0.4335
91029416|NCT03740165|181942833|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means (LSM)|0.14||||0.9024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|2.44|||t-test, 2 sided||Based on cLDA model with scores as response variable; covariates for treatment by time interaction and stratification factors (debulking surgery \[planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary\], bevacizumab use, and PD-L1 CPS)|||2.44|-2.15|0.9024
91029417|NCT03740165|181942833|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means (LSM)|-0.08||||0.9478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.47|2.31|||t-test, 2 sided||Based on cLDA model with scores as response variable; covariates for treatment by time interaction and stratification factors (debulking surgery \[planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary\], bevacizumab use, and PD-L1 CPS)|||2.31|-2.47|0.9478
90845208|NCT05407064|181556557|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total PGI-S scores and the difference in means between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.0006
90845209|NCT05407064|181556558|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2038|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total PGI-S scores and the difference in means between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test)||||0.2038
90845210|NCT05407064|181556558|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1977|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total PGI-S scores and the difference in means between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test)||||0.1977
90845211|NCT05407064|181556558|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0357|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total PGI-S scores and the difference in means between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test)||||0.0357
90845212|NCT05407064|181556558|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0302|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total PGI-S scores and the difference in means between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test)||||0.0302
90845213|NCT05407064|181556559|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2165|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total PGI-S scores and the difference in means between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.2165
90845214|NCT05407064|181556559|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6868|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total PGI-S scores and the difference in means between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.6868
90898714|NCT03324880|181663291|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|9.93|||=|0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|20.85|||ANCOVA|From an ANCOVA with treatment group (rhPTH(l-84), placebo) as the predictor and Baseline score as a covariate.||Groton Maze Learning (GML)||20.85|-1.00|=0.075
90845215|NCT05407064|181556559|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.135|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total PGI-S scores and the difference in means between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.1350
90845216|NCT05407064|181556559|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0273|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total PGI-S scores and the difference in means between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.0273
90845217|NCT05407064|181556560|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.245|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total PGI-S scores and the difference in means between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.2450
90845218|NCT05407064|181556560|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3461|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total PGI-S scores and the difference in means between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.3461
90845219|NCT05407064|181556560|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.111|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total PGI-S scores and the difference in means between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.1110
90845220|NCT05407064|181556560|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2386|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total PGI-S scores and the difference in means between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.2386
90845221|NCT05407064|181556561|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1475|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean PGI-C total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test.||||0.1475
90845222|NCT05407064|181556561|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0308|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean PGI-C total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test.||||0.0308
90845223|NCT05407064|181556561|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean PGI-C total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test.||||0.0000
91029418|NCT03740165|181942834|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.2644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.17||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by surgery (planned interval debulking versus R0 following primary debulking versus R1 following primary debulking), bevacizumab use (yes versus no), and PD-L1 status (CPS\<10 vs CPS≥10).|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling; treatment as covariate stratified by surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary debulking), bevacizumab use (Yes vs No), PD-L1 status (CPS\<10 vs CPS≥10)|||1.17|0.73|0.2644
91029419|NCT03740165|181942834|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.1953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.14||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by surgery (planned interval debulking versus R0 following primary debulking versus R1 following primary debulking), bevacizumab use (yes versus no), and PD-L1 status (CPS\<10 vs CPS≥10).|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling; treatment as covariate stratified by surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary debulking), bevacizumab use (Yes vs No), PD-L1 status (CPS\<10 vs CPS≥10)|||1.14|0.71|0.1953
91029420|NCT03740165|181942835|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.5188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.3||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary), bevacizumab use (Yes vs No), and PD-L1 CPS (\<10 vs ≥10)|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling; treatment as covariate stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary), bevacizumab use (Yes vs No), and PD-L1 CPS (\<10 vs ≥10)|||1.30|0.77|0.5188
91094176|NCT00855582|182072545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67|<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed using a Dunnett-Bonferroni gatekeeping procedure for multiple hypothesis testing. The pre-specified alpha level of 0.0271 was used.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||<0.001
91094177|NCT00855582|182072546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8|<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed using a Dunnett-Bonferroni gatekeeping procedure for multiple hypothesis testing. The pre-specified alpha level of 0.0228 was used.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||<0.001
90845224|NCT05407064|181556561|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean PGI-C total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test.||||0.0004
90845225|NCT05407064|181556562|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0873|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean PGI-C total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test.||||0.0873
90845226|NCT05407064|181556562|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1702|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean PGI-C total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test.||||0.1702
90845227|NCT05407064|181556562|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean PGI-C total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test.||||0.0007
90845228|NCT05407064|181556562|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean PGI-C total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test.||||0.0001
90845229|NCT05407064|181556563|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4193|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean PGI-C total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test.||||0.4193
90845230|NCT05407064|181556563|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1663|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean PGI-C total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test.||||0.1663
90845231|NCT05407064|181556563|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean PGI-C total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test.||||0.0002
90898715|NCT03324880|181663291|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.57|||=|0.545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|1.27|||ANCOVA|From an ANCOVA with treatment group (rhPTH(l-84), placebo) as the predictor and Baseline score as a covariate.||International Shopping List (ISL)||1.27|-2.41|=0.545
90898716|NCT03324880|181663291|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.55|||=|0.283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|1.56|||ANCOVA|From an ANCOVA with treatment group (rhPTH(l-84), placebo) as the predictor and Baseline score as a covariate.||International Shopping List Test Delayed Recall (ISRL)||1.56|-0.45|=0.283
90898717|NCT03324880|181663292|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.01|||=|0.582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.04||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM|||Detection (DET)|From MMRM with visit, treatment group, and visit treatment group as fixed effects, Baseline score as a covariate, and participant as a random effect. By-participant scores, which are summarized in this table, are derived as the average of the planned at-home assessment values that passed the Completion criteria over 14 days preceding the visit.|0.04|-0.02|=0.582
90845232|NCT05407064|181556563|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0306|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean PGI-C total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test.||||0.0306
90845233|NCT05407064|181556564|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0534|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean PGI-C total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test||||0.0534
90845234|NCT05407064|181556564|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6551|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean PGI-C total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test||||0.6551
90845235|NCT05407064|181556564|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0079|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean PGI-C total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test||||0.0079
90845236|NCT05407064|181556564|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1133|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean PGI-C total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test||||0.1133
90845237|NCT05407064|181556565|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1248|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean PGI-C total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test.||||0.1248
90845238|NCT05407064|181556565|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1788|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean PGI-C total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test.||||0.1788
90845239|NCT05407064|181556565|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean PGI-C total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test.||||0.0030
90845240|NCT05407064|181556565|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0534|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean PGI-C total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test.||||0.0534
90845241|NCT05767749|181556642|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.61||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|14.0|||t-test, 2 sided||Direction = (Lidocaine + epinephrine vs Ropivacaine) minus (Lidocaine + epinephrine vs Bupivacaine)|||14.0|-12.8|0.93
90845242|NCT05767749|181556642|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.73||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|15.8|||t-test, 2 sided||Direction = (Lidocaine + epinephrine vs Ropivacaine) minus (Ropivacaine vs Bupivacaine)|||15.8|-8.3|0.54
90845243|NCT05767749|181556642|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.12||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|15.0|||t-test, 2 sided||Direction = (Lidocaine + epinephrine vs Bupivacaine) minus (Ropivacaine vs Bupivacaine)|||15.0|-8.7|0.60
90845244|NCT04236141|181556653|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|10.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|40.43||||||||40.43|-19.00|
90845245|NCT04236141|181556654|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|7.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.03|36.31||||||||36.31|-22.03|
90845246|NCT04236141|181556655|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|14.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.89|44.46||||||||44.46|-15.89|
90845247|NCT04236141|181556656|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|21.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.44|52.3||||||||52.30|-9.44|
90845248|NCT04236141|181556657|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|17.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|37.4||||||||37.40|-1.69|
90845249|NCT04236141|181556658|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|17.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|37.4||||||||37.40|-1.69|
90845250|NCT04236141|181556659|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|17.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|48.42||||||||48.42|-12.70|
90845251|NCT04236141|181556660|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|14.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.89|44.46||||||||44.46|-15.89|
90845252|NCT04236141|181556661|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.38|60.38||||||||60.38|-10.38|
90845253|NCT04236141|181556662|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|3.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.84|40.98||||||||40.98|-33.84|
90845254|NCT00745849|181556674|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.45
90845255|NCT04838977|181556691|SUPERIORITY||Between group difference|-4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|-0.8||||||The null hypothesis is there is no difference in mean CPSS at 10 weeks in the intervention group versus the control group.||-0.8|-7.6|
90845256|NCT05367492|181556701|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|14.1|||Regression, Logistic|Model fit to data from varenicline and placebo groups only, adjusted for sex and baseline E-cigarette Dependence Inventory score.|Adjusted odds ratio comparing varenicline (numerator) versus placebo (denominator).|||14.1|3.0|<0.001
91029421|NCT03740165|181942835|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.5091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.3||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary), bevacizumab use (Yes vs No), and PD-L1 CPS (\<10 vs ≥10)|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling; treatment as covariate stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary), bevacizumab use (Yes vs No), and PD-L1 CPS (\<10 vs ≥10)|||1.30|0.77|0.5091
90845257|NCT05367492|181556701|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using per Benjamini \& Hochberg (1995) across the primary outcome measure. Effects were deemed significant for p\<0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Omnibus tests for any difference in abstinence rates across study groups, based on χ² Wald statistic and adjusted for sex and baseline ECDI score.||||||<0.001
90845258|NCT05367492|181556702|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|12.3||Benjamini-Hochberg multiplicity correction applied to p-values reported across family of five secondary analysis results (Varenicline vs Placebo comparisons of secondary abstinence outcomes, and omnibus tests of all three abstinence outcomes).|Regression, Logistic|Model fit to data from varenicline and placebo groups only, adjusted for sex and baseline E-cigarette Dependence Inventory score.|Adjusted odds ratio comparing varenicline (numerator) versus placebo (denominator).|||12.3|3.1|<0.001
90845259|NCT05367492|181556702|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Benjamini-Hochberg multiplicity correction applied to p-values reported across family of five secondary analysis results (Varenicline vs Placebo comparisons of secondary abstinence outcomes, and omnibus tests of all three abstinence outcomes).|Regression, Logistic|Omnibus tests for any difference in abstinence rates across study groups, based on χ² Wald statistic and adjusted for sex and baseline ECDI score.||||||<0.001
90845260|NCT05367492|181556703|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|16.9||Benjamini-Hochberg multiplicity correction applied to p-values reported across family of five secondary analysis results (Varenicline vs Placebo comparisons of secondary abstinence outcomes, and omnibus tests of all three abstinence outcomes).|Regression, Logistic|Model fit to data from varenicline and placebo groups only, adjusted for sex and baseline E-cigarette Dependence Inventory score.|Adjusted odds ratio comparing varenicline (numerator) versus placebo (denominator).|||16.9|2.1|0.001
90845261|NCT05367492|181556703|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Benjamini-Hochberg multiplicity correction applied to p-values reported across family of five secondary analysis results (Varenicline vs Placebo comparisons of secondary abstinence outcomes, and omnibus tests of all three abstinence outcomes).|Regression, Logistic|Omnibus tests for any difference in abstinence rates across study groups, based on χ² Wald statistic and adjusted for sex and baseline ECDI score.||||||<0.001
90845262|NCT05367492|181556704|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.88||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.93|-0.83||Benjamini-Hochberg multiplicity correction applied to p-values reported across family of three secondary analysis results (Varenicline vs Placebo comparisons of secondary inventory outcomes).|Regression, Linear|Models fit to data from varenicline and placebo groups only using GEE, adjusted for sex, baseline ECDI and outcome score, and quadratic trend of time.|Adjusted mean difference comparing varenicline versus placebo. Negative indicates larger mean in placebo.|||-0.83|-2.93|0.001
90845263|NCT05367492|181556704|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Benjamini-Hochberg multiplicity correction applied to p-values reported across family of three secondary analysis results (Varenicline vs Placebo comparisons of secondary inventory outcomes).|Regression, Linear|Models fit using GEE, adjusted for sex, baseline ECDI and outcome score, and quadratic time. Omnibus Wald test of any difference across study group.||||||<0.001
90845264|NCT05367492|181556705|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.08|-4.45||Benjamini-Hochberg multiplicity correction applied to p-values reported across family of three secondary analysis results (Varenicline vs Placebo comparisons of secondary inventory outcomes).|Regression, Linear|Models fit to data from varenicline and placebo groups only using GEE, adjusted for sex, baseline ECDI and outcome score, and quadratic trend of time.|Adjusted mean difference comparing varenicline versus placebo. Negative indicates larger mean in placebo.|||-4.45|-9.08|<0.001
91094178|NCT00855582|182072547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed using a Dunnett-Bonferroni gatekeeping procedure for multiple hypothesis testing. The pre-specified alpha level of 0.0228 was used.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||<0.001
91094179|NCT00855582|182072548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.85|<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed using a Dunnett-Bonferroni gatekeeping procedure for multiple hypothesis testing. Based on the results of prior tests under this procedure, the statistical significance of this hypothesis was not assessed.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||<0.001
91094180|NCT00855582|182072549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.156||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed using a Dunnett-Bonferroni gatekeeping procedure for multiple hypothesis testing. Based on the results of prior tests under this procedure, the statistical significance of this hypothesis was not assessed.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||0.156
91094181|NCT00855582|182072550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.226||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||0.226
91094182|NCT00855582|182072550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||<0.001
90898718|NCT03324880|181663292|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.01|||=|0.492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.04||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM|||Identification (IDN)|From MMRM with visit, treatment group, and visit treatment group as fixed effects, Baseline score as a covariate, and participant as a random effect. By-participant scores, which are summarized in this table, are derived as the average of the planned at-home assessment values that passed the Completion criteria over 14 days preceding the visit.|0.04|-0.02|=0.492
91029422|NCT03740165|181942836|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.79||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary) and bevacizumab use (Yes vs No)|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling; treatment as covariate stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary) and bevacizumab use (Yes vs No)|||0.79|0.51|<0.0001
91094183|NCT00855582|182072551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.121||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value is for change from Baseline at Week 4. Change= Week 4 minus Baseline|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||0.121
91094184|NCT00855582|182072551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.169||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value is for change from Baseline at Week 8. Change= Week 8 minus Baseline|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||0.169
91094185|NCT00855582|182072551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52|<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value is for change from Baseline at Week 4. Change= Week 4 minus Baseline|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||<0.001
91104147|NCT04003389|182094790|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023||0.042||95.0|0.002|0.094||The LSM, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline at the Week 52 timepoint as response, treatment and smoking status (current vs former/never) as fixed effects with baseline weight and baseline as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Hip (Femur)||0.094|0.002|0.042
91104148|NCT04003389|182094790|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023||0.386||95.0|-0.025|0.065||The LSM, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline at the Week 52 timepoint as response, treatment and smoking status (current vs former/never) as fixed effects with baseline weight and baseline as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Hip (Femur)||0.065|-0.025|0.386
91104149|NCT04003389|182094790|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.041|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029||0.156||95.0|-0.016|0.099||The LSM, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline at the Week 52 timepoint as response, treatment and smoking status (current vs former/never) as fixed effects with baseline weight and baseline as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Hip (Trochanter)||0.099|-0.016|0.156
91104150|NCT04003389|182094790|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.028|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029||0.328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.028|0.084||The LSM, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline at the Week 52 timepoint as response, treatment and smoking status (current vs former/never) as fixed effects with baseline weight and baseline as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Hip (Trochanter)||0.084|-0.028|0.328
91104151|NCT04003389|182094791|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.004||0.497||95.0|-0.005|0.009||The LSM, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline at the Week 52 timepoint as response, treatment and smoking status (current vs former/never) as fixed effects with baseline weight and baseline as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||0.009|-0.005|0.497
91104152|NCT04003389|182094791|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.004||0.878||95.0|-0.007|0.006||The LSM, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline at the Week 52 timepoint as response, treatment and smoking status (current vs former/never) as fixed effects with baseline weight and baseline as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||0.006|-0.007|0.878
91104153|NCT04003389|182094792|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031||0.527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.042|0.082||The LSM, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline at the Week 52 timepoint as response, treatment and smoking status (current vs former/never) as fixed effects with baseline weight and baseline as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||0.082|-0.042|0.527
91104154|NCT04003389|182094792|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031||0.872||95.0|-0.066|0.056||The LSM, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline at the Week 52 timepoint as response, treatment and smoking status (current vs former/never) as fixed effects with baseline weight and baseline as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||0.056|-0.066|0.872
91104155|NCT03769116|182094800|OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann treatment diff|6.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.08|12.58|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Analysis conducted on changes from baseline.||12.58|2.08|< 0.0001
91104156|NCT03769116|182094801|OTHER||LSM Change Difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|=|0.373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.7|||Mixed-model for Repeated Measures|||||2.7|-1.0|= 0.3730
91104157|NCT03769116|182094809|OTHER||LSM Change Difference|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|=|0.0172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|4.4|||Mixed-model for Repeated Measures|||Change from baseline - Age Group: 4-5 years old||4.4|0.5|= 0.0172
91104158|NCT03769116|182094809|OTHER||LSM Change Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|=|0.5384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|1.6|||Mixed-model for Repeated Measures|||Change from baseline - Age Group: 6-7 years old||1.6|-3.0|= 0.5384
91104159|NCT02514746|182094820|OTHER||Difference (Group A - B)|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|4.5||||||Difference at Year 3||4.5|-7.5|
91104160|NCT02514746|182094820|OTHER||Difference (Group A - B)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|6.5||||||Difference at Year 4||6.5|-7.4|
91104161|NCT02514746|182094821|OTHER||GMT Ratio (Group A/B)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.1||||||Geometric mean titer ratio at Year 3||1.1|0.9|
91104162|NCT02514746|182094821|OTHER||GMT Ratio (Group A/B)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.1||||||Geometric mean titer ratio at Year 4||1.1|0.9|
91104163|NCT02514746|182094822|OTHER||Difference (Group A - B)|-3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|2.8||||||Difference at 7 days post booster vaccination||2.8|-8.1|
91104164|NCT02514746|182094822|OTHER||Difference (Group A - B)|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|3.0||||||Difference at 28 days post booster vaccination||3.0|-3.3|
91104165|NCT02514746|182094823|OTHER||GMT Ratio (Group A/B)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.0||||||Geometric mean titer ratio 7 days after booster dose||1.0|0.5|
91104166|NCT02514746|182094823|OTHER||GMT Ratio (Group A/B)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.9||||||Geometric mean titer ratio 28 days after booster dose||0.9|0.6|
91104167|NCT02514746|182094824|OTHER||Difference (Group A - B)|-2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|4.5||||||Difference at 7 days post booster vaccination||4.5|-8.0|
91104168|NCT02514746|182094824|OTHER||Difference (Group A - B)|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|3.0||||||Difference at 28 days post booster vaccination||3.0|-4.4|
91104169|NCT04003142|182094837|SUPERIORITY|Least squares Mean (LSM), Standard error (SE), Confidence interval (CI), Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM), Change from Baseline (CFB), Dependent variable (dv), Treatment (tr), Week (wk), Baseline (bl), Weight (wt)|Least squares (LS) Mean difference|-1.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.73|-0.91||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||||-0.91|-2.73|<0.001
91104170|NCT04003142|182094837|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46|<|0.001||95.0|-3.45|-1.64||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||||-1.64|-3.45|<0.001
91104171|NCT04003142|182094837|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.049|||||||Hochberg|||||||0.049
91104172|NCT04003142|182094837|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Hochberg|||||||<0.001
90845265|NCT05367492|181556705|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Benjamini-Hochberg multiplicity correction applied to p-values reported across family of three secondary analysis results (Omnibus tests of secondary inventory outcomes).|Regression, Linear|Models fit using GEE, adjusted for sex, baseline ECDI and outcome score, and quadratic time. Omnibus Wald test of any difference across study groups.||||||<0.001
90845266|NCT05367492|181556706|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.78||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.08|-0.48||Benjamini-Hochberg multiplicity correction applied to p-values reported across family of three secondary analysis results (Varenicline vs Placebo comparisons of secondary inventory outcomes).|Regression, Linear|Models fit to data from varenicline and placebo groups only using GEE, adjusted for sex, baseline ECDI and outcome score, and quadratic trend of time.|Adjusted mean difference comparing varenicline versus placebo. Negative indicates larger mean in placebo.|||-0.48|-3.08|0.008
90845267|NCT05367492|181556706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||Benjamini-Hochberg multiplicity correction applied to p-values reported across family of three secondary analysis results (Omnibus Wald test of secondary inventory outcomes).|Regression, Linear|Models fit using GEE, adjusted for sex, baseline ECDI and outcome score, and quadratic time. Omnibus Wald test of any difference across study groups.||||||0.02
90845268|NCT05367492|181556707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.16
90845269|NCT05367492|181556707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.083|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.083
90845270|NCT00353470|181556708|SUPERIORITY||shared parameters model|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|>|0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Power: to detect a between-group effect size of 0.45, for statistical power of 0.80, 56 patients for PFPP or CBT vs. 28 for ART were required. Response rates at termination were calculated by chi-square in the full ITT sample using LOCF.||||>0.16
90845271|NCT00353470|181556708|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.05
90845272|NCT00950859|181556716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|78.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.0|91.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \<400 c/mL or at least 0.7 log10 c/mL below their Baseline value at Day 11.|||91|58|
90845273|NCT00950859|181556716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|96.0||||||95.0|79.0|100.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \<400 c/mL or at least 0.7 log10 c/mL below their Baseline value at Day 11.|||100|79|
90845274|NCT03583385|181556745|EQUIVALENCE|Bio-equivalence Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90% Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.00% - 125.00%.|% Ratio of Geometric Means|103.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.18|112.37||||||||112.37|95.18|
90845275|NCT03583385|181556746|EQUIVALENCE|Bio-equivalence Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90% Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.00% - 125.00%.|% Ratio of Geometric Means|106.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.99|115.19||||||||115.19|98.99|
90845276|NCT04248491|181556838|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.342|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.342
90845277|NCT04248491|181556839|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.035
90845278|NCT04248491|181556841|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.098|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.098
90845279|NCT04248491|181556843|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.192|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.192
90957375|NCT06377488|181794741|SUPERIORITY||Central Posterior Mean Estimate|0.988|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0058|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.974|0.997|||Bayesian beta-binomial model|Bayesian beta-binomial model with correlated binary data||It was calculated using a Bayesian beta-binomial model for correlated data with a reference rate of 0.99 and an intraclass correlation of 0.70, that 140 subjects were required to test for superiority to achieve a minimum statistical power of 96% with 95% central posterior credible interval.||0.997|0.974|
90845280|NCT04248491|181556844|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.157|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.157
90845281|NCT04248491|181556845|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||1.00
90845282|NCT04248491|181556846|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.463|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.463
90845283|NCT04248491|181556847|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.799|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.799
90957376|NCT06377488|181794742|SUPERIORITY||Central Posterior Mean Estimate|0.006|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0047|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.017|||Bayesian beta-binomial model|Bayesian beta-binomial model with correlated binary data||It was calculated that 140 subjects were required to test for superiority to achieve a minimum statistical power of 99% with 95% central posterior credible.||0.017|0.000|
90845284|NCT04248491|181556848|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.757|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.757
90845285|NCT04248491|181556849|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.472|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.472
90845286|NCT04248491|181556851|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.342|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.342
90845287|NCT01068964|181556853|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A non-inferiority margin of 1.5 mmHg was used. That is, if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval for the difference in the mean diurnal IOP change between the two groups (Group 1 minus Group 2) is less than 1.5 mm Hg, then the null hypothesis will be rejected. The study had an 85% power.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.556|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|0.57||||||A non-inferiority test was performed for comparing the change from baseline in mean diurnal IOP at Week 4 between treatment groups. The null hypothesis was that the mean diurnal IOP change at Week 4 for Group 1 was at least 1.5 mmHg greater than that for Group 2. The hypothesis was tested using a confidence interval approach based on a 2-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) model including factors for treatment and investigator.||0.57|-1.68|
90845288|NCT00621348|181556862|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence analysis|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.016|0.93||p value was adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact||The risk ratio is for Group A compared with Group C.|The incidence of hospital-acquired hyponatremia with current standard intravenous fluid therapy was approximately 30%. Sample of 72 patients would be needed in each group to demonstrate the decrease in incidence of hyponatremia (defined as plasma sodium\< 130 mEq/L) to 10%, with a power of 80 percent and alpha error of 0.05. In view of short study period and feasibility it was planned a priori to enroll at least 50 patients in each treatment limb.||0.93|0.016|<0.05
90845289|NCT02474069|181556875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.64||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.07|||ANCOVA|||Logistic regression model: Logit (proportion) = treatment + PASI Score at baseline + PASI score at randomization + error||1.07|0.39|0.087
90845290|NCT02474069|181556876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.28|||ANCOVA|||Logistic regression model: Logit (proportion) = treatment + PASI Score at baseline + PASI score at randomization + error||1.28|0.43|0.281
90845291|NCT01474018|181556887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.004
91094186|NCT00855582|182072551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56|<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value is for change from Baseline at Week 8. Change= Week 8 minus Baseline|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||<0.001
90845292|NCT01474018|181556888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.01
90845293|NCT01474018|181556888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.009
90845294|NCT03462511|181556936|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.4||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|||||Independent variables: study month, study group, their interactions and a person-level random intercept to incorporate clustering.|Regression, Linear|||Based on estimated effect size from our prior feasibility trial, the target enrollment was 87 dyads plus additional 20% to account for attrition before Month 6 or blood transfusions or acute illness rendering HbF levels inaccurate.||||0.067
90845295|NCT03462511|181556937|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We compared the difference in proportion of days covered by hydroxyurea at two timepoints: (1) from the year prior to study entry to 6 months (the end of the active intervention phase of the trial) and (2) from 6 months to 12 months (the sustainability phase of the trial).||||0.60
90845296|NCT03462511|181556938|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|||We hypothesized that, compared to the control group, generic quality of life (QOL) for youth in the intervention group would improve from baseline to 9 months.||||<0.001
90845297|NCT03462511|181556938|NON_INFERIORITY|30% of the standard deviation was used as the non-inferiority margin. For this test generic quality of life (QOL) scores for months 4-9 (efficacy period) were compared to months \>9 (sustainability period).||||||0.04|||||||Regression, Linear|||We hypothesized that the improvement in quality of life experienced by the intervention group would be sustained from month 9 to month 12.||||0.04
90845298|NCT03462511|181556939|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||Regression, Linear|||We hypothesized that, compared to the control group, sickle cell disease specific quality of life (SC-QOL) for youth in the intervention group would improve from baseline to 9 months.||||0.47
90845299|NCT03462511|181556939|NON_INFERIORITY|30% of the standard deviation was used as the non-inferiority margin. For this test sickle cell disease specific quality of life (SC-QOL) scores for months 4-9 (efficacy period) were compared to months \>9 (sustainability period).||||||0.045|||||||Regression, Linear|||We hypothesized that the improvement in sickle cell disease specific quality of life (SC-QOL) experienced by the intervention group would be sustained from month 9 to month 12.||||0.045
90845300|NCT03462511|181556940|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Regression, Linear|||We hypothesized that, compared to the control group, responsibility for self-management concordance for youth-caregiver dyads in the intervention group would improve from baseline to 6 months.||||0.002
90845301|NCT03462511|181556940|NON_INFERIORITY|50% of the standard deviation was used as the non-inferiority margin. For this test youth caregiver concordance for self-management responsibility scores for months 0-6 (efficacy period) were compared to months 6-12 (sustainability period).||||||0.23|||||||Regression, Linear|||We hypothesized that the improvement in concordance between youth and caregivers for self-management responsibility experienced by the intervention group would be sustained from month 6 to month 12.||||0.23
90845302|NCT03001817|181556949|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<0.0001
90845303|NCT03001817|181556950|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<0.0001
90845304|NCT03001817|181556951|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann Method|||||||<0.0001
90845305|NCT03001817|181556952|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5443|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.5443
90845306|NCT03001817|181556953|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann Method|||||||<0.0001
90845307|NCT03001817|181556954|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<0.0001
90845308|NCT03001817|181556955|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<0.0001
90845309|NCT03001817|181556956|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<0.0001
90845310|NCT03001817|181556957|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<0.0001
90845311|NCT03001817|181556958|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4939|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.4939
90845312|NCT03001817|181556959|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<0.0001
90845313|NCT03001817|181556960|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8371|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.8371
90957377|NCT06377488|181794743|SUPERIORITY||Central Posterior Mean Estimate|0.003|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0029|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.011|||Bayesian beta-binomial model|Bayesian beta-binomial model with correlated binary data||It was calculated that 140 subjects were required to test for superiority to achieve a minimum statistical power of 99% with 95% central posterior credible.||0.011|0.000|
90845314|NCT03001817|181556961|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3415|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.3415
90845315|NCT03001817|181556962|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<0.0001
90845316|NCT03001817|181556963|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<0.0001
90845317|NCT03001817|181556964|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<0.0001
90845318|NCT03001817|181556965|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7442|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.7442
90845319|NCT03001817|181556966|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<.0001
90845320|NCT03001817|181556967|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<.0001
90845321|NCT03001817|181556968|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0374|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.0374
90845322|NCT03001817|181556969|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7429|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.7429
90845323|NCT03001817|181556970|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<.0001
90845324|NCT03001817|181556971|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<.0001
90845325|NCT03001817|181556972|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<.0001
90845326|NCT03001817|181556973|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<.0001
90845327|NCT03001817|181556974|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<.0001
90845328|NCT03001817|181556975|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3669|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.3669
90845329|NCT03001817|181556976|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<.0001
91094187|NCT00855582|182072552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value is for change from Baseline at Week 4. Change= Week 4 minus Baseline|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||<0.001
91094188|NCT00855582|182072552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71|<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value is for change from Baseline at Week 8. Change= Week 8 minus Baseline|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||<0.001
91094189|NCT00855582|182072552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59|<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value is for change from Baseline at Week 4. Change= Week 4 minus Baseline|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||<0.001
91094190|NCT00855582|182072552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71|<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value is for change from Baseline at Week 8. Change= Week 8 minus Baseline|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||<0.001
91094191|NCT00855582|182072553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1|<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value is for change from Baseline at Week 4. Change= Week 4 minus Baseline|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||<0.001
91094192|NCT00855582|182072553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0|<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value is for change from Baseline at Week 8. Change= Week 8 minus Baseline|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||<0.001
91094193|NCT00855582|182072553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1|<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value is for change from Baseline at Week 4. Change= Week 4 minus Baseline|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||<0.001
91094194|NCT00855582|182072553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9|<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value is for change from Baseline at Week 8. Change= Week 8 minus Baseline|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||<0.001
91094195|NCT00855582|182072554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.215||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value is for change from Baseline at Week 4. Change= Week 4 minus Baseline|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||0.215
91094196|NCT00855582|182072554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.325||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value is for change from Baseline at Week 8. Change= Week 8 minus Baseline|ANOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||0.325
90845330|NCT03001817|181556977|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<.0001
90845331|NCT03001817|181556978|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<.0001
91094197|NCT00855582|182072554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value is for change from Baseline at Week 4. Change= Week 4 minus Baseline|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||<0.001
91094198|NCT00855582|182072554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.011||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value is for change from Baseline at Week 8. Change= Week 8 minus Baseline|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||0.011
90845332|NCT03001817|181556979|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<.0001
90845333|NCT03001817|181556980|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0509|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.0509
90845334|NCT03001817|181556981|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<.0001
90845335|NCT03001817|181556982|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<0.0001
90845336|NCT03001817|181556983|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<.0001
90845337|NCT03001817|181556984|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<.0001
90845338|NCT03001817|181556985|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0647|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.0647
90845339|NCT03001817|181556986|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0007|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.0007
90845340|NCT03001817|181556987|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1399|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.1399
90845341|NCT03001817|181556988|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0122|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.0122
91029423|NCT03740165|181942836|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.0981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.08||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary) and bevacizumab use (Yes vs No)|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling; treatment as covariate stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary) and bevacizumab use (Yes vs No)|||1.08|0.70|0.0981
91029424|NCT03740165|181942837|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.8||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary), bevacizumab use (Yes vs No), and PD-L1 CPS (\<10 vs ≥10)|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling; treatment as covariate stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary), bevacizumab use (Yes vs No), and PD-L1 CPS (\<10 vs ≥10)|||0.80|0.59|<0.0001
91029425|NCT03740165|181942837|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.1206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.06||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary), bevacizumab use (Yes vs No), and PD-L1 CPS (\<10 vs ≥10)|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling; treatment as covariate stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary), bevacizumab use (Yes vs No), and PD-L1 CPS (\<10 vs ≥10)|||1.06|0.79|0.1206
91029426|NCT03740165|181942838|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.0316||95.0|0.63|1.01||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary) and bevacizumab use (Yes vs No)|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling; treatment as covariate stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary) and bevacizumab use (Yes vs No)|||1.01|0.63|0.0316
91029427|NCT03740165|181942838|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.4441||95.0|0.78|1.24||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary) and bevacizumab use (Yes vs No)|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling; treatment as covariate stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary) and bevacizumab use (Yes vs No)|||1.24|0.78|0.4441
91029428|NCT03740165|181942839|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.0853||95.0|0.76|1.05||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary), bevacizumab use (Yes vs No), and PD-L1 CPS (\<10 vs ≥10)|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling; treatment as covariate stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary), bevacizumab use (Yes vs No), and PD-L1 CPS (\<10 vs ≥10)|||1.05|0.76|0.0853
91029429|NCT03740165|181942839|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.7165||95.0|0.89|1.23||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary), bevacizumab use (Yes vs No), and PD-L1 CPS (\<10 vs ≥10)|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling; treatment as covariate stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary), bevacizumab use (Yes vs No), and PD-L1 CPS (\<10 vs ≥10)|||1.23|0.89|0.7165
91094199|NCT00855582|182072555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.23||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||0.230
91029430|NCT03740165|181942840|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.1029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.08||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary) and bevacizumab use (Yes vs No)|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling; treatment as covariate stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary) and bevacizumab use (Yes vs No)|||1.08|0.71|0.1029
91029431|NCT03740165|181942840|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.8231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.36||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary) and bevacizumab use (Yes vs No)|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling; treatment as covariate stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary) and bevacizumab use (Yes vs No)|||1.36|0.90|0.8231
91029432|NCT03740165|181942841|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.0442||95.0|0.76|1.02||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary), bevacizumab use (Yes vs No), and PD-L1 CPS (\<10 vs ≥10)|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling; treatment as covariate stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary), bevacizumab use (Yes vs No), and PD-L1 CPS (\<10 vs ≥10)|||1.02|0.76|0.0442
91029433|NCT03740165|181942841|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.9565||95.0|0.98|1.31||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary), bevacizumab use (Yes vs No), and PD-L1 CPS (\<10 vs ≥10)|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling; treatment as covariate stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary), bevacizumab use (Yes vs No), and PD-L1 CPS (\<10 vs ≥10)|||1.31|0.98|0.9565
91094200|NCT00855582|182072555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37|<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||<0.001
90845342|NCT03001817|181556989|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0994|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.0994
90845343|NCT03001817|181556990|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0904|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.0904
90845344|NCT03001817|181556991|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4346|||||||non-parametric Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.4346
90845345|NCT03001817|181556992|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1474|||||||non-parametric Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.1474
90845346|NCT03001817|181556993|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0054|||||||non-parametric Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.0054
90898719|NCT03324880|181663292|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.01|||=|0.506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.06||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM|||One Card Learning (OCL)|From MMRM with visit, treatment group, and visit treatment group as fixed effects, Baseline score as a covariate, and participant as a random effect. By-participant scores, which are summarized in this table, are derived as the average of the planned at-home assessment values that passed the Completion criteria over 14 days preceding the visit.|0.06|-0.03|=0.506
90845347|NCT03001817|181556994|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.0002
90845348|NCT03001817|181556995|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<.0001
90845349|NCT03001817|181556996|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0118|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.0118
90898720|NCT03324880|181663292|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.01|||=|0.438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.04||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM|||One Back Test|From MMRM with visit, treatment group, and visit treatment group as fixed effects, Baseline score as a covariate, and participant as a random effect. By-participant scores, which are summarized in this table, are derived as the average of the planned at-home assessment values that passed the Completion criteria over 14 days preceding the visit.|0.04|-0.02|=0.438
90898721|NCT03324880|181663293|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|2.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.871|=|0.991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|3.83||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM||||MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in 24-hour urine calcium excretion as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect with adjustment for baseline 24-Hour urine calcium excretion.|3.83|0.36|=0.991
90898722|NCT03324880|181663294|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.175|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0395|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.254|-0.097||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM||||MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in serum phosphate as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect with adjustment for baseline serum phosphate.|-0.097|-0.254|<0.001
90898723|NCT03324880|181663295|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|4.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.654|=|0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.06|13.22||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM||||From a mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in active vitamin D supplement dose as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect with adjustment for baseline active vitamin D supplement dose.|13.22|-5.06|=0.810
90898724|NCT03324880|181663296|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-331.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|132.56|=|0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-594.6|-67.9||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM||||MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in elemental calcium supplement dose as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect with adjustment for baseline elemental calcium supplement dose.|-67.9|-594.6|=0.007
90898725|NCT03324880|181663299|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|22.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.271|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.83|28.84||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM||||MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in bone turnover biomarkers as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect with adjustment for baseline bone turnover biomarkers.|28.84|15.83|<0.001
90845350|NCT03001817|181556997|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<.0001
90898726|NCT03324880|181663300|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|785.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|113.65|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|559.6|1011.3||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM||||MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in bone turnover biomarkers as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect with adjustment for baseline bone turnover biomarkers.|1011.3|559.6|<0.001
91029434|NCT03740165|181942842|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|5.4||||0.0644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|11.5||One-sided p-value for testing. H0: difference in % = 0 versus H1: difference in % \> 0.|t-test, 1 sided||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by bevacizumab use (Yes vs No)|||11.5|-1.9|0.0644
91094201|NCT00855582|182072556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.191||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||0.191
90845351|NCT03001817|181556998|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<.0001
90845352|NCT03001817|181556999|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2049|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.2049
90845353|NCT03001817|181557000|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<0.0001
90845354|NCT03001817|181557001|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<0.0001
90845355|NCT03001817|181557002|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<0.0001
90845356|NCT03001817|181557003|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<0.0001
90845357|NCT03001817|181557004|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9117|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.9117
90845358|NCT03001817|181557005|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<0.0001
90845359|NCT01640834|181557072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.84||||0.0542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.82|0.14|||t-test, 1 sided|||The mean change on Day 2 from Day 1 in the 24-hour insulin dose for the placebo group was subtracted from each participant's change on Day 2 from Day 1 in the 24-hour insulin dose. This placebo adjusted 24-hour insulin dose was compared within the 100-mg LY2409021 dose group using a 1 sample t-test.||0.14|-11.82|0.0542
90845360|NCT01640834|181557072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.89||||0.0826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.95|1.16|||t-test, 1 sided|||The mean change on Day 2 from Day 1 in the 24-hour insulin dose for the placebo group was subtracted from each participant's change on Day 2 from Day 1 in the 24-hour insulin dose. This placebo adjusted 24-hour insulin dose was compared within the 300-mg LY2409021 dose group.||1.16|-14.95|0.0826
90845361|NCT01640834|181557073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-17.0||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.7|-0.4|||t-test, 1 sided|||Analysis was performed using the percent change in insulin dose, which takes into account absolute differences in individual insulin doses. The mean percent change on Day 2 from Day 1 in the 24-hour insulin dose for the placebo group was subtracted from each participant's percent change on Day 2 from Day 1 in the 24-hour insulin dose. This placebo adjusted 24-hour insulin dose was compared within the 100-mg LY2409021 dose group using a 1 sample t-test.||-0.4|-33.7|0.0460
91094202|NCT00855582|182072556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||<0.001
91094203|NCT00855582|182072557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.763||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||0.763
91094204|NCT00855582|182072557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.075||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||0.075
90845362|NCT01640834|181557073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-19.6||||0.0192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.0|-4.3|||t-test, 1 sided|||Analysis was performed using the percent change in insulin dose, which takes into account absolute differences in individual insulin doses. The mean percent change on Day 2 from Day 1 in the 24-hour insulin dose for the placebo group was subtracted from each participant's percent change on Day 2 from Day 1 in the 24-hour insulin dose. This placebo adjusted 24-hour insulin dose was compared within the 300-mg LY2409021 dose group using a 1 sample t-test.||-4.3|-35.0|0.0192
91094205|NCT00855582|182072558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.384||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||0.384
91094206|NCT00855582|182072558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.082||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||0.082
91094207|NCT00855582|182072559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||<0.001
91094208|NCT00855582|182072559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||<0.001
91094209|NCT00855582|182072560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||<0.001
90845363|NCT01640834|181557078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-46.0||||0.0187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-82.0|-9.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis of the effect of LY2409021 treatment on peak glucose concentration after an intramuscular injection of glucagon (1 milligram).||-9|-82|0.0187
91094210|NCT00855582|182072560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||<0.001
90898727|NCT03324880|181663301|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|56.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.091|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.33|68.53||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM|||Osteocalcin|MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in bone turnover biomarkers as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect with adjustment for baseline bone turnover biomarkers.|68.53|44.33|<0.001
91094211|NCT00855582|182072561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||<0.001
91094212|NCT00855582|182072561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||<0.001
91094213|NCT00855582|182072562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||<0.001
91094214|NCT00855582|182072562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||<0.001
91094215|NCT00855582|182072563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4|<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||<0.001
91094216|NCT00855582|182072563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4|<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||<0.001
91094217|NCT00855582|182072564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6|<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||<0.001
91094218|NCT00855582|182072564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|29.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6|<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||<0.001
90845364|NCT01640834|181557078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-59.0||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-96.0|-23.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis of the effect of LY2409021 treatment on peak glucose concentration after an intramuscular injection of glucagon (1 milligram).||-23|-96|0.0048
90845365|NCT01640834|181557079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4423.0||||0.0278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8256.0|-590.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis of the effect of LY2409021 treatment on area under the glucose concentration curve from time 0 to 2 hours postdose following an intramuscular injection of glucagon (1 milligram).||-590|-8256|0.0278
90845366|NCT01640834|181557079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5187.0||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8371.0|-2004.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis of the effect of LY2409021 treatment on area under the glucose concentration curve from time 0 to 2 hours postdose following an intramuscular injection of glucagon (1 milligram).||-2004|-8371|0.0046
90845367|NCT01387542|181557080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|||||||Friedman test|||||||0.000
90845368|NCT01387542|181557081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.009
90845369|NCT01387542|181557082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.001
90845370|NCT01387542|181557083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.000
90845371|NCT03601117|181557084|OTHER|This is to test for the antidepressant effect of LDLPFC stimulation. Test is change in score from baseline to approximately 48 hours after the final session.|||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<.001
90845372|NCT00130247|181557181|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This two-sided equivalence trial compared the efficacy of 4 and 6 months of treatment. We assumed that the risk of relapse for patients in the 6 month arm was 3.5% and that an absolute difference of 5% (i.e. relapse rate of 8.5%) was clinically meaningful. For a level of significance of 0.05 and 80% power (two sided), we estimated that 284 evaluable subjects per arm were required.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.051||||||95.0|0.01|0.09|||Regression, Cox||Confidence interval for difference of binomial proportions adjusted with Hauck Anderson continuity correction.|Comparison of binomial proportion of relapse: Intention-to-treat||0.09|0.01|
90845373|NCT00130247|181557184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|3.43||||||95.0|0.94|12.5|||Regression, Linear|||Rate of relapse at 1 year. All patients adherent with treatment and remaining in follow-up at 1 year were included in the calculation of the relapse incidence rate.||12.5|0.94|
90845374|NCT00130247|181557184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incident rate ratio|4.52||||||95.0|1.29|15.9|||Regression, Linear|||Rate of relapse at 2 years. All patients adherent with treatment and remaining in follow-up at 2 years were included in the calculation of the relapse incidence rate.||15.9|1.29|
91029435|NCT03740165|181942843|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|3.7||||0.0318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|7.3||One-sided p-value for testing. H0: difference in % = 0 versus H1: difference in % \> 0.|t-test, 1 sided||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by bevacizumab use (Yes vs No) and PD-L1 CPS (\<10 vs ≥10)|||7.3|-0.3|0.0318
90845375|NCT00130247|181557190|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This two-sided equivalence trial compared the efficacy of 4 and 6 months of treatment. We assumed that the risk of relapse for patients in the 6 month arm was 3.5% and that an absolute difference of 5% (i.e. relapse rate of 8.5%) was clinically meaningful. For a level of significance of 0.05 and 80% power (two sided), we estimated that 284 evaluable subjects per arm were required.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.054||||||95.0|0.01|0.1|||Regression, Cox||Confidence interval for difference of binomial proportions adjusted with Hauck Anderson continuity correction.|||0.10|0.01|
90845376|NCT02160899|181557253|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<.001
90845377|NCT02160899|181557253|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<.001
90845378|NCT02160899|181557253|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.044|||||||Exact Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.044
90845379|NCT04473235|181557259|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.799|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.531|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.531
90845380|NCT04473235|181557260|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.627|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in the connectivity between the left hippocampus and left prefrontal cortex.||||0.627
90845381|NCT04473235|181557260|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in the connectivity between the right hippocampus and right prefrontal cortex.||||0.120
90845382|NCT05111301|181557288|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||For Control-IQ Versus Baseline||||0.004
90845383|NCT05111301|181557289|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||For Control-IQ Versus Baseline||||0.004
90845384|NCT05111301|181557290|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||For Control-IQ Versus Baseline||||0.54
90845385|NCT05111301|181557291|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||For Control-IQ Versus Baseline||||0.03
90845386|NCT05111301|181557292|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||For Control-IQ Versus Baseline||||0.001
90845387|NCT05111301|181557293|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||For Control-IQ Versus Baseline||||0.01
90845388|NCT05111301|181557294|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||For Control-IQ Versus Baseline||||0.80
90845389|NCT02785770|181557311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.96||||0.454|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.15|3.07|||Repeated Measures Model|||Moxifloxacin 400 mg versus Placebo, 0.5 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||3.07|-1.15|0.4540
91029436|NCT03049618|181942851|OTHER|||||||0.34|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.34
91029437|NCT03049618|181942852|OTHER|||||||0.34|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.34
91029438|NCT03049618|181942853|OTHER|||||||0.057|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.057
91029439|NCT03049618|181942854|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
91029440|NCT03049618|181942856|OTHER|||||||0.83|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.83
90845390|NCT02785770|181557311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|7.88|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.77|9.99|||Repeated Measures Model|||Moxifloxacin 400 mg versus Placebo, 1 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||9.99|5.77|< 0.0001
90845391|NCT02785770|181557311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|11.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.22|13.44|||Repeated Measures Model|||Moxifloxacin 400 mg versus Placebo, 2 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||13.44|9.22|< 0.0001
90898728|NCT03324880|181663301|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|226.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|33.425|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|160.17|292.98||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM|||Procollagen 1 N-Terminal Propeptide|MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in bone turnover biomarkers as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect with adjustment for baseline bone turnover biomarkers.|292.98|160.17|<0.001
90898729|NCT01412801|181663340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Group Ratios (Serotype Ia)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|98.4|0.71|1.3||||||||1.3|0.71|
91094219|NCT00855582|182072565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6|<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||<0.001
91094220|NCT00855582|182072565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6|<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||<0.001
91094221|NCT00855582|182072566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was adjusted for baseline LUTS severity.||||||<0.001
91094222|NCT00855582|182072566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was adjusted for baseline LUTS severity.||||||<0.001
91094223|NCT00855582|182072567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was adjusted for baseline LUTS severity.||||||0.006
90898730|NCT01412801|181663340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Group ratios (Serotype Ia)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|98.4|0.6|1.09||||||||1.09|0.6|
90898731|NCT01412801|181663340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Group ratios (Serotype Ia)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|98.4|0.63|1.14||||||||1.14|0.63|
90898732|NCT01412801|181663340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Group ratios (Serotype Ib)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|98.4|0.49|1.29||||||||1.29|0.49|
90957378|NCT06377488|181794744|SUPERIORITY||Least-square mean estimate|57.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.7|64.0|||Mixed Model Analysis|The Satterthwaite Method was used for the calculation of the denominator degrees of freedom.|This is the analysis for hyperopes only. Mean estimates were conducted using two-sided confidence intervals (CI) constructed for the least square mean.|It was calculated using a one-sided one-sample mean t-test with a family wise type I error rate of 5% with at least 99% statistical power, that 42 and 55 subjects were required to test for superiority for CLUE vision scores for hyperopes and myopes, respectively.||64.0|51.7|
91094224|NCT00855582|182072567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was adjusted for baseline LUTS severity.||||||<0.001
91094225|NCT00855582|182072568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value is for Question 1.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes terms for treatment group, region and centered-baseline IIEF EF Domain score.||||||<0.001
90845392|NCT02785770|181557311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|8.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.48|10.7|||Repeated Measures Model|||Moxifloxacin 400 mg versus Placebo, 3 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||10.70|6.48|< 0.0001
90898733|NCT01412801|181663340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Group ratios (Serotype Ib)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|98.4|0.65|1.69||||||||1.69|0.65|
90898734|NCT01412801|181663340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Group ratios (Serotype Ib)|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|98.4|0.85|2.06||||||||2.06|0.85|
90898735|NCT01412801|181663340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Group ratios (Serotype III)|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|98.4|0.66|2.07||||||||2.07|0.66|
90898736|NCT01412801|181663340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Group ratios (Serotype III)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|98.4|0.63|1.78||||||||1.78|0.63|
90898737|NCT01412801|181663340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Group ratios (Serotype III)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|98.4|0.52|1.58||||||||1.58|0.52|
90898738|NCT05076149|181663375|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin represents a clinically acceptable loss of effectiveness that margin preserve at least 50% of the treatment effect of the active control (ELX/TEZ/IVA) compared to placebo, where the treatment effect is estimated by the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI)|LS Mean difference|0.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.9|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||||0.9|-0.5|< 0.0001
90898739|NCT05076149|181663376|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-2.8|||=|0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|-0.9|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||||-0.9|-4.7|=0.0034
90898740|NCT05076149|181663377|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|3.16|||Generalized Estimated Equation Model|||||3.16|1.55|< 0.0001
91094226|NCT00855582|182072568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value is for Question 2.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes terms for treatment group, region and centered-baseline IIEF EF Domain score.||||||<0.001
91094227|NCT00855582|182072568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value is for Question 1.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes terms for treatment group, region and centered-baseline IIEF EF Domain score.||||||<0.001
90845393|NCT02785770|181557311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|8.96|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.85|11.07|||Repeated Measures Model|||Moxifloxacin 400 mg versus Placebo, 4 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||11.07|6.85|< 0.0001
91029441|NCT03049618|181942857|OTHER|||||||0.83|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.83
90845394|NCT02785770|181557311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|8.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.96|10.18|||Repeated Measures Model|||Moxifloxacin 400 mg versus Placebo, 8 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||10.18|5.96|< 0.0001
91029442|NCT03049618|181942858|OTHER|||||||0.83|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.83
91029443|NCT03049618|181942859|OTHER|||||||0.47|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.47
91029444|NCT03049618|181942861|OTHER|||||||0.83|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.83
91029445|NCT03049618|181942862|OTHER|||||||0.83|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.83
91029446|NCT03049618|181942863|OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.11
91029447|NCT03049618|181942864|OTHER|||||||0.96|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.96
91094228|NCT00855582|182072568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value is for Question 2.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes terms for treatment group, region and centered-baseline IIEF EF Domain score.||||||<0.001
91029448|NCT01055223|181942866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|1.78|||||Unadjusted Odds Ratio. Reference group: TZD alone.|||1.78|1.13|
91029449|NCT01055223|181942866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.52|||||Adjusted Odds Ratio. Reference group TZD alone. Adjusted: age, liver disease, angina, renal and heart failure, asthma, stroke, epilepsy, RA, antihypertensives, statins, corticosteroids, antiepileptics, benzodiazepines, HRT, bisphosphonates.|||1.52|0.93|
91029450|NCT01055223|181942866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.98|||||Unadjusted Odds Ratio. Reference group: TZD alone.|||2.98|0.78|
91029451|NCT01055223|181942866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|2.89|||||Adjusted Odds Ratio. Reference group TZD alone. Adjusted: age, liver disease, angina, renal and heart failure, asthma, stroke, epilepsy, RA, antihypertensives, statins, corticosteroids, antiepileptics, benzodiazepines, HRT, bisphosphonates.|||2.89|0.74|
90898741|NCT05076149|181663378|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|4.12|||Generalized Estimated Equation Model|||||4.12|2.00|< 0.0001
91029452|NCT01055223|181942866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|22.14|||||Undadjusted Odds Ratio. Reference Group: TZD alone.|||22.14|0.18|
91029453|NCT01055223|181942866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|15.5|||||Adjusted Odds Ratio. Reference group TZD alone. Adjusted: age, liver disease, angina, renal and heart failure, asthma, stroke, epilepsy, RA, antihypertensives, statins, corticosteroids, antiepileptics, benzodiazepines, HRT, bisphosphonates.|||15.50|0.12|
91029454|NCT01055223|181942867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.89|||||Unadjusted Odds Ratio. Reference group: TZD alone.|||1.89|1.05|
91029455|NCT01055223|181942867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.65|||||Adjusted Odds Ratio. Reference group TZD alone. Adjusted: age, liver disease, angina, renal and heart failure, asthma, stroke, epilepsy, RA, antihypertensives, statins, corticosteroids, antiepileptics, benzodiazepines, HRT, bisphosphonates.|||1.65|0.88|
91029456|NCT01055223|181942867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|3.6|||||Unadjusted Odds Ratio. Reference group: TZD alone.|||3.60|0.69|
91029457|NCT01055223|181942867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|3.81|||||Adjusted Odds Ratio. Reference group TZD alone. Adjusted: age, liver disease, angina, renal and heart failure, asthma, stroke, epilepsy, RA, antihypertensives, statins, corticosteroids, antiepileptics, benzodiazepines, HRT, bisphosphonates.|||3.81|0.70|
91029458|NCT01055223|181942867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||||Unadjusted Odds Ratio. Small numbers model didn't converge. Reference group: TZD alone.|||0.00|0.00|
91029459|NCT01055223|181942867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||||Small numbers model didn't converge. Ref grp: TZD alone. Adjusted: age, liver disease, angina, renal and heart failure, asthma, stroke, epilepsy, RA, antihypertensives, statins, corticosteroids, antiepileptics, benzodiazepines, HRT, bisphosphonates.|||0.00|0.00|
91029460|NCT01055223|181942868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.79|||||Unadjusted Odds Ratio. Reference Group: TZD alone.|||1.79|0.92|
91029461|NCT01055223|181942868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.45|||||Adjusted Odds Ratio. Reference group TZD alone. Adjusted: age, liver disease, angina, renal and heart failure, asthma, stroke, epilepsy, RA, antihypertensives, statins, corticosteroids, antiepileptics, benzodiazepines, HRT, bisphosphonates.|||1.45|0.71|
91029462|NCT01055223|181942868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.9|||||Unadjusted Odds Ratio. Reference group: TZD alone.|||1.90|0.10|
91029463|NCT01055223|181942868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|1.54|||||Adjusted Odds Ratio. Reference group TZD alone. Adjusted: age, liver disease, angina, renal and heart failure, asthma, stroke, epilepsy, RA, antihypertensives, statins, corticosteroids, antiepileptics, benzodiazepines, HRT, bisphosphonates.|||1.54|0.08|
90845395|NCT02785770|181557311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|5.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.42|7.64|||Repeated Measures Model|||Moxifloxacin 400 mg versus Placebo, 12 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||7.64|3.42|< 0.0001
90898742|NCT02087501|181663381|OTHER||Sample proportion|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|11.6|||||The CI is calculated based on Clopper-Pearson method|||11.6|0|
90898743|NCT02087501|181663381|OTHER||Sample proportion|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|11.6||||||||11.6|0|
90898744|NCT02087501|181663382|OTHER||Sample proportion|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|88.4|100.0|||||CI is calculated based on Clopper-Pearson method|||100|88.4|
90898745|NCT02087501|181663383|OTHER||Sample proportion|80.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.0|92.0||||||||92|61|
91029464|NCT01055223|181942868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|21.93|||||Unadjusted Odds Ratio. Reference group: TZD alone.|||21.93|0.18|
91094229|NCT00855582|182072569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Ranked ANOVA|||||||0.027
91094230|NCT00855582|182072569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.186||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Ranked ANOVA|||||||0.186
90898746|NCT03682705|181663393|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.03|-0.85|||t-test, 2 sided|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure (MMRM) analysis was conducted, testing the superiority of the combination of upadacitinib 15 mg and elsubrutinib 60 mg compared to placebo at Week 12. Data collected after a participant discontinued study drug was considered as missing. The mixed model included the categorical fixed effects of treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction, prior bDMARD use, and baseline DAS28 (CRP) measurement.||-0.85|-2.03|<0.001
90898747|NCT00094328|181663415|OTHER|One sample t-test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.62||||0.278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.72|1.48|||t-test, 2 sided|||The primary efficacy parameter, change in growth rate (cm/year) after 12 months relative to the baseline growth rate was analysed using a one sample t-test. A 95% 2-sided confidence interval was calculated for the mean change in growth rate.||1.48|-4.72|0.278
90898748|NCT00094328|181663416|OTHER|One sample t-test|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|1.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||The primary efficacy parameter, change in growth rate (SD units) after 12 months relative to the baseline growth rate was analysed using a one sample t-test. A 95% 2-sided confidence interval was calculated for the mean change in growth rate.||1.00|-1.15|0.882
91094231|NCT02832037|182072574|OTHER|Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included fixed, categorical factors of treatment, analysis visit as repeated measures per subject, and treatment by analysis visit interaction, continuous fixed covariate of baseline value and baseline value by analysis visit interaction, subject as random effect, covariance structure= Unstructured.||||||0.0145||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod linear model fit|||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of BI 425809 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 6 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, linear in log, Emax, Sigmoid Emax, logistic, and beta) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.0145
90898749|NCT01874145|181663446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.501|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.101||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.338|0.743||The overall significance level for this study was 5% using 2-tailed test.|Poisson regression model|Natural log of treatment duration was an offset variable; adjusted for baseline EDSS, treatment group, age, sex, # relapses 2 years prior to screening|GA 40 mg/mL TIW treatment group / GA 20 mg/mL QD treatment group.|Adjusted mean estimates were adjusted estimates of event rates within treatment group. The treatment effect parameter estimate was a risk ratio of the GA 40 mg/mL TIW treatment group divided by the GA 20 mg/mL QD treatment group. The p value tested whether the risk ratio was significantly different from 1.||0.743|0.338|0.0006
91029465|NCT01055223|181942868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|12.36|||||Adjusted Odds Ratio. Reference group TZD alone. Adjusted: age, liver disease, angina, renal and heart failure, asthma, stroke, epilepsy, RA, antihypertensives, statins, corticosteroids, antiepileptics, benzodiazepines, HRT, bisphosphonates.|||12.36|0.09|
91029466|NCT01055223|181942869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.88|||||Unadjusted Odds Ratio. Reference group: TZD alone.|||1.88|0.80|
91029467|NCT01055223|181942869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.57|||||Adjusted Odds Ratio. Reference group TZD alone. Adjusted: age, liver disease, angina, renal and heart failure, asthma, stroke, epilepsy, RA, antihypertensives, statins, corticosteroids, antiepileptics, benzodiazepines, HRT, bisphosphonates.|||1.57|0.62|
90845396|NCT02785770|181557311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|3.74||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.64|5.85|||Repeated Measures Model|||Moxifloxacin 400 mg versus Placebo, 24 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||5.85|1.64|0.0036
90845397|NCT02785770|181557312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-0.29||||0.8195|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.38|1.8|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 25 mg versus Placebo: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||1.80|-2.38|0.8195
90845398|NCT02785770|181557312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.54||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.44|6.64|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 100 mg versus Placebo: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||6.64|2.44|0.0004
90845399|NCT02785770|181557313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.14||||0.9146|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.95|2.22|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 25 mg versus Placebo: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||2.22|-1.95|0.9146
90845400|NCT02785770|181557313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|5.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.95|7.14|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 100 mg versus Placebo: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||7.14|2.95|<0.0001
90845401|NCT02785770|181557314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.24||||0.3272|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.84|3.33|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 25 mg versus Placebo: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||3.33|-0.84|0.3272
90845402|NCT02785770|181557314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|4.26||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.16|6.36|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 100 mg versus Placebo: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||6.36|2.16|0.0009
90845403|NCT02785770|181557315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.48||||0.7024|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.57|1.6|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 25 mg versus Placebo: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||1.60|-2.57|0.7024
90845404|NCT02785770|181557315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.26||||0.0768|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.16|4.36|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 100 mg versus Placebo: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||4.36|0.16|0.0768
90845405|NCT02785770|181557316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.97||||0.1201|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.06|0.12|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 25 mg versus Placebo: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||0.12|-4.06|0.1201
91029468|NCT01055223|181942869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||||Unadjusted Odds Ratio. Small numbers model didn't converge. Reference group: TZD alone.|||0.00|0.00|
90845406|NCT02785770|181557316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.21||||0.3424|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.89|3.31|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 100 mg versus Placebo: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||3.31|-0.89|0.3424
90845407|NCT02785770|181557317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.35||||0.287|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.44|0.74|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 25 mg versus Placebo: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||0.74|-3.44|0.2870
90845408|NCT02785770|181557317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.11||||0.9334|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.21|1.99|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 100 mg versus Placebo: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||1.99|-2.21|0.9334
90845409|NCT02785770|181557318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.16||||0.0893|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.24|-0.07|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 25 mg versus Placebo: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||-0.07|-4.24|0.0893
90845410|NCT02785770|181557318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.61||||0.0412|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.71|-0.51|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 100 mg versus Placebo: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||-0.51|-4.71|0.0412
91029469|NCT01055223|181942869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||||Small numbers model didn't converge. Ref grp: TZD alone. Adjusted: age, liver disease, angina, renal and heart failure, asthma, stroke, epilepsy, RA, antihypertensives, statins, corticosteroids, antiepileptics, benzodiazepines, HRT, bisphosphonates.|||0.00|0.00|
91029470|NCT01055223|181942869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||||Unadjusted Odds Ratio. Small numbers model didn't converge. Reference group: TZD alone.|||0.00|0.00|
91094232|NCT02832037|182072574|OTHER|Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included fixed, categorical factors of treatment, analysis visit as repeated measures per subject, and treatment by analysis visit interaction, continuous fixed covariate of baseline value and baseline value by analysis visit interaction, subject as random effect, covariance structure= Unstructured.||||||0.0148||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod linear in log model fit|||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of BI 425809 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 6 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, linear in log, Emax, Sigmoid Emax, logistic, and beta) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.0148
91094233|NCT02832037|182072574|OTHER|Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included fixed, categorical factors of treatment, analysis visit as repeated measures per subject, and treatment by analysis visit interaction, continuous fixed covariate of baseline value and baseline value by analysis visit interaction, subject as random effect, covariance structure= Unstructured.||||||0.0089||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod Emax model fit|Model assumption: 20% of the maximum effect is achieved at 2 mg of BI 425809 .||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of BI 425809 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 6 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, linear in log, Emax, Sigmoid Emax, logistic, and beta) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.0089
91029471|NCT01055223|181942869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||||Small numbers model didn't converge. Ref grp: TZD alone. Adjusted: age, liver disease, angina, renal and heart failure, asthma, stroke, epilepsy, RA, antihypertensives, statins, corticosteroids, antiepileptics, benzodiazepines, HRT, bisphosphonates|||0.00|0.00|
91029472|NCT01055223|181942870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|19.45|||||Unadjusted Odds Ratio. Reference group: TZD alone.|||19.45|1.53|
91094234|NCT02832037|182072574|OTHER|Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included fixed, categorical factors of treatment, analysis visit as repeated measures per subject, and treatment by analysis visit interaction, continuous fixed covariate of baseline value and baseline value by analysis visit interaction, subject as random effect, covariance structure= Unstructured.||||||0.0038||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod Sigmoid Emax model fit|Model assumption: 25% of the maximum effect is achieved at 5 mg and 75% of the maximum effect is achieved at 10 mg of BI 425809.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of BI 425809 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 6 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, linear in log, Emax, Sigmoid Emax, logistic, and beta) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.0038
90845411|NCT02785770|181557319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.34||||0.2892|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.43|0.74|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 25 mg versus Placebo: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||0.74|-3.43|0.2892
90845412|NCT02785770|181557319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.78||||0.0294|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.88|-0.68|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 100 mg versus Placebo: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||-0.68|-4.88|0.0294
90845413|NCT02785770|181557320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.28||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.22|2.78|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 25 mg versus Placebo, 0.5 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||2.78|-0.22|0.1600
90845414|NCT02785770|181557320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.38||||0.0092|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|3.87|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 25 mg versus Placebo, 1 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||3.87|0.88|0.0092
90845415|NCT02785770|181557320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.91||||0.3174|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.59|2.41|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 25 mg versus Placebo, 2 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||2.41|-0.59|0.3174
90845416|NCT02785770|181557320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.31||||0.7344|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.81|1.19|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 25 mg versus Placebo, 3 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||1.19|-1.81|0.7344
90845417|NCT02785770|181557320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.49||||0.5881|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|1.99|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 25 mg versus Placebo, 4 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||1.99|-1.00|0.5881
90845418|NCT02785770|181557320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.82||||0.368|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.32|0.68|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 25 mg versus Placebo, 8 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||0.68|-2.32|0.3680
90898750|NCT01874145|181663448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.101||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.337|0.742||The overall significance level for this study was 5% using 2-tailed test.|Poisson regression model|Natural log of treatment duration was an offset variable; adjusted for baseline EDSS, treatment group, age, sex, # relapses 2 years prior to screening|GA 40 mg/mL TIW treatment group / GA 20 mg/mL QD treatment group|Adjusted mean estimates were adjusted estimates of event rates within treatment group. The treatment effect parameter estimate was a risk ratio of the GA 40 mg/mL TIW treatment group divided by the GA 20 mg/mL QD treatment group. The p value tested whether the risk ratio was significantly different from 1.||0.742|0.337|0.0006
91104173|NCT04003142|182094838|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55|<|0.001||95.0|-2.94|-0.78||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||||-0.78|-2.94|<0.001
90845419|NCT02785770|181557320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.73||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.23|0.76|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 25 mg versus Placebo, 12 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||0.76|-2.23|0.4200
90845420|NCT02785770|181557320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-3.03||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.53|-1.53|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 25 mg versus Placebo, 24 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||-1.53|-4.53|0.0009
90845421|NCT02785770|181557320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|4.46|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.96|5.97|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 100 mg versus Placebo, 0.5 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||5.97|2.96|< 0.0001
90845422|NCT02785770|181557320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|5.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.32|7.33|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 100 mg versus Placebo, 1 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||7.33|4.32|< 0.0001
90845423|NCT02785770|181557320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|4.09|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.58|5.59|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 100 mg versus Placebo, 2 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||5.59|2.58|< 0.0001
90845424|NCT02785770|181557320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.53||||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.02|4.03|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 100 mg versus Placebo, 3 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||4.03|1.02|0.0059
90898751|NCT01874145|181663449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.058|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.206||0.0897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.438|0.322||The overall significance level for this study was 5% using 2-tailed test.|ANCOVA|In addition to treatment group, month (categorical), treatment-by-month interaction and score at baseline were used as covariates.|GA 40 mg/mL TIW treatment group vs. GA 20 mg/mL QD treatment group.|"To control for type 1 errors, secondary variables were analyzed only if analysis of the primary variable was statistically significant. Gate-keeping procedures offered further control with this hierarchy:~1. the rate of ISRs~2. change from baseline to month 4 (change - M4) in MSIS-20 physical wellbeing~3. change - M4 in MSIS-20 psychological wellbeing~4. change - M4 in TSQM-9 convenience~5. change - M4 in TSQM-9 overall satisfaction"||0.322|-4.438|0.0897
91029473|NCT01055223|181942870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|15.86|||||Unadjusted Odds Ratio. Reference group TZD alone. Adjusted: age, liver disease, angina, renal and heart failure, asthma, stroke, epilepsy, RA, antihypertensives, statins, corticosteroids, antiepileptics, benzodiazepines, HRT, bisphosphonates.|||15.86|0.64|
91094235|NCT02832037|182072574|OTHER|Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included fixed, categorical factors of treatment, analysis visit as repeated measures per subject, and treatment by analysis visit interaction, continuous fixed covariate of baseline value and baseline value by analysis visit interaction, subject as random effect, covariance structure= Unstructured.||||||0.0085||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod logistic model fit|Model assumption: 10% of the maximum effect is achieved at 5 mg and 50% of the maximum effect is achieved at 10 mg of BI 425809.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of BI 425809 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 6 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, linear in log, Emax, Sigmoid Emax, logistic, and beta) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.0085
90845425|NCT02785770|181557320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.5||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|4.01|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 100 mg versus Placebo, 4 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||4.01|1.00|0.0063
90845426|NCT02785770|181557320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.45||||0.1138|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.06|2.95|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 100 mg versus Placebo, 8 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||2.95|-0.06|0.1138
90845427|NCT02785770|181557320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.36||||0.6976|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.86|1.15|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 100 mg versus Placebo, 12 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||1.15|-1.86|0.6976
90845428|NCT02785770|181557320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.12||||0.0208|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.62|-0.61|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 100 mg versus Placebo, 24 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||-0.61|-3.62|0.0208
90845429|NCT02785770|181557321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.64||||0.576|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.53|1.25|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 25 mg versus Placebo, 0.5 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||1.25|-2.53|0.5760
90845430|NCT02785770|181557321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.94||||0.4126|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.83|0.95|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 25 mg versus Placebo, 1 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||0.95|-2.83|0.4126
90845431|NCT02785770|181557321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.17||||0.3085|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.06|0.72|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 25 mg versus Placebo, 2 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||0.72|-3.06|0.3085
90845432|NCT02785770|181557321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.99||||0.3889|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.88|0.9|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 25 mg versus Placebo, 3 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||0.90|-2.88|0.3889
90898752|NCT00402337|181663461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0337||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis is that the active treatment group is equal to the placebo group.||||0.0337
91029474|NCT01055223|181942870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||||Unadjusted Odds Ratio. Small numbers model didn't converge. Reference group: TZD alone.|||0.00|0.00|
90845433|NCT02785770|181557321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.57||||0.6192|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.46|1.32|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 25 mg versus Placebo, 4 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||1.32|-2.46|0.6192
90845434|NCT02785770|181557321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.45||||0.0332|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.34|-0.56|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 25 mg versus Placebo, 8 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||-0.56|-4.34|0.0332
90845435|NCT02785770|181557321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.41||||0.7224|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.3|1.48|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 25 mg versus Placebo, 12 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||1.48|-2.30|0.7224
90845436|NCT02785770|181557321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.52||||0.6507|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.37|2.41|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 25 mg versus Placebo, 24 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||2.41|-1.37|0.6507
90845437|NCT02785770|181557321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.72||||0.1366|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.62|0.18|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 100 mg versus Placebo, 0.5 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||0.18|-3.62|0.1366
90845438|NCT02785770|181557321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.81||||0.0153|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.71|-0.91|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 100 mg versus Placebo, 1 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||-0.91|-4.71|0.0153
90845439|NCT02785770|181557321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.88||||0.104|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.78|0.02|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 100 mg versus Placebo, 2 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||0.02|-3.78|0.1040
90845440|NCT02785770|181557321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.51||||0.1924|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.41|0.4|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 100 mg versus Placebo, 3 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||0.40|-3.41|0.1924
90845441|NCT02785770|181557321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.94||||0.0928|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.84|-0.04|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 100 mg versus Placebo, 4 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||-0.04|-3.84|0.0928
90845442|NCT02785770|181557321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.06||||0.0745|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.96|-0.16|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 100 mg versus Placebo, 8 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||-0.16|-3.96|0.0745
90898753|NCT00402337|181663461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis is that the active treatment group is equal to the placebo group.||||0.0010
90898754|NCT00402337|181663461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis is that the active treatment group is equal to the placebo group.||||<0.0001
90845443|NCT02785770|181557321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.01||||0.3836|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.91|0.9|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 100 mg versus Placebo, 12 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||0.90|-2.91|0.3836
91029475|NCT01055223|181942870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||||Small numbers model didn't converge. Ref grp: TZD alone. Adjusted: age, liver disease, angina, renal and heart failure, asthma, stroke, epilepsy, RA, antihypertensives, statins, corticosteroids, antiepileptics, benzodiazepines, HRT, bisphosphonates.|||0.00|0.00|
90845444|NCT02785770|181557321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.07||||0.0734|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.97|-0.17|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 100 mg versus Placebo, 24 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||-0.17|-3.97|0.0734
90845445|NCT02785770|181557322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.8||||0.2588|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.36|1.96|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 25 mg versus Placebo, 0.5 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||1.96|-0.36|0.2588
90845446|NCT02785770|181557322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.14||||0.8465|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.03|1.3|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 25 mg versus Placebo, 1 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||1.30|-1.03|0.8465
90845447|NCT02785770|181557322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.02||||0.1502|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.15|2.18|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 25 mg versus Placebo, 2 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||2.18|-0.15|0.1502
90845448|NCT02785770|181557322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.03||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.19|1.14|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 25 mg versus Placebo, 3 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||1.14|-1.19|0.9700
90845449|NCT02785770|181557322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.18||||0.0947|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.34|-0.02|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 25 mg versus Placebo, 4 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||-0.02|-2.34|0.0947
90845450|NCT02785770|181557322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.2||||0.7759|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.96|1.36|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 25 mg versus Placebo, 8 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||1.36|-0.96|0.7759
90898755|NCT00402337|181663461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis is that the active treatment group is equal to the placebo group.||||<0.0001
91029476|NCT01055223|181942870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||||Unadjusted Odds Ratio. Small numbers model didn't converge. Reference group: TZD alone.|||0.00|0.00|
91094236|NCT02832037|182072574|OTHER|Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included fixed, categorical factors of treatment, analysis visit as repeated measures per subject, and treatment by analysis visit interaction, continuous fixed covariate of baseline value and baseline value by analysis visit interaction, subject as random effect, covariance structure= Unstructured.||||||0.228||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod beta model fit|Assumption:75% of maximum (max) effect at 2mg, 87.5% of max effect at 5mg,25% of max effect at 25mg,max effect at 10mg BI 425809, scalar parameter=26.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of BI 425809 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 6 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, linear in log, Emax, Sigmoid Emax, logistic, and beta) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.2280
91094237|NCT02832037|182072574|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures included fixed, categorical factors of treatment, analysis visit as repeated measures per subject, and treatment by analysis visit interaction, continuous fixed covariate of baseline value and baseline value by analysis visit interaction, subject as random effect, covariance structure= Unstructured.|Difference of adjusted means|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8205||0.733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.332|1.892||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as BI 425809 - placebo.|Secondary analysis. No formal hypotheses were tested.||1.892|-1.332|0.7330
91094238|NCT02832037|182072574|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures included fixed, categorical factors of treatment, analysis visit as repeated measures per subject, and treatment by analysis visit interaction, continuous fixed covariate of baseline value and baseline value by analysis visit interaction, subject as random effect, covariance structure= Unstructured.|Difference of adjusted means|0.137|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8074||0.8655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|1.724||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as BI 425809 - placebo.|Secondary analysis. No formal hypotheses were tested.||1.724|-1.450|0.8655
91094239|NCT02832037|182072574|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures included fixed, categorical factors of treatment, analysis visit as repeated measures per subject, and treatment by analysis visit interaction, continuous fixed covariate of baseline value and baseline value by analysis visit interaction, subject as random effect, covariance structure= Unstructured.|Difference of adjusted means|1.982|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7875||0.0122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.434|3.53||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as BI 425809 - placebo.|Secondary analysis. No formal hypotheses were tested.||3.530|0.434|0.0122
90845451|NCT02785770|181557322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.03||||0.9649|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.13|1.19|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 25 mg versus Placebo, 12 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||1.19|-1.13|0.9649
90898756|NCT02707692|181663499|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-988.0||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2996.3|1020.3|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Primary hypothesis: Participants will have a higher absolute difference in levels of CD4+ T cell-associated HIV RNA transcription seven days after receiving either Pneumococcal or Influenza vaccinations, when compared to seven days after receiving placebo.||1020.3|-2996.3|0.32
90898757|NCT02707692|181663499|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-405.0||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1199.7|389.7|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Primary hypothesis: Participants will have a higher absolute difference in levels of CD4+ T cell-associated HIV RNA transcription seven days after receiving either Pneumococcal or Influenza vaccinations, when compared to seven days after receiving placebo.||389.7|-1199.7|0.31
90898758|NCT02019563|181663509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.34||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|1.49|||Chi-squared|||Radiographic outcomes were compared using univariate repeated measures logistic regression. A binary logistic generalized estimating equation model was used to analyze predictor variables such as age, gender, tooth and treatment provider between the treatment groups.||1.49|.08|.15
90898759|NCT02019563|181663510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.89|||Chi-squared|||Radiographic outcomes were compared using univariate repeated measures logistic regression. A binary logistic generalized estimating equation model was used to analyze predictor variables such as age, gender, tooth and treatment provider between the treatment groups.||1.89|.19|.38
90898760|NCT02019563|181663511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||A binary logistic generalized estimating equation (GEE) model was used to analyze predictor variables such as age, gender, tooth and treatment provider between the treatment groups for radiographic and clinical outcomes.||||.51
90898761|NCT02019563|181663512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||A binary logistic generalized estimating equation (GEE) model was used to analyze predictor variables such as age, gender, tooth and treatment provider between the treatment groups for radiographic and clinical outcomes.||||.64
90898762|NCT02019563|181663513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value represents the survival rate from the Kaplan-Meier survival analysis from 6 to 36 months.|Log Rank|||||||.11
90845452|NCT02785770|181557322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.09||||0.9034|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.08|1.25|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 25 mg versus Placebo, 24 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||1.25|-1.08|0.9034
90898763|NCT00840996|181663524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.23|-0.4||Test for superiority adjusted for 2 primary comparisons (2 outcomes)|Mixed Models Analysis|Llinear mixed-effects accounts for correlation exhibited by the repeated pain measurements on a given patient (spatial power correlation structure).||Postoperative analgesia was characterized using both pain scores and opioid consumption .We considered one of the groups to be better than the other on postoperative pain control with superiority on either outcome, in the presence of noninferiority on both outcomes. Thus, our primary hypothesis was assessed in a joint hypothesis testing framework .||-0.40|-1.23|<0.001
90898764|NCT00840996|181663525|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin: ratio of the geometric means not more than 1.3 greater (mean mg IV morphine equivalent not more than 30% greater ) than that of the other group|the ratio of the geometric means|0.8||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.21||Noninferiority hypotheses were evaluated against a one-sided significance criterion of 0.025 \[adjusting for testing in both directions: lidocaine vs. control and vs. control vs. lidocaine \]|Regression, Linear|Log-linear regression model was used; 0.1 mg added before taking the logarithm to accommodate the 2 patients who received 0 mg opioids.||Postoperative analgesia was characterized using both pain scores and opioid consumption .We considered one of the groups to be better than the other on postoperative pain control with superiority on either outcome, in the presence of noninferiority on both outcomes. Thus, our primary hypothesis was assessed in a joint hypothesis testing framework .||1.21|0.65|0.011
90898765|NCT00840996|181663526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.00|0.84|0.049
91029477|NCT01055223|181942870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||||Small numbers model didn't converge. Ref grp: TZD alone. Adjusted: age, liver disease, angina, renal and heart failure, asthma, stroke, epilepsy, RA, antihypertensives, statins, corticosteroids, antiepileptics, benzodiazepines, HRT, bisphosphonates.|||0.00|0.00|
90845453|NCT02785770|181557322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.68||||0.3391|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.85|0.49|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 100 mg versus Placebo, 0.5 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||0.49|-1.85|0.3391
90845454|NCT02785770|181557322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.19||||0.0948|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.35|-0.02|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 100 mg versus Placebo, 1 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||-0.02|-2.35|0.0948
90845455|NCT02785770|181557322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.74||||0.2959|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.91|0.43|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 100 mg versus Placebo, 2 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||0.43|-1.91|0.2959
90845456|NCT02785770|181557322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.07||||0.9161|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.24|1.09|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 100 mg versus Placebo, 3 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||1.09|-1.24|0.9161
90845457|NCT02785770|181557322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.07||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.24|-0.91|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 100 mg versus Placebo, 4 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||-0.91|-3.24|0.0036
90845458|NCT02785770|181557322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.73||||0.3063|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.89|0.44|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 100 mg versus Placebo, 8 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||0.44|-1.89|0.3063
90898766|NCT00840996|181663527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.09|||Regression, Logistic|||Nausea - POD 2||1.09|0.77|0.31
90898767|NCT00840996|181663527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.14|||Regression, Logistic|||Vomiting - POD 2||1.14|0.94|0.44
91029478|NCT01055223|181942871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|80.35|||||Unadjusted Odds Ratio. Reference group: TZD alone.|||80.35|0.66|
91029479|NCT01055223|181942871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|96.47|||||Adjusted Odds Ratio. Reference group: TZD alone. Adjusted: age, liver disease, angina, renal and heart failure, asthma, stroke, epilepsy, RA, antihypertensives, statins, corticosteroids, antiepileptics, benzodiazepines, HRT, bisphosponates.|||96.47|0.03|
91029480|NCT01055223|181942871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||||Unadjusted Odds Ratio. Small numbers model didn't converge. Reference Group: TZD alone.|||0.00|0.00|
91029481|NCT01055223|181942871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||||Small numbers model didn't converge. Ref grp: TZD alone. Adjusted: age, liver disease, angina, renal and heart failure, asthma, stroke, epilepsy, RA, antihypertensives, statins, corticosteroids, antiepileptics, benzodiazepines, HRT, bisphosphonates.|||0.00|0.00|
91029482|NCT01055223|181942871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||||Unadjusted Odds Ratio. Small numbers model didn't converge. Reference group: TZD alone.|||0.00|0.00|
90845459|NCT02785770|181557322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.49||||0.4918|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.65|0.68|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 100 mg versus Placebo, 12 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||0.68|-1.65|0.4918
90845460|NCT02785770|181557322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.61||||0.3862|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.78|0.55|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 100 mg versus Placebo, 24 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||0.55|-1.78|0.3862
90845461|NCT00813943|181557334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.686||||0.0328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.484|0.972||P-value is not adjusted for multiple testing.|Log Rank|||||0.972|0.484|0.0328
90845462|NCT00813943|181557334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.858||||0.3771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.612|1.204||P-value is not adjusted for multiple testing.|Log Rank|||||1.204|0.612|0.3771
90898768|NCT00840996|181663528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.4|||Regression, Linear|||||0.4|-2.4|0.15
90898769|NCT00840996|181663529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.2||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|10.0|||Regression, Linear|||||10|2.3|0.002
90898770|NCT00840996|181663530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.6||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|8.9|||Regression, Logistic|||||8.9|0.3|0.04
90898771|NCT02991482|181663543|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.76
90845463|NCT00265148|181557364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1334||||0.1695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0583|0.3251|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||For Grey matter||0.3251|-0.0583|0.1695
90845464|NCT00265148|181557364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.175||||0.1057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.038|0.388|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||For posterior cingulate Gyrus||0.3880|-0.0380|0.1057
90845465|NCT00265148|181557364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1426||||0.1833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0691|0.3543|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||For Frontal lobe||0.3543|-0.0691|0.1833
90845466|NCT00265148|181557364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1366||||0.1644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0574|0.3307|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||For parietal lobe||0.3307|-0.0574|0.1644
90845467|NCT00265148|181557364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1259||||0.1509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0471|0.2989|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||For Posterior temporal lobe||0.2989|-0.0471|0.1509
90845468|NCT00265148|181557364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1339||||0.2041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0747|0.3424|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||For cerebellum||0.3424|-0.0747|0.2041
90845469|NCT00265148|181557364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1094||||0.1445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0385|0.2572|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||For medial temporal lobe||0.2572|-0.0385|0.1445
90845470|NCT00265148|181557365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1211||||0.2251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0763|0.3185|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||At Month 1||0.3185|-0.0763|0.2251
90845471|NCT00265148|181557365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0893||||0.2497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0643|0.243|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||For Month 6||0.2430|-0.0643|0.2497
90845472|NCT00265148|181557366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.11||||0.7618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.8|||Repeated measure mixed model|||For BSR test , Month 1||0.80|-0.59|0.7618
90845473|NCT00265148|181557366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.06||||0.835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.66|||Repeated measure mixed model|||For BSR test, Month 6||0.66|-0.53|0.8350
90845474|NCT00265148|181557366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14||||0.6735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.51|||Repeated measure mixed model|||For BSR test, Month 12||0.51|-0.78|0.6735
90845475|NCT00265148|181557367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07||||0.7045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.3|||Repetaed measure mixed model|||For Month 1||0.30|-0.44|0.7045
90845476|NCT00265148|181557367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04||||0.8181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.32|||Repeated measure mixed model|||For Month 6||0.32|-0.40|0.8181
90845477|NCT00265148|181557367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09||||0.7688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.53|||Repeated measure mixed model|||AT Month 12||0.53|-0.71|0.7688
90845478|NCT00265148|181557367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07||||0.681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.26|||Repeated measure mixed model|||Overall||0.26|-0.40|0.6810
90845479|NCT00265148|181557371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.8593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.38|1.99|||Repeated measure mixed model|||At Month 1||1.99|-2.38|0.8593
90845480|NCT00265148|181557371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.44||||0.3201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|4.32|||Repeated measure mixed model|||At Month 6||4.32|-1.43|0.3201
90845481|NCT00265148|181557371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.18||||0.2627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|6.04|||Repeated measure mixed model|||At Month 12||6.04|-1.68|0.2627
90845482|NCT00265148|181557371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.14||||0.3633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|3.64|||Repeated measure mixed model|||For overall period||3.64|-1.35|0.3633
90845483|NCT00265148|181557372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11||||0.5647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.26|||Repetaed measure mixed model|||For overall period||0.26|-0.48|0.5647
90845484|NCT00265148|181557372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.9935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.46|||Repeated measure mixed model|||For Month 1||0.46|-0.46|0.9935
90845485|NCT00265148|181557372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.22||||0.3794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.28|||Repeated measure mixed model|||At Month 6||0.28|-0.72|0.3794
90845486|NCT00265148|181557372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.7357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.49|||Repeated measure mixed model|||At Month 12||0.49|-0.70|0.7357
90845487|NCT00265148|181557375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4971.6||||0.6299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-255515.6|15572.4|||Repeated measure mixed model|Arithmetic means have been presented; however, statistical analysis is based upon the least square (LS) means||At Month 6||15572.4|-255515.6|0.6299
90845488|NCT00265148|181557375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|12223.0||||0.2184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7450.6|31896.5|||Repeated measure mixed model|||At Month 12||31896.5|-7450.6|0.2184
90845489|NCT00265148|181557376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.1|||Repeated measure mixed model|||For Month 6||-0.1|-1.0|0.0129
90845490|NCT00265148|181557376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.5607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.6|||Repeated measure mixed model|||For Month 12||0.6|-1.0|0.5607
90845491|NCT00265148|181557388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1154||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0967|0.3275|||Repeated measure mixed model|||For Grey matter, APOE Epsilon-4 status positive||0.3275|-0.0967|0.2800
90845492|NCT00265148|181557388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1337||||0.4159||95.0|-0.1931|0.4605|||Repeated measure mixed model|||For Grey matter, APOE Epsilon-4 status negative||0.4605|-0.1931|0.4159
90845493|NCT00265148|181557388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1491||||0.2158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0897|0.3878|||Repeated measure mixed model|||For posterior cingulate gyrus, APOE Epsilon-4 status positive||0.3878|-0.0897|0.2158
90845494|NCT00265148|181557388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2346||||0.2087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.135|0.6042|||Repeated measure mixed model|||For posterior cingulate gyrus, APOE Epsilon-4 status negative||0.6042|-0.1350|0.2087
90845495|NCT00265148|181557388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1233||||0.3064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1162|0.3628|||Repeated measure mixed model|||For Frontal lobe, APOE Epsilon-4 status positive||0.3628|-0.1162|0.3064
90845496|NCT00265148|181557388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1734||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1952|0.542|||Repeated measure mixed model|||For Frontal lobe APOE Epsilon-4 status negative||0.5420|-0.1952|0.3500
90845497|NCT00265148|181557388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.13||||0.2487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0937|0.3538|||Repeated measure mixed model|||For parietal lobe, APOE Epsilon-4 status positive||0.3538|-0.0937|0.2487
91094240|NCT02832037|182072574|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures included fixed, categorical factors of treatment, analysis visit as repeated measures per subject, and treatment by analysis visit interaction, continuous fixed covariate of baseline value and baseline value by analysis visit interaction, subject as random effect, covariance structure= Unstructured.|Difference of adjusted means|1.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7884||0.0287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.181|3.28||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as BI 425809 - placebo.|Secondary analysis. No formal hypotheses were tested.||3.280|0.181|0.0287
90845498|NCT00265148|181557388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1038||||0.5521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.244|0.4516|||Repeated measure mixed model|||For parietal lobe, APOE Epsilon-4 status negative||0.4516|-0.2440|0.5521
90845499|NCT00265148|181557388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1384||||0.176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.064|0.3409|||Repeated measure mixed model|||For posterior temporal lobe, APOE Epsilon-4 status positive||0.3409|-0.0640|0.1760
90845500|NCT00265148|181557388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0837||||0.5952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2303|0.3978|||Repeated measure mixed model|||For posterior temporal lobe, APOE Epsilon-4 status negative||0.3978|-0.2303|0.5952
90845501|NCT00265148|181557388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0847||||0.4025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1169|0.2863|||Repeated measure mixed model|||For Cerebellum, APOE Epsilon-4 status positive||0.2863|-0.1169|0.4025
90845502|NCT00265148|181557388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1536||||0.3081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1458|0.453|||Repeated measure mixed model95|||For Cerebellum, APOE Epsilon-4 status negative||0.4530|-0.1458|0.3081
90845503|NCT00265148|181557388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0839||||0.2964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0758|0.2436|||Repeated measure mixed model|||For medial temporal lobe, APOE Epsilon-4 status positive||0.2436|-0.0758|0.2964
90845504|NCT00265148|181557388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1536||||0.2101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0892|0.3963|||Repeated measure mixed model|||For medial temporal lobe, APOE Epsilon-4 status negative||0.3963|-0.0892|0.2101
90845505|NCT04780919|181557391|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.722||||||p-value is adjusted to comparison between the Group A and Group B at 3 weeks follow-up after the last application.|Two-way ANOVA|||The Group A will have significantly decreased Cross Section Area compared to Group B at 3 weeks follow up after last application.||||0.722
90845506|NCT04780919|181557392|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.096||||||p-value is adjusted to comparison between the Group A and Group B in the timeframe of the last application.|Two-way ANOVA|||The maximum pain will decrease significantly more in Group A compared to Group B in the timeframe of the last application compared to baseline.||||0.096
90845507|NCT04780919|181557393|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035||||||p-value is adjusted to comparison between the Group A and Group B at the 3 weeks follow up compared to baseline.|Two-way ANOVA|||The maximum pain will decrease significantly more in Group A compared to Group B at the 3 weeks follow up compared to baseline.||||0.035
90845508|NCT04780919|181557394|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.171||||||p-value is adjusted to comparison between the Group A and Group B at the 3 weeks follow up compared to baseline.|Two-way ANOVA|||The maximum of ankle dorsiflexion range of motion will increase significantly more in Group A compared to Group B at the 3 weeks follow up compared to baseline.||||0.171
90845509|NCT04780919|181557397|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.104||||||p-value is adjusted to comparison between the Group A and Group B in 3 weeks follow up after the last application.|Two-way ANOVA|||The VISA-A score will increase significantly more in Group A compared to Group B at the 3 weeks follow up compared to baseline.||||0.104
90845510|NCT01667419|181557415|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.78|||Log Rank|||||0.78|0.37|0.0010
90845511|NCT01667419|181557415|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.2598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.18|||Log Rank|||||1.18|0.54|0.2598
90845512|NCT01667419|181557416|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58||||0.0133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.9|||Log Rank|||||0.90|0.37|0.0133
90845513|NCT01667419|181557416|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.6815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.44|||Log Rank|||||1.44|0.57|0.6815
90845514|NCT01667419|181557417|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53||||0.0274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.94|||Log Rank|||||.94|0.30|0.0274
90845515|NCT01667419|181557417|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.8597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.66|||Log Rank|||||1.66|0.55|0.8597
90845516|NCT03364270|181557421|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.58||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.84||Threshold p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference in mean 18F-RGD uptake (expressed as a target to background ratio) in the culprit artery (carotid artery implicated in stroke or transient ischemic attack \[TIA\]) when compared to mean 18F-RGD uptake in the contralateral carotid artery. A paired t-test was used to compare 18F-RGD uptake in culprit plaque to plaque in the contralateral artery.||0.84|0.33|.001
90845517|NCT03869216|181557423|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.395|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.916||0.8388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|4.19|||t-test, 2 sided||Intervention - Control|H0:muI = muC||4.19|-3.40|0.8388
90845518|NCT03869216|181557424|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.781|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.588||0.4929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.35|6.91|||t-test, 2 sided|||H0:muI = muC||6.91|-3.35|0.4929
90845519|NCT03869216|181557425|SUPERIORITY|Intervention - Control|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.735|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.932||0.4312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.58|1.11|||t-test, 2 sided|||H0:muI = muC||1.11|-2.58|0.4312
90845520|NCT03869216|181557426|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportions|-0.1548|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.087||0.1216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.342|0.033|||t-test, 2 sided|Chi Square Test gives same results|Intervention - Control|H0: piI = piC||0.033|-0.342|0.1216
90845521|NCT04075734|181557460|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|A linear mixed model for repeated measures was used. The group x time interaction evaluated the effect of the intervention over time.||||||0.59
90845522|NCT04075734|181557460|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|A linear mixed model for repeat measures was used. The group x time interaction evaluated the effect of the intervention over time.||||||0.003
90845523|NCT04075734|181557461|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|A linear mixed model for repeat measures was used. The group x time interaction evaluated the effect of the intervention over time.||||||0.03
90845524|NCT04075734|181557462|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|A linear mixed model for repeat measures was used. The group x time interaction evaluated the effect of the intervention over time.||||||0.07
91094241|NCT02832037|182072575|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. ANCOVA included treatment as fixed categorical factor, and baseline score as continuous fixed covariate.||||||0.066||||||P-value is considered nominal.|MCP-Mod linear model fit|||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of BI 425809 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 6 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, linear in log, Emax, Sigmoid Emax, logistic, and beta) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.0660
90845525|NCT04075734|181557463|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|A linear mixed model for repeat measures was used. The group x time interaction evaluated the effect of the intervention over time.||||||0.2
90845526|NCT04075734|181557464|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|A linear mixed model for repeat measures was used. The group x time interaction evaluated the effect of the intervention over time.||||||0.006
90845527|NCT04075734|181557465|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|A linear mixed model for repeated measures was used. The group x time interaction evaluated the effect of the intervention over time.||||||0.86
90845528|NCT04075734|181557466|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|A linear mixed model for repeated measures was used. The group x time interaction evaluated the effect of the intervention over time.||||||0.14
90845529|NCT04075734|181557467|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|A linear mixed model for repeated measures was used. The group x time interaction evaluated the effect of intervention over time.||||||0.02
90845530|NCT04075734|181557468|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|A linear mixed model for repeated measures was used. The group x time interaction evaluated the effect of the intervention over time.||||||0.29
90845531|NCT04075734|181557469|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|A linear mixed model for repeated measures was used. The group x time interaction evaluated the effect of the intervention over time.||||||0.13
90845532|NCT04075734|181557470|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|A linear mixed model for repeated measures was used. The group x time interaction evaluated the effect of the intervention over time.||||||0.14
90845533|NCT04075734|181557471|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|A linear mixed model for repeat measures was used. The group x time interaction evaluated the effect of the intervention over time.||||||0.03
90845534|NCT04075734|181557472|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|A linear mixed model for repeated measures was used. The group x time interaction evaluated the effect of the intervention over time.||||||0.66
90845535|NCT04075734|181557473|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|A linear mixed model for repeated measures was used. The group x time interaction evaluated the effect of the intervention over time.||||||0.15
90845536|NCT02433080|181557477|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.4||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|16.5|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis applies for the outcomes 2-8.||16.5|-3.6|0.05
90845537|NCT01015638|181557499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||>0.05
90845538|NCT01015638|181557500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Dunn's Multiple Comparisons Test|||||||>0.05
90845539|NCT01015638|181557501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||>0.05
90845540|NCT01015638|181557502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Tukey-Kramer Multiple Comparisons Test|||||||> 0.05
90845541|NCT06011759|181557540|SUPERIORITY|T-test to evaluate the effect of the intervention compared to control sites on reported suicide behavior events in the past 4 quarters that had an SP 2.0 Consult submitted.||||||0.5747|||||||t-test, 2 sided|degrees of freedom = 6||We compared participating sites with similar non-participating sites. Four non-participating sites were selected as matched controls, one for each participating site. Control sites were matched to participating sites on number of suicide behavior events and prevalence of Suicide Prevention Telehealth Program consults submitted at baseline.||||0.5747
90845542|NCT06011759|181557541|SUPERIORITY|T-test to evaluate the effect of the intervention compared to control sites on referrals to the SP 2.0 Clinic.||||||0.8057|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 6||We compared participating sites with similar non-participating sites. Four non-participating sites were selected as matched controls, one for each participating site. Control sites were matched to participating sites on number of suicide behavior events and prevalence of Suicide Prevention Telehealth Program consults submitted at baseline.||||0.8057
90845543|NCT05487196|181557548|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority margin δ was set as the median of fentanyl group + 30 representing a 1-point pain numeric rating scale difference per unit time across the 30-minute initiation period. A conventional 1-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was constructed using normal distribution assumptions. Analysis was by intent to treat. Comparisons of PI-AUC30 between the three agents were made by one-way ANOVA.||||||0.226|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.226
90845544|NCT05487196|181557549|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.16
90845545|NCT05487196|181557550|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.03
90845546|NCT05487196|181557551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.07
90845547|NCT05487196|181557552|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.22
90845548|NCT05487196|181557553|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.28
90845549|NCT05487196|181557554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.83
90845550|NCT05487196|181557555|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.01
90845551|NCT05487196|181557556|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.36
90845552|NCT05487196|181557557|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.36
90845553|NCT05487196|181557558|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.54
90845554|NCT05487196|181557559|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.58
90845555|NCT05487196|181557560|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.98
90845556|NCT05188053|181557561|OTHER|"Sample size calculations were performed to estimate the number of subjects needed to detect a 30% difference in NRS pain AUC scores between the study groups.~30% reduction in pain was considered the minimal clinically important difference in pain control based off previous pain research.~A 30% reduction in pain would correspond with a difference of approximately 136 in area under the curve of mean pain over time."||||||0.17||||||a priori threshold p \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|assuming unequal variance||Two-sample t-test with unequal variance. The null hypothesis is that there was no statistically significant difference between the two treatment groups based on a standard alpha value of 0.05.||||0.170
91094242|NCT02832037|182072575|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. ANCOVA included treatment as fixed categorical factor, and baseline score as continuous fixed covariate.||||||0.1619||||||P-value is considered nominal.|MCP-Mod linear in log model fit|||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of BI 425809 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 6 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, linear in log, Emax, Sigmoid Emax, logistic, and beta) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.1619
90845557|NCT03844945|181557733|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
90845558|NCT01904773|181557748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.0087||||||Bonferroni-Holm adjustment, compared with 0.025|ANCOVA|Each subject received each treatment multiple times in a crossover design||Comparison with placebo||||0.0087
90845559|NCT01904773|181557748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|1.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.1198||||||Bonferroni-Holm compared with 0.025|ANCOVA|Each subject received each treatment multiple times in a crossover design||||||0.1198
90845560|NCT00220779|181557753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.221||||||0.2g/kg IGIV Group versus Placebo|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The primary efficacy comparison was the comparison of the proportions of relapse free subjects (relapse defined as reported, not necessarily confirmed relapse). The multiple test procedure (hierarchical procedure) was to be stopped as soon as one of the statistical tests resulted in a non-significant P value \> 0.05.||||0.221
90845561|NCT00220779|181557753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.471||||||0.4 g/kg IGIV Group versus Placebo|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The primary efficacy comparison was the comparison of the proportions of relapse free subjects (relapse defined as reported, not necessarily confirmed relapse). The multiple test procedure (hierarchical procedure) was to be stopped as soon as one of the statistical tests resulted in a non-significant P value \> 0.05.||||0.471
90845562|NCT04518995|181557754|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.33||P-value was calculated by Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||||0.33|0.23|<0.0001
90845563|NCT04518995|181557754|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.46||P-value was calculated by Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||||0.46|0.32|<0.0001
90845564|NCT04518995|181557755|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.32||P-value was calculated by Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 12||0.32|0.17|<0.0001
90898772|NCT01213043|181663550|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin was: \[0.80, 1.25\]|Geometric Least Square Means Ratio|0.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|0.88|||ANOVA|||Dose proportionality was analysed using an ANOVA model for the natural log-transformed AUC0-7days with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect. The treatment dose of 60 mg/kg was the reference treatment and 120 mg/kg was the test treatment. PK parameters in individual subjects for each treatment dose were dose normalized to 60mg/kg based on the actual dose administered at Week 8 or Week 18 (i.e., (AUC0-7days/Actual Dose in mg/kg)\*60mg/kg).||0.88|0.83|<0.0001
90898773|NCT02887989|181663567|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.657|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.6570
90845565|NCT04518995|181557755|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.43||P-value was calculated by Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 12||0.43|0.26|<0.0001
90845566|NCT04518995|181557755|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.38||P-value was calculated by Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 16||0.38|0.24|<0.0001
90845567|NCT04518995|181557755|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.51||P-value was calculated by Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 16||0.51|0.35|<0.0001
90845568|NCT04518995|181557755|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.39||P-value was calculated by Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 20||0.39|0.26|<0.0001
90845569|NCT04518995|181557755|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.55||P-value was calculated by Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 20||0.55|0.39|<0.0001
90845570|NCT04518995|181557755|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.44||P-value was calculated by Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 24||0.44|0.31|<0.0001
90845571|NCT04518995|181557755|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.55||P-value was calculated by Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 24||0.55|0.39|<0.0001
90845572|NCT04518995|181557756|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.005||0.0816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.02||P-value was calculated by Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 4||0.02|-0.00|0.0816
90898774|NCT02887989|181663568|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6339|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.6339
90898775|NCT02110732|181663593|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.05
91094243|NCT02832037|182072575|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. ANCOVA included treatment as fixed categorical factor, and baseline score as continuous fixed covariate.||||||0.0832||||||P-value is considered nominal.|MCP-Mod Emax model fit|Model assumption: 20% of the maximum effect is achieved at 2 mg of BI 425809.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of BI 425809 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 6 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, linear in log, Emax, Sigmoid Emax, logistic, and beta) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.0832
90845573|NCT04518995|181557756|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.05||P-value was calculated by Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 8||0.05|0.01|0.0005
90845574|NCT04518995|181557756|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.09||P-value was calculated by Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 8||0.09|0.03|0.0002
90845575|NCT04518995|181557756|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.14||P-value was calculated by Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 12||0.14|0.06|<0.0001
90845576|NCT04518995|181557756|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.22||P-value was calculated by Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 12||0.22|0.12|<0.0001
90845577|NCT04518995|181557756|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.19||P-value was calculated by Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 16||0.19|0.10|<0.0001
90845578|NCT04518995|181557756|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.33||P-value was calculated by Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 16||0.33|0.20|<0.0001
90845579|NCT04518995|181557756|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.28||P-value was calculated by Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 20||0.28|0.19|<0.0001
90845580|NCT04518995|181557756|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.41||P-value was calculated by Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 20||0.41|0.28|<0.0001
90845581|NCT04518995|181557757|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.13||0.0564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|0.1||P-value was calculated by mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value.|MMRM|||Week 4||0.1|-4.4|0.0564
90845582|NCT04518995|181557757|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.23||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|-1.0||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value.|MMRM|||Week 4||-1.0|-5.9|0.0054
90845583|NCT04518995|181557757|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-8.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|-4.3||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value.|MMRM|||Week 8||-4.3|-12.7|<0.0001
90845584|NCT04518995|181557757|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-14.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.34|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.5|-10.3||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value.|MMRM|||Week 8||-10.3|-19.5|<0.0001
90845585|NCT04518995|181557757|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-21.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.94|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.5|-16.0||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value.|MMRM|||Week 12||-16.0|-27.5|<0.0001
90845586|NCT04518995|181557757|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-30.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.19|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.3|-23.8||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value.|MMRM|||Week 12||-23.8|-36.3|<0.0001
90845587|NCT04518995|181557757|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-28.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.38|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.1|-21.8||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value.|MMRM|||Week 16||-21.8|-35.1|<0.0001
90845588|NCT04518995|181557757|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-38.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.66|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.7|-31.3||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value.|MMRM|||Week 16||-31.3|-45.7|<0.0001
90845589|NCT04518995|181557757|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-34.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.66|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.1|-27.7||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value.|MMRM|||Week 20||-27.7|-42.1|<0.0001
90845590|NCT04518995|181557757|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-44.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.96|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.3|-36.8||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value.|MMRM|||Week 20||-36.8|-52.3|<0.0001
90845591|NCT04518995|181557757|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-39.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.79|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.7|-31.8||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value.|MMRM|||Week 24||-31.8|-46.7|<0.0001
90845592|NCT04518995|181557757|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-47.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.1|-39.0||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value.|MMRM|||Week 24||-39.0|-55.1|<0.0001
90898776|NCT02110732|181663594|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared||||Categorical variables were analyzed with Chi-square test or Fisher's exact test. Comparisons between groups were by Levene's test for equality of variances. A P-level \<0.05 was considered statistically significant. Data were analyzed with SPSS v.19 and NCSS.|||< 0.05
90898777|NCT02110732|181663595|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||< 0.05
90898778|NCT01588990|181663672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.101|||||||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||||||0.101
90845593|NCT04518995|181557758|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated by cochran mantel haenszel (CMH) test stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for responders in each treatment group compared to placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||||<0.0001
90845594|NCT04518995|181557758|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated by CMH test stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for responders in each treatment group compared to placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||||<0.0001
90845595|NCT04518995|181557758|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated by CMH test stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for responders in each treatment group compared to placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||||<0.0001
90845596|NCT04518995|181557758|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated by CMH test stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for responders in each treatment group compared to placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||||<0.0001
90845597|NCT04518995|181557758|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated by CMH test stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for responders in each treatment group compared to placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||||<0.0001
90845598|NCT04518995|181557758|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated by CMH test stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for responders in each treatment group compared to placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||||<0.0001
90845599|NCT04518995|181557758|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated by CMH test stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for responders in each treatment group compared to placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||||<0.0001
90845600|NCT04518995|181557758|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated by CMH test stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for responders in each treatment group compared to placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||||<0.0001
90845601|NCT04518995|181557759|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated by CMH test stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for responders in each treatment group compared to placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||||<0.0001
90845602|NCT04518995|181557759|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated by CMH test stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for responders in each treatment group compared to placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||||<0.0001
90898779|NCT01588990|181663684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.052|||||||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||||||0.052
90898780|NCT01588990|181663685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.797|||||||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||||||0.797
90898781|NCT01588990|181663686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.188|||||||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||||||0.188
90898782|NCT01588990|181663687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016|||||||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||||||0.016
90898783|NCT02367716|181663704|OTHER|The mean change in QRS duration between Baseline and 6 months|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|29.6|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90898784|NCT01473381|181663705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.57||||0.0073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|-0.84||P-value was adjusted for multiplicity.|Mixed-effect model|||||-0.84|-4.30|0.0073
90845603|NCT04518995|181557759|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated by CMH test stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for responders in each treatment group compared to placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||||<0.0001
90845604|NCT04518995|181557759|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated by CMH test stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for responders in each treatment group compared to placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||||<0.0001
90845605|NCT04518995|181557759|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated by CMH test stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for responders in each treatment group compared to placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||||<0.0001
90898785|NCT01473381|181663705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.82||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.57|-1.06||P-value was adjusted for multiplicity.|Mixed-effect model|||||-1.06|-4.57|0.0034
90898786|NCT01473381|181663705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.74||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.48|-1.0||P-value was provided for assay sensitivity. It was not adjusted for multiplicity.|Mixed-effect model|||||-1.00|-4.48|0.0020
90898787|NCT01473381|181663706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35||||0.0073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|-0.13||P-value was adjusted for multiplicity.|Mixed-effect model|||||-0.13|-0.58|0.0073
90898788|NCT01473381|181663706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33||||0.0097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.1||P-value was adjusted for multiplicity.|Mixed-effect model|||||-0.10|-0.55|0.0097
90898789|NCT01473381|181663706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.12||P-value was provided for assay sensitivity. It was not adjusted for multiplicity.|Mixed-effect model|||||-0.12|-0.57|0.0025
90898790|NCT01473381|181663707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.5||||0.3563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|10.9||P-value was adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Mean Difference (Final Values), as well as 95% Confidence Interval, are in units of percentage.||||10.9|-3.9|0.3563
90898791|NCT01473381|181663707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.1||||0.1611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|14.6||P-value was adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Mean Difference (Final Values), as well as 95% Confidence Interval, are in units of percentage.||||14.6|-0.4|0.1611
90898792|NCT01473381|181663707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.7||||0.2672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|12.2||P-value was provided for assay sensitivity. It was not adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Mean Difference (Final Values), as well as 95% Confidence Interval, are in units of percentage.||||12.2|-2.7|0.2672
90898793|NCT03802864|181663712|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.41
90898794|NCT03802864|181663713|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.37
90898795|NCT03802864|181663714|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.36
90898796|NCT03802864|181663715|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.28
90898797|NCT03802864|181663716|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.78
90898798|NCT03802864|181663717|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.49
90898799|NCT03802864|181663718|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.99
90898800|NCT01641926|181663719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|11.6||||||The treatment difference in the rates (PEG-Intron arm minus PEGASYS™ arm) and its 95% confidence interval adjusted for the baseline stratification factor (hepatitis B Virus \[HBV\] genotype) was computed using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen weighted by stratum sample size.||11.6|-8.4|
90898801|NCT01641926|181663720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.2|14.3||||||The treatment difference in the rates (PEG-Intron arm minus PEGASYS™ arm) and its 95% confidence interval adjusted for the baseline stratification factor (HBV genotype) was computed using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen weighted by stratum sample size.||14.3|-20.2|
90845606|NCT04518995|181557759|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated by CMH test stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for responders in each treatment group compared to placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||||<0.0001
91104174|NCT04003142|182094838|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|-1.46||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||||-1.46|-3.60|<0.001
90845607|NCT04518995|181557759|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated by CMH test stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for responders in each treatment group compared to placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||||<0.0001
90845608|NCT04518995|181557759|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated by CMH test stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for responders in each treatment group compared to placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||||<0.0001
90845609|NCT04518995|181557760|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.7||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 12||-0.7|-1.2|<0.0001
90898802|NCT01641926|181663721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|12.3||||||The treatment difference in the rates (PEG-Intron arm minus PEGASYS™ arm) and its 95% confidence interval adjusted for the baseline stratification factor (HBV genotype) was computed using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen weighted by stratum sample size.||12.3|-7.2|
90898803|NCT01641926|181663722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|13.6||||||The treatment difference in the rates (PEG-Intron arm minus PEGASYS™ arm) and its 95% confidence interval adjusted for the baseline stratification factor (HBV genotype) was computed using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen weighted by stratum sample size.||13.6|-9.5|
90898804|NCT01641926|181663722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference|10.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|27.1||||||The treatment difference in the rates (PEG-Intron arm minus PEGASYS™ arm) and its 95% confidence interval adjusted for the baseline stratification factor (HBV genotype) was computed using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen weighted by stratum sample size.||27.1|-7.2|
90898805|NCT01641926|181663723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|9.2||||||The treatment difference in the rates (PEG-Intron arm minus PEGASYS™ arm) and its 95% confidence interval adjusted for the baseline stratification factor (HBV genotype) was computed using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen weighted by stratum sample size.||9.2|-7.4|
91104175|NCT04003142|182094838|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.049|||||||Hochberg|||||||0.049
90845610|NCT04518995|181557760|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.9||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 12||-0.9|-1.5|<0.0001
90898806|NCT00152009|181663726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0006||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Employed Dunnett's adjustment for multiple pairwise comparisons. Corresponding baseline efficacy scores obtained were used as covariates.||||||0.0006
90898807|NCT00152009|181663726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0005||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Employed Dunnett's adjustment for multiple pairwise comparisons. Corresponding baseline efficacy scores obtained were used as covariates.||||||0.0005
90898808|NCT00152009|181663726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Employed Dunnett's adjustment for multiple pairwise comparisons. Corresponding baseline efficacy scores obtained were used as covariates.||||||<0.0001
90898809|NCT00152009|181663727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.025||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Employed Dunnett's adjustment for multiple pairwise comparisons. Corresponding baseline efficacy scores obtained were used as covariates.||||||0.025
90898810|NCT00152009|181663727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.035||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Employed Dunnett's adjustment for multiple pairwise comparisons. Corresponding baseline efficacy scores obtained were used as covariates.||||||0.035
90898811|NCT00152009|181663727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Employed Dunnett's adjustment for multiple pairwise comparisons. Corresponding baseline efficacy scores obtained were used as covariates.||||||<0.0001
90898812|NCT00152009|181663728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Employed Dunnett's adjustment for multiple pairwise comparisons. Corresponding baseline efficacy scores obtained were used as covariates.||||||<0.0001
90898813|NCT00152009|181663728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Employed Dunnett's adjustment for multiple pairwise comparisons. Corresponding baseline efficacy scores obtained were used as covariates.||||||<0.0001
90898814|NCT00152009|181663728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Employed Dunnett's adjustment for multiple pairwise comparisons. Corresponding baseline efficacy scores obtained were used as covariates.||||||<0.0001
90898815|NCT00152009|181663729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91104176|NCT04003142|182094838|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Hochberg|||||||<0.001
90898816|NCT00152009|181663729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0016||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0016
90898817|NCT00152009|181663729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0001
90845611|NCT04518995|181557760|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.9||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 16||-0.9|-1.4|<0.0001
90845612|NCT04518995|181557760|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-1.3||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 16||-1.3|-1.9|<0.0001
90845613|NCT04518995|181557760|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-1.2||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 20||-1.2|-1.8|<0.0001
90845614|NCT04518995|181557760|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-1.6||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 20||-1.6|-2.3|<0.0001
90845615|NCT04518995|181557760|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-1.3||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 24||-1.3|-2.0|<0.0001
90845616|NCT04518995|181557760|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-1.7||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 24||-1.7|-2.5|<0.0001
90845617|NCT04518995|181557761|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.3||P-value was calculated by MMRM with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 12||-0.3|-0.9|<0.0001
90845618|NCT04518995|181557761|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.6||P-value was calculated by MMRM with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 12||-0.6|-1.3|<0.0001
90845619|NCT04518995|181557761|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.9||P-value was calculated by MMRM with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 16||-0.9|-1.6|<0.0001
90845620|NCT04518995|181557761|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-1.4||P-value was calculated by MMRM with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 16||-1.4|-2.1|<0.0001
90845621|NCT04518995|181557761|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-1.0||P-value was calculated by MMRM with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 20||-1.0|-1.7|<0.0001
90898818|NCT00152009|181663730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
90898819|NCT00152009|181663730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0013||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0013
90845622|NCT04518995|181557761|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-1.5||P-value was calculated by MMRM with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 20||-1.5|-2.3|<0.0001
90898820|NCT00152009|181663730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
90898821|NCT00152009|181663731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1438||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Employed Dunnett's adjustment for multiple pairwise comparisons. Corresponding baseline efficacy scores obtained were used as covariates.||Psychosocial category||||0.1438
90845623|NCT04518995|181557761|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-1.3||P-value was calculated by MMRM with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 24||-1.3|-2.0|<0.0001
90845624|NCT04518995|181557761|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-1.8||P-value was calculated by MMRM with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 24||-1.8|-2.6|<0.0001
90845625|NCT04518995|181557762|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.12||P-value was calculated by mantel-haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||75% Relative Reduction: Week 12||0.12|0.06|<0.0001
90898822|NCT00152009|181663731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1426||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Employed Dunnett's adjustment for multiple pairwise comparisons. Corresponding baseline efficacy scores obtained were used as covariates.||Psychosocial category||||0.1426
90898823|NCT00152009|181663731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0191||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Employed Dunnett's adjustment for multiple pairwise comparisons. Corresponding baseline efficacy scores obtained were used as covariates.||Psychosocial category||||0.0191
90898824|NCT00393523|181663744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Seroprotection rate (SPR)|95.0|||<|0.001||95.2|92.1|97.1||"Adequate SPR required the lower bound of the 95.2% CI for the SPR for subjects in both Group 1 and Group 2 to be \> 90% (P-Value \< .024).~Since only one group met the criteria, that group was retested at α=.012."|Hochberg's step up|The primary hypothesis was evaluated using Hochberg's step up approach to control multiplicity.|Seroprotection rate (SPR)- defined as the percentage of subjects who demonstrate antibodies to hepatitis B surface antigen ≥10 mIU/mL|The primary purpose of this study was to show that subjects who received a primary series of RECOMBIVAX HB™ in the first year of life were adequately protected by RECOMBIVAX HB™ by measuring the immune response to a single booster dose of either a modified process vaccine or ENGERIX-B™.||97.1|92.1|<0.001
91029483|NCT01055223|181942871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||||Small numbers model didn't converge. Ref grp: TZD alone. Adjusted: age, liver disease, angina, renal and heart failure, asthma, stroke, epilepsy, RA, antihypertensives, statins, corticosteroids, antiepileptics, benzodiazepines, HRT, bisphosphonates.|||0.00|0.00|
91094244|NCT02832037|182072575|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. ANCOVA included treatment as fixed categorical factor, and baseline score as continuous fixed covariate.||||||0.0625||||||P-value is considered nominal.|MCP-Mod Sigmoid Emax model fit|Model assumption: 25% of the maximum effect is achieved at 5 mg and 75% of the maximum effect is achieved at 10 mg of BI 425809.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of BI 425809 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 6 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, linear in log, Emax, Sigmoid Emax, logistic, and beta) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.0625
90845626|NCT04518995|181557762|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.22||P-value was calculated by mantel-haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||75% Relative Reduction: Week 12||0.22|0.12|<0.0001
90845627|NCT04518995|181557762|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.33||P-value was calculated by mantel-haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||75% Relative Reduction: Week 24||0.33|0.23|<0.0001
90845628|NCT04518995|181557762|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.45||P-value was calculated by mantel-haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||75% Relative Reduction: Week 24||0.45|0.32|<0.0001
90845629|NCT04518995|181557762|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.06||P-value was calculated by mantel-haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||90% Relative Reduction: Week 12||0.06|0.02|0.0006
90845630|NCT04518995|181557762|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.14||P-value was calculated by mantel-haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||90% Relative Reduction: Week 12||0.14|0.06|<0.0001
90845631|NCT04518995|181557762|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.23||P-value was calculated by mantel-haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||90% Relative Reduction: Week 24||0.23|0.15|<0.0001
90898825|NCT00393523|181663744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Seroprotection rate (SPR)|95.0|||<|0.001||97.6|91.6|97.3||Adequate SPR required the lower bound of the 95.2% CI for the SPR for subjects in both Group 1 and Group 2 to be \> 90% (P-Value \< .024). Since only one group met the criteria, that group was retested at α=.012.|Hochberg's step up|The primary hypothesis was evaluated using Hochberg's step up approach to control multiplicity.|Seroprotection rate (SPR)- defined as the percentage of subjects who demonstrate antibodies to hepatitis B surface antigen ≥10 mIU/mL|The primary purpose of this study was to show that subjects who received a primary series of RECOMBIVAX HB™ in the first year of life were adequately protected by RECOMBIVAX HB™ by measuring the immune response to a single booster dose of either a modified process vaccine or ENGERIX-B™.||97.3|91.6|<0.001
90898826|NCT00393523|181663744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Seroprotection rate (SPR)|91.6||||0.19||95.2|88.0|94.4||"Adequate SPR required the lower bound of the 95.2% CI for the SPR for subjects in both Group 1 and Group 2 to be \> 90% (P-Value \< .024).~Since only one group met the criteria, that group was retested at α=.012."|Hochberg's step up|The primary hypothesis was evaluated using Hochberg's step up approach to control multiplicity.|Seroprotection rate (SPR)- defined as the percentage of subjects who demonstrate antibodies to hepatitis B surface antigen ≥10 mIU/mL|The primary purpose of this study was to show that subjects who received a primary series of RECOMBIVAX HB™ in the first year of life were adequately protected by RECOMBIVAX HB™ by measuring the immune response to a single booster dose of either a modified process vaccine or ENGERIX-B™.||94.4|88.0|0.19
91029484|NCT03387033|181942873|OTHER||||||<|0.005|||||||Paired t-test|||||||<0.005
91029485|NCT03387033|181942874|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Paired t-test|||||||<0.05
91029486|NCT03387033|181942875|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Paired t-test|||||||<0.05
90845632|NCT04518995|181557762|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.37||P-value was calculated by mantel-haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||90% Relative Reduction: Week 24||0.37|0.24|<0.0001
90845633|NCT04518995|181557763|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.2||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 12||1.2|0.3|0.0010
90845634|NCT04518995|181557763|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.6||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 12||1.6|0.6|<0.0001
90845635|NCT04518995|181557763|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.2||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 24||2.2|1.2|<0.0001
90845636|NCT04518995|181557763|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|2.4||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 24||2.4|1.4|<0.0001
90845637|NCT04518995|181557764|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.3||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 12||1.3|0.5|<0.0001
90898827|NCT00393523|181663745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Seroprotection Rate (SPR)|97.3||||||95.0|95.0|98.8|||||"Exact binomial confidence interval~Seroprotection Rate (SPR)- defined as the percentage of subjects who demonstrate antibodies to hepatitis B surface antigen ≥10 mIU/mL"|The purpose of the secondary analysis is to demonstrate that there is an adequate SPR in subjects who received a primary vaccination series of ENGERIX-B™ and a booster dose of modified process hepatitis B vaccine. An adequate response requires the lower bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the SPR to exceed 90%.||98.8|95.0|
90898828|NCT00098254|181663809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0027||95.0|||||Kaplan-Meier|||||||0.0027
91029487|NCT02841709|181942897|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Multiple Comparison Procedure-Model|||"Multiple Comparison Procedure-Modeling (MCP-Mod) was used to assess a dose response across placebo and all ACT-541468 doses. The null hypothesis of no dose response was rejected if at least one of the six Multiple Contrasts Tests (MCTs) had a multiplicity adjusted p-value \<0.05. The analysis was performed using the R-package DoseFinding (Bornkamp B, Pinheiro J, Bretz F. Planning and analyzing dose finding experiments. 2016. Available from: cranrprojects.org/web/packages/DoseFinding.)"||||<0.001
91029488|NCT02841709|181942897|OTHER||LS mean difference|-5.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.73||0.258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|4.0|||Linear mixed effects model||Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the LS Mean|||4.0|-14.7|0.258
91029489|NCT02841709|181942897|OTHER||LS mean difference|-18.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.76|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.8|-9.0|||Linear mixed effects model||Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the LS Mean|||-9.0|-27.8|<0.001
90845638|NCT04518995|181557764|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.8||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 12||1.8|1.0|<0.0001
90845639|NCT04518995|181557764|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.0||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 24||2.0|1.0|<0.0001
90845640|NCT04518995|181557764|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|2.4||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 24||2.4|1.4|<0.0001
90845641|NCT04518995|181557765|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.5||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value.|MMRM|||Week 12||-0.5|-1.0|< 0.0001
90845642|NCT04518995|181557765|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.8||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value.|MMRM|||Week 12||-0.8|-1.3|< 0.0001
90845643|NCT04518995|181557765|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.8||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value.|MMRM|||Week 16||-0.8|-1.2|< 0.0001
90845644|NCT04518995|181557765|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-1.1||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value.|MMRM|||Week 16||-1.1|-1.6|< 0.0001
90845645|NCT04518995|181557765|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.8||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value.|MMRM|||Week 20||-0.8|-1.3|< 0.0001
90898829|NCT00098254|181663811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33||95.0|||||Kaplan-Meier|||||||0.33
90898830|NCT00098254|181663812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.042||95.0|||||Kaplan-Meier|||||||0.042
91029490|NCT02841709|181942897|OTHER||LS mean difference|-31.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.74|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.9|-22.2|||Linear mixed effects model|||||-22.2|-40.9|<0.001
91029491|NCT02841709|181942897|OTHER||LS mean difference|-47.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.74|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.2|-38.5|||Linear mixed effects model|||||-38.5|-57.2|<0.001
91029492|NCT04526210|181942918|OTHER||Geometric least square (LS) mean ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9415|1.0205||||||||1.0205|0.9415|
91029493|NCT04526210|181942919|OTHER||Geometric LS mean ratio|0.978|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9344|1.0244||||||||1.0244|0.9344|
91029494|NCT04526210|181942920|OTHER||Geometric LS mean ratio|0.981|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9368|1.0269||||||||1.0269|0.9368|
90845646|NCT04518995|181557765|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-1.2||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value.|MMRM|||Week 20||-1.2|-1.7|< 0.0001
90845647|NCT04518995|181557765|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-1.0||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value.|MMRM|||Week 24||-1.0|-1.5|< 0.0001
90845648|NCT04518995|181557765|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-1.3||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value.|MMRM|||Week 24||-1.3|-1.8|< 0.0001
90845649|NCT04518995|181557766|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.34||P-value was calculated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 12||0.34|0.17|< 0.0001
90845650|NCT04518995|181557766|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.42||P-value was calculated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 12||0.42|0.23|< 0.0001
90898831|NCT00098254|181663813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028||95.0|||||Kaplan-Meier|||||||0.028
90898832|NCT02118337|181663824|SUPERIORITY||Rate difference|-23.8||||0.5494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.8|31.1|||Fisher Exact|||||31.1|-72.8|0.5494
90898833|NCT02118337|181663824|SUPERIORITY||Rate difference|-7.1||||0.513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.6|20.0|||Fisher Exact|||||20.0|-33.6|0.5130
90898834|NCT01121172|181663891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Non parametric test||||||0.001
91094245|NCT02832037|182072575|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. ANCOVA included treatment as fixed categorical factor, and baseline score as continuous fixed covariate.||||||0.0768||||||P-value is considered nominal.|MCP-Mod logistic model fit|Model assumption: 10% of the maximum effect is achieved at 5 mg and 50% of the maximum effect is achieved at 10 mg of BI 425809.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of BI 425809 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 6 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, linear in log, Emax, Sigmoid Emax, logistic, and beta) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.0768
91094246|NCT02832037|182072575|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. ANCOVA included treatment as fixed categorical factor, and baseline score as continuous fixed covariate.||||||0.7479||||||P-value is considered nominal.|MCP-Mod beta model fit|Assumption:75% of maximum (max) effect at 2mg, 87.5% of max effect at 5mg,25% of max effect at 25mg,max effect at 10mg BI 425809, scalar parameter=26.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of BI 425809 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 6 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, linear in log, Emax, Sigmoid Emax, logistic, and beta) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.7479
91094247|NCT02832037|182072575|OTHER||Difference of adjusted means|1.178|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7306||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.258|2.613||P-value is considered nominal.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model included treatment as fixed categorical factor, and baseline score as continuous fixed covariate.|Difference was calculated as BI 425809 - placebo.|Secondary analysis. No formal hypotheses were tested.||2.613|-0.258|0.11
91094248|NCT02832037|182072575|OTHER||Difference of adjusted means|-0.837|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7224||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.257|0.582||P-value is considered nominal.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model included treatment as fixed categorical factor, and baseline score as continuous fixed covariate.|Difference was calculated as BI 425809 - placebo.|Secondary analysis. No formal hypotheses were tested.||0.582|-2.257|0.25
91094249|NCT02832037|182072575|OTHER||Difference of adjusted means|-0.263|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7152||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.669|1.142||P-value is considered nominal.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model included treatment as fixed categorical factor, and baseline score as continuous fixed covariate.|Difference was calculated as BI 425809 - placebo.|Secondary analysis. No formal hypotheses were tested.||1.142|-1.669|0.71
90845651|NCT04518995|181557766|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.42||P-value was calculated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 16||0.42|0.27|< 0.0001
90845652|NCT04518995|181557766|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.48||P-value was calculated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 16||0.48|0.30|< 0.0001
90845653|NCT04518995|181557766|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.42||P-value was calculated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 20||0.42|0.26|< 0.0001
91094250|NCT02832037|182072575|OTHER||Difference of adjusted means|-1.072|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7125||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.473|0.328||P-value is considered nominal.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model included treatment as fixed categorical factor, and baseline score as continuous fixed covariate.|Difference was calculated as BI 425809 - placebo.|Secondary analysis. No formal hypotheses were tested.||0.328|-2.473|0.13
90898835|NCT01121172|181663892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.232|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-square test of frequency distribution amng obese study group and HapMap-CEU polymorphism distribution||||||0.232
91094251|NCT04383132|182072579|OTHER|||||||0.388||||||Independent t-test was used to compare mean CIT between two groups. The statistical significance level was accepted as p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||In sample size calculation, CIT and SD were used. It was found that 326 patients (163 per group) were required to detect a 60-second difference in CIT (SD 192 secs), with 80% power and two-sided alpha 0.05. The frequency of the auxiliary maneuvers was calculated that 324 patients were required for a 20% reduction in the auxiliary maneuvers. In case of becoming lost to follow up and withdrawal, the number of patients was expanded by 5%, and a total of 346 patients, were included in the study.||||0.388
91094252|NCT04383132|182072580|OTHER|||||||0.069||||||For the comparison of ancillary maneuvers Pearson chi-square test, Fisher's exact test, and Fisher-Freeman-Halton exact test were used.|Chi-squared|||||||0.069
91094253|NCT04383132|182072581|OTHER|||||||0.487||||||Independent t-test was used to compare mean CIL between two groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.487
91094254|NCT04383132|182072582|OTHER|||||||0.822|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.822
91094255|NCT04383132|182072583|OTHER|||||||0.016|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.016
91094256|NCT04383132|182072584|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
91094257|NCT04383132|182072585|OTHER|||||||0.184|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.184
90845654|NCT04518995|181557766|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.51||P-value was calculated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 20||0.51|0.34|< 0.0001
90845655|NCT04518995|181557766|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.44||P-value was calculated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 24||0.44|0.29|< 0.0001
90845656|NCT04518995|181557766|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.53||P-value was calculated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 24||0.53|0.35|< 0.0001
90898836|NCT01003639|181663893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.71||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.43|||ANCOVA|||||1.43|0|0.05
90898837|NCT03489057|181663905|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.19
91029495|NCT00090857|181942931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Sample size for a detectable difference in the within participant change in bone density between arms was calculated using standard deviations of one year change in bone density. Control estimates were 2.8% for spine and 3.85% for femoral neck. With 100 patients and 2:1 randomization (67 letrozole: 33 placebo), using a 1-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test with size 0.05, there is 80% power to detect as significant a true difference in change in the spine of 1.6% and in the femoral neck of 2.27%.||||0.15
90845657|NCT04518995|181557767|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.5||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Satisfied Thickness Hair Coverage: Week 12||-0.5|-0.9|<0.0001
90845658|NCT04518995|181557767|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.7||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score|MMRM|||Satisfied Thickness Hair Coverage: Week 12||-0.7|-1.2|<0.0001
90845659|NCT04518995|181557767|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.6||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score|MMRM|||Satisfied Thickness Hair Coverage: Week 16||-0.6|-1.1|<0.0001
90845660|NCT04518995|181557767|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-1.0||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score|MMRM|||Satisfied Thickness Hair Coverage: Week 16||-1.0|-1.4|<0.0001
90845661|NCT04518995|181557767|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.8||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Satisfied Thickness Hair Coverage: Week 20||-0.8|-1.2|<0.0001
90845662|NCT04518995|181557767|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-1.1||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Satisfied Thickness Hair Coverage: Week 20||-1.1|-1.6|<0.0001
90845663|NCT04518995|181557767|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.8||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Satisfied Thickness Hair Coverage: Week 24||-0.8|-1.3|<0.0001
90845664|NCT04518995|181557767|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-1.2||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Satisfied Thickness Hair Coverage: Week 24||-1.2|-1.7|<0.0001
90845665|NCT04518995|181557767|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.4||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Satisfied Evenness Hair Coverage: Week 12||-0.4|-0.8|<0.0001
90845666|NCT04518995|181557767|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.7||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Satisfied Evenness Hair Coverage: Week 12||-0.7|-1.1|<0.0001
90845667|NCT04518995|181557767|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.5||P-value was calculated by MMRM mixed model repeated measures analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Satisfied Evenness Hair Coverage: Week 16||-0.5|-0.9|<0.0001
90845668|NCT04518995|181557767|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.8||P-value was calculated by MMRM mixed model repeated measures analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Satisfied Evenness Hair Coverage: Week 16||-0.8|-1.3|<0.0001
90845669|NCT04518995|181557767|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.7||P-value was calculated by MMRM mixed model repeated measures analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Satisfied Evenness Hair Coverage: Week 20||-0.7|-1.1|<0.0001
90845670|NCT04518995|181557767|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-1.0||P-value was calculated by MMRM mixed model repeated measures analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Satisfied Evenness Hair Coverage: Week 20||-1.0|-1.5|<0.0001
90845671|NCT04518995|181557767|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.7||P-value was calculated by MMRM mixed model repeated measures analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Satisfied Evenness Hair Coverage: Week 24||-0.7|-1.2|<0.0001
90845672|NCT04518995|181557767|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-1.0||P-value was calculated by MMRM mixed model repeated measures analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Satisfied Evenness Hair Coverage: Week 24||-1.0|-1.5|<0.0001
90845673|NCT04518995|181557767|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.5||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||How Satisfied With Your Eyebrows: Week 12||-0.5|-0.9|< 0.0001
90898838|NCT03489057|181663919|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.48
90898839|NCT01557322|181663923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Morning Stiffness \> 1 Hour: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.010
90898840|NCT01557322|181663923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Arthritis or Deformity of 3 or More Joint Areas: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||<0.001
90845674|NCT04518995|181557767|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.6||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||How Satisfied With Your Eyebrows: Week 12||-0.6|-1.1|< 0.0001
90845675|NCT04518995|181557767|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.7||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||How Satisfied With Your Eyebrows: Week 16||-0.7|-1.1|< 0.0001
90845676|NCT04518995|181557767|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.9||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||How Satisfied With Your Eyebrows: Week 16||-0.9|-1.4|< 0.0001
90845677|NCT04518995|181557767|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.7||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||How Satisfied With Your Eyebrows: Week 20||-0.7|-1.1|< 0.0001
90845678|NCT04518995|181557767|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.9||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||How Satisfied With Your Eyebrows: Week 20||-0.9|-1.3|< 0.0001
90845679|NCT04518995|181557767|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.8||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||How Satisfied With Your Eyebrows: Week 24||-0.8|-1.2|< 0.0001
90845680|NCT04518995|181557767|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.9||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||How Satisfied With Your Eyebrows: Week 24||-0.9|-1.4|< 0.0001
91029496|NCT00090857|181942932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Sample size for a detectable difference in the within participant change in bone density between arms was calculated using standard deviations of one year change in bone density. Control estimates were 2.8% for spine and 3.85% for femoral neck. With 100 patients and 2:1 randomization (67 letrozole: 33 placebo), using a 1-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test with size 0.05, there is 80% power to detect as significant a true difference in change in the spine of 1.6% and in the femoral neck of 2.27%.||||0.70
91029497|NCT00090857|181942933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Sample size for a detectable difference in the within participant change in bone density between arms was calculated using standard deviations of one year change in bone density. Control estimates were 2.8% for spine and 3.85% for femoral neck. With 100 patients and 2:1 randomization (67 letrozole: 33 placebo), using a 1-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test with size 0.05, there is 80% power to detect as significant a true difference in change in the spine of 1.6% and in the femoral neck of 2.27%.||||0.03
91029498|NCT00090857|181942934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Sample size for a detectable difference in the within participant change in bone density was calculated using standard deviations of one year change in bone density. Control estimates were 2.8% for spine and 3.85% for femoral neck. With 100 patients and 2:1 randomization (67 letrozole: 33 placebo), using a 1-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test with size 0.05, there is 80% power to detect as significant a true difference in change in the spine of 1.6% and in the femoral neck of 2.27%.||||0.06
91029499|NCT00090857|181942935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.38
91029500|NCT00090857|181942936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.02
91029501|NCT00090857|181942937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.20
91029502|NCT00090857|181942938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.88
91029503|NCT00090857|181942939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.27
91029504|NCT00090857|181942940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.60
91029505|NCT00090857|181942941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.58
91029506|NCT00090857|181942942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.49
91029507|NCT05097326|181942946|OTHER|||||||0.44||||||a p-value \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant|Fisher Exact|||Analysis of total contractions||||0.44
91029508|NCT05097326|181942946|OTHER|||||||0.02||||||a p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant|Fisher Exact|||Analysis of contractions per hour||||0.02
91029509|NCT05097326|181942947|OTHER|||||||0.04||||||a p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant|Fisher Exact|||Comparison at 12 hours after labor induction||||0.04
90845681|NCT04518995|181557767|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.3||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||How Satisfied With Your Eyelashes: Week 12||-0.3|-0.7|< 0.0001
91029510|NCT05097326|181942947|OTHER|||||||0.17||||||a p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant|Fisher Exact|||Comparison of uterine tachysystole of total labor duration||||0.17
91029511|NCT05097326|181942948|OTHER|||||||0.63||||||a p-value \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.63
91029512|NCT05097326|181942949|OTHER|||||||0.01||||||a p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.01
91029513|NCT05097326|181942950|OTHER|||||||0.04||||||a p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison at complete cervical dilation||||0.04
91029514|NCT05097326|181942951|OTHER|||||||0.04||||||a p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison at postpartum transfer||||0.04
91029515|NCT05097326|181942952|OTHER|||||||0.68||||||a p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant|Fisher Exact|||||||0.68
91029516|NCT05097326|181942953|OTHER|||||||1||||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered significant.|Fisher Exact|||||||1
91029517|NCT05097326|181942954|OTHER|||||||1||||||a p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant|Fisher Exact|||||||1
91029518|NCT05097326|181942955|OTHER|||||||0.9||||||A p-value \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.90
91029519|NCT05097326|181942956|OTHER|||||||0.17||||||a p-value \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant|Fisher Exact|||1 minute APGAR score||||0.17
90845682|NCT04518995|181557767|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.4||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||How Satisfied With Your Eyelashes: Week 12||-0.4|-0.8|< 0.0001
90845683|NCT04518995|181557767|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.5||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||How Satisfied With Your Eyelashes: Week 16||-0.5|-0.9|< 0.0001
90845684|NCT04518995|181557767|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.7||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||How Satisfied With Your Eyelashes: Week 16||-0.7|-1.1|< 0.0001
90845685|NCT04518995|181557767|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.5||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||How Satisfied With Your Eyelashes: Week 20||-0.5|-0.9|< 0.0001
90845686|NCT04518995|181557767|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.5||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||How Satisfied With Your Eyelashes: Week 20||-0.5|-1.0|< 0.0001
90845687|NCT04518995|181557767|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.6||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||How Satisfied With Your Eyelashes: Week 24||-0.6|-1.1|< 0.0001
90845688|NCT04518995|181557767|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.7||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||How Satisfied With Your Eyelashes: Week 24||-0.7|-1.2|< 0.0001
90845689|NCT04518995|181557768|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.2489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.9||P-value was calculated by analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) analysis with effects for treatment, visit, baseline SALT score, and baseline HADS value.|ANCOVA|||Anxiety||0.9|-0.2|0.2489
90845690|NCT04518995|181557768|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.1235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.1||P-value was calculated by ANCOVA analysis with effects for treatment, visit, baseline SALT score, and baseline HADS value.|ANCOVA|||Anxiety||1.1|-0.1|0.1235
90898841|NCT01557322|181663923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.363|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Arthritis/Deformity of Hand/Joint: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.363
91029520|NCT05097326|181942956|OTHER|||||||1||||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be statistically significant.|Fisher Exact|||APGAR score at 5 minutes||||1
91029521|NCT05097326|181942957|OTHER|||||||0.22||||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant|Fisher Exact|||||||0.22
91029522|NCT03480425|181942974|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.4|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|2.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.6|-2.4|<0.05
91029523|NCT01244126|181942975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Kruskall Wallis ANOVA by ranks|0.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.0||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The primary outcome of the study was the maximum postoperative FLACC pain score.||||0.21
91029524|NCT01244126|181942976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Kruskall Wallis ANOVA|0.34||||0.34||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskall Wallis test||||0.34
91029525|NCT05920161|181942977|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.023|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.023
91029526|NCT05920161|181942977|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.068|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.068
91029527|NCT05920161|181942978|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.281|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Within-group A - B (null \>0)||||0.281
91029528|NCT05920161|181942978|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.645|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Within-group A - B (null \>0)||||0.645
91029529|NCT05920161|181942978|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.245|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Between-group comparison||||0.245
91029530|NCT05920161|181942979|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.143|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.143
91029531|NCT05920161|181942979|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.797||||||above chance 0.5|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.797
91029532|NCT05920161|181942979|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.087|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.087
90845691|NCT04518995|181557768|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.9765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5||P-value was calculated by ANCOVA analysis with effects for treatment, visit, baseline SALT score, and baseline HADS value.|ANCOVA|||Depression||0.5|-0.5|0.9765
90845692|NCT04518995|181557768|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.3559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.8||P-value was calculated by ANCOVA analysis with effects for treatment, visit, baseline SALT score, and baseline HADS value.|ANCOVA|||Depression||0.8|-0.3|0.3559
90898842|NCT01557322|181663923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Symmetry: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||<0.001
90898843|NCT01557322|181663923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Nodules: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||<0.001
90898844|NCT01557322|181663923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.605|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Rheumatoid Factor Positive: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.605
91029533|NCT05920161|181942980|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A condition||||<0.0001
91029534|NCT05920161|181942980|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||B condition||||<0.0001
91029535|NCT05920161|181942980|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||X condition||||<0.0001
91029536|NCT05920161|181942981|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||< 0.000
91029537|NCT05920161|181942981|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0008|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0008
91029538|NCT05920161|181942982|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.083|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.083
91029539|NCT05920161|181942982|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.088|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.088
91029540|NCT04908748|181942985|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-29.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.2|-26.0|||ANCOVA|||||-26.0|-32.2|< 0.0001
91029541|NCT01439165|181943048|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% Confidence Interval (CI) of the difference of seroprotection rates between groups is \> -10%|Difference (%) in Adacel-Td Adsorbed|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.2||||||Comparison of anti-tetanus seroprotection rate between the two groups||1.2|-0.4|
91029542|NCT01439165|181943048|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference of seroprotection rates between groups is \> -10%|Difference (%) in Adacel-Td Adsorbed|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|2.1||||||Comparison of anti-diphtheria seroprotection rates between the two groups||2.1|-0.3|
91029543|NCT01439165|181943049|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference of booster response rates between groups is \> -10%|Difference (%) in Adacel-Td Adsorbed|-7.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|-1.7||||||Comparison of the anti-tetanus booster response rates between the two groups||-1.7|-12.0|
91029544|NCT01439165|181943049|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference of booster response rates between groups is \> -10%|Difference (%) in Adacel-Td Adsorbed|-0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|4.0||||||Comparison of the anti-diphteria booster response rates between the two groups||4.0|-5.4|
91029545|NCT01439165|181943050|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMCs between groups is \> 0.66|GMC ratio (Adacel/Historical Control)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.18||||||Comparison of anti-pertussis toxoid GMCs between Adacel and historical control groups||1.18|0.92|
91094258|NCT00297167|182072603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-25.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.73|-19.32|||ANOVA|||P-Value was calculated using analysis of variance (ANOVA) model which included main effects for treatment and sequence and participant nested in sequence as a random effect.||-19.32|-31.73|<0.001
91094259|NCT00297167|182072604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-21.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.85|-16.14|||ANOVA|||P-Value was calculated using analysis of variance (ANOVA)model which included main effects for treatment and sequence and participant nested in sequence as a random effect.||-16.14|-26.85|<0.001
91094260|NCT04167462|182072619|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.33|42.98|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||42.98|6.33|<0.0001
91029546|NCT01439165|181943050|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMCs between groups is \> 0.66|GMC Ratio (Adacel/Historical Control)|5.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.51|6.05||||||Comparison of the anti-FHA GMCs between Adacel and historical Control groups||6.05|4.51|
91029547|NCT01439165|181943050|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMCs between groups is \> 0.66|GMC Ratio (Adacel/Historical Control)|2.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.46|3.51||||||Comparison of the anti-Pertactin GMCs between Adacel and historical Control groups||3.51|2.46|
91094261|NCT04167462|182072620|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|24.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.6|61.46|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||61.46|9.60|<0.0001
91094262|NCT04167462|182072621|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|41.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.82|291.26|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||291.26|5.82|<0.0001
91094263|NCT04167462|182072625|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|17.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.06|49.25|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||49.25|6.06|<0.0001
91094264|NCT04167462|182072626|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.19|11.91|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||11.91|2.19|<0.0001
91094265|NCT04167462|182072627|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.86||||0.0947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|53.28|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||53.28|0.64|0.0947
91094266|NCT04167462|182072628|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.11||||0.1741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|35.74|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||35.74|0.47|0.1741
91029548|NCT01439165|181943050|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMCs between groups is \> 0.66|GMC Ratio (Adacel/Historical Control)|2.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.84|2.6||||||Comparison of the post-vaccination anti-Fimbriae (types 2 and 3) GMCs between Adacel and historical Control groups||2.60|1.84|
91029549|NCT01439165|181943051|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference of booster response rates between groups is \> -10% .|Difference (%) Adacel-Expected Booster|16.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.27|18.73||||||comparison of anti-pertussis toxoid booster response rates was performed between the Adacel and historical groups||18.73|13.27|
91029550|NCT01439165|181943051|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference of booster response rates between groups is \> -10%|Difference (%) Adacel-Expected Booster|-4.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.23|-1.34||||||Comparison of the anti-FHA booster response rates between the Adacel and historical groups||-1.34|-7.23|
91029551|NCT01439165|181943051|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference of booster response rates between groups is \> -10% .|Difference (%) Adacel-Expected Booster|-18.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.7|-15.6||||||Comparison of the anti-Pertactin booster response rates between Adacel and historical groups||-15.6|-21.7|
91029552|NCT01439165|181943051|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference of booster response rates between groups is \> -10% .|Difference (%) Adacel-Expected Booster|-19.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.3|-16.0||||||Comparison of the anti-Fimbriae (types 2 and 3) booster response rates between Adacel and historical groups||-16.0|-22.3|
91029553|NCT01089647|181943053|OTHER||||||=|0.946|||||||ANOVA|||Between-group comparisons at follow-up were made using a stepwise multivariable logistic model.||||=0.946
91029554|NCT02364557|181943110|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|70.0|0.71|1.17||One-side significance level = 0.15|Log Rank||Reference level = SOC arm|Assuming an increase in median PFS from 10.5 to 19 months (HR: 0.55), 69 events provide \>90% power to conclude superiority with 1-sided α = 0.15.||1.17|0.71|0.36
91029555|NCT02364557|181943113|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.61||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Gray's test||Reference level = SOC arm|||1.61|0.59|0.91
91029556|NCT02364557|181943115|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|2.02||Two-sided significance level = 0.05.|Log Rank||Reference level = CTCs Absent|||2.02|0.54|0.90
91029557|NCT06052566|181943145|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.61|1.54||||||||1.54|0.61|
91029558|NCT06052566|181943145|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.63|1.71||||||||1.71|0.63|
91029559|NCT06052566|181943146|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6|1.65||||||||1.65|0.60|
91094267|NCT02320396|182072632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares (LS) Means|-0.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|-0.51|||cLDA model|||The LS mean change from BL to post BL (average score of 2 weeks) in TNSS was estimated using a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model, where both BL and post-BL measurements (average score of 2 weeks) were included in the response variable. The treatment difference in terms of LS mean change from BL between desloratadine 5 mg and placebo was evaluated with the 95% confidence interval and P-value.||-0.51|-1.14|<0.001
91029560|NCT06052566|181943146|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.53|1.65||||||||1.65|0.53|
90845693|NCT04518995|181557769|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.25||P-value was calculated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||||0.25|0.16|<0.0001
90845694|NCT04518995|181557769|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.39||P-value was calculated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||||0.39|0.27|<0.0001
90845695|NCT02891070|181557821|NON_INFERIORITY|To demonstrate non-inferiority (NI) of Tisseel to DuraSeal for the primary endpoint, the lower limit of the 95% CI (based on normal approximation) for the difference in average predicted proportions had to be greater than -10%.|Mean Difference (Net)|-9.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.11|2.54|||Regression, Logistic||Difference in Average Predicted Proportion (Tisseel - Duraseal)|||2.54|-21.11|
90845696|NCT02891070|181557823|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.11|2.54|||Regression, Logistic||Difference in Average Predicted Proportion (Tisseel - Duraseal)|||2.54|-21.11|
90845697|NCT02891070|181557824|OTHER|||||||0.0241|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0241
91029561|NCT06052566|181943147|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.44|1.21||||||||1.21|0.44|
91029562|NCT06052566|181943147|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.47|1.53||||||||1.53|0.47|
90845698|NCT02891070|181557825|OTHER|||||||0.1015|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1015
90845699|NCT02891070|181557826|OTHER|||||||0.9943|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.9943
90845700|NCT02891070|181557827|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|3.39|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.39|-13.60|
90845701|NCT01235598|181557842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median difference within group changes|-1.5||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|0.0||Two-sided p-value is presented, with p \< 0.05 as the threshold for statistical significance.|Permutation test with general scores||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of median difference and associated exact 95 % 2-sided confidence interval are provided.|A fixed-sequence stepwise hypothesis testing procedure was followed using a pre-specified set of ordered hypotheses. Hypotheses were ordered and tested in that order, beginning with change from Baseline at Week 16, and continuing to earlier time points (Week 8, 4, 2, 1 in that order) only if the previous null hypothesis of zero difference was rejected (p \<0.05). Hypothesis testing was stopped if and when a non-significant result was obtained.||0.0|-3.0|0.049
90859720|NCT03673046|181582877|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.7529|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4553||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.863|18.6428||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons because this was a pre-specified secondary endpoint comparison. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was alpha=.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures were modeled with a compound symmetry with heterogeneous variance covariance matrix.|The effect is presented as the Smartphone-delivered CBT for BDD group outcome compared to the 12-week waitlist control group outcome at the trial end-point (week 12).|Null hypothesis: there is no significant difference in Q-LESQ-SF total scores between the treatment groups at endpoint (week 12).||18.6428|4.8630|.0011
91029563|NCT00662129|181943186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
91094268|NCT02320396|182072635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|-0.5|||cLDA model|||"Change from BL in TNSS at Week 1: Desloratadine vs. Placebo~The LS mean change from BL to Week 1 post BL in TNSS was estimated using a cLDA model, where both BL and post-BL measurements (average score of 1 week prior to Week 1) were included in the response variable. The treatment difference in terms of LS mean change from BL between desloratadine 5 mg and placebo was evaluated with the 95% confidence interval and P-value."||-0.50|-1.14|<0.001
91029564|NCT00966953|181943196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91029565|NCT00329602|181943228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.039||95.0||||P-value is for Week 12.|Repeated Measures Mixed Model|Adjusted for baseline IRLS Rating Scale total score, treatment group, visit, visit by treatment group interaction, and center group.||||||0.039
91029566|NCT00329602|181943228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023||95.0||||P-value is for Week 26.|Repeated Measures Mixed Model|Adjusted for baseline IRLS Rating Scale total score, treatment group, visit, visit by treatment group interaction, and center group.||||||0.023
91029567|NCT02579096|181943243|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority bound of 8% was established during the trial design; a one-sided alpha level was set at 0.05.|Risk Difference (RD)|-7.0|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||-1.2|||t-test, 1 sided|||One-sided null hypothesis posited that allopurinol was inferior to febuxostat. The proportions of participants with ≥ 1 gout flare during phase 3 were compared between the two treatments.||-1.2||<0.001
91029568|NCT02097121|181943284|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.107|=|0.3802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.203|1.243|||ANCOVA|||"Treatment Difference of 100 U versus 25 U~Pairwise comparisons of 100 U versus 25 U of BOTOX up to Week 12 in Treatment Cycle 1 was evaluated using an ANCOVA model with study baseline value as covariate, and treatment group as factor. A hierarchical analysis strategy to adjust for multiplicity was used."||1.243|-3.203|= 0.3802
91029569|NCT02097121|181943284|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.154|=|0.733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.921|2.712|||ANCOVA|||"Treatment Difference of 50 U versus 25 U~Pairwise comparisons of 50 U versus 25 U of BOTOX up to Week 12 in Treatment Cycle 1 was evaluated using an ANCOVA model with study baseline value as covariate, and treatment group as factor. A hierarchical analysis strategy to adjust for multiplicity was used."||2.712|-1.921|= 0.733
91094269|NCT02320396|182072635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|-0.46|||cLDA model|||"Change from BL in TNSS at Week 2: Desloratadine vs. Placebo~The LS mean change from BL to Week 2 post BL in TNSS was estimated using a cLDA model, where both BL and post- BL measurements (average score of 1 week prior to Week 2) were included in the response variable. The treatment difference in terms of LS mean change from BL between desloratadine 5 mg and placebo was evaluated with the 95% confidence interval and P-value."||-0.46|-1.23|<0.001
91094270|NCT02320396|182072636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.14|||cLDA model|||"Change from BL to Week 1 in Sneezing: Desloratadine vs. Placebo~The LS mean change from BL to Week 1 post BL in Sneezing was estimated using a cLDA model, where both BL and post-BL measurements (average score of 1 week prior to Week 1) were included in the response variable. The treatment difference in terms of LS mean change from BL between desloratadine 5 mg and placebo was evaluated with the 95% confidence interval and P-value."||-0.14|-0.35|<0.001
91094271|NCT02320396|182072636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|-0.1|||cLDA model|||"Change from BL to Week 1 in Rhinorrhea: Desloratadine vs. Placebo~The LS mean change from BL to Week 1 post BL in Rhinorrhea was estimated using a cLDA model, where both BL and post-BL measurements (average score of 1 week prior to Week 1) were included in the response variable. The treatment difference in terms of LS mean change from BL between desloratadine 5 mg and placebo was evaluated with the 95% confidence interval and P-value."||-0.10|-0.32|<0.001
91094272|NCT02320396|182072636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.09||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|-0.02|||cLDA model|||"Change from BL to Week 1 in Nasal Congestion: Desloratadine vs. Placebo~The LS mean change from BL to Week 1 post BL in Nasal Congestion was estimated using a cLDA model, where both BL and post-BL measurements (average score of 1 week prior to Week 1) were included in the response variable. The treatment difference in terms of LS mean change from BL between desloratadine 5 mg and placebo was evaluated with the 95% confidence interval and P-value."||-0.02|-0.16|0.008
91094273|NCT02320396|182072636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.15|||cLDA model|||"Change from BL to Week 1 in Nasal Itching: Desloratadine vs. Placebo~The LS mean change from BL to Week 1 post BL in Nasal Itching was estimated using a cLDA model, where both BL and post-BL measurements (average score of 1 week prior to Week 1) were included in the response variable. The treatment difference in terms of LS mean change from BL between desloratadine 5 mg and placebo was evaluated with the 95% confidence interval and P-value."||-0.15|-0.38|<0.001
91094274|NCT02320396|182072637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.13|||cLDA model|||"Change from BL to Week 2 in Sneezing: Desloratadine vs. Placebo~The LS mean change from BL to Week 2 post BL in Sneezing was estimated using a cLDA model, where both BL and post-BL measurements (average score of 1 week prior to Week 2) were included in the response variable. The treatment difference in terms of LS mean change from BL between desloratadine 5 mg and placebo was evaluated with the 95% confidence interval and P-value."||-0.13|-0.36|<0.001
91094275|NCT02320396|182072637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.12|||cLDA model|||"Change from BL to Week 2 in Rhinorrhea: Desloratadine vs. Placebo~The LS mean change from BL to Week 2 post BL in Rhinorrhea was estimated using a cLDA model, where both BL and post-BL measurements (average score of 1 week prior to Week 2) were included in the response variable. The treatment difference in terms of LS mean change from BL between desloratadine 5 mg and placebo was evaluated with the 95% confidence interval and P-value."||-0.12|-0.37|<0.001
90845702|NCT01235598|181557843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference within group changes|-1.0||||0.206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|1.0||Two-sided p-value is presented, with p \< 0.05 as the threshold for statistical significance. A fixed-sequence stepwise hypothesis testing procedure was followed using a pre-specified set of ordered hypotheses.|Permutation test with general scores||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of median difference and associated exact 95 % 2-sided confidence interval are provided.|A fixed-sequence stepwise hypothesis testing procedure was followed using a pre-specified set of ordered hypotheses. Hypotheses were ordered and tested in that order, beginning with change from Baseline at Week 16, and continuing to earlier time points (Week 8, 4, 2, 1 in that order) only if the previous null hypothesis of zero difference was rejected (p \< 0.05). Hypothesis testing was stopped if and when a non-significant result was obtained. Testing was stopped in the next step.||1.0|-3.0|0.206
90845703|NCT01235598|181557847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median difference within group changes|-0.0035||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.012|0.0025||Two-sided p-value is presented, with p \<0.05 as the threshold for statistical significance. A fixed-sequence stepwise hypothesis testing procedure was followed using a pre-specified set of ordered hypotheses.|Permutation test with general scores||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of median difference and associated exact 95 % 2-sided confidence interval are provided.|A fixed-sequence stepwise hypothesis testing procedure was followed using a pre-specified set of ordered hypotheses. Hypotheses were ordered and tested in that order, beginning with change from Baseline at Week 16, and continuing to earlier time points (Week 8, 4, 2, 1 in that order) only if the previous null hypothesis of zero difference was rejected (p \<0.05). Hypothesis testing was stopped if and when a non-significant result was obtained.||0.0025|-0.0120|0.164
91094276|NCT02320396|182072637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.09||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|-0.01|||cLDA model|||"Change from BL to Week 2 in Nasal Congestion: Desloratadine vs. Placebo~The LS mean change from BL to Week 2 post BL in Nasal Congestion was estimated using a cLDA model, where both BL and post-BL measurements (average score of 1 week prior to Week 2) were included in the response variable. The treatment difference in terms of LS mean change from BL between desloratadine 5 mg and placebo was evaluated with the 95% confidence interval and P-value."||-0.01|-0.18|0.037
90859721|NCT03693300|181582891|OTHER||Proportion (%)|6.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|12.24|||||95% CI were based on the Clopper-Pearson method.|Any possibly related adverse events of CTCAE Grade 3 or Grade 4||12.24|2.50|
90859722|NCT03693300|181582891|OTHER||Proportion (%)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|70.76|||||95% CI were based on the Clopper-Pearson method.|Any possibly related adverse events of CTCAE Grade 3 or Grade 4||70.76|0.00|
90859723|NCT03693300|181582891|OTHER||Proportion (%)|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.44|11.94|||||95% CI were based on the Clopper-Pearson method.|Any possibly related adverse events of CTCAE Grade 3 or Grade 4||11.94|2.44|
90859724|NCT03693300|181582891|OTHER||Proportion (%)|4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|9.94|||||95% CI were based on the Clopper-Pearson method.|Any possibly related AEs of Grade 3 or Grade 4 with onset date within 6 months of the first dose||9.94|1.44|
90898845|NCT01557322|181663923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Erosions on Hand or Feet X-Ray: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.038
90898846|NCT01557322|181663924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Sicca Syndrome: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||<0.001
90898847|NCT01557322|181663924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Serosal Involvement: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.024
90898848|NCT01557322|181663924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.257|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Eye Involvement: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.257
90898849|NCT01557322|181663924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Systemic Vasculitis: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.026
90898850|NCT01557322|181663924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.725|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Nailfold Vasculitis: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.725
90898851|NCT01557322|181663924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Pulmonary Fibrosis: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.220
90898852|NCT01557322|181663924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Other: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.620
90898853|NCT01557322|181663925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Total Knee Replacement: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||<0.001
91104177|NCT04003142|182094839|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.021||95.0|-0.27|-0.02||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||||-0.02|-0.27|0.021
90898854|NCT01557322|181663925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Total Hip Replacement: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||<0.001
90898855|NCT01557322|181663925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Total Shoulder Replacement: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||<0.001
90898856|NCT01557322|181663925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Total Elbow Replacement: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||<0.001
90898857|NCT01557322|181663925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Wrist/Hand/Ankle/Foot Surgery: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.001
90898858|NCT01557322|181663925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Neck Surgery: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||<0.001
90898859|NCT01557322|181663926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||P-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||<0.001
90898860|NCT01557322|181663927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.381|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||High Blood Pressure: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.381
90898861|NCT01557322|181663927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Angina: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.006
90898862|NCT01557322|181663927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.215|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Heart Attack: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.215
90898863|NCT01557322|181663927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.117|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Stroke: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.117
90898864|NCT01557322|181663927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Epilepsy: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||1.000
90898865|NCT01557322|181663927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.542|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Asthma: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.542
90898866|NCT01557322|181663927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Chronic Bronchitis/Emphysema: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.027
90898867|NCT01557322|181663927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.566|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Peptic Ulcer: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.566
90898868|NCT01557322|181663927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Liver Disease: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.003
90898869|NCT01557322|181663927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.526|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Renal Disease: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.526
90898870|NCT01557322|181663927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.802|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Tuberculosis: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.802
90898871|NCT01557322|181663927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Demyelination: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||1.000
90898872|NCT01557322|181663927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.385|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Diabetes: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.385
90898873|NCT01557322|181663927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Hyperthyroidism: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.048
90898874|NCT01557322|181663927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.308|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Depression: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.308
90898875|NCT01557322|181663927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Cancer: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.033
90898876|NCT01557322|181663928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.188|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-value was calculated using 2-sided t-test.||||0.188
90898877|NCT01557322|181663929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Systolic Blood Pressure: p-value was calculated using 2-sided t-test.||||0.016
90898878|NCT01557322|181663929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.369|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Diastolic Blood Pressure: p-value was calculated using 2-sided t-test.||||0.369
90898879|NCT01557322|181663930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline: p-value was calculated using 2-sided t-test.||||<0.001
90898880|NCT01557322|181663930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3746|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Change at Month 60: p-value was calculated using multivariate linear regression with baseline DAS28 score and other baseline variables (socio-demographics, disease characteristics, and initial treatment profile) as covariates.||||0.3746
90898881|NCT01557322|181663931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline: p-value was calculated using 2-sided t-test.||||<0.001
90898882|NCT01557322|181663932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline: p-value was calculated using 2-sided t-test.||||<0.001
91104178|NCT04003142|182094839|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.001||95.0|-0.41|-0.16||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||||-0.16|-0.41|<0.001
91029570|NCT02097121|181943285|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.442|=|0.5743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.082|3.713|||ANCOVA|||"Treatment Difference of 100 U versus 25 U~Pairwise comparisons of 100 U versus 25 U of BOTOX up to Week 12 in Treatment Cycle 1 was evaluated using an ANCOVA model with study baseline value as covariate, and treatment group and stratification (baseline daytime urinary urgency incontinence episodes \[a total of ≤ 6 episodes or \> 6 episodes over the 2-day diary collection period\]) as factors. A hierarchical analysis strategy to adjust for multiplicity was not implemented."||3.713|-2.082|= 0.5743
91029571|NCT02097121|181943285|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.455|=|0.1451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.769|5.078|||ANCOVA|||"Treatment Difference of 50 U versus 25 U~Pairwise comparisons of 50 U versus 25 U of BOTOX up to Week 12 in Treatment Cycle 1 was evaluated using an ANCOVA model with study baseline value as covariate, and treatment group and stratification (baseline daytime urinary urgency incontinence episodes \[a total of ≤ 6 episodes or \> 6 episodes over the 2-day diary collection period\]) as factors. A hierarchical analysis strategy to adjust for multiplicity was not implemented."||5.078|-0.769|= 0.1451
91094277|NCT02320396|182072637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.12|||cLDA model|||"Change from BL to Week 2 in Nasal Itching: Desloratadine vs. Placebo~The LS mean change from BL to Week 2 post BL in Nasal Itching was estimated using a cLDA model, where both BL and post-BL measurements (average score of 1 week prior to Week 2) were included in the response variable. The treatment difference in terms of LS mean change from BL between desloratadine 5 mg and placebo was evaluated with the 95% confidence interval and P-value."||-0.12|-0.40|<0.001
90845704|NCT01235598|181557848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median difference within group changes|-0.069||||0.865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.201|0.138||Two-sided p-value is presented, with p \<0.05 as the threshold for statistical significance. A fixed-sequence stepwise hypothesis testing procedure was followed using a pre-specified set of ordered hypotheses.|Permutation test with general scores||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of median difference and associated exact 95 % 2-sided confidence interval are provided.|A fixed-sequence stepwise hypothesis testing procedure was followed using a pre-specified set of ordered hypotheses. Hypotheses were ordered and tested in that order, beginning with change from Baseline at Week 16, and continuing to earlier time points (Week 8, 4, 2, 1 in that order) only if the previous null hypothesis of zero difference was rejected (p \<0.05). Hypothesis testing was stopped if and when a non-significant result was obtained.||0.1380|-0.2010|0.865
90845705|NCT01235598|181557849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median difference within group changes|-421.5||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1542.5|-47.0||Two-sided p-value is presented, with p \<0.05 as the threshold for statistical significance. A fixed-sequence stepwise hypothesis testing procedure was followed using a pre-specified set of ordered hypotheses.|Permutation test with general scores||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of median difference and associated exact 95 % 2-sided confidence interval are provided.|A fixed-sequence stepwise hypothesis testing procedure was followed using a pre-specified set of ordered hypotheses. Hypotheses were ordered and tested in that order, beginning with change from Baseline at Week 16, and continuing to earlier time points (Week 8, 4, 2, 1 in that order) only if the previous null hypothesis of zero difference was rejected (p \<0.05). Hypothesis testing was stopped if and when a non-significant result was obtained.||-47.0|-1542.5|0.015
90845706|NCT01235598|181557861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.394|||||||Spearman rank correlation|||||||0.394
90845707|NCT01235598|181557862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.625|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman rank correlation|||||||0.625
90898883|NCT01557322|181663933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.154|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline: p-value was calculated using 2-sided t-test.||||0.154
90898884|NCT01557322|181663934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.108|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline: p-value was calculated using 2-sided t-test.||||0.108
90898885|NCT01557322|181663935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.199|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline: p-value was calculated using 2-sided t-test.||||0.199
90898886|NCT01557322|181663936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-value was calculated using 2-sided t-test.||||<0.001
91094278|NCT02320396|182072638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.14|||cLDA model|||"Change from BL in Sneezing During 2 Weeks: Desloratadine vs. Placebo~The LS mean change from BL to post BL (average score of 2 weeks) in Sneezing was estimated using a cLDA model, where both BL and post-BL measurements (average score from Day 1 to Day 13) were included in the response variable. The treatment difference in terms of LS mean change from BL between desloratadine 5 mg and placebo was evaluated with the 95% confidence interval and P-value."||-0.14|-0.35|<0.001
91104179|NCT04003142|182094839|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.049|||||||Hochberg|||||||0.049
90845708|NCT01235598|181557863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.128|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman rank correlation|||||||0.128
90845709|NCT01235598|181557864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.732|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman rank correlation|||||||0.732
90845710|NCT01235598|181557865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.411|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman rank correlation|||||||0.411
91104180|NCT04003142|182094839|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Hochberg|||||||<0.001
90845711|NCT01235598|181557866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.208|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman rank correlation|||||||0.208
90845712|NCT01235598|181557867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||Two-sided p-value is presented, with p \<0.05 as the threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of median difference and associated exact 95 % 2-sided confidence interval are provided.|||0.0|-1.0|0.254
90845713|NCT01235598|181557868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.0||Two-sided p-value is presented, with p \<0.05 as the threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of median difference and associated exact 95 % 2-sided confidence interval are provided.|||1.0|-2.0|0.472
90898887|NCT01557322|181663937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-value was calculated using 2-sided t-test.||||<0.001
90898888|NCT01557322|181663939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Current DMARDs, Methotrexate: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||<0.001
90898889|NCT01557322|181663939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.313|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Current DMARDs, Azathioprine: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.313
90898890|NCT01557322|181663939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Current DMARDs, Cyclophosphamide: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||1.000
90898891|NCT01557322|181663939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.066|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Current DMARDs, Cyclosporine: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.066
90898892|NCT01557322|181663939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.099|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Current DMARDs, Leflunomide: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.099
91094279|NCT02320396|182072638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|-0.12|||cLDA model|||"Change from BL in Rhinorrhea During 2 Weeks: Desloratadine vs. Placebo~The LS mean change from BL to post BL (average score of 2 weeks) in Rhinorrhea was estimated using a cLDA model, where both BL and post-BL measurements (average score from Day 1 to Day 13) were included in the response variable. The treatment difference in terms of LS mean change from BL between desloratadine 5 mg and placebo was evaluated with the 95% confidence interval and P-value."||-0.12|-0.33|<0.001
90845714|NCT00395343|181557878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.56|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.7|-0.42|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment; baseline; metformin stratum (on vs. not on metformin); insulin stratum (pre-mixed vs. intermediate or long-acting)||||-0.42|-0.70|<0.001
90845715|NCT00395343|181557879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-15.0|||<|0.001||95.0|-23.4|-6.5|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment; baseline; metformin stratum; insulin stratum||||-6.5|-23.4|<0.001
90845716|NCT00395343|181557880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-36.1|||<|0.001||95.0|-47.1|-25.1|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment; baseline; metformin stratum; insulin stratum||||-25.1|-47.1|<0.001
90845717|NCT00395343|181557881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Difference|36.5||||0.01||95.0|8.9|64.7|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment; log-scaled baseline value; metformin stratum; insulin stratum||||64.7|8.9|0.01
90845718|NCT00395343|181557882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.6|||<|0.001||95.0|1.89|6.85||Based on a test of the odds ratio = 1, comparing the odds of having A1C \<7.0% at Week 24 in the Sitagliptin 100 mg q.d. group vs. the Placebo group.|Logistic Regression|Model terms: treatment; baseline; Metformin stratum; and insulin stratum||||6.85|1.89|<0.001
90845719|NCT00395343|181557883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.584||95.0|0.45|4.18||Based on a test of the odds ratio = 1, comparing the odds of having A1C \<7.0% at Week 24 in the Sitagliptin 100 mg q.d. group vs. the Placebo group.|Logistic Regression|Model terms: treatment; baseline; Metformin stratum; and insulin stratum|This parameter estimate and 95% confidence interval correspond to the odds of having A1C \<6.5% at Week 24 in the Sitagliptin 100 mg q.d. group vs. the Placebo group.|||4.18|0.45|0.584
90898893|NCT01557322|181663939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Current DMARDs, Sulphasalazine: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||<0.001
90845720|NCT00395343|181557884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.56|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.72|-0.4|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment; baseline; metformin stratum; insulin stratum, treatment by insulin stratum interaction||||-0.40|-0.72|<0.001
90845721|NCT03860259|181557905|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1771||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||24 hrs||||0.1771
90845722|NCT03860259|181557905|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2833||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||48 hrs||||0.2833
90845723|NCT03860259|181557905|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0909||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||72 hrs||||0.0909
90845724|NCT03860259|181557905|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.231||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||96 hrs||||0.2310
90845725|NCT03860259|181557905|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0801|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||120 hrs||||0.0801
90845726|NCT03860259|181557905|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0307||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||Total||||0.0307
90845727|NCT03860259|181557906|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1956||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||24 hrs||||0.1956
90845728|NCT03860259|181557906|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2274||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||48 hrs||||0.2274
90845729|NCT03860259|181557906|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.109||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||72 hrs||||0.1090
90845730|NCT03860259|181557906|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1618||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||96 hrs||||0.1618
90845731|NCT03860259|181557906|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1264||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||120 hrs||||0.1264
90845732|NCT03860259|181557906|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0394||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||Day 14||||0.0394
90845733|NCT03860259|181557906|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3968||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||Day 30||||0.3968
90845734|NCT03860259|181557906|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3407||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||Day 60||||0.3407
90845735|NCT03860259|181557906|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4033||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||Day 90||||0.4033
90845736|NCT03860259|181557907|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1707||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||Time of discharge||||0.1707
90845737|NCT03860259|181557907|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3446||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||24 hrs||||0.3446
90845738|NCT03860259|181557907|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.431|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||48 hrs||||0.4310
90845739|NCT03860259|181557907|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3143||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||72 hrs||||0.3143
90845740|NCT03860259|181557907|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4749||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||96 hrs||||0.4749
90845741|NCT03860259|181557907|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3728||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||120 hrs||||0.3728
90845742|NCT03860259|181557907|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1628|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Day 14||||0.1628
90845743|NCT03860259|181557907|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0731||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||Day 30||||0.0731
90845744|NCT03860259|181557907|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4909||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||Day 60||||0.4909
90898894|NCT01557322|181663939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Previous DMARDs, Methotrexate: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||<0.001
90898895|NCT01557322|181663939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Previous DMARDs, Azathioprine: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||<0.001
90898896|NCT01557322|181663939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Previous DMARDs, Cyclophosphamide: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||<0.001
90898897|NCT01557322|181663939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Previous DMARDs, Cyclosporine: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||<0.001
91104181|NCT04003142|182094840|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.049||95.0|-0.33|0.0||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||||0.00|-0.33|0.049
90845745|NCT03860259|181557907|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4411||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||Day 90||||0.4411
90845746|NCT03860259|181557908|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1786||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||Acetaminophen||||0.1786
90845747|NCT03860259|181557908|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1876||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||Ibuprofen||||0.1876
90845748|NCT03860259|181557909|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3638||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline PCS||||0.3638
90845749|NCT03860259|181557909|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0856||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||Day 14 PCS||||0.0856
90845750|NCT03860259|181557909|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4428||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||Day 30 PCS||||0.4428
90845751|NCT03860259|181557909|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3378||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||Day 60 PCS||||0.3378
90845752|NCT03860259|181557909|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3942||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||Day 90 PCS||||0.3942
90898898|NCT01557322|181663939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Previous DMARDs, Leflunomide: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||<0.001
91077899|NCT02913105|182041137|OTHER|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.94||||0.1214|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.89|1.0|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||HDL Cholesterol: Day 42||1.00|0.89|0.1214
90845753|NCT03860259|181557909|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.219||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline MCS||||0.2190
90845754|NCT03860259|181557909|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1112||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||Day 14 MCS||||0.1112
90845755|NCT03860259|181557909|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1737||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||Day 30 MCS||||0.1737
90845756|NCT03860259|181557909|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2408||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||Day 60 MCS||||0.2408
90845757|NCT03860259|181557909|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||Day 90 MCS||||0.0380
90845758|NCT03860259|181557910|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.222||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.2220
90845759|NCT03860259|181557911|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2856||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.2856
90845760|NCT03860259|181557914|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2241|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.2241
90845761|NCT03860259|181557915|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2714||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||Time of discharge||||0.2714
90845762|NCT03860259|181557915|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3749||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||24 hrs||||0.3749
90845763|NCT03860259|181557915|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3862||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||48 hrs||||0.3862
90845764|NCT03860259|181557915|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1735||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||72 hrs||||0.1735
90845765|NCT03860259|181557915|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4304||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||96 hrs||||0.4304
90845766|NCT03860259|181557915|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4902||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||120 hrs||||0.4902
90845767|NCT03860259|181557915|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4371||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||Day 14||||0.4371
90845768|NCT03860259|181557915|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.195||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||Day 30||||0.1950
90845769|NCT03860259|181557915|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4124|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Day 60||||0.4124
90845770|NCT03860259|181557915|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0268||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||Day 90||||0.0268
90845771|NCT02280408|181557925|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not performed.||||||<0.001
90845772|NCT02280408|181557925|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not performed.||||||<0.001
90845773|NCT02280408|181557925|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not performed.||||||<0.001
90845774|NCT02280408|181557925|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not performed.||||||0.010
90898899|NCT01557322|181663940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline: p-value was calculated using 2-sided t-test.||||<0.001
90898900|NCT01557322|181663941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline PCS: p-value was calculated using 2-sided t-test.||||<0.001
91077900|NCT02913105|182041137|OTHER|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.9||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|0.95|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||HDL Cholesterol: Day 56||0.95|0.84|0.0043
91077901|NCT02913105|182041137|OTHER|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.95||||0.2615|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.89|1.02|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||HDL Cholesterol: Day 84||1.02|0.89|0.2615
90845775|NCT02280408|181557925|OTHER|||||||0.011|||||||ANOVA|Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not performed.||||||0.011
90845776|NCT02280408|181557925|OTHER|||||||0.969|||||||ANOVA|Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not performed||||||0.969
90898901|NCT01557322|181663941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.886|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline MCS: p-value was calculated using 2-sided t-test.||||0.886
90898902|NCT01557322|181663941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline Vitality Score: p-value was calculated using 2-sided t-test.||||0.680
90898903|NCT01557322|181663951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0233|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Month 6: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.0233
90898904|NCT01557322|181663951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5103|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Month 12: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.5103
90898905|NCT01557322|181663951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.999|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Month 18: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.9990
90898906|NCT01557322|181663951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6495|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Month 24: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.6495
90845777|NCT02280408|181557926|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not performed||||||<0.001
90845778|NCT02280408|181557926|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not performed||||||<0.001
90898907|NCT01557322|181663951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3829|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Month 30: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.3829
90898908|NCT01557322|181663951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1085|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Month 36: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.1085
90898909|NCT01557322|181663951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0472|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Month 48: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.0472
90898910|NCT01557322|181663951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4804|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Month 60: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.4804
90898911|NCT01557322|181663952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0895|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Lymphoproliferative Tumors, Month 6: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.0895
90845779|NCT02280408|181557926|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not performed||||||<0.001
90845780|NCT02280408|181557926|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not performed||||||<0.001
90845781|NCT02280408|181557926|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not performed||||||<0.001
90845782|NCT02280408|181557926|OTHER|||||||0.733|||||||ANOVA|Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not performed||||||0.733
90845783|NCT02280408|181557927|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not performed.||||||<0.001
90845784|NCT02280408|181557927|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not performed.||||||<0.001
90845785|NCT02280408|181557927|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not performed.||||||<0.001
90845786|NCT02280408|181557927|OTHER|||||||0.132|||||||ANOVA|Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not performed.||||||0.132
90845787|NCT02280408|181557927|OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||ANOVA|Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not performed.||||||0.070
90845788|NCT02280408|181557927|OTHER|||||||0.743|||||||ANOVA|Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not performed.||||||0.743
90845789|NCT02280408|181557928|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not performed.||||||<0.001
90845790|NCT02280408|181557928|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not performed.||||||<0.001
90845791|NCT02280408|181557928|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not performed.||||||<0.001
90898912|NCT01557322|181663952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0774|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Lymphoproliferative Tumors, Month 12: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.0774
90898913|NCT01557322|181663952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Lymphoproliferative Tumors, Month 18: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.0024
90898914|NCT01557322|181663952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5552|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Lymphoproliferative Tumors, Month 30: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.5552
90898915|NCT01557322|181663952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0793|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Lymphoproliferative Tumors, Month 36: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.0793
90898916|NCT01557322|181663952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0075|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Lymphoproliferative Tumors, Month 48: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.0075
90898917|NCT01557322|181663952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0895|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Hodgkins Lymphoma, Month 6: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.0895
90898918|NCT01557322|181663952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Hodgkins Lymphoma, Month 18: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.0024
90898919|NCT01557322|181663952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6301|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Hodgkins Lymphoma, Month 30: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.6301
90898920|NCT01557322|181663952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0793|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Hodgkins Lymphoma, Month 36: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.0793
90898921|NCT01557322|181663952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0075|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Hodgkins Lymphoma, Month 48: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.0075
90898922|NCT01557322|181663952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7253|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Myeloma, Month 12: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.7253
90898923|NCT01557322|181663952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7336|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Myeloma, Month 30: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.7336
90898924|NCT01557322|181663952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0044|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Leukaemia, Month 12: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.0044
90898925|NCT01557322|181663952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4175|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Non-Melanoma Skin Cancer, Month 6: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.4175
90898926|NCT01557322|181663952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3886|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Non-Melanoma Skin Cancer, Month 12: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.3886
90898927|NCT01557322|181663952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5102|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Non-Melanoma Skin Cancer, Month 18: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.5102
91094280|NCT02320396|182072638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.09||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|-0.02|||cLDA model|||"Change from BL in Nasal Congestion During 2 Weeks: Desloratadine vs. Placebo~The LS mean change from BL to post BL (average score of 2 weeks) in Nasal Congestion was estimated using a cLDA model, where both BL and post-BL measurements (average score from Day 1 to Day 13) were included in the response variable. The treatment difference in terms of LS mean change from BL between desloratadine 5 mg and placebo was evaluated with the 95% confidence interval and P-value."||-0.02|-0.16|0.009
91094281|NCT02320396|182072638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.15|||cLDA model|||"Change from BL in Nasal Itching During 2 Weeks: Desloratadine vs. Placebo~The LS mean change from BL to post BL (average score of 2 weeks) in Nasal Itching was estimated using a cLDA model, where both BL and post-BL measurements (average score from Day 1 to Day 13) were included in the response variable. The treatment difference in terms of LS mean change from BL between desloratadine 5 mg and placebo was evaluated with the 95% confidence interval and P-value.~cLDA model"||-0.15|-0.38|<0.001
91094282|NCT02320396|182072639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.15|||cLDA model|||"Change from BL to Week 1 in Eye Pruritus: Desloratadine vs. Placebo~The LS mean change from BL to Week 1 post BL in Eye Pruritus was estimated using a cLDA model, where both BL and post-BL measurements (average score of 1 week prior to Week 1) were included in the response variable. The treatment difference in terms of LS mean change from BL between desloratadine 5 mg and placebo was evaluated with the 95% confidence interval and P-value."||-0.15|-0.35|<0.001
90845792|NCT02280408|181557928|OTHER|||||||0.014|||||||ANOVA|Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not performed.||||||0.014
90845793|NCT02280408|181557928|OTHER|||||||0.011|||||||ANOVA|Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not performed.||||||0.011
90845794|NCT02280408|181557928|OTHER|||||||0.923|||||||ANOVA|Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not performed.||||||0.923
90845795|NCT03563183|181557951|OTHER|Vaccine efficacy rate was calculated as 100\*(1-RR) with RR=relative risk of developing the confimed herpes zoster for Herpes Zoster subunit vaccine Group compared to Placebo Group.|Vaccine Efficacy rate|95.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.58|98.22|||Poisson exact test|||Efficacy analysis aimed at comparing the confimed herpes zoster for Herpes Zoster incidence rate between Non-Frail-HZ/su vs Non-Frail-Placebo groups.||98.22|91.58|<0.0001
90845796|NCT03563183|181557951|OTHER|Vaccine efficacy rate was calculated as 100\*(1-RR) with RR=relative risk of developing the confimed herpes zoster for Herpes Zoster subunit vaccine group compared to placebo people.|Vaccine Efficacy rate|90.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|84.41|94.43|||Poisson exact test|||Efficacy analysis aimed at comparing the confimed herpes zoster for Herpes Zoster incidence rate between Pre-Frail-HZ/su vs Pre-Frail-Placebo groups.||94.43|84.41|<0.0001
90845797|NCT03563183|181557951|OTHER|Vaccine efficacy rate was calculated as 100\*(1-RR) with RR=relative risk of developing the confimed herpes zoster for Herpes Zoster subunit vaccine group compared to placebo people.|Vaccine Efficacy rate|90.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|75.36|96.65|||Poisson exact test|||Efficacy analysis aimed at comparing the confimed herpes zoster for Herpes Zoster incidence rate between Frail-HZ/su vs Frail-Placebo groups.||96.65|75.36|<0.0001
90845798|NCT03563183|181557951|OTHER|Vaccine efficacy rate was calculated as 100\*(1-RR) with RR=relative risk of developing the confimed herpes zoster for Herpes Zoster subunit vaccine group compared to placebo people.|Vaccine Efficacy rate|100.0||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.61|100.0|||Poisson exact test|||Efficacy analysis aimed at comparing the confimed herpes zoster for Herpes Zoster incidence rate between Unknown-HZ/su vs Unknown-Placebo groups.||100|14.61|0.069
90845799|NCT03563183|181557952|OTHER|VE against the BOI due to HZ (VE BOI ) was defined as the relative reduction in the BOI score in the vaccine group as compared with that in the placebo group and calculated as 1 - relative risk (i.e., 1- the HZ BOI score in the vaccine group divided by the HZ BOI score in the placebo group).|Vaccine Efficacy rate|98.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|97.1|100.0||||||VE against confirmed HZ BOI and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) are presented by frailty status in the mTVC.||100|97.1|
90845800|NCT03563183|181557952|OTHER|VE against the BOI due to HZ (VE BOI ) was defined as the relative reduction in the BOI score in the vaccine group as compared with that in the placebo group and calculated as 1 - relative risk (i.e., 1- the HZ BOI score in the vaccine group divided by the HZ BOI score in the placebo group).|Vaccine Efficacy rate|92.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.6|98.7||||||VE against confirmed HZ BOI and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) are presented by frailty status in the mTVC.||98.7|86.6|
90845801|NCT03563183|181557952|OTHER|VE against the BOI due to HZ (VE BOI ) was defined as the relative reduction in the BOI score in the vaccine group as compared with that in the placebo group and calculated as 1 - relative risk (i.e., 1- the HZ BOI score in the vaccine group divided by the HZ BOI score in the placebo group).|Vaccine Efficacy rate|85.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.6|100.0||||||VE against confirmed HZ BOI and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) are presented by frailty status in the mTVC.||100|62.6|
90859725|NCT03693300|181582891|OTHER||Proportion (%)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|70.76|||||95% CI were based on the Clopper-Pearson method.|Any possibly related AEs of Grade 3 or Grade 4 with onset date within 6 months of the first dose||70.76|0.00|
90859726|NCT03693300|181582891|OTHER||Proportion (%)|4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|9.69|||||95% CI were based on the Clopper-Pearson method.|Any possibly related AEs of Grade 3 or Grade 4 with onset date within 6 months of the first dose||9.69|1.40|
90859727|NCT00537238|181582900|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the difference in proportion (Pregabalin - Levetiracetam) was greater than -0.12.|Difference in Proportion|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.08|0.09||||||||0.09|-0.08|
90859728|NCT00537238|181582901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median difference|4.1||||0.3571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|10.9|||Ranked ANCOVA|||Rank analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used to derive p-value with treatment as main effect and cluster as cofactor, percent change in 28-day seizure counts between baseline and treatment periods as dependent variable. Median differences and 95% confidence interval (CI) were based on Hodges-Lehmann estimation.||10.9|-2.6|0.3571
90859729|NCT00537238|181582903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0822|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||All partial seizure: p-value was calculated from the 2-sided Fisher's exact test.||||0.0822
90859730|NCT00537238|181582903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9175|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Simple partial seizure: p-value was calculated from the 2-sided Fisher's exact test.||||0.9175
90845802|NCT03563183|181557952|OTHER|VE against the BOI due to HZ (VE BOI ) was defined as the relative reduction in the BOI score in the vaccine group as compared with that in the placebo group and calculated as 1 - relative risk (i.e., 1- the HZ BOI score in the vaccine group divided by the HZ BOI score in the placebo group).|Vaccine Efficacy rate|100.0||||||||||||||VE against the BOI due to confirmed HZ. The 95% Confidence Interval was not calculated as there were no subjects reported with a confirmed Zoster episode in the Unknown-HZ/su Group.||||
91029572|NCT02097121|181943286|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.434|=|0.8206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.205|2.551|||ANCOVA|||"Treatment Difference of 100 U versus 25 U~Pairwise comparisons of 100 U versus 25 U of BOTOX up to Week 12 in Treatment Cycle 1 was evaluated using an ANCOVA model with study baseline value as covariate, and treatment group and stratification (baseline daytime urinary urgency incontinence episodes \[a total of ≤ 6 episodes or \> 6 episodes over the 2-day diary collection period\]) as factors. A hierarchical analysis strategy to adjust for multiplicity was not implemented."||2.551|-3.205|= 0.8206
91094283|NCT02320396|182072639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|-0.08|||cLDA model|||"Change from BL to Week 1 in Watering Eyes: Desloratadine vs. Placebo~The LS mean change from BL to Week 1 post BL in Watering Eyes was estimated using a cLDA model, where both BL and post-BL measurements (average score of 1 week prior to Week 1) were included in the response variable. The treatment difference in terms of LS mean change from BL between desloratadine 5 mg and placebo was evaluated with the 95% confidence interval and P-value."||-0.08|-0.24|<0.001
90845803|NCT00486291|181557983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||It is anticipated that the pooled standard deviation (SD) of the change from baseline in HbA1c will be between 1.0 and 1.5. With 90 subjects per treatment group the study will have 90% power (two-sided alpha=0.05) to detect a mean difference between groups of 0.486 for SD=1.0, and a mean difference between groups of 0.729 for SD=1.5.||-0.2|-0.9|0.0007
90845804|NCT00486291|181557984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|-4.9|||ANCOVA|||||-4.9|-8.1|<0.0001
90845805|NCT04413617|181557985|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.163||0.0158|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.62|-0.08|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||The primary clinical hypothesis is that mean decrease at Week 12 in DAS28-CRP score in one or both combo arms exceeds the mean decrease in the reference (tofacitinib) treatment arm, regardless of occurrence of intercurrent events. The null hypothesis is that the mean decrease in DAS28-CRP score at Week 12 is identical in the control (tofacitinib arm) and combination arms.||-0.08|-0.62|0.0158
90845806|NCT04413617|181557985|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.164||0.3933|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.32|0.23|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||The primary clinical hypothesis is that mean decrease at Week 12 in DAS28-CRP score in one or both combo arms exceeds the mean decrease in the reference (tofacitinib) treatment arm, regardless of occurrence of intercurrent events. The null hypothesis is that the mean decrease in DAS28-CRP score at Week 12 is identical in the control (tofacitinib arm) and combination arms.||0.23|-0.32|0.3933
90845807|NCT00984620|181557999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted percent difference|-1.25||||0.855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|11.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on an Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method adjusted by HCV genotype (1a and 1b only).|p-value presented is 2-sided. The percent differences and p-values are based on a comparison to the Faldaprevir 120mg (12 Weeks).|||11.8|-14.3|0.855
90845808|NCT00984620|181558000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted percent difference|9.02||||0.229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|23.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on an Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method adjusted by HCV genotype (1a and 1b only).|p-value presented is 2-sided. The percent differences and p-values are based on a comparison to the Faldaprevir 120mg (12 Weeks).|||23.3|-5.3|0.229
90845809|NCT00984620|181558001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted percent difference|5.48||||0.417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|18.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on an Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method adjusted by HCV genotype (1a and 1b only).|p-value presented is 2-sided. The percent differences and p-values are based on a comparison to the Faldaprevir 120mg (12 Weeks).|||18.3|-7.3|0.417
90845810|NCT00984620|181558002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted percent difference|2.99||||0.676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|16.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on an Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method adjusted by HCV genotype (1a and 1b only).|p-value presented is 2-sided. The percent differences and p-values are based on a comparison to the Faldaprevir 120mg (12 Weeks).|||16.6|-10.6|0.676
90845811|NCT00984620|181558003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted percent difference|3.24||||0.588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|14.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on an Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method adjusted by HCV genotype (1a and 1b only).|p-value presented is 2-sided. The percent differences and p-values are based on a comparison to the Faldaprevir 120mg (12 Weeks).|||14.6|-8.1|0.588
90845812|NCT00984620|181558004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted percent difference|4.78||||0.512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|18.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on an Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method adjusted by HCV genotype (1a and 1b only).|p-value presented is 2-sided. The percent differences and p-values are based on a comparison to the Faldaprevir 120mg (12 Weeks).|||18.6|-9.0|0.512
90845813|NCT00984620|181558006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1397||||||Compare 120 MG Faldaprevir 120mg (24 Weeks) over 120 MG Faldaprevir 120mg (12 Weeks) using log-rank test.|Log Rank|||||||0.1397
90845814|NCT05126225|181558035|OTHER|Single group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.224||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.032|0.96|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.960|0.032|0.05
90845815|NCT05126225|181558036|OTHER|Single group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.44|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.440|0.160|0.05
90845816|NCT05091567|181558048|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.67|||Log Rank|||Stratified Analysis: The stratification factors were Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) at randomization (0 vs. 1); Lactate Dehydrogenase (LDH) at randomization (\<=upper limit of normal (ULN) vs \>ULN) via local laboratory test; Presence of liver metastases at enrollment (yes vs. no); Prior receipt of prophylactic cranial irradiation (PCI) (yes vs. no).||0.67|0.43|< .0001
90845817|NCT05091567|181558049|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73|||=|0.0174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.95|||Log Rank|||Stratified Analysis: The stratification factors were ECOG PS at randomization (0 vs. 1); LDH at randomization (\<=ULN vs \>ULN) via local laboratory test; Presence of liver metastases at enrollment (yes vs. no); Prior receipt of PCI (yes vs. no).||0.95|0.57|= 0.0174
91094284|NCT02320396|182072639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.15|||cLDA model|||"Change from BL to Week 1 in Worse of Pruritus or Watering Eyes: Desloratadine vs. Placebo~The LS mean change from BL to Week 1 post BL in the worse symptom of Pruritus or Watering Eyes estimated using a cLDA model, where both BL and post-BL measurements (average score of 1 week prior to Week 1) were included in the response variable. The treatment difference in terms of LS mean change from BL between desloratadine 5 mg and placebo was evaluated with the 95% confidence interval and P-value."||-0.15|-0.35|<0.001
90845818|NCT05091567|181558050|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.68||||||Stratified Analysis: The stratification factors were ECOG PS at randomization (0 vs. 1); LDH at randomization (\<=ULN vs \>ULN) via local laboratory test; Presence of liver metastases at enrollment (yes vs. no); Prior receipt of PCI (yes vs. no).||0.68|0.45|
90845819|NCT05091567|181558051|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Overall Response Rates|8.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|16.9||||||Stratified Analysis: The stratification factors were ECOGPS at randomization (0 vs. 1);LDH at randomization (\<=ULN vs \>ULN) via local laboratory test; Presence of liver metastases at enrollment (yes vs. no); Prior receipt of PCI (yes vs. no).||16.90|1.07|
90845820|NCT05091567|181558052|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Overall Response Rates|3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.51|11.32||||||Stratified Analysis: The stratification factors were ECOGPS at randomization (0 vs. 1);LDH at randomization (\<=ULNvs \>ULN) via local laboratory test; Presence of liver metastases at enrollment (yes vs. no); Prior receipt of PCI (yes vs. no).||11.32|-3.51|
90845821|NCT05091567|181558055|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|22.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.12|31.0||||||||31.00|14.12|
90845822|NCT05091567|181558055|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|8.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|16.31||||||||16.31|0.72|
90845823|NCT05091567|181558056|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|23.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.09|32.2||||||||32.20|15.09|
90845824|NCT05091567|181558056|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|7.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|15.16||||||||15.16|-0.11|
90845825|NCT03054129|181558068|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.866|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.866
90845826|NCT03054129|181558069|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.361|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.361
90898928|NCT01557322|181663952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9855|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Non-Melanoma Skin Cancer, Month 24: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.9855
90898929|NCT01557322|181663952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4955|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Non-Melanoma Skin Cancer, Month 30: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.4955
90898930|NCT01557322|181663952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5404|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Non-Melanoma Skin Cancer, Month 36: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.5404
90845827|NCT03054129|181558070|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.565|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.565
90845828|NCT03054129|181558071|OTHER|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.000
90845829|NCT03054129|181558072|OTHER|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.000
90845830|NCT03054129|181558073|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.357|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.357
90845831|NCT03054129|181558074|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.715|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.715
90845832|NCT03054129|181558075|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.978|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.978
90845833|NCT03054129|181558076|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.191|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.191
90845834|NCT03054129|181558077|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.097|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.097
90845835|NCT03054129|181558078|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.339|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.339
90845836|NCT03054129|181558079|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.016
90845837|NCT03054129|181558080|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.933|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.933
90845838|NCT03054129|181558081|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.136|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.136
90845839|NCT03054129|181558082|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.673|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.673
90845840|NCT03054129|181558083|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.715|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.715
90845841|NCT03054129|181558084|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.040
90845842|NCT03054129|181558085|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.779|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.779
90845843|NCT03054129|181558086|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.152|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.152
90845844|NCT03054129|181558087|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.129|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.129
90845845|NCT03054129|181558088|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.384|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.384
90845846|NCT03054129|181558089|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.978|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.978
90845847|NCT03054129|181558090|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.715|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.715
90845848|NCT03054129|181558091|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.546|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.546
90845849|NCT03054129|181558092|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.933|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.933
90845850|NCT03054129|181558093|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.684|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.684
90845851|NCT03054129|181558094|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.112|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.112
90845852|NCT03054129|181558095|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.012
90845853|NCT03054129|181558096|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.633|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.633
90845854|NCT03054129|181558097|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.736|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.736
90845855|NCT03054129|181558098|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.227|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.227
90845856|NCT03054129|181558099|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.109|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.109
90845857|NCT03054129|181558100|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.844|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.844
90845858|NCT03054129|181558101|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.122|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.122
90898931|NCT01557322|181663952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3581|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Non-Melanoma Skin Cancer, Month 48: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.3581
90898932|NCT01557322|181663952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4932|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Solid Tumor, Month 6: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.4932
90898933|NCT01557322|181663952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4818|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Solid Tumor, Month 12: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.4818
90898934|NCT01557322|181663952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3224|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Solid Tumor, Month 18: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.3224
91029573|NCT02097121|181943286|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.434|=|0.9604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.807|2.95|||ANCOVA|||"Treatment Difference of 50 U versus 25 U~Pairwise comparisons of 50 U versus 25 U of BOTOX up to Week 12 in Treatment Cycle 1 was evaluated using an ANCOVA model with study baseline value as covariate, and treatment group and stratification (baseline daytime urinary urgency incontinence episodes \[a total of ≤ 6 episodes or \> 6 episodes over the 2-day diary collection period\]) as factors. A hierarchical analysis strategy to adjust for multiplicity was not implemented."||2.95|-2.807|= 0.9604
90845859|NCT03054129|181558102|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.715|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.715
90845860|NCT03054129|181558103|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.593|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.593
90845861|NCT03054129|181558104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.508|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.508
90845862|NCT01129583|181558108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.06
90845863|NCT01129583|181558109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
90845864|NCT01129583|181558110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
90845865|NCT04491604|181558129|EQUIVALENCE|The Hypothesis was tested by exact McNemar's test on the paired primary wound healing data.|responder rate difference|45.8||||0.00192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.6|68.0|||McNemar|The Hypothesis was tested by exact McNemar's test on the paired primary wound healing data. A multiple imputation approach was used for missing data.|The difference is the treatment/discordance difference in percentage of responders (primary wounds with complete healing), which is the same as the difference in the percentage of treatment responders and the percentage of placebo responders.|The null hypothesis of interest was the absence of a treatment effect on wound healing and the alternative hypothesis is the presence of a treatment effect on wound healing. The Hypothesis was tested by exact McNemar's test on the paired primary wound healing data. For subjects with missing primary wound healing data, a multiple imputation approach was used.||68.0|23.6|0.00192
90845866|NCT04491604|181558130|EQUIVALENCE|The Hypothesis was tested by exact McNemar's test on the paired primary wound healing data.|responder rate difference|51.0||||0.00047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.3|72.6||There is no multiplicity adjustment needed since the hypothesis testing are hierarchical.|McNemar|The Hypothesis was tested by exact McNemar's test on the paired primary wound healing data. A multiple imputation approach was used for missing data.|The difference is the treatment/discordance difference in percentage of responders (complete wound healing), which is the same as the difference in the percentage of treatment responders and the percentage of placebo responders.|The null hypothesis of interest was the absence of a treatment effect on wound healing and the alternative hypothesis is the presence of a treatment effect on wound healing. The Hypothesis was tested by exact McNemar's test on the paired primary wound healing data. For subjects with missing primary wound healing data, a multiple imputation approach was used.||72.6|29.3|0.00047
91029574|NCT02097121|181943288|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|35.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.175|=|0.1174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.207|79.873|||ANCOVA|||"Treatment Difference of 100 U versus 25 U~Pairwise comparisons of 100 U versus 25 U of BOTOX up to Week 12 in Treatment Cycle 1 was evaluated using an ANCOVA model with study baseline value as covariate, and treatment group and stratification (baseline daytime urinary urgency incontinence episodes \[a total of ≤ 6 episodes or \> 6 episodes over the 2-day diary collection period\]) as factors. A hierarchical analysis strategy to adjust for multiplicity was not implemented."||79.873|-9.207|= 0.1174
91029575|NCT02097121|181943288|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|34.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|23.722|=|0.1567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.536|81.76|||ANCOVA|||"Treatment Difference of 50 U versus 25 U~Pairwise comparisons of 50 U versus 25 U of BOTOX up to Week 12 in Treatment Cycle 1 was evaluated using an ANCOVA model with study baseline value as covariate, and treatment group and stratification (baseline daytime urinary urgency incontinence episodes \[a total of ≤ 6 episodes or \> 6 episodes over the 2-day diary collection period\]) as factors. A hierarchical analysis strategy to adjust for multiplicity was not implemented."||81.76|-13.536|= 0.1567
90845867|NCT00689117|181558152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.063||95.0||||Inflammatory lesion count|Ranked ANCOVA|||||||0.063
90845868|NCT00689117|181558152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||Inflammatory lesion count|Ranked ANCOVA|||||||0.003
90845869|NCT00689117|181558152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Inflammatory lesion count|Ranked ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90845870|NCT00689117|181558152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0||||Non-inflammatory lesion count|Ranked ANCOVA|||||||0.004
90845871|NCT00689117|181558152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55||95.0||||Non-inflammatory lesion count|Ranked ANCOVA|||||||0.550
90845872|NCT00689117|181558152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Non-inflammatory lesion count|Ranked ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90845873|NCT00689117|181558152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Total lesion count|Ranked ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90845874|NCT00689117|181558152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016||95.0||||Total lesion count|Ranked ANCOVA|||||||0.016
90845875|NCT00689117|181558152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Total lesion count|Ranked ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90845876|NCT00689117|181558153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||Data based on Data on File documenting FDA reanalysis request|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.001
90845877|NCT00689117|181558153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Data based on Data on File documenting FDA reanalysis request|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90845878|NCT00689117|181558153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Data based on Data on File documenting FDA reanalysis request|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90845879|NCT00689117|181558154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.065||95.0||||Inflammatory lesion count|Ranked ANCOVA|||||||0.065
90845880|NCT00689117|181558154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||Inflammatory lesion count|Ranked ANCOVA|||||||0.002
90845881|NCT00689117|181558154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Inflammatory lesion count|Ranked ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90845882|NCT00689117|181558154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Non-inflammatory lesion count|Ranked ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90845883|NCT00689117|181558154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.284||95.0||||Non-inflammatory lesion count|Ranked ANCOVA|||||||0.284
90845884|NCT00689117|181558154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Non-inflammatory lesion count|Ranked ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90845885|NCT00689117|181558154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Total lesion count|Ranked ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90845886|NCT00689117|181558154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028||95.0||||Total lesion count|Ranked ANCOVA|||||||0.028
91029576|NCT02097121|181943289|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.091|=|0.7481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.553|6.909|||ANCOVA|||"Treatment Difference of 100 U versus 25 U~Pairwise comparisons of 100 U versus 25 U of BOTOX up to Week 12 in Treatment Cycle 1 was evaluated using an ANCOVA model with study baseline value as covariate, and treatment group and stratification (baseline daytime urinary urgency incontinence episodes \[a total of ≤ 6 episodes or \> 6 episodes over the 2-day diary collection period\]) as factors. A hierarchical analysis strategy to adjust for multiplicity was not implemented."||6.909|-9.553|= 0.7481
90845887|NCT00689117|181558154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Total lesion count|Ranked ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90845888|NCT00689117|181558155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.671||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.671
90845889|NCT00689117|181558155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.919||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.919
90845890|NCT00689117|181558155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.002
90845891|NCT00689117|181558156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.002
90845892|NCT00689117|181558156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90845893|NCT00689117|181558156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90845894|NCT04657666|181558191|SUPERIORITY||Combined least mean square difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.7152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.23||Based on a combination of 300 linear mixed models for crossover data on the response variable change from baseline in LLMT-6 with period level LLMT-6 baseline covariate, treatment group, period, and sequence as fixed effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|Pattern mixture model (PMM) control-based imputation, mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)||||0.23|-0.16|0.7152
90845895|NCT00606905|181558250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|4.61|||Chi-squared|||||4.61|0.41|<0.05
90845896|NCT02386189|181558251|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.65|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.3||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The t-test was conducted on change between baseline and 12-month follow-up.||||0.02
91029577|NCT02097121|181943289|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.299|=|0.6691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.799|10.498|||ANCOVA|||"Treatment Difference of 50 U versus 25 U~Pairwise comparisons of 50 U versus 25 U of BOTOX up to Week 12 in Treatment Cycle 1 was evaluated using an ANCOVA model with study baseline value as covariate, and treatment group and stratification (baseline daytime urinary urgency incontinence episodes \[a total of ≤ 6 episodes or \> 6 episodes over the 2-day diary collection period\]) as factors. A hierarchical analysis strategy to adjust for multiplicity was not implemented."||10.498|-6.799|= 0.6691
90845897|NCT02386189|181558252|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.91|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.5||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.06
90845898|NCT02386189|181558253|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.28|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.7||0.71|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.71
90845899|NCT02386189|181558254|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.17
90845900|NCT02386189|181558255|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.15||0.75|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.75
90845901|NCT02386189|181558256|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.1||0.18|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.18
90845902|NCT02386189|181558257|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.9||0.89|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.89
90845903|NCT03120351|181558258|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.5||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.11|2.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.06|-7.11|0.28
90845904|NCT01086358|181558308|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.71||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.92|-0.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|As noted above, results are adjusted for study period and treatment order||Analysis is a superiority comparison based on the use of linear mixed effect model with subject as a random effect, with treatment as the primary fixed effect and including study period and treatment order as other fixed effects.||-0.49|-2.92|0.007
90845905|NCT01086358|181558309|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.03||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.79|-0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|As noted above, results are adjusted for study period and treatment order||Analysis is a superiority comparison based on the use of linear mixed effect model with subject as a random effect, with treatment as the primary fixed effect and including study period and treatment order as other fixed effects.||-0.27|-1.79|0.010
90845906|NCT01086358|181558310|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|As noted above, results are adjusted for study period and treatment order.||Analysis is a superiority comparison based on the use of linear mixed effect model with subject as a random effect, with treatment as the primary fixed effect and including study period and treatment order as other fixed effects.||0.03|-1.39|0.059
90845907|NCT01086358|181558311|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.89||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|6.84|||Regression, Logistic|As noted above, results are adjusted for study period and treatment order.||Logistic regression models with generalized estimating equations were used. In these models, a logit link function was used for a favorable response (yes/no) with treatment as the primary fixed effect and including study period and treatment order as other fixed effects..||6.84|1.22|0.016
90845908|NCT00332722|181558343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Paired t test|||||||<0.05
90845909|NCT00332722|181558344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Paired t test|||||||<0.05
90845910|NCT01776307|181558355|OTHER|Descriptive analysis for investigational arms; no comparator analysis|||||||||||||||||The exact 95% confidence interval is based on the Clopper-Pearson method.|||
90845911|NCT01776307|181558356|OTHER|Estimates provided for investigational arms; no comparator analysis|||||||||||||||||Estimated from Kaplan Meier Curve|||
90845912|NCT01776307|181558357|OTHER|Estimates provided for investigational arms; no comparator analysis|||||||||||||||||Estimated from Kaplan Meier Curve|||
90859731|NCT00537238|181582903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0483|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Complex partial seizure: p-value was calculated from the 2-sided Fisher's exact test.||||0.0483
90859732|NCT00537238|181582903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7139|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||SGTC seizure: p-value was calculated from the 2-sided Fisher's exact test.||||0.7139
90845913|NCT03530124|181558434|SUPERIORITY|The number of infants with ≥1 apneic event for each group and compared using a Mantel-Haenszel statistic in a stratified analysis by study site and gestational age group (\< 28 weeks versus ≥ 28 weeks) to control for the randomization blocks at the two-sided alpha 0.05 level and corresponding 95% confidence interval for the occurrence of apnea.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.7||||0.0104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|5.73|||Mantel Haenszel||No adjustments were made to the alpha level (two-sided alpha=0.05) for the primary objective.|||5.73|1.27|0.0104
91094285|NCT02320396|182072640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.12|||cLDA model|||"Change from BL to Week 2 in Eye Pruritus: Desloratadine vs. Placebo~The LS mean change from BL to Week 2 post BL in Eye Pruritus was estimated using a cLDA model, where both BL and post-BL measurements (average score of 1 week prior to Week 2) were included in the response variable. The treatment difference in terms of LS mean change from BL between desloratadine 5 mg and placebo was evaluated with the 95% confidence interval and P-value."||-0.12|-0.37|<0.001
90845914|NCT03530124|181558435|OTHER|The number of apnea events were compared using a linear regression model (assuming a Poisson distribution) with study site and gestational age group covariates to control for the randomization blocks.||||||0.11|||||||Regression, Linear|No adjustments were made to the alpha level (two-sided alpha=0.05) for the secondary objectives.||||||0.11
90845915|NCT03530124|181558436|OTHER|Average duration of apnea episodes between groups were compared using a mixed effects model with a random intercept for each infant with one or more events and study site and gestational age group as covariates to control for the randomization blocks.||||||0.36|||||||Mixed Effects Model|No adjustments were made to the alpha level (two-sided alpha=0.05) for the secondary objectives.||||||0.36
90845916|NCT03530124|181558437|SUPERIORITY|The proportion of infants requiring an increase in respiratory support for each group were compared using a Mantel-Haenszel statistic in a stratified analysis by study site and gestational age group to control for the randomization blocks at the two-sided alpha 0.05 level and corresponding 95% confidence interval for the occurrence of apnea.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.07||||0.3555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|7.23|||Mantel Haenszel||No adjustments were made to the alpha level (two-sided alpha=0.05) for the secondary objectives.|||7.23|0.59|0.3555
90845917|NCT03530124|181558438|SUPERIORITY|The proportion of infants with ≥1 cardiorespiratory event using a Mantel-Haenszel statistic in at the two-sided alpha 0.05 level and corresponding 95% confidence interval.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|2.77|||Mantel Haenszel||No adjustments were made to the alpha level (two-sided alpha=0.05) for the secondary objectives.|Only Duke University had viable monitoring data to analyze this compound outcome objective.||2.77|0.29|1.0000
90845918|NCT03530124|181558439|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.93||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|21.63|||Mantel Haenszel||No adjustments were made to the alpha level (two-sided alpha=0.05) for the secondary objectives.|The proportion of infants requiring positive pressure ventilation for each group were compared using a Mantel-Haenszel statistic in a stratified analysis by study site and gestational age group to control for the randomization blocks at the two-sided alpha 0.05 level and corresponding 95% confidence interval for the occurrence of apnea during the 48-hour monitoring period.||21.63|0.17|1.0000
90845919|NCT00947882|181558448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.0911||||||P-value based on Williams' extended trend test of comparison vs. placebo at Month 3. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made.|Step-down, Williams' extended trend test|Step-down procedure (starting with 30 mg vs. placebo) to identify the minimum effective dose. The step-down testing protects the type I error rate.|"Treatment difference between Degarelix 30 mg and Placebo at Month 3."|Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) of the change from baseline in IPSS at Month 3 in the FAS population using the Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF) method, including the baseline IPSS as adjusting covariate and treatment group, prostate volume stratum (\<30 mL and ≥30 mL), and region (North America and Europe) as factors.||||0.0911
90845920|NCT00947882|181558448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.44||||0.0865|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value based on Williams' extended trend test of comparison vs. placebo at Month 3. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made.|Step-down, Williams' extended trend test|Step-down procedure (starting with 30 mg vs. placebo) to identify the minimum effective dose. The step-down testing protects the type I error rate.|"Treatment difference between Degarelix 20 mg and Placebo at Month 3."|Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) of the change from baseline in IPSS at Month 3 in the FAS population using the Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF) method, including the baseline IPSS as adjusting covariate and treatment group, prostate volume stratum (\<30 mL and ≥30 mL), and region (North America and Europe) as factors.||||0.0865
90845921|NCT00947882|181558448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.92||||0.2342||||||P-value based on Williams' extended trend test of comparison vs. placebo at Month 3. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made.|Step-down, Williams' extended trend test|Step-down procedure (starting with 30 mg vs. placebo) to identify the minimum effective dose. The step-down testing protects the type I error rate.|"Treatment difference between Degarelix 10 mg and Placebo at Month 3."|Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) of the change from baseline in IPSS at Month 3 in the FAS population using the Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF) method, including the baseline IPSS as adjusting covariate and treatment group, prostate volume stratum (\<30 mL and ≥30 mL), and region (North America and Europe) as factors.||||0.2342
90845922|NCT00947882|181558449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.62||||0.0367||||||P-values based on Williams' extended trend test of comparison vs. placebo at Month 4. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made.|Step-down, Williams' extended trend test|Step-down procedure (starting with 30 mg vs. placebo) to identify the minimum effective dose. The step-down testing protects the type I error rate.|"Treatment difference between Degarelix 30 mg and Placebo at Month 4."|ANCOVA of the change from baseline in IPSS at Months 4 in the FAS population using the LOCF method, including the baseline IPSS as adjusting covariate and treatment group, prostate volume stratum (\<30 mL and ≥30 mL), and region (North America and Europe) as factors.||||0.0367
90859733|NCT00537238|181582904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.1334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|2.69|||ANCOVA|||Baseline, total BPRS score: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and combined center, and for post-baseline assessments baseline was included as a covariate.||2.69|-0.36|0.1334
90845923|NCT00947882|181558449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.97||||0.0231||||||P-value based on Williams' extended trend test of comparison vs. placebo at Month 4. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made.|Step-down, Williams' extended trend test|Step-down procedure (starting with 30 mg vs. placebo) to identify the minimum effective dose. The step-down testing protects the type I error rate.|"Treatment difference between Degarelix 20 mg and Placebo at Month 4."|ANCOVA of the change from baseline in IPSS at Month 4 in the FAS population using the LOCF method, including the baseline IPSS as adjusting covariate and treatment group, prostate volume stratum (\<30 mL and ≥30 mL), and region (North America and Europe) as factors.||||0.0231
90845924|NCT00947882|181558449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.11||||0.1638||||||P-value based on Williams' extended trend test of comparison vs. placebo at Month 4. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made.|Step-down, Williams' extended trend test|Step-down procedure (starting with 30 mg vs. placebo) to identify the minimum effective dose. The step-down testing protects the type I error rate.|"Treatment difference between Degarelix 10 mg and Placebo at Month 4."|ANCOVA of the change from baseline in IPSS at Month 4 in the FAS population using the LOCF method, including the baseline IPSS as adjusting covariate and treatment group, prostate volume stratum (\<30 mL and ≥30 mL), and region (North America and Europe) as factors.||||0.1638
90898935|NCT01557322|181663952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5003|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Solid Tumor, Month 24: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.5003
90898936|NCT01557322|181663952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1134|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Solid Tumor, Month 30: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.1134
90898937|NCT01557322|181663952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3488|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Solid Tumor, Month 36: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.3488
90898938|NCT01557322|181663952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.187|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Solid Tumor, Month 48: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.1870
90898939|NCT01557322|181663952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.427|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Solid Tumor, Month 60: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.4270
91077902|NCT02913105|182041137|OTHER|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.94||||0.1331|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.01|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||HDL Cholesterol: Day 112 (EOS)||1.01|0.88|0.1331
90898940|NCT01557322|181663953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5817|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Death Due to AE, Month 6: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.5817
90898941|NCT01557322|181663953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2595|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Death Due to AE, Month 12: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.2595
90898942|NCT01557322|181663953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5642|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Death Due to AE, Month 18: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.5642
90898943|NCT01557322|181663953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Death Due to AE, Month 24: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.0034
90898944|NCT01557322|181663953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7137|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Death Due to AE, Month 36: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.7137
90898945|NCT01557322|181663953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.963|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Death Due to AE, Month 60: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.9630
90898946|NCT01557322|181663953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7353|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Hospitalization Due to AE, Month 6: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.7353
90898947|NCT01557322|181663953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3829|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Hospitalization Due to AE, Month 12: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.3829
90898948|NCT01557322|181663953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4532|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Hospitalization Due to AE, Month 18: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.4532
90898949|NCT01557322|181663953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4238|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Hospitalization Due to AE, Month 24: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.4238
90898950|NCT01557322|181663953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1218|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Hospitalization Due to AE, Month 30: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.1218
90898951|NCT01557322|181663953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4124|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Hospitalization Due to AE, Month 36: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.4124
90898952|NCT01557322|181663953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6356|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Hospitalization Due to AE, Month 48: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.6356
90898953|NCT01557322|181663953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5491|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Hospitalization Due to AE, Month 60: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.5491
90898954|NCT01557322|181663954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||P-value was calculated using multivariate linear regression with baseline DAS28 score and other baseline variables (socio-demographics, disease characteristics, and initial treatment profile) as covariates.||||<0.0001
90898955|NCT01557322|181663955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||P-value was calculated using multivariate linear regression with baseline HAQ-DI score and other baseline variables (socio-demographics, disease characteristics, and initial treatment profile) as covariates.||||<0.0001
90898956|NCT01557322|181663956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2558|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||PCS: p-value was calculated using multivariate linear regression with baseline PCS and other baseline variables (socio-demographics, disease characteristics, and initial treatment profile) as covariates.||||0.2558
90898957|NCT01557322|181663956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4908|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||MCS: p-value was calculated using multivariate linear regression with baseline MCS and other baseline variables (socio-demographics, disease characteristics, and initial treatment profile) as covariates.||||0.4908
91077903|NCT02913105|182041137|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|0.89|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||HDL Cholesterol: Day 7||0.89|0.81|<.0001
90898958|NCT01557322|181663956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8379|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Vitality Score: p-value was calculated using multivariate linear regression with baseline vitality score and other baseline variables (socio-demographics, disease characteristics, and initial treatment profile) as covariates.||||0.8379
90898959|NCT01395823|181663962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.78
90898960|NCT03300570|181663963|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.15
90898961|NCT00116272|181663966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|7.35|||||Adjusted oddds ratio for major structural defects in women exposed to etanercept in their 1st trimester versus not exposed computed using logistic regression adjusted for propensity score comprised of asthma and maternal height|||7.35|1.04|
90898962|NCT00116272|181663967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|5.52|||||Adjusted oddds ratio for major structural defects in women exposed to etanercept in their 1st trimester versus not exposed computed using logistic regression adjusted for propensity score comprised of asthma and maternal height|||5.52|1.02|
90898963|NCT00116272|181663968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.01|||||Unadjusted Odds Ratio computed using logistic regression. No adjusted estimate was computed due to no confirmed confounder.|||2.01|0.70|
90845925|NCT00947882|181558449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.14||||0.1941||||||P-values based on Williams' extended trend test of comparisons vs. placebo at Month 5. No adjustment for multiple comparison was made.|Step-down, Williams' extended trend test|Step-down procedure (starting with 30 mg vs. placebo) to identify the minimum effective dose. The step-down testing protects the type I error rate.|"Treatment difference between Degarelix 30 mg and Placebo at Month 5."|ANCOVA of the change from baseline in IPSS at Month 5 in the FAS population using the LOCF method, including the baseline IPSS as adjusting covariate and treatment group, prostate volume stratum (\<30 mL and ≥30 mL), and region (North America and Europe) as factors.||||0.1941
90845926|NCT00947882|181558449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.54||||0.1083||||||P-value based on Williams' extended trend test of comparison vs. placebo at Month 5. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made.|Step-down, Williams' extended trend test|Step-down procedure (starting with 30 mg vs. placebo) to identify the minimum effective dose. The step-down testing protects the type I error rate.|"Treatment difference between Degarelix 20 mg and Placebo at Month 5."|ANCOVA of the change from baseline in IPSS at Month 5 in the FAS population using the LOCF method, including the baseline IPSS as adjusting covariate and treatment group, prostate volume stratum (\<30 mL and ≥30 mL), and region (North America and Europe) as factors.||||0.1083
90845927|NCT00947882|181558449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.95||||0.2782||||||P-value based on Williams' extended trend test of comparison vs. placebo at Month 5. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made.|Step-down, Williams' extended trend test|Step-down procedure (starting with 30 mg vs. placebo) to identify the minimum effective dose. The step-down testing protects the type I error rate.|"Treatment difference between Degarelix 10 mg and Placebo at Month 5."|ANCOVA of the change from baseline in IPSS at Month 5 in the FAS population using the LOCF method, including the baseline IPSS as adjusting covariate and treatment group, prostate volume stratum (\<30 mL and ≥30 mL), and region (North America and Europe) as factors.||||0.2782
90898964|NCT00116272|181663970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.12|||||Adjusted HR computed using Cox proportional hazards regression adjusted for propensity score comprised of referral source (3 categories: OTIS, Pharmaceutical Company/Sponsor/HCP, Patient Support Group/Internet/Other), and maternal height.|||1.12|0.20|
90898965|NCT00116272|181663971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|2.98|||||Adjusted HR computed using Cox proportional hazards regression adjusted for preeclampsia|||2.98|0.86|
90898966|NCT00116272|181663972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.26|||||Computed using linear regression, directly adjusted for referral source (not collapsed), vitamin use (not collapsed), preeclampsia, and asthma because propensity score adjustment was not balanced.|||0.26|-0.65|
90845928|NCT00947882|181558449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.15||||0.1562||||||P-values based on Williams' extended trend test of comparison vs. placebo at Month 6. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made.|Step-down, Williams' extended trend test|Step-down procedure (starting with 30 mg vs. placebo) to identify the minimum effective dose. The step-down testing protects the type I error rate.|"Treatment difference between Degarelix 30 mg and Placebo at Month 6."|ANCOVA of the change from baseline in IPSS at Month 6 in the FAS population using the LOCF method, including the baseline IPSS as adjusting covariate and treatment group, prostate volume stratum (\<30 mL and ≥30 mL), and region (North America and Europe) as factors.||||0.1562
91094286|NCT02320396|182072640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.13||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|-0.03|||cLDA model|||"Change from BL to Week 2 in Watering Eyes: Desloratadine vs. Placebo~The LS mean change from BL to Week 2 post BL in Watering Eyes was estimated using a cLDA model, where both BL and post-BL measurements (average score of 1 week prior to Week 2) were included in the response variable. The treatment difference in terms of LS mean change from BL between desloratadine 5 mg and placebo was evaluated with the 95% confidence interval and P-value."||-0.03|-0.24|0.010
90898967|NCT00116272|181663973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|21.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.32|126.91|||||Computed using linear regression, directly adjusted for asthma, RA2 severity score at 32 weeks, and disease severity score imputation indicator because propensity score adjustment was not balanced.|||126.91|-83.32|
90898968|NCT00116272|181663974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.63|||||Computed using linear regression, adjusted for propensity score comprised of preeclampsia and asthma.|||0.63|-0.44|
90898969|NCT00116272|181663975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|-0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.26|||||Computed using linear regression, adjusted for maternal age (categorical).|||0.26|-0.43|
90898970|NCT00116272|181663976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.05|||||Computed using logistic regression, adjusted for propensity score comprised of maternal height, referral source (OTIS, Sponsor/HCP, Patient Support Group/Internet/Other), PsO disease severity score at 32 weeks, \& disease severity imputation indicator|||1.05|0.22|
90898971|NCT00116272|181663977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.68|||||Unadjusted Odds Ratio computed using logistic regression. An adjusted estimate was not computed due to the small number of events.|||1.68|0.31|
90845929|NCT00947882|181558449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.24||||0.1736||||||P-value based on Williams' extended trend test of comparison vs. placebo at Month 6. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made.|Step-down, Williams' extended trend test|Step-down procedure (starting with 30 mg vs. placebo) to identify the minimum effective dose. The step-down testing protects the type I error rate.|"Treatment difference between Degarelix 20 mg and Placebo at Month 6."|ANCOVA of the change from baseline in IPSS at Month 6 in the FAS population using the LOCF method, including the baseline IPSS as adjusting covariate and treatment group, prostate volume stratum (\<30 mL and ≥30 mL), and region (North America and Europe) as factors.||||0.1736
90845930|NCT00947882|181558449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.84||||0.3132||||||P-value based on Williams' extended trend test of comparison vs. placebo at Month 6. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made.|Step-down, Williams' extended trend test|Step-down procedure (starting with 30 mg vs. placebo) to identify the minimum effective dose. The step-down testing protects the type I error rate.|"Treatment difference between Degarelix 10 mg and Placebo at Month 6."|ANCOVA of the change from baseline in IPSS at Month 6 in the FAS population using the LOCF method, including the baseline IPSS as adjusting covariate and treatment group, prostate volume stratum (\<30 mL and ≥30 mL), and region (North America and Europe) as factors.||||0.3132
90845931|NCT00947882|181558450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46||||0.2034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.814|2.628||"Adjustments were made for treatment group, baseline IPSS, graphical region (North America and Europe) and baseline prostate size (\<30 mL and ≥30 mL).~Unadjusted p-value of comparison vs. placebo at Month 3."|Regression, Logistic|No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made. LOCF.|"Odds ratio of treatment response between Degarelix 30 mg and Placebo at Month 3."|||2.628|0.814|0.2034
90845932|NCT00947882|181558450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.1748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.834|2.71||"Adjustments were made for treatment group, baseline IPSS, graphical region (North America and Europe) and baseline prostate size (\<30 mL and ≥30 mL).~Unadjusted p-value of comparison vs. placebo at Month 3."|Regression, Logistic|No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made. LOCF.|"Odds ratio of treatment response between Degarelix 20 mg and Placebo at Month 3."|||2.710|0.834|0.1748
90845933|NCT00947882|181558450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.75||||0.0658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.964|3.195||"Adjustments were made for treatment group, baseline IPSS, graphical region (North America and Europe) and baseline prostate size (\<30 mL and ≥30 mL).~Unadjusted p-value of comparison vs. placebo at Month 3."|Regression, Logistic|No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made. LOCF.|"Odds ratio of treatment response between Degarelix 10 mg and Placebo at Month 3."|||3.195|0.964|0.0658
90845934|NCT00947882|181558450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77||||0.0587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.979|3.184||"Adjustments were made for treatment group, baseline IPSS, graphical region (North America and Europe) and baseline prostate size (\<30 mL and ≥30 mL).~Unadjusted p-value of comparison vs. placebo at Month 4."|Regression, Logistic|No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made. LOCF.|"Odds ratio of treatment response between Degarelix 30 mg and Placebo at Month 4."|||3.184|0.979|0.0587
90845935|NCT00947882|181558450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.81||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.003|3.283||"Adjustments were made for treatment group, baseline IPSS, graphical region (North America and Europe) and baseline prostate size (\<30 mL and ≥30 mL).~Unadjusted p-value of comparison vs. placebo at Month 4."|Regression, Logistic|No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made. LOCF.|"Odds ratio of treatment response between Degarelix 20 mg and Placebo at Month 4."|||3.283|1.003|0.0490
90845936|NCT00947882|181558450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.2742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.774|2.464||"Adjustments were made for treatment group, baseline IPSS, graphical region (North America and Europe) and baseline prostate size (\<30 mL and ≥30 mL).~Unadjusted p-value of comparison vs. placebo at Month 4."|Regression, Logistic|No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made. LOCF.|"Odds ratio of treatment response between Degarelix 10 mg and Placebo at Month 4."|||2.464|0.774|0.2742
90898972|NCT00116272|181663978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.57|||||Computed using logistic regression, adjusted for propensity score comprised of maternal height, referral source (OTIS, Sponsor/HCP, Patient Support Group/Internet/Other), PsO disease severity score at 32 weeks, \& disease severity imputation indicator|||1.57|0.40|
91029578|NCT02097121|181943290|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.343|=|0.9297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.721|0.661|||ANCOVA|||"Treatment Difference of 100 U versus 25 U~Pairwise comparisons of 100 U versus 25 U of BOTOX up to Week 12 in Treatment Cycle 1 was evaluated using an ANCOVA model with study baseline value as covariate, and treatment group and stratification (baseline daytime urinary urgency incontinence episodes \[a total of ≤ 6 episodes or \> 6 episodes over the 2-day diary collection period\]) as factors. A hierarchical analysis strategy to adjust for multiplicity was not implemented."||0.661|-0.721|= 0.9297
91104182|NCT04003142|182094840|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001||95.0|-0.45|-0.13||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||||-0.13|-0.45|<0.001
90845937|NCT00947882|181558450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28||||0.4206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.706|2.304||"Adjustments were made for treatment group, baseline IPSS, graphical region (North America and Europe) and baseline prostate size (\<30 mL and ≥30 mL).~Unadjusted p-value of comparison vs. placebo at Month 5."|Regression, Logistic|No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made. LOCF.|"Odds ratio of treatment response between Degarelix 30 mg and Placebo at Month 5."|||2.304|0.706|0.4206
90845938|NCT00947882|181558450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.5494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.664|2.16||"Adjustments were made for treatment group, baseline IPSS, graphical region (North America and Europe) and baseline prostate size (\<30 mL and ≥30 mL).~Unadjusted p-value of comparison vs. placebo at Month 5."|Regression, Logistic|No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made. LOCF.|"Odds ratio of treatment response between Degarelix 20 mg and Placebo at Month 5."|||2.160|0.664|0.5494
90845939|NCT00947882|181558450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.7586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.609|1.975||"Adjustments were made for treatment group, baseline IPSS, graphical region (North America and Europe) and baseline prostate size (\<30 mL and ≥30 mL).~Unadjusted p-value of comparison vs. placebo at Month 5."|Regression, Logistic|No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made. LOCF.|"Odds ratio of treatment response between Degarelix 10 mg and Placebo at Month 5."|||1.975|0.609|0.7586
91104183|NCT04003142|182094840|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.049|||||||Hochberg|||||||0.049
91104184|NCT04003142|182094840|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Hochberg|||||||<0.001
90845940|NCT00947882|181558450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.1946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.816|2.717||"Adjustments were made for treatment group, baseline IPSS, graphical region (North America and Europe) and baseline prostate size (\<30 mL and ≥30 mL).~Unadjusted p-value of comparison vs. placebo at Month 6."|Regression, Logistic|No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made. LOCF.|"Odds ratio of treatment response between Degarelix 30 mg and Placebo at Month 6."|||2.717|0.816|0.1946
90845941|NCT00947882|181558450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.667|2.174||"Adjustments were made for treatment group, baseline IPSS, graphical region (North America and Europe) and baseline prostate size (\<30 mL and ≥30 mL).~Unadjusted p-value of comparison vs. placebo at Month 6."|Regression, Logistic|No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made. LOCF.|"Odds ratio of treatment response between Degarelix 20 mg and Placebo at Month 6."|||2.174|0.667|0.5380
90845942|NCT00947882|181558450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.4263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.702|2.308||"Adjustments were made for treatment group, baseline IPSS, graphical region (North America and Europe) and baseline prostate size (\<30 mL and ≥30 mL).~Unadjusted p-value of comparison vs. placebo at Month 6."|Regression, Logistic|No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made. LOCF.|"Odds ratio of treatment response between Degarelix 10 mg and Placebo at Month 6."|||2.308|0.702|0.4263
90845943|NCT00947882|181558451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.76||||0.4607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.113|4.59||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made. Unadjusted p-value of comparison vs. placebo at Month 3.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline TPV as covariate and treatment group, region (North America,Europe) and prostate volume stratum (\<30 mL,≥30 mL) as factors. LOCF.|"Treatment difference between Degarelix 30 mg and Placebo at Month 3."|||4.590|-10.113|0.4607
90845944|NCT00947882|181558451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.24||||0.3876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.614|4.128||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made. Unadjusted p-value of comparison vs. placebo at Month 3.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline TPV as covariate and treatment group, region (North America,Europe) and prostate volume stratum (\<30 mL,≥30 mL) as factors. LOCF.|"Treatment difference between Degarelix 20 mg and Placebo at Month 3."|||4.128|-10.614|0.3876
90845945|NCT00947882|181558451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.28||||0.2548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.65|3.096||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made. Unadjusted p-value of comparison vs. placebo at Month 3.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline TPV as covariate and treatment group, region (North America,Europe) and prostate volume stratum (\<30 mL,≥30 mL) as factors. LOCF.|"Treatment difference between Degarelix 10 mg and Placebo at Month 3."|||3.096|-11.650|0.2548
90845946|NCT00947882|181558451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2||||0.5652|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.729|5.322||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made. Unadjusted p-value of comparison vs. placebo at Month 6.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline TPV as covariate and treatment group, region (North America,Europe) and prostate volume stratum (\<30 mL,≥30 mL) as factors. LOCF.|"Treatment difference between Degarelix 30 mg and Placebo at Month 6."|||5.322|-9.729|0.5652
90845947|NCT00947882|181558451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.22||||0.7502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.768|6.322||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made. Unadjusted p-value of comparison vs. placebo at Month 6.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline TPV as covariate and treatment group, region (North America,Europe) and prostate volume stratum (\<30 mL,≥30 mL) as factors. LOCF.|"Treatment difference between Degarelix 20 mg and Placebo at Month 6."|||6.322|-8.768|0.7502
90845948|NCT00947882|181558451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.97||||0.6089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.513|5.581||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made. Unadjusted p-value of comparison vs. placebo at Month 6.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline TPV as covariate and treatment group, region (North America,Europe) and prostate volume stratum (\<30 mL,≥30 mL) as factors. LOCF.|"Treatment difference between Degarelix 10 mg and Placebo at Month 6."|||5.581|-9.513|0.6089
90845949|NCT00947882|181558452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.8511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.068|1.294||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made. Unadjusted p-value of comparison vs. placebo at Month 3.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline Qmax as covariate and treatment group, region (North America,Europe) and prostate volume stratum (\<30 mL,≥30 mL) as factors.LOCF.|"Treatment difference between Degarelix 30 mg and Placebo at Month 3."|||1.294|-1.068|0.8511
90845950|NCT00947882|181558452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29||||0.6331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.477||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made. Unadjusted p-value of comparison vs. placebo at Month 3.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline Qmax as covariate and treatment group, region (North America,Europe) and prostate volume stratum (\<30 mL,≥30 mL) as factors.LOCF.|"Treatment difference between Degarelix 20 mg and Placebo at Month 3."|||1.477|-0.900|0.6331
90845951|NCT00947882|181558452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.113|1.25||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made. Unadjusted p-value of comparison vs. placebo at Month 3.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline Qmax as covariate and treatment group, region (North America,Europe) and prostate volume stratum (\<30 mL,≥30 mL) as factors.LOCF.|"Treatment difference between Degarelix 10 mg and Placebo at Month 3."|||1.250|-1.113|0.9090
90845952|NCT00947882|181558452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.42||||0.5469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.956|1.802||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made. Unadjusted p-value of comparison vs. placebo at Month 6.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline Qmax as covariate and treatment group, region (North America,Europe) and prostate volume stratum (\<30 mL,≥30 mL) as factors.LOCF.|"Treatment difference between Degarelix 30 mg and Placebo at Month 6."|||1.802|-0.956|0.5469
90859734|NCT00537238|181582904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean differences|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.3551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.52|||ANCOVA|||Baseline, core BPRS score: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and combined center, and for post-baseline assessments baseline was included as a covariate.||0.52|-0.19|0.3551
91104185|NCT04003142|182094841|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.8||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||||0.8|-2.1|0.381
90845953|NCT00947882|181558452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.7906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.576|1.2||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made. Unadjusted p-value of comparison vs. placebo at Month 6.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline Qmax as covariate and treatment group, region (North America,Europe) and prostate volume stratum (\<30 mL,≥30 mL) as factors.LOCF.|"Treatment difference between Degarelix 20 mg and Placebo at Month 6."|||1.200|-1.576|0.7906
90845954|NCT00947882|181558452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39||||0.5757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.773|0.987||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made. Unadjusted p-value of comparison vs. placebo at Month 6.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline Qmax as covariate and treatment group, region (North America,Europe) and prostate volume stratum (\<30 mL,≥30 mL) as factors.LOCF.|"Treatment difference between Degarelix 10 mg and Placebo at Month 6."|||0.987|-1.773|0.5757
90845955|NCT02447302|181558455|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean|-0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|=|0.0091|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.68|-0.3||The analysis was performed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model that incorporated treatment, current oral corticosteroid use, prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNFα) antagonists, and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|The analysis compared the adapted MCS change from baseline between treatment groups using a 1-sided test at the 0.05 level of significance.|Estimated least square mean difference in etrasimod 2 mg from placebo|The primary comparison in the study was between etrasimod 2 mg versus placebo.||-0.30|-1.68|= 0.0091
90845956|NCT02447302|181558455|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|=|0.1457|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.11|0.24||The analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model that incorporated treatment, current oral corticosteroid use, prior exposure to TNFα antagonists, and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|The analysis compared the adapted MCS change from baseline between treatment groups using a 1-sided test at the 0.05 level of significance.|Estimated least square mean difference in etrasimod 1 mg from placebo|||0.24|-1.11|= 0.1457
90845957|NCT02447302|181558456|SUPERIORITY||MH estimate for difference in percentage|24.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.87|=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.8|39.0||Mantel-Haenszel (MH) estimated common risk difference adjusted for current oral corticosteroid therapy at baseline and previous exposure to TNFα antagonists.|Mantel Haenszel|The analysis compared the difference in proportions between treatment groups using a 1-sided test at the 0.05 level of significance.|MH estimated difference in etrasimod 2 mg from Placebo|The primary comparison in the study was between etrasimod 2 mg versus placebo.||39.0|9.8|= 0.003
90845958|NCT02447302|181558456|SUPERIORITY||MH estimate for difference in percentage|4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.98|=|0.3059|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.1|17.2||MH estimated common risk difference adjusted for current oral corticosteroid therapy at baseline and previous exposure to TNFα antagonists.|Mantel Haenszel|The analysis compared the difference in proportions between treatment groups using a 1-sided test at the 0.05 level of significance.|MH estimated difference in etrasimod 1 mg from Placebo|||17.2|-9.1|= 0.3059
90845959|NCT02447302|181558457|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.32|-0.36||The analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model that incorporated treatment, current oral corticosteroid use, prior exposure to TNFα antagonists, and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|The analysis compared the 2-component MCS change from baseline between treatment groups using a 1-sided test at the 0.05 level of significance.|Estimated least square mean difference in etrasimod 2 mg from placebo|The primary comparison in the study was between etrasimod 2 mg versus placebo.||-0.36|-1.32|= 0.0020
90845960|NCT02447302|181558457|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|=|0.0858|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.85|0.08||The analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model that incorporated treatment, current oral corticosteroid use, prior exposure to TNFα antagonists, and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|The analysis compared the 2-component MCS change from baseline between treatment groups using a 1-sided test at the 0.05 level of significance.|Estimated least square mean difference in etrasimod 1 mg from placebo|||0.08|-0.85|= 0.0858
90845961|NCT02447302|181558458|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean|-1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55|=|0.01|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.17|-0.37||The analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model that incorporated treatment, current oral corticosteroid use, prior exposure to TNFα antagonists, and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|The analysis compared the TMS change from baseline between treatment groups using a 1-sided test at the 0.05 level of significance.|Estimated least square mean difference in etrasimod 2 mg from placebo|The primary comparison in the study was between etrasimod 2 mg versus placebo.||-0.37|-2.17|= 0.0100
90845962|NCT02447302|181558458|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53|=|0.1277|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.48|0.27||The analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model that incorporated treatment, current oral corticosteroid use, prior exposure to TNFα antagonists, and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|The analysis compared the TMS change from baseline between treatment groups using a 1-sided test at the 0.05 level of significance.|Estimated least square mean difference in etrasimod 1 mg from placebo|||0.27|-1.48|= 0.1277
90845963|NCT02447302|181558459|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.78|||=|0.0071|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.4|5.51||The analysis was performed using an ordered logistic regression model with terms for treatment, current oral corticosteroid use, and prior exposure to TNFα antagonists.|ANCOVA|The analysis compared the odds of achieving higher trichotomous composite score between the groups using 1-sided test at 0.05 level of significance.||The primary comparison in the study was between etrasimod 2 mg versus placebo.||5.51|1.40|= 0.0071
90845964|NCT02447302|181558459|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.61|||=|0.1192|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|3.14||The analysis was performed using an ordered logistic regression model with terms for treatment, current oral corticosteroid use, and prior exposure to TNFα antagonists.|ANCOVA|The analysis compared the odds of achieving higher trichotomous composite score between the groups using 1-sided test at 0.05 level of significance.||||3.14|0.83|= 0.1192
90845965|NCT02447302|181558460|SUPERIORITY||MH estimate for difference in percentage|25.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.47|=|0.0003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|13.5|38.1||The analysis was performed using MH method that was adjusted for current oral corticosteroid therapy at baseline and previous exposure to TNFα antagonists.|Mantel Haenszel|The analysis compared the difference in proportions between treatment groups using a 1-sided test at the 0.05 level of significance.|MH estimated difference in etrasimod 2 mg from Placebo|The primary comparison in the study was between etrasimod 2 mg versus placebo.||38.1|13.5|= 0.0003
90845966|NCT02447302|181558460|SUPERIORITY||MH estimate for difference in percentage|7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.46|=|0.136|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.5|17.7||The analysis was performed using MH method that was adjusted for current oral corticosteroid therapy at baseline and previous exposure to TNFα antagonists.|Mantel Haenszel|The analysis compared the difference in proportions between treatment groups using a 1-sided test at the 0.05 level of significance.|MH estimated difference in etrasimod 1 mg from Placebo|||17.7|-3.5|= 0.1360
90898973|NCT00116272|181663979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.59|7.99|||||Computed using linear regression, adjusted for propensity score comprised of maternal height, vitamin use, primary disease, RA disease severity score at 32 weeks, PsO disease severity score at intake \& 32 weeks, disease severity imputation indicators|||7.99|-7.59|
90898974|NCT00116272|181663980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|1.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.76|8.81|||||Computed using linear regression, adjusted for propensity score comprised of maternal height, maternal age (categorical), and referral source (3 categories: OTIS, Pharmaceutical Company/Sponsor/HCP, Patient Support Group/Internet/Other).|||8.81|-5.76|
90845967|NCT02447302|181558461|SUPERIORITY||MH estimate for difference in percentage|18.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.92|=|0.0282|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.6|35.3||The analysis was performed using MH method that was adjusted for current oral corticosteroid therapy at baseline and previous exposure to TNFα antagonists.|Mantel Haenszel|The analysis compared the difference in proportions between treatment groups using a 1-sided test at the 0.05 level of significance.|MH estimated difference in etrasimod 2 mg from Placebo|The primary comparison in the study was between etrasimod 2 mg versus placebo.||35.3|2.6|= 0.0282
90845968|NCT02447302|181558461|SUPERIORITY||MH estimate for difference in percentage|11.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.14|=|0.1309|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.3|28.1||The analysis was performed using MH method that was adjusted for current oral corticosteroid therapy at baseline and previous exposure to TNFα antagonists.|Mantel Haenszel|The analysis compared the difference in proportions between treatment groups using a 1-sided test at the 0.05 level of significance.|MH estimated difference in etrasimod 1 mg from Placebo|||28.1|-5.3|= 0.1309
90845969|NCT01742286|181558479|OTHER||MTD/RDE|510.0||||||||||||||||||
90845970|NCT01742286|181558479|OTHER||MTD/RDE|500.0||||||||||||||||||
90845971|NCT02578095|181558512|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.75||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|7.8|||ANCOVA|||||7.80|1.70|0.0032
90845972|NCT02578095|181558512|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.76|10.54|||ANCOVA|||||10.54|3.76|<0.0001
90845973|NCT02578095|181558512|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.55|12.6|||ANCOVA|||||12.60|5.55|<0.0001
90845974|NCT00843284|181558514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.52|<|0.0001||95.0|-4.35|-3.97|||t-test, 2 sided|One sample t-test||Change from Baseline; observational study||-3.97|-4.35|<0.0001
90845975|NCT00843284|181558515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.9|<|0.0001||95.0|-4.24|-3.8|||t-test, 2 sided|One sample t-test.||Change from baseline||-3.80|-4.24|<0.0001
90898975|NCT00116272|181663981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.12|6.65|||||Computed using linear regression. Directly adjusted for infant sex and other autoimmune diseases because propensity score adjustment was not balanced.|||6.65|-6.12|
90898976|NCT00116272|181663982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.62|||||Computed using logistic regression, adjusted for propensity score comprised of maternal height, RA disease severity score at 32 weeks, and disease severity score imputation indicator.|||1.62|0.37|
90898977|NCT00116272|181663983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|3.14|||||Computed using logistic regression, adjusted for propensity score comprised of country (U.S., Canada), primary disease, and maternal height.|||3.14|0.43|
90845976|NCT00955305|181558549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33||||||one-sided p-value using stratified logrank test stratified on the randomization stratification factors|Log Rank|Stratified log rank test stratified on the randomization stratification factors||||||0.33
90845977|NCT00955305|181558550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95||||||two-sided p-value by stratified log rank test stratified on the randomization stratification factors|Log Rank|Stratified log rank test stratified on the randomization stratification factors||||||0.95
90845978|NCT00955305|181558551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15||||||two sided p-value by Fisher's exact test|Fisher Exact|||||||0.15
90845979|NCT00109590|181558554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.009||95.0||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was two-sided P\<0.05.|wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in within-subject Cpredose LPV/r plasma drug concentrations within 72 hours after delivery versus at 30 days postpartum.||||0.009
90845980|NCT00109590|181558554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.048||95.0||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was two-sided P\<0.05.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in within-subject C4hour LPV/r plasma drug concentrations within 72 hours after delivery versus at 30 days postpartum||||0.048
90845981|NCT01221285|181558566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Fold change|1.8||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.8|||Fold change||Numerator is geometric mean post-baseline IgE. Denominator is baseline IgE.|||2.8|1.1|0.02
90845982|NCT01221285|181558567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Fold change|2.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|3.4|||Fold change||Numerator is geometric mean post-baseline IgG. Denominator is baseline IgG.|||3.4|1.8|<0.0001
90845983|NCT01221285|181558568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Fold change|12.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.5|22.5|||Fold Change||Numerator is geometric mean post-baseline IgG4. Denominator is baseline IgG4.|||22.5|7.5|<0.0001
90845984|NCT01221285|181558569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Change|-42.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.4|-26.2|||Change||Numerator is geometric mean post-baseline FAB. Denominator is baseline FAB.|||-26.2|-59.4|<0.0001
90898978|NCT00116272|181663984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|2.65|||||Unadjusted Odds Ratio computed using logistic regression. An adjusted estimate was not computed due to the small number of events.|||2.65|0.29|
90898979|NCT00116272|181663985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|4.02|||||Unadjusted Odds Ratio computed using logistic regression. An adjusted estimate was not computed due to no confirmed confounder.|||4.02|0.47|
90845985|NCT04672954|181558585|OTHER||Ratio|1.29||||0.3941|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.78|2.13|||ANCOVA||Ratio = BI / Placebo. Geometric standard error = 1.34|The difference between the expected means for ln(T) - ln(R) was estimated by the difference in the corresponding least square means (point estimate) and two-sided 90% confidence intervals based on the t-distribution were computed. These quantities were back-transformed to the original scale to give the point estimator and interval estimates.||2.13|0.78|0.3941
90845986|NCT04672954|181558585|OTHER||Ratio|1.66||||0.1089|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.99|2.79|||ANCOVA||Ratio = BI / Placebo. Geometric standard error = 1.35|The difference between the expected means for ln(T) - ln(R) was estimated by the difference in the corresponding least square means (point estimate) and two-sided 90% confidence intervals based on the t-distribution were computed. These quantities were back-transformed to the original scale to give the point estimator and interval estimates.||2.79|0.99|0.1089
90845987|NCT04672954|181558585|OTHER||Ratio|1.14||||0.6308|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.71|1.85|||ANCOVA||Ratio = BI / Placebo. Geometric standard error = 1.32|The difference between the expected means for ln(T) - ln(R) was estimated by the difference in the corresponding least square means (point estimate) and two-sided 90% confidence intervals based on the t-distribution were computed. These quantities were back-transformed to the original scale to give the point estimator and interval estimates.||1.85|0.71|0.6308
90845988|NCT04672954|181558585|OTHER||Ratio|1.75||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.06|2.89|||ANCOVA||Ratio = BI / Placebo. Geometric standard error = 1.33|The difference between the expected means for ln(T) - ln(R) was estimated by the difference in the corresponding least square means (point estimate) and two-sided 90% confidence intervals based on the t-distribution were computed. These quantities were back-transformed to the original scale to give the point estimator and interval estimates.||2.89|1.06|0.0690
90845989|NCT02617485|181558600|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence met if the 90% CI of the Geo LS Means ratio is contained with the pre-specified equivalence margin of 70% - 143%.|Ratio of Geo LS-means|1.0406|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9565|1.1321||||||Estimated Geo LS-means ratio.||1.1321|0.9565|
90845990|NCT02617485|181558601|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence met if the 90% CI of the Geo LS Means ratio is contained with the pre-specified equivalence margin of 70% - 143%.|Ratio of Geo LS-means|1.0611|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9822|1.1464||||||Estimated Geo LS-means ratio.||1.1464|0.9822|
90845991|NCT03861988|181558612|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.13
90845992|NCT00669409|181558632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|13.8||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||13.8|-17.8|
90845993|NCT00669409|181558632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-18.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.3|-2.8||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-2.8|-34.3|
90845994|NCT00669409|181558632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.99|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.5|13.1||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||13.1|-18.5|
90845995|NCT00669409|181558632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-13.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.88|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.4|1.8||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||1.8|-29.4|
90845996|NCT00669409|181558632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-34.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.48|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.2|-13.7||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-13.7|-55.2|
90898980|NCT00116272|181663987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.69|||||Unadjusted Odds Ratio computed using logistic regression. An adjusted estimate was not computed due to no confirmed confounder.|||1.69|0.65|
90845997|NCT00669409|181558633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|12.2||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||12.2|-19.4|
90845998|NCT00669409|181558633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-15.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.8|0.8||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||0.8|-30.8|
90845999|NCT00669409|181558633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.99|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|19.9||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||19.9|-11.7|
90846000|NCT00669409|181558633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-11.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.88|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.6|4.6||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||4.6|-26.6|
90846001|NCT00669409|181558633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-9.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.48|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.5|10.9||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||10.9|-30.5|
90846002|NCT00669409|181558634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|12.2||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||12.2|-19.4|
90846003|NCT00669409|181558634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-18.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.3|-2.8||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-2.8|-34.3|
90846004|NCT00669409|181558634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.99|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|19.0||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||19.0|-12.6|
90898981|NCT00717314|181664004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.494|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.494
90898982|NCT00717314|181664007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.374|||||||ANOVA|||Between group comparison at Baseline||||0.374
90898983|NCT00717314|181664007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.685||||||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with calculated creatinine clearance at baseline as covariate, and study center and treatment\*study center as factors.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 16||||0.685
90898984|NCT00717314|181664007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.722||||||ANCOVA model with calculated creatinine clearance at baseline as covariate, and study center and treatment\*study center as factors.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 28||||0.722
90898985|NCT00717314|181664007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.432||||||ANCOVA model with calculated creatinine clearance at baseline as covariate, and study center and treatment\*study center as factors.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 40||||0.432
90846005|NCT00669409|181558634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-9.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.88|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.0|6.2||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||6.2|-25.0|
90846006|NCT00669409|181558634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.48|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.4|16.1||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||16.1|-25.4|
90846007|NCT00669409|181558635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.1|13.5||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||13.5|-18.1|
90846008|NCT00669409|181558635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-17.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.6|-2.1||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-2.1|-33.6|
90846009|NCT00669409|181558635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.99|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.2|14.4||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||14.4|-17.2|
90846010|NCT00669409|181558635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-11.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.88|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.7|4.4||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||4.4|-26.7|
90846011|NCT00669409|181558635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-25.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.48|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.5|-5.0||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-5.0|-46.5|
90846012|NCT00669409|181558636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|15.0||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||15.0|-16.6|
90846013|NCT00669409|181558636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-17.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.8|-1.3||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-1.3|-32.8|
90898986|NCT00717314|181664008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.342|5.561||||||||5.561|-5.342|
90898987|NCT00717314|181664009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.616||||||ANCOVA model with calculated creatinine clearance at baseline as covariate, and study center and treatment\*study center as factors.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 16||||0.616
90846014|NCT00669409|181558636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.99|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|10.6||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||10.6|-21.0|
90846015|NCT00669409|181558636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-12.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.88|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.3|2.9||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||2.9|-28.3|
90846016|NCT00669409|181558636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-28.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.48|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.6|-8.2||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-8.2|-49.6|
90846017|NCT00669409|181558637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.8|14.8||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||14.8|-16.8|
90846018|NCT00669409|181558637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-19.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.0|-3.5||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-3.5|-35.0|
90846019|NCT00669409|181558637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.99|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.8|9.8||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||9.8|-21.8|
90846020|NCT00669409|181558637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-12.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.88|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.0|3.2||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||3.2|-28.0|
90846021|NCT00669409|181558637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-29.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.48|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.6|-9.1||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-9.1|-50.6|
90898988|NCT00717314|181664009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.334||||||ANCOVA model with calculated creatinine clearance at baseline as covariate, and study center and treatment\*study center as factors.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 28||||0.334
90898989|NCT00717314|181664009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.267||||||ANCOVA model with calculated creatinine clearance at baseline as covariate, and study center and treatment\*study center as factors.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 40||||0.267
90898990|NCT00717314|181664009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.764|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with calculated creatinine clearance at baseline as covariate, and study center and treatment\*study center as factors.||Change from Baseline at Week 52||||0.764
90898991|NCT00717314|181664010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||ANCOVA|||||||1.000
90846022|NCT00669409|181558638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|19.7||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||19.7|-11.9|
90846023|NCT00669409|181558638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-19.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.1|-3.6||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-3.6|-35.1|
91029579|NCT02097121|181943290|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.357|=|0.3976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.022|0.413|||ANCOVA|||Pairwise comparisons of 50 U versus 25 U of BOTOX up to Week 12 in Treatment Cycle 1 was evaluated using an ANCOVA model with study baseline value as covariate, and treatment group and stratification (baseline daytime urinary urgency incontinence episodes \[a total of ≤ 6 episodes or \> 6 episodes over the 2-day diary collection period\]) as factors. A hierarchical analysis strategy to adjust for multiplicity was not implemented.||0.413|-1.022|= 0.3976
91029580|NCT02097121|181943291|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.302|=|0.3309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.311|0.904|||ANCOVA|||"Treatment Difference of 100 U versus 25 U~Pairwise comparisons of 100 U versus 25 U of BOTOX up to Week 12 in Treatment Cycle 1 was evaluated using an ANCOVA model with study baseline value as covariate, and treatment group and stratification (baseline daytime urinary urgency incontinence episodes \[a total of ≤ 6 episodes or \> 6 episodes over the 2-day diary collection period\]) as factors. A hierarchical analysis strategy to adjust for multiplicity was not implemented."||0.904|-0.311|= 0.3309
91029581|NCT02097121|181943291|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.315|=|0.2235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.245|1.024|||ANCOVA|||"Treatment Difference of 50 U versus 25 U~Pairwise comparisons of 50 U versus 25 U of BOTOX up to Week 12 in Treatment Cycle 1 was evaluated using an ANCOVA model with study baseline value as covariate, and treatment group and stratification (baseline daytime urinary urgency incontinence episodes \[a total of ≤ 6 episodes or \> 6 episodes over the 2-day diary collection period\]) as factors. A hierarchical analysis strategy to adjust for multiplicity was not implemented."||1.024|-0.245|= 0.2235
91029582|NCT02097121|181943292|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.274|=|0.6689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.434|0.67|||ANCOVA|||"Treatment Difference of 100 U versus 25 U~Pairwise comparisons of 100 U versus 25 U of BOTOX up to Week 12 in Treatment Cycle 1 was evaluated using an ANCOVA model with study baseline value as covariate, and treatment group and stratification (baseline daytime urinary urgency incontinence episodes \[a total of ≤ 6 episodes or \> 6 episodes over the 2-day diary collection period\]) as factors. A hierarchical analysis strategy to adjust for multiplicity was not implemented."||0.67|-0.434|= 0.6689
91029583|NCT02097121|181943292|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.288|=|0.6076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.431|0.729|||ANCOVA|||"Treatment Difference of 50 U versus 25 U~Pairwise comparisons of 50 U versus 25 U of BOTOX up to Week 12 in Treatment Cycle 1 was evaluated using an ANCOVA model with study baseline value as covariate, and treatment group and stratification (baseline daytime urinary urgency incontinence episodes \[a total of ≤ 6 episodes or \> 6 episodes over the 2-day diary collection period\]) as factors. A hierarchical analysis strategy to adjust for multiplicity was not implemented."||0.729|-0.431|= 0.6076
91029584|NCT02097121|181943293|SUPERIORITY||Risk difference %|15.5|||=|0.6092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.94|46.19|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Treatment Difference of 100 U versus 25 U~Pairwise comparisons of 100 U versus 25 U of BOTOX up to Week 12 in Treatment Cycle 1 was evaluated using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method stratified by baseline daytime urinary urgency incontinence episodes (a total of ≤ 6 episodes or \> 6 episodes over the 2-day diary collection period)."||46.19|-18.94|= 0.6092
90898992|NCT05096208|181664011|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was established if the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of neutralizing GMTs for each pair of individual vaccine lots (RSVpreF Lot 1/RSVpreF Lot 2, RSVpreF Lot 1/RSVpreF Lot 3 and RSVpreF Lot 2/RSVpreF Lot 3) was within the interval (0.667, 1.5), for both antigens simultaneously.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.858|1.169|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in least-square (LS) means and corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model.|RSV A||1.169|0.858|
91029585|NCT02097121|181943293|SUPERIORITY||Risk difference %|17.6|||=|0.4824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|48.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Treatment Difference of 50 U versus 25 U~Pairwise comparisons of 50 U versus 25 U of BOTOX up to Week 12 in Treatment Cycle 1 was evaluated using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method stratified by baseline daytime urinary urgency incontinence episodes (a total of ≤ 6 episodes or \> 6 episodes over the 2-day diary collection period)."||48.9|-16.2|= 0.4824
90846024|NCT00669409|181558638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-5.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.99|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.3|10.3||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||10.3|-21.3|
90846025|NCT00669409|181558638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-12.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.88|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.8|3.4||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||3.4|-27.8|
91029586|NCT01200394|181943319|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.843||||0.9889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.728|0.975||Posterior distribution was used to calculate a probability (presented as P-value) that PF-00489791 has a greater than 0% reduction in UACR compared to placebo.|ANCOVA||Geometric mean ratio and corresponding 95% credible intervals were calculated.|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model within an outlier robust Bayesian framework on normal logarithmic scale with treatment as fixed effect, baseline UACR and baseline supine systolic blood pressure (BP) as covariate. Values were back-transformed from log scale. Model used informative prior distribution for placebo.||0.975|0.728|0.9889
90846026|NCT00669409|181558638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-25.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.48|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.8|-4.3||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-4.3|-45.8|
90846027|NCT00669409|181558639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|22.5||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||22.5|-9.1|
90898993|NCT05096208|181664011|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was established if the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of neutralizing GMTs for each pair of individual vaccine lots (RSVpreF Lot 1/RSVpreF Lot 2, RSVpreF Lot 1/RSVpreF Lot 3 and RSVpreF Lot 2/RSVpreF Lot 3) was within the interval (0.667, 1.5), for both antigens simultaneously.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.215|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means and corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model.|RSV A||1.215|0.900|
90898994|NCT05096208|181664011|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was established if the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of neutralizing GMTs for each pair of individual vaccine lots (RSVpreF Lot 1/RSVpreF Lot 2, RSVpreF Lot 1/RSVpreF Lot 3 and RSVpreF Lot 2/RSVpreF Lot 3) was within the interval (0.667, 1.5), for both antigens simultaneously.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.886|1.232|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means and corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model.|RSV A||1.232|0.886|
90898995|NCT05096208|181664011|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was established if the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of neutralizing GMTs for each pair of individual vaccine lots (RSVpreF Lot 1/RSVpreF Lot 2, RSVpreF Lot 1/RSVpreF Lot 3 and RSVpreF Lot 2/RSVpreF Lot 3) was within the interval (0.667, 1.5), for both antigens simultaneously.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.905|1.261|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means and corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model.|RSV B||1.261|0.905|
90898996|NCT05096208|181664011|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was established if the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of neutralizing GMTs for each pair of individual vaccine lots (RSVpreF Lot 1/RSVpreF Lot 2, RSVpreF Lot 1/RSVpreF Lot 3 and RSVpreF Lot 2/RSVpreF Lot 3) was within the interval (0.667, 1.5), for both antigens simultaneously.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.953|1.336|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means and corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model.|RSV B||1.336|0.953|
90898997|NCT05096208|181664011|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was established if the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of neutralizing GMTs for each pair of individual vaccine lots (RSVpreF Lot 1/RSVpreF Lot 2, RSVpreF Lot 1/RSVpreF Lot 3 and RSVpreF Lot 2/RSVpreF Lot 3) was within the interval (0.667, 1.5), for both antigens simultaneously.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.884|1.262|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means and corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model.|RSV B||1.262|0.884|
90898998|NCT01483937|181664019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.533||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||.533
90898999|NCT03518658|181664041|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|34.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.4|37.0||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|Generalized estimating equation model|||||37.0|32.4|<0.001
90899000|NCT03518658|181664041|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|38.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.8|41.9||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|Generalized estimating equation model|||||41.9|34.8|<0.001
90899001|NCT00649389|181664043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||All treatment comparisons were calculated as OM40/AML10/HCTZ25 minus the respective dual combination treatment group. Least-squares mean differences, SEs, and 2-sided p-values were obtained from an ANCOVA model with baseline blood pressure as a covariate, and fixed effects of treatment, age group, race group, and diabetic status.||||<0.0001
90899002|NCT00649389|181664043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||All treatment comparisons were calculated as OM40/AML10/HCTZ25 minus the respective dual combination treatment group. Least-squares mean differences, SEs, and 2-sided p-values were obtained from an ANCOVA model with baseline blood pressure as a covariate, and fixed effects of treatment, age group, race group, and diabetic status.||||<0.0001
90899003|NCT00649389|181664043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||All treatment comparisons were calculated as OM40/AML10/HCTZ25 minus the respective dual combination treatment group. Least-squares mean differences, SEs, and 2-sided p-values were obtained from an ANCOVA model with baseline blood pressure as a covariate, and fixed effects of treatment, age group, race group, and diabetic status.||||<0.0001
90899004|NCT00649389|181664044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Each p-value was obtained from individual Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel tests stratified by age group, race group, and diabetic status comparing the triple combination therapy to each dual combination.||||<0.0001
90899005|NCT00649389|181664044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Each p-value was obtained from individual Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel tests stratified by age group, race group, and diabetic status comparing the triple combination therapy to each dual combination.||||<0.0001
90899006|NCT00649389|181664044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Each p-value was obtained from individual Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel tests stratified by age group, race group, and diabetic status comparing the triple combination therapy to each dual combination.||||<0.0001
90899007|NCT00649389|181664045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Diastolic blood pressure: All treatment comparisons were calculated as OM40/AML10/HCTZ25 minus the respective dual combination treatment group. Least-squares mean differences, SEs, and 2-sided p-values were obtained from an ANCOVA model with baseline blood pressure as a covariate, and fixed effects of treatment, age group, race group, and diabetic status.||||<0.0001
90899008|NCT00649389|181664045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Diastolic blood pressure: All treatment comparisons were calculated as OM40/AML10/HCTZ25 minus the respective dual combination treatment group. Least-squares mean differences, SEs, and 2-sided p-values were obtained from an ANCOVA model with baseline blood pressure as a covariate, and fixed effects of treatment, age group, race group, and diabetic status.||||<0.0001
90899009|NCT00649389|181664045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Diastolic blood pressure: All treatment comparisons were calculated as OM40/AML10/HCTZ25 minus the respective dual combination treatment group. Least-squares mean differences, SEs, and 2-sided p-values were obtained from an ANCOVA model with baseline blood pressure as a covariate, and fixed effects of treatment, age group, race group, and diabetic status.||||0.0001
90899010|NCT00649389|181664045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Systolic blood pressure: All treatment comparisons were calculated as OM40/AML10/HCTZ25 minus the respective dual combination treatment group. Least-squares mean differences, SEs, and 2-sided p-values were obtained from an ANCOVA model with baseline blood pressure as a covariate, and fixed effects of treatment, age group, race group, and diabetic status.||||<0.0001
90846028|NCT00669409|181558639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-16.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.7|-0.2||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-0.2|-31.7|
90899011|NCT00649389|181664045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Systolic blood pressure: All treatment comparisons were calculated as OM40/AML10/HCTZ25 minus the respective dual combination treatment group. Least-squares mean differences, SEs, and 2-sided p-values were obtained from an ANCOVA model with baseline blood pressure as a covariate, and fixed effects of treatment, age group, race group, and diabetic status.||||<0.0001
90899012|NCT00649389|181664045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Systolic blood pressure: All treatment comparisons were calculated as OM40/AML10/HCTZ25 minus the respective dual combination treatment group. Least-squares mean differences, SEs, and 2-sided p-values were obtained from an ANCOVA model with baseline blood pressure as a covariate, and fixed effects of treatment, age group, race group, and diabetic status.||||<0.0001
90899013|NCT00649389|181664046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||All treatment comparisons were calculated as OM40/AML10/HCTZ25 minus the respective dual combination treatment group. Least-squares mean differences, SEs, and 2-sided p-values were obtained from an ANCOVA model with baseline blood pressure as a covariate, and fixed effects of treatment, age group, race group, and diabetic status.||||<0.0001
91029587|NCT01200394|181943319|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2402|TWO_SIDED|||||Posterior distribution was used to calculate a probability (presented as P-value) that PF-00489791 has a greater than or equal to 20% reduction in UACR compared to placebo.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model within an outlier robust Bayesian framework on normal logarithmic scale with treatment as fixed effect, baseline UACR and baseline supine systolic BP as covariate. Values were back-transformed from log scale. Model used informative prior distribution for placebo.||||0.2402
91029588|NCT01200394|181943320|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.8759||||0.0382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7727|0.9927|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) on normal logarithmic scale with baseline, baseline supine systolic BP, visit, treatment, baseline by visit interaction and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate variances and covariance within participant across time points. Values were back-transformed from log scale.||0.9927|0.7727|0.0382
91029589|NCT01200394|181943320|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.8311||||0.0112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7208|0.9584|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: MMRM on normal logarithmic scale with baseline, baseline supine systolic BP, visit, treatment, baseline by visit interaction and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate variances and covariance within participant across time points. Values were back-transformed from log scale.||0.9584|0.7208|0.0112
91094287|NCT02320396|182072640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.12|||cLDA model|||"Change from BL to Week 2 in Worse of Pruritus or Watering Eyes: Desloratadine vs. Placebo~The LS mean change from BL to Week 2 post BL in the worse symptom of Pruritus or Watering Eyes estimated using a cLDA model, where both BL and post-BL measurements (average score of 1 week prior to Week 2) were included in the response variable. The treatment difference in terms of LS mean change from BL between desloratadine 5 mg and placebo was evaluated with the 95% confidence interval and P-value."||-0.12|-0.37|<0.001
91094288|NCT02320396|182072641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.14|||cLDA model|||"Change from BL in Eye Pruritus During 2 Weeks: Desloratadine vs. Placebo~The LS mean change from BL to post BL (average score of 2 weeks) in Eye Pruritus was estimated using a cLDA model, where both BL and post-BL measurements (average score from Day 1 to Day 13) were included in the response variable. The treatment difference in terms of LS mean change from BL between desloratadine 5 mg and placebo was evaluated with the 95% confidence interval and P-value."||-0.14|-0.35|<0.001
91094289|NCT02320396|182072641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|-0.07|||cLDA model|||"Change from BL in Watering Eyes During 2 Weeks: Desloratadine vs. Placebo~The LS mean change from BL to post BL (average score of 2 weeks) in Watering Eyes was estimated using a cLDA model, where both BL and post-BL measurements (average score from Day 1 to Day 13) were included in the response variable. The treatment difference in terms of LS mean change from BL between desloratadine 5 mg and placebo was evaluated with the 95% confidence interval and P-value."||-0.07|-0.23|<0.001
90899014|NCT00649389|181664046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||All treatment comparisons were calculated as OM40/AML10/HCTZ25 minus the respective dual combination treatment group. Least-squares mean differences, SEs, and 2-sided p-values were obtained from an ANCOVA model with baseline blood pressure as a covariate, and fixed effects of treatment, age group, race group, and diabetic status.||||<0.0001
90846029|NCT00669409|181558639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.99|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.5|13.2||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||13.2|-18.5|
90899015|NCT00649389|181664046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||All treatment comparisons were calculated as OM40/AML10/HCTZ25 minus the respective dual combination treatment group. Least-squares mean differences, SEs, and 2-sided p-values were obtained from an ANCOVA model with baseline blood pressure as a covariate, and fixed effects of treatment, age group, race group, and diabetic status.||||<0.0001
91094290|NCT02320396|182072641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.15|||cLDA model|||The LS mean change from BL to post BL (average score of 2 weeks) in the worse of Pruritus or Watering Eyes was estimated using a cLDA model, where both BL and post-BL measurements (average score from Day 1-Day 13) were included in the response variable. The treatment difference in terms of LS mean change from BL between desloratadine 5 mg and placebo was evaluated with the 95% confidence interval and P-value||-0.15|-0.35|<0.001
90846030|NCT00669409|181558639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-10.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.88|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.9|5.3||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||5.3|-25.9|
90846031|NCT00669409|181558639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-23.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.48|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.2|-2.7||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-2.7|-44.2|
91029590|NCT01200394|181943320|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.8816||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7427|1.0465|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: MMRM on normal logarithmic scale with baseline, baseline supine systolic BP, visit, treatment, baseline by visit interaction and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate variances and covariance within participant across time points. Values were back-transformed from log scale.||1.0465|0.7427|0.1490
91029591|NCT01200394|181943321|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.8565||||0.0297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.745|0.9847|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: MMRM on normal logarithmic scale with baseline, baseline supine systolic BP, visit, treatment, baseline by visit interaction and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate variances and covariance within participant across time points. Values were back-transformed from log scale.||0.9847|0.7450|0.0297
91029592|NCT01200394|181943321|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.8524||||0.0305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7376|0.985|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: MMRM on normal logarithmic scale with baseline, baseline supine systolic BP, visit, treatment, baseline by visit interaction and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate variances and covariance within participant across time points. Values were back-transformed from log scale.||0.9850|0.7376|0.0305
91029593|NCT01200394|181943321|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.7937||||0.0068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6717|0.9378|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: MMRM on normal logarithmic scale with baseline, baseline supine systolic BP, visit, treatment, baseline by visit interaction and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate variances and covariance within participant across time points. Values were back-transformed from log scale.||0.9378|0.6717|0.0068
91029594|NCT01200394|181943321|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.8634||||0.1151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.719|1.0368|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: MMRM on normal logarithmic scale with baseline, baseline supine systolic BP, visit, treatment, baseline by visit interaction and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate variances and covariance within participant across time points. Values were back-transformed from log scale.||1.0368|0.7190|0.1151
91094291|NCT02320396|182072642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|-0.07|||cLDA model|||"Change from BL to Week 1 in Interference with Daily Activities: Desloratadine vs. Placebo~The LS mean change from BL to Week 1 post BL in Interference with Daily Activities was estimated using a cLDA model, where both BL and post-BL measurements (average score of 1 week prior to Week 1) were included in the response variable. The treatment difference in terms of LS mean change from BL between desloratadine 5 mg and placebo was evaluated with the 95% confidence interval and P-value."||-0.07|-0.24|<0.001
90846032|NCT00669409|181558640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|11.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|27.0||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||27.0|-4.6|
90846033|NCT00669409|181558640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-14.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.0|1.5||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||1.5|-30.0|
90846034|NCT00669409|181558640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.99|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|17.3||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||17.3|-14.3|
90846035|NCT00669409|181558640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-6.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.88|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.9|9.3||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||9.3|-21.9|
90846036|NCT00669409|181558640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-19.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.48|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.5|1.0||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||1.0|-40.5|
90899016|NCT02608489|181664059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.221|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||To obtain an overall comparison between treatment responses throughout the study period considering the 2 levels of correlation in subjects and follow-up, a linear mixed model with asymmetric random effects was used.||||0.221
90846037|NCT00669409|181558641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|10.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|26.6||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||26.6|-5.0|
90846038|NCT00669409|181558641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-14.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.0|1.6||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||1.6|-30.0|
90846039|NCT00669409|181558641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.99|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|17.0||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||17.0|-14.6|
91029595|NCT01200394|181943322|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.9816||||0.3585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9434|1.0214|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: MMRM on normal logarithmic scale with change from baseline as response variable and baseline, baseline supine systolic BP, visit, treatment, baseline by visit interaction and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate variances and covariance within participant across time points. Values were back-transformed from log scale.||1.0214|0.9434|0.3585
91029596|NCT01200394|181943322|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.9939||||0.7475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9577|1.0315|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: MMRM on normal logarithmic scale with change from baseline as response variable and baseline, baseline supine systolic BP, visit, treatment, baseline by visit interaction and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate variances and covariance within participant across time points. Values were back-transformed from log scale.||1.0315|0.9577|0.7475
90846040|NCT00669409|181558641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-5.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.88|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|10.2||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||10.2|-21.0|
90846041|NCT00669409|181558641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-14.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.48|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.3|6.2||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||6.2|-35.3|
90846042|NCT00669409|181558642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|10.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|26.1||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||26.1|-5.5|
90846043|NCT00669409|181558642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-11.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.0|4.5||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||4.5|-27.0|
90846044|NCT00669409|181558642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.99|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|18.3||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||18.3|-13.3|
90846045|NCT00669409|181558642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.88|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.2|11.9||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||11.9|-19.2|
90846046|NCT00669409|181558642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-13.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.48|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.4|7.0||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||7.0|-34.4|
90846047|NCT00669409|181558643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Mean Square Difference|11.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|26.8||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||26.8|-4.8|
90846048|NCT00669409|181558643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Mean Square Difference|-8.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.9|7.6||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||7.6|-23.9|
90846049|NCT00669409|181558643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Mean Square Difference|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.99|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|17.6||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||17.6|-14.0|
90846050|NCT00669409|181558643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Mean Square Difference|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.88|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.2|12.0||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||12.0|-19.2|
90846051|NCT00669409|181558643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Mean Square Difference|-12.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.48|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.5|8.0||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||8.0|-33.5|
90846052|NCT00669409|181558644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Mean Square Difference|11.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|27.2||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||27.2|-4.4|
90846053|NCT00669409|181558644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Mean Square Difference|-5.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.2|10.3||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||10.3|-21.2|
90846054|NCT00669409|181558644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Mean Square Difference|4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.99|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|20.4||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||20.4|-11.2|
90846055|NCT00669409|181558644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Mean Square Difference|-4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.89|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.3|10.9||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||10.9|-20.3|
90846056|NCT00669409|181558644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Mean Square Difference|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.48|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.9|16.6||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||16.6|-24.9|
90846057|NCT00669409|181558645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Mean Square Difference|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.33|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.7|12.3||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||12.3|-20.7|
90846058|NCT00669409|181558645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Mean Square Difference|-19.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.6|-3.0||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-3.0|-35.6|
90846059|NCT00669409|181558645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Mean Square Difference|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.5|12.1||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||12.1|-20.5|
90846060|NCT00669409|181558645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Mean Square Difference|-15.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.9|0.3||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||0.3|-31.9|
90846061|NCT00669409|181558645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Mean Square Difference|-35.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.75|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.4|-13.8||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-13.8|-56.4|
90846062|NCT00669409|181558646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.33|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.2|11.8||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||11.8|-21.2|
91094292|NCT02320396|182072642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.09|||cLDA model|||"Change from BL to Week 2 in Interference with Daily Activities: Desloratadine vs. Placebo~The LS mean change from BL to Week 2 post BL in Interference with Daily Activities was estimated using a cLDA model, where both BL and post-BL measurements (average score of 1 week prior to Week 2) were included in the response variable. The treatment difference in terms of LS mean change from BL between desloratadine 5 mg and placebo was evaluated with the 95% confidence interval and P-value."||-0.09|-0.30|<0.001
90846063|NCT00669409|181558646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-16.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.0|-0.4||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-0.4|-33.0|
90846064|NCT00669409|181558646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|19.1||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||19.1|-13.5|
90899017|NCT02608489|181664059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model was used to compare measurement data between the 2 groups by considering the correlation between both eyes of each patient at postoperative week 12 follow-up.||||0.015
91094293|NCT02320396|182072642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|-0.08|||cLDA model|||"Change from BL in Interference with Daily Activities During 2 Wks: Desloratadine vs. Placebo~The LS mean change from BL to post BL (average score of 2 weeks) in Interference with Daily Activities estimated using a cLDA model, where both BL and post-BL measurements (average score from Day 1-Day 13) were included in the response variable. The treatment difference in terms of LS mean change from BL between desloratadine 5 mg and placebo evaluated with the 95% confidence interval and P-value."||-0.08|-0.26|<0.001
90846065|NCT00669409|181558646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-13.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.2|3.0||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||3.0|-29.2|
90846066|NCT00669409|181558646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-11.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.75|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.8|9.7||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||9.7|-32.8|
90846067|NCT00669409|181558647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.33|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.9|10.1||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||10.1|-22.9|
90846068|NCT00669409|181558647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-19.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.7|-3.1||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-3.1|-35.7|
90846069|NCT00669409|181558647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|17.6||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||17.6|-15.0|
91029597|NCT01200394|181943322|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.9866||||0.4972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9488|1.0259|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: MMRM on normal logarithmic scale with change from baseline as response variable and baseline, baseline supine systolic BP, visit, treatment, baseline by visit interaction and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate variances and covariance within participant across time points. Values were back-transformed from log scale.||1.0259|0.9488|0.4972
91104186|NCT04003142|182094841|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-0.6||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||||-0.6|-3.5|0.007
90846070|NCT00669409|181558647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-11.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.1|5.1||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||5.1|-27.1|
90846071|NCT00669409|181558647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.75|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.0|16.5||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||16.5|-26.0|
90846072|NCT00669409|181558648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.33|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.1|11.9||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||11.9|-21.1|
90846073|NCT00669409|181558648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-19.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.9|-3.3||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-3.3|-35.9|
90846074|NCT00669409|181558648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.4|12.2||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||12.2|-20.4|
90846075|NCT00669409|181558648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-13.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.0|2.3||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||2.3|-30.0|
90846076|NCT00669409|181558648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-27.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.75|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.8|-6.2||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-6.2|-48.8|
90846077|NCT00669409|181558649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.33|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.6|13.4||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||13.4|-19.6|
90846078|NCT00669409|181558649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-19.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.8|-3.1||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-3.1|-35.8|
90846079|NCT00669409|181558649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-9.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.4|7.2||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||7.2|-25.4|
90846080|NCT00669409|181558649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-16.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.8|-0.5||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-0.5|-32.8|
90846081|NCT00669409|181558649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-32.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.75|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.9|-11.4||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-11.4|-53.9|
90846082|NCT00669409|181558650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.33|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.1|12.9||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||12.9|-20.1|
90846083|NCT00669409|181558650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-21.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.9|-5.2||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-5.2|-37.9|
90846084|NCT00669409|181558650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-9.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.7|6.9||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||6.9|-25.7|
90846085|NCT00669409|181558650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-15.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.5|0.7||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||0.7|-31.5|
90846086|NCT00669409|181558650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-32.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.75|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.7|-11.2||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-11.2|-53.7|
91104187|NCT04003142|182094842|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|-0.51||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 1||-0.51|-2.09|0.001
91104188|NCT04003142|182094842|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.001||95.0|-2.51|-0.91||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 1||-0.91|-2.51|<0.001
90899018|NCT02608489|181664060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.256|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||To obtain an overall comparison between treatment responses throughout the study period considering the 2 levels of correlation in subjects and follow-up, a linear mixed model with asymmetric random effects was used.||||0.256
90846087|NCT00669409|181558651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.33|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|16.0||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||16.0|-17.0|
90846088|NCT00669409|181558651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-21.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.6|-4.9||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-4.9|-37.6|
90846089|NCT00669409|181558651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-7.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.1|8.5||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||8.5|-24.1|
90846090|NCT00669409|181558651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-16.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.2|0.0||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||0.0|-32.2|
90846091|NCT00669409|181558651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-26.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.75|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.1|-5.5||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-5.5|-48.1|
90846092|NCT00669409|181558652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.33|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|20.2||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||20.2|-12.8|
90846093|NCT00669409|181558652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-18.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.8|-2.2||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-2.2|-34.8|
90846094|NCT00669409|181558652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.7|11.0||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||11.0|-21.7|
90846095|NCT00669409|181558652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-14.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.1|2.1||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||2.1|-30.1|
90846096|NCT00669409|181558652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-24.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.75|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.0|-3.5||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-3.5|-46.0|
90846097|NCT00669409|181558653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.33|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|25.5||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||25.5|-7.5|
90846098|NCT00669409|181558653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-15.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.0|0.6||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||0.6|-32.0|
90846099|NCT00669409|181558653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.7|15.9||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||15.9|-16.7|
90846100|NCT00669409|181558653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-9.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.5|6.7||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||6.7|-25.5|
90846101|NCT00669409|181558653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-20.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.75|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.0|0.5||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||0.5|-42.0|
90846102|NCT00669409|181558654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|8.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.33|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|24.6||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||24.6|-8.4|
90846103|NCT00669409|181558654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-16.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.6|0.0||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||0.0|-32.6|
90846104|NCT00669409|181558654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|15.5||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||15.5|-17.1|
90846105|NCT00669409|181558654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-8.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.4|7.8||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||7.8|-24.4|
90846106|NCT00669409|181558654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-16.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.75|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.0|4.5||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||4.5|-38.0|
90899019|NCT02608489|181664060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model was used to compare measurement data between the 2 groups by considering the correlation between both eyes of each patient at Postoperative week 12 follow-up.||||0.025
90899020|NCT02608489|181664061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||To obtain an overall comparison between treatment responses throughout the study period considering the 2 levels of correlation in subjects and follow-up, a linear mixed model with asymmetric random effects was used.||||0.080
90899021|NCT02608489|181664061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model was used to compare measurement data between the 2 groups by considering the correlation between both eyes of each patient at postoperative week 12 follow-up.||||0.021
90899022|NCT02608489|181664062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||To obtain an overall comparison between treatment responses throughout the study period considering the 2 levels of correlation in subjects and follow-up, a linear mixed model with asymmetric random effects was used.||||<0.001
90899023|NCT02608489|181664062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model was used to compare measurement data between the 2 groups by considering the correlation between both eyes of each patient at postoperative week 4||||<0.001
90899024|NCT02608489|181664062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model was used to compare measurement data between the 2 groups by considering the correlation between both eyes of each patient at postoperative week 12||||<0.001
90899025|NCT02608489|181664063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.045|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||To obtain an overall comparison between treatment responses throughout the study period considering the 2 levels of correlation in subjects and follow-up, a linear mixed model with asymmetric random effects was used.||||0.045
90899026|NCT02608489|181664064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||To obtain an overall comparison between treatment responses throughout the study period considering the 2 levels of correlation in subjects and follow-up, a linear mixed model with asymmetric random effects was used.||||0.001
90899027|NCT02608489|181664064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model was used to compare measurement data between the 2 groups by considering the correlation between both eyes of each patient at postoperative week 4||||0.002
90899028|NCT02608489|181664064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model was used to compare measurement data between the 2 groups by considering the correlation between both eyes of each patient at postoperative week 12||||0.034
90899029|NCT02608489|181664065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.151|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||To obtain an overall comparison between treatment responses throughout the study period considering the 2 levels of correlation in subjects and follow-up, a linear mixed model with asymmetric random effects was used.||||0.151
90899030|NCT02002884|181664106|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.22|||=|0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.04|||MMRM|||LS-Means are from mixed model with treatment group, pooled site and pre-treatment status included as fixed factors and AS at baseline, Gross Motor Function Classification System-Extended and Revised (GMFCS-E\&R) level at screening included as covariates. For MMRM visit\*treatment is interaction term repeated factor.||-0.04|-0.4|= 0.017
91094294|NCT02320396|182072643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.492||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.966|2.303|||Regression, Logistic|||"Impression Rate as Assessed by Investigator: Desloratadine 5 mg/Placebo Odds Ratio~Impression was evaluated using a logistic model with impression rate (percentage of assessments of Better + Much better) as a response variable and treatment and severity as factors. Odds ratio was estimated and tested. A point estimate of \>1 indicated that desloratadine 5mg was more effective than placebo."||2.303|0.966|0.071
90846107|NCT00669409|181558655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|8.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.33|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|25.3||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||25.3|-7.7|
90846108|NCT00669409|181558655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-12.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.2|3.5||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||3.5|-29.2|
90899031|NCT02002884|181664106|SUPERIORITY||LS-Mean difference|-0.07|||=|0.546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.15|||MMRM|||LS-Means are from mixed model with treatment group, pooled site and pre-treatment status included as fixed factors and AS at baseline, GMFCS-E\&R level at screening included as covariates. For MMRM visit\*treatment is interaction term repeated factor.||0.15|-0.29|= 0.546
90899032|NCT02002884|181664107|SUPERIORITY||LS-Mean difference|0.09|||=|0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.28|||ANCOVA|||LS-Means are from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment group, pooled site and pretreatment status included as fixed factors and maximum AS score of the two possible primary target patterns flexed elbow or flexed wrist baseline, GMFCS-E\&R level at screening included as covariates.||0.28|-0.1|= 0.34
90846109|NCT00669409|181558655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.8|16.8||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||16.8|-15.8|
90846110|NCT00669409|181558655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-7.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.6|8.6||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||8.6|-23.6|
90846111|NCT00669409|181558655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-15.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.75|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.0|5.5||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||5.5|-37.0|
90899033|NCT02002884|181664107|SUPERIORITY||LS-Mean difference|-0.12|||=|0.297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.11|||ANCOVA|||LS-Means are from ANCOVA with treatment group, pooled site and pre-treatment status included as fixed factors and maximum AS score of the two possible primary target patterns flexed elbow or flexed wrist baseline, GMFCS-E\&R level at screening included as covariates.||0.11|-0.36|= 0.297
90899034|NCT01350141|181664126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-21.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.385||0.0137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.85|-4.77|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, background statin as independent factors and treatment by background statin interaction, baseline LDL-C as covariate.||-4.77|-38.85|0.0137
90899035|NCT01350141|181664126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-46.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.463|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.62|-29.22|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with treatment, background statin as independent factors and treatment by background statin interaction, baseline LDL-C as covariate.||-29.22|-63.62|<0.0001
90899036|NCT01350141|181664127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.825||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|169.74|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 29 less than 70 mg/dL: Analysis was performed using logistic regression with covariates baseline LDL-C and statin tested along with the treatment.||169.74|0.36|0.1900
91094295|NCT02320396|182072644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.149|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.408|3.28|||Regression, Logistic|||"Impression Rate as Assessed by Participant: Desloratadine 5 mg/Placebo Odds Ratio~Impression was evaluated using a logistic model with impression rate (percentage of assessments of Better + Much better) as a response variable and treatment and severity as factors. Odds ratio was estimated and tested. A point estimate of \>1 indicated that desloratadine 5mg was more effective than placebo"||3.280|1.408|<0.001
91094296|NCT00142415|182072646|OTHER|The maximum tolerated dose (MTD) was determined using a standard 3 + 3 dose-escalation design. The occurrence of DLTs was compared across cohorts.|Maximum tolerated dose (mCi/m^2)|65.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90846112|NCT00669409|181558656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.33|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|25.5||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||25.5|-7.4|
90846113|NCT00669409|181558656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-10.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.1|5.5||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||5.5|-27.1|
90846114|NCT00669409|181558656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.9|15.7||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||15.7|-16.9|
90846115|NCT00669409|181558656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-7.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.9|8.4||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||8.4|-23.9|
90846116|NCT00669409|181558656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-15.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.75|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.1|5.4||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||5.4|-37.1|
90846117|NCT00669409|181558657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|11.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.33|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|27.9||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||27.9|-5.1|
90846118|NCT00669409|181558657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-8.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.4|8.2||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||8.2|-24.4|
90846119|NCT00669409|181558657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.2|18.4||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||18.4|-14.2|
91094297|NCT04497883|182072690|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90% Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.00% - 125.00%.|% Ratio of Geometric least square means|110.41|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.7|132.94|||ANOVA|||The comparison analysis was planned between Cohort A: Maribavir 400 mg and Cohort B: Maribavir 400 mg group participants only.||132.94|91.70|
90846120|NCT00669409|181558657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-8.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.3|8.0||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||8.0|-24.3|
90846121|NCT00669409|181558657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.75|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.6|14.9||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||14.9|-27.6|
90846122|NCT00669409|181558658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.44|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.6|11.8||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||11.8|-21.6|
90846123|NCT00669409|181558658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-19.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.1|-2.9||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-2.9|-36.1|
90846124|NCT00669409|181558658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.8|11.4||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||11.4|-21.8|
90846125|NCT00669409|181558658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-15.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.6|1.2||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||1.2|-31.6|
90846126|NCT00669409|181558658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-40.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.6|-19.0||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-19.0|-62.6|
90846127|NCT00669409|181558659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.44|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.9|12.5||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||12.5|-20.9|
90846128|NCT00669409|181558659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-15.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.6|0.7||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||0.7|-32.6|
90846129|NCT00669409|181558659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|20.1||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||20.1|-13.2|
90846130|NCT00669409|181558659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-12.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.4|4.5||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||4.5|-28.4|
90846131|NCT00669409|181558659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-17.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.8|4.8||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||4.8|-38.8|
90899037|NCT01350141|181664127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|72.518||||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.48|1512.1|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 29 less than 70 mg/dL: Analysis was performed using logistic regression with covariates baseline LDL-C and statin tested along with the treatment.||1512.10|3.48|0.0057
90899038|NCT01350141|181664127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|24.75||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.49|175.63|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 29 less than 100 mg/dL: Analysis was performed using logistic regression with covariates baseline LDL-C and statin tested along with the treatment.||175.63|3.49|0.0013
90899039|NCT01350141|181664127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|47.326||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.26|426.01|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 29 less than 100 mg/dL: Analysis was performed using logistic regression with covariates baseline LDL-C and statin tested along with the treatment.||426.01|5.26|0.0006
90899040|NCT01350141|181664127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.635||||0.6611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|14.73|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 57 less than 70 mg/dL: Analysis was performed using logistic regression with covariates baseline LDL-C and statin tested along with the treatment.||14.73|0.18|0.6611
90899041|NCT01350141|181664127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.486||||0.0104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.84|98.61|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 57 less than 70 mg/dL: Analysis was performed using logistic regression with covariates baseline LDL-C and statin tested along with the treatment.||98.61|1.84|0.0104
90899042|NCT01350141|181664127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.43||||0.0282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|33.89|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 57 less than 100 mg/dL: Analysis was performed using logistic regression with covariates baseline LDL-C and statin tested along with the treatment.||33.89|1.22|0.0282
90899043|NCT01350141|181664127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|15.257||||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.36|98.42|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 57 less than 100 mg/dL: Analysis was performed using logistic regression with covariates baseline LDL-C and statin tested along with the treatment.||98.42|2.36|0.0042
90899044|NCT01350141|181664127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.967||||0.5164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|79.24|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 85 less than 70 mg/dL: Analysis was performed using logistic regression with covariates baseline LDL-C and statin tested along with the treatment.||79.24|0.11|0.5164
90899045|NCT01350141|181664127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|21.36||||0.0445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|422.94|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 85 less than 70 mg/dL: Analysis was performed using logistic regression with covariates baseline LDL-C and statin tested along with the treatment.||422.94|1.08|0.0445
91094298|NCT04497883|182072691|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90% Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.00% - 125.00%.|% Ratio of Geometric least square means|122.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.83|154.95|||ANOVA|||The comparison analysis was planned between Cohort A: Maribavir 400 mg and Cohort B: Maribavir 400 mg group participants only.||154.95|96.83|
91094299|NCT04497883|182072692|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90% Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.00% - 125.00%.|% Ratio of Geometric least square means|125.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.99|159.64|||ANOVA|||The comparison analysis was planned between Cohort A: Maribavir 400 mg and Cohort B: Maribavir 400 mg group participants only.||159.64|97.99|
90899046|NCT01350141|181664127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.157||||0.0223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|49.37|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 85 less than 100 mg/dL: Analysis was performed using logistic regression with covariates baseline LDL-C and statin tested along with the treatment.||49.37|1.35|0.0223
90899047|NCT01350141|181664127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.587||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.04|90.4|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 85 less than 100 mg/dL: Analysis was performed using logistic regression with covariates baseline LDL-C and statin tested along with the treatment.||90.40|2.04|0.0070
90899048|NCT01350141|181664128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.647||||0.2928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|142.04|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using logistic regression with covariates baseline LDL-C and statin tested along with the treatment.||142.04|0.22|0.2928
91094300|NCT04848480|182072736|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was considered confirmed if the estimated treatment difference was below 0.3%.|Treatment difference|0.05||||0.0065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.23|||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline in HbA1c after 26 weeks was analysed using ANCOVA model with treatment, region, HbA1c group at screening and pre-trial basal insulin treatment as fixed factors, and baseline response as covariate.||0.23|-0.13|0.0065
91094301|NCT04428151|182072761|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.48||||0.9963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|1.97||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by baseline PD-L1 TPS (\<50% versus ≥50%) and baseline ECOG performance status (0 versus 1). The reported p-value is nominal.|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by baseline PD-L1 TPS (\<50% versus ≥50%) and baseline ECOG performance status (0 versus 1).|||1.97|1.11|0.9963
90899049|NCT01350141|181664128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|591.174||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.68|29922.99|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using logistic regression with covariates baseline LDL-C and statin tested along with the treatment.||29922.99|11.68|0.0014
90899050|NCT01350141|181664128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.468||||0.2339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|26.88|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 57: Analysis was performed using logistic regression with covariates baseline LDL-C and statin tested along with the treatment.||26.88|0.45|0.2339
90899051|NCT01350141|181664128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|23.442||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.03|181.11|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 57: Analysis was performed using logistic regression with covariates baseline LDL-C and statin tested along with the treatment.||181.11|3.03|0.0025
90899052|NCT01350141|181664128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.502||||0.1786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|192.32|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 85: Analysis was performed using logistic regression with covariates baseline LDL-C and statin tested along with the treatment.||192.32|0.38|0.1786
90899053|NCT01350141|181664128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|51.185||||0.0121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.37|1107.57|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 85: Analysis was performed using logistic regression with covariates baseline LDL-C and statin tested along with the treatment.||1107.57|2.37|0.0121
90846132|NCT00669409|181558660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-5.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.44|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.2|11.2||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||11.2|-22.2|
90846133|NCT00669409|181558660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-19.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.1|-2.9||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-2.9|-36.1|
90846134|NCT00669409|181558660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.6|17.7||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||17.7|-15.6|
90846135|NCT00669409|181558660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-11.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.0|4.8||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||4.8|-28.0|
90846136|NCT00669409|181558660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-8.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.1|13.5||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||13.5|-30.1|
90846137|NCT00669409|181558661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.44|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.6|12.8||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||12.8|-20.6|
90846138|NCT00669409|181558661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-19.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.6|-2.3||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-2.3|-35.6|
90846139|NCT00669409|181558661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.6|13.7||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||13.7|-19.6|
90846140|NCT00669409|181558661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-14.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.9|1.9||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||1.9|-30.9|
90846141|NCT00669409|181558661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-29.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.2|-7.6||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-7.6|-51.2|
90846142|NCT00669409|181558662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.44|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|17.1||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||17.1|-16.3|
90846143|NCT00669409|181558662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-18.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.4|-2.2||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-2.2|-35.4|
90846144|NCT00669409|181558662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-7.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.1|9.1||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||9.1|-24.1|
90846145|NCT00669409|181558662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-15.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.9|0.9||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||0.9|-31.9|
90846146|NCT00669409|181558662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-31.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.1|-9.5||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-9.5|-53.1|
90846147|NCT00669409|181558663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.44|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.9|16.5||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||16.5|-16.9|
91104189|NCT04003142|182094842|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45|<|0.001||95.0|-2.65|-0.87||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 2||-0.87|-2.65|<0.001
90846148|NCT00669409|181558663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-20.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.7|-3.4||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-3.4|-36.7|
90846149|NCT00669409|181558663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.2|9.0||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||9.0|-24.2|
90846150|NCT00669409|181558663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-13.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.8|3.0||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||3.0|-29.8|
90846151|NCT00669409|181558663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-33.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.6|-12.0||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-12.0|-55.6|
90846152|NCT00669409|181558664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.44|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|20.4||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||20.4|-12.9|
90846153|NCT00669409|181558664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-19.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.5|-3.3||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-3.3|-36.5|
90846154|NCT00669409|181558664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.3|10.0||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||10.0|-23.3|
90846155|NCT00669409|181558664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-14.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.2|1.6||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||1.6|-31.2|
90846156|NCT00669409|181558664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-28.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.0|-6.4||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-6.4|-50.0|
90899054|NCT01616771|181664170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||To verify the difference in C\&L grades using each blade, the ordinal scales of each blade were compared using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. P values and confidence intervals have been corrected for the 3 comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Hodges-Lehmann method was used to calculate 98.3% CIs of paired differences of 3 comparisons.||An improvement of C\&L grade ordinal scale by 2 was considered a clinically significant change. The mean difference of C\&L grade ordinal scale between DL and GVLw was 1.3, and its standard deviation was 2.0 in our pilot study. The required sample size for the Wilcoxon signed rank test was 21 with an α error of 0.05 and 80% power.||||<0.05
91094302|NCT04428151|182072762|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.4181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.28||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by baseline PD-L1 TPS (\<50% versus ≥50%) and baseline ECOG performance status (0 versus 1). The reported p-value is nominal.|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by baseline PD-L1 TPS (\<50% versus ≥50%) and baseline ECOG performance status (0 versus 1).|||1.28|0.74|0.4181
91094303|NCT04428151|182072763|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|-6.5||||0.9266219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|2.3|||Miettinen & Nurminen|One-sided p-value for testing H0: difference in % = 0 versus H1: difference in % \> 0. The reported p-value is nominal.|Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by baseline PD-L1 TPS (\<50% versus ≥50%) and baseline ECOG performance status (0 versus 1).|||2.3|-15.4|0.9266219
91094304|NCT02273167|182072809|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The confidence limits (CL) were adjusted for multiple comparisons (two alternative primary endpoints): To be declared non-inferior, the primary endpoint must show a difference in success rates of no greater than 10% in favour of MOVIPREP using lower 1-sided 97.5% CL. Calculated using exact Clopper-Pearson CLs. To accommodate the comparison of 2 NER1006 regimens a hierarchical testing approach was used whereby NER1006 2-Day was assessed first and, if successful, then NER1006 1-Day was evaluated.|Difference in success rate|4.5||||0.055|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-4.0|||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons (two alternative primary endpoints): To be declared superior, primary endpoint must demonstrate non-inferiority with 1-sided p-value \<0.025, the threshold for statistical significance.|Fisher Exact|||Hypothesis was to demonstrate non-inferiority (NI) of NER1006 2-Day to MOVIPREP (10% margin). Success rate was no. of patients with successful overall bowel cleansing as proportion of no. of patients in each group. Treatment effect was NER1006 2-Day success rate - MOVIPREP success rate. Hochberg procedure used to control Type I error since there were 2 alternative primary endpoints. An alpha level of 1.25% 1-sided was used. A closed testing procedure used to evaluate superiority if NI was met.|||-4.00|0.055
91104190|NCT04003142|182094842|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45|<|0.001||95.0|-2.86|-1.08||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 2||-1.08|-2.86|<0.001
91104191|NCT04003142|182094842|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46|<|0.001||95.0|-2.63|-0.84||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 3||-0.84|-2.63|<0.001
90899055|NCT01616771|181664171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||To verify the difference in C\&L grades using each blade, the ordinal scales of each blade were compared using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. P values and confidence intervals have been corrected for the 3 comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Hodges-Lehmann method was used to calculate 98.3% CIs of paired differences of 3 comparisons.||An improvement of C\&L grade ordinal scale by 2 was considered a clinically significant change. The mean difference of C\&L grade ordinal scale between DL and GVLw was 1.3, and its standard deviation was 2.0 in our pilot study. The required sample size for the Wilcoxon signed rank test was 21 with an α error of 0.05 and 80% power.||||<0.05
90957379|NCT06377488|181794744|SUPERIORITY||Least-square mean estimate|62.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.7|67.5|||Mixed Model Analysis|The Satterthwaite Method was used for the calculation of the denominator degrees of freedom.|This is the analysis for myopes only. Mean estimates were conducted using two-sided confidence intervals (CI) constructed for the least square mean.|It was calculated using a one-sided one-sample mean t-test with a family wise type I error rate of 5% with at least 99% statistical power, that 42 and 55 subjects were required to test for superiority for CLUE vision scores for hyperopes and myopes, respectively.||67.5|56.7|
90957380|NCT06377488|181794745|SUPERIORITY||Mean Population Estimate|64.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.6|70.8|||Mixed Model Analysis|The Satterthwaite Method was used for the calculation of the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean estimates were conducted for hyperopes using two-sided confidence intervals (CI) constructed for the least square mean.|It was calculated using a one-sided one-sample mean t-test with a family wise type I error rate of 5% with at least 99% statistical power, that 23 and 46 subjects were required to test for superiority for CLUE comfort scores for hyperopes and myopes, respectively.||70.8|58.6|
90846157|NCT00669409|181558665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|7.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.44|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|24.0||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||24.0|-9.4|
91104192|NCT04003142|182094842|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46|<|0.001||95.0|-3.29|-1.5||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 3||-1.50|-3.29|<0.001
90846158|NCT00669409|181558665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-17.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.4|-1.2||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-1.2|-34.4|
90846159|NCT00669409|181558665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|13.2||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||13.2|-20.0|
90846160|NCT00669409|181558665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-13.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.9|2.9||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||2.9|-29.9|
90846161|NCT00669409|181558665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-28.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.3|-6.7||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-6.7|-50.3|
90846162|NCT00669409|181558666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|12.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.44|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|29.1||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||29.1|-4.3|
90846163|NCT00669409|181558666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-14.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.4|1.9||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||1.9|-31.4|
90846164|NCT00669409|181558666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|18.6||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||18.6|-14.6|
90846165|NCT00669409|181558666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-8.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.0|7.8||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||7.8|-25.0|
90846166|NCT00669409|181558666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-23.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.9|-1.3||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-1.3|-44.9|
90846167|NCT00669409|181558667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|11.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.44|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|28.3||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||28.3|-5.1|
90846168|NCT00669409|181558667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-15.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.1|1.1||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||1.1|-32.1|
90846169|NCT00669409|181558667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|19.7||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||19.7|-13.5|
90846170|NCT00669409|181558667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.1|9.7||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||9.7|-23.1|
90846171|NCT00669409|181558667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-18.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.7|2.9||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||2.9|-40.7|
90846172|NCT00669409|181558668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|12.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.44|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|29.0||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||29.0|-4.4|
90846173|NCT00669409|181558668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-11.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.8|5.4||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||5.4|-27.8|
90846174|NCT00669409|181558668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|20.1||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||20.1|-13.2|
90846175|NCT00669409|181558668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-7.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.9|9.0||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||9.0|-23.9|
90846176|NCT00669409|181558668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-18.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.4|3.2||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||3.2|-40.4|
90846177|NCT00669409|181558669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|11.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.44|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|27.9||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||27.9|-5.5|
90846178|NCT00669409|181558669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-9.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.3|7.0||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||7.0|-26.3|
90846179|NCT00669409|181558669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|18.5||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||18.5|-14.7|
90846180|NCT00669409|181558669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-7.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.6|9.2||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||9.2|-23.6|
90846181|NCT00669409|181558669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-20.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.2|1.4||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||1.4|-42.2|
90846182|NCT00669409|181558670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|13.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.44|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|30.2||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||30.2|-3.2|
91094305|NCT02273167|182072809|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The CLs were adjusted for multiple comparisons (2 alternative primary endpoints): To be declared non-inferior, the primary endpoint must show a difference in success rates of no greater than 10% in favour of MOVIPREP using lower 1-sided 97.5% CLs. Calculated using exact Clopper-Pearson confidences limits. To accommodate the comparison of two NER1006 regimens a hierarchical testing approach will be used whereby NER1006 2-Day was assessed first and, if successful, then NER1006 1-Day was evaluated.|Difference in success rate|1.59||||0.328|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-6.91|||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons (two alternative primary endpoints): To be declared superior, primary endpoint must demonstrate non-inferiority with 1-sided p-value \<0.025, the threshold for statistical significance.|Fisher Exact|||The hypothesis was to demonstrate NI of NER1006 1-Day to MOVIPREP (10% margin). Success rate was number of patients with successful overall bowel cleansing as proportion of number of patients in each group. Treatment effect was NER1006 1-Day success rate - MOVIPREP success rate. A Hochberg procedure was used to control Type I error since there were two alternative primary endpoints. An alpha level of 1.25% 1-sided was used. A closed testing procedure used to evaluate superiority if NI was met.|||-6.91|0.328
90846183|NCT00669409|181558670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.3|9.9||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||9.9|-23.3|
90846184|NCT00669409|181558670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|21.7||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||21.7|-11.5|
90846185|NCT00669409|181558670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.31|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.1|8.8||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||8.8|-24.1|
90846186|NCT00669409|181558670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-9.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.6|12.0||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||12.0|-31.6|
90846187|NCT00669409|181558671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-9.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.86|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.7|6.4||||||Change at Week 1, Pain: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||6.4|-24.7|
90846188|NCT00669409|181558671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-20.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.86|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.0|-4.9||||||Change at Week 1, Pain: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-4.9|-36.0|
90846189|NCT00669409|181558671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.92|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.9|11.4||||||Change at Week 1, Pain: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||11.4|-19.9|
90846190|NCT00669409|181558671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-15.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.73|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.9|-0.4||||||Change at Week 1, Pain: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-0.4|-30.9|
90846191|NCT00669409|181558671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-29.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.4|-8.9||||||Change at Week 1, Pain: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-8.9|-49.4|
90846192|NCT00669409|181558671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.89|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.9|14.3||||||Change at Week 1, Physical Functions: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||14.3|-16.9|
90846193|NCT00669409|181558671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-13.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.89|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.5|1.7||||||Change at Week 1, Physical Functions: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||1.7|-29.5|
90846194|NCT00669409|181558671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.06|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|16.5||||||Change at Week 1, Physical Functions: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||16.5|-15.4|
90846195|NCT00669409|181558671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-11.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.83|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.3|3.7||||||Change at Week 1, Physical Functions: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||3.7|-27.3|
90846196|NCT00669409|181558671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-22.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.1|-2.4||||||Change at Week 1, Physical Functions: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-2.4|-43.1|
90846197|NCT00669409|181558671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-16.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.34|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.2|-0.3||||||Change at Week 1, Stiffness: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-0.3|-33.2|
90846198|NCT00669409|181558671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-27.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.34|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.7|-10.8||||||Change at Week 1, Stiffness: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-10.8|-43.7|
90846199|NCT00669409|181558671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.45|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.4|9.9||||||Change at Week 1, Stiffness: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||9.9|-23.4|
90846200|NCT00669409|181558671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-19.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.22|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.6|-3.2||||||Change at Week 1, Stiffness: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-3.2|-35.6|
90846201|NCT00669409|181558671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-24.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.86|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.8|-2.9||||||Change at Week 1, Stiffness: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-2.9|-45.8|
90899056|NCT02247804|181664207|NON_INFERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|0.36|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline Week 12, Hour 0: The null hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 15 μg was to be declared non-inferior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was ≤ 1.5 mm Hg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Week 12).||0.36|-1.17|0.2950
90846202|NCT00669409|181558672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.86|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.5|12.6||||||Change at Week 2, Pain: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||12.6|-18.5|
90846203|NCT00669409|181558672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-14.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.86|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.3|0.8||||||Change at Week 2, Pain: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||0.8|-30.3|
90846204|NCT00669409|181558672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|12.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.92|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|28.1||||||Change at Week 2, Pain: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||28.1|-3.2|
90846205|NCT00669409|181558672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-7.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.73|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.1|7.4||||||Change at Week 2, Pain: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||7.4|-23.1|
90846206|NCT00669409|181558672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.3|17.2||||||Change at Week 2, Pain: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||17.2|-23.3|
90846207|NCT00669409|181558672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.89|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|16.3||||||Change at Week 2, Physical functions: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||16.3|-14.9|
90846208|NCT00669409|181558672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-9.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.89|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.5|5.7||||||Change at Week 2, Physical functions: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||5.7|-25.5|
90846209|NCT00669409|181558672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|12.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.06|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|28.5||||||Change at Week 2, Physical functions: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||28.5|-3.4|
90846210|NCT00669409|181558672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-6.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.83|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.9|9.0||||||Change at Week 2, Physical functions: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||9.0|-21.9|
90846211|NCT00669409|181558672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.2|15.5||||||Change at Week 2, Physical functions: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||15.5|-25.2|
90846212|NCT00669409|181558672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.34|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.4|11.5||||||Change at Week 2, Stiffness: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||11.5|-21.4|
90846213|NCT00669409|181558672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-13.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.34|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.3|2.7||||||Change at Week 2, Stiffness: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||2.7|-30.3|
90846214|NCT00669409|181558672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|16.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.45|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|32.7||||||Change at Week 2, Stiffness: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||32.7|-0.6|
90846215|NCT00669409|181558672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.22|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.9|9.5||||||Change at Week 2, Stiffness: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||9.5|-22.9|
90846216|NCT00669409|181558672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.86|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.5|17.4||||||Change at Week 2, Stiffness: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||17.4|-25.5|
90846217|NCT00669409|181558673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-7.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.86|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.9|8.2||||||Change at Week 4, Pain: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||8.2|-22.9|
90846218|NCT00669409|181558673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-18.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.86|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.4|-3.3||||||Change at Week 4, Pain: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-3.3|-34.4|
90899057|NCT02247804|181664207|NON_INFERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.3904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|0.43|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline Week 12, Hour 0: The null hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 10 μg was to be declared non-inferior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was ≤ 1.5 mm Hg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Week 12).||0.43|-1.09|0.3904
90846219|NCT00669409|181558673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-9.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.92|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.2|6.1||||||Change at Week 4, Pain: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||6.1|-25.2|
90899058|NCT02247804|181664207|NON_INFERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.0464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.01|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline Week 12, Hour 2: The null hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 15 μg was to be declared non-inferior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was ≤ 1.5 mm Hg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Week 12).||-0.01|-1.40|0.0464
90899059|NCT02247804|181664207|NON_INFERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.5383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.47|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline Week 12, Hour 2: The null hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 10 μg was to be declared non-inferior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was ≤ 1.5 mm Hg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Week 12).||0.47|-0.90|0.5383
90899060|NCT02247804|181664208|NON_INFERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|-0.34|||MMRM|||Week 2, Hour 0: The null hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 15 μg was to be declared non-inferior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was ≤ 1.5 mm Hg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||-0.34|-1.68|0.0033
90899061|NCT02247804|181664208|NON_INFERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.0187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|-0.13|||MMRM|||Week 2, Hour 0: The null hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 10 μg was to be declared non-inferior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was ≤ 1.5 mm Hg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||-0.13|-1.47|0.0187
90899062|NCT02247804|181664209|NON_INFERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.0057||95.0|-1.45|-0.25|||MMRM|||Week 2, Hour 2: The null hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 15 μg was to be declared non-inferior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was ≤ 1.5 mm Hg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||-0.25|-1.45|0.0057
90899063|NCT02247804|181664209|NON_INFERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.0031||95.0|-1.5|-0.31|||MMRM|||Week 2, Hour 2: The null hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 10 μg was to be declared non-inferior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was ≤ 1.5 mm Hg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||-0.31|-1.50|0.0031
90899064|NCT02247804|181664210|NON_INFERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.0547||95.0|-1.26|0.01|||MMRM|||Week 6, Hour 0: The null hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 15 μg was to be declared non-inferior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was ≤ 1.5 mm Hg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||0.01|-1.26|0.0547
91029598|NCT01200394|181943322|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.0024||||0.9146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9588|1.0481|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: MMRM on normal logarithmic scale with change from baseline as response variable and baseline, baseline supine systolic BP, visit, treatment, baseline by visit interaction and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate variances and covariance within participant across time points. Values were back-transformed from log scale.||1.0481|0.9588|0.9146
90846220|NCT00669409|181558673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-15.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.73|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.8|-0.2||||||Change at Week 4, Pain: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-0.2|-30.8|
90846221|NCT00669409|181558673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-27.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.1|-7.6||||||Change at Week 4, Pain: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-7.6|-48.1|
91104193|NCT04003142|182094842|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48|<|0.001||95.0|-2.79|-0.9||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 5||-0.90|-2.79|<0.001
90846222|NCT00669409|181558673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.89|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.3|9.9||||||Change at Week 4, Physical Functions: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||9.9|-21.3|
90846223|NCT00669409|181558673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-17.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.89|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.6|-1.4||||||Change at Week 4, Physical Functions: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-1.4|-32.6|
90846224|NCT00669409|181558673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-8.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.06|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.3|7.5||||||Change at Week 4, Physical Functions: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||7.5|-24.3|
90846225|NCT00669409|181558673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-16.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.83|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.2|-1.3||||||Change at Week 4, Physical Functions: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-1.3|-32.2|
90846226|NCT00669409|181558673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-27.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.8|-7.1||||||Change at Week 4, Physical Functions: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-7.1|-47.8|
90846227|NCT00669409|181558673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.34|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.5|7.4||||||Change at Week 4, Stiffness: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||7.4|-25.5|
90846228|NCT00669409|181558673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-19.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.34|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.1|-3.2||||||Change at Week 4, Stiffness: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-3.2|-36.1|
90846229|NCT00669409|181558673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-5.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.45|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.1|11.3||||||Change at Week 4, Stiffness: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||11.3|-22.1|
90846230|NCT00669409|181558673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-14.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.22|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.9|1.6||||||Change at Week 4, Stiffness: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||1.6|-30.9|
90846231|NCT00669409|181558673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-23.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.86|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.4|-1.5||||||Change at Week 4, Stiffness: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-1.5|-44.4|
90846232|NCT00669409|181558674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.86|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|18.8||||||Change at Week 8, Pain: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||18.8|-12.2|
90846233|NCT00669409|181558674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-11.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.86|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.0|4.1||||||Change at Week 8, Pain: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||4.1|-27.0|
90846234|NCT00669409|181558674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.92|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.4|13.9||||||Change at Week 8, Pain: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||13.9|-17.4|
90846235|NCT00669409|181558674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-9.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.73|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.8|5.8||||||Change at Week 8, Pain: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||5.8|-24.8|
90846236|NCT00669409|181558674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-19.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.2|1.3||||||Change at Week 8, Pain: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||1.3|-39.2|
90846237|NCT00669409|181558674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.89|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|20.6||||||Change at Week 8, Physical functions: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||20.6|-10.6|
90846238|NCT00669409|181558674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-8.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.89|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.0|7.1||||||Change at Week 8, Physical functions: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||7.1|-24.0|
90846239|NCT00669409|181558674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.06|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|14.8||||||Change at Week 8, Physical functions: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||14.8|-17.1|
90846240|NCT00669409|181558674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-9.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.83|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.6|6.3||||||Change at Week 8, Physical functions: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||6.3|-24.6|
90846241|NCT00669409|181558674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-17.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.2|2.5||||||Change at Week 8, Physical functions: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||2.5|-38.2|
90846242|NCT00669409|181558674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.34|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.3|14.6||||||Change at Week 8, Stiffness: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||14.6|-18.3|
90846243|NCT00669409|181558674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-20.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.34|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.5|-3.6||||||Change at Week 8, Stiffness: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-3.6|-36.5|
90846244|NCT00669409|181558674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.45|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.5|13.9||||||Change at Week 8, Stiffness: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||13.9|-19.5|
90846245|NCT00669409|181558674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-10.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.22|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.1|5.4||||||Change at Week 8, Stiffness: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||5.4|-27.1|
91104194|NCT04003142|182094842|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.61|-1.72||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 5||-1.72|-3.61|<0.001
91104195|NCT04003142|182094842|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.71|-0.85||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 6||-0.85|-2.71|<0.001
90846246|NCT00669409|181558674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-10.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.86|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.0|10.9||||||Change at Week 8, Stiffness: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||10.9|-32.0|
90846247|NCT00669409|181558675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|13.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.86|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|28.6||||||Change at Week 13, Pain: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||28.6|-2.5|
90846248|NCT00669409|181558675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-5.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.86|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|10.0||||||Change at Week 13, Pain: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||10.0|-21.0|
90846249|NCT00669409|181558675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.92|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|20.9||||||Change at Week 13, Pain: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||20.9|-10.4|
90846250|NCT00669409|181558675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-7.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.73|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.1|7.5||||||Change at Week 13, Pain: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||7.5|-23.1|
90846251|NCT00669409|181558675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-9.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.7|10.8||||||Change at Week 13, Pain: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||10.8|-29.7|
90846252|NCT00669409|181558675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|14.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.89|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|29.8||||||Change at Week 13, Physical Functions: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||29.8|-1.3|
90846253|NCT00669409|181558675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.89|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.2|12.0||||||Change at Week 13, Physical Functions: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||12.0|-19.2|
90846254|NCT00669409|181558675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.06|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|22.8||||||Change at Week 13, Physical Functions: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||22.8|-9.1|
90846255|NCT00669409|181558675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-10.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.83|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.8|5.1||||||Change at Week 13, Physical Functions: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||5.1|-25.8|
90846256|NCT00669409|181558675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-8.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.8|12.0||||||Change at Week 13, Physical Functions: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||12.0|-28.8|
90846257|NCT00669409|181558675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.34|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|23.4||||||Change at Week 13, Stiffness: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||23.4|-9.5|
90846258|NCT00669409|181558675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.34|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.4|10.6||||||Change at Week 13, Stiffness: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||10.6|-22.4|
90846259|NCT00669409|181558675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|12.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.45|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|28.9||||||Change at Week 13, Stiffness: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||28.9|-4.5|
90846260|NCT00669409|181558675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.22|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.2|7.2||||||Change at Week 13, Stiffness: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||7.2|-25.2|
90846261|NCT00669409|181558675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.86|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.4|20.5||||||Change at Week 13, Stiffness: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||20.5|-22.4|
90846262|NCT02191865|181558717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of the geometric means|215.39|STANDARD_DEVIATION|73.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|120.71|384.32|||ANOVA|Fixed effect: 'hepatic status'; indicated whether a subject with hepatic impairment or a healthy subject , Random effect: 'matched pair'.|Ratio of Child Pugh A (Test): Healthy Child Pugh A (Reference). The Standard deviation is the Intra-individual gCV|The statistical model used for the analysis of AUC (0-inf) was an ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithmic scale. Observations from a subject with hepatic impairment and the matched healthy control subject were analysed as a matched pair.||384.32|120.71|
90846263|NCT02191865|181558717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|867.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|45.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|572.93|1312.41|||ANOVA|Fixed effect: 'hepatic status'; indicated whether a subject with hepatic impairment or a healthy subject , Random effect: 'matched pair'.|Ratio of Child Pugh B (Test): Healthy Child Pugh B (Reference). The Standard deviation is the Intra-individual gCV|The statistical model used for the analysis of AUC (0-inf) was an ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithmic scale. Observations from a subject with hepatic impairment and the matched healthy control subject were analysed as a matched pair.||1312.41|572.93|
90846264|NCT02191865|181558718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of the geometric means|221.76|STANDARD_DEVIATION|61.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|134.73|365.01|||ANOVA|Fixed effect: 'hepatic status'; indicated whether a subject with hepatic impairment or a healthy subject , Random effect: 'matched pair'.|Ratio of Child Pugh A (Test): Healthy Child Pugh A (Reference). The Standard deviation is the Intra-individual gCV|The statistical model used for the analysis of Cmax was an ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithmic scale. Observations from a subject with hepatic impairment and the matched healthy control subject were analysed as a matched pair.||365.01|134.73|
90846265|NCT02191865|181558718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|761.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|69.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|439.01|1319.18|||ANOVA|Fixed effect: 'hepatic status'; indicated whether a subject with hepatic impairment or a healthy subject , Random effect: 'matched pair'.|Ratio of Child Pugh B (Test): Healthy Child Pugh B (Reference). The Standard deviation is the Intra-individual gCV|The statistical model used for the analysis of Cmax was an ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithmic scale. Observations from a subject with hepatic impairment and the matched healthy control subject were analysed as a matched pair.||1319.18|439.01|
90846266|NCT02191865|181558719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of the geometric means|216.79|STANDARD_DEVIATION|75.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|120.37|390.45|||ANOVA|Fixed effect: 'hepatic status'; indicated whether a subject with hepatic impairment or a healthy subject , Random effect: 'matched pair'.|Ratio of Child Pugh A (Test): Healthy Child Pugh A (Reference). The Standard deviation is the Intra-individual gCV|The statistical model used for the analysis of AUC (0-tz) was an ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithmic scale. Observations from a subject with hepatic impairment and the matched healthy control subject were analysed as a matched pair.||390.45|120.37|
90846267|NCT02191865|181558719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|870.74|STANDARD_DEVIATION|45.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|576.36|1315.49|||ANOVA|Fixed effect: 'hepatic status'; indicated whether a subject with hepatic impairment or a healthy subject , Random effect: 'matched pair'.|Ratio of Child Pugh B (Test): Healthy Child Pugh B (Reference). The Standard deviation is the Intra-individual gCV|The statistical model used for the analysis of AUC (0-tz) was an ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithmic scale. Observations from a subject with hepatic impairment and the matched healthy control subject were analysed as a matched pair.||1315.49|576.36|
90846268|NCT01523275|181558721|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis of 44 subjects (22 in each arm) would provide 90% power to detect a difference in the time interval to reoperation of 6 months between the two treatment arms, at an alpha level of 0.05. This difference of 6 months is clinically meaningful and is smaller than previous case series studies would suggest. However, due to poor patient accrual, the study was closed prior to reaching the desired study size.||||||0.95|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.95
90846269|NCT01523275|181558722|EQUIVALENCE|A difference of 6 months to symptom progression is clinically meaningful.||||||0.52|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.52
90846270|NCT01523275|181558723|EQUIVALENCE|0.5 liters per second is clinically significant.||||||0.64|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.64
90846271|NCT00966875|181558846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|||||A log transformed dose was used in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.031
90846272|NCT00966875|181558847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.033
90846273|NCT00966875|181558847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.047
90846274|NCT00966875|181558851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.013
90846275|NCT00966875|181558851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.004
90846276|NCT00966875|181558851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||<0.001
90846277|NCT00966875|181558851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||<0.001
90846278|NCT00966875|181558851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||<0.001
90846279|NCT00966875|181558851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||<0.001
90846280|NCT00966875|181558851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||<0.001
90846281|NCT00966875|181558853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.227|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for ACR20-NRI at Week 12.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.227
90846282|NCT00966875|181558853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.306|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for ACR20-NRI at Week 12.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.306
90846283|NCT00966875|181558853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for ACR20-NRI at Week 12.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.001
90846284|NCT00966875|181558853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for ACR20-NRI at Week 12.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.070
90846285|NCT00966875|181558853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for ACR20-NRI at Week 12.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.058
90846286|NCT00966875|181558853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for ACR20-NRI at Week 12.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.033
90846287|NCT00966875|181558853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for ACR20-NRI at Week 12.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.047
90846288|NCT00966875|181558853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.191|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for ACR50-NRI at Week 12.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.191
90846289|NCT00966875|181558853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for ACR50-NRI at Week 12.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.019
90846290|NCT00966875|181558853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for ACR50-NRI at Week 12.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.013
91029599|NCT01200394|181943323|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-5.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2942|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.94|-2.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Supine Systolic BP, Week 0: MMRM model included baseline, visit, treatment, baseline by visit interaction and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate variances and covariance within participant across time points.||-2.84|-7.94|<0.0001
90846291|NCT00966875|181558853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for ACR50-NRI at Week 12.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.017
90846292|NCT00966875|181558853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for ACR50-NRI at Week 12.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.026
90846293|NCT00966875|181558853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for ACR50-NRI at Week 12.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.039
90846294|NCT00966875|181558853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for ACR50-NRI at Week 12.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.102
90846295|NCT00966875|181558853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.388|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for ACR70-NRI at Week 12.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.388
90846296|NCT00966875|181558853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for ACR70-NRI at Week 12.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.033
90846297|NCT00966875|181558853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for ACR70-NRI at Week 12.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.039
90846298|NCT00966875|181558853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for ACR70-NRI at Week 12.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.199
91104196|NCT04003142|182094842|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47|<|0.001||95.0|-3.59|-1.73||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 6||-1.73|-3.59|<0.001
90846299|NCT00966875|181558853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for ACR70-NRI at Week 12.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.039
90846300|NCT00966875|181558853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.696|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for ACR70-NRI at Week 12.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.696
90846301|NCT00966875|181558853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.112|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for ACR70-NRI at Week 12.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.112
90846302|NCT00966875|181558855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.017
90846303|NCT00966875|181558855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.042||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.042
90846304|NCT00966875|181558855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.004
90846305|NCT00966875|181558855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||<0.001
90846306|NCT00966875|181558855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||<0.001
90846307|NCT00966875|181558855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.008
90846308|NCT00966875|181558855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.007
90846309|NCT00966875|181558857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.093||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.093
90846310|NCT00966875|181558857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.023
90846311|NCT00966875|181558857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.006
90846312|NCT00966875|181558857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.001
90846313|NCT00966875|181558857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.028
90846314|NCT00966875|181558857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||<0.001
90846315|NCT00966875|181558857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||<0.001
91104197|NCT04003142|182094842|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49|<|0.001||95.0|-2.77|-0.83||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 7||-0.83|-2.77|<0.001
90846316|NCT00966875|181558859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.247||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.247
90846317|NCT00966875|181558859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.315||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.315
90846318|NCT00966875|181558859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.006
90846319|NCT00966875|181558859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.042||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.042
90846320|NCT00966875|181558859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.055||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.055
90846321|NCT00966875|181558859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.365||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.365
90846322|NCT00966875|181558859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.005
90846323|NCT00966875|181558861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.778||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.778
90846324|NCT00966875|181558861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.865||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.865
90846325|NCT00966875|181558861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.030
90846326|NCT00966875|181558861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.331||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.331
90846327|NCT00966875|181558861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.039||||||P-value is for Week 12..|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.039
90846328|NCT00966875|181558861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.292||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.292
90846329|NCT00966875|181558861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.003
90846330|NCT00966875|181558863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.090
90846331|NCT00966875|181558863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.131||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.131
90846332|NCT00966875|181558863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.008
90846333|NCT00966875|181558863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.013
90846334|NCT00966875|181558863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.010
90846335|NCT00966875|181558863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||<0.001
90846336|NCT00966875|181558863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||<0.001
90899065|NCT02247804|181664210|NON_INFERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.0107||95.0|-1.46|-0.19|||MMRM|||Week 6, Hour 0: The null hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 10 μg was to be declared non-inferior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was ≤ 1.5 mm Hg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||-0.19|-1.46|0.0107
91104198|NCT04003142|182094842|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49|<|0.001||95.0|-3.3|-1.37||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 7||-1.37|-3.30|<0.001
91104199|NCT04003142|182094842|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.79|-0.74||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 8||-0.74|-2.79|<0.001
90846337|NCT00966875|181558865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||<0.001
90846338|NCT00966875|181558865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.012
90846339|NCT00966875|181558865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||<0.001
90846340|NCT00966875|181558865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||<0.001
90846341|NCT00966875|181558865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||<0.001
90846342|NCT00966875|181558865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||<0.001
90846343|NCT00966875|181558865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.001
90846344|NCT00966875|181558867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12 LOCF.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.013
90846345|NCT00966875|181558867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12 LOCF.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.076
90846346|NCT00966875|181558867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12 LOCF.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.002
90846347|NCT00966875|181558867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12 LOCF.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
90846348|NCT00966875|181558867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.002
90846349|NCT00966875|181558867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12 LOCF.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.006
90846350|NCT00966875|181558867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.001
90846351|NCT00966875|181558869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.307||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|||||||0.307
90846352|NCT00966875|181558869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.104||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|||||||0.104
90846353|NCT00966875|181558869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.139||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|||||||0.139
90846354|NCT00966875|181558869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.056||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|||||||0.056
90846355|NCT00966875|181558869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|||||||0.048
90846356|NCT00966875|181558869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|||||||0.160
90846357|NCT00966875|181558869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|||||||0.029
90846358|NCT00966875|181558871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.272||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.272
90846359|NCT00966875|181558871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.962||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.962
90846360|NCT00966875|181558871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.236||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.236
90846361|NCT00966875|181558871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.316||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.316
90846362|NCT00966875|181558871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.138||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.138
90846363|NCT00966875|181558871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.975||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.975
91094306|NCT02273167|182072810|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Confidence limits (CL) were adjusted for multiple comparisons (2 alternative primary endpoints): To be declared non-inferior the primary endpoint must show a difference in success rates of no greater than 10% in favour of MOVIPREP using lower 1-sided 97.5% CLs. Calculated using exact Clopper-Pearson CLs. To accommodate the comparison of two NER1006 regimens a hierarchical testing approach will be used whereby NER1006 2-Day was assessed first and, if successful, then NER1006 1-Day was evaluated.|Difference in excellent plus good rate|16.56|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|8.11|||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons (two alternative primary endpoints): To be declared superior, primary endpoint must demonstrate non-inferiority with 1-sided p-value \<0.025, the threshold for statistical significance.|Fisher Exact|||Hypothesis was to demonstrate NI of NER1006 2-Day to MOVIPREP (10% margin). Success rate was no. of patients with highly effective cleansing of the colon ascendens as proportion of no. of patients in each group. Treatment effect was NER1006 2-Day success rate - MOVIPREP success rate. Hochberg procedure was used to control Type I error since there were 2 alternative primary endpoints. An alpha level of 1.25% 1-sided was used. A closed testing procedure used to evaluate superiority if NI was met.|||8.11|<0.001
91094307|NCT02273167|182072810|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The confidence limits (CLs) were adjusted for multiple comparisons (2 alternative primary endpoints): To be declared non-inferior the primary endpoint must show a difference in success rates of no greater than 10% in favour of MOVIPREP using lower 1-sided 97.5% CLs. Calculated using exact Clopper-Pearson CLs. To accommodate the comparison of 2 NER1006 regimens a hierarchical testing approach was used whereby NER1006 2-Day was assessed first and, if successful, then NER1006 1-Day was evaluated.|Difference in excellent plus good rate|18.74|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|10.32|||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons (2 alternative primary endpoints): To be declared superior, primary endpoint must demonstrate non-inferiority with 1-sided p-value \<0.025, the threshold for statistical significance.|Fisher Exact|||Hypothesis was to demonstrate NI of NER1006 1-Day to MOVIPREP (10% margin). Success rate was no. of patients with highly effective cleansing of the colon ascendens as proportion of no. of patients in each group. Treatment effect was NER1006 1-Day success rate - MOVIPREP success rate. Hochberg procedure was used to control Type I error since there were 2 alternative primary endpoints. An alpha level of 1.25% 1-sided was used. A closed testing procedure used to evaluate superiority if NI was met.|||10.32|<0.001
91094308|NCT02273167|182072811|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To be declared non-inferior, the key secondary endpoint must show a difference in rates of no greater than 10% in favor of MOVIPREP using lower 1-sided 97.5% confidence limits. Calculated using exact Clopper-Pearson confidence limits.|Difference in ADR|3.55||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|12.0||To be declared superior, the key secondary endpoint must demonstrate non-inferiority and show a significant advantage for NER1006 2-Day relative to MOVIPREP with 1-sided p-value \<0.025, the threshold for statistical significance.|Fisher Exact|||If at least one of the alternative primary endpoints was met, then key secondary endpoints for the same colon region as met by the primary endpoint were evaluated hierarchically in a pre-specified order. The difference in ADR was calculated as NER1006 2-Day rate - MOVIPREP rate using 1-sided 97.5% confidence limits. Formal testing was to proceed in the hierarchy if preceding key secondary endpoint met non-inferiority. This procedure ensured overall Type I error control at 2.5% 1-sided.||12.00|-4.80|0.106
90846364|NCT00966875|181558871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.079
90846365|NCT00966875|181558873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.982||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.982
90846366|NCT00966875|181558873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.276||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.276
90846367|NCT00966875|181558873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.050
90899066|NCT02247804|181664211|NON_INFERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.086||95.0|-1.16|0.08|||MMRM|||Week 6, Hour 2: The null hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 15 μg was to be declared non-inferior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was ≤ 1.5 mm Hg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||0.08|-1.16|0.0860
90899067|NCT02247804|181664211|NON_INFERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.0362||95.0|-1.27|-0.04|||MMRM|||Week 6, Hour 2: The null hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 10 μg was to be declared non-inferior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was ≤ 1.5 mm Hg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||-0.04|-1.27|0.0362
90846368|NCT00966875|181558873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.010
90846369|NCT00966875|181558873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.046||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.046
90846370|NCT00966875|181558873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.017
90846371|NCT00966875|181558873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.066||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.066
90846372|NCT00966875|181558875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.538||||||P-value is for Week 12.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.538
90846373|NCT00966875|181558875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.515||||||P-value is for Week 12.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.515
90846374|NCT00966875|181558875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||||||P-value is for Week 12.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.030
90846375|NCT00966875|181558875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.053||||||P-value is for Week 12.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.053
90846376|NCT00966875|181558875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.393||||||P-value is for Week 12.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.393
90846377|NCT00966875|181558875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.077||||||P-value is for Week 12.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.077
90846378|NCT00966875|181558875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.105||||||P-value is for Week 12.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.105
90846379|NCT02204124|181558887|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.032|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.032
90846380|NCT02204124|181558888|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.513|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.513
90846381|NCT02204124|181558891|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.013
90846382|NCT02204124|181558892|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.132|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.132
90846383|NCT02204124|181558893|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.975|||||||Chi-squared|||Statistical analysis #1 is for readmission||||0.975
90846384|NCT02204124|181558893|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.401|||||||Chi-squared|||Statistical analysis #2 is for wound infection.||||0.401
90846385|NCT02204124|181558893|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.975|||||||Chi-squared|||Statistical analysis #3 is for gastroparesis.||||0.975
90846386|NCT02204124|181558893|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.401|||||||Chi-squared|||Statistical analysis #4 is for pancreatic fistula.||||0.401
90846387|NCT02204124|181558893|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.219|||||||Chi-squared|||Statistical analysis #5 is for intraabdominal abscess.||||0.219
90899068|NCT02247804|181664212|NON_INFERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.295||95.0|-1.17|0.36|||MMRM|||Week 12, Hour 0: The null hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 15 μg was to be declared non-inferior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was ≤ 1.5 mm Hg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||0.36|-1.17|0.2950
90899069|NCT02247804|181664212|NON_INFERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.3904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|0.43|||MMRM|||Week 12, Hour 0: The null hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 10 μg was to be declared non-inferior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was ≤ 1.5 mm Hg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||0.43|-1.09|0.3904
90846388|NCT02204124|181558893|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.401|||||||Chi-squared|||Statistical analysis #6 is for anastomotic leakage.||||0.401
90846389|NCT02204124|181558893|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.219|||||||Chi-squared|||Statistical analysis #7 is for blood product transfusion (anemia).||||0.219
90846390|NCT01305577|181558894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|8.28|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression analysis with treatment and Baseline CR-SMFRS value in the model.|The odds ratio was based on a logistic regression model adjusted for the Baseline score. Odds ratios \>1 indicate a positive treatment effect.|"The null hypothesis was there was no difference between deoxycholic acid 1 mg/cm² and placebo.~An adjustment for multiplicity was performed for the two co-primary endpoints. This was accounted for by using the larger of the two P-values in the Bonferroni-Holm scheme."||8.28|2.70|<0.001
90846391|NCT01305577|181558894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.52|10.94|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression analysis with treatment and Baseline CR-SMFRS value in the model.|The odds ratio was based on a logistic regression model adjusted for the Baseline score. Odds ratios \>1 indicate a positive treatment effect.|The null hypothesis was there was no difference between deoxycholic acid 2 mg/cm² and placebo. An adjustment for multiplicity was performed for the two co-primary endpoints. This was accounted for by using the larger of the two P-values in the Bonferroni-Holm scheme.||10.94|3.52|<0.001
90846392|NCT01305577|181558895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.58||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|25.87|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression analysis with treatment and Baseline CR-SMFRS value in the model.|Odds ratio was based on a logistic regression model adjusted for the Baseline score. Odds ratios \>1 indicate a positive treatment effect.|||25.87|1.20|0.028
90846393|NCT01305577|181558895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.75|52.9|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression analysis with treatment and Baseline CR-SMFRS value in the model.|Odds ratio was based on a logistic regression model adjusted for the Baseline score. Odds ratios \>1 indicate a positive treatment effect.|||52.90|2.75|<0.001
90846394|NCT01305577|181558896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.74|5.14|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression analysis with treatment and Baseline SSRS value in the model|Odds ratio was based on a logistic regression model adjusted for Baseline score. Odds ratios \>1 indicate a positive treatment effect.|"The null hypothesis was there was no difference between deoxycholic acid 1 mg/cm² and placebo.~An adjustment for multiplicity was performed for the two co-primary endpoints. This was accounted for by using the larger of the two P-values in the Bonferroni-Holm scheme."||5.14|1.74|<0.001
90846395|NCT01305577|181558896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.99|9.11|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression analysis with treatment and baseline SSRS value in the model|Odds ratio was based on a logistic regression model adjusted for Baseline score. Odds ratios \>1 indicate a positive treatment effect.|"The null hypothesis was there was no difference between deoxycholic acid 2 mg/cm² and placebo.~An adjustment for multiplicity was performed for the two co-primary endpoints. This was accounted for by using the larger of the two P-values in the Bonferroni-Holm scheme."||9.11|2.99|<0.001
90846396|NCT01305577|181558897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.35|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|The model included the fixed effect factors visit and treatment, the visit\*treatment interaction, and the baseline CR-SMFRS values as covariate.||||-0.35|-0.68|<0.001
90846397|NCT01305577|181558897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.5|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|The model included the fixed effect factors visit and treatment, the visit\*treatment interaction, and the baseline CR-SMFRS values as covariate.||||-0.50|-0.84|<0.001
90846398|NCT01305577|181558898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.47|||ANCOVA|The model includes the fixed effect factor treatment and the Baseline values as covariate.||||1.47|0.61|<0.001
90846399|NCT01305577|181558898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.84|||ANCOVA|The model includes the fixed effect factor treatment and the Baseline values as covariate.||||1.84|0.99|<0.001
90899070|NCT02247804|181664213|NON_INFERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.0464||95.0|-1.4|-0.01|||MMRM|||Week 12, Hour 2: The null hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 15 μg was to be declared non-inferior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was ≤ 1.5 mm Hg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||-0.01|-1.40|0.0464
91094309|NCT02273167|182072811|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To be declared non-inferior, the key secondary endpoint must show a difference in rates of no greater than 10% in favor of MOVIPREP using lower 1-sided 97.5% confidence limits. Calculated using exact Clopper-Pearson confidence limits.|Difference in ADR|3.55||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|12.0||To be declared superior, the key secondary endpoint must demonstrate non-inferiority and show a significant advantage for NER1006 1-Day relative to MOVIPREP with 1-sided p-value \<0.025, the threshold for statistical significance.|Fisher Exact|||If at least one of the alternative primary endpoints was met, then key secondary endpoints for the same colon region as met by the primary endpoint were evaluated hierarchically in a pre-specified order. The difference in ADR was calculated as NER1006 1-Day rate - MOVIPREP rate using 1-sided 97.5% confidence limits. Formal testing was to proceed in the hierarchy if preceding key secondary endpoint met non-inferiority. This procedure ensured overall Type I error control at 2.5% 1-sided.||12.00|-4.80|0.106
90846400|NCT01305577|181558899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean Difference|-1.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-0.87|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|The model includes the fixed effect factors visit and treatment, the visit\*treatment interaction, and the Baseline values as covariate.||||-0.87|-2.50|<0.001
90846401|NCT01305577|181558899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.79|-1.15|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|The model includes the fixed effect factors visit and treatment, the visit\*treatment interaction, and the baseline values as covariate.||||-1.15|-2.79|<0.001
90846402|NCT01305577|181558900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's chi-square test|||||||<0.001
90846403|NCT01305577|181558900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's chi-square test|||||||<0.001
90846404|NCT01256190|181558935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004
90846405|NCT01256190|181558936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.31
90846406|NCT01256190|181558937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||intent-to-treat analysis||||.022
90846407|NCT01256190|181558938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.113||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||intent-to treat analysis||||0.113
90846408|NCT01256190|181558939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||intent-to-treat analysis||||.025
90846409|NCT02834793|181558940|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-19.3|||=|0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.2|4.8||The p-value was based on a rank analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment, region, and age-group as factors, and prerandomization drop seizure frequency as a covariate.|ANCOVA||The median difference to placebo and the 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) were based on the Hodges-Lehmann method.|||4.8|-49.2|= 0.107
90899071|NCT02247804|181664213|NON_INFERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.5383||95.0|-0.9|0.47|||MMRM|||Week 12, Hour 2: The null hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 10 μg was to be declared non-inferior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was ≤ 1.5 mm Hg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||0.47|-0.90|0.5383
90846410|NCT03255629|181558975|OTHER|||||||0.103|||||||McNemar|||||||0.103
90846411|NCT03255629|181558976|OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||McNemar|||||||0.180
90846412|NCT03255629|181558978|OTHER|||||||0.317|||||||McNemar|||||||0.317
91104200|NCT04003142|182094842|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-1.35||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 8||-1.35|-3.40|<0.001
90846413|NCT03255629|181558979|OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||McNemar|||||||0.008
90846414|NCT03255629|181558980|OTHER|||||||0.083|||||||McNemar|||||||0.083
90846415|NCT03255629|181558981|OTHER|||||||0.025|||||||McNemar|||||||0.025
90846416|NCT03255629|181558983|OTHER|||||||0.049|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed effects models to account for correlation within subjects over time||||||0.049
90846417|NCT03255629|181558984|OTHER|||||||0.056|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed effects models to account for correlation within subjects over time||||||0.056
90846418|NCT03255629|181558985|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.004
90846419|NCT03255629|181558986|OTHER|||||||0.059|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.059
90846420|NCT03255629|181558987|OTHER|||||||0.195|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.195
90846421|NCT03255629|181558988|OTHER|||||||0.043|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.043
90846422|NCT03255629|181558989|OTHER|||||||0.659|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.659
90846423|NCT03255629|181558990|OTHER|||||||0.406|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.406
90846424|NCT03255629|181558991|OTHER|||||||0.611|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.611
90846425|NCT03255629|181558992|OTHER|||||||0.183|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.183
90846426|NCT03255629|181558993|OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.009
90846427|NCT03255629|181558994|OTHER|||||||0.789|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.789
90846428|NCT03255629|181558995|OTHER|||||||0.865|||||||McNemar|||||||0.865
90846429|NCT03255629|181558996|OTHER|||||||0.875|||||||McNemar|||||||0.875
90846430|NCT00312195|181559064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2544||0.0217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|2.95||P value is from a logistic regression analysis with terms for treatment effect, country and pain site (hip, knee, back and other).|Regression, Logistic||Primary variable was defined as: ratio of the probability of having ineffective treatment divided by the probability of having effective treatment.|H0: the odds of ineffective treatment is the same for subjects receiving placebo as for those receiving BTDS versus the alternative H1: the odds of ineffective treatment is different for subjects receiving placebo from those receiving BTDS.||2.95|1.09|.0217
91029600|NCT01200394|181943323|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.849|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.38|-2.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Supine Diastolic BP, Week 0: MMRM model included baseline, visit, treatment, baseline by visit interaction and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate variances and covariance within participant across time points.||-2.04|-5.38|<0.0001
90846431|NCT04145219|181559078|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.4||This endpoint was controlled for multiplicity using hierarchical testing|Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo vs. 12 SQ-HDM|The average daily TCRS was analysed using a linear mixed effect (LME) model with square root transformation. The model includes the square root of the endpoint as response variable, treatment and cohort as fixed factors, the square root of the baseline value as a covariate, country/region within cohort as a random effect, and with different residual errors specified for each treatment. No missing data approach was applied.||1.4|0.5|<0.0001
90846432|NCT04145219|181559079|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.6||This endpoint was controlled for multiplicity using hierarchical testing|Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo vs. 12 SQ-HDM|The average rhinitis DSS was analysed using a linear mixed effect (LME) model with square root transformation. The model includes the square root of the endpoint as response variable, treatment and cohort as fixed factors, the square root of the baseline value as a covariate, country/region within cohort as a random effect, and with different residual errors specified for each treatment. No missing data approach was applied.||0.6|0.2|<0.0001
90846433|NCT04145219|181559080|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.8||This endpoint was controlled for multiplicity using hierarchical testing|Mixed Models Analysis|||The average rhinitis DMS was analysed using a linear mixed effect (LME) model with square root transformation. The model includes the square root of the endpoint as response variable, treatment and cohort as fixed factors, the square root of the baseline value as a covariate, country/region within cohort as a random effect, and with different residual errors specified for each treatment. No missing data approach was applied.||0.8|0.2|0.0016
90846434|NCT04145219|181559081|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.7||This endpoint was controlled for multiplicity using hierarchical testing|Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo vs.12 SQ-HDM|||1.7|0.6|<0.0001
90846435|NCT04145219|181559082|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo vs. 12 SQ-HDM|The average rhinoconjunctivitis DSS was analysed using a linear mixed effect (LME) model with square root transformation. The model includes the square root of the endpoint as response variable, treatment and cohort as fixed factors, the square root of the baseline value as a covariate, country/region within cohort as a random effect, and with different residual errors specified for each treatment. No missing data approach was applied.||0.7|0.3|<0.0001
90846436|NCT04145219|181559083|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo vs. 12 SQ-HDM|The average rhinoconjunctivitis DMS was analysed using a linear mixed effect (LME) model with square root transformation. The model includes the square root of the endpoint as response variable, treatment and cohort as fixed factors, the square root of the baseline value as a covariate, country/region within cohort as a random effect, and with different residual errors specified for each treatment. No missing data approach was applied.||1.0|0.2|0.0018
90846437|NCT04145219|181559084|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.2||This endpoint was controlled for multiplicity using hierarchical testing|Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo vs. 12 SQ-HDM|The overall PRQLQ score was analysed using a linear mixed effect (LME) model. The model includes the overall PRQLQ score as response variable, treatment and cohort as fixed factors, the baseline overall PRQLQ score as a covariate, country/region within cohort as a random effect, and with different residual errors specified for each treatment. No missing data approach was applied.||0.2|0.1|<0.0001
90846438|NCT04145219|181559085|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.0259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo vs. 12 SQ-HDM|The average asthma DSS was analysed using a linear mixed effect (LME) model with square root transformation. The model includes the square root of the endpoint as response variable, treatment and cohort as fixed factors, the square root of the baseline value as a covariate, country/region within cohort as a random effect, and with different residual errors specified for each treatment. No missing data approach was applied.||0.2|0.0|0.0259
90846439|NCT04145219|181559086|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.0527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|3.3|||Generalised linear mixed model (GLMM)||Odds ratio is (odds 12 SQ-HDM / odds Placebo)|The odds of having a SABA free day was analysed using a generalised linear mixed model (GLMM) with a logit link function. The model included SABA free day (yes/no) as response variable, treatment and cohort as fixed effects, the baseline average asthma DSS as a covariate, the combined (country/region) variable within cohort and subject as random effects. Proportion is the estimated probability of having a day where a subject with asthma did not use SABA, odds ratio is (odds active/odds Placebo).||3.3|1.0|0.0527
90846440|NCT04145219|181559087|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.1256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo vs. 12 SQ-HDM|The endpoint was analysed using a linear mixed effect (LME) model. The model includes the endpoint as response variable, treatment and cohort as fixed factors, the baseline value as a covariate, country/region within cohort as a random effect, and with different residual errors specified for each treatment. No missing data approach was applied.||1.0|-0.1|0.1256
91029601|NCT01200394|181943323|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9489|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.46|-2.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Supine Mean BP, Week 0: MMRM model included baseline, visit, treatment, baseline by visit interaction and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate variances and covariance within participant across time points.||-2.72|-6.46|<0.0001
91029602|NCT01200394|181943323|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4056||0.7093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.29|2.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Supine Systolic BP, Week 3: MMRM model included baseline, visit, treatment, baseline by visit interaction and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate variances and covariance within participant across time points.||2.24|-3.29|0.7093
90899072|NCT02247804|181664214|SUPERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|-0.34|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline Week 2, Hour 0: The null hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 10 μg was to be declared superior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was \< 0 mm Hg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||-0.34|-1.68|0.0033
90899073|NCT02247804|181664214|SUPERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.0187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|-0.13|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline Week 2, Hour 0: The null hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 10 μg was to be declared superior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was \< 0 mm Hg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||-0.13|-1.47|0.0187
90899074|NCT02247804|181664214|SUPERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|-0.25|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline Week 2, Hour 2: The null hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 15 μg was to be declared superior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was \< 0 mm Hg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||-0.25|-1.45|0.0057
90899075|NCT02247804|181664214|SUPERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.31|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline Week 2, Hour 2: The null hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 10 μg was to be declared superior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was \< 0 mm Hg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||-0.31|-1.50|0.0031
90899076|NCT02247804|181664214|SUPERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.0547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|0.01|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline Week 6, Hour 0: The null hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 15 μg was to be declared superior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was \< 0 mm Hg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||0.01|-1.26|0.0547
90899077|NCT02247804|181664214|SUPERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.0107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|-0.19|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline Week 6, Hour 0: The null hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 10 μg was to be declared superior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was \< 0 mm Hg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||-0.19|-1.46|0.0107
90899078|NCT02247804|181664214|SUPERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.08|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline Week 6, Hour 2: The null hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 15 μg was to be declared superior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was \< 0 mm Hg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||0.08|-1.16|0.0860
91029603|NCT01200394|181943323|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9089||0.6564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|2.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Supine Diastolic BP, Week 3: MMRM model included baseline, visit, treatment, baseline by visit interaction and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate variances and covariance within participant across time points.||2.20|-1.39|0.6564
91029604|NCT01200394|181943323|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0334||0.8763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Supine Mean BP, Week 3: MMRM model included baseline, visit, treatment, baseline by visit interaction and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate variances and covariance within participant across time points.||1.87|-2.20|0.8763
90899079|NCT02247804|181664214|SUPERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.0362||95.0|-1.27|-0.04|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline Week 6, Hour 2: The null hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 10 μg was to be declared superior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was \< 0 mm Hg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||-0.04|-1.27|0.0362
91029605|NCT01200394|181943323|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4926||0.7491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.42|2.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Supine Systolic BP, Week 6: MMRM model included baseline, visit, treatment, baseline by visit interaction and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate variances and covariance within participant across time points.||2.46|-3.42|0.7491
91104201|NCT04003142|182094842|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.002||95.0|-2.71|-0.59||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 9||-0.59|-2.71|0.002
91094310|NCT02273167|182072812|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To be declared non-inferior, the key secondary endpoint must show a difference in rates of no greater than 10% in favor of MOVIPREP using lower 1-sided 97.5% confidence limits. Calculated using exact Clopper-Pearson confidence limits.|Difference in ADR|-0.29||||0.569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.74|8.02||To be declared superior, the key secondary endpoint must demonstrate non-inferiority and show a significant advantage for NER1006 2-Day relative to MOVIPREP with 1-sided p-value \<0.025, the threshold for statistical significance.|Fisher Exact|||If at least one of the alternative primary endpoints was met, then key secondary endpoints for the same colon region as met by the primary endpoint were evaluated hierarchically in a pre-specified order. The difference in ADR was calculated as NER1006 2-Day rate - MOVIPREP rate using 1-sided 97.5% confidence limits. Formal testing was to proceed in the hierarchy if preceding key secondary endpoint met non-inferiority. This procedure ensured overall Type I error control at 2.5% 1-sided.||8.02|-8.74|0.569
91094311|NCT02273167|182072812|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To be declared non-inferior, the key secondary endpoint must show a difference in rates of no greater than 10% in favor of MOVIPREP using lower 1-sided 97.5% confidence limits. Calculated using exact Clopper-Pearson confidence limits.|Difference in ADR|0.8||||0.455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.65|9.11||To be declared superior, the key secondary endpoint must demonstrate non-inferiority and show a significant advantage for NER1006 1-Day relative to MOVIPREP with 1-sided p-value \<0.025, the threshold for statistical significance.|Fisher Exact|||If at least one of the alternative primary endpoints was met, then key secondary endpoints for the same colon region as met by the primary endpoint were evaluated hierarchically in a pre-specified order. The difference in ADR was calculated as NER1006 1-Day rate - MOVIPREP rate using 1-sided 97.5% confidence limits. Formal testing was to proceed in the hierarchy if preceding key secondary endpoint met non-inferiority. This procedure ensured overall Type I error control at 2.5% 1-sided.||9.11|-7.65|0.455
91104202|NCT04003142|182094842|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54|<|0.001||95.0|-3.57|-1.45||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 9||-1.45|-3.57|<0.001
91104203|NCT04003142|182094842|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54|<|0.001||95.0|-2.96|-0.86||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 10||-0.86|-2.96|<0.001
90846441|NCT04145219|181559088|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.5|||Generalised linear mixed model (GLMM)||Odds ratio is (odds 12 SQ-HDM / odds Placebo)|The odds of having a rhinitis mild day was analysed using a generalised linear mixed model (GLMM) with a logit link function. The model included the endpoint (yes/no) as response variable, treatment and cohort as fixed effects, the baseline average rhinitis TCRS as a covariate, the combined (country/region) variable within cohort and subject as random effects. Proportion is the estimated probability of having a day with no or mild rhinitis symptoms, odds ratio is (odds 12 SQ-HDM / odds Placebo).||2.5|1.3|0.0008
90846442|NCT04145219|181559089|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.7|||Generalised linear mixed model (GLMM)||Odds ratio is (odds 12 SQ-HDM / odds Placebo)|The odds of having a rhinitis exacerbation day was analysed using a generalised linear mixed model (GLMM) with a logit link function. The model included the endpoint (yes/no) as response variable, treatment and cohort as fixed effects, the baseline average rhinitis DSS as a covariate, the combined (country/region) variable within cohort and subject as random effects. Proportion is the estimated probability of having a rhinitis exacerbation day, odds ratio is (odds 12 SQ-HDM / odds Placebo).||0.7|0.4|<0.0001
90846443|NCT04145219|181559090|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo vs. 12 SQ-HDM|The average rhinitis CSMS was analysed using a linear mixed effect (LME) model with square root transformation. The model includes the square root of the endpoint as response variable, treatment and cohort as fixed factors, the square root of the baseline value as a covariate, country/region within cohort as a random effect, and with different residual errors specified for each treatment. No missing data approach was applied.||0.3|0.1|<0.0001
90846444|NCT04145219|181559091|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo vs. 12 SQ-HDM|The average rhinoconjunctivitis CSMS was analysed using a linear mixed effect (LME) model with square root transformation. The model includes the square root of the endpoint as response variable, treatment and cohort as fixed factors, the square root of the baseline value as a covariate, country/region within cohort as a random effect, and with different residual errors specified for each treatment. No missing data approach was applied.||0.3|0.1|<0.0001
90846445|NCT05871450|181559097|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.05
90846446|NCT02791763|181559109|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be established as the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the treatment difference was greater than the pre-specified non-inferiority margin (-1.0 g/dL).|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.088|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.28||The p value on this table is one-sided and calculated for the non-inferiority assessment.|Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)||Analysis was performed by a MMRM with covariates of treatment, Baseline Hgb, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline-by-visit interaction.|||0.28|-0.07|<.0001
90846447|NCT02791763|181559110|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.4941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|3.04||The p value on this table is one-sided and calculated for the superiority assessment.|Regression, Logistic||Analysis was performed by logistic regression with covariates of treatment, Baseline Hgb, and Baseline ESA use.|||3.04|0.33|0.4941
90846448|NCT02791763|181559111|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.4941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|3.04||The p value on this table is one-sided and calculated for the superiority assessment.|Regression, Logistic||Analysis was performed by logistic regression with covariates of treatment, Baseline Hgb, and Baseline ESA use.|||3.04|0.33|0.4941
90846449|NCT00916929|181559234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||rate per patient year of follow up|1.5||||||95.0|||||exact method|95% Upper Confidence Limit of objective performance criteria||"For each patient cohort, the hypothesis is formally expressed as follows:~H0: Expected False Positive Rate ≥1.5 per patient-year of follow-up Ha: Expected False Positive Rate \<1.5 per patient-year of follow-up~The null hypothesis is rejected at the 5% significance level if the 95% upper confidence limit (UCL) for expected FPR is less than 1.5 per patient-year of follow-up."||||
91094312|NCT02273167|182072813|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To accommodate the comparison of two NER1006 regimens, a hierarchical testing approach was used whereby NER1006 2-Day was assessed first and, if successful, then NER1006 1-Day was evaluated. Difference in Polyp Detection Rate in the colon ascendens was calculated as NER1006 2-Day rate - MOVIPREP rate (10% margin) determined using exact Clopper-Pearson confidence limits.|Difference in PDR|7.1||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|15.47|||Fisher Exact|||If at least one of the primary endpoints were met, then key secondary endpoints were evaluated hierarchically in a pre-specified order. Non-inferiority was concluded if the 1-sided 97.5% confidence limit difference in proportion of events between 2 groups excluded a 10% or greater difference was in favor of MOVIPREP. Formal testing was to proceed in the hierarchy if preceding key secondary endpoint had at least met non-inferiority.||15.47|-1.41|0.024
90846450|NCT00916929|181559235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||sensitivity|50.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0|||ONE_SIDED|95.0|50.0||||exact method|||"For each patient cohort, the hypothesis is formally expressed as follows:~H0: Sensitivity ≤ 50% Ha: Sensitivity \> 50%~The desired outcome was to reject the null hypothesis at the 5% significance level. The null hypothesis is rejected at the 5% significance level if the 95% lower confidence limit (LCL) for sensitivity is greater than 50%."|||50|
90846451|NCT02878798|181559248|OTHER|Non-inferiority and superiority tests were completed|Slope|0.2105|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.4328||||||||||-0.4328|
90846452|NCT02878798|181559249|OTHER|Non-inferiority and superiority tests were done|Slope|-1.5219|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||1.1933||||||||1.1933||
90846453|NCT02878798|181559250|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.02322|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6337|0.5872|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.5872|-0.6337|
90846454|NCT02878798|181559251|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.168||||0.261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4612|0.1253|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.1253|-0.4612|0.261
90846455|NCT02878798|181559252|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.061||||0.9007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0213|0.8992|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.8992|-1.0213|0.9007
90846456|NCT02878798|181559253|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.0106||||0.8174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0793|0.1005|||Hurdle model|||||0.1005|-0.0793|0.8174
90846457|NCT02878798|181559254|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.7394||||0.0233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3775|-0.1013|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.1013|-1.3775|0.0233
90846458|NCT02878798|181559255|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.1328||||0.7586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.982|0.7164|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.7164|-0.982|0.7586
90846459|NCT02878798|181559256|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.0021||||0.9604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.084|0.0799|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.0799|-0.084|0.9604
91029606|NCT01200394|181943323|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9235||0.6141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|1.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Supine Diastolic BP, Week 6: MMRM model included baseline, visit, treatment, baseline by visit interaction and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate variances and covariance within participant across time points.||1.35|-2.29|0.6141
90846460|NCT02878798|181559257|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.0396||||0.2365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1053|0.0261|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.0261|-0.1053|0.2365
90846461|NCT02878798|181559258|SUPERIORITY||Slope|2.3848||||0.5813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1336|10.9032|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||10.9032|-6.1336|0.5813
90846462|NCT02878798|181559259|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.0547||||0.4092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5705|1.4611|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.4611|-3.5705|0.4092
90846463|NCT01309282|181559260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0078
90846464|NCT01309282|181559261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0078
90846465|NCT01309282|181559262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01403|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.01403
90846466|NCT01309282|181559263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0355|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0355
90846467|NCT01309282|181559264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5469|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.5469
90846468|NCT01309282|181559265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0225|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0225
90846469|NCT01309282|181559266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0225|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0225
90846470|NCT01309282|181559267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0904|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0904
90846471|NCT01309282|181559268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2969|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.2969
90846472|NCT01708902|181559294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.01|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference was calculated as the adjusted mean of 'Main: Linagliptin 2.5mg / Metformin 1000mg BID' minus 'Main: Metformin 1000mg BID'.|"The model includes treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate.~The null and alternative hypotheses were tested in a hierarchical sequence. The next null hypothesis was tested in a confirmatory way only if all prior null-hypotheses were rejected. 'Greater effect' refers to a greater reduction in HbA1c."||0.01|-0.45|0.0587
90846473|NCT01708902|181559294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|-0.78|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference was calculated as the adjusted mean of 'Main: Linagliptin 2.5mg / Metformin 1000mg BID' minus 'Main: Linagliptin 5mg QD'.|"The model includes treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate.~The null and alternative hypotheses were tested in a hierarchical sequence. The next null hypothesis was tested in a confirmatory way only if all prior null-hypotheses were rejected. 'Greater effect' refers to a greater reduction in HbA1c."||-0.78|-1.23|<0.0001
90846474|NCT01708902|181559294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.29|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference was calculated as the adjusted mean of 'Main: Linagliptin 2.5mg / Metformin 500mg BID' minus 'Main: Metformin 500mg BID'.|"The model includes treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate.~The null and alternative hypotheses were tested in a hierarchical sequence. The next null hypothesis was tested in a confirmatory way only if all prior null-hypotheses were rejected. 'Greater effect' refers to a greater reduction in HbA1c."||-0.29|-0.73|<0.0001
90846475|NCT01708902|181559294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|-0.64|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference was calculated as the adjusted mean of 'Main: Linagliptin 2.5mg / Metformin 500mg BID' minus 'Main: Linagliptin 5mg QD'.|"The model includes treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate.~The null and alternative hypotheses were tested in a hierarchical sequence. The next null hypothesis was tested in a confirmatory way only if all prior null-hypotheses were rejected. 'Greater effect' refers to a greater reduction in HbA1c."||-0.64|-1.09|<0.0001
91094313|NCT02273167|182072813|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To accommodate the comparison of two NER1006 regimens, a hierarchical testing approach was used whereby NER1006 2-Day was assessed first and, if successful, then NER1006 1-Day was evaluated. Difference in Polyp Detection Rate in the colon ascendens was calculated as NER1006 rate - MOVIPREP rate (10% margin) determined using exact Clopper-Pearson confidence limits. Non-inferiority of NER1006 1-Day to MOVIPREP was proven.|Difference in PDR|2.37||||0.268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.12|10.82||Superiority of NER1006 1-Day to MOVIPREP not demonstrated statistically.|Fisher Exact|||If at least one of the primary endpoints were met, then key secondary endpoints were evaluated hierarchically in a pre-specified order. Non-inferiority was concluded if the 1-sided 97.5% confidence limit difference in proportion of events between 2 groups excluded a 10% or greater difference was in favor of MOVIPREP. Formal testing was to proceed in the hierarchy if preceding key secondary endpoint had at least met non-inferiority.||10.82|-6.12|0.268
91094314|NCT02273167|182072814|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To accommodate the comparison of two NER1006 regimens, a hierarchical testing approach was used whereby NER1006 2-Day was assessed first and, if successful, then NER1006 1-Day was evaluated. Difference in Polyp Detection Rate in the overall colon was calculated as NER1006 rate - MOVIPREP rate (10% margin) determined using exact Clopper-Pearson confidence intervals.|Difference in PDR|-0.49||||0.579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.85|8.0|||Fisher Exact|||If at least one of the primary endpoints were met, then key secondary endpoints were evaluated hierarchically in a pre-specified order. Non-inferiority was concluded if the 1-sided 97.5% confidence limit difference in proportion of events between 2 groups excluded a 10% or greater difference was in favor of MOVIPREP. Formal testing was to proceed in the hierarchy if preceding key secondary endpoint had at least met non-inferiority.||8.00|-8.85|0.579
91094315|NCT02273167|182072814|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To accommodate the comparison of two NER1006 regimens, a hierarchical testing approach was used whereby NER1006 2-Day was assessed first and, if successful, then NER1006 1-Day was evaluated. Difference in Polyp Detection Rate in the overall colon was calculated as NER1006 1-Day rate - MOVIPREP rate (10% margin) determined using exact Clopper-Pearson confidence limits.|Difference in PDR|0.61||||0.478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.78|9.09|||Fisher Exact|||If at least one of the primary endpoints were met, then key secondary endpoints were evaluated hierarchically in a pre-specified order. Non-inferiority was concluded if the 1-sided 97.5% confidence limit difference in proportion of events between 2 groups excluded a 10% or greater difference was in favor of MOVIPREP. Formal testing was to proceed in the hierarchy if preceding key secondary endpoint had at least met non-inferiority.||9.09|-7.78|0.478
91094316|NCT03082729|182072815|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.612|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.612
91094317|NCT03082729|182072816|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.083|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.083
91094318|NCT03082729|182072817|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.617|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.617
91094319|NCT03082729|182072818|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.524|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.524
91094320|NCT03082729|182072819|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.972|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.972
91094321|NCT03082729|182072820|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.315|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.315
90846476|NCT01708902|181559295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.673|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.487||0.0771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.946|2.961|||Regression, Logistic|||"Comparison of 'Main: Linagliptin 2.5mg / Metformin 1000mg BID' / 'Main: Metformin 1000mg BID'.~The logistic regression includes treatment and continuous baseline HbA1c."||2.961|0.946|0.0771
90846477|NCT01708902|181559295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.489|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.543|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.164|9.522|||Regression, Logistic|||"Comparison of 'Main: Linagliptin 2.5mg / Metformin 1000mg BID' / 'Main: Linagliptin 5mg QD'.~The logistic regression includes treatment and continuous baseline HbA1c."||9.522|3.164|<0.0001
91094322|NCT03082729|182072821|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.443|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.443
91094323|NCT03082729|182072822|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.027
91094324|NCT03082729|182072823|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.390
91094325|NCT03082729|182072824|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.116|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.116
90899080|NCT01187329|181664215|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.87|0.48|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.48|-2.87|0.11
90899081|NCT01187329|181664216|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.3|-0.01|||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||-0.01|-0.3|0.007
90899082|NCT01187329|181664217|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|1.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.5|-2.6|0.57
91094326|NCT03082729|182072825|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.331|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.331
91094327|NCT03082729|182072826|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.225|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.225
91094328|NCT03082729|182072827|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.141|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.141
91094329|NCT03082729|182072828|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.882|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.882
91094330|NCT03082729|182072829|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.326|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.326
91094331|NCT03082729|182072830|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.094|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.094
91094332|NCT03082729|182072831|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.087|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.087
91094333|NCT03082729|182072832|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.771|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.771
91094334|NCT03082729|182072833|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.491|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.491
91094335|NCT03082729|182072834|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.924|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.924
91094336|NCT03082729|182072835|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.868|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.868
91094337|NCT03082729|182072836|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.922|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.922
91094338|NCT03082729|182072837|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.192|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.192
91094339|NCT03082729|182072838|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.453|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.453
91094340|NCT03082729|182072839|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.714|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.714
91094341|NCT03082729|182072840|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.434|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.434
91094342|NCT03082729|182072841|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.329|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.329
91094343|NCT03082729|182072842|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.963|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.963
91094344|NCT03082729|182072843|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.400
91094345|NCT03082729|182072844|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.223|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.223
91094346|NCT03082729|182072845|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.241|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.241
91094347|NCT03082729|182072846|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.348|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.348
91094348|NCT03082729|182072847|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.424|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.424
91094349|NCT03082729|182072848|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.667|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.667
90846478|NCT01708902|181559295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.829|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.753|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.678|4.767|||Regression, Logistic|||"Comparison of 'Main: Linagliptin 2.5mg / Metformin 500mg BID' / 'Main: Metformin 500mg BID'.~The logistic regression includes treatment and continuous baseline HbA1c."||4.767|1.678|<0.0001
90846479|NCT01708902|181559295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.818|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.023|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.259|6.454|||Regression, Logistic|||"Comparison of 'Main: Linagliptin 2.5mg / Metformin 500mg BID' / 'Main: Linagliptin 5mg QD'.~The logistic regression includes treatment and continuous baseline HbA1c."||6.454|2.259|<0.0001
90846480|NCT01708902|181559296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.169|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.565||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.997|8.701|||Regression, Logistic|||"Comparison of 'APG: Linagliptin 2.5mg / Metformin 1000mg BID' / 'APG: Linagliptin 5mg QD'.~The logistic regression includes treatment and continuous baseline HbA1c."||8.701|1.997|0.0001
90846481|NCT01708902|181559297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.661|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.426||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.004|2.746|||Regression, Logistic|||"Comparison of 'Main: Linagliptin 2.5mg / Metformin 1000mg BID' / 'Main: Metformin 1000mg BID'.~The logistic regression includes treatment and continuous baseline HbA1c."||2.746|1.004|0.0480
90846482|NCT01708902|181559297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.923|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.632|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.452|10.164|||Regression, Logistic|||"Comparison of 'Main: Linagliptin 2.5mg / Metformin 1000mg BID' / 'Main: Linagliptin 5mg QD'.~The logistic regression includes treatment and continuous baseline HbA1c."||10.164|3.452|<0.0001
90846483|NCT01708902|181559297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.574|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.655||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.563|4.239|||Regression, Logistic|||"Comparison of 'Main: Linagliptin 2.5mg / Metformin 500mg BID' / 'Main: Metformin 500mg BID'.~The logistic regression includes treatment and continuous baseline HbA1c."||4.239|1.563|0.0002
90846484|NCT01708902|181559297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.682|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.27|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.751|7.968|||Regression, Logistic|||"Comparison of 'Main: Linagliptin 2.5mg / Metformin 500mg BID' / 'Main: Linagliptin 5mg QD'.~The logistic regression includes treatment and continuous baseline HbA1c."||7.968|2.751|<0.0001
90846485|NCT01708902|181559298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.135|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.31||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.383|7.11|||Regression, Logistic|||"Comparison of 'APG: Linagliptin 2.5mg / Metformin 1000mg BID' / 'APG: Linagliptin 5mg QD'.~The logistic regression includes treatment and continuous baseline HbA1c."||7.110|1.383|0.0062
90846486|NCT01708902|181559299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.07|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference was calculated as the adjusted mean of 'Main: Linagliptin 2.5mg / Metformin 1000mg BID' minus 'Main: Metformin 1000mg BID'.|"Sensitivity analysis: Mixed Model for repeated measurements~The model includes baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate; visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed classification effects and patient as a random effect with unstructured covariance structure to model within-patients errors."||-0.07|-0.53|0.0109
90846487|NCT01708902|181559299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|-0.81|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference was calculated as the adjusted mean of 'Main: Linagliptin 2.5mg / Metformin 1000mg BID' minus 'Main: Linagliptin 5mg QD'.|"Sensitivity analysis: Mixed Model for repeated measurements~The model includes baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate; visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed classification effects and patient as a random effect with unstructured covariance structure to model within-patients errors."||-0.81|-1.27|<0.0001
90846488|NCT01708902|181559299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.24|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference was calculated as the adjusted mean of 'Main: Linagliptin 2.5mg / Metformin 500mg BID ' minus 'Main: Metformin 500mg BID' .|"Sensitivity analysis: Mixed Model for repeated measurements~The model includes baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate; visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed classification effects and patient as a random effect with unstructured covariance structure to model within-patients errors."||-0.24|-0.70|<0.0001
90846489|NCT01708902|181559299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|-0.58|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference was calculated as the adjusted mean of 'Main: Linagliptin 2.5mg / Metformin 500mg BID' minus 'Main: Linagliptin 5mg QD'.|"Sensitivity analysis: Mixed Model for repeated measurements~The model includes baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate; visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed classification effects and patient as a random effect with unstructured covariance structure to model within-patients errors."||-0.58|-1.04|<0.0001
90846490|NCT01708902|181559300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|-0.63|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference was calculated as the adjusted mean of 'APG: Linagliptin 2.5mg / Metformin 1000mg BID' minus 'APG: Linagliptin 5mg QD'.|"The treatment effect of the 'APG: Linagliptin 2.5mg / Metformin 1000mg BID' was compared with 'APG: Linagliptin 5mg QD'.~The model includes treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate."||-0.63|-1.87|0.0001
90846491|NCT01708902|181559301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.986|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.387||0.9705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.456|2.13|||Regression, Logistic|||"Comparison of 'Main: Linagliptin 2.5mg / Metformin 1000mg BID' / 'Main: Metformin 1000mg BID'.~The logistic regression includes treatment and continuous baseline HbA1c."||2.130|0.456|0.9705
90846492|NCT01708902|181559301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.093|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.029||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.612|5.938|||Regression, Logistic|||"Comparison of 'Main: Linagliptin 2.5mg / Metformin 1000mg BID' / 'Main: Linagliptin 5mg QD'.~The logistic regression includes treatment and continuous baseline HbA1c."||5.938|1.612|0.0007
90846493|NCT01708902|181559301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.243||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.486|6.849|||Regression, Logistic|||"Comparison of 'Main: Linagliptin 2.5mg / Metformin 500mg BID' / 'Main: Metformin 500mg BID'.~The logistic regression includes treatment and continuous baseline HbA1c."||6.849|1.486|0.0029
90846494|NCT01708902|181559301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.871|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.846|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.318|10.238|||Regression, Logistic|||"Comparison of 'Main: Linagliptin 2.5mg / Metformin 500mg BID' / 'Main: Linagliptin 5mg QD'.~The logistic regression includes treatment and continuous baseline HbA1c."||10.238|2.318|<0.0001
90899083|NCT01187329|181664218|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.1|-0.2|0.45
91094350|NCT03082729|182072849|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.135|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.135
91094351|NCT03082729|182072850|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.331|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.331
91094352|NCT03082729|182072851|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.538|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.538
91094353|NCT03082729|182072852|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.791|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.791
90846495|NCT01708902|181559302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.865|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.015||0.2523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.642|5.42|||Regression, Logistic|||"Comparison of 'APG: Linagliptin 2.5mg / Metformin 1000mg BID' / 'APG: Linagliptin 5mg QD'.~The logistic regression includes treatment and continuous baseline HbA1c."||5.420|0.642|0.2523
90846496|NCT01708902|181559303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.23||0.0971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.72|0.98|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference was calculated as the adjusted mean of 'Main: Linagliptin 2.5mg / Metformin 1000mg BID' minus 'Main: Metformin 1000mg BID'.|The model includes continuous baseline HbA1c, continuous baseline FPG and treatment group.||0.98|-11.72|0.0971
90846497|NCT01708902|181559303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-32.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.19|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.67|-26.16|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference was calculated as the adjusted mean of 'Main: Linagliptin 2.5mg / Metformin 1000mg BID' minus 'Main: Linagliptin 5mg QD'.|The model includes continuous baseline HbA1c, continuous baseline FPG and treatment group.||-26.16|-38.67|<0.0001
90846498|NCT01708902|181559303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-9.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.16||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.66|-3.27|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference was calculated as the adjusted mean of 'Main: Linagliptin 2.5mg / Metformin 500mg BID' minus 'Main: Metformin 500mg BID'.|The model includes continuous baseline HbA1c, continuous baseline FPG and treatment group.||-3.27|-15.66|0.0028
90846499|NCT01708902|181559303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.54|-18.08|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference was calculated as the adjusted mean of 'Main: Linagliptin 2.5mg / Metformin 500mg BID' minus 'Main: Linagliptin 5mg QD'.|The model includes continuous baseline HbA1c, continuous baseline FPG and treatment group.||-18.08|-30.54|<0.0001
90846500|NCT01708902|181559304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-35.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.23||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.48|-16.95|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference was calculated as the adjusted mean of 'APG: Linagliptin 2.5mg / Metformin 1000mg BID' minus 'APG: Linagliptin 5mg QD'.|The model includes continuous baseline HbA1c, continuous baseline FPG and treatment group.||-16.95|-53.48|0.0002
90846501|NCT01708902|181559305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.209|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.148||0.0271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.052|0.838|||Regression, Logistic|||"Comparison of 'Main: Linagliptin 2.5mg / Metformin 1000mg BID' / 'Main: Linagliptin 5mg QD'.~The logistic regression includes treatment and continuous baseline HbA1c. The validity of the model is questionable as there is possibly a quasi-complete separation of data points, the results shown are based on the last maximum likelihood iteration."||0.838|0.052|0.0271
90846502|NCT01708902|181559305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.965|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.916||0.9699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|6.202|||Regression, Logistic|||"Comparison of 'Main: Linagliptin 2.5mg / Metformin 500mg BID' / 'Main: Metformin 500mg BID'.~The logistic regression includes treatment and continuous baseline HbA1c. The validity of the model is questionable as there is possibly a quasi-complete separation of data points, the results shown are based on the last maximum likelihood iteration."||6.202|0.150|0.9699
90859735|NCT00537238|181582904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean differences|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.3638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|0.53|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 7, total BPRS score: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and combined center, and for post-baseline assessments baseline was included as a covariate.||0.53|-1.45|0.3638
91094354|NCT03082729|182072853|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.925|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.925
90859736|NCT00537238|181582904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean differences|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.2457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.09|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 7, core BPRS score: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and combined center, and for post-baseline assessments baseline was included as a covariate.||0.09|-0.34|0.2457
90859737|NCT00537238|181582904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean differences|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|0.81|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 10, total BPRS score: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and combined center, and for post-baseline assessments baseline was included as a covariate.||0.81|-1.26|0.6640
91094355|NCT03082729|182072854|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.161|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.161
91094356|NCT03082729|182072855|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.546|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.546
91094357|NCT03082729|182072856|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.667|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.667
91094358|NCT03082729|182072857|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.840
91094359|NCT03082729|182072858|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.367|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.367
91094360|NCT03082729|182072859|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.773|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.773
91094361|NCT03082729|182072860|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.968|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.968
91094362|NCT03082729|182072861|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.953|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.953
91094363|NCT03082729|182072862|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.911|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.911
91094364|NCT03082729|182072863|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.944|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.944
91094365|NCT03082729|182072864|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.226|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.226
91094366|NCT03082729|182072865|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.988|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.988
91094367|NCT03082729|182072866|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.189|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.189
91094368|NCT03082729|182072867|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.488|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.488
91094369|NCT03082729|182072868|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.523|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.523
91094370|NCT03082729|182072869|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.060
91094371|NCT03082729|182072870|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.777|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.777
91094372|NCT03082729|182072871|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.946|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.946
91094373|NCT03082729|182072872|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.351|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.351
91094374|NCT03082729|182072873|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.041|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.041
91094375|NCT03082729|182072874|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.884|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.884
91094376|NCT03082729|182072875|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.018
90846503|NCT01708902|181559305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.183|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.147||0.0343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.038|0.882|||Regression, Logistic|||"Comparison of 'Main: Linagliptin 2.5mg / Metformin 500mg BID' / 'Main: Linagliptin 5mg QD'.~The logistic regression includes treatment and continuous baseline HbA1c. The validity of the model is questionable as there is possibly a quasi-complete separation of data points, the results shown are based on the last maximum likelihood iteration."||0.882|0.038|0.0343
90846504|NCT01708902|181559306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.114|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.125||0.0474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.013|0.976|||Regression, Logistic|||"Comparison of 'APG: Linagliptin 2.5mg / Metformin 1000mg BID' / 'APG: Linagliptin 5mg QD'.~The logistic regression includes treatment and continuous baseline HbA1c."||0.976|0.013|0.0474
90846505|NCT02445794|181559328|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.008
90846506|NCT01057589|181559337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.697||||||P-value is for Change at End of Triplet Combination Therapy. Threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.697
90846507|NCT01057589|181559337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.132||||||P-value is for Change at End of Maintenance Therapy. Threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.132
90846508|NCT01057589|181559338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.223||||||P-value is for Change at End of Triplet Combination Therapy. Threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.223
90846509|NCT01057589|181559338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.788||||||P-value is for Change at End of Maintenance Therapy. Threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.788
90846510|NCT01057589|181559339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9||||||P-value is for NOD, Triplicate Combination Therapy Cycle 2. Threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.90
91029607|NCT01200394|181943323|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0582||0.5281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.75|1.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Supine Mean BP, Week 6: MMRM model included baseline, visit, treatment, baseline by visit interaction and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate variances and covariance within participant across time points.||1.42|-2.75|0.5281
91029608|NCT01200394|181943323|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8764||0.6695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|4.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Supine Systolic BP, Week 12: MMRM model included baseline, visit, treatment, baseline by visit interaction and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate variances and covariance within participant across time points.||4.50|-2.90|0.6695
91029609|NCT01200394|181943323|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.073||0.5607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.74|1.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Supine Diastolic BP, Week 12: MMRM model included baseline, visit, treatment, baseline by visit interaction and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate variances and covariance within participant across time points.||1.49|-2.74|0.5607
91029610|NCT01200394|181943323|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2722||0.8297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|2.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Supine Mean BP, Week 12: MMRM model included baseline, visit, treatment, baseline by visit interaction and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate variances and covariance within participant across time points.||2.23|-2.78|0.8297
90846511|NCT01057589|181559339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31||||||P-value is for NOD, Triplicate Combination Therapy Cycle 4. Threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.31
91094377|NCT03082729|182072876|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.046
91094378|NCT03082729|182072877|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.018
90846512|NCT01057589|181559339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49||||||P-value is for NOD, Triplicate Combination Therapy Cycle 6. Threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.49
90846513|NCT01057589|181559339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95||||||P-value is for NOD, Maintenance Cycle 1. Threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.95
90846514|NCT01057589|181559339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89||||||P-value is for NOD, Maintenance Cycle 3. Threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.89
90846515|NCT01057589|181559339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36||||||P-value is for NOD, Maintenance Cycle 5. Threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.36
90846516|NCT01057589|181559339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||||||P-value is for NOD, Maintenance Cycle 7. Threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.18
90846517|NCT01057589|181559339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47||||||P-value is for EIP, Triplicate Combination Cycle 2. Threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.47
90846518|NCT01057589|181559339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17||||||P-value is for EIP, Triplicate Combination Cycle 4. Threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.17
90846519|NCT01057589|181559339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45||||||P-value is for EIP, Triplicate Combination Cycle 6. Threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.45
90846520|NCT01057589|181559339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29||||||P-value is for EIP, Maintenance Cycle 1. Threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.29
90846521|NCT01057589|181559339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17||||||P-value is for EIP, Maintenance Cycle 3. Threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.17
90846522|NCT01057589|181559339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7||||||P-value is for EIP, Maintenance Cycle 5. Threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.70
90846523|NCT01057589|181559339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21||||||P-value is for EIP, Maintenance Cycle 7. Threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.21
90846524|NCT01057589|181559339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85||||||P-value is for UOS, Triplicate Combination Cycle 2. Threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.85
90846525|NCT01057589|181559339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13||||||P-value is for UOS, Triplicate Combination Cycle 4. Threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.13
90846526|NCT01057589|181559339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||||||P-value is for UOS, Triplicate Combination Cycle 6. Threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
90846527|NCT01057589|181559339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71||||||P-value is for UOS, Maintenance Cycle 1. Threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.71
91094379|NCT03082729|182072878|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.283|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.283
91094380|NCT03082729|182072879|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.010
91094381|NCT03082729|182072880|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.371|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.371
90846528|NCT01057589|181559339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34||||||P-value is for UOS, Maintenance Cycle 3. Threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.34
90846529|NCT01057589|181559339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41||||||P-value is for UOS, Maintenance Cycle 5. Threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.41
90846530|NCT01057589|181559339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37||||||P-value is for UOS, Maintenance Cycle 7. Threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.37
90846531|NCT00829504|181559385|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|100.16||||||90.0|95.5|105.04|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||105.04|95.5|
90846532|NCT00829504|181559386|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|101.76||||||90.0|95.45|108.49|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||108.49|95.45|
90846533|NCT00829504|181559387|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|102.1||||||90.0|95.64|109.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||109|95.64|
90846534|NCT01303224|181559395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Multiplicity was adjusted by using the Hochberg Procedure.|Mantel Haenszel|||Mantel-Haenszel-Test was used to compare separately each of the 3 active treatment groups with placebo using a two-sided overall significance level of 5%. The proportion of responders was tested with the following hypotheses: H0 (placebo) vs H1(Ibodutant:1mg/3mg/10mg). Approximately 80% power based on the assumptions: rate placebo 40%, expected mean therapeutic gain over placebo 15% for at least one dose of Ibodutant.||||<0.05
90846535|NCT01303224|181559396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Multiplicity was adjusted using the Hochberg procedure.|Mantel Haenszel|||||||<0.05
90846536|NCT01888432|181559400|NON_INFERIORITY|HO: πT - πC ≥ 0.12 vs. HA: πT - πC \< 0.12, where πT and πC are the true proportions of composite efficacy failure of tBPAR, GL, or D, (tBPAR/GL/D) at 12 months post-transplant for the respective treatment groups. The proportion of 0.12, or 12%, was pre-determined as the non-inferiority (NI) margin for composite efficacy failure.|Kaplan-Meier|-0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.2|3.7||Z-test p-value for non-inferiority test (non-inferiority margin = 12%) is for one-sided test and should be compared to 0.05 significance level.|Z-test|||non-inferior efficacy failure of the reduced tacrolimus regimen to control by rejecting the null hypothesis.||3.7|-5.2|< 0.001
90846537|NCT01888432|181559401|NON_INFERIORITY|the null hypothesis below was tested at the one-sided α = 0.05 level: H0: μT - μC ≤ -6 mL/min/1.73 m2 vs. HA: μT - μC \> -6 mL/min/1.73 m\^2, where μT and μC are the true means of change in eGFR (MDRD-4) from randomization to Month 12 post-transplant for the reduced tacrolimus group and control group, respectively.|Mean Difference (Net)|4.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.574|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.09|8.4|||ANCOVA|||||8.40|-0.09|< 0.001
90846538|NCT01888432|181559402|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.699|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.21|7.7|||ANCOVA|||||7.70|-1.21|<0.001
90846539|NCT01888432|181559404|OTHER|Month 12|Kaplan-Meier|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.7|2.0|||||KM rate and 90% CI are obtained using KM probability estimates of composite efficacy failure rates and standard error derived based on Greenwood's formula.|||2.0|-4.7|
90846540|NCT01888432|181559404|OTHER|tBPAR - month 24|Kaplan-Meier|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.1|2.6|||||KM rate and 90% CI are obtained using KM probability estimates of composite efficacy failure rates and standard error derived based on Greenwood's formula.|||2.6|-5.1|
90846541|NCT01888432|181559404|OTHER|On-treatment tBPAR - month 24|Kaplan-Meier|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.7|1.4|||||KM rate and 90% CI are obtained using KM probability estimates of composite efficacy failure rates and standard error derived based on Greenwood's formula.|||1.4|-5.7|
90846542|NCT01888432|181559405|OTHER|Month 12|Kaplan-Meier|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.4|5.1|||||KM rate and 90% CI are obtained using KM probability estimates of composite efficacy failure rates and standard error derived based on Greenwood's formula.|||5.1|-3.4|
90846543|NCT01888432|181559405|OTHER|Month 24|Kaplan-Meier|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.6|5.6|||||KM rate and 90% CI are obtained using KM probability estimates of composite efficacy failure rates and standard error derived based on Greenwood's formula.|||5.6|-3.6|
91094382|NCT03082729|182072881|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.555|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.555
91094383|NCT03082729|182072882|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.533|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.533
91094384|NCT03082729|182072883|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.137|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.137
91094385|NCT03082729|182072884|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
91094386|NCT03082729|182072884|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.015
91094387|NCT03082729|182072884|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.537|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.537
91094388|NCT03082729|182072885|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
91094389|NCT03082729|182072885|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.010
90846544|NCT01888432|181559406|OTHER|graft loss at month 24|Kaplan-Meier|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.1|0.5|||||KM rate and 90% CI are obtained using KM probability estimates of composite efficacy failure rates and standard error derived based on Greenwood's formula.|||0.5|-2.1|
90846545|NCT01888432|181559407|OTHER|Month 12|Kaplan-Meier|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.5|3.8|||||KM rate and 90% CI are obtained using KM probability estimates of composite efficacy failure rates and standard error derived based on Greenwood's formula.|||3.8|-2.5|
90846546|NCT01888432|181559407|OTHER|Month 24|Kaplan-Meier|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.1|6.6|||||KM rate and 90% CI are obtained using KM probability estimates of composite efficacy failure rates and standard error derived based on Greenwood's formula.|||6.6|-2.1|
91094390|NCT03082729|182072885|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.918|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.918
91094391|NCT03082729|182072886|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91094392|NCT03082729|182072886|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91094393|NCT03082729|182072887|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91094394|NCT03082729|182072887|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91094395|NCT03082729|182072888|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90846547|NCT01888432|181559408|OTHER|Month 12|Kaplan-Meier|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.5|3.8|||||KM rate and 90% CI are obtained using KM probability estimates of composite efficacy failure rates and standard error derived based on Greenwood's formula.|||3.8|-2.5|
90846548|NCT01888432|181559408|OTHER|Month 24|Kaplan-Meier|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.1|7.2|||||KM rate and 90% CI are obtained using KM probability estimates of composite efficacy failure rates and standard error derived based on Greenwood's formula.|||7.2|-1.1|
90846549|NCT01888432|181559408|OTHER|Month 24 (On-treatment death)|Kaplan-Meier|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.5|3.9|||||KM rate and 90% CI are obtained using KM probability estimates of composite efficacy failure rates and standard error derived based on Greenwood's formula.|||3.9|-2.5|
90846550|NCT01888432|181559409|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.9|5.3|||||Month 12|||5.3|-3.9|
90846551|NCT01888432|181559409|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.0|7.2|||||Month 24|||7.2|-3.0|
90846552|NCT01888432|181559410|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.5|3.1|||||Month 12|||3.1|-4.5|
90846553|NCT01888432|181559410|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.2|4.2|||||Month 24|||4.2|-4.2|
90846554|NCT01888432|181559414|OTHER||Difference in Kaplan-Meier estimate|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.9|30.6|||||Composite endpoint|||30.6|-19.9|
90846555|NCT01888432|181559414|OTHER||Difference in Kaplan-Meier estimate|6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|19.3|||||On-treatment composite endpoint|||19.3|-6.0|
90846556|NCT01888432|181559414|OTHER||Difference in Kaplan-Meier estimate|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.6|28.7|||||Graft loss/death|||28.7|-24.6|
90846557|NCT01888432|181559414|OTHER||Difference in Kaplan-Meier estimate|14.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|33.1|||||tBPAR|||33.1|-4.2|
90846558|NCT01888432|181559414|OTHER||Difference in Kaplan-Meier estimate|11.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|31.6|||||Death|||31.6|-9.4|
90846559|NCT01888432|181559414|OTHER||Difference in Kaplan-Meier estimate|3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.9|35.2|||||AR|||35.2|-28.9|
90846560|NCT01888432|181559414|OTHER||Difference in Kaplan-Meier estimate|14.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|33.1|||||tAR|||33.1|-4.2|
90846561|NCT01888432|181559414|OTHER||Difference in Kaplan-Meier estimate|14.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.3|52.1|||||BPR|||52.1|-22.3|
90846562|NCT01888432|181559414|OTHER||Difference in Kaplan-Meier estimate|3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.9|35.2|||||BPAR|||35.2|-28.9|
90846563|NCT01888432|181559415|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.059|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.91|39.89||||||||39.89|-59.91|
90846564|NCT01954927|181559442|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.227||||||1-sided p-value|z-test Proportion|z-test of proportions without continuity correction||||||0.227
90846565|NCT01954927|181559443|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.897|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.897
90846566|NCT01954927|181559444|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.181|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.181
90846567|NCT01954927|181559445|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.730
90846568|NCT01954927|181559446|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.713|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.713
90846569|NCT01954927|181559447|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.739|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.739
90846570|NCT01954927|181559448|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.388|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.388
90846571|NCT02123251|181559463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2139||0.0553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0092|0.8293|||Generalized Estimating Equation Model|The analysis adjusted for the effects of age, race, gender, and baseline hypertension.|The estimates denote the differences between longitudinal changes within the treatment group and longitudinal changes within the control group.|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) modeling was used to examine the pre- and post-intervention changes between groups due to interventions in biometric indicators. The average change in scores over time for the intervention group was compared to that for the control group. The difference-in-differences values was assessed for significance at p = 0.05. Null hypothesis assumed no differences in the biometric measure from baseline to endpoint between groups.||0.8293|-0.0092|0.0553
90859738|NCT00537238|181582904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean differences|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 10, core BPRS score: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and combined center, and for post-baseline assessments baseline was included as a covariate.||0.17|-0.30|0.5950
90859739|NCT00537238|181582904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean differences|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.5701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|0.76|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 13, total BPRS score: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and combined center, and for post-baseline assessments baseline was included as a covariate.||0.76|-1.38|0.5701
90859740|NCT00537238|181582904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean differences|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.2452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 13, core BPRS score: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and combined center, and for post-baseline assessments baseline was included as a covariate.||0.08|-0.33|0.2452
90859741|NCT00537238|181582904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean differences|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.1697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|0.33|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16, total BPRS score: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and combined center, and for post-baseline assessments baseline was included as a covariate.||0.33|-1.88|0.1697
90859742|NCT00537238|181582904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean differences|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.2283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.09|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16, core BPRS score: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and combined center, and for post-baseline assessments baseline was included as a covariate.||0.09|-0.36|0.2283
90859743|NCT00537238|181582904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean differences|-1.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.0262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|-0.16|||ANCOVA|||Change at Follow-up, total BPRS score: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and combined center, and for post-baseline assessments baseline was included as a covariate.||-0.16|-2.54|0.0262
90899084|NCT00909480|181664226|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin: 0.4%.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.3003||||||95.0|0.1427|0.458|||ANCOVA|Full analysis set, Model adjusted for: HbA1c at baseline, previous oral anti-diabetic treatment and country.||||0.4580|0.1427|
90846572|NCT02123251|181559464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2916|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9571||0.2416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1274|1.5442|||Generalized Estimating Equation Model||The estimates denote the differences between longitudinal changes within the treatment group and longitudinal changes within the control group.|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) modeling was used to examine the pre- and post-intervention changes between groups due to interventions in biometric indicators. The average change in scores over time for the intervention group was compared to that for the control group. The difference-in-differences values was assessed for significance at p = 0.05. Null hypothesis assumed no differences in the biometric measure from baseline to endpoint between groups.||1.5442|-6.1274|0.2416
90899085|NCT02237508|181664267|EQUIVALENCE|"Z7200 was considered bioequivalent to the reference if the following criteria were satisfied:~* the 90%CI for the geometric mean AUC0-t ratio was within the interval 80.00% to 125.00% for both budesonide and formoterol, with and without charcoal blockade and~* the 90%CI for the geometric mean ratio for Cmax was within the wider bioequivalence acceptance limits of (69.84%, 143.19%) for budesonide and (71.92%, 139.04%) for formoterol, respectively with and without charcoal blockade."|Adjusted geometric means ratio|138.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|129.09|149.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||149.39|129.09|<0.001
90899086|NCT02237508|181664267|EQUIVALENCE|"Z7200 was considered bioequivalent to the reference if the following criteria were satisfied:~* the 90%CI for the geometric mean AUC0-t ratio was within the interval 80.00% to 125.00% for both budesonide and formoterol, with and without charcoal blockade and~* the 90%CI for the geometric mean ratio for Cmax was within the wider bioequivalence acceptance limits of (69.84%, 143.19%) for budesonide and (71.92%, 139.04%) for formoterol, respectively with and without charcoal blockade."|Adjusted geometric means ratio|136.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|126.13|147.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||147.04|126.13|<0.001
90899087|NCT02237508|181664268|EQUIVALENCE|"Z7200 was considered bioequivalent to the reference if the following criteria were satisfied:~* the 90%CI for the geometric mean AUC0-t ratio was within the interval 80.00% to 125.00% for both budesonide and formoterol, with and without charcoal blockade and~* the 90%CI for the geometric mean ratio for Cmax was within the wider bioequivalence acceptance limits of (69.84%, 143.19%) for budesonide and (71.92%, 139.04%) for formoterol, respectively with and without charcoal blockade."|Adjusted geometric means ratio|119.73||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|109.4|131.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||131.03|109.40|0.001
90846573|NCT02123251|181559465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0893|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2622||0.3881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5632|1.3846|||Generalized Estimating Equation Model|The analysis adjusted for the effects of age, gender, race, and hypertension at baseline.|The estimates denote the differences between longitudinal changes within the treatment group and longitudinal changes within the control group.|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) modeling was used to examine the pre- and post-intervention changes between groups due to interventions in biometric indicators. The average change in scores over time for the intervention group was compared to that for the control group. The difference-in-differences values was assessed for significance at p = 0.05. Null hypothesis assumed no differences in the biometric measure from baseline to endpoint between groups.||1.3846|-3.5632|0.3881
90846574|NCT02123251|181559466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3432|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.7086||0.8617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4517|13.7653|||Generalized Estimating Equation Model|The analysis adjusted for the effects of age, gender, race, and hypertension at baseline.|The estimates denote the differences between longitudinal changes within the treatment group and longitudinal changes within the control group.|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) modeling was used to examine the pre- and post-intervention changes between groups due to interventions in biometric indicators. The average change in scores over time for the intervention group was compared to that for the control group. The difference-in-differences values was assessed for significance at p = 0.05. Null hypothesis assumed no differences in the biometric measure from baseline to endpoint between groups.||13.7653|-16.4517|0.8617
90846575|NCT02123251|181559467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.787|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|28.5519||0.5333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.7478|38.1737|||Generalized Estimating Equation Model|The analysis adjusted for the effects of age, gender, race, and hypertension at baseline.|The estimates denote the differences between longitudinal changes within the treatment group and longitudinal changes within the control group.|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) modeling was used to examine the pre- and post-intervention changes between groups due to interventions in biometric indicators. The average change in scores over time for the intervention group was compared to that for the control group. The difference-in-differences values was assessed for significance at p = 0.05. Null hypothesis assumed no differences in the biometric measure from baseline to endpoint between groups.||38.1737|-73.7478|0.5333
90846576|NCT02123251|181559468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9097|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.2351||0.862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3509|11.1702|||Generalized Estimating Equation Model|The analysis adjusted for the effects of age, gender, race, and hypertension at baseline.|The estimates denote the differences between longitudinal changes within the treatment group and longitudinal changes within the control group.|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) modeling was used to examine the pre- and post-intervention changes between groups due to interventions in biometric indicators. The average change in scores over time for the intervention group was compared to that for the control group. The difference-in-differences values was assessed for significance at p = 0.05. Null hypothesis assumed no differences in the biometric measure from baseline to endpoint between groups.||11.1702|-9.3509|0.8620
90957381|NCT06377488|181794745|SUPERIORITY||Mean Population Estimate|64.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.54|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.0|69.5|||Mixed Model Analysis|The Satterthwaite Method was used for the calculation of the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean estimates were conducted for myopes using two-sided confidence intervals (CI) constructed for the least square mean.|It was calculated using a one-sided one-sample mean t-test with a family wise type I error rate of 5% with at least 99% statistical power, that 23 and 46 subjects were required to test for superiority for CLUE comfort scores for hyperopes and myopes, respectively.||69.5|59.0|
91094396|NCT03082729|182072888|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91094397|NCT03082729|182072889|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91094398|NCT03082729|182072889|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004
91094399|NCT03082729|182072891|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.092|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.092
90846577|NCT02123251|181559469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7177|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0433||0.4915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3272|2.7626|||Generalized Estimating Equation Model|The analysis adjusted for the effects of age, gender, race, and hypertension at baseline.|The estimates denote the differences between longitudinal changes within the treatment group and longitudinal changes within the control group.|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) modeling was used to examine the pre- and post-intervention changes between groups due to interventions in biometric indicators. The average change in scores over time for the intervention group was compared to that for the control group. The difference-in-differences values was assessed for significance at p = 0.05. Null hypothesis assumed no differences in the biometric measure from baseline to endpoint between groups.||2.7626|-1.3272|0.4915
90899088|NCT02237508|181664268|EQUIVALENCE|"Z7200 was considered bioequivalent to the reference if the following criteria were satisfied:~* the 90%CI for the geometric mean AUC0-t ratio was within the interval 80.00% to 125.00% for both budesonide and formoterol, with and without charcoal blockade and~* the 90%CI for the geometric mean ratio for Cmax was within the wider bioequivalence acceptance limits of (69.84%, 143.19%) for budesonide and (71.92%, 139.04%) for formoterol, respectively with and without charcoal blockade."|Adjusted geometric means ratio|129.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|117.33|143.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||143.20|117.33|<0.001
91094400|NCT03082729|182072891|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.678|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.678
90846578|NCT02123251|181559470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||standard diffs-in-diffs model|||A standard diffs-in-diffs model was utilized to estimate the causal effect of the intervention on medical costs per patient/day. The average change in cost over time for the intervention group was compared to that for the control group. The difference-in-differences values was assessed for significance at p = 0.05. Null hypothesis assumed no difference in the cost per patient per day from baseline to endpoint between groups.||||>0.05
90846579|NCT02123251|181559471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6403|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3148||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0233|1.2572|||Generalized Estimating Equation Model||The estimates denote the differences between longitudinal changes within the treatment group and longitudinal changes within the control group.|The average change in scores over time for the intervention group was compared to that for the control group. The difference in these average changes is referred to as the difference-in-differences values which was assessed for significance at p = 0.05. Null hypothesis assumed no difference in the General Diet subscale from baseline to endpoint between groups. Generalized estimating equation modeling was used to examine changes in SDSCA between groups at different time points.||1.2572|0.0233|0.0420
90846580|NCT02123251|181559472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1188|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.031||0.0399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0981|4.1395|||Generalized Estimating Equation Model|The effect of age and gender is adjusted in the GEE model.|The estimates denote the differences between longitudinal changes within the treatment group and longitudinal changes within the control group.|The average change in scores over time for the intervention group was compared to that of the control group. The difference in the average changes is referred to as the difference-in-differences values which was assessed for significance at p=0.05. Null assumed no group difference in the Physical Component Summary measure of SF-36v2 from baseline to midpoint. Generalized estimating equation (GEE) modeling was used to examine changes in health measures between groups at different time points.||4.1395|0.0981|.0399
90846581|NCT02248675|181559507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.153|||||||Regression, Linear|multiple regression controlling for baseline values of the dependent variable was used to examine between group effects at post-treatment||||||.153
90846582|NCT02248675|181559508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.627|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.627
90899089|NCT02237508|181664269|EQUIVALENCE|"Z7200 was considered bioequivalent to the reference if the following criteria were satisfied:~* the 90%CI for the geometric mean AUC0-t ratio was within the interval 80.00% to 125.00% for both budesonide and formoterol, with and without charcoal blockade and~* the 90%CI for the geometric mean ratio for Cmax was within the wider bioequivalence acceptance limits of (69.84%, 143.19%) for budesonide and (71.92%, 139.04%) for formoterol, respectively with and without charcoal blockade."|Adjusted geometric means ratio|218.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|194.02|245.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||245.24|194.02|<0.001
90899090|NCT02237508|181664269|EQUIVALENCE|"Z7200 was considered bioequivalent to the reference if the following criteria were satisfied:~* the 90%CI for the geometric mean AUC0-t ratio was within the interval 80.00% to 125.00% for both budesonide and formoterol, with and without charcoal blockade and~* the 90%CI for the geometric mean ratio for Cmax was within the wider bioequivalence acceptance limits of (69.84%, 143.19%) for budesonide and (71.92%, 139.04%) for formoterol, respectively with and without charcoal blockade."|Adjusted geometric means ratio|200.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|174.3|231.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||231.01|174.30|<0.001
90899091|NCT02237508|181664270|EQUIVALENCE|"Z7200 was considered bioequivalent to the reference if the following criteria were satisfied:~* the 90%CI for the geometric mean AUC0-t ratio was within the interval 80.00% to 125.00% for both budesonide and formoterol, with and without charcoal blockade and~* the 90%CI for the geometric mean ratio for Cmax was within the wider bioequivalence acceptance limits of (69.84%, 143.19%) for budesonide and (71.92%, 139.04%) for formoterol, respectively with and without charcoal blockade."|Adjusted geometric means ratio|126.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|115.93|137.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||137.32|115.93|<0.001
91029611|NCT01200394|181943323|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7065||0.7644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.85|3.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Supine Systolic BP, Week 16: MMRM model included baseline, visit, treatment, baseline by visit interaction and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate variances and covariance within participant across time points.||3.87|-2.85|0.7644
91094401|NCT03082729|182072892|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.020
91094402|NCT03082729|182072892|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.762|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.762
91094403|NCT03082729|182072893|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.973|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.973
90846583|NCT02248675|181559509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|multiple regression controlling for baseline values of the dependent variable was used to examine between group effects at post-treatment||||||<.001
90846584|NCT02248675|181559510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|multiple regression controlling for baseline values of the dependent variable was used to examine between group effects at post-treatment||||||<.001
91094404|NCT03082729|182072893|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.805|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.805
91094405|NCT03082729|182072894|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.951|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.951
90899092|NCT02237508|181664270|EQUIVALENCE|"Z7200 was considered bioequivalent to the reference if the following criteria were satisfied:~* the 90%CI for the geometric mean AUC0-t ratio was within the interval 80.00% to 125.00% for both budesonide and formoterol, with and without charcoal blockade and~* the 90%CI for the geometric mean ratio for Cmax was within the wider bioequivalence acceptance limits of (69.84%, 143.19%) for budesonide and (71.92%, 139.04%) for formoterol, respectively with and without charcoal blockade."|Adjusted geometric means ratio|117.08||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|107.05|128.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||128.05|107.05|0.004
90899093|NCT00576732|181664302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.19|-3.52||Type I error is preserved by the step down procedure, no multiple comparison adjustment is needed. A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included factors for treatment group, center (after pooling of small centers), baseline weight stratification, and baseline ABC-I value|Mean difference is change in Risperidone high dose arm minus change in placebo arm.|"A step-down testing procedure was employed with the risperidone high dose versus placebo comparison tested first. If this comparison was significant the risperidone low dose versus placebo comparison would be performed.~A clinically relevant difference in the change from baseline on the ABC Irritability subscale was assumed to be 6 with a standard deviation of 8. To achieve 80% power with Type I error rate of 5%, 93 subjects were required."||-3.52|-12.19|<0.001
90899094|NCT00576732|181664302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.17||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.36|1.27||Type I error is preserved by the step down procedure, no multiple comparison adjustment is needed. A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included factors for treatment group, center (after pooling of small centers), baseline weight stratification, and baseline ABC-I value|Mean difference is change in Risperidone low dose arm minus change in placebo arm.|||1.27|-7.36|0.164
90899095|NCT00576732|181664303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0||||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test controlling for center (after pooling small centers) and baseline weight stratification.||||||0.004
90899096|NCT00576732|181664303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.817||95.0||||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test controlling for center (after pooling small centers) and baseline weight stratification.||||||0.817
90899097|NCT00576732|181664304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.33||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included factors for treatment group, center (after pooling of small centers), baseline weight stratification, and baseline CGI-S value.|Mean difference is change in Risperidone high dose arm minus change in placebo arm.|||-0.33|-1.02|<0.001
91029612|NCT01200394|181943323|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9917||0.5123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|2.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Supine Diastolic BP, Week 16: MMRM model included baseline, visit, treatment, baseline by visit interaction and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate variances and covariance within participant across time points.||2.61|-1.30|0.5123
90846585|NCT03745820|181559524|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.328|=|0.8472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.88|2.37|||MMRM|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures(MMRM)model was used to analyze change from baseline of outcome measure(OM)using fixed effects of treatment group,region,study visit,study visit-by-treatment interaction,baseline value of OM,baseline-by-visit interaction.||2.37|-2.88|=0.8472
90846586|NCT03745820|181559524|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.323|=|0.8053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.94|2.29|||MMRM|||A MMRM model was used to analyze the change from baseline of the OM of interest, using fixed effects of treatment group, region, study visit, study visit-by-treatment interaction, baseline value of OM, baseline-by-visit interaction.||2.29|-2.94|=0.8053
90899098|NCT00576732|181664304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.29||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included factors for treatment group, center (after pooling of small centers), baseline weight stratification, and baseline CGI-S value|Mean difference is change in Risperidone low dose arm minus change in placebo arm.|||0.29|-0.39|0.769
91029613|NCT01200394|181943323|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1355||0.6838|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|2.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Supine Mean BP, Week 16: MMRM model included baseline, visit, treatment, baseline by visit interaction and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate variances and covariance within participant across time points.||2.70|-1.77|0.6838
91029614|NCT01200394|181943325|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.9282||||0.5422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7297|1.1807|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: MMRM on normal logarithmic scale with change from baseline as response variable and baseline, baseline supine systolic BP, visit, treatment, baseline by visit interaction and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate variances and covariance within participant across time points. Values were back-transformed from log scale.||1.1807|0.7297|0.5422
91029615|NCT01200394|181943325|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.7998||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6402|0.999|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: MMRM on normal logarithmic scale with change from baseline as response variable and baseline, baseline supine systolic BP, visit, treatment, baseline by visit interaction and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate variances and covariance within participant across time points. Values were back-transformed from log scale.||0.9990|0.6402|0.0490
91029616|NCT01200394|181943325|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.0435||||0.7264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8211|1.3262|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: MMRM on normal logarithmic scale with change from baseline as response variable and baseline, baseline supine systolic BP, visit, treatment, baseline by visit interaction and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate variances and covariance within participant across time points. Values were back-transformed from log scale.||1.3262|0.8211|0.7264
90846587|NCT03745820|181559528|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.835|=|0.0637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|7.06|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was applied adjusting for treatment group and baseline value of the OM.||7.06|-0.20|=0.0637
90846588|NCT03745820|181559528|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.844|=|0.0659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|7.06|||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model was applied adjusting for treatment group and baseline value of the OM.||7.06|-0.23|=0.0659
91094406|NCT03082729|182072894|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.661|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.661
90846589|NCT03745820|181559529|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.208|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|=|0.6653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.5|||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model was applied adjusting for treatment group and baseline value of the OM.||0.50|-0.32|=0.6653
90846590|NCT03745820|181559529|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.206|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|=|0.614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.51|||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model was applied adjusting for treatment group and baseline value of the OM.||0.51|-0.30|=0.6140
90899099|NCT00576732|181664305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test controlling for center (after pooling small centers) and baseline weight stratification.||||||<0.001
90899100|NCT00576732|181664305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.985||95.0||||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test controlling for center (after pooling small centers) and baseline weight stratification.||||||0.985
90899101|NCT02296190|181664310|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis was performed with the Fisher's exact test to compare the conversion rate between the MSP-2017 groups and the placebo group.||||<0.05
90899102|NCT00682643|181664351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.395||95.0||||Wald Chi-Square test based on a proportional hazards model adjusting for age and baseline value|Wald Chi-square|||||||0.395
91094407|NCT03082729|182072895|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.614|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.614
90846591|NCT03745820|181559530|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.033|=|0.2886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.14|0.94|||MMRM|||A MMRM model was used to analyze the change from baseline of the OM of interest, using fixed effects of treatment group, region, study visit, study visit-by-treatment interaction, baseline value of OM, baseline-by-visit interaction.||0.94|-3.14|=0.2886
90899103|NCT00682643|181664352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.342||95.0||||Wald Chi-Square test based on a proportional hazards model adjusting for age and baseline value|Wald Chi-square|||||||0.342
90899104|NCT00085202|181664369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8001||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.8001
90899105|NCT00085202|181664369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5195||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.5195
90899106|NCT00085202|181664369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7696||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.7696
90899107|NCT00085202|181664370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0206||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.0206
91094408|NCT03082729|182072895|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.306|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.306
91094409|NCT03082729|182072896|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.322|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.322
90846592|NCT03745820|181559530|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.032|=|0.6349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|2.53|||MMRM|||A MMRM model was used to analyze the change from baseline of the OM of interest, using fixed effects of treatment group, region, study visit, study visit-by-treatment interaction, baseline value of OM, baseline-by-visit interaction.||2.53|-1.55|=0.6349
90846593|NCT03745820|181559531|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.345|=|0.7372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|3.11||A MMRM model was used to analyze the change from baseline of the OM of interest, using fixed effects of treatment group, region, study visit, study visit-by-treatment interaction, baseline value of OM, baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Verbal Learning: Change From Baseline at Week 12||3.11|-2.21|=0.7372
90846594|NCT03745820|181559531|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.346|=|0.6894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|2.12||A MMRM model was used to analyze the change from baseline of the OM of interest, using fixed effects of treatment group, region, study visit, study visit-by-treatment interaction, baseline value of OM, baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Verbal Learning: Change From Baseline at Week 12||2.12|-3.20|=0.6894
90899108|NCT00085202|181664372|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6231|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change over time||||0.6231
90899109|NCT00085202|181664372|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.572|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline||||0.5720
91094410|NCT03082729|182072896|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.032|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.032
91094411|NCT03082729|182072897|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.960
91094412|NCT03082729|182072897|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.268|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.268
91094413|NCT03082729|182072898|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.501|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.501
90899110|NCT03238300|181664380|SUPERIORITY||partial eta squared|0.02|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.22||P-value \>0.05 for main effect of medication (N-acetylcysteine vs. placebo)|Mixed Models Analysis|Random intercepts were used||"With 31 participants, the study has 99% power to detect such effects on glutamate levels (calculated based on d =1.13 \[reported in Schmaal et al., 2012\], α = 0.05, two-tailed).~We used linear mixed effects models with random intercepts with medication, visit, and sequence. Baseline metabolite levels and brain tissue composition \[GM:BM = GM/(GM+WM)\], cannabis use (days), and alcohol use disorder status (Yes/No) were included as covariates."||0.22|0.00|>0.05
90899111|NCT03238300|181664381|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||P-value \>0.05 for main effect of medication (N-acetylcysteine vs. placebo) for all ROIs.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random intercepts were used for all models.||Contrast of interest was alcohol beverages vs. non-alcohol beverages. We used linear mixed effects models with random intercepts with medication, visit, and sequence. Baseline reactivity levels for each ROI, cannabis use (days), and an alcohol use covariate (quantity, frequency, AUD status, or AUD severity - depending on which best fit the model) were included as covariates. ROIs included were (left and right hemisphere): amygdala, caudate, insula, putamen, and nucleus accumbens.||||>0.05
90899112|NCT02081950|181664382|OTHER|Results were obtained using a mixed-effects ANOVA with fixed effect of study period and a random effect for subject.|Geometric least square mean ratio|93.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.56|100.16||||||||100.16|87.56|
90899113|NCT02081950|181664383|OTHER|Results were obtained using a mixed-effects ANOVA with fixed effect of study period and a random effect for subject.|Geometric least square mean ratio|100.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.74|105.42||||||||105.42|95.74|
90899114|NCT02081950|181664384|OTHER|Results were obtained using a mixed-effects ANOVA with fixed effect of study period and a random effect for subject.|Geometric least square mean ratio|101.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.32|106.24||||||||106.24|96.32|
91094414|NCT03082729|182072898|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.235|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.235
91094415|NCT03082729|182072899|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.259|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.259
91094416|NCT03082729|182072899|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.219|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.219
91094417|NCT03082729|182072900|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.140
91094418|NCT03082729|182072900|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.633|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.633
91029617|NCT01200394|181943325|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.1154||||0.3733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8761|1.4201|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: MMRM on normal logarithmic scale with change from baseline as response variable and baseline, baseline supine systolic BP, visit, treatment, baseline by visit interaction and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate variances and covariance within participant across time points. Values were back-transformed from log scale.||1.4201|0.8761|0.3733
91094419|NCT03082729|182072901|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.302|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.302
91094420|NCT03082729|182072901|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.405|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.405
91094421|NCT03082729|182072902|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.297|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.297
91094422|NCT03082729|182072902|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.324|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.324
91094423|NCT03082729|182072903|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.812|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.812
91094424|NCT03082729|182072903|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.264|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.264
91094425|NCT03082729|182072904|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.283|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.283
91094426|NCT03082729|182072904|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.250
90899115|NCT02081950|181664385|OTHER|Results were obtained using a mixed-effects ANOVA with fixed effect of study period and a random effect for subject.|Geometric least square mean ratio|94.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.49|101.73||||||||101.73|88.49|
91094427|NCT03082729|182072905|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.170
91094428|NCT03082729|182072905|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.249|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.249
91094429|NCT03082729|182072906|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.526|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.526
91094430|NCT03082729|182072906|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.632|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.632
91094431|NCT03082729|182072907|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.584|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.584
91094432|NCT03082729|182072907|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.191|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.191
91094433|NCT03082729|182072908|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.005
91094434|NCT03082729|182072908|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004
91094435|NCT03082729|182072909|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.533|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.533
91094436|NCT03082729|182072909|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.079|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.079
91094437|NCT03082729|182072910|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.338|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.338
91094438|NCT03082729|182072910|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.091|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.091
91094439|NCT03082729|182072911|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.102|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.102
91094440|NCT03082729|182072911|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.153|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.153
91094441|NCT03082729|182072912|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.226|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.226
91094442|NCT03082729|182072912|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.222|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.222
91094443|NCT03082729|182072913|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.384|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.384
91094444|NCT03082729|182072913|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.112|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.112
91094445|NCT03082729|182072914|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.636|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.636
91094446|NCT03082729|182072914|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.896|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.896
91094447|NCT03082729|182072915|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.800
91094448|NCT03082729|182072915|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.551|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.551
91094449|NCT03082729|182072916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.440
91094450|NCT03082729|182072916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.170
91094451|NCT03082729|182072917|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.278|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.278
91094452|NCT03082729|182072917|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.089|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.089
91094453|NCT03082729|182072918|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.795|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.795
91094454|NCT03082729|182072918|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.284|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.284
91094455|NCT03082729|182072919|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.880
91094456|NCT03082729|182072919|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.028
91094457|NCT03082729|182072920|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.746|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.746
91094458|NCT03082729|182072920|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.199|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.199
91094459|NCT03082729|182072921|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.814|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.814
91094460|NCT03082729|182072921|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.036
91094461|NCT03082729|182072922|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.494|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.494
91094462|NCT03082729|182072922|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.960
91094463|NCT03082729|182072923|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.777|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.777
91094464|NCT03082729|182072923|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.028
91094465|NCT03082729|182072924|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.241|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.241
91094466|NCT03082729|182072924|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.869|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.869
91094467|NCT03082729|182072925|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.977|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.977
91094468|NCT03082729|182072925|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.012
91094469|NCT03082729|182072926|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.591|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.591
91094470|NCT03082729|182072926|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.088|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.088
91094471|NCT03082729|182072927|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.260
91094472|NCT03082729|182072927|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.526|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.526
90846595|NCT03745820|181559531|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.162|=|0.0674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.44|0.16||A MMRM model was used to analyze the change from baseline of the OM of interest, using fixed effects of treatment group, region, study visit, study visit-by-treatment interaction, baseline value of OM, baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Speed of Processing: Change From Baseline at Week 12||0.16|-4.44|=0.0674
90846596|NCT03745820|181559531|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.161|=|0.7132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.72|1.87||A MMRM model was used to analyze the change from baseline of the OM of interest, using fixed effects of treatment group, region, study visit, study visit-by-treatment interaction, baseline value of OM, baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Speed of Processing: Change From Baseline at Week 12||1.87|-2.72|=0.7132
90846597|NCT03745820|181559531|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.203|=|0.9428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.46|2.29||A MMRM model was used to analyze the change from baseline of the OM of interest, using fixed effects of treatment group, region, study visit, study visit-by-treatment interaction, baseline value of OM, baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Attention/Vigilance: Change From Baseline at Week 12||2.29|-2.46|=0.9428
90846598|NCT03745820|181559531|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.202|=|0.4425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|3.3||A MMRM model was used to analyze the change from baseline of the OM of interest, using fixed effects of treatment group, region, study visit, study visit-by-treatment interaction, baseline value of OM, baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Attention/Vigilance: Change From Baseline at Week 12||3.30|-1.45|=0.4425
90846599|NCT03745820|181559531|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.597|=|0.3455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.66|1.64||A MMRM model was used to analyze the change from baseline of the OM of interest, using fixed effects of treatment group, region, study visit, study visit-by-treatment interaction, baseline value of OM, baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Visual Learning: Change From Baseline at Week 12||1.64|-4.66|=0.3455
90846600|NCT03745820|181559531|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.595|=|0.9686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|3.21||A MMRM model was used to analyze the change from baseline of the OM of interest, using fixed effects of treatment group, region, study visit, study visit-by-treatment interaction, baseline value of OM, baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Visual Learning: Change From Baseline at Week 12||3.21|-3.09|=0.9686
90846601|NCT03745820|181559531|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.351|=|0.3832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|3.85||A MMRM model was used to analyze the change from baseline of the OM of interest, using fixed effects of treatment group, region, study visit, study visit-by-treatment interaction, baseline value of OM, baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Social Cognition: Change From Baseline at Week 12||3.85|-1.49|=0.3832
90899116|NCT02081950|181664386|OTHER|Results were obtained using a mixed-effects ANOVA with fixed effect of study period and a random effect for subject.|Geometric least square mean ratio|97.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.93|104.91||||||||104.91|89.93|
90899117|NCT02081950|181664387|OTHER|Results were obtained using a mixed-effects ANOVA with fixed effect of study period and a random effect for subject.|Geometric least square mean ratio|108.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.61|123.91||||||||123.91|95.61|
90899118|NCT02081950|181664398|OTHER|Results were obtained using a mixed-effects ANOVA with fixed effect of study period and a random effect for subject.|Geometric least square mean ratio|102.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.31|109.0||||||||109.0|96.31|
91029618|NCT01835145|181943336|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Chi-squared|||A one-sided chi-squared test for a difference in PFS4 rates will be used to test for a difference between arms.||||0.70
91094473|NCT03082729|182072928|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.545|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.545
90846602|NCT03745820|181559531|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean DIfference|1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.357|=|0.4297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|3.75||A MMRM model was used to analyze the change from baseline of the OM of interest, using fixed effects of treatment group, region, study visit, study visit-by-treatment interaction, baseline value of OM, baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Social Cognition: Change From Baseline at Week 12||3.75|-1.61|=0.4297
90899119|NCT02081950|181664399|OTHER|Results were obtained using a mixed-effects ANOVA with fixed effect of study period and a random effect for subject.|geometric least square mean ratio|95.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.11|116.11||||||||116.11|79.11|
90899120|NCT02081950|181664401|OTHER|Results were obtained using a mixed-effects ANOVA with fixed effect of study period and a random effect for subject.|geometric least square mean ratio|99.54|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.69|103.54||||||||103.54|95.69|
91029619|NCT02708277|181943371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.009
91094474|NCT03082729|182072928|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.690
91094475|NCT03082729|182072929|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.542|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.542
91094476|NCT03082729|182072929|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.344|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.344
90899121|NCT02081950|181664405|OTHER|Results were obtained using a mixed-effects ANOVA with fixed effect of study period and a random effect for subject.|geometric least square mean ratio|98.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.31|101.51||||||||101.51|95.31|
90899122|NCT02081950|181664406|OTHER|Results were obtained using a mixed-effects ANOVA with fixed effect of study period and a random effect for subject|geometric least square mean ratio|111.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.73|124.2||||||||124.2|99.73|
90899123|NCT02081950|181664409|OTHER|Results were obtained using a mixed-effects ANOVA with fixed effect of study period and a random effect for subject|geometric least square mean ratio|98.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.16|104.57||||||||104.57|93.16|
91029620|NCT02708277|181943372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.303|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.303
91094477|NCT03082729|182072930|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.918|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.918
91029621|NCT02708277|181943373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.606|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.606
91029622|NCT02708277|181943374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.05
91094478|NCT03082729|182072930|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.035
91094479|NCT03082729|182072931|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.510
91094480|NCT03082729|182072931|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.516|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.516
91094481|NCT03082729|182072932|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.046
91094482|NCT03082729|182072932|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.088|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.088
91094483|NCT03082729|182072933|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.392|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.392
91094484|NCT03082729|182072933|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.177|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.177
91094485|NCT03082729|182072934|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.584|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.584
90899124|NCT02081950|181664410|OTHER||geometric least square mean ratio|103.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.5|113.2||||||||113.2|94.5|
90899125|NCT02081950|181664411|OTHER||geometric least square mean ratio|92.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.58|107.16||||||||107.16|80.58|
90899126|NCT04064242|181664436|OTHER|A Bayesian model for repeated measurements including data collected at Weeks 4, 8, 12 and 16 was applied to compare FVC between CMK389 and placebo groups.|Posterior estimate treatment difference|-1.49|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.62||0.1804|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.56|0.6|||Bayesian analysis|Posterior probability that treatment is better than placebo.|80% credible intervals are reported on the treatment difference|||0.60|-3.56|0.1804
90899127|NCT04064242|181664442|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045||0.783|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.09|0.02|||Mixed effects Model for Repeated Measure||Treatment difference (CMK389-placebo)|||0.02|-0.09|0.783
90899128|NCT04064242|181664443|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.664||0.608|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.05|0.68|||Mixed effects Model for Repeated Measure||Treatment difference (CMK389-placebo)|||0.68|-1.05|0.608
91029623|NCT02739984|181943411|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|LS Mean Treatment Difference|-64.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.16|-60.12|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Placebo|||-60.12|-68.16|<0.0001
91029624|NCT02739984|181943412|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|LS Mean Treatment Difference|-53.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.25|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.56|-48.71|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Placebo|||-48.71|-57.56|<0.0001
91029625|NCT02739984|181943413|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|LS Mean Treatment Difference|-67.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.1|-62.2|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Placebo|||-62.2|-72.1|<0.0001
90899129|NCT04064242|181664444|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.126||0.479|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-16.35|17.76|||Mixed effects Model for Repeated Measure||Treatment difference (CMK389-placebo)|||17.76|-16.35|0.479
90899130|NCT04512066|181664456|OTHER||treatment effect|0.6||||0.849|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.58|5.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.78|-4.58|0.849
90899131|NCT04512066|181664456|OTHER||treatment effect|-2.83||||0.362|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.96|2.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.29|-7.96|0.362
90899132|NCT04512066|181664456|OTHER||treatment effect|-10.45||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.46|-5.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.43|-15.46|0.001
91029626|NCT02739984|181943414|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|LS Mean Treatment Difference|-55.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.0|-50.5|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Placebo|||-50.5|-61.0|<0.0001
91029627|NCT02739984|181943415|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|LS Mean Treatment Difference|-56.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.89|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.28|-52.85|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Placebo|||-52.85|-60.28|<0.0001
91029628|NCT02739984|181943416|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|LS Mean Treatment Difference|-46.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.42|-42.15|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Placebo|||-42.15|-50.42|<0.0001
91029629|NCT02739984|181943417|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|LS Mean Treatment Difference|-52.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.85|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.1|-48.85|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Placebo|||-48.85|-56.10|<0.0001
91094486|NCT03082729|182072934|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.065|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.065
91094487|NCT03082729|182072935|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.421|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.421
90899133|NCT00971750|181664482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.763||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.763
90899134|NCT00971750|181664484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
90899135|NCT01657266|181664485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Pearson´s Chi-square test|||||||1.00
90899136|NCT00445679|181664495|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority to paroxetine was declared if the lower limit of the 95% two-sided confidence interval for the difference in responders is greater than or equal to -9 percentage points.|Difference|-3.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.62|6.37||||||||6.37|-12.62|
90899137|NCT00445679|181664495|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority to paroxetine was declared if the lower limit of the 95% two-sided confidence interval for the difference in responders is greater than or equal to -9 percentage points.|Difference|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|10.25||||||||10.25|-8.50|
90899138|NCT00445679|181664495|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority to paroxetine was declared if the lower limit of the 95% two-sided confidence interval for the difference in responders is greater than or equal to -9 percentage points.|Difference|-2.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.68|7.33||||||||7.33|-11.68|
90899139|NCT00445679|181664496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.714||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Final on-therapy population||||0.714
90899140|NCT00445679|181664496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.653||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Final on-therapy population||||0.653
90899141|NCT00445679|181664496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.881||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Final on-therapy population||||0.881
90899142|NCT00445679|181664497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Final on-therapy population||||0.450
90899143|NCT00445679|181664497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.452||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Final on-therapy population||||0.452
91094488|NCT03082729|182072935|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.145|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.145
90846603|NCT03745820|181559531|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.438|=|0.6245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.55|2.14||A MMRM model was used to analyze the change from baseline of the OM of interest, using fixed effects of treatment group, region, study visit, study visit-by-treatment interaction, baseline value of OM, baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Reasoning and Problem Solving: Change From Baseline at Week 12||2.14|-3.55|=0.6245
90846604|NCT03745820|181559531|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.436|=|0.2698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|4.43||A MMRM model was used to analyze the change from baseline of the OM of interest, using fixed effects of treatment group, region, study visit, study visit-by-treatment interaction, baseline value of OM, baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Reasoning and Problem Solving: Change From Baseline at Week 12||4.43|-1.25|=0.2698
90846605|NCT03745820|181559532|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61|=|0.4654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|0.76||A MMRM model was used to analyze the change from baseline of the OM of interest, using fixed effects of treatment group, region, study visit, study visit-by-treatment interaction, baseline value of OM, baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Positive Symptoms Subscale: Change From Baseline at Week 12||0.76|-1.65|=0.4654
90846606|NCT03745820|181559532|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.608|=|0.5886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|0.87||A MMRM model was used to analyze the change from baseline of the OM of interest, using fixed effects of treatment group, region, study visit, study visit-by-treatment interaction, baseline value of OM, baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Positive Symptoms Subscale: Change From Baseline at Week 12||0.87|-1.53|=0.5886
90846607|NCT03745820|181559532|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.655|=|0.9079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|1.22||A MMRM model was used to analyze the change from baseline of the OM of interest, using fixed effects of treatment group, region, study visit, study visit-by-treatment interaction, baseline value of OM, baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Negative Symptoms Subscale: Change From Baseline at Week 12||1.22|-1.37|=0.9079
90846608|NCT03745820|181559532|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65|=|0.4441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|0.79||A MMRM model was used to analyze the change from baseline of the OM of interest, using fixed effects of treatment group, region, study visit, study visit-by-treatment interaction, baseline value of OM, baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Negative Symptoms Subscale: Change From Baseline at Week 12||0.79|-1.78|=0.4441
90846609|NCT03745820|181559532|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.017|=|0.5537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.18|2.79||A MMRM model was used to analyze the change from baseline of the OM of interest, using fixed effects of treatment group, region, study visit, study visit-by-treatment interaction, baseline value of OM, baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Total Score: Change From Baseline at Week 12||2.79|-5.18|=0.5537
90846610|NCT03745820|181559532|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.018|=|0.332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.95|2.02||A MMRM model was used to analyze the change from baseline of the OM of interest, using fixed effects of treatment group, region, study visit, study visit-by-treatment interaction, baseline value of OM, baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Total Score: Change From Baseline at Week 12||2.02|-5.95|=0.3320
90846611|NCT03745820|181559533|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.128|=|0.8517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.28|||MMRM|||A MMRM model was used to analyze the change from baseline of the OM of interest, using fixed effects of treatment group, region, study visit, study visit-by-treatment interaction, baseline value of OM, baseline-by-visit interaction.||0.28|-0.23|=0.8517
90846612|NCT03745820|181559533|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.128|=|0.9952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.25|||MMRM|||A MMRM model was used to analyze the change from baseline of the OM of interest, using fixed effects of treatment group, region, study visit, study visit-by-treatment interaction, baseline value of OM, baseline-by-visit interaction.||0.25|-0.25|=0.9952
90846613|NCT04250077|181559549|SUPERIORITY||proportion|0.36923076|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16518156||0.02578184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0021812|0.64531855|||Agresti Caffo proportion comparison|||||0.64531855|-0.0021812|0.02578184
90846614|NCT04250077|181559550|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|20.0454545|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.62386242||0.00787297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.18213496|35.9087741|||t-test, 1 sided|||||35.9087741|4.18213496|0.00787297
90846615|NCT04250077|181559551|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-39.183333|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.8274398||0.01387108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.356073|-5.0105927|||t-test, 1 sided|||||-5.0105927|-73.356073|0.01387108
90846616|NCT04250077|181559552|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|8.43728901|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.28323704||0.00908118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59437702|15.280201|||t-test, 1 sided|||||15.2802010|1.59437702|0.00908118
90846617|NCT04250077|181559553|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.47698833|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.68529034||0.34633293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1910435|9.14502026|||t-test, 1 sided|||||9.14502026|-6.1910435|0.34633293
90846618|NCT04250077|181559554|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4285714|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.07315199||0.57872623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4078121|4.55066924|||t-test, 1 sided|||||4.55066924|-5.4078121|0.57872623
90846619|NCT04250077|181559555|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|1.29230769|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81588207||0.06283641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3873203|2.97193574|||t-test, 1 sided|||||2.97193574|-0.3873203|0.06283641
90846620|NCT04250077|181559556|SUPERIORITY||proportion|0.11794871|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16796576||0.26422281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2233244|0.43508919|||Agresti Caffo proportion comparison|||||0.43508919|-0.2233244|0.26422281
90846621|NCT00926029|181559557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
90846622|NCT00926029|181559558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91094489|NCT03082729|182072936|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.611|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.611
90846623|NCT02471612|181559559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.665||||||Comparing the sensitivity of APACHE-II and P-POSSUM|McNemar|||"Area under the curve (AUC) is used to measure the size of the prediction composed by the graphic display between the 'sensitivity' and the '1-specificity' relationship. AUC can range from 0.5 to 1.0 and a result of 1.0 indicates a perfect discriminatory ability. An AUC value \> 0.8 is considered good, a range between 0.60-0.80 is considered as moderate, and an AUC value \< 0.60 is regarded as poor."||||0.665
90899144|NCT00445679|181664497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Final on-therapy population||||0.850
91094490|NCT03082729|182072936|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.345|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.345
91094491|NCT03082729|182072937|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.957|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.957
91094492|NCT03082729|182072937|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.425|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.425
90846624|NCT02250703|181559590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025||||||Difference in proportions in satisfactory sedation on separation from parents and on induction between M and D groups (Primary Outcome variables)|Chi-squared|||A sample size of at least 33 patients in each group would detect at least 30% difference in proportion of children who achieve satisfactory sedation between the M and D groups at 0.05 level of significance and 80% power||||0.025
90846625|NCT02250703|181559591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
90846626|NCT02250703|181559592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
90846627|NCT02250703|181559593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
90846628|NCT00647270|181559598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|7.4|||Chi-squared||Treatment difference between adalimumab 80 mg monthly and placebo divided by the difference between adalimumab 40 mg eow and placebo.|Adalimumab 80 mg monthly versus placebo: The null hypothesis associated with this comparison stated that adalimumab 80 mg monthly would be inferior to placebo with respect to ACR20 response percentage; the alternative hypothesis was that adalimumab 80 mg monthly would be superior to placebo with respect to ACR20 response.||7.4|-13.3|0.074
90846629|NCT00647270|181559598|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A sensitivity analysis was proposed for the non-inferiority comparison. If the lower confidence limit of θ80 - θ40 was greater than -0.1, then the non-inferiority of adalimumab 80 mg monthly to adalimumab 40 mg eow would be claimed||||||0.74||95.0||||Non - inferiority of adalimumab 80 mg monthly compared with 40 mg eow could not be tested because the null hypothesis of the first comparison was not rejected.|Chi-squared|||The non-inferiority of adalimumab 80 mg monthly to adalimumab 40 mg every other week (eow) was to be claimed if at least 50% of the treatment effect of adalimumab 40 mg eow over placebo was to be achieved by adalimumab 80 mg monthly over placebo.||||0.74
90846630|NCT00647270|181559599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Using a fixed-sequence multiple-testing approach at an alpha level of 0.05 to test the secondary endpoints, the testing of the null-hypothesis began with the first endpoint and stopped as soon as failure to reject a hypothesis occurred (i.e., P value \> 0.05). Using this procedure, testing stopped after secondary endpoint number 1, change from Baseline in HAQ at Week 12.||||0.002
90846631|NCT00647270|181559600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Using a fixed-sequence multiple-testing approach at an alpha level of 0.05 to test the secondary endpoints, the testing of the null-hypothesis began with the first endpoint and stopped as soon as failure to reject a hypothesis occurred (i.e., P value \> 0.05). Using this procedure, testing stopped after secondary endpoint number 1, change from Baseline in HAQ at Week 12.||||0.005
90899145|NCT01316770|181664504|SUPERIORITY|The standard deviation (SD) of the change in salivary flow was assumed to be 0.0168 for the placebo and 0.0906 for the dexamethasone parotid. The within-subject correlation between two glands was assumed to be 0.15. A total of 16 patients would be required to have 80% power to detect a one-sided 40% increase in dexamethasone-irrigated parotid glands compared with the saline irrigated parotid glands with respect to change in salivary flow from Day 0 to Day 56.||||||0.236||||||No corrections were made for multiple comparisons because there was only one primary hypothesis.|one-sided Paired t-test|||The mixed models analysis included all time points but it failed to converge. Therefore, an alternative analysis was performed using a paired t-test. Because the Satterthwaite correction \[that was specified in the statistical analysis plan (SAP) for the mixed model\] is not available for the paired t-test, it was not performed on the paired t-test. The final analysis was based upon the raw non-transformed saliva flow rates, as these measures were appropriate for the model used.||||0.236
90899146|NCT01316770|181664505|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.662|||||||one-sided paired t-test|||The mixed models analysis (including all time points: study days 14, 28, 42, 56) failed to converge; thus, an alternative analysis, as stated in the Statistical Analysis Plan, was performed using the paired t-test. The Satterthwaite correction (Statistical Analysis Plan) is not available for the paired t-test and was not performed on the paired t-test. The final analysis was based upon the raw non-transformed saliva flow rates since this statistical model achieved the best fit to the data.||||0.662
90899147|NCT01316770|181664506|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.607|||||||one-sided paired t-test|||The mixed models analysis (including all time points: study days 14, 28, 42, 56) failed to converge; thus, an alternative analysis, as stated in the Statistical Analysis Plan, was performed using the paired t-test. The Satterthwaite correction (Statistical Analysis Plan) is not available for the paired t-test and was not performed on the paired t-test. The final analysis was based upon the raw non-transformed saliva flow rates since this statistical model achieved the best fit to the data.||||0.607
90899148|NCT01316770|181664507|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.586|||||||one-sided paired t-test|||The mixed models analysis (including all time points: study days 14, 28, 42, 56) failed to converge; thus, an alternative analysis, as stated in the Statistical Analysis Plan, was performed using the paired t-test. The Satterthwaite correction (Statistical Analysis Plan) is not available for the paired t-test and was not performed on the paired t-test. The final analysis was based upon the raw non-transformed saliva flow rates since this statistical model achieved the best fit to the data.||||0.586
90899149|NCT01316770|181664521|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||McNemar|||"McNemar's test on the study Day 14 shift table. The null hypothesis assumes the probability of subjects shifting from yes at Screening to no at Study Day 14 are equal to the probability of subjects shifting from no at Screening to yes at Study Day 14.~Alternative hypothesis is that probability of subjects shifting from yes at Screening to no at Study Day 14 is not equal to the probability of subjects shifting from no at Screening to yes at Study Day 14."||||0.500
90899150|NCT01316770|181664521|OTHER|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||"McNemar's test on the study Day 28 shift table. The null hypothesis assumes the probability of subjects shifting from yes at Screening to no at Study Day 28 is equal to the probability of subjects shifting their answer from no at Screening to yes at Study Day 28.~Alternative hypothesis is that probability of subjects shifting from yes at Screening to no at Study Day 28 is not equal to the probability of subjects shifting their answer from no at Screening to yes at Study Day 28."||||1.000
90846632|NCT00647270|181559600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Using a fixed-sequence multiple-testing approach at an alpha level of 0.05 to test the secondary endpoints, the testing of the null-hypothesis began with the first endpoint and stopped as soon as failure to reject a hypothesis occurred (i.e., P value \> 0.05). Using this procedure, testing stopped after secondary endpoint number 1, change from Baseline in HAQ at Week 12.||||0.002
91094493|NCT03082729|182072938|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.698|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.698
91094494|NCT03082729|182072938|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.709|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.709
91094495|NCT03082729|182072939|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.362|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.362
91094496|NCT03082729|182072939|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.221|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.221
91094497|NCT03082729|182072940|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.813|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.813
91094498|NCT03082729|182072940|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.046
91094499|NCT03082729|182072941|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.752|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.752
91094500|NCT03082729|182072941|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.808|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.808
91094501|NCT03082729|182072942|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.251|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.251
90846633|NCT00647270|181559601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||The ANCOVA Model was adjusted for the Baseline Measure.|ANCOVA|||Using a fixed-sequence multiple-testing approach at an alpha level of 0.05 to test the secondary endpoints, the testing of the null-hypothesis began with the first endpoint and stopped as soon as failure to reject a hypothesis occurred (i.e., P value \> 0.05). Using this procedure, testing stopped after secondary endpoint number 1, change from Baseline in HAQ at Week 12.||||0.002
90846634|NCT00647270|181559602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||The ANCOVA Model was adjusted for Baseline Measure.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA Model was adjusted for Baseline Measure.||Using a fixed-sequence multiple-testing approach at an alpha level of 0.05 to test the secondary endpoints, the testing of the null-hypothesis began with the first endpoint and stopped as soon as failure to reject a hypothesis occurred (i.e., P value \> 0.05). Using this procedure, testing stopped after secondary endpoint number 1, change from Baseline in HAQ at Week 12.||||0.005
91094502|NCT03082729|182072942|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.329|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.329
90859744|NCT00537238|181582904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean differences|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Change at Follow-up, core BPRS score: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and combined center, and for post-baseline assessments baseline was included as a covariate.||0.00|-0.52|0.0495
91094503|NCT03082729|182072943|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.215|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.215
91094504|NCT03082729|182072943|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.612|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.612
91094505|NCT03082729|182072944|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.307|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.307
91094506|NCT03082729|182072944|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.686|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.686
91094507|NCT03082729|182072945|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.139|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.139
91094508|NCT03082729|182072945|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.350
91094509|NCT03082729|182072946|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.721|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.721
91094510|NCT03082729|182072946|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.285|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.285
91094511|NCT03082729|182072947|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.804|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.804
91094512|NCT03082729|182072947|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.793|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.793
91094513|NCT03082729|182072948|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.293|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.293
91094514|NCT03082729|182072948|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.355|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.355
91094515|NCT03082729|182072949|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.101|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.101
91094516|NCT03082729|182072949|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.170
91094517|NCT03082729|182072950|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.137|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.137
91094518|NCT03082729|182072950|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.204|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.204
91094519|NCT03082729|182072951|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.115|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.115
91094520|NCT03082729|182072951|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.378|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.378
91094521|NCT03082729|182072952|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.122|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.122
91094522|NCT03082729|182072952|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.815|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.815
91094523|NCT03082729|182072953|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.321|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.321
91094524|NCT03082729|182072953|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.204|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.204
91094525|NCT03082729|182072954|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.352|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.352
91094526|NCT03082729|182072954|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.180
91094527|NCT03082729|182072955|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.094|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.094
91094528|NCT03082729|182072955|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.383|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.383
91094529|NCT03082729|182072956|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.024
91094530|NCT03082729|182072956|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.266|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.266
91094531|NCT03082729|182072957|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.042|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.042
91094532|NCT03082729|182072957|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.208|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.208
91094533|NCT03082729|182072958|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.446|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.446
91094534|NCT03082729|182072958|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.611|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.611
91094535|NCT03082729|182072959|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.014
91094536|NCT03082729|182072959|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.405|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.405
91094537|NCT03857256|182072981|SUPERIORITY|Mean changes from Week 0 in LDL-C were analyzed using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach including effects of treatment group, time (Week 6 and Week 12) and treatment group x time interaction as well as the covariates of Week 0 value of LDL-C and Week 0 value of LDL-C x time interaction. An unstructured covariance structure were used to model the within-patient errors. Contrasts under this model allowed for the three main comparisons.||||||0.0167||||||Tests involving the comparisons of each of the active groups versus placebo for the primary endpoint were conducted at the 0.0167 significance level (to account for three main comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation were used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||Tests involving the comparisons of each of the active groups versus placebo for the primary endpoint were conducted at the 0.0167 significance level (to account for three main comparisons).||||0.0167
91094538|NCT03643848|182073034|SUPERIORITY||variance components; inferring mean diff|0.068|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.033|<|0.046|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold p\<.05|Mixed Models Analysis|REML; Satterwaite method for t-tests.Participant is random effect. Addtnl fixed effects: Valence, Condition, Anxiety Severity, Gender, Age (months).||Condition (TMR, Sham) x Valence (Negative, Neutral) predicting Lure Generalization Index at 1 week. We hypothesized a significant interaction, with a reduction in negative generalization and an increase in neutral generalization in the TMR condition.||||<.046
91094539|NCT03643848|182073035|SUPERIORITY||variance components; inferring mean diff|-0.033|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.064|=|0.61|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori p\<.05|Mixed Models Analysis|included additional fixed effects: Anxiety severity, gender, age (months)||Condition (TMR, Sham) x Valence (Negative, Neutral) predicting Lure Generalization Index at 12 hour test. We hypothesized a significant interaction, with a reduction in negative generalization and an increase in neutral generalization in the TMR condition.||||=.61
91029630|NCT02739984|181943418|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|LS Mean Treatment Difference|-42.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.13|-38.11|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Placebo|||-38.11|-46.13|<0.0001
90846635|NCT03615040|181559603|SUPERIORITY||Incidence Rate Ratio|0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.14|||t-test, 2 sided|||A generalised linear model (assuming neg. binomial distribution) was used. The model includes the number of exacerbations during the 48 week treatment as an outcome with explanatory variables of treatment arm \& number of exacerbations in the 12 months prior to the trial (stratification factor), and log-time on trial (in weeks) as an offset. The offset, allows for different lengths of time in the trial. Only observed exacerbations were used alongside the corresponding time period in the offset.||1.14|0.53|0.195
90846636|NCT03615040|181559606|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.3||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Calculated using mixed effect linear model with dependent variable of the outcome at baseline and follow-up time points (Week 4, 12, 24, 36, 48); explanatory variables of treatment arm, number of exacerbations in the 12 months prior to the trial (stratification factor), visit time point (as categorical variable), baseline score; an interaction term between treatment and visit as fixed effects; and patient identification as a random effect.||-0.2|-6.4|0.039
90846637|NCT03615040|181559607|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.53||||0.469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|2.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Calculated using mixed effect linear model with dependent variable of the outcome at baseline and follow-up time points (Week 4, 12, 24, 36, 48); explanatory variables of treatment arm, number of exacerbations in the 12 months prior to the trial (stratification factor), visit time point (as categorical variable), baseline score; an interaction term between treatment and visit as fixed effects; and patient identification as a random effect.||2.00|-0.91|0.469
90846638|NCT03615040|181559608|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank sum test of mMRC dyspnoea Week 4||||0.90
90846639|NCT03615040|181559608|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank sum test of mMRC dyspnoea Week 12||||0.95
90846640|NCT03615040|181559608|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank sum test of mMRC dyspnoea Week 24||||0.78
90846641|NCT03615040|181559608|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank sum test of mMRC dyspnoea Week 36||||0.88
90846642|NCT03615040|181559608|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank sum test of mMRC dyspnoea Week 48||||0.78
90846643|NCT03615040|181559609|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.4||||0.236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.9|6.2||Using mixed effect linear model with explanatory variables treatment, number of exacerbations in the 12 months prior to the trial (stratification), visit time point (as categorical variable) and baseline score as fixed effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||VAS total||6.2|-24.9|0.236
90846644|NCT03615040|181559609|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.9||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|0.7||Using mixed effect linear model with explanatory variables treatment, number of exacerbations in the 12 months prior to the trial (stratification), visit time point (as categorical variable) and baseline score as fixed effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||VAS Dyspnoea||0.7|-10.6|0.083
90846645|NCT03615040|181559609|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.1||||0.546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|4.7||Using mixed effect linear model with explanatory variables treatment, number of exacerbations in the 12 months prior to the trial (stratification), visit time point (as categorical variable) and baseline score as fixed effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||VAS Cough||4.7|-8.9|0.546
90846646|NCT03615040|181559609|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.9||||0.527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|4.0||Using mixed effect linear model with explanatory variables treatment, number of exacerbations in the 12 months prior to the trial (stratification), visit time point (as categorical variable) and baseline score as fixed effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||VAS Sputum production||4.0|-7.8|0.527
90846647|NCT03615040|181559610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||sputum purulence colour card Week 12||||0.84
90846648|NCT03615040|181559610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||sputum purulence colour card Week 24||||0.52
90846649|NCT03615040|181559610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||sputum purulence colour card Week 36||||0.82
90846650|NCT03615040|181559610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||sputum purulence colour card Week 48||||0.95
90846651|NCT03615040|181559611|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.06||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|18.97|||ANCOVA|||Pre BD FEV1/FVC ratio: Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) adjusting for the baseline value||18.97|-0.83|0.069
90859745|NCT00537238|181582905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean differences|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.8084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.64|||ANCOVA|||Baseline, HADS-A: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and combined center, and for post-baseline assessments baseline was included as a covariate.||0.64|-0.82|0.8084
90859746|NCT00537238|181582905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean differences|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.5263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.91|||ANCOVA|||Baseline, HADS-D: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and combined center, and for post-baseline assessments baseline was included as a covariate.||0.91|-0.47|0.5263
90899151|NCT01316770|181664521|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||McNemar|||"McNemar's test on the study Day 42 shift table. The null hypothesis assumes the probability of subjects shifting from yes at Screening to no at Study Day 42 are equal to the probability of subjects shifting from no at Screening to yes at Study Day 42.~Alternative hypothesis is that probability of subjects shifting from yes at Screening to no at Study Day 42 is not equal to the probability of subjects shifting from no at Screening to yes at Study Day 42."||||0.500
90899152|NCT01316770|181664521|OTHER|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||"McNemar's test on the study Day 56 shift table. The null hypothesis assumes the probability of subjects shifting from yes at Screening to no at Study Day 56 are equal to the probability of subjects shifting from no at Screening to yes at Study Day 56.~Alternative hypothesis is that probability of subjects shifting from yes at Screening to no at Study Day 56 is not equal to the probability of subjects shifting from no at Screening to yes at Study Day 56."||||1.000
91094540|NCT04761822|182073046|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.026||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.002|0.06||Two-sided test using the central method of doubling the one-sided p-value.|Barnard's Exact Unconditional Test|||The null hypothesis is that the risk difference, where the difference is represented as the high allergy/mast cell disorder cohort proportion minus comparison cohort proportion, is not statistically different from 0 (i.e. there is no difference).||0.060|-0.002|0.066
90846652|NCT03615040|181559612|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||mixed effect linear model with explanatory variables of treatment arm, number of exacerbations in the 12 months prior to the trial (stratification factor), visit time point (as categorical variable), baseline score and patient identification as a random effect to account for repeated measures over time was fitted for each outcome. Adjusted mean difference between treatment arms with 95% confidence interval and p-value were reported. In the modified ITT population.||0.09|-0.01|0.094
90846653|NCT03615040|181559613|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.52||To compare change from baseline to 48 weeks (pre and post treatment measurements), analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline value as a covariate was fitted. Adjusted mean difference with 95% confidence interval and p-value were reported.|ANCOVA|||Total Lung Capacity||0.52|-0.46|0.905
90846654|NCT03615040|181559613|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.47||To compare change from baseline to 48 weeks (pre and post treatment measurements), analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline value as a covariate was fitted. Adjusted mean difference with 95% confidence interval and p-value were reported.|ANCOVA|||Residual Volume||0.47|-0.62|0.775
90846655|NCT03615040|181559614|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|1.01||||0.736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.07||"Outcome was log transformed~Explanatory variables:~treatment arm, number of exacerbations in the 12 months prior to the trial (stratification factor), log BL value, visit time point (categorical) and patient identification (random effect)."|Mixed Models Analysis|||White blood cell count||1.07|0.95|0.736
90846656|NCT03615040|181559614|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.69||"Outcome was log transformed~Explanatory variables:~treatment arm, number of exacerbations in the 12 months prior to the trial (stratification factor), log BL value, visit time point (categorical) and patient identification (random effect)."|Mixed Models Analysis|||Eosinophil Count||0.69|0.51|<0.001
90846657|NCT03615040|181559614|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|1.02||||0.678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.13||"Outcome was log transformed~Explanatory variables:~treatment arm, number of exacerbations in the 12 months prior to the trial (stratification factor), log BL value, visit time point (categorical) and patient identification (random effect)."|Mixed Models Analysis|||Neutrophil Count||1.13|0.93|0.678
90846658|NCT03615040|181559615|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.33||A mixed effect linear model of the log outcome with explanatory variables treatment, number of exacerbations in the 12 months prior to the trial (stratification), visit time point (as categorical variable) and log baseline score as fixed effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Eosinophil count||0.33|0.19|<0.001
90846659|NCT03615040|181559631|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.35|||ANCOVA|||Pre BD FVC (litres): Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) adjusting for the baseline value||0.35|-0.14|0.362
90846660|NCT03615040|181559631|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.44|||ANCOVA|||Pre BD FVC (litre):Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) adjusting for the baseline value||0.44|-0.61|0.713
90899153|NCT01316770|181664523|OTHER|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||"McNemar's test on the study Day 14 shift table. The null hypothesis assumes the probability of subjects shifting from yes at Screening to no at Study Day 14 are equal to the probability of subjects shifting from no at Screening to yes at Study Day 14.~Alternative hypothesis is that probability of subjects shifting from yes at Screening to no at Study Day 14 is not equal to the probability of subjects shifting from no at Screening to yes at Study Day 14."||||1.000
90899154|NCT01316770|181664523|OTHER|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||"McNemar's test on the study Day 28 shift table. The null hypothesis assumes the probability of subjects shifting from yes at Screening to no at Study Day 28 is equal to the probability of subjects shifting their answer from no at Screening to yes at Study Day 28.~Alternative hypothesis is that probability of subjects shifting from yes at Screening to no at Study Day 28 is not equal to the probability of subjects shifting their answer from no at Screening to yes at Study Day 28."||||1.000
91094541|NCT04761822|182073047|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.012||||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.016|0.042||Two-sided test using the central method of doubling the one-sided p-value.|Barnard's Exact Unconditional Test|||The null hypothesis is that the risk difference, where the difference is represented as the high allergy/mast cell disorder cohort proportion minus comparison cohort proportion, is not statistically different from 0 (i.e. there is no difference).||0.042|-0.016|0.267
90846661|NCT03615040|181559632|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.78||||0.711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.63|12.2|||ANCOVA|||Pre FEV1 predicted: Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) adjusting for the baseline value||12.20|-8.63|0.711
90846662|NCT03615040|181559632|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.4||||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.9|7.1|||ANCOVA|||Pre BD FVC predicted (%): Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) adjusting for the baseline value||7.1|-27.9|0.214
91094542|NCT04761822|182073048|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.016||||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.011|0.046||Two-sided test using the central method of doubling the one-sided p-value.|Barnard's Exact Unconditional Test|||The null hypothesis is that the risk difference, where the difference is represented as the high allergy/mast cell disorder cohort proportion minus comparison cohort proportion, is not statistically different from 0 (i.e. there is no difference).||0.046|-0.011|0.165
91094543|NCT04761822|182073049|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.006||||0.572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.021|0.033||Two-sided test using the central method of doubling the one-sided p-value.|Barnard's Exact Unconditional Test|||The null hypothesis is that the risk difference, where the difference is represented as the high allergy/mast cell disorder cohort proportion minus comparison cohort proportion, is not statistically different from 0 (i.e. there is no difference).||0.033|-0.021|0.572
91094544|NCT04761822|182073050|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.016||||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.011|0.046|||Barnard's Exact Unconditional Test|||The null hypothesis is that the risk difference, where the difference is represented as the high allergy/mast cell disorder cohort proportion minus comparison cohort proportion, is not statistically different from 0 (i.e. there is no difference).||0.046|-0.011|0.165
91094545|NCT04761822|182073051|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.006||||0.572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.021|0.033||Two-sided test using the central method of doubling the one-sided p-value.|Barnard's Exact Unconditional Test|||The null hypothesis is that the risk difference, where the difference is represented as the high allergy/mast cell disorder cohort proportion minus comparison cohort proportion, is not statistically different from 0 (i.e. there is no difference).||0.033|-0.021|0.572
90846663|NCT03615040|181559633|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.95||||0.201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.53|1.65||To compare change from baseline to 48 weeks (pre and post treatment measurements), analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline value as a covariate was fitted. Adjusted mean difference with 95% confidence interval and p-value were reported.|ANCOVA|||Residual Volume/Total Lung Capacity ratio.||1.65|-7.53|0.201
90846664|NCT03615040|181559634|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.75||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.07||A mixed effect linear model of the log outcome with explanatory variables treatment, number of exacerbations in the 12 months prior to the trial (stratification), visit time point (as categorical variable) and log baseline score as fixed effects|Mixed Models Analysis|||Macrophage count||1.07|0.52|0.114
90846665|NCT03615040|181559635|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.79||||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.15||A mixed effect linear model of the log outcome with explanatory variables treatment, number of exacerbations in the 12 months prior to the trial (stratification), visit time point (as categorical variable) and log baseline score as fixed effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Epithelium count||1.15|0.54|0.215
90846666|NCT01024309|181559642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||||||Apriori level of significance was 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Rank Sum was used||||||.04
90846667|NCT01024309|181559643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08||||||the a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test||||||0.08
90846668|NCT01024309|181559644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||||||the a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test was used||||||0.04
90846669|NCT01024309|181559645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22||||||the a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test was used||||||0.22
90846670|NCT01024309|181559646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0029||||||the a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test was used||||||.0029
90846671|NCT01024309|181559647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13||||||the a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test was used||||||0.13
90846672|NCT01024309|181559648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Rank Sum||||||0.29
91094546|NCT04761822|182073052|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.015||||0.4574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.045|0.055||Two-sided test using the central method of doubling the one-sided p-value.|Barnard's Exact Unconditional Test|||The null hypothesis is that the risk difference, where the difference is represented as the participants that received their first active dose as their first injection proportion minus the participants that received their first active dose as their second injection proportion, is not statistically different from 0 (i.e. there is no difference).||0.055|-0.045|0.4574
90846673|NCT01024309|181559649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23||||||the a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test was used||||||0.23
90846674|NCT01024309|181559650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49||||||the a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcox Rank Sum Test||||||0.49
90846675|NCT00567255|181559651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.56|||<|0.001||95.0|-5.19|-3.93|||ANCOVA|||||-3.93|-5.19|<0.001
90846676|NCT00567255|181559652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.95|-4.38|||ANCOVA|||||-4.38|-5.95|<0.001
90846677|NCT00567255|181559653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.61|||<|0.001||95.0|4.95|8.84|||Regression, Logistic|||||8.84|4.95|<0.001
90846678|NCT00567255|181559654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.05|7.47|||Regression, Logistic|||||7.47|4.05|<0.001
90846679|NCT00567255|181559655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.6|7.98|||Regression, Logistic|||||7.98|3.60|<0.001
90846680|NCT00567255|181559656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.33|-2.53|||ANCOVA|||||-2.53|-4.33|<0.001
90846681|NCT00567255|181559657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.61|3.57|||ANCOVA|||||3.57|1.61|<0.001
90846682|NCT00567255|181559658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.96||||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.007
90846683|NCT00567255|181559659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.46|5.09|||ANCOVA|||||5.09|2.46|<0.001
91094547|NCT04761822|182073053|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.016||||0.3242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.086|0.018||Two-sided test using the central method of doubling the one-sided p-value.|Barnard's Exact Unconditional Test|||The null hypothesis is that the risk difference, where the difference is represented as the participants that received their first active dose as their first injection proportion minus the participants that received their first active dose as their second injection proportion, is not statistically different from 0 (i.e. there is no difference).||0.018|-0.086|0.3242
91094548|NCT04761822|182073054|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.024||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.037|0.07||Two-sided test using the central method of doubling the one-sided p-value.|Barnard's Exact Unconditional Test|||The null hypothesis is that the risk difference, where the difference is represented as the participants that received their second active dose as their second injection proportion minus the participants that received their second active dose as their third injection proportion, is not statistically different from 0 (i.e. there is no difference).||0.070|-0.037|0.3100
90846684|NCT00567255|181559660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.24||||0.091|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.091
90846685|NCT00567255|181559661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.64|||||TWO_SIDED|||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||
90846686|NCT00567255|181559662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.85||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||0.85|-1.60|
90846687|NCT00567255|181559663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.29|||||TWO_SIDED|||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||
90846688|NCT00567255|181559664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.92|-4.54||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||-4.54|-9.92|
90846689|NCT00567255|181559665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.29|-1.44||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||-1.44|-7.29|
90846690|NCT00567255|181559666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.3||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||1.30|-0.70|
90846691|NCT00567255|181559667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.58||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||1.58|0.16|
90846692|NCT00567255|181559668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.6||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||0.60|-0.49|
90846693|NCT00567255|181559669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.52||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||0.52|-0.56|
90846694|NCT00567255|181559670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.02||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||0.02|-0.98|
91094549|NCT04761822|182073055|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.007||||0.807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0783|0.0366||Two-sided test using the central method of doubling the one-sided p-value.|Barnard's Exact Unconditional Test|||The null hypothesis is that the risk difference, where the difference is represented as the participants that received their second active dose as their second injection proportion minus the participants that received their second active dose as their third injection proportion, is not statistically different from 0 (i.e. there is no difference).||0.0366|-0.0783|0.8070
91094550|NCT04761822|182073056|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.001||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.042||Two-sided test using the central method of doubling the one-sided p-value.|Barnard's Exact Unconditional Test|||The null hypothesis is that the risk difference, where the difference is represented as the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine first injection proportion minus comparison placebo first injection proportion, is not statistically different from 0 (i.e. there is no difference).||0.042|-0.040|1.000
90846695|NCT01743001|181559673|SUPERIORITY||least-square (LS) mean difference|-4.7||||0.612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.8|13.5||To control for multiplicity across the primary and secondary endpoints, all secondary endpoints were analyzed hierarchically according to order and significance as pre-specified in the protocol eliminating further adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included treatment group, presence of DS (yes/no), and WHO FC (II vs III/IV) as categorical factors, and baseline 6MWD value as covariate||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between macitentan and placebo for the mean change from baseline to Week 16 in 6MWD. Null hypothesis was tested by an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA).||13.5|-22.8|0.6120
90846696|NCT01743001|181559674|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.53||||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.24||The secondary efficacy endpoints were analyzed hierarchically as this approach eliminated the requirement for further adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model adjusted for randomized treatment group and location of cardiac defect (pre-tricupsid / post-tricupsid ) as factors.||For this secondary endpoint of WHO functional class, the improvement from baseline to Week 16 in WHO functional class was evaluated. The null hypothesis is the odds of improvement are the same in the placebo and the macitentan group.||1.24|0.23|0.1450
90846697|NCT01743001|181559675|SUPERIORITY||least-square (LS) mean difference|0.08||||0.6818||95.0|-0.29|0.44||The secondary efficacy endpoints were analyzed hierarchically as this approach eliminated the requirement for further adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for randomized treatment group, location of cardiac defect(pre-tricupsid/post-tricupsid) as factors, baseline Borg dyspnea index as covariate||The null hypothesis was that the mean change from baseline to Week 16 in the Borg dyspnea index is the same in the macitentan and in the placebo group.||0.44|-0.29|0.6818
91029631|NCT02739984|181943419|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|LS Mean Treatment Difference|-41.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.44|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.9|-38.22|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Placebo|||-38.22|-43.90|<0.0001
91094551|NCT04761822|182073057|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.015||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.053|0.018||Two-sided test using the central method of doubling the one-sided p-value.|Barnard's Exact Unconditional Test|||The null hypothesis is that the risk difference, where the difference is represented as the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine first injection proportion minus comparison placebo first injection proportion, is not statistically different from 0 (i.e. there is no difference).||0.018|-0.053|0.250
91094552|NCT04761822|182073058|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.058||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.024|0.101||Two-sided test using the central method of doubling the one-sided p-value.|Barnard's Exact Unconditional Test|||The null hypothesis is that the risk difference, where the difference is represented as the high allergy/mast cell disorder cohort proportion minus comparison cohort proportion, is not statistically different from 0 (i.e. there is no difference).||0.101|0.024|0.004
90846698|NCT01743001|181559676|SUPERIORITY||least-square (LS) mean difference|-1.0||||0.6431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|3.1|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for randomized treatment group, location of cardiac defect (pre-tricupsid/post-tricupsid) as factors and baseline scores as covariates.||The null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline to Week 16 is the same in the macitentan and the placebo group for the SF-36 domain score of Physical Functioning.||3.1|-5.0|0.6431
90846699|NCT01743001|181559676|SUPERIORITY||least-square (LS) mean difference|-1.4||||0.5988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|3.9|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for randomized treatment group, location of cardiac defect (pre-tricupsid/post-tricupsid) as factors and baseline scores as covariates.||The null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline to Week 16 is the same in the macitentan and the placebo group for the SF-36 domain score of Role-Physical.||3.9|-6.7|0.5988
90846700|NCT01743001|181559676|SUPERIORITY||least-square (LS) mean difference|0.1||||0.9642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|6.2|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for randomized treatment group, location of cardiac defect (pre-tricupsid/post-tricupsid) as factors and baseline scores as covariates.||The null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline to Week 16 is the same in the macitentan and the placebo group for the SF-36 domain score of Pain Index.||6.2|-5.9|0.9642
90846701|NCT01743001|181559676|SUPERIORITY||least-square (LS) mean difference|3.1||||0.1542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|7.3|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for randomized treatment group, location of cardiac defect (pre-tricupsid/post-tricupsid) as factors and baseline scores as covariates.||The null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline to Week 16 is the same in the macitentan and the placebo group for the SF-36 domain score of General Health Perceptions.||7.3|-1.2|0.1542
90846702|NCT01743001|181559676|SUPERIORITY||least-square (LS) mean difference|1.1||||0.602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|5.3|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for randomized treatment group, location of cardiac defect (pre-tricupsid/post-tricupsid) as factors and baseline scores as covariates.||The null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline to Week 16 is the same in the macitentan and the placebo group for the SF-36 domain score of Vitality.||5.3|-3.1|0.6020
90899155|NCT01316770|181664524|OTHER|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||"McNemar's test on the study Day 14 shift table. The null hypothesis assumes the probability of subjects shifting from yes at Screening to no at Study Day 14 are equal to the probability of subjects shifting from no at Screening to yes at Study Day 14.~Alternative hypothesis is that probability of subjects shifting from yes at Screening to no at Study Day 14 is not equal to the probability of subjects shifting from no at Screening to yes at Study Day 14."||||1.000
90899156|NCT01316770|181664524|OTHER|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||"McNemar's test on the study Day 28 shift table. The null hypothesis assumes the probability of subjects shifting from yes at Screening to no at Study Day 28 is equal to the probability of subjects shifting their answer from no at Screening to yes at Study Day 28.~Alternative hypothesis is that probability of subjects shifting from yes at Screening to no at Study Day 28 is not equal to the probability of subjects shifting their answer from no at Screening to yes at Study Day 28."||||1.000
90899157|NCT01316770|181664524|OTHER|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||"McNemar's test on the study Day 42 shift table. The null hypothesis assumes the probability of subjects shifting from yes at Screening to no at Study Day 42 are equal to the probability of subjects shifting from no at Screening to yes at Study Day 42.~Alternative hypothesis is that probability of subjects shifting from yes at Screening to no at Study Day 42 is not equal to the probability of subjects shifting from no at Screening to yes at Study Day 42."||||1.000
90899158|NCT01316770|181664524|OTHER|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||"McNemar's test on the study Day 56 shift table. The null hypothesis assumes the probability of subjects shifting from yes at Screening to no at Study Day 56 are equal to the probability of subjects shifting from no at Screening to yes at Study Day 56.~Alternative hypothesis is that probability of subjects shifting from yes at Screening to no at Study Day 56 is not equal to the probability of subjects shifting from no at Screening to yes at Study Day 56."||||1.000
91029632|NCT02739984|181943420|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|LS Mean Treatment Difference|-33.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.59|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.87|-30.6|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Placebo|||-30.60|-36.87|<0.0001
91029633|NCT02739984|181943421|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Treatment Difference|77.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|70.0|83.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted by the stratification factor (screening LDL-C level).|Evolocumab - Placebo|||83.5|70.0|<0.0001
91029634|NCT02739984|181943422|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Treatment Difference|69.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.4|75.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted by the stratification factor (screening LDL-C level).|Evolocumab - Placebo|||75.7|60.4|<0.0001
90899159|NCT01316770|181664527|OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||McNemar|||"McNemar's test on the study Day 14 shift table. The null hypothesis assumes the probability of subjects shifting from yes at Screening to no at Study Day 14 are equal to the probability of subjects shifting from no at Screening to yes at Study Day 14.~Alternative hypothesis is that probability of subjects shifting from yes at Screening to no at Study Day 14 is not equal to the probability of subjects shifting from no at Screening to yes at Study Day 14."||||0.250
90899160|NCT01316770|181664527|OTHER|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||"McNemar's test on the study Day 28 shift table. The null hypothesis assumes the probability of subjects shifting from yes at Screening to no at Study Day 28 is equal to the probability of subjects shifting their answer from no at Screening to yes at Study Day 28.~Alternative hypothesis is that probability of subjects shifting from yes at Screening to no at Study Day 28 is not equal to the probability of subjects shifting their answer from no at Screening to yes at Study Day 28."||||1.000
90899161|NCT01316770|181664527|OTHER|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||"McNemar's test on the study Day 42 shift table. The null hypothesis assumes the probability of subjects shifting from yes at Screening to no at Study Day 42 are equal to the probability of subjects shifting from no at Screening to yes at Study Day 42.~Alternative hypothesis is that probability of subjects shifting from yes at Screening to no at Study Day 42 is not equal to the probability of subjects shifting from no at Screening to yes at Study Day 42."||||1.000
90899162|NCT01316770|181664527|OTHER|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||"McNemar's test on the study Day 56 shift table. The null hypothesis assumes the probability of subjects shifting from yes at Screening to no at Study Day 56 are equal to the probability of subjects shifting from no at Screening to yes at Study Day 56.~Alternative hypothesis is that probability of subjects shifting from yes at Screening to no at Study Day 56 is not equal to the probability of subjects shifting from no at Screening to yes at Study Day 56."||||1.000
90846703|NCT01743001|181559676|SUPERIORITY||least-square (LS) mean difference|-1.4||||0.634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|4.4|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for randomized treatment group, location of cardiac defect (pre-tricupsid/post-tricupsid) as factors and baseline scores as covariates.||The null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline to Week 16 is the same in the macitentan and the placebo group for the SF-36 domain score of Social Functioning.||4.4|-7.2|0.6340
90846704|NCT01743001|181559676|SUPERIORITY||least-square (LS) mean difference|-2.8||||0.3384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|3.0|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for randomized treatment group, location of cardiac defect (pre-tricupsid/post-tricupsid) as factors and baseline scores as covariates.||The null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline to Week 16 is the same in the macitentan and the placebo group for the SF-36 domain score of Role-Emotional.||3.0|-8.7|0.3384
90899163|NCT01316770|181664528|OTHER|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||"McNemar's test on the study Day 14 shift table. The null hypothesis assumes the probability of subjects shifting from yes at Screening to no at Study Day 14 are equal to the probability of subjects shifting from no at Screening to yes at Study Day 14.~Alternative hypothesis is that probability of subjects shifting from yes at Screening to no at Study Day 14 is not equal to the probability of subjects shifting from no at Screening to yes at Study Day 14."||||1.000
90899164|NCT01316770|181664528|OTHER|||||||0.625|||||||McNemar|||"McNemar's test on the study Day 28 shift table. The null hypothesis assumes the probability of subjects shifting from yes at Screening to no at Study Day 28 is equal to the probability of subjects shifting their answer from no at Screening to yes at Study Day 28.~Alternative hypothesis is that probability of subjects shifting from yes at Screening to no at Study Day 28 is not equal to the probability of subjects shifting their answer from no at Screening to yes at Study Day 28."||||0.625
90899165|NCT01316770|181664528|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||McNemar|||"McNemar's test on the study Day 42 shift table. The null hypothesis assumes the probability of subjects shifting from yes at Screening to no at Study Day 42 are equal to the probability of subjects shifting from no at Screening to yes at Study Day 42.~Alternative hypothesis is that probability of subjects shifting from yes at Screening to no at Study Day 42 is not equal to the probability of subjects shifting from no at Screening to yes at Study Day 42."||||0.5000
90899166|NCT01316770|181664528|OTHER|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||"McNemar's test on the study Day 56 shift table. The null hypothesis assumes the probability of subjects shifting from yes at Screening to no at Study Day 56 are equal to the probability of subjects shifting from no at Screening to yes at Study Day 56.~Alternative hypothesis is that probability of subjects shifting from yes at Screening to no at Study Day 56 is not equal to the probability of subjects shifting from no at Screening to yes at Study Day 56."||||1.000
90899167|NCT00909428|181664557|SUPERIORITY||Z-Score|2.803||||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||The null hypothesis is that there is no change from baseline maximal tolerated cystometric capacity following 30 days of treatment with daily 10mg solifenacin succinate.||||.005
90899168|NCT03021668|181664558|EQUIVALENCE|Chi2 test was performed to analyze difference in rates of Surgical Site Infections (SSIs) between the two groups||||||0.003|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.003
90957382|NCT06377488|181794746|SUPERIORITY||Mean Population Estimate|67.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.79|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.2|73.5|||Mixed Model Analysis|The Satterthwaite Method was used for the calculation of the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean estimates were conducted for hyperopes using two-sided confidence intervals (CI) constructed for the least square mean.|It was calculated using a one-sided one-sample mean t-test with a family wise type I error rate of 5% with at least 99% statistical power, that 15 and 26 subjects were required to test for superiority for CLUE handling scores for hyperopes and myopes, respectively.||73.5|62.2|
91029635|NCT02739984|181943423|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Treatment Difference|83.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|77.7|87.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted by the stratification factor (screening LDL-C level).|Evolocumab - Placebo|||87.4|77.7|<0.0001
90899169|NCT03021668|181664559|EQUIVALENCE|Students' T-test was used to evaluate any difference in length of stay between the two groups.||||||0.23|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.23
90899170|NCT00116844|181664563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Nonparametric tests-Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||||<0.001
90846705|NCT01743001|181559676|SUPERIORITY||least-square (LS) mean difference|-2.3||||0.2704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|1.8|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for randomized treatment group, location of cardiac defect (pre-tricupsid/post-tricupsid) as factors and baseline scores as covariates.||The null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline to Week 16 is the same in the macitentan and the placebo group for the SF-36 domain score of Mental Health Index.||1.8|-6.4|0.2704
90846706|NCT01743001|181559676|SUPERIORITY||least-square (LS) mean difference|-0.4||||0.6431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.3|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for randomized treatment group, location of cardiac defect (pre-tricupsid/post-tricupsid) as factors and baseline scores as covariates.||The null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline to Week 16 is the same in the macitentan and the placebo group for the SF-36 domain score of Physical Functioning (norm-based).||1.3|-2.1|0.6431
90846707|NCT01743001|181559676|SUPERIORITY||least-square (LS) mean difference|-0.6||||0.5988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|1.5|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for randomized treatment group, location of cardiac defect (pre-tricupsid/post-tricupsid) as factors and baseline scores as covariates.||The null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline to Week 16 is the same in the macitentan and the placebo group for the SF-36 domain score of Role-Physical (norm-based).||1.5|-2.6|0.5988
90846708|NCT01743001|181559676|SUPERIORITY||least-square (LS) mean difference|0.1||||0.9642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|2.6|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for randomized treatment group, location of cardiac defect (pre-tricupsid/post-tricupsid) as factors and baseline scores as covariates.||The null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline to Week 16 is the same in the macitentan and the placebo group for the SF-36 domain score of Pain Index (norm-based).||2.6|-2.5|0.9642
90846709|NCT01743001|181559676|SUPERIORITY||least-square (LS) mean difference|1.5||||0.1542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|3.5|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for randomized treatment group, location of cardiac defect (pre-tricupsid/post-tricupsid) as factors and baseline scores as covariates.||The null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline to Week 16 is the same in the macitentan and the placebo group for the SF-36 domain score of General Health Perceptions (norm-based).||3.5|-0.6|0.1542
90846710|NCT01743001|181559676|SUPERIORITY||least-square (LS) mean difference|0.6||||0.602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.6|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for randomized treatment group, location of cardiac defect (pre-tricupsid/post-tricupsid) as factors and baseline scores as covariates.||The null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline to Week 16 is the same in the macitentan and the placebo group for the SF-36 domain score of Vitality (norm-based).||2.6|-1.5|0.6020
90846711|NCT01743001|181559676|SUPERIORITY||least-square (LS) mean difference|-0.6||||0.634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|1.9|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for randomized treatment group, location of cardiac defect (pre-tricupsid/post-tricupsid) as factors and baseline scores as covariates.||The null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline to Week 16 is the same in the macitentan and the placebo group for the SF-36 domain score of Social Functioning (norm-based).||1.9|-3.1|0.6340
90846712|NCT01743001|181559676|SUPERIORITY||least-square (LS) mean difference|-1.3||||0.3384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|1.4|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for randomized treatment group, location of cardiac defect (pre-tricupsid/post-tricupsid) as factors and baseline scores as covariates.||The null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline to Week 16 is the same in the macitentan and the placebo group for the SF-36 domain score of Role-Emotional (norm-based).||1.4|-4.1|0.3384
90846713|NCT01743001|181559676|SUPERIORITY||least-square (LS) mean difference|-1.3||||0.2704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|1.0|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for randomized treatment group, location of cardiac defect (pre-tricupsid/post-tricupsid) as factors and baseline scores as covariates.||The null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline to Week 16 is the same in the macitentan and the placebo group for the SF-36 domain score of Mental Health Index.||1.0|-3.6|0.2704
90899171|NCT00116844|181664564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Nonparametric tests-Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||||<0.001
90899172|NCT00116844|181664565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Prescott's method|||||||<0.001
91029636|NCT02739984|181943424|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Treatment Difference|64.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.7|70.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted by the stratification factor (screening LDL-C level).|Evolocumab - Placebo|||70.3|57.7|<0.0001
90846714|NCT01743001|181559676|SUPERIORITY||least-square (LS) mean difference|0.7||||0.4332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.3|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for randomized treatment group, location of cardiac defect (pre-tricupsid/post-tricupsid) as factors and baseline scores as covariates.||The null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline to Week 16 is the same in the macitentan and the placebo group for the Physical Component Summary Score.||2.3|-1.0|0.4332
90846715|NCT01743001|181559676|SUPERIORITY||least-square (LS) mean difference|-1.1||||0.3416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|1.2|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for randomized treatment group, location of cardiac defect (pre-tricupsid/post-tricupsid) as factors and baseline scores as covariates.||The null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline to Week 16 is the same in the macitentan and the placebo group for the Mental Component Summary Score.||1.2|-3.4|0.3416
90846716|NCT02657408|181559679|EQUIVALENCE|confirmatory statistical hypothesis tested|Geometric mean ratio (%)|1.27||||0.3043|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.86|1.87|||ANOVA|||The statistical model used for the primary analysis of primary endpoints was an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale. This model included the effect 'treatment'.||1.87|0.86|0.3043
90846717|NCT02657408|181559680|EQUIVALENCE|No statistical hypothesis tested|Geometric mean ratio (%)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.16||||||The statistical model used for the analysis was an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale. This model included the effect 'treatment'.||1.16|0.88|
90846718|NCT02657408|181559681|EQUIVALENCE|No statistical hypothesis tested|Geometric mean ratio (%)|1.54|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.59|4.03||||||The statistical model used for the primary analysis of primary endpoints was an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale. This model included the effect 'treatment'.||4.03|0.59|
90899173|NCT00116844|181664566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8||95.0|||||Nonparametric tests-Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||||0.800
90899174|NCT00116844|181664567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.229||95.0|||||Nonparametric tests-Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||||0.229
90899175|NCT00116844|181664568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0331||95.0|||||Prescott's method|||||||0.0331
90899176|NCT01933880|181664569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0387|||||||Signed Rank Sum Test|||P-value was calculated to compare the data at Baseline and change at Week 12 for the OROS-MPH group||||0.0387
90899177|NCT01933880|181664570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-value was calculated to compare the data at Baseline and change at Week 1 for the OROS-MPH group||||<0.0001
90846719|NCT02657408|181559682|EQUIVALENCE|No statistical hypothesis tested|Geometric mean ratio (%)|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.49|2.85||||||The statistical model used for the analysis was an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale. This model included the effect 'treatment'.||2.85|0.49|
90846720|NCT02657408|181559683|EQUIVALENCE|No statistical hypothesis tested|Geometric mean ratio (%)|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.83||||||The statistical model used for the primary analysis of primary endpoints was an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale. This model included the effect 'treatment'.||1.83|0.91|
90846721|NCT02657408|181559684|EQUIVALENCE|No statistical hypothesis tested|Geometric mean ratio (%)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.18||||||The statistical model used for the analysis was an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale. This model included the effect 'treatment'.||1.18|0.90|
90846722|NCT02657408|181559685|EQUIVALENCE|No statistical hypothesis tested|Geometric mean ratio (%)|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.53||||||The statistical model used for the primary analysis of primary endpoints was an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale. This model included the effect 'treatment'.||1.53|0.91|
90846723|NCT02657408|181559686|EQUIVALENCE|No statistical hypothesis tested|Geometric mean ratio (%)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|1.09||||||The statistical model used for the analysis was an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale. This model included the effect 'treatment'.||1.09|0.80|
90846724|NCT02657408|181559687|EQUIVALENCE|No statistical hypothesis tested|Geometric mean ratio (%)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.51|1.28||||||The statistical model used for the primary analysis of primary endpoints was an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale. This model included the effect 'treatment'.||1.28|0.51|
90846725|NCT02657408|181559688|EQUIVALENCE|No statistical hypothesis tested|Geometric mean ratio (%)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.43|0.97||||||The statistical model used for the analysis was an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale. This model included the effect 'treatment'.||0.97|0.43|
90846726|NCT05498701|181559704|OTHER||Ratios of Adjusted Geometric Means|93.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.1|99.7||||||Bioequivalence of the Test treatment (Tafamidis free acid 12.2 mg oral tablet \[Fasted\]) to Reference treatment (Tafamidis meglumine 20 mg oral capsule \[Fasted\]) was concluded if the 90% confidence intervals for the ratios of adjusted geometric means for tafamidis AUCinf fell entirely within the acceptance region of (80%,125%).||99.70|87.10|
91029637|NCT02739984|181943425|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|LS Mean Treatment Difference|-40.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.87|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.11|-32.9|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Placebo|||-32.90|-48.11|<0.0001
90846727|NCT05498701|181559705|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|81.0||||||90.0|76.25|86.04||||||Bioequivalence of the Test treatment (Tafamidis free acid 12.2 mg oral tablet \[Fasted\]) to Reference treatment (Tafamidis meglumine 20 mg oral capsule \[Fasted\]) was concluded if the 90% confidence intervals for the ratios of adjusted geometric means for tafamidis Cmax fell entirely within the acceptance region of (80%,125%).||86.04|76.25|
90846728|NCT00711477|181559730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|0.9||||||||0.90|0.50|
90846729|NCT00711477|181559731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.56||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|0.72|||ANCOVA|Type III sums of squares from ANCOVA model: Treatment and Baseline||||0.72|-1.83|0.380
90846730|NCT00711477|181559732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.87|2.07|||ANCOVA|Type III sums of squares from ANCOVA model: Treatment and Baseline||||2.07|-2.87|0.744
90846731|NCT00711477|181559733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.64||||0.139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.84|0.56|||ANCOVA|Type III sums of squares from ANCOVA model: Treatment and Baseline||||0.56|-3.84|0.139
90846732|NCT00711477|181559734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.36||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.96|0.24|||ANCOVA|Type III sums of squares from ANCOVA model: Treatment and Baseline||||0.24|-2.96|0.094
90846733|NCT00711477|181559735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.48||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.48|0.51|||ANCOVA|Type III sums of squares from ANCOVA model: Treatment and Baseline||||0.51|-5.48|0.102
90846734|NCT00711477|181559736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.4||||0.16||95.0|-22.7|3.89|||ANCOVA|Type III sums of squares from ANCOVA model: Treatment and Baseline||||3.89|-22.7|0.160
90846735|NCT00711477|181559737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|0.8||||||||0.80|0.40|
90846736|NCT00711477|181559738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|1.0||||||||1.00|0.50|
90846737|NCT00711477|181559739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.74|1.24||||||||1.24|0.74|
90846738|NCT00711477|181559740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|1.65||||||||1.65|0.95|
90846739|NCT00711477|181559741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.31|0.57||||||||0.57|0.31|
90846740|NCT02695420|181559744|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|22.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.3||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.6|34.7|||Repeated Measures Model|||||34.7|9.6|0.0008
90846741|NCT02695420|181559744|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|29.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.3|42.3|||Repeated measures model|||||42.3|16.3|< 0.0001
90846742|NCT02695420|181559744|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|25.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.5||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.6|38.4|||Repeated measures model|||||38.4|12.6|0.0002
90846743|NCT02762370|181559750|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0452|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0452
90846744|NCT01497366|181559786|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority would be demonstrated if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in SVR12 rates was greater than -15%.|Difference in percentages|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|8.0|||||The difference in percentages between treatment groups and the 95% CI calculated were based on stratum adjusted Mantel-Haenszel proportions.|||8.0|-7.5|
90899178|NCT01933880|181664571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-value was calculated to compare the data at Baseline and change at Week 2 for the OROS-MPH group||||0.0001
90899179|NCT01933880|181664572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-value was calculated to compare the data at Baseline and change at Week 3 for the OROS-MPH group||||<0.0001
90899180|NCT01933880|181664573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-value was calculated to compare the data at Baseline and change at Week 7 for the OROS-MPH group||||<0.0001
91094553|NCT04761822|182073059|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.075|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.039|0.124||Two-sided test using the central method of doubling the one-sided p-value.|Barnard's Exact Unconditional Test|||The null hypothesis is that the risk difference, where the difference is represented as the high allergy/mast cell disorder cohort proportion minus comparison cohort proportion, is not statistically different from 0 (i.e. there is no difference).||0.124|0.039|<0.001
91094554|NCT00362232|182073060|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|P-values were calculated based on the Mantel-Haenszel weighted estimator (one-sided).|Risk Difference (RD)|-2.71|||<|0.001||95.0|-5.25|-0.17|||Mantel Haenszel|weighted treatment differences|Mantel-Haenszel weighted difference to Enoxaparin|Null hypothesis: rivaroxaban is inferior to the comparator, ie, the incidence of the primary efficacy endpoint in the rivaroxaban group is larger by more than 4% (absolute) compared to the comparator group.||-0.17|-5.25|<0.001
90899181|NCT01933880|181664574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-value was calculated to compare the data at Baseline and change at Week 12 for the OROS-MPH group||||<0.0001
90899182|NCT00069784|181664607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.022||||0.6273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.937|1.114||For the analysis of the two coprimary efficacy outcomes, the overall Type 1 error was partitioned. The first coprimary outcome was tested at 4.4%, whereas the second coprimary outcome was tested at 1% (weighted Hochberg procedure).|Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified by double-blind treatment (omega-3 PUFA, placebo), baseline diabetes diagnosis and previous CV event.|Hazard ratio (glargine/standard care) estimated by Cox regression model with treatment (glargine, standard care) as factor, stratified by double-blind treatment (omega-3 PUFA, placebo), baseline diabetes diagnosis and previous CV event.|The total required number of first coprimary outcomes (2200) assumed that a hazard reduction of 14-16% was clinically significant and controlled the overall experiment-wise Type 1 error at 5% with a power of 80% for each outcome. The total number of participants needed to achieve this number of events within the planned enrollment and treatment periods was ultimately estimated to be 12 500 based on the CURE and HOPE study databases.||1.114|0.937|0.6273
91094555|NCT00362232|182073060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.71||||0.036||95.0|-5.25|-0.17|||Mantel Haenszel|weighted treatment differences||Null hypothesis: The incidence of the primary efficacy endpoint is equal in the rivaroxaban group and the comparator group. P-values were calculated based on the Mantel-Haenszel weighted estimator (two-sided).||-0.17|-5.25|0.036
90899183|NCT00069784|181664608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.038||||0.2692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.972|1.109||The second coprimary outcome was tested at 1% (see above additional information for the first coprimary outcome).|Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified by double-blind treatment (omega-3 PUFA, placebo), baseline diabetes diagnosis and previous CV event.|Hazard ratio (glargine/standard care) estimated by Cox regression model with treatment (glargine, standard care) as factor, stratified by double-blind treatment (omega-3 PUFA, placebo), baseline diabetes diagnosis and previous CV event.|See above additional details provided for the analysis of the first coprimary outcome.||1.109|0.972|0.2692
90899184|NCT00069784|181664609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.983|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.899|1.076|||||Hazard ratio (glargine/standard care) estimated by Cox regression model with treatment (glargine, standard care) as factor, with double-blind treatment (omega-3 PUFA, placebo), baseline diabetes diagnosis and previous CV event as covariates.|||1.076|0.899|
90899185|NCT00069784|181664610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.047|||||Hazard ratio (glargine/standard care) estimated by Cox regression model with treatment (glargine, standard care) as factor, with double-blind treatment (omega-3 PUFA, placebo), baseline diabetes diagnosis and previous CV event as covariates.|||1.047|0.900|
90899186|NCT00069784|181664611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.91|||||Odds ratio estimated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test method stratified by double-blind treatment (omega-3 PUFA or placebo) and previous cardiovascular event (yes or no).|||0.91|0.58|
90899187|NCT04466215|181664614|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.063|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.065|TWO_SIDED|||||One-tail test of directional hypothesis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effect model with directional hypothesis that drug reduces strength of craving (VAS). Principle predictor was drug plasma concentration. Arms were combined for this analysis.||||.065
90899188|NCT00926003|181664616|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||ANCOVA|||Least Square Means from Longitudinal Model, Their Standard Errors by Trial Arm Adjusted for Age, Being on ART at Intake, Socioeconomic Score, Home Score, Recruitment Location, KABC Learning and Delayed Recall Scores at Baseline, and Outcome Score at Baseline||||0.02
90899189|NCT00926003|181664617|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||ANCOVA|||Least Square Means from Longitudinal Model, Their Standard Errors by Trial Arm Adjusted for Age, Being on ARV at Intake, Socioeconomic Score, Home Score, Recruitment Location, KABC Learning and Delayed Recall Scores at Baseline, and Outcome Score at Baseline||||0.18
91094556|NCT00362232|182073061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.19||||0.012||95.0|-5.67|-0.71|||Mantel Haenszel|weighted treatment differences|Mantel-Haenszel weighted difference to Enoxaparin|Null hypothesis: The incidence of the primary efficacy endpoint is equal in the rivaroxaban group and the comparator group. P-values were calculated based on the Mantel-Haenszel weighted estimator (two-sided).||-0.71|-5.67|0.012
90899190|NCT03017235|181664626|NON_INFERIORITY|The NI margin for the difference between treatments (NaP/MC Oral Solution minus PREPOPIK) was pre-specified at -8% (absolute). If NI was demonstrated for both the primary efficacy endpoint and the secondary efficacy endpoint for the right colon, and if the lower bound of the CI was above 0%, then superiority was declared for the primary endpoint. Thus, the pre-specified superiority analysis was conducted at a one-sided significance level of 2.5%.|Difference in percentage|6.3||||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|10.9||The above p-value was calculated for superiority and was based on the stratified percentage difference test, where the stratification weight is based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel-weight.|Weighted Percentage Difference|CIs (treatment difference) were calculated using stratified (by site) percentage difference where, weights= Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights for site||Difference in the percentage of subjects on NaP/MC or PREPOPIK (NaP/MC - PREPOPIK)|Lower limit of 95% CI \> 0% for the primary efficacy endpoint combined with outcome of secondary efficacy endpoint for the right colon allowed for superiority analysis.|10.9|1.8|0.0067
90899191|NCT03017235|181664627|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower limit of the 95% CI was greater than the margin (-8%), the null hypothesis was rejected and NaP/MC Oral Solution was claimed as non-inferior to PREPOPIK with respect to right colon cleansing in preparation for colonoscopy.|Difference in percentage|4.6||||0.0099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|8.0||The p-value was calculated for superiority and was based on the stratified percentage difference test, where the stratification weight is based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel-weight.|Weighted Percentage Difference|CIs (treatment difference) were calculated using stratified (by site) percentage difference where, weights= Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights for site||Difference in the percentage of subjects on NaP/MC or PREPOPIK (NaP/MC - PREPOPIK)||8.0|1.1|0.0099
90899192|NCT03017235|181664628|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower limit of the 95% CI was greater than the margin (-8%), the null hypothesis was rejected and NaP/MC Oral Solution was claimed as non-inferior to PREPOPIK with respect to right colon cleansing in preparation for colonoscopy.|Difference in percentage|1.9||||0.1781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|4.7||The above p-value was tested for superiority and was based on the stratified percentage difference test, where the stratification weight is based on Cochran Mantel Haenszel weight.|Weighted Percentage Difference|CIs (treatment difference) were calculated using stratified (by site) percentage difference where, weights= Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights for site||Difference in percentage of subjects on NaP/MC Oral Solution or PREPOPIK® (NaP/MC - PREPOPIK)||4.7|-0.9|0.1781
90899193|NCT03017235|181664629|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower limit of the 95% CI was greater than the margin (-8%), the null hypothesis was rejected and NaP/MC Oral Solution was claimed as non-inferior to PREPOPIK with respect to colon cleansing in preparation for colonoscopy.|Difference in percentage|3.5||||0.0391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|6.7||The above p-value was for superiority and was based on the stratified percentage difference, where the stratification weight is based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weight.|Weighted Percentage Difference|CIs (treatment difference) were calculated using stratified (by site) percentage difference where, weights= Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights for site||Difference in percentage of subjects on NaP/MC Oral Solution or PREPOPIK® (NaP/MC-PREPOPIK®)||6.7|0.2|0.0391
90899194|NCT02341287|181664671|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|14.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.4||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.29|25.74||Paired t-test of control average sleep latency vs. heated glove average sleep latency as measured by actigraph.|t-test, 2 sided|||||25.74|2.29|.023
91094557|NCT00362232|182073062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.37||||0.456||95.0|-1.34|0.6|||Mantel Haenszel|weighted treatment differences|Mantel-Haenszel weighted difference to Enoxaparin|Null hypothesis: The incidence of the major VTE is equal in the rivaroxaban group and the comparator group. P-values were calculated based on the Mantel-Haenszel weighted estimator (two-sided)||0.6|-1.34|0.456
90846745|NCT02745080|181559805|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.0719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.72|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value are from a logistic regression model with treatment as a factor and baseline weight as a covariate|||1.72|0.98|0.0719
91029638|NCT02739984|181943426|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|LS Mean Treatment Difference|-32.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.57|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.58|-25.53|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Placebo|||-25.53|-39.58|<0.0001
90846746|NCT02745080|181559806|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.67|3.71|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value are from a logistic regression model with treatment as a factor and baseline weight as a covariate|||3.71|1.67|<0.0001
90846747|NCT02745080|181559807|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.2251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.55|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value are from a logistic regression model with treatment as a factor and baseline weight as a covariate|||1.55|0.90|0.2251
90846748|NCT02745080|181559808|SUPERIORITY||least squares (LS) mean change|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038||0.5465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment group, analysis visit as factors, weight/baseline score as covariates, treatment by analysis visit, baseline score by analysis visit as interation terms and unstructured covariance structure|||0.05|-0.10|0.5465
90846749|NCT02745080|181559809|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.1498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.87|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value are from a logistic regression model with treatment as a factor and baseline weight as a covariate|||1.87|0.91|0.1498
90846750|NCT01864005|181559811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0021||||||not adjusted for multiple comparisons. statistical significance level: 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0021
90846751|NCT01864005|181559811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|38.421||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.559|58.283|||ANOVA|||||58.283|18.559|0.0003
90846752|NCT01864005|181559812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0828|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0828
90846753|NCT01864005|181559813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
90846754|NCT01864005|181559814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
90846755|NCT01864005|181559815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
90846756|NCT00763698|181559821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Objective Performance Criteria|80.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|5.0||||Kaplan-Meier Survival Analysis|||The objective performance criteria established for freedom from left ventricular lead related complications at 3 months was greater than 80%. At least 80% of the patients were required to be free from left venticular lead related complications at 3 months.|||5|
90846757|NCT00763698|181559822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Objective Performance Criteria|80.0|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|2.5||||Wilson score interval method||||||2.5|
90846758|NCT02184572|181559824|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The upper limit of the 2-sided standardised asymptotic 95% Confidence Interval (CI) for the group difference (INV\_MMR minus COM\_MMR) in incidence of fever ≥ 39.0°C (≥ 102.2°F) should be equal to or below 5%.|Difference in incidence of fever|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|2.89||||||Difference between groups (INV\_MMR Group minus COM\_MMR Group) in incidence of fever \> 39.0°C.||2.89|-0.93|
90846759|NCT02184572|181559824|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The upper limit of the 2-sided standardised asymptotic 95% CI for the group difference (INV\_MMR minus COM\_MMR) in incidence of fever ≥ 38.0°C (≥ 100.4°F) should be equal to or below 10%.|Difference in incidence of fever|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.89|4.85||||||Difference between groups (INV\_MMR Group minus COM\_MMR Group) in incidence of fever \> 38.0°C.||4.85|-2.89|
90846760|NCT03679754|181559863|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Subjects in the Expansion trial did not have biopsies analyzed for cellular responses.|||
90846761|NCT01247272|181559873|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|113.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|108.03|118.96|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||118.96|108.03|
90846762|NCT01247272|181559874|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|107.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.18|113.69|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||113.69|102.18|
90846763|NCT01247272|181559875|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|106.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.09|112.12|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||112.12|102.09|
90859747|NCT00537238|181582905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean differences|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.4008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.85|||ANCOVA|||Week 16, HADS-A: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and combined center, and for post-baseline assessments baseline was included as a covariate.||0.85|-0.34|0.4008
91094558|NCT00362232|182073062|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|P-values were calculated based on the Mantel-Haenszel weighted estimator (one-sided).|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.37|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.34|0.6|||Mantel Haenszel|weighted treatment differences||Null hypothesis: rivaroxaban is inferior to the comparator, ie, the incidence of the major VTE in the rivaroxaban group is larger by more than 1.5% (absolute) compared to the comparator group.||0.6|-1.34|<0.001
90846764|NCT01247272|181559876|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|103.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.54|107.76|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||107.76|99.54|
90846765|NCT01247272|181559877|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|105.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.66|110.12|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||110.12|101.66|
91029639|NCT02739984|181943427|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|LS Mean Treatment Difference|-19.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.41|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.95|-12.54|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Placebo|||-12.54|-25.95|<0.0001
91029640|NCT02739984|181943428|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|LS Mean Treatment Difference|-13.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.02|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.6|-5.8|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Placebo|||-5.80|-21.60|<0.0001
91029641|NCT02739984|181943429|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|LS Mean Treatment Difference|9.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.95|12.64|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Placebo|||12.64|6.95|<0.0001
91029642|NCT02739984|181943430|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|LS Mean Treatment Difference|7.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.62|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.19|10.56|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Placebo|||10.56|4.19|<0.0001
91029643|NCT02739984|181943431|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|LS Mean Treatment Difference|-17.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.98|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.91|-11.21|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Placebo|||-11.21|-22.91|<0.0001
91029644|NCT02739984|181943432|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|LS Mean Treatment Difference|-13.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.44|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.09|-6.56|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Placebo|||-6.56|-20.09|<0.0001
90899195|NCT02341287|181664672|SUPERIORITY|Paired t-test of control average sleep latency vs. heated glove average sleep latency as measured by sleep log.|Mean Difference (Net)|13.51|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.91|<|0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.29|23.73|||t-test, 2 sided|||||23.73|3.29|<0.014
91029645|NCT01048333|181943437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.09||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|3.35|||Regression, Cox|||||3.35|1.31|0.002
91029646|NCT01048333|181943437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|6.534||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.55|12.02|||Regression, Cox|||||12.02|3.55|0.001
91029647|NCT01048333|181943437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.127||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|5.52|||Regression, Cox|||||5.52|1.77|0.001
91029648|NCT00996736|181943448|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The pre-specified non-inferiority margin is less than 1.5 lines logMAR acuity. (Adjusted three-month visual acuity confidence bounds for the difference between the voriconazole and natamycin groups which meet or exceed 0.15 logMAR units would not permit noninferiority to be declared.) Note that this design also allows declaration of superiority (2-sided alpha of 0.05, corrected for an interim analysis).|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.18||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.05|||Regression, Linear|||||-0.05|-0.30|0.006
90899196|NCT02254408|181664673|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.33||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||||-0.02|-0.64|0.040
90899197|NCT02254408|181664674|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.18|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.18|0.22|0.11
90899198|NCT02254408|181664674|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.15
90899199|NCT02254408|181664675|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|3.63|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.63|0.28|0.98
90899200|NCT02254408|181664675|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
91029649|NCT00770315|181943525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.76||||0.2192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|0.45|||ANOVA||ANOVA model with baseline asthmatic condition, pollen region and treatment group as fixed effects|||0.45|-1.98|0.2192
91094559|NCT00362232|182073063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.8||||0.124||95.0|-1.82|0.22|||Mantel Haenszel|weighted treatment differences|Mantel-Haenszel weighted difference to Enoxaparin|Null hypothesis: The incidence of the major VTE is equal in the rivaroxaban group and the comparator group. P-values were calculated based on the Mantel-Haenszel weighted estimator (two-sided)||0.22|-1.82|0.124
91029650|NCT00770315|181943525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.58||||0.0113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-0.36|||ANOVA||ANOVA model with baseline asthmatic condition, pollen region and treatment group as fixed effects|||-0.36|-2.80|0.0113
90846766|NCT01247272|181559878|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|105.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.27|110.61|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||110.61|101.27|
90846767|NCT00865280|181559907|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 10% was used for the analysis.|treatment difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|8.5|||||The 95% confidence interval (CI) was based on a normal approximation to the binomial distribution with continuity correction. Treatment difference for a response of clinical success was calculated as omadacycline minus linezolid.|||8.5|-12.4|
90846768|NCT00865280|181559908|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 10% was used for the analysis.|treatment difference|-3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5|8.3|||||The 95% CI was based on a normal approximation to the binomial distribution with continuity correction. Treatment difference for a response of clinical success was calculated as omadacycline minus linezolid.|||8.3|-15.5|
90846769|NCT00865280|181559909|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 10% was used for the analysis.|treatment difference|7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|26.6|||||The 95% CI was based on a normal approximation to the binomial distribution with continuity correction. Treatment difference for a response of clinical success was calculated as omadacycline minus linezolid.|||26.6|-11.2|
90846770|NCT00865280|181559910|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 10% was used for the analysis.|treatment difference|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|7.6|||||The 95% CI was based on a normal approximation to the binomial distribution with continuity correction. Treatment difference for a response of clinical success was calculated as omadacycline minus linezolid.|||7.6|-8.3|
90846771|NCT00865280|181559911|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 10% was used for the analysis.|treatment difference|7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|26.6|||||The 95% CI was based on a normal approximation to the binomial distribution with continuity correction. Treatment difference for a response of clinical success was calculated as omadacycline minus linezolid.|||26.6|-11.2|
90846772|NCT00865280|181559912|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 10% was used for the analysis.|treatment difference|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|7.6|||||The 95% CI was based on a normal approximation to the binomial distribution with continuity correction. Treatment difference for a response of clinical success was calculated as omadacycline minus linezolid.|||7.6|-8.3|
90846773|NCT00329797|181559914|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Log Rank|||The study is designed to show a 40% relative reduction in the yearly ABF hazard rate, equivalent to an improvement in a 3-year FABF rate from 88% to 92.6%. A sample size of 1030 analyzable patients with a one-sided log-rank test at α = 0.05, was calculated to provide 80% statistical power, with one interim analysis and a final analysis for efficacy using Haybittle-Peto boundaries.||||0.95
90899201|NCT00917267|181664676|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Superiority of exenatide once weekly to exenatide twice daily concluded if upper limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for treatment difference is \<0; noninferiority concluded if upper limit is \<0.4%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|-0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model includes treatment, baseline HbA1c, country, background OAD, week of visit, and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects; and patient and error as random effects. Power: 306 patients per treatment group provides approximately 98% power to detect a true difference between treatments of 0.4% in change in HbA1c from baseline with a 2-sided t test at a significance level of 0.05, assuming a common standard deviation of 1.2%.||-0.14|-0.49|<.001
90846774|NCT00329797|181559915|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||significance level = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Lumbar||||<0.0001
90899202|NCT00917267|181664677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage of patients achieving HbA1c target \<=7% at Week 26 were compared between treatments using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, in which country and background OAD served as the stratification factors.||||0.003
90899203|NCT00917267|181664678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage of patients achieving HbA1c target \<=6.5% at Week 26 were compared between treatments using a CMH test, in which country and background OAD served as the stratification factors.||||<.001
90899204|NCT00917267|181664679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-16.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.97|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.5|-10.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM ANCOVA model includes treatment, baseline FSG, country, background OAD, week of visit, and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects; and patient and error as random effects.||-10.83|-22.50|<.001
90846775|NCT00329797|181559915|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47||||||significance level = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Hip - right||||0.47
90846776|NCT00329797|181559915|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002||||||significance level = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Hip - left||||0.0002
90846777|NCT00329797|181559915|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.076||||||significance level = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Femoral - right||||0.076
90846778|NCT00329797|181559915|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0007||||||significance level = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Femoral - left||||0.0007
90846779|NCT00329797|181559916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33||||||significance level = 0.01|t-test, 2 sided|||Physical subscale||||0.33
90846780|NCT00329797|181559916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82||||||significance level = 0.01|t-test, 2 sided|||Social subscale||||0.82
90846781|NCT00329797|181559916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51||||||significance level = 0.01|t-test, 2 sided|||Emotional subscale||||0.51
90846782|NCT00329797|181559916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25||||||significance level = 0.01|t-test, 2 sided|||Functional subscale||||0.25
90846783|NCT00329797|181559916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63||||||significance level = 0.01|t-test, 2 sided|||Total||||0.63
90846784|NCT01901250|181559924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Permutation test|Adjusted for child's gender, caries burden at study entry, surface-years at risk, and study cohort.||||||0.25
90846785|NCT01400880|181559972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.98|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.28|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|4.27||||||All subjects were monitored with the electrode sensor, TOCO and IUPC. Measurements were taken with the electrode sensor vs. IUPC and were also taken with TOCO vs. IUPC and those measurements were compared to each other. These results are for TOCO and IUPC. Agreement between TOCO and IUPC. Null hypothesis: the mean peak difference between TOCO and IUPC is equal to 0. Alternative hypothesis: the mean peak difference is not equal to 0.||4.27|1.70|
91094560|NCT00362232|182073063|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|P-values were calculated based on the Mantel-Haenszel weighted estimator (one-sided).|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.8|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.82|0.22|||Mantel Haenszel|weighted treatment differences||Null hypothesis: rivaroxaban is inferior to the comparator, ie, the incidence of the major VTE in the rivaroxaban group is larger by more than 1.5% (absolute) compared to the comparator group.||0.22|-1.82|<0.001
91094561|NCT00362232|182073064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.44||||||95.0|-1.59|0.66|||||Mantel-Haenszel weighted difference to Enoxaparin|||0.66|-1.59|
90846786|NCT01400880|181559972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.95|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.65|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.98|4.92||||||All subjects were monitored with the electrode sensor, TOCO and IUPC. Measurements were taken with the electrode sensor vs. IUPC and were also taken with TOCO vs. IUPC and those measurements were compared to each other. These results are for the electrode sensor and IUPC. Agreement between electrode sensor and IUPC. Null hypothesis: the mean peak difference between TOCO and IUPC is equal to 0. Alternative hypothesis: the mean peak difference is not equal to 0.||4.92|2.98|
90846787|NCT02448641|181559975|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.6743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|5.09||GLMM: Generalized Linear Mixed Model|Mixed Models Analysis|A GLMM with FMMS responder as outcome, treatment, visit, treatment-visit interaction, pooled site, Baseline FMMS and Baseline mRS scores as covariates||Combined SB623 Implant Vs Sham Surgery group at Month 6||5.09|0.35|0.6743
91029651|NCT00770315|181943525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.04||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-0.79|||ANOVA||ANOVA model with baseline asthmatic condition, pollen region and treatment group as fixed effects|||-0.79|-3.30|0.0015
91094562|NCT00362232|182073065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.72||||||95.0|-1.81|0.36|||||Mantel-Haenszel weighted difference to Enoxaparin|||0.36|-1.81|
91094563|NCT00362232|182073066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.38||||||95.0|-4.84|0.07|||||Mantel-Haenszel weighted difference to Enoxaparin|||0.07|-4.84|
91094564|NCT00362232|182073067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.67||||||95.0|-5.02|-0.32|||||Mantel-Haenszel weighted difference to Enoxaparin|||-0.32|-5.02|
91094565|NCT00362232|182073068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.24||||||95.0|-0.22|0.71|||||Mantel-Haenszel weighted difference to Enoxaparin|||0.71|-0.22|
91094566|NCT00362232|182073069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.11||||||95.0|-0.35|0.56||||||||0.56|-0.35|
91094567|NCT00362232|182073070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.3||||||95.0|-1.56|0.94|||||Exact methods for difference to Enoxaparin|||0.94|-1.56|
91094568|NCT00362232|182073071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.47||||0.054||95.0|-4.99|0.04|||Mantel Haenszel|weighted treatment differences|Mantel-Haenszel weighted difference to Enoxaparin|Null hypothesis: The incidence rate is equal in the rivaroxaban group and the comparator group. P-values were calculated based on the Mantel-Haenszel weighted estimator (two-sided)||0.04|-4.99|0.054
91094569|NCT00362232|182073071|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|P-values were calculated based on the Mantel-Haenszel weighted estimator (one-sided).|Risk Difference (RD)|-2.47|||<|0.001||95.0|-4.49|0.04|||Mantel Haenszel|weighted treatment differences||Null hypothesis: rivaroxaban is inferior to the comparator, ie, the incidence rate in the rivaroxaban group is larger by more than 4% (absolute) compared to the comparator group.||0.04|-4.49|<0.001
91094570|NCT00362232|182073072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.97||||0.017||95.0|-5.42|-0.53|||Mantel Haenszel|weighted treatment differences|Mantel-Haenszel weighted difference to Enoxaparin|Null hypothesis: The incidence rate is equal in the rivaroxaban group and the comparator group. P-values were calculated based on the Mantel-Haenszel weighted estimator (two-sided)||-0.53|-5.42|0.017
91094571|NCT00362232|182073072|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|P-values were calculated based on the Mantel-Haenszel weighted estimator (one-sided).|Risk Difference (RD)|-2.97|||<|0.001||95.0|-5.42|-0.53|||Mantel Haenszel|weighted treatment differences||Null hypothesis: rivaroxaban is inferior to the comparator, ie, the incidence rate in the rivaroxaban group is larger by more than 4% (absolute) compared to the comparator group.||-0.53|-5.42|<0.001
91094572|NCT00362232|182073073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.57||||0.27||95.0|-1.57|0.44|||Mantel Haenszel|weighted treatment differences|Mantel-Haenszel weighted difference to Enoxaparin|Null hypothesis: The incidence rate is equal in the rivaroxaban group and the comparator group. P-values were calculated based on the Mantel-Haenszel weighted estimator (two-sided)||0.44|-1.57|0.270
91094573|NCT00362232|182073073|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|P-values were calculated based on the Mantel-Haenszel weighted estimator (one-sided).|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.57|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.57|0.44|||Mantel Haenszel|weighted treatment differences||Null hypothesis: rivaroxaban is inferior to the comparator, ie, the incidence rate in the rivaroxaban group is larger by more than 1.5% (absolute) compared to the comparator group.||0.44|-1.57|<0.001
90846788|NCT02448641|181559976|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.43||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.18||GLMM: Generalized Linear Mixed Model|Mixed Models Analysis|A GLMM with mRS responder as outcome, treatment, visit, treatment-visit interaction, pooled site and Baseline mRS scores as covariates||Combined SB623 Implant Vs Sham Surgery group at Month 6||1.18|0.15|0.1000
90846789|NCT02448641|181559979|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.36||||0.7788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|2.17||Combined SB623 vs. Sham at month 6 MMRM: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM included treatment, visit, pooled site, corresponding Baseline sub-domain T-score, Baseline mRS score, and the treatment-by-visit interaction|LSMD (Least square mean difference) (SE): -0.36 (1.283)|Statistical analysis: NeuroQOL score for the Upper Extremity Function (Represents Mean Change from Baseline in T-Scores at Month 6)||2.17|-2.90|0.7788
90846790|NCT02448641|181559979|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.58||||0.5347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|2.43||Combined SB623 vs. Sham at month 6 MMRM: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM included treatment, visit, pooled site, corresponding Baseline sub-domain T-score, Baseline mRS score, and the treatment-by-visit interaction|LSMD (Least square mean difference) (SE): 0.58 (0.934)|Statistical Analysis: NeuroQOL score for Lower Extremity Function (Represents Mean Change from Baseline in T-Scores at Month 6)||2.43|-1.26|0.5347
90846791|NCT02448641|181559981|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.2||||0.2959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|3.6||MMRM: Mixed effect Model Repeat Measurement|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM included treatment, visit, pooled site, corresponding Baseline sub-domain T-score, Baseline mRS score, and the treatment-by-visit interaction|LSMD (Least square mean difference) (SE): 1.2 (1.18)|"Change from Baseline at Month 6~Between-group Effect size is calculated as the LS mean difference divided by the model estimate of the pooled SD, obtained from the square root of the diagonal element, associated with the analysis visit summarized, from the covariance matrix."||3.6|-1.1|0.2959
90846792|NCT02448641|181559982|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.6854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|5.92||GLMM: Generalized Linear Mixed Model|Mixed Models Analysis|A GLMM with FMMS responder as outcome, treatment, visit, treatment-visit interaction, pooled site, Baseline FMMS and Baseline mRS scores as covariates||Combined SB623 Implant Vs Sham Surgery group at Month 6||5.92|0.31|0.6854
91094574|NCT00362232|182073074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.98||||0.074||95.0|-2.06|0.1|||Mantel Haenszel|weighted treatment differences|Mantel-Haenszel weighted difference to Enoxaparin|Null hypothesis: The incidence rate is equal in the rivaroxaban group and the comparator group. P-values were calculated based on the Mantel-Haenszel weighted estimator (two-sided)||0.10|-2.06|0.074
91094575|NCT00362232|182073074|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|P-values were calculated based on the Mantel-Haenszel weighted estimator (one-sided) .|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.98|||<|0.001||95.0|-2.06|0.1|||Mantel Haenszel|weighted treatment differences||Null hypothesis: rivaroxaban is inferior to the comparator, ie, the incidence rate in the rivaroxaban group is larger by more than 1.5% (absolute) compared to the comparator group.||0.10|-2.06|<0.001
91094576|NCT00362232|182073075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.39||||0.11||95.0|-0.09|0.88|||Mantel Haenszel|weighted treatment differences|Mantel-Haenszel weighted difference to Enoxaparin|Null hypothesis: The incidence rate is equal in the rivaroxaban group and the comparator group. P-values were calculated based on the Mantel-Haenszel weighted estimator (two-sided)||0.88|-0.09|0.110
91094577|NCT00300053|182073109|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||ANCOVA|||Frequency of angina episodes per week 6 months after treatment.||||0.020
91094578|NCT00300053|182073109|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035|||||||ANCOVA|||Frequency of angina episodes per week 12 months after treatment.||||0.035
91094579|NCT00300053|182073109|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.167|||||||ANCOVA|||Frequency of angina episodes per week 6 months after treatment.||||0.167
91094580|NCT00300053|182073109|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.181|||||||ANCOVA|||Frequency of angina episodes per week 12 months after treatment.||||0.181
91094581|NCT00300053|182073110|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline to 6 months||||0.014
91094582|NCT00300053|182073110|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline to 12 months||||0.017
91094583|NCT00300053|182073110|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.097|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline to 6 months||||0.097
90846793|NCT04530136|181559999|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0346|||||||Wilcoxon rank test|||||||0.0346
90846794|NCT04530136|181560000|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4441|||||||WHO Ordinal Scale|||||||0.4441
90846795|NCT04530136|181560001|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1021|||||||WHO Ordinal Scale for Clin Improvement|||||||0.1021
90846796|NCT04530136|181560002|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1615|||||||WHO Ordinal Scale|||||||0.1615
90846797|NCT02692391|181560006|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.87
90846798|NCT02692391|181560007|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.48
90846799|NCT02692391|181560008|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.71
90846800|NCT02692391|181560009|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
91029652|NCT00770315|181943526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.88||||0.0878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|0.13|||ANOVA||ANOVA model with baseline asthmatic condition, pollen region and treatment group as fixed effects|||0.13|-1.88|0.0878
90846801|NCT01980485|181560012|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This study had 87% power to detect a 40% increase in 28-dayabstinence rates (i.e., from 50% to 70%) based on a two-tailed chi-squared test and alpha = 0.05. We selected this effect size as being at the lower end of the effect size continuum that would be clinically meaningful at 28 days and have the potential to still be meaningful in the longer term even with similar relapse rates in both groups over subsequent months.||||||0.65|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.65
90846802|NCT02633020|181560015|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.7||0.7451|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-30.26|20.56|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline % aberrant IELs vs total IELs as a covariate and treatment group as a fixed effect.||||20.56|-30.26|0.7451
90846803|NCT02633020|181560016|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-38.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|27.48||0.1803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-95.73|19.29|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with baseline % aberrant IELs vs intestinal epithelial cells as a covariate and treatment group as a fixed effect.||||19.29|-95.73|0.1803
90846804|NCT02633020|181560017|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|10.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|24.0||0.6607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.97|60.31|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with baseline VH:CD ratio as a covariate and treatment group as a fixed effect.||||60.31|-38.97|0.6607
90846805|NCT02633020|181560018|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.9204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|6.01|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.01|0.20|0.9204
90846806|NCT02633020|181560019|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-12.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|31.34||0.6885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.57|52.12|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA) model with baseline total IEL counts as a covariate and treatment group as a fixed effect.||||52.12|-77.57|0.6885
90846807|NCT02633020|181560020|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of LS Means|1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.4469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.8|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|Generalized linear mixed model with subject as a random effect and treatment group, time (week) and their interaction as fixed effects.||||1.8|0.77|0.4469
90846808|NCT02633020|181560022|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.4832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.26|||Linear mixed effects repeated measures|Linear mixed effects repeated measures model with baseline value, treatment group, time point and time point-by-treatment group as fixed effects.||||0.26|-0.53|0.4832
90846809|NCT02633020|181560023|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.5561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.35|||Linear mixed effects repeated measures|Linear mixed effects repeated measures model with baseline value, treatment group, time point and a time point-by-treatment group as fixed effects.||||0.35|-0.64|0.5561
90846810|NCT05661851|181560049|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of -20 was used.|Least-square Mean Difference|5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.79|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|13.38|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger Method was used for the denominator degrees of freedom.|LS Mean difference was calculated as Test minus Control.|A sample size of 104 subjects provides at least 90% statistical power to test non-inferiority of the Test eyedrop compared to the Control eyedrop using a two sample t-test with a two-sided type I error rate of 0.05.||13.38|-1.67|
90846811|NCT05661851|181560050|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of -20 was used.|Mean Population Difference Estimate|5.843|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.456|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8904|14.5768|||Bootstrapping methods||Bootstrap Mean Difference was calculated as Test minus Control|A sample size of 104 subjects provides at least 90% statistical power to test non-inferiority of the Test eyedrop compared to the Control eyedrop using a two sample t-test with a two-sided type I error rate of 0.05.||14.5768|-2.8904|
90846812|NCT01014910|181560051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Based on a previously-identified mean LOS of 65.3 hours, we estimated we would need to enroll 80 patients in each study arm to provide adequate sample size to detect a difference in mean LOS of 18 hours with 80% power and alpha=0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Sample size calculations were performed using Power and Sample Size Calculator, version 3.0 (by developers William D. Dupont and Walton D. Plummer Jr)||Differences in LOS were compared between study arms using the Mann-Whitney U-test and the Kaplan-Meier method. Statistical analyses were performed using Stata version 13.1 for Windows (StataCorp). All patients enrolled in the study, including those who subsequently had consent for the intervention withdrawn, were included for analysis (intention to treat).||||<0.05
90846813|NCT01014910|181560052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||The proportion of patients transferred to the intensive care unit in each study arm was compared between study arms using the Pearson χ2 test. All patients enrolled in the study, including those who subsequently had consent for the intervention withdrawn, were included for analysis (intention to treat).||||0.05
90846814|NCT01136785|181560066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||two-sided t test for the change from baseline between the treated and untreated groups.||||0.01
90846815|NCT01136785|181560067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011|||||||2-sided Paired t-test|||comparing pre and post Interstitial Glucose levels in the active CPAP group||||0.011
90846816|NCT01136785|181560068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.071|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.071
90846817|NCT01136785|181560069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.754|||||||two-sided paired t-test|||Plasma cortisol pre and post 1-week of active CPAP||||0.754
90846818|NCT01136785|181560070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.308|||||||two-sided paired t-test|||comparing pre and post levels in the active CPAP group||||0.308
90846819|NCT01136785|181560071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036|||||||two-sided paired t-test|||comparing pre and post levels in the active CPAP group||||0.036
91029653|NCT00770315|181943526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.28||||0.0125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|-0.28|||ANOVA||ANOVA model with baseline asthmatic condition, pollen region and treatment group as fixed effects|||-0.28|-2.29|0.0125
91094584|NCT00300053|182073110|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.134|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline to 12 months||||0.134
90846820|NCT00612807|181560075|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Testing whether slope of change over time varied by identified patient status and treatment condition.|Interaction term|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.056||95.0||||Interaction indicates that slope of change varied by identified patient status and tx condition. Slope of change in depression was significantly negative for everyone but identified patients in the control condition.|Fixed effect in multi-level model|||Utilized a hierarchical linear model with time nested within individual and individual nested within couple. Given the small sample size, we chose to include participants' baseline depression scores as a covariate, and model the trajectory of change in depression scores beginning with the second assessment, which occurred one month into the study. Additional fixed effect predictors included status as identified patient or spouse, treatment condition, time, and all possible interactions.||||0.056
90846821|NCT00612807|181560076|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Testing whether slope of change over time varied by identified patient status and treatment condition.|Interaction term|0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.32||95.0|||||Fixed effect in multi-level model|||Utilized a hierarchical linear model with time nested within individual and individual nested within couple. Given the small sample size, we chose to include participants' baseline depression scores as a covariate, and model the trajectory of change in depression scores beginning with the second assessment, which occurred one month into the study. Additional fixed effect predictors included status as identified patient or spouse, treatment condition, time, and all possible interactions.||||0.32
90846822|NCT00612807|181560076|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Testing whether means at each timepoint varied by identified patient status and treatment condition.|Interaction term|-12.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.52||0.005||95.0||||We probed this interaction and discovered that at each assessment, spouses in the couple therapy + medication treatment group reported greater dyadic adjustment than did spouses in the medication alone condition (b = 10.53, z = 2.72, p = 0.006).|Fixed effect in multi-level model|||Utilized a hierarchical linear model with time nested within individual and individual nested within couple. Given the small sample size, we chose to include participants' baseline depression scores as a covariate, and model the trajectory of change in depression scores beginning with the second assessment, which occurred one month into the study. Additional fixed effect predictors included status as identified patient or spouse, treatment condition, time, and all possible interactions.||||0.005
90846823|NCT00800254|181560082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90846824|NCT00800254|181560084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.003
90846825|NCT00744042|181560090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|||||Testing whether median change in rickets severity from Baseline to Week 24, measured by RGI-C at Week 24, is from zero.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|The last post-baseline observation carry forward method is used; patients with no post-baseline assessments were imputed as having no change.||One treatment group||||0.0039
90846826|NCT02654769|181560095|EQUIVALENCE|Difference (Generic- Picato)|90% Wald's confidence interval|-1.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.37|8.63|||Fisher Exact|||||8.63|-12.37|<0.0001
90899205|NCT00917267|181664680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM ANCOVA model includes treatment, baseline BW, country, background OAD, week of visit, and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects; and patient and error as random effects.||1.25|0.39|<.001
90846827|NCT02654769|181560096|EQUIVALENCE|Difference (Generic - Picato)|90% Wald's confidence interval|-2.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.14|7.86|||Fisher Exact|||Partial Clearance at Week 8||7.86|-13.14|<0.0001
90846828|NCT02055118|181560097|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.12||0.5669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|13.3|||Mixed model repeated measures|||The Mixed model repeated measures included fixed categorical effects for treatment, visit week, treatment by visit week interaction, baseline GCA classification factor (less than or equal to \[\<=\] 70 or \>70), baseline age group (\<6 years or \>=6 years), treatment by baseline GCA classification factor interaction, treatment by baseline age group interaction, interaction between baseline GCA classification factor and baseline age group, genotype, and the baseline GCA score as a continuous covariate.||13.3|-7.3|0.5669
90846829|NCT03818035|181560165|NON_INFERIORITY|One-sided two-group normal approximation Wald Z-test with Mantel-Haenszel stratum weights for 'disease duration' to test for non-inferiority of 100 mg q16w to 100 mg q8w with non-inferiority margin of 10%. Stratified analysis results are reported.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.6||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.7|4.5|||Wald Z-test|||||4.5|-5.7|0.0013
90846830|NCT01043939|181560189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of least square means|-0.16||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.11||24 participants required to achieve 80% power to detect mean difference of 0.3 in RH-PAT index score between juice groups, assuming standard deviation of the difference was 0.25, using a two-sided significance level of 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects ANCOVA model with baseline included as a covariate, subject as a random effect; juice, period \& group as fixed effects.|The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|||0.11|-0.42|0.25
90846831|NCT01043939|181560190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of least square means|3.09||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.73|8.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects ANCOVA model with baseline included as a covariate, subject as a random effect; juice, period \& group as fixed effects.||||8.91|-2.73|0.29
90899206|NCT00917267|181664681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.56||0.609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.33|3.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM ANCOVA model includes treatment, baseline TC, country, background OAD, week of visit, and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects; and patient and error as random effects.||3.71|-6.33|0.609
90899207|NCT00917267|181664682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|1.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM ANCOVA model includes treatment, baseline HDL, country, background OAD, week of visit, and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects; and patient and error as random effects.||1.38|-0.65|0.476
91094585|NCT02385318|182073115|EQUIVALENCE|85% power of success|Equivalence ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.38|14.44|||Yates correction|||||14.44|-4.38|
90899208|NCT00917267|181664683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometic Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||TG data were logarithm-transformed and the change at Week 26 to baseline, expressed as the ratio, was analyzed using a MMRM ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline TG, country, background OAD, week of visit, and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects; and patient and error as random effects.||1.06|0.93|0.807
91094586|NCT01126424|182073131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-20.986||||0.3771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.58|26.607|||ANCOVA|The analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model with fixed effect for treatment, period, subjects as a random effect and baseline as a covariate.||"Comparison of solifenacin versus placebo change from Baseline at 6 hours~The null hypothesis was that the mean change from baseline was the same in both treatments."||26.607|-68.580|0.3771
90846832|NCT01043939|181560191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of means|0.92||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects ANCOVA model with baseline included as a covariate, subject as a random effect; juice, period \& group as fixed effects.|MPO was log transformed prior to analyses; the difference of log-transformed least square means (95% CI) were back-transformed to obtain the ratio of the means (95% CI).|||1.03|0.82|0.15
90846833|NCT01043939|181560192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of means|1.34||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|2.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects ANCOVA model with baseline included as a covariate, subject as a random effect; juice, period \& group as fixed effects.|hs-CRP was log transformed prior to analyses; the difference of log-transformed least square means (95% CI) were back-transformed to obtain the ratio of the means (95% CI).|||2.62|0.69|0.37
90899209|NCT00708526|181664686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|A Bonferroni correction was used.||We compared times for discharge criteria after general anesthesia with and without the QED.||||>0.05
90899210|NCT00708526|181664687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.039||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The effect of the use of hypercapnia and increased ventilation on the time to recovery events was compared using multivariate analysis of variance with the Hotelling's two sample T2.-test and the two-tailed unpaired t-test; individual comparisons were by Bonferroni adjusted two tailed unpaired t-tests. The data was tested for normality before identifying statistical significance.||||0.039
90899211|NCT00423293|181664704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||One-sided p-value comparing to a rate of 78% (the historical rate was updated after the study design).|Chi-squared|||The RT+ 5-FU + Mitomycin-C arm on previous Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) study 9811 \[NCT00003596\] had a 77% rate of \>= grade 2 GI and GU adverse events. The null hypothesis for this study design was a 15% reduction for that rate. Fifty-four evaluable patients provides 80% power to detect a 15% reduction, using a one-sided chi-squared test with a type I error rate of 0.05. (With 52 patients, the power is reduced to 78%.)||||0.50
90957383|NCT06377488|181794746|SUPERIORITY||Mean Population Estimate|67.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.32|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.2|71.8|||Mixed Model Analysis|The Satterthwaite Method was used for the calculation of the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean estimates were conducted for myopes using two-sided confidence intervals (CI) constructed for the least square mean.|It was calculated using a one-sided one-sample mean t-test with a family wise type I error rate of 5% with at least 99% statistical power, that 15 and 26 subjects were required to test for superiority for CLUE handling scores for hyperopes and myopes, respectively.||71.8|62.2|
91094587|NCT01126424|182073131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|17.508||||0.4487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.854|63.87|||ANCOVA|The analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model with fixed effect for treatment, period, subjects as a random effect and baseline as a covariate.||"Comparison of oxybutynin versus placebo change from Baseline at 2 hours~The null hypothesis was that the mean change from baseline was the same in both treatments."||63.870|-28.854|0.4487
90846834|NCT00281658|181560202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.94||Stratified Log-Rank (one-sided)|Log Rank||The treatment hazard ratio based on the proportional hazard model stratifying for metastatic disease sites and hormonal status. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with Lapatinib 1500mg + Paclitaxel compared with Placebo + Paclitaxel.|Primary OS analysis cut-off date = 18-Jun-2010||0.94|0.58|0.0062
90846835|NCT00281658|181560203|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.98|||||The treatment hazard ratio based on the proportional hazard model stratifying for metastatic disease sites and hormonal status. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with Lapatinib 1500mg + Paclitaxel compared with Placebo + Paclitaxel.|Final OS analysis cut-0ff date = 23-Nov-2021||0.98|0.64|
90846836|NCT00281658|181560204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.66|||||The Pike estimator of the treatment hazard ratio based on the log rank test stratifying for metastatic disease sites and hormonal status. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with Lapatinib 1500mg + Paclitaxel compared with Placebo + Paclitaxel.|||0.66|0.44|
90899212|NCT00423293|181664706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Chi-squared|One-sided significance level = 0.05||Percentage of patients with GI grade 2+ adverse events were compared to the historical rate of 73%. Null hypothesis: same or greater than historical rate. Alternative hypothesis: less than historical rate.||||0.5
90899213|NCT00423293|181664706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||Chi-squared|One-sided significance level = 0.05||Percentage of patients with GU grade 2+ adverse events were compared to the historical rate of 20%. Null hypothesis: same or greater than historical rate. Alternative hypothesis: less than historical rate.||||0.18
90899214|NCT00423293|181664706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.032|||||||Chi-squared|One-sided significance level = 0.05||Percentage of patients with hematologic grade 2+ adverse events were compared to the historical rate of 85%. Null hypothesis: same or greater than historical rate. Alternative hypothesis: less than historical rate.||||0.032
90899215|NCT00423293|181664706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Chi-squared|One-sided significance level = 0.05||Percentage of patients with skin grade 2+ adverse events were compared to the historical rate of 83%. Null hypothesis: same or greater than historical rate. Alternative hypothesis: less than historical rate.||||0.10
90899216|NCT00423293|181664706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Chi-squared|One-sided significance level = 0.05||Percentage of patients with any grade 2+ adverse events were compared to the historical rate of 98%. Null hypothesis: same or greater than historical rate. Alternative hypothesis: less than historical rate.||||0.12
91094588|NCT01126424|182073132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|9.152||||0.0505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.023|18.326|||ANCOVA|The analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model with fixed effect for treatment, period, subjects as a random effect and baseline as a covariate.||"Comparison of solifenacin versus placebo change from Baseline at 6 hours~The null hypothesis was that the mean change from baseline was the same in both treatments."||18.326|-0.023|0.0505
90846837|NCT00281658|181560205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|3.47||||||||3.47|1.54|
90846838|NCT00281658|181560206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|3.58||||||||3.58|1.54|
90846839|NCT00281658|181560211|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|7.57||||||Participants with PIK3CA wild-type||7.57|1.07|
90846840|NCT00281658|181560212|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|4.63||||||Participants with PTEN low||4.63|1.28|
90846841|NCT00281658|181560212|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|4.82||||||Participants without PTEN low||4.82|1.04|
90846842|NCT00281658|181560214|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|6.49||||||Participants with PTEN low||6.49|1.58|
90846843|NCT00281658|181560214|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|5.66||||||Participants without PTEN low||5.66|1.13|
90846844|NCT01248104|181560219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Continuous variables were compared by multivariate linear regression analysis to adjust for possible covariates of intraoperative fluids, age, bypass time, and procedure time. Tukey-Kramer test was then used to compare for specific differences between groups for each variable. Categorical data were compared using Fisher's exact test. All comparisons were made at a significance level of 0.05, and analysis was performed with Minitab version 17).||||||0.35||||||The primary outcome measure showed that there was no difference in PRBC transfusion frequency or amounts in the operating room or the in ICU up to POD 2|ANOVA|||A power analysis based on the comparison of a 15% difference in total transfusion amounts up to POD 2 between the treatment groups indicated a total sample size of 80 with a power of 0.8, confidence interval 0.9, and p= 0.05.||||0.35
90846845|NCT01410357|181560232|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.785||||||Bonferroni corrections were conducted to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.785
90899217|NCT00423293|181664706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||Chi-squared|One-sided significance level = 0.05||Percentage of patients with any grade 3+ adverse events were compared to the historical rate of 87%. Null hypothesis: same or greater than historical rate. Alternative hypothesis: less than historical rate.||||0.23
90899218|NCT02966002|181664720|OTHER|||||||0.96|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.96
90846846|NCT01410357|181560233|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|A Bonferroni correction was conducted to adjust for multiple comparisons.||||||.016
90846847|NCT01410357|181560234|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|A Bonferroni correction was conducted to adjust for multiple comparisons.||||||<0.001
90846848|NCT01410357|181560235|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|A Bonferroni correction was conducted to adjust for multiple comparisons.||||||.003
90846849|NCT01410357|181560236|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.086|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.086
90846850|NCT01410357|181560237|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.872|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|A Bonferroni correction was conducted to adjust for multiple comparisons.||||||.872
90846851|NCT01410357|181560238|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.662|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.662
90846852|NCT01410357|181560239|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.633|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.633
90846853|NCT01410357|181560240|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.175|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|A Bonferroni correction was conducted to adjust for multiple comparisons.||||||.175
90846854|NCT01410357|181560241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|A Bonferroni correction was conducted to adjust for multiple comparisons.||||||.680
90846855|NCT01410357|181560242|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.407|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.407
90846856|NCT01410357|181560243|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.870
90846857|NCT01410357|181560244|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.707|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.707
90846858|NCT01410357|181560245|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.838|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.838
90846859|NCT01410357|181560246|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.853|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.853
90846860|NCT01410357|181560247|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.853|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.853
90846861|NCT01410357|181560248|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.510
90846862|NCT01410357|181560249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.573|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.573
90846863|NCT01410357|181560250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.758|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.758
90846864|NCT01410357|181560251|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.156|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.156
90846865|NCT01410357|181560252|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.156|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.156
90846866|NCT01410357|181560253|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.001
90846867|NCT01410357|181560254|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.878|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.878
90846868|NCT01410357|181560255|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.014
90846869|NCT01410357|181560256|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.227|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.227
90846870|NCT01589653|181560290|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was to be considered confirmed if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI was below or equal to 0.4% or equivalently when the p-value for the one-sided test of H0: D \> 0.4% against HA: D ≤ 0.4%, was less than or equal to 2.5%, where D is the mean treatment difference (subject-driven titration minus investigator-driven titration).|Treatment difference|-0.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.08|||Regression, Linear|Analyses were adjusted for treatment, strata, country and baseline HbA1c||The null-hypothesis was tested against the alternative hypothesis of non-inferiority as given by: H0: D \> 0.4% against HA: D ≤ 0.4% where D is the mean treatment difference for change in HbA1c (subject-driven titration minus investigator-driven titration).||0.08|-0.54|<0.001
90899219|NCT02966002|181664721|OTHER|||||||0.67|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.67
90899220|NCT02966002|181664722|OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.18
90899221|NCT02966002|181664723|OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.25
91029654|NCT00770315|181943526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.92||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.95|-0.88|||ANOVA||ANOVA model with baseline asthmatic condition, pollen region and treatment group as fixed effects|||-0.88|-2.95|0.0003
90899222|NCT01200030|181664745|OTHER|The effect size of the intervention was adopted from a mate-analysis . The showed an average effect size of 0.59 in improving the motor control of limbs in people with stroke. A sample size for each group was set at 11 . Presuming that there would be a drop-out rate of 10% during the course of study, an extra 1 subject was recruited in each group. the sample size was 36. The statistical significance was set at 5% (alpha \< 0.05) with power equal to 80%|||||<|0.001||||||Post-hoc pairwise comparisons have been conducted. Please refer to subsequent data analyses.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Null hypothesis: No significant differences existed between the percentage of change in Trunk Impairment Scale (TIS) score among the three groups.||||<0.001
90899223|NCT01200030|181664745|OTHER|||||||1||||||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons. A p-value smaller than 0.05 indicated statistical significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Post-Hoc pairwise comparison comparing the effects of electrical stimulation with exercises group and placebo stimulation with exercises group. Null hypothesis: There was no significant difference existed on the changes of the Trunk Impairment Scale score between the two groups.||||1.00
90899224|NCT01200030|181664745|OTHER|||||||0.002||||||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons. A p-value smaller than 0.05 indicated statistical significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Post-Hoc pairwise comparison comparing the effects of electrical stimulation with exercises group and control group.~Null hypothesis: There was no significant difference existed on the changes of the Trunk Impairment Scale score between the two groups."||||0.002
90899225|NCT01200030|181664745|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Post-Hoc pairwise comparison comparing the effects of placebo stimulation with exercises group and control group.~Null hypothesis: There was no significant difference existed on the changes of the Trunk Impairment Scale score between the two groups."||||0.003
90899226|NCT01200030|181664746|OTHER|||||||0.055|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Null hypothesis: No significant differences existed between the percentage of change in reaching distance between the three groups.||||0.055
90899227|NCT01454830|181664797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||unit of measurement, hours/night; positive estimation parameter favors TI group; negative estimation parameter favors UC group|Pilot RCT designed to establish effect size and feasibility outcomes; no a priori power calculation; statistical significance with hypotheses testing was not objective of the pilot trial||||0.20
90899228|NCT01454830|181664798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||unit of measurement: hours/night; positive estimation parameter favors TI group; negative estimation parameter favors UC group|Pilot RCT designed to establish effect size and feasibility outcomes; no a priori power calculation; statistical significance with hypotheses testing was not objective of the pilot trial||||0.90
90899229|NCT01454830|181664799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.89|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||units of measurement: hours/night; positive estimation parameter favors TI group; negative estimation parameter favors UC group|Pilot RCT designed to establish effect size and feasibility outcomes; no a priori power calculation; statistical significance with hypotheses testing was not objective of the pilot trial||||0.89
90899230|NCT01454830|181664800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.09||0.78|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||units of measurement: % TST; positive estimation parameter favors TI group; negative estimation parameter favors UC group|Exploratory outcome of PAP use defined within the sleep period, TST (total sleep time).||||0.78
90899231|NCT03810313|181664804|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was considered to be established if the lower limit of the corresponding 95% CI for the estimated between group difference (brolucizumab vs. aflibercept) on change from baseline in BCVA at Week 24 is \> -4 letters.|Least Square Mean Difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|-0.5|||ANOVA|||||-0.5|-5.2|0.173
90899232|NCT00872430|181664820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90899233|NCT00872430|181664821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||All data were collected and entered before the opening of the codes of blinding of researchers. We used t test for paired samples and test for repeated measures linear regression for variables with more than two measures.With an improvement of 40% in the tea group and of 20% in the placebo group, with a power (1-ß) of 80% and a alpha error 0.05, it was necessary to include 32 points of comparison, which would be achieved with at least 16 patients, since it's a crossover study.||||<0.001
90899234|NCT01077362|181664890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||re-randomization test|||||||<0.001
90899235|NCT01077362|181664890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||re-randomization test|||||||<0.001
90899236|NCT01077362|181664890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||re-randomization test|||||||<0.001
91094589|NCT01126424|182073132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|1.846||||0.6753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.02|10.713|||ANCOVA|The analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model with fixed effect for treatment, period, subjects as a random effect and baseline as a covariate.||"Comparison of oxybutynin versus placebo change from Baseline at 2 hours~The null hypothesis was that the mean change from baseline was the same in both treatments."||10.713|-7.020|0.6753
91094590|NCT01126424|182073133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.507||||0.5684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.293|1.279|||ANCOVA|The analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model with fixed effect for treatment, period, subjects as a random effect and baseline as a covariate.||"Comparison of solifenacin versus placebo change from Baseline at 6 hours~The null hypothesis was that the mean change from baseline was the same in both treatments."||1.279|-2.293|0.5684
90899237|NCT01077362|181664891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||re-randomization test|||||||0.002
90899238|NCT01077362|181664891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||re-randomization test|||||||<0.001
90899239|NCT01077362|181664891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||re-randomization test|||||||<0.001
90899240|NCT01077362|181664892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||re-randomization test|||||||<0.001
90899241|NCT01077362|181664892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||re-randomization test|||||||<0.001
90899242|NCT01077362|181664892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||re-randomization test|||||||<0.001
90899243|NCT01077362|181664893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018|||||||re-randomization test|||||||0.018
90899244|NCT01077362|181664893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||re-randomization test|||||||<0.001
90899245|NCT01077362|181664893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||re-randomization test|||||||0.002
90899246|NCT01077362|181664894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017|||||||re-randomization test|||||||0.017
90846871|NCT00538785|181560314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.746|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.344|1.586|||Guess method|Exact conditional binomial method conditioning on the total number of cases with mid-probability adjustment||Relative risk and confidence interval adjusted for the stratification factor of CHD stratum (cyanotic or other) specified on the CRF||1.586|0.344|
90846872|NCT00538785|181560315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.495|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.101|1.989|||Guess method|Exact conditional binomial method conditioning on the total number of cases with mid-probability adjustment||Relative risk and confidence interval adjusted for the stratification factor of CHD stratum (cyanotic or other) specified on the CRF||1.989|0.101|
90846873|NCT01767142|181560347|OTHER||sucess proportion|83.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|74.8|90.7||||||||90.7|74.8|
90846874|NCT00635219|181560354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.13||0.1321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.92|0.51||Since p-value \>0.025, hierarchically testing stopped here.|ANCOVA||To adjust for multiplicity the two doses of vortioxetine were tested separately versus placebo in the primary and key secondary efficacy analyses at a Bonferroni-corrected significance level of 0.025.|As soon as an endpoint was non-significant at the 0.025 level of significance, the testing procedure was stopped for all subsequent endpoints.||0.51|-3.92|0.1321
90846875|NCT00635219|181560354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.13||0.1847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.73|0.72||Since p-value \>0.025, hierarchically testing stopped here.|ANCOVA||To adjust for multiplicity the two doses of vortioxetine were tested separately versus placebo in the primary and key secondary efficacy analyses at a Bonferroni-corrected significance level of 0.025.|As soon as an endpoint was non-significant at the 0.025 level of significance, the testing procedure was stopped for all subsequent endpoints.||0.72|-3.73|0.1847
90846876|NCT00635219|181560354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12||0.2187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.59|0.82||This dose was not in the testing sequence. A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA|||||0.82|-3.59|0.2187
90846877|NCT00635219|181560354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14||0.0741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.27|0.2||This treatment arm was not in the testing sequence. A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA|||||0.20|-4.27|0.0741
90846878|NCT00635219|181560355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.13||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.01|0.42||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA||No correction for multiplicity was made.|||0.42|-4.01|0.1120
90846879|NCT00635219|181560355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.13||0.1487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.85|0.59||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA||No correction for multiplicity was made.|||0.59|-3.85|0.1487
90846880|NCT00635219|181560355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12||0.3246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.31|1.1||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA||No correction for multiplicity was made.|||1.10|-3.31|0.3246
90899247|NCT01077362|181664894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||re-randomization test|||||||<0.001
90899248|NCT01077362|181664894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||re-randomization test|||||||<0.001
90846881|NCT00635219|181560355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.13||0.0298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|-0.24||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA||No correction for multiplicity was made.|||-0.24|-4.70|0.0298
90846882|NCT00635219|181560356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.23||A nominal p-value is provided.|Adjusting for Baseline||No correction for multiplicity was made.|||2.23|0.90|0.1370
90846883|NCT00635219|181560356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.54||||0.0664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|2.43||A nominal p-value is provided.|Adjusting for Baseline||No correction for multiplicity was made.|||2.43|0.97|0.0664
90846884|NCT00635219|181560356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.2023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|2.12||A nominal p-value is provided.|Adjusting for Baseline||No correction for multiplicity was made.|||2.12|0.85|0.2023
90846885|NCT00635219|181560356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.52||||0.0765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|2.4||A nominal p-value is provided.|Adjusting for Baseline||No correction for multiplicity was made.|||2.40|0.96|0.0765
90846886|NCT00635219|181560357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.1436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.07||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA||No correction for multiplicity was made.|||0.07|-0.47|0.1436
90846887|NCT00635219|181560357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.2114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.1||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA||No correction for multiplicity was made.|||0.10|-0.44|0.2114
90846888|NCT00635219|181560357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.1389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.07||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA||No correction for multiplicity was made.|||0.07|-0.47|0.1389
90846889|NCT00635219|181560357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.1271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.06||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA||No correction for multiplicity was made.|||0.06|-0.48|0.1271
90846890|NCT00635219|181560358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.49||0.4421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.08|1.79||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA||No correction for multiplicity was made.|||1.79|-4.08|0.4421
90846891|NCT00635219|181560358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.49||0.4399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.07|1.77||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA||No correction for multiplicity was made.|||1.77|-4.07|0.4399
90846892|NCT00635219|181560358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.54||0.8093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.65|3.4||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA||No correction for multiplicity was made.|||3.40|-2.65|0.8093
90846893|NCT00635219|181560358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.53||0.0897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.61|0.41||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA||No correction for multiplicity was made.|||0.41|-5.61|0.0897
90899249|NCT01077362|181664895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.171|||||||re-randomization|||||||0.171
90899250|NCT01077362|181664895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||re-randomization test|||||||0.060
90899251|NCT01077362|181664895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.094|||||||re-randomization|||||||0.094
91029655|NCT00770315|181943527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26||||0.4781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.45|||ANOVA||ANOVA model with baseline asthmatic condition, pollen region and treatment group as fixed effects|||0.45|-0.96|0.4781
90899252|NCT03587142|181664930|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.45||Nominal P value. Power was determined at a level of P=0.05.|ANCOVA|Multiple imputation using regression and 50 datasets to estimate the outcome for the 18/96 (19%) randomized patients without the f4 visit data.||Primary outcome analysis uses a difference of differences analysis between Buspirone compared to the Placebo arm in which the adjusted mean difference of differences, Wald 95% Confidence interval and 2-sided P values are determined from a Wald Chi-Square test. Adjusted mean difference of differences (DoD) from baseline were computed using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 4-weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome. Negative change indicates symptom improvement.||0.45|-0.68|0.69
90899253|NCT03587142|181664930|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.39||P value is nominal; no adjustments made from multiple comparisons. Bonferroni p-value for the 10 sensitivity outcomes is \<0.005.|ANCOVA|||Sensitivity analysis of change from a baseline in ES/PPF (Early Satiety/Postprandial Fullness subscore) using all completers: 39 participants in Buspirone arm, 39 participants in placebo arm.||0.39|-0.65|0.62
90899254|NCT03587142|181664930|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.25||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.38||P value is nominal; no adjustments made for multiple comparisons. Bonferroni p-value for the 10 sensitivity outcomes is \<0.005|ANCOVA|||Sensitivity analyses: change in ES/PPF in treatment adherent patients: 23 participants in Buspirone arm, 29 patients in placebo arm.||0.38|-0.89|0.62
91094591|NCT01126424|182073133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.792||||0.2348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.122|0.538|||ANCOVA|The analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model with fixed effect for treatment, period, subjects as a random effect and baseline as a covariate.||"Comparison of oxybutynin versus placebo change from Baseline at 2 hours~The null hypothesis was that the mean change from baseline was the same in both treatments."||0.538|-2.122|0.2348
91094592|NCT01126424|182073134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.04||||0.6275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.208|0.127|||ANCOVA|The analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model with fixed effect for treatment, period, subjects as a random effect and baseline as a covariate.||"Comparison of solifenacin versus placebo change from Baseline at 6 hours~The null hypothesis was that the mean change from baseline was the same in both treatments."||0.127|-0.208|0.6275
90846894|NCT00635219|181560359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98||0.6748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|1.52||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA||No correction for multiplicity was made.|||1.52|-2.35|0.6748
90846895|NCT00635219|181560359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99||0.0871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.64|0.25||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA||No correction for multiplicity was made.|||0.25|-3.64|0.0871
90846896|NCT00635219|181560359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99||0.3186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.94|0.96||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA||No correction for multiplicity was made.|||0.96|-2.94|0.3186
90846897|NCT00635219|181560359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.01||0.0768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.79|0.19||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA||No correction for multiplicity was made.|||0.19|-3.79|0.0768
90846898|NCT00635219|181560360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.6258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.81||A nominal p-value is provided.|Adjusting for Baseline||No correction for multiplicity was made.|||1.81|0.70|0.6258
90899255|NCT03587142|181664931|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.5||Nominal P value reported. Bonferroni p-value for the 10 sensitivity outcomes is \<0.005|ANCOVA|||The mean difference of differences (DoD) between Buspirone and Placebo, 95% confidence interval and P (2-sided) were derived from an ANCOVA, regressing an indicator for treatment group on fullness severity score, adjusting for the baseline value of fullness severity score.||0.50|-0.69|0.76
91094593|NCT01126424|182073134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.046||||0.5361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.194|0.103|||ANCOVA|The analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model with fixed effect for treatment, period, subjects as a random effect and baseline as a covariate.||"Comparison of oxybutynin versus placebo change from Baseline at 2 hours~The null hypothesis was that the mean change from baseline was the same in both treatments."||0.103|-0.194|0.5361
90846899|NCT00635219|181560360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.7178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.76||A nominal p-value is provided.|Adjusting for Baseline||No correction for multiplicity was made.|||1.76|0.68|0.7178
90846900|NCT00635219|181560360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.8651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.55||A nominal p-value is provided.|Adjusting for Baseline||No correction for multiplicity was made.|||1.55|0.59|0.8651
90846901|NCT00635219|181560360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.8563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.69||A nominal p-value is provided.|Adjusting for Baseline||No correction for multiplicity was made.|||1.69|0.65|0.8563
90846902|NCT00635219|181560361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86||0.1925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.82|0.57||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA||No correction for multiplicity was made.|||0.57|-2.82|0.1925
90846903|NCT00635219|181560361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.2434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.72|0.69||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA||No correction for multiplicity was made.|||0.69|-2.72|0.2434
90846904|NCT00635219|181560361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86||0.7246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.39||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA||No correction for multiplicity was made.|||1.39|-2.00|0.7246
90846905|NCT00635219|181560361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.0981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.16|0.27||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA||No correction for multiplicity was made.|||0.27|-3.16|0.0981
90846906|NCT00635219|181560362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.2285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.11||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA||No correction for multiplicity was made.|||0.11|-0.46|0.2285
90846907|NCT00635219|181560362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.1794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.09||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA||No correction for multiplicity was made.|||0.09|-0.48|0.1794
90846908|NCT00635219|181560362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.1741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.09||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA||No correction for multiplicity was made.|||0.09|-0.48|0.1741
91094594|NCT01126424|182073135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|4.655||||0.6315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.858|24.167|||ANCOVA|The analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model with fixed effect for treatment, period, subjects as a random effect and baseline as a covariate.||"Comparison of solifenacin versus placebo change from Baseline at 6 hours~The null hypothesis was that the mean change from baseline was the same in both treatments."||24.167|-14.858|0.6315
91094595|NCT01126424|182073135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.457||||0.867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.976|16.062|||ANCOVA|The analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model with fixed effect for treatment, period, subjects as a random effect and baseline as a covariate.||"Comparison of oxybutynin versus placebo change from Baseline at 2 hours~The null hypothesis was that the mean change from baseline was the same in both treatments."||16.062|-18.976|0.8670
91094596|NCT01126424|182073136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-77.919||||0.5953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-372.814|216.976|||ANCOVA|The analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model with fixed effect for treatment, period, subjects as a random effect and baseline as a covariate.||"Comparison of solifenacin versus placebo change from Baseline at 6 hours~The null hypothesis was that the mean change from baseline was the same in both treatments."||216.976|-372.814|0.5953
91094597|NCT01126424|182073136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|157.783||||0.3526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-182.015|497.581|||ANCOVA|The analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model with fixed effect for treatment, period, subjects as a random effect and baseline as a covariate.||"Comparison of oxybutynin versus placebo change from Baseline at 2 hours~The null hypothesis was that the mean change from baseline was the same in both treatments."||497.581|-182.015|0.3526
91094598|NCT02127671|182073137|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.9|-2.5||||||||-2.5|-22.9|
91094599|NCT02127671|182073139|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.9||||||||0.9|-0.7|
91094600|NCT02127671|182073143|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6|2.4||||||||2.4|-17.6|
91094601|NCT02127671|182073144|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.2||||||||0.2|-0.3|
91094602|NCT02127671|182073145|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.4|-2.6||||||||-2.6|-18.4|
91094603|NCT02127671|182073146|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|1.5||||||systolic||1.5|-5.1|
91094604|NCT02127671|182073146|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|0.5||||||diastolic||0.5|-3.8|
90846909|NCT00635219|181560362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.2247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.11||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA||No correction for multiplicity was made.|||0.11|-0.46|0.2247
90846910|NCT00635219|181560363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86||0.7789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|1.45||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA||No correction for multiplicity was made.|||1.45|-1.93|0.7789
91094605|NCT02127671|182073148|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|4.7||||||||4.7|-13.3|
91094606|NCT02127671|182073149|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|2.0||||||||2.0|-12.7|
91094607|NCT02127671|182073150|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|3.8||||||||3.8|-1.8|
91094608|NCT02127671|182073151|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|29.6||||||||29.6|-13.4|
91094609|NCT00248560|182073159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response rate|0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.32||||||||0.32|0.08|
91094610|NCT00782067|182073163|OTHER|Single arm study|||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Null hypothesis: ORR \<= 30% Alternative hypothesis: ORR \>= 50%|Exact Binomial Test||||Exact Binomial 95% Confidence Interval|||<0.001
91094611|NCT00614393|182073184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.41||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|2.0|||Regression, Cox|||||2.00|0.99|0.06
91094612|NCT00614393|182073184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.26||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.79|||Regression, Cox|||||1.79|0.89|0.18
91094613|NCT00614393|182073185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.33||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.83|||Regression, Cox|||||1.83|0.98|0.07
91094614|NCT00614393|182073185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.55|||Regression, Cox|||||1.55|0.83|0.44
91094615|NCT02328105|182073191|SUPERIORITY|Assuming the true overall response rate is 0.20 under the null hypothesis, then this design will provide 81% power to detect a difference of 0.15 under the alternative hypothesis, assuming a one-sided alpha = 0.09 significance level. A three stage design with n=15, 30 and 45 subjects was determined with the following rejection regions: For n = 15, the rejection region in number of responses (CR or PR) is 0 - 2, for n = 30 it is 3 - 6, and for n = 45 it is 7 - 12.|Response Rate|0.364||||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.109|0.692||This p-value is only based on partial enrollment of stage 1. As enrollment was halted early, this p-value is descriptive in nature and cannot determine the success/failure of the trial.|Fisher Exact||Confidence interval estimated using the Clopper Pearson method.|||0.692|0.109|0.161
91094616|NCT02328105|182073192|OTHER|Estimation only.|Disease Control Rate|0.818|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.482|0.977|||||Confidence interval estimated using the Clopper Pearson method.|||0.977|0.482|
91094617|NCT02328105|182073193|OTHER|Estimation only.|Median|7.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|13.0|||||The Kaplan Meier method was used to estimate the median PFS(in months) for the population. The Greenwood method was used to estimate the confidence limits of the median progression free survival.|||13.0|2.2|
91094618|NCT02328105|182073194|OTHER|Estimation only.|Median|30.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2||Upper limit of the confidence interval is not reached due to censoring rate.||||The Kaplan Meier method was used to estimate median OS(in months). The Greenwood method was used to estimate confidence limits of median overall survival.||||2.2|
91094619|NCT02328105|182073195|OTHER|Estimation only.|Median|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|11.9|||||The Kaplan Meier method was used to estimate median duration of response (in months). The Greenwood method was used to estimate confidence limits of median duration of response.|||11.9|4.9|
90846911|NCT00635219|181560363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.8121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|1.5||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA||No correction for multiplicity was made.|||1.50|-1.91|0.8121
90846912|NCT00635219|181560363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.8918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|1.59||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA||No correction for multiplicity was made.|||1.59|-1.82|0.8918
91094620|NCT02328105|182073196|OTHER|Estimation only.|Median|7.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|13.0|||||The Kaplan Meier method was used to estimate median duration of disease control (in months). The Greenwood method was used to estimate confidence limits of median disease control duration.|||13.0|3.0|
91094621|NCT03556683|182073231|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Effect immediately following hypertonic saline treatment.||||<0.001
91094622|NCT03556683|182073232|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Effect of hypertonic saline 4 hours after treatment.||||0.99
91094623|NCT03286504|182073236|SUPERIORITY||proportion difference|0.05||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.112|0.212|||Chi-squared||Direction of proportion difference = FANMI arm minus Standard of Care arm|||0.212|-0.112|0.55
91094624|NCT03286504|182073237|SUPERIORITY||proportion difference|0.033||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.145|0.211|||Chi-squared||Direction of proportion difference = FANMI arm minus Standard of Care arm|||0.211|-0.145|0.71
91094625|NCT03286504|182073239|SUPERIORITY||proportion difference|-0.05||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.269|0.169|||Chi-squared||Direction of proportion difference = FANMI arm minus Standard of Care arm|||0.169|-0.269|0.65
91094626|NCT03286504|182073240|SUPERIORITY||proportion difference|0.226||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.015|0.438|||Chi-squared||Direction of proportion difference = FANMI arm minus Standard of Care arm|||0.438|0.015|0.04
91094627|NCT03286504|182073241|SUPERIORITY||proportion difference|0.208||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.023|0.393|||Chi-squared||Direction of proportion difference = FANMI arm minus Standard of Care arm.|||0.393|0.023|0.03
91094628|NCT03320369|182073278|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91094629|NCT03813654|182073282|OTHER|Mixed model analysis with post-hoc tests.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|90.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|68.7|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold was \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||This is the difference between the control and 8-h Free Sleep Group.|||||<0.05
91094630|NCT03813654|182073287|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09||||||The groups had unequal variances, so we adjusted for unequal variances when doing the t-test. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|t-test, 1 sided|Adjusted for unequal variances between the two groups.||We compared the PVT taken at the start of the final night shift between Group B and those in Group C who slept in the morning and had complete data. Our hypothesis was that Group B would have faster RTs.||||0.09
90846913|NCT00635219|181560363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|1.75||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA||No correction for multiplicity was made.|||1.75|-1.69|0.9720
90957384|NCT06377488|181794747|SUPERIORITY||Central Posterior Mean Estimate|0.966|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0135|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.933|0.988|||Bayesian beta-binomial model|Bayesian beta-binomial model with correlated binary data.||It was calculated using a Bayesian beta-binomial model for correlated data with a reference rate of 0.99 and an intraclass correlation of 0.70 with 5000 replicating trials, that 140 subjects were required to test for superiority to achieve a minimum statistical power of 99% with 95% central posterior credible.||0.988|0.933|
91094631|NCT02081807|182073297|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.76|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute Hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).||Optum Clinformatic-Dabigatran vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||1.76|0.57|
91094632|NCT02081807|182073297|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.94|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute Hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).||MarketScan-Dabigatran vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||0.94|0.52|
91094633|NCT02081807|182073297|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.98|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic-Dabigatran vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||0.98|0.58|
91094634|NCT02081807|182073297|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.35|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute Hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).||Optum Clinformatic- Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||1.35|0.53|
91094635|NCT02081807|182073297|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.98|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute Hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).||MarketScan-Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||0.98|0.57|
91094636|NCT02081807|182073297|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.98|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic- Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||0.98|0.61|
91094637|NCT02081807|182073297|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.51|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute Hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).||Optum Clinformatic- Apixaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||1.51|0.53|
91094638|NCT02081807|182073297|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.89|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute Hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).||MarketScan-Apixaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||0.89|0.38|
91094639|NCT02081807|182073297|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.96|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic- Apixaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||0.96|0.50|
91094640|NCT02081807|182073298|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.69|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute Hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).||Optum Clinformatic-Dabigatran vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||0.69|0.38|
91094641|NCT02081807|182073298|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.86|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute Hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).||MarketScan-Dabigatran vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||0.86|0.68|
91029656|NCT00770315|181943527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.1695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|0.21|||ANOVA||ANOVA model with baseline asthmatic condition, pollen region and treatment group as fixed effects|||0.21|-1.21|0.1695
91094642|NCT02081807|182073298|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.8|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic-Dabigatran vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||0.80|0.65|
90899256|NCT03587142|181664932|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.47||Nominal P values; Bonferroni p value for the 10 sensitivity outcomes is \<0.005|ANCOVA|||Adjusted mean difference of differences (DoD) from baseline were computed using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 4-weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome. Wald 95% Confidence Limits (CI) are reported; P (2-sided) determined from a Wald Chi-Square test.||0.47|-0.76|0.64
90899257|NCT03587142|181664933|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.5||P values are nominal; Bonferroni p-value for the 10 sensitivity outcomes is \<0.005|ANCOVA|||Adjusted mean difference of differences (DoD) from baseline were computed using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 4-weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome. Wald 95% Confidence Limits (CI) are reported; P (2-sided) determined from a Wald Chi-Square test.||0.50|-0.79|0.66
90899258|NCT03587142|181664934|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.5||Nominal P values; Bonferroni p-value for the 10 sensitivity outcomes is \<0.005|ANCOVA|||Adjusted mean difference of differences (DoD) from baseline were computed using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 4-weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome. Wald 95% Confidence Limits (CI) are reported; P (s-sided) determined from a Wald Chi-Square test.||0.50|-0.75|0.70
90899259|NCT03587142|181664935|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.27||P value is nominal; no adjustments made for multiple comparisons. Bonferrini p-value is \<0.002|ANCOVA|||Adjusted mean difference of differences (DoD) of change in outcome from baseline and 95% Confidence Intervals were computed using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 4-weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome. P (2-sided) were determined from a Wald Chi-Square test.||0.27|-0.66|0.40
90899260|NCT03587142|181664935|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|3.21||Nominal P value without adjustment for multiple comparisons. Bonferroni threshold for level of significance is \<0.002.|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio, 95% C.I. and P (two-sided) from a logistic regression of the binary outcome on treatment group for symptomatic improvement in GCSI.||GCSI symptomatic improvement of 1+ points in total GCSI symptom score defined as change in GCSI total score at week 4 from baseline being a decrease of 1 or more points. This is a binary variable where 1=1+ reduction in change in GCSI total score, 0=change in GCSI total score from baseline at 4-weeks is \< 1.0.||3.21|0.53|0.56
90899261|NCT03587142|181664936|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.48||P value is nominal: no adjustments made for multiple comparisons. Bonferroni p-value threshold for the level of significance is \<0.002|ANCOVA|||Adjusted mean difference of differences (DoD) from baseline were computed using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 4-weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome. Wald 95% Confidence Limits (CI) are reported; P (2-sided) determined from a Wald Chi-Squares test.||0.48|-0.58|0.86
91094643|NCT02081807|182073298|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.26|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute Hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).||Optum Clinformatic- Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||1.26|0.88|
91094644|NCT02081807|182073298|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.12|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute Hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).||MarketScan-Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||1.12|0.92|
91094645|NCT02081807|182073298|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.12|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic- Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||1.12|0.94|
91094646|NCT02081807|182073298|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.66|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute Hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).||Optum Clinformatic- Apixaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||0.66|0.39|
91094647|NCT02081807|182073298|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.68|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute Hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).||MarketScan-Apixaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||0.68|0.49|
90846914|NCT04093024|181560371|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.9858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.8|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Fixed categorical effects: (Randomised) treatment, age-group; Fixed continuous effects: Baseline at each visit, random effect for participant.|Adjusted mean difference was calculated as 'Randomised Nintedanib - randomised placebo'.|No formal hypotheses were tested||0.8|-0.8|0.9858
90846915|NCT04093024|181560372|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.9769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.6|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Fixed categorical effects: (Randomised) treatment, age-group; Fixed continuous effects: Baseline at each visit, random effect for participant.|Adjusted mean difference was calculated as 'Randomised Nintedanib - randomised placebo'.|No formal hypotheses were tested||1.6|-1.7|0.9769
90846916|NCT04093024|181560374|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested|Adjusted Mean Difference|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.4442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|4.0|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Fixed categorical effects: (Randomised) treatment, age-group; Fixed continuous effects: Baseline at each visit, random effect for participant.|Adjusted mean difference was calculated as 'Randomised Nintedanib - randomised placebo'.|||4.0|-1.8|0.4442
91094648|NCT02081807|182073298|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.64|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic- Apixaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||0.64|0.49|
90846917|NCT04093024|181560377|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested|Adjusted Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.8|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Fixed categorical effects: (Randomised) treatment, age-group; Fixed continuous effects: Baseline at each visit, random effect for participant.|Adjusted mean difference was calculated as 'Randomised Nintedanib - randomised placebo'.|||1.8|-1.5|0.8820
90899262|NCT03587142|181664937|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.53||P value is nominal; no adjustments made for multiple comparisons. Bonferroni p-value is \<0.002|ANCOVA|||Adjusted mean difference of differences (DoD) from baseline were computed using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 4-weeks on treatment group and baseline value of outcome. Wald 95% Confidence Limits (CI) are reported; P (2-sided) determined from a Wald-Chi Square test.||0.53|-0.64|0.85
90899263|NCT03587142|181664938|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.47||P value is nominal; no adjustments made for multiple comparisons. Bonferroni p-value is \<0.002|ANCOVA|||Adjusted mean difference of differences (DoD) from baseline were computed using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 4-weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome. Wald 95% Confidence Limits (CI) are reported; P (2-sided) determined from a Wald Chi-Square test||0.47|-0.76|0.65
90899264|NCT03587142|181664939|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.41||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.16||P value is nominal: no adjustments made for multiple comparisons. Bonferroni p-value threshold level of significance is \<0.002|ANCOVA|||Adjusted mean difference of differences (DoD) from baseline were computed using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 4-weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome. Wald 95% Confidence Limits (CI) are reported; P (2-sided) determined from a Wald Chi-Square test.||0.16|-0.99|0.16
90899265|NCT03587142|181664940|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.65||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|-0.08||P values are nominal; no adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Adjusted mean difference of differences (DoD) from baseline were computed using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 4-weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome. Wald 95% Confidence Limits (CI) are reported; P (2-sided) determined from a Wald Chi-Square test.||-0.08|-1.23|0.03
90899266|NCT03587142|181664941|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.77||P value is nominal: no adjustments made for multiple comparisons. Bonferroni p-value threshold for the level of significance is \<0.002|ANCOVA|||Adjusted mean difference of differences (DoD) from baseline were computed using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 4-weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome. Wald 95% Confidence Limits (CI) are reported; P (2-sided) determined from a Wald Chi-Square test.||0.77|-0.44|0.59
90899267|NCT03587142|181664942|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.24||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.88||P value is nominal: no adjustments made for multiple comparisons. Bonferroni p-value threshold for the level of significance is \<0.002|ANCOVA|||Adjusted mean difference of differences (DoD) from baseline were computed using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 4-weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome. Wald 95% Confidence Limits (CI) are reported; P (2-sided) determined from a Wald Chi-Square test.||0.88|-0.39|0.46
90957385|NCT02065687|181794766|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is that there is no relationship between BMI and metformin treatment (i.e. the parameter associated with the interaction term of BMI \* treatment is equal to 0).|Cox Proportional Hazard|-0.01787|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27472||0.9482|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||The interaction between BMI and metformin treatment will be examined with an interaction term in a Cox proportional hazards model. Historical data indicate that approximately 50% of people are obese (BMI\>=30). For the purposes of examining the relationship, we will classify patients into two levels (high versus low) at the median BMI, which will increase the likelihood of detecting an interaction between metformin treatment and obesity.||||0.9482
90957386|NCT02926898|181794776|SUPERIORITY||Percent difference|-54.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.2|-35.6||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group (ZX008 or placebo) and age group (\< 6 years, ≥ 6 years) as factors, and with log baseline frequency as a covariate, and log CSF as the outcome variable.|ANCOVA|||||-35.6|-67.2|<0.001
90957387|NCT02926898|181794777|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|A logistic regression model using a categorical response variable as a function of Treatment group, Baseline seizure frequency, and age group.||||||<0.001
90957388|NCT02926898|181794778|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.004
90957389|NCT04426851|181794779|OTHER||Ratio of the geometric means (%)|45.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|41.4|50.9|||||"Ratio was calculated as: BI 1358894 100 mg tablet fasted/BI 1358894 (C-14) 100 ug i.v.~Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV)=14.3."|The Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'subjects' and 'formulation'. The effect 'subjects' was considered as random, whereas 'formulation' was considered as fixed.||50.9|41.4|
90957390|NCT04426851|181794780|OTHER||Ratio of the geometric means (%)|141.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|129.3|154.6|||||Ratio was calculated as: BI 1358894 100 mg oral suspension fed/BI 1358894 100 mg oral suspension fasted. Intra -individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV)=10.9.|The ANOVA model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence or block', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||154.6|129.3|
91094649|NCT02081807|182073299|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.11|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic-Dabigatran vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||1.11|0.69|
90957391|NCT04426851|181794782|OTHER||Ratio of the geometric means (%)|65.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|54.6|78.0|||||Ratio was calculated as: BI 1358894 100 mg oral suspension fed/BI 1358894 100 mg oral suspension fasted. Intra - individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV)=22.5.|The ANOVA model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence or block', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||78.0|54.6|
91029657|NCT00770315|181943527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.94||||0.0118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|-0.21|||ANOVA||ANOVA model with baseline asthmatic condition, pollen region and treatment group as fixed effects|||-0.21|-1.67|0.0118
91094650|NCT02081807|182073299|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.02|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic- Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||1.02|0.66|
91094651|NCT02081807|182073299|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.88|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic- Apixaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||0.88|0.47|
91094652|NCT02081807|182073300|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|3.3|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic-Dabigatran vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||3.30|1.03|
91094653|NCT02081807|182073300|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.71|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic- Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||1.71|0.65|
91094654|NCT02081807|182073300|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.96|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic- Apixaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||0.96|0.10|
91094655|NCT02081807|182073301|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.12|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic-Dabigatran vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||1.12|0.63|
90846918|NCT04093024|181560378|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.9652|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|3.3|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Fixed categorical effects: (Randomised) treatment, age-group; Fixed continuous effects: Baseline at each visit, random effect for participant.|Adjusted mean difference was calculated as 'Randomised Nintedanib - randomised placebo'.|No formal hypotheses were tested||3.3|-3.2|0.9652
90846919|NCT04093024|181560379|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1||0.4084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|4.0|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Fixed categorical effects: (Randomised) treatment, age-group; Fixed continuous effects: Baseline at each visit, random effect for participant.|Adjusted mean difference was calculated as 'Randomised Nintedanib - randomised placebo'.|No formal hypotheses were tested||4.0|-9.3|0.4084
90846920|NCT04093024|181560380|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested|Adjusted Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.9928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.6|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Fixed categorical effects: (Randomised) treatment, age-group; Fixed continuous effects: Baseline at each visit, random effect for participant.|Adjusted mean difference was calculated as 'Randomised Nintedanib - randomised placebo'.|||1.6|-1.6|0.9928
90846921|NCT04093024|181560381|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.6366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|3.6|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Fixed categorical effects: (Randomised) treatment, age-group; Fixed continuous effects: Baseline at each visit, random effect for participant.|Adjusted mean difference was calculated as 'Randomised Nintedanib - randomised placebo'.|No formal hypotheses were tested||3.6|-2.3|0.6366
90846922|NCT04093024|181560382|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3||0.8823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|5.9|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Fixed categorical effects: (Randomised) treatment, age-group; Fixed continuous effects: Baseline at each visit, random effect for participant.|Adjusted mean difference was calculated as 'Randomised Nintedanib - randomised placebo'.|No formal hypotheses were tested||5.9|-5.2|0.8823
90846923|NCT04093024|181560383|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested|Adjusted Mean Difference|1.2052|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2491||0.5962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3966|5.807|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Fixed categorical effects: (Randomised) treatment, age-group; Fixed continuous effects: Baseline at each visit, random effect for participant.|Adjusted mean difference was calculated as 'Randomised Nintedanib - randomised placebo'.|||5.8070|-3.3966|0.5962
91029658|NCT00770315|181943528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0.2622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.25|||ANOVA||ANOVA model with baseline asthmatic condition, pollen region and treatment group as fixed effects|||0.25|-0.93|0.2622
91094656|NCT02081807|182073301|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.96|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic- Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||0.96|0.57|
90846924|NCT04093024|181560384|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested|Adjusted Mean Difference|1.7733|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1424||0.5776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7015|8.2481|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Fixed categorical effects: (Randomised) treatment, age-group; Fixed continuous effects: Baseline at each visit, random effect for participant.|Adjusted mean difference was calculated as 'Randomised Nintedanib - randomised placebo'.|||8.2481|-4.7015|0.5776
90846925|NCT04093024|181560385|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested|Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.134|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.316||0.9755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.975|8.707|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Fixed categorical effects: (Randomised) treatment, age-group; Fixed continuous effects: Baseline at each visit, random effect for participant.|Adjusted mean difference was calculated as 'Randomised Nintedanib - randomised placebo'.|||8.707|-8.975|0.9755
90846926|NCT04093024|181560386|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested|Adjusted Mean Difference|3.453|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.225||0.514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.25|14.157|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Fixed categorical effects: (Randomised) treatment, age-group; Fixed continuous effects: Baseline at each visit, random effect for participant.|Adjusted mean difference was calculated as 'Randomised Nintedanib - randomised placebo'.|||14.157|-7.250|0.5140
90846927|NCT04093024|181560387|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested|Adjusted Mean Difference|1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.358||0.7613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.848|7.908|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Fixed categorical effects: (Randomised) treatment, age-group; Fixed continuous effects: Baseline at each visit, random effect for participant.|Adjusted mean difference was calculated as 'Randomised Nintedanib - randomised placebo'.|||7.908|-5.848|0.7613
91094657|NCT02081807|182073301|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.94|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic- Apixaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||0.94|0.45|
91094658|NCT02081807|182073302|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.78|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic-Dabigatran vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||0.78|0.18|
91094659|NCT02081807|182073302|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.72|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic- Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||1.72|0.58|
91094660|NCT02081807|182073302|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.87|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic- Apixaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||1.87|0.38|
91094661|NCT02081807|182073304|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.59|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic-Dabigatran vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||0.59|0.25|
91094662|NCT02081807|182073304|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.95|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic- Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||0.95|0.51|
91094663|NCT02081807|182073304|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.03|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic- Apixaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||1.03|0.43|
91094664|NCT02081807|182073305|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.84|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic-Dabigatran vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||0.84|0.67|
90846928|NCT04093024|181560388|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested|Adjusted Mean Difference|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.049||0.9468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.026|10.707|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Fixed categorical effects: (Randomised) treatment, age-group; Fixed continuous effects: Baseline at each visit, random effect for participant.|Adjusted mean difference was calculated as 'Randomised Nintedanib - randomised placebo'.|||10.707|-10.026|0.9468
90846929|NCT04093024|181560389|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested|Adjusted Mean Difference|2.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.33||0.0908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|5.02|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Fixed categorical effects: (Randomised) treatment, age-group; Fixed continuous effects: Baseline at each visit, random effect for participant.|Adjusted mean difference was calculated as 'Randomised Nintedanib - randomised placebo'.|||5.02|-0.39|0.0908
90846930|NCT04093024|181560390|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested|Adjusted Mean Difference|2.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.39||0.1222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|5.25|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Fixed categorical effects: (Randomised) treatment, age-group; Fixed continuous effects: Baseline at each visit, random effect for participant.|Adjusted mean difference was calculated as 'Randomised Nintedanib - randomised placebo'.|||5.25|-0.69|0.1222
90846931|NCT04093024|181560391|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested|Adjusted Mean Difference|7.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|28.2||0.8012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.7|65.0|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Fixed categorical effects: (Randomised) treatment, age-group; Fixed continuous effects: Baseline at each visit, random effect for participant.|Adjusted mean difference was calculated as 'Randomised Nintedanib - randomised placebo'.|||65.0|-50.7|0.8012
90846932|NCT04093024|181560392|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested|Adjusted Mean Difference|-32.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|33.8||0.3401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-103.1|37.2|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Fixed categorical effects: (Randomised) treatment, age-group; Fixed continuous effects: Baseline at each visit, random effect for participant.|Adjusted mean difference was calculated as 'Randomised Nintedanib - randomised placebo'.|||37.2|-103.1|0.3401
90846933|NCT00435045|181560410|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of the non-HDL-C response was assessed by calculating the 2-sided 90% and 95% confidence intervals (CIs)for each difference in response based on comparing the effects of increases in atorvastatin dose on the percent changes from baseline to the end of each atorvastatin period, a repeated-ANOVA model was used.||||||0.0002||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.0002
90846934|NCT03052426|181560435|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9327||||||p=0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance|Chi-squared|ChiSqaure 0.1394, DF 2 for aches||Wilcoxon/Kruskal-Wallis Tests and ChiSqaure analysis were completed for aches/pains at the three month time frame||||0.9327
90846935|NCT03052426|181560435|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7523||||||p=0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance|Chi-squared|ChiSquare 0.5693, DF 2||Wilcoxon/Kruskal-Wallis Tests and ChiSqaure analysis were completed for discomfort at the three month time frame||||0.7523
90846936|NCT03052426|181560435|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9196||||||p=0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance|Chi-squared|ChiSquare 0.1676, DF 2||Wilcoxon/Kruskal-Wallis Tests and ChiSqaure analysis were completed for interference at the three month time frame.||||0.9196
90846937|NCT03052426|181560436|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6316||||||p=0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance|Chi-squared|ChiSqaure 0.9190, DF 2||Wilcoxon/Kruskal-Wallis Tests and ChiSquare Analysis were completed||||0.6316
90846938|NCT03052426|181560436|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2595||||||p=0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance|Chi-squared|ChiSqaure 2.6983, DF||Wilcoxon/Kruskal-Wallis Tests and ChiSqaure analysis were completed for discomfort at the six month time frame.||||0.2595
90846939|NCT03052426|181560436|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4495||||||p=0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance|Chi-squared|ChiSquare 1.5991, DF 2||Wilcoxon/Kruskal-Wallis Tests and ChiSqaure analysis were completed for interference at the six month time frame||||0.4495
91094665|NCT02081807|182073305|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.16|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic- Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||1.16|0.97|
90899268|NCT03587142|181664943|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.09||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.59||P value is nominal: no adjustments made for multiple comparisons. Bonferroni p-value threshold for the level of significance is \<0.002|ANCOVA|||Adjusted mean difference of differences (DoD) from baseline were computed using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 4-weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome. Wald 95% Confidence Limits (CI) are reported; P (2-sided) determined from a Wald Chi-Square test.||0.59|-0.42|0.73
90899269|NCT03587142|181664944|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.27||P value is nominal: no adjustments made for multiple comparisons. Bonferroni p-value threshold for the level of significance is \<0.002|ANCOVA|||Adjusted mean difference of differences (DoD) from baseline were computed using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 4-weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome. Wald 95% Confidence Limits (CI) are reported; P (2-sided) determined from a Wald Chi-Square test.||0.27|-0.55|0.50
90899270|NCT03587142|181664945|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.32||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.79||P value is nominal: no adjustments made for multiple comparisons. Bonferroni p-value threshold for the level of significance is \<0.002|ANOVA|||Adjusted mean difference of differences (DoD) from baseline were computed using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 4-weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome. Wald 95% Confidence Limits (CI) are reported; P (2-sided) determined from a Wald Chi-Square test.||0.79|-0.15|0.18
90899271|NCT03587142|181664946|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.01||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|2.51||P value is nominal: no adjustments made from multiple comparisons. Bonferroni p-value threshold for the level of significance is \<0.002.|ANCOVA|||Adjusted mean difference from differences (DoD) from the baseline were computed using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 4-weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome. Wald 95% Confidence Intervals are reported; P value (2-sided) determined from a Wald Chi-Square test.||2.51|-0.49|0.19
90899272|NCT03587142|181664947|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.86||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|3.38||P value is nominal: no adjustments made for multiple comparisons. Bonferroni P-value threshold for the level of significance is \<=0.002|ANCOVA|||Adjusted mean difference of differences (DoD) from baseline were computed using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 4-weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the HADS depression score.||3.38|0.33|0.02
90899273|NCT03587142|181664948|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.76||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|2.54||P values are nominal; no adjustments for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|||Adjusted mean difference of differences (DoD) from baseline were computed using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 4-weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the HADS anxiety total score. 95% Wald Confidence Intervals are reported; P (2-sided) determined from a Wald Chi-Square test||2.54|-1.02|0.40
90899274|NCT03587142|181664949|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.21||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.15||P value is nominal with no adjustment for multiple comparisons. The Bonferroni level of significance threshold is \<=0.002.|ANCOVA|||Adjusted mean difference of differences (DoD) from baseline were computed using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 4-weeks on treatment group and baseline value of PAGI-QOL total score.||0.15|-0.57|0.25
90899275|NCT03587142|181664950|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.98||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|2.24|||ANCOVA|||Adjusted mean difference of differences (DoD) of change in outcome from baseline and 95% Confidence Intervals were computed using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 4-weeks on treatment group and baseline value of outcome. P (2-sided) were determined from a Wald-Chi-Square test.||2.24|-6.20|0.36
90899276|NCT03587142|181664951|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.07||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.91|0.76||P value is nominal; no adjustments made for multiple comparisons Bonferroni p-value is \<0.002|ANCOVA|||Adjusted mean difference of differences (DoD) from baseline were computed using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 4-weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome. Wald 95% Confidence Limits (CI) are reported; P (2-sided) determined from a Wald Chi-Square test.||0.76|-4.91|0.15
90899277|NCT03587142|181664952|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.37||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.51|10.25||P value is nominal: no adjustments made for multiple comparisons. Bonferrini p-value is \<0.002|ANCOVA|||Adjusted mean difference of differences (DoD) from baseline were computed using ANCOVA regressing change from baseline to 4-weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome. Wald 95% Confidence Intervals are reported. P (2-sided) determined from a Wald Chi-Square test.||10.25|-7.51|0.76
90899278|NCT03587142|181664953|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.01||Nominal P values; no adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Adjusted mean difference of differences (DoD) were computed using ANCOVA, regressing change in IMD from baseline to 4-weeks on treatment group and the baseline value of IMD. Wald 95% Confidence Intervals are reported; P (2-sided) determined from a Wald Chi-Square test.||0.01|-0.12|0.10
91029659|NCT00770315|181943528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.1914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.2|||ANOVA||ANOVA model with baseline asthmatic condition, pollen region and treatment group as fixed effects|||0.20|-0.99|0.1914
91029660|NCT00770315|181943528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.96||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|-0.35|||ANOVA||ANOVA model with baseline asthmatic condition, pollen region and treatment group as fixed effects|||-0.35|-1.57|0.0021
91029661|NCT00770315|181943529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|0.25|||ANOVA||ANOVA model with baseline asthmatic condition, pollen region and treatment group as fixed effects|||0.25|-1.26|0.1900
90846940|NCT03052426|181560437|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Aches (F-test G-G Epsilon (1.26, 15.18) = 34.70, p \< 0.0001)|MANOVA|||Three and six month results were combined and compared to baseline data for each of the outcome variables. Repeated measures MANOVAs with pairwise comparisons were used to examine the decrease of variables over time from time 1 to times 2 and 3.||||<0.0001
91094666|NCT02081807|182073305|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.63|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic- Apixaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||0.63|0.47|
91094667|NCT02081807|182073306|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.04|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic-Dabigatran vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||1.04|0.77|
91094668|NCT02081807|182073306|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.36|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic- Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||1.36|1.07|
91094669|NCT02081807|182073306|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.72|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic- Apixaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||0.72|0.48|
90846941|NCT03052426|181560437|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0006||||||Uncomfortable (F-test G-G Epsilon (1.43, 17.15) = 14.39, p = 0.0006), from time 1 to times 2 and 3|MANOVA|||Three and six month results were combined and compared to baseline data for each of the outcome variables. Repeated measures MANOVAs with pairwise comparisons were used to examine the decrease of variables over time from time 1 to times 2 and 3.||||=0.0006
91094670|NCT02081807|182073307|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.8|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic-Dabigatran vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||0.80|0.44|
90846942|NCT03052426|181560437|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Interference (F-test G-G Epsilon (1.55, 18.66) = 34.09, p \< 0.0001), from time 1 to times 2 and 3.|MANOVA|||We used repeated measures MANOVAs with pairwise comparisons to examine the decrease of the variables over time. Significant differences for within subjects by time were found||||<0.0001
90899279|NCT03587142|181664954|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-21.51||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-99.4|56.4||Nominal P values; no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Adjusted mean difference of differences (DoD) from baseline were computed using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 4-weeks on treatment group and baseline value of teh outcome. Wald 95% Confidence Limits are reported; P (2-sided) determined from a Wald Chi-Square test.||56.4|-99.4|0.29
91094671|NCT02081807|182073307|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.57|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic- Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||1.57|0.98|
91094672|NCT02081807|182073307|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.14|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic- Apixaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||1.14|0.54|
91094673|NCT02081807|182073308|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.08|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic-Dabigatran vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||1.08|0.79|
90846943|NCT00835211|181560494|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Analyses of Variance (ANOVA) were performed on the log-transformed AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax. These analyses were performed using the SAS® procedure.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|97.5||||||90.0|87.8|108.3|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||108.3|87.8|
90846944|NCT00835211|181560495|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Analyses of Variance (ANOVA) were performed on the log-transformed AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax. These analyses were performed using the SAS® procedure.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|95.6||||||90.0|86.9|105.2|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||105.2|86.9|
91094674|NCT02081807|182073308|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.35|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic- Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||1.35|1.05|
91094675|NCT02081807|182073308|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.67|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic- Apixaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||0.67|0.44|
91094676|NCT02081807|182073310|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|78.0|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic-Dabigatran vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||078|0.59|
91094677|NCT02081807|182073310|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.16|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic- Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||1.16|0.93|
91094678|NCT02081807|182073310|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.67|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic- Apixaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||0.67|0.47|
91094679|NCT02081807|182073311|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.82|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic-Dabigatran vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||0.82|0.34|
91094680|NCT02081807|182073311|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.29|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic- Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||1.29|0.55|
91094681|NCT02081807|182073311|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.42|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic- Apixaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||1.42|0.41|
91094682|NCT02081807|182073312|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.15|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic-Dabigatran vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||1.15|0.60|
91094683|NCT02081807|182073312|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.14|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic- Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||1.14|0.63|
90899280|NCT03587142|181664955|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.09||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.95||P value is nominal; no adjustments made for multiple comparisons. Bonferroni p-value \<0.002|ANCOVA|||Adjusted mean difference of differences (DoD) from baseline were computed using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to week 4 on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome. Wald 95% Confidence Limits (CI) are reported: P (2-sided) determined from Wald Chi-Square test.||0.95|-0.78|0.84
91029662|NCT00770315|181943529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.08||||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|-0.32|||ANOVA||ANOVA model with baseline asthmatic condition, pollen region and treatment group as fixed effects|||-0.32|-1.84|0.0053
91094684|NCT02081807|182073312|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.18|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic- Apixaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||1.18|0.53|
91094685|NCT02081807|182073313|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.84|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic-Dabigatran vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||0.84|0.50|
91094686|NCT02081807|182073313|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.01|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic-Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||1.01|0.69|
91094687|NCT02081807|182073313|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.76|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic- Apixaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||0.76|0.37|
91094688|NCT02081807|182073314|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.88|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic-Dabigatran vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||0.88|0.47|
91094689|NCT02081807|182073314|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.04|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic- Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||1.04|0.65|
91094690|NCT02081807|182073314|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.92|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic- Apixaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||0.92|0.39|
91094691|NCT02081807|182073315|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.04|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic- Dabigatran vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||1.04|0.47|
91094692|NCT02081807|182073315|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.05|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic- Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||1.05|0.60|
91094693|NCT02081807|182073315|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.73|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic- Apixaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||0.73|0.24|
91094694|NCT03104413|182073316|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|22.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.1|31.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||31.0|13.1|<0.001
91094695|NCT03104413|182073316|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|20.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.6|29.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||29.5|11.6|< 0.001
90846945|NCT00835211|181560496|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Analyses of Variance (ANOVA) were performed on the log-transformed AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax. These analyses were performed using the SAS® procedure.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|96.5||||||90.0|87.7|106.1|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||106.1|87.7|
90846946|NCT02343549|181560497|SUPERIORITY||12-Month Survival Rate|0.333||||0.537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.075|0.701||This p-value is only based on partial enrollment of Stage 1. As enrollment was halted early, this p-value is descriptive in nature and cannot determine the success/failure of the trial.|Fisher Exact||Confidence interval estimated using the Clopper Pearson method.|Assuming the true 12-month survival rate is 0.30 under the null hypothesis, then this design will provide 90% power to detect a difference of 0.20 under the alternative hypothesis, assuming a one-sided alpha = 0.10 significance level. A Simon optimal 2-stage design with Stage 1 n=22 and a total of n=46 subjects was determined with the following rejection regions: For n = 22, the rejection region in number of subjects alive at 12 months is 0 - 7, and for n = 46 it is 8 - 17.||0.701|0.075|0.537
90899281|NCT03587142|181664956|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.43||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.9|5.03||P value is nominal|ANCOVA|||Adjusted mean difference of differences (DoD) from baseline were computed using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 4-weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome. Wald 95% Confidence Limits (CI) are reported; P (2-sided) determined from a Wald Chi-Square test.||5.03|-17.90|0.27
90899282|NCT03587142|181664957|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.02||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.93|4.89||P value is nominal: no adjustments made for multiple comparisons. Bonferroni p-value threshold for the level of significance is \<0.002|ANCOVA|||Adjusted mean difference of differences (DoD) from baseline were computed using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 4-weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome. Wald 95% Confidence Intervals are reported; P (2-sided) determined from a Wald Chi-Square test.||4.89|-6.93|0.74
91029663|NCT00770315|181943529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|-0.32|||ANOVA||ANOVA model with baseline asthmatic condition, pollen region and treatment group as fixed effects|||-0.32|-1.89|0.0058
91094696|NCT03104413|182073317|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|17.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.9|25.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||25.4|9.9|< 0.001
91094697|NCT03104413|182073317|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|23.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.1|31.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||31.1|15.1|<0.001
91094698|NCT03104413|182073318|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|17.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.9|25.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||25.4|9.9|<0.001
91094699|NCT03104413|182073318|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|23.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.1|31.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||31.1|15.1|<0.001
91094700|NCT03104413|182073319|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|15.2||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.4|24.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||24.0|6.4|0.001
91094701|NCT03104413|182073319|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|20.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.5|29.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||29.3|11.5|<0.001
91094702|NCT03104413|182073320|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|15.7||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|24.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||24.6|6.8|0.001
90846947|NCT02343549|181560498|OTHER|Estimation Only|Median|9.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.8|12.8|||||The Kaplan Meier method was used to estimate median OS(in months). The Greenwood method was used to estimate confidence limits of median overall survival.|||12.8|4.8|
90846948|NCT02343549|181560499|OTHER|Estimation Only|Median|7.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.8|10.4|||||The Kaplan Meier method was used to estimate median PFS (in months). The Greenwood method was used to estimate confidence limits of median progression free survival.|||10.4|4.8|
91094703|NCT03104413|182073320|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|11.8||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|20.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||20.5|3.0|0.008
91094704|NCT03104413|182073321|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|29.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.9|39.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||39.0|19.9|< 0.001
91094705|NCT03104413|182073321|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|30.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.1|40.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||40.1|21.1|<0.001
91094706|NCT03104413|182073322|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.8||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|5.1|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||5.1|0.4|0.020
91094707|NCT03104413|182073322|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.0||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|5.3|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||5.3|0.7|0.010
91094708|NCT03104413|182073323|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|9.6||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|16.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||16.9|2.3|0.010
91094709|NCT03104413|182073323|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|8.2||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|15.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||15.3|1.1|0.023
91094710|NCT03104413|182073324|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|15.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.5|21.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.5|8.5|<0.001
91094711|NCT03104413|182073324|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|17.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.1|24.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||24.5|11.1|<0.001
91094712|NCT03104413|182073325|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|17.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|26.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||26.9|8.0|<0.001
91094713|NCT03104413|182073325|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|20.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.8|29.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||29.8|10.8|<0.001
91094714|NCT03104413|182073326|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|21.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.1|31.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||31.6|12.1|<0.001
91094715|NCT03104413|182073326|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|22.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.0|32.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||32.5|13.0|<0.001
91094716|NCT03104413|182073327|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|15.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.9|21.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.2|8.9|<0.001
91094717|NCT03104413|182073327|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|16.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.9|22.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||22.4|9.9|<0.001
91094718|NCT03104413|182073328|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|13.6||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|23.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||23.3|4.0|0.006
91094719|NCT03104413|182073328|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|7.1||||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|16.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||16.6|-2.4|0.142
91094720|NCT03104413|182073329|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|9.4||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|15.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||15.1|3.8|0.001
91094721|NCT03104413|182073329|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|11.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|17.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||17.0|5.3|<0.001
91094722|NCT03104413|182073330|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|22.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.0|32.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||32.5|13.0|<0.001
91094723|NCT03104413|182073330|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|20.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.2|29.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||29.9|10.2|<0.001
91094724|NCT03104413|182073331|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|5.6||||0.377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|17.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||17.9|-6.8|0.377
91094725|NCT03104413|182073331|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|13.4||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|26.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||26.1|0.7|0.039
91094726|NCT03104413|182073332|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.1||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|-2.9|||Chi-squared|||||-2.9|-13.2|0.002
91094727|NCT03104413|182073332|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-9.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|-4.2|||Chi-squared|||||-4.2|-14.1|<0.001
91094728|NCT03104413|182073333|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.2||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.1|15.7|||Chi-squared|||||15.7|-28.1|1
91094729|NCT03104413|182073333|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|30.4||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|60.2|||Chi-squared|||||60.2|0.6|0.113
91094730|NCT03104413|182073334|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|22.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.1|31.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||31.0|13.1|<0.001
91094731|NCT03104413|182073334|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|20.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.6|29.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||29.5|11.6|<0.001
91094732|NCT03104413|182073335|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|15.7||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|24.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||24.6|6.8|0.001
91094733|NCT03104413|182073335|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|11.8||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|20.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||20.5|3|0.008
91094734|NCT03104413|182073336|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|9.2||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|15.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||15.7|2.6|0.006
91094735|NCT03104413|182073336|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|10.3||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|16.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||16.8|3.7|0.002
91094736|NCT03104413|182073337|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|29.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.9|39.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||39.0|19.9|<0.001
91094737|NCT03104413|182073337|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|30.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.1|40.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||40.1|21.1|<0.001
91094738|NCT03104413|182073338|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.8||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|5.1|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||5.1|0.4|0.020
91094739|NCT03104413|182073338|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.0||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|5.3|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||5.3|0.7|0.010
91094740|NCT03104413|182073339|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|12.4||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|19.8|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||19.8|5.0|0.001
91094741|NCT03104413|182073339|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|15.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|22.4|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||22.4|7.7|<0.001
91094742|NCT03104413|182073340|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|13.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.1|20.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||20.7|7.1|<0.001
91094743|NCT03104413|182073340|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|17.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.3|24.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||24.2|10.3|<0.001
90846949|NCT02343549|181560500|OTHER|Estimation only|Response Rate|0.333|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.075|0.701|||||Confidence interval estimated using the Clopper Pearson method.|||0.701|0.075|
91029664|NCT01210001|181943530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.69|-0.27||Hierarchical testing to adjust for multiple comparisons within each dose level, alpha split equally between the doses (2.5%). Empa versus placebo change from baseline in HbA1c was the first step in each hierarchical sequence.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, background antidiabetic medication, renal function at baseline and baseline HbA1c.|Difference calculated as empa 10mg minus placebo|||-0.27|-0.69|<0.0001
91029665|NCT01210001|181943530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.82|-0.4||Hierarchical testing to adjust for multiple comparisons within each dose level, alpha split equally between the doses (2.5%). Empa versus placebo change from baseline in HbA1c was the first step in each hierarchical sequence.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, background antidiabetic medication, renal function at baseline and baseline HbA1c.|Difference calculated as empa 25mg minus placebo|||-0.40|-0.82|<0.0001
91029666|NCT01210001|181943531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.71|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-31.81|-15.15||Hierarchical testing to adjust for multiple comparisons within each dose level, alpha split equally between the doses (2.5%). Empa versus placebo change from baseline in FPG was the second step in each hierarchical sequence.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, background antidiabetic medication, renal function at baseline, baseline HbA1c and baseline FPG|Difference calculated as empa 10mg minus placebo|||-15.15|-31.81|<0.0001
91029667|NCT01210001|181943531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-28.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.68|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-36.73|-20.19||Hierarchical testing to adjust for multiple comparisons within each dose level, alpha split equally between the doses (2.5%). Empa versus placebo change from baseline in FPG was the second step in each hierarchical sequence.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, background antidiabetic medication, renal function at baseline, baseline HbA1c and baseline FPG|Difference calculated as empa 25mg minus placebo|||-20.19|-36.73|<0.0001
91029668|NCT01210001|181943532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.64|-1.27||Hierarchical testing to adjust for multiple comparisons within each dose level, alpha split equally between the doses (2.5%). Empa versus placebo change from baseline in body weight was the third step in each hierarchical sequence.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, background antidiabetic medication, renal function at baseline, baseline HbA1c and baseline weight|Difference calculated as empa 10mg minus placebo|||-1.27|-2.64|<0.0001
91029669|NCT01210001|181943532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.49|-1.13||Hierarchical testing to adjust for multiple comparisons within each dose level, alpha split equally between the doses (2.5%). Empa versus placebo change from baseline in body weight was the third step in each hierarchical sequence.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, background antidiabetic medication, renal function at baseline, baseline HbA1c and baseline weight|Difference calculated as empa 25mg minus placebo|||-1.13|-2.49|<0.0001
91029670|NCT01210001|181943533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.69|-0.21||Hierarchical testing to adjust for multiple comparisons within each dose level, alpha split equally between the doses (2.5%). Empa vs placebo change from baseline in HbA1c for pio+met background only was the fourth step in each hierarchical sequence.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, background antidiabetic medication, renal function at baseline and baseline HbA1c.|Difference calculated as empa 10mg minus placebo|||-0.21|-0.69|<0.0001
91094744|NCT03104413|182073341|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|15.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.9|21.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.2|8.9|<0.001
91094745|NCT03104413|182073341|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|16.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.9|22.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||22.4|9.9|<0.001
91094746|NCT03104413|182073342|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|13.6||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|23.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||23.3|4|0.006
91094747|NCT03104413|182073342|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|7.1||||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|16.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||16.6|-2.4|0.142
91094748|NCT03104413|182073343|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|9.4||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|15.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||15.1|3.8|0.001
91094749|NCT03104413|182073343|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|11.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|17.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||17.0|5.3|<0.001
91094750|NCT03104413|182073344|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|22.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.0|32.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||32.5|13.0|<0.001
91094751|NCT03104413|182073344|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|20.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.2|29.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||29.9|10.2|<0.001
90846950|NCT02343549|181560501|OTHER|Estimation only|Disease Control Rate|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.664|1.0||||||||1.000|0.664|
90846951|NCT02343549|181560502|OTHER|Estimation only.|Median|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|8.6|||||The Kaplan Meier method was used to estimate median duration of response (in months). The Greenwood method was used to estimate confidence limits of median duration of response.|||8.6|3.7|
90846952|NCT02343549|181560503|OTHER|Estimation Only|Median|7.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.8|10.4|||||The Kaplan Meier method was used to estimate median duration of disease control (in months). The Greenwood method was used to estimate confidence limits of median duration of disease control.|||10.4|4.8|
91094752|NCT03104413|182073345|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|5.6||||0.377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|17.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||17.9|-6.8|0.377
91094753|NCT03104413|182073345|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|13.4||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|26.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||26.1|0.7|0.039
91094754|NCT03104413|182073346|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-8.1||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|-2.9|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||-2.9|-13.2|0.002
91094755|NCT03104413|182073346|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|-4.2|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||-4.2|-14.1|<0.001
91094756|NCT03104413|182073347|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.2||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.1|15.7|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||15.7|-28.1|1.00
91094757|NCT03104413|182073347|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|30.4||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|60.2|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||60.2|0.6|0.113
91094758|NCT03104413|182073348|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.323||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.399|1.753|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||1.753|-16.399|0.113
91094759|NCT03104413|182073348|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-8.759||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.518|-0.001|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||-0.001|-17.518|0.050
90846953|NCT02428478|181560527|OTHER|||||||0.01||||||P\<0.05 considered statistically significant|Wilcoxon Matched-Pairs Signed-Rank Test|||Tonic analysis||||0.01
90846954|NCT02428478|181560527|OTHER|||||||0.38||||||P\<0.05 considered statistically significant|Wilcoxon Matched-Pairs Signed-Rank Test|||Phasic analysis||||0.38
90846955|NCT02428478|181560528|OTHER||Median Change|-0.6||||0.037|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Matched-Pairs Signed-Rank Test|||Passive Pcrit||||0.037
90846956|NCT02428478|181560528|OTHER||||||>|0.5|||||||Wilcoxon Matched-Pairs Signed-Rank Test|||Active Pcrit||||>0.5
90846957|NCT01578850|181560546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|26.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.78|35.81|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).|Participants who took rescue therapy had the final value taken before rescue used for analysis at all ensuing time points.|||35.81|16.78|<0.001
90846958|NCT01578850|181560547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|23.7||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.83|40.61|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The p-value from CMH test of general association was stratified by geographic region.||||40.61|6.83|0.019
90846959|NCT01578850|181560549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.6||||0.371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|0.57|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||DAS28-ESR Baseline||0.57|-1.76|0.371
90846960|NCT01578850|181560549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.6||||0.358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|1.81|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||DAS28-CRP Baseline||1.81|-0.59|0.358
90846961|NCT01578850|181560549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.6||||0.667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.76|9.98|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||DAS28-CRP Week 24||9.98|-4.76|0.667
90846962|NCT01578850|181560549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|21.5||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.99|32.02|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||DAS28-ESR Week 28||32.02|10.99|0.001
91094760|NCT03104413|182073349|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.221||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.577|3.865|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||3.865|0.577|0.008
90846963|NCT01578850|181560549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|19.0||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.81|29.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||DAS28-CRP Week 28||29.10|8.81|0.004
90846964|NCT01578850|181560549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|30.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.79|40.83|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||DAS28-ESR Week 36||40.83|20.79|<0.001
91094761|NCT03104413|182073349|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.714||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.077|4.351|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||4.351|1.077|0.001
90846965|NCT01578850|181560549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|27.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.89|37.54|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||DAS28-CRP Week 36||37.54|16.89|<0.001
90846966|NCT01578850|181560549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|31.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.51|41.08|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||DAS28-ESR Week 44||41.08|21.51|<0.001
90846967|NCT01578850|181560549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|30.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.95|40.47|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||DAS28-CRP Week 44||40.47|19.95|<0.001
90846968|NCT01578850|181560549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|26.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.78|35.81|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||DAS28-ESR Week 52||35.81|16.78|<0.001
90846969|NCT01578850|181560549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|27.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.67|37.47|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||DAS28-CRP Week 52||37.47|16.67|<0.001
90899283|NCT03587142|181664958|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.08|||ANCOVA|P value is nominal: no adjustments made for multiple comparisons. Bonferroni p-value threshold level of significance \<0.002||Adjusted mean difference of differences (DoD) from baseline were computed using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 4-weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome. 95% Wald Confidence Intervals are reported; P (2-sided) determined from a Wald Chi-Square test.||0.08|-0.01|0.18
91094762|NCT03104413|182073350|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|15.2||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.4|24.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||24|6.4|0.001
91094763|NCT03104413|182073350|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|20.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.5|29.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||29.3|11.5|<0.001
91094764|NCT01401166|182073352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Proportion|0.957|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.903|0.986|||||The estimated proportion of participants who preferred SC Herceptin and the corresponding exact binomial confidence interval (CI) were determined.|||0.986|0.903|
91094765|NCT01401166|182073352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Proportion|0.964|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.908|0.986|||||The estimated proportion of participants who preferred SC Herceptin and the corresponding CI were determined using logistic regression with factors of previous Herceptin status and treatment.|||0.986|0.908|
91094766|NCT01401166|182073352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Proportion|0.874|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.801|0.928|||||The estimated proportion of participants who preferred SC Herceptin and the corresponding exact binomial CI were determined.|||0.928|0.801|
91094767|NCT01401166|182073352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Proportion|0.892|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.804|0.943|||||The estimated proportion of participants who preferred SC Herceptin and the corresponding CI were determined using logistic regression with factors of previous Herceptin status and treatment.|||0.943|0.804|
91094768|NCT01401166|182073352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Proportion|0.839|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.9|||||The estimated proportion of participants who preferred SC Herceptin and the corresponding exact binomial CI were determined.|||0.900|0.760|
91094769|NCT01401166|182073352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Proportion|0.874|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.776|0.933|||||The estimated proportion of participants who preferred SC Herceptin and the corresponding CI were determined using logistic regression with factors of previous Herceptin status and treatment.|||0.933|0.776|
91094770|NCT01401166|182073352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Proportion|0.885|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.811|0.937|||||The estimated proportion of participants who preferred SC Herceptin and the corresponding exact binomial CI were determined.|||0.937|0.811|
91094771|NCT01401166|182073352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Proportion|0.911|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.827|0.956|||||The estimated proportion of participants who preferred SC Herceptin and the corresponding CI were determined using logistic regression with factors of previous Herceptin status and treatment.|||0.956|0.827|
91094772|NCT02431299|182073390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||Whether there were significant changes in the IMRS baseline scores to IMRS follow up scores.|t-test, 2 sided|t = 2.78, df = 182||||||<0.01
90846970|NCT01578850|181560551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.3||||0.774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.03|11.68|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||DAS28-CRP Week 24||11.68|-9.03|0.774
91094773|NCT02431299|182073391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Hypothesized that higher levels of IMR competence would predict higher IMRS outcomes.||||<0.05
90899284|NCT03587142|181664959|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.39||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.42|19.64||P value is nominal: no adjustments made for multiple comparisons. Bonferroni p-value threshold level of significance is \<0.002|ANCOVA|||Adjusted mean difference of differences (DoD) from baseline were computed using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 4-weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome. 95% Wald Confidence Intervals are reported; P (2-sided) determined from a Wald Chi-Square test.||19.64|-20.42|0.97
91094774|NCT06178991|182073411|NON_INFERIORITY|The criterion for non-inferiority (NI) was lower bounds of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR was greater than 0.67.|GMR|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|1.52|||||GMRs (ratio of Arm C to Arm D titers) and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating mean difference of the logarithms of the titers between the two comparative vaccine groups and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student t distribution).|H1N1||1.52|1.25|
91094775|NCT06178991|182073411|NON_INFERIORITY|The criterion for NI was lower bounds of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR was greater than 0.67.|GMR|1.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|1.86|||||GMRs (ratio of Arm C to Arm D titers) and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating mean difference of the logarithms of the titers between the two comparative vaccine groups and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student t distribution).|H3N2||1.86|1.58|
91094776|NCT06178991|182073411|NON_INFERIORITY|The criterion for NI was lower bounds of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR was greater than 0.67.|GMR|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.73|||||GMRs (ratio of Arm C to Arm D titers) and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating mean difference of the logarithms of the titers between the two comparative vaccine groups and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student t distribution).|Victoria||0.73|0.61|
91094777|NCT06178991|182073412|NON_INFERIORITY|The criterion for NI was lower bounds of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants achieving seroconversion was greater than -10%.|Difference in percentage of participants|17.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.1|21.6|||||Difference in percentage of participants achieving seroconversion (Arm C - Arm D) and the associated 2-sided 95% CI was based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method. Data was expressed as percentages.|H1N1||21.6|14.1|
91094778|NCT06178991|182073412|NON_INFERIORITY|The criterion for NI was lower bounds of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants achieving seroconversion was greater than -10%.|Difference in percentage of participants|25.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.7|29.3|||||Difference in percentage of participants achieving seroconversion (Arm C - Arm D) and the associated 2-sided 95% CI was based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method. Data was expressed as percentages.|H3N2||29.3|21.7|
91094779|NCT06178991|182073412|NON_INFERIORITY|The criterion for NI was lower bounds of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants achieving seroconversion was greater than -10%.|Difference in percentage of participants|-13.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|-10.0|||||Difference in percentage of participants achieving seroconversion (Arm C - Arm D) and the associated 2-sided 95% CI was based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method. Data was expressed as percentages.|Victoria||-10.0|-17.5|
90846971|NCT01578850|181560551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|12.3||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.86|21.69|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||DAS28-ESR Week 28||21.69|2.86|0.034
91094780|NCT06178991|182073413|NON_INFERIORITY|The criterion for NI was lower bounds of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR was greater than 0.67.|GMR|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.1|||||GMRs (ratio of Arm C to Arm D titers) and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating mean difference of the logarithms of the titers between the two comparative vaccine groups and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student t distribution).|||1.10|0.94|
91094781|NCT06178991|182073414|NON_INFERIORITY|The criterion for NI was lower bounds of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants achieving seroresponse was greater than -10%.|Difference in percentage of participants|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|4.6|||||Difference in percentage of participants achieving seroresponse (Arm C - Arm D) and the associated 2-sided 95% CI was based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method. Data was expressed as percentages.|||4.6|-0.9|
91029671|NCT01210001|181943533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.83|-0.36||Hierarchical testing to adjust for multiple comparisons within each dose level, alpha split equally between the doses (2.5%). Empa vs placebo change from baseline in HbA1c for pio+met background only was the fourth step in each hierarchical sequence.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, background antidiabetic medication, renal function at baseline and baseline HbA1c.|Difference calculated as empa 25mg minus placebo|||-0.36|-0.83|<0.0001
91094782|NCT06178991|182073415|NON_INFERIORITY|The criterion for NI was lower bounds of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR was greater than 0.67.|GMR|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.34|||||GMRs (ratio of Arm E to Arm G titers) and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating mean difference of the logarithms of the titers between the two comparative vaccine groups and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student t distribution).|H1N1||1.34|1.01|
91094783|NCT06178991|182073415|NON_INFERIORITY|The criterion for NI was lower bounds of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR was greater than 0.67.|GMR|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.11|||||GMRs (ratio of Arm E to Arm H titers) and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating mean difference of the logarithms of the titers between the two comparative vaccine groups and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student t distribution).|H1N1||1.11|0.85|
91094784|NCT06178991|182073415|NON_INFERIORITY|The criterion for NI was lower bounds of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR was greater than 0.67.|GMR|1.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|1.97|||||GMRs (ratio of Arm E to Arm G titers) and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating mean difference of the logarithms of the titers between the two comparative vaccine groups and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student t distribution).|H3N2||1.97|1.56|
91094785|NCT06178991|182073415|NON_INFERIORITY|The criterion for NI was lower bounds of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR was greater than 0.67.|GMR|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.03|||||GMRs (ratio of Arm E to Arm H titers) and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating mean difference of the logarithms of the titers between the two comparative vaccine groups and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student t distribution).|H3N2||1.03|0.82|
91094786|NCT06178991|182073415|NON_INFERIORITY|The criterion for NI was lower bounds of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR was greater than 0.67.|GMR|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.66|||||GMRs (ratio of Arm E to Arm G titers) and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating mean difference of the logarithms of the titers between the two comparative vaccine groups and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student t distribution).|Victoria||0.66|0.52|
90846972|NCT01578850|181560551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|16.9||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.33|27.54|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||DAS28-CRP Week 28||27.54|6.33|0.020
90846973|NCT01578850|181560551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|14.6||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.48|23.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||DAS28-ESR Week 36||23.80|5.48|0.007
91029672|NCT03900624|181943547|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.632|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.632
91029673|NCT03900624|181943548|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.725|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.725
91094787|NCT06178991|182073415|NON_INFERIORITY|The criterion for NI was lower bounds of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR was greater than 0.67.|GMR|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|1.4|||||GMRs (ratio of Arm E to Arm H titers) and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating mean difference of the logarithms of the titers between the two comparative vaccine groups and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student t distribution).|Victoria||1.40|1.11|
91094788|NCT06178991|182073416|NON_INFERIORITY|The criterion for NI was lower bounds of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR was greater than 0.67.|GMR|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.01|||||GMRs (ratio of Arm E to Arm F titers) and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating mean difference of the logarithms of the titers between the two comparative vaccine groups and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student t distribution).|||1.01|0.82|
91094789|NCT03353220|182073438|OTHER|||||||0.65||||||paired t test|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.65
91094790|NCT03353220|182073439|OTHER|||||||0.0001||||||paired t test|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0001
91094791|NCT03353220|182073440|OTHER|||||||0.0017||||||paired t test|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0017
90846974|NCT01578850|181560551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|24.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.72|34.98|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||DAS28-CRP Week 36||34.98|14.72|<0.001
90846975|NCT01578850|181560551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|18.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.16|27.38|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||DAS28-ESR Week 44||27.38|10.16|<0.001
90846976|NCT01578850|181560551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|30.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.03|40.76|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||DAS28-CRP Week 44||40.76|21.03|<0.001
91029674|NCT03900624|181943549|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.725|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.725
91094792|NCT03353220|182073444|OTHER|||||||0.0189|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0189
91094793|NCT02594111|182073479|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
91094794|NCT01431976|182073487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|35.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.39|59.22||||||||59.22|15.39|
91094795|NCT01013753|182073507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.097|0.182|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.182|0.097|<0.0001
91094796|NCT01013753|182073507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.182|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001||95.0|0.14|0.224|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.224|0.140|<0.0001
90899285|NCT03587142|181664960|SUPERIORITY||Incident rate ratio|1.27||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|2.82||P values are nominal and not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Exact poisson regression|||Event rates are computed by treatment arm by dividing the total adverse events over 4-weeks by the number of patient-months of follow-up to 4-weeks. Event rates are compared by treatment arm using an exact poisson regression for event rates.||2.82|0.57|0.64
90899286|NCT03587142|181664961|SUPERIORITY||Incident rate ratio|0.95||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|2.62||P values are nominal.|Fisher Exact|||A Fisher's Exact test was used for comparisons of events by treatment by severity grade. One patient in the Buspirone arm had 2 AEs during the trial; for analysis by severity grade the maximum severity grade was used.|An exact poisson regression stratified by severity level was used to compute the incident rate ratio and 95% Confidence Intervals for adverse events by severity level.|2.62|0.35|0.54
90899287|NCT03587142|181664962|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P value is nominal.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
90899288|NCT03587142|181664963|SUPERIORITY||Incident rate ratio|1.03||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|40.36||P-values are nominal.|Exact poisson regression|||Event rates were computed by dividing the number of hospitalizations over 4-weeks by the number of person-years. An exact poisson regression was used to compare events by treatment group.||40.36|0|1.00
90846977|NCT01578850|181560551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|20.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.78|29.52|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||DAS28-ESR Week 52||29.52|11.78|<0.001
90899289|NCT03587142|181664964|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52||||||Nominal P value.|Binomial probability test|2-sided test with probability of success=0||||||0.52
90899290|NCT02294630|181664974|OTHER|||||||0.399|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.399
90899291|NCT02567825|181664993|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.97||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.12|||Generalized linear model|The p-value is adjusted for site, age at enrollment, and exposure or nonexposure to other children.|The Surgical Management group represents the numerator for the risk ratio and the Non-Surgical Management group represents the denominator. The estimates are adjusted for site, age at enrollment, and exposure or nonexposure to other children.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups in the rate of occurrence of AOM per child-year during the 2-year follow-up period.||1.12|0.84|0.66
90899292|NCT02567825|181664994|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.01|||||The Surgical Management group represents the numerator for the risk ratio and the Non-Surgical Management group represents the denominator.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups in the rate of occurrence of AOM per child-year during the 2 year follow-up among children considered at low risk of AOM recurrences at enrollment..||1.01|0.67|
90899293|NCT02567825|181664994|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.33|||||The Surgical Management group represents the numerator for the risk ratio and the Non-Surgical Management group represents the denominator.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups in the rate of occurrence of AOM per child-year during the 2 year follow-up among children considered at high risk of AOM recurrences at enrollment.||1.33|0.86|
90899294|NCT02567825|181664994|OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Generalized linear models|||Null hypothesis: There is no interaction between comparison group (Surgical Management, Non-Surgical Management) and risk group (children considered at low risk of AOM recurrences at enrollment, children considered at high risk of AOM recurrences at enrollment).||||0.08
90899295|NCT02567825|181664995|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Chi-squared|||"Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups in the proportion of children completing the study with 0, 1 or 2, 3 or 4, greater than or equal to 5 episodes of AOM.~."||||0.48
90899296|NCT02567825|181664996|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.92|||||The Surgical Management group represents the numerator for the risk ratio and the Non-Surgical Management group represents the denominator. The estimates are adjusted for site, age at enrollment, and exposure or nonexposure to other children.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups in the proportion of children experiencing treatment failure.||0.92|0.58|
90899297|NCT02567825|181664997|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.9|||||The Surgical Management group represents the numerator for the hazard ratio and the Non-Surgical Management group represents the denominator. The estimates are adjusted for site, age at enrollment, and exposure or nonexposure to other children.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups regarding the time to the first episode of AOM.||0.90|0.52|
90899298|NCT02567825|181664998|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.09|||||The Surgical Management group represents the numerator for the risk ratio and the Non-Surgical Management group represents the denominator. The estimates are adjusted for site, age at enrollment, and exposure or nonexposure to other children.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups in the proportion of episodes categorized as probably severe.||1.09|0.76|
91094797|NCT01013753|182073507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.205|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.163|0.248|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.248|0.163|<0.0001
90846978|NCT01578850|181560551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|27.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.38|36.93|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||DAS28-CRP Week 52||36.93|17.38|<0.001
90899299|NCT02567825|181664999|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.44||||||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups in the proportion of episodes presenting with tympanic membrane bulging rather than otorrhea|The Surgical Management group represents the numerator for the risk ratio and the Non-Surgical Management group represents the denominator. The estimates are adjusted for site, age at enrollment, and exposure or nonexposure to other children.|0.44|0.26|
90899300|NCT02567825|181665000|SUPERIORITY||Difference of least-squares means|5.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|7.82|||||The Surgical Management group represents the first number in the subtraction and the Non-Surgical Management group represents the second. The estimates are adjusted for site, age at enrollment, and exposure or nonexposure to other children.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups in the mean days per year children experience tube otorrhea. The analysis uses a weighted regression model with weights equal to the length of follow-up.||7.82|2.60|
91029675|NCT02999178|181943554|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|106.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.42|148.5||Treatment comparison of slopes was assessed through the treatment-by-time interaction coefficient. P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|"Fixed effects: Treatment, HRCT fibrotic pattern, baseline FVC (mL), treatment-by-time, baseline-by-time interactions.~Random effects: time, intercept."|Difference of adjusted annual rates of decline was calculated as Nintedanib - Placebo.|The decrease in FVC was assumed to be linear within each participant over 52 weeks. The intercepts and slopes were assumed to be normally distributed with unstructured covariance matrix. The within participant error was assumed to be independent and normally distributed with mean 0 and a common variance. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors (SEs).||148.50|65.42|<.0001
91029676|NCT02999178|181943555|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|128.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|29.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|70.81|185.59||Treatment comparison of slopes was assessed through the treatment-by-time interaction coefficient. P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effects: Treatment, baseline FVC (mL), treatment-by-time, baseline-by-time interactions. Random effects: time, intercept.|Difference of adjusted annual rates of decline was calculated as Nintedanib - Placebo.|The decrease in FVC was assumed to be linear within each participant over 52 weeks. The intercepts and slopes were assumed to be normally distributed with unstructured covariance matrix. The within participant error was assumed to be independent and normally distributed with mean 0 and a common variance. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors (SEs).||185.59|70.81|<.0001
91029677|NCT02999178|181943556|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Adjusted mean difference|1.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.1115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|2.98|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Fixed effects: baseline K-BILD Total score, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline-by-visit interactions, random effect: participant.|Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Nintedanib - Placebo.|||2.98|-0.31|0.1115
90846979|NCT01578850|181560553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.2|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||DAS28-ESR Week 28||-0.20|-0.73|<0.001
90846980|NCT01578850|181560553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.11|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||DAS28-CRP Week 28||-0.11|-0.61|0.006
90846981|NCT01578850|181560553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.39|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||DAS28-ESR Week 36||-0.39|-0.96|<0.001
90846982|NCT01578850|181560553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.28|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||DAS28-CRP Week 36||-0.28|-0.82|<0.001
90846983|NCT01578850|181560553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.46|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||DAS28-ESR Week 44||-0.46|-1.03|<0.001
90846984|NCT01578850|181560553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|-0.37|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||DAS28-CRP Week 44||-0.37|-0.92|<0.001
90846985|NCT01578850|181560553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.4|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||DAS28-ESR Week 52||-0.40|-0.98|<0.001
90846986|NCT01578850|181560553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.36|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||DAS28-CRP Week 52||-0.36|-0.91|<0.001
90846987|NCT01578850|181560554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.001
90846988|NCT01578850|181560556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.4||||0.961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.13|8.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||Good Response: DAS28-CRP Week 24||8.90|-6.13|0.961
90846989|NCT01578850|181560556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|21.5||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.99|32.02|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||Good Response: DAS28-ESR Week 28||32.02|10.99|0.001
90846990|NCT01578850|181560556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|18.3||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.08|28.53|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||Good Response: DAS28-CRP Week 28||28.53|8.08|0.007
90846991|NCT01578850|181560556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|31.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.42|41.39|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||Good Response: DAS28-ESR Week 36||41.39|21.42|<0.001
90846992|NCT01578850|181560556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|27.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.83|37.54|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||Good Response: DAS28-CRP Week 36||37.54|16.83|<0.001
90846993|NCT01578850|181560556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|31.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.53|41.02|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||Good Response: DAS28-ESR Week 44||41.02|21.53|<0.001
90846994|NCT01578850|181560556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|30.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.54|41.05|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||Good Response: DAS28-CRP Week 44||41.05|20.54|<0.001
90846995|NCT01578850|181560556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|26.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.82|35.74|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||Good Response: DAS28-ESR Week 52||35.74|16.82|<0.001
90846996|NCT01578850|181560556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|27.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.63|37.44|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||Good Response: DAS28-CRP Week 52||37.44|16.63|<0.001
90846997|NCT01578850|181560556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|0.0||||0.766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|1.65|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||Good Response: DAS28-ESR Week 24||1.65|-1.69|0.766
90846998|NCT01578850|181560556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|8.2||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.32|14.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||Moderate Response: DAS28-ESR Week 28||14.10|2.32|0.091
90846999|NCT01578850|181560556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|6.5||||0.227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|11.75|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||Moderate Response: DAS28-CRP Week 28||11.75|1.28|0.227
90847000|NCT01578850|181560556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|9.9||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.27|16.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||Moderate Response: DAS28-ESR Week 36||16.60|3.27|0.072
90847001|NCT01578850|181560556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|8.8||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.43|15.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||Moderate Response: DAS28-CRP Week 36||15.20|2.43|0.108
90847002|NCT01578850|181560556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|11.7||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.69|18.72|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||Moderate Response: DAS28-ESR Week 44||18.72|4.69|0.035
90847003|NCT01578850|181560556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|10.6||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|17.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||Moderate Response: DAS28-ESR Week 44||17.06|4.20|0.030
90847004|NCT01578850|181560556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|11.1||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.15|18.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||Moderate Response: DAS28-ESR Week 52||18.06|4.15|0.048
91029678|NCT02999178|181943557|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Adjusted mean difference|1.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12||0.1747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|3.74|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Fixed effects: baseline K-BILD Total score, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline-by-visit interactions, random effect: participant.|Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Nintedanib - Placebo.|||3.74|-0.68|0.1747
91029679|NCT02999178|181943558|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.3948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.34|||Log Rank|Stratified by HRCT fibrotic pattern.|A Cox proportional hazards model, stratified by HRCT fibrotic pattern, was used to estimate the hazard ratio calculated as Nintedanib divided by Placebo.|||1.34|0.48|0.3948
90847005|NCT01578850|181560556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|11.2||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.92|17.58|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||Moderate Response: DAS28-CRP Week 52||17.58|4.92|0.016
90847006|NCT01578850|181560558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.6||||0.358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|1.81|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||CDAI: LDA Baseline||1.81|-0.59|0.358
90847007|NCT01578850|181560558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.4||||0.341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.38|9.16|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||CDAI: LDA: Week 24||9.16|-2.38|0.341
90847008|NCT01578850|181560558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|18.3||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.4|28.27|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||CDAI: LDA: Week 28||28.27|8.40|0.004
90847009|NCT01578850|181560558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|24.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.88|34.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||CDAI: LDA: Week 36||34.40|13.88|<0.001
91029680|NCT02999178|181943559|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.1985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.24|||Log Rank||A Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate the hazard ratio calculated as Nintedanib divided by Placebo.|||1.24|0.36|0.1985
90847010|NCT01578850|181560558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|27.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.85|37.35|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||CDAI: LDA: Week 44||37.35|16.85|<0.001
90847011|NCT01578850|181560558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|24.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.61|34.42|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||CDAI: LDA: Week 52||34.42|13.61|<0.001
90957392|NCT04426851|181794783|OTHER||Ratio of the geometric means (%)|148.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|138.1|159.5|||||Ratio was calculated as: BI 1358894 100 mg oral suspension fed/BI 1358894 100 mg oral suspension fasted. Intra - individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) =8.7.|The ANOVA model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence or block', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||159.5|138.1|
91094798|NCT01013753|182073507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.229|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.186|0.272|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.272|0.186|<0.0001
90847012|NCT01578850|181560558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.3||||0.774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|10.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||CDAI: Remission: Week 24||10.06|-5.50|0.774
90847013|NCT01578850|181560558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.4||||0.645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.15|8.03|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||CDAI: Remission: Week 28||8.03|-7.15|0.645
90847014|NCT01578850|181560558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|8.4||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|16.35|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||CDAI: Remission: Week 36||16.35|0.36|0.080
90847015|NCT01578850|181560558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|9.6||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.49|17.68|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||CDAI: Remission: Week 44||17.68|1.49|0.025
90847016|NCT01578850|181560558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|9.0||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|16.88|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||CDAI: Remission: Week 52||16.88|1.02|0.088
90847017|NCT01578850|181560558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.6||||0.358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|1.81|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||SDAI: LDA: Baseline||1.81|-0.59|0.358
90847018|NCT01578850|181560558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.3||||0.258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.57|10.13|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||SDAI: LDA: Week 24||10.13|-3.57|0.258
90847019|NCT01578850|181560558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|17.7||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.49|27.92|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||SDAI: LDA: Week 28||27.92|7.49|0.005
90847020|NCT01578850|181560558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|27.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.93|37.55|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||SDAI: LDA: Week 36||37.55|16.93|<0.001
90847021|NCT01578850|181560558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|32.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.83|42.23|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||SDAI: LDA: Week 44||42.23|21.83|<0.001
90847022|NCT01578850|181560558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|28.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.0|38.69|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||SDAI: LDA: Week 52||38.69|18.00|<0.001
90847023|NCT01578850|181560558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.0||||0.672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.51|11.51|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||SDAI: Remission: Week 24||11.51|-5.51|0.672
90847024|NCT01578850|181560558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.0||||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.03|8.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||SDAI: Remission: Week 28||8.00|-8.03|0.556
90847025|NCT01578850|181560558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|10.3||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.07|18.45|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||SDAI: Remission: Week 36||18.45|2.07|0.022
90847026|NCT01578850|181560558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|9.0||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|17.25|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||SDAI: Remission: Week 44||17.25|0.85|0.047
91094799|NCT01013753|182073507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.169|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.126|0.211|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.211|0.126|<0.0001
90847027|NCT01578850|181560558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|12.1||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|20.57|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||SDAI: Remission: Week 52||20.57|3.70|0.031
90847028|NCT01578850|181560560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.19|-0.01|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||CDAI: Week 28||-0.01|-4.19|0.049
90899301|NCT02567825|181665001|SUPERIORITY||Difference of least-squares means|-6.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.55|-5.1|||||The Surgical Management group represents the first number in the subtraction and the Non-Surgical Management group represents the second. The estimates are adjusted for site, age at enrollment, and exposure or nonexposure to other children.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups in the mean days per year children experience AOM symptoms with an intact TM. The analysis uses a weighted regression model with weights equal to the length of follow-up.||-5.10|-7.55|
90899302|NCT02567825|181665002|SUPERIORITY||Difference of least-squares means|-4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.82|-2.18|||||The Surgical Management group represents the first number in the subtraction and the Non-Surgical Management group represents the second. The estimates are adjusted for site, age at enrollment, and exposure or nonexposure to other children.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups in the mean days per year children receive systemic antimicrobials for AOM. The analysis uses a weighted regression model with weights equal to the length of follow-up.||-2.18|-6.82|
90899303|NCT02567825|181665003|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.03|||||The Surgical Management group represents the numerator for the hazard ratio and the Non-Surgical Management group represents the denominator. The estimates are adjusted for site, age at enrollment, and exposure or nonexposure to other children.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups regarding the proportion of children for whom PDD was reported.||1.03|0.44|
90899304|NCT02567825|181665004|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.22|||||The Surgical Management group represents the numerator for the risk ratio and the Non-Surgical Management group represents the denominator. The estimates are adjusted for site, age at enrollment, and exposure or nonexposure to other children.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups regarding the proportion of children for whom diaper dermatitis was reported.||1.22|0.51|
90899305|NCT02567825|181665005|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.91|3.48|||||The Surgical Management group represents the numerator for the risk ratio and the Non-Surgical Management group represents the denominator. The estimates are adjusted for site, age at enrollment, and exposure or nonexposure to other children.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups regarding the proportion of children for whom tube otorrhea was reported.||3.48|1.91|
90899306|NCT02567825|181665006|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.24|||||The Surgical Management group represents the numerator for the risk ratio and the Non-Surgical Management group represents the denominator. The estimates are adjusted for site, age at enrollment, and exposure or nonexposure to other children.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups in the proportion of children with no pathogens at enrollment having a penicillin-nonsusceptible nasopharyngeal or throat isolate at some follow-up visit.||1.24|0.74|
91029681|NCT02999178|181943560|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.8544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.86|||Log Rank|Stratified by HRCT fibrotic pattern.|A Cox proportional hazards model, stratified by HRCT fibrotic pattern, was used to estimate the hazard ratio calculated as Nintedanib divided by Placebo.|||1.86|0.47|0.8544
90899307|NCT02567825|181665006|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.72|||||The Surgical Management group represents the numerator for the risk ratio and the Non-Surgical Management group represents the denominator. The estimates are adjusted for site, age at enrollment, and exposure or nonexposure to other children.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups in the proportion of children positive only for at least 1 penicillin-susceptible pathogen at enrollment having a penicillin-nonsusceptible nasopharyngeal or throat isolate at some follow-up visit.||1.72|0.83|
91029682|NCT02999178|181943561|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.3291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.47|||Log Rank||A Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate the hazard ratio calculated as Nintedanib divided by Placebo.|||1.47|0.32|0.3291
91029683|NCT02999178|181943564|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.85|||Log Rank|Stratified by HRCT fibrotic pattern.|A Cox proportional hazards model, stratified by HRCT fibrotic pattern, was used to estimate the hazard ratio calculated as Nintedanib divided by Placebo.|||0.85|0.49|0.0017
91029684|NCT02999178|181943565|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64||||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.89|||Log Rank||A Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate the hazard ratio calculated as Nintedanib divided by Placebo.|||0.89|0.45|0.0081
91029685|NCT02999178|181943566|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.96|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with continuous covariate baseline FVC % pred and binary covariate HRCT fibrotic pattern.|Ratio calculated as Nintedanib divided by Placebo.|||0.96|0.52|
91029686|NCT02999178|181943567|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.94|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with continuous covariate baseline FVC % pred.|Ratio calculated as Nintedanib divided by Placebo.|||0.94|0.43|
91029687|NCT02999178|181943568|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.68|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with continuous covariate baseline FVC % pred and binary covariate HRCT fibrotic pattern.|Ratio calculated as Nintedanib divided by Placebo.|||0.68|0.36|
90899308|NCT02567825|181665006|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.29|||||The Surgical Management group represents the numerator for the risk ratio and the Non-Surgical Management group represents the denominator. The estimates are adjusted for site, age at enrollment, and exposure or nonexposure to other children.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups in the proportion of children positive for at least 1 penicillin nonsusceptible pathogen at enrollment having a penicillin-nonsusceptible nasopharyngeal or throat isolate at some follow-up visit.||1.29|0.94|
90899309|NCT02567825|181665007|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.55|||||The Surgical Management group represents the numerator for the risk ratio and the Non-Surgical Management group represents the denominator. The estimates are adjusted for site, age at enrollment, and exposure or nonexposure to other children.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups in the proportion of episodes of AOM at which a nonsusceptible pathogen is recovered.||1.55|0.84|
91029688|NCT02999178|181943569|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.69|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with continuous covariate baseline FVC % pred.|Ratio calculated as Nintedanib divided by Placebo.|||0.69|0.31|
90899310|NCT02567825|181665008|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.41|||||The Surgical Management group represents the numerator for the risk ratio and the Non-Surgical Management group represents the denominator. The estimates are adjusted for site, age at enrollment, and exposure or nonexposure to other children.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups in the proportion of routine non-illness visits at which a nonsusceptible pathogen is recovered.||1.41|0.84|
90899311|NCT02567825|181665009|SUPERIORITY|The analysis was ITT. The participants are randomized children with at least one episode of AOM late during the respiratory season at which a nasopharyngeal or throat culture is obtained.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.95|||||The Surgical Management group represents the numerator for the risk ratio and the Non-Surgical Management group represents the denominator.|||1.95|0.69|
90899312|NCT02567825|181665010|SUPERIORITY||Difference of least-squares means|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.56|||||The Surgical Management group represents the first number in the subtraction and the Non-Surgical Management group represents the second. The estimates are adjusted for site, age at enrollment, and exposure or nonexposure to other children.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups in the mean parental satisfaction score||0.56|-0.06|
90899313|NCT02567825|181665011|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.18|||||The Surgical Management group represents the numerator for the risk ratio and the Non-Surgical Management group represents the denominator. The estimates are adjusted for site, age at enrollment, and exposure or nonexposure to other children.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups in the proportion of parent reports indicating at least one health care encounter since the previous study visit.||1.18|0.98|
90899314|NCT02567825|181665012|SUPERIORITY|Reports for which the parent did not answer the question were excluded from the analysis.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.41|||||The Surgical Management group represents the numerator for the risk ratio and the Non-Surgical Management group represents the denominator. The estimates are adjusted for site, age at enrollment, and exposure or nonexposure to other children.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups in the proportion of parent reports indicating a parent missed work due to child's illness.||1.41|0.88|
90899315|NCT02567825|181665013|SUPERIORITY|Reports indicating the parent did not answer the question were excluded from the analysis.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.48|||||The Surgical Management group represents the numerator for the risk ratio and the Non-Surgical Management group represents the denominator. The estimates are adjusted for site, age at enrollment, and exposure or nonexposure to other children.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups in the proportion of parent reports indicating the need for special childcare arrangements due to child's illness.||1.48|0.89|
90899316|NCT02567825|181665014|SUPERIORITY||Difference of least-square means|-0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.02|||||The Surgical Management group represents the first number in the subtraction and the Non-Surgical Management group represents the second. The estimates are adjusted for site, age at enrollment, and exposure or nonexposure to other children.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups in the mean OM-6 survey score||0.02|-0.13|
90899317|NCT02567825|181665014|SUPERIORITY||Difference of least-square means|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.24|||||The Surgical Management group represents the first number in the subtraction and the Non-Surgical Management group represents the second. The estimates are adjusted for site, age at enrollment, and exposure or nonexposure to other children.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups in the mean OM-6 survey--children's overall QOL score.||0.24|-0.13|
90899318|NCT02567825|181665015|SUPERIORITY||Difference of least-square means|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|1.47|||||The Surgical Management group represents the first number in the subtraction and the Non-Surgical Management group represents the second. The estimates are adjusted for site, age at enrollment, and exposure or nonexposure to other children.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups in the mean caregiver impact questionnaire score.||1.47|-1.55|
91029689|NCT02999178|181943570|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Adjusted mean difference|-3.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.33|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.14|-0.92|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Fixed effects: baseline, HRCT fibrotic pattern, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline-by-visit interaction, random effect: participant.|Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Nintedanib - Placebo.|||-0.92|-6.14|
91029690|NCT02999178|181943571|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Adjusted mean difference|-4.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.68|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.48|-0.88|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Fixed effects: baseline, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline-by-visit interaction, random effect: participant.|Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Nintedanib - Placebo.|||-0.88|-7.48|
90899319|NCT02567825|181665015|SUPERIORITY||Difference of least-square means|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.2|||||The Surgical Management group represents the first number in the subtraction and the Non-Surgical Management group represents the second. The estimates are adjusted for site, age at enrollment, and exposure or nonexposure to other children.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups in the mean caregiver impact questionnaire--caregiver's overall QOL score.||0.20|-0.14|
91029691|NCT02999178|181943572|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Adjusted mean difference|-6.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.81|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.65|-2.53|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Fixed effects: baseline, HRCT fibrotic pattern, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline-by-visit interaction, random effect: participant.|Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Nintedanib - Placebo.|||-2.53|-9.65|
90899320|NCT01737684|181665024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.67|||ANCOVA|||||1.67|0.96|
91029692|NCT02999178|181943573|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Adjusted mean difference|-7.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.33|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.86|-2.71|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Fixed effects: baseline, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline-by-visit interaction, random effect: participant.|Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Nintedanib - Placebo.|||-2.71|-11.86|
91029693|NCT02753842|181943591|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.39|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|2.26||The a priori threshold was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparing fitted to standard condoms, the null hypothesis was no difference in pleasure.||2.26|0.52|<0.05
90899321|NCT01737684|181665027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|2.06|||ANCOVA|||||2.06|0.88|
90899322|NCT03097861|181665031|OTHER|Treatment p-value is from ANCOVA using SBM count as dependent variable, treatment as fixed effect and baseline count as random effect|||||=|0.002|||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.0020
90899323|NCT03097861|181665031|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||Treatment p-value is from ANCOVA using SBM count as dependent variable, treatment as fixed effect and baseline count as random effect||||<0.0001
90899324|NCT03502616|181665083|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|27.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.71|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.89|38.28|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) approach.||38.28|15.89|<0.0001
90899325|NCT03502616|181665084|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|28.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.06|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.26|38.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||38.09|18.26|<0.0001
90899326|NCT03502616|181665091|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|18.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.7||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.06|27.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||27.50|9.06|0.0001
90899327|NCT03502616|181665091|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|31.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.47|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.64|42.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||42.06|20.64|<0.0001
90899328|NCT03502616|181665091|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|32.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.57|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.32|43.17|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||43.17|21.32|<0.0001
90899329|NCT03502616|181665091|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|34.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.63|45.58|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||45.58|23.63|<0.0001
90899330|NCT03502616|181665091|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|3.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.9||0.536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.92|15.22|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||15.22|-7.92|0.5360
90899331|NCT03502616|181665091|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|3.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.63||0.4971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.22|14.87|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 32: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||14.87|-7.22|0.4971
91029694|NCT02753842|181943592|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A single item assessed whether participants preferred fitted condoms or standard condoms at the end of the study (the item word viewed by participants used the blinded identifiers of each condom type).||1.38|0.92|>0.05
91029695|NCT02753842|181943594|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|3.24|||logistic mixed effects model|||We assessed clinical condom failure for anal sex, comparing anal sex acts with fitted condoms to anal sex acts with standard condoms.||3.24|0.27|>0.05
91094800|NCT01013753|182073508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.163|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001||95.0|0.116|0.211|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.211|0.116|<0.0001
91029696|NCT02753842|181943595|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.06|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.94||The a priori threshold was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparing thin to standard condoms, the null hypothesis was no difference in pleasure.||1.94|0.18|<0.05
91029697|NCT05216081|181943596|OTHER||Percentage of enrolled from eligible|69.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.5|76.2||||||||76.2|61.5|
91029698|NCT05216081|181943597|OTHER||Percentage of enrolled from eligible|99.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.7|99.8||||||||99.8|94.7|
91029699|NCT05216081|181943599|OTHER||Percentage screened positive for EM|15.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|24.2||||||||24.2|10|
90899332|NCT03502616|181665091|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|1.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.65||0.7792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.49|12.66|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||12.66|-9.49|0.7792
90899333|NCT03502616|181665091|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|5.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.8||0.3685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.15|16.58|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||16.58|-6.15|0.3685
90899334|NCT03502616|181665092|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|6.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.19||0.0548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|12.37|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||12.37|-0.13|0.0548
90899335|NCT03502616|181665092|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|23.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.3|31.56|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||31.56|15.30|<0.0001
91029700|NCT05216081|181943602|OTHER||Percentage who self-disclosed|57.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.6|78.6||||||||78.6|32.6|
91029701|NCT05216081|181943603|OTHER||Percentage substantiated by socialworker|75.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.5|89.8||||||||89.8|50.5|
91094801|NCT01013753|182073508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.212|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001||95.0|0.166|0.259|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.259|0.166|<0.0001
91029702|NCT00863746|181943604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9934||||0.4687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8409|1.1735||p-value of one-sided test (significance level 2.5%)|Log Rank|stratified by region, number of prior treatments, presence brain mets at baseline, prior EGFR inhibitor treatment||Test for superiority of Sorafenib over Placebo||1.1735|0.8409|0.4687
91029703|NCT00863746|181943605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6068|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5139|0.7165||p-value of one-sided test (significance level 2.5%)|Log Rank|stratified by region, number of prior treatments, presence brain mets at baseline, prior EGFR inhibitor treatment||Test for superiority of Sorafenib over Placebo||0.7165|0.5139|<0.0001
91029704|NCT00863746|181943606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH-adjusted difference in proportions|0.2263|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1575|0.2952|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|stratified by region, number of prior treatments, presence brain mets at baseline, prior EGFR inhibitor treatment||||0.2952|0.1575|<0.000001
91094802|NCT01013753|182073508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.233|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001||95.0|0.186|0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.280|0.186|<0.0001
90847029|NCT01578850|181560560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.38||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.72|-1.05|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||CDAI: Week 36||-1.05|-5.72|0.005
90847030|NCT01578850|181560560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.37|-1.67|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||CDAI: Week 44||-1.67|-6.37|<0.001
90847031|NCT01578850|181560560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.36|-1.68|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||CDAI: Week 52||-1.68|-6.36|<0.001
90847032|NCT01578850|181560560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.22||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|-0.03|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||SDAI: Week 28||-0.03|-4.40|0.047
90899336|NCT03502616|181665092|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|28.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.54|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.66|37.47|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||37.47|19.66|<0.0001
90899337|NCT03502616|181665092|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|31.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.02|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.34|41.02|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||41.02|21.34|<0.0001
91029705|NCT00863746|181943607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH-adjusted difference in proportions|0.039||||0.000876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0137|0.0642|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|stratified by region, number of prior treatments, presence brain mets at baseline, prior EGFR inhibitor treatment||||0.0642|0.0137|0.000876
91029706|NCT00863746|181943608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.542|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4526|0.6492||p-value of one-sided test (significance level 2.5%)|Log Rank|stratified by region, number of prior treatments, presence brain mets at baseline, prior EGFR inhibitor treatment||Test for superiority of Sorafenib over Placebo||0.6492|0.4526|<0.0001
91029707|NCT00863746|181943609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3121||||||p-value for test of treatment effect equal to 0.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.3121
91029708|NCT00863746|181943610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2948||||||p-value for test of treatment effect equal to 0|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2948
91094803|NCT01013753|182073508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001||95.0|0.203|0.298|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.298|0.203|<0.0001
90847033|NCT01578850|181560560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.54||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.97|-1.12|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||SDAI: Week 36||-1.12|-5.97|0.004
90847034|NCT01578850|181560560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.78|-1.88|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||SDAI: Week 44||-1.88|-6.78|<0.001
90847035|NCT01578850|181560560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|-1.84|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||SDAI: Week 52||-1.84|-6.70|<0.001
90847036|NCT01578850|181560562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.2||||0.742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.21|3.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||ACR 20: Week 24||3.90|-4.21|0.742
90847037|NCT01578850|181560562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|9.8||||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.45|17.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||ACR 20: Week 28||17.06|2.45|0.143
90847038|NCT01578850|181560562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|11.4||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.31|19.51|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||ACR 20: Week 36||19.51|3.31|0.111
90847039|NCT01578850|181560562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|10.1||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|18.49|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||ACR 20: Week 44||18.49|1.80|0.175
90847040|NCT01578850|181560562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|10.8||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.49|19.05|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||ACR 20: Week 52||19.05|2.49|0.088
91094804|NCT01013753|182073508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.184|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001||95.0|0.137|0.231|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.231|0.137|<0.0001
91094805|NCT01013753|182073509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.115|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.073|0.158|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.158|0.073|<0.0001
91094806|NCT01013753|182073509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.151|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001||95.0|0.11|0.193|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.193|0.110|<0.0001
90847041|NCT01578850|181560562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.5||||0.584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.78|9.75|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||ACR 50: Week 24||9.75|-4.78|0.584
90847042|NCT01578850|181560562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|11.5||||0.226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|21.34|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||ACR 50: Week 28||21.34|1.59|0.226
90847043|NCT01578850|181560562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|17.2||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.76|27.56|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||ACR 50: Week 36||27.56|6.76|0.012
90847044|NCT01578850|181560562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|19.0||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.59|29.35|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||ACR 50: Week 44||29.35|8.59|0.006
90899338|NCT03502616|181665092|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|6.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.98||0.2926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.43|18.01|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||18.01|-5.43|0.2926
90899339|NCT03502616|181665092|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|6.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.97||0.2856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.32|18.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 32: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||18.06|-5.32|0.2856
91029709|NCT00863746|181943611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8344||||||p-value for test of treatment effect equal to 0|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8344
91029710|NCT00863746|181943612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1438||||||p-value for test of treatment effect equal to 0.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1438
91029711|NCT00863746|181943613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9228||||||p-value for treatment effect equal to 0.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.9228
91094807|NCT01013753|182073509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.177|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.135|0.219|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.219|0.135|<0.0001
90847045|NCT01578850|181560562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|17.7||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.3|28.16|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||ACR 50: Week 52||28.16|7.30|0.014
90847046|NCT01578850|181560562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|-2.7||||0.702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.49|8.11|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||ACR 70: Week 24||8.11|-13.49|0.702
90847047|NCT01578850|181560562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|7.1||||0.378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.37|17.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||ACR 70: Week 28||17.50|-3.37|0.378
90847048|NCT01578850|181560562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|17.3||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.12|27.56|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||ACR 70: Week 36||27.56|7.12|0.004
90847049|NCT01578850|181560562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|18.5||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.4|28.55|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||ACR 70: Week 44||28.55|8.40|0.001
90847050|NCT01578850|181560562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|16.0||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.96|26.02|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||ACR 70: Week 52||26.02|5.96|0.005
90847051|NCT01578850|181560562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.3||||0.921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.19|5.67|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||ACR 90: Week 24||5.67|-6.19|0.921
90847052|NCT01578850|181560562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.3||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.19|8.86|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||ACR 90: Week 28||8.86|-2.19|0.410
91029712|NCT00153803|181943626|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.33|||Log Rank|||||1.33|0.65|0.165
91029713|NCT00153803|181943627|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.63|||Log Rank|||||1.63|0.85|0.32
91094808|NCT01013753|182073509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.207|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.164|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.250|0.164|<0.0001
91094809|NCT01013753|182073509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.152|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.11|0.194|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.194|0.110|<0.0001
91094810|NCT01013753|182073510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.102|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001||95.0|0.056|0.148|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.148|0.056|<0.0001
90847053|NCT01578850|181560562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|6.4||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|12.48|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||ACR 90: Week 36||12.48|0.41|0.073
90847054|NCT01578850|181560562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|4.6||||0.219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|10.08|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||ACR 90: Week 44||10.08|-0.97|0.219
90847055|NCT01578850|181560562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|5.9||||0.196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|12.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||ACR 90: Week 52||12.40|-0.60|0.196
90847056|NCT01578850|181560564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|0.05|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||28 Tender Joint Count: Week 28||0.05|-1.84|0.062
90847057|NCT01578850|181560564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.34||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|-0.27|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||28 Tender Joint Count: Week 36||-0.27|-2.41|0.015
90847058|NCT01578850|181560564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.65||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.72|-0.57|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||28 Tender Joint Count: Week 44||-0.57|-2.72|0.003
90847059|NCT01578850|181560564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.75||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.85|-0.66|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||28 Tender Joint Count: Week 52||-0.66|-2.85|0.002
90847060|NCT01578850|181560564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.5|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||28 Swollen Joint Count: Week 28||0.50|-0.77|0.680
90847061|NCT01578850|181560564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29||||0.437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|0.45|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||28 Swollen Joint Count: Week 36||0.45|-1.04|0.437
90847062|NCT01578850|181560564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|0.17|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||28 Swollen Joint Count: Week 44||0.17|-1.31|0.131
90847063|NCT01578850|181560564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|0.25|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||28 Swollen Joint Count: Week 52||0.25|-1.22|0.199
90847064|NCT01578850|181560564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.16||||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.28|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||68 Tender Joint Count: Week 28||0.28|-2.60|0.115
90847065|NCT01578850|181560564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.88||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.42|-0.35|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||68 Tender Joint Count: Week 36||-0.35|-3.42|0.017
90847066|NCT01578850|181560564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.34||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.91|-0.76|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||68 Tender Joint Count: Week 44||-0.76|-3.91|0.004
90847067|NCT01578850|181560564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.58||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.19|-0.97|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||68 Tender Joint Count: Week 52||-0.97|-4.19|0.002
90847068|NCT01578850|181560564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36||||0.368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|0.42|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||68 Swollen Joint Count: Week 28||0.42|-1.13|0.368
90847069|NCT01578850|181560564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57||||0.208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|0.32|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||68 Swollen Joint Count: Week 36||0.32|-1.46|0.208
90847070|NCT01578850|181560564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.84||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|0.05|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||68 Swollen Joint Count: Week 44||0.05|-1.73|0.064
90847071|NCT01578850|181560564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.78||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|0.1|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||68 Swollen Joint Count: Week 52||0.10|-1.66|0.081
90847072|NCT01578850|181560566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.16|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||Week 28||-0.16|-0.90|0.005
91094811|NCT01013753|182073510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.135|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001||95.0|0.09|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.180|0.090|<0.0001
91029714|NCT03292653|181943632|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares (LS) Means|1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.64||0.736|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.4|7.93|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with fixed effects for treatment and stratification factors of baseline participant status (diabetic/non-diabetic, ejection fraction status (reduced/preserved) with baseline plasma volume as the covariate.||7.93|-5.4|0.736
91029715|NCT03292653|181943632|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.38||0.7694|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.22|5.18|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with fixed effects for treatment and stratification factors of baseline participant status (diabetic/non-diabetic, ejection fraction status (reduced/preserved) with baseline plasma volume as the covariate.||5.18|-7.22|0.7694
90847073|NCT01578850|181560566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|-0.38|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||Week 36||-0.38|-1.18|<0.001
90847074|NCT01578850|181560566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|-0.54|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||Week 44||-0.54|-1.35|<0.001
90847075|NCT01578850|181560566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.53|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||Week 52||-0.53|-1.33|<0.001
90847076|NCT01578850|181560568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.01|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||Week 28||-0.01|-1.00|0.048
90847077|NCT01578850|181560568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|-0.43|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||Week 36||-0.43|-1.44|<0.001
90847078|NCT01578850|181560568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.83||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.33|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||Week 44||-0.33|-1.33|0.001
90847079|NCT01578850|181560568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.82||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.31|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||Week 52||-0.31|-1.33|0.002
90847080|NCT01578850|181560570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.11||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.07|-1.16|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||Week 28||-1.16|-27.07|0.033
90847081|NCT01578850|181560570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.04||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.39|-3.68|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||Week 36||-3.68|-30.39|0.013
90847082|NCT01578850|181560570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.54||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.35|-2.73|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||Week 44||-2.73|-30.35|0.019
91029716|NCT03292653|181943633|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.184|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.09|0.01|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with fixed effects for treatment and stratification factors of baseline participant status (diabetic/non-diabetic), ejection fraction status (reduced/preserved) with baseline plasma volume as the covariate.||0.01|-0.09|0.184
91029717|NCT03292653|181943633|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.3397|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.07|0.02|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with fixed effects for treatment and stratification factors of baseline participant status (diabetic/non-diabetic), ejection fraction status (reduced/preserved) with baseline plasma volume as the covariate.||0.02|-0.07|0.3397
90847083|NCT01578850|181560570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.66||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.78|-5.54|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||Week 52||-5.54|-33.78|0.007
90847084|NCT01578850|181560572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.21||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.91|0.48|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||General Health VAS: Week 28||0.48|-8.91|0.078
90847085|NCT01578850|181560572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.54||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.49|-2.59|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||General Health VAS: Week 36||-2.59|-12.49|0.003
90847086|NCT01578850|181560572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.19||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|-3.18|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||General Health VAS: Week 44||-3.18|-13.20|0.001
90847087|NCT01578850|181560572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.64|-3.55|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||General Health VAS: Week 52||-3.55|-13.64|<0.001
90847088|NCT01578850|181560572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.91||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.75|-1.06|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||Pain VAS: Week 28||-1.06|-10.75|0.017
90847089|NCT01578850|181560572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.6||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.85|-3.34|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||Pain VAS: Week 36||-3.34|-13.85|0.001
90847090|NCT01578850|181560572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.72|-4.26|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||Pain VAS: Week 44||-4.26|-14.72|<0.001
90847091|NCT01578850|181560572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|-3.99|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||Pain VAS: Week 52||-3.99|-14.60|<0.001
90847092|NCT01578850|181560574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.22||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.39|-1.05|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||CRP: Week 28||-1.05|-9.39|0.014
90847093|NCT01578850|181560574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.27||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.09|-1.46|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||CRP: Week 36||-1.46|-11.09|0.011
90847094|NCT01578850|181560574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.06|-3.44|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||CRP: Week 44||-3.44|-12.06|<0.001
90847095|NCT01578850|181560574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.16||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.48|-2.85|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||CRP: Week 52||-2.85|-11.48|0.001
90847096|NCT01578850|181560574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.23|-2.49|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||ESR: Week 28||-2.49|-9.23|<0.001
90847097|NCT01578850|181560574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.33|-5.05|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||ESR: Week 36||-5.05|-12.33|<0.001
90847098|NCT01578850|181560574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.38|-3.8|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||ESR: Week 44||-3.80|-11.38|<0.001
90847099|NCT01578850|181560574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.03|-2.6|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||ESR: Week 52||-2.60|-10.03|<0.001
90847100|NCT03508908|181560614|OTHER||US dollars per DALY averted|3098.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Cost (in US dollars) per DALY averted (Intervention referenced to Observation)|Cost (in US dollars) per DALY averted (Intervention referenced to Observation)||||
90847101|NCT00329524|181560616|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power analysis based on paired t-test.|||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.05
90847102|NCT00329524|181560617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||test for order effect|||||||.05
90847103|NCT01001325|181560618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.685||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"Null hypothesis: There is no difference in incidence of pandemic strain influenza infection for people given seasonal influenza vaccine compared to those given a placebo.~Power to detect a 2-fold difference if attack rate in non-vaccinated participants is 10%: 86%"||||0.685
90847104|NCT02758184|181560619|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1031.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|681.7||0.15|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.15
90847105|NCT01584440|181560633|SUPERIORITY||Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) Z-statistic|-1.5|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Sequential Parallel Comparison Design (SPCD): data from the Stages 1 and 2 are analyzed together using the mITT Population||||||<=0.001
90847106|NCT01584440|181560633|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Day 36|||||
90847107|NCT01584440|181560633|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.59|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Day 70|||||
90847108|NCT01584440|181560635|SUPERIORITY||OLS Z-statistic|-2.46||||0.014|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|SPCD: data from the Stages 1 and 2 are analyzed together using the mITT Population||||||0.014
90847109|NCT01584440|181560635|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.2|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||||Day 36|||
90847110|NCT01584440|181560635|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.78|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Day 70|||||
90847111|NCT01584440|181560636|SUPERIORITY||OLS Z-statistic|0.77||||0.444|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Delusions Domain. SPCD: data from the Stages 1 and 2 are analyzed together using the mITT Population||||||0.444
90847112|NCT01584440|181560636|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.27|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Delusions Domain; Day 36|||||
90847113|NCT01584440|181560636|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Delusions Domain; Day 70|||||
90847114|NCT01584440|181560636|SUPERIORITY||OLS Z-statistic|-0.18||||0.861|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Hallucinations Domain. SPCD: data from the Stages 1 and 2 are analyzed together using the mITT Population||||||0.861
90847115|NCT01584440|181560636|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.29|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Hallucinations Domain; Day 36|||||
90847116|NCT01584440|181560636|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|0.22|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Hallucinations Domain; Day 70|||||
90847117|NCT01584440|181560636|SUPERIORITY||OLS Z-statistic|-0.32||||0.749|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Depression/Dysphoria Domain. SPCD: data from the Stages 1 and 2 are analyzed together using the mITT Population||||||0.749
90847118|NCT01584440|181560636|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.07|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Depression/Dysphoria Domain; Day 36|||||
90847119|NCT01584440|181560636|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Depression/Dysphoria Domain; Day 70|||||
90847120|NCT01584440|181560636|SUPERIORITY||OLS Z-statistic|-0.81||||0.416|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Anxiety Domain. SPCD: data from the Stages 1 and 2 are analyzed together using the mITT Population||||||0.416
90847121|NCT01584440|181560636|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Anxiety Domain; Day 36|||||
90847122|NCT01584440|181560636|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.81|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Anxiety Domain|||||
91029718|NCT03292653|181943634|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-17.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.12||0.094|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-33.79|-0.35|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with fixed effects for treatment and stratification factors of baseline participant status (diabetic/non-diabetic), ejection fraction status (reduced/preserved) with baseline plasma volume as the covariate.||-0.35|-33.79|0.094
91029719|NCT03292653|181943634|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-12.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.49||0.1878|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.65|3.46|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with fixed effects for treatment and stratification factors of baseline participant status (diabetic/non-diabetic), ejection fraction status (reduced/preserved) with baseline plasma volume as the covariate.||3.46|-27.65|0.1878
91029720|NCT03292653|181943635|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-4.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.8||0.4269|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.45|5.8|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with fixed effects for treatment and stratification factors of baseline participant status (diabetic/non-diabetic), ejection fraction status (reduced/preserved) with baseline plasma volume as the covariate.||5.8|-15.45|0.4269
90847123|NCT01584440|181560636|SUPERIORITY||OLS Z-statistic|-1.07||||0.287|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Euphoria/Elation Domain. SPCD: data from the Stages 1 and 2 are analyzed together using the mITT Population||||||0.287
90847124|NCT01584440|181560636|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Euphoria/Elation Domain; Day 36|||||
90847125|NCT01584440|181560636|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.34|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Euphoria/Elation Domain; Day 70|||||
90847126|NCT01584440|181560636|SUPERIORITY||OLS Z-statistic|-1.31||||0.191|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Apathy/Indifference Domain. SPCD: data from the Stages 1 and 2 are analyzed together using the mITT Population||||||0.191
90847127|NCT01584440|181560636|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.16|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Apathy/Indifference Domain; Day 36|||||
90847128|NCT01584440|181560636|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.77|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Apathy/Indifference Domain; Day 36|||||
90847129|NCT01584440|181560636|SUPERIORITY||OLS Z-statistic|-1.1||||0.271|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Disinhibition Domain. SPCD: data from the Stages 1 and 2 are analyzed together using the mITT Population||||||0.271
90847130|NCT01584440|181560636|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.22|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Disinhibition Domain; Day 36|||||
90847131|NCT01584440|181560636|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.37|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Disinhibition Domain; Day 70|||||
90847132|NCT01584440|181560636|SUPERIORITY||OLS Z-statistic|-2.18||||0.029|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Irritability/Lability Domain. SPCD: data from the Stages 1 and 2 are analyzed together using the mITT Population||||||0.029
90899340|NCT03502616|181665092|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|7.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.97||0.1894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.87|19.54|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach||19.54|-3.87|0.1894
90899341|NCT03502616|181665092|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|5.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.04||0.3544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.24|17.43|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach||17.43|-6.24|0.3544
91029721|NCT03292653|181943635|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-6.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.39||0.2684|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.24|3.52|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with fixed effects for treatment and stratification factors of baseline participant status (diabetic/non-diabetic), ejection fraction status (reduced/preserved) with baseline plasma volume as the covariate.||3.52|-16.24|0.2684
91029722|NCT03292653|181943636|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|847.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|576.98||0.1761|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-210.46|1904.86|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with fixed effects for treatment and stratification factors of baseline participant status (diabetic/non-diabetic), ejection fraction status (reduced/preserved) with baseline plasma volume as the covariate.||1904.86|-210.46|0.1761
90847133|NCT01584440|181560636|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Irritability/Lability Domain; Day 36|||||
90847134|NCT01584440|181560636|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.93|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Irritability/Lability Domain; Day 70|||||
90847135|NCT01584440|181560636|SUPERIORITY||OLS Z-statistic|-2.21||||0.027|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Aberrant Motor Behavior Domain. SPCD: data from the Stages 1 and 2 are analyzed together using the mITT Population||||||0.027
90847136|NCT01584440|181560636|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.38|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Aberrant Motor Behavior Domain; Day 36|||||
90847137|NCT01584440|181560636|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.22|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Aberrant Motor Behavior Domain; Day 70|||||
90847138|NCT01584440|181560636|SUPERIORITY||OLS Z-statistic|-1.09||||0.274|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Sleep/Nighttime Behavior Disorders Domain. SPCD: data from the Stages 1 and 2 are analyzed together using the mITT Population||||||0.274
90847139|NCT01584440|181560636|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.57|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Sleep/Nighttime Behavior disorders Domain; Day 36|||||
90847140|NCT01584440|181560636|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.08|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Sleep/Nighttime Behavior disorders Domain; Day 70|||||
90847141|NCT01584440|181560636|SUPERIORITY||OLS Z-statistic|-0.65||||0.513|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Appetite/Eating Changes Domain. SPCD: data from the Stages 1 and 2 are analyzed together using the mITT Population||||||0.513
90847142|NCT01584440|181560636|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.16|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Appetite/Eating Changes Domain; Day 36|||||
90847143|NCT01584440|181560636|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.24|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Appetite/Eating Changes Domain; Day 70|||||
90847144|NCT01584440|181560637|SUPERIORITY||OLS Z-statistic|-3.53|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|SPCD: data from the Stages 1 and 2 are analyzed together using the mITT Population||||||<=0.001
90847145|NCT01584440|181560637|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.01|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Day 36|||||
90847146|NCT01584440|181560637|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.49|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Day 70|||||
90847147|NCT01584440|181560638|SUPERIORITY||OLS Z-statistic|-3.34||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|SPCD: data from the Stages 1 and 2 are analyzed together using the mITT Population||||||0.001
90847148|NCT01584440|181560638|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.41|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Day 36|||||
90847149|NCT01584440|181560638|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.94|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Day 70|||||
90847150|NCT01584440|181560639|SUPERIORITY||OLS Z-statistic|-2.46||||0.014|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|SPCD: data from the Stages 1 and 2 are analyzed together using the mITT Population||||||0.014
90847151|NCT01584440|181560639|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.65|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Day 36|||||
90847152|NCT01584440|181560639|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.01|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||||Day 70|||
90847153|NCT01584440|181560640|SUPERIORITY||OLS Z-statistic|-2.57||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|SPCD: data from the Stages 1 and 2 are analyzed together using the mITT Population||||||0.010
90847154|NCT01584440|181560640|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.68|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Day 36|||||
90847155|NCT01584440|181560640|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Day 70|||||
90847156|NCT01584440|181560641|SUPERIORITY||OLS Z-statistic|-3.08||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|SPCD: data from the Stages 1 and 2 are analyzed together using the mITT Population||||||0.002
90847157|NCT01584440|181560641|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.56|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Day 36|||||
90847158|NCT01584440|181560641|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Day 70|||||
90847159|NCT01584440|181560642|SUPERIORITY||OLS Z-statistic|-2.66||||0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|SPCD: data from the Stages 1 and 2 are analyzed together using the mITT Population||||||0.008
90847160|NCT01584440|181560642|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.43|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Day 36|||||
90847161|NCT01584440|181560642|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.75|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Day 70|||||
90847162|NCT01584440|181560643|SUPERIORITY||OLS Z-statistic|-1.96||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|SPCD: data from the Stages 1 and 2 are analyzed together using the mITT Population||||||0.050
90847163|NCT01584440|181560643|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.62|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Day 36|||||
90847164|NCT01584440|181560643|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Day 70|||||
90847165|NCT01584440|181560644|SUPERIORITY||OLS Z-statistic|-2.33||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|SPCD: data from the Stages 1 and 2 are analyzed together using the mITT Population||||||0.020
90847166|NCT01584440|181560644|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.57|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Day 36|||||
90847167|NCT01584440|181560644|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.18|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Day 70|||||
90847168|NCT01584440|181560645|SUPERIORITY||OLS Z-statistic|1.94||||0.053|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|SPCD: data from the Stages 1 and 2 are analyzed together using the mITT Population||||||0.053
90847169|NCT01584440|181560645|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Day 36|||||
90847170|NCT01584440|181560645|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Day 70|||||
90847171|NCT01584440|181560646|SUPERIORITY||OLS Z-statistic|-0.72||||0.469|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|SPCD: data from the Stages 1 and 2 are analyzed together using the mITT Population|Caregiver|||||0.469
90847172|NCT01584440|181560646|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Caregiver: Day 36|||||
90847173|NCT01584440|181560646|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.06|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Caregiver: Day 70|||||
90847174|NCT01584440|181560646|SUPERIORITY||OLS Z-statistic|1.41||||0.159|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|SPCD: data from the Stages 1 and 2 are analyzed together using the mITT Population|Participant|||||0.159
90847175|NCT01584440|181560646|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Participant: Day 36|||||
90847176|NCT01584440|181560646|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Participant: Day 70|||||
90847177|NCT01584440|181560647|SUPERIORITY||OLS Z-statistic|-1.4||||0.163|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|SPCD: data from the Stages 1 and 2 are analyzed together using the mITT Population||||||0.163
90847178|NCT01584440|181560647|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.07|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Day 36|||||
90847179|NCT01584440|181560647|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.39|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Day 70|||||
90847180|NCT01584440|181560648|SUPERIORITY||OLS Z-statistic|-1.08||||0.279|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|SPCD: data from the Stages 1 and 2 are analyzed together using the mITT Population||||||0.279
90847181|NCT01584440|181560648|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.76|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Day 8|||||
90847182|NCT01584440|181560648|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.02|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Day 22|||||
90847183|NCT01584440|181560648|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Day 43|||||
90847184|NCT01584440|181560648|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.05|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Day 57|||||
90847185|NCT01584440|181560649|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.7||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.62|4.5|||ANCOVA||Day 36|||4.50|1.62|0.0001
90847186|NCT01584440|181560649|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.61||||0.2184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|3.43|||ANCOVA||Day 70|||3.43|0.75|0.2184
90847187|NCT01584440|181560650|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.45||||0.0266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|5.42|||ANCOVA|||||5.42|1.11|0.0266
90847188|NCT01584440|181560651|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.16||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|3.55|||ANCOVA||Day 36|||3.55|1.31|0.002
90847189|NCT01584440|181560651|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.32||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|5.0|||ANCOVA||Day 70|||5.00|1.08|0.031
90847190|NCT01584440|181560652|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.41||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|4.46|||ANCOVA|||||4.46|1.31|0.0048
90847191|NCT02872285|181560691|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.8||||0.2205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.793|8.199||ANCOVA was used to compare mean percent change in PASI score between baseline and Week 12 between LYC-30937 and placebo treatment groups with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Subjects included in this analysis had to have both a baseline and Week 12 PASI scores.||8.199|-33.793|0.2205
90847192|NCT02872285|181560692|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4712|||||||Chi-squared|2-sided p-value.||||||0.4712
90847193|NCT02872285|181560693|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.34||||0.6695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.87|20.18|||ANCOVA|||||20.18|-30.87|0.6695
90847194|NCT02872285|181560694|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4712||||||2-sided p-value|Chi-squared|||||||0.4712
90847195|NCT02872285|181560695|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4712||||||2-sided p-value|Chi-squared|||||||0.4712
90847196|NCT00531427|181560696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37||||0.0853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|Statistics are based on a mixed effect general linear model||"\[Week 12 analysis\] The null hypothesis was no group differences. The alternative hypothesis was that BTDS arm was superior to the placebo arm.~Pain scale is 11 points (0 = no pain to 10 = pain as bad as you can imagine)."||0.05|-0.80|0.0853
91094812|NCT01013753|182073510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.161|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001||95.0|0.116|0.207|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.207|0.116|<0.0001
91094813|NCT01013753|182073510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001||95.0|0.134|0.226|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.226|0.134|<0.0001
91094814|NCT01013753|182073510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.166|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001||95.0|0.12|0.211|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.211|0.120|<0.0001
91094815|NCT01013753|182073511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.103|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001||95.0|0.058|0.148|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.148|0.058|<0.0001
91094816|NCT01013753|182073511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.133|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001||95.0|0.088|0.177|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.177|0.088|<0.0001
90847197|NCT00531427|181560697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.037||||0.7098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.233|0.159||To control multiplicity and family-wise error rate, a gate-keeping strategy (stepwise approach) was used to evaluate the statistical significance of the secondary variables. If the primary is negative, the secondary P values are descriptive only.|ANCOVA|with treatment as a factor and screening and pre-randomization mean pain as covariates.||Categorical analysis P value is based on a Fisher's exact test. Mean daily number of tablets for subjects who took \<=1 dose of supplemental analgesia||0.159|-0.233|0.7098
90847198|NCT00531427|181560698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.46||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.44|-1.48||To control multiplicity and family-wise error rate, a gate-keeping strategy (stepwise approach) was used to evaluate the statistical significance of the secondary variables. If the primary is negative, the secondary P values are descriptive only.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Weeks 4, 8, 12 analysis The sleep disturbance subscale was analyzed using the mixed effect linear model with fixed effects for treatment (BTDS or placebo) and time (weeks 1, 2, 4, 8, 12) as categorical, screening mean and prerandomization mean value as covariates, and subject as a random effect.||-1.48|-7.44|0.0034
90847199|NCT05477108|181560699|EQUIVALENCE|For Cmax, the intra-participant CV% in Treatment B (reference arm) was 42.91. An analysis was conducted based on the RSABE method for a partial-replicate 3-way cross-over design. The PK parameter was log-transformed prior to analysis. Bioequivalence was concluded since criteria bound was -0.1028 (\<0) and point estimate for geometric mean ratio was within 80% and 125%.|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|104.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.78|113.44|||||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as A/B.|Statistical Comparison of Key Budesonide Pharmacokinetic Parameters (US approach)||113.44|95.78|
90847200|NCT05477108|181560699|EQUIVALENCE|For Cmax, the intra-participant CV% in Treatment B (reference arm) was 40.85. An analysis was conducted based on the RSABE method for a partial-replicate 3-way cross-over design. The PK parameter was log-transformed prior to analysis. Bioequivalence was concluded since criteria bound was -0.0831 (\<0) and point estimate for geometric mean ratio was within 80% and 125%.|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|93.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.31|103.58|||||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as A/B.|Statistical Comparison of Key Glycopyrronium Pharmacokinetic Parameters (US approach)||103.58|84.31|
90899342|NCT03502616|181665093|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.072|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Analysis performed using Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.57|-0.85|<0.0001
90899343|NCT03502616|181665093|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.083|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.74|-1.07|<0.0001
91029723|NCT03292653|181943636|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|489.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|579.35||0.4202|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-572.68|1551.34|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with fixed effects for treatment and stratification factors of baseline participant status (diabetic/non-diabetic), ejection fraction status (reduced/preserved) with baseline plasma volume as the covariate.||1551.34|-572.68|0.4202
91094817|NCT01013753|182073511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.169|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001||95.0|0.124|0.214|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.214|0.124|<0.0001
91094818|NCT01013753|182073511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.199|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001||95.0|0.153|0.244|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.244|0.153|<0.0001
91094819|NCT01013753|182073511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.103|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001||95.0|0.058|0.147|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.147|0.058|<0.0001
90847201|NCT05477108|181560699|EQUIVALENCE|For Cmax, the intra-participant CV% in Treatment B (reference arm) was 40.66. An analysis was conducted based on the RSABE method for a partial-replicate 3-way cross-over design. The PK parameter was log-transformed prior to analysis. Bioequivalence was concluded since criteria bound was -0.0971 (\<0) and point estimate for geometric mean ratio was within 80% and 125%.|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|100.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.9|109.11|||||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as A/B.|Statistical Comparison of Key Formoterol Pharmacokinetic Parameters (US approach)||109.11|91.90|
90847202|NCT05477108|181560699|EQUIVALENCE|For Cmax, the analysis was conducted using an analysis of variance including fixed effects for treatment, sequence, period and subject within sequence. The PK parameter was log-transformed prior to analysis. The intra-participant CV% in Treatment B (reference arm) was 42.66. Bioequivalence was concluded since the 90% CI for the geometric mean ratio were within the expanded equivalence limits of 73.29% to 136.44% and point estimate for geometric mean ratio was within 80% and 125%.|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|103.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.44|112.6|||||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as A/B.|Statistical Comparison of Key Budesonide Pharmacokinetic Parameters (EU approach)||112.60|94.44|
90847203|NCT05477108|181560699|EQUIVALENCE|For Cmax, the analysis was conducted using an analysis of variance including fixed effects for treatment, sequence, period and subject within sequence. The PK parameter was log-transformed prior to analysis. The intra-participant CV% in Treatment B (reference arm) was 40.75. Bioequivalence was concluded since the 90% CI for the geometric mean ratio were within the expanded equivalence limits of 74.24% to 134.70% and point estimate for geometric mean ratio was within 80% and 125%.|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|93.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.29|102.26|||||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as A/B.|Statistical Comparison of Key Glycopyrronium Pharmacokinetic Parameters (EU approach)||102.26|85.29|
90847204|NCT05477108|181560699|EQUIVALENCE|For Cmax, the analysis was conducted using an analysis of variance including fixed effects for treatment, sequence, period and subject within sequence. The PK parameter was log-transformed prior to analysis. The intra-participant CV% in Treatment B (reference arm) was 40.81. Bioequivalence was concluded since the 90% CI for the geometric mean ratio were within the expanded equivalence limits of 74.21% to 134.75% and point estimate for geometric mean ratio was within 80% and 125%.|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|99.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.44|108.71|||||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as A/B.|Statistical Comparison of Key Formoterol Pharmacokinetic Parameters (EU approach)||108.71|91.44|
90847205|NCT05477108|181560700|EQUIVALENCE|For AUCinf, the intra-participant CV% in Treatment B (reference arm) was 34.29. An analysis was conducted based on the RSABE method for a partial-replicate 3-way cross-over design. The PK parameter was log-transformed prior to analysis. Bioequivalence was concluded since criteria bound was -0.0593 (\<0) and point estimate for geometric mean ratio was within 80% and 125%.|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|107.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.35|115.72|||||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as A/B.|Statistical Comparison of Key Budesonide Pharmacokinetic Parameters (US approach)||115.72|100.35|
90847206|NCT05477108|181560700|EQUIVALENCE|For AUCinf, the intra-participant CV% in Treatment B (reference arm) was 86.08. An analysis was conducted based on the RSABE method for a partial-replicate 3-way cross-over design. The PK parameter was log-transformed prior to analysis. Bioequivalence was concluded since criteria bound was -0.2925 (\<0) and point estimate for geometric mean ratio was within 80% and 125%.|Geometric Ratio Mean (%)|112.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.27|136.49|||||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as A/B.|Statistical Comparison of Key Glycopyrronium Pharmacokinetic Parameters (US approach)||136.49|92.27|
90847207|NCT05477108|181560700|EQUIVALENCE|For AUCinf, the intra-participant CV% in Treatment B (reference arm) was 47.07. An analysis was conducted based on the RSABE method for a partial-replicate 3-way cross-over design. The PK parameter was log-transformed prior to analysis. Bioequivalence was concluded since criteria bound was -0.1250 (\<0) and point estimate for geometric mean ratio was within 80% and 125%.|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|101.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.76|112.15|||||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as A/B.|Statistical Comparison of Key Formoterol Pharmacokinetic Parameters (US approach)||112.15|91.76|
90847208|NCT05477108|181560701|EQUIVALENCE|For AUClast, the intra-participant CV% in Treatment B (reference arm) was 35.68. An analysis was conducted based on the RSABE method for a partial-replicate 3-way cross-over design. The PK parameter was log-transformed prior to analysis. Bioequivalence was concluded since criteria bound was -0.0668 (\<0) and point estimate for geometric mean ratio was within 80% and 125%.|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|106.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.3|115.01|||||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as A/B.|Statistical Comparison of Key Budesonide Pharmacokinetic Parameters (US approach)||115.01|99.30|
90847209|NCT05477108|181560701|EQUIVALENCE|For AUClast, the intra-participant CV% in Treatment B (reference arm) was 74.17. An analysis was conducted based on the RSABE method for a partial-replicate 3-way cross-over design. The PK parameter was log-transformed prior to analysis. Bioequivalence was concluded since criteria bound was -0.2735 (\<0) and point estimate for geometric mean ratio was within 80% and 125%.|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|102.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.12|116.79|||||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as A/B.|Statistical Comparison of Key Glycopyrronium Pharmacokinetic Parameters (US approach)||116.79|89.12|
90847210|NCT05477108|181560701|EQUIVALENCE|For AUClast, the intra-participant CV% in Treatment B (reference arm) was 66.88. An analysis was conducted based on the RSABE method for a partial-replicate 3-way cross-over design. The PK parameter was log-transformed prior to analysis. Bioequivalence was concluded since criteria bound was -0.2210 (\<0) and point estimate for geometric mean ratio was within 80% and 125%.|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|107.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.91|122.36|||||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as A/B.|Statistical Comparison of Key Formoterol Pharmacokinetic Parameters (US approach)||122.36|94.91|
90859748|NCT00537238|181582905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean differences|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.9749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.59|||ANCOVA|||Week 16, HADS-D: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and combined center, and for post-baseline assessments baseline was included as a covariate.||0.59|-0.61|0.9749
90859749|NCT00537238|181582906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean differences|-1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.06||0.6161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.08|3.01|||ANCOVA|||Baseline sleep disturbance: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and combined center, for post-baseline assessments baseline was included as a covariate.||3.01|-5.08|0.6161
90859750|NCT00537238|181582906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean differences|-1.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.62||0.3154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.83|1.56|||ANCOVA|||Week 16 sleep disturbance: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and combined center, for post-baseline assessments baseline was included as a covariate.||1.56|-4.83|0.3154
90859751|NCT00537238|181582906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean differences|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.18||0.593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.94|4.54|||ANCOVA|||Baseline snoring: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and combined center, for post-baseline assessments baseline was included as a covariate.||4.54|-7.94|0.5930
91029724|NCT03292653|181943637|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|13.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.53||0.1242|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.03|28.53|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with fixed effects for treatment and stratification factors of baseline participant status (diabetic/non-diabetic), ejection fraction status (reduced/preserved) with baseline erythropoietin as the covariate.||28.53|-1.03|0.1242
91029725|NCT03292653|181943637|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.73||0.9903|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.49|13.3|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with fixed effects for treatment and stratification factors of baseline participant status (diabetic/non-diabetic), ejection fraction status (reduced/preserved) with baseline erythropoietin as the covariate.||13.30|-13.49|0.9903
91029726|NCT03292653|181943638|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-150.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|116.09||0.2121|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-353.57|51.78|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with fixed effects for treatment and stratification factors of baseline participant status (diabetic/non-diabetic), ejection fraction status (reduced/preserved) with baseline NT-proBNP as the covariate.||51.78|-353.57|0.2121
91029727|NCT03292653|181943638|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-5.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|96.88||0.9574|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-174.4|163.87|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with fixed effects for treatment and stratification factors of baseline participant status (diabetic/non-diabetic), ejection fraction status (reduced/preserved) with baseline NT-proBNP as the covariate.||163.87|-174.4|0.9574
91029728|NCT03311646|181943676|OTHER|A linear mixed-model was used. The model included terms for cigarette nicotine content (VLNC/NNC), time, cohort, a random effect for subject, and a nicotine content x time interaction. Interaction was dropped when nonsignificant. Reported below is the effect of nicotine content as well as the interaction p-value.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|1.4||alpha=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean Difference = VLNC-NNC|Comparison of carbon monoxide during VLNC condition to carbon monoxide during the NNC (baseline) condition.|Interaction p-value: p=0.27|1.4|-1.27|0.92
90847211|NCT05477108|181560701|EQUIVALENCE|For AUClast, the analysis was conducted using an analysis of variance including fixed effects for treatment, sequence, period and subject within sequence. The PK parameter was log-transformed prior to analysis. Bioequivalence was concluded since the 90% CI for the geometric mean ratio were fully contained within the predefined equivalence limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Mean ratio (%)|106.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.39|114.41|||||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as A/B.|Statistical Comparison of Key Budesonide Pharmacokinetic Parameters (EU approach)||114.41|98.39|
90847212|NCT05477108|181560701|EQUIVALENCE|For AUClast, the analysis was conducted using an analysis of variance including fixed effects for treatment, sequence, period and subject within sequence. The PK parameter was log-transformed prior to analysis. Bioequivalence was concluded since the 90% CI for the geometric mean ratio were fully contained within the predefined equivalence limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|97.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.18|111.82|||||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as A/B.|Statistical Comparison of Key Glycopyrronium Pharmacokinetic Parameters (EU approach)||111.82|84.18|
91029729|NCT03311646|181943677|OTHER|A linear mixed-model was used. The model included terms for cigarette nicotine content (VLNC/NNC), time, cohort, a random effect for subject, and a nicotine content x time interaction. Interaction was dropped when nonsignificant. Reported below is the effect of nicotine content as well as the interaction p-value.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.13||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|2.66||alpha=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean Difference = VLNC-NNC|Comparison of cigarette per day during VLNC condition to cigarette per day during the NNC (baseline) condition.|Interaction p=0.23|2.66|-0.41|0.15
91094820|NCT01013753|182073512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.103|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001||95.0|0.052|0.154|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.154|0.052|<0.0001
90859752|NCT00537238|181582906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean differences|10.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.42|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.27|14.76|||ANCOVA|||Week 16 snoring: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and combined center, for post-baseline assessments baseline was included as a covariate.||14.76|5.27|<0.0001
90859753|NCT00537238|181582906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean differences|-1.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.18||0.4807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.83|2.75|||ANCOVA|||Baseline awaken short of breath: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and combined center, for post-baseline assessments baseline was included as a covariate.||2.75|-5.83|0.4807
90859754|NCT00537238|181582906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean differences|0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.07||0.6708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.18|4.94|||ANCOVA|||Week 16 awaken short of breath: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and combined center, for post-baseline assessments baseline was included as a covariate.||4.94|-3.18|0.6708
90859755|NCT00537238|181582906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean differences|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.7574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.24|||ANCOVA|||Baseline quantity of sleep: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and combined center, for post-baseline assessments baseline was included as a covariate.||0.24|-0.32|0.7574
90859756|NCT00537238|181582906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean differences|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.2615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.38|||ANCOVA|||Week 16 quantity of sleep: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and combined center, for post-baseline assessments baseline was included as a covariate.||0.38|-0.10|0.2615
90859757|NCT00537238|181582906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean differences|-1.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.53||0.5703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.42|3.54|||ANCOVA|||Baseline adequacy of sleep: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and combined center, for post-baseline assessments baseline was included as a covariate.||3.54|-6.42|0.5703
90859758|NCT00537238|181582906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean differences|-2.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.41||0.216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.74|1.75|||ANCOVA|||Week 16 adequacy of sleep: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and combined center, for post-baseline assessments baseline was included as a covariate.||1.75|-7.74|0.2160
91094821|NCT01013753|182073512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.156|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001||95.0|0.106|0.207|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.207|0.106|<0.0001
91094822|NCT01013753|182073512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.141|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001||95.0|0.091|0.192|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.192|0.091|<0.0001
90847213|NCT05477108|181560701|EQUIVALENCE|For AUClast, the analysis was conducted using an analysis of variance including fixed effects for treatment, sequence, period and subject within sequence. The PK parameter was log-transformed prior to analysis. Bioequivalence was concluded since the 90% CI for the geometric mean ratio were fully contained within the predefined equivalence limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|105.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.59|120.75|||||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as A/B.|Statistical Comparison of Key Formoterol Pharmacokinetic Parameters (EU approach)||120.75|92.59|
90847214|NCT01253577|181560709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028||95.0|||||McNemar|||||||0.0280
90847215|NCT01253577|181560710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
90847216|NCT01253577|181560711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||McNemar|||||||0.0023
90847217|NCT05688670|181560712|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.18|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.18|-0.59|0.001
90847218|NCT05688670|181560713|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.08|||t-test, 2 sided|||12-24 hour postoperative opioid use||0.08|-0.20|0.41
90847219|NCT05688670|181560713|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.06|||t-test, 2 sided|||24-48 hour postoperative opioid use||0.06|-0.37|0.14
90847220|NCT05688670|181560713|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.09|||t-test, 2 sided|||12-48 hours hours after surgery||0.09|-0.52|0.16
90847221|NCT05688670|181560714|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.64||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.22|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.22|-1.02|0.004
90847222|NCT05688670|181560715|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-49.5||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.9|-20.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-20.1|-78.9|0.002
90847223|NCT00488683|181560716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|-0.06||||0.69||95.0||||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccinations and hSBA titers at 12 months of age for the serogroup A||||0.69
90847224|NCT00488683|181560716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.14||||0.3||95.0||||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccinations and hSBA titers at 12 months of age for the serogroup C||||0.30
90847225|NCT00488683|181560716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.81|||<|0.0001||95.0||||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccinations and hSBA titers at 12 months of age for the serogroup W-135||||<0.0001
90847226|NCT00488683|181560716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.67||||0.001||95.0||||Values from Groups I, II and III were combined for this analysis.|Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccinations and hSBA titers at 12 months of age for the serogroup Y||||0.001
90847227|NCT00488683|181560716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|-0.08||||0.61||95.0||||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccinations and hSBA titers at 12 months of age for the serogroup A||||0.61
90847228|NCT00488683|181560716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.31||||0.02||95.0||||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccinations and hSBA titers at 12 months of age for the serogroup C||||0.02
90847229|NCT00488683|181560716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.45||||0.002||95.0||||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccinations and hSBA titers at 12 months of age for the serogroup W-135||||0.002
90847230|NCT00488683|181560716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.4||||0.08||95.0||||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccinations and hSBA titers at 12 months of age for the serogroup Y||||0.08
90847231|NCT00488683|181560716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.004||||||95.0||||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccinations and hSBA titers at 12 months of age for the serogroup A||||
90847232|NCT00488683|181560716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.02||||||95.0||||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccinations and hSBA titers at 12 months of age for the serogroup C||||
90847233|NCT00488683|181560716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.66||||||95.0||||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccinations and hSBA titers at 12 months of age for the serogroup W-135||||
90847234|NCT00488683|181560716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.45||||||95.0||||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccinations and hSBA titers at 12 months of age for the serogroup Y||||
90847235|NCT00488683|181560717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|-0.07||||0.7||95.0||||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccinations and memory B cells at 12 months of age for the serogroup A||||0.70
91094823|NCT01013753|182073512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.169|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001||95.0|0.118|0.221|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.221|0.118|<0.0001
91094824|NCT01013753|182073512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.102|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001||95.0|0.051|0.153|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.153|0.051|<0.0001
91094825|NCT01013753|182073513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.061|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||0.0107||95.0|0.014|0.107|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.107|0.014|0.0107
91094826|NCT01013753|182073513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.115|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001||95.0|0.069|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.160|0.069|<0.0001
91094827|NCT01013753|182073513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.115|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001||95.0|0.069|0.161|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.161|0.069|<0.0001
90847236|NCT00488683|181560717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|-0.13||||0.37||95.0||||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccinations and memory B cells at 12 months of age for the serogroup C||||0.37
90847237|NCT00488683|181560717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.66|||<|0.0001||95.0||||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccinations and memory B cells at 12 months of age for the serogroup W-135||||<0.0001
90847238|NCT00488683|181560717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.9|||<|0.0001||95.0||||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccinations and memory B cells at 12 months of age for the serogroup Y||||<0.0001
90847239|NCT00488683|181560717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.01||||0.94||95.0||||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccinations and memory B cells at 12 months of age for the serogroup A||||0.94
90847240|NCT00488683|181560717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|-0.05||||0.7||95.0||||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccinations and memory B cells at 12 months of age for the serogroup C||||0.70
91094828|NCT01013753|182073513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.144|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001||95.0|0.098|0.191|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.191|0.098|<0.0001
91094829|NCT01013753|182073513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.091|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||0.0001||95.0|0.044|0.137|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.137|0.044|0.0001
90847241|NCT00488683|181560717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.3||||0.04||95.0||||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccinations and memory B cells at 12 months of age for the serogroup W-135||||0.04
90847242|NCT00488683|181560717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.46||||0.004||95.0||||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccinations and memory B cells at 12 months of age for the serogroup Y||||0.004
90847243|NCT00488683|181560717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.005||||||95.0||||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccinations and memory B cells at 12 months of age for the serogroup A||||
91094830|NCT01013753|182073514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.082|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023||0.0005||95.0|0.036|0.128|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.128|0.036|0.0005
90847244|NCT00488683|181560717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.02||||||95.0||||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccinations and memory B cells at 12 months of age for the serogroup C||||
90847245|NCT00488683|181560717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.43||||||95.0||||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccinations and memory B cells at 12 months of age for the serogroup W-135||||
90847246|NCT00488683|181560717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.82||||||95.0||||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccinations and memory B cells at 12 months of age for the serogroup Y||||
91094831|NCT01013753|182073514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.136|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001||95.0|0.09|0.181|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.181|0.090|<0.0001
91094832|NCT01013753|182073514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.128|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001||95.0|0.083|0.174|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.174|0.083|<0.0001
91094833|NCT01013753|182073514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.157|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001||95.0|0.111|0.203|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.203|0.111|<0.0001
91094834|NCT01013753|182073514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.097|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001||95.0|0.051|0.143|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.143|0.051|<0.0001
91094835|NCT01013753|182073515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028||0.0952||95.0|-0.008|0.103|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.103|-0.008|0.0952
90847247|NCT00488683|181560717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.05||||0.68||95.0||||Values from Group 1, 2 and 2 were combined for this analysis.|Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccinations and serogroup specific IgG concentration at 12 months of age for the serogroup A||||0.68
90847248|NCT00488683|181560717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.08||||0.46||95.0||||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccinations and serogroup specific IgG concentration at 12 months of age for the serogroup C||||0.46
90847249|NCT00488683|181560717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.2||||0.08||95.0||||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccinations and serogroup specific IgG concentration at 12 months of age for the serogroup W-135||||0.08
90847250|NCT00488683|181560717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.45|||<|0.001||95.0||||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccinations and serogroup specific IgG concentration at 12 months of age for the serogroup Y||||<0.001
90847251|NCT00488683|181560717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|-0.04||||0.75||95.0||||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccinations and serogroup specific IgG concentration at 12 months of age for the serogroup A||||0.75
90847252|NCT00488683|181560717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.11||||0.27||95.0||||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccinations and serogroup specific IgG concentration at 12 months of age for the serogroup C||||0.27
90847253|NCT00488683|181560717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.2||||0.07||95.0||||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccinations and serogroup specific IgG concentration at 12 months of age for the serogroup W-135||||0.07
90847254|NCT00488683|181560717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.23||||0.06||95.0||||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccinations and serogroup specific IgG concentration at 12 months of age for the serogroup Y||||0.06
90847255|NCT00488683|181560717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.0029||||||95.0||||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccinations and serogroup specific IgG concentration at 12 months of age for the serogroup A||||
90847256|NCT00488683|181560717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.0059||||||95.0||||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccinations and serogroup specific IgG concentration at 12 months of age for the serogroup C||||
90847257|NCT00488683|181560717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.04||||||95.0||||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccinations and serogroup specific IgG concentration at 12 months of age for the serogroup W-135||||
90847258|NCT00488683|181560717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.21||||||95.0||||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccinations and serogroup specific IgG concentration at 12 months of age for the serogroup Y||||
90847259|NCT00488683|181560718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|-0.26||||0.46||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||0.46
90847260|NCT00488683|181560718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|-0.14||||0.59||95.0|||||Parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||0.59
90847261|NCT00488683|181560718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.006||||0.98||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||0.98
90847262|NCT00488683|181560718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.24||||0.2||95.0|||||Parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||0.20
90847263|NCT00488683|181560718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.43||||0.08||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||0.08
90847264|NCT00488683|181560718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|-0.08||||0.68||95.0|||||Parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||0.68
90899344|NCT03502616|181665093|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.095|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|-0.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.87|-1.25|<0.0001
91094836|NCT01013753|182073515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.103|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028||0.0003||95.0|0.048|0.158|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.158|0.048|0.0003
91094837|NCT01013753|182073515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.089|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028||0.0016||95.0|0.034|0.145|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.145|0.034|0.0016
90899345|NCT03502616|181665093|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.096|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|-0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.90|-1.28|<0.0001
90899346|NCT03502616|181665093|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.093|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|-0.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.79|-1.16|<0.0001
90899347|NCT03502616|181665093|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.103||0.0623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24: Analysis performed using Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.01|-0.40|0.0623
90957393|NCT00116337|181794795|OTHER|Statistical analyses was performed using a repeated measures analysis of variance and Paired t test. A p value of \< 0.05 was taken as indicating statistical significance.|||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|Statistical analyses will be performed using a repeated measures analysis of variance and Paired t test.||Each patient was served as their own control; comparisons was made at various points in the study. Clinical parameters was assessed before the study and also at several end points following the Reconditioning Phase.||||<0.05
90957394|NCT00116337|181794797|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||nonparametric analog (Freidman Test)|||The data prior to implantation were compared with data obtained after implantation of the cough system using a nonparametric analog (Freidman Test) to the standard repeated measures analysis of variance. Statistical significance was assumed at P\<0.05. This alpha level was chosen as a correlation for inflated type I error rates because of multiple comparisons. Results are reported as means ± SEs.||||<0.05
90957395|NCT02054741|181794818|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.74||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized Linear Mixed Model||||0.86|0.64|0.0001
90899348|NCT03502616|181665093|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.106||0.0836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 32: Analysis performed using Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.02|-0.39|0.0836
91094838|NCT01013753|182073515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.127|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.0001||95.0|0.071|0.183|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.183|0.071|<0.0001
91094839|NCT01013753|182073515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.073|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028||0.0096||95.0|0.018|0.129|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.129|0.018|0.0096
90899349|NCT03502616|181665093|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.108||0.0205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 40: Analysis performed using Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.04|-0.47|0.0205
90957396|NCT02054741|181794819|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.5|||Regression, Cox|||||1.50|0.85|0.39
91094840|NCT01013753|182073516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.037|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.147||95.0|-0.013|0.088|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.088|-0.013|0.1470
90957397|NCT02054741|181794820|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.38||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized Linear Mixed Model||||1.78|1.06|0.015
90957398|NCT02344004|181794844|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The proportion of participants achieving culture conversion by Month 6 was analyzed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by smoking status and prior multi-drug regimen. The treatment comparison was tested at two-sided significance level of 0.05. The null hypothesis assumed that culture conversion by Month 6 is independent of treatment, and the alternative hypothesis assumed that culture conversion by Month 6 is associated with treatment.|The final analysis of the primary endpoint, the number of participants achieving culture conversion at by Month 6, was performed after the last participants completed Month 6 and his/her Month 6 sputum culture result was available.|||<0.0001
90957399|NCT02344004|181794845|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91094841|NCT01013753|182073516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.091|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0003||95.0|0.042|0.141|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.141|0.042|0.0003
91094842|NCT01013753|182073516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001||95.0|0.06|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.160|0.060|<0.0001
91094843|NCT01013753|182073516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.129|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001||95.0|0.078|0.179|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.179|0.078|<0.0001
91094844|NCT01013753|182073516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.051|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0448||95.0|0.001|0.101|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.101|0.001|0.0448
91094845|NCT01013753|182073517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.408|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067|<|0.0001||95.0|0.277|0.539|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.539|0.277|<0.0001
91094846|NCT01013753|182073517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.566|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066|<|0.0001||95.0|0.438|0.695|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.695|0.438|<0.0001
91094847|NCT01013753|182073517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.612|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066|<|0.0001||95.0|0.482|0.743|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.743|0.482|<0.0001
90847265|NCT00488683|181560718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.77||||0.006||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||0.006
90847266|NCT00488683|181560718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.16||||0.48||95.0|||||Parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||0.48
90847267|NCT00488683|181560718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|-0.26||||0.46||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||0.46
90847268|NCT00488683|181560718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|-0.21||||0.4||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||0.40
90847269|NCT00488683|181560718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.12||||0.6||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||0.60
90847270|NCT00488683|181560718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.4||||0.03||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||0.03
90899350|NCT03502616|181665093|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.108||0.0614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48: Analysis performed using Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.01|-0.42|0.0614
90847271|NCT00488683|181560718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.72||||0.001||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||0.001
90847272|NCT00488683|181560718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.0||||1||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||1.00
90847273|NCT00488683|181560718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.39||||0.24||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||0.24
90847274|NCT00488683|181560718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.22||||0.34||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for the analysis.|Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||0.34
90847275|NCT00488683|181560718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.07||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||
90847276|NCT00488683|181560718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.02||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||
90847277|NCT00488683|181560718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.0||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||
91094848|NCT01013753|182073517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067|<|0.0001||95.0|0.539|0.801|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.801|0.539|<0.0001
91029730|NCT03311646|181943678|OTHER|A linear mixed-model was used. The model included terms for cigarette nicotine content (VLNC/NNC), time, cohort, a random effect for subject, and a nicotine content x time interaction. Interaction was dropped when nonsignificant. Reported below is the effect of nicotine content as well as the interaction p-value.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|4.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean Difference=VLNC-NNC|Comparison of Minnesota Nicotine Withdrawal Scale during VLNC condition to Minnesota Nicotine Withdrawal Scale during the NNC (baseline) condition.|Interaction p=0.95|4.60|1.77|<0.001
91094849|NCT01013753|182073517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.588|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066|<|0.0001||95.0|0.457|0.718|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.718|0.457|<0.0001
90847278|NCT00488683|181560718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.06||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||
90847279|NCT00488683|181560718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.19||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||
90847280|NCT00488683|181560718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.007||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||
90847281|NCT00488683|181560718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.59||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||
90847282|NCT00488683|181560718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.03||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||
90847283|NCT00488683|181560718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.77||||0.0002||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||0.0002
90847284|NCT00488683|181560718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.03||||0.9||95.0|||||Parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||0.90
90847285|NCT00488683|181560718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.47||||0.02||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||0.02
90847286|NCT00488683|181560718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.29||||0.12||95.0|||||Parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||0.12
90899351|NCT03502616|181665094|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.113|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|-0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.70|-1.15|<0.0001
90899352|NCT03502616|181665094|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|-0.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.68|-1.16|<0.0001
91094850|NCT01013753|182073518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.337|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063|<|0.0001||95.0|0.213|0.461|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.461|0.213|<0.0001
90847287|NCT00488683|181560718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.31||||0.22||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||0.22
90847288|NCT00488683|181560718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.81|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||<0.0001
90847289|NCT00488683|181560718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.15||||0.82||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||0.82
90847290|NCT00488683|181560718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|-0.15||||0.66||95.0|||||Parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||0.66
90847291|NCT00488683|181560718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.51||||0.03||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||0.03
90847292|NCT00488683|181560718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.14||||0.53||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||0.53
90847293|NCT00488683|181560718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.2||||0.35||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||0.35
90899353|NCT03502616|181665094|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.196|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.63|-1.40|<0.0001
90899354|NCT03502616|181665094|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.115|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|-0.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.74|-1.19|<0.0001
90899355|NCT03502616|181665094|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.122|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.72|-1.20|<0.0001
90899356|NCT03502616|181665094|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.073||0.4731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.09|-0.20|0.4731
90899357|NCT03502616|181665094|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094||0.4055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 32: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.11|-0.26|0.4055
90899358|NCT03502616|181665094|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.111||0.2648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 40: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.09|-0.34|0.2648
90899359|NCT03502616|181665094|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099||0.5558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.14|-0.25|0.5558
90899360|NCT03502616|181665095|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.513||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.03|-1.01|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Analysis performed using Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model which included fixed effects of treatment group, stratification factor derived from clinical database, and baseline value.||-1.01|-3.03|0.0001
90899361|NCT03502616|181665095|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.567||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.38|-0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.14|-2.38|0.0270
90899362|NCT03502616|181665096|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.841||0.0088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|3.88|||ANCOVA|||Week 16, Physical Functioning: Analysis performed using ANCOVA model which included fixed effects of treatment group, stratification factor derived from clinical database, and baseline value.||3.88|0.56|0.0088
90899363|NCT03502616|181665096|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.939||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|4.85|||ANCOVA|||Week 16, Role-Physical: Analysis performed using ANCOVA model which included fixed effects of treatment group, stratification factor derived from clinical database, and baseline value.||4.85|1.15|0.0016
91094851|NCT01013753|182073518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.485|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062|<|0.0001||95.0|0.363|0.606|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.606|0.363|<0.0001
91094852|NCT01013753|182073518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.531|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063|<|0.0001||95.0|0.408|0.655|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.655|0.408|<0.0001
91094853|NCT01013753|182073518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.648|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063|<|0.0001||95.0|0.524|0.772|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.772|0.524|<0.0001
90899364|NCT03502616|181665096|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|4.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.69|6.23|||ANCOVA|||Week 16, Bodily Pain: Analysis performed using ANCOVA model which included fixed effects of treatment group, stratification factor derived from clinical database, and baseline value.||6.23|2.69|<0.0001
90899365|NCT03502616|181665096|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.781|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|4.78|||ANCOVA|||Week 16, General Health: Analysis performed using ANCOVA model which included fixed effects of treatment group, stratification factor derived from clinical database, and baseline value.||4.78|1.70|<0.0001
91094854|NCT01013753|182073518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.551|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063|<|0.0001||95.0|0.428|0.674|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.674|0.428|<0.0001
91094855|NCT01013753|182073519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.373|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061|<|0.0001||95.0|0.253|0.493|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.493|0.253|<0.0001
91029731|NCT03311646|181943679|OTHER|A linear mixed-model was used. The model included terms for cigarette nicotine content (VLNC/NNC), time, cohort, a random effect for subject, and a nicotine content x time interaction. Interaction was dropped when nonsignificant. Reported below is the effect of nicotine content as well as the interaction p-value.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|2.5||alpha=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean Difference = VLNC-NNC|Comparison of carbon monoxide during VLNC condition to carbon monoxide during the NNC (baseline) condition.|Interaction p=0.94|2.5|-2.0|0.84
91029732|NCT00067236|181943680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.0||||0.4239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||Changes from baseline in efficacy parameters at Day 90.||||0.4239
91029733|NCT02606500|181943716|NON_INFERIORITY|We hypothesized that Elonva 150 mcg is non-inferior for COH in obese women.||||||0.9|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.9
90847294|NCT00488683|181560718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.47||||0.09||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||0.09
90847295|NCT00488683|181560718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.51||||0.04||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||0.04
90847296|NCT00488683|181560718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.35||||0.1||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||0.10
90847297|NCT00488683|181560718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.35||||0.56||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||0.56
90847298|NCT00488683|181560718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|-0.07||||0.84||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||0.84
90847299|NCT00488683|181560718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.59||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||
90847300|NCT00488683|181560718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.001||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||
91029734|NCT02606500|181943717|NON_INFERIORITY|We hypothesized that Elonva 150 mcg is non-inferior for COH in obese women.||||||0.5|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.5
90847301|NCT00488683|181560718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.22||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||
90847302|NCT00488683|181560718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.08||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||
90847303|NCT00488683|181560718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.1||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||
90899366|NCT03502616|181665096|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.098||0.1065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|3.94|||ANCOVA|||Week 16, Vitality: Analysis performed using ANCOVA model which included fixed effects of treatment group, stratification factor derived from clinical database, and baseline value.||3.94|-0.38|0.1065
91029735|NCT02606500|181943718|NON_INFERIORITY|We hypothesized that Elonva 150 mcg is non-inferior for COH in obese women.||||||0.3|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.3
91029736|NCT02606500|181943719|NON_INFERIORITY|We hypothesized that Elonva 150 mcg is non-inferior for COH in obese women.||||||0.9|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.9
91029737|NCT02606500|181943720|NON_INFERIORITY|We presumed Elonva 150 mcg in obese and normal weighing women yields comparable biochemical pregnancy rates.||||||0.4|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.4
91029738|NCT03499964|181943777|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||<0.0001
90847304|NCT00488683|181560718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.66||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||
90847305|NCT00488683|181560718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.02||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||
90847306|NCT00488683|181560718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.02||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||
90847307|NCT00488683|181560718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.29||||0.08||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||0.08
90847308|NCT00488683|181560718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.05||||0.74||95.0|||||Parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||0.74
90847309|NCT00488683|181560718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|-0.01||||0.94||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||0.94
91029739|NCT03499964|181943779|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
91029740|NCT01047345|181943792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|3.5||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|6.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||6.2|0.5|0.026
91094856|NCT01013753|182073519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.527|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.0001||95.0|0.409|0.645|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.645|0.409|<0.0001
90847310|NCT00488683|181560718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|-0.09||||0.51||95.0|||||Parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||0.51
90847311|NCT00488683|181560718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.27||||0.12||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||0.12
90847312|NCT00488683|181560718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.25||||0.09||95.0|||||Parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||0.09
90847313|NCT00488683|181560718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|-0.05||||0.81||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||0.81
90899367|NCT03502616|181665096|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.059||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|5.05|||ANCOVA|||Week 16, Social Functioning: Analysis performed using ANCOVA model which included fixed effects of treatment group, stratification factor derived from clinical database, and baseline value.||5.05|0.88|0.0055
91029741|NCT01047345|181943793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|10.8|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||10.8|-2.8|
91029742|NCT01047345|181943794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||0.9|-1.5|
91094857|NCT01013753|182073519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.572|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061|<|0.0001||95.0|0.453|0.692|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.692|0.453|<0.0001
91094858|NCT01013753|182073519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061|<|0.0001||95.0|0.54|0.781|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.781|0.540|<0.0001
90847314|NCT00488683|181560718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.28||||0.07||95.0|||||Parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||0.07
90847315|NCT00488683|181560718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.36||||0.02||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||0.02
91029743|NCT01047345|181943795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||0.6|-1.7|
91094859|NCT01013753|182073519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061|<|0.0001||95.0|0.451|0.689|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.689|0.451|<0.0001
90847316|NCT00488683|181560718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.08||||0.59||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||0.59
91029744|NCT01047345|181943796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|10.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.5|13.1|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||13.1|7.5|
91029745|NCT01047345|181943797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Seroconversion rate|99.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.9|100.0||statistical criterion of acceptability required that the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the proportion of participants seroconverting be greater than 90%|Clopper-Pearson|||Anti-HPV 31||100.0|98.9|<0.001
91029746|NCT01047345|181943797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Seroconversion Rate|99.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.9|100.0||statistical criterion of acceptability required that the lower bound of the 95% CI for the proportion of subjects seroconverting be greater than 90%|Clopper-Pearson|||Anti-HPV 33||100.0|98.9|<0.001
90847317|NCT00488683|181560718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|-0.1||||0.51||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||0.51
90847318|NCT00488683|181560718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.02||||0.9||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||0.9
90847319|NCT00488683|181560718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.39||||0.02||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||0.02
90847320|NCT00488683|181560718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.19||||0.2||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||0.20
90847321|NCT00488683|181560718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.18||||0.34||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||0.34
90899368|NCT03502616|181665096|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.289||0.1084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|4.61|||ANCOVA|||Week 16, Role-Emotional: Analysis performed using ANCOVA model which included fixed effects of treatment group, stratification factor derived from clinical database, and baseline value.||4.61|-0.46|0.1084
90899369|NCT03502616|181665096|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.124||0.3379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|3.29|||ANCOVA|||Week 16, Mental Health: Analysis performed using ANCOVA model which included fixed effects of treatment group, stratification factor derived from clinical database, and baseline value.||3.29|-1.13|0.3379
90899370|NCT03502616|181665096|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.744|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.09|5.02|||ANCOVA|||Week 16, Physical Component Summary: Analysis performed using ANCOVA model which included fixed effects of treatment group, stratification factor derived from clinical database, and baseline value.||5.02|2.09|<0.0001
91029747|NCT01047345|181943797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Seroconversion Rate|98.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.7|99.2||statistical criterion of acceptability required that the lower bound of the 95% CI for the proportion of subjects seroconverting be greater than 90%|Clopper-Pearson|||Anti-HPV 45||99.2|96.7|<0.001
91029748|NCT01047345|181943797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Seroconversion Rate|99.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.6|100.0||statistical criterion of acceptability required that the lower bound of the 95% CI for the proportion of subjects seroconverting be greater than 90%|Clopper-Pearson|||Anti-HPV 52||100.0|98.6|<0.001
91029749|NCT01047345|181943797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Seroconversion Rate|99.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.9|100.0||statistical criterion of acceptability required that the lower bound of the 95% CI for the proportion of subjects seroconverting be greater than 90%|Clopper-Pearson|||Anti-HPV 58||100.0|98.9|<0.001
90899371|NCT03502616|181665096|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.158||0.2529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|3.61|||ANCOVA|||Week 16, Mental Component Summary: Analysis performed using ANCOVA model which included fixed effects of treatment group, stratification factor derived from clinical database, and baseline value.||3.61|-0.95|0.2529
90899372|NCT03502616|181665096|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.964||0.3744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|2.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48, Physical Functioning: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||2.76|-1.04|0.3744
91029750|NCT00995553|181943806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||MATRICS Working Memory Index||||.06
91029751|NCT00995553|181943806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||MATRICS Attention Index||||.09
90847322|NCT00488683|181560718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.33||||0.04||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||0.04
90847323|NCT00488683|181560718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.08||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||
91094860|NCT01013753|182073520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.302|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068|<|0.0001||95.0|0.168|0.436|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.436|0.168|<0.0001
91094861|NCT01013753|182073520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.429|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067|<|0.0001||95.0|0.297|0.561|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.561|0.297|<0.0001
91094862|NCT01013753|182073520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.466|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068|<|0.0001||95.0|0.333|0.599|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.599|0.333|<0.0001
91094863|NCT01013753|182073520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.534|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068|<|0.0001||95.0|0.4|0.669|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.669|0.400|<0.0001
91094864|NCT01013753|182073520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.504|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068|<|0.0001||95.0|0.371|0.637|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.637|0.371|<0.0001
91094865|NCT01013753|182073521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.264|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.0002||95.0|0.127|0.401|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.401|0.127|0.0002
91094866|NCT01013753|182073521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.468|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.069|<|0.0001||95.0|0.333|0.602|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.602|0.333|<0.0001
91094867|NCT01013753|182073521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.484|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.069|<|0.0001||95.0|0.348|0.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.620|0.348|<0.0001
91094868|NCT01013753|182073521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.624|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001||95.0|0.487|0.761|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.761|0.487|<0.0001
90847324|NCT00488683|181560718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.0027||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||
90847325|NCT00488683|181560718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.0002||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||
90847326|NCT00488683|181560718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.0077||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||
90847327|NCT00488683|181560718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.07||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||
90847328|NCT00488683|181560718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.06||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||
90847329|NCT00488683|181560718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.0023||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||
91029752|NCT00995553|181943807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73|||||||ANOVA|||||||.73
90847330|NCT00488683|181560718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.08||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||
90847331|NCT00488683|181560719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|-0.25||||0.59||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||0.59
90847332|NCT00488683|181560719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|-0.12||||0.68||95.0|||||Parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||0.68
91029753|NCT02465567|181943814|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.83|||Negative Binomial Regression|||||0.83|0.69|<0.0001
91029754|NCT02465567|181943814|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.87||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.95|||Negative Binomial Regression|||||0.95|0.79|0.0027
91094869|NCT01013753|182073521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.447|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.069|<|0.0001||95.0|0.311|0.583|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.583|0.311|<0.0001
91094870|NCT01013753|182073522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.671|<|0.0001||95.0|14.802|29.223|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||29.223|14.802|<0.0001
91094871|NCT01013753|182073522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|29.022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.61|<|0.0001||95.0|21.931|36.114|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||36.114|21.931|<0.0001
91094872|NCT01013753|182073522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.887|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.631|<|0.0001||95.0|20.755|35.019|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||35.019|20.755|<0.0001
91094873|NCT01013753|182073522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.935|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.668|<|0.0001||95.0|25.73|40.139|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||40.139|25.730|<0.0001
90847333|NCT00488683|181560719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.36||||0.12||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||0.12
91029755|NCT02465567|181943814|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.75|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.83|||Negative Binomial Regression|||||0.83|0.69|<0.0001
91029756|NCT02465567|181943814|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.86||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.95|||Negative Binomial Regression|||||0.95|0.79|0.0020
90847334|NCT00488683|181560719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.22||||0.26||95.0|||||Parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||0.26
90847335|NCT00488683|181560719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.43||||0.08||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||0.08
90847336|NCT00488683|181560719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|-0.17||||0.42||95.0|||||Parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||0.42
90847337|NCT00488683|181560719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.77||||0.02||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||0.02
90847338|NCT00488683|181560719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|-0.12||||0.65||95.0|||||Parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||0.65
90847339|NCT00488683|181560719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|-0.25||||0.58||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||0.58
90847340|NCT00488683|181560719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|-0.19||||-0.51||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||-0.51
90899373|NCT03502616|181665096|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.083||0.2091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|3.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48, Role-Physical: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||3.50|-0.77|0.2091
90899374|NCT03502616|181665096|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.146||0.0654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|4.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48, Bodily Pain: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||4.38|-0.14|0.0654
91029757|NCT02465567|181943815|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.807|0.959|||Regression, Cox|||||0.959|0.807|0.0035
91094874|NCT01013753|182073522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.528|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.644|<|0.0001||95.0|16.371|30.686|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||30.686|16.371|<0.0001
91094875|NCT01013753|182073523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.64|<|0.0001||95.0|7.77|22.071|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||22.071|7.770|<0.0001
91029758|NCT02465567|181943815|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.887||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.814|0.966|||Regression, Cox|||||0.966|0.814|0.057
91094876|NCT01013753|182073523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.834|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.58|<|0.0001||95.0|17.801|31.866|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||31.866|17.801|<0.0001
90847341|NCT00488683|181560719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.28||||0.24||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||0.24
90847342|NCT00488683|181560719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.36||||0.06||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||0.06
90847343|NCT00488683|181560719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.72||||0.001||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||0.001
91029759|NCT02465567|181943815|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.866||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.794|0.944|||Regression, Cox|||||0.944|0.794|0.0011
91029760|NCT02465567|181943815|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.873||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.801|0.951|||Regression, Cox|||||0.951|0.801|0.0019
91094877|NCT01013753|182073523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.613|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.601|<|0.0001||95.0|16.539|30.686|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||30.686|16.539|<0.0001
91029761|NCT02465567|181943816|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.34|||Linear Repeated Measures|||||-0.34|-0.68|<0.0001
91094878|NCT01013753|182073523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.449|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.637|<|0.0001||95.0|21.305|35.594|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||35.594|21.305|<0.0001
90847344|NCT00488683|181560719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|-0.32||||0.12||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||0.12
90847345|NCT00488683|181560719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.49||||0.18||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||0.18
90847346|NCT00488683|181560719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|-0.25||||0.34||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||0.34
90847347|NCT00488683|181560719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.06||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||
90847348|NCT00488683|181560719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.01||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||
90847349|NCT00488683|181560719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.13||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||
90847350|NCT00488683|181560719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.05||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||
90847351|NCT00488683|181560719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.19||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||
90847352|NCT00488683|181560719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.03||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||
90847353|NCT00488683|181560719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.6||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||
90847354|NCT00488683|181560719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.01||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||
91094879|NCT01013753|182073523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.439|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.614|<|0.0001||95.0|13.341|27.538|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||27.538|13.341|<0.0001
90847355|NCT00488683|181560719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.83||||0.001||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||0.001
90847356|NCT00488683|181560719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.14||||0.57||95.0|||||Parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||0.57
90847357|NCT00488683|181560719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.65||||0.001||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||0.001
90847358|NCT00488683|181560719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.31||||0.11||95.0|||||Parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||0.11
90847359|NCT00488683|181560719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|-0.02||||0.94||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||0.94
90847360|NCT00488683|181560719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|-0.0003||||1||95.0|||||Parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||1.00
91029762|NCT02465567|181943816|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.2|||Linear Repeated Measures|||||-0.20|-0.54|<0.0001
91029763|NCT02465567|181943816|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.18|||Linear Repeated Measures|||||-0.18|-0.53|<0.0001
90847361|NCT00488683|181560719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.004||||1||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||1.00
91094880|NCT01013753|182073524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.994|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.507|<|0.0001||95.0|-2.989|-0.999|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.999|-2.989|<0.0001
91094881|NCT01013753|182073524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.095|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.498|<|0.0001||95.0|-3.073|-1.116|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-1.116|-3.073|<0.0001
90847362|NCT00488683|181560719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|-0.3||||0.37||95.0|||||Parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||0.37
90847363|NCT00488683|181560719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.52||||0.09||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||0.09
90847364|NCT00488683|181560719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.21||||0.4||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||0.40
90847365|NCT00488683|181560719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.28||||0.2||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||0.20
90847366|NCT00488683|181560719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.41||||0.03||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||0.03
90847367|NCT00488683|181560719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.48||||0.07||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||0.07
90847368|NCT00488683|181560719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.22||||0.3||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||0.30
90847369|NCT00488683|181560719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.26||||0.74||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||0.74
90847370|NCT00488683|181560719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|-0.378||||0.25||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||0.25
90847371|NCT00488683|181560719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.69||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||
90847372|NCT00488683|181560719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.02||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||
90847373|NCT00488683|181560719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.42||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||
91094882|NCT01013753|182073524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.836|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.503||0.0003||95.0|-2.824|-0.849|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.849|-2.824|0.0003
90847374|NCT00488683|181560719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.1||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||
90847375|NCT00488683|181560719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.0004||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||
90847376|NCT00488683|181560719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.0||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||
90847377|NCT00488683|181560719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.0||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||
90847378|NCT00488683|181560719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.9||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||
91029764|NCT02465567|181943816|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22||||0.0127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|-0.05|||Linear Repeated Measures|||||-0.05|-0.39|0.0127
91029765|NCT02465567|181943817|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.358|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.199|1.539|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.539|1.199|<0.0001
91094883|NCT01013753|182073524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.789|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.506||0.0004||95.0|-2.783|-0.795|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.795|-2.783|0.0004
91094884|NCT01013753|182073524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.503||0.0118||95.0|-2.258|-0.283|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||-0.283|-2.258|0.0118
91094885|NCT01013753|182073525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.093|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0002||95.0|0.045|0.141|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.141|0.045|0.0002
91094886|NCT01013753|182073525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.128|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001||95.0|0.081|0.176|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.176|0.081|<0.0001
91094887|NCT01013753|182073525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.135|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001||95.0|0.087|0.183|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.183|0.087|<0.0001
91094888|NCT01013753|182073525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.169|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001||95.0|0.121|0.217|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.217|0.121|<0.0001
91094889|NCT01013753|182073525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.093|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||0.0001||95.0|0.045|0.141|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.141|0.045|0.0001
91094890|NCT01013753|182073526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||0.0362||95.0|0.003|0.097|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.097|0.003|0.0362
91094891|NCT01013753|182073526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.081|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023||0.0006||95.0|0.035|0.127|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.127|0.035|0.0006
91029766|NCT02465567|181943817|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.246||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.41|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.410|1.100|0.0005
91094892|NCT01013753|182073526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.088|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||0.0002||95.0|0.042|0.135|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.135|0.042|0.0002
91094893|NCT01013753|182073526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.117|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001||95.0|0.07|0.164|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.164|0.070|<0.0001
91094894|NCT01013753|182073526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.079|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||0.001||95.0|0.032|0.125|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.125|0.032|0.0010
91094895|NCT01013753|182073527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.526|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.124|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.77|-0.282|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.282|-0.770|<0.0001
91094896|NCT01013753|182073527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.432|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.122||0.0004||95.0|-0.671|-0.192|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.192|-0.671|0.0004
91029767|NCT02465567|181943817|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.283|||<|0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.133|1.454|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.454|1.133|<0.0004
91029768|NCT02465567|181943817|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.177||||0.0103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.039|1.333|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.333|1.039|0.0103
91094897|NCT01013753|182073527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.478|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.123||0.0001||95.0|-0.72|-0.237|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.237|-0.720|0.0001
91094898|NCT01013753|182073527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.657|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.124|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.901|-0.413|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.413|-0.901|<0.0001
91029769|NCT02465567|181943818|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.544||||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.87|||Regression, Cox|||||0.870|0.340|0.0111
91029770|NCT02465567|181943818|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.782||||0.3401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.472|1.296|||Regression, Cox|||||1.296|0.472|0.3401
91094899|NCT01013753|182073527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.449|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.123||0.0003||95.0|-0.691|-0.207|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||-0.207|-0.691|0.0003
91094900|NCT01013753|182073532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.289|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057|<|0.0001||95.0|0.178|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.400|0.178|<0.0001
91094901|NCT01013753|182073532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.209|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056||0.0002||95.0|0.099|0.318|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.318|0.099|0.0002
90847379|NCT00488683|181560719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|-0.04||||0.86||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise from pre-booster levels in serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||0.86
91029771|NCT02465567|181943818|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.789||||0.269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.518|1.201|||Regression, Cox|||||1.201|0.518|0.2690
91029772|NCT02465567|181943818|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.134||||0.5918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.716|1.796|||Regression, Cox|||||1.796|0.716|0.5918
91094902|NCT01013753|182073532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.262|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057|<|0.0001||95.0|0.151|0.374|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.374|0.151|<0.0001
91094903|NCT01013753|182073532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.317|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057|<|0.0001||95.0|0.205|0.429|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.429|0.205|<0.0001
91094904|NCT01013753|182073532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.315|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057|<|0.0001||95.0|0.203|0.426|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.426|0.203|<0.0001
91094905|NCT01013753|182073533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.321|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.432|-0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.210|-0.432|<0.0001
91094906|NCT01013753|182073533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.293|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.403|-0.184|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.184|-0.403|<0.0001
91094907|NCT01013753|182073533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.326|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.436|-0.215|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.215|-0.436|<0.0001
91094908|NCT01013753|182073533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.394|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.505|-0.282|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.282|-0.505|<0.0001
91094909|NCT01013753|182073533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.346|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.457|-0.235|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||-0.235|-0.457|<0.0001
91094910|NCT01013753|182073534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.996||||0.6187||95.0|0.981|1.011|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.011|0.981|0.6187
91094911|NCT01013753|182073534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.996||||0.6022||95.0|0.981|1.011|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.011|0.981|0.6022
91029773|NCT02465567|181943819|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.84||||0.6552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.03|||Negative Binomial Regression|||||1.03|0.69|0.6552
91029774|NCT02465567|181943819|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.8||||0.0221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.97|||Negative Binomial Regression|||||0.97|0.66|0.0221
91094912|NCT01013753|182073534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.999||||0.8641||95.0|0.984|1.014|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.014|0.984|0.8641
91094913|NCT01013753|182073534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.998||||0.7664||95.0|0.983|1.013|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.013|0.983|0.7664
91094914|NCT01013753|182073534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|1.003||||0.6757||95.0|0.988|1.018|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||1.018|0.988|0.6757
91029775|NCT02465567|181943819|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.88||||0.2157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.08|||Negative Binomial Regression|||||1.08|0.72|0.2157
91029776|NCT02465567|181943819|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.83||||0.0647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.01|||Negative Binomial Regression|||||1.01|0.69|0.0647
91029777|NCT01807637|181943827|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.37||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.05
91094915|NCT01013753|182073535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.993||||0.4423||95.0|0.975|1.011|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.011|0.975|0.4423
91094916|NCT01013753|182073535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.979||||0.0218||95.0|0.962|0.997|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.997|0.962|0.0218
91094917|NCT01013753|182073535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.977||||0.0109||95.0|0.96|0.995|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.995|0.960|0.0109
91094918|NCT01013753|182073535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.98||||0.0283||95.0|0.962|0.998|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.998|0.962|0.0283
91094919|NCT01013753|182073535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.991||||0.3085||95.0|0.973|1.009|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||1.009|0.973|0.3085
91094920|NCT01013753|182073536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.999||||0.9112||95.0|0.984|1.015|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.015|0.984|0.9112
90847380|NCT00488683|181560719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.08||||0.7||95.0|||||Parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise from pre-booster levels in serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||0.7
90847381|NCT00488683|181560719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|-0.11||||0.58||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise from pre-booster levels in serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||0.58
90847382|NCT00488683|181560719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|-0.13||||0.44||95.0|||||Parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise from pre-booster levels in serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||0.44
90847383|NCT00488683|181560719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|-0.07||||0.75||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise from pre-booster levels in serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||0.75
90847384|NCT00488683|181560719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|-0.04||||0.84||95.0|||||Parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise from pre-booster levels in serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||0.84
90847385|NCT00488683|181560719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|-0.11||||0.67||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise from pre-booster levels in serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||0.67
90847386|NCT00488683|181560719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|-0.002||||0.99||95.0|||||Parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise from pre-booster levels in serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||0.99
90847387|NCT00488683|181560719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.11||||0.62||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise from pre-booster levels in serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||0.62
90847388|NCT00488683|181560719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.17||||0.36||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise from pre-booster levels in serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||0.36
90847389|NCT00488683|181560719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|-0.003||||0.99||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise from pre-booster levels in serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||0.99
91094921|NCT01013753|182073536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.992||||0.2955||95.0|0.977|1.007|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.007|0.977|0.2955
90847390|NCT00488683|181560719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|-0.2||||0.24||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise from pre-booster levels in serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||0.24
90847391|NCT00488683|181560719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.11||||0.62||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise from pre-booster levels in serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||0.62
90847392|NCT00488683|181560719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.08||||0.69||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for the analysis.|Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise from pre-booster levels in serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||0.69
90847393|NCT00488683|181560719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|-0.13||||0.6||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise from pre-booster levels in serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||0.60
90847394|NCT00488683|181560719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|-0.01||||0.95||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise from pre-booster levels in serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||0.95
90899375|NCT03502616|181665096|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.968||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|3.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48, General Health: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||3.12|-0.69|0.2100
91029778|NCT01807637|181943828|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.12||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.05
91029779|NCT01807637|181943829|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.67|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.41||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.05
91094922|NCT01013753|182073536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.987||||0.1029||95.0|0.973|1.003|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.003|0.973|0.1029
90847395|NCT00488683|181560719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.0015||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise from pre-booster levels in serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||
91029780|NCT00950807|181943830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.128|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.196|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.196|0.060|<0.001
91029781|NCT00950807|181943830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.147|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.077|0.216|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.216|0.077|<0.001
91029782|NCT00950807|181943830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.095||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.027|0.162|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.162|0.027|0.006
91029783|NCT00950807|181943830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.074|0.205|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.205|0.074|<0.001
91029784|NCT00950807|181943830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.186|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.113|0.259|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.259|0.113|<0.001
91029785|NCT00950807|181943830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.079||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.008|0.151|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.151|0.008|0.030
91029786|NCT00950807|181943830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.134|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.064|0.204|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.204|0.064|<0.001
91029787|NCT00950807|181943830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.172|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.101|0.242|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.242|0.101|<0.001
91029788|NCT00950807|181943830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.105||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.037|0.173|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.173|0.037|0.003
90847396|NCT00488683|181560719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.0057||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise from pre-booster levels in serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||
90847397|NCT00488683|181560719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.01||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise from pre-booster levels in serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||
90899376|NCT03502616|181665096|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.248||0.6568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|3.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48, Vitality: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||3.01|-1.90|0.6568
91029789|NCT00659607|181943847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test for paired observations|||||||<0.0001
91029790|NCT00659607|181943848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2669|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2669
91029791|NCT00659607|181943849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9674|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.9674
91029792|NCT00659607|181943850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9207|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.9207
91029793|NCT00659607|181943851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8249|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.8249
91029794|NCT00659607|181943852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test for paired observations|||||||<0.0001
91029795|NCT00659607|181943854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.121|4.151|||Chi-squared||The estimation of Odds Ratio and 95% Confidence Interval based on the logistic regression analysis|||4.151|1.121|0.0003
91029796|NCT00659607|181943855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.642|6.776|||Chi-squared||The Estimation of Odds Ratio and 95% Confidence Interval based the logistic regression analysis|||6.776|1.642|<0.0001
91029797|NCT00659607|181943856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0075|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0075
91029798|NCT00659607|181943857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0007|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0007
91029799|NCT00659607|181943858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0393|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0393
91029800|NCT00659607|181943859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0245|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0245
91029801|NCT05905783|181943926|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.5||0.0183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|23.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||23.7|2.2|0.0183
90847398|NCT00488683|181560719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.02||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Groups 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise from pre-booster levels in serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||
90847399|NCT00488683|181560719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.0048||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise from pre-booster levels in serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||
90847400|NCT00488683|181560719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.0018||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise from pre-booster levels in serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||
91029802|NCT05905783|181943927|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.67||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.7|25.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||25.0|6.7|0.0007
91029803|NCT05905783|181943928|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.4||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.1|23.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||23.4|6.1|0.0008
91029804|NCT05905783|181943929|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.16||0.0462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|24.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||24.3|0.2|0.0462
91029805|NCT05905783|181943930|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.84||0.6285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|8.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||8.6|-14.3|0.6285
91029806|NCT05905783|181943931|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.16||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.44|-0.88|||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|||||-0.88|-3.44|0.0011
91029807|NCT05905783|181943932|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|24.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.67||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.6|39.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||39.7|9.6|0.0013
91029808|NCT05905783|181943933|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.26||0.0245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|30.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||30.6|2.1|0.0245
91029809|NCT01396044|181943945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.27
91094923|NCT01013753|182073536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.991||||0.2552||95.0|0.975|1.007|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.007|0.975|0.2552
91094924|NCT01013753|182073536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.994||||0.4803||95.0|0.979|1.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||1.010|0.979|0.4803
90847401|NCT00488683|181560719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.01||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise from pre-booster levels in serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||
90847402|NCT00488683|181560719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.0||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise from pre-booster levels in serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||
90847403|NCT00488683|181560720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|-0.14||||0.68||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific plasma cells one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||0.68
90847404|NCT00488683|181560720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.44||||0.09||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific plasma cells one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||0.09
90847405|NCT00488683|181560720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.11||||0.69||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific plasma cells one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||0.69
90847406|NCT00488683|181560720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.38||||0.2||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific plasma cells one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||0.20
90847407|NCT00488683|181560720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|-0.05||||0.88||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific plasma cells one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||0.88
90899377|NCT03502616|181665096|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.152||0.2288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|3.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48, Social Functioning: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||3.66|-0.88|0.2288
90899378|NCT03502616|181665096|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25||0.4955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|3.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48, Role-Emotional: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||3.32|-1.61|0.4955
91094925|NCT00621530|182073559|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.94|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Power calculation assumed that all subjects would have an area of hypersensitivity surrounding the wound at 48 hours. We found that only 1 subject in the placebo group and 3 subjects in the ketorolac group had non-zero areas of hypersensitivity.||||=0.94
90847408|NCT00488683|181560720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.41||||0.12||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific plasma cells one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||0.12
90899379|NCT03502616|181665096|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.5888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|3.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48, Mental Health: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||3.01|-1.71|0.5888
90899380|NCT03502616|181665096|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.896||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|3.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48, Physical Component Summary: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||3.18|-0.35|0.1150
91029810|NCT01396044|181943946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.093
91094926|NCT00621530|182073560|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.78|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||=0.78
91094927|NCT00621530|182073561|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.87|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||=0.87
90847409|NCT00488683|181560720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.25||||0.37||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific plasma cells one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||0.37
90847410|NCT00488683|181560720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.28||||0.36||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific plasma cells one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||0.36
90847411|NCT00488683|181560720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.02||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific plasma cells one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||
90847412|NCT00488683|181560720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.2||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific plasma cells one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||
90847413|NCT00488683|181560720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.01||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific plasma cells one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||
90847414|NCT00488683|181560720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.15||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific plasma cells one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||
90847415|NCT00488683|181560720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|1.0||||||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||
90847416|NCT00488683|181560720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|1.0||||||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||
90847417|NCT00488683|181560720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|1.0||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||
90847418|NCT00488683|181560720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.0||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||
90847419|NCT00488683|181560720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.0||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||
90847420|NCT00488683|181560720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|-0.08||||0.79||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||0.79
90847421|NCT00488683|181560720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.35||||0.16||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||0.16
90847422|NCT00488683|181560720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.48||||0.1||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||0.10
91094928|NCT00621530|182073562|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.66|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||=0.66
90847423|NCT00488683|181560720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.98||||0.003||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||0.003
90847424|NCT00488683|181560720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|-0.03||||0.91||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||0.91
90847425|NCT00488683|181560720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.57||||0.01||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||0.01
90847426|NCT00488683|181560720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.39||||0.19||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||0.19
90899381|NCT03502616|181665096|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.158||0.5347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|3.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48, Mental Component Summary: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||3.00|-1.56|0.5347
90899382|NCT03502616|181665097|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.898||0.1513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|3.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||3.06|-0.48|0.1513
91029811|NCT01396044|181943947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.17
90847427|NCT00488683|181560720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.89||||0.04||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||0.04
90847428|NCT00488683|181560720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.01||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||
90847429|NCT00488683|181560720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.12||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||
90847430|NCT00488683|181560720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.23||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||
90847431|NCT00488683|181560720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.96||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||
90847432|NCT00488683|181560720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.18||||0.46||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||0.46
90847433|NCT00488683|181560720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|-0.03||||0.9||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||0.90
90847434|NCT00488683|181560720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.51||||0.008||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||0.008
91029812|NCT01396044|181943948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.27
91094929|NCT00621530|182073563|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.83|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||=0.83
91094930|NCT00303186|182073578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|5.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Baseline and Month 12.||5.10|2.40|<0.0001
91094931|NCT00303186|182073578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.72|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.47|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|5.78|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Baseline and Month 60.||5.78|1.65|<0.001
90847435|NCT00488683|181560720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.42||||0.08||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||0.08
91029813|NCT01396044|181943949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.36
91029814|NCT01396044|181943951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.002
91094932|NCT00303186|182073578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.1||0.518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.76|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Month 12 and Month 60.||0.76|-1.50|0.518
91094933|NCT00303186|182073579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.72|STANDARD_DEVIATION|27.89|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.38|23.07|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Baseline and Month 12.||23.07|12.38|<0.0001
91094934|NCT00303186|182073579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|20.36|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.99|18.21|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Baseline and Month 60.||18.21|6.99|<0.0001
91094935|NCT00303186|182073579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55|STANDARD_DEVIATION|18.7||0.833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|4.61|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Month 12 and Month 60.||4.61|-5.70|0.833
91094936|NCT00303186|182073580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.72|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.39|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.26|3.18|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Baseline and Month 12.||3.18|2.26|<0.0001
90847436|NCT00488683|181560720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.15||||0.52||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||0.52
91029815|NCT03008460|181943960|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority would be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the adjusted treatment difference was higher than -15%.|Adjusted treatment difference|-7.61||||0.0907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.45|3.24||P-value for non-inferiority was estimated from the adjusted treatment difference.|Regression, Logistic|||Analysis of the treatment difference (Eziclen®/Izinova® minus Klean-Prep®) was performed using a logistic regression model, including treatment and country as covariates.||3.24|-18.45|0.0907
90847437|NCT00488683|181560720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.27||||0.18||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||0.18
90899383|NCT03502616|181665097|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02||0.1279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|3.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||3.56|-0.45|0.1279
91029816|NCT03008460|181943961|OTHER||Adjusted treatment difference|-0.18||||0.0428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.01|||ANOVA|||Analysis of the treatment difference (Eziclen®/Izinova® minus Klean-Prep®) was performed using a 2-way ANOVA, including treatment and country as covariates.||-0.01|-0.36|0.0428
91029817|NCT03008460|181943962|OTHER||Adjusted treatment difference|-0.07||||0.4676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.12|||ANOVA|||"Left colon:~Analysis of the treatment difference (Eziclen®/Izinova® minus Klean-Prep®) was performed using a 2-way ANOVA, including treatment and country as covariates."||0.12|-0.25|0.4676
91029818|NCT03008460|181943962|OTHER||Adjusted treatment difference|-0.09||||0.3076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.08|||ANOVA|||"Transverse colon:~Analysis of the treatment difference (Eziclen®/Izinova® minus Klean-Prep®) was performed using a 2-way ANOVA, including treatment and country as covariates."||0.08|-0.25|0.3076
91094937|NCT00303186|182073580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.23|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.36|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|2.87|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Baseline and Month 60.||2.87|1.59|<0.0001
91094938|NCT00303186|182073580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.03||0.309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.27|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Month 12 and Month 60.||0.27|-0.83|0.309
91094939|NCT00303186|182073582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.66|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.75||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.619|8.301|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Baseline and Month 60.||8.301|1.619|0.004
91094940|NCT00303186|182073583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.76|STANDARD_DEVIATION|18.8||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.155|-1.355|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Baseline and Month 60.||-1.355|-12.155|0.015
91094941|NCT00303186|182073584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.41||0.676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.666|2.546|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Baseline and Month 60.||2.546|-1.666|0.676
91094942|NCT00303186|182073585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.486|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.96|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.918|2.05|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Baseline and Month 12.||2.05|0.918|<0.0001
90847438|NCT00488683|181560720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.37||||0.07||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||0.07
91029819|NCT03008460|181943962|OTHER||Adjusted treatment difference|-0.24||||0.0155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.05|||ANOVA|||"Right colon:~Analysis of the treatment difference (Eziclen®/Izinova® minus Klean-Prep®) was performed using a 2-way ANOVA, including treatment and country as covariates."||-0.05|-0.44|0.0155
91029820|NCT03008460|181943962|OTHER||Adjusted treatment difference|-0.36||||0.0975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.07|||ANOVA|||"Global score:~Analysis of the treatment difference (Eziclen®/Izinova® minus Klean-Prep®) was performed using a 2-way ANOVA, including treatment and country as covariates."||0.07|-0.79|0.0975
91029821|NCT03008460|181943963|OTHER||Adjusted treatment difference rate|1.3847||||0.2428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.4|||CMH chi-square|||Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi-square method (using the general association statistic), stratified on country.||2.4|0.8|0.2428
91029822|NCT03008460|181943964|OTHER||Adjusted treatment difference rate|24.0219|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.6|45.9|||CMH chi-square|||Analysis was performed using CMH chi-square method (using the general association statistic), stratified on country.||45.9|12.6|<0.0001
91029823|NCT03008460|181943965|OTHER||Adjusted treatment difference rate|1.0022||||0.9257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.1|||CMH chi-square|||Analysis was performed using CMH chi-square method (using the general association statistic), stratified on country.||1.1|1.0|0.9257
91029824|NCT03008460|181943967|OTHER||Adjusted treatment difference|-0.93||||0.4459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.32|1.47|||ANOVA|||Analysis of the treatment difference (Eziclen®/Izinova® minus Klean-Prep®) was performed using a 2-way ANOVA, including treatment and country as covariates.||1.47|-3.32|0.4459
91029825|NCT03008460|181943968|OTHER||Adjusted treatment difference|0.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.03|||ANOVA|||Analysis of the treatment difference (Eziclen®/Izinova® minus Klean-Prep®) was performed using a 2-way ANOVA, including treatment and country as covariates.||1.03|0.40|<0.0001
91029826|NCT03008460|181943969|OTHER||Adjusted treatment difference rate|1.22||||0.3945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|4.05|||ANOVA|||"Dose 1:~Analysis of the treatment difference (Eziclen®/Izinova® minus Klean-Prep®) was performed using a 2-way ANOVA, including treatment and country as covariates."||4.05|-1.60|0.3945
91029827|NCT03008460|181943969|OTHER||Adjusted treatment difference rate|6.38||||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|11.12|||ANOVA|||"Dose 2:~Analysis of the treatment difference (Eziclen®/Izinova® minus Klean-Prep®) was performed using a 2-way ANOVA, including treatment and country as covariates."||11.12|1.65|0.0085
91029828|NCT03008460|181943969|OTHER||Adjusted treatment difference rate|7.48||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.46|12.5|||ANOVA|||"Global:~Analysis of the treatment difference (Eziclen®/Izinova® minus Klean-Prep®) was performed using a 2-way ANOVA, including treatment and country as covariates."||12.50|2.46|0.0036
91029829|NCT03008460|181943972|OTHER||Adjusted treatment difference|1.05||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.69|||ANOVA|||Analysis of the treatment difference (Eziclen®/Izinova® minus Klean-Prep®) was performed using 2-way ANOVA, including treatment and country as covariates.||1.69|0.41|0.0015
91029830|NCT04947579|181943976|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference|2.4||||0.829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.2|22.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||CC99677 60 mg - Placebo|||22.7|-18.2|0.829
91029831|NCT04947579|181943976|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference|7.3||||0.512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|27.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||CC99677 150 mg - Placebo|||27.5|-13.8|0.512
91029832|NCT04947579|181943977|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference|3.3||||0.725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|21.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||CC99677 60 mg - Placebo|||21.0|-14.9|0.725
91029833|NCT04947579|181943977|SUPERIORITY||Stratfied difference|12.2||||0.219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|30.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||CC99677 150 mg - Placebo|||30.5|-7.2|0.219
91029834|NCT04947579|181943978|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.167||0.299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.16|||Longitudinal data analysis model||CC99677 60 mg - Placebo|||0.16|-0.50|0.299
91029835|NCT04947579|181943978|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.168||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.22|||Longitudinal data analysis model||CC99677 150 mg - Placebo|||0.22|-0.45|0.488
91029836|NCT04947579|181943979|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.391||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.79|||Longitudinal data analysis model||CC99677 60 mg - Placebo|||0.79|-0.76|0.970
91029837|NCT04947579|181943979|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.393||0.668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.61|||Longitudinal data analysis model||CC99677 150 mg - Placebo|||0.61|-0.95|0.668
91029838|NCT04947579|181943980|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.416||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.88|||Longitudinal data analysis model||CC99677 60 mg - Placebo|||0.88|-0.77|0.890
91029839|NCT04947579|181943980|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.417||0.545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|1.08|||Longitudinal data analysis model||CC99677 150 mg - Placebo|||1.08|-0.57|0.545
91029840|NCT04947579|181943981|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.999||0.778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|1.7|||Longitudinal data analysis model||CC99677 60 mg - Placebo|||1.70|-2.26|0.778
91029841|NCT04947579|181943981|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.022||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.02|1.03|||Longitudinal data analysis model||CC99677 150 mg - Placebo|||1.03|-3.02|0.330
91029842|NCT04947579|181943982|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.567||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.93|2.28|||Longitudinal data analysis model||CC99677 60 mg - Placebo|||2.28|-3.93|0.600
91029843|NCT04947579|181943982|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.605||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.49|1.87|||Longitudinal data analysis model||CC99677 150 mg - Placebo|||1.87|-4.49|0.416
91029844|NCT04947579|181943983|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean|-6.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.741||||95.0|-27.31|14.79||||||||14.79|-27.31|
91029845|NCT04947579|181943983|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean|-18.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.181|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.57|-0.58||||||||-0.58|-36.57|
91029846|NCT04947579|181943983|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean|-12.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.105|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.96|7.65||||||||7.65|-31.96|
91029847|NCT00767325|181943984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.282|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.1|||||Day 7|||-0.1|-1.2|
91029848|NCT00767325|181943984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.308|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.7|||||Day 15|||-0.7|-2.0|
91029849|NCT00767325|181943984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.383|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-1.7|||||Day 29|||-1.7|-3.2|
90847439|NCT00488683|181560720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.14||||0.55||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||0.55
90847440|NCT00488683|181560720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.03||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||
90847441|NCT00488683|181560720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.0007||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||
90847442|NCT00488683|181560720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.27||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||
90847443|NCT00488683|181560720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.17||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||
90847444|NCT00488683|181560721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.45||||0.0006||95.0|||||Parametric correlation||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Pearson correlation coefficient between CRM197 specific memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and CRM197 specific memory B cells at 12 months of age||||0.0006
90847445|NCT00488683|181560721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.41||||0.0021||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Spearman correlation coefficient between CRM197 specific memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and CRM197 specific memory B cells at 12 months of age||||0.0021
90847446|NCT00488683|181560721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.21||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between CRM197 specific memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and CRM197 specific memory B cells at 12 months of age||||
90847447|NCT00488683|181560721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|-0.15||||0.53||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between CRM197 specific memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and CRM197 specific memory B cells 1 month after booster vaccination||||0.53
91029850|NCT00767325|181943984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.384|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|-2.1|||||Day 43|||-2.1|-3.7|
90847448|NCT00488683|181560721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.21||||0.26||95.0|||||Parametric correlation||Values from Groups 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Pearson correlation coefficient between CRM197 specific memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and CRM197 specific memory B cells one month after booster vaccination||||0.26
91029851|NCT00767325|181943984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.393|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-2.4|||||Day 57|||-2.4|-4.0|
91029852|NCT00767325|181943984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.454|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|-2.9|||||Day 85|||-2.9|-4.7|
91029853|NCT00767325|181943984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.472|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|-3.5|||||Day 113|||-3.5|-5.4|
90847449|NCT00488683|181560721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|-0.05||||0.84||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between CRM197 specific memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and CRM197 specific memory B cells one month after booster vaccination||||0.84
90847450|NCT00488683|181560721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman Correlation Coefficient|0.22||||0.26||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Spearman correlation coefficient between CRM197 specific memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and CRM197 specific memory B cells one month after booster vaccination||||0.26
90847451|NCT00488683|181560721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.02||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between CRM197 specific memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and CRM197 specific memory B cells one month after booster vaccination||||
90847452|NCT00488683|181560721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.05||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between CRM197 specific memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and CRM197 specific memory B cells one month after booster vaccination||||
91029854|NCT00767325|181943984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.492|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|-3.8|||||Day 141|||-3.8|-5.8|
90847453|NCT00488683|181560721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.33|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Parametric correlation||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Pearson correlation coefficient between CRM197 specific memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and CRM197 specific IgG concentration at 12 months of age||||<0.001
90847454|NCT00488683|181560721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.46|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Spearman correlation coefficient between CRM197 specific memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and CRM197 specific IgG concentration at 12 months of age||||<0.001
90847455|NCT00488683|181560721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.11|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between CRM197 specific memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and CRM197 specific IgG concentration at 12 months of age||||<0.001
90847456|NCT00488683|181560721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.24||||0.06||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between CRM197 specific memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and CRM197 specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination||||0.06
90847457|NCT00488683|181560721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.5|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Pearson correlation coefficient between CRM197 specific memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and CRM197 specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination||||<0.001
91029855|NCT00767325|181943984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.473|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|-3.9|||||Day 169|||-3.9|-5.8|
91029856|NCT02674334|181944050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|2.82||P-values were not adjusted for multiple inferences|ANOVA|Continuous responses were tested using RCB ANOVA.||||2.82|-.49|0.165
91094943|NCT00303186|182073585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.64|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|2.99|||t-test, 1 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Baseline and Month 60.||2.99|1.01|<0.001
91094944|NCT00303186|182073585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.56|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.32||0.223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|1.46|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Month 12 and Month 60.||1.46|-0.35|0.223
90847458|NCT00488683|181560721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.31||||0.01||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between CRM197 specific memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and CRM197 specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination||||0.01
90847459|NCT00488683|181560721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.2||||0.1||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Spearman correlation coefficient between CRM197 specific memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and CRM197 specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination||||0.10
90847460|NCT00488683|181560721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.06||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between CRM197 specific memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and CRM197 specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination||||
90847461|NCT00488683|181560721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.25||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between CRM197 specific memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and CRM197 specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination||||
90847462|NCT00488683|181560727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.04||||0.7||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration at day 1 in the serum of mother for the serogroup A||||0.70
90847463|NCT00488683|181560727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|-0.04||||0.63||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration at day 1 in the serum of mother for the serogroup C||||0.63
91029857|NCT00235456|181944061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.61||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.98|||Chi-squared|||||0.98|0.38|0.04
91029858|NCT00235456|181944062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.54
90847464|NCT00488683|181560727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|-0.03||||0.74||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration at day 1 in the serum of mother for the serogroup W-135||||0.74
90847465|NCT00488683|181560727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|-0.03||||0.74||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration at day 1 in the serum of mother for the serogroup Y||||0.74
91029859|NCT00235456|181944063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.28
90847466|NCT00488683|181560727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.18||||0.05||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration at day 1 in the serum of mother for the serogroup A||||0.05
90847467|NCT00488683|181560727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|-0.07||||0.36||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration at day 1 in the serum of mother for the serogroup C||||0.36
91029860|NCT00235456|181944064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.57
91029861|NCT00235456|181944065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.71
91029862|NCT00235456|181944066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.09
90847468|NCT00488683|181560727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|-0.11||||0.18||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration at day 1 in the serum of mother for the serogroup W-135||||0.18
90847469|NCT00488683|181560727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.02||||0.82||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration at day 1 in the serum of mother for the serogroup Y||||0.82
90847470|NCT00488683|181560727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.0013||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration at day 1 in the serum of mother for the serogroup A||||
90847471|NCT00488683|181560727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.0014||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration at day 1 in the serum of mother for the serogroup C||||
90847472|NCT00488683|181560727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.0008||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration at day 1 in the serum of mother for the serogroup W-135||||
91032761|NCT01706536|181950663|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean (SE)|0.1168|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04055||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0369|0.1966|||Least squares mean (SE)|In order to control for Type I error rate, a gate keeping methodology was used.||A sample size of 45 subjects per treatment arm provides approximately 80% power to detect a 0.12 L treatment difference in mean change in trough FEV1 between an active arm and the placebo arm at a significance level of 0.05 using a 2-group t-test and assumes a standard deviation for change in trough FEV1 of 200. Assuming a 20% discontinuation rate, approximately 55 subjects were enrolled into each treatment arm.||0.1966|0.0369|0.0043
91094945|NCT00303186|182073586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.33|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.94|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.1|7.47|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Baseline: swollen joints and Month 12: swollen joints.||7.47|5.10|<0.0001
91029863|NCT00860405|181944069|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assuming a coefficient of variation of 0.363 and a desired power of 90 % with a type I level of 2.5 %, N=11 patients per treatment group were needed. The power was calculated by means of the software SAS, version 9.1.3, PROC POWER. Nevertheless, more patients were required for the assessment of safety, therefore 2 × 30 patients were planned to be included in this study.|Ratio of LS-means|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.16||Null hypothesis tested by calculating a 2-sided 95% CI for ratio of LS-means μVoluven/μHSA based on ANOVA incl.treatment+centre as effects. If 95% CI was within equivalence range(0.55, 1.82), significant equivalence was concluded (Type I error: 2.5%)|ANOVA|Primary endpoint specified + analysed for PP and ITT population. Confirmatory analysis based on PP population only, no adjustment for multiplicity.|Considered ratio: μVoluven/μHSA = LS-mean of Voluven®/LS-mean of HSA 5%|The aim of the study was to prove equivalence, i.e. H0: μVoluven/μHSA ≤ 0.55 or μVoluven/μHSA ≥ 1.82 H1: 0.55 \< μVoluven/μHSA \< 1.82 where μVoluven was the mean infused volume of Voluven® and μHSA was the mean infused volume of HSA 5%.||1.16|0.84|
91094946|NCT00303186|182073586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.35|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.48|7.92|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Baseline: swollen joints and Month 60: swollen joints.||7.92|4.48|<0.0001
91094947|NCT00303186|182073586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.09||0.479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.76|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Month 12: swollen joints and Month 60: swollen joints.||0.76|-0.36|0.479
91094948|NCT00303186|182073586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.86|11.13|||t-test, 1 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Baseline: tender joints and Month 12: tender joints.||11.13|6.86|<0.0001
91094949|NCT00303186|182073586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.25|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.1|11.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Baseline: tender joints and Month 60: tender joints.||11.10|6.10|<0.0001
91094950|NCT00303186|182073586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.66|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.92||0.588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|3.07|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Month 12: tender joints and Month 60: tender joints.||3.07|-1.76|0.588
91094951|NCT00303186|182073590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.29||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|3.82|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Baseline and Month 12.||3.82|-1.30|0.330
91094952|NCT00303186|182073590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.56|STANDARD_DEVIATION|32.28||0.449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.37|16.26|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Baseline and Month 60.||16.26|-33.37|0.449
90847473|NCT00488683|181560727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.0009||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration at day 1 in the serum of mother for the serogroup Y||||
91094953|NCT00303186|182073590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|38.17||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.04|7.04|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Month 12 and Month 60.||7.04|-37.04|0.165
91094954|NCT00303186|182073591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|31.18|STANDARD_DEVIATION|24.48|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.44|35.91|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Baseline and Month 12.||35.91|26.44|<0.0001
91094955|NCT00303186|182073591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.76|STANDARD_DEVIATION|23.24|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.42|35.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Baseline and Month 60.||35.10|22.42|<0.0001
91094956|NCT00303186|182073591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|24.6||0.538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|4.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Month 12 and Month 60.||4.60|-8.70|0.538
91094957|NCT00303186|182073592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.83|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.04|37.63|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Baseline and Month 12.||37.63|30.04|<0.0001
91094958|NCT00303186|182073592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|38.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|21.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.96|44.12|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Baseline and Month 60.||44.12|31.96|<0.0001
91094959|NCT00303186|182073592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.38|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.59||0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.62|7.38|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Month 12 and Month 60.||7.38|-2.62|0.343
91094960|NCT00303186|182073593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|31.18|STANDARD_DEVIATION|27.56|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.88|36.49|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Baseline and Month 12.||36.49|25.88|<0.0001
91094961|NCT00303186|182073593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|25.89|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.52|36.09|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Baseline and Month 60.||36.09|21.52|<0.0001
91094962|NCT00303186|182073593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.33|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.77||0.301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.74|3.07|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Month 12 and Month 60.||3.07|-9.74|0.301
91094963|NCT00303186|182073594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|26.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|123.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.01|50.4|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Baseline and Month 12.||50.40|2.01|<0.0001
91094964|NCT00303186|182073594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.19|STANDARD_DEVIATION|18.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.81|18.57|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Baseline and Month 60.||18.57|7.81|<0.0001
91094965|NCT00303186|182073594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.31|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.07||0.132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|1.77|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Month 12 and Month 60.||1.77|-6.40|0.132
90847474|NCT00488683|181560728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.34||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers at 12 months of age for the serogroup A||||
90847475|NCT00488683|181560728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.14||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers at 12 months of age for the serogroup A||||
90847476|NCT00488683|181560728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.09||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between demographic factors, memory B cells at 5 months of age and hSBA titers at 12 months of age after a 2, 4-month course of MenACWY-CRM vaccination for the serogroup C||||
90847477|NCT00488683|181560728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.16||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers at 12 months of age for the serogroup C||||
90847478|NCT00488683|181560728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.22||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers at 12 months of age for the serogroup W-135||||
90847479|NCT00488683|181560728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.33||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers at 12 months of age for the serogroup W-135||||
90899384|NCT03502616|181665097|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.056||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.75|5.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||5.90|1.75|0.0003
91029864|NCT00864097|181944078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||LS means were estimated from the corresponding analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||-0.02|-0.81|0.039
90847480|NCT00488683|181560728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.74||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers at 12 months of age for the serogroup Y||||
90847481|NCT00488683|181560728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.53||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers at 12 months of age for the serogroup Y||||
90847482|NCT00488683|181560728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.37||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between demographic factors, memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers at 12 months of age for the serogroup A||||
90847483|NCT00488683|181560728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.14||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between demographic factors, memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers at 12 months of age for the serogroup A||||
90847484|NCT00488683|181560728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.13||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between demographic factors, memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers at 12 months of age for the serogroup C||||
90847485|NCT00488683|181560728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.17||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between demographic factors, memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers at 12 months of age for the serogroup C||||
90847486|NCT00488683|181560728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.9||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between demographic factors, memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers at 12 months of age for the serogroup W-135||||
91029865|NCT00864097|181944078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.12|||ANCOVA|||LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||-0.12|-0.91|0.011
90847487|NCT00488683|181560728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.78||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between demographic factors, memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers at 12 months of age for the serogroup W-135||||
90847488|NCT00488683|181560728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.94||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between demographic factors, memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers at 12 months of age for the serogroup Y||||
90847489|NCT00488683|181560728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.85||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between demographic factors, memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers at 12 months of age for the serogroup Y||||
90847490|NCT00488683|181560728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.03||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration at 12 months of age for the serogroup A||||
90847491|NCT00488683|181560728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.02||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration at 12 months of age for the serogroup A||||
90847492|NCT00488683|181560728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.007||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration at 12 months of age for the serogroup C||||
90847493|NCT00488683|181560728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.04||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration at 12 months of age for the serogroup C||||
90847494|NCT00488683|181560728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.02||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration at 12 months of age for the serogroup W-135||||
91094966|NCT00303186|182073595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|150.1|<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.52|46.04|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Baseline and Month 12.||46.04|-13.52|<0.0005
91094967|NCT00303186|182073595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|52.81|STANDARD_DEVIATION|100.25|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.33|83.29|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Baseline and Month 60.||83.29|22.33|<0.0001
91094968|NCT00303186|182073595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|147.25||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.84|77.64|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Month 12 and Month 60.||77.64|-10.84|0.034
91094969|NCT00303186|182073597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.48|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.66|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.62|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Baseline and Month 12.||0.62|0.35|<0.0001
91094970|NCT00303186|182073597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.56|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.56|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Baseline and Month 60.||0.56|0.26|<0.0001
91094971|NCT00303186|182073597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.61||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.14|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Month 12 and Month 60.||0.14|-0.24|0.600
90847495|NCT00488683|181560728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.08||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration at 12 months of age for the serogroup W-135||||
90847496|NCT00488683|181560728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.13||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration at 12 months of age for the serogroup Y||||
90847497|NCT00488683|181560728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.28||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration at 12 months of age for the serogroup Y||||
90847498|NCT00488683|181560728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.3||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between demographic factors memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration at 12 months of age for the serogroup A||||
90847499|NCT00488683|181560728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.1||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between demographic factors memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration at 12 months of age for the serogroup A||||
90899385|NCT03502616|181665097|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.282||0.0102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|5.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||5.84|0.79|0.0102
91094972|NCT00303186|182073598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.31|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Baseline and Month 12.||0.30|0.18|<0.0001
90847500|NCT00488683|181560728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.11||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between demographic factors memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration at 12 months of age for the serogroup C||||
91094973|NCT00303186|182073598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.34|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|-0.12|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Baseline and Month 60.||-0.12|-0.31|<0.0001
91094974|NCT00303186|182073598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.27||0.789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.06|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Month 12 and Month 60.||0.06|-0.08|0.789
91094975|NCT00303186|182073599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|25.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.59|24.22|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Baseline and Month 12.||24.22|14.59|<0.0001
91094976|NCT00303186|182073599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.68|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.08||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.77|-6.59|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Baseline and Month 60.||-6.59|-18.77|0.0001
90847501|NCT00488683|181560728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.06||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between demographic factors memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration at 12 months of age for the serogroup C||||
90847502|NCT00488683|181560728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.17||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between demographic factors memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration at 12 months of age for the serogroup W-135||||
90847503|NCT00488683|181560728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.21||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between demographic factors memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration at 12 months of age for the serogroup W-135||||
91094977|NCT00303186|182073599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.85|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.22||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|10.92|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Month 12 and Month 60.||10.92|-1.21|0.115
91094978|NCT00303186|182073600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.41|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.34|-4.47|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Baseline: physical component score and Month 12: physical component score.||-4.47|-10.34|<0.0001
91094979|NCT00303186|182073600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.94|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.56|-3.32|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Baseline: physical component score and Month 60: physical component score.||-3.32|-8.56|<0.0001
91029866|NCT00864097|181944078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.17|||ANCOVA|||LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||-0.17|-0.97|0.005
91029867|NCT00864097|181944079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.12|||ANCOVA|||LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||-0.12|-0.91|0.010
91029868|NCT00864097|181944079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.23|||ANCOVA|||LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||-0.23|-1.03|0.002
91029869|NCT00864097|181944079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||-0.30|-1.10|<0.001
91029870|NCT00864097|181944080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||-0.03|-0.32|0.022
91029871|NCT00864097|181944080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||-0.03|-0.33|0.020
91029872|NCT00864097|181944080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.09|||ANCOVA|||LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||-0.09|-0.40|0.002
91029873|NCT00864097|181944081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.34|||ANCOVA|||At Week 2: LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||0.34|-0.32|0.957
91029874|NCT00864097|181944081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.35|||ANCOVA|||At Week 2: LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||0.35|-0.31|0.899
91029875|NCT00864097|181944081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.72|||ANCOVA|||At Week 2: LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||0.72|0.06|0.022
91029876|NCT00864097|181944081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.0|||ANCOVA|||At Week 4: LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||0.00|-0.70|0.052
91029877|NCT00864097|181944081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.34|||ANCOVA|||At Week 4: LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||-0.34|-1.05|<0.001
91029878|NCT00864097|181944081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.13|||ANCOVA|||At Week 4: LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||-0.13|-0.84|0.008
90847504|NCT00488683|181560728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.39||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between demographic factors memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration at 12 months of age for the serogroup Y||||
90847505|NCT00488683|181560728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.33||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between demographic factors memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration at 12 months of age for the serogroup Y||||
90847506|NCT00488683|181560729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.24||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise in hSBA after booster vaccination age for the serogroup A||||
90847507|NCT00488683|181560729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.19||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise in hSBA after booster vaccination age for the serogroup A||||
90847508|NCT00488683|181560729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.52||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise in hSBA after booster vaccination age for the serogroup C||||
90847509|NCT00488683|181560729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.07||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise in hSBA after booster vaccination age for the serogroup C||||
90847510|NCT00488683|181560729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|1.0||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise in hSBA after booster vaccination age for the serogroup W-135||||
90847511|NCT00488683|181560729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.29||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise in hSBA after booster vaccination age for the serogroup W-135||||
91029879|NCT00864097|181944081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.01|||ANCOVA|||At Week 8: LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||0.01|-0.72|0.058
91029880|NCT00864097|181944081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.32|||ANCOVA|||At Week 8: LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||-0.32|-1.05|<0.001
91029881|NCT00864097|181944081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|-0.38|||ANCOVA|||At Week 8: LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||-0.38|-1.12|<0.001
91029882|NCT00864097|181944081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.15|||ANCOVA|||At Week 12: LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||-0.15|-0.91|0.007
90847512|NCT00488683|181560729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.19||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise in hSBA after booster vaccination age for the serogroup Y||||
90847513|NCT00488683|181560729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.05||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise in hSBA after booster vaccination age for the serogroup Y||||
90847514|NCT00488683|181560729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.7||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between demographic factors, memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise in hSBA after booster vaccination age for the serogroup A||||
90847515|NCT00488683|181560729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.21||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between demographic factors, memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise in hSBA after booster vaccination age for the serogroup A||||
90847516|NCT00488683|181560729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.5||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between demographic factors, memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise in hSBA after booster vaccination age for the serogroup C||||
90847517|NCT00488683|181560729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.16||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between demographic factors, memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise in hSBA after booster vaccination age for the serogroup C||||
90847518|NCT00488683|181560729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|1.0||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between demographic factors, memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise in hSBA after booster vaccination age for the serogroup W-135||||
90847519|NCT00488683|181560729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.3||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between demographic factors, memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise in hSBA after booster vaccination age for the serogroup W-135||||
91029883|NCT00864097|181944081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|-0.41|||ANCOVA|||At Week 12: LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||-0.41|-1.18|<0.001
91029884|NCT00864097|181944081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.28|||ANCOVA|||At Week 12: LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||-0.28|-1.05|<0.001
91029885|NCT00864097|181944082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.35|||ANCOVA|||At Week 2: LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||0.35|-0.25|0.754
91029886|NCT00864097|181944082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.25|||ANCOVA|||At Week 2: LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||0.25|-0.36|0.706
91029887|NCT00864097|181944082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.48|||ANCOVA|||At Week 2: LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||0.48|-0.13|0.266
90847520|NCT00488683|181560729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.21||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between demographic factors, memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise in hSBA after booster vaccination age for the serogroup Y||||
90847521|NCT00488683|181560729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.12||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between demographic factors, memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise in hSBA after booster vaccination age for the serogroup Y||||
90847522|NCT00488683|181560729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.0015||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise in serogroup specific IgG concentration after booster vaccination age for the serogroup A||||
90847523|NCT00488683|181560729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.0057||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise in serogroup specific IgG concentration after booster vaccination age for the serogroup A||||
90847524|NCT00488683|181560729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.01||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise in serogroup specific IgG concentration after booster vaccination age for the serogroup C||||
91029888|NCT00864097|181944082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.12|||ANCOVA|||At Week 4: LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||0.12|-0.58|0.195
91029889|NCT00864097|181944082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.36|||ANCOVA|||At Week 4: LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||-0.36|-1.07|<0.001
91029890|NCT00864097|181944082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.07|||ANCOVA|||At Week 4: LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||-0.07|-0.78|0.019
91029891|NCT00864097|181944082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.08|||ANCOVA|||At Week 8: LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||0.08|-0.64|0.126
91029892|NCT00864097|181944082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.37|||ANCOVA|||At Week 8: LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||-0.37|-1.10|<0.001
90847525|NCT00488683|181560729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.02||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise in serogroup specific IgG concentration after booster vaccination age for the serogroup C||||
90847526|NCT00488683|181560729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.0048||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise in serogroup specific IgG concentration after booster vaccination age for the serogroup W-135||||
90847527|NCT00488683|181560729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.0018||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Groups 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise in serogroup specific IgG concentration after booster vaccination age for the serogroup W-135||||
90899386|NCT03502616|181665097|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|4.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.285||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|7.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||7.26|2.20|0.0003
90899387|NCT03502616|181665097|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.439||0.895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.64|3.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||3.02|-2.64|0.8950
90899388|NCT03502616|181665097|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.365||0.4732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.67|1.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 32: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||1.71|-3.67|0.4732
90899389|NCT03502616|181665097|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.523||0.6359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.72|2.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 40: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||2.28|-3.72|0.6359
90847528|NCT00488683|181560729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.01||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise in serogroup specific IgG concentration after booster vaccination age for the serogroup Y||||
90847529|NCT00488683|181560729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.0||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise in serogroup specific IgG concentration after booster vaccination age for the serogroup Y||||
91029893|NCT00864097|181944082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.25|||ANCOVA|||At Week 8: LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||-0.25|-0.98|0.001
91029894|NCT00864097|181944082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.15|||ANCOVA|||At Week 12: LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||-0.15|-0.90|0.007
91029895|NCT00864097|181944082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|-0.44|||ANCOVA|||At Week 12: LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||-0.44|-1.21|<0.001
91029896|NCT00864097|181944082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.25|||ANCOVA|||At Week 12: LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||-0.25|-1.02|0.001
90847530|NCT00488683|181560729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.27||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between demographic factors, memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise in serogroup specific IgG concentration after booster vaccination age for the serogroup A||||
91029897|NCT00864097|181944083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.05|||ANCOVA|||At Week 2: LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||0.05|-0.22|0.200
91029898|NCT00864097|181944083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.11|||ANCOVA|||At Week 2: LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||0.11|-0.15|0.754
91029899|NCT00864097|181944083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.18|||ANCOVA|||At Week 2: LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||0.18|-0.08|0.449
91029900|NCT00864097|181944083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.01|||ANCOVA|||At Week 4: LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||0.01|-0.27|0.062
90847531|NCT00488683|181560729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.19||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between demographic factors, memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise in serogroup specific IgG concentration after booster vaccination age for the serogroup A||||
90847532|NCT00488683|181560729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.08||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between demographic factors, memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise in serogroup specific IgG concentration after booster vaccination age for the serogroup C||||
90847533|NCT00488683|181560729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.08||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between demographic factors, memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise in serogroup specific IgG concentration after booster vaccination age for the serogroup C||||
90847534|NCT00488683|181560729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.45||||0.0436||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between demographic factors, memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise in serogroup specific IgG concentration after booster vaccination age for the serogroup W-135||||0.0436
90847535|NCT00488683|181560729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.17||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between demographic factors, memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise in serogroup specific IgG concentration after booster vaccination age for the serogroup W-135||||
90847536|NCT00488683|181560729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.37||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between demographic factors, memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise in serogroup specific IgG concentration after booster vaccination age for the serogroup Y||||
90847537|NCT00488683|181560729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.07||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between demographic factors, memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise in serogroup specific IgG concentration after booster vaccination age for the serogroup Y||||
90847538|NCT00730028|181560809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.7688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|5.1||Adjustments for multiple comparisons were made using a Bonferroni correction.|Fisher Exact||The mean difference is determined by the cure rate of TMP-SMX minus Clindamycin.|Primary null hypothesis: Clindamycin and TMP-SMX have equal rates of cure in the treatment of cellulitis/larger abscess at the Test of Cure (TOC) visit.||5.1|-7.6|0.7688
90847539|NCT00730028|181560809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|5.1||Adjustments for multiple comparisons were made using a Bonferroni correction.|Fisher Exact||The mean difference is determined by the cure rate of TMP-SMX minus Clindamycin.|Primary null hypothesis: After successful surgical drainage, placebo, Clindamycin, and TMP-SMX have equal rates of cure in the treatment of limited abscess at the TOC visit.||5.1|-5.4|1.0000
90847540|NCT00730028|181560809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.2|-5.6||Adjustments for multiple comparisons were made using a Bonferroni correction.|Fisher Exact||The mean difference is determined by the cure rate of Placebo minus Clindamycin.|Primary null hypothesis: After successful surgical drainage, placebo, Clindamycin, and TMP-SMX have equal rates of cure in the treatment of limited abscess at the TOC visit.||-5.6|-19.2|<0.0001
90847541|NCT00730028|181560809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.2||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.1|-5.4||Adjustments for multiple comparisons were made using a Bonferroni correction.|Fisher Exact||The mean difference is determined by the cure rate of Placebo minus TMP-SMX.|Primary null hypothesis: After successful surgical drainage, placebo, Clindamycin, and TMP-SMX have equal rates of cure in the treatment of limited abscess at the TOC visit.||-5.4|-19.1|0.0002
91029901|NCT00864097|181944083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.08|||ANCOVA|||At Week 4: LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||-0.08|-0.36|0.002
91029902|NCT00864097|181944083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||At Week 4: LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||-0.02|-0.30|0.026
91029903|NCT00864097|181944083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||At Week 8: LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||-0.01|-0.31|0.032
91029904|NCT00864097|181944083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.19|||ANCOVA|||At Week 8: LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||-0.19|-0.48|<0.001
91094980|NCT00303186|182073600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.25|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.83||0.308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|3.68|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Month 12: physical component score and Month 60: physical component score.||3.68|-1.19|0.308
91094981|NCT00303186|182073600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.67|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.51||0.589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.14|1.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Baseline: mental component score and Month 12: mental component score.||1.80|-3.14|0.589
91094982|NCT00303186|182073600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.59|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.29||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.12|-2.06|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Baseline: mental component score and Month 60: mental component score.||-2.06|-9.12|0.003
91094983|NCT00303186|182073600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.8||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.23|-2.18|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Month 12: mental component score and Month 60: mental component score.||-2.18|-9.23|0.002
91094984|NCT02326883|182073601|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.33||A priori two-sided comparison of Care Management condition to Usual Care|Log Rank|A priori Bonferonni-corrected threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|To clarify direction of comparison: relative hazard of suicide attempt among participants assigned to Care Management was 1.07 (95% CI 0.86 - 1.33) higher compared to participants assigned to Usual Care|Comparison of participants assigned to Care Management intervention to those assigned to continued Usual Care||1.33|0.86|0.61
91094985|NCT02326883|182073601|SUPERIORITY|A priori two-sided comparison of Skills Training to usual care.|Cox Proportional Hazard|1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.59||A priori Bonferonni-corrected threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|Log Rank||To clarify direction of comparison: relative hazard of suicide attempt in participants assigned to Skills Training was 1.29 (95% CI 1.05-1.59) times higher than in those assigned to Usual Care|Comparison of Skills Training to Usual Care||1.59|1.05|0.02
91094986|NCT00284856|182073607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|5.92||||||95.0|0.28|11.56|||||Estimated Value is difference in least squares mean (montelukast - placebo)|||11.56|0.28|
91094987|NCT00284856|182073607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|10.14||||||95.0|4.5|15.78|||||Estimated value is difference in least squares mean (fluticasone - placebo)|||15.78|4.50|
91094988|NCT00284856|182073607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.22||||||95.0|-9.83|1.38|||||Estimated value is difference in least squares mean (montelukast - fluticasone)|||1.38|-9.83|
91094989|NCT00284856|182073608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.15||||||95.0|-0.25|-0.05|||||Estimated value is difference in least squares mean (montelukast - placebo)|||-0.05|-0.25|
91094990|NCT00284856|182073608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2||||||95.0|-0.3|-0.1|||||Estimated value is difference in least squares mean (fluticasone - placebo)|||-0.10|-0.30|
91094991|NCT00284856|182073608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.05||||||95.0|-0.05|0.15|||||Estimated value is difference in least squares mean (montelukast - fluticasone)|||0.15|-0.05|
91094992|NCT00284856|182073609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|5.09||||||95.0|-1.27|11.45|||||Estimated value is difference in least squares mean (montelukast - placebo)|||11.45|-1.27|
91094993|NCT00284856|182073609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|11.21||||||95.0|4.85|17.58|||||Estimated value is difference in least squares mean (fluticasone - placebo)|||17.58|4.85|
91094994|NCT00284856|182073609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.13||||||95.0|-12.46|0.2|||||Estimated value is difference in least squares mean (montelukast - fluticasone)|||0.20|-12.46|
91094995|NCT00790036|182073622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.22||P-value was obtained from the one-sided unstratified log rank test.|Log Rank|||||1.22|0.69|0.276
91094996|NCT00790036|182073623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.09||There was no formal testing of the OS between treatment since the primary endpoint was not statistically significant.||||||1.09|0.52|
91094997|NCT00790036|182073624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.07||||||||1.07|0.41|
91094998|NCT02921256|182073669|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.69
91094999|NCT02921256|182073669|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.26
91095000|NCT00157755|182073696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.215||||||A significance level of 0.05 was applied to the test. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||"Null hypothesis: There was no change in the frequency of weekly vomiting episodes from when stimulation was turned OFF to when stimulation was turned ON, µ = 0;~Alternative hypothesis: There was a change in frequency of weekly vomiting episodes from when stimulation was turned OFF to when stimulation was turned ON, µ ≠ 0"||||0.215
91095001|NCT00157755|182073696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||A significance level of 0.05 was applied to the test. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||"Null hypothesis: There was no change in the frequency of weekly vomiting episodes from when stimulation was turned OFF to when stimulation was turned ON, µ = 0;~Alternative hypothesis: There was a change in frequency of weekly vomiting episodes from when stimulation was turned OFF to when stimulation was turned ON, µ ≠ 0"||||1.0
91095002|NCT00157755|182073697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.903||||||A significance level of 0.05 was applied to the test. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||"Null hypothesis: There was no change in total symptom score from when stimulation was turned OFF to when stimulation was turned ON, µ = 0;~Alternative hypothesis: There was a change in total symptom score from when stimulation was turned OFF to when stimulation was turned ON, µ ≠ 0"||||0.903
91095003|NCT00157755|182073697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.932||95.0||||A significance level of 0.05 was applied to the test. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||"Null hypothesis: There was no change in total symptom score from when stimulation was turned OFF to when stimulation was turned ON, µ = 0;~Alternative hypothesis: There was a change in total symptom score from when stimulation was turned OFF to when stimulation was turned ON, µ ≠ 0"||||0.932
91029905|NCT00864097|181944083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.16|||ANCOVA|||At Week 8: LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||-0.16|-0.45|<0.001
91029906|NCT00864097|181944083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||At Week 12: LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||-0.01|-0.30|0.038
90847542|NCT00730028|181560812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.6||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|4.9||Adjustments for multiple comparisons were made using a Bonferroni correction.|Fisher Exact||The mean difference is determined by the cure rate of TMP-SMX minus Clindamycin.|Primary null hypothesis: Clindamycin and TMP-SMX have equal rates of cure in the treatment of cellulitis/larger abscess at the Test of Cure (TOC) visit.||4.9|-10.2|0.5200
90847543|NCT00730028|181560812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.7324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|5.7||Adjustments for multiple comparisons were made using a Bonferroni correction.|Fisher Exact||The mean difference is determined by the cure rate of TMP-SMX minus Clindamycin.|Primary null hypothesis: After successful surgical drainage, placebo, Clindamycin, and TMP-SMX have equal rates of cure in the treatment of limited abscess at the TOC visit.||5.7|-8.4|0.7324
90847544|NCT00730028|181560812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.2||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|-6.4||Adjustments for multiple comparisons were made using a Bonferroni correction.|Fisher Exact||The mean difference is determined by the cure rate of Placebo minus Clindamycin.|Primary null hypothesis: After successful surgical drainage, placebo, Clindamycin, and TMP-SMX have equal rates of cure in the treatment of limited abscess at the TOC visit.||-6.4|-22.0|0.0001
90847545|NCT00730028|181560812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.9||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.8|-5.0||Adjustments for multiple comparisons were made using a Bonferroni correction.|Fisher Exact||The mean difference is determined by the cure rate of Placebo minus TMP-SMX.|Primary null hypothesis: After successful surgical drainage, placebo, Clindamycin, and TMP-SMX have equal rates of cure in the treatment of limited abscess at the TOC visit.||-5.0|-20.8|0.0008
90847546|NCT00730028|181560813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.7707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|5.3||Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not made for secondary efficacy outcome measures.|Fisher Exact||The mean difference is determined by the cure rate of TMP-SMX minus Clindamycin.|Null hypothesis: Clindamycin and TMP-SMX have equal rates of cure in the treatment of cellulitis/larger abscess.||5.3|-7.1|0.7707
90847547|NCT00730028|181560813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.3||||0.2141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|8.5||Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not made for secondary efficacy outcome measures.|Fisher Exact||The mean difference is determined by the cure rate of TMP-SMX minus Clindamycin.|Null hypothesis: After successful surgical drainage, placebo, Clindamycin, and TMP-SMX have equal rates of cure in the treatment of limited abscess.||8.5|-2.0|0.2141
90847548|NCT00730028|181560813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.0||||0.0593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|0.5||Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not made for secondary efficacy outcome measures.|Fisher Exact||The mean difference is determined by the cure rate of Placebo minus Clindamycin.|Null hypothesis: After successful surgical drainage, placebo, Clindamycin, and TMP-SMX have equal rates of cure in the treatment of limited abscess.||0.5|-12.4|0.0593
90847549|NCT00730028|181560813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.2||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.3|-3.1||Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not made for secondary efficacy outcome measures.|Fisher Exact||The mean difference is determined by the cure rate of Placebo minus TMP-SMX.|Null hypothesis: After successful surgical drainage, placebo, Clindamycin, and TMP-SMX have equal rates of cure in the treatment of limited abscess.||-3.1|-15.3|0.0017
90847550|NCT00730028|181560814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.7||||0.1381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|1.8||Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not made for secondary efficacy outcome measures.|Fisher Exact||The mean difference is determined by the cure rate of TMP-SMX minus Clindamycin.|Null hypothesis: Clindamycin and TMP-SMX have equal rates of cure in the treatment of cellulitis/larger abscess.||1.8|-13.1|0.1381
90847551|NCT00730028|181560814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.8302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|8.2||Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not made for secondary efficacy outcome measures.|Fisher Exact||The mean difference is determined by the cure rate of TMP-SMX minus Clindamycin.|Null hypothesis: After successful surgical drainage, placebo, Clindamycin, and TMP-SMX have equal rates of cure in the treatment of limited abscess.||8.2|-6.4|0.8302
91029907|NCT00864097|181944083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.07|||ANCOVA|||At Week 12: LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||-0.07|-0.37|0.003
90847552|NCT00730028|181560814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.6||||0.0838|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|1.1||Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not made for secondary efficacy outcome measures.|Fisher Exact||The mean difference is determined by the cure rate of Placebo minus Clindamycin.|Null hypothesis: After successful surgical drainage, placebo, Clindamycin, and TMP-SMX have equal rates of cure in the treatment of limited abscess.||1.1|-14.3|0.0838
90847553|NCT00730028|181560814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.5||||0.0507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|0.2||Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not made for secondary efficacy outcome measures.|Fisher Exact||The mean difference is determined by the cure rate of Placebo minus TMP-SMX.|Null hypothesis: After successful surgical drainage, placebo, Clindamycin, and TMP-SMX have equal rates of cure in the treatment of limited abscess.||0.2|-15.2|0.0507
90847554|NCT00730028|181560815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.7||||0.1505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|1.9||Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not made for secondary efficacy outcome measures.|Fisher Exact||The mean difference is determined by the cure rate of TMP-SMX minus Clindamycin.|Null hypothesis: Clindamycin and TMP-SMX have equal rates of cure in the treatment of cellulitis/larger abscess.||1.9|-13.3|0.1505
91095004|NCT00157755|182073698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||A significance level of 0.05 was applied to the test. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||"Null hypothesis: There was no change from baseline in the long-term frequency of weekly vomiting episodes, µ = 0;~Alternative hypothesis: There was a change from baseline in the long-term frequency of weekly vomiting episodes, µ ≠ 0"||||<0.001
91095005|NCT00157755|182073698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||A significance level of 0.05 was applied to the test. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||"Null hypothesis: There was no change from baseline in the long-term frequency of weekly vomiting episodes, µ = 0;~Alternative hypothesis: There was a change from baseline in the long-term frequency of weekly vomiting episodes, µ ≠ 0"||||<0.001
91095006|NCT00157755|182073699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014||||||A one-sided significance level of 0.025 was applied to the test. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|binomial, 1 sided|||"Null hypothesis: The percentage of responders was less than or equal to 50%;~Alternative hypothesis: The percentage of responders was greater than 50%"||||0.014
91095007|NCT00157755|182073699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||A one-sided significance level of 0.025 was applied to the test. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|binomial, 1 sided|||"Null hypothesis: The percentage of responders was less than or equal to 50%;~Alternative hypothesis: The percentage of responders was greater than 50%"||||<0.001
91095008|NCT00157755|182073700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||A significance level of 0.05 was applied to the test. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Paired t-test|||"Null hypothesis: There was no change in total symptom score from baseline to 12 months, µ = 0;~Alternative hypothesis: There was a change in total symptom score from baseline to 12 months, µ ≠ 0"||||<0.001
91095009|NCT00157755|182073700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||A significance level of 0.05 was applied to the test. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Paired t-test|||"Null hypothesis: There was no change in total symptom score from baseline to 12 months, µ = 0;~Alternative hypothesis: There was a change in total symptom score from baseline to 12 months, µ ≠ 0"||||<0.001
91095010|NCT00157755|182073701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||A significance level of 0.05 was applied to the test. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Paired t-test|||"Null hypothesis: There was no change in PCS score from baseline to 12 months, µ = 0;~Alternative hypothesis: There was a change in PCS score from baseline to 12 months, µ ≠ 0"||||<0.001
91095011|NCT00157755|182073701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.043||95.0||||A significance level of 0.05 was applied to the test. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Paired t-test|||"Null hypothesis: There was no change in PCS score from baseline to 12 months, µ = 0;~Alternative hypothesis: There was a change in PCS score from baseline to 12 months, µ ≠ 0"||||0.043
91095012|NCT00157755|182073702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0||||A significance level of 0.05 was applied to the test. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Paired t-test|||"Null hypothesis: There was no change in MCS score from baseline to 12 months, µ = 0;~Alternative hypothesis: There was a change in MCS score from baseline to 12 months, µ ≠ 0"||||0.009
90899390|NCT03502616|181665097|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.495||0.6894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.54|2.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||2.35|-3.54|0.6894
91095013|NCT00157755|182073702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||A significance level of 0.05 was applied to the test. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Paired t-test|||"Null hypothesis: There was no change in MCS score from baseline to 12 months, µ = 0;~Alternative hypothesis: There was a change in MCS score from baseline to 12 months, µ ≠ 0"||||0.001
91095014|NCT00157755|182073703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||A significance level of 0.05 was applied to the test. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||"Null hypothesis: There was no change in 2-hour gastric emptying from baseline to 12 months, µ = 0;~Alternative hypothesis: There was a change in 2-hour gastric emptying from baseline to 12 months, µ ≠ 0"||||<0.001
91095015|NCT00157755|182073703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||A significance level of 0.05 was applied to the test. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||"Null hypothesis: There was no change in 2-hour gastric emptying from baseline to 12 months, µ = 0;~Alternative hypothesis: There was a change in 2-hour gastric emptying from baseline to 12 months, µ ≠ 0"||||<0.001
91095016|NCT00157755|182073704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016||95.0||||A significance level of 0.05 was applied to the test. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||"Null hypothesis: There was no change in 4-hour gastric emptying from baseline to 12 months, µ = 0;~Alternative hypothesis: There was a change in 4-hour gastric emptying from baseline to 12 months, µ ≠ 0"||||0.016
91095017|NCT00157755|182073704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.236||95.0||||A significance level of 0.05 was applied to the test. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||"Null hypothesis: There was no change in 4-hour gastric emptying from baseline to 12 months, µ = 0;~Alternative hypothesis: There was a change in 4-hour gastric emptying from baseline to 12 months, µ ≠ 0"||||0.236
91095018|NCT04773028|182073708|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-93054.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91095019|NCT02966834|182073731|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|0.82||||||||0.82|-1.75|
91095020|NCT02966834|182073731|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|0.31||||||||0.31|-2.07|
91095021|NCT02966834|182073731|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.03|0.28||||||||0.28|-2.03|
91095022|NCT02966834|182073731|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|0.03||||||||0.03|-2.29|
91095023|NCT02966834|182073731|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|0.65||||||||0.65|-1.71|
91095024|NCT02966834|182073732|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|2.3|||||Symptoms|||2.3|-1.9|
91095025|NCT02966834|182073732|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.5|||||Symptoms|||2.5|-1.5|
90899391|NCT03502616|181665098|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|3.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||3.24|-0.46|0.1410
90899392|NCT03502616|181665098|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.102||0.0122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|4.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||4.95|0.61|0.0122
90899393|NCT03502616|181665098|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.252||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|5.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||5.79|0.86|0.0085
90899394|NCT03502616|181665098|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.416||0.0184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|6.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||6.15|0.57|0.0184
90899395|NCT03502616|181665098|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|4.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|6.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||6.91|1.47|0.0026
90899396|NCT03502616|181665098|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.495||0.0236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|6.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||6.35|0.46|0.0236
90899397|NCT03502616|181665098|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.541||0.0182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|6.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 32: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||6.70|0.63|0.0182
90899398|NCT03502616|181665098|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.545||0.0133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|6.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 40: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||6.90|0.81|0.0133
91029908|NCT00864097|181944083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||At Week 12: LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||-0.03|-0.33|0.016
91029909|NCT00320112|181944113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.58||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|||||no differences between arms in baseline characteristics at \<0.1 level, further analyses adjusted for variables that could influence the outcome like insulin use, age, commodities. because no differences in results, unadjusted analyses are reported.|Regression, Linear|we used STATA 11's xtmixed command, which fits multi-level mixed-effects linear regression models, with clustering by assigned pairs.||||||0.004
90899399|NCT03502616|181665098|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.541||0.0245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|6.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||6.52|0.45|0.0245
90899400|NCT03502616|181665099|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.257||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||1.32|0.30|0.0018
90899401|NCT03502616|181665099|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.301||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||1.65|0.47|0.0005
90899402|NCT03502616|181665099|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.305||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||1.79|0.59|0.0001
90899403|NCT03502616|181665099|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.274|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|2.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||2.17|1.09|<0.0001
91029910|NCT00320112|181944114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|||||this is a priori design|Regression, Linear|||||||.91
91029911|NCT00320112|181944115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.10
91029912|NCT00320112|181944116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.02
91095026|NCT02966834|182073732|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|0.8|||||Symptoms|||0.8|-3.1|
91095027|NCT02966834|182073732|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|2.0|||||Symptoms|||2.0|-1.8|
90847555|NCT00730028|181560815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.4||||0.1666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|2.2||Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not made for secondary efficacy outcome measures.|Fisher Exact||The mean difference is determined by the cure rate of TMP-SMX minus Clindamycin.|Null hypothesis: After successful surgical drainage, placebo, Clindamycin, and TMP-SMX have equal rates of cure in the treatment of limited abscess.||2.2|-10.9|0.1666
91095028|NCT02966834|182073732|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.9|||||Symptoms|||1.9|-2.0|
91095029|NCT02966834|182073732|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|2.2|||||Itch|||2.2|-1.3|
91095030|NCT02966834|182073732|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.3|||||Itch|||1.3|-1.8|
91095031|NCT02966834|182073732|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.2|||||Itch|||1.2|-1.9|
91095032|NCT02966834|182073732|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.5|||||Itch|||0.5|-2.6|
91095033|NCT02966834|182073732|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.3|||||Itch|||1.3|-1.9|
91095034|NCT02966834|182073732|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|3.2|||||Fatigue|||3.2|-4.5|
91095035|NCT02966834|182073732|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|4.2|||||Fatigue|||4.2|-2.8|
91095036|NCT02966834|182073732|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|7.0|||||Fatigue|||7.0|0.0|
91095037|NCT02966834|182073732|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|5.1|||||Fatigue|||5.1|-1.8|
91095038|NCT02966834|182073732|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|3.6|||||Fatigue|||3.6|-3.6|
91095039|NCT02966834|182073732|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|2.6|||||Cognitive|||2.6|-2.5|
91095040|NCT02966834|182073732|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|1.7|||||Cognitive|||1.7|-2.9|
91095041|NCT02966834|182073732|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.5|||||Cognitive|||2.5|-2.1|
91095042|NCT02966834|182073732|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|2.8|||||Cognitive|||2.8|-1.8|
91095043|NCT02966834|182073732|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|2.5|||||Cognitive|||2.5|-2.2|
91095044|NCT02966834|182073732|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.4|||||Emotional|||0.4|-2.1|
91095045|NCT02966834|182073732|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.3|||||Emotional|||1.3|-0.9|
91095046|NCT02966834|182073732|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.1|||||Emotional|||1.1|-1.2|
91095047|NCT02966834|182073732|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.3|||||Emotional|||0.3|-1.9|
91095048|NCT02966834|182073732|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.1|||||Emotional|||1.1|-1.2|
91095049|NCT02966834|182073732|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|3.0|||||Social|||3.0|-2.4|
91095050|NCT02966834|182073732|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|3.7|||||Social|||3.7|-1.3|
91095051|NCT02966834|182073732|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|2.7|||||Social|||2.7|-2.3|
91095052|NCT02966834|182073732|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|0.1|||||Social|||0.1|-4.8|
91095053|NCT02966834|182073732|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|2.4|||||Social|||2.4|-2.8|
91095054|NCT02966834|182073733|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-106.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-251.7|38.2||||||||38.2|-251.7|
91095055|NCT02966834|182073733|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-87.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-198.5|23.8||||||||23.8|-198.5|
91095056|NCT02966834|182073733|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-125.6|126.5||||||||126.5|-125.6|
91095057|NCT02966834|182073733|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-78.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-211.5|54.8||||||||54.8|-211.5|
91095058|NCT02966834|182073733|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-30.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-170.7|110.7||||||||110.7|-170.7|
91095059|NCT02966834|182073735|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-21.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.4|15.5||||||||15.5|-58.4|
91095060|NCT02966834|182073735|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.9|16.4||||||||16.4|-41.9|
91095061|NCT02966834|182073735|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.9|20.0||||||||20.0|-49.9|
91095062|NCT02966834|182073735|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-26.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.3|10.4||||||||10.4|-63.3|
91095063|NCT02966834|182073735|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.7|37.1||||||||37.1|-36.7|
91095064|NCT02966834|182073736|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.73|12.74||||||||12.74|-52.73|
91095065|NCT02966834|182073736|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-24.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.8|1.39||||||||1.39|-50.80|
91095066|NCT02966834|182073736|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-22.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.39|8.16||||||||8.16|-53.39|
91095067|NCT02966834|182073736|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-31.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.44|0.09||||||||0.09|-63.44|
91095068|NCT02966834|182073736|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.33|26.74||||||||26.74|-38.33|
91095069|NCT02966834|182073737|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-106.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-205.1|-6.8||||||||-6.8|-205.1|
91095070|NCT02966834|182073737|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-65.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-148.5|17.6||||||||17.6|-148.5|
91095071|NCT02966834|182073737|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-42.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-136.5|50.9||||||||50.9|-136.5|
91095072|NCT02966834|182073737|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-65.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-161.2|29.5||||||||29.5|-161.2|
91095073|NCT02966834|182073737|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-54.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-153.6|45.3||||||||45.3|-153.6|
91095074|NCT02966834|182073738|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.099|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.929|-0.268||||||||-0.268|-11.929|
91095075|NCT02966834|182073738|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.337|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.962|2.289||||||||2.289|-6.962|
91095076|NCT02966834|182073738|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.232|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.679|3.215||||||||3.215|-7.679|
91095077|NCT02966834|182073738|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.492|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.413|4.43||||||||4.430|-7.413|
91095078|NCT02966834|182073738|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.236|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.591|11.063||||||||11.063|-0.591|
91095079|NCT02966834|182073739|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|1.6||||||||1.6|-2.7|
91095080|NCT02966834|182073739|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.1||||||||2.1|-1.5|
91095081|NCT02966834|182073739|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|2.7||||||||2.7|-1.2|
90899404|NCT03502616|181665099|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.344|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||2.55|1.20|<0.0001
90899405|NCT03502616|181665099|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.353||0.0075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||1.65|0.26|0.0075
90957400|NCT02344004|181794846|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7804|||||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||This was analyzed using a mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of change from Baseline at Months 4\&6. MMRM included treatment, month, treatment-by-month interaction, combination of smoking status \& prior MDR (4 levels: Yes/Yes, Yes/No, No/Yes, and No/No) as fixed factors, baseline 6MWD as a covariate \& baseline 6MWD-by-month interaction. An unstructured covariance matrix was used for the MMRM.|"* Baseline is defined as the last non-missing value prior to first dose of study drug.~* Statistics were obtained from an mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) model with pattern-mixture modeling of missing values due to dropout, which included treatment, month, the treatment-by-month interaction, and the combination of smoking status and prior multidrug regimen as fixed factors, the baseline 6MWT distance as a covariate and baseline 6MWT distance-by-month interaction. MMRM included postbaseline data through Month 6.~* For baseline, n is the number of participants with a baseline score and at least 1 postbaseline score. For Month 6, n is the number of participants with a baseline score and a postbaseline score at the summarized visit."|||0.7804
90957401|NCT02344004|181794847|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|3.92|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.01|7.63|||Regression, Cox|||Kaplan Meier estimates for the distribution of time to culture conversion were constructed for treatment arms. The treatment comparison was made using the stratified log rank test for the ITT population. The estimated median time to culture conversion for each treatment arm was not estimable. The time to culture conversion was analyzed using Cox regression model to estimate hazards ratio.||7.63|2.01|<0.0001
90957402|NCT00138671|181794870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||||90.0|-0.17|0.36||||||Week 6||0.36|-0.17|
90957403|NCT00138671|181794870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||||90.0|-0.27|0.26||||||Week 12||0.26|-0.27|
90957404|NCT00138671|181794870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||||90.0|-0.29|0.26||||||Week 26||0.26|-0.29|
91095082|NCT02966834|182073739|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.0||||||||2.0|-2.1|
90899406|NCT03502616|181665099|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.403||0.1489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|1.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 32: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||1.38|-0.21|0.1489
90899407|NCT03502616|181665099|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.417||0.0609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|1.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 40: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||1.61|-0.04|0.0609
90899408|NCT03502616|181665099|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.429||0.4822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|1.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||1.15|-0.54|0.4822
90957405|NCT00138671|181794870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||||90.0|-0.36|0.2||||||Week 39||0.20|-0.36|
91095083|NCT02966834|182073739|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.9||||||||2.9|-1.5|
90957406|NCT00138671|181794870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||||90.0|-0.23|0.35||||||Week 52||0.35|-0.23|
90957407|NCT00138671|181794870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||||90.0|-0.29|0.31||||||Week 52 LOCF||0.31|-0.29|
90957408|NCT00138671|181794871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.475||||||90.0|-23.47|14.518||||||Week 6||14.518|-23.47|
90957409|NCT00138671|181794871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.91||||||90.0|-30.04|8.232||||||Week 12||8.232|-30.04|
90957410|NCT00138671|181794871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.84||||||90.0|-42.51|-3.166||||||Week 26||-3.166|-42.51|
90957411|NCT00138671|181794871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.222||||||90.0|-28.52|12.075||||||Week 39||12.075|-28.52|
90957412|NCT00138671|181794871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.329||||||90.0|-29.27|12.616||||||Week 52||12.616|-29.27|
90957413|NCT00138671|181794871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.406||||||90.0|-13.7|16.514||||||Week 52 LOCF||16.514|-13.70|
90957414|NCT00138671|181794872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.884||||||90.0|-0.317|2.084||||||Week 1||2.084|-0.317|
90957415|NCT00138671|181794872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47||||||90.0|-0.728|1.668||||||Week 2||1.668|-0.728|
90957416|NCT00138671|181794872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.382||||||90.0|-0.815|1.579||||||Week 3||1.579|-0.815|
90957417|NCT00138671|181794872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.405||||||90.0|-0.793|1.602||||||Week 4||1.602|-0.793|
90957418|NCT00138671|181794872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.562||||||90.0|-0.642|1.766||||||Week 6||1.766|-0.642|
91095084|NCT02966834|182073740|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.04||||||||0.04|-0.08|
91095085|NCT02966834|182073740|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.01||||||||0.01|-0.09|
91095086|NCT02966834|182073740|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.05||||||||0.05|-0.06|
91095087|NCT02966834|182073740|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.02||||||||0.02|-0.09|
90847556|NCT00730028|181560815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.0|-8.0||Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not made for secondary efficacy outcome measures.|Fisher Exact||The mean difference is determined by the cure rate of Placebo minus Clindamycin.|Null hypothesis: After successful surgical drainage, placebo, Clindamycin, and TMP-SMX have equal rates of cure in the treatment of limited abscess.||-8.0|-23.0|<0.0001
90847557|NCT00730028|181560815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.1||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|-3.2||Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not made for secondary efficacy outcome measures.|Fisher Exact||The mean difference is determined by the cure rate of Placebo minus TMP-SMX.|Null hypothesis: After successful surgical drainage, placebo, Clindamycin, and TMP-SMX have equal rates of cure in the treatment of limited abscess.||-3.2|-19.0|0.0046
90847558|NCT00730028|181560816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.4||||0.1815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|2.8||Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not made for secondary efficacy outcome measures.|Fisher Exact||The mean difference is determined by the cure rate of TMP-SMX minus Clindamycin.|Null hypothesis: Clindamycin and TMP-SMX have equal rates of cure in the treatment of cellulitis/larger abscess.||2.8|-13.6|0.1815
90847559|NCT00730028|181560816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.6||||0.1552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|2.1||Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not made for secondary efficacy outcome measures.|Fisher Exact||The mean difference is determined by the cure rate of TMP-SMX minus Clindamycin.|Null hypothesis: After successful surgical drainage, placebo, Clindamycin, and TMP-SMX have equal rates of cure in the treatment of limited abscess.||2.1|-13.2|0.1552
90847560|NCT00730028|181560816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.0|-7.8||Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not made for secondary efficacy outcome measures.|Fisher Exact||The mean difference is determined by the cure rate of Placebo minus Clindamycin.|Null hypothesis: After successful surgical drainage, placebo, Clindamycin, and TMP-SMX have equal rates of cure in the treatment of limited abscess.||-7.8|-24.0|<0.0001
90847561|NCT00730028|181560816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.4||||0.0145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.7|-2.0||Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not made for secondary efficacy outcome measures.|Fisher Exact||The mean difference is determined by the cure rate of Placebo minus TMP-SMX.|Null hypothesis: After successful surgical drainage, placebo, Clindamycin, and TMP-SMX have equal rates of cure in the treatment of limited abscess.||-2.0|-18.7|0.0145
91029913|NCT02899338|181944117|EQUIVALENCE|The relative bioavailability of BI 695501 using AI (A) compared with BI 695501 using PFS (B) was estimated, in an exploratory manner, by the ratios of the geometric means (A/B) using the analysis of variance (ANOVA)|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|101.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|42.28|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.31|113.29|||ANOVA|The results are based on ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale with fixed effects for treatment and baseline body weight.|Standard error of the mean is actually the Inter-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV)|Comparison AI versus PFS||113.29|91.31|
90847562|NCT01250496|181560818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.45||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.98||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed. The threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05|Chi-squared|||null hypothesis: aminophylline administration does not reduce the incidence of the primary endpoint as compared to placebo. The chi-square test was used to compare event rate between the study arm.||0.98|0.2|0.04
90847563|NCT01250496|181560819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.7||P value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Chi-squared|||"null hypothesis: the rate of regadenoson adverse effects (global symptomatic burden) in the aminophylline and placebo group are not statistically different.~The chi-square test was used for comparison."||0.7|0.2|< 0.001
91029914|NCT02899338|181944118|EQUIVALENCE|The relative bioavailability of BI 695501 using AI (A) compared with BI 695501 using PFS (B) was estimated, in an exploratory manner, by the ratios of the geometric means (A/B) using ANOVA|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|100.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|23.72|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.17|106.43|||ANOVA|The results are based on ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale with fixed effects for treatment and baseline body weight.|Standard error of the mean is actually the Inter-individual gCV|Comparison AI versus PFS||106.43|94.17|
91029915|NCT02899338|181944119|EQUIVALENCE|The relative bioavailability of BI 695501 using AI (A) compared with BI 695501 using PFS (B) was estimated, in an exploratory manner, by the ratios of the geometric means (A/B) using ANOVA|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|103.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|48.21|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.38|116.53|||ANOVA|The results are based on ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale with fixed effects for treatment and baseline body weight.|Standard error of the mean is actually the Inter-individual gCV|Comparison AI versus PFS||116.53|91.38|
91029916|NCT06179108|181944121|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0009||||||Hochberg's step-down procedure was adopted to control type I error across the 50 and 75 mg arms.|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM included treatment group, pooled study site, visit, visit by treatment interaction and baseline total PANSS score.||||||0.0009
90847564|NCT01425463|181560849|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of the investigational drug (Ferrous (II) Glycine Sulphate Complex) to the reference drug (Polyferose) was concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95 % confidence interval was greater than -7.0 g/L.|LS-Mean of ANCOVA|-2.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.47|4.09||||||||4.09|-8.47|
90847565|NCT03467152|181560857|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6909||||||Mixed Models for Repeated Measures Analysis (MMRM)|MMRM|||||||0.6909
90847566|NCT03467152|181560858|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.018||||0.8251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.695|1.492||Generalized Linear Mixed Models Analysis (GLMM)|GLMM|||||1.492|0.695|0.8251
90847567|NCT03467152|181560859|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.853||||0.3003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.584|1.247||Generalized Linear Mixed Models Analysis (GLMM)|GLMM|||||1.247|0.584|0.3003
90847568|NCT03467152|181560860|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9198||||||Mixed Models for Repeated Measures Analysis (MMRM)|MMRM|||||||0.9198
90847569|NCT03467152|181560861|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2909|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2909
90847570|NCT03467152|181560862|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6127||||||Mixed Models for Repeated Measures Analysis (MMRM)|MMRM|||||||0.6127
90847571|NCT03467152|181560863|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.878||||||Mixed Models for Repeated Measures Analysis (MMRM)|MMRM|||||||0.8780
90847572|NCT03467152|181560864|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.409||||||Mixed Models for Repeated Measures Analysis (MMRM)|MMRM|||||||0.4090
91095088|NCT02966834|182073740|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.02||||||||0.02|-0.10|
91095089|NCT02966834|182073741|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.63||||||||0.63|-0.33|
90847573|NCT03467152|181560865|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8736||||||Mixed Models for Repeated Measures Analysis (MMRM)|MMRM|||||||0.8736
91095090|NCT02966834|182073741|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.3||||||||0.30|-0.51|
91095091|NCT02966834|182073741|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.58||||||||0.58|-0.34|
91095092|NCT02966834|182073741|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.38||||||||0.38|-0.54|
91095093|NCT02966834|182073741|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.41||||||||0.41|-0.54|
91095094|NCT02966834|182073751|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|12.02|||||Analysis was performed using Logistic regression. No covariates were used.|||12.02|0.69|
90847574|NCT01236547|181560884|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.2831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.43||One-sided significance level = 0.1379|Log Rank||Reference arm = placebo|Assuming hazard ratio (pazopanib/placebo) of 0.625 (1-year 19% vs. 35.4%), 1-sided alpha 0.15, logrank test, 80% power, 1 interim analysis, required 71 deaths in 79 eligible patients (88 allowing 10% ineligible) in original design. The protocol was amended for phase II final analysis to be performed after all phase II eligible participants were potentially followed for 3 years with 1-sided alpha 0.1379, providing 77% power. See Limitations and Caveats||1.43|0.52|0.2831
90847575|NCT01236547|181560886|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.22||||0.688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|2.67|||Log Rank|One-sided significance level = 0.15|Reference arm = placebo|||2.67|0.55|0.6880
90847576|NCT01236547|181560887|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1921||||||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Fisher Exact|||||||0.1921
90847577|NCT01236547|181560888|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
90847578|NCT01236547|181560889|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|Two-sided significance level = 0.05||||||1.00
91095095|NCT02966834|182073751|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|5.02|||||Analysis was performed using Logistic regression. No covariates were used.|||5.02|0.48|
90847579|NCT03083990|181560907|EQUIVALENCE|Geometric mean ratio and its 90%CI are obtained after anti-logarithmic transformation.If 90% CI for the geometric mean ratio of AUC 0-t and AUC 0-∞ (trial/control) ranges between 0.8-1.25, then it is considered that IBI305 and Bevacizumab are bioequivalent.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9502|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8921|1.012|||ANOVA|||||1.0120|0.8921|>0.05
90847580|NCT03083990|181560908|EQUIVALENCE|Geometric mean ratio and its 90%CI are obtained after anti-logarithmic transformation.If 90% CI for the geometric mean ratio of AUC 0-t and AUC 0-∞ (trial/control) ranges between 0.8-1.25, then it is considered that IBI305 and Bevacizumab are bioequivalent.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9483|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8896|1.0108|||ANOVA|||||1.0108|0.8896|>0.05
90847581|NCT03083990|181560909|EQUIVALENCE||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9749|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9123|1.0418|||ANOVA|||||1.0418|0.9123|>0.05
90847582|NCT02059291|181560921|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher's exact test|||||||<0.0001
90847583|NCT02059291|181560921|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Fisher's exact test|||||||0.0020
90847584|NCT02059291|181560921|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Fisher's exact test|||||||0.0050
90847585|NCT02059291|181560922|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.96|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.15|69.21|||Regression, Logistic|||||69.21|4.15|<0.0001
90847586|NCT02059291|181560922|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.63||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.83|65.59|||Regression, Logistic|||||65.59|2.83|0.0006
90957419|NCT00138671|181794872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.416||||||90.0|-0.809|1.641||||||Week 9||1.641|-0.809|
90847587|NCT02059291|181560922|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|23.79||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.52|224.86|||Regression, Logistic|||||224.86|2.52|0.0028
90847588|NCT02059291|181560923|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|29.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.86|151.31|||Regression, Logistic|||||151.31|5.86|<0.0001
90847589|NCT02059291|181560923|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.71||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.53|63.89|||Regression, Logistic|||||63.89|2.53|0.0010
90847590|NCT02059291|181560923|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.64||||0.0149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|36.57|||Regression, Logistic|||||36.57|1.20|0.0149
90847591|NCT02059291|181560924|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|17.46||||0.0286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|332.92|||Regression, Logistic|||||332.92|0.92|0.0286
90847592|NCT02059291|181560924|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.26||||0.0778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|51.97|||Regression, Logistic|||||51.97|0.53|0.0778
90847593|NCT02059291|181560924|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.69||||0.0235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|268.5|||Regression, Logistic|||||268.50|1.04|0.0235
90847594|NCT02059291|181560925|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.17||||0.0513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|113.44|||Regression, Logistic|||||113.44|0.75|0.0513
90847595|NCT02059291|181560925|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.0||||0.2168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|366.24|||Regression, Logistic|||||366.24|0.27|0.2168
90847596|NCT02059291|181560925|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.5||||0.3571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|313.49|||Regression, Logistic|||||313.49|0.15|0.3571
90957420|NCT00138671|181794872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.019||||||90.0|-1.416|1.454||||||Week 11||1.454|-1.416|
90957421|NCT00138671|181794872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.091||||||90.0|-1.127|1.308||||||Week 12||1.308|-1.127|
91095096|NCT02966834|182073751|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|10.76|||||Analysis was performed using Logistic regression. No covariates were used.|||10.76|0.84|
91095097|NCT02966834|182073751|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|10.76|||||Analysis was performed using Logistic regression. No covariates were used.|||10.76|0.84|
91095098|NCT02966834|182073751|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|4.13|||||Analysis was performed using Logistic regression. No covariates were used.|||4.13|0.43|
91095099|NCT02966834|182073752|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|4.47|||||Analysis was performed using Logistic regression. No covariates were used.|||4.47|0.41|
91095100|NCT02966834|182073752|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|10.65|||||Analysis was performed using Logistic regression. No covariates were used.|||10.65|0.95|
91095101|NCT02966834|182073752|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|5.53|||||Analysis was performed using Logistic regression. No covariates were used.|||5.53|0.62|
91095102|NCT02966834|182073752|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|6.92|||||Analysis was performed using Logistic regression. No covariates were used.|||6.92|0.74|
91095103|NCT02966834|182073752|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|6.51|||||Analysis was performed using Logistic regression. No covariates were used.|||6.51|0.69|
91095104|NCT02966834|182073753|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|3.04|||||Analysis was performed using Logistic regression. No covariates were used.|||3.04|0.27|
91095105|NCT02966834|182073753|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|6.91|||||Analysis was performed using Logistic regression. No covariates were used.|||6.91|0.73|
91095106|NCT02966834|182073753|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|3.08|||||Analysis was performed using Logistic regression. No covariates were used.|||3.08|0.35|
90847597|NCT02673541|181560937|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
90847598|NCT04343235|181560943|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.21
90847599|NCT04343235|181560944|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7||||||Main effect for Randomization group|ANOVA|||||||0.70
90847600|NCT04343235|181560945|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||ANOVA|Main effect for randomization group||||||0.77
90847601|NCT04343235|181560946|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||ANOVA|Main effect for randomization group||||||0.54
90847602|NCT04343235|181560947|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|3.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.1|-1.5|0.47
90847603|NCT04343235|181560948|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.57
90847604|NCT04343235|181560949|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.99
90957422|NCT00138671|181794872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.309||||||90.0|-1.551|0.934||||||Week 18||0.934|-1.551|
90847605|NCT01763996|181560955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.8||||0.756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|13.76||0.05 level of significance|ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model that includes sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and subjects within sequence as a random factor.||||13.76|-10.10|0.756
90847606|NCT01168986|181560966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.10
90847607|NCT01168986|181560967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.18
90847608|NCT01168986|181560968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.87
90847609|NCT01168986|181560969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.45
90847610|NCT00776919|181561019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90847611|NCT00776919|181561019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.016
90847612|NCT00776919|181561019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90847613|NCT00776919|181561020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with factors of treatment, center, and interaction of treatment-center. If the treatment-center interaction was not significant at the 0.1 level, this interaction was excluded from the ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90847614|NCT00776919|181561020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015||95.0||||Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with factors of treatment, center, and interaction of treatment-center. If the treatment-center interaction was not significant at the 0.1 level, this interaction was excluded from the ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|||||||0.015
90847615|NCT00776919|181561020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with factors of treatment, center, and interaction of treatment-center. If the treatment-center interaction was not significant at the 0.1 level, this interaction was excluded from the ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90847616|NCT00776919|181561021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with factors of treatment, center, and interaction of treatment-center. If the treatment-center interaction was not significant at the 0.1 level, this interaction was excluded from the ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90847617|NCT00776919|181561021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.102||95.0||||Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with factors of treatment, center, and interaction of treatment-center. If the treatment-center interaction was not significant at the 0.1 level, this interaction was excluded from the ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|||||||0.102
90847618|NCT00776919|181561021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with factors of treatment, center, and interaction of treatment-center. If the treatment-center interaction was not significant at the 0.1 level, this interaction was excluded from the ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90847619|NCT00776919|181561022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with factors of treatment, center, and interaction of treatment-center. If the treatment-center interaction was not significant at the 0.1 level, this interaction was excluded from the ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90847620|NCT00776919|181561022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.032||95.0||||Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with factors of treatment, center, and interaction of treatment-center. If the treatment-center interaction was not significant at the 0.1 level, this interaction was excluded from the ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|||||||0.032
90847621|NCT00776919|181561022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with factors of treatment, center, and interaction of treatment-center. If the treatment-center interaction was not significant at the 0.1 level, this interaction was excluded from the ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90847622|NCT03116152|181561041|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.701||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.504|0.972|||Log Rank|||||0.972|0.504|0.032
90847623|NCT03116152|181561042|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.002||||0.979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.722|1.391|||Log Rank|||||1.391|0.722|0.979
90847624|NCT03116152|181561043|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|15.4||||||||15.4|-2.2|
90847625|NCT03116152|181561044|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.345|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.345
90847626|NCT02093819|181561046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.1313|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0633|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0249|1.2376|||||Evaluation of dose proportionality - all dose groups. Number of subjects included in the analysis=44.|A power model was used to describe functional relationship between dose and Pk parameters. For the evaluation of dose proportionality,slope parameter (B), a two-sided 90% confidence interval of the slope was calculated. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1.||1.2376|1.0249|
90957423|NCT00138671|181794872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.869||||||90.0|-2.123|0.384||||||Week 26||0.384|-2.123|
90957424|NCT00138671|181794872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.664||||||90.0|-2.968|-0.36||||||Week 39||-0.360|-2.968|
90957425|NCT00138671|181794872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.116||||||90.0|-3.829|-0.403||||||Week 50||-0.403|-3.829|
91095107|NCT02966834|182073753|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|6.42|||||Analysis was performed using Logistic regression. No covariates were used.|||6.42|0.73|
91095108|NCT02966834|182073753|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|5.99|||||Analysis was performed using Logistic regression. No covariates were used.|||5.99|0.67|
91095109|NCT02966834|182073754|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|18.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.59|39.0||||||||39.00|-2.59|
91095110|NCT02966834|182073754|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|11.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.42|29.53||||||||29.53|-7.42|
91095111|NCT02966834|182073754|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|18.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|36.06||||||||36.06|0.82|
91095112|NCT02966834|182073754|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|25.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|43.95||||||||43.95|7.00|
91095113|NCT02966834|182073754|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|13.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.47|31.99||||||||31.99|-5.47|
91095114|NCT02966834|182073755|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|14.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.13|35.1||||||||35.10|-5.13|
91095115|NCT02966834|182073755|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|24.84||||||||24.84|-10.90|
91095116|NCT02966834|182073755|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|11.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.27|28.82||||||||28.82|-5.27|
91095117|NCT02966834|182073755|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|21.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.96|39.7||||||||39.70|3.96|
91095118|NCT02966834|182073755|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|21.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.46|39.69||||||||39.69|3.46|
91095119|NCT02966834|182073756|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.76|27.06||||||||27.06|-14.76|
90847627|NCT02093819|181561046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.9568|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1019|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.783|1.1307|||||Evaluation of dose proportionality - dose groups 50mg to 600mg. Number of subjects included in the analysis=28.|A power model was used to describe functional relationship between dose and Pk parameters. For the evaluation of dose proportionality,slope parameter (B), a two-sided 90% confidence interval of the slope was calculated. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1.||1.1307|0.7830|
90847628|NCT02093819|181561047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.0732|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0468|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9946|1.1518|||||Evaluation of dose proportionality - all dose groups. Number of subjects included in the analysis=44.|A power model was used to describe functional relationship between dose and Pk parameters. For the evaluation of dose proportionality,slope parameter (B), a two-sided 90% confidence interval of the slope was calculated. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1.||1.1518|0.9946|
91095120|NCT02966834|182073756|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.32|25.84||||||||25.84|-11.32|
91095121|NCT02966834|182073756|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.59|26.85||||||||26.85|-8.59|
91095122|NCT02966834|182073756|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|19.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|38.51||||||||38.51|1.36|
91095123|NCT02966834|182073756|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|27.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.2|45.87||||||||45.87|8.20|
91095124|NCT02966834|182073757|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|0.92||||||||0.92|-1.46|
91095125|NCT02966834|182073757|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|0.62||||||||0.62|-1.58|
91095126|NCT02966834|182073757|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|0.61||||||||0.61|-1.53|
91095127|NCT02966834|182073757|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.03|0.12||||||||0.12|-2.03|
90859759|NCT00537238|181582906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean differences|1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.02||0.5952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.89|5.03|||ANCOVA|||Baseline somnolence: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and combined center, for post-baseline assessments baseline was included as a covariate.||5.03|-2.89|0.5952
91095128|NCT02966834|182073757|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.8||||||||0.80|-1.40|
91095129|NCT02966834|182073758|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|0.71||||||||0.71|-1.49|
91095130|NCT02966834|182073758|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|0.61||||||||0.61|-1.41|
91095131|NCT02966834|182073758|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|0.72||||||||0.72|-1.24|
91095132|NCT02966834|182073758|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|0.56||||||||0.56|-1.39|
91095133|NCT02966834|182073758|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|0.7||||||||0.70|-1.28|
91095134|NCT02966834|182073759|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.5|||||Duration|||0.5|-0.7|
91095135|NCT02966834|182073759|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.9|||||Duration|||0.9|-0.2|
91095136|NCT02966834|182073759|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.1|||||Duration|||0.1|-1.0|
91095137|NCT02966834|182073759|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.7|||||Duration|||0.7|-0.3|
91095138|NCT02966834|182073759|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.6|||||Duration|||0.6|-0.4|
91095139|NCT02966834|182073759|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.3|||||Degree|||0.3|-0.8|
91095140|NCT02966834|182073759|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5|||||Degree|||0.5|-0.5|
91095141|NCT02966834|182073759|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.5|||||Degree|||0.5|-0.6|
91095142|NCT02966834|182073759|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.3|||||Degree|||0.3|-0.7|
91095143|NCT02966834|182073759|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.4|||||Degree|||0.4|-0.6|
91095144|NCT02966834|182073759|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.7|||||Direction|||0.7|-0.7|
91095145|NCT02966834|182073759|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.6|||||Direction|||0.6|-0.7|
91095146|NCT02966834|182073759|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.5|||||Direction|||0.5|-0.8|
91095147|NCT02966834|182073759|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.2|||||Direction|||0.2|-1.0|
91095148|NCT02966834|182073759|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.6|||||Direction|||0.6|-0.6|
91095149|NCT02966834|182073759|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.3|||||Disability|||0.3|-1.1|
91095150|NCT02966834|182073759|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.5|||||Disability|||0.5|-0.8|
91095151|NCT02966834|182073759|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.3|||||Disability|||0.3|-1.0|
91095152|NCT02966834|182073759|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.3|||||Disability|||0.3|-1.0|
91095153|NCT02966834|182073759|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.3|||||Disability|||0.3|-1.0|
91095154|NCT02966834|182073759|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.3|||||Distribution|||0.3|-0.9|
91095155|NCT02966834|182073759|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.2|||||Distribution|||0.2|-0.9|
91095156|NCT02966834|182073759|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||||Distribution|||0.0|-1.0|
91095157|NCT02966834|182073759|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.2|||||Distribution|||0.2|-0.9|
91095158|NCT02966834|182073759|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.3|||||Distribution|||0.3|-0.7|
90847629|NCT02093819|181561047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.9603|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0838|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8174|1.1032|||||Evaluation of dose proportionality - dose groups 50 mg to 600 mg. Number of subjects included in the analysis 28.|A power model was used to describe functional relationship between dose and Pk parameters. For the evaluation of dose proportionality,slope parameter (B), a two-sided 90% confidence interval of the slope was calculated. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1.||1.1032|0.8174|
90847630|NCT00884741|181561065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.13||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.37||To control for type I error in testing the co-primary endpoints, the significance criterion for OS was 0.023 (one-sided) and for PFS was 0.002 (one-sided).|Log Rank|||The trial was designed to concurrently provide 80% power for the detection of a 25% relative reduction in mortality hazard (hazard ratio .75) and 30% reduction in progression hazard (hazard ratio .70) for the addition of bevacizumab to temozolomide and radiation. To control for type I error in testing the co-primary endpoints, the significance criterion for OS was 0.023 (one-sided) and for PFS was 0.002 (one-sided).||1.37|0.93|0.11
90847631|NCT00884741|181561066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.79||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.94||To control for type I error in testing the co-primary endpoints, the significance criterion for OS was 0.023 (one-sided) and for PFS was 0.002 (one-sided).|Log Rank|||The trial was designed to concurrently provide 80% power for the detection of a 25% relative reduction in mortality hazard (hazard ratio .75) and 30% reduction in progression hazard (hazard ratio .70) for the addition of bevacizumab to temozolomide and radiation. To control for type I error in testing the co-primary endpoints, the significance criterion for OS was 0.023 (one-sided) and for PFS was 0.002 (one-sided).||0.94|0.66|0.004
90847632|NCT00884741|181561067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42||||||Two-sided|Chi-squared|||||||0.42
90847633|NCT02969655|181561072|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was established if the lower limit of the 95% CI was greater than -1.0 g/dL. Even if the 95% CI for the difference was completely negative (i.e. lied fully within the range -1.0 to \<0 g/dL) non-inferiority was concluded on condition that the mean Hgb estimated in the daprodustat group was within the target range.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.23||The p value on this table is one-sided and calculated for the non-inferiority assessment.|Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)||Analysis was performed by a MMRM with covariates of treatment, Baseline Hgb, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline-by-visit interaction.|||0.23|-0.11|<.0001
90847634|NCT02969655|181561073|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.7442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.71||The p value on this table is one-sided and calculated for the superiority assessment.|Regression, Logistic||Analysis was performed by logistic regression with covariates of treatment and Baseline Hgb.|||1.71|0.34|0.7442
91095159|NCT02966834|182073759|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|1.3|||||5-D Itch Total Score|||1.3|-3.3|
90847635|NCT01215097|181561112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.7|-0.34|||ANCOVA|||||-0.34|-0.70|<0.0001
90847636|NCT01215097|181561113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.433|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.555|-0.311|||ANCOVA|||||-0.311|-0.555|<0.0001
90847637|NCT01215097|181561114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.591|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.082|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.752|-0.43|||ANCOVA|||||-0.43|-0.752|<0.0001
90899409|NCT03502616|181665100|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.131||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.63|0.12|0.0047
91095160|NCT02966834|182073759|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|2.1|||||5-D Itch Total Score|||2.1|-2.2|
91095161|NCT02966834|182073759|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|0.7|||||5-D Itch Total Score|||0.7|-3.5|
90847638|NCT01215097|181561115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.7|-0.35|||ANCOVA|||||-0.35|-0.70|<0.0001
90847639|NCT01215097|181561116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.71|-0.32|||ANCOVA|||||-0.32|-0.71|<0.0001
90847640|NCT01215097|181561117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-9.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.2||0.0233||95.0|-17.8|-1.3|||ANCOVA|||||-1.3|-17.8|0.0233
90847641|NCT01215097|181561118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-22.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3|<|0.0001||95.0|-28.7|-15.6|||ANCOVA|||||-15.6|-28.7|<0.0001
90847642|NCT01215097|181561119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-10.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6||0.005||95.0|-17.3|-3.1|||ANCOVA|||||-3.1|-17.3|0.0050
90847643|NCT01215097|181561120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-11.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0||0.0044||95.0|-19.5|-3.6|||ANCOVA|||||-3.6|-19.5|0.0044
90847644|NCT01215097|181561122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.243|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.831|13.769|||Regression, Logistic|The odds-ratio is based on a logistic regression model including baseline HbA1c and previous antidiabetic medication||Comparison by odds ratio for the patients with a baseline HbA1c \>=7.0%||13.769|2.831|<0.0001
90847645|NCT01215097|181561124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.97||||0.0129||95.0|1.404|17.592|||Regression, Logistic|The odds-ratio is based on a logistic regression model including baseline HbA1c and previous antidiabetic medication||Comparison by odds ratio for the patients with a baseline HbA1c \>= 6.5%||17.592|1.404|0.0129
90847646|NCT01215097|181561125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.054|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.799|5.185|||Regression, Logistic|The odds-ratio is based on a logistic regression model including baseline HbA1c and previous antidiabetic medication||Comparison by odds ratio for the patients with HbA1c at least lowering 0.5% from baseline||5.185|1.799|<0.0001
90847647|NCT02259088|181561126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|5.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|7.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|One-sided p-value for treatment difference is derived from the two-sided stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using the row means score statistics.|Estimated from ANOVA (stratified) model. Stratified analysis includes DME type (focal, diffuse, honeycomb and petaloid) and Baseline BCVA(≤ 60 letters and \> 60 letters) as factors.|||7.5|4.1|<0.001
91095162|NCT02966834|182073759|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|1.2|||||5-D Itch Total Score|||1.2|-3.0|
91095163|NCT02966834|182073759|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|1.6|||||5-D Itch Total Score|||1.6|-2.7|
91095164|NCT02966834|182073763|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|0.28||||||||0.28|-1.69|
91029917|NCT06179108|181944121|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0022||||||Hochberg's step-down procedure was adopted to control type I error across the 50 and 75 mg arms.|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM included treatment group, pooled study site, visit, visit by treatment interaction and baseline total PANSS score.||||||0.0022
91095165|NCT02966834|182073763|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|0.26||||||||0.26|-1.49|
91095166|NCT02966834|182073763|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|-0.03||||||||-0.03|-1.76|
90847648|NCT01818752|181561150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.906||||0.159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.746|1.101||The p-value boundary for PFS analysis was 0.02141.|Log Rank|Log-rank p-value (1-sided) stratified by ISS stage, choice of route of bortezomib administration, region and age.|The hazard ratio (Carfilzomib/Bortezomib) was estimated using a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by ISS stage, choice of route of bortezomib administration, region and age.|The inferential test associated with the primary analysis of PFS was assessed against an overall 1-sided significance level of α=0.025.||1.101|0.746|0.1590
90847649|NCT01818752|181561151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.211||||0.8934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.896|1.637||Based on the pre-specified multiplicity adjustment method, secondary endpoints were to be tested only if the results of the primary endpoint were significant. The p-values for all secondary endpoints are descriptive only.|Log Rank|Log-rank p-value (1-sided) stratified by ISS stage, choice of route of bortezomib administration, region and age.|The hazard ratio (Carfilzomib/Bortezomib) was estimated using a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by ISS stage, choice of route of bortezomib administration, region and age.|||1.637|0.896|0.8934
90847650|NCT01818752|181561152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.412||||0.0218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.973||Based on the pre-specified multiplicity adjustment method, secondary endpoints were to be tested only if the results of the primary endpoint were significant. The p-values for all secondary endpoints are descriptive only.|Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Chi-square test stratified by ISS stage, choice of route of bortezomib administration, region and age.|Odds ratio (Carfilzomib/Bortezomib) was estimated using the Mantel-Haenszel method stratified by ISS stage, choice of route of bortezomib administration, region and age.|||1.973|1.010|0.0218
90847651|NCT01818752|181561153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.179||||0.1388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.875|1.589||Based on the pre-specified multiplicity adjustment method, secondary endpoints were to be tested only if the results of the primary endpoint were significant. The p-values for all secondary endpoints are descriptive only.|Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Chi-square test stratified by ISS stage, choice of route of bortezomib administration, region and age.|Odds ratio (Carfilzomib/Bortezomib) was estimated using the Mantel-Haenszel method stratified by ISS stage, choice of route of bortezomib administration, region and age.|||1.589|0.875|0.1388
90847652|NCT01818752|181561154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.048|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.026|0.088||Based on the pre-specified multiplicity adjustment method, secondary endpoints were to be tested only if the results of the primary endpoint were significant. The p-values for all secondary endpoints are descriptive only.|Pearson Chi-Square test||Unstratified odds ratio (Carfilzomib/Bortezomib) was estimated.|||0.088|0.026|< 0.0001
90847653|NCT01818752|181561155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|4.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.773|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.48|6.51||Based on the pre-specified multiplicity adjustment method, secondary endpoints were to be tested only if the results of the primary endpoint were significant. The p-values for all secondary endpoints are descriptive only.|Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||Treatment groups were compared using a linear mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM). The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment (all baseline responses were modeled with a dummy treatment), the randomization stratification factors - ISS stage, choice of route of bortezomib administration, region, age, and random effects of subject intercept and coefficient on time.||6.51|3.48|< 0.0001
91095167|NCT02966834|182073763|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|-0.28||||||||-0.28|-2.05|
90847654|NCT02660983|181561175|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square (LS) means|-0.58||||0.3455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.79|0.63|||ANCOVA|||||0.63|-1.79|0.3455
90847655|NCT02660983|181561176|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS means|-0.12||||0.257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.09|||ANCOVA||LS mean of Donepezil group - LS mean of Placebo (when the difference of LS mean scores were less than 0, considered as demonstrated hypothesis), analyzed with ANCOVA model with baseline (CIBIS) as covariate and treatment as main effect.|||0.09|-0.32|0.2570
90847656|NCT02660983|181561177|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS means|0.65||||0.0396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|1.26|||ANCOVA|||||1.26|0.03|0.0396
90847657|NCT02660983|181561178|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS means|-7.73||||0.2213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.13|4.68|||ANCOVA|||Part A||4.68|-20.13|0.2213
90847658|NCT02660983|181561178|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS means|-14.88||||0.0551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.1|0.33|||ANCOVA|||Part B||0.33|-30.10|0.0551
90847659|NCT00505076|181561250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), adjusting for baseline scores, was used to compare treatment groups on cognitive and functional measures. The predefined primary cognition outcome measure was the MCCB (MATRICS (Measurement and Treatment Research to Improve Cognition in Schizophrenia Research) Consensus Cognitive Battery) composite T-score, tested at overall two-sided alpha=0.05.||||0.21
91095168|NCT02966834|182073763|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|-0.06||||||||-0.06|-1.85|
91095169|NCT02966834|182073764|OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean ratio|0.967|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.635|1.471||||||||1.471|0.635|
91095170|NCT02966834|182073764|OTHER||LS mean ratio|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.712||||||||1.712|0.8|
91095171|NCT02966834|182073764|OTHER||LS mean ratio|0.909|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.627|1.316||||||||1.316|0.627|
91095172|NCT02966834|182073764|OTHER||LS mean ratio|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.474|1.005||||||||1.005|0.474|
91095173|NCT02966834|182073764|OTHER||LS mean ratio|0.825|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.564|1.207||||||||1.207|0.564|
91095174|NCT02966834|182073765|OTHER||LS mean ratio|1.363|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.932|1.995||||||||1.995|0.932|
91095175|NCT02966834|182073765|OTHER||LS mean ratio|2.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.456|2.887||||||||2.887|1.456|
91095176|NCT02966834|182073765|OTHER||LS mean ratio|2.457|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.758|3.436||||||||3.436|1.758|
91095177|NCT02966834|182073765|OTHER||LS mean ratio|3.128|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.206|4.435||||||||4.435|2.206|
91095178|NCT02966834|182073765|OTHER||LS mean ratio|2.701|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.915|3.81||||||||3.81|1.915|
90847660|NCT00505076|181561251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||The sample size was determined using the analysis of covariance power formula, n=2\[za+zβ\]2s2 (1-R2)/d2, with za=2.24, zβ=0.842 (corresponding to power=0.80), R=the correlation between baseline and end of study measures of the outcome, d the difference between groups, and s the standard deviation of the outcome. Actual recruitment was only about 20 participants per group, but the observed R≅0.9, suggesting power to detect an effect size of 0.49.||||0.47
91095179|NCT03513952|182073766|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.428||||||A one-sided significance level of 0.10 will be considered for the test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||||Estimations were done separately in each treatment arm; the difference between treatments was not calculated.|||0.428
91095180|NCT03513952|182073767|EQUIVALENCE|"Two-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for the CBR was performed, which is used for testing zero effect or equivalence between treatments. A two-sided significance level of 0.05 will be considered for the test."|Risk Difference (RD)|-6.0||||0.702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.3|24.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||24.3|-36.3|0.702
91095181|NCT04739800|182073772|EQUIVALENCE|This is the Hazard Ratio of Group 2 compared to Group 1.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|2.31|||||This is the Hazard Ratio of Group 2 compared to Group 1.|||2.31|0.44|
90847661|NCT00505076|181561252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||The sample size was determined using the analysis of covariance power formula, n=2\[za+zβ\]2s2 (1-R2)/d2, with za=2.24, zβ=0.842 (corresponding to power=0.80), R=the correlation between baseline and end of study measures of the outcome, d the difference between groups, and s the standard deviation of the outcome. Actual recruitment was only about 20 participants per group, but the observed R≅0.9, suggesting power to detect an effect size of 0.49.||||0.84
90847662|NCT01128621|181561300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.216|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.57||||||Placebo vs GSK1292263 75 mg: Day 7, pre-breakfast||0.57|-1.00|
90847663|NCT01128621|181561300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|1.11||||||Placebo vs GSK1292263 300 mg: Day 7, pre-breakfast||1.11|-0.53|
90847664|NCT01128621|181561300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.748|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|1.52||||||Placebo vs GSK1292263 600 mg: Day 7, pre-breakfast||1.52|-0.02|
90847665|NCT01128621|181561300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.207|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.01|-0.41||||||Placebo vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Day 7, pre-breakfast||-0.41|-2.01|
91095182|NCT04739800|182073772|EQUIVALENCE|This is the Hazard Ratio of Group 3 compared to Group 1.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|2.84|||||This is the Hazard Ratio of Group 3 compared to Group 1.|||2.84|0.52|
91095183|NCT04739800|182073772|EQUIVALENCE|This is the Hazard Ratio of Group 4 compared to Group 1.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|3.08|||||||This is the Hazard Ratio of Group 4 compared to Group 1.|3.08|0.58|
90847666|NCT01128621|181561300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.991|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.81||||||GSK1292263 75 mg vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Day 7 , pre-breakfast||1.81|0.18|
90847667|NCT01128621|181561300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.497|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.34||||||GSK1292263 300 mg vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Day 7, pre-breakfast||2.34|0.66|
90847668|NCT01128621|181561300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.955|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|2.75||||||GSK1292263 600 mg vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Day 7, pre-breakfast||2.75|1.16|
90847669|NCT01128621|181561300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|0.18||||||Placebo vs GSK1292263 75 mg: Day 14, pre-breakfast||0.18|-1.74|
90847670|NCT01128621|181561300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.188|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|1.19||||||Placebo vs GSK1292263 300 mg: Day 14, pre-breakfast||1.19|-0.81|
90847671|NCT01128621|181561300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|1.55||||||Placebo vs GSK1292263 600 mg: Day 14, pre-breakfast||1.55|-0.35|
90847672|NCT01128621|181561300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.069|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|-0.08||||||Placebo vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Day 14, pre-breakfast||-0.08|-2.05|
90847673|NCT01128621|181561300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.289|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|1.29||||||GSK1292263 75 mg vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Day 14, pre-breakfast||1.29|-0.71|
90847674|NCT01128621|181561300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.257|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|2.29||||||GSK1292263 300 mg vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Day 14, pre-breakfast||2.29|0.22|
90847675|NCT01128621|181561300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.669|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|2.65||||||GSK1292263 600 mg vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Day 14, pre-breakfast||2.65|0.68|
90847676|NCT01128621|181561300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.556|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|0.54||||||Placebo vs GSK1292263 75 mg: Day 14, 24 hours||0.54|-1.65|
90847677|NCT01128621|181561300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.745|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.89||||||Placebo vs GSK1292263 300 mg: Day 14, 24 hours||1.89|-0.40|
90847678|NCT01128621|181561300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.711|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|1.78||||||Placebo vs GSK1292263 600 mg: Day 14, 24 hours||1.78|-0.36|
90847679|NCT01128621|181561300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|0.09||||||Placebo vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Day 14, 24 hours||0.09|-2.15|
90847680|NCT01128621|181561300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.474|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|1.61||||||GSK1292263 75 mg vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Day 14, 24 hours||1.61|-0.66|
90847681|NCT01128621|181561300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.775|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.95||||||GSK1292263 300 mg vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Day 14, 24 hours||2.95|0.60|
90847682|NCT01128621|181561300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.741|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.86||||||GSK1292263 600 mg vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Day 14, 24 hours||2.86|0.63|
90899410|NCT03502616|181665100|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.131||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.77|0.26|0.0001
91095184|NCT04739800|182073775|EQUIVALENCE|This is the Hazard Ratio of Group 2 compared to Group 1.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|4.47|||||This is the Hazard Ratio for Group 2 compared to Group 1.|||4.47|0.44|
91095185|NCT04739800|182073775|EQUIVALENCE|This is the Hazard Ratio of Group 3 compared to Group 1.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|4.19|||||This is the Hazard Ratio of Group 3 compared to Group 1.|||4.19|0.40|
91095186|NCT04739800|182073775|EQUIVALENCE|This is the Hazard Ratio of Group 4 compared to Group 1.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|3.08|||||This is the Hazard Ratio of Group 4 compared to Group 1.|||3.08|0.58|
90847683|NCT01128621|181561301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.195|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.17|17.56||||||Placebo vs GSK1292263 75 mg: Day 7, pre-breakfast||17.56|-17.17|
90847684|NCT01128621|181561301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.863|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.7|0.98||||||Placebo vs GSK1292263 300 mg: Day 7, pre-breakfast||0.98|-34.70|
90847685|NCT01128621|181561301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.04|12.12||||||Placebo vs GSK1292263 600 mg: Day 7, pre-breakfast||12.12|-23.04|
90847686|NCT01128621|181561301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.89|21.58||||||Placebo vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Day 7, pre-breakfast||21.58|-13.89|
90847687|NCT01128621|181561301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.655|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.7|14.39||||||GSK1292263 75 mg vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Day 7, pre-breakfast||14.39|-21.70|
90847688|NCT01128621|181561301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-20.712|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.25|-2.17||||||GSK1292263 300 mg vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Day 7, pre-breakfast||-2.17|-39.25|
90847689|NCT01128621|181561301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.63|9.01||||||GSK1292263 600 mg vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Day 7, pre-breakfast||9.01|-27.63|
90847690|NCT01128621|181561301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.649|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.43|12.14||||||Placebo vs GSK1292263 75 mg: Day 14, pre-breakfast||12.14|-19.43|
90899411|NCT03502616|181665100|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.148||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.78|0.19|0.0012
90847691|NCT01128621|181561301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.72|-0.6||||||Placebo vs GSK1292263 300 mg: Day 14, pre-breakfast||-0.60|-32.72|
90847692|NCT01128621|181561301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-22.251|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.34|-6.16||||||Placebo vs GSK1292263 600 mg: Day 14, pre-breakfast||-6.16|-38.34|
90847693|NCT01128621|181561301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.69|11.51||||||Placebo vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Day 14, pre-breakfast||11.51|-20.69|
90847694|NCT01128621|181561301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.941|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|17.28||||||GSK1292263 75 mg vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Day 14, pre-breakfast||17.28|-15.40|
90847695|NCT01128621|181561301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.82|4.68||||||GSK1292263 300 mg vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Day 14, pre-breakfast||4.68|-28.82|
90847696|NCT01128621|181561301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-17.662|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.72|-0.6||||||GSK1292263 600 mg vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Day 14, pre-breakfast||-0.60|-34.72|
90847697|NCT01128621|181561301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-19.101|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.0|5.8||||||Placebo vs GSK1292263 75 mg: Day 14, 24 hours||5.80|-44.00|
90847698|NCT01128621|181561301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-27.976|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.56|-2.39||||||Placebo vs GSK1292263 300 mg: Day 14, 24 hours||-2.39|-53.56|
90847699|NCT01128621|181561301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-23.609|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.82|1.6||||||Placebo vs GSK1292263 600 mg: Day 14, 24 hours||1.60|-48.82|
90847700|NCT01128621|181561301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.094|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.34|28.53||||||Placebo vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Day 14, 24 hours||28.53|-22.34|
90847701|NCT01128621|181561301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-22.194|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.07|3.69||||||GSK1292263 75 mg vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Day 14, 24 hours||3.69|-48.07|
90847702|NCT01128621|181561301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-31.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.66|-4.48||||||GSK1292263 300 mg vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Day 14, 24 hours||-4.48|-57.66|
90847703|NCT01128621|181561301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-26.703|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.98|-0.42||||||GSK1292263 600 mg vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Day 14, 24 hours||-0.42|-52.98|
90847704|NCT01128621|181561304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.5||||||Placebo vs GSK1292263 75 mg: Weighted Mean (0-12), Day 7||0.50|-1.50|
90847705|NCT01128621|181561304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.513|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|1.54||||||Placebo vs GSK1292263 300 mg: Weighted Mean (0-12), Day 7||1.54|-0.51|
90847706|NCT01128621|181561304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|2.01||||||Placebo vs GSK1292263 600 mg: Weighted Mean (0-12), Day 7||2.01|0.05|
90847707|NCT01128621|181561304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.955|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|0.07||||||Placebo vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Weighted Mean (0-12), Day 7||0.07|-1.98|
90847708|NCT01128621|181561304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.454|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|1.5||||||GSK1292263 75 mg vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Weighted Mean (0-12), Day 7||1.50|-0.59|
90847709|NCT01128621|181561304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.468|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|2.55||||||GSK1292263 300 mg vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Weighted Mean (0-12), Day 7||2.55|0.39|
90847710|NCT01128621|181561304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.985|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|3.01||||||GSK1292263 600 mg vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Weighted Mean (0-12), Day 7||3.01|0.96|
90847711|NCT01128621|181561304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.312|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|0.76||||||Placebo vs GSK1292263 75 mg: Weighted Mean (0-12), Day 14||0.76|-1.38|
90847712|NCT01128621|181561304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.394|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.49||||||Placebo vs GSK1292263 300 mg: Weighted Mean (0-12), Day 14||1.49|-0.70|
90847713|NCT01128621|181561304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.875|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|1.93||||||Placebo vs GSK1292263 600 mg: Weighted Mean (0-12), Day 14||1.93|-0.18|
90847714|NCT01128621|181561304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.854|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|0.25||||||Placebo vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Weighted Mean (0-12), Day 14||0.25|-1.95|
90847715|NCT01128621|181561304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.542|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|1.66||||||GSK1292263 75 mg vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Weighted Mean (0-12), Day 14||1.66|-0.58|
90847716|NCT01128621|181561304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.248|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|2.4||||||GSK1292263 300 mg vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Weighted Mean (0-12), Day 14||2.40|0.09|
90847717|NCT01128621|181561304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.729|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.83||||||GSK1292263 600 mg vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Weighted Mean (0-12), Day 14||2.83|0.63|
90847718|NCT01128621|181561304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.148|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|0.91||||||Placebo vs GSK1292263 75 mg: Weighted Mean (0-24), Day 14||0.91|-1.21|
90847719|NCT01128621|181561304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.737|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|1.81||||||Placebo vs GSK1292263 300 mg: Weighted Mean (0-24), Day 14||1.81|-0.34|
91095187|NCT04880850|182073806|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of insulin icodec was considered confirmed if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for mean treatment difference (insulin icodec minus insulin glargine) was strictly below 0.3%.|Treatment difference|0.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.15|||ANCOVA|||The response and change from baseline in response after 26 weeks were analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, region and personal continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) device use as fixed factors, and baseline response as covariate.||0.15|-0.11|<0.0001
91095188|NCT03907488|182073816|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.005||||||One sided P-value|Log Rank|||The primary analysis of PFS used a stratified log rank test statistic and is reported as two-sided test. Stratified Cox regression was used to estimate treatment hazard ratios for treatment effect. 95% two-sided intervals are reported. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate PFS curves.||||<0.005
90847720|NCT01128621|181561304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.245|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|2.28||||||Placebo vs GSK1292263 600 mg: Weighted Mean (0-24), Day 14||2.28|0.21|
91095189|NCT03074500|182073835|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.643|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison of baseline values||||0.643
90847721|NCT01128621|181561304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.623|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|0.46||||||Placebo vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Weighted Mean (0-24), Day 14||0.46|-1.71|
90847722|NCT01128621|181561304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.475|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|1.57||||||GSK1292263 75 mg vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Weighted Mean (0-24), Day 14||1.57|-0.62|
90847723|NCT01128621|181561304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|2.49||||||GSK1292263 300 mg vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Weighted Mean (0-24), Day 14||2.49|0.23|
90847724|NCT01128621|181561304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.869|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.95||||||GSK1292263 600 mg vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Weighted Mean (0-24), Day 14||2.95|0.79|
90847725|NCT01128621|181561305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-28.619|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.25|2.01||||||Placebo vs GSK1292263 75 mg: Weighted Mean (0-12), Day 7||2.01|-59.25|
90847726|NCT01128621|181561305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-47.898|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-79.23|-16.56||||||Placebo vs GSK1292263 300 mg: Weighted Mean (0-12), Day 7||-16.56|-79.23|
90847727|NCT01128621|181561305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-24.665|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.53|6.2||||||Placebo vs GSK1292263 600 mg: Weighted Mean (0-12), Day 7||6.20|-55.53|
91095190|NCT03074500|182073835|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison of After Treatment Values||||0.018
91095191|NCT03074500|182073835|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of 4 week After Treatment Values||||0.027
91095192|NCT03074500|182073835|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.677||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of baseline values||||0.677
91095193|NCT03074500|182073835|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.677||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of baseline values||||0.677
90847728|NCT01128621|181561305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.438|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.76|25.89||||||Placebo vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Weighted Mean (0-12), Day 7||25.89|-36.76|
90847729|NCT01128621|181561305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-23.181|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.0|8.63||||||GSK1292263 75 mg vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Weighted Mean (0-12), Day 7||8.63|-55.00|
90847730|NCT01128621|181561305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-42.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.18|-9.74||||||GSK1292263 300 mg vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Weighted Mean (0-12), Day 7||-9.74|-75.18|
90847731|NCT01128621|181561305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-19.227|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.83|13.37||||||GSK1292263 600 mg vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Weighted Mean (0-12), Day 7||13.37|-51.83|
90847732|NCT01128621|181561305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-18.435|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.15|12.28||||||Placebo vs GSK1292263 75 mg: Weighted Mean (0-12), Day 14||12.28|-49.15|
90847733|NCT01128621|181561305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-58.658|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-90.08|-27.24||||||Placebo vs GSK1292263 300 mg: Weighted Mean (0-12), Day 14||-27.24|-90.08|
90847734|NCT01128621|181561305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-37.006|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.96|-6.05||||||Placebo vs GSK1292263 600 mg: Weighted Mean (0-12), Day 14||-6.05|-67.96|
90847735|NCT01128621|181561305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.896|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.31|21.52||||||Placebo vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Weighted Mean (0-12), Day 14||21.52|-41.31|
90847736|NCT01128621|181561305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.539|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.44|23.36||||||GSK1292263 75 mg vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Weighted Mean (0-12), Day 14||23.36|-40.44|
90847737|NCT01128621|181561305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-48.762|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-81.58|-15.95||||||GSK1292263 300 mg vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Weighted Mean (0-12), Day 14||-15.95|-81.58|
90847738|NCT01128621|181561305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-27.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.8|5.58||||||GSK1292263 600 mg vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Weighted Mean (0-12), Day 14||5.58|-59.80|
90847739|NCT01128621|181561305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-20.359|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.95|8.23||||||Placebo vs GSK1292263 75 mg: Weighted Mean (0-24), Day 14||8.23|-48.95|
90847740|NCT01128621|181561305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-53.712|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-82.92|-24.5||||||Placebo vs GSK1292263 300 mg: Weighted Mean (0-24), Day 14||-24.50|-82.92|
90847741|NCT01128621|181561305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-37.552|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.24|-8.86||||||Placebo vs GSK1292263 600 mg: Weighted Mean (0-24), Day 14||-8.86|-66.24|
90847742|NCT01128621|181561305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.963|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.2|21.27||||||Placebo vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Weighted Mean (0-24), Day 14||21.27|-37.20|
90847743|NCT01128621|181561305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.397|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.1|17.3||||||GSK1292263 75 mg vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Weighted Mean (0-24), Day 14||17.30|-42.10|
90847744|NCT01128621|181561305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-45.749|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.2|-15.3||||||GSK1292263 300 mg vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Weighted Mean (0-24), Day 14||-15.30|-76.20|
90847745|NCT01128621|181561305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-29.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.82|0.64||||||GSK1292263 600 mg vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Weighted Mean (0-24), Day 14||0.64|-59.82|
90847746|NCT04074161|181561307|SUPERIORITY|Responses were analysed using an analysis of covariance model with randomized treatment as factor and baseline body weight as covariate.|Treatment difference|-9.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.97|-6.8|||ANCOVA|||||-6.80|-11.97|<0.0001
90847747|NCT03232333|181561358|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.71|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||=0.71
91095194|NCT03074500|182073835|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.326||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of baseline values||||0.326
91095195|NCT03074500|182073835|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of After Treatment Values||||0.019
91095196|NCT03074500|182073835|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of After Treatment Values||||0.014
91095197|NCT03074500|182073835|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.427||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of After Treatment Values||||0.427
91095198|NCT03074500|182073835|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.023||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of 4 week After Treatment Values||||0.023
90847748|NCT03232333|181561359|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.63|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||=0.63
91095199|NCT03074500|182073835|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.021||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of 4 week After Treatment Values||||0.021
91095200|NCT03074500|182073835|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.545||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of 4 week After Treatment Value||||0.545
91095201|NCT03074500|182073835|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Friedman's two-way analysis of variance|||||||0.004
90847749|NCT03232333|181561360|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.01|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||=.01
90957426|NCT00138671|181794872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.801||||||90.0|-3.204|-0.397||||||Week 51||-0.397|-3.204|
91095202|NCT03074500|182073835|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||Friedman's two-way analysis of variance|||||||0.670
91095203|NCT03074500|182073835|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.192|||||||Friedman's two-way analysis of variance|||||||0.192
91095204|NCT03074500|182073836|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.633|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison of Before Treatment Values||||0.633
91095205|NCT03074500|182073836|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.282|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison of After Treatment Values||||0.282
91095206|NCT03074500|182073836|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison of 4 week After Treatment Values||||0.015
91095207|NCT03074500|182073836|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.677||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of Before Treatment Values||||0.677
91095208|NCT03074500|182073836|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.344||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of Before Treatment Values||||0.344
91095209|NCT03074500|182073836|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.596||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of Before Treatment Values||||0.596
90957427|NCT00138671|181794872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.026||||||90.0|-3.384|-0.668||||||Week 52||-0.668|-3.384|
91095210|NCT03074500|182073836|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.161||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of After Treatment Values||||0.161
91095211|NCT03074500|182073836|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.257||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of After Treatment Values||||0.257
91095212|NCT03074500|182073836|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.449||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of After Treatment Values||||0.449
90957428|NCT00138671|181794872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.451||||||90.0|-3.003|0.101||||||Week 52 LOCF||0.101|-3.003|
91095213|NCT03074500|182073836|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of 4 week After Treatment Values||||0.013
91095214|NCT03074500|182073836|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of 4 week After Treatment Values||||0.019
91095215|NCT03074500|182073836|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.325||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of 4 week After Treatment Values||||0.325
91095216|NCT03074500|182073836|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Friedman's two-way analysis of variance|||||||0.003
91095217|NCT03074500|182073836|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.323|||||||Friedman's two-way analysis of variance|||||||0.323
91095218|NCT03074500|182073836|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.641|||||||Friedman's two-way analysis of variance|||||||0.641
91095219|NCT03074500|182073837|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.715|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison of Baseline Values||||0.715
90847750|NCT01087736|181561364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio (IRR)|0.89||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|0.98||We tested our Primary hypothesis with a random-intercept repeated subject negative binomial model, modeling week (baseline - week 12) as a continuous variable. All analyses were intent-to-treat and used all observations from all weeks.|negative binomial regression|||Our primary protocol-defined analysis was to examine the within-group efficacy of topiramate to reduce percent drinking days (%DD).||0.98|0.89|0.019
90847751|NCT01087736|181561364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|||||||Other|||There were no pre hoc hypothesis regarding change within placebo group. We were only tested change within the topiramate condition.||||0.00
90847752|NCT01087736|181561364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio (IRR)|0.38||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.94|||Negative binomial model|||"A secondary analysis was powered to detect a Signal or statistical trend (p\<0.10) for a difference between the topiramate and placebo condition. We compared percent drinking days per week between groups averaged over the active phase of the trial (weeks 1-12). The negative binomial model included fixed effect for week, treatment group, and the interaction between treatment group and week. We covaried for baseline %DD averages to control for prestudy and study enrollment effects."||0.94|0.15|0.036
90847753|NCT01087736|181561365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.026|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||We planned to explore the efficacy of topiramate in reducing PTSD symptom severity. We used random-intercept linear mixed models to explore the efficacy for topiramate related reduction in PTSD symptomatology. We looked for an effect of week within TOP. Baseline scores for PTSD symptoms were used as covariates in group comparisons. All analyses were intent-to-treat and used all observations from all weeks.||||<0.026
90847754|NCT01087736|181561365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|||||||Other|||There was not a pre hoc hypothesis regarding change within placebo group. We only examined within group change in the topiramate condition.||||0.00
90847755|NCT00759564|181561382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Geometric Mean Ratio|124.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|106.57|145.94||||||A one-way ANOVA model with group as a fixed effect was used to compare the natural log transformed Cmax for mild renal impairment group (Test) to normal renal function group (Reference). The adjusted mean differences and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||145.94|106.57|
90847756|NCT00759564|181561382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Geometric Mean Ratio|163.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|139.72|191.34||||||A one-way ANOVA model with group as a fixed effect was used to compare the natural log transformed Cmax for moderate renal impairment group (Test) to normal renal function group (Reference). The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||191.34|139.72|
90899412|NCT03502616|181665100|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.142||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.76|0.20|0.0008
90899413|NCT03502616|181665100|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.147||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.81|0.24|0.0004
90899414|NCT03502616|181665100|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.188||0.0918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.69|-0.05|0.0918
90847757|NCT00759564|181561382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Geometric Mean Ratio|58.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|48.16|70.83||||||A one-way ANOVA model with group as a fixed effect was used to compare the natural log transformed Cmax for severe renal impairment group (Test) to normal renal function group (Reference). The adjusted mean differences and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||70.83|48.16|
90847758|NCT00759564|181561384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Geometric Mean Ratio|167.59|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|137.27|204.61||||||A one-way ANOVA model with group as a fixed effect was used to compare the natural log transformed AUClast for mild renal impairment group (Test) to normal renal function group (Reference). The adjusted mean differences and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||204.61|137.27|
90847759|NCT00759564|181561384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Geometric Mean Ratio|246.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|202.11|301.27||||||A one-way ANOVA model with group as a fixed effect was used to compare the natural log transformed AUClast for moderate renal impairment group (Test) to normal renal function group (Reference). The adjusted mean differences and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||301.27|202.11|
90847760|NCT00759564|181561384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Geometric Mean Ratio|107.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.06|130.32||||||A one-way ANOVA model with group as a fixed effect was used to compare the natural log transformed AUClast for severe renal impairment group (Test) to normal renal function group (Reference). The adjusted mean differences and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||130.32|88.06|
90847761|NCT00759564|181561385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Geometric Mean Ratio|168.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|137.4|205.75||||||A one-way ANOVA model with group as a fixed effect was used to compare the natural log transformed AUCinf for mild renal impairment group (Test) to normal renal function group (Reference). The adjusted mean differences and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||205.75|137.40|
91029918|NCT06179108|181944121|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0017|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM included treatment group, pooled study site, visit, visit by treatment interaction and baseline total PANSS score.||||||.0017
91029919|NCT06179108|181944122|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0008|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM included treatment group, pooled study site, visit, visit by treatment interaction and baseline CGI-S score.||||||0.0008
91095220|NCT03074500|182073837|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.227|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison of After Treatment Values||||0.227
91095221|NCT03074500|182073837|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison of 4 week After Treatment Values||||0.012
91095222|NCT03074500|182073837|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.907||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of Baseline Values||||0.907
90847762|NCT00759564|181561385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Geometric Mean Ratio|248.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|202.98|303.94||||||A one-way ANOVA model with group as a fixed effect was used to compare the natural log transformed AUCinf for moderate renal impairment group (Test) to normal renal function group (Reference). The adjusted mean differences and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||303.94|202.98|
91095223|NCT03074500|182073837|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.482||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of Baseline Values||||0.482
91095224|NCT03074500|182073837|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.485||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of Baseline Values||||0.485
91095225|NCT03074500|182073837|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.129||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of After Treatment Values||||0.129
91095226|NCT03074500|182073837|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of After Treatment Values||||0.12
91095227|NCT03074500|182073837|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.935||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of After Treatment Values||||0.935
91095228|NCT03074500|182073837|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of 4 week After Treatment Values||||0.002
91095229|NCT03074500|182073837|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of 4 week After Treatment Values||||0.036
90847763|NCT00759564|181561385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Geometric Mean Ratio|110.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.84|134.98||||||A one-way ANOVA model with group as a fixed effect was used to compare the natural log transformed AUCinf for severe renal impairment group (Test) to normal renal function group (Reference). The adjusted mean differences and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||134.98|89.84|
91095230|NCT03074500|182073837|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.056||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of 4 week After Treatment Values||||0.056
91095231|NCT03074500|182073837|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016|||||||Friedman's two-way analysis of variance|||||||0.016
91095232|NCT03074500|182073837|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.618|||||||Friedman's two-way analysis of variance|||||||0.618
91095233|NCT03074500|182073837|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Friedman's two-way analysis of variance|||||||0.48
91095234|NCT03074500|182073837|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.034|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of immediate effect between groups||||0.034
91095235|NCT03074500|182073837|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.041|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Immediate effect compared to baseline||||0.041
91095236|NCT03074500|182073837|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Immediate effect compared to baseline||||1
91095237|NCT03074500|182073838|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.103|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison of Baseline Values||||0.103
91095238|NCT03074500|182073838|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison of After Treatment Values||||0.002
91095239|NCT03074500|182073838|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison of 4 week After Treatment Values||||0.008
91095240|NCT03074500|182073838|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of Baseline Values||||0.76
91095241|NCT03074500|182073838|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of Baseline Values||||1
91095242|NCT03074500|182073838|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.056||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of Baseline Values||||0.056
91095243|NCT03074500|182073838|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of After Treatment Values||||0.002
91095244|NCT03074500|182073838|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of After Treatment Values||||0.12
91095245|NCT03074500|182073838|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.117||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of After Treatment Values||||0.117
90847764|NCT00759564|181561387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Geometric Mean Ratio|134.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|109.88|165.52||||||A one-way ANOVA model with group as a fixed effect was used to compare the natural log transformed Cmax for mild renal impairment group (Test) to normal renal function group (Reference). The adjusted mean differences and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||165.52|109.88|
91095246|NCT03074500|182073838|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of 4 week After Treatment Values||||0.006
91095247|NCT03074500|182073838|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of 4 week After Treatment Values||||0.013
91095248|NCT03074500|182073838|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.487||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of 4 week After Treatment Values||||0.487
91095249|NCT03074500|182073838|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Friedman's two-way analysis of variance|||||||0.002
91095250|NCT03074500|182073838|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.102|||||||Friedman's two-way analysis of variance|||||||0.102
91095251|NCT03074500|182073838|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.165|||||||Friedman's two-way analysis of variance|||||||0.165
91095252|NCT03074500|182073838|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of immediate effect between groups||||0.007
91095253|NCT03074500|182073838|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Immediate effect compared to baseline||||0.028
91095254|NCT03074500|182073838|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Immediate effect compared to baseline||||0.83
90847765|NCT00759564|181561387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Geometric Mean Ratio|226.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|184.36|277.72||||||A one-way ANOVA model with group as a fixed effect was used to compare the natural log transformed Cmax for moderate renal impairment group (Test) to normal renal function group (Reference). The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||277.72|184.36|
91095255|NCT03074500|182073839|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.837|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison of Baseline Values||||0.837
91095256|NCT03074500|182073839|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.215|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison of After Treatment Values||||0.215
91095257|NCT03074500|182073839|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.078|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison of 4 week After Treatment Values||||0.078
91095258|NCT03074500|182073839|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.699||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of Baseline Values||||0.699
90847766|NCT00759564|181561387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Geometric Mean Ratio|285.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|221.8|366.33||||||A one-way ANOVA model with group as a fixed effect was used to compare the natural log transformed Cmax for severe renal impairment group (Test) to normal renal function group (Reference). The adjusted mean differences and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||366.33|221.80|
91095259|NCT03074500|182073839|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.846||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of Baseline Values||||0.846
90847767|NCT00759564|181561389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Geometric Mean Ratio|209.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|158.81|275.87||||||A one-way ANOVA model with group as a fixed effect was used to compare the natural log transformed AUClast for mild renal impairment group (Test) to normal renal function group (Reference). The adjusted mean differences and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||275.87|158.81|
90847768|NCT00759564|181561389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Geometric Mean Ratio|353.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|267.83|465.25||||||A one-way ANOVA model with group as a fixed effect was used to compare the natural log transformed AUClast for moderate renal impairment group (Test) to normal renal function group (Reference). The adjusted mean differences and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||465.25|267.83|
90899415|NCT03502616|181665100|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.179||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 32: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.61|-0.10|0.1600
90847769|NCT00759564|181561389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Geometric Mean Ratio|742.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|529.59|1041.5||||||A one-way ANOVA model with group as a fixed effect was used to compare the natural log transformed AUClast for severe renal impairment group (Test) to normal renal function group (Reference). The adjusted mean differences and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||1041.50|529.59|
90847770|NCT00759564|181561390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Geometric Mean Ratio|209.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|158.72|276.66||||||A one-way ANOVA model with group as a fixed effect was used to compare the natural log transformed AUCinf for mild renal impairment group (Test) to normal renal function group (Reference). The adjusted mean differences and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||276.66|158.72|
90847771|NCT00759564|181561390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Geometric Mean Ratio|353.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|267.57|466.39||||||A one-way ANOVA model with group as a fixed effect was used to compare the natural log transformed AUCinf for moderate renal impairment group (Test) to normal renal function group (Reference). The adjusted mean differences and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||466.39|267.57|
91029920|NCT06179108|181944122|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0048|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM included treatment group, pooled study site, visit, visit by treatment interaction and baseline CGI-S score.||||||0.0048
91095260|NCT03074500|182073839|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of Baseline Values||||0.56
91095261|NCT03074500|182073839|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.087||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of After Treatment Values||||0.087
91095262|NCT03074500|182073839|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.183||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of After Treatment Values||||0.183
91095263|NCT03074500|182073839|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.719||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of After Treatment Values||||0.719
91095264|NCT03074500|182073839|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.023||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of 4 week After Treatment Values||||0.023
91095265|NCT03074500|182073839|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.196||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of 4 week After Treatment Values||||0.196
91095266|NCT03074500|182073839|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.318||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of 4 week After Treatment Values||||0.318
91095267|NCT03074500|182073839|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Friedman's two-way analysis of variance|||||||0.001
91095268|NCT03074500|182073839|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.483|||||||Friedman's two-way analysis of variance|||||||0.483
91095269|NCT03074500|182073839|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Friedman's two-way analysis of variance|||||||0.004
91095270|NCT03074500|182073840|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.897|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison of Baseline Values||||0.897
91095271|NCT03074500|182073840|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.325|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison of After Treatment Values||||0.325
91095272|NCT03074500|182073840|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.172|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison of 4 week After Treatment Values||||0.172
91095273|NCT03074500|182073840|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.622||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of Baseline Values||||0.622
90847772|NCT00759564|181561390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Geometric Mean Ratio|735.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|523.56|1034.0||||||A one-way ANOVA model with group as a fixed effect was used to compare the natural log transformed AUCinf for severe renal impairment group (Test) to normal renal function group (Reference). The adjusted mean differences and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||1034.00|523.56|
91029921|NCT06179108|181944122|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0026|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM included treatment group, pooled study site, visit, visit by treatment interaction and baseline CGI-S score.||||||0.0026
91095274|NCT03074500|182073840|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.909||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of Baseline Values||||0.909
90847773|NCT01565343|181561419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ICC|0.9893||||||95.0|||||ICC|||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient (ICC) of AD subjects 50-70 min test vs. retest values||||
90847774|NCT01565343|181561419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ICC|0.9574||||||95.0|||||ICC|||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient of Control subjects 50-70 min test vs. retest values||||
90847775|NCT01565343|181561419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean % difference|2.35|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.413||||95.0||||||||Intra-subject variability (% difference) of AD subjects 50-70 min test vs. retest values||||
90847776|NCT01565343|181561419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean % difference|1.49|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.839||||95.0||||||||Intra-subject variability (% difference) of control subjects 50-70 min test vs. retest values||||
90899416|NCT03502616|181665100|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.195||0.6776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 40: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.47|-0.30|0.6776
90899417|NCT03502616|181665100|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.5646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.46|-0.25|0.5646
90899418|NCT03502616|181665101|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.161||0.7291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.37|-0.26|0.7291
90899419|NCT03502616|181665101|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.184||0.0257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.05|-0.78|0.0257
91095275|NCT03074500|182073840|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of Baseline Values||||0.79
91095276|NCT03074500|182073840|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of After Treatment Values||||0.24
91095277|NCT03074500|182073840|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.161||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of After Treatment Values||||0.161
90847777|NCT05408637|181561423|OTHER|The small sample size did not allow for statistical tests. Therefore, we looked at overall patterns and calculated differences between stimulation (Active vs Sham).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|54.75|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Difference = Active - Sham|||||
90847778|NCT05408637|181561423|OTHER||Percent Difference|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Difference = Active - Sham|The small sample size did not allow for statistical tests. Therefore, we looked at percent difference between stimulation (Active vs Sham).||||
90847779|NCT05408637|181561423|OTHER||Cohen's d|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||We evaluated the effect size of the difference between Active and Sham using Cohen's d.||||
90847780|NCT05408637|181561424|OTHER|The small sample size did not allow for statistical tests. Therefore, we looked at overall patterns and calculated differences between active stimulation timepoints (Day 1 vs Day 5).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|224.8392|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Difference = Day 5 Active - Day 1 Active|||||
90847781|NCT05408637|181561424|OTHER||Percent Difference|4.35|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Difference = Day 5 Active - Day 1 Active|The small sample size did not allow for statistical tests. Therefore, we calculated percent difference between active stimulation timepoints (Day 1 vs Day 5).||||
90847782|NCT05408637|181561424|OTHER||Cohen's d|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||We evaluated the effect size of the difference between active stimulation timepoints (Day 1 vs Day 5) using Cohen's d.||||
90847783|NCT05408637|181561425|OTHER||rank biserial correlation coefficient|0.767||||0.15|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to evaluate changes in the IGT at Baseline vs Day 5 due to the small sample size and distributional assumptions. Effect sizes were calculated using the rank biserial correlation coefficient (r) to estimate the magnitude of change.||||0.15
90847784|NCT05408637|181561425|OTHER|The Friedman test was used to assess overall differences in IGT across Baseline, Day 1, and Day 5.||||||0.038|||||||Friedman test|||||||0.038
90847785|NCT05408637|181561425|OTHER|The Friedman test was used to assess overall differences in IGT across all timepoints (Baseline, Day 1, Day 5, Follow-Up).||||||0.043|||||||Friedman test|||||||0.043
90899420|NCT03502616|181665101|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.227||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|-0.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.42|-1.31|0.0002
91029922|NCT01199861|181944168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Inhibition|41.0||||||95.0|||||||One minus the back-transformed estimate for the treatment difference was interpreted as the relative inhibition of an immune response caused by fingolimod 0.5 mg compared to placebo; it was presented as a percentage and referred to as 'inhibition'.|The inhibition of an immune response to the A/California/7/09 (H1N1) strain of the seasonal influenza vaccine was assessed by the relative difference of the geometric mean antibody titer ratio on fingolimod as compared to placebo three weeks after a single dose of seasonal influenza vaccine.||||
91095278|NCT03074500|182073840|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.909||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of After Treatment Values||||0.909
91095279|NCT03074500|182073840|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.255||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of 4 week After Treatment Values||||0.255
91029923|NCT01199861|181944168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Inhibition|-35.0||||||95.0|||||||One minus the back-transformed estimate for the treatment difference was interpreted as the relative inhibition of an immune response caused by fingolimod 0.5 mg compared to placebo; it was presented as a percentage and referred to as 'inhibition'.|The inhibition of an immune response to the A/Perth/16/2009 (H3N2) strain of the seasonal influenza vaccine was assessed by the relative difference of the geometric mean antibody titer ratio on fingolimod as compared to placebo three weeks after a single dose of seasonal influenza vaccine.||||
91095280|NCT03074500|182073840|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.058||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of 4 week After Treatment Values||||0.058
91095281|NCT03074500|182073840|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.569||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of 4 week After Treatment Values||||0.569
91095282|NCT03074500|182073840|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Friedman's two-way analysis of variance|||||||0.007
91095283|NCT03074500|182073840|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.614|||||||Friedman's two-way analysis of variance|||||||0.614
91095284|NCT03074500|182073840|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.072|||||||Friedman's two-way analysis of variance|||||||0.072
91095285|NCT03074500|182073840|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.447|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of immediate effect between groups||||0.447
91095286|NCT03074500|182073840|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.084|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Immediate effect compared to baseline||||0.084
91095287|NCT03074500|182073840|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.235|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Immediate effect compared to baseline||||0.235
91095288|NCT03074500|182073841|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.958|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison of Baseline Values||||0.958
91095289|NCT03074500|182073841|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.597|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison of After Treatment Values||||0.597
91095290|NCT03074500|182073841|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.518|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison of 4 week After Treatment Values||||0.518
91095291|NCT03074500|182073841|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of Baseline Values||||0.88
91095292|NCT03074500|182073841|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.733||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of Baseline Values||||0.733
91095293|NCT03074500|182073841|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of Baseline Values||||1
91095294|NCT03074500|182073841|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.404||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of After Treatment Values||||0.404
91095295|NCT03074500|182073841|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of After Treatment Values||||0.97
91095296|NCT03074500|182073841|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.362||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of After Treatment Values||||0.362
91095297|NCT03074500|182073841|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.271||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of 4 week After Treatment Values||||0.271
91095298|NCT03074500|182073841|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.519||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of 4 week After Treatment Values||||0.519
91095299|NCT03074500|182073841|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.569||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of 4 week After Treatment Values||||0.569
91095300|NCT03074500|182073841|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Friedman's two-way analysis of variance|||||||0.004
91095301|NCT03074500|182073841|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.973|||||||Friedman's two-way analysis of variance|||||||0.973
91095302|NCT03074500|182073841|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.886|||||||Friedman's two-way analysis of variance|||||||0.886
91095303|NCT03074500|182073841|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of immediate effect between groups||||0.82
91095304|NCT03074500|182073841|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Immediate effect compared to baseline||||0.017
91095305|NCT03074500|182073841|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.734|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Immediate effect compared to baseline||||0.734
91095306|NCT00315341|182073846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||shift table analyses|||categorized changes in ALT/AST from BL:(1)BL transaminases(both ALT/AST)≤2X upper limit of normal(ULN)\& remained at this level;(2)BL transaminases ≤2X ULN(either ALT/AST)but increased(either ALT/AST)above this level at any time;(3)BL transaminases \>2X ULN(either ALT/AST)\& decreased and remained at ≤2X ULN(both ALT/AST);(4)BL transaminases(both ALT/AST)\>2X ULN \&remained at this level(both ALT/AST);(5)BL transaminases \>2X ULN(either ALT/AST)\& increased 2X above this level ever(either ALT/AST).||||< 0.05
91095307|NCT00090103|182073865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk Estimate|0.8||||0.18||95.0|0.58|1.11||Log-rank test with stratification by cluster.|Log Rank|||||1.11|0.58|0.18
91095308|NCT00090103|182073865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk Estimate|0.34|||<|0.001||95.0|0.26|0.45||Log-rank test with stratification by cluster.|Log Rank|||||0.45|0.26|<0.001
91095309|NCT00090103|182073867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||95.0||||Log rank test with stratification by cluster.|Log Rank|||||||0.18
91095310|NCT00090103|182073867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Log rank test with stratification by cluster.|Log Rank|||||||<0.001
91095311|NCT00090103|182073869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk Estimate|0.65|||<|0.001||95.0|0.52|0.8|||Log Rank|Log-rank test with stratification by cluster.||||0.80|0.52|<0.001
91095312|NCT00090103|182073869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk Estimate|0.59|||<|0.001||95.0|0.48|0.72|||Log Rank|||||0.72|0.48|<0.001
91095313|NCT00090103|182073870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65||95.0|||||Log Rank|Mantel-Haenszel test with stratification by cluster.||||||0.65
91095314|NCT00090103|182073870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1||95.0|||||Log Rank|Mantel-Hanenszel test with stratification by cluster.||||||0.10
91095315|NCT00090103|182073871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95||95.0|||||Log Rank|Mantel-Haenszel test with stratification by cluster.||||||0.95
91095316|NCT00090103|182073871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24||95.0|||||Log Rank|Mantel-Haenszel test with stratification by cluster.||||||0.24
90847786|NCT05408637|181561425|OTHER|The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to evaluate changes in the BIS across timepoints due to the small sample size and distributional assumptions. Effect sizes were calculated using the rank biserial correlation coefficient (r) to estimate the magnitude of change.|rank biserial correlation coefficient|0.134||||0.42|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|BIS across timepoints||||||0.42
91095317|NCT00320086|182073896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||ANOVA||||<0.05
90847787|NCT05408637|181561425|OTHER|The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to evaluate changes in the BRIEF-A across timepoints due to the small sample size and distributional assumptions.||||||0.232|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|BRIEF-A across timepoints||||||0.232
90847788|NCT05408637|181561425|OTHER|The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to evaluate changes in the i7 Impulsivity across timepoints due to the small sample size and distributional assumptions. Effect sizes were calculated using the rank biserial correlation coefficient (r) to estimate the magnitude of change.|rank biserial correlation coefficient|0.575||||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|i7 Impulsivity||||||0.06
90847789|NCT05408637|181561425|OTHER|The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to evaluate changes in the i7 Venturesomeness across timepoints due to the small sample size and distributional assumptions. Effect sizes were calculated using the rank biserial correlation coefficient (r) to estimate the magnitude of change.|rank biserial correlation coefficient|0.275||||0.36|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.36
90847790|NCT05408637|181561426|OTHER|Non-parametric tests were employed to evaluate changes across MOODS-SR Baseline to Day 5 due to the small sample size and distributional assumptions. The Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were applied for pairwise comparisons. Effect sizes were calculated using Cohen's d to estimate the magnitude of change.|Cohen's d|0.12||||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.6
90847791|NCT05408637|181561426|OTHER|Non-parametric tests were employed to evaluate changes across MOODS-SR Baseline to Follow Up due to the small sample size and distributional assumptions. The Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were applied for pairwise comparisons. Effect sizes were calculated using Cohen's d to estimate the magnitude of change.|Cohen's d|0.24||||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.2
90847792|NCT04975438|181561430|OTHER||Posterior Median Difference|-33.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.96|-14.84|||||The posterior median of the difference (GSK1070806 - placebo) and 95% credible interval in PCFB in the EASI is presented. Analysis was performed using Bayesian analysis under the hypothetical strategy using an informative prior (robust MAP prior).|||-14.84|-50.96|
90847793|NCT04975438|181561431|OTHER||Posterior Median Difference|-9.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.7|-3.6|||||The posterior median of the difference (GSK1070806 - placebo) and 95% credible interval in PCFB in the EASI is presented. Analysis was performed using Bayesian analysis with vague priors and adjusting for baseline EASI.|||-3.60|-15.70|
90847794|NCT02693132|181561457|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
90847795|NCT02693132|181561458|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
90847796|NCT02693132|181561459|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
90847797|NCT02693132|181561460|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
90847798|NCT02693132|181561461|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
90847799|NCT01798849|181561464|OTHER||Difference in Least-square (LS) Means|-0.5||||0.732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.42|2.43|||Mixed effect model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||2.43|-3.42|0.732
90847800|NCT01798849|181561464|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-0.94||||0.531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.94|2.06|||Mixed effects model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||2.06|-3.94|0.531
90847801|NCT01798849|181561464|OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-2.88||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.83|0.08|||Mixed effects model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||0.08|-5.83|0.056
90847802|NCT01798849|181561464|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-2.92||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|0.17|||Mixed effects model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||0.17|-6.00|0.063
90847803|NCT01798849|181561464|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-4.89||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.79|-1.99|||Mixed effects model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||-1.99|-7.79|0.002
90847804|NCT01798849|181561464|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-5.31||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.32|-2.31|||Mixed effects model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||-2.31|-8.32|0.001
90847805|NCT01798849|181561464|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-5.61||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.62|-2.6|||Mixed effects model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||-2.60|-8.62|0.001
90847806|NCT01798849|181561464|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-7.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|-4.63|||Mixed effects model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||-4.63|-10.50|<0.0001
91095318|NCT01080261|182073908|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Study had 91% statistical power to demonstrate that the 9-month rate for MACE (accounting for an expected 9-month attrition rate of 10%) is less than the performance goal, assuming a 9-month MACE rate of 8.2%.|Percent of patients experiencing a MACE|0.0|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||4.9|||One-group exact binomial test|||A one-group exact binomial test was used to test the hypothesis that the percentage of patients experiencing a MACE event (primary endpoint) in the PROMUS Element cohort is less than the predefined performance goal of 24.1% (based on historical outcomes with plain balloon angioplasty \[20.2%\] plus an adjustment of 3.9% for small vessels).||4.9||<0.0001
91095319|NCT00055237|182073932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||proportion estimate,binomial exact 95%CI|31.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|58.7|||sample estimate with 95% CI||As stated in the Outcome statistical Analysis 1. Section, the confidence interval was calculated using binomial exact statistics. The standard deviation is based on that calculation.|||58.7|11|
91029924|NCT01199861|181944168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Inhibition|44.0||||||95.0|||||||One minus the back-transformed estimate for the treatment difference was interpreted as the relative inhibition of an immune response caused by fingolimod 0.5 mg compared to placebo; it was presented as a percentage and referred to as 'inhibition'.|The inhibition of an immune response to the B/Brisbane/60/2008 strain of the seasonal influenza vaccine was assessed by the relative difference of the geometric mean antibody titer ratio on fingolimod as compared to placebo three weeks after a single dose of seasonal influenza vaccine.||||
91029925|NCT01199861|181944169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Inhibition|38.0||||||95.0|||||||One minus the back-transformed estimate for the treatment difference was interpreted as the relative inhibition of an immune response caused by fingolimod 0.5 mg compared to placebo; it was presented as a percentage and referred to as 'inhibition'.|The inhibition of an immune response to the A/California/7/09 (H1N1) strain of the seasonal influenza vaccine was assessed by the relative difference of the geometric mean antibody titer ratio on fingolimod as compared to placebo six weeks after a single dose of seasonal influenza vaccine.||||
91095320|NCT01134042|182073934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.193|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.108|0.277|||ANCOVA|||||0.277|0.108|<0.001
91095321|NCT01134042|182073934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.127|0.294|||ANCOVA|||||0.294|0.127|<0.001
90847807|NCT01798849|181561467|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-2.34||||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|1.02|||Mixed effects model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||1.02|-5.70|0.165
91095322|NCT01134042|182073934|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the confidence interval (CI: 0.025, 1-sided significance level) for the mean difference in change from Baseline in clinic visit trough FEV1 of FF 200 µg OD versus FP 500 µg BID was greater than -125 milliliters.|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.018|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.066|0.102||||||||0.102|-0.066|
90847808|NCT01798849|181561467|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-3.53||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.86|-0.21|||Mixed effects model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||-0.21|-6.86|0.038
90847809|NCT01798849|181561467|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-6.32||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.55|-3.1|||Mixed effects model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||-3.10|-9.55|0.000
90847810|NCT01798849|181561467|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-6.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.35|-3.92|||Mixed effects model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||-3.92|-9.35|<0.0001
90847811|NCT01798849|181561468|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-2.67||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.14|0.8|||Mixed effect model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||0.80|-6.14|0.128
90899421|NCT03502616|181665101|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.216||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.20|-1.05|0.0041
90899422|NCT03502616|181665101|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.215||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.17|-1.02|0.0062
90899423|NCT03502616|181665101|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.255||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|-0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.13|-1.13|0.0140
90899424|NCT03502616|181665101|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.225||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 32: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.22|-1.11|0.0035
90899425|NCT03502616|181665101|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.253||0.0645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 40: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.03|-0.97|0.0645
90899426|NCT03502616|181665101|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.255||0.0341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.04|-1.05|0.0341
91095323|NCT01134042|182073935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.136||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.27|||ANCOVA|||||0.270|0.001|0.048
91095324|NCT01134042|182073935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.206||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.073|0.339|||ANCOVA|||||0.339|0.073|0.003
91095325|NCT03345004|182073945|SUPERIORITY||Estimated ratio|1.091|||=|0.5009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.845|1.408|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.408|0.845|= 0.5009
91095326|NCT03345004|182073945|SUPERIORITY||Estimated ratio|1.557|||=|0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.126|2.153|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.153|1.126|= 0.0078
90847812|NCT01798849|181561468|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-0.76||||0.305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.24|0.72|||Mixed effect model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||0.72|-2.24|0.305
91095327|NCT00984867|182073976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.072|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.34||Significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). A hierarchical closed testing procedure was used to control Type I error across the primary \& key secondary objectives, based on data from both strata combined|ANCOVA|with treatment group and stratum as effects and baseline value as covariate||H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0. The study consisted of two strata: sitagliptin monotherapy group and sitagliptin plus metformin group||-0.34|-0.62|<0.0001
91095328|NCT00984867|182073977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2466|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.37|-1.4||Significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure|ANCOVA|with treatment group and stratum as effects and baseline value as covariate||H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0. The study consisted of two strata: sitagliptin monotherapy group and sitagliptin plus metformin group||-1.40|-2.37|<0.0001
91095329|NCT00984867|182073978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1106|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.62||Significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure|ANCOVA|with treatment group and stratum as effects and baseline value as covariate||H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0. The study consisted of two strata: sitagliptin monotherapy group and sitagliptin plus metformin group||-0.62|-1.05|<0.0001
91095330|NCT00984867|182073979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.32|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.45|-21.4||Significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure|ANCOVA|with treatment group and stratum as effects and baseline value as covariate||H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0. The study consisted of two strata: sitagliptin monotherapy group and sitagliptin plus metformin group||-21.40|-34.45|<0.0001
91095331|NCT00984867|182073980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4659||0.5583||95.0|-3.75|2.03||Not significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure|ANCOVA|with treatment group and stratum as effects and baseline value as covariate||H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0. The study consisted of two strata: sitagliptin monotherapy group and sitagliptin plus metformin group||2.03|-3.75|0.5583
91095332|NCT00984867|182073981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.516|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.73|-7.9||Not significant. Hierarchical testing procedure stopped at previous endpoint|ANCOVA|with treatment group and stratum as effect and baseline value as covariate||H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0. The study consisted of two strata: sitagliptin monotherapy group and sitagliptin plus metformin group||-7.90|-21.73|
91095333|NCT00984867|182073982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|18.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|41.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.1|26.4||Not significant. Hierarchical testing procedure stopped at previous endpoint|Regression, Logistic|Based on methodology of Zhang, Tsiatis \& Davidian and Davidian, Tsiatis, Zhang \& Lu, with adjustment for baseline value and stratum||H0: proportion(treat) minus proportion(placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: proportion(treat) minus proportion(placebo) =/= 0.||26.4|11.1|
91095334|NCT00671060|182073983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.682|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Rates of success were compared across study arms. The study was a separate, non-comparative efficacy study. In order to have 80% power (alpha=.05) to demonstrate that each misoprostol regimen was 95%, ± 5%, effective, we enrolled 73 women in each arm of the study, or 146 women total. The sample size also provided 80% power (alpha=.05) to detect a significant difference between treatments should 200μg prove 98% effective and 100μg prove 88% effective.||||<0.05
91095335|NCT00267670|182074046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.46|||||||ANOVA|||Sample size estimates were based on 30% reduction in ALT in the treatment group \& 15% reduction in the placebo group. With a sample size of 30 planned (20 treatment:10 placebo), the study was designed to have a power of 90% to detect a difference in means of 1.25 standard deviations (ES=1.25), \& a power of 80% to detect a difference in means of 1.1 standard deviations (ES=1.1), based on calculations using power index, z-table, \& accounting for unequal sample size: n1 = 20, n2 = 10, a = 0.05.||||0.46
91095336|NCT00267670|182074047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis was that there was no difference between mean hepatic expression of TNF-alpha receptors in patient with NASH. This was a secondary outcome and no power analysis was done.||||0.16
91095337|NCT00267670|182074048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.94|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.94
91095338|NCT00267670|182074049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.49
91095339|NCT02107898|182074063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-64.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.5|-59.8||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Alirocumab group was compared to placebo group using an appropriate contrast statement.||-59.8|-68.5|<0.0001
90847813|NCT01798849|181561468|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-2.03||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.23|0.17|||Mixed effects model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||0.17|-4.23|0.070
91104204|NCT04003142|182094842|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53|<|0.001||95.0|-3.69|-1.6||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 10||-1.60|-3.69|<0.001
90847814|NCT01798849|181561468|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-2.84||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.48|-0.19|||Mixed effects model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||-0.19|-5.48|0.036
90899427|NCT03502616|181665102|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|-0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.11|-0.33|0.0001
90899428|NCT03502616|181665102|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.20|-0.47|<0.0001
90899429|NCT03502616|181665102|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.075|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.31|-0.61|<0.0001
90899430|NCT03502616|181665102|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.075|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.32|-0.62|<0.0001
90899431|NCT03502616|181665102|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.077|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.37|-0.67|<0.0001
90899432|NCT03502616|181665102|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.086||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.12|||LS mean difference|||Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.12|-0.46|0.0008
90899433|NCT03502616|181665102|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.086||0.0116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|-0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 32: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.05|-0.39|0.0116
91095340|NCT02107898|182074064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-65.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.4|-61.3||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||-61.3|-69.4|<0.0001
91095341|NCT02107898|182074065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-61.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.3|-57.7||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-57.7|-65.3|<0.0001
90899434|NCT03502616|181665102|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.093||0.0416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 40: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.01|-0.37|0.0416
90899435|NCT03502616|181665102|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.092||0.0915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.03|-0.34|0.0915
90847815|NCT01798849|181561468|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-4.89|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|-3.37|||Mixed effects model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||-3.37|-6.40|<0.0001
90899436|NCT03502616|181665103|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.706|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|4.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||4.24|1.46|<0.0001
90847816|NCT01798849|181561468|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-5.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.29|-3.46|||Mixed effects model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||-3.46|-7.29|<0.0001
90847817|NCT01798849|181561468|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-5.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|-4.65|||Mixed effect model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||-4.65|-6.70|<0.0001
90847818|NCT01798849|181561468|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-8.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.95|-4.5|||Mixed effect model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||-4.50|-11.95|<0.0001
90847819|NCT01798849|181561469|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-1.77||||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.59|1.05|||Mixed effect model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||1.05|-4.59|0.212
90847820|NCT01798849|181561469|OTHER||Difference in LS means|3.32||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|6.64|||Mixed effect model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||6.64|0.00|0.050
90847821|NCT01798849|181561469|OTHER||Difference in LS means|2.48||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|4.47|||Mixed effect model||Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||4.47|0.49|0.016
90847822|NCT01798849|181561469|OTHER||Difference in LS means|5.21||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|8.92|||Mixed effect model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||8.92|1.51|0.007
90847823|NCT01798849|181561469|OTHER||Difference in LS means|7.06||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.03|11.1|||Mixed effect model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||11.10|3.03|0.001
90847824|NCT01798849|181561469|OTHER||Difference in LS means|6.62||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.54|10.71|||Mixed effect model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||10.71|2.54|0.002
90847825|NCT01798849|181561469|OTHER||Difference in LS means|8.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.45|10.76|||Mixed effect model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||10.76|5.45|<0.0001
90847826|NCT01798849|181561469|OTHER||Difference in LS means|14.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.54|17.57|||Mixed effect model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||17.57|10.54|<0.0001
90899437|NCT03502616|181665103|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.761|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.11|5.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||5.10|2.11|<0.0001
90899438|NCT03502616|181665103|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|5.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.902|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.65|7.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||7.20|3.65|<0.0001
90899439|NCT03502616|181665103|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|5.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.943|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.15|6.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||6.86|3.15|<0.0001
90899440|NCT03502616|181665103|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.012||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|5.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||5.42|1.44|0.0008
90847827|NCT01798849|181561470|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-1.66||||0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.24|0.93|||Mixed effect model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||0.93|-4.24|0.202
90899441|NCT03502616|181665103|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.064||0.139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|3.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||3.68|-0.52|0.1390
90899442|NCT03502616|181665103|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.024||0.5217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|2.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 32: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||2.67|-1.36|0.5217
90899443|NCT03502616|181665103|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.027||0.1415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|3.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 40: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||3.54|-0.51|0.1415
90847828|NCT01798849|181561470|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-2.23||||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.03|0.57|||Mixed effect model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||0.57|-5.03|0.115
90847829|NCT01798849|181561470|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-2.75||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|-0.09|||Mixed effect model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||-0.09|-5.40|0.043
90847830|NCT01798849|181561470|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-0.19||||0.901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.22|2.84|||Mixed effect model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||2.84|-3.22|0.901
90899444|NCT03502616|181665103|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.128||0.0533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|4.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||4.41|-0.03|0.0533
91029926|NCT01199861|181944169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Inhibition|-28.0||||||95.0|||||||One minus the back-transformed estimate for the treatment difference was interpreted as the relative inhibition of an immune response caused by fingolimod 0.5 mg compared to placebo; it was presented as a percentage and referred to as 'inhibition'.|The inhibition of an immune response to the A/Perth/16/2009 (H3N2) strain of the seasonal influenza vaccine was assessed by the relative difference of the geometric mean antibody titer ratio on fingolimod as compared to placebo six weeks after a single dose of seasonal influenza vaccine.||||
91029927|NCT01199861|181944169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Inhibition|48.0||||||95.0|||||||One minus the back-transformed estimate for the treatment difference was interpreted as the relative inhibition of an immune response caused by fingolimod 0.5 mg compared to placebo; it was presented as a percentage and referred to as 'inhibition'.|The inhibition of an immune response to the B/Brisbane/60/2008 strain of the seasonal influenza vaccine was assessed by the relative difference of the geometric mean antibody titer ratio on fingolimod as compared to placebo six weeks after a single dose of seasonal influenza vaccine.||||
91095342|NCT02107898|182074066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-62.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.8|-58.3||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-58.3|-65.8|<0.0001
90847831|NCT01798849|181561470|OTHER||Mixed effect model|-4.15||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.74|-1.57|||Mixed effect model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|||-1.57|-6.74|0.002
90847832|NCT01798849|181561470|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-3.77||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.48|-1.06|||Mixed effect model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||-1.06|-6.48|0.008
90847833|NCT01798849|181561470|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-1.77||||0.201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.51|0.98|||Mixed effect model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||0.98|-4.51|0.201
90847834|NCT01798849|181561470|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-4.74||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.37|-2.11|||Mixed effect model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||-2.11|-7.37|0.001
90847835|NCT01798849|181561471|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-2.53||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.97|-0.1|||Mixed effect model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||-0.10|-4.97|0.042
90847836|NCT01798849|181561471|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-3.29||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.71|-0.88|||Mixed effect model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||-0.88|-5.71|0.010
90847837|NCT01798849|181561471|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-6.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.94|-3.89|||Mixed effect model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||-3.89|-8.94|<0.0001
90847838|NCT01798849|181561471|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-8.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.32|-5.25|||Mixed effect model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||-5.25|-11.32|<0.0001
90847839|NCT01798849|181561472|OTHER||Difference in LS means|0.54||||0.638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|2.87|||Mixed effect model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||2.87|-1.80|0.638
90847840|NCT01798849|181561472|OTHER||Difference in LS means|0.72||||0.616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|3.63|||Mixed effect model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||3.63|-2.20|0.616
90847841|NCT01798849|181561472|OTHER||Difference in LS means|2.33||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|4.56|||Mixed effect model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||4.56|0.11|0.041
90847842|NCT01798849|181561472|OTHER||Difference in LS means|9.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.98|11.3|||Mixed effect model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||11.30|6.98|<0.0001
90847843|NCT01798849|181561473|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-0.65||||0.677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.81|2.52|||Mixed effect model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||2.52|-3.81|0.677
90847844|NCT01798849|181561473|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-0.92||||0.554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.08|2.24|||Mixed effect model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||2.24|-4.08|0.554
91029928|NCT04817891|181944171|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
90847845|NCT01798849|181561473|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-2.29||||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.35|0.78|||Mixed effect model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||0.78|-5.35|0.137
90847846|NCT01798849|181561473|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-3.78||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.37|-1.19|||Mixed effect model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||-1.19|-6.37|0.006
91029929|NCT04817891|181944172|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018||||||p value for the Ventral Attention Network (network segregation)|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.018
90847847|NCT00743106|181561491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.0||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.0|9.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The mean decrease in GFR was an estimated 11% less for fenoldopam than for placebo (interim-adjusted 95% confidence interval 9% more, 31% less).|||9|-31|0.15
90847848|NCT00743106|181561492|SUPERIORITY||ratio of geometric mean|0.98||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||We assessed the effect of fenoldopam on creatinine over time (immediately postoperatively and on PODs 1-4). A linear mixed effects model was used to assess the main effect of fenoldopam on the postoperative log-transformed (base 2) serum creatinine, adjusting for baseline serum creatinine.||1.19|0.79|0.78
90847849|NCT02663934|181561505|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.15||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.25|||ANOVA|||||.25|.05|0.31
90847850|NCT02663934|181561506|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.42||||0.24|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Change in Global CBF in EXS vs. SIS||||.24
90847851|NCT02663934|181561506|OTHER||Slope|0.41||||0.02|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Change in Strength \& Change in Frontal Brain Volume in EXS||||.02
90847852|NCT02663934|181561506|OTHER||Slope|0.4||||0.02|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Changes in Brain Volumes associated with changes Memory Performance in EXS||||0.02
90847853|NCT02663934|181561507|OTHER||Slope|0.47||||0.005|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Increases in Time Spent in MVPA and Increased Learning Performance in EXS||||.005
90847854|NCT04784442|181561509|SUPERIORITY|The overall Type I error rate will be controlled by performing comparison versus the placebo group starting from the highest ETC 1002 dose group by a closed testing procedure at a two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Least squares mean difference|-19.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.768|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.81|-13.88|||ANCOVA||The least squares mean difference was calculated as the value for the ETC-1002 180 mg arm minus the value for the placebo arm.|||-13.88|-24.81|<0.001
90847855|NCT04784442|181561509|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-19.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.798|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.45|-14.41|||ANCOVA||The least squares mean difference was calculated as the value for the ETC-1002 120 mg arm minus the value for the placebo arm.|||-14.41|-25.45|<0.001
90847856|NCT04784442|181561509|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-8.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.813||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.22|-3.12|||ANCOVA||||The least squares mean difference was calculated as the value for the ETC-1002 60 mg arm minus the value for the placebo arm.|-3.12|-14.22|0.002
90847857|NCT01711216|181561594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3181|TWO_SIDED|||||Test statistic (d.f.) 1.0157 (1) A Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test was used, exact p-value was computed using Monte Carlo estimation.|Mantel Haenszel|||Test of association between the number of regular menstrual cycles during the follow-up period and the number of dydrogesterone therapy cycles received during the treatment period (Follow-up Analysis Set) Follow-up Analysis Set (N=915)||||0.3181
90847858|NCT03060551|181561596|OTHER|Because most efficacy data consisted of non-parameteric variables, results were shown as median values and interquartile range. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed to analyze differences between baseline and at 2W, 6W, 12W and 24W, respectively, using IBM-SPSS Statistics version 24.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Statistical significance was considered at p \< 0.05. Safety profiles were descriptively analyzed.||||||0.256||||||p value (24 weeks-baseline)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.256
90847859|NCT03060551|181561597|OTHER|Because most efficacy data consisted of non-parameteric variables, results were shown as median values and interquartile range. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed to analyze differences between baseline and at 2W, 6W, 12W and 24W, respectively, using IBM-SPSS Statistics version 24.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Statistical significance was considered at p \< 0.05. Safety profiles were descriptively analyzed.||||||0.682||||||p-value (24 weeks-baseline)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.682
90847860|NCT03060551|181561598|OTHER|Because most efficacy data consisted of non-parameteric variables, results were shown as median values and interquartile range. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed to analyze differences between baseline and at 2W, 6W, 12W and 24W, respectively, using IBM-SPSS Statistics version 24.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Statistical significance was considered at p \< 0.05. Safety profiles were descriptively analyzed.||||||0.151||||||p-value (24 weeks-baseline)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.151
90847861|NCT03060551|181561599|OTHER|Because most efficacy data consisted of non-parameteric variables, results were shown as median values and interquartile range. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed to analyze differences between baseline and at 2W, 6W, 12W and 24W, respectively, using IBM-SPSS Statistics version 24.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Statistical significance was considered at p \< 0.05. Safety profiles were descriptively analyzed.||||||0.516||||||p-value (24 weeks-baseline)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.516
90847862|NCT03060551|181561600|OTHER|Because most efficacy data consisted of non-parameteric variables, results were shown as median values and interquartile range. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed to analyze differences between baseline and at 2W, 6W, 12W and 24W, respectively, using IBM-SPSS Statistics version 24.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Statistical significance was considered at p \< 0.05. Safety profiles were descriptively analyzed.|||||>|0.999||||||p-value (24 weeks-baseline)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.999
90847863|NCT03060551|181561601|OTHER|Because most efficacy data consisted of non-parameteric variables, results were shown as median values and interquartile range. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed to analyze differences between baseline and at 2W, 6W, 12W and 24W, respectively, using IBM-SPSS Statistics version 24.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Statistical significance was considered at p \< 0.05. Safety profiles were descriptively analyzed.||||||0.034||||||p-value (24 weeks-baseline)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.034
90847864|NCT03060551|181561602|OTHER|Because most efficacy data consisted of non-parameteric variables, results were shown as median values and interquartile range. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed to analyze differences between baseline and at 2W, 6W, 12W and 24W, respectively, using IBM-SPSS Statistics version 24.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Statistical significance was considered at p \< 0.05. Safety profiles were descriptively analyzed.||||||0.656||||||p-value (24 weeks-baseline)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.656
90899445|NCT03502616|181665104|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.352||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||1.94|0.55|0.0005
91029930|NCT04817891|181944172|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.944||||||p value for the Cingulo Opercular Network (network segregation)|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.944
90847865|NCT03060551|181561603|OTHER|Because most efficacy data consisted of non-parameteric variables, results were shown as median values and interquartile range. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed to analyze differences between baseline and at 2W, 6W, 12W and 24W, respectively, using IBM-SPSS Statistics version 24.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Statistical significance was considered at p \< 0.05. Safety profiles were descriptively analyzed.||||||0.096||||||p-value (24 weeks-baseline)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.096
91095343|NCT02107898|182074067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-53.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.5|-49.1||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-49.1|-57.5|<0.0001
91095344|NCT02107898|182074068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-53.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.8|-49.8||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-49.8|-57.8|<0.0001
90847866|NCT03060551|181561604|OTHER|Because most efficacy data consisted of non-parameteric variables, results were shown as median values and interquartile range. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed to analyze differences between baseline and at 2W, 6W, 12W and 24W, respectively, using IBM-SPSS Statistics version 24.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Statistical significance was considered at p \< 0.05. Safety profiles were descriptively analyzed.||||||0.019||||||p-value (24 weeks-baseline)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.019
90847867|NCT03060551|181561605|OTHER|Because most efficacy data consisted of non-parameteric variables, results were shown as median values and interquartile range. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed to analyze differences between baseline and at 2W, 6W, 12W and 24W, respectively, using IBM-SPSS Statistics version 24.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Statistical significance was considered at p \< 0.05. Safety profiles were descriptively analyzed.||||||0.05||||||p-value (24 weeks-baseline)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.050
90847868|NCT03060551|181561606|OTHER|Because most efficacy data consisted of non-parameteric variables, results were shown as median values and interquartile range. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed to analyze differences between baseline and at 2W, 6W, 12W and 24W, respectively, using IBM-SPSS Statistics version 24.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Statistical significance was considered at p \< 0.05. Safety profiles were descriptively analyzed.||||||0.372||||||p-value (24 weeks-baseline)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.372
90847869|NCT03060551|181561607|OTHER|Because most efficacy data consisted of non-parameteric variables, results were shown as median values and interquartile range. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed to analyze differences between baseline and at 2W, 6W, 12W and 24W, respectively, using IBM-SPSS Statistics version 24.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Statistical significance was considered at p \< 0.05. Safety profiles were descriptively analyzed.||||||0.024||||||p-value (24 weeks-baseline)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.024
90847870|NCT03060551|181561608|OTHER|Because most efficacy data consisted of non-parameteric variables, results were shown as median values and interquartile range. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed to analyze differences between baseline and at 2W, 6W, 12W and 24W, respectively, using IBM-SPSS Statistics version 24.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Statistical significance was considered at p \< 0.05. Safety profiles were descriptively analyzed.||||||0.188||||||p-value (24 weeks-baseline)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.188
90847871|NCT03060551|181561609|OTHER|Because most efficacy data consisted of non-parameteric variables, results were shown as median values and interquartile range. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed to analyze differences between baseline and at 2W, 6W, 12W and 24W, respectively, using IBM-SPSS Statistics version 24.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Statistical significance was considered at p \< 0.05. Safety profiles were descriptively analyzed.||||||0.372||||||p-value (24 weeks-baseline)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.372
90847872|NCT03060551|181561610|OTHER|Because most efficacy data consisted of non-parameteric variables, results were shown as median values and interquartile range. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed to analyze differences between baseline and at 2W, 6W, 12W and 24W, respectively, using IBM-SPSS Statistics version 24.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Statistical significance was considered at p \< 0.05. Safety profiles were descriptively analyzed.||||||0.633||||||p-value (24 weeks-baseline)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.633
90847873|NCT03060551|181561611|OTHER|Because most efficacy data consisted of non-parameteric variables, results were shown as median values and interquartile range. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed to analyze differences between baseline and at 2W, 6W, 12W and 24W, respectively, using IBM-SPSS Statistics version 24.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Statistical significance was considered at p \< 0.05. Safety profiles were descriptively analyzed.||||||0.38||||||p-value (24 weeks-baseline)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.380
90847874|NCT03698591|181561618|OTHER||F-statistic|6.155||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value corresponds to 3 way interaction. A priori significance threshold of p \< .05.|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis was that distancing performance would not differ by arm of the study. Within-subjects factors included task condition (distancing vs. distraction) and study arm. Study arm order was used as a between-subjects factor.||||.019
90847875|NCT03698591|181561618|OTHER||F-statistic|5.911||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value corresponds to two-way interaction. A priori significance threshold of p \< .05.|ANOVA|||This analysis evaluated the two-way interaction of task condition and study period. The null hypothesis was that distancing performance would not differ by study period. Within-subjects factors included task condition and study period.||||.021
90847876|NCT03698591|181561618|OTHER||t-statistic|-1.656||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori significance threshold of p \< .05.|t-test, 2 sided|||A dependent-samples t-test was used to compare distancing performance between study periods 1 and 2. The null hypothesis was that distancing performance would not differ by study period.||||.108
91029931|NCT04817891|181944173|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.239|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.239
91029932|NCT04817891|181944174|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.168|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.168
91095345|NCT02107898|182074069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-57.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.5|-53.5||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-53.5|-61.5|<0.0001
91095346|NCT02107898|182074070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-58.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.3|-54.8||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-54.8|-62.3|<0.0001
90847877|NCT03698591|181561618|OTHER||F-statistic|0.004||||0.948|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold of p \< .05. This value reflects the test of the main effect of study arm.|ANOVA|||For this analysis, study arm and task condition were used as within-subjects factors, study arm order was used as a between-subjects factor, and TMS stimulator intensity and brain-target-to-scalp distance were used as covariates.||||.948
90847878|NCT03698591|181561619|OTHER||F-statistic|0.031||||0.862|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value corresponds to the two way interaction of task condition and study arm . A priori significance threshold of p \< .05.|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis was that distancing self-reported effort would not differ by arm of the study. Within-subjects factors included task condition (distancing vs. distraction) and study arm. Study arm order was used as a between-subjects factor.||||.862
90847879|NCT03698591|181561619|OTHER||F-statistic|4.04||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value corresponds to the main effect of study period. A priori threshold of p \< .05.|ANOVA|||A follow-up ANOVA was run with within-subjects factors of task condition and study period.||||.054
90847880|NCT03698591|181561619|OTHER||t-statistic|2.694||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori significance threshold of p \< .05.|t-test, 2 sided|||A follow-up dependent-samples t-test was run to test a potential effect of study period on distancing effort.||||.012
90847881|NCT03698591|181561619|OTHER||F-statistic|3.196||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold of p \< .05. This value reflects the test of the main effect of study arm.|ANOVA|||Post-hoc analyses were used to explore treatment effects using covariates related to the treatment parameters. For this analysis, study arm and task condition were used as within-subjects factors, study arm order was used as a between-subjects factor, and TMS stimulator intensity and brain-target-to-scalp distance were used as covariates.||||.085
90847882|NCT03698591|181561619|OTHER||F-statistic|7.162||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold of p \< .05. This value reflects the test of the main effect of study arm.|ANOVA|||This analysis examined the effect of study arm specifically on distancing effort. The within-subjects factor was study arm, between-subjects factor was study arm order, and TMS stimulator intensity and brain-target-to-scalp distance were used as covariates.||||.013
90847883|NCT03698591|181561620|OTHER||F-statistic|6.155||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value corresponds to 3 way interaction. A priori significance threshold of p \< .05.|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis was that distraction performance would not differ by arm of the study. Within-subjects factors included task condition (distancing vs. distraction) and study arm. Study arm order was used as a between-subjects factor.||||.019
90899446|NCT03502616|181665104|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.381|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||2.45|0.95|<0.0001
90899447|NCT03502616|181665104|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.423|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|3.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||3.02|1.35|<0.0001
90899448|NCT03502616|181665104|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.439|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|2.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||2.84|1.11|<0.0001
90899449|NCT03502616|181665104|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.454||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|2.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||2.45|0.67|0.0007
90899450|NCT03502616|181665104|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.485||0.2018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|1.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||1.58|-0.33|0.2018
90899451|NCT03502616|181665104|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.465||0.6432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 32: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||1.13|-0.70|0.6432
90899452|NCT03502616|181665104|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.4092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|1.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 40: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||1.31|-0.54|0.4092
90847884|NCT03698591|181561620|OTHER||F-statistic|5.911||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value corresponds to two-way interaction. A priori significance threshold of p \< .05.|ANOVA|||This analysis evaluated the two-way interaction of task condition and study period. The null hypothesis was that distraction performance would not differ by study period. Within-subjects factors included task condition and study period.||||.021
90847885|NCT03698591|181561620|OTHER||t-statistic|1.282||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori significance threshold of p \< .05.|t-test, 2 sided|||A dependent-samples t-test was used to compare distraction performance between study periods 1 and 2. The null hypothesis was that distraction performance would not differ by study period.||||.210
90847886|NCT03698591|181561620|OTHER||F-statistic|0.004||||0.948|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold of p \< .05. This value reflects the test of the main effect of study arm.|ANOVA|||Post-hoc analyses were used to explore treatment effects using covariates related to the treatment parameters. For this analysis, study arm and task condition were used as within-subjects factors, study arm order was used as a between-subjects factor, and TMS stimulator intensity and brain-target-to-scalp distance were used as covariates.||||.948
90847887|NCT03698591|181561621|OTHER||F-statistic|0.031||||0.862|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value corresponds to the two way interaction of task condition and study arm . A priori significance threshold of p \< .05.|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis was that distraction self-reported effort would not differ by arm of the study. Within-subjects factors included task condition (distancing vs. distraction) and study arm. Study arm order was used as a between-subjects factor.||||.862
90847888|NCT03698591|181561621|OTHER||F-statistic|4.04||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value corresponds to the main effect of study period. A priori threshold of p \< .05.|ANOVA|||A follow-up ANOVA was run with within-subjects factors of task condition and study period.||||.054
90847889|NCT03698591|181561621|OTHER||t-statistic|0.828||||0.415|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori significance threshold of p \< .05.|t-test, 2 sided|||A follow-up dependent-samples t-test was run to test the effect of study period on distraction effort.||||.415
90847890|NCT03698591|181561621|OTHER||F-statistic|3.196||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold of p \< .05. This value reflects the test of the main effect of study arm.|ANOVA|||Post-hoc analyses were used to explore treatment effects using covariates related to the treatment parameters. For this analysis, study arm and task condition were used as within-subjects factors, study arm order was used as a between-subjects factor, and TMS stimulator intensity and brain-target-to-scalp distance were used as covariates.||||.085
90847891|NCT03698591|181561621|OTHER||F-statistic|0.396||||0.535|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold of p \< .05. This value reflects the test of the main effect of study arm.|ANOVA|||This analysis examined the effect of study arm specifically on distraction performance. The within-subjects factor was study arm, between-subjects factor was study arm order, and TMS stimulator intensity and brain-target-to-scalp distance were used as covariates.||||.535
90847892|NCT00893815|181561640|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.55||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.1||Threshold for statistical significance: 0.05|Regression, Logistic||HIV-positive / HIV-negative|||1.10|0.27|0.09
90847893|NCT00893815|181561641|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.61||Threshold for statistical significance: 0.05|Regression, Logistic||HIV-positive / HIV-negative|Comparing prevalence of verbal fluency impairment between HIV-positive and HIV-negative military beneficiaries||1.61|0.35|0.45
90847894|NCT00893815|181561641|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.56||Threshold for statistical significance: 0.05|Regression, Logistic||HIV-positive / HIV-negative|Comparing prevalence of abstraction executive functioning impairment between HIV-positive and HIV-negative military beneficiaries||1.56|0.35|0.43
90847895|NCT00893815|181561641|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|5.17||Threshold for statistical significance: 0.05|Regression, Logistic||HIV-positive / HIV-negative|Comparing prevalence of speed of information processing impairment between HIV-positive and HIV-negative military beneficiaries||5.17|0.41|0.56
90847896|NCT00893815|181561641|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.93||Threshold for statistical significance: 0.05|Regression, Logistic||HIV-positive / HIV-negative|Comparing prevalence of attention/working memory impairment between HIV-positive and HIV-negative military beneficiaries||2.93|0.60|0.49
90847897|NCT00893815|181561641|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.43||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.84||Threshold for statistical significance: 0.05|Regression, Logistic||HIV-positive / HIV-negative|Comparing prevalence of learning impairment between HIV-positive and HIV-negative military beneficiaries||0.84|0.22|0.01
90847898|NCT00893815|181561641|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|3.34||Threshold for statistical significance: 0.05|Regression, Logistic||HIV-positive / HIV-negative|Comparing prevalence of recall impairment between HIV-positive and HIV-negative military beneficiaries||3.34|0.58|0.46
90847899|NCT00893815|181561641|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.85||Threshold for statistical significance: 0.05|Regression, Logistic||HIV-positive / HIV-negative|Comparing prevalence of motor speed \& dexterity impairment between HIV-positive and HIV-negative military beneficiaries||1.85|0.43|0.76
90847900|NCT04303195|181561642|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.479||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|0.23||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|||||0.23|-1.67|0.1350
90847901|NCT04303195|181561642|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.493||0.0997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.79|0.16||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||0.16|-1.79|0.0997
90847902|NCT04303195|181561642|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.492||0.2195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|0.37||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||0.37|-1.58|0.2195
90847903|NCT04303195|181561643|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.498||0.7944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|0.85||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||0.85|-1.11|0.7944
90847904|NCT04303195|181561643|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.4956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|0.66||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||0.66|-1.36|0.4956
90847905|NCT04303195|181561643|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.511||0.626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|1.26||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||1.26|-0.76|0.6260
90847906|NCT04303195|181561644|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.543||0.8866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|1.0||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||1.00|-1.15|0.8866
90847907|NCT04303195|181561644|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.558||0.8699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|1.01||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||1.01|-1.19|0.8699
90847908|NCT04303195|181561644|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.556||0.7297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|1.29||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||1.29|-0.91|0.7297
90847909|NCT04303195|181561645|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.409||0.9034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.86||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||0.86|-0.76|0.9034
90899453|NCT03502616|181665104|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.506||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|1.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||1.81|-0.18|0.1070
91029933|NCT05630547|181944218|SUPERIORITY||LS Geometric Mean Ratio to Baseline|0.986||||0.8042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.881|1.103|||MMRM|||Analysis was performed using mixed-effect model with repeated measures (MMRM) including the fixed categorical effects of the treatment group, multiple sclerosis (MS) clinical subtype (relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis \[RRMS\], secondary progressive multiple sclerosis \[SPMS\], or primary progressive multiple sclerosis \[PPMS\]), visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, log-transformed baseline sNfL levels and log-transformed baseline sNfL levels-by-visit interaction.||1.103|0.881|0.8042
91029934|NCT01822548|181944220|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|Generalized linear model (GLM)||||||<0.05
91029935|NCT01822548|181944220|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.362|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.028|0.695|||ANOVA|adjustment for baseline value of EPC||||0.695|0.028|<0.05
91029936|NCT01822548|181944221|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.067|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.358|0.224|||ANOVA|||||0.224|-0.358|<0.05
91029937|NCT01734772|181944229|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Relative bioavailability|geometric Mean Ratio|149.38|STANDARD_DEVIATION|37.6||0.9456||90.0|124.388|179.383||p-value for ratio outside interval 80% - 125%|ANOVA|Adjustment for effects 'subject' and 'treatment'.|The dispersion value is actually the intraindividual gCV.|||179.383|124.388|0.9456
91029938|NCT01734772|181944229|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Relative bioavailability|geometric Mean Ratio|126.47|STANDARD_DEVIATION|33.3||0.5481||90.0|107.363|148.967||p-value for ratio outside interval 80% - 125%|ANOVA|Adjustment for effects 'subject' and 'treatment'.|The dispersion value is actually the intraindividual gCV.|||148.967|107.363|0.5481
90899454|NCT03502616|181665105|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.428||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||2.46|0.78|0.0002
90899455|NCT03502616|181665105|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.466|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||2.84|1.00|<0.0001
90899456|NCT03502616|181665105|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.549|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.18|4.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||4.34|2.18|<0.0001
91029939|NCT01734772|181944229|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Relative bioavailability|geometric Mean Ratio|127.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|31.6||0.5665||90.0|108.047|149.295||p-value for ratio outside interval 80% - 125%|ANOVA|Adjustment for effects 'subject' and 'treatment'.|The dispersion value is actually the intraindividual gCV.|||149.295|108.047|0.5665
91029940|NCT01734772|181944230|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Relative bioavailability|geometric Mean Ratio|164.74|STANDARD_DEVIATION|42.9||0.9841||90.0|133.945|202.619||p-value for ratio outside interval 80% - 125%|ANOVA|Adjustment for effects 'subject' and 'treatment'.|The dispersion value is actually the intraindividual gCV.|||202.619|133.945|0.9841
91029941|NCT01734772|181944230|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Relative bioavailability|geometric Mean Ratio|128.61|STANDARD_DEVIATION|39.0||0.6003||90.0|106.37|155.495||p-value for ratio outside interval 80% - 125%|ANOVA|Adjustment for effects 'subject' and 'treatment'.|The dispersion value is actually the intraindividual gCV.|||155.495|106.370|0.6003
90899457|NCT03502616|181665105|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.564|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.93|4.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||4.15|1.93|<0.0001
91029942|NCT01734772|181944230|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Relative bioavailability|gMean Ratio|123.82|STANDARD_DEVIATION|36.9||0.4656||90.0|102.695|149.288||p-value for ratio outside interval 80% - 125%|ANOVA|Adjustment for effects 'subject' and 'treatment'.|The dispersion value is actually the intraindividual gCV.|||149.288|102.695|0.4656
91029943|NCT02099461|181944233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean|0.15||||0.2966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.136|0.441|||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA analysis was performed on the log ratio of post-baseline to baseline Ki-67 index. Independent variables included treatment, stratification factor, and log transformed baseline Ki-67 index.||0.441|-0.136|0.2966
91029944|NCT02099461|181944233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean|-0.16||||0.2769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.447|0.13|||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA analysis was performed on the log ratio of post-baseline to baseline Ki-67 index. Independent variables included treatment, stratification factor, and log transformed baseline Ki-67 index.||0.130|-0.447|0.2769
91029945|NCT02099461|181944233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean|-0.09||||0.5238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.373|0.191|||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA analysis was performed on the log ratio of post-baseline to baseline Ki-67 index. Independent variables included treatment, stratification factor, and log transformed baseline Ki-67 index.||0.191|-0.373|0.5238
91095347|NCT02107898|182074071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-41.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.6|-38.4||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-38.4|-44.6|<0.0001
91095348|NCT02107898|182074072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-51.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.9|-47.6||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-47.6|-54.9|<0.0001
91095349|NCT02107898|182074073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-54.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.9|-51.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-51.1|-57.9|<0.0001
90899458|NCT03502616|181665105|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.621||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|3.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||3.09|0.65|0.0028
90899459|NCT03502616|181665105|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.638||0.1289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|2.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||2.23|-0.28|0.1289
90899460|NCT03502616|181665105|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.616||0.4698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|1.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 32: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||1.66|-0.77|0.4698
90899461|NCT03502616|181665105|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.603||0.0616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|2.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 40: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||2.32|-0.06|0.0616
90899462|NCT03502616|181665105|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.681||0.0455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|2.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||2.71|0.03|0.0455
90899463|NCT03502616|181665106|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.185|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|-0.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.52|-1.25|<0.0001
90899464|NCT03502616|181665106|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.215|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|-0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.80|-1.65|<0.0001
91029946|NCT02099461|181944233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.31||||0.1343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.098|||ANCOVA||Denosumab 60 mg - Placebo|An ANCOVA analysis was performed on the log ratio of post-baseline to Baseline Ki-67 index. Independent variables included treatment, stratification factor, and log transformed baseline Ki-67 index.||0.098|-0.720|0.1343
91029947|NCT02099461|181944233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.24||||0.2345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.646|0.161|||ANCOVA||Denosumab 120 mg - Placebo|An ANCOVA analysis was performed on the log ratio of post-baseline to Baseline Ki-67 index. Independent variables included treatment, stratification factor, and log transformed baseline Ki-67 index.||0.161|-0.646|0.2345
90899465|NCT03502616|181665106|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.232|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.17|-1.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-1.26|-2.17|<0.0001
90899466|NCT03502616|181665106|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.247|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-1.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-1.23|-2.20|<0.0001
90899467|NCT03502616|181665106|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|-1.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-1.05|-2.07|<0.0001
90899468|NCT03502616|181665106|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.281||0.0483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.00|-1.11|0.0483
90899469|NCT03502616|181665106|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.286||0.0357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|-0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 32: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.04|-1.17|0.0357
91029948|NCT00720122|181944234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.00558|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00653||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0081|0.0193|||Paired t-test|||A paired t-test was performed. The null hypothesis was that bone density would decrease over 6 months in females with anorexia nervosa, as observed in life course studies.||0.0193|-0.0081|0.40
91095350|NCT02107898|182074074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-39.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.7|-36.4||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-36.4|-41.7|<0.0001
91095351|NCT02107898|182074075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|552.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|105.6|2886.8||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model.|Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||2886.8|105.6|<0.0001
90847910|NCT04303195|181561645|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.9742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.63||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||0.63|-0.68|0.9742
90847911|NCT04303195|181561645|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.417||0.2235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|1.33||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||1.33|-0.31|0.2235
90847912|NCT04303195|181561646|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.118||0.3567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.12||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||0.12|-0.34|0.3567
90847913|NCT04303195|181561646|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.1129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.05||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||0.05|-0.43|0.1129
90847914|NCT04303195|181561646|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.15||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||0.15|-0.33|0.4590
90847915|NCT04303195|181561647|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.485||0.525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|0.65||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||0.65|-1.27|0.5250
90847916|NCT04303195|181561647|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.498||0.3991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|0.56||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||0.56|-1.41|0.3991
90847917|NCT04303195|181561647|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.497||0.9006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|0.92||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||0.92|-1.05|0.9006
90847918|NCT04303195|181561648|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.444||0.6009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|0.64||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||0.64|-1.11|0.6009
90847919|NCT04303195|181561648|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.454||0.4654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|0.56||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||0.56|-1.23|0.4654
90899470|NCT03502616|181665106|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.278||0.0508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 40: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.00|-1.09|0.0508
90847920|NCT04303195|181561648|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.455||0.8842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.97||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||0.97|-0.83|0.8842
90847921|NCT06457204|181561761|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|101.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.4|105.0|||||"Ratio of adjusted geometric means \[%\] calculated as: test/reference\*100.~Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 6.9."|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale included effects for sequence, subjects nested within sequences, period and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed. confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated based on the residual error from the ANOVA and quantiles from the t-distribution. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale to provide the point estimate and 90% CIs.||105.0|98.4|
90847922|NCT06457204|181561762|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|98.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.6|105.5|||||"Ratio of adjusted geometric means \[%\] calculated as: test/reference\*100.~Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 15.0."|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale included effects for sequence, subjects nested within sequences, period and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed. confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated based on the residual error from the ANOVA and quantiles from the t-distribution. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale to provide the point estimate and 90% CIs.||105.5|91.6|
91095352|NCT02107898|182074076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1367.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|137.8|13578.3||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model.|Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||13578.3|137.8|<0.0001
91095353|NCT02107898|182074077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-42.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.0|-36.0||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Robust|Multiple imputation approach followed by a robust regression model.|Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-36.0|-48.0|<0.0001
90847923|NCT06457204|181561763|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|101.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.2|105.0|||||"Ratio of adjusted geometric means \[%\] calculated as: test/reference\*100.~Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 7.1."|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale included effects for sequence, subjects nested within sequences, period and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed. confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated based on the residual error from the ANOVA and quantiles from the t-distribution. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale to provide the point estimate and 90% CIs.||105.0|98.2|
91095354|NCT02107898|182074078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-22.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.9|-13.1||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Robust|Multiple imputation approach followed by a robust regression model.|Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-13.1|-30.9|<0.0001
90847924|NCT01457352|181561767|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2062|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2062
90847925|NCT01457352|181561768|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0485|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.0485
90847926|NCT01065454|181561769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-2.71||||0.1044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.99|0.057||Baseline value, treatment group and region were used as fixed effects in the ANCOVA model|ANCOVA|||||0.057|-5.99|0.1044
90847927|NCT01065454|181561769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSMEANS Difference|-1.38||||0.5292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.71|2.94||Baseline value, treatment group and region were used as fixed effects in the ANCOVA model|ANCOVA|||||2.94|-5.71|0.5292
90847928|NCT01065454|181561769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-4.51||||0.0278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.52|-0.5||Baseline value, treatment group and region were used as fixed effects in the ANCOVA model|ANCOVA|||||-0.50|-8.52|0.0278
90847929|NCT01065454|181561769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|1.8||||0.3821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|5.84||Baseline value, treatment group and region were used as fixed effects in the ANCOVA model|ANCOVA|||||5.84|-2.25|0.3821
90847930|NCT01065454|181561769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|3.13||||0.2084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|8.02||Baseline value, treatment group and region were used as fixed effects in the ANCOVA model|ANCOVA|||||8.02|-1.76|0.2084
90847931|NCT01065454|181561769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-1.33||||0.5442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.66|3.0||Baseline value, treatment group and region were used as fixed effects in the ANCOVA model|ANCOVA|||||3.00|-5.66|0.5442
90847932|NCT01065454|181561770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|1.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|4.56||||||||4.56|-0.83|
90847933|NCT01065454|181561770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.12|3.51||||||||3.51|-3.12|
90847934|NCT01065454|181561770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.31|3.77||||||||3.77|-3.31|
90847935|NCT01065454|181561771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-46.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-89.4|-3.8||||||||-3.8|-89.4|
90899471|NCT03502616|181665106|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.282||0.0614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.03|-1.08|0.0614
90899472|NCT03502616|181665107|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.186|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|-0.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.53|-1.26|<0.0001
90899473|NCT03502616|181665107|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|-0.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.92|-1.75|<0.0001
90899474|NCT03502616|181665107|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.221|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|-1.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-1.54|-2.41|<0.0001
90899475|NCT03502616|181665107|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.245|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.37|-1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-1.40|-2.37|<0.0001
90899476|NCT03502616|181665107|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.243|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-1.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-1.14|-2.10|<0.0001
91095355|NCT02107898|182074079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.8||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|9.4||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||9.4|2.1|0.0020
90847936|NCT01065454|181561771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-32.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.9|20.4||||||||20.4|-84.9|
90847937|NCT01065454|181561771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-26.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.0|30.0||||||||30.0|-83.0|
90847938|NCT01065454|181561772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-89.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-172.9|5.5||||||||5.5|-172.9|
90847939|NCT01065454|181561772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-58.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-162.1|45.6||||||||45.6|-162.1|
90847940|NCT01065454|181561772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-43.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-153.7|67.1||||||||67.1|-153.7|
90847941|NCT01065454|181561773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-239.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-363.4|-115.3||||||||-115.3|-363.4|
90847942|NCT01065454|181561773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-120.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-274.4|32.6||||||||32.6|-274.4|
90847943|NCT01065454|181561773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-25.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-189.3|138.2||||||||138.2|-189.3|
90847944|NCT01065454|181561774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-446.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-687.4|-205.6||||||||-205.6|-687.4|
90847945|NCT01065454|181561774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-231.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-530.4|67.2||||||||67.2|-530.4|
90847946|NCT01065454|181561774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-34.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-353.7|283.7||||||||283.7|-353.7|
90847947|NCT01065454|181561775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|0.5||||||||0.5|-3.1|
90847948|NCT01065454|181561775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|1.3||||||||1.3|-3.1|
90847949|NCT01065454|181561775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|1.5||||||||1.5|-3.2|
90847950|NCT01065454|181561776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSS-MEANS Difference|-2.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|0.8||||||||0.8|-5.0|
90899477|NCT03502616|181665107|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.261||0.0492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.00|-1.03|0.0492
90899478|NCT03502616|181665107|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.266||0.2614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 32: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.22|-0.82|0.2614
91029949|NCT00661999|181944246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||With 176 evaluable participants per treatment arm, there would have been \>=80% power to detect a difference across two treatment arms of 15% in the primary hematopoietic response endpoint through Fisher's exact test, if the true percentage of patients that experience a hematopoietic response was at least 30% in the superior group, with a 2.5% type I error rate.||||0.39
91029950|NCT00661999|181944246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||With 176 evaluable participants per treatment arm, there would have been \>=80% power to detect a difference across two treatment arms of 15% in the primary hematopoietic response endpoint through Fisher's exact test, if the true percentage of patients that experience a hematopoietic response was at least 30% in the superior group, with a 2.5% type I error rate.||||0.73
90847951|NCT01065454|181561776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS_MEANS|1.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|4.9||||||||4.9|-2.1|
90847952|NCT01065454|181561776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS_MEANS Difference|-1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|2.7||||||||2.7|-4.9|
90847953|NCT01065454|181561777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|1.14||||||||1.14|-0.58|
90847954|NCT01065454|181561777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|1.87||||||||1.87|-0.23|
90847955|NCT01065454|181561777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|1.06||||||||1.06|-1.11|
90847956|NCT01065454|181561778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-3.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.76|1.09||||||||1.09|-8.76|
91029951|NCT00661999|181944248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.725||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||With 176 evaluable participants per treatment arm, there would have been \>=80% power to detect a difference across two treatment arms of 15% in the true percentage of patients that need transfusion was at least 30% in the superior group, with a 2.5% type I error rate.||||0.7250
91029952|NCT00661999|181944248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||With 176 evaluable participants per treatment arm, there would have been \>=80% power to detect a difference across two treatment arms of 15% in the true percentage of patients that need transfusion was at least 30% in the superior group, with a 2.5% type I error rate.||||0.8700
90847957|NCT01065454|181561778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANs Difference|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.05|6.01||||||||6.01|-6.05|
90847958|NCT01065454|181561778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-2.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.93|4.06||||||||4.06|-8.93|
90847959|NCT01065454|181561779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|1.24||||||||1.24|-0.21|
90847960|NCT01065454|181561779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS_MEANS Difference|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|1.69||||||||1.69|-0.07|
90847961|NCT01065454|181561779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|1.15||||||||1.15|-0.74|
90847962|NCT01065454|181561780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-5.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.33|7.22||||||||7.22|-17.33|
90847963|NCT01065454|181561780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.55|15.11||||||||15.11|-14.55|
90847964|NCT01065454|181561780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-5.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.05|10.69||||||||10.69|-21.05|
90847965|NCT01065454|181561781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS_MEANS Difference|-4.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.13|12.6||||||||12.60|-21.13|
90847966|NCT01065454|181561781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|2.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.59|23.16||||||||23.16|-17.59|
90847967|NCT01065454|181561781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-4.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.43|17.2||||||||17.20|-26.43|
90847968|NCT01065454|181561782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|5.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.38|17.95||||||||17.95|-7.38|
90847969|NCT01065454|181561782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|6.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.79|22.73||||||||22.73|-9.79|
90847970|NCT01065454|181561782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|10.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.14|26.84||||||||26.84|-6.14|
90847971|NCT01065454|181561783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.24||||||||0.24|-0.55|
90847972|NCT01065454|181561783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.67||||||||0.67|-0.34|
90847973|NCT01065454|181561783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.56||||||||0.56|-0.45|
90847974|NCT01065454|181561784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|10.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.48|38.81||||||||38.81|-18.48|
90847975|NCT01065454|181561784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|7.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.76|42.59||||||||42.59|-26.76|
90847976|NCT01065454|181561784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-6.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.08|31.78||||||||31.78|-44.08|
90847977|NCT01065454|181561786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.36|14.61||||||||14.61|-13.36|
90847978|NCT01065454|181561786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-9.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.32|5.39||||||||5.39|-24.32|
90847979|NCT01065454|181561786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.26|10.13||||||||10.13|-22.26|
90847980|NCT01065454|181561788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.1||||||||0.10|-0.04|
90847981|NCT01065454|181561788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.09||||||||0.09|-0.07|
90847982|NCT01065454|181561788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.11||||||||0.11|-0.07|
90847983|NCT01065454|181561789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-6.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.81|-0.78||||||||-0.78|-12.81|
90847984|NCT01065454|181561789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-6.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.96|0.35||||||||0.35|-13.96|
90847985|NCT01065454|181561789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-7.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.29|0.28||||||||0.28|-15.29|
91095356|NCT02107898|182074080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.0||||0.0382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|7.9||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||7.9|0.2|0.0382
91095357|NCT02107898|182074081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-41.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.0|-35.7||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Robust|Multiple imputation approach followed by a robust regression model.|Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-35.7|-47.0|<0.0001
90847986|NCT01065454|181561790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-24.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-117.58|68.33||||||||68.33|-117.58|
90847987|NCT01065454|181561790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-53.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-162.46|55.88||||||||55.88|-162.46|
90847988|NCT01065454|181561790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-8.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-135.78|119.06||||||||119.06|-135.78|
90847989|NCT01065454|181561791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-407.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1055.23|240.54||||||||240.54|-1055.23|
90847990|NCT01065454|181561791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-447.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1212.74|318.22||||||||318.22|-1212.74|
90899479|NCT03502616|181665107|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.272||0.0722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 40: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.04|-1.03|0.0722
91095358|NCT02107898|182074082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-15.5||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.4|-6.6||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Robust|Multiple imputation approach followed by a robust regression model.|Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-6.6|-24.4|0.0007
90847991|NCT01065454|181561791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-517.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1369.48|334.53||||||||334.53|-1369.48|
90847992|NCT01065454|181561792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.01||||||||0.01|-0.01|
90847993|NCT01065454|181561792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.0||||||||0.00|-0.02|
90847994|NCT01065454|181561792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.01||||||||0.01|-0.02|
90847995|NCT01065454|181561793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.03||||||||0.03|-0.04|
90899480|NCT03502616|181665107|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.275||0.0121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|-0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.15|-1.24|0.0121
91095359|NCT02107898|182074083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|9.3||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||9.3|3.7|<0.0001
91095360|NCT02107898|182074084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.6|9.0||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||9.0|3.6|<0.0001
91095361|NCT02469857|182074107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.135|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis utilized the mITT analysis population.||||0.135
91095362|NCT02469857|182074107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.025|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis utilized the US-mITT analysis population.||||0.025
91095363|NCT02469857|182074111|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.069|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.069
91095364|NCT02469857|182074112|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.401|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.401
91095365|NCT02469857|182074113|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.195|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.195
91095366|NCT02469857|182074114|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.596|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.596
91095367|NCT02469857|182074115|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.512|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.512
91095368|NCT02469857|182074116|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.033|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.033
91095369|NCT02469857|182074117|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.46|||Log Rank|||||1.46|0.50|0.554
90847996|NCT01065454|181561793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.05||||||||0.05|-0.04|
90847997|NCT01065454|181561793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.03||||||||0.03|-0.07|
90847998|NCT01065454|181561794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANSA Difference|-14.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.79|2.53||||||||2.53|-30.79|
90847999|NCT01065454|181561794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-12.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.89|7.43||||||||7.43|-32.89|
90848000|NCT01065454|181561794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-18.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.53|5.0||||||||5.00|-41.53|
90848001|NCT05141448|181561804|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was declared if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval of was below 0.05 logMAR|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.06|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger method was used for denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as senofilcon A C3 (EMO-118) minus omafilcon A|||0.06|0.02|
90848002|NCT02712047|181561805|OTHER||Ratio|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.43|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg versus (Vs) Placebo for Day 1, AM|||0.43|0.31|
90848003|NCT02712047|181561805|OTHER||Ratio|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.39|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 1, PM|||0.39|0.28|
90848004|NCT02712047|181561805|OTHER||Ratio|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.45|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 2, AM|||0.45|0.32|
90848005|NCT02712047|181561805|OTHER||Ratio|0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.44|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 2, PM|||0.44|0.31|
90848006|NCT02712047|181561805|OTHER||Ratio|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.54|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 3, AM|||0.54|0.39|
91095370|NCT02469857|182074118|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54||||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.26|||Log Rank|||||1.26|0.23|0.148
91095371|NCT02469857|182074119|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.73|||Log Rank|||||1.73|0.46|0.736
90848007|NCT02712047|181561805|OTHER||Ratio|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.56|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 3, PM|||0.56|0.40|
91029953|NCT00661999|181944249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6639||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||With 176 evaluable participants per treatment arm, there would have been \>=80% power to detect a difference across two treatment arms of 33% of the standard deviation in average hemoglobin levels through two-sided alternative, with a 2.5% type I error rate.||||0.6639
91029954|NCT00661999|181944249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.566||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||With 176 evaluable participants per treatment arm, there would have been \>=80% power to detect a difference across two treatment arms of 33% of the standard deviation in average hemoglobin levels through two-sided alternative, with a 2.5% type I error rate.||||0.5660
91029955|NCT00661999|181944250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1124||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||With 176 evaluable participants per treatment arm, there would have been \>=80% power to detect a difference across two treatment arms of 33% of the standard deviation in average hemoglobin levels through two-sided alternative, with a 2.5% type I error rate.||||0.1124
91095372|NCT02469857|182074120|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.34||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.25|||Log Rank|||||1.25|0.09|0.093
91095373|NCT02469857|182074121|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.46|||Log Rank|||||1.46|0.35|0.352
90848008|NCT02712047|181561805|OTHER||Ratio|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.66|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 4, AM|||0.66|0.47|
90848009|NCT02712047|181561805|OTHER||Ratio|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.69|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 4, PM|||0.69|0.49|
90848010|NCT02712047|181561805|OTHER||Ratio|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.75|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 5, AM|||0.75|0.53|
90848011|NCT02712047|181561805|OTHER||Ratio|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.8|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 5, PM|||0.80|0.57|
90848012|NCT02712047|181561805|OTHER||Ratio|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.8|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 6, AM|||0.80|0.56|
90899481|NCT03502616|181665108|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.207|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.51|-1.33|<0.0001
90899482|NCT03502616|181665108|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.216|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|-1.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-1.17|-2.02|<0.0001
90899483|NCT03502616|181665108|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.244|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-1.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-1.54|-2.50|<0.0001
91029956|NCT00661999|181944250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2051||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||With 176 evaluable participants per treatment arm, there would have been \>=80% power to detect a difference across two treatment arms of 33% of the standard deviation in average hemoglobin levels through two-sided alternative, with a 2.5% type I error rate.||||0.2051
91029957|NCT00661999|181944251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0648||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.0648
91029958|NCT00661999|181944253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||With 176 evaluable participants per treatment arm, there would have been \>=80% power to detect a difference across two treatment arms of 33% of the standard deviation in participant QOL through t-test/Wilcoxon test, with a 2.5% type I error rate. A 10 points shift on a 0-100 point scale in QOL measures is generally considered clinically relevant and specifically important in the use of UNISCALE, BFI and FACT-An.||||0.61
91029959|NCT00661999|181944253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||With 176 evaluable participants per treatment arm, there would have been \>=80% power to detect a difference across two treatment arms of 33% of the standard deviation in participant QOL through t-test/Wilcoxon test, with a 2.5% type I error rate. A 10 points shift on a 0-100 point scale in QOL measures is generally considered clinically relevant and specifically important in the use of UNISCALE, BFI and FACT-An.||||0.44
91095374|NCT02469857|182074122|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.21||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.99|||Log Rank|||||0.99|0.04|0.031
91095375|NCT02469857|182074123|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.024
91095376|NCT02469857|182074124|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.007
90848013|NCT02712047|181561805|OTHER||Ratio|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.74|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 6, PM|||0.74|0.52|
90848014|NCT02712047|181561805|OTHER||Ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.71|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 7, AM|||0.71|0.51|
90848015|NCT02712047|181561805|OTHER||Ratio|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.74|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 7, PM|Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 8, AM||0.74|0.52|
90848016|NCT02712047|181561805|OTHER||Ratio|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.81|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 8, AM|||0.81|0.58|
90848017|NCT02712047|181561805|OTHER||Ratio|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.8|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 8, PM|||0.80|0.57|
90848018|NCT02712047|181561805|OTHER||Ratio|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.78|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 9, AM|||0.78|0.56|
90848019|NCT02712047|181561805|OTHER||Ratio|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.8|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 9, PM|||0.80|0.57|
90848020|NCT02712047|181561805|OTHER||Ratio|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.78|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 10, AM|||0.78|0.55|
90848021|NCT02712047|181561805|OTHER||Ratio|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.81|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 10, PM|||0.81|0.58|
90848022|NCT02712047|181561805|OTHER||Ratio|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.86|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 11, AM|||0.86|0.61|
90848023|NCT02712047|181561805|OTHER||Ratio|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.86|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 11, PM|||0.86|0.61|
90848024|NCT02712047|181561805|OTHER||Ratio|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.85|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 12, AM|||0.85|0.61|
91095377|NCT02469857|182074125|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.034|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.034
91095378|NCT02469857|182074126|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.003
90848025|NCT02712047|181561805|OTHER||Ratio|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.84|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 12, PM|||0.84|0.60|
90848026|NCT02712047|181561805|OTHER||Ratio|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.86|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 13, AM|||0.86|0.61|
90848027|NCT02712047|181561805|OTHER||Ratio|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.93|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 13, PM|||0.93|0.66|
90848028|NCT02712047|181561805|OTHER||Ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.93|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 14, AM|||0.93|0.66|
90848029|NCT02712047|181561805|OTHER||Ratio|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.79|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 14, PM|||0.79|0.56|
90848030|NCT02712047|181561805|OTHER||Ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.93|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 15, AM|||0.93|0.66|
90848031|NCT02712047|181561805|OTHER||Ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.94|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 15, PM|||0.94|0.66|
90848032|NCT02712047|181561805|OTHER||Ratio|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.87|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 16, AM|||0.87|0.62|
90899484|NCT03502616|181665108|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.254|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-1.50|-2.50|<0.0001
90899485|NCT03502616|181665108|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|-1.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-1.32|-2.35|<0.0001
91095379|NCT01928849|182074143|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.74|||Regression, Logistic|Univariable Logistic regression||||1.74|0.34|0.53
90848033|NCT02712047|181561805|OTHER||Ratio|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.86|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 16, PM|||0.86|0.61|
90848034|NCT02712047|181561805|OTHER||Ratio|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.91|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 17, AM|||0.91|0.65|
90848035|NCT02712047|181561805|OTHER||Ratio|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.01|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 17, PM|||1.01|0.65|
90848036|NCT02712047|181561805|OTHER||Ratio|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.96|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 18, AM|||0.96|0.61|
90848037|NCT02712047|181561805|OTHER||Ratio|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.0|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 18, PM|||1.00|0.59|
90848038|NCT02712047|181561805|OTHER||Ratio|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.05|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 19, AM|||1.05|0.63|
90848039|NCT02712047|181561805|OTHER||Ratio|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.0|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 19, PM|||1.00|0.52|
90848040|NCT02712047|181561805|OTHER||Ratio|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.09|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 20, AM|||1.09|0.56|
90848041|NCT02712047|181561805|OTHER||Ratio|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.14|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 20, PM|||1.14|0.53|
90848042|NCT02712047|181561805|OTHER||Ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.22|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 21, AM|||1.22|0.59|
90848043|NCT02712047|181561805|OTHER||Ratio|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.13|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 21, PM|||1.13|0.50|
90848044|NCT02712047|181561805|OTHER||Ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.25|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 22, AM|||1.25|0.55|
90848045|NCT02712047|181561805|OTHER||Ratio|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.16|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 22, PM|||1.16|0.51|
90848046|NCT02712047|181561805|OTHER||Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.49|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 23, AM|||1.49|0.66|
90848047|NCT02712047|181561805|OTHER||Ratio|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.51|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 23, PM|||1.51|0.29|
90848048|NCT02712047|181561805|OTHER||Ratio|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.64|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 24, AM|||1.64|0.32|
90848049|NCT02712047|181561807|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|45.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.69|68.03|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 1, AM|||68.03|23.69|
90848050|NCT02712047|181561807|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|45.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.2|67.55|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 1, PM|||67.55|23.20|
90848051|NCT02712047|181561807|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|34.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.86|56.21|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 2, AM|||56.21|11.86|
90848052|NCT02712047|181561807|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|31.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.38|53.73|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 2, PM|||53.73|9.38|
90848053|NCT02712047|181561807|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|22.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|45.03|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 3, AM|||45.03|0.68|
90848054|NCT02712047|181561807|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|36.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.77|59.12|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 3, PM|||59.12|14.77|
90848055|NCT02712047|181561807|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|19.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|41.66|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 4, AM|||41.66|-3.00|
90848056|NCT02712047|181561807|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|20.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|43.03|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 4, PM|||43.03|-1.32|
90848057|NCT02712047|181561807|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|16.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.47|39.11|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 5, AM|||39.11|-5.47|
90848058|NCT02712047|181561807|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|21.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|44.14|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 5, PM|||44.14|-0.41|
90848059|NCT02712047|181561807|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|13.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.57|35.67|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 6, AM|||35.67|-9.57|
90848060|NCT02712047|181561807|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|28.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.38|51.98|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 6, PM|||51.98|5.38|
90848061|NCT02712047|181561807|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|17.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.08|39.26|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 7, AM|||39.26|-5.08|
90848062|NCT02712047|181561807|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|23.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|46.94|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 7, PM|||46.94|0.28|
90848063|NCT02712047|181561807|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|12.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|35.05|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 8, AM|||35.05|-9.30|
91095380|NCT01928849|182074144|OTHER|||||||0.95|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of rate of residual limb pain between treatment groups||||0.95
90899486|NCT03502616|181665108|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.274||0.0785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.06|-1.02|0.0785
90899487|NCT03502616|181665108|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.275||0.3047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 32: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.26|-0.82|0.3047
91029960|NCT00661999|181944254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||With 176 evaluable participants per treatment arm, there would have been \>=80% power to detect a difference across two treatment arms of 33% of the standard deviation in participant QOL through t-test/Wilcoxon test, with a 2.5% type I error rate. A 10 points shift on a 0-100 point scale in QOL measures is generally considered clinically relevant and specifically important in the use of UNISCALE, BFI and FACT-An.||||0.62
90848064|NCT02712047|181561807|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.67|29.68|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 8, PM|||29.68|-14.67|
90848065|NCT02712047|181561807|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.11|25.74|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 9, AM|||25.74|-19.11|
90848066|NCT02712047|181561807|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.34|26.0|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 9, PM|||26.00|-18.34|
90848067|NCT02712047|181561807|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|11.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.11|33.82|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 10, AM|||33.82|-11.11|
90848068|NCT02712047|181561807|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|27.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.43|50.03|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 10, PM|||50.03|5.43|
90848069|NCT02712047|181561807|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|14.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.57|36.98|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 11, AM|||36.98|-7.57|
90848070|NCT02712047|181561807|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.8|15.55|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 11, PM|||15.55|-28.80|
91095381|NCT01928849|182074144|OTHER|||||||0.74|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of rate of Phantom limb pain between treatment groups||||0.74
90848071|NCT02712047|181561807|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.39|27.11|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 12, AM|||27.11|-18.39|
90848072|NCT02712047|181561807|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.99|30.57|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 12, PM|||30.57|-13.99|
90848073|NCT02712047|181561807|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.64|22.92|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 13, AM|||22.92|-21.64|
90848074|NCT02712047|181561807|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.96|16.19|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 13, PM|||16.19|-29.96|
90848075|NCT02712047|181561807|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|28.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.76|51.13|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 14, AM|||51.13|5.76|
90848076|NCT02712047|181561807|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|12.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.13|34.74|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 14, PM|||34.74|-10.13|
90848077|NCT02712047|181561807|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.16|26.36|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 15, AM|||26.36|-18.16|
90848078|NCT02712047|181561807|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|18.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.89|41.63|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 15, PM|||41.63|-3.89|
91095382|NCT01928849|182074145|OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of opioid consumption postoperative hours 0-24||||0.27
91095383|NCT01928849|182074145|OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of opioid consumption postoperative hours 24-48||||0.27
90848079|NCT02712047|181561807|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.17|28.88|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 16, AM|||28.88|-16.17|
90848080|NCT02712047|181561807|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|19.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.27|41.41|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 16, PM|||41.41|-3.27|
90848081|NCT02712047|181561807|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|29.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.87|52.15|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 17, AM|||52.15|6.87|
90848082|NCT02712047|181561807|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.91|37.19|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 17, PM|||37.19|-17.91|
90848083|NCT02712047|181561807|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|24.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|53.73|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 18, AM|||53.73|-4.20|
90848084|NCT02712047|181561807|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|47.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.63|79.45|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 18, PM|||79.45|14.63|
90848085|NCT02712047|181561807|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|20.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|52.52|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 19, AM|||52.52|-12.30|
90848086|NCT02712047|181561807|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|25.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.02|65.27|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 19, PM|||65.27|-15.02|
90848087|NCT02712047|181561807|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.04|32.25|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 20, AM|||32.25|-48.04|
90848088|NCT02712047|181561807|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.22|54.25|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 20, PM|||54.25|-37.22|
90848089|NCT02712047|181561807|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|15.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.5|58.67|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 21, AM|||58.67|-28.50|
90848090|NCT02712047|181561807|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.35|55.73|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 21, PM|||55.73|-45.35|
90848091|NCT02712047|181561808|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.46|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 1, AM|||0.46|0.26|
90848092|NCT02712047|181561808|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.36|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 1, PM|||0.36|0.16|
90848093|NCT02712047|181561808|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.44|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 2, AM|||0.44|0.24|
91095384|NCT01928849|182074146|OTHER|||||||0.59|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of BPI average pain score||||0.59
91095385|NCT01928849|182074146|OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of BPI Interference question sum||||0.16
91029961|NCT00661999|181944254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||With 176 evaluable participants per treatment arm, there would have been \>=80% power to detect a difference across two treatment arms of 33% of the standard deviation in participant QOL through t-test/Wilcoxon test, with a 2.5% type I error rate. A 10 points shift on a 0-100 point scale in QOL measures is generally considered clinically relevant and specifically important in the use of UNISCALE, BFI and FACT-An.||||0.30
91029962|NCT00661999|181944255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||With 176 evaluable participants per treatment arm, there would have been \>=80% power to detect a difference across two treatment arms of 33% of the standard deviation in participant QOL through t-test/Wilcoxon test, with a 2.5% type I error rate. A 10 points shift on a 0-100 point scale in QOL measures is generally considered clinically relevant and specifically important in the use of UNISCALE, BFI and FACT-An.||||0.19
90848094|NCT02712047|181561808|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.34|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 2, PM|||0.34|0.14|
90848095|NCT02712047|181561808|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.36|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 3, AM|||0.36|0.16|
90848096|NCT02712047|181561808|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.28|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 3, PM|||0.28|0.08|
91095386|NCT01928849|182074147|OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.35
90848097|NCT02712047|181561808|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.34|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 4, AM|||0.34|0.14|
90848098|NCT02712047|181561808|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.27|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 4, PM|||0.27|0.07|
90848099|NCT02712047|181561808|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.17|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 5, AM|||0.17|-0.03|
90899488|NCT03502616|181665108|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.283||0.1009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 40: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.09|-1.02|0.1009
90848100|NCT02712047|181561808|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.14|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 7, AM|||0.14|-0.06|
90848101|NCT02712047|181561808|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.13|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 21, AM|||0.13|-0.07|
90848102|NCT03630770|181561852|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.98||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.7||p-values underwent generalized estimating equations adjustment for multiple measures per individuals within time.|Negative binomial regression|||Stool fungal counts (cfu/g) were compared between groups using negative binomial regression within time period (before, during, after). Rate ratio was calculated to reflect the direction and magnitude of change in stool colony counts between time periods (before v. during supplementation) for the control group.||1.7|0.55|0.9
90848103|NCT03630770|181561852|OTHER||Rate Ratio|8.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|25.0||p-values underwent generalized estimating equations adjustment for multiple measures per individuals within time.|Negative binomial regression|||Stool fungal counts (cfu/g) were compared between groups using negative binomial regression within time period (before, during, after). Rate ratio was calculated to reflect the direction and magnitude of change in stool colony counts between time periods (during v. after supplementation) for the control group.||25|2.6|<0.001
90899489|NCT03502616|181665108|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.287||0.0764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.05|-1.08|0.0764
91029963|NCT00661999|181944255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||With 176 evaluable participants per treatment arm, there would have been \>=80% power to detect a difference across two treatment arms of 33% of the standard deviation in participant QOL through t-test/Wilcoxon test, with a 2.5% type I error rate. A 10 points shift on a 0-100 point scale in QOL measures is generally considered clinically relevant and specifically important in the use of UNISCALE, BFI and FACT-An.||||0.17
91095387|NCT01928849|182074148|OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of DVPRS numeric pain score||||0.42
90848104|NCT03630770|181561852|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.15||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.75||p-values underwent generalized estimating equations adjustment for multiple measures per individuals within time.|Negative binomial regression|||Stool fungal counts (cfu/g) were compared between groups using negative binomial regression within time period (before, during, after). Rate ratio was calculated to reflect the direction and magnitude of change in stool colony counts between time periods (before v. during supplementation) for the MCT group.||0.75|0.03|0.02
90848105|NCT03630770|181561852|OTHER||Rate Ratio|61.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|533.0||p-values underwent generalized estimating equations adjustment for multiple measures per individuals within time.|Negative binomial regression|||Stool fungal counts (cfu/g) were compared between groups using negative binomial regression within time period (before, during, after). Rate ratio was calculated to reflect the direction and magnitude of change in stool colony counts between time periods (during v. after supplementation) for the MCT group.||533|6.9|<0.001
90848106|NCT02908490|181561855|SUPERIORITY|Given the cross-over design, analyses included a random effects model for within-subject comparisons of sildenafil versus placebo periods, adjusting for the baseline FMD within that period and a term for treatment order.|Slope|-1.42||||0.185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.54|0.68||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.68|-3.54|0.185
90848107|NCT02908490|181561856|SUPERIORITY|Given the cross-over design, analyses included a random effects model for within-subject comparisons of sildenafil versus placebo periods, adjusting for the baseline EndoPAT within that period and a term for treatment order.|Slope|0.2||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.069|0.331||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.331|0.069|0.003
90899490|NCT03502616|181665109|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.159||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.11|-0.73|0.0089
90848108|NCT02908490|181561862|SUPERIORITY|Given the cross-over design, analyses included a random effects model for within-subject comparisons of sildenafil versus placebo periods, adjusting for the baseline biomarker within that period and a term for treatment order.|Slope|7.63||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|15.63||The a prior threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||15.63|-0.36|0.061
91029964|NCT00661999|181944256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||With 176 evaluable participants per treatment arm, there would have been \>=80% power to detect a difference across two treatment arms of 33% of the standard deviation in participant QOL through t-test/Wilcoxon test, with a 2.5% type I error rate. A 10 points shift on a 0-100 point scale in QOL measures is generally considered clinically relevant and specifically important in the use of UNISCALE, BFI and FACT-An.||||0.73
90848109|NCT02908490|181561863|SUPERIORITY|Given the cross-over design, analyses included a random effects model for within-subject comparisons of sildenafil versus placebo periods, adjusting for the baseline biomarker within that period and a term for treatment order.|Slope|55.3||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.79|97.81||The a prior threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||97.81|12.79|0.011
90848110|NCT02908490|181561864|SUPERIORITY|Given the cross-over design, analyses included a random effects model for within-subject comparisons of sildenafil versus placebo periods, adjusting for the baseline biomarker within that period and a term for treatment order.|Slope|74.93||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.98|157.84||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||157.84|-7.98|0.077
90848111|NCT01122264|181561870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.3|0.51|0.85||P-value: Tadalafil Once a Day versus Sildenafil Citrate On Demand treatment groups. Cox's proportional hazards model with factors for randomized treatment group, baseline International Index of Erectile Function-Erectile Function score, and country.|Regression, Cox|||||0.85|0.51|<0.001
90848112|NCT01122264|181561870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.3|0.37|0.65||P-value: Tadalafil On Demand versus Sildenafil Citrate On Demand treatment groups. Cox's proportional hazards model with factors for randomized treatment group, baseline International Index of Erectile Function-Erectile Function score, and country.|Regression, Cox|||||0.65|0.37|<0.001
90848113|NCT01122264|181561870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.32||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.71||P-value: Tadalafil On Demand versus Tadalafil Once a Day treatment groups using Cox's proportional hazards model with factors for randomized treatment group, baseline International Index of Erectile Function-Erectile Function score, and country.|Regression, Cox|||||1.71|1.02|0.033
90848114|NCT02558829|181561888|OTHER|Positive percent agreement \[%\] = 100% x A/(A+C). A= MAC outcome positive and ITT outcome positive; C = MAC outcome negative and ITT positive|CI (Clopper Pearson): positive agreement|74.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.84|83.78||||||The estimated percentages of the agreements and the two-sided 95% confidence interval (or one-sided 97.5% confidence interval) of the percent agreement based on Clopper-Pearson are presented. The performance of the MAC (cut-off point 2.8 ng/mL) was considered to be acceptable if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI (or lower bound of the one-sided 97.5% CI) was 75% or higher for 'percent negative agreement', and 70% or higher for the 'percent positive agreement'.||83.78|62.84|
90848115|NCT02558829|181561888|OTHER|Negative percent agreement \[%\] = 100% x D/(B+D). D = MAC outcome negative and ITT outcome negative; B = MAC outcome positive and ITT outcome negative|CI (Clopper Pearson): negative agreement|93.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|85.2|98.32||||||Please refer to Statistical Analysis 1.||98.32|85.20|
90848116|NCT02558829|181561889|OTHER|The secondary diagnostic accuracy measure was 'percent overall agreement'.|overall agreement|83.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|76.38|89.29||||||This variable was analyzed using the same methodology described for the analyses for the primary efficacy variables. in the below, the results for Step 1 (peak GH level among all post baseline samples) are presented.||89.29|76.38|
90899491|NCT03502616|181665109|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.179|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|-0.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.42|-1.12|<0.0001
91095388|NCT01928849|182074148|OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of DVPRS supplemental question sum||||0.19
90848117|NCT02558829|181561891|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.38|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Pre/post dose comparison of ECGs was done for both GHSTs. During the GHSTs, ECGs were measured at pre-dose (up to 15 min before) and 60 minutes post-dose. Furthermore, ECGs were measured at screening and at End-of-Study (EOS) Visit.~Calculations were done from two time points: baseline and 60 min post-dose. Baseline is either the screening or pre-dose value."||||
90848118|NCT02558829|181561891|OTHER|Please refer to Statistical Analysis 1 for this secondary outcome measure.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.15|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90848119|NCT02558829|181561892|OTHER|Sensitivity is the probability that the test result is positive given the subject has the disease (for the purpose of this analysis, all group A subjects were assumed to have AGHD, but none of the group D subjects). Sensitivity (SS) was estimated by: SS = TP/(TP+FN). TP=True AGHD positive subject; FN=False AGHD negative subject.|CI (Clopper Pearson)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.96||||||Sensitivity was estimated for the MAC at the pre-defined cut-off point GH: 2.8 ng/mL.||0.96|0.72|
91029965|NCT00661999|181944256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||With 176 evaluable participants per treatment arm, there would have been \>=80% power to detect a difference across two treatment arms of 33% of the standard deviation in participant QOL through t-test/Wilcoxon test, with a 2.5% type I error rate. A 10 points shift on a 0-100 point scale in QOL measures is generally considered clinically relevant and specifically important in the use of UNISCALE, BFI and FACT-An.||||0.83
91095389|NCT01928849|182074149|OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of RASS postoperative hours 0-24||||0.27
91095390|NCT01928849|182074149|OTHER|||||||0.26|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of RASS postoperative hours 24-48||||0.26
90848120|NCT02558829|181561892|OTHER|"Specificity is the probability that the test result is negative given the subject does not have the disease.~Specificity (SP) was estimated by: SP = TN/(TN+FP). TN = True AGHD negative Subjects; FP = False AGHD positive subjects."|CI (Clopper Pearson)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.0||||||Specificity was estimated for the MAC at the pre-defined cut-off point GH: 2.8 ng/mL.||1.00|0.80|
91029966|NCT00661999|181944257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3852||95.0||||Test Comparison for Week 1 Level|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.3852
91029967|NCT00661999|181944257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0663||95.0||||Test Comparison for Week 7 Level.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0663
90848121|NCT02558829|181561893|OTHER|Positive percent agreement \[%\] = 100% x A/(A+C). A= test outcome positive for MAC core study part and positive for MAC repeatability extension; C = test outcome positive for MAC core study part and negative for MAC repeatability extension.|CI (Clopper Pearson): positive agreement|88.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.29|98.62||||||Please refer to Statistical Analysis 1 for this outcome.||98.62|65.29|
90848122|NCT02558829|181561893|OTHER|Negative percent agreement \[%\] = 100% x D/(B+D). D = test outcome negative for MAC core study part and negative for MAC repeatability extension; B = test outcome negative for MAC core study part and positive for MAC repeatability extension|CI (Clopper Pearson): negative agreement|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|79.41|100.0||||||Amendment no 1 had been issued for selected sites in Europe to obtain exploratory data on the repeatability of the MAC in a subset of subjects that had completed the core study.||100.00|79.41|
90848123|NCT00097981|181561894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by International Prognostic Index (IPI) stage 1,2 and 3||||||0.49
90848124|NCT00097981|181561895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by International Prognostic Index (IPI) stage 1,2 and 3||||||0.42
90848125|NCT00097981|181561896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.42
90848126|NCT00097981|181561897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5162||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.5162
90848127|NCT00097981|181561898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.975||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.529|1.797|||Log Rank|Stratified log-rank test||||1.797|0.529|0.93
90848128|NCT00955201|181561932|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test|ANOVA|Comparison to baseline values||Evaluated within group across time||||0.49
90848129|NCT00955201|181561932|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time||||0.82
90848130|NCT00955201|181561932|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time||||0.96
90848131|NCT00955201|181561932|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time||||0.93
90848132|NCT00955201|181561932|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at baseline||||0.63
90899492|NCT03502616|181665109|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.202|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.70|-1.50|<0.0001
91029968|NCT00661999|181944257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.322||95.0||||Test Comparison for Week 16 Level|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.3220
91029969|NCT00661999|181944258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1826||95.0||||Test Comparison for Week 1 Level.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.1826
91029970|NCT00661999|181944258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0113||95.0||||Test comparison for week 7 level|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0113
90848133|NCT00955201|181561932|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 12-wk||||0.31
90848134|NCT00955201|181561932|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 24-wk||||0.28
90848135|NCT00955201|181561933|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time||||0.53
90848136|NCT00955201|181561933|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time||||1.00
90848137|NCT00955201|181561933|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time||||1.00
90848138|NCT00955201|181561933|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time||||0.93
90848139|NCT00955201|181561933|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at baseline.||||0.80
90848140|NCT00955201|181561933|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 12-wks||||0.63
90848141|NCT00955201|181561933|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 24-wk||||0.31
90848142|NCT00955201|181561934|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time||||0.39
90848143|NCT00955201|181561934|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time||||1.00
90848144|NCT00955201|181561934|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time||||1.00
90848145|NCT00955201|181561934|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time||||0.98
90848146|NCT00955201|181561934|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at baseline||||0.70
90848147|NCT00955201|181561934|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 12-wks||||0.45
90848148|NCT00955201|181561934|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 24-wks||||0.22
90848149|NCT00955201|181561935|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time||||0.98
90848150|NCT00955201|181561935|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time||||0.90
90848151|NCT00955201|181561935|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time||||0.97
90848152|NCT00955201|181561935|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time||||0.78
90848153|NCT00955201|181561935|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at baseline||||0.63
90848154|NCT00955201|181561935|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 12-wk||||0.97
91029971|NCT00661999|181944258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3358||95.0||||Test Comparison for week 16 level|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.3358
91029972|NCT00661999|181944259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9022||95.0||||Test comparison for Baseline level.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.9022
91029973|NCT00661999|181944259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||95.0||||Test Comparison for Week 7 Level.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0002
91029974|NCT00661999|181944259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0022||95.0||||Test Comparison for Week 16 Level.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0022
91029975|NCT00661999|181944260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1137||95.0||||Test comparison for baseline level.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.1137
91095391|NCT03483103|182074168|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||One sided P-value is calculated based on the null hypothesis ORR \<= 50.2%|Exact binomial test|||||||<.0001
90848155|NCT00955201|181561935|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 24-wks||||0.99
91095392|NCT03416179|182074227|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.6579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.755|1.532|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio based on Cox proportional hazards model; under proportional hazards, hazard ratio less than (\<) 1 indicated a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Glasdegib 100 mg PO + Cytarabine 100 mg/m\^2 IV + Daunorubicin 60 mg/m\^2 compared to Placebo + Cytarabine 100 mg/m\^2 IV + Daunorubicin 60 mg/m\^2.||1.532|0.755|0.6579
91095393|NCT03416179|182074228|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.5955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.775|1.388|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio based on Cox proportional hazards model; under proportional hazards, hazard ratio \< 1 indicated a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Glasdegib 100 mg PO QD + Azacitidine compared to Placebo + Azacitidine||1.388|0.775|0.5955
90848156|NCT00955201|181561936|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time||||0.94
90848157|NCT00955201|181561936|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time||||0.69
90848158|NCT00955201|181561936|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time||||0.98
90848159|NCT00955201|181561936|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time||||0.97
90848160|NCT00955201|181561936|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at baseline||||0.45
90848161|NCT00955201|181561936|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 12-wks||||0.91
90848162|NCT00955201|181561936|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 24-wks||||0.51
90899493|NCT03502616|181665109|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|-0.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.88|-1.71|<0.0001
90899494|NCT03502616|181665109|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.217|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|-0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.80|-1.66|<0.0001
91029976|NCT00661999|181944260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8042||95.0||||Test comparison for week 7 level.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.8042
91095394|NCT03416179|182074229|OTHER|||||||0.5095|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.5095
91095395|NCT03416179|182074230|OTHER|||||||0.8359|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.8359
91095396|NCT00879658|182074347|SUPERIORITY||Negative binomial regression model|0.524||||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.219|1.257||Pairwise comparison and p-values refer to ARR on active treatment compared to placebo. An ARR-ratio \<1 favors active treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment compared to placebo based on negative binomial regression model, adjusted for treatment group and baseline number of relapses in prev 2 yrs.|||An ARR-ratio \<1 favors active treatment.|1.257|0.219|0.148
91095397|NCT00879658|182074347|SUPERIORITY||Negative binomial regression model|0.34||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.121|0.956||Pairwise comparison and p-values refer to ARR on active treatment compared to placebo. An ARR-ratio \<1 favors active treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment compared to placebo based on negative binomial regression model, adjusted for treatment group and baseline number of relapses in prev 2 yrs.||||0.956|0.121|0.041
91095398|NCT00879658|182074347|SUPERIORITY||Negative binomial regression model|1.051||||0.899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.486|2.273||Pairwise comparison and p-values refer to ARR on active treatment compared to placebo. An ARR-ratio \<1 favors active treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment compared to placebo based on negative binomial regression model, adjusted for treatment group and baseline number of relapses in prev 2 yrs.||||2.273|0.486|0.899
91095399|NCT00879658|182074348|OTHER|Pairwise comparison of treatments to placebo are based on odds ratios estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for treatment group and using number of relapses in the previous 2 years as a covariate.|Logistic regression model|0.915||||0.879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.288|2.925|||Regression, Logistic|"Proportions are estimated from the logistic regression model.~\- An odds ratio of \> 1 indicates an increased odds in favor of the active treatment."||||2.925|0.288|0.879
90848163|NCT00955201|181561937|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time||||0.99
90848164|NCT00955201|181561937|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time||||0.72
90848165|NCT00955201|181561937|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time||||0.99
90848166|NCT00955201|181561937|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time||||0.99
90848167|NCT00955201|181561937|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at baseline||||0.85
90848168|NCT00955201|181561937|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 12-wks||||0.98
90848169|NCT00955201|181561937|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 24-wks||||0.68
90848170|NCT00955201|181561938|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time||||0.91
90848171|NCT00955201|181561938|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time||||0.99
90848172|NCT00955201|181561938|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time||||0.94
90848173|NCT00955201|181561938|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time||||0.93
90848174|NCT00955201|181561938|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at baseline||||0.38
90848175|NCT00955201|181561938|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 12-wks||||0.51
90848176|NCT00955201|181561938|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 24-wks||||0.94
90848177|NCT00955201|181561939|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time||||0.99
91029977|NCT00661999|181944260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2016||95.0||||Test comparison for week 16 level.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.2016
91095400|NCT00879658|182074348|OTHER|Pairwise comparison of treatments to placebo are based on odds ratios estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for treatment group and using number of relapses in the previous 2 years as a covariate.|Logistic regression model|1.745||||0.399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.484|7.167||"Proportions are estimated from the logistic regression model.~\- An odds ratio of \> 1 indicates an increased odds in favor of the active treatment."|Regression, Logistic|||||7.167|0.484|0.399
90848178|NCT00955201|181561939|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time.||||0.97
90848179|NCT00955201|181561939|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time.||||0.96
90848180|NCT00955201|181561939|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time.||||1.00
90848181|NCT00955201|181561939|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at baseline.||||0.16
90848182|NCT00955201|181561939|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 12-wks||||0.37
90848183|NCT00955201|181561939|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 24-wks||||0.75
90848184|NCT00955201|181561940|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time.||||1.00
90848185|NCT00955201|181561940|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time.||||0.99
90899495|NCT03502616|181665109|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.242||0.1686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.14|-0.81|0.1686
91095401|NCT00879658|182074348|OTHER|Pairwise comparison of treatments to placebo are based on odds ratios estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for treatment group and using number of relapses in the previous 2 years as a covariate.|Logistic regression model|1.697||||0.454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.438|8.296||"Proportions are estimated from the logistic regression model.~\- An odds ratio of \> 1 indicates an increased odds in favor of the active treatment."|Regression, Logistic|||||8.296|0.438|0.454
90848186|NCT00955201|181561940|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time.||||1.00
90899496|NCT03502616|181665109|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.238||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 32: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.21|-0.72|0.2800
91029978|NCT00661999|181944261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1139||95.0||||Test comparison for baseline level.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.1139
90848187|NCT00955201|181561940|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time.||||0.81
90848188|NCT00955201|181561940|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at baseline||||0.28
90848189|NCT00955201|181561940|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 12-wks||||0.28
90848190|NCT00955201|181561940|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 24-wks||||0.83
90848191|NCT00955201|181561941|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time||||0.99
90848192|NCT00955201|181561941|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time||||0.97
90848193|NCT00955201|181561941|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time||||0.82
90848194|NCT00955201|181561941|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time||||0.96
91029979|NCT00661999|181944261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0424||95.0||||Test comparison for week 7 level.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0424
91029980|NCT00661999|181944261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2025||95.0||||Test comparison for week 16 level.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.2025
91029981|NCT01658943|181944288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.15
90848195|NCT00955201|181561941|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at baseline.||||0.55
90848196|NCT00955201|181561941|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 12-wks||||0.31
90848197|NCT00955201|181561941|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 24-wks||||0.32
90848198|NCT00955201|181561942|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time.||||0.81
90848199|NCT00955201|181561942|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time.||||0.92
90848200|NCT00955201|181561942|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time.||||0.93
90848201|NCT00955201|181561942|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time.||||0.99
90848202|NCT00955201|181561942|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at baseline.||||0.50
90848203|NCT00955201|181561942|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 12-wks.||||0.47
90848204|NCT00955201|181561942|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 24-wks||||0.97
90848205|NCT00955201|181561943|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time.||||0.83
90848206|NCT00955201|181561943|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time.||||0.91
90848207|NCT00955201|181561943|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time.||||1.00
90848208|NCT00955201|181561943|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time.||||0.95
91029982|NCT00539539|181944291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.001||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.05|||t-test, 2 sided|||Average change in cluster-specific rates of ROSC.||0.05|-0.04|0.96
91095402|NCT00879658|182074348|OTHER|Pairwise comparison of treatments to placebo are based on odds ratios estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for treatment group and using number of relapses in the previous 2 years as a covariate.|Logistic regression model|0.509||||0.223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.166|1.511||"Proportions are estimated from the logistic regression model.~\- An odds ratio of \> 1 indicates an increased odds in favor of the active treatment."|Regression, Logistic|||||1.511|0.166|0.223
90848209|NCT00955201|181561943|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at baseline.||||0.26
90848210|NCT00955201|181561943|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 12-wks||||0.42
91029983|NCT00539539|181944292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.8||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|3.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||Average difference in cluster-specific rates.||3.4|-4.9|0.71
90848211|NCT00955201|181561943|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 24-wks.||||0.95
90848212|NCT00955201|181561944|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time.||||0.96
90848213|NCT00955201|181561944|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time.||||0.53
90848214|NCT00955201|181561944|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time.||||0.79
90848215|NCT00955201|181561944|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time.||||0.94
90899497|NCT03502616|181665109|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.243||0.1135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 40: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.09|-0.86|0.1135
90899498|NCT03502616|181665109|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.247||0.2496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.20|-0.77|0.2496
90899499|NCT03502616|181665110|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.191|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|-0.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.47|-1.22|<0.0001
90899500|NCT03502616|181665110|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|-1.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-1.07|-1.89|<0.0001
90899501|NCT03502616|181665110|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.228|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|-1.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-1.16|-2.06|<0.0001
91029984|NCT00539539|181944293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.015||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.039|0.009|||t-test, 2 sided|By-cluster difference in outcome rates.||Average change in cluster-specific risk difference.||0.009|-0.039|0.21
91104205|NCT04003142|182094842|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53|<|0.001||95.0|-2.91|-0.81||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 11||-0.81|-2.91|<0.001
91029985|NCT00539539|181944294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.9||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.4|||Regression, Linear|Difference in means, adjusted for cluster.||Cluster adjusted difference in average CPR fraction.||3.4|0.4|0.016
90848216|NCT00955201|181561944|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at baseline||||0.75
90848217|NCT00955201|181561944|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 12-wks||||0.51
90848218|NCT00955201|181561944|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 24-wks.||||0.63
90848219|NCT00955201|181561945|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time.||||0.98
90848220|NCT00955201|181561945|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time.||||0.99
90848221|NCT00955201|181561945|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time.||||0.89
90848222|NCT00955201|181561945|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||0.90
90848223|NCT00955201|181561945|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at baseline||||0.98
90848224|NCT00955201|181561945|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 12-wks||||0.94
90848225|NCT00955201|181561945|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 24-wks.||||0.91
90848226|NCT00955201|181561946|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||0.98
90848227|NCT00955201|181561946|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||0.99
90848228|NCT00955201|181561946|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||0.84
90848229|NCT00955201|181561946|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||1.00
90848230|NCT00955201|181561946|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at baseline.||||0.96
90848231|NCT00955201|181561946|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 12-wks.||||0.86
90848232|NCT00955201|181561946|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 24-wks.||||0.92
90848233|NCT00955201|181561947|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||Unpaired two-tailed t-test:|t-test, 2 sided|||Evaluate within group pre- and post-test responses across time.||||0.03
91095403|NCT00879658|182074348|OTHER|Pairwise comparison of treatments to placebo are based on odds ratios estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for treatment group and using number of relapses in the previous 2 years as a covariate.|Logistic regression model|0.785||||0.668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.253|2.392||"Proportions are estimated from the logistic regression model.~\- An odds ratio of \> 1 indicates an increased odds in favor of the active treatment."|Regression, Logistic|||||2.392|0.253|0.668
91095404|NCT00879658|182074349|OTHER|Pairwise comparison of treatments to placebo are based on odds ratios estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for treatment group and using number of relapses in the previous 2 years as a covariate.|Logistic regression model|1.996||||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.731|5.669|||Regression, Logistic|Proportions are estimated from the logistic regression model. - An odds ratio of \> 1 indicates an increased odds in favor of the active treatment.||||5.669|0.731|0.178
91095405|NCT00879658|182074349|OTHER|Pairwise comparison of treatments to placebo are based on odds ratios estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for treatment group and using number of relapses in the previous 2 years as a covariate.|Logistic regression model|4.12||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.328|14.681||Proportions are estimated from the logistic regression model. - An odds ratio of \> 1 indicates an increased odds in favor of the active treatment.|Regression, Logistic|||||14.681|1.328|0.014
91095406|NCT00879658|182074349|OTHER|Pairwise comparison of treatments to placebo are based on odds ratios estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for treatment group and using number of relapses in the previous 2 years as a covariate.|Logistic regression model|1.266||||0.642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.468|3.494||Proportions are estimated from the logistic regression model. - An odds ratio of \> 1 indicates an increased odds in favor of the active treatment.|Regression, Logistic|||||3.494|0.468|0.642
90848234|NCT00955201|181561947|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29||||||Unpaired two-tailed t-test:|t-test, 2 sided|||Evaluate within group pre- and post-test responses across time.||||0.29
90848235|NCT00955201|181561947|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36||||||Unpaired two-tailed t-test:|t-test, 2 sided|||Evaluate within group pre- and post-test responses across time.||||0.36
90848236|NCT00955201|181561947|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15||||||Unpaired two-tailed t-test:|t-test, 2 sided|||Evaluate within group pre- and post-test responses across time.||||0.15
90848237|NCT00955201|181561947|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2||||||ANOVA|ANOVA|||Comparison of pre- and post-responses across groups at baseline.||||0.20
90848238|NCT00955201|181561947|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51||||||ANOVA|ANOVA|||Comparison of pre- and post-test responses across groups at 12 wks.||||0.51
90848239|NCT00955201|181561947|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59||||||ANOVA|ANOVA|||Comparison of pre- and post-test responses across groups at 24 wks.||||0.59
91029986|NCT00539539|181944295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.6||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.7|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for randomization by cluster.||Cluster adjusted difference in means.||2.7|0.5|0.005
91029987|NCT00539539|181944296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|-3.0|||Regression, Linear|||Cluster adjusted difference in average compression rate.||-3.0|-6.4|<0.001
91095407|NCT00879658|182074350|SUPERIORITY||lesion ratio|0.138|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.047|0.408|||Regression, Logistic|new Gd-enhanced T1 lesions was compared between treatment groups using a negative binomial generalized estimating equation regression model||Pairwise treatment comparison between different BAF312 dose groups and placebo used a two-sided significance level of 5% without adjusting for multiplicity.||0.408|0.047|<0.001
91095408|NCT00879658|182074350|SUPERIORITY||lesion ratio|0.307||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.123|0.771||new Gd-enhanced T1 lesions was compared between treatment groups using a negative binomial generalized estimating equation regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||Pairwise treatment comparison between different BAF312 dose group and placebo used a two-sided significance level of 5% without adjusting for multiplicity.||0.771|0.123|0.012
90848240|NCT00955201|181561948|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Dunn's multiple comparisons|Kruskal-Wallis|||Evaluate within group across time||||1.00
90848241|NCT00955201|181561948|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||Dunn's multiple comparisons|Kruskal-Wallis|||Evaluate within group across time||||0.01
90848242|NCT00955201|181561948|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Dunn's multiple comparisons|Kruskal-Wallis|||Evaluate within group across time||||1.00
90848243|NCT00955201|181561948|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98||||||Dunn's multiple comparisons|Kruskal-Wallis|||Evaluate within group across time||||0.98
90848244|NCT00955201|181561948|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison across groups at baseline||||0.96
90848245|NCT00955201|181561948|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison across groups at 12-wks||||0.06
90848246|NCT00955201|181561948|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison across groups at 24-wks||||0.14
90848247|NCT00955201|181561949|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||1.00
90848248|NCT00955201|181561949|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||0.36
90848249|NCT00955201|181561949|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||0.93
90848250|NCT00955201|181561949|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||0.46
90848251|NCT00955201|181561949|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at baseline.||||0.14
90848252|NCT00955201|181561949|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 12 wks.||||0.05
90848253|NCT00955201|181561949|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 24 wks.||||0.01
90848254|NCT00955201|181561950|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||0.98
90848255|NCT00955201|181561950|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||0.98
90848256|NCT00955201|181561950|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||0.67
90848257|NCT00955201|181561950|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||0.55
90848258|NCT00955201|181561950|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at baseline.||||0.40
90848259|NCT00955201|181561950|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 12 wks.||||0.47
91029988|NCT00539539|181944297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|-1.5|||Regression, Linear|||Cluster adjusted difference in the average rate.||-1.5|-5.2|<0.001
91029989|NCT00539539|181944298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.7|||Regression, Linear|||Cluster adjusted difference in average rate.||0.7|-0.5|0.73
91029990|NCT02130466|181944316|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.74|||||Cox regression model|||0.74|0.29|
91029991|NCT02130466|181944323|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.95|||||Cox regression model|||0.95|0.38|
91095409|NCT00879658|182074350|SUPERIORITY||lesion ratio|0.113|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.036|0.358||new Gd-enhanced T1 lesions was compared between treatment groups using a negative binomial generalized estimating equation regression model|Regression, Logistic|||Pairwise treatment comparison between different BAF312 dose group and placebo used a two-sided significance level of 5% without adjusting for multiplicity.||0.358|0.036|<0.001
91095410|NCT00879658|182074350|SUPERIORITY||lesion ratio|0.375||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.163|0.86||new Gd-enhanced T1 lesions was compared between treatment groups using a negative binomial generalized estimating equation regression model|Regression, Logistic|||Pairwise treatment comparison between different BAF312 dose group and placebo used a two-sided significance level of 5% without adjusting for multiplicity.||0.860|0.163|0.021
91095411|NCT00879658|182074350|SUPERIORITY||lesion ratio|0.478||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.037||new Gd-enhanced T1 lesions was compared between treatment groups using a negative binomial generalized estimating equation regression model|Regression, Logistic|||Pairwise treatment comparison between different BAF312 dose group and placebo used a two-sided significance level of 5% without adjusting for multiplicity.||1.037|0.220|0.062
91095412|NCT00879658|182074351|SUPERIORITY|Pairwise treatment comparison between different BAF312 dose group and placebo used a two-sided significance level of 5% without adjusting for multiplicity.|Lesion ratio|0.154|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.063|0.376|||Regression, Logistic|new lesions was compared between treatment groups using a negative binomial generalized estimating equation regression model||||0.376|0.063|<0.001
91095413|NCT00879658|182074351|SUPERIORITY||lesion ratio|0.228||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.081|0.641||new Gd-enhanced T1 lesions was compared between treatment groups using a negative binomial generalized estimating equation regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||Pairwise treatment comparison between different BAF312 dose group and placebo used a two-sided significance level of 5% without adjusting for multiplicity.||0.641|0.081|0.005
91095414|NCT00879658|182074351|SUPERIORITY||lesion ratio|0.188|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.509||new Gd-enhanced T1 lesions was compared between treatment groups using a negative binomial generalized estimating equation regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||Pairwise treatment comparison between different BAF312 dose group and placebo used a two-sided significance level of 5% without adjusting for multiplicity.||0.509|0.070|<0.001
91095415|NCT00879658|182074352|SUPERIORITY|Pairwise treatment comparison between different BAF312 dose group and placebo used a two-sided significance level of 5% without adjusting for multiplicity.|lesion ratio|0.279||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.124|0.628||new Gd-enhanced T1 lesions was compared between treatment groups using a negative binomial generalized estimating equation regression model|Regression, Logistic|||||0.628|0.124|0.002
91095416|NCT00879658|182074352|SUPERIORITY||lesion ratio|0.396||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.182|0.861||new Gd-enhanced T1 lesions was compared between treatment groups using a negative binomial generalized estimating equation regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||Pairwise treatment comparison between different BAF312 dose group and placebo used a two-sided significance level of 5% without adjusting for multiplicity.||0.861|0.182|0.019
91095417|NCT00879658|182074352|SUPERIORITY||lesion ratio|0.154|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.059|0.4||new Gd-enhanced T1 lesions was compared between treatment groups using a negative binomial generalized estimating equation regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||Pairwise treatment comparison between different BAF312 dose group and placebo used a two-sided significance level of 5% without adjusting for multiplicity.||0.400|0.059|<0.001
91095418|NCT00879658|182074352|SUPERIORITY||lesion ratio|0.454||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.219|0.945||new Gd-enhanced T1 lesions was compared between treatment groups using a negative binomial generalized estimating equation regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||Pairwise treatment comparison between different BAF312 dose group and placebo used a two-sided significance level of 5% without adjusting for multiplicity.||0.945|0.219|0.035
91095419|NCT00879658|182074352|SUPERIORITY||lesion ratio|0.555||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|96.0|0.283|1.09||new Gd-enhanced T1 lesions was compared between treatment groups using a negative binomial generalized estimating equation regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||Pairwise treatment comparison between different BAF312 dose group and placebo used a two-sided significance level of 5% without adjusting for multiplicity.||1.090|0.283|0.087
90848260|NCT00955201|181561950|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 24 wks.||||0.43
90848261|NCT00955201|181561951|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||0.84
90848262|NCT00955201|181561951|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||0.93
90848263|NCT00955201|181561951|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||0.94
90848264|NCT00955201|181561951|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||0.94
90848265|NCT00955201|181561951|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at baseline.||||0.88
91029992|NCT04529109|181944388|SUPERIORITY|The superiority of the Test lens was concluded if the lower limit of the 95% credible interval was above 0.90.|Mean Proportion|0.9998|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0005|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.999|1.0|||Bayesian Binary model||Interval presented is a 95% Credible interval.|||1.000|0.999|
91095420|NCT00879658|182074353|SUPERIORITY|Pairwise treatment comparison between different BAF312 dose group and placebo used a two-sided significance level of 5% without adjusting for multiplicity.|lesion ratio|0.095|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.033|0.273||new Gd-enhanced T1 lesions was compared between treatment groups using a negative binomial generalized estimating equation regression model|Regression, Logistic|||||0.273|0.033|<0.001
90848266|NCT00955201|181561951|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 12 wks.||||0.48
90848267|NCT00955201|181561951|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 24 wks.||||0.38
90848268|NCT00955201|181561952|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||0.87
90848269|NCT00955201|181561952|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||0.93
90899502|NCT03502616|181665110|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.237|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|-1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-1.40|-2.34|<0.0001
90848270|NCT00955201|181561952|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||0.51
91029993|NCT01508936|181944407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||slope difference|0.3007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2559||0.2407|TWO_SIDED|||||The interaction was tested at the significance level 0.10 using the FAS|Regression, Linear||Active - Placebo|The primary analysis was the linear regression model with model effects including treatment (reslizumab or placebo), blood eosinophil count at baseline, and the interaction of treatment and eosinophil count. A significant treatment by baseline eosinophil interaction would indicate that treatment difference varies by the baseline eosinophil count.||||0.2407
90848271|NCT00955201|181561952|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||0.89
90848272|NCT00955201|181561952|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at baseline.||||0.46
90848273|NCT00955201|181561952|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 12 wks.||||0.72
90848274|NCT00955201|181561952|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 24wks.||||0.22
90848275|NCT00955201|181561953|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||0.98
90848276|NCT00955201|181561953|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||0.99
90848277|NCT00955201|181561953|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||0.87
90848278|NCT00955201|181561953|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||0.95
90848279|NCT00955201|181561953|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at baseline.||||0.39
90848280|NCT00955201|181561953|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 12-wks.||||0.59
90848281|NCT00955201|181561953|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 24-wks.||||0.29
90848282|NCT00955201|181561954|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time||||0.97
90848283|NCT00955201|181561954|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||1.00
90848284|NCT00955201|181561954|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||0.09
90848285|NCT00955201|181561954|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||0.05
90848286|NCT00955201|181561954|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at baseline.||||0.11
90848287|NCT00955201|181561954|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 12-wks.||||0.41
90848288|NCT00955201|181561954|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 24-wks.||||0.03
90848289|NCT00955201|181561955|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||0.95
90848290|NCT00955201|181561955|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||1.00
90848291|NCT00955201|181561955|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||0.87
90848292|NCT00955201|181561955|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||0.48
90848293|NCT00955201|181561955|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at baseline.||||0.58
90848294|NCT00955201|181561955|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 12-wks.||||0.50
90848295|NCT00955201|181561955|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 24-wks.||||0.33
90848296|NCT00955201|181561956|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||0.98
90848297|NCT00955201|181561956|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||1.00
90848298|NCT00955201|181561956|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||0.88
90848299|NCT00955201|181561956|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||0.93
90848300|NCT00955201|181561956|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at baseline.||||0.38
90848301|NCT00955201|181561956|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 12-wks.||||0.55
90848302|NCT00955201|181561956|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 24-wks||||0.37
90848303|NCT00955201|181561957|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Dunn's multiple comparisons test:|Kruskal-Wallis|||Evaluate within group across time||||1.00
90848304|NCT00955201|181561957|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Dunn's multiple comparisons test:|Kruskal-Wallis|||Evaluate within group across time||||1.00
90848305|NCT00955201|181561957|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Dunn's multiple comparisons test:|Kruskal-Wallis|||Evaluate within group across time||||1.00
90899503|NCT03502616|181665110|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.236|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|-1.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-1.25|-2.18|<0.0001
90899504|NCT03502616|181665110|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.245||0.0385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.03|-0.99|0.0385
90899505|NCT03502616|181665110|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.252||0.0463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 32: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.01|-1.00|0.0463
90899506|NCT03502616|181665110|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.257||0.0126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|-0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 40: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.14|-1.15|0.0126
90899507|NCT03502616|181665110|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.268||0.0372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|-0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.03|-1.09|0.0372
91029994|NCT01508936|181944408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.076|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0417||0.0697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.006|0.158||Statistical significance level is 0.05.|Regression, Linear|treatment, blood eosinophil count at baseline, and the interaction of treatment and eosinophil count as fixed effects.|Active - Placebo|"The change from baseline over the 16 week treatment period was measured for the key secondary variables of:~* Lung function as measured by FEV1~* ACQ~Testing of the key secondary variables was performed using the sequential testing procedure in the order as specified above at the alpha level of 0.05."||0.158|-0.006|0.0697
90848306|NCT00955201|181561957|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Dunn's multiple comparisons test:|Kruskal-Wallis|||Evaluate within group across time.||||1.00
90848307|NCT00955201|181561957|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison across groups at baseline||||0.81
90899508|NCT03502616|181665111|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|13.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.53||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.68|20.52|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||20.52|6.68|0.0001
90899509|NCT03502616|181665111|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|28.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.78|37.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||37.80|19.78|<0.0001
90899510|NCT03502616|181665111|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|33.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.83|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.84|42.78|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||42.78|23.84|<0.0001
91095421|NCT00879658|182074353|SUPERIORITY||lesion ratio|0.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.069|0.47||new Gd-enhanced T1 lesions was compared between treatment groups using a negative binomial generalized estimating equation regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||Pairwise treatment comparison between different BAF312 dose group and placebo used a two-sided significance level of 5% without adjusting for multiplicity.||0.470|0.069|<0.001
90848308|NCT00955201|181561957|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison across groups at 12-wks||||0.60
90848309|NCT00955201|181561957|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison across groups at 24-wks||||0.99
90848310|NCT00955201|181561958|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at baseline.||||0.59
90848311|NCT00955201|181561959|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||0.98
90848312|NCT00955201|181561959|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||1.00
90848313|NCT00955201|181561959|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||1.00
90848314|NCT00955201|181561959|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||0.72
90848315|NCT00955201|181561959|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at baseline.||||0.62
90848316|NCT00955201|181561959|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 12 wks.||||0.33
90848317|NCT00955201|181561959|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 24 wks.||||0.38
90848318|NCT00955201|181561960|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||0.88
90848319|NCT00955201|181561960|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||1.00
90848320|NCT00955201|181561960|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||1.00
90848321|NCT00955201|181561960|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||0.76
90848322|NCT00955201|181561960|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at baseline.||||0.82
90848323|NCT00955201|181561960|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 12 wks.||||0.53
90848324|NCT00955201|181561960|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 24 wks.||||0.68
90848325|NCT00955201|181561961|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at baseline.||||0.70
90848326|NCT00955201|181561963|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at baseline.||||0.59
90848327|NCT00955201|181561964|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at baseline.||||0.45
90848328|NCT00955201|181561965|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at baseline.||||0.04
90848329|NCT00955201|181561966|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at baseline.||||0.77
90848330|NCT00955201|181561967|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at baseline.||||0.12
90848331|NCT00955201|181561968|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at baseline.||||0.42
90848332|NCT00955201|181561969|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at baseline.||||0.79
90848333|NCT00796445|181561972|NON_INFERIORITY|The aim of this analysis was to demonstrate the clinical efficacy in terms of disease-free survival (DFS) of recMAGE-A3 + AS15 ASCI compared to placebo in the overall study population of patients with completely resected stage III cutaneous melanoma with macroscopic lymph node involvement.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.013||||0.8566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.879|1.169|||Regression, Cox|||At Final analysis (Month 30)||1.169|0.879|0.8566
90848334|NCT00796445|181561972|NON_INFERIORITY|The aim of this analysis was to demonstrate the clinical efficacy in terms of DFS of the recMAGE-A3 + AS15 ASCI compared to placebo in the population presenting the potentially favorable gene expression signature.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.111||||0.4821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.828|1.491|||Regression, Cox|||At Final analysis (Month 30)||1.491|0.828|0.4821
90848335|NCT00796445|181561972|NON_INFERIORITY|The aim of this analysis was to demonstrate the clinical efficacy in terms of DFS of the recMAGE-A3 + AS15 ASCI compared to placebo in the population without the potentially favorable gene expression signature|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.915||||0.5375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.691|1.212|||Regression, Cox|||At Final analysis (Month 30)||1.212|0.691|0.5375
90848336|NCT00796445|181561973|NON_INFERIORITY|The aim of this analysis was to demonstrate the clinical efficacy in terms of disease-free survival (DFS) of recMAGE-A3 + AS15 ASCI compared to placebo in the overall study population of patients with completely resected stage III cutaneous melanoma with macroscopic lymph node involvement|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.023||||0.7534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.175|||Regression, Cox|||At Follow-up analysis (up to Year 5)||1.175|0.890|0.7534
90848337|NCT00796445|181561973|NON_INFERIORITY|The aim of this analysis was to demonstrate the clinical efficacy in terms of DFS of the recMAGE-A3 + AS15 ASCI compared to placebo in the population presenting the potentially favorable gene expression signature.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.094||||0.5385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.821|1.457|||Regression, Cox|||At Follow-up analysis (up to Year 5)||1.457|0.821|0.5385
90848338|NCT00796445|181561973|NON_INFERIORITY|The aim of this analysis was to demonstrate the clinical efficacy in terms of DFS of the recMAGE-A3 + AS15 ASCI compared to placebo in the population without the potentially favorable gene expression signature.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.918||||0.5419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.698|1.207|||Regression, Cox|||At Follow-up analysis (up to Year 5)||1.207|0.698|0.5419
90848339|NCT02737891|181561985|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.8||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.36|-1.29||Two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0.|ANCOVA|||The analysis was based on a parametric model, i.e. compared between treatment arms by means of an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model (proc MIXED) using change from baseline to the end of treatment as dependent variable, treatment and study site as fixed effects and the value from baseline as covariate. The residual errors were assumed independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.) and normally distributed.||-1.29|-6.36|0.004
90899511|NCT03502616|181665111|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|36.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.95|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.67|46.07|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||46.07|26.67|<0.0001
90899512|NCT03502616|181665111|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|36.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.74|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.05|45.63|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||45.63|27.05|<0.0001
90899513|NCT03502616|181665111|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.99||0.3498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.14|17.35|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||17.35|-6.14|0.3498
90899514|NCT03502616|181665111|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.89||0.6835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.96|9.15|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 32: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||9.15|-13.96|0.6835
90848340|NCT02737891|181561986|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.33||Two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0.|ANCOVA|||The analysis was based on a parametric model, i.e. compared between treatment arms by means of an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model (proc MIXED) using change from baseline to the end of treatment as dependent variable, treatment and study site as fixed effects and the value from baseline as covariate. The residual errors were assumed independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.) and normally distributed.||0.33|-0.23|0.724
90848341|NCT02737891|181561987|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.65|-2.3||Two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0.|ANCOVA|||The analysis was based on a parametric model, i.e. compared between treatment arms by means of an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model (proc MIXED) using change from baseline to the end of treatment as dependent variable, treatment and study site as fixed effects and the value from baseline as covariate. The residual errors were assumed independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.) and normally distributed.||-2.30|-4.65|<0.0001
90848342|NCT05194579|181561992|EQUIVALENCE|Pharmacokinetic equivalence were assessed by constructing the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the GMR (test/reference) for Cmax, AUClast and AUCinf. This table displays Cmax statistical analysis.|Ratio of Geometric Mean|117.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.07|132.93|||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis was PF-06881894 OBI was not equivalent to PF-06881894 PFS.||132.93|103.07|
91095422|NCT00879658|182074353|SUPERIORITY||lesion ratio|0.173|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.069|0.434||new Gd-enhanced T1 lesions was compared between treatment groups using a negative binomial generalized estimating equation regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||Pairwise treatment comparison between different BAF312 dose group and placebo used a two-sided significance level of 5% without adjusting for multiplicity.||0.434|0.069|<0.001
91095423|NCT00879658|182074354|SUPERIORITY|Pairwise treatment comparison between different BAF312 dose group and placebo used a two-sided significance level of 5% without adjusting for multiplicity.|lesion ratio|0.259||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.67||new Gd-enhanced T1 lesions was compared between treatment groups using a negative binomial generalized estimating equation regression model|Regression, Logistic|||||0.670|0.100|0.005
90848343|NCT05194579|181561993|EQUIVALENCE|Pharmacokinetic equivalence were assessed by constructing the 90% CIs for the GMR (test/reference) for Cmax, AUClast and AUCinf. This table displays AUClast statistical analysis.|Ratio of Geometric Mean|122.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|107.9|138.22|||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis was PF-06881894 OBI was not equivalent to PF-06881894 PFS.||138.22|107.90|
90848344|NCT05194579|181561994|EQUIVALENCE|Pharmacokinetic equivalence were assessed by constructing the 90% CIs for the GMR (test/reference) for Cmax, AUClast and AUCinf. This table displays AUCinf statistical analysis.|Ratio of Geometric Mean|123.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|108.75|140.82|||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis was PF-06881894 OBI was not equivalent to PF-06881894 PFS.||140.82|108.75|
90848345|NCT01816945|181562044|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.15
90848346|NCT01816945|181562047|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Two-sample t-test for PHQ-9 at 12 months||||0.96
90848347|NCT01816945|181562048|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.043|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Two-sample t-test for Social Network Score at 12 month||||0.043
90848348|NCT00244140|181562104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Images Rated Good/Excellent: BR1|95.8||||||95.0|93.3|97.6||||||Study was uncontrolled - No comparison between groups. The 95% Confidence Interval (CI) were calculated for each of the 3 blinded readers separately. This analysis refers to the assessment of blinded reader 1 (BR1).||97.6|93.3|
90848349|NCT00244140|181562104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Images Rated Good/Excellent: BR2|96.3||||||95.0|93.9|98.0||||||Study was uncontrolled - No comparison between groups. The 95% Confidence Interval (CI) were calculated for each of the 3 blinded readers separately. This analysis refers to the assessment of blinded reader 2 (BR2).||98.0|93.9|
90848350|NCT00244140|181562104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Images Rated Good/Excellent: BR3|98.4||||||95.0|96.6|99.4||||||Study was uncontrolled - No comparison between groups. The 95% Confidence Interval (CI) were calculated for each of the 3 blinded readers separately. This analysis refers to the assessment of blinded reader 3 (BR3).||99.4|96.6|
90848351|NCT00244140|181562105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Images Rated Yes|99.7||||||95.0|98.6|100.0||||||||100.0|98.6|
90848352|NCT00244140|181562106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Images Rated Good/Excellent|99.5||||||95.0|98.1|99.9||||||||99.9|98.1|
90848353|NCT00244140|181562107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Images Rated Yes: BR1|98.4||||||95.0|96.6|99.4||||||Study was uncontrolled - No comparison between groups. The 95% Confidence Interval (CI) were calculated for each of the 3 blinded readers separately. This analysis refers to the assessment of blinded reader 1 (BR1).||99.4|96.6|
90848354|NCT00244140|181562107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Images Rated Yes: BR2|100.0||||||95.0|99.0|100.0||||||Study was uncontrolled - No comparison between groups. The 95% Confidence Interval (CI) were calculated for each of the 3 blinded readers separately. This analysis refers to the assessment of blinded reader 2 (BR2).||100.0|99.0|
90848355|NCT00244140|181562107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Images Rated Yes: BR3|99.7||||||95.0|98.6|100.0||||||Study was uncontrolled - No comparison between groups. The 95% Confidence Interval (CI) were calculated for each of the 3 blinded readers separately. This analysis refers to the assessment of blinded reader 3 (BR3).||100.0|98.6|
90957429|NCT00395460|181794899|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The analysis was performed by means of a Confidence Interval (CI) approach: noninferiority of Gadavist was assumed if the one-sided 95% CI for pGadavist-pMagnevist was lying entirely to the right of the value -delta, where p is the estimated change in CNR and with pre-defined non-inferiority margin delta of 15% (=6.52 or 15% of 43.467).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.939|STANDARD_DEVIATION|38.83|||ONE_SIDED|95.0|-3.897||||non-inferiority||||||-3.897|
91095424|NCT00879658|182074354|SUPERIORITY||lesion ratio|0.276||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.112|0.676||new Gd-enhanced T1 lesions was compared between treatment groups using a negative binomial generalized estimating equation regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||Pairwise treatment comparison between different BAF312 dose group and placebo used a two-sided significance level of 5% without adjusting for multiplicity.||0.676|0.112|0.005
90848356|NCT00275340|181562108|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Study was not powered to determine significant group differences; thus trends are reported for p\<0.20.|||||p<|0||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Mean change scores were computed on domain and summary scores. Mean differences in change scores between groups were computed and t-tests used to detect significant differences.||||p<0.20
90848357|NCT00862641|181562114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1451||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysis of treatment effect was based on the Cochran-Mantel Haenszel(CMH) test stratified by investigative site. Sites with \<15 subjects were pooled.||||||0.1451
90848358|NCT00862641|181562114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.579||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysis of treatment effect was based on the CMH test stratified by investigative site. Sites with less than 15 subjects were pooled.||||||0.5790
90848359|NCT00862641|181562117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0029||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||P-value applies to 'Change at Hour 2'||||0.0029
90848360|NCT00862641|181562117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6189||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||P-value applies to 'Change at Hour 2'||||0.6189
90848361|NCT00862641|181562118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0015||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||P-value applies to 'Change at Hour 2'||||0.0015
90848362|NCT00862641|181562118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4385||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||P-value applies to 'Change at Hour 2'||||0.4385
90848363|NCT00862641|181562119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0789||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||P-value applies to 'Change at Hour 2'||||0.0789
90848364|NCT00862641|181562119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0258||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||P-value applies to 'Change at Hour 2'||||0.0258
90848365|NCT00862641|181562120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2087||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||P-value applies to 'Change at Hour 2'||||0.2087
90957430|NCT02943226|181794911|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4487|||||||two sample t-test|||||||0.4487
90957431|NCT02943226|181794912|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0112|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0112
91095425|NCT00879658|182074354|SUPERIORITY||lesion ratio|0.118|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.034|0.409||new Gd-enhanced T1 lesions was compared between treatment groups using a negative binomial generalized estimating equation regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||Pairwise treatment comparison between different BAF312 dose group and placebo used a two-sided significance level of 5% without adjusting for multiplicity.||0.409|0.034|<0.001
90899515|NCT03502616|181665111|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-1.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.98||0.7704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.47|9.98|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||9.98|-13.47|0.7704
90899516|NCT03502616|181665111|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.95||0.8492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|10.53|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||10.53|-12.80|0.8492
90899517|NCT03502616|181665112|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|2.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63||0.1692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|5.43|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||5.43|-0.95|0.1692
90899518|NCT03502616|181665112|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|4.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04||0.0289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|8.46|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||8.46|0.46|0.0289
90899519|NCT03502616|181665112|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|6.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.59||0.0199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|11.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||11.09|0.95|0.0199
91029995|NCT01508936|181944409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.123|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0762||0.1072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.273|0.027||significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Fixed effects for treatment, hx of asthma exacerbation, sex, visit, and interaction of treatment and visit; covariates for height and baseline value|Active - Placebo|"The change from baseline over the 16 week treatment period was measured for the key secondary variables of:~* Lung function as measured by FEV1~* ACQ~Testing of the key secondary variables was performed using the sequential testing procedure in the order as specified above at the alpha level of 0.05."||0.027|-0.273|0.1072
91095426|NCT00879658|182074354|SUPERIORITY||lesion ratio|0.683||||0.485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.234|1.991||new Gd-enhanced T1 lesions was compared between treatment groups using a negative binomial generalized estimating equation regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||Pairwise treatment comparison between different BAF312 dose group and placebo used a two-sided significance level of 5% without adjusting for multiplicity.||1.991|0.234|0.485
90848366|NCT00862641|181562120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0289||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||P-value applies to 'Change at Hour 2'||||0.0289
90848367|NCT00862641|181562121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9904||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||"P-value applies to 'Change at Hour 2'~P-value based on ranked analysis of covariance with treatment and investigator site as main effects and baseline value as a covariate in the model."||||0.9904
90848368|NCT00862641|181562121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8085||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||"P-value applies to 'Change at Hour 2'~P-value based on ranked analysis of covariance with treatment and investigator site as main effects and baseline value as a covariate in the model."||||0.8085
90848369|NCT02365480|181562125|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.91||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|36.37|||Fisher Exact|||||36.37|0.10|0.60
90899520|NCT03502616|181665112|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|12.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.46||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.26|18.81|||Difference in percentage|||Week 12: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||18.81|5.26|0.0005
91029996|NCT01611090|181944430|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.229|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.183|0.286|||Log Rank|||||0.286|0.183|< 0.0001
91029997|NCT03968224|181944444|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
90848370|NCT01419197|181562133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.528|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.422|0.661||The two-sided stratified log-rank test was used to compare progression-free survival between the two treatment arms at the overall two-sided significance level of 0.5%.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression.|The analysis was stratified for 1) World region (United States, Western Europe, or Other); 2) Number of prior regimens, excluding single-agent hormones, for treatment of metastatic or unresectable locally advanced/recurrent disease (≤ 3 or \> 3); and 3) Presence of visceral disease (any visceral disease vs no visceral disease).||0.661|0.422|<0.0001
90848371|NCT01419197|181562134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.552||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.369|0.826||The 2-sided stratified log-rank test was used at the overall two-sided significance level of 4.5%. The pre-specified O'Brien-Fleming stopping boundary for this first OS interim analysis was HR\<0.363 (p-value \< 0.0000013).|Log Rank||The hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression.|The analysis was stratified for 1) World region (United States, Western Europe, or Other); 2) Number of prior regimens, excluding single-agent hormones, for treatment of metastatic or unresectable locally advanced/recurrent disease (≤ 3 or \> 3); and 3) Presence of visceral disease (any visceral disease vs no visceral disease).||0.826|0.369|0.0034
90899521|NCT03502616|181665112|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|12.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.45||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.29|18.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||18.80|5.29|0.0005
90899522|NCT03502616|181665112|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|10.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.49||0.0253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|18.83|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||18.83|1.24|0.0253
90899523|NCT03502616|181665112|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|7.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.75||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|17.24|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 32: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||17.24|-1.38|0.0950
90899524|NCT03502616|181665112|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|7.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.86||0.1377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.31|16.73|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||16.73|-2.31|0.1377
90957432|NCT02943226|181794913|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0784|||||||two sample t-test|||||||0.0784
91095427|NCT00879658|182074354|SUPERIORITY||lesion ratio|0.591||||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.292|1.193||new Gd-enhanced T1 lesions was compared between treatment groups using a negative binomial generalized estimating equation regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||Pairwise treatment comparison between different BAF312 dose group and placebo used a two-sided significance level of 5% without adjusting for multiplicity.||1.193|0.292|0.142
91095428|NCT00879658|182074355|SUPERIORITY|Pairwise treatment comparison between different BAF312 dose group and placebo used a two-sided significance level of 5% without adjusting for multiplicity.|lesion ratio|0.161|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.062|0.421||new Gd-enhanced T1 lesions was compared between treatment groups using a negative binomial generalized estimating equation regression model|Regression, Logistic|||||0.421|0.062|<0.001
91095429|NCT00879658|182074355|SUPERIORITY||lesion ratio|0.197||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.074|0.527||new Gd-enhanced T1 lesions was compared between treatment groups using a negative binomial generalized estimating equation regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||Pairwise treatment comparison between different BAF312 dose group and placebo used a two-sided significance level of 5% without adjusting for multiplicity.||0.527|0.074|0.001
91095430|NCT00879658|182074355|SUPERIORITY||lesion ratio|0.416||||0.139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.331||new Gd-enhanced T1 lesions was compared between treatment groups using a negative binomial generalized estimating equation regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||Pairwise treatment comparison between different BAF312 dose group and placebo used a two-sided significance level of 5% without adjusting for multiplicity.||1.331|0.130|0.139
90848372|NCT01419197|181562135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Response Percentage|22.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.2|29.2|||Mantel Haenszel|||The analysis was stratified for 1) World region (United States, Western Europe, or Other); 2) Number of prior regimens, excluding single-agent hormones, for treatment of metastatic or unresectable locally advanced/recurrent disease (≤ 3 or \> 3); and 3) Presence of visceral disease (any visceral disease vs no visceral disease).||29.2|16.2|<0.0001
90848373|NCT01419197|181562137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Survival Percentage|12.6||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.03|20.09||The p-value for the difference in survival rate was derived from the z-test using the standard errors computed using Greenwood's method.|z-test|||6-month survival||20.09|5.03|0.0011
90848374|NCT01419197|181562137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Survival Percentage|11.7||||0.1805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.41|28.75||The p-value for the difference in survival rates was derived from the z-test using the standard errors computed using Greenwood's method.|z-test|||1-year survival||28.75|-5.41|0.1805
90848375|NCT01419197|181562138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.115||||0.4952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.819|1.517|||Log Rank|||The analysis was stratified for 1) World region (United States, Western Europe, or Other); 2) Number of prior regimens, excluding single-agent hormones, for treatment of metastatic or unresectable locally advanced/recurrent disease (≤ 3 or \> 3); and 3) Presence of visceral disease (any visceral disease vs no visceral disease).||1.517|0.819|0.4952
90848376|NCT01419197|181562140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.677||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.539|0.85||The two-sided stratified log-rank test was used at the overall two-sided significance level of 4.5%. The pre-specified O'Brien-Fleming stopping boundary for this second and final interim analysis was HR\<0.748 (p value \< 0.012).|Log Rank||The hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression.|The analysis was stratified for 1) World region (United States, Western Europe, or Other); 2) Number of prior regimens, excluding single-agent hormones, for treatment of metastatic or unresectable locally advanced/recurrent disease (≤ 3 or \> 3); and 3) Presence of visceral disease (any visceral disease versus no visceral disease).||0.850|0.539|0.0007
90899525|NCT03502616|181665112|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|5.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.91||0.2472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.94|15.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||15.30|-3.94|0.2472
91029998|NCT03968224|181944445|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
91029999|NCT03968224|181944446|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
90848377|NCT01419197|181562141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Survival Percentage|12.4||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.67|19.14||The p-value for the difference in survival rate was derived from the z-test using the standard errors computed using Greenwood's method.|z-test|||6-month survival||19.14|5.67|0.0003
90848378|NCT01419197|181562141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Survival Percentage|11.0||||0.0104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.58|19.33||The p-value for the difference in survival rates was derived from the z-test using the standard errors computed using Greenwood's method.|z-test|||1-year survival||19.33|2.58|0.0104
90848379|NCT01099449|181562144|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Two-sample t-tests or Wilcoxon rank-sum tests will be used as in\>\> primary analysis.||||||0.73|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Two-sample t-tests or Wilcoxon rank-sum tests will be used\>\> to compare the AUC of CIPN sensory subscale between each of the two schedules of\>\> Ca/Mg infusions vs placebo arms at the 2.5% significance level. If the CIPN sensory\>\> subscales are observed to be unbalanced, we will adjust for the baseline CIPN sensory\>\> subscale scores from the AUC or incorporate them as a covariate in generalized linear\>\> regression model.||||.73
90859760|NCT00537238|181582906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean differences|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.87||0.6984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|2.95|||ANCOVA|||Week 16 somnolence: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and combined center, for post-baseline assessments baseline was included as a covariate.||2.95|-4.40|0.6984
90859761|NCT00537238|181582906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean differences|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.64||0.9389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|3.34|||ANCOVA|||Baseline sleep problem index (9): ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and combined center, for post-baseline assessments baseline was included as a covariate.||3.34|-3.09|0.9389
90859762|NCT00537238|181582906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean differences|0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.34||0.6344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|3.27|||ANCOVA|||Week 16 sleep problem index (9): ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and combined center, for post-baseline assessments baseline was included as a covariate.||3.27|-2.00|0.6344
91030000|NCT03968224|181944447|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
90848380|NCT01099449|181562144|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Two-sample t-tests or Wilcoxon rank-sum tests will be used as in\>\> primary analysis.||||||0.29|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Two-sample t-tests or Wilcoxon rank-sum tests will be used\>\> to compare the AUC of CIPN sensory subscale between each of the two schedules of\>\> Ca/Mg infusions vs placebo arms at the 2.5% significance level. If the CIPN sensory\>\> subscales are observed to be unbalanced, we will adjust for the baseline CIPN sensory\>\> subscale scores from the AUC or incorporate them as a covariate in generalized linear\>\> regression model.||||.29
90848381|NCT01099449|181562145|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Two-sample t-tests or Wilcoxon rank-sum tests will be used as in\>\> primary analysis.||||||0.054|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We will not adjust p-values (or significance level) for multiple\>\> comparisons among the numerous hypothesis testings of secondary endpoints due to the\>\> exploratory nature of these secondary analyses. The significance results from secondary\>\> analyses will be interpreted cautiously in a hypothesis-generating fashion.||||.054
90848382|NCT01099449|181562145|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Two-sample t-tests or Wilcoxon rank-sum tests will be used as in\>\> primary analysis.||||||0.27|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We will not adjust p-values (or significance level) for multiple\>\> comparisons among the numerous hypothesis testings of secondary endpoints due to the\>\> exploratory nature of these secondary analyses. The significance results from secondary\>\> analyses will be interpreted cautiously in a hypothesis-generating fashion.||||.27
90848383|NCT01099449|181562146|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Two-sample t-tests or Wilcoxon rank-sum tests will be used as in\>\> primary analysis.||||||0.29|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We will not adjust p-values (or significance level) for multiple\>\> comparisons among the numerous hypothesis testings of secondary endpoints due to the\>\> exploratory nature of these secondary analyses. The significance results from secondary\>\> analyses will be interpreted cautiously in a hypothesis-generating fashion.||||.29
90848384|NCT01099449|181562146|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Two-sample t-tests or Wilcoxon rank-sum tests will be used as in\>\> primary analysis.||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We will not adjust p-values (or significance level) for multiple\>\> comparisons among the numerous hypothesis testings of secondary endpoints due to the\>\> exploratory nature of these secondary analyses. The significance results from secondary\>\> analyses will be interpreted cautiously in a hypothesis-generating fashion.||||.25
90848385|NCT01099449|181562149|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Kruskal Wallis Analysis||||||0.89|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.89
90848386|NCT01099449|181562149|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Kruskal Wallis Analysis||||||0.496|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.496
90848387|NCT01099449|181562150|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Chi-Squared Analysis||||||0.52|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.52
90848388|NCT01099449|181562150|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Chi-Squared Analysis||||||0.66|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.66
90848389|NCT00146848|181562154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.75||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.14|3.74|||t-test, 2 sided|||The changes in quality of life were compared between groups using two-sided t-tests.||3.74|-3.14|0.86
91030001|NCT04533646|181944451|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.1|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Means testing||||comparison of means test was performed|||<0.01
90848390|NCT00146848|181562154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.87||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|5.16|||t-test, 2 sided|||The difference in changes in quality of life between groups were compared using a t-test.||5.16|-2.18|0.43
90848391|NCT00146848|181562155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55||95.0|||||Cochran-Armitage test for trend|||One sided test testing for shift towards improvement in either atrial support pacing treatment arm compared to the DDD-40 arm.||||0.55
90848392|NCT00146848|181562155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8||95.0|||||Cochran-Armitage test for trend|||||||0.80
90848393|NCT00146848|181562156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.35||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.65|2.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||Compare the difference in the changes in physical activity scores between groups using a t-test.||2.30|-22.65|0.11
91030002|NCT04256421|181944453|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.3504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.38|||Log Rank|||Stratification factors were LDH (\> upper limit of normal \[ULN\] vs. \</= ULN) and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG; 0 vs. 1).||1.38|0.89|0.3504
90848394|NCT00146848|181562156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.55||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.11|-0.37|||t-test, 2 sided|||"Compare the difference in the changes in physical activity scores between groups using a t-test.~To adjust for multiple comparisons, an alpha level of 0.025 should be used to deem significance."||-0.37|-26.11|0.04
90848395|NCT02395172|181562157|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87|||=|0.0721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.05|||Log Rank|||||1.05|0.71|= 0.0721
90848396|NCT02395172|181562158|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.05||||||||1.05|0.77|
90848397|NCT02395172|181562159|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.27||||||||1.27|0.80|
90848398|NCT02395172|181562160|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.41||||||||1.41|0.98|
90848399|NCT02395172|181562163|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.13||||||||2.13|0.92|
90848400|NCT02395172|181562164|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|2.86||||||||2.86|1.08|
90848401|NCT00612105|181562180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.43||||0.2537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.171|0.312|||ANCOVA|||||0.312|-1.171|0.2537
90848402|NCT00475982|181562245|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.965||||0.965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.965
90848403|NCT00475982|181562246|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.884||||0.884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.884
90848404|NCT00475982|181562247|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.294|||||||paired t-test|||intra-analysis within the weight loss arm||||0.294
90848405|NCT00475982|181562247|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||paired t-test|||intra-analysis within the control arm||||0.440
90848406|NCT00475982|181562247|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|8.49||||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.31|21.3|||paired t-test|||analysis between the weight loss and control arms||21.3|-4.31|0.186
90848407|NCT00475982|181562248|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.162|||||||paired t-test|||intra-analysis within the weight loss arm||||0.162
90848408|NCT00475982|181562248|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.986|||||||paired t-test|||intra-analysis within the control arm||||0.986
90848409|NCT00475982|181562248|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.22||||0.353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.58|7.02|||paired t-test|||analysis between the weight loss and control arms||7.02|-2.58|0.353
91095431|NCT00879658|182074356|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.227||||||Calculated using weighted logistic regression model adj. for tx group and baseline number of Gd-enhanced T1 lesions. Weight used is equal to 1 if all post-baseline scans up to month 3 are available and (k-x)/k if x scans out of k scans are missing.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.227
91095432|NCT00879658|182074356|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||Calculated using weighted logistic regression model adj. for tx group and baseline number of Gd-enhanced T1 lesions. Weight used is equal to 1 if all post-baseline scans up to month 3 are available and (k-x)/k if x scans out of k scans are missing.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.020
91095433|NCT00879658|182074356|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||Calculated using weighted logistic regression model adj. for tx group and baseline number of Gd-enhanced T1 lesions. Weight used is equal to 1 if all post-baseline scans up to month 3 are available and (k-x)/k if x scans out of k scans are missing.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.001
91095434|NCT00879658|182074356|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.122||||||Calculated using weighted logistic regression model adj. for tx group and baseline number of Gd-enhanced T1 lesions. Weight used is equal to 1 if all post-baseline scans up to month 3 are available and (k-x)/k if x scans out of k scans are missing.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.122
90848410|NCT00475982|181562249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.283|||||||paired t-test|||intra-analysis within the weight loss arm||||0.283
91095435|NCT00879658|182074356|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.034||||||Calculated using weighted logistic regression model adj. for tx group and baseline number of Gd-enhanced T1 lesions. Weight used is equal to 1 if all post-baseline scans up to month 3 are available and (k-x)/k if x scans out of k scans are missing.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.034
91095436|NCT00879658|182074357|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.335||||||Calculated using weighted logistic regression model adj. for tx group and baseline number of Gd-enhanced T1 lesions. Weight used is equal to 1 if all post-baseline scans up to month 3 are available and (k-x)/k if x scans out of k scans are missing.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.335
90848411|NCT00475982|181562249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.701|||||||paired t-test|||intra-analysis within the control arm||||0.701
91030003|NCT04256421|181944454|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.2859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.44|||Log Rank|||Stratification factors were LDH (\> ULN vs. \</= ULN) and ECOG (0 vs. 1).||1.44|0.90|0.2859
91030004|NCT04256421|181944455|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.31|||Log Rank|||Stratification factors were LDH (\> ULN vs. \</= ULN) and ECOG (0 vs. 1).||1.31|0.89|0.4440
91095437|NCT00879658|182074357|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022||||||Calculated using weighted logistic regression model adj. for tx group and baseline number of Gd-enhanced T1 lesions. Weight used is equal to 1 if all post-baseline scans up to month 3 are available and (k-x)/k if x scans out of k scans are missing.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.022
91095438|NCT00879658|182074357|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.124||||||Calculated using weighted logistic regression model adj. for tx group and baseline number of Gd-enhanced T1 lesions. Weight used is equal to 1 if all post-baseline scans up to month 3 are available and (k-x)/k if x scans out of k scans are missing.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.124
90848412|NCT00475982|181562249|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.77||||0.835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|8.24|||paired t-test|||analysis between the intervention and control arms||8.24|-6.70|0.835
90848413|NCT00475982|181562250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||paired t-test|||intra-analysis within the weight loss arm||||0.00
91030005|NCT04256421|181944456|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.4205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.35|||Log Rank|||Stratification factors were LDH (\> ULN vs. \</= ULN) and ECOG (0 vs. 1).||1.35|0.88|0.4205
91095439|NCT00879658|182074358|SUPERIORITY|Pairwise comparison of treatments are based on a negative binomial GEE regression model accounting for repeated measures on each patient, adjusted for baseline number of Gd-enhanced T1 lesions and treatment group x month (the month number of each lesion count measurement) interaction, using the log link.|lesion ratio|0.129||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.561||p-value corresponds to the lesion ratio and 95% CI of lesion ratio for active treatment in comparison to placebo.|Regression, Logistic|||||0.561|0.030|0.006
90848414|NCT00475982|181562250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||paired t-test|||intra-analysis within the control arm||||0.009
90848415|NCT00475982|181562250|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.11||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|3.59|||paired t-test|||analysis between the two arms||3.59|0.64|0.007
90848416|NCT00475982|181562251|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.073|||||||paired t-test|||intra-analysis within the weight loss arm||||0.073
90848417|NCT00475982|181562251|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.207|||||||paired t-test|||intra-analysis within the control arm||||0.207
90848418|NCT00475982|181562251|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.34||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|2.75|||paired t-test|||analysis between the two arms||2.75|-0.08|0.063
91095440|NCT00879658|182074358|SUPERIORITY|Pairwise comparison of treatments are based on a negative binomial GEE regression model accounting for repeated measures on each patient, adjusted for baseline number of Gd-enhanced T1 lesions and treatment group x month (the month number of each lesion count measurement) interaction, using the log link.|lesion ratio|0.159||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.044|0.578||p-value corresponds to the lesion ratio and 95% CI of lesion ratio for active treatment in comparison to placebo.|Regression, Logistic|||||0.578|0.044|0.005
91095441|NCT00879658|182074358|SUPERIORITY|Pairwise comparison of treatments are based on a negative binomial GEE regression model accounting for repeated measures on each patient, adjusted for baseline number of Gd-enhanced T1 lesions and treatment group x month (the month number of each lesion count measurement) interaction, using the log link.|lesion ratio|0.052||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.007|0.405||p-value corresponds to the lesion ratio and 95% CI of lesion ratio for active treatment in comparison to placebo.|Regression, Logistic|||||0.405|0.007|0.005
91095442|NCT00879658|182074358|SUPERIORITY||lesion ratio|0.271||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.091|0.807||p-value corresponds to the lesion ratio and 95% CI of lesion ratio for active treatment in comparison to placebo.|Regression, Logistic|||Pairwise comparison of treatments are based on a negative binomial GEE regression model accounting for repeated measures on each patient, adjusted for baseline number of Gd-enhanced T1 lesions and treatment group x month (the month number of each lesion count measurement) interaction, using the log link.||0.807|0.091|0.019
91095443|NCT00879658|182074358|SUPERIORITY|Pairwise comparison of treatments are based on a negative binomial GEE regression model accounting for repeated measures on each patient, adjusted for baseline number of Gd-enhanced T1 lesions and treatment group x month (the month number of each lesion count measurement) interaction, using the log link.|lesion ratio|0.504||||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.337||p-value corresponds to the lesion ratio and 95% CI of lesion ratio for active treatment in comparison to placebo.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.337|0.190|0.169
91095444|NCT00879658|182074359|SUPERIORITY|Pairwise comparison of treatments are based on a negative binomial GEE regression model accounting for repeated measures on each patient, adjusted for baseline number of Gd-enhanced T1 lesions and treatment group x month (the month number of each lesion count measurement) interaction, using the log link.|lesion ratio|0.214|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.091|0.499||p-value corresponds to the lesion ratio and 95% CI of lesion ratio for active treatment in comparison to placebo.|Regression, Logistic|||||0.499|0.091|<0.001
91095445|NCT00879658|182074359|SUPERIORITY|Pairwise comparison of treatments are based on a negative binomial GEE regression model accounting for repeated measures on each patient, adjusted for baseline number of Gd-enhanced T1 lesions and treatment group x month (the month number of each lesion count measurement) interaction, using the log link.|lesion ratio|0.24||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.074|0.779||p-value corresponds to the lesion ratio and 95% CI of lesion ratio for active treatment in comparison to placebo.|Regression, Logistic|||||0.779|0.074|0.018
91095446|NCT00879658|182074359|SUPERIORITY|Pairwise comparison of treatments are based on a negative binomial GEE regression model accounting for repeated measures on each patient, adjusted for baseline number of Gd-enhanced T1 lesions and treatment group x month (the month number of each lesion count measurement) interaction, using the log link.|lesion ratio|0.231||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.081|0.653||p-value corresponds to the lesion ratio and 95% CI of lesion ratio for active treatment in comparison to placebo.|Regression, Logistic|||||0.653|0.081|0.006
91095447|NCT01719653|182074362|OTHER||||||<|0.005||||||Chicago BPS Total Score -- 1 was lower than 3,4,5; 2 was lower than 5. Modified Chicago BPS Total Score -- 1 were lower than 5. Chicago BPS Fluid Score -- 1 was dryer than 3,4,5; 2 was dryer than 3,4,5; 3 was wetter than 4,5.|t-test, 2 sided|||"All 5 arms were compared pair-wise.~1=G+PEG-306 2=G+PEG-357 3=G+PEG-Split 4=PEG+Asc-Split 5=SS-Split"||||<0.005
91095448|NCT01719653|182074363|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||1 was lower than 4,5.|t-test, 2 sided|||"All 5 arms were compared pair-wise.~1=G+PEG-306 2=G+PEG-357 3=G+PEG-Split 4=PEG+Asc-Split 5=SS-Split"||||<0.001
90848419|NCT00029146|181562275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in estimated 2 yr rates|1.7||||0.78||95.0|-10.4|13.8|||2-sided z-statistic|The difference in estimated rates divided by the standard error of that difference was compared to a standard unit normal distribution.|Positive indicates lower rate in surgical group|Rates for each group were based on product limit estimates of 2-year rates and their standard errors. The test statistic was calculated as the difference in estimated rates divided by the standard error of that difference. The 2-sided z-statistic was compared to a standard unit normal distribution.The study was terminated early for futility after 195 of the planned 372 participants were enrolled.||13.8|-10.4|0.78
90848420|NCT00029146|181562276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in estimated 2 yr rates|3.5||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|16.1|||2-sided z-statistic|The difference in estimated rates divided by the standard error of that difference was compared to a standard unit normal distribution.|Positive indicates lower rate in surgical group|Rates for each group were based on product limit estimates of 2-year rates and their standard errors.||16.1|-9.2|0.59
91095449|NCT01719653|182074364|OTHER||||||>|0.005|||||||Chi-squared|||All 5 arms were compared pair-wise.||||>0.005
90848421|NCT00029146|181562277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in estimated 2 yr rates|-3.2||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|2.6|||2-sided z-statistic|The difference in estimated rates divided by the standard error of that difference was compared to a standard unit normal distribution.|Negative indicates lower rate in non-surgical group|Rates for each group were based on product limit estimates of 2-year rates and their standard errors. The test statistic was calculated as the difference in estimated rates divided by the standard error of that difference.||2.6|-9.0|0.27
90848422|NCT00029146|181562278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in estimated 2 yr rates|1.3||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|5.2|||2-sided z-statistic|The difference in estimated rates divided by the standard error of that difference was compared to a standard unit normal distribution.|Positive indicates lower rate in surgical group|Rates for each group were based on product limit estimates of 2-year rates and their standard errors. The test statistic was calculated as the difference in estimated rates divided by the standard error of that difference.||5.2|-2.5|0.50
90848423|NCT00029146|181562279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in estimated 2 yr rates|4.0||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|9.7|||2-sided z-statistic|The difference in estimated rates divided by the standard error of that difference was compared to a standard unit normal distribution.|Positive indicates lower rate in surgical group|Rates for each group were based on product limit estimates of 2-year rates and their standard errors. The test statistic was calculated as the difference in estimated rates divided by the standard error of that difference.||9.7|-1.2|0.13
90899526|NCT03502616|181665113|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.163|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.41|-1.05|<0.0001
90848424|NCT00029146|181562280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in estimated 2 yr rates|6.5||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|19.6|||2-sided z-statistic|The difference in estimated rates divided by the standard error of that difference was compared to a standard unit normal distribution.|Positive indicates lower rate in surgical group|Rates for each group were based on product limit estimates of 2-year rates and their standard errors. The test statistic was calculated as the difference in estimated rates divided by the standard error of that difference.||19.6|-6.5|.33
91030006|NCT04256421|181944457|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Overall Response Rates|6.8||||0.1418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.57|15.99|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Stratification factors were LDH (\> ULN vs. \</= ULN) and ECOG (0 vs. 1).||15.99|-2.57|0.1418
91095450|NCT02421939|182074365|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.637||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.83||1-sided P-value|Log Rank||Based on Cox proportional hazards model. Assuming proportional hazards, an HR of \< 1 indicates a reduction in the hazard rate in favor of the gilteritinib arm|Stratified analysis where tratification factors were response to first-line AML therapy and preselected salvage chemotherapy per IRT.||0.830|0.490|0.0004
91095451|NCT02421939|182074367|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.793||||0.0415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.577|1.089||1-sided P-value|Log Rank||Based on the Cox proportional hazards model. Assuming proportional hazards, an HR of \< 1 indicates a reduction in the hazard rate in favor of the gilteritinib arm.|Stratification factors were response to first-line AML therapy and preselected salvage chemotherapy per IRT||1.089|0.577|0.0415
90848425|NCT00029146|181562281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in estimated 2 yr rates|-6.6||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.6|7.3|||Fisher Exact||Negative indicates lower rate in non-surgical group. In this case, lower rate is worse since Rankin 0-1 indicates a good outcome.|||7.3|-20.6|0.41
90899527|NCT03502616|181665113|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.187|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|-0.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.91|-1.65|<0.0001
91030007|NCT04256421|181944458|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Overall Response Rates|5.19||||0.2191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.33|13.61|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Stratification factors were LDH (\> ULN vs. \</= ULN) and ECOG (0 vs. 1).||13.61|-3.33|0.2191
91030008|NCT04256421|181944463|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|-3.74||||0.458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|6.13|||Z-test|||Month 12||6.13|-13.60|0.4580
91030009|NCT04256421|181944463|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|-8.12||||0.0999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|1.55|||Z-test|||Month 24||1.55|-17.80|0.0999
91030010|NCT04256421|181944464|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|-3.02||||0.5059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.92|5.88|||Z-test|||Month 12||5.88|-11.92|0.5059
90848426|NCT00029146|181562282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in estimated 2 yr rates|4.4||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|16.9|||Fisher Exact||Positive indicates lower rate in surgical group In this case, lower rate is worse since Rankin 0-2 indicates a good outcome.|||16.9|-8.2|0.70
90848427|NCT00029146|181562283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85||95.0|||||Fisher's Exact Test|||||||0.85
90848428|NCT00029146|181562284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.07|||t-test, 2 sided||Negative indicates lower score in non-surgical group.A higher score indicates better quality of life|||0.07|-0.54|0.13
90848429|NCT00029146|181562285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in estimated 2 yr rates|1.5||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|13.7|||2-sided z-statistic|The difference in estimated rates divided by the standard error of that difference was compared to a standard unit normal distribution.||Rates for each group were based on product limit estimates of 2-year rates and their standard errors. The test statistic was calculated as the difference in estimated rates divided by the standard error of that difference.||13.7|-10.7|0.81
90848430|NCT04556383|181562291|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.6||||0.6694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|10.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||PCP GB004 480 mg QD vs Placebo.|||10.2|-15.2|0.6694
90848431|NCT04556383|181562291|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.6||||0.4719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|17.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||PCP GB004 480 mg BID vs Placebo.|||17.8|-9.0|0.4719
91030011|NCT04256421|181944464|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|-5.29||||0.2458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.23|3.65|||Z-test|||Month 24||3.65|-14.23|0.2458
91030012|NCT04256421|181944465|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.9819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.48|||Log Rank|||Stratification factors were LDH (\> ULN vs. \</= ULN) and ECOG (0 vs. 1).||1.48|0.68|0.9819
90848432|NCT04556383|181562293|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.7||||0.3263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.2|8.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||PCP GB004 480 mg QD vs Placebo.|||8.3|-23.2|0.3263
91030013|NCT04256421|181944466|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.5122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.55|||Log Rank|||Stratification factors were LDH (\> ULN vs. \</= ULN) and ECOG (0 vs. 1).||1.55|0.81|0.5122
91030014|NCT04256421|181944467|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.3614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.79|||Log Rank|||Stratification factors were LDH (\> ULN vs. \</= ULN) and ECOG (0 vs. 1).||1.79|0.81|0.3614
91030015|NCT04256421|181944468|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.29||||0.1681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.84|||Log Rank|||Stratification factors were LDH (\> ULN vs. \</= ULN) and ECOG (0 vs. 1).||1.84|0.90|0.1681
91030016|NCT05771428|181944477|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.939||0.9819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|1.83|||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||||1.83|-1.87|0.9819
91030017|NCT05771428|181944477|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.931||0.6545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|1.42|||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||||1.42|-2.25|0.6545
91030018|NCT05771428|181944477|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.928||0.786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|2.08|||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||||2.08|-1.58|0.7860
91030019|NCT00366899|181944487|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the two groups was \> -10%.|Difference|-0.4||||||95.0|-2.2|1.0||||||For Pertussis PT the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at ≥5 EU/mL threshold was calculated.||1.0|-2.2|
91030020|NCT00366899|181944487|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the two groups was \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-4.0|3.8||||||For Pertussis PT the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at ≥16 EU/mL threshold was calculated.||3.8|-4.0|
90848433|NCT04556383|181562293|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.2||||0.2002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|25.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||PCP GB004 480 mg BID vs Placebo.|||25.8|-6.1|0.2002
90848434|NCT04556383|181562294|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.4||||0.9472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|15.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||PCP GB004 480 mg QD vs Placebo.|||15.9|-15.2|0.9472
90848435|NCT04556383|181562294|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.8||||0.3685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|22.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||PCP GB004 480 mg BID vs Placebo.|||22.4|-9.3|0.3685
90848436|NCT04556383|181562295|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.3||||0.8484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|15.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||PCP GB004 480 mg QD vs Placebo.|||15.2|-12.7|0.8484
90848437|NCT04556383|181562295|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.2||||0.2392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|22.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||PCP GB004 480 mg BID vs Placebo.|||22.3|-6.4|0.2392
90848438|NCT04556383|181562296|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.2||||0.8493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|12.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||PCP GB004 480 mg QD vs Placebo.|||12.5|-14.8|0.8493
90848439|NCT04556383|181562296|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.6||||0.6647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|16.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||PCP GB004 480 mg BID vs Placebo.|||16.5|-11.5|0.6647
90848440|NCT04556383|181562297|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.5||||0.2263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.1|6.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||PCP GB004 480 mg QD vs Placebo.|||6.0|-19.1|0.2263
90848441|NCT04556383|181562297|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.4||||0.8259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|12.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||PCP GB004 480 mg BID vs Placebo.|||12.2|-14.8|0.8259
90848442|NCT04556383|181562298|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.8||||0.7418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|18.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||PCP GB004 480 mg QD vs Placebo.|||18.1|-12.7|0.7418
91030021|NCT00366899|181944487|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the two groups was \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-1.6|1.4||||||For Pertussis FHA the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at ≥5 EU/mL threshold was calculated||1.4|-1.6|
90848443|NCT04556383|181562298|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.4||||0.2758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|24.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||PCP GB004 480 mg BID vs Placebo.|||24.2|-7.8|0.2758
90848444|NCT04556383|181562299|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.0||||0.3504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.6|8.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||PCP GB004 480 mg QD vs Placebo.|||8.9|-20.6|0.3504
90848445|NCT04556383|181562299|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.7||||0.8009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.2|17.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||PCP GB004 480 mg BID vs Placebo.|||17.5|-14.2|0.8009
90848446|NCT04556383|181562300|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.2||||0.9474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|13.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||PCP GB004 480 mg QD vs Placebo.|||13.7|-14.3|0.9474
90848447|NCT04556383|181562300|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.0||||0.6409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|10.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||PCP GB004 480 mg BID vs Placebo.|||10.8|-16.6|0.6409
90848448|NCT04556383|181562301|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.0||||0.1932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.4|6.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||PCP GB004 480 mg QD vs Placebo.|||6.3|-22.4|0.1932
90848449|NCT04556383|181562301|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.3||||0.7459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6|12.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||PCP GB004 480 mg BID vs Placebo.|||12.9|-17.6|0.7459
90848450|NCT00509145|181562319|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.911|||Over-dispersed Poisson Regression||Laquinimod 0.6 mg vs. placebo|Response variable: number of relapses during 24 months. Offset based on the log of subject's exposure in years was employed to adjust for variability of treatment exposure. In addition to the treatment group, the Poisson regression model included the following covariates: baseline EDSS score, log of prior 2-year number of relapses+1 and Country or Geographical Region (CGR).||0.911|0.650|0.0024
90848451|NCT01994889|181562326|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0006|||||||Finkelstein-Schoenfeld Method|||||||0.0006
90848452|NCT01994889|181562327|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.698||||0.0259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.508|0.958|||Cox proportional hazards model||Hazard ratio from a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment, TTR genotype (variant and wild-type) and New York Heart Association (NYHA) baseline classification (NYHA Classes I and II combined and NYHA Class III) in the model.|||0.958|0.508|0.0259
91030022|NCT00366899|181944487|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the two groups was \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-1.6|1.4||||||For Pertussis FHA the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at ≥7.82 EU/mL threshold was calculated.||1.4|-1.6|
90848453|NCT01994889|181562328|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.6761|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5639|0.8107||Poisson regression analysis with treatment, TTR genotype, NYHA baseline classification, treatment-by-TTR genotype interaction, and treatment-by-NYHA baseline classification interaction terms as factors adjusted for treatment duration.|Poisson regression analysis|||||0.8107|0.5639|<0.0001
90848454|NCT01994889|181562329|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|75.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.236|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.56|93.8|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||L.S. means are from an ANCOVA (MMRM) model with an unstructured covariance matrix; center and participant within center as random effects; treatment, visit, TTR genotype (variant and wild-type), and visit by treatment interaction, as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||93.80|57.56|<.0001
90848455|NCT01994889|181562330|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|13.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.48|17.83|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Change at Month 30||17.83|9.48|<.0001
90848456|NCT01994889|181562331|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.691||||0.0383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.488|0.98|||Cox proportional hazards model||Hazard ratio from a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment, TTR genotype (variant and wild-type) and NYHA baseline classification (NYHA Classes I and II combined and NYHA Class III) in the model.|||0.980|0.488|0.0383
90848457|NCT01994889|181562332|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
90848458|NCT03456882|181562341|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6346||||||Significance level set to 0.05|repeated measures ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA with unstructured variance covariance matrix. Independent variables: time, treatment and treatment\*time interaction||Global test of treatment\*time interaction effect. Null hypothesis: the change over time is not different between groups.||||0.6346
90848459|NCT03456882|181562341|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6||0.3585|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level set to 0.05|repeated measures ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA with unstructured variance covariance matrix. Independent variables: time, treatment and treatment\*time interaction.|RNS60 vs. Placebo|Contrast between treatment groups of the differences (week 24 - baseline) within treatment groups. Null hypothesis: the change from baseline to week 24 is not different between treatment groups.||||0.3585
90848460|NCT03456882|181562342|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4388||||||Significance level set to 0.05|repeated measures ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA with unstructured variance covariance matrix. Independent variables: time, treatment and treatment\*time interaction.||Global test of treatment\*time interaction effect. Null hypothesis: the change over time is not different between groups.||||0.4388
90848461|NCT03456882|181562342|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.2||0.9887|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level set to 0.05|repeated measures ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA with unstructured variance covariance matrix. Independent variables: time, treatment and treatment\*time interaction.|RNS60 vs. Placebo|Contrast between treatment groups of the differences (week 24 - baseline) within treatment groups. Null hypothesis: the change from baseline to week 24 is not different between treatment groups.||||0.9887
90957433|NCT00298090|181794914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Other|0.0||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.48|||repeated measures model||A repeated measures model was used to assess whether the one-minute average StO2 values differed systematically between pre and post arterial line placement.|||1.48|-0.80|0.55
91030023|NCT00366899|181944487|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the two groups was \> -10%.|Difference|-0.9||||||95.0|-5.0|2.9||||||For Pertussis FHA the difference in percentages between the two groups ( 13vPnC - 7vPnC) at ≥31 EU/mL threshold was calculated.||2.9|-5.0|
90848462|NCT03456882|181562343|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9622||||||Significance level set to 0.05|repeated measures ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA with unstructured variance covariance matrix. Independent variables: time, treatment and treatment\*time interaction.||Global test of treatment\*time interaction effect. Null hypothesis: the change over time is not different between groups.||||0.9622
90848463|NCT03456882|181562343|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.3||0.6533|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level set to 0.05|repeated measures ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA with unstructured variance covariance matrix. Independent variables: time, treatment and treatment\*time interaction.|RNS60 vs. Placebo|Contrast between treatment groups of the differences (week 24 - baseline) within treatment groups. Null hypothesis: the change from baseline to week 24 is not different between treatment groups.||||0.6533
90848464|NCT03456882|181562344|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9137||||||Significance level set to 0.05|repeated measures ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA with unstructured variance covariance matrix. Independent variables: time, treatment and treatment\*time interaction.||Global test of treatment\*time interaction effect. Null hypothesis: the change over time is not different between groups.||||0.9137
90848465|NCT03456882|181562344|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|16.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.7||0.3985|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level set to 0.05|repeated measures ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA with unstructured variance covariance matrix. Independent variables: time, treatment and treatment\*time interaction.|RNS60 vs. Placebo|Contrast between treatment groups of the differences (week 24 - baseline) within treatment groups. Null hypothesis: the change from baseline to week 24 is not different between treatment groups.||||0.3985
90848466|NCT03456882|181562345|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2543||||||Significance level set to 0.05|repeated measures ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA with unstructured variance covariance matrix. Independent variables: time, treatment and treatment\*time interaction.||Global test of treatment\*time interaction effect. Null hypothesis: the change over time is not different between groups.||||0.2543
90848467|NCT03456882|181562345|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.2209|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level set to 0.05|repeated measures ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA with unstructured variance covariance matrix. Independent variables: time, treatment and treatment\*time interaction.|RNS60 vs. Placebo|Contrast between treatment groups of the differences (week 24 - baseline) within treatment groups. Null hypothesis: the change from baseline to week 24 is not different between treatment groups.||||0.2209
90848468|NCT03456882|181562346|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2738||||||Significance level set to 0.05|repeated measures ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA with unstructured variance covariance matrix. Independent variables: time, treatment and treatment\*time interaction||Global test of treatment\*time interaction effect. Null hypothesis: the change over time is not different between groups.||||0.2738
90848469|NCT03456882|181562346|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7||0.4239|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level set to 0.05|repeated measures ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA with unstructured variance covariance matrix. Independent variables: time, treatment and treatment\*time interaction.|RNS60 vs. Placebo|Contrast between treatment groups of the differences (week 24 - baseline) within treatment groups. Null hypothesis: the change from baseline to week 24 is not different between treatment groups.||||0.4239
90848470|NCT03456882|181562347|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1708||||||Significance level set to 0.05|repeated measures ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA with unstructured variance covariance matrix. Independent variables: time, treatment and treatment\*time interaction.||Global test of treatment\*time interaction effect. Null hypothesis: the change over time is not different between groups.||||0.1708
90848471|NCT03456882|181562347|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.8133|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level set to 0.05|repeated measures ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA with unstructured variance covariance matrix. Independent variables: time, treatment and treatment\*time interaction.|RNS60 vs. Placebo|Contrast between treatment groups of the differences (week 24 - baseline) within treatment groups. Null hypothesis: the change from baseline to week 24 is not different between treatment groups.||||0.8133
90848472|NCT03456882|181562348|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5239||||||Significance level set to 0.05|repeated measures ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA with unstructured variance covariance matrix. Independent variables: time, treatment and treatment\*time interaction.||Global test of treatment\*time interaction effect. Null hypothesis: the change over time is not different between groups.||||0.5239
90848473|NCT03456882|181562348|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.4401|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level set to 0.05|repeated measures ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA with unstructured variance covariance matrix. Independent variables: time, treatment and treatment\*time interaction.|RNS60 vs. Placebo|Contrast between treatment groups of the differences (week 24 - baseline) within treatment groups. Null hypothesis: the change from baseline to week 24 is not different between treatment groups.||||0.4401
90957434|NCT01708213|181794917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Parametric Testing|0.05|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Parametric testing|||||||<0.05
91030024|NCT00366899|181944487|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the two groups was \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-1.5|1.4||||||For Pertactin the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at ≥5 EU/mL threshold was calculated.||1.4|-1.5|
91030025|NCT00366899|181944487|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the two groups was \> -10%.|Difference|-3.2||||||95.0|-7.8|1.0||||||For Pertactin the difference in percentages between the two groups ( 13vPnC - 7vPnC) at ≥40 EU/mL threshold was calculated.||1.0|-7.8|
90859763|NCT00537238|181582907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.016||||0.9285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.715|1.444|||Regression, Logistic|||Baseline: Logistic regression model was used to estimate odds ratio and corresponding 95% CI of treatment difference, with treatment as fixed effect and for post-baseline assessments baseline was included as a covariate.||1.444|0.715|0.9285
90957435|NCT03538301|181795011|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.004153||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.008284|-0.000021|||random coefficient model|||Slope in FVC (L/week) in the 45 mg cohort versus placebo||-0.000021|-0.008284|0.049
90957436|NCT03538301|181795011|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.002112||||0.316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00626|0.002036|||random coefficient model|||Slope in FVC (L/week) in the 90 mg cohort versus placebo||0.002036|-0.006260|0.316
90957437|NCT03538301|181795012|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.091238||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.199456|0.016979|||random coefficient model|||||0.016979|-0.199456|0.098
90957438|NCT03538301|181795012|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.039596||||0.473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.148248|0.069056|||random coefficient model|||||0.069056|-0.148248|0.473
91030026|NCT00366899|181944487|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the two groups was \> -10%.|Difference|0.7||||||95.0|-3.6|5.0||||||For hepatitis B the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at ≥10.0 mIU/mL threshold was calculated.||5.0|-3.6|
91095452|NCT02421939|182074368|OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference|10.6||||0.0106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|18.4||Stratified P-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test. Stratification factors were response to first-line AML therapy and preselected salvage chemotherapy per IRT. Treatment difference = gilteritinib -chemotherapy.||18.4|2.8|0.0106
91104206|NCT04003142|182094842|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.61|-1.52||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 11||-1.52|-3.61|<0.001
90848474|NCT03456882|181562349|SUPERIORITY||difference between mean slopes|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.5725|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level set to 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with random intercept,slope,unstructured variance covariance matrix.Independent variables:time,treatment,treatment\*time interaction||Contrast of the slopes during the on-treatment period (change per week, from baseline to week 24) between treatment groups. Null hypothesis: the rate of change from baseline to week 24 is not different between groups.||||0.5725
90848475|NCT03456882|181562349|SUPERIORITY||difference between mean slopes|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.5728|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level set to 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with random intercept,slope,unstructured variance covariance matrix.Independent variables:time,treatment,treatment\*time interaction|RNS60 vs. Placebo|Contrast of the slopes during the off-treatment follow-up period (change per week, from week 24 to week 48) between treatment groups. Null hypothesis: the rate of change from week 24 to week 48 is not different between groups.||||0.5728
90848476|NCT03456882|181562350|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9212||||||Significance level set to 0.05|Log Rank|||Null hypothesis: the survival curves over the on-treatment and the off-treatment follow-up period are not different between groups.||||0.9212
90859764|NCT00537238|181582907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.432||||0.0696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.972|2.11|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16: Logistic regression model was used to estimate odds ratio and corresponding 95% CI of treatment difference, with treatment as fixed effect and for post-baseline assessments baseline was included as a covariate.||2.110|0.972|0.0696
90859765|NCT02160990|181582950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<.001
90859766|NCT02160990|181582951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<.001
90859767|NCT02160990|181582952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.23
90859768|NCT03789396|181583009|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.97|||Regression, Logistic|||Comparison of patient odds of being hyperoxic and not on room air pre- versus post-intervention||0.97|0.57|0.03
90859769|NCT00734474|181583019|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Family-wise Type I error rate was controlled by applying gatekeeping strategies.|LS Mean Difference|-0.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.55||P-value is adjusted for multiplicity, based on tree-gatekeeping strategy. To determine significance, p-value is compared to the family-wise 1-sided Type I error of 0.025. The confidence interval is not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||"Power was estimated at approximately 89% based on a simulation study using the most likely pharmacodynamic model, assuming a 20% drop out rate (missing completely at random) at 52 weeks and enrollment of 5 participants per week. A predictive power calculation was planned to select either 263 or 333 as the minimum total sample size needed (sum of Stage 1 and 2) per arm. If the predictive power of the higher LY2189265 dose based on 263 participants in total exceeded 85%, then 263 would be used."||-0.55|-0.87|<0.001
90859770|NCT00734474|181583019|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Family-wise Type I error rate was controlled by applying a gatekeeping strategy.|LS Mean Difference|-0.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.31||P-value is adjusted for multiplicity, based on tree-gatekeeping strategy. To determine significance, p-value is compared to the family-wise 1-sided Type I error of 0.025. The confidence interval is not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||"Power was estimated at approximately 89% based on a simulation study using the most likely pharmacodynamic model, assuming a 20% drop out rate (missing completely at random) at 52 weeks and enrollment of 5 participants per week. A predictive power calculation was planned to select either 263 or 333 as the minimum total sample size needed (sum of Stage 1 and 2) per arm. If the predictive power of the higher LY2189265 dose based on 263 participants in total exceeded 85%, then 263 would be used."||-0.31|-0.63|<0.001
90859771|NCT00734474|181583019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.55||P-value is adjusted for multiplicity, based on tree-gatekeeping strategy. To determine significance, p-value is compared to the family-wise 1-sided Type I error of 0.025. The confidence interval is not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Superiority analysis||-0.55|-0.87|<0.001
90859772|NCT00734474|181583019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.31||P-value is adjusted for multiplicity, based on tree-gatekeeping strategy. To determine significance, p-value is compared to the family-wise 1-sided Type I error of 0.025. The confidence interval is not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Superiority analysis||-0.31|-0.63|<0.001
90859773|NCT00734474|181583021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|-1.09||Comparison at 26 weeks. P-value adjusted for multiplicity based on tree-gatekeeping strategy. To determine significance, p-value is compared to the family-wise 1-sided Type I error of 0.025. The confidence interval is not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Superiority analysis||-1.09|-1.42|<0.001
90859774|NCT00734474|181583021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|-0.88||Comparison at 26 weeks. P-value adjusted for multiplicity based on tree-gatekeeping strategy. To determine significance, p-value is compared to the family-wise 1-sided Type I error of 0.025. The confidence interval is not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Superiority analysis||-0.88|-1.21|<0.001
90859775|NCT00734474|181583021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.48||Comparison at 26 weeks. One-sided raw p-value with no adjustment for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||-0.48|-0.81|<0.001
91095453|NCT02421939|182074369|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.889||||0.6654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.506|1.563||Unstratified p-value|Log Rank||Based on the Cox proportional hazards model. Assuming proportional hazards, an HR of \< 1 indicates a reduction in the hazard rate in favor of the gilteritinib arm.|The LFS was analyzed for participants who achieved remission using the stratified log-rank test with strata to control for response to first-line AML therapy and preselected salvage chemotherapy. Duration of LFS was based on Kaplan-Meier estimates.||1.563|0.506|0.6654
91095454|NCT02421939|182074370|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.206||||0.1189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.022|1.886||Unstratified|Log Rank||Based on Cox proportional hazards model. Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio \< 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of gilteritinib arm.|||1.886|0.022|0.1189
90848477|NCT03456882|181562351|SUPERIORITY||difference between mean slopes|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level set to 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with random intercept,slope,unstructured variance covariance matrix.Independent variables:time,treatment,treatment\*time interaction|RNS60 vs. Placebo|Contrast of the slopes during the on-treatment period (change per week, from baseline to week 24) between treatment groups. Null hypothesis: the rate of change from baseline to week 24 is not different between groups.||||0.0101
91030027|NCT00366899|181944487|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the two groups was \> -10%.|Difference|-3.2||||||95.0|-9.1|2.4||||||For Haemophilus influenzae type b the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.15 μg/mL threshold was calculated.||2.4|-9.1|
90848478|NCT03456882|181562351|SUPERIORITY||difference between mean slopes|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.5924|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level set to 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with random intercept,slope,unstructured variance covariance matrix.Independent variables:time,treatment,treatment\*time interaction|RNS60 vs. Placebo|Contrast of the slopes during the off-treatment follow-up period (change per week, from week 24 to week 48) between treatment groups. Null hypothesis: the rate of change from week 24 to week 48 is not different between groups.||||0.5924
90848479|NCT03456882|181562352|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9598||||||Significance level set to 0.05|Fisher Exact|||AE treatment discontinuation 4 weeks. Null hypothesis: the percentage of patients experiencing at least one adverse event leading to treatment discontinuation within 4 weeks is not different between groups||||0.9598
90848480|NCT03456882|181562352|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.939||||||Significance level set to 0.05|Fisher Exact|||AE treatment discontinuation 12 weeks. Null hypothesis: the percentage of patients experiencing at least one adverse event leading to treatment discontinuation within 12 weeks is not different between groups||||0.9390
90848481|NCT03456882|181562352|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3442||||||Significance level set to 0.05|Fisher Exact|||AE treatment discontinuation 24 weeks. Null hypothesis: the percentage of patients experiencing at least one adverse event leading to treatment discontinuation within 24 weeks is not different between groups||||0.3442
90848482|NCT03456882|181562353|SUPERIORITY||difference between mean slopes|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.1503|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level set to 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with random intercept,slope,unstructured variance covariance matrix.Independent variables:time,treatment,treatment\*time interaction|RNS60 vs. Placebo|ALSAQ-40 physical mobility. Contrast of the slopes during the on-treatment and off-treatment follow-up period (change per week, from baseline to week 48) between treatment groups. Null hypothesis: the rate of change from baseline to week 48 is not different between groups.||||0.1503
90848483|NCT03456882|181562353|SUPERIORITY||difference between mean slopes|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.1556|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level set to 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with random intercept,slope,unstructured variance covariance matrix.Independent variables:time,treatment,treatment\*time interaction|RNS60 vs. Placebo|ALSAQ-40 ADL and independence.Contrast of the slopes during the on-treatment and off-treatment follow-up period (change per week, from baseline to week 48) between treatment groups. Null hypothesis: the rate of change from baseline to week 48 is not different between groups.||||0.1556
90848484|NCT03456882|181562353|SUPERIORITY||difference between mean slopes|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0319|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level set to 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with random intercept,slope,unstructured variance covariance matrix.Independent variables:time,treatment,treatment\*time interaction|RNS60 vs. Placebo|ALSAQ-40 eating and drinking. Contrast of the slopes during the on-treatment and off-treatment follow-up period (change per week, from baseline to week 48) between treatment groups. Null hypothesis: the rate of change from baseline to week 48 is not different between groups.||||0.0319
90848485|NCT03456882|181562353|SUPERIORITY||difference between mean slopes|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.6419|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level set to 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with random intercept,slope,unstructured variance covariance matrix.Independent variables:time,treatment,treatment\*time interaction|RNS60 vs. Placebo|ALSAQ-40 communication. Contrast of the slopes during the on-treatment and off-treatment follow-up period (change per week, from baseline to week 48) between treatment groups. Null hypothesis: the rate of change from baseline to week 48 is not different between groups.||||0.6419
91030028|NCT00366899|181944487|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the two groups was \> -10%.|Difference|0.7||||||95.0|-8.2|9.5||||||For Haemophilus influenzae type b the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 1.0 μg/mL threshold was calculated.||9.5|-8.2|
90848486|NCT03456882|181562353|SUPERIORITY||difference between mean slopes|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.3951|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level set to 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with random intercept,slope,unstructured variance covariance matrix.Independent variables:time,treatment,treatment\*time interaction|RNS60 vs. Placebo|ALSAQ-40 emotional reactions. Contrast of the slopes during the on-treatment and off-treatment follow-up period (change per week, from baseline to week 48) between treatment groups. Null hypothesis: the rate of change from baseline to week 48 is not different between groups.||||0.3951
91095455|NCT02421939|182074371|OTHER||Treatment difference|32.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.3|42.6||Unstratified 2-sided P-value|2-sided Fisher's exact test|||Treatment difference = gilteritinib - chemotherapy. The 95% CIs were asymptotic confidence limits using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.||42.6|22.3|<0.0001
91095456|NCT02421939|182074372|OTHER||Treatment Difference|10.2||||0.0333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|19.1||Unstratified 2-sided P-value.|2-sided Fisher's exact test|Treatment difference = gilteritinib - chemotherapy.||||19.1|1.2|0.0333
90848487|NCT03456882|181562354|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8||0.9563|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level set to 0.05|repeated measures ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA with unstructured variance covariance matrix. Independent variables: time, treatment and treatment\*time interaction.|RNS60 vs. Placebo|Contrast between treatment groups of the differences (week 48 - week 24) within treatment groups. Null hypothesis: the change from week 24 to week 48 is not different between treatment groups.||||0.9563
91030029|NCT00366899|181944487|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the two groups was \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-1.8|1.6||||||For Diptheria the difference in percentages between the two groups ( 13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.01 IU/mL threshold was calculated.||1.6|-1.8|
90848488|NCT03456882|181562355|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|28.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|23.4||0.2253|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level set to 0.05|repeated measures ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA with unstructured variance covariance matrix. Independent variables: time, treatment and treatment\*time interaction.|RNS60 vs. Placebo|Contrast between treatment groups of the differences (week 48 - week 24) within treatment groups. Null hypothesis: the change from week 24 to week 48 is not different between treatment groups.||||0.2253
90848489|NCT03456882|181562356|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.7||0.6263|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level set to 0.05|repeated measures ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA with unstructured variance covariance matrix. Independent variables: time, treatment and treatment\*time interaction.|RNS60 vs. Placebo|Contrast between treatment groups of the differences (week 48 - week 24) within treatment groups. Null hypothesis: the change from week 24 to week 48 is not different between treatment groups.||||0.6263
90848490|NCT03456882|181562357|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.0||0.3671|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level set to 0.05|repeated measures ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA with unstructured variance covariance matrix. Independent variables: time, treatment and treatment\*time interaction.|RNS60 vs. Placebo|Contrast between treatment groups of the differences (week 48 - week 24) within treatment groups. Null hypothesis: the change from week 24 to week 48 is not different between treatment groups.||||0.3671
90848491|NCT03456882|181562358|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.845|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level set to 0.05|repeated measures ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA with unstructured variance covariance matrix. Independent variables: time, treatment and treatment\*time interaction.|RNS60 vs. Placebo|Contrast between treatment groups of the differences (week 48 - week 24) within treatment groups. Null hypothesis: the change from week 24 to week 48 is not different between treatment groups.||||0.845
90848492|NCT03456882|181562359|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.2161|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level set to 0.05|repeated measures ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA with unstructured variance covariance matrix. Independent variables: time, treatment and treatment\*time interaction.|RNS60 vs. Placebo|Contrast between treatment groups of the differences (week 48 - week 24) within treatment groups. Null hypothesis: the change from week 24 to week 48 is not different between treatment groups.||||0.2161
90848493|NCT03456882|181562360|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.4962|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level set to 0.05|repeated measures ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA with unstructured variance covariance matrix. Independent variables: time, treatment and treatment\*time interaction|RNS60 vs. Placebo|Contrast between treatment groups of the differences (week 48 - week 24) within treatment groups. Null hypothesis: the change from week 24 to week 48 is not different between treatment groups.||||0.4962
90848494|NCT03456882|181562361|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8738||||||Significance level set to 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mean AE treatment discontinuation 4 weeks. Null hypothesis: the number of adverse events occurred within 4 weeks is not different between groups||||0.8738
90848495|NCT03456882|181562361|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7556||||||Significance level set to 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mean AE treatment discontinuation 12 weeks. Null hypothesis: the number of adverse events occurred within 12 weeks is not different between groups||||0.7556
90848496|NCT03456882|181562361|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6477||||||Significance level set to 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mean AE treatment discontinuation 24 weeks. Null hypothesis: the number of adverse events occurred within 24 weeks is not different between groups||||0.6477
90848497|NCT03456882|181562361|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6084||||||Significance level set to 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mean AE treatment discontinuation 48 weeks. Null hypothesis: the number of adverse events occurred within 48 weeks is not different between groups||||0.6084
90848498|NCT03009396|181562364|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2112|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.2112
90899528|NCT03502616|181665113|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.92|-1.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-1.09|-1.92|<0.0001
91030030|NCT00366899|181944487|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the two groups was \> -10%.|Difference|-3.5||||||95.0|-8.3|0.8||||||For Diptheria the difference in percentage between the two groups ( 13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.1 IU/mL threshold was calculated.||0.8|-8.3|
90848499|NCT03009396|181562365|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0356|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0356
90848500|NCT03009396|181562366|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0514|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0514
90848501|NCT03009396|181562367|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1259|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.1259
90848502|NCT03009396|181562368|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4114|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4114
90848503|NCT03376295|181562379|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.2|||Cox proportional hazards model||The hazard ratio (HR) is adjusted HR after matching on high-dimensional propensity scores, sex and calendar time, adjusted further for the deciles of propensity score.|The Cox proportional hazard regression model was used to perform for moderate/severe exacerbation that assesses the effect of current use of LABA-TIO combination versus the LABA-ICS combination on the risk of a first COPD exacerbation.||1.20|0.90|
90957439|NCT03538301|181795013|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0997||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1988|-0.0005|||random coefficient model|||Change from Baseline to Week 24 in FVC (L) in the 45 mg cohort versus placebo||-0.0005|-0.1988|0.049
91095457|NCT02421939|182074373|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.2567||||0|||||||ANCOVA|||C1D8: Using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including treatment as a fixed factor, baseline score, response to first-line AML therapy and preselected salvage chemotherapy per IRT as covariates. Least Square (LS) Mean difference was estimated using chemotherapy as control.||||0.0000
91095458|NCT02421939|182074373|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.1574||||0.8037|||||||ANCOVA|||C2D1: Using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including treatment as a fixed factor, baseline score, response to first-line AML therapy and preselected salvage chemotherapy per IRT as covariates. Least Square (LS) Mean difference was estimated using chemotherapy as control.||||0.8037
91030031|NCT00366899|181944487|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the two groups was \> -10%.|Difference|1.7||||||95.0|-3.9|7.1||||||For Tetanus the difference in percentage between the two groups ( 13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.1 IU/mL threshold was calculated.||7.1|-3.9|
91030032|NCT00366899|181944487|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the two groups was \> -10%.|Difference|-0.1||||||95.0|-2.3|1.7||||||For Polio Type 1 the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at ≥1:8 threshold was calculated.||1.7|-2.3|
91030033|NCT00366899|181944487|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the two groups was \> -10%.|Difference|-1.0||||||95.0|-5.0|2.8||||||For Polio Type 2 the difference in percentage between the two groups ( 13vPnC - 7vPnC) at ≥1:8 threshold was calculated.||2.8|-5.0|
91095459|NCT02421939|182074374|OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference,|18.6|||<|0.0171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.8|27.4||Stratified 1-sided P-value.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Based on a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test. Stratification factors were response to first-line AML therapy and preselected salvage chemotherapy per IRT. Pooled strata were used as shown in Table 12.3.3.2. Treatment differences were adjusted based on pooled strata. Treatment difference = gilteritinib 120 mg - chemotherapy.||27.4|9.8|<0.0171
90848504|NCT03376295|181562379|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.36|||Cox proportional hazards model||HR presented is adjusted HR after matching on high-dimensional propensity scores, sex and calendar time, adjusted further for the deciles of propensity score.|The Cox proportional hazard regression model was used to perform for severe exacerbation that assesses the effect of current use of LABA-TIO combination versus the LABA-ICS combination on the risk of a first COPD exacerbation.||1.36|0.65|
90848505|NCT03376295|181562380|OTHER||Rate ratio (RR)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.25|||Negative binomial model||The rate ratio (RR) (LABA-TIO combination versus the LABA-ICS combination) is adjusted RR after matching on high-dimensional propensity scores, sex and calendar time, adjusted further for the deciles of propensity score.|Moderate/severe exacerbation||1.25|0.92|
90848506|NCT03376295|181562380|OTHER||Rate ratio (RR)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.33|||Negative binomial model||The RR (LABA-TIO combination versus the LABA-ICS combination) is adjusted RR after matching on high-dimensional propensity scores, sex and calendar time, adjusted further for the deciles of propensity score.|Severe exacerbation||1.33|0.55|
90848507|NCT03376295|181562381|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.05|||Cox proportional hazards model||The HR is adjusted HR after matching on high-dimensional propensity scores, sex and calendar time, adjusted further for the deciles of propensity score|The cox proportional hazard regression model was used to perform an as-treated analysis that assesses the effect of current use of LABA-TIO combination versus the LABA-ICS combination on the risk of a first COPD exacerbation.||1.05|0.42|
90848508|NCT03376295|181562381|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.92|||Cox proportional hazards model||The HR is adjusted HR after matching on high-dimensional propensity scores, sex and calendar time, adjusted further for the deciles of propensity score|The Cox proportional hazard regression model was used to perform an on-treatment analysis that assesses the effect of current use of LABA-TIO combination versus the LABA-ICS combination on the risk of a first COPD exacerbation.||0.92|0.48|
91030034|NCT00366899|181944487|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the two groups was \> -10%.|Difference|0.7||||||95.0|-1.6|2.9||||||For Polio Type 3 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at ≥1:8 threshold was calculated.||2.9|-1.6|
90848509|NCT05601544|181562589|SUPERIORITY||Least-squares Mean difference|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.25||1-sided p-value was calculated using one-sided type 1 error of 0.025|Mixed Model Analysis|the Kenward and Roger method was used for the calculation of the denominator degrees of freedom.|Least-squares mean difference was calculated as Test minus Control|It was calculated that 41 (for the Multifocal strata) and 6 (for the Sphere strata) participants in each vision group randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the two sequences would have at least a power of 90% (for the Multifocal strata) and a power of 94% (for the Sphere strata) to detect a statistical superiority with respect to visual range.||0.25|0.19|<.0001
90848510|NCT05601544|181562589|SUPERIORITY||Least-squares Mean difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.18||1-sided p-value was calculated using one-sided type 1 error of 0.025|Mixed Model Analysis|the Kenward and Roger method was used for the calculation of the denominator degrees of freedom.|Least-squares mean difference was calculated as Test minus Control|It was calculated that 41 (for the Multifocal strata) and 6 (for the Sphere strata) participants in each vision group randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the two sequences would have at least a power of 90% (for the Multifocal strata) and a power of 94% (for the Sphere strata) to detect a statistical superiority with respect to visual range.||0.18|0.14|<.0001
90957440|NCT03538301|181795013|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0507||||0.316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1502|0.0489|||random coefficient model|||Change from Baseline to Week 24 in FVC (L) in the 90 mg cohort versus placebo||0.0489|-0.1502|0.316
91030035|NCT00366899|181944487|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the two groups was \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-1.6|1.7||||||For Pertussis PT the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at ≥5 EU/mL threshold was calculated||1.7|-1.6|
91095460|NCT05227677|182074417|SUPERIORITY|FAS analysis||||||0.9917||||||The threshold for statical significance was p=0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.9917
91095461|NCT05227677|182074417|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6555|||||||Chi-squared|||PPS analysis||||0.6555
91095462|NCT05227677|182074418|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0649||||||The threshold for statical significance was p=0.05.|Chi-squared|||FAS analysis||||0.0649
91095463|NCT05227677|182074418|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0342|||||||Chi-squared|||PPS analysis||||0.0342
90848511|NCT05601544|181562592|SUPERIORITY||Median Ratio|0.83||||0.0465|TWO_SIDED|98.33|0.64|1.09||1-sided p-value was calculated using one-sided type 1 error of 0.0083.|Mixed Model Analysis|the Kenward and Roger method was used for the calculation of the denominator degrees of freedom.|Median Ratio was calculated as test over control|It was calculated that 16 participants in each group randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the two sequences would have at least 92% power to detect a statistical superiority with respect to motion detection.||1.09|0.64|0.0465
90848512|NCT05601544|181562593|SUPERIORITY||Least-square Mean Difference|0.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.33|0.112|0.17||1-sided p-value was calculated using one-sided type 1 error of 0.0083|Mixed Model Analysis|the Kenward and Roger method was used for the calculation of the denominator degrees of freedom.|Least-square Mean difference was calculated as Test minus Control|It was calculated that 29 participants in each group randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the two sequences would have at least 91% power to detect a statistical superiority with respect to motion detection.||0.170|0.112|<.0001
90899529|NCT03502616|181665113|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.221|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|-1.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-1.24|-2.11|<0.0001
90899530|NCT03502616|181665113|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.223|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|-1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-1.00|-1.88|<0.0001
90899531|NCT03502616|181665113|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.235||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.06|-0.86|0.0880
90899532|NCT03502616|181665113|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.241||0.0921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 32: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.07|-0.88|0.0921
90899533|NCT03502616|181665113|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.243||0.0597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 40: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.02|-0.94|0.0597
90899534|NCT03502616|181665113|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.0492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.00|-0.99|0.0492
91030036|NCT00366899|181944487|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the two groups was \> -10%.|Difference|-2.7||||||95.0|-7.3|1.8||||||For Pertussis PT the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at ≥21 EU/mL threshold was calculated.||1.8|-7.3|
90899535|NCT03502616|181665114|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|8.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.29||0.0116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.86|14.77|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||14.77|1.86|0.0116
90899536|NCT03502616|181665114|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|22.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.46|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.99|31.49|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||31.49|13.99|<0.0001
90899537|NCT03502616|181665114|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|28.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.99|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.09|38.66|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||38.66|19.09|<0.0001
91030037|NCT00366899|181944487|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the two groups was \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-1.6|1.7||||||For Pertussis FHA the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at ≥5 EU/mL threshold was calculated||1.7|-1.6|
91095464|NCT05227677|182074419|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2199||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p =0.05.|Chi-squared|||FAS Analysis||||0.2199
90899538|NCT03502616|181665114|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|31.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.92|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.28|41.58|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||41.58|22.28|<0.0001
90899539|NCT03502616|181665114|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|25.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.34|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.82|35.75|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||35.75|14.82|<0.0001
90957441|NCT03538301|181795014|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-3.16||||0.668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.59|11.28|||random coefficient model|||||11.28|-17.59|0.668
91095465|NCT05227677|182074419|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p =0.05.||||||0.0769|||||||Chi-squared|||PPS analysis||||0.0769
91095466|NCT05227677|182074420|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p =0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||FAS analysis||||0.0200
91095467|NCT05227677|182074420|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0147|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PPS analysis||||0.0147
91095468|NCT05227677|182074421|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0256||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p =0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||FAS analysis||||0.0256
90899540|NCT03502616|181665114|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|10.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.88||0.0683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|22.23|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||22.23|-0.80|0.0683
90899541|NCT03502616|181665114|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|10.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.94||0.0906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|21.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 32: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||21.70|-1.59|0.0906
90899542|NCT03502616|181665114|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|13.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.94||0.0282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|24.66|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||24.66|1.39|0.0282
90899543|NCT03502616|181665114|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|10.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.98||0.0719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|22.49|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||22.49|-0.96|0.0719
90848513|NCT01808092|181562618|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The statistical test of NI for the primary efficacy analysis will be performed at the 2.5% 1 sided significance level. This test will be based on the lower limit of a 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI). Consistent with the protocol, NI will be concluded if the lower limit of the 95% CI is greater than -12.5%.|percentage: units for RD are %|-4.2||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.76|2.46||P-value for 1-sided test at test of cure (TOC) with a -12.5% non-inferiority margin, i.e. H0: diff \<= -12.5%.|% Risk Difference (RD)|RD is CAZ-AVI clinical cure rate minus Meropenem clinical cure rate. The CI was calculated by Miettinen and Nurminen method without adjustment.||Statistical analysis for the proportion of patients with clinical cure at TOC in cMITT analysis set||2.46|-10.76|0.007
90848514|NCT01808092|181562619|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The statistical test of NI for the primary efficacy analysis will be performed at the 2.5% 1 sided significance level. This test will be based on the lower limit of a 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI). Consistent with the protocol, NI will be concluded if the lower limit of the 95% CI is greater than -12.5%.|percentage: units for RD are %|-0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.86|6.39||P-value for 1-sided test at test of cure (TOC) with a -12.5% non-inferiority margin, i.e. H0: diff \<= -12.5%.|% Risk Difference (RD)|RD is CAZ-AVI clinical cure rate minus Meropenem clinical cure rate. The CI was calculated by Miettinen and Nurminen method without adjustment.||Statistical analysis for the proportion of patients with clinical cure at TOC in CE at TOC analysis set||6.39|-7.86|<0.001
90848515|NCT04219085|181562667|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||1.0
90848516|NCT04219085|181562668|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
90899544|NCT03502616|181665115|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|32.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.75|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.48|42.11|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||42.11|23.48|<0.0001
90899545|NCT03502616|181665115|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|40.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.19|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.37|50.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||50.70|30.37|<0.0001
90899546|NCT03502616|181665115|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|45.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.03|55.41|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||55.41|35.03|<0.0001
90899547|NCT03502616|181665115|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|45.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.23|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.97|55.49|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||55.49|34.97|<0.0001
90899548|NCT03502616|181665115|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|42.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.73|52.88|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||52.88|31.73|<0.0001
90899549|NCT03502616|181665115|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|4.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.85||0.3967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.51|16.42|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||16.42|-6.51|0.3967
90899550|NCT03502616|181665115|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|4.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.67||0.4442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.78|15.46|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 32: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||15.46|-6.78|0.4442
91030038|NCT00366899|181944487|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the two groups was \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-1.6|1.7||||||For Pertussis FHA the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at ≥7.82 EU/mL threshold was calculated||1.7|-1.6|
91095469|NCT05227677|182074421|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0181||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p =0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||PPS analysis||||0.0181
90848517|NCT04219085|181562669|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.85
90899551|NCT03502616|181665115|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|6.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.92||0.281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.22|17.97|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||17.97|-5.22|0.2810
90899552|NCT03502616|181665115|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|5.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.95||0.3514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.12|17.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||17.20|-6.12|0.3514
90899553|NCT03502616|181665116|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|8.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.74||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.46|14.21|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||14.21|3.46|0.0013
90957442|NCT03538301|181795014|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.72||||0.821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.57|13.13|||random coefficient model|||||13.13|-16.57|0.821
90899554|NCT03502616|181665116|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|16.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.63|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.13|23.36|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||23.36|9.13|<0.0001
90899555|NCT03502616|181665116|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|20.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.41|28.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||28.20|12.41|<0.0001
90899556|NCT03502616|181665116|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|22.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.24|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.46|31.08|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||31.08|14.46|<0.0001
91030039|NCT00366899|181944487|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the two groups was \> -10%.|Difference|-0.1||||||95.0|-4.3|4.1||||||For Pertussis FHA the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at ≥162 EU/mL threshold was calculated||4.1|-4.3|
91095470|NCT05227677|182074422|EQUIVALENCE|Compare the percentage of hypoglycemia in each group and whether the percentage of hypoglycemia is equivalent between the GA guided therapy group and the Standard therapy group.|||||>|0.999||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p =0.05.|Fisher Exact|||At Visit3 (FAS)||||>0.999
91095471|NCT05227677|182074422|EQUIVALENCE|Compare the percentage of hypoglycemia in each group and whether the percentage of hypoglycemia is equivalent between the GA guided therapy group and the Standard therapy group.||||||0.6175||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p =0.05.|Fisher Exact|||At Visit 4 (FAS)||||0.6175
90848518|NCT01909011|181562683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
90848519|NCT01909011|181562684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.066|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.066
90848520|NCT01909011|181562685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.016
90848521|NCT00913458|181562712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|12.5||The rate of sustained remission was analyzed using a logistic regression model with a 2-sided significance level of 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Values are based on a logistic regression model with treatment as the only factor.||The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||12.5|2.7|<0.0001
90848522|NCT00913458|181562712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.61||||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|5.3||The rate of sustained remission was analyzed using a logistic regression model with a 2-sided significance level of 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Values are based on a logistic regression model with treatment as the only factor.||The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||5.3|1.3|0.0085
90848523|NCT00913458|181562712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.22||||0.0397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|4.8||The rate of sustained remission was analyzed using a logistic regression model with a 2-sided significance level of 5%.|Regression, Linear|Values are based on a logistic regression model with treatment as the only factor.||The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||4.8|1.0|0.0397
90848524|NCT00913458|181562713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Binomial test|||"Binomial test-value tests the null hypothesis that the proportion is significantly different from 0.~End of Phase 1"||||<0.0001
90848525|NCT00913458|181562714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1183|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||"Significance tests were based on paired t-tests using a 2-sided α=0.05.~Week 52"||||0.1183
91095472|NCT05227677|182074422|EQUIVALENCE|Compare the percentage of hypoglycemia in each group and whether the percentage of hypoglycemia is equivalent between the GA guided therapy group and the Standard therapy group.|||||>|0.999||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p =0.05.|Fisher Exact|||At Visit 3 (PPS)||||>0.999
90848526|NCT00913458|181562714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0286|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||"Significance tests were based on paired t-tests using a 2-sided α=0.05.~Final on therapy"||||0.0286
90848527|NCT00913458|181562715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||"Significance tests were based on paired t-tests using a 2-sided α=0.05.~Week 13, 26, 39, 52 and final on therapy"||||<0.0001
90848528|NCT00913458|181562716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||"Significance tests were based on paired t-tests using a 2-sided α=0.05.~Week 13, 26, 39, 52 and final on therapy"||||<0.0001
90848529|NCT00913458|181562717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||"Significance tests were based on paired t-tests using a 2-sided α=0.05.~Week 13"||||0.0063
90848530|NCT00913458|181562717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0053|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||"Significance tests were based on paired t-tests using a 2-sided α=0.05.~Week 26"||||0.0053
90848531|NCT00913458|181562717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||"Significance tests were based on paired t-tests using a 2-sided α=0.05.~Week 39"||||0.0027
90899557|NCT03502616|181665116|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|25.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.47|34.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||34.10|16.47|<0.0001
90848532|NCT00913458|181562717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||"Significance tests were based on paired t-tests using a 2-sided α=0.05.~Week 52"||||0.0002
90848533|NCT00913458|181562717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||"Significance tests were based on paired t-tests using a 2-sided α=0.05.~Final on therapy"||||0.0005
90848534|NCT00913458|181562718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||"Significance tests were based on paired t-tests using a 2-sided α=0.05.~Week 13, 26, 39, 52 and final on therapy"||||<0.0001
90848535|NCT00913458|181562719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Binomial test|||"Binomial test-value tests the null hypothesis that the proportion is significantly different from 0.~Week 2, 4, 8, 13, 26, 39, 52 and final on therapy"||||<0.0001
90848536|NCT00913458|181562720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Binomial test|||"Binomial test-value tests the null hypothesis that the proportion is significantly different from 0.~Week 2, 4, 8, 13, 26, 39, 52 week and final on therapy"||||<0.0001
90899558|NCT03502616|181665116|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|9.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.62||0.0941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|20.43|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||20.43|-1.61|0.0941
90848537|NCT00913458|181562721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Binomial test|||"Binomial test-value tests the null hypothesis that the proportion is significantly different from 0.~Week 2, 4, 8, 13, 26, 39, 52 and final on therapy"||||<0.0001
91095473|NCT05227677|182074422|EQUIVALENCE|Compare the percentage of hypoglycemia in each group and whether the percentage of hypoglycemia is equivalent between the GA guided therapy group and the Standard therapy group.||||||0.5979||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p =0.05.|Fisher Exact|||At Visit4 (PPS)||||0.5979
91095474|NCT05227677|182074423|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0404||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p =0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||FAS analysis||||0.0404
91095475|NCT05227677|182074423|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.033|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PPS analysis||||0.0330
91095476|NCT05227677|182074424|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0408||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p =0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||FAS analysis||||0.0408
91095477|NCT05227677|182074424|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0322||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p =0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PPS analysis||||0.0322
91095478|NCT05227677|182074425|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0303||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p =0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||FAS analysis||||0.0303
91095479|NCT05227677|182074425|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0264||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p =0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PPS analysis||||0.0264
91095480|NCT05227677|182074426|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0374||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p =0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||FAS analysis||||0.0374
90848538|NCT00913458|181562722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Binomial test|||"Binomial test-value tests the null hypothesis that the proportion is significantly different from 0.~Week 2, 4, 8, 13, 26, 39, 52 and final on therapy"||||<0.0001
90848539|NCT00913458|181562723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||"Significance tests were based on paired t-tests using a 2-sided α=0.05.~Week 2, 4, 8, 13, 26, 39, 52 week and final on therapy"||||<0.0001
90848540|NCT00913458|181562724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||"Significance tests were based on paired t-tests using a 2-sided α=0.05.~Week 2, 4, 8, 13, 26, 39, 52 and final on therapy"||||<0.0001
90848541|NCT00913458|181562725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||"Significance tests were based on paired t-tests using a 2-sided α=0.05.~Week 2, 4, 8, 13, 26, 39, 52 and final on therapy"||||<0.0001
90848542|NCT00913458|181562726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Binomial test|||"Binomial test-value tests the null hypothesis that the proportion is significantly different from 0.~Week 2, 4, 8, 13, 26, 39, 52 and final on therapy"||||<0.0001
90848543|NCT00913458|181562727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Binomial test|||"Binomial test-value tests the null hypothesis that the proportion is significantly different from 0.~Week 2, 4, 8, 13, 26, 39, 52 week and final on therapy"||||<0.0001
90848544|NCT00913458|181562728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||McNemar|||"P-value is from McNemar's test for no change from baseline in response rate.~Week 2, 4, 8, 13, 26, 39, 52 week and final on therapy"||||<0.0001
90848545|NCT00913458|181562729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.83||||0.4075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|7.6|||Longitudinal statistical model|Odds ratios and p-values are based on a longitudinal statistical model with factors for treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment and visit.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||7.6|0.4|0.4075
91095481|NCT05227677|182074426|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0313||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p =0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PPS analysis||||0.0313
91095482|NCT05227677|182074427|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0086||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p =0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||FAS analysis||||0.0086
91095483|NCT05227677|182074427|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0156|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PPS analysis||||0.0156
91095484|NCT05227677|182074428|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0118|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||FAS analysis||||0.0118
91095485|NCT05227677|182074428|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0191||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p =0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PPS analysis||||0.0191
91095486|NCT05227677|182074429|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0057||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p =0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0057
91095487|NCT05227677|182074429|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0175||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p =0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PPS analysis||||0.0175
91095488|NCT05227677|182074430|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0065||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p =0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||FAS analysis||||0.0065
91095489|NCT05227677|182074430|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0188||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p =0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PPS analysis||||0.0188
91095490|NCT05227677|182074431|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0087||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p =0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0087
91095491|NCT05227677|182074431|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0152||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p =0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0152
91095492|NCT05227677|182074432|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0103||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p =0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0103
91095493|NCT05227677|182074432|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0176||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p =0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0176
91095494|NCT03573297|182074433|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.5745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.43||P-value is based on the log-rank test stratified by modified index episode (manic or depressive) and region (US, non-US).|Log Rank||Hazard ratio (Cariprazine 1.5 or 3.0 mg/day vs. Placebo) is based on Cox proportional hazards regression model, with treatment group as an explanatory variable, stratified by modified index episode (manic or depressive) and region (US, non-US).|||1.43|0.48|0.5745
91095495|NCT03573297|182074433|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.6308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.51||P-value is based on the log-rank test stratified by modified index episode (manic or depressive) and region (US, non-US).|Log Rank||Hazard ratio (Cariprazine 1.5 or 3.0 mg/day vs. Placebo) is based on Cox proportional hazards regression model, with treatment group as an explanatory variable, stratified by modified index episode (manic or depressive) and region (US, non-US).|||1.51|0.52|0.6308
91095496|NCT02696798|182074441|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.41||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|4.95|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.95|1.17|0.017
91095497|NCT02696798|182074441|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.06||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|6.33|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.33|1.48|0.003
91095498|NCT02696798|182074442|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|3.84|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.84|1.26|0.006
90848546|NCT00913458|181562729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.88||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|33.1|||Longitudinal statistical model|Odds ratios and p-values are based on a longitudinal statistical model with factors for treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment and visit.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||33.1|2.4|0.0011
90848547|NCT00913458|181562729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.87||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|13.9|||Longitudinal statistical model|Odds ratios and p-values are based on a longitudinal statistical model with factors for treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment and visit.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||13.9|1.7|0.0031
90848548|NCT00913458|181562730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77||||0.5951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.0|||Longitudinal statistical model|Odds ratios and p-values are based on a longitudinal statistical model with factors for treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment and visit.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||2.0|0.3|0.5951
90848549|NCT00913458|181562730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.19||||0.0934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|5.5|||Longitudinal statistical model|Odds ratios and p-values are based on a longitudinal statistical model with factors for treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment and visit.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||5.5|0.9|0.0934
90848550|NCT00913458|181562730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.85||||0.0314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|7.4|||Longitudinal statistical model|Odds ratios and p-values are based on a longitudinal statistical model with factors for treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment and visit.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||7.4|1.1|0.0314
90848551|NCT00913458|181562731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.6152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.8|||Longitudinal statistical model|Odds ratios and p-values are based on a longitudinal statistical model with factors for treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment and visit.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||2.8|0.5|0.6152
90848552|NCT00913458|181562731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.36||||0.0432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|5.4|||Longitudinal statistical model|Odds ratios and p-values are based on a longitudinal statistical model with factors for treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment and visit.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||5.4|1.0|0.0432
90848553|NCT00913458|181562731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.91||||0.1189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|4.3|||Longitudinal statistical model|Odds ratios and p-values are based on a longitudinal statistical model with factors for treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment and visit.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||4.3|0.8|0.1189
90848554|NCT00913458|181562732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.15||||0.0535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|4.7|||Longitudinal statistical model|Odds ratios and p-values are based on a longitudinal statistical model with factors for treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment and visit.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||4.7|1.0|0.0535
90848555|NCT00913458|181562732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.22||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|7.5|||Longitudinal statistical model|Odds ratios and p-values are based on a longitudinal statistical model with factors for treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment and visit.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||7.5|1.4|0.0064
90848556|NCT00913458|181562732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.3696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.6|||Longitudinal statistical model|Odds ratios and p-values are based on a longitudinal statistical model with factors for treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment and visit.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||3.6|0.6|0.3696
90848557|NCT00913458|181562733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.17||||0.0788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|5.2|||Longitudinal statistical model|Odds ratios and p-values are based on a longitudinal statistical model with factors for treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment and visit.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||5.2|0.9|0.0788
90848558|NCT00913458|181562733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.57||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|11.0|||Longitudinal statistical model|Odds ratios and p-values are based on a longitudinal statistical model with factors for treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment and visit.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||11.0|1.9|0.0007
90848559|NCT00913458|181562733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1||||0.0676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|4.7|||Longitudinal statistical model|Odds ratios and p-values are based on a longitudinal statistical model with factors for treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment and visit.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||4.7|0.9|0.0676
90848560|NCT00913458|181562734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.56||||0.0548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|59.5|||Longitudinal statistical model|Odds ratios and p-values are based on a longitudinal statistical model with factors for treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment and visit.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||59.5|1.0|0.0548
90848561|NCT00913458|181562734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.18||||0.0166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|94.2|||Longitudinal statistical model|Odds ratios and p-values are based on a longitudinal statistical model with factors for treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment and visit.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||94.2|1.6|0.0166
90899559|NCT03502616|181665116|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|2.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.96||0.6727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.17|14.21|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 32: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||14.21|-9.17|0.6727
90899560|NCT03502616|181665116|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|7.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.96||0.2213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.39|18.98|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||18.98|-4.39|0.2213
91095499|NCT02696798|182074442|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.08||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|3.73|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.73|1.16|0.013
91030040|NCT00366899|181944487|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the two groups was \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-1.6|1.7||||||For Pertactin the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at ≥5 EU/mL threshold was calculated.||1.7|-1.6|
90848562|NCT00913458|181562734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.61||||0.3619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|4.5|||Longitudinal statistical model|Odds ratios and p-values are based on a longitudinal statistical model with factors for treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment and visit.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||4.5|0.6|0.3619
90848563|NCT00913458|181562735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.23||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|6.7|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios, p-values, and 95% CIs are based on a logistic regression model with treatment as the only factor.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||6.7|1.6|0.0017
90848564|NCT00913458|181562735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|28.0|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios, p-values, and 95% CIs are based on a logistic regression model with treatment as the only factor.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||28.0|4.4|<0.0001
90848565|NCT00913458|181562735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.42||||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|8.8|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios, p-values, and 95% CIs are based on a logistic regression model with treatment as the only factor.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||8.8|1.3|0.0111
90848566|NCT00913458|181562736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.66||||0.0328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|-0.7|||Longitudinal statistical model|Values are based on a longitudinal statistical model with factors for Week 52 value, treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||-0.7|-16.6|0.0328
90848567|NCT00913458|181562736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.1|-13.2|||Longitudinal statistical model|Values are based on a longitudinal statistical model with factors for Week 52 value, treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||-13.2|-30.1|<0.0001
90848568|NCT00913458|181562736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.98||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.5|-4.5|||Longitudinal statistical model|Values are based on a longitudinal statistical model with factors for Week 52 value, treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||-4.5|-21.5|0.0035
90848569|NCT00913458|181562737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.36||||0.2473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|3.1|||Longitudinal statistical model|Values are based on a longitudinal statistical model with factors for Week 52 value, treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||3.1|-11.8|0.2473
90848570|NCT00913458|181562737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.19||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.3|-5.1|||Longitudinal statistical model|Values are based on a longitudinal statistical model with factors for Week 52 value, treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||-5.1|-21.3|0.0016
90848571|NCT00913458|181562737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.83||||0.0348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|-0.6|||Longitudinal statistical model|Values are based on a longitudinal statistical model with factors for Week 52 value, treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||-0.6|-17.0|0.0348
90848572|NCT00913458|181562738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.51||||0.1248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|1.6|||Longitudinal statistical model|Values are based on a longitudinal statistical model with factors for Week 52 value, treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||1.6|-12.6|0.1248
90848573|NCT00913458|181562738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.14||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.8|-6.5|||Longitudinal statistical model|Values are based on a longitudinal statistical model with factors for Week 52 value, treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||-6.5|-21.8|0.0004
90848574|NCT00913458|181562738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.63||||0.0306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|-0.8|||Longitudinal statistical model|Values are based on a longitudinal statistical model with factors for Week 52 value, treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||-0.8|-16.4|0.0306
90899561|NCT03502616|181665116|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.76||0.4137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.58|15.98|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||15.98|-6.58|0.4137
90957443|NCT03538301|181795015|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.1897||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7869|0.4075|||random coefficient model|||Change from baseline to Week 24 in ppFVC||0.4075|-4.7869|0.098
91095500|NCT02696798|182074443|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.135|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|-0.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.79|-1.32|<0.001
91095501|NCT02696798|182074443|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.75|-1.30|<0.001
91095502|NCT02696798|182074444|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.65||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|5.84|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.84|1.21|0.015
91095503|NCT02696798|182074444|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.9||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|6.49|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.49|1.29|0.010
91095504|NCT02696798|182074445|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.291|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|-0.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.67|-1.81|<0.001
91095505|NCT02696798|182074445|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.301|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|-0.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.57|-1.76|<0.001
90848575|NCT00913458|181562739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.4717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|4.6|||Longitudinal statistical model|Values are based on a longitudinal statistical model with factors for treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment and visit.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||4.6|0.5|0.4717
90848576|NCT00913458|181562739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.77||||0.0551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|7.8|||Longitudinal statistical model|Values are based on a longitudinal statistical model with factors for treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment and visit.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||7.8|1.0|0.0551
90848577|NCT00913458|181562739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.84||||0.2141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|4.8|||Longitudinal statistical model|Values are based on a longitudinal statistical model with factors for treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment and visit.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||4.8|0.7|0.2141
90848578|NCT00913458|181562741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.9652|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.4|||ANCOVA|P-values for between-treatment comparisons are based on ANCOVA on ranks of change in score with ranks of Week 52 value as covariate.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||0.4|-0.5|0.9652
90848579|NCT00913458|181562741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49||||0.2168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||ANCOVA|P-values for between-treatment comparisons are based on ANCOVA on ranks of change in score with ranks of Week 52 value as covariate.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||0.0|-1.0|0.2168
90848580|NCT00913458|181562741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48||||0.2131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||ANCOVA|P-values for between-treatment comparisons are based on ANCOVA on ranks of change in score with ranks of Week 52 value as covariate.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||0.0|-1.0|0.2131
90848581|NCT00913458|181562743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44||||0.9338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|10.9|||ANCOVA||Values are based on a model with factors for Week 52 value, treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment and Week 52 value and treatment and visit.|Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hyothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||10.9|-10.0|0.9338
90848582|NCT00913458|181562743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.55||||0.713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|11.2|||ANCOVA|Values are based on a model with factors for Week 52 value, treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment and Week 52 value and treatment and visit.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||11.2|-16.4|0.7130
90848583|NCT00913458|181562743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.99||||0.6628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|10.6|||ANCOVA|Values are based on a model with factors for Week 52 value, treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment and Week 52 value and treatment and visit.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||10.6|-16.6|0.6628
90848584|NCT00913458|181562745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.74||||0.1303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5|2.0|||Longitudinal statistical model|Values are based on a model with factors for Week 52 value, treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment and Week 52 value and treatment and visit.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||2.0|-15.5|0.1303
90848585|NCT00913458|181562745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.59||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.1|-6.0|||Longitudinal statisitical model|Values are based on a model with factors for Week 52 value, treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment and Week 52 value and treatment and visit.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||-6.0|-27.1|0.0024
90957444|NCT03538301|181795015|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.9503||||0.473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5579|1.6573|||random coefficient model|||Change from Baseline to Week 24 in ppFVC||1.6573|-3.5579|0.473
91030041|NCT00366899|181944487|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the two groups was \> -10%.|Difference|-0.5||||||95.0|-4.7|3.7||||||For Pertactin the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at ≥106 EU/mL threshold was calculated.||3.7|-4.7|
91030042|NCT00366899|181944487|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the two groups was \> -10%.|Difference|-0.4||||||95.0|-3.0|2.0||||||For hepatitis B the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at ≥10.0 mIU/mL threshold was calculated.||2.0|-3.0|
91095506|NCT02696798|182074446|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.295|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|-0.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.47|-1.63|<0.001
91095507|NCT02696798|182074446|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.307|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|-0.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.68|-1.89|<0.001
90848586|NCT00913458|181562745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.85||||0.0621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.2|0.5|||Longitudinal statistical model|||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||0.5|-20.2|0.0621
90848587|NCT00913458|181562747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.01||||0.4664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|6.9|||Longitudinal statistical model|Values are based on a model with factors for Week 52 value, treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment and Week 52 value and treatment and visit.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||6.9|-15.0|0.4664
90848588|NCT00913458|181562747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.57||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.6|-2.6|||Longitudinal statistical model|Values are based on a model with factors for Week 52 value, treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment and Week 52 value and treatment and visit.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||-2.6|-30.6|0.0210
91095508|NCT02696798|182074447|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.73||||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|33.98|||Regression, Logistic|||||33.98|0.41|0.242
91030043|NCT00366899|181944487|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the two groups was \> -10%.|Difference|1.4||||||95.0|-0.8|4.2||||||For Haemophilus influenzae type b the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.15 μg/mL threshold was calculated||4.2|-0.8|
91095509|NCT02696798|182074447|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.42||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|47.54|||Regression, Logistic|||||47.54|0.62|0.127
90848589|NCT00913458|181562747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.56||||0.0713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.2|1.1|||Longitudinal statistical model|Values are based on a model with factors for Week 52 value, treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment and Week 52 value and treatment and visit.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||1.1|-26.2|0.0713
90848590|NCT00913458|181562749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.11||||0.0256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|-1.1|||Longitudinal statistical model|Values are based on a model with factors for Week 52 value, treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment and Week 52 value and treatment and visit.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||-1.1|-17.1|0.0256
90848591|NCT00913458|181562749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.1|-11.1|||Longitudinal statistical model|Values are based on a model with factors for Week 52 value, treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment and Week 52 value and treatment and visit.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||-11.1|-28.1|<0.0001
90848592|NCT00913458|181562749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.51||||0.0161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|-2.0|||Longitudinal statistical model|Values are based on a model with factors for Week 52 value, treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment and Week 52 value and treatment and visit.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||-2.0|-19.0|0.0161
90848593|NCT03890666|181562758|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||||||||||||The statistical model is a logistic regression model with treatment group as a fixed factor, pooled study sites as a random factor, and baseline ACT score as a covariate.||||
90848594|NCT01105065|181562775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||There would be no change in retinal vascular dysregulation after treatment with brimonidine||||<0.0001
90848595|NCT01105065|181562776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||paired t-test|||A paired t-test was used to determine if their was a statistically significant difference between the mean deviation of the frequency doubling perimetry in the RVD patients pre and post brimonidine treatment.||||0.28
90848596|NCT03495856|181562792|OTHER|within-group paired t-test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|0.0||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p less than or equal to 0.05. That calculated p-value in the statistical hypothesis test was equal to 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.00|-1.55|0.05
90848597|NCT03495856|181562793|OTHER|within-group paired t-test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.42||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.63|-0.71|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.71|-6.63|0.017
90848598|NCT03495856|181562794|OTHER|Within-group paired t-test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|1.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.50|-1.39|0.938
90848599|NCT03495856|181562795|OTHER|Within-group paired t-test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.53|-1.15||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p less than or equal to 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||-1.15|-5.53|0.005
90848600|NCT03495856|181562796|OTHER|Within-group paired t-test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.09|0.66|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.66|-5.09|0.124
90848601|NCT03495856|181562797|OTHER|Within-group paired t-test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|-2.07|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-2.07|-7.30|0.001
90848602|NCT03495856|181562798|OTHER|Within-group paired t-test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.31|-0.24|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.24|-2.31|0.018
90848603|NCT03495856|181562799|OTHER|Within-group paired t-test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.07||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|5.01|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.01|0.58|0.016
90848604|NCT03495856|181562800|OTHER|Within-group paired t-test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.41||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.88|-2.03|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-2.03|-7.88|0.002
90899562|NCT03502616|181665117|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.27||0.5518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|3.24|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||3.24|-1.73|0.5518
91095510|NCT02696798|182074448|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.22||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|11.86|||Regression, Logistic|||||11.86|1.50|0.006
90848605|NCT03495856|181562801|OTHER|Within-group paired t-test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.45|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.47|18.07|||t-test, 2 sided|||||18.07|8.47|<0.001
90848606|NCT03495856|181562802|OTHER|Within-group paired t-test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.96||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.92|12.08|||t-test, 2 sided|||||12.08|3.92|0.001
90848607|NCT00322621|181562810|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin of 1.5 point on the BPI 24-hour average pain scale.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.35|||<|0.001||97.5|0.35|0.79||Significance level 0.025|t-test, 1 sided|||Null hypothesis is that duloxetine treatment effect on pain reduction in diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP) is not maintained, as indicated by an increase of more than 1.5 point on the BPI 24-hour average pain scale. Null hypothesis is rejected at significance level 0.025 if the upper bound of one-sided 97.5% CI is less than or equal to non-inferiority margin of 1.5 point.||0.79|0.35|<0.001
91095511|NCT02696798|182074448|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.52||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|13.18|||Regression, Logistic|||||13.18|1.55|0.006
91095512|NCT02696798|182074449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7689|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2863||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7629|3.3007|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MCS||3.3007|-1.7629|0.550
91095513|NCT02696798|182074449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9104|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3338||0.495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7151|3.536|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MCS||3.5360|-1.7151|0.495
90957445|NCT03538301|181795016|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.53||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|10.34|||random coefficient model|||||10.34|-15.40|0.700
91030044|NCT00366899|181944487|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the two groups was \> -10%.|Difference|4.0||||||95.0|-0.4|8.7||||||For Haemophilus influenzae type b the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 1.0 μg/mL threshold was calculated.||8.7|-0.4|
91030045|NCT00366899|181944487|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the two groups was \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-2.3|2.0||||||For Diphtheria the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.01 IU/mL threshold was calculated.||2.0|-2.3|
91095514|NCT02696798|182074449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.2147|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1149|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0204|7.409|||Mixed Models Analysis|||PCS||7.4090|3.0204|<0.001
90848608|NCT00322621|181562813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.269||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.269
90848609|NCT00322621|181562814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90848610|NCT00322621|181562815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.160
90848611|NCT00322621|181562816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.016
90848612|NCT00322621|181562817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.075||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.075
90848613|NCT00322621|181562818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90848614|NCT00322621|181562819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.026
90848615|NCT00322621|181562820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.011
90848616|NCT00322621|181562821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.406||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.406
90957446|NCT03538301|181795016|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.12||||0.867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.31|12.07|||random coefficient model|||||12.07|-14.31|0.867
91030046|NCT00366899|181944487|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the two groups was \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-2.3|2.0||||||For Diphtheria the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.1 IU/mL threshold was calculated||2.0|-2.3|
90848617|NCT00322621|181562822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.021
90848618|NCT00322621|181562823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.124||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.124
90848619|NCT00322621|181562824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.505||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.505
90848620|NCT00322621|181562825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.058||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.058
90848621|NCT00322621|181562826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.009
90848622|NCT00322621|181562827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.016
90848623|NCT00322621|181562828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.022
90848624|NCT00322621|181562829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.550
90848625|NCT00322621|181562830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.752||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.752
90848626|NCT00322621|181562831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.713||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.713
90848627|NCT00322621|181562832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.066||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.066
90848628|NCT00322621|181562833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.711||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.711
90848629|NCT00322621|181562834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.678||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.678
90848630|NCT00322621|181562835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.216||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.216
90848631|NCT00322621|181562836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.113||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.113
90848632|NCT00322621|181562839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.368||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.368
90848633|NCT00322621|181562840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
90848634|NCT00322621|181562841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.666||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.666
90848635|NCT00322621|181562842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.138||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.138
90848636|NCT00322621|181562843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.145||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.145
90848637|NCT00322621|181562844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.512||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.512
90848638|NCT01433289|181562884|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The study hypothesis tested whether Polyphenon E given twice daily for 14 days at the specified doses has an effect on antiviral activity compared with placebo, measured by differences from baseline to day 14 in plasma HIV-1 RNA level (log10 copies/mL). The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to test the null hypothesis that there was no change at Day 14 versus baseline.||||>0.05
90848639|NCT01433289|181562884|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74||||||Analysis was stratified by treatment group. The Kruskal-Wallis test was used to compare the change of log10 HIV-1 RNA copies/ml between treatment groups.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.74
90848640|NCT00600119|181562888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7781|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7781
90848641|NCT00600119|181562888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0020
90848642|NCT00600119|181562888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0001
90848643|NCT00600119|181562889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5118|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5118
90848644|NCT00600119|181562889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0022|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0022
90848645|NCT00600119|181562889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
90848646|NCT00600119|181562890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5522||||||Analysis for change in PAC-QOL Physical Discomfort domain from Baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 4).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5522
90957447|NCT03538301|181795019|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.146||||0.708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6226|0.9147|||random coefficient|||Change from Baseline to Week 24 in DLCO Corrected for Hemoglobin (mL/min/mmHg) in the 45 mg cohort versus placebo||0.9147|-0.6226|0.708
90957448|NCT03538301|181795019|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7038||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0695|1.4771|||random coefficient|||Change from Baseline to Week 24 in DLCO Corrected for Hemoglobin (mL/min/mmHg) in the 90 mg cohort versus placebo||1.4771|-0.0695|0.074
91095515|NCT02696798|182074449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.7585|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1505|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.494|7.023|||Mixed Models Analysis|||PCS||7.0230|2.4940|<0.001
91095516|NCT02696798|182074450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|-0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.13|-1.94|0.026
90848647|NCT00600119|181562890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0589||||||Analysis for change in PAC-QOL Physical Discomfort domain from Baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 4).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0589
90848648|NCT00600119|181562890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1691||||||Analysis for change in PAC-QOL Physical Discomfort domain from Baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 4).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1691
90848649|NCT00600119|181562890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6293||||||Analysis for change in PAC-QOL Worries/Concerns domain from Baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 4).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6293
90848650|NCT00600119|181562890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0836||||||Analysis for change in PAC-QOL Worries/Concerns domain from Baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 4).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0836
90848651|NCT00600119|181562890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1155||||||Analysis for change in PAC-QOL Worries/Concerns domain from Baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 4).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1155
90848652|NCT00600119|181562890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9938||||||Analysis for change in PAC-QOL Psychosocial Discomfort domain from Baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 4).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.9938
90899563|NCT03502616|181665117|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|3.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.92||0.0524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|7.47|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||7.47|-0.04|0.0524
90899564|NCT03502616|181665117|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|5.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.29||0.0216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|9.73|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||9.73|0.77|0.0216
90899565|NCT03502616|181665117|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|10.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.8|16.17|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||16.17|4.80|0.0003
91030047|NCT00366899|181944487|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the two groups was \> -10%.|Difference|3.8||||||95.0|-1.7|10.9||||||For Tetanus the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.1 IU/mL threshold was calculated.||10.9|-1.7|
90848653|NCT00600119|181562890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2101||||||Analysis for change in PAC-QOL Psychosocial Discomfort domain from Baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 4).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2101
90848654|NCT00600119|181562890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4597||||||Analysis for change in PAC-QOL Psychosocial Discomfort domain from Baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 4).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4597
90848655|NCT00600119|181562890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4822||||||Analysis for change in PAC-QOL Satisfaction domain from Baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 4).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4822
90848656|NCT00600119|181562890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0171||||||Analysis for change in PAC-QOL Satisfaction domain from Baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 4).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0171
90848657|NCT00600119|181562890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016||||||Analysis for change in PAC-QOL Satisfaction domain from Baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 4).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0160
90848658|NCT00600119|181562890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6857||||||Analysis for change in PAC-QOL Total Score from Baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 4).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6857
90848659|NCT00600119|181562890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0253||||||Analysis for change in PAC-QOL Total Score from Baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 4).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0253
90899566|NCT03502616|181665117|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|6.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.37||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.05|11.33|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||11.33|2.05|0.0047
91095517|NCT02696798|182074450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.477||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.25|-1.63|0.149
91095518|NCT02696798|182074451|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.512|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-0.9|||ANCOVA|||||-0.9|-3.0|<0.001
90848660|NCT00600119|181562890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0772||||||Analysis for change in PAC-QOL Total Score from Baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 4).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0772
90848661|NCT00600119|181562891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5008||||||Analysis for change in PAC-SYM Abdominal Symptoms domain from baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 4).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5008
90848662|NCT00600119|181562891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1823||||||Analysis for change in PAC-SYM Abdominal Symptoms domain from baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 4).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1823
90848663|NCT00600119|181562891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7045||||||Analysis for change in PAC-SYM Abdominal Symptoms domain from baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 4).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7045
90848664|NCT00600119|181562891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7088||||||Analysis for change in PAC-SYM Rectal Symptoms domain from baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 4).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7088
90848665|NCT00600119|181562891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5828||||||Analysis for change in PAC-SYM Rectal Symptoms domain from baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 4).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5828
90899567|NCT03502616|181665117|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.98||0.7883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.74|8.88|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||8.88|-6.74|0.7883
90899568|NCT03502616|181665117|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|4.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.4||0.2708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.78|13.48|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 32: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||13.48|-3.78|0.2708
91095519|NCT02696798|182074451|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.534|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-1.1|||ANCOVA|||||-1.1|-3.2|<0.001
91095520|NCT02696798|182074452|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.896||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|-2.5|||ANCOVA|||||-2.5|-10.0|0.001
91095521|NCT02696798|182074452|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.978|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|-3.4|||ANCOVA|||||-3.4|-11.2|<0.001
91095522|NCT02696798|182074453|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.816|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7463|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.187|-13.444|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-13.444|-28.187|<0.001
91095523|NCT02696798|182074453|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.841|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9018|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.518|-10.163|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-10.163|-25.518|<0.001
91095524|NCT02696798|182074454|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.304|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1275||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.555|-0.053|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.053|-0.555|0.018
91095525|NCT02696798|182074454|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.172|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1319||0.194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.431|0.088|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.088|-0.431|0.194
91030048|NCT00366899|181944487|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the two groups was \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-2.4|2.1||||||For Polio Type 1 the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at ≥1:8 threshold was calculated.||2.1|-2.4|
91095526|NCT02696798|182074455|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.893||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|2.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.99|-0.53|0.170
91095527|NCT02696798|182074455|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.916||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|2.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.04|-1.57|0.800
90848666|NCT00600119|181562891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0116||||||Analysis for change in PAC-SYM Rectal Symptoms domain from baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 4).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0116
90848667|NCT00600119|181562891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7848||||||Analysis for change in PAC-SYM Stool Symptoms domain from baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 4).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7848
90848668|NCT00600119|181562891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0335||||||Analysis for change in PAC-SYM Stool Symptoms domain from baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 4).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0335
90848669|NCT00600119|181562891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0591||||||Analysis for change in PAC-SYM Stool Symptoms domain from baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 4).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0591
90848670|NCT00600119|181562891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9317||||||Analysis for change in PAC-SYM Total Score from baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 4).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.9317
90848671|NCT00600119|181562891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0675||||||Analysis for change in PAC-SYM Total Score from baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 4).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0675
90848672|NCT00600119|181562891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1745||||||Analysis for change in PAC-SYM Total Score from baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 4).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1745
90848673|NCT00561977|181562908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|time measurement, treatment group, interaction between time and group term as fixed effect, subject as random effect.||Mean dietary quality score by visit and study group was estimated using SAS PROC MIXED. All analyses were performed using SAS 9.13 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA).||||0.14
91095528|NCT02696798|182074456|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.521||0.547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|0.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.71|-1.34|0.547
91095529|NCT02696798|182074456|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.538||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.06|-2.06|0.064
91095530|NCT02696798|182074457|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.3|-1.0|0.861
91095531|NCT02696798|182074457|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.9|-1.4|0.626
91095532|NCT02696798|182074458|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.8|-1.6|0.504
91095533|NCT02696798|182074458|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.3|-1.1|0.860
91095534|NCT02696798|182074459|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.1|-3.0|0.362
91095535|NCT02696798|182074459|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.0|-3.3|0.303
91095536|NCT02696798|182074460|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.2|-1.5|0.813
91095537|NCT02696798|182074460|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.8|-2.0|0.410
91095538|NCT02696798|182074462|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.6|-1.9|<0.001
91095539|NCT02696798|182074462|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.3|-1.6|0.005
91095540|NCT02696798|182074463|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.2|-2.5|0.088
91095541|NCT02696798|182074463|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.7|-2.0|0.366
91095542|NCT02696798|182074464|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.323||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.65|-0.6|||ANCOVA|||Overall Work Impairment Score||-0.60|-21.65|0.038
91095543|NCT02696798|182074464|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.341||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.23|-3.1|||ANCOVA|||Overall Work Impairment Score||-3.10|-24.23|0.012
91095544|NCT02696798|182074464|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Percentage of Activity Impairment||0.5|-13.2|0.071
91095545|NCT02696798|182074464|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.65||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5|-1.1|||ANCOVA|||Percentage of Activity Impairment||-1.1|-15.5|0.024
90848674|NCT00119678|181562946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.5|||||Cox proportional-hazards model was used to estimate the hazard ratio of abatacept versus placebo for SLE disease flare. The 95% two-sided confidence interval was provided for the hazard ratio for treatment.|||1.5|0.7|
90848675|NCT00791817|181562971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.3897|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1998|1.6097||||Confidence Interval is on the Ratio of Fed to Fasted|Confidence Interval is on the Ratio of Fed to Fasted|values are Geometric Means and Confidence Intervals are on the Ratio of Fed to Fasted||1.6097|1.1998|
90848676|NCT03567343|181562983|EQUIVALENCE|Significance set to 0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.1||||0.1543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.03|0.82||The threshold for statistical significance was P\< 0.05.|Paired T-test|||||0.82|-5.03|0.1543
90848677|NCT03567343|181562983|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.53||||0.1827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|1.24|||Paired T-test|||||1.24|-6.3|0.1827
90848678|NCT03567343|181562984|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.8165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|1.56|||Paired T-test|||||1.56|-1.96|0.8165
90848679|NCT03567343|181562984|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|1.58||||0.1821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|3.94|||Paired T-test|||||3.94|-0.77|0.1821
90848680|NCT03567343|181562985|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|20.94||||0.0156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.19|37.69|||Paired T-test|||||37.69|4.19|0.0156
90848681|NCT03567343|181562985|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|20.08||||0.0572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|40.8|||Paired T-test|||||40.8|-0.64|0.0572
90848682|NCT03567343|181562986|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|-4.48||||0.0781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.37|0.41|||Paired T-test|||||0.41|-9.37|0.0781
90848683|NCT03567343|181562986|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.0||||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|2.1|||Paired T-test|||||2.1|-8.1|0.242
90899569|NCT03502616|181665117|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.55||0.9226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.48|9.36|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||9.36|-8.48|0.9226
90899570|NCT03502616|181665117|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|1.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.23||0.663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.44|10.13|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||10.13|-6.44|0.6630
91030049|NCT00366899|181944487|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the two groups was \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-2.4|2.1||||||For Polio Type 2 the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at ≥1:8 threshold was calculated.||2.1|-2.4|
90848684|NCT03567343|181562987|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|2.91||||0.0195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|5.32|||Paired T-test|||||5.32|0.49|0.0195
90848685|NCT03567343|181562987|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|4.66||||0.0097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|8.12|||Paired T-test|||||8.12|1.19|0.0097
90848686|NCT03567343|181562988|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|0.93|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.28|||Paired T-test|||||1.28|0.59|<0.0001
90899571|NCT03502616|181665118|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.319||0.0099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.20|-1.47|0.0099
90957449|NCT03538301|181795019|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.114||||0.765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6362|0.8641|||random coefficient model|||Change from Baseline to Week 24 in DLCO Not Corrected for Hemoglobin (mL/min/mmHg) in the 45 mg cohort versus placebo||0.8641|-0.6362|0.765
91104207|NCT04003142|182094843|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.001||95.0|-0.21|-0.05||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 1||-0.05|-0.21|0.001
90848687|NCT03567343|181562988|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|0.45||||0.0179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.81|||Paired T-test|||||0.81|0.08|0.0179
90848688|NCT03567343|181562989|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03||||0.9875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.89|3.83|||Paired T-test|||||3.83|-3.89|0.9875
90848689|NCT03567343|181562989|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.9463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.23|5.82|||Paired T-test|||||5.82|-6.23|0.9463
90848690|NCT03567343|181562990|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|28.5||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.84|47.17|||Paired T-test|||||47.17|9.84|0.0037
90848691|NCT03567343|181562990|EQUIVALENCE|p\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|9.84||||0.4395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.63|35.31|||Paired T-test|||||35.31|-15.63|0.4395
90848692|NCT03567343|181562991|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03||||0.912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.53|||Paired T-test|||||0.53|-0.59|0.912
90848693|NCT03567343|181562991|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11||||0.8207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|0.83|||Paired T-test|||||0.83|-1.04|.8207
90848694|NCT03567343|181562992|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.89||||0.1929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|0.47|||Paired T-test|||||0.47|-2.26|0.1929
90848695|NCT03567343|181562992|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.24||||0.8744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.35|2.86|||Paired T-test|||||2.86|-3.35|0.8744
90848696|NCT03567343|181562993|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.95||||0.2048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.45|0.54|||Paired T-test|||||0.54|-2.45|0.2048
90848697|NCT03567343|181562993|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|0.96||||0.1933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|2.42|||Paired T-test|||||2.42|-0.5|0.1933
90848698|NCT03567343|181562994|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.69||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.25|-0.13|||Paired T-test|||change in mean number of lapses||-0.13|-3.25|0.034
90848699|NCT03567343|181562994|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|0.41||||0.5242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|1.71|||Paired T-test|||Change in number of lapses||1.71|-0.88|0.5242
90848700|NCT03567343|181562995|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|0.67||||0.8106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.92|6.25|||Paired T-test|||POMS-TMD||6.25|-4.92|0.8106
90848701|NCT03567343|181562995|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|3.87||||0.1427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|9.09|||Paired T-test|||POMS-TMD||9.09|-1.35|0.1427
90848702|NCT03567343|181562995|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.9344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|1.21|||Paired T-test|||POMS-Tension||1.21|-1.11|0.9344
91095546|NCT04091451|182074468|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was to be demonstrated if the upper limit (UL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the ratio of the incidence of HZ recurrence between HZ/su group and Placebo group was below (\<) 5.|Incidence Rate Ratio (IRR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.46|||Poisson||IRR = incidence rate of HZ recurrence in HZ/su group divided by the incidence rate of HZ recurrence in Placebo group. Poisson method was used to adjust for differences in follow-up time across individuals.|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of HZ/su vaccine compared to placebo in terms of incidence of HZ recurrence from 30 days post-second vaccination (Month 3) until study end (duration of approximately 2 years to 4 years and 5 months).||0.46|0.00|
91095547|NCT06023563|182074487|OTHER|The required sample size for medium effect size (f = 0.25) and power of 0.80 was calculated to be 6 participants in each group (n =12) (G\*power 3.1.9.7 software). Data were analyzed using IBM SPSS statistical package (version 29.0.1.0).|||||<|0.05|||||||Friedman's test|||A virtual reality active video gaming intervention will be more effective than traditional physical therapy based balance exercises, both based on motor learning principles, in improving static and dynamic balance in youth and young adults with ASD and these improvements will be retained at 4 weeks after the intervention.||||< 0.05
91095548|NCT06023563|182074488|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Friedman's test|||||||< 0.05
91030050|NCT00366899|181944487|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the two groups was \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-2.4|2.1||||||For Polio Type 3 the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at ≥1:8 threshold was calculated.||2.1|-2.4|
91030051|NCT00366899|181944488|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC/GMT ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.98||||||95.0|0.87|1.1||||||For Pertussis FHA the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.10|0.87|
91095549|NCT06023563|182074489|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Friedman's test|||||||< 0.05
91095550|NCT06023563|182074490|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Friedman's test|||||||< 0.05
91095551|NCT06023563|182074491|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Friedman's test|||||||< 0.05
91095552|NCT06023563|182074492|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Friedman's test|||||||< 0.05
91095553|NCT06023563|182074493|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Friedman's test|||||||< 0.05
91095554|NCT06023563|182074494|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Friedman's test|||||||< 0.05
91095555|NCT00149643|182074521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||Groups' categorical baseline measures were compared by chi-square analysis, corrected for continuity. Statistical analyses were completed on an intent to-treat study group basis. Outcome measures for depression and for cannabis use and alcohol use across treatment groups were compared by repeated measures analysis of variance. The last observation carried forward (LOCF)method was used for handling missing data in the data analyses.||||<0.05
90848703|NCT03567343|181562995|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|1.54||||0.0092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.69|||Paired T-test|||POMS-Tension||2.69|0.40|0.0092
90848704|NCT03567343|181562995|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|0.29||||0.755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|2.12|||Paired T-test|||POMS-Depression||2.12|-1.55|0.755
90848705|NCT03567343|181562995|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|0.74||||0.2131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|1.92|||Paired T-test|||POMS-Depression||1.92|-0.44|0.2131
90848706|NCT03567343|181562995|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|1.19||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|2.43|||Paired T-test|||POMS-Anger||2.43|-0.05|0.06
90848707|NCT03567343|181562995|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|0.24||||0.4117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.82|||Paired T-test|||POMS-Anger||0.82|-0.34|0.4117
90848708|NCT03567343|181562995|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.9548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|1.73|||Paired T-test|||POMS-Fatigue||1.73|-1.64|0.9548
90848709|NCT03567343|181562995|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|0.48||||0.4649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|1.79|||Paired T-test|||POMS-Fatigue||1.79|-0.83|0.4649
90848710|NCT03567343|181562995|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|0.26||||0.5656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|1.18|||Paired T-test|||POMS-Confusion||1.18|-0.65|0.5656
90848711|NCT03567343|181562995|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|0.33||||0.4307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.15|||Paired T-test|||POMS-Confusion||1.15|-0.5|0.4307
90848712|NCT03567343|181562995|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|1.17||||0.2651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|3.25|||Paired T-test|||POMS-Vigor||3.25|-0.92|0.2651
90848713|NCT03567343|181562995|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.54||||0.5992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|1.53|||Paired T-test|||POMS-Vigor||1.53|-2.61|0.5992
90848714|NCT03567343|181562996|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|0.37||||0.6869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|2.22|||Paired T-test|||||2.22|-1.48|0.6869
90848715|NCT03567343|181562996|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|1.39||||0.1769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|3.43|||Paired T-test|||||3.43|-0.65|0.1769
90848716|NCT03567343|181562997|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|0.51||||0.6422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|2.72|||Paired T-test|||||2.72|-1.69|0.6422
90848717|NCT03567343|181562997|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|0.63||||0.4106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|2.16|||Paired T-test|||||2.16|-0.9|0.4106
90848718|NCT03567343|181562998|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.23||||0.5672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|0.58|||Paired T-test|||||0.58|-1.05|0.5672
90848719|NCT03567343|181562998|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|0.11||||0.805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.99|||Paired T-test|||||0.99|-0.77|0.805
90848720|NCT03567343|181562999|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Median Difference (Net)|-43.09||||0.1236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-98.43|12.26|||Paired T-test|||Change in lapse time||12.26|-98.43|.1236
90848721|NCT03567343|181562999|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.01||||0.8241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.13|16.11|||Paired T-test|||Change in lapse time||16.11|-20.13|.8241
90848722|NCT01134705|181563000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.5||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05|Repeated measures Analysis of covariance|The repeated measures ANCOVA included covariate adjustment for baseline, day, treatment, and the treatment by day interaction.||||-0.5|-1.2|<0.001
90848723|NCT01134705|181563001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.4||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05|Repeated measures ANCOVA|The repeated measures ANCOVA included covariate adjustment for baseline, day, treatment, and the treatment by day interaction.||||-0.4|-1.1|<0.001
90848724|NCT01134705|181563002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.58||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.2||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment, baseline and center in the model.||||-0.2|-0.9|0.001
90848725|NCT00101452|181563012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
90848726|NCT01510769|181563013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.1||||0.1298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.23|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.23|-0.03|0.1298
90848727|NCT01510769|181563013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.42|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.42|0.17|<0.0001
90848728|NCT01510769|181563014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.04||||0.4453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.16|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.16|-0.07|0.4453
90848729|NCT01510769|181563014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.09||||0.1149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.21|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.21|-0.02|0.1149
90848730|NCT01510769|181563015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.03||||0.645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.17|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.17|-0.10|0.6450
90848731|NCT01510769|181563015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.06||||0.4118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.19|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.19|-0.08|0.4118
90899572|NCT03502616|181665118|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.332||0.0275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.08|-1.40|0.0275
90899573|NCT03502616|181665118|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|-0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.03|-1.41|0.0420
90899574|NCT03502616|181665118|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.349||0.1309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.16|-1.22|0.1309
91030052|NCT00366899|181944488|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC/GMT ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|1.03||||||95.0|0.92|1.16||||||For Pertussis PT the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.16|0.92|
90899575|NCT03502616|181665118|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.305||0.5566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.42|-0.78|0.5566
90899576|NCT03502616|181665118|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.248||0.4497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 32: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.30|-0.68|0.4497
90957450|NCT03538301|181795019|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.556||||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1986|1.3107|||random coefficient model|||Change from Baseline to Week 24 in DLCO Not Corrected for Hemoglobin (mL/min/mmHg) in the 90 mg cohort versus placebo||1.3107|-0.1986|0.148
90957451|NCT03538301|181795020|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48||||0.765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.68|2.71|||random coefficient model|||Change from Baseline to Week 24 in QLF Score (% of whole lung field volume) in the 45 mg cohort versus placebo||2.71|-3.68|0.765
91030053|NCT00366899|181944488|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC/GMT ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|1.01||||||95.0|0.87|1.17||||||For Pertussis PRN the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.17|0.87|
91095556|NCT02313155|182074531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-6.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.858|11.592|||||Seroconversion rate difference between treatment groups was obtained by subtracting the value of TAK-850 I.M. from TAK-850 S.C.|A/H1N1 Strain||11.592|-24.858|
90848732|NCT01510769|181563016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.08||||0.3034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.07|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.07|-0.24|0.3034
90848733|NCT01510769|181563016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.19||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|-0.04|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-0.04|-0.34|0.0210
90848734|NCT02874144|181563039|SUPERIORITY|intention-to-treat with participants analyzed according to a randomly assigned treatment group irrespective of compliance.|Slope|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value was calculated, and is not attempting to indicate the threshold for statistical significance.|Regression, Linear|||We used baseline scores to track change to follow-up scores and used a difference-in-differences (D-I-D) statistical approach to compare the change over time compare relative rate of change over time between scores within the treatment group (AZD1981 plus INCS) and within the to scores within the placebo group (INCS treatment only)..|For inflammatory mediator analyses, data were reported as mean (SEM) with statistical significance determined by Kruskal-Wallis test.|||<0.05
90859776|NCT00734474|181583021|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Family-wise Type I error rate was controlled by applying a gatekeeping strategy.|LS Mean Difference|-0.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.5||Comparison at 104 weeks. P-value adjusted for multiplicity based on tree-gatekeeping strategy. To determine significance, p-value is compared to the family-wise 1-sided Type I error of 0.025. The confidence interval is not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||-0.50|-0.84|<0.001
90859777|NCT00734474|181583021|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Family-wise Type I error rate controlled by applying gatekeeping strategy.|LS Mean Difference|-0.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.22||Comparison at 104 weeks. P-value adjusted for multiplicity based on tree-gatekeeping strategy. To determine significance, p-value is compared to the family-wise 1-sided Type I error of 0.025. The confidence interval is not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||-0.22|-0.56|<0.001
90957452|NCT03538301|181795020|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|4.47|||random coefficient model|||Change from Baseline to Week 24 in QLF Score (% of whole lung field volume) in the 90 mg cohort versus placebo||4.47|-1.68|0.370
90848735|NCT02874144|181563039|SUPERIORITY|This was a superiority trial. We used repeated-measures linear regression using the mixed procedure to calculate means for each outcome by visits and treatment status. We used baseline scores to track change to follow-up scores and used a difference-in-differences (D-I-D) statistical approach to compare the change over time between scores within the treatment group (AZD1981 plus INCS) to scores within the placebo group (INCS treatment only).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No, the p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|repeated-measures linear regression|We used repeated-measures linear regression using the MIXED procedure to calculate means (SEMS) for each outcome by visits and treatment status.|Our study did not include at relative risk.|The trial design is a continuous outcome superiority trial with primary efficacy outcome measures of change in Total Polyp Score (TPS) comparing AZD to placebo arm from V1 to V5. Total polyp score is a standardized method for assessing nasal polyp size by endoscopy, based on a scale of 1-4 per side. Inclusion criterion for this study is a TPS of ≥4 with a maximum of 8 and a standard deviation ± 2. A clinically meaningful effect is considered to be a decrease in total polyp score of 1.5.||||<0.05
90848736|NCT02975557|181563060|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|The type I error was adjusted by using the alpha spending function approach with O'Brien-Fleming type boundaries.||We evaluated if the categorical type of tolerability measure is different between control (Artificial Tears) and intervention (Brimonidine, including both 0.15% high and 0.075% low doses groups).||||1
91030054|NCT00366899|181944488|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC/GMT ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|1.01||||||95.0|0.89|1.15||||||For Pertussis FHA the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.15|0.89|
91030055|NCT00366899|181944488|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC/GMT ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.94||||||95.0|0.83|1.07||||||For Pertussis PT the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.07|0.83|
91030056|NCT00366899|181944488|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC/GMT ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.94||||||95.0|0.82|1.07||||||For Pertussis PRN the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.07|0.82|
91030057|NCT00366899|181944491|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the geometric mean concentration (GMC)/geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.96||||||95.0|0.72|1.27||||||For Hepatitis b the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.27|0.72|
90848737|NCT04525885|181563069|SUPERIORITY|Comparison based on a longitudinal ANCOVA model that included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, log-transformed baseline value, and log-transformed baseline value-by-visit as covariates.|Estimated Relative Reduction (%)|8.7||||0.713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.51|70.03|||ANCOVA||Estimated relative reduction (ERR) relative to placebo was calculated by 100 (e\*\*DIFF -1), where e\*\*DIFF=exponent of difference; and DIFF= treatment difference in change from baseline at Week 24 based on log transformed data.|||70.03|-30.51|0.713
90848738|NCT04525885|181563072|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Relative Reduction (%)|11.58||||0.628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.68|74.57||Comparison based on a longitudinal ANCOVA model that included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, log-transformed baseline value, and log-transformed baseline value-by-visit as covariates.|ANCOVA||Estimated relative reduction (ERR) relative to placebo was calculated by 100 (e\*\*DIFF -1), where e\*\*DIFF=exponent of difference; and DIFF= treatment difference in change from baseline at Week 24 based on log transformed data.|||74.57|-28.68|0.628
90848739|NCT04525885|181563073|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|2.13||Comparison based on logistic regression model that included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, baseline LCQ total score, and the interaction of baseline LCQ total score by visit as covariates.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.13|0.43|0.917
90848740|NCT04525885|181563074|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.88||Comparison based on a logistic regression model that included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, baseline 24-hour coughs per hour and the interaction of baseline 24-hour coughs per hour by visit as covariates.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.88|0.38|0.687
90957453|NCT03538301|181795020|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.34|||random coefficient model|||Change from Baseline to Week 24 in Ground Glass Opacity (% of whole lung field volume) in the 45 mg cohort versus placebo||0.34|-0.70|0.499
90957454|NCT03538301|181795020|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.54|||random coefficient model|||Change from Baseline to Week 24 in Ground Glass Opacity (% of whole lung field volume) in the 90 mg cohort versus placebo||0.54|-0.47|0.901
90957455|NCT03538301|181795020|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|3.46|||random coefficient model|||Change from Baseline to Week 24 in Reticulation (% of whole lung field volume) in the 45 mg cohort versus placebo||3.46|-2.25|0.676
91030058|NCT00366899|181944491|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC/GMT ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.72||||||95.0|0.54|0.96||||||For Hepatitis b the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||0.96|0.54|
91030059|NCT00366899|181944492|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC/GMT ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.99||||||95.0|0.75|1.3||||||or Haemophilus influenzae type b the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.30|0.75|
91095557|NCT02313155|182074531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-15.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.779|2.87|||||Seroconversion rate difference between treatment groups was obtained by subtracting the value of TAK-850 I.M. from TAK-850 S.C.|A/H3N2 Strain||2.870|-33.779|
91030060|NCT00366899|181944492|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC/GMT ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|1.03||||||95.0|0.81|1.3||||||For Haemophilus influenzae type b the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.30|0.81|
91095558|NCT02313155|182074531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-11.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.048|6.547|||||Seroconversion rate difference between treatment groups was obtained by subtracting the value of TAK-850 I.M. from TAK-850 S.C.|B Strain||6.547|-30.048|
91095559|NCT04666298|182074555|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-56.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.24|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.2|-49.0||One-sided adjusted p-value for multiple comparisons using Dunnett´s multiple t-test|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-49.0|-64.2|<.0001
90848741|NCT04525885|181563075|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|2.49||||||Comparison based on a logistic regression model that included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, baseline mean weekly CSD total score and the interaction of baseline mean weekly CSD total score by visit as covariates.||2.49|0.49|
90848742|NCT04525885|181563076|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|4.64||||||Comparison based on a logistic regression model that included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, baseline mean weekly CSD total score, and the interaction of baseline mean weekly CSD total score by visit as covariates||4.64|0.80|
90899577|NCT03502616|181665118|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.227||0.9272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 40: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.47|-0.43|0.9272
91030061|NCT00366899|181944493|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC/GMT ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.78||||||95.0|0.65|0.94||||||For diphtheria toxoid the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||0.94|0.65|
91030062|NCT00366899|181944493|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC/GMT ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.85||||||95.0|0.67|1.08||||||For Tetanus the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.08|0.67|
91030063|NCT00366899|181944493|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC/GMT ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.75||||||95.0|0.63|0.89||||||For diphtheria toxoid the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||0.89|0.63|
91030064|NCT00366899|181944493|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC/GMT ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|1.25||||||95.0|0.88|1.79||||||For Tetanus the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.79|0.88|
91030065|NCT00366899|181944494|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC/GMT ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.87||||||95.0|0.7|1.08||||||For Polio Type 1 the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.08|0.70|
91030066|NCT00366899|181944494|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC/GMT ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.95||||||95.0|0.74|1.22||||||For Polio Type 2 the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.22|0.74|
90848743|NCT04525885|181563077|OTHER|Comparison based on a logistic regression model that included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, baseline mean weekly VAS score, and the interaction of baseline mean weekly VAS score by visit as covariates.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.72||||||||2.72|0.45|
90848744|NCT03158285|181563078|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|31.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.9|39.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||39.5|22.9|< 0.001
91030067|NCT00366899|181944494|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC/GMT ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.88||||||95.0|0.68|1.13||||||For Polio Type 3 the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.13|0.68|
91030068|NCT00366899|181944494|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC/GMT ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.69||||||95.0|0.55|0.86||||||For Polio Type 1 the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||0.86|0.55|
91030069|NCT00366899|181944494|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC/GMT ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.85||||||95.0|0.68|1.07||||||For Polio Type 2 the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.07|0.68|
91030070|NCT00366899|181944494|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC/GMT ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.65||||||95.0|0.51|0.83||||||For Polio Type 3 the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||0.83|0.51|
91095560|NCT04666298|182074555|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-60.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.84|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.6|-54.3||One-sided adjusted p-value for multiple comparisons using Dunnett´s multiple t-test|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-54.3|-67.6|<.0001
91095561|NCT04666298|182074555|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-65.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.86|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.0|-58.6||One-sided adjusted p-value for multiple comparisons using Dunnett´s multiple t-test|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-58.6|-72.0|<.0001
91095562|NCT00844519|182074571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17||||||significant at p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||within-arm, pre-post change in FMD||||0.17
90848745|NCT03158285|181563078|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|30.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.4|39.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||39.1|22.4|< 0.001
90957456|NCT03538301|181795020|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.64||||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|4.42|||random coefficient model|||Change from Baseline to Week 24 in Reticulation (% of whole lung field volume) in the 90 mg cohort versus placebo||4.42|-1.13|0.242
91095563|NCT00844519|182074571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9||||||significant at p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||within-arm, pre-post change in FMD||||0.90
91095564|NCT01532089|182074572|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.31|||Log Rank|Comparisons of PFS between arms were conducted using a stratified log-rank test.||||1.31|0.50|0.39
91095565|NCT01532089|182074573|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.41||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.81|||Log Rank|||||2.81|0.71|0.33
91095566|NCT01532089|182074574|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.81
90848746|NCT03158285|181563079|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean difference|-0.2372|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.321|-0.1534|||ANCOVA|||||-0.1534|-0.3210|< 0.001
90848747|NCT03158285|181563079|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.2704|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3544|-0.1864|||ANCOVA|||||-0.1864|-0.3544|< 0.001
90848748|NCT03158285|181563080|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|17.2|||<|0.001||95.0|10.0|24.4||Nominal|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||24.4|10.0|< 0.001
90848749|NCT03158285|181563080|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|18.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.5|26.1||Nominal|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||26.1|11.5|< 0.001
90848750|NCT03158285|181563081|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|50.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.2|59.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||59.7|42.2|<0.001
90848751|NCT03158285|181563081|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|49.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.2|58.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||58.4|41.2|< 0.001
90848752|NCT03158285|181563082|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|21.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.1|30.0||Nominal|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||30.0|13.1|< 0.001
90848753|NCT03158285|181563082|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|22.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.7|30.7||Nominal|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||30.7|13.7|< 0.001
90848754|NCT03158285|181563083|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.43||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.03|||ANCOVA|||||0.03|-0.90|0.072
90848755|NCT03158285|181563083|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.66||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|-0.19|||ANCOVA|||||-0.19|-1.13|0.011
90848756|NCT03158285|181563084|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|20.1||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.8|28.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||28.5|11.8|0.030
90848757|NCT03158285|181563084|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|14.6||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.4|22.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||22.7|6.4|0.030
90848758|NCT03158285|181563085|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|18.0||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|28.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||28.6|7.4|0.030
90848759|NCT03158285|181563085|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|21.3||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.5|32.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||32.0|10.5|0.011
90848760|NCT03158285|181563086|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.23||Nominal|ANCOVA|||||-0.23|-0.77|< 0.001
90848761|NCT03158285|181563086|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.31||Nominal|ANCOVA|||||-0.31|-0.83|< 0.001
90848762|NCT03158285|181563087|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.99|-0.79||Nominal|ANCOVA|||||-0.79|-2.99|< 0.001
90848763|NCT03158285|181563087|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.77||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.87|-0.66||Nominal|ANCOVA|||||-0.66|-2.87|0.002
90848764|NCT03158285|181563088|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|3.97||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.75|5.2|||ANCOVA|||||5.20|2.75|0.011
90848765|NCT03158285|181563088|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|3.62||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.39|4.85|||ANCOVA|||||4.85|2.39|0.011
90848766|NCT03158285|181563089|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.43||Nominal|ANCOVA|||||-0.43|-0.80|< 0.001
90848767|NCT03158285|181563089|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.47||Nominal|ANCOVA|||||-0.47|-0.83|< 0.001
90848768|NCT03158285|181563090|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|2.02||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|3.49|||ANCOVA|||||3.49|0.56|0.072
90848769|NCT03158285|181563090|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|2.07||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.54|||ANCOVA|||||3.54|0.60|0.072
90848770|NCT03158285|181563091|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|19.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.6|25.9||Nominal|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||25.9|12.6|< 0.001
90848771|NCT03158285|181563091|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|11.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.2|17.7||Nominal|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||17.7|5.2|< 0.001
90848772|NCT03158285|181563092|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|14.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.1|19.9||Nominal|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||19.9|9.1|< 0.001
90848773|NCT03158285|181563092|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|9.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|13.8||Nominal|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||13.8|4.1|< 0.001
90848774|NCT02744040|181563291|OTHER|||||||0.048||||||Multiple hypothesis testing was performed using Tukey's Honest Significant Difference (HSD) procedure.|Mixed Effects Models|||Total HIV DNA at the time of ART initiation in each of the three EDDI groups||||0.048
90848775|NCT02744040|181563292|OTHER|Tukey's Honest Significant Difference (HSD) test|||||<|0.0001||||||Pair-wise comparison of Slope 1|Tukey's Honest Significant Difference (H|||The decay in total HIV DNA was modeled from the time of ART initiation in each of the three EDDI groups until the end of follow-up. The decay was analyzed on the log10 scale with a mixed-effects model to account for correlation between measurements from the same individual. We used a piecewise linear function to model the decay, where the number of linear segments was fixed at 2 (two-phase segmentation model) for Total HIV DNA.||||<0.0001
90859778|NCT00734474|181583021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.5||Comparison at 104 weeks. P-value adjusted for multiplicity based on tree-gatekeeping strategy. To determine significance, p-value is compared to the family-wise 1-sided Type I error of 0.025. The confidence interval is not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Superiority analysis||-0.50|-0.84|<0.001
90859779|NCT00734474|181583021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.22||Comparison at 104 weeks. P-value adjusted for multiplicity based on tree-gatekeeping strategy. To determine significance, p-value is compared to the family-wise 1-sided Type I error of 0.025. The confidence interval is not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Superiority analysis||-0.22|-0.56|<0.001
90859780|NCT00734474|181583023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.27|-1.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|Comparison at 26 weeks.||||-1.51|-2.27|<0.001
90859781|NCT00734474|181583023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|-1.1||Comparison at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.10|-1.85|<0.001
90859782|NCT00734474|181583023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.48||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|-0.11||Comparison at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.11|-0.86|0.012
90859783|NCT00734474|181583023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|-1.13||Comparison at 52 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.13|-1.82|<0.001
90859784|NCT00734474|181583023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.39||Comparison at 52 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.39|-1.07|<0.001
90859785|NCT00734474|181583023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|-1.1||Comparison at 104 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.10|-1.93|<0.001
91095567|NCT03329001|182074588|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.911|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.855|0.9706|||||Relative bioavailability (AUC\[tablet\]/AUC\[capsule\]) was assessed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) model accounting for sequence, participants nested with sequences, period and treatment.|||0.9706|0.8550|
90859786|NCT00734474|181583023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.51||Comparison at 104 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.51|-1.33|<0.001
91095568|NCT03329001|182074589|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.9216|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8631|0.9841|||||Relative bioavailability (AUC\[tablet\]/AUC\[capsule\]) was assessed using ANOVA model accounting for sequence, participants nested with sequences, period and treatment.|||0.9841|0.8631|
91095569|NCT03329001|182074590|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.9483|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8489|1.0593|||||Relative bioavailability (Cmax\[tablet\]/Cmax\[capsule\]) was assessed using ANOVA model accounting for sequence, participants nested with sequences, period and treatment.|||1.0593|0.8489|
91095570|NCT03329001|182074595|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was concluded if the 90% confidence interval of the ratio of geometric least-squares means of the test (tablet) to reference (capsule) product was within 0.80 - 1.25% for AUC0-t|Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.9594|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9199|1.0006|||||Analysis was performed using linear mixed model with fixed effects of treatment, period, sequence, and random effect for participant nested within sequence. Ratio of geometric least square mean of niraparib tablet to niraparib capsule is presented.|||1.0006|0.9199|
91095571|NCT03329001|182074596|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was concluded if the 90% confidence interval of the ratio of geometric least-squares means of the test (tablet) to reference (capsule) product was within 0.80 - 1.25% for AUC0-inf|Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.9566|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9164|0.9986|||||Analysis was performed using linear mixed model with fixed effects of treatment, period, sequence, and random effect for participant nested within sequence. Ratio of geometric least square mean of niraparib tablet to niraparib capsule is presented.|||0.9986|0.9164|
91095572|NCT03329001|182074597|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was concluded if the 90% confidence interval of the ratio of geometric least-squares means of the test (tablet) to reference (capsule) product was within 0.80 - 1.25% for Cmax|Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.9619|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9124|1.014|||||Analysis was performed using linear mixed model with fixed effects of treatment, period, sequence, and random effect for participant nested within sequence. Ratio of geometric least square mean of niraparib tablet to niraparib capsule is presented.|||1.0140|0.9124|
91095573|NCT03329001|182074602|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.3154|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1742|1.4735|||||Analysis was performed using linear mixed model with fixed effects of treatment, period, sequence, and random effect for participant nested within sequence.|||1.4735|1.1742|
91095574|NCT03329001|182074603|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.2771|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1537|1.4137|||||Analysis was performed using linear mixed model with fixed effects of treatment, period, sequence, and random effect for participant nested within sequence.|||1.4137|1.1537|
91095575|NCT03329001|182074604|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.1129|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9408|1.3164|||||Analysis was performed using linear mixed model with fixed effects of treatment, period, sequence, and random effect for participant nested within sequence.|||1.3164|0.9408|
91095576|NCT02178956|182074618|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.8596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.02||two-sided|Log Rank|stratified log rank test stratified by region, time to progression on 1st line therapy and disease measurability.|HR is for napabucasin + Paclitaxel vs Placebo + Paclitaxel. Based on Cox Proportional hazards model stratified by actual stratification variables including region, time to progression on first line therapy and disease measurability.|||1.02|0.86|0.8596
91095577|NCT02178956|182074619|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.9028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.19||two sided|Log Rank|stratified log rank test stratified by region, time to progression on 1st line therapy and disease measurability.|HR is for napabucuasin + Paclitaxel vs Placebo + Paclitaxel. Based on Cox Proportional hazards model stratified by actual stratification variables including region, time to progression on first line therapy and disease measurability.|||1.19|0.85|0.9028
91095578|NCT02178956|182074620|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.7359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.44||2-sided|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on CMH test stratified by actual stratification variables at baseline including region, and time to progression on first-line therapy.|Odds ratio for napabucasin vs. Placebo. Based on Logistic Regression Model adjusting for actual Stratification variables at baseline including region, and time to progression on first-line therapy.|||1.44|0.60|0.7359
91095579|NCT02178956|182074621|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.6555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.3||2-sided|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on CMH test stratified by actual stratification variables at baseline including region, and time to progression on first-line therapy.|Odds ratio for napabucasin vs. Placebo. Based on Logistic Regression Model adjusting for actual Stratification variables at baseline including region, and time to progression on first-line therapy.|||1.30|0.66|0.6555
91095580|NCT00622518|182074623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||P value is based on rating\*group interaction term|linear mixed model|||||||.002
91095581|NCT03769493|182074626|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||< .001
91095582|NCT03769493|182074627|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.875|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.875
91095583|NCT01104766|182074669|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.0||||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|-1.9|||ANCOVA|||||-1.9|-10.1|0.0044
91095584|NCT01104766|182074669|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|-4.7|||ANCOVA|||||-4.7|-12.9|<0.0001
91095585|NCT01104766|182074669|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-7.0||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|-2.9|||ANCOVA|||||-2.9|-11.0|0.0008
91095586|NCT01104766|182074670|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||||-0.2|-0.6|0.0004
91095587|NCT01104766|182074670|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||||-0.3|-0.7|<0.0001
91095588|NCT01104766|182074670|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||||-0.2|-0.6|0.0001
91104208|NCT04003142|182094843|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|-0.08||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 1||-0.08|-0.24|<0.001
91095589|NCT05452239|182074689|OTHER|Testing sequence: 1. Change in MMDs (Weeks 1-4); 2. Change in MMDs (Weeks 1-12); 3. Change in MHDs (Weeks 1-4); 4. Change in MHDs (Weeks 1-12); 5. Participants not fulfilling the ICHD-3 diagnostic criteria for CM nor MOH (Weeks 1-4), 6. Participants not fulfilling the ICHD-3 diagnostic criteria for CM nor MOH (Weeks 1-12), 7. Change in average Daily Pain assessment score (Weeks 1-2); 8. Change in MAMDs (Weeks 1-4), 9. Change in MAMDs (Weeks 1-12).|Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.16|-2.23||Testing continued only if the previous comparison was statistically significant. Threshold for significance: p-value \<α, where α = 0.05. Here it is test no. 1 of testing order.|Mixed model for repeated measures|||Analysis was performed using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM) with Baseline number of MMDs as a continuous covariate and treatment group (eptinezumab versus placebo), month (Weeks 1-4, 5-8, 9-12), country, and previous treatment failures (≤2; \>2) as factors. The interaction terms treatment-by-month and previous treatment failures-by-month as well as number of MMDs at baseline-by-month were included.||-2.23|-4.16|<0.0001
91095590|NCT05452239|182074690|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.469|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.86|-2.02||Testing continued only if the previous comparison was statistically significant. Threshold for significance: p-value \<α, where α = 0.05. Here it is test no. 2 of testing order.|Mixed model for repeated measures|||Analysis was performed using a REML-based MMRM with Baseline number of MMDs as a continuous covariate and treatment group (eptinezumab versus placebo), month (Weeks 1-4, 5-8, 9-12), country, and previous treatment failures (≤2; \>2) as factors. The interaction terms treatment-by-month and previous treatment failures-by-month as well as number of MMDs at baseline-by-month were included.||-2.02|-3.86|<0.0001
91095591|NCT05452239|182074691|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.471|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.07|-2.22||Testing continued only if the previous comparison was statistically significant. Threshold for significance: p-value \<α, where α = 0.05. Here it is test no. 3 of testing order.|Mixed model for repeated measures||Change From Baseline in the Number of MHDs at Weeks 1 to 4: Eptinezumab vs. Placebo|Analysis was performed using a REML-based MMRM with Baseline number of MHDs as a continuous covariate and treatment group (eptinezumab versus placebo), month (Weeks 1-4, 5-8, 9-12), country, and previous treatment failures (≤2; \>2) as factors. The interaction terms treatment-by-month and previous treatment failures-by-month as well as number of MHDs at baseline-by-month were included.||-2.22|-4.07|<0.0001
91104209|NCT04003142|182094843|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.001||95.0|-0.28|-0.07||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 2||-0.07|-0.28|0.001
90848776|NCT02744040|181563292|OTHER|Tukey's Honest Significant Difference (HSD) test|||||<|0.0001||||||Pair-wise comparison of Slope 1|Tukey's Honest Significant Difference (H|||The decay in total HIV DNA was modeled from the time of ART initiation in each of the three EDDI groups until the end of follow-up. The decay was analyzed on the log10 scale with a mixed-effects model to account for correlation between measurements from the same individual. We used a piecewise linear function to model the decay, where the number of linear segments was fixed at 2 (two-phase segmentation model) for Total HIV DNA.||||<0.0001
90848777|NCT02744040|181563292|OTHER|Tukey's Honest Significant Difference (HSD) test|||||<|0.0001||||||Pair-wise comparison of Slope 1|Tukey's Honest Significant Difference (H|||The decay in total HIV DNA was modeled from the time of ART initiation in each of the three EDDI groups until the end of follow-up. The decay was analyzed on the log10 scale with a mixed-effects model to account for correlation between measurements from the same individual. We used a piecewise linear function to model the decay, where the number of linear segments was fixed at 2 (two-phase segmentation model) for Total HIV DNA.||||<0.0001
90848778|NCT02744040|181563292|OTHER|Tukey's Honest Significant Difference (HSD) test|||||<|0.0001||||||Pair-Wise comparison of Slope 2|Tukey's Honest Significant Difference (H|||The decay in total HIV DNA was modeled from the time of ART initiation in each of the three EDDI groups until the end of follow-up. The decay was analyzed on the log10 scale with a mixed-effects model to account for correlation between measurements from the same individual. We used a piecewise linear function to model the decay, where the number of linear segments was fixed at 2 (two-phase segmentation model) for Total HIV DNA.||||<0.0001
90848779|NCT02744040|181563292|OTHER|Tukey's Honest Significant Difference (HSD) test|||||<|0.0001||||||Pair-Wise comparison of Slope 2|Tukey's Honest Significant Difference (H|||The decay in total HIV DNA was modeled from the time of ART initiation in each of the three EDDI groups until the end of follow-up. The decay was analyzed on the log10 scale with a mixed-effects model to account for correlation between measurements from the same individual. We used a piecewise linear function to model the decay, where the number of linear segments was fixed at 2 (two-phase segmentation model) for Total HIV DNA.||||<0.0001
90848780|NCT02744040|181563292|OTHER|Tukey's Honest Significant Difference (HSD) test|||||<|0.0001||||||Pair-Wise comparison of Slope 2|Tukey's Honest Significant Difference (H|||The decay in total HIV DNA was modeled from the time of ART initiation in each of the three EDDI groups until the end of follow-up. The decay was analyzed on the log10 scale with a mixed-effects model to account for correlation between measurements from the same individual. We used a piecewise linear function to model the decay, where the number of linear segments was fixed at 2 (two-phase segmentation model) for Total HIV DNA.||||<0.0001
90848781|NCT02744040|181563293|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Multiple hypothesis testing was performed using Tukey's HSD procedure.|Mixed Effects Models|||Integrated HIV DNA at the time of ART initiation in each of the three EDDI groups||||>0.05
90899578|NCT03502616|181665118|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.273||0.2539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.23|-0.85|0.2539
90899579|NCT03502616|181665119|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.479||0.4379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|1.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||1.33|-0.58|0.4379
91104210|NCT04003142|182094843|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|-0.07||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 2||-0.07|-0.28|0.001
91030071|NCT00442936|181944587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|3.66|||Regression, Logistic||From logistic model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age. An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first treatment group of the corresponding pairwise comparison.|||3.66|1.40|<0.001
91030072|NCT00442936|181944587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.42|6.0|||Regression, Logistic||From logistic model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age. An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first treatment group of the corresponding pairwise comparison.|||6.00|2.42|<0.001
90848782|NCT02744040|181563294|OTHER|Tukey's Honest Significant Difference (HSD) test|||||<|0.0001||||||Pair-Wise comparison of Slope 1|Tukey's Honest Significant Difference (H|||The decay in integrated HIV DNA was modeled from the time of ART initiation in each of the three EDDI groups until the end of follow-up. The decay was analyzed on the log10 scale with a mixed-effects model to account for correlation between measurements from the same individual. We used a piecewise linear function to model the decay, where the number of linear segments was fixed at 2 (two-phase segmentation model) for integrated HIV DNA.||||<0.0001
90848783|NCT02744040|181563294|OTHER|Tukey's Honest Significant Difference (HSD) test|||||<|0.0001||||||Pair-Wise comparison of Slope 1|Tukey's Honest Significant Difference (H|||The decay in integrated HIV DNA was modeled from the time of ART initiation in each of the three EDDI groups until the end of follow-up. The decay was analyzed on the log10 scale with a mixed-effects model to account for correlation between measurements from the same individual. We used a piecewise linear function to model the decay, where the number of linear segments was fixed at 2 (two-phase segmentation model) for integrated HIV DNA.||||<0.0001
90848784|NCT02744040|181563294|OTHER|Tukey's Honest Significant Difference (HSD) test|||||<|0.0001||||||Pair-Wise comparison of Slope 1|Tukey's Honest Significant Difference (H|||The decay in integrated HIV DNA was modeled from the time of ART initiation in each of the three EDDI groups until the end of follow-up. The decay was analyzed on the log10 scale with a mixed-effects model to account for correlation between measurements from the same individual. We used a piecewise linear function to model the decay, where the number of linear segments was fixed at 2 (two-phase segmentation model) for integrated HIV DNA.||||<0.0001
90848785|NCT02744040|181563294|OTHER|Tukey's Honest Significant Difference (HSD) test|||||>|0.05||||||Pair-Wise comparison of Slope 2|Tukey's Honest Significant Difference (H|||The decay in integrated HIV DNA was modeled from the time of ART initiation in each of the three EDDI groups until the end of follow-up. The decay was analyzed on the log10 scale with a mixed-effects model to account for correlation between measurements from the same individual. We used a piecewise linear function to model the decay, where the number of linear segments was fixed at 2 (two-phase segmentation model) for integrated HIV DNA.||||>0.05
90848786|NCT02744040|181563294|OTHER|Tukey's Honest Significant Difference (HSD) test|||||>|0.05||||||Pair-Wise comparison of Slope 2|Tukey's Honest Significant Difference (H|||The decay in integrated HIV DNA was modeled from the time of ART initiation in each of the three EDDI groups until the end of follow-up. The decay was analyzed on the log10 scale with a mixed-effects model to account for correlation between measurements from the same individual. We used a piecewise linear function to model the decay, where the number of linear segments was fixed at 2 (two-phase segmentation model) for integrated HIV DNA.||||>0.05
90848787|NCT02744040|181563294|OTHER|Tukey's Honest Significant Difference (HSD) test|||||>|0.05||||||Pair-Wise comparison of Slope 2|Tukey's Honest Significant Difference (H|||The decay in integrated HIV DNA was modeled from the time of ART initiation in each of the three EDDI groups until the end of follow-up. The decay was analyzed on the log10 scale with a mixed-effects model to account for correlation between measurements from the same individual. We used a piecewise linear function to model the decay, where the number of linear segments was fixed at 2 (two-phase segmentation model) for integrated HIV DNA.||||>0.05
90848788|NCT02744040|181563295|OTHER|||||||0.057||||||Multiple hypothesis testing was performed using Tukey's HSD procedure.|Mixed Effects Models|||TILDA stimulation reservoir measure at the time of ART initiation in each of the three EDDI groups||||0.057
90848789|NCT02744040|181563296|OTHER|Tukey's Honest Significant Difference (HSD) test||||||0.01||||||Pair-Wise comparison of Slope 1|Tukey's Honest Significant Difference (H|||The decay in TILDA stimulation was modeled from the time of ART initiation in each of the three EDDI groups until the end of follow-up. The decay was analyzed on the log10 scale with a mixed-effects model to account for correlation between measurements from the same individual. We used a piecewise linear function to model the decay, where the number of linear segments was fixed at 2 (two-phase segmentation model) for TILDA Stimulation.||||0.010
91030073|NCT00442936|181944588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|3.95|||Regression, Logistic||From logistic model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age. An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first treatment group of the corresponding pairwise comparison.|||3.95|2.02|<0.001
91030074|NCT00442936|181944588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.47|4.79|||Regression, Logistic||From logistic model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age. An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first treatment group of the corresponding pairwise comparison.|||4.79|2.47|<0.001
91030075|NCT00442936|181944589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|2.97|||Regression, Logistic||From logistic model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age. An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first treatment group of the corresponding pairwise comparison.|||2.97|1.54|<0.001
91095592|NCT05452239|182074691|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.83|-2.02||Testing continued only if the previous comparison was statistically significant. Threshold for significance: p-value \<α, where α = 0.05. Here it is test no. 4 of testing order.|Mixed model for repeated measures||Change From Baseline in the Number of MHDs at Weeks 1 to 12 (averaged over three 4-week intervals): Eptinezumab vs. Placebo|Analysis was performed using a REML-based MMRM with Baseline number of MHDs as a continuous covariate and treatment group (eptinezumab versus placebo), month (Weeks 1-4, 5-8, 9-12), country, and previous treatment failures (≤2; \>2) as factors. The interaction terms treatment-by-month and previous treatment failures-by-month as well as number of MHDs at baseline-by-month were included.||-2.02|-3.83|<0.0001
91095593|NCT05452239|182074692|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.18|4.94||Testing continued only if the previous comparison was statistically significant. Threshold for significance: p-value \<α, where α = 0.05. Here it is test no. 5 of testing order.|Regression, Logistic||Percentage of participants not fulfilling the ICHD-3 Diagnostic Criteria for CM nor MOH at Weeks 1 to 4: Eptinezumab vs. Placebo|The logistic regression model with baseline MMDs as a covariate, and treatment group (eptinezumab versus placebo), country and previous treatment failures (≤2, \>2) as categorical variables based on the eDiary data collected over Weeks 1-4, Weeks 5-8, Weeks 9-12 and over Weeks 1-12 separately, was fitted using the maximum likelihood method and the logit link function.||4.94|2.18|<0.0001
91095594|NCT05452239|182074692|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.93|4.9||Testing continued only if the previous comparison was statistically significant. Threshold for significance: p-value \<α, where α = 0.05. Here it is test no. 6 of testing order.|Regression, Logistic||Percentage of participants not fulfilling the ICHD-3 Diagnostic Criteria for CM nor MOH at Weeks 1 - 12 (averaged over three 4-week intervals): Eptinezumab vs. Placebo|The logistic regression model with baseline MMDs as a covariate, and treatment group (eptinezumab versus placebo), country and previous treatment failures (≤2, \>2) as categorical variables based on the eDiary data collected over Weeks 1-4, Weeks 5-8, Weeks 9-12 and over Weeks 1-12 separately, was fitted using the maximum likelihood method and the logit link function.||4.90|1.93|<0.0001
91095595|NCT05452239|182074693|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|-0.22||Testing continued only if the previous comparison was statistically significant. Threshold for significance: p-value \<α, where α = 0.05. Here it is test no. 7 of testing order.|ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was performed with the average Daily Pain at baseline as a covariate and including treatment group, country, and previous treatment failures, as categorical variables.||-0.22|-0.39|<0.0001
91095596|NCT05452239|182074694|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.487|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.59|-2.67||Testing continued only if the previous comparison was statistically significant. Threshold for significance: p-value \<α, where α = 0.05. Here it is test no. 8 of testing order.|Mixed model for repeated measures||Change from baseline in monthly days with acute migraine medication use at Weeks 1 to 4: Eptinezumab vs. Placebo|Analysis was performed using a REML-based MMRM with Baseline number of monthly days with acute migraine medication use as a continuous covariate and treatment group (eptinezumab versus placebo), month (Weeks 1-4, 5-8, 9-12), country, and previous treatment failures (≤2; \>2) as factors. The interaction terms treatment-by-month and previous treatment failures-by-month as well as number of monthly days with acute migraine medication use at baseline-by-month were included.||-2.67|-4.59|<0.0001
91095597|NCT05452239|182074694|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.447|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.23|-2.48||Testing continued only if the previous comparison was statistically significant. Threshold for significance: p-value \<α, where α = 0.05. Here it is test no. 9 of testing order.|Mixed model for repeated measures||Change from baseline in monthly days with acute migraine medication use at Weeks 1 - 12 (averaged over three 4-week intervals): Eptinezumab vs. Placebo|Analysis was performed using a REML-based MMRM with Baseline number of monthly days with acute migraine medication use as a continuous covariate and treatment group (eptinezumab versus placebo), month (Weeks 1-4, 5-8, 9-12), country, and previous treatment failures (≤2; \>2) as factors. The interaction terms treatment-by-month and previous treatment failures-by-month as well as number of monthly days with acute migraine medication use at baseline-by-month were included.||-2.48|-4.23|<0.0001
90848790|NCT02744040|181563296|OTHER|Tukey's Honest Significant Difference (HSD) test|||||<|0.0001||||||Pair-Wise comparison of Slope 1|Tukey's Honest Significant Difference (H|||The decay in TILDA stimulation was modeled from the time of ART initiation in each of the three EDDI groups until the end of follow-up. The decay was analyzed on the log10 scale with a mixed-effects model to account for correlation between measurements from the same individual. We used a piecewise linear function to model the decay, where the number of linear segments was fixed at 2 (two-phase segmentation model) for TILDA Stimulation.||||<0.0001
91095598|NCT03282097|182074758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4393|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.4393
90848791|NCT02744040|181563296|OTHER|Tukey's Honest Significant Difference (HSD) test|||||>|0.05||||||Pair-Wise comparison of Slope 1|Tukey's Honest Significant Difference (H|||The decay in TILDA stimulation was modeled from the time of ART initiation in each of the three EDDI groups until the end of follow-up. The decay was analyzed on the log10 scale with a mixed-effects model to account for correlation between measurements from the same individual. We used a piecewise linear function to model the decay, where the number of linear segments was fixed at 2 (two-phase segmentation model) for TILDA Stimulation.||||>0.05
90848792|NCT02744040|181563296|OTHER|Tukey's Honest Significant Difference (HSD) test|||||>|0.05||||||Pair-Wise comparison of Slope 2|Tukey's Honest Significant Difference (H|||The decay in TILDA stimulation was modeled from the time of ART initiation in each of the three EDDI groups until the end of follow-up. The decay was analyzed on the log10 scale with a mixed-effects model to account for correlation between measurements from the same individual. We used a piecewise linear function to model the decay, where the number of linear segments was fixed at 2 (two-phase segmentation model) for TILDA Stimulation.||||>0.05
90859787|NCT00734474|181583024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|18.51||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.25|40.28||Comparison at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||40.28|-3.25|0.095
91095599|NCT03282097|182074759|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2262|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.2262
91095600|NCT03282097|182074760|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0023|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0023
91095601|NCT03282097|182074761|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6075|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.6075
91095602|NCT03282097|182074762|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<.0001
91095603|NCT03282097|182074763|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.0001
90848793|NCT02744040|181563296|OTHER|Tukey's Honest Significant Difference (HSD) test||||||0.052||||||Pair-Wise comparison of Slope 2|Tukey's Honest Significant Difference (H|||The decay in TILDA stimulation was modeled from the time of ART initiation in each of the three EDDI groups until the end of follow-up. The decay was analyzed on the log10 scale with a mixed-effects model to account for correlation between measurements from the same individual. We used a piecewise linear function to model the decay, where the number of linear segments was fixed at 2 (two-phase segmentation model) for TILDA Stimulation.||||0.052
90848794|NCT02744040|181563296|OTHER|Tukey's Honest Significant Difference (HSD) test|||||>|0.05||||||Pair-Wise comparison of Slope 2|Tukey's Honest Significant Difference (H|||The decay in TILDA stimulation was modeled from the time of ART initiation in each of the three EDDI groups until the end of follow-up. The decay was analyzed on the log10 scale with a mixed-effects model to account for correlation between measurements from the same individual. We used a piecewise linear function to model the decay, where the number of linear segments was fixed at 2 (two-phase segmentation model) for TILDA Stimulation.||||>0.05
90848795|NCT00750152|181563304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||one-sided p-value from CMH test|0.001||||0.025|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH test after stratification by site compared the proportion of complete cure in NAFT-500 to that of placebo to evaluate its superiority.||"In order to compare complete cure rate in the NAFT-500 group with that in the placebo group, the following one-sided null and alternate hypotheses will be tested:~* H0: p1 \<= p0~* Ha: p1 \> p0 where p0 and p1 denote the proportion of subjects with complete cure in the placebo and NAFT-500 groups, respectively."||||0.025
90848796|NCT01809639|181563312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||ANOVA|||||||.42
90848797|NCT01185353|181563340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||A priori p-value significance threshold: 1-sided ≤0.10|Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
90848798|NCT01185353|181563342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 1-sided ≤0.10.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.045
90848799|NCT01185353|181563342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 1-sided ≤0.10.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.088
90848800|NCT01185353|181563342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 1-sided ≤0.10.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
90957457|NCT03538301|181795020|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.21||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.82|0.4|||random coefficient model|||Change from Baseline to Week 24 in Honeycombing (% of whole lung field volume) in the 45 mg cohort versus placebo||0.40|-2.82|0.140
90848801|NCT01185353|181563342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 1-sided ≤0.10.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
90848802|NCT01185353|181563344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 1-sided ≤0.10.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.003
90848803|NCT01185353|181563344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.162|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 1-sided ≤0.10.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.162
90848804|NCT01185353|181563344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 1-sided ≤0.10.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
90848805|NCT01185353|181563344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 1-sided ≤0.10.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
90848806|NCT01185353|181563346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 1-sided ≤0.10.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.017
90848807|NCT01185353|181563346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.109|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 1-sided ≤0.10.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.109
90848808|NCT01185353|181563346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 1-sided ≤0.10.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
90848809|NCT01185353|181563346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 1-sided ≤0.10.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
90848810|NCT01185353|181563350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for TJC - Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||0.480
90848811|NCT01185353|181563350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for TJC - Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||0.064
90848812|NCT01185353|181563350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for TJC - Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90848813|NCT01185353|181563350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for TJC - Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||0.001
90848814|NCT01185353|181563350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.116|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for SJC - Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||0.116
90848815|NCT01185353|181563350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.201|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for SJC - Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||0.201
90848816|NCT01185353|181563350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for SJC - Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90848817|NCT01185353|181563350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for SJC - Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||0.002
90848818|NCT01185353|181563352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||0.003
90848819|NCT01185353|181563352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.167|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||0.167
90848820|NCT01185353|181563352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90848821|NCT01185353|181563352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||0.001
90848822|NCT01185353|181563354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||0.016
90899580|NCT03502616|181665119|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.532||0.534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|1.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||1.39|-0.73|0.5340
90899581|NCT03502616|181665119|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.582||0.9148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||1.22|-1.10|0.9148
90899582|NCT03502616|181665119|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.548||0.5409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|0.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.76|-1.43|0.5409
91030076|NCT00442936|181944589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.89|3.61|||Regression, Logistic||From logistic model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age. An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first treatment group of the corresponding pairwise comparison.|||3.61|1.89|<0.001
90899583|NCT03502616|181665119|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.607||0.3555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|0.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.65|-1.78|0.3555
90899584|NCT03502616|181665119|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.436||0.2485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|1.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||1.38|-0.36|0.2485
90899585|NCT03502616|181665119|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.435||0.0866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|1.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 32: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||1.63|-0.11|0.0866
90899586|NCT03502616|181665119|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.356||0.4101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|1.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 40: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||1.01|-0.42|0.4101
90957458|NCT03538301|181795020|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.98||||0.211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.53|0.56|||random coefficient model|||Change from Baseline to Week 24 in Honeycombing (% of whole lung field volume) in the 90 mg cohort versus placebo||0.56|-2.53|0.211
91030077|NCT00442936|181944590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.49|2.82|||Regression, Logistic||From logistic model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age. An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first treatment group of the corresponding pairwise comparison.|||2.82|1.49|<0.001
91095604|NCT00207740|182074766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.802||||||When interpreting this p-value along with the other co-primary endpoint, Hochberg procedure was used.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was that the endpoint for placebo is the same as that for combined 100 mg and 200 mg golimumab. Assuming a standard deviation of 23%, there is 86% power to detect a 10% difference at a 0.05 significance level.||||0.802
90848823|NCT01185353|181563354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||0.108
90848824|NCT01185353|181563354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||0.008
90848825|NCT01185353|181563354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.368|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||0.368
90848826|NCT01185353|181563356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||0.039
90848827|NCT01185353|181563356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.458|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||0.458
90848828|NCT01185353|181563356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||0.008
90848829|NCT01185353|181563356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||0.029
90848830|NCT01185353|181563358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.217|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Physician's Assessment of DA - Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||0.217
90848831|NCT01185353|181563358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Physician's Assessment of DA - Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||0.092
90848832|NCT01185353|181563358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Physician's Assessment of DA - Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90848833|NCT01185353|181563358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Physician's Assessment of DA - Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90848834|NCT01185353|181563358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Patient's Assessment of DA - Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90848835|NCT01185353|181563358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Patient's Assessment of DA - Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||0.072
91095605|NCT00207740|182074766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.945||||||The nominal p-value is for descriptive purpose only.|ANCOVA|||This is a secondary analysis.||||0.945
91095606|NCT00207740|182074766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.717||||||The nominal p-value is for descriptive purpose only.|ANCOVA|||This is a secondary analysis.||||0.717
91095607|NCT00207740|182074766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.357||||||The nominal p-value is for descriptive purpose only.|ANCOVA|||This is a secondary analysis.||||0.357
91095608|NCT00207740|182074767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.286|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis was that the endpoint for placebo is the same as that in the combined 100 mg and 200 mg golimumab.||||0.286
91095609|NCT00207740|182074767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.742|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.742
91095610|NCT00207740|182074767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.128|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.128
91095611|NCT00207740|182074767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.946|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.946
91095612|NCT00207740|182074768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.718||||||When interpreting this p-value along with the other co-primary endpoint, Hochberg procedure was used.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The null hypothesis was that the number of severe exacerbations per patient from baseline through week 24 for placebo is the same as that in the combined 100 mg and 200 mg golimumab. Assuming 1 severe exacerbation over 6 months per patient in the placebo group, there is 79% power to detect a 35% reduction in the combined 100 mg and 200 mg golimumab group at a 0.05 significance level.||||0.718
91095613|NCT00207740|182074768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.779||||||The nominal p-value is for descriptive purpose only.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||This is a secondary analysis.||||0.779
91095614|NCT00207740|182074768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.649||||||The nominal p-value is for descriptive purpose only.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||This is a secondary analysis.||||0.649
91095615|NCT00207740|182074768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.256||||||The nominal p-value is for descriptive purpose only.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||This is a secondary analysis.||||0.256
91095616|NCT00207740|182074769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.894|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The null hypothesis was that the endpoint for placebo is the same as that in the combined 100 mg and 200 mg golimumab.||||0.894
91095617|NCT00207740|182074769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.572|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.572
91095618|NCT00207740|182074769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.731|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.731
91095619|NCT00207740|182074769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.856|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.856
91095620|NCT00207740|182074770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.273|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The null hypothesis was that the endpoint for placebo is the same as that in the combined 100 mg and 200 mg golimumab.||||0.273
91095621|NCT00207740|182074770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.382|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.382
91095622|NCT00207740|182074770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.350
91095623|NCT00207740|182074770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.341|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.341
91095624|NCT00207740|182074771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.986|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis was that the endpoint for placebo is the same as that in the combined 100 mg and 200 mg golimumab.||||0.986
91095625|NCT00207740|182074771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.820
91095626|NCT00207740|182074771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.858|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.858
91095627|NCT00207740|182074771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.021
91095628|NCT00207740|182074772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.833||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis was that the endpoint for placebo is the same as that in the combined 100 mg and 200 mg golimumab.||||0.833
91095629|NCT00207740|182074772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.814||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.814
91095630|NCT00207740|182074772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.897||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.897
91095631|NCT00207740|182074772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.726||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.726
91095632|NCT05473039|182074773|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2629|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2629
90848836|NCT01185353|181563358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Patient's Assessment of DA - Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90848837|NCT01185353|181563358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Patient's Assessment of DA - Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90848838|NCT01185353|181563358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Patient's Assessment of Pain - Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90848839|NCT01185353|181563358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Patient's Assessment of Pain - Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||0.082
90848840|NCT01185353|181563358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Patient's Assessment of Pain - Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90848841|NCT01185353|181563358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Patient's Assessment of Pain - Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90899587|NCT03502616|181665119|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.217||0.0237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.94|0.07|0.0237
90848842|NCT01185353|181563360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||0.024
90848843|NCT01185353|181563360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||0.030
90848844|NCT01185353|181563360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90848845|NCT01185353|181563360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90848846|NCT01185353|181563362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for comparison of the superiority of the LY3009104 dose level vs. placebo for the ordinal levels of response - Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 1-sided ≤0.10.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.120
91095633|NCT05473039|182074774|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3582|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3582
91095634|NCT05473039|182074775|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2187|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2187
90848847|NCT01185353|181563362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for comparison of the superiority of the LY3009104 dose level vs. placebo for the ordinal levels of response - Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 1-sided ≤0.10.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.012
90848848|NCT01185353|181563362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for comparison of the superiority of the LY3009104 dose level vs. placebo for the ordinal levels of response - Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 1-sided ≤0.10.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90848849|NCT01185353|181563362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for comparison of the superiority of the LY3009104 dose level vs. placebo for the ordinal levels of response - Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 1-sided ≤0.10.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90848850|NCT01185353|181563364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.409|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Low Disease Activity - Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.409
90848851|NCT01185353|181563364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.371|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Low Disease Activity - Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.371
90848852|NCT01185353|181563364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Low Disease Activity - Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
90848853|NCT01185353|181563364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Low Disease Activity - Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.007
90848854|NCT01185353|181563364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Remission - Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.033
90848855|NCT01185353|181563364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Remission - Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.019
90848856|NCT01185353|181563364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Remission - Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
90848857|NCT01185353|181563364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Remission - Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.001
90848858|NCT01185353|181563366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||0.015
90848859|NCT01185353|181563366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||0.073
90848860|NCT01185353|181563366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90848861|NCT01185353|181563366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90848862|NCT01185353|181563367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for PCS. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||0.021
91095635|NCT05473039|182074776|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3005
91095636|NCT05473039|182074777|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0314|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0314
91095637|NCT05473039|182074778|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9214|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9214
91095638|NCT05473039|182074778|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.042|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Fasting glucose at the start of COH compared to baseline fasting glucose.||||0.042
91095639|NCT05473039|182074778|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Fasting glucose at the start of COH compared to baseline fasting glucose.||||<0.001
91095640|NCT05473039|182074779|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59695|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.59695
91095641|NCT05473039|182074779|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.466503|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||AST at the start of COH compared to baseline AST.||||0.466503
91095642|NCT05473039|182074779|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.959877|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||AST at the start of COH compared to baseline AST.||||0.959877
91095643|NCT05473039|182074780|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06281|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.062810
91095644|NCT05473039|182074780|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.417757|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||ALT at the start of COH compared to baseline ALT.||||0.417757
91095645|NCT05473039|182074780|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.968525|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||ALT at the start of COH compared to baseline ALT.||||0.968525
90957459|NCT03538301|181795020|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.88||||0.568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|3.91|||random coefficient model|||Change from Baseline to Week 24 in Normal Lung (% of whole lung field volume) in the 45 mg cohort versus placebo||3.91|-2.16|0.568
91030078|NCT00442936|181944590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.73|3.25|||Regression, Logistic||From logistic model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age. An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first treatment group of the corresponding pairwise comparison.|||3.25|1.73|<0.001
91030079|NCT00442936|181944591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|2.39|||Regression, Logistic||From logistic model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age. An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first treatment group of the corresponding pairwise comparison.|||2.39|1.25|<0.001
91030080|NCT00442936|181944591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|2.13|||Regression, Logistic||From logistic model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age. An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first treatment group of the corresponding pairwise comparison.|||2.13|1.13|0.006
91030081|NCT00442936|181944592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.8||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|5.35|||Regression, Logistic||From logistic model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age. An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first treatment group of the corresponding pairwise comparison.|||5.35|1.47|0.002
91030082|NCT00442936|181944592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.15|10.51|||Regression, Logistic||From logistic model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age. An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first treatment group of the corresponding pairwise comparison.|||10.51|3.15|<0.001
90848863|NCT01185353|181563367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.194|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for PCS. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||0.194
90848864|NCT01185353|181563367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for PCS. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91030083|NCT00442936|181944593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.78||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|2.97|||Regression, Logistic||From logistic model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age. An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first treatment group of the corresponding pairwise comparison.|||2.97|1.07|0.026
91030084|NCT00442936|181944593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.08|5.35|||Regression, Logistic||From logistic model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age. An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first treatment group of the corresponding pairwise comparison.|||5.35|2.08|<0.001
91095646|NCT05473039|182074781|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.686488|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.686488
91095647|NCT05473039|182074781|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39512|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Cholesterol at the start of COH compared to baseline cholesterol.||||0.395120
91095648|NCT05473039|182074781|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.127135|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Cholesterol at the start of COH compared to baseline cholesterol.||||0.127135
90848865|NCT01185353|181563367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for PCS. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||0.012
90848866|NCT01185353|181563367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.449|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for MCS. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||0.449
90848867|NCT01185353|181563367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.578|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for MCS. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||0.578
91095649|NCT05473039|182074782|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.257496|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.257496
91095650|NCT03034967|182074783|OTHER|Emax|Median Posterior Difference|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.66|||||Median posterior difference, 90 percent (%) credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 5 mg has been presented.|4-parameter Emax model selected.||0.66|0.00|
91095651|NCT03034967|182074783|OTHER|Emax|Median Posterior Difference|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|1.52|||||Median posterior difference, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 10 mg has been presented.|4-parameter Emax model||1.52|0.00|
91095652|NCT03034967|182074783|OTHER|Emax|Median Posterior Difference|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.43|1.97|||||Median posterior difference, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 25 mg has been presented.|4-parameter Emax model selected.||1.97|0.43|
91095653|NCT03034967|182074783|OTHER|Emax|Median Posterior Difference|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.72|2.03|||||Median posterior difference, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 35 mg has been presented.|4-parameter Emax model selected.||2.03|0.72|
91095654|NCT03034967|182074783|OTHER|Emax|Median Posterior Difference|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.79|2.07|||||Median posterior difference, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 50 mg has been presented.|4-parameter Emax model selected.||2.07|0.79|
91095655|NCT03034967|182074784|OTHER|Emax|Median Posterior Difference|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.42|||||Median posterior difference, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 5 mg has been presented.|4-parameter Emax model selected.||0.42|0.00|
91095656|NCT03034967|182074784|OTHER|Emax|Median Posterior Difference|0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.87|||||Median posterior difference, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 10 mg has been presented.|4-parameter Emax model||0.87|0.00|
91095657|NCT03034967|182074784|OTHER|Emax|Median Posterior Difference|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.23|1.08|||||Median posterior difference, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 25 mg has been presented.|4-parameter Emax model selected.||1.08|0.23|
91095658|NCT03034967|182074784|OTHER|Emax|Median Posterior Difference|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.37|1.1|||||Median posterior difference, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 35 mg has been presented.|4-parameter Emax model selected.||1.10|0.37|
91030085|NCT00442936|181944594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.25||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|4.47|||Regression, Logistic||From logistic model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age. An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first treatment group of the corresponding pairwise comparison.|||4.47|1.13|0.021
90848868|NCT01185353|181563367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for MCS. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||0.140
91030086|NCT00442936|181944594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.78|9.76|||Regression, Logistic||From logistic model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age. An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first treatment group of the corresponding pairwise comparison.|||9.76|2.78|<0.001
90848869|NCT01185353|181563367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.266|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for MCS. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||0.266
90848870|NCT01185353|181563368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.||||||0.005
90848871|NCT01185353|181563368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||0.135
90848872|NCT01185353|181563368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90848873|NCT01185353|181563368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||0.001
90848874|NCT01185353|181563369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.203|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||0.203
90848875|NCT01185353|181563369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||0.164
90848876|NCT01185353|181563369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||0.018
90848877|NCT01185353|181563369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||0.097
90848878|NCT03425253|181563408|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was based on paired t-test for the mean difference.|Paired t-test|||Investigator: Both Sides of Face, Last Treatment||||<0.001
90848879|NCT03425253|181563408|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was based on paired t-test for the mean difference.|Paired t-test|||Investigator: Right Side of Face, Last Treatment||||<0.001
90848880|NCT03425253|181563408|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was based on paired t-test for the mean difference.|Paired t-test|||Investigator: Left Side of Face, Last Treatment||||<0.001
90848881|NCT03425253|181563408|OTHER|||||||0.018||||||P-value was based on paired t-test for the mean difference.|Paired t-test|||Independent Reviewer: Both Sides of Face, Last Treatment||||0.018
90899588|NCT03502616|181665120|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.107||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.52|0.10|0.0043
90899589|NCT03502616|181665120|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121||0.0072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.56|0.09|0.0072
90848882|NCT03425253|181563408|OTHER|||||||0.301||||||P-value was based on paired t-test for the mean difference.|Paired t-test|||Independent Reviewer: Right Side of Face, Last Treatment||||0.301
91030087|NCT02428699|181944597|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.79|7.53|||ANCOVA|Subject as random effect,treatment and period as fixed effects,subject and period level baseline values for plasma total and free acids as covariates|Difference is test minus reference such that a positive difference favors the test treatment.|||7.53|2.79|<.0001
91030088|NCT03127137|181944609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||The reported p-value was calculated.|Fisher Exact|||||||.05
91030089|NCT03127137|181944610|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|2.86||||||||2.86|.82|
91095659|NCT03034967|182074784|OTHER|Emax|Median Posterior Difference|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|1.12|||||Median posterior difference, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 50 mg has been presented.|4-parameter Emax model selected.||1.12|0.40|
90848883|NCT03425253|181563408|OTHER|||||||0.011||||||P-value was based on paired t-test for the mean difference.|Paired t-test|||Independent Reviewer: Left Side of Face, Last Treatment||||0.011
90848884|NCT03425253|181563409|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was based on paired t-test for the mean difference.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
90848885|NCT03425253|181563410|OTHER|||||||0.597||||||P-value was based on paired t-test for the mean difference.|Paired t-test|||||||0.597
90848886|NCT03425253|181563411|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was based on paired t-test for the mean difference.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
90848887|NCT03425253|181563412|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was based on paired t-test for the mean difference.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
90848888|NCT03425253|181563413|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was based on paired t-test for the mean difference.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
90848889|NCT03425253|181563414|OTHER|||||||0.003||||||P-value was based on paired t-test for the mean difference.|Paired t-test|||||||0.003
90848890|NCT03425253|181563415|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was based on paired t-test for the mean difference.|Paired t-test|||Both Side of the Face, End of Study||||<0.001
90848891|NCT03425253|181563415|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was based on paired t-test for the mean difference.|Paired t-test|||Right Side of the Face, End of study||||<0.001
90848892|NCT03425253|181563415|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was based on paired t-test for the mean difference.|Paired t-test|||Left Side of the Face, End of Study||||<0.001
90848893|NCT00695097|181563416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25||95.0||||P \< 0.05 threshold of significance|t-test, 2 sided|||Pretreatment (Baseline)compared to post-treatment (follow-up) CD3 cell density||||0.25
90848894|NCT00695097|181563416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46||95.0||||P \< 0.05 threshold of significance|t-test, 2 sided|||Pretreatment (Baseline) compared to post-treatment (follow-up) CD3 cell density||||0.46
90848895|NCT00695097|181563416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.054||95.0||||P \< 0.05 threshold of significance|t-test, 2 sided|||pretreatment (baseline) compared to post-treatment (follow-up) biopsy CD20 cell density||||0.054
91095660|NCT03034967|182074785|OTHER|Emax|Median Posterior Difference|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.16|||||Median posterior difference, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 5 mg has been presented.|4-parameter Emax model selected.||0.16|0.00|
91030090|NCT04424407|181944611|OTHER|||||||0.008||||||P-values from linear mixed effects models were False Discovery Rate-adjusted (Benjamini-Hochberg method) for the number of contrasts (3) in the Conscious Faces task. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of Conscious Fear \> Neutral amygdala reactivity was done by applying linear mixed effects models testing the effect of treatment-time. Random intercepts at the individual participant level are included to account for the clustering of observations within individuals across time. All statistical models include age and sex as covariates of non-interest.||||0.008
90848896|NCT00695097|181563416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62||95.0||||P \< 0.05 threshold of significance|t-test, 2 sided|||Pretreatment (baseline) compared to post-treatment (follow-up) CD20 cell density||||0.62
90848897|NCT00982423|181563424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between baseline dose of furosemide (3 weeks) versus reduced dose of furosemide (approximately 6 weeks).||||<0.05
90848898|NCT00982423|181563424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison between GFR taken at baseline dose Furosemide (3 weeks) versus normal GFR||||<0.05
90848899|NCT00982423|181563429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.075|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between reduced dose Furosemide and baseline dose Furosemide||||0.075
90848900|NCT04174365|181563430|SUPERIORITY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-1.22||||0.4597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.49|2.05|||Mixed model repeated measures(MMRM)|MMRM method with model terms: treatment, trial site, baseline body weight stratum, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM method with model terms: treatment, trial site, baseline body weight stratum, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline-by-visit interaction. Significance test was based on least-square means using a two-sided 0.05 level.|||2.05|-4.49|0.4597
90848901|NCT04174365|181563431|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.07||||0.7315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.32|||MMRM|MMRM method with model terms: treatment, trial site, baseline body weight stratum, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM method with model terms: treatment, trial site, baseline body weight stratum, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline-by-visit interaction. Significance test was based on least-square means using a two-sided 0.05 level.|||0.32|-0.46|0.7315
90848902|NCT01330017|181563439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4912||95.0||||The p-value reflects mean change from baseline vs. placebo from an ANCOVA model with adjustments for baseline reflective score value, investigative site, age, and gender.|ANCOVA|||||||0.4912
90848903|NCT01330017|181563439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4519||95.0||||The p-value reflects mean change from baseline vs. placebo from an ANCOVA model with adjustments for baseline reflective score value, investigative site, age, and gender.|ANCOVA|||||||0.4519
90848904|NCT01330017|181563439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2186||95.0||||The p-value reflects mean change from baseline vs. placebo from an ANCOVA model with adjustments for baseline reflective score value, investigative site, age, and gender.|ANCOVA|||||||0.2186
90848905|NCT01330017|181563439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5983||95.0||||The p-value reflects mean change from baseline vs. placebo from an ANCOVA model with adjustments for baseline reflective score value, investigative site, age, and gender.|ANCOVA|||||||0.5983
90848906|NCT03137069|181563468|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.02||||0.0559|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.01|-1.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates included were region, treatment group, visit, and visit by treatment group interaction||||-1.03|-13.01|0.0559
90848907|NCT03137069|181563468|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.51||||0.8892|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.6|5.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates included were region, treatment group, visit, and visit by treatment group interaction||||5.58|-6.60|0.8892
90899590|NCT03502616|181665120|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.146||0.1101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.52|-0.05|0.1101
91095661|NCT03034967|182074785|OTHER|Emax|Median Posterior Difference|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.43|||||Median posterior difference, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 10 mg has been presented.|4-parameter Emax model||0.43|0.00|
90848908|NCT03137069|181563468|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.43||||0.0717|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.29|-0.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates included were region, treatment group, visit, and visit by treatment group interaction||||-0.57|-12.29|0.0717
90957460|NCT03538301|181795020|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.83||||0.573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.76|2.09|||random coefficient model|||Change from Baseline to Week 24 in Normal Lung (% of whole lung field volume) in the 90 mg cohort versus placebo||2.09|-3.76|0.573
91095662|NCT03034967|182074785|OTHER|Emax|Median Posterior Difference|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.04|0.61|||||Median posterior difference, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 25 mg has been presented.|4-parameter Emax model selected.||0.61|0.04|
90848909|NCT03137069|181563468|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.53||||0.0097|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.5|-3.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates included were region, treatment group, visit, and visit by treatment group interaction||||-3.55|-15.50|0.0097
90848910|NCT03137069|181563469|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1087|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region||||||0.1087
90848911|NCT03137069|181563469|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3418|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region||||||0.3418
90848912|NCT03137069|181563469|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0459|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region||||||0.0459
90848913|NCT03137069|181563469|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region||||||0.0190
90848914|NCT03137069|181563470|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-12.88||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.94|-6.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates included were region, treatment group, visit, and visit by treatment group interaction||||-6.82|-18.94|0.0010
90848915|NCT03137069|181563470|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.83||||0.4565|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.11|3.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates included were region, treatment group, visit, and visit by treatment group interaction||||3.46|-9.11|0.4565
90848916|NCT03137069|181563470|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.03||||0.1711|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.1|1.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates included were region, treatment group, visit, and visit by treatment group interaction||||1.03|-11.10|0.1711
90848917|NCT03137069|181563470|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-10.76||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.97|-4.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates included were region, treatment group, visit, and visit by treatment group interaction||||-4.56|-16.97|0.0050
90848918|NCT02043899|181563482|OTHER|"1. Exact one-sided binomial test of the null hypothesis (p≤90%) using α=0.05 on \[124I\]mIBG PET/CT SIOPEN consensus scores. If this was accepted and the alternative hypothesis rejected, then trial stopped early for futility.~2. If the null hypothesis was rejected, then a one-sided binomial test of the null hypothesis (p≥97%) was performed (α=0.025). If this was accepted and the alternative hypothesis rejected then the trial stopped early for efficacy."|||||<|0.001||||||Overall design has 82% power and an α of 0.03. Total minimum sample size of 100 lesions was calculated based on a single stage A'hern design with p0 = 0.90 and p1 = 0.97. The overall power and α was calculated based on exact binomial probabilities.|Exact one-sided binomial test||||"For the primary endpoint, a sensitivity analysis was also performed on patients with \<20 positive lesions on \[124I\]mIBG PET/CT to test if few patients with large numbers of positive lesions were affecting the results. The results of the sensitivity analysis were consistent with those of the overall analysis.~Secondary efficacy analysis, separate exact one-sided binomial test of the null hypothesis (p≥97%), performed (α=0.025) performed for skeletal and soft tissue lesions."|||<0.001
90848919|NCT01106092|181563490|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of Non-inferiority: The upper limit (UL) of the standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) on the group \[Zilbrix/Hib/Poliorix Group - GSK2036874A Group 1\] difference in percentage of seroprotected subjects ≤ 10%. The lower limit of the asymptotic 95% CI on the geometric mean of the individual ratios (post- over pre-booster titres) for anti-poliovirus type 1 is ≥ 2.|Difference in seroprotection rate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.78|4.72||||||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of GSK2036874A vaccine (Formulation 1) compared to Poliorix™ vaccine co-administered with Zilbrix™/Hib vaccine, in terms of seroprotection rates to the three poliovirus types and to demonstrate that the formulation induces at least a two-fold increase in the geometric mean of the individual ratios (post- over pre-booster titres) for anti-polio type 1 antibodies, one month after vaccination.||4.72|-4.78|
90848920|NCT01106092|181563490|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of Non-inferiority: The UL of the standardized asymptotic 95% CI on the group \[Zilbrix/Hib/Poliorix Group - GSK2036874A Group 2\] difference in percentage of seroprotected subjects ≤ 10%. The lower limit of the asymptotic 95% CI on the geometric mean of the individual ratios (post- over pre-booster titres) for anti-poliovirus type 1 is ≥ 2.|Difference in seroprotection rate|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.53|6.94||||||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of GSK2036874A vaccine (Formulation 2) compared to Poliorix™ vaccine co-administered with Zilbrix/Hib™ vaccine, in terms of seroprotection rates to the three poliovirus types and to demonstrate that the formulation induces at least a two-fold increase in the geometric mean of the individual ratios (post- over pre-booster titres) for anti-polio type 1 antibodies, one month after vaccination.||6.94|-3.53|
90848921|NCT01106092|181563490|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of Non-inferiority: The UL of the standardized asymptotic 95% CI on the group \[Zilbrix/Hib/Poliorix Group - GSK2036874A Group 3\] difference in percentage of seroprotected subjects ≤ 10%. The lower limit of the asymptotic 95% CI on the geometric mean of the individual ratios (post- over pre-booster titres) for anti-poliovirus type 1 is ≥ 2.|Difference in seroprotection rate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.78|4.72||||||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of GSK2036874A vaccine (Formulation 3) compared to Poliorix™ vaccine co-administered with Zilbrix/Hib™ vaccine, in terms of seroprotection rates to the three poliovirus types and to demonstrate that the formulation induces at least a two-fold increase in the geometric mean of the individual ratios (post- over pre-booster titres) for anti-polio type 1 antibodies, one month after vaccination.||4.72|-4.78|
90848922|NCT01106092|181563490|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of Non-inferiority: The UL of the standardized asymptotic 95% CI on the group \[Zilbrix/Hib/Poliorix Group - GSK2036874A Group 1\] difference in percentage of seroprotected subjects ≤ 10%. The lower limit of the asymptotic 95% CI on the geometric mean of the individual ratios (post- over pre-booster titres) for anti-poliovirus type 2 is ≥ 2.|Difference in seroprotection rate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.78|4.78||||||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of GSK2036874A vaccine (Formulation 1) compared to Poliorix™ vaccine co-administered with Zilbrix/Hib™ vaccine, in terms of seroprotection rates to the three poliovirus types and to demonstrate that the formulation induces at least a two-fold increase in the geometric mean of the individual ratios (post- over pre-booster titres) for anti-polio type 2 antibodies, one month after vaccination.||4.78|-4.78|
90848923|NCT01106092|181563490|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of Non-inferiority: The UL of the standardized asymptotic 95% CI on the group \[Zilbrix/Hib/Poliorix Group - GSK2036874A Group 2\] difference in percentage of seroprotected subjects ≤ 10%. The lower limit of the asymptotic 95% CI on the geometric mean of the individual ratios (post- over pre-booster titres) for anti-poliovirus type 2 is ≥ 2.|Difference in seroprotection rate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.78|4.72||||||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of GSK2036874A vaccine (Formulation 2) compared to Poliorix™ vaccine co-administered with Zilbrix/Hib™ vaccine, in terms of seroprotection rates to the three poliovirus types and to demonstrate that the formulation induces at least a two-fold increase in the geometric mean of the individual ratios (post- over pre-booster titres) for anti-polio type 2 antibodies, one month after vaccination.||4.72|-4.78|
90848924|NCT01106092|181563490|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of Non-inferiority: The UL of the standardized asymptotic 95% CI on the group \[Zilbrix/Hib/Poliorix Group - GSK2036874A Group 3\] difference in percentage of seroprotected subjects ≤ 10%. The lower limit of the asymptotic 95% CI on the geometric mean of the individual ratios (post- over pre-booster titres) for anti-poliovirus type 2 is ≥ 2.|Difference in seroprotection rate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.78|4.72||||||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of GSK2036874A vaccine (Formulation 3) compared to Poliorix™ vaccine co-administered with Zilbrix/Hib™ vaccine, in terms of seroprotection rates to the three poliovirus types and to demonstrate that the formulation induces at least a two-fold increase in the geometric mean of the individual ratios (post- over pre-booster titres) for anti-polio type 2 antibodies, one month after vaccination.||4.72|-4.78|
90899591|NCT03502616|181665120|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.58|0.06|0.0147
91030091|NCT04424407|181944611|OTHER|||||||0.08||||||P-values from linear mixed effects models were False Discovery Rate-adjusted (Benjamini-Hochberg method) for the number of contrasts (3) in the Conscious Faces task. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of Conscious Threat \> Neutral amygdala reactivity was done by applying linear mixed effects models testing the effect of treatment-time. Random intercepts at the individual participant level are included to account for the clustering of observations within individuals across time. All statistical models include age and sex as covariates of non-interest.||||0.08
91030092|NCT04424407|181944611|OTHER|||||||0.49||||||P-values from linear mixed effects models were False Discovery Rate-adjusted (Benjamini-Hochberg method) for the number of contrasts (3) in the Conscious Faces task. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of Conscious Anger \> Neutral amygdala reactivity was done by applying linear mixed effects models testing the effect of treatment-time. Random intercepts at the individual participant level are included to account for the clustering of observations within individuals across time. All statistical models include age and sex as covariates of non-interest.||||0.49
91030093|NCT04424407|181944612|OTHER|||||||0.99||||||P-values from linear mixed effects models were False Discovery Rate-adjusted (Benjamini-Hochberg method) for the number of contrasts (3) in the Nonconscious Faces task. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of Nonconscious Fear \> Neutral amygdala reactivity was done by applying linear mixed effects models testing the effect of treatment-time. Random intercepts at the individual participant level are included to account for the clustering of observations within individuals across time. All statistical models include age and sex as covariates of non-interest.||||0.99
91095663|NCT03034967|182074785|OTHER|Emax|Median Posterior Difference|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.21|0.64|||||Median posterior difference, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 35 mg has been presented.|4-parameter Emax model selected.||0.64|0.21|
91095664|NCT03034967|182074785|OTHER|Emax|Median Posterior Difference|0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.26|0.66|||||Median posterior difference, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 50 mg has been presented.|4-parameter Emax model selected.||0.66|0.26|
91095665|NCT03034967|182074786|OTHER|Log-linear|Median Posterior Difference|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.21|0.23|||||Median posterior difference, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 5 mg has been presented.|Log-linear model.||0.23|-0.21|
91095666|NCT03034967|182074786|OTHER|Log-linear|Median Posterior Difference|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.23|0.25|||||Median posterior difference, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 10 mg has been presented.|Log-linear model||0.25|-0.23|
91095667|NCT03034967|182074786|OTHER|Log-linear|Median Posterior Difference|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.27|0.29|||||Median posterior difference, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 25 mg has been presented.|Log-linear model||0.29|-0.27|
91095668|NCT03034967|182074786|OTHER|Log-linear|Median Posterior Difference|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.28|0.3|||||Median posterior difference, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 35 mg has been presented.|Log-linear model||0.30|-0.28|
91095669|NCT03034967|182074786|OTHER|Log-linear|Median Posterior Difference|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.29|0.31|||||Median posterior difference, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 50 mg has been presented.|Log-linear model||0.31|-0.29|
91095670|NCT03034967|182074793|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.02|2.86||Analysis performed using a generalized linear mixed model with a logit link function including treatment, relevant Baseline E-RS: COPD score, smoking status at Screening, country, month, Baseline by month and treatment by month interactions.|linear mixed model||Odds Ratio, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 5 mg has been presented.|||2.86|1.02|0.089
91095671|NCT03034967|182074793|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.881|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.62|1.79||Analysis performed using a generalized linear mixed model with a logit link function including treatment, relevant Baseline E-RS: COPD score, smoking status at Screening, country, month, Baseline by month and treatment by month interactions.|linear mixed model||Odds Ratio, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 10 mg has been presented.|||1.79|0.62|0.881
91095672|NCT03034967|182074793|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.674|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.51|1.48||Analysis performed using a generalized linear mixed model with a logit link function including treatment, relevant Baseline E-RS: COPD score, smoking status at Screening, country, month, Baseline by month and treatment by month interactions.|linear mixed model||Odds Ratio, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 25 mg has been presented.|||1.48|0.51|0.674
91095673|NCT03034967|182074793|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.804|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.54|1.58||Analysis performed using a generalized linear mixed model with a logit link function including treatment, relevant Baseline E-RS: COPD score, smoking status at Screening, country, month, Baseline by month and treatment by month interactions.|linear mixed model||Odds Ratio, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 35 mg has been presented.|||1.58|0.54|0.804
91095674|NCT03034967|182074793|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.987|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.59|1.71||Analysis performed using a generalized linear mixed model with a logit link function including treatment, relevant Baseline E-RS: COPD score, smoking status at Screening, country, month, Baseline by month and treatment by month interactions.|linear mixed model||Odds Ratio, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 50 mg has been presented.|||1.71|0.59|0.987
91095675|NCT03034967|182074795|OTHER||Median Posterior Hazard Ratio|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|2.6|||||Median Posterior Hazard Ratio, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 5 mg has been presented.||DNX versus (vs.) Placebo statistics calculated using a Bayesian proportional hazards model including treatment, gender, exacerbation history (\<=1/\>=2 moderate/severe), smoking status at Screening, country and post-bronchodilator % predicted Forced Expiratory Volume in one second (FEV1)at Screening.|2.6|0.5|
91095676|NCT03034967|182074795|OTHER||Median Posterior Hazard Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|2.4|||||Median Posterior Hazard Ratio, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 10 mg has been presented.||DNX vs. Placebo statistics calculated using a Bayesian proportional hazards model including treatment, gender, exacerbation history (\<=1/\>=2 moderate/severe), smoking status at Screening, country and post-bronchodilator % predicted FEV1 at Screening.|2.4|0.4|
90899592|NCT03502616|181665120|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.162||0.2032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.53|-0.11|0.2032
90899593|NCT03502616|181665120|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.168||0.9345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.32|-0.34|0.9345
90899594|NCT03502616|181665120|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.187||0.5968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 32: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.27|-0.47|0.5968
90899595|NCT03502616|181665120|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.166||0.7047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 40: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.39|-0.26|0.7047
90899596|NCT03502616|181665120|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.157||0.807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.35|-0.27|0.8070
90899597|NCT03502616|181665121|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|-0.06|||ANCOVA|||Week 16, Mobility: Analysis performed using ANCOVA model which included fixed effects of treatment group, stratification factor derived from clinical database, and baseline value.||-0.06|-0.28|0.0030
90899598|NCT03502616|181665121|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055||0.897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Week 16, Self-Care: Analysis performed using ANCOVA model which included fixed effects of treatment group, stratification factor derived from clinical database, and baseline value.||0.10|-0.11|0.8970
91030094|NCT04424407|181944612|OTHER|||||||0.99||||||P-values from linear mixed effects models were False Discovery Rate-adjusted (Benjamini-Hochberg method) for the number of contrasts (3) in the Nonconscious Faces task. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of Nonconscious Threat \> Neutral amygdala reactivity was done by applying linear mixed effects models testing the effect of treatment-time. Random intercepts at the individual participant level are included to account for the clustering of observations within individuals across time. All statistical models include age and sex as covariates of non-interest.||||0.99
91030095|NCT04424407|181944613|OTHER|||||||0.65||||||P-values from linear mixed effects models were False Discovery Rate-adjusted (Benjamini-Hochberg method) for the number of contrasts (2) in the Emotion Regulation Scenes task. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of Emotion Regulation Scenes task Negative \> Neutral amygdala reactivity was done by applying linear mixed effects models testing the effect of treatment-time. Random intercepts at the individual participant level are included to account for the clustering of observations within individuals across time. All statistical models include age and sex as covariates of non-interest.||||0.65
91030096|NCT04424407|181944613|OTHER|||||||0.65||||||P-values from linear mixed effects models were False Discovery Rate-adjusted (Benjamini-Hochberg method) for the number of contrasts (2) in the Emotion Regulation Scenes task. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of Emotion Regulation Scenes task Look Negative \> Decrease Negative amygdala reactivity was done by applying linear mixed effects models testing the effect of treatment-time. Random intercepts at the individual participant level are included to account for the clustering of observations within individuals across time. All statistical models include age and sex as covariates of non-interest.||||0.65
91030097|NCT04424407|181944614|OTHER|||||||0.86||||||P-values from linear mixed effects models were False Discovery Rate-adjusted (Benjamini-Hochberg method) for the number of mPFC regions (5). The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of amygdala-dACC connectivity from the Conscious Fear \> Neutral task/contrast was done by applying linear mixed effects models testing the effect of treatment-time on connectivity. Random intercepts at the individual participant level are included to account for the clustering of observations within individuals across time. All statistical models include age and sex as covariates of non-interest.||||0.86
90899599|NCT03502616|181665121|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.058||0.1437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Week 16, Usual Activities: Analysis performed using ANCOVA model which included fixed effects of treatment group, stratification factor derived from clinical database, and baseline value.||0.03|-0.20|0.1437
90899600|NCT03502616|181665121|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.046|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|-0.09|||ANCOVA|||Week 16, Pain/Discomfort: Analysis performed using ANCOVA model which included fixed effects of treatment group, stratification factor derived from clinical database, and baseline value.||-0.09|-0.27|<0.0001
90899601|NCT03502616|181665121|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061||0.8445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Week 16, Anxiety/Depression: Analysis performed using ANCOVA model which included fixed effects of treatment group, stratification factor derived from clinical database, and baseline value.||0.11|-0.13|0.8445
90899602|NCT03502616|181665121|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.064||0.3473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48, Mobility: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.07|-0.19|0.3473
90957461|NCT03538301|181795020|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.58||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.35|-0.81|||random coefficient model|||Change from Baseline to Week 24 in Emphysema (% of whole lung field volume) in the 45 mg cohort versus placebo||-0.81|-6.35|0.012
91095677|NCT03034967|182074795|OTHER||Median Posterior Hazard Ratio|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6|3.2|||||Median Posterior Hazard Ratio, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 25 mg has been presented.||DNX vs. Placebo statistics calculated using a Bayesian proportional hazards model including treatment, gender, exacerbation history (\<=1/\>=2 moderate/severe), smoking status at Screening, country and post-bronchodilator % predicted FEV1 at Screening.|3.2|0.6|
91095678|NCT03034967|182074795|OTHER||Median Posterior Hazard Ratio|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|4.3|||||Median Posterior Hazard Ratio, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 35 mg has been presented.||DNX vs. Placebo statistics calculated using a Bayesian proportional hazards model including treatment, gender, exacerbation history (\<=1/\>=2 moderate/severe), smoking status at Screening, country and post-bronchodilator % predicted FEV1 at Screening.|4.3|1.0|
91095679|NCT03034967|182074795|OTHER||Median Posterior Hazard Ratio|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|4.5|||||Median Posterior Hazard Ratio, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 50 mg has been presented.||DNX vs. Placebo statistics calculated using a Bayesian proportional hazards model including treatment, gender, exacerbation history (\<=1/\>=2 moderate/severe), smoking status at Screening, country and post-bronchodilator % predicted FEV1 at Screening.|4.5|0.9|
91095680|NCT03034967|182074798|OTHER|Bayesian proportional hazards model|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|2.2|||||Hazard Ratio, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 5 mg has been presented.||DNX vs. Placebo statistics calculated using a Bayesian proportional hazards model including treatment, gender, exacerbation history (\<=1/\>=2 moderate/severe), smoking status at Screening, country and post-bronchodilator %predicted FEV1 at Screening.|2.2|1.0|
90848925|NCT01106092|181563490|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of Non-inferiority: The UL of the standardized asymptotic 95% CI on the group \[Zilbrix/Hib/Poliorix Group - GSK2036874A Group 1\] difference in percentage of seroprotected subjects ≤ 10%. The lower limit of the asymptotic 95% CI on the geometric mean of the individual ratios (post- over pre-booster titres) for anti-poliovirus type 3 is ≥ 2.|Difference in seroprotection rate|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.53|6.94||||||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of GSK2036874A vaccine (Formulation 1) compared to Poliorix™ vaccine co-administered with Zilbrix/Hib™ vaccine, in terms of seroprotection rates to the three poliovirus types and to demonstrate that the formulation induces at least a two-fold increase in the geometric mean of the individual ratios (post- over pre-booster titres) for anti-polio type 3 antibodies, one month after vaccination.||6.94|-3.53|
90957462|NCT03538301|181795020|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.16||||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.82|0.51|||random coefficient model|||Change from Baseline to Week 24 in Emphysema (% of whole lung field volume) in the 90 mg cohort versus placebo||0.51|-4.82|0.112
91095681|NCT03034967|182074798|OTHER|Bayesian proportional hazards model|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|1.7|||||Hazard Ratio, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 10 mg has been presented.||DNX vs. Placebo statistics calculated using a Bayesian proportional hazards model including treatment, gender, exacerbation history (\<=1/\>=2 moderate/severe), smoking status at Screening, country and post-bronchodilator % predicted FEV1 at Screening.|1.7|0.8|
91095682|NCT03034967|182074798|OTHER|Bayesian proportional hazards model|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7|1.6|||||Hazard Ratio, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 25 mg has been presented.||DNX vs. Placebo statistics calculated using a Bayesian proportional hazards model including treatment, gender, exacerbation history (\<=1/\>=2 moderate/severe), smoking status at Screening, country and post-bronchodilator % predicted FEV1 at Screening.|1.6|0.7|
90859788|NCT00734474|181583024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|17.08||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.54|38.69||Comparison at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||38.69|-4.54|0.121
90859789|NCT00734474|181583024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|15.41||||0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.47|37.29||Comparison at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||37.29|-6.47|0.167
90957463|NCT03538301|181795021|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.256|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.256
90957464|NCT03538301|181795021|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.241|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.241
91095683|NCT03034967|182074798|OTHER|Bayesian proportional hazards model|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|2.1|||||Hazard Ratio, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 35 mg has been presented.||DNX vs. Placebo statistics calculated using a Bayesian proportional hazards model including treatment, gender, exacerbation history (\<=1/\>=2 moderate/severe), smoking status at Screening, country and post-bronchodilator % predicted FEV1 at Screening.|2.1|1.0|
90859790|NCT00734474|181583024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.38||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.49|22.26||Comparison at 52 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||22.26|-9.49|0.430
90859791|NCT00734474|181583024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|8.77||||0.273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.94|24.47||Comparison at 52 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||24.47|-6.94|0.273
90859792|NCT00734474|181583024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|11.07||||0.291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.49|31.64||Comparison at 104 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||31.64|-9.49|0.291
90859793|NCT00734474|181583024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|21.28||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|41.53||Comparison at 104 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||41.53|1.03|0.039
90859794|NCT00734474|181583026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.27|-1.14||Comparison at 26 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||-1.14|-2.27|<0.001
91095684|NCT03034967|182074798|OTHER|Bayesian proportional hazards model|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1|2.3|||||Hazard Ratio, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 50 mg has been presented.||DNX vs. Placebo statistics calculated using a Bayesian proportional hazards model including treatment, gender, exacerbation history (\<=1/\>=2 moderate/severe), smoking status at Screening, country and post-bronchodilator % predicted FEV1 at Screening.|2.3|1.1|
91095685|NCT03034967|182074799|OTHER|Bayesian proportional hazards model|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7|5.5|||||Hazard Ratio, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 5 mg has been presented.||DNX vs. Placebo statistics calculated using a Bayesian proportional hazards model including treatment, gender, exacerbation history (\<=1/\>=2 moderate/severe), smoking status at Screening, country and post-bronchodilator % predicted FEV1 at Screening.|5.5|0.7|
91095686|NCT03034967|182074799|OTHER|Bayesian proportional hazards model|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7|5.8|||||Hazard Ratio, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 10 mg has been presented.||DNX vs. Placebo statistics calculated using a Bayesian proportional hazards model including treatment, gender, exacerbation history (\<=1/\>=2 moderate/severe), smoking status at Screening, country and post-bronchodilator % predicted FEV1 at Screening.|5.8|0.7|
91095687|NCT03034967|182074799|OTHER|Bayesian proportional hazards model|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7|5.6|||||Hazard Ratio, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 25 mg has been presented.||DNX vs. Placebo statistics calculated using a Bayesian proportional hazards model including treatment, gender, exacerbation history (\<=1/\>=2 moderate/severe), smoking status at Screening, country and post-bronchodilator % predicted FEV1 at Screening.|5.6|0.7|
90957465|NCT03538301|181795022|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.649||||0.517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.189|2.225|||Log Rank|||Time to First IPF Exacerbation or Death (weeks) in the 45 mg cohort versus placebo||2.225|0.189|0.517
90957466|NCT03538301|181795022|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.678||||0.506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.198|2.324|||Log Rank|||Time to First IPF Exacerbation or Death (weeks) in the 90 mg cohort versus placebo||2.324|0.198|0.506
91095688|NCT03034967|182074799|OTHER|Bayesian proportional hazards model|Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|6.9|||||Hazard Ratio, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 35 mg has been presented.||DNX vs. Placebo statistics calculated using a Bayesian proportional hazards model including treatment, gender, exacerbation history (\<=1/\>=2 moderate/severe), smoking status at Screening, country and post-bronchodilator % predicted FEV1 at Screening.|6.9|0.9|
90848926|NCT01106092|181563490|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of Non-inferiority: The UL of the standardized asymptotic 95% CI on the group \[Zilbrix/Hib/Poliorix Group - GSK2036874A Group 2\] difference in percentage of seroprotected subjects ≤ 10%. The lower limit of the asymptotic 95% CI on the geometric mean of the individual ratios (post- over pre-booster titres) for anti-poliovirus type 3 is ≥ 2.|Difference in seroprotection rate|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.53|6.94||||||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of GSK2036874A vaccine (Formulation 2) compared to Poliorix™ vaccine co-administered with Zilbrix/Hib™ vaccine, in terms of seroprotection rates to the three poliovirus types and to demonstrate that the formulation induces at least a two-fold increase in the geometric mean of the individual ratios (post- over pre-booster titres) for anti-polio type 3 antibodies, one month after vaccination.||6.94|-3.53|
90848927|NCT01106092|181563490|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of Non-inferiority: The UL of the standardized asymptotic 95% CI on the group \[Zilbrix/Hib/Poliorix Group - GSK2036874A Group 3\] difference in percentage of seroprotected subjects ≤ 10%. The lower limit of the asymptotic 95% CI on the geometric mean of the individual ratios (post- over pre-booster titres) for anti-poliovirus type 3 is ≥ 2.|Difference in seroprotection rate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.78|4.72||||||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of GSK2036874A vaccine (Formulation 3) compared to Poliorix™ vaccine co-administered with Zilbrix/Hib™ vaccine, in terms of seroprotection rates to the three poliovirus types and to demonstrate that the formulation induces at least a two-fold increase in the geometric mean of the individual ratios (post- over pre-booster titres) for anti-polio type 3 antibodies, one month after vaccination.||4.72|-4.78|
90848928|NCT02434471|181563508|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
90848929|NCT02434471|181563509|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.83|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.83
90848930|NCT01473368|181563511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.026
90848931|NCT01473368|181563515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
90848932|NCT04839562|181563519|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.3|||=|0.0106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|-1.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-1|-7.7|=.0106
90848933|NCT04839562|181563520|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.002|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||=.002
90848934|NCT04839562|181563521|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0173|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||=.0173
90848935|NCT04839562|181563522|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1144|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||=.1144
90848936|NCT04839562|181563523|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0348|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||=.0348
90848937|NCT04839562|181563524|SUPERIORITY||||||=|1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||=1
90848938|NCT04839562|181563525|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0173|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||=.0173
90848939|NCT04839562|181563526|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1864|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||=.1864
90848940|NCT04839562|181563527|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.4173|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||=.4173
90848941|NCT04839562|181563528|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0343|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||=.0343
90848942|NCT04839562|181563529|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0636|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||=.0636
90848943|NCT04839562|181563530|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.065|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||=.065
90848944|NCT04839562|181563531|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1144|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||=.1144
90848945|NCT04839562|181563532|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2829|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||=.2829
90848946|NCT01347580|181563544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.8214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.799|1.327||pvalue at 0.025 , adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Logistic|||||1.327|0.799|0.8214
90848947|NCT01347580|181563545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.074||||0.6322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.801|1.441||P value at 0.025 adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Logistic|||||1.441|0.801|0.6322
90848948|NCT01347580|181563546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.027||||0.9056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.661|1.595|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.595|0.661|0.9056
90848949|NCT01347580|181563547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.215||||0.4168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.942|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.942|0.760|0.4168
90848950|NCT01347580|181563548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.189||||0.0307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.042|0.856|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.856|0.042|0.0307
90848951|NCT01347580|181563549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.132||||0.344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.876|1.462|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.462|0.876|0.344
90848952|NCT01347580|181563550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.225||||0.0547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.996|1.506|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.506|0.996|0.0547
90848953|NCT01347580|181563551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.803||||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.588|1.096|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.096|0.588|0.1660
90848954|NCT01949337|181563556|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.08|||Log Rank|||||1.08|0.80|0.33
90859795|NCT00734474|181583026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|-0.6||Comparison at 26 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||-0.60|-1.73|<0.001
90957467|NCT03538301|181795022|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference (Final Values)|-9.3||||0.313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.2|5.5|||Fisher Exact||The 95% Confidence Interval for difference in proportions are based on the Chan-Zhang method.|Rate of First IPF Exacerbation (%) in the 45 mg cohort versus placebo||5.5|-25.2|0.313
91095689|NCT03034967|182074799|OTHER|Bayesian proportional hazards model|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.2|2.7|||||Hazard Ratio, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 50 mg has been presented.||DNX vs. Placebo statistics calculated using a Bayesian proportional hazards model including treatment, gender, exacerbation history (\<=1/\>=2 moderate/severe), smoking status at Screening, country and post-bronchodilator % predicted FEV1 at Screening.|2.7|0.2|
91095690|NCT03034967|182074802|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.208|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|2.59||Analysis performed using a generalized linear mixed model with a logit link function including treatment, Baseline SGRQ total score, smoking status at Screening, country, visit, Baseline by visit and treatment by visit interactions.|Linear mixed model||Odds Ratio, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 5 mg has been presented.|||2.59|0.88|0.208
91095691|NCT03034967|182074802|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.482|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.73|2.2||Analysis performed using a generalized linear mixed model with a logit link function including treatment, Baseline SGRQ total score, smoking status at Screening, country, visit, Baseline by visit and treatment by visit interactions.|Linear mixed model||Odds Ratio, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 10 mg has been presented.|||2.20|0.73|0.482
90848955|NCT00412373|181563589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.774||95.0|-2.7|3.7|||ANOVA|P-value based on the actual value and was from an ANOVA model with fixed effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum, and country.|Paliperidone Extended Release (ER) - Placebo on the Actual Score.|||3.7|-2.7|0.774
90848956|NCT00412373|181563590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-9.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3|<|0.001||95.0|-13.8|-4.9|||ANCOVA|P-values are from an ANCOVA model with fixed effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum, and country, and baseline value as a covariate.|Paliperidone Extended Release (ER) - Placebo on the Change Scores.|||-4.9|-13.8|<0.001
90848957|NCT00412373|181563591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|<|0.001||95.0|-4.4|-1.2|||ANCOVA|P-value is from an ANCOVA model with fixed effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum, and country, and with baseline value as a covariate.|Paliperidone Extended Release (ER) - Placebo on the Change Scores.|||-1.2|-4.4|<0.001
90848958|NCT00412373|181563592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.001||95.0|-3.1|-0.8|||ANCOVA|P-value is from an ANCOVA model with fixed effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum, and country, and with baseline value as a covariate.|Paliperidone Extended Release (ER) - Placebo on the Change Scores.|||-0.8|-3.1|<0.001
90848959|NCT00412373|181563593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<|0.001||95.0|-6.8|-2.3|||ANCOVA|P-value is from an ANCOVA model with fixed effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum, and country, and with baseline value as a covariate.|Paliperidone Extended Release (ER) - Placebo on the Change Scores.|||-2.3|-6.8|<0.001
90848960|NCT00412373|181563594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|<|0.001||95.0|-4.2|-1.1|||ANCOVA|P-value is from an ANCOVA model with fixed effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum, and country, and with baseline value as a covariate.|Paliperidone Extended Release (ER) - Placebo on the Change Scores.|||-1.1|-4.2|<0.001
90848961|NCT00412373|181563595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.001||95.0|-3.3|-0.9|||ANCOVA|P-value is from an ANCOVA model with fixed effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum, and country, and with baseline value as a covariate.|Paliperidone Extended Release (ER) - Placebo on the Change Scores.|||-0.9|-3.3|<0.001
90848962|NCT00412373|181563596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|<|0.001||95.0|-2.9|-0.9|||ANCOVA|P-value is from an ANCOVA model with fixed effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum, and country, and with baseline value as a covariate.|Paliperidone Extended Release (ER) - Placebo on the Change Scores.|||-0.9|-2.9|<0.001
90848963|NCT00412373|181563597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.001||95.0|-2.6|-0.6|||ANCOVA|P-value is from an ANCOVA model with fixed effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum, and country, and with baseline value as a covariate.|Paliperidone Extended Release (ER) - Placebo on the Change Scores.|||-0.6|-2.6|0.001
90848964|NCT00412373|181563598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.016||95.0|-1.8|-0.2|||ANCOVA|P-value is from an ANCOVA model with fixed effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum, and country, and with baseline value as a covariate.|Paliperidone Extended Release (ER) - Placebo on the Change Scores.|||-0.2|-1.8|0.016
90848965|NCT00412373|181563600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.002||95.0|-0.7|-0.2|||ANCOVA|P-value is from an ANCOVA model with fixed effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum, and country, and with baseline value as a covariate.|Paliperidone Extended Release (ER) - Placebo on the Change Scores.|||-0.2|-0.7|0.002
90957468|NCT03538301|181795022|SUPERIORITY|The 95% Confidence Interval for difference in proportions are based on the Chan-Zhang method.|Proportion Difference (Final Values)|-6.7||||0.376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.6|9.2|||Chi-squared|||Rate of First IPF Exacerbation (%) in the 90 mg cohort versus placebo||9.2|-22.6|0.376
91095692|NCT03034967|182074802|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.239|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.86|2.53||Analysis performed using a generalized linear mixed model with a logit link function including treatment, Baseline SGRQ total score, smoking status at Screening, country, visit, Baseline by visit and treatment by visit interactions.|Linear mixed model||Odds Ratio, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 25 mg has been presented.|||2.53|0.86|0.239
91095693|NCT03034967|182074802|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.426|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.75|2.26||Analysis performed using a generalized linear mixed model with a logit link function including treatment, Baseline SGRQ total score, smoking status at Screening, country, visit, Baseline by visit and treatment by visit interactions.|Linear mixed model||Odds Ratio, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 35 mg has been presented.|||2.26|0.75|0.426
91095694|NCT03034967|182074802|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.763|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.52|1.58||Analysis performed using a generalized linear mixed model with a logit link function including treatment, Baseline SGRQ total score, smoking status at Screening, country, visit, Baseline by visit and treatment by visit interactions.|Linear mixed model||Odds Ratio, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 50 mg has been presented.|||1.58|0.52|0.763
91030098|NCT04424407|181944614|OTHER|||||||0.86||||||P-values from linear mixed effects models were False Discovery Rate-adjusted (Benjamini-Hochberg method) for the number of mPFC regions (5). The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of amygdala-dmPFC connectivity from the Conscious Fear \> Neutral task/contrast was done by applying linear mixed effects models testing the effect of treatment-time on connectivity. Random intercepts at the individual participant level are included to account for the clustering of observations within individuals across time. All statistical models include age and sex as covariates of non-interest.||||0.86
91030099|NCT04424407|181944614|OTHER|||||||0.83||||||P-values from linear mixed effects models were False Discovery Rate-adjusted (Benjamini-Hochberg method) for the number of mPFC regions (5). The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of amygdala-pACC connectivity from the Conscious Fear \> Neutral task/contrast was done by applying linear mixed effects models testing the effect of treatment-time on connectivity. Random intercepts at the individual participant level are included to account for the clustering of observations within individuals across time. All statistical models include age and sex as covariates of non-interest.||||0.83
91030100|NCT04424407|181944614|OTHER|||||||0.23||||||P-values from linear mixed effects models were False Discovery Rate-adjusted (Benjamini-Hochberg method) for the number of mPFC regions (5). The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of amygdala-sgACC connectivity from the Conscious Fear \> Neutral task/contrast was done by applying linear mixed effects models testing the effect of treatment-time on connectivity. Random intercepts at the individual participant level are included to account for the clustering of observations within individuals across time. All statistical models include age and sex as covariates of non-interest.||||0.23
91030101|NCT04424407|181944614|OTHER|||||||0.83||||||P-values from linear mixed effects models were False Discovery Rate-adjusted (Benjamini-Hochberg method) for the number of mPFC regions (5). The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of amygdala-vmPFC connectivity from the Conscious Fear \> Neutral task/contrast was done by applying linear mixed effects models testing the effect of treatment-time on connectivity. Random intercepts at the individual participant level are included to account for the clustering of observations within individuals across time. All statistical models include age and sex as covariates of non-interest.||||0.83
91030102|NCT04424407|181944615|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-values are from linear mixed effects models. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change in depression symptom severity score was done by applying linear mixed effects models testing the effect of treatment-time. Random intercepts at the individual participant level are included to account for the clustering of observations within individuals across time. All statistical models include age and sex as covariates of non-interest.||||<0.0001
91030103|NCT04424407|181944616|OTHER|||||||0.002||||||P-values are from linear mixed effects models. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change in sleep efficiency was done by applying linear mixed effects models testing the effect of treatment-time. Random intercepts at the individual participant level are included to account for the clustering of observations within individuals across time. All statistical models include age and sex as covariates of non-interest.||||0.002
91030104|NCT04424407|181944617|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-values are from linear mixed effects models. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change in suicidal ideation score was done by applying linear mixed effects models testing the effect of treatment-time. Random intercepts at the individual participant level are included to account for the clustering of observations within individuals across time. All statistical models include age and sex as covariates of non-interest.||||<0.0001
91030105|NCT04424407|181944618|OTHER|||||||0.03||||||P-values are uncorrected from ordinal logistic regression model. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|A significant p-value here means that treatment was associated with reduced odds of being in a higher risk category.||Analysis of change in suicidal risk was done by applying ordinal logistic regression (proportional odds model) testing the effect of treatment-time on the probability of being in a higher risk category. Random intercepts at the individual participant level are included to account for the clustering of observations within individuals across time. All statistical models include age and sex as covariates of non-interest.||||0.03
90848966|NCT00412373|181563601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001||95.0|-0.9|-0.3|||ANOVA|P-value is from an ANOVA model with fixed effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum, and country.||||-0.3|-0.9|<0.001
90848967|NCT00412373|181563602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.046||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi-square test with modified ridit scores, stratified by concomitant medication stratum, and country.||||||0.046
90848968|NCT00412373|181563604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<|0.001||95.0|-6.4|-1.7|||ANCOVA|P-value is from an ANCOVA model with fixed effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum, and country, and with baseline value as a covariate.|Paliperidone Extended Release (ER) - Placebo on the Change Scores.|||-1.7|-6.4|<0.001
91030106|NCT04424407|181944624|OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change in sleep onset latency (PSG) was done by applying linear mixed effects models testing the effect of treatment-time. Random intercepts at the individual participant level are included to account for the clustering of observations within individuals across time. All statistical models include age and sex as covariates of non-interest.||||0.28
90848969|NCT00412373|181563606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.001||95.0|-7.7|-2.0|||ANCOVA|P-value is from an ANCOVA model with fixed effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum, and country, and with baseline value as a covariate.|Paliperidone Extended Release (ER) - Placebo on the Change Scores.|||-2.0|-7.7|0.001
90859796|NCT00734474|181583026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.02||||0.953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.58||Comparison at 26 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||0.58|-0.54|0.953
91030107|NCT04424407|181944625|OTHER|||||||0.33||||||P-values are uncorrected from linear mixed effects models. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change in number of awakenings derived from PSG was done by applying linear mixed effects models testing the effect of treatment-time. Random intercepts at the individual participant level are included to account for the clustering of observations within individuals across time. All statistical models include age and sex as covariates of non-interest.||||0.33
91030108|NCT04424407|181944626|OTHER|||||||0.013||||||P-values are uncorrected from linear mixed effects models. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change in wake after sleep onset (WASO) was done by applying linear mixed effects models testing the effect of treatment-time. Random intercepts at the individual participant level are included to account for the clustering of observations within individuals across time. All statistical models include age and sex as covariates of non-interest.||||0.013
91030109|NCT04424407|181944627|OTHER|||||||0.66||||||P-values are uncorrected from linear mixed effects models. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change in PSG TST was done by applying linear mixed effects models testing the effect of treatment-time. Random intercepts at the individual participant level are included to account for the clustering of observations within individuals across time. All statistical models include age and sex as covariates of non-interest.||||0.66
90848970|NCT01478048|181563638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.0923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.06||Log Rank test was stratified by prior proteasome inhibitor use (Yes versus No), presence of at least 1 FcγRIIIa V allele (Yes versus No) and number of prior lines of therapy (1 versus 2 or 3) at randomization|Log Rank|Adjusted alpha level= 0.30||||1.06|0.49|0.0923
90848971|NCT01478048|181563641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference using Chan-Zhang method|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|17.8||||||||17.8|-13.2|
90848972|NCT01369329|181563647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||||||A fixed sequence testing procedure was used to control alpha at 0.05 over the outcome measures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by study region, CDAI score, and initial response to TNF antagonist therapy.||||||0.002
90848973|NCT01369329|181563647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||||||A fixed sequence testing procedure was used to control alpha at 0.05 over the outcome measures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by study region, CDAI score, and initial response to TNF antagonist therapy.||||||0.003
90848974|NCT01369329|181563648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||||||A fixed sequence testing procedure was used to control alpha at 0.05 over the outcome measures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by study region, CDAI score, and initial response to TNF antagonist therapy.||||||0.003
90848975|NCT01369329|181563648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||A fixed sequence testing procedure was used to control alpha at 0.05 over the outcome measures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by study region, CDAI score, and initial response to TNF antagonist therapy.||||||< 0.001
90848976|NCT01369329|181563649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||||||A fixed sequence testing procedure was used to control alpha at 0.05 over the outcome measures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by study region, CDAI score, and initial response to TNF antagonist therapy.||||||0.001
90848977|NCT01369329|181563649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||A fixed sequence testing procedure was used to control alpha at 0.05 over the outcome measures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by study region, CDAI score, and initial response to TNF antagonist therapy.||||||< 0.001
90848978|NCT01369329|181563650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||A fixed sequence testing procedure was used to control alpha at 0.05 over the outcome measures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by study region, CDAI score, and initial response to TNF antagonist therapy.||||||< 0.001
91030110|NCT04424407|181944628|OTHER|||||||0.96||||||P-values are uncorrected from linear mixed effects models. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change in PSG Delta absolute power was done by applying linear mixed effects models testing the effect of treatment-time. Random intercepts at the individual participant level are included to account for the clustering of observations within individuals across time. All statistical models include age and sex as covariates of non-interest.||||0.96
90848979|NCT01369329|181563650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||||||A fixed sequence testing procedure was used to control alpha at 0.05 over the outcome measures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by study region, CDAI score, and initial response to TNF antagonist therapy.||||||0.002
90848980|NCT01369329|181563651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||||||A fixed sequence testing procedure was used to control alpha at 0.05 over the outcome measures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by study region, CDAI score, and initial response to TNF antagonist therapy.||||||0.009
90848981|NCT01369329|181563651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||||||A fixed sequence testing procedure was used to control alpha at 0.05 over the outcome measures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by study region, CDAI score, and initial response to TNF antagonist therapy.||||||0.001
91030111|NCT04424407|181944628|OTHER|||||||0.23||||||P-values are uncorrected from linear mixed effects models. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change in PSG Theta absolute power was done by applying linear mixed effects models testing the effect of treatment-time. Random intercepts at the individual participant level are included to account for the clustering of observations within individuals across time. All statistical models include age and sex as covariates of non-interest.||||0.23
90848982|NCT03032380|181563661|NON_INFERIORITY|The study hypothesis was that the all-cause mortality rate at Day 14 in participants who received cefiderocol would be non-inferior to that in participants who received high-dose meropenem. The margin of non-inferiority was 12.5%. Non-inferiority was concluded if the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in mortality at Day 14 between the 2 treatment groups (cefiderocol - meropenem) was smaller than 12.5%.|Treatment Difference|0.8||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|8.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Treatment difference (cefiderocol - meropenem) was the adjusted estimate of the difference in the ACM rate at Day 14 based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel weights using APACHE II score (≤ 15 and ≥ 16) as the stratification factor.|||8.2|-6.6|0.0020
90859797|NCT00734474|181583026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.08|-0.92||Comparison at 52 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||-0.92|-2.08|<0.001
90848983|NCT03032380|181563662|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|10.7|||||Treatment difference (cefiderocol - meropenem) was the adjusted estimate of the difference in the eradication rate calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights based on infection diagnosis (HABP/VABP/HCABP), and APACHE II score (≤ 15 and ≥ 16).|||10.7|-13.5|
90848984|NCT03032380|181563663|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|8.5|||||Treatment difference (cefiderocol - meropenem) was the adjusted estimate of the difference in the cure rate calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights based on infection diagnosis (HABP/VABP/HCABP), and APACHE II score (≤ 15 and ≥ 16).|||8.5|-12.5|
90848985|NCT03032380|181563664|OTHER||Treatment Difference|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|8.2|||||Treatment difference (cefiderocol - meropenem) was the adjusted estimate of the difference in the cure rate calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights based on infection diagnosis (HABP/VABP/HCABP), and APACHE II score (≤ 15 and ≥ 16).|||8.2|-8.8|
90848986|NCT03032380|181563665|OTHER||Treatment Difference|-3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|5.1|||||Treatment difference (cefiderocol - meropenem) was the adjusted estimate of the difference in the cure rate calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights based on infection diagnosis (HABP/VABP/HCABP), and APACHE II score (≤ 15 and ≥ 16).|||5.1|-12.8|
90848987|NCT03032380|181563666|OTHER||Treatment Difference|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|10.8|||||Treatment difference (cefiderocol - meropenem) was the adjusted estimate of the difference in the cure rate calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights based on infection diagnosis (HABP/VABP/HCABP), and APACHE II score (≤ 15 and ≥ 16).|||10.8|-10.9|
91030112|NCT04424407|181944628|OTHER|||||||0.11||||||P-values are uncorrected from linear mixed effects models. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change in PSG Alpha absolute power was done by applying linear mixed effects models testing the effect of treatment-time. Random intercepts at the individual participant level are included to account for the clustering of observations within individuals across time. All statistical models include age and sex as covariates of non-interest.||||0.11
90848988|NCT03032380|181563667|OTHER||Treatment Difference|-12.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.4|-0.5|||||Treatment difference (cefiderocol - meropenem) was the adjusted estimate of the difference in the cure rate calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights based on infection diagnosis (HABP/VABP/HCABP), and APACHE II score (≤ 15 and ≥ 16).|||-0.5|-24.4|
90848989|NCT03032380|181563668|OTHER||Treatment Difference|-3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5|7.9|||||Treatment difference (cefiderocol - meropenem) was the adjusted estimate of the difference in the cure rate calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights based on infection diagnosis (HABP/VABP/HCABP), and APACHE II score (≤ 15 and ≥ 16).|||7.9|-15.5|
90848990|NCT03032380|181563669|OTHER||Treatment Difference|3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|15.8|||||Treatment difference (cefiderocol - meropenem) was the adjusted estimate of the difference in the cure rate calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights based on infection diagnosis (HABP/VABP/HCABP), and APACHE II score (≤ 15 and ≥ 16).|||15.8|-7.9|
90848991|NCT03032380|181563670|OTHER||Treatment Difference|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|9.8|||||Treatment difference (cefiderocol - meropenem) was the adjusted estimate of the difference in the ACM rate at Day 28 based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel weights using APACHE II score (≤ 15 and ≥ 16) as the stratification factor.|||9.8|-8.7|
90848992|NCT03032380|181563671|OTHER||Treatment Difference|3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|13.4|||||Treatment difference (cefiderocol - meropenem) was the adjusted estimate of the difference in the ACM rate at EOS based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel weights using APACHE II score (≤ 15 and ≥ 16) as the stratification factor.|||13.4|-6.3|
90848993|NCT03032380|181563672|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9382|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Hospitalization time at test of cure||||0.9382
90848994|NCT03032380|181563672|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6552|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of hospitalization time at follow-up||||0.6552
90848995|NCT02937584|181563688|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio to baseline|1.11||||0.0187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.22||Statistical significance assessed using Hochberg's procedure applied across primary endpoints within each treatment|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group comparison to baseline using paired test||||1.22|1.02|0.0187
90848996|NCT02937584|181563688|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio to baseline|1.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.33||Statistical significance assessed using Hochberg's procedure applied across primary endpoints within each treatment|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group comparison to baseline using paired test||||1.33|1.14|<0.0001
90848997|NCT02937584|181563689|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio to baseline|0.75||||0.0219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.95||Statistical significance assessed using Hochberg's procedure applied across primary endpoints within each treatment|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group comparison to baseline using paired test||||0.95|0.59|0.0219
90848998|NCT02937584|181563689|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio to baseline|0.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.71||Statistical significance assessed using Hochberg's procedure applied across primary endpoints within each treatment|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group comparison to baseline using paired test||||0.71|0.44|<0.0001
90848999|NCT02937584|181563690|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio to baseline|1.12||||0.0283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.24|||t-test, 2 sided|Within-group comparison to baseline using paired test||||1.24|1.01|0.0283
91095695|NCT03034967|182074804|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.973|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.58|1.76||Analysis performed using a generalized linear mixed model with a logit link function including treatment, Baseline CAT score, smoking status at Screening, country, visit, Baseline by visit and treatment by visit interactions.|Linear mixed model||Odds Ratio, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 5 mg has been presented.|||1.76|0.58|0.973
91095696|NCT03034967|182074804|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.825|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.53|1.63||Analysis performed using a generalized linear mixed model with a logit link function including treatment, Baseline CAT score, smoking status at Screening, country, visit, Baseline by visit and treatment by visit interactions.|Linear mixed model||Odds Ratio, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 10 mg has been presented.|||1.63|0.53|0.825
90849000|NCT02937584|181563690|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio to baseline|1.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.31|||t-test, 2 sided|Within-group comparison to baseline using paired test||||1.31|1.12|<0.0001
90859798|NCT00734474|181583026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|-0.48||Comparison at 52 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||-0.48|-1.65|<0.001
90849001|NCT02937584|181563691|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio to baseline|0.76||||0.0304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.97|||t-test, 2 sided|Within-group comparison to baseline using paired test||||0.97|0.59|0.0304
90849002|NCT02937584|181563691|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio to baseline|0.55||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.72|||t-test, 2 sided|Within-group comparison to baseline using paired test||||0.72|0.41|0.0003
90849003|NCT02937584|181563692|OTHER||Mean Change from Baseline|0.065||||0.1582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.028|0.158|||t-test, 2 sided|Within-group comparison to baseline using paired test||||0.158|-0.028|0.1582
91095697|NCT03034967|182074804|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.887|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.55|1.66||Analysis performed using a generalized linear mixed model with a logit link function including treatment, Baseline CAT score, smoking status at Screening, country, visit, Baseline by visit and treatment by visit interactions.|Linear mixed model||Odds Ratio, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 25 mg has been presented.|||1.66|0.55|0.887
91095698|NCT03034967|182074804|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.567|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|2.13||Analysis performed using a generalized linear mixed model with a logit link function including treatment, Baseline CAT score, smoking status at Screening, country, visit, Baseline by visit and treatment by visit interactions.|Linear mixed model||Odds Ratio, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 35 mg has been presented.|||2.13|0.69|0.567
91095699|NCT03034967|182074804|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.501|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.72|2.2||Analysis performed using a generalized linear mixed model with a logit link function including treatment, Baseline CAT score, smoking status at Screening, country, visit, Baseline by visit and treatment by visit interactions.|Linear mixed model||Odds Ratio, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 50 mg has been presented.|||2.20|0.72|0.501
91095700|NCT03806296|182074815|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.07|||Regression, Linear|||For these Aim 1 analyses comparing the Early/Middle vs Late Sleep groups, the Late Sleep-Control and Late Sleep-Manipulation were combined into a single Late Sleep group. We used a linear regression model to test the effect of group (Early/Mid vs Late) on each a priori outcome, accounting for age and sex.||-0.07|-0.77|0.018
91095701|NCT03806296|182074815|SUPERIORITY||Time X Group interaction|0.67||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Aim 2, this mixed effect model tested the effect of group (Control vs Manipulation) on changes in each a priori outcome, accounting for group, timepoints, and sex.||1.07|0.28|0.001
91095702|NCT03806296|182074816|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.59|||Regression, Linear|||For these Aim 1 analyses comparing the Early/Middle vs Late Sleep groups, the Late Sleep-Control and Late Sleep-Manipulation were combined into a single Late Sleep group. We used a linear regression model to test the effect of group (Early/Mid vs Late) on each a priori outcome, accounting for age and sex.||1.59|0.61|<0.001
91095703|NCT03806296|182074816|SUPERIORITY||Time X Group interaction|-0.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|-0.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Aim 2, this mixed effect model tested the effect of group (Control vs Manipulation) on changes in each a priori outcome, accounting for group, timepoints, and sex.||-0.43|-1.09|<0.001
91095704|NCT03806296|182074817|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.24|||Regression, Linear|||For these Aim 1 analyses comparing the Early/Middle vs Late Sleep groups, the Late Sleep-Control and Late Sleep-Manipulation were combined into a single Late Sleep group. We used a linear regression model to test the effect of group (Early/Mid vs Late) on each a priori outcome, accounting for age and sex.||0.24|-0.64|0.365
91095705|NCT03806296|182074817|SUPERIORITY||Time X Group interaction|-0.43||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Aim 2, this mixed effect model tested the effect of group (Control vs Manipulation) on changes in each a priori outcome, accounting for group, timepoints, and sex.||0.03|-0.88|0.067
90849004|NCT02937584|181563692|OTHER||Mean Change from Baseline|0.151||||0.0375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.292|||t-test, 2 sided|Within-group comparison to baseline using paired test||||0.292|0.010|0.0375
91095706|NCT03806296|182074818|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.32||||0.234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|8.82|||Regression, Linear|||For these Aim 1 analyses comparing the Early/Middle vs Late Sleep groups, the Late Sleep-Control and Late Sleep-Manipulation were combined into a single Late Sleep group. We used a linear regression model to test the effect of group (Early/Mid vs Late) on each a priori outcome, accounting for age and sex.||8.82|-2.18|0.234
91095707|NCT03806296|182074818|SUPERIORITY||Time X Group interaction|-6.15||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.25|-1.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Aim 2, this mixed effect model tested the effect of group (Control vs Manipulation) on changes in each a priori outcome, accounting for group, timepoint, and sex.||-1.06|-11.25|0.018
91095708|NCT03806296|182074819|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.51||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.94|||Regression, Linear|||For these Aim 1 analyses comparing the Early/Middle vs Late Sleep groups, the Late Sleep-Control and Late Sleep-Manipulation were combined into a single Late Sleep group. We used a linear regression model to test the effect of group (Early/Mid vs Late) on each a priori outcome, accounting for age and sex.||0.94|0.07|0.024
91095709|NCT03806296|182074819|SUPERIORITY||Time X Group interaction|-0.1||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Aim 2, this mixed effect model tested the effect of group (Control vs Manipulation) on changes in each a priori outcome, accounting for group, timepoint, and sex.||0.35|-0.55|0.660
91095710|NCT03806296|182074820|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.06|||Regression, Linear|||For these Aim 1 analyses comparing the Early/Middle vs Late Sleep groups, the Late Sleep-Control and Late Sleep-Manipulation were combined into a single Late Sleep group. We used a linear regression model to test the effect of group (Early/Mid vs Late) on each a priori outcome, accounting for age and sex.||0.06|-0.03|0.592
91095711|NCT03806296|182074820|SUPERIORITY||Time X Group interaction|-0.03||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Aim 2, this mixed effect model tested the effect of group (Control vs Manipulation) on changes in each a priori outcome, accounting for group, timepoint, and sex.||0.06|-0.11|0.550
91095712|NCT03806296|182074821|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.04|||Regression, Linear|||For these Aim 1 analyses comparing the Early/Middle vs Late Sleep groups, the Late Sleep-Control and Late Sleep-Manipulation were combined into a single Late Sleep group. We used a linear regression model to test the effect of group (Early/Mid vs Late) on each a priori outcome, accounting for age and sex.||0.04|-0.07|0.550
91095713|NCT03806296|182074821|SUPERIORITY||Time X Group interaction|-0.02||||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Aim 2, this mixed effect model tested the effect of group (Control vs Manipulation) on changes in each a priori outcome, accounting for group, timepoint, and sex.||0.06|-0.10|0.556
91095714|NCT03806296|182074822|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.06|||Regression, Linear|||For these Aim 1 analyses comparing the Early/Middle vs Late Sleep groups, the Late Sleep-Control and Late Sleep-Manipulation were combined into a single Late Sleep group. We used a linear regression model to test the effect of group (Early/Mid vs Late) on each a priori outcome, accounting for age and sex.||0.06|-0.01|0.124
91095715|NCT03806296|182074822|SUPERIORITY||Time X Group interaction|0.0||||0.925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Aim 2, this mixed effect model tested the effect of group (Control vs Manipulation) on changes in each a priori outcome, accounting for group, timepoint, and sex.||0.06|-0.05|0.925
91095716|NCT03806296|182074823|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.752||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.374|1.513|||Poisson GLM with robust standard error||Early/Middle Sleep group was the reference group (lower RR indicates less likelihood of cannabis use in the Late Sleep group)|For these Aim 1 analyses comparing the Early/Middle vs Late Sleep groups, the Late Sleep-Control and Late Sleep-Manipulation were combined into a single Late Sleep group. We used a Poisson generalized linear model (GLM) to test the effect of group (Early/Mid vs Late) on a binary cannabis use outcome (yes/no in the past 3 months), accounting for age and sex.||1.513|0.374|0.42
91095717|NCT03806296|182074824|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.236||||0.461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.704|2.171|||Poisson GLM with robust standard error||Early/Middle Sleep group was the reference group (higher RR indicates higher likelihood of alcohol use in the Late Sleep group)|For these Aim 1 analyses comparing the Early/Middle vs Late Sleep groups, the Late Sleep-Control and Late Sleep-Manipulation were combined into a single Late Sleep group. We used a Poisson generalized linear model (GLM) to test the effect of group (Early/Mid vs Late) on a binary alcohol use outcome (yes/no in the past 3 months), accounting for age and sex.||2.171|0.704|0.461
91095718|NCT03806296|182074824|SUPERIORITY||Incident Rate Ratio|3.29||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|7.9|||negative binomial glm||Early/Middle Sleep group was the reference group (higher IRR indicates greater days of alcohol use in the Late Sleep group than in the Early/Middle Sleep group).|For these Aim 1 analyses comparing the Early/Middle vs Late Sleep groups, the Late Sleep-Control and Late Sleep-Manipulation were combined into a single Late Sleep group. We used a negative binomial GLM to test the effect of group (Early/Mid vs Late) on days of alcohol use, accounting for age and sex.||7.90|1.36|0.007
91095719|NCT02763566|182074844|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.499||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.346|0.719|||Log Rank|||||0.719|0.346|0.0001
91095720|NCT02763566|182074845|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.376|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.588|||Log Rank|||||0.588|0.240|<0.0001
91095721|NCT02763566|182074847|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91095722|NCT02763566|182074847|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91095723|NCT02763566|182074849|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0456|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0456
91095724|NCT02763566|182074849|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0004
91095725|NCT02763566|182074850|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0003
91095726|NCT02763566|182074850|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
90849005|NCT02937584|181563693|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio to baseline|0.978||||0.6176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.891|1.073|||t-test, 2 sided|Within-group comparison to baseline using paired test||||1.073|0.891|0.6176
91095727|NCT02763566|182074851|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.77||0.287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.36|1.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Global Health Status||1.59|-5.36|0.287
91095728|NCT02763566|182074851|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.46||0.597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.64|2.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Functional Scales - Physical functioning||2.10|-3.64|0.597
91095729|NCT02763566|182074851|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.15||0.885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.55|3.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Functional Scales - Role Functioning||3.93|-4.55|0.885
91095730|NCT02763566|182074851|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|1.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.74||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|5.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Functional Scales - Emotional Functioning||5.10|-1.77|0.340
90849006|NCT02937584|181563693|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio to baseline|0.938||||0.2699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.833|1.056|||t-test, 2 sided|Within-group comparison to baseline using paired test||||1.056|0.833|0.2699
90849007|NCT00864916|181563706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.34||||0.52|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.52
91095731|NCT02763566|182074851|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.62||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.37|1.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Functional Scales - Cognitive Functioning||1.03|-5.37|0.182
90849008|NCT00993226|181563741|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.29||0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.36|||t-test in ANOVA model|||Exploratory comparison between SABER-Bupivacaine and Bupivacaine HCl not analyzed inferentially||0.36|-0.79|0.467
90849009|NCT00993226|181563742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.51|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.57||0.331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.59|2.58|||t-test in ANOVA model|||Exploratory comparison between SABER-Bupivacaine and Bupivacaine HCl not analyzed inferentially||2.58|-7.59|0.331
90849010|NCT00783198|181563746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.76||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.95|-0.57|||ANOVA||ANOVA model with baseline asthmatic condition, pollen region and treatment group as fixed effects|||-0.57|-2.95|0.0039
90849011|NCT00783198|181563746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.24||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.41|-1.07|||ANOVA||ANOVA model with baseline asthmatic condition, pollen region and treatment group as fixed effects|||-1.07|-3.41|0.0002
90899603|NCT03502616|181665121|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059||0.9834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48, Self-Care: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.12|-0.12|0.9834
90899604|NCT03502616|181665121|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066||0.7364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48, Usual Activities: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.15|-0.11|0.7364
90899605|NCT03502616|181665121|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059||0.8075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48, Pain/Discomfort: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.10|-0.13|0.8075
90899606|NCT03502616|181665121|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067||0.5461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48, Anxiety/Depression: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.17|-0.09|0.5461
90899607|NCT03502616|181665122|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|10.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.331|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.52|14.7|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Analysis performed using ANCOVA model which included fixed effects of treatment group, stratification factor derived from clinical database, and baseline value.||14.70|5.52|<0.0001
90899608|NCT03502616|181665122|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.337||0.2608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.97|7.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||7.24|-1.97|0.2608
91030113|NCT04424407|181944628|OTHER|||||||0.44||||||P-values are uncorrected from linear mixed effects models. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change in PSG Sigma absolute power was done by applying linear mixed effects models testing the effect of treatment-time. Random intercepts at the individual participant level are included to account for the clustering of observations within individuals across time. All statistical models include age and sex as covariates of non-interest.||||0.44
90899609|NCT03502616|181665123|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-4.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.35||0.1784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.15|2.09|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Analysis performed using ANCOVA model which included fixed effects of treatment group, stratification factor derived from clinical database, and baseline value.||2.09|-11.15|0.1784
90899610|NCT03502616|181665123|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.54||0.3651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.34|2.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||2.72|-7.34|0.3651
91030114|NCT04424407|181944628|OTHER|||||||0.68||||||P-values are uncorrected from linear mixed effects models. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change in PSG Beta-1 absolute power was done by applying linear mixed effects models testing the effect of treatment-time. Random intercepts at the individual participant level are included to account for the clustering of observations within individuals across time. All statistical models include age and sex as covariates of non-interest.||||0.68
91095732|NCT02763566|182074851|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.12||0.678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.05|3.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.29|-5.05|0.678
91095733|NCT02763566|182074851|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|1.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|4.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Symptom Scales - Fatigue||4.91|-1.77|0.355
90849012|NCT00783198|181563747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.09||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.08|-0.09|||ANOVA||ANOVA model with baseline asthmatic condition, pollen region and treatment group as fixed effects|||-0.09|-2.08|0.0320
91095734|NCT02763566|182074851|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06||0.372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|3.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Symptom Scales - Nausea and Vomiting||3.03|-1.14|0.372
91095735|NCT02763566|182074851|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.75|2.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Symptom Scales - Pain||2.66|-3.75|0.740
91095736|NCT02763566|182074851|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|2.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.84||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|5.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Symptom Scales - Dyspnoea||5.78|-1.46|0.240
90849013|NCT00783198|181563747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|-0.82|||ANOVA||ANOVA model with baseline asthmatic condition, pollen region and treatment group as fixed effects|||-0.82|-2.78|0.0003
91095737|NCT02763566|182074851|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.92||0.673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|2.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Symptom scales - Insomnia||2.97|-4.60|0.673
91095738|NCT02763566|182074851|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|5.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.74||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.23|9.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Symptom Scales - Appetite||9.07|2.23|0.001
91095739|NCT02763566|182074851|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.76||0.375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.04|1.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Symptom Scales - Constipation||1.91|-5.04|0.375
91095740|NCT02763566|182074851|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|15.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.53||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.81|18.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Symptom Scales - Diarrhoea||18.84|12.81|0.000
90849014|NCT00783198|181563748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.78||||0.0472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|-0.01|||ANOVA||ANOVA model with baseline asthmatic condition, pollen region and treatment group as fixed effects|||-0.01|-1.54|0.0472
90849015|NCT00783198|181563748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.94||||0.0144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.19|||ANOVA||ANOVA model with baseline asthmatic condition, pollen region and treatment group as fixed effects|||-0.19|-1.70|0.0144
90849016|NCT00783198|181563749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46||||0.1686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|0.19|||ANOVA||ANOVA model with baseline asthmatic condition, pollen region and treatment group as fixed effects|||0.19|-1.11|0.1686
90849017|NCT00783198|181563749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.82||||0.0125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|-0.18|||ANOVA||ANOVA model with baseline asthmatic condition, pollen region and treatment group as fixed effects|||-0.18|-1.46|0.0125
90849018|NCT00783198|181563750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.98||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|-0.32|||ANOVA||ANOVA model with baseline asthmatic condition, pollen region and treatment group as fixed effects|||-0.32|-1.65|0.0039
90849019|NCT00783198|181563750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|-0.64|||ANOVA||ANOVA model with baseline asthmatic condition, pollen region and treatment group as fixed effects|||-0.64|-1.95|0.0001
90849020|NCT00978757|181563757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
90849021|NCT02140593|181563762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.75|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
90849022|NCT02140593|181563763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
90849023|NCT02043808|181563813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude event rate ratio|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.92|||||Crude event rate ratio for dabigatran with warfarin as the reference group|||0.92|0.52|
90849024|NCT02043808|181563814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude event rate ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.98|||||Crude event rate ratio for dabigatran with warfarin as the reference group|||0.98|0.71|
90849025|NCT02043808|181563815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude event rate ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.07|||||Crude event rate ratio for dabigatran with warfarin as the reference group|||1.07|0.59|
90849026|NCT02043808|181563816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude event rate ratio|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.7|||||Crude event rate ratio for dabigatran with warfarin as the reference group|||0.70|0.13|
90849027|NCT02043808|181563817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude event rate ratio|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.77|||||Crude event rate ratio for dabigatran with warfarin as the reference group|||0.77|0.30|
90849028|NCT02043808|181563818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude event rate ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.07|||||Crude event rate ratio for dabigatran with warfarin as the reference group|||1.07|0.76|
91095741|NCT02763566|182074851|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.97||0.557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.59|4.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Symptom Scales - Financial Difficulties||4.10|-7.59|0.557
91095742|NCT02763566|182074851|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-3.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.51||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.43|1.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Global Health Status||1.49|-8.43|0.169
90849029|NCT02043808|181563819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude event rate ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.3|||||Crude event rate ratio for dabigatran with warfarin as the reference group|||1.30|0.89|
90849030|NCT02043808|181563820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude event rate ratio|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.03|||||Crude event rate ratio for dabigatran with warfarin as the reference group|||1.03|0.50|
90849031|NCT02043808|181563821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude event rate ratio|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.54|||||Crude event rate ratio for dabigatran with warfarin as the reference group|||1.54|0.99|
90849032|NCT02043808|181563822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude event rate ratio|0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.72|||||Crude event rate ratio for dabigatran with warfarin as the reference group|||0.72|0.17|
90849033|NCT02043808|181563823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude event rate ratio|0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.64|||||Crude event rate ratio for dabigatran with warfarin as the reference group|||0.64|0.22|
90849034|NCT02043808|181563824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude event rate ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.26|||||Crude event rate ratio for dabigatran with warfarin as the reference group|||1.26|0.55|
90849035|NCT02043808|181563825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude event rate ratio|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.95|||||Crude event rate ratio for dabigatran with warfarin as the reference group|||0.95|0.45|
90849036|NCT02043808|181563826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude event rate ratio|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.31|||||Crude event rate ratio for dabigatran with warfarin as the reference group|||1.31|0.31|
90849037|NCT02043808|181563827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude event rate ratio|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.21|||||Crude event rate ratio for dabigatran with warfarin as the reference group|||1.21|0.16|
90849038|NCT02043808|181563828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude event rate ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|2.81|||||Crude event rate ratio for dabigatran with warfarin as the reference group|||2.81|0.34|
90849039|NCT02043808|181563829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude event rate ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.69|||||Crude event rate ratio for dabigatran with warfarin as the reference group|||0.69|0.52|
90849040|NCT02720107|181563858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The ANCOVA model included the covariates center, baseline of corresponding cell counts from Core study, sex and duration of disease until start of Core study|ANCOVA|||CD4+ Naïve T cells||||< 0.0001
90859799|NCT00734474|181583026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|-0.49||Comparison at 104 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||-0.49|-1.78|<0.001
91095743|NCT02763566|182074851|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|1.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.87||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|5.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Functional Scales - Physical Functioning||5.29|-2.12|0.400
91095744|NCT02763566|182074851|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.38||0.472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.42|2.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Functional Scales - Role functioning||2.99|-6.42|0.472
91095745|NCT02763566|182074851|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.12|2.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Functional Scales - Emotional Functioning||2.28|-7.12|0.310
91095746|NCT02763566|182074851|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.98||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.26|6.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Functional Scales - Social Functioning||6.55|-5.26|0.830
91030115|NCT04424407|181944628|OTHER|||||||0.74||||||P-values are uncorrected from linear mixed effects models. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change in PSG Beta-2 absolute power was done by applying linear mixed effects models testing the effect of treatment-time. Random intercepts at the individual participant level are included to account for the clustering of observations within individuals across time. All statistical models include age and sex as covariates of non-interest.||||0.74
91030116|NCT04424407|181944628|OTHER|||||||0.84||||||P-values are uncorrected from linear mixed effects models. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change in PSG Gamma absolute power was done by applying linear mixed effects models testing the effect of treatment-time. Random intercepts at the individual participant level are included to account for the clustering of observations within individuals across time. All statistical models include age and sex as covariates of non-interest.||||0.84
91030117|NCT04424407|181944629|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-values are uncorrected from linear mixed effects models. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change in insomnia symptom severity score was done by applying linear mixed effects models testing the effect of treatment-time. Random intercepts at the individual participant level are included to account for the clustering of observations within individuals across time. All statistical models include age and sex as covariates of non-interest.||||<0.0001
91095747|NCT02763566|182074851|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|2.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.52||0.281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|7.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Symptom Scales - Fatigue||7.72|-2.26|0.281
91095748|NCT02763566|182074851|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|2.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.99||0.194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|6.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Symptom Scales - Nausea and Vomiting||6.52|-1.33|0.194
90849041|NCT02720107|181563858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0493||||||The ANCOVA model included the covariates center, baseline of corresponding cell counts from study Core study, sex and duration of disease until start of Core study|ANCOVA|||CD4+ Central memory T cells||||0.0493
90849042|NCT02720107|181563858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The ANCOVA model included the covariates center, baseline of corresponding cell counts from Core study, sex and duration of disease until start of Core study|ANCOVA|||CD4+ Effector memory T cells||||< 0.0001
90849043|NCT02720107|181563858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The ANCOVA model included the covariates center, baseline of corresponding cell counts from Core study, sex and duration of disease until start of Core study|ANCOVA|||CD8+ Naïve T cells||||< 0.0001
90849044|NCT02720107|181563858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The ANCOVA model included the covariates center, baseline of corresponding cell counts from Core study, sex and duration of disease until start of Core study|ANCOVA|||CD8+ Central memory T cells||||< 0.0001
90849045|NCT02720107|181563858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The ANCOVA model included the covariates center, baseline of corresponding cell counts from Core study, sex and duration of disease until start of Core study|ANCOVA|||CD8+ Effector memory T cells||||< 0.0001
90849046|NCT02720107|181563858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The ANCOVA model included the covariates center, baseline of corresponding cell counts from Core study, sex and duration of disease until start of Core study|ANCOVA|||TH17 central memory cells||||< 0.0001
90849047|NCT02522624|181563862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||A priori sample size estimates yielded an estimate of 183 per group needed to detect an effect size of 0.34 with 90% power at a 0.05 level of significance and 137 per group with 80% power.|Regression, Linear|||||||<.001
91095749|NCT02763566|182074851|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.42||0.275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.45|2.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Symptom Scales - Pain||2.14|-7.45|0.275
91095750|NCT02763566|182074851|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.39||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.04|2.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Symptom Scales - Dyspnoea||2.06|-7.04|0.280
91095751|NCT02763566|182074851|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|1.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9||0.499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.78|7.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Symptom Scales - Insomnia||7.72|-3.78|0.499
90849048|NCT02522624|181563862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16||||||A priori sample size estimates yielded an estimate of 183 per group needed to detect an effect size of 0.34 with 90% power at a 0.05 level of significance and 137 per group with 80% power.|Regression, Linear|||Examined the relation between group and categorical outcomes, controlling for % Federal Poverty Level (400 or greater, 250-399, 100-249, less than 100).||||0.16
90859800|NCT00734474|181583026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.64||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|0.01||Comparison at 104 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||0.01|-1.29|0.054
90859801|NCT00734474|181583028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.45|-0.93||Comparison at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.93|-2.45|<0.001
91095752|NCT02763566|182074851|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|7.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.92||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.68|13.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Symptom Scales - Appetite||13.23|1.68|0.012
91095753|NCT02763566|182074851|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.29||0.321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.83|2.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Symptom Scales - Constipation||2.27|-6.83|0.321
91095754|NCT02763566|182074851|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|17.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.32||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.25|22.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Symptom Scales - Diarrhoea||22.41|13.25|0.000
91095755|NCT02763566|182074851|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|2.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.14||0.342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.21|9.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Symptom Scales - Financial DIfficulties||9.19|-3.21|0.342
91095756|NCT02763566|182074851|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.38||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.12|2.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Functional Scales - Cognitive functioning||2.28|-7.12|0.310
90849049|NCT02522624|181563862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||A priori sample size estimates yielded an estimate of 183 per group needed to detect an effect size of 0.34 with 90% power at a 0.05 level of significance and 137 per group with 80% power.|Regression, Linear|||Controlling for Numeracy.||||<.001
90849050|NCT02522624|181563863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||||||A priori sample size estimates yielded an estimate of 183 per group needed to detect an effect size of 0.34 with 90% power at a 0.05 level of significance and 137 per group with 80% power.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.002
90849051|NCT02522624|181563863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||Regression, Linear|||Examined the relation between group and categorical outcomes, controlling for % Federal Poverty Level (400 or greater, 250-399, 100-249, less than 100).||||0.30
90849052|NCT02522624|181563863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82|||||||Regression, Linear|||Controlling for Numeracy.||||0.82
90849053|NCT02522624|181563864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||A priori sample size estimates yielded an estimate of 183 per group needed to detect an effect size of 0.34 with 90% power at a 0.05 level of significance and 137 per group with 80% power.|Regression, Linear|||||||<.001
90849054|NCT02522624|181563864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82|||||||Regression, Linear|||Examined the relation between group and categorical outcomes, controlling for % Federal Poverty Level (400 or greater, 250-399, 100-249, less than 100).||||0.82
90849055|NCT02522624|181563864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||Regression, Linear|||Controlling for Numeracy.||||0.15
90899611|NCT03502616|181665124|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-12.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.884|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.59|-7.19|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Analysis performed using ANCOVA model which included fixed effects of treatment group, stratification factor derived from clinical database, and baseline value.||-7.19|-18.59|<0.0001
91095757|NCT04896385|182074854|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||repeated measures correlation|||F-VASI||||0.004
90849056|NCT02522624|181563865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.36||A priori sample size estimates yielded an estimate of 183 per group needed to detect an effect size of 0.34 with 90% power at a 0.05 level of significance and 137 per group with 80% power.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.36|0.92|0.10
90849057|NCT02522624|181563865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Examined the relation between group and categorical outcomes, controlling for % Federal Poverty Level (400 or greater, 250-399, 100-249, less than 100).||||0.26
90849058|NCT02522624|181563865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58|||||||Regression, Linear|||Controlling for Numeracy.||||0.58
90849059|NCT02522624|181563866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|4.01||A priori sample size estimates yielded an estimate of 183 per group needed to detect an effect size of 0.34 with 90% power at a 0.05 level of significance and 137 per group with 80% power.|Regression, Logistic|||||4.01|1.58|<.001
90849060|NCT02522624|181563866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39||||||A priori sample size estimates yielded an estimate of 183 per group needed to detect an effect size of 0.34 with 90% power at a 0.05 level of significance and 137 per group with 80% power.|Regression, Logistic|||Examined the relation between group and categorical outcomes, controlling for % Federal Poverty Level (400 or greater, 250-399, 100-249, less than 100).||||0.39
90849061|NCT02522624|181563866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57|||||||Regression, Linear|||Controlling for Numeracy.||||0.57
90849062|NCT02522624|181563867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.94|17.95||A priori sample size estimates yielded an estimate of 183 per group needed to detect an effect size of 0.34 with 90% power at a 0.05 level of significance and 137 per group with 80% power.|Regression, Logistic|||||17.95|5.94|<.001
90849063|NCT02522624|181563867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||||||A priori sample size estimates yielded an estimate of 183 per group needed to detect an effect size of 0.34 with 90% power at a 0.05 level of significance and 137 per group with 80% power.|Regression, Logistic|||Examined the relation between group and categorical outcomes, controlling for % Federal Poverty Level (400 or greater, 250-399, 100-249, less than 100).||||0.001
90899612|NCT03502616|181665124|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.318||0.4788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.92|4.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||4.21|-8.92|0.4788
90849064|NCT02522624|181563867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46|||||||Regression, Linear|||Controlling for numeracy.||||0.46
90849065|NCT01350544|181563871|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.91||a priori threshold for significance for p \< .05|Mixed Models Analysis|||We used generalized linear mixed models predicting adherence at baseline and 1.5-, 3-, 4.5-, and 6-months post-baseline, with intervention , time, interaction between intervention and time, medical and socio-demographic covariates, and baseline viral load. Sample size was determined with a power analysis assuming .80 power and an alpha level of .05 that would allow for detection of a small-to-medium effect size in adherence between arms.||0.91|0.69|.005
90899613|NCT03502616|181665125|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-13.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.202|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.18|-7.52|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Analysis performed using ANCOVA model which included fixed effects of treatment group, stratification factor derived from clinical database, and baseline value.||-7.52|-20.18|<0.0001
91095758|NCT04896385|182074854|OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||repeated measures correlation|||F-VASI||||0.41
90849066|NCT02871882|181563880|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
90849067|NCT01733212|181563892|EQUIVALENCE|Considering the null hypothesis that the number of participants who will have vomiting will be equal in the two arms, we performed this study with a significance level of 0.05% and power of 80% to prove that there is a difference in the number.||||||0.07|||||||Chi-squared|||Number of participants who had vomiting in each group is compared to the other. Two sided Chi square test was conducted, Type I error of 0.05% and power of 80% are considered.||||0.07
91095759|NCT04896385|182074854|OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||repeated measures correlation|||T-VASI||||0.0002
91095760|NCT04896385|182074854|OTHER|||||||0.91|||||||repeated measures correlation|||T-VASI||||0.91
91095761|NCT05258721|182074859|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
91095762|NCT05258721|182074860|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p =0.05|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
91095763|NCT05258721|182074861|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.001
90849068|NCT03595618|181563970|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.04514|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02465||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00317|0.09345||Two-sided adjusted p-value taking into account Dunnett adjustment (to be compared to 0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis||Two-sided 95% confidence interval of the estimate without Dunnett adjustment.|Estimate (Standard Error) of adjusted difference from baseline to last post baseline value between treatment groups means: GLPG1972 dose minus placebo using mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed, categorical effects of treatment, region (Asia and Rest of the World), time and treatment-by-time interaction, as well as continuous, fixed covariates of baseline and time-by-baseline interaction preceded by multiple imputation step for participants without post baseline value||0.09345|-0.00317|0.165
90849069|NCT03595618|181563970|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02585||0.939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03868|0.06267||Two-sided adjusted p-value taking into account Dunnett adjustment (to be compared to 0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis||Two-sided 95% confidence interval of the estimate without Dunnett adjustment.|Estimate (Standard Error) of adjusted difference from baseline to last post baseline value between treatment groups means: GLPG1972 dose minus placebo using MMRM including fixed, categorical effects of treatment, region (Asia and Rest of the World), time and treatment-by-time interaction, as well as continuous, fixed covariates of baseline and time-by-baseline interaction preceded by multiple imputation step for participants without post baseline value.||0.06267|-0.03868|0.939
90899614|NCT03502616|181665125|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-4.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.613||0.2244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.56|2.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||2.74|-11.56|0.2244
90899615|NCT03502616|181665126|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-13.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.488|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.3|-8.5|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Analysis performed using ANCOVA model which included fixed effects of treatment group, stratification factor derived from clinical database, and baseline value.||-8.50|-18.30|<0.0001
90957469|NCT03538301|181795023|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference (Final Values)|-4.6||||0.713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.2|9.6|||Fisher Exact||The 95% Confidence Interval for difference in proportions are based on the Chan-Zhang method.|Rate of Hospitalization for Respiratory Ailments (%) in the 45 mg cohort versus placebo||9.6|-19.2|0.713
91030118|NCT04424407|181944630|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-values are uncorrected from linear mixed effects models. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change in SF-36 Mental Component Score was done by applying linear mixed effects models testing the effect of treatment-time. Random intercepts at the individual participant level are included to account for the clustering of observations within individuals across time. All statistical models include age and sex as covariates of non-interest.||||<0.0001
91030119|NCT04424407|181944630|OTHER|||||||0.94||||||P-values are uncorrected from linear mixed effects models. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change in SF-36 Physical Component Score was done by applying linear mixed effects models testing the effect of treatment-time. Random intercepts at the individual participant level are included to account for the clustering of observations within individuals across time. All statistical models include age and sex as covariates of non-interest.||||0.94
91030120|NCT04424407|181944631|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-values are uncorrected from linear mixed effects models. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change in anxiety symptom severity score was done by applying linear mixed effects models testing the effect of treatment-time. Random intercepts at the individual participant level are included to account for the clustering of observations within individuals across time. All statistical models include age and sex as covariates of non-interest.||||<0.0001
91030121|NCT01880073|181944642|OTHER||Proportion|0.875|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.0||||||||1.00|0.74|
91030122|NCT01880073|181944643|OTHER||Proportion|0.125|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.26||||||||0.26|0.00|
91030123|NCT00755196|181944646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||2-sided sign test|||||||0.23
91030124|NCT01604850|181944650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|-22.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.4|-10.3||P-value is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the randomization stratification factor (ie, presence/absence of cirrhosis, genotype 2 or 3).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference in proportions between treatment groups and associated 95% confidence interval (CI) are calculated based on stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel proportions.|A sample size of 100 subjects in each group would provide over 97% power to detect at least 20% improvement in SVR12 rate from the assumed null rate of 25% using 2-sided exact 1-sample binomial test at significance level of 0.025.||-10.3|-34.4|< 0.001
91095764|NCT02612155|182074886|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.06
91030125|NCT01703832|181944656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1233||||||Threshold less than or equal to 0.05. The final analysis demonstrated reasonable doubt of the implicit normality assumption of the two sets of AUC data, thus medians presented for efficacy analysis. Need for further investigation (ex-post analyses).|ANCOVA|||The null-hypotheses of no treatment differences were tested by the two-sided t-tests from the respective ANCOVAs.||||0.1233
91030126|NCT01703832|181944657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5153||||||Threshold less than or equal to 0.05. The final analysis demonstrated reasonable doubt of the implicit normality assumption of the two sets of AUC data, thus medians presented for efficacy analysis. Need for further investigation (ex-post analyses).|ANCOVA|||The null-hypotheses of no treatment differences were tested by the two-sided t-tests from the respective ANCOVAs.||||0.5153
91030127|NCT00243932|181944669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.14||95.0|||||futility (non-superiority)|||Null hypothesis: 2,700mg CoQ10 is at least 20% superior to placebo.||||0.14
91030128|NCT01458405|181944676|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6453||||||Repeated measures multivariable linear regression with Baseline as a covariate and unstructured covariance.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.6453
91030129|NCT01193608|181944770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change|113.53||||0.599|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-170.3|397.35|||t-test, 2 sided||One sample paired t-test|Change from baseline, within group||397.35|-170.30|0.599
91095765|NCT04235374|182074893|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.05
91095766|NCT04235374|182074894|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.05
91095767|NCT04235374|182074895|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.05
91095768|NCT04235374|182074896|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.05
91095769|NCT04235374|182074897|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.05
91095770|NCT01394276|182074901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0237|||||||Exact binomial proportion test|||||||0.0237
91095771|NCT01394276|182074902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0003|||||||Exact binomial proportion test|||||||0.0003
91095772|NCT01394276|182074914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||At Baseline: mean difference of scores of DAS28 between the two groups was calculated.||0.4|-0.3|0.8080
91095773|NCT01394276|182074914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.4884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||At Month 1: mean difference of scores of DAS28 between the two groups was calculated.||0.3|-0.5|0.4884
91095774|NCT01394276|182074914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.0947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||At Month 2: mean difference of scores of DAS28 between the two groups was calculated.||0.1|-0.7|0.0947
91095775|NCT01394276|182074914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.8181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||At Month 4: mean difference of scores of DAS28 between the two groups was calculated.||0.3|-0.4|0.8181
91095776|NCT01394276|182074914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.9721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||At Month 6: mean difference of scores of DAS28 between the two groups was calculated.||0.3|-0.4|0.9721
91095777|NCT01394276|182074914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.5832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||At Month 12: mean difference of scores of DAS28 between the two groups was calculated.||0.5|-0.3|0.5832
91095778|NCT01394276|182074915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.5||||0.4211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|12.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||At Baseline: mean difference of scores of fatigue between the two groups was calculated.||12.2|-5.1|0.4211
91095779|NCT01394276|182074915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.1||||0.6749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|12.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||At Month 1: mean difference of scores of fatigue between the two groups was calculated.||12.1|-7.9|0.6749
90859802|NCT00734474|181583028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.58||||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|0.18||Comparison at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.18|-1.34|0.133
91095780|NCT01394276|182074915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.4||||0.1817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|15.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||At Month 2: mean difference of scores of fatigue between the two groups was calculated.||15.9|-3.0|0.1817
91095781|NCT01394276|182074915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.8||||0.5182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|11.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||At Month 4: mean difference of scores of fatigue between the two groups was calculated.||11.4|-5.8|0.5182
91095782|NCT01394276|182074915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|13.7||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|22.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||At Month 6: mean difference of scores of fatigue between the two groups was calculated.||22.6|4.9|0.0025
91095783|NCT01394276|182074915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.9||||0.354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|12.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||At Month 12: mean difference of scores of fatigue between the two groups was calculated.||12.1|-4.4|0.3540
91095784|NCT01394276|182074916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.7343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||At Baseline: mean difference of scores of HAQ between the two groups was calculated.||0.2|-0.2|0.7343
91095785|NCT01394276|182074916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.1098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||At Month 1: mean difference of scores of HAQ between the two groups was calculated.||0.0|-0.4|0.1098
91095786|NCT01394276|182074916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.4932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||At Month 2: mean difference of scores of HAQ between the two groups was calculated.||0.2|-0.3|0.4932
91095787|NCT01394276|182074916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.2468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||At Month 4: mean difference of scores of HAQ between the two groups was calculated.||0.1|-0.4|0.2468
91095788|NCT01394276|182074916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.9639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||At Month 6: mean difference of scores of HAQ between the two groups was calculated.||0.2|-0.2|0.9639
91095789|NCT01394276|182074916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.6696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||At Month 12: mean difference of scores of HAQ between the two groups was calculated.||0.3|-0.2|0.6696
91095790|NCT04530344|182074917|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.422||||0.0414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.99|||Log Rank|The p-value was based on the log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factor between treatment and vehicle.||Cox regression model stratified by stratification factor (treatment assignment in the parent studies) was conducted to compare the difference in hazard rate between treatment and vehicle.||0.990|0.180|0.0414
91095791|NCT04530344|182074918|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.316||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.165|0.606|||Log Rank|The p-value was based on the log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factor between treatment and vehicle.||Cox regression model stratified by stratification factor (treatment assignment in the parent studies) was conducted to compare the difference in hazard rate between treatment and vehicle.||0.606|0.165|0.0003
91095792|NCT01933594|182074945|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.88
91095793|NCT01933594|182074946|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 1||||0.94
91095794|NCT01933594|182074946|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 2||||0.74
91095795|NCT01933594|182074946|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 3||||0.18
91095796|NCT01933594|182074946|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 4||||0.16
91095797|NCT01933594|182074947|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.37
91095798|NCT01933594|182074948|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 1||||0.9
91095799|NCT01933594|182074948|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 2||||0.07
91095800|NCT01933594|182074948|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 3||||0.88
91095801|NCT01933594|182074948|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 4||||0.92
91095802|NCT01933594|182074949|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 6 hours post infusion||||0.44
91095803|NCT01933594|182074949|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 12 hours post infusion||||0.024
91095804|NCT01933594|182074949|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 7 days post infusion||||0.37
91095805|NCT01933594|182074949|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 14 days post infusion||||0.79
91095806|NCT01933594|182074949|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 28 days post infusion||||0.34
91095807|NCT01933594|182074950|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.029
91095808|NCT01933594|182074951|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.96
91095809|NCT01933594|182074952|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.54
91095810|NCT01933594|182074954|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 1||||0.19
91095811|NCT01933594|182074954|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 2||||0.63
91095812|NCT01933594|182074954|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 72 hours post infusion 2||||0.94
91095813|NCT01933594|182074954|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 3||||0.66
91095814|NCT01933594|182074954|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 4||||0.17
91095815|NCT01933594|182074955|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion||||0.73
91095816|NCT01933594|182074955|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 14 days post infusion||||0.9
91095817|NCT01933594|182074956|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 1||||0.8
91095818|NCT01933594|182074956|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 2||||0.73
91095819|NCT01933594|182074956|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 72 hours post infusion 2||||0.84
91095820|NCT01933594|182074956|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 3||||0.88
91095821|NCT01933594|182074956|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 4||||0.64
91095822|NCT01933594|182074964|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 1||||0.34
91095823|NCT01933594|182074964|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 2||||0.004
91095824|NCT01933594|182074964|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 3||||0.022
91095825|NCT01933594|182074964|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 4||||0.008
91095826|NCT01933594|182074964|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 2 weeks post infusion 4||||0.55
91095827|NCT01933594|182074964|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 5 weeks post infusion 4||||0.48
91095828|NCT01933594|182074964|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 10 weeks post infusion 4||||0.54
91095829|NCT01933594|182074964|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 18 weeks post infusion 4||||0.47
91095830|NCT01933594|182074966|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 48 hours post infusion||||0.95
91095831|NCT01933594|182074966|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 7 days post infusion||||0.07
91095832|NCT01933594|182074966|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 28 days post infusion||||0.26
91095833|NCT01933594|182074967|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 48 hours post infusion||||0.89
91095834|NCT01933594|182074967|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 7 days post infusion||||0.14
91095835|NCT01933594|182074967|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 28 days post infusion||||0.74
90849070|NCT03595618|181563970|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.02329|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02536||0.682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02641|0.073|||Mixed Models Analysis||Two-sided 95% confidence interval of the estimate without Dunnett adjustment.|Estimate (Standard Error) of adjusted difference from baseline to last post baseline value between treatment groups means: GLPG1972 dose minus placebo using MMRM including fixed, categorical effects of treatment, region (Asia and Rest of the World), time and treatment-by-time interaction, as well as continuous, fixed covariates of baseline and time-by-baseline interaction preceded by multiple imputation step for participants without post baseline value.||0.07300|-0.02641|0.682
90849071|NCT03595618|181563971|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.58||Two-sided adjusted p-value taking into account Dunnett adjustment (to be compared to 0.05)|Logistic Model||Two-sided 95% Confidence Interval of the estimate without Dunnett adjustment|Estimate (Standard Error of log \[estimate\]) of the adjusted odds ratio between GLPG1972 dose regimen and placebo: between the proportions of participants with response: placebo versus GLPG1972 dose regimen||2.58|0.84|0.396
90849072|NCT03595618|181563971|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.5||Two-sided adjusted p-value taking into account Dunnett adjustment (to be compared to 0.05)|Logistic Model||Two-sided 95% Confidence Interval of the estimate without Dunnett adjustment|Estimate (Standard Error of log \[estimate\]) of the adjusted odds ratio between GLPG1972 dose regimen and placebo: between the proportions of participants with response: placebo versus GLPG1972 dose regimen||1.50|0.53|0.951
90849073|NCT03595618|181563971|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.83||Two-sided adjusted p-value taking into account Dunnett adjustment (to be compared to 0.05)|Logistic Model||Two-sided 95% Confidence Interval of the estimate without Dunnett adjustment|Estimate (Standard Error of log \[estimate\]) of the adjusted odds ratio between GLPG1972 dose regimen and placebo: between the proportions of participants with response: placebo versus GLPG1972 dose regimen||1.83|0.64|0.985
90849074|NCT03595618|181563972|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|1.3||Two-sided adjusted p-value taking into account Dunnett adjustment (to be compared to 0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis||Two-sided 95% Confidence Interval of the estimate without Dunnett adjustment|Total score: Estimate (Standard Error) of adjusted difference from baseline to last post baseline value between treatment groups means: placebo minus GLPG1972 dose using MMRM including fixed, categorical effects of treatment, region (Asia and Rest of the World), time and treatment-by-time interaction, as well as continuous, fixed covariates of baseline and time-by-baseline interaction preceded by multiple imputation step for participants without post baseline value.||1.3|-5.6|0.467
90849075|NCT03595618|181563972|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|1.5||Two-sided adjusted p-value taking into account Dunnett adjustment (to be compared to 0.05)|Mixed Models Analysis||Two-sided 95% Confidence Interval of the estimate without Dunnett adjustment.|Total score: Estimate (Standard Error) of adjusted difference from baseline to last post baseline value between treatment groups means: placebo minus GLPG1972 dose using MMRM including fixed, categorical effects of treatment, region (Asia and Rest of the World), time and treatment-by-time interaction, as well as continuous, fixed covariates of baseline and time-by-baseline interaction preceded by multiple imputation step for participants without post baseline value.||1.5|-5.4|0.557
90859803|NCT00734474|181583028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.25||||0.512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|0.5||Comparison at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.50|-1.01|0.512
90957470|NCT03538301|181795023|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference (Final Values)|-4.4||||0.713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.2|10.7|||Fisher Exact||The 95% Confidence Interval for difference in proportions are based on the Chan-Zhang method.|Rate of Hospitalization for Respiratory Ailments (%) in the 90 mg cohort versus placebo||10.7|-19.2|0.713
91030130|NCT01193608|181944772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change|48.85||||0.297|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-11.79|109.48|||t-test, 2 sided||One sample paired t-test|Change from baseline, within group||109.48|-11.79|0.297
91030131|NCT01193608|181944774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change|-15.26||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-53.54|23.02|||t-test, 2 sided||One sample paired t-test|Change from baseline, within group||23.02|-53.54|0.600
91030132|NCT01193608|181944776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change|1.23||||0.603|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.89|4.35|||t-test, 2 sided||One sample paired t-test|Change from baseline, within group||4.35|-1.89|0.603
91030133|NCT01249664|181944784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least square means|14.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.8|17.4||No adjustment on P value, this is for the primary efficacy analysis.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model, including treatment groups and country (country designations) as fixed effects and baseline BCVA as a covariate.|The difference is calculated as Eylea minus Sham. A positive value indicates Eylea showed a higher change in BCVA total score until week 24 compared to Sham.|Null hypothesis was equality in change from baseline to Week 24 in BCVA total letter score between Eylea and Sham.||17.4|10.8|<0.0001
91030134|NCT01249664|181944785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted difference|29.2||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.4|44.0||No adjustment on P value, since this test was only conducted formally under the primary efficacy evaluation was significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||A two-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method at level 5% weight-adjusted by country (country designations) was used to conduct the superiority test.|Null hypothesis of difference of Eylea minus Sham of 0 was tested.||44.0|14.4|0.0001
91030135|NCT01249664|181944786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least square means|13.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.4|16.7|||ANCOVA|||||16.7|9.4|<0.0001
91030136|NCT01249664|181944787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted difference|50.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.0|66.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||66.0|35.0|<0.001
91095836|NCT01933594|182074968|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 48 hours post infusion||||0.71
91095837|NCT01933594|182074968|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 7 days post infusion||||0.79
91095838|NCT01933594|182074968|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 28 days post infusion||||0.38
91095839|NCT01933594|182074969|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 48 hours post infusion||||1
91095840|NCT01933594|182074969|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 7 days post infusion||||0.92
90849076|NCT03595618|181563972|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|1.6||Two-sided adjusted p-value taking into account Dunnett adjustment (to be compared to 0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis||Two-sided 95% Confidence Interval of the estimate without Dunnett adjustment.|Total score: Estimate (Standard Error) of adjusted difference from baseline to last post baseline value between treatment groups means: placebo minus GLPG1972 dose using MMRM including fixed, categorical effects of treatment, region (Asia and Rest of the World), time and treatment-by-time interaction, as well as continuous, fixed covariates of baseline and time-by-baseline interaction preceded by multiple imputation step for participants without post baseline value.||1.6|-5.3|0.593
90859804|NCT00734474|181583028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|-0.69||Comparison at 52 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.69|-2.23|<0.001
90859805|NCT00734474|181583028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.59||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|0.17||Comparison at 52 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.17|-1.36|0.128
90957471|NCT03538301|181795024|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.937|||||||Log Rank|||Overall Survival (weeks) in the 45 mg cohort versus placebo||||0.937
90957472|NCT03538301|181795024|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.414|||||||Log Rank|||Overall Survival (weeks) in the 90 mg cohort versus placebo||||0.414
91030137|NCT01249664|181944788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted difference|64.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.8|80.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||80.3|47.8|<0.001
91030138|NCT01249664|181944789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted difference|21.0||||0.0308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|40.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||40.1|1.9|0.0308
91030139|NCT01249664|181944790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted difference|27.0||||0.0075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.2|46.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||46.8|7.2|0.0075
91030140|NCT01249664|181944791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted difference|42.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.7|61.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||61.6|23.7|<.0001
91095841|NCT01933594|182074969|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 28 days post infusion||||0.66
91095842|NCT01933594|182074970|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 1||||1
91095843|NCT01933594|182074970|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 4||||0.9
91095844|NCT01933594|182074970|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 10 weeks post infusion 4||||0.47
91030141|NCT01249664|181944792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted difference|-6.5||||0.1478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|2.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.3|-15.2|0.1478
91095845|NCT01933594|182074971|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 1||||0.63
91095846|NCT01933594|182074971|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||hange from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 4||||0.51
91095847|NCT01933594|182074971|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 10 weeks post infusion 4||||0.028
91095848|NCT01933594|182074972|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 1||||0.62
90859806|NCT00734474|181583028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.36||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.42||Comparison at 104 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.42|-2.30|0.005
90859807|NCT00734474|181583028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.54||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|0.4||Comparison at 104 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.40|-1.48|0.256
90859808|NCT00734474|181583029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|18.8||Comparison of HbA1c \<7.0% at 26 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||18.8|6.8|<0.001
91030142|NCT01249664|181944793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted difference|-25.8||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.6|-11.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-11.0|-40.6|0.0006
90859809|NCT00734474|181583029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.2|14.3||Comparison of HbA1c \<7.0% at 26 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||14.3|5.2|<0.001
90859810|NCT00734474|181583029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|4.8||Comparison of HbA1c \<7.0% at 26 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||4.8|1.8|<0.001
91030143|NCT01249664|181944794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted difference|-32.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.1|-16.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-16.3|-48.1|<0.0001
91030144|NCT01249664|181944795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted difference|-5.3||||0.2446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|3.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.7|-14.4|0.2446
91030145|NCT01249664|181944796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted difference|-21.5||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.9|-7.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-7.0|-35.9|0.0035
91030146|NCT01249664|181944797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted difference|-25.7||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.3|-10.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-10.1|-41.3|0.0012
91030147|NCT01249664|181944798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least square means|-77.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-108.9|-46.9|||ANCOVA|||||-46.9|-108.9|<0.0001
91030148|NCT01249664|181944799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least square means|-29.3||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.4|1.8|||ANCOVA|||||1.8|-60.4|0.0650
91030149|NCT01249664|181944800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least square means|-0.4808|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.599|-0.3626|||ANCOVA|||||-0.3626|-0.5990|<0.0001
91030150|NCT01249664|181944801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least square means|-0.1346||||0.0256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2525|-0.0167|||ANCOVA|||||-0.0167|-0.2525|0.0256
91030151|NCT01249664|181944802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least square means|-0.0045||||0.869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0579|0.049|||ANCOVA|||||0.0490|-0.0579|0.8690
91030152|NCT01249664|181944803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of least square means|5.21||||0.0104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|9.18|||ANCOVA|||||9.18|1.25|0.0104
91095849|NCT01933594|182074972|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 4||||0.15
91095850|NCT01933594|182074972|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 10 weeks post infusion 4||||0.69
91095851|NCT01933594|182074973|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 1||||0.28
91095852|NCT01933594|182074973|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 4||||0.15
91095853|NCT01933594|182074973|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 10 weeks post infusion 4||||0.81
91095854|NCT01933594|182074974|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 48 hours post infusion||||0.13
91095855|NCT01933594|182074974|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 7 days post infusion||||0.22
91095856|NCT01933594|182074974|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.031|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 28 days post infusion||||0.031
91095857|NCT01933594|182074975|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 48 hours post infusion||||0.13
91095858|NCT01933594|182074975|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 7 days post infusion||||0.39
91095859|NCT01933594|182074975|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 28 days post infusion||||0.12
91095860|NCT01933594|182074976|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 1||||0.7
91095861|NCT01933594|182074976|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 4||||0.51
91095862|NCT01933594|182074976|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 10 weeks post infusion 4||||0.94
91095863|NCT01933594|182074977|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 1||||0.78
90899616|NCT03502616|181665126|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.905||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.32|-1.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-1.88|-13.32|0.0095
91030153|NCT01249664|181944805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least square means|-0.6648|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8056|-0.5239|||ANCOVA|||||-0.5239|-0.8056|<0.0001
91095864|NCT01933594|182074977|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 4||||0.41
91095865|NCT01933594|182074977|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 10 weeks post infusion 4||||0.94
91095866|NCT01933594|182074978|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in pNFKB+% on CD4||||0.69
91095867|NCT01933594|182074978|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in pS175% on CD4||||0.27
91095868|NCT01933594|182074979|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in pNFKB+% on CD8||||0.81
91095869|NCT01933594|182074979|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in pS175% on CD8||||0.81
91095870|NCT01933594|182074980|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 1||||0.37
91095871|NCT01933594|182074980|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 2||||0.1
91095872|NCT01933594|182074980|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 72 hours post infusion 2||||0.28
91095873|NCT01933594|182074980|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 3||||0.16
91095874|NCT01933594|182074980|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 4||||0.12
91095875|NCT01933594|182074981|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 1||||0.027
90899617|NCT04503096|181665128|OTHER|To monitor safety, paired t-tests were conducted to test for pre- to post-treatment differences in global cognition (i.e., MoCA z-scores).||||||0.725|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.725
91030154|NCT00486837|181944850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.197||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.197
91095876|NCT01933594|182074981|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 2||||0.004
91095877|NCT01933594|182074981|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 72 hours post infusion 2||||0.1
91095878|NCT01933594|182074981|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 3||||0.022
91095879|NCT01933594|182074981|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 4||||0.17
91095880|NCT04478266|182074999|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.209||||0.9304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.939|1.557||One-sided p-value based on Stratified log-rank test. Threshold for statistical significance at 0.025 level.|Stratified Log-Rank test|Stratified on presence of De-novo metastatic disease, Postmenopausal women and Visceral metastasis according to IRT.|Letrozole + Palbociclib versus Amcenestrant + Palbociclib|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to ensure a strong control of the overall Type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at one-sided 2.5% for the primary and the first secondary outcome.||1.557|0.939|0.9304
91095881|NCT04058717|182075016|OTHER||H-statistic|10.23||||0.017|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.017
91095882|NCT04058717|182075017|OTHER||H-statistic|7.57||||0.056|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.056
91095883|NCT04058717|182075018|OTHER||H-statistic|1.26||||0.74|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.74
91095884|NCT04058717|182075019|OTHER||Slope|4.13||||0.248|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.248
91095885|NCT04058717|182075020|OTHER||H-statistic|9.33||||0.025|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.025
91095886|NCT04058717|182075021|OTHER|||||||0.289|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.289
91095887|NCT02799602|182075023|SUPERIORITY|Hazard ratio \< 1 indicates superiority of Darolutamide+docetaxel arm over Placebo+docetaxel arm. Hazard ratio and 95% CI was based on Cox Regression Model, stratified by EOD (Non-regional lymph nodes metastases only vs. Bone metastases with or without lymph node metastases vs. Visceral metastases with or without lymph node metastases or with or without bone metastases) and ALP (\<ULN vs. \>=ULN).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.675|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.568|0.801||One-sided p-value.|Log Rank||||One-sided p-value from log-rank test, stratified by EOD (Non-regional lymph nodes metastases only vs. Bone metastases with or without lymph node metastases vs. Visceral metastases with or without lymph node metastases or with or without bone metastases) and ALP (\<ULN vs. \>=ULN).|0.801|0.568|<0.0001
91104211|NCT04003142|182094843|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.067||95.0|-0.23|0.01||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 3||0.01|-0.23|0.067
91095888|NCT02799602|182075026|SUPERIORITY|Hazard ratio \< 1 indicates superiority of Darolutamide+docetaxel arm over Placebo+docetaxel arm. Hazard ratio and 95% CI was based on Cox Regression Model, stratified by EOD (Non-regional lymph nodes metastases only vs. Bone metastases with or without lymph node metastases vs. Visceral metastases with or without lymph node metastases or with or without bone metastases) and ALP (\<ULN vs. \>=ULN).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.357|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.302|0.421||One-sided p-value.|Log Rank||||One-sided p-value from log-rank test, stratified by EOD (Non-regional lymph nodes metastases only vs. Bone metastases with or without lymph node metastases vs. Visceral metastases with or without lymph node metastases or with or without bone metastases) and ALP (\<ULN vs. \>=ULN).|0.421|0.302|<0.0001
90849077|NCT03595618|181563972|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.4||Two-sided adjusted p-value taking into account Dunnett adjustment (to be compared to 0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis||Two-sided 95% Confidence Interval of the estimate without Dunnett adjustment.|Pain subscore: Estimate (Standard Error) of adjusted difference from baseline to last post baseline value between treatment groups means: placebo minus GLPG1972 dose using MMRM including fixed, categorical effects of treatment, region (Asia and Rest of the World), time and treatment-by-time interaction, as well as continuous, fixed covariates of baseline and time-by-baseline interaction preceded by multiple imputation step for participants without post baseline value.||0.4|-1.0|0.776
90849078|NCT03595618|181563972|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.3||Two-sided adjusted p-value taking into account Dunnett adjustment (to be compared to 0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis||Two-sided 95% Confidence Interval of the estimate without Dunnett adjustment.|Pain subscore: Estimate (Standard Error) of adjusted difference from baseline to last post baseline value between treatment groups means: placebo minus GLPG1972 dose using MMRM including fixed, categorical effects of treatment, region (Asia and Rest of the World), time and treatment-by-time interaction, as well as continuous, fixed covariates of baseline and time-by-baseline interaction preceded by multiple imputation step for participants without post baseline value.||0.3|-1.2|0.446
90859811|NCT00734474|181583029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|5.9||Comparison of HbA1c \<7.0% at 52 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||5.9|2.7|<0.001
90859812|NCT00734474|181583029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|3.9||Comparison of HbA1c \<7.0% at 52 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||3.9|1.8|<0.001
90859813|NCT00734474|181583029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|5.0||Comparison of HbA1c \<7.0% at 104 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||5.0|2.4|<0.001
91030155|NCT05065502|181944883|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.261|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.238||0.273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.728|0.206||Significance level is set at 0.05.|Regression, Linear||Between-arm difference at 13-18 months post-baseline, controlling for rates 1-6 months pre-baseline|Between group comparison is done using between-arm difference (as 'AD+LEAP' minus 'AD only') in within-arm change in proportion of PIMs of post-intervention period (months 13 to 18), controlling for use in pre-baseline period (months 0 to 6), averaged across three studies.||0.206|-0.728|0.273
90899618|NCT04503096|181665132|OTHER|Paired t-tests were conducted to test for pre- to post-treatment changes in depression using HAM-D raw scores.||||||0.605|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.605
90899619|NCT04503096|181665133|OTHER|Paired t-tests were conducted to test for pre- to post-treatment changes in depression using GDS raw scores.||||||0.897|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.897
91030156|NCT05065502|181944884|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.00138|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0245|0.0272||||||Between group comparison is done using between-arm difference (as 'AD+LEAP' minus 'AD only') in within-arm change in proportion of PIMs for the post-intervention period (months 13 to 18), controlling for the pre-baseline period (months 0 to 6).||0.0272|-0.0245|
91030157|NCT05065502|181944885|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|23.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.3|69.3|||||Statistical Assumptions for Valid Inference of a typical Difference-in-Difference model were not met, Estimate computed from modelling Post-period, and adjusting for Pre-period.|Between group comparison is done using between-arm difference (as 'AD+LEAP' minus 'AD only') in within-arm change in medication costs from 6-months pre-baseline period to 6-month post-intervention period (months 13 to 18).||69.3|-23.3|
91030158|NCT05065502|181944886|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.599|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.122||||||Between group comparison is done using between-arm difference (as 'AD+LEAP' minus 'AD only') in within-arm change in count of medication note reviews from 6-months pre-baseline period to 6-month post-intervention period (months 13 to 18).|"Medication reviews per 1,000 patients (outcome multiplied by 1,000).~Statistical Assumptions for Valid Inference of a typical Difference-in-Difference model were not met, Estimate computed from modelling Post-period, and adjusting for Pre-period."|-0.122|-1.080|
91030159|NCT05065502|181944887|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05317|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09073|0.01561||||||Between group comparison is done using between-arm difference (as 'AD+LEAP' minus 'AD only') in within-arm change in count of inappropriate use from 6-months pre-baseline period to 6-month post-intervention period (months 13 to 18)||0.01561|-0.09073|
91030160|NCT05065502|181944888|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|1.2||||||Between group comparison is done using between-arm difference (as 'AD+LEAP' minus 'AD only') in within-arm change in proportion of high-risk DOAC use from 6-months pre-baseline period to 6-month post-intervention period (months 13 to 18).||1.20|-1.44|
91030161|NCT05065502|181944889|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.42||||||Between group comparison is done using between-arm difference (as 'AD+LEAP' minus 'AD only') in within-arm change in proportion of of high-risk DOAC use attributable to chronic kidney disease for the post-intervention period (months 13 to 18), controlling for the pre-baseline period (months 0 to 6), ), controlling for the pre-baseline period (months 0 to 6).||0.42|-0.83|
91030162|NCT05065502|181944890|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.72||||||Between group comparison is done using between-arm difference (as 'AD+LEAP' minus 'AD only') in within-arm change in proportion of high-risk DOAC use attributable to weight for the post-intervention period (months 13 to 18), controlling for the pre-baseline period (months 0 to 6).||0.72|-0.08|
91030163|NCT05065502|181944891|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.33||||||Between group comparison is done using between-arm difference (as 'AD+LEAP' minus 'AD only') in within-arm change in proportion of high-risk DOAC use attributable to mis-dosing for the post-intervention period (months 13 to 18), controlling for the pre-baseline period (months 0 to 6).||0.33|-0.70|
91095889|NCT02799602|182075028|SUPERIORITY|Hazard ratio \< 1 indicates superiority of Darolutamide+docetaxel arm over Placebo+docetaxel arm. Hazard ratio and 95% CI was based on Cox Regression Model, stratified by EOD (Non-regional lymph nodes metastases only vs. Bone metastases with or without lymph node metastases vs. Visceral metastases with or without lymph node metastases or with or without bone metastases) and ALP (\<ULN vs. \>=ULN).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.792||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.95||One-sided p-value.|Log Rank||||One-sided p-value from log-rank test, stratified by EOD (Non-regional lymph nodes metastases only vs. Bone metastases with or without lymph node metastases vs. Visceral metastases with or without lymph node metastases or with or without bone metastases) and ALP (\<ULN vs. \>=ULN).|0.950|0.660|0.0058
91095890|NCT02799602|182075030|SUPERIORITY|Hazard ratio \< 1 indicates superiority of Darolutamide+docetaxel arm over Placebo+docetaxel arm. Hazard ratio and 95% CI was based on Cox Regression Model, stratified by EOD (Non-regional lymph nodes metastases only vs. Bone metastases with or without lymph node metastases vs. Visceral metastases with or without lymph node metastases or with or without bone metastases) and ALP (\<ULN vs. \>=ULN).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.609|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.516|0.718||One-sided p-value.|Log Rank||||One-sided p-value from log-rank test, stratified by EOD (Non-regional lymph nodes metastases only vs. Bone metastases with or without lymph node metastases vs. Visceral metastases with or without lymph node metastases or with or without bone metastases) and ALP (\<ULN vs. \>=ULN).|0.718|0.516|<0.0001
91095891|NCT02799602|182075032|SUPERIORITY|Hazard ratio \< 1 indicates superiority of Darolutamide+docetaxel arm over Placebo+docetaxel arm. Hazard ratio and 95% CI was based on Cox Regression Model, stratified by EOD (Non-regional lymph nodes metastases only vs. Bone metastases with or without lymph node metastases vs. Visceral metastases with or without lymph node metastases or with or without bone metastases) and ALP (\<ULN vs. \>=ULN).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.712||||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.539|0.94||One-sided p-value.|Log Rank||||One-sided p-value from log-rank test, stratified by EOD (Non-regional lymph nodes metastases only vs. Bone metastases with or without lymph node metastases vs. Visceral metastases with or without lymph node metastases or with or without bone metastases) and ALP (\<ULN vs. \>=ULN).|0.940|0.539|0.0081
91095892|NCT02799602|182075034|SUPERIORITY|Hazard ratio \< 1 indicates superiority of Darolutamide+docetaxel arm over Placebo+docetaxel arm. Hazard ratio and 95% CI was based on Cox Regression Model, stratified by EOD (Non-regional lymph nodes metastases only vs. Bone metastases with or without lymph node metastases vs. Visceral metastases with or without lymph node metastases or with or without bone metastases) and ALP (\<ULN vs. \>=ULN).|Hazard Ratio, log|0.388|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.328|0.458||One-sided p-value.|Log Rank||||One-sided p-value from log-rank test, stratified by EOD (Non-regional lymph nodes metastases only vs. Bone metastases with or without lymph node metastases vs. Visceral metastases with or without lymph node metastases or with or without bone metastases) and ALP (\<ULN vs. \>=ULN).|0.458|0.328|<0.0001
91095893|NCT02799602|182075036|SUPERIORITY|Hazard ratio \< 1 indicates superiority of Darolutamide+docetaxel arm over Placebo+docetaxel arm. Hazard ratio and 95% CI was based on Cox Regression Model, stratified by EOD (Non-regional lymph nodes metastases only vs. Bone metastases with or without lymph node metastases vs. Visceral metastases with or without lymph node metastases or with or without bone metastases) and ALP (\<ULN vs. \>=ULN).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.043||||0.7073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.894|1.217||One-sided p-value.|Log Rank||||One-sided p-value from log-rank test, stratified by EOD (Non-regional lymph nodes metastases only vs. Bone metastases with or without lymph node metastases vs. Visceral metastases with or without lymph node metastases or with or without bone metastases) and ALP (\<ULN vs. \>=ULN).|1.217|0.894|0.7073
91104212|NCT04003142|182094843|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.11||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 3||-0.11|-0.35|<0.001
90849079|NCT03595618|181563972|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.4||Two-sided adjusted p-value taking into account Dunnett adjustment (to be compared to 0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis||Two-sided 95% Confidence Interval of the estimate without Dunnett adjustment.|Pain subscore: Estimate (Standard Error) of adjusted difference from baseline to last post baseline value between treatment groups means: placebo minus GLPG1972 dose using MMRM including fixed, categorical effects of treatment, region (Asia and Rest of the World), time and treatment-by-time interaction, as well as continuous, fixed covariates of baseline and time-by-baseline interaction preceded by multiple imputation step for participants without post baseline value.||0.4|-1.1|0.649
90849080|NCT03595618|181563972|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|0.9||Two-sided adjusted p-value taking into account Dunnett adjustment (to be compared to 0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis||Two-sided 95% Confidence Interval of the estimate without Dunnett adjustment.|Physical function subscore: Estimate (Standard Error) of adjusted difference from baseline to last post baseline value between treatment groups means: placebo minus GLPG1972 dose using MMRM including fixed, categorical effects of treatment, region (Asia and Rest of the World), time and treatment-by-time interaction, as well as continuous, fixed covariates of baseline and time-by-baseline interaction preceded by multiple imputation step for participants without post baseline value.||0.9|-4.1|0.452
90849081|NCT03595618|181563972|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|1.3||Two-sided adjusted p-value taking into account Dunnett adjustment (to be compared to 0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis||Two-sided 95% Confidence Interval of the estimate without Dunnett adjustment.|Physical Function subscore: Estimate (Standard Error) of adjusted difference from baseline to last post baseline value between treatment groups means: placebo minus GLPG1972 dose using MMRM including fixed, categorical effects of treatment, region (Asia and Rest of the World), time and treatment-by-time interaction, as well as continuous, fixed covariates of baseline and time-by-baseline interaction preceded by multiple imputation step for participants without post baseline value.||1.3|-3.7|0.665
90859814|NCT00734474|181583029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|3.3||Comparison of HbA1c \<7.0% at 104 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||3.3|1.6|<0.001
90859815|NCT00734474|181583029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|20.4||Comparison of HbA1c ≤6.5% at 26 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||20.4|6.5|<0.001
90859816|NCT00734474|181583029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|8.8||Comparison of HbA1c ≤6.5% at 26 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||8.8|2.8|<0.001
91095894|NCT02799602|182075038|SUPERIORITY|Hazard ratio \< 1 indicates superiority of Darolutamide+docetaxel arm over Placebo+docetaxel arm. Hazard ratio and 95% CI was based on Cox Regression Model, stratified by EOD (Non-regional lymph nodes metastases only vs. Bone metastases with or without lymph node metastases vs. Visceral metastases with or without lymph node metastases or with or without bone metastases) and ALP (\<ULN vs. \>=ULN).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.688||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.523|0.906||One-sided p-value.|Log Rank||||One-sided p-value from log-rank test, stratified by EOD (Non-regional lymph nodes metastases only vs. Bone metastases with or without lymph node metastases vs. Visceral metastases with or without lymph node metastases or with or without bone metastases) and ALP (\<ULN vs. \>=ULN).|0.906|0.523|0.0037
91095895|NCT06006208|182075040|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.275|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.275
91095896|NCT06006208|182075041|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.891|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.891
91095897|NCT01101178|182075083|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A mixed-model analysis of variance was used to compare (test vs reference) and the 90% confidence intervals were estimated for the ratios (test/reference)|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|110.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|105.21|114.47|||ANOVA||Bioequivalence was established when 90% Confidence Interval fell within 80%-125%.|||114.47|105.21|
91095898|NCT01101178|182075084|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A mixed-model analysis of variance was used to compare (test vs reference) and the 90% confidence intervals were estimated for the ratios (test/reference)|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|94.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.71|96.64|||ANOVA||Bioequivalence was established when 90% Confidence Interval fell within 80%-125%.|||96.64|92.71|
91095899|NCT01101178|182075085|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A mixed-model analysis of variance was used to compare (test vs reference) and the 90% confidence intervals were estimated for the ratios (test/reference)|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|94.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.9|97.02|||ANOVA||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80%-125%.|||97.02|92.90|
91095900|NCT04338581|182075128|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.411||||||P-value is from comparing the proportion of F-VASI35 Responders between the two treatment groups using a Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||The p-value compares AMG 714 and Placebo treatment groups.||||0.411
91095901|NCT00770809|182075136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|||||Participants were stratified by clinical stage (II vs III) and hormone receptor status (positive/negative).|Log Rank|||||||0.13
91095902|NCT00770809|182075136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|||||Participants were stratified by clinical stage (II vs III) and hormone receptor status (positive/negative).|Log Rank|||||||0.072
91095903|NCT03834168|182075143|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Regression (Cosinor Fit)|||||||0.003
91095904|NCT03834168|182075143|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.001
91095905|NCT00764517|182075155|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.33||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.69|||Log Rank|||||0.69|0.16|0.002
91095906|NCT00764517|182075156|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.42||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.84|||Log Rank|||||0.84|0.21|0.011
91095907|NCT00770367|182075159|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.37|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A twosample comparison of mean treatment differences conducted using a pre-determined significance level of alpha level \<0.05. 2 a comparison of means for NOx levels at 12 weeks b/w groups. 3 on the change F2-isoprostanes at 12 weeks b/w groups.||||.37
91095908|NCT00435942|182075161|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The proportion of subjects in the Effectiveness sample who were free from major device-related AEs at 1-year post-procedure was compared against a performance goal of 0.80 using a 1-sided z-test (normal approximation to the binomial) at an alpha level of 0.025. Rejection of the null hypothesis would provide evidence that this performance goal (proportion-free greater than 0.80) was met.|Proportion free|0.97|||>|0.8|ONE_SIDED|97.5|0.93||||1-sided z-test|97.5% 1-sided confidence interval||The proportion of subjects in the Effectiveness sample who were free from major device-related AEs at 1-year post-procedure was compared against a performance goal of 0.80 using a 1-sided z-test (normal approximation to the binomial) at an alpha level of 0.025. Rejection of the null hypothesis would provide evidence that this performance goal (proportion-free greater than 0.80) was met.|||.93|>0.80
91095909|NCT00460798|182075163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Obective Response Rate (Percent)|40.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.5|46.0|||||Exact method based on binomial distribution|Objective Response Rate (ORR) = Percentage of participants with best overall response of CR or PR||46.0|35.5|
90849082|NCT03595618|181563972|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|1.2||Two-sided adjusted p-value taking into account Dunnett adjustment (to be compared to 0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis||Two-sided 95% Confidence Interval of the estimate without Dunnett adjustment.|Physical Function subscore: Estimate (Standard Error) of adjusted difference from baseline to last post baseline value between treatment groups means: placebo minus GLPG1972 dose using MMRM including fixed, categorical effects of treatment, region (Asia and Rest of the World), time and treatment-by-time interaction, as well as continuous, fixed covariates of baseline and time-by-baseline interaction preceded by multiple imputation step for participants without post baseline value.||1.2|-3.9|0.598
90859817|NCT00734474|181583029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|4.1||Comparison of HbA1c ≤6.5 at 26 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||4.1|1.3|0.005
91095910|NCT01953237|182075212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.558|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.5580
91095911|NCT01186770|182075223|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) mean difference|2.83||||0.1692||95.0|-1.21|6.86||Threshold for significance at 0.0167 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as effect and analysis region as covariate.||6.86|-1.21|0.1692
91095912|NCT01186770|182075223|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|6.51||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.47|10.55||Threshold for significance at 0.0167 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with treatment as effect and analysis region as covariate.||10.55|2.47|0.0016
91095913|NCT01186770|182075223|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|9.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.09|13.18||Threshold for significance at 0.0167 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with treatment as effect and analysis region as covariate.||13.18|5.09|< 0.0001
91095914|NCT01186770|182075224|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.3076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.84||Threshold for significance at 0.0167 level.|Regression, Logistic|||Analysis was performed using logistic regression model with treatment as effect and analysis region as covariate.||1.84|0.82|0.3076
91030164|NCT05065502|181944892|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01007|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02415|0.04429||||||Between group comparison is done using between-arm difference (as 'AD+LEAP' minus 'AD only') in within-arm change in proportion of CBTI receipt for the post-intervention period (months 13 to 18), controlling for the pre-baseline period (months 0 to 6)||0.04429|-0.02415|
91030165|NCT05065502|181944895|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0837|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21014|0.04275||||||Between group comparison is done using between-arm difference (as 'AD+LEAP' minus 'AD only') in within-arm change in proportion of PIMs for the post-intervention period (months 13 to 18), controlling for the pre-baseline period (months 0 to 6).||0.04275|-0.21014|
91030166|NCT05065502|181944896|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.102|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.216|0.42||||||||0.420|-0.216|
91030167|NCT05065502|181944897|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0389|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.555|0.477||||||||0.477|-0.555|
91030168|NCT05065502|181944898|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.101|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.452||||||||0.452|-0.250|
91030169|NCT05065502|181944899|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0428|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.339|0.254||||||||0.254|-0.339|
91030170|NCT00117949|181944923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||<0.001
91030171|NCT00117949|181944923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median days to insufficient T response|84.0||||||95.0|35.0|112.0||||||Kaplan-Meier estimates of the time to meet insufficient testosterone (T) response.||112|35|
91030172|NCT00117949|181944923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median days to insufficient T response|98.0||||||95.0|70.0|126.0||||||Kaplan-Meier estimates of the time to meet insufficient testosterone (T) response||126|70|
90849083|NCT03595618|181563972|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.1||Two-sided adjusted p-value taking into account Dunnett adjustment (to be compared to 0.05)|Mixed Models Analysis||Two-sided 95% Confidence Interval of the estimate without Dunnett adjustment|Stiffness subscore: Estimate (Standard Error) of adjusted difference from baseline to last post baseline value between treatment groups means: placebo minus GLPG1972 dose using MMRM including fixed, categorical effects of treatment, region (Asia and Rest of the World), time and treatment-by-time interaction, as well as continuous, fixed covariates of baseline and time-by-baseline interaction preceded by multiple imputation step for participants without post baseline value.||0.1|-0.6|0.400
90859818|NCT00734474|181583029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|6.8||Comparison of HbA1c ≤6.5% at 52 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||6.8|2.9|<0.001
91030173|NCT00117949|181944923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median days to insufficient T response|35.0||||||95.0|14.0|98.0||||||Kaplan-Meier estimates of the time to meet insufficient testosterone (T) response||98|14|
91030174|NCT00117949|181944924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||Log Rank|Participants not castrated were censored as of the days from dosing for the last available observation.||||||0.003
91030175|NCT00117949|181944924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median time to castration (days)|3.0||||||95.0|3.0|7.0||||||Kaplan-Meier estimates of the median time to testosterone castration.||7|3|
91030176|NCT00117949|181944924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median time to castration (days)|3.0||||||95.0|1.0|3.0||||||Kaplan-Meier estimates of the time to testosterone castration.||3|1|
91030177|NCT00117949|181944925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|0.0||||||95.0|0.0|0.0||||||Kaplan-Meier estimates of the percentage of participants with sufficient testosterone suppression.||0|0|
91030178|NCT00117949|181944925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|42.7||||||95.0|22.0|63.4||||||Kaplan-Meier estimates of the percentage of participants with sufficient testosterone suppression.||63.4|22|
91030179|NCT00117949|181944925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|61.6||||||95.0|41.8|81.3||||||Kaplan-Meier estimates of the percentage of participants with sufficient testosterone suppression.||81.3|41.8|
91030180|NCT00117949|181944925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|35.6||||||95.0|15.8|55.5||||||Kaplan-Meier estimates of the percentage of participants with sufficient testosterone suppression.||55.5|15.8|
91030181|NCT00117949|181944926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.181||95.0|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test.|||||||0.181
91030182|NCT00117949|181944926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|10.0||||||95.0|0.3|44.5||||||Kaplan Meier-estimates of the percentage of participants with testostestone serum levels below 0.5 ng/mL for at least 28 days.||44.5|0.3|
91030183|NCT00117949|181944926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|70.8||||||95.0|48.9|87.4||||||Kaplan Meier-estimates of the percentage of participants with testostestone serum levels below 0.5 ng/mL for at least 28 days.||87.4|48.9|
91030184|NCT00117949|181944926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|79.2||||||95.0|57.8|92.9||||||Kaplan Meier-estimates of the percentage of participants with testostestone serum levels below 0.5 ng/mL for at least 28 days.||92.9|57.8|
91030185|NCT00117949|181944926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|54.2||||||95.0|32.8|74.4||||||Kaplan Meier-estimates of the percentage of participants with testostestone serum levels below 0.5 ng/mL for at least 28 days.||74.4|32.8|
91030186|NCT00117949|181944927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.046||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.046
91030187|NCT00117949|181944927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||days|14.0||||||95.0|14.0|28.0||||||Kaplan-Meier estimates of the time (days) to 50% reduction in PSA||28|14|
91030188|NCT00117949|181944927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||days|14.0||||||95.0|14.0|28.0||||||Kaplan-Meier estimates of the time (days) to 50% reduction in PSA||28|14|
91030189|NCT00117949|181944927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||days|28.0||||||95.0|14.0|41.0||||||Kaplan-Meier estimates of the time (days) to 50% reduction in PSA||41|14|
91030190|NCT00117949|181944928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.926||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.926
91030191|NCT00117949|181944928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||days|56.0||||||95.0|35.0|56.0||||||Kaplan-Meier estimates of the time (days) to 90% reduction in PSA.||56|35|
91030192|NCT00117949|181944928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||days|56.0||||||95.0|35.0|84.0||||||Kaplan-Meier estimates of the time (days) to 90% reduction in PSA.||84|35|
91030193|NCT00117949|181944928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||days|56.0||||||95.0|35.0|100.0|||||The upper confidence interval limit could not be calculated. For technical reasons it has been entered as 100.|Kaplan-Meier estimates of the time (days) to 90% reduction in PSA.||100|35|
91030194|NCT00406848|181944954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.397||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no difference in changes from baseline (Week 1) to Week 13 on the HAMD-17 Maier subscale between duloxetine and placebo treatment groups.||||0.397
90957473|NCT03538301|181795024|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference (Final Values)|0.1|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|10.9|||Fisher Exact||The 95% Confidence Interval for difference in proportions are based on the Chan-Zhang method.|Rate of Mortality (%) in the 45 mg cohort versus placebo||10.9|-10.4|>0.999
91095915|NCT01186770|182075224|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.54||||0.0339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.29||Threshold for significance at 0.0167 level.|Regression, Logistic|||Analysis was performed using logistic regression model with treatment as effect and analysis region as covariate.||2.29|1.03|0.0339
91095916|NCT01186770|182075224|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.79||||0.0043||95.0|1.2|2.66||Threshold for significance at 0.0167 level.|Regression, Logistic|||Analysis was performed using logistic regression model with treatment as effect and analysis region as covariate.||2.66|1.20|0.0043
91095917|NCT01186770|182075225|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.09||||0.692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.55||Threshold for significance at 0.0167 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with treatment as effect and analysis region and baseline as covariates.||0.55|-0.36|0.6920
91095918|NCT01186770|182075225|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.51||||0.0274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.97||Threshold for significance at 0.0167 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with treatment as effect and analysis region and baseline as covariates.||0.97|0.06|0.0274
91095919|NCT01186770|182075225|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.53||||0.0237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.98||Threshold for significance at 0.0167 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with treatment as effect and analysis region and baseline as covariates.||0.98|0.07|0.0237
91095920|NCT01033136|182075260|EQUIVALENCE|To test if MCET is equivalent to CPT in decreasing PTSD symptoms, we test the equivalence of the proportion of patients whose CAPS scores decrease by 10 from baseline, by testing whether the difference in proportions between the 2 interventions ≤ to the equivalence margin δb of .20. Results are reported based on 3-month follow-up data.||||||0.3||||||The threshold for statistical significance is p \<.05 and is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.30
91095921|NCT01033136|182075261|OTHER|||||||0.68||||||The threshold for statistical significance is p \<.05 and is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom: 2, 54||Longitudinal analysis of PDSS scores||||0.68
91095922|NCT05383209|182075262|OTHER||Difference in response percentage|-5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.9|13.4||||||||13.4|-24.9|
91095923|NCT05383209|182075262|OTHER||Slope|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.6|20.6||||||||20.6|-20.6|
91095924|NCT05383209|182075263|OTHER||Difference in response percentage|5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|26.0||||||||26.0|-13.2|
91095925|NCT00933933|182075300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Clinical Specificity|99.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.62|99.88|||Exact binomial|||||99.88|99.62|
91095926|NCT00933933|182075301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Clinical Sensitivity|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.31|100.0|||Exact binomial|||||100.00|94.31|
91095927|NCT00933933|182075301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Clinical Sensitivity|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.63|100.0|||Exact binomial|||||100.00|99.63|
91095928|NCT00933933|182075301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Clinical Sensitivity|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.18|100.0|||Exact binomial|||||100.00|98.18|
91095929|NCT00933933|182075302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Clinical Specificity|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.18|100.0|||Exact binomial|||||100.00|99.18|
91095930|NCT00933933|182075302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Clinical Sensitivity|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.48|100.0|||Exact binomial|||||100.00|94.48|
90957474|NCT03538301|181795024|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference (Final Values)|-2.4|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|6.8|||Fisher Exact||The 95% Confidence Interval for difference in proportions are based on the Chan-Zhang method.|Rate of Mortality (%) in the 90 mg cohort versus placebo||6.8|-13.1|>0.999
91095931|NCT00933933|182075303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Clinical Specificity|99.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.06|100.0|||Exact binomial|||||100.00|99.06|
91095932|NCT00933933|182075303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Clinical Sensitivity|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.4|100.0|||Exact binomial|||||100.00|94.40|
91095933|NCT01995201|182075305|OTHER|||||||0.5231|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5231
91095934|NCT05850494|182075391|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of -0.200 L at a one-sided significance level of 0.025.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.009|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0136|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.037|0.018||P-Value not applicable since a non-inferiority test was used for the analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.018|-0.037|
91095935|NCT04279483|182075427|SUPERIORITY|Linear mixed effects|Slope|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.95||0.74|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was evaluated at α = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Our hypothesis was that craving would be higher for those in the Tobacco retailer group, relative to the Nontobacco retailer group, during the intervention phase but not the baseline phase. We tested the interaction between study phase and experimental condition, in a model where the baseline was the reference study phase and Tobacco group was the reference experimental condition.||||0.74
91095936|NCT04279483|182075427|SUPERIORITY|Linear mixed effects|Slope|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.12||0.69|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was evaluated at α = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Our hypothesis was that craving would be higher for those in the Tobacco retailer group, relative to the control group, during the intervention phase but not the baseline phase. We tested the interaction between study phase and experimental condition, in a model where the baseline was the reference study phase and Tobacco group was the reference experimental condition.||||0.69
91095937|NCT04279483|182075428|SUPERIORITY|Linear mixed effects|Slope|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.49|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was evaluated at α = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Our hypothesis was that cigarettes smoked would be higher for those in the Tobacco retailer group, relative to the Nontobacco retailer group, during the intervention phase but not the baseline phase. We tested the interaction between study phase and experimental condition, in a model where the baseline was the reference study phase and Tobacco group was the reference experimental condition.||||0.49
91104213|NCT04003142|182094843|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.03||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 5||-0.03|-0.30|0.020
91104214|NCT04003142|182094843|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.16||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 5||-0.16|-0.43|<0.001
91095938|NCT04279483|182075428|SUPERIORITY|Linear mixed effects|Slope|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.72|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was evaluated at α = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Our hypothesis was that craving would be higher for those in the Tobacco retailer group, relative to the control group, during the intervention phase but not the baseline phase. We tested the interaction between study phase and experimental condition, in a model where the baseline was the reference study phase and Tobacco group was the reference experimental condition.||||0.72
91095939|NCT03116230|182075431|OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Treatment A vs Control||||||0.005
91095940|NCT03116230|182075431|OTHER|||||||0.64|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Treatment B vs Control||||||0.64
91095941|NCT05233761|182075435|SUPERIORITY|The mean nightly difference in SWS + REM sleep (% TST) in participants that received CBD-terpenes and the placebo control at the end of the two four-week treatment phases was analyzed using a two-sided test with an alpha level at 0.05 to evaluate superiority.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in SWS + REM (% TST) sleep in participants that received CBD-terpenes and the placebo control; the alternative hypothesis was that there was a significant difference among the two treatment groups.||2.5|0.1|0.0350
91095942|NCT05233761|182075436|SUPERIORITY|The mean nightly difference in SWS Sleep (% TST) in participants that received CBD-terpenes and the placebo control at the end of the two four-week treatment phases was analyzed using a two-sided test with an alpha level at 0.05 to evaluate superiority. The P-value and 95% confidence interval for the estimate of treatment difference in percentages was estimated and constructed using the above-mentioned method.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in SWS Sleep (% TST) in participants that received CBD-terpenes and the placebo control; the alternative hypothesis was that there was a significant difference among the two treatment groups.||1.6|0.4|0.0019
91095943|NCT05233761|182075436|SUPERIORITY|The mean nightly difference in REM Sleep (% TST) in participants that received CBD-terpenes and the placebo control at the end of the two four-week treatment phases was analyzed using a two-sided test with an alpha level at 0.05 to evaluate superiority. The P-value and 95% confidence interval for the estimate of treatment difference in percentages was estimated and constructed using the above-mentioned method.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in REM Sleep (% TST) in participants that received CBD-terpenes and the placebo control; the alternative hypothesis was that there was a significant difference among the two treatment groups.||1.2|-.6|0.52
91095944|NCT05233761|182075436|SUPERIORITY|The mean nightly difference in Light Sleep (% TST) in participants that received CBD-terpenes and the placebo control at the end of the two four-week treatment phases was analyzed using a two-sided test with an alpha level at 0.05 to evaluate superiority. The P-value and 95% confidence interval for the estimate of treatment difference in percentages was estimated and constructed using the above-mentioned method.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-0.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in Light Sleep (% TST) in participants that received CBD-terpenes and the placebo control; the alternative hypothesis was that there was a significant difference among the two treatment groups.||-0.5|-2.8|0.0040
91095945|NCT05233761|182075436|SUPERIORITY|The mean nightly difference in Awake Time (% TST) in participants that received CBD-terpenes and the placebo control at the end of the two four-week treatment phases was analyzed using a two-sided test with an alpha level at 0.05 to evaluate superiority. The P-value and 95% confidence interval for the estimate of treatment difference in percentages was estimated and constructed using the above-mentioned method.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|2.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in Awake Time (% TST) sleep in participants that received CBD-terpenes and the placebo control; the alternative hypothesis was that there was a significant difference among the two treatment groups.||2.0|-.5|0.24
91095946|NCT05233761|182075437|SUPERIORITY|The mean nightly difference in SWS + REM Sleep (min) in participants that received CBD-terpenes and the placebo control at the end of the two four-week treatment phases was analyzed using a two-sided test with an alpha level at 0.05 to evaluate superiority. The P-value and 95% confidence interval for the estimate of treatment difference in percentages was estimated and constructed using the above-mentioned method.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6||0.0117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|13.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in SWS + REM Sleep (min) in participants that received CBD-terpenes and the placebo control; the alternative hypothesis was that there was a significant difference among the two treatment groups.||13.3|1.7|0.0117
91104215|NCT04003142|182094843|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|-0.04||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 6||-0.04|-0.32|0.012
90849084|NCT03595618|181563972|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.1||Two-sided adjusted p-value taking into account Dunnett adjustment (to be compared to 0.05)|Mixed Models Analysis||Two-sided 95% Confidence Interval of the estimate without Dunnett adjustment|Stiffness subscore: Estimate (Standard Error) of adjusted difference from baseline to last post baseline value between treatment groups means: placebo minus GLPG1972 dose using MMRM including fixed, categorical effects of treatment, region (Asia and Rest of the World), time and treatment-by-time interaction, as well as continuous, fixed covariates of baseline and time-by-baseline interaction preceded by multiple imputation step for participants without post baseline value.||0.1|-0.6|0.393
90859819|NCT00734474|181583029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|3.5||Comparison of HbA1c ≤6.5% at 52 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||3.5|1.5|<0.001
90859820|NCT00734474|181583029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|7.9||Comparison of HbA1c ≤6.5% at 104 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||7.9|3.4|<0.001
90859821|NCT00734474|181583029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|3.7||Comparison of HbA1c ≤6.5% at 104 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||3.7|1.5|<0.001
90957475|NCT03538301|181795025|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference (Final Values)|-4.8||||0.494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|4.6|||Fisher Exact||The 95% Confidence Interval for difference in proportions are based on the Chan-Zhang method.|Rate of Deterioration of IPF Resulting in Lung Transplantation (%) in the 45 mg cohort versus placebo||4.6|-16.6|0.494
91030195|NCT00406848|181944955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.115||95.0||||p-value is for difference between duloxetine and placebo on change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 13.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.115
91030196|NCT00406848|181944955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0||||p-value is for difference between duloxetine and placebo on change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 25.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.004
91030197|NCT00406848|181944956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.773||95.0||||p-value is for HAMD-17 total score change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 13.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.773
91030198|NCT00406848|181944956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.084||95.0||||p-value is for HAMD-17 total score change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 25.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.084
91030199|NCT00406848|181944956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.059||95.0||||p-value is for Maier subscale change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 25.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.059
91030200|NCT00406848|181944956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.488||95.0||||p-value is for Bech subscale change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 13.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.488
91030201|NCT00406848|181944956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048||95.0||||p-value is for HAMD-17 Bech subscale change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 25.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.048
91030202|NCT00406848|181944956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.529||95.0||||p-value is for Core Mood subscale change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 13.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.529
91030203|NCT00406848|181944956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027||95.0||||p-value is for Core Mood subscale change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 25.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.027
91030204|NCT00406848|181944956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.749||95.0||||p-value is for Anxiety/Somatization subscale change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 13.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.749
91030205|NCT00406848|181944956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.296||95.0||||p-value is for Anxiety/Somatization subscale change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 25.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.296
91030206|NCT00406848|181944956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.984||95.0||||p-value is for Sleep subscale change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 13.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.984
91030207|NCT00406848|181944956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93||95.0||||p-value is for Sleep subscale change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 25.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.930
91030208|NCT00406848|181944956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.934||95.0||||p-value is for Retardation subscale change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 13.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.934
91030209|NCT00406848|181944956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.123||95.0||||p-value is for Retardation subscale change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 25.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.123
91030210|NCT00406848|181944957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034||95.0||||p-value is for Severity of Worst Pain Week 13 main effect of treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.034
91030211|NCT00406848|181944957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1||95.0||||p-value is for Severity of Worst Pain - Week 25 main effect of treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.100
91030212|NCT00406848|181944957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0||||p-value is for Severity of Least Pain Week 13 main effect of treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.009
91030213|NCT00406848|181944957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.126||95.0||||p-value is for Severity of Least Pain Week 25 main effect of treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.126
91030214|NCT00406848|181944957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value is for Severity of Average Pain Week 13 main effect of treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||<0.001
91030215|NCT00406848|181944957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013||95.0||||p-value is for Severity of Average Pain Week 25 main effect of treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.013
91095947|NCT05233761|182075437|SUPERIORITY|The mean nightly difference in SWS Sleep (min) in participants that received CBD-terpenes and the placebo control at the end of the two four-week treatment phases was analyzed using a two-sided test with an alpha level at 0.05 to evaluate superiority. The P-value and 95% confidence interval for the estimate of treatment difference in percentages was estimated and constructed using the above-mentioned method.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.0126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|5.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in SWS Sleep (min) in participants that received CBD-terpenes and the placebo control; the alternative hypothesis was that there was a significant difference among the two treatment groups.||5.9|0.7|0.0126
91095948|NCT05233761|182075437|SUPERIORITY|The mean nightly difference in REM sleep (min) in participants that received CBD-terpenes and the placebo control at the end of the two four-week treatment phases was analyzed using a two-sided test with an alpha level at 0.05 to evaluate superiority. The P-value and 95% confidence interval for the estimate of treatment difference in percentages was estimated and constructed using the above-mentioned method.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|5.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in REM Sleep (min) in participants that received CBD-terpenes and the placebo control; the alternative hypothesis was that there was a significant difference among the two treatment groups.||5.3|-2.7|0.51
91095949|NCT05233761|182075437|SUPERIORITY|The mean nightly difference in Light Sleep (min) in participants that received CBD-terpenes and the placebo control at the end of the two four-week treatment phases was analyzed using a two-sided test with an alpha level at 0.05 to evaluate superiority. The P-value and 95% confidence interval for the estimate of treatment difference in percentages was estimated and constructed using the above-mentioned method.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6||0.0574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|0.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in Light Sleep (min) in participants that received CBD-terpenes and the placebo control; the alternative hypothesis was that there was a significant difference among the two treatment groups.||0.2|-13.7|0.0574
91095950|NCT05233761|182075437|SUPERIORITY|The mean nightly difference in Awake Time (min) in participants that received CBD-terpenes and the placebo control at the end of the two four-week treatment phases was analyzed using a two-sided test with an alpha level at 0.05 to evaluate superiority. The P-value and 95% confidence interval for the estimate of treatment difference in percentages was estimated and constructed using the above-mentioned method.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|6.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in Awake Time (min) in participants that received CBD-terpenes and the placebo control; the alternative hypothesis was that there was a significant difference among the two treatment groups.||6.9|-2.4|0.3
91095951|NCT05233761|182075437|SUPERIORITY|The mean nightly difference in Total Sleep Time (min) in participants that received CBD-terpenes and the placebo control at the end of the two four-week treatment phases was analyzed using a two-sided test with an alpha level at 0.05 to evaluate superiority. The P-value and 95% confidence interval for the estimate of treatment difference in percentages was estimated and constructed using the above-mentioned method.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.7||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.1|2.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in Total Sleep Time (min) sleep in participants that received CBD-terpenes and the placebo control; the alternative hypothesis was that there was a significant difference among the two treatment groups.||2.4|-16.1|0.14
91095952|NCT05233761|182075438|SUPERIORITY|"The mean nightly difference in the perception of better sleep in participants that received CBD-terpenes and the placebo control at the end of the two four-week treatment phases was analyzed using a two-sided test with an alpha level at 0.05 to evaluate superiority. The P-value and 95% confidence interval for the estimate of treatment differences was estimated and constructed using the above-mentioned method."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||"The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the perception of better sleep in participants that received CBD-terpenes and the placebo control; the alternative hypothesis was that there was a significant difference among the two treatment groups."||1.3|-.7|0.53
90899620|NCT04503096|181665134|OTHER|Paired t-tests were conducted to test for pre- to post-treatment changes in cognition using Fluid Cognition Composite Scores.|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||< .001
90899621|NCT01872910|181665139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|20.0|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI.|||20.0|-2.1|
90899622|NCT01872910|181665139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-34.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.7|-23.2|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI.|||-23.2|-45.7|
90899623|NCT01872910|181665139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|43.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.7|54.9|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI.|||54.9|32.7|
90899624|NCT01872910|181665140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|0.2|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for TOPAR 0 to 4 h.|||0.2|-2.9|
90899625|NCT01872910|181665140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|6.0|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for TOPAR 0 to 4 h.|||6.0|2.9|
90899626|NCT01872910|181665140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|-4.3|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for TOPAR 0 to 4 h.|||-4.3|-7.4|
90899627|NCT01872910|181665140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|0.2|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for TOPAR 0 to 6 h.|||0.2|-5.2|
90899628|NCT01872910|181665140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|9.8|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for TOPAR 0 to 6 h.|||9.8|4.4|
91095953|NCT05233761|182075438|SUPERIORITY|"The mean nightly difference in the perception of sleep induction in participants that received CBD-terpenes and the placebo control at the end of the two four-week treatment phases was analyzed using a two-sided test with an alpha level at 0.05 to evaluate superiority. The P-value and 95% confidence interval for the estimate of treatment differences was estimated and constructed using the above-mentioned method."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||"The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the perception of sleep induction in participants that received CBD-terpenes and the placebo control; the alternative hypothesis was that there was a significant difference among the two treatment groups."||1.7|-0.6|0.32
91030216|NCT00406848|181944957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016||95.0||||p-value is for Severity of Pain Right Now Week 13 main effect of treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.016
91030217|NCT00406848|181944957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.058||95.0||||p-value is for Severity of Pain Right Now Week 25 main effect of treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.058
91030218|NCT00406848|181944957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011||95.0||||p-value is for Interference with General Activity Week 13 main effect of treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.011
91030219|NCT00406848|181944957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0||||p-value is for Interference with General Activity Week 25 main effect of treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.060
90899629|NCT01872910|181665140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|-6.9|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for TOPAR 0 to 6 h.|||-6.9|-12.2|
91095954|NCT05233761|182075438|SUPERIORITY|"The mean nightly difference in the perception of sleep duration in participants that received CBD-terpenes and the placebo control at the end of the two four-week treatment phases was analyzed using a two-sided test with an alpha level at 0.05 to evaluate superiority. The P-value and 95% confidence interval for the estimate of treatment differences was estimated and constructed using the above-mentioned method."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||"The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the perception of sleep duration in participants that received CBD-terpenes and the placebo control; the alternative hypothesis was that there was a significant difference among the two treatment groups."||1.9|-0.4|0.20
91104216|NCT04003142|182094843|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001||95.0|-0.42|-0.14||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 6||-0.14|-0.42|<0.001
91104217|NCT04003142|182094843|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|-0.02||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 7||-0.02|-0.31|0.030
91104218|NCT04003142|182094843|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.14||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 7||-0.14|-0.43|<0.001
91104219|NCT04003142|182094843|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.02||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 8||0.02|-0.28|0.095
91104220|NCT04003142|182094843|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.11||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 8||-0.11|-0.41|<0.001
91104221|NCT04003142|182094843|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.03||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 9||0.03|-0.28|0.109
91104222|NCT04003142|182094843|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.12||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 9||-0.12|-0.43|<0.001
91104223|NCT04003142|182094843|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.02||95.0|-0.35|-0.03||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 10||-0.03|-0.35|0.020
91104224|NCT04003142|182094843|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001||95.0|-0.47|-0.15||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 10||-0.15|-0.47|<0.001
91104225|NCT04003142|182094843|SUPERIORITY||LSMean diferrence|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.012||95.0|-0.37|-0.05||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 11||-0.05|-0.37|0.012
91104226|NCT04003142|182094843|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001||95.0|-0.47|-0.15||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 11||-0.15|-0.47|<0.001
91104227|NCT04003142|182094844|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-12.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.43|<|0.001||95.0|-18.9|-5.43||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 1||-5.43|-18.90|<0.001
91104228|NCT04003142|182094844|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-15.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.44|<|0.001||95.0|-22.44|-8.91||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 1||-8.91|-22.44|<0.001
91104229|NCT04003142|182094844|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-14.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.81|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.09|-7.13||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 2||-7.13|-22.09|<0.001
91104230|NCT04003142|182094844|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-15.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.82|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.45|-8.45||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 2||-8.45|-23.45|<0.001
91030220|NCT00406848|181944957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value is for Interference with Mood Week 13 main effect of treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||<0.001
91030221|NCT00406848|181944957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||p-value is for Interference with Mood Week 25 main effect of treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.002
91095955|NCT05233761|182075438|SUPERIORITY|"The mean nightly difference in the perception of sleep depth in participants that received CBD-terpenes and the placebo control at the end of the two four-week treatment phases was analyzed using a two-sided test with an alpha level at 0.05 to evaluate superiority. The P-value and 95% confidence interval for the estimate of treatment differences was estimated and constructed using the above-mentioned method."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||"The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the perception of sleep depth in participants that received CBD-terpenes and the placebo control; the alternative hypothesis was that there was a significant difference among the two treatment groups."||1.6|-0.7|0.45
91095956|NCT05233761|182075438|SUPERIORITY|"The mean nightly difference in the perception of vivid dreams in participants that received CBD-terpenes and the placebo control at the end of the two four-week treatment phases was analyzed using a two-sided test with an alpha level at 0.05 to evaluate superiority. The P-value and 95% confidence interval for the estimate of treatment differences was estimated and constructed using the above-mentioned method."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||"The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the perception of vivid dreams in participants that received CBD-terpenes and the placebo control; the alternative hypothesis was that there was a significant difference among the two treatment groups."||1.9|-0.8|0.4
91095957|NCT05252702|182075453|SUPERIORITY|"The primary safety endpoint hypothesis at 3 months was formally expressed as:~H0: CFR ≤ 78% vs. H1: CFR \> 78%~where 78% was the performance goal (PG)."|binomial proportion|90.3|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|87.0|||The CFR was estimated as a binomial proportion and a one-sided 97.5% lower confidence bound of the CFR was calculated using the normal approximation. The null hypothesis was to be rejected at the 2.5% significance level if the LCB exceeded the PG|one-sided Z-test|The p-value from a one-sided Z-test for the binomial proportion was calculated and compared to the 0.025 significance level.|||||87|<0.0001
91095958|NCT05252702|182075454|SUPERIORITY|"The primary safety endpoint hypothesis at 12 months was formally expressed as:~H0: CFR ≤ 76.5% vs. H1: CFR \> 76.5%~where 76.5% is the performance goal. The CFR was estimated using a Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and the 97.5% lower confidence bound of CFR was calculated using the Greenwood variance estimates."|Kaplan-Meier|88.6|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|84.5|||The null hypothesis was to be rejected at the 2.5% significance level if the LCB exceeded the Performance Goal (PG) of 76.5%.|one-sided Z-test|The p-value for the one-sided Z-test was calculated and compared to the 2.5% significance level.|||||84.5|<0.0001
91095959|NCT05252702|182075455|SUPERIORITY||binomial proportion|90.8|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|87.5|||The null hypothesis was to be rejected at the 2.5% significance level if the LCB exceeded the PG of 82.5%.|one-sided Z-test|The p-value for the one-sided Z-test was to be calculated and compared to the 2.5% significance level.||"The primary effectiveness endpoint #1 hypothesis at 3 month was formally expressed as:~H0: Rate ≤ 82.5% vs. H1: Rate \> 82.5%~where 82.5% was the performance goal (PG)."|||87.5|<0.0001
91095960|NCT05252702|182075456|SUPERIORITY||binomial proportion|92.8|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|89.7|||The null hypothesis was to be rejected at the 2.5% significance level if the LCB exceeded the PG of 80%.|one-sided Z-test|The p-value for the one-sided Z-test was to be calculated and compared to the 2.5% significance level.|The Rate at 12 months was estimated as a binomial proportion and the one-sided 97.5% LCB of the Rate was calculated using the normal approximation.|"The primary effectiveness endpoint #1 hypothesis at 12 months was formally expressed as:~H0: Rate ≤ 80% vs. H1: Rate \> 80%~where 80% was the performance goal (PG)."|||89.7|<0.0001
90957476|NCT03538301|181795025|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference (Final Values)|-4.8||||0.494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|4.5|||Fisher Exact||The 95% Confidence Interval for difference in proportions are based on the Chan-Zhang method.|Rate of Deterioration of IPF Resulting in Lung Transplantation (%) in the 90 mg cohort versus placebo||4.5|-16.2|0.494
91030222|NCT00406848|181944957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019||95.0||||p-value is for Interference with Walking Ability Week 13 main effect of treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.019
91095961|NCT05252702|182075457|SUPERIORITY||binomial proportion|98.2|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|96.6|||The null hypothesis was to be rejected at the 2.5% significance level if the LCB exceeded the PG of 83%.|one-sided Z-test|The p-value for the one-sided Z-test was to be calculated and compared to the 2.5% significance level.||"The primary effectiveness endpoint #2 hypothesis was formally expressed as:~H0: RateAV ≤ 83% vs. H1: RateAV \> 83%~where 83% is the performance goal."|||96.6|<0.0001
91030223|NCT00406848|181944957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0||||p-value is for Interference with Walking Ability Week 25 main effect of treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.040
91030224|NCT00406848|181944957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||p-value is for Interference with Normal Work Week 13 main effect of treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.003
91095962|NCT05252702|182075458|SUPERIORITY||binomial proportion|91.3||||0.0003|ONE_SIDED|97.5|88.1|||The null hypothesis was to be rejected at the 2.5% significance level if the lower confidence bound exceeded the Performance Goal (PG) of 84%.|one-sided Z-test|The p-value from a one-sided Z-test for the binomial proportion was to be calculated and compared to the 0.025 significance level.||"The secondary safety endpoint hypothesis at 3 months was formally expressed as:~H0: CFRA ≤ 84% vs. H1: CFRA \> 84%~where 84% was the performance goal."|||88.1|0.0003
91095963|NCT05252702|182075459|SUPERIORITY||Kaplan-Meier|91.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7|<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|87.1|||The null hypothesis was to be rejected at the 2.5% significance level if the LCB exceeded the Performance Goal (PG) of 82%.|one-sided Z-test|The p-value for the one-sided Z-test was to be calculated and compared to the 2.5% significance level.|The 97.5% lower confidence bound (LCB) of CFRA was calculated using the Greenwood variance estimates.|"The secondary safety endpoint hypothesis at 12 months was formally expressed as:~H0: CFRA ≤ 82% vs. H1: CFRA \> 82%~where 82% is the performance goal."|||87.1|<0.0001
91104231|NCT04003142|182094844|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-15.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.89|<|0.001||95.0|-23.16|-7.86||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 3||-7.86|-23.16|<0.001
91030225|NCT00406848|181944957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014||95.0||||p-value is for Interference with Normal Work Week 25 main effect of treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.014
91104232|NCT04003142|182094844|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-20.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9|<|0.001||95.0|-27.91|-12.59||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 3||-12.59|-27.91|<0.001
91104233|NCT04003142|182094844|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-16.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.92|<|0.001||95.0|-24.04|-8.63||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 4||-8.63|-24.04|<0.001
91104234|NCT04003142|182094844|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-21.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.92|<|0.001||95.0|-29.36|-13.94||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 4||-13.94|-29.36|<0.001
91104235|NCT04003142|182094844|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-15.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.89|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.27|-7.98||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 5||-7.98|-23.27|<0.001
91104236|NCT04003142|182094844|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-22.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.89|<|0.001||95.0|-30.52|-15.24||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 5||-15.24|-30.52|<0.001
91104237|NCT04003142|182094844|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-14.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.87|<|0.001||95.0|-22.38|-7.19||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 6||-7.19|-22.38|<0.001
90899630|NCT01872910|181665140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|-0.1|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for TOPAR 0 to 8 h.|||-0.1|-7.9|
91104238|NCT04003142|182094844|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-22.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.86|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.25|-15.07||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 6||-15.07|-30.25|<0.001
91104239|NCT04003142|182094844|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-14.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.01|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.86|-7.09||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 7||-7.09|-22.86|<0.001
91104240|NCT04003142|182094844|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-21.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.01|<|0.001||95.0|-29.34|-13.6||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 7||-13.60|-29.34|<0.001
91104241|NCT04003142|182094844|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-14.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.05|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.33|-6.43||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 8||-6.43|-22.33|<0.001
91104242|NCT04003142|182094844|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-20.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.03|<|0.001||95.0|-28.5|-12.65||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 8||-12.65|-28.50|<0.001
91030226|NCT00406848|181944957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0||||p-value is for Interference with Relations with Other People Week 13 main effect of treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.010
91030227|NCT00406848|181944957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0||||p-value is for Interference with Relations with Other People Week 25 main effect of treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.010
91030228|NCT00406848|181944957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015||95.0||||p-value is for Interference with Sleep Week 13 main effect of treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.015
91104243|NCT04003142|182094844|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-12.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.07||0.003||95.0|-20.14|-4.14||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 9||-4.14|-20.14|0.003
90849085|NCT03595618|181563972|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.2||Two-sided adjusted p-value taking into account Dunnett adjustment (to be compared to 0.05)|Mixed Models Analysis||Two-sided 95% Confidence Interval of the estimate without Dunnett adjustment|Stiffness subscore: Estimate (Standard Error) of adjusted difference from baseline to last post baseline value between treatment groups means: placebo minus GLPG1972 dose using MMRM including fixed, categorical effects of treatment, region (Asia and Rest of the World), time and treatment-by-time interaction, as well as continuous, fixed covariates of baseline and time-by-baseline interaction preceded by multiple imputation step for participants without post baseline value.||0.2|-0.5|0.858
90849086|NCT03595618|181563973|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|2.7||Two-sided adjusted p-value taking into account Dunnett adjustment (to be compared to 0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis||Two-sided 95% Confidence Interval of the estimate without Dunnett adjustment.|Estimate (Standard Error) of the adjusted difference from baseline to last post baseline value between treatment groups means: placebo minus GLPG1972 dose regimen using a MMRM including the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, region (Asia and Rest of the World), time and treatment-by-time interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline and time-by-baseline interaction preceded by a Multiple Imputation step for participants without post-baseline measurement.||2.7|-7.1|0.705
90849087|NCT03595618|181563973|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|0.8||Two-sided adjusted p-value taking into account Dunnett adjustment (to be compared to 0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis||Two-sided 95% Confidence Interval of the estimate without Dunnett adjustment.|Estimate (Standard Error) of the adjusted difference from baseline to last post baseline value between treatment groups means: placebo minus GLPG1972 dose regimen using a MMRM including the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, region (Asia and Rest of the World), time and treatment-by-time interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline and time-by-baseline interaction preceded by a Multiple Imputation step for participants without post-baseline measurement.||0.8|-9.0|0.243
90849088|NCT03595618|181563973|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|3.9||Two-sided adjusted p-value taking into account Dunnett adjustment (to be compared to 0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis||Two-sided 95% Confidence Interval of the estimate without Dunnett adjustment.|Estimate (Standard Error) of the adjusted difference from baseline to last post baseline value between treatment groups means: placebo minus GLPG1972 dose regimen using a MMRM including the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, region (Asia and Rest of the World), time and treatment-by-time interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline and time-by-baseline interaction preceded by a Multiple Imputation step for participants without post-baseline measurement.||3.9|-6.1|0.949
90849089|NCT03595618|181563974|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|6.3||Two-sided adjusted p-value taking into account Dunnett adjustment (to be compared to 0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis||Two-sided 95% Confidence Interval of the estimate without Dunnett adjustment.|Estimate (Standard Error) of the adjusted difference from baseline to last post baseline value between treatment groups means: GLPG1972 dose regimen minus placebo using a MMRM including the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, region (Asia and Rest of the World), time and treatment-by-time interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline and time-by-baseline interaction preceded by a Multiple Imputation step for participants without post-baseline measurement.||6.3|-3.4|0.890
90899631|NCT01872910|181665140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|13.0|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for TOPAR 0 to 8 h.|||13.0|5.3|
91030229|NCT00406848|181944957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||p-value is for Interference with Sleep Week 25 main effect of treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.005
91030230|NCT00406848|181944957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value is for Interference with Enjoyment of Life Week 13 main effect of treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||<0.001
90899632|NCT01872910|181665140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.9|-9.3|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for TOPAR 0 to 8 h.|||-9.3|-16.9|
90899633|NCT01872910|181665140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|0.5|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for TOPAR 0 to 12 h.|||0.5|-13.2|
91030231|NCT00406848|181944957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value is for Interference with Enjoyment of Life Week 25 main effect of treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||<0.001
91030232|NCT00406848|181944957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value is for Average Interference Score Week 13 main effect of treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||<0.001
91095964|NCT05252702|182075460|OTHER||mixed effects model for repeated measure|0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.04|||t-test, 1 sided|Two one-sided t-tests (TOST), with an alpha level of 0.025, and n-1 degrees of freedom.||"An analysis of these data provided an estimate of the 95% confidence interval for the mean slope across analyzable subjects, which had a pre-specified success criterion requiring that this confidence interval must fall between slopes of 65% and 135%. The following hypothesis was evaluated:~H0: Mean Slope \< 0.65 or Mean Slope \> 1.35~H1: 0.65 ≤ Mean Slope ≤ 1.35"||1.04|0.78|<0.001
91095965|NCT04153864|182075461|NON_INFERIORITY|The Non-Inferiority Margin (NIM) was defined as 10% of the mean EPDS score in the Specialist group (8.91), which corresponded to a value of 0.89. This predetermined NIM of 10% aligns with noninferiority guidelines and ensures clinically meaningful conclusions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.36|||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.86|||t-test, 1 sided|||Behavioral Activation (BA) delivered by Non-Specialists will be non-inferior to BA delivered by Specialists if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval for the estimated mean difference in EPDS scores is less than the pre-specified 10% non-inferiority margin (NIM).||0.86||<0.05
91095966|NCT04153864|182075461|NON_INFERIORITY|The NIM was defined as 13% of the mean EPDS score in the In-Person group (8.92), which corresponded to a value of 1.16. This predetermined NIM of 13% aligns with noninferiority guidelines and ensures clinically meaningful conclusions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23|||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.77|||t-test, 1 sided|||Behavioral Activation (BA) delivered via Telemedicine will be non-inferior to BA delivered In-Person if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval for the estimated mean difference in EPDS scores is less than the pre-specified 13% non-inferiority margin (NIM). Please note, this presents the Intention to Treat (ITT) analysis.||0.77||<0.05
91095967|NCT04153864|182075461|NON_INFERIORITY|The NIM was defined as 13% of the mean EPDS score in the In-Person group (8.81), which corresponded to a value of 1.15. This predetermined NIM of 13% aligns with noninferiority guidelines and ensures clinically meaningful conclusions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.36|||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.91|||t-test, 1 sided|||Behavioral Activation (BA) delivered via Telemedicine will be non-inferior to BA delivered In-Person if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval for the estimated mean difference in EPDS scores is less than the pre-specified 13% non-inferiority margin (NIM). Please note, this is per protocol analysis. Due to institutional pandemic-related restrictions, 21 participants were switched from In-Person to Telemedicine and met criteria for the per protocol analyses.||0.91||<0.05
91095968|NCT04153864|182075463|NON_INFERIORITY|The NIM was defined as 10% of the mean GAD-7 score for the Specialist group (6.36), which corresponded to a value of 0.64. This predetermined NIM of 10% aligns with noninferiority guidelines and ensures clinically meaningful conclusions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.57|||t-test, 1 sided|||Behavioral Activation (BA) delivered by Non-Specialists will be non-inferior to BA delivered by Specialists if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval for the estimated mean difference in GAD-7 scores is less than the pre-specified 10% non-inferiority margin (NIM).This analysis was performed on 3-months post-randomization scores.||0.57||<0.05
91095969|NCT04153864|182075463|NON_INFERIORITY|The NIM was defined as 13% of the mean GAD-7 score in the In-Person group (6.29), which corresponded to a value of 0.82. This predetermined NIM of 13% aligns with noninferiority guidelines and ensures clinically meaningful conclusions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.73|||t-test, 1 sided|||Behavioral Activation (BA) delivered via Telemedicine will be non-inferior to BA delivered In-Person if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval for the estimated mean difference in GAD-7 scores is less than the pre-specified 13% non-inferiority margin (NIM). Please note, this presents the Intention to Treat (ITT) analysis.||0.73||<0.05
91095970|NCT06442800|182075465|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Multiple cancers vs. Control||||<0.001
91095971|NCT06442800|182075465|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Dementia vs. Control||||<0.001
91095972|NCT06442800|182075465|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Colorectal cancer vs. Control||||<0.001
91095973|NCT06442800|182075465|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Liver cancer vs. Control||||<0.001
90849090|NCT03595618|181563974|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|2.6||Two-sided adjusted p-value taking into account Dunnett adjustment (to be compared to 0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis||Two-sided 95% Confidence Interval of the estimate without Dunnett adjustment.|Estimate (Standard Error) of the adjusted difference from baseline to last post baseline value between treatment groups means: GLPG1972 dose regimen minus placebo using a MMRM including the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, region (Asia and Rest of the World), time and treatment-by-time interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline and time-by-baseline interaction preceded by a Multiple Imputation step for participants without post-baseline measurement.||2.6|-7.1|0.682
90859822|NCT02899299|181583057|SUPERIORITY|Treatment A over Treatment B|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|96.6|0.6|0.91||Boundary for statistical significance was a p-value \< 0.0345|Stratified Log Rank|This is 2 sided p-value from log-rank test stratified by histology and sex as entered in the IRT|Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|||0.91|0.60|0.0020
91095974|NCT06442800|182075465|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Throat and mouth cancer vs. Control||||<0.001
91095975|NCT06442800|182075465|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Liver disease vs. Control||||<0.001
91095976|NCT06442800|182075465|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hypertension vs. Control||||<0.001
91095977|NCT06442800|182075465|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Current warning vs. Control||||<0.001
91095978|NCT06442800|182075465|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Guidelines vs. Control||||<0.001
91095979|NCT06442800|182075466|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Multiple cancers vs. Control||||<0.001
91095980|NCT06442800|182075466|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Dementia vs. Control||||<0.001
90859823|NCT02899299|181583060|SUPERIORITY|Treatment A over Treatment B|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.13|||||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|||1.13|0.77|
91095981|NCT06442800|182075466|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Colorectal cancer vs. Control||||<0.001
91095982|NCT06442800|182075466|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Liver cancer vs. Control||||<0.001
91095983|NCT06442800|182075466|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Throat and mouth cancer vs. Control||||<0.001
91095984|NCT06442800|182075466|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Liver disease vs. Control||||<0.001
91095985|NCT06442800|182075466|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hypertension vs. Control||||<0.001
91095986|NCT06442800|182075466|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Current warning vs. Control||||<0.001
91095987|NCT06442800|182075466|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Guidelines vs. Control||||<0.001
91095988|NCT06442800|182075467|SUPERIORITY||Difference in predicted proportions|0.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Multiple cancers vs. Control||||<0.001
91095989|NCT06442800|182075467|SUPERIORITY||Difference in predicted proportions|0.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Dementia vs. Control||||<0.001
91095990|NCT06442800|182075467|SUPERIORITY||Difference in predicted proportions|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Colorectal cancer vs. Control||||<0.001
91095991|NCT06442800|182075467|SUPERIORITY||Difference in predicted proportions|0.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Liver cancer vs. Control||||<0.001
91095992|NCT06442800|182075467|SUPERIORITY||Difference in predicted proportions|0.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Throat and mouth cancer vs. Control||||<0.001
91095993|NCT06442800|182075467|SUPERIORITY||Difference in predicted proportions|0.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Liver disease vs. Control||||<0.001
90849091|NCT03595618|181563974|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|5.0||Two-sided adjusted p-value taking into account Dunnett adjustment (to be compared to 0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis||Two-sided 95% Confidence Interval of the estimate without Dunnett adjustment.|Estimate (Standard Error) of the adjusted difference from baseline to last post baseline value between treatment groups means: GLPG1972 dose regimen minus placebo using a MMRM including the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, region (Asia and Rest of the World), time and treatment-by-time interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline and time-by-baseline interaction preceded by a Multiple Imputation step for participants without post-baseline measurement.||5.0|-4.8|1.000
90859824|NCT02899299|181583061|SUPERIORITY|Treatment A vs Treatment B|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.32||||||\<1% PD-L1||1.32|0.64|
91095994|NCT06442800|182075467|SUPERIORITY||Difference in predicted proportions|0.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hypertension vs. Control||||<0.001
91095995|NCT06442800|182075467|SUPERIORITY||Difference in predicted proportions|0.04||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Current warning vs. Control||||0.02
91095996|NCT06442800|182075467|SUPERIORITY||Difference in predicted proportions|0.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Guidelines vs. Control||||<0.001
91095997|NCT01654276|182075475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.66|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.66
91096002|NCT01192178|182075517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.971||||0.928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.519|1.819||Cox Proportional Hazards model adjusted for investigative center|Regression, Cox||The risk of having an asthma exacerbation during the treatment period was analyzed.|||1.819|0.519|0.928
91096003|NCT00296517|182075525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.805||95.0|-1.6|2.0|||ANOVA|||Null Hypothesis: The population mean change from baseline on HAM-D total score at Week 12 of the placebo group is equal to the population mean change from baseline on HAMD total score at Week 12 of the Bupropion hydrochloride sustained release group.||2.0|-1.6|0.805
91096004|NCT00296517|182075535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.036|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.036
91096005|NCT02164916|182075537|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.48||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.75|||Log Rank|||||0.75|0.31|0.001
91096006|NCT01143324|182075566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|1.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|1.3||||||||1.3|1.2|
91096007|NCT01143324|182075567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from pre-op mean|-3.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|-2.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-2.9|-3.6|<0.0001
91096008|NCT01143324|182075568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from pre-op mean|-3.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|-3.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-3.3|-4.2|<0.0001
91096009|NCT01143324|182075569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from pre-op mean|0.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.41|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.41|0.30|<0.0001
91096010|NCT01143324|182075571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|27.0|||||||||||||61/226 patients underwent a rehabilitation programs between 6 and 12 months follow up visit, making it 27.0 % of the total.|||||
91096011|NCT01143324|182075572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|1.2|||||||||||||The rate of additional lumbar spinal surgeries at treated level was 1.2% (3/252) patients.|||||
91096012|NCT01143324|182075573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|1.6|||||||||||||The rate of additional lumbar spinal surgeries at the same level was 1.6% (4/252) patients.|||||
91096013|NCT01143324|182075574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage at 12 months|47.6||||||||||||||||||
91096014|NCT01143324|182075576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from pre-op mean|-23.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.5|-20.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-20.5|-25.5|<0.0001
91096015|NCT01143324|182075577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|42.7||||||||||||||||||
91096016|NCT01143324|182075578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|3.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.0||||95.0|2.9|3.4||||||||3.4|2.9|
91096017|NCT00846365|182075598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|-3.8||Statistical significance was set at the 0.05 level per the predefined stepwise testing strategy used.|ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect and Baseline as a covariate.||-3.8|-8.4|<0.001
91096018|NCT00846365|182075598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|-4.4||Statistical significance was set at the 0.05 level per the predefined stepwise testing strategy used.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and Baseline as a covariate.||-4.4|-9.1|<0.001
91096019|NCT00846365|182075599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|-3.7||Statistical significance was set at the 0.05 level per the predefined stepwise testing strategy used.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and Baseline as a covariate.||-3.7|-8.5|<0.001
91096020|NCT00846365|182075599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-7.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|-4.8||Statistical significance was set at the 0.05 level per the predefined stepwise testing strategy used.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and Baseline as a covariate.||-4.8|-9.6|<0.001
91096021|NCT00846365|182075603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|-3.7||Tested at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis for Week 8. ANOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect. Post-baseline p-values are obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||-3.7|-7.5|<0.001
91096022|NCT00846365|182075603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|-5.2||Tested at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis for Week 8. ANOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect. Post-baseline p-values are obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||-5.2|-9.1|<0.001
91096023|NCT00689936|182075661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||6e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.85||The p-value is based on the unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Based on stratified Cox proportional hazards model comparing the hazard functions associated with treatment groups.|||0.85|0.61|0.00006
91096024|NCT00689936|182075661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.82||The p-value is based on the unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Based on stratified Cox proportional hazards model comparing the hazard functions associated with treatment groups.|||0.82|0.60|0.00001
91096025|NCT00689936|182075661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.70349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.2||The p-value is based on the unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Based on stratified Cox proportional hazards model comparing the hazard functions associated with treatment groups.|||1.20|0.89|0.70349
91096026|NCT00689936|182075662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.79||The p-value is based on the unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Based on a stratified Cox proportional hazards model|||0.79|0.59|<0.00001
91096027|NCT00689936|182075662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.81||The p-value is based on the unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Based on a stratified Cox proportional hazards model|||0.81|0.60|<0.00001
91096028|NCT00689936|182075662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.91161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.14||The p-value is based on the unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Based on a stratified Cox proportional hazards model|||1.14|0.86|0.91161
91096029|NCT00689936|182075663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.00234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.92||The p-value is based on the unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Based on a stratified Cox proportional hazards model|||0.92|0.67|0.00234
90849092|NCT03595618|181563975|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.58||Two-sided adjusted p-value taking into account Dunnett adjustment (to be compared to 0.05).|Logistic Model||Two-sided 95% Confidence Interval of the estimate without Dunnett adjustment.|Estimate (Standard Error of log \[estimate\]) of the adjusted odds ratio between GLPG1972 dose regimen and placebo: between the proportions of participants with response: placebo versus GLPG1972 dose regimen.||1.58|0.70|0.991
91030233|NCT00406848|181944957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||p-value is for Average Interference Score Week 25 main effect of treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.001
91096030|NCT00689936|182075663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.82903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.2||The p-value is based on the unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Based on a stratified Cox proportional hazards model|||1.20|0.86|0.82903
91096031|NCT00689936|182075663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.00119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.9||The p-value is based on the unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Based on a stratified Cox proportional hazards model|||0.90|0.66|0.00119
91096032|NCT00689936|182075664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.83|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|2.37|||Fisher Exact|||||2.37|1.41|<0.00001
91096033|NCT00689936|182075664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.53065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.44|||Fisher Exact|||||1.44|0.83|0.53065
91096034|NCT00689936|182075664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|2.15|||Fisher Exact|||||2.15|1.29|0.00010
91096035|NCT00689936|182075665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.02|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|2.68|||Fisher Exact|||||2.68|1.53|<0.00001
91096036|NCT00689936|182075665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.54|||Fisher Exact|||||1.54|0.85|0.40500
91096037|NCT00689936|182075665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77||||4e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|2.32|||Fisher Exact|||||2.32|1.35|0.00004
91096038|NCT00689936|182075666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.76||The p-value is based on the unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Based on unstratified Cox proportional hazards model.|||0.76|0.51|<0.00001
91096039|NCT00689936|182075666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.72||The p-value is based on the unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Based on unstratified Cox proportional hazards model.|||0.72|0.50|<0.00001
90849093|NCT03595618|181563975|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.43||Two-sided adjusted p-value taking into account Dunnett adjustment (to be compared to 0.05).|Logistic Model||Two-sided 95% Confidence Interval of the estimate without Dunnett adjustment.|Estimate (Standard Error of log \[estimate\]) of the adjusted odds ratio between GLPG1972 dose regimen and placebo: between the proportions of participants with response: placebo versus GLPG1972 dose regimen.||1.43|0.64|0.992
90849094|NCT03595618|181563975|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.23||Two-sided adjusted p-value taking into account Dunnett adjustment (to be compared to 0.05).|Logistic Model||Two-sided 95% Confidence Interval of the estimate without Dunnett adjustment.|Estimate (Standard Error of log \[estimate\]) of the adjusted odds ratio between GLPG1972 dose regimen and placebo: between the proportions of participants with response: placebo versus GLPG1972 dose regimen.||1.23|0.55|0.653
91096040|NCT00689936|182075666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.7674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.23||The p-value is based on the unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Based on unstratified Cox proportional hazards model.|||1.23|0.86|0.76740
91096041|NCT00689936|182075667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.72||The p-value is based on the unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Based on a stratified Cox proportional hazards model|||0.72|0.51|<0.00001
91096042|NCT00689936|182075667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.72||The p-value is based on the unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Based on a stratified Cox proportional hazards model|||0.72|0.52|<0.00001
90859825|NCT02899299|181583061|SUPERIORITY|Treatment A vs Treatment B|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.88||||||≥1% PD-L1||0.88|0.59|
91030234|NCT00406848|181944958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||p-value is for Overall Pain Week 13 main effect of treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||.005
91096043|NCT00689936|182075667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.99537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.17||The p-value is based on the unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Based on a stratified Cox proportional hazards model|||1.17|0.85|0.99537
91096044|NCT00689936|182075668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|1e-05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.00001
91096045|NCT00689936|182075668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.46672|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.46672
91096046|NCT00689936|182075668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|1e-05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.00001
91096047|NCT00689936|182075669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|1e-05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.00001
91096048|NCT00689936|182075669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.46987|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.46987
91096049|NCT00689936|182075669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|1e-05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.00001
91096050|NCT00689936|182075670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.00012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.88||The p-value is based on the unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Based on a stratified Cox proportional hazards model|||0.88|0.68|0.00012
91096051|NCT00689936|182075670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.00187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.93||The p-value is based on the unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Based on a stratified Cox proportional hazards model|||0.93|0.71|0.00187
91096052|NCT00689936|182075670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.45973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.08||The p-value is based on the unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Based on a stratified Cox proportional hazards model|||1.08|0.84|0.45973
91096053|NCT00689936|182075671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||2e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.86||The p-value is based on the unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Based on a stratified Cox proportional hazards model|||0.86|0.67|0.00002
91096054|NCT00689936|182075671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.00126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.92||The p-value is based on the unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Based on a stratified Cox proportional hazards model|||0.92|0.72|0.00126
91096055|NCT00689936|182075671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.27704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.06||The p-value is based on the unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Based on a stratified Cox proportional hazards model|||1.06|0.83|0.27704
91096056|NCT00689936|182075672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.78||The p-value is based on the unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Based on a stratified Cox proportional hazards model|||0.78|0.56|<0.00001
91096057|NCT00689936|182075672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.00067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.88||The p-value is based on the unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Based on a stratified Cox proportional hazards model|||0.88|0.63|0.00067
91096058|NCT00689936|182075672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.12333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.03||The p-value is based on the unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Based on a stratified Cox proportional hazards model|||1.03|0.75|0.12333
91096059|NCT00689936|182075673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.73||The p-value is based on the unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Based on unstratified Cox proportional hazards model.|||.73|0.54|<0.00001
91096060|NCT00689936|182075673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.83||The p-value is based on the unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Based on unstratified Cox proportional hazards model.|||0.83|0.61|0.00001
91096061|NCT00689936|182075673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.05821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.0||The p-value is based on the unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Based on unstratified Cox proportional hazards model.|||1.00|0.76|0.05821
91096062|NCT00689936|182075674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.93824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.38|||Fisher Exact|||||1.38|0.75|0.93824
91096063|NCT00689936|182075674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.08836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.03|||Fisher Exact|||||1.03|0.56|0.08836
91096064|NCT00689936|182075674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.04974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.79|||Fisher Exact|||||1.79|1.01|0.04974
91096065|NCT00689936|182075675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68||||0.02134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|2.59|||Fisher Exact|||||2.59|1.08|0.02134
91096066|NCT00689936|182075675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.59|||Fisher Exact|||||1.59|0.64|1.00000
91096067|NCT00689936|182075675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.65||||0.02374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|2.53|||Fisher Exact|||||2.53|1.08|0.02374
91096068|NCT00689936|182075676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.11152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|3.21|||Fisher Exact|||||3.21|0.91|0.11152
91096069|NCT00689936|182075676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.86336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.83|||Fisher Exact|||||1.83|0.47|0.86336
91096070|NCT00689936|182075676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.84||||0.07321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|3.55|||Fisher Exact|||||3.55|0.96|0.07321
90859826|NCT02899299|181583062|SUPERIORITY|Treatment A vs Treatment B|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|2.63||||||\< 1% PD-L1||2.63|1.22|
91096071|NCT00689936|182075677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.62||||0.00043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|4.45|||Fisher Exact|||||4.45|1.55|0.00043
91096072|NCT00689936|182075677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.31274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.43|||Fisher Exact|||||2.43|0.78|0.31274
91096073|NCT00689936|182075677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.01936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|3.19|||Fisher Exact|||||3.19|1.13|0.01936
91096074|NCT00689936|182075678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.82128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|2.8|||Fisher Exact|||||2.80|0.46|0.82128
91096075|NCT00689936|182075678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.46||||0.11041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.14|||Fisher Exact|||||1.14|0.19|0.11041
91096076|NCT00689936|182075678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.44||||0.07302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|5.91|||Fisher Exact|||||5.91|1.01|0.07302
91096077|NCT01138735|182075721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||No adjustment for multiplicity is required. The tests will be conducted as two-sided, each at the 0.05 significance level. The trial will be claimed 'positive' if all primary analyses are shown statistically significant at the 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel(CMH) test stratified by analysis center, using general association statistics||"null hypothesis: no difference in Success rate in two treatment groups (adapalene/benzoyl peroxide vs Topical Gel Vehicle).~power calculation: 90%"||||<0.001
91096078|NCT01138735|182075722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||No adjustment for multiplicity is required. The tests will be conducted as two-sided, each at the 0.05 significance level. The trial will be claimed 'positive' if all primary analyses are shown statistically significant at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|normality assumption is not met. ANCOVA Model: Ranked Change in Total Lesion Counts = Ranked Baseline Lesion Counts, Analysis Center, Treatment.||null hypothesis: no difference in change from baseline in total lesion count in two treatment groups (adapalene/benzoyl peroxide vs Topical Gel Vehicle)||||<0.001
91096079|NCT01138735|182075723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test with row mean difference statistic using relative to an identified distribution(RIDIT) score, controlling for analysis center||||||<0.001
91096080|NCT01138735|182075724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Ranked Change in Inflammatory Lesion Counts = Ranked Baseline Inflammatory Lesion Counts, Analysis Center, Treatment||||||<0.001
91096081|NCT06001866|182075725|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||LSD test|||||||<0.0001
91096082|NCT06001866|182075725|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||LSD test|||||||<0.00001
91096083|NCT06001866|182075726|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||LSD test|||||||<0.00001
91096084|NCT06001866|182075726|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||LSD test|||||||<0.00001
91096085|NCT06001866|182075727|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.78|||||||LSD test|||||||=0.78
91096086|NCT06001866|182075727|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||LSD test|||||||<.00001
91096087|NCT06001866|182075728|SUPERIORITY||||||=|1|||||||LSD test|||||||=1.00
91096088|NCT06001866|182075728|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||LSD test|||||||<0.00001
91096089|NCT06001866|182075729|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.75|||||||LSD test|||||||=0.75
91096090|NCT06001866|182075729|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||LSD test|||||||<0.01
91096091|NCT06001866|182075730|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||LSD test|||||||<0.00001
91096092|NCT06001866|182075730|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.62|||||||LSD test|||||||=0.62
91096093|NCT06001866|182075731|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.16|||||||LSD test|||||||=0.16
91096094|NCT06001866|182075731|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.33|||||||LSD test|||||||=0.33
91096095|NCT06001866|182075732|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.54|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=.54
91096096|NCT06001866|182075733|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
90957477|NCT04155203|181795026|EQUIVALENCE|The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of subjects in each treatment group with clinical cure, defined as a SIRS score of 0 for all signs and symptoms at Visit 4/Follow-up (7 days after the end of treatment).|equivalence ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.19|2.7||||||||2.70|-8.19|
91096097|NCT04725188|182075744|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.13|||Regression, Cox|||||1.13|0.53|0.0910
91096098|NCT04725188|182075744|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.4||||0.9622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|2.02|||Regression, Cox|||||2.02|0.96|0.9622
91096099|NCT04725188|182075745|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|14.7||||0.0113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|26.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||26.9|2.1|0.0113
91096100|NCT04725188|182075745|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-9.4||||0.975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.6|0.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||0.0|-19.6|0.9750
91030235|NCT00406848|181944958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.204||95.0||||p-value is for Overall Pain Week 25 main effect of treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.204
91096101|NCT04725188|182075746|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.0943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.15|||Regression, Cox|||||1.15|0.50|0.0943
91096102|NCT04725188|182075746|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.5974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.58|||Regression, Cox|||||1.58|0.70|0.5974
91096103|NCT00876343|182075766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|-0.6|||ANCOVA|||||-0.6|-3.7|0.006
91096104|NCT00876343|182075766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|-1.5|||ANCOVA|||||-1.5|-4.6|<0.001
91096105|NCT04717557|182075811|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.0
91096106|NCT04717557|182075811|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.5||||||Underpowered due to early termination.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||>0.5
91096107|NCT04717557|182075812|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.5||||||Underpowered due to early termination.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||>0.5
91096108|NCT04717557|182075813|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.5||||||Underpowered due to early termination.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||>0.5
91096109|NCT04717557|182075814|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.5||||||Underpowered due to early termination.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.5
91096110|NCT04717557|182075815|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.5|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Underpowered - no statistically significant difference.||||>0.5
91096111|NCT04717557|182075816|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.5||||||Underpowered due to early termination.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||>0.5
91096112|NCT04717557|182075817|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.5||||||Underpowered due to early termination.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||>0.5
91096113|NCT04717557|182075818|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.5||||||Underpowered due to early termination.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||>0.5
91096114|NCT04717557|182075819|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.5||||||Underpowered due to early termination.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||>0.5
91096115|NCT06354257|182075820|EQUIVALENCE|The 90% CI for each ratio was compared to 0.8 and 1.25.|Geometric mean ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.55|1.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis was performed using linear mixed effect models with treatment as a fixed effect and subject as a random effect.|One-sided tests (alpha=0.05) were used. 90% CIs for each ratio were compared to 0.8-1.25. No drug interaction is shown if CIs for AUC(0-inf) and Cmax of EE and LNG fall within 0.8-1.25.|A confirmatory hypothesis testing to test the effect of GSK3036656 on the AUC(0-inf) of EE.||1.41|0.55|
91096116|NCT06354257|182075820|EQUIVALENCE|The 90% CI for each ratio was compared to 0.8 and 1.25.|Geometric mean ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|1.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis was performed using linear mixed effect models with treatment as a fixed effect and subject as a random effect.|One-sided tests (alpha=0.05) were used. 90% CIs for each ratio were compared to 0.8-1.25. No drug interaction is shown if CIs for AUC(0-inf) and Cmax of EE and LNG fall within 0.8-1.25.|A confirmatory hypothesis testing to test the effect of GSK3036656 on the AUC(0-inf) of LNG.||1.23|0.98|
91096117|NCT06354257|182075821|EQUIVALENCE|The 90% CI for each ratio was compared to 0.8 and 1.25.|Geometric mean ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|1.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis was performed using linear mixed effect models with treatment as a fixed effect and subject as a random effect.|One-sided tests (alpha=0.05) were used. 90% CIs for each ratio were compared to 0.8-1.25. No drug interaction is shown if CIs for AUC(0-inf) and Cmax of EE and LNG fall within 0.8-1.25.|A confirmatory hypothesis testing to test the effect of GSK3036656 on the Cmax of EE.||1.09|0.85|
91096118|NCT06354257|182075821|EQUIVALENCE|The 90% CI for each ratio was compared to 0.8 and 1.25.|Geometric mean ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis was performed using linear mixed effect models with treatment as a fixed effect and subject as a random effect.|One-sided tests (alpha=0.05) were used. 90% CIs for each ratio were compared to 0.8-1.25. No drug interaction is shown if CIs for AUC(0-inf) and Cmax of EE and LNG fall within 0.8-1.25.|A confirmatory hypothesis testing to test the effect of GSK3036656 on the Cmax of LNG.||1.19|0.97|
91096119|NCT00720759|182075855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.54|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||A general linear model was employed. The independent variables were baseline WMFT score, treatment (condensed vs distributed), treatment (d-cycloserine vs placebo), and treatment interaction effect. The dependent measure was WMFT score at 3 months post treatment.||||<0.05
91096120|NCT03100747|182075865|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.97|1.52||The a priori threshold for statistical significance (adjusted for multiple comparisons) is 0.0167.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.52|0.97|0.039
91096121|NCT03100747|182075865|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.91|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.3|1.54|2.36||The a priori threshold for statistical significance (adjusted for multiple comparisons) is 0.0167.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.36|1.54|<0.0001
91096122|NCT03100747|182075865|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.3|1.29|1.92||The a priori threshold for statistical significance (adjusted for multiple comparisons) is 0.0167.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.92|1.29|<0.0001
91096123|NCT03100747|182075870|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.65|1.08||p-values adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Logistic|||||1.08|0.65|0.094
91096124|NCT03100747|182075870|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.38|0.67||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons, the a priori threshold for statistical significance (adjusted for multiple comparisons) is 0.0167.|Regression, Logistic|||||0.67|0.38|<0.0001
91096125|NCT03100747|182075870|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.45|0.8||The a priori threshold for statistical significance (adjusted for multiple comparisons) is 0.0167.|Regression, Logistic|||||0.80|0.45|<0.0001
91096126|NCT03100747|182075875|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.64|1.17|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.17|0.64|0.24
91096127|NCT03100747|182075875|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.68||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.49|0.93|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.93|0.49|0.0037
91096128|NCT03100747|182075875|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.57|1.09|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.09|0.57|0.08
91096129|NCT04070703|182075978|SUPERIORITY|The co-primary outcome data were analyzed via a Group by Time mixed-effects model with repeated measures on the second factor (i.e., outcome measures assessed at baseline and 6 months. In the presence of a Group by Time interaction effect, pre-specified follow-up pair-wise comparisons were performed to determine between-group differences.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8||||0.0125|TWO_SIDED|98.75|2.1|3.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.6|2.1|0.0125
91096130|NCT04070703|182075978|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5||||0.0125|TWO_SIDED|98.75|0.07|2.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.2|.07|.0125
91096131|NCT04070703|182075979|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.9||||0.0125|TWO_SIDED|98.75|2.8|16.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||16.6|2.8|.0125
91096132|NCT04070703|182075979|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.0||||0.0125|TWO_SIDED|98.75|12.6|31.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||31.2|12.6|.0125
91096133|NCT04070703|182075980|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-.1|-.5|0.05
91096134|NCT04070703|182075980|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-.3|-.7|.05
91096135|NCT04070703|182075981|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.1||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|-8.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8|-20|.05
91096136|NCT04070703|182075981|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.0|-16.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-16|-28|.05
91096137|NCT04070703|182075982|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||.1|-.4|<.05
91096138|NCT04070703|182075982|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.2|.4|<.05
91096139|NCT04070703|182075983|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.6|.5|<.05
91096140|NCT04070703|182075983|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|2.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.7|1.6|<.05
91096141|NCT04070703|182075984|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|2.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.1|-.4|<.05
91096142|NCT04070703|182075984|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.4|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|5.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5|3.1|<.05
91096143|NCT04070703|182075985|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||.7|-.3|<.05
91096144|NCT04070703|182075985|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.4|-2.4|<.05
91096145|NCT04070703|182075986|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||.4|-1.4|<.05
91030236|NCT00406848|181944958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.078||95.0||||p-value is for Headaches Week 13 main effect of treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.078
91030237|NCT00406848|181944958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.147||95.0||||p-value is for Headaches Week 25 main effect of treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.147
91030238|NCT00406848|181944958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0||||p-value is for Back Pain Week 13 main effect of treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.007
91030239|NCT00406848|181944958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013||95.0||||p-value is for Back Pain Week 25 main effect of treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.013
91030240|NCT00406848|181944958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.124||95.0||||p-value is for Shoulder Pain Week 13 main effect of treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.124
91030241|NCT00406848|181944958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.231||95.0||||p-value is for Shoulder Pain Week 25 main effect of treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.231
91030242|NCT00406848|181944958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0||||p-value is for Interference with Daily Activities Week 13 main effect of treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.006
90899634|NCT01872910|181665140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.6|19.2|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for TOPAR 0 to 12 h.|||19.2|6.6|
91030243|NCT00406848|181944958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019||95.0||||p-value is for Interference with Daily Activities Week 25 main effect of treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit||||||0.019
91096146|NCT04070703|182075986|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.3|.8|<.05
91030244|NCT00406848|181944958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||p-value is for Time in Pain While Awake Week 13 main effect of treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.002
91096147|NCT04070703|182075987|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.1|-.1|<.05
91096148|NCT04070703|182075987|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|2.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.8|1.6|<.05
90899635|NCT01872910|181665140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.9|-13.5|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for TOPAR 0 to 12 h.|||-13.5|-25.9|
90899636|NCT01872910|181665140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.8|-2.0|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for TOPAR 0 to 24 h.|||-2.0|-30.8|
90899637|NCT01872910|181665140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.0|37.2|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for TOPAR 0 to 24 h.|||37.2|9.0|
91030245|NCT00406848|181944958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036||95.0||||p-value is for Time in Pain While Awake Week 25 main effect of treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.036
91030246|NCT00406848|181944959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.214||95.0||||p-value is for PGI-I at Week 13.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: PGI-I = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit||||||0.214
91096149|NCT04070703|182075988|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||.8|-.7|<.05
91096150|NCT04070703|182075988|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.3|-3.1|<.05
91030247|NCT00406848|181944959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.063||95.0||||p-value is for PGI-I at Week 25.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: PGI-I = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit||||||.063
91030248|NCT00406848|181944960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.162||95.0||||p-value is for change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 13.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||.162
91030249|NCT00406848|181944960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0||||p-value is for change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 25.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||.009
91030250|NCT00406848|181944961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.555||95.0||||p-value is for change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 9.|ANCOVA|Model: Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Baseline||||||0.555
91030251|NCT00406848|181944961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.785||95.0||||p-value is for change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 25.|ANCOVA|Model: Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Baseline||||||.785
91030252|NCT00406848|181944962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.255||95.0||||p-value is for change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 13.|ANCOVA|Model: Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Baseline||||||0.255
91030253|NCT00406848|181944962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038||95.0||||p-value is for change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 25.|ANCOVA|Model: Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Baseline||||||0.038
91030254|NCT00406848|181944963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.706||95.0||||p-values for Week 13 remission (HAMD17 ≤ 7).|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Remission = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Baseline + Treatment\*Visit.||||||0.706
91096151|NCT04070703|182075989|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.2|-.3|<.05
91096152|NCT04070703|182075989|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-.2|-1.8|<.05
91096153|NCT04070703|182075990|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|2.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2|-.4|<.05
91096154|NCT04070703|182075990|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.7|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|7.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.9|3.1|<.05
91096155|NCT04070703|182075991|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||.03|-.04|<.05
91096156|NCT04070703|182075991|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||.11|.03|<.05
91096157|NCT04070703|182075992|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|6.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6|-2|<.05
91096158|NCT04070703|182075992|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|125.5|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|84.0|166.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||166|84|<.05
91096159|NCT04070703|182075993|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-.1|-.3|<.05
91096160|NCT04070703|182075993|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-.4|-.7|<.05
91096161|NCT05028569|182076008|SUPERIORITY|P-value/95% CI obtained from mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) for primary analysis of the 2 visits across Months 5 and 6. Tx (BOTOX 195 U, 155 U, placebo), month (Months 1-6), country, strata of previous exposure to migraine prophylactic treatment, and Tx group-by-month interaction as fixed effects, with Baseline monthly migraine days as covariate, included as a continuous variable rather than the binomial stratification variable. Subject/residual errors are random effects.|LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|=|0.914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.69|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||LS Mean Difference = BOTOX 195 U - Placebo|BOTOX 195 U vs Placebo||0.69|-0.62|=0.914
91096162|NCT05028569|182076008|SUPERIORITY|P-value/95% CI obtained from mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) for primary analysis of the 2 visits across Months 5 and 6. Tx (BOTOX 195 U, 155 U, placebo), month (Months 1-6), country, strata of previous exposure to migraine prophylactic treatment, and Tx group-by-month interaction as fixed effects, with Baseline monthly migraine days as covariate, included as a continuous variable rather than the binomial stratification variable. Subject/residual errors are random effects.|LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|=|0.745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.55|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||LS Mean Difference = BOTOX 155 U - Placebo|BOTOX 155 U vs Placebo||0.55|-0.76|=0.745
91096163|NCT05028569|182076010|SUPERIORITY|P-value/95% CI obtained from mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) for primary analysis of the 2 visits across Months 5 and 6. Tx (BOTOX 195 U, 155 U, placebo), month (Months 1-6), country, strata of previous exposure to migraine prophylactic treatment, and Tx group-by-month interaction as fixed effects, with Baseline monthly headache days as covariate, included as a continuous variable. Subject/residual errors are random effects.|LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|=|0.414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|1.01|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||LS Mean Difference = BOTOX 195 U - Placebo|BOTOX 195 U vs Placebo||1.01|-0.42|=0.414
91096164|NCT05028569|182076010|SUPERIORITY|P-value/95% CI obtained from mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) for primary analysis of the 2 visits across Months 5 and 6. Tx (BOTOX 195 U, 155 U, placebo), month (Months 1-6), country, strata of previous exposure to migraine prophylactic treatment, and Tx group-by-month interaction as fixed effects, with Baseline monthly headache days as covariate, included as a continuous variable. Subject/residual errors are random effects.|LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|=|0.889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.76|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||LS Mean Difference = BOTOX 155 U - Placebo|BOTOX 155 U vs Placebo||0.76|-0.66|=0.889
91096165|NCT05028569|182076011|SUPERIORITY|P-value is obtained from Logistic Regression. Model includes treatment (BOTOX 195 U, BOTOX 155 U, and placebo), country and strata of previous exposure to migraine prophylactic treatment as fixed effects, with the Baseline monthly migraine days as a covariate, included as a continuous variable. Subject and residual errors are random effects in this by visit logistic covariate analysis of variance (ANCOVA). Confidence intervals (Clopper-Pearson) are based on binomial-distribution assumptions.|Response Rate Difference|2.2|||=|0.451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.08|11.46|||Regression, Logistic||Response Rate Difference = BOTOX 195 U - Placebo|BOTOX 195 U vs Placebo||11.46|-7.08|=0.451
91096166|NCT05028569|182076011|SUPERIORITY|P-value is obtained from Logistic Regression. Model includes treatment (BOTOX 195 U, BOTOX 155 U, and placebo), country and strata of previous exposure to migraine prophylactic treatment as fixed effects, with the Baseline monthly migraine days as a covariate, included as a continuous variable. Subject and residual errors are random effects in this by visit logistic covariate analysis of variance (ANCOVA). Confidence intervals (Clopper-Pearson) are based on binomial-distribution assumptions.|Response Rate Difference|1.2|||=|0.762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.94|10.4|||Regression, Logistic||Response Rate Difference = BOTOX 155 U - Placebo|BOTOX 155 U vs Placebo||10.40|-7.94|=0.762
91096167|NCT05028569|182076012|SUPERIORITY|P-value/95% CI obtained from mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) for primary analysis of the 2 visits across Months 5 and 6. Tx (BOTOX 195 U, BOTOX 155 U, placebo), month (Months 1-6), country, strata of previous exposure to migraine prophylactic treatment, and Tx group-by-month interaction as fixed effects, with the Baseline monthly acute headache medication days as a covariate, included as a continuous variable. Subject and residual errors are random effects.|LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|=|0.686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.74|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||LS Mean Difference = BOTOX 195 U - Placebo|BOTOX 195 U vs Placebo||0.74|-0.48|=0.686
91096168|NCT05028569|182076012|SUPERIORITY|P-value/95% CI obtained from mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) for primary analysis of the 2 visits across Months 5 and 6. Tx (BOTOX 195 U, BOTOX 155 U, placebo), month (Months 1-6), country, strata of previous exposure to migraine prophylactic treatment, and Tx group-by-month interaction as fixed effects, with the Baseline monthly acute headache medication days as a covariate, included as a continuous variable. Subject and residual errors are random effects.|LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|=|0.913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.64|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||LS Mean Difference = BOTOX 155 U - Placebo|BOTOX 155 U vs Placebo||0.64|-0.57|=0.913
91096169|NCT05028569|182076013|SUPERIORITY|P-value/95% CI obtained from mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) for primary analysis of the visit at Month 6. Tx (BOTOX 195 U, BOTOX 155 U, placebo), month (Months 1-6), country, strata of previous exposure to migraine prophylactic treatment, and Tx group-by-month interaction as fixed effects, with the Baseline MSQ v2.1 RFR Domain Score as a covariate, included as a continuous variable. Subject and residual errors are random effects.|LS Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.81|=|0.837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.18|3.93|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||LS Mean Difference = BOTOX 195 U - Placebo|BOTOX 195 U vs Placebo||3.93|-3.18|=0.837
91096170|NCT05028569|182076013|SUPERIORITY|P-value/95% CI obtained from mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) for primary analysis of the visit at Month 6. Tx (BOTOX 195 U, BOTOX 155 U, placebo), month (Months 1-6), country, strata of previous exposure to migraine prophylactic treatment, and Tx group-by-month interaction as fixed effects, with the Baseline MSQ v2.1 RFR Domain Score as a covariate, included as a continuous variable. Subject and residual errors are random effects.|LS Mean Difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.79|=|0.662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.74|4.31|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||LS Mean Difference = BOTOX 155 U - Placebo|BOTOX 155 U vs Placebo||4.31|-2.74|=0.662
91096171|NCT05028569|182076014|SUPERIORITY|P-value/95% CI are obtained from mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) analysis for primary analysis of the 2 visits across Months 5 and 6. Tx (BOTOX 195 U, BOTOX 155 U, placebo), month (Months 1-6), country, strata of previous exposure to migraine prophylactic treatment, and Tx group-by-month interaction as fixed effects, with the Baseline AIM-D Physical Impairment domain score as a covariate, included as a continuous variable. Subject and residual errors are random effects.|LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75|=|0.834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|1.63|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||LS Mean Difference = BOTOX 195 U - Placebo|BOTOX 195 U vs Placebo||1.63|-1.32|=0.834
90899638|NCT01872910|181665140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-39.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.2|-25.3|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for TOPAR 0 to 24 h.|||-25.3|-53.2|
90899639|NCT01872910|181665140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.6|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for TOPAR 0 to 4 h.|||1.6|-1.5|
91096172|NCT05028569|182076014|SUPERIORITY|P-value/95% CI are obtained from mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) analysis for primary analysis of the 2 visits across Months 5 and 6. Tx (BOTOX 195 U, BOTOX 155 U, placebo), month (Months 1-6), country, strata of previous exposure to migraine prophylactic treatment, and Tx group-by-month interaction as fixed effects, with the Baseline AIM-D Physical Impairment domain score as a covariate, included as a continuous variable. Subject and residual errors are random effects.|LS Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75|=|0.578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|1.9|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||LS Mean Difference = BOTOX 155 U - Placebo|BOTOX 155 U vs Placebo||1.90|-1.06|=0.578
91096173|NCT05028569|182076015|SUPERIORITY|P-value/95% CI are obtained from a mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) analysis for primary analysis of the 2 visits across Months 5 and 6. Tx (BOTOX 195 U, BOTOX 155 U, placebo), month (Months 1-6), country, strata of previous exposure to migraine prophylactic treatment, and Tx group-by-month interaction as fixed effects, with the Baseline total HIT-6 score as a covariate, included as a continuous variable. Subject and residual errors are random effects.|LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68|=|0.589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|0.96|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||LS Mean Difference = BOTOX 195 U - Placebo|BOTOX 195 U vs Placebo||0.96|-1.69|=0.589
91096174|NCT05028569|182076015|SUPERIORITY|P-value/95% CI are obtained from a mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) analysis for primary analysis of the 2 visits across Months 5 and 6. Tx (BOTOX 195 U, BOTOX 155 U, placebo), month (Months 1-6), country, strata of previous exposure to migraine prophylactic treatment, and Tx group-by-month interaction as fixed effects, with the Baseline total HIT-6 score as a covariate, included as a continuous variable. Subject and residual errors are random effects.|LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67|=|0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.64|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||LS Mean Difference = BOTOX 155 U - Placebo|BOTOX 155 U vs Placebo||0.64|-2.00|=0.310
91104244|NCT04003142|182094844|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-19.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.71|-11.755||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 9||-11.755|-27.71|<0.001
90899640|NCT01872910|181665140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|2.4|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for TOPAR 0 to 6 h.|||2.4|-2.9|
90899641|NCT01872910|181665140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|3.1|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for TOPAR 0 to 8 h.|||3.1|-4.7|
90899642|NCT01872910|181665140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|4.1|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for TOPAR 0 to 12 h.|||4.1|-8.3|
90899643|NCT01872910|181665140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.4|7.6|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for TOPAR 0 to 24 h.|||7.6|-21.4|
91096175|NCT04609553|182076016|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64||||||p-value is adjusted using the minP approach for potentially highly correlated outcomes. Then, p \< 0.05 was used as an a priori threshold for statistical significance.|ANOVA|||A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 2.|We followed the intent to treat principle, with participants included based on their group assignment. Because of the multiple, potentially highly correlated primary outcomes, we used the step-down minP method (a re-sampling approach), to assess the effects of treatment across primary outcomes and timepoints within domain (total=3 outcomes within the language development). Right skewed variables with minimum values of zero were log-transformed after adding one. minP-adjusted p-values were calculated with ANOVA models comparing outcomes adjusted for correlations due to repeated-measure effects for both active treatments versus control. Specifically, no adjustments were made for child expressive language since it was only measured at 18 months.|||0.64
91096176|NCT04609553|182076016|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46||||||p-value is adjusted using the minP approach for potentially highly correlated outcomes. Then, p \< 0.05 was used as an a priori threshold for statistical significance.|ANOVA|||A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 3.|We followed the intent to treat principle, with participants included based on their group assignment. Because of the multiple, potentially highly correlated primary outcomes, we used the step-down minP method (a re-sampling approach), to assess the effects of treatment across primary outcomes and timepoints within domain (total=3 outcomes within the language development). Right skewed variables with minimum values of zero were log-transformed after adding one. minP-adjusted p-values were calculated with ANOVA models comparing outcomes adjusted for correlations due to repeated-measure effects for both active treatments versus control. Specifically, no adjustments were made for child expressive language since it was only measured at 18 months.|||0.46
91104245|NCT04003142|182094844|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-14.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.25|-6.54||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 10||-6.54|-22.25|<0.001
91104246|NCT04003142|182094844|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-20.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.98|<|0.001||95.0|-27.93|-12.27||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 10||-12.27|-27.93|<0.001
91104247|NCT04003142|182094844|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-14.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.07|<|0.001||95.0|-22.96|-6.96||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 11||-6.96|-22.96|<0.001
91104248|NCT04003142|182094844|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-20.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.13|-12.18||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 11||-12.18|-28.13|<0.001
91104249|NCT04003142|182094844|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-13.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.07|<|0.001||95.0|-21.62|-5.65||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 12||-5.65|-21.62|<0.001
91104250|NCT04003142|182094844|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-18.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.05|<|0.001||95.0|-26.89|-10.98||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 12||-10.98|-26.89|<0.001
91104251|NCT04003142|182094845|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.881||||0.02||95.0|1.11|3.233||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||3.233|1.110|0.020
91104252|NCT04003142|182094845|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.645|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.585|4.498||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||4.498|1.585|<0.001
91104253|NCT04003142|182094845|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.464|||<|0.001||95.0|1.535|4.001||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||4.001|1.535|<0.001
91104254|NCT04003142|182094845|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.464|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.534|4.004||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||4.004|1.534|<0.001
91104255|NCT04003142|182094845|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.367|||<|0.001||95.0|1.502|3.762||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||3.762|1.502|<0.001
91096177|NCT04609553|182076017|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84||||||p-value is adjusted using the minP approach for potentially highly correlated outcomes. Then, p \< 0.05 was used as an a priori threshold for statistical significance.|ANOVA|||Analysis for 9-month follow-up. A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 2.|We followed the intent to treat principle, with participants included based on their group assignment. Because of the multiple, potentially highly correlated primary outcomes, we used the step-down minP method (a re-sampling approach), to assess the effects of treatment across primary outcomes and timepoints within domain (total=3 outcomes within the language development). Right skewed variables with minimum values of zero were log-transformed after adding one. minP-adjusted p-values were calculated with ANOVA models comparing outcomes adjusted for correlations due to repeated-measure effects for both active treatments versus control. The adjusted value for child communicative development was the value of the outcome minus the best linear unbiased predictor (BLUP) estimated from a mixed linear model with random individual-specific intercepts and treatment fixed effects.|||0.84
91096178|NCT04609553|182076017|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82||||||p-value is adjusted using the minP approach for potentially highly correlated outcomes. Then, p \< 0.05 was used as an a priori threshold for statistical significance.|ANOVA|||Analysis for 9-month follow-up. A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 3.|We followed the intent to treat principle, with participants included based on their group assignment. Because of the multiple, potentially highly correlated primary outcomes, we used the step-down minP method (a re-sampling approach), to assess the effects of treatment across primary outcomes and timepoints within domain (total=3 outcomes within the language development). Right skewed variables with minimum values of zero were log-transformed after adding one. minP-adjusted p-values were calculated with ANOVA models comparing outcomes adjusted for correlations due to repeated-measure effects for both active treatments versus control. The adjusted value for child communicative development was the value of the outcome minus the best linear unbiased predictor (BLUP) estimated from a mixed linear model with random individual-specific intercepts and treatment fixed effects.|||0.82
91096179|NCT04609553|182076017|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||p-value is adjusted using the minP approach for potentially highly correlated outcomes. Then, p \< 0.05 was used as an a priori threshold for statistical significance.|ANOVA|||Analysis for 18-month follow-up. A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 2.|We followed the intent to treat principle, with participants included based on their group assignment. Because of the multiple, potentially highly correlated primary outcomes, we used the step-down minP method (a re-sampling approach), to assess the effects of treatment across primary outcomes and timepoints within domain (total=3 outcomes within the language development). Right skewed variables with minimum values of zero were log-transformed after adding one. minP-adjusted p-values were calculated with ANOVA models comparing outcomes adjusted for correlations due to repeated-measure effects for both active treatments versus control. The adjusted value for child communicative development was the value of the outcome minus the best linear unbiased predictor (BLUP) estimated from a mixed linear model with random individual-specific intercepts and treatment fixed effects.|||0.001
91096180|NCT04609553|182076017|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16||||||p-value is adjusted using the minP approach for potentially highly correlated outcomes. Then, p \< 0.05 was used as an a priori threshold for statistical significance.|ANOVA|||Analysis for 18-month follow-up. A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 3.|We followed the intent to treat principle, with participants included based on their group assignment. Because of the multiple, potentially highly correlated primary outcomes, we used the step-down minP method (a re-sampling approach), to assess the effects of treatment across primary outcomes and timepoints within domain (total=3 outcomes within the language development). Right skewed variables with minimum values of zero were log-transformed after adding one. minP-adjusted p-values were calculated with ANOVA models comparing outcomes adjusted for correlations due to repeated-measure effects for both active treatments versus control. The adjusted value for child communicative development was the value of the outcome minus the best linear unbiased predictor (BLUP) estimated from a mixed linear model with random individual-specific intercepts and treatment fixed effects.|||0.16
91104256|NCT04003142|182094845|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.894|||<|0.001||95.0|1.835|4.609||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||4.609|1.835|<0.001
91104257|NCT04003142|182094845|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.902|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.829|4.657||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||4.657|1.829|<0.001
91104258|NCT04003142|182094845|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.218|||<|0.001||95.0|2.025|5.172||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||5.172|2.025|<0.001
91030255|NCT00406848|181944963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.694||95.0||||p-values for Week 25 Remission HAMD17 ≤ 7|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)analysis model:Remission = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Baseline + Treatment\*Visit.||||||0.694
91030256|NCT00406848|181944963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.864||95.0||||p-values for Week 13 Remission - HAMD17 ≤ 10|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)analysis model:Remission = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Baseline + Treatment\*Visit.||||||0.864
91096181|NCT04609553|182076018|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93||||||p-value is adjusted using the minP approach for potentially highly correlated outcomes. Then, p \< 0.05 was used as an a priori threshold for statistical significance.|ANOVA|||Analysis for 9-month follow-up. A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 2.|We followed the intent to treat principle, with participants included based on their group assignment. Because of the multiple correlated timepoints within the social emotional domain, we used the step-down minP method (a re-sampling approach), to assess the effects of treatment (total=2 outcomes within the social emotional). minP-adjusted p-values were calculated with ANOVA models comparing outcomes adjusted for baseline- and correlations due to repeated-measure effects for both active treatments versus control. The adjusted value for social emotional development was the value of the outcome minus the effect of baseline and the best linear unbiased predictor (BLUP) estimated from a mixed linear model with random individual-specific intercepts and both treatment and baseline fixed effects.|||0.93
91096182|NCT04609553|182076018|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||p-value is adjusted using the minP approach for potentially highly correlated outcomes. Then, p \< 0.05 was used as an a priori threshold for statistical significance.|ANOVA|||Analysis for 9-month follow-up, A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 3.|We followed the intent to treat principle, with participants included based on their group assignment. Because of the multiple correlated timepoints within the social emotional domain, we used the step-down minP method (a re-sampling approach), to assess the effects of treatment (total=2 outcomes within the social emotional). minP-adjusted p-values were calculated with ANOVA models comparing outcomes adjusted for baseline- and correlations due to repeated-measure effects for both active treatments versus control. The adjusted value for social emotional development was the value of the outcome minus the effect of baseline and the best linear unbiased predictor (BLUP) estimated from a mixed linear model with random individual-specific intercepts and both treatment and baseline fixed effects.|||0.04
91096183|NCT04609553|182076018|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08||||||p-value is adjusted using the minP approach for potentially highly correlated outcomes. Then, p \< 0.05 was used as an a priori threshold for statistical significance.|ANOVA|||Analysis for 18-month follow-up. A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 2.|We followed the intent to treat principle, with participants included based on their group assignment. Because of the multiple correlated timepoints within the social emotional domain, we used the step-down minP method (a re-sampling approach), to assess the effects of treatment (total=2 outcomes within the social emotional). minP-adjusted p-values were calculated with ANOVA models comparing outcomes adjusted for baseline- and correlations due to repeated-measure effects for both active treatments versus control. The adjusted value for social emotional development was the value of the outcome minus the effect of baseline and the best linear unbiased predictor (BLUP) estimated from a mixed linear model with random individual-specific intercepts and both treatment and baseline fixed effects.|||0.08
91096184|NCT04609553|182076018|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||p-value is adjusted using the minP approach for potentially highly correlated outcomes. Then, p \< 0.05 was used as an a priori threshold for statistical significance.|ANOVA|||Analysis for 18-month follow-up. A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 3.|We followed the intent to treat principle, with participants included based on their group assignment. Because of the multiple correlated timepoints within the social emotional domain, we used the step-down minP method (a re-sampling approach), to assess the effects of treatment (total=2 outcomes within the social emotional). minP-adjusted p-values were calculated with ANOVA models comparing outcomes adjusted for baseline- and correlations due to repeated-measure effects for both active treatments versus control. The adjusted value for social emotional development was the value of the outcome minus the effect of baseline and the best linear unbiased predictor (BLUP) estimated from a mixed linear model with random individual-specific intercepts and both treatment and baseline fixed effects.|||0.03
91096185|NCT04609553|182076019|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||p-value is adjusted using the minP approach for potentially highly correlated outcomes. Then, p \< 0.05 was used as an a priori threshold for statistical significance.|ANOVA|||Analysis for the Reading Scale at the 9-month follow-up. A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 2.|We followed the intent to treat principle, with participants included based on their group assignment. Because of the multiple correlated timepoints within the parental behavior domain, we used the step-down minP method (a re-sampling approach), to assess the effects of treatment (total=6 outcomes within the parental behavior). minP-adjusted p-values were calculated with ANOVA models comparing outcomes adjusted for baseline- and correlations due to repeated-measure effects (as appropriate) for both active treatments versus control. The adjusted value for reading activities was the value of the outcome minus the effect of baseline and the best linear unbiased predictor (BLUP) estimated from a mixed linear model with random individual-specific intercepts and both treatment and baseline fixed effects.|||0.002
91104259|NCT04003142|182094845|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.153|||<|0.001||95.0|1.375|3.394||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||3.394|1.375|<0.001
91104260|NCT04003142|182094845|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.074|||<|0.001||95.0|1.957|4.878||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||4.878|1.957|<0.001
91104261|NCT04003142|182094845|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.05||||0.002||95.0|1.31|3.228||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||3.228|1.310|0.002
91096186|NCT04609553|182076019|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8||||||p-value is adjusted using the minP approach for potentially highly correlated outcomes. Then, p \< 0.05 was used as an a priori threshold for statistical significance.|ANOVA|||Analysis for the Reading Scale at the 9-month follow-up. A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 3.|We followed the intent to treat principle, with participants included based on their group assignment. Because of the multiple correlated timepoints within the parental behavior domain, we used the step-down minP method (a re-sampling approach), to assess the effects of treatment (total=6 outcomes within the parental behavior). minP-adjusted p-values were calculated with ANOVA models comparing outcomes adjusted for baseline- and correlations due to repeated-measure effects (as appropriate) for both active treatments versus control. The adjusted value for reading activities was the value of the outcome minus the effect of baseline and the best linear unbiased predictor (BLUP) estimated from a mixed linear model with random individual-specific intercepts and both treatment and baseline fixed effects.|||0.80
90849095|NCT03595618|181563976|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.03779|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02156||0.193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00448|0.08005||Two-sided adjusted p-value taking into account Dunnett adjustment (to be compared to 0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis||Two-sided 95% Confidence Interval of the estimate without Dunnett adjustment.|Estimate (Standard Error) of the adjusted difference from baseline to last post baseline value between treatment groups means: placebo minus GLPG1972 dose regimen using a MMRM including the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, region (Asia and Rest of the World), time and treatment-by-time interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline and time-by-baseline interaction preceded by a Multiple Imputation step for participants without post-baseline measurement.||0.08005|-0.00448|0.193
90859827|NCT02899299|181583062|SUPERIORITY|Treatment A vs Treatment B|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.96||||||≥1% PD-L1||0.96|0.61|
91096187|NCT04609553|182076019|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79||||||p-value is adjusted using the minP approach for potentially highly correlated outcomes. Then, p \< 0.05 was used as an a priori threshold for statistical significance.|ANOVA|||Analysis for the Reading Scale at the18-month follow-up. A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 2.|We followed the intent to treat principle, with participants included based on their group assignment. Because of the multiple correlated timepoints within the parental behavior domain, we used the step-down minP method (a re-sampling approach), to assess the effects of treatment (total=6 outcomes within the parental behavior). minP-adjusted p-values were calculated with ANOVA models comparing outcomes adjusted for baseline- and correlations due to repeated-measure effects (as appropriate) for both active treatments versus control. The adjusted value for reading activities was the value of the outcome minus the effect of baseline and the best linear unbiased predictor (BLUP) estimated from a mixed linear model with random individual-specific intercepts and both treatment and baseline fixed effects.|||0.79
91096188|NCT04609553|182076019|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96||||||p-value is adjusted using the minP approach for potentially highly correlated outcomes. Then, p \< 0.05 was used as an a priori threshold for statistical significance.|ANOVA|||Analysis for the Reading Scale at the 18-month follow-up. A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 3.|We followed the intent to treat principle, with participants included based on their group assignment. Because of the multiple correlated timepoints within the parental behavior domain, we used the step-down minP method (a re-sampling approach), to assess the effects of treatment (total=6 outcomes within the parental behavior). minP-adjusted p-values were calculated with ANOVA models comparing outcomes adjusted for baseline- and correlations due to repeated-measure effects (as appropriate) for both active treatments versus control. The adjusted value for reading activities was the value of the outcome minus the effect of baseline and the best linear unbiased predictor (BLUP) estimated from a mixed linear model with random individual-specific intercepts and both treatment and baseline fixed effects.|||0.96
91096189|NCT04609553|182076019|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22||||||p-value is adjusted using the minP approach for potentially highly correlated outcomes. Then, p \< 0.05 was used as an a priori threshold for statistical significance.|ANOVA|||Analysis for the Parent Verbal Responsiveness Scale at the 9-month follow-up. A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 2.|We followed the intent to treat principle, with participants included based on their group assignment. Because of the multiple correlated timepoints within the parental behavior domain, we used the step-down minP method (a re-sampling approach), to assess the effects of treatment (total=6 outcomes within the parental behavior). minP-adjusted p-values were calculated with ANOVA models comparing outcomes adjusted for baseline- and correlations due to repeated-measure effects (as appropriate) for both active treatments versus control. The adjusted value for verbal responsiveness was the value of the outcome minus the best linear unbiased predictor (BLUP) estimated from a mixed linear model with random individual-specific intercepts and treatment fixed effects.|||0.22
91104262|NCT04003142|182094845|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.908|||<|0.001||95.0|1.856|4.599||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||4.599|1.856|<0.001
90859828|NCT02899299|181583064|SUPERIORITY|Treatment A over Treatment B|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.88|||Stratified Log Rank|This is 2 sided p-value from log-rank test stratified by histology and sex as entered in the IRT|Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|||0.88|0.62|0.0008
90859829|NCT00313300|181583065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted rate difference|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|5.4|||||adjusted difference of event rates takes into consideration stratification factors.|||5.4|-1.0|
90859830|NCT00313300|181583065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Rate Difference|3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|7.3|||||adjusted difference of event rates takes into consideration stratification factors.|||7.3|0.4|
91096190|NCT04609553|182076019|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is adjusted using the minP approach for potentially highly correlated outcomes. Then, p \< 0.05 was used as an a priori threshold for statistical significance.|ANOVA|||Analysis for the Parent Verbal Responsiveness Scale at the 9-month follow-up. A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 3.|We followed the intent to treat principle, with participants included based on their group assignment. Because of the multiple correlated timepoints within the parental behavior domain, we used the step-down minP method (a re-sampling approach), to assess the effects of treatment (total=6 outcomes within the parental behavior). minP-adjusted p-values were calculated with ANOVA models comparing outcomes adjusted for baseline- and correlations due to repeated-measure effects (as appropriate) for both active treatments versus control. The adjusted value for verbal responsiveness was the value of the outcome minus the best linear unbiased predictor (BLUP) estimated from a mixed linear model with random individual-specific intercepts and treatment fixed effects.|||<0.001
91096191|NCT04609553|182076019|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96||||||p-value is adjusted using the minP approach for potentially highly correlated outcomes. Then, p \< 0.05 was used as an a priori threshold for statistical significance.|ANOVA|||Analysis for the Parent Verbal Responsiveness Scale at the 18-month follow-up. A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 2.|We followed the intent to treat principle, with participants included based on their group assignment. Because of the multiple correlated timepoints within the parental behavior domain, we used the step-down minP method (a re-sampling approach), to assess the effects of treatment (total=6 outcomes within the parental behavior). minP-adjusted p-values were calculated with ANOVA models comparing outcomes adjusted for baseline- and correlations due to repeated-measure effects (as appropriate) for both active treatments versus control. The adjusted value for verbal responsiveness was the value of the outcome minus the best linear unbiased predictor (BLUP) estimated from a mixed linear model with random individual-specific intercepts and treatment fixed effects.|||0.96
91096192|NCT04609553|182076019|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12||||||p-value is adjusted using the minP approach for potentially highly correlated outcomes. Then, p \< 0.05 was used as an a priori threshold for statistical significance.|ANOVA|||Analysis for the Parent Verbal Responsiveness Scale at the 18-month follow-up. A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 3.|We followed the intent to treat principle, with participants included based on their group assignment. Because of the multiple correlated timepoints within the parental behavior domain, we used the step-down minP method (a re-sampling approach), to assess the effects of treatment (total=6 outcomes within the parental behavior). minP-adjusted p-values were calculated with ANOVA models comparing outcomes adjusted for baseline- and correlations due to repeated-measure effects (as appropriate) for both active treatments versus control. The adjusted value for verbal responsiveness was the value of the outcome minus the best linear unbiased predictor (BLUP) estimated from a mixed linear model with random individual-specific intercepts and treatment fixed effects.|||0.12
91096193|NCT04609553|182076020|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78||||||p-value is adjusted using the minP approach for potentially highly correlated outcomes. Then, p \< 0.05 was used as an a priori threshold for statistical significance.|ANOVA|||A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 2.|We followed the intent to treat principle, with participants included based on their group assignment. Because of the multiple correlated timepoints within the parental behavior domain, we used the step-down minP method (a re-sampling approach), to assess the effects of treatment (total=6 outcomes within the parental behavior). minP-adjusted p-values were calculated with ANOVA models comparing outcomes adjusted for baseline- and correlations due to repeated-measure effects (as appropriate) for both active treatments versus control. Dialogic reading behavior was measured at a single timepoint (9 months), so no adjustment was necessary.|||0.78
90849096|NCT03595618|181563976|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.0358|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02235||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00801|0.07962||Two-sided adjusted p-value taking into account Dunnett adjustment (to be compared to 0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis||Two-sided 95% Confidence Interval of the estimate without Dunnett adjustment.|Estimate (Standard Error) of the adjusted difference from baseline to last post baseline value between treatment groups means: placebo minus GLPG1972 dose regimen using a MMRM including the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, region (Asia and Rest of the World), time and treatment-by-time interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline and time-by-baseline interaction preceded by a Multiple Imputation step for participants without post-baseline measurement.||0.07962|-0.00801|0.256
90859831|NCT00313300|181583066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.19||||||||1.19|0.44|
90859832|NCT00313300|181583066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.04||||||||1.04|0.35|
90859833|NCT00313300|181583067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted rate difference|6.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|11.3|||||adjusted difference of event rates takes into consideration stratification factors.|||11.3|1.8|
90859834|NCT00313300|181583067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Rate Difference|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.8|15.2|||||adjusted difference of event rates takes into consideration stratification factors.|||15.2|4.8|
90859835|NCT00313300|181583068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.17||||||||1.17|0.44|
90859836|NCT00313300|181583068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.07||||||||1.07|0.37|
90859837|NCT00313300|181583069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted rate difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|2.0|||||adjusted difference of event rates takes into consideration stratification factors.|||2.0|-1.3|
91096194|NCT04609553|182076020|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96||||||p-value is adjusted using the minP approach for potentially highly correlated outcomes. Then, p \< 0.05 was used as an a priori threshold for statistical significance.|ANOVA|||A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 3.|We followed the intent to treat principle, with participants included based on their group assignment. Because of the multiple correlated timepoints within the parental behavior domain, we used the step-down minP method (a re-sampling approach), to assess the effects of treatment (total=6 outcomes within the parental behavior). minP-adjusted p-values were calculated with ANOVA models comparing outcomes adjusted for baseline- and correlations due to repeated-measure effects (as appropriate) for both active treatments versus control. Dialogic reading behavior was measured at a single timepoint (9 months), so no adjustment was necessary.|||0.96
91096195|NCT04609553|182076021|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78||||||p-value is adjusted using the minP approach for potentially highly correlated outcomes. Then, p \< 0.05 was used as an a priori threshold for statistical significance.|ANOVA|||A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 2.|We followed the intent to treat principle, with participants included based on their group assignment. Because of the multiple correlated timepoints within the parental behavior domain, we used the step-down minP method (a re-sampling approach), to assess the effects of treatment (total=6 outcomes within the parental behavior). minP-adjusted p-values were calculated with ANOVA models comparing outcomes adjusted for baseline- and correlations due to repeated-measure effects (as appropriate) for both active treatments versus control. Discipline strategies were measured at a single timepoint (18 months), so no adjustment was necessary.|||0.78
91096196|NCT04609553|182076021|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96||||||p-value is adjusted using the minP approach for potentially highly correlated outcomes. Then, p \< 0.05 was used as an a priori threshold for statistical significance.|ANOVA|||A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 3.|We followed the intent to treat principle, with participants included based on their group assignment. Because of the multiple correlated timepoints within the parental behavior domain, we used the step-down minP method (a re-sampling approach), to assess the effects of treatment (total=6 outcomes within the parental behavior). minP-adjusted p-values were calculated with ANOVA models comparing outcomes adjusted for baseline- and correlations due to repeated-measure effects (as appropriate) for both active treatments versus control. Discipline strategies were measured at a single timepoint (18 months), so no adjustment was necessary.|||0.96
91096197|NCT04609553|182076022|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|ANOVA|||Analysis at the 9-month follow-up. A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 2.||||0.80
90899644|NCT01872910|181665141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|14.5|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for weighted mean change from baseline pain intensity for 0 to 4 h.|||14.5|-4.2|
90899645|NCT01872910|181665141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-32.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.5|-22.4|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for weighted mean change from baseline pain intensity for 0 to 4 h.|||-22.4|-41.5|
90899646|NCT01872910|181665141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|37.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.8|46.5|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for weighted mean change from baseline pain intensity for 0 to 4 h.|||46.5|27.8|
90899647|NCT01872910|181665141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|17.6|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for weighted mean change from baseline pain intensity for 0 to 6 h.|||17.6|-2.9|
90899648|NCT01872910|181665141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-35.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.6|-24.6|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for weighted mean change from baseline pain intensity for 0 to 6 h.|||-24.6|-45.6|
90899649|NCT01872910|181665141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|42.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.1|52.7|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for weighted mean change from baseline pain intensity for 0 to 6 h.|||52.7|32.1|
90899650|NCT01872910|181665141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|23.0|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for weighted mean change from baseline pain intensity for 0 to 12 h.|||23.0|-1.0|
90899651|NCT01872910|181665141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-32.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.1|-20.3|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for weighted mean change from baseline pain intensity for 0 to 12 h.|||-20.3|-45.1|
90899652|NCT01872910|181665141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|43.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.3|55.5|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for weighted mean change from baseline pain intensity for 0 to 12 h.|||55.5|31.3|
90899653|NCT01872910|181665141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|26.2|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for weighted mean change from baseline pain intensity for 0 to 24 h.|||26.2|-1.6|
90899654|NCT01872910|181665141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-30.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.0|-16.0|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for weighted mean change from baseline pain intensity for 0 to 24 h.|||-16.0|-44.0|
90899655|NCT01872910|181665141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|42.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.6|56.5|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for weighted mean change from baseline pain intensity for 0 to 24 h.|||56.5|28.6|
90899656|NCT01872910|181665141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|12.9|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for weighted mean change from baseline pain intensity for 0 to 4 h.|||12.9|-9.7|
90899657|NCT01872910|181665141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|16.8|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for weighted mean change from baseline pain intensity for 0 to 6 h.|||16.8|-9.8|
91030257|NCT00406848|181944963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.817||95.0||||p-values for Week 25 Remission - HAMD17 ≤ 10|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)analysis model:Remission = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Baseline + Treatment\*Visit.||||||0.817
91096198|NCT04609553|182076022|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|ANOVA|||Analysis at the 9-month follow-up. A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 3.||||0.06
91096199|NCT04609553|182076022|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|ANOVA|||"Analysis at the 18-month follow-up.~\\A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 2."||||0.81
91096200|NCT04609553|182076022|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|ANOVA|||Analysis at the 18-month follow-up. A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 3.||||0.08
91096201|NCT04609553|182076023|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|ANOVA|||Analysis at the 9-month follow-up. A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 2.||||0.07
91096202|NCT04609553|182076023|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|ANOVA|||Analysis at the 9-month follow-up. A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 3.||||0.91
91096203|NCT04609553|182076023|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|ANOVA|||Analysis at the18-month follow-up. A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 2.||||0.39
91096204|NCT04609553|182076023|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|ANOVA|||"Analysis at the 18-month follow-up.~\\A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 3."||||0.10
91096205|NCT04609553|182076024|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|ANOVA|||Analysis at the 9-month follow-up. A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 2.||||0.19
91096206|NCT04609553|182076024|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|ANOVA|||Analysis at the 9-month follow-up. A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 3.||||0.18
90899658|NCT01872910|181665141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|19.0|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for weighted mean change from baseline pain intensity for 0 to 8 h.|||19.0|-9.9|
90899659|NCT01872910|181665141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|21.1|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for weighted mean change from baseline pain intensity for 0 to 12 h.|||21.1|-9.2|
90899660|NCT01872910|181665141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|24.2|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for weighted mean change from baseline pain intensity for 0 to 24 h.|||24.2|-8.4|
90899661|NCT01872910|181665142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.9|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is SPID 0 to 4 h.|||1.9|-0.6|
90899662|NCT01872910|181665142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|-1.7|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for SPID 0 to 4 h.|||-1.7|-4.1|
90899663|NCT01872910|181665142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|4.8|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for SPID 0 to 4 h.|||4.8|2.3|
90899664|NCT01872910|181665142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|3.2|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for SPID 0 to 6 h.|||3.2|-0.9|
90899665|NCT01872910|181665142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|-2.7|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for SPID 0 to 6 h.|||-2.7|-6.8|
90899666|NCT01872910|181665142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|8.0|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for SPID 0 to 6 h.|||8.0|3.8|
90899667|NCT01872910|181665142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|4.8|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for SPID 0 to 8 h.|||4.8|-1.0|
90899668|NCT01872910|181665142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|-3.3|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for SPID 0 to 8 h.|||-3.3|-9.0|
91030258|NCT00406848|181944964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.664||95.0||||p-value is for probability of response at Week 13.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)analysis model:Response = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Baseline + Treatment\*Visit.||||||0.664
91096207|NCT04609553|182076024|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|ANOVA|||Analysis at the 18-month follow-up. A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 2.||||0.18
91096208|NCT04609553|182076024|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|ANOVA|||Analysis at the 18-month follow-up. A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 3.||||0.45
91096209|NCT04609553|182076025|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|ANOVA|||Analysis at the 9-month follow-up. A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 2.||||<.001
91096210|NCT04609553|182076025|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|ANOVA|||Analysis at the 9-month follow-up. A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 3.||||0.68
90849097|NCT03595618|181563976|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.03884|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02243||0.201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00514|0.08281||Two-sided adjusted p-value taking into account Dunnett adjustment (to be compared to 0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis||Two-sided 95% Confidence Interval of the estimate without Dunnett adjustment.|Estimate (Standard Error) of the adjusted difference from baseline to last post baseline value between treatment groups means: placebo minus GLPG1972 dose regimen using a MMRM including the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, region (Asia and Rest of the World), time and treatment-by-time interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline and time-by-baseline interaction preceded by a Multiple Imputation step for participants without post-baseline measurement.||0.08281|-0.00514|0.201
90859838|NCT00313300|181583069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Rate Difference|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.7|||||adjusted difference of event rates takes into consideration stratification factors.|||2.7|-1.1|
91030259|NCT00406848|181944964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31||95.0||||p-value is for probability of response at Week 25.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)analysis model:Response = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Baseline + Treatment\*Visit.||||||0.310
91096211|NCT04609553|182076025|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|ANOVA|||Analysis at the 18-month follow-up. A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 2.||||0.16
91096212|NCT04609553|182076025|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|ANOVA|||Analysis at the 18-month follow-up. A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 3.||||0.39
91096213|NCT04609553|182076026|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|ANOVA|||Analysis at the 9-month follow-up. A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 2.||||0.87
91096214|NCT04609553|182076026|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|ANOVA|||Analysis at the 9-month follow-up. A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 3.||||0.14
91096215|NCT04609553|182076026|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|ANOVA|||Analysis at the 18-month follow-up. A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 2.||||0.007
91096216|NCT04609553|182076026|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|ANOVA|||Analysis at the 18-month follow-up. A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 3.||||0.34
90859839|NCT00313300|181583070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|2.88||||||||2.88|0.44|
90859840|NCT00313300|181583070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|2.57||||||||2.57|0.29|
91030260|NCT00406848|181944966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)analysis model: Onset = Treatment + Visit + Baseline + Treatment\*Visit.||||||0.036
91096217|NCT04609553|182076027|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|ANOVA|||Analysis at the 9-month follow-up. A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 2.||||0.99
91096218|NCT04609553|182076027|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|ANOVA|||Analysis at the 9-month follow-up. A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 3.||||0.07
91096219|NCT04609553|182076027|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|ANOVA|||Analysis at the 18-month follow-up. A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 2.||||0.41
91096220|NCT04609553|182076027|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|ANOVA|||Analysis at the 18-month follow-up. A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 3.||||0.03
91096221|NCT01035788|182076049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.24||0.849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|13.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|p value was obtained from the contrast of the linear mixed model||We sought to obtain a sample size of 18 per group to provide 80% power to detect a .97 standard deviation difference in mean change in CAPS between MB-CBCT and the CBCT-Communication Skills at treatment end based on a two-tailed t-test at 5% significance. Linear mixed models with repeated measures were performed to address the primary hypotheses that MB-CBCT would result in a greater improvement for Veterans and their partners than CBCT-Communication Skills at the end of treatment.||13.2|-1.39|.849
91096222|NCT03829475|182076050|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.15
91096223|NCT01433913|182076065|OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.23
91096224|NCT01433913|182076066|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
91096225|NCT01433913|182076067|OTHER|||||||0.77|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.77
91096226|NCT01433913|182076068|OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.09
91096227|NCT01433913|182076069|OTHER|||||||0.72|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.72
91096228|NCT01433913|182076073|OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.63
91096229|NCT01433913|182076074|OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.25
91096230|NCT01433913|182076075|OTHER|||||||0.46|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.46
91096231|NCT01433913|182076076|OTHER|||||||0.46|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.46
91096232|NCT01433913|182076077|OTHER|||||||0.36|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.36
91096233|NCT00884065|182076085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.08|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.93|6.49|||t-test, 2 sided|||||6.49|-9.93|>0.05
91096234|NCT00884065|182076086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.83|<|0.01||95.0|5.72|17.08|||t-test, 2 sided|||||17.08|5.72|<0.01
91096235|NCT00884065|182076087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.59|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.03|12.45|||t-test, 2 sided|||||12.45|2.03|<0.01
91096236|NCT00884065|182076088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.72|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|5.37|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.37|-1.53|>0.05
90859841|NCT00313300|181583070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.66||||||||1.66|0.30|
91096237|NCT00884065|182076089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.18|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.81|5.01|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.01|-3.81|>0.05
91096238|NCT00884065|182076090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.49|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|6.09|||t-test, 2 sided|||||6.09|0.08|<0.01
91096239|NCT02239328|182076091|OTHER|Multilevel random coefficient models estimated the mean score of each PROMIS domain as a function of time elapsed between date of surgery and assessment (in years), and patient comorbidity. Statistical significance of estimated fixed effects were assessed by the F-test statistic for type 3 tests, p \< 0.05.|||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91096240|NCT00230737|182076096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3594.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91096241|NCT00848185|182076106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||ANOVA for three groups||||<0.001
91096242|NCT05845619|182076286|SUPERIORITY|There was no power calculation because this was a pilot study.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.76|||Regression, Logistic||Numerator: pilot; denominator: prospective controls|In this pilot study, we hypothesized that pilot participants would have a reduced risk of viremia 6 months after the intervention compared to controls.||1.76|0.83|0.33
91096243|NCT05845619|182076286|SUPERIORITY|No power calculation, pilot study.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.14|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.14|0.73|0.41
91096244|NCT02512419|182076301|SUPERIORITY||regression parameter (median diff)|37.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.01||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||quantile regression|Models regressed outcome at 6 months on treatment assigned, baseline value of the outcome and actigraph wear time. Effect sizes reported are adjusted|Effects are unstandardized regression coefficients. They represent difference in median outcome between conditions at 6m controlling for baseline and covariates.|To examine potential intervention effects on the primary outcome (MVPA at 6 months), we used a series of quantile regression models which model median outcome at follow-up as a function of baseline value of the outcome (MVPA), treatment condition and covariates. Note that the adjusted difference in median MVPA between conditions at follow-up will not equal the difference in median minutes as seen in the unadjusted tables as these estimates are adjusted||||.04
91096245|NCT02512419|182076302|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|42.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|38.83||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||quantile regression|||Quantile regression was used.||||0.10
91104263|NCT04003142|182094845|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.113||||0.001||95.0|1.349|3.332||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||3.332|1.349|0.001
91096246|NCT04133909|182076303|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio (Mepolizumab 100 mg/Placebo)|0.79||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.94|||Negative binomial model|||Analysis performed using a negative binomial model with covariates of treatment group, geographic region, number of moderate/severe exacerbations in previous year (less than or equal to \[\<=\]2, 3, \>=4 as ordinal), baseline percent (%) predicted Forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) and smoking status (current vs. former smoker), and with logarithm (time on- and off-treatment) as an offset variable.||0.94|0.66|0.011
91096247|NCT04133909|182076304|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.93|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||Estimated from a Cox Proportional Hazards Model with covariates of treatment group, geographic region, number of moderate or severe exacerbations in previous year \<=2, 3, \>=4 as ordinal), baseline % predicted FEV1 and smoking status (current vs former).||0.93|0.64|0.009
91096248|NCT04133909|182076305|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.09|||Regression, Logistic|||A logistic regression model was used to compare the proportion of responders between the mepolizumab and placebo arms in the mITT and mITT2 populations. The model includes fixed categorical covariates (treatment group, smoking status, geographic region) and a fixed continuous covariate (baseline score).||1.09|0.60|0.161
91096249|NCT04133909|182076306|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.57|||Regression, Logistic|||A logistic regression model was used to compare the proportion of responders between the mepolizumab and placebo arms in the mITT and mITT2 populations. The model includes fixed categorical covariates (treatment group, smoking status, geographic region) and a fixed continuous covariate (baseline score).||1.57|0.87|0.291
91096250|NCT04133909|182076307|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.12|||Regression, Logistic|||A logistic regression model was used to compare the proportion of responders between the mepolizumab and placebo arms in the mITT and mITT2 populations. The model includes fixed categorical covariates (treatment group, smoking status, geographic region) and a fixed continuous covariate (baseline score).||1.12|0.60|0.209
90859842|NCT00313300|181583070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.74||||||||1.74|0.30|
90859843|NCT00313300|181583071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Rate Difference|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|8.1||||||||8.1|0.0|
91096251|NCT04133909|182076308|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio (Mepolizumab 100/Placebo)|0.65||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.96|||Negative binomial model|||Analysis performed using a negative binomial model with covariates of treatment group, geographic region, number of moderate/severe exacerbations in previous year (\<=2, 3, \>=4 as ordinal), baseline % predicted FEV1 and smoking status (current vs. former smoker), and with logarithm (time on- and off-treatment) as an offset variable. Estimates based on weighting applied to each level of class variable determined from observed proportions.||0.96|0.43|0.032
91096252|NCT00434434|182076316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.13||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|exact Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney||||||0.13
91096253|NCT00434434|182076316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0133||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|exact Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney||||||0.0133
91096254|NCT00434434|182076317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.09||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|exact Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney||||||0.09
91096255|NCT00434434|182076317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0028||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|exact Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney||||||0.0028
91096256|NCT03479905|182076359|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0004
91096257|NCT01706328|182076362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.025||||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.008|0.059|||ANCOVA|||||0.059|-0.008|0.137
91096258|NCT04390750|182076374|OTHER|The effect estimate reflects the adjusted difference in change from baseline on plaque levels between Treatment Group 1 and Control at 3 months.|Interaction coefficient|0.0||||0.939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.11|||Linear mixed effects model|Linear mixed effects model with arm-by-time interaction.||A linear mixed effects model including an arm-by-time interaction was used to estimate between-arm differences in change in plaque levels at the primary endpoint of 3 months.||0.11|-0.11|0.939
91096259|NCT04390750|182076374|OTHER|The effect estimate reflects the adjusted difference in change from baseline on plaque levels between Treatment Group 2 and Control at 3 months.|Interaction coefficient|-0.09||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.02|||Linear mixed effects model|Linear mixed effects model with arm-by-time interaction.||A linear mixed effects model including an arm-by-time interaction was used to estimate between-arm differences in change in plaque levels at the primary endpoint of 3 months.||0.02|-0.21|0.103
91096260|NCT04390750|182076375|OTHER|The effect estimate reflects the adjusted difference in change from baseline on gingival inflammation between Treatment Group 1 and Control at 3 months.|Interaction coefficient|0.0||||0.995||95.0|-0.16|0.16|||Linear mixed effects model|Linear mixed effects model with arm-by-time interaction.||A linear mixed effects model including an arm-by-time interaction was used to estimate between-arm differences in change in gingival inflammation at the primary endpoint of 3 months.||0.16|-0.16|0.995
91096261|NCT04390750|182076375|OTHER|The effect estimate reflects the adjusted difference in change from baseline on gingival inflammation between Treatment Group 2 and Control at 3 months.|Interaction coefficient|-0.12||||0.132||95.0|-0.28|0.04|||Linear mixed effects model|Linear mixed effects model with arm-by-time interaction.||A linear mixed effects model including an arm-by-time interaction was used to estimate between-arm differences in change in gingival inflammation at the primary endpoint of 3 months.||0.04|-0.28|0.132
91096262|NCT04390750|182076376|OTHER|The effect estimate reflects the adjusted difference in change from baseline on plaque levels between Treatment Group 1 and Control at 6 months.|Interaction coefficient|-0.05||||0.402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.06|||Linear mixed effects model|Linear mixed effects model with arm-by-time interaction.||A linear mixed effects model including an arm-by-time interaction was used to estimate between-arm differences in change in plaque levels at the secondary endpoint of 6 months.||0.06|-0.16|0.402
91096263|NCT04390750|182076376|OTHER|The effect estimate reflects the adjusted difference in change from baseline on plaque levels between Treatment Group 2 and Control at 6 months.|Interaction coefficient|-0.1||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.01|||Linear mixed effects model|Linear mixed effects model with arm-by-time interaction.||A linear mixed effects model including an arm-by-time interaction was used to estimate between-arm differences in change in plaque levels at the secondary endpoint of 6 months.||0.01|-0.21|0.072
91096264|NCT04390750|182076377|OTHER|The effect estimate reflects the adjusted difference in change from baseline on gingival inflammation between Treatment Group 1 and Control at 6 months.|Interaction coefficient|-0.2||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.04|||Linear mixed effects model|Linear mixed effects model with arm-by-time interaction.||A linear mixed effects model including an arm-by-time interaction was used to estimate between-arm differences in change in gingival inflammation at the secondary endpoint of 6 months.||-0.04|-0.36|0.014
91096265|NCT04390750|182076377|OTHER|The effect estimate reflects the adjusted difference in change from baseline on gingival inflammation between Treatment Group 2 and Control at 6 months.|Interaction coefficient|-0.23||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|-0.07|||Linear mixed effects model.|Linear mixed effects model with arm-by-time interaction.||A linear mixed effects model including an arm-by-time interaction was used to estimate between-arm differences in change in gingival inflammation at the secondary endpoint of 6 months.||-0.07|-0.39|0.005
91096266|NCT04190225|182076393|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|18.4||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.67|37.28|||quantile regression||Median difference is not the difference in the two medians, but is the median of differences between groups (why it is 18.4 and not 23)|||37.28|4.67|0.04
91096267|NCT04190225|182076394|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|23.5||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.35|32.76|||quantile regression|||||32.76|8.35|0.03
90849098|NCT03595618|181563977|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|3.12394|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.13671||0.627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.02464|9.27252||Two-sided adjusted p-value taking into account Dunnett adjustment (to be compared to 0.05).|ANCOVA||Two-sided 95% Confidence Interval of the estimate without Dunnett adjustment.|Estimate (Standard Error) of the adjusted difference from baseline to last post baseline value between treatment groups means: Placebo minus GLPG1972 dose regimen using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including the factors treatment and region with baseline as covariate and no interaction, after a Multiple Imputation for missing data.||9.27252|-3.02464|0.627
90859844|NCT00313300|181583071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Rate Difference|4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|9.3||||||||9.3|0.0|
90859845|NCT00313300|181583071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Rate Difference|7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|10.5||||||||10.5|3.4|
90859846|NCT00313300|181583071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Rate Difference|4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|8.0||||||||8.0|1.4|
90859847|NCT00313300|181583072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Rate Difference|8.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|14.9||||||||14.9|1.8|
90849099|NCT03595618|181563977|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.46842|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.21111||0.998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.82659|6.76343||Two-sided adjusted p-value taking into account Dunnett adjustment (to be compared to 0.05).|ANCOVA||Two-sided 95% Confidence Interval of the estimate without Dunnett adjustment.|Estimate (Standard Error) of the adjusted difference from baseline to last post baseline value between treatment groups means: Placebo minus GLPG1972 dose regimen using an ANCOVA including the factors treatment and region with baseline as covariate and no interaction, after a Multiple Imputation for missing data.||6.76343|-5.82659|0.998
90849100|NCT03595618|181563977|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|4.11756|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2759||0.449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.30536|10.54049||Two-sided adjusted p-value taking into account Dunnett adjustment (to be compared to 0.05).|ANCOVA||Two-sided 95% Confidence Interval of the estimate without Dunnett adjustment.|Estimate (Standard Error) of the adjusted difference from baseline to last post baseline value between treatment groups means: Placebo minus GLPG1972 dose regimen using an ANCOVA including the factors treatment and region with baseline as covariate and no interaction, after a Multiple Imputation for missing data.||10.54049|-2.30536|0.449
91096268|NCT04190225|182076395|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||quantile regression|||||||<.001
91096269|NCT03331562|182076422|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.0||||0.31|ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.0||||Fisher Exact||Lower bound cannot be estimated because there were 0 events in the comparison group.||||0|.31
91096270|NCT04044690|182076496|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.371008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.551|2.309||Threshold of significance at \<= 0.025.|Regression, Logistic|Exact logistic regression model including fixed effects for treatment, region (Japan vs. non-Japan) and Baseline MMT-8 (≤ 142 points vs. \>142 points).|Rubin's rule applied following MI.|||2.309|0.551|0.371008
91096271|NCT04044690|182076497|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.46||||0.360939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.651|9.57||Descriptive p-value.|MMRM|||||9.570|-6.651|0.360939
91096272|NCT04044690|182076498|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.4||||0.730994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.15|5.33||Descriptive p-value.|MMRM|||||5.33|-10.15|0.730994
91096273|NCT04044690|182076499|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-5.3||||0.001647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.72|-1.82||Descriptive p-value.|MMRM|||||-1.82|-8.72|0.001647
91096274|NCT04044690|182076500|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.335347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|2.766||Descriptive p-value.|Regression, Logistic|Exact logistic regression model including fixed effects for treatment, region (Japan vs. non-Japan) and Baseline MMT-8 (≤ 142 points vs. \>142 points).|Rubin's rule for combination applied following MI.|||2.766|0.520|0.335347
91096275|NCT01932606|182076595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0003
91096276|NCT01932606|182076596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between the arms for change in right atrial pressure.||||0.0003
90849101|NCT03595618|181563978|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|2.84781|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.75674||0.789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.51643|10.21205||Two-sided adjusted p-value taking into account Dunnett adjustment (to be compared to 0.05)|Mixed Models Analysis||Two-sided 95% Confidence Interval of the estimate without Dunnett adjustment.|Estimate (Standard Error) of the adjusted difference from baseline to last post baseline value between treatment groups means: placebo minus GLPG1972 dose regimen using a MMRM including the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, region (Asia and Rest of the World), time and treatment-by-time interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline and time-by-baseline interaction preceded by a Multiple Imputation step for participants without post-baseline measurement.||10.21205|-4.51643|0.789
91096277|NCT01932606|182076596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between the arms for change in pulmonary artery systolic pressure.||||0.01
91096278|NCT01932606|182076596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between the arms for change in mean pulmonary artery pressure.||||0.002
91096279|NCT01932606|182076596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between the 2 arms for change in PCWP.||||<0.0001
91096280|NCT01932606|182076597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.15
91096281|NCT01932606|182076598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between the arms for change in systolic blood pressure.||||0.11
91096282|NCT01932606|182076598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between the arms for change in mean blood pressure.||||0.2
90859848|NCT00313300|181583072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Rate Difference|10.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|18.4||||||||18.4|3.4|
91096283|NCT01932606|182076599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between the arms for change in PVR.||||0.7
91096284|NCT01932606|182076600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between the arms for change in pulmonary artery compliance.||||0.1
91096285|NCT01932606|182076601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between the arms for change in SVR.||||0.3
91096286|NCT01932606|182076602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between the arms for change in LVSW.||||0.3
91096287|NCT01932606|182076603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between the arms for change in VO\_2.||||0.8
91096288|NCT01932606|182076604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between the arms for arteriovenous oxygen content difference.||||0.1
91096289|NCT01932606|182076605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between the arms for change in cardiac output.||||0.4
91096290|NCT01932606|182076606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between the arms for change in stroke volume.||||0.4
91096291|NCT01932606|182076607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between the arms for change in right atrial pressure (exercise).||||0.0002
91096292|NCT01932606|182076607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between the arms for change in pulmonary artery systolic pressure (exercise).||||0.01
91096293|NCT01932606|182076607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between the arms for change in mean pulmonary artery pressure (exercise).||||0.0002
91096294|NCT01932606|182076607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between the arms for change in PCWP (exercise).||||0.0002
91096295|NCT01932606|182076608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between the arms for change in heart rate.||||0.3
91030261|NCT00406848|181944967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.637||95.0||||p-value is for Systolic BP change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 13.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.637
91096296|NCT01932606|182076609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between the arms for change in systolic blood pressure.||||0.2
91096297|NCT01932606|182076609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between the arms for change in diastolic blood pressure.||||0.05
91096298|NCT01932606|182076610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between the arms for change in PVR after study drug (exercise)||||0.3
91096299|NCT01932606|182076611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between the arms for change in PA compliance after study drug (exercise)||||0.3
91096300|NCT01932606|182076612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between the arms for change in SVR after study drug (exercise).||||0.007
91096301|NCT01932606|182076613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between the arms for change in LVSW after study drug (exercise)||||0.0003
91096302|NCT01932606|182076614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between the arms for change in oxygen consumption (VO\_2) after study drug (exercise).||||0.02
91096303|NCT01932606|182076615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between the arms for change in arteriovenous oxygen difference after study drug (exercise).||||0.6
91096304|NCT01932606|182076616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between the arms for change in cardiac output after study drug (exercise).||||0.002
91096305|NCT01932606|182076617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between the arms for change in stroke volume after study drug (exercise).||||0.0002
91096306|NCT06525727|182076618|OTHER||Sensitivity|97.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.15|99.95|||Diagnostic accuracy|Diagnostic performance was analyzed in terms of sensitivity, specificity, NPV, PPV and likelihood ratios, all reported with 95% confidence interval||The primary objective of the study was to assess the external validation of the Falls Decision Rule. In this evaluation, patients were categorized into two groups based on the rule: those for whom a CT scan was recommended and those for whom it was not.||99.95|89.15|
91096307|NCT06525727|182076618|OTHER||Specificity|31.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.63|35.42|||Diagnostic accuracy|||||35.42|28.63|
91096308|NCT06525727|182076618|OTHER||Negative predictive value|99.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|97.17|99.94|||Diagnostic accuracy|||||99.94|97.17|
91030262|NCT00406848|181944967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||p-value is for Diastolic BP change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 13.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.001
91096309|NCT06525727|182076618|OTHER||Positive predictive value|8.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.1|9.1|||Diagnostic accuracy|||||9.1|8.1|
91096310|NCT06525727|182076618|OTHER||Negative likelihood ratio|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.42|||Diagnostic accuracy|||||0.42|0.01|
91096311|NCT06525727|182076618|OTHER||Positive likelihood ratio|1.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|1.53|||Diagnostic accuracy|||||1.53|1.35|
91096312|NCT03881371|182076621|SUPERIORITY||Least-Square Mean|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.277|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.643|-0.555||"Analysis was based on a covariance model (ANCOVA) with treatment and centre as independent factors, baseline mean total daily OFF time measurement as covariate and change from baseline as dependent variable."|ANCOVA|||Treatment difference (Safinamide - Placebo)||-0.555|-1.643|<.0001
91096313|NCT03881371|182076622|SUPERIORITY||Least-Square Mean|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.8901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.382||ANCOVA with treatment and centre as independent factors, baseline NRS measurement as covariate and change from baseline as dependent variable.|ANCOVA|||Treatment difference (Safinamide - Placebo)||0.382|-0.440|0.8901
91096314|NCT03881371|182076623|SUPERIORITY||Least-Square Mean|0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.315||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.274|1.515||"ANCOVA with treatment and centre as independent factors, baseline mean total daily ON time measurement as covariate and change from baseline as dependent variable."|ANCOVA|||Treatment difference (Safinamide - Placebo)||1.515|0.274|0.0049
91096315|NCT03881371|182076624|SUPERIORITY||Least-Square Mean|1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.345||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.392|1.753||"ANCOVA with treatment and centre as independent factors, baseline mean total daily ON time with no/non-troublesome Dyskinesia measurement as covariate and change from baseline as dependent variable."|ANCOVA|||||1.753|0.392|0.0021
91096316|NCT03881371|182076625|SUPERIORITY||Least-Square Mean|-5.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.447|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.842|-3.141||ANCOVA with treatment and centre as independent factors, baseline UPDRS score as covariate and change from baseline as dependent variable.|ANCOVA|||Treatment difference (Safinamide - Placebo)||-3.141|-8.842|<.0001
91096317|NCT03881371|182076626|SUPERIORITY||Least-Square Mean|-1.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.521|-0.511||ANCOVA with treatment and centre as independent factors, baseline UPDRS part II (ADL) score as covariate and change from baseline as dependent variable.|ANCOVA|||Treatment difference (Safinamide - Placebo)||-0.511|-2.521|0.0033
90859849|NCT00313300|181583072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Rate Difference|17.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.6|23.2||||||||23.2|11.6|
90859850|NCT00313300|181583072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Rate Difference|10.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.6|15.1||||||||15.1|5.6|
90859851|NCT00313300|181583073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|2.88||||||||2.88|0.44|
90859852|NCT00313300|181583073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|2.57||||||||2.57|0.29|
90859853|NCT00313300|181583073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.66||||||||1.66|0.30|
90859854|NCT00313300|181583073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.74||||||||1.74|0.30|
90859855|NCT00313300|181583074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Rate Difference|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|2.6||||||||2.6|-0.9|
90859856|NCT00313300|181583074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Rate Difference|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|5.1||||||||5.1|0.6|
90859857|NCT00313300|181583074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Rate Difference|4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|6.9||||||||6.9|1.3|
91096318|NCT03881371|182076627|SUPERIORITY||Least-Square Mean|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.988||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.749|-1.856||ANCOVA with treatment and centre as independent factors, baseline UPDRS part III (motor function) score as covariate and change from baseline as dependent variable.|ANCOVA|||Treatment difference (Safinamide - Placebo)||-1.856|-5.749|0.0002
91096319|NCT03881371|182076628|SUPERIORITY||Median|0.0||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||Analysis was based on the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test stratified by centre.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Non-parametric 95% confidence interval was presented for the treatment difference in CGI-S at each post-baseline visit as reported by the Hodges-Lehmann estimator.|Treatment difference (Safinamide - Placebo)||0.000|0.000|0.0150
91096320|NCT03881371|182076629|SUPERIORITY||Median|0.5||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.0||Analysis was based on the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test stratified by centre.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Non-parametric 95% confidence interval was presented for the treatment difference in CGI-C score at each post-baseline visit as reported by the Hodges-Lehmann estimator.|Treatment difference (Safinamide - Placebo)||1.000|0.000|0.0007
91096321|NCT03881371|182076630|SUPERIORITY||Least-Square Mean|-3.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.132||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.589|-1.128||ANCOVA with treatment and centre as independent factor, baseline Summary Index score as covariate and change from baseline as dependent variable.|ANCOVA|||Treatment difference (Safinamide - Placebo)||-1.128|-5.589|0.0033
91096322|NCT04225832|182076711|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.51||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|6.26||a-priori threshold was p\<.05 for two-sided p-value Regression employed nonresponse weights to account for any bias associated with completing any follow-up survey.|Regression, Logistic|Regression results control for immigration status and length of time in U.S.|Odds ratio is for indicator of intervention arm||Regression results control for immigration status and length of time in U.S.|6.26|1.01|.049
91096323|NCT04225832|182076712|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.81||a-priori threshold was p\<.05 for two-sided p-value Regression employed nonresponse weights to account for any bias associated with completing any follow-up survey.|Regression, Logistic|Regression results control for immigration status and length of time in U.S.|Odds ratio is for indicator of intervention arm|||1.81|0.62|.83
91096324|NCT04225832|182076713|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.14|TWO_SIDED|||||a-priori threshold was p\<.05 for two-sided p-value Regression employed nonresponse weights to account for any bias associated with completing any follow-up survey.|Regression, Linear|Regression results control for immigration status, length of time in U.S., and baseline value of the outcome|Slope is adjusted regression coefficient for indicator of intervention arm|"Unlike the observed at any FU primary outcomes which have a single value for each participant, for this outcome we employed a repeated measures style structure with one record for each of up to 3 FU observations. A sandwich estimator (SAS Proc Surveyreg) was employed to account for clustering of observations within participant."||||.14
91096325|NCT00311168|182076714|SUPERIORITY|A target of an 80% reduction in percentage of ventricular pacing with VIP™ is proposed in this study. In order to achieve an 80% power of detecting an 80% reduction in the percentage of ventricular paced events and using a two group two-sided t-test of equal means, a minimum sample size of 39 patients per group was required. To account for possible withdrawal or loss to follow-up, this study targeted to enroll 100 patients (50 per group).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-60.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.5|-52.9|||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference in the percentage of intrinsic ventricular events is presented as, VIP Off - VIP On.|||-52.9|-67.5|<0.0001
91096326|NCT02452190|182076737|SUPERIORITY|A fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure was implemented to test the primary and secondary endpoints while controlling the overall Type I error rate at 0.05. At the point where p\>0.05, no further comparisons were interpreted inferentially.|CAE rate ratio (reslizumab vs placebo)|0.79||||0.194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.562|1.124||The treatment effect was tested using the likelihood based Chi-square test at the 0.05 significance level.|Chi-squared|||The frequency of CAEs was analyzed using the generalized linear model (GLM) for data from the negative binomial distributions that is commonly referred to as the negative binomial (NB) regression model. The primary NB model included the treatment group, randomization stratification factors, and number of prior exacerbations as model factors and the logarithm of treatment duration excluding the summed duration of exacerbations in the treatment period as an offset variable.||1.124|0.562|0.194
90849102|NCT03595618|181563978|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-3.64759|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.84747||0.661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.19071|3.89553||Two-sided adjusted p-value taking into account Dunnett adjustment (to be compared to 0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis||Two-sided 95% Confidence Interval of the estimate without Dunnett adjustment.|Estimate (Standard Error) of the adjusted difference from baseline to last post baseline value between treatment groups means: placebo minus GLPG1972 dose regimen using a MMRM including the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, region (Asia and Rest of the World), time and treatment-by-time interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline and time-by-baseline interaction preceded by a Multiple Imputation step for participants without post-baseline measurement.||3.89553|-11.19071|0.661
90859858|NCT04066647|181583091|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.93928821||||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|2 tailed, unpaired t test with Bonferroni correction||||||0.9
90859859|NCT01914757|181583095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.64||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.85|||Negative Binomial|Model includes covariates treatment group, region, number of exacerbations in the previous year, and use of maintenance oral corticosteroids||||0.85|0.49|0.002
90859860|NCT01914757|181583095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.72||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.95|||Negative Binomial|Model includes covariates treatment group, region, number of exacerbations in the previous year, and use of maintenance oral corticosteroids.||||0.95|0.54|0.019
90859861|NCT01914757|181583096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.64||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.92|||Negative Binomial|Model includes covariates treatment group, region, number of exacerbations in the previous year, and use of maintenance oral corticosteroids||||0.92|0.45|0.015
90859862|NCT01914757|181583096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.6||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.86|||Negative Binomial|Model includes covariates treatment group, region, number of exacerbations in the previous year, and use of maintenance oral corticosteroids.||||0.86|0.42|0.005
91096327|NCT06001021|182076766|SUPERIORITY|"In the Superiority Trial, the statistical test aims to show that the treatment group gives better results than the control group. In an equivalence trial, the statistical test aims to show that two treatments are not too different in characteristics, where not too different is defined in a clinical manner (Lesaffre, 2008).~Lesaffre E. Superiority, equivalence, and non-inferiority trials. Bull NYU Hosp Jt Dis. 2008;66(2):150-4. PMID: 18537788."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-35.55|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.78||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-38.9|-32.19||The significance level is 0.10 with 90% confidence interval|ANCOVA|||||-32.19|-38.90|0.000
91096328|NCT06001021|182076767|SUPERIORITY|"In the Superiority Trial, the statistical test aims to show that the treatment group gives better results than the control group. In an equivalence trial, the statistical test aims to show that two treatments are not too different in characteristics, where not too different is defined in a clinical manner (Lesaffre, 2008). Lesaffre E. Superiority, equivalence, and non-inferiority trials. Bull NYU Hosp Jt Dis.~2008;66(2):150-4. PMID: 18537788"|Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.96|STANDARD_DEVIATION|23.14||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|19.59|28.32||The significance level is 0.10 with 90% confidence interval|ANCOVA|||||28.32|19.59|0.000
91096329|NCT06001021|182076768|SUPERIORITY|"In the Superiority Trial, the statistical test aims to show that the treatment group gives better results than the control group. In an equivalence trial, the statistical test aims to show that two treatments are not too different in characteristics, where not too different is defined in a clinical manner (Lesaffre, 2008).~Lesaffre E. Superiority, equivalence, and non-inferiority trials. Bull NYU Hosp Jt Dis. 2008;66(2):150-4. PMID: 18537788."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|86.89|STANDARD_DEVIATION|45.43||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.33|95.46||The significance level is 0.10 with 90% confidence interval|ANCOVA|||||95.46|78.33|0.00
91096330|NCT06001021|182076769|SUPERIORITY|"In the Superiority Trial, the statistical test aims to show that the treatment group gives better results than the control group. In an equivalence trial, the statistical test aims to show that two treatments are not too different in characteristics, where not too different is defined in a clinical manner (Lesaffre, 2008).~Lesaffre E. Superiority, equivalence, and non-inferiority trials. Bull NYU Hosp Jt Dis. 2008;66(2):150-4. PMID: 18537788."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.15||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|19.41|25.12||The significance level is 0.10 with 90% confidence interval|ANCOVA|||||25.12|19.41|0.000
90849103|NCT03595618|181563978|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-2.55176|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.81987||0.843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.04053|4.93701||Two-sided adjusted p-value taking into account Dunnett adjustment (to be compared to 0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis||Two-sided 95% Confidence Interval of the estimate without Dunnett adjustment.|Estimate (Standard Error) of the adjusted difference from baseline to last post baseline value between treatment groups means: placebo minus GLPG1972 dose regimen using a MMRM including the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, region (Asia and Rest of the World), time and treatment-by-time interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline and time-by-baseline interaction preceded by a Multiple Imputation step for participants without post-baseline measurement.||4.93701|-10.04053|0.843
90849104|NCT03595618|181563979|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.0951|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0499||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0028|0.1929||Two-sided adjusted p-value taking into account Dunnett adjustment (to be compared to 0.05).|ANCOVA||Two-sided 95% Confidence Interval of the estimate without Dunnett adjustment.|Estimate (Standard Error) of the adjusted difference from baseline to last post baseline value between treatment groups means: GLPG1972 dose regimen minus placebo using an ANCOVA including the factors treatment and region with baseline as covariate and no interaction, after a Multiple Imputation for missing data.||0.1929|-0.0028|0.141
90849105|NCT03595618|181563979|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.0158|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0519||0.981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0861|0.1177||Two-sided adjusted p-value taking into account Dunnett adjustment (to be compared to 0.05).|ANCOVA||Two-sided 95% Confidence Interval of the estimate without Dunnett adjustment.|Estimate (Standard Error) of the adjusted difference from baseline to last post baseline value between treatment groups means: GLPG1972 dose regimen minus placebo using an ANCOVA including the factors treatment and region with baseline as covariate and no interaction, after a Multiple Imputation for missing data.||0.1177|-0.0861|0.981
90849106|NCT03595618|181563979|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.0753|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0529||0.349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0286|0.1792||Two-sided adjusted p-value taking into account Dunnett adjustment (to be compared to 0.05).|ANCOVA||Two-sided 95% Confidence Interval of the estimate without Dunnett adjustment.|Estimate (Standard Error) of the adjusted difference from baseline to last post baseline value between treatment groups means: GLPG1972 dose regimen minus placebo using an ANCOVA including the factors treatment and region with baseline as covariate and no interaction, after a Multiple Imputation for missing data.||0.1792|-0.0286|0.349
90849107|NCT02279407|181563987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio for difference|0.83||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.0||Hypotheses tested using Dunnett's multiple testing procedure with a family-wise error rate of 5%, adjusting for 3 pairwise comparisons versus a single control (placebo).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.00|0.70|0.046
91096331|NCT06001021|182076770|SUPERIORITY|"In the Superiority Trial, the statistical test aims to show that the treatment group gives better results than the control group. In an equivalence trial, the statistical test aims to show that two treatments are not too different in characteristics, where not too different is defined in a clinical manner (Lesaffre, 2008)."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.44|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.55||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|15.02|17.87||The significance level is 0.10 with 90% confidence interval|ANCOVA|||Physical Domain of Quality of Life||17.87|15.02|0.000
91096332|NCT06001021|182076770|SUPERIORITY|"In the Superiority Trial, the statistical test aims to show that the treatment group gives better results than the control group. In an equivalence trial, the statistical test aims to show that two treatments are not too different in characteristics, where not too different is defined in a clinical manner (Lesaffre, 2008)."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.62||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|15.16|18.04||The significance level is 0.10 with 90% confidence interval.|ANCOVA|||Psychological Domain of Quality of Life||18.04|15.16|0.000
91096333|NCT06001021|182076770|SUPERIORITY|"In the Superiority Trial, the statistical test aims to show that the treatment group gives better results than the control group. In an equivalence trial, the statistical test aims to show that two treatments are not too different in characteristics, where not too different is defined in a clinical manner (Lesaffre, 2008)."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.96||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.52|9.01||The significance level is 0.10 with 90% confidence interval.|ANCOVA|||Social Domain of Quality of Life||9.01|7.52|0.000
91030263|NCT00406848|181944967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.452||95.0||||p-value is for Systolic BP change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 25.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.452
91030264|NCT00406848|181944967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.193||95.0||||p-value is for Diastolic BP change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 25.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.193
91096334|NCT06001021|182076770|SUPERIORITY|"In the Superiority Trial, the statistical test aims to show that the treatment group gives better results than the control group. In an equivalence trial, the statistical test aims to show that two treatments are not too different in characteristics, where not too different is defined in a clinical manner (Lesaffre, 2008)."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.73|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.07||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|21.64|25.81||The significance level is 0.10 with 90% confidence interval.|ANCOVA|||||25.81|21.64|0.000
91096335|NCT03112603|182076774|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.86|4.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.80|1.86|<0.0001
91096336|NCT03112603|182076776|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.268|0.51||The p-value was derived from a 1-sided stratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio was obtained from a stratified Cox model using cGvHD severity at randomization as strata.|||0.510|0.268|<0.0001
91096337|NCT03112603|182076777|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.361|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.268|0.485|||||The hazard ratio was obtained from a stratified Cox model using cGvHD severity at randomization as strata.|||0.485|0.268|
91030265|NCT00406848|181944968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.121||95.0||||p-value is for change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 13.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.121
91030266|NCT00406848|181944968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038||95.0||||p-value is for change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 25.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.038
91030267|NCT00406848|181944969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||p-value is for Weight change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 13.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.003
91030268|NCT00406848|181944969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.127||95.0||||p-value is for Weight change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 25.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.127
91030269|NCT00406848|181944970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.135||95.0||||p-value is for Diastolic Blood Pressure.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.135
91030270|NCT00406848|181944970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||p-value is for Pulse.|Fisher Exact|||Pulse||||1.00
91030271|NCT00406848|181944970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.107||95.0||||p-value is for Systolic Blood Pressure|Fisher Exact|||||||0.107
91096338|NCT03112603|182076778|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.17||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|3.52||The one-sided p-value was calculated using a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The odds ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test.|||3.52|1.34|0.0011
91096339|NCT03112603|182076780|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.77|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.75|4.39||The one-sided p-value was calculated using a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The odds ratio and 95% CI were calculated using a stratified CMH test.|||4.39|1.75|<0.0001
91096340|NCT03112603|182076782|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.851||||0.2396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.544|1.331||The p-value was derived from a 1-sided stratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio was obtained from a stratified Cox model using cGvHD severity at randomization as strata.|||1.331|0.544|0.2396
91096341|NCT00695019|182076883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.61||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.61
91096342|NCT00695019|182076884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.48||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.48
91096343|NCT00695019|182076885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.77||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.77
91096344|NCT00695019|182076886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.30
91096345|NCT00695019|182076887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.72||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.72
91096346|NCT00695019|182076888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0023||95.0||||Analysis not adjusted to account for baseline differences between the groups.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0023
91096347|NCT00695019|182076889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.21||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Fibrotest provides an estimate of liver fibrosis based on the values of 5 serum markers. Scores range from 0 to 1 with higher scores indicating a greater level of liver fibrosis. A negative change in Fibrotest score is therefore deemed to indicate improvement (reduction in fibrosis), while a positive change indicates worsening condition.||||0.21
91030272|NCT00406848|181944970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.235||95.0||||p-value is for Weight Change (gain)|Fisher Exact|||||||0.235
91030273|NCT00406848|181944970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.813||95.0||||p-value is for Weight Change (loss)|Fisher Exact|||||||0.813
91096348|NCT00695019|182076890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.03||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.03
91096349|NCT00695019|182076890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.005||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.005
91096350|NCT02595892|182076943|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.33|0.98|||Log Rank|||||.98|.33|0.044
91096351|NCT02595892|182076946|OTHER|||||||0.44|||||||Fisher Exact|Two-Sided Fisher's exact test.||||||0.44
91096352|NCT02629159|182076960|SUPERIORITY|In order to preserve Type I error, a step-down approach was used to test the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order where statistical significance at the 0.05 level could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoint in the sequence met the requirements of significance.|Response Rate Difference|34.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.0|39.2||This comparison was the primary analysis for US/FDA regulatory purposes, and a ranked key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of prior biological DMARD use|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||39.2|29.0|<0.001
91096353|NCT02629159|182076960|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|7.5||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|13.8||This comparison was not part of the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of prior biological DMARD use|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Adalimumab|||13.8|1.2|0.018
91096354|NCT02629159|182076961|SUPERIORITY|In order to preserve Type I error, a step-down approach was used to test the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order where statistical significance at the 0.05 level could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoint in the sequence met the requirements of significance.|Response Rate Difference|22.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.6|26.5||This comparison was the primary analysis for EU/EMA regulatory purposes, and a ranked key secondary endpoint for US/FDA regulatory purposes.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of prior biological DMARD use|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||26.5|18.6|<0.001
91096355|NCT02629159|182076961|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|10.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|16.1||This comparison was not part of the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of prior biological DMARD use|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Adalimumab|||16.1|5.3|<0.001
91030274|NCT00406848|181944971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.668||95.0||||p-value is for Sustained Hypertension|Fisher Exact|||||||0.668
91030275|NCT00406848|181944971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.201||95.0||||p-value is for Orthostatic Hypotension|Fisher Exact|||||||0.201
91030276|NCT00406848|181944973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||p-value is for Platelet Count change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 13.|ANOVA|Model: Change=Treatment+Pooled Investigator||||||0.003
91030277|NCT00406848|181944973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value is for Platelet Count change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 25.|ANOVA|Model: Change=Treatment+Pooled Investigator||||||<0.001
91030278|NCT00406848|181944974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value is for Uric Acid change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 13.|ANOVA|Model: Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator||||||<0.001
91030279|NCT00406848|181944974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value is for Uric Acid change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 25.|ANOVA|Model: Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator||||||<0.001
91030280|NCT00406848|181944975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014||95.0||||p-value is for Erythrocyte Count change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 25.|ANOVA|Model: Change=Treatment+Pooled Investigator||||||0.014
91096356|NCT02629159|182076962|SUPERIORITY|In order to preserve Type I error, a step-down approach was used to test the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order where statistical significance at the 0.05 level could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoint in the sequence met the requirements of significance.|LS Mean Difference|-1.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.469|-1.194||This comparison was a ranked key secondary endpoint in the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence for US/FDA and EU/EMA.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, prior biological DMARD use, and Baseline value as covariates.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-1.194|-1.469|<0.001
91096357|NCT02629159|182076962|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.638|-0.295||This comparison was not part of the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, prior biological DMARD use and Baseline value as covariates.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Adalimumab|||-0.295|-0.638|<0.001
91096358|NCT02629159|182076963|SUPERIORITY|In order to preserve Type I error, a step-down approach was used to test the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order where statistical significance at the 0.05 level could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoint in the sequence met the requirements of significance.|LS Mean Difference|-0.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.37||This comparison was a ranked key secondary endpoint in the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence for US/FDA and EU/EMA.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, prior biological DMARD use and Baseline value as covariates.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-0.37|-0.97|<0.001
91096359|NCT02629159|182076963|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.14||||0.448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.51||This comparison was not part of the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, prior biological DMARD use and Baseline value as covariates.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Adalimumab|||0.51|-0.23|0.448
91096360|NCT02629159|182076964|SUPERIORITY|In order to preserve Type I error, a step-down approach was used to test the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order where statistical significance at the 0.05 level could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoint in the sequence met the requirements of significance.|LS Mean Difference|-0.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.372|-0.253||This comparison was a ranked key secondary endpoint in the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence for US/FDA and EU/EMA.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, prior biological DMARD use and Baseline value as covariates.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-0.253|-0.372|<0.001
91096361|NCT02629159|182076964|SUPERIORITY|In order to preserve Type I error, a step-down approach was used to test the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order where statistical significance at the 0.05 level could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoint in the sequence met the requirements of significance.|LS Mean Difference|-0.11||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.184|-0.036||This comparison was a ranked key secondary endpoint in the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence for US/FDA only.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, prior biological DMARD use and Baseline value as covariates.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Adalimumab|||-0.036|-0.184|0.004
90849108|NCT02279407|181563988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio for difference|0.91||||0.502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.11||Conditional upon rejection of at least 1 of the 3 hypotheses for the primary analysis, secondary hypotheses are tested using Tukey's multiple testing procedure with a family-wise error rate of 5%, adjusting for 3 pairwise comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.11|0.75|0.502
91096362|NCT02629159|182076965|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority test of upadacitinib versus adalimumab was evaluated using the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the treatment difference against a non-inferiority margin of 10%. This comparison was a ranked key secondary endpoint in the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence for US/FDA only.|Response Rate Difference|16.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.9|22.3|||||Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Adalimumab|||22.3|9.9|
91096363|NCT02629159|182076965|SUPERIORITY|In order to preserve Type I error, a step-down approach was used to test the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order where statistical significance at the 0.05 level could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoint in the sequence met the requirements of significance.|||||<|0.001||||||This comparison was a ranked key secondary endpoint in the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence for US/FDA only.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of prior biological DMARD use.||||||<0.001
91096364|NCT02629159|182076965|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|30.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.6|35.0||This comparison was not part of the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of prior biological DMARD use|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||35.0|25.6|<0.001
91096365|NCT02629159|182076966|SUPERIORITY|In order to preserve Type I error, a step-down approach was used to test the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order where statistical significance at the 0.05 level could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoint in the sequence met the requirements of significance.|LS Mean Difference|4.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.52|5.15||This comparison was a ranked key secondary endpoint in the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence for US/FDA and EU/EMA.|Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, previous bDMARD use, and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||5.15|3.52|<0.001
91096366|NCT02629159|182076966|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.62||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.62||This comparison was not part of the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence.|Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, previous bDMARD use, and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Adalimumab|||2.62|0.62|0.002
90849109|NCT02279407|181563988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio for difference|0.91||||0.562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.13||Conditional upon rejection of at least 1 of the hypotheses for the primary analysis, secondary hypotheses are tested using Tukey's multiple testing procedure with a family-wise error rate of 5%, adjusting for 3 pairwise comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.13|0.73|0.562
91030281|NCT00406848|181944976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019||95.0||||p-value is for Hemoglobin change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 25.|ANOVA|Model: Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator||||||0.019
91096367|NCT02629159|182076967|SUPERIORITY|In order to preserve Type I error, a step-down approach was used to test the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order where statistical significance at the 0.05 level could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoint in the sequence met the requirements of significance.|Response Rate Difference|31.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.5|35.8||This comparison was a ranked key secondary endpoint in the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence for US/FDA and EU/EMA.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of prior biological DMARD use|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||35.8|26.5|<0.001
91096368|NCT02629159|182076967|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority test of upadacitinib versus adalimumab was evaluated using the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the treatment difference against a non-inferiority margin of 10%. This comparison was a ranked key secondary endpoint in the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence for EU/EMA only.|Response Rate Difference|16.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|22.5|||||Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Adalimumab|||22.5|10.0|
91096369|NCT02629159|182076967|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||This comparison was not part of the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of prior biological DMARD use||||||<0.001
91096370|NCT02629159|182076968|SUPERIORITY|In order to preserve Type I error, a step-down approach was used to test the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order where statistical significance at the 0.05 level could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoint in the sequence met the requirements of significance.|Response Rate Difference|24.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.4|28.8||This comparison was a ranked key secondary endpoint in the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence for US/FDA and EU/EMA.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of prior biological DMARD use.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||28.8|19.4|<0.001
91096371|NCT02629159|182076968|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|10.4||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|16.7||This comparison was not part of the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of prior biological DMARD use|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Adalimumab|||16.7|4.2|0.001
91096372|NCT02629159|182076969|SUPERIORITY|In order to preserve Type I error, a step-down approach was used to test the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order where statistical significance at the 0.05 level could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoint in the sequence met the requirements of significance.|LS Mean Difference|-44.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.39|-32.69||This comparison was a ranked key secondary endpoint in the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence for US/FDA and EU/EMA.|Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, previous bDMARD use, and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-32.69|-55.39|<0.001
91096373|NCT02629159|182076969|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.92||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.89|4.05||This comparison was not part of the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence.|Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, previous bDMARD use, and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Adalimumab|||4.05|-23.89|0.164
91096374|NCT02629159|182076970|SUPERIORITY|In order to preserve Type I error, a step-down approach was used to test the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order where statistical significance at the 0.05 level could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoint in the sequence met the requirements of significance.|LS Mean Difference|4.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.13|5.16||This comparison was a ranked key secondary endpoint in the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence for US/FDA and EU/EMA.|Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, previous bDMARD use, and Baseline value as covariate|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||5.16|3.13|<0.001
91096375|NCT02629159|182076970|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.51||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|2.76||This comparison was not part of the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence.|Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, previous bDMARD use, and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Adalimumab|||2.76|0.27|0.017
91104264|NCT04003142|182094845|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.594|||<|0.001||95.0|1.653|4.104||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||4.104|1.653|<0.001
91104265|NCT04003142|182094845|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.891||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|2.973||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||2.973|1.210|0.005
91030282|NCT00406848|181944976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048||95.0||||p-value is for Mean Cell Hemoglobin Concentration change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 25.|ANOVA|Model: Change=Treatment+Pooled Investigator||||||0.048
90859863|NCT01914757|181583097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.125||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.037|0.213|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline pre-BD FEV1, region, use of OCS, visit, and treatment by visit||||0.213|0.037|0.005
90859864|NCT01914757|181583097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.116||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.028|0.204|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline pre-BD FEV1, region, use of OCS, visit, and treatment by visit||||0.204|0.028|0.01
90859865|NCT01914757|181583098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.064||||0.268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.049|0.176|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline pre-BD FEV1, region, use of OCS, visit, and treatment by visit||||0.176|-0.049|0.268
90859866|NCT01914757|181583098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.015||||0.786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.127|0.096|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline pre-BD FEV1, region, use of OCS, visit, and treatment by visit||||0.096|-0.127|0.786
91030283|NCT00406848|181944977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0||||p-value is for Chloride change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 25.|ANOVA|Model: Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator||||||0.040
91030284|NCT00406848|181944977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036||95.0||||p-value is for Fasting Glucose change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 25.|ANOVA|Model: Change=Treatment+Pooled Investigator||||||0.036
91030285|NCT00406848|181944978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.019
91030286|NCT00406848|181944979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.815||95.0||||p-value is for QT Interval change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 25.|ANCOVA|Model: Change=Treatment+Pooled Investigator+Baseline||||||0.815
91030287|NCT00406848|181944979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.721||95.0||||p-value is for QTcF Interval change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 25.|ANCOVA|Model: Change=Treatment+Pooled Investigator+Baseline||||||0.721
91030288|NCT00406848|181944979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.376||95.0||||p-value is for QTcB Interval change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 25.|ANCOVA|Model: Change=Treatment+Pooled Investigator+Baseline||||||0.376
91030289|NCT00406848|181944979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.065||95.0||||p-value is for PR Interval change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 25.|ANCOVA|Model: Change=Treatment+Pooled Investigator+Baseline||||||0.065
91096376|NCT02629159|182076971|SUPERIORITY|In order to preserve Type I error, a step-down approach was used to test the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order where statistical significance at the 0.05 level could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoint in the sequence met the requirements of significance.|LS Mean Difference|-6.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.63|-3.27||This comparison was a ranked key secondary endpoint in the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence for US/FDA only.|Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, previous bDMARD use, and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Adalimumab|||-3.27|-9.63|<0.001
91096377|NCT02629159|182076971|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-16.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.89|-13.71||This comparison was not part of the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence.|Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, previous bDMARD use, and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-13.71|-18.89|<0.001
91096378|NCT02629159|182076972|SUPERIORITY|In order to preserve Type I error, a step-down approach was used to test the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order where statistical significance at the 0.05 level could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoint in the sequence met the requirements of significance.|Response Rate Difference|7.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|12.1||This comparison was a ranked key secondary endpoint in the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence for EU/EMA only.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of prior biological DMARD use|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||12.1|3.0|<0.001
91096379|NCT02629159|182076972|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|-3.4||||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|1.5||This comparison was not part of the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of prior biological DMARD use.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Adalimumab|||1.5|-8.2|0.187
91096380|NCT02629159|182076973|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|20.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.3|23.7||This comparison was not part of the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of prior biological DMARD use|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||23.7|16.3|<0.001
91096381|NCT02629159|182076973|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|11.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|16.4||This comparison was not part of the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of prior biological DMARD use|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Adalimumab|||16.4|6.5|<0.001
90849110|NCT00422084|181563989|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The primary efficacy analysis tested the non-inferiority of the PA group compared to the comparator group with regard to the PCR-corrected ACPR response rate at Day 28 using the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) (Newcombe-Wilson score method without continuity correction) and a 5% non-inferiority margin. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the CI for the difference \>-5%.|ACPR percent difference|0.3||||0.578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.8||If non-inferiority of PA is demonstrated, the p-value associated with a superiority test was calculated based on a 2-sided Chi-square test. If the calculated p-value is \<5%, then the superiority of PA compared to AL is statistically demonstrated.|Chi-squared|||"Null hypothesis: The PCR-corrected ACPR response rate at Day 28 for the PA group is inferior to the PCR-corrected ACPR response rate at Day 28 for the comparator group (AL) by more than 5%.~Was tested versus the alternative:~Alternative hypothesis: The PCR-corrected ACPR response rate at Day 28 for the PA group is not inferior to the PCR-corrected ACPR response rate at Day 28 for the comparator group (AL) by more than -5%."||1.8|-0.7|0.578
90849111|NCT01323855|181564020|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR) is contained within the interval \[0.50, 2.00\]|GMR|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.54|2.62|||||Severe CRI/Healthy|||2.62|0.54|
90849112|NCT01323855|181564021|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|GMR is contained within the interval \[0.50, 2.00\]|GMR|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.59|2.87|||||Moderate CRI/Healthy|||2.87|0.59|
91030290|NCT00406848|181944979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11||95.0||||p-value is for QRS Interval change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 25.|ANCOVA|Model: Change=Treatment+Pooled Investigator+Baseline||||||0.110
91030291|NCT00406848|181944980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11||95.0||||p-value is for Successful Treatment Outcome defined with HAMD-17 ≤7 criteria.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.110
91030292|NCT00406848|181944980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016||95.0||||p-value is for Successful Treatment Outcome defined with HAMD-17 ≤10 criteria.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.016
91030293|NCT00406848|181944981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.511||95.0||||p-value is for Composite Cognitive Score change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 9.|ANCOVA|Model: Change=Treatment+Pooled Investigator+Baseline||||||0.511
91030294|NCT00406848|181944981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3||95.0||||p-value is for Composite Cognitive Score change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 25.|ANCOVA|Model: Change=Treatment+Pooled Investigator+Baseline||||||0.300
91030295|NCT00406848|181944981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.922||95.0||||p-value is for Learning Trials Score change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 9.|ANCOVA|Model: Change=Treatment+Pooled Investigator+Baseline||||||0.922
91030296|NCT00406848|181944981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19||95.0||||p-value is for Learning Trials Score change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 25.|ANCOVA|Model: Change=Treatment+Pooled Investigator+Baseline||||||0.190
91030297|NCT00406848|181944981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85||95.0||||p-value is for Delayed Recall Score change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 9.|ANCOVA|Model: Change=Treatment+Pooled Investigator+Baseline||||||0.850
90899669|NCT01872910|181665142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.1|10.9|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for SPID 0 to 8 h.|||10.9|5.1|
91096382|NCT05722015|182076976|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin is 0.8.|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.14|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|96.0|1.06|1.22|||Welch's t test|One-sided p-value was calculated using the Welch's t test.|GMR was calculated as the ratio of geometric mean (GM) of Cycle 1 AUC0-6 weeks in Arm 1 to that of Arm 2. The associated 96% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using Welch's t test.|||1.22|1.06|<0.00001
91096383|NCT05722015|182076977|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin is 0.8.|GMR|1.67|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|94.0|1.52|1.84|||Welch's t test|One sided p-value was calculated using Welch's t test.|GMR was calculated as the ratio of GM of Cycle 3 Ctrough in Arm 1 to that of Arm 2. The associated 94% CI were calculated using Welch's t test.|||1.84|1.52|<0.00001
91096384|NCT02685735|182077046|SUPERIORITY|A likelihood-ratio test for change in pain was conducted for each outcome comparing a model with and without gabapentin treatment group. A statistically significant result is interpreted as evidence to support that the gabapentin treatment impacts some element of change after surgery (i.e, intercept or slope).||||||0.882||||||P value not adjusted for multiple comparisons, with threshold of statistical significance set at \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||The estimates were conducted using a linear mixed effects model contrasting differences in the gabapentin group versus placebo. In all cases, these differences are adjusted for prognostic variables including baseline pain, age, sex, pupil diameter, and catastophizing-optimism construct.||||0.882
91096385|NCT02685735|182077052|SUPERIORITY|A likelihood-ratio test for change in pain was conducted for each outcome comparing a model with and without gabapentin treatment group. A statistically significant result is interpreted as evidence to support that the gabapentin treatment impacts some element of change after surgery (i.e, intercept or slope).||||||0.137||||||P value not adjusted for multiple comparisons, with threshold of statistical significance set at \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||The estimates were conducted using a linear mixed effects model contrasting differences in the gabapentin group versus placebo. In all cases, these differences are adjusted for prognostic variables including baseline pain, age, sex, pupil diameter, and catastrophizing-optimism construct.||||0.137
91096386|NCT02685735|182077053|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|14 degrees of freedom||The null hypothesis (H0) is that modeled trajectory of change in pain intensity report after total hip or total knee arthroplasty does not differ between oral gabapentin and placebo in a manner dependent on its interaction with preferred cognitive style and pre-surgery pupil resting diameter . The alternative hypothesis (H1) is that there is a difference between the two groups which is dependent on these interactions.|A likelihood ratio test was conducted to compare these two models, conditional on the difference in the degrees of freedom in both models. A statistically significant likelihood ratio test would be interpreted as evidence that the three mechanistic predictors (Catastrophising-Optimism construct, Study Group, resting Pupil diameter) impact some aspect of the change in pain that occurs after surgery. If a statistically significant effect is observed, the individual interaction parameters will be interpreted.|||<0.0001
91096387|NCT03488524|182077060|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.87||0.0239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|7.9||Significance testing was 2-tailed and considered statistically significant if the calculated p-value was ≤0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random-slope, shared-baseline, linear mixed model was adjusted for age and prebaseline ALSFRS-R slope.||Participants who did not enter the open-label extension (OLE) were included in this analysis.||7.90|0.56|0.0239
91096388|NCT03488524|182077061|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.644||||0.0475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.416|0.995|||Hazard ratio|||Cox Proportional Hazards analysis||0.995|0.416|0.0475
91096389|NCT03488524|182077062|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.621||||0.0308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.403|0.957|||Hazard Ratio|||||0.957|0.403|0.0308
91096390|NCT03488524|182077063|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.55||0.0291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|14.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||14.75|0.80|0.0291
91096391|NCT03488524|182077064|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.923||0.2261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.95|12.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||12.47|-2.95|0.2261
91096392|NCT03488524|182077065|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.103||0.0372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|20.69||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||||20.69|0.63|0.0372
91096393|NCT03488524|182077066|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0503||||||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0503
90899670|NCT01872910|181665142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|8.1|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for SPID 0 to 12 h.|||8.1|-1.3|
90899671|NCT01872910|181665142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|-3.5|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for SPID 0 to 12 h.|||-3.5|-12.9|
90899672|NCT01872910|181665142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|16.5|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for SPID 0 to 12 h.|||16.5|7.0|
91104266|NCT04003142|182094845|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.314|||<|0.001||95.0|2.108|5.265||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||5.265|2.108|<0.001
90899673|NCT01872910|181665142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|18.3|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for SPID 0 to 24 h.|||18.3|-2.6|
90899674|NCT01872910|181665142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.7|-3.6|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for SPID 0 to 24 h.|||-3.6|-24.7|
91030298|NCT00406848|181944981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.158||95.0||||p-value is for Delayed Recall Score change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 25.|ANCOVA|Model: Change=Treatment+Pooled Investigator+Baseline||||||0.158
90899675|NCT01872910|181665142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.5|32.2|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for SPID 0 to 24 h.|||32.2|11.5|
90899676|NCT01872910|181665142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.0|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for SPID 0 to 4 h.|||1.0|-1.6|
90899677|NCT01872910|181665142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|2.1|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for SPID 0 to 6 h.|||2.1|-2.2|
91096394|NCT02003924|182077067|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.292|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.241|0.352||P-value was based on stratified log-rank test by prostate-specific antigen (PSA) doubling time (\< 6 months, \>= 6 months) and prior or concurrent use of a bone targeting agent (yes, no). Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Log Rank||HR was based on a Cox regression model (with treatment as the only covariate) stratified by factors defined above, and was relative to placebo with \< 1 favoring Enzalutamide.|||0.352|0.241|<0.0001
91096395|NCT02003924|182077068|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.066|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.054|0.081||P-value was based on a stratified log-rank test by PSA doubling time (\< 6 months, \>= 6 months) and prior or concurrent use of a bone targeting agent (yes, no) as per IXRS. Threshold for significance at 0.02 level.|Log Rank||HR was based on a Cox regression model (with treatment as the only covariate) stratified by factors defined above, and was relative to placebo with \< 1 favoring Enzalutamide.|To maintain the family-wise 2-sided type I error rate at 0.05, a parallel testing strategy between OS (with allocated type I error rate 0.03) and remaining key secondary endpoints (time to PSA progression and time to first use of new antineoplastic therapy with allocated type I error rate 0.02) was performed. Testing was performed only if the primary endpoint was statistically significant.||0.081|0.054|<0.0001
91096396|NCT02003924|182077069|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.208|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.168|0.258||P-value was based on a stratified log-rank test by PSA doubling time (\< 6 months, \>= 6 months) and prior or concurrent use of a bone targeting agent (yes, no) as per IXRS. Threshold for significance at 0.02 level.|Log Rank||HR was based on a Cox regression model (with treatment as the only covariate) stratified by factors defined above, and was relative to placebo with \< 1 favoring Enzalutamide.|To maintain the family-wise 2-sided type I error rate at 0.05, a parallel testing strategy between OS (with allocated type I error rate 0.03) and remaining key secondary endpoints (time to PSA progression and time to first use of new antineoplastic therapy with allocated type I error rate 0.02) was performed. Testing was performed only if the previous endpoint was statistically significant.||0.258|0.168|<0.0001
91096397|NCT02003924|182077070|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.734||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.608|0.885||P-value was based on a stratified log-rank test by PSA doubling time (\< 6 months, \>= 6 months) and prior or concurrent use of a bone targeting agent (yes, no) as per interactive voice/web recognition system (IXRS).|Log Rank||HR was based on a Cox regression model (with treatment as the only covariate) stratified by factors defined above, and was relative to placebo with \< 1 favoring Enzalutamide.|To maintain family-wise 2-sided type I error rate at 0.05,parallel testing strategy between OS(with allocated type I error rate 0.03)and remaining key secondary endpoints(time to PSA progression and time to first use of new antineoplastic therapy with allocated type I error rate 0.02)was performed.OS tested at error rate 0.05 when both time to PSA progression and time to first use of new antineoplastic therapy were significant. When either failed to show significance.OS was tested at error 0.03.||0.885|0.608|0.0011
91030299|NCT00406848|181944981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.099||95.0||||p-value is for SDST Score change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 9.|ANCOVA|Model: Change=Treatment+Pooled Investigator+Baseline||||||0.099
91096398|NCT02003924|182077071|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.959||||0.6534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.801|1.149||P-value was based on a stratified log-rank test by PSA doubling time (\< 6 months, \>= 6 months) and prior or concurrent use of a bone targeting agent (yes, no) as per IXRS.|Log Rank||HR was based on a Cox regression model (with treatment as the only covariate) stratified by factors defined above, and was relative to placebo with \< 1 favoring Enzalutamide.|||1.149|0.801|0.6534
91096399|NCT02003924|182077072|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.378|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.282|0.507||P-value was based on a stratified log-rank test by PSA doubling time (\< 6 months, \>= 6 months) and prior or concurrent use of a bone targeting agent (yes, no) as per IXRS.|Log Rank||HR was based on a Cox regression model (with treatment as the only covariate) stratified by factors defined above, and was relative to placebo with \< 1 favoring Enzalutamide.|||0.507|0.282|<0.0001
90849113|NCT01323855|181564022|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|GMR is contained within the interval \[0.50, 2.00\]|GMR|2.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.38|5.04|||||Mild CRI/Healthy|||5.04|1.38|
90849114|NCT03996369|181564023|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.69|||=|0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|18.23|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||18.23|1.14|=0.026
90849115|NCT03996369|181564024|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.11|||=|0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|21.23|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||21.23|3.00|=0.009
90849116|NCT03996369|181564025|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.48|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.81|28.15|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||28.15|6.81|=0.001
90849117|NCT03996369|181564026|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.44|||=|0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|14.39|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||14.39|0.50|=0.036
90899678|NCT01872910|181665142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|3.3|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for SPID 0 to 8 h.|||3.3|-2.9|
90899679|NCT01872910|181665142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|5.7|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for SPID 0 to 12 h.|||5.7|-3.9|
90849118|NCT03996369|181564027|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.18|32.29|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||32.29|10.18|<0.001
90849119|NCT03996369|181564028|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.24|||=|0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.27|16.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||16.20|2.27|=0.009
90899680|NCT01872910|181665142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|15.0|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for SPID 0 to 24 h.|||15.0|-6.8|
90899681|NCT01872910|181665143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|3.46|||||Hazard ratio (HR) of the treatment differences were estimated based on Cox proportional hazard model including treatment and baseline pain intensity (VAS) as fixed effects.|||3.46|0.99|
91030300|NCT00406848|181944981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.141||95.0||||p-value is for SDST Score change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 25.|ANCOVA|Model: Change=Treatment+Pooled Investigator+Baseline||||||0.141
91030301|NCT00406848|181944981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.379||95.0||||p-value is for 2DCT Score change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 9.|ANCOVA|Model: Change=Treatment+Pooled Investigator+Baseline||||||0.379
91030302|NCT00406848|181944981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.858||95.0||||p-value is for 2DCT Score change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 25.|ANCOVA|Model: Change=Treatment+Pooled Investigator+Baseline||||||0.858
91096400|NCT02003924|182077075|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rate|73.96|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|70.91|77.02||P-value was based on a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel mean score test stratified by PSA doubling time (\<6 months, \>= 6 months) and prior concurrent use of a bone targeting agent (yes, no) as per IXRS.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Decrease from Baseline \>= 50%||77.02|70.91|<0.0001
91096401|NCT02003924|182077075|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rate|55.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.28|58.76||P-value was based on a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel mean score test stratified by PSA doubling time (\<6 months, \>= 6 months) and prior concurrent use of a bone targeting agent (yes, no) as per IXRS|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Decrease from Baseline \>= 90%||58.76|52.28|<0.0001
91096402|NCT02003924|182077075|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rate|9.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.75|11.54||P-value was based on a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel mean score test stratified by PSA doubling time (\<6 months, \>= 6 months) and prior concurrent use of a bone targeting agent (yes, no) as per IXRS.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Decrease to Undetectable Level||11.54|7.75|<0.0001
91096403|NCT00315445|182077114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035||||||P values are from a repeated measures model|Mixed Models Analysis|||A repeated measures analysis was performed to assess the effects due to treatment, center, and treatment by center interaction. Observations within each subject were assumed to follow a first-order autoregressive model. Missing values were extrapolated by the last observation carried forward (LOCF). Covariates were gender, age, race, weight, baseline pain, and previous opioid use which were incorporated into the model when P \< 0.10, using a backward elimination procedure.||||0.0350
91096404|NCT00315445|182077114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0624||||||Repeated measures analysis to assess the effects due to treatment, center, and treatment by center. Missing values = last observation carried forward (LOCF). Covariates: gender, age, race, weight, baseline pain, and previous opioid use.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0624
91096405|NCT00315445|182077115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Day 84 Mean|46.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|40.2|48.7|||Day 84 Mean|||||48.7|40.2|
91096406|NCT00315445|182077115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Day 84 Mean|44.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|43.3|52.4|||Day 84 Mean|||||52.4|43.3|
91096407|NCT00315445|182077115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Day 84 Mean|46.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|41.7|50.2|||Day 84 Mean|||||50.2|41.7|
91096408|NCT00315445|182077116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Day 84 Mean|18.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.2|26.2|||Day 84 Mean|||||26.2|5.2|
91096409|NCT00315445|182077116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Day 84 Mean|24.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|10.7|32.0|||Day 84 Mean|||||32.0|10.7|
91096410|NCT00315445|182077116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Day 84 Mean|33.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|16.0|35.2|||Day 84 Mean|||||35.2|16.0|
91096411|NCT00315445|182077117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0452||||||Multiple linear regression|Mixed Models Analysis|||A repeated measures analysis was performed to assess the effects due to treatment, center, and treatment by center interaction. Observations within each subject were assumed to follow a first-order autoregressive model. Missing values were extrapolated by the last observation carried forward (LOCF). Covariates were gender, age, race, weight, baseline pain, and previous opioid use which were incorporated into the model when P \< 0.10, using a backward elimination procedure.||||0.0452
91096412|NCT00315445|182077117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0962|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0962
91096413|NCT00315445|182077118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Day 84 Mean|35.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|24.3|35.6|||Day 84 Mean|||||35.6|24.3|
91096414|NCT00315445|182077118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Day 84 Mean|39.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|29.0|40.3|||Day 84 Mean|||||40.3|29.0|
91096415|NCT00315445|182077118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Day 84 Mean|41.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|32.1|42.5|||Day 84 Mean|||||42.5|32.1|
91096416|NCT00315445|182077119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Day 84 Mean|52.4||||||90.0|50.3|56.6|||Day 84 Mean|||||56.6|50.3|
91096417|NCT00315445|182077119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Day 84 Mean|52.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|51.8|58.3|||Day 84 Mean|||||58.3|51.8|
91096418|NCT00315445|182077119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Day 84 Mean|57.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|52.3|58.6|||Day 84 Mean|||||58.6|52.3|
90899682|NCT01872910|181665143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.72|||||HR of the treatment differences were estimated based on Cox proportional hazard model including treatment and baseline pain intensity (VAS) as fixed effects.|||0.72|0.16|
91096419|NCT00315445|182077122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Day 84 Mean|55.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|49.8|67.9|||Day 84 Mean|||||67.9|49.8|
91096420|NCT00315445|182077122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Day 84 Mean|56.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|45.9|65.3|||Day 84 Mean|||||65.3|45.9|
91096421|NCT00315445|182077122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Day 84 Mean|63.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|53.1|70.9|||Day 84 Mean|||||70.9|53.1|
91096422|NCT00315445|182077123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Day 84 Mean|67.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|61.3|68.6|||Day 84 Mean|||||68.6|61.3|
91096423|NCT00315445|182077123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Day 84 Mean|68.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|61.7|68.8|||Day 84 Mean|||||68.8|61.7|
91096424|NCT00315445|182077123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Day 84 Mean|67.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|62.0|68.7|||Day 84 Mean|||||68.7|62.0|
91096425|NCT00315445|182077128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.67||||0.054|||||||Regression, Cox|For the secondary outcome measure no alpha adjustment for multiple comparison was performed.||||||0.054
91096426|NCT00315445|182077128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.51||||0.138|||||||Regression, Cox|For the secondary outcome measure no alpha adjustment for multiple comparison was performed.||||||0.138
91096427|NCT00315445|182077129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.3||||0.0105|||||||Regression, Cox|For the secondary outcomes no alpha adjustment for multiple comparison was performed.||||||0.0105
91096428|NCT00315445|182077129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.04||||0.0024|||||||Regression, Cox|For the secondary outcome measure no alpha adjustment for multiple comparison was performed.||||||0.0024
91096429|NCT00315445|182077130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.033
91096430|NCT00315445|182077130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.043|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.043
91096431|NCT00315445|182077131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.011
91096432|NCT00315445|182077131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.034
91096433|NCT00315445|182077132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.038
91096434|NCT00315445|182077132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.63
91096435|NCT00315445|182077133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.064|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.064
91096436|NCT00315445|182077133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.066|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.066
91096437|NCT00315445|182077134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.607|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.607
90849120|NCT03996369|181564029|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.85|||=|0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|13.13|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||13.13|-1.42|=0.115
91096438|NCT00315445|182077134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.94|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.940
91096439|NCT00315445|182077135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.702|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.702
91096440|NCT00315445|182077135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.634|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.634
91096441|NCT01299909|182077136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|3.51|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.51|0.67|0.35
91096442|NCT01299909|182077137|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.81||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|df=(1,57)||||||0.03
91096443|NCT01299909|182077138|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.09||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|df=(1,57)||||||0.02
91096444|NCT01299909|182077139|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.96||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|df=(1,57)||||||0.03
91096445|NCT01811238|182077140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.69|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.18|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|"The primary endpoint will be the actual reduction rate of pain intensity (0 -10) score at 8 weeks.~It will be analyzed by using paired t-test."||||||<0.05
91096446|NCT01811238|182077141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.37|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.12|||t-test, 2 sided|The change(difference) in EQ-5D score at Week 8 from baseline was analyzed by using paired t-test.||||1.12|0|<0.05
91096447|NCT01155570|182077147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparison versus Baseline at Week 4||||<0.0001
91096448|NCT01155570|182077148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparison versus Baseline at Week 8||||<0.0001
91096449|NCT01155570|182077149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparison versus Baseline at Week 16||||<0.0001
91096450|NCT01155570|182077150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparison versus Baseline at Week 24||||<0.0001
91096451|NCT01155570|182077151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparison versus Baseline at Week 16||||<0.0001
91096452|NCT01155570|182077152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparison versus Baseline at Week 24||||<0.0001
91096453|NCT01155570|182077157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparison versus Baseline at Week 16||||<0.0001
91096454|NCT01155570|182077158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparison versus Baseline at Week 24||||<0.0001
91096455|NCT01155570|182077159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparison versus Baseline at Week 4||||<0.0001
90849121|NCT03996369|181564029|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.83|||=|0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.19|20.47|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||20.47|3.19|=0.007
90849122|NCT03996369|181564029|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.84|||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.98|24.69|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||24.69|4.98|=0.003
90849123|NCT03996369|181564030|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.83|||=|0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|6.48|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||6.48|-0.81|=0.128
91096456|NCT01155570|182077160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparison versus Baseline at Week 16||||<0.0001
91096457|NCT01155570|182077162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparison versus Baseline at Week 24||||<0.0001
91096458|NCT01155570|182077163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparison versus Baseline at Week 4||||<0.0001
91096459|NCT01155570|182077164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparison versus Baseline at Week 16||||<0.0001
91096460|NCT01155570|182077165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparison versus Baseline at Week 24||||<0.0001
91096461|NCT01155570|182077166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparison versus Baseline at Week 4||||<0.0001
91096462|NCT01155570|182077167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparison versus Baseline at Week 16||||<0.0001
91096463|NCT01155570|182077168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparison versus Baseline at Week 24||||<0.0001
91096464|NCT01922934|182077169|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91096465|NCT02354118|182077177|NON_INFERIORITY|10% non-inferiority margin||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.0
91096466|NCT02774889|182077178|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.72||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|2.57|||Fisher Exact|||||2.57|0.27|0.55
91096467|NCT02774889|182077179|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.74||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.61|-2.89|||Fisher Exact|||at 3 months||-2.89|-6.61|0.001
91096468|NCT02774889|182077179|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.07||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.47|-1.68|||Fisher Exact|||at 6 months||-1.68|-6.47|0.001
91096469|NCT02774889|182077180|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.16|||Fisher Exact|||3 months||0.16|0.00|0.05
91096470|NCT02774889|182077180|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.22|||Fisher Exact|||6 months||0.22|0.07|0.0003
91096471|NCT02774889|182077181|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.44|||Fisher Exact|||3 months||0.44|-0.40|0.88
91096472|NCT02774889|182077181|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.37|||Fisher Exact|||6 months||0.37|-0.48|0.83
91096473|NCT02774889|182077182|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.54|||Fisher Exact|||3 months||0.54|-0.20|0.36
91096474|NCT02774889|182077182|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.77|||Fisher Exact|||6 months||0.77|-0.11|0.14
91096475|NCT02774889|182077183|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.85|||Fisher Exact|||3 months||0.85|-0.43|0.52
91096476|NCT02774889|182077183|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.85|||Fisher Exact|||6 months||0.85|-0.31|0.36
91096477|NCT02774889|182077184|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|1.32|||Fisher Exact|||3 months||1.32|-0.58|0.43
91096478|NCT02774889|182077184|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.54||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|1.49|||Fisher Exact|||6 months||1.49|-0.42|0.26
91096479|NCT02774889|182077185|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.61|||Fisher Exact|||3 months||0.61|-0.09|0.16
91096480|NCT02774889|182077185|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.17|||Fisher Exact|||6 months||0.17|-0.55|0.29
91096481|NCT02774889|182077187|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.66|2.4|||Fisher Exact|||3 months||2.40|-2.66|0.91
91096482|NCT02774889|182077187|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.79|2.15|||Fisher Exact|||6 months||2.15|-2.79|0.80
91096483|NCT02774889|182077188|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.63||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|2.64|||Fisher Exact|||3 months||2.64|-1.44|0.54
91096484|NCT02774889|182077188|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.18||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|3.81|||Fisher Exact|||6 months||3.81|-1.49|0.38
91096485|NCT02774889|182077190|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.89||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|3.71|||Fisher Exact|||Inside Balance||3.71|0.06|0.04
91096486|NCT02774889|182077190|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.75||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|3.51|||Fisher Exact|||Outside Balance||3.51|-0.02|0.05
91096487|NCT02774889|182077190|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.86||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|3.81|||Fisher Exact|||Strength||3.81|-0.08|0.06
91096488|NCT02774889|182077191|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.63||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|2.17|||Fisher Exact|||Balance Exercises at 3 months||2.17|0.54|0.003
91096489|NCT02774889|182077191|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.01||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|2.24|||Fisher Exact|||Balance Exercises at 6 Months||2.24|-0.22|0.11
91096490|NCT02774889|182077192|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.06||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.89|||Fisher Exact|||Strength Exercises at 3 months||1.89|0.23|0.01
90849124|NCT03996369|181564030|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.32|||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.01|13.64|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||13.64|3.01|=0.002
90849125|NCT03996369|181564030|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.06|||=|0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|13.49|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||13.49|0.62|=0.032
90849126|NCT03996369|181564030|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.18|||=|0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.82|16.54|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||16.54|1.82|=0.014
91096491|NCT02774889|182077192|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.75||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|1.67|||Fisher Exact|||Strength Exercises at 6 months||1.67|-0.16|0.11
91096492|NCT02774889|182077193|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.02||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|3.3|||Fisher Exact|||3 months||3.30|-1.30|0.38
91096493|NCT02774889|182077193|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.6||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|4.73|||Fisher Exact|||6 months||4.73|0.43|0.02
91096494|NCT02774889|182077194|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.97|||Fisher Exact|||3 months||0.97|-0.33|0.33
91096495|NCT02774889|182077194|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.63||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|1.27|||Fisher Exact|||6 months||1.27|-0.02|0.06
91096496|NCT02774889|182077195|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.62||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|1.28|||Fisher Exact|||3 months||1.28|-0.03|0.06
91096497|NCT02774889|182077195|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.81|||Fisher Exact|||||0.81|-0.45|0.59
91096498|NCT00724945|182077196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean|-0.08591|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.008816||||95.0|-0.08591|-0.06857|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Alternative hypothesis: senofilcon A multifocal would be better than or equal to 0.1 logMAR units.||-0.06857|-0.08591|
90849127|NCT03996369|181564031|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.55|||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.65|25.46|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||25.46|5.65|=0.002
90849128|NCT03996369|181564031|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.98|||=|0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.05|25.91|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||25.91|4.05|=0.007
91096499|NCT00724945|182077197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean|0.02711|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.008816||||97.5|0.02711|0.04445|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Alternative hypothesis: senofilcon A multifocal lens would be better than or equal to 0.17 logMAR units.||0.04445|0.02711|
91096500|NCT00724945|182077198|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is -0.5.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07407|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1279||||97.5|-0.1797|0.07407|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated as senofilcon A multifocal minus balafilcon A multifocal.|Alternative hypothesis: senofilcon A multifocal lens will have subjective vision that is non-inferior to balafilcon A multifocal.||0.07407|-0.1797|
91096501|NCT01069939|182077199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|96.65|0.02|0.41||An interim analysis was done so that the significance level was adjusted using the Pocock-like alpha-spending function with Lan-DeMets approach. The adjusted significance level was the two-sided 3.35%.|Log Rank|||The above two groups were compared.||0.41|0.02|<0.001
91096502|NCT04901624|182077218|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.97|||Mixed Models Analysis||Coefficient for mixed effects regression comparing Time 2 attendance to Time 1 attendance for Personal + Loss Protection relative to reference group (Personal + Lottery).|||1.97|0.42|0.003
91096503|NCT04901624|182077218|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|2.24|||Mixed Models Analysis||Coefficient for mixed effects regression comparing Time 2 attendance to Time 1 attendance for Family + Loss Protection relative to reference group (Personal + Lottery).|||2.24|0.68|<0.001
91096504|NCT04901624|182077218|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.96|||Mixed Models Analysis||Coefficient for mixed effects regression comparing Time 2 attendance to Time 1 attendance for Family + Lottery relative to reference group (Personal + Lottery).|||1.96|0.26|0.01
91096505|NCT04901624|182077219|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.4|||Regression, Logistic|||Comparison of Time 2 attendance between study arms among respondents who indicated that money was the biggest barrier to getting the vaccine.||0.4|-0.98|0.409
91096506|NCT04901624|182077219|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|1.1|||Regression, Logistic|||Comparison of Time 2 attendance between study arms among respondents who indicated that money was the biggest barrier to getting the vaccine.||1.10|-0.09|0.098
91096507|NCT04901624|182077219|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.73|||Regression, Logistic|||Comparison of Time 2 attendance between study arms among respondents who indicated that money was the biggest barrier to getting the vaccine.||0.73|-0.71|0.982
91096508|NCT04901624|182077219|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.12|||Regression, Logistic|||Comparison of Time 2 attendance between study arms among respondents who indicated that their medical provider was the most trusted source of COVID-19 information.||0.12|-0.67|0.177
90849129|NCT03996369|181564031|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|22.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.95|33.25|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||33.25|11.95|<0.001
90849130|NCT03996369|181564031|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.58|||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.7|28.47|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||28.47|6.70|=0.002
91096509|NCT04901624|182077219|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.74|||Regression, Logistic|||Comparison of Time 2 attendance between study arms among respondents who indicated that their medical provider was the most trusted source of COVID-19 information.||0.74|-0.08|0.117
91096510|NCT04901624|182077219|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.5|||Regression, Logistic|||Comparison of Time 2 attendance between study arms among respondents who indicated that their medical provider was the most trusted source of COVID-19 information.||0.50|-0.39|0.809
91096511|NCT04901624|182077219|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.41|||Regression, Logistic|||Comparison of Time 2 attendance between study arms among respondents who scored below or equal to 5 on the risk aversion scale (scale of 0-10, with 0 being more risk averse and 10 being more risk prone).||0.41|-0.34|0.847
91096512|NCT04901624|182077219|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.38|||Regression, Logistic|||Comparison of Time 2 attendance between study arms among respondents who scored below or equal to 5 on the risk aversion scale (scale of 0-10, with 0 being more risk averse and 10 being more risk prone).||0.38|-0.39|0.993
91096513|NCT04901624|182077219|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.33|||Regression, Logistic|||Comparison of Time 2 attendance between study arms among respondents who scored below or equal to 5 on the risk aversion scale (scale of 0-10, with 0 being more risk averse and 10 being more risk prone).||0.33|-0.51|0.671
91096514|NCT01147458|182077230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.374||0.067|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.08|1.04|||ANCOVA|||The analysis was a mixed model with random participant effect, period and treatment as fixed effects, utilizing the baseline scores (one for each treatment period) as inter- and intra- participant covariates.||1.04|0.08|0.067
91096515|NCT01147458|182077230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.369||0.701|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.67|0.28|||ANCOVA|||The analysis was a mixed model with random participant effect, period and treatment as fixed effects, utilizing the baseline scores (one for each treatment period) as inter- and intra- participant covariates.||0.28|-0.67|0.701
90849131|NCT03996369|181564032|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.99|||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.07|25.91|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||25.91|6.07|=0.002
90849132|NCT03996369|181564032|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.45|||=|0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.54|26.36|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||26.36|4.54|=0.006
90849133|NCT03996369|181564032|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|22.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.43|32.85|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||32.85|11.43|<0.001
90849134|NCT03996369|181564032|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.65|29.33|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||29.33|7.65|<0.001
91030303|NCT00406848|181944981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.591||95.0||||p-value is for Trail Making Test Score change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 9.|ANCOVA|Model: Change=Treatment+Pooled Investigator+Baseline||||||0.591
91030304|NCT00406848|181944981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.242||95.0||||p-value is for Trail Making Test Score change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 25.|ANCOVA|Model: Change=Treatment+Pooled Investigator+Baseline||||||0.242
91096516|NCT01147458|182077231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.374||0.067|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.08|1.04|||ANCOVA|||The analysis was a mixed model with random participant effect, period and treatment as fixed effects, utilizing the baseline scores (one for each treatment period) as inter- and intra- participant covariates.||1.04|0.08|0.067
91096517|NCT01147458|182077231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.369||0.701|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.67|0.28|||ANCOVA|||The analysis was a mixed model with random participant effect, period and treatment as fixed effects, utilizing the baseline scores (one for each treatment period) as inter- and intra- participant covariates.||0.28|-0.67|0.701
91096518|NCT01147458|182077232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.172|||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.15|0.29|||ANCOVA|||The analysis was a mixed model with random participant effect, period and treatment as fixed effects, utilizing the baseline scores (one for each treatment period) as inter- and intra- participant covariates.||0.29|-0.15|
91096519|NCT01147458|182077232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.09|0.35|||ANCOVA|||The analysis was a mixed model with random participant effect, period and treatment as fixed effects, utilizing the baseline scores (one for each treatment period) as inter- and intra- participant covariates.||0.35|-0.09|
91096520|NCT01147458|182077233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.239|||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.34|2.85|||ANCOVA|||The analysis was a mixed model with random participant effect, period and treatment as fixed effects, utilizing the baseline scores (one for each treatment period) as inter- and intra- participant covariates.||2.85|-0.34|
90849135|NCT00653432|181564035|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.145|||||||Ordinal GEE Model|||||||0.1450
90849136|NCT00653432|181564036|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5824|||||||Ordinal GEE Model|||||||0.5824
90849137|NCT00653432|181564037|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9136|||||||Ordinal GEE Model|||||||0.9136
90849138|NCT00653432|181564038|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1699|||||||Ordinal GEE Model|||||||0.1699
90849139|NCT00653432|181564039|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3238|||||||Ordinal GEE Model|||||||0.3238
90849140|NCT00653432|181564040|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0427|||||||Ordinal GEE Model|||||||0.0427
90849141|NCT00653432|181564041|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8206|||||||Ordinal GEE Model|||||||0.8206
90849142|NCT00653432|181564042|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9818|||||||Ordinal GEE Model|||||||0.9818
90849143|NCT00653432|181564043|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0542|||||||Ordinal GEE Model|||||||0.0542
90849144|NCT00653432|181564044|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.323|||||||Ordinal GEE Model|||||||0.3230
90849145|NCT01782469|181564046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Mean percent reduction in ultrasonography assessment score at Vist 2 as compared to Baseline (Visit 1)|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.001
91096521|NCT01147458|182077233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.252|||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.95|1.28|||ANCOVA|||The analysis was a mixed model with random participant effect, period and treatment as fixed effects, utilizing the baseline scores (one for each treatment period) as inter- and intra- participant covariates.||1.28|-1.95|
90849146|NCT01782469|181564046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Mean percent reduction in ultrasonography assessment score at Vist 3 as compared to Baseline (Visit 1)|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.001
90849147|NCT01782469|181564046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Mean percent reduction in ultrasonography assessment score at Vist 4 as compared to Baseline (Visit 1)|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||<0.001
90849148|NCT01782469|181564046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Mean percent reduction in ultrasonography assessment score at Vist 5 as compared to Baseline (Visit 1)|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.001
90849149|NCT01782469|181564047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|||||Mean number of joints with erosions at Vist 2 as compared to Baseline (Visit 1)|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||.130
91030305|NCT01046253|181945031|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|105.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.4|114.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||114|97.4|
91030306|NCT01046253|181945032|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|98.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.3|104.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||104|93.3|
91030307|NCT01046253|181945033|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Slope|98.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.8|104.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||104|92.8|
91030308|NCT00860028|181945036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.36||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.36
91030309|NCT00860028|181945037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.06||95.0|||||General Linear Model|||||||0.06
91030310|NCT00860028|181945038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.03||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.03
91030311|NCT00936390|181945050|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.11||One-sided significance level 0.025 (reported p-value is two-sided)|Log Rank||Reference level = radiation therapy alone arm|This study was designed to detect an improvement in the 5-year overall survival rate from 90% (radiation alone arm) to 93.3% (radiation and androgen deprivation arm). Assuming an exponential survival distribution for each arm, this translates to a 34% relative reduction (hazard ratio 0.66) in the yearly death rate. At least 218 deaths provide 85% power with a 1-sided significance level of 0.025 and 85% power.||1.11|0.65|0.22
91104267|NCT04003142|182094845|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.646||||0.027||95.0|1.06|2.566||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||2.566|1.060|0.027
90849150|NCT01782469|181564047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|||||Mean number of joints with erosions at Vist 3 as compared to Baseline (Visit 1)|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.031
90899683|NCT01872910|181665143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|5.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.69|11.16|||||HR of the treatment differences were estimated based on Cox proportional hazard model including treatment and baseline pain intensity (VAS) as fixed effects.|||11.16|2.69|
91030312|NCT00936390|181945051|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.7||One-sided significance level 0.025 (reported p-value is two-sided)|Log Rank||Reference level = radiation therapy alone arm|Cause-specific hazard model||0.70|0.39|<0.001
91030313|NCT00936390|181945051|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||One-sided significance level 0.025 (reported p-value is two-sided)|Gray's test|||Cumulative incidence model||||<0.001
91030314|NCT00936390|181945052|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.44||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.9||One-sided significance level 0.025 (reported p-value is two-sided)|Log Rank||Reference level = radiation therapy alone arm|Cause-specific hazard model||0.90|0.22|0.020
91030315|NCT00936390|181945052|SUPERIORITY|Cumulative incidence model||||||0.021||||||One-sided significance level 0.025 (reported p-value is two-sided)|Gray's test|||||||0.021
91030316|NCT00936390|181945054|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.57||One-sided significance level 0.025 (reported p-value is two-sided)|Log Rank||Reference level = radiation therapy alone arm|Cause-specific hazard model||0.57|0.11|<0.001
90849151|NCT01782469|181564047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|||||Mean number of joints with erosions at Vist 4 as compared to Baseline (Visit 1)|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.006
90849152|NCT01782469|181564047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|||||Mean number of joints with erosions at Vist 5 as compared to Baseline (Visit 1)|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.003
90859867|NCT01914757|181583099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline Asthma symptom score, region, use of OCS, visit, and visit by treatment.||||0.07|-0.32|0.224
90859868|NCT01914757|181583099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline Asthma symptom score, region, use of OCS, visit, and visit by treatment.||||-0.04|-0.43|0.019
90899684|NCT01872910|181665143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|2.59|||||HR of the treatment differences were estimated based on Cox proportional hazard model including treatment and baseline pain intensity (VAS) as fixed effects.|||2.59|0.57|
91104268|NCT04003142|182094845|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.347|||<|0.001||95.0|1.507|3.683||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||3.683|1.507|<0.001
90849153|NCT04740905|181564066|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of a two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in adjusted means of the two treatments (faricimab minus aflibercept) is greater than -4 letters (the non-inferiority margin), then faricimab is considered non-inferior to aflibercept.|Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.1|||||The treatment difference in adjusted means of change from baseline BCVA is the calculated difference of Arm A: Faricimab and Arm B: Aflibercept. MMRM adjustments are listed in the outcome measure description.|The null hypothesis, H0: μ(faricimab) - μ(aflibercept) ≤-4 letters; the alternative hypothesis, Ha: μ(faricimab) - μ(aflibercept) \>-4 letters. The final sample size provided \>90% power for the non-inferiority assessment (at a one-sided 0.02485 significance level).||1.1|-2.2|
90849154|NCT04740905|181564066|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.4978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.1||Tested at a two-sided 0.0497 significance level.|Mixed Model of Repeated Measures||The treatment difference in adjusted means of change from baseline BCVA is the calculated difference of Arm A: Faricimab and Arm B: Aflibercept. MMRM adjustments are listed in the outcome measure description.|The final sample size provided \>80% power for a 3.5-letter superiority assessment of faricimab over aflibercept.||1.1|-2.2|0.4978
91030317|NCT00936390|181945054|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||One-sided significance level 0.025 (reported p-value is two-sided)|Gray's test|||Cumulative incidence model||||<0.001
91030318|NCT00936390|181945055|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.1||||0.0073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.8||One-sided significance level 0.025 (reported p-value is two-sided)|Log Rank||Reference level = radiation therapy alone arm|Cause-specific hazard model||0.80|0.01|0.0073
91030319|NCT00936390|181945055|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007||||||One-sided significance level 0.025 (reported p-value is two-sided)|Gray's test|||Cumulative incidence model||||0.007
91030320|NCT00936390|181945056|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.2||One-sided significance level 0.025 (reported p-value is two-sided)|Log Rank||Reference level = radiation therapy alone arm|Cause-specific hazard model||1.20|0.70|0.52
91030321|NCT00936390|181945056|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56||||||One-sided significance level 0.025 (reported p-value is two-sided)|Gray's test|||Cumulative incidence model||||0.56
91030322|NCT00936390|181945057|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.95||One-sided significance level 0.025 (reported p-value is two-sided)|Log Rank||Reference level = radiation therapy alone arm|Cause-specific hazard model||0.95|0.41|0.025
91030323|NCT00936390|181945057|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.025||||||One-sided significance level 0.025 (reported p-value is two-sided)|Gray's test|||Cumulative incidence model||||0.025
91030324|NCT00936390|181945059|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91096522|NCT01147458|182077234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.699|||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.13|4.25|||ANCOVA|||The analysis was a mixed model with random participant effect, period and treatment as fixed effects, utilizing the baseline scores (one for each treatment period) as inter- and intra- participant covariates.||4.25|-0.13|
90849155|NCT04740905|181564068|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|3.8||||||||3.8|-12.3|
90899685|NCT01872910|181665144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.47|||||HR of the treatment differences were estimated based on Cox proportional hazard model including treatment and baseline pain intensity (VAS) as fixed effects.|||1.47|0.41|
91030325|NCT00936390|181945060|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.53||One-sided significance level 0.025 (reported p-value is one-sided)|Gray's test||Reference level = radiation therapy alone arm|||1.53|0.89|0.13
91030326|NCT00936390|181945061|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.7||One-sided significance level 0.025 (reported p-value is two-sided)|Log Rank||Reference level = radiation therapy alone arm|Cause-specific hazard model||0.70|0.39|<0.001
91030327|NCT00936390|181945061|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||One-sided significance level 0.025 (reported p-value is two-sided)|Gray's test|||Cumulative incidence model||||<0.001
91030328|NCT00936390|181945062|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||End of RT||||0.38
91096523|NCT01147458|182077234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.709|||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.53|1.88|||ANCOVA|||The analysis was a mixed model with random participant effect, period and treatment as fixed effects, utilizing the baseline scores (one for each treatment period) as inter- and intra- participant covariates.||1.88|-2.53|
91096524|NCT01147458|182077235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.624|||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.03|1.58|||ANCOVA|||The analysis was a mixed model with random participant effect, period and treatment as fixed effects, utilizing the baseline scores (one for each treatment period) as inter- and intra- participant covariates.||1.58|-0.03|
91030329|NCT00936390|181945062|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.032|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||6 months post-RT||||0.032
91030330|NCT00936390|181945062|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||One year post-RT||||0.87
91030331|NCT00936390|181945062|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Five years post-RT||||0.67
91030332|NCT00936390|181945063|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||End of RT||||0.58
91030333|NCT00936390|181945063|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Six months post-RT||||0.31
91030334|NCT00936390|181945063|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||One year post-RT||||0.36
91030335|NCT00936390|181945063|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Five years post-RT||||0.88
91030336|NCT00936390|181945064|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||End of RT||||<0.001
91030337|NCT00936390|181945064|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Six months post-RT||||<0.001
91030338|NCT00936390|181945064|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||One year post-RT||||<0.001
91030339|NCT00936390|181945064|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Five years post-RT||||0.18
91030340|NCT00936390|181945065|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||End of RT||||<0.001
91030341|NCT00936390|181945065|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Six months post-RT||||<0.001
91030342|NCT00936390|181945065|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0014|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||One year post-RT||||0.0014
91030343|NCT00936390|181945065|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Five years post-RT||||0.90
91030344|NCT00936390|181945066|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||End of RT||||0.046
91030345|NCT00936390|181945066|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||6 months post-RT||||0.82
91030346|NCT00936390|181945066|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||One year post-RT||||0.82
91096525|NCT01147458|182077235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.628|||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.97|0.65|||ANCOVA|||The analysis was a mixed model with random participant effect, period and treatment as fixed effects, utilizing the baseline scores (one for each treatment period) as inter- and intra- participant covariates.||0.65|-0.97|
91096526|NCT01147458|182077236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.18|0.2|||ANCOVA|||The analysis was a mixed model with random participant effect, period and treatment as fixed effects, utilizing the baseline scores (one for each treatment period) as inter- and intra- participant covariates.||0.20|-0.18|
91096527|NCT01147458|182077236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.147|||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.07|0.31|||ANCOVA|||The analysis was a mixed model with random participant effect, period and treatment as fixed effects, utilizing the baseline scores (one for each treatment period) as inter- and intra- participant covariates.||0.31|-0.07|
91096528|NCT01147458|182077237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.168|||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.12|0.31|||ANCOVA|||The analysis was a mixed model with random participant effect, period and treatment as fixed effects, utilizing the baseline scores (one for each treatment period) as inter- and intra- participant covariates.||0.31|-0.12|
91096529|NCT01147458|182077237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.162|||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.11|0.31|||ANCOVA|||The analysis was a mixed model with random participant effect, period and treatment as fixed effects, utilizing the baseline scores (one for each treatment period) as inter- and intra- participant covariates.||0.31|-0.11|
91096530|NCT02811159|182077253|OTHER|||||||0.1797|||||||Chi-Square Test|||||||0.1797
91096531|NCT02811159|182077254|OTHER|||||||0.125|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|||||||0.1250
91096532|NCT02811159|182077255|OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|||||||0.2500
91096533|NCT02811159|182077256|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|||||||0.5000
91096534|NCT02811159|182077257|OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|||||||0.2500
91096535|NCT02811159|182077258|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|||||||1.0000
91096536|NCT02811159|182077259|OTHER|||||||0.875|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|||||||0.8750
91096537|NCT02811159|182077260|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|||||||0.5000
91096538|NCT02811159|182077261|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|||||||0.5000
91096539|NCT02811159|182077262|OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|||||||0.2500
91096540|NCT02811159|182077263|OTHER|||||||0.0645|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|||||||0.0645
91096541|NCT04603066|182077265|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0204257||||0.8651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2624635|0.2216122|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.2216122|-0.2624635|0.8651
91096542|NCT04603066|182077266|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01727052||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0005895|0.03513063|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.03513063|-0.0005895|0.056
91096543|NCT05495997|182077342|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015|||||||ANCOVA|||Mental Imagery Group (PD-MI) compared to Psychoeducation Control Group (PD-Con) at 6 weeks compared to baseline (group-by-time interaction)||||0.015
91096544|NCT05495997|182077343|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.993|||||||ANCOVA|||Mental Imagery Group (PD-MI) compared to Psychoeducation Control Group (PD-Con) at 18 weeks compared to baseline (group-by-time interaction)||||0.993
91096545|NCT05495997|182077344|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.517|||||||ANCOVA|||Mental Imagery Group (PD-MI) compared to Psychoeducation Control Group (PD-Con) at 6 weeks compared to baseline (group-by-time interaction)||||0.517
91096546|NCT05495997|182077345|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.817|||||||ANCOVA|||Mental Imagery Group (PD-MI) compared to Psychoeducation Control Group (PD-Con) at 18 weeks compared to baseline (group-by-time interaction)||||0.817
91096547|NCT04435626|182077392|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.84||||0.0072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.95||Two-sided p-value; p-value threshold =0.04967;|stratified Andersen-Gill model|stratified Andersen-Gill model with robust sandwich estimate for the covariance matrix of recurrent events|stratified Andersen-Gill model with robust sandwich estimate for the covariance matrix of recurrent events|Rate Ratio (Finerenone/Placebo)||0.95|0.74|0.0072
91096548|NCT04435626|182077394|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.82||||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.94||Two-sided p-value; p-value threshold=0.04967;|Stratified Andersen-Gill model|stratified Andersen-Gill model with robust sandwich estimate for the covariance matrix of recurrent events|stratified Andersen-Gill model with robust sandwich estimate for the covariance matrix of recurrent events|Rate Ratio (Finerenone/Placebo)||0.94|0.71|0.0062
91096549|NCT04435626|182077396|OTHER|mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM)|Difference in LS Mean|1.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.34||Two-sided p-value;|Mixed Models Analysis|The analysis was performed using mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Difference in LS Mean||2.34|0.79|<.0001
91096550|NCT04435626|182077397|OTHER|Logistic regression analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.9295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.15||Two-sided p-value|Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio (finerenone /placebo)||1.15|0.88|0.9295
91096551|NCT04435626|182077398|OTHER|Stratified log-rank test|Cause-specific Hazard Ratio|1.33||||0.1071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.89||two-sided p-value|Stratified log-rank test||stratified Cox proportional hazards model|Cause-specific Hazard Ratio||1.89|0.94|0.1071
91096552|NCT04435626|182077399|OTHER|Stratified log-rank test|cause-specific hazard ratio|0.93||||0.2794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.06||two-sided p-value|stratified log-rank||stratified Cox proportional hazards model|Hazard Ratio||1.06|0.83|0.2794
91096553|NCT04426656|182077400|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The comparison was made using the outcome variable measured at Week 12.||||0.85
91096554|NCT04426656|182077401|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.72
91096555|NCT04426656|182077402|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.318|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.318
91096556|NCT04426656|182077403|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.527|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.527
91096557|NCT04426656|182077404|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.928|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.928
91096558|NCT04426656|182077405|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.678|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.678
91096559|NCT04426656|182077406|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The comparison test was made using the outcome variable measured at Week 12.||||0.26
91096560|NCT04426656|182077407|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Fisher Exact|||The comparison was made using data measured at Week 12.||||0.08
90849156|NCT04740905|181564084|OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.1||||||||1.1|-1.9|
90849157|NCT01960907|181564145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.342|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.342
90849158|NCT01960907|181564146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.915|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.915
90849159|NCT01960907|181564147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.038
91096561|NCT04426656|182077408|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The comparison was made using data measured at Week 12.||||0.03
91096562|NCT04426656|182077409|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This comparison was made using data at Week 12.||||0.58
91096563|NCT04426656|182077410|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The comparison was made using data measured at Week 12.||||0.85
91096564|NCT04357795|182077435|OTHER|Single group analysis|||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||||||<0.0001
91096565|NCT04357795|182077436|OTHER|Single group analysis|||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||||||<0.0001
91096566|NCT04357795|182077437|OTHER|Single group analysis|||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||||||<0.0001
91096567|NCT04357795|182077438|OTHER|Single group analysis|||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||||||<0.0001
91096568|NCT04357795|182077439|OTHER|Single group analysis||||||0.0323|||||||Paired t-test|OD- Right eye p value||||||0.0323
91096569|NCT04357795|182077439|OTHER|Single group analysis||||||0.3447||||||OS: P-Value|Paired t-test|||||||0.3447
91096570|NCT04357795|182077440|OTHER|Single group analysis|||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||||||<0.0001
91096571|NCT04357795|182077441|OTHER|Single group analysis||||||0.0029|||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.0029
91096572|NCT03785366|182077489|OTHER|"For the primary analysis, a ANOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and subject as a random effect was used to analyze the uncorrected PK parameters Cmax, Cmean, and AUC0-56 days.~Analysis methodology for the secondary analysis mirrored the approach for the primary analysis applied to the baseline-corrected PK parameters."|test to Reference geometric mean ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|1.25|||ANCOVA|||||1.25|0.80|
90849160|NCT00977080|181564156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons between treatment groups since the study was designed to evaluate the primary outcome measure by testing a single hypothesis within each stratum independently.|Fisher Exact|||With a sample size of 49 participants in each treatment group in the IV stratum, a Fisher's exact test with a 0.050 2-sided significance level will have 81% power to detect a 30% difference in the percentage of participants who achieve iPTH between 150 and 300 pg/mL, assuming the cinacalcet percentage is 36% and the paricalcitol percentage is 66%.||||0.016
90849161|NCT00977080|181564156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons between treatment groups since the study was designed to evaluate the primary outcome measure by testing a single hypothesis within each stratum independently.|Fisher Exact|||With a sample size of 49 participants in each treatment group in the oral stratum, a Fisher's exact test with a 0.050 2-sided significance level will have 81% power to detect a 30% difference in the percentage of participants who achieve iPTH between 150 and 300 pg/mL, assuming the cinacalcet percentage is 36% and the paricalcitol percentage is 66%.||||0.260
90849162|NCT00977080|181564157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
90849163|NCT00977080|181564157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.239||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.239
90849164|NCT00977080|181564158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
90849165|NCT00977080|181564158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.704||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.704
90849166|NCT00977080|181564159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.010
90849167|NCT00977080|181564160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
90849168|NCT00977080|181564160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
90849169|NCT00977080|181564161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.118||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.118
90849170|NCT00977080|181564161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
90849171|NCT00796926|181564255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
90859869|NCT01914757|181583100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16||||0.287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline Asthma symptom score, region, use of OCS, visit, and visit by treatment.||||0.13|-0.44|0.287
90859870|NCT01914757|181583100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline Asthma symptom score, region, use of OCS, visit, and visit by treatment.||||0.29|-0.28|0.966
90859871|NCT01914757|181583101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline Asthma rescue medication use, region, use of OCS, visit, and visit by treatment.||||0.99|-0.58|0.603
91096573|NCT05168800|182077498|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99||||||To achieve a group-wise 95% confidence for the primary outcome, each of the three tests were evaluated with acceptance based on a 98.4% confidence interval, or greater than 2.15 standard deviations of the mean for the superiority analyses.|Groupwise binomial comparison|||||||0.99
91096574|NCT05168800|182077498|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98||||||To achieve a group-wise 95% confidence for the primary outcome, each of the three tests were evaluated with acceptance based on a 98.4% confidence interval, or greater than 2.15 standard deviations of the mean for the superiority analyses.|Groupwise binomial comparison|||||||0.98
91096575|NCT05168800|182077498|EQUIVALENCE|A sample size of 1800 LTCWs (600 per arm) was identified to provide 80% power to detect an 8% difference in the rate of individuals reporting vaccine confidence between arms with 95% confidence. This sample size was sufficient to retain 80% power to detect a 10% difference after 40% attrition. Per study design, the equivalence margin is +/- 10% with anticipated attrition using the binomial confidence interval.||||||0.85||||||To achieve a group-wise 95% confidence for the primary outcome, each of the three tests were evaluated with acceptance based on a 98.4% confidence interval, or +/- 2.45 standard deviations of the mean for the equivalency test.|Groupwise binomial comparison|||||||0.85
91096576|NCT05168800|182077499|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.93
91096577|NCT05168800|182077499|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.90
91096578|NCT05168800|182077499|EQUIVALENCE|The study was not powered for secondary outcome analyses.||||||0.83|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.83
91096579|NCT05168800|182077500|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.22
91096580|NCT05168800|182077500|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.43
91096581|NCT05168800|182077500|EQUIVALENCE|The study was not powered for secondary outcome analyses.||||||0.61|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.61
91096582|NCT05168800|182077501|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.65
91096583|NCT05168800|182077501|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.34
91096584|NCT05168800|182077501|EQUIVALENCE|The study was not powered for secondary outcome analyses.||||||0.48|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.48
91096585|NCT05168800|182077502|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||Adjusted Wald test|||||||0.88
91096586|NCT05168800|182077502|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||Adjusted Wald test|||||||0.97
91096587|NCT05168800|182077502|EQUIVALENCE|The study was not powered for secondary outcome analyses.||||||0.48|||||||Adjusted Wald test|||||||0.48
91096588|NCT05168800|182077503|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Adjusted Wald test|||||||0.95
91096589|NCT05168800|182077503|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||Adjusted Wald test|||||||0.98
91096590|NCT05168800|182077503|EQUIVALENCE|The study was not powered for secondary outcome analyses.||||||0.66|||||||Adjusted Wald test|||||||0.66
91096591|NCT05168800|182077504|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.08
91096592|NCT05168800|182077504|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.64
91096593|NCT05168800|182077504|EQUIVALENCE|The study was not powered for secondary outcome analyses.||||||0.09|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.09
91096594|NCT05168800|182077505|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.13
90899686|NCT01872910|181665144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|2.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|3.88|||||HR of the treatment differences were estimated based on Cox proportional hazard model including treatment and baseline pain intensity (VAS) as fixed effects.|||3.88|1.19|
91096595|NCT05168800|182077505|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.73
91096596|NCT05168800|182077505|EQUIVALENCE|The study was not powered for secondary outcome analyses.||||||0.1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.10
91096597|NCT05168800|182077506|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.37
91096598|NCT05168800|182077506|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.45
91096599|NCT05168800|182077506|EQUIVALENCE|The study was not powered for secondary outcome analyses.||||||0.88|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.88
91096600|NCT05168800|182077507|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||Adjusted Wald test|||||||0.92
91096601|NCT05168800|182077507|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||Adjusted Wald test|||||||0.97
91096602|NCT05168800|182077507|EQUIVALENCE|The study was not powered for secondary outcome analyses.||||||0.83|||||||Adjusted Wald test|||||||0.83
90899687|NCT01872910|181665144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.67|||||HR of the treatment differences were estimated based on Cox proportional hazard model including treatment and baseline pain intensity (VAS) as fixed effects.|||0.67|0.19|
90899688|NCT01872910|181665145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.88|||||HR of the treatment differences were estimated based on Cox proportional hazard model including treatment and baseline pain intensity (VAS) as fixed effects.|||0.88|0.12|
91096603|NCT05168800|182077508|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||Adjusted Wald test|||||||0.88
91096604|NCT05168800|182077508|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||Adjusted Wald test|||||||0.49
90899689|NCT01872910|181665145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|4.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.04|8.47|||||HR of the treatment differences were estimated based on Cox proportional hazard model including treatment and baseline pain intensity (VAS) as fixed effects.|||8.47|2.04|
91030347|NCT00936390|181945066|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Five years post-RT||||0.79
91096605|NCT05168800|182077508|EQUIVALENCE|The study was not powered for secondary outcome analyses.||||||0.23|||||||Adjusted Wald test|||||||0.23
91096606|NCT05168800|182077509|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Adjusted Wald test|||||||0.90
91096607|NCT05168800|182077509|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||Adjusted Wald test|||||||0.94
91096608|NCT05168800|182077509|EQUIVALENCE|The study was not powered for secondary outcome analyses.||||||0.86|||||||Adjusted Wald test|||||||0.86
91096609|NCT05168800|182077510|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Two-sample z test|||||||1.00
91096610|NCT05168800|182077510|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Two-sample z test|||||||1.0
91096611|NCT05168800|182077510|EQUIVALENCE|The study was not powered for secondary outcome analyses.||||||0.49|||||||Two-sample z test|||||||0.49
91096612|NCT05168800|182077511|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||Two-sample z test|||||||0.88
91096613|NCT05168800|182077511|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Two-sample z test|||||||1.00
91096614|NCT05168800|182077511|EQUIVALENCE|The study was not powered for secondary outcome analyses.||||||0.02|||||||Two-sample z test|||||||0.02
91096615|NCT05168800|182077512|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||Two-sample z test|||||||0.82
91096616|NCT05168800|182077512|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||Two-sample z test|||||||0.97
91096617|NCT05168800|182077512|EQUIVALENCE|The study was not powered for secondary outcome analyses.||||||0.18|||||||Two-sample z test|||||||0.18
91096618|NCT05360056|182077575|SUPERIORITY|paired t-test|Mean Difference (Net)|8.51|STANDARD_DEVIATION|28.0||0.03|TWO_SIDED|||||unadjusted p-value|paired t-test|||Paired t-test was performed comparing the %Time in range from 2 weeks to 12 weeks||||0.03
91096619|NCT05360056|182077577|SUPERIORITY||Wilcoxon signed rank|9.85|||<|0.0001|||||||paired Wilcoxon rank test|||||||<0.0001
91096620|NCT03033355|182077588|OTHER|||||||0.0012||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|Student t-Test|||Right Cingulate Body||||0.0012
91096621|NCT03033355|182077588|OTHER|||||||0.02||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|student t-test|||Left Posterior Cingulate||||0.02
91096622|NCT03033355|182077588|OTHER|||||||0.0015||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|student t-test|||Left Anterior Cingulate||||0.0015
91096623|NCT03033355|182077588|OTHER|||||||0.0015||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|student t-test|||Right Prefrontal Cortex||||0.0015
91096624|NCT03033355|182077588|OTHER|||||||0.0138||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|student t-test|||Left Insula||||0.0138
91096625|NCT03033355|182077588|OTHER|||||||0.049||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|student t-test|||Pons Micturition Center||||0.049
91096626|NCT03033355|182077588|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|student t-test|||Left Cerebellum||||0.001
91096627|NCT03033355|182077588|OTHER|||||||0.026||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|student t-test|||Left Lentiform Nucleus||||0.026
91030348|NCT01566409|181945080|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The required sample size was based on a projected treatment success in the PEG group of 60%. With a power in excess of 80% and a critical level of significance of 0.05, 45 children were needed in each group to detect a 50% reduction in treatment effect in the placebo group, corresponding to 30% recovers without active maintenance treatment. Because of an expected drop-out rate of 25%, we aimed at including 115 children.||||||0.024|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.024
91030349|NCT03309956|181945082|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||McNemar|||||||0.23
91096628|NCT03033355|182077588|OTHER|||||||0.026||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|student t-test|||Right Lentiform Nucleus||||0.026
91096629|NCT03033355|182077588|OTHER|||||||0.015||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|student t-test|||Left Amygdala/parahippocampal Gyrus||||0.015
91096630|NCT05523297|182077647|NON_INFERIORITY|The test for non-inferiority was one-sided Farrington-Manning score test with non-inferiority margin 10% at a significance level of 2.5%. If the 95% CI for treatment effect not only lay above -10% (the non-inferiority margin) but also above 0, then there was evidence of superiority.|percent difference|17.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.7|26.4|||Two-sided Farrington-Manning score test.||Difference between Octaplex and FP arms for effectiveness|||26.4|8.7|<0.0001
91096631|NCT05523297|182077648|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.91||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|2.88|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.88|1.26|0.0022
91096632|NCT05523297|182077649|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-170.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-250.24|-91.22|||ANOVA|||12 hours after chest closure||-91.22|-250.24|<0.0001
91096633|NCT05523297|182077649|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-231.92|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-338.17|-125.67|||ANOVA|||24 hours after chest closure||-125.67|-338.17|<0.0001
91096634|NCT05523297|182077650|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.97|5.15|||Regression, Logistic|||Within 24 hours after IMP start||5.15|1.97|<0.0001
91096635|NCT05523297|182077650|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.88|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.83|4.52|||Regression, Logistic|||Within 24 hours after surgery start||4.52|1.83|<0.0001
91096636|NCT05523297|182077650|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.97|5.15|||Regression, Logistic|||Within 24 hours after CPB end||5.15|1.97|<0.0001
91096637|NCT05523297|182077651|OTHER||Mean ratio|0.48|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.57|||Counting regression|||||0.57|0.41|<0.0001
91096638|NCT05523297|182077652|OTHER||Mean ratio|0.71||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.88|||Counting regression|||||0.88|0.57|0.0015
91096639|NCT05523297|182077653|OTHER||Mean ratio|0.61||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.82|||Counting regression|||During the first 24 hours after IMP start||0.82|0.46|0.0010
91096640|NCT05523297|182077653|OTHER||Mean ratio|0.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.76|||Counting regression|||During the first 7 days after IMP start||0.76|0.45|<0.0001
91096641|NCT05523297|182077654|OTHER||Mean ratio|0.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.06|||Negative binomial regression|||FP including IMP (During the first 24 hours after IMP start)||0.06|0.03|<0.0001
91096642|NCT05523297|182077654|OTHER||Mean ratio|0.85||||0.8522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|4.82|||Negative binomial regression|||FP excluding IMP (During the first 24 hours after IMP start)||4.82|0.15|0.8522
91096643|NCT05523297|182077654|OTHER||Mean ratio|0.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.68|||Negative binomial regression|||RBCs (During the first 24 hours after IMP start)||0.68|0.40|<0.0001
91096644|NCT05523297|182077654|OTHER||Mean ratio|0.65||||0.0169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.92|||Negative binomial regression|||Platelets (During the first 24 hours after IMP start)||0.92|0.45|0.0169
90899690|NCT01872910|181665145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.21|||||HR of the treatment differences were estimated based on Cox proportional hazard model including treatment and baseline pain intensity (VAS) as fixed effects.|||0.21|0.03|
91096645|NCT05523297|182077654|OTHER||Mean ratio|0.57||||0.3288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.76|||Negative binomial regression|||Cryoprecipitate (During the first 24 hours after IMP start)||1.76|0.18|0.3288
90899691|NCT02387216|181665171|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.382||||0.2302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.813|2.35|||Log Rank|||||2.350|0.813|0.2302
91030350|NCT02768298|181945085|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.268||0.2327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.85|||ANCOVA|||||0.85|-0.21|0.2327
91030351|NCT02768298|181945086|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.277||0.6247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.41|||ANCOVA|||||0.41|-0.68|0.6247
91030352|NCT02768298|181945087|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.888||0.1678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.98|0.52|||ANCOVA|||6 weeks||0.52|-2.98|0.1678
91030353|NCT02768298|181945087|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.809||0.3052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|2.43|||ANCOVA|||3 months||2.43|-0.77|0.3052
91096646|NCT05523297|182077654|OTHER||Mean ratio|0.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.06|||Negative binomial regression|||FP including IMP (During the first 7 days after IMP start)||0.06|0.04|<0.0001
91096647|NCT05523297|182077654|OTHER||Mean ratio|0.63||||0.5439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|2.84|||Negative binomial regression|||FP excluding IMP (During the first 7 days after IMP start)||2.84|0.14|0.5439
91096648|NCT05523297|182077654|OTHER||Mean ratio|0.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.74|||Negative binomial regression|||Red blood cells (During the first 7 days after IMP start)||0.74|0.47|<0.0001
91096649|NCT05523297|182077654|OTHER||Mean ratio|0.58||||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.84|||Negative binomial regression|||Platelets (During the first 7 days after IMP start)||0.84|0.40|0.0042
91096650|NCT05523297|182077654|OTHER||Mean ratio|0.49||||0.2241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.56|||Negative binomial regression|||Cryoprecipitate (During the first 7 days after IMP start)||1.56|0.15|0.2241
91096651|NCT05523297|182077655|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.8364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|2.52|||Regression, Logistic|||FP excluding IMP (Within 24 hours after IMP start)||2.52|0.32|0.8364
91096652|NCT05523297|182077655|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.11||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|3.11|||Regression, Logistic|||RBCs (Within 24 hours after IMP start)||3.11|1.42|0.0002
91096653|NCT05523297|182077655|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.1742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.91|||Regression, Logistic|||Platelets (Within 24 hours after IMP start)||1.91|0.89|0.1742
91096654|NCT05523297|182077655|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.4618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|3.38|||Regression, Logistic|||Cryoprecipitate (Within 24 hours after IMP start)||3.38|0.58|0.4618
91096655|NCT05523297|182077655|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.69||||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|2.55|||Regression, Logistic|||Any individual ABP (Within 24 hours after IMP start)||2.55|1.12|0.0129
91096656|NCT05523297|182077655|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.58||||0.3297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|3.94|||Regression, Logistic|||FP excluding IMP (Within 7 days after IMP start)||3.94|0.63|0.3297
91096657|NCT05523297|182077655|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.82||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.76|||Regression, Logistic|||RBCs (Within 7 days after IMP start)||2.76|1.20|0.0049
91096658|NCT05523297|182077655|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.2417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.84|||Regression, Logistic|||Platelets (Within 7 days after IMP start)||1.84|0.86|0.2417
91096659|NCT05523297|182077655|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.4618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|3.38|||Regression, Logistic|||Cryoprecipitate (Within 7 days after IMP start)||3.38|0.58|0.4618
91096660|NCT05523297|182077655|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.0564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|2.47|||Regression, Logistic|||Any individual ABP (Within 7 days after IMP start)||2.47|0.99|0.0564
91096661|NCT05523297|182077656|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.6956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.73|||Regression, Logistic|||Fibrinogen concentrate (Within 24 hours after IMP start)||1.73|0.69|0.6956
91096662|NCT05523297|182077656|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.337||||0.0317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|50.7|||Regression, Logistic|||||50.70|1.12|0.0317
91096663|NCT05523297|182077656|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|18.88|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|796.37|||Regression, Logistic|||PCC excluding IMP (Within 24 hours after IMP start)||796.37|2.90|<0.0001
91096664|NCT05523297|182077656|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.334||||0.1981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|2.07|||Regression, Logistic|||Any coagulation factor product (Within 24 hours after IMP start)||2.07|0.86|0.1981
91096665|NCT05523297|182077656|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.187||||0.4599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.87|||Regression, Logistic|||Fibrinogen concentrate (Within 7 days after IMP start)||1.87|0.75|0.4599
91096666|NCT05523297|182077656|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.337||||0.0317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|50.7|||Regression, Logistic|||rFVIIa (Within 7 days after IMP start)||50.70|1.12|0.0317
90859872|NCT01914757|181583101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline Asthma medication use, region, use of OCS, visit, and visit by treatment.||||0.28|-1.29|0.209
91096667|NCT05523297|182077656|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|18.88|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|796.37|||Regression, Logistic|||PCC excluding IMP (Within 7 days after IMP start)||796.37|2.90|<0.0001
91096668|NCT05523297|182077656|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.431||||0.1073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|2.21|||Regression, Logistic|||Any coagulation factor product (Within 7 days after IMP start)||2.21|0.93|0.1073
91096669|NCT05523297|182077659|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.435||||0.3782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6429|3.2013|||Regression, Logistic|||Within 24 hours after CPB end||3.2013|0.6429|0.3782
91096670|NCT05523297|182077659|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.435||||0.3782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6429|3.2013|||Regression, Logistic|||Within 24 hours after IMP start||3.2013|0.6429|0.3782
91096671|NCT05523297|182077659|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.332||||0.4899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5902|3.0062|||Regression, Logistic|||Within 24 hours after surgery start||3.0062|0.5902|0.4899
91096672|NCT05523297|182077660|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.15||||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|-0.04|||ANOVA|||||-0.04|-0.26|0.0081
91096673|NCT05523297|182077661|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.63||||0.6735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.45|41.18|||ANOVA|||||41.18|-60.45|0.6735
91096674|NCT05523297|182077662|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-17.93||||0.9033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-450.13|414.28|||ANOVA|||||414.28|-450.13|0.9033
91096675|NCT05523297|182077663|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.41||||0.1808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.29|||ANOVA|||||0.29|-1.10|0.1808
91096676|NCT05523297|182077664|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.28||||0.9698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.78|15.34|||ANOVA|||||15.34|-14.78|0.9698
91096677|NCT05523297|182077665|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.1||||0.3363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.61|3.42|||ANOVA|||||3.42|-9.61|0.3363
91096678|NCT05523297|182077666|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.42||||0.5736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.33|11.16|||ANOVA|||||11.16|-6.33|0.5736
91096679|NCT05523297|182077667|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-13.19||||0.2667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.05|10.67|||ANOVA|||||10.67|-37.05|0.2667
91096680|NCT05523297|182077668|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|12.25||||0.0658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|25.38|||ANOVA|||||25.38|-0.87|0.0658
91096681|NCT05523297|182077669|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.19||||0.0726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.02|||ANOVA|||||0.02|-0.40|0.0726
91096682|NCT05523297|182077674|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.183||||0.7497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4211|3.3235|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.3235|0.4211|0.7497
91096683|NCT05965427|182077676|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.097|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.097
91096684|NCT05965427|182077677|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Chi-squared|||"Statistical analysis of Any of the specified clinical complications measure"||||0.005
91096685|NCT05965427|182077678|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.011
91096686|NCT05965427|182077680|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Chi-squared|||"Statistical analysis relates to not presenting with skin lesions measure"||||0.002
91096687|NCT05965427|182077684|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.114|||||||Chi-squared|||"Statistical analysis relates to any drug treatment for mpox measure"||||0.114
91096688|NCT05965427|182077685|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||"Statistical analysis relates to any drug for complications measure"||||<0.001
91096689|NCT05965427|182077686|SUPERIORITY|"Statistical analysis relates to lesion onset measure"|||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91096690|NCT00927472|182077710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0386|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0386
91096691|NCT00927472|182077711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3675|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3675
91096692|NCT00927472|182077712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0490
91096693|NCT00927472|182077713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0002
90899692|NCT02387216|181665172|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.195||||0.5436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.673|2.122|||Log Rank|||||2.122|0.673|0.5436
91096694|NCT00927472|182077714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0003
91096695|NCT00927472|182077715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0012|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0012
91096696|NCT00927472|182077716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3817|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3817
91096697|NCT00927472|182077717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1059|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1059
91096698|NCT00927472|182077718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1088|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1088
91096699|NCT00927472|182077719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1527|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1527
91096700|NCT04707469|182077723|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment, strata and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline value as covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete datasets,and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.|Treatment difference|-0.27||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.12||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference.|ANCOVA|||Treatment policy estimand||-0.12|-0.42|0.0006
91096701|NCT04707469|182077723|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment, strata and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline value as covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete datasets,and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.|Treatment difference|-0.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.38||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference.|ANCOVA|||Treatment policy estimand||-0.38|-0.68|<.0001
91096702|NCT04635423|182077770|SUPERIORITY||Observed Efficacy (%)|89.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.4|98.2||one-sided p-value based on exact binomial method proposed by Chan and Bohidar|Exact Binomial Method Chan and Bohidar||The statistical criterion for success requires that the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for vaccine efficacy (VE) against the primary efficacy endpoint is greater than 0%.|||98.2|55.4|<0.001
91096703|NCT04635423|182077771|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|40.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.5|45.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen method||Difference in percentages calculated as % V503 minus % Placebo.|||45.5|34.5|
91096704|NCT04635423|182077772|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|5.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen method||Difference in percentages calculated as % V503 minus % Placebo.|||5.2|-4.4|
91096705|NCT04635423|182077775|SUPERIORITY||Observed Efficacy (%)|63.5||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|86.0||one-sided p-value based on exact binomial method proposed by Chan and Bohidar|Exact Binomial Method Chan and Bohidar||The statistical criterion for success requires that the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for vaccine efficacy (VE) against the primary efficacy endpoint is greater than 0%.|||86.0|2.7|0.023
91096706|NCT00143507|182077860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.1|||Regression, Cox||Estimate of the hazard ratio between treatment groups based on an adjusted Cox proportional hazards model with beta-blocker intake as a covariate. P-value: Log-rank test stratified on beta-blocker intake factor.|||1.10|0.91|0.945
91096707|NCT00143507|182077861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.22|||Regression, Cox||Estimate of the hazard ratio between treatment groups based on an adjusted Cox proportional hazards model with beta-blocker intake as a covariate. P-value: Log-rank test stratified on beta-blocker intake factor.|||1.22|0.94|0.316
91096708|NCT00143507|182077862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.06|||Regression, Cox||Estimate of the hazard ratio between treatment groups based on an adjusted Cox proportional hazards model with beta-blocker intake as a covariate. P-value: Log-rank test stratified on beta-blocker intake factor.|||1.06|0.72|0.159
91096709|NCT00143507|182077863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.13|||Regression, Cox||Estimate of the hazard ratio between treatment groups based on an adjusted Cox proportional hazards model with beta-blocker intake as a covariate. P-value: Log-rank test stratified on beta-blocker intake factor.|||1.13|0.86|0.850
91030354|NCT02768298|181945088|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.744||0.6181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.58|4.32|||ANCOVA|||6 weeks||4.32|-2.58|0.6181
91096710|NCT00143507|182077864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.16|||Regression, Cox||Estimate of the hazard ratio between treatment groups based on an adjusted Cox proportional hazards model with beta-blocker intake as a covariate. P-value: Log-rank test stratified on beta-blocker intake factor.|||1.16|0.92|0.547
91096711|NCT00143507|182077865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.12|||Regression, Cox||Estimate of the hazard ratio between treatment groups based on an adjusted Cox proportional hazards model with beta-blocker intake as a covariate. P-value: Log-rank test stratified on beta-blocker intake factor.|||1.12|0.71|0.331
91096712|NCT00143507|182077866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.02|||Regression, Cox||Estimate of the hazard ratio between treatment groups based on an adjusted Cox proportional hazards model with beta-blocker intake as a covariate. P-value: Log-rank test stratified on beta-blocker intake factor.|||1.02|0.67|0.078
91096713|NCT00143507|182077867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.4|||Regression, Cox||Estimate of the hazard ratio between treatment groups based on an adjusted Cox proportional hazards model with beta-blocker intake as a covariate. P-value: Log-rank test stratified on beta-blocker intake factor.|||1.40|0.83|0.583
91096714|NCT00143507|182077868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.11|||Regression, Cox||Estimate of the hazard ratio between treatment groups based on an adjusted Cox proportional hazards model with beta-blocker intake as a covariate. P-value: Log-rank test stratified on beta-blocker intake factor.|||1.11|0.81|0.501
91096715|NCT00143507|182077869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.04|||Regression, Cox||Estimate of the hazard ratio between treatment groups based on an adjusted Cox proportional hazards model with beta-blocker intake as a covariate. P-value: Log-rank test stratified on beta-blocker intake factor.|||1.04|0.78|0.141
91030355|NCT02768298|181945088|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|3.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.124||0.1254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|7.48|||ANCOVA|||3 months||7.48|-0.93|0.1254
91030356|NCT02768298|181945089|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.317||0.3432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.33|||ANCOVA|||Borg value dyspnea||0.33|-0.93|0.3432
91096716|NCT00143507|182077870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.06|||Regression, Cox||Estimate of the hazard ratio between treatment groups based on an adjusted Cox proportional hazards model with beta-blocker intake as a covariate. P-value: Log-rank test stratified on beta-blocker intake factor.|||1.06|0.86|0.411
91096717|NCT00143507|182077871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.15|||Regression, Cox||Estimate of the hazard ratio between treatment groups based on an adjusted Cox proportional hazards model with beta-blocker intake as a covariate. P-value: Log-rank test stratified on beta-blocker intake factor.|||1.15|0.94|0.484
91096718|NCT00143507|182077872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.13|||Regression, Cox||Estimate of the hazard ratio between treatment groups based on an adjusted Cox proportional hazards model with beta-blocker intake as a covariate. P-value: Log-rank test stratified on beta-blocker intake factor.|||1.13|0.90|0.835
91096719|NCT00177671|182077875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.97|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.09||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|4.41|||Log Rank|||We followed the intention to treat principle. We used Kaplan-Meier curves to quantify the percentage of participants who were free of depression recurrence over time. Cox proportional hazard models quantified hazard ratios comparing the 2 treatment groups.||4.41|1.00|.05
91096720|NCT01121926|182077888|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence is established when the ratio of geometric Least Squares means (LSmeans) and confidence interval calculated from the exponential of the difference between the Test and Reference product for the ln-transformed parameter Cmax,ss is between 80% and 125%.|Mean ratio|56.53|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|49.99|63.94|||||Test/reference (%)|||63.94|49.99|
91096721|NCT01121926|182077889|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence is established when the ratio of geometric Least Squares means (LSmeans) and confidence interval calculated from the exponential of the difference between the Test and Reference product for the ln-transformed parameter AUCss is between 80% and 125%.|Mean ratio|85.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.05|90.67|||||Test/reference (%)|||90.67|81.05|
91096722|NCT01496456|182077942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Regression, Logistic|Ordinal logistic regression, controlled for baseline lesion size and for correlation among pairs of teeth using the GEE method.||||||0.002
91096723|NCT01496456|182077943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.045|||||||Regression, Logistic|Ordinal logistic regression, controlled for correlation among pairs of teeth using the GEE method.||||||0.045
91096724|NCT01496456|182077944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0077|||||||Discreet Time Survival Analysis|Controlled for correlation among tooth pairs (GEE model).||||||0.0077
91096725|NCT04919161|182077945|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. The p-value reported above was the calculated and resultant P-value for this analysis.|Kruskal-Wallis|Due sample size differences and pairwise nature of the data, a Kruskal-Wallis was conducted.||Null hypothesis for this analysis is that there will be no differences between pre-scores and post-scores across the different treatment arms. Prior to hypothesis testing, datasets were tested for normality using a Shapiro-Wilk test to inform if parametric or non-parametric testing was required.||||<0.0001
91030357|NCT02768298|181945089|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.251||0.5319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.65|||ANCOVA|||Borg value fatigue||0.65|-0.34|0.5319
91030358|NCT02518685|181945101|SUPERIORITY||Least-Square Mean Difference|6.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.54|8.81|||multiple imputations|||||8.81|4.54|<0.0001
91030359|NCT02518685|181945102|SUPERIORITY|Statistical success criterion for achieving the performance standard of (≥ 50%) of proportion of TPS subjects who have 5% or more TBL at the 12-Month Follow-up|Proportion of Subjects|66.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.3|74.3|||Wilson's Midpoint Estimate|||||74.3|59.3|<0.0001
91096726|NCT04919161|182077945|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0025||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. The p-value reported above was the calculated and resultant P-value for this analysis. The reported P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Dunn's Multiple Comparison Test|||Null hypothesis for this comparison is that there would be no significant difference in the pre-score measurements between groups.||||=0.0025
91096727|NCT04919161|182077945|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. The p-value reported above was the calculated and resultant P-value for this analysis. The reported P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Dunn's Multiple Comparison Test|||Null hypothesis for this comparison is that there would be no significant difference in the pre-score measurements between groups.||||=0.0001
91096728|NCT04919161|182077945|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. The p-value reported above was the calculated and resultant P-value for this analysis. The reported P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Dunn's Multiple Comparison Test|||Null hypothesis for this comparison is that there would be no significant difference in the pre-score measurements between groups.||||>0.9999
91096729|NCT04919161|182077945|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. The p-value reported above was the calculated and resultant P-value for this analysis. The reported P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Dunn's Multiple Comparison Test|||Null hypothesis for this comparison would be that there would be no significant difference between post-scores of the two treatment groups.||||>0.9999
91096730|NCT04919161|182077946|SUPERIORITY|Prior to analysis, the score change or difference between post-test and pre-test were calculated for each participant as: ScoreChange=(PostTest) - (PreTest). These changes in score were then compared.|||||=|0.3045||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. The p-value reported above was the calculated and resultant P-value for this analysis.|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis is that there are no differences between groups. Prior to hypothesis testing, datasets were tested for normality using a Shapiro-Wilk test to inform if parametric or non-parametric testing was required.||||=0.3045
91096731|NCT04919161|182077947|SUPERIORITY|Prior to analysis, the score change or difference between post-test and pre-test were calculated for each participant as: PercentScoreChange = (\[(PostTest)-(PreTest)\]/\[PreTest\]) x 100%|||||=|3152||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. The p-value reported above was the calculated and resultant P-value for this analysis.|Two-Tailed Welch t test|Due to unequal standard deviation, a two-tailed Welch's t test was used.||Null hypothesis is that there are no differences between groups. Prior to hypothesis testing, datasets were tested for normality using a Shapiro-Wilk test to inform if parametric or non-parametric testing was required.||||=3152
91096732|NCT04919161|182077948|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.9568||||||Prior to analysis, the score change between post assessment and pre-assessment was calculated. The threshold for significance was p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|An unpaired T-test was used. Normality and F-test for Variances were conducted and found to be normal.||Null hypothesis is that there are no differences between groups. Prior to hypothesis testing, datasets were tested for normality using a Shapiro-Wilk test to inform if parametric or non-parametric testing was required.||||=0.9568
91096733|NCT04919161|182077949|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. The p-value reported above was the calculated and resultant P-value for this analysis.|Kruskal-Wallis|Due to the pairwise nature and abnormal distribution of the pre- and post-scores, a Kruskal Wallis test was completed.||Null Hypothesis, there would be no difference between the pre-score and post-score of each treatment group. Prior to hypothesis testing, datasets were tested for normality using a Shapiro-Wilk test to inform if parametric or non-parametric testing was required.||||<0.0001
91096734|NCT04919161|182077949|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. The p-value reported above was the calculated and resultant P-value for this analysis. The reported P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Dunn's Multiple Comparison Test|||Null hypothesis for this comparison is that there would be no significant difference in the pre-score measurements between groups.||||<0.0001
91096735|NCT04919161|182077949|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. The p-value reported above was the calculated and resultant P-value for this analysis. The reported P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Dunn's Multiple Comparison Test|||Null hypothesis for this comparison is that there would be no significant difference in the pre-score measurements between groups.||||<0.0001
91030360|NCT00336024|181945121|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||Chi-squared|||The CR rates between these two groups will be compared at a significance level of 0.1 using one-sided Chi-square test.||||0.35
91030361|NCT00336024|181945123|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Log Rank|||The difference in incidence for the two treatment regimens will be compared using a one-sided log-rank test with a significance level 0.1.||||0.2
91030362|NCT00336024|181945124|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||The two groups will be compared for patterns of failure to detect a statistically significant difference using Fisher exact test.||||1.00
91030363|NCT00336024|181945125|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||Log Rank|||Difference in incidence for the two treatment regimens will be compared using log-rank test.||||0.74
91030364|NCT00336024|181945126|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||The rate of acute hearing loss between two treatment regimens will be be compared using Fisher exact test.||||1.00
91096736|NCT04919161|182077949|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. The p-value reported above was the calculated and resultant P-value for this analysis. The reported P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Dunn's Multiple Comparison Test|||Null hypothesis for this comparison is that there would be no significant difference in the pre-score measurements between groups.||||>0.9999
91030365|NCT00336024|181945132|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Fisher Exact|||The rate of chronic hearing loss between two treatment regimens will be be compared using Fisher exact test.||||0.8
91030366|NCT00336024|181945133|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||Chi-squared|||Rates of gastrointestinal toxicities in Induction Phase I. The difference in number of patients with/without gastrointestinal toxicities between the two treatment regimens will be compared using a Chi-square test.||||0.27
91030367|NCT00336024|181945133|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Chi-squared|||Rates of gastrointestinal toxicities in Induction Phase II. The difference in number of patients with/without gastrointestinal toxicities between the two treatment regimens will be compared using a Chi-square test.||||0.07
91096737|NCT04919161|182077949|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. The p-value reported above was the calculated and resultant P-value for this analysis. The reported P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Dunn's Multiple Comparison Test|||Null hypothesis for this comparison is that there would be no significant difference in the pre-score measurements between groups.||||>0.9999
91096738|NCT04919161|182077950|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. The p-value reported above was the calculated and resultant P-value for this analysis.|Kruskal-Wallis|Due to missing measurements and the pairwise nature of the pre- and post-scores, a Kruskal Wallis test was completed.||Null hypothesis is that there are no differences between groups. Prior to hypothesis testing, datasets were tested for normality using a Shapiro-Wilk test to inform if parametric or non-parametric testing was required.||||<0.0001
91096739|NCT04919161|182077950|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. The p-value reported above was the calculated and resultant P-value for this analysis.|Dunn's Multiple Comparison Test|||||||<0.0001
91096740|NCT04919161|182077950|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. The p-value reported above was the calculated and resultant P-value for this analysis.|Dunn's Multiple Comparison Test|||||||<0.0001
91096741|NCT04919161|182077950|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. The p-value reported above was the calculated and resultant P-value for this analysis.|Dunn's Multiple Comparison Test|||||||>0.9999
91096742|NCT04919161|182077950|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. The p-value reported above was the calculated and resultant P-value for this analysis.|Dunn's Multiple Comparison Test|||||||>0.9999
91096743|NCT04919161|182077951|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Kruskal-Wallis|Due to the missing measurement and the pairwise nature of the perturbation levels between participants, a Kruskal Wallis test was completed.||Null hypothesis is there are no differences between groups. Prior to hypothesis testing, normality testing was conducted using a Shapiro-Wild test to inform if parametric or non-parametric testing was required.||||<0.0001
91096744|NCT04919161|182077951|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Reported p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was established as p\<0.05.|Dunn's Multiple Comparison Test|||Null hypothesis for any comparisons would be that there is no significant mean perturbation level between sessions.|The p-value reported above was the result for 15 comparisons of the recorded perturbation levels in sessions: 1 vs 2, 2 vs 3, 3 vs 4, 3 vs 5, 3 vs 6, 4 vs 5, 4 vs 6, 4 vs 7, 4 vs 8, 5 vs 6, 5 vs 7, 5 vs 8, 6 vs 7, 6 vs 8, and 7 vs 8.|||>0.9999
91030368|NCT00336024|181945133|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Chi-squared|||Rates of gastrointestinal toxicities in Induction Phase III. The difference in number of patients with/without gastrointestinal toxicities between the two treatment regimens will be compared using a Chi-square test.||||0.2
91096745|NCT04919161|182077951|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0629|||||||Dunn's Multiple Comparison Test|||||||=0.0629
91096746|NCT04919161|182077951|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0069|||||||Dunn's Multiple Comparison Test|||||||=0.0069
91096747|NCT04919161|182077951|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0003|||||||Dunn's Multiple Comparison Test|||||||=0.0003
91096748|NCT04919161|182077951|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Dunn's Multiple Comparison Test|||||||<0.0001
91096749|NCT04919161|182077951|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Dunn's Multiple Comparison Test|||||||<0.0001
91096750|NCT04919161|182077951|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Dunn's Multiple Comparison Test|||||||<0.0001
91096751|NCT04919161|182077951|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.6497|||||||Dunn's Multiple Comparison Test|||||||=0.6497
91096752|NCT04919161|182077951|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0743|||||||Dunn's Multiple Comparison Test|||||||=0.0743
91096753|NCT04919161|182077951|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0198|||||||Dunn's Multiple Comparison Test|||||||=0.0198
91096754|NCT04919161|182077951|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0017|||||||Dunn's Multiple Comparison Test|||||||=0.0017
91096755|NCT04919161|182077951|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0006|||||||Dunn's Multiple Comparison Test|||||||=0.0006
91096756|NCT04919161|182077951|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5297|||||||Dunn's Multiple Comparison Test|||||||=0.5297
91096757|NCT04919161|182077951|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2595|||||||Dunn's Multiple Comparison Test|||||||=0.2595
91030369|NCT00336024|181945133|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Chi-squared|||Rates of gastrointestinal toxicities in Consolidation Phase 1. The difference in number of patients with/without gastrointestinal toxicities between the two treatment regimens will be compared using a Chi-square test.||||0.4
91096758|NCT04919161|182077952|OTHER|This is a descriptive analysis.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.6|||=|0.3898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4671|15.3||Threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis was that there would be no difference in the proportion of males and females between treatment arms.||15.300|0.4671|=0.3898
91096759|NCT02175758|182077953|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was determined if the 90% confidence intervals (CI) were within the predefined equivalence boundaries of 50% to 200% for all age groups.|Percentage Geometric Mean Ratio|129.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|109.96|152.48||||||AUCtau of GS-331007 for the 12 to \< 18 Years old group in the PK Lead-in Phase was compared against historical data collected in adult Phase 2/3 studies.||152.48|109.96|
91096760|NCT02175758|182077953|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was determined if the 90% CIs were within the predefined equivalence boundaries of 50% to 200% for all age groups.|Percentage Geometric Mean Ratio|109.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.25|129.29||||||AUCtau of GS-331007 for the 6 to \< 12 Years Old group in the PK Lead-in Phase was compared against historical data collected in adult Phase 2/3 studies.||129.29|93.25|
91096761|NCT02175758|182077953|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was determined if the 90% CIs were within the predefined equivalence boundaries of 50% to 200% for all age groups.|Percentage Geometric Mean Ratio|149.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|127.12|176.21||||||AUCtau of GS-331007 for the 3 to \< 6 Years Old group in the PK Lead-in Phase was compared against historical data collected in adult Phase 2/3 studies.||176.21|127.12|
91096762|NCT02175758|182077955|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||2-sided exact 1-sample binomial test|||The SVR12 rate for the 12 to \< 18 Years Old group was compared with the historical SVR12 rate of 80% using a 2-sided exact 1-sample binomial test at the 0.05 significance level. If superiority was demonstrated in the 12 to \< 18 Years Old group, then the SVR12 rate for participants aged 3 to \< 12 years would be compared with 80% at the 0.05 significance level.||||<0.001
91096763|NCT02175758|182077955|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||2-sided exact 1-sample binomial test|||The SVR12 rate for the 3 to \< 12 Years Old group was compared with the historical SVR12 rate of 80% using a 2-sided exact 1-sample binomial test at the 0.05 significance level.||||<0.001
91096764|NCT02489773|182077972|OTHER|Calculate the pearson correlation within whole subjects (across Group 1 and Group 2)|pearson correlation coefficient|0.6342|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91096765|NCT02489773|182077972|OTHER|Diffenrence between Pearson correlations within whole subjects (accross Group 1 and Group 2) and PG, 0.8.|Difference with PG 0.8|-0.1658|||>|0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2204|-0.1113|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.1113|-0.2204|>0.9999
91096766|NCT02489773|182077973|OTHER|The difference in Spearman correlation coefficient between GA and MBG vs HbA1c and MBG in the first 3-month period in Group 1.|Difference in correlation coefficients|0.249|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.364|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.364|0.130|<0.0001
91096767|NCT02489773|182077974|OTHER|The difference in Kendall correlation coefficient between GA and MBG vs HbA1c and MBG in the first 3-month period in Group 1.|Difference in correlation coefficient|0.181|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.096|0.265|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.265|0.096|<0.0001
91096768|NCT00712920|182077975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.03||95.0|-1.7|-0.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA is being used due to a covariate being included in the model. The covariate is baseline TNSS score.||||-0.10|-1.70|0.03
91096769|NCT00712920|182077975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.08||95.0|-1.5|0.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA is being used due to a covariate being included in the model. The covariate is baseline TNSS score.||||0.1|-1.5|0.08
91096770|NCT00712920|182077976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6419|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.3924||0.102||95.0|-1.41|0.13|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA is being used due to a covariate being included in the model. The covariate is baseline TNSS score.||||0.13|-1.41|0.102
91096771|NCT00712920|182077976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7925|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.3935||0.044||95.0|-1.56|-0.02|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA is being used due to a covariate being included in the model. The covariate is baseline TNSS score.||||-0.02|-1.56|0.044
91096772|NCT00712920|182077977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4394|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.3631||0.226||95.0|-1.15|0.27|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA is being used due to a covariate being included in the model. The covariate is baseline TNSS score.||Change in baseline to Day 28||0.27|-1.15|0.226
91096773|NCT00712920|182077977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1252|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.3649||0.002||95.0|-1.84|-0.41|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA is being used due to a covariate being included in the model. The covariate is baseline TNSS score.||Change in baseline to Day 28||-0.41|-1.84|0.002
91096774|NCT00712920|182077978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.292||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA was used as a model containing treatment group and site as fixed effects with the baseline value used as covariate||||||0.292
91096775|NCT00712920|182077978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA was used as a model containing treatment group and site as fixed effects with the baseline value used as covariate||||||0.040
91096776|NCT03755076|182078002|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91096777|NCT03755076|182078003|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91096778|NCT03483584|182078038|OTHER|Chi-square test is to detect the difference in the prevalence of hypertension between INSTI and non-INSTI groups||||||0.244||||||The threshold for significance was set at p \< 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.244
91096779|NCT03483584|182078038|OTHER|Chi square test is to detect the difference in prevalence of diabetes mellitus between INSTI and non-INSTI groups||||||0.584||||||The threshold for significance was set at p \< 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.584
91096780|NCT03483584|182078038|OTHER|Chi square test is used to detect the difference in prevalence of insulin resistance between INSTI and non-INSTI groups||||||0.067||||||The threshold for significance was set at p \< 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.067
91096781|NCT03483584|182078038|OTHER|Chi square test is used to detect the difference in prevalence of dyslipidemia between INSTI and non-INSTI groups||||||0.365||||||The threshold for significance was set at p \< 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.365
91096782|NCT03483584|182078038|OTHER|Chi square test is used to detect the difference in prevalence of metabolic syndrome between INSTI and non-INSTI groups||||||0.033||||||The threshold for significance was set at p \< 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.033
91096783|NCT03483584|182078038|OTHER|Chi square is used to detect the difference in prevalence of osteopenia between INSTI and non-INSTI groups||||||0.196||||||The threshold for significance was set at p \< 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.196
90899693|NCT02387216|181665173|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.3||||0.0455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0455
90899694|NCT02387216|181665174|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2726|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.2726
90899695|NCT02091739|181665178|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031|=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.03|||MMRM|||"A fixed sequence test procedure was used for the confirmatory analysis of the co-primary endpoints by comparing the least square (LS) means estimates of an mixed model repeated measurement (MMRM) model (2-sided, significance level alpha=0.05) between treatment groups in the following order:~1. IncobotulinumtoxinA 100 units versus (v) Placebo~2. IncobotulinumtoxinA 75 units v Placebo"||0.03|-0.15|= 0.004
91030370|NCT00336024|181945133|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||Chi-squared|||Rates of gastrointestinal toxicities in Consolidation Phase 2. The difference in the number of patients with/without gastrointestinal toxicities between the two treatment regimens will be compared using a Chi-square test.||||0.38
91030371|NCT00336024|181945133|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Chi-squared|||Rates of gastrointestinal toxicities in Consolidation Phase III. The difference in number of patients with/without gastrointestinal toxicities between the two treatment regimens will be compared using a Chi-square test.||||0.7
91030372|NCT00336024|181945134|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Chi-squared|||Rates of nutritional toxicities in Induction Phase I. The difference in number of patients with/without nutritional toxicities between the two treatment regimens will be compared using a Chi-square test.||||0.08
91030373|NCT00336024|181945134|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Chi-squared|||Rates of nutritional toxicities in Induction Phase II. The difference in number of patients with/without nutritional toxicities between the two treatment regimens will be compared using a Chi-square test.||||0.9
91030374|NCT00336024|181945134|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Chi-squared|||Rates of nutritional toxicities in Induction Phase III. The difference in number of patients with/without nutritional toxicities between the two treatment regimens will be compared using a Chi-square test.||||0.17
91030375|NCT00336024|181945134|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Chi-squared|||Rates of nutritional toxicities in Consolidation Phase I. The difference in number of patients with/without nutritional toxicities between the two treatment regimens will be compared using a Chi-square test.||||0.3
91030376|NCT00336024|181945134|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Chi-squared|||Rates of nutritional toxicities in Consolidation Phase II. The difference in number of patients with/without nutritional toxicities between the two treatment regimens will be compared using a Chi-square test.||||0.26
91030377|NCT00336024|181945134|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Chi-squared|||Rates of nutritional toxicities in Consolidation Phase III. The difference in number of patients with/without nutritional toxicities between the two treatment regimens will be compared using a Chi-square test.||||0.17
91030378|NCT02424188|181945178|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|15.4||||||||15.4|2.3|
91030379|NCT02424188|181945179|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|12.3||||||||12.3|1.2|
91030380|NCT02424188|181945180|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|17.5||||||6 month comparison||17.5|1.3|
91030381|NCT02424188|181945180|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|48.6||||||12 month||48.6|2.4|
91030382|NCT02424188|181945182|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|2.3||||||6 months||2.3|-1.7|
91030383|NCT02424188|181945182|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|4.7||||||18 months||4.7|-1.5|
91030384|NCT02424188|181945183|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.5||||||||1.5|-0.6|
91030385|NCT02424188|181945185|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.2|-2.3||||||||-2.3|-30.2|
91030386|NCT02086188|181945193|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1911|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1911
91030387|NCT02086188|181945194|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4271|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.4271
91030388|NCT02086188|181945195|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1723|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1723
91030389|NCT02086188|181945196|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.634|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.6340
91030390|NCT02086188|181945197|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0091|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0091
91030391|NCT01494506|181945199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.9416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.28|||Log Rank|Unstratified logrank test.||||1.28|0.77|0.9416
91030392|NCT01494506|181945199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.92|||Log Rank|Unstratified logrank test.||||0.92|0.49|0.012
91030393|NCT01494506|181945200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.04|||Log Rank|||||1.04|0.63|0.100
91030394|NCT01494506|181945200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.75|||Log Rank|||||0.75|0.41|<0.001
91030395|NCT01494506|181945201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0264||||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|0.058|||Fisher Exact|||||0.058|-0.005|0.214
91030396|NCT01494506|181945201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.069||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.018|0.12|||Fisher Exact|||||0.120|0.018|0.010
91030397|NCT01494506|181945202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.1008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.03|||Log Rank|Unstratified log rank test.||||1.03|0.65|0.1008
91030398|NCT01494506|181945202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.78|||Log Rank|Unstratified log rank test||||0.78|0.45|0.0002
91030399|NCT01494506|181945203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.82
91030400|NCT01494506|181945203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.80
91030401|NCT01494506|181945204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.024
91030402|NCT01494506|181945204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91030403|NCT01494506|181945205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6388||||||For each experimental arm comparison p-values were adjusted for multiple domain comparisons using the Hochberg method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of Global Health Status||||0.6388
91030404|NCT01494506|181945205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8445||||||For each experimental arm comparison p-values were adjusted for multiple domain comparisons using the Hochberg method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of Global Health Status||||0.8445
91030405|NCT01494506|181945205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6388||||||For each experimental arm comparison p-values were adjusted for multiple domain comparisons using the Hochberg method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of Physical Functioning||||0.6388
91030406|NCT01494506|181945205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9435||||||For each experimental arm comparison p-values were adjusted for multiple domain comparisons using the Hochberg method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of Physical Functioning||||0.9435
91030407|NCT01494506|181945205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2654||||||For each experimental arm comparison p-values were adjusted for multiple domain comparisons using the Hochberg method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of Role functioning||||0.2654
91096784|NCT03483584|182078038|OTHER|||||||1||||||The threshold for significance was set at p \< 0.05.|Fisher Exact|Fisher exact test is used when any cells have expected count less than 5.||Chi square test is used to detect the difference in prevalence of osteoporosis between INSTI and non-INSTI groups.||||1.000
91096785|NCT03483584|182078038|OTHER|||||||0.572||||||The threshold for significance was set at p \< 0.05.|Fisher Exact|Fisher exact test is used when any cells have expected less than 5.||Chi square test is used to detect the difference in prevalence of vitamin D deficiency between INSTI and non-INSTI groups.||||0.572
91030408|NCT01494506|181945205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7674||||||For each experimental arm comparison p-values were adjusted for multiple domain comparisons using the Hochberg method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of Role functioning||||0.7674
91096786|NCT03483584|182078038|OTHER|||||||0.698||||||The threshold for significance was set at p \< 0.05.|Chi-squared|||Chi square test is used to detect the difference in prevalence in renal disease between INSTI and non-INSTI groups.||||0.698
91096787|NCT03483584|182078038|OTHER|Chi square test is used to detect the difference in prevalence of kidney tubular dysfunction between INSTI and non-INSTI groups.||||||0.848||||||The threshold for significance was set at p \< 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.848
91096788|NCT03483584|182078038|OTHER|Chi square test is used to detect the difference in prevalence of intermediate or advanced fibrosis (FIB-4 \>1.3) between INSTI and non-INSTI groups||||||0.274||||||The threshold for significance was set at p \< 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.274
91096789|NCT03483584|182078038|OTHER|Chi square test is used to detect the difference in prevalence of advanced fibrosis (FIB-4 \>2.67) between INSTI and non-INSTI groups||||||1||||||The threshold for significance was set at p \< 0.05.|Fisher Exact|Fisher exact test is used when any cells have expected count less than 5.||||||1.000
91096790|NCT03483584|182078039|OTHER|Poisson loglinear|Incidence rate ratio|1.508|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.352|6.45|||||Wald chi square test is used to investigate whether INSTI group had a higher risk of developing of HANA conditions compared with non-INSTI group, with IRR \>1 meaning higher risk of developing new HANA conditions.|Crude incidence rate ratio (IRR) was expressed as a ratio of incidence rates of developing hypertension in INSTI group compared with non-INSTI group as reference group at 2 years.||6.450|0.352|
91096791|NCT03483584|182078039|OTHER|Poisson loglinear|Incidence rate ratio|1.936|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.251|14.919|||||Wald chi square test is used to detect the difference in incidence rates in the INSTI group compared with the non-INSTI group (as reference group) after adjustment of covariates, with IRR \>1 meaning higher risk of developing new HANA conditions.|Adjusted Incidence rate ratio (IRR) was expressed as a ratio of incidence rate of developing hypertension in INSTI group compared with non-INSTI group at 2 years after adjusted by age, sex, treatment-naive or experienced, duration of HIV diagnosis, baseline body weight and CD4 count.||14.919|0.251|
91096792|NCT03483584|182078039|OTHER|Poisson loglinear|Incidence rate ratio|0.388|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.099|1.155|||||Wald chi square test is used to investigate whether INSTI group had a higher risk of developing of HANA conditions compared with non-INSTI group, with IRR \>1 meaning higher risk of developing new HANA conditions.|Crude incidence rate ratio (IRR) was expressed as a ratio of incidence rates of developing diabetes mellitus in INSTI group compared with non-INSTI group as reference group at 2 years.||1.155|0.099|
91096793|NCT03483584|182078039|OTHER|Poisson loglinear|Incidence rate ratio|0.507|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.132|1.948|||||Wald chi square test is used to detect the difference in incidence rates in the INSTI group compared with the non-INSTI group (as reference group) after adjustment of covariates, with IRR \>1 meaning higher risk of developing new HANA conditions.|Adjusted Incidence rate ratio (IRR) was expressed as a ratio of incidence rate of developing diabetes mellitus in INSTI group compared with non-INSTI group at 2 years after adjusted by age, sex, treatment-naive or experienced, duration of HIV diagnosis, baseline body weight and CD4 count.||1.948|0.132|
91096794|NCT03483584|182078039|OTHER|Poisson loglinear|Incidence rate ratio|0.743|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.395|1.397|||||Wald chi square test is used to investigate whether INSTI group had a higher risk of developing of HANA conditions compared with non-INSTI group, with IRR \>1 meaning higher risk of developing new HANA conditions.|Crude incidence rate ratio (IRR) was expressed as a ratio of incidence rates of developing insulin resistance in INSTI group compared with non-INSTI group as reference group at 2 years.||1.397|0.395|
91096795|NCT03483584|182078039|OTHER|Poisson loglinear|Incidence rate ratio|0.883|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.444|1.759|||||Wald chi square test is used to detect the difference in incidence rates in the INSTI group compared with the non-INSTI group (as reference group) after adjustment of covariates, with IRR \>1 meaning higher risk of developing new HANA conditions.|Adjusted Incidence rate ratio (IRR) was expressed as a ratio of incidence rate of developing insulin resistance in INSTI group compared with non-INSTI group at 2 years after adjusted by age, sex, treatment-naive or experienced, duration of HIV diagnosis, baseline body weight and CD4 count.||1.759|0.444|
91096796|NCT03483584|182078039|OTHER|Poisson loglinear|Incidence rate ratio|1.187|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.274|5.139|||||Wald chi square test is used to investigate whether INSTI group had a higher risk of developing of HANA conditions compared with non-INSTI group, with IRR \>1 meaning higher risk of developing new HANA conditions.|Crude incidence rate ratio (IRR) was expressed as a ratio of incidence rates of developing dyslipidemia in INSTI group compared with non-INSTI group as reference group at 2 years.||5.139|0.274|
91096797|NCT03483584|182078039|OTHER|Poisson loglinear|Incidence rate ratio|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.257|5.688|||||Wald chi square test is used to detect the difference in incidence rates in the INSTI group compared with the non-INSTI group (as reference group) after adjustment of covariates, with IRR \>1 meaning higher risk of developing new HANA conditions.|Adjusted Incidence rate ratio (IRR) was expressed as a ratio of incidence rate of developing dyslipidemia in INSTI group compared with non-INSTI group at 2 years after adjusted by age, sex, treatment-naive or experienced, duration of HIV diagnosis, baseline body weight and CD4 count.||5.688|0.257|
91096798|NCT03483584|182078039|OTHER|Poisson loglinear|Incidence rate ratio|0.855|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.196|3.739|||||Wald chi square test is used to investigate whether INSTI group had a higher risk of developing of HANA conditions compared with non-INSTI group, with IRR \>1 meaning higher risk of developing new HANA conditions.|Crude incidence rate ratio (IRR) was expressed as a ratio of incidence rates of developing metabolic syndrome in INSTI group compared with non-INSTI group as reference group at 2 years.||3.739|0.196|
91096799|NCT03483584|182078039|OTHER|Poisson loglinear|Incidence rate ratio|0.534|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.108|2.631|||||Wald chi square test is used to detect the difference in incidence rates in the INSTI group compared with the non-INSTI group (as reference group) after adjustment of covariates, with IRR \>1 meaning higher risk of developing new HANA conditions.|Adjusted Incidence rate ratio (IRR) was expressed as a ratio of incidence rate of developing metabolic syndrome in INSTI group compared with non-INSTI group at 2 years after adjusted by age, sex, treatment-naive or experienced, duration of HIV diagnosis, baseline body weight and CD4 count.||2.631|0.108|
91096800|NCT03483584|182078039|OTHER|Poisson loglinear|Incidence rate ratio|1.396|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.172|11.35|||||Wald chi square test is used to investigate whether INSTI group had a higher risk of developing of HANA conditions compared with non-INSTI group, with IRR \>1 meaning higher risk of developing new HANA conditions.|Crude incidence rate ratio (IRR) was expressed as a ratio of incidence rates of developing osteopenia in INSTI group compared with non-INSTI group as reference group at 2 years.||11.350|0.172|
91096801|NCT03483584|182078039|OTHER|Poisson loglinear|Incidence rate ratio|1.053|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.119|9.317|||||Wald chi square test is used to detect the difference in incidence rates in the INSTI group compared with the non-INSTI group (as reference group) after adjustment of covariates, with IRR \>1 meaning higher risk of developing new HANA conditions.|Adjusted Incidence rate ratio (IRR) was expressed as a ratio of incidence rate of developing osteopenia in INSTI group compared with non-INSTI group at 2 years after adjusted by age, sex, treatment-naive or experienced, duration of HIV diagnosis, baseline body weight and CD4 count.||9.317|0.119|
91096802|NCT03483584|182078039|OTHER|Poisson loglinear|Incidence rate ratio|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||||No incidence of osteoporosis was reported in non-INSTI group at 2 years.|Crude incidence rate ratio (IRR) was expressed as a ratio of incidence rates of developing osteoporosis in INSTI group compared with non-INSTI group as reference group at 2 years.||0|0|
91096803|NCT03483584|182078039|OTHER|Poisson loglinear|Incidence rate ratio|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||||No incidence of osteoporosis was reported in non-INSTI group at 2 years.|Adjusted Incidence rate ratio (IRR) was expressed as a ratio of incidence rate of developing osteoporosis in INSTI group compared with non-INSTI group at 2 years after adjusted by age, sex, treatment-naive or experienced, duration of HIV diagnosis, baseline body weight and CD4 count.||0|0|
91096804|NCT03483584|182078039|OTHER|Poisson loglinear|Incidence rate ratio|2.198|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.679|7.122|||||Wald chi square test is used to investigate whether INSTI group had a higher risk of developing of HANA conditions compared with non-INSTI group, with IRR \>1 meaning higher risk of developing new HANA conditions.|Crude incidence rate ratio (IRR) was expressed as a ratio of incidence rates of developing vitamin D deficiency in INSTI group compared with non-INSTI group as reference group at 2 years.||7.122|0.679|
91096805|NCT03483584|182078039|OTHER|Poisson loglinear|Incidence rate ratio|3.551|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|14.833|||||Wald chi square test is used to detect the difference in incidence rates in the INSTI group compared with the non-INSTI group (as reference group) after adjustment of covariates, with IRR \>1 meaning higher risk of developing new HANA conditions.|Adjusted Incidence rate ratio (IRR) was expressed as a ratio of incidence rate of developing vitamin D deficiency in INSTI group compared with non-INSTI group at 2 years after adjusted by age, sex, treatment-naive or experienced, duration of HIV diagnosis, baseline body weight and CD4 count.||14.833|0.850|
91096806|NCT03483584|182078039|OTHER|Poisson loglinear|Incidence rate ratio|1.197|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.465|3.077|||||Wald chi square test is used to investigate whether INSTI group had a higher risk of developing of HANA conditions compared with non-INSTI group, with IRR \>1 meaning higher risk of developing new HANA conditions.|Crude incidence rate ratio (IRR) was expressed as a ratio of incidence rates of developing renal diseases in INSTI group compared with non-INSTI group as reference group at 2 years.||3.077|0.465|
91096807|NCT03483584|182078039|OTHER|Poisson loglinear|Incidence rate ratio|1.538|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|4.638|||||Wald chi square test is used to detect the difference in incidence rates in the INSTI group compared with the non-INSTI group (as reference group) after adjustment of covariates, with IRR \>1 meaning higher risk of developing new HANA conditions.|Adjusted Incidence rate ratio (IRR) was expressed as a ratio of incidence rate of developing renal diseases in INSTI group compared with non-INSTI group at 2 years after adjusted by age, sex, treatment-naive or experienced, duration of HIV diagnosis, baseline body weight and CD4 count.||4.638|0.510|
91104269|NCT04003142|182094845|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.792||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.153|2.799||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||2.799|1.153|0.010
90899696|NCT02091739|181665178|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|=|0.542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.04|||MMRM|||"A fixed sequence test procedure was used for the confirmatory analysis of the co-primary endpoints by comparing the least square means estimates of an MMRM model (2-sided, significance level alpha=0.05) between treatment groups in the following order:~1. IncobotulinumtoxinA 100 units v Placebo~2. IncobotulinumtoxinA 75 units v Placebo"||0.04|-0.08|= 0.542
91096808|NCT03483584|182078039|OTHER|Poisson loglinear|Incidence rate ratio|1.166|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.408|3.331|||||Wald chi square test is used to investigate whether INSTI group had a higher risk of developing of HANA conditions compared with non-INSTI group, with IRR \>1 meaning higher risk of developing new HANA conditions.|Crude incidence rate ratio (IRR) was expressed as a ratio of incidence rates of developing kidney tubular dysfunction in INSTI group compared with non-INSTI group as reference group at 2 years.||3.331|0.408|
91096809|NCT03483584|182078039|OTHER|Poisson loglinear|Incidence rate ratio|2.101|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.615|7.18|||||Wald chi square test is used to detect the difference in incidence rates in the INSTI group compared with the non-INSTI group (as reference group) after adjustment of covariates, with IRR \>1 meaning higher risk of developing new HANA conditions.|Adjusted Incidence rate ratio (IRR) was expressed as a ratio of incidence rate of developing kidney tubular dysfunction in INSTI group compared with non-INSTI group at 2 years after adjusted by age, sex, treatment-naive or experienced, duration of HIV diagnosis, baseline body weight and CD4 count.||7.180|0.615|
91096810|NCT03483584|182078039|OTHER|Poisson loglinear|Incidence rate ratio|0.563|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.159|1.995|||||Wald chi square test is used to investigate whether INSTI group had a higher risk of developing of HANA conditions compared with non-INSTI group, with IRR \>1 meaning higher risk of developing new HANA conditions.|Crude incidence rate ratio (IRR) was expressed as a ratio of incidence rates of developing intermediate or advanced fibrosis (FIB-4 \> 1.3) in INSTI group compared with non-INSTI group as reference group at 2 years.||1.995|0.159|
91096811|NCT03483584|182078039|OTHER|Poisson loglinear|Incidence rate ratio|0.922|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.244|3.493|||||Wald chi square test is used to detect the difference in incidence rates in the INSTI group compared with the non-INSTI group (as reference group) after adjustment of covariates, with IRR \>1 meaning higher risk of developing new HANA conditions.|Adjusted Incidence rate ratio (IRR) was expressed as a ratio of incidence rate of developing intermediate or advanced fibrosis (FIB-4 \> 1.3) in INSTI group compared with non-INSTI group at 2 years after adjusted by age, sex, treatment-naive or experienced, duration of HIV diagnosis, baseline body weight and CD4 count.||3.493|0.244|
91096812|NCT03483584|182078039|OTHER|Poisson loglinear|Incidence rate ratio|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||||No incidence in advanced fibrosis (FIB-4 \>2.67) was reported in non-INSTI group at 2 years.|Crude incidence rate ratio (IRR) was expressed as a ratio of incidence rates of developing advanced fibrosis (FIB-4 \>2.67) in INSTI group compared with non-INSTI group as reference group at 2 years.||0|0|
91096813|NCT03483584|182078039|OTHER|Poisson loglinear|Incidence rate ratio|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||||No incidence in advanced fibrosis (FIB-4 \>2.67) was reported in non-INSTI group at 2 years.|Adjusted Incidence rate ratio (IRR) was expressed as a ratio of incidence rate of developing advanced fibrosis (FIB-4 \> 2.67) in INSTI group compared with non-INSTI group at 2 years after adjusted by age, sex, treatment-naive or experienced, duration of HIV diagnosis, baseline body weight and CD4 count.||0|0|
91096814|NCT04063163|182078052|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.496|0.763|||Log Rank|||Defined as a period from randomization through death regardless of causality. Data of patients without a death record will be censored on the last known survival date. COX proportional risk model will be used to estimate HR and its 95% confidence interval (CI); the Kaplan-Meier method will be used to estimate the median, and the Kaplan-Meier curve will be plotted.||0.763|0.496|<0.001
91096815|NCT04063163|182078053|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.47||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.381|0.576|||Log Rank|||||0.576|0.381|0.001
90849172|NCT00006289|181564268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Data from 16 patients is analyzed using one-sided paired t-test without breaking treatment code (Drug A or B, without knowing which drug is Neurotropin or Placebo) to determine if (1) the study should be terminated (if 0.0058 ≤ p), (2) the study should be terminated with rejection of the null hypothesis that there are no differences between Drug A and Drug B (p ≥ 0.9), or (3) the study will be continued to obtain the total of 42 patients (0.0058 ≤ p ≤ 0.9).||||0.0058
91030409|NCT01494506|181945205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1628||||||For each experimental arm comparison p-values were adjusted for multiple domain comparisons using the Hochberg method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of Emotional Functioning||||0.1628
91030410|NCT01494506|181945205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6712||||||For each experimental arm comparison p-values were adjusted for multiple domain comparisons using the Hochberg method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of Emotional Functioning||||0.6712
91030411|NCT01494506|181945205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7738||||||For each experimental arm comparison p-values were adjusted for multiple domain comparisons using the Hochberg method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of Cognitive Functioning||||0.7738
91096816|NCT04556097|182078077|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.2|||Difference in differences|Difference in differences model with a negative binomial distribution and log link that provides rate ratio estimate of the relative difference.|The rate ratio is estimated for intervention patients as compared to controls.|||1.20|0.31|0.05
91096817|NCT04556097|182078078|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.95||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.53|1.12|||Difference in differences|Difference in differences model with a Gaussian distribution and identity link that provides linear estimate of the relative point difference.||||1.12|-6.53|0.05
91096818|NCT05317546|182078129|SUPERIORITY|We used linear mixed effects models containing the main effect of medication (CBD vs. placebo), visit (visit 1 vs. visit 2), and sequence (CBD/placebo vs. placebo/CBD) with random intercepts. For 1H-MRS models, brain tissue composition \[Gray Matter: Brain Matter or GM:BM defined as GM/(GM+WM)\] was included as a covariate.||||||0.33||||||alpha \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for brain tissue composition||An a priori power analysis was conducted to ensure power to detect differences in neurometabolite levels in the dACC. Due to type of modeling, participants were included even if they did not complete the second medication allocation.||||0.33
90849173|NCT00006289|181564269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Data from 16 patients is analyzed using one-sided paired t-test without breaking treatment code (Drug A or B) to determine if (1) the study should be terminated (if 0.0058 ≤ p), (2) the study should be terminated with rejection of the null hypothesis that there are no differences between Drug A and Drug B (p ≥ 0.9), or (3) the study will be continued to obtain the total of 42 patients (0.0058 ≤ p ≤ 0.9).||||0.0058
91096819|NCT05317546|182078130|SUPERIORITY|We used linear mixed effects models containing the main effect of medication (CBD vs. placebo), visit (visit 1 vs. visit 2), and sequence (CBD/placebo vs. placebo/CBD) with random intercepts. For 1H-MRS models, brain tissue composition \[Gray Matter: Brain Matter or GM:BM defined as GM/(GM+WM)\] was included as a covariate.||||||0.75||||||alpha \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for brain tissue composition||Due to type of modeling, participants were included even if they did not complete the second medication allocation.||||0.75
91096820|NCT05317546|182078131|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Several studies have demonstrated that CBD can modulate resting-state or task-based BOLD signal under similar study design (acute dosing, 600 mg CBD) with sample sizes smaller than our sample. Due to the modeling, only participants with usable data from both medication allocation visits were included. Contrast of interest was alcohol beverages vs. non-alcohol beverages.||||>0.05
91096821|NCT05317546|182078132|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||We were not able to complete a power calculation for this task. We used linear mixed effects models, containing the main effect of medication (CBD vs. placebo), visit (visit 1 vs. visit 2), and sequence (CBD/placebo vs. placebo/CBD) and cue-by-medication interaction terms. Random intercepts were included to account for individual differences.||||0.82
91096822|NCT05317546|182078133|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||We were not able to complete a power calculation for this task. We used linear mixed effects models, containing the main effect of medication (CBD vs. placebo), visit (visit 1 vs. visit 2), and sequence (CBD/placebo vs. placebo/CBD) and cue-by-medication interaction terms. Random intercepts were included to account for individual differences.||||0.21
91096823|NCT02290184|182078149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|A multi-level regression was employed to test differences between the 2 arm's change trajectories of their estimated simple slopes. Bootstrapped full information maximum likelihood models were estimated to obtain nonparametric, bias-corrected confidence interval (CI).|cross-level interaction|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|0.05|-3.0|-1.1|||||"Multilevel regression analysis was used. The primary test of between-group change effect is also called the cross-level interaction between time and group. Simple slopes were also tested to determine if the change was significant within each group."|Hypothesis: the intervention group will have a significantly greater reduction in weight (kg) compared to the active control from baseline to 3-months.||-1.1|-3.0|
91096824|NCT02290184|182078150|SUPERIORITY|Multi-level regression was used to test differences between the 2 arm's change trajectories of their estimated simple slopes. Bootstrapped full information maximum likelihood models were estimated to obtain nonparametric, bias-corrected CI.|cross-level interaction|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|0.05|-3.9|-1.4|||||"Multilevel regression was used. The primary test of between group change effect is also called the cross-level interaction between time and group. Simple slopes were also tested to determine if the change was significant within each group."|Hypothesis: Intervention group will have a significantly greater reduction in % weight change compared to the active control from baseline to 3-months||-1.4|-3.9|
91096825|NCT02290184|182078151|SUPERIORITY|A multi-level regression was used to test differences between the 2 arm's change trajectories of their estimated simple slopes. Bootstrapped full information maximum likelihood models were estimated to obtain nonparametric, bias-corrected CI.|cross-level interaction|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|-0.91|||||"Multilevel regression was used. The primary test of between -group change effect is also called the cross-level interaction between time and group. Simple slopes were also tested to determine if the change was significant within each group."|Hypothesis: Intervention group will have a significantly greater reduction in waist-circumference (cm) compared to the Active Control from baseline to 3-months||-.91|-4.5|
91096826|NCT01017250|182078179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank|||This was a test on the change from baseline to the post-SRS time point for all patients.||||0.04
91096827|NCT01017250|182078180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank|||This was a test on the change from baseline to the post-SRS time point for all patients.||||0.002
91030412|NCT01494506|181945205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6712||||||For each experimental arm comparison p-values were adjusted for multiple domain comparisons using the Hochberg method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of Cognitive Functioning||||0.6712
91096828|NCT01017250|182078181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank|||This was a test on the change from baseline to the post-SRS time point for all patients.||||0.02
91096829|NCT01017250|182078182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank|||This was a test on the change from baseline to the post-SRS time point for all patients.||||0.0005
91096830|NCT01017250|182078183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank|||This was a test on the change from baseline to the post-SRS time point for all patients.||||0.53
91096831|NCT01017250|182078184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank|||This was a test on the change from baseline to the post-SRS time point for all patients.||||0.002
91096832|NCT01017250|182078185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank|||This was a test on the change from baseline to the post-SRS time point for all patients.||||0.76
91096833|NCT01017250|182078186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank|||This was a test on the change from baseline to the post-SRS time point for all patients.||||0.34
91096834|NCT02555878|182078187|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66|||=|0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.09|||Log Rank|||Statistical analysis for primary efficacy composite endpoint.||1.09|0.40|= 0.101
91096835|NCT02555878|182078187|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12|||=|0.814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|2.91|||Log Rank|||Statistical analysis for Symptomatic lower extremity proximal DVT.||2.91|0.43|= 0.814
91030413|NCT01494506|181945205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3408||||||For each experimental arm comparison p-values were adjusted for multiple domain comparisons using the Hochberg method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of Social Functioning||||0.3408
91030414|NCT01494506|181945205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6712||||||For each experimental arm comparison p-values were adjusted for multiple domain comparisons using the Hochberg method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of Social Functioning||||0.6712
91030415|NCT01494506|181945205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6766||||||For each experimental arm comparison p-values were adjusted for multiple domain comparisons using the Hochberg method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of Fatigue||||0.6766
91030416|NCT01494506|181945205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6712||||||For each experimental arm comparison p-values were adjusted for multiple domain comparisons using the Hochberg method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of Fatigue||||0.6712
91030417|NCT01494506|181945205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6388||||||For each experimental arm comparison p-values were adjusted for multiple domain comparisons using the Hochberg method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of Nausea and Vomiting||||0.6388
91030418|NCT01494506|181945205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7674||||||For each experimental arm comparison p-values were adjusted for multiple domain comparisons using the Hochberg method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of Nausea and Vomiting||||0.7674
91030419|NCT01494506|181945205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4993||||||For each experimental arm comparison p-values were adjusted for multiple domain comparisons using the Hochberg method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of Pain||||0.4993
91030420|NCT01494506|181945205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6712||||||For each experimental arm comparison p-values were adjusted for multiple domain comparisons using the Hochberg method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of Pain||||0.6712
91030421|NCT01494506|181945205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2654||||||For each experimental arm comparison p-values were adjusted for multiple domain comparisons using the Hochberg method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of Dyspnoea||||0.2654
91030422|NCT01494506|181945205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6712||||||For each experimental arm comparison p-values were adjusted for multiple domain comparisons using the Hochberg method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of Dyspnoea||||0.6712
91030423|NCT01494506|181945205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7617||||||For each experimental arm comparison p-values were adjusted for multiple domain comparisons using the Hochberg method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of Insomnia||||0.7617
91030424|NCT01494506|181945205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6712|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of Insomnia||||0.6712
91030425|NCT01494506|181945205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9123||||||For each experimental arm comparison p-values were adjusted for multiple domain comparisons using the Hochberg method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of Appetite loss||||0.9123
91030426|NCT01494506|181945205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6712||||||For each experimental arm comparison p-values were adjusted for multiple domain comparisons using the Hochberg method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of Appetite loss||||0.6712
91030427|NCT01494506|181945205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7617||||||For each experimental arm comparison p-values were adjusted for multiple domain comparisons using the Hochberg method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of Constipation||||0.7617
91096836|NCT02555878|182078187|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.4|||=|0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|2.07|||Log Rank|||Statistical analysis for symptomatic lower extremity distal DVT.||2.07|0.08|= 0.260
91030428|NCT01494506|181945205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6712||||||For each experimental arm comparison p-values were adjusted for multiple domain comparisons using the Hochberg method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of Constipation||||0.6712
91030429|NCT01494506|181945205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1628||||||For each experimental arm comparison p-values were adjusted for multiple domain comparisons using the Hochberg method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of Diarrhoea||||0.1628
91030430|NCT01494506|181945205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6712||||||For each experimental arm comparison p-values were adjusted for multiple domain comparisons using the Hochberg method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of Diarrhoea||||0.6712
91030431|NCT01494506|181945205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6388||||||For each experimental arm comparison p-values were adjusted for multiple domain comparisons using the Hochberg method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of Financial difficulties||||0.6388
91030432|NCT01494506|181945205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7308||||||For each experimental arm comparison p-values were adjusted for multiple domain comparisons using the Hochberg method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of Financial difficulties||||0.7308
91030433|NCT02777528|181945225|OTHER|Performance goal tested using Exact method calculation to estimate the 95% one-sided lower confidence level (95% LCL) on the proportion of participants with primary endpoint success. If the 95% LCL exceeded 0.60, then the null hypothesis was to be rejected and the PG was met.|95% Exact Lower Confidence Limit|0.745|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Primary endpoint success was defined as the proportion of analysis-eligible participants without a primary endpoint event and with 1-Month imaging performed.~Results were tested against a performance goal (PG) of 0.60 (i.e. 60%), derived from outcomes from a systematic review of hybrid TEVAR repair literature.~Additionally, using a one-sided alpha of 0.05 and Exact Test, minimum power of 80%, the sample needed was 50 patients."||||
91030434|NCT00453362|181945227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.31||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.87||This comparison is for hypothesis generation, rather than hypothesis testing. Thus the p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons, and the interpretation of p-value should be with caution.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox Proportional Hazard Model. The hazard ratio is relative to FDG Non-Responders.|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in PFS between FDG Responders and FDG Non-Responders. The alternative hypothesis is that FDG Responders would have prolonged PFS compared with FDG Non-Responders.||0.87|0.11|0.017
91030435|NCT00453362|181945229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.3||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|1.42||This comparison is for hypothesis generation, rather than hypothesis testing. Thus the p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons, and the interpretation of p-value should be with caution.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox Proportional Hazard Model. The hazard ratio is relative to FDG Progressive Disease.|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in PFS between FDG Responders and FDG Progressive Disease. The alternative hypothesis is that FDG Responders would have a prolonged PFS compared to FDG Progressive Disease.||1.42|0.06|0.076
91096837|NCT02555878|182078187|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67|||=|0.538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|2.39|||Log Rank|||Statistical analysis for symptomatic upper extremity DVT.||2.39|0.19|= 0.538
91030436|NCT00453362|181945231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.17||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.73||This comparison is for hypothesis generation, rather than hypothesis testing. Thus the p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons, and the interpretation of p-value should be with caution.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox Proportional Hazard Model. The hazard ratio is relative to FLT Non-Responders.|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in PFS between FLT Responders and FLT Non-Responders. The alternative hypothesis is that FLT Responders would have prolonged PFS compared with FLT Non-Responders.||0.73|0.04|0.008
91030437|NCT00453362|181945232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049||95.0||||This comparison is for hypothesis generation, rather than hypothesis testing. Thus the p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons, and the interpretation of p-value should be with caution.|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between FLT Responders and FLT Progressive Disease. Alternative hypothesis is that FLT responders would have prolonged PFS compared to FLT Progressive Disease.||||0.049
91030438|NCT00453362|181945233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.36||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|1.16||This comparison is for hypothesis generation, rather than hypothesis testing. Thus the p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons, and the interpretation of p-value should be with caution.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox Proportional Hazard Model. The hazard ratio is relative to FDG Non-Responders.|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in OS between FDG Responders and FDG Non-Responders. The alternative hypothesis is that FDG responders would have prolonged OS compared with FDG Non-Responders.||1.16|0.11|0.073
91030439|NCT00453362|181945236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|3.21||This comparison is for hypothesis generation, rather than hypothesis testing. Thus the p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons, and the interpretation of p-value should be with caution.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox Proportional Hazard Model. The hazard ratio is relative to FDG Progressive Disease.|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in Overall Survival between FDG Responders and FDG Progressive Disease. The alternative hypothesis is that FDG Responders would have prolonged OS compared with FDG Progressive Disease.||3.21|0.14|0.618
91030440|NCT00453362|181945237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.38||||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.57||This comparison is for hypothesis generation, rather than hypothesis testing. Thus the p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons, and the interpretation of p-value should be with caution.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox Proportional Hazard Model. The hazard ratio is relative to FLT Non-Responders.|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in OS between FLT Responders and FLT Non-Responders. The alternative hypothesis is that FLT Responders would have prolonged OS compared with FLT Non-Responders.||1.57|0.09|0.163
91030441|NCT00453362|181945238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.35||||0.327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|3.16||This comparison is for hypothesis generation, rather than hypothesis testing. Thus the p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons, and the interpretation of p-value should be with caution.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox Proportional Hazard Model. The hazard ratio is relative to FLT Progressive Disease.|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in OS between FLT Responders and FLT Progressive Disease. The alternative hypothesis is that FLT Responders would have prolonged OS compared with FLT Progressive Disease.||3.16|0.04|0.327
91030442|NCT04885296|181945251|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the mean difference (Test - Control) was greater than -5. A 5-point increase in an average CLUE score translates into 10% shift in the distribution of scores for population of soft disposable contact lens wearers.|LS Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|3.0|||Linear Mixed Model|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|LS Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|||3.0|-2.2|
91030443|NCT04885296|181945252|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the mean difference (Test - Control) was greater than -5. A 5-point increase in an average CLUE score translates into 10% shift in the distribution of scores for population of soft disposable contact lens wearers.|LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.62|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|2.3|||Linear Mixed Model|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|LS Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|||2.3|-4.0|
91030444|NCT04885296|181945253|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the mean difference (Test - Control) was greater than -5. A 5-point increase in an average CLUE score translates into 10% shift in the distribution of scores for population of soft disposable contact lens wearers.|LS Mean Difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.61|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|1.7|||Linear Mixed Model|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|LS Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|||1.7|-4.7|
91030445|NCT01882647|181945262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||"Treatment groups were compared with respect to the proportions of subjects with treatment success at Day 15 using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by analysis center."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Multiple imputation was used to impute missing data from the ITT population.||||||<0.001
91030446|NCT01882647|181945263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The pre-specified threshold for statistical significance was ≤0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Missing data was imputed as treatment failure.||Treatment groups were compared with respect to each of the clinical signs of psoriasis (scaling, erythema and plaque elevation).||||<0.001
91030447|NCT01882647|181945264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.01
91030448|NCT01882647|181945265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The pre-specified threshold for statistical significance was ≤0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment groups were compared with respect to each of the clinical signs of psoriasis (scaling, erythema and plaque elevation).||||<0.01
91030449|NCT01108094|181945270|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Percent change in Ki67 tumor proliferation biomarker from baseline to 1 month, for Cohort A1 (vismodegib-naive patients, n = 8).~Paired analysis of tumors shows percent change between baseline (prior to treatment) and post-itraconazole treatment in individual patients.~% change was calculated from the difference between the mean of baseline Ki67 levels and the mean Ki67 levels after 1 month of treatment."||||0.04
91096838|NCT02555878|182078187|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02|||=|0.977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|3.52|||Log Rank|||Statistical analysis for symptomatic non-fatal PE.||3.52|0.29|= 0.977
90849174|NCT00006289|181564270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Data from 16 patients is analyzed using one-sided paired t-test without breaking treatment code (Drug A or B) to determine if (1) the study should be terminated (if 0.0058 ≤ p), (2) the study should be terminated with rejection of the null hypothesis that there are no differences between Drug A and Drug B (p ≥ 0.9), or (3) the study will be continued to obtain the total of 42 patients (0.0058 ≤ p ≤ 0.9).||||0.0058
90849175|NCT00678743|181564275|SUPERIORITY|All statistical significance were completed at the 5% level, two-tailed. Comparability of baseline characteristics between those who did and did not opt to enter the extension study was assessed with the chi square test and analysis of variance.||||||0.0008||||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.0008
90849176|NCT00576420|181564279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1564||90.0|||||Likelihood ratio chi-square test|||||||0.1564
91096839|NCT02555878|182078187|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.35|||=|0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|1.11|||Log Rank|||Statistical analysis for asymptomatic lower extremity proximal DVT.||1.11|0.11|= 0.063
91096840|NCT02555878|182078187|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59|||=|0.301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.62|||Log Rank|||Statistical analysis for incidental PE.||1.62|0.21|= 0.301
91096841|NCT02555878|182078187|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.33|||=|0.314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|3.18|||Log Rank|||Statistical analysis for VTE-related death.||3.18|0.03|= 0.314
91096842|NCT02555878|182078188|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.96|||=|0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|6.49|||Log Rank|||||6.49|0.59|= 0.265
91096843|NCT01164475|182078216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.91||||0.395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|9.17|||Regression, Logistic|||The comparison was done using the logistic regression model, adjusted for country and baseline PB CD34+ cell count.||9.17|0.44|0.395
91096844|NCT03160170|182078268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.96
90849177|NCT00576420|181564281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0|||||Likelihood ratio chi-square test|||||||0.060
90849178|NCT00576420|181564281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0|||||Likelihood ratio chi-square test|||||||0.005
91030450|NCT01108094|181945270|OTHER|||||||0.079|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||"Percent change in Ki67 tumor proliferation biomarker - baseline vs 1 month - Cohort A, vismodegib-naive (n = 8) vs control patients Unpaired analysis shows percent change between individual tumors from control patients and itraconazole treated patients.~% change was calculated from the difference between the mean of baseline Ki67 levels and the mean Ki67 levels after 1 month of treatment."||||0.079
91030451|NCT01108094|181945270|OTHER|||||||0.652|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Percent change in Ki67 tumor proliferation biomarker - baseline vs 1 month - control patients Paired analysis of tumors shows percent change between baseline and after 1 month in individual patients.~% change was calculated from the difference between the mean of baseline Ki67 levels and the mean Ki67 levels after 1 month."||||0.652
91096845|NCT03160170|182078269|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.11
91096846|NCT03160170|182078270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
91096847|NCT01525589|182078294|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0909|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0909
91096848|NCT01525589|182078298|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.002
91096849|NCT01525589|182078302|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0561|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0561
90849179|NCT00576420|181564282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.123||95.0|||||Likelihood ratio chi-square test|||||||0.123
90849180|NCT00576420|181564282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026||95.0|||||Likelihood ratio chi-square test|||||||0.026
90849181|NCT00576420|181564283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.929||95.0|||||Likelihood ratio chi-square test|||||||0.929
90849182|NCT00576420|181564283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.228||95.0|||||Likelihood ratio chi-square test|||||||0.228
90849183|NCT00576420|181564285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.234||95.0|||||Likelihood ratio chi-square test|||||||0.234
90849184|NCT00576420|181564285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.955||95.0|||||Likelihood ratio chi-square test|||||||0.955
90849185|NCT00576420|181564286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.106||95.0|||||Likelihood ratio chi-square test|||||||0.106
90849186|NCT00576420|181564286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.243||95.0|||||Likelihood ratio chi-square test|||||||0.243
91096850|NCT04835441|182078308|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.107|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.107
91096851|NCT04835441|182078309|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.308|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.308
91096852|NCT04835441|182078310|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.442|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.442
91096853|NCT04835441|182078311|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.788|||||||Kaplan-Meier methods|||||||0.788
91096854|NCT04835441|182078312|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.792|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.792
91096855|NCT04835441|182078313|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.302|||||||Mixed models for repeated measures|||||||0.302
91096856|NCT04835441|182078314|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.506|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.506
91096857|NCT04835441|182078315|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.659|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.659
91096858|NCT02293499|182078382|SUPERIORITY||partial eta squared|0.003||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||For each model, partial eta squared (η2) was reported as the effect size for the change between treatment groups (Adult led vs. peer led asthma self-management). Partialη2 is the proportion of variance explained by a given variable out of the variance remaining after excluding variance explained by other predictors. Partial η2\> 0.14 indicates large effects, while η2= 0.06 to 0.14 medium and \< 0.06 small effects||||.043
91096859|NCT02293499|182078382|SUPERIORITY||partial eta squared|0.21||||0|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||For each model, partial eta squared (η2) was reported as the effect size for the overall change over time. Partialη2 is the proportion of variance explained by a given variable out of the variance remaining after excluding variance explained by other predictors. Partial η2\> 0.14 indicates large effects, while η2= 0.06 to 0.14 medium and \< 0.06 small effects||||.00
91096860|NCT02293499|182078382|SUPERIORITY||Sobel Statistic|2.4119||||0.0079|TWO_SIDED||||||Sobel|||Mediator analysis of AMI-SEI subscale on quality of life||||.0079
91096861|NCT02293499|182078382|SUPERIORITY||Sobel Statistic|2.1132||||0.0172|TWO_SIDED||||||Sobel|||Mediator analysis of ACQ Total score subscale on quality of life||||.0172
91104270|NCT04003142|182094845|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.819|||<|0.001||95.0|1.805|4.441||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||4.441|1.805|<0.001
91030452|NCT01108094|181945271|OTHER|||||||0.028|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Percentage change in GLI1 messenger RNA (mRNA) expression Paired analysis of tumors shows percent change between baseline (prior to treatment) and post itraconazole treatment in individual patients.~% change was calculated from the difference between the mean of baseline Gli levels and the mean Gli level after 1 month of treatment."|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||0.028
91030453|NCT01108094|181945272|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.2|30.0||||||Only tumors from 4 patients from cohort A (n = 42 BCCs) and all tumors from the 4 patients (n = 14 BCCs) in cohort B were observed for tumor size change. Percent change in tumor area from both cohorts (eight patients total with 57 tumors) was calculated only.||30|18.2|
91096862|NCT02293499|182078383|SUPERIORITY||partial eta squared|0.001||||0.295|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||For each model, partial eta squared (η2) was reported as the effect size for the change between treatment groups (Adult led vs. peer led asthma self-management). Partialη2 is the proportion of variance explained by a given variable out of the variance remaining after excluding variance explained by other predictors. Partial η2\> 0.14 indicates large effects, while η2= 0.06 to 0.14 medium and \< 0.06 small effects||||0.295
90849187|NCT00576420|181564286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.127||95.0|||||Likelihood ratio chi-square test|||||||0.127
90849188|NCT00576420|181564287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.257||95.0|||||Likelihood ratio chi-square test|||||||0.257
90849189|NCT00576420|181564287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.096||95.0|||||Likelihood ratio chi-square test|||||||0.096
90849190|NCT00576420|181564287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.127||95.0|||||Likelihood ratio chi-square test|||||||0.127
90849191|NCT01221272|181564310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mixed Models Analysis|0.67||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.9||The null hypothesis that ranolazine treatment had no effect on PDS would be rejected if the PDS and TPD p-values were less than 0.05 or the PDS p-value was less than 0.05/2 = 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.9|-0.6|0.29
91030454|NCT01108094|181945272|OTHER|||||||0.435|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Average tumor size reductions were compared between Cohort A1 and Cohort B.||||0.435
91030455|NCT02564263|181945330|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.00894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.96||One-sided p-value based on stratified log-rank test|Log Rank||Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region (Asia vs RoW)|||0.96|0.63|0.00894
91030456|NCT02564263|181945331|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.00855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.94||One-sided p-value based on stratified log-rank test|Log Rank||Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region (Asia vs RoW) \& tumor histology (SCC vs adenocarcinoma/Siewert type 1 adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction \[EGJ\])|||0.94|0.52|0.00855
90849192|NCT01221272|181564311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mixed Models Analysis|0.65||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.7||The null hypothesis that ranolazine treatment had no effect on TPD would be rejected if the PDS and TPD p-values were less than 0.05 or the TPD p-value was less than 0.05/2 = 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.7|-0.4|0.22
91030457|NCT02564263|181945332|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.0531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.05||One-sided p-value based on stratified maximum weighted log rank test: the maximum of the log-rank test statistic \& a weighted log-rank Fleming-Harrington (0,1) test statistic|Log Rank||Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region (Asia vs RoW) \& tumor histology (SCC vs adenocarcinoma/Siewert type 1 adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction \[EGJ\])|||1.05|0.75|0.0531
91030458|NCT02564263|181945333|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.31||One-sided p-value based on stratified maximum weighted log rank test: the maximum of the log-rank test statistic \& a weighted log-rank Fleming-Harrington (0,1) test statistic|Log Rank||Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region (Asia vs RoW) \& tumor histology (SCC vs adenocarcinoma/Siewert type 1 adenocarcinoma of the EGJ)|||1.31|0.94|0.287
91030459|NCT02564263|181945334|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|6.4||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|11.2||One-sided p-value for testing. H0: difference in %=0 versus; H1: difference in %\>0.|Miettinen & Nurminen method||Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by geographic region (Asia vs RoW) \& tumor histology (SCC vs adenocarcinoma/Siewert type I adenocarcinoma of the EGJ)|||11.2|1.7|0.0037
91030460|NCT02564263|181945335|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.13||One-sided p-value based on stratified log-rank test|Log Rank||Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region (Asia vs RoW)|||1.13|0.75|0.216
90849193|NCT01340872|181564315|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|1.81||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA for primary endpoint, Change in Hb concentration from Baseline to Week 12 in double-blind phase, FAS|||1.81|< 0.0001
90849194|NCT01340872|181564319|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|0.82||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA analysis of the change in Hb concentration from Baseline to Week 4 of the double-blind phase - Full Analysis Set, multiple imputation|||0.82|< 0.0001
90849195|NCT01340872|181564320|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|1.43||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA analysis of Change in Hb concentration from Baseline to Week 8 of double-blind phase - FAS, multiple imputation|||1.43|< 0.0001
90849196|NCT01340872|181564331|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|1.87||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA sensitivity analysis of the Primary efficacy endpoint analysis on the PPAS|||1.87|< 0.0001
90849197|NCT01340872|181564332|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|1.82||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA sensitivity analysis of the Primary efficacy endpoint analysis on the FAS LOCF - Change in Haemoglobin Concentration from Baseline to Week 12|||1.82|< 0.0001
90849198|NCT01502332|181564344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.016
90849199|NCT01502332|181564345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.014
90849200|NCT01502332|181564346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.037|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.037
90849201|NCT01502332|181564348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.267|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.267
90849202|NCT03039621|181564349|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.026||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance equals 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.026
90849203|NCT03039621|181564350|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.031|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.031
91030461|NCT02564263|181945336|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.97||One-sided p-value based on stratified log-rank test|Log Rank||Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region (Asia vs RoW) \& tumor histology (SCC vs adenocarcinoma/Siewert type 1 adenocarcinoma of the EGJ)|||0.97|0.54|0.015
91030462|NCT02564263|181945337|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|9.2||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|15.8||One-sided p-value for testing. H0: difference in %=0; H1: difference in %\>0.|Miettinen & Nurminen method||Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by geographic region (Asia vs RoW)|||15.8|3.0|0.0022
91030463|NCT02564263|181945338|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|15.1||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.2|24.7||One-sided p-value for testing. H0: difference in %=0; H1: difference in %\>0.|Miettinen & Nurminen method||Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by geographic region (Asia vs RoW) \& tumor histology (SCC vs adenocarcinoma/Siewert type I adenocarcinoma of the EGJ)|||24.7|6.2|0.0006
91030464|NCT02906709|181945341|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|-0.66|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis||||Based on a Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis model with terms for treatment, prior AHA therapy status (yes/no), time and the interaction of time by treatment, time by prior anti-hyperglycemic agent (AHA) therapy status and time by treatment by prior AHA status with the restriction of a common baseline mean between two treatment groups.|-0.66|-1.15|<0.001
91030465|NCT02906709|181945342|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % vs. Placebo|7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|21.8|||||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|21.8|-8.4|
91030466|NCT02906709|181945344|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % vs. Placebo|-4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|0.4|||||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|0.4|-12.8|
91030467|NCT02906709|181945346|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-15.0||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.5|-5.4|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis||||Based on a Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis model with terms for treatment, prior AHA therapy status (yes/no), time and the interaction of time by treatment, time by prior AHA therapy status and time by treatment by prior AHA status with the restriction of a common baseline mean between two treatment groups.|-5.4|-24.5|0.002
91030468|NCT02906709|181945347|SUPERIORITY||Percent Between-group Rate Difference|5.8||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|11.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen method||||The estimated response rates and effective sample sizes were used to obtain the confidence intervals (CIs) for within-group response rates via the Wilson score method. The CI were calculated via the stratified (non-combination prior AHA therapy status) Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|11.5|-0.7|0.065
91030469|NCT02906709|181945348|SUPERIORITY||Percent Between-group Rate Difference|1.6||||0.334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|5.8|||Miettinen & Nurminen method||||The estimated response rates and effective sample sizes were used to obtain the confidence intervals (CIs) for within-group response rates via the Wilson score method. The CI were calculated via the stratified (non-combination prior AHA therapy status) Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|5.8|-4.7|0.334
91030470|NCT02906709|181945349|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|3.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|4.0|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis||||Based on a Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis model with terms for treatment, prior AHA therapy status (yes/no), time and the interaction of time by treatment, time by prior AHA therapy status and time by treatment by prior AHA status with the restriction of a common baseline mean between two treatment groups.|4.0|2.3|<0.001
91030471|NCT01124149|181945354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.76|3.87|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.87|1.76|<0.001
91030472|NCT01124149|181945355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|3.07|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.07|1.44|<0.001
91030473|NCT00977106|181945362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.472|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.472
91096863|NCT02293499|182078383|SUPERIORITY||partial eta squared|0.15||||0|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||For each model, partial eta squared (η2) was reported as the effect size for the overall change over time. Partialη2 is the proportion of variance explained by a given variable out of the variance remaining after excluding variance explained by other predictors. Partial η2\> 0.14 indicates large effects, while η2= 0.06 to 0.14 medium and \< 0.06 small effects||||.00
91030474|NCT00977106|181945363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.377||||||Between-group test (equal variances)|Student t-test|||Change at Week 1||||0.377
91096864|NCT02293499|182078384|SUPERIORITY||partial eta squared|0.002||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||For each model, partial eta squared (η2) was reported as the effect size for the change between treatment groups (Adult led vs. peer led asthma self-management). Partialη2 is the proportion of variance explained by a given variable out of the variance remaining after excluding variance explained by other predictors. Partial η2\> 0.14 indicates large effects, while η2= 0.06 to 0.14 medium and \< 0.06 small effects||||.140
91030475|NCT00977106|181945363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.276|||||||Student t-test|Between-group test (unequal variances)||Change at Week 4||||0.276
91030476|NCT00977106|181945365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.502|||||||Student t-test|Between-group test (equal variances)||Change at Week 4||||0.502
91096865|NCT02293499|182078384|SUPERIORITY||partial eta squared|0.15||||0|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||For each model, partial eta squared (η2) was reported as the effect size for the overall change over time. Partialη2 is the proportion of variance explained by a given variable out of the variance remaining after excluding variance explained by other predictors. Partial η2\> 0.14 indicates large effects, while η2= 0.06 to 0.14 medium and \< 0.06 small effects||||.00
91030477|NCT00977106|181945367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.434||||||Between placebo and TCZ groups test (Equal Variances) at week 4|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.434
91030478|NCT00977106|181945369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.692|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change at Week 1||||0.692
91030479|NCT00977106|181945369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change at Week 4||||0.019
91030480|NCT00977106|181945370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.137|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change at Week 1||||0.137
91030481|NCT00977106|181945370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.043|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change at Week 4||||0.043
91030482|NCT01644500|181945414|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analyses were based on a pre-defined non-inferiority margin of 0.4%.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.39|-0.76|<0.001
90849204|NCT03039621|181564351|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.022
90899697|NCT02091739|181665179|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.183|=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.94|||MMRM|||"A fixed sequence test procedure was used for the confirmatory analysis of the co-primary endpoints by comparing the least square means estimates of an MMRM model (2-sided, significance level alpha=0.05) between treatment groups in the following order:~1. IncobotulinumtoxinA 100 units v Placebo~2. IncobotulinumtoxinA 75 units v Placebo"||0.94|0.22|= 0.002
90899698|NCT02091739|181665179|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.181|=|0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.71|||MMRM|||"A fixed sequence test procedure was used for the confirmatory analysis of the co-primary endpoints by comparing the least square means estimates of an MMRM model (2-sided, significance level alpha=0.05) between treatment groups in the following order:~1. IncobotulinumtoxinA 100 units v Placebo~2. IncobotulinumtoxinA 75 units v Placebo"||0.71|-0.01|= 0.055
91030483|NCT01644500|181945414|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analyses were based on a pre-defined non-inferiority margin of 0.4%.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.13|-0.50|<0.001
91030484|NCT01644500|181945415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|5.0|1.8|4.1||Treatment comparison for HbA1c ≤6.5%.|Fisher Exact|||||4.1|1.8|<0.001
91030485|NCT01644500|181945415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.3||Treatment comparison for HbA1c ≤6.5%.|Fisher Exact|||||2.3|1.0|<0.001
91030486|NCT01644500|181945415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|4.5||Treatment comparison for HbA1c \<7.0%.|Fisher Exact|||||4.5|1.8|<0.001
91030487|NCT01644500|181945415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6||||0.192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.5||Treatment comparison for HbA1c \<7.0%.|Fisher Exact|||||2.5|1.1|0.192
91030488|NCT01644500|181945416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|-0.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.51|-1.15|<0.001
91030489|NCT01644500|181945416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.38||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.05|-0.70|0.022
90899699|NCT00110890|181665208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.74|||<|0.001||95.0|5.72|13.36|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for four baseline strata defined by vitamin D prescribed and calcium x phosphorus ≤ 55 mg\^2/dL\^2|Adjusted for four baseline strata defined by vitamin D prescribed and calcium x phosphorus ≤ 55 mg\^2/dL\^2|||13.36|5.72|<0.001
91030490|NCT01644500|181945417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.45||Treatment comparison for morning (fasting).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.45|-0.89|<0.001
91030491|NCT01644500|181945417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12||||0.304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.11||Treatment comparison for morning (fasting).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.11|-0.34|0.304
91030492|NCT01644500|181945417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.92||Treatment comparison for morning (2 hours post-prandial) meal.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.92|-1.80|<0.001
91030493|NCT01644500|181945417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.55||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.11||Treatment comparison for morning (2 hours post-prandial) meal.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.11|-0.99|0.015
91030494|NCT01644500|181945417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.36||Treatment comparison for midday (pre-prandial) meal.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.36|-1.10|<0.001
91030495|NCT01644500|181945417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.31||Treatment comparison for midday (pre-prandial) meal.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.31|-0.43|0.740
91030496|NCT01644500|181945417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|-1.13||Treatment comparison of midday (2 hours post-prandial) meal.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.13|-1.99|<0.001
91096866|NCT02293499|182078385|SUPERIORITY||partial eta squared|0.001||||0.268|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||For each model, partial eta squared (η2) was reported as the effect size for the change between treatment groups (Adult led vs. peer led asthma self-management). Partialη2 is the proportion of variance explained by a given variable out of the variance remaining after excluding variance explained by other predictors. Partial η2\> 0.14 indicates large effects, while η2= 0.06 to 0.14 medium and \< 0.06 small effects||||.268
91030497|NCT01644500|181945417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|-0.39||Treatment comparison of midday (2 hours post-prandial) meal.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.39|-1.24|<0.001
91030498|NCT01644500|181945417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.34||Treatment comparison for evening (pre-prandial) meal.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.34|-1.00|<0.001
91030499|NCT01644500|181945417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08||||0.638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.25||Treatment comparison for evening (pre-prandial) meal.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.25|-0.41|0.638
91030500|NCT01644500|181945417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|-0.87||Treatment comparison for evening (2 hours post-prandial) meal.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.87|-1.68|<0.001
91030501|NCT01644500|181945417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.45||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.04||Treatment comparison for evening (2 hours post-prandial) meal.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.04|-0.85|0.030
91030502|NCT01644500|181945417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|-0.82||Treatment comparison for bedtime.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.82|-1.56|<0.001
90849205|NCT03039621|181564352|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.024
90849206|NCT03039621|181564353|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0201||||||"The p-value associated with treatment factor of total severity index of the disease from Day 2 to Day 3, 4, 5 and 6 endpoint between Ergoferon and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0201
90849207|NCT03039621|181564354|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.046
90849208|NCT03039621|181564355|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0025|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0025
91030503|NCT01644500|181945417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.29||Treatment comparison for bedtime.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.29|-1.03|<0.001
91030504|NCT01644500|181945418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison for all hypoglycemic episodes.|Negative binomial regression model|||||||<0.001
90849209|NCT03039621|181564355|OTHER|Test for assessing the homogeneity of the odds ratio in several 2 × 2 contingency tables.||||||0.22|||||||Breslow-Day test|||||||0.22
90849210|NCT03039621|181564356|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0037||||||"The p-value associated with treatment factor of total severity index of the disease from Day 1 to Day 2, 3 and 4 endpoint between Ergoferon and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0037
90849211|NCT03039621|181564357|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0001
90849212|NCT00362180|181564360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7244|TWO_SIDED||||||exact Wilcoxon Rank-sum test|||The p-value is a comparison between the placebo group and the mipomersen group in Cohort E as a change from Baseline to Day 26.||||0.7244
90849213|NCT00362180|181564360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0513|TWO_SIDED||||||exact Wilcoxon Rank-sum test|||The p-value is a comparison between the placebo group and the mipomersen group in Cohort E as a change from Baseline to Day 99.||||0.0513
90849214|NCT03930264|181564367|EQUIVALENCE|For bioequivalence, the 90% CIs of the geometric mean ratio of Cmax for tablet and suspension were required to be within the 80 to 125% range.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.3008|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|1.35|||ANOVA|||||1.35|0.93|0.3008
90849215|NCT03930264|181564368|EQUIVALENCE|For bioequivalence, the 90% CIs of the geometric mean ratio of AUC0-τ for tablet and suspension were required to be within the 80 to 125% range.|Ratio|1.06||||0.1061|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.13|||ANOVA|||||1.13|1.00|0.1061
90849216|NCT03930264|181564369|EQUIVALENCE|For bioequivalence, the 90% CIs of the geometric mean ratio of AUC0-∞ for tablet and suspension were required to be within the 80 to 125% range.|Ratio|1.02||||0.5696|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.09|||ANOVA|||||1.09|0.96|0.5696
90849217|NCT02600871|181564370|SUPERIORITY|The significance of variation in proportions with treatment (Provodine®, Control) was assessed with Fisher's Exact tests and variation in the mean with treatment was assessed with T-tests.||||||0.71|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.71
91030505|NCT01644500|181945418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison for all hypoglycemic episodes.|Negative binomial regression model|||||||<0.001
91030506|NCT01644500|181945418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.008||||||Treatment comparison for nocturnal hypoglycemic episodes. Nocturnal hypoglycemic episodes are rounded off to 2 decimal places.|Negative binomial regression model|||||||0.008
91096867|NCT02293499|182078385|SUPERIORITY||partial eta squared|0.06||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||For each model, partial eta squared (η2) was reported as the effect size for the overall change over time. Partialη2 is the proportion of variance explained by a given variable out of the variance remaining after excluding variance explained by other predictors. Partial η2\> 0.14 indicates large effects, while η2= 0.06 to 0.14 medium and \< 0.06 small effects||||.14
91104271|NCT04003142|182094845|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.357|||<|0.001||95.0|1.513|3.699||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||3.699|1.513|<0.001
90849218|NCT00789074|181564390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.14
90849219|NCT00789074|181564391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|Changes were compared using repeated measures analysis of variance||||||<0.001
90849220|NCT00789074|181564392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||F=16.60|ANOVA|Changes were compared using repeated measures analysis of variance||||||<0.001
90849221|NCT00789074|181564393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.04||95.0||||F=2.92|ANOVA|Changes were compared using repeated measures analysis of variance||||||<0.04
90849222|NCT00789074|181564394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||ANOVA|Changes were compared using repeated measures analysis of variance||||||0.02
90849223|NCT00789074|181564395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97||95.0|||||ANOVA|Changes were compared using repeated measures analysis of variance||||||0.97
90849224|NCT00594425|181564427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% success rate|5.53||||0.5288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.97|19.04||Priori threshold for statistical significance was 5%|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by center. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was done||H0: τ (Vehicle PDT) = τ (MAL PDT) versus HA: τ (Vehicle PDT) ≠ τ (MAL PDT)||19.04|-7.97|0.5288
90849225|NCT00594425|181564427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% success rate|3.95||||0.7539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.79|16.69||Priori threshold for statistical significance was 5%|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by center. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was done||H0: τ (Vehicle PDT) = τ (MAL PDT) versus HA: τ (Vehicle PDT) ≠ τ (MAL PDT)||16.69|-8.79|0.7539
90849226|NCT00594425|181564428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|-2.64||||0.3236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.91|2.63||Priori threshold for statistical significance was 5%|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including center and baseline lesion count as a covariates. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was done||H0: τ (Vehicle PDT) = τ (MAL PDT) versus HA: τ (Vehicle PDT) ≠ τ (MAL PDT)||2.63|-7.91|0.3236
90849227|NCT00594425|181564428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|-1.19||||0.6657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.64|4.26||Priori threshold for statistical significance was 5%|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including center and baseline lesion count as a covariates. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was done||H0: τ (Vehicle PDT) = τ (MAL PDT) versus HA: τ (Vehicle PDT) ≠ τ (MAL PDT)||4.26|-6.64|0.6657
90859873|NCT01914757|181583102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.86||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|30.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline morning PEF, region, use of OCS, visit, and visit by treatment.||Morning PEF Change from Baseline to Week 56||30.12|1.59|0.029
91030507|NCT01644500|181945418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.006||||||Treatment comparison for nocturnal hypoglycemic episodes. Nocturnal hypoglycemic episodes are rounded off to 2 decimal places.|Negative binomial regression model|||||||0.006
91030508|NCT01644500|181945419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91030509|NCT01644500|181945419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91030510|NCT01644500|181945420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|17.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.27|23.55|||ANCOVA|||Insulin HOMA2-%B||23.55|11.27|<0.001
91030511|NCT01644500|181945420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|7.92||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|14.06|||ANCOVA|||Insulin HOMA2%B||14.06|1.78|0.012
91030512|NCT01644500|181945420|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|16.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.81|21.06|||ANCOVA|||C-Peptide-Based HOMA2-%B||21.06|11.81|<0.001
91096868|NCT02293499|182078386|SUPERIORITY||partial eta squared|0.001||||0.238|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||For each model, partial eta squared (η2) was reported as the effect size for the change between treatment groups (Adult led vs. peer led asthma self-management). Partialη2 is the proportion of variance explained by a given variable out of the variance remaining after excluding variance explained by other predictors. Partial η2\> 0.14 indicates large effects, while η2= 0.06 to 0.14 medium and \< 0.06 small effects||||.238
91096869|NCT02293499|182078386|SUPERIORITY||partial eta squared|0.03||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||For each model, partial eta squared (η2) was reported as the effect size for the overall change over time. Partialη2 is the proportion of variance explained by a given variable out of the variance remaining after excluding variance explained by other predictors. Partial η2\> 0.14 indicates large effects, while η2= 0.06 to 0.14 medium and \< 0.06 small effects||||.43
90849228|NCT00594425|181564456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||%success rate|3.09||||0.7889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.16|17.33||Priori threshold for statistical significance was 5%|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel stratified by center. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was done||H0: τ (Vehicle PDT) = τ (MAL PDT) versus HA: τ (Vehicle PDT) ≠ τ (MAL PDT)||17.33|-11.16|0.7889
90849229|NCT00594425|181564456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent success|5.48||||0.888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.15|21.11||Priori threshold for statistical significance was 5%|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by center. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was done||H0: τ (Vehicle PDT) = τ (MAL PDT) versus HA: τ (Vehicle PDT) ≠ τ (MAL PDT)||21.11|-10.15|0.8880
91030513|NCT01644500|181945420|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|9.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.36|14.62|||ANCOVA|||C-Peptide-Based HOMA2-%B||14.62|5.36|<0.001
90849230|NCT00594425|181564457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|-0.33||||0.9151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.53|5.86||Priori threshold for statistical significance was 5%|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including center and baseline lesion count as a covariates. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was done||H0: τ (Vehicle PDT) = τ (MAL PDT) versus HA: τ (Vehicle PDT) ≠ τ (MAL PDT)||5.86|-6.53|0.9151
90849231|NCT00594425|181564457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|-1.18||||0.7233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.81|5.45||Priori threshold for statistical significance was 5%|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including center and baseline lesion count as a covariates. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was done||H0: τ (Vehicle PDT) = τ (MAL PDT) versus HA: τ (Vehicle PDT) ≠ τ (MAL PDT)||5.45|-7.81|0.7233
90849232|NCT03859973|181564492|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.866||||0.3101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.605|0.833|||Mixed Models Analysis||Least Square Mean of (BI 425809 10 mg + Computerized Cognitive Training) - Least Square Mean of (Placebo + Computerized Cognitive Training)|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML) based approach using a mixed model with repeated measurements (MMRM) which included the following fixed effects: categorical factor of planned treatment, visit (screening, baseline, week 6 and Week 12), planned treatment by visit interaction, continuous covariate of baseline value, baseline by visit interaction, categorical factor of age group, and continuous covariate of change from screening to baseline value.||0.833|-2.605|0.3101
91030514|NCT01644500|181945421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.34||||0.913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.83|6.51|||ANCOVA|||Insulin-Based HOMA2%S||6.51|-5.83|0.913
91030515|NCT01644500|181945421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.14||||0.318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|3.03|||ANCOVA|||Insulin-Based HOMA2%S||3.03|-9.30|0.318
90899700|NCT00110890|181665209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.74|||<|0.001||95.0|5.38|14.19|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for four baseline strata defined by vitamin D prescribed and calcium x phosphorus ≤ 55 mg\^2/dL\^2|Adjusted for four baseline strata defined by vitamin D prescribed and calcium x phosphorus ≤ 55 mg\^2/dL\^2|||14.19|5.38|<0.001
90899701|NCT00110890|181665210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.11|||<|0.001||95.0|2.0|4.84|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for four baseline strata defined by vitamin D prescribed and calcium x phosphorus ≤ 55 mg\^2/dL\^2|Adjusted for four baseline strata defined by vitamin D prescribed and calcium x phosphorus ≤ 55 mg\^2/dL\^2|||4.84|2.00|<0.001
90899702|NCT00110890|181665211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.93|||<|0.001||95.0|4.65|10.34|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for four baseline strata defined by vitamin D prescribed and calcium x phosphorus ≤ 55 mg\^2/dL\^2|Adjusted for four baseline strata defined by vitamin D prescribed and calcium x phosphorus ≤ 55 mg\^2/dL\^2|||10.34|4.65|<0.001
91096870|NCT02293499|182078386|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.203||||0.024|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.024
91030516|NCT01644500|181945421|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.39||||0.576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.27|3.49|||ANCOVA|||C-Peptide-Based HOMA2-%S||3.49|-6.27|0.576
91030517|NCT01644500|181945421|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.79||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.68|-1.89|||ANCOVA|||C-Peptide-Based HOMA2-%S||-1.89|-11.68|0.007
91030518|NCT01644500|181945424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.18||||||Treatment comparison for SBP.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.180
91030519|NCT01644500|181945424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.245||||||Treatment comparison for SBP.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.245
91030520|NCT01644500|181945424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.717||||||Treatment comparison for DBP.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.717
91030521|NCT01644500|181945424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.619||||||Treatment comparison for DBP.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.619
91030522|NCT01644500|181945425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91030523|NCT01644500|181945425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.035|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.035
91030524|NCT01644500|181945428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91030525|NCT01644500|181945428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91030526|NCT01644500|181945429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91030527|NCT01644500|181945429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91030528|NCT02419313|181945435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0007
91030529|NCT02419313|181945436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0008
91030530|NCT02419313|181945437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0105|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0105
91030531|NCT00683020|181945439|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean changes in comparison groups are not equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|3.9|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline values.||||3.9|0.1|0.03
91030532|NCT00683020|181945440|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean changes in comparison groups are not equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|3.6|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline values.||||3.6|-0.9|0.23
91030533|NCT00683020|181945441|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Days in comparison groups are not equal.|Rate Ratio|0.6||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.4|||Negative Binomial Models|Adjusted for baseline values.||||1.4|0.3|0.25
91030534|NCT00683020|181945442|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Proportions in comparison groups are not equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.4|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline values.||||1.4|0.2|0.18
91030535|NCT00683020|181945443|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean changes in comparison groups are not equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.5|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline values.||||0.5|0.1|0.008
91030536|NCT00683020|181945444|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean changes in comparison groups are not equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline values.||||0.2|-0.2|0.87
91030537|NCT00683020|181945445|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean changes in comparison groups are not equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|4.2|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline values.||||4.2|-2.1|0.49
91030538|NCT00683020|181945446|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean changes in comparison groups are not equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|5.6|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline values.||||5.6|-3.0|0.54
91030539|NCT00683020|181945447|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean changes in comparison groups are not equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|4.4|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline values.||||4.4|-0.4|0.11
91030540|NCT00683020|181945448|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean changes in comparison groups are not equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.1|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline values.||||0.1|-0.6|0.13
91030541|NCT00683020|181945449|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean changes in comparison groups are not equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|5.1|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline values.||||5.1|-3.8|0.78
91030542|NCT00683020|181945450|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean changes in comparison groups are not equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|4.9|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline values.||||4.9|-0.6|0.13
91030543|NCT02319148|181945491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|105.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.11|120.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||120.34|92.11|
91030544|NCT02319148|181945491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|92.54|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.96|105.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||105.77|80.96|
91030545|NCT02319148|181945491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|116.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.86|132.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||132.92|101.86|
91030546|NCT02319148|181945492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|90.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.57|103.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||103.46|78.57|
91030547|NCT02319148|181945492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|106.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.7|122.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||122.07|92.70|
91030548|NCT02319148|181945492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|101.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.68|116.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||116.66|88.68|
91030549|NCT02319148|181945493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|91.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.49|104.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||104.94|79.49|
91030550|NCT02319148|181945493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|106.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.1|122.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||122.91|93.10|
91030551|NCT02319148|181945493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|102.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.42|117.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||117.93|89.42|
91030552|NCT00048048|181945512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean|0.979|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.223|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.534|1.425|||||To analyze the appropriateness of the chosen conversion factors, a second regression analysis was carried out. This regression was on the three conversion factor dose groups, using the regression slope estimates of Hb. This was not pre-specified.|All cohorts with dosing frequency 1X/ Week||1.425|0.534|
91030553|NCT00048048|181945512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean|0.851|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.228|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.395|1.307|||||To analyze the appropriateness of the chosen conversion factors, a second regression analysis was carried out. This regression was on the three conversion factor dose groups, using the regression slope estimates of Hb. This was not pre-specified.|All cohorts with dosing frequency 1X/ 2Week||1.307|0.395|
91030554|NCT00048048|181945512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean|0.932|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.222|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.488|1.377|||||To analyze the appropriateness of the chosen conversion factors, a second regression analysis was carried out. This regression was on the three conversion factor dose groups, using the regression slope estimates of Hb. This was not pre-specified.|All cohorts with dosing frequency 1X /3 Week||1.377|0.488|
91096871|NCT02293499|182078387|SUPERIORITY||partial eta squared|0.0||||0.484|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||For each model, partial eta squared (η2) was reported as the effect size for the change between treatment groups (Adult led vs. peer led asthma self-management). Partialη2 is the proportion of variance explained by a given variable out of the variance remaining after excluding variance explained by other predictors. Partial η2\> 0.14 indicates large effects, while η2= 0.06 to 0.14 medium and \< 0.06 small effects||||.484
91096872|NCT02293499|182078387|SUPERIORITY||partial eta squared|0.12||||0|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||For each model, partial eta squared (η2) was reported as the effect size for the overall change over time. Partialη2 is the proportion of variance explained by a given variable out of the variance remaining after excluding variance explained by other predictors. Partial η2\> 0.14 indicates large effects, while η2= 0.06 to 0.14 medium and \< 0.06 small effects||||.00
91096873|NCT02293499|182078388|SUPERIORITY||partial eta squared|0.0||||0.648|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||For each model, partial eta squared (η2) was reported as the effect size for the change between treatment groups (Adult led vs. peer led asthma self-management). Partialη2 is the proportion of variance explained by a given variable out of the variance remaining after excluding variance explained by other predictors. Partial η2\> 0.14 indicates large effects, while η2= 0.06 to 0.14 medium and \< 0.06 small effects||||.648
91096874|NCT02293499|182078388|SUPERIORITY||partial eta squared|0.07||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||For each model, partial eta squared (η2) was reported as the effect size for the overall change over time. Partialη2 is the proportion of variance explained by a given variable out of the variance remaining after excluding variance explained by other predictors. Partial η2\> 0.14 indicates large effects, while η2= 0.06 to 0.14 medium and \< 0.06 small effects||||.04
91096875|NCT02293499|182078389|SUPERIORITY||partial eta squared|0.003||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||For each model, partial eta squared (η2) was reported as the effect size for the change between treatment groups (Adult led vs. peer led asthma self-management). Partialη2 is the proportion of variance explained by a given variable out of the variance remaining after excluding variance explained by other predictors. Partial η2\> 0.14 indicates large effects, while η2= 0.06 to 0.14 medium and \< 0.06 small effects||||.020
90849233|NCT03859973|181564493|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.051||||0.2309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.778|0.676|||Mixed Models Analysis||Least Square Mean of (BI 425809 10 mg + Computerized Cognitive Training) - Least Square Mean of (Placebo + Computerized Cognitive Training)|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML) based approach using a mixed model with repeated measurements (MMRM) which included the following fixed effects: categorical factor of planned treatment, visit (screening, baseline, week 6 and Week 12), planned treatment by visit interaction, continuous covariate of baseline value, baseline by visit interaction, categorical factor of age group, and continuous covariate of change from screening to baseline value.||0.676|-2.778|0.2309
90849234|NCT03859973|181564494|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.577||||0.5237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.207|2.362|||ANCOVA||Least Square Mean of (BI 425809 10 mg + Computerized Cognitive Training) - Least Square Mean of (Placebo + Computerized Cognitive Training)|Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) which included the following fixed effects: categorical factor of planned treatment, continuous covariate of baseline value, categorical factor of age group.||2.362|-1.207|0.5237
90849235|NCT03859973|181564495|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.669||||0.642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.51|2.172|||Mixed Models Analysis||Least Square Mean of (BI 425809 10 mg + Computerized Cognitive Training) - Least Square Mean of (Placebo + Computerized Cognitive Training)|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML) based approach using a mixed model with repeated measurements (MMRM) which included the following fixed effects: categorical factor of planned treatment, visit (baseline, Week 6 and Week 12), planned treatment by visit interaction, continuous covariate of baseline value, baseline by visit interaction, categorical factor of age group.||2.172|-3.510|0.6420
90849236|NCT03874429|181564513|NON_INFERIORITY|Non- inferiority was demonstrated if the upper bound of the 95% CI was no higher than 2 points for the the difference of T2259 minus Vismed Multi.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|1.05|||ANCOVA|||To assess the non inferiority of T2259 compared to Vismed Multi, two-sided 95% confidence interval from ANCOVA model was computed of the difference of T2259 minus Vismed Multi. The model was adjusted for the main effects of investigation product and baseline score.||1.05|-0.42|
90849237|NCT00159822|181564546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of subjects with success|31.7||||||95.0|18.08|48.09|||||Number of subjects with successful global outcomes were summarized and 95% two-sided confidence intervals based on the exact Clopper-Pearson method for the binomial distribution provided.|For sample size calculation, null hypothesis (p\<p0) is defined as response rate \<15% (ie, weak drug efficacy). Alternative hypothesis (p\>pA) defined as response rate \>30%. To reduce the chance of incorrectly rejecting the null hypothesis to 5% (α=5%) and incorrectly rejecting the alternate hypothesis to 20% (β=20%) it was calculated that a sample size of 48 subjects was required. Null hypothesis was rejected (assessing efficacy of study drug) if the number of eligible success was ≥ than n=12.||48.09|18.08|
90849238|NCT00159822|181564547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of subjects with success|33.3||||||95.0|18.6|51.0|||||Number of subjects with successful global outcomes were summarized and 95% two-sided confidence intervals based on the exact Clopper-Pearson method for the binomial distribution provided.|Month 3 success=yes||51.0|18.6|
90849239|NCT00159822|181564547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of subjects with success|43.9||||||95.0|28.5|60.3|||||Number of subjects with successful global outcomes were summarized and 95% two-sided confidence intervals based on the exact Clopper-Pearson method for the binomial distribution provided.|EOT success=yes||60.3|28.5|
91096876|NCT02293499|182078389|SUPERIORITY||partial eta squared|0.04||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||For each model, partial eta squared (η2) was reported as the effect size for the overall change over time. Partialη2 is the proportion of variance explained by a given variable out of the variance remaining after excluding variance explained by other predictors. Partial η2\> 0.14 indicates large effects, while η2= 0.06 to 0.14 medium and \< 0.06 small effects||||.23
91104272|NCT04003142|182094845|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.131|||<|0.001||95.0|1.999|4.95||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||4.950|1.999|<0.001
91096877|NCT02293499|182078390|SUPERIORITY||partial eta squared|0.002||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||For each model, partial eta squared (η2) was reported as the effect size for the change between treatment groups (Adult led vs. peer led asthma self-management). Partialη2 is the proportion of variance explained by a given variable out of the variance remaining after excluding variance explained by other predictors. Partial η2\> 0.14 indicates large effects, while η2= 0.06 to 0.14 medium and \< 0.06 small effects||||.049
91096878|NCT02293499|182078390|SUPERIORITY||partial eta squared|0.12||||0|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||For each model, partial eta squared (η2) was reported as the effect size for the overall change over time. Partialη2 is the proportion of variance explained by a given variable out of the variance remaining after excluding variance explained by other predictors. Partial η2\> 0.14 indicates large effects, while η2= 0.06 to 0.14 medium and \< 0.06 small effects||||.00
91096879|NCT02293499|182078390|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.294||||0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.004
91096880|NCT02293499|182078390|SUPERIORITY||Sobel Statistic|-2.3505||||0.0093|TWO_SIDED||||||Sobel|||Mediator analysis of AMI-SEI subscale on ACQ total||||.0093
91096881|NCT00876395|182078397|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.1166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.08|||Log Rank|||||1.08|0.73|0.1166
91096882|NCT00876395|182078398|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.91|||Log Rank|||||0.91|0.48|0.0049
91096883|NCT00876395|182078401|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7276|||||||Exact Cochran-Mantel-Haenzel chi-square|||||||0.7276
91096884|NCT00876395|182078402|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4085|||||||Exact Cochran-Mantel-Haenzel chi-square|||||||0.4085
91096885|NCT00876395|182078403|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9573|||||||Exact Cochran-Mantel-Haenzel chi-square|||||||0.9573
91030555|NCT04084483|181945590|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2175|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2175
91096886|NCT00876395|182078404|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6382|||||||Exact Cochran-Mantel-Haenzel chi-square|||||||0.6382
91096887|NCT05370326|182078416|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.89||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.67|5.46|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.46|-3.67|0.69
91096888|NCT05370326|182078421|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.23||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|1.36|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.36|-0.89|0.67
91096889|NCT05370326|182078422|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.59||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|2.34|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.34|-1.16|0.50
91096890|NCT05370326|182078423|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|1.51|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.51|-1.09|0.74
91096891|NCT05370326|182078425|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.33
91096892|NCT05370326|182078426|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.47
91096893|NCT01787838|182078434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|1.96|||Chi-squared|||Prospective data from 12 months were compared to data that had been collected for the previous 12 month period to determine statistical significance and trended outcomes for comparative periods. Patients were screened for eligibility during the first 12 months, and staff and patients received the interventions during the second 12 month period.||1.96|1.65|<.0001
91096894|NCT01991314|182078455|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|We calculated, on the premise that there is non-inferiority between adolescent and adult groups in the difference in increase of mean haemoglobin levels of 0.35g/dL, with estimated standard deviation 0.7g/dL following treatment, that 45 patients in each group would be required, derived using power 80% power, 1-sided significance level 0.05 and R 0.5 for the covariate; this calculation took into account planned ANCOVA methodology and 20% patients who might be lost to follow up or withdraw.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.08||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|||||To test the hypothesis of non-inferiority with maximal statistical power, ANCOVA (one-tailed P\<0.05) was employed to compare the change in mean haemoglobin levels between adults and adolescents after accounting for necessary covariates|ANCOVA|||||||0.23
91096895|NCT01991314|182078456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|3.6|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|Fisher's exact test was used to compare proportions (expressed as percentages) of total number of participants in each group who were iron intolerant||Chi squared test or Fisher's exact test, as appropriate.||||<0.05
91096896|NCT01991314|182078457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.0||||0.96|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Unpaired Students t test||||0.96
91096897|NCT01991314|182078458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.5||||0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mann-Whitney U test||||0.49
91096898|NCT01991314|182078459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.85|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mann Whitney U test||||0.85
91096899|NCT01991314|182078460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mann Whitney U test||||0.69
91096900|NCT01991314|182078461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-15.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mann-Whitney U test||||<0.0001
91096901|NCT03915067|182078468|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|65.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.5|80.1||P-value derived from CMH model stratified by investigator site and C-APPS at Day 1.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||80.1|51.5|<0.0001
91096902|NCT03915067|182078468|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|76.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.6|88.9||P-value derived from CMH model stratified by investigator site and C-APPS at Day 1.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||88.9|63.6|<0.0001
91096903|NCT03915067|182078491|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|57.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.3|73.5||P-value was derived from CMH model stratified by investigator site and P-APPS at Day 1.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||73.5|42.3|<0.0001
91096904|NCT03915067|182078491|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|70.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.4|84.1||P-value derived from CMH model stratified by investigator site and P-APPS at Day 1.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||84.1|56.4|<0.0001
91096905|NCT01001104|182078516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||This is the p-value for the linear trend test at 12 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.001
91096906|NCT01001104|182078516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.72|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91096907|NCT01001104|182078516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.97|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91030556|NCT04084483|181945591|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3852|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3852
91030557|NCT04084483|181945592|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.298|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2980
91030558|NCT04084483|181945593|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0634|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0634
91030559|NCT04084483|181945594|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7388|||||||ANCOVA|||Corneal Sum||||0.7388
91096908|NCT01001104|182078516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.17|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91096909|NCT01001104|182078517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||This is the p-value from the Cochran-Armitage trend test.|Cochran-Armitage|||||||<0.001
91096910|NCT01001104|182078517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91096911|NCT01001104|182078517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91096912|NCT01001104|182078517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
90957478|NCT01586910|181795056|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin was 0.07. Posterior threshold for non-inferiority was 0.971|Posterior Median of the Difference|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|||||The posterior probability of non-inferiority is \> 0.9999. The posterior probability is the probability of the event rate by updating the prior probability distribution with observed data using Bayes' Theorem.|Bayesian||95% Bayesian credible interval for the difference (TAVR-SAVR) was (-5.2%, 2.3%). The 95% credible interval is the 2.5th and 97.5th percentiles of the posterior distribution.|Primary Hypothesis: TAVR with the Medtronic TAVR is non-inferior to SAVR for all-cause mortality or disabling stroke rate during a fixed follow-up of 24 months.||||
91096913|NCT01001104|182078518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||This is the p-value from the Cochran-Armitage trend test.|Cochran-Armitage|||||||<0.001
91096914|NCT01001104|182078518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.358||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.358
91096915|NCT01001104|182078518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.014
91096916|NCT01001104|182078518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91096917|NCT01001104|182078519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||This is the p-value for the linear trend test at week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91096918|NCT01001104|182078519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-20.2||||0.003||95.0||||Primary comparisons are based on the MMRM Least Squares (LS) Mean Value at week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.003
91096919|NCT01001104|182078519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-19.54||||0.003||95.0||||Primary comparisons are based on the MMRM LS Mean Value at week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.003
91096920|NCT01001104|182078519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-28.48|||<|0.001||95.0||||Primary comparisons are based on the MMRM LS Mean Value at week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91096921|NCT01001104|182078520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||This is the p-value for the linear trend test at week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91096922|NCT01001104|182078520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-33.2|||<|0.001||95.0||||Primary comparisons are based on the MMRM Least Squares (LS) Mean Value at week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91096923|NCT01001104|182078520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-45.63|||<|0.001||95.0||||Primary comparisons are based on the MMRM LS Mean Value at week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91096924|NCT01001104|182078520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-41.49|||<|0.001||95.0||||Primary comparisons are based on the MMRM LS Mean Value at week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91096925|NCT01001104|182078521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.987||95.0||||This is the p-value for the linear trend test at week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.987
91096926|NCT01001104|182078521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.26||||0.005||95.0||||Primary comparisons are based on the MMRM Least Squares (LS) Mean Value at week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.005
91096927|NCT01001104|182078521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.45||||0.311||95.0||||Primary comparisons are based on the MMRM LS Mean Value at week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.311
91096928|NCT01001104|182078521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.26||||0.556||95.0||||Primary comparisons are based on the MMRM LS Mean Value at week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.556
91096929|NCT01001104|182078522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.202||95.0||||This is the p-value from the linear trend test at week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.202
91096930|NCT01001104|182078522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.91||||0.917||95.0||||Primary comparisons are based on the MMRM Least Squares (LS) Mean Value at week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.917
91096931|NCT01001104|182078522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.81||||0.264||95.0||||Primary comparisons are based on the MMRM LS Mean Value at week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.264
91096932|NCT01001104|182078522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-8.4||||0.346||95.0||||Primary comparisons are based on the MMRM LS Mean Value at week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.346
91096933|NCT01001104|182078523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||This is the p-value for the linear trend test at week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91096934|NCT01001104|182078523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|13.1||||0.036||95.0||||Primary comparisons are based on the MMRM Least Squares (LS) Mean Value at week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.036
90849240|NCT00159822|181564553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Kaplan-Meier estimate overall survival|0.85||||||95.0|0.725|0.976|||||Global survival rate calculated using Kaplan-Meier estimate of overall survival.|||0.976|0.725|
90957479|NCT00252733|181795082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.821||||0.0508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.673|1.001|||Log Rank|Generalized||||1.001|0.673|0.0508
91096935|NCT01001104|182078523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|19.73||||0.002||95.0||||Primary comparisons are based on the MMRM LS Mean Value at week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.002
91096936|NCT01001104|182078523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|31.68|||<|0.001||95.0||||Primary comparisons are based on the MMRM LS Mean Value at week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91096937|NCT01001104|182078525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.073||95.0||||This is the p-value from the Cochran-Armitage trend test (dose-effect).|Cochran-Armitage|||||||0.073
90849241|NCT02683746|181564580|NON_INFERIORITY|The primary hypothesis tested was that the liquid drug product would provide glycemic control non-inferior to the lyophilized drug product for a period of 26 weeks of treatment in participants with T2DM. Non-inferiority testing was performed at a one-sided alpha of 0.025 and non-inferiority margin of 0.4.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.06||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.24||P-value from a one-sided t-test to test whether the difference of least square means (Albiglutide liquid - Albiglutide lyophilized) is equal to the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 0.4%.|MMRM model|||||0.24|-0.13|0.0002
90849242|NCT02683746|181564588|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.14||||||||0.14|-0.83|
90849243|NCT02683746|181564589|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.13||Calculated P-value from a one-sided t-test to test whether the difference of least square means (Albiglutide liquid - Albiglutide lyophilized) is equal to the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 0.4%.|MMRM model||Difference in HbA1c levels between albiglutide liquid and lyophilized product at Week 4 are presented.|||0.13|-0.07|<0.0001
90849244|NCT02683746|181564589|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.2||Calculated P-value from a one-sided t-test to test whether the difference of least square means (Albiglutide liquid - Albiglutide lyophilized) is equal to the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 0.4%.|MMRM model||Difference in HbA1c levels between albiglutide liquid and lyophilized product at Week 8 are presented.|||0.20|-0.07|<0.0001
90849245|NCT02683746|181564589|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.24||Calculated P-value from a one-sided t-test to test whether the difference of least square means (Albiglutide liquid - Albiglutide lyophilized) is equal to the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 0.4%.|MMRM model||Difference in HbA1c levels between albiglutide liquid and lyophilized product at Week 12 are presented.|||0.24|-0.08|<0.0001
90849246|NCT02683746|181564589|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.2||Calculated P-value from a one-sided t-test to test whether the difference of least square means (Albiglutide liquid - Albiglutide lyophilized) is equal to the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 0.4%.|MMRM model||Difference in HbA1c levels between albiglutide liquid and lyophilized product at Week 16 are presented.|||0.20|-0.16|<0.0001
90849247|NCT02683746|181564589|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.19||Calculated P-value from a one-sided t-test to test whether the difference of least square means (Albiglutide liquid - Albiglutide lyophilized) is equal to the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 0.4%.|MMRM model||Difference in HbA1c levels between albiglutide liquid and lyophilized product at Week 20 are presented.|||0.19|-0.15|<0.0001
90849248|NCT02683746|181564589|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.2||Calculated P-value from a one-sided t-test to test whether the difference of least square means (Albiglutide liquid - Albiglutide lyophilized) is equal to the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 0.4%.|MMRM model||Difference in HbA1c levels between albiglutide liquid and lyophilized product at Week 26 are presented.|||0.20|-0.17|<0.0001
90957480|NCT03038438|181795108|OTHER|Single arm study with a hypothesis test comparing to performance goal|Proportion|88.0|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|82.5||||Fisher Exact|||"The primary effectiveness endpoint, primary patency at 12 months, was tested against a PG of 75%. The null and alternative hypotheses tested appear below:~H0: π ≤ PG vs. HA: π \> PG where π is the primary patency rate at 12 months in the study population and PG is the performance goal of 75%. The primary effectiveness objective will be met if the lower limit of the 97.5% one-sided confidence interval is above 75%."|||82.5|<0.0001
90957481|NCT03038438|181795109|OTHER|Single-arm study with a hypothesis test comparing to performance goal|Proportion|2.0|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|97.5||5.0|||Fisher Exact|||"The primary safety endpoint, major adverse events at 30 days post-procedure, was tested against a performance goal of 12.5%. The null and alternative hypotheses tested appear below:~H0: P ≥ PG vs. HA: P \< PG where P is the primary safety endpoint at 30 days in the study population and PG is the performance goal.~The primary safety objective will be met if the upper limit of the 97.5% one-sided confidence interval is below 12.5%."||5.0||<0.0001
91096938|NCT01001104|182078525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
91096939|NCT01001104|182078525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.233||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.233
91096940|NCT02034591|182078526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|0.682|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.621|0.748||||||||0.748|0.621|
91096941|NCT02034591|182078527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|0.813|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.766|0.863||||||||0.863|0.766|
91096942|NCT02034591|182078528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.764|0.86||||||||0.860|0.764|
91096943|NCT02034591|182078529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|0.884|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|0.942||||||||0.942|0.830|
91096944|NCT02034591|182078530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.905|0.997||||||||0.997|0.905|
91096945|NCT02034591|182078531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|0.947|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.903|0.994||||||||0.994|0.903|
91096946|NCT00879359|182078646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio, log|92.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.0|99.0||||||||99|64|
91096947|NCT00970944|182078649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.045||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||We will have 80% power to detect a one point difference in DRS score between the groups across the four week treatment window. With this sample size, we will be able to detect any unforeseen adverse events that have a prevalence of at least 2.5% in each group with 90% probability. With 92 patients per group we will be able to estimate the rate of adverse events to within ±10%.||||0.045
91096948|NCT00970944|182078650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.088||0.007||95.0|-0.41|-0.07||The final analysis used a significance level of 0.045.|Mixed Models Analysis|Final analysis adjusted for early v. late enrollment relative to date of injury, baseline CRS-R rating category (MCS vs. VS), and site.||The planned sample size of 184 patients provided 80% power to detect a difference between the AH and placebo in the rate of Disability Rating Scale (DRS) score change of 0.3 points/week (1.22 DRS point mean difference by the end of the 4-week treatment interval). Two blinded interim analyses were conducted at 60 and 120 patients recruited using the O'Brien-Fleming boundary, with alpha levels of 0.0005 and 0.014. The final analysis used an alpha level of 0.045.||-0.07|-0.41|0.007
91096949|NCT00817063|182078686|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.55|5.62|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||5.62|2.55|<0.001
91096950|NCT00817063|182078686|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|24.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.0|31.7|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||31.7|18.0|<0.001
91096951|NCT00817063|182078687|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-24.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.4|-17.85|||Kruskal-Wallis|||||-17.85|-30.40|<0.001
91096952|NCT00817063|182078688|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.71|6.07|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||6.07|2.71|<0.001
91096953|NCT00817063|182078688|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|25.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.7|32.3|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||32.3|18.7|<0.001
91096954|NCT00817063|182078689|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-22.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.0|-13.73|||Kruskal-Wallis|||||-13.73|-31.00|<0.001
91096955|NCT00817063|182078690|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.047|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.047
91096956|NCT00817063|182078691|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.068|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.068
91096957|NCT00817063|182078692|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.001
91096958|NCT00817063|182078701|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.489||||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.226|1.204||The analysis of covariance model includes treatment, age at Baseline, gender, menopausal status of females, baseline BMD score and duration of treatment exposure (\<12weeks, \>=12 weeks) as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Lumbar Spine BMD||1.204|-0.226|0.179
91096959|NCT00817063|182078701|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.497||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.077|1.071||The analysis of covariance model includes treatment, age at Baseline, gender, menopausal status of females, baseline BMD score and duration of treatment exposure (\<12weeks, \>=12 weeks) as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Femur BMD||1.071|-0.077|0.089
91096960|NCT03439514|182078709|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|4.936||||0.818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.246|34.118||Two-sided p-value|Van Elteren test||The Week 24 change from baseline in 6MWT between PF 07265803 and placebo was estimated using the stratified HL median difference, considering only participants who survived 24 weeks.|||34.118|-24.246|0.818
91096961|NCT03439514|182078715|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.43||||0.2257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.39|||Log Rank|||||1.39|0.13|0.2257
91096962|NCT03439514|182078716|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19||||0.837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|4.63|||Log Rank|||||4.63|0.30|0.8370
91096963|NCT02111980|182078744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||1.0
91096964|NCT03086343|182078758|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority of upadacitinib 15 mg versus abatacept was tested using the 95% confidence interval (CI) of treatment difference against a non-inferiority margin of 0.6.|LS Mean Difference|-0.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.35||The ANCOVA model included treatment as the fixed factor; corresponding baseline value and the stratification factor of prior bDMARD used as covariates.|ANCOVA||Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib 15 mg - Abatacept|In order to preserve Type I error, a step-down approach was used to test the primary and ranked secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order where statistical significance at the 0.05 level could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoint in the sequence met the requirements of significance.||-0.35|-0.69|< 0.001
91096965|NCT03086343|182078759|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.35||This comparison was a ranked secondary endpoint in the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment as the fixed factor; corresponding baseline value and the stratification factor of prior bDMARD used as covariates|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib 15 mg - Abatacept|In order to preserve Type I error, a step-down approach was used to test the primary and ranked secondary endpoints in a pre specified order where statistical significance at the 0.05 level could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoint in the sequence met the requirements of significance.||-0.35|-0.69|< 0.001
91096966|NCT03086343|182078760|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|16.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.4|23.2||This comparison was a ranked secondary endpoint in the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The stratification factor of prior failed bDMARD was used.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib 15 mg - Abatacept|In order to preserve Type I error, a step-down approach was used to test the primary and ranked secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order where statistical significance at the 0.05 level could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoint in the sequence met the requirements of significance.||23.2|10.4|< 0.001
91096967|NCT04900272|182078761|OTHER|||||||0.785|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.785
91096968|NCT04900272|182078762|OTHER|||||||0.583|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.583
91096969|NCT04900272|182078763|OTHER|||||||0.5015|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.5015
91096970|NCT04900272|182078764|OTHER|||||||0.3536|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.3536
91096971|NCT04900272|182078765|OTHER|||||||0.2688|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.2688
91096972|NCT04900272|182078766|OTHER|||||||0.728|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.728
91096973|NCT04900272|182078767|OTHER|||||||0.473|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.473
91096974|NCT04900272|182078768|OTHER|||||||0.4161|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.4161
91096975|NCT04900272|182078769|OTHER|||||||0.3356|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.3356
91096976|NCT04900272|182078770|OTHER|||||||0.9825|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.9825
91096977|NCT01625182|182078774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.9838|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.7|||Regression, Cox|||||1.7|0.6|0.9838
91096978|NCT01970371|182078784|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) for the difference between groups in Cohort 1 (colistin minus plazomicin) is based on the unconditional exact method.|Difference Estimate|26.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|51.2|||1-sided Fisher's exact test|||||51.2|-0.7|
90957482|NCT00871780|181795162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Baseline, Week 24||||0.0003
91096979|NCT01970371|182078785|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) for the difference between groups in Cohort 1 (colistin minus plazomicin) is based on the unconditional exact method.|Difference Estimate|28.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7|52.5|||1-sided Fisher's exact test|||||52.5|0.7|
90957483|NCT00871780|181795162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Baseline, Week 48||||0.0002
91096980|NCT01970371|182078786|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in clinical cure percentage at the TOC visit between groups in Cohort 1 (colistin minus plazomicin) is based on the unconditional exact method.|Difference Estimate|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-26.9|26.8|||1-sided Fisher's exact test|||||26.8|-26.9|
91096981|NCT01970371|182078787|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) for the unadjusted hazard ratio between groups in Cohort 1 (colistin:plazomicin) is based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.08|14.61|||1-sided logrank test|||||14.61|1.08|
91096982|NCT01970371|182078788|SUPERIORITY|The two-sided 90% confidence interval for the difference between groups in Cohort 1 (colistin minus plazomicin) is based on the unconditional exact method.|Difference Estimate|14.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.0|40.3|||1-sided Fisher's exact test|||||40.3|-13|
91096983|NCT01922011|182078821|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI is greater than -15%|Common Difference|-6.1||||0.421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|7.4|||Wald||Daptomycin - Comparator|95% confidence interval of the common difference was based on stratified Newcombe confidence interval (CI) with minimum risk weights, with age cohort as the stratification factor.||7.4|-19.4|0.421
91096984|NCT01922011|182078822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Common difference|-7.1||||0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.6|7.9|||Wald||95% confidence interval of the common difference ( Daptomycin minus Vancomycin or Nafcillin) is based on stratified Newcombe confidence interval (CI) with minimum risk weights, with age cohort as the stratification factor.|||7.9|-21.6|0.467
91096985|NCT01922011|182078823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Common difference|-6.2||||0.313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|5.0|||Wald||95% confidence interval of the common difference ( Daptomycin minus Vancomycin or Nafcillin) is based on stratified Newcombe confidence interval (CI) with minimum risk weights, with age cohort as the stratification factor.|At EOIV visit||5.0|-17.5|0.313
91096986|NCT01922011|182078823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Common difference|-7.9||||0.239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.8|4.0|||Wald||95% confidence interval of the common difference ( Daptomycin minus Vancomycin or Nafcillin) is based on stratified Newcombe confidence interval (CI) with minimum risk weights, with age cohort as the stratification factor.|At EOT visit||4.0|-19.8|0.239
91096987|NCT01922011|182078823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Common difference|-6.7||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.1|5.8|||Wald||95% confidence interval of the common difference ( Daptomycin minus Vancomycin or Nafcillin) is based on stratified Newcombe confidence interval (CI) with minimum risk weights, with age cohort as the stratification factor.|At TOC visit||5.8|-19.1|0.370
91096988|NCT01922011|182078824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Common difference|-10.5||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.3|5.4|||Wald||95% confidence interval of the common difference ( Daptomycin minus Vancomycin or Nafcillin) is based on stratified Newcombe confidence interval (CI) with minimum risk weights, with age cohort as the stratification factor.|Overall Baseline Infecting Pathogen||5.4|-26.3|0.230
91096989|NCT01922011|182078824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Common difference|-12.3||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.5|4.4|||Wald||95% confidence interval of the common difference ( Daptomycin minus Vancomycin or Nafcillin) is based on stratified Newcombe confidence interval (CI) with minimum risk weights, with age cohort as the stratification factor.|SA||4.4|-28.5|0.164
91096990|NCT01922011|182078824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Common difference|-15.5||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.2|1.1|||Wald||95% confidence interval of the common difference ( Daptomycin minus Vancomycin or Nafcillin) is based on stratified Newcombe confidence interval (CI) with minimum risk weights, with age cohort as the stratification factor.|MSSA||1.1|-31.2|0.043
91096991|NCT01922011|182078824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45|||||||Wald|||MRSA||||0.450
90957484|NCT00871780|181795163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0148|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Baseline, Week 24||||0.0148
90957485|NCT00871780|181795163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0119|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Baseline, Week 48||||0.0119
90957486|NCT00871780|181795164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Baseline, Week 24||||<0.0001
91096992|NCT01922011|182078824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||Wald|||Other Pathogen||||0.280
90849249|NCT02683746|181564590|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.65|||||Difference in FPG levels between albiglutide liquid and lyophilized product at Week 1 are presented.|||0.65|-0.15|
90957487|NCT00871780|181795164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0157|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Baseline, Week 48||||0.0157
90957488|NCT00871780|181795165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Baseline, Week 24||||<0.0001
90957489|NCT00871780|181795165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Baseline, Week 48||||<0.0001
90957490|NCT00871780|181795166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Baseline||||<0.0001
90957491|NCT00871780|181795166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Change from Baseline at Week 24||||<0.0001
91030560|NCT04084483|181945594|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3717|||||||ANCOVA|||Corneal Sum||||0.3717
91096993|NCT01922011|182078825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Common difference|-6.3||||0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.2|5.5|||Wald||95% confidence interval of the common difference ( Daptomycin minus Vancomycin or Nafcillin) is based on stratified Newcombe confidence interval (CI) with minimum risk weights, with age cohort as the stratification factor.|EOT||5.5|-18.2|0.272
91096994|NCT01922011|182078825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Common difference|-4.8||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6|7.9|||Wald||95% confidence interval of the common difference ( Daptomycin minus Vancomycin or Nafcillin) is based on stratified Newcombe confidence interval (CI) with minimum risk weights, with age cohort as the stratification factor.|TOC||7.9|-17.6|0.480
91096995|NCT01922011|182078826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Common difference|-10.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.8|4.2|||||95% confidence interval of the common difference ( Daptomycin minus Vancomycin or Nafcillin) is based on stratified Newcombe confidence interval (CI) with minimum risk weights, with age cohort as the stratification factor.|Overall Baseline Infecting Pathogen||4.2|-24.8|
91096996|NCT01922011|182078826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Common difference|-12.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.2|2.8|||||95% confidence interval of the common difference ( Daptomycin minus Vancomycin or Nafcillin) is based on stratified Newcombe confidence interval (CI) with minimum risk weights, with age cohort as the stratification factor.|SA||2.8|-27.2|
91096997|NCT01922011|182078826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Common difference|-10.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.4|5.2|||||95% confidence interval of the common difference ( Daptomycin minus Vancomycin or Nafcillin) is based on stratified Newcombe confidence interval (CI) with minimum risk weights, with age cohort as the stratification factor.|MSSA||5.2|-25.4|
91096998|NCT00924482|182078850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Correlation Coefficient (R^2)|0.63||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|Linear regression between the average of six thermodilution cardiac output measurements was compared to the average of six ECOM output measurements||||||
91096999|NCT02903914|182078951|OTHER|||||||0.0731|||||||ANOVA|1-factor ANOVA of log-transformed, dose-normalized data (factor = dose)||||||0.0731
91097000|NCT02903914|182078951|OTHER||pairwise geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.933|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.784|1.11||||||||1.110|0.784|
91097001|NCT02903914|182078951|OTHER||pairwise GMR|1.074|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.908|1.271||||||||1.271|0.908|
90849250|NCT02683746|181564590|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.69|||||Difference in FPG levels between albiglutide liquid and lyophilized product at Week 2 are presented.|||0.69|-0.20|
90849251|NCT02683746|181564590|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.4|||||Difference in FPG levels between albiglutide liquid and lyophilized product at Week 3 are presented.|||0.40|-0.42|
90849252|NCT02683746|181564590|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.36|||||Difference in FPG levels between albiglutide liquid and lyophilized product at Week 4 are presented.|||0.36|-0.42|
90849253|NCT02683746|181564590|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.57|||||Difference in FPG levels between albiglutide liquid and lyophilized product at Week 5 are presented.|||0.57|-0.19|
90849254|NCT02683746|181564590|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.55|||||Difference in FPG levels between albiglutide liquid and lyophilized product at Week 6 are presented.|||0.55|-0.26|
90849255|NCT02683746|181564590|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.71|||||Difference in FPG levels between albiglutide liquid and lyophilized product at Week 7 are presented.|||0.71|-0.16|
90899703|NCT00110890|181665212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.88||||0.002||95.0|1.26|2.81|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for four baseline strata defined by vitamin D prescribed and calcium x phosphorus ≤ 55 mg\^2/dL\^2|Adjusted for four baseline strata defined by vitamin D prescribed and calcium x phosphorus ≤ 55 mg\^2/dL\^2|||2.81|1.26|0.002
91097002|NCT02903914|182078951|OTHER||pairwise GMR|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.034|1.463||||||||1.463|1.034|
91097003|NCT02903914|182078952|OTHER|||||||0.1496|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|1-factor ANOVA of log-transformed, dose-normalized data (factor = dose)||||||0.1496
91097004|NCT02903914|182078953|OTHER|||||||0.2867|||||||ANOVA|1-factor ANOVA of log-transformed, dose-normalized data (factor = dose)||||||0.2867
91097005|NCT02903914|182078953|OTHER||pairwise GMR|1.007|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.825|1.23||||||||1.230|0.825|
90957492|NCT00871780|181795166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Change from Baseline at Week 48||||<0.0001
91097006|NCT02903914|182078953|OTHER||pairwise GMR|1.081|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.892|1.311||||||||1.311|0.892|
91097007|NCT02903914|182078953|OTHER||pairwise GMR|1.234|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.011|1.507||||||||1.507|1.011|
90849256|NCT02683746|181564590|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.6|||||Difference in FPG levels between albiglutide liquid and lyophilized product at Week 8 are presented.|||0.60|-0.22|
90849257|NCT02683746|181564590|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.47|||||Difference in FPG levels between albiglutide liquid and lyophilized product at Week 9 are presented.|||0.47|-0.41|
90849258|NCT02683746|181564590|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.57|||||Difference in FPG levels between albiglutide liquid and lyophilized product at Week 10 are presented.|||0.57|-0.28|
90849259|NCT02683746|181564590|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.56|||||Difference in FPG levels between albiglutide liquid and lyophilized product at Week 11 are presented.|||0.56|-0.34|
90957493|NCT00871780|181795167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman correlation|||Baseline||||<0.0001
91097008|NCT02903914|182078954|OTHER|||||||0.6167|||||||ANOVA|1-factor ANOVA of log-transformed, dose-normalized data (factor = dose)||||||0.6167
91097009|NCT02903914|182078954|OTHER||pairwise GMR|1.014|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.82|1.255||||||||1.255|0.820|
91097010|NCT02903914|182078954|OTHER||pairwise GMR|1.043|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.849|1.281||||||||1.281|0.849|
91097011|NCT02903914|182078954|OTHER||pairwise GMR|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.945|1.447||||||||1.447|0.945|
91097012|NCT02903914|182078958|OTHER|||||||0.0745|||||||ANOVA|1-factor ANOVA of log-transformed, dose-normalized data (factor = dose)||||||0.0745
91097013|NCT02903914|182078958|OTHER||pairwise GMR|1.127|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.947|1.341||||||||1.341|0.947|
91097014|NCT02903914|182078958|OTHER||pairwise GMR|0.991|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.833|1.18||||||||1.180|0.833|
91097015|NCT02903914|182078958|OTHER||pairwise GMR|1.258|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.064|1.486||||||||1.486|1.064|
91097016|NCT02903914|182078959|OTHER|||||||0.0518|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0518
91097017|NCT02903914|182078960|OTHER|||||||0.1723|||||||ANOVA|1-factor ANOVA of log-transformed, dose-normalized data (factor = dose)||||||0.1723
91097018|NCT02903914|182078960|OTHER||pairwise GMR|1.156|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.941|1.42||||||||1.420|0.941|
91097019|NCT02903914|182078960|OTHER||pairwise GMR|0.976|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.794|1.198||||||||1.198|0.794|
91097020|NCT02903914|182078960|OTHER||pairwise GMR|1.233|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.012|1.503||||||||1.503|1.012|
91097021|NCT02903914|182078961|OTHER|||||||0.1705|||||||ANOVA|1-factor ANOVA of log-transformed, dose-normalized data (factor = dose)||||||0.1705
91097022|NCT02903914|182078961|OTHER||pairwise GMR|1.083|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.863|1.359||||||||1.359|0.863|
91097023|NCT02903914|182078961|OTHER||pairwise GMR|0.902|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.719|1.132||||||||1.132|0.719|
91097024|NCT02903914|182078961|OTHER||pairwise GMR|1.212|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.945|1.554||||||||1.554|0.945|
91097025|NCT02903914|182078965|OTHER||pairwise GMR|1.057||||0.7702|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.753|1.483|||ANOVA|1-factor ANOVA of log-transformed, dose-normalized data (factor = food effect)||Fed versus Fasted||1.483|0.753|0.7702
91097026|NCT02903914|182078965|OTHER||pairwise GMR|1.012||||0.9384|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.762|1.346|||ANOVA|1-factor ANOVA of log-transformed, dose-normalized data (factor = food effect)||Fed versus Fasted||1.346|0.762|0.9384
91030561|NCT04084483|181945594|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3164|||||||ANCOVA|||Conjunctival Sum||||0.3164
91097027|NCT02903914|182078965|OTHER||pairwise GMR|1.07||||0.6733|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.809|1.415|||ANOVA|1-factor ANOVA of log-transformed, dose-normalized data (factor = food effect)||Fed versus Fasted||1.415|0.809|0.6733
91097028|NCT02903914|182078965|OTHER||pairwise GMR|1.238||||0.3456|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|1.847|||ANOVA|1-factor ANOVA of log-transformed, dose-normalized data (factor = food effect)||Fed versus Fasted||1.847|0.830|0.3456
91097029|NCT02903914|182078966|OTHER|||||||0.0441|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Fed versus Fasted||||0.0441
91097030|NCT02903914|182078966|OTHER|||||||0.4092|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Fed versus Fasted||||0.4092
91097031|NCT02903914|182078966|OTHER|||||||0.7748|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Fed versus Fasted||||0.7748
91097032|NCT02903914|182078966|OTHER|||||||0.1948|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Fed versus Fasted||||0.1948
91097033|NCT02903914|182078967|OTHER||pairwise GMR|0.92||||0.705|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.62|1.363|||ANOVA|1-factor ANOVA of log-transformed, dose-normalized data (factor = food effect)||Fed versus Fasted||1.363|0.620|0.7050
91030562|NCT04084483|181945594|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1953|||||||ANCOVA|||Conjunctival Sum||||0.1953
91097034|NCT02903914|182078967|OTHER||pairwise GMR|0.929||||0.703|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.658|1.31|||ANOVA|1-factor ANOVA of log-transformed, dose-normalized data (factor = food effect)||Fed versus Fasted||1.310|0.658|0.7030
91097035|NCT02903914|182078967|OTHER||pairwise GMR|0.999||||0.9952|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.725|1.377|||ANOVA|1-factor ANOVA of log-transformed, dose-normalized data (factor = food effect)||Fed versus Fasted||1.377|0.725|0.9952
91097036|NCT02903914|182078967|OTHER||pairwise GMR|0.742||||0.4012|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.394|1.397|||ANOVA|1-factor ANOVA of log-transformed, dose-normalized data (factor = food effect)||Fed versus Fasted||1.397|0.394|0.4012
91097037|NCT02903914|182078968|OTHER||pairwise GMR|0.992||||0.9623|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.729|1.349|||ANOVA|1-factor ANOVA of log-transformed, dose-normalized data (factor = formulation)||Tablet (test) versus Capsule (reference)||1.349|0.729|0.9623
91097038|NCT02903914|182078969|OTHER|||||||0.754|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Tablet (test) versus Capsule (reference)||||0.7540
91097039|NCT02903914|182078970|OTHER||pairwise GMR|0.951||||0.7514|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.718|1.261|||ANOVA|1-factor ANOVA of log-transformed, dose-normalized data (factor = dose)||Tablet (test) versus Capsule (reference)||1.261|0.718|0.7514
91097040|NCT02903914|182078971|OTHER||pairwise GMR|0.954||||0.7707|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.712|1.277|||ANOVA|1-factor ANOVA of log-transformed, dose-normalized data (factor = formulation)||Tablet (test) versus Capsule (reference)||1.277|0.712|0.7707
91030563|NCT04084483|181945594|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4645|||||||ANCOVA|||Total Eye Sum||||0.4645
90849260|NCT02683746|181564590|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.46|||||Difference in FPG levels between albiglutide liquid and lyophilized product at Week 12 are presented.|||0.46|-0.41|
90849261|NCT02683746|181564590|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.57|||||Difference in FPG levels between albiglutide liquid and lyophilized product at Week 13 are presented.|||0.57|-0.47|
90849262|NCT02683746|181564590|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.54|||||Difference in FPG levels between albiglutide liquid and lyophilized product at Week 16 are presented.|||0.54|-0.41|
90849263|NCT02683746|181564590|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.53|||||Difference in FPG levels between albiglutide liquid and lyophilized product at Week 20 are presented.|||0.53|-0.47|
90849264|NCT02683746|181564590|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.14|||||Difference in FPG levels between albiglutide liquid and lyophilized product at Week 26 are presented.|||0.14|-0.83|
91030564|NCT04084483|181945594|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2135|||||||ANCOVA|||Total Eye Sum||||0.2135
91030565|NCT04084483|181945595|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.599|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.5990
91030566|NCT04084483|181945595|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2122|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2122
91030567|NCT04084483|181945596|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9146|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.9146
91097041|NCT03487445|182078999|SUPERIORITY|The statistical analysis comprised a 2-step testing strategy. The first test, carried out at an alpha level of 0.025, determined whether the proportion of responders (patients with a PRU value \<100) was ≥ 50% (null hypothesis: proportion of responders \<50%) and is reported below. The second step for the Selatogrel 8 mg is described in statistical analysis 2: In this second analysis the subsequent null hypothesis of treatment effect less or equal to 85% was tested for the 8 mg dose.|||||<|0.001||||||P-value for hypotheses (H0: p \<= 50% vs. H1: p \> 50%)|one-sided z-test|A p-value significance level was set to 0.025.||The main analysis (mFAS, treatment dose as received) of treatment effect on the primary endpoint was conducted independently for each dose.||||<0.001
91097042|NCT03487445|182078999|SUPERIORITY|This statistical analysis reports the second of the 2-step testing strategy. This second test for the 8 mg Selatogrel dose, carried out at an alpha level of 0.025, determined whether the proportion of responders (patients with a PRU value \<100) was ≥ 85% (null hypothesis: proportion of responders \<85%).||||||0.142||||||P-value for hypotheses (H0: p \<= 85% vs. H1: p \> 85%)|one-sided z-test|A p-value significance level was set to 0.025, an overall level of 0.05 and adjusted for multiplicity using the Bonferroni approach.||The main analysis (mFAS, treatment dose as received) of treatment effect on the primary endpoint was conducted independently for each dose.||||0.142
91097043|NCT03487445|182078999|SUPERIORITY|The statistical analysis comprised a 2-step testing strategy. The first test, carried out at an alpha level of 0.025, determined whether the proportion of responders (patients with a PRU value \<100) was ≥ 50% (null hypothesis: proportion of responders \<50%) and is reported below. The second step for the Selatogrel 16 mg is described in statistical analysis 4: In this second analysis the subsequent null hypothesis of treatment effect less or equal to 85% was tested for the 16 mg dose.|||||<|0.0001||||||P-value for hypotheses (H0: p \<= 50% vs. H1: p \> 50%)|one-sided z-test|A p-value significance level was set to 0.025.||The main analysis (mFAS, treatment dose as received) of treatment effect on the primary endpoint was conducted independently for each dose.||||<0.0001
90849265|NCT02012582|181564600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||Mixed model analysis for TIL with the patient as random effect and study day, cohort, treatment, and interaction between study day and treatment as fixed effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo versus pooled VAS203 Arms/Groups||||<0.04
91097044|NCT03487445|182078999|SUPERIORITY|This statistical analysis reports the second of the 2-step testing strategy. This second test for the 16 mg Selatogrel dose, carried out at an alpha level of 0.025, determined whether the proportion of responders (patients with a PRU value \<100) was ≥ 85% (null hypothesis: proportion of responders \<85%).||||||0.009||||||P-value for hypotheses (H0: p \<= 85% vs. H1: p \> 85%)|one-sided z-test|A p-value significance level was set to 0.025, an overall level of 0.05 and adjusted for multiplicity using the Bonferroni approach.||The main analysis (mFAS, treatment dose as received) of treatment effect on the primary endpoint was conducted independently for each dose.||||0.009
91097045|NCT03487445|182079000|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.228||||||P-value for hypotheses (H0: p \<= 85% versus H1: p \> 85%)|One-sided Z-test|||As per the main analysis (mFAS) the supporting analysis on the per-protocol set this analysis of treatment effect was conducted independently for each dose, i.e., 8 and 16 mg.||||0.2280
91097046|NCT03487445|182079000|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0201||||||P-value for hypotheses (H0: p \<= 85% versus H1: p \> 85%)|One-sided Z-test|||As per the main analysis (mFAS) the supporting analysis on the per-protocol set this analysis of treatment effect was conducted independently for each dose, i.e., 8 and 16 mg.||||0.0201
91097047|NCT00975923|182079026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||infection rates per device days|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|3.0||p-value and confidence intervals|Regression, Linear|||Infection rates were analyzed using hierarchical negative binomial regression models to model infection rate changes over time and account for clustering of ICUs within hospitals and adjusting for baseline covariates. Power was calculated a priori with a 1-tailed alpha of 0.05 and group size of 30; a 50% decrease in infection rates in the Collaborative group and 15% for the Tool Kit group, yielding power ranging from 82% to 91% for testing group differences.||3.0|1.0|<.05
91097048|NCT00975923|182079027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentages|10.0|||<|5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared||Power calculation used alpha = .05 and group size = 30.The estimated effect was a 50% decrease in infection rates for the Collaborative Group and from 10% to 15% decrease in the Tool Kit group.Power ranged from 82%-91% for testing group differences.|It was hypothesized that the Collaborative group would engage in more processes and tools than the Tool Kit group. Power was based on infection rates.||||<05
91097049|NCT01964404|182079028|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|||||p-FDR|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.87
91097050|NCT01964404|182079030|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|2.4|||ANOVA|||This analysis tested whether the marijuana cigarette group had different PANSS Positive symptom scores compared to the placebo group adjusting for the SCZ only group. (The dronabinol group was tested separately per our analytic plan.)||2.4|-0.77|0.31
90849266|NCT02012582|181564601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Placebo versus pooled VAS203 Arms/Group||||<0.01
90849267|NCT00470834|181564607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.79
90899704|NCT01975220|181665221|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|99.98|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.275|102.751|||ANOVA||Adjusted geometric mean (GM) ratio(%) was calculated as GM of 'High dose, fasted:1 FDC tablet' divided by GM of 'High dose, fasted:3 single tablets'.The 'standard deviation' is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV (%)).|||102.751|97.275|<0.0001
91097051|NCT01964404|182079030|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.18|||ANOVA|||This analysis tested whether the dronabinol group had different PANSS Positive symptom scores compared to the placebo group adjusting for the SCZ only group. (The marijuana cigarette group was tested separately per our analytic plan.)||0.18|-2.4|.62
91097052|NCT01964404|182079031|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|3.45|||ANOVA|||This analysis tested whether the marijuana cigarette group had different PANSS Negative symptom scores compared to the placebo group adjusting for the SCZ only group. (The dronabinol group was tested separately per our analytic plan.)||3.45|-1|0.28
91097053|NCT01964404|182079031|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.85|||ANOVA|||This analysis tested whether the dronabinol group had different PANSS Positive negative scores compared to the placebo group adjusting for the SCZ only group. (The dronabinol group was tested separately per our analytic plan.)||2.85|-1.1|0.39
90849268|NCT00470834|181564607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.46|||||The hazard ratio is based on the Cox proportional hazards model.|||1.46|0.61|
90849269|NCT00470834|181564607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk Reduction|5.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.14|39.05|||||Relative Risk Reduction = 100 \* (1 - Relative Risk).|||39.05|-46.14|
90849270|NCT01616693|181564617|SUPERIORITY||Difference in seroconversion proportion|4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-4.4|13.2||||||||13.2|-4.4|
90849271|NCT01616693|181564617|SUPERIORITY||Difference in seroconversion proportion|7.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|16.2||||||||16.2|-1.4|
91104273|NCT04003142|182094845|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.373||||0.152||95.0|0.891|2.122||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||2.122|0.891|0.152
91104274|NCT04003142|182094845|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.09|||<|0.001||95.0|1.351|3.252||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||3.252|1.351|<0.001
90849272|NCT01616693|181564617|SUPERIORITY||Difference in seroconversion proportion|12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|22.8||||||||22.8|.8|
90849273|NCT01616693|181564619|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|6.6||||||||6.6|-4.3|
90849274|NCT01616693|181564619|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|2.3||||||||2.3|-8.6|
90849275|NCT01616693|181564619|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|5.7||||||||5.7|-9.8|
90849276|NCT00441116|181564624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|7.54|STANDARD_DEVIATION|20.37||0.0319||95.0|0.75|14.33|||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference = Drug A minus Drug B|Month 6 - Baseline||14.33|0.75|0.0319
91030568|NCT04084483|181945596|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8494|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.8494
91097054|NCT01964404|182079032|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.424||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.06|-3.18||We set threshold of p\<.01 for statistical significance due to multiple comparisons|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for pre-drug exposure cognitive functioning||This analysis tested whether the dronabinol group had different verbal learning scores compared to the placebo group adjusting for the SCZ only group. (The marijuana cigarette group was tested separately per our analytic plan.)||-3.18|-16.06|0.004
91097055|NCT01964404|182079033|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.94||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.62|15.75|||Regression, Linear|||This analysis tested whether the marijuana cigarette group had different anxiety scores compared to the placebo group adjusting for the SCZ only group. (The dronabinol group was tested separately per our analytic plan.)||15.75|-3.62|.22
91097056|NCT01964404|182079033|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.95||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.87|5.7|||Regression, Linear|||This analysis tested whether the dronabinol group had different anxiety scores compared to the placebo group adjusting for the SCZ only group. (The dronabinol group was tested separately per our analytic plan.)||5.70|-5.87|0.98
91097057|NCT01964404|182079034|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|50.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.4||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.9|90.9|||ANOVA|||This analysis tested whether the dronabinol group had different drug experience ratings of liking scores compared to the placebo group. (The marijuana cigarette group was tested separately per our analytic plan.)||90.9|10.9|0.13
91097058|NCT01964404|182079034|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|51.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.95||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.01|94.07|||Regression, Linear|||This analysis tested whether the marijuana cigarette group had different drug liking scores compared to the placebo group. (The dronabinol group was tested separately per our analytic plan.)||94.07|8.01|.002
90957494|NCT00871780|181795167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman correlation|||Change from Baseline at Week 24||||<0.0001
91097059|NCT01964404|182079035|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.178||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.23|||Regression, Linear|||||-0.23|-1.0|0.002
91097060|NCT02260986|182079087|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|26.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.34|36.26||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w v Placebo|Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity (IGA baseline values: IGA=3 vs IGA=4). Values after first rescue treatment were set to missing and participants with missing IGA scores at Week 16 were considered as non-responders.||36.26|16.34|<0.0001
91097061|NCT02260986|182079087|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|26.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.33|33.28||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg qw v Placebo|Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity (IGA baseline values: IGA=3 vs IGA=4). Values after first rescue treatment were set to missing and participants with missing IGA scores at Week 16 were considered as non-responders.||33.28|20.33|<0.0001
91097062|NCT02260986|182079088|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity (IGA baseline values: IGA=3 vs IGA=4). Values after first rescue treatment use were set to missing and participants with missing EASI score at Week 16 were considered as non-responders.|difference in percentages|45.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.72|55.66||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w v Placebo|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.025 level for both comparisons.||55.66|35.72|<0.0001
91097063|NCT02260986|182079088|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity (IGA baseline values: IGA=3 vs IGA=4). Values after first rescue treatment use were set to missing and participants with missing EASI score at Week 16 were considered as non-responders.|difference in percentages|40.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.74|47.81||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg qw v Placebo|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.025 level for both comparisons.||47.81|33.74|<0.0001
91104275|NCT04003142|182094846|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.915||||0.951||95.0|0.036|23.464||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||23.464|0.036|0.951
91104276|NCT04003142|182094846|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.889||||0.362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.364|58.864||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||58.864|0.364|0.362
91104277|NCT04003142|182094846|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.775||||0.138||95.0|0.785|12.87||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||12.870|0.785|0.138
91104278|NCT04003142|182094846|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.342||||0.704||95.0|0.291|6.914||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||6.914|0.291|0.704
91104279|NCT04003142|182094846|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.798||||0.741||95.0|0.194|3.079||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||3.079|0.194|0.741
91104280|NCT04003142|182094846|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.292||||0.134||95.0|0.809|7.443||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||7.443|0.809|0.134
90957495|NCT00871780|181795167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman correlation|||Change from Baseline at Week 48||||<0.0001
90957496|NCT00871780|181795168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Baseline||||<0.0001
91097064|NCT02260986|182079089|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|39.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.53|49.65||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w v Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity (IGA baseline values: IGA=3 vs IGA=4). Values after first rescue treatment use were set to missing and participants with missing peak NRS at Week 16 were considered as non-responders.||49.65|28.53|<0.0001
91097065|NCT02260986|182079089|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|31.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.84|38.39||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg qw v Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity (IGA baseline values: IGA=3 vs IGA=4). Values after first rescue treatment use were set to missing and participants with missing peak NRS at Week 16 were considered as non-responders.||38.39|23.84|<0.0001
91097066|NCT02260986|182079090|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|37.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.56|48.31||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w v Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity (IGA baseline values: IGA=3 vs IGA=4). Values after first rescue treatment use were set to missing and participants with missing peak NRS at Week 16 were considered as non-responders.||48.31|27.56|<0.0001
91097067|NCT02260986|182079090|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|34.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.31|42.05||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg qw v Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity (IGA baseline values: IGA=3 vs IGA=4). Values after first rescue treatment use were set to missing and participants with missing peak NRS at Week 16 were considered as non-responders.||42.05|27.31|<0.0001
91097068|NCT02260986|182079091|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|23.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.72|34.19||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w v Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity (IGA baseline values: IGA=3 vs IGA=4). Values after first rescue treatment were set to missing and participants with missing IGA scores at Week 52 were considered as non-responders.||34.19|12.72|<0.0001
91030569|NCT04084483|181945597|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4747|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.4747
91097069|NCT02260986|182079091|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|27.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.42|34.58||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg qw v Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity (IGA baseline values: IGA=3 vs IGA=4). Values after first rescue treatment were set to missing and participants with missing IGA scores at Week 52 were considered as non-responders.||34.58|20.42|<0.0001
91097070|NCT02260986|182079092|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|43.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.5|54.65||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w v Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity (IGA baseline values: IGA=3 vs IGA=4). Values after first rescue treatment use were set to missing and participants with missing EASI score at Week 52 were considered as non-responders.||54.65|32.50|<0.0001
91097071|NCT02260986|182079092|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|42.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.91|50.06||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg qw v Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity (IGA baseline values: IGA=3 vs IGA=4). Values after first rescue treatment use were set to missing and participants with missing EASI score at Week 52 were considered as non-responders.||50.06|34.91|<0.0001
91097072|NCT02260986|182079093|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) mean difference|-26.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.04|-17.43||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w v Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline measurements as covariate and the treatment, region and baseline IGA strata as fixed factors.||-17.43|-35.04|<0.0001
91030570|NCT04084483|181945597|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5619|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.5619
91030571|NCT04084483|181945598|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5985|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.5985
91030572|NCT04084483|181945598|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7626|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.7626
91030573|NCT04084483|181945599|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.833|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.8330
91030574|NCT04084483|181945599|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2777|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2777
91030575|NCT04084483|181945600|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9829|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.9829
90957497|NCT00871780|181795168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Change from Baseline at Week 24||||<0.0001
90957498|NCT00871780|181795168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Change from Baseline at Week 48||||<0.0001
90957499|NCT00871780|181795169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman correlation|||Baseline||||<0.0001
91030576|NCT04084483|181945600|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8675|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.8675
91030577|NCT04084483|181945601|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5836|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.5836
91030578|NCT04084483|181945601|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2352|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2352
91030579|NCT04084483|181945602|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7367|||||||ANCOVA|||Ocular Discomfort||||0.7367
91030580|NCT04084483|181945602|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3865|||||||ANCOVA|||Ocular Discomfort||||0.3865
91030581|NCT04084483|181945602|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8796|||||||ANCOVA|||Burning||||0.8796
91030582|NCT04084483|181945602|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3515|||||||ANCOVA|||Burning||||0.3515
91030583|NCT04084483|181945602|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6338|||||||ANCOVA|||Dryness||||0.6338
91030584|NCT04084483|181945602|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4685|||||||ANCOVA|||Dryness||||0.4685
91030585|NCT04084483|181945602|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4757|||||||ANCOVA|||Grittiness||||0.4757
91030586|NCT04084483|181945602|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8803|||||||ANCOVA|||Grittiness||||0.8803
91030587|NCT04084483|181945602|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8529|||||||ANCOVA|||Stinging||||0.8529
91030588|NCT04084483|181945602|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7713|||||||ANCOVA|||Stinging||||0.7713
91030589|NCT04084483|181945603|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.138|||||||ANCOVA|||Burning/Stinging||||0.1380
91030590|NCT04084483|181945603|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3334|||||||ANCOVA|||Burning/Stinging||||0.3334
91030591|NCT04084483|181945603|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1008|||||||ANCOVA|||Itching||||0.1008
91030592|NCT04084483|181945603|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4582|||||||ANCOVA|||Itching||||0.4582
91030593|NCT04084483|181945603|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1511|||||||ANCOVA|||Foreign Body Sensation||||0.1511
91030594|NCT04084483|181945603|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2555|||||||ANCOVA|||Foreign Body Sensation||||0.2555
91030595|NCT04084483|181945603|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1546|||||||ANCOVA|||Blurry Vision||||0.1546
91030596|NCT04084483|181945603|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0495|||||||ANCOVA|||Blurry Vision||||0.0495
91030597|NCT04084483|181945603|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5791|||||||ANCOVA|||Eye Dryness||||0.5791
91030598|NCT04084483|181945603|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0736|||||||ANCOVA|||Eye Dryness||||0.0736
91030599|NCT04084483|181945603|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3666|||||||ANCOVA|||Photophobia||||0.3666
91030600|NCT04084483|181945603|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.039|||||||ANCOVA|||Photophobia||||0.0390
91030601|NCT04084483|181945603|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0655|||||||ANCOVA|||Pain||||0.0655
91030602|NCT04084483|181945603|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1947|||||||ANCOVA|||Pain||||0.1947
91030603|NCT04084483|181945604|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9274|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.9274
91030604|NCT04084483|181945604|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0888|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0888
91030605|NCT02194998|181945605|SUPERIORITY|A one-sided exact binomial test was used against a null rate of 70% at a significance level of 5%.|||||<|0.01||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|One-Sided Exact Binomial Test|||Null Hypothesis: Cohort A's SVR12 rate \<= 70%.||||<0.01
91030606|NCT02194998|181945605|SUPERIORITY|A one-sided exact binomial test was used against a null rate of 70% at a significance level of 5%.||||||0.47||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|One-Sided Exact Binomial Test|||Null Hypothesis: Cohort B's SVR12 rate \<= 70%.||||0.47
91030607|NCT02194998|181945605|SUPERIORITY|A one-sided exact binomial test was used against a null rate of 70% at a significance level of 5%.|||||<|0.01||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|One-Sided Exact Binomial Test|||Null Hypothesis: Cohort C's SVR12 rate \<= 70%.||||<0.01
91030608|NCT02194998|181945605|SUPERIORITY|A one-sided exact binomial test was used against a null rate of 70% at a significance level of 5%.||||||0.24||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|One-Sided Exact Binomial Test|||Null Hypothesis: Cohort D's SVR12 rate \<= 70%.||||0.24
91030609|NCT02194998|181945618|SUPERIORITY|A one-sided exact binomial test was used against a null rate of 70% at a significance level of 5%.|||||<|0.01||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|One-Sided Exact Binomial Test|||Null Hypothesis: Cohort A's SVR24 rate \<= 70%.||||<0.01
91030610|NCT02194998|181945618|SUPERIORITY|A one-sided exact binomial test was used against a null rate of 70% at a significance level of 5%.||||||0.47||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|One-Sided Exact Binomial Test|||Null Hypothesis: Cohort B's SVR24 rate \<= 70%.||||0.47
91030611|NCT02194998|181945618|SUPERIORITY|A one-sided exact binomial test was used against a null rate of 70% at a significance level of 5%.|||||<|0.01||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|One-Sided Exact Binomial Test|||Null Hypothesis: Cohort C's SVR24 rate \<= 70%.||||<0.01
91030612|NCT02194998|181945618|SUPERIORITY|A one-sided exact binomial test was used against a null rate of 70% at a significance level of 5%.||||||0.24||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|One-Sided Exact Binomial Test|||Null Hypothesis: Cohort D's SVR24 rate \<= 70%.||||0.24
91030613|NCT00282256|181945621|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CI for AUC0-24 was found to lie entirely within the 80% to 125% range, then the exposure between the two formulations was considered to be equivalent.|Ratio of means|100.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.8|112.1|||||Tacrolimus/tacrolimus MR ratio of natural log transformed means expressed as a percent.|The method of analysis of variance was used for the comparisons of AUC0-24. Exposure at steady state was used for tacrolimus (defined as Day 7) and for tacrolimus MR (defined as Day 14). The natural log (ln) was used to transform AUC0-24 prior to analysis and the results were transformed back to the original scale for the presentation of results.||112.1|90.8|
91030614|NCT00282256|181945623|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CI for Cmin was found to lie entirely within the 80% to 125% range, then the exposure between the two formulations was considered to be equivalent.|Ratio of means|91.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.6|102.2|||||Tacrolimus/tacrolimus MR ratio of natural log transformed means expressed as a percent.|The method of analysis of variance was used for the comparisons of Cmin. Exposure at steady state was used for tacrolimus (defined as Day 7) and for tacrolimus MR (defined as Day 14). The natural log (ln) was used to transform Cmin prior to analysis and the results were transformed back to the original scale for the presentation of results.||102.2|82.6|
91030615|NCT03661528|181945640|OTHER||Percentage proportion difference|13.4||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.6|22.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||22.2|4.6|0.0032
91030616|NCT03661528|181945641|OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-185.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-199.93|-172.05|||ANCOVA|Analysis presented for ANCOVA based on ranks.||||-172.05|-199.93|<0.0001
91097073|NCT02260986|182079093|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-26.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.83|-20.73||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg qw v Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline measurements as covariate and the treatment, region and baseline IGA strata as fixed factors.||-20.73|-32.83|<0.0001
91097074|NCT02260986|182079094|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|38.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.96|49.66||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w v Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity (IGA baseline values: IGA=3 vs IGA=4). Values after first rescue treatment were set to missing and participants with missing peak NRS at Week 52 were considered as non-responders.||49.66|26.96|<0.0001
91097075|NCT02260986|182079094|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|26.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.76|33.45||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg qw v Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity (IGA baseline values: IGA=3 vs IGA=4). Values after first rescue treatment were set to missing and participants with missing peak NRS at Week 52 were considered as non-responders.||33.45|18.76|<0.0001
91097076|NCT02260986|182079095|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|40.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.76|51.35||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w v Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity (IGA baseline values: IGA=3 vs IGA=4). Values after first rescue treatment were set to missing and participants with missing peak NRS at Week 52 were considered as non-responders.||51.35|28.76|<0.0001
91097077|NCT02260986|182079095|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|27.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.81|34.76||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg qw v Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity (IGA baseline values: IGA=3 vs IGA=4). Values after first rescue treatment were set to missing and participants with missing peak NRS at Week 52 were considered as non-responders.||34.76|19.81|<0.0001
91097078|NCT02260986|182079096|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|37.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.34|48.4||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w v Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity (IGA baseline values: IGA=3 vs IGA=4). Values after first rescue treatment were set to missing and participants with missing peak NRS at Week 24 were considered as non-responders.||48.40|27.34|<0.0001
91097079|NCT02260986|182079096|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|27.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.65|34.7||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg qw v Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity (IGA baseline values: IGA=3 vs IGA=4). Values after first rescue treatment were set to missing and participants with missing peak NRS at Week 24 were considered as non-responders.||34.70|20.65|<0.0001
91097080|NCT02260986|182079097|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|20.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.59|31.15||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w v Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity (IGA baseline values: IGA=3 vs IGA=4). Values after first rescue treatment were set to missing and participants with missing peak NRS at Week 4 were considered as non-responders.||31.15|10.59|<0.0001
91097081|NCT02260986|182079097|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|10.7||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.15|17.31||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg qw v Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity (IGA baseline values: IGA=3 vs IGA=4). Values after first rescue treatment were set to missing and participants with missing peak NRS at Week 4 were considered as non-responders.||17.31|4.15|0.0021
91097082|NCT02260986|182079098|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|9.6||||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.61|17.63||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w v Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity (IGA baseline values: IGA=3 vs IGA=4). Values after first rescue treatment were set to missing and participants with missing peak NRS at Week 2 were considered as non-responders.||17.63|1.61|0.0062
90899705|NCT01975220|181665221|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|97.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.7|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.857|100.436|||ANOVA||"The adjusted geometric mean ratio (%) was calculated as the geometric mean of 'High dose, fed: 1 FDC tablet' divided by the geometric mean of 'High dose, fed: 3 single tablets'.~The 'standard deviation' is actually the intra-individual gCV (%)."|||100.436|93.857|<0.0001
91097083|NCT02260986|182079098|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|5.5||||0.0344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|10.51||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg qw v Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity (IGA baseline values: IGA=3 vs IGA=4). Values after first rescue treatment were set to missing and participants with missing peak NRS at Week 2 were considered as non-responders.||10.51|0.56|0.0344
91097084|NCT02260986|182079099|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.297|-1.322||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w v Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline measurements as covariate and the treatment, region and baseline IGA strata as fixed factors.||-1.322|-2.297|<0.0001
91097085|NCT02260986|182079100|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-32.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.37|-17.82||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w v Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline measurements as covariate and the treatment, region and baseline IGA strata as fixed factors.||-17.82|-46.37|<0.0001
91030617|NCT03249584|181945642|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||An improvement from baseline to 3 months post radiofrequency ablation in worst pain score will be demonstrated with an outcome which is statistically lower than zero.||||<0.0001
90849277|NCT01332461|181564696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.649||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.455|0.926|||Log Rank||Covariates for risk models included Charlson Comorbidity Index, presence of asthma, number and quantity of rescue and controller medications, oxygen, and number of COPD healthcare resource use.|||0.926|0.455|0.05
90849278|NCT01332461|181564697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.601|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.326|1.109||COPD-related hospitalization|Log Rank||Covariates for risk models included Charlson Comorbidity Index, presence of asthma, number and quantity of rescue and controller medications, oxygen, and number of COPD healthcare resource use.|||1.109|0.326|<0.05
90849279|NCT01332461|181564697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.651|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.434|0.977||COPD-related ER visit|Log Rank||Covariates for risk models included Charlson Comorbidity Index, presence of asthma, number and quantity of rescue and controller medications, oxygen, and number of COPD healthcare resource use.|||0.977|0.434|<0.05
90849280|NCT01332461|181564697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.815|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.658|1.008||COPD-related physician + Rx visit|Log Rank||Covariates for risk models included Charlson Comorbidity Index, presence of asthma, number and quantity of rescue and controller medications, oxygen, and number of COPD healthcare resource use.|||1.008|0.658|<0.05
90849281|NCT01332461|181564697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.785|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.649|0.948||COPD-related hospitalization/ER visit/physician+Rx|Log Rank||Covariates for risk models included Charlson Comorbidity Index, presence of asthma, number and quantity of rescue and controller medications, oxygen, and number of COPD healthcare resource use.|||0.948|0.649|<0.05
91030618|NCT00765648|181945644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-9.3||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|-0.6|||Chi-squared|||||-0.6|-18.0|0.04
91030619|NCT00765648|181945645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90849282|NCT00096356|181564714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.1815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.39|0.64||The a priori significance level was 0.05 for the primary outcome; there is no adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis||This is the estimate of the difference in arms (Co-Q10 minus placebo). Lower is better for this outcome.|Constrained repeated measures analysis of variance - constrained such that baseline fatigue was the same in both groups and unadjusted for any baseline covariates.||0.64|-3.39|0.1815
91097086|NCT02260986|182079101|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-18.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.583|-14.187||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w v Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline measurements as covariate and the treatment, region and baseline IGA strata as fixed factors.||-14.187|-22.583|<0.0001
90849283|NCT00096356|181564715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.31||0.3903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.56|6.53||0.05 significance level; no multiple comparison adjustment|Mixed Models Analysis||This is the difference in treatment groups at 24 weeks (Co-Q10 minus Placebo). Higher is better for this outcome.|Constrained repeated measures analysis of variance - constrained to have equal means at baseline, unadjusted for other covariates||6.53|-2.56|.3903
91097087|NCT02260986|182079102|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-27.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.46|-21.9||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w v Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline measurements as covariate and the treatment, region and baseline IGA strata as fixed factors.||-21.9|-33.46|<0.0001
90859874|NCT01914757|181583102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.27||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|29.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline morning PEF, region, use of OCS, visit, and visit by treatment.||Morning PEF Change from Baseline to Week 56||29.64|0.9|0.037
90859875|NCT01914757|181583102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.54||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.07|32.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline evening PEF, region, use of OCS, visit, and visit by treatment.||Evening PEF Change from Baseline to Week 56||32|3.07|0.018
90859876|NCT01914757|181583102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.22||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.65|35.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline evening PEF, region, use of OCS, visit, and visit by treatment.||Evening PEF Change from Baseline to Week 56||35.79|6.65|0.004
90859877|NCT01914757|181583103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline prop of nights with nocturnal wakening, region, use of OCS, visit, and visit by treatment.||||0.03|-0.06|0.4
91030620|NCT00765648|181945646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.76
91097088|NCT02260986|182079103|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-4.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.31|-3.02||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w v Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline measurements as covariate and the treatment, region and baseline IGA strata as fixed factors.||-3.02|-5.31|<0.0001
91097089|NCT02260986|182079104|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-7.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.85|-5.93||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w v Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline measurements as covariate and the treatment, region and baseline IGA strata as fixed factors.||-5.93|-8.85|<0.0001
91097090|NCT02260986|182079105|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.0||||0.1596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.27|0.37||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w v Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline measurements as covariate and the treatment, region and baseline IGA strata as fixed factors.||0.37|-2.27|0.1596
91097091|NCT01149785|182079145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|316.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|286.17|349.73||||||Natural log transformed AUC (0-∞) of crizotinib was analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment as fixed effect and subject as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the differences was exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||349.73|286.17|
90849284|NCT00096356|181564716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.31||0.6014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.25|1.88||0.05 significance level, unadjusted for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis||This is the difference between treatment groups at 24 weeks (Co-Q10 minus Placebo). Lower is better for this outcome.|Constrained repeated measures analysis of variance, constrained such that the baseline means are equal, unadjusted of other covariates||1.88|-3.25|.6014
90957500|NCT00871780|181795169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman correlation|||Change from Baseline at Week 24||||<0.0001
91097092|NCT01149785|182079146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|328.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|296.42|363.63||||||Natural log transformed AUClast of crizotinib was analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment as fixed effect and subject as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences was exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||363.63|296.42|
91097093|NCT01149785|182079149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|144.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|126.42|164.33||||||Natural log transformed Cmax of crizotinib was analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment as fixed effect and subject as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences was exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||164.33|126.42|
91097094|NCT01149785|182079152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|519.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|460.42|586.5||||||Natural log transformed AUClast of crizotinib metabolite (PF-06260182) was analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment as fixed effect and subject as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences was exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||586.50|460.42|
91097095|NCT01149785|182079153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|516.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|457.88|583.72||||||Natural log transformed AUC (0-∞) of crizotinib metabolite (PF-06260182) was analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment as fixed effect and subject as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences was exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||583.72|457.88|
91097096|NCT01149785|182079155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|161.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|143.09|182.09||||||Natural log transformed Cmax of crizotinib was analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment as fixed effect and subject as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences was exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||182.09|143.09|
91097097|NCT01201863|182079159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|0.07816|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3315||0.954|TWO_SIDED||||||comparison of slopes|Slopes by group and slope difference||To investigate a difference in change in outcome over time between treatment and control, a trend analysis was used in place of a profile analysis, where both control and treatment arms are described more parsimoniously i.e. by a slope (change in outcome over time) (Fitzmaurice 2011).||||0.9540
91097098|NCT00373672|182079238|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.016|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Treatment effects were analyzed using a repeated measures analysis of variance model with time (baseline, 6 weeks) as the within-subjects factor and treatment group (armodafinil, placebo) as the between-subjects factor.||||<0.016
91097099|NCT04871074|182079239|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||DeLong's Test|||||||.74
91097100|NCT04871074|182079240|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||DeLong's Test|||||||.66
90957501|NCT00871780|181795169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman correlation|||Change from Baseline at Week 48||||<0.0001
90957502|NCT00871780|181795170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Baseline||||<0.0001
90957503|NCT00871780|181795170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Change from Baseline at Week 24||||<0.0001
90957504|NCT00871780|181795170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Change from Baseline at Week 48||||<0.0001
91097101|NCT04871074|182079241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.135|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed effects model, fixed effects coefficient test with a Wald test||||||.135
91097102|NCT04871074|182079245|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effects estimate, Wald test||||||.39
91097103|NCT04132050|182079252|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percent of Participants|36.4||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|59.3|||Fisher Exact||"The difference in the achievement rate of Stable platelet response (= platelet count of ≥ 50000/μL at 4 or more of the 6 visits from Weeks 14 to 24) between two groups and its two-sided 95% CI were calculated."|||59.3|3.1|0.030
90957505|NCT00871780|181795171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman correlation|||Baseline||||<0.0001
90957506|NCT00871780|181795171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman correlation|||Change from Baseline at Week 24||||<0.0001
91097104|NCT06717399|182079367|OTHER|The number of participants (n=15) was calculated using an effect size of 0.89. This effect size was based on a randomized clinical trial utilizing a structured mindfulness meditation program on moderate sleep disturbances in older adults (Black et al. 2015). A power of 0.8 and a significance level of 0.05 was utilized to calculate the sample size, a minimum of 12 participants is required to demonstrate significance in this study. To account for 20% attrition total participants needed is 15.||||||0.00058|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Null Hypothesis:~● There will not be a change in sleep quality after participation in eight mindfulness meditation sessions as measured by the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index."||||0.00058
91097105|NCT06717399|182079368|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004
91097106|NCT03043573|182079380|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7011||||0.9644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.8605|30.4583|||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline||30.4583|-31.8605|0.9644
91097107|NCT03043573|182079380|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4595||||0.888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.3472|37.2661|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12||37.2661|-32.3472|0.8880
91097108|NCT03043573|182079380|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5119||||0.9773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.5024|35.4785|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24||35.4785|-36.5024|0.9773
91097109|NCT03043573|182079380|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.6667||||0.6173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.0598|78.3931|||t-test, 1 sided|||Week 52||78.3931|-47.0598|0.6173
91097110|NCT03043573|182079381|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1302||||0.5454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5767|4.8371|||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline||4.8371|-2.5767|0.5454
90849285|NCT01008423|181564717|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|||The logistic regression test was used to test for a difference in the percentages between the 2 treatment arms after adjusting for analysis center (country).||||<0.0001
91097111|NCT03043573|182079381|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.9618||||0.1212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8038|6.7275|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 6||6.7275|-0.8038|0.1212
91097112|NCT03043573|182079381|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.095||||0.571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7476|4.9377|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12||4.9377|-2.7476|0.5710
91097113|NCT03043573|182079381|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5524||||0.4377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5256|2.4209|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24||2.4209|-5.5256|0.4377
91097114|NCT03043573|182079381|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8937||||0.6813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4439|5.2312|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 36||5.2312|-3.4439|0.6813
91097115|NCT03043573|182079381|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.9457||||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2234|7.1148|||t-test, 2 sided|||||7.1148|-1.2234|0.1620
91097116|NCT03043573|182079382|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0319||||0.9813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6668|2.7305|||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline||2.7305|-2.6668|0.9813
91097117|NCT03043573|182079382|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0564||||0.9735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4397|3.3268|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 6||3.3268|-3.4397|0.9735
91097118|NCT03043573|182079382|SUPERIORITY|Week 12|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0611||||0.5164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1885|4.3107|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.3107|-2.1885|0.5164
90849286|NCT03512457|181564732|SUPERIORITY|Chi-square||||||0.12||||||P-value of \<0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance. The hypothesis was that more women randomized to the intensive intervention would perform skin self-examination.|Chi-squared|Chi-Squared is equal to 1.58, with a P-Value of 0.12.||change from baseline to 3 months in performance of skin self-examination Parallel: response rate||||0.12
91097119|NCT03043573|182079382|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0651|1.0651|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24||1.0651|-5.0651|0.1970
91097120|NCT03043573|182079382|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.362||||0.8342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0907|3.8146|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 36||3.8146|-3.0907|0.8342
91097121|NCT03043573|182079382|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2667||||0.4717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2424|4.7758|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 52||4.7758|-2.2424|0.4717
91097122|NCT03043573|182079383|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.9318||||0.513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8176|5.9539|||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline||5.9539|-11.8176|0.5130
91097123|NCT03043573|182079383|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4835||||0.4835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2306|7.2967|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12||7.2967|-15.2306|0.4835
91097124|NCT03043573|182079383|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.156||||0.359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3357|6.0238|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24||6.0238|-16.3357|0.3590
91097125|NCT03043573|182079383|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1083||||0.876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1598|15.3765|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 52||15.3765|-13.1598|0.8760
91097126|NCT03043573|182079384|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0606||||0.3248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1841|0.0628|||t-test, 2 sided|||Trails A Baseline||0.0628|-0.1841|0.3248
91097127|NCT03043573|182079384|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6953||||0.3615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2261|0.8354|||t-test, 2 sided|||Trails A - Week 12||0.8354|-2.2261|0.3615
91097128|NCT03043573|182079384|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9917||||0.5046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9664|3.9498|||t-test, 2 sided|||Trails B - Baseline||3.9498|-1.9664|0.5046
91097129|NCT03043573|182079384|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0607||||0.0679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2821|0.1607|||t-test, 2 sided|||Trails B - Week 12||0.1607|-4.2821|0.0679
91097130|NCT03043573|182079384|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8929||||0.1669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1825|0.3968|||t-test, 2 sided|||Trails B - Week 24||0.3968|-2.1825|0.1669
91097131|NCT03043573|182079384|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4286||||0.2178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8115|0.9543|||t-test, 2 sided|||Trails B - Week 52||0.9543|-3.8115|0.2178
91097132|NCT03043573|182079385|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.558||||0.2932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3747|4.4908|||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline||4.4908|-1.3747|0.2932
91097133|NCT03043573|182079385|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7043||||0.2871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4659|4.8744|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 6||4.8744|-1.4659|0.2871
91097134|NCT03043573|182079385|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9167||||0.591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4737|4.307|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12||4.3070|-2.4737|0.5910
91097135|NCT03043573|182079385|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0238||||0.6128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0469|2.9993|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.9993|-5.0469|0.6128
91097136|NCT03043573|182079385|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9276||||0.3326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0231|5.8783|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 36||5.8783|-2.0231|0.3326
91097137|NCT03043573|182079385|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0741||||0.2935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8522|6.0004|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 52||6.0004|-1.8522|0.2935
91097138|NCT03807843|182079413|OTHER||V184 GMFR/Placebo GMFR Ratio|1.6||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.1|||Mixed Effects Model|||"Day 28 V184 GMFR/Placebo GMFR Ratio~The ratio of V184 GMFR/Placebo GMFR at Day 28 was derived from the mixed effects model used to determine GMFR."||2.1|1.2|0.004
91097139|NCT03807843|182079413|OTHER||V184 GMFR/Placebo GMFR Ratio|2.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|2.8|||Mixed Effects Model|||"Day 56 V184 GMFR/Placebo GMFR Ratio~The ratio of V184 GMFR/Placebo GMFR at Day 56 was derived from the mixed effects model used to determine GMFR."||2.8|1.5|<0.001
91097140|NCT03807843|182079413|OTHER||V184 GMFR/Placebo GMFR Ratio|1.3||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.7|||Mixed Effects Model|||"Day 196 V184 GMFR/Placebo GMFR Ratio~The ratio of V184 GMFR/Placebo GMFR at Day 196 was derived from the mixed effects model used to determine GMFR."||1.7|0.9|0.121
91097141|NCT00639379|182079433|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin is 0.65|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.967|||||TWO_SIDED|98.98|0.436|0.967|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio is senofilcon A toric / alphafilcon A toric.|Alternative hypothesis is that senofilcon A toric is non-inferior to alphafilcon A toric for proportion of eyes with lens orientation within 5 degrees.||0.967|0.436|
91097142|NCT00639379|182079434|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin = 0.65|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.416|||||TWO_SIDED|98.98|0.68|1.416|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio is senofilcon A toric / alphafilcon A toric.|Alternative hypothesis is that senofilcon A toric is non-inferior to alphafilcon A toric for proportion of eyes with lens stability within 5 degrees.||1.416|0.680|
91097143|NCT00639379|182079435|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin = -0.4|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1868|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0921|||TWO_SIDED|98.98|-0.0517|0.1868|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as senofilcon A toric minus alphafilcon A toric.|Alternative hypothesis is that senofilcon A toric is non-inferior to alphafilcon A toric for lens comfort.||0.1868|-0.0517|
91097144|NCT00639379|182079436|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin = -0.4|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01185|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08566|||TWO_SIDED|98.98|-0.2337|-0.01185|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as senofilcon A toric minus alphafilcon A toric.|Alternative hypothesis is that senofilcon A toric is non-inferior to alphafilcon A toric for subjective vision.||-0.01185|-0.2337|
91097145|NCT00639379|182079437|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin = 0.5|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01267|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01265|||TWO_SIDED|98.98|-0.01267|0.01986|||||The mean difference was calculated as senofilcon A toric minus alphafilcon A toric.|Alternative hypothesis is senofilcon A toric is non-inferior to alphafilcon A toric by having a lower level of corneal staining.||0.01986|-0.01267|
91097146|NCT01033942|182079439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6983||||||The p-value is for the difference in treatment (TX) groups overall. The interaction between TX group and study time that tests whether the TX groups differed over time could not be tested due to small no. of subjects that missed visits during study.|Chi-squared|||||||0.6983
91097147|NCT01033942|182079440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8722|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.8722
91097148|NCT01033942|182079441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6921||||||Not all subjects answered every question.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.6921
90957507|NCT00871780|181795171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman correlation|||Change from Baseline at Week 48||||<0.0001
91097149|NCT01033942|182079442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4655||||||Not all participants answered every question|Fisher Exact|||||||0.4655
91097150|NCT01033942|182079443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9999|TWO_SIDED|||||Not all participants answered every question|Fisher Exact|||||||0.9999
91097151|NCT01033942|182079444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2297|TWO_SIDED|||||Not all participants answered every question|Fisher Exact|||||||0.2297
91097152|NCT01033942|182079445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1886||||||Not all participants answered every question|Fisher Exact|||||||0.1886
91097153|NCT01033942|182079446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1908|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1908
91097154|NCT01033942|182079447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.224||||||Not all participants answered every question|Fisher Exact|||||||0.2240
91097155|NCT01033942|182079448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1538||||||Not all participants answered every question|Fisher Exact|||||||0.1538
91097156|NCT01033942|182079449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2151||||||Not all participants answered every question|Fisher Exact|||||||0.2151
91097157|NCT01033942|182079450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2809||||||Not all participants answered every question|Fisher Exact|||||||0.2809
91097158|NCT01033942|182079451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.185||||||Not all participants answered every question|Fisher Exact|||||||0.1850
91097159|NCT01033942|182079452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2366||||||Not all participants answered every question|Fisher Exact|||||||0.2366
91097160|NCT01033942|182079453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4089||||||Not all subjects answered every question.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.4089
91097161|NCT01033942|182079454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9999|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.9999
91097162|NCT01033942|182079455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9999|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.9999
91097163|NCT01033942|182079456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9999|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.9999
91097164|NCT01033942|182079457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7007|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.7007
91097165|NCT01033942|182079458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9999|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.9999
91097166|NCT01033942|182079459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9999|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.9999
91097167|NCT01033942|182079460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8934|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.8934
91097168|NCT01033942|182079461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9999|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.9999
91097169|NCT01033942|182079462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9999|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.9999
90849287|NCT03512457|181564733|SUPERIORITY|Types of lesions in the following categories: Benign nevus, seborrheic keratosis, lentigo, dermatofibroma, atypical nevus. melanoma|||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||results of skin clinical examination and biopsy of clinically suspicious moles||||<0.05
90849288|NCT01181986|181564734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for treatment sequence, group (diabetes duration) and time.||||||<0.0001
90849289|NCT01181986|181564734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for treatment sequence.||||||0.006
91097170|NCT01033942|182079463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9999|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.9999
91097171|NCT01033942|182079464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4003|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4003
91097172|NCT01033942|182079465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6462|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6462
91097173|NCT01033942|182079466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8505|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.8505
91097174|NCT01033942|182079474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7434|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7434
91097175|NCT01033942|182079475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6153|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.6153
91097176|NCT01033942|182079476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2000
91097177|NCT01033942|182079477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5265|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5265
91097178|NCT01033942|182079478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2559|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2559
91097179|NCT01033942|182079479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3846|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3846
91097180|NCT01033942|182079480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5133|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5133
91097181|NCT01033942|182079481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1661|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1661
91097182|NCT01033942|182079482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0729|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0729
91097183|NCT01033942|182079483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1912|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1912
91097184|NCT01033942|182079484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2829|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2829
91097185|NCT01033942|182079485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2685|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2685
91097186|NCT01033942|182079486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2342|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2342
91097187|NCT01033942|182079487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7314|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.7314
91097188|NCT01033942|182079488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.377|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.3770
91097189|NCT01033942|182079489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7004|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.7004
91097190|NCT01033942|182079490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4668|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4668
91097191|NCT01033942|182079491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7573|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.7573
91097192|NCT01033942|182079492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0356|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0356
91097193|NCT01033942|182079493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3176|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.3176
91097194|NCT01033942|182079494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1348|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1348
91097195|NCT01033942|182079495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.042|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0420
91097196|NCT01033942|182079496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4906|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4906
91097197|NCT01033942|182079497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0544|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0544
91097198|NCT01033942|182079498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5645|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.5645
91097199|NCT01033942|182079499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7847|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.7847
91097200|NCT01033942|182079500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0288|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0288
91097201|NCT01033942|182079501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0945|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0945
91097202|NCT01033942|182079502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3884|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.3884
91097203|NCT01033942|182079503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2235|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2235
91097204|NCT01033942|182079504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0467|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0467
91097205|NCT01033942|182079505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6331|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6331
91097206|NCT01033942|182079506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0948|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0948
91097207|NCT01033942|182079507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5826|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.5826
91097208|NCT01033942|182079508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0087|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0087
91097209|NCT01033942|182079509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1934|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1934
91097210|NCT01033942|182079510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2146|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2146
91097211|NCT01033942|182079511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5317|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.5317
91097212|NCT01033942|182079512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1733|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1733
91097213|NCT01033942|182079513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1747|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1747
91097214|NCT01033942|182079514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1203|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1203
91097215|NCT01033942|182079515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8243|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.8243
91097216|NCT01033942|182079516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6202|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6202
91097217|NCT01033942|182079517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8351|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.8351
91097218|NCT01033942|182079518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0484|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0484
91097219|NCT01033942|182079519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4207|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4207
91097220|NCT01033942|182079520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2187|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2187
91097221|NCT01033942|182079521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5369|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.5369
91097222|NCT01033942|182079522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1524|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1524
91097223|NCT01033942|182079523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4700
91097224|NCT01033942|182079524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4686|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4686
91097225|NCT01033942|182079525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3791|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.3791
91097226|NCT01033942|182079526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7374|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.7374
91097227|NCT01033942|182079527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9363|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.9363
91097228|NCT01033942|182079528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6267|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6267
91097229|NCT01033942|182079529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6434|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6434
91097230|NCT01033942|182079530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8582|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.8582
91097231|NCT01033942|182079531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5778|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.5778
90849290|NCT01181986|181564734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for treatment sequence.||||||0.003
90849291|NCT01181986|181564735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for treatment sequence and diabetes duration group.||||||<0.0001
90849292|NCT01181986|181564736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
90849293|NCT03602560|181564749|OTHER|The primary endpoint was analyzed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for both randomization stratification variables (ALP level: \<350 U/L and 2:350 U/L; pruritus NRS: \<4 and 2:4).|||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91097232|NCT01033942|182079532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9881|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.9881
91097233|NCT01033942|182079533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9771|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.9771
91097234|NCT01033942|182079534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2301|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2301
91097235|NCT01115231|182079537|OTHER|multivariable logistic regression model|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|4.42||||||||4.42|0.93|
91097236|NCT00138294|182079551|OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|0.91||||||Overall Effectiveness against MAARI during the Epidemic Period (2007-2008)||0.91|0.87|
91097237|NCT00138294|182079552|OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.71||||||Overall Effectiveness against MAARI during the Epidemic Period (2008-2009)||0.71|0.67|
91097238|NCT00138294|182079553|OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.76||||||Overall Effectiveness against MAARI during the Epidemic Period (2008-2009)||0.76|0.73|
91097239|NCT02827708|182079562|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the in-trial observation period. The estimated treatment effect includes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (treatment policy estimand).|Treatment difference|-0.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.6||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0.|Pattern Mixture model||Oral semaglutide 14 mg - Placebo|The analysis was based on a pattern mixture model using multiple imputation to handle missing week 26 data, assuming that data were missing at random within the groups used for imputation. The imputed data sets were analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c value as covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete data sets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||-0.6|-1.0|<0.0001
91097240|NCT02827708|182079562|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The estimated treatment effect excludes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (hypothetical estimand).|Treatment difference|-1.0|||<|0.0001||95.0|-1.2|-0.8||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0.|MMRM||Oral semaglutide 14 mg - Placebo|The analysis was based on a mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM) that assumed data to be missing at random. As dependent variables, the MMRM model included all post-baseline values collected at scheduled visits up to and including week 26. The independent effects were treatment, strata, interaction strata and region as categorical fixed effects and the baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit, and an unstructured residual covariance matrix.||-0.8|-1.2|<0.0001
90957508|NCT00871780|181795172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Baseline||||<0.0001
91097241|NCT02827708|182079563|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the in-trial observation period. The estimated treatment effect includes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (treatment policy estimand).|Treatment difference|-2.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-1.8||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0.|Pattern Mixture model||Oral semaglutide 14 mg - Placebo|The analysis was based on a pattern mixture model using multiple imputation to handle missing week 26 data, assuming that data were missing at random within the groups used for imputation. The imputed data sets were analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment, strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline body weight value as covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete data sets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||-1.8|-3.2|<0.0001
91097242|NCT02827708|182079563|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The estimated treatment effect excludes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (hypothetical estimand).|Treatment difference|-2.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-1.9||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0.|MMRM||Oral semaglutide 14 mg - Placebo|The analysis was based on a MMRM that assumed data to be missing at random. As dependent variables, the MMRM model included all post-baseline values collected at scheduled visits up to and including week 26. The independent effects were treatment, strata, interaction strata and region as categorical fixed effects and the baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit, and an unstructured residual covariance matrix.||-1.9|-3.5|<0.0001
91104281|NCT04003142|182094846|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.474||||0.062||95.0|1.039|15.712||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||15.712|1.039|0.062
91097243|NCT02827708|182079579|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64|||=|0.1834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.23||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox|||Time to initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment, strata, interaction strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Withdrawal for any reason or lost to follow-up contributed to the analysis as events (initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication). Censoring time was one day before planned end of treatment.||1.23|0.34|=0.1834
91097244|NCT02827708|182079580|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.43|||=|0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.04||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox|||Time to initiation of rescue medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment, strata, interaction strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Censoring time was one day before last day on trial product.||1.04|0.17|=0.0610
91097245|NCT00407511|182079608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||End of treatment/last observation carried forward (EOT/LOCF): value consists of the mean of the last 7 post-baseline visits scores. Mean change: the arithmetic mean change and p-value from the single sample t-test. If \< = 7 and \> = 4 post-baseline scores were available, the mean pain score was computed using the available scores. The mean was not calculated if there were less than 4 post-baseline scores prior to study termination.||||< 0.0001
91097246|NCT00407511|182079609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001||95.0|-3.6|-2.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||Parameter estimate: Mean Difference (Final Values) = least squares mean.|Week 4||-2.8|-3.6|< 0.0001
91097247|NCT00407511|182079609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001||95.0|-4.3|-3.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||Parameter estimate: Mean Difference (Final Values) = least squares mean.|Week 8||-3.5|-4.3|< 0.0001
91097248|NCT00407511|182079609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001||95.0|-4.5|-3.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||Parameter estimate: Mean Difference (Final Values) = least squares mean.|Week 12||-3.7|-4.5|< 0.0001
91097249|NCT00407511|182079610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001||95.0|-4.7|-3.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||Parameter estimate: Mean Difference (Final Values) = least squares mean.|Week 8, FAS. Week 8: subjects were only included if their visit fell within the computed week (49 to 63 days).||-3.7|-4.7|< 0.0001
91097250|NCT00407511|182079610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001||95.0|-5.1|-4.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Parameter estimate: Mean Difference (Final Values) = least squares mean.|Week 12: subjects were only included if their visit fell within the computed week (\>= 78 days).||-4.1|-5.1|< 0.0001
91097251|NCT00407511|182079610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||EOT/LOCF: last post-baseline value; mean change from Baseline was the arthmetic mean change and the p-value was from the single-sample t-test.||||< 0.0001
91097252|NCT00407511|182079611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001||95.0|-4.2|-3.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||Parameter estimate: Mean Difference (Final Values) = least squares mean.|Week 8: subjects were only included if their visit fell within the computed week (Day 49 to 63).||-3.4|-4.2|< 0.0001
91097253|NCT00407511|182079611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001||95.0|-4.5|-3.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||Parameter estimate: Mean Difference (Final Values) = least squares mean.|Week 12: subjects were only included if their visit fell within the computed week (\>= Day 78)||-3.7|-4.5|< 0.0001
91097254|NCT00407511|182079611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||EOT/LOCF: last post-baseline value; mean change from Baseline was the arthmetic mean change and the p-value was from the single-sample t-test.||||< 0.0001
91097255|NCT00407511|182079614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1|<|0.0001||95.0|-22.3|-14.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Parameter estimate: Mean Difference (Final Values) = least squares mean.|Week 1: LS mean, p-value, and confidence interval are based on a repeated measures mixed effect model with baseline value, center, and week as fixed effects; subject was included as a random effect. Subjects were only included in the Week 1 assessment if their visit fell within Days 4 to 10.||-14.0|-22.3|< 0.0001
91097256|NCT00407511|182079614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-28.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1|<|0.0001||95.0|-32.4|-24.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Parameter estimate: Mean Difference (Final Values) = least squares mean.|Week 2: LS mean, p-value, and confidence interval are based on a repeated measures mixed effect model with baseline value, center, and week as fixed effects; subject was included as a random effect. Subjects were only included in the Week 2 assessment if their visit fell within Days 11 to 17.||-24.0|-32.4|< 0.0001
90849294|NCT03602560|181564749|OTHER|The primary endpoint was analyzed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for both randomization stratification variables (ALP level: \<350 U/L and 2:350 U/L; pruritus NRS: \<4 and 2:4).|||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
90957509|NCT00871780|181795172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Change from Baseline at Week 24||||0.0016
90849295|NCT03602560|181564750|OTHER|Two-sided p-value for each pair-wise comparison was based on the CMH test adjusted for both randomization stratification variables (ALP level: \<350 U/L and 350 U/L; pruritus NRS: \<4 and 4). Breslow-Day test was used to check the homogeneity of treatment effects across stratum.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91097257|NCT00407511|182079614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-34.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1|<|0.0001||95.0|-38.5|-30.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Parameter estimate: Mean Difference (Final Values) = least squares mean.|Week 3: LS mean, p-value, and confidence interval are based on a repeated measures mixed effect model with baseline value, center, and week as fixed effects; subject was included as a random effect. Subjects were only included in the Week 3 assessment if their visit fell within Days 18 to 24.||-30.0|-38.5|< 0.0001
90957510|NCT00871780|181795172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0866|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Change from Baseline at Week 48||||0.0866
90957511|NCT00871780|181795173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman correlation|||Baseline||||<0.0001
90849296|NCT03602560|181564750|OTHER|Two-sided p-value for each pair-wise comparison is based on the Cochran Mantel Haenszel test adjusted for both randomization stratification variables (ALP level: \< 350 U/L and \>= 350 U/L; pruritus NRS: \< 4 and \>= 4). Breslow-Day test is used to check the homogeneity of treatment effects across stratum.||||||0.0839|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0839
90849297|NCT03602560|181564751|OTHER|"Change from baseline is estimated by an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group (including 3 levels:~Placebo, Initial Dose 5mg, and Initial Dose 10 mg) and randomization ALP stratification as factors, and baseline as a covariate.~The p-value for the interaction between treatment and stratum is 0.7595, hence the interaction is dropped from the model."|Risk Difference (RD)|-1.59||||0.0164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.87|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||||-0.3|-2.87|0.0164
91097258|NCT00407511|182079614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-40.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2|<|0.0001||95.0|-45.2|-36.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||Parameter estimate: Mean Difference (Final Values) = least squares mean.|Week 4: LS mean, p-value, and confidence interval are based on a repeated measures mixed effect model with baseline value, center, and week as fixed effects; subject was included as a random effect. Subjects were only included in the Week 4 assessment if their visit fell within days 25 to 35.||-36.7|-45.2|< 0.0001
90849298|NCT03602560|181564751|OTHER|"Change from baseline is estimated by an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group (including 3 levels:~Placebo, Initial Dose 5mg, and Initial Dose 10 mg) and randomization ALP stratification as factors, and baseline as a covariate.~The p-value for the interaction between treatment and stratum is 0.7595, hence the interaction is dropped from the model."|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.46||||0.4781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|0.84|||ANCOVA|||||0.84|-1.77|0.4781
90849299|NCT01675167|181564762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.98|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|-0.64||P value was adjusted using weighted z-test (CHW).|ANCOVA|||||-0.64|-1.32|<.00001
90849300|NCT01675167|181564763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by stratum (dose level)||Responders with ≥30% pain reduction||||<.0001
91097259|NCT00407511|182079614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-45.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2|<|0.0001||95.0|-50.2|-41.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||Parameter estimate: Mean Difference (Final Values) = least squares mean.|Week 8: LS mean, p-value, and confidence interval are based on a repeated measures mixed effect model with baseline value, center, and week as fixed effects; subject was included as a random effect. Subjects were only included in the Week 8 assessment if their visit fell within Days 49 to 63.||-41.4|-50.2|< 0.0001
91097260|NCT00407511|182079614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-48.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2|<|0.0001||95.0|-52.8|-44.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Parameter estimate: Mean Difference (Final Values) = least squares mean.|Week 12: LS mean, p-value, and confidence interval are based on a repeated measures mixed effect model with baseline value, center, and week as fixed effects; subject was included as a random effect. Subjects were only included in the Week 12 assessment if their visit fell \>= Day 78.||-44.0|-52.8|< 0.0001
91097261|NCT00407511|182079614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||EOT/LOCF: last post-baseline assessment. Mean change is the arithmetic mean change; p-value is from a single-sample t-test.||||< 0.0001
91097262|NCT00407511|182079615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-38.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4|<|0.0001||95.0|-43.4|-33.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||Parameter estimate: Mean Difference (Final Values) = least squares mean.|Week 8: LS mean, p-value, and confidence interval are based on a repeated measures effect model with baseline value, center, and week as fixed effects; subjects were included as a random effect. Subjects were included in the Week 8 assessment only if their visit fell within Days 49 and 63.||-33.9|-43.4|< 0.0001
91097263|NCT00407511|182079615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-40.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4|<|0.0001||95.0|-45.5|-35.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||Parameter estimate: Mean Difference (Final Values) = least squares mean.|Week 12: LS mean, p-value, and confidence interval are based on a repeated measures effect model with baseline value, center, and week as fixed effects; subjects were included as a random effect. Subjects were included in the Week 12 assessment only if their visit fell \>=Day 78.||-35.9|-45.5|< 0.0001
91097264|NCT00407511|182079615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||EOT/LOCF: last post-baseline assessment. Mean change= arithmetic mean change; p-value is from a single-sample t-test.||||< 0.0001
90849301|NCT01675167|181564763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Stratum (Dose Level)||Responders with ≥50% pain reduction||||<.0001
90849302|NCT00830791|181564771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.74||||0.325|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.43|1.26|||ANCOVA||The mean square error on a log scale for this comparison was 0.322.|||1.26|0.43|0.325
90849303|NCT00830791|181564772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.95||||0.718|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.76|1.2|||ANCOVA||The mean square error on a log scale was 0.061 for this comparison.|||1.20|0.76|0.718
90849304|NCT00830791|181564773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.63||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.21|2.2|||ANCOVA||The mean square error on a log scale was 0.104 for this comparison.|||2.20|1.21|0.014
91097265|NCT00407511|182079616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.4|-0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||Parameter estimate: Mean Difference (Final Values) = least squares mean.|Week 1: LS mean, p-value, and confidence interval are based on repeated measures mixed effect model with baseline value, pooled center, and weeks 1, 4, 8 and 12 as fixed effects; subjects were included as a random effect.||-0.7|-1.4|< 0.0001
91104282|NCT04003142|182094846|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.184||||0.004||95.0|2.025|26.875||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||26.875|2.025|0.004
90849305|NCT00830791|181564775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.14||||0.505|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|1.6|||ANCOVA||The mean square error on a log scale for this comparison was 0.133.|||1.60|0.81|0.505
90849306|NCT00830791|181564777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.5|||ANCOVA|||||0.50|0.00|
90849307|NCT00830791|181564778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.5|||ANCOVA|||||0.50|0.00|
90859878|NCT01914757|181583103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline prop of nights with nocturnal wakening, region, use of OCS, visit, and visit by treatment.||||0.01|-0.08|0.146
91030621|NCT00765648|181945647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.38
91030622|NCT00765648|181945648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.18
91097266|NCT00407511|182079616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001||95.0|-2.2|-1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||Parameter estimate: Mean Difference (Final Values) = least squares mean.|Week 2: LS mean, p-value, and confidence interval are based on repeated measures mixed effect model with baseline value, pooled center, and weeks 1, 4, 8 and 12 as fixed effects; subjects were included as a random effect.||-1.5|-2.2|< 0.0001
91097267|NCT00407511|182079616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001||95.0|-2.9|-2.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Parameter estimate: Mean Difference (Final Values) = least squares mean.|Week 3: LS mean, p-value, and confidence interval are based on repeated measures mixed effect model with baseline value, pooled center, and weeks 1, 4, 8 and 12 as fixed effects; subjects were included as a random effect.||-2.2|-2.9|< 0.0001
91097268|NCT00407511|182079616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001||95.0|-3.2|-2.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||Parameter estimate: Mean Difference (Final Values) = least squares mean.|Week 4: LS mean, p-value, and confidence interval are based on repeated measures mixed effect model with baseline value, pooled center, and weeks 1, 4, 8 and 12 as fixed effects; subjects were included as a random effect.||-2.5|-3.2|< 0.0001
91097269|NCT00407511|182079616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001||95.0|-3.3|-2.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||Parameter estimate: Mean Difference (Final Values) = least squares mean.|Week 5: LS mean, p-value, and confidence interval are based on repeated measures mixed effect model with baseline value, pooled center, and weeks 1, 4, 8 and 12 as fixed effects; subjects were included as a random effect.||-2.6|-3.3|< 0.0001
90849308|NCT04531462|181564798|SUPERIORITY|Null hypothesis: Mean change from baseline in HbA1c after 52 weeks of treatment with empagliflozin 10 mg = mean change from baseline in HbA1c after 52 weeks of treatment with placebo.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.36||Threshold level for statistical significance: α = 0.05 .|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Empagliflozin 10 mg- Placebo|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) which included fixed classification effects for treatment, gender, baseline renal function, visit and visit-by-treatment interaction, and a linear covariate for baseline HbA1c and age. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within patient errors. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||-0.36|-0.78|<0.0001
90849309|NCT04531462|181564799|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.61||||0.231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|0.39|||ANCOVA||Empagliflozin 10 mg- Placebo|Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) included baseline muscle mass, age, baseline glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), baseline body mass index (BMI) as linear covariates and sex, treatment as fixed effects.||0.39|-1.61|0.2310
90849310|NCT04531462|181564800|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.84|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.65|-1.04|||ANCOVA||Empagliflozin 10 mg- Placebo|Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) included baseline body fat measurement, age, baseline glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), baseline body mass index (BMI) as linear covariates and sex, treatment as fixed effects.||-1.04|-2.65|<0.0001
90849311|NCT04531462|181564801|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.53||||0.1632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|0.22|||ANCOVA||Empagliflozin 10 mg- Placebo|Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) included baseline lean body mass, age, baseline glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), baseline body mass index (BMI) as linear covariates and sex, treatment as fixed effects.||0.22|-1.28|0.1632
90899706|NCT01975220|181665221|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|100.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.9|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.28|103.18|||ANOVA||"The adjusted geometric mean ratio (%) was calculated as the geometric mean of 'Low dose, fasted: 2 FDC tablets' divided by the geometric mean of 'Low dose, fasted: 4 single tablets'.~The 'standard deviation' is actually the intra-individual gCV (%)."|||103.18|98.28|<0.0001
90899707|NCT01975220|181665222|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|94.65|STANDARD_DEVIATION|28.1||0.0256|TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.29|108.88|||ANOVA||The adjusted geometric mean ratio (%) was calculated as the geometric mean of 'High dose, fasted: 1 FDC tablet' divided by the geometric mean of 'High dose, fasted: 3 single tablets'. The 'standard deviation' is actually the intra-individual gCV (%).|||108.88|82.29|0.0256
90899708|NCT01975220|181665222|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|99.69|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.25|103.26|||ANOVA||"The adjusted geometric mean ratio (%) was calculated as the geometric mean of 'High dose, fed: 1 FDC tablet' divided by the geometric mean of 'High dose, fed: 3 single tablets'.~The 'standard deviation' is actually the intra-individual gCV (%)."|||103.26|96.25|<0.0001
90899709|NCT01975220|181665222|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|99.76|STANDARD_DEVIATION|24.2||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.65|112.27|||ANOVA||"The adjusted geometric mean ratio (%) was calculated as the geometric mean of 'Low dose, fasted: 2 FDC tablets' divided by the geometric mean of 'Low dose, fasted: 4 single tablets'.~The 'standard deviation' is actually the intra-individual gCV (%)."|||112.27|88.65|0.0020
90957512|NCT00871780|181795173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman correlation|||Change from Baseline at Week 24||||<0.0001
91030623|NCT00765648|181945649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.11
91030624|NCT03130699|181945651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Analyses controlled for age, gender, employment and language.||||0.95
91030625|NCT03130699|181945652|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Analyses controlled for age, gender, employment, and language.||||0.37
91030626|NCT03130699|181945653|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Analyses controlled for age, gender, employment, and language.||||0.26
91030627|NCT03130699|181945654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Analyses controlled for age, gender, employment, and language.||||0.90
91030628|NCT03130699|181945655|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Analyses controlled for age, gender, employment, and language.||||0.21
91030629|NCT03130699|181945656|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Analyses controlled for age, gender, employment, and language.||||0.30
90849312|NCT04531462|181564802|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.63||||0.0384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|-0.03|||ANCOVA||Empagliflozin 10 mg- Placebo|Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) included baseline total body water, age, baseline glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), baseline body mass index (BMI) as linear covariates and sex, treatment as fixed effects.||-0.03|-1.23|0.0384
90849313|NCT04531462|181564803|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03||||0.1975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.01|||ANCOVA||Empagliflozin 10 mg- Placebo|Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) included baseline bone mineral content, age, baseline glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), baseline body mass index (BMI) as linear covariates and sex, treatment as fixed effects.||0.01|-0.07|0.1975
90849314|NCT04531462|181564804|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.081||||0.3725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.259|0.098|||ANCOVA||Empagliflozin 10 mg- Placebo|Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) which included baseline skeletal muscle index, age, baseline glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), baseline body mass index (BMI) as linear covariates and sex, treatment as fixed effects.||0.098|-0.259|0.3725
90849315|NCT04531462|181564805|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.4208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.5|||ANCOVA||Empagliflozin 10 mg- Placebo|Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) included baseline grip strength, age, baseline glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), baseline body mass index (BMI) as linear covariates and sex, treatment as fixed effects.||0.5|-1.1|0.4208
90849316|NCT04531462|181564806|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.9267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.9|||ANCOVA||Empagliflozin 10 mg- Placebo|Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) included baseline 5-time chair stand test, age, baseline glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), baseline body mass index (BMI) as linear covariates and sex, treatment as fixed effects.||0.9|-1.0|0.9267
90849317|NCT04175509|181564809|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.378|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.378
90849318|NCT04175509|181564810|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.753|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.753
90849319|NCT04175509|181564811|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.30
90849320|NCT04175509|181564812|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.43
90849321|NCT04175509|181564813|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.61
90849322|NCT04175509|181564814|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.77
90849323|NCT04175509|181564815|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.48
90849324|NCT04175509|181564816|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.78
90849325|NCT01727700|181564826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-6.26||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.18|-2.34||The Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, region, and weight group were fixed categorical effects; baseline value as a fixed covariate.||Assuming 5% of participants may drop out of the trial without a postbaseline efficacy evaluation, a total of 126 participants were required to provide at least 80% power to detect a treatment difference of -5 (common standard deviation \[SD\] of 8.5) between at least 1 of 2 aripiprazole dose levels and placebo in the primary outcome.||-2.34|-10.18|0.0020
90849326|NCT01727700|181564826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-9.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.84|-5.86||The Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, region, and weight group were fixed categorical effects; baseline value as a fixed covariate.||Assuming 5% of participants may drop out of the trial without a postbaseline efficacy evaluation, a total of 126 participants were required to provide at least 80% power to detect a treatment difference of -5 (common standard SD of 8.5) between at least 1 of 2 aripiprazole dose levels and placebo in the primary outcome.||-5.86|-13.84|<0.0001
90849327|NCT01727700|181564827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-1.03||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|-0.52||The Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, region, and weight group were fixed categorical effects; baseline value as a fixed covariate.||||-0.52|-1.54|0.0001
90957513|NCT00871780|181795173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman correlation|||Change from Baseline at Week 48||||<0.0001
90849328|NCT01727700|181564827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-1.02||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|-0.49||The Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, region, and weight group were fixed categorical effects; baseline value as a fixed covariate.||||-0.49|-1.54|0.0002
90849329|NCT01727700|181564828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-13.26||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.43|-5.08||Treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, region, and weight group were fixed categorical effects; baseline value as a fixed covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.08|-21.43|0.0017
90849330|NCT01727700|181564828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-19.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.7|-11.04||Treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, region, and weight group were fixed categorical effects; baseline value as a fixed covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-11.04|-27.70|<0.0001
90849331|NCT01727700|181564829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.8||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|-0.33||Treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, region, and weight group were fixed categorical effects; baseline value as a fixed covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.33|-1.27|0.0010
90849332|NCT01727700|181564829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||MMRM|-0.92||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|-0.44||Treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, region, and weight group were fixed categorical effects; baseline value as a fixed covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.44|-1.41|0.0002
90849333|NCT01727700|181564830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response ratio|1.36||||0.0835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.88||P-value derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) General Association Test adjusting for region and weight group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Response ratio \> 1 favors aripiprazole.||||1.88|0.98|0.0835
90849334|NCT01727700|181564830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response ratio|1.61||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.16||P-value derived from CMH General Association Test adjusting for region and weight group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Response ratio \> 1 favors aripiprazole.||||2.16|1.20|0.0014
90849335|NCT01727700|181564831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Discontinuation ratio|1.16||||0.9187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|7.05||Discontinuation ratio \< 1 favors aripiprazole. P-value derived from CMH General Association Test adjusting for region and weight group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||7.05|0.19|0.9187
90849336|NCT01727700|181564831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.9576||||||Hazard ratio \< 1 favors aripiprazole. P-value derived from Cox proportional hazard regression adjusting for region and weight group.|Regression, Cox|||||||0.9576
91030630|NCT03130699|181945657|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Analyses controlled for income.||||0.90
91030631|NCT03130699|181945658|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Analyses controlled for income.||||0.72
91097270|NCT00407511|182079616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001||95.0|-3.4|-2.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||Parameter estimate: Mean Difference (Final Values) = least squares mean.|Week 6: LS mean, p-value, and confidence interval are based on repeated measures mixed effect model with baseline value, pooled center, and weeks 1, 4, 8 and 12 as fixed effects; subjects were included as a random effect.||-2.6|-3.4|< 0.0001
91097271|NCT00407511|182079616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001||95.0|-3.5|-2.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||Parameter estimate: Mean Difference (Final Values) = least squares mean.|Week 7: LS mean, p-value, and confidence interval are based on repeated measures mixed effect model with baseline value, pooled center, and weeks 1, 4, 8 and 12 as fixed effects; subjects were included as a random effect.||-2.8|-3.5|< 0.0001
91097272|NCT00407511|182079616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001||95.0|-3.6|-2.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||Parameter estimate: Mean Difference (Final Values) = least squares mean.|Week 8: LS mean, p-value, and confidence interval are based on repeated measures mixed effect model with baseline value, pooled center, and weeks 1, 4, 8 and 12 as fixed effects; subjects were included as a random effect.||-2.8|-3.6|< 0.0001
91097273|NCT00407511|182079616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001||95.0|-3.7|-2.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||Parameter estimate: Mean Difference (Final Values) = least squares mean.|Week 9: LS mean, p-value, and confidence interval are based on repeated measures mixed effect model with baseline value, pooled center, and weeks 1, 4, 8 and 12 as fixed effects; subjects were included as a random effect.||-2.9|-3.7|< 0.0001
91097274|NCT00407511|182079616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001||95.0|-3.7|-3.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Parameter estimate: Mean Difference (Final Values) = least squares mean.|Week 10: LS mean, p-value, and confidence interval are based on repeated measures mixed effect model with baseline value, pooled center, and weeks 1, 4, 8 and 12 as fixed effects; subjects were included as a random effect.||-3.0|-3.7|< 0.0001
91097275|NCT00407511|182079616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001||95.0|-3.8|-3.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Parameter estimate: Mean Difference (Final Values) = least squares mean.|Visit 11: LS mean, p-value, and confidence interval are based on repeated measures mixed effect model with baseline value, pooled center, and weeks 1, 4, 8 and 12 as fixed effects; subjects were included as a random effect.||-3.0|-3.8|< 0.0001
91097276|NCT00407511|182079616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001||95.0|-3.7|-3.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Parameter estimate: Mean Difference (Final Values) = least squares mean.|Week 12: LS mean, p-value, and confidence interval are based on repeated measures mixed effect model with baseline value, pooled center, and weeks 1, 4, 8 and 12 as fixed effects; subjects were included as a random effect.||-3.0|-3.7|< 0.0001
91097277|NCT00407511|182079616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||EOT/LOCF value consists of the mean of the last 7 post-baseline sleep scores; mean change = arithmetic mean change; p-value: from single sample t-test.||||< 0.0001
91097278|NCT02493855|182079626|SUPERIORITY|This study was an exploratory study to evaluate the effect of ribavirin on the slope of the second phase of HCV RNA decline in participants who received the 3-direct-acting antiviral agent regimen.||||||0.311|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.311
91097279|NCT02493855|182079626|SUPERIORITY|This study was an exploratory study to evaluate the effect of ribavirin on the slope of the second phase of HCV RNA decline in participants who received the 3-direct-acting antiviral agent regimen.||||||0.561|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.561
91097280|NCT02299167|182079636|OTHER|The ED50% of spinal bupivacaine was estimated using a modified Dixon's up-and-down method|Mean (95% CI) of effective dose in 90% (|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|2.1|||||The ED50% of spinal bupivacaine was estimated using a modified Dixon's up-and-down method|Descriptive statistics were considered to calculate the mathematic mean (SD) of demographic, surgical, and other postoperative continuous data and to calculate the median (range) of sensory and motor block levels, as well as the degree of patient and surgeon satisfaction||2.1|1.7|
90849337|NCT01727700|181564831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Discontinuation ratio|4.06||||0.0132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|14.95||Discontinuation ratio \< 1 favors aripiprazole. P-value derived from CMH General Association Test adjusting for region and weight group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||14.95|1.10|0.0132
91097281|NCT04868682|182079681|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.91|||t-test, 2 sided||The parameter estimate is the difference in means (treatment vs. control) during the first 180 nights following randomization.|||1.91|0.65|.0001
91097282|NCT04868682|182079682|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|0.87|||Mixed Models Analysis||The parameter estimate is the improvement in the outcome from baseline to 6-months for the treatment group versus the same improvement in respect to the control group.|||0.87|-2.29|0.378
91097283|NCT04868682|182079683|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.09|-1.27|||Mixed Models Analysis||The parameter estimate is the improvement in the outcome from baseline to 6-months for the treatment group versus the same improvement in respect to the control group.|||-1.27|-4.09|<0.001
90849338|NCT01727700|181564831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|5.51||||0.0278||||||Hazard ratio \< 1 favors aripiprazole. P-value derived from Cox proportional hazard regression adjusting for region and weight group.|Regression, Cox|||||||0.0278
90859879|NCT01914757|181583104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline ACQ-6 score, region, use of OCS, visit, and visit by treatment.||||-0.01|-0.38|0.043
90859880|NCT01914757|181583104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline ACQ-6 score, region, use of OCS, visit, and visit by treatment.||||-0.07|-0.44|0.008
91030632|NCT03130699|181945659|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Analyses controlled for income.||||0.61
91097284|NCT04868682|182079684|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.18|||Mixed Models Analysis||The parameter estimate is the improvement in the outcome from baseline to 6-months for the treatment group versus the same improvement in respect to the control group.|||1.18|-1.40|0.865
91097285|NCT00063622|182079685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||||||Given the fact that there were two planned primary comparisons, Bonferroni-adjusted P values of less than 0.025 were considered to indicate statistical significance.|Mantel Haenszel|||The proportions in each active-treatment group (pioglitazone and vitamin E) in whom there was improvement in non-alcoholic steatohepatitis were compared with the proportion of subjects in the placebo group in whom there was improvement.||||0.001
91097286|NCT00063622|182079685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||||||Given the fact that there were two planned primary comparisons, Bonferroni-adjusted P values of less than 0.025 were considered to indicate statistical significance.|Mantel Haenszel|||The proportions in each active-treatment group (pioglitazone and vitamin E) in whom there was improvement in non-alcoholic steatohepatitis were compared with the proportion of subjects in the placebo group in whom there was improvement.||||0.04
90957514|NCT04494256|181795189|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.84|=|0.9924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.47|15.32||ANCOVA model included: treatment as a fixed effect and adjusted for the following covariates: baseline disease duration since symptom onset, baseline percent predicted SVC, baseline plasma NfL, and use of riluzole or edaravone.|ANCOVA|||||15.32|-15.47|=0.9924
91097287|NCT00063622|182079686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.005
91097288|NCT00063622|182079686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91097289|NCT00063622|182079687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.02
91097290|NCT00063622|182079687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.004
91097291|NCT00063622|182079688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.01
91097292|NCT00063622|182079688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.08
90957515|NCT04494256|181795190|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.01|=|0.9203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.14|3.74||ANCOVA model included: treatment as a fixed effect and adjusted for the following covariates: baseline disease duration since symptom onset, baseline percent predicted SVC, baseline plasma NfL, and use of riluzole or edaravone.|ANCOVA|||||3.74|-4.14|=0.9203
90957516|NCT04494256|181795191|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|=|0.1069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.04||ANCOVA model included: treatment as a fixed effect and adjusted for the following covariates: baseline disease duration since symptom onset, baseline percent predicted SVC, baseline plasma NfL, and use of riluzole or edaravone.|ANCOVA|||||0.04|-0.41|=0.1069
91030633|NCT03130699|181945660|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Analyses controlled for income.||||0.49
91097293|NCT00063622|182079689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.24
91097294|NCT00063622|182079689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.12
91097295|NCT00063622|182079690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.05
91097296|NCT00063622|182079690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.001
91097297|NCT02202616|182079695|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.34|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.21|||Descriptive Statistics with 95% CI|The mean change from baseline along with the 95% confidence interval used to assess the precision of the estimate||||0.21|0.14|
90957517|NCT04494256|181795192|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.29|||=|0.1003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.433|42.587|||Log Rank|Log rank test stratified by median baseline plasma NfL||||42.587|0.433|=0.1003
90957518|NCT04494256|181795193|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1143|||||||Kaplan-Meier product limit method|||||||=0.1143
91030634|NCT03130699|181945661|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Analyses controlled for income.||||0.96
91030635|NCT03130699|181945662|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Analyses controlled for income.||||0.64
91030636|NCT03130699|181945663|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Binary logistic analyses were conducted for this outcome. Unstandardized regression coefficients represent logit coefficients.||||0.87
91030637|NCT03130699|181945664|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Binary logistic regression analyses were conducted for this outcome. Unstandardized regression coefficients represent logit coefficients.||||0.58
91097298|NCT02202616|182079696|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.278|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.17|||Descriptive Statistics with 95% CI|The mean change from baseline along with the 95% confidence interval used to assess the precision of the estimate||||0.17|0.11|
91097299|NCT02202616|182079697|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.47|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.74|2.3|||Standard Descriptive Statistics|The estimated mean change from baseline and corresponding 95% confidence intervals will be displayed for each visit.||Week 4||2.30|1.74|
91097300|NCT02202616|182079697|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.92|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.21|2.85|||Standard Descriptive Statistics|The estimated mean change from baseline and corresponding 95% confidence intervals will be displayed for each visit||Week 16||2.85|2.21|
91097301|NCT02202616|182079698|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|-4.3|||standard descriptive statistics|The estimated mean change from baseline to Week 4 along with the 95% confidence interval||Week 4||-4.3|-5.7|
91097302|NCT02202616|182079698|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|-5.7|||standard descriptive statistics|The estimated mean change from baseline to Week 4 along with the 95% confidence interval||Week 16||-5.7|-7.3|
91097303|NCT04327271|182079708|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of -0.25% set as lower bound of 95% CI for the maximum mean difference between the proportion of cumulative AEs between control and 2wT arms to conclude that 2wT is non-inferior. This margin was set considering the average AE rate of 0.5% from routine SSA MC programs at scale, and assuming that 2wT increases AE ascertainment to 2.0%, similar to 1.9% of Zimbabwe RCT and the widely-accepted standard 2% AE rate.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|||||||With 10% loss to follow-up (LTFU), a sample size of 1104 men provides at least 80% power to rule out a decrease in AE ascertainment of more than 0.25% based on the lower bound of the one-sided 95% CI. The one tailed alpha was set 0.05.|||-.09|
91097304|NCT04327271|182079709|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.12||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.21|||Fisher Exact|||The mean number of in-person clinic visit, excluding non-study visits, were compared between the two arms using a t-test. The proportion of potential AEs was calculated as number of potential AE responses divided by the total number of daily responses (no AE and potential AE). A superiority test was performed on the safety outcomes using a two-sided 95% confidence interval and p-value using Fisher's exact test.||1.21|1.03|0.001
91097305|NCT02320175|182079743|OTHER|We compared percent top-box experience ratings pre- vs. post-intervention using a GEE chi-squared test for binary outcomes, clustered by site. Top-box score was calculated as the percentage of participants that gave the top-most response for the given survey item (e.g., 5=Extremely; 5=Excellent). Missing data was accounted for through use of multiple imputations appropriate for missing data in clustered studies.|||||<|0.05|||||||GEE chi-squared test for binary outcomes|||||||<.05
91097306|NCT02516241|182079810|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.0751|TWO_SIDED|98.66|0.688|1.063||The 2-sided p-value was calculated using a stratified log-rank test adjusting for PD-L1 status, visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Log Rank||The HR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for PD-L1 status, visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|||1.063|0.688|0.0751
90849339|NCT02564432|181564836|EQUIVALENCE|This is not a randomized clinical trial but is an observational study, each patient's thigh skin site served as the control.|Base mean abundance|0.03|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value was calculated.|Unweighted UniFrac (qualitative)|Both weighted and unweighted UniFrac were calculated; weighted UniFrac is calculated to be p = 0.398 while unweighted UniFrac was P\<0.03|Differential abundance of Staphylococcus aureus in the stoma calculated by Log2 fold change (y-axis) versus base mean abundance (x-axis)|Sample similarity was calculated using the statistical comparisons of community composition.||||<0.05
90849340|NCT02564432|181564836|OTHER|"In this study, dissimilarities between the stomal and healthy thigh skins were tested.~Observational study. Used only for visualizing trends in the data."|PERMANOVA|0.001|||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|||||Each stomal community type was distinguished by both its diversity and taxonomic composition|Bray-Curtis dissimilarities|Nonmetric multidimensional scaling (NMDS) of Bray-Curtis dissimilarities|||Loess Regression was used to visualize temporal trends in the Shannnon Diversity and relative abundance of microbes (Staphylococcus, Streptococcus, Corynebacterium, and obligate anaerobes).|||<0.005
91097307|NCT02516241|182079811|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.3039|TWO_SIDED|96.99|0.695|1.139||The 2-sided p-value was calculated using a stratified log-rank test adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Log Rank||The HR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|||1.139|0.695|0.3039
91097308|NCT02516241|182079812|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.8637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.169||The 2-sided p-value was calculated using a stratified log-rank test adjusting for PD-L1 status, visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Log Rank||The HR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for PD-L1 status, visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|||1.169|0.830|0.8637
91097309|NCT02516241|182079813|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.589|0.928||The 2-sided p-value was calculated using a stratified log-rank test adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Log Rank||The HR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|||0.928|0.589|0.0091
91097310|NCT02516241|182079814|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.7599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.799|1.359||The 2-sided p-value was calculated using a stratified log-rank test adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Log Rank||The HR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|||1.359|0.799|0.7599
91097311|NCT02516241|182079814|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.4424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.692|1.175||The 2-sided p-value was calculated using a stratified log-rank test adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Log Rank||The HR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|monotherapy as reference.||1.175|0.692|0.4424
91097312|NCT02516241|182079818|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.2579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.931|1.304||The 2-sided p-value was calculated using a stratified log-rank test adjusting for PD-L1 status, visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Log Rank||The HR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for PD-L1 status, visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|||1.304|0.931|0.2579
91097313|NCT02516241|182079818|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.33||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.124|1.567||The 2-sided p-value was calculated using a stratified log-rank test adjusting for PD-L1 status, visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Log Rank||The HR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for PD-L1 status, visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|||1.567|1.124|0.0008
91030638|NCT03130699|181945665|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Binary logistic regression analyses were conducted for this outcome. Unstandardized regression coefficients represent logit coefficients.||||0.25
91104283|NCT04003142|182094846|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.217||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.305|18.806||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||18.806|1.305|0.028
91104284|NCT04003142|182094846|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.802||||0.044||95.0|1.157|17.075||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||17.075|1.157|0.044
90849341|NCT02788279|181564872|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.9871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.38|||Stratified Log-Rank|Stratification factors included extended RAS mutation status and time since diagnosis of first metastasis.|Hazard ratio was estimated using stratified Cox regression.|||1.38|0.73|0.9871
91097314|NCT02516241|182079819|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.2395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.705|1.091||The 2-sided p-value was calculated using a stratified log-rank test adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Log Rank||The HR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|||1.091|0.705|0.2395
91097315|NCT02516241|182079819|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.2431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.917|1.406||The 2-sided p-value was calculated using a stratified log-rank test adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Log Rank||The HR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|||1.406|0.917|0.2431
91097316|NCT02516241|182079820|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.53||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.177|1.99||The 2-sided p-value was calculated using a stratified log-rank test adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Log Rank||The HR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|||1.990|1.177|0.0014
91097317|NCT02516241|182079820|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.6236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.729|1.209||The 2-sided p-value was calculated using a stratified log-rank test adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Log Rank||The HR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|monotherapy as reference.||1.209|0.729|0.6236
91097318|NCT02516241|182079824|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.0477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.683|0.998||The 2-sided p-value was calculated using a stratified log-rank test adjusting for PD-L1 status, visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Log Rank||The HR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for PD-L1 status, visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|||0.998|0.683|0.0477
91097319|NCT02516241|182079824|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.7885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.809|1.175||The 2-sided p-value was calculated using a stratified log-rank test adjusting for PD-L1 status, visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Log Rank||The HR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for PD-L1 status, visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|||1.175|0.809|0.7885
91097320|NCT02516241|182079825|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.549|0.901||The 2-sided p-value was calculated using a stratified log-rank test adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Log Rank||The HR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|||0.901|0.549|0.0053
91097321|NCT02516241|182079825|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.1336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.651|1.059||The 2-sided p-value was calculated using a stratified log-rank test adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Log Rank||The HR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|||1.059|0.651|0.1336
90849342|NCT02788279|181564872|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19||||0.336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.71|||Stratified Log-Rank|Stratification factors included extended RAS mutation status and time since diagnosis of first metastasis.|Hazard ratio was estimated using stratified Cox regression.|||1.71|0.83|0.3360
91097322|NCT02516241|182079826|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.8148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.772|1.391||The 2-sided p-value was calculated using a stratified log-rank test adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Log Rank||The HR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|||1.391|0.772|0.8148
91097323|NCT02516241|182079826|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.2684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.636|1.134||The 2-sided p-value was calculated using a stratified log-rank test adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Log Rank||The HR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|monotherapy as reference.||1.134|0.636|0.2684
91097324|NCT02516241|182079827|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.58||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.422|0.788||P-value was based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from logistic regression model, adjusting for PD-L1 status, visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Regression, Logistic||The OR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using logistic regression, adjusting for PD-L1 status, visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|||0.788|0.422|0.0005
91030639|NCT03130699|181945666|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Binary logistic regression analyses were conducted for this outcome. Unstandardized regression coefficients represent logit coefficients.||||0.11
91097325|NCT02516241|182079827|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.253|0.485||P-value was based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from logistic regression model, adjusting for PD-L1 status, visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Regression, Logistic||The OR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using logistic regression, adjusting for PD-L1 status, visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|||0.485|0.253|<0.0001
91097326|NCT02516241|182079828|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.7708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.639|1.394||P-value was based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from logistic regression model, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Regression, Logistic||The OR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using logistic regression, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|||1.394|0.639|0.7708
90849343|NCT02788279|181564872|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.9686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.38|||Unstratified Log-Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated using unstratified Cox regression.|||1.38|0.74|0.9686
90849344|NCT02788279|181564872|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18||||0.3553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.69|||Unstratified Log-Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated using unstratified Cox regression.|||1.69|0.83|0.3553
90849345|NCT02788279|181564873|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.25||||0.1208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.65|||Stratified Log-Rank|Stratification factors included extended RAS mutation status and time since diagnosis of first metastasis.|Hazard ratio was estimated using stratified Cox regression.|||1.65|0.94|0.1208
90849346|NCT02788279|181564873|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.39||||0.0509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.94|||Stratified Log-Rank|Stratification factors included extended RAS mutation status and time since diagnosis of first metastasis.|Hazard ratio was estimated using stratified Cox regression.|||1.94|1.00|0.0509
90849347|NCT02788279|181564873|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.21||||0.1726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.6|||Unstratified Log-Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated using unstratified Cox regression.|||1.60|0.92|0.1726
90849348|NCT02788279|181564873|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.39||||0.0467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.91|||Unstratified Log-Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated using unstratified Cox regression.|||1.91|1.00|0.0467
90849349|NCT02788279|181564874|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|0.51||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.92|4.94|||Stratified Cochrane-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification factors included extended RAS mutation status and time since diagnosis of first metastasis.|95% CI for difference in response rates was constructed using Hauck-Anderson method.|||4.94|-3.92|1.0000
90849350|NCT02788279|181564874|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.89|4.89|||Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification factors included extended RAS mutation status and time since diagnosis of first metastasis.|95% CI for difference in response rates was constructed using Hauck-Anderson method.|||4.89|-4.89|1.0000
90849351|NCT00329849|181564891|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was that for the serogroup A, the seroresponse percentage in the MenACWY-CRM group would be at least 10% lower than that in the MenACWY-PS group at one month postvaccination, i.e. the lower limit of the 95% CI of the difference in response rates (MenACWY-CRM minus MenACWY-PS) ≤-10%.|Group difference|38.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.0|47.0|||Chi-squared|||Comparison of hSBA seroresponse for the serogroup A one month after vaccination of MenACWY-CRM and MenACWY-PS||47|29|
91030640|NCT03130699|181945667|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Analyses controlled for income.||||0.76
91097327|NCT02516241|182079828|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.268|0.61||P-value was based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from logistic regression model, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Regression, Logistic||The OR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using logistic regression, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|||0.610|0.268|<0.0001
91097328|NCT02516241|182079829|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.24|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.135|0.406||P-value was based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from logistic regression model, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Regression, Logistic||The OR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using logistic regression, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|||0.406|0.135|<0.0001
91097329|NCT02516241|182079829|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.6195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.469|1.566||P-value was based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from logistic regression model, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Regression, Logistic||The OR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using logistic regression, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|monotherapy as reference.||1.566|0.469|0.6195
90849352|NCT00329849|181564891|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was that for the serogroup C, the seroresponse percentage in the MenACWY-CRM group would be at least 10% lower than that in the MenACWY-PS group at one month postvaccination, i.e. the lower limit of the 95% CI of the difference in response rates (MenACWY-CRM minus MenACWY-PS) ≤-10%.|Group difference|30.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.0|40.0|||Chi-squared|||Comparison of hSBA seroresponse for the serogroup C one month after vaccination of MenACWY-CRM and MenACWY-PS||40|19|
90849353|NCT00329849|181564891|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was that for the serogroup W, the seroresponse percentage in the MenACWY-CRM group would be at least 10% lower than that in the MenACWY-PS group at one month postvaccination, i.e. the lower limit of the 95% CI of the difference in response rates (MenACWY-CRM minus MenACWY-PS) ≤-10%.|Group difference|28.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.0|39.0|||Chi-squared|||Comparison of hSBA seroresponse for the serogroup W one month after vaccination of MenACWY-CRM and MenACWY-PS||39|17|
90849354|NCT00329849|181564891|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was that for the serogroup Y, the seroresponse percentage in the MenACWY-CRM group would be at least 10% lower than that in the MenACWY-PS group at one month postvaccination, i.e. the lower limit of the 95% CI of the difference in response rates (MenACWY-CRM minus MenACWY-PS) ≤-10%.|Group difference|18.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|28.0|||Chi-squared|||Comparison of hSBA seroresponse for the serogroup Y one month after vaccination of MenACWY-CRM and MenACWY-PS||28|8|
90849355|NCT00329849|181564892|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Safety of MenACWY-CRM vaccination was considered non-inferior to the safety of MenACWY-PS vaccination if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio (MenACWY-CRM group divided by MenACWY-PS group) of the percentage of subjects experiencing at least one severe systemic reaction during 1 to 7 days after vaccination was less than 3.|Group Ratio|6.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|49.2|||Risk ratio(MenACWY-CRM/MenACWY-PS)|||||49.2|0.82|
90849356|NCT04987944|181564925|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-9.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.5|5.0||||||||5.0|-24.5|
91030641|NCT03130699|181945668|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Analyses controlled for income.||||0.05
91030642|NCT03130699|181945669|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Analyses controlled for income.||||0.63
91030643|NCT03130699|181945670|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Analyses is controlled for income.||||0.63
91030644|NCT03130699|181945671|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Analyses controlled for income.||||0.002
91030645|NCT03130699|181945672|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Analyses controlled for income.||||0.008
91030646|NCT00977470|181945685|EQUIVALENCE|All enrolled patients will be included in the intent-to-treat efficacy analyses. Based on historical patients with EGFR mutations treated with gefitinib, we expect median progression-free survival on the erlotinib-alone arm to be approximately 9 months. This trial can detect a difference in proportions alive without progression at 9 months from 50% in the erlotinib arm to 77% in the erlotinib plus HCQ arm, using an alpha of 0.15 and power of 85%, using the two-sided Likelihood Ratio test.||||||0.28|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.28
90849357|NCT04987944|181564926|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|11.5||||||||11.5|-19.4|
90849358|NCT04987944|181564927|OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.423|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.125|0.972||||||||0.972|-0.125|
91097330|NCT02516241|182079831|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.56||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.759||P-value was based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from logistic regression model, adjusting for PD-L1 status, visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Regression, Logistic||The OR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using logistic regression, adjusting for PD-L1 status, visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|||0.759|0.410|0.0002
91097331|NCT02516241|182079831|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.267|0.5||P-value was based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from logistic regression model, adjusting for PD-L1 status, visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Regression, Logistic||The OR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using logistic regression, adjusting for PD-L1 status, visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|||0.500|0.267|<0.0001
91097332|NCT02516241|182079832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.4959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.291||P-value was based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from logistic regression model, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Regression, Logistic||The OR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using logistic regression, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|||1.291|0.590|0.4959
91097333|NCT02516241|182079832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.46||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.305|0.679||P-value was based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from logistic regression model, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Regression, Logistic||The OR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using logistic regression, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|||0.679|0.305|0.0001
91097334|NCT02516241|182079833|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.448||P-value was based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from logistic regression model, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Regression, Logistic||The OR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using logistic regression, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|||0.448|0.160|<0.0001
91097335|NCT02516241|182079833|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.8074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.623|1.836||P-value was based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from logistic regression model, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Regression, Logistic||The OR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using logistic regression, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|monotherapy as reference.||1.836|0.623|0.8074
91097336|NCT02516241|182079834|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.432|0.802||P-value was based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from logistic regression model, adjusting for PD-L1 status, visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Regression, Logistic||The OR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using logistic regression, adjusting for PD-L1 status, visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|||0.802|0.432|0.0008
91097337|NCT02516241|182079834|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.512||P-value was based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from logistic regression model, adjusting for PD-L1 status, visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Regression, Logistic||The OR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using logistic regression, adjusting for PD-L1 status, visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|||0.512|0.270|<0.0001
91097338|NCT02516241|182079835|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.7717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.639|1.394||P-value was based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from logistic regression model, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Regression, Logistic||The OR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using logistic regression, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|||1.394|0.639|0.7717
91097339|NCT02516241|182079835|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.46||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.303|0.682||P-value was based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from logistic regression model, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Regression, Logistic||The OR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using logistic regression, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|||0.682|0.303|0.0001
91097340|NCT02516241|182079836|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.151|0.439||P-value was based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from logistic regression model, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Regression, Logistic||The OR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using logistic regression, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|||0.439|0.151|<0.0001
90849359|NCT02614469|181564931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Means|103.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.0|108.0|||||Fed/Fasting Ratio|To assess the effect of food on the PK of urate, analyses of variance (ANOVA) using a linear mixed-effects model was fitted to the natural logarithmic transformation of PK parameters of urate. The linear mixed-effects model will include subject as a random effect, and treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects. The 90% confidence intervals were constructed for the ratio of geometric means of PK parameters between fed and fasted treatments, based on log-transformed data.||108|98.0|
90859881|NCT01914757|181583105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline ACQ-6 score, region, use of OCS, visit, and visit by treatment.||||0.03|-0.51|0.078
90859882|NCT01914757|181583105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline ACQ-6 score, region, use of OCS, visit, and visit by treatment.||||0.16|-0.37|0.449
90859883|NCT01914757|181583106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.69|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for region, number of exacerbations in the previous year, use of OCS||Proportion of patients with \>=1 asthma exacerbation||0.69|0.31|<0.001
90859884|NCT01914757|181583106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.95|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for region, number of exacerbations in the previous year, use of OCS||Proportion of patients with \>=1 asthma exacerbation||0.95|0.45|0.023
90859885|NCT01914757|181583107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.8|||Regression, Cox|Model includes treatment, region, number of exacerbations in the previous year, use of OCS||Time to first Exacerbation||0.80|0.46|<0.001
90849360|NCT02614469|181564932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Means|99.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.9|102.0|||||Fed/Fasted Ratio|To assess the effect of food on the PK of urate, analyses of variance (ANOVA) using a linear mixed-effects model was fitted to the natural logarithmic transformation of PK parameters of urate. The linear mixed-effects model will include subject as a random effect, and treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects. The 90% confidence intervals were constructed for the ratio of geometric means of PK parameters between fed and fasted treatments, based on log-transformed data.||102|96.9|
91030647|NCT00796822|181945697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.87|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.09||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|3.28|||t-test, 2 sided|||The sample size was determined based on a two-sample, independent, two-tailed t-test with 5% type I error. Using the results from our pilot trial, we conservatively estimated a predicted absolute change in FMD of 3.5% with PTX (assuming no change with placebo) and we assumed a common standard deviation of 2.6%. A sample size of 10 per group was estimated to provide at least 80% power to detect this effect size. Allowing for a 20% dropout rate, we planned to recruit 13 subjects per group.||3.28|-1.53|0.44
91030648|NCT00796822|181945698|SUPERIORITY|There was no formal power calculation for this outcome measure as the study was powered on the primary outcome measure.|Median Difference (Net)|149.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|151.8||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.4|281.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||||281.9|16.4|0.03
91030649|NCT06354270|181945699|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.111|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|-0.85|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test toothpaste minus Reference toothpaste.|||-0.85|-1.29|<0.0001
91030650|NCT06354270|181945700|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|36.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.319|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.14|43.29|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test toothpaste minus Reference toothpaste.|||43.29|30.14|<0.0001
91097341|NCT02516241|182079836|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.9692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.556|1.759||P-value was based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from logistic regression model, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Regression, Logistic||The OR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using logistic regression, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|monotherapy as reference.||1.759|0.556|0.9692
91097342|NCT02516241|182079844|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5||||0.1617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|3.59||MMRM model included patient, treatment, cisplatin eligibility, PD-L1 status and visceral metastasis, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables, and the appropriate baseline FACT-BL value as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||NFBLSI- 18 score (Average overall visits)||3.59|-0.6|0.1617
91097343|NCT02516241|182079844|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1||||0.0578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|4.29||MMRM model included patient, treatment, cisplatin eligibility, PD-L1 status and visceral metastasis, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables, and the appropriate baseline FACT-BL value as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||NFBLSI- 18 score (Average overall visits)||4.29|-0.07|0.0578
91097344|NCT02516241|182079844|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7||||0.2003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|4.32||MMRM model included patient, treatment, cisplatin eligibility, PD-L1 status and visceral metastasis, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables, and the appropriate baseline FACT-BL value as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||FACT-BL TOI (Average overall visits)||4.32|-0.91|0.2003
90849361|NCT02614469|181564936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Means|103.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.9|118.0|||||Fed/Fasted Ratio|To assess the effect of food on the PK of urate, analyses of variance (ANOVA) using a linear mixed-effects model was fitted to the natural logarithmic transformation of PK parameters of urate. The linear mixed-effects model will include subject as a random effect, and treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects. The 90% confidence intervals were constructed for the ratio of geometric means of PK parameters between fed and fasted treatments, based on log-transformed data.||118|90.9|
90849362|NCT02614469|181564937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Means|83.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|62.1|112.0|||||Fed/Fasted Ratio|To assess the effect of food on the PK of urate, analyses of variance (ANOVA) using a linear mixed-effects model was fitted to the natural logarithmic transformation of PK parameters of urate. The linear mixed-effects model will include subject as a random effect, and treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects. The 90% confidence intervals were constructed for the ratio of geometric means of PK parameters between fed and fasted treatments, based on log-transformed data.||112|62.1|
91030651|NCT06354270|181945701|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.083|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.46|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test toothpaste minus Reference toothpaste.|||-0.46|-0.79|<0.0001
91030652|NCT06354270|181945702|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|14.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.128|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.09|18.52|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test toothpaste minus Reference toothpaste.|||18.52|10.09|<0.0001
91030653|NCT06354270|181945703|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.252||0.196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.17|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test toothpaste minus Reference toothpaste.|Q7 (How intense are the sensations?): Change from Baseline at Day 28||0.17|-0.83|0.1960
91030654|NCT06354270|181945703|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.344||0.2287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|0.28|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test toothpaste minus Reference toothpaste.|Q7 (How intense are the sensations?): Change from Baseline at Day 56||0.28|-1.08|0.2287
91030655|NCT06354270|181945703|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.22|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test toothpaste minus Reference toothpaste.|Q8 (How bothered are you by any sensations?): Change from Baseline at Day 28||0.22|-0.89|0.2350
90849363|NCT00345332|181564943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
90849364|NCT00345332|181564944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
90849365|NCT04121078|181564945|EQUIVALENCE|Point estimate and its 90% confidence interval (CI) were calculated for Treatment B to Treatment A ratio of geometric means for Cmax based on the mixed-effect model of log-transformed Cmax with sequence, treatment, and period as fixed effects, and participant nested within sequence as a random effect. Bioequivalence was concluded if the 90% CI for the ratio of geometric means is entirely contained within 80% to 125% for Cmax. No adjustments were made for multiplicity.|Geometric Mean Ratio|6.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.62|8.42||||||||8.42|4.62|
91097345|NCT02516241|182079844|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.3||||0.0178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|6.0||MMRM model included patient, treatment, cisplatin eligibility, PD-L1 status and visceral metastasis, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables, and the appropriate baseline FACT-BL value as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||FACT-BL TOI (Average overall visits)||6.00|0.57|0.0178
91097346|NCT02516241|182079844|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6||||0.3765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|5.17||MMRM model included patient, treatment, cisplatin eligibility, PD-L1 status and visceral metastasis, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables, and the appropriate baseline FACT-BL value as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||FACT-BL Total score (Average overall visits)||5.17|-1.96|0.3765
91097347|NCT02516241|182079844|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.1||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|7.81||MMRM model included patient, treatment, cisplatin eligibility, PD-L1 status and visceral metastasis, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables, and the appropriate baseline FACT-BL value as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||FACT-BL Total score (Average overall visits)||7.81|0.40|0.0300
91097348|NCT02516241|182079845|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9||||0.1373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|4.36||MMRM model included patient, treatment, cisplatin eligibility and visceral metastasis, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables, and the appropriate baseline FACT-BL value as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||NFBLSI- 18 score (Average overall visits)||4.36|-0.6|0.1373
91097349|NCT02516241|182079845|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.8||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|6.27||MMRM model included patient, treatment, cisplatin eligibility and visceral metastasis, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables, and the appropriate baseline FACT-BL value as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||NFBLSI- 18 score (Average overall visits)||6.27|1.26|0.0034
91097350|NCT02516241|182079845|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2||||0.1774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|5.39||MMRM model included patient, treatment, cisplatin eligibility and visceral metastasis, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables, and the appropriate baseline FACT-BL value as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||FACT-BL TOI (Average overall visits)||5.39|-1.00|0.1774
91097351|NCT02516241|182079845|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.4||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.19|8.65||MMRM model included patient, treatment, cisplatin eligibility and visceral metastasis, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables, and the appropriate baseline FACT-BL value as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||FACT-BL TOI (Average overall visits)||8.65|2.19|0.0011
91097352|NCT02516241|182079845|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1||||0.3494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.27|6.38||MMRM model included patient, treatment, cisplatin eligibility and visceral metastasis, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables, and the appropriate baseline FACT-BL value as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||FACT-BL Total score (Average overall visits)||6.38|-2.27|0.3494
91097353|NCT02516241|182079845|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.3||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.96|11.71||MMRM model included patient, treatment, cisplatin eligibility and visceral metastasis, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables, and the appropriate baseline FACT-BL value as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||FACT-BL Total score (Average overall visits)||11.71|2.96|0.0011
91097354|NCT02516241|182079846|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.3865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.35|1.69||MMRM model included patient, treatment, cisplatin eligibility and visceral metastasis, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables, and the appropriate baseline FACT-BL value as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||NFBLSI- 18 score (Average overall visits)||1.69|-4.35|0.3865
90899710|NCT01975220|181665223|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|100.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.555|102.719|||ANOVA||The adjusted geometric mean ratio (%) was calculated as the geometric mean of 'High dose, fasted: 1 FDC tablet' divided by the geometric mean of 'High dose, fasted: 3 single tablets'. The 'standard deviation' is actually the intra-individual gCV (%).|||102.719|97.555|<0.0001
91097355|NCT02516241|182079846|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.05|1.49||MMRM model included patient, treatment, cisplatin eligibility and visceral metastasis, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables, and the appropriate baseline FACT-BL value as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||NFBLSI- 18 score (Average overall visits)||1.49|-5.05|0.2840
91097356|NCT02516241|182079846|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||0.297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.41|1.66||MMRM model included patient, treatment, cisplatin eligibility and visceral metastasis, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables, and the appropriate baseline FACT-BL value as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||FACT-BL TOI (Average overall visits)||1.66|-5.41|0.2970
91097357|NCT02516241|182079846|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.3026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.85|1.83||MMRM model included patient, treatment, cisplatin eligibility and visceral metastasis, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables, and the appropriate baseline FACT-BL value as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||FACT-BL TOI (Average overall visits)||1.83|-5.85|0.3026
91097358|NCT02516241|182079846|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5||||0.3168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.29|2.38||MMRM model included patient, treatment, cisplatin eligibility and visceral metastasis, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables, and the appropriate baseline FACT-BL value as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||FACT-BL Total score (Average overall visits)||2.38|-7.29|0.3168
91097359|NCT02516241|182079846|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.3||||0.2179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.51|1.96||MMRM model included patient, treatment, cisplatin eligibility and visceral metastasis, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables, and the appropriate baseline FACT-BL value as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||FACT-BL Total score (Average overall visits)||1.96|-8.51|0.2179
91097360|NCT02516241|182079847|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.2419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.6||P-value was based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from logistic regression model, adjusting for PD-L1 status, visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Regression, Logistic||The OR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using logistic regression, adjusting for PD-L1 status, visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status, with 95% CI calculated by profile likelihood|Patients with improvement in fatigue||2.6|0.8|0.2419
91097361|NCT02516241|182079847|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.1553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.8||P-value was based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from logistic regression model, adjusting for PD-L1 status, visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Regression, Logistic||The OR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using logistic regression, adjusting for PD-L1 status, visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status, with 95% CI calculated by profile likelihood.|Patients with improvement in fatigue||2.8|0.9|0.1553
91097362|NCT02516241|182079847|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|2.8||P-value was based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from logistic regression model, adjusting for PD-L1 status, visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Regression, Logistic||The OR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using logistic regression, adjusting for PD-L1 status, visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status, with 95% CI calculated by profile likelihood.|Patient with deterioration in pain||2.8|1.4|0.0003
91097363|NCT02516241|182079847|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6||||0.0148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.3||P-value was based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from logistic regression model, adjusting for PD-L1 status, visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Regression, Logistic||The OR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using logistic regression, adjusting for PD-L1 status, visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status, with 95% CI calculated by profile likelihood.|Patient with deterioration in pain||2.3|1.1|0.0148
91097364|NCT02516241|182079848|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6||||0.2473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|3.4||P-value was based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from logistic regression model, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Regression, Logistic||The OR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using logistic regression, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status, with 95% CI calculated by profile likelihood.|Patients with improvement in fatigue||3.4|0.7|0.2473
91097365|NCT02516241|182079848|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.0148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|3.8||P-value was based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from logistic regression model, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Regression, Logistic||The OR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using logistic regression, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status, with 95% CI calculated by profile likelihood.|Patients with improvement in fatigue||3.8|0.8|0.0148
91097366|NCT02516241|182079848|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|3.0||P-value was based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from logistic regression model, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Regression, Logistic||The OR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using logistic regression, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status, with 95% CI calculated by profile likelihood|Patient with deterioration in pain||3.0|1.2|0.0090
91097367|NCT02516241|182079848|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.3||P-value was based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from logistic regression model, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Regression, Logistic||The OR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using logistic regression, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status, with 95% CI calculated by profile likelihood.|Patient with deterioration in pain||2.3|0.9|0.1510
91097368|NCT02516241|182079849|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.6763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.2||P-value was based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from logistic regression model, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Regression, Logistic||The OR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using logistic regression, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status, with 95% CI calculated by profile likelihood.|Patients with improvement in fatigue||3.2|0.5|0.6763
91097369|NCT02516241|182079849|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.6539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.3||P-value was based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from logistic regression model, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Regression, Logistic||The OR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using logistic regression, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status, with 95% CI calculated by profile likelihood.|Patients with improvement in fatigue||3.3|0.5|0.6539
91097370|NCT02516241|182079849|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2||||0.0092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|4.0||P-value was based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from logistic regression model, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Regression, Logistic||The OR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using logistic regression, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status, with 95% CI calculated by profile likelihood|Patient with deterioration in pain||4.0|1.2|0.0092
91097371|NCT02516241|182079849|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.0324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|3.5||P-value was based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from logistic regression model, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Regression, Logistic||The OR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using logistic regression, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status, with 95% CI calculated by profile likelihood.|Patient with deterioration in pain||3.5|1.1|0.0324
91097372|NCT03018938|182079862|NON_INFERIORITY|If Lower limit (L) \>-0.4%, the Non-inferiority (NI) of basal insulin analog QD to insulin analog mid mixture BID is established; If Upper limit (U) \<0.4%, the NI of insulin analog mid mixture BID to basal insulin analog QD is established|LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.158|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0959||0.1009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.346|0.031|||ANCOVA|||||0.031|-0.346|0.1009
91097373|NCT03018938|182079863|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.201|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0891||0.0246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.376|-0.026|||ANCOVA|||||-0.026|-0.376|0.0246
91097374|NCT03018938|182079864|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.0941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.87|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.87|0.95|0.0941
90849366|NCT04121078|181564946|EQUIVALENCE|Point estimate and its 90% CI were calculated for Treatment B to Treatment A ratio of geometric means for AUC∞ based on the mixed-effect model of log-transformed AUC∞ with sequence, treatment, and period as fixed effects, and participant nested within sequence as a random effect. Bioequivalence was concluded if the 90% CI for the ratio of geometric means is entirely contained within 80% to 125% for AUC∞. No adjustments were made for multiplicity.|Geometric Mean Ratio|5.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.25|6.25||||||||6.25|4.25|
90859886|NCT01914757|181583107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.95|||Regression, Cox|Model includes treatment, region, number of exacerbations in the previous year, use of OCS||Time to first asthma exacerbation||0.95|0.55|0.018
91030656|NCT06354270|181945703|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.328||0.1818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|0.21|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test toothpaste minus Reference toothpaste.|Q8 (How bothered are you by any sensations?): Change from Baseline at Day 56||0.21|-1.09|0.1818
91030657|NCT06354270|181945703|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.357||0.1316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|0.17|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test toothpaste minus Reference toothpaste.|Q9 (How well can you tolerate sensations?): Change from Baseline at Day 28||0.17|-1.25|0.1316
91030658|NCT06354270|181945703|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.417||0.0658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.05|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test toothpaste minus Reference toothpaste.|Q9 (How well can you tolerate sensations?): Change from Baseline at Day 56||0.05|-1.60|0.0658
91097375|NCT03018938|182079865|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.8592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.49|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.49|0.72|0.8592
91030659|NCT06354270|181945704|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.862||0.8072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.45|10.83|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test toothpaste minus Reference toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 28||10.83|-8.45|0.8072
91030660|NCT06354270|181945704|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.175||0.9641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.96|12.52|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test toothpaste minus Reference toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 56||12.52|-11.96|0.9641
91030661|NCT06354270|181945705|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.2538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|2.35|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test toothpaste minus Reference toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 28||2.35|-0.63|0.2538
91030662|NCT06354270|181945705|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.922||0.7311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|1.51|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test toothpaste minus Reference toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 56||1.51|-2.15|0.7311
91030663|NCT06354270|181945706|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.162||0.7202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.51|5.06|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test toothpaste minus Reference toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 28||5.06|-3.51|0.7202
91097376|NCT03018938|182079866|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.423|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2152||0.0497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.846|||ANCOVA|||||0.846|0.000|0.0497
91097377|NCT03018938|182079867|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.647|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1955||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.263|1.031|||ANCOVA|||||1.031|0.263|0.0010
91030664|NCT06354270|181945706|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.532||0.9859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.06|4.98|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test toothpaste minus Reference toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 56||4.98|-5.06|0.9859
91030665|NCT06354270|181945707|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.5586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.09|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test toothpaste minus Reference toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 28||1.09|-2.00|0.5586
91097378|NCT03018938|182079868|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2191||0.2193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.161|0.7|||ANCOVA|||FBG||0.700|-0.161|0.2193
91030666|NCT06354270|181945707|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.961||0.873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|1.75|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test toothpaste minus Reference toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 56||1.75|-2.06|0.8730
91030667|NCT06354270|181945708|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.383||0.6191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.43|2.05|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test toothpaste minus Reference toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 28||2.05|-3.43|0.6191
91030668|NCT06354270|181945708|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.669||0.9521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.41|3.21|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test toothpaste minus Reference toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 56||3.21|-3.41|0.9521
91097379|NCT03018938|182079868|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.084|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3331||0.8014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.739|0.571|||ANCOVA|||PPG||0.571|-0.739|0.8014
91097380|NCT03018938|182079869|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.491|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2033||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.092|0.891|||ANCOVA|||FBG||0.891|0.092|0.0160
91097381|NCT03018938|182079869|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.013|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3028||0.9661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.608|0.582|||ANCOVA|||PPG||0.582|-0.608|0.9661
91030669|NCT06354270|181945709|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.795||0.3887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|2.26|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test toothpaste minus Reference toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 28||2.26|-0.89|0.3887
91030670|NCT06354270|181945709|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.989||0.373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|2.84|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test toothpaste minus Reference toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 56||2.84|-1.08|0.3730
91097382|NCT03018938|182079871|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.667|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2776||0.0166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.122|1.211|||ANCOVA|||||1.211|0.122|0.0166
91097383|NCT03018938|182079872|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.754|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2864||0.0086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.192|1.316|||ANCOVA|||||1.316|0.192|0.0086
91097384|NCT03018938|182079875|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.2009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.77|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.77|0.89|0.2009
91097385|NCT03018938|182079876|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.8054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.53|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.53|0.72|0.8054
91097386|NCT03018938|182079877|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.7553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.5|-0.8|0.7553
91097387|NCT01769586|182079878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.5|||Chi-squared|||||.50|.24|<0.001
91104285|NCT04003142|182094846|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.342||||0.519||95.0|0.551|3.382||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||3.382|0.551|0.519
91097388|NCT00191100|182079879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||PFS Probability Difference at 3 Years|0.095||||0.029||95.0|0.01|0.179||The p-value is two-sided and was tested at the 0.05 significance level.|Z Statistic||Difference in progression-free survival probability between Gem/Cis/Rad and Cis/Rad. The difference in PFS probability between the two treatment arms can also be presented as a percentage (ie, PFS at 3 years was 9.5% better in the Gem/Cis/Rad arm).|||0.179|0.010|0.029
91097389|NCT00191100|182079880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0008||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.0008
91097390|NCT00191100|182079881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.096||95.0||||The p-value is two-sided and was tested at the 0.05 significance level.|Fisher Exact|||"Note: There were 2 patients with unknown site of progressive disease; these patients were counted as a Local failure.~Note: There was 1 patient with both local and distant failure; this patient was counted as a Local failure."||||0.096
91097391|NCT00191100|182079882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25||95.0||||The p-value is two-sided and was tested at the 0.05 significance level.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.250
91097392|NCT00191100|182079883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0224||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.0224
91097393|NCT00191100|182079884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0227||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.0227
91097394|NCT02141113|182079925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.779|||||||ANOVA|||These scores were calculated by subtracting participants' endpoint scores from their initial baseline scores. These changed scores show the total change in ADHD symptoms over the course of the trial. Higher values indiicate improved functioning at the end of the trial compared to the beginning.||||.779
91097395|NCT02141113|182079926|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.834|||||||ANOVA|||||||.834
91097396|NCT02141113|182079927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.705|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.705
91097397|NCT02141113|182079928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.322|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.322
91097398|NCT02141113|182079929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.043|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.043
91097399|NCT02141113|182079930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.212|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.212
91097400|NCT04950686|182079942|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.983|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.983
91097401|NCT04950686|182079942|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.465|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.465
91097402|NCT04950686|182079943|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.579|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.579
91097403|NCT04950686|182079943|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Median Difference (Net)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.536|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.536
91097404|NCT04950686|182079944|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.745|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.745
91097405|NCT04950686|182079944|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.972|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.972
91097406|NCT04950686|182079945|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|5.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.25|0.24|0.682
91097407|NCT04950686|182079945|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|4.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.69|0.28|0.630
91097408|NCT04950686|182079946|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|12.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||12.82|0.12|0.418
91097409|NCT04950686|182079946|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|17.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||17.29|0.13|0.194
91097410|NCT04950686|182079947|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|8.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.07|0.10|0.731
91104286|NCT04003142|182094846|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.961||||0.117||95.0|0.863|4.741||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||4.741|0.863|0.117
91030671|NCT06354270|181945710|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.134||0.1591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.46|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test toothpaste minus Reference toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 28||0.46|-0.08|0.1591
91097411|NCT04950686|182079947|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|7.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.34|0.16|0.786
91030672|NCT06354270|181945710|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.144||0.3429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.42|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test toothpaste minus Reference toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 56||0.42|-0.15|0.3429
91030673|NCT06354270|181945711|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.411||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|0.2|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test toothpaste minus Reference toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 28||0.20|-1.43|0.1360
91030674|NCT06354270|181945711|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.431||0.2914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|0.4|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test toothpaste minus Reference toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 56||0.40|-1.31|0.2914
91030675|NCT05097989|181945712|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-17.7||||0.2422|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-37.5|8.3|||ANCOVA|||||8.3|-37.5|0.2422
91030676|NCT05097989|181945712|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-6.0||||0.8701|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-49.3|74.4|||ANCOVA|||||74.4|-49.3|0.8701
91030677|NCT02809183|181945727|OTHER|Single-group test|Group LS mean|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.5547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.5||The null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline within the Pooled Placebo treatment group = 0 mEq/L.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.5|-0.9|0.5547
91030678|NCT02809183|181945727|OTHER|Single-group test|Group LS mean|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|4.0||The null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline within the 1.5g TRC101 BID group = 0 mEq/L|Mixed Models Analysis|||The null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline within the 1.5g TRC101 BID treatment group = 0 mEq/L.||4.0|2.4|< 0.0001
91030679|NCT02809183|181945727|OTHER|Single-group test|Group LS mean|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|3.8||The null hypothesis is the 3g TRC101 BID treatment group mean change from baseline = 0 mEq/L.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.8|2.2|< 0.0001
91097412|NCT04950686|182079948|SUPERIORITY|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|7.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.49|0.16|0.710
90899711|NCT01975220|181665223|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|97.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.622|100.531|||ANOVA||"The adjusted geometric mean ratio (%) was calculated as the geometric mean of 'High dose, fed: 1 FDC tablet' divided by the geometric mean of 'High dose, fed: 3 single tablets'.~The 'standard deviation' is actually the intra-individual gCV (%)."|||100.531|93.622|<0.0001
91030680|NCT02809183|181945727|OTHER|Single-group test|Group LS mean|3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|4.5||The null hypothesis is the 4.5g TRC101 BID treatment group mean change from baseline = 0 mEq/L|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.5|2.9|< 0.0001
91030681|NCT02809183|181945728|OTHER|Two-group test|Difference between group LS means|3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|4.5||The null hypothesis is the difference between treatment groups (1.5g TRC101 BID - Pooled Placebo) in the mean change from baseline = 0 mEq/L.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.5|2.3|< 0.0001
91030682|NCT02809183|181945728|OTHER|Two-group test|Difference between group LS means|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|4.3||The null hypothesis is the difference between treatment groups (3g TRC101 BID - Pooled Placebo) in the mean change from baseline = 0 mEq/L.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.3|2.2|< 0.0001
91030683|NCT02809183|181945728|OTHER|Two-group test|Difference between group LS means|3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|5.0||The null hypothesis is the difference between the treatment groups (4.5g TRC101 BID - Pooled Placebo) in the mean change from baseline = 0 mEq/L.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.0|2.9|< 0.0001
91030684|NCT02809183|181945729|OTHER|Single-group test|Group LS mean|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|3.7||The null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline within the Combined TRC101 treatment group = 0 mEq/L.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.7|3.0|< 0.0001
91030685|NCT02809183|181945730|OTHER|Two-group test|Difference between group LS means|3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|4.4||The null hypothesis is that the difference between treatment groups (Combined TRC101 - Pooled Placebo) in the mean change from baseline = 0 mEq/L.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.4|2.8|< 0.0001
91030686|NCT02809183|181945731|OTHER|Two-group test|||||<|0.0001||||||The null hypothesis is that the difference between treatment groups (1.5g TRC101 BID - Pooled Placebo) in proportion of subjects whose serum bicarbonate increased from baseline to Day 15 by =\> 2 mEq/L = 0.|Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.0001
91030687|NCT02809183|181945731|OTHER|Two-group test|||||<|0.0001||||||The null hypothesis is that the difference between treatment groups (1.5g TRC101 BID - Pooled Placebo) in proportion of subjects whose serum bicarbonate increased from baseline to Day 15 by =\> 3 mEq/L = 0.|Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.0001
91030688|NCT02809183|181945731|OTHER|Two-group test||||||0.0074||||||The null hypothesis is that the difference between treatment groups (1.5g TRC101 BID - Pooled Placebo) in proportion of subjects whose serum bicarbonate increased from baseline to Day 15 by =\> 4 mEq/L = 0.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.0074
91030689|NCT02809183|181945731|OTHER|Two-group test||||||0.0012||||||The null hypothesis is that the difference between treatment groups (3g TRC101 BID - Pooled Placebo) in proportion of subjects whose serum bicarbonate increased from baseline to Day 15 by =\> 2 mEq/L = 0.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.0012
91097413|NCT04950686|182079948|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|8.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.73|0.16|0.610
91097414|NCT04950686|182079949|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|20.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||20.33|.09|0.270
91097415|NCT04950686|182079949|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|18.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||18.57|0.08|0.465
91097416|NCT04950686|182079950|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|11.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.95|0.07|0.702
91097417|NCT04950686|182079950|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|7.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.56|0.19|0.538
91097418|NCT04950686|182079951|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.084|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.084
91097419|NCT04950686|182079951|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.501|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.501
91097420|NCT04950686|182079952|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.614|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.614
91097421|NCT04950686|182079952|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.854|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.854
91097422|NCT04950686|182079953|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.499|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.499
90849367|NCT04121078|181564947|EQUIVALENCE|Point estimate and its 90% CI were calculated for Treatment B to Treatment A ratio of geometric means for AUClast based on the mixed-effect model of log-transformed AUClast with sequence, treatment, and period as fixed effects, and participant nested within sequence as a random effect. Bioequivalence was concluded if the 90% CI for the ratio of geometric means is entirely contained within 80% to 125% for AUClast. No adjustments were made for multiplicity.|Geometric Mean Ratio|5.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.29|6.32||||||||6.32|4.29|
91097423|NCT04950686|182079953|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.623|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.623
91097424|NCT04950686|182079954|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|5.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.15|0.14|0.618
91097425|NCT04950686|182079954|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|14.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||14.13|0.10|0.626
91097426|NCT04950686|182079955|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|9.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.18|0.23|.232
91097427|NCT04950686|182079955|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|5.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.38|0.22|0.811
91097428|NCT04950686|182079956|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|9.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.94|0.16|0.427
91097429|NCT04950686|182079956|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|7.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.68|0.25|0.337
91030690|NCT02809183|181945731|OTHER|Two-group test||||||0.0032||||||The null hypothesis is that the difference between treatment groups (3g TRC101 BID - Pooled Placebo) in proportion of subjects whose serum bicarbonate increased from baseline to Day 15 by =\> 3 mEq/L = 0.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.0032
91030691|NCT02809183|181945731|OTHER|Two-group test||||||0.0013||||||The null hypothesis is that the difference between treatment groups (3g TRC101 BID - Pooled Placebo) in proportion of subjects whose serum bicarbonate increased from baseline to Day 15 by =\> 4 mEq/L = 0.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.0013
91030692|NCT02809183|181945731|OTHER|Two-group test|||||<|0.0001||||||The null hypothesis is that the difference between treatment groups (4.5g TRC101 BID - Pooled Placebo) in proportion of subjects whose serum bicarbonate increased from baseline to Day 15 by =\> 2 mEq/L = 0.|Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.0001
91030693|NCT02809183|181945731|OTHER|Two-group test|||||<|0.0001||||||The null hypothesis is that the difference between treatment groups (4.5g TRC101 BID - Pooled Placebo) in proportion of subjects whose serum bicarbonate increased from baseline to Day 15 by =\> 3 mEq/L = 0.|Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.0001
91097430|NCT04950686|182079957|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.419|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.419
91097431|NCT04950686|182079957|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.808|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.808
91097432|NCT04950686|182079958|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.616|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.616
91097433|NCT04950686|182079958|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.486|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.486
91097434|NCT04950686|182079959|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.638|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.638
90899712|NCT01975220|181665223|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|100.78|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.9|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.36|103.27|||ANOVA||"The adjusted geometric mean ratio (%) was calculated as the geometric mean of 'Low dose, fasted: 2 FDC tablets' divided by the geometric mean of 'Low dose, fasted: 4 single tablets'.~The 'standard deviation' is actually the intra-individual gCV (%)."|||103.27|98.36|<0.0001
90899713|NCT01975220|181665224|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|109.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.4||0.0072|TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.892|119.1|||ANOVA||The adjusted geometric mean ratio (%) was calculated as the geometric mean of 'High dose, fasted: 1 FDC tablet' divided by the geometric mean of 'High dose, fasted: 3 single tablets'. The 'standard deviation' is actually the intra-individual gCV (%).|||119.100|99.892|0.0072
91030694|NCT02809183|181945731|OTHER|Two-group test|||||<|0.0006||||||The null hypothesis is that the difference between treatment groups (4.5g TRC101 BID - Pooled Placebo) in proportion of subjects whose serum bicarbonate increased from baseline to Day 15 by =\> 4 mEq/L = 0.|Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.0006
91030695|NCT02809183|181945732|OTHER|Single-group test|Group LS mean|3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|4.2||The null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline within the 6g TRC101 QD group = 0 mEq/L.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.2|2.7|<0.0001
91030696|NCT02809183|181945733|OTHER|Two-group test|Difference between group LS means|3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|4.7||The null hypothesis is the difference between treatment groups (6g TRC101 QD - Pooled Placebo) in the mean change from baseline = 0 mEq/L.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.7|2.6|<0.0001
91097435|NCT04950686|182079959|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.226|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.226
91097436|NCT04950686|182079960|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.63|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.630
91097437|NCT04950686|182079960|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.88|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.880
91097438|NCT04950686|182079961|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.569|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.569
91104287|NCT04003142|182094846|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.471||||0.393||95.0|0.612|3.687||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||3.687|0.612|0.393
91104288|NCT04003142|182094846|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.087||||0.086||95.0|0.923|5.043||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||5.043|0.923|0.086
91097439|NCT04950686|182079961|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.98|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.980
91097440|NCT04950686|182079962|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.466|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.466
91097441|NCT04950686|182079962|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.990
90849368|NCT02412488|181565019|OTHER|"The goal of the primary study objective was to estimate the rate of untoward events associated with Reveal LINQ insertions performed in the out-of-cathlab setting through 3-months within a desired level of precision. The target sample size of approximately 200 subjects undergoing Reveal LINQ insertion was selected to ensure that the upper 95% confidence interval would be within 3 percentage points of the point estimate of the untoward event rate assuming the underlying rate was 2%"|Event Rate expressed as a percent|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.1|||||The estimate is the observed rate of untoward events expressed as a percentage. The 95% confidence interval is also expressed as a percentage|"There was no formal statistical hypothesis test associated with the primary outcome measure. Rather the goal of the primary study objective was to estimate the rate of untoward events associated with Reveal LINQ insertions performed in the out-of-cathlab setting through 3-months within a desired level of precision."||2.1|0|
90849369|NCT00816023|181565026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.474||95.0|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra|||||||0.474
90849370|NCT03554486|181565028|OTHER|||||||0.051|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.051
90849371|NCT03554486|181565029|OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.17
90849372|NCT03554486|181565030|OTHER|||||||0.74|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.74
90849373|NCT02034409|181565043|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 48-week OMERACT-OARSI response the minimally clinically significant difference is an absolute rate difference of 10% between sham and PLIUS groups. With a total sample size of 144 the probability of correctly selecting the group with the greatest OORR is at least 0.885 assuming (δ=10%) that the sham group is drawn from a population with a 50% response rate and the PLIUS group is drawn from a population with response rate of at least 60% or at most 40%.||||||||||||||||Sample size has been calculated with ranking and selection methodology, a procedure used for Phase II trials. The purpose of the procedure as applied to this study is to identify whether PLIUS has a high probability of being more effective than sham. This is accomplished by obtaining sample estimates of the outcome for the PLIUS and sham groups and determining whether the PLIUS group outcome is better by the pre-specified margin of difference.|Since the ranking and selection procedures are fundamentally different from traditional hypothesis testing, concepts of statistical significance and power have no direct analogue.|||
90849374|NCT02034409|181565044|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 48-week cartilage change outcome measure the minimally clinically significant difference is 33 μm. With a difference of 33 μm, σ=152 μm standard deviation, k=2 groups, and P=0.90 probability to obtain τ=1.8124, which we use to estimate the per-group sample size: n=σ2(τ/δ\*)2=72 or a total of 144.||||||||||||||||Sample size has been calculated with ranking and selection methodology, a procedure used for Phase II trials. The purpose of the procedure as applied to this study is to identify whether PLIUS has a high probability of being more effective than sham. This is accomplished by obtaining sample estimates of the outcome for the PLIUS and sham groups and determining whether the PLIUS group outcome is better by the pre-specified margin of difference.|Since the ranking and selection procedures are fundamentally different from traditional hypothesis testing, concepts of statistical significance and power have no direct analogue.|||
90849375|NCT02270944|181565058|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|To assess the vaccine formulations equivalence, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the ratio of GMCs at Day 31 after vaccination must be \> 0.5 and the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI must be \< 2.0 (the entire two-sided 95% CI must be contained in the 0.5, 2.0 interval).|Ratio of GMCs|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.32|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with vaccine group and center as fixed effects and log10-prevaccination antibody concentration as a covariate||To demonstrate the equivalence of the liquid GBS trivalent vaccine formulation to the lyophilized GBS trivalent vaccine formulation for serotypes Ia when administered to healthy non-pregnant women, as measured by geometric mean concentrations (GMC).||1.32|0.79|
91030697|NCT02809183|181945734|OTHER|Two-group test|Difference between group LS means|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.4214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.7||The null hypothesis is that the difference between treatment groups (3g TRC101 BID - 6g TRC101 QD) in the mean change from baseline = 0 mEq/L.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.7|-1.6|0.4214
90859887|NCT01914757|181583108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.93||||0.837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.82|||negative binomial|Model includes treatment, region, any prior exacerbation resulting ER/Hospitalization, use of OCS||||1.82|0.48|0.837
90859888|NCT01914757|181583108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.23||||0.538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|2.35|||negative binomial|Model includes treatment, region, any prior exacerbation resulting ER/Hospitalization, use of OCS||||2.35|0.64|0.538
90859889|NCT01914757|181583112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16||||0.119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline AQLQ score, region, use of OCS, visit, visit by treatment.||||0.37|-0.04|0.119
90859890|NCT01914757|181583112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline AQLQ score, region, use of OCS, visit, visit by treatment.||||0.45|0.04|0.019
91097442|NCT04950686|182079963|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.989|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.989
91097443|NCT04950686|182079963|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.678|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.678
91097444|NCT04950686|182079964|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.075|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.075
91097445|NCT04950686|182079964|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.024|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.024
91097446|NCT04950686|182079965|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.301|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.301
91097447|NCT04950686|182079965|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.702|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.702
90849376|NCT02270944|181565059|NON_INFERIORITY|To assess the vaccine formulations equivalence, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the ratio of GMCs at Day 31 after vaccination must be \> 0.5 and the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI must be \< 2.0 (the entire two-sided 95% CI must be contained in the 0.5, 2.0 interval).|Ratio of GMCs|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.3|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with vaccine group and center as fixed effects and log10-prevaccination antibody concentration as a covariate||to demonstrate the equivalence of the liquid GBS trivalent vaccine formulation to the lyophilized GBS trivalent vaccine formulation for serotypes III when administered to healthy non-pregnant women, as measured by geometric mean concentrations (GMC).||1.30|0.76|
90849377|NCT02270944|181565060|NON_INFERIORITY|To assess the vaccine formulations equivalence, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the ratio of GMCs at Day 31 after vaccination must be \> 0.5 and the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI must be \< 2.0 (the entire two-sided 95% CI must be contained in the 0.5, 2.0 interval).|Ratio of GMCs|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.22|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with vaccine group and center as fixed effects and log10-prevaccination antibody concentration as a covariate||to demonstrate the equivalence of the liquid GBS trivalent vaccine formulation to the lyophilized GBS trivalent vaccine formulation for serotypes Ib when administered to healthy non-pregnant women, as measured by geometric mean concentrations (GMC).||1.22|0.72|
90849378|NCT02342418|181565064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.314|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.314
90849379|NCT02342418|181565065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.214|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon matched-pair signed-rank test||||0.214
90849380|NCT00183729|181565072|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.42|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null: the two groups would not differ in depressive symptoms over time (ie both groups would improve equally in terms of their depressive symptoms) Power calculation: none; this was a pilot study||||0.42
90849381|NCT00183729|181565074|SUPERIORITY|(no comments)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.0||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis: functional recovery would be the same in both groups. Power calculation: none. This was a pilot study.||||0.06
90849382|NCT01379508|181565087|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was derived if the lower limit of two-sided 95% CI for the difference lied above the pre-determined non-inferiority margin (-10%).|Difference in percentage|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|2.5||||||Missing DNA data at Wk 52=failure: To evaluate the primary objective, Mantel-Haenszel weighted estimates approach (stratified by HBV DNA level (\< 7 log10 copies/mL or ≥ 7 log10 copies/mL) and ALT (\< 3×ULN or ≥ 3×ULN) at baseline) was employed to assess the proportion of patients (response rate) who achieve HBV DNA \< 300 copies/mL after 52 weeks treatment in each treatment arm, as well as the difference in proportions (telbivudine - tenofovir arm) and the 95% CI of the difference.||2.5|-10.5|
91030698|NCT02809183|181945735|OTHER|Two-group test|||||<|0.0001||||||The null hypothesis is that the difference between treatment groups (6g TRC101 QD - Pooled Placebo) in proportion of subjects whose serum bicarbonate increased from baseline to Day 15 by =\> 2 mEq/L = 0.|Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.0001
91097448|NCT04950686|182079966|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|6.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.13|0.10|0.352
91097449|NCT04950686|182079966|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|6.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.16|0.11|0.445
91097450|NCT04950686|182079967|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.55||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|2.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.60|0.12|0.039
90849383|NCT01379508|181565087|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was derived if the lower limit of two-sided 95% CI for the difference was above the pre-determined non-inferiority margin (-10%).|Difference in percentage|-3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|3.1||||||Imputing +/- 7 days DNA for Wk 52: To evaluate the primary objective, Mantel-Haenszel weighted estimates approach (stratified by HBV DNA level (\< 7 log10 copies/mL or ≥ 7 log10 copies/mL) and ALT (\< 3×ULN or ≥ 3×ULN) at baseline) was employed to assess the proportion of patients (response rate) who achieve HBV DNA \< 300 copies/mL after 52 weeks treatment in each treatment arm, as well as the difference in proportions (telbivudine - tenofovir arm) and the 95% CI of the difference.||3.1|-9.4|
90849384|NCT01379508|181565087|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was derived if the lower limit of two-sided 95% CI for the difference lied above the pre-determined non-inferiority margin (-10%).|Difference in percentage|-3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|0.4||||||Imputing LOCF DNA for wk 52: d/c for non response prior to Wk 52: Treating missing as failure for patients who discontinued prior to Week 52 due to unsatisfactory therapeutic effect and imputing missing with LOCF for other patients||0.4|-7.9|
90849385|NCT01379508|181565087|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was derived if the lower limit of two-sided 95% CI for the difference lied above the pre-determined non-inferiority margin (-10%).|Difference in percentage|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|3.8||||||Imputing within +28d DNA for wk52: d/c for non response \<28 days from Wk 52:Treating missing as failure for patients who discontinued prior to Week 52 due to unsatisfactory therapeutic effect and imputing missing with the earliest available assessment within the 28-day window starting from the scheduled Week 52 date for other patients (if no such assessment is available, treated as failure)||3.8|-8.3|
90849386|NCT00833664|181565098|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|98.2||||||90.0|88.1|109.5|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||109.5|88.1|
90849387|NCT00833664|181565099|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|107.6||||||90.0|104.7|110.6|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||110.6|104.7|
90849388|NCT00833664|181565100|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|98.2||||||90.0|92.7|104.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||104.0|92.7|
90849389|NCT03952039|181565101|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion|29.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.9|39.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using the Greenland and Robins method to adjust for stratification factors: spleen size by palpation and platelet counts.||Stratified analysis (based on CRF)||39.4|19.9|<0.0001
91104289|NCT04003142|182094846|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.774||||0.168||95.0|0.798|4.143||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||4.143|0.798|0.168
90849390|NCT03952039|181565102|SUPERIORITY|Stratified analysis (based on CRF)|Difference in Proportion|17.1||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.8|29.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test using the Greenland and Robins method to adjust for stratification factors: spleen size by palpation and platelet counts.||||29.4|4.8|0.0033
90849391|NCT03952039|181565103|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion|33.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.9|45.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using the Greenland and Robins method to adjust for stratification factors: spleen size by palpation and platelet counts.||Stratified analysis (based on CRF)||45.1|21.9|<0.0001
90849392|NCT03952039|181565106|SUPERIORITY||Greenland and Robins method|19.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|29.7|||Greenland and Robins method|||||29.7|10.0|
90849393|NCT03050775|181565123|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.807|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.807
90849394|NCT03050775|181565123|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.076||||0.358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.085|0.237|||ANCOVA|||||0.237|-0.085|0.358
90849395|NCT03050775|181565124|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||\~30 minutes post-induction||0.2|-0.3|0.823
90849396|NCT03050775|181565124|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||\~60 minutes post-induction. Data was obtained from 33 subjects in the treatment group.||0.3|-0.2|0.853
90849397|NCT03050775|181565124|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||\~120 minutes post-induction||0.2|-0.2|0.986
90849398|NCT03050775|181565125|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|5.9|||Fisher Exact|||Post-operative shivering observed||5.9|0.5|0.540
90849399|NCT03050775|181565126|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1|-1|0.672
90849400|NCT03050775|181565127|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||Data was obtained from 32 subjects in the treatment group.||0.1|-0.2|0.571
90849401|NCT03050775|181565128|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.7|||Fisher Exact|||||3.7|0.5|0.619
90849402|NCT03050775|181565129|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|75.0||||0.404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|250.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||250|-100|0.404
90849403|NCT03603509|181565131|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.062|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null Hypothesis: HAI Day 28 - HAI Day 0 for Fluad = HAI Day 28 - HAI Day 0 for Fluzone Alternative Hypothesis: HAI Day 28 - HAI Day 0 for Fluad NE HAI Day 28 - HAI Day 0 for Fluzone||||0.062
90849404|NCT03603509|181565140|SUPERIORITY|null hypothesis: CMV Fluad sample index = CMV Fluzone sample index at Baseline alternate hypothesis: CMV Fluad sample index not equal to CMV Fluzone sample index at Baseline||||||0.29|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.29
90849405|NCT02656680|181565145|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mann-Whitney U Test||||0.72
90849406|NCT02656680|181565146|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi square test comparing proportion retained in each condition.||||0.31
90849407|NCT02656680|181565147|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.69
91097451|NCT04950686|182079967|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|2.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.12|0.17|0.073
91097452|NCT04950686|182079968|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.62||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|2.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.93|0.13|0.110
91097453|NCT04950686|182079968|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|3.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.78|0.11|0.174
91097454|NCT04950686|182079969|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.208|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.208
90899714|NCT01975220|181665224|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|92.42|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.5||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.781|98.428|||ANOVA||"The adjusted geometric mean ratio (%) was calculated as the geometric mean of 'High dose, fed: 1 FDC tablet' divided by the geometric mean of 'High dose, fed: 3 single tablets'.~The 'standard deviation' is actually the intra-individual gCV (%)."|||98.428|86.781|0.0004
91097455|NCT04950686|182079969|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.302|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.302
90899715|NCT01975220|181665224|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|105.37|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.7||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.6|114.942|||ANOVA||"The adjusted geometric mean ratio (%) was calculated as the geometric mean of 'Low dose, fasted: 2 FDC tablets' divided by the geometric mean of 'Low dose, fasted: 4 single tablets'.~The 'standard deviation' is actually the intra-individual gCV (%)."|||114.942|96.600|0.0014
90849408|NCT02656680|181565148|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.218|||||||ANOVA|||We compared mean percent weight loss from baseline across groups with a one-way ANOVA. One participant became pregnant and thus removed from the analysis. This analysis is exploratory given that this pilot study was not powered to detect weight loss differences between groups.||||0.218
90849409|NCT02656680|181565149|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.421|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.421
90849410|NCT04966910|181565163|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036||||||This p-value applies to the time x condition interaction variable in a repeated-measure ANOVA for client data.|ANOVA|||Repeated measures ANOVA including a time x condition interaction term to test for differences in slopes by condition for client data.||||0.036
90849411|NCT04966910|181565164|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.226||||||This p-value refers to a time x condition interaction term in a repeated measures ANOVA.|ANOVA|||||||.226
90849412|NCT04966910|181565165|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.674||||||This p-value refers to a time x condition interaction term in a repeated measures ANOVA to test for differences in slopes over time.|ANOVA|||||||.674
90849413|NCT04966910|181565166|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.317||||||This p-value refers to a time x condition interaction term in a repeated measures ANOVA to test for differences in slopes over time.|ANOVA|||||||.317
90849414|NCT04966910|181565167|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.741||||||This p-value refers to a time x condition interaction term in a repeated measures ANOVA to test for differences in slopes over time.|ANOVA|||||||.741
91097456|NCT04950686|182079970|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.483|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.483
91097457|NCT04950686|182079970|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.933|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.933
91097458|NCT04950686|182079971|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.877|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.877
90849415|NCT04966910|181565168|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.737||||||This p-value refers to a time x condition interaction term in a repeated measures ANOVA to test for differences in slopes over time.|ANOVA|||||||.737
90849416|NCT02484859|181565181|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.69|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Median intraoperative bleeding scores were compared with Wilcoxon test. In this pilot study the power analysis showed that a sample size of 44 patients in each group was sufficient to detect a difference of 0.2 in the mean (standard deviation of 0.4) with an 80% power with an alpha error of 0.05 and a beta error of 20%. The Shapiro-Wilk test was used to test the distribution of data.||||>0.69
90849417|NCT02484859|181565182|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90849418|NCT02484859|181565183|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.052|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.052
90849419|NCT02484859|181565184|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Null hypothesis was that the visual analog pain scores (VAS) of patients at arrrival to post anesthetic care unit (PACU) were similar.||||0.05
90849420|NCT02484859|181565184|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||Chi-squared|||Null hypothesis was that the visual analog pain scores (VAS) of patients at discharge from post anesthetic care unit (PACU) were similar.||||0.55
90849421|NCT02484859|181565185|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.47
91097459|NCT04950686|182079971|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.418|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.418
91097460|NCT04950686|182079972|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.23||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|98.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||98.76|0.05|0.220
91097461|NCT04950686|182079972|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|11.3||||||||11.30|0.10|
91097462|NCT04950686|182079973|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|63.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||63.29|0.03|0.506
91097463|NCT04950686|182079973|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|36.32||||||||36.32|0.04|
91097464|NCT04950686|182079974|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|28.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||28.37|0.04|0.877
91097465|NCT04950686|182079974|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|26.92||||||||26.92|0.02|
91097466|NCT04950686|182079975|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.005
90849422|NCT02054481|181565186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|36.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.0|53.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for weight (=\<100kg vs \>100kg) \& prior exposure to 2 or more tumour necrosis factor antagonists with discontinuation due to lack of efficacy|Difference calculated as BI 90+180 mg minus Stelara|||53.8|19.0|<0.0001
90849423|NCT02054481|181565187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|14.6||||0.0355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|28.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for weight (=\<100kg vs \>100kg) \& prior exposure to 2 or more tumour necrosis factor antagonists with discontinuation due to lack of efficacy|Difference calculated as BI 90+180 mg minus Stelara|Week 12||28.2|1.0|0.0355
90849424|NCT02054481|181565187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|21.1||||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|36.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for weight (=\<100kg vs \>100kg) \& prior exposure to 2 or more tumour necrosis factor antagonists with discontinuation due to lack of efficacy|Difference calculated as BI 90+180 mg minus Stelara|Week 24||36.2|6.0|0.0062
90849425|NCT02054481|181565188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|27.1||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.3|42.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for weight (=\<100kg vs \>100kg) \& prior exposure to 2 or more tumour necrosis factor antagonists with discontinuation due to lack of efficacy|Difference calculated as BI 90+180 mg minus Stelara|||42.9|11.3|0.0008
90849426|NCT02054481|181565189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|10.1||||0.0706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|21.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for weight (=\<100kg vs \>100kg) \& prior exposure to 2 or more tumour necrosis factor antagonists with discontinuation due to lack of efficacy|Difference calculated as BI 90+180 mg minus Stelara|||21.1|-0.8|0.0706
90849427|NCT02054481|181565190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|19.8||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|37.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for weight (=\<100kg vs \>100kg) \& prior exposure to 2 or more tumour necrosis factor antagonists with discontinuation due to lack of efficacy|Difference calculated as BI 90+180 mg minus Stelara|||37.7|1.9|0.0300
91097467|NCT04950686|182079975|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||1e-05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.00001
91097468|NCT04950686|182079976|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.314|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.314
91097469|NCT04950686|182079976|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.176|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.176
91104290|NCT04003142|182094846|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.374||||0.03||95.0|1.112|5.41||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||5.410|1.112|0.030
91104291|NCT04003142|182094846|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.605||||0.287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.681|3.971||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||3.971|0.681|0.287
91097470|NCT04950686|182079977|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.009
91097471|NCT04950686|182079977|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.008
91097472|NCT04950686|182079978|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.132|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.132
90849428|NCT02054481|181565192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|21.2||||0.0072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|36.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for weight (=\<100kg vs \>100kg) \& prior exposure to 2 or more tumour necrosis factor antagonists with discontinuation due to lack of efficacy|Difference calculated as BI 90+180 mg minus Stelara|||36.6|5.7|0.0072
90849429|NCT02054481|181565193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.1844|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.4|||Log Rank|||||0.4|0.1|<0.0001
90849430|NCT01012219|181565194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.56||||||||1.56|0.96|
90849431|NCT00528970|181565238|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.944||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Log Rank|||Analysis was performed using log-rank test stratified by surgery type and region for comparisons of survival distributions for active MOA versus Placebo group.||||0.944
90849432|NCT00528970|181565238|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.1||||0.208||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Log Rank|||Analysis was performed using log-rank test stratified by surgery type and region for comparisons of survival distributions for active MOA versus Placebo group.||||0.208
90849433|NCT02882152|181565242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||"Results were compared by means of the ANOVA of repeated measures followed by Bonferroni test.~Comparing: all four moments, from zero to 72hs within femoral blockade group, all four moments within morphine group, and all four moments between the groups"||||<0.05
90899716|NCT01975220|181665225|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|96.65|STANDARD_DEVIATION|29.8||0.0198|TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.337|112.079|||ANOVA||The adjusted geometric mean ratio (%) was calculated as the geometric mean of 'High dose, fasted: 1 FDC tablet' divided by the geometric mean of 'High dose, fasted: 3 single tablets'. The 'standard deviation' is actually the intra-individual gCV (%).|||112.079|83.337|0.0198
91097473|NCT04950686|182079978|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.008
91097474|NCT04950686|182079979|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.941|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.941
90849434|NCT02882152|181565243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||"Results were compared by means of the ANOVA of repeated measures followed by Bonferroni test.~Comparing: all four moments, from zero to 72hs within femoral blockade group, all four moments within morphine group, and all four moments between the groups"||||<0.05
90849435|NCT00791973|181565254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.33
90849436|NCT00791973|181565255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.14
90899717|NCT01975220|181665225|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|110.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.0||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.809|116.926|||ANOVA||"The adjusted geometric mean ratio (%) was calculated as the geometric mean of 'High dose, fed: 1 FDC tablet' divided by the geometric mean of 'High dose, fed: 3 single tablets'.~The 'standard deviation' is actually the intra-individual gCV (%)."|||116.926|103.809|0.0007
90849437|NCT00797966|181565259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53||||0.6551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.87|1.81|||ANCOVA|||The planned sample size of 120 participants per arm will yield 80% power to detect the treatment effects at a 2-tailed significance level of 0.025. The 0.025 significance level corresponds to the second level of Hochberg's procedure for handling the two primary efficacy comparisons.||1.81|-2.87|0.6551
90849438|NCT00797966|181565259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37||||0.7037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.55|||ANCOVA|||The planned sample size of 120 participants per arm will yield 80% power to detect the treatment effects at a 2-tailed significance level of 0.025. The 0.025 significance level corresponds to the second level of Hochberg's procedure for handling the two primary efficacy comparisons.||1.55|-2.30|0.7037
90899718|NCT01975220|181665225|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|97.68|STANDARD_DEVIATION|23.8||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.942|109.734|||ANOVA||"The adjusted geometric mean ratio (%) was calculated as the geometric mean of 'Low dose, fasted: 2 FDC tablets' divided by the geometric mean of 'Low dose, fasted: 4 single tablets'.~The 'standard deviation' is actually the intra-individual gCV (%)."|||109.734|86.942|0.0037
91030699|NCT02809183|181945735|OTHER|Two-group test||||||0.0003||||||The null hypothesis is that the difference between treatment groups (6g TRC101 QD - Pooled Placebo) in the proportion of subjects whose serum bicarbonate increased from baseline to Day 15 by =\> 3 mEq/L = 0.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.0003
91097475|NCT04950686|182079979|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.569|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.569
91097476|NCT04950686|182079980|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.354|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.354
91097477|NCT04950686|182079980|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.038|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.038
91097478|NCT04950686|182079981|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.501|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.501
91097479|NCT04950686|182079981|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.385|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.385
91097480|NCT04950686|182079982|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.095|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.095
91097481|NCT04950686|182079982|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.349|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.349
91097482|NCT04950686|182079983|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.846|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.846
91097483|NCT04950686|182079983|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.103|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.103
91097484|NCT04950686|182079984|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.864|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.864
91097485|NCT04950686|182079984|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.054|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.054
91097486|NCT04950686|182079985|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.168|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.168
90849439|NCT00797966|181565259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.14||||0.0303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.08|-0.21|||ANCOVA|||The planned sample size of 120 participants per arm will yield 80% power to detect the treatment effects at a 2-tailed significance level of 0.025. The 0.025 significance level corresponds to the second level of Hochberg's procedure for handling the two primary efficacy comparisons.||-0.21|-4.08|0.0303
91097487|NCT04950686|182079985|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.063|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.063
90849440|NCT00797966|181565260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.4166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.18|||ANCOVA||Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: OPC-34712 - placebo|||0.18|-0.43|0.4166
90849441|NCT00797966|181565260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.4193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.15|||ANCOVA||Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: OPC-34712 - placebo.|||0.15|-0.35|0.4193
90849442|NCT00797966|181565260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.1|||ANCOVA||Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: OPC-34712 - placebo.|||-0.10|-0.60|0.0064
91097488|NCT04950686|182079986|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.819|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.819
91097489|NCT04950686|182079986|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.775|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.775
91097490|NCT04950686|182079987|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.034|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.034
91097491|NCT04950686|182079987|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.579|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.579
91097492|NCT04950686|182079988|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.485|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.485
91097493|NCT04950686|182079988|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.911|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.911
91097494|NCT04950686|182079989|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.583|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.583
91097495|NCT04950686|182079989|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.971|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.971
91097496|NCT04950686|182079990|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.602|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.602
91097497|NCT04950686|182079990|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.948|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.948
91097498|NCT04950686|182079991|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.763|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.763
91097499|NCT04950686|182079991|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.578|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.578
90849443|NCT00797966|181565261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.68||||0.449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.67|6.02|||ANCOVA||Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: OPC-34712 - placebo.|||6.02|-2.67|0.4490
90899719|NCT01975220|181665226|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|95.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|29.4||0.0254|TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.42|110.44|||ANOVA||The adjusted geometric mean ratio (%) was calculated as the geometric mean of 'High dose, fasted: 1 FDC tablet' divided by the geometric mean of 'High dose, fasted: 3 single tablets'. The 'standard deviation' is actually the intra-individual gCV (%).|||110.44|82.42|0.0254
91097500|NCT04950686|182079992|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.863|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.863
90849444|NCT00797966|181565261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.61||||0.7412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.02|4.24|||ANCOVA||Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: OPC-34712 - placebo.|||4.24|-3.02|0.7412
90849445|NCT00797966|181565261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.54||||0.407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|5.17|||ANCOVA||Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: OPC-34712 - placebo.|||5.17|-2.10|0.4070
91097501|NCT04950686|182079992|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.538|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.538
91097502|NCT04950686|182079993|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.41||0.662|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.662
91097503|NCT04950686|182079993|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.81||0.406|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.406
90849446|NCT00797966|181565262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22||||0.4954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.42|||ANCOVA||Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: OPC-34712 - placebo.|||0.42|-0.86|0.4954
90849447|NCT00797966|181565262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.4902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.35|||ANCOVA||Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: OPC-34712 - placebo.|||0.35|-0.73|0.4902
91097504|NCT04950686|182079994|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.64||0.105|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.105
91097505|NCT04950686|182079994|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91||0.487|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.487
91097506|NCT04950686|182079995|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.68||0.171|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.171
91097507|NCT04950686|182079995|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.278|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.278
91097508|NCT04950686|182079996|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.283|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.283
91097509|NCT04950686|182079996|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.824|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.824
90849448|NCT00797966|181565262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66||||0.0161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.12|||ANCOVA||Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: OPC-34712 - placebo.|||-0.12|-1.20|0.0161
90849449|NCT00797966|181565268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.54||||0.5953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|1.46|||ANCOVA||Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: OPC-34712 - placebo.|||1.46|-2.54|0.5953
90849450|NCT00797966|181565268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.9479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|1.55|||ANCOVA||Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: OPC-34712 - placebo.|||1.55|-1.66|0.9479
90849451|NCT00797966|181565268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.36||||0.0919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.95|0.22|||ANCOVA||Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: OPC-34712 - placebo.|||0.22|-2.95|0.0919
90849452|NCT00797966|181565269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3998||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean scores differ test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 9 values presented here.||||0.3998
90849453|NCT00797966|181565269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8838||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean scores differ test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 9 values presented here.||||0.8838
90849454|NCT00797966|181565269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4012||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean scores differ test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 9 values presented here.||||0.4012
90849455|NCT00797966|181565269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6131||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean scores differ test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 10 values presented here.||||0.6131
90849456|NCT00797966|181565269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5964||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean scores differ test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 10 values presented here.||||0.5964
90849457|NCT00797966|181565269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.254||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean scores differ test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 10 values presented here.||||0.2540
90849458|NCT00797966|181565269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8524||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean scores differ test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 11 values presented here.||||0.8524
90849459|NCT00797966|181565269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6969||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean scores differ test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 11 values presented here.||||0.6969
90849460|NCT00797966|181565269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3108||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean scores differ test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 11 values presented here.||||0.3108
90849461|NCT00797966|181565269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8719||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean scores differ test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12 values presented here.||||0.8719
91097510|NCT04950686|182079997|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.965|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.965
91097511|NCT04950686|182079997|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.902|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.902
91097512|NCT04950686|182079998|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.074|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.074
90849462|NCT00797966|181565269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6105||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean scores differ test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12 values presented here.||||0.6105
91097513|NCT04950686|182079998|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.828|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.828
90849463|NCT00797966|181565269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0709||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean scores differ test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12 values presented here.||||0.0709
90849464|NCT00797966|181565269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9574||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean scores differ test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 13 values presented here.||||0.9574
90849465|NCT00797966|181565269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.231||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean scores differ test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 13 values presented here.||||0.2310
90849466|NCT00797966|181565269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0672||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean scores differ test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 13 values presented here.||||0.0672
90849467|NCT00797966|181565269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8441||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean scores differ test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 14 values presented here.||||0.8441
90849468|NCT00797966|181565269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6741||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean scores differ test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 14 values presented here.||||0.6741
90849469|NCT00797966|181565269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0183||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean scores differ test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 14 values presented here.||||0.0183
90849470|NCT00797966|181565270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|0.49||||0.3007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|1.93||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 9 values presented here.||1.93|0.12|0.3007
90849471|NCT00797966|181565270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|0.94||||0.8812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|2.1||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 9 values presented here.||2.10|0.42|0.8812
90849472|NCT00797966|181565270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|0.32||||0.0553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.07||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 9 values presented here.||1.07|0.10|0.0553
90849473|NCT00797966|181565270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|0.78||||0.6051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.05||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 10 values presented here.||2.05|0.30|0.6051
90849474|NCT00797966|181565270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|0.92||||0.8264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.85||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 10 values presented here.||1.85|0.46|0.8264
91097514|NCT04950686|182079999|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.336|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.336
90849475|NCT00797966|181565270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.06||||0.869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|2.1||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 10 values presented here.||2.10|0.54|0.8690
90849476|NCT00797966|181565270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.35||||0.3441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|2.44||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 11 values presented here.||2.44|0.74|0.3441
90849477|NCT00797966|181565270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.14||||0.6375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.94||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 11 values presented here.||1.94|0.67|0.6375
90849478|NCT00797966|181565270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.31||||0.3135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.21||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 11 values presented here.||2.21|0.78|0.3135
90849479|NCT00797966|181565270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|2.35||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|4.18||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12 values presented here.||4.18|1.32|0.0035
90849480|NCT00797966|181565270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.27||||0.4358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.31||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12 values presented here.||2.31|0.70|0.4358
90849481|NCT00797966|181565270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|2.02||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|3.41||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12 values presented here.||3.41|1.20|0.0063
90849482|NCT00797966|181565270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.27||||0.3968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.23||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 13 values presented here.||2.23|0.72|0.3968
90849483|NCT00797966|181565270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.27||||0.299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.0||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 13 values presented here.||2.00|0.81|0.2990
90849484|NCT00797966|181565270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.39||||0.1614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|2.25||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 13 values presented here.||2.25|0.86|0.1614
91104292|NCT04003142|182094846|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.108||||0.08||95.0|0.936|5.076||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||5.076|0.936|0.080
90849485|NCT00797966|181565270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.29||||0.3254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.12||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 14 values presented here.||2.12|0.79|0.3254
91030700|NCT02809183|181945735|OTHER|Two-group test||||||0.0003||||||The null hypothesis is that the difference between treatment groups (6g TRC101 QD - Pooled Placebo) in the proportion of subjects whose serum bicarbonate increased from baseline to Day 15 by =\> 4 mEq/L = 0.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.0003
91030701|NCT02933866|181945736|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2961|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2961
91097515|NCT04950686|182079999|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.902|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.902
91097516|NCT04950686|182080000|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.629|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.629
91097517|NCT04950686|182080000|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.318|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.318
90849486|NCT00797966|181565270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.02||||0.9463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.62||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 14 values presented here.||1.62|0.64|0.9463
90849487|NCT00797966|181565270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.74||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|2.65||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 14 values presented here.||2.65|1.14|0.0080
90849488|NCT00797966|181565271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Remission Rate|0.59||||0.5791|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|3.9||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 9 values presented here.||3.90|0.09|0.5791
90849489|NCT00797966|181565271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Remission Rate|0.43||||0.2653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.93||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 9 values presented here.||1.93|0.10|0.2653
90849490|NCT00797966|181565271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Remission Rate|0.39||||0.2259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|1.87||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 9 values presented here.||1.87|0.08|0.2259
91097518|NCT04950686|182080001|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.863|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.863
90849491|NCT00797966|181565271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Remission Rate|0.83||||0.6986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|2.18||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 10 values presented here.||2.18|0.32|0.6986
90849492|NCT00797966|181565271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Remission Rate|0.61||||0.2339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.35||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 10 values presented here.||1.35|0.28|0.2339
90849493|NCT00797966|181565271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Remission Rate|1.07||||0.8615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|2.15||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 10 values presented here.||2.15|0.53|0.8615
90849494|NCT00797966|181565271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Remission Rate|1.06||||0.8807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|2.2||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 11 values presented here.||2.20|0.51|0.8807
90849495|NCT00797966|181565271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Remission Rate|0.96||||0.9035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.77||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 11 values presented here.||1.77|0.52|0.9035
90899720|NCT01975220|181665226|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|99.63|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.21|103.17|||ANOVA||"The adjusted geometric mean ratio (%) was calculated as the geometric mean of 'High dose, fed: 1 FDC tablet' divided by the geometric mean of 'High dose, fed: 3 single tablets'.~The 'standard deviation' is actually the intra-individual gCV (%)."|||103.17|96.21|<0.0001
91030702|NCT00918567|181945737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Also tested marginal effects defined as p \< .10.|Mixed Models Analysis|Tukey-Kramer adjustments for post-hoc differences of least squares comparisons||||||<.05
91030703|NCT00918567|181945738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Also examined marginal effects, defined as p\<.10|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.05
91030704|NCT00918567|181945739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Also tested marginal effects defined as p\<.10|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.05
91097519|NCT04950686|182080001|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.299|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.299
91104293|NCT04003142|182094846|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.599||||0.247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|3.636||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||3.636|0.730|0.247
91104294|NCT04003142|182094846|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.481||||0.017||95.0|1.201|5.441||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||5.441|1.201|0.017
91030705|NCT00918567|181945740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Also estimated marginal effects defined as p\<.10|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.05
91030706|NCT00918567|181945741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||also tested marginal effects defined as p\<.10|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.05
91030707|NCT00918567|181945742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Also tested marginal effects defined as p\<.10|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>.05
91097520|NCT04950686|182080002|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.010
90899721|NCT01975220|181665226|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|101.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|24.4||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.7|113.86|||ANOVA||"The adjusted geometric mean ratio (%) was calculated as the geometric mean of 'Low dose, fasted: 2 FDC tablets' divided by the geometric mean of 'Low dose, fasted: 4 single tablets'.~The 'standard deviation' is actually the intra-individual gCV (%)."|||113.86|89.70|0.0029
90899722|NCT03245255|181665287|OTHER|Correlation analysis|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|-0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.1|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90899723|NCT01008475|181665290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.64||||||||1.64|0.78|
90899724|NCT01008475|181665290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.61||||||||1.61|0.77|
90899725|NCT01008475|181665291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.28||||||||1.28|0.54|
90899726|NCT01008475|181665291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.25||||||||1.25|0.52|
91030708|NCT00918567|181945743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Also tested marginal effects (p\<.10)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.05
91097521|NCT04950686|182080002|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.119|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.119
91097522|NCT04950686|182080003|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.161|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.161
90899727|NCT01008475|181665292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.65||||||||1.65|0.75|
90899728|NCT01008475|181665292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.65||||||||1.65|0.75|
90899729|NCT01008475|181665294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.34||||||||1.34|0.67|
90899730|NCT01008475|181665294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.48||||||||1.48|0.74|
90899731|NCT01301274|181665295|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|beta error 20%, alfa error 5%, diminished 2 mEq/L between groups||||||0.04||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04
90899732|NCT01301274|181665296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.081||95.0||||without adjust|Chi-squared|||||||0.081
90899733|NCT01301274|181665297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.396||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.396
90899734|NCT01301274|181665298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.129||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.129
91030709|NCT00918567|181945744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Also tested marginal effects (p\<.10)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
90899735|NCT02444988|181665420|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.99|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.99|0.77|<0.05
90899736|NCT02444988|181665421|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.97|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.97|0.73|<0.05
90899737|NCT02105636|181665429|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.92||Log-rank Test stratified by prior treatment with cetuximab (yes, no) as entered into the Interactive Voice Response System (IVRS). For OS the boundary for statistical significance requires the p-value to be less than 0.0227.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio (HR) and the corresponding Confidence Interval (CI) were estimated in a stratified Cox proportional hazards model for distribution of OS in each randomized arm.|Stratified Cox proportional hazard model. HR = Nivolumab over investigator's choice therapy (Cetuximab, Methotrexate, or Docetaxel)||0.92|0.53|0.0101
91030710|NCT00918567|181945745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Also tested marginal effects (p\<.10)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.05
91030711|NCT00918567|181945746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Also tested marginal effect (p\<.10)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.05
91030712|NCT00918567|181945747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Also tested marginal effects (p\<.10)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.05
91030713|NCT01988922|181945752|OTHER|Differences between CYP2B6\*1/\*1, CYP2B6\*1/\*6, and CYP2B6\*6/\*6 genotypes for pharmacokinetic parameters were analyzed using one-way ANOVA followed by the Student-Newman-Keuls test for multiple comparisons (Sigmaplot 12.5; Systat Software, Inc, USA). Nonnormal data were log transformed for analysis but reported as the nontransformed results.|||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|One-way ANOVA followed by the Student-Newman-Keuls test for multiple comparisons||||||<0.05
91030714|NCT01600495|181945759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.01
91030715|NCT01600495|181945760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.25
91097523|NCT04950686|182080003|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.087|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.087
91030716|NCT01600495|181945762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test||||<0.01
91032762|NCT01706536|181950663|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean (SE)|0.1284|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04089||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0479|0.2089||In order to control for Type I error rate, a gate keeping methodology was used|Least squares mean (SE)|||A sample size of 45 subjects per treatment arm provides approximately 80% power to detect a 0.12 L treatment difference in mean change in trough FEV1 between an active arm and the placebo arm at a significance level of 0.05 using a 2-group t-test and assumes a standard deviation for change in trough FEV1 of 200. Assuming a 20% discontinuation rate, approximately 55 subjects were enrolled into each treatment arm.||0.2089|0.0479|0.0019
91032763|NCT01706536|181950663|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean (SE)|0.1462|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04037||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0667|0.2257||in order to control for Type 1 error rate, a gate keeping methodology was used|Least squares mean (SE)|||A sample size of 45 subjects per treatment arm provides approximately 80% power to detect a 0.12 L treatment difference in mean change in trough FEV1 between an active arm and the placebo arm at a significance level of 0.05 using a 2-group t-test and assumes a standard deviation for change in trough FEV1 of 200. Assuming a 20% discontinuation rate, approximately 55 subjects were enrolled into each treatment arm.||0.2257|0.0667|0.0004
91032764|NCT01706536|181950663|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean (SE)|0.177|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03953|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0992|0.2548||in order to control for type I error rate, a gate keeping methodology was used|Least squares mean (SE)|||A sample size of 45 subjects per treatment arm provides approximately 80% power to detect a 0.12 L treatment difference in mean change in trough FEV1 between an active arm and the placebo arm at a significance level of 0.05 using a 2-group t-test and assumes a standard deviation for change in trough FEV1 of 200. Assuming a 20% discontinuation rate, approximately 55 subjects were enrolled into each treatment arm.||0.2548|0.0992|<0.0001
91032765|NCT04753437|181950673|EQUIVALENCE|Results were based on analysis of variance model with treatment as a fixed effect.|Geometric Least Squares (LS) Mean Ratio|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|1.81||||||||1.81|0.94|
91032766|NCT04753437|181950674|EQUIVALENCE|Results were based on analysis of variance model with treatment as a fixed effect.|Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.82|1.4||||||||1.40|0.82|
91032767|NCT03567174|181950712|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.306||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.697|0.085|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.085|-0.697|0.125
91032768|NCT03497897|181950758|OTHER|The effects included in the model are: log transformed baseline inflammatory facial lesion count, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit interaction, log transformed baseline inflammatory facial lesion count by visit interaction and type of center.|Posterior geometric mean ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.64|1.34|||Bayesian analysis|Bayesian mixed effect model with repeated measures|90% credible intervals are reported on the geometric means ratio|||1.34|0.64|
91032769|NCT03497897|181950758|OTHER|The effects included in the model are: log transformed baseline inflammatory facial lesion count, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit interaction, log transformed baseline inflammatory facial lesion count by visit interaction and type of center.|P(Geometric Mean Ratio<1)|0.637|||||||||||Bayesian analysis|Bayesian mixed effect model with repeated measures|Posterior probability on geometric mean ratio is reported.|||||
91032770|NCT03497897|181950758|OTHER|The effects included in the model are: log transformed baseline inflammatory facial lesion count, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit interaction, log transformed baseline inflammatory facial lesion count by visit interaction and type of center.|P(Geometric Mean Ratio<0.75)|0.171|||||||||||Bayesian analysis|Bayesian mixed effect model with repeated measures|Posterior probability on geometric mean ratio is reported.|||||
91097524|NCT04950686|182080004|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.81|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.810
91097525|NCT04950686|182080004|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.901|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.901
91097526|NCT04950686|182080005|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.145|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.145
90849496|NCT00797966|181565271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Remission Rate|1.19||||0.5898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|2.24|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 11 values presented here.||2.24|0.64|0.5898
91032771|NCT00723528|181950759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Fisher's exact test (using Holm's method)|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
91032772|NCT00723528|181950760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||2-sample t-test (using Holm's method)|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91032773|NCT00723528|181950770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Fisher's exact test (using Holm's method)|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
91032774|NCT02627924|181950772|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|The mean change was tested with a paired t-test without adjusting for baseline disease severity.||||||<0.0001
91032775|NCT02627924|181950773|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|The mean change was tested with a paired t-test without adjusting for baseline disease severity.||||||<0.0001
91032776|NCT02627924|181950775|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Change From Baseline in Physical Component Score at Week 12||||<0.0001
91032777|NCT02627924|181950775|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Change From Baseline in Physical Component Score at Week 24||||<0.0001
91032778|NCT02627924|181950775|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Change From Baseline in Mental Component Score at Week 12||||0.0001
91032779|NCT02627924|181950775|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Change From Baseline in Mental Component Score at Week 24||||<0.0001
91032780|NCT02627924|181950776|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Change from Baseline in EQ-5D-3L at 12 weeks||||<0.0001
91032781|NCT02627924|181950776|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Change from Baseline in EQ-5D-3L at 24 weeks||||<0.0001
91032782|NCT02627924|181950777|OTHER|||||||0.0098|||||||Paired t-test|||Change From Baseline in Overall Work Impairment at Week 12||||0.0098
90899738|NCT02105636|181665430|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.1|||||Number of responders (CR +PR) over number of participants|||1.10|0.68|
90899739|NCT02105636|181665431|SUPERIORITY||Difference in ORR|7.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|13.6|||||Stratum adjusted difference in response rates (Nivolumab - Investigators Choice) based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method of weighting.|||13.6|1.5|
90899740|NCT02105636|181665431|SUPERIORITY||CMH Estimate of Common Odds Ratio|2.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|5.82|||||Stratified by Prior Cetuximab (yes, no) as recorded in the IVRS. Stratum adjusted odds ratio (Nivolumab - Investigators Choice) using Mantel-Haenszel Method.|||5.82|1.07|
90899741|NCT02105636|181665432|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.85|||||Stratified Cox proportional hazards model. Hazard ratio of nivolumab to investigator's choice therapy.|||0.85|0.54|
90957519|NCT02483585|181795198|SUPERIORITY|A sequential testing procedure, specifically, the hierarchical gate-keeping procedures and Hochberg method, was used to maintain the 2-sided study-wise type I error at 0.05 between the primary and efficacy secondary endpoints.|LS Mean Difference|-1.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|-0.47|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||The primary endpoint was analyzed using a linear mixed effects model including treatment group, baseline value, stratification factors (region and prior/current treatment with migraine prophylactic medication), scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.||-0.47|-1.61|< 0.001
90957520|NCT02483585|181795199|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.59||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|2.27|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analyzed using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test after the missing data were imputed as nonresponse, stratified by stratification factors (region and prior/current treatment with migraine prophylactic medication).||2.27|1.12|0.010
90957521|NCT02483585|181795200|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.59||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.21|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||Analyzed using a linear mixed effects model including treatment group, baseline value, stratification factors (region and prior/current treatment with migraine prophylactic medication), scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.||-0.21|-0.96|0.002
91097527|NCT04950686|182080005|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.096|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.096
91097528|NCT04950686|182080006|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.272|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.272
91097529|NCT04950686|182080006|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.689|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.689
90899742|NCT01993017|181665446|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98||||||A 2-step gatekeeping test procedure was used. An omnibus F test using ANOVA comparing the 3 groups was first performed. Pairwise comparisons using a 2-sided t test at 5% nominal significance were planned only if the omnibus F test had a P value \<.05.|ANOVA|||We determined that a sample size per group of 500, assuming 5% loss to follow-up, would yield 80% power for a 2-sided t test at the 5% level. These calculations were based on an assumed SD for QALYs of 0.17, expected prevalence of screening-detected depression of 20%, and assumed net improvement in QALYs of 0.155 over 18 months for individuals with depression who received treatment for depression in the Screen, Notify, and Treat group.||||0.98
90899743|NCT03469349|181665471|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|29.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.083||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.35|49.02|||MMRM|||Least squares means, p-values were obtained using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance with treatment, center, sex, age group, smoking status, diabetic status, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||49.02|9.35|0.0041
90957522|NCT02483585|181795201|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.71|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analyzed using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test after the missing data were imputed as nonresponse, stratified by stratification factors (region and prior/current treatment with migraine prophylactic medication).||1.71|0.87|0.26
91097530|NCT04950686|182080007|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.824|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.824
90899744|NCT03469349|181665472|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|15.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.814||0.0431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|31.24|||MMRM|||Week 2: Least squares means, p-values were obtained using a MMRM analysis of covariance with treatment, center, sex, age group, smoking status, diabetic status, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||31.24|0.49|0.0431
90957523|NCT02483585|181795202|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analyzed using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test after the missing data were imputed as nonresponse, stratified by stratification factors (region and prior/current treatment with migraine prophylactic medication).||1.90|0.92|0.13
90957524|NCT00825916|181795213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.078||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (rank sum)|For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.||||||0.078
90957525|NCT00825916|181795213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.086||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (rank sum)|For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.||||||0.086
90957526|NCT00825916|181795213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (rank sum)|For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.||||||0.92
90957527|NCT00825916|181795213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (rank sum)|For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.||||||0.49
90957528|NCT00825916|181795214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (rank sum)|For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.||||||0.74
90957529|NCT00825916|181795214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (rank sum)|For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.||||||0.59
91097531|NCT04950686|182080007|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.271|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.271
90849497|NCT00797966|181565271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Remission Rate|1.82||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|3.58||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12 values presented here.||3.58|0.93|0.0840
90849498|NCT00797966|181565271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Remission Rate|0.96||||0.9115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.88||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12 values presented here.||1.88|0.49|0.9115
90849499|NCT00797966|181565271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Remission Rate|1.77||||0.0522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|3.17||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12 values presented here.||3.17|0.98|0.0522
90849500|NCT00797966|181565271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Remission Rate|1.24||||0.4997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|2.34||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 13 values presented here.||2.34|0.65|0.4997
90849501|NCT00797966|181565271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Remission Rate|1.16||||0.5846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.93||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 13 values presented here.||1.93|0.69|0.5846
90849502|NCT00797966|181565271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Remission Rate|0.99||||0.9602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.76||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 13 values presented here.||1.76|0.55|0.9602
90849503|NCT00797966|181565271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Remission Rate|1.62||||0.1254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|3.02||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 14 values presented here.||3.02|0.87|0.1254
90849504|NCT00797966|181565271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Remission Rate|1.13||||0.667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.99||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 14 values presented here.||1.99|0.65|0.6670
90849505|NCT00797966|181565271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Remission Rate|1.7||||0.0525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|2.93||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 14 values presented here.||2.93|0.98|0.0525
90849506|NCT00797966|181565272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|0.98||||0.9462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.84||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 9 values presented here.||1.84|0.52|0.9462
90849507|NCT00797966|181565272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|0.8||||0.4971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.49||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 9 values presented here.||1.49|0.43|0.4971
90849508|NCT00797966|181565272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|0.93||||0.8118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.63||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 9 values presented here.||1.63|0.53|0.8118
90849509|NCT00797966|181565272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|0.95||||0.8323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.53||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 10 values presented here.||1.53|0.59|0.8323
90849510|NCT00797966|181565272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|0.68||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.08||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 10 values presented here.||1.08|0.43|0.0930
90849511|NCT00797966|181565272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|0.88||||0.553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.32||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 10 values presented here.||1.32|0.59|0.5530
90899745|NCT03469349|181665472|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|35.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.48||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.96|60.05|||MMRM|||Week 24: Least squares means, p-values were obtained using a MMRM analysis of covariance with treatment, center, sex, age group, smoking status, diabetic status, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||60.05|10.96|0.0047
90899746|NCT03469349|181665473|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0227|||||||MMRM|||Week 2: p-values were obtained using a MMRM analysis of covariance with treatment, center, sex, age group, smoking status, diabetic status, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||||0.0227
90899747|NCT03469349|181665473|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0007|||||||MMRM|||Week 12: p-values were obtained using a MMRM analysis of covariance with treatment, center, sex, age group, smoking status, diabetic status, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||||0.0007
90899748|NCT03469349|181665473|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0023|||||||MMRM|||Week 24: p-values were obtained using a MMRM analysis of covariance with treatment, center, sex, age group, smoking status, diabetic status, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||||0.0023
90957530|NCT00825916|181795214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (rank sum)|For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.||||||0.69
90957531|NCT00825916|181795214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (rank sum)|For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.||||||1.00
90849512|NCT00797966|181565272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.06||||0.8007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.61||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 11 values presented here.||1.61|0.69|0.8007
90849513|NCT00797966|181565272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.03||||0.8945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.49||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 11 values presented here.||1.49|0.71|0.8945
90899749|NCT03469349|181665474|NON_INFERIORITY|As the sample size was too small, clinically significant difference in actovegin and placebo could not be defined, the non-inferiority margin was defined as priori based on clinical reasoning.||||||0.9592||||||p-values were obtained using logistic regression adjusting for treatment.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||||0.9592
90957532|NCT00825916|181795215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (rank sum)|For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.||||||0.34
91030717|NCT02252562|181945773|EQUIVALENCE|We hypothesized a potential 66% reduction from a baseline incidence of 0.16 on the basis of prior interventions, but we assumed for power considerations a more conservative reduction of 40% from a baseline incidence of 0.12 averaged across all patients in each arm. Assuming a 10% loss to follow-up, we required 1,600 patients per group for a power of 0.9 with a type 1 error of .05.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.4|||fixed effects univariable analysis|||||1.40|0.82|
91030718|NCT00771537|181945779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.96|||Regression, Logistic||Women in the 1-sided message group accepted testing at a lower rate (79.4%) than those in the control group (87.4%).|||.96|.50|0.05
91030719|NCT00771537|181945779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.04|||Regression, Logistic||Women in the 2-sided trivial group were no different in their acceptance rate of HIV testing (81.3%) than women in the control group (87.4%).|||1.04|.54|.10
91030720|NCT00771537|181945779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.176||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.3|||Regression, Logistic||Women in the 2-sided major group were no different in rates of accepting HIV testing (83.9%) than women in the control group (87.4%)|||1.30|.65|.63
91030721|NCT00771537|181945780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Marginal Means|2.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.42|2.56|||ANOVA|Degrees of freedom = (1,978)|There was no significant effect for the 1-sided message compared to the control group on Willingness to Participate in an HIV vaccine clinical trial.|One-way Analysis of Variance||2.56|2.42|<.60
90849514|NCT00797966|181565272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.17||||0.3837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.64||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 11 values presented here.||1.64|0.83|0.3837
90849515|NCT00797966|181565272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.09||||0.7064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.63||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12 values presented here.||1.63|0.72|0.7064
90849516|NCT00797966|181565272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.06||||0.7469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.52||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12 values presented here.||1.52|0.74|0.7469
90849517|NCT00797966|181565272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.34||||0.0832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.86||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12 values presented here.||1.86|0.97|0.0832
90849518|NCT00797966|181565272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.09||||0.6611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.61||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 13 values presented here.||1.61|0.74|0.6611
90849519|NCT00797966|181565272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.13||||0.4435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.56||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 13 values presented here.||1.56|0.83|0.4435
90849520|NCT00797966|181565272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.47||||0.0118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.98||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 13 values presented here.||1.98|1.09|0.0118
91030722|NCT00771537|181945780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Marginal Means|2.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036|<|0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.44|2.58|||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = (1,1028)|There was no significant effect for the 2-sided trivial message compared to the control group on Willingness to Participate in an HIV vaccine clinical trial.|One-Way Analysis of Variance||2.58|2.44|<.25
90849521|NCT00797966|181565272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|0.89||||0.5111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.26||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||Week 14 values presented here.||1.26|0.63|0.5111
90849522|NCT00797966|181565272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|0.9||||0.4903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.22||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 14 values presented here.||1.22|0.66|0.4903
91030723|NCT00771537|181945780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Marginal Means|2.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036|<|0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|2.54|||ANOVA||There was no significant effect for the 2-sided major message compared to the control group on Willingness to Participate in an HIV vaccine clinical trial.|One-Way Analysis of Variance||2.54|2.40|<.91
91030724|NCT01345019|181945798|NON_INFERIORITY|A two-stage approach was used for the non-inferiority test. First, the fixed margin approach was used to ensure denosumab has an effect greater than placebo (ie, the non-inferiority margin M1, ie, the lower bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval 1.28, is ruled out). Next, a synthesis method was used for the non-inferiority test of the hypothesis that denosumab preserved at least 50% of the effect of zoledronic acid (HR \[95% CI\] of 1.48 \[1.28, 1.71\] for placebo vs zoledronic acid.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.14|||Cox proportional hazards model|Based on a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by the randomization stratification factors.|A hazard ratio (denosumab:zoledronic acid) \< 1 favors denosumab|||1.14|0.85|0.010
90957533|NCT00825916|181795215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (rank sum)|For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.||||||0.98
91030725|NCT01345019|181945801|SUPERIORITY|The statistical inferences of the treatment effect on secondary efficacy endpoints (time to the first on study SRE \[superiority\] and time to first and subsequent on study SRE \[superiority, multiple event analysis\]) were to be conducted if denosumab was determined to be non-inferior to zoledronic acid. To control the overall type I error for multiple comparisons at a significant level of 0.05, these secondary efficacy endpoints were tested simultaneously using the Hochberg procedure.||||||0.82|||||||Log Rank|Based on a log rank test stratified by randomization stratification factors.||||||0.82
91030726|NCT01345019|181945802|SUPERIORITY|The statistical inferences of the treatment effect on secondary efficacy endpoints (time to the first on study SRE \[superiority\] and time to first and subsequent on study SRE \[superiority, multiple event analysis\]) were to be conducted if denosumab was determined to be non-inferior to zoledronic acid. To control the overall type I error for multiple comparisons at a significant level of 0.05, these secondary efficacy endpoints were tested simultaneously using the Hochberg procedure.|Rate ratio|1.01||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.15|||Andersen-Gill model|Based on an Andersen-Gill model stratified by the randomization stratification factors.|A rate ratio (denosumab:zoledronic acid) \< 1 favors denosumab.|||1.15|0.89|0.84
91032783|NCT02627924|181950777|OTHER|||||||0.0015|||||||Paired t-test|||Change From Baseline in Overall Work Impairment at Week 24||||0.0015
91097532|NCT04950686|182080008|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.391|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.391
91097533|NCT04950686|182080008|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.952|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.952
91097534|NCT04950686|182080009|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.925|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.925
90849523|NCT00797966|181565272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.28||||0.0662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.67||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 14 values presented here.||1.67|0.98|0.0662
90849524|NCT01976988|181565366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.72
90849525|NCT01976988|181565367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.36
90849526|NCT01976988|181565368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.03
90899750|NCT03469349|181665474|NON_INFERIORITY|As the sample size was too small, clinically significant difference in actovegin and placebo could not be defined, the non-inferiority margin was defined as priori based on clinical reasoning.||||||0.5823||||||p-values were obtained using logistic regression adjusting for treatment.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 24||||0.5823
90849527|NCT01976988|181565369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
90849528|NCT01976988|181565370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.46
90849529|NCT01976988|181565371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.34
90849530|NCT01328444|181565372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|26.5||||0.321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.9|78.9||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least square mean change difference=UMEC 62.5 µg minus Placebo.|||78.9|-25.9|0.321
90899751|NCT03469349|181665475|NON_INFERIORITY|As the sample size was too small, clinically significant difference in actovegin and placebo could not be defined, the non-inferiority margin was defined as priori based on clinical reasoning.||||||0.9424||||||p-values were obtained using logistic regression adjusting for treatment.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.9424
91032784|NCT02627924|181950777|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Change From Baseline in Activity Impairment at Week 12||||<0.0001
90849531|NCT01328444|181565372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|13.1||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.9|65.1||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least square mean change difference=UMEC 125 µg minus Placebo.|||65.1|-38.9|0.620
90849532|NCT01328444|181565372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-10.0||||0.665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.5|35.4||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least square mean change difference=VI 25 µg minus Placebo.|||35.4|-55.5|0.665
90849533|NCT01328444|181565372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-4.6||||0.865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.6|48.4||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least square mean change difference=UMEC/VI 62.5/25 µg minus UMEC 62.5 µg.|||48.4|-57.6|0.865
90899752|NCT03469349|181665476|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3758|||||||MMRM|||Physical Health Score: Week 12; Least squares means, p-values were obtained using a MMRM analysis of covariance with treatment, center, sex, age group, smoking status, diabetic status, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||||0.3758
91097535|NCT04950686|182080009|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.153|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.153
91097536|NCT04950686|182080010|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.495|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.495
91097537|NCT04950686|182080010|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.229|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.229
91097538|NCT04950686|182080011|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.753|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.753
90849534|NCT01328444|181565372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|31.9||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|77.9||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least square mean change difference=UMEC/VI 62.5/25 µg minus VI 25 µg.|||77.9|-14.1|0.174
90849535|NCT01328444|181565372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|19.3||||0.472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.4|71.9||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least square mean change difference=UMEC/VI 125/25 µg minus UMEC 125 µg.|||71.9|-33.4|0.472
90957534|NCT00825916|181795215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (rank sum)|For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.||||||0.15
91032785|NCT02627924|181950777|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Change From Baseline in Activity Impairment at Week 24||||<0.0001
91030727|NCT01345019|181945804|SUPERIORITY|If superiority of denosumab over zoledronic acid was established for both time to first SRE and time to first and subsequent SRE, the additional secondary endpoint (overall survival) was to be tested at a significance level of 0.05.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.16|||Cox proportional hazards model||A hazard ratio (denosumab:zoledronic acid) \< 1 favors denosumab.|The survival function of time to death for each treatment group was estimated using Kaplan-Meier method and the hazard ratio of denosumab compared with zoledronic acid and its 2-sided 95% CI were estimated using a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by the randomization stratification factors and including treatment groups, age, race group, geographic region, baseline creatinine clearance, baseline risk per cytogenetic based prognosis, and baseline ECOG as independent variables.||1.16|0.70|0.41
91097539|NCT04950686|182080011|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.35|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.350
90849536|NCT01328444|181565372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|42.4||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|88.7||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least square mean change difference=UMEC/VI 125/25 µg minus VI 25 µg.|||88.7|-3.8|0.072
90849537|NCT01328444|181565372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|21.9||||0.234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.2|58.0||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least square mean change difference=UMEC/VI 62.5/25 µg minus Placebo.|||58.0|-14.2|0.234
90849538|NCT01328444|181565372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|32.4||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|68.8||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least square mean change difference=UMEC/VI 125/25 µg minus Placebo.|||68.8|-3.9|0.080
90849539|NCT01328444|181565373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.087||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.143||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least square mean change difference=UMEC 62.5 µg minus Placebo.|||0.143|0.030|0.003
90849540|NCT01328444|181565373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.084|0.196||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least square mean change difference=UMEC 125 µg minus Placebo.|||0.196|0.084|<0.001
90849541|NCT01328444|181565373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.099|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.148||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least square mean change difference=VI 25 µg minus Placebo.|||0.148|0.050|<0.001
90849542|NCT01328444|181565373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.124|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.067|0.181||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least square mean change difference=UMEC/VI 62.5/25 µg minus UMEC 62.5 µg.|||0.181|0.067|<0.001
90849543|NCT01328444|181565373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.111|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.062|0.161||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least square mean change difference=UMEC/VI 62.5/25 µg minus VI 25 µg.|||0.161|0.062|<0.001
90849544|NCT01328444|181565373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.029||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.028|0.086||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least square mean change difference=UMEC/VI 125/25 µg minus UMEC 125 µg.|||0.086|-0.028|0.320
90849545|NCT01328444|181565373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.07||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.019|0.12||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least square mean change difference=UMEC/VI 125/25 µg minus VI 25 µg.|||0.120|0.019|0.007
90849546|NCT01328444|181565373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.211|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.172|0.249||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least square mean change difference=UMEC/VI 62.5/25 µg minus Placebo.|||0.249|0.172|<0.001
90849547|NCT01328444|181565373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.169|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.129|0.209||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least square mean change difference=UMEC/VI 125/25 µg minus Placebo.|||0.209|0.129|<0.001
90849548|NCT03207438|181565378|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||Main effect of quetiapine vs. placebo||||<.001
90849549|NCT03207438|181565378|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.18|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||Interaction - treatment condition x melancholia||||.18
91097540|NCT04950686|182080012|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.541|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.541
90849550|NCT03207438|181565378|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for baseline depression severity, Study number (1-4), and melancholic-by-time interaction.||Main effect of quetiapine vs. placebo||||<.001
90849551|NCT03207438|181565378|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.14|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for baseline depression severity, Study number (1-4), and melancholic-by-time interaction.||Interaction - treatment condition by melancholia||||.14
90957535|NCT00825916|181795215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (rank sum)|For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.||||||0.83
90849552|NCT03207438|181565379|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||Main effect of quetiapine vs. placebo||||<.001
90849553|NCT03207438|181565379|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.17|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||Interaction - treatment condition x melancholia||||.17
90957536|NCT00825916|181795215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (rank sum)|For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.||||||0.95
91030728|NCT04099888|181945823|SUPERIORITY||||||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||||The HR was estimated using an unstratified cox-proportional hazards model using the Efron approach for handling ties (Efron 1977), together with the associated 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the HR based on the Wald method. The effect of treatment is summarized by the hazard ratio (HR) together with its corresponding 95% Wald CI for the mITT population. No p-value will be reported.|||
91030729|NCT04099888|181945824|SUPERIORITY||||||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||OS was analyzed using the modified intent-to-treat (mITT) analysis set, which included all randomized participants who received at least 1 dose of study treatment and had a RECIST assessment at baseline. Kaplan Meier Curve (KM) analysis of OS was completed for the mITT population, but the number of events was too small to draw any conclusions.|The HR was estimated using an unstratified cox-proportional hazards model using the Efron approach for handling ties (Efron 1977), together with the associated 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the HR based on the Wald method. The effect of treatment is summarized by the hazard ratio (HR) together with its corresponding 95% Wald CI for the mITT population. No p-value will be reported.|||
91097541|NCT04950686|182080012|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.887|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.887
91097542|NCT04950686|182080013|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.375|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.375
91097543|NCT04950686|182080013|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.293|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.293
90849554|NCT03207438|181565379|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for baseline depression severity, Study number (1-4), and melancholic-by-time interaction.||Main effect of quetiapine vs. placebo||||<.001
90849555|NCT03207438|181565379|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for baseline depression severity, Study number (1-4), and melancholic-by-time interaction.||Interaction - treatment condition by melancholia||||.13
90849556|NCT03207438|181565380|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||Fisher's exact test|||Day 4 - Fisher's exact test comparing the proportion of quetiapine responders in each sleep subgroup|An exact OR could not be estimated by R; the 95% confidence interval was 0.31 to infinity, p = .33.|||.33
90849557|NCT03207438|181565380|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.44|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher's exact test||The exact limits of 95% confidence interval could not be estimated, it was reported as 0.40 to infinity.|Week 1 - Fisher's exact test comparing the proportion of quetiapine responders in each sleep subgroup||||.44
90849558|NCT03207438|181565380|SUPERIORITY||Chi-squared|0.38||||0.73|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Week 2 - Chi-squared test comparing the proportion of quetiapine responders in each sleep subgroup||||.73
90849559|NCT03207438|181565380|SUPERIORITY||Chi-squared|1.5||||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Week 4 - Chi-squared test comparing the proportion of quetiapine responders in each sleep subgroup||||.11
90849560|NCT03207438|181565380|SUPERIORITY||Chi-squared|0.001||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected||The actual estimated Chi-squared statistic was 6.35(10\^-31)|Week 6 - Chi-squared test comparing the proportion of quetiapine responders in each sleep subgroup||||.50
90849561|NCT03207438|181565381|SUPERIORITY||Chi-squared|0.001||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected||Estimated chi-squared statistic was 1.88(10\^-29).|Day 4 - chi-squared test comparing response rates between groups.||||.5
90849562|NCT03207438|181565381|SUPERIORITY||Chi-squared|3.3||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Week 1 - chi-squared test comparing response rates between groups.||||.03
90849563|NCT03207438|181565381|SUPERIORITY||Chi-squared|3.87||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Week 2 - chi-squared test comparing response rates between groups.||||.02
91097544|NCT04950686|182080014|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-5.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.89||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.002
90849564|NCT03207438|181565381|SUPERIORITY||Chi-squared|0.62||||0.22|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Week 4 - chi-squared test comparing response rates between groups.||||.22
91097545|NCT04950686|182080014|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.21||0.163|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.163
91097546|NCT04950686|182080015|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-5.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.99||0.011|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.011
90849565|NCT03207438|181565381|SUPERIORITY||Chi-squared|2.45||||0.059|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Week 6 - chi-squared test comparing response rates between groups.||||.059
90849566|NCT03241368|181565382|OTHER|Comparative - This purpose of this study is to evaluate performance of the PillCam Crohn's capsule \[referred to as capsule endoscopy (CE)\] as compared to IC with MRE.||||||0.125|||||||McNemar|Exact McNemar's test||This was a 1-arm, non-powered study. Sensitivity, Specificity, Positive Predictive Value (PPV) and Negative Predictive Value (NPV) was estimated for each treatment group, along with the 95% confidence interval. The difference between treatment groups in Sensitivity and Specificity was compared.||||0.125
90957537|NCT00825916|181795215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (rank sum)|For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.||||||0.59
91030730|NCT04099888|181945825|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||BOR is summarized by randomized treatment group using the mITT analysis set.|The BOR is the best response recorded from the start of the treatment until disease progression or until the last evaluable assessment in the absence of progression. If a patient received subsequent anti-cancer therapy prior to progression, then BOR was calculated up to the point of starting the anti-cancer therapy.|||
91030731|NCT04099888|181945826|SUPERIORITY||||||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||||The ORR is calculated as the proportion of patients who have at least one visit response with a complete response (CR) or partial response (PR). Objective responses do not require confirmation in a randomized study. Data obtained up until progression, or last evaluable assessment in the absence of progression, will be included in the analysis of ORR. Data obtained up until progression or subsequent therapy, or last evaluable assessment in the absence of progression or subsequent therapy, will be included in the analysis of ORR.|||
91097547|NCT04950686|182080015|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.27||0.159|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.159
91097548|NCT04950686|182080016|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.06||0.064|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.064
90849567|NCT01270802|181565413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|2.37||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; P\<0.05 was considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||We assumed that the declines in FMD seen with TDF/FTC/EFV in our previous study would fully reverse. Thus, the clinically relevant effect size to be detected for FMD change was +3.12% (SD 4%) in those switching from EFV to RAL. Using a two-sample, independent, two-tailed t-test with 5% type I error and 20% type II error, a sample size of 13 per group would be needed to find a difference in FMD between groups. Allowing for a 10% dropout rate, we planned to recruit 15 subjects per group.||2.37|-0.75|0.67
90849568|NCT01270802|181565414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.52||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.04|9.77||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. P\<0.05 was considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||||9.77|-13.04|0.40
90849569|NCT04620798|181565428|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.07|||||"This analysis compares the probability of responding Very Often/Always vs. all other response categories. The reference group for this analysis was the control (delayed results) group."|This analysis includes only those participants with a negative antibody test result at baseline to test the association between the treatment condition (immediate vs. delayed test results) and behavioral outcomes. The reference group for this analysis was the control (delayed results) group.||1.07|0.96|
90849570|NCT04620798|181565428|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.44|||||"This analysis compares the probability of responding Very Often/Always vs. all other response categories. The reference group for this analysis was the control (delayed results) group."|This analysis uses only those participants with a positive antibody test result at baseline to test the association between the treatment condition (immediate vs. delayed test results) and behavioral outcomes. The reference group for this analysis was the control (delayed results) group.||1.44|0.77|
90849571|NCT04620798|181565429|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.1|||||"This analysis compares the probability of responding Very Often/Always vs. all other response categories. The reference group for this analysis was the control (delayed results) group."|This analysis includes only those participants with a negative antibody test result at baseline to test the association between the treatment condition (immediate vs. delayed test results) and behavioral outcomes. The reference group for this analysis was the control (delayed results) group.||1.10|0.89|
90849572|NCT04620798|181565429|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.62|||||"This analysis compares the probability of responding Very Often/Always vs. all other response categories. The reference group for this analysis was the control (delayed results) group."|This analysis uses only those participants with a positive antibody test result at baseline to test the association between the treatment condition (immediate vs. delayed test results) and behavioral outcomes. The reference group for this analysis was the control (delayed results) group.||1.62|0.50|
90849573|NCT04620798|181565430|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.06|||||"This analysis compares the probability of responding Very Often/Always vs. all other response categories. The reference group for this analysis was the control (delayed results) group."|This analysis includes only those participants with a negative antibody test result at baseline to test the association between the treatment condition (immediate vs. delayed test results) and behavioral outcomes. The reference group for this analysis was the control (delayed results) group.||1.06|0.96|
90849574|NCT04620798|181565430|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.31|||||"This analysis compares the probability of responding Very Often/Always vs. all other response categories. The reference group for this analysis was the control (delayed results) group."|This analysis uses only those participants with a positive antibody test result at baseline to test the association between the treatment condition (immediate vs. delayed test results) and behavioral outcomes. The reference group for this analysis was the control (delayed results) group.||1.31|0.74|
90849575|NCT04620798|181565431|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.09|||||"This analysis compares the probability of responding Very Often/Always vs. all other response categories. The reference group for this analysis was the control (delayed results) group."|This analysis includes only those participants with a negative antibody test result at baseline to test the association between the treatment condition (immediate vs. delayed test results) and behavioral outcomes. The reference group for this analysis was the control (delayed results) group.||1.09|0.84|
90899753|NCT03469349|181665476|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1412|||||||MMRM|||Physical Health Score: Week 24; Least squares means, p-values were obtained using a MMRM analysis of covariance with treatment, center, sex, age group, smoking status, diabetic status, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||||0.1412
90899754|NCT03469349|181665476|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1009|||||||MMRM|||Mental Health Score: Week 12; Least squares means, p-values were obtained using a MMRM analysis of covariance with treatment, center, sex, age group, smoking status, diabetic status, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||||0.1009
91077904|NCT02913105|182041137|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.88||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|0.93|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||HDL Cholesterol: Day 14||0.93|0.83|0.0001
91097549|NCT04950686|182080016|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.27||0.137|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.137
90849576|NCT04620798|181565431|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.72|||||"This analysis compares the probability of a response of Very Often/Always vs. all other response categories. The reference group for this analysis was the control (delayed results) group."|This analysis uses only those participants with a positive antibody test result at baseline to test the association between the treatment condition (immediate vs. delayed test results) and behavioral outcomes. The reference group for this analysis was the control (delayed results) group.||1.72|0.33|
90849577|NCT04620798|181565432|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.04|||||"This analysis compares the probability of responding Very Often/Always vs. all other response categories. The reference group for this analysis was the control (delayed results) group."|This analysis includes only those participants with a negative antibody test result at baseline to test the association between the treatment condition (immediate vs. delayed test results) and behavioral outcomes. The reference group for this analysis was the control (delayed results) group.||1.04|0.74|
90849578|NCT04620798|181565432|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.25|||||"This analysis compares the probability of a response of Very Often/Always vs. all other response categories. The reference group for this analysis was the control (delayed results) group."|This analysis uses only those participants with a positive antibody test result at baseline to test the association between the treatment condition (immediate vs. delayed test results) and behavioral outcomes. The reference group for this analysis was the control (delayed results) group.||3.25|0.60|
90849579|NCT04620798|181565433|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.03|||||"This analysis compares the probability of a response of Always vs. all other response categories. The reference group for this analysis was the control (delayed results) group."|This analysis includes only those participants with a negative antibody test result at baseline to test the association between the treatment condition (immediate vs. delayed test results) and behavioral outcomes. The reference group for this analysis was the control (delayed results) group.||1.03|0.99|
90849580|NCT04620798|181565433|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.21|||||"This analysis compares the probability of a response of Always vs. all other response categories. The reference group for this analysis was the control (delayed results) group."|This analysis uses only those participants with a positive antibody test result at baseline to test the association between the treatment condition (immediate vs. delayed test results) and behavioral outcomes. The reference group for this analysis was the control (delayed results) group.||1.21|0.77|
90849581|NCT04620798|181565434|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.06|||||"This analysis compares the probability of a response of Very Often/Always vs. all other response categories. The reference group for this analysis was the control (delayed results) group."|This analysis includes only those participants with a negative antibody test result at baseline to test the association between the treatment condition (immediate vs. delayed test results) and behavioral outcomes. The reference group for this analysis was the control (delayed results) group.||1.06|0.97|
90849582|NCT04620798|181565434|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.11|||||"This analysis compares the probability of a response of Very Often/Always vs. all other response categories. The reference group for this analysis was the control (delayed results) group."|This analysis uses only those participants with a positive antibody test result at baseline to test the association between the treatment condition (immediate vs. delayed test results) and behavioral outcomes. The reference group for this analysis was the control (delayed results) group.||1.11|0.60|
90849583|NCT04620798|181565435|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.04|||||"This analysis compares the probability of responding Very Often/Always vs. all other response categories. The reference group for this analysis was the control (delayed results) group."|This analysis includes only those participants with a negative antibody test result at baseline to test the association between the treatment condition (immediate vs. delayed test results) and behavioral outcomes. The reference group for this analysis was the control (delayed results) group.||1.04|0.97|
90899755|NCT03469349|181665476|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0015|||||||MMRM|||Mental Health Score: Week 24; Least squares means, p-values were obtained using a MMRM analysis of covariance with treatment, center, sex, age group, smoking status, diabetic status, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||||0.0015
90899756|NCT00868699|181665484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17|<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis||A negative difference in least square mean change from baseline between Lurasidone group and placebo indicates a greater improvement in the Lurasidone group over the placebo group.|||||<0.001
90957538|NCT00825916|181795215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (rank sum)|For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.||||||0.76
90957539|NCT00825916|181795215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (rank sum)|For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.||||||0.63
90899757|NCT00868699|181665484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17|<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis||A negative difference in least square mean change from baseline between Lurasidone group and placebo indicates a greater improvement in the Lurasidone group over the placebo group.|||||<0.001
90957540|NCT00825916|181795215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (rank sum)|For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.||||||0.92
91097550|NCT04950686|182080017|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-5.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.001
91097551|NCT04950686|182080017|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.76||0.065|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.065
91097552|NCT04950686|182080018|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.51||0.015|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.015
91097553|NCT04950686|182080018|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.78||0.152|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.152
90849584|NCT04620798|181565435|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.12|||||"This analysis compares the probability of a response of Very Often/Always vs. all other response categories. The reference group for this analysis was the control (delayed results) group."|This analysis uses only those participants with a positive antibody test result at baseline to test the association between the treatment condition (immediate vs. delayed test results) and behavioral outcomes. The reference group for this analysis was the control (delayed results) group.||1.12|0.74|
90849585|NCT04620798|181565436|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.71|||||This analysis compares the probability of seroconverting during the study period. The reference group for this analysis was the control (delayed results) group.|This analysis includes only those participants with a negative antibody test result at baseline to test the association between the treatment condition (immediate vs. delayed test results) and seroconversion. The reference group for this analysis was the control (delayed results) group.||1.71|0.52|
90849586|NCT03222492|181565449|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with the AEs of interest between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Treatment start to Week 48||||1.000
90849587|NCT03222492|181565449|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.444||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with the AEs of interest between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Treatment start to Week 48||||0.444
90849588|NCT03222492|181565450|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with the AEs of interest between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Treatment start to Week 48||||1.000
90849589|NCT03222492|181565450|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with the AEs of interest between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Treatment start to Week 48||||0.400
90849590|NCT03222492|181565451|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with the AEs of interest between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Treatment start to Week 12||||1.000
91097554|NCT04950686|182080019|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.78||0.034|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.034
91097555|NCT04950686|182080019|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.84||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.090
91097556|NCT04950686|182080020|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.282|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.282
91097557|NCT04950686|182080020|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.532|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.532
90849591|NCT03222492|181565451|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with the AEs of interest between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Treatment start to Week 12||||1.000
90849592|NCT03222492|181565451|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with the AEs of interest between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Treatment start to Week 24||||1.000
90849593|NCT03222492|181565451|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with the AEs of interest between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Treatment start to Week 24||||1.000
90849594|NCT03222492|181565451|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with the AEs of interest between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Treatment start to Week 36||||1.000
90849595|NCT03222492|181565451|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with the AEs of interest between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Treatment start to Week 36||||0.500
90849596|NCT03222492|181565452|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with the AEs of interest between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Treatment start to Week 12||||1.000
90849597|NCT03222492|181565452|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with the AEs of interest between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Treatment start to Week 12||||1.000
90849598|NCT03222492|181565453|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with the AEs of interest between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Treatment start to Week 24||||1.000
90849599|NCT03222492|181565453|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.467||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with the AEs of interest between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Treatment start to Week 24||||0.467
90849600|NCT03222492|181565454|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with the AEs of interest between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Treatment start to Week 36||||1.000
90849601|NCT03222492|181565454|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with the AEs of interest between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Treatment start to Week 36||||0.400
90849602|NCT03222492|181565455|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.464||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with the AEs of interest between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Treatment start to Week 12||||0.464
90849603|NCT03222492|181565455|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with the AEs of interest between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Treatment start to Week 12||||0.500
90849604|NCT03222492|181565455|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with the AEs of interest between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Treatment start to Week 24||||0.250
90849605|NCT03222492|181565455|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.167||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with the AEs of interest between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Treatment start to Week 24||||0.167
90849606|NCT03222492|181565455|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.083||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with the AEs of interest between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Treatment start to Week 36||||0.083
90849607|NCT03222492|181565455|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.083||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with the AEs of interest between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Treatment start to Week 48||||0.083
90849608|NCT03222492|181565456|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with the AEs of interest between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Treatment start to Week 12||||1.000
90849609|NCT03222492|181565456|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.429||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with the AEs of interest between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Treatment start to Week 12||||0.429
90957541|NCT00825916|181795215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (rank sum)|For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.||||||0.69
90957542|NCT00825916|181795216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (signed rank)|For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.||||||0.95
90849610|NCT03222492|181565457|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.286||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with the AEs of interest between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Treatment start to Week 24||||0.286
90849611|NCT03222492|181565457|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.067||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with the AEs of interest between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Treatment start to Week 24||||0.067
90849612|NCT03222492|181565458|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with the AEs of interest between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Treatment start to Week 36||||0.100
90849613|NCT03222492|181565459|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with the AEs of interest between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Treatment start to Week 48||||0.100
90849614|NCT03222492|181565470|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with the AEs of interest between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Treatment start to Week 48||||1.000
90849615|NCT03222492|181565470|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with the AEs of interest between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Treatment start to Week 48||||1.000
90849616|NCT03222492|181565471|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with the AEs of interest between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
90849617|NCT03222492|181565471|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with the AEs of interest between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Treatment start to Week 48||||1.000
90849618|NCT01054183|181565472|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|powered for 62 patients||||||0.57||95.0|||||z test, two-sided|||Null hypothesis: the proportion of successful 1st intubation attempt is the same for both groups||||0.57
90849619|NCT01054183|181565473|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|powered for 62 patients||||||0.002||95.0|||||z test, two-sided|||Null hypothesis: overall successful intubation rate is the same for both groups.||||0.002
90849620|NCT02486627|181565474|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CIs for the difference in cure rates were calculated using the Newcombe method with continuity correction.|Difference|-3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|3.1||||||||3.1|-10|
90849621|NCT02486627|181565475|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CIs for the difference in cure rates were calculated using the Newcombe method with continuity correction.|Difference|11.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|20.3||||||||20.3|2.7|
90849622|NCT02189954|181565484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
90849623|NCT02189954|181565484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mann Whitney U|||||||<0.05
90849624|NCT02112045|181565488|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.43
90849625|NCT02112045|181565489|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.60
90849626|NCT02390791|181565519|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||generalized linear model|assuming a Poisson distribution with a log link function||||||0.04
90849627|NCT02390791|181565520|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.89
90849628|NCT02390791|181565521|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.85
90849629|NCT02390791|181565522|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.69
90899758|NCT00868699|181665485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.143|<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis||A negative difference in least square mean change from baseline between Lurasidone group and placebo indicates a greater improvement in the Lurasidone group over the placebo group.|||||<0.001
90899759|NCT00868699|181665485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.143|<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis||A negative difference in least square mean change from baseline between Lurasidone group and placebo indicates a greater improvement in the Lurasidone group over the placebo group.|||||<0.001
90899760|NCT00868699|181665486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.003|||||||ANCOVA||A negative difference in least square mean change from baseline between Lurasidone group and placebo indicates a greater improvement in the Lurasidone group over the placebo group.|||||0.003
90899761|NCT00868699|181665486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.01|<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA||A negative difference in least square mean change from baseline between Lurasidone group and placebo indicates a greater improvement in the Lurasidone group over the placebo group.|||||<0.001
90899762|NCT02307513|181665516|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-92.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-130.59|-54.6|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with AUC W0-12 as the response variables; treatment arm, sex, region as factors and the number of oral ulcers at baseline as a covariate.|Treatment difference = Apremilast - Placebo|The AUC W0-12 for oral ulcer counts was compared between the placebo treatment group and the apremilast 30 BID treatment group using a 2-tailed parametric analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) test at the 0.05 significance level.||-54.60|-130.59|<0.0001
90899763|NCT02307513|181665517|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-24.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.8|-16.8|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model for the change from baseline with the treatment arm, sex, region as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||||-16.8|-32.8|<0.0001
90899764|NCT02307513|181665518|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-11.94|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|-7.67|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model for the change from baseline with the treatment arm, sex, region as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||||-7.67|-16.20|<0.0001
90899765|NCT02307513|181665519|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.5||||0.0335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model for the change from baseline with the treatment arm, sex, region as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||||-0.0|-1.0|0.0335
91097558|NCT04950686|182080021|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.675|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.675
90899766|NCT02307513|181665520|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.6|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model for the change from baseline with the treatment arm, sex, region as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||||-0.6|-1.4|<0.0001
90899767|NCT02307513|181665521|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.5|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model for the change from baseline with the treatment arm, sex, region as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||||-0.5|-1.3|<0.0001
90899768|NCT02307513|181665522|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in percentages|25.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.5|34.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|2 sided p-value based on the CMH test adjusting for sex and region.|Adjusted difference was the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 4 strata of combined sex and region factors with the CMH weights.|||34.6|15.5|<0.0001
90899769|NCT02307513|181665523|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.692|3.405|||Stratified Log-Rank Test|Treatment comparison is based on the stratified log-rank test, with sex and region as the stratification factors.|The HR is based on the stratified Cox model with baseline number of oral ulcers and sex and region as the stratification factors.|||3.405|1.692|<0.0001
90899770|NCT02307513|181665524|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in percentages|30.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.1|43.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|2 sided p-value based on the CMH test adjusting for sex and region.|Adjusted difference was the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 4 strata of combined sex and region factors with the CMH weights.|||43.1|18.1|<0.0001
90899771|NCT02307513|181665525|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-3.0||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|-1.4|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model for the change from baseline with the treatment arm, sex, region as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||||-1.4|-4.5|0.0003
90899772|NCT02307513|181665526|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in percentages|28.4||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|60.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|2 sided p-value based on the CMH test adjusting for sex.|Adjusted difference was the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of sex with the CMH weights.|||60.4|-3.6|0.1100
90957543|NCT00825916|181795216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.|Wilcoxon (signed rank)|||||||0.76
90957544|NCT00825916|181795216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.|Wilcoxon (signed rank)|||||||0.60
90957545|NCT00825916|181795216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.|Wilcoxon (signed rank)|||||||0.44
90899773|NCT02307513|181665527|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in percentages|17.5||||0.0204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|30.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Two-sided p-value was based on the CMH test, adjusting for sex and region.|Adjusted difference was the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 4 strata of combined sex and region factors with the CMH weights.|||30.7|4.2|0.0204
90899774|NCT02307513|181665528|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.611||||0.0112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.408|0.915|||Stratified Log Rank Test|Treatment comparison is based on the stratified log-rank test, with sex and region as the stratification factors.|The HR is based on the stratified Cox model with baseline number of oral ulcers and sex and region as the stratification factors|||0.915|0.408|0.0112
90899775|NCT02307513|181665529|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.4||||0.0683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.0|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex and region as factors and the baseline ulcers number as a covariate.||||0.0|-0.9|0.0683
90957546|NCT00825916|181795216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.|Wilcoxon (signed rank)|||||||0.85
91097559|NCT04950686|182080021|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.443|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.443
90849630|NCT02390791|181565523|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.13
90849631|NCT02390791|181565524|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.94
90849632|NCT02390791|181565525|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.88
90849633|NCT02390791|181565526|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.15
90849634|NCT02390791|181565527|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||generalized linear model|||||||0.48
90849635|NCT02390791|181565528|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||generalized linear model|||||||0.71
90849636|NCT01375075|181565543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|92.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.04|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.65|107.57||The P-value is for percent change from baseline in HDL-C at Week 2.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||107.57|77.65|<0.001
90849637|NCT01375075|181565543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|106.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.69|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.47|123.87||The P-value is for percent change from baseline in HDL-C at Week 4.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||123.87|88.47|<0.001
90849638|NCT01375075|181565543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|103.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.14|122.17||The P-value is for percent change from baseline in HDL-C at Week 8.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||122.17|85.14|<0.001
90849639|NCT01375075|181565543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-17.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.39|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-24.73|-10.19||The P-value is for percent change from baseline in LDL-C at Week 2.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||-10.19|-24.73|<0.001
90849640|NCT01375075|181565543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-10.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.4||0.019|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.67|-3.11||The P-value is for percent change from baseline in LDL-C at Week 4.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||-3.11|-17.67|0.019
90849641|NCT01375075|181565543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-12.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.77||0.011|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.17|-4.36||The P-value is for percent change from baseline in LDL-C at Week 8.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||-4.36|-20.17|0.011
90899776|NCT02307513|181665530|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.1||||0.5944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.3|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model for the change from baseline, with treatment arm, sex and region as factors and the baseline score as a covariate.||||0.3|-0.4|0.5944
90849642|NCT01375075|181565546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.136|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.39|7.88||The P-value is for change from baseline in SBP at Week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||7.88|-0.39|0.136
90849643|NCT01375075|181565546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.48||0.257|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.28|6.94||The P-value is for change from baseline in SBP at Week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||6.94|-1.28|0.257
90849644|NCT01375075|181565546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.54||0.021|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.7|10.1||The P-value is for change from baseline in SBP at Week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||10.10|1.70|0.021
90849645|NCT01375075|181565546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.52||0.829|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.71|3.62||The P-value is for change from baseline in SBP at Week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||3.62|-4.71|0.829
90849646|NCT01375075|181565546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.603|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.69|3.24||The P-value is for change from baseline in DBP at Week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||3.24|-1.69|0.603
90849647|NCT01375075|181565546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.48||0.656|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.11|1.78||The P-value is for change from baseline in DBP at Week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||1.78|-3.11|0.656
90849648|NCT01375075|181565546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52||0.228|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.67|4.34||The P-value is for change from baseline in DBP at Week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||4.34|-0.67|0.228
90849649|NCT01375075|181565546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.51||0.516|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.47|1.51||The P-value is for change from baseline in DBP at Week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||1.51|-3.47|0.516
90849650|NCT01375075|181565547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.513|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.57|1.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||1.11|-2.57|0.513
90899777|NCT02307513|181665531|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-5.5||||0.6182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.6|16.7|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model for the change from baseline, with treatment arm, sex and region as factors and the baseline score as a covariate.||||16.7|-27.6|0.6182
90899778|NCT01107743|181665561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.812|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Gender. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between male and female in the Incidence Rate of Treatment Related Adverse Events(TRAEs)."||||=0.812
90849651|NCT01375075|181565547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12||0.97|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.82|1.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||1.90|-1.82|0.970
90849652|NCT01375075|181565547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16||0.824|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.66|2.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||2.17|-1.66|0.824
90849653|NCT01375075|181565547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12||0.769|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.18|1.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||1.52|-2.18|0.769
90849654|NCT01375075|181565548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.735|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.65|0.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||0.43|-0.65|0.735
90849655|NCT01375075|181565548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.503|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.32|0.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||0.76|-0.32|0.503
91030732|NCT04099888|181945827|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||The DoR was calculated only for those with a documented response of CR or PR and is defined as the time from the date of first documented tumor response until the first date of documented disease progression or death, whichever is earlier.|DoR is listed only. In Arm A, the duration of response was 169 days in 1 participant before radiological progression was seen. In the other 2 participants in Arm A, the events were censored at 260 and 264 days, respectively. In Arm B, the duration of response was 85 days in 1 participant before radiological progression was seen. In the other 2 participants in Arm B, the events were censored at 1 day due to the early termination of the study.|||
90957547|NCT00825916|181795216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.|Wilcoxon (signed rank)|||||||0.83
91030733|NCT04099888|181945828|SUPERIORITY||||||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||DCR is reported and includes any patient with a best response of stable disease, PR or CR.|The DCR and associated exact 95% CI is summarized for the mITT population. This was repeated for DCR-6, defined as the proportion of patients with CR, PR or SD at 6 months (recorded at least 24 weeks (+/-1 week) after randomization of study treatment and prior to any PD event).|||
91097560|NCT04950686|182080022|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.685|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.685
91097561|NCT04950686|182080022|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.726|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.726
91097562|NCT04950686|182080023|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.282|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.282
91097563|NCT04950686|182080023|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.591|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.591
91097564|NCT04950686|182080024|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.675|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.675
91097565|NCT04950686|182080024|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.359|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.359
91097566|NCT04950686|182080025|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.rt-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree); higher scores indicate greater self-efficacy to use a dental dam; range = 1-4|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.685|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.685
91097567|NCT04950686|182080025|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.198|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.198
91097568|NCT04950686|182080026|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree); higher scores indicate greater self-efficacy to use a dental dam; range = 1-4|Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.46|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.460
91097569|NCT04950686|182080026|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.822|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.822
91097570|NCT04950686|182080027|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.671|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.671
91097571|NCT04950686|182080027|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.939|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.939
91097572|NCT04950686|182080028|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.655|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.655
91104295|NCT04003142|182094846|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.728||||0.212||95.0|0.744|4.236||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||4.236|0.744|0.212
91097573|NCT04950686|182080028|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.315|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.315
90849656|NCT01375075|181565548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.988|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.53|0.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||0.54|-0.53|0.988
90849657|NCT01375075|181565548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.207|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.95|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||0.13|-0.95|0.207
90849658|NCT01375075|181565549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.756|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.57|0.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||0.84|-0.57|0.756
90849659|NCT01375075|181565549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.99|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.71|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||0.70|-0.71|0.990
90849660|NCT01375075|181565549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.565|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.47|0.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||0.97|-0.47|0.565
90849661|NCT01375075|181565549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.678|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.53|0.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||0.89|-0.53|0.678
90849662|NCT01375075|181565550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.856|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.9|1.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||1.12|-0.90|0.856
90849663|NCT01375075|181565550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.869|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.9|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||1.10|-0.90|0.869
90849664|NCT01375075|181565550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.869|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.92|1.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||1.13|-0.92|0.869
90899779|NCT01107743|181665562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Age. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between \<65 years and \>=65 years in the Incidence Rate of Treatment Related Adverse Events(TRAEs)."||||=1.000
90849665|NCT01375075|181565550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.317|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|1.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||1.63|-0.40|0.317
90849666|NCT01375075|181565552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.888|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.24|0.2|||ANCOVA|Treatment was included in the model as fixed effects, baseline hsCRP as covariate.||||0.20|-0.24|0.888
90849667|NCT01375075|181565552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.939|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.21|0.23|||ANCOVA|Treatment was included in the model as fixed effects, baseline hsCRP as covariate.||||0.23|-0.21|0.939
90849668|NCT01375075|181565552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.296|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.08|0.36|||ANCOVA|Treatment was included in the model as fixed effects, baseline hsCRP as covariate.||||0.36|-0.08|0.296
91097574|NCT04950686|182080029|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.966|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.966
90849669|NCT01375075|181565552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.181|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.04|0.4|||ANCOVA|Treatment was included in the model as fixed effects, baseline hsCRP as covariate.||||0.40|-0.04|0.181
90849670|NCT01375075|181565553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-43.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.97|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-53.16|-33.41||The P-value is for percent change from baseline in plasma CETP activity at Week 4.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||-33.41|-53.16|<0.001
90849671|NCT01375075|181565553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-76.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.02|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-86.89|-66.97||The P-value is for percent change from baseline in plasma CETP activity at Week 4.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||-66.97|-86.89|<0.001
90849672|NCT01375075|181565553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-90.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-100.87|-80.75||The P-value is for percent change from baseline in plasma CETP activity at Week 4.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||-80.75|-100.87|<0.001
90849673|NCT01375075|181565553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-67.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.96|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-77.12|-57.39||The P-value is for percent change from baseline in plasma CETP activity at Week 4.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||-57.39|-77.12|<0.001
90899780|NCT01107743|181665563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Hypertension. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with Hypetension and without Hypertension in the Incidence Rate of Treatment Related Adverse Events(TRAEs)."||||=1.000
91097575|NCT04950686|182080029|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.708|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.708
91097576|NCT04950686|182080030|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.887|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.887
91097577|NCT04950686|182080030|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.077|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.077
90849674|NCT01375075|181565553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-42.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.21|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-52.88|-32.33||The P-value is for percent change from baseline in plasma CETP activity at Week 8.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||-32.33|-52.88|<0.001
90849675|NCT01375075|181565553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-78.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-89.15|-68.71||The P-value is for percent change from baseline in plasma CETP activity at Week 8.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||-68.71|-89.15|<0.001
90849676|NCT01375075|181565553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-93.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-104.08|-83.26||The P-value is for percent change from baseline in plasma CETP activity at Week 8.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||-83.26|-104.08|<0.001
90849677|NCT01375075|181565553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-75.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.31|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-85.46|-64.57||The P-value is for percent change from baseline in plasma CETP activity at Week 8.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||-64.57|-85.46|<0.001
90849678|NCT01375075|181565553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-50.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.98|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-58.53|-42.04||The P-value is for percent change from baseline in plasma CETP activity at Week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||-42.04|-58.53|<0.001
90849679|NCT01375075|181565553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-83.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.98|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-91.32|-74.83||The P-value is for percent change from baseline in plasma CETP activity at Week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||-74.83|-91.32|<0.001
90849680|NCT01375075|181565553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-94.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-102.92|-86.1||The P-value is for percent change from baseline in plasma CETP activity at Week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||-86.10|-102.92|<0.001
90849681|NCT01375075|181565553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-67.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-76.2|-59.16||The P-value is for percent change from baseline in plasma CETP activity at Week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||-59.16|-76.20|<0.001
90849682|NCT01375075|181565554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.38|2.21||The P-value is for change from baseline in plasma CETP mass at Week 4.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||2.21|1.38|<0.001
90849683|NCT01375075|181565554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.65|3.48||The P-value is for change from baseline in plasma CETP mass at Week 4.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||3.48|2.65|<0.001
90849684|NCT01375075|181565554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.04|3.88||The P-value is for change from baseline in plasma CETP mass at Week 4.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||3.88|3.04|<0.001
90957548|NCT01778023|181795217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|5.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.09|6.21|||ANOVA|The HV after 6 months of treatment was analysed using an ANCOVA method with group and sex as fixed effects, and age as a covariate.||Let D be a mean difference of the primary endpoint between group A and group B. Null hypothesis H0: D = 0 vs. alternative H1: D ≠ 0 will be statistically tested by an ANOVA model.||6.21|4.09|<0.0001
90957549|NCT01502631|181795234|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean|5.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.497||0.2182|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.93|13.14|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Difference (SUN13837 - Placebo) at Week 2||13.14|-1.93|0.2182
90849685|NCT01375075|181565554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.81|2.63||The P-value is for change from baseline in plasma CETP mass at Week 4.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||2.63|1.81|<0.001
90957550|NCT01502631|181795234|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean|6.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.583||0.226|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.54|16.27|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Difference (SUN13837 - Placebo) at Week 4||16.27|-2.54|0.2260
91097578|NCT04950686|182080031|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.217|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.217
91030734|NCT04099888|181945829|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||Change in tumor size in percentage was summarized for the subset of patients in the mITT analysis set who had measurable disease at baseline.|Tumor size is defined as the sum of the longest diameters (SoDs) of the RECIST 1.1 target lesions. Change in tumor size is defined as the best overall percentage change in tumor size from baseline. Percentage change in tumor size was determined for patients with measurable disease at baseline and was derived at each visit by the percentage change in the SoDs of target lesions compared to baseline.|||
91097579|NCT04950686|182080031|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.879|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.879
91097580|NCT04950686|182080032|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.866|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.866
90849686|NCT01375075|181565554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.4|2.36||The P-value is for change from baseline in plasma CETP mass at Week 8.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||2.36|1.40|<0.001
90849687|NCT01375075|181565554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.51|3.47||The P-value is for change from baseline in plasma CETP mass at Week 8.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||3.47|2.51|<0.001
90849688|NCT01375075|181565554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.42|4.41||The P-value is for change from baseline in plasma CETP mass at Week 8.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||4.41|3.42|<0.001
90849689|NCT01375075|181565554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.56|2.52||The P-value is for change from baseline in plasma CETP mass at Week 8.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||2.52|1.56|<0.001
90899781|NCT01107743|181665564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.112|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Hypertension severity. The null hypothesis is there is no difference among ClassⅠHypertension, ClassⅡ Hypertension, and ClassⅢ Hypertension in the Incidence Rate of Treatment Related Adverse Events(TRAEs)."||||=0.112
90957551|NCT01502631|181795234|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean|3.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.023||0.6184|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.15|13.21|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Difference (SUN13837 - Placebo) at Week 8||13.21|-7.15|0.6184
90957552|NCT01502631|181795234|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean|4.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.524||0.4912|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.48|15.56|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Difference (SUN13837 - Placebo) at Week 16||15.56|-6.48|0.4912
91030735|NCT04099888|181945830|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||Safety, including the incidence and characteristics of biliary/loco-regional tumour-related events leading to hospitalisation and/or interventions, will be summarised descriptively.|||
90849690|NCT01375075|181565554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.34|2.31||The P-value is for change from baseline in plasma CETP mass at Week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||2.31|1.34|<0.001
90849691|NCT01375075|181565554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.34|3.31||The P-value is for change from baseline in plasma CETP mass at Week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||3.31|2.34|<0.001
90899782|NCT01107743|181665565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.093|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Angina Pectoris. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with Angina Pectoris and without Angina Pectoris in the Incidence Rate of Treatment Related Adverse Events(TRAEs)."||||=0.093
90899783|NCT01107743|181665566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Hypercholesterolemia. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with Hypercholesterolemia and without Hypercholesterolemia in the Incidence Rate of Treatment Related Adverse Events(TRAEs)."||||=1.000
91030736|NCT04099888|181945831|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||Safety events leading to hospitalisation and/or interventions, will be summarised descriptively.|||
91030737|NCT04099888|181945835|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||As this study was terminated early, a reduced statistical analysis was conducted, and the HRQoL analyses were not conducted.|||
91097581|NCT04950686|182080032|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.695|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.695
90849692|NCT01375075|181565554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.74|3.73||The P-value is for change from baseline in plasma CETP mass at Week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||3.73|2.74|<0.001
91097582|NCT04950686|182080033|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.94|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.940
91097583|NCT04950686|182080033|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.451|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.451
91097584|NCT04950686|182080034|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.442|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.442
91097585|NCT04950686|182080034|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.082|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.082
91097586|NCT04950686|182080035|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.236|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.236
91097587|NCT04950686|182080035|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.674|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.674
91097588|NCT04950686|182080036|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.135|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.135
91097589|NCT04950686|182080036|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.500
91097590|NCT04950686|182080037|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.956|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.956
91097591|NCT04950686|182080037|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.214|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.214
91097592|NCT04950686|182080038|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.337|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.337
90899784|NCT01107743|181665567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.839|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Hypercholesterolemia expression type. The null hypothesis is there is no difference among expression type Ⅰ, expression type Ⅱa, expression type Ⅱb, expression type Ⅲ, expression type, expression type Ⅳ, and expression type Ⅴ in the Incidence Rate of Treatment Related Adverse Events(TRAEs)."||||=0.839
91097593|NCT04950686|182080038|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.957|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.957
91104296|NCT04003142|182094846|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.536||||0.002||95.0|1.666|8.207||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||8.207|1.666|0.002
90849693|NCT01375075|181565554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.65|2.63||The P-value is for change from baseline in plasma CETP mass at Week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||2.63|1.65|<0.001
90899785|NCT01107743|181665568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Familial Hypercholesterolemia. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with Familial Hypercholesterolemia and without Familial Hypercholesterolemia in the Incidence Rate of Treatment Related Adverse Events(TRAEs)."||||=1.000
91097594|NCT04950686|182080039|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.086|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.086
91097595|NCT04950686|182080039|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.515|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.515
91097596|NCT04950686|182080040|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.597|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.597
91097597|NCT04950686|182080040|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.551|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.551
90849694|NCT01375075|181565555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|74.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.59|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|53.38|95.07||The P-value is for percent change from baseline in HDL-C at Week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||Comparisons between LY2484595 and Placebo were the primary focus for this endpoint.||95.07|53.38|<0.001
90849695|NCT01375075|181565555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|115.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.55|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.58|136.14||The P-value is for percent change from baseline in HDL-C at Week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||Comparisons between LY2484595 and Placebo were the primary focus for this endpoint.||136.14|94.58|<0.001
90849696|NCT01375075|181565555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|135.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.72|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|114.5|156.63||The P-value is for percent change from baseline in HDL-C at Week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||Comparisons between LY2484595 and Placebo were the primary focus for this endpoint.||156.63|114.50|<0.001
90849697|NCT01375075|181565555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-15.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.85||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.5|-7.43||The P-value is for percent change from baseline in LDL-C at Week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||Comparisons between LY2484595 and Placebo were the primary focus for this endpoint.||-7.43|-23.50|0.002
90849698|NCT01375075|181565555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-23.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.83|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-31.37|-15.38||The P-value is for percent change from baseline in LDL-C at Week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||Comparisons between LY2484595 and Placebo were the primary focus for this endpoint.||-15.38|-31.37|<0.001
91097598|NCT04950686|182080041|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.634|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.634
90849699|NCT01375075|181565555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-22.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.91|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-30.32|-14.06||The P-value is for percent change from baseline in LDL-C at Week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||Comparisons between LY2484595 and Placebo were the primary focus for this endpoint.||-14.06|-30.32|<0.001
90849700|NCT01375075|181565555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|103.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.64|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.32|124.18||The P-value is for percent change from baseline in HDL-C at Week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||124.18|82.32|<0.001
90849701|NCT01375075|181565555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-14.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.88||0.003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.72|-6.55||The P-value is for percent change from baseline in LDL-C at Week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||-6.55|-22.72|0.003
90849702|NCT00821509|181565558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of proportions|1.03||||0.004|||||||proportion test|The test was carried out using the proportions calculated from the number of sick-leave episodes over the number o total follow-up weeks in each arm||According to the null hypothesis the proportion of weeks with an onset of days-off period in neither of the intervention arms was different from that of control. No in advance power calculations were done.||||0.004
90849703|NCT00821509|181565559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of proportions|0.933||||0.04|||||||proportion test|||According to the null hypothesis the proportion of weeks with an onset of an infectious disease period in neither of the intervention arms was different from that of control. No in advance power calculations were done.||||0.04
90849704|NCT01551420|181565560|SUPERIORITY|Null hypothesis of no change after home use|Mean Difference (Net)|0.002|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.68||0.9358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.28||Two way comparison between scores at baseline and after 9-12 weeks of Prosthetic use. Alpha=0.05|t-test, 2 sided|paired t-tests||||0.28|-0.27|.9358
90849705|NCT01551420|181565560|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.69||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|0.09|||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression of QOL measure at 9-12 weeks, comparing groups by control type, controlling for amputation level (transhumeral or transradial). Persons with shoulder level devices are excluded from this analysis.||0.09|-1.47|0.08
90957553|NCT02319525|181795246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.005
91097599|NCT04950686|182080041|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.308|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.308
91097600|NCT04950686|182080042|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.415|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.415
90849706|NCT01551420|181565561|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.42|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.43|||t-test, 2 sided|The sample for this analyses was 44 participants.|Mean difference is the change in scores from baseline to End of A.|Pairwise t-test for data from prosthesis users at baseline and completers at End of A (i.e participants with UEFS data at both time points).||0.43|0.17|<0.0001
90849707|NCT01551420|181565561|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.4|||Regression, Linear|The sample for this analysis was 23 participants with TR or TH amputation level who completed data collection for UEFS at End of Part B.|Effect of EMG-PR (compared to IMU group)|Linear regression of scores from UEFS use measure at 9-12 weeks (End of B), comparing groups by control type, and controlling for amputation level (transhumeral or transradial). Persons with shoulder level devices are excluded from this analysis.||-0.40|-0.73|<0.0001
90849708|NCT01551420|181565562|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.22|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.94||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.11|||t-test, 2 sided|The sample for this analysis was 34 participants.|Mean difference is the change in scores from baseline to End of A.|Pairwise t-test for data from prosthesis users at baseline and completers at End of A (i.e participants with TAPES data at both time points).||0.11|-0.55|0.186
90849709|NCT01551420|181565562|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.0168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|-0.23|||Regression, Linear|The sample for this analysis was 24 participants with TR or TH amputation level who completed data collection for TAPES at End of Part B.|Effect of EMG-PR (compared to IMU group)|Linear regression of scores from TAPES measure at 9-12 weeks (End of B), comparing groups by control type, and controlling for amputation level (transhumeral or transradial). Persons with shoulder level devices are excluded from this analysis.||-0.23|-2.06|0.0168
90849710|NCT01551420|181565563|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.97|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.61||0.3367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.99|1.05|||t-test, 2 sided|The sample for this paired t-test was 43 participants.|Mean difference is the change in scores from baseline to End of A.|Pairwise t-test for data from prosthesis users at baseline and completers at End of A (i.e. participants with UEFS data at both time points).||1.05|-2.99|0.3367
90849711|NCT01551420|181565563|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.49||0.6339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.84|2.39|||Regression, Linear|The sample for this analysis was 22 participants with TR or TH amputation level who completed data collection for UEFS at End of Part B.|Effect of EMG-PR (compared to IMU group)|Linear regression of scores from AM-ULA measure at 9-12 weeks (End of B), comparing groups by control type, and controlling for amputation level (transhumeral or transradial). Persons with shoulder level devices are excluded from this analysis.||2.39|-3.84|0.6339
90849712|NCT01551420|181565564|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.74|STANDARD_DEVIATION|18.8||0.5465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.53|4.05|||t-test, 2 sided|The sample for this paired t-test was 43 participants.|Mean difference is the change in scores from baseline to End of A.|Pairwise t-test for data for participants at baseline and completers at End of A (i.e participants with SF-36V Role Physical data at both time points).||4.05|-7.53|0.5465
90849713|NCT01551420|181565564|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.78|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.37||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.12|1.57|||t-test, 2 sided|The sample for this paired t-test was 43 participants.|Mean difference is the change in scores from baseline to End of A.|Pairwise t-test for data for participants at baseline to End of A (with SF-36V Social Functioning data at both time points).||1.57|-9.12|0.1610
91097601|NCT04950686|182080042|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.721|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.721
90849714|NCT01551420|181565564|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.61|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.9||0.7765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|3.68|||t-test, 2 sided|The sample for this paired t-test was 43 participants.|Mean difference is the change in scores from baseline to End of A.|Pairwise t-test for data for participants at baseline to End of A (with SF-36V Physical Functioning data at both time points).||3.68|-4.90|0.7765
90849715|NCT01551420|181565564|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-13.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.91||0.0669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.72|1.02|||Regression, Linear|The sample for this analysis was 23 participants with TR or TH amputation level who completed data collection for SF-36 at End of Part B.|Effect of EMG-PR (compared to IMU group)|Linear regression of SF-36V; Role Physical measure at 9-12 weeks, comparing groups by control type, controlling for amputation level (transhumeral or transradial). Persons with shoulder level devices are excluded from this analysis.||1.02|-27.72|0.0669
90849716|NCT01551420|181565564|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-8.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.1||0.2592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.01|6.54|||Regression, Linear|The sample for this analysis was 23 participants with TR or TH amputation level who completed data collection for SF-36 at End of Part B.|Effect of EMG-PR (compared to IMU group)|Linear regression of SF-36V: Social Functioning measure at 9-12 weeks, comparing groups by control type, controlling for amputation level (transhumeral or transradial). Persons with shoulder level devices are excluded from this analysis.||6.54|-23.01|0.2592
90899786|NCT01107743|181665569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Hepatic Dysfunction. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with Hepatic Dysfunction and without Hepatic Dysfunction in the Incidence Rate of Treatment Related Adverse Events(TRAEs)."||||=1.000
90899787|NCT01107743|181665570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.644|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Renal Dysfunction. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with Renal Dysfunction and without Renal Dysfunction in the Incidence Rate of Treatment Related Adverse Events(TRAEs)."||||=0.644
91097602|NCT04950686|182080043|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.261|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.261
91097603|NCT04950686|182080043|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.369|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.369
90899788|NCT01107743|181665571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.155|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Complications. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with Complications and without Complications in the Incidence Rate of Treatment Related Adverse Events(TRAEs)."||||=0.155
90899789|NCT01107743|181665572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.305|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Concomitant Drugs. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with Concomitant Drugs and without Concomitant Drugs in the Incidence Rate of Treatment Related Adverse Events(TRAEs)."||||=0.305
90899790|NCT01107743|181665573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.234|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Gender. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between males and females in the participants of responders."||||=0.234
90899791|NCT01107743|181665574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.439|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Age. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between \<65 years and \>=65 years in the participants of responders."||||=0.439
90899792|NCT01107743|181665575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.761|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Hypertension severity. The null hypothesis is there is no difference among ClassⅠHypertension, ClassⅡ Hypertension, and ClassⅢ Hypertension in the participants of responders."||||=0.761
90899793|NCT01107743|181665576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Hepatic Dysfunction. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without Hepatic Dysfunction in the participants of responders."||||=1.000
90957554|NCT02319525|181795247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08||||||We compared informed choice vs. no informed choice made between the decision aid and the pamphlet groups.|Chi-squared|||||||0.08
90899794|NCT01107743|181665577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.31|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Renal Dysfunction. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without Renal Dysfunction in the participants of responders."||||=0.310
90899795|NCT01107743|181665578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.251|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Complications. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without Complications in the participants of responders."||||=0.251
90957555|NCT02319525|181795248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.252|||||||Chi-squared|||We compared concordance between preferred and actual roles vs. no concordance between roles between decision aid and pamphlet.||||0.252
90957556|NCT02319525|181795249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.504|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.504
90957557|NCT02319525|181795250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.06
90957558|NCT02319525|181795251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Chi-squared|||"statistical analysis comparing the decision-aid vs. pamphlet for patient rating of acceptability of information and presentation related to the Impact of lupus nephritis"||||0.006
91097604|NCT04950686|182080044|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.124|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.124
90899796|NCT01107743|181665579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.756|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Concomitant Drugs. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without Concomitant Drugs in the participants of responders."||||=0.756
90899797|NCT01107743|181665580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.706|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Gender. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between males and females in the participants of responders."||||=0.706
90899798|NCT01107743|181665581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.192|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Age. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between \<65 years and \>=65 years in the participants of responders."||||=0.192
90899799|NCT01107743|181665582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Angina Pectoris Severity. The null hypothesis is there is no difference among Class1, Class2, Class3, and Class4 in the participants of responders."||||=0.005
90899800|NCT01107743|181665583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Hepatic Dysfunction. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without Hepatic Dysfunction in the participants of responders."||||=1.000
90899801|NCT01107743|181665584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.596|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Renal Dysfunction. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without Renal Dysfunction in the participants of responders."||||=0.596
90899802|NCT01107743|181665585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.252|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Complications. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without Complications in the participants of responders."||||=0.252
90899803|NCT01107743|181665586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Concomitant Drugs. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without Concomitant Drugs in the participants of responders."||||=1.000
90899804|NCT01107743|181665587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.518|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Gender. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between males and females in the participants of responders."||||=0.518
91030738|NCT00023309|181945836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0294||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the treatment effect between the two groups||||0.0294
90849717|NCT01551420|181565564|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-30.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.25|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.23|-17.23|||Regression, Linear|The sample for this analysis was 23 participants with TR or TH amputation level who completed data collection for SF-36 at End of Part B.|Effect of EMG-PR (compared to IMU group)|Linear regression of SF-36V: Physical Functioning measure at 9-12 weeks, comparing groups by control type, controlling for amputation level (transhumeral or transradial). Persons with shoulder level devices are excluded from this analysis.||-17.23|-43.23|<0.0001
90849718|NCT01551420|181565565|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.17||0.6691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.07|||t-test, 2 sided|The sample for this paired t-test was 31 participants.|Mean difference is the change in scores from baseline to End of A.|Pairwise t-test for data from prosthesis users at baseline and completers at End of A (i.e. participants with JTHFT: Writing data at both time points).||0.07|-0.05|0.6691
90849719|NCT01551420|181565565|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.06||0.0511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.0|||t-test, 2 sided|The sample for this paired t-test was 31 participants.|Mean difference is the change in scores from baseline to End of A.|Pairwise t-test for data from prosthesis users at baseline and completers at End of A (i.e. participants with JTHFT: Page turning data at both time points).||0.00|-0.05|0.0511
90849720|NCT01551420|181565565|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.09||0.5942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.04|||t-test, 2 sided|The sample for this paired t-test was 31 participants.|Mean difference is the change in scores from baseline to End of A.|Pairwise t-test for data from prosthesis users at baseline and completers at End of A (i.e. participants with JTHFT: Lifting Small Items data at both time points).||0.04|-0.02|0.5942
90849721|NCT01551420|181565565|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.08||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|-0.01|||t-test, 2 sided|The sample for this paired t-test was 31 participants.|Mean difference is the change in scores from baseline to End of A.|Pairwise t-test for data from prosthesis users at baseline and completers at End of A (i.e. participants with JTHFT: Checkers data at both time points).||-0.01|-0.07|0.0101
90849722|NCT01551420|181565565|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.09||0.1063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.01|||t-test, 2 sided|The sample for this paired t-test was 31 participants.|Mean difference is the change in scores from baseline to End of A.|Pairwise t-test for data from prosthesis users at baseline and completers at End of A (i.e. participants with JTHFT: Feeding data at both time points).||0.01|-0.06|0.1063
90849723|NCT01551420|181565565|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.12||0.2474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.01|||t-test, 2 sided|The sample for this paired t-test was 31 participants.|Mean difference is the change in scores from baseline to End of A.|Pairwise t-test for data from prosthesis users at baseline and completers at End of A (i.e. participants with JTHFT: Light Cans data at both time points).||0.01|-0.06|0.2474
90849724|NCT01551420|181565565|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.14||0.1604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.02|||t-test, 2 sided|The sample for this paired t-test was 31 participants.|Mean difference is the change in scores from baseline to End of A.|Pairwise t-test for data from prosthesis users at baseline and completers at End of A (i.e. participants with JTHFT: Heavy Cans data at both time points).||0.02|-0.09|0.1604
90849725|NCT01551420|181565565|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.4208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.09|||Regression, Linear|The sample for this analysis was 24 participants with TR or TH amputation level who completed data collection for JTHFT at End of Part B.|Effect of EMG-PR (compared to IMU group)|Linear regression of scores from JTHFT: Writing measure at 9-12 weeks (End of B), comparing groups by control type, and controlling for amputation level (transhumeral or transradial). Persons with shoulder level devices are excluded from this analysis.||0.09|-0.12|0.4208
90849726|NCT01551420|181565565|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.1959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.02|||Regression, Linear|The sample for this analysis was 23 participants with TR or TH amputation level who completed data collection for JTHFT at End of Part B.|Effect of EMG-PR (compared to IMU group)|Linear regression of scores from JTHFT: Page Turning measure at 9-12 weeks (End of B), comparing groups by control type, and controlling for amputation level (transhumeral or transradial). Persons with shoulder level devices are excluded from this analysis.||0.02|-0.09|0.1959
90849727|NCT01551420|181565565|SUPERIORITY|Linear regression of scores from JTHFT: Lifting Small Items measure at 9-12 weeks (End of B), comparing groups by control type, and controlling for amputation level (transhumeral or transradial). Persons with shoulder level devices are excluded from this analysis.|Slope|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.3328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.03|||Regression, Linear|The sample for this analysis was 23 participants with TR or TH amputation level who completed data collection for JTHFT at End of Part B.|Effect of EMG-PR (compared to IMU group)|||0.03|-0.09|0.3328
90899805|NCT01107743|181665588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.645|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Age. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between \<65 years and \>=65 years in the participants of responders."||||=0.645
90899806|NCT01107743|181665589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Hypercholesterolemia expression type. The null hypothesis is there is no difference among expression type Ⅰ, expression type Ⅱa, expression type Ⅱb, expression type Ⅲ, expression type, expression type Ⅳ, and expression type Ⅴ in the participants of responders."||||=0.130
90899807|NCT01107743|181665590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.185|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Hepatic Dysfunction. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without Hepatic Dysfunction in the participants of responders."||||=0.185
90899808|NCT01107743|181665591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.714|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Renal Dysfunction. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without Renal Dysfunction in the participants of responders."||||=0.714
90957559|NCT02319525|181795251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Chi-squared|||"statistical analysis comparing the decision-aid vs. pamphlet for patient rating of acceptability of information and presentation related to the Risk factors"||||0.006
90957560|NCT02319525|181795251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Chi-squared|||"statistical analysis comparing the decision-aid vs. pamphlet for patient rating of acceptability of information and presentation related to the medication options"||||0.003
91104297|NCT04003142|182094846|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.701||||0.225||95.0|0.733|4.169||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||4.169|0.733|0.225
91030739|NCT00023309|181945837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0325||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in treatment effect at week 196||||0.0325
91097605|NCT04950686|182080044|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.794|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.794
91097606|NCT04950686|182080045|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.011|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.011
91097607|NCT04950686|182080045|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.068|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.068
91097608|NCT04950686|182080046|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.585|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.585
90849728|NCT01551420|181565565|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.6585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.08|||Regression, Linear|The sample for this analysis was 23 participants with TR or TH amputation level who completed data collection for JTHFT at End of Part B.|Effect of EMG-PR (compared to IMU group)|Linear regression of scores from JTHFT: Checkers measure at 9-12 weeks (End of B), comparing groups by control type, and controlling for amputation level (transhumeral or transradial). Persons with shoulder level devices are excluded from this analysis.||0.08|-0.05|0.6585
90849729|NCT01551420|181565565|SUPERIORITY|Linear regression of scores from JTHFT: Feeding measure at 9-12 weeks (End of B), comparing groups by control type, and controlling for amputation level (transhumeral or transradial). Persons with shoulder level devices are excluded from this analysis.|Slope|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.0|||Regression, Linear|The sample for this analysis was 23 participants with TR or TH amputation level who completed data collection for JTHFT at End of Part B.|Effect of EMG-PR (compared to IMU group)|||0.00|-0.12|0.0552
90849730|NCT01551420|181565565|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.0319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|-0.01|||Regression, Linear|The sample for this analysis was 23 participants with TR or TH amputation level who completed data collection for JTHFT at End of Part B.|Effect of EMG-PR (compared to IMU group)|Linear regression of scores from JTHFT: Light Cans measure at 9-12 weeks (End of B), comparing groups by control type, and controlling for amputation level (transhumeral or transradial). Persons with shoulder level devices are excluded from this analysis.||-0.01|-0.25|0.0319
90849731|NCT01551420|181565565|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.0073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|-0.04|||Regression, Linear|The sample for this analysis was 23 participants with TR or TH amputation level who completed data collection for JTHFT at End of Part B.|Effect of EMG-PR (compared to IMU group)|Linear regression of scores from JTHFT: Heavy Cans measure at 9-12 weeks (End of B), comparing groups by control type, and controlling for amputation level (transhumeral or transradial). Persons with shoulder level devices are excluded from this analysis.||-0.04|-0.24|0.0073
90849732|NCT01551420|181565566|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.52||0.6529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.15|||t-test, 2 sided|The sample for this paired t-test was 30 participants.|Mean difference is the change in scores from baseline to End of A.|Pairwise t-test for data from prosthesis users at baseline and completers at End of A (i.e. participants with UNB: Spontaneity data at both time points).||0.15|-0.24|0.6529
90849733|NCT01551420|181565566|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.64||0.849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.22|||t-test, 2 sided|The sample for this paired t-test was 30 participants.|Mean difference is the change in scores from baseline to End of A.|Pairwise t-test for data from prosthesis users at baseline and completers at End of A (i.e. participants with UNB: Skill data at both time points).||0.22|-0.26|0.8490
90849734|NCT01551420|181565566|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.4589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.48|||Regression, Linear|The sample for this analysis was 23 participants with TR or TH amputation level who completed data collection for UNB: Spontaneity at End of Part B.|Effect of EMG-PR (compared to IMU group)|Linear regression of scores from UNB: Spontaneity measure at 9-12 weeks (End of B), comparing groups by control type, and controlling for amputation level (transhumeral or transradial). Persons with shoulder level devices are excluded from this analysis.||0.48|-0.22|0.4589
90849735|NCT01551420|181565566|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.44|||Regression, Linear|The sample for this analysis was 23 participants with TR or TH amputation level who completed data collection for UNB: Skill at End of Part B.|Effect of EMG-PR (compared to IMU group)|Linear regression of scores from UNB: Skill measure at 9-12 weeks (End of B), comparing groups by control type, and controlling for amputation level (transhumeral or transradial). Persons with shoulder level devices are excluded from this analysis.||0.44|-0.31|0.7110
90899809|NCT01107743|181665592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.835|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Complications. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without Complications in the participants of responders."||||=0.835
90899810|NCT01107743|181665593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.252|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Concomitant Drugs. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without Concomitant Drugs in the participants of responders."||||=0.252
91030740|NCT00023309|181945838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0049||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in treatment effect at week 196||||0.0049
91030741|NCT00023309|181945839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0157||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in treatment effect at week 196||||0.0157
91030742|NCT00023309|181945840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0913||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in treatment effect at week 196||||0.0913
91097609|NCT04950686|182080046|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.338|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.338
91097610|NCT04950686|182080047|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.259|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.259
91097611|NCT04950686|182080047|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.95|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.950
91097612|NCT04950686|182080048|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.411|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.411
91097613|NCT04950686|182080048|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.491|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.491
91097614|NCT04950686|182080049|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.498|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.498
91097615|NCT04950686|182080049|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.573|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.573
91097616|NCT04950686|182080050|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.128|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.128
91097617|NCT04950686|182080050|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.013|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.013
91097618|NCT04950686|182080051|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.999|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.999
91097619|NCT04950686|182080051|EQUIVALENCE|This arm will receive Health Aware for Young Adults in between the pretest and posttest questionnaire. Health Aware for Young Adults is a web-based sexual and relationship health promotion program. The program contains the same health content as Media Aware for Young Adults but without the media literacy education components. The program is self-paced and includes four modules.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.638|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.638
91097620|NCT04950686|182080052|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.841|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.841
91097621|NCT04950686|182080052|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.27|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.270
90849736|NCT01551420|181565567|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|253.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|325.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|146.7|360.5|||t-test, 2 sided|The sample for this paired t-test was 38 participants.||Pairwise t-test for data for participants at baseline and completers at End of A (i.e participants with T-MAP data at both time points).|Mean difference is the change in scores from Baseline to End of A.|360.5|146.7|<0.0001
91097622|NCT04950686|182080053|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.94|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.940
91097623|NCT04950686|182080053|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.992|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.992
91097624|NCT04950686|182080054|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.47|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.470
91097625|NCT04950686|182080054|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.130
91097626|NCT04950686|182080055|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.931|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.931
91097627|NCT04950686|182080055|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.666|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.666
91097628|NCT04950686|182080056|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.822|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.822
90849737|NCT01551420|181565567|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-183.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|186.9||0.3397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-574.3|208.2|||Regression, Linear|The sample for this analysis was 22 participants with TR or TH amputation level who completed data collection for T-MAP at End of Part B.|Effect of EMG-PR (compared to IMU group)|Linear regression of scores from T-MAP measure at 9-12 weeks (End of B), comparing groups by control type, and controlling for amputation level (transhumeral or transradial). Persons with shoulder level devices are excluded from this analysis.||208.2|-574.3|0.3397
90957561|NCT02319525|181795251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||"statistical analysis comparing the decision-aid vs. pamphlet for patient rating of acceptability of information and presentation related to the evidence about medications"||||<0.001
91030743|NCT00497796|181945857|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Based on the ICH guidance, the hypothesis of non-inferiority can be tested using a one-sided 97.5% confidence interval's (CI) upper bound comparing with the non-inferiority margin of 5% (0.05).|Rate difference|0.041|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.038|0.119|||||Rate difference is the rate of maribavir minus the rate of ganciclovir|||0.119|-0.038|
91030744|NCT00497796|181945857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.586||||0.2754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.682|3.69||The p-value is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusting for receipt of induction ALA and geographic region (US or Europe).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.690|0.682|0.2754
91030745|NCT00497796|181945858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.793||||0.0283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.065|3.02||The p-value is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusting for receipt of induction ALA and geographic region (US or Europe).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio for maribavir versus ganciclovir|Analysis of the pp65 antigenemia assay||3.020|1.065|0.0283
91030746|NCT00497796|181945858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.284||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.338|3.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The p-value is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusting for receipt of induction ALA and geographic region (US or Europe).|Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio for maribavir versus ganciclovir|Analysis of CMV DNA PCR assay||3.900|1.338|0.0024
91030747|NCT00497796|181945858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.177||||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.259|3.767||The p-value is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusting for receipt of induction ALA and geographic region (US or Europe).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio for maribavir versus ganciclovir|Analysis of pp65 antigenemia or CMV DNA PCR assay||3.767|1.259|0.0053
91097629|NCT04950686|182080056|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.721|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.721
91030748|NCT00497796|181945858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.388||||0.2339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.811|2.377||The p-value is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusting for receipt of induction ALA and geographic region (US or Europe).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio for maribavir versus ganciclovir|Analysis of initiation of anti-CMV therapy||2.377|0.811|0.2339
91097630|NCT04950686|182080057|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.54|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.540
91097631|NCT04950686|182080057|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.956|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.956
91097632|NCT04950686|182080058|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.175|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.175
91097633|NCT04950686|182080058|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.136|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.136
91097634|NCT04950686|182080059|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.829|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.829
91097635|NCT04950686|182080059|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.748|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.748
91097636|NCT04950686|182080060|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.490
90957562|NCT02319525|181795251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||"statistical analysis comparing the decision-aid vs. pamphlet for patient rating of acceptability of information and presentation related to the study about other patients"||||<0.001
91030749|NCT00497796|181945859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|2.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.62|3.14|||Log Rank||Maribavir versus ganciclovir; Cox's proportional hazards regression model: time = receipt of induction ALA and geographic region (US or Europe) + treatment.|Analysis of time to onset||3.14|1.62|<0.0001
91030750|NCT00497796|181945860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusting for receipt of induction ALA and geographic region (US or Europe).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis of 100 days post-transplant||||0.0008
91030751|NCT00497796|181945860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3742|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusting for receipt of induction ALA and geographic region (US or Europe).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis of 6 months post-transplant||||0.3742
91030752|NCT00497796|181945861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusting for receipt of induction ALA and geographic region (US or Europe).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0007
91104298|NCT04003142|182094846|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.049||||0.006||95.0|1.42|7.125||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||7.125|1.420|0.006
90849738|NCT01551420|181565568|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.01||0.0465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|8.53|||t-test, 2 sided|The sample for this paired t-test was 24 participants.|Mean difference is the change in scores from Baseline to End of A.|Pairwise t-test for data from prosthesis users at baseline and completers at End of A (i.e. participants with UEFS data at both time points).||8.53|0.07|0.0465
90849739|NCT01551420|181565568|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.46||0.345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|2.82|||Regression, Linear|The sample for this analysis was 19participants with TR or TH amputation level who completed data collection for UEFS at End of Part B.|Effect of EMG-PR (compared to IMU group)|Linear regression of scores from UEFS measure at 9-12 weeks (End of B), comparing groups by control type, and controlling for amputation level (transhumeral or transradial). Persons with shoulder level devices are excluded from this analysis.||2.82|-7.60|0.3450
90849740|NCT01551420|181565569|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.47|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.54||0.6881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|2.79|||t-test, 2 sided|The sample for this paired t-test was 43 participants.|Mean difference is the change in scores from Baseline to End of A.|Pairwise t-test for data for participants at baseline and completers at End of A (i.e participants with CRIS: Extent of Limitations data at both time points).||2.79|-1.86|0.6881
90849741|NCT01551420|181565569|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.72|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.95||0.7363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.01|3.67|||t-test, 2 sided|The sample for this paired t-test was 43 participants.|Mean difference is the change in scores from Baseline to End of A.|Pairwise t-test for data from prosthesis users at baseline and completers at End of A (i.e. participants with CRIS: Perceived Limitations data at both time points).||3.67|-5.01|0.7363
90849742|NCT01551420|181565569|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.49|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.12||0.2361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.99|1.01|||t-test, 2 sided|The sample for this paired t-test was 43 participants.|Mean difference is the change in scores from Baseline to End of A.|Pairwise t-test for data from prosthesis users at baseline and completers at End of A (i.e. participants with CRIS: Satisfaction data at both time points).||1.01|-3.99|0.2361
90849743|NCT01551420|181565569|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-7.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.02||0.0932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.43|1.29|||Regression, Linear|The sample for this analysis was 24 participants with TR or TH amputation level who completed data collection for CRIS-CAT at End of Part B.|Effect of EMG-PR (compared to IMU group)|Linear regression of scores from CRIS-CAT: Extent of Limitations measure at 9-12 weeks (End of B), comparing groups by control type, and controlling for amputation level (transhumeral or transradial). Persons with shoulder level devices are excluded from this analysis.||1.29|-15.43|0.0932
90849744|NCT01551420|181565569|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.0||0.0951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.9|1.99|||Regression, Linear|The sample for this analysis was 24 participants with TR or TH amputation level who completed data collection for CRIS-CAT at End of Part B.|Effect of EMG-PR (compared to IMU group)|Linear regression of scores from CRIS-CAT: Perceived Limitations measure at 9-12 weeks (End of B), comparing groups by control type, and controlling for amputation level (transhumeral or transradial). Persons with shoulder level devices are excluded from this analysis.||1.99|-22.9|0.0951
90849745|NCT01551420|181565569|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-4.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.01||0.2346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|3.43|||Regression, Linear|The sample for this analysis was 24 participants with TR or TH amputation level who completed data collection for CRIS-CAT at End of Part B.|Effect of EMG-PR (compared to IMU group)|Linear regression of scores from CRIS-CAT: Satisfaction measure at 9-12 weeks (End of B), comparing groups by control type, and controlling for amputation level (transhumeral or transradial). Persons with shoulder level devices are excluded from this analysis.||3.43|-13.3|0.2346
90849746|NCT03073733|181565644|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9||0.582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|5.8|||linear model for repeated measures|||||5.8|-10.3|0.582
90849747|NCT03073733|181565644|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.91||0.984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|8.0|||linear model for repeated measures|||||8.0|-8.2|0.984
91097637|NCT04950686|182080060|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.831|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.831
90849748|NCT03073733|181565645|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean difference|1.2986|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8744||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1341|3.7313|||linear model for repeated measures|||||3.7313|-1.1341|0.290
90849749|NCT03073733|181565645|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean difference|-0.3542|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7793||0.759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6516|1.9433|||linear model for repeated measures|||||1.9433|-2.6516|0.759
90849750|NCT03073733|181565646|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean difference|-278.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|305.192||0.515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1126.21|568.75|||linear model for repeated measures|||||568.75|-1126.21|0.515
90849751|NCT03073733|181565646|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean difference|292.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|308.659||0.499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-562.87|1147.23|||linear model for repeated measures|||||1147.23|-562.87|0.499
90849752|NCT03073733|181565647|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.3|||linear model for repeated measures|||||0.3|-2.1|0.160
90849753|NCT03073733|181565647|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.9|||linear model for repeated measures|||||0.9|-1.5|0.622
90849754|NCT03073733|181565648|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean difference|-0.111|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1038||0.442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.399|0.176|||linear model for repeated measures|||||0.176|-0.399|0.442
90849755|NCT03073733|181565648|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean difference|0.122|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1037||0.401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.165|0.409|||linear model for repeated measures|||||0.409|-0.165|0.401
90849756|NCT03073733|181565650|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.205|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.205
90849757|NCT03073733|181565651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.157|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.157
90849758|NCT03073733|181565652|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.125|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.125
90849759|NCT03073733|181565653|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.173|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.173
90849760|NCT03073733|181565654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.099|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Pooled t-test (variance ratio of 3.2)||||||0.099
90849761|NCT03073733|181565654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Pooled t-test (variance ratio of 1.9)||||||0.130
90849762|NCT03073733|181565655|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0959|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0959
91097638|NCT04950686|182080061|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.35|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.350
91097639|NCT04950686|182080061|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.235|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.235
91097640|NCT04950686|182080062|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.682|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.682
91097641|NCT04950686|182080062|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.373|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.373
91097642|NCT04950686|182080063|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|6.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.63|0.24|0.242
90849763|NCT03073733|181565656|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1868|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1868
90849764|NCT03073733|181565657|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.608|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.608
90849765|NCT03073733|181565658|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.264|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Unpooled t-test (variance ratio of 7.9)||||||0.264
90849766|NCT03073733|181565658|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.139|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Unpooled t-test (variance ratio of 25.9)||||||0.139
90849767|NCT03073733|181565659|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.261|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Unpooled t-test (variance ratio of 7.9)||||||0.261
90849768|NCT03073733|181565659|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.139|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Unpooled t-test (variance ratio of 6.3)||||||0.139
90849769|NCT03073733|181565660|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Pooled t-test (variance ratio of 0.8).||||||0.350
90849770|NCT03073733|181565660|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Pooled t-test (variance ratio of 2.5)||||||0.500
90849771|NCT03073733|181565661|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Pooled t-test (variance ratio of 2.9).||||||0.220
90849772|NCT03073733|181565661|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.119|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Pooled t-test (variance ratio of 1.9).||||||0.119
91097643|NCT04950686|182080063|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78||||0.207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|5.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.72|0.11|0.207
91097644|NCT04950686|182080064|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.52|0.51|0.576
91097645|NCT04950686|182080064|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|2.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.03|0.46|0.888
90849773|NCT03073733|181565662|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Pooled t-test (variance ratio of 2.7)||||||0.006
90849774|NCT03073733|181565663|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.009
90849775|NCT03073733|181565664|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.029
90849776|NCT03073733|181565665|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.010
90849777|NCT03073733|181565666|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.072|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.072
90849778|NCT03073733|181565667|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Unpooled t-test (variance ratio of 5.9)||||||0.019
90849779|NCT03073733|181565667|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Pooled t-test (variance ratio of 3.98)||||||0.019
90849780|NCT03073733|181565668|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.013
90849781|NCT03073733|181565669|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.033|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.033
90849782|NCT03073733|181565670|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.199|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.199
90849783|NCT03073733|181565671|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.075|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Unpooled t-test (variance ratio of 56.3)||||||0.075
90849784|NCT03073733|181565671|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.062|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Unpooled t-test (variance ratio of 25.2)||||||0.062
90849785|NCT03073733|181565672|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.255|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Unpooled t-test (variance ratio of 9.9)||||||0.255
90849786|NCT03073733|181565672|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.109|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Unpooled t-test (variance ratio of 8.7)||||||0.109
90849787|NCT03073733|181565673|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.488|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Pooled t-test (variance ratio of 0.7).||||||0.488
90849788|NCT03073733|181565673|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.273|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Pooled t-test (variance ratio of 2.5)||||||0.273
90849789|NCT03073733|181565674|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.004
90849790|NCT03073733|181565675|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.006
90849791|NCT03073733|181565676|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.016
90849792|NCT03073733|181565677|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.098|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.098
90849793|NCT03073733|181565678|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Unpooled t-test (variance ratio of 8.2)||||||0.019
90849794|NCT03073733|181565678|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Unpooled t-test (variance ratio of 4.7)||||||0.011
90849795|NCT03073733|181565679|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.039|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.039
90849796|NCT03073733|181565680|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.096|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.096
91097646|NCT04950686|182080065|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|3.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.45|0.22|0.467
91097647|NCT04950686|182080065|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|2.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.03|0.46|0.888
90849797|NCT03073733|181565681|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.480
90849798|NCT03073733|181565682|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.076|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Unpooled t-test (variance ratio of 51.5)||||||0.076
90849799|NCT03073733|181565682|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.057|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Unpooled t-test (variance ratio of 26.1)||||||0.057
90849800|NCT03073733|181565683|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.117|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Unpooled t-test (variance ratio of 29.0)||||||0.117
90849801|NCT03073733|181565683|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.083|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Unpooled t-test (variance ratio of 9.5)||||||0.083
90849802|NCT03073733|181565684|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.172|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Unpooled t-test (variance ratio of 6.7)||||||0.172
90849803|NCT03073733|181565684|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Pooled t-test (variance ratio of 3.98)||||||0.140
90849804|NCT03073733|181565685|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Unpooled t-test (variance ratio of 5.4).||||||0.011
90849805|NCT03073733|181565686|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0406|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0406
90849806|NCT03073733|181565687|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.007
90849807|NCT03073733|181565688|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.026|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.026
90849808|NCT03073733|181565689|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.200
90849809|NCT03073733|181565690|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Unpooled t-test (variance ratio of 22.2)||||||0.030
90849810|NCT03073733|181565690|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.033|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Pooled t-test (variance ratio of 3.3)||||||0.033
90849811|NCT03073733|181565691|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.200
90849812|NCT03073733|181565692|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.200
90849813|NCT03073733|181565693|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
91097648|NCT04950686|182080066|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.0003|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0003
90849814|NCT03073733|181565694|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Unpooled t-test (variance ratio of 606.4)||||||0.080
90849815|NCT03073733|181565694|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Unpooled t-test (variance ratio of 52.3)||||||0.050
90849816|NCT03073733|181565695|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.099|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Unpooled t-test (variance ratio of 35.7)||||||0.099
90849817|NCT03073733|181565695|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.076|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Unpooled t-test (variance ratio of 17.6)||||||0.076
90849818|NCT03073733|181565696|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1099|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Unpooled t-test (variance ratio of 4.5)||||||0.1099
90849819|NCT03073733|181565696|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Unpooled t-test (variance ratio of 14.3)||||||0.012
90849820|NCT01227629|181565719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0357||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Group comparison of differences from baseline to last available value||||0.0357
90849821|NCT01227629|181565720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26711||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Group comparison of differences from baseline to week 12||||0.26711
90849822|NCT01588470|181565732|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
90849823|NCT01588470|181565734|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
90849824|NCT02446171|181565742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio#|98.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.4|105.84|||ANOVA|The results are based on ANOVA of log transformed PK parameters with sequence, period, treatment, and subject nested within sequence as fixed effects.||||105.84|92.40|
90849825|NCT02446171|181565742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio#|100.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.17|107.43|||ANOVA|The results are based on ANOVA of log transformed PK parameters with sequence, period, treatment, and subject nested within sequence as fixed effects.||||107.43|93.17|
90849826|NCT02446171|181565742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio#|94.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.7|100.4|||ANOVA|The results are based on ANOVA of log transformed PK parameters with sequence, period, treatment, and subject nested within sequence as fixed effects.||||100.40|88.70|
90849827|NCT02446171|181565743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio#|98.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.24|105.8|||ANOVA|The results are based on ANOVA of log transformed PK parameters with sequence, period, treatment, and subject nested within sequence as fixed effects.||||105.80|92.24|
90849828|NCT02446171|181565743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio#|100.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.65|107.72|||ANOVA|The results are based on ANOVA of log transformed PK parameters with sequence, period, treatment, and subject nested within sequence as fixed effects.||||107.72|93.65|
90849829|NCT02446171|181565743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio#|94.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.2|100.82|||ANOVA|The results are based on ANOVA of log transformed PK parameters with sequence, period, treatment, and subject nested within sequence as fixed effects.||||100.82|89.20|
90849830|NCT02446171|181565744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio#|97.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.09|106.92|||ANOVA|The results are based on ANOVA of log transformed PK parameters with sequence, period, treatment, and subject nested within sequence as fixed effects.||||106.92|88.09|
90849831|NCT02446171|181565744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio#|100.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.8|110.16|||ANOVA|The results are based on ANOVA of log transformed PK parameters with sequence, period, treatment, and subject nested within sequence as fixed effects.||||110.16|91.80|
90849832|NCT02446171|181565744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio#|102.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.13|111.82|||ANOVA|The results are based on ANOVA of log transformed PK parameters with sequence, period, treatment, and subject nested within sequence as fixed effects.||||111.82|93.13|
90957563|NCT02319525|181795252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Chi-squared|||The test of significance compared all the rows, i.e., all response options for the statement.||||0.006
91104299|NCT04806373|182094851|OTHER|||||||0.863|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.863
90957564|NCT01445301|181795303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|-7.0|||ANCOVA|||||-7.0|-15.0|<0.001
91097649|NCT04950686|182080066|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.432|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.432
91097650|NCT04950686|182080067|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.031|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.031
91097651|NCT04950686|182080067|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.794|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.794
91097652|NCT04950686|182080068|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.277|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.277
91097653|NCT04950686|182080068|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.115|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.115
90849833|NCT02320903|181565771|EQUIVALENCE|What was the within-group change over time effect size (Cohen's d)?|||||||||||||Paired samples T test (change over time)|||Paired sample T tests were used to measure change for parents over time.|Cohen's d for parent report on this measure was 0.16.|||
90849834|NCT02320903|181565771|EQUIVALENCE|What was the within-group change over time effect size (Cohen's d)?|||||||||||||Paired samples T test (change over time)|||Paired sample T tests were used to measure change over time for teens.|Cohen's d for youth report was d = 0.22.|||
90849835|NCT02320903|181565772|EQUIVALENCE|What was the within-group change over time effect size (Cohen's d)?|||||||||||||Paired samples T test (change over time)|||Paired sample T tests were used to measure change for parents over time.|Cohen's d for parent report on this measure was d = 0.22.|||
90849836|NCT02320903|181565772|OTHER|What was the within-group change over time effect size?||||||||||||||||Paired sample T tests were used to measure change for teens over time.|Cohen's d for teen report on this measure was d = 0.22.|||
90849837|NCT02320903|181565773|EQUIVALENCE|What was the within-group change over time effect size (Cohen's d)?|||||||||||||Paired samples T test (change over time)|||Paired sample T tests were used to measure change for parents over time.|Cohen's d for parent report on this measure was d = 0.10.|||
90849838|NCT02320903|181565773|EQUIVALENCE|What was the within-group change over time effect size? (Cohen's d)||||||||||||||||Paired samples T tests were used to measure change over time for teens.|Cohen's d for youth report was d = 0.28.|||
90849839|NCT02320903|181565774|EQUIVALENCE|What was the within-group change over time effect size (Cohen's d)?|||||||||||||Paired samples T test (change over time)|||Paired sample T tests were used to measure change for parents over time.|Cohen's d for parent report on this measure was d = 0.16.|||
91097654|NCT02266576|182080076|OTHER|||||||0.04||||||The linear regression model was used, adjusted for within cohort correlation, within participant correlation, and gender.|Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs month 6||||0.04
91097655|NCT02266576|182080076|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Regression, Linear|The linear regression model was used, adjusted for within cohort correlation, within participant correlation, and gender.||Baseline vs month 12||||0.02
91097656|NCT02266576|182080077|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Regression, Linear|The linear regression model was used, adjusted for within cohort correlation, within participant correlation, and gender.||Baseline vs month 6 in physical component score||||0.004
91097657|NCT02266576|182080077|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Regression, Linear|The linear regression model was used, adjusted for within cohort correlation, within participant correlation, and gender.||Baseline vs month 12 in physical component score||||0.01
91097658|NCT02906618|182080091|OTHER|A mixed-effect analysis of variance model was applied to the log-transformed dose-adjusted AUC(0-∞) of LY3039478 after oral dosing and IV administration of 13C 15N 2H-LY3039478. The model contained a fixed effect for formulation (oral or IV) and a random effect for participant.|Ratio of geometric LS means|0.572|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.532|0.615||||||||0.615|0.532|
91097659|NCT04766333|182080098|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.45|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.23|||Regression, Logistic||Healthcare Arm is the reference category|||1.23|0.17|<0.05
91097660|NCT02734667|182080099|SUPERIORITY||t statistic from GLM/regression|-0.47||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|||||Generalized linear models were used to compare outcomes between the CGM and control groups at 6 months while adjusting for participant gender, age, annual household income, days since diagnosis, and baseline A1c.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.64
91097661|NCT02734667|182080100|SUPERIORITY||t-statistic from GLM/regression results|-2.6||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|||||Generalized linear models were used to compare outcomes between the CGM and control groups at 6 months while adjusting for participant gender, age, annual household income, days since diagnosis, and baseline A1c.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.013
91097662|NCT02734667|182080101|SUPERIORITY||t-statistic from GLM/regression results|3.12||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|||||Generalized linear models were used to compare outcomes between the CGM and control groups at 6 months while adjusting for participant gender, age, annual household income, days since diagnosis, and baseline A1c.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.003
91097663|NCT05177094|182080115|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.4|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.40|-0.70|
91097664|NCT05177094|182080116|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.64|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.64|-0.66|
91097665|NCT05177094|182080117|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.46|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.46|-0.72|
91104300|NCT04806373|182094852|OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference in pleural drainage volume day 1 post-TSP||||0.005
90899811|NCT00308737|181665594|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Comparison of TI + Usual Care to Usual Care only|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.037|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.014|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures||Mixed model repeated measures with fixed effects diabetes type, visit, pooled site and treatment and baseline FEV1 as a covariate||0.060|0.014|
90899812|NCT00308737|181665595|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis tested was that the FEV1 change from Baseline for the TI group is no greater than 50 mL/year above the change in the usual care treatment group. Assuming SD of 100 mL/y, 80% power, and 5% (1-tailed) significance level, it was determined that 50 subjects were required for each of the diabetes treatment groups. Final sample size was selected for the incidence of a \>= 15% decrease in FEV1 end point.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.037|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.016|0.057|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with treatment site, diabetes type, and baseline FEV1||0.057|0.016|
90899813|NCT00308737|181665596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.034|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.008|0.061|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures||Mixed model repeated measures with fixed effects diabetes type, visit, pooled site and treatment and baseline FVC as a covariate||0.061|0.008|
90899814|NCT00308737|181665597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.005|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.042|0.031|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures||Mixed model repeated measures with fixed effects diabetes type, visit, pooled site, and treatment and baseline TLC as a covariate||0.031|-0.042|
90899815|NCT00308737|181665598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.269|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.037|0.574|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures||Mixed model repeated measures with fixed effects diabetes type, visit, pooled site, and treatment and baseline TLC as a covariate||0.574|-0.037|
91030753|NCT00497796|181945862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.041|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.179|7.494||The p-value is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusting for receipt of induction ALA and geographic region (US or Europe).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio for maribavir versus ganciclovir|Analysis of pp65 antigenemia assay||7.494|2.179|<0.0001
91030754|NCT00497796|181945862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.448|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.404|12.213||The p-value is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusting for receipt of induction ALA and geographic region (US or Europe).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio for maribavir versus ganciclovir|Analysis of CMV DNA PCR assay||12.213|3.404|<0.0001
90899816|NCT00308737|181665599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6475|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3432|1.2219|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression excluding non-diabetics||1.2219|0.3432|
91030755|NCT00497796|181945862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.342|10.843||The p-value is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusting for receipt of induction ALA and geographic region (US or Europe).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio for maribavir versus ganciclovir|Analysis of pp65 antigenemia or CMV DNA PCR assay||10.843|3.342|<0.0001
91097666|NCT05177094|182080118|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.46|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.46|-0.98|
91097667|NCT05177094|182080119|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.18|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.18|-0.61|
90899817|NCT00308737|181665600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7504|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.251|2.2431|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression excluding non-diabetics||2.2431|0.2510|
90899818|NCT00308737|181665601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8953|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6703|1.1958|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression excluding non-diabetics||1.1958|0.6703|
90899819|NCT00308737|181665602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|0.8509|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6722|1.077|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression excluding non-diabetics||1.0770|0.6722|
90899820|NCT00308737|181665604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.112||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Two sample t-test||||0.112
90899821|NCT00308737|181665605|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis tested was that the difference in incidence of a decrease of ≥ 15% in FEV1 between the treatment groups not be greater than 5% for TI when compared with the usual care treatment group. Assuming an incidence rate of 15% for FEV1 and a noninferiority criterion of a 5% difference in incidence between the treatment groups, approximately 625 subjects per group were required for 80% power and an alpha of 5% (1 tailed).|Odds Ratio (OR)|-2.4767|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5578|-0.3956|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression excluding non-diabetics||-0.3956|-4.5578|
91097668|NCT05177094|182080120|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.24|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.24|-0.58|
90899822|NCT02224482|181665606|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9634|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.9634
90899823|NCT02224482|181665607|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5214|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.5214
90899824|NCT02224482|181665608|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4875|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.4875
90899825|NCT02224482|181665609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7938|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.7938
90899826|NCT02224482|181665610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6765|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.6765
90899827|NCT02224482|181665611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7061|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.7061
90899828|NCT02224482|181665612|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7593|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.7593
90957565|NCT01445301|181795303|NON_INFERIORITY|If the upper 95% confidence was less than the pre-defined threshold (-Δ \[non-inferiority margin, -3.8\]) of 3.8, non-inferiority of GSK2585823 once daily to CLDM twice daily would be established|Mean Difference (Net)|-8.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|-3.6|||ANCOVA|||||-3.6|-12.9|<0.001
91030756|NCT00497796|181945862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.165|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.146|30.069||The p-value is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusting for receipt of induction ALA and geographic region (US or Europe).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio for maribavir versus ganciclovir|Analysis of initiation of anti-CMV therapy||30.069|4.146|<0.0001
91030757|NCT00832377|181945899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Week 12 peak IOP vs. baseline|paired t-test|||||||<0.0001
91097669|NCT05177094|182080121|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.45|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.45|-0.68|
91097670|NCT05177094|182080122|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.77|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.77|-0.65|
91097671|NCT05177094|182080123|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-3.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.43|4.28|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||4.28|-10.43|
91104301|NCT04806373|182094853|OTHER|||||||0.891|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Borg dyspnea scale day 3 post-TSP||||0.891
90899829|NCT00744263|181665613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|45.56||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.2|21.82|62.49|||Clopper-Pearson method|||Vaccine efficacy against first event expressed as percentage. Vaccine efficacy = 1 - (proportion of participants who received 13vPnC with confirmed VT-CAP relative to those who received placebo). p-value and confidence intervals were derived using Clopper-Pearson method. The null hypothesis was vaccine efficacy = 0.||62.49|21.82|0.0006
90899830|NCT00744263|181665614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|45.0||||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|95.2|14.21|65.31|||Clopper-Pearson method|||Vaccine efficacy against first event expressed as percentage. Vaccine efficacy = 1-(proportion of participants who received 13vPnC with confirmed VT-CAP relative to those who received placebo). p-value and confidence intervals were derived using Clopper-Pearson method. The null hypothesis was vaccine efficacy = 0.||65.31|14.21|0.0067
90899831|NCT00744263|181665615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|75.0||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.43|90.78|||Clopper-Pearson method|||Vaccine efficacy against first event expressed as percentage. Vaccine efficacy = 1-(proportion of participants who received 13vPnC with confirmed VT-CAP relative to those who received placebo). p-value and confidence intervals were derived using Clopper-Pearson method. The null hypothesis was vaccine efficacy = 0.||90.78|41.43|0.0005
91030758|NCT00832377|181945900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Week 12 trough IOP vs. baseline|paired t-test|||||||<0.0001
91097672|NCT05177094|182080124|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.04|7.0|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||7.00|-10.04|
91097673|NCT05177094|182080125|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.54|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.54|-0.32|
90849840|NCT02320903|181565774|EQUIVALENCE|What was the within-group change over time effect size? (Cohen's d)||||||||||||||||Paired sample T tests were used to measure change for teens over time.|Cohen's d for youth report was d = 0.21.|||
91097674|NCT05177094|182080126|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.65|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.65|-0.24|
90849841|NCT02320903|181565775|EQUIVALENCE|What was the within-group change over time effect size (Cohen's d)?|||||||||||||Paired samples T test (change over time)|||Paired sample T tests were used to measure change for parents over time.|Cohen's d for parent report on this measure was d = 0.62.|||
90849842|NCT02320903|181565775|EQUIVALENCE|What was the within-group change over time effect size (Cohen's d)?||||||||||||||||Paired sample T tests were used to measure change over time for teens.|Cohen's d for youth report was d = 0.23.|||
90849843|NCT02320903|181565776|EQUIVALENCE|What was the within-group change over time effect size (Cohen's d)?||||||||||||||||Paired sample T tests were used to measure change for parents over time.|Cohen's d for parent report on this measure was d = 0.22.|||
90849844|NCT02320903|181565776|EQUIVALENCE|What was the within-group change over time effect size (Cohen's d)?||||||||||||||||Paired samples T tests were used to measure within-groups change over time for teens.|Cohen's d for youth report was d = 0.26.|||
90849845|NCT02320903|181565777|EQUIVALENCE|What was the within-group change over time effect size (Cohen's d)?||||||||||||||||Paired sample T tests were used to measure change for parents over time.|Cohen's d for parent report on this measure was d =.12.|||
90849846|NCT02320903|181565778|EQUIVALENCE|What was the within-group change over time effect size (Cohen's d)?||||||||||||||||Paired sample T tests were used to measure change for parents over time.|Cohen's d for parent report on this measure was d = 0.81.|||
90849847|NCT02320903|181565779|EQUIVALENCE|What was the within-group change over time effect size (Cohen's d)?||||||||||||||||Paired sample T tests were used to measure change for parents over time.|Cohen's d for parent report on this measure was d = 0.43.|||
90849848|NCT02320903|181565780|EQUIVALENCE|What was the within-group change over time effect size (Cohen's d)?||||||||||||||||Paired sample T tests were used to measure change for teens over time.|Cohen's d for youth report on this measure was d = 24.|||
90849849|NCT03386253|181565796|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77||||||Group x time p value|ANOVA|||||||0.77
90899832|NCT00744263|181665618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.979|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher exact test, 2-sided, was used to calculate the p-value for the difference between vaccine groups in percentages of participants.||||0.979
90899833|NCT00744263|181665619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.455|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher exact test, 2-sided, was used to calculate the p-value for the difference between vaccine groups in percentages of participants.||||0.455
90899834|NCT01225822|181665625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.375|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.244|0.577||Dose relationship tested using a hierarchical testing procedure to preserve type I error rate at 5%. 225 mg bid was compared to 50 mg bid. If a difference significant at 5% level was found, then 150 mg bid was compared to 50 mg bid|Regression, Logistic|||BIBR 1048 225 mg bid vs. BIBR 1048 50 mg bid comparison. The primary objective of the trial was to establish a dose relationship among BIBR 1048 doses studied in the prevention of VTE. The statistical model was a logistic regression which included treatment and centre..||0.577|0.244|<0.0001
90849850|NCT03493815|181565797|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.73||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.9|||binary regression w/ comp log-log link||Ultrasound guided is the numerator and traditional is the denominator.|||1.90|0.28|0.51
91030759|NCT00832377|181945901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Week 12 8-HR IOP vs. baseline|paired t-test|||||||<0.0001
90849851|NCT03493815|181565798|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.58||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|2.18|||binary regression w/ comp log-log link||Ultrasound guided is the numerator and traditional is the denominator.|||2.18|0.15|0.41
90849852|NCT03493815|181565799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.76
91030760|NCT02458469|181946062|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.019
91030761|NCT02458469|181946062|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015|||||||Student-Newman-Keuls Method|||||||0.015
91030762|NCT02458469|181946062|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.231|||||||Student-Newman-Keuls Method|||||||0.231
91030763|NCT02458469|181946063|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.749|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.749
91097675|NCT05177094|182080127|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|44.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-114.73|204.0|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||204.00|-114.73|
91097676|NCT05177094|182080128|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-98.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-231.86|34.49|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||34.49|-231.86|
91097677|NCT05177094|182080129|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.07|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.07|-0.05|
91097678|NCT05177094|182080130|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.08|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.08|-0.09|
90849853|NCT03493815|181565800|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.70
90849854|NCT02415842|181565951|EQUIVALENCE|Adjusted GMC ratios of anti-H1 HA stalk ELISA antibody concentration between groups (H1N1\_AS over H1N1\_NAS) at Day 21. Adjusted GMC = GMC adjusted for baseline concentration.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.72|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on logarithm10 transformation of concentration, with vaccine group as fixed effect and anti- H1 stalk ELISA result at Day 0 as covariates||||1.72|0.73|
90849855|NCT02415842|181565951|EQUIVALENCE|Adjusted GMC ratios of anti-H1 HA stalk ELISA antibody concentration between groups (H1N1\_AS over H1N1\_NAS) at Day 42. Adjusted GMC = GMC adjusted for baseline concentration.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.81|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on logarithm10 transformation of concentration, with vaccine group as fixed effect and anti- H1 stalk ELISA result at Day 0 as covariates||||1.81|0.83|
90849856|NCT02415842|181565951|EQUIVALENCE|Adjusted GMC ratios of anti-H1 HA stalk ELISA antibody concentration between groups (H1N1\_AS over H1N1\_NAS) at Day 182. Adjusted GMC = GMC adjusted for baseline concentration.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.24|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on logarithm10 transformation of concentration, with vaccine group as fixed effect and anti- H1 stalk ELISA result at Day 0 as covariates||||1.24|0.63|
90849857|NCT02415842|181565952|EQUIVALENCE|Adjusted GMC ratios of anti-H1 HA stalk ELISA antibody concentration between groups (H5N1\_AS over H5N1\_NAS) at Day 21 . Adjusted GMC = GMC adjusted for baseline concentration.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|2.47|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on logarithm10 transformation of concentration, with vaccine group as fixed effect and anti- H1 stalk ELISA result at Day 0 as covariates||||2.47|1.12|
90849858|NCT02415842|181565952|EQUIVALENCE|Adjusted GMC ratios of anti-H1 HA stalk ELISA antibody concentration between groups (H5N1\_AS over H5N1\_NAS) at Day 42. Adjusted GMC = GMC adjusted for baseline concentration.|Adjusted GMC ratio|2.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|3.03|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on logarithm10 transformation of concentration, with vaccine group as fixed effect and anti- H1 stalk ELISA result at Day 0 as covariates||||3.03|1.54|
90849859|NCT02415842|181565952|EQUIVALENCE|Adjusted GMC ratios of anti-H1 HA stalk ELISA antibody concentration between groups (H5N1\_AS over H5N1\_NAS) at Day 182. Adjusted GMC = GMC adjusted for baseline concentration.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.49|2.54|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on logarithm10 transformation of concentration, with vaccine group as fixed effect and anti- H1 stalk ELISA result at Day 0 as covariates||||2.54|1.49|
90899835|NCT01225822|181665625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.518||||0.0015||95.0|0.344|0.778||Dose relationship tested using a hierarchical testing procedure to preserve type I error rate at 5%. 225 mg bid was compared to 50 mg bid. If a difference significant at 5% level was found, then 150 mg bid was compared to 50 mg bid|Regression, Logistic|||BIBR 1048 150 mg bid vs. BIBR 1048 50 mg bid comparison. The primary objective of the trial was to establish a dose relationship among BIBR 1048 doses studied in the prevention of VTE. The statistical model was a logistic regression which included treatment and centre..||0.778|0.344|0.0015
91030764|NCT02096718|181946087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of gmeans|122.23|STANDARD_DEVIATION|28.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.743|156.045|||ANOVA||Relative bioavailability comparison of afatinib for moderate vs. normal matched with moderate patients was estimated by the ratios of the geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Inter individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|The ANOVA model was fitted using log-transformed values. The difference between the expected means of each comparison was estimated by the difference in the corresponding Least Square Means (point estimate), and 2-sided 90% confidence intervals based on the t-distribution. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale to give the point estimator (gMean), and interval estimates for the intersubject ratio of the gMeans for each renal function group.||156.045|95.743|
91104302|NCT04806373|182094854|OTHER|||||||0.899|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Pain score at day 3 post-TSP||||0.899
90849860|NCT02415842|181565952|EQUIVALENCE|Adjusted GMC ratios of anti-H1 HA stalk ELISA antibody concentration between groups (H5N1\_AS over H5N1\_NAS) at Day 385 . Adjusted GMC = GMC adjusted for baseline concentration.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|2.01|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on logarithm10 transformation of concentration, with vaccine group as fixed effect and anti- H1 stalk ELISA result at Day 0 as covariates||||2.01|1.32|
90849861|NCT02415842|181565953|EQUIVALENCE|Adjusted GMC ratios of anti-H1 HA stalk ELISA antibody concentration between groups (H9N2\_AS over H9N2\_NAS) at Day 21. Adjusted GMC = GMC adjusted for baseline concentration.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.69|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on logarithm10 transformation of concentration, with vaccine group as fixed effect and anti- H1 stalk ELISA result at Day 0 as covariates||||1.69|1.14|
91104303|NCT04806373|182094855|OTHER|||||||0.809|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.809
90849862|NCT02415842|181565953|EQUIVALENCE|Adjusted GMC ratios of anti-H1 HA stalk ELISA antibody concentration between groups (H9N2\_AS over H9N2\_NAS) at Day 42. Adjusted GMC = GMC adjusted for baseline concentration.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|1.73|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on logarithm10 transformation of concentration, with vaccine group as fixed effect and anti- H1 stalk ELISA result at Day 0 as covariates||||1.73|1.28|
90899836|NCT01225822|181665625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.7856||95.0|0.599|1.473|||Regression, Logistic|||BIBR 1048 300 mg qd vs. BIBR 1048 150 mg bid comparison. Secondary analysis to compare once daily dosing vs. twice daily dosing. . The statistical model was a logistic regression which included treatment and centre.||1.473|0.599|0.7856
90957566|NCT01445301|181795305|NON_INFERIORITY|If the upper 95% confidence was less than the pre-defined threshold (-Δ \[non-inferiority margin, -3.8\]) of 3.8, non-inferiority of GSK2585823 once daily to CLDM twice daily would be established.|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|-1.5|||ANCOVA|||WEEK 1||-1.5|-4.4|<0.001
90957567|NCT01445301|181795305|NON_INFERIORITY|If the upper 95% confidence was less than the pre-defined threshold (-Δ \[non-inferiority margin, -3.8\]) of 3.8, non-inferiority of GSK2585823 once daily to CLDM twice daily would be established|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.8||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|0.4|||ANCOVA|||WEEK 2||0.4|-4.0|0.113
91104304|NCT04806373|182094856|OTHER|||||||0.946|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.946
91104305|NCT04806373|182094857|OTHER|||||||0.808|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.808
91104306|NCT04806373|182094858|OTHER|||||||0.662|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.662
91104307|NCT04806373|182094859|OTHER|||||||0.714|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.714
91104308|NCT04806373|182094860|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
91104309|NCT03382873|182094861|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
90849863|NCT02415842|181565953|EQUIVALENCE|Adjusted GMC ratios of anti-H1 HA stalk ELISA antibody concentration between groups (H9N2\_AS over H9N2\_NAS) at Day 182. Adjusted GMC = GMC adjusted for baseline concentration.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.44|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on logarithm10 transformation of concentration, with vaccine group as fixed effect and anti- H1 stalk ELISA result at Day 0 as covariates||||1.44|1.00|
91030765|NCT02096718|181946087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of gmeans|149.97|STANDARD_DEVIATION|41.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|105.266|213.671|||ANOVA||Relative bioavailability comparison of afatinib for severe vs. normal matched with severe patients was estimated by the ratios of the geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Inter individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|The ANOVA model was fitted using log-transformed values. The difference between the expected means of each comparison was estimated by the difference in the corresponding Least Square Means (point estimate), and 2-sided 90% confidence intervals based on the t-distribution. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale to give the point estimator (gMean), and interval estimates for the intersubject ratio of the gMeans for each renal function group.||213.671|105.266|
91030766|NCT02096718|181946088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of gmeans|101.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|38.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|72.931|140.309|||ANOVA||Relative bioavailability comparison of afatinib for moderate vs. normal matched with moderate patients was estimated by the ratios of the geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Inter individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|The ANOVA model was fitted using log-transformed values. The difference between the expected means of each comparison was estimated by the difference in the corresponding Least Square Means (point estimate), and 2-sided 90% confidence intervals based on the t-distribution. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale to give the point estimator (gMean), and interval estimates for the intersubject ratio of the gMeans for each renal function group.||140.309|72.931|
91097679|NCT01047501|182080134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-21.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.7|-16.2||Nonparametric analysis p values were planned using Wilcoxon rank-sum test for each comparison between AMR101 and placebo. Comparisons between AMR101 and placebo were made using a significance level of 0.05.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|A prespecified step-down testing procedure was used to control Type I error rate using 4 g/day vs placebo then, if significant, 2 g/day vs placebo.|Median differences between the treatment groups and 95% CIs were estimated with the Hodges-Lehmann method.|A sample size of 194 was required to provide 90.6% power to detect a difference of 15% between AMR101 4 g/day and placebo in percent change from baseline in fasting TG levels, assuming an SD of 45% in TG measurements and a significance level (p value) of 0.05, and 80% power to demonstrate noninferiority (p 0.025, 1-sided) of the LDL-cholesterol response between AMR101 4 g/day and placebo with a +6% margin. To accommodate a 10% drop-out rate, recruitment was planned for 648 randomized patients.||-16.2|-26.7|<0.0001
90849864|NCT02415842|181565954|EQUIVALENCE|Difference between groups (H1N1\_AS minus H1N1\_NAS) in percentage of subjects with at least 4-fold increase of anti-H1 stalk ELISA at Day 21.|Difference in percentage of subjects|10.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|36.83|||Asymptotic standardized 95% CI|||||36.83|-16.50|
90849865|NCT02415842|181565954|EQUIVALENCE|Difference between groups (H1N1\_AS minus H1N1\_NAS) in percentage of subjects with at least 4-fold increase of anti-H1 stalk ELISA at Day 42.|Difference in percentage of subjects|12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.45|36.98|||Asymptotic standardized 95% CI|||||36.98|-14.45|
90849866|NCT02415842|181565954|EQUIVALENCE|Difference between groups (H1N1\_AS minus H1N1\_NAS) in percentage of subjects with at least 4-fold increase of anti-H1 stalk ELISA at Day 182.|Difference in percentage of subjects|-6.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.56|18.65|||Asymptotic standardized 95% CI|||||18.65|-30.56|
90957568|NCT01445301|181795305|NON_INFERIORITY|If the upper 95% confidence was less than the pre-defined threshold (-Δ \[non-inferiority margin, -3.8\]) of 3.8, non-inferiority of GSK2585823 once daily to CLDM twice daily would be established|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.0||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|0.3|||ANCOVA|||WEEK 4||0.3|-4.2|0.084
90957569|NCT01445301|181795305|NON_INFERIORITY|If the upper 95% confidence was less than the pre-defined threshold (-Δ \[non-inferiority margin, -3.8\]) of 3.8, non-inferiority of GSK2585823 once daily to CLDM twice daily would be established|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.7||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||WEEK 8||-0.3|-5.1|0.026
90849867|NCT02415842|181565955|EQUIVALENCE|Difference between groups (H5N1\_AS minus H5N1\_NAS) in percentage of subjects with at least 4-fold increase of anti-H1 stalk ELISA at Day 21.|Difference in percentage of subjects|27.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.96|47.01|||Asymptotic standardized 95% CI|||||47.01|5.96|
90849868|NCT02415842|181565955|EQUIVALENCE|Difference between groups (H5N1\_AS minus H5N1\_NAS) in percentage of subjects with at least 4-fold increase of anti-H1 stalk ELISA at Day 42.|Difference in percentage of subjects|36.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.41|57.53|||Asymptotic standardized 95% CI|||||57.53|11.41|
90849869|NCT02415842|181565955|EQUIVALENCE|Difference between groups (H5N1\_AS minus H5N1\_NAS) in percentage of subjects with at least 4-fold increase of anti-H1 stalk ELISA at Day 182.|Difference in percentage of subjects|6.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.91|24.71|||Asymptotic standardized 95% CI|||||24.71|-11.91|
90849870|NCT02415842|181565955|EQUIVALENCE|Difference between groups (H5N1\_AS minus H5N1\_NAS) in percentage of subjects with at least 4-fold increase of anti-H1 stalk ELISA at Day 365.|Difference in percentage of subjects|6.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.19|22.15|||Asymptotic standardized 95% CI|||||22.15|-6.19|
90849871|NCT02415842|181565956|EQUIVALENCE|Difference between groups (H9N2\_AS minus H9N2\_NAS) in percentage of subjects with at least 4-fold increase of anti-H1 stalk ELISA at Day 21.|Difference in percentage of subjects|3.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.06|20.24|||Asymptotic standardized 95% CI|||||20.24|-13.06|
90849872|NCT02415842|181565956|EQUIVALENCE|Difference between groups (H9N2\_AS minus H9N2\_NAS) in percentage of subjects with at least 4-fold increase of anti-H1 stalk ELISA at Day 42.|Difference in percentage of subjects|16.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|34.76|||Asymptotic standardized 95% CI|||||34.76|0.35|
90849873|NCT02415842|181565956|EQUIVALENCE|Difference between groups (H9N2\_AS minus H9N2\_NAS) in percentage of subjects with at least 4-fold increase of anti-H1 stalk ELISA at Day 182.|Difference in percentage of subjects|0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.76|15.0|||Asymptotic standardized 95% CI|||||15.00|-13.76|
90957570|NCT01445301|181795305|NON_INFERIORITY|If the upper 95% confidence was less than the pre-defined threshold (-Δ \[non-inferiority margin, -3.8\]) of 3.8, non-inferiority of GSK2585823 once daily to CLDM twice daily would be established|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.6||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||WEEK 12||-0.3|-5.0|0.030
90899837|NCT01225822|181665625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.469||||0.0007||95.0|0.302|0.727|||Regression, Logistic|||BIBR 1048 225 mg bid vs. Enoxaparin 40 mg qd comparison. Secondary analysis, active control used as reference. The statistical model was a logistic regression which included treatment and centre.||0.727|0.302|0.0007
90849874|NCT03811093|181565961|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.036|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.243|2.828||p-value is calculated using SPSS.|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis states that in the population from where the sample was obtained there was no difference between the intervention (invisa-RED Elite) and placebo groups in the mean change in the primary outcome variable, i.e. Change in Body Fat Percentage.||2.828|1.243|<0.01
90849875|NCT03811093|181565961|OTHER|||||||0.2||||||The significance value has been Lilliefors corrected and represents the lower bound of the true significance.|Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test|||"A single sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov normality test was used to examine if variables are normally distributed for the population from which the trial groups are drawn.~The null hypothesis is that the distribution of Percent of Body Fat Lost or Gained is normal with mean -.83 and standard deviation 1.50218."||||0.20
90849876|NCT03811093|181565961|OTHER|||||||0.075|||||||Levene's Test for Equality of Variance|||To test that the trial participant's population variances are equal (or exhibit homogeneity of variance), a Levene's Test for Equality of Variance was conducted. It tests the null hypothesis that the population variances are equal (called homogeneity of variance or homoscedasticity). For this test if the resulting p-value of Levene's test is less than .05, the obtained differences in sample variances are unlikely to have occurred based on random sampling from a population with equal variances.||||0.075
90849877|NCT03811093|181565962|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|7.063|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.829|10.296||p-value is calculated using SPSS.|t-test, 2 sided|||Designed as a superiority trial with the aim of establishing whether the intervention was superior or inferior to a placebo in effectiveness as a therapy for change over time in measured body circumference. The null hypothesis states that in the population from where the sample was obtained there was no difference between the intervention (invisa-RED Elite) and placebo groups in the mean change in the primary outcome variable, i.e. measured body circumference.||10.296|3.829|<0.01
90849878|NCT03811093|181565962|OTHER|||||||0.2||||||The significance value has been Lilliefors corrected and represents the lower bound of the true significance.|Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test|||"A Kolmogorov-Smirnov normality test was used to examine if variables are normally distributed for the population from which the trial groups are drawn.~The null hypothesis is that the distribution of Total Inches Lost or Gained is normal with mean -7.136 and standard deviation 5.796."||||0.20
90849879|NCT03811093|181565962|OTHER|||||||0.44|||||||Levene's Test for Equality of Variance|||To test that the trial participant's population variances are equal (or exhibit homogeneity of variance), a Levene's Test for Equality of Variance was conducted. It tests the null hypothesis that the population variances are equal (called homogeneity of variance or homoscedasticity). For this test if the resulting p-value of Levene's test is less than .05, the obtained differences in sample variances are unlikely to have occurred based on random sampling from a population with equal variances.||||0.44
90899838|NCT01225822|181665625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.647||||0.0401||95.0|0.427|0.98|||Regression, Logistic|||BIBR 1048 150 mg bid vs. Enoxaparin 40 mg qd comparison. Secondary analysis, active control used as reference. The statistical model was a logistic regression which included treatment and centre.||0.98|0.427|0.0401
90899839|NCT01225822|181665625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.249||||0.2446||95.0|0.859|1.817|||Regression, Logistic|||BIBR 1048 50 mg bid vs. Enoxaparin 40 mg qd comparison. Secondary analysis, active control used as reference. The statistical model was a logistic regression which included treatment and centre.||1.817|0.859|0.2446
90899840|NCT01225822|181665626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.375|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.244|0.577||Dose relationship tested using a hierarchical testing procedure to preserve type I error rate at 5%. 225 mg bid was compared to 50 mg bid. If a difference significant at 5% level was found, then 150 mg bid was compared to 50 mg bid|Regression, Logistic|||BIBR 1048 225 mg bid vs. BIBR 1048 50 mg bid comparison. The primary objective of the trial was to establish a dose relationship among BIBR 1048 doses studied in the prevention of VTE. The statistical model was a logistic regression which included treatment and centre..||0.577|0.244|<0.0001
90899841|NCT01225822|181665626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.518||||0.0015||95.0|0.344|0.778||Dose relationship tested using a hierarchical testing procedure to preserve type I error rate at 5%. 225 mg bid was compared to 50 mg bid. If a difference significant at 5% level was found, then 150 mg bid was compared to 50 mg bid|Regression, Logistic|||BIBR 1048 150 mg bid vs. BIBR 1048 50 mg bid comparison. The primary objective of the trial was to establish a dose relationship among BIBR 1048 doses studied in the prevention of VTE. The statistical model was a logistic regression which included treatment and centre..||0.778|0.344|0.0015
91097680|NCT01047501|182080134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-10.1||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.7|-4.5|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Median differences between the treatment groups and 95% CIs were estimated with the Hodges-Lehmann method.|||-4.5|-15.7|0.0005
91104310|NCT03382873|182094862|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||ANOVA|Intervention sequence and sex were used as independent predictors in the model.||Compares the change for the GLB/GLB intervention sequence to the GLB+/GLB+ intervention sequence (the primary comparison of interest)||||0.0001
91104311|NCT03382873|182094863|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9476|||||||ANOVA|Intervention sequence and sex used as independent predictors in the model.||Comparison of the GLB/GLB intervention sequence to the GLB+/GLB+ intervention sequence (the primary comparison of interest).||||0.9476
90849880|NCT03811093|181565963|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.4703|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3372|6.6034||p-value is computed using SPSS.|t-test, 2 sided|||Designed as a superiority trial with the aim of establishing whether the intervention was superior or inferior to a placebo in effectiveness as a therapy for change in body fat, measured in pounds. The null hypothesis states that in the population from where the sample was obtained there was no difference between the intervention (invisa-RED Elite) and placebo groups in the mean change in the primary outcome variable, i.e. change in pounds of body fat.||6.6034|2.3372|<0.01
91104312|NCT03382873|182094864|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0112|||||||ANOVA|Treatment group, time and their interaction were fixed effects and participants were random effects||||||0.0112
91104313|NCT03382873|182094865|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9085|||||||ANOVA|Intervention sequence and sex used as independent predictors in the model.||Comparison of GLB/GLB intervention sequence to GLB+/GLB+ intervention sequence (the primary comparison of interest).||||0.9085
91104314|NCT03382873|182094866|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2063|||||||ANOVA|Intervention sequence and sex used as independent predictors in the model.||Comparison between the GLB/GLB intervention sequence and the GLB+/GLB+ intervention sequence (the primary comparison of interest)||||0.2063
90849881|NCT03811093|181565963|OTHER|||||||0.2||||||The significance value has been Lilliefors corrected and represents the lower bound of the true significance.|Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test|||"A single sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov normality test was used to examine if variables are normally distributed for the population from which the trial groups are drawn.~The null hypothesis is that the distribution of the Weight of Body Fat Lost or Gained is normal with mean -2.49 and standard deviation 3.71209."||||.200
90849882|NCT03811093|181565963|OTHER|||||||0.438|||||||Levene's Test for Equality of Variance|||To test that the trial participant's population variances are equal (or exhibit homogeneity of variance), a Levene's Test for Equality of Variance was conducted. It tests the null hypothesis that the population variances are equal (called homogeneity of variance or homoscedasticity). For this test if the resulting p-value of Levene's test is less than .05, the obtained differences in sample variances are unlikely to have occurred based on random sampling from a population with equal variances.||||.438
90849883|NCT00178503|181565964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Linear trend P value|0.0|||=|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Data were analyzed using SPSS-PC repeated measures one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), with MPH dosing regimen as the within-subjects variable.||||=.001
90849884|NCT00178503|181565965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Linear p|0.005||||0.005|||||||ANOVA|||||||.005
90849885|NCT00178503|181565966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Linear p|0.0|||<|0.001||0.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<.001
90849886|NCT00464490|181565967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value \<0.05 was considered significant|t-test, 2 sided|||H(0): Ventilator time (DG) = Ventilator time (CG)||||0.02
90849887|NCT00039871|181566004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Binomial Approximation|0.217||||||99.0|0.195|0.239||||||||0.239|0.195|
90849888|NCT00039871|181566005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Binomial Approximation|0.563||||||95.0|0.529|0.596||||||||0.596|0.529|
90849889|NCT00039871|181566006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Binomial Approximation|0.122||||||95.0|0.076|0.169||||||||0.169|0.076|
90849890|NCT02446743|181566007|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Persistence at 4/7.5 years/Baseline in V72\_75 \[(Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\]|Vaccine Group Difference|77.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.1|84.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis group B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||84.1|68.1|
90849891|NCT02446743|181566007|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Persistence at 4/7.5 years/Baseline in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\]|Vaccine group difference|60.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.9|69.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis group B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||69.2|49.9|
90849892|NCT02446743|181566007|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Persistence at 4/7.5 years/Baseline in V72\_75 (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1)|Vaccine group difference|68.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.5|73.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis group B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||73.5|60.5|
90849893|NCT02446743|181566007|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Persistence at 4/7.5 years/Baseline in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\]|Vaccine group difference|9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|14.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis group B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||14.8|5.3|
90849894|NCT02446743|181566007|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Persistence at 4/7.5 years/Baseline in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72P10 vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\]|Vaccine group difference|14.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|24.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis group B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||24.2|4.9|
90849895|NCT02446743|181566007|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Persistence at 4/7.5 years/Baseline in V72\_75 (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1)|Vaccine group difference|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|15.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis group B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||15.9|4.3|
90849896|NCT02446743|181566008|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Persistence at 4/7.5 years/Baseline in V72\_75 (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1)|vaccine group difference|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.2|31.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis group B indicator strain H44/76and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||31.4|18.2|
90849897|NCT02446743|181566008|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Persistence at 4/7.5 years/Baseline in V72\_75 \[(Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\]|Vaccine groups difference|22.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.2|30.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis group B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||30.1|13.2|
90849898|NCT02446743|181566008|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Persistence at 4/7.5 years/Baseline in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\]|Vaccine group difference|30.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.0|39.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis group B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||39.6|20.0|
90849899|NCT02446743|181566008|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Persistence at 4/7.5 years/Baseline in V72\_75 (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1)|Vaccine group difference|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|11.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis group B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||11.9|-3.4|
91104315|NCT02470377|182094875|SUPERIORITY|The hypothesis was that either Target 1 (Occipital) or Target 2 (Vermis) would be more effective than the control target (Cerebellar hemisphere) but that there may be baseline differences in participants who chose Target 1 vs Target 2.||||||0.0439||||||Only p-values \<0.05 were considered significant|ANOVA|One way ANOVA, immediate DHI changes used for calculation.||This was an N-of-1 pilot study in which all participants received one session of each of 3 targets and chose which of the 3 led to the most acute reduction in intensity of rocking. The participants were treated with the target that they chose and then completed post stimulation diaries.||||0.0439
91104633|NCT03926247|182095275|OTHER|Within-group longitudinal analysis (no comparison groups)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.041|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029|=|0.211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.106|0.023|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analyses were conducted using a mixed effects linear model to calculate least square means across the 4 timepoints. This was a longitudinal within-group analysis with 4 timepoints of data nested within 56 individuals. Our hypothesis was that participants' social support would increase overtime.||0.023|-0.106|=0.211
90849900|NCT02446743|181566008|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Persistence at 4/7.5 years/Baseline in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1(V72\_41)\]|vaccine group differences|12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|24.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis group B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||24.2|0.33|
90849901|NCT02446743|181566008|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Persistence at 4/7.5 years/Baseline in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1(V72P10)\]|Vaccine group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|9.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis group B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||9.5|-10.0|
90849902|NCT02446743|181566010|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Persistence at 4/7.5 years/Baseline in V72\_75 (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1)|Vaccine group difference|22.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.5|28.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis group B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||28.6|16.5|
90849903|NCT02446743|181566010|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Persistence at 4/7.5 years/Baseline in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\]|Vaccine group difference|21.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.6|28.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis group B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||28.9|14.6|
90849904|NCT02446743|181566010|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Persistence at 4/7.5 years/Baseline in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\]|Vaccine group difference|26.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.4|35.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis group B indicator strain H44/76and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||35.3|16.4|
90849905|NCT02446743|181566010|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Persistence at 4/7.5 years/Baseline in V72\_75 (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1)|Vaccine group difference|68.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.8|73.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis group B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||73.7|60.8|
90849906|NCT02446743|181566010|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Persistence at 4/7.5 years/Baseline in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\]|Vaccine group difference|74.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.3|81.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis group B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||81.3|65.3|
90849907|NCT02446743|181566010|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Persistence at 4/7.5 years/Baseline in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\]|Vaccine group difference|64.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.6|72.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis group B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||72.3|53.6|
90849908|NCT02446743|181566010|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Persistence at 4/7.5 years/Baseline in V72\_75 (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1)|Vaccine group difference|9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|14.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis group B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||14.0|3.7|
90849909|NCT02446743|181566010|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Persistence at 4/7.5 years/Baseline in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\]|Vaccine group difference|7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|12.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis group B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||12.3|3.3|
90849910|NCT02446743|181566010|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Persistence at 4/7.5 years/Baseline in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\]|Vaccine group difference|13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|22.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis group B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||22.0|4.5|
90849911|NCT02446743|181566010|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Persistence at 4/7.5 years/Baseline in V72\_75 (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1)|Vaccine group difference|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|12.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis group B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||12.8|-3.4|
90849912|NCT02446743|181566010|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Persistence at 4/7.5 years/Baseline in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\]|Vaccine group difference|9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|21.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis group B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||21.4|-3.3|
90899842|NCT01225822|181665626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.7856||95.0|0.599|1.473|||Regression, Logistic|||BIBR 1048 300 mg qd vs. BIBR 1048 150 mg bid comparison. Secondary analysis to compare once daily dosing vs. twice daily dosing. . The statistical model was a logistic regression which included treatment and centre.||1.473|0.599|0.7856
90957571|NCT01445301|181795305|NON_INFERIORITY|If the upper 95% confidence was less than the pre-defined threshold (-Δ \[non-inferiority margin, -3.8\]) of 3.8, non-inferiority of GSK2585823 once daily to CLDM twice daily would be established|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.4||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||WEEK 1||-0.4|-6.5|0.028
91077905|NCT02913105|182041137|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.79|0.88|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||HDL Cholesterol: Day 28||0.88|0.79|<.0001
90849913|NCT02446743|181566010|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Persistence at 4/7.5 years/Baseline in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\]|Vaccine group difference|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|14.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis group B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||14.5|-6.4|
90849914|NCT02446743|181566011|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Persistence at 4/7.5 years/Baseline in V72\_75 (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1)|Vaccine group difference|15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.1|20.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||20.9|10.1|
90849915|NCT02446743|181566011|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Persistence at 4/7.5 years/Baseline in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\]|Vaccine group difference|12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.5|18.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||18.1|7.5|
90849916|NCT02446743|181566011|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Persistence at 4/7.5 years/Baseline in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\]|Vaccine group difference|21.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.3|29.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||29.9|12.3|
90849917|NCT02446743|181566011|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Persistence at 4/7.5 years/Baseline in V72\_75 (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1)|vaccine group difference|66.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.6|72.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||72.4|59.6|
90849918|NCT02446743|181566011|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Persistence at 4/7.5 years/Baseline in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\]|Vaccine group difference|70.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.8|77.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||77.0|60.8|
90849919|NCT02446743|181566011|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Persistence at 4/7.5 years/Baseline in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\]|Vaccine group difference|65.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.2|73.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||73.7|55.2|
90899843|NCT01225822|181665626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.469||||0.0007||95.0|0.302|0.727|||Regression, Logistic|||BIBR 1048 225 mg bid vs. Enoxaparin 40 mg qd comparison. Secondary analysis, active control used as reference. The statistical model was a logistic regression which included treatment and centre.||0.727|0.302|0.0007
90899844|NCT01225822|181665626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.647||||0.0401||95.0|0.427|0.98|||Regression, Logistic|||BIBR 1048 150 mg bid vs. Enoxaparin 40 mg qd comparison. Secondary analysis, active control used as reference. The statistical model was a logistic regression which included treatment and centre.||0.98|0.427|0.0401
90899845|NCT01225822|181665626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.249||||0.2446||95.0|0.859|1.817|||Regression, Logistic|||BIBR 1048 50 mg bid vs. Enoxaparin 40 mg qd comparison. Secondary analysis, active control used as reference. The statistical model was a logistic regression which included treatment and centre.||1.817|0.859|0.2446
90899846|NCT01225822|181665627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.334||||0.0373||95.0|0.199|0.938|||Regression, Logistic|||BIBR 1048 225 mg bid vs. BIBR 1048 50 mg bid, same methodology as primary endpoint.||0.938|0.199|0.0373
90899847|NCT01225822|181665627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.837||||0.6659||95.0|0.374|1.875|||Regression, Logistic|||BIBR 1048 150 mg bid vs. BIBR 1048 50 mg bid, same methodology as primary endpoint.||1.875|0.374|0.6659
91077906|NCT02913105|182041137|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.86||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|0.92|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||HDL Cholesterol: Day 42||0.92|0.81|0.0002
91077907|NCT02913105|182041137|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.77|0.88|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||HDL Cholesterol: Day 56||0.88|0.77|<.0001
90849920|NCT02446743|181566011|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Persistence at 4/7.5 years/Baseline in V72\_75 (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1)|Vaccine group difference|9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|13.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||13.6|4.9|
90849921|NCT02446743|181566011|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Persistence at 4/7.5 years/Baseline in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\]|Vaccine group difference|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|9.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||9.7|1.2|
90849922|NCT02446743|181566011|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Persistence at 4/7.5 years/Baseline in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\]|Vaccine group difference|15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.5|22.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||22.6|7.5|
90849923|NCT02446743|181566011|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Persistence at 4/7.5 years/Baseline in V72\_75 (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1)|Vaccine group difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|10.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||10.0|-6.8|
90849924|NCT02446743|181566011|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Persistence at 4/7.5 years/Baseline in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\]|Vaccine group difference|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|15.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||15.2|-9.8|
90849925|NCT02446743|181566011|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Persistence at 4/7.5 years/Baseline in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\]|Vaccine group difference|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|14.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||14.7|-7.8|
90849926|NCT02446743|181566012|OTHER|Vaccine Comparison at Persistence at 4 years/Baseline in V72\_75 (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1)|vaccine group ratio of GMTs|2.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.07|3.12|||ANOVA|Adjusted by vaccine group and country||Adjusted geometric mean titers for H44/76 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country.||3.12|2.07|
90849927|NCT02446743|181566012|OTHER|Vaccine Comparison at Persistence at 4 years/Baseline in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\]|vaccine group ratio of GMTs|2.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|2.72|||ANOVA|Adjusted by vaccine group and country||Adjusted geometric mean titers for H44/76 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country.||2.72|1.66|
90849928|NCT02446743|181566012|OTHER|Vaccine Comparison at Persistence at 4 years/Baseline in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\]|vaccine group ratio of GMTs|2.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.15|4.07|||ANOVA|Adjusted by vaccine group and country||Adjusted geometric mean titers for H44/76 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country.||4.07|2.15|
91097681|NCT01047501|182080135|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Nonparametric analysis p values were planned using Wilcoxon rank-sum test for each comparison between AMR101 and placebo with a significance level of 0.05. Non-inferiority tests for percent change from baseline in LDL-C were performed between AMR101 and placebo to determine if AMR101 was statistically non-inferior to placebo with regard to increases in LDL-C. The pre-specified LDL-C criterion for noninferiority was the upper boundary 97.5% confidence interval not crossing the +6% threshold.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-6.2||||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|-1.7|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|A prespecified step-down testing procedure was used to control Type I error rate using 4 g/day vs placebo then, if significant, 2 g/day vs placebo.|Median differences between the treatment groups and 95% CIs were estimated with the Hodges-Lehmann method.|A sample size of 194 was required to provide 90.6% power to detect a difference of 15% between AMR101 4 g/day and placebo in percent change from baseline in fasting TG levels, assuming an SD of 45% in TG measurements and a significance level (p value) of 0.05, and 80% power to demonstrate noninferiority (p 0.025, 1-sided) of the LDL-cholesterol response between AMR101 4 g/day and placebo with a +6% margin. To accommodate a 10% drop-out rate, recruitment was planned for 648 randomized patients.||-1.7|-10.5|0.0067
90849929|NCT02446743|181566012|OTHER|Vaccine Comparison at Persistence at 4 years/Baseline in V72\_75 (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1)|Vaccine group ratio of GMTs|16.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|21.0|||ANOVA|Adjusted by vaccine group and country||Adjusted geometric mean titers for 5/99 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country.||21|12|
90849930|NCT02446743|181566012|OTHER|Vaccine Comparison at Persistence at 4 years/Baseline in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\]|vaccine group ratio of GMTs|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.0|28.0|||ANOVA|Adjusted by vaccine group and country||Adjusted geometric mean titers for 5/99 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country.||28|14|
90849931|NCT02446743|181566012|OTHER|Vaccine Comparison at Persistence at 4 years/Baseline in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\]|vaccine group ratio of GMTs|14.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.05|20.0|||ANOVA|Adjusted by vaccine group and country||Adjusted geometric mean titers for 5/99 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country.||20|9.05|
90849932|NCT02446743|181566012|OTHER|Vaccine Comparison at Persistence at 4 years/Baseline in V72\_75 (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1)|Vaccine group ratio of GMTs|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|1.78|||ANOVA|Adjusted by vaccine group and country||Adjusted geometric mean titers for NZ98/254 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country||1.78|1.26|
90899848|NCT01225822|181665627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.505||||0.1882||95.0|0.183|1.397|||Regression, Logistic|||BIBR 1048 150 mg bid vs. BIBR 1048 300 mg qd, same methodology as primary endpoint.||1.397|0.183|0.1882
90899849|NCT01225822|181665627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.805||||0.5566||95.0|0.39|1.66|||Regression, Logistic|||BIBR 1048 50 mg bid vs. Enoxaparin 40 mg qd, same methodology as primary endpoint.||1.66|0.39|0.5566
90899850|NCT01225822|181665627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.674||||0.3253||95.0|0.307|1.48|||Regression, Logistic|||BIBR 1048 150 mg bid vs. Enoxaparin 40 mg qd, same methodology as primary endpoint.||1.48|0.307|0.3253
90899851|NCT01225822|181665627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.269||||0.0114||95.0|0.097|0.744|||Regression, Logistic|||BIBR 1048 225 mg bid vs. Enoxaparin 40 mg qd, same methodology as primary endpoint.||0.744|0.097|0.0114
91030767|NCT02096718|181946088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of gmeans|121.71|STANDARD_DEVIATION|34.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.79|163.162|||ANOVA||Relative bioavailability comparison of afatinib for severe vs. normal matched with severe patients was estimated by the ratios of the geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Inter individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|The ANOVA model was fitted using log-transformed values. The difference between the expected means of each comparison was estimated by the difference in the corresponding Least Square Means (point estimate), and 2-sided 90% confidence intervals based on the t-distribution. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale to give the point estimator (gMean), and interval estimates for the intersubject ratio of the gMeans for each renal function group.||163.162|90.790|
90849933|NCT02446743|181566012|OTHER|Vaccine Comparison at Persistence at 4 years/Baseline in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\]|vaccine group ratio of GMTs|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|1.51|||ANOVA|Adjusted by vaccine group and country||Adjusted geometric mean titers for NZ98/254 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country||1.51|1.11|
90849934|NCT02446743|181566012|OTHER|Vaccine Comparison at Persistence at 4 years/Baseline in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\]|vaccine group ratio of GMTs|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|2.28|||ANOVA|Adjusted by vaccine group and country||Adjusted geometric mean titers for NZ98/254 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country||2.28|1.27|
91097682|NCT01047501|182080135|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Nonparametric analysis p values were planned using Wilcoxon rank-sum test for each comparison between AMR101 and placebo with a significance level of 0.05. Non-inferiority tests for percent change from baseline in LDL-C were performed between AMR101 and placebo to determine if AMR101 was statistically non-inferior to placebo with regard to increases in LDL-C. The pre-specified LDL-C criterion for noninferiority was the upper boundary 97.5% confidence interval not crossing the +6% threshold.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-3.6||||0.0867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|0.5|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Median differences between the treatment groups and 95% CIs were estimated with the Hodges-Lehmann method.|||0.5|-7.9|0.0867
90899852|NCT01225822|181665628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.332||||0.036||95.0|0.118|0.931|||Regression, Logistic|||BIBR 1048 225 mg bid vs. BIBR 1048 50 mg bid, same methodology as primary endpoint.||0.931|0.118|0.036
90899853|NCT01225822|181665628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.687||||0.3884||95.0|0.293|1.611|||Regression, Logistic|||BIBR 1048 150 mg bid vs. BIBR 1048 50 mg bid, same methodology as primary endpoint.||1.611|0.293|0.3884
90899854|NCT01225822|181665628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.616||||0.3674||95.0|0.215|1.766|||Regression, Logistic|||BIBR 1048 150 mg bid vs. BIBR 1048 300 mg qd, same methodology as primary endpoint.||1.766|0.215|0.3674
90899855|NCT01225822|181665628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.809||||0.5663||95.0|0.393|1.668|||Regression, Logistic|||BIBR 1048 50 mg bid vs. Enoxaparin 40 mg qd, same methodology as primary endpoint.||1.668|0.393|0.5663
90899856|NCT01225822|181665628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.556||||0.1678||95.0|0.242|1.28|||Regression, Logistic|||BIBR 1048 150 mg bid vs. Enoxaparin 40 mg qd, same methodology as primary endpoint.||1.28|0.242|0.1678
90899857|NCT01225822|181665628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.269||||0.0113||95.0|0.097|0.743|||Regression, Logistic|||BIBR 1048 225 mg bid vs. Enoxaparin 40 mg qd, same methodology as primary endpoint.||0.743|0.097|0.0113
90899858|NCT01225822|181665629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|15.818||||0.0077||95.0|2.077|120.474|||Regression, Logistic|||BIBR 1048 225 mg bid vs. BIBR 1048 50 mg bid, same methodology as for primary endpoint||120.474|2.077|0.0077
90899859|NCT01225822|181665629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.907||||0.0062||95.0|2.229|128.238|||Regression, Logistic|||BIBR 1048 150 mg bid vs. BIBR 1048 50 mg bid, same methodology as for primary endpoint||128.238|2.229|0.0062
90899860|NCT01225822|181665629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.136||||0.7192||95.0|0.567|2.276|||Regression, Logistic|||BIBR 1048 150 mg bid vs. BIBR 1048 300 mg qd, same methodology as for primary endpoint||2.276|0.567|0.7192
90899861|NCT01225822|181665629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.121||||0.0472||95.0|0.015|0.974|||Regression, Logistic|||BIBR 1048 50 mg bid vs. Enoxaparin 40 mg qd, same methodology as for primary endpoint||0.974|0.015|0.0472
90899862|NCT01225822|181665629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.049||||0.1043||95.0|0.862|4.868|||Regression, Logistic|||BIBR 1048 150 mg bid vs. Enoxaparin 40 mg qd, same methodology as for primary endpoint||4.868|0.862|0.1043
90899863|NCT01225822|181665629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.917||||0.1448||95.0|0.799|4.597|||Regression, Logistic|||BIBR 1048 225 mg bid vs. Enoxaparin 40 mg qd, same methodology as for primary endpoint||4.597|0.799|0.1448
90899864|NCT01225822|181665631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.871||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.221|128.142|||Regression, Logistic|||||128.142|2.221|0.0063
90899865|NCT01225822|181665631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|22.338||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.983|167.268|||Regression, Logistic|||||167.268|2.983|0.0025
90899866|NCT01225822|181665631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.919||||0.7973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.483|1.75|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.750|0.483|0.7973
90899867|NCT01225822|181665631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.068||||0.0097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.009|0.522|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.522|0.009|0.0097
90849935|NCT02446743|181566012|OTHER|Vaccine Comparison at Persistence at 4 years/Baseline in V72\_75 (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1)|Vaccine group ratio of GMTs|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.68|||ANOVA|Adjusted by vaccine group and country||Adjusted geometric mean titers for M10713 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country||1.68|0.94|
90899868|NCT01225822|181665631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.522||||0.2375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.758|3.058|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.058|0.758|0.2375
90899869|NCT01225822|181665631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.7104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|2.403|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.403|0.550|0.7104
90899870|NCT04078035|181665645|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.00015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00088||0.86|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Subject, day (nested within subject), and time as random effects and condition (stress/control) as fixed effects.||Results below present the condition (stress/control) by time interactions.||||0.86
90849936|NCT02446743|181566012|OTHER|Vaccine Comparison at Persistence at 4 years/Baseline in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\]|vaccine group ratio of GMTs|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|2.05|||ANOVA|Adjusted by vaccine group and country||Adjusted geometric mean titers for M10713 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country||2.05|0.85|
90899871|NCT04078035|181665646|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.00022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00067||0.74|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Subject, day (nested within subject), and time as random effects and condition (stress/control) as fixed effects.||Results present the condition (stress/control) by time interactions.||||0.74
91097683|NCT01047501|182080136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-13.6||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.2|-9.9||Nonparametric analysis p values were planned using Wilcoxon rank-sum test for each comparison between AMR101 and placebo. Comparisons between AMR101 and placebo were made using a significance level of 0.05.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|A prespecified step-down testing procedure was used to control Type I error rate using 4 g/day vs placebo then, if significant, 2 g/day vs placebo.|Median differences between the treatment groups and 95% CIs were estimated with the Hodges-Lehmann method.|||-9.9|-17.2|0.0001
90899872|NCT04078035|181665647|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.0012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0019||0.52|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Subject, day (nested within subject), and time as random effects and condition (stress/control) as fixed effects.||Results below present the condition (stress/control) by time interactions.||||0.52
90899873|NCT04078035|181665648|SUPERIORITY|Results present the condition (stress/control) by time\^2 interactions.|Slope|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Likelihood ratio test showed better fit if quadratic for time included χ2 (2) = 77.2, p \< .001.||||||<.001
90899874|NCT04078035|181665649|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.0021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00027|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Likelihood ratio test showed better fit if quadratic for time included χ2 (2) = 66.4, p \< .001.||Results-interaction between time2 and condition||||<.001
90899875|NCT04078035|181665650|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.0013|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0002|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Likelihood ratio test showed better fit if quadratic for time included χ2 (2) = 77.2, p \< .001.||Results-interaction between time\^2 and condition||||<.001
90899876|NCT04078035|181665651|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.0037|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0013||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Results below present the condition (stress/control) by time interactions.||||0.005
90899877|NCT04078035|181665652|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.0071|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.074||0.92|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Subject, day (nested within subject), and time as random effects and condition (stress/control) as fixed effects.||Results below present the condition (stress/control) by time interactions.||||0.92
90899878|NCT04078035|181665653|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Subject, day (nested within subject), and time as random effects and condition (stress/control) as fixed effects.||Results below present the condition (stress/control) by time interactions.||||0.04
90899879|NCT04078035|181665654|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0033||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||Subject, day (nested within subject), and time as random effects and condition (stress/control) as fixed effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|Likelihood ratio test showed better fit if quadratic for time included χ2 (2) = 15.64, p \< .001.||Results-interaction between time\^2 and condition||||0.002
90899880|NCT04078035|181665655|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.014|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0053||0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Subject, day (nested within subject), and time as random effects and condition (stress/control) as fixed effects.||Results \_condition (stress/control) by time interactions.||||0.008
90899881|NCT04078035|181665656|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.0003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0014||0.83|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Subject, day (nested within subject), and time as random effects and condition (stress/control) as fixed effects.||Results below present the condition (stress/control) by time interactions.||||0.83
90899882|NCT04078035|181665657|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.0074|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0033||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Subject, day (nested within subject), and time as random effects and condition (stress/control) as fixed effects.||Results below present the condition (stress/control) by time interactions.||||0.03
90899883|NCT04078035|181665658|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.00075|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00012||0.51|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Subject, day (nested within subject), and time as random effects and condition (stress/control) as fixed effects.||Results below present the condition (stress/control) by time interactions.||||0.51
91030768|NCT02096718|181946089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of gmeans|122.44|STANDARD_DEVIATION|28.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.141|155.928|||ANOVA||Relative bioavailability comparison of afatinib for moderate vs. normal matched with moderate patients was estimated by the ratios of the geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Inter individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|The ANOVA model was fitted using log-transformed values. The difference between the expected means of each comparison was estimated by the difference in the corresponding Least Square Means (point estimate), and 2-sided 90% confidence intervals based on the t-distribution. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale to give the point estimator (gMean), and interval estimates for the intersubject ratio of the gMeans for each renal function group.||155.928|96.141|
91030769|NCT02096718|181946089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of gmeans|150.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|41.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|105.626|213.25|||ANOVA||Relative bioavailability comparison of afatinib for severe vs. normal matched with severe patients was estimated by the ratios of the geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Inter individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|The ANOVA model was fitted using log-transformed values. The difference between the expected means of each comparison was estimated by the difference in the corresponding Least Square Means (point estimate), and 2-sided 90% confidence intervals based on the t-distribution. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale to give the point estimator (gMean), and interval estimates for the intersubject ratio of the gMeans for each renal function group.||213.250|105.626|
91030770|NCT03682900|181946090|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0||||||A one tailed test was used, as the intervention is expected to be superior than the control group. The criterion for significance was p \<. 05.|Mixed Models Analysis|There were no adjustments made for multiple comparisons.||Data were analyzed using a general linear mixed model with students nested within schools and schools nested within condition.||||= .000
91030771|NCT03682900|181946091|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0||||||"The a prior threshold for statistical significance is set at p\<.05; one tailed test, as the intervention is expected to be superior than the control group.~The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons."|Mixed Models Analysis|||Data were analyzed using a general linear mixed model with students nested within schools and schools nested within condition||||= .000
91030772|NCT03682900|181946092|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.044||||||"The a prior threshold for statistical significance is set at p\<.05; one tailed test, as the intervention is expected to be superior than the control group.~The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons."|Mixed Models Analysis|||Data were analyzed using a general linear mixed model with students nested within schools and schools nested within condition.||||=.044
91030773|NCT03682900|181946093|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.033||||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for significance is p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Data were analyzed using a general linear mixed model with students nested within schools and schools nested within condition.||||=.033
91030774|NCT03682900|181946094|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||All probabilities for secondary outcomes were listed as p = .000 within the analysis program. A p value of \< .05 is considered significant. All statistical tests are one-tailed. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Data were analyzed using a general linear mixed model with students nested within schools and schools nested within condition.||||<.001
90849937|NCT02446743|181566012|OTHER|Vaccine Comparison at Persistence at 4 years/Baseline in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\]|vaccine group ratio of GMTs|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.78|||ANOVA|Adjusted by vaccine group and country||Adjusted geometric mean titers for M10713 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country||1.78|0.81|
90849938|NCT02446743|181566017|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at 1 month after booster /1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\]|Vaccine group difference|13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|21.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference were calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||21.6|8.0|
90849939|NCT02446743|181566017|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at 1 month after booster /1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\]|Vaccine group difference|16.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.8|23.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference were calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||23.1|10.8|
90899884|NCT04078035|181665659|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.0053|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0026||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Subject, day (nested within subject), and time as random effects and condition (stress/control) as fixed effects.||Results below present the condition (stress/control) by time interactions.||||0.04
90899885|NCT04078035|181665660|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.0018|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0027||0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Subject, day (nested within subject), and time as random effects and condition (stress/control) as fixed effects.||Results below present the condition (stress/control) by time interactions.||||0.49
90899886|NCT04078035|181665661|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.013|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0044||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Subject, day (nested within subject), and time as random effects and condition (stress/control) as fixed effects.||Results below present the condition (stress/control) by time interactions.||||0.002
90899887|NCT02100722|181665673|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority of FFR-guided PCI to CABG was prespecified as an upper boundary of less than 1.65 for the 95% confidence interval of the hazard ratio.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.5||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.2|||Regression, Cox|||A sample of 712 patients per group (1424 for the entire trial) would be required in order to achieve 90% power to claim noninferiority||2.2|1.1|0.35
90899888|NCT02100722|181665676|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|4.3||||||||4.3|0.7|
90899889|NCT02100722|181665677|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.5|||||Hazard ratio for overall number of participants experiencing MI.|||2.5|0.9|
90899890|NCT02100722|181665678|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.4||||||||2.4|0.3|
91030775|NCT03682900|181946095|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||All probabilities for secondary outcomes were listed as p = .000 within the analysis program. A p value of \< .05 is considered significant. All statistical tests are one-tailed. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Data were analyzed using a general linear mixed model with students nested within schools and schools nested within condition.||||<.001
91030776|NCT03682900|181946096|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||All probabilities for secondary outcomes were listed as p = .000 within the analysis program. A p value of \< .05 is considered significant. All statistical tests are one-tailed. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Data were analyzed using a general linear mixed model with students nested within schools and schools nested within condition.||||<.001
91030777|NCT03682900|181946097|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||"The a prior threshold for statistical significance is set at p\<.05; one tailed test, as the intervention is expected to be superior than the control group.~The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons."|Mixed Models Analysis|||Data were analyzed using a general linear mixed model with students nested within schools and schools nested within condition.||||<.001
91097684|NCT01047501|182080136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-5.5||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|-1.7|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Median differences between the treatment groups and 95% CIs were estimated with the Hodges-Lehmann method.|||-1.7|-9.4|0.0140
90849940|NCT02446743|181566017|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at 1 month after booster /1st dose in V72\_75 (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1)|Vaccine group difference|15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|20.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference were calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||20.1|11.0|
90849941|NCT02446743|181566017|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at 1 month after booster /1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\]|Vaccine group difference|54.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.0|63.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference were calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||63.3|43.0|
90849942|NCT02446743|181566017|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at 1 month after booster /1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\]|Vaccine group difference|31.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.0|40.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference were calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||40.1|22.0|
90849943|NCT02446743|181566017|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at 1 month after booster /1st dose in V72\_75 (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1)|Vaccine group difference|41.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.6|47.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference were calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||47.2|33.6|
90849944|NCT02446743|181566018|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at 1 month after booster /1st dose in V72\_75 (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1)|Vaccine group difference|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.0|25.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference were calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||25.4|15.0|
90849945|NCT02446743|181566018|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at 1 month after booster /1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\]|Vaccine group difference|18.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.7|27.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference were calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||27.0|10.7|
91097685|NCT01047501|182080137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-24.4||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.9|-17.0||Nonparametric analysis p values were planned using Wilcoxon rank-sum test for each comparison between AMR101 and placebo. Comparisons between AMR101 and placebo were made using a significance level of 0.05.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|A prespecified step-down testing procedure was used to control Type I error rate using 4 g/day vs placebo then, if significant, 2 g/day vs placebo.|Median differences between the treatment groups and 95% CIs were estimated with the Hodges-Lehmann method.|||-17.0|-31.9|0.0001
90849946|NCT02446743|181566018|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at 1 month after booster /1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\]|Vaccine group difference|21.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.6|28.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference were calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||28.8|15.6|
90849947|NCT02446743|181566018|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at 1 month after booster /1st dose in V72\_75 (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1)|vaccine group difference|12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|16.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||16.8|8.0|
91097686|NCT01047501|182080137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-10.5||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.3|-2.5|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Median differences between the treatment groups and 95% CIs were estimated with the Hodges-Lehmann method.|||-2.5|-18.3|0.0170
90849948|NCT02446743|181566018|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at 1 month after booster /1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\]|Vaccine group difference|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.8|28.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||28.6|12.8|
90899891|NCT02100722|181665679|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.3|||||Hazard ratio for overall number of participants experiencing repeat revascularization.|||2.3|0.9|
90899892|NCT02100722|181665680|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.01
90899893|NCT02100722|181665681|OTHER||||||<|0.04|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.04
91030778|NCT03682900|181946098|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||All probabilities for secondary outcomes were listed as p = .000 within the analysis program. A p value of \< .05 is considered significant. All statistical tests are one-tailed. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Data were analyzed using a general linear mixed model with students nested within schools and schools nested within condition.||||<.001
91097687|NCT01047501|182080138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-19.0||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.2|-15.7||Nonparametric analysis p values were planned using Wilcoxon rank-sum test for each comparison between AMR101 and placebo. Comparisons between AMR101 and placebo were made using a significance level of 0.05.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|A prespecified step-down testing procedure was used to control Type I error rate using 4 g/day vs placebo then, if significant, 2 g/day vs placebo.|Median differences between the treatment groups and 95% CIs were estimated with the Hodges-Lehmann method.|||-15.7|-22.2|0.0001
90849949|NCT02446743|181566018|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at 1 month after booster /1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\]|Vaccine group difference|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|12.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||12.2|1.5|
90849950|NCT02446743|181566019|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at 1 month after booster /1st dose in V72\_75 (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1)|Vaccine group difference|27.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.9|33.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference were calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||33.3|21.9|
90849951|NCT02446743|181566019|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at 1 month after booster /1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\]|Vaccine group difference|31.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.8|40.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference were calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||40.3|21.8|
90849952|NCT02446743|181566019|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at 1 month after booster /1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\]|Vaccine group difference|26.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.2|33.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference were calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||33.1|19.2|
90849953|NCT02446743|181566019|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at 1 month after booster /1st dose in V72\_75 (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1)|vaccine group difference|19.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.3|24.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference were calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||24.3|14.3|
90849954|NCT02446743|181566019|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at 1 month after booster /1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\]|Vaccine group difference|19.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.1|27.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference were calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||27.5|12.1|
90849955|NCT02446743|181566019|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at 1 month after booster /1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\]|Vaccine group difference|19.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.3|26.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference were calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||26.4|13.3|
90849956|NCT02446743|181566019|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at 1 month after booster /1st dose in V72\_75 (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1)|vaccine group difference|43.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.2|49.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference were calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||49.9|35.2|
90899894|NCT02100722|181665682|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
90899895|NCT02100722|181665685|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
90849957|NCT02446743|181566019|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at 1 month after booster /1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\]|Vaccine group difference|58.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.6|67.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference were calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||67.3|46.6|
90849958|NCT02446743|181566019|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at 1 month after booster /1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\]|Vaccine group difference|33.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.0|42.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference were calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||42.5|23.0|
90849959|NCT02446743|181566019|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at 1 month after booster /1st dose in V72\_75 (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1)|vaccine group difference|13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.8|18.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference were calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||18.3|8.8|
90849960|NCT02446743|181566019|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at 1 month after booster /1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\]|Vaccine group difference|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.6|29.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference were calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||29.0|12.6|
90899896|NCT03500640|181665698|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.196||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.196
90899897|NCT03500640|181665699|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.800
90899898|NCT03500640|181665700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.677|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.677
90899899|NCT03500640|181665701|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.349||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.349
90899900|NCT03500640|181665702|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.891|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.891
91030779|NCT03682900|181946099|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||All probabilities for secondary outcomes were listed as p = .000 within the analysis program. A p value of \< .05 is considered significant. All statistical tests are one-tailed. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Data were anlyzed using a general linear mixed model with students nested within schools and schools nested within condition.||||<.001
91097688|NCT01047501|182080138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-8.0||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|-4.5|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Median differences between the treatment groups and 95% CIs were estimated with the Hodges-Lehmann method.|||-4.5|-11.6|0.0004
90849961|NCT02446743|181566019|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at 1 month after booster /1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\]|Vaccine group difference|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|14.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference were calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||14.7|2.7|
90849962|NCT02446743|181566020|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at 1 month after booster /1st dose in V72\_75 (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1)|vaccine group difference|40.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.9|46.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||46.3|33.9|
90849963|NCT02446743|181566020|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at 1 month after booster /1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\]|Vaccine group difference|49.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.9|58.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||58.5|38.9|
90849964|NCT02446743|181566020|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at 1 month after booster /1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\]|Vaccine group difference|34.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.6|42.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||42.2|26.6|
90849965|NCT02446743|181566020|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at 1 month after booster /1st dose in V72\_75 (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1)|vaccine group difference|27.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.6|33.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||33.0|21.6|
90849966|NCT02446743|181566020|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at 1 month after booster /1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\]|Vaccine group difference|23.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.5|32.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||32.0|15.5|
90849967|NCT02446743|181566020|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at 1 month after booster /1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\]|Vaccine group difference|30.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.9|38.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||38.1|22.9|
90849968|NCT02446743|181566020|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at 1 month after booster /1st dose in V72\_75 (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1)|vaccine group difference|43.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.1|50.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||50.6|35.1|
90849969|NCT02446743|181566020|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at 1 month after booster /1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\]|Vaccine group difference|51.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.3|60.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||60.9|39.3|
90849970|NCT02446743|181566020|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at 1 month after booster /1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\]|Vaccine group difference|41.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.9|50.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||50.2|29.9|
90849971|NCT02446743|181566020|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at 1 month after booster /1st dose in V72\_75 (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1)|vaccine group difference|19.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.9|24.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||24.6|12.9|
90899901|NCT03500640|181665703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.140
90899902|NCT03500640|181665704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.732|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.732
90899903|NCT03500640|181665705|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.637||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.637
90899904|NCT03500640|181665706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.521||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.521
90899905|NCT03500640|181665707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.083||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.083
91097689|NCT01047501|182080139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-9.3||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|-6.1||Nonparametric analysis p values were planned using Wilcoxon rank-sum test for each comparison between AMR101 and placebo. Comparisons between AMR101 and placebo were made using a significance level of 0.05.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|A prespecified step-down testing procedure was used to control Type I error rate using 4 g/day vs placebo then, if significant, 2 g/day vs placebo.|Median differences between the treatment groups and 95% CIs were estimated with the Hodges-Lehmann method.|||-6.1|-12.3|0.0001
90849972|NCT02446743|181566020|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at 1 month after booster /1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\]|Vaccine group difference|28.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.9|37.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||37.8|17.9|
90849973|NCT02446743|181566020|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at 1 month after booster /1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\]|Vaccine group difference|13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.4|20.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||20.1|6.4|
90849974|NCT02446743|181566021|OTHER|"Vaccine comparison Pre-booster or pre-1st dose in V72\_75 (Group 3B vs. Group B~\_0\_1)"|Ratio of GMTs|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.11|3.2|||ANOVA|||Pre booster/Pre first dose-Adjusted geometric mean titers for H44/76 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country.||3.20|2.11|
90849975|NCT02446743|181566021|OTHER|"Vaccine comparison Post-booster or post-1st dose in V72\_75 (Group 3B vs. Group B~\_0\_1)"|Ratio of GMTs|11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.85|15.0|||ANOVA|||Post booster/Post first dose-Adjusted geometric mean titers for H44/76 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country||15|8.85|
90849976|NCT02446743|181566021|OTHER|Vaccine comparison-Pre-booster or pre-1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\]|Ratio of GMTs|2.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|2.79|||ANOVA|||Pre booster/Pre first dose-Adjusted geometric mean titers for H44/76 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country.||2.79|1.70|
90849977|NCT02446743|181566021|OTHER|Vaccine comparison-post-booster or post-1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\]|Ratio of GMTs|12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.22|17.0|||ANOVA|||Post booster/Post first dose-Adjusted geometric mean titers for H44/76 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country||17|8.22|
90849978|NCT02446743|181566021|OTHER|Vaccine comparison- Pre-booster or pre-1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\]|Ratio of GMTs|3.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|4.2|||ANOVA|||Pre booster/Pre first dose-Adjusted geometric mean titers for H44/76 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country.||4.20|2.20|
90849979|NCT02446743|181566021|OTHER|Vaccine comparison- post-booster or post-1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\]|Ratio of GMTs|11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.75|16.0|||ANOVA|||Post booster/Post first dose-Adjusted geometric mean titers for H44/76 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country||16|7.75|
90849980|NCT02446743|181566021|OTHER|"Vaccine comparison Pre-booster or pre-1st dose in V72\_75 (Group 3B vs. Group B~\_0\_1)"|Ratio of GMTs|16.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|21.0|||ANOVA|||Pre booster/Pre first dose-Adjusted geometric mean titers for 5/99 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country||21|12|
90849981|NCT02446743|181566021|OTHER|"Vaccine comparison Post-booster or post-1st dose in V72\_75 (Group 3B vs. Group B~\_0\_1)"|Ratio of GMTs|68.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.0|90.0|||ANOVA|||Post booster/Post first dose-Adjusted geometric mean titers for 5/99 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country||90|51|
90849982|NCT02446743|181566021|OTHER|Vaccine comparison- Pre-booster or pre-1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\]|Ratio of GMTs|18.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.0|26.0|||ANOVA|||Pre booster/Pre first dose-Adjusted geometric mean titers for 5/99 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country.||26|13|
90899906|NCT03500640|181665708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.778||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.778
91097690|NCT01047501|182080139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-3.8||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|-0.7|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Median differences between the treatment groups and 95% CIs were estimated with the Hodges-Lehmann method.|||-0.7|-6.9|0.0170
91097691|NCT01257542|182080140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.15||p-value was calculated using negative binomial regression model with treatment, site and baseline of cough count terms with log (exposure time) as the offset parameter.|Negative binomial regression|||Odds Ratio and corresponding 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) were assessed from the negative binomial regression model.||1.15|0.59|0.252
90849983|NCT02446743|181566021|OTHER|Vaccine comparison- post-booster or post-1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\]|Ratio of GMTs|74.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.0|107.0|||ANOVA|||Post booster/Post first dose-Adjusted geometric mean titers for 5/99 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country||107|51|
90899907|NCT03500640|181665709|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.982||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.982
90899908|NCT03500640|181665710|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.081||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.081
91097692|NCT01257542|182080141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.26||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.08||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, site and baseline cough severity verbal rating scale terms.|ANOVA|||Treatment difference and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on least-square (LS) means from analysis of variance (ANOVA) model.||0.08|-0.60|0.134
91097693|NCT01257542|182080142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.06||||0.768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.33||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, site and baseline cough severity verbal rating scale terms.|ANOVA|||1 hour: treatment difference and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from ANOVA model.||0.33|-0.45|0.768
91097694|NCT01257542|182080142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.2||||0.358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.23||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, site and baseline cough severity verbal rating scale terms.|ANOVA|||2 hours: treatment difference and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from ANOVA model.||0.23|-0.64|0.358
90849984|NCT02446743|181566021|OTHER|Vaccine comparison- Pre-booster or pre-1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\]|Ratio of GMTs|14.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.99|22.0|||ANOVA|||Pre booster/Pre first dose-Adjusted geometric mean titers for 5/99 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country.||22|8.99|
90849985|NCT02446743|181566021|OTHER|Vaccine comparison- post-booster or post-1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\]|Ratio of GMTs|63.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.0|95.0|||ANOVA|||Post booster/Post first dose-Adjusted geometric mean titers for 5/99 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country||95|41|
90849986|NCT02446743|181566021|OTHER|"Vaccine comparison Pre-booster or pre-1st dose in V72\_75 (Group 3B vs. Group B~\_0\_1)"|Ratio of GMTs|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|1.75|||ANOVA|||Pre booster/Pre first dose-Adjusted geometric mean titers for NZ98/254 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country||1.75|1.24|
90849987|NCT02446743|181566021|OTHER|"Vaccine comparison Post-booster or post-1st dose in V72\_75 (Group 3B vs. Group B~\_0\_1)"|Ratio of GMTs|5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.49|7.76|||ANOVA|||Post booster dose/ post first dose-Adjusted geometric mean titers for NZ98/254 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country.||7.76|4.49|
90849988|NCT02446743|181566021|OTHER|Vaccine comparison- Pre-booster or pre-1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\]|Ratio of GMTs|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|1.54|||ANOVA|||Pre booster/Pre first dose-Adjusted geometric mean titers for NZ98/254 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country.||1.54|1.13|
90849989|NCT02446743|181566021|OTHER|Vaccine comparison- post-booster or post-1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\]|Ratio of GMTs|8.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.83|12.0|||ANOVA|||Post booster/Post first dose-Adjusted geometric mean titers for NZ98/254 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country||12|5.83|
90849990|NCT02446743|181566021|OTHER|Vaccine comparison- Pre-booster or pre-1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\]|Ratio of GMTs|1.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|2.2|||ANOVA|||Pre booster/Pre first dose-Adjusted geometric mean titers for NZ98/254 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country.||2.20|1.22|
90899909|NCT03500640|181665711|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.712||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.712
90899910|NCT03500640|181665712|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.371||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.371
91097695|NCT01257542|182080142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.32||||0.139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.1||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, site and baseline cough severity verbal rating scale terms.|ANOVA|||3 hours: treatment difference and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from ANOVA model.||0.10|-0.74|0.139
91097696|NCT01257542|182080142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.21||||0.364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.25||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, site and baseline cough severity verbal rating scale terms.|ANOVA|||4 hours: treatment difference and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from ANOVA model.||0.25|-0.68|0.364
90849991|NCT02446743|181566021|OTHER|Vaccine comparison- post-booster or post-1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\]|Ratio of GMTs|4.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.88|6.58|||ANOVA|||Post booster/Post first dose-Adjusted geometric mean titers for NZ98/254 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country||6.58|2.88|
90849992|NCT02446743|181566021|OTHER|"Vaccine comparison Pre-booster or pre-1st dose in V72\_75 (Group 3B vs. Group B~\_0\_1)"|Ratio of GMTs|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.75|||ANOVA|||Pre booster/Pre first dose-Adjusted geometric mean titers for M10713 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country||1.75|0.97|
90849993|NCT02446743|181566021|OTHER|"Vaccine comparison Post-booster or post-1st dose in V72\_75 (Group 3B vs. Group B~\_0\_1)"|Ratio of GMTs|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.08|3.25|||ANOVA|||Post booster/Post first dose-Adjusted geometric mean titers for M10713 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country||3.25|2.08|
90899911|NCT03500640|181665713|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.801||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.801
90899912|NCT03500640|181665714|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.069||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.069
90899913|NCT03500640|181665715|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.193||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.193
90899914|NCT03500640|181665716|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.197||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.197
90899915|NCT03500640|181665717|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.594||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.594
90899916|NCT03500640|181665718|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.328|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.328
90899917|NCT03500640|181665719|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.398||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.398
90899918|NCT03500640|181665720|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.288||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.288
90899919|NCT03500640|181665721|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.592||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.592
90899920|NCT03500640|181665722|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.805||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.805
90899921|NCT03500640|181665723|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.421||||||The a priori threshold for significance is 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||The p value provided here is for the physical component summary score (PCS) only||||0.421
90899922|NCT03500640|181665724|SUPERIORITY|The p value provided here is for the physical component summary score (PCS) only||||||0.16|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.160
90899923|NCT03500640|181665725|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.196||||||The a priori threshold for significance is 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.196
90899924|NCT03500640|181665726|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.532||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.532
90899925|NCT01279343|181665750|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.1||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|-0.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.3|-5.9|0.03
91097697|NCT01257542|182080142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.46||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.02||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, site and baseline cough severity verbal rating scale terms.|ANOVA|||5 hours: treatment difference and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from ANOVA model.||-0.02|-0.90|0.039
91097698|NCT01257542|182080142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.29||||0.206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.16||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, site and baseline cough severity verbal rating scale terms.|ANOVA|||6 hours: treatment difference and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from ANOVA model.||0.16|-0.75|0.206
91097699|NCT01257542|182080143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.49||||0.304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|0.45||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, site and baseline cough severity numerical rating scale terms.|ANOVA|||Treatment difference and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from ANOVA model.||0.45|-1.43|0.304
91097700|NCT01257542|182080144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.03||||0.954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|0.97||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, site and baseline cough severity numerical rating scale terms.|ANOVA|||1 hour: treatment difference and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from ANOVA model.||0.97|-1.03|0.954
91097701|NCT01257542|182080144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.44||||0.426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|0.65||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, site and baseline cough severity numerical rating scale terms.|ANOVA|||2 hours: treatment difference and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from ANOVA model.||0.65|-1.54|0.426
91097702|NCT01257542|182080144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.45||||0.396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|0.6||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, site and baseline cough severity numerical rating scale terms.|ANOVA|||3 hours: treatment difference and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from ANOVA model.||0.60|-1.49|0.396
91097703|NCT01257542|182080144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.49||||0.402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|0.66||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, site and baseline cough severity numerical rating scale terms.|ANOVA|||4 hours: treatment difference and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from ANOVA model.||0.66|-1.63|0.402
91097704|NCT01257542|182080144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.69||||0.204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|0.38||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, site and baseline cough severity numerical rating scale terms.|ANOVA|||5 hours: treatment difference and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from ANOVA model.||0.38|-1.75|0.204
91097705|NCT01257542|182080144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.84||||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|0.39||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, site and baseline cough severity numerical rating scale terms.|ANOVA|||6 hours: treatment difference and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from ANOVA model.||0.39|-2.06|0.179
91097706|NCT01257542|182080145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.39||p-value was calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with modified ridit scores controlling site.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment difference and the associated 95% CI were based on the weighted Gamma statistics.||0.39|-0.21|0.523
91097707|NCT01257542|182080146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.24||p-value was calculated from the CMH test with modified ridit scores controlling site.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment difference and the associated 95% CI were based on the weighted Gamma statistics.||0.24|-0.35|0.796
91097708|NCT00693303|182080162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.27
91097709|NCT03384966|182080172|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|58.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|22.4|154.8||A p-value significance level was set to 0.025, based on an overall Type-I error rate of 0.05 adjusted for multiple comparisons using a Bonferroni approach (two comparisons).|Chi-squared|||"The study aimed at assessing the efficacy of each selatogrel dose versus placebo. The proportion of responders for each of the two doses of selatogrel was compared to placebo.~No imputation was considered for handling missing values."||154.8|22.4|< 0.0001
91097710|NCT03384966|182080172|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|61.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|23.1|162.3||A p-value significance level was set to 0.025, based on an overall Type-I error rate of 0.05 adjusted for multiple comparisons using a Bonferroni approach (two comparisons).|Chi-squared|||"The study aimed at assessing the efficacy of each selatogrel dose versus placebo. The proportion of responders for each of the two doses of selatogrel was compared to placebo.~No imputation was considered for handling missing values in the main analysis."||162.3|23.1|< 0.0001
91097711|NCT03384966|182080176|OTHER|Logistic regression (Type III analysis)||||||0.1915|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1915
91097712|NCT03384966|182080178|OTHER||LS Mean difference with placebo|-27.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.4|-19.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|P-value significance level is set to 0.025, i.e. type I error (0.05) adjusted for multiplicity (2 comparisons) using a Bonferroni approach.||Longitudinal analysis of the treatment effect, from start of treatment to 8 hours after injection.||-19.6|-35.4|<.0001
91097713|NCT03384966|182080178|OTHER||LS Mean difference with placebo|-31.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.0|-23.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|P-value significance level is set to 0.025, i.e. type I error (0.05) adjusted for multiplicity (2 comparisons) using a Bonferroni approach||Longitudinal analysis of the treatment effect, from start of treatment up to 8 hours after injection.||-23.1|-39.0|<.0001
91097714|NCT04837521|182080192|SUPERIORITY||γ01|0.25||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||analysis completed using the 1 week follow up data|||||.03
91097715|NCT04837521|182080193|OTHER|The conditions were expected to be similar, and the primary interest of the analysis was changes over time across both groups.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.32|4.49||To estimate the mean improvement in PSFS across the entire sample, we calculated a posterior predictive distribution of within-person change scores between time fixed equal to 0 and equal to -1.|Bayesian framework|||PSFS scores were analyzed using mixed-effects linear growth models with time, treatment condition, and their interaction as predictors. Random effects modeled variation in intercepts, slopes over time, and their covariance. Time was specified as a continuous variable, centered on the final observation date. The SG group served as the reference level for the treatment factor. Models were estimated in a Bayesian framework using default priors in the brms package.||4.49|2.32|
91097716|NCT05561140|182080225|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-0.3|||=|1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|10.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.2|-10.9|=1.0000
91097717|NCT05561140|182080227|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-8.2|||=|0.0297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.6|-0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) model contained fixed effects for treatment group (categorical variable), visit (ordered categorical variable), and treatment group by visit interaction with additional fixed effects for stratification factors.||-0.8|-15.6|=0.0297
90849994|NCT02446743|181566021|OTHER|Vaccine comparison- Pre-booster or pre-1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\]|Ratio of GMTs|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.18|||ANOVA|||Pre booster/Pre first dose-Adjusted geometric mean titers for M10713 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country.||2.18|0.90|
90849995|NCT02446743|181566021|OTHER|Vaccine comparison- post-booster or post-1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\]|Ratio of GMTs|2.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.04|3.81|||ANOVA|||Post booster/Post first dose-Adjusted geometric mean titers for M10713 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country||3.81|2.04|
90849996|NCT02446743|181566021|OTHER|Vaccine comparison- Pre-booster or pre-1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\]|Ratio of GMTs|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.82|||ANOVA|||Pre booster/Pre first dose-Adjusted geometric mean titers for M10713 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country.||1.82|0.82|
90849997|NCT02446743|181566021|OTHER|Vaccine comparison- post-booster or post-1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\]|Ratio of GMTs|2.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.79|3.36|||ANOVA|||Post booster/Post first dose-Adjusted geometric mean titers for M10713 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country||3.36|1.79|
90849998|NCT02446743|181566023|OTHER|1 month post booster/first dose of vaccination: Four-fold Increase (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1) Difference|Vaccine group difference|27.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.7|33.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||33.0|20.7|
90849999|NCT02446743|181566023|OTHER|1 month post booster/first dose of vaccination: Four-fold Increase \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) Difference|Vaccine group difference|29.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.3|38.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||38.7|19.3|
90850000|NCT02446743|181566023|OTHER|1 month post booster/first dose of vaccination: Four-fold Increase \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) Difference|Vaccine group difference|26.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.3|33.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||33.9|18.3|
90850001|NCT02446743|181566023|OTHER|1 month post booster/first dose of vaccination: Four-fold Increase (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1) Difference|Vaccine group difference|22.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.9|27.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval or the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||27.9|15.9|
90850002|NCT02446743|181566023|OTHER|1 month post booster/first dose of vaccination: Four-fold Increase \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) Difference|Vaccine group difference|19.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.5|28.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||28.5|11.5|
90850003|NCT02446743|181566023|OTHER|1 month post booster/first dose of vaccination: Four-fold Increase \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) Difference|Vaccine group difference|23.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.6|31.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||31.9|14.6|
90899926|NCT01279343|181665751|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.23|||Chi-squared|||Comparison of vaginal delivery between groups.||1.23|.80|0.96
90899927|NCT01279343|181665751|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.9|||Chi-squared|||Cesarean deliveries were compared between the groups.||1.90|0.57|0.90
90899928|NCT03287414|181665760|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.063|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1379||0.3248|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.115|0.241||1-sided p-values were obtained using MMRM Model.|MMRM|||||0.241|-0.115|0.3248
90899929|NCT03287414|181665761|OTHER|||||||0.868|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.868
90899930|NCT03287414|181665763|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.6||||0.921|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.1|6.3|||Log Rank|||PFS1||6.3|1.1|0.921
90899931|NCT03287414|181665763|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.2||||0.863|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.9|5.6|||Log Rank|||PFS2||5.6|0.9|0.863
90899932|NCT03287414|181665764|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.2||||0.863|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.9|5.6|||Log Rank|||FVC||5.6|0.9|0.863
90899933|NCT03287414|181665764|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.457|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.4|2.0|||Log Rank|||DLCO||2.0|0.4|0.457
90899934|NCT03287414|181665764|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.3||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.1|0.6|||Log Rank|||6MWD||0.6|0.1|0.019
90899935|NCT03287414|181665765|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.611|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.6|2.0|||Log Rank|||Composite Endpoint 1||2.0|0.6|0.611
90899936|NCT03287414|181665765|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.549|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.6|1.9|||Log Rank|||Composite Endpoint 2||1.9|0.6|0.549
90899937|NCT03287414|181665766|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares of the Mean|-0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3109||0.7576|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.615|0.774||1-sided p-values were obtained using MMRM Model.|MMRM|||||0.774|-2.615|0.7576
91097718|NCT05561140|182080228|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-8.1|||=|0.3456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.9|10.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.7|-26.9|=0.3456
91097719|NCT00221104|182080235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.8234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.29|||Stratified log-rank test|log-rank test adjusted for the stratification factors at randomization: stroke subtype, high blood pressure, and diabetes mellitus|the adjusted hazard ratio (HR) and the 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated by the Cox proportional hazard model with for the stratification factors at randomization: stroke subtype, high blood pressure, and diabetes mellitus|the stratification factors at randomization: stroke subtype (atherothrombotic infarction vs. others), high blood pressure (≥150/90 mmHg vs. not), and diabetes mellitus (absence vs. presence)||1.29|0.73|0.8234
91097720|NCT00221104|182080236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.33||||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.74|||Stratified log-rank test|log-rank test adjusted for the stratification factors at randomization: stroke subtype, high blood pressure, and diabetes mellitus|The adjusted hazard ratio (HR) and the 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated by the Cox proportional hazard model with for the stratification factors at randomization: stroke subtype, high blood pressure, and diabetes mellitus|the stratification factors at randomization: stroke subtype (atherothrombotic infarction vs. others), high blood pressure (≥150/90 mmHg vs. not), and diabetes mellitus (absence vs. presence)||0.74|0.15|0.0047
91097721|NCT00221104|182080237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.25||||0.3075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.91|||Stratified log-rank test|log-rank test adjusted for the stratification factors at randomization: stroke subtype, high blood pressure, and diabetes mellitus|The adjusted hazard ratio (HR) and the 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated by the Cox proportional hazard model with for the stratification factors at randomization: stroke subtype, high blood pressure, and diabetes mellitus|the stratification factors at randomization: stroke subtype (atherothrombotic infarction vs. others), high blood pressure (≥150/90 mmHg vs. not), and diabetes mellitus (absence vs. presence)||1.91|0.81|0.3075
91097722|NCT00221104|182080238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.36||||0.1986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|9.14|||Stratified log-rank test|log-rank test adjusted for the stratification factors at randomization: stroke subtype, high blood pressure, and diabetes mellitus|The adjusted hazard ratio (HR) and the 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated by the Cox proportional hazard model with for the stratification factors at randomization: stroke subtype, high blood pressure, and diabetes mellitus|the stratification factors at randomization: stroke subtype (atherothrombotic infarction vs. others), high blood pressure (≥150/90 mmHg vs. not), and diabetes mellitus (absence vs. presence)||9.14|0.61|0.1986
91097723|NCT00221104|182080239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.9953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.22|||Stratified log-rank test|log-rank test adjusted for the stratification factors at randomization: stroke subtype, high blood pressure, and diabetes mellitus|The adjusted hazard ratio (HR) and the 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated by the Cox proportional hazard model with for the stratification factors at randomization: stroke subtype, high blood pressure, and diabetes mellitus|the stratification factors at randomization: stroke subtype (atherothrombotic infarction vs. others), high blood pressure (≥150/90 mmHg vs. not), and diabetes mellitus (absence vs. presence)||2.22|0.45|0.9953
91097724|NCT02989389|182080246|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.57||||0.215|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-29.52|10.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Aβ 1-40||10.96|-29.52|0.215
91097725|NCT02989389|182080246|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-60.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-69.79|-48.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Aβ 1-40||-48.43|-69.79|<0.001
91097726|NCT02989389|182080246|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-87.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-90.21|-82.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Aβ 1-40||-82.92|-90.21|<0.001
90899938|NCT03287414|181665767|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares of the Mean|32.222|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|61.8632||0.3018|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-47.572|112.015||1-sided p-values were obtained using MMRM Model.|MMRM|||||112.015|-47.572|0.3018
91097727|NCT02989389|182080246|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.6||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-33.69|-2.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Aβ 1-42||-2.51|-33.69|0.015
91097728|NCT02989389|182080246|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-65.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-72.23|-56.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Aβ 1-42||-56.92|-72.23|<0.001
91097729|NCT02989389|182080246|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-84.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-88.97|-78.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Aβ 1-42||-78.38|-88.97|<0.001
91097730|NCT01018979|182080257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|||||P values less than 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analyze whether the mean fold increase from the baseline to the peak time change was significant or not.||||0.023
91097731|NCT01018979|182080257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|||||P values less than 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analyze whether the mean fold increase from the baseline to the peak time change was significant or not.||||0.038
91097732|NCT00088153|182080267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05||95.0||||After controlling for baseline age and weight changes|t-test, 2 sided|We also used a mixed model analysis of variance (PROC MIXED), to analyze longitudinal data.||Power analysis: We have previously demonstrated that normal female adolescents gain bone density at the rate of 0.039 +/- 0.0507 per year. The pooled SD in that study was 0.046. Based on these data, with a sample size of 110 girls with anorexia nervosa (AN), half of whom are randomized to receive estrogen and half placebo (with a 10% drop-out rate), there will be an 80% chance that we will detect an increase in bone density to 75% of normal in the girls who receive estrogen.||||<0.05
91097733|NCT00088153|182080268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between the groups for changes in P1NP levels over time||||>0.05
91097734|NCT00088153|182080269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05||95.0||||The p value was adjusted for age and weight changes|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis was that the groups would not differ for changes in spine bone density z-scores over the study duration||||<0.05
90899939|NCT03287414|181665768|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares of the Mean|29.166|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|60.0143||0.314|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-48.22|106.553||1-sided p-values were obtained using MMRM Model.|MMRM|||||106.553|-48.220|0.3140
91097735|NCT01063114|182080278|OTHER||3-Year Cumulative incidence|26.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.0|37.0||||||||37|16|
91097736|NCT01063114|182080278|OTHER||5-Year Cumulative incidence|27.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.0|38.0||||||||38|17|
91097737|NCT01063114|182080279|OTHER||3-Year Cumulative incidence|46.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.0|57.0||||||||57|34|
91097738|NCT01063114|182080279|OTHER||5-Year Cumulative incidence|67.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.0|77.0||||||||77|54|
90899940|NCT03287414|181665769|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares of the mean|1.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5422||0.1269|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.219|3.759||1-sided p-values were obtained using MMRM Model.|MMRM|||||3.759|-0.219|0.1269
90899941|NCT01087996|181665784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
91097739|NCT01063114|182080280|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.0||||0.01024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.2|-2.9|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t test||||-2.9|-19.2|0.01024
91097740|NCT01063114|182080281|OTHER||3-Year Survival Probability|83.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|75.8|91.3||||||||91.3|75.8|
91097741|NCT01063114|182080281|OTHER||5-Year Survival Probability|79.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.7|88.5||||||||88.5|71.7|
91097742|NCT03409367|182080284|EQUIVALENCE|The risk ratio is equal to 1.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.84||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.97|||Regression, log-binomial||Adjusted for family history of atopy (stratified randomization) and primary care site. Adjusted for multiple imputations.|The null hypothesis is that the cumulative incidence of atopic dermatitis does not differ between the Daily Emollient and Natural Skin arms, or that the risk ratio is equal to 1.||0.97|0.73|0.019
91097743|NCT03409367|182080285|EQUIVALENCE|The risk ratio (RR) is equal to 1.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.76||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.9|||Regression, log-binomial|Adjusted for family history of atopy (stratified randomization) and primary care site. Adjusted for multiple imputations.||The null hypothesis is that the cumulative incidence of parent-reported AD does not differ between the Daily Emollient and Natural Skin arms, or that the risk ratio (RR) is equal to 1.||0.90|0.65|0.002
91097744|NCT03409367|182080286|EQUIVALENCE|Risk ratio is equal to 1.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.86||||0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.15||Adjusted for family history of atopy (stratified randomization) and primary care site. Adjusted for multiple imputations.|Regression, log-binomial|||The null hypothesis is that the cumulative incidence of AD by modified UK Working Party criteria does not differ between the Daily Emollient and Natural Skin arms, or that the risk ratio (RR) is equal to 1.||1.15|0.65|0.323
91097745|NCT03409367|182080287|EQUIVALENCE|Risk ratio is equal to 1.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.83||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.99|||Regression, log-binomial|Adjusted for family history of atopy (stratified randomization) and primary care site. Adjusted for multiple imputations.||The null hypothesis is that the cumulative incidence of AD by CEQ does not differ between the Daily Emollient and Natural Skin arms, or that the risk ratio (RR) is equal to 1.||0.99|0.70|0.044
91097746|NCT03409367|182080288|EQUIVALENCE|The risk ratio (RR) is equal to 1.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.68||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.84|||Regression, log-binomial|Adjusted for family history of atopy (stratified randomization) and primary care site. Adjusted for multiple imputations.||The null hypothesis is that the cumulative incidence of AD with prescription or OTC therapies in the health record does not differ between the Daily Emollient and Natural Skin arms, or that the risk ratio (RR) is equal to 1.||0.84|0.55|0.0004
90899942|NCT01087996|181665785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.75
90899943|NCT01087996|181665786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
90899944|NCT01087996|181665787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
90899945|NCT01087996|181665788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
90899946|NCT01087996|181665789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
90899947|NCT01087996|181665790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87||95.0|||||Repeated measures ANOVA|||||||0.87
90899948|NCT01087996|181665791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84||95.0|||||Repeated measures ANOVA|||||||0.84
90899949|NCT01087996|181665792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.55
91097747|NCT03409367|182080289|EQUIVALENCE|The odds ratio (OR) is equal to 1. An OR \< 1 could be considered evidence that daily emollient use is associated with lower severity of AD, as operationalized here by the type of recommended treatment.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.89||Adjusted for family history of atopy (stratified randomization) and primary care site. Adjusted for multiple imputations of 199 missing outcomes.|Regression, proportional odds|||The null hypothesis is that the odds of belonging to the next higher category of severity are equal in the Daily Emollient and Natural Skin arms.||0.89|0.55|0.004
91097748|NCT03409367|182080290|EQUIVALENCE|Odds ratio (OR) is equal to 1. An OR \< 1 could be considered evidence that daily emollient use is associated with lower severity of AD, as operationalized here by the type of treatment.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.93|||Regression, proportional odds|Adjusted for family history of atopy (stratified randomization) and primary care site.||The null hypothesis is that the odds of belonging to the next higher category of severity are equal in the Daily Emollient and Natural Skin arms.||0.93|0.56|0.013
91097749|NCT03409367|182080291|EQUIVALENCE|The risk ratio (RR) is equal to 1.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.92||||0.509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.17|||Regression, log-binomial|Adjusted for family history of atopy (stratified randomization) and primary care site.||The null hypothesis is that the cumulative incidence of skin infections in the health record does not differ between the Daily Emollient and Natural Skin arms.||1.17|0.73|0.509
91097750|NCT03409367|182080292|EQUIVALENCE|The risk ratio is equal to 1.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.05||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.18|||Regression, log-binomial|Adjusted for family history of atopy (stratified randomization) and primary care site.||The null hypothesis is that the cumulative incidence of asthma in the health record does not differ between the Daily Emollient and Natural Skin arms, or that the risk ratio (RR) is equal to 1.||2.18|0.50|0.900
91097751|NCT03409367|182080293|EQUIVALENCE|An ordinal OR \< 1 could be considered evidence that daily emollient use is associated with lower severity of AD symptoms among those diagnosed with AD.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|2.21|||Regression, proportional odds|Adjusted for family history of atopy (stratified randomization).|The daily emollient is in the numerator and the natural skin is in the denominator.|The null hypothesis is that the odds of belonging to the next higher category of severity are equal in the Daily Emollient and Natural Skin arms, or that the ordinal odds ratio (OR) is equal to 1.||2.21|0.98|0.064
91097752|NCT03409367|182080294|EQUIVALENCE|An ordinal OR \< 1 could be considered evidence that daily emollient use is associated with lower severity of AD symptoms among those diagnosed with AD.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.62||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|2.3|||Regression, proportional odds|Adjusted for family history of atopy (stratified randomization).|Daily emollient in the numerator and natural skin in the denominator.|The null hypothesis is that the odds of belonging to the next higher category of severity are equal in the Daily Emollient and Natural Skin arms, or that the ordinal odds ratio (OR) is equal to 1.||2.30|1.14|0.007
91097753|NCT03409367|182080295|EQUIVALENCE|The ordinal odds ratio (OR) is equal to 1. An OR \< 1 could be considered evidence that daily emollient use is associated with lower severity of AD symptoms among those diagnosed with AD.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|2.18|||Regression, proportional odds|Adjusted for family history of atopy (stratified randomization).|Daily moisturizer is the numerator and natural skin is the denominator.|The null hypothesis is that the odds of belonging to the next higher category of severity are equal in the Daily Emollient and Natural Skin arms, or that the ordinal odds ratio (OR) is equal to 1.||2.18|0.97|0.070
91097754|NCT03409367|182080296|EQUIVALENCE|Odds ratio (OR) is equal to 1. An OR \< 1 could be considered evidence that daily emollient use is associated with lower severity of AD symptoms among those diagnosed with AD.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.91|||Regression, proportional odds|Adjusted for family history of atopy (stratified randomization).||The null hypothesis is that the odds of belonging to the next higher category of severity are equal in the Daily Emollient and Natural Skin arms, or that the odds ratio (OR) is equal to 1. An OR \< 1 could be considered evidence that daily emollient use is associated with lower severity of AD symptoms among those diagnosed with AD.||1.91|0.96|0.085
91097755|NCT03409367|182080297|EQUIVALENCE|The risk ratio (RR) is equal to 1.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.75||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.03|||Regression, log-binomial|Adjusted for family history of atopy (stratified randomization) and primary care site.||The null hypothesis is that the cumulative incidence of immediate food allergy reactions does not differ between the Daily Emollient and Natural Skin arms, or that the risk ratio (RR) is equal to 1.||1.03|0.55|0.079
91097756|NCT03409367|182080298|EQUIVALENCE|Risk ratio (RR) is equal to 1.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.87||||0.669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.66|||Regression, log-binomial|||The null hypothesis is that the cumulative incidence of food allergies does not differ between the Daily Emollient and Natural Skin arms, or that the risk ratio (RR) is equal to 1.||1.66|0.45|0.669
91097757|NCT03409367|182080299|EQUIVALENCE|Risk ratio (RR) is equal to 1. Alternatively, a RR \< 1 could be considered evidence that daily emollient is associated with lower incidence of AD.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.77||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.95|||Regression, log-binomial|Adjusted for family history of atopy (stratified randomization) and primary care site.||The null hypothesis is that the cumulative incidence of AD does not differ between the Daily Emollient and Natural Skin arms, or that the risk ratio (RR) is equal to 1. Alternatively, a RR \< 1 could be considered evidence that daily emollient is associated with lower incidence of AD.||0.95|0.62|0.013
91097758|NCT03409367|182080300|EQUIVALENCE|Risk ratio (RR) is equal to 1. Alternatively, a RR \< 1 could be considered evidence that daily emollient is associated with lower incidence of AD.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.8||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.94|||Regression, log-binomial|Adjusted for family history of atopy (stratified randomization) and primary care site.||The null hypothesis is that the cumulative incidence of AD does not differ between the Daily Emollient and Natural Skin arms, or that the risk ratio (RR) is equal to 1. Alternatively, a RR \< 1 could be considered evidence that daily emollient is associated with lower incidence of AD.||0.94|0.67|0.009
91097759|NCT03409367|182080301|EQUIVALENCE|Risk ratio (RR) is equal to 1.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.77||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.94|||Regression, log-binomial|Adjusted for primary care site. Adjusted for multiple imputations of 121 missing outcomes.||The null hypothesis is that the cumulative incidence of AD does not differ between the Daily Emollient and Natural Skin arms, or that the risk ratio (RR) is equal to 1.||0.94|0.63|0.012
90850004|NCT02446743|181566023|OTHER|1 month post booster/first dose of vaccination: Four-fold Increase (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1) Difference|Vaccine group difference|38.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.8|45.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||45.4|29.8|
91097760|NCT03409367|182080302|EQUIVALENCE|Risk ratio (RR) is equal to 1.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9||||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.1|||Regression, log-binomial|Adjusted for primary care site. Adjusted for multiple imputations of 78 missing outcomes.||The null hypothesis is that the cumulative incidence of AD does not differ between the Daily Emollient and Natural Skin arms, or that the risk ratio (RR) is equal to 1.||1.10|0.73|0.303
91097761|NCT03279458|182080358|OTHER|least square regression analysis|correlation coefficient (R)|0.94|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|0.97|||Regression, Linear|||||0.97|0.88|<0.05
91097762|NCT03921541|182080382|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
91097763|NCT03921541|182080383|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5961|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.5961
91097764|NCT03921541|182080384|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1087|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1087
91097765|NCT03921541|182080385|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
91097766|NCT03921541|182080386|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
91097767|NCT03921541|182080387|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
91097768|NCT03921541|182080389|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0003
91097769|NCT03921541|182080390|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
91097770|NCT03921541|182080391|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
91097771|NCT03921541|182080392|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0208|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0208
91097772|NCT03921541|182080393|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4434|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.4434
91097773|NCT03921541|182080394|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5301|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.5301
91097774|NCT03921541|182080395|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2515|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2515
91097775|NCT04633447|182080428|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|6.6|||=|0.638|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.7|27.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||27.9|-14.7|=0.638
91097776|NCT04333498|182080443|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-221.03||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-396.33|-45.73|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-45.73|-396.33|.014
91097777|NCT04333498|182080444|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1103.96||||0.122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-296.532|2502.722|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2502.722|-296.532|0.122
91097778|NCT04333498|182080445|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.61||||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.614|3.391|||t-test, 2 sided|||Adherence percentage||3.391|-8.614|.218
91097779|NCT04333498|182080445|OTHER|Linear regression with generalized estimating equations (GEE)|Slope|0.046||||0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.036|0.128|||Regression, Linear|||||0.128|-0.036|0.272
91097780|NCT01565694|182080446|OTHER|P-Value was from a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of change from baseline to Week 24.||||<0.001
91097781|NCT01565694|182080446|OTHER|P-Value was from a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of change from baseline to Week 24 LOCF.||||<0.001
91097782|NCT01565694|182080447|OTHER|P-Value was obtained from a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that Change from Baseline=0.|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91097783|NCT01565694|182080448|OTHER|P-Value was from a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.||||||0.029|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of change from baseline to Week 24.||||0.029
91097784|NCT01565694|182080448|OTHER|P-Value was from a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.||||||0.026|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of change from baseline to Week 24 LOCF.||||0.026
91097785|NCT01565694|182080449|OTHER|From a Wilcoxon Signed Rank testing the null hypothesis is that the Median at Week 24 is equal to Baseline Median.|||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of change from baseline to Week 24.||||<0.001
91097786|NCT01565694|182080450|OTHER|P-Value was calculated from a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0||||||0.006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of change from baseline to Week 24 in bladder volume at 30 cmH20.||||0.006
91097787|NCT01565694|182080450|OTHER|P-Value was calculated from a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of change from baseline to Week 24 LOCF in bladder volume at 30 cmH20.||||0.001
91097788|NCT01565694|182080451|OTHER|P-Value was calculated from a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of change from baseline to week 24 in bladder volume at 40 cmH20.||||0.001
91097789|NCT01565694|182080451|OTHER|P-Value was calculated from a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of change from baseline to week 24 LOCF in bladder volume at 40 cmH20.||||0.004
91097790|NCT01565694|182080452|OTHER|P-Value was calculated from a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of change from baseline to Week 24.||||0.003
91097791|NCT01565694|182080452|OTHER|P-Value was calculated from a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0||||||0.028|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of change from baseline to Week 24 LOCF.||||0.028
91097792|NCT01565694|182080453|OTHER|P-Value was calculated from a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.||||||0.068|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of change from baseline to Week 24.||||0.068
91097793|NCT01565694|182080453|OTHER|P-Value was calculated from a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.||||||0.075|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of change from baseline to Week 24 LOCF.||||0.075
91097794|NCT01565694|182080454|OTHER|P-Value was calculated from a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of change from baseline to Week 24.||||<0.001
91097795|NCT01565694|182080454|OTHER|P-Value was calculated from a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of change from baseline to Week 24 LOCF.||||<0.001
91097796|NCT01565694|182080455|OTHER|P-Value was calculated from a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of change from baseline to Week 24.||||<0.001
91097797|NCT01565694|182080455|OTHER|P-Value was calculated from a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of change from baseline to Week 24 LOCF.||||<0.001
91097798|NCT01565694|182080456|OTHER|P-Value was calculated from a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of change from baseline to Week 24.||||<0.001
91097799|NCT01565694|182080456|OTHER|P-Value was calculated from a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of change from baseline to Week 24 LOCF.||||<0.001
91097800|NCT01565694|182080457|OTHER|P-Value was calculated from a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of change from baseline to Week 24.||||<0.001
91097801|NCT01565694|182080457|OTHER|P-Value was calculated from a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of change from baseline to Week 24 LOCF.||||<0.001
91097802|NCT01565694|182080458|OTHER|P-Value was calculated from a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of change from baseline to Week 24.||||0.010
91097803|NCT01565694|182080458|OTHER|P-Value was calculated from a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of change from baseline to Week 24 LOCF.||||0.004
91097804|NCT01565694|182080459|OTHER|P-Value was calculated from a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of change from baseline to Week 24.||||<0.001
91097805|NCT01565694|182080459|OTHER|P-Value was calculated from a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of change from baseline to Week 24 LOCF.||||<0.001
91097806|NCT01565694|182080460|OTHER|P-Value was calculated from a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.||||||0.568|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of change from baseline to Week 24.||||0.568
91097807|NCT01565694|182080460|OTHER|P-Value was calculated from a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.||||||0.573|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of change from baseline to Week 24 LOCF.||||0.573
91097808|NCT00541229|182080501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-31.8||||0.004||95.0|-53.1|-10.5|||ANOVA|Model term: treatment||For this comparison, the mean in the placebo group was subtracted from the mean in the sitagliptin 200 mg group.||-10.5|-53.1|0.004
91097809|NCT00541229|182080501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-41.9|||<|0.001||95.0|-63.6|-20.2|||ANOVA|Model term: treatment||For this comparison, the mean in the placebo group was subtracted from the mean in the sitagliptin 100 mg group.||-20.2|-63.6|<0.001
91097810|NCT00541229|182080501|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis stated that the lower bound of 80% one-sided confidence interval for the comparison in 24-hour WMG reduction between sitagliptin 200 mg and sitagliptin 100 mg is above -5 mg/dL.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.1||||||80.0|0.61|9999999.0|||||This is a 1-sided 80% confidence interval and the upper bound 9999999 was used here to indicate positive infinity.|This was pre-defined as a non-superiority test, i.e., to show that sitagliptin 200 mg is not superior to sitagliptin 100 mg. For this comparison, the mean in the sitagliptin 100 mg group was subtracted from the mean in the sitagliptin 200 mg group.||9999999|0.61|
90899950|NCT01353222|181665803|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.141||||0.6188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.679|1.918|||From a stratified log-rank test, stratif||Cox regression model with treatment as the independent variable, stratified by randomization strata. Hazard ratio with control as reference.|||1.918|0.679|0.6188
91097811|NCT01312129|182080502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||=0.05 is the actual computed p-value via the ANOVA.|ANOVA|The ANOVA is comparing the % increase in BOLD response above baseline during cue presentation (Alcohol vs. Control) b/w placebo \& Sulfasalazine .||||||=.05
91097812|NCT02397837|182080505|OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.38
91097813|NCT02397837|182080506|OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.22
91097814|NCT02397837|182080507|OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.17
91097815|NCT02397837|182080508|OTHER|||||||0.55|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.55
91097816|NCT02397837|182080509|OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.99
91097817|NCT02397837|182080510|OTHER|||||||0.98|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.98
91097818|NCT02397837|182080511|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Tabulation of participants with suicidal acknowledgements over 12-week study|||
91097819|NCT02397837|182080512|OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.09
91097820|NCT02397837|182080513|OTHER|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||1.00
91097821|NCT02397837|182080514|OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.17
91097822|NCT01482221|182080561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.695||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.519|2.152||The adjusted p-values protect the overall family-wise error rate across the 6 key comparisons of AZD6765 100 mg and 50 mg to placebo (for MADRS change from baseline to 6 weeks and to 12 weeks and for Sustained Response).|Mixed models for repeated measures|||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) includes treatment, pooled center, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline MADRS score by visit interaction as explanatory variables. Treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline MADRS score by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||2.152|-4.519|0.630
91097823|NCT01482221|182080561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.701||0.476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.563|2.134||The adjusted p-values protect the overall family-wise error rate across the 6 key comparisons of AZD6765 100 mg and 50 mg to placebo (for MADRS change from baseline to 6 weeks and to 12 weeks and for Sustained Response).|Mixed models for repeated measures|||MMRM includes treatment, pooled center, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline MADRS score by visit interaction as explanatory variables. Treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline MADRS score by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||2.134|-4.563|0.476
91097824|NCT01482221|182080562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.816||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.628|1.522||The adjusted p-values protect the overall family-wise error rate across the 6 key comparisons of AZD6765 100 mg and 50 mg to placebo (for MADRS change from baseline to 6 weeks and to 12 weeks and for Sustained Response).|Mixed models for repeated measures|||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) includes treatment, pooled center, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline MADRS score by visit interaction as explanatory variables. Treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline MADRS score by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||1.522|-5.628|0.630
91097825|NCT01482221|182080562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.83||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.72|4.485||The adjusted p-values protect the overall family-wise error rate across the 6 key comparisons of AZD6765 100 mg and 50 mg to placebo (for MADRS change from baseline to 6 weeks and to 12 weeks and for Sustained Response).|Mixed models for repeated measures|||MMRM includes treatment, pooled center, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline MADRS score by visit interaction as explanatory variables. Treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline MADRS score by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||4.485|-2.720|0.630
91097826|NCT01482221|182080563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.366||0.852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.544|2.089||The adjusted p-values protect the overall family-wise error rate across the 6 key comparisons of AZD6765 100 mg and 50 mg to placebo (for MADRS change from baseline to 6 weeks and to 12 weeks and for Sustained Response).|Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression model including treatment as a fixed effect and the baseline MADRS total score as a covariate.||2.089|0.544|0.852
91097827|NCT01482221|182080563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.552|2.115||The adjusted p-values protect the overall family-wise error rate across the 6 key comparisons of AZD6765 100 mg and 50 mg to placebo (for MADRS change from baseline to 6 weeks and to 12 weeks and for Sustained Response).|Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression model including treatment as a fixed effect and the baseline MADRS total score as a covariate.||2.115|0.552|0.821
91097828|NCT01482221|182080564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.318||0.751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.485|1.686|||GEE for repeated measures|||Generalized linear model of the repeated measures (GEE) with logic link including treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and the baseline MADRS total score as a covariate.||1.686|0.485|0.751
90850005|NCT02446743|181566023|OTHER|1 month post booster/first dose of vaccination: Four-fold Increase \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) Difference|Vaccine group difference|55.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.5|64.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||64.7|43.5|
91097829|NCT01482221|182080564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.315||0.555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|2.233|||GEE for repeated measures|||Generalized linear model of the repeated measures (GEE) with logic link including treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and the baseline MADRS total score as a covariate.||2.233|0.650|0.555
91097830|NCT01482221|182080565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.304||0.434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.699|2.301|||GEE for repeated measures|||Generalized linear model of the repeated measures (GEE) with logic link including treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and the baseline MADRS total score as a covariate.||2.301|0.699|0.434
91097831|NCT01482221|182080565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.322||0.286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.377|1.334|||GEE for repeated measures|||Generalized linear model of the repeated measures (GEE) with logic link including treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and the baseline MADRS total score as a covariate.||1.334|0.377|0.286
90899951|NCT01807650|181665816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.0232||||||2-sided, significance level = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||"All participants received both treatments and treatments were intra-individually compared.~Hypotheses tested: H0: δ = 0 and H1: δ ≠ 0 with δ being the difference in time to wound closure between treatments."||||=0.0232
91097832|NCT01482221|182080566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.382||0.357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.672|3.007|||GEE for repeated measures|||Generalized linear model of the repeated measures (GEE) with logic link including treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and the baseline MADRS total score as a covariate.||3.007|0.672|0.357
90899952|NCT01807650|181665820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.8|=|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|9.4||Day 7|t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference in degree of epithelialization \[%\] (Oleogel-S10 and non-adhesive wound dressing minus non-adhesive wound dressing only)|||9.4|2.7|=0.0005
90899953|NCT01807650|181665820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.9|=|0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|9.4||Day 10|t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference in degree of epithelialization \[%\] (Oleogel-S10 and non-adhesive wound dressing minus non-adhesive wound dressing only)|||9.4|3.0|=0.0002
91097833|NCT01482221|182080566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.387||0.463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.622|2.84|||GEE for repeated measures|||Generalized linear model of the repeated measures (GEE) with logic link including treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and the baseline MADRS total score as a covariate.||2.840|0.622|0.463
91097834|NCT01482221|182080567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.342||0.911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.532|2.031|||GEE for repeated measures|||Generalized linear model of the repeated measures (GEE) with logic link including treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and the baseline MADRS total score as a covariate.||2.031|0.532|0.911
91097835|NCT01482221|182080567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.368||0.509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.382|1.613|||GEE for repeated measures|||Generalized linear model of the repeated measures (GEE) with logic link including treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and the baseline MADRS total score as a covariate.||1.613|0.382|0.509
91097836|NCT01482221|182080568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.238||0.889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.609|2.264||Analysis for change in SDS total score from baseline to Week 6|Mixed models for repeated measures|||MMRM includes treatment, pooled center, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline SDS score by visit interaction as explanatory variables. Treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline SDS score by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||2.264|-2.609|0.889
91097837|NCT01482221|182080568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.264||0.992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.477|2.501||Analysis for change in SDS total score from baseline to Week 6|Mixed models for repeated measures|||MMRM includes treatment, pooled center, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline SDS score by visit interaction as explanatory variables. Treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline SDS score by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||2.501|-2.477|0.992
91097838|NCT01482221|182080568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.301||0.392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.448|3.678||Analysis for change in SDS total score from baseline to Week 12|Mixed models for repeated measures|||MMRM includes treatment, pooled center, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline SDS score by visit interaction as explanatory variables. Treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline SDS score by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||3.678|-1.448|0.392
91097839|NCT01482221|182080568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.329||0.333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.327|3.908||Analysis for changed in SDS total score from baseline to Week 12|Mixed models for repeated measures|||MMRM includes treatment, pooled center, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline SDS score by visit interaction as explanatory variables. Treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline SDS score by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||3.908|-1.327|0.333
91097840|NCT01482221|182080569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.34||Analysis for change in CGI-S total score from baseline to Week 6|Mixed models for repeated measures|||MMRM includes treatment, pooled center, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline CGI-S score by visit interaction as explanatory variables. Treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline CGI-S score by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.34|-0.49|0.728
91097841|NCT01482221|182080569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.29||Analysis for change in CGI-S total score from baseline to Week 6|Mixed models for repeated measures|||MMRM includes treatment, pooled center, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline CGI-S score by visit interaction as explanatory variables. Treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline CGI-S score by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.29|-0.54|0.562
91097842|NCT01482221|182080569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.19||Analysis for change in CGI-S total score from baseline to Week 12|Mixed models for repeated measures|||MMRM includes treatment, pooled center, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline CGI-S score by visit interaction as explanatory variables. Treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline CGI-S score by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.19|-0.64|0.283
91097843|NCT01482221|182080569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.55||Analysis for changed in CGI-S total score from baseline to Week 12|Mixed models for repeated measures|||MMRM includes treatment, pooled center, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline CGI-S score by visit interaction as explanatory variables. Treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline CGI-S score by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.55|-0.29|0.540
91030780|NCT03682900|181946100|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||All probabilities for secondary outcomes were listed as p = .000 within the analysis program. A p value of \< .05 is considered significant. All statistical tests are one-tailed. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Data were analyzed using a general linear mixed model with students nested within schools and schools nested within condition.||||<.001
91097844|NCT01482221|182080570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.302||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.962|3.141|||GEE for repeated measures|||Generalized linear model of the repeated measures (GEE) with logic link including treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and the baseline CGI-S total score as a covariate.||3.141|0.962|0.067
91097845|NCT01482221|182080570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.297||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.798|2.558|||GEE for repeated measures|||Generalized linear model of the repeated measures (GEE) with logic link including treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and the baseline CGI-S total score as a covariate.||2.558|0.798|0.230
91097846|NCT01482221|182080571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.292||0.268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.447|||GEE for repeated measures|||Generalized linear model of the repeated measures (GEE) with logic link including treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and the baseline CGI-S total score as a covariate.||2.447|0.780|0.268
90850006|NCT02446743|181566023|OTHER|1 month post booster/first dose of vaccination: Four-fold Increase \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) Difference|Vaccine group difference|24.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.9|35.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||35.1|12.9|
90850007|NCT02446743|181566023|OTHER|1 month post booster/first dose of vaccination: Four-fold Increase (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1) Difference|Vaccine group difference|23.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.7|30.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||30.8|14.7|
90850008|NCT02446743|181566023|OTHER|1 month post booster/first dose of vaccination: Four-fold Increase \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) Difference|Vaccine group difference|24.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.2|35.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||35.5|12.2|
90850009|NCT02446743|181566023|OTHER|1 month post booster/first dose of vaccination: Four-fold Increase \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) Difference|Vaccine group difference|22.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.6|32.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||32.9|10.6|
90850010|NCT02446743|181566024|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 4 Group 3B vs Day 34 Group B\_0\_1 (3 days after booster or 2nd dose)|Vaccine group difference|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|4.5||Vaccine comparison at Day 4 Group 3B vs Day 34 Group B\_0\_1 (3 days after booster or 2nd dose)|Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||4.5|-15.0|
90850011|NCT02446743|181566024|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 4 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 34 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (3 days after booster or 2nd dose)|Vaccine group difference|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|11.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||11.4|-17.0|
90850012|NCT02446743|181566024|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 4 Group 3B (V72P10) vs Day 34 Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) (3 days after booster or 2nd dose)|Vaccine group difference|-8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|7.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||7.3|-20.0|
90850013|NCT02446743|181566024|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 8 Group 3B vs Day 38 Group B\_0\_1 (7 days after booster or 2nd dose)|Vaccine group difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|6.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||6.2|-0.9|
90850014|NCT02446743|181566024|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 8 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 38 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (7 days after booster or 2nd dose)|Vaccine group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|8.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||8.8|-3.6|
91097847|NCT01482221|182080571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.303||0.909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.533|1.75|||GEE for repeated measures|||Generalized linear model of the repeated measures (GEE) with logic link including treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and the baseline CGI-S total score as a covariate.||1.750|0.533|0.909
91097848|NCT01482221|182080572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|1.13||Analysis for change in QIDS-SR-16 total score from baseline to Week 6|Mixed models for repeated measures|||MMRM includes treatment, pooled center, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline QIDS-SR-16 total score by visit interaction as explanatory variables. Treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline QIDS-SR-16 total score by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||1.13|-2.29|0.505
91097849|NCT01482221|182080572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88||0.842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|1.91||Analysis for change in QIDS-SR-16 total score from baseline to Week 6|Mixed models for repeated measures|||MMRM includes treatment, pooled center, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline QIDS-SR-16 total score by visit interaction as explanatory variables. Treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline QIDS-SR-16 total score by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||1.91|-1.56|0.842
91097850|NCT01482221|182080572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89||0.788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|1.51||Analysis for change in QIDS-SR-16 total score from baseline to Week 12|Mixed models for repeated measures|||MMRM includes treatment, pooled center, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline QIDS-SR-16 total score by visit interaction as explanatory variables. Treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline QIDS-SR-16 total score by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||1.51|-1.98|0.788
91097851|NCT01482221|182080572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|3.12||Analysis for changed in QIDS-SR-16 total score from baseline to Week 12|Mixed models for repeated measures|||MMRM includes treatment, pooled center, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline QIDS-SR-16 total score by visit interaction as explanatory variables. Treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline QIDS-SR-16 total score by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||3.12|-0.42|0.133
91097852|NCT04602000|182080582|SUPERIORITY||Difference estimated using CMH weights|-8.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|-4.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was calculated using CMH test stratified by age (≥60 vs. \<60 years), baseline comorbidities (Yes vs. No) and region (US vs. EU vs. Other)|The 95% stratified Newcombe CI with CMH weights was presented.|||-4.5|-11.7|<0.0001
91097853|NCT00081458|182080606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.007||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.007
91097854|NCT00081458|182080607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.005||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||An efficacy responder was defined as achieving at least a 20% reduction from Baseline to Week 20 and maintained at Week 24 in weekly actual PN infusion volume.||||0.005
90850015|NCT02446743|181566024|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 8 Group 3B (V72P10) vs Day 34 Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) (7 days after booster or 2nd dose)|Vaccine group difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|11.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||11.0|-2.5|
90850016|NCT02446743|181566024|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 31 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1(V72\_41) (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|Vaccine group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|4.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||4.4|-3.6|
91097855|NCT00195429|182080608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
91097856|NCT00195429|182080609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.361||95.0|||||Student's t-test|||||||0.361
91097857|NCT04470427|182080651|OTHER||VE|93.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.0|94.8|||Vaccine Efficacy (VE)|VE (percent) is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided confidence interval for the VE is above 30%.|VE (percent) was estimated with 1 - Hazard Ratio (mRNA-1273 vs. placebo) from stratified Cox proportional hazard model.|"Vaccine efficacy was defined as the percent reduction in the hazard of the primary endpoint (mRNA-1273 vs. placebo).~Null hypothesis of Vaccine Efficacy ≤30%, 95% CI."||94.8|91.0|<.0001
90850017|NCT02446743|181566024|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 31 Group 3B (V72P10) vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|Vaccine group difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|7.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||7.8|-2.3|
90850018|NCT02446743|181566024|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 31 Group 3B vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|Vaccine group difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|4.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||4.1|-0.9|
90850019|NCT02446743|181566024|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 4 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 34 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (3 days after booster or 2nd dose)|Vaccine group difference|-20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.2|-7.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||-7.5|-35.2|
90850020|NCT02446743|181566024|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 4 Group 3B (V72P10) vs Day 34 Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) (3 days after booster or 2nd dose)|Vaccine group difference|-32.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.5|-15.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||-15.7|-46.5|
90850021|NCT02446743|181566024|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 4 Group 3B vs Day 34 Group B\_0\_1 (3 days after booster or 2nd dose)|Vaccine group difference|-28.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.4|-17.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||-17.1|-38.4|
90850022|NCT02446743|181566024|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 8 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 38 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (7 days after booster or 2nd dose)|Vaccine group difference|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.2|9.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||9.2|-19.2|
90850023|NCT02446743|181566024|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 8 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 38 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (7 days after booster or 2nd dose)|Vaccine group difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|12.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||12.3|-14.1|
90850024|NCT02446743|181566024|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 8 Group 3B vs Day 38 Group B\_0\_1 (7 days after booster or 2nd dose)|Vaccine group difference|-5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|5.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||5.6|-13.6|
90850025|NCT02446743|181566024|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 31 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|Vaccine group difference|12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.6|21.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||21.6|3.6|
90850026|NCT02446743|181566024|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 31 Group 3B (V72P10) vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|Vaccine group difference|15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.4|24.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||24.6|6.4|
90850027|NCT02446743|181566024|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 31 Group 3B vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|Vaccine group difference|14.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.6|20.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||20.3|7.6|
90850028|NCT02446743|181566025|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 4 Group 3B vs Day 34 Group B\_0\_1 (3 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|-44.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.7|-33.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||-33.1|-52.7|
90850029|NCT02446743|181566025|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 8 Group 3B vs Day 38 Group B\_0\_1 (7 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|3.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||3.6|-3.9|
90899954|NCT01807650|181665820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.3|=|0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|9.3||Day 14|t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference in degree of epithelialization \[%\] (Oleogel-S10 and non-adhesive wound dressing minus non-adhesive wound dressing only)|||9.3|2.0|=0.0028
90850030|NCT02446743|181566025|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 31 Group 3B vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|2.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||2.4|-2.7|
90850031|NCT02446743|181566025|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 4 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 34 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (3 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|-46.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.4|-29.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||-29.8|-58.4|
90850032|NCT02446743|181566025|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 8 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 38 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (7 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|5.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||5.1|-7.7|
90850033|NCT02446743|181566025|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 31 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|3.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||3.7|-5.7|
90850034|NCT02446743|181566025|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 4 Group 3B (V72P10) vs Day 34 Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) (3 days after booster or 2nd dose)|Vaccine group difference|-40.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.8|-25.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||-25.4|-51.8|
90850035|NCT02446743|181566025|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 8 Group 3B (V72P10) vs Day 38 Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) (7 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|9.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||9.0|-3.3|
90850036|NCT02446743|181566025|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 31 Group 3B (V72P10) vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|5.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||5.0|-2.4|
90850037|NCT02446743|181566025|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 4 Group 3B vs Day 34 Group B\_0\_1 (3 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|5.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||5.8|-12.4|
90850038|NCT02446743|181566025|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 8 Group 3B vs Day 38 Group B\_0\_1 (7 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|7.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||7.7|-2.2|
90850039|NCT02446743|181566025|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 31 Group 3B vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|10.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||10.5|2.8|
90850040|NCT02446743|181566025|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 4 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 34 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (3 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|-5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|10.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||10.6|-17.8|
90850041|NCT02446743|181566025|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 8 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 38 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (7 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|13.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||13.0|-3.2|
90850042|NCT02446743|181566025|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 31 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|16.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||16.5|3.7|
90850043|NCT02446743|181566025|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 4 Group 3B (V72P10) vs Day 34 Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) (3 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|11.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||11.0|-11.8|
90899955|NCT01807650|181665820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|18.0|=|0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|9.3||Day 18|t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference in degree of epithelialization \[%\] (Oleogel-S10 and non-adhesive wound dressing minus non-adhesive wound dressing only)|||9.3|2.5|=0.0009
90850044|NCT02446743|181566025|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 8 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 38 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (7 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|10.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||10.1|-4.6|
90850045|NCT02446743|181566025|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 31 Group 3B (V72P10) vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) (1 month days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|9.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||9.5|-0.8|
90850046|NCT02446743|181566026|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 4 Group 3B vs Day 34 Group B\_0\_1 (3 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|-45.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.4|-34.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||-34.3|-54.4|
90850047|NCT02446743|181566026|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 8 Group 3B vs Day 38 Group B\_0\_1 (7 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|5.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||5.2|-4.5|
90850048|NCT02446743|181566026|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 31 Group 3B vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|3.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||3.9|-1.9|
90850049|NCT02446743|181566026|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 4 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 34 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (3 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|-48.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.8|-32.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||-32.0|-60.8|
90850050|NCT02446743|181566026|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 8 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 38 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (7 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|10.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||10.1|-7.3|
90850051|NCT02446743|181566026|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 31 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|3.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||3.7|-5.7|
90850052|NCT02446743|181566026|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 4 Group 3B (V72P10) vs Day 34 Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) (3 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|-41.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.3|-25.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||-25.5|-53.3|
90850053|NCT02446743|181566026|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 8 Group 3B (V72P10) vs Day 38 Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) (7 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|8.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||8.1|-4.8|
90850054|NCT02446743|181566026|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 31 Group 3B (V72P10) vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) (1 month days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|7.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen score methodx|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||7.8|-0.6|
90850055|NCT02446743|181566026|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 4 Group 3B vs Day 34 Group B\_0\_1 (3 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.9|4.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||4.6|-15.9|
90850056|NCT02446743|181566026|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 8 Group 3B vs Day 38 Group B\_0\_1 (7 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|6.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||6.2|-0.9|
90850057|NCT02446743|181566026|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 31 Group 3B vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|4.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||4.1|-0.9|
90899956|NCT01807650|181665820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.8|=|0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|8.6||Day 21|t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference in degree of epithelialization \[%\] (Oleogel-S10 and non-adhesive wound dressing minus non-adhesive wound dressing only)|||8.6|2.6|=0.0003
91097858|NCT04470427|182080657|OTHER||VE|98.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|92.8|99.6|||VE||VE (percent) was estimated with 1 - Hazard Ratio (mRNA-1273 vs. placebo) from stratified Cox proportional hazard model.|||99.6|92.8|
90850058|NCT02446743|181566026|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 4 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 34 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (3 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.2|10.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||10.3|-19.2|
90850059|NCT02446743|181566026|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 8 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 38 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (7 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|8.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||8.8|-3.6|
90850060|NCT02446743|181566026|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 31 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|4.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||4.4|-3.6|
90850061|NCT02446743|181566026|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 4 Group 3B (V72P10) vs Day 34 Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) (3 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|9.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||9.1|-19.4|
90850062|NCT02446743|181566026|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 8 Group 3B (V72P10) vs Day 38 Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) (7 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|11.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||11.0|-2.5|
90850063|NCT02446743|181566026|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 31 Group 3B (V72P10) vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) (1 month days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|7.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||7.8|-2.3|
90850064|NCT02446743|181566026|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 4 Group 3B vs Day 34 Group B\_0\_1 (3 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|-26.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.6|-15.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||-15.7|-36.6|
90850065|NCT02446743|181566026|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 8 Group 3B vs Day 38 Group B\_0\_1 (7 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|8.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||8.5|-13.3|
90850066|NCT02446743|181566026|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 31 Group 3B vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|21.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.8|28.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||28.3|12.8|
90850067|NCT02446743|181566026|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 4 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 34 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (3 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|-18.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.5|-5.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||-5.8|-32.5|
90850068|NCT02446743|181566026|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 8 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 38 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (7 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|-7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.3|9.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||9.5|-22.3|
90899957|NCT01807650|181665820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.1|=|0.0145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|6.4||Day 28|t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference in degree of epithelialization \[%\] (Oleogel-S10 and non-adhesive wound dressing minus non-adhesive wound dressing only)|||6.4|0.7|=0.0145
90957572|NCT01445301|181795305|NON_INFERIORITY|If the upper 95% confidence was less than the pre-defined threshold (-Δ \[non-inferiority margin, -3.8\]) of 3.8, non-inferiority of GSK2585823 once daily to CLDM twice daily would be established|Mean Difference (Net)|-5.4||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|-1.7|||ANCOVA|||WEEK 2||-1.7|-9.1|0.004
91097859|NCT04470427|182080658|OTHER||VE|82.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|79.5|84.2|||||VE (percent) was estimated with 1 - Hazard Ratio (mRNA-1273 vs. placebo) from stratified Cox proportional hazard model|||84.2|79.5|
91097860|NCT04470427|182080659|OTHER|VE|VE|93.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.4|94.9|||||VE (percent) was estimated with 1 - Hazard Ratio (mRNA-1273 vs. placebo) from stratified Cox proportional hazard model.|||94.9|91.4|
91097861|NCT04470427|182080661|OTHER||VE|93.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.1|94.9|||||VE (percent) was estimated with 1 - Hazard Ratio (mRNA-1273 vs. placebo) from stratified Cox proportional hazard model.|||94.9|91.1|
91097862|NCT04470427|182080662|OTHER||VE|82.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|79.5|84.3|||||VE (percent) was estimated with 1 - Hazard Ratio (mRNA-1273 vs. placebo) from stratified Cox proportional hazard model.|||84.3|79.5|
91097863|NCT04470427|182080663|OTHER||VE|63.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.6|68.5|||||VE (percent) was estimated with 1 - Hazard Ratio (mRNA-1273 vs. placebo) from stratified Cox proportional hazard model.|||68.5|56.6|
91097864|NCT04470427|182080669|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of a booster as compared with mRNA-1273 after second dose based on Ratio of GMC is demonstrated if lower bound of 95% CI of Ratio of GMC ≥ 0.67.|Ratio of GMC|6.996|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.509|7.52||||||Ratio of GMC 28 days following the booster dose (BD-Day 29) compared with 28 days following second dose (Part A-Day 57).||7.520|6.509|
91097865|NCT04470427|182080670|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of a booster as compared with mRNA-1273 after second dose based on SRR difference is demonstrated if lower bound of 95% CI of SRR difference \> -10%.|Difference in Seroresponse|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.8|||||95% CI were calculated using adjusted Wald method for the paired binary data.|Seroresponse 28 days following the booster dose (BD-Day 29) compared with 28 days following second dose (Part A-Day 57)||1.8|0.1|
91097866|NCT03188185|182080671|SUPERIORITY|Hypothesis tests were two-sided with an alpha of 0.05 .|Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|0.4||ALK 5461 was compared to placebo using stage-specific MMRM for MADRS-10 Change from Baseline.Model-derived estimates were combined using equal weights|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was conducted for each stage separately, and overall efficacy was based on combined stage analysis where stage-specific estimates were combined using pre-specified equal weights. Within each stage ALKS 5461 2mg/2mg was compared to placebo (i.e., ALKS 5461 2mg/2mg S1 vs Placebo S1; and ALKS 5461 2mg/2mg S2 vs Placebo S2).||0.4|-3.5|0.128
91097867|NCT00248547|182080674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.041||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.041
91097868|NCT01913353|182080684|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin to show that Group 1 (after 2 doses of MVA-BN) is non-inferior to Group 2 (after 1 dose of ACAM2000) in terms of PRNT GMTs at the respective peak visit (Week 6 in Group 1 / Week 4 in Group 2) was predefined as '1/2 (i.e. 0.5)' for the GMT ratio (Group 1 / Group 2).|GMT Ratio (Group 1 / Group 2)|1.935|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.562|2.397||||||||2.397|1.562|
91097869|NCT01913353|182080685|SUPERIORITY|Predefined threshold of clinical relevance for the area attenuation ratio (AAR): 40%|Area attenuation ratio (AAR)|97.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.6|98.3|||||The AAR, i.e. the reduction in MLA \[1 - MLA ratio (Group 1/Group 2)\] after scarification was to be significantly above 40%. The MLA ratio and the corresponding 95% CI were based on the Hodges-Lehmann estimate of the shift for log-transformed MLAs.|||98.3|96.6|
91097870|NCT01260948|182080757|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|98.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.13|103.53|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||103.53|94.13|
91097871|NCT01260948|182080758|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|94.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.3|98.47|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||98.47|91.30|
91097872|NCT00768053|182080759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED|||||F test for H0: ICC = 0|F test|||Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC)||||0.000
90850069|NCT02446743|181566026|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 31 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.4|31.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||31.3|8.4|
91097873|NCT00768053|182080759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||standard error of measurement|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.75||||||Standardized response mean: standard error of measurement||0.75|0.57|
90850070|NCT02446743|181566026|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 4 Group 3B (V72P10) vs Day 34 Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) (3 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|-31.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.0|-15.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||-15.5|-46.0|
90850071|NCT02446743|181566026|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 8 Group 3B (V72P10) vs Day 38 Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) (7 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|18.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||18.8|-10.8|
91097874|NCT00768053|182080761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test for the Pearson correlation|||Week 4||||<0.001
91097875|NCT00768053|182080762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test for the Pearson correlation|||Week 12||||<0.001
91097876|NCT00768053|182080763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test for the Pearson correlation|||Time-normalized average||||<0.001
91097877|NCT00768053|182080764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test for the Pearson correlation|||Week 4||||<0.001
91097878|NCT00768053|182080765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test for the Pearson correlation|||Week 12||||<0.001
90850072|NCT02446743|181566026|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 31 Group 3B (V72P10) vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) (1 month days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|22.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.1|32.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||32.8|12.1|
90850073|NCT02446743|181566026|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 4 Group 3B vs Day 34 Group B\_0\_1 (3 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|7.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||7.1|-13.4|
90850074|NCT02446743|181566026|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 8 Group 3B vs Day 38 Group B\_0\_1 (7 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|8.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||8.5|-3.2|
90850075|NCT02446743|181566026|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 31 Group 3B vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|13.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||13.2|4.2|
90850076|NCT02446743|181566026|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 4 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 34 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (3 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.1|16.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||16.1|-15.1|
90850077|NCT02446743|181566026|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 8 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 38 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (7 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|13.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||13.9|-4.7|
90850078|NCT02446743|181566026|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 31 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.9|20.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||20.9|5.9|
90850079|NCT02446743|181566026|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 4 Group 3B (V72P10) vs Day 34 Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) (3 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|-5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.7|8.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||8.6|-16.7|
90899958|NCT03573908|181665838|SUPERIORITY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-0.715|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.998|-0.433|||MMRM||Least squares (LS) mean difference (linaclotide - placebo)|The overall family-wise Type I error rate for the primary and secondary outcome measures were controlled at the α=0.05 level by employing a fixed-sequence testing procedure. Outcome measures were tested using 10 hypotheses, each comparing linaclotide versus placebo, in the sequence of presentation of statistical analyses in this record. If the hypothesis comparing the 2 groups was statistically significant (α=0.05), then the next hypothesis was to be tested; otherwise, testing would stop.||-0.433|-0.998|< 0.0001
90899959|NCT03573908|181665839|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehman Estimated Median Threshold|-0.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.35|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|P-value comparing change from baseline distributions by treatment using the Wilcoxon rank sum test 2-sided.|95% confidence interval (CI) for Hodges-Lehmann estimated median threshold was generated by Moses confidence limits method.|The overall family-wise Type I error rate for the primary and secondary outcome measures were controlled at the α=0.05 level by employing a fixed-sequence testing procedure. Outcome measures were tested using 10 hypotheses, each comparing linaclotide versus placebo, in the sequence of presentation of statistical analyses in this record. If the hypothesis comparing the 2 groups was statistically significant (α=0.05), then the next hypothesis was to be tested; otherwise, testing would stop.||-0.35|-0.88|< 0.0001
90899960|NCT03573908|181665840|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Responder Rate|17.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.9|24.4|||||95% confidence intervals for difference in responder rate are obtained using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||24.4|9.9|
90899961|NCT03573908|181665840|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|3.12||Odds ratio, 95% CI for the Odds Ratio and p-value vs. placebo are obtained from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) tests controlling for geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The overall family-wise Type I error rate for the primary and secondary outcome measures were controlled at the α=0.05 level by employing a fixed-sequence testing procedure. Outcome measures were tested using 10 hypotheses, each comparing linaclotide versus placebo, in the sequence of presentation of statistical analyses in this record. If the hypothesis comparing the 2 groups was statistically significant (α=0.05), then the next hypothesis was to be tested; otherwise, testing would stop.||3.12|1.55|< 0.0001
91097879|NCT00768053|182080766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test for the Pearson correlation|||Time-normalized average||||<0.001
91097880|NCT00768053|182080767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|A non significant test (p-value ≥ 0.05) would indicate the component had a significant influence to the global EULAR-RAID score.||Comparison of change from baseline between EULAR-RAID score and Pain NRS value||||<0.001
91097881|NCT00768053|182080767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|A non significant test (p-value ≥ 0.05) would indicate the component had a significant influence to the global EULAR-RAID score.||Comparison of change from baseline between EULAR-RAID score and Functional disability NRS value||||<0.001
91097882|NCT00768053|182080767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.837|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|A non significant test (p-value ≥ 0.05) would indicate the component had a significant influence to the global EULAR-RAID score.||Comparison of change from baseline between EULAR-RAID score and Fatigue NRS value||||0.837
91097883|NCT00768053|182080767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|A non significant test (p-value ≥ 0.05) would indicate the component had a significant influence to the global EULAR-RAID score.||Comparison of change from baseline between EULAR-RAID score and Sleep NRS value||||0.035
91097884|NCT00768053|182080767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.351|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|A non significant test (p-value ≥ 0.05) would indicate the component had a significant influence to the global EULAR-RAID score.||Comparison of change from baseline between EULAR-RAID score and Physical well-being NRS value||||0.351
91097885|NCT00768053|182080767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|A non significant test (p-value ≥ 0.05) would indicate the component had a significant influence to the global EULAR-RAID score.||Comparison of change from baseline between EULAR-RAID score and Emotional well-being NRS value||||0.025
91097886|NCT00768053|182080767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|A non significant test (p-value ≥ 0.05) would indicate the component had a significant influence to the global EULAR-RAID score.||Comparison of change from baseline between EULAR-RAID score and Coping NRS value||||<0.001
91097887|NCT00768053|182080768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|A non significant test (p-value ≥ 0.05) would indicate the component had a significant influence to the global EULAR-RAID score.||Comparison of change from baseline between EULAR-RAID score and Pain NRS value||||<0.001
91097888|NCT00768053|182080768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.052|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|A non significant test (p-value ≥ 0.05) would indicate the component had a significant influence to the global EULAR-RAID score.||Comparison of change from baseline between EULAR-RAID score and Functional disability NRS value||||0.052
91097889|NCT00768053|182080768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.895|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|A non significant test (p-value ≥ 0.05) would indicate the component had a significant influence to the global EULAR-RAID score.||Comparison of change from baseline between EULAR-RAID score and Fatigue NRS value||||0.895
91097890|NCT00768053|182080768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.153|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|A non significant test (p-value ≥ 0.05) would indicate the component had a significant influence to the global EULAR-RAID score.||Comparison of change from baseline between EULAR-RAID score and Sleep NRS value||||0.153
91097891|NCT00768053|182080768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|A non significant test (p-value ≥ 0.05) would indicate the component had a significant influence to the global EULAR-RAID score.||Comparison of change from baseline between EULAR-RAID score and Physical well-being NRS value||||0.029
91097892|NCT00768053|182080768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.043|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|A non significant test (p-value ≥ 0.05) would indicate the component had a significant influence to the global EULAR-RAID score.||Comparison of change from baseline between EULAR-RAID score and Emotional well-being NRS value||||0.043
91097893|NCT00768053|182080768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|A non significant test (p-value ≥ 0.05) would indicate the component had a significant influence to the global EULAR-RAID score.||Comparison of change from baseline between EULAR-RAID score and Coping NRS value||||<0.001
91097894|NCT03720847|182080825|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26||||0.012|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired sample t-test comparing perimenstrual change in the placebo vs. active conditions within a given participant.|Positive estimated value indicates greater perimenstrual increase in symptoms in the placebo condition relative to the active condition.|||||.012
91097895|NCT03720847|182080826|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired sample t-test comparing perimenstrual change in the placebo vs. active conditions within a given participant.|Positive estimated value indicates a greater perimenstrual increase in the outcome in the placebo condition relative to the active condition.|paired sample t-test comparing perimenstrual change in the placebo vs. active conditions within a given participant.||||.030
91097896|NCT03720847|182080827|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.16||||0.013|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Positive estimated value indicates greater perimenstrual increase in symptoms in the placebo condition relative to the active condition.|paired sample t-test comparing perimenstrual change in the placebo vs. active conditions within a given participant.||||.013
91097897|NCT03720847|182080828|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.65||||0.018|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Positive estimated value indicates greater perimenstrual change in the placebo condition relative to the active condition.|paired sample t-test comparing perimenstrual change in the placebo vs. active conditions within a given participant.||||.018
91097898|NCT03720847|182080829|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.04||||0.073|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Positive estimated value indicates greater perimenstrual increase in symptoms in the placebo condition relative to the active condition.|paired sample t-test comparing perimenstrual change in the placebo vs. active conditions within a given participant.||||.073
91097899|NCT03720847|182080830|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.16||||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired sample t-test comparing perimenstrual change in the placebo vs. active conditions within a given participant.||||.25
91097900|NCT03720847|182080831|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.32||||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired sample t-test comparing perimenstrual change in the placebo vs. active conditions within a given participant.||||.23
91097901|NCT01500096|182080832|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2 sided Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Testing whether the changes from baseline to week 4 are significantly different between arms.||||0.15
91097902|NCT01500096|182080832|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2 sided Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Testing whether the changes from baseline to week 4 are significantly different between arms||||0.73
91097903|NCT01500096|182080833|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1329|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2 sided Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Testing whether the changes from baseline to week 4 are significantly different between arms.||||0.1329
91097904|NCT01500096|182080833|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1191|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2 sided Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Testing whether the changes from baseline to week 4 are significantly different between arms.||||0.1191
91097905|NCT01500096|182080834|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7454|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2 sided Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Testing whether the changes from baseline to week 4 are significantly different between arms.||||0.7454
90850080|NCT02446743|181566026|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 8 Group 3B (V72P10) vs Day 38 Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) (7 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|11.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||11.1|-5.7|
90850081|NCT02446743|181566026|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 31 Group 3B (V72P10) vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|11.1||||||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||11.1|-0.7|
90850082|NCT02446743|181566027|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 4 Group 3B vs Day 34 Group B\_0\_1 (3 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|-30.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.4|-19.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||-19.0|-40.4|
90850083|NCT02446743|181566027|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 8 Group 3B vs Day 38 Group B\_0\_1 (7 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|10.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||10.3|-2.6|
90850084|NCT02446743|181566027|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 31 Group 3B vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|12.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||12.5|3.9|
90850085|NCT02446743|181566027|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 4 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 34 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (3 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|-27.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.8|-12.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||-12.9|-41.8|
90850086|NCT02446743|181566027|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 8 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 38 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (7 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|16.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||16.2|-6.0|
90850087|NCT02446743|181566027|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 31 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|15.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||15.2|1.4|
91097906|NCT01500096|182080834|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7391|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2 sided Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Testing whether the changes from baseline to week 4 are significantly different between arms.||||0.7391
91097907|NCT01500096|182080835|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6818|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2 sided Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Testing whether the changes from baseline to week 4 are significantly different between arms.||||0.6818
91097908|NCT01500096|182080835|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0579|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2 sided Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Testing whether the changes from baseline to week 4 are significantly different between arms.||||0.0579
91097909|NCT01500096|182080836|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2 sided Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Testing whether the changes from baseline to week 4 are significantly different between arms.||||0.17
91097910|NCT01500096|182080836|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2 sided Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Testing whether the changes from baseline to week 4 are significantly different between arms.||||0.51
91097911|NCT01500096|182080837|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7884|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2 sided Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Testing whether the changes from baseline to week 4 are significantly different between arms.||||0.7884
91097912|NCT01500096|182080837|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5532|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2 sided Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Testing whether the changes from baseline to week 4 are significantly different between arms.||||0.5532
91097913|NCT01500096|182080838|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9885|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2 sided Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Testing whether the changes from baseline to week 4 are significantly different between arms.||||0.9885
91097914|NCT01500096|182080838|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2898|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2 sides Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Testing whether the changes from baseline to week 4 are significantly different between arms.||||0.2898
91097915|NCT01500096|182080839|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2 sided Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Testing whether the IL-6 level changes from baseline to week 4 are significantly different between arms.||||0.60
91097916|NCT01500096|182080839|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2 sided Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Testing whether the IL-6 level changes from baseline to week 4 are significantly different between arms.||||0.28
91097917|NCT01500096|182080839|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2 sided Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Testing whether the sTNFR1 level changes from baseline to week 4 are significantly different between arms.||||0.41
91097918|NCT01500096|182080839|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2 sided Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Testing whether the sTNFR1 level changes from baseline to week 4 are significantly different between arms.||||0.72
91097919|NCT01500096|182080839|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2 sided Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Testing whether the sTNFR2 level changes from baseline to week 4 are significantly different between arms.||||0.34
91097920|NCT01500096|182080839|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2 sided Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Testing whether the sTNFR2 level changes from baseline to week 4 are significantly different between arms.||||0.58
91097921|NCT01500096|182080840|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2 sided Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Testing whether the changes from baseline to week 5 are significantly different between arms.||||0.31
91097922|NCT01500096|182080840|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2 sided Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Testing whether the changes from baseline to week 4 are significantly different between arms.||||0.71
91097923|NCT01500096|182080841|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2 sided Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Testing whether the changes from baseline to week 4 are significantly different between arms.||||0.18
91097924|NCT01500096|182080841|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2 sided Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Testing whether the changes from baseline to week 4 are significantly different between arms.||||0.19
91097925|NCT01500096|182080842|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2 sided Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Testing whether the changes from baseline to week 4 are significantly different between arms.||||0.47
90850088|NCT02446743|181566027|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 4 Group 3B (V72P10) vs Day 34 Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) (3 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|-31.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.1|-14.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||-14.6|-45.1|
90850089|NCT02446743|181566027|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 8 Group 3B (V72P10) vs Day 38 Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) (7 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|13.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||13.5|1.9|
90850090|NCT02446743|181566027|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 31 Group 3B (V72P10) vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|15.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||15.0|4.4|
90850091|NCT02446743|181566027|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 4 Group 3B vs Day 34 Group B\_0\_1 (3 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|-5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|6.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||6.5|-16.0|
90850092|NCT02446743|181566027|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 8 Group 3B vs Day 38 Group B\_0\_1 (7 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|6.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||6.2|-0.9|
90850093|NCT02446743|181566027|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 31 Group 3B vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|5.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||5.0|-0.33|
90850094|NCT02446743|181566027|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 4 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 34 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (3 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.5|10.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||10.6|-20.5|
90850095|NCT02446743|181566027|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 8 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 38 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (7 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|8.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||8.8|-3.6|
90850096|NCT02446743|181566027|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 31 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|4.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||4.4|-3.6|
90957573|NCT01445301|181795305|NON_INFERIORITY|If the upper 95% confidence was less than the pre-defined threshold (-Δ \[non-inferiority margin, -3.8\]) of 3.8, non-inferiority of GSK2585823 once daily to CLDM twice daily would be established|Odds Ratio (OR)|-5.8||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|-1.9|||ANCOVA|||WEEK 4||-1.9|-9.6|0.003
91097926|NCT01500096|182080842|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2 sided Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Testing whether the changes from baseline to week 4 are significantly different between arms.||||0.41
91097927|NCT00898807|182080847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.93||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.06||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. All p-values are two-sided and p\<0.05 was the threshold for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model w/ random intercept for patient, visit indicator, treatment by visit interactions and adjusted for baseline NBRS-A \& cognition.|Negative numbers favor citalopram group.|Primary assessment of efficacy was based on intention-to-treat comparison of the difference in the NBRS-A scores at week 9 and comparison at week 9 for the CGIC. For the NBRS-A, the study was designed to have 85% power to detect a standardized difference at week 9 of 40% for citalopram compared to placebo at week 9.||-0.06|-1.80|0.036
91097928|NCT00898807|182080848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.13||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|3.69||All p-values are two-sided and p \<0.05 was the threshold for statistical significance. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Proportional odds|estimated treatment effect from the proportional odds model|Positive numbers favors citalopram.|Primary assessment of efficacy was based on intention-to-treat comparison of the difference in the NBRS-A scores at week 9 and comparison at week 9 for the CGIC. For the CGIC proportional odds analysis, the study was designed to have power greater than 80% to detect a difference of 20% between citalopram and placebo in the proportions of patients who improve (or worsen).||3.69|1.23|0.007
90850097|NCT02446743|181566027|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 4 Group 3B (V72P10) vs Day 34 Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) (3 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|13.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||13.0|-19.4|
90850098|NCT02446743|181566027|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 8 Group 3B (V72P10) vs Day 38 Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) (7 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|11.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||11.0|-2.5|
90850099|NCT02446743|181566027|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 31 Group 3B (V72P10) vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|9.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||9.4|-1.2|
90850100|NCT02446743|181566027|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 4 Group 3B vs Day 34 Group B\_0\_1 (3 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|-20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.0|-11.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||-11.1|-30.0|
90850101|NCT02446743|181566027|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 8 Group 3B vs Day 38 Group B\_0\_1 (7 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|15.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||15.7|-7.6|
90850102|NCT02446743|181566027|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 31 Group 3B vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|32.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.2|40.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||40.2|23.2|
90850103|NCT02446743|181566027|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 4 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 34 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (3 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|-13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.9|-3.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||-3.0|-25.9|
90905104|NCT02886728|181677439|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.0|-4.0|<0.001
91097929|NCT03928327|182080851|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares (LS) Mean Ratio|2.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.48|3.3|||||Linear mixed-effects model was used for analysis, using fixed-effect(treatment), random-effect(participants). Geometric mean ratios(GMR), 90% confidence interval(CI) calculated using exponentiation of treatment least squares means(LSMs) difference.|||3.30|2.48|
91097930|NCT03928327|182080852|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.07|0.11|||||Linear mixed-effects model was used for analysis, using fixed-effect (treatment) and random-effect (participants). GMR and 90% CI was calculated using exponentiation of treatment LSMs difference.|||0.11|0.07|
90850104|NCT02446743|181566027|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 8 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 38 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (7 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|15.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||15.9|-17.1|
90850105|NCT02446743|181566027|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 31 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|33.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.5|45.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||45.3|20.5|
90899962|NCT03573908|181665841|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.867|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.219|-0.515||LS mean difference and p-value were obtained based on an MMRM with treatment, analysis week, geographic region, and treatment-by-week interactions as fixed effects, and baseline score as a covariate.|MMRM|||Week 12. The overall family-wise Type I error rate for primary and secondary outcome measures were controlled at the α=0.05 level by employing a fixed-sequence testing procedure. Outcome measures were tested using 10 hypotheses, each comparing linaclotide versus placebo, in the sequence of presentation of statistical analyses in this record. If the hypothesis comparing the 2 groups was statistically significant (α=0.05), then the next hypothesis was to be tested; otherwise, testing would stop.||-0.515|-1.219|< 0.0001
90899963|NCT03573908|181665841|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.719|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.062|-0.376||LS mean difference and p-value were obtained based on an MMRM with treatment, analysis week, geographic region, and treatment-by-week interactions as fixed effects, and baseline score as a covariate.|MMRM|||Week 10. The overall family-wise Type I error rate for primary and secondary outcome measures were controlled at the α=0.05 level by employing a fixed-sequence testing procedure. Outcome measures were tested using 10 hypotheses, each comparing linaclotide versus placebo, in the sequence of presentation of statistical analyses in this record. If the hypothesis comparing the 2 groups was statistically significant (α=0.05), then the next hypothesis was to be tested; otherwise, testing would stop.||-0.376|-1.062|< 0.0001
91097931|NCT03928327|182080853|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|6.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.2|7.56|||||Linear mixed-effects model was used for analysis, using fixed-effect (treatment) and random-effect (participants). GMR and 90% CI was calculated using exponentiation of treatment LSMs difference.|||7.56|5.20|
91097932|NCT03928327|182080854|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.04|0.07|||||Linear mixed-effects model was used for analysis, using fixed-effect (treatment) and random-effect (participants). GMR and 90% CI was calculated using exponentiation of treatment LSMs difference.|||0.07|0.04|
90899964|NCT03573908|181665841|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.665||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.007|-0.322||LS mean difference and p-value were obtained based on an MMRM with treatment, analysis week, geographic region, and treatment-by-week interactions as fixed effects, and baseline score as a covariate.|MMRM|||Week 8. The overall family-wise Type I error rate for primary and secondary outcome measures were controlled at the α=0.05 level by employing a fixed-sequence testing procedure. Outcome measures were tested using 10 hypotheses, each comparing linaclotide versus placebo, in the sequence of presentation of statistical analyses in this record. If the hypothesis comparing the 2 groups was statistically significant (α=0.05), then the next hypothesis was to be tested; otherwise, testing would stop.||-0.322|-1.007|0.0002
90899965|NCT03573908|181665841|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.831|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.151|-0.511||LS mean difference and p-value were obtained based on an MMRM with treatment, analysis week, geographic region, and treatment-by-week interactions as fixed effects, and baseline score as a covariate.|MMRM|||Week 6. The overall family-wise Type I error rate for primary and secondary outcome measures were controlled at the α=0.05 level by employing a fixed-sequence testing procedure. Outcome measures were tested using 10 hypotheses, each comparing linaclotide versus placebo, in the sequence of presentation of statistical analyses in this record. If the hypothesis comparing the 2 groups was statistically significant (α=0.05), then the next hypothesis was to be tested; otherwise, testing would stop.||-0.511|-1.151|< 0.0001
90899966|NCT03573908|181665841|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.683|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.982|-0.383||LS mean difference and p-value were obtained based on an MMRM with treatment, analysis week, geographic region, and treatment-by-week interactions as fixed effects, and baseline score as a covariate.|MMRM|||Week 4. The overall family-wise Type I error rate for primary and secondary outcome measures were controlled at the α=0.05 level by employing a fixed-sequence testing procedure. Outcome measures were tested using 10 hypotheses, each comparing linaclotide versus placebo, in the sequence of presentation of statistical analyses in this record. If the hypothesis comparing the 2 groups was statistically significant (α=0.05), then the next hypothesis was to be tested; otherwise, testing would stop.||-0.383|-0.982|< 0.0001
90899967|NCT03573908|181665841|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.628|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.888|-0.368||LS mean difference and p-value were obtained based on an MMRM with treatment, analysis week, geographic region, and treatment-by-week interactions as fixed effects, and baseline score as a covariate.|MMRM|||Week 2. The overall family-wise Type I error rate for primary and secondary outcome measures were controlled at the α=0.05 level by employing a fixed-sequence testing procedure. Outcome measures were tested using 10 hypotheses, each comparing linaclotide versus placebo, in the sequence of presentation of statistical analyses in this record. If the hypothesis comparing the 2 groups was statistically significant (α=0.05), then the next hypothesis was to be tested; otherwise, testing would stop.||-0.368|-0.888|< 0.0001
91097933|NCT01846871|182080864|OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.70
91097934|NCT01846871|182080865|OTHER|||||||0.028|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.028
91097935|NCT01846871|182080866|OTHER|||||||0.0019|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0019
91097936|NCT01846871|182080867|OTHER|||||||0.033|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.033
91097937|NCT00429299|182080885|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|An exploratory comparison between the combined two single anti-HER2 arms and the dual anti-HER2 arm was performed (Arm 3 versus Arms 1 and 2).|percentage of participants|25.0||||0.019||90.0|13.1|36.9||Exploratory analysis|Chi-squared||The estimated value represents the percentage of particpants in the CT plus trastuzumab treatment group with pathological complete response.|||36.9|13.1|0.019
90850106|NCT02446743|181566027|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 4 Group 3B (V72P10) vs Day 34 Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) (3 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|-25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.1|-11.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||-11.2|-40.1|
91030781|NCT03682900|181946101|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||All probabilities for secondary outcomes were listed as p = .000 within the analysis program. A p value of \< .05 is considered significant. All statistical tests are one-tailed. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Data were anlyzed using a general linear mixed model with students nested within schools and schools nested within condition.||||<.001
91030782|NCT03682900|181946102|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||All probabilities for secondary outcomes were listed as p = .000 within the analysis program. A p value of \< .05 is considered significant. All statistical tests are one-tailed. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Data were analyzed using a gneral linear mixed model with students nested within schools and schools nested within condition.||||<.001
91097938|NCT00429299|182080885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|26.3||||||90.0|14.5|38.1|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of particpants in the CT plus lapatinib 1500 mg treatment group with pathological complete response.|||38.1|14.5|
90850107|NCT02446743|181566027|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 8 Group 3B (V72P10) vs Day 38 Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) (7 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|28.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||28.1|-3.9|
90850108|NCT02446743|181566027|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 31 Group 3B (V72P10) vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|33.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.0|44.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||44.1|22.0|
90850109|NCT02446743|181566027|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 4 Group 3B vs Day 34 Group B\_0\_1 (3 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|-5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|6.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||6.0|-16.0|
90850110|NCT02446743|181566027|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 8 Group 3B vs Day 38 Group B\_0\_1 (7 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|8.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||8.9|-6.8|
90850111|NCT02446743|181566027|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 31 Group 3B vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|16.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||16.9|5.3|
90899968|NCT03573908|181665841|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.435|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.641|-0.228||LS mean difference and p-value were obtained based on an MMRM with treatment, analysis week, geographic region, and treatment-by-week interactions as fixed effects, and baseline score as a covariate.|MMRM|||Week 1. The overall family-wise Type I error rate for primary and secondary outcome measures were controlled at the α=0.05 level by employing a fixed-sequence testing procedure. Outcome measures were tested using 10 hypotheses, each comparing linaclotide versus placebo, in the sequence of presentation of statistical analyses in this record. If the hypothesis comparing the 2 groups was statistically significant (α=0.05), then the next hypothesis was to be tested; otherwise, testing would stop.||-0.228|-0.641|< 0.0001
90899969|NCT03573908|181665841|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.683|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.969|-0.398||LS mean difference and p-value were obtained based on an MMRM with treatment, analysis week, geographic region, and treatment-by-week interactions as fixed effects, and baseline score as a covariate.|MMRM|||Week 3. Not part of the fixed-sequence testing procedure.||-0.398|-0.969|< 0.0001
91030783|NCT03682900|181946103|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||All probabilities for secondary outcomes were listed as p = .000 within the analysis program. A p value of \< .05 is considered significant. All statistical tests are one-tailed. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Data were anlayzed using a general linear mixed model with students nested within schools and schools within condition.||||<.001
91030784|NCT03682900|181946104|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||All probabilities for secondary outcomes were listed as p = .000 within the analysis program. Apriori, a p value of \< .05 is considered significant. All statistical tests are one-tailed. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Data were analyzed uisng a general linear mixed model with students nested within schools and schools nested within condition.||||<.001
91097939|NCT00429299|182080885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|46.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|34.4|58.9|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of particpants in the CT plus traztuzumab plus lapatinib 1000 mg treatment group with pathological complete response.|||58.9|34.4|
91097940|NCT04871113|182080902|OTHER||Emax|-1.848|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.225|-1.472|||||Emax is defined as maximum response.|||-1.472|-2.225|
91097941|NCT04871113|182080902|OTHER||EC50|68.578|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.866|121.29|||||EC50 is defined as the dose (in mg) that attains the 50% of the maximal effect.|||121.290|15.866|
91097942|NCT04871113|182080902|OTHER||s2e|0.257|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.145|0.368|||||e is defined as random error assumed to be normally distributed with mean zero and constant variance (s2).|||0.368|0.145|
91097943|NCT05630755|182080913|NON_INFERIORITY|A margin of 4 percentage points is used to define non-inferiority.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.88||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|2.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|Unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method was used|||The estimated difference was calculated using the unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method.|2.90|-1.86|0.003
91030785|NCT03682900|181946105|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||All probabilities for secondary outcomes were listed as p = .000 within the analysis program. A p value of \< .05 is a priori considered significant. All statistical tests are one-tailed. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Data were analyzed using a general linear model with students nested within schools and schools nested within condition.||||<.001
91097944|NCT05630755|182080913|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.88||||0.192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|2.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|Unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method was used|||The estimated difference was calculated using the unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method.|2.90|-1.86|0.192
91097945|NCT04502524|182080932|OTHER|||||||0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||For overall satisfaction, a reliable estimate could not be calculated using a logistic regression model as all the responses were the same in the Vet Flexiquit arm. We calculated the p-value using the Fisher's exact test.||||.999
91097946|NCT04502524|182080933|OTHER||Slope|0.05||||0.852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.56|||Regression, negative binomial|||||0.56|-0.46|0.852
91097947|NCT04502524|182080934|OTHER||Slope|-0.44||||0.451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.71|||Regression, negative binomial|||||0.71|-1.60|0.451
90899970|NCT03573908|181665841|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.768|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.076|-0.46||LS mean difference and p-value were obtained based on an MMRM with treatment, analysis week, geographic region, and treatment-by-week interactions as fixed effects, and baseline score as a covariate.|MMRM|||Week 5. Not part of the fixed-sequence testing procedure.||-0.460|-1.076|< 0.0001
90899971|NCT03573908|181665841|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.758|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.086|-0.431||LS mean difference and p-value were obtained based on an MMRM with treatment, analysis week, geographic region, and treatment-by-week interactions as fixed effects, and baseline score as a covariate.|MMRM|||Week 7. Not part of the fixed-sequence testing procedure.||-0.431|-1.086|< 0.0001
90957574|NCT01445301|181795305|NON_INFERIORITY|If the upper 95% confidence was less than the pre-defined threshold (-Δ \[non-inferiority margin, -3.8\]) of 3.8, non-inferiority of GSK2585823 once daily to CLDM twice daily would be established|Mean Difference (Net)|-5.5||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|-1.6|||ANCOVA|||WEEK 8||-1.6|-9.4|0.006
91097948|NCT04502524|182080935|OTHER||Slope|-0.73||||0.508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|0.003|||Regression, negative binomial|||||0.003|-1.46|0.508
91097949|NCT04502524|182080936|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65||||0.602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|3.32|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.32|0.13|0.602
91097950|NCT04502524|182080937|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|5.29|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.29|0.17|0.941
91097951|NCT04502524|182080938|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.61||||0.612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|4.12|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.12|0.09|0.612
91097952|NCT04502524|182080939|OTHER||Slope|0.56||||0.504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|2.26|||Regression, Linear|||||2.26|-1.13|0.504
91097953|NCT04502524|182080940|OTHER||Slope|0.11||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.61|||Regression, Linear|||||0.61|-0.40|0.670
91097954|NCT03925220|182081000|SUPERIORITY||Prevalence Ratio (PR)|2.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|4.04||"At 3 months:~Parent-reported frequency of conversations on drinking alcohol"|Generalized estimation|||A sample size of 400 parents and children was calculated to yield 80% power to detect one or more differences between the intervention and control arms, of 45% in talking about alcohol, 20% about marijuana, and 20% about other drugs, using a two-sided Bonferroni-corrected 1.5% level of significance (based on estimates from the pilot trial).||4.04|2.02|<0.001
91097955|NCT03925220|182081000|SUPERIORITY||Prevalence Ratio [PR]|2.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.67|3.45||"At 3 months:~Parent-reported frequency of conversations on using e-cigarettes or vaping"|Generalized estimation|||||3.45|1.67|<0.001
90899972|NCT03573908|181665841|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.703|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.043|-0.363||LS mean difference and p-value were obtained based on an MMRM with treatment, analysis week, geographic region, and treatment-by-week interactions as fixed effects, and baseline score as a covariate.|MMRM|||Week 9. Not part of the fixed-sequence testing procedure.||-0.363|-1.043|< 0.0001
91097956|NCT03925220|182081000|SUPERIORITY||Prevalence Ratio [PR]|2.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.62|3.43||"At 3 months:~Parent-reported frequency of conversations on using marijuana"|Generalized estimation|||||3.43|1.62|<0.001
91097957|NCT03925220|182081000|SUPERIORITY||Prevalence Ratio [PR]|3.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.34|5.08||"At 3 months:~Parent-reported frequency of conversations on smoking cigarettes"|Generalized estimation|||||5.08|2.34|<0.001
91097958|NCT03925220|182081000|SUPERIORITY||Prevalence Ratio [PR]|2.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|3.86||"At 3 months:~Parent-reported frequency of conversations on using other drugs"|Generalized estimation|||||3.86|1.58|<0.001
91097959|NCT03925220|182081000|SUPERIORITY||Prevalence Ratio [PR]|1.45||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|2.06||"At 18 months:~Parent-reported frequency of conversations on drinking alcohol"|Generalized estimation|||||2.06|1.02|0.04
91097960|NCT03925220|182081001|SUPERIORITY||Prevalence Ratio (PR)|1.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|1.45||"At 3 months:~Parent-reported have warned your child about the dangers of drinking alcohol and using drugs"|Generalized estimation|||||1.45|1.18|<0.001
91097961|NCT03925220|182081001|SUPERIORITY||Prevalence Ratio [PR]|1.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|1.83||"At 3 months:~Parent-reported 'have talked to your child about how to handle offers of alcoholic drinks and drugs'"|Generalized estimation|||||1.83|1.32|<0.001
91097962|NCT03925220|182081001|SUPERIORITY||Prevalence Ratio [PR]|2.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.73|2.63||"At 3 months:~Parent-reported 'have given your child rules to obey about drinking alcohol and using drugs'"|Generalized estimation|||||2.63|1.73|<0.001
91097963|NCT03925220|182081001|SUPERIORITY||Prevalence Ratio [PR]|1.67||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|2.25||"At 3 months:~Parent-reported 'have lectured or given your child a speech about drinking alcohol and using drugs'"|Generalized estimation|||||2.25|1.25|0.001
91097964|NCT03925220|182081001|SUPERIORITY||Prevalence Ratio [PR]|1.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|1.9||"At 3 months:~Parent-reported 'have made a comment to your child about how drinking alcohol and using drugs is bad if a character on TV is drinking or drunk'"|Generalized estimation|||||1.90|1.21|<0.001
91097965|NCT03925220|182081001|SUPERIORITY||Prevalence Ratio [PR]|1.25||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.47||"At 3 months:~Parent-reported 'have told your child stories of people who drink alcohol, have been drunk, or use drugs'"|Generalized estimation|||||1.47|1.06|0.008
91097966|NCT03925220|182081001|SUPERIORITY||Prevalence Ratio [PR]|1.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|2.1||"At 3 months:~Parent-reported 'have told your child you would be disappointed in her/him if they were to drink alcohol or use drugs'"|Generalized estimation|||||2.10|1.29|<0.001
91097967|NCT03925220|182081001|SUPERIORITY||Prevalence Ratio [PR]|1.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|2.15||"At 3 months:~Parent-reported 'have shown your child information on the web, TV, or in the news about the dangers of drinking alcohol and using drugs'"|Generalized estimation|||||2.15|1.24|<0.001
91097968|NCT03925220|182081001|SUPERIORITY||Prevalence Ratio [PR]|1.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|1.93||"At 3 months:~Parent-reported 'have asked your child about their thoughts and opinions about drinking alcohol and using drugs'"|Generalized estimation|||||1.93|1.40|<0.001
91097969|NCT03925220|182081001|SUPERIORITY||Prevalence Ratio [PR]|1.4||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.74||"At 18 months:~Parent-reported 'have given your child rules to obey about drinking alcohol and using drugs'"|Generalized estimation|||||1.74|1.12|0.003
91097970|NCT03925220|182081001|SUPERIORITY||Prevalence Ratio [PR]|1.38||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.78||"At 18 months:~Parent-reported 'have made a comment to your child about how drinking alcohol and using drugs is bad if a character on TV is drinking or drunk'"|Generalized estimation|||||1.78|1.06|0.01
91097971|NCT03301714|182081011|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence analysis|Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.62||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||baseline demographics, correlated errors due to repeated measures, and bias due to lost to follow-up were accounted for via Generalized Estimating Equation (statistical threshold \<0.01)|Regression, Linear||Mean change difference in oral health related quality of life among control, intervention 1: group-based oral health education and intervention 2: individual-based oral health education using motivational interviewing.|||||.000
91097972|NCT04465955|182081014|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.4345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.528|0.227|||Random coefficient model|Covariates included terms for time, treatment-by-time interaction, baseline fellow eye CNV status, baseline focality, and baseline GA lesion location||Rate of Change Difference Between NGM621 Q4W and Pooled Sham||0.227|-0.528|0.4345
91097973|NCT04465955|182081014|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.155||||0.4217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.536|0.225|||Random coefficient model|Covariates included terms for time, treatment-by-time interaction, baseline fellow eye CNV status, baseline focality, and baseline GA lesion location||Rate of Change Difference Between NGM621 Q8W and Pooled Sham||0.225|-0.536|0.4217
91097974|NCT04738487|182081028|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.6712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.35||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test.|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|||1.35|0.83|0.6712
91097975|NCT04738487|182081029|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.13||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test.|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|||1.13|0.82|0.3320
91097976|NCT04738487|182081030|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.1646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.11||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test.|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|||1.11|0.72|0.1646
91097977|NCT04253626|182081081|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||< 0.001
91097978|NCT04253626|182081085|OTHER|||||||0.88||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Between-group analysis of change at week 4||||0.88
91097979|NCT04253626|182081086|OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.||Between-group analysis of change at week 4||||0.27
90850112|NCT02446743|181566027|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 4 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 34 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (3 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|14.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||14.1|-18.0|
90850113|NCT02446743|181566027|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 8 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 38 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (7 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|15.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||15.7|-9.7|
90850114|NCT02446743|181566027|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 31 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|17.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.2|27.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||27.8|8.2|
90850115|NCT02446743|181566027|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 4 Group 3B (V72P10) vs Day 34 Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) (3 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.1|9.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||9.1|-19.1|
90850116|NCT02446743|181566027|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 8 Group 3B (V72P10) vs Day 38 Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) (7 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|11.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||11.8|-8.4|
90850117|NCT02446743|181566027|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 31 Group 3B (V72P10) vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|12.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||12.6|-0.47|
90850118|NCT02446743|181566028|OTHER|Vaccine Comparison Day 31 Group 3B vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1(1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|Ratio of GMTs|3.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.85|4.29|||ANOVA|||Adjusted geometric mean titers for H44/76 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country.||4.29|2.85|
90850119|NCT02446743|181566028|OTHER|Vaccine Comparison Day 31 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|Ratio of GMTs|2.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|3.69|||ANOVA|||Adjusted geometric mean titers for H44/76 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country.||3.69|2.02|
90850120|NCT02446743|181566028|OTHER|Vaccine Comparison Day 31 Group 3B (V72P10) vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|Ratio of GMTs|4.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.38|5.88|||ANOVA|||Adjusted geometric mean titers for H44/76 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country.||5.88|3.38|
90850121|NCT02446743|181566028|OTHER|Vaccine Comparison Day 31 Group 3B vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1(1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|Ratio of GMTs|8.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.51|10.0|||ANOVA|||Adjusted geometric mean titers for 5/99 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country||10|6.51|
90850122|NCT02446743|181566028|OTHER|Vaccine Comparison Day 31 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|Ratio of GMTs|9.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.17|13.0|||ANOVA|||Adjusted geometric mean titers for 5/99 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country.||13|7.17|
90850123|NCT02446743|181566028|OTHER|Vaccine Comparison Day 31 Group 3B (V72P10) vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|Ratio of GMTs|6.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.82|9.87|||ANOVA|||Adjusted geometric mean titers for 5/99 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country.||9.87|4.82|
90899973|NCT03573908|181665841|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.844|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.189|-0.498||LS mean difference and p-value were obtained based on an MMRM with treatment, analysis week, geographic region, and treatment-by-week interactions as fixed effects, and baseline score as a covariate.|MMRM|||Week 11. Not part of the fixed-sequence testing procedure.||-0.498|-1.189|< 0.0001
90899974|NCT04006925|181665842|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-23.5||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.0|-2.0||All statistical tests were conducted using a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||Within group analysis of change from baseline.||-2.0|-41.0|0.03
90899975|NCT04006925|181665842|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-9.0||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.5|0.0|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||Within group analysis of change from baseline.||0.0|-21.5|0.11
90899976|NCT04006925|181665842|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-14.5||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.0|11.3||All statistical tests were conducted using a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|Mann Whitney U test|||Between group analysis of change from baseline.||11.3|-32.0|0.27
91097980|NCT04253626|182081087|OTHER|||||||0.72||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Between-group analysis of change at week 4||||0.72
91097981|NCT04253626|182081088|OTHER|||||||0.009||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Between-group analysis of change at week 4||||0.009
90850124|NCT02446743|181566028|OTHER|Vaccine Comparison Day 31 Group 3B vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1(1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|Ratio of GMTs|2.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.98|3.36|||ANOVA|||Adjusted geometric mean titers for NZ98/254 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country||3.36|1.98|
91097982|NCT01022580|182081116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.89|TWO_SIDED||||||unadj GEE|||||||0.89
90850125|NCT02446743|181566028|OTHER|Vaccine Comparison Day 31 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|Ratio of GMTs|2.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.89|3.73|||ANOVA|||Adjusted geometric mean titers for NZ98/254 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country.||3.73|1.89|
90850126|NCT02446743|181566028|OTHER|Vaccine Comparison Day 31 Group 3B (V72P10) vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|Ratio of GMTs|2.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.67|3.78|||ANOVA|||Adjusted geometric mean titers for NZ98/254 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country.||3.78|1.67|
90850127|NCT02446743|181566028|OTHER|Vaccine Comparison Day 31 Group 3B vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1(1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|Ratio of GMTs|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|2.36|||ANOVA|||Adjusted geometric mean titers for M10713 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country||2.36|1.52|
91097983|NCT01022580|182081117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.33|TWO_SIDED||||||unadj GEE|||||||0.33
91097984|NCT00924651|182081167|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01916|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1791||0.9148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.371|0.3327|||ANCOVA|||||0.3327|-0.3710|0.9148
91097985|NCT00835978|182081170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.578||||0.0189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.017|2.448||A priori defined threshold for statistical significance was: alpha=0.10 (one-sided)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||ORR for the 2 treatment arms was compared with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by ECOG performance status. The relative risk ratio estimator was used to contrast the treatment effects on the endpoint. Both a point estimate and a 2-sided 95% CI were calculated using a normal approximation.||2.448|1.017|0.0189
91097986|NCT00835978|182081171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.849||||0.2444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.535|1.348|||Log Rank|||||1.348|0.535|0.2444
91097987|NCT02383173|182081199|OTHER|||||||0.445|||||||Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)|Sandwich estimators were used to adjust for the small number of clusters.||Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) analyses of post-intervention data were used to account for clustering. We adjusted for age, race, cancer, length of stay and study year.||||0.445
90899977|NCT04006925|181665843|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|0.0||All statistical tests were conducted using a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||Within group analysis of change from baseline.||0.0|-3.0|0.02
91097988|NCT01944774|182081243|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Clinical success rate was assumed for the experimental group (Nemonoxacin 500mg) and the control group (Moxifloxacin 400mg) were both 88%. The non-inferiority margin was defined as 15%, one-sided significance value was 0.05 (one-tailed α=0.05), power was 80%, and the assignment ratio was 1:1:1.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.291||||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.058|1.457||Only P values less than 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.457|0.058|0.133
91097989|NCT01944774|182081243|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Clinical success rate was assumed for the experimental group (Nemonoxacin 650mg) and the control group (Moxifloxacin 400mg) were both 88%. The non-inferiority margin was defined as 15%, one-sided significance value was 0.05 (one-tailed α=0.05), power was 80%, and the assignment ratio was 1:1:1.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.492||||0.423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.087|2.788||Only P values less than 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.788|0.087|0.423
91097990|NCT01944774|182081244|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Clinical success rate was assumed for the experimental group (Nemonoxacin 500mg) and the control group (Moxifloxacin 400mg) were both 88%. The non-inferiority margin was defined as 15%, one-sided significance value was 0.05 (one-tailed α=0.05), power was 80%, and the assignment ratio was 1:1:1.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.276||||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.055|1.385||Only P values less than 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.385|0.055|0.118
91097991|NCT01944774|182081244|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Clinical success rate was assumed for the experimental group (Nemonoxacin 650mg) and the control group (Moxifloxacin 400mg) were both 88%. The non-inferiority margin was defined as 15%, one-sided significance value was 0.05 (one-tailed α=0.05), power was 80%, and the assignment ratio was 1:1:1.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.644||||0.636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.104|3.999||Only P values less than 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Regression, Logistic|||||3.999|0.104|0.636
91097992|NCT01944774|182081245|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Clinical success rate was assumed for the experimental group (Nemonoxacin 500mg) and the control group (Moxifloxacin 400mg) were both 88%. The non-inferiority margin was defined as 15%, one-sided significance value was 0.05 (one-tailed α=0.05), power was 80%, and the assignment ratio was 1:1:1.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.517||||0.456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.091|2.93||Only P values less than 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.930|0.091|0.456
91097993|NCT01944774|182081245|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Clinical success rate was assumed for the experimental group (Nemonoxacin 650mg) and the control group (Moxifloxacin 400mg) were both 88%. The non-inferiority margin was defined as 15%, one-sided significance value was 0.05 (one-tailed α=0.05), power was 80%, and the assignment ratio was 1:1:1.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.508||||0.445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|2.883||Only P values less than 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.883|0.090|0.445
91097994|NCT01944774|182081246|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Clinical success rate was assumed for the experimental group (Nemonoxacin 500mg) and the control group (Moxifloxacin 400mg) were both 88%. The non-inferiority margin was defined as 15%, one-sided significance value was 0.05 (one-tailed α=0.05), power was 80%, and the assignment ratio was 1:1:1.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.518||||0.458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.091|2.941||Only P values less than 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.941|0.091|0.458
91097995|NCT01944774|182081246|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Clinical success rate was assumed for the experimental group (Nemonoxacin 650mg) and the control group (Moxifloxacin 400mg) were both 88%. The non-inferiority margin was defined as 15%, one-sided significance value was 0.05 (one-tailed α=0.05), power was 80%, and the assignment ratio was 1:1:1.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.667||||0.664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.107|4.144||Only P values less than 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Regression, Logistic|||||4.144|0.107|0.664
91097996|NCT01944774|182081247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||0.959|TWO_SIDED|||||Only P values less than 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Regression, Logistic||The 2-sided 95% confidence interval of OR is (\<0.001, \>999.999).|||||0.959
91097997|NCT01944774|182081247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||0.961|TWO_SIDED|||||Only P values less than 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Regression, Logistic||The 2-sided 95% confidence interval of OR is (\<0.001, \>999.999).|||||0.961
91097998|NCT01944774|182081248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|||||Only P values less than 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Regression, Logistic||The 2-sided 95% confidence interval of OR is (\<0.001, \>999.999).|||||0.960
90850128|NCT02446743|181566028|OTHER|Vaccine Comparison Day 31 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|Ratio of GMTs|1.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|2.59|||ANOVA|||Adjusted geometric mean titers for M10713 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country.||2.59|1.37|
90850129|NCT02446743|181566028|OTHER|Vaccine Comparison Day 31 Group 3B (V72P10) vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|Ratio of GMTs|1.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|2.58|||ANOVA|||Adjusted geometric mean titers for M10713 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country.||2.58|1.41|
90850130|NCT02446743|181566030|OTHER|3 Days Post Booster/Second Vaccination. Four-fold Increase (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1) Difference|Vaccine group difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|1.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||1.8|-7.5|
90850131|NCT02446743|181566030|OTHER|7 Days Post Booster/Second Vaccination. Four-fold Increase (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1) Difference|vaccine group difference|53.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.1|62.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||62.5|42.1|
90850132|NCT02446743|181566030|OTHER|1 Month Post Booster/Second Vaccination. Four-fold Increase (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1) Difference|vaccine group difference|58.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.5|64.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||64.7|50.5|
90850133|NCT02446743|181566030|OTHER|3 Days Post Booster/Second Vaccination. Four-fold Increase \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\] Difference|vaccine group difference|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|2.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||2.0|-14.1|
90850134|NCT02446743|181566030|OTHER|7 Days Post Booster/Second Vaccination. Four-fold Increase \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\] Difference|vaccine group difference|44.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.1|58.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||58.5|28.1|
90850135|NCT02446743|181566030|OTHER|1 month Post Booster/Second Vaccination. Four-fold Increase \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\] Difference|vaccine group difference|44.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.7|54.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||54.1|32.7|
90899978|NCT04006925|181665843|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||Within group analysis of change from baseline.||1.0|-1.0|0.83
90899979|NCT04006925|181665843|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|0.0||All statistical tests were conducted using a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|Mann Whitney U test|||Between group analysis of change from baseline.||0.0|-3.5|0.09
90957575|NCT01445301|181795305|NON_INFERIORITY|If the upper 95% confidence was less than the pre-defined threshold (-Δ \[non-inferiority margin, -3.8\]) of 3.8, non-inferiority of GSK2585823 once daily to CLDM twice daily would be established|Mean Difference (Net)|-5.6||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|-1.7|||ANCOVA|||WEEK 12||-1.7|-9.5|0.005
90850136|NCT02446743|181566030|OTHER|3 Days Post Booster/Second Vaccination. Four-fold Increase \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\] Difference|vaccine group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|4.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||4.8|-8.0|
90850137|NCT02446743|181566030|OTHER|7 Days Post Booster/Second Vaccination. Four-fold Increase \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\] Difference|Vaccine group difference|60.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.0|71.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||71.5|45.0|
90850138|NCT02446743|181566030|OTHER|1 month Post Booster/Second Vaccination. Four-fold Increase \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\] Difference|vaccine group difference|71.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.2|78.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||78.5|61.2|
90850139|NCT02446743|181566030|OTHER|3 Days Post Booster/Second Vaccination. Four-fold Increase (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1) Difference|vaccine group difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|4.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||4|-9.1|
90850140|NCT02446743|181566030|OTHER|7 Days Post Booster/Second Vaccination. Four-fold Increase (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1) Difference|vaccine group difference|37.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.0|48.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||48.1|27.0|
90850141|NCT02446743|181566030|OTHER|1 Month Post Booster/Second Vaccination. Four-fold Increase (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1) Difference|Vaccine group difference|33.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.2|40.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||40.4|25.2|
90850142|NCT02446743|181566030|OTHER|3 Days Post Booster/Second Vaccination. Four-fold Increase \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\] Difference|vaccine group difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|10.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||10.2|-8.7|
90850143|NCT02446743|181566030|OTHER|7 Days Post Booster/Second Vaccination. Four-fold Increase \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\] Difference|vaccine group difference|43.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.7|58.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||58.6|27.7|
90899980|NCT04006925|181665844|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08||||||All statistical tests were conducted using a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|Mann Whitney U test|||Between group analysis of change from baseline.||||0.08
90957576|NCT01445301|181795305|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|-1.1|||ANCOVA|||WEEK 1||-1.1|-3.9|<0.001
91030786|NCT03682900|181946106|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||All probabilities for secondary outcomes were listed as p = .000 within the analysis program. A p value of \< .05 is considered significant. All statistical tests are one-tailed. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Data were analyzed using a general linear mixed model with students nested within schools and schools nested within condition.||||<.001
90850144|NCT02446743|181566030|OTHER|1 month Post Booster/Second Vaccination. Four-fold Increase \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\] Difference|vaccine group difference|42.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.1|53.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||53.0|31.1|
90850145|NCT02446743|181566030|OTHER|3 Days Post Booster/Second Vaccination. Four-fold Increase \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\] Difference|vaccine group difference|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.2|0.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||0.9|-19.2|
90899981|NCT04006925|181665845|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18||||||All statistical tests were conducted using a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|Mann Whitney U test|||Between group analysis of change from baseline.||||0.18
90899982|NCT04006925|181665846|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|2.0||All statistical tests were conducted using a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||Within group analysis of change from baseline.||2.0|-7.0|0.26
90899983|NCT04006925|181665846|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|2.0||All statistical tests were conducted using a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||Within group analysis of change from baseline.||2.0|-3.5|0.43
90957577|NCT01445301|181795305|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|-1.6|||ANCOVA|||WEEK 2||-1.6|-4.7|<0.001
91030787|NCT03682900|181946107|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||All probabilities for secondary outcomes were listed as p = .000 within the analysis program. A p value of \< .05 is considered significant. All statistical tests are one-tailed. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Data were analyzed using a general linear mixed model with students nested within schools and schools nested within condition.||||<.001
91030788|NCT03682900|181946108|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||All probabilities for secondary outcomes were listed as p = .000 within the analysis program. A p value of \< .05 is considered significant. All statistical tests are one-tailed. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Data were anlyzed using a general linear model mixed model with students nested within schools and schools nested within condition.||||<.001
91030789|NCT03682900|181946109|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||All probabilities for secondary outcomes were listed as p = .000 within the analysis program. A p value of \< .05 is considered significant. All statistical tests are one-tailed. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Data were analyzed using a general linear mixed model with students nested within schools and schools nested within condition.||||<.001
91030790|NCT03682900|181946110|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||All probabilities for secondary outcomes were listed as p = .000 within the analysis program. A p value of \< .05 is considered significant. All statistical tests are one-tailed. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Data were analyzed using a general linear mixed model with students nested within schols and schools nested within condition.||||<.001
91030791|NCT03682900|181946111|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||All probabilities for secondary outcomes were listed as p = .000 within the analysis program. A p value of \< .05 is considered significant. All statistical tests are one-tailed. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Data were analyzed using a general linear mixed model with students nested within schools and schools nested within condition.||||<.001
91030792|NCT01430741|181946113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.04|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Compared changes in service intensity among Veterans served by case managers in the GTO group relative to the comparison group of Veterans, by fitting a series of mixed-effects regression models. Final mixed-effect models for all outcomes included fixed terms for group (GTO group vs. comparison), time, group x time interaction as well as control covariates.||||=.04
91030793|NCT01430741|181946114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.21|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Compared changes in alcohol dependence among Veterans served by case managers in the GTO group relative to the comparison group of Veterans, by fitting a series of mixed-effects regression models. Final mixed-effect models for all outcomes included fixed terms for group (GTO group vs. comparison), time, group x time interaction as well as control covariates.||||=.21
91030794|NCT01430741|181946114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.07|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Compared changes in drug dependence among Veterans served by case managers in the GTO group relative to the comparison group of Veterans, by fitting a series of mixed-effects regression models. Final mixed-effect models for all outcomes included fixed terms for group (GTO group vs. comparison), time, group x time interaction as well as control covariates.||||=.07
91030795|NCT01430741|181946115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.14|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Compared mental health inpatient hospitalizations among Veterans served by case managers in the GTO group relative to the comparison group of Veterans, by fitting a series of mixed-effects regression models. Final mixed-effect models for all outcomes included fixed terms for group (GTO group vs. comparison), time, group x time interaction as well as control covariates.||||=.14
91097999|NCT01944774|182081248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||0.962|TWO_SIDED|||||Only P values less than 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Regression, Logistic||The 2-sided 95% confidence interval of OR is (\<0.001, \>999.999).|||||0.962
90899984|NCT04006925|181665846|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|3.0||All statistical tests were conducted using a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|Mann Whitney U test|||Between group analysis of change from baseline.||3.0|-4.0|0.65
91098000|NCT01944774|182081249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|||||Only P values less than 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Regression, Logistic||The 2-sided 95% confidence interval of OR is (\<0.001, \>999.999).|||||0.950
90899985|NCT04006925|181665847|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.2||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|1.7||All statistical tests were conducted using a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|Unpaired T-test|||Within group analysis of change from baseline.||1.7|-15.2|0.23
90899986|NCT04006925|181665847|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|4.5||All statistical tests were conducted using a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|Unpaired T-test|||Within group analysis of change from baseline.||4.5|-4.6|0.95
90899987|NCT04006925|181665847|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.4||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|3.1||All statistical tests were conducted using a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|Paired T-test|||Between group analysis of change from baseline.||3.1|-16.2|0.22
90899988|NCT01755143|181665851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|100.0|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|97.7|||A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.025|exact test of binomial proportions|||Null Hypothesis: MRI-related complication-free rate between the MRI scan and one-month post-MRI \<90%.|||97.7|<0.0001
90899989|NCT01755143|181665852|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was 10%.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.025. Because there were no failures in either group, a p-value could not be calculated.|Farrington-Manning test|||Null hypothesis: % successes MRI group ≤ % successes Control group -10%.||||
90899990|NCT01755143|181665853|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was 10%.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|4.1||A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|Farrington-Manning test|||Null hypothesis: % successes MRI group ≤ % successes Control group -10%.||4.1|-5.4|<0.0001
90899991|NCT01755143|181665854|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was 10%.|Risk Difference (RD)|1.6|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|||A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Farrington-Manning test|||Null hypothesis: % successes MRI group ≤ % successes Control group - 10%.|||-3.2|<0.0001
90899992|NCT01755143|181665855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|0.0|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||1.9|||exact test of binomial proportions|A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.||Null hypothesis: the proportion of subjects with sustained ventricular arrhythmias and asystole during MRI scans \>= 10%.||1.9||<0.0001
90850146|NCT02446743|181566030|OTHER|7 Days Post Booster/Second Vaccination. Four-fold Increase \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\] Difference|vaccine group difference|32.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.2|47.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||47.0|18.2|
90850147|NCT02446743|181566030|OTHER|1 month Post Booster/Second Vaccination. Four-fold Increase \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\] Difference|vaccine group difference|24.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.2|34.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||34.4|13.2|
90850148|NCT02446743|181566030|OTHER|3 Days Post Booster/Second Vaccination. Four-fold Increase (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1) Difference|vaccine group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|3.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||3.4|-4.7|
90850149|NCT02446743|181566030|OTHER|7 Days Post Booster/Second Vaccination. Four-fold Increase (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1) Difference|Vaccine group difference|36.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.6|45.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||45.7|25.6|
90850150|NCT02446743|181566030|OTHER|1 Month Post Booster/Second Vaccination. Four-fold Increase (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1) Difference|vaccine group difference|54.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.2|61.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||61.1|45.2|
90850151|NCT02446743|181566030|OTHER|3 Days Post Booster/Second Vaccination. Four-fold Increase \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\] Difference|vaccine group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|5.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||5.0|-8.4|
90850152|NCT02446743|181566030|OTHER|7 Days Post Booster/Second Vaccination. Four-fold Increase \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\] Difference|vaccine group difference|29.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.1|43.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||43.0|12.1|
90850153|NCT02446743|181566030|OTHER|1 month Post Booster/Second Vaccination. Four-fold Increase \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\] Difference|Vaccine group difference|46.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.6|57.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/154 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||57.1|33.6|
90899993|NCT01755143|181665856|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was 10%.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.2||||0.0004|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-4.8||||Farrington-Manning test|A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.||Null hypothesis: % successes MRI group ≤ % successes Control group - 10%.|||-4.8|0.0004
90899994|NCT02906683|181665858|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.8||0.329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.1|6.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||TAS-303 3 mg group vs. Placebo group for the mean percentage changes in IEF per 24 hours from baseline to Week 8||6.7|-20.1|0.329
91098001|NCT01944774|182081249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||0.962|TWO_SIDED|||||Only P values less than 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Regression, Logistic||The 2-sided 95% confidence interval of OR is (\<0.001, \>999.999).|||||0.962
90850154|NCT02446743|181566030|OTHER|3 Days Post Booster/Second Vaccination. Four-fold Increase \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\] Difference|Vaccine group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|5.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||5.4|-8.0|
90850155|NCT02446743|181566030|OTHER|7 Days Post Booster/Second Vaccination. Four-fold Increase \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\] Difference|Vaccine group difference|42.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.8|54.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||54.5|27.8|
90850156|NCT02446743|181566030|OTHER|1 month Post Booster/Second Vaccination. Four-fold Increase \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\] Difference|vaccine group difference|60.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.9|69.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||69.6|47.9|
90899995|NCT02906683|181665858|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.84||0.285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.9|6.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||TAS-303 6 mg group vs. Placebo group for the mean percentage changes in IEF per 24 hours from baseline to Week 8||6.2|-20.9|0.285
90899996|NCT02906683|181665860|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.48||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.1|1.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||TAS-303 3 mg group vs. Placebo group for the mean percentage changes in IEF per 24 hours from baseline to Week 4||1.5|-24.1|0.082
90899997|NCT02906683|181665860|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.34||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.7|0.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||TAS-303 6 mg group vs. Placebo group for the mean percentage changes in IEF per 24 hours from baseline to Week 4||0.4|-24.7|0.057
91030796|NCT01430741|181946115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.19|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Compared medical inpatient hospitalizations among Veterans served by case managers in the GTO group relative to the comparison group of Veterans, by fitting a series of mixed-effects regression models. Final mixed-effect models for all outcomes included fixed terms for group (GTO group vs. comparison), time, group x time interaction as well as control covariates.||||=.19
91030797|NCT01430741|181946116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.24|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Compared changes in mental health emergency department visits among Veterans served by case managers in the GTO group relative to the comparison group of Veterans, by fitting a series of mixed-effects regression models. Final mixed-effect models for all outcomes included fixed terms for group (GTO group vs. comparison), time, group x time interaction as well as control covariates.||||=.24
91098002|NCT01944774|182081250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||0.949|TWO_SIDED|||||Only P values less than 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Regression, Logistic||The 2-sided 95% confidence interval of OR is (\<0.001, \>999.999).|||||0.949
91098003|NCT01944774|182081250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||0.962|TWO_SIDED|||||Only P values less than 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Regression, Logistic||The 2-sided 95% confidence interval of OR is (\<0.001, \>999.999).|||||0.962
91098004|NCT01944774|182081251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.438||||0.491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.042|4.609||Only P values less than 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Regression, Logistic|||||4.609|0.042|0.491
91098005|NCT01944774|182081251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.531||||0.619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.044|6.444||Only P values less than 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Regression, Logistic|||||6.444|0.044|0.619
91098006|NCT01944774|182081252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.444||||0.501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.042|4.708||Only P values less than 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Regression, Logistic|||||4.708|0.042|0.501
91098007|NCT01944774|182081252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.567||||0.656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.047|6.895||Only P values less than 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Regression, Logistic|||||6.895|0.047|0.656
91098008|NCT01944774|182081253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.733||||0.807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.061|8.832||Only P values less than 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Regression, Logistic|||||8.832|0.061|0.807
91098009|NCT01944774|182081253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.567||||0.656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.047|6.895||Only P values less than 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Regression, Logistic|||||6.895|0.047|0.656
91098010|NCT01944774|182081254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.058|8.445||Only P values less than 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Regression, Logistic|||||8.445|0.058|0.779
91098011|NCT01944774|182081254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.567||||0.656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.047|6.895||Only P values less than 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Regression, Logistic|||||6.895|0.047|0.656
90850157|NCT02446743|181566030|OTHER|3 Days Post Booster/Second Vaccination. Four-fold Increase (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1) Difference|vaccine group difference|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|5.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||5.4|-1.1|
91098012|NCT02965456|182081279|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with factors of treatment group and analysis center and the respective baseline lesion count as a covariate.||||<0.001
91098013|NCT02965456|182081280|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with factors of treatment group and analysis center and the respective baseline lesion count as a covariate.||||<0.001
91098014|NCT02965456|182081281|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||Analysis was performed using a logistic regression test (using Firth's Penalized Likelihood) with factors of treatment group and analysis center.||||0.007
91098015|NCT05073315|182081284|EQUIVALENCE|The prespecified similarity margin was 0.8 to 1.25.|Ratio Geometric Least Square Mean (GMR)|1.0516|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.901|1.2273||||||||1.2273|0.9010|
91098016|NCT05073315|182081285|EQUIVALENCE|The prespecified similarity margin was 0.8 to 1.25.|Least Square Mean Ratio|1.0044|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8717|1.1574||||||||1.1574|0.8717|
91098017|NCT05073315|182081288|EQUIVALENCE|The prespecified similarity margin was 0.8 to 1.25.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.23|0.29||||||||0.29|-5.23|
91098018|NCT01529268|182081295|SUPERIORITY|Relative risks and p-values were calculated with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square tests, stratified by clinic and weight group, for binary outcomes.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.3||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.1|0.8|0.34
91098019|NCT01529268|182081296|SUPERIORITY|P-values and mean changes from baseline were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 52 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome, for outcome scores.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.5|||ANCOVA|||||0.5|-0.6|0.90
91098020|NCT01529268|182081297|SUPERIORITY|Relative risks and p-values were calculated with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square tests, stratified by clinic and weight group, for binary outcomes.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.7||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Steatosis: patients with improvement||1.1|0.5|0.15
91098021|NCT01529268|182081298|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|P-values and mean changes from baseline were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 52 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome, for outcome scores.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Steatosis: change in score||0.4|-0.2|0.59
91098022|NCT01529268|182081299|SUPERIORITY|Relative risks and p-values were calculated with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square tests, stratified by clinic and weight group, for binary outcomes.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.8||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.9|1.1|0.03
91098023|NCT01529268|182081300|SUPERIORITY|P-values and mean changes from baseline were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 52 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome, for outcome scores.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.0|-0.4|0.06
91098024|NCT01529268|182081301|SUPERIORITY|Relative risks and p-values were calculated with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square tests, stratified by clinic and weight group, for binary outcomes.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.8||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.3|0.4|0.29
91098025|NCT01529268|182081302|SUPERIORITY|P-values and mean changes from baseline were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 52 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome, for outcome scores.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.3|||ANCOVA|||||0.3|-0.1|0.15
90850158|NCT02446743|181566030|OTHER|7 Days Post Booster/Second Vaccination. Four-fold Increase (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1) Difference|vaccine group difference|28.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.1|34.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||34.9|19.1|
90899998|NCT02906683|181665862|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.38||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.2|-3.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||TAS-303 3 mg group vs. Placebo group for the mean percentage changes in IEF per 24 hours from baseline to Week 4||-3.0|-32.2|0.019
91098026|NCT01529268|182081303|SUPERIORITY|Relative risks and p-values were calculated with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square tests, stratified by clinic and weight group, for binary outcomes.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.2||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.3|0.6|0.57
91098027|NCT01529268|182081304|SUPERIORITY|P-values and mean changes from baseline were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 52 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome, for outcome scores.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2|||ANCOVA|||||0.2|-0.2|0.76
91098028|NCT01529268|182081305|SUPERIORITY|Relative risks and p-values were calculated with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square tests, stratified by clinic and weight group, for binary outcomes.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.6|0.6|0.98
90850159|NCT02446743|181566030|OTHER|1 Month Post Booster/Second Vaccination. Four-fold Increase (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1) Difference|vaccine group difference|39.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.6|46.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||46.6|31.6|
90850160|NCT02446743|181566030|OTHER|3 Days Post Booster/Second Vaccination. Four-fold Increase \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\] Difference|Vaccine group difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|6.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||6.7|-4.9|
90899999|NCT02906683|181665862|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.36||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.5|-2.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||TAS-303 6 mg group vs. Placebo group for the mean percentage changes in IEF per 24 hours from baseline to Week 4||-2.3|-31.5|0.023
90900000|NCT02906683|181665864|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.36||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.9|3.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||TAS-303 3 mg group vs. Placebo group for the mean percentage changes in IEF per 24 hours from baseline to Week 8||3.2|-25.9|0.125
90900001|NCT02906683|181665864|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.8||0.221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.1|5.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||TAS-303 6 mg group vs. Placebo group for the mean percentage changes in IEF per 24 hours from baseline to Week 8||5.9|-25.1|0.221
90900002|NCT01158378|181665872|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|non-inferiority margin of 10%||||||0.0049|||||||one-sided z-test|||||||0.0049
90900003|NCT01158378|181665873|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|non-inferiority margin of 10%|||||<|0.0001|||||||one-sided z-test|||||||<0.0001
90900004|NCT01158378|181665873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0297|||||||one-sided z-test|||Superiority Test||||0.0297
90900005|NCT01158378|181665874|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|non-inferiority margin of 10%|||||<|0.0001|||||||one-sided z-test|||||||<0.0001
90900006|NCT01158378|181665874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0561|||||||one-sided z-test|||Superiority Test||||0.0561
90900007|NCT03980184|181665910|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.08
90900008|NCT03980184|181665911|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<.001
90900009|NCT03980184|181665912|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.703|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.703
90900010|NCT03980184|181665914|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.002
90900011|NCT03980184|181665915|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.647|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.647
90900012|NCT03980184|181665916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.887|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.887
90957578|NCT01445301|181795305|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.5||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|-0.9|||ANCOVA|||WEEK 4||-0.9|-4.1|0.002
90957579|NCT01445301|181795305|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.7||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|-0.9|||ANCOVA|||WEEK 8||-0.9|-4.5|0.003
91098029|NCT01529268|182081306|SUPERIORITY|P-values and mean changes from baseline were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 52 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome, for outcome scores.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.4|0.24
91098030|NCT01529268|182081307|NON_INFERIORITY|Relative risks and p-values were calculated with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square tests, stratified by clinic and weight group, for binary outcomes.|Risk Ratio (RR)|2.7||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|18.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by clinic and weight group||||18.3|0.4|0.29
91098031|NCT01529268|182081308|SUPERIORITY|P-value and difference in mean changes from baseline were calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing change from baseline to 52 weeks in serum alanine aminotransferase on treatment group and baseline value of serum alanine aminotransferase.|Adjusted difference in mean changes|-24.0||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.0|-4.0|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline serum alanine aminotransferase||Adjusted difference in mean changes in serum alanine aminotransferase (ALT). The change in ALT is adjusted for the baseline ALT value; therefore, the adjusted difference in mean changes is not equal to the net change.||-4|-44|0.02
90850161|NCT02446743|181566030|OTHER|7 Days Post Booster/Second Vaccination. Four-fold Increase \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\] Difference|Vaccine group difference|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.7|37.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||37.1|9.7|
90850162|NCT02446743|181566030|OTHER|1 month Post Booster/Second Vaccination. Four-fold Increase \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\] Difference|Vaccine group difference|37.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.1|47.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||47.0|25.1|
90850163|NCT02446743|181566030|OTHER|3 Days Post Booster/Second Vaccination. Four-fold Increase \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\] Difference|Vaccine group difference|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|7.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||7.6|-3.9|
90850164|NCT02446743|181566030|OTHER|7 Days Post Booster/Second Vaccination. Four-fold Increase \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\] Difference|Vaccine group difference|28.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.2|36.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||36.6|20.2|
90850165|NCT02446743|181566030|OTHER|1 month Post Booster/Second Vaccination. Four-fold Increase \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\] Difference|Vaccine group difference|42.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.0|51.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||51.9|31.0|
90850166|NCT02478398|181566038|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.45|-2.0|||ANOVA|Model included fixed effects of treatment, baseline asthma status, age group, pollen season, and pollen region nested within pollen season||||-2.00|-3.45|< 0.001
90850167|NCT02478398|181566039|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-1.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.46|-1.27|||ANOVA|Model included fixed effects of treatment, baseline asthma status, age group, pollen season, and pollen region nested within pollen season||||-1.27|-2.46|< 0.001
90850168|NCT02478398|181566040|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|-0.99|||ANOVA|Model included fixed effects of treatment, baseline asthma status, age group, pollen season, and pollen region nested within pollen season||||-0.99|-1.81|< 0.001
90850169|NCT02478398|181566041|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-1.08|||Zero-Inflated Log-Normal Model|Model included fixed effects of treatment, baseline asthma, age group, pollen season, and pollen region nested within pollen season||||-1.08|-2.60|< 0.001
90850170|NCT02478398|181566042|OTHER||Difference in % estimates|37.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.82|43.12|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||43.12|31.82|< 0.001
90850171|NCT02478398|181566043|OTHER||Difference in % estimates|0.39|||=|0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|1.53|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||1.53|-0.57|= 0.320
90850172|NCT02478398|181566044|OTHER||Difference in % estimates|0.0|||=|0.996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.92|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||0.92|-0.92|= 0.996
90850173|NCT01475071|181566052|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non inferiority margin of -10%|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.6||0.0345|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-6.8||||paired Student's t statistic|||The primary purpose of this study is to demonstrate the non-inferiority of Metvix and daylight compared to Metvix and the lamp in terms of lesion complete response rate.|||-6.8|0.0345
90850174|NCT01475071|181566053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|two-sided Wilcoxon rank signed||superiority of Metvix adaylight and Metvix Lamp in term of pain||||<0.001
90850175|NCT01205581|181566059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.78
90850176|NCT01205581|181566062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.48
90850177|NCT01205581|181566063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.51
90850178|NCT01205581|181566064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.29
90850179|NCT01205581|181566065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.43
90850180|NCT01205581|181566066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.11
90850181|NCT01512667|181566080|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Similarity will be concluded if the GMR (severe renal insufficiency / healthy) is contained within the interval \[0.40, 2.50\].|GMR|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.15|2.23||||||Natural log-transformed plasma values were analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with a categorical factor for population (severe renal insufficiency participants, healthy matched control participants) and continuous covariates for age and body mass index (BMI). Data are back transformed to geometric least-squares mean ratio (GMR) (severe renal insufficiency / healthy) and 90% confidence intervals.||2.23|1.15|
90850182|NCT01512667|181566081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|1.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.18|1.81||||||Natural log-transformed plasma values were analyzed using an ANCOVA model with a categorical factor for population (severe renal insufficiency participants, healthy matched control participants) and continuous covariates for age and BMI. Data are back transformed to GMR (severe renal insufficiency / healthy) and 90% confidence intervals.||1.81|1.18|
90850183|NCT02700334|181566087|OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.005
90850184|NCT02700334|181566088|OTHER|||||||0.093|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.093
90850185|NCT02700334|181566089|OTHER|||||||0.878|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.878
90850186|NCT02700334|181566090|OTHER|||||||0.959|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.959
90850187|NCT02700334|181566091|OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.005
90850188|NCT02700334|181566092|OTHER|||||||0.331|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.331
90957580|NCT01445301|181795305|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.8||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|-1.0|||ANCOVA|||WEEK 12||-1.0|-4.6|0.002
91098032|NCT01529268|182081308|SUPERIORITY|P-value and difference in mean changes from baseline were calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing changes from baseline to 52 weeks in serum aspartate aminotransferase on treatment group and baseline value of serum aspartate aminotransferase.|Mean Difference (Net)|-15.0||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.0|-4.0|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline serum aspartate aminotransferase.||Adjusted difference in mean changes in serum aspartate aminotransferase (AST). The change in AST is adjusted for the baseline AST value; therefore, the adjusted difference in mean changes is not equal to the net change.||-4|-26|0.008
91098033|NCT01529268|182081308|SUPERIORITY|P-value and difference in mean changes from baseline were calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing changes from baseline to 52 weeks in gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase on treatment group and baseline value of gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase.|Mean Difference (Net)|-7.0||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|-1.0|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase||Adjusted difference in mean changes in serum gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase (GGT). The change in GGT is adjusted for the baseline GGTvalue; therefore, the adjusted difference in mean changes is not equal to the net change.||-1|-13|0.02
91098034|NCT01529268|182081309|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|P-value and adjusted difference in mean changes from baseline were calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing changes from baseline to 52 weeks in weight (kg) on treatment group and baseline weight (kg).|Adjusted difference in mean changes|-1.5||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|1.1|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline weight (kg).||Adjusted difference in mean changes in weight (kg). The change in weight is adjusted for the baseline weight value; therefore, the adjusted difference in mean changes is not equal to the net change.||1.1|-4.1|0.25
91098035|NCT01529268|182081310|SUPERIORITY|P-values and differences in mean changes from baseline were calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing changes from baseline to 52 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome.|Adjusted difference in mean changes|-0.3||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.5|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline BMI (kg/m2)||Adjusted difference in mean changes in body mass index (BMI). The change in BMI is adjusted for the baseline BMI value; therefore, the adjusted difference in mean changes is not equal to the net change.||0.5|-1.1|0.42
91098036|NCT01529268|182081311|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|P-values and differences in mean changes from baseline were calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing changes from baseline to 52 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.0|-0.1|0.11
91098037|NCT01529268|182081312|SUPERIORITY|P-values and differences in mean changes from baseline were calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing changes from baseline to 52 weeks in waist circumference on treatment group and baseline value of waist circumference.|Adjusted difference in mean changes|0.2||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|2.6|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline waist circumference (cm)||Adjusted difference in mean changes in waist circumference (cm). The change in waist circumference is adjusted for the baseline waist circumference value; therefore, the adjusted difference in mean changes is not equal to the net change.||2.6|-2.3|0.89
91098038|NCT01529268|182081313|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|P-values and differences in mean changes from baseline were calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing changes from baseline to 52 weeks in fasting serum glucose on treatment group and baseline fasting serum glucose value.|Adjusted difference in mean changes|-4.0||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|3.0|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline serum glucose value.||Adjusted difference in mean changes in fasting serum glucose. The change in fasting serum glucose is adjusted for the baseline fasting serum glucose value; therefore, the adjusted difference in mean changes is not equal to the net change.||3|-11|0.24
91098039|NCT01529268|182081314|SUPERIORITY|P-value and difference in mean changes from baseline were calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing changes from baseline to 52 weeks in fasting insulin on treatment group and baseline fasting insulin.|Adjusted difference in mean changes|-6.0||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|6.0|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline fasting insulin.||Adjusted difference in mean changes in fasting insulin. The change in fasting insulin is adjusted for the baseline fasting insulin value; therefore, the adjusted difference in mean changes is not equal to the net change.||6|-18|0.34
91098040|NCT01529268|182081315|SUPERIORITY|P-values and differences in mean changes from baseline were calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing changes from baseline to 52 weeks in HOMA-IR on treatment group and baseline HOMA-IR value.|Adjusted difference in mean changes|-2.6||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|1.0|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline HOMA-IR.||Adjusted difference in mean changes in HOMA-IR. The change in HOMA-IR is adjusted for the baseline HOMA-IR value; therefore, the adjusted difference in mean changes is not equal to the net change.||1.0|-6.2|0.15
90850189|NCT02700334|181566093|OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.005
90850190|NCT02700334|181566094|OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.005
91098041|NCT01529268|182081316|SUPERIORITY|P-values and differences in mean changes from baseline were calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing changes from baseline to 52 weeks in systolic blood pressure on treatment group and baseline systolic blood pressure value.|Adjusted difference in mean changes|1.0||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|4.0|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline systolic blood pressure.||Adjusted difference in mean changes in systolic blood pressure. The change in systolic blood pressure is adjusted for the baseline systolic blood pressure value; therefore, the adjusted difference in mean changes is not equal to the net change.||4|-3|0.71
91098042|NCT01529268|182081317|SUPERIORITY|P-values and differences in mean changes from baseline were calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing changes from baseline to 52 weeks in diastolic blood pressure on treatment group and baseline diastolic blood pressure value.|Adjusted difference in mean changes|-1.0||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|1.0|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline diastolic blood pressure.||Adjusted difference in mean changes in diastolic blood pressure. The change in diastolic blood pressure is adjusted for the baseline diastolic blood pressure value; therefore, the adjusted difference in mean changes is not equal to the net change.||1|-4|0.31
90850191|NCT02700334|181566095|OTHER|||||||0.575|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.575
90850192|NCT02700334|181566096|OTHER|||||||0.314|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.314
90850193|NCT02700334|181566097|OTHER|||||||0.721|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.721
90850194|NCT02700334|181566098|OTHER|||||||0.066|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.066
90850195|NCT02700334|181566099|OTHER|||||||0.333|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.333
90850196|NCT02700334|181566100|OTHER|||||||0.859|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.859
91098043|NCT01529268|182081318|SUPERIORITY|P-value and difference in mean changes from baseline were calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing changes from baseline to 52 weeks in self-reported Physical Health summary score on treatment group and baseline value of the Physical Health summary score.|Adjusted difference in mean changes|-1.0||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|3.0|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline self-reported Physical Health summary score.||Adjusted difference in mean changes from baseline in self-reported Physical Health summary score from the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory (PedsQL). The difference in mean changes in Physical Health summary score is adjusted for the baseline Physical Health summary score; therefore, the adjusted difference in mean changes is not equal to the net change. Higher scores indicate better health-related quality of life.||3|-5|0.77
90957581|NCT01445301|181795305|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|-3.2|||ANCOVA|||WEEK 1||-3.2|-8.8|<0.001
91098044|NCT01529268|182081318|SUPERIORITY|P-value and difference in mean changes from baseline were calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing changes from baseline to 52 weeks in Pyschosocial Health summary score on treatment group and baseline Psychosocial Health summary score.|Adjusted difference in mean changes|-1.0||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|3.0|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline Psychosocial Health summary score.||Adjusted difference in mean changes from baseline in self-reported Psychosocial Health summary score from the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory (PedsQL). The difference in mean changes in Psychosocial Health summary score is adjusted for the baseline Psychosocial Health summary score; therefore, the adjusted difference in mean changes is not equal to the net change. Higher scores indicate better health-related quality of life.||3|-5|0.64
91098045|NCT01529268|182081318|SUPERIORITY|P-value and difference in mean changes from baseline were calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing changes from baseline to 52 weeks in parent/guardian-reported Physical Health summary score on treatment group and baseline value of the parent/guardian-reported Physical Health summary score.|Adjusted difference in mean changes|-2.0||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|5.0|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline parent/guardian-reported Physical Health summary score.||Adjusted difference in mean changes from baseline in parent/guardian-reported Physical Health summary score from the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory (PedsQL). The difference in mean changes in parent/guardian-reported Physical Health summary score is adjusted for the baseline parent/guardian-reported Physical Health summary score; therefore, the adjusted difference in mean changes is not equal to the net change. Higher scores indicate better health-related quality of life.||5|-9|0.58
91098046|NCT01529268|182081318|SUPERIORITY|P-value and difference in mean changes from baseline were calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing changes from baseline to 52 weeks in parent/guardian-reported Psychosocial Health summary score on treatment group and baseline value of the parent/guardian-reported Psychosocial Health summary score.|Adjusted difference in mean changes|-1.0||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|5.0|||ANCOVA|||Adjusted difference in mean changes from baseline in parent/guardian-reported Psychosocial Health summary score from the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory (PedsQL). The difference in mean changes in parent/guardian-reported Psychosocial Health summary score is adjusted for the baseline parent/guardian-reported Psychosocial Health summary score; therefore, the adjusted difference in mean changes is not equal to the net change. Higher scores indicate better health-related quality of life.||5|-6|0.85
91098047|NCT01529268|182081319|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7||||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.11
90850197|NCT02700334|181566101|OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.009
90850198|NCT02700334|181566102|OTHER|||||||0.919|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.919
90850199|NCT02700334|181566103|OTHER|||||||0.72|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.720
91098048|NCT02232698|182081326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.239|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91098049|NCT02232698|182081327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059||0.9556|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.9556
91098050|NCT02232698|182081328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.175|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical analysis of time spent \<55 mg/dL|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91098051|NCT02232698|182081328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.122||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical analysis of time spent \<40 mg/dL|ANCOVA|||||||0.0003
91098052|NCT02232698|182081329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.089|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of frequency of episodes \<70 mg/dL||||<0.0001
91098053|NCT02232698|182081329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.074|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of frequency of episodes \<55 mg/dL||||<0.0001
91098054|NCT02232698|182081329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of frequency of episodes \<40 mg/dL||||<0.0001
91098055|NCT02232698|182081330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.329||0.5623|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of time spent \>180 mg/dL||||0.5623
91098056|NCT02232698|182081330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.163||0.0247|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis for time spent \>240 mg/dL||||0.0247
91098057|NCT02232698|182081331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.0006|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0006
90850200|NCT00770146|181566104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance was concluded if p ≤ 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Based upon prior clinical study experience with mipomersen, it was estimated that the standard deviation of the percent change in LDL-C is approximately 22%. With at least 20 patients in the control group and 40 patients in the mipomersen-treated group, this study would have at least 90% power to detect a 20% difference between the 2 groups.||||<0.001
90850201|NCT00770146|181566106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Inflation of type 1 error was controlled by specifying a small number of secondary parameters and a sequential inferential approach in which inferential conclusions about each successive parameter required statistical significance of the prior one.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90957582|NCT01445301|181795305|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|-4.7|||ANCOVA|||WEEK 2||-4.7|-11.4|<0.001
90957583|NCT01445301|181795305|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|-6.2|||ANCOVA|||WEEK 4||-6.2|-13.1|<0.001
90957584|NCT01445301|181795305|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|-5.1|||ANCOVA|||WEEK 8||-5.1|-12.1|<0.001
91098058|NCT02232698|182081334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of perceived frequency of hyperglycaemia||||<0.0001
90850202|NCT00770146|181566108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Inflation of type 1 error was controlled by specifying a small number of secondary parameters and a sequential inferential approach in which inferential conclusions about each successive parameter required statistical significance of the prior one.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90850203|NCT00770146|181566110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Inflation of type 1 error was controlled by specifying a small number of secondary parameters and a sequential inferential approach in which inferential conclusions about each successive parameter required statistical significance of the prior one.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90850204|NCT00770146|181566112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for tertiary parameters.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90957585|NCT01445301|181795305|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|-4.8|||ANCOVA|||WEEK 12||-4.8|-11.6|<0.001
91098059|NCT02232698|182081334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0713|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of perceived frequency of hypoglycaemia||||0.0713
91098060|NCT02232698|182081334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of total treatment satisfaction score||||<0.0001
91098061|NCT01327703|182081341|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of Panzytrat® versus Kreon® exceeded -10%.|Treatment difference|-2.08||||0.459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.23|4.02||As there was only a single pre-specified primary analysis, there was no adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed model analysis method was used for comparison using log-transformed percent CFA as the response variable, fixed effect factors for treatment, period, treatment sequence and pooled site and participant within treatment sequence as a random effect.||4.02|-7.23|0.4590
90850205|NCT00770146|181566114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.977||||||No adjustments were made for tertiary parameters.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.977
90850206|NCT00770146|181566116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for tertiary parameters.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90850207|NCT00770146|181566118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for tertiary parameters.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90850208|NCT00770146|181566120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for tertiary parameters.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90850209|NCT00770146|181566122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.032||||||No adjustments were made for tertiary parameters.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.032
90850210|NCT02312882|181566136|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
90850211|NCT02775240|181566167|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|1.248|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.13|1.378|||Linear mixed effects model||Log-transformed Cmax values were compared between treatment regimens using a linear mixed effects model with treatment regimen as fixed effect and participant as random effect.|Comparison of Treatment B over Treatment A for Cmax of Digoxin||1.378|1.130|
90850212|NCT02775240|181566168|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.944|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.778|1.144|||Linear mixed effects model|||Comparison of Treatment B over Treatment A for Cmax of Dextromethorphan||1.144|0.778|
90850213|NCT02775240|181566169|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.943|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.883|1.007|||Linear mixed effects model||Log-transformed Cmax values were compared between treatment regimens using a linear mixed effects model with treatment regimen as fixed effect and participant as random effect.|Comparison of Treatment B over Treatment A for Cmax of Dextrorphan||1.007|0.883|
90850214|NCT02775240|181566175|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|1.206|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.099|1.324|||Linear mixed effects model||Log-transformed AUC0-infinity values were compared between treatment regimens using a linear mixed effects model with treatment regimen as fixed effect and participant as random effect.|Comparison of Treatment B over Treatment A for AUC0-infinity of Digoxin||1.324|1.099|
90850215|NCT02775240|181566177|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.971|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.943|0.999|||Linear mixed effects model||Log-transformed AUC0-infinity values were compared between treatment regimens using a linear mixed effects model with treatment regimen as fixed effect and participant as random effect.|Comparison of Treatment B over Treatment A for AUC0-infinity of Dextrorphan||0.999|0.943|
90850216|NCT02775240|181566178|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|1.179|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.08|1.287|||Linear mixed effects model||Log-transformed AUClast values were compared between treatment regimens using a linear mixed effects model with treatment regimen as fixed effect and participant as random effect.|Comparison of Treatment B over Treatment A for AUClast for Digoxin||1.287|1.080|
90900013|NCT02265224|181665929|EQUIVALENCE|The statistical analysis took into account treatment, period, sequence and subject (sequence) as sources of variation. Acceptance criterion for bioequivalence was that the 94.12% confidence interval for the ratio between test and reference of the geometric means of the parameters under consideration fell within the 80.00-125.00% range, according to the current guidelines for bioequivalence studies and to the Pocock α spending function.|Geometric means ratio|89.81||||0.0136|TWO_SIDED|94.12|82.82|97.4||p value for treatment effect|ANOVA|||||97.40|82.82|0.0136
90900014|NCT02265224|181665930|EQUIVALENCE|The statistical analysis took into account treatment, period, sequence and subject (sequence) as sources of variation. Acceptance criterion for bioequivalence was that the 94.12% confidence interval for the ratio between test and reference of the geometric means of the parameters under consideration fell within the 80.00-125.00% range, according to the current guidelines for bioequivalence studies and to the Pocock α spending function.|Geometric means ratio|90.79||||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|94.12|85.25|96.69|||ANOVA|p value for treatment effect||||96.69|85.25|0.0047
90900015|NCT02265224|181665931|EQUIVALENCE|The statistical analysis took into account treatment, period, sequence and subject (sequence) as sources of variation. Acceptance criterion for bioequivalence was that the 94.12% confidence interval for the ratio between test and reference of the geometric means of the parameters under consideration fell within the 80.00-125.00% range, according to the current guidelines for bioequivalence studies and to the Pocock α spending function.|Geometric means ratio|91.86||||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|94.12|86.45|97.61||p value for treatment effect|ANOVA|||||97.61|86.45|0.0095
90850217|NCT02775240|181566179|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.882|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.696|1.118|||Linear mixed effects model||Log-transformed AUClast values were compared between treatment regimens using a linear mixed effects model with treatment regimen as fixed effect and participant as random effect.|Comparison of Treatment B over Treatment A for AUClast of Dextromethorphan||1.118|0.696|
90850218|NCT02775240|181566180|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.973|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.949|0.998|||Linear mixed effects model||Log-transformed AUClast values were compared between treatment regimens using a linear mixed effects model with treatment regimen as fixed effect and participant as random effect.|Comparison of Treatment B over Treatment A for AUClast for Dextrorphan||0.998|0.949|
90850219|NCT02775240|181566181|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.905|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.721|1.138|||Linear mixed effects model||Log-transformed AUClast ratio values were compared between treatment regimens using a linear mixed effects model with treatment regimen as fixed effect and participant as random effect.|Comparison of Treatment B over Treatment A for Dextromethorphan/Dextrorphan (Parent/Metabolite) AUClast ratio||1.138|0.721|
90850220|NCT00247611|181566216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons, and thresholds for significance were 0.05 alpha two tailed.|HLM|||For the ITT sample, the observed pattern of an increasing proportion of participants in the intervention arm reporting perfect adherence as time progressed from was associated with a p-value of 0.12, two-tailed alpha 0.05.||||0.12
90850221|NCT00247611|181566216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024||95.0||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons, and thresholds for significance was 0.05 alpha, two tailed.|HLM|||For the on protocol sample, study arm was associated with perfect ACTG-assessed 3-day ARV adherence at p = 0.024, alpha two-tailed.||||0.024
90850222|NCT00247611|181566217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.5||95.0||||No adjustments were made.|Generalized Linear Model (GLM)|||For the ITT or OP samples, the significance threshold between groups over time for differential increases in proportion with suppressed (undetectable) viral load was p \> 0.50. The study was underpowered to detect differences in Viral load.||||>0.50
90850223|NCT00247611|181566218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12||0.0||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and is reported as 0.12 at alpha 0.05 two tailed|HLM|||For the ITT sample (t=586) the observed pattern of an increasing proportion of participants in the intervention arm reporting perfect adherence as time progressed from baseline was associated with a p-value of 0.12, alpha 0.05 two-tailed.||||0.12
90850224|NCT00247611|181566218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12||95.0||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons, and is reported as 0.12 at alpha 0.05 two tailed.|HLM|||For the on protocol sample the pattern of increased proportion of participants in the intervention arm reporting perfect adherence as time progressed from baseline was associated with a p-value of 0.12, alpha 0.05 two-tailed.||||0.12
91098062|NCT01068912|182081388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||A step-down approach was applied to the primary analysis, with the higher dose of favipiravir first tested against placebo.|Gehan-Wilcoxon|||Time required from first study drug administration to alleviation of the 6 primary influenza symptoms and fever. The primary influenza symptoms included cough, sore throat, headache, nasal congestion, body aches and pains, and fatigue. Symptoms were considered alleviated when all were decreased to ≤1 and decrease persisted unchanged ≥ 21.5 hours. Fever was considered alleviated when maintained at \< 38.0°C (age 20 to \< 65 years) or \< 37.8°C (age ≥ 65 years) ≥ 21.5 hours.||||.05
91098063|NCT03998462|182081391|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.92||0.34|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.34
91098064|NCT03998462|182081392|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25||0.41|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.41
90850225|NCT00247611|181566219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||P-value for difference in unemployment rate between On Protocol (OP) sample, and participants excluded from on protocol analysis.||||<0.001
90850226|NCT00247611|181566219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||P-value for difference of participants on disability between On Protocol (OP) sample, and participants excluded from on protocol analysis.||||<0.01
90850227|NCT00445588|181566231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.3||cox regression model was used to estimate the HR of death compared to NABTT historical control with same histology, adjusted for age, KPS, and surgical procedure|Regression, Cox|cox regression model used to estimate the HR of death compared to NABTT historical control same histology, adjusted for age, KPS, surgical procedure||The overall failure rate will be estimated by dividing the number of events (death) with the total exposure time in the study cohort. 95% confidence intervals and median time of survival will be calculated using standard methods.||1.3|0.6|0.4
90850228|NCT03192358|181566254|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|1.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|ANOVA||Cohen's d values \> 0.8 are considered large|This was an observational study. The statistical test explores whether there were significant differences in tongue pressure between the two cohorts. The hypothesis was that individuals with ALS would display significantly lower maximum anterior isometric tongue pressures compared to the people with PD.||||< 0.001
90850229|NCT03192358|181566255|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|1.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA||Cohen's d values \> 0.8 are considered large|This was an observational study rather than a trial. The hypothesis was that individuals with ALS would display significantly lower regular effort saliva swallow pressures than the individuals with PD.||||< 0.001
90850230|NCT02509117|181566330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-58.659|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0642|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-61.95|-55.08|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||ABeta 1-40: General linear model with intervention, as the fixed effect and loge(baseline) as covariate.||-55.08|-61.95|<0.0001
91098065|NCT03998462|182081393|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.398|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.71|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.71
91098066|NCT05710224|182081394|NON_INFERIORITY|The statistical criterion for non-inferiority requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMT Ratio (V181 / Butantan - DV) to be \>0.67.|GMT Ratio|0.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.99||p-value, GMT Ratio, and CI are calculated using t-distribution with the variance estimate from serotype specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody titers as the response and a single term for vaccination group.|t-distribution|||DENV-1 GMT Ratio (V181/Butantan - DV)||0.99|0.76|<0.001
90850231|NCT02509117|181566330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-68.026|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0665|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-70.66|-65.16|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||ABeta 1-40: General linear model with intervention, as the fixed effect and loge(baseline) as covariate.||-65.16|-70.66|<0.0001
90850232|NCT02509117|181566330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-86.152|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0643|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-87.26|-84.95|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||ABeta 1-40: General linear model with intervention, as the fixed effect and loge(baseline) as covariate.||-84.95|-87.26|<0.0001
90850233|NCT02509117|181566330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-40.558|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0558|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-44.7|-36.1|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||ABeta x-40: General linear model with intervention, as the fixed effect and loge(baseline) as covariate.||-36.10|-44.70|<0.0001
90850234|NCT02509117|181566330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-51.368|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0561|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-54.78|-47.7|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||ABeta x-40: General linear model with intervention, as the fixed effect and loge(baseline) as covariate.||-47.70|-54.78|<0.0001
90850235|NCT02509117|181566330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-59.583|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0558|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-62.4|-56.56|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||ABeta x-40: General linear model with intervention, as the fixed effect and loge(baseline) as covariate.||-56.56|-62.40|<0.0001
91098067|NCT05710224|182081394|NON_INFERIORITY|The statistical criterion for non-inferiority requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMT Ratio (V181 / Butantan - DV) to be \>0.67.|GMT Ratio|7.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.03|8.35||p-value, GMT ratio, and CI are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody titers as the response and a single term for vaccination group.|t-distribution|||DENV-2 GMT Ratio (V181 / Butantan - DV)||8.35|6.03|<0.001
91098068|NCT05710224|182081394|NON_INFERIORITY|The statistical criterion for non-inferiority requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMT Ratio (V181 / Butantan - DV) to be \>0.67.|GMT Ratio|0.45||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.53||p-value, GMT ratio, and CI were calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody titers as the response and a single term for vaccination group.|t- distribution|||DENV-3 GMT Ratio (V181 / Butantan - DV)||0.53|0.39|1.000
90850236|NCT02509117|181566330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-37.373|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1007|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-45.06|-28.62|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||ABeta Total: General linear model with intervention, as the fixed effect and loge(baseline) as covariate.||-28.62|-45.06|<0.0001
91098069|NCT05710224|182081394|NON_INFERIORITY|The statistical criterion for non-inferiority requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMT Ratio (V181 / Butantan - DV) to be \>0.67.|GMT Ratio|0.35||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.42||p-value, GMT ratio, and CI were calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody titers as the response and a single term for vaccination group.|t-distribution|||DENV-4 GMT Ratio (V181 / Butantan - DV)||0.42|0.29|1.000
90850237|NCT02509117|181566330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-45.018|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1001|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-51.72|-37.38|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||ABeta Total: General linear model with intervention, as the fixed effect and loge(baseline) as covariate.||-37.38|-51.72|<0.0001
90850238|NCT02509117|181566330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-61.797|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1014|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-66.51|-56.42|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||ABeta Total: General linear model with intervention, as the fixed effect and loge(baseline) as covariate.||-56.42|-66.51|<0.0001
90850239|NCT03467685|181566379|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||< 0.05
90957586|NCT01445301|181795306|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper 95% confidence was less than the pre-defined threshold (-Δ \[non-inferiority margin, -3.8\]) of 3.8, non-inferiority of GSK2585823 once daily to CLDM twice daily would be established|Mean Difference (Net)|-7.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|-4.12|||ANCOVA|||Total Lesion Counts, WEEK 1||-4.12|-11.30|<0.001
91098070|NCT05710224|182081395|NON_INFERIORITY|The statistical criterion for non-inferiority required the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V181 - Butantan-DV) to be \>-10 percentage points|Difference in Percentage|-0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.3||p-value, estimated difference in percentage, and CI were calculated using the unstratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Miettinen & Nurminen method|||DENV-1 Difference in percentage (V181 - Butantan-DV)||1.3|-1.8|<0.001
91098071|NCT05710224|182081395|NON_INFERIORITY|The statistical criterion for non-inferiority required the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V181 - Butantan - DV) to be \>-10 percentage points.|Difference in Percentage|15.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|18.5||p-value, estimated difference in percentage, and CI were calculated using the unstratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Miettinen & Nurminen method|||DENV-2 Difference in Percentage (V181 - Butantan-DV)||18.5|12.0|<0.001
91098072|NCT05710224|182081395|NON_INFERIORITY|The statistical criterion for non-inferiority requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V181 - Butantan-DV) to be \>-10 percentage points.|Difference in percentage|-3.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|-1.6||p-value, estimated difference in percentage, and CI are calculated using the unstratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Miettinen & Nurminen method|||DENV-3 Difference in Percentage (V181 - Butantan-DV)||-1.6|-5.8|<0.001
91098073|NCT05710224|182081395|NON_INFERIORITY|The statistical criterion for non-inferiority requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V181 - Butantan - DV) to be \>-10 percentage points.|Difference in Percentage|-3.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|-0.8||p-value, estimated difference in percentage, and CI are calculated using the unstratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Miettinen & Nurminen method|||DENV-4 Difference in Percentage (V181 - Butantan - DV)||-0.8|-6.7|<0.001
91098074|NCT05710224|182081397|OTHER|Estimated difference in percentage and CI were calculated using the unstratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in percentage|4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|7.2||||||Erythema: Difference in Percentage (V181-Butantan - DV)||7.2|1.4|
91098075|NCT05710224|182081397|OTHER|Estimated difference in percentage and CI are calculated using the unstratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in Percentage|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|3.9||||||Pain: Difference in Percentage (V181 - Butantan - DV).||3.9|-4.3|
91098076|NCT05710224|182081397|OTHER|Estimated difference in percentage and CI are calculated using the unstratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in Percentage|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.3||||||Swelling: Difference in Percentage (V181 - Butantan - DV)||2.3|-1.1|
91098077|NCT05710224|182081398|OTHER|Estimated difference in percentage and CI were calculated using the unstratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in percentage|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|3.3||||||Arthralgia: Difference in Percentage (V181 - Butantan - DV)||3.3|-5.5|
91098078|NCT05710224|182081398|OTHER|Estimated difference in percentage and CI are calculated using the unstratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in Percentage|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|3.1||||||Fatigue: Difference in Percentage (V181 - Butantan - DV)||3.1|-7.5|
91098079|NCT05710224|182081398|OTHER|Estimated difference in percentage and CI are calculated using the unstratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in Percentage|-3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|1.9||||||Headache: Difference in Percentage (V181 - Butantan - DV)||1.9|-8.2|
90850240|NCT01227824|181566382|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority could be concluded if the lower bound of a two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference (DTG - RAL) in percentages between the two treatment arms was \> -10%.|Difference in percentage|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|7.1|||||Analysis was based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel stratified analysis adjusted for the following Baseline stratification factors: baseline HIV-1 RNA and background dual NRTI.|||7.1|-2.2|
90850241|NCT03739242|181566461|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean difference|-39.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.57|-29.75|||ANCOVA|||||-29.75|-48.57|<0.0001
91098080|NCT05710224|182081398|OTHER|Estimated difference in percentage and CI were calculated using the unstratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in Percentage|-7.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|-2.7||||||Myalgia: Difference in Percentage (V181 - Butantan - DV)||-2.7|-13.1|
90850242|NCT03739242|181566462|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean difference|-41.24||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.73|-30.74|||ANCOVA|||||-30.74|-51.73|0.0001
90850243|NCT03739242|181566463|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean difference|0.09||||0.951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.87|3.05|||ANCOVA|||||3.05|-2.87|0.9510
90850244|NCT03739242|181566464|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean difference|-41.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.58|-31.82|||ANCOVA|||||-31.82|-51.58|<0.0001
90850245|NCT03739242|181566465|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean difference|-7.0||||0.1924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.59|3.59|||ANCOVA|||||3.59|-17.59|0.1924
90850246|NCT03739242|181566466|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean difference|-17.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.54|-10.98|||ANCOVA|||||-10.98|-23.54|<0.0001
90850247|NCT03739242|181566467|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean difference|-0.91|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|-0.62|||ANCOVA|||||-0.62|-1.19|<0.0001
90850248|NCT03739242|181566468|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean difference|-0.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.59|||ANCOVA|||||-0.59|-1.05|<0.0001
90850249|NCT03739242|181566469|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean difference|-3.47||||0.4535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.64|5.7|||ANCOVA|||||5.7|-12.64|0.4535
90850250|NCT03739242|181566470|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean difference|0.74||||0.5594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|3.24|||ANCOVA|||||3.24|-1.76|0.5594
90850251|NCT03739242|181566471|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean difference|-0.07||||0.9266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|1.48|||ANCOVA|||||1.48|-1.63|0.9266
90900016|NCT02265224|181665932|EQUIVALENCE|The statistical analysis took into account treatment, period, sequence and subject (sequence) as sources of variation. Acceptance criterion for bioequivalence was that the 94.12% confidence interval for the ratio between test and reference of the geometric means of the parameters under consideration fell within the 80.00-125.00% range, according to the current guidelines for bioequivalence studies and to the Pocock α spending function.||||||0.505|||||||Friedman test|||||||0.5050
90900017|NCT00136812|181665940|OTHER|We used all available observations in a GEE analysis and did not impute missing data or drop observations.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.15||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|8.14||P-value of \<0.05 is considered statistically significant.|generalized estimating equation model|||To test the primary hypothesis, we ran a generalized estimating equation model with logit link function (PROC GENMOD in SAS version 9.2), to examine abstinence versus smoking status at the 3- through 18-month follow-ups by condition.||8.14|1.22|0.018
90900018|NCT03349268|181665958|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||Poisson regression|||||||0.23
91098081|NCT05710224|182081398|OTHER|Estimated difference in percentage and CI are calculated using the unstratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in Percentage|-5.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|-2.3||||||Pyrexia: Difference in Percentage (V181 - Butantan - DV)||-2.3|-8.2|
91098082|NCT05710224|182081398|OTHER|Estimated difference in percentage and CI were calculated using the unstratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in Percentage|6.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|11.8||||||Rash: Difference in Percentage (V181 - Butantan - DV)||11.8|1.9|
91098083|NCT04822194|182081404|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.053|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Ran linear mixed model, p-value above reflects group by session interaction.||Null hypothesis: no difference between groups. Power analyses using an approximate effect size (d=.70) previously reported for within and between-subjects behavioral analyses of longitudinal reappraisal training data indicate over 95% power (α=.05) to detect within-group effects and 90% power (α=.05) to detect between-group effects require 36 per group.||||0.053
90850252|NCT03739242|181566472|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean difference|6.02||||0.2654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.66|16.69|||ANCOVA|||||16.69|-4.66|0.2654
90850253|NCT03739242|181566473|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean difference|-5.95||||0.2595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.37|4.47|||ANCOVA|||||4.47|-16.37|0.2595
90850254|NCT03739242|181566474|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean difference|0.003||||0.8476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.039|0.032|||ANCOVA|||||0.032|-0.039|0.8476
90850255|NCT03739242|181566475|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean difference|-0.21||||0.1499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.08|||ANCOVA|||||0.08|-0.49|0.1499
90850256|NCT03739242|181566476|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean difference|1.71||||0.7224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.83|11.25|||ANCOVA|||||11.25|-7.83|0.7224
90900019|NCT00985543|181665963|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Results are considered statistically significant at p\<0.05 or when 90% confidence intervals do not cross the value 1. No adjustments are made for multiple comparisons.|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|||||maximum likelihood regression|||Dosing regimens lopinavir/ritonavir 200/150mg BID (Phase 2) and lopinavir/ritonavir 200/50mg BID (Phase 3) will be considered equivalent to lopinavir/ritonavir 400/100mg BID (Phase 1) if the 90% confidence interval (CI) for the mean AUC0-12h ratio and maximum concentration (Cmax) ratio lie between 0.80 and 1.25.||||<0.05
90850257|NCT01122394|181566477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||robust regression|controlling for provider clustering||Robust regressions were performed||||0.29
90850258|NCT01122394|181566478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Regression, Logistic|This analysis includes participants in pre-action and action/maintenance||||||0.25
90850259|NCT01122394|181566479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.11
90850260|NCT01122394|181566480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.81
90850261|NCT01122394|181566481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.12
90850262|NCT03086967|181566482|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.8
90850263|NCT03086967|181566483|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.133|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.133
90850264|NCT03086967|181566484|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.58
90850265|NCT03086967|181566485|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
90850266|NCT03086967|181566486|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.8
90850267|NCT03086967|181566487|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.95
90850268|NCT03086967|181566488|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.98
90850269|NCT03086967|181566489|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.95
90850270|NCT03086967|181566490|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1
90850271|NCT03086967|181566491|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0003
90850272|NCT03086967|181566492|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.48
90850273|NCT01437995|181566535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.3|0.69|1.65||||||||1.65|0.69|
90850274|NCT01437995|181566536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.43
90850275|NCT01437995|181566536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.022
90850276|NCT01437995|181566536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.002
90850277|NCT01437995|181566537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.41||||||||1.41|0.63|
90850278|NCT01437995|181566537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.73||||||||1.73|0.80|
91098084|NCT04822194|182081405|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.741|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Ran linear mixed models on natural log of RMSSD, p-value above reflects group by session interaction.||Null hypothesis: no difference between groups. Power analyses using an approximate effect size (d=.70) previously obtained for within and between-subjects analyses of respiratory sinus arrhythmia data indicate over 95% power (α=.05) to detect within-group effects and 90% power (α=.05) to detect between-group effects should be achieved with 36 per group.||||0.741
90850279|NCT01437995|181566537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.81||||||||1.81|0.83|
90850280|NCT01437995|181566538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparing change in pre-bronchodilator FEV1||||0.15
90850281|NCT01437995|181566538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparing change in pre-bronchodilator FEV1||||<0.001
90850282|NCT01437995|181566538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparing change in pre-bronchodilator FEV1||||0.027
90850283|NCT01437995|181566538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison of change in pre-bronchodilator FVC||||0.40
90850284|NCT01437995|181566538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.032|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison of change in pre-bronchodilator FVC||||0.032
90850285|NCT01437995|181566538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison of change in pre-bronchodilator FVC||||0.21
90850286|NCT01437995|181566539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison of change in FEV1/FVC ratio||||0.14
90850287|NCT01437995|181566539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison of change in FEV1/FVC ratio||||<0.001
90850288|NCT01437995|181566539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison of change in FEV1/FVC ratio||||0.031
90850289|NCT04456673|181566540|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle primary and first 4 secondary endpoints (reported sequentially) analyses at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.435||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.682|-0.188|||Negative binomial model||Derived using delta method|Derived using negative binomial model with the total number of the events occurring during the 52-week treatment period as the response variable, and treatment group, region (pooled country), ICS dose, smoking status at screening, baseline disease severity, and number of moderate or severe COPD exacerbation events within one year prior to the study as covariates, and log-transformed treatment duration as an offset variable.||-0.188|-0.682|0.0002
90850290|NCT04456673|181566541|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle primary and first 4 secondary endpoints (reported sequentially) analyses at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|0.082||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.124|||MMRM model|||Derived from mixed-effect model with repeated measures (MMRM) model with the change from baseline in pre-bronchodilator FEV1 up to Week 12 as response variables, and treatment group, age, sex, height, region (pooled country), ICS dose, smoking status at screening, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline pre-bronchodilator FEV1, and FEV1 baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates.||0.124|0.040|0.0001
90850291|NCT04456673|181566542|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle primary and first 4 secondary endpoints (reported sequentially) analyses at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean Difference|-3.371||||0.0068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.811|-0.931|||MMRM model|||Derived from MMRM model with the change from baseline in SGRQ total score up to Week 52 as response variables, and treatment group, region (pooled country), ICS dose, smoking status at screening, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline SGRQ total score, and SGRQ baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates.||-0.931|-5.811|0.0068
90850292|NCT04456673|181566543|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle primary and first 4 secondary endpoints (reported sequentially) analyses at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.164||||0.3329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.856|1.581|||Regression, Logistic|||Derived from logistic regression model which includes treatment group, region (pooled country), ICS dose, smoking status at screening, and baseline SGRQ total score as covariates.||1.581|0.856|0.3329
90850293|NCT04456673|181566544|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle primary and first 4 secondary endpoints (reported sequentially) analyses at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean Difference|0.062||||0.0182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.011|0.113|||MMRM model|||Derived from MMRM model with the change from baseline in pre-bronchodilator FEV1 up to Week 52 as response variables, and treatment group, age, sex, height, region (pooled country), ICS dose, smoking status at screening, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline pre-bronchodilator FEV1, and FEV1 baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates.||0.113|0.011|0.0182
90850294|NCT00917644|181566634|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the two treatments was concluded if the 90% confidence intervals for the ratio of adjusted geometric means for both AUCinf and Cmax fell wholly within (80%, 125%)|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|98.79||||||90.0|94.57|103.2|||ANOVA|Values have been back-transformed from the log scale.|Parameter estimate = ratio (%) (test/reference) of adjusted geometric means. AUClast + (Clast\*/kel), where Clast\* was the predicted plasma concentration at the last quantifiable time point estimated from the log-linear regression analysis.|Natural log transformed AUCinf was analyzed using a mixed effects model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect. Adjusted mean difference (Test-Ref) and 90% CI was obtained from the model and exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric mean and 90% CI for the ratio. Alternative hypothesis of bioequivalence: (H1: θL \<=µT - µR \<=θU); null hypothesis of inequivalence: (Ho: µT - µR \<θL or µT - µR \>θU).||103.20|94.57|
90900020|NCT01535274|181666007|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||P-values represent comparison of successive set points within anesthetic type (i.e.: Set Point 1 compared to Set Point 2, Set Point 2 compared to Set Point 3, etc.). This P-value was determined for each of set points 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5.||||<0.001
91104634|NCT03926247|182095276|OTHER|Within-group longitudinal analysis (no comparison groups)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053|=|0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.008|0.201|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analyses were conducted using a mixed effects linear model to calculate least square means across the 4 timepoints. This was a longitudinal within-group analysis with 4 timepoints of data nested within 56 individuals. Our hypothesis was that participants' access to resources would increase overtime.||0.201|-0.008|=0.074
91098085|NCT04822194|182081406|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.021|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Ran linear mixed model, p-value above reflects a group by session interaction.||Null hypothesis: no difference between groups. Power analyses using a within-subject fMRI effect size estimate for right amygdala affective reactivity from a meta-analysis of Human Connectome Project data of approx. d=.70, applying to between-subjects effects as well, indicate over 95% power (α=.05) to detect within-group effects and 90% power (α=0.05) to detect between-group effects should be achieved with 36 participants per group.||||0.021
90850295|NCT00917644|181566636|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the two treatments was concluded if the 90% confidence intervals for the ratio of adjusted geometric means for both AUCinf and Cmax fell wholly within (80%, 125%). AUCinf method of determination includes AUClast calculated value.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|98.72||||||90.0|94.41|103.23|||ANOVA|Values have been back-transformed from the log scale.|Parameter estimate = ratio (%) (test/reference) of adjusted geometric means. Log-linear trapezoidal method.|Natural log transformed AUClast was analyzed using a mixed effects model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% confidence interval was obtained from the model and exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric mean (Test/Reference) and 90% confidence interval for the ratio.||103.23|94.41|
91098086|NCT04822194|182081407|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.724|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|We ran linear mixed models, p-value reflects a group by session interaction for the UGRS composite scores.||Null hypothesis: no difference between groups. Power analyses of an effect size (d=.70) previously reported for within and between-subjects analyses of questionnaire outcomes (i.e., depressive symptoms, grief rumination, perceived stress, reappraisal usage) indicate over 95% power (α=.05) to detect within-group effects and 90% power (α=0.05) for between-group effects should be achieved with 36 per group.||||0.724
91098087|NCT04822194|182081407|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.835|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Ran linear mixed model on counterfactuals adjusted for covariates, p-value above reflects group by session interaction.||Null hypothesis: no difference between groups||||0.835
90850296|NCT00917644|181566637|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the two treatments was concluded if the 90% confidence intervals for the ratio of adjusted geometric means for both AUCinf and Cmax fell wholly within (80%, 125%)|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|104.66||||||90.0|95.73|114.42|||ANOVA|Values have been back-transformed from the log scale.|Parameter estimate = ratio (%) (test/reference) of adjusted geometric means. Observed directly from data.|Natural log transformed Cmax was analyzed using a mixed effects model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% confidence intervals were obtained from the model and exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric mean (Test/Reference) and 90% confidence interval for the ratio.||114.42|95.73|
90850297|NCT02108262|181566661|NON_INFERIORITY|The calculation used a non-inferiority argument powering the test of the alternative hypothesis of no difference in the rates. Within each co-primary endpoint, the two active treatment groups are assumed to have the same endpoint rates. Total alpha is 0.05 with 0.025 allocated to each co-primary endpoint, which in turn involves comparisons of two active treatment groups to placebo without further alpha control.|Difference in event rates (%)|1.0|||=|0.1241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|2.5|||Newcombe-Wilson score method|||||2.5|-0.1|= 0.1241
90850298|NCT02108262|181566661|NON_INFERIORITY|The calculation used a non-inferiority argument powering the test of the alternative hypothesis of no difference in the rates. Within each co-primary endpoint, the two active treatment groups are assumed to have the same endpoint rates. Total alpha is 0.05 with 0.025 allocated to each co-primary endpoint, which in turn involves comparisons of two active treatment groups to placebo without further alpha control.|Difference in event rates (%)|0.5|||=|0.4994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.7|||Newcombe-Wilson score method|||||1.7|-0.5|= 0.4994
90850299|NCT02108262|181566662|NON_INFERIORITY|The calculation used a non-inferiority argument powering the test of the alternative hypothesis of no difference in the rates. Within each co-primary endpoint, the two active treatment groups are assumed to have the same endpoint rates. Total alpha is 0.05 with 0.025 allocated to each co-primary endpoint, which in turn involves comparisons of two active treatment groups to placebo without further alpha control.|Difference in event rates (%)|-0.2|||=|0.4988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.7|||Newcombe-Wilson score method|||||0.7|-1.4|= 0.4988
90850300|NCT02108262|181566662|NON_INFERIORITY|The calculation used a non-inferiority argument powering the test of the alternative hypothesis of no difference in the rates. Within each co-primary endpoint, the two active treatment groups are assumed to have the same endpoint rates. Total alpha is 0.05 with 0.025 allocated to each co-primary endpoint, which in turn involves comparisons of two active treatment groups to placebo without further alpha control.|Difference in event rates (%)|0.5|||=|0.6241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.9|||Newcombe-Wilson score method|||||1.9|-0.7|= 0.6241
90850301|NCT02108262|181566663|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18|||=|0.5733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|2.05||Stratified log-rank p-value|Log Rank|||||2.05|0.67|= 0.5733
90850302|NCT02108262|181566663|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02|||=|0.9717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.8||Stratified log-rank p-value|Log Rank|||||1.80|0.57|= 0.9717
90850303|NCT00392379|181566733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|43.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Logistic|||Based upon previous research, we hypothesized that the end-of-treatment abstinence rate for subjects receiving placebo would be 35% and the abstinence rate for subjects receiving the 4-mg nicotine lozenge would be 53%. A resulting power calculation indicated that 270 subjects (135 per group) were required in order to have 85% power to detect a significant difference (two-sided, α = 0.05 level test).||||<0.05
90900021|NCT01905046|181666071|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|2.62|||Chi-squared|||||2.62|0.36|0.951
90900022|NCT00405639|181666127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
90900023|NCT00405639|181666128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91098088|NCT04822194|182081407|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Ran linear mixed model on injustice adjusted for covariates, p-value above reflects group by session interaction.||Null hypothesis: no difference between groups.||||0.090
91098089|NCT04822194|182081407|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.983|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Ran linear mixed model on meaning adjusted for covariates, p-value above reflects group by session interaction.||Null hypothesis: no difference between groups||||0.983
91098090|NCT04822194|182081407|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Ran linear mixed model on reaction adjusted for covariates, p-value above reflects group by session interaction.||Null hypothesis: no difference between groups||||0.760
91098091|NCT04822194|182081407|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.402|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Ran linear mixed model on relations adjusted for covariates, p-value above reflects group by session interaction.||Null hypothesis: no difference between groups.||||0.402
91098092|NCT04822194|182081408|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.092|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|We ran a linear mixed model, p-value reflects group by session interaction||Null hypothesis: no difference between groups||||0.092
91098093|NCT04822194|182081409|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.585|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Ran a linear mixed model, p-value reflects group by session interaction||Null hypothesis: no difference between groups||||0.585
90850304|NCT02184624|181566736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical comparison for categories Error while using only ELLIPTA inhaler Vs Error while using DISKUS/ACCUHALER|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90850305|NCT02184624|181566736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical comparison for categories: Error while using only ELLIPTA inhaler Vs Error while using MDI|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90850306|NCT02184624|181566736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical comparison for categories: Error while using only ELLIPTA inhaler Vs Error while using TURBUHALER|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90850307|NCT02184624|181566736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical comparison for categories: Error while using only ELLIPTA inhaler Vs Error while using HANDIHALER|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90850308|NCT02184624|181566736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical comparison for categories: Error while using only ELLIPTA inhaler Vs Error while using BREEZHALER|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90850309|NCT02184624|181566737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical comparison for categories: Error while using only ELLIPTA inhaler Vs Error while using DISKUS/ACCUHALER|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90850310|NCT02184624|181566737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical comparison for categories: Error while using only ELLIPTA inhaler Vs Error while using MDI|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90850311|NCT02184624|181566737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical comparison for categories: Error while using only ELLIPTA inhaler Vs Error while using TURBUHALER|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90850312|NCT02184624|181566737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical comparison for categories: Error while using only ELLIPTA inhaler Vs Error while using HANDIHALER|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90850313|NCT02184624|181566737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical comparison for categories: Error while using only ELLIPTA inhaler Vs Error while using BREEZHALER|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90850314|NCT02184624|181566738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48||95.0||||Statistical comparison for categories: Error while using only ELLIPTA inhaler Vs Error while using DISKUS/ACCUHALER|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.480
90850315|NCT02184624|181566738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.044||95.0||||Statistical comparison for categories: Error while using only ELLIPTA inhaler Vs Error while using MDI|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.044
90850316|NCT02184624|181566738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025||95.0||||Statistical comparison for categories: Error while using only ELLIPTA inhaler Vs Error while using TURBUHALER|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.025
90850317|NCT02184624|181566738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical comparison for categories: Error while using only ELLIPTA inhaler Vs Error while using HANDIHALER|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90850318|NCT02184624|181566738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014||95.0||||Statistical comparison for categories: Error while using only ELLIPTA inhaler Vs Error while using BREEZHALER|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.014
90850319|NCT02184624|181566739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical comparison for categories: Error while using only ELLIPTA inhaler Vs Error while using DISKUS/ACCUHALER|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90850320|NCT02184624|181566739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical comparison for categories: Error while using only ELLIPTA inhaler Vs Error while using MDI|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90850321|NCT02184624|181566739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||Statistical comparison for categories: Error while using only ELLIPTA inhaler Vs Error while using TURBUHALER|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.002
90850322|NCT02184624|181566739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||Statistical comparison for categories: Error while using only ELLIPTA inhaler Vs Error while using HANDIHALER|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.001
90850323|NCT02184624|181566739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||Statistical comparison for categories: Error while using only ELLIPTA inhaler Vs Error while using BREEZHALER|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.003
90850324|NCT02184624|181566740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Number of participants requiring instructions from the HCP (maximum three times) to demonstrate adequate inhalation technique of ELLIPTA inhaler versus those for DISKUS/ACCUHALER inhaler|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.001
90850325|NCT02184624|181566740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Number of participants requiring instructions from the HCP (maximum three times) to demonstrate adequate inhalation technique of ELLIPTA inhaler versus those for MDI inhaler|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.001
90850326|NCT02184624|181566740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Number of participants requiring instructions from the HCP (maximum three times) to demonstrate adequate inhalation technique of ELLIPTA inhaler versus those for TURBUHALER inhaler|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.001
90850327|NCT02184624|181566740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Number of participants requiring instructions from the HCP (maximum three times) to demonstrate adequate inhalation technique of ELLIPTA inhaler versus those for HANDIHALER inhaler|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.001
90850328|NCT02184624|181566740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Number of participants requiring instructions from the HCP (maximum three times) to demonstrate adequate inhalation technique of ELLIPTA inhaler versus those for BREEZHALER inhaler|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.001
91030798|NCT01430741|181946117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.481|||||||Regression, Cox|||We used Kaplan-Meier survival curves to estimate the extent and timing of negative housing exits over time and Cox proportional hazards regression to assess the relationship between membership in the GTO group and risk of experiencing a negative housing exit, adjusting for a set of relevant covariates.||||=.481
91098094|NCT04822194|182081410|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Ran linear mixed model, p-value reflects group by session interaction||Null hypothesis: no difference between groups||||0.70
91098095|NCT04822194|182081411|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.696|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Ran linear mixed model on emotional problems adjusted for covariates, p-value above reflects group by session interaction||Null hypothesis: no difference between groups.||||0.696
90850329|NCT02184624|181566741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Number of participants preferring ELLIPTA device versus number of participants preferring DISKUS/ACCUHALER device as assessed by the 'preference' questionnaire|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91098096|NCT04822194|182081411|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.452|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Ran linear mixed model on emotional well-being adjusted for covariates, p-value reflects group by session interaction||Null hypothesis: no difference between groups||||0.452
91098097|NCT04822194|182081411|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Ran a linear mixed model on energy adjusted for covariates, p-value above reflects group by session interaction.||Null hypothesis: no difference between groups||||0.650
91098098|NCT04822194|182081411|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.224|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Ran linear mixed model on general health perceptions adjusted for covariates, p-value above reflects group by session interaction.||Null hypothesis: no difference between groups||||0.224
90850330|NCT02184624|181566741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Number of participants preferring ELLIPTA device versus number of participants preferring MDI device as assessed by the 'preference' questionnaire|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90850331|NCT02184624|181566741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Number of participants preferring ELLIPTA device versus number of participants preferring TURBUHALER device as assessed by the 'preference' questionnaire|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90850332|NCT02184624|181566741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Number of participants preferring ELLIPTA device versus number of participants preferring HANDIHALER device as assessed by the 'preference' questionnaire|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90850333|NCT02184624|181566741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Number of participants preferring ELLIPTA device versus number of participants preferring BREEZHALER device as assessed by the 'preference' questionnaire|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90850334|NCT02184624|181566742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Number of participants preferring ELLIPTA device versus number of participants preferring DISKUS/ACCUHALER device by the 'ease of use' questionnaire|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90900024|NCT00405639|181666129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.07
90850335|NCT02184624|181566742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Number of participants preferring ELLIPTA device versus number of participants preferring MDI device by the 'ease of use' questionnaire|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90850336|NCT02184624|181566742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Number of participants preferring ELLIPTA device versus number of participants preferring TURBUHALER device by the 'ease of use' questionnaire|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90850337|NCT02184624|181566742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Number of participants preferring ELLIPTA device versus number of participants preferring HANDIHALER device by the 'ease of use' questionnaire|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90850338|NCT02184624|181566742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Number of participants preferring ELLIPTA device versus number of participants preferring BREEZHALER device by the 'ease of use' questionnaire|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91098099|NCT04822194|182081411|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.256|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Ran linear mixed model on pain adjusted for covariates, p-value above reflects group by session interaction.||Null hypothesis: no difference in groups||||0.256
90850339|NCT02365233|181566770|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||IRB withheld the data due to inadequate supporting documentation|||
90850340|NCT00934843|181566771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.78||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.33|||Multivariate risk computation|||The current study was designed with an anticipated enrollment of 87 patients per treatment arm to achieve a statistical power of 80% (1- β) while controlling type I error at 0.05 (α) using a more conservative estimate of LCOS rate in the Single Dose MP group of 33%, and an incidence of LCOS in the Two Dose MP group of 15%.||1.33|0.45|0.35
90850341|NCT00934843|181566772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43||95.0||||A repeated measures analysis of variance framework was used for longitudinal analysis of inotrope score. In order to identify potential confounding variables, a variable was considered a relevant covariate and added into the model with a p ≤ 0.15.|ANCOVA|||||||0.43
90850342|NCT00934843|181566774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.052||95.0||||Analysis of variance/covariance models were used to test both unadjusted and multivariable relationships between treatment groups for diuresis.|ANCOVA|||||||0.052
91098100|NCT04822194|182081411|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.984|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Ran linear mixed model on physical function adjusted for covariates, p-value above reflects group by session interaction.||Null hypothesis: no difference between groups||||0.984
91098101|NCT04822194|182081411|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.363|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Ran linear mixed model on physical health adjusted for covariates, p-value above reflects group by session interaction.||Null hypothesis: no difference between groups||||0.363
91098102|NCT04822194|182081411|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.045|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Ran linear mixed model on social functioning adjusted for covariates, p-value above reflects group by session interaction.||Null hypothesis: no difference between groups||||0.045
91098103|NCT04822194|182081412|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.422|||||||ANCOVA|Ran a repeated measures ANCOVA of logged IL-6 serum, p-value above reflects time by ER group interaction effect.||Null hypothesis: no difference between groups||||0.422
90850343|NCT00934843|181566775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis of variance/covariance models were used to test both unadjusted and multivariable relationships between treatment groups for diuresis.||||||0.047
90850344|NCT00160667|181566776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29|||=|0.965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.82|13.41|||ANCOVA||Estimated value is the difference of Least Square Means.|||13.41|-12.82|=0.965
90900025|NCT00405639|181666130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91098104|NCT04822194|182081412|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.438|||||||ANCOVA|Ran a repeated measures ANCOVA of TNFα, p-value above reflects time by ER group interaction effect.||Null hypothesis: no difference between groups||||0.438
91098105|NCT01257438|182081464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Greenwood's estimate of variance|0.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.79|||Log Rank|||Subjects at risk (at 6 months) is a calculation in Kaplan-Meier time-to-event analyses that refers to subjects who have not had ACPP failure through the 6 months (i.e., are event-free through 6 months).||0.79|0.44|<0.001
91098106|NCT01257438|182081465|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The p-value is based on a non-inferiority Farrington and Manning Exact Test. The non-inferiority margin is 0.075 (or 7.5%).||||||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||Farrington and Manning Exact Test|The non-inferiority margin is 0.075 (or 7.5%)||||||0.007
91098107|NCT02965833|182081469|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0073|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||=0.0073
90850345|NCT00160667|181566776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.48|||=|0.825|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.69|14.65|||ANCOVA||Estimated value is the difference of Least Square Means.|||14.65|-11.69|=0.825
90850346|NCT01779219|181566790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||Fisher's exact test (two-tailed)|Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
90850347|NCT01779219|181566791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
90850348|NCT01779219|181566792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Total length of hospital stay||||0.16
90850349|NCT01779219|181566792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Length of the preoperative hospital stay||||0.73
90850350|NCT01779219|181566792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Length of the postoperative hospital stay||||1.0
90850351|NCT01779219|181566793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Total OR time||||<0.001
90850352|NCT01779219|181566793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Time of preoperative preparations||||0.004
90900026|NCT00612534|181666135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.83||0.194||95.0|-5.32|25.83|||ANCOVA|||||25.83|-5.32|0.194
90850353|NCT01779219|181566793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Time of the operation (skin-to-skin)"||||0.024
90850354|NCT00428584|181566794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.524||||||P value refers to mean change to 30 minute post injection|ANOVA|||The primary efficacy endpoint was analyzed by using a two-way ANOVA model on ranked data including treatment group and site as fixed effect.||||0.524
90850355|NCT00428584|181566795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.484|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.484
90900027|NCT00612534|181666135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.77||0.268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.78|24.11|||ANCOVA|||||24.11|-6.78|0.268
91098108|NCT03976375|182081488|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.4342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.23||Stratified by Baseline ECOG performance status (0 versus 1), anti-PD-1/PD-L1 mAb (immediate prior therapy versus not the immediate prior therapy), and Baseline PD-L1 Status (\<50% versus \>=50)|Log Rank||Based on stratified Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by Baseline ECOG performance status, anti-PD-1/PD-L1 mAb therapy, and Baseline PD-L1 Status|||1.23|0.78|0.4342
91098109|NCT03976375|182081489|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.1563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.12||Stratified by Baseline ECOG performance status (0 versus 1), anti-PD-1/PD-L1 mAb (immediate prior therapy versus not the immediate prior therapy), and Baseline PD-L1 Status (\<50% versus \>=50)|Log Rank||Based on stratified Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by Baseline ECOG performance status, anti-PD-1/PD-L1 mAb therapy, and Baseline PD-L1 Status.|||1.12|0.70|0.1563
90850356|NCT00428584|181566796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.838|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.838
90850357|NCT00428584|181566797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.451||||||No pain is defined as a VAS = 0 for all 21 full dose injections.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.451
90850358|NCT00428584|181566798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.338|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.338
90850359|NCT03259620|181566804|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2587|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2587
90850360|NCT00545129|181566824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|0.66|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as covariate and study site as random effect. Least squares (LS) mean difference, and corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) were estimated from ANCOVA model.||0.66|-1.18|0.569
90850361|NCT00545129|181566825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.34|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as covariate and study site as random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from ANCOVA model.||0.34|-0.60|0.581
90850362|NCT00545129|181566825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.73|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as covariate and study site as random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from ANCOVA model.||0.73|-0.56|0.795
90850363|NCT00545129|181566825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.93|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as covariate and study site as random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from ANCOVA model.||0.93|-0.76|0.843
90850364|NCT00545129|181566825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|0.42|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as covariate and study site as random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from ANCOVA model.||0.42|-1.34|0.292
90850365|NCT00545129|181566826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.23|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as covariate and study site as random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from ANCOVA model.||0.23|-0.72|0.299
90900028|NCT00612534|181666135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.3||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.54|36.56|||ANCOVA|||||36.56|3.54|0.018
90900029|NCT01508013|181666146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.633|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.633
91098110|NCT03976375|182081490|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage vs Docetaxel|8.4||||0.01818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|16.3||One-sided p-value for testing. H0: difference in % =0 versus H1: difference in % \> 0.|Miettinen and Nurminen method||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by Baseline ECOG performance status (0 versus 1), anti-PD-1/PD-L1 mAb (immediate prior therapy versus not the immediate prior therapy), and Baseline PD-L1 Status (\<50% versus \>=50%)|||16.3|0.5|0.01818
91098111|NCT03976375|182081491|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage vs Lenvatinib|10.2||||0.06009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|19.9||One-sided p-value for testing. H0: difference in % =0 versus H1: difference in % \> 0.|Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||19.9|-3.1|0.06009
91098112|NCT03976375|182081495|OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.36||||0.4998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.32|2.6|||t-test, 2 sided||Based on cLDA model with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors of baseline ECOG performance status, anti-PD-1/PD-L1 mAb therapy, and baseline PD-L1 Status|||2.60|-5.32|0.4998
91098113|NCT03976375|182081496|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-3.86||||0.1531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.16|1.44|||t-test, 2 sided||Based on cLDA model with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors of baseline ECOG performance status, anti-PD-1/PD-L1 mAb therapy, and baseline PD-L1 Status|||1.44|-9.16|0.1531
91098114|NCT03976375|182081497|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|2.48||||0.3084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.31|7.27|||t-test, 2 sided||Based on cLDA model with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors of baseline ECOG performance status, timing of anti-PD-1/PD-L1 mAb therapy, and baseline PD-L1 Status|||7.27|-2.31|0.3084
90850366|NCT00545129|181566826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.91|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as covariate and study site as random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from ANCOVA model.||0.91|-0.47|0.519
90850367|NCT00545129|181566826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.98|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as covariate and study site as random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from ANCOVA model.||0.98|-0.74|0.776
90850368|NCT00545129|181566826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.91|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as covariate and study site as random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from ANCOVA model.||0.91|-0.93|0.978
90850369|NCT00545129|181566826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.73|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as covariate and study site as random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from ANCOVA model.||0.73|-1.10|0.689
90850370|NCT00545129|181566827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.23|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as covariate and study site as random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from ANCOVA model.||0.23|-0.72|0.299
90850371|NCT00545129|181566827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.91|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as covariate and study site as random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from ANCOVA model.||0.91|-0.47|0.519
90850372|NCT00545129|181566827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|1.13|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as covariate and study site as random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from ANCOVA model.||1.13|-0.68|0.618
90850373|NCT00545129|181566827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|1.07|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as covariate and study site as random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from ANCOVA model.||1.07|-0.85|0.818
90850374|NCT00545129|181566827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|1.09||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as covariate and study site as random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from ANCOVA model.||1.09|-0.87|0.819
90900030|NCT01508013|181666147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.001
90900031|NCT01508013|181666148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.018
90900032|NCT00510458|181666204|OTHER|It is expected that the mean linear wear rate is not more than 0.08 mm per year or 0.05 mm per year superior to the reference control, which was 0.13 mm per year. The reference control was determined from the control group within the Post-approval Study of the ABC and Trident® Systems (NCT00960206).|mean linear wear rate at 5 yrs|0.008|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0107|0.0267||||||||.0267|-0.0107|
91098115|NCT03976375|182081498|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-8.04||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.73|-2.35|||t-test, 2 sided||Based on cLDA model with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors of baseline ECOG performance status, anti-PD-1/PD-L1 mAb therapy, and baseline PD-L1 Status|||-2.35|-13.73|0.0058
90850375|NCT00545129|181566828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.74|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as covariate and study site as random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from ANCOVA model.||0.74|-0.66|0.906
90900033|NCT00510458|181666205|OTHER|To test if the change from pre-operative HHS compared to the post-operative HHS at all intervals is statistically significant.|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90900034|NCT00510458|181666206|OTHER|To test if the change from pre-operative HHS pain score compared to the post-operative HHS pain score at all intervals is statistically significant.|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91098116|NCT03976375|182081499|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|2.89||||0.1681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|7.01|||t-test, 2 sided||Based on cLDA model with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors of baseline ECOG performance status, anti-PD-1/PD-L1 mAb therapy, and baseline PD-L1 Status|||7.01|-1.23|0.1681
91098117|NCT03976375|182081500|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.6145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.31||stratified by Baseline ECOG performance status, anti-PD-1/PD-L1 mAb therapy, and Baseline PD-L1 Status.|Log Rank||Based on stratified Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by Baseline ECOG performance status, anti-PD-1/PD-L1 mAb therapy, and Baseline PD-L1 Status.|||1.31|0.63|0.6145
91098118|NCT03976375|182081501|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61||||0.0398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.98|||Log Rank|Stratified by Baseline ECOG performance status, anti-PD-1/PD-L1 mAb therapy, and Baseline PD-L1 Status.|Based on stratified Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by Baseline ECOG performance status, anti-PD-1/PD-L1 mAb therapy, and Baseline PD-L1 Status.|||0.98|0.38|0.0398
91098119|NCT03976375|182081502|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.8724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.85|||Log Rank|Stratified by Baseline ECOG performance status, anti-PD-1/PD-L1 mAb therapy, and Baseline PD-L1 Status.|Based on stratified Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by Baseline ECOG performance status, anti-PD-1/PD-L1 mAb therapy, and Baseline PD-L1 Status|||1.85|0.59|0.8724
91098120|NCT03976375|182081503|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.1944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.16||Stratified by Baseline ECOG performance status, anti-PD-1/PD-L1 mAb therapy, and Baseline PD-L1 Status.|Log Rank||Based on stratified Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by Baseline ECOG performance status, anti-PD-1/PD-L1 mAb therapy, and Baseline PD-L1 Status.|||1.16|0.49|0.1944
91098121|NCT03976375|182081504|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.9837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.41|||Log Rank|Stratified by Baseline ECOG performance status, anti-PD-1/PD-L1 mAb therapy, and Baseline PD-L1 Status.|Based on stratified Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by Baseline ECOG performance status, anti-PD-1/PD-L1 mAb therapy, and Baseline PD-L1 Status.|||1.41|0.71|0.9837
91098122|NCT03976375|182081505|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.2903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.16|||Log Rank|Stratified by Baseline ECOG performance status, anti-PD-1/PD-L1 mAb therapy, and Baseline PD-L1 Status.|Based on stratified Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by Baseline ECOG performance status, anti-PD-1/PD-L1 mAb therapy, and Baseline PD-L1 Status.|||1.16|0.60|0.2903
91098123|NCT01590875|182081592|EQUIVALENCE|Kappa statistics on per pulmonary vein basis were used to determine the probability of recovery, transient recovery or no recovery with second adenosine dose compared with probability of same response after first adenosine dose|||||<|0.01|||||||no relevant statistical analysis|||Kappa statistics on per pulmonary vein basis were used to determine the probability of recovery, transient recovery or no recovery with second adenosine dose compared with probability of same response after first adenosine dose||||<0.01
91098124|NCT01590875|182081593|EQUIVALENCE|Kappa statistics on per pulmonary vein basis were used to determine the probability of recovery, transient recovery or no recovery with second adenosine dose compared with probability of same response after first adenosine dose|||||<|0.01|||||||kappa statistic|||Kappa statistics on per pulmonary vein basis were used to determine the probability of recovery, transient recovery or no recovery with second adenosine dose compared with probability of same response after first adenosine dose||||< 0.01
90900035|NCT00510458|181666207|OTHER|To test if the change from pre-operative HHS ROM compared to the post-operative HHS ROM at all intervals is statistically significant.|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91098125|NCT05643794|182081664|SUPERIORITY||Difference from Placebo|-0.54||||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|0.16|||Longitudinal linear mixed effect model||The difference presented is RLZ 12 weeks minus Placebo.|||0.16|-1.24|0.129
91098126|NCT05643794|182081667|SUPERIORITY||Difference from Placebo|-0.51||||0.358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.58|||Longitudinal mixed effects model||The difference presented is RLZ 24 weeks minus PBO 24 weeks.|||0.58|-1.60|0.358
91098127|NCT05643794|182081668|SUPERIORITY||Difference from Placebo|-8.4||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.84|-2.96|||Longitudinal mixed effects model||The difference presented is RLZ 12 weeks minus Placebo|||-2.96|-13.84|0.003
91098128|NCT05643794|182081669|SUPERIORITY||Differences from Placebo|0.05||||0.878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.64|||Longitudinal mixed effects model||The differences presented is RLZ 12 weeks minus Placebo.|||0.64|-0.55|0.878
91098129|NCT05643794|182081670|SUPERIORITY||Difference from Placebo|-0.28||||0.352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.31|||Longitudinal mixed effects model||The difference presented is RLZ 12 weeks minus Placebo.|||0.31|-0.86|0.352
90900036|NCT00510458|181666208|OTHER|To test if the change from pre-operative SF-12 Physical component score compared to the post-operative SF-12 Physical component score at all intervals is statistically significant.|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91098130|NCT04167670|182081677|NON_INFERIORITY|P-value based on a Farrington and Manning test with a noninferiority margin of 10%.|Percentage Difference|-0.3||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.39|6.76|||Farrington and Manning test||The confidence interval of the difference in H pylori eradication rates between vonoprazan dual therapy and lansoprazole triple therapy was calculated via the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Noninferiority of vonoprazan dual therapy to lansoprazole triple therapy.||6.76|-7.39|0.0037
91098131|NCT04167670|182081677|NON_INFERIORITY|P-value based on a Farrington and Manning test with a noninferiority margin of 10%.|Percentage Difference|5.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|12.62|||Farrington and Manning test||The confidence interval of the difference in H pylori eradication rates between vonoprazan triple therapy and lansoprazole triple therapy was calculated via the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Noninferiority of vonoprazan triple therapy to lansoprazole triple therapy.||12.62|-0.75|<0.0001
91098132|NCT04167670|182081678|SUPERIORITY|P-value based on a Farrington and Manning test with the null hypothesis difference ≤0 versus the alternative hypothesis difference \>0.|Percentage Difference|37.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.54|52.56|||Farrington and Manning test||The confidence interval of the difference in H pylori eradication rates between vonoprazan dual therapy and lansoprazole triple therapy was calculated via the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Superiority of vonoprazan dual therapy to lansoprazole triple therapy.||52.56|20.54|<0.0001
91098133|NCT04167670|182081678|SUPERIORITY|P-value based on a Farrington and Manning test with the null hypothesis difference ≤0 versus the alternative hypothesis difference \>0.|Percentage Difference|33.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.74|48.12|||Farrington and Manning test||The confidence interval of the difference in H pylori eradication rates between vonoprazan triple therapy and lansoprazole triple therapy was calculated via the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Superiority of vonoprazan triple therapy to lansoprazole triple therapy.||48.12|17.74|<0.0001
90900037|NCT00510458|181666208|OTHER|To test if the change from pre-operative SF-12 Mental component score compared to the post-operative SF-12 Mental component score at 1 year is statistically significant.||||||0.0394|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0394
91098134|NCT04167670|182081679|SUPERIORITY|P-value based on a Farrington and Manning test with the null hypothesis difference ≤0 versus the alternative hypothesis difference \>0.|Percentage Difference|8.7||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.86|15.44|||Farrington and Manning test||The confidence interval of the difference in H pylori eradication rates between vonoprazan dual therapy and lansoprazole triple therapy was calculated via the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Superiority of vonoprazan dual therapy to lansoprazole triple therapy.||15.44|1.86|0.0063
90900038|NCT00510458|181666208|OTHER|To test if the change from pre-operative SF-12 Mental component score compared to the post-operative SF-12 Mental component score at 3 years is statistically significant.||||||0.4974|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4974
90900039|NCT00510458|181666208|OTHER|To test if the change from pre-operative SF-12 Mental component score compared to the post-operative SF-12 Mental component score at 5 years is statistically significant.||||||0.677|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6770
90900040|NCT00510458|181666209|OTHER|To test if the change from pre-operative LEAS compared to the post-operative LEAS at 1 year and 3 years is statistically significant.|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90900041|NCT00510458|181666209|OTHER|To test if the change from pre-operative LEAS compared to the post-operative LEAS at 5 years is statistically significant.||||||0.0006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0006
91098135|NCT04167670|182081679|SUPERIORITY|P-value based on a Farrington and Manning test with the null hypothesis difference ≤0 versus the alternative hypothesis difference \>0.|Percentage Difference|12.3||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.72|18.81|||Farrington and Manning test|||Superiority of vonoprazan triple therapy to lansoprazole triple therapy.|The confidence interval of the difference in H pylori eradication rates between vonoprazan triple therapy and lansoprazole triple therapy was calculated via the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|18.81|5.72|0.0001
91098136|NCT01112267|182081693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0367|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p-value for percentage of participants with reduction in pain intensity was calculated for tramadol HCl/acetaminophen and placebo groups||||||0.0367
91098137|NCT01112267|182081694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0095||||||p-value for change in reduction in pain intensity at Day 29 was calculated for tramadol HCl/acetaminophen and placebo groups|Mann-Whitney U test|||||||0.0095
91098138|NCT01112267|182081695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0202||||||p-value for percentage of participants with pain relief at Day 8 was calculated for tramadol HCl/acetaminophen and placebo groups|Chi-squared|||||||0.0202
90900042|NCT00045435|181666261|OTHER||Percent|47.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||69.0|||||The criterion for stopping was not met.|The study was to be stopped after 20 patients if the upper bound of a 1-sided 95% confidence interval for relapse-free survival was \<35%.||69||
91098139|NCT01112267|182081695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0102||||||p-value for percentage of participants with pain relief at Day 15 was calculated for tramadol HCl/acetaminophen and placebo groups|Chi-squared|||||||0.0102
91098140|NCT01112267|182081695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4652||||||p-value for percentage of participants with pain relief at Day 29 was calculated for tramadol HCl/acetaminophen and placebo groups|Chi-squared|||||||0.4652
91098141|NCT01112267|182081696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3524||||||p-value for change from Baseline in physical conditioning at Day 29 was calculated using for tramadol HCl/acetaminophen and placebo groups|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3524
91098142|NCT01112267|182081696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0224||||||p-value for change from Baseline in role physical at Day 29 was calculated for tramadol HCl/acetaminophen and placebo groups.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0224
91098143|NCT01112267|182081696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5712||||||p-value for change from Baseline in bodily pain at Day 29 was calculated for tramadol HCl/acetaminophen and placebo groups.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5712
91098144|NCT01112267|182081696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0395||||||p-value for change from Baseline in general health at Day 29 was calculated for tramadol HCl/acetaminophen and placebo groups.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0395
91098145|NCT01112267|182081696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0524||||||p-value for change from Baseline in vitality at Day 29 was calculated for tramadol HCl/acetaminophen and placebo groups.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0524
91098146|NCT01112267|182081696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.115||||||p-value for change from Baseline in social functioning at Day 29 was calculated using for tramadol HCl/acetaminophen and placebo groups.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.115
90900043|NCT00045435|181666262|OTHER||percent|6.0|||||ONE_SIDED|80.0|1.0||||||The stopping criterion was not met.|The study was to be stopped if the lower bound of a 1-sided 80% confidence interval for NRM was greater than 15%|||1|
90957587|NCT01445301|181795306|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper 95% confidence was less than the pre-defined threshold (-Δ \[non-inferiority margin, -3.8\]) of 3.8, non-inferiority of GSK2585823 once daily to CLDM twice daily would be established|Mean Difference (Net)|-8.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.24|-3.77|||ANCOVA|||Total Lesion Counts, WEEK 2||-3.77|-13.24|<0.001
91098147|NCT01112267|182081696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7788||||||p-value for change from Baseline in role emotional at Day 29 was calculated for tramadol HCl/acetaminophen and placebo groups.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7788
91098148|NCT01112267|182081696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7776||||||p-value for change from Baseline in mental health at Day 29 was calculated for tramadol HCl/acetaminophen and placebo groups.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7776
91098149|NCT01112267|182081696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0047||||||p-value for change from Baseline in Reptd. health transition at Day 29 was calculated for tramadol HCl/acetaminophen and placebo groups.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0047
91098150|NCT01112267|182081697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0527||||||p-value for change from Baseline in ODI- Korean version at Day 29 was calculated for tramadol HCl/acetaminophen and placebo groups.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0527
91098151|NCT01112267|182081698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0917||||||p-value for investigator's global assessment on investigational product at Day 29 was calculated for tramadol HCl/acetaminophen and placebo groups.|Chi-squared|||||||0.0917
91098152|NCT01112267|182081699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5632||||||p-value for participant's global assessment on investigational product at Day 29 was calculated for tramadol HCl/acetaminophen and placebo groups.|Chi-squared|||||||0.5632
91098153|NCT03712852|182081749|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.17|||||||Multiple univariate analyses for each variable were performed. GT was analyzed by non-parametric Cliff's delta tests to assess group dominance and by a Heteroscedastic ANOVA with Games-Howell posthoc tests. A sensitivities analysis with different types of robust analyses (M-estimators and High Breakdown LTS Estimators, both with Huber's, Hampel's and Biweight's loss functions) was conducted to get an effect-size estimate by means of Bootstrap Bias Corrected and accelerated (BCa) 95% Confidence Intervals.|1.17|0.68|
91098154|NCT03712852|182081750|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|3.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|3.55|||||||This outcome was analyzed by posthoc Nemenyi's tests|3.55|3.00|
91098155|NCT03712852|182081751|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|2.46|||||||This outcome was analyzed by posthoc Nemenyi's tests|2.46|-0.46|
91098156|NCT03712852|182081752|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.69|||||||This outcome was analyzed by posthoc Nemenyi's tests|0.69|-0.40|
91098157|NCT03712852|182081753|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.96|3.81|||||||CAL was analyzed with both Nemenyi's tests and a Moderated Regression (Treatment by Baseline values)|3.81|2.96|
91098158|NCT04307394|182081766|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.957|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.957
91098159|NCT00447278|182081773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.47|-2.25||P-value for Change from Baseline at 6 Months. P-value is not adjusted and the threshold is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measure analysis with terms for corresponding baseline T-score, treatment, country, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||-2.25|-6.47|<0.001
91098160|NCT00447278|182081773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.56|-2.63||P-value for Change from Baseline: 6 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||-2.63|-6.56|<0.001
91098161|NCT00447278|182081774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.1||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.08|-1.13||P-value for Change from Baseline: 4 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||-1.13|-5.08|0.002
91098162|NCT00447278|182081775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.04||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.92|-1.15||P-value for Comfort Change at 4 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||-1.15|-4.92|0.002
91098163|NCT00447278|182081775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.1||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.01|-0.2||P-value for Comfort Change at 6 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||-0.20|-4.01|0.031
91098164|NCT00447278|182081775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.55||||0.629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|2.77||P-value for Resilience Change at 4 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||2.77|-1.68|0.629
91098165|NCT00447278|182081775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.96||||0.421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|1.38||P-value for Resilience Change at 6 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||1.38|-3.30|0.421
90850376|NCT00545129|181566828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.85|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as covariate and study site as random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from ANCOVA model.||0.85|-0.95|0.906
90850377|NCT00545129|181566828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|1.29|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as covariate and study site as random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from ANCOVA model.||1.29|-0.78|0.613
90850378|NCT00545129|181566828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.94|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as covariate and study site as random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from ANCOVA model.||0.94|-0.95|0.988
91098166|NCT00447278|182081775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.05||||0.388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.44|1.34||P-value for Risk Avoidance Change: 4 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||1.34|-3.44|0.388
91098167|NCT00447278|182081775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.29||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.66|0.09||P-value for Risk Avoidance Change: 6 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||0.09|-4.66|0.059
91098168|NCT00447278|182081775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.56||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.09|-1.04||P-value for Satisfaction Change at 4 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||-1.04|-6.09|0.006
91098169|NCT00447278|182081775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.91||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.49|-0.33||P-value for Satisfaction Change at 6 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||-0.33|-5.49|0.027
91098170|NCT00447278|182081776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.073||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.014|0.131||P-value for Total Change at 4 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||0.131|0.014|0.015
90957588|NCT01445301|181795306|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper 95% confidence was less than the pre-defined threshold (-Δ \[non-inferiority margin, -3.8\]) of 3.8, non-inferiority of GSK2585823 once daily to CLDM twice daily would be established.|Mean Difference (Net)|-8.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.37|-4.41|||ANCOVA|||Total Lesion Counts, WEEK 4||-4.41|-13.37|<0.001
91098171|NCT00447278|182081776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.085||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.027|0.143||P-value for Total Change at 6 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||0.143|0.027|0.004
90850379|NCT00545129|181566828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|0.92|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as covariate and study site as random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from ANCOVA model.||0.92|-1.01|0.922
90850380|NCT00545129|181566829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|0.66|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as covariate and study site as random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from ANCOVA model.||0.66|-1.03|0.655
90850381|NCT00545129|181566829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.96|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as covariate and study site as random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from ANCOVA model.||0.96|-0.85|0.897
90850382|NCT00545129|181566829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|1.2|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as covariate and study site as random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from ANCOVA model.||1.20|-0.93|0.798
90850383|NCT00545129|181566829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|1.27|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as covariate and study site as random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from ANCOVA model.||1.27|-0.83|0.672
90850384|NCT00545129|181566829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|0.41|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as covariate and study site as random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from ANCOVA model.||0.41|-1.56|0.243
90850385|NCT00545129|181566830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.52|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as covariate and study site as random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from ANCOVA model.||0.52|-1.16|0.445
90850386|NCT00545129|181566830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.0|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as covariate and study site as random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from ANCOVA model.||1.00|-1.00|0.992
90850387|NCT00545129|181566830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|0.86|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as covariate and study site as random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from ANCOVA model.||0.86|-1.34|0.655
90850388|NCT00545129|181566830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|1.3|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as covariate and study site as random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from ANCOVA model.||1.30|-1.09|0.860
90850389|NCT00545129|181566830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|0.89|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as covariate and study site as random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from ANCOVA model.||0.89|-1.52|0.595
90850390|NCT00545129|181566831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|0.35|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as covariate and study site as random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from ANCOVA model.||0.35|-1.76|0.179
91098172|NCT00447278|182081776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.094||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|0.192||P-value for Home Change at 4 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||0.192|-0.005|0.063
91098173|NCT00447278|182081776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.075||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.022|0.172||P-value for Home Change at 6 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||0.172|-0.022|0.131
91098174|NCT00447278|182081776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.052||||0.156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.124||P-value for Daily Living Change at 4 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||0.124|-0.020|0.156
91098175|NCT00447278|182081776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.072||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.143||P-value for Daily Living Change at 6 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||0.143|0.001|0.046
91098176|NCT00447278|182081776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.04||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.003|0.084||P-value for Risk Taking Change at 4 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||0.084|-0.003|0.068
91098177|NCT00447278|182081776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.028||||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.016|0.073||P-value for Risk Taking Change at 6 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||0.073|-0.016|0.212
91098178|NCT00447278|182081776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.121||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.034|0.208||P-value for School Change at 4 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||0.208|0.034|0.006
91098179|NCT00447278|182081776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.064|0.236||P-value for School Change at 6 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||0.236|0.064|<0.001
91098180|NCT00447278|182081776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.125||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.009|0.24||P-value for Self-Concept Change at 4 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||0.240|0.009|0.034
91098181|NCT00447278|182081776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.119||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.005|0.233||P-value for Self-Concept Change at 6 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||0.233|0.005|0.040
91098182|NCT00447278|182081776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.085||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.003|0.166||p-value for Social Change at 4 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||0.166|0.003|0.042
91098183|NCT00447278|182081776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.048||||0.271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.038|0.134||P-value for Social Change at 6 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||0.134|-0.038|0.271
91098184|NCT00447278|182081777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.307||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.173|4.44||P-value for Total Change at 4 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||4.440|0.173|0.034
91098185|NCT00447278|182081777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.072||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.942|5.202||P-value for Total Change at 6 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||5.202|0.942|0.005
91098186|NCT00447278|182081777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.721||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.544|2.899||P-value for Inattention Change at 4 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||2.899|0.544|0.004
91098187|NCT00447278|182081777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.269|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.086|3.453||P-value for Inattention Change at 6 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||3.453|1.086|<0.001
91098188|NCT00447278|182081777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.58||||0.298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.515|1.676||P-value for Hyperactivity Change at 4 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||1.676|-0.515|0.298
91098189|NCT00447278|182081777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.865||||0.119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.225|1.956||P-value for Hyperactivity Change at 6 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||1.956|-0.225|0.119
91098190|NCT00447278|182081778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.104||||0.366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.122|0.329||P-value for Change at 4 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||0.329|-0.122|0.366
90850391|NCT00545129|181566831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|1.1|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as covariate and study site as random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from ANCOVA model.||1.10|-1.02|0.938
91098191|NCT00447278|182081778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.169||||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.407||P-value for Change at 6 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||0.407|-0.070|0.165
91098192|NCT00447278|182081779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.35||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.74|0.04||P-value for Achievement Change at 4 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||0.04|-4.74|0.054
91098193|NCT00447278|182081779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.71||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.16|-1.26||P-value for Achievement Change at 6 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||-1.26|-6.16|0.003
91098194|NCT00447278|182081779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.74||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.33|-0.14||P-value for Comfort Change at 4 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||-0.14|-3.33|0.033
91098195|NCT00447278|182081779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.5||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.12|-0.88||P-value for Comfort Change at 6 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||-0.88|-4.12|0.003
91098196|NCT00447278|182081779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.5||||0.623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.5||P-value for Resilience Change at 4 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||2.50|-1.50|0.623
91098197|NCT00447278|182081779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.16||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|2.29||P-value for Resilience Change at 6 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||2.29|-1.96|0.880
91098198|NCT00447278|182081779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.4||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.31|0.5||P-value for Risk Avoidance Change: 4 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||0.50|-3.31|0.149
91098199|NCT00447278|182081779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.78||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.58|-0.98||P-value for Risk Avoidance Change: 6 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||-0.98|-4.58|0.003
91098200|NCT00447278|182081779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.62||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.71|-0.52||P-value for Satisfaction Change at 4 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||-0.52|-4.71|0.015
91098201|NCT00447278|182081779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.12||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.26|-0.98||P-value for Satisfaction Change at 6 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||-0.98|-5.26|0.004
91098202|NCT00447278|182081780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.39||||0.263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|6.6||P-value for Achievement Change at 4 Month LOCF. Achievement was derived from the academic achievement subdomain only.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||6.60|-1.83|0.263
90850392|NCT00545129|181566831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|0.86|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as covariate and study site as random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from ANCOVA model.||0.86|-1.41|0.621
90850393|NCT00545129|181566831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|1.21|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as covariate and study site as random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from ANCOVA model.||1.21|-1.44|0.863
90850394|NCT00545129|181566831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|0.51|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as covariate and study site as random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from ANCOVA model.||0.51|-1.95|0.237
90850395|NCT00545129|181566832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|4.94|||Fisher Exact|||Week 1 (\>=30%) reduction: The odds ratio with 95% 2-sided CI for the treatment contrast was given.||4.94|0.10|1.000
90850396|NCT00545129|181566832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|3.32|||Fisher Exact|||Week 2 (\>=30%) reduction: The odds ratio with 95% 2-sided CI for the treatment contrast was given.||3.32|0.23|1.000
90850397|NCT00545129|181566832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|6.35|||Fisher Exact|||Week 2 (\>=50%) reduction: The odds ratio with 95% 2-sided CI for the treatment contrast was given.||6.35|0.05|1.000
90850398|NCT00545129|181566832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|4.53|||Fisher Exact|||Week 4 (\>=30%) reduction: The odds ratio with 95% 2-sided CI for the treatment contrast was given.||4.53|0.44|0.601
90850399|NCT00545129|181566832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|8.51|||Fisher Exact|||Week 4 (\>=50%) reduction: The odds ratio with 95% 2-sided CI for the treatment contrast was given.||8.51|0.46|0.360
90850400|NCT00545129|181566832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|10.24|||Fisher Exact|||Week 4 (\>=70%) reduction: The odds ratio with 95% 2-sided CI for the treatment contrast was given.||10.24|0.01|1.000
90850401|NCT00545129|181566832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|4.66|||Fisher Exact|||Week 6 (\>=30%) reduction: The odds ratio with 95% 2-sided CI for the treatment contrast was given.||4.66|0.43|0.596
90850402|NCT00545129|181566832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.52||||0.552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|6.24|||Fisher Exact|||Week 6 (\>=50%) reduction: The odds ratio with 95% 2-sided CI for the treatment contrast was given.||6.24|0.39|0.552
90850403|NCT00545129|181566832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.15||||0.612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|131.03|||Fisher Exact|||Week 6 (\>=70%) reduction: The odds ratio with 95% 2-sided CI for the treatment contrast was given.||131.03|0.10|0.612
90850404|NCT00545129|181566832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|19.66|||Fisher Exact|||Week 6 (\>=90%) reduction: The odds ratio with 95% 2-sided CI for the treatment contrast was given.||19.66|0.00|1.000
90850405|NCT00545129|181566832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.73||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|14.32|||Fisher Exact|||Week 8 (\>=30%) reduction: The odds ratio with 95% 2-sided CI for the treatment contrast was given.||14.32|1.04|0.029
91098203|NCT00447278|182081780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.38||||0.848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|4.36||P-value for Achievement Change at 6 Month LOCF. Achievement was derived from the academic achievement subdomain only.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||4.36|-3.60|0.848
90850406|NCT00545129|181566832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.63||||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|11.36|||Fisher Exact|||Week 8 (\>=50%) reduction: The odds ratio with 95% 2-sided CI for the treatment contrast was given.||11.36|0.67|0.143
90900044|NCT00663117|181666285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||||||The percentage of subjects achieving a 70-point drop in CDAI score in naltrexone treated subjects was the percentage acheiving the same drop in the placebo controls|Fisher Exact|||The proportion of those achieving a response with a 70-point decline in CDAI score was compared between naltrexone and placebo treated subjects using the Fisher's exact test. Analysis was performed with the intent-to-treat criteria. Clinical significance was accepted if the difference met 95% confidence (p\<0.05).||||0.009
90900045|NCT00663117|181666287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of patients having a 5-point decline in the endoscopic inflammation score||||0.008
90850407|NCT00545129|181566832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|15.25|||Fisher Exact|||Week 8 (\>=70%) reduction: The odds ratio with 95% 2-sided CI for the treatment contrast was given.||15.25|0.07|1.000
90850408|NCT00545129|181566832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||0.492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.57|||Fisher Exact|||Week 8 (\>=90%) reduction: The odds ratio with 95% 2-sided CI for the treatment contrast was given.||3.57|0.00|0.492
90850409|NCT00545129|181566833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|4.94|||Fisher Exact|||Week 1 (\>=30%) reduction: The odds ratio with 95% 2-sided CI for the treatment contrast was given.||4.94|0.10|1.000
90850410|NCT00545129|181566833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|3.32|||Fisher Exact|||Week 2 (\>=30%) reduction: The odds ratio with 95% 2-sided CI for the treatment contrast was given.||3.32|0.23|1.000
90850411|NCT00545129|181566833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|6.35|||Fisher Exact|||Week 2 (\>=50%) reduction: The odds ratio with 95% 2-sided CI for the treatment contrast was given.||6.35|0.05|1.000
90850412|NCT00545129|181566833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|3.88|||Fisher Exact|||Week 4 (\>=30%) reduction: odds ratio with 95% 2-sided CI for the treatment contrast was given.||3.88|0.38|0.795
90850413|NCT00545129|181566833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|8.51|||Fisher Exact|||Week 4 (\>=50%) reduction: The odds ratio with 95% 2-sided CI for the treatment contrast was given.||8.51|0.46|0.360
90850414|NCT00545129|181566833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|10.24|||Fisher Exact|||Week 4 (\>=70%) reduction: The odds ratio with 95% 2-sided CI for the treatment contrast was given.||10.24|0.01|1.000
90900046|NCT00663117|181666288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.048
90900047|NCT00437125|181666323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|8.6|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||13.3||||||||13.3||
90900048|NCT00437125|181666324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5553||95.0||||p-value is for total UDPRS score - change. A priori threshold for p-values was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no change on the total UDPRS score from baseline to 12-week endpoint.||||0.5553
90900049|NCT00437125|181666325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||p-value is for psychic subscale. A priori threshold for p-values was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no change on the total psychic subscale score from baseline to 12-week endpoint.||||<0.0001
90900050|NCT00437125|181666325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||p-value is for neurological subscale. A priori threshold for p-values was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no change on the total neurological subscale score from baseline to 12-week endpoint.||||<0.0001
90900051|NCT00437125|181666325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0014||95.0||||p-value is for autonomic subscale. A priori threshold for p-values was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no change on the total autonomic subscale score from baseline to 12-week endpoint.||||0.0014
90900052|NCT00437125|181666325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5586||95.0||||p-value is for other subscale. A priori threshold for p-values was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no change on the total other subscale score from baseline to 12-week endpoint.||||0.5586
90900053|NCT00437125|181666325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0848||95.0||||p-value is for global assessment by paticipant. A priori threshold for p-values was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no change on the global assessment by paticipant subscale score from baseline to 12-week endpoint.||||0.0848
90900054|NCT00437125|181666325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0263||95.0||||p-value is for global assessment by doctor. A priori threshold for p-values was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no change on the global assessment by doctor subscale score from baseline to 12-week endpoint.||||0.0263
90900055|NCT00437125|181666326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||p-value is for 4 weeks change. A priori threshold for p-values was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no change on the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index from baseline to 4-week endpoint.||||<0.0001
90900056|NCT00437125|181666326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||p-value is for 8 weeks change. A priori threshold for p-values was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no change on the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index from baseline to 8-week endpoint.||||<0.0001
90900057|NCT00437125|181666326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||p-value is for 12 weeks change. A priori threshold for p-values was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no change on the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index from baseline to 12-week endpoint.||||<0.0001
90900058|NCT00437125|181666327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||p-value is for the HAMD-17 total score. A priori threshold for p-values was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no change on the HAMD-17 total score from baseline to 12-week endpoint.||||<0.0001
90900059|NCT00437125|181666328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||p-value is for Clinical Global Impression-Severity scale - change. A priori threshold for p-values was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no change on the Clinical Global Impression-Severity scale score from baseline to end of week 12 of treatment.||||<0.0001
90900060|NCT00437125|181666330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||p-value is for BDI score - change. A priori threshold for p-values was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no difference between baseline and post-baseline in BDI scores||||<0.0001
90900061|NCT00437125|181666331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0027||95.0||||p-value is for VAS overall pain score - change. A priori threshold for p-values was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no change from baseline to 12 weeks in VAS overall pain scores.||||0.0027
90900062|NCT00437125|181666331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||95.0||||p-value is for VAS Headaches score - change. A priori threshold for p-values was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no change from baseline to 12 weeks in VAS headaches scores.||||0.0002
90900063|NCT00437125|181666331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||p-value is for VAS back ache score - change. A priori threshold for p-values was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no change from baseline to 12 weeks in VAS back ache scores.||||<0.0001
90900064|NCT00437125|181666331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||p-value is for VAS shoulder pain score - change. A priori threshold for p-values was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no change from baseline to 12 weeks in VAS shoulder pain score.||||<0.0001
90900065|NCT00437125|181666331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||p-value is for VAS interference score - change. A priori threshold for p-values was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no change from baseline to 12 weeks in VAS interference score.||||<0.0001
90900066|NCT00437125|181666331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||p-value is for VAS pain while awake score - change. A priori threshold for p-values was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no change from baseline to 12 weeks in VAS pain while awake score.||||<0.0001
90957589|NCT01445301|181795306|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper 95% confidence was less than the pre-defined threshold (-Δ \[non-inferiority margin, -3.8\]) of 3.8, non-inferiority of GSK2585823 once daily to CLDM twice daily would be established.|Mean Difference (Net)|-9.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.82|-4.43|||ANCOVA|||Total Lesion Counts, WEEK 8||-4.43|-13.82|<0.001
91032804|NCT01149473|181950845|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|103.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.8|108.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||108|98.8|
90900067|NCT00437125|181666332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||p-value is for PDQ-39 total score - change. A priori threshold for p-values was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no change from baseline to 12 weeks in PDQ-39 total score.||||<0.0001
91098204|NCT00447278|182081780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.19||||0.895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.01|2.64||P-value for Statisfaction Change at 4 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||2.64|-3.01|0.895
91098205|NCT00447278|182081780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.2||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.22|-0.19||P-value for Satisfaction Change at 6 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||-0.19|-6.22|0.038
90900068|NCT02248961|181666341|OTHER|It was calculated that at least 140 patients (70 patients per group) must be enrolled into the study to achieve 80% power. With regard to 20% of patients withdrawn prematurely or data not suitable for analysis, it was necessary to include at least 176 patients (88 per group) into the study.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0|=|0.39|ONE_SIDED|95.0||1.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"The null hypothesis (H0) is that there is a decrease in SBP on the background treatment with Kanarb (fimasartan), that is at least 5.5 mmHg lower compared to Cozaar® (losartan).~Test of the hypotheses was performed using mixed linear models, where the site effect was considered a random effect, and the treatment group effect was considered a fixed effect. Baseline SBP on the study arm was included into the model as a covariate (a fixed effect) in all cases."||1.47||=0.390
91098206|NCT00447278|182081780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.59|2.98||P-value for Comfort Change at 4 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||2.98|-3.59|0.854
90850415|NCT00545129|181566833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|3.39|||Fisher Exact|||Week 6 (\>=30%) reduction: The odds ratio with 95% 2-sided CI for the treatment contrast was given.||3.39|0.33|1.000
90850416|NCT00545129|181566833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|4.83|||Fisher Exact|||Week 6 (\>=50%) reduction: The odds ratio with 95% 2-sided CI for the treatment contrast was given.||4.83|0.33|0.771
90850417|NCT00545129|181566833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.15||||0.612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|131.03|||Fisher Exact|||Week 6 (\>=70%) reduction: The odds ratio with 95% 2-sided CI for the treatment contrast was given.||131.03|0.10|0.612
90850418|NCT00545129|181566833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|19.66|||Fisher Exact|||Week 6 (\>=90%) reduction: The odds ratio with 95% 2-sided CI for the treatment contrast was given.||19.66|0.00|1.000
90850419|NCT00545129|181566833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.18||||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|7.3|||Fisher Exact|||Week 8 (\>=30%) reduction: The odds ratio with 95% 2-sided CI for the treatment contrast was given.||7.30|0.66|0.187
90850420|NCT00545129|181566833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73||||0.399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|6.43|||Fisher Exact|||Week 8 (\>=50%) reduction: The odds ratio with 95% 2-sided CI for the treatment contrast was given.||6.43|0.48|0.399
90850421|NCT00545129|181566833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|15.25|||Fisher Exact|||Week 8 (\>=70%) reduction: The odds ratio with 95% 2-sided CI for the treatment contrast was given.||15.25|0.07|1.000
90900069|NCT02248961|181666342|OTHER||||||=|0.018|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The investigational site was included as random effect. The baseline levels of SBP and the treatment group were included as fixed effects.||||||=0.018
90900070|NCT02248961|181666343|OTHER||||||=|0.579|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The investigational site was included as random effect. The baseline levels of SBP and the treatment group were included as fixed effects.||||||=0.579
91098207|NCT00447278|182081780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.26||||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.45|0.92||P-value for Comfort Change at 6 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||0.92|-5.45|0.161
91098208|NCT00447278|182081780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.7||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.98|1.58||P-value for Risk Avoidance Change: 4 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||1.58|-2.98|0.540
91098209|NCT00447278|182081780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.98||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|0.44||P-value for Risk Avoidance Change: 6 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||0.44|-4.40|0.106
91098210|NCT00447278|182081780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.3||||0.833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.49|3.08||P-value for Resilience Change at 4 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||3.08|-2.49|0.833
91098211|NCT00447278|182081780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.34||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.21|0.54||P-value for Resilience Change at 6 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||0.54|-5.21|0.110
91098212|NCT02421211|182081782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means ratio|4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.4|6.5||||||||6.5|3.4|
91098213|NCT02421211|182081783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means ratio|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.0|2.8||||||||2.8|2.0|
91098214|NCT02421211|182081784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means ratio|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.4|3.8||||||||3.8|2.4|
90850422|NCT00545129|181566833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||0.492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.57|||Fisher Exact|||Week 8 (\>=90%) reduction: The odds ratio with 95% 2-sided CI for the treatment contrast was given.||3.57|0.00|0.492
90850423|NCT00545129|181566835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|3.73|||Negative binomial regression|||Week 1: Negative binomial regression model with model terms for treatment as a main effect. P-value was based on negative binomial regression model from pairwise comparisons. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding negative binomial regression model.||3.73|0.77|0.188
90900071|NCT02248961|181666344|OTHER||||||=|0.466|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The investigational site was included as random effect. The baseline levels of SBP and the treatment group were included as fixed effects.||||||=0.466
90900072|NCT02248961|181666345|OTHER||||||=|0.118|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The investigational site was included as random effect. The baseline levels of SBP and the treatment group were included as fixed effects.||||||=0.118
90900073|NCT02248961|181666346|OTHER||||||=|0.662|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The investigational site was included as random effect. The baseline levels of SBP and the treatment group were included as fixed effects.||||||=0.662
90900074|NCT02248961|181666347|OTHER||||||=|0.143|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||=0.143
91098215|NCT02421211|182081785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means ratio|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.5|2.0||||||||2.0|1.5|
91098216|NCT02421211|182081786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means ratio|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.4|1.9||||||||1.9|1.4|
91098217|NCT02421211|182081787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means ratio|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.6|2.0||||||||2.0|1.6|
91098218|NCT00315822|182081814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.94||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.68|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.68|0.52|0.80
91098219|NCT02810327|182081815|OTHER|||||||0.054|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The MUSC Bioinformatics Core analyzed group genomic data for variant association with COPD severity score, including single variant association or type of variant association with symptoms. Descriptive statistical analysis was performed using statistical package SAS 9.4 for Windows (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA).||||0.054
91098220|NCT06262607|182081816|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) mean difference|6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.74||0.4422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.54|21.53|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||21.53|-9.54|0.4422
91098221|NCT01692756|182081827|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.33
91098222|NCT01692756|182081828|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.08
90850424|NCT00545129|181566835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|4.54|||Negative binomial regression|||Week 2: Negative binomial regression model with model terms for treatment as a main effect. P-value was based on negative binomial regression model from pairwise comparisons. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding negative binomial regression model.||4.54|0.72|0.207
90850425|NCT00545129|181566835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.92||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|4.93|||Negative binomial regression|||Week 3: Negative binomial regression model with model terms for treatment as a main effect. P-value was based on negative binomial regression model from pairwise comparisons. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding negative binomial regression model.||4.93|0.60|0.317
91098223|NCT01692756|182081829|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.93
91098224|NCT01692756|182081830|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.13
91098225|NCT01692756|182081831|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.15
91098226|NCT01692756|182081832|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.003
91098227|NCT01692756|182081833|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.007
91098228|NCT01692756|182081834|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.63
91098229|NCT01692756|182081835|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.17
91098230|NCT01692756|182081836|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.62
91098231|NCT01692756|182081837|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.02
91098232|NCT01692756|182081838|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.20
91098233|NCT01692756|182081839|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.87
91098234|NCT02969018|182081840|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-8.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.232||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.33|-4.95||Hochberg adjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.95|-12.33|0.0005
91098235|NCT02969018|182081840|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.206||0.0963|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.99|0.3||Hochberg adjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.30|-6.99|0.0963
91098236|NCT02969018|182081840|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.233||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.76|-3.37||Hochberg adjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.37|-10.76|0.0046
91098237|NCT02969018|182081840|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.238||0.0963|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.63|0.77||Hochberg adjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.77|-6.63|0.0963
91098238|NCT02969018|182081840|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-10.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.152|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.63|-6.51||Hochberg adjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-6.51|-13.63|<0.0001
91098239|NCT02969018|182081840|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.255||0.0158|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.79|-2.33||Hochberg adjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.33|-9.79|0.0158
91098240|NCT02969018|182081840|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.163||0.0488|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.24|-1.09||Hochberg adjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.09|-8.24|0.0488
91098241|NCT02969018|182081841|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.95|33.87|||||||Logistic regression|33.87|2.95|
91098242|NCT02969018|182081841|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.61|7.36|||||||Logistic regression|7.36|0.61|
91098243|NCT02969018|182081841|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.71|30.48|||||||Logistic regression|30.48|2.71|
91098244|NCT02969018|182081841|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.59|7.55|||||||Logistic regression|7.55|0.59|
91098245|NCT02969018|182081841|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|41.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|10.8|160.68|||||||Logistic regression|160.68|10.80|
91098246|NCT02969018|182081841|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.59|7.55|||||||Logistic regression|7.55|0.59|
91098247|NCT02969018|182081841|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.17|12.74|||||||Logistic regression|12.74|1.17|
91098248|NCT02969018|182081842|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.47|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.43|-6.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-6.57|-11.43|<0.0001
91098249|NCT02969018|182081842|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.502|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.48|-5.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.51|-10.48|<0.0001
91098250|NCT00827242|182081862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.004||95.0||||The p-value associates with LS Mean difference of changes from baseline to 12 weeks between treatment groups for IPSS. Under the pre-specified fixed sequence testing procedure, the significance level of 0.05 is used for assessment.|ANCOVA|||||||0.004
91098251|NCT00827242|182081863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.029||95.0||||The p-value associates with LS Mean difference of changes from baseline to 4 weeks between treatment groups for BII. Under the pre-specified fixed sequence testing procedure, the significance level of 0.05 is used for assessment.|ANCOVA|||||||0.029
91098252|NCT00827242|182081864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.057||95.0||||The p-value associates with LS Mean difference of changes from baseline to 12 weeks between treatment groups for BII. Under the pre-specified fixed sequence testing procedure, the significance level of 0.05 is used for assessment.|ANCOVA|||||||0.057
91098253|NCT00827242|182081865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.002||95.0||||The p-value associates with LS Mean difference of changes from baseline to 12 weeks between treatment groups for IPSS storage subscore. Under the pre-specified fixed sequence testing procedure, the significance level of 0.05 is used for assessment.|ANCOVA|||||||0.002
91098254|NCT00827242|182081866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.02||95.0||||The p-value associates with LS Mean difference of changes from baseline to 12 weeks between treatment groups for IPSS voiding subscore. Under the pre-specified fixed sequence testing procedure, the significance level of 0.05 is used for assessment.|ANCOVA|||||||0.020
91098255|NCT00827242|182081867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.233||95.0||||The p-value associates with LS Mean difference of changes from baseline to 12 weeks between treatment groups for IPSS nocturia question. Under the pre-specified fixed sequence testing procedure, the significance level of 0.05 is used for assessment.|ANCOVA|||||||0.233
91098256|NCT00827242|182081868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.013||95.0||||The p-value associates with LS Mean difference of changes from baseline to 12 weeks between treatment groups for IPSS QoL Index. Under the pre-specified fixed sequence testing procedure, the significance level of 0.05 is used for assessment.|ANCOVA|||||||0.013
91098257|NCT00827242|182081869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021||95.0||||The p-value associates with difference between treatment groups for the 7 response categories.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Results were adjusted for baseline LUTS severity (moderate \[total IPSS \< 20\]; severe \[total IPSS \>= 20\]||||||0.021
91098258|NCT00827242|182081870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0||||The p-value associates with difference between treatment groups for the 7 response categories.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Results were adjusted for baseline LUTS severity (moderate \[total IPSS \< 20\]; severe \[total IPSS \>= 20\]||||||0.009
91098259|NCT00827242|182081871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.146||95.0||||The p-value associates with LS Mean difference of changes from baseline to 1 week between treatment groups for IPSS. Under the pre-specified fixed sequence testing procedure, the significance level of 0.05 is used for assessment.|ANCOVA|||||||0.146
90850426|NCT00545129|181566835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.71|||Negative binomial regression|||Week 4: Negative binomial regression model with model terms for treatment as a main effect. P-value was based on negative binomial regression model from pairwise comparisons. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding negative binomial regression model.||3.71|0.50|0.554
90850427|NCT00545129|181566835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.89|||Negative binomial regression|||Week 5: Negative binomial regression model with model terms for treatment as a main effect. P-value was based on negative binomial regression model from pairwise comparisons. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding negative binomial regression model.||1.89|0.32|0.581
91098260|NCT00827242|182081872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.003||95.0||||The p-value associates with LS Mean difference of changes from baseline to 4 weeks between treatment groups for IPSS. Under the pre-specified fixed sequence testing procedure, the significance level of 0.05 is used for assessment.|ANCOVA|||||||0.003
91098261|NCT00827242|182081873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12|<|0.001||95.0||||The p-value associates with LS Mean difference of changes from baseline to 12 weeks between treatment groups for IIEF-EF domain score. Under the pre-specified fixed sequence testing procedure, the significance level of 0.05 is used for assessment.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91098262|NCT00827242|182081874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3||95.0||||The p-value associates with mean difference of changes from baseline to 12 weeks between treatment groups for Qmax. Under the pre-specified fixed sequence testing procedure, the significance level of 0.05 is used for assessment.|ranked ANOVA|||||||0.300
91098263|NCT00827242|182081877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5||95.0||||The p-value associates with mean difference of changes from baseline to 12 weeks between treatment groups for PVR volume. Under the pre-specified fixed sequence testing procedure, the significance level of 0.05 is used for assessment.|ranked ANOVA|||||||0.500
91098264|NCT01479530|182081895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|-0.07|||ANCOVA|||||-0.07|-0.92|0.0228
91098265|NCT01479530|182081896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.22|||ANCOVA|||||-0.22|-0.61|<0.0001
91098266|NCT01479530|182081897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.0075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|-0.27|||ANCOVA|||||-0.27|-1.75|0.0075
91098267|NCT01479530|182081898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.0317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.05|-0.14|||ANCOVA|||||-0.14|-3.05|0.0317
90850428|NCT00545129|181566835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.43|||Negative binomial regression|||Week 6: Negative binomial regression model with model terms for treatment as a main effect. P-value was based on negative binomial regression model from pairwise comparisons. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding negative binomial regression model.||1.43|0.26|0.252
90900075|NCT00244374|181666383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.44|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios adjusted for age, race, sex, years injecting.|Odds for travel in the past 3 months as a risk factor for used (injected/snorted/smoked) heroin in the past 30 days|Adjusted odds with 95% confidence intervals for travel as a risk factor for each behavior.||2.44|0.80|0.05
90850429|NCT00545129|181566835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.64|||Negative binomial regression|||Week 7: Negative binomial regression model with model terms for treatment as a main effect. P-value was based on negative binomial regression model from pairwise comparisons. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding negative binomial regression model.||1.64|0.26|0.365
90850430|NCT00545129|181566835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.36|||Negative binomial regression|||Week 8: Negative binomial regression model with model terms for treatment as a main effect. P-value was based on negative binomial regression model from pairwise comparisons. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding negative binomial regression model.||1.36|0.25|0.212
90850431|NCT00545129|181566836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.55|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2 (Fatigue MDA): LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding repeated measures ANCOVA model.||0.55|-0.13|0.215
90850432|NCT00545129|181566836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.42|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4 (Fatigue MDA): LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding repeated measures ANCOVA model.||0.42|-0.45|0.947
90850433|NCT00545129|181566836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6 (Fatigue MDA): LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding repeated measures ANCOVA model.||0.20|-0.56|0.341
90850434|NCT00545129|181566836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2 (Drowsiness MDA): LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding repeated measures ANCOVA model.||0.17|-0.83|0.180
90850435|NCT00545129|181566836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.84|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4 (Drowsiness MDA): LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding repeated measures ANCOVA model.||0.84|-0.43|0.509
90850436|NCT00545129|181566836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.82|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6 (Drowsiness MDA): LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding repeated measures ANCOVA model.||0.82|-0.62|0.767
90850437|NCT00545129|181566836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.95|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2 (Inability to Concentrate MDA): LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding repeated measures ANCOVA model.||0.95|-0.11|0.108
90850438|NCT00545129|181566836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|0.41|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4 (Inability to Concentrate MDA): LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding repeated measures ANCOVA model.||0.41|-1.26|0.280
90850439|NCT00545129|181566836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|1.15|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6 (Inability to Concentrate MDA): LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding repeated measures ANCOVA model.||1.15|-1.53|0.747
90850440|NCT00545129|181566836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.88|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2 (Nausea MDA): LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding repeated measures ANCOVA model.||0.88|-0.87|0.991
90850441|NCT00545129|181566836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.99|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4 (Nausea MDA): LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding repeated measures ANCOVA model.||0.99|-0.41|0.335
90850442|NCT00545129|181566836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.57|1.48|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6 (Nausea MDA): LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding repeated measures ANCOVA model.||1.48|-4.57|0.159
90850443|NCT00545129|181566836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.94|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2 (Dizziness MDA): LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding repeated measures ANCOVA model.||0.94|-0.16|0.136
90850444|NCT00545129|181566836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.46|5.9|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6 (Dizziness MDA): LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding repeated measures ANCOVA model.||5.90|-3.46|0.186
90850445|NCT00545129|181566836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|0.49|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2 (Constipation MDA): LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding repeated measures ANCOVA model.||0.49|-1.52|0.292
90850446|NCT00545129|181566836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|1.3|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4 (Constipation MDA): LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding repeated measures ANCOVA model.||1.30|-0.34|0.225
90900076|NCT00244374|181666383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|2.76|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios adjusted for age, race, sex, years injecting.|Odds for travel in the past 3 months as a risk factor for having Used (injected/snorted/smoked) powder cocaine in the past 30 days|Adjusted odds with 95% confidence intervals for travel as a risk factor for each behavior.||2.76|1.12|0.01
91098268|NCT01119222|182081899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.45|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.82|4.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pre-dose; mixed effect model with random subject effect, fixed period and treatment effects and random subject-by-visit effect as residual. Sample sizing calculated based on results from previous methodology studies performed using the same cold pain test; primary criteria was ability to detect a significant gabapentin effect over placebo.||4.38|-3.82|
91098269|NCT01119222|182081899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.45|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.53|4.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pre-dose; mixed effect model with random subject effect, fixed period and treatment effects and random subject-by-visit effect as residual.||4.68|-3.53|
91098270|NCT01119222|182081899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.45|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.99|4.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pre-dose; mixed effect model with random subject effect, fixed period and treatment effects and random subject-by-visit effect as residual.||4.22|-3.99|
91098271|NCT01119222|182081899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.97|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.15|5.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1 hour post-dose: mixed effect model with random subject effect, fixed period and treatment effects and random subject-by-visit effect as residual.||5.44|-1.15|
91098272|NCT01119222|182081899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.97|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.48|-7.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1 hour post-dose: mixed effect model with random subject effect, fixed period and treatment effects and random subject-by-visit effect as residual.||-7.89|-14.48|
91098273|NCT01119222|182081899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.96|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.2|8.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1 hour post-dose: mixed effect model with random subject effect, fixed period and treatment effects and random subject-by-visit effect as residual.||8.78|2.20|
91098274|NCT01119222|182081899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.87|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.53|4.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1.5 hours post-dose: mixed effect model with random subject effect, fixed period and treatment effects and random subject-by-visit effect as residual.||4.08|-5.53|
90850447|NCT00545129|181566836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|1.07|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6 (Constipation MDA): LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding repeated measures ANCOVA model.||1.07|-0.58|0.517
90957590|NCT01445301|181795306|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper 95% confidence was less than the pre-defined threshold (-Δ \[non-inferiority margin, -3.8\]) of 3.8, non-inferiority of GSK2585823 once daily to CLDM twice daily would be established.|Mean Difference (Net)|-9.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.11|-4.75|||ANCOVA|||Total Lesion Counts, WEEK 12||-4.75|-14.11|<0.001
90850448|NCT00545129|181566836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|2.48|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2 (Itching MDA): LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding repeated measures ANCOVA model.||2.48|-2.48|1.000
91098275|NCT01119222|182081899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.87|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.74|-9.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1.5 hours post-dose: mixed effect model with random subject effect, fixed period and treatment effects and random subject-by-visit effect as residual.||-9.13|-18.74|
91098276|NCT01119222|182081899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.92|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.01|7.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1.5 hours post-dose: mixed effect model with random subject effect, fixed period and treatment effects and random subject-by-visit effect as residual.||7.78|-2.01|
91098277|NCT01119222|182081899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.66|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.32|6.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2 hours post-dose: mixed effect model with random subject effect, fixed period and treatment effects and random subject-by-visit effect as residual.||6.96|-5.32|
91098278|NCT01119222|182081899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.59|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-19.14|-7.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2 hours post-dose: mixed effect model with random subject effect, fixed period and treatment effects and random subject-by-visit effect as residual.||-7.09|-19.14|
91098279|NCT01119222|182081899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.59|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.45|7.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2 hours post-dose: mixed effect model with random subject effect, fixed period and treatment effects and random subject-by-visit effect as residual.||7.60|-4.45|
91098280|NCT01119222|182081899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.39|2.32||||||4 hours post-dose: mixed effect model with random subject effect, fixed period and treatment effects and random subject-by-visit effect as residual.||2.32|-7.39|
91098281|NCT01119222|182081899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.44|-4.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||4 hours post-dose: mixed effect model with random subject effect, fixed period and treatment effects and random subject-by-visit effect as residual.||-4.73|-14.44|
91098282|NCT01119222|182081899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.85|4.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|||4 hours post-dose: mixed effect model with random subject effect, fixed period and treatment effects and random subject-by-visit effect as residual.||4.85|-4.85|
91098283|NCT01119222|182081899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.22|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.23|4.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||8 hours post-dose: mixed effect model with random subject effect, fixed period and treatment effects and random subject-by-visit effect as residual.||4.22|-3.23|
90850449|NCT00545129|181566836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.99|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4 (Itching MDA): LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding repeated measures ANCOVA model.||-0.99|-1.01|<0.001
91098284|NCT01119222|182081899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.22|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.19|-3.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||8 hours post-dose: mixed effect model with random subject effect, fixed period and treatment effects and random subject-by-visit effect as residual.||-3.75|-11.19|
91098285|NCT01119222|182081899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.22|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.99|3.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||8 hours post-dose: mixed effect model with random subject effect, fixed period and treatment effects and random subject-by-visit effect as residual.||3.45|-3.99|
91098286|NCT01119222|182081900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.17|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.24|3.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.04|-4.24|
91098287|NCT01119222|182081900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.17|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.07|-5.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.79|-13.07|
91098288|NCT01119222|182081900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.17|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.8|4.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.48|-2.80|
91098289|NCT03491917|182081933|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin is delta = 0.05.|||||<|0.01||||||The average difference in AUC was 0.023 (two-sided 95% CI: -0.012, 0.059; non-inferiority p \< 0.01 for non-inferiority margin delta = -0.05).|t-test, 2 sided|df: 417.0 for FFDM, 424.6 for DBT plus S-View, and (1, 18.9) for the difference.||The primary endpoint for this study was a non-inferior per-subject average area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC) requiring correct lesion localization for DBT (digital breast tomosynthesis) plus S-View (synthesized view) versus FFDM (full field digital mammography). AUCs for each reader were estimated in each review condition based on per-subject probability of malignancy (POM) scores requiring correct lesion localization.||||<0.01
91098290|NCT04615507|182081944|SUPERIORITY|The superiority of the Test lens will be concluded if the upper confidence limit of the mean is below the predefined threshold +0.00 logMAR for Distance.|Mean estimate|-0.132|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0201|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|-0.083|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger Method was used for denominator degrees of freedom.||||-0.083|-0.180|
91098291|NCT04615507|182081944|SUPERIORITY|The superiority of the Test lens will be concluded if the upper confidence limit of the mean is below the predefined threshold +0.17 logMAR for Intermediate.|Mean estimate|-0.066|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0202|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.115|-0.017|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger Method was used for denominator degrees of freedom.||||-0.017|-0.115|
91098292|NCT04615507|182081944|SUPERIORITY|The superiority of the Test lens will be concluded if the upper confidence limit of the mean is below the predefined threshold +0.17 logMAR for Near.|Mean estimate|0.072|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0217|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.022|0.121|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger Method was used for denominator degrees of freedom.||||0.121|0.022|
91098293|NCT04615507|182081945|SUPERIORITY|The superiority of the Test lens will be concluded if the lower confidence limit of the LSM is above the predefined threshold 32 points.|Least-square mean|59.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.05|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.3|66.8|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger Method was used for the denominator degrees of freedom||||66.8|52.3|
91098294|NCT04615507|182081945|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-Inferiority of the Test lens relative to the Control will be concluded if the lower confidence limit of LSM difference is above -5 points.|Least-square mean difference|5.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.36|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|10.2|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger Method was used for the denominator degrees of freedom|LSM difference was calculated as Test minus Control|||10.2|0.9|
91098295|NCT05887401|182081960|SUPERIORITY|ITT analysis using linear mixed models comparing MVPA change over time (from baseline to 3 months). We fit a linear mixed model that included a random effect for participant and predictors (fixed effects) included time (baseline vs. follow-up) and all 4 factors.|Mean Difference (Net)|61.45||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.95|112.95||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full sample.|Mixed Models Analysis|DF(2, 119)|The positive parameter estimate indicates an increase in MVPA over time for the full sample.|||112.95|9.95|0.02
90850450|NCT00545129|181566836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|1.63|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2 (Difficulty with Urination MDA): LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding repeated measures ANCOVA model.||1.63|-0.75|0.362
91098296|NCT05887401|182081960|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|21.36||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.89|113.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|DF(1, 69)|Green food monitoring (reference) vs red food monitoring; a positive estimation parameter indicates that the reference group had greater increases in MVPA over time.|ITT analysis for factor 1 (dietary self-monitoring) using linear mixed models comparing the effect of simplified dietary monitoring (green vs. red) on MVPA change over time (from baseline to 3 months).||113.61|-70.89|0.65
91098297|NCT05887401|182081960|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-60.05||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-152.4|32.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|DF(1,70)|Nutrition goals (yes; reference) vs no goals provided; a negative estimation parameter indicates that the non-referent group had greater increases in MVPA over time.|ITT analysis for factor 2 (dietary goals) using linear mixed models comparing the effect of dietary goals (yes vs. no) on MVPA change over time (from baseline to 3 months).||32.39|-152.40|0.20
91098298|NCT05887401|182081960|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|29.52||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.07|122.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|DF(1,70)|Supportive text messages (yes; reference) vs no text messages; a positive estimation parameter indicates that the reference group had greater increases in MVPA over time.|ITT analysis for factor 3 (supportive text messages) using linear mixed models comparing the effect of text messages (yes vs. no) on MVPA change over time (from baseline to 3 months).||122.11|-63.07|0.53
91098299|NCT05887401|182081960|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.5||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-113.26|72.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|DF(1,70)|Lesson delivery once (reference) vs weekly; a negative estimation parameter indicates that the non-referent group had greater increases in MVPA over time.|ITT analysis for factor 4 (lesson delivery) using linear mixed models comparing the effect of lesson timing (once vs. weekly) on MVPA change over time (from baseline to 3 months).||72.27|-113.26|0.66
91098300|NCT05887401|182081961|SUPERIORITY|ITT analysis using linear mixed models comparing self-reported MVPA change over time (from baseline to 3 months). We fit a linear mixed model that included a random effect for participant and predictors (fixed effects) included time (baseline vs. follow-up) and all 4 factors.|Mean Difference (Net)|44.87||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.39|75.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|DF(2,127)|The positive parameter estimate indicates an increase in self-reported MVPA over time for the full sample.|||75.43|14.39|0.004
91032805|NCT01149473|181950846|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|99.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.6|101.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||101|98.6|
91098301|NCT05887401|182081961|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-15.32||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.96|28.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|DF(1,72)|Green food monitoring (reference) vs red food monitoring; a negative estimation parameter indicates that the non-referent group had greater increases in MVPA over time.|ITT analysis for factor 1 (dietary self-monitoring) using linear mixed models comparing the effect of simplified dietary monitoring (green vs. red) on self-reported MVPA change over time (from baseline to 3 months).||28.32|-58.96|0.47
91098302|NCT05887401|182081961|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|16.02||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.67|59.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|DF(1,73)|Nutrition goals (yes; reference) vs no goals provided; a positive estimation parameter indicates that the reference group had greater increases in self-reported MVPA over time.|ITT analysis for factor 2 (dietary goals) using linear mixed models comparing the effect of dietary goals (yes vs. no) on self-reported MVPA change over time (from baseline to 3 months).||59.7|-27.67|0.47
90850451|NCT00545129|181566836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.08||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.87|51.87|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4 (Difficulty with Urination MDA): LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding repeated measures ANCOVA model.||51.87|-51.87|1.000
90850452|NCT00545129|181566836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-2.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-0.76|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4 (Retching/Vomiting MDR): LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding repeated measures ANCOVA model.||-0.76|-3.30|0.031
90850453|NCT00545129|181566836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.32|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2 (Frequency Composite Score): LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding repeated measures ANCOVA model.||0.32|-0.28|0.886
90850454|NCT00545129|181566836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.33|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4 (Frequency Composite Score): LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding repeated measures ANCOVA model.||0.33|-0.52|0.660
90850455|NCT00545129|181566836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.14|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6 (Frequency Composite Score): LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding repeated measures ANCOVA model.||0.14|-0.54|0.238
90850456|NCT00545129|181566836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.16|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2 (Severity Composite Score): LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding repeated measures ANCOVA model.||0.16|-0.42|0.360
90850457|NCT00545129|181566836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.54|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4 (Severity Composite Score): LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding repeated measures ANCOVA model.||0.54|-0.16|0.278
90850458|NCT00545129|181566836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.27|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6 (Severity Composite Score): LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding repeated measures ANCOVA model.||0.27|-0.34|0.809
90850459|NCT00545129|181566836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.38|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2 (Bother Composite Score): LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding repeated measures ANCOVA model.||0.38|-0.35|0.944
90850460|NCT00545129|181566836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.55|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4 (Bother Composite Score): LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding repeated measures ANCOVA model.||0.55|-0.48|0.892
90850461|NCT00545129|181566836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.45|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6 (Bother Composite Score): LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding repeated measures ANCOVA model.||0.45|-0.39|0.884
90850462|NCT00545129|181566836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.28|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2 (MDA Composite Score): LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding repeated measures ANCOVA model.||0.28|-0.26|0.919
90850463|NCT00545129|181566836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.45|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4 (MDA Composite Score): LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding repeated measures ANCOVA model.||0.45|-0.33|0.752
90850464|NCT00545129|181566836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.24|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6 (MDA Composite Score): LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding repeated measures ANCOVA model.||0.24|-0.34|0.715
90850465|NCT00545129|181566837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|1.18|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1 (Composite Score): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||1.18|-0.77|0.666
90850466|NCT00545129|181566837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|1.18|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2 (Composite Score): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||1.18|-0.86|0.745
91098303|NCT05887401|182081961|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|9.72||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.09|53.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|DF(1,71)|Supportive text messages (yes; reference) vs no text messages; a positive estimation parameter indicates that the reference group had greater increases in self-reported MVPA over time.|ITT analysis for factor 3 (supportive text messages) using linear mixed models comparing the effect of text messages (yes vs. no) on self-reported MVPA change over time (from baseline to 3 months).||53.52|-34.09|0.66
90850467|NCT00545129|181566837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|0.83|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4 (Composite Score): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||0.83|-1.14|0.749
91098304|NCT05887401|182081961|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-42.15||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-86.04|1.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|DF(1,72)|Lesson delivery once (reference) vs weekly; a negative estimation parameter indicates that the non-referent group had greater increases in self-reported MVPA over time.|ITT analysis for factor 4 (lesson delivery) using linear mixed models comparing the effect of lesson timing (once vs. weekly) on self-reported MVPA change over time (from baseline to 3 months).||1.73|-86.04|0.06
91098305|NCT05887401|182081962|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.49||||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|5.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|DF(1,61)|The positive parameter estimate indicates an increase in HEI score over time for the full sample.|ITT analysis using linear mixed models comparing HEI score change over time (from baseline to 3 months). We fit a linear mixed model that included a random effect for participant and predictors (fixed effects) included time (baseline vs. follow-up) and all 4 factors.||5.54|-0.56|0.109
91098306|NCT05887401|182081962|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.17||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.42|5.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|DF(1,68)|Green food monitoring (reference) vs red food monitoring; a negative estimation parameter indicates that the non-referent group had greater increases in HEI score.|ITT analysis for factor 1 (dietary self-monitoring) using linear mixed models comparing the effect of simplified dietary monitoring (green vs. red) on HEI score change over time (from baseline to 3 months).||5.08|-7.42|0.71
91098307|NCT05887401|182081962|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.44||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.82|6.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|DF(1,68)|Nutrition goals (yes; reference) vs no goals provided; a positive estimation parameter indicates that the reference group had greater increases in HEI score over time.|ITT analysis for factor 2 (dietary goals) using linear mixed models comparing the effect of dietary goals (yes vs. no) on HEI score change over time (from baseline to 3 months).||6.69|-5.82|0.89
91098308|NCT05887401|182081962|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.66||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|9.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|DF(1,68)|Supportive text messages (yes; reference) vs no text messages; a positive estimation parameter indicates that the reference group had greater increases in HEI score over time.|ITT analysis for factor 3 (supportive text messages) using linear mixed models comparing the effect of text messages (yes vs. no) on HEI score change over time (from baseline to 3 months).||9.93|-2.61|0.25
90850468|NCT00545129|181566837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.9|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6 (Composite Score): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||0.90|-1.16|0.794
90850469|NCT00545129|181566837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|1.0|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8 (Composite Score): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||1.00|-1.33|0.772
90850470|NCT00545129|181566837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|1.34|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1 (General Activity): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||1.34|-0.73|0.547
90850471|NCT00545129|181566837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|0.91|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2 (General Activity): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||0.91|-1.43|0.650
90850472|NCT00545129|181566837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|1.0|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4 (General Activity): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||1.00|-1.27|0.808
90850473|NCT00545129|181566837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|1.07|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6 (General Activity): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||1.07|-1.19|0.915
90850474|NCT00545129|181566837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|1.14|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8 (General Activity): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||1.14|-1.54|0.757
90850475|NCT00545129|181566837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|1.17|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1 (Walking Ability): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||1.17|-1.19|0.987
90850476|NCT00545129|181566837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|1.51|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2 (Walking Ability): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||1.51|-1.14|0.781
90850477|NCT00545129|181566837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|1.38|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4 (Walking Ability): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||1.38|-1.13|0.834
90850478|NCT00545129|181566837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|1.1|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6 (Walking Ability): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||1.10|-1.32|0.851
90850479|NCT00545129|181566837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|1.15|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8 (Walking Ability): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||1.15|-1.68|0.701
90850480|NCT00545129|181566837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|0.77|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1 (Normal Work): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||0.77|-1.68|0.453
90850481|NCT00545129|181566837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67||0.258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2 (Normal Work): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||0.60|-2.15|0.258
90850482|NCT00545129|181566837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|1.09|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4 (Normal Work): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||1.09|-1.53|0.736
90850483|NCT00545129|181566837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|0.87|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6 (Normal Work): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||0.87|-1.76|0.491
90850484|NCT00545129|181566837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|1.04|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8 (Normal Work): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||1.04|-1.53|0.695
90850485|NCT00545129|181566838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|1.19|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1 (Composite Score): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||1.19|-1.34|0.897
90850486|NCT00545129|181566838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.43|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2 (Composite Score): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||1.43|-0.90|0.643
90850487|NCT00545129|181566838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|0.68|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4 (Composite Score): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||0.68|-1.45|0.464
90850488|NCT00545129|181566838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|0.86|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6 (Composite Score): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||0.86|-1.46|0.593
90900077|NCT00244374|181666383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.44|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios adjusted for age, race, sex, years injecting.|Odds for travel in the prior 3 months as a risk factor for having Used (injected and/or snorted) crack cocaine in the past 30 days|Adjusted odds with 95% confidence intervals for travel as a risk factor for each behavior.||2.44|1.00|0.05
90900078|NCT00244374|181666383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.98|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios adjusted for age, race, sex, years injecting.|Odds for travel in the prior 3 months as a risk factor for having Used (injected/snorted/smoked) methamphetamine in the past 30 days|Adjusted odds with 95% confidence intervals for travel as a risk factor for each behavior.||0.98|0.35|0.03
90900079|NCT00244374|181666383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.99|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|3.59|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios adjusted for age, race, sex, years injecting.|Odds for travel in the prior 3 months as a risk factor for poly-substance use in the past 30 days|Adjusted odds with 95% confidence intervals for travel as a risk factor for each behavior.||3.59|1.11|<0.01
91098309|NCT05887401|182081962|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.83||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.11|4.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|DF(1,68)|Lesson delivery once (reference) vs weekly; a negative estimation parameter indicates that the non-referent group had greater increases in HEI score over time.|ITT analysis for factor 4 (lesson delivery) using linear mixed models comparing the effect of lesson timing (once vs. weekly) on HEI score change over time (from baseline to 3 months).||4.45|-8.11|0.57
91098310|NCT03010501|182082029|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||According to predefined comparisons, outcomes of the 80% and 120% Food Energy Density interventions were compared to the outcome of the baseline (100%) intervention.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91098311|NCT03010501|182082030|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1||||||According to predefined comparisons, intake by weight in the 80% intervention was compared to the 100% intervention.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.10
91098312|NCT03010501|182082030|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15||||||According to predefined comparisons, intake by weight in the 120% intervention was compared to the 100% intervention.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.15
91098313|NCT03010501|182082031|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||According to predefined comparisons, outcomes of the 80% and 120% Food Energy Density interventions were compared to the outcome of the baseline (100%) intervention.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91098314|NCT02347787|182082035|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Regression, Linear|||Determination of targeted sample size was based on detecting a between-arm difference in mean change in SF-12 Physical Component Summary of 3 points, which is the minimal clinically significant difference for this instrument. To achieve at least 80% power with a type I error rate of 5%, we required 444 total participants. To account for 25% attrition, we aimed to accrue 592 participants.||||0.30
91098315|NCT02347787|182082036|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.2||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.9|||Regression, Linear|||||0.9|-1.3|0.21
91098316|NCT02347787|182082037|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.2||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.4|||Regression, Linear|||||0.4|-0.7|0.21
91098317|NCT02347787|182082038|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.5||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.2|||Regression, Linear|||||1.2|-2.2|0.21
91098318|NCT02347787|182082039|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.3||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|1.8|||Regression, Linear|||||1.8|-14.3|0.21
91098319|NCT02347787|182082040|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.41
91098320|NCT02347787|182082041|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
91098321|NCT02347787|182082042|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.5|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.5|0.6|0.98
91098322|NCT02347787|182082044|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
91098323|NCT02347787|182082045|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.02
91098324|NCT02347787|182082046|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.04
91098325|NCT02347787|182082048|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.09
91098326|NCT02347787|182082049|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.06
90900080|NCT00244374|181666383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.87|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.84|12.28|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios adjusted for age, race, sex, years injecting.|Odds for travel in the prior 3 months as a risk factor for Heavy drinking (\>14 and \>21 drinks/week for women and men respectively) in the past 30 days|Adjusted odds with 95% confidence intervals for travel as a risk factor for each behavior.||12.28|3.84|<0.01
91098327|NCT02743494|182082116|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|96.4|0.56|0.86|||Stratified log-rank test||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model. Hazard Ratio is Nivolumab over Placebo.|||0.86|0.56|0.0003
91098328|NCT02743494|182082117|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.1064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.03|||Log Rank||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model. Hazard Ratio is Nivolumab over Placebo.|||1.03|0.070|0.1064
91098329|NCT05399485|182082120|SUPERIORITY||[Difference in Least square (LS) Mean]|-1.1||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|-0.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed effects model with repeated measures with number of total migraine days per month in the OP as a covariate, treatment group, randomization stratum (stable prophylactic migraine medication use throughout randomization), month, and month-by treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||-0.38|-1.73|0.0021
91098330|NCT05399485|182082121|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|7.3||||0.0989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|15.9||P-value \>0.05; therefore, all secondary outcome measures listed after this outcome measure in the hierarchy were not tested.|Mantel Haenszel|||The percentages of participants with reductions were compared between treatment groups using Mantel-Haenszel risk estimation with stratification by randomization stratum (stable prophylactic migraine medication use throughout randomization; yes, no).||15.9|-1.4|0.0989
91098331|NCT02642679|182082165|OTHER|We set alpha=0.05/3=0.17 to account for multiple outcomes for sample size and power calculations. With 10 patients in each group, we had 95% power to detect an improvement of 2 points in VAS score assuming a common standard deviation of 1 point with a two sided two sample t-test each at alpha=0.17 level.|||||||||||||||||A student t-test was used for correlated samples to determine if there were significant differences in pain. Microsoft Excel 2010 (Microsoft Corp., Redmond, WA) was used for statistical analysis. Data that were considered normally distributed are reported as the mean ± standard deviation (SD) and percentage. P-values \<0.05 were considered significant.|||
91098332|NCT02642679|182082166|OTHER|We set alpha=0.05/3=0.17 to account for multiple outcomes for sample size and power calculations. With 10 patients in each group, we will have 80% power to detect an improvement in re-epithelialization from 14.6 days to 10 days assuming a common standard deviation of 2.9 days.|||||||||||||||||A student t-test was used for correlated samples to determine if there were significant differences in healing rate. Microsoft Excel 2010 (Microsoft Corp., Redmond, WA) was used for statistical analysis. Data that were considered normally distributed are reported as the mean ± standard deviation (SD) and percentage. P-values \<0.05 were considered significant.|||
91098333|NCT02642679|182082167|OTHER|We set alpha=0.05/3=0.17 to account for multiple outcomes for sample size and power calculations. With 10 patients in each group, we will have 95% power to detect an improvement of 2 points in VSS score assuming a common standard deviation of 1 point.|||||||||||||||||A student t-test was used for correlated samples to determine if there were significant differences in healing quality. Microsoft Excel 2010 (Microsoft Corp., Redmond, WA) was used for statistical analysis. Data that were considered normally distributed are reported as the mean ± standard deviation (SD) and percentage. P-values \<0.05 were considered significant.|||
91098334|NCT02014103|182082193|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Accord/Astellas Ratio X 100|115.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|107.04|125.22|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed AUC 0-12 parameters||125.22|107.04|
90900081|NCT00244374|181666383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.63|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|6.5|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios adjusted for age, race, sex, years injecting.|Adjusted odds for travel in the prior 3 months as a risk factor for Drank until blacked out in the past 30 days|Adjusted odds with 95% confidence intervals for travel as a risk factor for each behavior.||6.50|2.02|<0.01
90900082|NCT00244374|181666383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.56||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.93|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios adjusted for age, race, sex, years injecting.|Adjusted odds for travel in the prior 3 months as a risk factor for Injected daily, past 30 days|Adjusted odds with 95% confidence intervals for travel as a risk factor for each behavior.||0.93|0.33|0.04
90900083|NCT00244374|181666383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.16|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|3.4|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios adjusted for age, race, sex, years injecting.|Adjusted odds for travel in the prior 3 months as a risk factor for Median number of injected partners \>= 5 in the past 30 days|Adjusted odds with 95% confidence intervals for travel as a risk factor for each behavior.||3.40|1.37|<0.01
90900084|NCT00244374|181666383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.97|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios adjusted for age, race, sex, years injecting.|Adjusted odds for travel in prior 3 months as a risk factor for having Lent a needle/syringe in the past 30 days|Adjusted odds with 95% confidence interval for travel in the prior 3 months as a risk factor for having Lent a needle/syringe in the past 30 days||1.97|0.81|0.19
90900085|NCT00244374|181666383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.61|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|2.55|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios adjusted for age, race, sex, years injecting.|Adjusted odds for travel in prior 3 months as a risk factor for having Injected with someone else's used needle/syringe in the past 30 days|Adjusted odds ratio with 95 % confidence interval for travel in prior 3 months as a risk factor for having injected with someone else's used needle/syringe in the past 30 days||2.55|1.01|<0.01
91098335|NCT02014103|182082193|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Dr. Reddys/Astellas Ratio|103.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.91|112.12|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed AUC 0-12 parameters||112.12|95.91|
91098336|NCT02014103|182082193|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Mylan/Astellas Ratio X 100|99.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.3|107.89|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed AUC 0-12 parameters||107.89|92.30|
91098337|NCT02014103|182082193|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Panacea/Astellas Ratio|103.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.83|112.11|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed AUC 0-12 and Cmax parameters||112.11|95.83|
91098338|NCT02014103|182082193|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Sandoz/Astellas Ratio X100|101.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.03|110.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed AUC 0-12 and parameters||110.0|94.03|
91098339|NCT02014103|182082193|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Accord/Dr Reddys Ratio X 100|111.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.26|120.7|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed AUC 0-12 parameters||120.70|103.26|
90900086|NCT00244374|181666383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.07|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.79|5.27|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios adjusted for age, race, sex, years injecting.|Adjusted odds for travel in prior 3 months as a risk factor for having Pooled money to buy drugs in the past 30 days|Adjusted odds with 95% confidence interval for travel in the prior 3 months as a risk factor for having Pooled money to buy drugs in the past 30 days||5.27|1.79|<0.01
90900087|NCT00244374|181666383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|3.32|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios adjusted for age, race, sex, years injecting.|Adjusted odds for travel in prior 3 months as a risk factor for having Shared cooker/spook to prepare drugs in the past 30 days|Adjusted odds ratios with 95% confidence interval for travel in prior 3 months as risk factor for risk behaviors||3.32|1.34|<0.01
90900088|NCT00244374|181666383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.87|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|2.95|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios adjusted for age, race, sex, years injecting.|Adjusted odds for travel in prior 3 months as a risk factor for having used Backloaded Syringe in the past 30 days|Adjusted odds with 95 % confidence interval for travel as a risk factor for risk behaviors||2.95|1.19|<0.01
90900089|NCT00244374|181666383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|2.1|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios adjusted for age, race, sex, years injecting.|"Adjusted odds for travel in prior 3 months as a risk factor for having done Someone's rinse in the past 30 days"|Adjusted odds with 95% confidence interval for travel in prior 3 months as a risk factor for risk behavior in past 30 days||2.10|0.83|0.13
90900090|NCT00244374|181666383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.21|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|3.49|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios adjusted for age, race, sex, years injecting.|Adjusted odds for travel in prior 3 months as a risk factor for Median number of sexual partners \>=2 in the past 30 days|Adjusted odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals for travel in prior 3 months as a risk factor for risk behaviors in past 30 days||3.49|1.40|<0.01
90957591|NCT01445301|181795306|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper 95% confidence was less than the pre-defined threshold (-Δ \[non-inferiority margin, -3.8\]) of 3.8, non-inferiority of GSK2585823 once daily to CLDM twice daily would be established.|Mean Difference (Net)|-10.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.12|-5.97|||ANCOVA|||Inflammatory Lesion Counts, WEEK 1||-5.97|-15.12|<0.001
90850489|NCT00545129|181566838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|0.77|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8 (Composite Score): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||0.77|-1.77|0.423
90850490|NCT00545129|181566838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|1.54|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1 (General Activity): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||1.54|-1.21|0.805
90850491|NCT00545129|181566838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.51|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2 (General Activity): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||1.51|-1.30|0.882
90850492|NCT00545129|181566838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.79|0.81|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4 (General Activity): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||0.81|-1.79|0.446
90850493|NCT00545129|181566838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|1.05|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6 (General Activity): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||1.05|-1.77|0.604
90850494|NCT00545129|181566838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.24|0.91|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8 (General Activity): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||0.91|-2.24|0.393
90850495|NCT00545129|181566838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|0.97|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1 (Walking Ability): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||0.97|-2.33|0.399
90850496|NCT00545129|181566838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|1.66|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2 (Walking Ability): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||1.66|-1.43|0.876
90850497|NCT00545129|181566838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|1.14|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4 (Walking Ability): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||1.14|-1.58|0.740
90850498|NCT00545129|181566838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|1.31|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6 (Walking Ability): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||1.31|-1.56|0.854
90850499|NCT00545129|181566838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.24|1.0|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8 (Walking Ability): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||1.00|-2.24|0.436
90850500|NCT00545129|181566838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.81|0.21|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1 (Normal Work): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||0.21|-2.81|0.087
90850501|NCT00545129|181566838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.72|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2 (Normal Work): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||0.72|-2.40|0.278
90850502|NCT00545129|181566838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|1.0|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4 (Normal Work): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||1.00|-1.84|0.548
90850503|NCT00545129|181566838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|0.79|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6 (Normal Work): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||0.79|-2.33|0.318
90850504|NCT00545129|181566838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|0.99|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8 (Normal Work): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||0.99|-2.02|0.484
90850505|NCT00545129|181566839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.399|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1: P-value was calculated by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH test) stratified by center.||||0.399
90850506|NCT00545129|181566839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.779|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: P-value was calculated by CMH test stratified by center.||||0.779
90850507|NCT00545129|181566839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.922|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: P-value was calculated by CMH test stratified by center.||||0.922
91098340|NCT02014103|182082193|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Accord/Mylan Ratio X 100|116.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|107.27|125.49|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed AUC 0-12 parameters||125.49|107.27|
90850508|NCT00545129|181566839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.811|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6: P-value was calculated by CMH test stratified by center.||||0.811
90850509|NCT00545129|181566839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.237|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: P-value was calculated by CMH test stratified by center.||||0.237
90850510|NCT00545129|181566840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.09|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||0.09|-0.82|0.108
90850511|NCT00545129|181566840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.16|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||0.16|-0.70|0.202
90850512|NCT00545129|181566840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||0.30|-0.54|0.571
90850513|NCT00545129|181566840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.43|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||0.43|-0.55|0.808
90900091|NCT00244374|181666383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.85|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios adjusted for age, race, sex, years injecting.|Adjusted odds for travel in prior 3 months as a risk factor for having Traded sex for money or drugs in the past 30 days|Adjusted odds and 95% confidence interval for travel in prior 3 months as a risk factor for risk behaviors in past 30 days||1.85|0.45|0.86
91098341|NCT02014103|182082193|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Accord/Panacea Ratio X 100|111.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.27|120.81|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed AUC 0-12 parameters||120.81|103.27|
90850514|NCT00545129|181566840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.51|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||0.51|-0.57|0.913
90850515|NCT00545129|181566841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.09|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||0.09|-0.82|0.108
90850516|NCT00545129|181566841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.23|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||0.23|-0.65|0.339
90850517|NCT00545129|181566841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.28|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||0.28|-0.67|0.408
90850518|NCT00545129|181566841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.45|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||0.45|-0.67|0.686
90850519|NCT00545129|181566841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||0.40|-0.81|0.493
90850520|NCT00545129|181566842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.58||||0.724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|12.27|||Fisher Exact|||Week 1: The odds ratio with 95% 2-sided CI for the treatment contrast was given.||12.27|0.03|0.724
90900092|NCT00244374|181666383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.02|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios adjusted for age, race, sex, years injecting.|Adjusted odds for travel in prior 3 months as a risk factor for condom use \>90% (if sexually active)|Adjusted odds and 95% confidence interval for travel in prior 3 months as a risk factor for engaging in risk behavior during the past 30 days||2.02|0.59|0.73
90900093|NCT01411501|181666391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.352|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.352
90900094|NCT01411501|181666392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.968|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.968
90900095|NCT01411501|181666393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.841|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.841
91098342|NCT02014103|182082193|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Accord/Sandoz Ratio X 100|113.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|105.3|123.08|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed AUC 0-12 parameters||123.08|105.30|
90850521|NCT00545129|181566842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.947|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 2: P-value was calculated using Fisher Extract method.||||0.947
90900096|NCT01411501|181666394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.005
90900097|NCT01411501|181666395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.198|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.198
90900098|NCT01411501|181666396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.035
90900099|NCT00708721|181666397|OTHER||Maximum Tolerated Dose|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Based on cytopenias observed at day 10 (Phase 1 trial only), and the Phase II dose was determined to be 1 mg per day for 7 consecutive days given on a 28 day cycle.|||||
90900100|NCT04105972|181666406|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|15.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.7|20.1|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||20.1|11.7|< 0.0001
90900101|NCT04105972|181666407|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|10.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.2|12.1|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||12.1|8.2|<0.0001
90900102|NCT04105972|181666408|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-42.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.2|-39.3||||||||-39.3|-46.2|
91098343|NCT02014103|182082193|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Dr Reddys/Mylan Ratio X 100|103.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.08|112.4|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed AUC 0-12 parameters||112.40|96.08|
91098344|NCT02014103|182082193|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Dr Reddys/Panacea Ratio x 100|100.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.5|108.21|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed AUC 0-12 parameters||108.21|92.50|
90900103|NCT01966796|181666420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||The incidence of MDR pathogens (6.7%, 25.5%, 36.9% and 44.6% in PSI II, III, IV, and V, respectively, p=0.002) and mortality rate (0, 5.9%, 12.3%, and 23.8%, respectively, p\<0.001) increased with increasing PSI||||0.002
90900104|NCT03661996|181666472|NON_INFERIORITY|The treatment regimen is Clinically Acceptable if it is no more than 30% worse than the Breg Cooling Control Group and the lower bound of the 95% CI for Ratio of Geometric LS Means is greater than 0.7.|Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.063|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0216|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.019|1.108|||||Parameter dispersion is the Standard Error of the Ratio of Geometric LS Means|Geometric LS means, ratio of geometric LS means, with Breg Cooling as control, and 95% CIs were obtained from an ANCOVA model on the natural log-transformed composite outcome with cooling and injection procedure as the main effect. Baseline K-L grade, baseline BMI category, sex, and reverse-scored and normalized index knee procedure pain were included as covariates. Estimates and CIs on the log scale were exponentiated to obtain ratios of geometric means on the original scale.||1.108|1.019|
90900105|NCT03661996|181666472|NON_INFERIORITY|The treatment regimen is Clinically Acceptable if it is no more than 30% worse than the Breg Cooling Control Group and the lower bound of the 95% CI for Ratio of Geometric LS Means is greater than 0.7.|Ratio of Geometric LS Means|0.959|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0221|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.919|1.001|||||Parameter dispersion is the Standard Error of the Ratio of Geometric LS Means|Geometric LS means, ratio of geometric LS means, with Breg Cooling as control, and 95% CIs were obtained from an ANCOVA model on the natural log-transformed composite outcome with cooling and injection procedure as the main effect. Baseline K-L grade, baseline BMI category, sex, and reverse-scored and normalized index knee procedure pain were included as covariates. Estimates and CIs on the log scale were exponentiated to obtain ratios of geometric means on the original scale.||1.001|0.919|
90900106|NCT03661996|181666472|NON_INFERIORITY|The treatment regimen is Clinically Acceptable if it is no more than 30% worse than the Breg Cooling Control Group and the lower bound of the 95% CI for Ratio of Geometric LS Means is greater than 0.7.|Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.013|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0219|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.057|||||Parameter dispersion is the Standard Error of the Ratio of Geometric LS Means|Geometric LS means, ratio of geometric LS means, with Breg Cooling as control, and 95% CIs were obtained from an ANCOVA model on the natural log-transformed composite outcome with cooling and injection procedure as the main effect. Baseline K-L grade, baseline BMI category, sex, and reverse-scored and normalized index knee procedure pain were included as covariates. Estimates and CIs on the log scale were exponentiated to obtain ratios of geometric means on the original scale.||1.057|0.970|
90900107|NCT03661996|181666472|NON_INFERIORITY|The treatment regimen is Clinically Acceptable if it is no more than 30% worse than the Breg Cooling Control Group and the lower bound of the 95% CI for Ratio of Geometric LS Means is greater than 0.7.|Ratio of Geometric LS Means|0.931|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0219|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.892|0.972|||||Parameter dispersion is the Standard Error of the Ratio of Geometric LS Means|Geometric LS means, ratio of geometric LS means, with Breg Cooling as control, and 95% CIs were obtained from an ANCOVA model on the natural log-transformed composite outcome with cooling and injection procedure as the main effect. Baseline K-L grade, baseline BMI category, sex, and reverse-scored and normalized index knee procedure pain were included as covariates. Estimates and CIs on the log scale were exponentiated to obtain ratios of geometric means on the original scale.||0.972|0.892|
91098345|NCT02014103|182082193|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Dr Reddys/Sandoz Ratio X 100|101.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.28|110.29|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed AUC 0-12 parameters||110.29|94.28|
91098346|NCT02014103|182082193|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Mylan/Panacea Ratio X 100|96.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.05|104.09|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed AUC 0-12 parameters||104.09|89.05|
90957592|NCT01445301|181795306|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper 95% confidence was less than the pre-defined threshold (-Δ \[non-inferiority margin, -3.8\]) of 3.8, non-inferiority of GSK2585823 once daily to CLDM twice daily would be established|Mean Difference (Net)|-7.21||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.73|-1.69|||ANCOVA|||Inflammatory Lesion Counts, WEEK 2||-1.69|-12.73|0.011
91030799|NCT03587207|181946145|OTHER|rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S is to be declared statistically inferior if the 2-sided 80% CIs of the between group ratio of the GMT with rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D as control is lower than 1 at 1 month after last vaccination. The following ANCOVA model is used: fixed-effect model including age strata, study group, strain and center as fixed effects. The pre vaccination (Baseline) log-transformed titer with centering at zero is included as a continuous covariate.|Geometric mean ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.83|1.1|||ANCOVA|An interaction between strain and pre-vaccination log transformed titer is included in the model to fit to the serogroup B test strain data only.||Immune interference due to stress to lymph nodes (lymph-node effect) in rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S versus rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D study groups, on the pooled B strains, one month after last vaccination.||1.10|0.83|
91030800|NCT03587207|181946146|OTHER|M14459 strain-Between group ratios for comparison of rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S and rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D groups|Geometric mean ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.84|1.2|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||Immune interference due to stress to lymph nodes (lymph-node effect) in rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S versus rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D study groups, on the Meningitis B M14459 (fHbp) strain, one month after last vaccination.||1.20|0.84|
91030801|NCT03587207|181946146|OTHER|96217 strain-Between group ratios for comparison of rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S and rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D groups|Geometric mean ratio|1.05||||||80.0|0.88|1.26|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||Immune interference due to stress to lymph nodes (lymph-node effect) in rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S versus rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D study groups, on the Meningitis B 96217 (NadA) strain, one month after last vaccination.||1.26|0.88|
91030802|NCT03587207|181946146|OTHER|NZ98/254 strain-Between group ratios for comparison of rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S and rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D groups|Geometric mean ratio|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.64|0.95|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||Immune interference due to stress to lymph nodes (lymph-node effect) in rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S versus rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D study groups, on the Meningitis B NZ98/254 (PorA) strain, one month after last vaccination.||0.95|0.64|
91030803|NCT03587207|181946146|OTHER|M07-0241084 strain- Between group ratios for comparison of rMenBOMV\_ACWY\_S group and rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D group|Geometric mean ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.66|0.96|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||Immune interference due to stress to lymph nodes (lymph-node effect) in rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S versus rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D study groups, on the Meningitis B M07-0241084 (NHBA) strain, one month after last vaccination.||0.96|0.66|
91030804|NCT03587207|181946146|OTHER|Serogroup A- Between group ratio for comparison of rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S group and rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D group|Geometric mean ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.74|1.14|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||Immune interference due to stress to lymph nodes (lymph-node effect) in rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S versus rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D study groups, on the Meningitis serogroup A, one month after last vaccination.||1.14|0.74|
91030805|NCT03587207|181946146|OTHER|Serogroup C- Between group ratio for comparison of rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S group and rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D group|Geometric mean ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.78|1.27|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||Immune interference due to stress to lymph nodes (lymph-node effect) in rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S versus rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D study groups, on the Meningitis serogroup C, one month after last vaccination.||1.27|0.78|
91030806|NCT03587207|181946146|OTHER|Serogroup W- Between group ratios for comparison of rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S group and rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D group|Geometric mean ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.79|1.18|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||Immune interference due to stress to lymph nodes (lymph-node effect) in rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S versus rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D study groups, on the Meningitis serogroup W, one month after last vaccination.||1.18|0.79|
91030807|NCT03587207|181946146|OTHER|Serogroup Y- Between group ratio for comparison of rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S group and rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D group|Geometric mean ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.69|1.19|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||Immune interference due to stress to lymph nodes (lymph-node effect) in rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S versus rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D study groups, on the Meningitis serogroup Y, one month after last vaccination.||1.19|0.69|
91030808|NCT03587207|181946146|OTHER|M14459 strain- Between group ratio for comparison of MenABCWY group and rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S group.|Geometric mean ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.86|1.22|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||Other unknown interference in MenABCWY versus rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S study groups, on the Meningitis B M14459 (fHbp) strain, one month after last vaccination.||1.22|0.86|
91098347|NCT02014103|182082193|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Mylan/Sandoz Ratio X 100|98.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.72|106.12|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed AUC 0-12 parameters||106.12|90.72|
90900108|NCT03661996|181666473|SUPERIORITY|A within-group analysis of change at Week 8 from baseline.|Least Squares Mean Change From Baseline|17.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.396|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.4|19.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|LS means, 95% CIs, and P values were obtained from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Results are summarized by subject type and the injected knee. The KOOS subscale scores are derived and normalized. Higher scores indicate improvement. Model terms included pooled site group, baseline K-L grade category, baseline BMI category, sex, study visit, and baseline subscale score as covariates.||19.90|14.40|<0.0001
90900109|NCT03661996|181666473|SUPERIORITY|A within-group analysis of change at Week 8 from baseline.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.692|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.79|28.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|LS means, 95% CIs, and P values were obtained from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Results are summarized by subject type and the injected knee. The KOOS subscale scores are derived and normalized. Higher scores indicate improvement. Model terms included pooled site group, baseline K-L grade category, baseline BMI category, sex, study visit, and baseline subscale score as covariates.||28.03|12.79|<0.0001
90900110|NCT03661996|181666473|SUPERIORITY|A within-group analysis of change at Week 8 from baseline.|Least Squares Mean Change From Baseline|20.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.819|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.44|21.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|LS means, 95% CIs, and P values were obtained from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Results are summarized by subject type and the injected knee. The KOOS subscale scores are derived and normalized. Higher scores indicate improvement. Model terms included pooled site group, baseline K-L grade category, baseline BMI category, sex, study visit, and baseline subscale score as covariates.||21.66|18.44|<0.0001
90900111|NCT03661996|181666473|SUPERIORITY|A within-group analysis of change at Week 8 from baseline.|Least Squares Mean Change From Baseline|18.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.011|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.41|20.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|LS means, 95% CIs, and P values were obtained from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Results are summarized by subject type and the injected knee. The KOOS subscale scores are derived and normalized. Higher scores indicate improvement. Model terms included pooled site group, baseline K-L grade category, baseline BMI category, sex, study visit, and baseline subscale score as covariates.||20.38|16.41|<0.0001
90900112|NCT03661996|181666474|SUPERIORITY|A within-group analysis of change at Week 8 from baseline.|Least Squares Mean Change From Baseline|22.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.478|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.54|25.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|LS means, 95% CIs, and P values were obtained from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Results are summarized by subject type and the injected knee. The KOOS subscale scores are derived and normalized. Higher scores indicate improvement. Model terms included pooled site group, baseline K-L grade category, baseline BMI category, sex, study visit, and baseline subscale score as covariates.||25.37|19.54|<0.0001
90900113|NCT03661996|181666474|SUPERIORITY|A within-group analysis of change at Week 8 from baseline.|Least Squares Mean Change From Baseline|23.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.613|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.38|33.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|LS means, 95% CIs, and P values were obtained from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Results are summarized by subject type and the injected knee. The KOOS subscale scores are derived and normalized. Higher scores indicate improvement. Model terms included pooled site group, baseline K-L grade category, baseline BMI category, sex, study visit, and baseline subscale score as covariates.||33.42|14.38|<0.0001
91098348|NCT02014103|182082193|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Panacea/Sandoz Ratio X 100|101.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.27|110.19|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed AUC 0-12 parameters||110.19|94.27|
91098349|NCT02014103|182082193|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Accord/Astellas Ratio X 100|109.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.42|119.25|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed AUC 0-12 parameters||119.25|100.42|
90900114|NCT03661996|181666474|SUPERIORITY|A within-group analysis of change at Week 8 from baseline.|Least Squares Mean Change From Baseline|25.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.865|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.92|27.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|LS means, 95% CIs, and P values were obtained from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Results are summarized by subject type and the injected knee. The KOOS subscale scores are derived and normalized. Higher scores indicate improvement. Model terms included pooled site group, baseline K-L grade category, baseline BMI category, sex, study visit, and baseline subscale score as covariates.||27.32|23.92|<0.0001
90957593|NCT01445301|181795306|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper 95% confidence was less than the pre-defined threshold (-Δ \[non-inferiority margin, -3.8\]) of 3.8, non-inferiority of GSK2585823 once daily to CLDM twice daily would be established.|Mean Difference (Net)|-7.64||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.93|-2.35|||ANCOVA|||Inflammatory Lesion Counts, WEEK 4||-2.35|-12.93|0.005
91098350|NCT02014103|182082193|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Dr Reddys/Astellas Ratio X 100|99.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.28|109.03|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed AUC 0-12 parameters||109.03|91.28|
91098351|NCT02014103|182082193|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Mylan/Astellas Ratio X 100|101.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.99|111.06|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed AUC 0-12 parameters||111.06|92.99|
91098352|NCT02014103|182082193|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Panacea/Astellas Ratio X 100|106.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.17|116.06|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed AUC 0-12 parameters||116.06|97.17|
90900115|NCT03661996|181666474|SUPERIORITY|A within-group analysis of change at Week 8 from baseline.|Least Squares Mean Change From Baseline|22.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.053|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.03|24.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|LS means, 95% CIs, and P values were obtained from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Results are summarized by subject type and the injected knee. The KOOS subscale scores are derived and normalized. Higher scores indicate improvement. Model terms included pooled site group, baseline K-L grade category, baseline BMI category, sex, study visit, and baseline subscale score as covariates.||24.17|20.03|<0.0001
90900116|NCT03661996|181666475|SUPERIORITY|A within-group analysis of change at Week 8 from baseline.|Least Squares Mean Change From Baseline|21.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.74|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.6|24.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|LS means, 95% CIs, and P values were obtained from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Results are summarized by subject type and the injected knee. The KOOS subscale scores are derived and normalized. Higher scores indicate improvement. Model terms for pooled site group, baseline K-L grade category, baseline BMI category (\<30 kg/m2, ≥30 kg/m2), sex, study visit, and baseline KOOS subscale score as covariates. Study visit was included in the model as a categorical variable.||24.5|17.6|<0.0001
90900117|NCT03661996|181666475|SUPERIORITY|A within-group analysis of change at Week 8 from baseline.|Least Squares Mean Change From Baseline|25.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.06||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.7|37.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|LS means, 95% CIs, and P values were obtained from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Results are summarized by subject type and the injected knee. The KOOS subscale scores are derived and normalized. Higher scores indicate improvement. Model terms for pooled site group, baseline K-L grade category, baseline BMI category (\<30 kg/m2, ≥30 kg/m2), sex, study visit, and baseline KOOS subscale score as covariates. Study visit was included in the model as a categorical variable.||37.8|12.7|0.0003
90900118|NCT03661996|181666475|SUPERIORITY|A within-group analysis of change at Week 8 from baseline.|Least Squares Mean Change From Baseline|25.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.035|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.82|27.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|LS means, 95% CIs, and P values were obtained from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Results are summarized by subject type and the injected knee. The KOOS subscale scores are derived and normalized. Higher scores indicate improvement. Model terms for pooled site group, baseline K-L grade category, baseline BMI category (\<30 kg/m2, ≥30 kg/m2), sex, study visit, and baseline KOOS subscale score as covariates. Study visit was included in the model as a categorical variable.||27.88|23.82|<0.0001
90900119|NCT03661996|181666475|SUPERIORITY|A within-group analysis of change at Week 8 from baseline.|Least Squares Mean Change From Baseline|23.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.238|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.91|25.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|LS means, 95% CIs, and P values were obtained from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Results are summarized by subject type and the injected knee. The KOOS subscale scores are derived and normalized. Higher scores indicate improvement. Model terms for pooled site group, baseline K-L grade category, baseline BMI category (\<30 kg/m2, ≥30 kg/m2), sex, study visit, and baseline KOOS subscale score as covariates. Study visit was included in the model as a categorical variable.||25.78|20.91|<0.0001
91098353|NCT02014103|182082193|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Sandoz/Astellas Ratio X 100|104.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.25|113.75|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed AUC 0-12 parameters||113.75|95.25|
91098354|NCT02014103|182082193|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Accord/Dr Reddy Ratio X 100|110.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.66|120.24|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed AUC 0-12 parameters||120.24|100.66|
90900120|NCT03661996|181666476|SUPERIORITY|A within-group analysis of change at Week 8 from baseline.|Least Squares Mean Change From Baseline|20.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.481|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.94|23.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|LS means, 95% CIs, and P values were obtained from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Results are summarized by subject type and the injected knee. The KOOS subscale scores are derived and normalized. Higher scores indicate improvement. Model terms included pooled site group, baseline K-L grade category, baseline BMI category, sex, study visit, and baseline subscale score as covariates.||23.78|17.94|<0.0001
90900121|NCT03661996|181666476|SUPERIORITY|A within-group analysis of change at Week 8 from baseline.|Least Squares Mean Change From Baseline|25.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.568|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.24|35.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|LS means, 95% CIs, and P values were obtained from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Results are summarized by subject type and the injected knee. The KOOS subscale scores are derived and normalized. Higher scores indicate improvement. Model terms included pooled site group, baseline K-L grade category, baseline BMI category, sex, study visit, and baseline subscale score as covariates.||35.09|16.24|<0.0001
91098355|NCT02014103|182082193|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Accord/Mylan Ratio X 100|108.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.82|118.02|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed AUC 0-12 parameters||118.02|98.82|
91098356|NCT02014103|182082193|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Accord/Panacea Ratio X 100|103.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.56|112.94|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed AUC 0-12 parameters||112.94|94.56|
90850522|NCT00545129|181566842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5||||0.634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|8.71|||Fisher Exact|||Week 4: The odds ratio with 95% 2-sided CI for the treatment contrast was given.||8.71|0.03|0.634
90850523|NCT00545129|181566842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|7.74|||Fisher Exact|||Week 6: The odds ratio with 95% 2-sided CI for the treatment contrast was given.||7.74|0.14|0.975
90850524|NCT00545129|181566842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|18.86|||Fisher Exact|||Week 8: The odds ratio with 95% 2-sided CI for the treatment contrast was given.||18.86|0.12|0.759
90850525|NCT00545129|181566843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.58||||0.724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|12.27|||Fisher Exact|||Week 1: The odds ratio with 95% 2-sided CI for the treatment contrast was given.||12.27|0.03|0.724
90850526|NCT00545129|181566843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.95|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 2: P-value was calculated using Fisher Extract test.||||0.950
90900122|NCT03661996|181666476|SUPERIORITY|A within-group analysis of change at Week 8 from baseline.|Least Squares Mean Change From Baseline|25.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.861|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.88|27.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|LS means, 95% CIs, and P values were obtained from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Results are summarized by subject type and the injected knee. The KOOS subscale scores are derived and normalized. Higher scores indicate improvement. Model terms included pooled site group, baseline K-L grade category, baseline BMI category, sex, study visit, and baseline subscale score as covariates.||27.26|23.88|<0.0001
90900123|NCT03661996|181666476|SUPERIORITY|A within-group analysis of change at Week 8 from baseline.|Least Squares Mean Change From Baseline|25.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.853|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.02|27.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|LS means, 95% CIs, and P values were obtained from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Results are summarized by subject type and the injected knee. The KOOS subscale scores are derived and normalized. Higher scores indicate improvement. Model terms included pooled site group, baseline K-L grade category, baseline BMI category, sex, study visit, and baseline subscale score as covariates.||27.37|24.02|<0.0001
90900124|NCT03661996|181666477|SUPERIORITY|A within-group analysis of change at Week 8 from baseline.|Least Squares Mean Change From Baseline|25.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.248|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.74|29.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|LS means, 95% CIs, and P values were obtained from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Results are summarized by subject type and the injected knee. The KOOS subscale scores are derived and normalized. Higher scores indicate improvement. Model terms included pooled site group, baseline K-L grade category, baseline BMI category, sex, study visit, and baseline subscale score as covariates.||29.60|20.74|<0.0001
91098357|NCT02014103|182082193|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Accord/Sandoz Ratio X 100|105.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.48|115.23|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed AUC 0-12 parameters||115.23|96.48|
91098358|NCT02014103|182082193|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Dr Reddys/Mylan Ration X 100|98.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.82|107.28|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed AUC 0-12 parameters||107.28|89.82|
91098359|NCT02014103|182082193|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Dr. Reddys/Panacea Ratio X 100|93.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.96|102.65|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed AUC 0-12 parameters||102.65|85.96|
90850527|NCT00545129|181566843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5||||0.634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|8.71|||Fisher Exact|||Week 4: The odds ratio with 95% 2-sided CI for the treatment contrast was given.||8.71|0.03|0.634
90850528|NCT00545129|181566843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|7.74|||Fisher Exact|||Week 6: The odds ratio with 95% 2-sided CI for the treatment contrast was given.||7.74|0.14|0.975
90850529|NCT00545129|181566843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.02||||0.578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|23.89|||Fisher Exact|||Week 8: The odds ratio with 95% 2-sided CI for the treatment contrast was given.||23.89|0.17|0.578
90850530|NCT03860935|181566878|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Finkelstein-Schoenfeld Method|||||||<0.0001
90850531|NCT03860935|181566879|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|39.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.477|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|96.0|20.18|59.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS means are from a MMRM model with treatment group, visit, randomization stratification factors of genotype, NT-proBNP level and eGFR level (as recorded in IXRS) and treatment group-by-visit interaction as factors, and baseline value as covariate. Missing measurements due to early discontinuation of study treatment and due to death were imputed using the Jump to Reference (J2R) method and sampling with replacement from the worst 5% of observed values, respectively, as specified in study SAP.||59.10|20.18|<0.0001
90850532|NCT03860935|181566880|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|9.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.024|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|96.0|5.79|14.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS means are from a MMRM model with treatment group, visit, randomization stratification factors of genotype, NT-proBNP level and eGFR level (as recorded in IXRS) and treatment group-by-visit interaction as factors, and baseline value as covariate. Missing measurements due to early discontinuation of study treatment and due to death were imputed using the Jump to Reference (J2R) method and sampling with replacement from the worst 5% of observed values, respectively, as specified in study SAP.||14.10|5.79|<0.0001
90850533|NCT03860935|181566881|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.665|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|96.0|5.73|8.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS means are from a MMRM model with treatment group, visit, randomization stratification factors of genotype, NT-proBNP level and eGFR level (as recorded in IXRS) and treatment group-by-visit interaction as factors, and baseline value as covariate. Missing measurements due to early discontinuation of study treatment and due to death were imputed using the Jump to Reference (J2R) method and sampling with replacement from the worst 5% of observed values, respectively, as specified in study SAP.||8.46|5.73|<0.0001
90850534|NCT03860935|181566882|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk Reduction (%)|25.0||||0.0569|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test is stratified by randomization stratification factors of genotype, NT-proBNP level and eGFR level as recorded in IXRS.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0569
90850535|NCT04896229|181566892|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.022|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The results show the condition x time interaction from the growth model, and the parameter estimate describes the relative change of the intervention condition to the treatment-as-usual condition, for a unit change in time.||||.022
90850536|NCT04896229|181566893|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The results show the condition x time interaction from the growth model, and the parameter estimate describes the relative change of the intervention condition to the treatment-as-usual condition, for a unit change in time.||||.800
90900125|NCT03661996|181666477|SUPERIORITY|A within-group analysis of change at Week 8 from baseline.|Least Squares Mean Change From Baseline|33.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.795|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.15|45.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|LS means, 95% CIs, and P values were obtained from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Results are summarized by subject type and the injected knee. The KOOS subscale scores are derived and normalized. Higher scores indicate improvement. Model terms included pooled site group, baseline K-L grade category, baseline BMI category, sex, study visit, and baseline subscale score as covariates.||45.07|21.15|<0.0001
90900126|NCT03661996|181666477|SUPERIORITY|A within-group analysis of change at Week 8 from baseline.|Least Squares Mean Change From Baseline|27.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.233|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.38|30.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|LS means, 95% CIs, and P values were obtained from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Results are summarized by subject type and the injected knee. The KOOS subscale scores are derived and normalized. Higher scores indicate improvement. Model terms included pooled site group, baseline K-L grade category, baseline BMI category, sex, study visit, and baseline subscale score as covariates.||30.23|25.38|<0.0001
90900127|NCT03661996|181666477|SUPERIORITY|A within-group analysis of change at Week 8 from baseline.|Least Squares Mean Change From Baseline|24.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.598|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.66|27.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|LS means, 95% CIs, and P values were obtained from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Results are summarized by subject type and the injected knee. The KOOS subscale scores are derived and normalized. Higher scores indicate improvement. Model terms included pooled site group, baseline K-L grade category, baseline BMI category, sex, study visit, and baseline subscale score as covariates.||27.94|21.66|<0.0001
90900128|NCT03661996|181666478|SUPERIORITY|A within-group analysis of change at Week 8 from baseline.|Least Squares Mean Change From Baseline|22.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.898|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.37|25.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|LS means, 95% CIs, and P values were obtained from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Results are summarized by subject type and the injected knee. The KOOS subscale scores are derived and normalized. Higher scores indicate improvement. Model terms included pooled site group, baseline K-L grade category, baseline BMI category, sex, study visit, and baseline subscale score as covariates.||25.84|18.37|<0.0001
90957594|NCT01445301|181795306|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper 95% confidence was less than the pre-defined threshold (-Δ \[non-inferiority margin, -3.8\]) of 3.8, non-inferiority of GSK2585823 once daily to CLDM twice daily would be established.|Mean Difference (Net)|-8.73||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.2|-3.26|||ANCOVA|||Inflammatory Lesion Counts, WEEK 8||-3.26|-14.20|0.002
91098360|NCT02014103|182082193|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Dr Reddys/Sandoz Ratio X 100|95.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.69|104.74|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed AUC 0-12 parameters||104.74|87.69|
90850537|NCT04896229|181566894|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.235|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The results show the condition x time interaction from the growth model, and the parameter estimate describes the relative change of the intervention condition to the treatment-as-usual condition, for a unit change in time.||||.235
90850538|NCT04896229|181566895|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.325|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The results show the condition x time interaction from the growth model, and the parameter estimate describes the relative change of the intervention condition to the treatment-as-usual condition, for a unit change in time.||||.325
90850539|NCT04896229|181566896|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.502|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The results show the condition x time interaction from the growth model, and the parameter estimate describes the relative change of the intervention condition to the treatment-as-usual condition, for a unit change in time.||||.502
90850540|NCT04896229|181566897|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The results show the condition x time interaction from the growth model, and the parameter estimate describes the relative change of the intervention condition to the treatment-as-usual condition, for a unit change in time.||||.005
90850541|NCT04896229|181566898|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.712|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The results show the condition x time interaction from the growth model, and the parameter estimate describes the relative change of the intervention condition to the treatment-as-usual condition, for a unit change in time.||||.712
91098361|NCT02014103|182082193|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Mylan/Panacea Ratio X 100|95.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.56|104.58|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed AUC 0-12 parameters||104.58|87.56|
91098362|NCT02014103|182082193|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Mylan/Sandoz Ratio X 100|97.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.34|107.71|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed AUC 0-12 parameters||107.71|89.34|
91098363|NCT02014103|182082193|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Pancea/Sandoz Ratio X 100|102.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.36|111.51|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed AUC 0-12 parameters||111.51|93.36|
91098364|NCT02014103|182082194|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Accord/Astellas Ratio X 100|141.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|125.73|160.16|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed Cmax parameters||160.16|125.73|
91098365|NCT02014103|182082194|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Dr Reddys/Astellas Ratio X 100|104.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.33|117.45|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed Cmax parameters||117.45|92.33|
91098366|NCT02014103|182082194|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Mylan/Astellas Ratio X 100|116.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.87|130.87|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed Cmax parameters||130.87|102.87|
91098367|NCT02014103|182082194|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Panacea/Astellas Ratio X 100|108.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.51|122.94|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed Cmax parameters||122.94|96.51|
91098368|NCT02014103|182082194|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Sandoz/Astellas Ratio X 100|94.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.33|106.16|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed Cmax parameters||106.16|83.33|
90850542|NCT04896229|181566899|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.245|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The results show the condition x time interaction from the growth model, and the parameter estimate describes the relative change of the intervention condition to the treatment-as-usual condition, for a unit change in time.||||.245
91098369|NCT02014103|182082194|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Accord/Dr. Reddys Ratio X 100|136.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|120.82|153.7|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed Cmax parameters||153.70|120.82|
91098370|NCT02014103|182082194|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Accord/Mylan Ratio X 100|122.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|108.37|138.04|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed Cmax parameters||138.04|108.37|
91098371|NCT02014103|182082194|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Accord/Panacea Ratio X 100|130.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|115.43|147.04|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed Cmax parameters||147.04|115.43|
91098372|NCT02014103|182082194|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Accord/Sandoz Ratio X 100|150.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|133.77|170.18|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed Cmax parameters||170.18|133.77|
91098373|NCT02014103|182082194|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Dr. Reddys/Mylan Ratio X 100|89.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.52|101.3|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed Cmax parameters||101.30|79.52|
91098374|NCT02014103|182082194|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Dr Reddys/Panacea Ratio X 100|95.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.71|107.9|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed Cmax parameters||107.90|84.71|
91098375|NCT02014103|182082194|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Dr Reddys/Sandoz Ratio X 100|110.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.1|124.96|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|||124.96|98.10|
91098376|NCT02014103|182082194|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Mylan/Panacea Ratio X 100|106.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.44|120.15|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed Cmax parameters||120.15|94.44|
91098377|NCT02014103|182082194|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Mylan/Sandoz Ratio X 100|123.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|109.3|139.23|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed Cmax parameters||139.23|109.30|
91098378|NCT02014103|182082194|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Panacea/Sandoz Ratio X 100|115.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.68|130.62|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed Cmax parameters||130.62|102.68|
91098379|NCT02014103|182082194|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Accord/Astellas Ratio X 100|112.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.32|127.2|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed Cmax parameters||127.20|100.32|
91098380|NCT02014103|182082194|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Dr Reddys/Astellas Ratio X 100|101.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.37|114.57|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|||114.57|90.37|
91098381|NCT02014103|182082194|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Mylan/Astella Ratio X 100|113.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.82|127.83|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed Cmax parameters||127.83|100.82|
91098382|NCT02014103|182082194|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Panacea/Astellas Ratio X 100|99.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.06|111.64|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed Cmax parameters||111.64|88.06|
90850543|NCT04896229|181566900|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.282|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The results show the condition x time interaction from the growth model, and the parameter estimate describes the relative change of the intervention condition to the treatment-as-usual condition, for a unit change in time.||||.282
90900129|NCT03661996|181666478|SUPERIORITY|A within-group analysis of change at Week 8 from baseline.|Least Squares Mean Change From Baseline|16.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.255|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.84|29.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|LS means, 95% CIs, and P values were obtained from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Results are summarized by subject type and the injected knee. The KOOS subscale scores are derived and normalized. Higher scores indicate improvement. Model terms included pooled site group, baseline K-L grade category, baseline BMI category, sex, study visit, and baseline subscale score as covariates.||29.66|3.84|<0.0001
90850544|NCT04896229|181566901|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.289|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The results show the condition x time interaction from the growth model, and the parameter estimate describes the relative change of the intervention condition to the treatment-as-usual condition, for a unit change in time.||||.289
90850545|NCT04896229|181566902|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.296|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The results show the condition x time interaction from the growth model, and the parameter estimate describes the relative change of the intervention condition to the treatment-as-usual condition, for a unit change in time.||||.296
90850546|NCT00992589|181566911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.449||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.087|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance with Treatment as fixed effect, Region and Age as stratification factors and Change from Open-label (OL) Baseline to OL Endpoint as covariate to test the hypothesis of no difference in change in daily average frequency of regurgitation from Double-blind (DB) Baseline to DB Endpoint between rabeprazole sodium total and placebo.||0.190|-1.087|0.168
90850547|NCT00992589|181566912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|0.03||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.047|0.108|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance with Treatment as fixed effect, Region and Age as stratification factors and Double-blind (DB) Baseline as covariate to test the hypothesis of no difference in change in Weight-for-Age Z-Score from DB Baseline to DB Endpoint between Rabeprazole Sodium Total and Placebo.||0.108|-0.047|0.440
90850548|NCT00992589|181566914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|0.006||||0.984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.619|0.632|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance with Treatment as fixed effect, Region and Age as stratification factors and Change from Open-label (OL) Baseline to OL Endpoint as covariate to test the hypothesis of no difference in change in weekly average I-GERQ-DD Regurgitation Subscale Score from Double-blind (DB) Baseline to DB Endpoint between rabeprazole sodium total and placebo.||0.632|-0.619|0.984
91098383|NCT02014103|182082194|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Sandoz/Astellas Ratio X 100|95.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.89|107.61|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed Cmax parameters||107.61|84.89|
90850549|NCT00992589|181566915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.182||||0.479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.325|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance with Treatment as fixed effect, Region and Age as stratification factors and Change from Open-label (OL) Baseline to OL Endpoint as covariate to test the hypothesis of no difference in change in weekly average I-GERQ-DD Discomfort Subscale Score from Double-blind (DB) Baseline to DB Endpoint between rabeprazole sodium total and placebo.||0.325|-0.690|0.479
91098384|NCT02014103|182082194|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Accord/Dr Reddy Ratio X 100|111.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.59|125.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed Cmax parameters||125.00|98.59|
91098385|NCT02014103|182082194|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Accord/Mylan Ratio X 100|99.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.38|112.04|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed Cmax parameters||112.04|88.38|
91098386|NCT02014103|182082194|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Accord/Panacea Ratio X 100|113.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.18|128.28|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed Cmax parameters||128.28|101.18|
91098387|NCT02014103|182082194|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Accord/Sandoz Ratio X 100|118.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|104.96|133.08|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed Cmax parameters||133.08|104.96|
91098388|NCT02014103|182082194|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Dr Reddys/Mylan|89.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.61|100.93|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed Cmax parameters||100.93|79.61|
90850550|NCT00992589|181566916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.192||||0.498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.751|0.366|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance with Treatment as fixed effect, Region and Age as stratification factors and Change from Open-label (OL) Baseline to OL Endpoint as covariate to test the hypothesis of no difference in change in weekly average I-GERQ-DD Eating Behavior Subscale Score from Double-blind (DB) Baseline to DB Endpoint between rabeprazole sodium total and placebo.||0.366|-0.751|0.498
90850551|NCT00992589|181566917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|0.042||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.615|1.7|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance with Treatment as fixed effect, Region and Age as stratification factors and Change from Open-label (OL) Baseline to OL Endpoint as covariate to test the hypothesis of no difference in change in I-GERQ-R Total Score from Double-blind (DB) Baseline to DB Endpoint between rabeprazole sodium total and placebo.||1.700|-1.615|0.960
90957595|NCT01445301|181795306|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper 95% confidence was less than the pre-defined threshold (-Δ \[non-inferiority margin, -3.8\]) of 3.8, non-inferiority of GSK2585823 once daily to CLDM twice daily would be established.|Mean Difference (Net)|-8.2||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.34|-3.06|||ANCOVA|||Inflammatory Lesion Counts, WEEK 12||-3.06|-13.34|0.002
90850552|NCT00992589|181566918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|0.024||||0.968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.167|1.214|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance with Treatment as fixed effect, Region and Age as stratification factors and Change from Open-label (OL) Baseline to OL Endpoint as covariate to test the hypothesis of no difference in change in Weekly Average I-GERQ-DD Total Score from Double-blind (DB) Baseline to DB Endpoint between rabeprazole sodium total and placebo.||1.214|-1.167|0.968
90850553|NCT05508074|181566959|OTHER|the primary endpoint was safety hence the study was not powered to show efficacy. statistical analysis was performed to detect signal of efficacy.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.45||0.923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.27|6.6|||ANCOVA|adjusted on baseline ALSFRS-R and treatment.||primary analysis results based on estimand 1 (see attached SAP)||6.60|-7.27|0.923
90900130|NCT03661996|181666478|SUPERIORITY|A within-group analysis of change at Week 8 from baseline.|Least Squares Mean Change From Baseline|21.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.062|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.43|23.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|LS means, 95% CIs, and P values were obtained from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Results are summarized by subject type and the injected knee. The KOOS subscale scores are derived and normalized. Higher scores indicate improvement. Model terms included pooled site group, baseline K-L grade category, baseline BMI category, sex, study visit, and baseline subscale score as covariates.||23.60|19.43|<0.0001
90900131|NCT03661996|181666478|SUPERIORITY|A within-group analysis of change at Week 8 from baseline.|Least Squares Mean Change From Baseline|19.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.365|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.72|22.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|LS means, 95% CIs, and P values were obtained from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Results are summarized by subject type and the injected knee. The KOOS subscale scores are derived and normalized. Higher scores indicate improvement. Model terms included pooled site group, baseline K-L grade category, baseline BMI category, sex, study visit, and baseline subscale score as covariates.||22.09|16.72|<0.0001
91030809|NCT03587207|181946146|OTHER|96217 strain- Between group ratio for comparison of MenABCWY group and rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S group.|Geometric mean ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.66|0.95|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||Other unknown interference in MenABCWY versus rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S study groups, on the Meningitis B 96217 (NadA)strain, one month after last vaccination.||0.95|0.66|
90850554|NCT05508074|181566959|OTHER|FAS post hoc|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|8.2||post hoc analysis on the FAS population, adjusted on baseline NfL on top of previous parameters|ANCOVA|||post hoc analysis adjusted on baseline NfL on top of previous parameters||8.2|-5.1|0.65
90850555|NCT05508074|181566960|OTHER|the primary endpoint was safety hence the study was not powered to show efficacy. statistical analysis was performed to detect signal of efficacy.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.118||||0.398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.408|0.186|||binomial exact method|||primary analysis results based on estimand 1 (see attached SAP)||0.186|-0.408|0.398
90850556|NCT05508074|181566961|OTHER|the primary endpoint was safety hence the study was not powered to show efficacy. statistical analysis was performed to detect signal of efficacy.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.029||||0.835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.326|0.271|||binomial exact method|||calculation based on estimand 1 (see SAP)||0.271|-0.326|0.835
90850557|NCT05508074|181566962|OTHER|the primary endpoint was safety hence the study was not powered to show efficacy. statistical analysis was performed to detect signal of efficacy.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.47||0.481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.72|20.34|||ANCOVA|||based on estimand 1 (see SAP). change of SVC percentage from baseline to 6 months||20.34|-9.72|0.481
90850558|NCT05508074|181566972|OTHER||adjusted geometric mean ratio|1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08||0.609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.21|||ANCOVA|||based on available data at V4||1.21|0.89|0.609
90957596|NCT01445301|181795306|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper 95% confidence was less than the pre-defined threshold (-Δ \[non-inferiority margin, -3.8\]) of 3.8, non-inferiority of GSK2585823 once daily to CLDM twice daily would be established.|Mean Difference (Net)|-5.8||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.29|-1.32|||ANCOVA|||Non-Inflammatory Lesion Counts, WEEK 1||-1.32|-10.29|0.011
90850559|NCT02142387|181566979|OTHER|||||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.34
90850560|NCT02142387|181566980|OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7
90850561|NCT02142387|181566981|OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.11
91098389|NCT02014103|182082194|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Dr. Reddys/Panacea Ratio X 100|102.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.15|115.55|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed Cmax parameters||115.55|91.15|
90900132|NCT03661996|181666479|SUPERIORITY|A within-group analysis of change at Week 8 from baseline.|Least Squares Mean Change From Baseline|-3.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.191|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.86|-3.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|LS means, 95% CIs, and P values were obtained from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Results are summarized by subject type and the injected knee. The NPRS was collected during the last study visit. Lower scores indicate improvement. Model terms included pooled site group, baseline K-L grade category, baseline BMI category, sex, study visit, and baseline pain score as covariates.||-3.10|-3.86|<0.0001
90900133|NCT03661996|181666479|SUPERIORITY|A within-group analysis of change at Week 8 from baseline.|Least Squares Mean Change From Baseline|-3.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.416|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.38|-2.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|LS means, 95% CIs, and P values were obtained from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Results are summarized by subject type and the injected knee. The NPRS was collected during the last study visit. Lower scores indicate improvement. Model terms included pooled site group, baseline K-L grade category, baseline BMI category, sex, study visit, and baseline pain score as covariates.||-2.67|-4.38|<0.0001
90900134|NCT03661996|181666479|SUPERIORITY|A within-group analysis of change at Week 8 from baseline.|Least Squares Mean Change From Baseline|-4.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.118|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.25|-3.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|LS means, 95% CIs, and P values were obtained from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Results are summarized by subject type and the injected knee. The NPRS was collected during the last study visit. Lower scores indicate improvement. Model terms included pooled site group, baseline K-L grade category, baseline BMI category, sex, study visit, and baseline pain score as covariates.||-3.79|-4.25|<0.0001
90957597|NCT01445301|181795306|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper 95% confidence was less than the pre-defined threshold (-Δ \[non-inferiority margin, -3.8\]) of 3.8, non-inferiority of GSK2585823 once daily to CLDM twice daily would be established.|Mean Difference (Net)|-8.3||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|-2.5|||ANCOVA|||Non-Inflammatory Lesion Counts, WEEK 2||-2.50|-14.10|0.005
91098390|NCT02014103|182082194|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Dr. Reddys/Sandoz Ratio X 100|106.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.55|119.88|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed Cmax parameters||119.88|94.55|
91098391|NCT02014103|182082194|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Mylan/Panacea Ratio X 100|114.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|110.68|128.92|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed Cmax parameters||128.92|110.68|
91098392|NCT02014103|182082194|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Mylan/Sandoz Ratio X 100|118.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|105.48|133.74|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed Cmax parameters||133.74|105.48|
91098393|NCT02014103|182082194|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Panacea/Sandoz Ratio X 100|103.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.13|116.81|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed Cmax parameters||116.81|92.13|
91098394|NCT05638737|182082196|SUPERIORITY|One-sided test where a negative change in relative to baseline is favourable|%-change in relative to base vs placebo|7.5||||0.893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|20.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Participant as random effect; treatment, visit and trt:vis interaction as fixed effects; baseline ALT as covariate. Model uses log-scaled variables.||||20.5|-4.1|0.893
91098395|NCT05638737|182082197|SUPERIORITY|One-sided test where a negative change in relative to baseline is favourable|%-change in relative to base vs placebo|-0.9||||0.396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|6.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Participant as random effect; treatment, visit and trt:vis interaction as fixed effects; baseline Pro-C3 as covariate. Model uses log-scaled variables||||6.1|-7.5|0.396
91098396|NCT04764539|182082338|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.294|<|0.555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.276|0.796||Sample size is too small for statistical power.|ANOVA||Difference = (VR goggles group - iPad Pro group)|The Mean Length of Utterance (MLU) will not increase from baseline for the either the iPad Pro or VR goggle participant group after having used the VAST system for 2 months.||0.796|-1.276|<0.555
91098397|NCT04764539|182082338|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5383|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.659|<|0.2128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.471|1.548||Sample size is too small for statistical power.|ANOVA||Difference = (iPad Pro group Post-Treatment - iPad Pro group Pre-Treatment)|Comparison of pre-test and post-test outcome per group.||1.548|-0.471|<0.2128
91098398|NCT04764539|182082338|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.298|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.365|<|0.533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.915|1.511||Sample size is too small for statistical power.|ANOVA||Difference = (VR goggles group Post-Treatment - VR goggles group Pre-Treatment)|Comparison of pre-test and post-test outcome per group.||1.511|-0.915|<0.533
91098399|NCT04764539|182082339|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.388|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.7|<|0.289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.763|4.539||Sample size too small for statistical power. In addition, automated speech recognition for child speech had a very poor state-of-the-art at the time of this study.|ANOVA||Difference = (iPad Pro group - VR goggles group)|The percentage of correctly transcribed words using automatic speech recognition will not increase from baseline for the either the iPad Pro or VR goggle participant group after having used the VAST system for 2 months.||4.539|-1.763|<0.289
91098400|NCT04764539|182082340|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.51|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.3||0.4296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.68|42.66||Sample size is too small for statistical power.|ANOVA||Difference = (VR goggles group - iPad Pro group)|Articulation Accuracy does not statistically differ for the iPad Pro or VR goggle participant group after having used the VAST system for 2 months.||42.66|-49.68|0.4296
91098401|NCT04764539|182082340|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|24.19|<|0.294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.7|65.2||Sample size is too small for statistical power.|ANOVA||Difference = (iPad Pro group Post-Treatment - iPad Pro group Pre-Treatment)|Comparison of pre-test and post-test outcome per group.||65.2|-25.7|<0.294
91098402|NCT04764539|182082340|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.25|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.9|<|0.419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.86|66.36||Sample size is too small for statistical power.|ANOVA||Difference = (VR goggles group Post-Treatment - VR goggles group Pre-Treatment)|Comparison of pre-test and post-test outcome per group.||66.36|-33.86|<0.419
91030810|NCT03587207|181946146|OTHER|NZ98/254 strain- Between group ratio for comparison of MenABCWY group and rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S group.|Geometric mean ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.65|0.97|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||Other unknown interference in MenABCWY versus rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S study groups, on the Meningitis B NZ98/254 (PorA) strain, one month after last vaccination.||0.97|0.65|
91030811|NCT03587207|181946146|NON_INFERIORITY|M07-0241084 strain- Between group ratio for comparison of MenABCWY group and rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S group.|Geometric mean ratio|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.6|0.88|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||Other unknown interference in MenABCWY versus rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S study groups, on the Meningitis B M07-0241084 (NHBA) strain, one month after last vaccination.||0.88|0.60|
91030812|NCT03587207|181946146|OTHER|Serogroup A- Between group ratio for comparison of MenABCWY group and rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S group.|Geometric mean ratio|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.45|0.69|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||Other unknown interference in MenABCWY versus rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S study groups, on the Meningitis serogrpoup A, one month after last vaccination.||0.69|0.45|
91030813|NCT03587207|181946146|OTHER|Serogroup C- Between group ratio for comparison of MenABCWY group and rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S group.|Geometric mean ratio|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.94|1.52|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||Other unknown interference in MenABCWY versus rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S study groups, on the Meningitis serogroup C, one month after last vaccination.||1.52|0.94|
91030814|NCT03587207|181946146|OTHER|Serogroup W- Between group ratio for comparison of MenABCWY group and rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S group.|Geometric mean ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.87|1.29|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||Other unknown interference in MenABCWY versus rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S study groups, on the Meningitis serogroup W, one month after last vaccination.||1.29|0.87|
91030815|NCT03587207|181946146|OTHER|Serogroup Y- Between group ratio for comparison of MenABCWY group and rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S group.|Geometric mean ratio|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.9|1.55|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||Other unknown interference in MenABCWY versus rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S study groups, on the Meningitis serogroup Y, one month after last vaccination.||1.55|0.90|
91030816|NCT03587207|181946146|OTHER|M14459 strain- Between group ratio for comparison of rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S group and rMenBOMV group.|Geometric mean ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.85|1.22|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||To investigate possible effects on the immune response based on strains common to rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S versus rMenBOMV study groups, on the Meningitis B M14459(fHbp) strain, one month after last vaccination.||1.22|0.85|
91098403|NCT04764539|182082341|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.33|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.63|<|0.659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.436|9.096||Sample size to small for statistical power.|ANOVA||difference = (iPad group mean - VR goggles group mean)|||9.096|-6.436|<0.659
91098404|NCT04764539|182082342|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.67|<|0.789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.91|84.7|||ANOVA|Sample size too small for statistical power.|Difference = (iPad Pro group - VR Goggles group)|||84.7|-68.91|<0.789
90850562|NCT01101308|181566982|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A mixed-model analysis of variance was used to compare (test vs reference) and the 90% confidence intervals were estimated for the ratios (test/reference).|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|102.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.51|107.27|||ANOVA||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80%-125%.|||107.27|97.51|
91030817|NCT03587207|181946146|OTHER|96217 strain-Between group ratio for comparison of rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S group and rMenBOMV group.|Geometric mean ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.75|1.09|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||To investigate possible effects on the immune response based on strains common to rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S versus rMenBOMV study groups, on the Meningitis B 96217 (NadA) strain, one month after last vaccination.||1.09|0.75|
91030818|NCT03587207|181946146|OTHER|NZ98/254 strain-Between group ratio for comparison of rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S group and rMenBOMV group.|Geometric mean ratio|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.64|0.96|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||To investigate possible effects on the immune response based on strains common to rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S versus rMenBOMV study groups, on the Meningitis B NZ98/254 (PorA) strain, one month after last vaccination.||0.96|0.64|
91098405|NCT04764539|182082342|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|30.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|36.94|<|0.304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.85|101.17||Sample size is too small for statistical power.|ANOVA||Difference = (iPad Pro group Post-Treatment - iPad Pro group Pre-Treatment)|Comparison of pre-test and post-test outcome per group.||101.17|-40.85|<0.304
90850563|NCT01101308|181566983|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A mixed-model analysis of variance was used to compare (test vs reference) and the 90% confidence intervals were estimated for the ratios (test/reference)|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.19|103.0|||ANOVA||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80%-125%.|||103.00|97.19|
91098406|NCT04764539|182082342|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|27.26|<|0.403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.91|88.43||Sample size is too small for statistical power.|ANOVA||Difference = (VR goggles group Post-Treatment - VR goggles group Pre-Treatment)|Comparison of pre-test and post-test outcome per group.||88.43|-43.91|<0.403
91098407|NCT04764539|182082343|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.34|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.87|<|0.485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.79|6.11||Sample size is too small for statistical power.|ANOVA||Difference = (VR goggles group - iPad Pro group)|The response to treatment stimuli will not increase from baseline for the either the iPad Pro or VR goggle participant group after having used the VAST system for 2 months.||6.11|-10.79|<0.485
91098408|NCT04764539|182082343|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.66|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.94|<|0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.569|11.9||Sample size is too small for statistical power.|ANOVA||Difference = (iPad Pro group Post-Treatment - iPad Pro group Pre-Treatment)|Comparison of pre-test and post-test outcome per group.||11.9|-0.569|<0.065
91098409|NCT04764539|182082343|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.34|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.09|<|0.549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.85|17.53||Sample size is too small for statistical power.|ANOVA||Difference = (VR goggles group Post-Treatment - VR goggles group Pre-Treatment)|Comparison of pre-test and post-test outcome per group.||17.53|-10.85|<0.549
91098410|NCT03677401|182082367|SUPERIORITY|P-value from a Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by Baseline WI-NRS used for randomization stratification. Value has been adjusted for multiple imputation.||||||0.158|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At Week 10||||0.158
91098411|NCT03677401|182082368|SUPERIORITY|P-value from a CMH test stratified by Baseline WI-NRS used for randomization stratification. Value has been adjusted for multiple imputation.||||||0.75|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At Week 4||||0.750
91098412|NCT03677401|182082369|SUPERIORITY|P-value from a CMH test stratified by Baseline WI-NRS used for randomization stratification. Value has been adjusted for multiple imputation||||||0.674|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At Week 2||||0.674
91098413|NCT03677401|182082370|SUPERIORITY|P-values, least squares means (LS Mean) and standard deviations (LS SD) from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment group and stratification factor as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.||||||0.06|||||||ANCOVA|||At Week 2||||0.060
90850564|NCT01101308|181566984|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A mixed-model analysis of variance was used to compare (test vs reference) and the 90% confidence intervals were estimated for the ratios (test/reference)|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.14|102.99|||ANOVA||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80%-125%.|||102.99|97.14|
90850565|NCT02984943|181566985|OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||Skillings-Mack test|||||||0.10
91098414|NCT03677401|182082370|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.401||||||P-values, LS Mean and LS SD from ANCOVA with treatment group and stratification factor as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||At Week 4||||0.401
91098415|NCT03677401|182082370|SUPERIORITY|P-values, LS Mean and LS SD from ANCOVA with treatment group and stratification factor as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.||||||0.185|||||||ANCOVA|||At Week 6||||0.185
91098416|NCT03677401|182082370|SUPERIORITY|P-values, LS Mean and LS SD from ANCOVA with treatment group and stratification factor as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.||||||0.164|||||||ANCOVA|||At Week 10||||0.164
91098417|NCT03677401|182082371|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.283||||||P-value from a CMH test stratified by Baseline WI-NRS used for randomization stratification. Value has been adjusted for multiple imputation.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At Week 2||||0.283
91098418|NCT03677401|182082371|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.701||||||P-value from a CMH test stratified by Baseline WI-NRS used for randomization stratification. Value has been adjusted for multiple imputation.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At Week 4||||0.701
91098419|NCT03677401|182082371|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.033||||||P-value from a CMH test stratified by Baseline WI-NRS used for randomization stratification. Value has been adjusted for multiple imputation.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At Week 10||||0.033
91098420|NCT03677401|182082372|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.797||||||P-values, LS mean and SD from ANCOVA with treatment group and stratification factor as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||At Week 10||||0.797
91098421|NCT03677401|182082373|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.845||||||P-values, LS mean and SD from ANCOVA with treatment group and stratification factor as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||At Week 10||||0.845
91098422|NCT03677401|182082374|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.385||||||P-values, LS mean and SD from ANCOVA with treatment group and stratification factor as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||At Week 2||||0.385
91098423|NCT03677401|182082374|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.786||||||P-values, LS mean and SD from ANCOVA with treatment group and stratification factor as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||At Week 4||||0.786
91098424|NCT03677401|182082374|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.502||||||P-values, LS mean and SD from ANCOVA with treatment group and stratification factor as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||At Week 10||||0.502
91098425|NCT03677401|182082375|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.197||||||P-values, LS mean and SD from ANCOVA with treatment group and stratification factor as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||At Week 2||||0.197
91098426|NCT03677401|182082375|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.694||||||P-values, LS mean and SD from ANCOVA with treatment group and stratification factor as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||At Week 4||||0.694
91098427|NCT03677401|182082375|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.916||||||P-values, LS mean and SD from ANCOVA with treatment group and stratification factor as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||At Week 10||||0.916
90850566|NCT02984943|181566986|OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||Skillings-Mack test|||||||0.10
90850567|NCT02984943|181566987|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Skillings-Mack test|||||||0.02
90850568|NCT02984943|181566988|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Skillings-Mack test|||||||0.02
90850569|NCT02984943|181566989|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Skillings-Mack test|||||||0.004
91098428|NCT04925934|182082387|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|2.8|||=|0.7474|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.4|17.0|||Regression, Logistic|||Adjusted response rate, rate difference and p-value are from logistic regression analysis with treatment and randomization stratification factors in the model.||17.0|-11.4|=0.7474
91098429|NCT04925934|182082387|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|-0.1|||=|0.9942|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.2|14.1|||Regression, Logistic|||Adjusted response rate, rate difference and p-value are from logistic regression analysis with treatment and randomization stratification factors in the model.||14.1|-14.2|=0.9942
91098430|NCT04925934|182082388|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|37.2|||=|0.1626|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|74.7|||Regression, Logistic|||Adjusted response rate, rate difference and p-value are from logistic regression analysis with treatment, randomization stratification factors and Baseline CLASI-A score in the model.||74.7|-0.3|=0.1626
91098431|NCT04925934|182082388|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|24.1|||=|0.2873|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.5|55.8|||Regression, Logistic|||Adjusted response rate, rate difference and p-value are from logistic regression analysis with treatment, randomization stratification factors and Baseline CLASI-A score in the model.||55.8|-7.5|=0.2873
91098432|NCT04925934|182082389|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|8.6|||=|0.322|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.6|22.7|||Regression, Logistic|||Adjusted response rate, rate difference and p-value are from logistic regression analysis with treatment and randomization stratification factors in the model.||22.7|-5.6|=0.3220
91098433|NCT04925934|182082389|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|2.9|||=|0.7364|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.2|17.0|||Regression, Logistic|||Adjusted response rate, rate difference and p-value are from logistic regression analysis with treatment and randomization stratification factors in the model.||17.0|-11.2|=0.7364
91098434|NCT04925934|182082390|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|11.7|||=|0.2805|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.1|29.4|||Regression, Logistic|||Adjusted response rate, rate difference and p-value are from logistic regression analysis with treatment, stratification factors (SLEDAI-2K only) and Baseline OGC dose included in the model.||29.4|-6.1|=0.2805
91098435|NCT04925934|182082390|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|9.4|||=|0.3926|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.6|27.3|||Regression, Logistic|||Adjusted response rate, rate difference and p-value are from logistic regression analysis with treatment, stratification factors (SLEDAI-2K only) and Baseline OGC dose included in the model.||27.3|-8.6|=0.3926
91098436|NCT04925934|182082391|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|16.5|||=|0.037|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.0|29.0|||Regression, Logistic|||Adjusted response rate, rate difference and p-value are from logistic regression analysis with treatment and randomization stratification factors in the model.||29.0|4.0|=0.0370
91098437|NCT04925934|182082391|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|4.9|||=|0.4939|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.7|16.4|||Regression, Logistic|||Adjusted response rate, rate difference and p-value are from logistic regression analysis with treatment and randomization stratification factors in the model.||16.4|-6.7|=0.4939
91098438|NCT04425018|182082397|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.6||||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|29.0|||Fisher Exact||"Estimate and corresponding Wald 95% confidence interval of the difference in pCR response rates (%) between the Paclitaxel + Pertuzumab + Margetuximab and Paclitaxel + Pertuzumab + Trastuzumab arms."|||29.0|-5.8|0.188
91098439|NCT04425018|182082398|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.9||||0.0715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|40.1|||Fisher Exact||"Estimate and corresponding Wald 95% confidence interval of the difference in pCR response rates (%) between the Paclitaxel + Pertuzumab + Margetuximab and Paclitaxel + Pertuzumab + Trastuzumab arms among HR+ subjects"|||40.1|-2.2|0.0715
91098440|NCT04425018|182082399|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.2||||0.7754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.5|26.1|||Fisher Exact||"Estimate and corresponding Wald 95% confidence interval of the difference in pCR response rates (%) between the Paclitaxel + Pertuzumab + Margetuximab and Paclitaxel + Pertuzumab + Trastuzumab arms among HR- subjects."|||26.1|-36.5|0.7754
91098441|NCT00849472|182082449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|17.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.64|27.55|||||The estimated value (EV) represents the percentage of participants with pCR. Participants with missing data were excluded from the denominator (n=89; 4 participants with missing data) for the calculation of the EV.|||27.55|10.64|
91098442|NCT05942040|182082464|OTHER|Pre-post test|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.16|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.16|0.43|0.17
91098443|NCT06461455|182082472|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority in distance VA was declared if upper confidence limit was less than 0.05.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011|||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.04||Since a non-inferiority hypothesis is being tested, confidence limit is more appropriate than p-value in assessing the results against the predefined non-inferiority margin.|||LSM results based on mixed effects repeated measures model with both fixed (lens, visit, lens by visit interaction, period, and lens sequence) and random (subject) effects. Difference=LID230451-ULTRA MFfA. Sign is retained with the rounded value.|||0.04||
91098444|NCT01917773|182082475|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Reported MIs and SDs in healthy volunteers from an adult study were used to calculate sample size (1). A sample size of 13 patients was deemed adequate to detect a 25% change in MI with 80% power.~Reference: Rao SS, Kavelock R, Beaty J, Ackerson K, et al. Effects of fat and carbohydrate meals on colonic motor response. Gut. Feb 2000;46(2):205-211."||||||0.087|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||The Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to analyze change in MI at 15 minutes. Values were considered to be significant if P \<0.05.||||0.087
91098445|NCT01917773|182082475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.552|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||The Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to analyze change in MI at 30 minutes. Values were considered to be significant if P \<0.05.||||0.552
91098446|NCT01917773|182082475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.807|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||The Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to analyze change in MI at 45 minutes. Values were considered to be significant if P \<0.05.||||0.807
91098447|NCT00544882|182082487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6346|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at Cycle 2 - Day 2 time point. p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.||||0.6346
91098448|NCT00544882|182082487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2757|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at Cycle 2 - Day 4 time point.||||0.2757
91098449|NCT00544882|182082487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1321|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at Cycle 2 - Day 6 time point.||||0.1321
91098450|NCT00544882|182082487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5543|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at Cycle 2 - Days 19-20 time point.||||0.5543
91098451|NCT00544882|182082487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.394|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at Cycle 2 - Day 23 time point.||||0.3940
91098452|NCT00544882|182082487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7891|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at Cycle 2 - Day 24 time point.||||0.7891
91098453|NCT00544882|182082487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4829|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at Cycle 2 - Day 25 time point.||||0.4829
91098454|NCT00544882|182082487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4526|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at Cycle 2 - Day 27 time point.||||0.4526
91098455|NCT00544882|182082487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2485|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at Cycle 2 - Day 28 time point.||||0.2485
91098456|NCT00544882|182082487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6252|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at Cycle 3 - Day 2 time point.||||0.6252
91098457|NCT00544882|182082487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at Cycle 3 - Day 4 time point.||||0.4003
91098458|NCT00544882|182082487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8841|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at Cycle 3 - Day 6 time point.||||0.8841
91098459|NCT00544882|182082489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8892|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at Cycle 2 - Day 2 time point. p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.||||0.8892
91098460|NCT00544882|182082489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7678|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at Cycle 2 - Day 4 time point.||||0.7678
91098461|NCT00544882|182082489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5782|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at Cycle 2 - Day 6 time point.||||0.5782
91098462|NCT00544882|182082489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8083|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at Cycle 2 - Days 19-20 time point.||||0.8083
91098463|NCT00544882|182082489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at Cycle 2 - Day 23 time point.||||1.0000
91098464|NCT00544882|182082489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4122|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at Cycle 2 - Day 24 time point.||||0.4122
91098465|NCT00544882|182082489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6675|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at Cycle 2 - Day 25 time point.||||0.6675
91098466|NCT00544882|182082489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8445|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at Cycle 2 - Day 27 time point.||||0.8445
91098467|NCT00544882|182082489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3772|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at Cycle 2 - Day 28 time point.||||0.3772
91098468|NCT00544882|182082489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1918|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at Cycle 3 - Day 2 time point.||||0.1918
91098469|NCT00544882|182082489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6675|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at Cycle 3 - Day 4 time point.||||0.6675
91098470|NCT00544882|182082489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9226|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at Cycle 3 - Day 6 time point.||||0.9226
91098471|NCT00544882|182082490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0979|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at Cycle 2 - Day 2 time point. p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.||||0.0979
91098472|NCT00544882|182082490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0629|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at Cycle 2 - Day 4 time point.||||0.0629
91098473|NCT00544882|182082490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8464|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at Cycle 2 - Day 6 time point.||||0.8464
90850570|NCT02984943|181566990|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Skillings-Mack test|||||||0.004
90850571|NCT02984943|181566991|OTHER|||||||0.2938|||||||Skillings-Mack test|||||||0.2938
91098474|NCT00544882|182082490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6316|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at Cycle 2 - Days 19-20 time point.||||0.6316
91098475|NCT00544882|182082490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at Cycle 2 - Day 23 time point.||||0.3000
91098476|NCT00544882|182082490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0955|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at Cycle 2 - Day 24 time point.||||0.0955
91098477|NCT00544882|182082490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1523|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at Cycle 3 - Day 25 time point.||||0.1523
91098478|NCT00544882|182082490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2809|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at Cycle 2 - Day 27 time point.||||0.2809
91098479|NCT00544882|182082490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8829|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at Cycle 3 - Day 28 time point.||||0.8829
91098480|NCT00544882|182082490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9262|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at Cycle 3 - Day 2 time point.||||0.9262
91098481|NCT00544882|182082490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7811|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at Cycle 3 -Day 4 time point.||||0.7811
91098482|NCT00544882|182082490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3703|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at Cycle 3 - Day 6 time point.||||0.3703
91098483|NCT00308685|182082496|OTHER||Difference in adjusted means|5.163||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.478|7.847||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline FEV1 as covariate and fixed effects of pooled center and treatment group.||7.847|2.478|0.0002
91098484|NCT01121575|182082532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjust geometric mean|69.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|54.22|88.44|||||Ratio of crizotinib + dacomitinib / crizotinib alone adjust geometric mean was analyzed using the mixed effect model and displayed as percentage.|Statistical analysis was performed for crizotinib AUClast for participants who had both Day -1 and C2D1 data. Result for the analysis of AUClast was based on data from 11 participants. No statistical analysis was performed for PF-06260182.||88.44|54.22|
90900135|NCT03661996|181666479|SUPERIORITY|A within-group analysis of change at Week 8 from baseline.|Least Squares Mean Change From Baseline|-3.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.122|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.96|-3.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|LS means, 95% CIs, and P values were obtained from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Results are summarized by subject type and the injected knee. The NPRS was collected during the last study visit. Lower scores indicate improvement. Model terms included pooled site group, baseline K-L grade category, baseline BMI category, sex, study visit, and baseline pain score as covariates.||-3.48|-3.96|<0.0001
90900136|NCT01161472|181666494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square (LS) Mean Difference|-0.0285|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018||0.1198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0647|0.0077|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) was used to determine p-value for comparison of fesoterodine 4 mg vs placebo, with model terms: period and treatment as the fixed effect, participants as the random effect, and between and within participant baselines as the covariates.||0.0077|-0.0647|0.1198
90900137|NCT01161472|181666494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.0203|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0173||0.2459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0551|0.0145|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was used to determine p-value for comparison of fesoterodine 8 mg vs placebo, with model terms: period and treatment as the fixed effect, participants as the random effect, and between and within participant baselines as the covariates.||0.0145|-0.0551|0.2459
91098485|NCT01121575|182082533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjust geometric mean|78.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|58.9|105.54|||||Ratio of crizotinib + dacomitinib / crizotinib alone adjust geometric mean was analyzed using the mixed effect model and displayed as percentage.|Statistical analysis was performed for crizotinib AUC10 for participants who had both Day -1 and C2D1 data. Result for the analysis of AUC10 was based on data from 6 participants. No statistical analysis was performed for PF-06260182.||105.54|58.90|
91098486|NCT01121575|182082535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ration of adjust geometric mean|70.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|54.71|91.12|||||Ratio of crizotinib + dacomitinib / crizotinib alone adjust geometric mean was analyzed using the mixed effect model and displayed as percentage.|Statistical analysis was performed for crizotinib Cmax for participants who had both Day -1 and C2D1 data. Result for the analysis of Cmax was based on data from 11 participants. No statistical analysis was performed for PF-06260182.||91.12|54.71|
91098487|NCT01121575|182082538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjust geometric mean|117.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|64.97|213.61|||||Ratio of crizotinib + dacomitinib / dacomitinib alone adjust geometric mean was analyzed using the mixed effect model and displayed as percentage.|Statistical analysis was performed for dacomitinib AUClast for participants who had both Day -1 and C2D1 data. Result for the analysis of AUClast was based on data from 3 participants. No statistical analysis was performed for PF-05199265.||213.61|64.97|
91098488|NCT01121575|182082539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjust geometric mean|121.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.2|211.66|||||Ratio of crizotinib + dacomitinib / dacomitinib alone adjust geometric mean was analyzed using the mixed effect model and displayed as percentage.|Statistical analysis was performed for dacomitinib AUC24 for participants who had both Day -1 and C2D1 data. Result for the analysis of AUC24 was based on data from 3 participants. No statistical analysis was performed for PF-05199265.||211.66|70.20|
91098489|NCT01121575|182082541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjust geometric mean|130.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.46|206.73|||||Ratio of crizotinib + dacomitinib / dacomitinib alone adjust geometric mean was analyzed using the mixed effect model and displayed as percentage.|Statistical analysis was performed for dacomitinib Cmax for participants who had both Day -1 and C2D1 data. Result for the analysis of Cmax was based on data from 3 participants. No statistical analysis was performed for PF-05199265.||206.73|82.46|
91098490|NCT02583269|182082549|OTHER|||||||0.76|||||||ANOVA|||Overall FACT G score p value baseline to week 8||||0.76
91098491|NCT02583269|182082549|OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||ANOVA|||Fact G functional well being p value baseline to week 8||||0.25
91098492|NCT02583269|182082549|OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||ANOVA|||FACT G emotional well being p value baseline to week 8||||0.18
91098493|NCT02583269|182082549|OTHER|||||||0.87|||||||ANOVA|||Fact G physical well being p value baseline to week 8||||0.87
91098494|NCT02583269|182082549|OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||ANOVA|||Fact G social well being p value baseline to week 8||||0.22
91098495|NCT02583269|182082557|OTHER|||||||0.67|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.67
91098496|NCT02583269|182082558|OTHER|||||||0.119|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline v. 4 weeks log IL-8||||0.119
91098497|NCT02583269|182082558|OTHER|||||||0.414|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline v. 8 weeks log IL-8||||0.414
91098498|NCT02583269|182082559|OTHER|||||||0.851|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline v. 4 weeks p value log VEGF||||0.851
91098499|NCT02583269|182082559|OTHER|||||||0.688|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline vs. 8 weeks p value log VEGF||||0.688
91098500|NCT03244189|182082562|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.2||||||||1.20|0.77|
91098501|NCT03244189|182082563|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.37||||||||1.37|0.72|
91098502|NCT03244189|182082564|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|2.29||||||||2.29|0.91|
91098503|NCT03971422|182082630|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.586|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.091|-1.249||Confidence intervals and p-values are based on stage-wise inverse normal combination using the Lehmacher and Wassmer method.|Lehmacher and Wassmer method||Mixed model repeated measure (MMRM) ANCOVA model included treatment group, Baseline score, region, stratification factor (MuSK+ or AChR+) and treatment group by day (interaction term) as fixed factors and participant as a random effect.|The parallel gatekeeping testing procedure with a truncated Hochberg test was used to control the familywise type I error rate at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.||-1.249|-4.091|<0.001
91098504|NCT03971422|182082630|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.619|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.994|-1.163||Confidence intervals and p-values are based on stage-wise inverse normal combination using the Lehmacher and Wassmer method.|Lehmacher and Wassmer method||MMRM analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model included treatment group, Baseline score, region, stratification factor (MuSK+ or AChR+) and treatment group by day (interaction term) as fixed factors and participant as a random effect.|The parallel gatekeeping testing procedure with a truncated Hochberg test was used to control the familywise type I error rate at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.||-1.163|-3.994|<0.001
90850572|NCT02984943|181566992|OTHER|||||||0.2938|||||||Skillings-Mack test|||||||0.2938
91098505|NCT03971422|182082631|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.765|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|14.882||p-value is nominal. Confidence intervals and p-values are based on stage-wise inverse normal combination using the Lehmacher and Wassmer method.|Wald test||The OR of responder rates is estimated and tested between treatment groups using logistic regression model with treatment group, Baseline MG-ADL score and stratification factor (MuSK+ or AChR+). An OR \> 1 favours rozanolixizumab.|||14.882|2.100|<0.001
91098506|NCT03971422|182082631|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.273|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.653|11.791||p-value is nominal. Confidence intervals and p-values are based on stage-wise inverse normal combination using the Lehmacher and Wassmer method.|Wald test||The OR of responder rates is estimated and tested between treatment groups using logistic regression model with treatment group, Baseline MG-ADL score and stratification factor (MuSK+ or AChR+). An OR \> 1 favours rozanolixizumab.|||11.791|1.653|<0.001
91098507|NCT03971422|182082632|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.901|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.634|-1.245||Confidence intervals and p-values are based on stage-wise inverse normal combination using the Lehmacher and Wassmer method.|Lehmacher and Wassmer method||MMRM ANCOVA model included treatment group, Baseline score, region, stratification factor (MuSK+ or AChR+) and treatment group by day (interaction term) as fixed factors and participant as a random effect.|A sequential testing procedure was used. The parallel gatekeeping testing procedure with a truncated Hochberg test was used to control the familywise type I error rate at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.||-1.245|-6.634|<0.001
91098508|NCT03971422|182082632|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.525|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.303|-2.968||Confidence intervals and p-values are based on stage-wise inverse normal combination using the Lehmacher and Wassmer method.|Lehmacher and Wassmer method||MMRM ANCOVA model included treatment group, Baseline score, region, stratification factor (MuSK+ or AChR+) and treatment group by day (interaction term) as fixed factors and participant as a random effect.|A sequential testing procedure was used. The parallel gatekeeping testing procedure with a truncated Hochberg test was used to control the familywise type I error rate at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.||-2.968|-8.303|<0.001
91098509|NCT03971422|182082633|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.483|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.614|-1.584||Confidence intervals and p-values are based on stage-wise inverse normal combination using the Lehmacher and Wassmer method.|Lehmacher and Wassmer method||MMRM ANCOVA model included treatment group, Baseline score, region, stratification factor (MuSK+ or AChR+) and treatment group by day (interaction term) as fixed factors and participant as a random effect.|A sequential testing procedure was used. The parallel gatekeeping testing procedure with a truncated Hochberg test was used to control the familywise type I error rate at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.||-1.584|-5.614|<0.001
91098510|NCT03971422|182082633|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.756|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.821|-2.859||Confidence intervals and p-values are based on stage-wise inverse normal combination using the Lehmacher and Wassmer method.|Lehmacher and Wassmer method||MMRM ANCOVA model included treatment group, Baseline score, region, stratification factor (MuSK+ or AChR+) and treatment group by day (interaction term) as fixed factors and participant as a random effect.|A sequential testing procedure was used. The parallel gatekeeping testing procedure with a truncated Hochberg test was used to control the familywise type I error rate at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.||-2.859|-6.821|<0.001
90850573|NCT02984943|181566993|OTHER|||||||0.0608|||||||Skillings-Mack test|||||||0.0608
90900138|NCT01161472|181666496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.0037|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0115||0.7502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0268|0.0194|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was used to determine p-value for comparison of fesoterodine 4 mg vs placebo, with model terms: period and treatment as the fixed effect, participants as the random effect, and between and within participant baselines as the covariates.||0.0194|-0.0268|0.7502
91098511|NCT03971422|182082634|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-12.441|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.804|-4.089||Confidence intervals and p-values are based on stage-wise inverse normal combination using the Lehmacher and Wassmer method.|Lehmacher and Wassmer method||MMRM ANCOVA model included treatment group, Baseline score, region, stratification factor (MuSK+ or AChR+) and treatment group by day (interaction term) as fixed factors and participant as a random effect.|A sequential testing procedure was used. The parallel gatekeeping testing procedure with a truncated Hochberg test was used to control the familywise type I error rate at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.||-4.089|-21.804|<0.001
91098512|NCT03971422|182082634|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-15.163|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.596|-6.45||Confidence intervals and p-values are based on stage-wise inverse normal combination using the Lehmacher and Wassmer method.|Lehmacher and Wassmer method||MMRM ANCOVA model included treatment group, Baseline score, region, stratification factor (MuSK+ or AChR+) and treatment group by day (interaction term) as fixed factors and participant as a random effect.|A sequential testing procedure was used. The parallel gatekeeping testing procedure with a truncated Hochberg test was used to control the familywise type I error rate at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.||-6.450|-23.596|<0.001
90850574|NCT02984943|181566994|OTHER|||||||0.0608|||||||Skillings-Mack test|||||||0.0608
90850575|NCT02984943|181566995|OTHER|||||||0.1496|||||||Skillings-Mack test|||||||0.1496
90850576|NCT02984943|181566996|OTHER|||||||0.1496|||||||Skillings-Mack test|||||||0.1496
90850577|NCT02984943|181566997|OTHER|||||||0.36|||||||Skillings-Mack test|||||||0.36
90850578|NCT02984943|181566998|OTHER|||||||0.36|||||||Skillings-Mack test|||||||0.36
90850579|NCT02984943|181566999|OTHER|||||||0.0012|||||||Skillings-Mack test|||||||0.0012
90850580|NCT02984943|181567000|OTHER|||||||0.0012|||||||Skillings-Mack test|||||||0.0012
90850581|NCT02984943|181567001|OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||Skillings-Mack test|||||||0.90
90850582|NCT02984943|181567002|OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||Skillings-Mack test|||||||0.90
90850583|NCT02984943|181567003|OTHER|||||||0.0068|||||||Skillings-Mack test|||||||0.0068
90850584|NCT02984943|181567004|OTHER|||||||0.0068|||||||Skillings-Mack test|||||||0.0068
90850585|NCT02984943|181567005|OTHER|||||||0.0183|||||||Skillings-Mack test|||||||0.0183
90850586|NCT02984943|181567006|OTHER|||||||0.0183|||||||Skillings-Mack test|||||||0.0183
90850587|NCT02984943|181567007|OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Skillings-Mack test|||||||0.08
90850588|NCT02984943|181567008|OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Skillings-Mack test|||||||0.08
91098513|NCT03971422|182082635|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-8.65||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.058|-0.134||Confidence intervals and p-values are based on stage-wise inverse normal combination using the Lehmacher and Wassmer method.|Lehmacher and Wassmer method||MMRM ANCOVA model included treatment group, Baseline score, region, stratification factor (MuSK+ or AChR+) and treatment group by day (interaction term) as fixed factors and participant as a random effect.|A sequential testing procedure was used. The parallel gatekeeping testing procedure with a truncated Hochberg test was used to control the familywise type I error rate at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.||-0.134|-18.058|0.012
91098514|NCT03971422|182082635|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-14.822|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.759|-5.936||Confidence intervals and p-values are based on stage-wise inverse normal combination using the Lehmacher and Wassmer method.|Lehmacher and Wassmer method||MMRM ANCOVA model included treatment group, Baseline score, region, stratification factor (MuSK+ or AChR+) and treatment group by day (interaction term) as fixed factors and participant as a random effect.|A sequential testing procedure was used. The parallel gatekeeping testing procedure with a truncated Hochberg test was used to control the familywise type I error rate at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.||-5.936|-23.759|<0.001
91098515|NCT03971422|182082636|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-11.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.958|-4.998||Confidence intervals and p-values are based on stage-wise inverse normal combination using the Lehmacher and Wassmer method.|Lehmacher and Wassmer method||MMRM ANCOVA model included treatment group, Baseline score, region, stratification factor (MuSK+ or AChR+) and treatment group by day (interaction term) as fixed factors and participant as a random effect.|A sequential testing procedure was used. The parallel gatekeeping testing procedure with a truncated Hochberg test was used to control the familywise type I error rate at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.||-4.998|-18.958|<0.001
91098516|NCT03971422|182082636|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-10.705|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.787|-3.998||Confidence intervals and p-values are based on stage-wise inverse normal combination using the Lehmacher and Wassmer method.|Lehmacher and Wassmer method||MMRM ANCOVA model included treatment group, Baseline score, region, stratification factor (MuSK+ or AChR+) and treatment group by day (interaction term) as fixed factors and participant as a random effect.|A sequential testing procedure was used. The parallel gatekeeping testing procedure with a truncated Hochberg test was used to control the familywise type I error rate at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.||-3.998|-17.787|<0.001
91098517|NCT06059066|182082639|OTHER|||||||0.57||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Willingness to repeat procedure immediately after received intradetrusor BTX-A injections||||0.57
91098518|NCT06059066|182082639|OTHER|||||||0.83||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Willingness to repeat procedure asses 6-weeks after intradetrusor BTX-A injections||||0.83
91098519|NCT06059066|182082640|OTHER|||||||0.59||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in total ICIQ-SF score assessed before and 6-weeks after treatment||||0.59
91098520|NCT06059066|182082640|OTHER|||||||0.29||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in ICIQ QoL score assessed before and 6-weeks after treatment||||0.29
91098521|NCT06059066|182082641|OTHER|||||||0.57||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in total NBSS-SF score assessed before and 6-weeks after treatment||||0.57
91098522|NCT06059066|182082641|OTHER|||||||0.42||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in NBSS-SF QoL score assessed before and 6-weeks after treatment||||0.42
91098523|NCT06059066|182082641|OTHER|||||||0.24||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in NBSS-SF incontinence domain score assessed before and 6-weeks after treatment||||0.24
91098524|NCT06059066|182082641|OTHER|||||||0.93||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in NBSS-SF storage and voiding domain score assessed before and 6-weeks after treatment||||0.93
90850589|NCT02984943|181567009|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Descriptive statistics only were used|||
90850590|NCT02984943|181567010|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Descriptive statistics only were used|||
91098525|NCT06059066|182082641|OTHER|||||||0.64||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in NBSS-SF consequences domain score assessed before and 6-weeks after treatment||||0.64
91098526|NCT06059066|182082642|OTHER|||||||0.21||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.21
91098527|NCT06059066|182082643|OTHER||||||<|2e-05||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Change in post-procedural pain as compared to baseline||||<0.00002
91098528|NCT03928704|182082644|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|6.16|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.16|2.00|<0.001
91098529|NCT03928704|182082645|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.71|5.54|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.54|1.71|<0.001
91098530|NCT03928704|182082646|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-1.51|||<|0.001||95.0|-2.04|-0.98|||ANCOVA|||||-0.98|-2.04|<0.001
91098531|NCT03928704|182082646|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.91||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.42|0.61|||ANCOVA|||||0.61|-2.42|0.220
91098532|NCT03928704|182082647|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.17|6.26|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.26|2.17|<0.001
90850591|NCT02984943|181567011|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Descriptive statistics only were used|||
90850592|NCT02984943|181567012|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Descriptive statistics only were used|||
90850593|NCT02984943|181567013|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Descriptive statistics only were used|||
90850594|NCT02984943|181567014|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Descriptive statistics only were used|||
90850595|NCT02984943|181567015|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Descriptive statistics only were used|||
91098533|NCT03928704|182082648|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.06|9.93|||Regression, Logistic|||||9.93|2.06|<0.001
91098534|NCT03928704|182082649|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.41|12.23|||Regression, Logistic|||||12.23|2.41|<0.001
91098535|NCT03928704|182082650|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.87|5.84|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.84|1.87|<0.001
91098536|NCT03928704|182082651|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-1.48|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.99|-0.97|||ANCOVA|||||-0.97|-1.99|<0.001
91098537|NCT03928704|182082651|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-1.25||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||||-0.24|-2.26|0.019
91098538|NCT03928704|182082652|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-1.8|||<|0.001||95.0|-2.42|-1.18|||ANCOVA|||||-1.18|-2.42|<0.001
91098539|NCT03928704|182082652|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-1.09||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.83|0.65|||ANCOVA|||||0.65|-2.83|0.199
90850596|NCT02984943|181567017|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Descriptive statistics only were used|||
90850597|NCT02984943|181567018|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Descriptive statistics only were used|||
90850598|NCT02984943|181567019|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Descriptive statistics only were used|||
90850599|NCT02984943|181567021|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Descriptive statistics only were used|||
90850600|NCT02984943|181567022|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Descriptive statistics only were used|||
90850601|NCT02984943|181567023|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Descriptive statistics only were used|||
90850602|NCT02984943|181567024|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Descriptive statistics only were used|||
90850603|NCT02296138|181567040|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis testing strategy ensures that the overall type I error is protected at 2-sided 0.01 level.|Ratio of rates vs. Tiotropium 5 μg|0.93||||0.0498|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.85|1.02|||Negative binomial model||Ratio of events Tiotropium (5 μg) + Olodaterol (5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 μg) is provided.|Annualised rate of moderate to severe COPD exacerbation was analysed using a negative binomial model including the fixed, categorical effect of treatment as well as the logarithm of the treatment exposure as an offset.||1.02|0.85|0.0498
90850604|NCT02296138|181567040|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of rates|0.89||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|0.96|||Negative binomial model||Ratio of rates Tiotropium (5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 μg) + Olodaterol (5 μg) is provided.|Model was based on SPARK/FLAME- Covariates: Smoking status, baseline inhaled corticosteroid, Global Initiative on Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease stage, region, COPD Assessment Test score (replacing baseline symptom score), exacerbations treated with antibiotics/steroids history in previous year (replacing 1-year history of exacerbations)||0.96|0.84|0.0010
90850605|NCT02296138|181567040|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of rates|0.91||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|0.98|||Negative binomial model||Ratio of rates Tiotropium (5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 μg) + Olodaterol (5 μg) is provided.|Model was based on HERMES- Covariates: age, sex, smoking status, baseline Long-acting Beta-agonist/inhaled corticosteroid, region and percent predicted post-bronchodilator Forced Expiratory Volume in One Second||0.98|0.85|0.0080
90900139|NCT01161472|181666496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.0085|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0119||0.4785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0325|0.0154|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was used to determine p-value for comparison of fesoterodine 8 mg vs placebo, with model terms: period and treatment as the fixed effect, participants as the random effect, and between and within participant baselines as the covariates.||0.0154|-0.0325|0.4785
90900140|NCT01161472|181666498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.0035|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0265||0.8944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0569|0.0498|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was used to determine p-value for comparison of fesoterodine 4 mg vs placebo, with model terms: period and treatment as the fixed effect, participants as the random effect, and between and within participant baselines as the covariates.||0.0498|-0.0569|0.8944
91098540|NCT03928704|182082653|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-2.63|||<|0.001||95.0|-3.66|-1.61|||ANCOVA|||||-1.61|-3.66|<0.001
90850606|NCT02296138|181567040|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of rates|0.89||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|0.96|||Negative binomial model||Ratio of rates Tiotropium (5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 μg) + Olodaterol (5 μg) is provided.|Model was based on TRINITY/TRILOGY- Covariates: Treatment, region, severity of airflow limitation, and smoking status as effects, and exacerbations treated with antibiotics/steroids in previous year.||0.96|0.84|0.0011
90850607|NCT02296138|181567041|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis testing strategy ensures that the overall type I error is protected at 2-sided 0.01 level.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.1188|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.87|1.03|||Log Rank||Tiotropium (5 μg) + Olodaterol (5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 μg)|A Cox's proportional hazard model was used to estimate the hazard ratio and the corresponding Confidence Interval. A log-rank test was used to obtain the p-value||1.03|0.87|0.1188
90850608|NCT02296138|181567042|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of events vs. Tiotropium 5 μg|0.89||||0.1265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.03|||Negative binomial model||Ratio of events Tiotropium (5 μg) + Olodaterol (5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 μg) is provided.|Annualised rate of exacerbations leading to hospitalization was analysed using a negative binomial model including the fixed, categorical effect of treatment as well as the logarithm of the treatment exposure as an offset.||1.03|0.76|0.1265
91098541|NCT03928704|182082653|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-1.84||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.56|0.89|||ANCOVA|||||0.89|-4.56|0.170
91098542|NCT03928704|182082654|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|3.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.08|5.83|||ANCOVA|||||5.83|2.08|<0.001
91098543|NCT03928704|182082654|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|7.27||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|13.95|||ANCOVA|||||13.95|0.60|0.035
91098544|NCT03928704|182082655|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.14|||ANCOVA|||||-0.14|-0.52|<0.001
90850609|NCT02296138|181567043|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.2773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.06|||Log Rank||Tiotropium (5 μg) + Olodaterol (5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 μg)|A Cox's proportional hazard model was used to estimate the hazard ratio and the corresponding Confidence Interval. A log-rank test was used to obtain the p-value||1.06|0.82|0.2773
90850610|NCT02296138|181567044|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.7357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.75|||Log Rank||Tiotropium (5 μg) + Olodaterol (5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 μg)|A Cox's proportional hazard model was used to estimate the hazard ratio and the corresponding Confidence Interval. A log-rank test was used to obtain the p-value||1.75|0.67|0.7357
91098545|NCT03928704|182082655|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.5||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|0.07|||ANCOVA|||||0.07|-1.07|0.086
91098546|NCT03928704|182082656|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-1.06|||=|0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|-0.23|||ANCOVA|||||-0.23|-1.88|=0.013
91098547|NCT03928704|182082657|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.84|6.62|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.62|1.84|<0.001
91098548|NCT01137812|182082702|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation: assuming a difference between canagliflozin and sitagliptin of 0.0% and a common standard deviation of 1.0%, and using a 2-sample, 1-sided t-test with a Type I error rate of 0.025, it was estimated that 234 patients per group would provide approximately 90% power to demonstrate non-inferiority with the non-inferiority margin of 0.3, comparing canagliflozin with sitagliptin.|Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.064|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.25|||ANCOVA|||If the hypothesis of non-inferiority of canagliflozin to sitagliptin at Week 52 was demonstrated (ie, upper bound of the 95% Confidence Interval of the treatment difference \[canagliflozin minus sitagliptin\] was less than 0.3) and the upper bound was less than 0.0, the superiority of the canagliflozin dose relative to sitagliptin would be concluded.||-0.250|-0.500|<0.05
91098549|NCT01137812|182082703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.48|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.48|1.30|
91098550|NCT01137812|182082704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-24.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.89|-18.24|||ANCOVA|||||-18.24|-29.89|<0.001
91098551|NCT01137812|182082705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-2.2|||ANCOVA|||||-2.2|-3.3|<0.001
91098552|NCT01137812|182082706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-5.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.883|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.642|-4.175|||ANCOVA|||||-4.175|-7.642|<0.001
91098553|NCT01137812|182082707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9||0.554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|5.3|||ANCOVA|||||5.3|-9.8|0.554
90850611|NCT00711516|181567045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-241.8||||0.7382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2470.0|2102.3||The hierarchical testing procedure was employed to control the studywise error rate at 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|The assumption of normality was violated (p-value ≤0.05), therefore the treatment comparison was made using a Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||Using the standardized difference of 1.10, 28 evaluable patients (14 per treatment group) were required to provide 80% power while controlling the 2-sided, Type 1 error rate at 0.05. With an estimated 25% attrition rate, a total of 38 patients (19 per group) were planned. First analyzed using ANCOVA,the residuals were used to test for normality using Shapiro-Wilk; normality was violated therefore treatment comparison used the Wilcoxon rank sum.||2102.3|-2470.0|0.7382
90900141|NCT01161472|181666498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0209|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0263||0.4308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.032|0.0738|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was used to determine p-value for comparison of fesoterodine 8 mg vs placebo, with model terms: period and treatment as the fixed effect, participants as the random effect, and between and within participant baselines as the covariates.||0.0738|-0.0320|0.4308
91030819|NCT03587207|181946146|OTHER|M07-0241084 strain-Between group ratio for comparison of rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S group and rMenBOMV group.|Geometric mean ratio|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.58|0.86|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||To investigate possible effects on the immune response based on strains common to rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S versus rMenBOMV study groups, on the Meningitis B M07-0241084 (NHBA) strain, one month after last vaccination.||0.86|0.58|
91098554|NCT01137812|182082708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.6|9.3|||ANCOVA|||||9.3|4.6|<0.001
91098555|NCT03927157|182082709|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.39|||Negative Binomial Regression|||||0.39|0.17|<0.001
91098556|NCT03927157|182082710|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.32|0.16|<0.001
91098557|NCT03927157|182082711|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means Difference|0.35||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.55|0.14|0.001
91098558|NCT03927157|182082712|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means Difference|-0.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.15|-0.47|<0.001
91098559|NCT03927157|182082713|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means Difference|-0.16||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|-0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.06|-0.27|0.001
91098560|NCT05558410|182082728|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91098561|NCT05558410|182082729|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2781|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2781
91098562|NCT05558410|182082730|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
91098563|NCT05558410|182082731|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
91098564|NCT05558410|182082732|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91098565|NCT05558410|182082733|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Pearson's chi-squared test|||||||<0.0001
91098566|NCT05558410|182082734|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91098567|NCT05558410|182082735|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
91098568|NCT05558410|182082736|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0237|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0237
91098569|NCT05558410|182082737|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum|||||||0.0080
91098570|NCT02265744|182082747|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9745|||||||Chi-squared|Nominal p-values that are not adjusted for multiplicity.||||||0.9745
91098571|NCT02265744|182082747|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6217|||||||Chi-squared|Nominal p-values that are not adjusted for multiplicity.||||||0.6217
91098572|NCT02265744|182082747|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8295|||||||Chi-squared|Nominal p-values that are not adjusted for multiplicity.||||||0.8295
91098573|NCT02265744|182082747|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9439|||||||Chi-squared|Nominal p-values that are not adjusted for multiplicity.||||||0.9439
91098574|NCT00923702|182082781|NON_INFERIORITY|To test for non-inferiority of antibody concentrations in different dose groups, log-transformed mean MFIs in linear regression models were used to obtain MFI ratios and their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Antibody titres at months 0, 7, 12, 36 and 48 were compared and non-inferiority was inferred when the lower bound of the confidence interval of the ratio of the immunogenicity measures exceeded 0.5.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.5|||||ONE_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||The lower bound of the 95% CI ratio of immunogeneicity measures was used instead. No p-values were estimated.|||||
91098575|NCT00923702|182082782|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|95.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91098576|NCT01086475|182082786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.45
91098577|NCT01086475|182082787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.927|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.927
91098578|NCT01086475|182082788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.048
90900142|NCT01161472|181666500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.6629|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.4945||0.7707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.4729|28.7987|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was used to determine p-value for comparison of fesoterodine 4 mg vs placebo, with model terms: period and treatment as the fixed effect, participants as the random effect, and between and within participant baselines as the covariates.||28.7987|-21.4729|0.7707
91098579|NCT02448043|182082822|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.532||||||Threshold is p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.532
91098580|NCT02448043|182082823|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.523||||||Threshold is p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.523
91098581|NCT02448043|182082824|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.912||||||Threshold is p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparing baseline values of both arms to completion values of both arms||||0.912
91098582|NCT02448043|182082825|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.062||||||Threshold is p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between baseline nail brittleness values and completion values||||0.062
91098583|NCT03158688|182082853|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Cox model hazard ratio|0.63||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.464|0.854||alpha level of 0.025|Log Rank||KdD/Kd|Stratification factors used in the Log-rank p-value (1-sided) and the Cox model hazard ratio (KdD/Kd) were as assessed at randomization: International Staging System stage at screening (Stage 1 or 2 vs Stage 3); prior proteasome inhibitor exposure (yes vs no); number of prior lines of therapy (1 vs \>= 2).||0.854|0.464|0.0014
91098584|NCT03158688|182082854|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.925||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.184|3.129|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||KdD/Kd|"Odds ratios and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using the stratified Mantel-Haenszel method.~P-values were calculated using the stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Chi-Square test."||3.129|1.184|0.0040
91098585|NCT03158688|182082855|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.819|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.364|25.858|||||KdD/Kd|Odds ratios and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using the stratified Mantel-Haenszel method.||25.858|2.364|
91098586|NCT03158688|182082856|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.784||||0.0417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.595|1.033|||Log Rank||KdD/Kd|"Hazard ratio and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using the stratified Cox proportional hazards models.~1-sided p-value from the log-rank test controlling for the randomization stratification factors."||1.033|0.595|0.0417
90900143|NCT01161472|181666500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-19.921|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.4482||0.1162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.9634|5.1215|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was used to determine p-value for comparison of fesoterodine 8 mg vs placebo, with model terms: period and treatment as the fixed effect, participants as the random effect, and between and within participant baselines as the covariates.||5.1215|-44.9634|0.1162
90900144|NCT01161472|181666502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0068|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.8707||0.9989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8297|9.8433|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was used to determine p-value for comparison of fesoterodine 4 mg vs placebo, with model terms: period and treatment as the fixed effect, participants as the random effect, and between and within participant baselines as the covariates.||9.8433|-9.8297|0.9989
90900145|NCT01161472|181666502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.6251|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0346||0.7485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7926|8.5425|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was used to determine p-value for comparison of fesoterodine 4 mg vs placebo, with model terms: period and treatment as the fixed effect, participants as the random effect, and between and within participant baselines as the covariates.||8.5425|-11.7926|0.7485
90900146|NCT01161472|181666504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2684|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8243||0.7458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3788|1.9157|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was used to determine p-value for comparison of fesoterodine 4 mg vs placebo, with model terms: period and treatment as the fixed effect, participants as the random effect, and between and within participant baselines as the covariates.||1.9157|-1.3788|0.7458
90900147|NCT01161472|181666504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.0661|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8277||0.9366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7202|1.588|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was used to determine p-value for comparison of fesoterodine 8 mg vs placebo, with model terms: period and treatment as the fixed effect, participants as the random effect, and between and within participant baselines as the covariates.||1.5880|-1.7202|0.9366
91098587|NCT03158688|182082865|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.403|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.007|9.656|||||KdD/Kd|Odds ratios and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated by a stratified analysis using the Mantel-Haenszel method.||9.656|2.007|
91098588|NCT03158688|182082866|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.24||0.948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|2.35|||linear mixed effects model||The overall treatment difference (KdD - Kd)|Analysis was performed based on a linear mixed effects model. The model included fixed effects of treatment (all baseline responses were modeled with a dummy treatment), baseline QLQ-C30 GHS/QoL score, randomization stratification factors (ISS stage at screening (Stage 1 or 2 vs Stage 3), prior proteasome inhibitor exposure (yes vs no), number of prior lines of therapy (1 vs ≥ 2)), interaction between treatment and time, and random effects of participant intercept and random slope of time.||2.35|-2.52|0.9480
91098589|NCT02337946|182082941|SUPERIORITY||Difference of PFS rate between groups|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.2|19.0|||||||Agresti-Caffo method was used for estimation of 95% CI.|19.0|-17.2|
91098590|NCT02337946|182082942|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.7349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.43|||Regression, Multivariable Cox|The Cox regression model was adjusted by stratification factors except for study sites.||||1.43|0.60|0.7349
91098591|NCT02337946|182082943|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.41||||0.3485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|2.88|||Regression, Multivariable Cox|The Cox regression model was adjusted by stratification factors except for study sites.||||2.88|0.69|0.3485
91098592|NCT02337946|182082945|SUPERIORITY||Multivariable Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.5901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.33|||Regression, Multivariable Cox|The Cox regression model was adjusted by stratification factors except for study sites.||||1.33|0.60|0.5901
91098593|NCT02949934|182082951|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013|||||||ANCOVA|Covariates were age, baseline AUDIT score, baseline drinks per day, and whether participant participated before vs. during the COVID-19 pandemic.||Analysis was an ANCOVA testing the interaction between rs4680 genotype and medication group.||||0.013
91098594|NCT02949934|182082952|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||ANCOVA|Covariates were age, baseline AUDIT score, and baseline drinks per day.||Analysis was an ANCOVA testing the interaction between rs4680 genotype and medication group||||0.014
91098595|NCT02949934|182082953|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.062|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model testing interaction between rs4680 genotype, medication group, and time, controlling for scanner||||||0.062
91098596|NCT02949934|182082954|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model testing interaction between rs4680 genotype, medication group, and time, controlling for scanner||||||0.83
91098597|NCT02949934|182082954|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.026|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model testing interaction between medication group and time, controlling for scanner||||||0.026
91098598|NCT02762604|182082955|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.79|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.36|15.12|||||The estimate parameter reflects the difference in pre to post change between Imagined Gait and Visual Imagery groups.|A linear mixed effects model was used to compare changes in normal pace gait speed pre and post intervention - as a function of intervention (Imagined Gait vs. Visual Imagery)||15.12|-19.36|
91030820|NCT03587207|181946146|OTHER|Serogroup A- Between group ratio for comparison of rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S group and MenACWY group.|Geometric mean ratio|3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|2.9|4.47|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||To investigate possible effects on the immune response based on strains common to rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S versus MenACWY study groups, on the Meningitis serogroup A, one month after last vaccination.||4.47|2.90|
91030821|NCT03587207|181946146|OTHER|Serogroup C- Between group ratio for comparison of rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S group and MenACWY group.|Geometric mean ratio|4.18|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|3.28|5.31|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||To investigate possible effects on the immune response based on strains common to rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S versus MenACWY study groups, on the Meningitis serogroup C, one month after last vaccination.||5.31|3.28|
91030822|NCT03587207|181946146|OTHER|Serogroup W- Between group ratio for comparison of rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S group and MenACWY group.|Geometric mean ratio|3.07|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|2.52|3.73|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||To investigate possible effects on the immune response based on strains common to rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S versus MenACWY study groups, on the Meningitis serogroup W, one month after last vaccination.||3.73|2.52|
91030823|NCT03587207|181946146|OTHER|Serogroup Y- Between group ratio for comparison of rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S group and MenACWY group.|Geometric mean ratio|2.01|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.53|2.65|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||To investigate possible effects on the immune response based on strains common to rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S versus MenACWY study groups, on the Meningitis serogroup Y, one month after last vaccination.||2.65|1.53|
91030824|NCT03587207|181946146|OTHER|M14459 strain- Between group ratio for comparison of rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D group and rMenBOMV group.|Geometric mean ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.85|1.22|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||To investigate possible effects on the immune response based on strains common to rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D versus rMenBOMV study groups, on the Meningitis B M14459 (fHbp) strain, one month after last vaccination.||1.22|0.85|
91030825|NCT03587207|181946146|OTHER|96217 strain- Between group ratios for comparison of rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D group and rMenBOMV group|Geometric mean ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.71|1.04|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||To investigate possible effects on the immune response based on strains common to rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D versus rMenBOMV study groups, on the Meningitis B 96217 (NadA) strain, one month after last vaccination.||1.04|0.71|
91030826|NCT03587207|181946146|OTHER|NZ98/254 strain-Between group ratio for comparison of rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D group and rMenBOMV group.|Geometric mean ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.82|1.24|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||To investigate possible effects on the immune response based on strains common to rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D versus rMenBOMV study groups, on the Meningitis B NZ98/254 (PorA) strain, one month after last vaccination.||1.24|0.82|
91030827|NCT03587207|181946146|OTHER|M07-0241084 strain-Between group ratio for comparison of rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D group and rMenBOMV group.|Geometric mean ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.73|1.09|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||To investigate possible effects on the immune response based on strains common to rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D versus rMenBOMV study groups, on the Meningitis B M07-0241084 (NHBA) strain, one month after last vaccination.||1.09|0.73|
91030828|NCT03587207|181946146|OTHER|Serogroup A-Between group ratio for comparison of rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D group and MenACWY group.|Geometric mean ratio|3.92|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|3.15|4.88|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||To investigate possible effects on the immune response based on strains common to rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D versus MenACWY study groups, on the Meningitis serogroup A, one month after last vaccination.||4.88|3.15|
91030829|NCT03587207|181946146|OTHER|Serogroup C- Between group ratio for comparison of rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D group and MenACWY group.|Geometric mean ratio|4.19|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|3.3|5.34|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||To investigate possible effects on the immune response based on strains common to rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D versus MenACWY study groups, on the Meningitis serogroup C, one month after last vaccination.||5.34|3.30|
91098599|NCT02762604|182082955|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|17.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.05|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|32.97|||||The estimate parameter reflects the difference in pre to post change between Imagined Gait and Visual Imagery groups.|A linear mixed effects model was used to compare changes in gait speed during walking while talking pre and post intervention||32.97|1.40|
91098600|NCT02762604|182082956|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|2.99|||||The estimate parameter reflects change in the number of correct letters generated pre to post intervention as a function intervention (Imagined Gait vs. Visual Imagery).|A linear mixed effects model was used to compare changes in correct letters generated pre and post intervention - as a function of intervention (Imagined Gait vs. Visual Imagery)||2.99|0.21|
90957598|NCT01445301|181795306|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper 95% confidence was less than the pre-defined threshold (-Δ \[non-inferiority margin, -3.8\]) of 3.8, non-inferiority of GSK2585823 once daily to CLDM twice daily would be established.|Mean Difference (Net)|-9.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.72|-3.83|||ANCOVA|||Non-Inflammatory Lesion Counts, WEEK 4||-3.83|-14.72|<0.001
91030830|NCT03587207|181946146|OTHER|Serogroup W- Between group ratio for comparison of rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D group and MenACWY group.|Geometric mean ratio|3.17|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|2.6|3.87|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||To investigate possible effects on the immune response based on strains common to rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D versus MenACWY study groups, on the Meningitis serogroup W, one month after last vaccination.||3.87|2.60|
91030831|NCT03587207|181946146|OTHER|Serogroup Y- Between group ratio for comparison of rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D group and MenACWY group.|Geometric mean ratio|2.22|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.68|2.92|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||To investigate possible effects on the immune response based on strains common to rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D versus MenACWY study groups, on the Meningitis serogroup Y, one month after last vaccination.||2.92|1.68|
90850612|NCT00711516|181567046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|53.2||||0.1661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|136.1|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The statistical hypothesis for this key secondary efficacy variable was to be tested using the same model as specified for the primary objective efficacy variable (ANCOVA, ANOVA, and Wilcoxon as appropriate). All statistical tests were 2 tailed at the 0.05 level of significance.||136.1|-17.8|0.1661
90850613|NCT00711516|181567047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|78.9||||0.5774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-157.8|311.3|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||311.3|-157.8|0.5774
90850614|NCT00711516|181567048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|90.1||||0.861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-806.7|707.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||707.0|-806.7|0.8610
90850615|NCT00711516|181567049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|252.8||||0.6907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1066.5|1523.8|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1523.8|-1066.5|0.6907
90850616|NCT00711516|181567050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.2456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.0|-8.0|0.2456
90850617|NCT00711516|181567051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.7115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|9.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||9.0|-8.0|0.7115
90850618|NCT00711516|181567052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|4.0||||0.6103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|19.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||19.0|-13.0|0.6103
90850619|NCT00711516|181567053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.9619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|17.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||17.0|-18.0|0.9619
91030832|NCT03587207|181946146|OTHER|M14459- Between group ratios for comparison of MenABCWY group and rMenBOMV group|Geometric mean ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.87|1.25|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||To investigate possible effects on the immune response based on strains common to MenABCWY versus rMenBOMV study groups, on the Meningitis B M14459 (fHbp) strain, one month after last vaccination.||1.25|0.87|
91030833|NCT03587207|181946146|OTHER|96217 strain- Between group ratio for comparison of MenABCWY group and rMenBOMV group.|Geometric mean ratio|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.59|0.86|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||To investigate possible effects on the immune response based on strains common to MenABCWY versus rMenBOMV study groups, on the Meningitis B 96217 (NadA) strain, one month after last vaccination.||0.86|0.59|
91098601|NCT02762604|182082957|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.37|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.04|16.85|||||The estimate parameter reflects change in functional activation/deactivation pattern from pre to post intervention as a function intervention (Imagined Gait vs. Visual Imagery).|Linear mixed effects model were used to compare changes in the functional activation/deactivation pattern (factor score) during imagery of walking-while talking (relative to walking and talking alone) pre and post intervention - as a function of of intervention (Imagined Gait vs. Visual Imagery)||16.85|-12.04|
90850620|NCT00711516|181567054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-335.5||||0.4544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1270.7|723.3|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||723.3|-1270.7|0.4544
91098602|NCT02762604|182082958|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.94|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.15|13.07|||||The estimate parameter is the difference in change pre to post intervention between Imagined Gait and Visual Imagery group.|Linear mixed effects model were used to compare changes in trails a time pre and post intervention - as a function of intervention (Imagined Gait vs. Visual Imagery)||13.07|-14.15|
91030834|NCT03587207|181946146|OTHER|NZ98/254 strain-Between group ratios for comparison of MenABCWY group and rMenBOMV group|Geometric mean ratio|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.5|0.76|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||To investigate possible effects on the immune response based on strains common to MenABCWY versus rMenBOMV study groups, on the Meningitis B NZ98/254 (PorA) strain, one month after last vaccination.||0.76|0.50|
90850621|NCT00711516|181567055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|6410.3||||0.0193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1064.7|12087.3|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||12087.3|1064.7|0.0193
90850622|NCT00711516|181567056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.1704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.0|-0.1|0.1704
90850623|NCT00711516|181567057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.0609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.0|-0.3|0.0609
90850624|NCT00711516|181567058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.9||||0.0499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|0.0||Nominal P-value for treatment comparison is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and center as factors and the baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the studywise error rate at 0.05. If treatment was statistically significant on the primary variable, the key secondary variable would be claimed as significant if p-value was \<= 0.05. If primary and key secondary variables were significant subsequent secondary variables following the order presented here would be claimed as significant if their p-values were \<= 0.05. If any were \>0.05 subsequent p-values would be reported as nominal p-values.||-0.0|-5.8|0.0499
90850625|NCT00711516|181567059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7343||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.7343
90850626|NCT00711516|181567060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.2||||0.1246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|14.3||P-value for the treatment comparison is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and center as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||14.3|-1.8|0.1246
90850627|NCT00711516|181567061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-4.026||||0.7382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.684|19.98|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||19.980|-21.684|0.7382
90850628|NCT00711516|181567062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.086||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.195|25.043|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||25.043|-19.195|1.000
90850629|NCT00711516|181567063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|1.282||||0.8861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.46|14.77|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||14.770|-11.460|0.8861
90850630|NCT00711516|181567064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|11.825||||0.4738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.601|37.987|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||37.987|-12.601|0.4738
90850631|NCT00711516|181567065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0573||95.0|||||Pearson's Correlation Coefficient|The SAS CORR procedure was used to analyze the activation performance relationships. All estimations are based on Fisher's z-transformation.||Pearson's correlation coefficient was used to assess the relationship between fMRI variable and performance on the 2-back working memory test||||0.0573
91098603|NCT02762604|182082959|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.26|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.92|27.51|||||The estimate parameter is the difference in change pre to post intervention between Imagined Gait and Visual Imagery group.|Linear mixed effects model were used to compare changes in trails b time pre and post intervention - as a function of intervention (Imagined Gait vs. Visual Imagery)||27.51|-51.92|
91098604|NCT02762604|182082960|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.12|26.47|||||The estimate parameter is the difference in change pre to post intervention between Imagined Gait and Visual Imagery group.|Linear mixed effects model were used to compare changes in trails B minus A time pre and post intervention.||26.47|-48.12|
91098605|NCT02762604|182082961|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.65|0.79|||||The estimate parameter reflects the difference in pre to post change between Imagined Gait and Visual Imagery groups.|A linear mixed effects model was used to compare changes in correct letter number sequences pre and post intervention - as a function of intervention (Imagined Gait vs. Visual Imagery)||0.79|-2.65|
91098606|NCT02762604|182082962|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.95|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.0|26.78|||||The estimate parameter reflects the difference in pre to post change between Imagined Gait and Visual Imagery groups.|A linear mixed effects model was used to compare changes in Stroop interference pre and post intervention - as a function of intervention (Imagined Gait vs. Visual Imagery)||26.78|-24.00|
91098607|NCT02762604|182082963|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|79.95|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-149.94|163.47|||||The estimate parameter reflects the difference in pre to post change between Imagined Gait and Visual Imagery groups.|A linear mixed effects model was used to compare changes in flanker interference pre and post intervention - as a function of intervention (Imagined Gait vs. Visual Imagery)||163.47|-149.94|
91098608|NCT02762604|182082964|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|15.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.99|24.41|||||The estimate parameter reflects the difference in pre to post change between Imagined Gait and Visual Imagery groups.|A linear mixed effects model was used to compare changes in stride length during walking while talking pre and post intervention - as a function of intervention (Imagined Gait vs. Visual Imagery)||24.41|5.99|
91098609|NCT02762604|182082965|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.73|-0.2|||||The estimate parameter reflects the difference in pre to post change between Imagined Gait and Visual Imagery groups.|A linear mixed effects model was used to compare changes in gait variability during walking while talking pre and post intervention - as a function of intervention (Imagined Gait vs. Visual Imagery)||-0.20|-3.73|
91098610|NCT02762604|182082967|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.29|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.98|10.84|||||The estimate parameter reflects the difference in pre to post change between Imagined Gait and Visual Imagery groups.|A linear mixed effects model was used to compare changes in total free recall pre and post intervention - as a function of intervention (Imagined Gait vs. Visual Imagery)||10.84|-5.98|
91098611|NCT02762604|182082968|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.01|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.88|2.0|||||The estimate parameter reflects the difference in pre to post change between Imagined Gait and Visual Imagery groups.|A linear mixed effects model was used to compare changes in delayed figure copy recall pre and post intervention - as a function of intervention (Imagined Gait vs. Visual Imagery)||2.00|-5.88|
91098612|NCT02762604|182082969|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.96|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.01|7.28|||||The estimate parameter reflects the difference in pre to post change between Imagined Gait and Visual Imagery groups.|A linear mixed effects model was used to compare changes in word fluency pre and post intervention - as a function of intervention (Imagined Gait vs. Visual Imagery)||7.28|-20.01|
90850632|NCT00711516|181567065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0754||95.0|||||Pearson's Correlation Coefficient|The SAS CORR procedure was used to analyze the activation performance relationships. All estimations are based on Fisher's z-transformation.||||||.0754
91098613|NCT02762604|182082970|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.51|17.97|||||The estimate parameter reflects the difference in pre to post change between Imagined Gait and Visual Imagery groups.|A linear mixed effects model was used to compare changes in semantic fluency pre and post intervention - as a function of intervention (Imagined Gait vs. Visual Imagery)||17.97|-6.51|
91098614|NCT02762604|182082971|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.1|16.03||||||A linear mixed effects model was used to compare changes in digit symbol substitution performance pre and post intervention - as a function of intervention (Imagined Gait vs. Visual Imagery)|The estimate parameter reflects the difference in pre to post change between Imagined Gait and Visual Imagery groups.|16.03|-16.10|
91098615|NCT02762604|182082973|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.54|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.14|18.42|||||The estimate parameter reflects the difference in pre to post change between Imagined Gait and Visual Imagery groups.|A linear mixed effects model was used to compare changes in immediate maze performance pre and post intervention - as a function of intervention (Imagined Gait vs. Visual Imagery)||18.42|-11.14|
91098616|NCT02762604|182082974|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.65|27.18|||||The estimate parameter reflects the difference in pre to post change between Imagined Gait and Visual Imagery groups.|A linear mixed effects model was used to compare changes in delayed maze performance pre and post intervention - as a function of intervention (Imagined Gait vs. Visual Imagery)||27.18|-20.65|
91098617|NCT02762604|182082975|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.9|||||The estimate parameter reflects the difference in pre to post change between Imagined Gait and Visual Imagery groups.|A linear mixed effects model was used to compare changes in maze errors pre and post intervention - as a function of intervention (Imagined Gait vs. Visual Imagery)||0.90|-0.45|
91098618|NCT02762604|182082976|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|2.26|||||The estimate parameter reflects the difference in pre to post change between Imagined Gait and Visual Imagery groups.|A linear mixed effects model was used to compare changes in depressive symptoms pre and post intervention - as a function of intervention (Imagined Gait vs. Visual Imagery)||2.26|-1.74|
90850633|NCT00711516|181567066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2727||95.0|||||Pearson's Correlation Coefficient|||||||0.2727
90850634|NCT00711516|181567066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5671||95.0|||||Pearson's Correlation Coefficient|||||||.5671
91098619|NCT02762604|182082977|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.24|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.38|1.49|||||The estimate parameter reflects the difference in pre to post change between Imagined Gait and Visual Imagery groups.|A linear mixed effects model was used to compare changes in anxiety symptoms pre and post intervention - as a function of intervention (Imagined Gait vs. Visual Imagery)||1.49|-3.38|
91098620|NCT02762604|182082978|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.12|||||The estimate parameter reflects the difference in pre to post change between Imagined Gait and Visual Imagery groups.|A linear mixed effects model was used to compare changes in cortical thickness pre and post intervention - as a function of intervention (Imagined Gait vs. Visual Imagery)||0.12|-0.04|
91098621|NCT04937387|182083024|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.059|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0449|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.147|||||||Analysis performed using mixed effect model for repeated measures with covariates of treatment, age, sex, eCRF-reported pre-study ICS dosage at screening (med, high), baseline trough FEV1 value, visit, and interaction terms for baseline trough FEV1-by-visit and treatment-by-visit, covariance structure = unstructured.|0.147|-0.030|
91098622|NCT04937387|182083024|OTHER||Posterior Mean|0.076|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.025|0.115|||||Analysis was conducted in the Bayesian paradigm using the pre-specified mixture prior distribution, which was updated with the treatment difference between FF/UMEC/VI 100/62.5/25 and FF/VI 100/25 estimated in the MMRM analysis.|||0.115|0.025|
91098623|NCT04937387|182083024|OTHER||Posterior Median|0.079|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.005|0.123|||||Analysis was conducted in the Bayesian paradigm using the pre-specified mixture prior distribution, which was updated with the treatment difference between FF/UMEC/VI 100/62.5/25 and FF/VI 100/25 estimated in the MMRM analysis.|||0.123|0.005|
91098624|NCT04937387|182083025|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0455|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.094|0.084|||||||Analysis performed using mixed effect model for repeated measures with covariates of treatment, age, sex, eCRF-reported pre-study ICS dosage at screening (med, high), baseline trough FEV1 value, visit, and interaction terms for baseline trough FEV1-by-visit and treatment-by-visit, covariance structure = unstructured.|0.084|-0.094|
91098625|NCT04937387|182083025|OTHER||Posterior Mean|0.023|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.071|0.103|||||Analysis was conducted in the Bayesian paradigm using the pre-specified mixture prior distribution, which was updated with the treatment difference between FF/UMEC/VI 200/62.5/25 and FF/VI 200/25 estimated in the MMRM analysis.|||0.103|-0.071|
91098626|NCT04937387|182083025|OTHER||Posterior Median|0.023||||||95.0|-0.086|0.11|||||Analysis was conducted in the Bayesian paradigm using the pre-specified mixture prior distribution, which was updated with the treatment difference between FF/UMEC/VI 200/62.5/25 and FF/VI 200/25 estimated in the MMRM analysis.|||0.110|-0.086|
91098627|NCT04937387|182083026|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.028|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0823|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.134|||||||Analysis performed using mixed effect model for repeated measures with covariates of treatment, age, sex, eCRF-reported pre-study ICS dosage at screening (med, high), baseline ACQ-7 total score, visit, and interaction terms for baseline ACQ-7 total score-by-visit and treatment-by-visit, covariance structure = unstructured.|0.134|-0.190|
91098628|NCT04937387|182083026|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.112|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0832|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.052|0.276|||||||Analysis performed using mixed effect model for repeated measures with covariates of treatment, age, sex, eCRF-reported pre-study ICS dosage at screening (med, high), baseline ACQ-7 total score, visit, and interaction terms for baseline ACQ-7 total score-by-visit and treatment-by-visit, covariance structure = unstructured.|0.276|-0.052|
91098629|NCT03083379|182083061|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalency is defined as no statistically significant difference in dorsal region redistribution of ventilation following breath cycle 1, 2, and 3 lung expansion therapy sequences.||||||0.9|||||||Mann-Whitney U test|||||||.90
91098630|NCT02400736|182083062|SUPERIORITY|"Proportion of steady workers in each group was analyzed using a logistic regression model to calculate an odds ratio and 95% Confidence Interval. Adhering to the principle of intent-to-treat, participants were retained in the arm to which they were randomized for the 12-month follow-up period despite discontinuing the treatment intervention or exiting the study early. Missing data was counted as not worked."|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.49||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|5.43||a priori threshold for statistical significance p \</=0.05; not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Chi-squared|||Using SamplePower 3.0 to estimate the statistical power, the target sample size of 120 (60 per group) provided 84% power to detect a 25% or greater absolute difference between groups in the percent of participants achieving 'steady worker' status (e.g., 40% in IPS vs. 15% in control arm), at the .05 level of significance, assuming a 10% attrition.||5.43|1.14|0.02
91098631|NCT02400736|182083063|SUPERIORITY|Intent to treat analysis.||||||0.003||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p \</=0.05; not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||Total mean time worked was compared using an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.003
91098632|NCT02400736|182083064|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p \</=0.05; not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||intent to treat analysis||||0.005
91098633|NCT02400736|182083065|SUPERIORITY|a priori threshold for statistical significance p \</=0.05; not adjusted for multiple comparisons.||||||0.033|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.033
91098634|NCT02400736|182083066|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.853||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p \</=0.05; not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Effect of treatment on outcome was analyzed using longitudinal mixed-effects regression model.Group by time interaction tested for treatment effect.||||||0.853
91098635|NCT02400736|182083067|SUPERIORITY|a priori threshold for statistical significance p \</=0.05; not adjusted for multiple comparisons.||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004
90850635|NCT00711516|181567067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1169||95.0|||||Pearson's Correlation Coefficient|The SAS CORR procedure was used to analyze the activation performance relationships. All estimations are based on Fisher's z-transformation.||||||0.1169
90850636|NCT00711516|181567067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1634||95.0|||||Pearson's Correlation Coefficient|The SAS CORR procedure was used to analyze the activation performance relationships. All estimations are based on Fisher's z-transformation.||||||0.1634
90850637|NCT00711516|181567068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0692||95.0|||||Pearson's Correlation Coefficient|The SAS CORR procedure was used to analyze the activation performance relationships. All estimations are based on Fisher's Z-transformation.||||||0.0692
91098636|NCT02400736|182083068|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p \</=0.05; not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Effect of treatment on outcome was analyzed using longitudinal mixed-effects regression model.Group by time interaction tested for treatment effect.||The effect of treatment on each of secondary outcome measures were analyzed using a longitudinal mixed-effects regression model. The group by time interaction tested for the treatment effect.||||0.47
91098637|NCT02400736|182083069|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.062||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p \</=0.05; not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.062
91098638|NCT02400736|182083070|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.3||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p \</= 0.05 or lower. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||>0.3
91098639|NCT02400736|182083071|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p \</=0.05; not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
91098640|NCT02400736|182083072|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p \</=0.05; not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Chi-squared|||||||0.006
91098641|NCT00327171|182083077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.123||||0.5043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.58|||Log Rank||Estimated using Cox proportional Hazard model using treatment as the factor|||1.58|0.80|0.5043
90900148|NCT02912468|181666520|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.89|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.71|||ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using a hybrid method of the worst-observation carried forward (WOCF) and multiple imputation (MI). The imputed completed data were analyzed by fitting ANCOVA model with corresponding baseline, treatment group, asthma/NSAID-ERD status, prior surgery history, and regions as covariates. Statistical inference obtained from all imputed data was combined using Rubin's rule.||-0.71|-1.07|<0.0001
90900149|NCT02912468|181666521|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.43|-1.69|||ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using a hybrid method of the WOCF and MI. The imputed completed data were analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with corresponding baseline, treatment group, asthma/NSAID-ERD status, prior surgery history, and regions as covariates. Statistical inference obtained from all imputed data was combined using Rubin's rule.||-1.69|-2.43|<0.0001
91098642|NCT00327171|182083080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.093||||0.5592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.48|||Log Rank||Estimated using Cox proportional Hazard model using treatment as the factor (4mg/kg vs. 2mg/kg)|||1.48|0.81|0.5592
91098643|NCT00327171|182083081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.124||||0.5457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.64|||Log Rank||Estimated using Cox proportional Hazard model using treatment as the factor (4 mg/kg vs. 2mg/kg)|||1.64|0.77|0.5457
91098644|NCT01363440|182083085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|12.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|9.35|15.04|||ANCOVA|||||15.04|9.35|<.0001
91098645|NCT01363440|182083085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|10.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|7.73|13.17|||ANCOVA|||||13.17|7.73|<.0001
91098646|NCT01363440|182083086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|45.9||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|34.7|57.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||57.0|34.7|.0001
91098647|NCT01363440|182083086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|38.8||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|27.2|50.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||50.3|27.2|.0001
91098648|NCT01363440|182083087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|34.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|24.1|44.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||44.4|24.1|<0.0001
90905105|NCT02886728|181677439|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.0|-4.0|<0.001
91098649|NCT01363440|182083087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|23.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|13.5|33.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||33.1|13.5|<.0001
91098650|NCT01363440|182083088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|19.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|9.0|30.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||30.4|9.0|<.0001
91098651|NCT01363440|182083088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|14.9||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|97.5|4.4|25.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||25.4|4.4|0.0017
91098652|NCT01363440|182083089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-110.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-141.3|-80.22|||ANCOVA|||||-80.22|-141.3|<.0001
91098653|NCT01363440|182083089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-113.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-144.2|-82.75|||ANCOVA|||||-82.75|-144.2|<.0001
91098654|NCT01363440|182083090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.19||||0.0168||97.5|0.33|10.04|||ANCOVA|||||10.04|0.33|0.0168
91098655|NCT01363440|182083090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.36||||0.0323|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.21|8.93|||ANCOVA|||||8.93|-0.21|0.0323
91098656|NCT01363440|182083091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.86||||0.1702|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.82|7.54|||ANCOVA|||||7.54|-1.82|0.1702
91098657|NCT01363440|182083091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.65||||0.4067|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.83|6.13|||ANCOVA|||||6.13|-2.83|0.4067
91098658|NCT01771913|182083092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.310
91098659|NCT01771913|182083093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.026
91098660|NCT01771913|182083094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.103|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.103
90850638|NCT00711516|181567068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8876||95.0|||||Pearson's Correlation Coefficient|The SAS CORR procedure was used to analyze the activation performance relationships. All estimations are based on Fisher's z-transformation.||||||.8876
90850639|NCT00711516|181567069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.603||95.0|||||Pearson's Correlation Coefficient|The SAS CORR procedure was used to analyze the activation performance relationships. All estimations are based on Fisher's Z-transformation.||||||0.6030
90850640|NCT00711516|181567069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Pearson's Correlation Coefficient|The SAS CORR procedure was used to analyze the activation performance relationships. All estimations are based on Fisher's z-transformation.||||||<.0001
90850641|NCT00711516|181567070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.917||95.0|||||Pearson's Correlation Coefficient|The SAS CORR procedure was used to analyze the activation performance relationships. All estimations are based on Fisher's Z-transformation.||||||0.9170
90850642|NCT00711516|181567070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9642||95.0|||||Pearson's Correlation Coefficient|The SAS CORR procedure was used to analyze the activation performance relationships. All estimations are based on Fisher's z-transformation.||||||.9642
90850643|NCT00711516|181567071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7813||95.0|||||Pearson's Correlation Coefficient|The SAS CORR procedure was used to analyze the activation performance relationships. All estimations are based on Fisher's z-transformation.||||||0.7813
90850644|NCT00711516|181567071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.156||95.0|||||Pearson's Correlation Coefficient|The SAS CORR procedure was used to analyze the activation performance relationships. All estimations are based on Fisher's z-transformation.||||||0.1560
90850645|NCT00711516|181567072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.901||95.0|||||Pearson's Correlation Coefficient|The SAS CORR procedure was used to analyze the activation performance relationships. All estimations are based on Fisher's z-transformation.||||||0.9010
90850646|NCT00711516|181567072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0135||95.0|||||Pearson's Correlation Coefficient|The SAS CORR procedure was used to analyze the activation performance relationships. All estimations are based on Fisher's z-transformation.||||||0.0135
90850647|NCT00711516|181567081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|4.841||||0.7053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.778|19.313|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||19.313|-27.778|0.7053
90850648|NCT00711516|181567082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|4.792||||0.5163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.631|16.19|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||16.190|-30.631|0.5163
90850649|NCT00711516|181567083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.108||||0.8711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.341|5.498|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||5.498|-14.341|0.8711
91098661|NCT03695094|182083104|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.725|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.586|0.896|||ANOVA|||The analysis of variance model (ANOVA) included the fixed effects of treatment group. The natural logs were taken of the dependent variables and were back-transformed after the analysis. The geometric mean ratio and the respective 90% confidence interval (CI) was derived for the Inducers group vs the Neutral-control group from the ANOVA model using least-squares means difference.||0.896|0.586|
90850650|NCT00711516|181567084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|13.855||||0.1825||95.0|-15.357|25.714|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||25.714|-15.357|0.1825
90850651|NCT00711516|181567085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-323.5||||0.9282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9311.0|2375.5|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||2375.5|-9311.0|0.9282
90850652|NCT00711516|181567086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1069.0|426.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||426.0|-1069.0|1.0000
90905106|NCT02886728|181677439|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-2.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-2.0|-3.0|<0.001
90850653|NCT00711516|181567087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-82.8||||0.5284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-788.0|165.5|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||165.5|-788.0|0.5284
90850654|NCT00711516|181567088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-145.8||||0.8997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3151.0|1006.5|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1006.5|-3151.0|0.8997
90850655|NCT00711516|181567089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-25.1||||0.1305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.2|8.0|||ANCOVA|||||8.0|-58.2|0.1305
90850656|NCT04575597|181567090|OTHER|Difference in rates % and associated confidence intervals (CIs) were based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by randomization strata. Unknown survival status at Day 29 was treated as failure.|Difference in Rates %|-4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|2.5||||||||2.5|-12.2|
90850657|NCT04575597|181567090|OTHER|Difference in rates % and associated CIs were based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by randomization strata. Unknown survival status at Day 29 was treated as failure.|Difference in Rates %|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|6.2||||||||6.2|-9.9|
90850658|NCT04575597|181567090|OTHER|Difference in rates % and associated CIs were based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by randomization strata. Unknown survival status at Day 29 was treated as failure.|Differences in Rates %|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|6.4||||||||6.4|-9.6|
90850659|NCT04575597|181567090|SUPERIORITY|Difference in rates %, associated CIs, and p-value were based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by randomization strata. Unknown survival status at Day 29 was treated as failure.|Difference in Rates %|-6.8||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|-2.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||-2.4|-11.3|0.0012
90850660|NCT04575597|181567093|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.13||||||||1.13|0.48|
90905107|NCT02886728|181677439|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.0|-3.0|<0.001
90850661|NCT04575597|181567093|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.08||||||||1.08|0.46|
90850662|NCT04575597|181567093|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.11||||||||1.11|0.47|
90850663|NCT04575597|181567093|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.18||||||||1.18|0.92|
90850664|NCT04575597|181567094|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.76||||||||2.76|0.80|
90850665|NCT04575597|181567094|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|2.09||||||||2.09|0.69|
90850666|NCT04575597|181567094|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.62||||||||1.62|0.54|
90850667|NCT04575597|181567094|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.33||||||||1.33|0.95|
91098662|NCT03695094|182083106|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.636|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.504|0.801|||ANOVA|||The analysis of variance model (ANOVA) included the fixed effects of treatment group. The natural logs were taken of the dependent variables and were back-transformed after the analysis. The geometric mean ratio and the respective 90% confidence interval (CI) was derived for the Inducers group vs the Neutral-control group from the ANOVA model using least-squares means difference.||0.801|0.504|
91098663|NCT01779362|182083119|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||All analyses were conducted with values on a log scale and re-exponentiated for presentation.|Regression, Linear|Measures of ß-cell response were modeled simultaneously with insulin sensitivity (M/I) using 2-df seemingly unrelated regression models.||Seemingly unrelated regression was used to compare treatment arms on the combination of insulin sensitivity (M/I as calculated from the hyperglycemic clamp) and insulin secretion (steady-state C-peptide and ACPRmax as co-primary; ACPRg as major secondary,). See statistical analysis plan for further details and R code.||||>0.05
91098664|NCT01779362|182083120|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
91098665|NCT01779362|182083121|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
90850668|NCT04575597|181567095|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.46||||||||1.46|0.62|
90957599|NCT01445301|181795306|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper 95% confidence was less than the pre-defined threshold (-Δ \[non-inferiority margin, -3.8\]) of 3.8, non-inferiority of GSK2585823 once daily to CLDM twice daily would be established.|Mean Difference (Net)|-8.84||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.28|-3.39|||ANCOVA|||Non-Inflammatory Lesion Counts, WEEK 8||-3.39|-14.28|0.002
91098666|NCT01779362|182083122|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||For all 3 secondary outcomes at M12, p\<0.001, with the Liraglutide+Metformin group different from the 3 others (all p\<0.001).|ANOVA|||Analyses were completed on a log scale and re-exponentiated for display.||||<0.001
91098667|NCT01795937|182083129|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing)|Geometric Mean Ratio|198.55|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|182.43|216.09|||ANOVA|ANOVA with fixed effect for treatment and random effect for subject.|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation.|Relative bioavailability comparison faldaprevir+itraconazole : faldaprevir||216.09|182.43|
91098668|NCT01795937|182083130|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing).|Geometric Mean Ratio|180.63|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|165.68|196.93|||ANOVA|ANOVA with fixed effect for treatment and random effect for subject.|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation.|Relative bioavailability comparison faldaprevir+itraconazole : faldaprevir.||196.93|165.68|
91098669|NCT01795937|182083131|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing).|Geometric Mean Ratio|946.45|STANDARD_DEVIATION|27.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|797.61|1123.07|||ANOVA|ANOVA with fixed effect for treatment and random effect for subject.|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation.|Relative bioavailability comparison atorvastatin+faldaprevir : atorvastatin.||1123.07|797.61|
91098670|NCT01795937|182083132|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing).|Geometric Mean Ratio|3372.72|STANDARD_DEVIATION|20.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2961.95|3840.47|||ANOVA|ANOVA with fixed effect for treatment and random effect for subject.|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation.|Relative bioavailability comparison atorvastatin+faldaprevir : atorvastatin.||3840.47|2961.95|
90850669|NCT04575597|181567095|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.79||||||||1.79|0.75|
90850670|NCT04575597|181567095|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.07||||||||1.07|0.45|
90850671|NCT04575597|181567095|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.23||||||||1.23|0.93|
90850672|NCT04575597|181567096|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.83||||||||1.83|0.62|
91098671|NCT01795937|182083135|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1358.91|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1224.32|1508.29|||ANOVA|ANOVA with fixed effect for treatment and random effect for subject.|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation.|Relative bioavailability comparison atorvastatin+faldaprevir : atorvastatin.||1508.29|1224.32|
91098672|NCT01795937|182083136|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1466.35|STANDARD_DEVIATION|23.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1277.62|1682.95|||ANOVA|ANOVA with fixed effect for treatment and random effect for subject.|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation.|Relative bioavailability comparison rosuvastatin+faldaprevir : rosuvastatin.||1682.95|1277.62|
91098673|NCT01795937|182083137|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing).|Geometric Mean Ratio|3288.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|28.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2782.04|3887.63|||ANOVA|ANOVA with fixed effect for treatment and random effect for subject.|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation.|Relative bioavailability comparison rosuvastatin+faldaprevir : rosuvastatin.||3887.63|2782.04|
91098674|NCT01795937|182083138|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1678.23|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1468.52|1917.89|||ANOVA|ANOVA with fixed effect for treatment and random effect for subject.|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation.|Relative bioavailability comparison rosuvastatin+faldaprevir : rosuvastatin.||1917.89|1468.52|
91098675|NCT01177410|182083139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.369||||0.0432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.027|5.467|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.467|1.027|0.0432
91098676|NCT01177410|182083139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.267||||0.6059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.515|3.115|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.115|0.515|0.6059
91098677|NCT01177410|182083140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.232||||0.0327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.068|4.664|||Proportional Odds Model|||Proportional odds model was used to compare the number of months the subjects are responders.||4.664|1.068|0.0327
91098678|NCT01177410|182083140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.148||||0.726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.531|2.483|||Proportional Odds Model|||||2.483|0.531|0.7260
91098679|NCT00303628|182083190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.876|TWO_SIDED|||||Stratified log rank test. The above P value was for one-sided test|Log Rank|||||||0.876
91098680|NCT00303628|182083191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.299|TWO_SIDED|||||two-sided stratified log rank test p value|Log Rank|||||||0.299
91098681|NCT02942407|182083196|NON_INFERIORITY|Due to a lower recruitment rate than anticipated in the early stage of the trial, the sample size was curtailed from 760 to 230 patients. Thus, under the initial protocol assumptions, the study is considered under-powered for the two-sided upper 95% CI on the HR to rule-out the non-inferiority margin of 1.40.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.3|||Regression, Cox|Cox model was adjusted for prior warfarin status (naive vs experienced) and treatment (apixaban vs warfarin)|Time from randomization to first occurrence of outcome was modeled. If no event, censored at earliest of: most recent date of evaluation of outcome, month 15 target (460 days + randomization date), or end of study date (July 27, 2019).|Exploratory analysis due to failure to reach initial sample size: Non-inferiority (NI) null hypothesis: HR \>= 1.4 (Non-inferiority).||2.3|0.63|0.321
91098682|NCT02942407|182083196|SUPERIORITY|Exploratory analysis due to lack of achieving initial sample size.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.3||If upper limit of 95% confidence interval \< 1 this would be considered evidence of superiority.|Regression, Cox|Cox model was adjusted for prior warfarin status (naive vs experienced) and treatment (apixaban vs warfarin).|Time from randomization to first occurrence of outcome was modeled. If no event, censored at earliest of: most recent date of evaluation of outcome, month 15 target (460 days + randomization date), or end of study date (July 27, 2019).|||2.3|0.63|0.583
91098683|NCT02942407|182083198|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|2.93||No p-value provided as analysis is considered exploratory due to study being under powered.||||Hazard ratios (apixaban vs warfarin) and 95% confidence intervals obtained using Cox model adjusted for prior warfarin status (naive vs experienced) and treatment. Time from randomization to first occurrence of the composite outcome/censoring date modeled. Those that did not experience the outcome are censored at the earliest of the following: 1) most recent date of evaluation of all of the components, 2) month 15 target (460 days + randomization date), and end of study date (July 27, 2019).||2.93|0.74|
91098684|NCT02942407|182083207|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|2.17||No p-value provided as analysis is considered exploratory due to study being under powered.||||Hazard ratios (apixaban vs warfarin) and 95% confidence intervals obtained using Cox model adjusted for prior warfarin status (naive vs experienced) and treatment. Time from randomization to first occurrence of the composite outcome/censoring date modeled. Those that did not experience the outcome are censored at the earliest of the following: 1) most recent date of evaluation of all of the components, 2) month 15 target (460 days + randomization date), and end of stud date (July 27, 2019).||2.17|0.67|
91098685|NCT05887908|182083209|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferirority margin = 15.0%|Difference in success proportion|21.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.9|32.0||If the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the group difference \> -15.0%, non-inferiority is concluded. If non-inferiority is declared, a test for superiority will be performed. If the lower bound of the 95% CI \> 0.0%, superiority will be declared.|||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|||32.0|10.9|
91098686|NCT05887908|182083209|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferirority margin = 15.0%|Difference in success proportion|11.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|23.7||If non-inferiority of the cefepime/nacubactam group is declared, a non-inferiority hypothesis test for the aztreonam/nacubactam group will be performed. For this analysis, the same approach as that used for the cefepime/nacubactam group will be used.|||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|||23.7|-1.2|
90957600|NCT01445301|181795306|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper 95% confidence was less than the pre-defined threshold (-Δ \[non-inferiority margin, -3.8\]) of 3.8, non-inferiority of GSK2585823 once daily to CLDM twice daily would be established.|Mean Difference (Net)|-9.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.06|-4.3|||ANCOVA|||Non-Inflammatory Lesion Counts, WEEK 12||-4.30|-15.06|<0.001
91098687|NCT05887908|182083210|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|9.9|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Composite clinical and microbiological success at EA||9.9|-3.2|
91098688|NCT05887908|182083210|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|6.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|14.0|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Composite clinical and microbiological success at EA||14.0|1.1|
91098689|NCT05887908|182083210|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|11.3|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Composite clinical and microbiological success at EOT||11.3|-2.7|
91098690|NCT05887908|182083210|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|10.0|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Composite clinical and microbiological success at EOT||10.0|-6.6|
91098691|NCT05887908|182083210|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|6.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|18.1|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Composite clinical and microbiological success at FUP||18.1|-4.1|
90850673|NCT04575597|181567096|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.26||||||||1.26|0.40|
90900150|NCT02912468|181666522|SUPERIORITY|Hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error. For regions outside of Japan, this first secondary endpoint was not tested unless both co-primary endpoints were significant at the 0.05 level. Hierarchical testing continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant. For Japan submission, LMK was instead a co-primary endpoint which also had to be met before secondary endpoints were tested in the hierarchy. Last endpoint in hierarchy is Week 24 SNOT-22.|LS mean difference|-7.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.35|-6.53||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using a hybrid method of the WOCF and MI. The imputed completed data were analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with corresponding baseline, treatment group, asthma/NSAID-ERD status, prior surgery history, and regions as covariates. Statistical inference obtained from all imputed data was combined using Rubin's rule.||-6.53|-8.35|<.0001
90900151|NCT02912468|181666523|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if previous outcome measures were statistically significant).|LS mean difference|-2.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.04|-2.17||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using a hybrid method of the WOCF and MI. The imputed completed data were analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with corresponding baseline, treatment group, asthma/NSAID-ERD status, prior surgery history, and regions as covariates. Statistical inference obtained from all imputed data was combined using Rubin's rule.||-2.17|-3.04|<.0001
90900152|NCT02912468|181666524|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if previous outcome measures were statistically significant).|LS mean difference|10.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.79|12.34||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using a hybrid method of the WOCF and MI. The imputed completed data were analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with corresponding baseline, treatment group, asthma/NSAID-ERD status, prior surgery history, and regions as covariates. Statistical inference obtained from all imputed data was combined using Rubin's rule.||12.34|8.79|<.0001
90900153|NCT02912468|181666525|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if previous outcome measures were statistically significant).|LS mean difference|-1.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|-0.93||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using a hybrid method of the WOCF and MI. The imputed completed data were analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with corresponding baseline, treatment group, asthma/NSAID-ERD status, prior surgery history, and regions as covariates. Statistical inference obtained from all imputed data was combined using Rubin's rule.||-0.93|-1.31|<.0001
90900154|NCT02912468|181666526|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if previous outcome measures were statistically significant).|LS mean difference|-21.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.17|-17.06||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using a hybrid method of the WOCF and MI. The imputed completed data were analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with corresponding baseline, treatment group, asthma/NSAID-ERD status, prior surgery history, and regions as covariates. Statistical inference obtained from all imputed data was combined using Rubin's rule.||-17.06|-25.17|<.0001
90957601|NCT01445301|181795306|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.32|-5.48|||ANCOVA|||Total Lesion Counts, WEEK 1||-5.48|-12.32|<0.001
91098692|NCT05887908|182083210|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|16.0|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Composite clinical and microbiological success at FUP||16.0|-9.5|
91098693|NCT05887908|182083210|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|24.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|36.6|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Composite clinical and microbiological success at TOC by baseline pathogen: Escherichia coli||36.6|12.0|
91098694|NCT05887908|182083210|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|10.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|24.9|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Composite clinical and microbiological success at TOC by baseline pathogen: Escherichia coli||24.9|-4.2|
90850674|NCT04575597|181567096|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.85||||||||0.85|0.20|
90850675|NCT04575597|181567096|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.18||||||||1.18|0.86|
90850676|NCT04575597|181567097|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.34||||||||1.34|0.32|
90850677|NCT04575597|181567097|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.71||||||||2.71|0.76|
91098695|NCT05887908|182083210|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|28.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|54.1|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Composite clinical and microbiological success at TOC by baseline pathogen: Klebsiella pneumoniae||54.1|1.8|
91098696|NCT05887908|182083210|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|35.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|61.6|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Composite clinical and microbiological success at TOC by baseline pathogen: Klebsiella pneumoniae||61.6|1.1|
91098697|NCT05887908|182083210|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|6.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|16.3|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Composite clinical and microbiological success at EOT by baseline pathogen: Escherichia coli||16.3|-1.3|
91098698|NCT05887908|182083210|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|14.7|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Composite clinical and microbiological success at EOT by baseline pathogen: Escherichia coli||14.7|-5.6|
91098699|NCT05887908|182083210|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|-6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.3|13.9|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Composite clinical and microbiological success at EOT by baseline pathogen: Klebsiella pneumoniae||13.9|-20.3|
91098700|NCT05887908|182083210|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|-16.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.4|5.2|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Composite clinical and microbiological success at EOT by baseline pathogen: Klebsiella pneumoniae||5.2|-45.4|
90850678|NCT04575597|181567097|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.42||||||||1.42|0.39|
90850679|NCT04575597|181567097|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.37||||||||1.37|0.94|
90850680|NCT04575597|181567098|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.61||||||||1.61|0.66|
90850681|NCT04575597|181567098|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|2.09||||||||2.09|0.83|
90850682|NCT04575597|181567098|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.23||||||||1.23|0.47|
90850683|NCT04575597|181567098|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.16||||||||1.16|0.88|
90900155|NCT01515189|181666557|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.99||Analysis stratified by ECOG performance status (0 vs. 1), prior treatment for metastatic melanoma (yes vs. no) and M-stage (M0/M1a/M1b vs. M1c without brain metastases vs. M1c with brain metastases).|Log Rank||Hazard of 10 mg/kg ipilimumab over hazard of 3 mg/kg, with 2-sided 95% confidence intervals are based on a Cox proportional hazards model|||0.99|0.70|0.0400
91098701|NCT05887908|182083210|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|11.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|24.4|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Composite clinical and microbiological success at FUP by baseline pathogen: Escherichia coli||24.4|-1.7|
91098702|NCT05887908|182083210|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|6.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|20.9|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Composite clinical and microbiological success at FUP by baseline pathogen: Escherichia coli||20.9|-8.7|
91098703|NCT05887908|182083210|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|-6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.9|23.1|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Composite clinical and microbiological success at FUP by baseline pathogen: Klebsiella pneumoniae||23.1|-31.9|
91098704|NCT05887908|182083210|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.8|37.9|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Composite clinical and microbiological success at FUP by baseline pathogen: Klebsiella pneumoniae||37.9|-28.8|
91098705|NCT05887908|182083211|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|6.3|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Clinical outcome of cure at EA||6.3|-2.8|
90850684|NCT04575597|181567099|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.41||||||||1.41|0.62|
90850685|NCT04575597|181567099|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.69||||||||1.69|0.70|
90850686|NCT04575597|181567099|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.51||||||||1.51|0.66|
90850687|NCT04575597|181567099|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.31||||||||1.31|1.01|
90850688|NCT04575597|181567100|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.69||||||||1.69|0.54|
90850689|NCT04575597|181567100|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|2.0||||||||2.00|0.61|
91098706|NCT05887908|182083211|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|7.2|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Clinical outcome of cure at EA||7.2|-3.5|
91098707|NCT05887908|182083211|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|6.4|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Clinical outcome of cure at EOT||6.4|-4.6|
91098708|NCT05887908|182083211|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|6.0|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Clinical outcome of cure at EOT||6.0|-7.1|
91098709|NCT05887908|182083211|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|11.8|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Clinical outcome of cure at TOC||11.8|-3.3|
91098710|NCT05887908|182083211|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|13.0|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Clinical outcome of cure at TOC||13.0|-3.9|
91098711|NCT05887908|182083211|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|12.1|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Clinical outcome of cure at FUP||12.1|-4.5|
91098712|NCT05887908|182083211|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|12.3|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Clinical outcome of cure at FUP||12.3|-6.6|
91098713|NCT05887908|182083211|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|6.0|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Clinical outcome of cure at EA by baseline pathogen: Escherichia coli||6.0|-4.2|
91098714|NCT05887908|182083211|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|8.3|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Clinical outcome of cure at EA by baseline pathogen: Escherichia coli||8.3|-4.1|
91098715|NCT05887908|182083211|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|20.3|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Clinical outcome of cure at EA by baseline pathogen: Klebsiella pneumoniae||20.3|-13.9|
91098716|NCT05887908|182083211|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|8.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|36.0|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Clinical outcome of cure at EA by baseline pathogen: Klebsiella pneumoniae||36.0|-12.6|
91098717|NCT05887908|182083211|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|10.5|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Clinical outcome of cure at EOT by baseline pathogen: Escherichia coli||10.5|-3.5|
91098718|NCT05887908|182083211|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|9.6|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Clinical outcome of cure at EOT by baseline pathogen: Escherichia coli||9.6|-6.9|
91098719|NCT05887908|182083211|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|-3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.9|16.8|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Clinical outcome of cure at EOT by baseline pathogen: Klebsiella pneumoniae||16.8|-15.9|
91098720|NCT05887908|182083211|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|-8.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.0|12.6|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Clinical outcome of cure at EOT by baseline pathogen: Klebsiella pneumoniae||12.6|-36.0|
91098721|NCT05887908|182083211|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|13.1|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Clinical outcome of cure at TOC by baseline pathogen: Escherichia coli||13.1|-4.5|
91098722|NCT05887908|182083211|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|14.2|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Clinical outcome of cure at TOC by baseline pathogen: Escherichia coli||14.2|-5.3|
91098723|NCT05887908|182083211|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|12.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|38.0|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Clinical outcome of cure at TOC by baseline pathogen: Klebsiella pneumoniae||38.0|-6.0|
91098724|NCT05887908|182083211|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|10.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.5|37.3|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Clinical outcome of cure at TOC by baseline pathogen: Klebsiella pneumoniae||37.3|-20.5|
91098725|NCT05887908|182083211|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|17.8|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Clinical outcome of cure at FUP by baseline pathogen: Escherichia coli||17.8|-2.6|
91098726|NCT05887908|182083211|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|6.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|17.8|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Clinical outcome of cure at FUP by baseline pathogen: Escherichia coli||17.8|-5.0|
91098727|NCT05887908|182083211|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|-6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.6|17.6|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Clinical outcome of cure at FUP by baseline pathogen: Klebsiella pneumoniae||17.6|-23.6|
91098728|NCT05887908|182083211|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.9|22.3|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Clinical outcome of cure at FUP by baseline pathogen: Klebsiella pneumoniae||22.3|-30.9|
90850690|NCT04575597|181567100|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.38||||||||1.38|0.50|
90850691|NCT04575597|181567100|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.21||||||||1.21|0.90|
91098729|NCT05887908|182083212|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|10.5|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Microbiological outcome of eradication at EA||10.5|-1.7|
91098730|NCT05887908|182083212|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|7.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|14.3|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Microbiological outcome of eradication at EA||14.3|3.9|
91098731|NCT05887908|182083212|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|11.9|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Microbiological outcome of eradication at EOT||11.9|-1.3|
91098732|NCT05887908|182083212|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|11.2|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Microbiological outcome of eradication at EOT||11.2|-4.2|
91098733|NCT05887908|182083212|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|22.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.2|32.7|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Microbiological outcome of eradication at TOC||32.7|12.2|
91098734|NCT05887908|182083212|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|10.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|22.5|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Microbiological outcome of eradication at TOC||22.5|-2.0|
91098735|NCT05887908|182083212|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|8.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|19.7|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Microbiological outcome of eradication at FUP||19.7|-2.0|
91098736|NCT05887908|182083212|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|14.8|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Microbiological outcome of eradication at FUP||14.8|-10.4|
91098737|NCT05887908|182083212|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|10.5|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Microbiological outcome of eradication at EA by baseline pathogen: Escherichia coli||10.5|-3.5|
90850692|NCT04575597|181567101|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.76||||||||2.76|0.77|
91098738|NCT05887908|182083212|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|6.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|14.5|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Microbiological outcome of eradication at EA by baseline pathogen: Escherichia coli||14.5|2.3|
91098739|NCT05887908|182083212|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|12.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|38.0|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Microbiological outcome of eradication at EA by baseline pathogen: Klebsiella pneumoniae||38.0|-6.0|
91098740|NCT05887908|182083212|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|18.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|43.5|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Microbiological outcome of eradication at EA by baseline pathogen: Klebsiella pneumoniae||43.5|-8.3|
91098741|NCT05887908|182083212|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|6.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|16.5|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Microbiological outcome of eradication at EOT by baseline pathogen: Escherichia coli||16.5|-0.1|
91098742|NCT05887908|182083212|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|15.1|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Microbiological outcome of eradication at EOT by baseline pathogen: Escherichia coli||15.1|-3.9|
91098743|NCT05887908|182083212|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|-6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.3|13.9|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Microbiological outcome of eradication at EOT by baseline pathogen: Klebsiella pneumoniae||13.9|-20.3|
91098744|NCT05887908|182083212|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|-8.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.0|12.6|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Microbiological outcome of eradication at EOT by baseline pathogen: Klebsiella pneumoniae||12.6|-36.0|
91098745|NCT05887908|182083212|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|25.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.5|37.5|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Microbiological outcome of eradication at TOC by baseline pathogen: Escherichia coli||37.5|13.5|
91098746|NCT05887908|182083212|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|8.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|23.3|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Microbiological outcome of eradication at TOC by baseline pathogen: Escherichia coli||23.3|-5.5|
91098747|NCT05887908|182083212|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|21.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|48.5|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Microbiological outcome of eradication at TOC by baseline pathogen: Klebsiella pneumoniae||48.5|-3.4|
91098748|NCT05887908|182083212|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|29.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|56.0|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Microbiological outcome of eradication at TOC by baseline pathogen: Klebsiella pneumoniae||56.0|-4.4|
90850693|NCT04575597|181567101|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|3.38||||||||3.38|0.92|
91098749|NCT05887908|182083212|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|12.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|25.9|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Microbiological outcome of eradication at FUP by baseline pathogen: Escherichia coli||25.9|0.3|
91098750|NCT05887908|182083212|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|19.3|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Microbiological outcome of eradication at FUP by baseline pathogen: Escherichia coli||19.3|-10.1|
91098751|NCT05887908|182083212|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|-6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.4|22.6|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Microbiological outcome of eradication at FUP by baseline pathogen: Klebsiella pneumoniae||22.6|-30.4|
91098752|NCT05887908|182083212|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.0|31.5|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Microbiological outcome of eradication at FUP by baseline pathogen: Klebsiella pneumoniae||31.5|-34.0|
91098753|NCT05887908|182083213|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|54.3|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|||54.3|-16.0|
91098754|NCT05887908|182083213|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|28.9||||||95.0|-13.0|62.1|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|||62.1|-13.0|
91098755|NCT05887908|182083214|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|54.3|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|||54.3|-16.0|
91098756|NCT05887908|182083214|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|28.9||||||95.0|-13.0|62.1|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|||62.1|-13.0|
91098757|NCT05887908|182083215|OTHER|Desriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|53.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.8|78.1|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|||78.1|12.8|
91098758|NCT05887908|182083215|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|24.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.4|60.5|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|||60.5|-18.4|
91098759|NCT05887908|182083216|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|54.3|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|||54.3|-16.0|
91098760|NCT05887908|182083216|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|28.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|62.1|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|||62.1|-13.0|
91098761|NCT03928743|182083217|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.71|4.87|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.87|1.71|<0.001
91098762|NCT03928743|182083218|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|4.93|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.93|1.59|<0.001
91098763|NCT03928743|182083219|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|4.28|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.28|1.65|<0.001
91098764|NCT03928743|182083220|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-1.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|-0.59|||Regression, Logistic|||||-0.59|-1.48|<0.001
91098765|NCT03928743|182083221|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.93|9.39|||Regression, Logistic|||||9.39|1.93|<0.001
91098766|NCT03928743|182083222|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.67|15.65|||Regression, Logistic|||||15.65|2.67|<0.001
91098767|NCT03928743|182083223|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|4.65|2.51|7.57|||Regression, Logistic|||||7.57|2.51|<0.001
91098768|NCT03928743|182083224|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-1.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|-0.63|||Regression, Logistic|||||-0.63|-1.48|<0.001
90957602|NCT01445301|181795306|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.18|-7.16|||ANCOVA|||Total Lesion Counts, WEEK 2||-7.16|-15.18|<0.001
91098769|NCT03928743|182083225|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-1.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.96|||Regression, Logistic|||||-0.96|-2.00|<0.001
91098770|NCT03928743|182083226|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-1.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.36|-0.68|||Regression, Logistic|||||-0.68|-2.36|<0.001
91098771|NCT03928743|182083227|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|3.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.67|5.09|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.09|1.67|<0.001
91098772|NCT03928743|182083228|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.28||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.08|||Regression, Logistic|||||-0.08|-0.47|0.006
91098773|NCT03928743|182083229|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-1.08||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.79|-0.38|||Regression, Logistic|||||-0.38|-1.79|0.003
91098774|NCT03928743|182083230|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.47||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|4.68|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.68|1.30|0.006
91098775|NCT01405911|182083313|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-7.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.85|-4.36|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||-4.36|-9.85|<0.001
91098776|NCT01405911|182083313|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-9.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.82|-6.33|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||-6.33|-11.82|<0.001
91098777|NCT01405911|182083313|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.97||||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.61|0.67|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||0.67|-4.61|0.143
91098778|NCT01405911|182083314|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-17.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.55|-13.86|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||-13.86|-21.55|<0.001
91098779|NCT01405911|182083314|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-16.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.32|-12.5|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||-12.50|-20.32|<0.001
91098780|NCT01405911|182083314|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|1.3||||0.469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|4.82|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||4.82|-2.22|0.469
91098781|NCT06375655|182083317|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
91098782|NCT06375655|182083318|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.901509||||0.5007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|10.25|||Fisher Exact|||This analysis did not power the study||10.25|0.41|0.5007
91098783|NCT06375655|182083319|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.43||||0.3497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3986|232.3218|||Fisher Exact|||||232.3218|0.3986|0.3497
90850694|NCT04575597|181567101|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.86||||||||2.86|0.81|
90850695|NCT04575597|181567101|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.24||||||||1.24|0.89|
91098784|NCT06375655|182083320|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7
91098785|NCT06375655|182083321|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6909776||||0.2302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4025454|1.1860776||Value at 1 month|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.1860776|0.4025454|0.2302
91098786|NCT06375655|182083321|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6909776||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4025454|1.1860776||Value at 3 months|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.1860776|0.4025454|0.3
91098787|NCT06375655|182083321|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6909776||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4025454|1.1860776||Value at 6 months|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.1860776|0.4025454|0.3
91098788|NCT06375655|182083322|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.726859||||0.01692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.253958|5.929833||Value at 1 month postpartum|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.929833|1.253958|0.01692
91098789|NCT06375655|182083322|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.726859||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.253958|5.929833||Value at 2 months postpartum|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.929833|1.253958|0.7
91098790|NCT06375655|182083322|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.726859||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.253958|5.929833||Value at 3 months postpartum|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.929833|1.253958|0.3
91098791|NCT06375655|182083322|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.726859||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.253958|5.929833||Value at 6 months postpartum|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.929833|1.253958|0.15
91098792|NCT01059851|182083360|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"AUC(0-∞) GMR = AUC(0-∞) GM for Severe Renal Impairment Participants ÷ AUC(0-∞) GM for Healthy Participants.~A 90% CI for the AUC(0-∞) GMR was computed from the ANCOVA model. As prespecified by the analysis plan, if the 90% CI for the AUC(0-∞) GMR was contained within the interval \[0.50, 2.00\], then the hypothesis would be met and the AUC(0-∞) of suvorexant would be similar in both groups of participants. That is, if the true ratio of the GM AUC(0-∞) is greater than 0.50 and no more than 2.00."|AUC(0-∞) Geometric Mean Ratio|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|1.6|||ANCOVA|||"The geometric mean (GM) for each participant group and the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated for AUC(0-∞) using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model.~The AUC(0-∞) geometric mean ratio (GMR) of the 2 participant groups was used to test the primary hypothesis, which was that the AUC(0-∞) of suvorexant following a single oral dose would be similar between participants with renal impairment and healthy matched control participants."||1.60|0.93|
91098793|NCT01039675|182083364|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|UMEC/VI will be declared non-inferior to placebo in terms of weighted mean pulse rate if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval around the estimated treatment difference for weighted mean pulse rate is less than the non-inferiority margin of +10bpm.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|4.5|||||Estimated from repeated measures analysis of covariance.|||4.5|-5.5|
91098794|NCT06901544|182083389|OTHER|Comparison of 28-day mortality between groups using chi-squared test.||||||0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.001
91098795|NCT06901544|182083390|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.243||||0.243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.567|2.207|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.207|-0.567|0.243
91098796|NCT06901544|182083391|OTHER|Comparison of mean PCT levels between groups using two-sample t-test.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.97||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|15.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||||15.40|0.54|0.037
91098797|NCT01807520|182083395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-26.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.26|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.1|-14.3|||Mixed model reapeated measures|||||-14.3|-39.1|<0.0001
90850696|NCT04575597|181567102|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.2||||||||2.20|0.81|
91098798|NCT01807520|182083395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-34.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.47|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.2|-23.5|||Mixed model repeated measures|||||-23.5|-45.2|<0.0001
91098799|NCT01258855|182083399|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.002
91098800|NCT01258855|182083400|OTHER|||||||0.43|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.43
91098801|NCT01258855|182083403|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.003
91098802|NCT01258855|182083404|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.02
90850697|NCT04575597|181567102|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|2.31||||||||2.31|0.85|
90850698|NCT04575597|181567102|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.65||||||||1.65|0.57|
90850699|NCT04575597|181567102|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.18||||||||1.18|0.89|
90850700|NCT04575597|181567103|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.91||||||||1.91|0.36|
90850701|NCT04575597|181567103|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|2.97||||||||2.97|0.64|
90900156|NCT01515189|181666558|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.1548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.04||Analysis stratified by ECOG performance status (0 vs. 1), prior treatment for metastatic melanoma (yes vs. no) and M-stage (M0/M1a/M1b vs. M1c without brain metastases vs. M1c with brain metastases).|Log Rank||Hazard of 10 mg/kg ipilimumab over hazard of 3 mg/kg, with 2-sided 95% confidence intervals are based on a Cox proportional hazards model|||1.04|0.76|0.1548
91098803|NCT00471354|182083442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.293||95.0|||||Spearman Partial Rank Order Correlation|||||||0.293
91098804|NCT00471354|182083443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.276||95.0||||P-value for Correlation with Language Scores|Spearman Partial Rank Order Correlation|||||||0.276
91098805|NCT00471354|182083443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11||95.0||||P-value for Correlation with Math Scores.|Spearman Partial Rank Order Correlation|||||||0.110
91098806|NCT00471354|182083443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.464||95.0||||P-value for Correlation with Science Scores.|Spearman Partial Rank Order Correlation|||||||0.464
90850702|NCT04575597|181567103|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|2.02||||||||2.02|0.37|
91098807|NCT00471354|182083444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline in Language Scores.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
90850703|NCT04575597|181567103|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.14||||||||1.14|0.74|
90850704|NCT04575597|181567104|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.06||||||||1.06|0.44|
90850705|NCT04575597|181567105|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.67||||||||0.67|0.06|
91098808|NCT00471354|182083444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline in Math Scores.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
91098809|NCT00471354|182083444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline in Science Scores.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
91098810|NCT00471354|182083444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline in Total Scores.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
90957603|NCT01445301|181795306|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.9|-8.35|||ANCOVA|||Total Lesion Counts, WEEK 4||-8.35|-15.90|<0.001
91098811|NCT00471354|182083445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
91098812|NCT00471354|182083446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
91098813|NCT00471354|182083448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
91098814|NCT01336972|182083452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Test to compare Final Treatment versus Baseline|paired t-test|||A change of 10% was chosen as representing a clinically significant change in mGFR or ERPF. For this purpose, the alpha level was set at 0.05 and the beta level (power) at 95% instead of 80%, to decrease the chance of a false-negative finding.||||<0.05
91098815|NCT01336972|182083452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Test to compare Final Treatment versus Baseline|paited t-test|||A change of 10% was chosen as representing a clinically significant change in mGFR or ERPF. For this purpose, the alpha level was set at 0.05 and the beta level (power) at 95% instead of 80%, to decrease the chance of a false-negative finding.||||<0.05
91098816|NCT01336972|182083452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Test to compare Final Treatment versus Baseline|paired t-test|||A change of 10% was chosen as representing a clinically significant change in mGFR or ERPF. For this purpose, the alpha level was set at 0.05 and the beta level (power) at 95% instead of 80%, to decrease the chance of a false-negative finding.||||>0.05
91098817|NCT01336972|182083452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Test to compare Post Treatment versus Baseline|paired t-test|||A change of 10% was chosen as representing a clinically significant change in mGFR or ERPF. For this purpose, the alpha level was set at 0.05 and the beta level (power) at 95% instead of 80%, to decrease the chance of a false-negative finding.||||>0.05
91098818|NCT01336972|182083452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Test to compare Post Treatment versus Baseline|paired t-test|||A change of 10% was chosen as representing a clinically significant change in mGFR or ERPF. For this purpose, the alpha level was set at 0.05 and the beta level (power) at 95% instead of 80%, to decrease the chance of a false-negative finding.||||>0.05
91098819|NCT01336972|182083452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Test to compare Post Treatment versus Baseline|paired t-test|||A change of 10% was chosen as representing a clinically significant change in mGFR or ERPF. For this purpose, the alpha level was set at 0.05 and the beta level (power) at 95% instead of 80%, to decrease the chance of a false-negative finding.||||>0.05
91098820|NCT01336972|182083452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Test to compare treatment groups at Final Treatment|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A change of 10% was chosen as representing a clinically significant change in mGFR or ERPF. For this purpose, the alpha level was set at 0.05 and the beta level (power) at 95% instead of 80%, to decrease the chance of a false-negative finding.||||>0.05
91098821|NCT01336972|182083452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Test to compare treatment groups at Final Treatment|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A change of 10% was chosen as representing a clinically significant change in mGFR or ERPF. For this purpose, the alpha level was set at 0.05 and the beta level (power) at 95% instead of 80%, to decrease the chance of a false-negative finding.||||>0.05
91098822|NCT01336972|182083452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Test to compare treatment groups at Final Treatment|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A change of 10% was chosen as representing a clinically significant change in mGFR or ERPF. For this purpose, the alpha level was set at 0.05 and the beta level (power) at 95% instead of 80%, to decrease the chance of a false-negative finding.||||<0.05
90900157|NCT01515189|181666564|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.04|||||Hazard of 10 mg/kg ipilimumab over hazard of 3 mg/kg. Based on an unstratified Cox proportional hazards model for subset of participants with brain metastases.|||1.04|0.49|
91098823|NCT01336972|182083452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Test to compare treatment groups at Post Treatment|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A change of 10% was chosen as representing a clinically significant change in mGFR or ERPF. For this purpose, the alpha level was set at 0.05 and the beta level (power) at 95% instead of 80%, to decrease the chance of a false-negative finding.||||>0.05
91098824|NCT01336972|182083452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A change of 10% was chosen as representing a clinically significant change in mGFR or ERPF. For this purpose, the alpha level was set at 0.05 and the beta level (power) at 95% instead of 80%, to decrease the chance of a false-negative finding.||||>0.05
91098825|NCT01336972|182083452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A change of 10% was chosen as representing a clinically significant change in mGFR or ERPF. For this purpose, the alpha level was set at 0.05 and the beta level (power) at 95% instead of 80%, to decrease the chance of a false-negative finding.||||>0.05
91098826|NCT01336972|182083453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Test to compare Final Treatment versus Baseline for all treatment groups|paired t-test|||A change of 10% was chosen as representing a clinically significant change in mGFR or ERPF. For this purpose, the alpha level was set at 0.05 and the beta level (power) at 95% instead of 80%, to decrease the chance of a false-negative finding.||||>0.05
91098827|NCT01336972|182083453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Test to compare Post Treatment versus Baseline for all treatment groups|paired t-test|||A change of 10% was chosen as representing a clinically significant change in mGFR or ERPF. For this purpose, the alpha level was set at 0.05 and the beta level (power) at 95% instead of 80%, to decrease the chance of a false-negative finding.||||>0.05
90900158|NCT02541383|181666575|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|2.12|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.12|1.21|0.0010
90900159|NCT02541383|181666576|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.68|||Log Rank|||||0.68|0.42|<0.0001
90900160|NCT02541383|181666577|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.72|||Log Rank|||||0.72|0.52|<0.0001
90900161|NCT01960530|181666599|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|To investigate the absolute and relative bioavailability of cortisol from oral Infacort®, a 20 mg dose of oral Infacort® was compared to a 20 mg dose of i.v. hydrocortisone and hydrocortisone tablets, respectively (Study Periods 3-5). These investigations were conducted in dexamethasone suppressed healthy subjects. Standard bioavailability limits of 80% to 125% were used.|Geometric LSmean ratio|60.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|54.69|66.1||||||Evaluation of Cmax||66.10|54.69|
91098828|NCT01336972|182083453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Test to compare treatment groups at Final Treatment|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A change of 10% was chosen as representing a clinically significant change in mGFR or ERPF. For this purpose, the alpha level was set at 0.05 and the beta level (power) at 95% instead of 80%, to decrease the chance of a false-negative finding.||||>0.05
91098829|NCT01336972|182083453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Test to compare treatment groups at Final Treatment|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A change of 10% was chosen as representing a clinically significant change in mGFR or ERPF. For this purpose, the alpha level was set at 0.05 and the beta level (power) at 95% instead of 80%, to decrease the chance of a false-negative finding.||||>0.05
91098830|NCT01336972|182083453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Test to compare treatment groups at Post Treatment|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A change of 10% was chosen as representing a clinically significant change in mGFR or ERPF. For this purpose, the alpha level was set at 0.05 and the beta level (power) at 95% instead of 80%, to decrease the chance of a false-negative finding.||||>0.05
91098831|NCT01336972|182083453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Test to compare treatment groups at Post Treatment|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A change of 10% was chosen as representing a clinically significant change in mGFR or ERPF. For this purpose, the alpha level was set at 0.05 and the beta level (power) at 95% instead of 80%, to decrease the chance of a false-negative finding.||||>0.05
91098832|NCT01336972|182083453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Test to compare treatment groups at Post Treatment|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A change of 10% was chosen as representing a clinically significant change in mGFR or ERPF. For this purpose, the alpha level was set at 0.05 and the beta level (power) at 95% instead of 80%, to decrease the chance of a false-negative finding.||||>0.05
91098833|NCT01336972|182083454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Test to compare Final Treatment versus Baseline|paired t-test|||A change of 10% was chosen as representing a clinically significant change in mGFR or ERPF. For this purpose, the alpha level was set at 0.05 and the beta level (power) at 95% instead of 80%, to decrease the chance of a false-negative finding.||||>0.05
91098834|NCT01336972|182083454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Test to compare Post Treatment versus Baseline for all treatment groups|paired t-test|||A change of 10% was chosen as representing a clinically significant change in mGFR or ERPF. For this purpose, the alpha level was set at 0.05 and the beta level (power) at 95% instead of 80%, to decrease the chance of a false-negative finding.||||>0.05
91098835|NCT01336972|182083454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Test to compare treatment groups at Final Treatment|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A change of 10% was chosen as representing a clinically significant change in mGFR or ERPF. For this purpose, the alpha level was set at 0.05 and the beta level (power) at 95% instead of 80%, to decrease the chance of a false-negative finding.||||>0.05
91098836|NCT01336972|182083454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Test to compare treatment groups at Final Treatment|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A change of 10% was chosen as representing a clinically significant change in mGFR or ERPF. For this purpose, the alpha level was set at 0.05 and the beta level (power) at 95% instead of 80%, to decrease the chance of a false-negative finding||||>0.05
91098837|NCT01336972|182083454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Test to compare treatment groups at Final Treatment|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A change of 10% was chosen as representing a clinically significant change in mGFR or ERPF. For this purpose, the alpha level was set at 0.05 and the beta level (power) at 95% instead of 80%, to decrease the chance of a false-negative finding.||||>0.05
91098838|NCT01336972|182083454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Test to compare treatment groups at Post Treatment|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A change of 10% was chosen as representing a clinically significant change in mGFR or ERPF. For this purpose, the alpha level was set at 0.05 and the beta level (power) at 95% instead of 80%, to decrease the chance of a false-negative finding.||||>0.05
90957604|NCT01445301|181795306|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.37|-7.3|||ANCOVA|||Total Lesion Counts, WEEK 8||-7.30|-15.37|<0.001
91098839|NCT01336972|182083454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Test to compare treatment groups at Post Treatment|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A change of 10% was chosen as representing a clinically significant change in mGFR or ERPF. For this purpose, the alpha level was set at 0.05 and the beta level (power) at 95% instead of 80%, to decrease the chance of a false-negative finding.||||<0.05
91098840|NCT01336972|182083454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Test to compare treatment groups at Post Treatment|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A change of 10% was chosen as representing a clinically significant change in mGFR or ERPF. For this purpose, the alpha level was set at 0.05 and the beta level (power) at 95% instead of 80%, to decrease the chance of a false-negative finding.||||>0.05
91098841|NCT01336972|182083455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Test to compare Final Treatment versus Baseline for all treatment groups||||<0.05
91098842|NCT01336972|182083455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Test to compare Post Treatment versus Baseline||||>0.05
91098843|NCT01336972|182083455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Test to compare Post Treatment versus Baseline||||>0.05
91098844|NCT01336972|182083455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Test to compare Post Treatment versus Baseline||||<0.05
91098845|NCT01336972|182083455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Test to compare treatment groups at Final Treatment||||||>0.05
91098846|NCT01336972|182083455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Test to compare treatment groups at Final Treatment|paired t-test|||||||>0.05
90957605|NCT01445301|181795306|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.11|-7.25|||ANCOVA|||Total Lesion Counts, WEEK 12||-7.25|-15.11|<0.001
90957606|NCT01445301|181795306|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.76|-3.88|||ANCOVA|||Inflammatory Lesion Counts, WEEK 1||-3.88|-12.76|<0.001
91098847|NCT01336972|182083455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Test to compare treatment groups at Final Treatment|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
91098848|NCT01336972|182083455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Test to compare treatment groups at Post Treatment|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
91098849|NCT01336972|182083455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Test to compare treatment groups at Post Treatment|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
91098850|NCT01336972|182083455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Test to compare treatment groups at Post Treatment|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91098851|NCT01336972|182083459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Comparison of all treatment groups versus Baseline at Final Treatment||||<0.05
91098852|NCT01336972|182083459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Comparison of all treatment groups versus Baseline at Post Treatment||||<0.05
91098853|NCT01336972|182083459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test to compare treatment groups at Final Treatment||||>0.05
91098854|NCT01336972|182083459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test to compare treatment groups at Final Treatment||||<0.05
91098855|NCT01336972|182083459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test to compare treatment groups at Final Treatment||||>0.05
91098856|NCT01336972|182083459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test to compare treatment groups at Post Treatment||||>0.05
91098857|NCT01336972|182083459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test to compare treatment groups at Post Treatment||||>0.05
91098858|NCT01336972|182083459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test to compare treatment groups at Post Treatment||||>0.05
91098859|NCT01336972|182083460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Test to compare Final Treatment versus Baseline for all treatment groups||||<0.05
91098860|NCT01336972|182083460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test to compare treatment groups at Final Treatment||||<0.05
91098861|NCT01336972|182083460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test to compare treatment groups at Final Treatment||||>0.05
91098862|NCT01336972|182083460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test to compare treatment groups at Final Treatment||||<0.05
91098863|NCT01336972|182083460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Test to compare PostTreatment versus Baseline for all treatment groups||||>0.05
91098864|NCT01336972|182083460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test to compare treatment groups at Post Treatment||||>0.05
91098865|NCT01336972|182083460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test to compare treatment groups at Post Treatment||||>0.05
91098866|NCT01336972|182083460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test to compare treatment groups at Post Treatment||||<0.05
91098867|NCT01336972|182083461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||paired te-test|||Test to compare Final Treatment versus Baseline for all treatment groups||||<0.05
91098868|NCT01336972|182083461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test to compare treatment groups at Final Treatment||||>0.05
91098869|NCT01336972|182083461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test to compare treatment groups at Final Treatment||||>0.05
91098870|NCT01336972|182083461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test to compare treatment groups at Final Treatment||||>0.05
91098871|NCT01336972|182083461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Test to compare Post Treatment versus Baseline||||<0.05
91098872|NCT01336972|182083461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Test to compare Post Treatment versus Baseline||||>0.05
91098873|NCT01336972|182083461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Test to compare Post Treatment versus Baseline||||>0.05
91098874|NCT01336972|182083461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test to compare treatment groups at Post Treatment||||>0.05
91098875|NCT01336972|182083461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test to compare treatment groups at Post Treatment||||>0.05
91098876|NCT01336972|182083461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test to compare treatment groups at Post Treatment||||>0.05
90900162|NCT01960530|181666599|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|To investigate the absolute and relative bioavailability of cortisol from oral Infacort®, a 20 mg dose of oral Infacort® was compared to a 20 mg dose of i.v. hydrocortisone and hydrocortisone tablets, respectively (Study Periods 3-5). These investigations were conducted in dexamethasone suppressed healthy subjects. Standard bioavailability limits of 80% to 125% were used.|Geometric LSmean ratio|106.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.92|117.76||||||||117.76|96.92|
91098877|NCT03446573|182083462|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of switching to DTG + 3TC compared to continuation of TBR (as per FDA snapshot algorithm) was to be concluded if the upper bound of a two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in virologic failure rates between the two treatment arms was smaller than 4%.|Adjusted difference in proportion (ADP)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.7|||||ADP was based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel stratified analysis adjusting for Baseline stratification factor:Baseline third agent (protease inhibitor \[PI\], non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor \[NNRTI\], and integrase inhibitor \[INI\]).|||0.7|-1.2|
90900163|NCT01960530|181666604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|86.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.23|95.52||||||||95.52|79.23|
90900164|NCT01960530|181666604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|89.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.72|99.04||||||||99.04|81.72|
90900165|NCT01022073|181666612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.808|||||||t-test, 2 sided|This analysis is based on the completers. We are working on the imputation methods to account for the missing data and will revise results later.||||||0.808
90850706|NCT04575597|181567105|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.83||||||||0.83|0.13|
90850707|NCT04575597|181567105|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.79||||||||0.79|0.09|
90850708|NCT04575597|181567105|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.36||||||||1.36|0.87|
90850709|NCT04575597|181567106|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|2.23||||||||2.23|0.74|
90850710|NCT04575597|181567106|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.8||||||||1.80|0.45|
90850711|NCT04575597|181567106|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.89||||||||1.89|0.55|
90850712|NCT04575597|181567106|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.37||||||||1.37|0.94|
90850713|NCT04575597|181567107|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|2.33||||||||2.33|0.83|
90900166|NCT02395133|181666641|SUPERIORITY||Percent Change Difference|-14.83|||=|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.34|-7.33|||ANCOVA|Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the co-primary and key secondary efficacy endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level. Analysis was performed using ANCOVA method.||-7.33|-22.34|= 0.0001
90900167|NCT02395133|181666641|SUPERIORITY||Percent Change Difference|-17.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.33|-10.34|||ANCOVA|Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the co-primary and key secondary efficacy endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level. Analysis was performed using ANCOVA method.||-10.34|-25.33|< 0.0001
91098878|NCT03446573|182083463|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of switching to DTG + 3TC compared to continuation of TBR (as per FDA snapshot algorithm) was to be concluded when the lower bound of a 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in success rates between the two treatment arms was greater than -8%.|Adjusted difference in proportion|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|3.9|||||ADP was based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel stratified analysis adjusting for Baseline stratification factor: Baseline third agent (PI, NNRTI, and INSTI).|||3.9|-3.4|
91098879|NCT03446573|182083489|OTHER||Treatment ratio|1.057||||0.257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.164|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Treatment ratio (DTG+3TC/ TAF based regimen) and 95% CI for UA/C at Week 24 has been presented.|||1.164|0.960|0.257
90850714|NCT04575597|181567107|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.48||||||||1.48|0.50|
90900168|NCT02395133|181666641|SUPERIORITY||Percent Change Difference|-21.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.36|-14.87|||ANCOVA|Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the co-primary and key secondary efficacy endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level. Analysis was performed using ANCOVA method.||-14.87|-28.36|<0.0001
91098880|NCT03446573|182083489|OTHER||Treatment ratio|1.062||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.936|1.205|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Treatment ratio (DTG+3TC/ TAF based regimen) and 95% CI for UA/C at Week 48 has been presented.|||1.205|0.936|0.350
91098881|NCT03446573|182083489|OTHER||Treatment ratio|0.979||||0.473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.924|1.037|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Treatment ratio (DTG+3TC/ TAF based regimen) and 95% CI for UP/C at Week 24 has been presented.|||1.037|0.924|0.473
90850715|NCT04575597|181567107|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.72||||||||1.72|0.56|
90850716|NCT04575597|181567107|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.43||||||||1.43|1.01|
90850717|NCT04575597|181567108|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|2.19||||||||2.19|0.29|
90850718|NCT04575597|181567108|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|2.44||||||||2.44|0.34|
90850719|NCT04575597|181567108|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|4.23||||||||4.23|0.74|
90850720|NCT04575597|181567108|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.04||||||||1.04|0.67|
90850721|NCT04575597|181567109|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|6.53||||||||6.53|0.98|
90850722|NCT04575597|181567109|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|2.52||||||||2.52|0.23|
90850723|NCT04575597|181567109|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|1.84||||||||1.84|0.11|
90900169|NCT02395133|181666642|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|24.5|||=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.7|39.29||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region, baseline disease severity and Dupilumab regimen received in parent studies.||39.29|9.70|= 0.0040
91098882|NCT03446573|182083489|OTHER||Treatment ratio|0.956||||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.891|1.026|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Treatment ratio (DTG+3TC/ TAF based regimen) and 95% CI for UP/C at Week 48 has been presented.|||1.026|0.891|0.212
91098883|NCT03446573|182083491|OTHER||Treatment ratio|0.977||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.866|1.102|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Treatment ratio (DTG+3TC/ TAF based regimen) and 95% CI for UA/C at Week 96 has been presented.|||1.102|0.866|0.700
91098884|NCT03446573|182083491|OTHER||Treatment ratio|0.971||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.835|1.129|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Treatment ratio (DTG+3TC/ TAF based regimen) and 95% CI for UA/C at Week 144 has been presented.|||1.129|0.835|0.700
91098885|NCT03446573|182083491|OTHER||Treatment ratio|0.969||||0.356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.907|1.036|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Treatment ratio (DTG+3TC/ TAF based regimen) and 95% CI for UP/C at Week 96 has been presented.|||1.036|0.907|0.356
91098886|NCT03446573|182083491|OTHER||Treatment ratio|0.991||||0.814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.916|1.071|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Treatment ratio (DTG+3TC/ TAF based regimen) and 95% CI for UP/C at Week 144 has been presented.|||1.071|0.916|0.814
91098887|NCT03446573|182083492|OTHER||Treatment ratio|0.958||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.106|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Treatment ratio (DTG+3TC/ TAF based regimen) and 95% CI for Urine beta-2 microglobulin/urine creatinine at Week 24 has been presented.|||1.106|0.830|0.560
91098888|NCT03446573|182083492|OTHER||Treatment ratio|1.055||||0.489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.906|1.229|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Treatment ratio (DTG+3TC/ TAF based regimen) and 95% CI for Urine beta-2 microglobulin/urine creatinine at Week 48 has been presented.|||1.229|0.906|0.489
91098889|NCT03446573|182083494|OTHER||Treatment ratio|1.165||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.981|1.384|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Treatment ratio (DTG+3TC/ TAF based regimen) and 95% CI for Urine beta-2 microglobulin/urine creatinine at Week 96 has been presented.|||1.384|0.981|0.081
91098890|NCT03446573|182083494|OTHER||Treatment ratio|0.981||||0.834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.819|1.175|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Treatment ratio (DTG+3TC/ TAF based regimen) and 95% CI for Urine beta-2 microglobulin/urine creatinine at Week 144 has been presented.|||1.175|0.819|0.834
91098891|NCT03446573|182083495|OTHER||Treatment ratio|1.017||||0.758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.915|1.13|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Treatment ratio (DTG+3TC/ TAF based regimen) and 95% CI for Urine phosphate at Week 24 has been presented.|||1.130|0.915|0.758
91098892|NCT03446573|182083495|OTHER||Treatment ratio|0.999||||0.985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.894|1.116|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Treatment ratio (DTG+3TC/ TAF based regimen) and 95% CI for Urine phosphate at Week 48 has been presented.|||1.116|0.894|0.985
91098893|NCT03446573|182083497|OTHER||Treatment ratio|1.015||||0.806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.904|1.139|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Treatment ratio (DTG+3TC/ TAF based regimen) and 95% CI for Urine phosphate at Week 96 has been presented.|||1.139|0.904|0.806
91098894|NCT03446573|182083497|OTHER||Treatment ratio|1.019||||0.745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.909|1.142|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Treatment ratio (DTG+3TC/ TAF based regimen) and 95% CI for Urine phosphate at Week 144 has been presented.|||1.142|0.909|0.745
91098895|NCT03446573|182083498|OTHER||Treatment ratio|0.935||||0.264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.052|||Mixed Model Reported Measures||Treatment ratio (DTG+3TC/ TAF based regimen) and 95% CI for Urine retinol binding protein 4/urine creatinine at Week 24 has been presented.|||1.052|0.830|0.264
91098896|NCT03446573|182083498|OTHER||Treatment ratio|0.996||||0.932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.903|1.098|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Treatment ratio (DTG+3TC/ TAF based regimen) and 95% CI for Urine retinol binding protein 4/urine creatinine at Week 48 has been presented.|||1.098|0.903|0.932
91098897|NCT03446573|182083500|OTHER||Treatment ratio|1.15||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.032|1.281|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Treatment ratio (DTG+3TC/ TAF based regimen) and 95% CI for Urine retinol binding protein 4/urine creatinine at Week 96 has been presented.|||1.281|1.032|0.011
91098898|NCT03446573|182083500|OTHER||Treatment ratio|1.007||||0.895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.905|1.121|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Treatment ratio (DTG+3TC/ TAF based regimen) and 95% CI for Urine retinol binding protein 4/urine creatinine at Week 144 has been presented.|||1.121|0.905|0.895
91098899|NCT03446573|182083508|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.29||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.57|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference (DTG+3TC - TAF based regimen) and its 95% CI for Bone-ALP at Week 24 has been presented|||0.57|0.00|0.047
91098900|NCT03446573|182083508|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.31||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.68|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference (DTG+3TC - TAF based regimen) and its 95% CI for Bone-ALP at Week 48 has been presented|||0.68|-0.05|0.094
90850724|NCT04575597|181567109|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.16||||||||1.16|0.66|
91030835|NCT03587207|181946146|OTHER|M07-0241084 strain-Between group ratios for comparison of MenABCWY group and rMenBOMV group|Geometric mean ratio|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.42|0.63|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||To investigate possible effects on the immune response based on strains common to MenABCWY versus rMenBOMV study groups, on the Meningitis B M07-0241084 (NHBA) strain, one month after last vaccination.||0.63|0.42|
91098901|NCT03446573|182083508|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.01|-0.68|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference (DTG+3TC - TAF based regimen) and its 95% CI for Osteocalcin at Week 24 has been presented|||-0.68|-2.01|<0.001
91098902|NCT03446573|182083508|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.59|-1.09|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference (DTG+3TC - TAF based regimen) and its 95% CI for Osteocalcin at Week 48 has been presented|||-1.09|-2.59|<0.001
91098903|NCT03446573|182083508|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.1||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|4.3|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference (DTG+3TC - TAF based regimen) and its 95% CI for P1NP at Week 24 has been presented|||4.3|-0.1|0.066
91098904|NCT03446573|182083508|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.9||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|5.8|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference (DTG+3TC - TAF based regimen) and its 95% CI for P1NP at Week 48 has been presented|||5.8|0.0|0.046
91098905|NCT03446573|182083508|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0381||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0117|0.0646|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference (DTG+3TC - TAF based regimen) and its 95% CI for CTX-1 at Week 24 has been presented|||0.0646|0.0117|0.005
90850725|NCT04575597|181567110|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|3.32||||||||3.32|0.46|
90850726|NCT04575597|181567110|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|3.74||||||||3.74|0.54|
90850727|NCT04575597|181567110|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|2.76||||||||2.76|0.34|
90850728|NCT04575597|181567110|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.1||||||||1.10|0.66|
90850729|NCT04575597|181567111|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|2.52||||||||2.52|0.41|
90850730|NCT04575597|181567111|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.9||||||||1.90|0.26|
90850731|NCT04575597|181567111|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|3.0||||||||3.00|0.51|
90850732|NCT04575597|181567111|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.17||||||||1.17|0.69|
91098906|NCT03446573|182083508|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0292||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0025|0.0559|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference (DTG+3TC - TAF based regimen) and its 95% CI for CTX-1 at Week 48 has been presented|||0.0559|0.0025|0.032
91098907|NCT03446573|182083510|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17||||0.386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.57|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference (DTG+3TC - TAF based regimen) and its 95% CI for Bone-ALP at Week 96 has been presented|||0.57|-0.22|0.386
91098908|NCT03446573|182083510|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.14||||0.573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.61|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference (DTG+3TC - TAF based regimen) and its 95% CI for Bone-ALP at Week 144 has been presented|||0.61|-0.34|0.573
91098909|NCT03446573|182083510|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-1.04|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference (DTG+3TC - TAF based regimen) and its 95% CI for Osteocalcin at Week 96 has been presented|||-1.04|-2.70|< 0.001
91098910|NCT03446573|182083510|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.77|-1.14|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference (DTG+3TC - TAF based regimen) and its 95% CI for Osteocalcin at Week 144 has been presented|||-1.14|-2.77|< 0.001
90850733|NCT04575597|181567112|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.75||||||||1.75|0.36|
90850734|NCT04575597|181567112|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.64||||||||1.64|0.33|
90850735|NCT04575597|181567112|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.62||||||||1.62|0.31|
90957607|NCT01445301|181795306|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.83|-5.3|||ANCOVA|||Inflammatory Lesion Counts, WEEK 2||-5.30|-13.83|<0.001
90850736|NCT04575597|181567112|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.16||||||||1.16|0.76|
90850737|NCT04575597|181567113|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.39||||||||1.39|0.25|
90850738|NCT04575597|181567113|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.78||||||||1.78|0.38|
90850739|NCT04575597|181567113|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.39||||||||1.39|0.25|
90850740|NCT04575597|181567113|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.48||||||||1.48|0.91|
90850741|NCT04575597|181567114|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.34||||||||1.34|0.26|
90850742|NCT04575597|181567114|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.37||||||||1.37|0.28|
90850743|NCT04575597|181567114|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.74||||||||1.74|0.38|
90900170|NCT02395133|181666642|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|28.0|||=|0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.32|42.58||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region, baseline disease severity and Dupilumab regimen received in parent studies.||42.58|13.32|= 0.0004
91098911|NCT03446573|182083510|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.1||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|4.4|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference (DTG+3TC - TAF based regimen) and its 95% CI for P1NP at Week 96 has been presented.|||4.4|-0.3|0.082
90850744|NCT04575597|181567114|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.21||||||||1.21|0.79|
90850745|NCT04575597|181567115|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|3.02||||||||3.02|0.47|
90900171|NCT02395133|181666642|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|41.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.93|53.52||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region, baseline disease severity and Dupilumab regimen received in parent studies.||53.52|28.93|<0.0001
90850746|NCT04575597|181567115|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|2.2||||||||2.20|0.29|
90900172|NCT02395133|181666643|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|21.4|||=|0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.86|38.0||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region, baseline disease severity and Dupilumab regimen received in parent studies.||38.00|4.86|= 0.0130
90900173|NCT02395133|181666643|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|33.5|||=|0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.38|49.72||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region, baseline disease severity and Dupilumab regimen received in parent studies.||49.72|17.38|= 0.0003
91098912|NCT03446573|182083510|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4||||0.765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|3.2|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference (DTG+3TC - TAF based regimen) and its 95% CI for P1NP at Week 144 has been presented|||3.2|-2.3|0.765
91098913|NCT03446573|182083510|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0151||||0.301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0136|0.0438|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference (DTG+3TC - TAF based regimen) and its 95% CI for CTX-1 at Week 96 has been presented|||0.0438|-0.0136|0.301
91098914|NCT03446573|182083510|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0126||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0133|0.0384|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference (DTG+3TC - TAF based regimen) and its 95% CI for CTX-1 at Week 144 has been presented|||0.0384|-0.0133|0.340
91098915|NCT03446573|182083511|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.2||||0.173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|1.0|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference (DTG+3TC - TAF based regimen) and its 95% CI for serum 25 hydroxyvitamin D at Week 24 has been presented|||1.0|-5.3|0.173
90850747|NCT04575597|181567115|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|2.45||||||||2.45|0.32|
90850748|NCT04575597|181567115|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.11||||||||1.11|0.62|
90850749|NCT04575597|181567116|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.27||||||||2.27|0.30|
90957608|NCT01445301|181795306|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.03|-3.62|||ANCOVA|||Inflammatory Lesion Counts, WEEK 4||-3.62|-12.03|<0.001
90900174|NCT02395133|181666643|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|42.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.36|55.76||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region, baseline disease severity and Dupilumab regimen received in parent studies.||55.76|28.36|<0.0001
90900175|NCT02395133|181666644|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|18.5|||=|0.0209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.14|32.91||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region, baseline disease severity and Dupilumab regimen received in parent studies.||32.91|4.14|= 0.0209
90900176|NCT02395133|181666644|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|29.7|||=|0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.89|44.42||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region, baseline disease severity and Dupilumab regimen received in parent studies.||44.42|14.89|= 0.0007
90900177|NCT02395133|181666644|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|39.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.42|51.95||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region, baseline disease severity and Dupilumab regimen received in parent studies.||51.95|27.42|<0.0001
91030836|NCT03587207|181946146|OTHER|Serogroup A- Between group ratios for comparison between MenABCWY group and MenACWY group|Geometric mean ratio|2.02|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.62|2.51|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||To investigate possible effects on the immune response based on strains common to MenABCWY versus MenACWY study groups, on the Meningitis serogroup A, one month after last vaccination.||2.51|1.62|
91030837|NCT03587207|181946146|OTHER|Serogroup C- Between group ratios for comparison of MenABCWY group and MenACWY group|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.99|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|3.92|6.35|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||To investigate possible effects on the immune response based on strains common to MenABCWY versus MenACWY study groups, on the Meningitis serogroup C, one month after last vaccination.||6.35|3.92|
90850750|NCT04575597|181567116|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|1.0||||||||1.00|0.04|
91030838|NCT03587207|181946146|OTHER|Serogroup W- Between group ratios for comparison of MenABCWY group and MenACWY group|Geometric mean ratio|3.25|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|2.66|3.96|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||To investigate possible effects on the immune response based on strains common to MenABCWY versus MenACWY study groups, on the Meningitis serogroup W, one month after last vaccination.||3.96|2.66|
91030839|NCT03587207|181946146|OTHER|Serogroup Y- Between group ratio for comparison of MenABCWY group and MenACWY group|Geometric mean ratio|2.38|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.81|3.12|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||To investigate possible effects on the immune response based on strains common to MenABCWY versus MenACWY study groups, on the Meningitis serogroup Y, one month after last vaccination.||3.12|1.81|
91030840|NCT03587207|181946150|OTHER|Between group ratio is calculated as GMT for rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S Group over GMT for rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D Group. 80% CI are obtained from Analysis of Covariance model fitted to pooled Serogroup B Strains. The following ANCOVA model is used: fixed-effect model including age strata, study group, strain and center as fixed effects. The pre vaccination (Baseline) log-transformed titer with centering at zero is included as a continuous covariate.|Geometric mean ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.86|1.22|||ANCOVA|An interaction between strain and pre-vaccination log transformed titer is included in the model to fit to the serogroup B test strain data only.||Immune interference due to stress to lymph nodes (lymph-node effect) in rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S versus rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D study groups, on the pooled B strains, one month after first vaccination.||1.22|0.86|
91098916|NCT03446573|182083511|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.3||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|1.0|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference (DTG+3TC - TAF based regimen) and its 95% CI for serum 25 hydroxyvitamin D at Week 48 has been presented|||1.0|-5.5|0.168
91098917|NCT03446573|182083513|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|-4.7|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference (DTG+3TC - TAF based regimen) and its 95% CI for serum 25 hydroxyvitamin D at Week 96 has been presented.|||-4.7|-14.0|<0.001
91098918|NCT03446573|182083513|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.6||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|-1.7|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference (DTG+3TC - TAF based regimen) and its 95% CI for serum 25 hydroxyvitamin D at Week 144 has been presented.|||-1.7|-9.4|0.005
90850751|NCT04575597|181567116|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.91||||||||1.91|0.23|
90850752|NCT04575597|181567116|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.23||||||||1.23|0.62|
90850753|NCT04575597|181567117|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.2||||||||1.20|0.28|
90850754|NCT04575597|181567117|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.95||||||||0.95|0.20|
90900178|NCT02395133|181666645|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|-14.4||||0.1048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.21|0.32||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region, baseline disease severity and Dupilumab regimen received in parent studies.||0.32|-29.21|0.1048
91030841|NCT03587207|181946151|OTHER|M14459 strain- Between group ratio for comparison of rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S group and rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D group.|Geometric mean ratio|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.02|1.63|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||Immune interference due to stress to lymph nodes (lymph-node effect) in rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S versus rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D study groups, on the Meningitis B M14459 (fHbp) strain, one month after first vaccination.||1.63|1.02|
91098919|NCT03446573|182083514|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.0|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference (DTG+3TC - TAF based regimen) and its 95% CI for serum cystatin C at Week 24 has been presented|||0.00|-0.03|0.027
91098920|NCT03446573|182083514|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.0|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference (DTG+3TC - TAF based regimen) and its 95% CI for serum cystatin C at Week 48 has been presented|||0.00|-0.03|0.061
91098921|NCT03446573|182083516|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|-0.01|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference (DTG+3TC - TAF based regimen) and its 95% CI for serum cystatin C at Week 96 has been presented|||-0.01|-0.06|0.004
90850755|NCT04575597|181567117|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.59||||||||1.59|0.43|
90850756|NCT04575597|181567117|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.19||||||||1.19|0.73|
90957609|NCT01445301|181795306|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.63|-3.53|||ANCOVA|||Inflammatory Lesion Counts, WEEK 8||-3.53|-12.63|<0.001
91098922|NCT03446573|182083516|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.0|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference (DTG+3TC - TAF based regimen) and its 95% CI for serum cystatin C at Week 144 has been presented|||0.00|-0.03|0.094
91098923|NCT03446573|182083517|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.8||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.1|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference (DTG+3TC - TAF based regimen) and its 95% CI for serum GFR from cystatin C adjusted using CKD-EPI at Week 24 has been presented|||3.1|0.4|0.012
91098924|NCT03446573|182083517|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.6||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|3.3|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference (DTG+3TC - TAF based regimen) and its 95% CI for serum GFR from cystatin C adjusted using CKD-EPI at Week 48 has been presented|||3.3|-0.1|0.059
91098925|NCT03446573|182083517|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|-3.7|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference (DTG+3TC - TAF based regimen) and its 95% CI for serum GFR from creatinine adjusted using CKD-EPI at Week 24 has been presented|||-3.7|-6.3|<0.001
91098926|NCT03446573|182083517|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|-3.4|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference (DTG+3TC - TAF based regimen) and its 95% CI for serum GFR from creatinine adjusted using CKD-EPI at Week 48 has been presented|||-3.4|-6.1|<0.001
91098927|NCT03446573|182083519|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.1||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|6.7|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference (DTG+3TC - TAF based regimen) and its 95% CI for serum GFR from cystatin C adjusted using CKD-EPI at Week 96 has been presented|||6.7|1.5|0.002
91098928|NCT03446573|182083519|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.9||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|3.8|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference (DTG+3TC - TAF based regimen) and its 95% CI for serum GFR from cystatin C adjusted using CKD-EPI at Week 148 has been presented|||3.8|-0.1|0.064
91098929|NCT03446573|182083519|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|-3.8|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference (DTG+3TC - TAF based regimen) and its 95% CI for serum GFR from creatinine adjusted using CKD-EPI at Week 96 has been presented|||-3.8|-6.7|<0.001
91098930|NCT03446573|182083519|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|-2.8|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference (DTG+3TC - TAF based regimen) and its 95% CI for serum GFR from creatinine adjusted using CKD-EPI at Week 144 has been presented|||-2.8|-6.2|<0.001
91098931|NCT03446573|182083520|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.03|5.7|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference (DTG+3TC - TBR) and its 95% CI for serum creatinine at Week 24 has been presented.|||5.70|3.03|<0.001
91098932|NCT03446573|182083520|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.18|5.81|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference (DTG+3TC - TBR) and its 95% CI for serum creatinine at Week 48 has been presented.|||5.81|3.18|<0.001
90957610|NCT01445301|181795306|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.71|-4.41|||ANCOVA|||Inflammatory Lesion Counts, WEEK 12||-4.41|-12.71|<0.001
90850757|NCT04575597|181567118|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|2.11||||||||2.11|0.35|
90850758|NCT04575597|181567118|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.34||||||||1.34|0.16|
91098933|NCT03446573|182083522|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.47|6.43|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference (DTG+3TC - TBR) and its 95% CI for serum creatinine at Week 96 has been presented.|||6.43|3.47|<0.001
91098934|NCT03446573|182083522|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.32|5.85|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference (DTG+3TC - TBR) and its 95% CI for serum creatinine at Week 144 has been presented.|||5.85|2.32|<0.001
91098935|NCT03446573|182083523|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0017||||0.741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0119|0.0085|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 24. MMRM adjusted for following: Treatment, Visit, Baseline Third Agent Class, Baseline EQ-5D Utility (continuous), Treatment by Visit interaction, and Baseline EQ-5D Utility by Visit interaction, with Visit as the repeated factor.|||0.0085|-0.0119|0.741
91098936|NCT03446573|182083523|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0015||||0.792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0094|0.0123|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 48. MMRM adjusted for following: Treatment, Visit, Baseline Third Agent Class, Baseline EQ-5D Utility (continuous), Treatment by Visit interaction, and Baseline EQ-5D Utility by Visit interaction, with Visit as the repeated factor.|||0.0123|-0.0094|0.792
91098937|NCT03446573|182083524|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0003||||0.965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0121|0.0126|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 96. MMRM adjusted for following: Treatment, Visit, Baseline Third Agent Class, Baseline EQ-5D Utility (continuous), Treatment by Visit interaction, and Baseline EQ-5D Utility by Visit interaction, with Visit as the repeated factor.|||0.0126|-0.0121|0.965
91098938|NCT03446573|182083524|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0109||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0247|0.0029|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 144. MMRM adjusted for following: Treatment, Visit, Baseline Third Agent Class, Baseline EQ-5D Utility (continuous), Treatment by Visit interaction, and Baseline EQ-5D Utility by Visit interaction, with Visit as the repeated factor.|||0.0029|-0.0247|0.120
91098939|NCT03446573|182083525|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.2|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 24. MMRM adjusted for following: Treatment, Visit, Baseline Third Agent Class, Baseline EQ-5D Thermometer (continuous), Treatment by Visit interaction, and Baseline EQ-5D Thermometer by Visit interaction, with Visit as the repeated factor.|||1.2|-1.4|0.879
91098940|NCT03446573|182083525|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.8|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 48. MMRM adjusted for following: Treatment, Visit, Baseline Third Agent Class, Baseline EQ-5D Thermometer (continuous), Treatment by Visit interaction, and Baseline EQ-5D Thermometer by Visit interaction, with Visit as the repeated factor.|||0.8|-1.9|0.414
90850759|NCT04575597|181567118|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.79||||||||2.79|0.50|
90957611|NCT01445301|181795306|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.53|-4.68|||ANCOVA|||Non-Inflammatory Lesion Counts, WEEK 1||-4.68|-13.53|<0.001
91098941|NCT03446573|182083526|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.2|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 96. MMRM adjusted for following: Treatment, Visit, Baseline Third Agent Class, Baseline EQ-5D Thermometer (continuous), Treatment by Visit interaction, and Baseline EQ-5D Thermometer by Visit interaction, with Visit as the repeated factor.|||0.2|-2.5|0.102
91098942|NCT03446573|182083526|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|0.2|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 144. MMRM adjusted for following: Treatment, Visit, Baseline Third Agent Class, Baseline EQ-5D Thermometer (continuous), Treatment by Visit interaction, and Baseline EQ-5D Thermometer by Visit interaction, with Visit as the repeated factor.|||0.2|-2.8|0.093
91098943|NCT00471107|182083546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Power analysis was based on WMS-III Word Lists performance. With an effect comparable to the effect on verbal fluency in an earlier study of left frontal TDCS in healthy subjects, it would require 10 subjects per group (30 total) for a significance level of 0.05 and 80% power.||||>0.05
90900179|NCT02395133|181666645|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|-20.6|||=|0.0107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.32|-5.89||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region, baseline disease severity and Dupilumab regimen received in parent studies.||-5.89|-35.32|= 0.0107
91098944|NCT06204887|182083573|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.05
91098945|NCT03833167|182083575|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.07243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.1||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by baseline Extracapsular extension (yes versus no) and Cortical bone invasion (yes versus no) with small strata collapsed.|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by baseline Extracapsular extension (yes versus no) and Cortical bone invasion (yes versus no) with small strata collapsed.|||1.10|0.53|0.07243
91098946|NCT03833167|182083576|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|2.48|||||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by baseline Extracapsular extension (yes versus no) and Cortical bone invasion (yes versus no) with small strata collapsed.|||2.48|0.87|
90900180|NCT02395133|181666645|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|-36.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.4|-23.74||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region, baseline disease severity and Dupilumab regimen received in parent studies.||-23.74|-48.40|<0.0001
91098947|NCT03833167|182083577|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.41||||0.2227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.91|2.09||Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by Extracapsular extension, Cortical bone invasion, and Prior systemic therapy.|Log Rank||Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by Extracapsular extension, Cortical bone invasion, and Prior systemic therapy.|||2.09|-8.91|0.2227
91098948|NCT03833167|182083578|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.89||||0.1874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.19|1.42||Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by Extracapsular extension, Cortical bone invasion, and Prior systemic therapy.|Log Rank||Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by Extracapsular extension, Cortical bone invasion, and Prior systemic therapy.|||1.42|-7.19|0.1874
91098949|NCT03003962|182083598|OTHER|"The analysis was performed using the stratified log-rank test, adjusting for PD-L1 expression (TC 25% to 49% versus \>= 50%) and histology and smoking status (squamous vs. non-squamous + never smoker vs.~non-squamous + former/current smoker) and using the rank tests of association approach."|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.706|0.989|||Stratified Log-rank test||The HR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model|||0.989|0.706|0.037
90900181|NCT03621202|181666694|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The EBBMS sensitivity was 100%.|||
90900182|NCT03621202|181666695|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The EBBMS specificity was 75%.|||
90957612|NCT01445301|181795306|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|-5.8|||ANCOVA|||Non-Inflammatory Lesion Counts, WEEK 2||-5.80|-16.30|<0.001
91098950|NCT03003962|182083599|OTHER|"The analysis was performed using the stratified log-rank test, adjusting for PD-L1 expression (TC 25% to 49% versus \>= 50%) and histology and smoking status (squamous vs. non-squamous + never smoker vs.~non-squamous + former/current smoker) and using the rank tests of association approach."|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.793|1.151|||Stratified log-rank test||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model.|||1.151|0.793|0.628
91098951|NCT04337021|182083642|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.513|||||||Chi-squared|||There were no statistical differences between the two treatment groups (chi-square=0.43, p=0.513)||||0.513
91098952|NCT04337021|182083643|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.184|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.184
91098953|NCT04337021|182083644|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.525|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.525
91098954|NCT04337021|182083645|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.723|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.723
91098955|NCT04337021|182083646|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.569|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.569
90900183|NCT01555164|181666699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in least squares mean (LSM)|-0.11||||0.306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.1||P-value from a mixed-effect model including terms for baseline HbA1c value, treatment group, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Mixed Effects Model Analysis||The estimation (LSM) is of the placebo-corrected change from baseline.|Assuming a common standard deviation of 1.2%, an effective sample size of 400 would provide at least 90% power to detect a statistically significant treatment difference of -0.4% (ranolazine vs. placebo) for the reduction of HbA1c from baseline at Week 24 based on a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 and 1:1 randomization.||0.10|-0.31|0.306
90957613|NCT01445301|181795306|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.97|-9.37|||ANCOVA|||Non-Inflammatory Lesion Counts, WEEK 4||-9.37|-18.97|<0.001
90957614|NCT01445301|181795306|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.83|-8.25|||ANCOVA|||Non-Inflammatory Lesion Counts, WEEK 8||-8.25|-17.83|<0.001
91098956|NCT06394323|182083650|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.74||0.2157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|1.9||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05.|Welch's t test, 2 sided|The Welch's t test statistic was -1.25 and the degrees of freedom were 84.67.|The mean difference was calculated by subtracting the mean DCS of the SOC arm from the mean DCS of the MyChoice intervention arm (MyChoice mean - SOC mean).|The null hypothesis is that the mean DCS for the MyChoice and SOC arms are equal.||1.9|-8.9|0.2157
91098957|NCT00567580|182083651|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||One-sided significance level = 0.001|Z test|||Alternative hypotheses: 10% improvement in 5-year FFP in Arm 2 and 20% improvement in Arm 3, both relative to Arm 1, which has an assumed 5-year FFP of 70%. Sample size of 1587 (529/arm) with overall one-sided 0.025 alpha provides 90% power. Interim analyses (reported here) tested at one-sided significance level of 0.001. P\<0.001 indicates comparison crossed interim efficacy boundary. See Limitations and Caveats section.||||<0.001
91098958|NCT00567580|182083651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Z-test|||Alternative hypotheses: 10% improvement in 5-year FFP in Arm 2 and 20% improvement in Arm 3, both relative to Arm 1, which has an assumed 5-year FFP of 70%. Sample size of 1587 (529/arm) with overall one-sided 0.025 alpha provides 90% power. Interim analyses (reported here) tested at one-sided significance level of 0.001. P\<0.001 indicates comparison crossed interim efficacy boundary. See Limitations and Caveats section.||||0.003
91098959|NCT00567580|182083651|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Z-test|||Alternative hypotheses: 10% improvement in 5-year FFP in Arm 2 and 20% improvement in Arm 3, both relative to Arm 1, which has an assumed 5-year FFP of 70%. Sample size of 1587 (529/arm) with overall one-sided 0.025 alpha provides 90% power. Interim analyses (reported here) tested at one-sided significance level of 0.001. P\<0.001 indicates comparison crossed interim efficacy boundary. See Limitations and Caveats section.||||<0.001
91098960|NCT00567580|182083652|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.45|0.72||One-sided significance level = 0.0125|Log Rank||Reference level = PBRT Alone|||0.72|0.45|<0.001
91098961|NCT00567580|182083652|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.51|0.89||One-sided significance level = 0.0125|Log Rank||Reference level = PBRT + STAD|||0.89|0.51|<0.001
91098962|NCT00567580|182083652|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.3|0.51||One-sided significance level = 0.0125|Log Rank||Reference level = PBRT Alone|||0.51|0.30|<0.001
91098963|NCT00567580|182083653|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.137|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.39|1.39||One-sided significance level = 0.0125|Log Rank||Reference level = PBRT Alone|||1.39|0.39|0.137
91098964|NCT00567580|182083653|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.39||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.16|0.95||One-sided significance level = 0.0125|Log Rank||Reference level = PBRT + STAD|||0.95|0.16|0.007
91098965|NCT00567580|182083653|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.12|0.68||One-sided significance level = 0.0125|Log Rank||Reference level = PBRT Alone|||0.68|0.12|<0.001
90850760|NCT04575597|181567118|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.32||||||||1.32|0.74|
91098966|NCT00567580|182083654|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.37||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.14|1.01||One-sided significance level = 0.0125|Log Rank||Reference level = PBRT Alone|||1.01|0.14|0.010
91098967|NCT00567580|182083654|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.14|2.3||One-sided significance level = 0.0125|Log Rank||Reference level = PBRT + STAD|||2.30|0.14|0.177
90850761|NCT04575597|181567119|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|15.54||||||||15.54|0.06|
90850762|NCT04575597|181567119|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0||NA = Upper limit not reached as no events were recorded||||||||0.00|
90900184|NCT00697190|181666702|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin = 0.33|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.29|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as senofilcon A toric minus galyfilcon A toric.|Alternative hypothesis is that senoflicon A toric is non-inferior to galyfilcon A toric in conjunctival hyperemia.||0.04|-0.29|
91098968|NCT00567580|182083654|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.06|0.71||One-sided significance level = 0.0125|Log Rank||Reference level = PBRT Alone|||0.71|0.06|<0.001
90850763|NCT04575597|181567119|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|15.99||||||||15.99|0.06|
91098969|NCT00567580|182083655|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.49|1.22||One-sided significance level = 0.0125|Log Rank||Reference level = PBRT Alone|||1.22|0.49|0.105
91098970|NCT00567580|182083655|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.36|1.06||One-sided significance level = 0.0125|Log Rank||Reference level = PBRT + STAD|||1.06|0.36|0.022
91098971|NCT00567580|182083655|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.29|0.81||One-sided significance level = 0.0125|Log Rank||Reference level = PBRT Alone|||0.81|0.29|<0.001
91098972|NCT00567580|182083656|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.137|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.35|1.43||One-sided significance level = 0.0125|Log Rank||Reference level = PBRT Alone|||1.43|0.35|0.137
91098973|NCT00567580|182083656|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.141|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.3|1.54||One-sided significance level = 0.0125|Log Rank||Reference level = PBRT + STAD|||1.54|0.30|0.141
90850764|NCT04575597|181567119|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.25||||||||1.25|0.46|
90850765|NCT04575597|181567120|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|3.83||||||||3.83|0.58|
90957615|NCT01445301|181795306|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.05|-7.68|||ANCOVA|||Non-Inflammatory Lesion Counts, WEEK 12||-7.68|-17.05|<0.001
91098974|NCT00567580|182083656|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.47||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.21|1.03||One-sided significance level = 0.0125|Log Rank||Reference level = PBRT Alone|||1.03|0.21|0.014
91098975|NCT00567580|182083657|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.235|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.54|1.38||One-sided significance level = 0.0125|Log Rank||Reference level = PBRT Alone|||1.38|0.54|0.235
91098976|NCT00567580|182083657|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.481|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.61|1.6||One-sided significance level = 0.0125|Log Rank||Reference level = PBRT + STAD|||1.60|0.61|0.481
91098977|NCT00567580|182083657|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.213|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.53|1.35||One-sided significance level = 0.0125|Log Rank||Reference level = PBRT Alone|||1.35|0.53|0.213
91098978|NCT00567580|182083658|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.81|3.37||One-sided significance level = 0.025|Regression, Logistic|Model was adjusted for entry PSA level, pathology, seminal vesicle involvement, Gleason score, race, and age.|Reference level = PBRT Alone|Acute grade 2+ acute adverse events||3.37|1.81|<0.001
91098979|NCT00567580|182083658|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.03|1.77||One-sided significance level = 0.025|Regression, Logistic|Model was adjusted for entry PSA level, pathology, seminal vesicle involvement, Gleason score, race, and age.|Reference level = PBRT + STAD|Acute grade 2+ acute adverse events||1.77|1.03|0.007
91098980|NCT00567580|182083658|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.04||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.16|3.6||One-sided significance level = 0.025|Regression, Logistic|Univariate model was used due to the low number of events.|Reference level = PBRT Alone|Acute grade 3+ acute adverse events||3.60|1.16|0.002
91098981|NCT00567580|182083658|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.975|2.27||One-sided significance level = 0.025|Regression, Logistic|Univariate model was used due to the low number of events.|Reference level = PBRT + STAD|Acute grade 3+ adverse events||2.27|0.975|0.025
91030842|NCT03587207|181946151|OTHER|96217 strain- Between group ratio for comparison of rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S group and rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D group.|Geometric mean ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.75|1.15|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||Immune interference due to stress to lymph nodes (lymph-node effect) in rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S versus rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D study groups, on the Meningitis B 96217 (NadA) strain, one month after first vaccination.||1.15|0.75|
91030843|NCT03587207|181946151|OTHER|NZ98/254 strain- Between group ratio for comparison of rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S group and rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D group.|Geometric mean ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.8|1.29|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||Immune interference due to stress to lymph nodes (lymph-node effect) in rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S versus rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D study groups, on the Meningitis B NZ98/254 (PorA)strain, one month after first vaccination.||1.29|0.80|
91030844|NCT03587207|181946151|OTHER|M07-0241084 strain-Between group ratio for comparison of rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S group and rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D group.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.87|1.36|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||Immune interference due to stress to lymph nodes (lymph-node effect) in rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S versus rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D study groups, on the Meningitis B M07-0241084 (NHBA) strain, one month after first vaccination.||1.36|0.87|
91030845|NCT03587207|181946151|OTHER|Serogroup A- Between group ratio for comparison of rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S group and rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D group.|Geometric mean ratio|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.58|1.03|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||Immune interference due to stress to lymph nodes (lymph-node effect) in rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S versus rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D study groups, on the Meningitis serogroup A, one month after first vaccination.||1.03|0.58|
91098982|NCT00567580|182083659|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.268|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.88|1.26||One-sided significance level = 0.025|Log Rank||Reference level = PBRT Alone|Late grade 2+ adverse events||1.26|0.88|0.268
91098983|NCT00567580|182083659|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.101|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.93|1.32||One-sided significance level = 0.025|Log Rank||Reference level = PBRT + STAD|Late grade 2+ adverse events||1.32|0.93|0.101
91098984|NCT00567580|182083659|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.22||||0.119|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.83|1.8||One-sided significance level = 0.025|Log Rank||Reference level = PBRT Alone|Late grade 3+ adverse events||1.80|0.83|0.119
91030846|NCT03587207|181946151|OTHER|Serogroup C- Between group ratio for comparison of rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S group and rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D Group.|Geometric mean ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.62|1.13|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||Immune interference due to stress to lymph nodes (lymph-node effect) in rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S versus rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D study groups, on the Meningitis serogroup C, one month after first vaccination.||1.13|0.62|
91098985|NCT00567580|182083659|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.82|1.65||One-sided significance level = 0.025|Log Rank||Reference level = PBRT + STAD|Late grade 3+ adverse events||1.65|0.82|0.170
91098986|NCT00845182|182083730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
91098987|NCT00845182|182083730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91098988|NCT04621760|182083733|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance: 0.05|Fisher Exact|||||||0.51
91098989|NCT04621760|182083734|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62||||||threshold for significance: 0.05|Fisher Exact|one sided Fisher's exct test, given small cell sizes.||||||0.62
91098990|NCT04621760|182083735|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.207||||||a priori threshold for significance: 0.05|Fisher Exact|Fisher's exact test used due to small sample size||||||0.207
91098991|NCT04621760|182083736|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.496||||||a priori threshold for significance: 0.05|Fisher Exact|Fisher's exact test used due to small cell size||||||0.496
91098992|NCT04621760|182083737|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||a priori threshold for significance: 0.05|Chi-squared|||"Test comparing proportion correctly identifying PrEP is a daily pill to prevent HIV"||||0.02
91098993|NCT04621760|182083737|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||a priori threshold for significance: 0.05|Chi-squared|||"Test comparing proportion correctly responding to prompt: PrEP is for all adults"||||0.01
91098994|NCT04621760|182083737|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||a priori threshold for significance: 0.05|Chi-squared|||"Test comparing proportion who correctly identified: PrEP will not work if taken once a week"||||<0.01
91098995|NCT04621760|182083737|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||a priori threshold for significance: 0.05|Chi-squared|||"Test of proportion who correctly identified PrEP does not prevent STDs other than HIV"||||<0.01
91098996|NCT04621760|182083737|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||a priori threshold for significance: 0.05|Chi-squared|||"Test comparing proportion who correctly identified, PrEP side effects do not last forever"||||<0.01
91098997|NCT04621760|182083737|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||a priori threshold for significance: 0.05|Chi-squared|||"Test comparing proportion who correctly identified, A baby could be norm to HIV discordant parents without transmitting HIV"||||0.03
91098998|NCT04621760|182083737|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||a priori threshold for significance: 0.05|Chi-squared|||"Test comparing proportion who correctly identified There is medication you can take after sex to prevent HIV"||||<0.01
91098999|NCT04621760|182083737|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29||||||a priori threshold for significance: 0.05|Chi-squared|||"Test for proportion who correctly identified PrEP efficacy is \> 95%"||||0.29
91099000|NCT04621760|182083738|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||a priori threshold for significance: 0.05|Chi-squared|||Given strong positive skew of responses, transformed into a binary variable comparing those with lowest possible score versus higher score. Data then tested through tests of proportions.||||0.04
91099001|NCT04621760|182083739|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||a priori threshold for significance: 0.05|Chi-squared|||Given strong positive skew of responses, transformed into a binary variable comparing those with lowest possible score versus higher score. Data then tested through tests of proportions.||||0.02
91099002|NCT04621760|182083740|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||a priori threshold for significance: 0.05|Chi-squared|||Given strong positive skew of responses, transformed into a binary variable comparing those with lowest possible score versus higher score. Data then tested through tests of proportions.||||0.05
91099003|NCT04621760|182083741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||a priori threshold for significance: 0.05|Chi-squared|||Given strong positive skew of responses, transformed into a binary variable comparing those with lowest possible score versus higher score. Data then tested through tests of proportions.||||0.03
91099004|NCT04621760|182083742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07||||||a priori threshold for significance: 0.05|Chi-squared|||Given strong positive skew of responses, transformed into a binary variable comparing those with lowest possible score versus higher score. Data then tested through tests of proportions.||||0.07
91099005|NCT04621760|182083743|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1||||||a priori threshold for significance: 0.05|Chi-squared|||Given strong positive skew of responses, transformed into a binary variable comparing those with lowest possible score versus higher score. Data then tested through tests of proportions.||||0.10
91099006|NCT04621760|182083744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22||||||a priori threshold for significance: 0.05|Chi-squared|||Given strong negative skew of responses, transformed into a binary variable comparing those with highest possible score versus higher score. Data then tested through tests of proportions.||||0.22
91099007|NCT04621760|182083745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51||||||a priori threshold for significance: 0.05|Fisher Exact|Fisher's exact test used due to small cell size||||||0.51
91099008|NCT04621760|182083746|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9||||||a priori threshold for significance: 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Comparing confidence between treatment groups of those who said they intended to use PrEP||||0.90
91099009|NCT04621760|182083746|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75||||||a priori threshold for significance: 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Comparing confidence between treatment groups of those who said they intended to use abstinence||||0.75
91099010|NCT04621760|182083746|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32||||||a priori threshold for significance: 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Comparing confidence between treatment groups of those who said they intended to use PEP||||0.32
90850766|NCT04575597|181567120|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|3.05||||||||3.05|0.42|
91099011|NCT04621760|182083746|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4||||||a priori threshold for significance: 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Comparing confidence between treatment groups of those who said they intended to use HIV testing||||0.40
91099012|NCT04621760|182083746|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34||||||a priori threshold for significance: 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Comparing confidence between treatment groups of those who said they intended to use STD testing||||0.34
91099013|NCT04621760|182083746|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1||||||a priori threshold for significance: 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Comparing confidence between treatment groups of those who said they intended to use Treatment as Prevention||||0.10
90850767|NCT04575597|181567120|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|3.93||||||||3.93|0.57|
90850768|NCT04575597|181567120|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.1||||||||1.10|0.61|
91099014|NCT04621760|182083747|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||a priori threshold for significance: 0.05|Chi-squared|||||||0.01
91099015|NCT04621760|182083748|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26||||||a priori threshold for significance: 0.05|Fisher Exact|||"Comparing proportions in response to prompt The information was easy to understand"||||0.26
91099016|NCT04621760|182083748|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26||||||a priori threshold for significance: 0.05|Fisher Exact|||"Comparing proportions in response to prompt: I got all of the information I needed"||||0.26
91099017|NCT04621760|182083748|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59||||||a priori threshold for significance: 0.05|Fisher Exact|||||||0.59
91099018|NCT04621760|182083748|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17||||||a priori threshold for significance: 0.05|Fisher Exact|||"Comparing proportions in response to prompt: The information felt useful to me"||||0.17
91099019|NCT04621760|182083749|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||Chi-squared|||"Testing proportion of acceptability of abstinence method (proportion that responded great for me)"||||0.74
91099020|NCT04621760|182083749|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||Chi-squared|||"Testing proportion of acceptability of condoms method (proportion that responded great for me)"||||0.59
90850769|NCT04575597|181567121|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|1.21||||||||1.21|0.11|
90850770|NCT04575597|181567121|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.36||||||||1.36|0.20|
90957616|NCT01445301|181795307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91099021|NCT04621760|182083749|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||Chi-squared|||"Testing proportion of acceptability of PEP method (proportion that responded great for me)"||||0.66
91099022|NCT04621760|182083749|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||Chi-squared|||"Testing proportion of acceptability of PrEP method (proportion that responded great for me)"||||0.49
91099023|NCT04621760|182083749|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||Chi-squared|||"Testing proportion of acceptability of HIV testing method (proportion that responded great for me)"||||0.94
91099024|NCT04621760|182083749|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Chi-squared|||"Testing proportion of acceptability of STD testing method (proportion that responded great for me)"||||0.95
91099025|NCT04621760|182083749|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Chi-squared|||"Testing proportion of acceptability of Treatment as prevention method (proportion that responded great for me)"||||0.39
91099026|NCT04621760|182083755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13||||||a priori threshold for significance: 0.05|Fisher Exact|||||||0.13
91099027|NCT04621760|182083756|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08||||||a priori threshold for significance: 0.05|Fisher Exact|||||||0.08
90850771|NCT04575597|181567121|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.89||||||||1.89|0.29|
91030847|NCT03587207|181946151|OTHER|Serogroup W- Between group ratio for comparison of rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S group and rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D group.|Geometric mean ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.68|1.13|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||Immune interference due to stress to lymph nodes (lymph-node effect) in rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S versus rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D study groups, on the Meningitis serogroup W, one month after first vaccination.||1.13|0.68|
91099028|NCT01028560|182083757|OTHER||Slope|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.63|||Mixed Models Analysis||The above is the slope for immunotherapy group . The (quadratic) slope is for 1 month increase in time.|Linear mixed effects model (LME) with random coefficients model was fitted with Restricted Maximum Likelihood estimation. The functional form of the model was quadratic and the model adjusted for gender, race, ethnicity and number of asthma hospitalizations since birth. Unequal data collection were smoothed over two month period with a median score values.||0.63|-0.24|0.38
91099029|NCT01028560|182083757|OTHER||Slope|0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|The above (quadratic) slope is for control group|The above is the (quadratic) slope is for control group and is for 1 month increase in time.|Linear mixed effects model (LME) with random coefficients model was fitted with Restricted Maximum Likelihood estimation. The functional form of the model was quadratic and the model adjusted for gender, race, ethnicity and number of asthma hospitalizations since birth. Unequal data collection were smoothed over two month period with median score values.||0.99|0.11|0.013
91099030|NCT01028560|182083757|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.97||0.978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.76|12.03||Post estimation means were tested between the intervention arms after LME model at year 1 and the p- values were adjusted using Bonferroni correction.|contrast testing post mixed model||The difference is IT-Control group and the confidence interval is Bonferroni CI|Linear mixed effects model (LME) with random coefficients model was fitted with Restricted Maximum Likelihood estimation. The functional form of the model was quadratic and the model adjusted for gender, race, ethnicity and number of asthma hospitalizations since birth. Unequal data collection between immunotherapy and control groups were smoothed over two month period with a median score values.||12.03|-11.76|0.978
90850772|NCT04575597|181567121|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.2||||||||1.20|0.68|
90850773|NCT04575597|181567122|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.33||||||||1.33|0.09|
91099031|NCT01028560|182083757|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.89||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.83|12.38||Post estimation means were tested between the intervention arms after LME model at year 2 and the p- value was unadjusted p value|contrast testing post mixed model]||The difference is IT-Control group and the confidence interval is Bonferroni CI|Linear mixed effects model (LME) with random coefficients model was fitted with Restricted Maximum Likelihood estimation. The functional form of the model was quadratic and the model adjusted for gender, race, ethnicity and number of asthma hospitalizations since birth. Unequal data collection between immunotherapy and control groups were smoothed over two month period with a median score values.||12.38|-15.83|0.77
91099032|NCT01028560|182083757|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.39||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.54|15.84||Post estimation means were tested between the intervention arms after LME model at year 3 and the p- values were adjusted using Bonferroni correction.|contrast testing post mixed model||The difference is IT-Control group and the confidence interval is Bonferroni CI|Linear mixed effects model (LME) with random coefficients model was fitted with Restricted Maximum Likelihood estimation. The functional form of the model was quadratic and the model adjusted for gender, race, ethnicity and number of asthma hospitalizations since birth. Unequal data collection between immunotherapy and control groups were smoothed over two month period with a median score values.||15.84|-19.54|0.80
91099033|NCT01028560|182083758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.677||||||Chi-square test (proportion of new sensitizations versus unchanged or lost sensitizations in each group, intention-to treat analysis).|Chi-squared|||||||0.677
90850774|NCT04575597|181567122|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.15||||||||2.15|0.30|
90850775|NCT04575597|181567122|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.48||||||||1.48|0.18|
90957617|NCT01445301|181795307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91099034|NCT01028560|182083759|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.56||||0.546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|3.29||Test of parallelism (group x time) hypothesis P-value.|covariance pattern (rep. measure) model|Within group difference p-values ( baseline vs 3-years) in control and intervention arm were 0.56 and 0.20 respectively.|The estimated slope reported is for year 3 from the covariance pattern model with autoregressive covariance structure.|Covariance Pattern Model with autoregressive covariance structure with REML (Restricted Estimation of Maximum Likelihood) with time and role as categorical variable was modeled.||3.29|-2.18|0.5460
91099035|NCT01028560|182083760|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|1.27||||0.289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.96||Poisson regression model for treatment arm adjusting for gender, race and history of hospitalization was used to analyze the corticosteroid burst and the time period contributed by each child in years were fitted as offset.|Poisson regression|Poisson regression model with robust variance with contributed person years used as offset was modeled.||Null hypothesis = Incidence rate of CSB in each group are same. Poisson regression adjusting for gender, race and history of hospitalization was used to analyze the corticosteroid burst.||1.96|0.82|0.289
91099036|NCT01960842|182083763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.78|-3.5|||One-sample t-test, 2-sided|||||-3.50|-5.78|<0.001
91099037|NCT01960842|182083764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.21|6.95|||One-sample t-test, 2-sided|||||6.95|4.21|<0.001
91099038|NCT01960842|182083765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|-7.7|||One-sample t-test, 2-sided|||||-7.7|-16.3|<0.001
91099039|NCT01960842|182083766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change from score = 4|-2.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.77|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||The p-value is based on a one-sample Wilcoxon signed-rank test with the hypothesis of no change (score = 4).||||<0.001
91099040|NCT01960842|182083767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change from score = 4|-2.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.94|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||The p-value is based on a one-sample Wilcoxon signed-rank test with the hypothesis of no change (score = 4).||||<0.001
91099041|NCT01960842|182083768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.8|||=|0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|0.4|||One-sample t-test, 2-sided|||||0.4|-4.0|=0.101
91099042|NCT01960842|182083769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.1|||=|0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|1.1|||One-sample t-test, 2-sided|||||1.1|-5.3|=0.182
90850776|NCT04575597|181567122|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.04||||||||1.04|0.62|
90850777|NCT04575597|181567123|OTHER|Odds ratio was based on the proportional odds model with WHO-11 score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|15.59||||||||15.59|0.59|
90850778|NCT04575597|181567123|OTHER|Odds ratio was based on the proportional odds model with WHO-11 score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|6.16||||||||6.16|0.29|
91099043|NCT01960842|182083770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0|||=|0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.09|||One-sample t-test, 2-sided|||||-0.09|-1.90|=0.032
91099044|NCT01960842|182083771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-19.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.8|-10.6|||One-sample t-test, 2-sided|||Mobility Domain analysis.||-10.6|-27.8|<0.001
91099045|NCT01960842|182083771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.5|||=|0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|0.3|||One-sample t-test, 2-sided|||Emotional Well-Being Domain analysis.||0.3|-13.3|=0.059
91099046|NCT01960842|182083771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.5|||=|0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.6|0.6|||One-sample t-test, 2-sided|||Stigma Domain analysis.||0.6|-15.6|=0.070
90850779|NCT04575597|181567123|OTHER|Odds ratio was based on the proportional odds model with WHO-11 score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.44||||||||1.44|0.09|
91099047|NCT01960842|182083771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.5|||=|0.591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|4.2|||One-sample t-test, 2-sided|||Social Support Domain analysis.||4.2|-7.3|=0.591
91099048|NCT01960842|182083771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.7|-7.3|||One-sample t-test, 2-sided|||Cognition Domain analysis.||-7.3|-20.7|<0.001
91099049|NCT01960842|182083771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.1|||=|0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|6.4|||One-sample t-test, 2-sided|||Communication Domain analysis.||6.4|-4.2|=0.670
91099050|NCT01960842|182083771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-17.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.2|-10.3|||One-sample t-test, 2-sided|||Bodily Discomfort Domain analysis.||-10.3|-25.2|<0.001
91099051|NCT01960842|182083772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.8|||=|0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|0.1|||One-sample t-test, 2-sided|||||0.1|-9.8|=0.056
91099052|NCT01960842|182083773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9|||=|0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.2|||One-sample t-test, 2-sided|||||-0.2|-1.6|=0.011
91099053|NCT01960842|182083774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|-1.9|||One-sample t-test, 2-sided|||||-1.9|-4.4|<0.001
91099054|NCT01960842|182083775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.83|-3.47|||One-sample t-test, 2-sided|||||-3.47|-5.83|<0.001
91099055|NCT01960842|182083776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.73|-3.44|||One-sample t-test, 2-sided|||||-3.44|-5.73|<0.001
91099056|NCT00896233|182083823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ICC|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|0.99||||||ICC for measures of liver stiffness obtained by MRE (i.e., average over all 4 slices of the maximum stiffness for each slice) with respect to repeatability (precision) of multiple MRE assessments. This pertains to the Common ROI.||0.99|0.81|
91099057|NCT00896233|182083823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ICC|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.71|0.98||||||ICC for measures of liver stiffness obtained by MRE (i.e., average over all 4 slices of the maximum stiffness for each slice) with respect to repeatability (precision) of multiple MRE assessments. This pertains to the Common ROI.||0.98|0.71|
91099058|NCT00896233|182083823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ICC|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.78|0.98||||||ICC for measures of liver stiffness obtained by MRE (i.e., average over all 4 slices of the maximum stiffness for each slice) with respect to repeatability (precision) of multiple MRE assessments. This pertains to the Individual ROI.||0.98|0.78|
91099059|NCT00896233|182083823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ICC|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.75|0.98||||||ICC for measures of liver stiffness obtained by MRE (i.e., average over all 4 slices of the maximum stiffness for each slice) with respect to repeatability (precision) of multiple MRE assessments. This pertains to the Individual ROI.||0.98|0.75|
91099060|NCT00896233|182083824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ICC|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|0.99||||||ICC for measures of liver stiffness obtained by MRE (i.e., average over all 4 slices of the maximum stiffness for each slice) with respect to repeatability (precision) of multiple MRE assessments. This pertains to the Common ROI.||0.99|0.80|
91099061|NCT00896233|182083824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ICC|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.78|0.99||||||ICC for measures of liver stiffness obtained by MRE (i.e., average over all 4 slices of the maximum stiffness for each slice) with respect to repeatability (precision) of multiple MRE assessments. This pertains to the Common ROI.||0.99|0.78|
91099062|NCT00896233|182083824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ICC|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|1.0||||||ICC for measures of liver stiffness obtained by MRE (i.e., average over all 4 slices of the maximum stiffness for each slice) with respect to repeatability (precision) of multiple MRE assessments. This pertains to the Individual ROI.||1.00|0.87|
90850780|NCT04575597|181567123|OTHER|Odds ratio was based on the proportional odds model with WHO-11 score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.3||||||||2.30|0.62|
90850781|NCT04575597|181567124|OTHER|Odds ratio was based on the proportional odds model with WHO-11 score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|11.88||||||||11.88|1.14|
90850782|NCT04575597|181567124|OTHER|Odds ratio was based on the proportional odds model with WHO-11 score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|3.98||||||||3.98|0.34|
90850783|NCT04575597|181567124|OTHER|Odds ratio was based on the proportional odds model with WHO-11 score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|2.68||||||||2.68|0.27|
90850784|NCT04575597|181567124|OTHER|Odds ratio was based on the proportional odds model with WHO-11 score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|2.39||||||||2.39|0.96|
91099063|NCT00896233|182083824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ICC|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.0||||||ICC for measures of liver stiffness obtained by MRE (i.e., average over all 4 slices of the maximum stiffness for each slice) with respect to repeatability (precision) of multiple MRE assessments. This pertains to the Individual ROI.||1.00|0.88|
91099064|NCT02697422|182083833|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.05
91099065|NCT02697422|182083834|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.05
91099066|NCT02697422|182083835|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.05
91099067|NCT02697422|182083836|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Smoker/tobacco use results were calculated using logistic regression.|Regression, Logistic|||Smoker/tobacco use results were calculated using logistic regression. A P value of .90 was found comparing smoking/tobacco use in intervention vs control participants. A difference was not reported between intervention and control because smoking/ tobacco use was a binary variable.||||0.90
91099068|NCT02697422|182083837|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.05
91099069|NCT02697422|182083838|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.05
91099070|NCT02697422|182083839|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.05
91099071|NCT02697422|182083840|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.05
91099072|NCT02697422|182083841|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.05
91099073|NCT02697422|182083842|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.05
91099074|NCT03296345|182083845|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.0||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.0|-2.3|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||-2.3|-28|0.004
91099075|NCT03296345|182083846|OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.38
91099076|NCT03296345|182083847|OTHER|||||||0.58|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.58
90850785|NCT04575597|181567125|OTHER|Odds ratio was based on the proportional odds model with WHO-11 score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|3.45||||||||3.45|0.82|
90850786|NCT04575597|181567125|OTHER|Odds ratio was based on the proportional odds model with WHO-11 score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|2.33||||||||2.33|0.55|
91030848|NCT03587207|181946151|OTHER|Serogroup Y- Between group ratio for comparison of rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S group and rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D group.|Geometric mean ratio|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.54|1.08|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||Immune interference due to stress to lymph nodes (lymph-node effect) in rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S versus rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D study groups, on the Meningitis serogroup Y, one month after first vaccination.||1.08|0.54|
91099077|NCT03296345|182083849|OTHER|A Wilcoxon sign-rank, given non parametric data, was used to compare the intervention and historical control groups for statistical significance, while a student's t-test was used to estimate effect size||||||0.76|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.76
91099078|NCT02068599|182083859|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|4.26||||0.1213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|9.66||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||LSM = least square mean||9.66|-1.13|0.1213
91099079|NCT02068599|182083859|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|1.74||||0.5231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.62|7.11||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||LSM = least square mean||7.11|-3.62|0.5231
91099080|NCT02068599|182083860|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|17.86||||0.1795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.26|43.98||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||LSM = least square mean||43.98|-8.26|0.1795
91099081|NCT02068599|182083860|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|9.0||||0.4956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.95|34.96||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||LSM = least square mean||34.96|-16.95|0.4956
91099082|NCT02068599|182083861|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|3.61||||0.1963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|9.08||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||||9.08|-1.87|0.1963
91099083|NCT02068599|182083861|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|2.06||||0.4584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.39|7.5||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||||7.50|-3.39|0.4584
91099084|NCT02068599|182083862|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|23.51||||0.642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.83|122.84||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||||122.84|-75.83|0.6420
90850787|NCT04575597|181567125|OTHER|Odds ratio was based on the proportional odds model with WHO-11 score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.29||||||||1.29|0.27|
90850788|NCT04575597|181567125|OTHER|Odds ratio was based on the proportional odds model with WHO-11 score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|2.2||||||||2.20|1.14|
90850789|NCT04575597|181567126|OTHER|Odds ratio was based on the proportional odds model with WHO-11 score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.73||||||||2.73|0.73|
90850790|NCT04575597|181567126|OTHER|Odds ratio was based on the proportional odds model with WHO-11 score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.94||||||||1.94|0.52|
90850791|NCT04575597|181567126|OTHER|Odds ratio was based on the proportional odds model with WHO-11 score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.32||||||||1.32|0.34|
91099085|NCT02068599|182083862|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|-50.4||||0.3141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-148.72|47.92||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||||47.92|-148.72|0.3141
91099086|NCT02068599|182083863|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|3.16||||0.6184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.31|15.63||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||||15.63|-9.31|0.6184
91099087|NCT02068599|182083863|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|-3.48||||0.5775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.78|8.81||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||||8.81|-15.78|0.5775
91099088|NCT02068599|182083864|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.62||||0.1011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.345|1.099||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||\>=50% responder rate||1.099|0.345|0.1011
91099089|NCT02068599|182083864|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.615|1.819||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||\>=50% responder rate||1.819|0.615|0.8400
91099090|NCT02068599|182083864|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.6607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.531|1.494||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||\>=30% responder rate||1.494|0.531|0.6607
91099091|NCT02068599|182083864|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.5777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.441||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||\>=30% responder rate||1.441|0.520|0.5777
91099092|NCT02068599|182083865|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|3.94||||0.4316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|13.79||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||||13.79|-5.90|0.4316
91099093|NCT02068599|182083865|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|2.51||||0.6126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.24|12.26||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||||12.26|-7.24|0.6126
91099094|NCT02068599|182083866|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|0.01||||0.9208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.232|0.257||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||Week 2||0.257|-0.232|0.9208
91099095|NCT02068599|182083866|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|0.04||||0.7344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.284||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||Week 2||0.284|-0.200|0.7344
91099096|NCT02068599|182083866|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|0.21||||0.1199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.056|0.486||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||Week 4||0.486|-0.056|0.1199
90850792|NCT04575597|181567126|OTHER|Odds ratio was based on the proportional odds model with WHO-11 score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.78||||||||1.78|1.03|
90850793|NCT04575597|181567127|OTHER|Odds ratio was based on the proportional odds model with WHO-11 score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.66||||||||1.66|0.35|
90850794|NCT04575597|181567127|OTHER|Odds ratio was based on the proportional odds model with WHO-11 score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.79||||||||1.79|0.38|
91099097|NCT02068599|182083866|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|0.06||||0.6357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.204|0.334||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||Week 4||0.334|-0.204|0.6357
91099098|NCT02068599|182083867|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|2.77||||0.2906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.377|7.916||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||Week 2||7.916|-2.377|0.2906
91099099|NCT02068599|182083867|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|1.41||||0.5892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.707|6.518||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||Week 2||6.518|-3.707|0.5892
91099100|NCT02068599|182083867|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|0.82||||0.7699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.678|6.315||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||Week 4||6.315|-4.678|0.7699
91099101|NCT02068599|182083867|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|1.74||||0.532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.721|7.193||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||Week 4||7.193|-3.721|0.5320
91099102|NCT02068599|182083868|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.5358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.501|1.433||5% level of significance|generalized estimating equation (GEE)|||For the responder analyses, participants with missing values were deemed non-responders. Analysis performed using a generalized estimating equation (GEE) method where binary variable responder rate (Yes/No) was modeled through logit link function, with treatment, center, week, and treatment\*week as explanatory factors. The unstructured working correlation structure was applied.||1.433|0.501|0.5358
91099103|NCT02068599|182083868|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.1532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|2.423||5% level of significance|generalized estimating equation (GEE)|||For the responder analyses, participants with missing values were deemed non-responders. Analysis performed using a generalized estimating equation (GEE) method where binary variable responder rate (Yes/No) was modeled through logit link function, with treatment, center, week, and treatment\*week as explanatory factors. The unstructured working correlation structure was applied.||2.423|0.870|0.1532
91099104|NCT03019588|182083875|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.36|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by time to progression on first line therapy (\< 6 months vs. ≥ 6 months) and ECOG PS (0 vs. 1).|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by time to progression on first line therapy (\< 6 months vs. ≥ 6 months) and ECOG PS (0 vs. 1).|||1.36|0.58|0.2900
91099105|NCT03019588|182083876|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.77||||0.9954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|2.74|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by time to progression on first line therapy (\< 6 months vs. ≥ 6 months) and ECOG PS (0 vs. 1).|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by time to progression on first line therapy (\< 6 months vs. ≥ 6 months) and ECOG PS (0 vs. 1).|||2.74|1.14|0.9954
91099106|NCT03019588|182083877|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-6.0||||0.7884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.6|9.3|||Z-test|One-sided p-value for testing. H0: difference in % = 0 versus H1: difference in % \> 0.|Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by time to progression on first line therapy (\< 6 months vs. ≥ 6 months) and ECOG PS (0 vs. 1).|||9.3|-21.6|0.7884
91099107|NCT00106535|182083881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91099108|NCT00106535|182083881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91099109|NCT00106535|182083882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91099110|NCT00106535|182083882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91099111|NCT00106535|182083883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91099112|NCT00106535|182083883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91099113|NCT00106535|182083892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Van Elteren's test|Stratified by region.||||||<0.0001
91099114|NCT00106535|182083892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Van Elteren's test|Stratified by region.||||||<0.0001
91099115|NCT00106535|182083893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-70.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-96.96|-43.56|||ANOVA|Adjusted for region and original treatment group.||||-43.56|-96.96|<0.0001
91099116|NCT00106535|182083893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-85.95|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-112.69|-59.22|||ANOVA|Adjusted for region and original treatment group.||||-59.22|-112.69|<0.0001
91099117|NCT00106535|182083895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-148.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-205.22|-90.98|||ANOVA|Adjusted for region.||||-90.98|-205.22|<0.0001
91099118|NCT00106535|182083895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-181.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-238.6|-124.21|||ANOVA|Adjusted for region.||||-124.21|-238.60|<0.0001
91099119|NCT00106535|182083920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5212.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3139.4|7285.16|||ANOVA|Adjusted for region.||||7285.16|3139.40|<0.0001
91099120|NCT00106535|182083920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7092.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5066.16|9119.36||Adjusted for region.|ANOVA|||||9119.36|5066.16|<0.0001
91099121|NCT00106535|182083936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0023||95.0|||||Van Elteren's test|Stratified by region.||||||0.0023
91030849|NCT03587207|181946151|OTHER|M14459 strain- Between group ratio for comparison of MenABCWY group and rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S group.|Geometric mean ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.69|1.09|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||Other unknown interference in MenABCWY versus rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S study groups, on the Meningitis B M14459 (fHbp) strain, one month after first vaccination.||1.09|0.69|
90850795|NCT04575597|181567127|OTHER|Odds ratio was based on the proportional odds model with WHO-11 score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.81||||||||1.81|0.37|
91030850|NCT03587207|181946151|OTHER|96217 strain- Between group ratio for comparison of MenABCWY group and rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S group.|Geometric mean ratio|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.58|0.9|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||Other unknown interference in MenABCWY versus rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S study groups, on the Meningitis B 96217 (NadA) strain, one month after first vaccination.||0.90|0.58|
90850796|NCT04575597|181567127|OTHER|Odds ratio was based on the proportional odds model with WHO-11 score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.29||||||||1.29|0.84|
91099122|NCT00106535|182083936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Van Elteren's test|||||||<0.0001
90900185|NCT00697190|181666703|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin = 0.33|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.1|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as senofilcon A toric minus galyfilcon A toric.|Alternative hypothesis is that senofilcon A toric is non-inferior to galyfilcon A toric in conjunctival hyperemia.||0.06|-0.10|
90900186|NCT00697190|181666704|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin = 0.33|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.23|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as senofilcon A toric minus galyfilcon A toric.|Alternative hypothesis is that senofilcon A toric is non-inferior to galyfilcon A toric in conjunctival hyperemia.||0.10|-0.23|
90900187|NCT00697190|181666705|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferior margin = 0.33|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.25|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as senofilcon A toric minus galyfilcon A toric.|Alternative hypothesis is that senofilcon A toric is non-inferior to galyfilcon A toric in limbal hyperemia.||0.04|-0.25|
90900188|NCT00697190|181666706|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferior margin = 0.33|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.16|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as senofilcon A toric minus galyfilcon A toric.|Alternative hypothesis is that senofilcon A toric is non-inferior to galyfilcon A toric in limbal hyperemia.||0.07|-0.16|
90900189|NCT00697190|181666707|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin = 0.33|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.25|0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as senofilcon A toric minus galyfilcon A toric.|Alternative hypothesis is that senofilcon A toric is non-inferior to galyfilcon A toric in limbal hyperemia.||0.14|-0.25|
90900190|NCT00697190|181666708|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin = 0.33|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.04|0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as senofilcon A toric minus galyfilcon A toric.|Alternative hypothesis is that senofilcon A toric is non-inferior to galyfilcon A toric in corneal staining.||0.32|0.04|
90900191|NCT00697190|181666709|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferior margin = 0.33|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.26|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as senofilcon A toric minus galyfilcon A toric.|Alternative hypothesis is that senofilcon A toric is non-inferior to galyfilcon A toric in corneal staining.||0.08|-0.26|
91099123|NCT00106535|182083937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Van Elteren's test|Stratified by region.||||||0.0001
90900192|NCT00697190|181666710|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferior margin = 0.33|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||||97.5|0.02|0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as senofilcon A toric minus galyfilcon A toric.|Alternative hypothesis is that senofilcon A toric is non-inferior to galyfilcon A toric in corneal staining.||0.33|0.02|
90900193|NCT00697190|181666711|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin = 0.33|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.27|0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as senofilcon A toric minus galyfilcon A toric.|Alternative hypothesis is that senofilcon A toric is non-inferior to galyfilcon A toric in conjunctival staining.||0.26|-0.27|
90900194|NCT00697190|181666712|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferior margin = 0.33|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.34|-0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as senofilcon A toric minus galyfilcon A toric.|Alternative hypothesis is that senofilcon A toric is non-inferior to galyfilcon A toric in conjunctival staining.||-0.08|-0.34|
90900195|NCT00697190|181666713|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferior margin = 0.33|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.54|-0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as senofilcon A toric minus galyfilcon A toric.|Alternative hypothesis is that senofilcon A toric is non-inferior to galyfilcon A toric in conjunctival staining.||-0.15|-0.54|
90900196|NCT00697190|181666714|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin = 0.33|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.12|0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as senofilcon A toric minus galyfilcon A toric.|Alternative hypothesis is that senofilcon A toric is non-inferior to galyfilcon A toric in papillary conjunctivitis.||0.14|-0.12|
91030851|NCT03587207|181946151|OTHER|NZ98/254 strain- Between group ratio for comparison of MenABCWY group and rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S group.|Geometric mean ratio|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.61|1.0|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||Other unknown interference in MenABCWY versus rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S study groups, on the Meningitis B NZ98/254 (PorA) strain, one month after first vaccination.||1.00|0.61|
90900197|NCT00697190|181666715|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferior margin = 0.33|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.23|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as senofilcon A toric minus galyfilcon A toric.|Alternative hypothesis is that senofilcon A toric is non-inferior to galyfilcon A toric in papillary conjunctivitis.||0.05|-0.23|
91099124|NCT00106535|182083937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Van Elteren's test|Stratified by region.||||||<0.0001
91099125|NCT06042855|182083993|SUPERIORITY|Posterior probability of efficacy (P(HR\>1))|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.03|||||The interval is a highest-density credible interval. Adjustment variables: randomization, age, sex, duration of symptoms prior to study drug, calendar time, vaccination status, geographic region, call center indicator, and baseline symptom severity.|||1.03|0.89|
91099126|NCT06042855|182083994|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|6.38||||||No hypothesis test or decision rule was evaluated.||6.38|0.32|
91099127|NCT06042855|182083997|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.78|||||The interval is a highest-density credible interval. Adjustment variables: randomization, age, sex, duration of symptoms prior to study drug, calendar time, vaccination status, geographic region, call center indicator, and baseline symptom severity.|No hypothesis test or decision rule was evaluated.||1.78|0.82|
91099128|NCT06042855|182083998|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.31|||||The interval is a highest-density credible interval. Adjustment variables: randomization, age, sex, duration of symptoms prior to study drug, calendar time, vaccination status, geographic region, call center indicator, and baseline symptom severity.|No hypothesis test or decision rule was evaluated.||1.31|0.66|
90957618|NCT01445301|181795308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of ISGA Score of 0 or 1 between GSK2585823 twice daily and CLDM twice daily at Week 1||||0.470
90850797|NCT04575597|181567128|OTHER|Difference in rates % and associated CIs were based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by randomization strata. Unknown survival status at Day 29 was treated as failure.|Difference in Rates %|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|-0.1||||||||-0.1|-5.9|
90850798|NCT01029405|181567165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||2-sided sign test|||||||<0.001
90850799|NCT02692651|181567167|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.195|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.195
90850800|NCT02692651|181567168|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||.99
90850801|NCT02692651|181567169|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||.999
90850802|NCT03490981|181567170|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.486|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||.486
90850803|NCT03490981|181567171|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16||0.342|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||.342
90850804|NCT03490981|181567172|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.31||0.646|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||.646
90850805|NCT03490981|181567173|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.205||0.205|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||.205
90850806|NCT03490981|181567174|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.94||0.492|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||.492
90850807|NCT03490981|181567175|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.84||0.272|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||.272
90850808|NCT03490981|181567176|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.82||0.87|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||.870
90850809|NCT03490981|181567177|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.67||0.57|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||.570
90850810|NCT01860846|181567196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.004||||||Baseline vs. 12 months|Wilcoxon signed-ranked test|||The null hypothesis was set as no difference.||||=0.004
90850811|NCT01860846|181567197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.022||||||Baseline vs. 12 Months|Wilcoxon signed-ranked test|||The null hypothesis was set as no difference.||||= 0.022
90850812|NCT01860846|181567198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.006||||||Baseline vs. 12 Months|Wilcoxon signed-ranked test|||The null hypothesis was set as no difference.||||= 0.006
90850813|NCT01860846|181567199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Baseline vs. 12 Months|Wilcoxon signed-ranked test|||The null hypothesis was set as no difference.||||< 0.001
90850814|NCT01860846|181567200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Baseline vs. 12 Months|Wilcoxon signed-ranked test|||Physical Functioning Scores: the null hypothesis was set as no difference.||||< 0.001
90850815|NCT01860846|181567200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Baseline vs. 12 Months|Wilcoxon signed-ranked test|||Role-Physical Scores: the null hypothesis was set as no difference.||||< 0.001
90850816|NCT01860846|181567200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001||||||Baseline vs. 12 Months|Wilcoxon signed-ranked test|||Role-Emotional Scores: the null hypothesis was set as no difference.||||= 0.001
90850817|NCT01860846|181567200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.019||||||Baseline vs. 12 Months|Wilcoxon signed-ranked test|||Vitality Scores: the null hypothesis was set as no difference.||||= 0.019
90850818|NCT01860846|181567200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.017||||||Baseline vs. 12 Months|Wilcoxon signed-ranked test|||Mental Health Scores: the null hypothesis was set as no difference.||||= 0.017
90850819|NCT01860846|181567200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.007||||||Baseline vs. 12 Months|Wilcoxon signed-ranked test|||Social Functioning Scores: the null hypothesis was set as no difference.||||= 0.007
90850820|NCT01860846|181567200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Baseline vs. 12 Months|Wilcoxon signed-ranked test|||Bodily Pain Scores: the null hypothesis was set as no difference.||||< 0.001
90850821|NCT01860846|181567200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.005||||||Baseline vs. 12 Months|Wilcoxon signed-ranked test|||General Health Scores: the null hypothesis was set as no difference.||||= 0.005
90850822|NCT01860846|181567201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Baseline vs. 12 Months|Wilcoxon signed-ranked test|||Bowel-related Symptoms Scores: The null hypothesis was set as no difference.||||< 0.001
90850823|NCT01860846|181567201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Baseline vs. 12 Months|Wilcoxon signed-ranked test|||Systemic Symptoms Scores:The null hypothesis was set as no difference.||||< 0.001
90850824|NCT01860846|181567201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Baseline vs. 12 Months|Wilcoxon signed-ranked test|||Emotional Function Scores: the null hypothesis was set as no difference.||||< 0.001
90850825|NCT01860846|181567201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Baseline vs. 12 Months|Wilcoxon signed-ranked test|||Social Function Scores: The null hypothesis was set as no difference.||||< 0.001
90850826|NCT05027971|181567215|OTHER||Proportion by cohort|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.002|0.07||||||||.07|.002|
90850827|NCT05027971|181567216|OTHER||Proportion by cohort|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.006|0.084||||||||.084|.006|
90850828|NCT05027971|181567217|OTHER||Proportion by cohort|0.667|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.553|0.768||||||||.768|.553|
90850829|NCT05027971|181567218|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.4|-14.2||||||||-14.2|-17.4|
90850830|NCT05027971|181567221|OTHER||Proportion by cohort|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.963|1.0||||||||1|.963|
90850831|NCT05027971|181567222|OTHER||Proportion by cohort|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.963|1.0||||||||1|.963|
90850832|NCT05027971|181567223|OTHER||Proportion by cohort|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.963|1.0||||||||1|.963|
90850833|NCT05027971|181567224|OTHER||Proportion by cohort|0.889|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|0.943||||||||.943|.810|
90850834|NCT05027971|181567225|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.3|18.6||||||||18.6|11.3|
90850835|NCT05027971|181567226|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|-2.9||||||||-2.9|-3.9|
90850836|NCT05027971|181567227|OTHER||Proportion by cohort|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.963|1.0||||||||1|.963|
90900198|NCT00697190|181666716|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferior margin = 0.33|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.2|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as senofilcon A toric minus galyfilcon A toric.|Alternative hypothesis is that senofilcon A toric is non-inferior to galyfilcon A toric in papillary conjunctivitis.||0.02|-0.20|
91099129|NCT06042855|182083999|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.41|||||The interval is a highest-density credible interval. Adjustment variables: randomization, age, sex, duration of symptoms prior to study drug, calendar time, vaccination status, geographic region, call center indicator, and baseline symptom severity.|No hypothesis test or decision rule was evaluated.||1.41|0.57|
91099130|NCT06042855|182084000|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.42|||||The interval is a highest-density credible interval. Adjustment variables: randomization, age, sex, duration of symptoms prior to study drug, calendar time, vaccination status, geographic region, call center indicator, and baseline symptom severity.|No hypothesis test or decision rule was evaluated.||1.42|0.78|
91099131|NCT06042855|182084001|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.32||||||Day 7||1.32|0.85|
91099132|NCT06042855|182084001|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.28||||||Day 14||1.28|0.85|
91099133|NCT06042855|182084001|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.53||||||Day 28||1.53|0.94|
91099134|NCT06042855|182084001|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.48||||||Day 90||1.48|0.91|
91099135|NCT06042855|182084001|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.77||||||Day 120||1.77|1.06|
90850837|NCT02025556|181567228|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.07|-1.55||The threshold for statistical significance was p = .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.55|-4.07|< .0001
91099136|NCT06042855|182084001|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.66||||||Day 180||1.66|1.02|
90850838|NCT02025556|181567228|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|-1.38||The threshold for statistical significance was p = .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.38|-3.9|< .0001
90900199|NCT01871558|181666732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.139|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.139
91099137|NCT06042855|182084002|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.15||||||Day 7||1.15|0.86|
91099138|NCT06042855|182084002|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.21||||||Day 14||1.21|0.87|
91099139|NCT06042855|182084002|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.92||||||Day 28||0.92|0.58|
91099140|NCT06042855|182084002|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.02||||||Day 90||1.02|0.70|
91099141|NCT06042855|182084002|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.99||||||Day 120||0.99|0.68|
91099142|NCT06042855|182084002|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.01||||||Day 180||1.01|0.70|
91099143|NCT06042855|182084003|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.06||||||Day 7||1.06|0.70|
91099144|NCT06042855|182084003|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.14||||||Day 14||1.14|0.79|
91099145|NCT06042855|182084003|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.1||||||Day 28||1.10|0.69|
91099146|NCT06042855|182084003|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.25||||||Day 90||1.25|0.80|
91099147|NCT06042855|182084003|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.08||||||Day 120||1.08|0.70|
91099148|NCT06042855|182084003|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.04||||||Day 180||1.04|0.66|
91099149|NCT06042855|182084004|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.09||||||Day 7||1.09|0.70|
91099150|NCT06042855|182084004|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.98||||||Day 14||0.98|0.65|
91099151|NCT06042855|182084004|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.85||||||Day 28||0.85|0.47|
91099152|NCT06042855|182084004|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.08||||||Day 90||1.08|0.70|
91099153|NCT06042855|182084004|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.96||||||Day 120||0.96|0.62|
91099154|NCT06042855|182084004|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.95||||||Day 180||0.95|0.61|
91099155|NCT06042855|182084005|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.22||||||Day 7||1.22|0.83|
91099156|NCT06042855|182084005|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.13||||||Day 14||1.13|0.76|
91099157|NCT06042855|182084005|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.8||||||Day 28||0.80|0.45|
91099158|NCT06042855|182084005|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.9||||||Day 90||0.90|0.59|
91099159|NCT06042855|182084005|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.97||||||Day 120||0.97|0.61|
91099160|NCT06042855|182084005|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.94||||||Day 180||0.94|0.62|
91099161|NCT06042855|182084006|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.43||||||Day 7||1.43|0.95|
91099162|NCT06042855|182084006|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.25||||||Day 14||1.25|0.87|
91099163|NCT06042855|182084006|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.59||||||Day 28||1.59|0.99|
91099164|NCT06042855|182084006|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.35||||||Day 90||1.35|0.89|
91099165|NCT06042855|182084006|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.48||||||Day 120||1.48|0.98|
91099166|NCT06042855|182084006|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.46||||||Day 180||1.46|0.96|
91099167|NCT06042855|182084007|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.26||||||Day 7||1.26|0.96|
91099168|NCT06042855|182084007|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.14||||||Day 14||1.14|0.87|
91099169|NCT06042855|182084007|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.07||||||Day 28||1.07|0.81|
91099170|NCT06042855|182084007|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.07||||||Day 90||1.07|0.76|
91099171|NCT06042855|182084007|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.06||||||Day 120||1.06|0.78|
91099172|NCT06042855|182084007|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.04||||||Day 180||1.04|0.75|
91099173|NCT06042855|182084008|SUPERIORITY|Posterior probability of efficacy (P(Difference in MTU (Active - Placebo)\<0))|Difference in model estimate time unwell|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.28|||||The mean time unwell is estimated from receipt of study drug to study day 14. The interval is a highest density credible interval.|No hypothesis test or decision rule was evaluated.||0.28|-0.21|
90850839|NCT00796991|181567238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|0.963|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.794|1.168|||Mixed Models Analysis|A general linear mixed model was applied to paclitaxel log(Cmax) using study day as a fixed effect.||Estimated effect of ipilimumab on paclitaxel Cmax. Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for means and differences between means on the log scale were exponentiated to obtain estimates for geometric means and ratio of geometric means on the original scale for the paclitaxel/carboplatin/ipilimumab combination (Day 43) relative to paclitaxel/carboplatin alone (Day 1)||1.168|0.794|
90850840|NCT00796991|181567238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|1.027|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.848|1.243|||Mixed Models Analysis|study day was used as a fixed effect||Estimated effect of ipilimumab on dacarbazine Cmax. Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for means and differences between means on the log scale were exponentiated to obtain estimates for geometric means and ratio of geometric means on the original scale for the dacarbazine, ipilimumab combination (Day 43) relative to dacarbazine alone (Day 1).||1.243|0.848|
90850841|NCT00796991|181567238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|1.058|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.974|1.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|study day was used as a fixed effect||Estimated effect of ipilimumab on AIC Cmax. Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for means and differences between means on the log scale were exponentiated to obtain estimates for geometric means and ratio of geometric means on the original scale for the dacarbazine, ipilimumab combination (Day 43) relative to dacarbazine alone (Day 1).||1.150|0.974|
90850842|NCT00796991|181567238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|0.934||||||90.0|0.768|1.136|||linear model|treatment arm as a fixed effect||Estimated effect of paclitaxel/carboplatin on ipilimumab Cmax: linear model was applied to ipilimumab log(Cmax)) data from Week 7 (Day 43) PK measurements in first and third arms with treatment arm as a fixed effect. Point estimates and 90% CIs for means and differences between means on the log scale were exponentiated to obtain estimates for geometric means and ratio of geometric means on the original scale for the 3 drug combination relative to ipilimumab alone.||1.136|0.768|
90850843|NCT00796991|181567238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|0.982|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.798|1.208|||linear model|treatment arm as a fixed effect||Estimated effect of dacarbazine on ipilimumab Cmax: linear model was applied to ipilimumab log(Cmax) data from Week 7 (Day 43) PK measurements in second and third arms with treatment arm as a fixed effect. Point estimates and 90% CIs for means and differences between means on the log scale were exponentiated to obtain estimates for geometric means and ratio of geometric means on the original scale for the dacarbazine, ipilimumab combination relative to ipilimumab alone.||1.208|0.798|
90850844|NCT00796991|181567242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.068|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.954|1.196|||Mixed Models Analysis|A general linear mixed model was applied to paclitaxel log\[AUC(INF)\] using study day as a fixed effect.||Estimated effect of ipilimumab on paclitaxel AUC(INF). Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for means and differences between means on the log scale were exponentiated to obtain estimates for geometric means and ratio of geometric means on the original scale for the paclitaxel/carboplatin/ipilimumab combination (Day 43) relative to paclitaxel/carboplatin alone (Day 1).||1.196|0.954|
90850845|NCT00796991|181567242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|0.912|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.757|1.099|||Mixed Models Analysis|A general linear mixed model was applied to dacarbazine log\[AUC(INF)\] using study day as a fixed effect.||Estimated effect of ipilimumab on dacarbazine AUC(INF). Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for means and differences between means on the log scale were exponentiated to obtain estimates for geometric means and ratio of geometric means on the original scale for the dacarbazine, ipilimumab combination (Day 43) relative to dacarbazine alone (Day 1).||1.099|0.757|
90850846|NCT00796991|181567242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.891|1.056|||Mixed Models Analysis|A general linear mixed model was applied to active metabolite AIC log\[AUC(INF)\] using study day as a fixed effect.||Estimated effect of ipilimumab on AUC(INF) for AIC. Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for means and differences between means on the log scale were exponentiated to obtain estimates for geometric means and ratio of geometric means on the original scale for the dacarbazine, ipilimumab combination (Day 43) relative to dacarbazine alone (Day 1).||1.056|0.891|
90900200|NCT02969525|181666758|OTHER||Correlation statistic|4.6|||=|0.031|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Statistic and p-value were calculated using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (test for non-zero correlation statistic) based on modified ridit scores and including geographic region and prior Tumor Necrosis Factor (TNF) inhibitor exposure as stratification factors.~The 160 loading dose arm was not considered in the dose-response because this is a mixed dose and the test is examining linear dose response."||||=0.031
91099174|NCT06042855|182084009|SUPERIORITY|Posterior probability of efficacy (P(Difference days benefit (Active - Placebo)\>0))|Difference in model estimate time unwell|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.26|||||The interval is a highest density credible interval.|Analysis is exploratory. No hypothesis test or decision rule was evaluated.||0.26|-0.34|
90850847|NCT00796991|181567242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|0.934|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.768|1.136|||linear model|treatment arm as fixed effect||Estimated effect of paclitaxel/carboplatin on ipilimumab AUC: linear model was applied to ipilimumab log(AUC(0-21d)) data from Week 7 (Day 43) PK measurements in first and third arms with treatment arm as a fixed effect. Point estimates and 90% CIs for means and differences between means on the log scale were exponentiated to obtain estimates for geometric means and ratio of geometric means on the original scale for the 3 drug combination relative to ipilimumab alone.||1.136|0.768|
90850848|NCT00796991|181567242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|0.982|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7981|1.208|||linear model|treatment arm as a fixed effect||Estimated effect of dacarbazine on ipilimumab AUC: linear model was applied to ipilimumab log(AUC(0-21d)) data from Week 7 (Day 43) PK measurements in second and third arms with treatment arm as a fixed effect. Point estimates and 90% CIs for means and differences between means on the log scale were exponentiated to obtain estimates for geometric means and ratio of geometric means on the original scale for the dacarbazine, ipilimumab combination relative to ipilimumab alone.||1.208|0.7981|
90957619|NCT01445301|181795308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.844||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of ISGA Score of 0 or 1 between GSK2585823 twice daily and CLDM twice daily at Week 2||||0.844
91099175|NCT06100250|182084031|OTHER|Paired sample t-test, 2 sided|Mean Difference (Net)|0.82||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05|Paired sample t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 66|Estimation parameter represents the average of the differences between the paired observations (post-intervention score minus pre-intervention score)|Null hypothesis = Mean difference between the paired STI-related knowledge scores (pre-intervention and post-intervention) is 0||||0.01
91099176|NCT06100250|182084033|OTHER|Paired sample t-test, 2 sided|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.29|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05|Paired sample t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 47|Estimation parameter represents the average of the differences between the paired observations (post-intervention score minus pre-intervention score)|Null hypothesis = Mean difference between the paired self-efficacy for specimen self-collection scores (pre-intervention and post-intervention) is 0||||<0.01
90850849|NCT00796991|181567248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027||||||p-value was not corrected for multiple testing. F-statistic = 1.86.|conditional F test|15 degrees freedom (DF) in numerator and 335 DF in denominator.||null hypothesis of no mean ALC changes over time in any treatment group. Conditional F-tests were used to test for mean ALC changes over time in each treatment arm and the difference between treatment arms in the pattern of change in ALC over time.||||0.027
90850850|NCT00796991|181567248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5||||||P-values were not corrected for multiple testing. F Statistic =0.94|Omnibus conditional F-test|10 Degrees Freedom (DF) in numerator and 335 DF in denominator.||null hypothesis that the pattern of mean ALC values over time is the same in all treatment groups. Test of overall time-by-treatment interaction used an omnibus conditional F-test.||||0.5
90900201|NCT02969525|181666758|OTHER|The pairwise testing of each bimekizumab dose versus placebo accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure with each bimekizumab dose being tested sequentially from the highest dose to the lowest dose. If the sequential testing failed to reach significance at a significance level of alpha=0.05, then the pairwise testing continued and the comparison was seen as non-significant.|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.2|||=|0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|15.23||The p-values were displayed as nominal p-values.|Regression, Logistic|||For differences in relation to placebo: Odds Ratio, confidence interval, and p-value were derived from a logistic regression model including fixed effects for treatment, geographic region and prior Tumor Factor Necrosis (TNF) inhibitor exposure.||15.23|1.13|=0.032
90900202|NCT02969525|181666758|OTHER|The pairwise testing of each bimekizumab dose versus placebo accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure with each bimekizumab dose being tested sequentially from the highest dose to the lowest dose. If the sequential testing failed to reach significance at a significance level of alpha=0.05, then the pairwise testing continued and the comparison was seen as non-significant.|Odds Ratio (OR)|8.1|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.28|28.74||The p-values were displayed as nominal p-values.|Regression, Logistic|||For differences in relation to placebo: Odds Ratio, confidence interval, and p-value were derived from a logistic regression model including fixed effects for treatment, geographic region and prior Tumor Factor Necrosis (TNF) inhibitor exposure.||28.74|2.28|=0.001
90900203|NCT02969525|181666758|OTHER|The pairwise testing of each bimekizumab dose versus placebo accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure with each bimekizumab dose being tested sequentially from the highest dose to the lowest dose. If the sequential testing failed to reach significance at a significance level of alpha=0.05, then the pairwise testing continued and the comparison was seen as non-significant.|Odds Ratio (OR)|9.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.73|34.26||The p-values were displayed as nominal p-values.|Regression, Logistic|||For differences in relation to placebo: Odds Ratio, confidence interval, and p-value were derived from a logistic regression model including fixed effects for treatment, geographic region and prior Tumor Factor Necrosis (TNF) inhibitor exposure.||34.26|2.73|<0.001
91030852|NCT03587207|181946151|OTHER|M07-0241084 strain- Between group ratio for comparison of MenABCWY group and rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S group.|Geometric mean ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.68|1.07|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||Other unknown interference in MenABCWY versus rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S study groups, on the Meningitis B M07-0241084 (NHBA) strain, one month after first vaccination.||1.07|0.68|
91099177|NCT05259033|182084043|SUPERIORITY|Responses were analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with region and randomised treatment as fixed factors and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Each imputed dataset is analysed separately and estimates are combined using Rubin's rules.|Estimated treatment difference|-0.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.33|||ANCOVA|||Treatment policy strategy||-0.33|-0.56|<0.0001
91030853|NCT03587207|181946151|OTHER|Serogroup A- Between group ratio for comparison of MenABCWY group and rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S group.|Geometric mean ratio|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.35|0.62|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||Other unknown interference in MenABCWY versus rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S study groups, on the Meningitis serogroup A, one month after first vaccination.||0.62|0.35|
90850851|NCT00796991|181567248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37||||||P-values were not corrected for multiple testing. F Statistic =1.08|conditional F-test|5 Degrees Freedom (DF) in numerator and 335 DF in denominator.||null hypothesis that the pattern of mean ALC values over time is the same in the given pair of treatment groups.||||0.37
91099178|NCT05537571|182084049|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-82.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-88.19|-77.39|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test for differences between each active treatment group and the pooled placebo groups in the primary outcome measure.||-77.39|-88.19|<0.0001
91099179|NCT05537571|182084049|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-81.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-86.68|-76.0|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test for differences between each active treatment group and the pooled placebo groups in the primary outcome measure.||-76.0|-86.68|<0.0001
91099180|NCT05537571|182084049|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-85.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-90.88|-80.26|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test for differences between each active treatment group and the pooled placebo groups in the primary outcome measure.||-80.26|-90.88|<0.0001
91099181|NCT05537571|182084050|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-83.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-88.7|-77.57|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test for differences between each active treatment group and the pooled placebo groups in the primary outcome measure.||-77.57|-88.7|<0.0001
91099182|NCT05537571|182084050|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-78.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.18|-73.17|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test for differences between each active treatment group and the pooled placebo groups in the primary outcome measure.||-73.17|-84.18|<0.0001
91099183|NCT05537571|182084050|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-83.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-88.43|-77.49|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test for differences between each active treatment group and the pooled placebo groups in the primary outcome measure.||-77.49|-88.43|<0.0001
91099184|NCT05537571|182084051|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-79.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-85.25|-73.1|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test for differences between each active treatment group and the pooled placebo groups in the primary outcome measure.||-73.1|-85.25|<0.0001
91099185|NCT05537571|182084051|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-71.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.81|-65.8|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test for differences between each active treatment group and the pooled placebo groups in the primary outcome measure.||-65.8|-77.81|<0.0001
91099186|NCT05537571|182084051|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-77.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.09|-71.15|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test for differences between each active treatment group and the pooled placebo groups in the primary outcome measure.||-71.15|-83.09|<0.0001
91099187|NCT05537571|182084052|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.55|-8.09|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test for differences between each active treatment group and the pooled placebo groups in the primary outcome measure.||-8.09|-18.55|<0.0001
91099188|NCT05537571|182084052|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.9|||=|0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.02|-4.68|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test for differences between each active treatment group and the pooled placebo groups in the primary outcome measure.||-4.68|-15.02|=0.0002
91099189|NCT05537571|182084052|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.1|-9.82|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test for differences between each active treatment group and the pooled placebo groups in the primary outcome measure.||-9.82|-20.1|<0.0001
91099190|NCT05537571|182084053|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.62|-7.08|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test for differences between each active treatment group and the pooled placebo groups in the primary outcome measure.||-7.08|-17.62|<0.0001
91099191|NCT05537571|182084053|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.6|||=|0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.85|-3.44|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test for differences between each active treatment group and the pooled placebo groups in the primary outcome measure.||-3.44|-13.85|=0.0013
91099192|NCT05537571|182084053|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.2|-8.84|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test for differences between each active treatment group and the pooled placebo groups in the primary outcome measure.||-8.84|-19.2|<0.0001
90850852|NCT00796991|181567248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85||||||P-values were not corrected for multiple testing. F Statistic =0.39|conditional F-test|5 Degrees Freedom (DF) in numerator and 335 DF in denominator.||null hypothesis that the pattern of mean ALC values over time is the same in the given pair of treatment groups.||||0.85
90850853|NCT00796991|181567248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22||||||P-values were not corrected for multiple testing. F Statistic = 1.41|conditional F-test|5 Degrees Freedom (DF) in numerator and 335 DF in denominator.||null hypothesis that the pattern of mean ALC values over time is the same in the given pair of treatment groups.||||0.22
90850854|NCT02199717|181567269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||All statistical analyses were completed using SAS 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA). Descriptive statistics such as mean (± SD) and range were calculated and provided for demographic variables, accelerometry variables and questionnaire outcomes. Differences between the two groups (mild/moderate versus severe haemophilia) were examined in exploratory analyses.||||0.32
91099193|NCT05537571|182084054|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.81|-5.73|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test for differences between each active treatment group and the pooled placebo groups in the primary outcome measure.||-5.73|-16.81|<0.0001
91099194|NCT05537571|182084054|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.2|||=|0.0106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.64|-1.69|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test for differences between each active treatment group and the pooled placebo groups in the primary outcome measure.||-1.69|-12.64|=0.0106
90850855|NCT02199717|181567270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|306.4|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|254.8|358.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||358|254.8|<0.01
90850856|NCT04345367|181567285|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of difference|22.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.8|29.5||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method adjusted by baseline disease severity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The estimate and confidence interval (CI) for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||29.5|15.8|<0.0001
90850857|NCT04345367|181567286|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of difference|14.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.2|20.0||CMH method adjusted by baseline disease severity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||20.0|8.2|<0.0001
90850858|NCT04345367|181567287|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of difference|12.5||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|19.7||CMH method adjusted by baseline disease severity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||19.7|5.3|0.0008
90850859|NCT04345367|181567288|OTHER||Estimate of difference|4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|8.7|||||Week 2. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||8.7|0.2|
90850860|NCT04345367|181567288|OTHER||Estimate of difference|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.2|26.9|||||Week 8. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||26.9|13.2|
91099195|NCT05537571|182084054|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.04|-7.15|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test for differences between each active treatment group and the pooled placebo groups in the primary outcome measure.||-7.15|-18.04|<0.0001
91099196|NCT05537571|182084055|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-31.9|||=|0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.07|-9.72|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test for differences between each active treatment group and the pooled placebo groups in the primary outcome measure.||-9.72|-54.07|=0.0051
90900204|NCT02969525|181666758|OTHER|The pairwise testing of each bimekizumab dose versus placebo accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure with each bimekizumab dose being tested sequentially from the highest dose to the lowest dose. If the sequential testing failed to reach significance at a significance level of alpha=0.05, then the pairwise testing continued and the comparison was seen as non-significant.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.7|||=|0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|13.68||The p-values were displayed as nominal p-values.|Regression, Logistic|||For differences in relation to placebo: Odds Ratio, confidence interval, and p-value were derived from a logistic regression model including fixed effects for treatment, geographic region and prior Tumor Factor Necrosis (TNF) inhibitor exposure.||13.68|1.00|=0.051
90900205|NCT02969525|181666759|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.6|||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.73|12.39||No sequential testing procedure was used for the secondary efficacy variables. The p-values were displayed as nominal p-values.|Regression, Logistic|||For differences in relation to Placebo: Odds Ratio, confidence interval, and p-value were derived from a logistic regression model including fixed effects for treatment, geographic region and prior Tumor Necrosis Factor (TNF) inhibitor exposure.||12.39|1.73|=0.002
90900206|NCT02969525|181666759|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.91|30.95||No sequential testing procedure was used for the secondary efficacy variables. The p-values were displayed as nominal p-values.|Regression, Logistic|||For differences in relation to Placebo: Odds Ratio, confidence interval, and p-value were derived from a logistic regression model including fixed effects for treatment, geographic region and prior Tumor Necrosis Factor (TNF) inhibitor exposure.||30.95|3.91|<0.001
90900207|NCT02969525|181666759|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.31|16.84||No sequential testing procedure was used for the secondary efficacy variables. The p-values were displayed as nominal p-values.|Regression, Logistic|||For differences in relation to Placebo: Odds Ratio, confidence interval, and p-value were derived from a logistic regression model including fixed effects for treatment, geographic region and prior Tumor Necrosis Factor (TNF) inhibitor exposure.||16.84|2.31|<0.001
90900208|NCT02969525|181666759|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.2|||=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|11.35||No sequential testing procedure was used for the secondary efficacy variables. The p-values were displayed as nominal p-values.|Regression, Logistic|||For differences in relation to Placebo: Odds Ratio, confidence interval, and p-value were derived from a logistic regression model including fixed effects for treatment, geographic region and prior Tumor Necrosis Factor (TNF) inhibitor exposure.||11.35|1.59|=0.004
90900209|NCT02969525|181666760|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.4|||=|0.279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|11.31||No sequential testing procedure was used for the secondary efficacy variables. The p-values were displayed as nominal p-values.|Regression, Logistic|||For differences in relation to Placebo: Odds Ratio, confidence interval, and p-value were derived from a logistic regression model including fixed effects for treatment, geographic region and prior Tumor Necrosis Factor (TNF) inhibitor exposure.||11.31|0.50|=0.279
90900210|NCT02969525|181666760|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.1|||=|0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|17.88||No sequential testing procedure was used for the secondary efficacy variables. The p-values were displayed as nominal p-values.|Regression, Logistic|||For differences in relation to Placebo: Odds Ratio, confidence interval, and p-value were derived from a logistic regression model including fixed effects for treatment, geographic region and prior Tumor Necrosis Factor (TNF) inhibitor exposure.||17.88|0.92|=0.065
90957620|NCT01445301|181795308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of ISGA Score of 0 or 1 between GSK2585823 twice daily and CLDM twice daily at Week 4||||0.022
91030854|NCT03587207|181946151|OTHER|Serogroup C- Between group ratio for comparison of MenABCWY group and rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S group.|Geometric mean ratio|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.91|1.65|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||Other unknown interference in MenABCWY versus rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S study groups, on the Meningitis serogroup C, one month after first vaccination.||1.65|0.91|
91099197|NCT05537571|182084055|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.7|||=|0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.62|-7.81|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test for differences between each active treatment group and the pooled placebo groups in the primary outcome measure.||-7.81|-51.62|=0.0081
90900211|NCT02969525|181666760|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.5|||=|0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|31.28||No sequential testing procedure was used for the secondary efficacy variables. The p-values were displayed as nominal p-values.|Regression, Logistic|||For differences in relation to Placebo: Odds Ratio, confidence interval, and p-value were derived from a logistic regression model including fixed effects for treatment, geographic region and prior Tumor Necrosis Factor (TNF) inhibitor exposure.||31.28|1.77|=0.006
90957621|NCT01445301|181795308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of ISGA Score of 0 or 1 between GSK2585823 twice daily and CLDM twice daily at Week 8||||<0.001
91030855|NCT03587207|181946151|OTHER|Serogroup W- Between group ratio for comparison of MenABCWY group and rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S group.|Geometric mean ratio|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.04|1.72|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||Other unknown interference in MenABCWY versus rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S study groups, on the Meningitis serogroup W, one month after first vaccination.||1.72|1.04|
90957622|NCT01445301|181795308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of ISGA Score of 0 or 1 between GSK2585823 twice daily and CLDM twice daily at Week 12||||<0.001
90957623|NCT01445301|181795308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.572||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of ISGA Score of 0 or 1 between GSK2585823 once daily and CLDM twice daily at Week 1||||0.572
91030856|NCT03587207|181946151|OTHER|Serogroup Y- Between group ratio for comparison of MenABCWY group and rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S group.|Geometric mean ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.7|1.38|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||Other unknown interference in MenABCWY versus rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S study groups, on the Meningitis serogroup Y, one month after first vaccination.||1.38|0.70|
91030857|NCT03587207|181946151|OTHER|M14459 strain-Between group ratio for comparison of rMenBOMV\_ACWY\_S group and rMenBOMV group.|Geometric mean ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.83|1.32|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||To investigate possible effects on the immune response based on strains common to rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S versus rMenBOMV study groups, on the Meningitis B M14459 (fHbp) strain, one month after first vaccination.||1.32|0.83|
91099198|NCT05537571|182084055|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.1|||=|0.0241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.89|-3.33|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test for differences between each active treatment group and the pooled placebo groups in the primary outcome measure.||-3.33|-46.89|=0.0241
90850861|NCT04345367|181567288|OTHER||Estimate of difference|14.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|21.1|||||Week 12. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||21.1|6.9|
90850862|NCT04345367|181567288|OTHER||Estimate of difference|12.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.5|20.0|||||Week 20. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||20.0|5.5|
90850863|NCT04345367|181567288|OTHER||Estimate of difference|6.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|14.3|||||Week 26. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||14.3|-0.4|
90850864|NCT04345367|181567289|OTHER||Estimate of difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|14.4|||||Week 2. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||14.4|1.8|
90850865|NCT04345367|181567289|OTHER||Estimate of difference|20.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.8|28.0|||||Week 4. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||28.0|13.8|
90850866|NCT04345367|181567289|OTHER||Estimate of difference|18.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.4|25.3|||||Week 8. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||25.3|11.4|
90850867|NCT04345367|181567289|OTHER||Estimate of difference|14.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.2|21.5|||||Week 12. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||21.5|8.2|
90900212|NCT02969525|181666760|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.9|||=|0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|13.39||No sequential testing procedure was used for the secondary efficacy variables. The p-values were displayed as nominal p-values.|Regression, Logistic|||For differences in relation to Placebo: Odds Ratio, confidence interval, and p-value were derived from a logistic regression model including fixed effects for treatment, geographic region and prior Tumor Necrosis Factor (TNF) inhibitor exposure.||13.39|0.63|=0.172
90900213|NCT03445065|181666785|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1||The significance level was set to p\<0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included arm, centre, and type of diabetes as fixed classification effects, and HbA1c (%) at inclusion as baseline covariate.|The mean difference in HbA1c (%) at Day 180 was calculated as the Enabled group minus the Control group.|||0.1|-0.4|0.341
90850868|NCT04345367|181567289|OTHER||Estimate of difference|9.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|16.0|||||Week 16. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||16.0|3.0|
90850869|NCT04345367|181567289|OTHER||Estimate of difference|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|11.5|||||Week 20. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||11.5|-1.4|
90850870|NCT04345367|181567289|OTHER||Estimate of difference|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|7.2|||||Week 26. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||7.2|-5.9|
90850871|NCT04345367|181567290|OTHER||Estimate of difference|7.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|11.7|||||Week 2. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||11.7|2.8|
90900214|NCT03445065|181666786|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.6||||0.03892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-0.1||The significance level was set to p\<0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included arm and centre as fixed classification effects and % time in hypoglycemia (\<54mg/dL) Day0-30 as baseline covariate.|The mean difference was calculated as the Enabled group minus the Control group.|||-0.1|-3.1|0.03892
90900215|NCT03445065|181666790|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.4||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|10.9||The significance level was set to p\<0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|The model included arm, centre, and diabetes type as fixed classification effects, and % time in euglycemic range (Day0-30) as baseline covariate.|The mean difference was calculated as the Enabled group minus the Control group.|||10.9|-0.1|0.056
90850872|NCT04345367|181567290|OTHER||Estimate of difference|20.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.3|26.9|||||Week 4. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||26.9|14.3|
90850873|NCT04345367|181567290|OTHER||Estimate of difference|19.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.5|26.4|||||Week 8. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||26.4|12.5|
90850874|NCT04345367|181567290|OTHER||Estimate of difference|15.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.7|23.0|||||Week 12. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||23.0|8.7|
90850875|NCT04345367|181567290|OTHER||Estimate of difference|13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.9|20.2|||||Week 16. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||20.2|5.9|
90850876|NCT04345367|181567290|OTHER||Estimate of difference|9.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|16.4|||||Week 20. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||16.4|2.0|
90850877|NCT04345367|181567290|OTHER||Estimate of difference|4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|11.8|||||Week 26. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||11.8|-2.8|
90850878|NCT04345367|181567291|OTHER||Estimate of difference|7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|11.1|||||Day 2. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||11.1|3.1|
90850879|NCT04345367|181567291|OTHER||Estimate of difference|6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|11.3|||||Day 3. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||11.3|1.7|
90850880|NCT04345367|181567291|OTHER||Estimate of difference|11.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|16.8|||||Day 4. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||16.8|6.0|
91030858|NCT03587207|181946151|OTHER|96217 strain-Between group ratio for comparison of rMenBOMV\_ACWY\_S group and rMenBOMV group|Geometric mean ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.64|1.0|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||To investigate possible effects on the immune response based on strains common to rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S versus rMenBOMV study groups, on the Meningitis B 96217 (NadA) strain, one month after first vaccination.||1.00|0.64|
90850881|NCT04345367|181567291|OTHER||Estimate of difference|14.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.8|20.3|||||Day 5. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||20.3|8.8|
90850882|NCT04345367|181567291|OTHER||Estimate of difference|12.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|19.0|||||Day 6. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||19.0|6.9|
90850883|NCT04345367|181567291|OTHER||Estimate of difference|19.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.8|26.0|||||Day 7. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||26.0|13.8|
90850884|NCT04345367|181567291|OTHER||Estimate of difference|22.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.9|28.3|||||Day 8. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||28.3|15.9|
90850885|NCT04345367|181567291|OTHER||Estimate of difference|21.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.2|28.1|||||Day 9. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||28.1|15.2|
90850886|NCT04345367|181567291|OTHER||Estimate of other|21.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.7|27.9|||||Day 10. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||27.9|14.7|
90850887|NCT04345367|181567291|OTHER||Estimate of difference|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.3|26.6|||||Day 11. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||26.6|13.3|
90850888|NCT04345367|181567291|OTHER||Estimate of difference|21.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.6|27.9|||||Day 12. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||27.9|14.6|
90850889|NCT04345367|181567291|OTHER||Estimate of difference|22.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.8|29.2|||||Day 13. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||29.2|15.8|
90850890|NCT04345367|181567291|OTHER||Estimate of difference|22.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.6|29.2|||||Day 14. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||29.2|15.6|
90850891|NCT04345367|181567291|OTHER||Estimate of difference|22.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.0|29.9|||||Day 15. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||29.9|16.0|
90850892|NCT04345367|181567292|OTHER||Estimate of difference|17.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.1|24.5|||||Week 4. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||24.5|10.1|
90850893|NCT04345367|181567292|OTHER||Estimate of difference|13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|20.1|||||Week 8. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||20.1|6.0|
90850894|NCT04345367|181567292|OTHER||Estimate of difference|4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|11.4|||||Week 12. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||11.4|-2.5|
90850895|NCT04345367|181567292|OTHER||Estimate of difference|3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|10.5|||||Week 16. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||10.5|-3.4|
90850896|NCT04345367|181567292|OTHER||Estimate of difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|9.0|||||Week 20. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||9.0|-4.9|
90850897|NCT04345367|181567292|OTHER||Estimate of difference|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|11.9|||||Week 26. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||11.9|-1.9|
90850898|NCT04345367|181567294|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-9.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|-4.6|||||Week 2. Analysis was performed using Mixed Model Repeated Measure (MMRM) with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||-4.6|-14.0|
90850899|NCT04345367|181567294|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-12.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.4|-7.6|||||Week 4. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||-7.6|-17.4|
90850900|NCT04345367|181567294|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-11.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.6|-6.6|||||Week 8. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||-6.6|-15.6|
90850901|NCT04345367|181567294|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-9.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|-5.1|||||Week 12. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||-5.1|-13.7|
90850902|NCT04345367|181567294|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-6.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|-2.9|||||Week 16. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||-2.9|-10.9|
91099199|NCT05537571|182084056|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.8|||=|0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.86|-10.76|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test for differences between each active treatment group and the pooled placebo groups in the primary outcome measure.||-10.76|-48.86|=0.0023
91099200|NCT05537571|182084056|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.4|||=|0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.23|-8.58|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test for differences between each active treatment group and the pooled placebo groups in the primary outcome measure.||-8.58|-46.23|=0.0046
90850903|NCT04345367|181567294|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|-1.7|||||Week 20. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||-1.7|-9.0|
90850904|NCT04345367|181567294|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|0.4|||||Week 26. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||0.4|-7.1|
90850905|NCT04345367|181567295|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|-7.6|||||Week 2. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||-7.6|-14.5|
90850906|NCT04345367|181567295|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-12.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|-9.5|||||Week 4. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||-9.5|-16.0|
90850907|NCT04345367|181567295|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-10.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|-6.8|||||Week 8. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||-6.8|-13.6|
90850908|NCT04345367|181567295|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-7.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|-4.1|||||Week 12. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||-4.1|-10.5|
90850909|NCT04345367|181567295|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-6.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|-3.0|||||Week 16. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||-3.0|-9.3|
90850910|NCT04345367|181567295|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|-1.7|||||Week 20. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||-1.7|-8.2|
90850911|NCT04345367|181567295|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|0.1|||||Week 26. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||0.1|-6.6|
90850912|NCT04345367|181567296|OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4|||||Week 12. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||0.4|-0.4|
90957624|NCT01445301|181795308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.335||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of ISGA Score of 0 or 1 between GSK2585823 once daily and CLDM twice daily at Week 2||||0.335
90850913|NCT04345367|181567296|OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.5|||||Week 16. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||0.5|-0.3|
90850914|NCT04345367|181567296|OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.6|||||Week 26. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||0.6|-0.3|
90850915|NCT04345367|181567297|OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3|||||Week 12. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||0.3|-0.3|
90850916|NCT04345367|181567297|OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.5|||||Week 16. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||0.5|-0.2|
90850917|NCT04345367|181567297|OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.6|||||Week 26. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||0.6|-0.1|
91099201|NCT05537571|182084056|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.0|||=|0.0068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.67|-7.24|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test for differences between each active treatment group and the pooled placebo groups in the primary outcome measure.||-7.24|-44.67|=0.0068
91099202|NCT05537571|182084057|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-28.7|||=|0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.91|-8.46|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test for differences between each active treatment group and the pooled placebo groups in the primary outcome measure.||-8.46|-48.91|=0.0057
91099203|NCT05537571|182084057|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.13|-6.16||||||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test for differences between each active treatment group and the pooled placebo groups in the primary outcome measure.||-6.16|-46.13|
90850918|NCT04345367|181567298|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-1.3|||||Week 2. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||-1.3|-2.6|
90850919|NCT04345367|181567298|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.4|||||Week 12. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||-0.4|-1.6|
90957625|NCT01445301|181795308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.187||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of ISGA Score of 0 or 1 between GSK2585823 once daily and CLDM twice daily at Week 4||||0.187
91099204|NCT05537571|182084057|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.1||||0.0179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.93|-4.2|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test for differences between each active treatment group and the pooled placebo groups in the primary outcome measure.||-4.2|-43.93|0.0179
91099205|NCT03837938|182084071|NON_INFERIORITY|According to the protocol and SAP non-inferiority margin was defined as 20%.|Difference in rates Levopront®-Libexin®|5.81|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|-7.17|||||||Difference in daytime resolved rates Levopront® (Test) vs Libexin® (Control) was reported|||-7.17|
91099206|NCT03837938|182084072|NON_INFERIORITY|According to the protocol and SAP non-inferiority margin was defined as 20%|difference in rates Levopront®-Libexin®|5.43|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|-7.31|||||||Difference in daytime resolved rates Levopront® (Test) vs Libexin® (Control) was reported|||-7.31|
91030859|NCT03587207|181946151|OTHER|NZ98/254 strain -Between group ratio for comparison of rMenBOMV\_ACWY\_S group and rMenBOMV group|Geometric mean ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.69|1.13|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||To investigate possible effects on the immune response based on strains common to rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S versus rMenBOMV study groups, on the Meningitis B NZ98/254 (PorA) strain, one month after first vaccination.||1.13|0.69|
90850920|NCT04345367|181567298|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.2|||||Week 16. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||-0.2|-1.4|
90850921|NCT04345367|181567298|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.0|||||Week 20. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||0.0|-1.2|
90850922|NCT04345367|181567298|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.4|||||Week 26. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||0.4|-1.0|
90850923|NCT04345367|181567299|OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.818|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|2.856|||||Week 12. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||2.856|-1.220|
90850924|NCT04345367|181567299|OTHER||Least square mean difference|2.093|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.081|4.267|||||Week 16. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||4.267|-0.081|
90850925|NCT04345367|181567299|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.816|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.914|1.281|||||Week 26. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||1.281|-2.914|
90850926|NCT04345367|181567300|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-0.7|||||Week 12. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||-0.7|-2.5|
90850927|NCT04345367|181567300|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.5|||||Week 16. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||-0.5|-2.2|
90850928|NCT04345367|181567300|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.5|||||Week 26. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||0.5|-1.3|
90850929|NCT04345367|181567301|OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.6|||||Quantity of hours slept: Week 12. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||0.6|-0.1|
90900216|NCT03445065|181666790|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.7||||0.01255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|8.4||The significance level was set to p\<0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|The model included arm and centre as fixed classification effects, and % time in euglycemic range (Day0-30) as baseline covariate.|The mean difference was calculated as the Enabled group minus the Control group.|||8.4|1.0|0.01255
90900217|NCT03445065|181666791|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.5||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|-1.1||The significance level was set to p\<0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Model included arm, centre, and diabetes type as fixed classification effects, and % time in hyperglycemia \>250mg/dL Day0-30 as baseline covariate.|The mean difference was calculated as the Enabled group minus the Control group.|||-1.1|-9.9|0.015
91099207|NCT03837938|182084073|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin was defined as 20%|||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
91099208|NCT03837938|182084074|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin was defined as 20%|||||=|0.861|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||=0.861
91099209|NCT03837938|182084075|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin was defined as 20%|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Between groups change was tested using two sample t-test (normal data) or Mann-Whitney test (violation of normality).||Daytime at Visit 2, Day 4||||<0.001
91099210|NCT03837938|182084075|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin was defined as 20%|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Between groups change was tested using two sample t-test (normal data) or Mann-Whitney test (violation of normality).||Daytime at Visit 3, Day 8||||<0.001
91099211|NCT03837938|182084075|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin was defined as 20%|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Between groups change was tested using two sample t-test (normal data) or Mann-Whitney test (violation of normality).||Nightime at Visit 2, Day 4||||<0.001
91099212|NCT03837938|182084075|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin was defined as 20%|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Between groups change was tested using two sample t-test (normal data) or Mann-Whitney test (violation of normality).||Nighttime at Visit 3, Day 8||||<0.001
91099213|NCT03837938|182084076|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin was defined as 20%|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Between groups change was tested using two sample t-test (normal data) or Mann-Whitney test (violation of normality).||Visit 2, Day 4||||<0.001
91099214|NCT03837938|182084076|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin was defined as 20%|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Between groups change was tested using two sample t-test (normal data) or Mann-Whitney test (violation of normality).||at Visit 3, Day 8||||<0.001
91099215|NCT03837938|182084077|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin is defined as 20%|||||=|0.336|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Between groups change was tested using two sample t-test (normal data) or Mann-Whitney test (violation of normality).||||||=0.336
90850930|NCT04345367|181567301|OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.4|||||Quantity of hours slept: Week 16. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||0.4|-0.2|
90850931|NCT04345367|181567301|OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.4|||||Quantity of hours slept: Week 26. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||0.4|-0.2|
91099216|NCT06875115|182084109|SUPERIORITY|The primary outcome (5-D Itch Scale score) will be analyzed by comparing the change from baseline to 4 weeks between the laser acupuncture group and the sham laser group. Continuous variables will be summarized as mean ± standard deviation. Between-group comparisons will be performed using independent t-tests or Mann-Whitney U tests, as appropriate. A two-sided p value \< 0.05 will be considered statistically significant.|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Primary Outcome Analysis||||<0.05
90850932|NCT04345367|181567301|OTHER||Least square mean difference|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|3.4|||||Short of Breath or Headache score: Week 12. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||3.4|-0.9|
90850933|NCT04345367|181567301|OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|2.2|||||Short of Breath or Headache score: Week 16. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||2.2|-2.0|
90850934|NCT04345367|181567301|OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.6|||||Short of Breath or Headache score: Week 26. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||2.6|-1.5|
90850935|NCT04345367|181567301|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|0.5|||||Snoring score: Week 12. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||0.5|-4.2|
90900218|NCT03445065|181666791|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.50266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|2.0||The significance level was set to p\<0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|The model included arm and centre as fixed classification effects, and % time in hyperglycemia (\>250mg/dL) Day0-30 as baseline covariate.|The mean difference was calculated as the Enabled group minus the Control group.|||2.0|-4.0|0.50266
90900219|NCT03445065|181666792|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.1||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|0.6||The significance level was set to p\<0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Model included arm, centre, and diabetes type as fixed classification effects, and % time in hyperglycemia \>180mg/dL Day0-30 as baseline covariate.|The mean difference was calculated as the Enabled group minus the Control group.|||0.6|-10.9|0.080
90850936|NCT04345367|181567301|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|1.5|||||Snoring score: Week 16. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||1.5|-3.3|
90850937|NCT04345367|181567301|OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|3.4|||||Snoring score: Week 26. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||3.4|-1.7|
90850938|NCT04345367|181567301|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|-1.6|||||Sleep disturbance score: Week 12. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||-1.6|-6.6|
90900220|NCT03445065|181666792|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.3||||0.10637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|0.7||The significance level was set to p\<0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|The model included arm and centre as fixed classification effects, and % time in hyperglycemia (\>180mg/dL) Day0-30 as baseline covariate.|The mean difference was calculated as the Enabled group minus the Control group.|||0.7|-7.3|0.10637
90900221|NCT03445065|181666793|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.7||The significance level was set to p\<0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Model included arm, centre, and diabetes type as fixed classification effects, and % time in hypoglycemia (\<70mg/dL) Day0-30 as baseline covariate.|The mean difference was calculated as the Enabled group minus the Control group.|||0.7|-1.2|0.671
91099217|NCT02564978|182084110|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.39|TWO_SIDED|||||Result of statistical analyses were considered significant if the p-value from the one-sided test was \<0.025. No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis||The estimate was the difference in rates of change in mean of appropriately transformed GA area between the treatment phase and run-in phase.|Analysis: linear spline regression with fixed knot @ Month 9 on study eyes alone. Null hypothesis: difference in rates of change in mean of square-root transformed GA area between treatment phase \& run-in phase \>= 0. Square root transformation used to satisfy the linear trend assumption. Missing values: treated as missing completely at random. Covariance structure of random effect that provided best model fit chosen (Spatial Power). One-sided Type I error rate: 2.5%.||||0.39
90850939|NCT04345367|181567301|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|-1.4|||||Sleep disturbance score: Week 16. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||-1.4|-6.2|
90850940|NCT04345367|181567301|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|0.7|||||Sleep disturbance score: Week 26. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||0.7|-4.1|
91099218|NCT02564978|182084111|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.03||Result of statistical analyses were considered significant if the p-value from the two-sided Student's paired t-test was \<0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis: two-sided Student's paired t-test on study eyes alone. Null hypothesis: difference in rates of change in mean of square-root transformed GA area between the treatment phase and run-in phase is not equal to 0. Missing values: treated as missing completely at random. Two-sided Type I error rate: 5%.||0.03|-0.06|0.48
91099219|NCT02564978|182084111|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.04||Result of statistical analyses were considered significant if the p-value from the two-sided Student's paired t-test was \<0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis: two-sided Student's paired t-test on qualifying fellow eyes alone. Null hypothesis: difference in rates of change in mean of square-root transformed GA area between the treatment phase and run-in phase is not equal to 0. Missing values: treated as missing completely at random. Two-sided Type I error rate: 5%.||0.04|-0.24|0.15
91099220|NCT02564978|182084111|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.01||Result of statistical analyses were considered significant if the p-value from the two-sided Student's paired t-test was \<0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|t-test, 2 sided||No. of units analyzed = no. of study eyes + no. qualifying fellow eyes (QFE). However, the value contributing to analysis is the avg. of study eye \& QFE from a participant if both values are available, otherwise equal to eye with data available.|Analysis: two-sided Student's paired t-test on study and qualifying fellow eyes (Study eye + QFE) together. Null hypothesis: difference in rates of change in mean of square-root transformed GA area between the treatment phase and run-in phase is not equal to 0. Missing values: treated as missing completely at random. Two-sided Type I error rate: 5%.||0.01|-0.09|0.15
91030860|NCT03587207|181946151|OTHER|M07-0241084 strain -Between group ratio for comparison of rMenBOMV\_ACWY\_S group and rMenBOMV group|Geometric mean ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.76|1.19|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||To investigate possible effects on the immune response based on strains common to rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S versus rMenBOMV study groups, on the Meningitis B M07-0241084 (NHBA) strain, one month after first vaccination.||1.19|0.76|
91099221|NCT02564978|182084112|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.61|TWO_SIDED|||||Result of statistical analyses were considered significant if the p-value from the one-sided test was \<0.025. No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis||The estimate was the difference in rates of change in mean of appropriately transformed GA area between the treatment phase and run-in phase.|Analysis: linear spline regression with fixed knot @ Month 9 on study eyes alone. Null hypothesis: difference in rates of change in mean of square-root transformed GA area between treatment phase \& run-in phase \>= 0. Square root transformation used to satisfy the linear trend assumption. Missing values: treated as missing completely at random. Covariance structure of random effect that provided best model fit chosen (Spatial Power). One-sided Type I error rate: 2.5%.||||0.61
90850941|NCT04345367|181567301|OTHER||Least square mean difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|3.6|||||Sleep adequacy score: Week 12. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||3.6|-1.6|
90850942|NCT04345367|181567301|OTHER||Least square mean difference|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|5.4|||||Sleep adequacy score: Week 16. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||5.4|0.4|
90850943|NCT04345367|181567301|OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|3.4|||||Sleep adequacy score: Week 26. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||3.4|-1.9|
90850944|NCT04345367|181567301|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|1.3|||||Sleep somnolence score: Week 12. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||1.3|-2.8|
90850945|NCT04345367|181567301|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|-0.4|||||Sleep somnolence score: Week 16. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||-0.4|-4.4|
90850946|NCT04345367|181567301|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|-0.3|||||Sleep somnolence score: Week 26. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||-0.3|-4.3|
90850947|NCT04345367|181567301|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|0.7|||||Sleep Problems Index I score: Week 12. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||0.7|-3.0|
90850948|NCT04345367|181567301|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-0.5|||||Sleep Problems Index I score: Week 16. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||-0.5|-4.0|
90850949|NCT04345367|181567301|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.9|||||Sleep Problems Index I score: Week 26. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||0.9|-2.5|
90850950|NCT04345367|181567301|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-0.3|||||Sleep Problems Index II score: Week 12. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||-0.3|-4.0|
90957626|NCT01445301|181795308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of ISGA Score of 0 or 1 between GSK2585823 once daily and CLDM twice daily at Week 8||||<0.001
91104635|NCT03926247|182095277|OTHER|Within-group longitudinal analysis (no comparison groups)=|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.119|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061|=|0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.257|0.017|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analyses were conducted using a mixed effects linear model to calculate least square means across the 4 timepoints. This was a longitudinal within-group analysis with 4 timepoints of data nested within 56 individuals. Our hypothesis was that participants' difficulty accessing resources would decrease overtime.||0.017|-0.257|=0.089
90900222|NCT03445065|181666793|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.8||||0.12935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|0.5||The significance level was set to p\<0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|The model included arm and centre as fixed classification effects, and % time in hypoglycemia (\<70mg/dL) Day0-30 as baseline covariate.|The mean difference was calculated as the Enabled group minus the Control group.|||0.5|-4.1|0.12935
90900223|NCT03445065|181666794|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.4||The significance level was set to p\<0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Model included arm, centre, and diabetes type as fixed classification effects, and % time in hypoglycemia (\<54mg/dL) Day0-30 as baseline covariate.|The mean difference was calculated as the Enabled group minus the Control group.|||0.4|-0.6|0.693
90900224|NCT03445065|181666795|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9||||0.753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|4.9||The significance level was set to p\<0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Model included arm, centre, and diabetes type as fixed classification effects, and % time in euglycemic range (Day0-30) as baseline covariate.|The mean difference was calculated as the Enabled group minus the Control group.|||4.9|-6.7|0.753
90900225|NCT03445065|181666795|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.84307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|3.8||The significance level was set to p\<0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|The model included arm and centre as fixed classification effect, and % time in euglycemic range (Day0-30) as baseline covariate.|The mean difference was calculated as the Enabled group minus the Control group.|||3.8|-4.6|0.84307
90900226|NCT03445065|181666796|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9||||0.653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|3.0||The significance level was set to p\<0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Model included arm, centre, and diabetes type as fixed classification effects, and % time in hyperglycemia (\>250mg/dL) Day0-30 as baseline covariate.|The mean difference was calculated as the Enabled group minus the Control group.|||3.0|-4.8|0.653
90957627|NCT01445301|181795308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of ISGA Score of 0 or 1 between GSK2585823 once daily and CLDM twice daily at Week 12||||0.006
90850951|NCT04345367|181567301|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|-1.1|||||Sleep Problems Index II score: Week 16. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||-1.1|-4.8|
90850952|NCT04345367|181567301|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|0.4|||||Sleep Problems Index II score: Week 26. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||0.4|-3.2|
90850953|NCT04345367|181567302|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.8|||||Week 2. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||-0.8|-1.5|
90850954|NCT04345367|181567302|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.1|||||Week 12. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||-0.1|-0.8|
90850955|NCT04345367|181567302|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.1|||||Week 16. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||0.1|-0.6|
90850956|NCT04345367|181567302|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.0|||||Week 20. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||0.0|-0.6|
90850957|NCT04345367|181567302|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1|||||Week 26. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||0.1|-0.5|
90850958|NCT04345367|181567303|OTHER||Least square mean difference|18.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.5|25.7||||||Analysis was performed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including treatment as a main effect and baseline disease severity as covariates.||25.7|10.5|
90850959|NCT04345367|181567304|OTHER||Estimate of difference|13.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.3|20.1|||||Week 2. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||20.1|7.3|
90850960|NCT04345367|181567304|OTHER||Estimate of difference|3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|9.4|||||Week 12. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||9.4|-1.6|
90850961|NCT04345367|181567304|OTHER||Estimate of difference|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|4.0|||||Week 16. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||4.0|-7.1|
90850962|NCT04345367|181567304|OTHER||Estimate of difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|3.6|||||Week 20. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||3.6|-7.6|
90850963|NCT04345367|181567304|OTHER||Estimate of difference|-4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|1.9|||||Week 26. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||1.9|-10.3|
90850964|NCT01755026|181567340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|191.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|166.01|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
90850965|NCT03836001|181567341|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59||||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.59
90850966|NCT03836001|181567342|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant.|Fisher Exact|||||||1
90850967|NCT03836001|181567343|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant.|Fisher Exact|||||||1
90850968|NCT03836001|181567344|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67||||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.67
90850969|NCT03836001|181567345|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant.|Fisher Exact|||||||1
90850970|NCT03836001|181567346|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.02||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline through week 8 including all time points. For this analysis, data were censored at the time of participant discontinuation.||0.02|-0.24|0.09
90850971|NCT03836001|181567347|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.03||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline through week 8 including all time points. For this analysis, data were censored at the time of participant discontinuation.||0.03|-0.19|0.16
90850972|NCT03836001|181567349|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.25||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.09||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline through week 8 including all time points. For this analysis, data were censored at the time of participant discontinuation.||-0.09|-0.41|0.002
90850973|NCT01978938|181567352|NON_INFERIORITY|The NI test was based on the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI), using the method proposed without stratification by Miettinen and Nurminen. If the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference in Responder (clinical cure and microbiologic success) rates in the micro-ITT population exceeded -10%, then the null hypothesis was rejected and the NI of eravacycline to levofloxacin was declared.|Treatment Difference|-6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|1.2||||||For the FDA, an NI margin of 10% was used, which was based on historical data regarding the treatment effect of antibiotics. A 10% NI margin for the Responder outcome is robust and can sufficiently confirm a clinically meaningful treatment effect of eravacycline in the treatment of cUTI.||1.2|-14.1|
90850974|NCT02650921|181567356|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Responder Rate|64.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.3|76.1|||McNemar|||||76.1|53.3|<0.0001
90850975|NCT02650921|181567357|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Responder Rate|72.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.9|82.7|||McNemar|||||82.7|61.9|<0.0001
90850976|NCT02650921|181567358|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Responder Rate|57.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.8|69.8|||McNemar|||||69.8|44.8|<0.0001
90850977|NCT02650921|181567359|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Responder Rate|45.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.3|59.3|||McNemar|||||59.3|32.3|<0.0001
90850978|NCT01087788|181567385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|33.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.8|44.6||Difference of Certolizumab Pegol 200 mg versus Placebo (and corresponding 95 % Confidence Interval and p-value) were estimated using a standard two-sided Wald asymptotic test with a 5 % alpha level.|Wald-test, 2-sided|||A hierarchical test procedure was applied to protect the overall significance level for the multiplicity of dose groups and endpoints. Conditional on the first test being significant, the second hypothesis was tested with the same alpha level of 5 %. Statistical testing for the following hypotheses was performed only if the previous null hypothesis in the hierarchy was rejected.||44.6|22.8|<0.001
90850979|NCT01087788|181567385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|27.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.5|38.7||Difference of Certolizumab Pegol 400 mg versus Placebo (and corresponding 95 % Confidence Interval and p-value) were estimated using a standard two-sided Wald asymptotic test with a 5 % alpha level.|Wald-test, 2-sided|||A hierarchical test procedure was applied to protect the overall significance level for the multiplicity of dose groups and endpoints. Conditional on the first test being significant, the second hypothesis was tested with the same alpha level of 5 %. Statistical testing for the following hypotheses was performed only if the previous null hypothesis in the hierarchy was rejected.||38.7|16.5|<0.001
90850980|NCT01087788|181567386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference (Net)|-10.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.35|=|0.203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.05|5.77||Diff. of CZP 200mg+400mg versus PBO (and corresponding 95% Confidence Interval and p-value) were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment, region and prior Tumor Necrosis Factor(TNF)-antagonist exposure as factors \& BL mTSS score as a covariate|ANCOVA|||A hierarchical test procedure was applied to protect the overall significance level for the multiplicity of dose groups and endpoints. Conditional on the first test being significant, the second hypothesis was tested with the same alpha level of 5 %. Statistical testing for the following hypotheses was performed only if the previous null hypothesis in the hierarchy was rejected. This is the pre-defined primary analysis.||5.77|-27.05|=0.203
90850981|NCT01087788|181567386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference (Net)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|=|0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.04||Difference of CZP 200 mg versus Placebo (and corresponding 95 % Confidence Interval and p-value) were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment, region and prior TNF-antagonist exposure as factors and Baseline mTSS score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||A hierarchical test procedure was applied to protect the overall significance level for the multiplicity of dose groups and endpoints.Conditional on the 1st test being significant, the 2nd hypothesis was tested with the same alpha level of 5%. Stat. testing for the following hypotheses was performed only if the previous null hypothesis in the hierarchy was rejected Re-analysis approach, restricted to subjects in the RS who have at least 2 x-ray values at scheduled visits (at least 8 wks apart)||-0.04|-0.38|=0.017
90900227|NCT03445065|181666796|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.3||||0.07261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|4.8||The significance level was set to p\<0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|The model included arm and centre as fixed classification effects, and % time in hyperglycemia (\>250mg/dL) Day0-30 as baseline covariate.|The mean difference was calculated as the Enabled group minus the Control group.|||4.8|-0.2|0.07261
90900228|NCT03445065|181666797|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.3||||0.685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|7.4||The significance level was set to p\<0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Model included arm, centre, and diabetes type as fixed classification effects, and % time in hyperglycemia (\>180mg/dL) Day0-30 as baseline covariate.|The mean difference was calculated as the Enabled group minus the Control group.|||7.4|-4.9|0.685
90900229|NCT03445065|181666797|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.1||||0.19785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|7.8||The significance level was set to p\<0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|The model included arm and centre as fixed classification effects, and % time in hyperglycemia (\>180mg/dL) Day0-30 as baseline covariate.|The mean difference was calculated as the Enabled group minus the Control group.|||7.8|-1.6|0.19785
90957628|NCT01445301|181795309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of GSK2585823 twice daily and CLDM twice daily at Week 1||||0.002
91099222|NCT02564978|182084112|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.43|TWO_SIDED|||||Result of statistical analyses were considered significant if the p-value from the one-sided test was \<0.025. No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis||The estimate was the difference in rates of change in mean of appropriately transformed GA area between the treatment phase and run-in phase.|Analysis: linear spline regression with fixed knot @ Month 9 on qualifying fellow eyes alone. Null hypothesis: difference in rates of change in mean of square-root transformed GA area between treatment phase \& run-in phase \>= 0. Square root transformation used to satisfy the linear trend assumption. Missing values: treated as missing completely at random. Covariance structure of random effect that provided best model fit chosen (Spatial Power). One-sided Type I error rate: 2.5%.||||0.43
91099223|NCT02564978|182084112|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.89|TWO_SIDED|||||Result of statistical analyses were considered significant if the p-value from the one-sided test was \<0.025. No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis||Study eye + QFE: study \& qualifying fellow eyes analyzed as separate observations. Estimate: difference in rate of change in mean of appropriately transformed GA area between treatment and run-in phase.|Analysis: linear spline regression with fixed knot @ Month 9 on study and qualifying fellow eyes together. Null hypothesis: difference in rates of change in mean of square-root transformed GA area between treatment phase \& run-in phase \>= 0. Square root transformation used to satisfy the linear trend assumption. Missing values: treated as missing completely at random. Covariance structure of random effect that provided best model fit chosen (Spatial Power). One-sided Type I error rate: 2.5%.||||0.89
91099224|NCT02564978|182084113|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.9||Result of statistical analyses were considered significant if the p-value from the two-sided Student's paired t-test was \<0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis: two-sided Student's paired t-test on study eyes alone. Null hypothesis: difference in the mean rates of change in BCVA between the treatment phase and run-in phase is not equal to 0. Missing values: treated as missing completely at random. Two-sided Type I error rate: 5%.||0.9|-0.4|0.44
90850982|NCT01087788|181567386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|=|0.261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.07||Difference of CZP 400 mg versus Placebo (and corresponding 95 % Confidence Interval and p-value) were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment, region and prior TNF-antagonist exposure as factors and Baseline mTSS score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||A hierarchical test procedure was applied to protect the overall significance level for the multiplicity of dose groups and endpoints.Conditional on the 1st test being significant, the 2nd hypothesis was tested with the same alpha level of 5%. Stat. testing for the following hypotheses was performed only if the previous null hypothesis in the hierarchy was rejected Re-analysis approach, restricted to subjects in the RS who have at least 2 x-ray values at scheduled visits (at least 8 wks apart)||0.07|-0.27|=0.261
90850983|NCT01087788|181567387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|40.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.5|51.0||Difference of Certolizumab Pegol 200 mg versus Placebo (and corresponding 95 % Confidence Interval and p-value) were estimated using a standard two-sided Wald asymptotic test with a 5 % alpha level.|Wald-test, 2-sided|||A hierarchical test procedure was applied to protect the overall significance level for the multiplicity of dose groups and endpoints. Conditional on the first test being significant, the second hypothesis was tested with the same alpha level of 5 %. Statistical testing for the following hypotheses was performed only if the previous null hypothesis in the hierarchy was rejected.||51.0|29.5|<0.001
90850984|NCT01087788|181567387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|32.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.8|43.8||Difference of Certolizumab Pegol 400 mg versus Placebo (and corresponding 95 % Confidence Interval and p-value) were estimated using a standard two-sided Wald asymptotic test with a 5 % alpha level.|Wald-test, 2-sided|||A hierarchical test procedure was applied to protect the overall significance level for the multiplicity of dose groups and endpoints. Conditional on the first test being significant, the second hypothesis was tested with the same alpha level of 5 %. Statistical testing for the following hypotheses was performed only if the previous null hypothesis in the hierarchy was rejected.||43.8|21.8|<0.001
90850985|NCT01087788|181567388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference (Net)|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.2||Difference of CZP 200 mg + 400 mg vs. Placebo (and corresponding 95 % Confidence Interval and p-value) were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment, region and prior TNF-antagonist exposure as factors and Baseline HAQ-DI score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||A hierarchical test procedure was applied to protect the overall significance level for the multiplicity of dose groups and endpoints. Conditional on the first test being significant, the second hypothesis was tested with the same alpha level of 5 %. Statistical testing for the following hypotheses was performed only if the previous null hypothesis in the hierarchy was rejected.||-0.20|-0.42|<0.001
90850986|NCT01087788|181567389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|46.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.7|56.9||Difference of Certolizumab Pegol 200 mg + 400 mg versus Placebo (and corresponding 95 % Confidence Interval and p-value) were estimated using a standard two-sided Wald asymptotic test with a 5 % alpha level.|Wald-test, 2-sided|||A hierarchical test procedure was applied to protect the overall significance level for the multiplicity of dose groups and endpoints. Conditional on the first test being significant, the second hypothesis was tested with the same alpha level of 5 %. Statistical testing for the following hypotheses was performed only if the previous null hypothesis in the hierarchy was rejected.||56.9|35.7|<0.001
90900230|NCT03445065|181666798|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.8||The significance level was set to p\<0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Model included arm, centre, and diabetes type as fixed classification effects, and % time in hypoglycemia (\<70mg/dL) Day0-30 as baseline covariate.|The mean difference was calculated as the Enabled group minus the Control group.|||0.8|-1.5|0.549
90900231|NCT03445065|181666798|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.3||||0.0318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|-0.3||The significance level was set to p\<0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|The model included arm and centre as fixed classification effects, and % time in hypoglycemia (\<70mg/dL) Day0-30 as baseline covariate.|The mean difference was calculated as the Enabled group minus the Control group.|||-0.3|-6.3|0.03180
90900232|NCT03445065|181666799|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.7||The significance level was set to p\<0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Model included arm, centre, and diabetes type as fixed classification effects, and % time in hypoglycemia (\<54mg/dL) Day0-30 as baseline covariate.|The mean difference was calculated as the Enabled group minus the Control group.|||0.7|-0.6|0.859
90850987|NCT01087788|181567390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference (Net)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|=|0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.05||Difference of CZP 200 mg + 400 mg versus Placebo (and corresponding 95 % Confidence Interval and p-value) were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment, region and prior TNF-antagonist exposure as factors and Baseline mTSS score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||A hierarchical test procedure was applied to protect the overall significance level for the multiplicity of dose groups and endpoints. Conditional on the first test being significant, the second hypothesis was tested with the same alpha level of 5 %. Statistical testing for the following hypotheses was performed only if the previous null hypothesis in the hierarchy was rejected. This is the predefined analysis.||0.05|-0.43|=0.127
91099225|NCT02564978|182084113|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.2||Result of statistical analyses were considered significant if the p-value from the two-sided Student's paired t-test was \<0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis: two-sided Student's paired t-test on qualifying fellow eyes alone. Null hypothesis: difference in the mean rates of change in BCVA between the treatment phase and run-in phase is not equal to 0. Missing values: treated as missing completely at random. Two-sided Type I error rate: 5%.||0.2|-0.8|0.21
90850988|NCT01087788|181567390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference (Net)|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|=|0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|-0.01||Difference of CZP 200 mg + 400 mg versus Placebo (and corresponding 95 % Confidence Interval and p-value) were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment, region and prior TNF-antagonist exposure as factors and Baseline mTSS score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||A hierarchical test procedure was applied to protect the overall significance level for the multiplicity of dose groups and endpoints. Conditional on the first test being significant, the second hypothesis was tested with the same alpha level of 5 %. Statistical testing for the following hypotheses was performed only if the previous null hypothesis in the hierarchy was rejected. This is the post-hoc analysis for the subgroup 'Baseline mTSS \> 6'.||-0.01|-1.04|=0.048
90850989|NCT00043550|181567397|SUPERIORITY|The proposed sample size had at least 80% power to detect effect sizes of 0.36 between the two active treatment conditions and placebo during the active phase. These power calculations were based on a priori values of within-subject correlation of 0.50, 10% attrition, and 6 assessment points.|Slope|1.0||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|||||Overall significant effect for treatment, as well as the two moderating effects, used a Bonferroni-corrected alpha level of 0.0167 (0.05/3).|HLM|||Comparison of conditions||||.95
90850990|NCT00043550|181567397|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||HLM|||effects of conditions over time||||<.0001
90850991|NCT00043550|181567397|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.41||||||||.41|-.35|
90850992|NCT00043550|181567397|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.45||||||||.45|-.33|
90850993|NCT02285062|181567408|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.849||||0.2864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.632|1.14|||Log Rank|Stratified by: IPI score (2 or ≥ 3), presence or absence of bulky disease (diameter of the lesion ≥ 7 cm or \< 7 cm), and age (\< 65 or ≥ 65 years).|Hazard ratio was derived from Cox proportional hazard model adjusting for the 3 stratification factors|||1.140|0.632|0.2864
90850994|NCT02285062|181567409|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.038||||0.7294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.802|1.344|||Log Rank|Stratified by: IPI score (2 or ≥ 3), presence or absence of bulky disease (diameter of the lesion ≥ 7 cm or \< 7 cm), and age (\< 65 or ≥ 65 years).|Hazard ratio was derived from Cox proportional hazard model adjusting for the 3 stratification factors.|||1.344|0.802|0.7294
90850995|NCT02285062|181567410|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.965||||0.876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.716|1.3|||Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified by 3 factors: IPI score (2 or ≥ 3), presence of bulky disease (bulky or nonbulky), and age (\< 65 or ≥ 65).|Hazard ratio was derived from Cox proportional hazard model adjusting for the 3 stratification factors.|||1.300|0.716|0.8760
90850996|NCT02285062|181567411|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2933||||||Obtained from CMH test adjusting for stratification factors: IPI score (2 or ≥ 3), presence of bulky disease (bulky or nonbulky), and age (\< 65 or ≥ 65)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2933
90850997|NCT02285062|181567412|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9964||||||Obtained from CMH test adjusting for stratification factors: IPI score (2 or ≥ 3), presence of bulky disease (bulky or nonbulky), and age (\< 65 or ≥ 65)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.9964
90850998|NCT02285062|181567413|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.776||||0.2143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.521|1.157|||Log Rank|Stratified by: IPI score (2 or ≥ 3), presence or absence of bulky disease (diameter of the lesion ≥ 7 cm or \< 7 cm), and age (\< 65 or ≥ 65 years).|HR was derived from COX model adjusting for the 3 stratification factors mentioned above.|||1.157|0.521|0.2143
90850999|NCT02285062|181567414|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.167||||0.315||95.0|0.856|1.59|||Log Rank|Stratified by: IPI score (2 or ≥ 3), presence or absence of bulky disease (diameter of the lesion ≥ 7 cm or \< 7 cm), and age (\< 65 or ≥ 65 years).|HR is derived from Cox model|||1.590|0.856|0.3150
90851000|NCT04355728|181567427|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Fisher Exact|||"The null hypothesis is the following: There is no difference in the number of subjects experiencing serious adverse events in the UC-MSC vs control group."||||.04
90851001|NCT04355728|181567436|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.289||||0.0307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.088|0.948|||Log Rank||Censoring was limited to dropout from study, and the event of interest was recovery. In the case of death, the patient's time to recovery was censored at the end of study observation; thus the patient remained in the risk set for all KM estimations.|"The null hypothesis is the following: There is no difference in Time to Recovery up to 31 days post infusion between the UC-MSC group and control group. Time to recovery was estimated in each group with Kaplan-Meier survival estimates. Log-rank tests were used to compare hazards between groups."||0.948|0.088|0.0307
90851002|NCT04355728|181567437|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0563|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null Hypothesis: The center of the distributions of ventilator free days are equal in the UC-MSC and control group.||||.0563
90851003|NCT04355728|181567438|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0563|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null Hypothesis: The center of the distributions of ventilator free days are equal in the UC-MSC and control group.||||.0563
90851004|NCT04355728|181567469|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0356|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0356
90851005|NCT04355728|181567470|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0215|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0215
91099226|NCT02564978|182084113|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.8||Result of statistical analyses were considered significant if the p-value from the two-sided Student's paired t-test was \<0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|t-test, 2 sided||No. of units analyzed = no. of study eyes + no. qualifying fellow eyes (QFE). However, the value contributing to analysis is the avg. of study eye \& QFE from a participant if both values are available, otherwise equal to eye with data available.|Analysis: two-sided Student's paired t-test on study and qualifying fellow eyes together (Study eye + QFE). Null hypothesis: difference in the mean rates of change in BCVA between the treatment phase and run-in phase is not equal to 0. Missing values: treated as missing completely at random. Two-sided Type I error rate: 5%.||0.8|-0.4|0.52
91099227|NCT02564978|182084114|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.9||Result of statistical analyses were considered significant if the p-value from the two-sided Student's paired t-test was \<0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis: two-sided Student's paired t-test on study eyes alone. Null hypothesis: difference in the mean rates of change in LLVA between the treatment phase and run-in phase is not equal to 0. Missing values: treated as missing completely at random. Two-sided Type I error rate: 5%.||0.9|-0.4|0.48
91099228|NCT02564978|182084114|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.1||Result of statistical analyses were considered significant if the p-value from the two-sided Student's paired t-test was \<0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis: two-sided Student's paired t-test on qualifying fellow eyes alone. Null hypothesis: difference in the mean rates of change in LLVA between the treatment phase and run-in phase is not equal to 0. Missing values: treated as missing completely at random. Two-sided Type I error rate: 5%.||0.1|-0.9|0.09
91104636|NCT03926247|182095278|OTHER|Within-group longitudinal analysis (no comparison groups)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.216|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.124|=|0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.461|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analyses were conducted using a mixed effects linear model to calculate least square means across the 4 timepoints. This was a longitudinal within-group analysis with 4 timepoints of data nested within 56 individuals. Our hypothesis was that participants' quality of life would increase overtime.||0.030|-0.461|=0.086
90851006|NCT04355728|181567471|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3498.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3078.2||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6404.7|-591.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-591.2|-6404.7|0.0210
90851007|NCT04355728|181567473|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Fisher Exact|||"The null hypothesis is the following: There is no association between PRA (class I) status and treatment group at 3 days post first infusion."||||0.48
90851008|NCT04355728|181567473|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||Fisher Exact|||"The null hypothesis is the following: There is no association between PRA (class II) status and treatment group at 3 days post first infusion."||||0.41
90851009|NCT04355728|181567474|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||"The null hypothesis is the following: There is no association between PRA (class I) status and treatment group at 6 days post first infusion."||||1.00
90851010|NCT04355728|181567474|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||"The null hypothesis is the following: There is no association between PRA (Class II) status and treatment group at 6 days post first infusion."||||1.00
90851011|NCT04355728|181567475|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||Fisher Exact|||"The null hypothesis is the following: There is no association between PRA (class I) status and treatment group at 14 days post first infusion."||||0.44
90851012|NCT04355728|181567475|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5238|||||||Fisher Exact|||"The null hypothesis is the following: There is no association between PRA (class II) status and treatment group at 14 days post first infusion."||||0.5238
90851013|NCT04157673|181567501|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002||||||This is the overall treatment effect from the mixed model. p-value threshold set at p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis to support visual inspection of the multiple-baseline graphs included the phase changes from baseline to Episodic future thinking treatment. Phase changes were assessed using mixed model with fixed effects of level and trend for baseline phase and random effects for level and trend for treatment phase.||||0.0002
90851014|NCT04157673|181567502|OTHER|Effect size of mean differences|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.78|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Cohen's d effect size = 0.73|Statistical analysis to support visual inspection of the multiple-baseline graphs included the phase changes from baseline to Episodic future thinking treatment. Phase changes were assessed using mixed model with fixed effects of level and trend for baseline phase and random effects for level and trend for treatment phase.||||
90851015|NCT04157673|181567503|OTHER|Effect size of mean pre-post differences|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.355|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.295|||TWO_SIDED||||||||cohen's d effect size for mean differences pre to post-treatment = 1.20|||||
90957629|NCT01445301|181795309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of GSK2585823 twice daily and CLDM twice daily at Week 2||||<0.001
90851016|NCT02282293|181567525|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.96||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|7.61||Calculated p-value|Chi-squared|||||7.61|0.50|0.50
90851017|NCT02282293|181567527|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.96||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|7.61|||Chi-squared|||||7.61|0.50|0.50
90851018|NCT02282293|181567529|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.45||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.48||Calculated p-value|GEE|||||1.48|0.13|0.19
90851019|NCT02282293|181567530|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.33||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.45|||Chi-squared|||||2.45|0.72|0.35
90851020|NCT00608569|181567532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.133||95.0||||Results were considered to be statistically significant if p\<0.05|Fisher Exact|||Fisher exact test (unstratified)||||0.133
90851021|NCT03011892|181567540|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square (LS) Mean|-59.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.85|-41.47|||MMRM|||||-41.47|-77.85|< 0.0001
90851022|NCT03011892|181567541|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-33.01||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.27|-14.76|||MMRM|||DB: Vehicle BID, Ruxolitinib 0.15% QD||-14.76|-51.27|0.0004
90851023|NCT03011892|181567541|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-40.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.23|-22.57|||MMRM|||||-22.57|-59.23|< 0.0001
90851024|NCT03011892|181567541|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-54.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.93|-36.7|||MMRM|||||-36.70|-72.93|< 0.0001
90851025|NCT03011892|181567542|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|14.63||||0.1127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.47|32.73|||MMRM|||Triamcinolone 0.1% BID/Vehicle Cream BID, DB: Ruxolitinib 0.15% QD||32.73|-3.47|0.1127
90851026|NCT03011892|181567542|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|6.74||||0.4659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.44|24.92|||MMRM|||Triamcinolone 0.1% BID/Vehicle Cream BID, DB: Ruxolitinib 0.5% QD||24.92|-11.44|0.4659
91099229|NCT02564978|182084114|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.7||Result of statistical analyses were considered significant if the p-value from the two-sided Student's paired t-test was \<0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|t-test, 2 sided||No. of units analyzed = no. of study eyes + no. qualifying fellow eyes (QFE). However, the value contributing to analysis is the avg. of study eye \& QFE from a participant if both values are available, otherwise equal to eye with data available.|Analysis: two-sided Student's paired t-test on study and qualifying fellow eyes together (Study eye + QFE). Null hypothesis: difference in the mean rates of change in LLVA between the treatment phase and run-in phase is not equal to 0. Missing values: treated as missing completely at random. Two-sided Type I error rate: 5%.||0.7|-0.4|0.54
91099230|NCT02564978|182084115|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.8||Result of statistical analyses were considered significant if the p-value from the two-sided Student's paired t-test was \<0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis: two-sided Student's paired t-test on study eyes alone. Null hypothesis: difference in the mean rate of change of central retinal thickness as measured on OCT between the treatment phase and run-in phase is not equal to 0. Missing values: treated as missing completely at random. Two-sided Type I error rate: 5%.||1.8|-0.4|0.20
91099231|NCT02564978|182084115|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.1||Result of statistical analyses were considered significant if the p-value from the two-sided Student's paired t-test was \<0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis: two-sided Student's paired t-test on qualifying fellow eyes alone. Null hypothesis: difference in the mean rate of change of central retinal thickness as measured on OCT between the treatment phase and run-in phase is not equal to 0. Missing values: treated as missing completely at random. Two-sided Type I error rate: 5%.||3.1|0.4|0.02
91099232|NCT02564978|182084115|SUPERIORITY|Number of eyes contributing to this analysis exceeds the number of eyes contributing to the study eye only analysis since one participant had relevant data for the qualifying fellow eye but not the study eye.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.0||Result of statistical analyses were considered significant if the p-value from the two-sided Student's paired t-test was \<0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|t-test, 2 sided||No. of units analyzed = no. of study eyes + no. qualifying fellow eyes (QFE). However, the value contributing to analysis is the avg. of study eye \& QFE from a participant if both values are available, otherwise equal to eye with data available.|Analysis: two-sided Student's paired t-test on study and qualifying fellow eyes together (Study eye + QFE). Null hypothesis: difference in the mean rate of change of central retinal thickness as measured on OCT between the treatment phase and run-in phase is not equal to 0. Missing values: treated as missing completely at random. Two-sided Type I error rate: 5%.||2.0|0.0|0.06
91099233|NCT01501513|182084129|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91099234|NCT05675020|182084176|OTHER|The descriptive analysis yields frequencies and percentages for categorical variables. The statistical analysis was conducted using IBM SPSS V27.0. We analyzed the percentage of correct responses for knowledge survey questions from pre- and post-intervention survey responses.|||||||||||||||||Participant data was collected from the REDCap pre- and post-intervention questionnaires completed by the adolescents and parents/legal guardians that participated in the project. Data was collected from October to December 2022. The sample size was nine parent-adolescent dyads. Descriptive analysis was used to assess differences in sociodemographic variables, including age, gender, race, material status, employment status, salary, height, and weight. The descriptive analysis yields frequencies and percentages for categorical variables. The statistical analysis was conducted using IBM SPSS V27.0.|||
91099235|NCT01778985|182084192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.21
91099236|NCT01778985|182084193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.002
91099237|NCT01778985|182084194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.22
90851027|NCT03011892|181567542|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-7.18||||0.432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.13|10.77|||MMRM|||Triamcinolone 0.1% BID/Vehicle Cream BID, DB: Ruxolitinib 1.5% QD||10.77|-25.13|0.4320
91099238|NCT01778985|182084195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.088|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t(18)=1.78, p=0.088||||||0.088
91099239|NCT01778985|182084196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91099240|NCT01778985|182084197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.91||||||t(28)=0.11, p=0.91|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.91
91099241|NCT01778985|182084198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1||||||t(18)=1.69, p=.10|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.10
91099242|NCT01778985|182084199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||||||t(10)=2.76, p=0.020|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.020
91099243|NCT01778985|182084200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78||||||t(23)=0.28, p=0.78|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.78
91099244|NCT01778985|182084201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51||||||t(28)=0.67, p=0.51|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.51
90851028|NCT03011892|181567542|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-12.02||||0.1903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.05|6.0|||MMRM|||||6.00|-30.05|0.1903
90851029|NCT03011892|181567543|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-25.12||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.84|-10.41|||MMRM|||Week 2||-10.41|-39.84|0.0009
91099245|NCT01778985|182084202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24||||||t(23)=1.23, p=0.24|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.24
91099246|NCT01778985|182084203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.53
91099247|NCT01778985|182084204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.33
90851030|NCT03011892|181567543|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-47.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.64|-33.06|||MMRM|||Week 2||-33.06|-62.64|< 0.0001
90851031|NCT03011892|181567543|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-41.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.0|-26.08|||MMRM|||Week 2||-26.08|-56.00|< 0.0001
90851032|NCT03011892|181567543|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-45.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.69|-30.4|||MMRM|||Week 2||-30.40|-59.69|< 0.0001
90851033|NCT03011892|181567543|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|9.99||||0.1806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.66|24.63|||MMRM|||Week 2||24.63|-4.66|0.1806
90851034|NCT03011892|181567543|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-5.93||||0.4333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.82|8.95|||MMRM|||Week 2||8.95|-20.82|0.4333
90851035|NCT03011892|181567543|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-9.94||||0.1805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.51|4.63|||MMRM|||Week 2||4.63|-24.51|0.1805
90851036|NCT03011892|181567543|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-12.74||||0.0895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.45|1.98|||MMRM|||Week 2||1.98|-27.45|0.0895
91099248|NCT01778985|182084205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
90957630|NCT01445301|181795309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of GSK2585823 twice daily and CLDM twice daily at Week 4||||<0.001
91099249|NCT01778985|182084206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.15
91099250|NCT01778985|182084207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.82
91099251|NCT01778985|182084208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.70
91099252|NCT01778985|182084209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.25
91099253|NCT01778985|182084210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.06
91099254|NCT01778985|182084211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||1
91099255|NCT05890586|182084283|SUPERIORITY|The posterior was based on a covariate adjusted Cox proportional hazards regression with skeptical prior. The baseline hazard was a degree 5 M-spline function.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.07|||||Hazard ratios greater than one favored the active intervention for a faster time to recovery.|||1.07|0.86|
91099256|NCT05890586|182084284|SUPERIORITY|No hypothesis test or decision rule was evaluated.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|2.88|||||Low event rate precluded covariate adjustment.|||2.88|0.03|
91104637|NCT05226884|182095279|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority defined as within 0.1 LogMAR (1 line on Snellen Chart).|||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Normality was assumed if skewness was ±2 and kurtosis was ±7. Non-inferiority was confirmed before further statistical testing.||||||<0.05
90851037|NCT03011892|181567543|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-28.38||||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.74|-9.02|||MMRM|||Week 8||-9.02|-47.74|0.0042
90851038|NCT03011892|181567543|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-36.52||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.03|-17.01|||MMRM|||Week 8||-17.01|-56.03|0.0003
90851039|NCT03011892|181567543|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-45.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||MMRM|||Week 8||||< 0.0001
90851040|NCT03011892|181567543|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-57.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.53|-37.77|||MMRM|||Week 8||-37.77|-76.53|< 0.0001
90851041|NCT03011892|181567543|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|7.78||||0.4243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.37|26.93|||MMRM|||Week 8||26.93|-11.37|0.4243
90851042|NCT03011892|181567543|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.35||||0.9715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.65|18.95|||MMRM|||Week 8||18.95|-19.65|0.9715
90851043|NCT03011892|181567543|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-9.03||||0.3507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.05|9.99|||MMRM|||Week 8||9.99|-28.05|0.3507
90851044|NCT03011892|181567543|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-20.98||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.15|-1.82|||MMRM|||Week 8||-1.82|-40.15|0.0320
90851045|NCT03381729|181567550|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percent|-6.0|||>|0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.8|22.8|||Fisher Exact|||Difference in the percentage of participants who achieved the ability to stand alone.|Data for the current study were compared to historical control data (Finkel et al 2014 - PubMed 25080519) where 7 (13.7%) participants achieved the ability to stand alone and 44 (86.3%) participants did not achieve the ability to stand alone.|22.8|-21.8|>0.9999
90851046|NCT03381729|181567551|SUPERIORITY||Difference Between Least Squares Mean|5.5||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|9.0|||Mixed-Model Repeat Measure||||Data for the current study were compared to historical control data (Finkel et al 2014 - PubMed 25080519) where the least squares mean (95% confidence interval) of the change from baseline in HFMSE scores at 12 months was 0.5 (-2.2 to 3.2).|9.0|1.9|0.0027
90851047|NCT03381729|181567553|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|-2.1|||>|0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.2|27.0|||Fisher Exact|||Difference in the percentage of participants who achieved the ability to walk alone.|Data for the current study were compared to historical control data (Finkel et al 2014 PubMed 25080519) where 5 (9.8%) participants achieved the ability to walk alone and 46 (90.2%) participants did not achieve the ability to walk alone.|27.0|-17.2|>0.9999
90851048|NCT04456153|181567555|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||GLMM|||||||0.170
90851049|NCT04456153|181567556|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.051|||||||GLMM|||||||0.051
90851050|NCT04456153|181567559|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.68
90851051|NCT04456153|181567560|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||trapezoidal method|||||||0.76
90851052|NCT03758755|181567562|EQUIVALENCE|The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.||||||0.0219|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Null hypothesis: there is no difference between groups in IKDC score at 12 weeks post-op.||||0.0219
90851053|NCT03758755|181567563|EQUIVALENCE|The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.||||||0.008|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Null hypothesis: there is no difference between groups in VAS score at 12 weeks post-op.||||0.008
90851054|NCT03758755|181567564|EQUIVALENCE|The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.||||||0.011|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||This analysis compares the change over time in quadriceps tendon strength between the BFR Therapy group and the No BFR Group. Underlying data was collected on a biweekly basis as the percent difference of the operated knee compared to the contralateral side. This statistical test utilized the null hypothesis that there would be no difference between groups in the change in quadriceps tendon strength over time.||||0.011
90851055|NCT03758755|181567565|EQUIVALENCE|The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.||||||0.223|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||This analysis compares the change over time in thigh circumference between the BFR Therapy group and the No BFR Group. Underlying data was collected on a biweekly basis as the percent difference of the operated knee compared to the contralateral side. This statistical test utilized the null hypothesis that there would be no difference between groups in the change in thigh circumference over time.||||0.223
90851056|NCT03758755|181567566|EQUIVALENCE|The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.||||||0.242|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||This analysis compares the change over time in degrees of knee flexion between the BFR Therapy group and the No BFR Group from 2 weeks post-op to 12 weeks post-op. Underlying data was collected on a biweekly basis. This statistical test utilized the null hypothesis that there would be no difference between groups in the change in degrees of knee flexion over time.||||0.242
90851057|NCT03758755|181567567|EQUIVALENCE|The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.||||||0.049|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||This analysis compares the change over time in degrees of knee extension between the BFR Therapy group and the No BFR Group from 2 weeks post-op to 12 weeks post-op. Underlying data was collected on a biweekly basis. This statistical test utilized the null hypothesis that there would be no difference between groups in the change in degrees of knee extension over time.||||0.049
90851058|NCT02312687|181567600|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean|0.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.88||The generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|generalized estimation equation (GEE)|||Change at Week 24||0.88|0.48|< 0.0001
90851059|NCT02312687|181567600|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.79||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 48||0.79|0.57|< 0.0001
90851060|NCT02312687|181567600|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.75||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 72||0.75|0.44|< 0.0001
90851061|NCT02312687|181567600|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.63||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 96||0.63|0.31|< 0.0001
90851062|NCT02312687|181567600|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.73||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 120||0.73|0.41|< 0.0001
90851063|NCT02312687|181567600|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.76||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 144||0.76|0.43|< 0.0001
90851064|NCT02312687|181567601|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-9.75||||0.1366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.59|3.09||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE estimate|||Change at Week 24||3.09|-22.59|0.1366
90851065|NCT02312687|181567601|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-11.17||||0.1334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.76|3.42||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE estimate|||Change at Week 48||3.42|-25.76|0.1334
90851066|NCT02312687|181567601|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-18.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.07|-9.17||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE estimate|||Change at Week 72||-9.17|-27.07|< 0.0001
90851067|NCT02312687|181567601|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-25.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.21|-14.35||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE estimate|||Change at Week 96||-14.35|-36.21|< 0.0001
90851068|NCT02312687|181567601|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-22.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.51|-13.26||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE estimate|||Change at Week 120||-13.26|-31.51|< 0.0001
90851069|NCT02312687|181567601|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-28.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.11|-16.56||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE estimate|||Change at Week 144||-16.56|-40.11|< 0.0001
91099257|NCT05890586|182084287|SUPERIORITY|No hypothesis test or decision rule was evaluated.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.7|||||Hazard ratios less than one favor the active intervention of inhaled fluticasone furoate. The interval is a highest density credible interval.|The posterior was based on a covariate adjusted Cox proportional hazards regression with skeptical prior. The baseline hazard was a degree 5 M-spline function.||1.7|0.6|
90851070|NCT02312687|181567602|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|215493.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|194650.78|236335.97||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 24||236335.97|194650.78|< 0.0001
90957631|NCT01445301|181795309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of GSK2585823 twice daily and CLDM twice daily at Week 8||||<0.001
90851071|NCT02312687|181567602|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|202525.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|168364.92|236685.83||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 48||236685.83|168364.92|< 0.0001
90851072|NCT02312687|181567602|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|221481.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|179628.07|263333.98||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 72||263333.98|179628.07|< 0.0001
90851073|NCT02312687|181567602|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|221674.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|181313.34|262034.81||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 96||262034.81|181313.34|< 0.0001
90851074|NCT02312687|181567602|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|208270.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|167217.98|249322.06||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 120||249322.06|167217.98|< 0.0001
90851075|NCT02312687|181567602|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|235953.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|166110.59|305796.52||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 144||305796.52|166110.59|< 0.0001
90851076|NCT02312687|181567603|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|1277.84|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1202.34|1353.34||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 24||1353.34|1202.34|< 0.0001
90957632|NCT01445301|181795309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of GSK2585823 twice daily and CLDM twice daily at Week 12||||<0.001
90851077|NCT02312687|181567603|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|1244.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1166.1|1323.88||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 48||1323.88|1166.10|< 0.0001
90900233|NCT03445065|181666799|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.6||||0.01124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|-0.6||The significance level was set to p\<0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|The model included arm and centre as fixed classification effects, and % time in hypoglycemia (\<54mg/dL) Day0-30 as baseline covariate.|The mean difference was calculated as the Enabled group minus the Control group.|||-0.6|-4.5|0.01124
91099258|NCT05890586|182084288|SUPERIORITY|No hypothesis test or decision rule was evaluated.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.98|||||The interval is a highest-density credible interval on the log relative odds scale. Odds ratio estimate from a Bayesian cumulative probability ordinal regression model with weakly informative priors.|Adjustment variables are randomization assignment, age (as restricted cubic spline), sex, duration of symptoms prior to receipt of study drug, calendar time (as restricted cubic spline), vaccination status, geographic region (Northeast, Midwest, South, West), call center indicator, and baseline symptom severity.||1.98|0.74|
91104638|NCT05226884|182095280|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority defined as within 0.1 LogMAR (1 line on Snellen Chart).|||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Normality was assumed if skewness was ±2 and kurtosis was ±7. Non-inferiority was confirmed before further statistical testing.||||||<0.05
90851078|NCT02312687|181567603|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|1298.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1233.56|1363.43||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 72||1363.43|1233.56|< 0.0001
90851079|NCT02312687|181567603|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|1311.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1238.3|1383.8||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 96||1383.80|1238.30|< 0.0001
90851080|NCT02312687|181567603|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|1368.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1327.4|1409.96||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 120||1409.96|1327.40|< 0.0001
90851081|NCT02312687|181567603|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|1298.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1208.31|1388.51||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 144||1388.51|1208.31|< 0.0001
90851082|NCT02312687|181567604|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|7.87||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.16|12.58||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 24||12.58|3.16|0.0011
90851083|NCT02312687|181567604|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|2.7||||0.3092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 48||7.90|-2.50|0.3092
90851084|NCT02312687|181567604|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|2.62||||0.2958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|7.53||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 72||7.53|-2.29|0.2958
90851085|NCT02312687|181567604|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.31||||0.8796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.71|4.33||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 96||4.33|-3.71|0.8796
90851086|NCT02312687|181567604|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.48||||0.8396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.11|4.16||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 120||4.16|-5.11|0.8396
90851087|NCT02312687|181567604|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-3.43||||0.2284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|2.15||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 144||2.15|-9.00|0.2284
90851088|NCT02312687|181567605|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.83||||||Change at Week 24||0.83|0.32|
90851089|NCT02312687|181567605|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.56||||||Change at Week 48||0.56|0.37|
90851090|NCT02312687|181567605|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.56||||||Change at Week 72||0.56|0.28|
90851091|NCT02312687|181567605|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.6||||||Change at Week 96||0.60|0.27|
90851092|NCT02312687|181567605|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.48||||||Change at Week 120||0.48|0.23|
90851093|NCT02312687|181567605|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.62||||||Change at Week 144||0.62|0.32|
90851094|NCT02312687|181567606|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.07||||||Change at Week 24||0.07|0.01|
90851095|NCT02312687|181567606|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.03||||||Change at Week 48||0.03|-0.01|
90851096|NCT02312687|181567606|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.04||||||Change at Week 72||0.04|-0.01|
90851097|NCT02312687|181567606|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.07||||||Change at Week 96||0.07|0.02|
90851098|NCT02312687|181567606|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.03||||||Change at Week 120||0.03|-0.02|
90851099|NCT02312687|181567606|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.05||||||Change at Week 144||0.05|-0.01|
90851100|NCT02312687|181567607|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|-0.01||||||Change at Week 24||-0.01|-0.07|
90851101|NCT02312687|181567607|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.01||||||Change at Week 48||0.01|-0.03|
90851102|NCT02312687|181567607|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.01||||||Change at Week 72||0.01|-0.04|
90851103|NCT02312687|181567607|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|-0.02||||||Change at Week 96||-0.02|-0.07|
90851104|NCT02312687|181567607|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.02||||||Change at Week 120||0.02|-0.03|
91099259|NCT05890586|182084289|SUPERIORITY|No hypothesis test or decision rule was evaluated.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|2.06|||||The interval is a highest-density credible interval on the log relative odds scale. Odds ratio estimate from a Bayesian cumulative probability ordinal regression model with weakly informative priors.|Adjustment variables are randomization assignment, age (as restricted cubic spline), sex, duration of symptoms prior to receipt of study drug, calendar time (as restricted cubic spline), vaccination status, geographic region (Northeast, Midwest, South, West), call center indicator, and baseline symptom severity.||2.06|0.53|
91099260|NCT05890586|182084290|SUPERIORITY|No hypothesis test or decision rule was evaluated.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|2.22|||||The interval is a highest-density credible interval on the log relative odds scale. Odds ratio estimate from a Bayesian cumulative probability ordinal regression model with weakly informative priors.|Adjustment variables are randomization assignment, age (as restricted cubic spline), sex, duration of symptoms prior to receipt of study drug, calendar time (as restricted cubic spline), vaccination status, geographic region (Northeast, Midwest, South, West), call center indicator, and baseline symptom severity.||2.22|0.74|
91099261|NCT05890586|182084291|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.83|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||0.83|0.51|
91099262|NCT05890586|182084291|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.21|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.21|0.70|
91099263|NCT05890586|182084291|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.03|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||1.03|0.55|
90851105|NCT02312687|181567607|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.01||||||Change at Week 144||0.01|-0.05|
90851106|NCT02312687|181567608|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.08||||||Change at Week 24||0.08|-0.10|
90851107|NCT02312687|181567608|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.1||||||Change at Week 48||0.10|-0.07|
90851108|NCT02312687|181567608|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.16||||||Change at Week 72||0.16|-0.01|
90851109|NCT02312687|181567608|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.06||||||Change at Week 96||0.06|-0.09|
90851110|NCT02312687|181567608|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.1||||||Change at Week 120||0.10|-0.12|
90851111|NCT02312687|181567608|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.06||||||Change at Week 144||0.06|-0.16|
90851112|NCT02312687|181567609|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|22.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|47.6||||||Change at Week 24||47.60|-1.81|
90900234|NCT03445065|181666800|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.802|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.391||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1585|-0.018||The significance level was set to p\<0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|The model included time and centre as fixed classification effects and % time in hypoglycemia (\<54mg/dL) Day0-30 as baseline covariate.|The mean difference was calculated as the Enabled (D150-180) group minus the Enabled (D90-120) group.|||-0.018|-1.1585|0.045
90957633|NCT01445301|181795309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of GSK2585823 once daily and CLDM twice daily at Week 1||||0.480
90851113|NCT02312687|181567609|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|15.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.32|32.62||||||Change at Week 48||32.62|-2.32|
90851114|NCT02312687|181567609|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|11.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.33|36.53||||||Change at Week 72||36.53|-14.33|
90851115|NCT02312687|181567609|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-16.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.5|4.2||||||Change at Week 96||4.20|-37.50|
90851116|NCT02312687|181567609|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|3.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.53|39.49||||||Change at Week 120||39.49|-32.53|
90851117|NCT02312687|181567609|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|28.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.12|68.22||||||Change at Week 144||68.22|-11.12|
90851118|NCT02312687|181567610|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-14.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-87.62|58.08||||||Change at Week 24||58.08|-87.62|
90851119|NCT02312687|181567610|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-70.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-161.31|19.74||||||Change at Week 48||19.74|-161.31|
90851120|NCT02312687|181567610|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-16.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-110.96|78.73||||||Change at Week 72||78.73|-110.96|
90851121|NCT02312687|181567610|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-41.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-150.61|67.13||||||Change at Week 96||67.13|-150.61|
90851122|NCT02312687|181567610|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-76.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-237.29|85.08||||||Change at Week 120||85.08|-237.29|
90851123|NCT02312687|181567610|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-96.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-206.59|14.46||||||Change at Week 144||14.46|-206.59|
90851124|NCT02312687|181567611|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.03||||||Change at Week 24||0.03|-0.01|
90851125|NCT02312687|181567611|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.04||||||Change at Week 48||0.04|-0.01|
90851126|NCT02312687|181567611|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.02||||||Change at Week 72||0.02|-0.02|
90851127|NCT02312687|181567611|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.02||||||Change at Week 96||0.02|-0.04|
90851128|NCT02312687|181567611|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.03||||||Change at Week 120||0.03|-0.02|
90851129|NCT02312687|181567611|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.08||||||Change at Week 144||0.08|-0.01|
90851130|NCT02312687|181567612|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|14.92||||0.0314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|28.52||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 24||28.52|1.33|0.0314
90851131|NCT02312687|181567612|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-1.73||||0.764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|9.55||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 48||9.55|-13.00|0.7640
90900235|NCT03445065|181666801|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.54||0.763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.741|3.682||The significance level was set to p\<0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|The model included time and centre as fixed classification effects and % time in hypoglycemia (\<54mg/dL) Day0-30 as baseline covariate.|The mean difference was calculated as the Switch to Enabled (D150-180) group minus the Control (D90-120) group.|||3.682|-2.741|0.763
90900236|NCT03445065|181666802|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.3||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|3.0||The significance level was set to p\<0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Model included arm, centre, and diabetes type as fixed classification effects, and glucose variability Day0-30 as baseline covariate.|The mean difference was calculated as the Enabled group minus the Control group.|||3.0|-0.4|0.140
90900237|NCT03445065|181666802|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.6411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|1.6||The significance level was set to p\<0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|The model included arm and centre as fixed classification effects, and glucose variability Day0-30 as baseline covariate.|The mean difference was calculated as the Enabled group minus the Control group.|||1.6|-2.6|0.64110
90900238|NCT03445065|181666803|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0||||0.339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|3.1||The significance level was set to p\<0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Model included arm, centre, and diabetes type as fixed classification effects, and glucose variability Day0-30 as baseline covariate.|The mean difference was calculated as the Enabled group minus the Control group.|||3.1|-1.1|0.339
90900239|NCT03445065|181666803|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.57677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|1.7||The significance level was set to p\<0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|The model included arm and centre as fixed classification effects, and glucose variability Day0-30 as baseline covariate.|The mean difference was calculated as the Enabled group minus the Control group.|||1.7|-3.0|0.57677
90900240|NCT03445065|181666804|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.2||The significance level was set to p\<0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|The model included arm, centre, and diabetes type as fixed classification effects, and HbA1c (%) at inclusion as baseline covariate.|The mean difference was calculated as the Enabled group minus the Control group.|||0.2|-0.3|0.558
91099264|NCT05890586|182084291|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.39|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.39|0.68|
91099265|NCT05890586|182084292|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.6|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||1.60|1.04|
91099266|NCT05890586|182084292|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.51|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.51|0.98|
91099267|NCT05890586|182084292|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.35|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||1.35|0.84|
91099268|NCT05890586|182084292|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.47|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.47|0.92|
90900241|NCT03445065|181666804|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1||The significance level was set to p\<0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|The model included arm and centre as fixed classification effects, and HbA1c (%) at inclusion as baseline covariate.|The mean difference was calculated as the Enabled group minus the Control group.|||0.1|-0.3|0.408
90900242|NCT03445065|181666805|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.4||The significance level was set to p\<0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|The model included arm and centre as fixed classification effects, and HbA1c (%) at inclusion as baseline covariate.|The mean difference in HbA1c (%) at Day 180 was calculated as the Enabled group minus the Control group.|||0.4|-0.2|0.616
90900243|NCT02172625|181666827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||week-to-week coefficient of variation %|26.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||This was the week-to-week coefficient of variation (CV) obtained at baseline over two different weeks in a fasted state measured at rest.|||||
90900244|NCT02172625|181666828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||week-to-week coefficient of variation %|15.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||This was the week-to-week coefficient of variation (CV) obtained at baseline over two different weeks in a fasted state measured at rest.|||||
90900245|NCT02172625|181666832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||week-to-week coefficient of variation %|24.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||This was the week-to-week coefficient of variation (CV) obtained at baseline over two different weeks in a fasted state measured at rest.|||||
91104639|NCT05226884|182095281|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority defined as within 0.1 LogMAR (1 line on Snellen Chart).|||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Normality was assumed if skewness was ±2 and kurtosis was ±7. Non-inferiority was confirmed before further statistical testing.||||||<0.05
90900246|NCT03315130|181666833|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7|=|0.0941|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.5|-0.1||1-sided p-value is presented for each active treatment arm compared to the Placebo treatment arm.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference and associated confidence interval are presented for each active treatment arm compared to the Placebo treatment arm.|||-0.1|-4.5|=0.0941
90957634|NCT01445301|181795309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of GSK2585823 once daily and CLDM twice daily at Week 2||||<0.001
91099269|NCT05890586|182084293|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.29|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||1.29|0.80|
90851132|NCT02312687|181567612|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-22.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.2|-14.35||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 72||-14.35|-30.20|< 0.0001
90851133|NCT02312687|181567612|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-20.93|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.92|-13.94||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 96||-13.94|-27.92|< 0.0001
90851134|NCT02312687|181567612|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-18.77||||0.0094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.93|-4.6||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 120||-4.60|-32.93|0.0094
90851135|NCT02312687|181567612|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-25.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.89|-14.54||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 144||-14.54|-36.89|< 0.0001
90851136|NCT02312687|181567613|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|4.68||||0.1673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|11.32||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 24||11.32|-1.96|0.1673
90851137|NCT02312687|181567613|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-2.68||||0.233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.09|1.72||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 48||1.72|-7.09|0.2330
90851138|NCT02312687|181567613|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-7.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.54|-5.36||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 72||-5.36|-9.54|< 0.0001
90851139|NCT02312687|181567613|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-8.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.86|-6.29||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 96||-6.29|-9.86|< 0.0001
90851140|NCT02312687|181567613|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-10.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.07|-6.95||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 120||-6.95|-13.07|< 0.0001
90851141|NCT02312687|181567613|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-10.89|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.77|-7.02||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 144||-7.02|-14.77|< 0.0001
90851142|NCT02312687|181567614|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|343.38||||0.0113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|77.66|609.11||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 24||609.11|77.66|0.0113
90851143|NCT02312687|181567614|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|41.45||||0.4972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.23|161.13||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 48||161.13|-78.23|0.4972
90851144|NCT02312687|181567614|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-61.96||||0.3288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-186.34|62.41||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 72||62.41|-186.34|0.3288
91104640|NCT05226884|182095282|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority defined as within 0.1 LogMAR (1 line on Snellen Chart).|||||||||||||||||The defocus curve is generated based on measurements over a dioptric range.|||
90851145|NCT02312687|181567614|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-68.62||||0.2772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-192.39|55.16||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 96||55.16|-192.39|0.2772
90851146|NCT02312687|181567614|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-53.41||||0.2907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-152.47|45.66||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 120||45.66|-152.47|0.2907
90851147|NCT02312687|181567614|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-97.46||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-206.57|11.65||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 144||11.65|-206.57|0.0800
90851148|NCT02312687|181567615|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|72.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.21|105.7||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 24||105.70|39.21|< 0.0001
90851149|NCT02312687|181567615|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|44.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.34|58.47||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 48||58.47|30.34|< 0.0001
90851150|NCT02312687|181567615|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|28.3||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.24|43.37||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 72||43.37|13.24|0.0002
90851151|NCT02312687|181567615|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|27.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.81|40.22||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 96||40.22|13.81|< 0.0001
91099270|NCT05890586|182084293|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.47|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.47|0.84|
90851152|NCT02312687|181567615|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|13.02||||0.1195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.37|29.4||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 120||29.40|-3.37|0.1195
90851153|NCT02312687|181567615|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|43.12||||0.2009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.96|109.2||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 144||109.20|-22.96|0.2009
90851154|NCT00906971|181567616|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Statistical analysis to compare the two groups at the end of the follow-up period with regard to the primary outcome measures was blind, by intention-to-treat, considering loss of follow-up as treatment failure. In such cases, at the end of the follow-up period, the frequency of defecations was recorded.|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|The Mann-Whitney test was used for numerical variables with non-normal distribution.||||||<0.05
90851155|NCT00906971|181567617|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Statistical analysis to compare the two groups at the end of the follow-up period with regard to the primary outcome measures was blind, by intention-to-treat, considering loss of follow-up as treatment failure. In such cases, at the end of the follow-up period, the frequency of fecal incontinence was recorded reported at the beginning of the study|||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|The Mann-Whitney test was used for numerical variables with non-normal distribution.||||||>0.05
90851156|NCT00223236|181567623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4637|||||||Chi-squared|df=1 n=34||Null hypothsis is no group association in cocaine use.||||.4637
90851157|NCT01007253|181567627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Friedman ANOVA|||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test the null hypothesis of no mean eye symptoms score difference among the four treatment groups.||||<0.001
90851158|NCT01007253|181567628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Friedman ANOVA|||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test the null hypothesis of no mean nasal symptoms score difference among the four treatment groups.||||0.05
90851159|NCT01007253|181567629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Friedman ANOVA|||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test the null hypothesis of no mean sneeze difference among the four treatment groups.||||0.001
90851160|NCT01007253|181567630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||Friedman ANOVA|||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test the null hypothesis of no mean histamine level difference among the four treatment groups.||||0.11
90851161|NCT01007253|181567631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Friedman ANOVA|||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test the null hypothesis of no mean tryptase level difference among the four treatment groups.||||<0.001
90851162|NCT01895361|181567643|OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann median absolute diff.|-1.01|||=|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.0|||Stratified Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|with HU therapy (yes, no) and categorized crisis history (2 to 4, 5 to 10) as recorded in the IXRS system as the strata.||||0.00|-2.00|= 0.010
90851163|NCT01895361|181567643|OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann median absolute diff.|-0.69|||=|0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|0.02|||Stratified Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|with HU therapy (yes, no) and categorized crises history (2 to 4, 5 to 10) as recorded in the IXRS system as the strata.||||0.02|-1.84|= 0.180
90851164|NCT01895361|181567644|OTHER||Change vs placebo (%)|-45.3|||||ONE_SIDED|||||||||||||
90851165|NCT01895361|181567644|OTHER||Change vs placebo (%)|-32.6|||||ONE_SIDED|||||||||||||
91099271|NCT05890586|182084293|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.46|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||1.46|0.80|
91104641|NCT05226884|182095283|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority defined as within 0.1 LogMAR (1 line on Snellen Chart).|||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Normality was assumed if skewness was ±2 and kurtosis was ±7. Non-inferiority was confirmed before further statistical testing.||||||<0.05
90851166|NCT01895361|181567645|OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann median absolute diff.|0.0|||=|0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.36|0.0|||Stratified Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|with HU therapy (yes, no) and categorized crises history (2 to 4, 5 to 10) as recorded in the IXRS system as the strata.||||0.00|-4.36|= 0.450
90851167|NCT01895361|181567645|OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann median absolute diff.|0.0|||=|0.837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|2.61|||Stratified Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|with HU therapy (yes, no) and categorized crises history (2 to 4, 5 to 10) as recorded in the IXRS system as the strata.||||2.61|-3.90|= 0.837
90851168|NCT01895361|181567646|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.495|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.331|0.741|||Log Rank||Calculated based on Cox regression analysis with HU therapy (yes, no), categorized crises history (2 to 4, 5 to 10), and treatment as covariates|||0.741|0.331|= 0.001
90851169|NCT01895361|181567646|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.752|||=|0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.515|1.097|||Log Rank||Calculated based on Cox regression analysis with HU therapy (yes, no), categorized crises history (2 to 4, 5 to 10), and treatment as covariates|||1.097|0.515|= 0.136
90851170|NCT01895361|181567647|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.534|||=|0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.329|0.866|||Log Rank||Calculated based on Cox regression analysis with HU therapy (yes, no), categorized crises history (2 to 4, 5 to 10), and treatment as covariates|||0.866|0.329|= 0.022
90851171|NCT01895361|181567647|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.693|||=|0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.092|||Log Rank||Calculated based on Cox regression analysis with HU therapy (yes, no), categorized crises history (2 to 4, 5 to 10), and treatment as covariates|||1.092|0.440|= 0.100
90851172|NCT01895361|181567648|OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann median absolute diff.|-1.0|||=|0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|0.0|||Stratified Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|with HU therapy (yes, no) and categorized crises history (2 to 4, 5 to 10) as recorded in the IXRS system as the strata||||0.00|-1.98|= 0.015
90851173|NCT01895361|181567648|OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann median absolute diff.|-0.87|||=|0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|0.0|||Stratified Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|with HU therapy (yes, no) and categorized crises history (2 to 4, 5 to 10) as recorded in the IXRS system as the strata||||0.00|-1.77|= 0.120
91030861|NCT03587207|181946151|OTHER|M14459 strain -Between group ratio for comparison of rMenBOMV\_ACWY\_D group and rMenBOMV group|Geometric mean ratio|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.64|1.03|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||To investigate possible effects on the immune response based on strains common to rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D versus rMenBOMV study groups, on the Meningitis B M14459 (fHbp) strain, one month after first vaccination.||1.03|0.64|
91099272|NCT05890586|182084293|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.44|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.44|0.77|
91099273|NCT05890586|182084294|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.16|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||1.16|0.70|
91099274|NCT05890586|182084294|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.1|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.10|0.63|
91099275|NCT05890586|182084294|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.99|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||0.99|0.54|
91099276|NCT05890586|182084294|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.18|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.18|0.66|
91099277|NCT05890586|182084295|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.37|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||1.37|0.85|
91099278|NCT05890586|182084295|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.44|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.44|0.85|
91099279|NCT05890586|182084295|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.24|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||1.24|0.70|
91099280|NCT05890586|182084295|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.37|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.37|0.78|
91099281|NCT05890586|182084296|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.05|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||1.05|0.68|
91099282|NCT05890586|182084296|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.11|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.11|0.70|
90851174|NCT01895361|181567649|OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann median absolute diff.|0.0|||=|0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Stratified Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|with HU therapy (yes, no) and categorized crises history (2 to 4, 5 to 10) as recorded in the IXRS system as the strata||||0.00|0.00|= 0.780
91030862|NCT03587207|181946151|OTHER|96217 strain -Between group ratio for comparison of rMenBOMV\_ACWY\_D group and rMenBOMV group|Geometric mean ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.69|1.09|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||To investigate possible effects on the immune response based on strains common to rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D versus rMenBOMV study groups, on the Meningitis B 96217 (NadA) strain, one month after first vaccination.||1.09|0.69|
90851175|NCT01895361|181567649|OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann median absolute diff.|0.0|||=|0.868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Stratified Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|with HU therapy (yes, no) and categorized crises history (2 to 4, 5 to 10) as recorded in the IXRS system as the strata.||||0.00|0.00|= 0.868
90957635|NCT01445301|181795309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of GSK2585823 once daily and CLDM twice daily at Week 4||||0.009
91099283|NCT05890586|182084296|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.21|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||1.21|0.72|
91099284|NCT05890586|182084296|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.29|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.29|0.75|
91099285|NCT05890586|182084297|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio, log|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.6|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||1.60|1.05|
91099286|NCT05890586|182084297|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.52|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.52|1.00|
90851176|NCT03312751|181567654|SUPERIORITY||Overall response rate|62.9||||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.9|78.5|||Exact binomial|||The primary efficacy endpoint was analyzed with an exact binomial test to evaluate the null hypothesis that the Overall Response Rate was, at most, 40%. This test was performed at the one sided 0.025 significance level.||78.5|44.9|0.0053
90851177|NCT03312751|181567654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2839|||||||Exact binomial|||The primary efficacy endpoint was analyzed with an exact binomial test to evaluate the null hypothesis that the Overall Response Rate was, at most, 40%. This test was performed at the one sided 0.025 significance level.||||0.2839
90851178|NCT03312751|181567654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0031|||||||Exact binomial|||The primary efficacy endpoint was analyzed with an exact binomial test to evaluate the null hypothesis that the Overall Response Rate was, at most, 40%. This test was performed at the one sided 0.025 significance level.||||0.0031
90851179|NCT01856764|181567673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.496||0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5542|0.4574||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) Model: SCORAD change from baseline = treatment + visit + treatment by visit interaction + baseline SCORAD score|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.4574|-1.5542|0.276
90851180|NCT01856764|181567674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.454||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9134|1.0835||MMRM model: TEWL change from baseline = treatment + visit + treatment by visit interaction + baseline TEWL score|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.0835|-12.9134|0.095
90851181|NCT01856764|181567675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.596||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7656|-0.3492||MMRM model: Assessment of Pruritus change from baseline = treatment + visit + treatment by visit interaction + baseline Assessment of Pruritus score|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.3492|-2.7656|0.013
90851182|NCT02239120|181567676|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.1028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.03|||Regression, Cox|Covariates in model are age(\<or\>= 75years), creatinine clearance \< or \>= 50mL/min and stroke or transient ischaemic attack(TIA) prior to index stroke.||||1.03|0.69|0.1028
90851183|NCT02239120|181567677|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.36||||0.1076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.97|||Regression, Cox|Covariates in model are age(\<or\>= 75years), creatinine clearance \< or \>= 50mL/min and stroke or transient ischaemic attack(TIA) prior to index stroke.||||1.97|0.94|0.1076
91099287|NCT05890586|182084297|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.27|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||1.27|0.84|
91099288|NCT05890586|182084297|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.21|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.21|0.80|
90851184|NCT02239120|181567678|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.0892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.03|||Regression, Cox|Covariates in model are age(\<or\>= 75years), creatinine clearance \< or \>= 50mL/min and stroke or transient ischaemic attack(TIA) prior to index stroke.||||1.03|0.68|0.0892
90851185|NCT02239120|181567679|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.1911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.06|||Regression, Cox|Covariates in model are age(\<or\>= 75years), creatinine clearance \< or \>= 50mL/min and stroke or transient ischaemic attack(TIA) prior to index stroke.||||1.06|0.73|0.1911
90851186|NCT02239120|181567680|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59||||0.0354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.96|||Regression, Cox|Covariates in model are age(\<or\>= 75years), creatinine clearance \< or \>= 50mL/min and stroke or transient ischaemic attack(TIA) prior to index stroke.||||0.96|0.36|0.0354
90851187|NCT02239120|181567681|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.8074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.38|||Regression, Cox|Covariates in model are age(\<or\>= 75years), creatinine clearance \< or \>= 50mL/min and stroke or transient ischaemic attack(TIA) prior to index stroke.||||1.38|0.66|0.8074
90851188|NCT02239120|181567682|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.9064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.83|||Regression, Cox|Covariates in model are age(\<or\>= 75years), creatinine clearance \< or \>= 50mL/min and stroke or transient ischaemic attack(TIA) prior to index stroke.||||1.83|0.58|0.9064
90851189|NCT02239120|181567684|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.4352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.36|||Regression, Cox|Covariates in model are age(\<or\>= 75years), creatinine clearance \< or \>= 50mL/min and stroke or transient ischaemic attack(TIA) prior to index stroke.||||1.36|0.49|0.4352
90900247|NCT03315130|181666833|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7|=|0.0538|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.1|-0.6||1-sided p-value is presented for each active treatment arm compared to the Placebo treatment arm.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference and associated confidence interval are presented for each active treatment arm compared to the Placebo treatment arm.|||-0.6|-5.1|=0.0538
90900248|NCT03315130|181666834|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3|=|0.047|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.9|-0.5||1-sided p-value is presented for each active treatment arm compared to the Placebo treatment arm.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference and associated confidence interval are presented for each active treatment arm compared to the Placebo treatment arm.|||-0.5|-3.9|=0.0470
90900249|NCT03315130|181666834|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3|=|0.0392|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.0|-0.6||1-sided p-value is presented for each active treatment arm compared to the Placebo treatment arm.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference and associated confidence interval are presented for each active treatment arm compared to the Placebo treatment arm.|||-0.6|-4.0|=0.0392
90900250|NCT03315130|181666835|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4|=|0.017|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-8.4|-2.1||1-sided p-value is presented for each active treatment arm compared to the Placebo treatment arm.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference and associated confidence interval are presented for each active treatment arm compared to the Placebo treatment arm.|||-2.1|-8.4|=0.0170
90900251|NCT03315130|181666835|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4|=|0.0624|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.9|-0.6||1-sided p-value is presented for each active treatment arm compared to the Placebo treatment arm.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference and associated confidence interval are presented for each active treatment arm compared to the Placebo treatment arm.|||-0.6|-6.9|=0.0624
91030863|NCT03587207|181946151|OTHER|NZ98/254 strain -Between group ratio for comparison of rMenBOMV\_ACWY\_D group and rMenBOMV group|Geometrical mean ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.68|1.12|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||To investigate possible effects on the immune response based on strains common to rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D versus rMenBOMV study groups, on the Meningitis B NZ98/254 (PorA) strain, one month after first vaccination.||1.12|0.68|
91099289|NCT05890586|182084298|SUPERIORITY||Difference in model estimate time unwell|-0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.31|||||The interval is a highest-density credible interval.|Analysis is exploratory. No hypothesis test or decision rule was evaluated.||0.31|-0.43|
91099290|NCT05890586|182084299|SUPERIORITY||Difference in model estimated means|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.52|||||The interval is a highest-density credible interval.|Analysis is exploratory. No hypothesis test or decision rule was evaluated.||0.52|-0.37|
91099291|NCT05788328|182084309|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|86.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|66.05|113.29|||||Ratio was of test to reference of adjusted geometric means. Reference arm was DE 150mg (Period 1) and test arm was PF-07081532 80mg QD + DE 150mg (Period 4). Ratios (and 90% CIs) were expressed as percentages.|Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect.||113.29|66.05|
90900252|NCT03315130|181666836|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2|=|0.1866|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.9|0.9||1-sided p-value is presented for each active treatment arm compared to the Placebo treatment arm.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference and associated confidence interval are presented for each active treatment arm compared to the Placebo treatment arm.|||0.9|-4.9|=0.1866
90900253|NCT03315130|181666836|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2|=|0.0391|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-7.0|-1.1||1-sided p-value is presented for each active treatment arm compared to the Placebo treatment arm.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference and associated confidence interval are presented for each active treatment arm compared to the Placebo treatment arm.|||-1.1|-7.0|=0.0391
90900254|NCT03315130|181666840|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-82.597|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.563|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-87.249|-77.946||1-sided p-value is presented for each active treatment arm compared to the Placebo treatment arm.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference and associated confidence interval are presented for each active treatment arm compared to the Placebo treatment arm.|||-77.946|-87.249|<0.0001
90900255|NCT03315130|181666840|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-95.689|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.91|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-100.794|-90.585||1-sided p-value is presented for each active treatment arm compared to the Placebo treatment arm.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference and associated confidence interval are presented for each active treatment arm compared to the Placebo treatment arm.|||-90.585|-100.794|<0.0001
90957636|NCT01445301|181795309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of GSK2585823 once daily and CLDM twice daily at Week 8||||0.008
91099292|NCT05788328|182084309|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|82.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|63.1|108.24|||||Ratio was of test to reference of adjusted geometric means. Reference arm was DE 150mg (Period 1) and test arm was PF-07081532 240mg QD + DE 150mg (Period 7). Ratios (and 90% CIs) were expressed as percentages.|Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect.||108.24|63.10|
91099293|NCT05788328|182084310|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|85.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|64.96|112.94|||||Ratio was of test to reference of adjusted geometric means. Reference arm was DE 150mg (Period 1) and test arm was PF-07081532 80mg QD + DE 150mg (Period 4). Ratios (and 90% CIs) were expressed as percentages.|Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect.||112.94|64.96|
91099294|NCT05788328|182084310|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|80.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|61.28|106.55|||||Ratio was of test to reference of adjusted geometric means. Reference arm was DE 150mg (Period 1) and test arm was PF-07081532 240mg QD + DE 150mg (Period 7). Ratios (and 90% CIs) were expressed as percentages.|Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect.||106.55|61.28|
91099295|NCT05788328|182084311|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|229.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|185.23|283.37|||||Ratio was of test to reference of adjusted geometric means. The reference arm was rosuvastatin 10 mg (Period 2) and test arm was PF-07081532 80 mg QD+rosuvastatin 10 mg (Period 5). The ratios (and 90% CIs) were expressed as percentages.|Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect.||283.37|185.23|
91099296|NCT05788328|182084311|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|214.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|173.38|265.94|||||Ratio was of test to reference of adjusted geometric means. The reference arm was rosuvastatin 10 mg (Period 2) and test arm was PF-07081532 240 mg QD+rosuvastatin 10 mg (Period 8). The ratios (and 90% CIs) were expressed as percentages.|Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect.||265.94|173.38|
91099297|NCT05788328|182084312|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|213.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|170.46|266.29|||||Ratio was of test to reference of adjusted geometric means. The reference arm was rosuvastatin 10 mg (Period 2) and test arm was PF-07081532 80 mg QD+rosuvastatin 10 mg (Period 5). The ratios (and 90% CIs) were expressed as percentages.|Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect.||266.29|170.46|
90900256|NCT03315130|181666841|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|60.123|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.394|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|47.839|72.408||1-sided p-value is presented for each active treatment arm compared to the Placebo treatment arm.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference and associated confidence interval are presented for each active treatment arm compared to the Placebo treatment arm.|||72.408|47.839|<0.0001
91099298|NCT05788328|182084312|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|232.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|185.88|290.38|||||Ratio was of test to reference of adjusted geometric means. The reference arm was rosuvastatin 10 mg (Period 2) and test arm was PF-07081532 240 mg QD+rosuvastatin 10 mg (Period 8). The ratios (and 90% CIs) were expressed as percentages.|Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect.||290.38|185.88|
91099299|NCT05788328|182084320|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|45.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|33.97|60.27|||||Ratio was of test to reference of adjusted geometric means. Reference arm was DE 150mg (Period 1) and test arm was PF-07081532 80mg QD + DE 150mg (Period 4). Ratios (and 90% CIs) were expressed as percentages.|Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect.||60.27|33.97|
91099300|NCT05788328|182084320|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|47.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|35.62|63.19|||||Ratio was of test to reference of adjusted geometric means. Reference arm was DE 150mg (Period 1) and test arm was PF-07081532 240mg QD + DE 150mg (Period 7). Ratios (and 90% CIs) were expressed as percentages.|Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect.||63.19|35.62|
90851190|NCT02239120|181567685|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.28||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.47|||Regression, Cox|Covariates in model are age(\<or\>= 75years), creatinine clearance \< or \>= 50mL/min and stroke or transient ischaemic attack(TIA) prior to index stroke.||||1.47|1.12|0.0003
90851191|NCT00046891|181567694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Total HSCS Area Under the Curve (AUC) scores between the two treatment arms.||||0.84
90851192|NCT00420641|181567711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.78||||0.485|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.6|1.05|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)||The point estimate was calculated as least square (LS) mean difference (final value) of placebo and GSK372475.|Placebo versus GSK372475 in MADRS total score at Week 10.||1.05|-2.60|0.485
90851193|NCT00420641|181567711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.99||||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.75|-2.22|||MMRM||The point estimate was calculated as LS mean difference (final value) of placebo and Paroxetine.|Placebo versus Paroxetine in MADRS total score at Week 10.||-2.22|-5.75|0.000
90851194|NCT00420641|181567712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53||||0.252|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.28|0.23|||MMRM||The point estimate was calculated as LS mean difference (final value) of placebo and GSK372475.|Placebo versus GSK372475 in Bech score at Week 10.||0.23|-1.28|0.252
90851195|NCT00420641|181567712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.77||||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.49|-1.05|||MMRM||The point estimate was calculated as LS mean difference (final value) of placebo and Paroxetine.|Placebo versus Paroxetine in MADRS total score at Week 10.||-1.05|-2.49|0.000
90851196|NCT00420641|181567713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.66||||0.279|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.19|0.87|||MMRM||The point estimate was calculated as LS mean difference (final value) of placebo and GSK372475.|Placebo versus GSK372475 in IDS-CR total score at Week 10.||0.87|-4.19|0.279
90851197|NCT00420641|181567713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.12||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.55|-2.68|||MMRM||The point estimate was calculated as LS mean difference (final value) of placebo and Paroxetine.|Placebo versus Paroxetine in IDS-CR total score at Week 10.||-2.68|-7.55|0.001
90851198|NCT00420641|181567714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.05||||0.287|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.23|1.12|||MMRM||The point estimate was calculated as LS mean difference (final value) of placebo and GSK372475.|Placebo versus GSK372475 in IDS-SR total score at Week 10.||1.12|-5.23|0.287
91099301|NCT05788328|182084325|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|176.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|135.51|229.6|||||Ratio was of test to reference of adjusted geometric means. The reference arm was rosuvastatin 10 mg (Period 2) and test arm was PF-07081532 80 mg QD+rosuvastatin 10 mg (Period 5). The ratios (and 90% CIs) were expressed as percentages.|Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect.||229.60|135.51|
90851199|NCT00420641|181567714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.23||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.21|-3.25|||MMRM||The point estimate was calculated as LS mean difference (final value) of placebo and Paroxetine.|Placebo versus Paroxetine in IDS-SR total score at Week 10.||-3.25|-9.21|0.001
90851200|NCT00420641|181567715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53||||0.352|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.47|0.41|||MMRM||The point estimate was calculated as LS mean difference (final value) of placebo and GSK372475.|Placebo versus GSK372475 in QIDS-CR16 total score at Week 10.||0.41|-1.47|0.352
90851201|NCT00420641|181567715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.71||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.62|-0.81|||MMRM||The point estimate was calculated as LS mean difference (final value) of placebo and Paroxetine.|Placebo versus Paroxetine in QIDS-CR16 total score at Week 10.||-0.81|-2.62|0.002
90851202|NCT00420641|181567716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.03||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.27|0.2|||MMRM||The point estimate was calculated as LS mean difference (final value) of placebo and GSK372475.|Placebo versus GSK372475 in QIDS-SR16 total score at Week 10.||0.20|-2.27|0.168
90851203|NCT00420641|181567716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.12||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.27|-0.97|||MMRM||The point estimate was calculated as LS mean difference (final value) of placebo and Paroxetine.|Placebo versus Paroxetine in QIDS-SR16 total score at Week 10.||-0.97|-3.27|0.002
90851204|NCT00420641|181567717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.257|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.46|0.09|||MMRM||The point estimate was calculated as LS mean difference (final value) of placebo and GSK372475.|Placebo versus GSK372475 in MADRS Item 2 score at Week 10.||0.09|-0.46|0.257
90957637|NCT01445301|181795309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.065|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of GSK2585823 once daily and CLDM twice daily at Week 12||||0.065
90851205|NCT00420641|181567717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.77|-0.25|||MMRM||The point estimate was calculated as LS mean difference (final value) of placebo and Paroxetine.|Placebo versus Paroxetine in MADRS Item 2 score at Week 10.||-0.25|-0.77|0.001
90851206|NCT00420641|181567718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.33|0.0|||MMRM||The point estimate was calculated as LS mean difference (final value) of placebo and GSK372475.|Placebo versus GSK372475 in IDS-CR Item 5 score at Week 10.||-0.00|-0.33|0.096
90851207|NCT00420641|181567718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37||||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.53|-0.22|||MMRM||The point estimate was calculated as LS mean difference (final value) of placebo and Paroxetine.|Placebo versus Paroxetine in IDS-CR Item 5 at Week 10.||-0.22|-0.53|0.000
90851208|NCT00420641|181567719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47||||0.576|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.84|0.91|||MMRM||The point estimate was calculated as LS mean difference (final value) of placebo and GSK372475.|Placebo versus GSK372475 in HAMD-17 total score at Week 10.||0.91|-1.84|0.576
90851209|NCT00420641|181567719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.96||||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.28|-1.64|||MMRM||The point estimate was calculated as LS mean difference (final value) of placebo and Paroxetine.|Placebo versus Paroxetine in HAMD-17 total score at Week 10.||-1.64|-4.28|0.000
90851210|NCT00420641|181567720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.38|0.05|||MMRM||The point estimate was calculated as LS mean difference (final value) of placebo and GSK372475.|Placebo versus GSK372475 in HAMD-17 Item 1 score at Week 10.||0.05|-0.38|0.209
90851211|NCT00420641|181567720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|-0.19|||MMRM||The point estimate was calculated as LS mean difference (final value) of placebo and Paroxetine.|Placebo versus Paroxetine in HAMD-17 Item 1 score at Week 10.||-0.19|-0.60|0.002
90851212|NCT00420641|181567721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.23|0.12|||MMRM||The point estimate was calculated as LS mean difference (final value) of placebo and GSK372475.|Placebo versus GSK372475 in IDS-CR 5 Item subscale total score at Week 10.||0.12|-1.23|0.175
90851213|NCT00420641|181567721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.15||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.79|-0.5|||MMRM||The point estimate was calculated as LS mean difference (final value) of placebo and Paroxetine.|Placebo versus Paroxetine in IDS-CR 5 Item subscale total score at Week 10.||-0.50|-1.79|0.003
90851214|NCT00420641|181567721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.99||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.92|-0.05|||MMRM||The point estimate was calculated as LS mean difference (final value) of placebo and GSK372475.|Placebo versus GSK372475 in IDS-SR 5 Item subscale total score at Week 10.||-0.05|-1.92|0.082
90851215|NCT00420641|181567721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.77||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.64|-0.9|||MMRM||The point estimate was calculated as LS mean difference (final value) of placebo and Paroxetine.|Placebo versus Paroxetine in IDS-SR 5 Item subscale total score at Week 10.||-0.90|-2.64|0.001
90851216|NCT00420641|181567722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.208|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.45|0.06|||MMRM||The point estimate was calculated as LS mean difference (final value) of placebo and GSK372475.|Placebo versus GSK372475 in CGI-S score at Week 10.||0.06|-0.45|0.208
90851217|NCT00420641|181567722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52||||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.76|-0.28|||MMRM||The point estimate was calculated as LS mean difference (final value) of placebo and Paroxetine.|Placebo versus Paroxetine in CGI-S score at Week 10.||-0.28|-0.76|0.000
90851218|NCT00420641|181567723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.76||||0.516|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.71|6.24|||MMRM||The point estimate was calculated as LS mean difference (final value) of placebo and GSK372475.|Placebo versus GSK372475 in MEI total score at Week 10.||6.24|-2.71|0.516
90851219|NCT00420641|181567723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.22||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.97|10.48|||MMRM||The point estimate was calculated as LS mean difference (final value) of placebo and Paroxetine.|Placebo versus Paroxetine in MEI total score at Week 10.||10.48|1.97|0.016
90851220|NCT00420641|181567724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.72||||0.126|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.13|3.57|||MMRM||The point estimate was calculated as LS mean difference (final value) of placebo and GSK372475.|Placebo versus GSK372475 in CSFQ-14SF total score at Week 10.||3.57|-0.13|0.126
90851221|NCT00420641|181567724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.957|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.69|1.81|||MMRM||The point estimate was calculated as LS mean difference (final value) of placebo and Paroxetine.|Placebo versus Paroxetine in CSFQ-14SF total score at Week 10.||1.81|-1.69|0.957
90851222|NCT00420641|181567728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.64||||0.5061|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.21|1.93|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in MADRS responders at Week 1.||1.93|0.21|0.5061
90851223|NCT00420641|181567728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.7398|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.46|3.25|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in MADRS responders at Week 1.||3.25|0.46|0.7398
90851224|NCT00420641|181567728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.9209|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.52|2.08|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in MADRS responders at Week 2.||2.08|0.52|0.9209
90851225|NCT00420641|181567728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.2908|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.78|3.13|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in MADRS responders at Week 2.||3.13|0.78|0.2908
90851226|NCT00420641|181567728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.41||||0.0086|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.23|0.72|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in MADRS responders at Week 3.||0.72|0.23|0.0086
90851227|NCT00420641|181567728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.8087|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.64|1.83|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in MADRS responders at Week 3.||1.83|0.64|0.8087
90851228|NCT00420641|181567728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.31||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.18|0.52|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in MADRS responders at Week 4.||0.52|0.18|0.0002
90851229|NCT00420641|181567728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.4606|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.78|1.94|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in MADRS responders at Week 4.||1.94|0.78|0.4606
91099302|NCT05788328|182084325|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|221.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|170.26|288.48|||||Ratio was of test to reference of adjusted geometric means. The reference arm was rosuvastatin 10 mg (Period 2) and test arm was PF-07081532 240 mg QD+rosuvastatin 10 mg (Period 8). The ratios (and 90% CIs) were expressed as percentages.|Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect.||288.48|170.26|
90851230|NCT00420641|181567728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65||||0.1399|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|1.05|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in MADRS responders at Week 5.||1.05|0.40|0.1399
91099303|NCT00422461|182084340|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) mean difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.0822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.97|0.36|||Nonlinear dose response regression model|||||0.36|-5.97|0.0822
91099304|NCT00422461|182084340|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-4.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.92||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.47|-0.85|||Nonlinear dose response regression model|||||-0.85|-8.47|0.0170
90851231|NCT00420641|181567728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73||||0.0461|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1|2.73|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in MADRS responders at Week 5.||2.73|1.10|0.0461
90851232|NCT00420641|181567728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.66||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.41|1.05|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in MADRS responders at Week 6.||1.05|0.41|0.1400
90851233|NCT00420641|181567728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.71||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.74|4.21|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in MADRS responders at Week 6.||4.21|1.74|0.0002
90851234|NCT00420641|181567728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.9596|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.59|1.64|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in MADRS responders at Week 8.||1.64|0.59|0.9596
90851235|NCT00420641|181567728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.24||||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.01|5.23|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in MADRS responders at Week 8.||5.23|2.01|0.0000
90851236|NCT00420641|181567728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.653|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|1.93|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in MADRS responders at Week 10.||1.93|0.69|0.6530
90851237|NCT00420641|181567728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.48||||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.11|5.73|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in MADRS responders at Week 10.||5.73|2.11|0.0000
90851238|NCT00420641|181567728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.8844|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.23|3.48|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in MADRS remitters at Week 1.||3.48|0.23|0.8844
90851239|NCT00420641|181567728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.7425|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.36|4.68|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in MADRS remitters at Week 1.||4.68|0.36|0.7425
90851240|NCT00420641|181567728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.8355|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.39|2.07|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in MADRS remitters at Week 2.||2.07|0.39|0.8355
91099305|NCT00422461|182084340|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-6.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.45|-2.48|||Nonlinear dose response regression model|||||-2.48|-11.45|0.0026
91099306|NCT00422461|182084341|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.0264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.09|-0.32|||Nonlinear dose response regression model|||||-0.32|-5.09|0.0264
90851241|NCT00420641|181567728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.93||||0.1786|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.86|4.32|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in MADRS remitters at Week 2.||4.32|0.86|0.1786
90851242|NCT00420641|181567728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5||||0.0835|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.26|0.97|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in MADRS remitters at Week 3.||0.97|0.26|0.0835
90851243|NCT00420641|181567728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.8558|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.58|1.98|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in MADRS remitters at Week 3.||1.98|0.58|0.8558
90851244|NCT00420641|181567728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.36||||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.2|0.67|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in MADRS remitters at Week 4.||0.67|0.20|0.0067
90851245|NCT00420641|181567728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.6647|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.67|1.98|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in MADRS remitters at Week 4.||1.98|0.67|0.6647
90851246|NCT00420641|181567728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.9553|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.55|1.74|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in MADRS remitters at Week 5.||1.74|0.55|0.9553
90851247|NCT00420641|181567728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.58||||0.004||90.0|1.5|4.42|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in MADRS remitters at Week 5.||4.42|1.50|0.0040
90851248|NCT00420641|181567728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.6327|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.52|1.43|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in MADRS remitters at Week 6.||1.43|0.52|0.6327
90851249|NCT00420641|181567728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.36||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.47|3.79|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in MADRS remitters at Week 6.||3.79|1.47|0.0027
90851250|NCT00420641|181567728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.3961|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.45|1.29|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in MADRS remitters at Week 8.||1.29|0.45|0.3961
90851251|NCT00420641|181567728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.89||||0.0298|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.17|3.06|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in MADRS remitters at Week 8.||3.06|1.17|0.0298
90957638|NCT00190749|181795322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.226||95.0||||P-value for change to last observation|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.226
91099307|NCT00422461|182084341|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-4.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.41||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.35|-1.77|||Nonlinear dose response regression model|||||-1.77|-7.35|0.0016
91099308|NCT00422461|182084341|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-6.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.55|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.03|-3.89|||Nonlinear dose response regression model|||||-3.89|-10.03|<0.0001
91099309|NCT00422461|182084342|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.98||0.9479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.79|4.05|||ANCOVA|||For SBP||4.05|-3.79|0.9479
91099310|NCT00422461|182084342|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-4.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.03||0.0215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.78|-0.72|||ANCOVA|||For SBP||-0.72|-8.78|0.0215
91099311|NCT00422461|182084342|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.0886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.39|0.53|||ANCOVA|||For SBP||0.53|-7.39|0.0886
90851252|NCT00420641|181567728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.8826|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.56|1.61|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in MADRS remitters at Week 10.||1.61|0.56|0.8826
90851253|NCT00420641|181567728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.48||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.52|4.05|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in MADRS remitters at Week 10.||4.05|1.52|0.0022
90851254|NCT00420641|181567729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65||||0.5072|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.22|1.89|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in IDS-CR responders at Week 1.||1.89|0.22|0.5072
90851255|NCT00420641|181567729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.6886|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.52|2.93|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in IDS-CR responders at Week 1.||2.93|0.52|0.6886
90851256|NCT00420641|181567729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.8664|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.56|2.04|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in IDS-CR responders at Week 2.||2.04|0.56|0.8664
90851257|NCT00420641|181567729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.2897|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|2.79|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in IDS-CR responders at Week 2.||2.79|0.80|0.2897
90851258|NCT00420641|181567729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.68||||0.2474|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.39|1.18|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in IDS-CR responders at Week 3.||1.18|0.39|0.2474
90851259|NCT00420641|181567729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.2007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.89|2.47|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in IDS-CR responders at Week 3.||2.47|0.89|0.2007
90851260|NCT00420641|181567729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.49||||0.0214|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.29|0.82|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in IDS-CR responders at Week 4.||0.82|0.29|0.0214
90851261|NCT00420641|181567729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.2368|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|2.23|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in IDS-CR responders at Week 4.||2.23|0.88|0.2368
90851262|NCT00420641|181567729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.987|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.63|1.59|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in IDS-CR responders at Week 5.||1.59|0.63|0.9870
90851263|NCT00420641|181567729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.91||||0.0193|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.21|3.0|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in IDS-CR responders at Week 5.||3.00|1.21|0.0193
90851264|NCT00420641|181567729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.8351|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.59|1.5|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in IDS-CR responders at Week 6.||1.50|0.59|0.8351
90851265|NCT00420641|181567729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.01||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.9|4.77|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in IDS-CR responders at Week 6.||4.77|1.90|0.0001
90851266|NCT00420641|181567729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.751|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.67|1.8|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in IDS-CR responders at Week 8.||1.80|0.67|0.7510
90851267|NCT00420641|181567729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.37||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.47|3.8|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in IDS-CR responders at Week 8.||3.80|1.47|0.0029
90851268|NCT00420641|181567729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53||||0.1707|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|2.55|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in IDS-CR responders at Week 10.||2.55|0.92|0.1707
90851269|NCT00420641|181567729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.27||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.99|5.36|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in IDS-CR responders at Week 10.||5.36|1.99|0.0001
90851270|NCT00420641|181567729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.27||||0.205|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.05|1.48|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in IDS-CR remitters at Week 1.||1.48|0.05|0.2050
90851271|NCT00420641|181567729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.36||||0.1735|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.11|1.24|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in IDS-CR remitters at Week 1.||1.24|0.11|0.1735
90851272|NCT00420641|181567729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.93||||0.2305|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.78|4.75|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in IDS-CR remitters at Week 2.||4.75|0.78|0.2305
90851273|NCT00420641|181567729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.86||||0.2507|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.77|4.5|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in IDS-CR remitters at Week 2.||4.50|0.77|0.2507
90851274|NCT00420641|181567729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.5608|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.35|1.64|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in IDS-CR remitters at Week 3.||1.64|0.35|0.5608
90851275|NCT00420641|181567729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.6526|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6|2.42|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in IDS-CR remitters at Week 3.||2.42|0.60|0.6526
90851276|NCT00420641|181567729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.41||||0.0208|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.21|0.77|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in IDS-CR remitters at Week 4.||0.77|0.21|0.0208
90851277|NCT00420641|181567729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||0.2859|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.39|1.22|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in IDS-CR remitters at Week 4.||1.22|0.39|0.2859
90851278|NCT00420641|181567729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.7921|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.49|1.66|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in IDS-CR remitters at Week 5.||1.66|0.49|0.7921
90851279|NCT00420641|181567729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.362|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.79|2.31|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in IDS-CR remitters at Week 5.||2.31|0.79|0.3620
90851280|NCT00420641|181567729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77||||0.4331|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.44|1.34|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in IDS-CR remitters at Week 6.||1.34|0.44|0.4331
90957639|NCT00190749|181795322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0||||P-value is change to last observation|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.030
91099312|NCT00422461|182084342|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.44||0.3173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|1.41|||ANCOVA|||For DBP||1.41|-4.30|0.3173
91099313|NCT00422461|182084342|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.42||0.0087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.64|-0.99|||ANCOVA|||For DBP||-0.99|-6.64|0.0087
91099314|NCT00422461|182084342|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.41||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.76|-1.15|||ANCOVA|||For DBP||-1.15|-6.76|0.0062
91099315|NCT00422461|182084344|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.48||0.8091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.51|4.31|||ANCOVA|||For cuff SBP||4.31|-5.51|0.8091
91099316|NCT00422461|182084344|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.44||0.8809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.21|4.48|||ANCOVA|||For cuff SBP||4.48|-5.21|0.8809
91099317|NCT00422461|182084344|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-5.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.46||0.0382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.04|-0.29|||ANCOVA|||For cuff SBP||-0.29|-10.04|0.0382
90851281|NCT00420641|181567729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3||||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.42|3.75|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in IDS-CR remitters at Week 6.||3.75|1.42|0.0047
90851282|NCT00420641|181567729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78||||0.4431|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.46|1.32|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in IDS-CR remitters at Week 8.||1.32|0.46|0.4431
90851283|NCT00420641|181567729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.1901|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|2.44|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in IDS-CR remitters at Week 8.||2.44|0.90|0.1901
90851284|NCT00420641|181567729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.9222|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.56|1.66|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in IDS-CR remitters at Week 10.||1.66|0.56|0.9222
90851285|NCT00420641|181567729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.1665|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|2.43|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in IDS-CR remitters at Week 10.||2.43|0.93|0.1665
90851286|NCT00420641|181567730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.63||||0.5057|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.2|1.98|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in HAMD-17 responders at Week 1.||1.98|0.20|0.5057
90851287|NCT00420641|181567730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.8633|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.38|3.3|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in HAMD-17 responders at Week 1.||3.30|0.38|0.8633
90851288|NCT00420641|181567730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.8428|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.55|2.16|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in HAMD-17 responders at Week 2.||2.16|0.55|0.8428
90851289|NCT00420641|181567730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.3416|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.76|2.84|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in HAMD-17 responders at Week 2.||2.84|0.76|0.3416
91099318|NCT00422461|182084344|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.67||0.0731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.35|0.29|||ANCOVA|||For cuff DBP||0.29|-6.35|0.0731
91099319|NCT00422461|182084344|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-4.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.65||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.77|-1.22|||ANCOVA|||For cuff DBP||-1.22|-7.77|0.0077
90851290|NCT00420641|181567730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71||||0.3287|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|1.26|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in HAMD-17 responders at Week 3.||1.26|0.40|0.3287
90851291|NCT00420641|181567730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.2112|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|2.57|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in HAMD-17 responders at Week 3.||2.57|0.88|0.2112
90851292|NCT00420641|181567730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.44||||0.0134|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.26|0.76|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in HAMD-17 responders at Week 4.||0.76|0.26|0.0134
90851293|NCT00420641|181567730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.3412|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|2.17|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in HAMD-17 responders at Week 4.||2.17|0.81|0.3412
90851294|NCT00420641|181567730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.8434|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.58|1.54|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in HAMD-17 responders at Week 5.||1.54|0.58|0.8434
90851295|NCT00420641|181567730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.65||||0.0819|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.03|2.63|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in HAMD-17 responders at Week 5.||2.63|1.03|0.0819
90851296|NCT00420641|181567730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72||||0.2832|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.44|1.19|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in HAMD-17 responders at Week 6.||1.19|0.44|0.2832
90851297|NCT00420641|181567730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.47||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.54|3.97|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in HAMD-17 responders at Week 6.||3.97|1.54|0.0016
90851298|NCT00420641|181567730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.9727|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6|1.63|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in HAMD-17 responders at Week 8.||1.63|0.60|0.9727
90851299|NCT00420641|181567730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.57||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.6|4.13|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in HAMD-17 responders at Week 8.||4.13|1.60|0.0010
90851300|NCT00420641|181567730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.8312|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.64|1.8|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in HAMD-17 responders at Week 10.||1.80|0.64|0.8312
91099320|NCT00422461|182084344|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-4.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.66||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.58|-1.0|||ANCOVA|||For cuff DBP||-1.00|-7.58|0.0111
91099321|NCT00422461|182084346|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.2567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.32|1.44|||ANCOVA|||||1.44|-5.32|0.2567
91099322|NCT00422461|182084346|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.69||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.29|0.42|||ANCOVA|||||0.42|-6.29|0.0860
91099323|NCT00422461|182084346|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-4.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.71||0.0103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.85|-1.08|||ANCOVA|||||-1.08|-7.85|0.0103
91099324|NCT02357485|182084352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.004|TWO_SIDED|||||Baseline vs 1 year Post-treatment|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.004
91099325|NCT02357485|182084353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Baseline vs 1 year Post-treatment|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91099326|NCT02357485|182084354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.053|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.053
91099327|NCT02357485|182084355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
91099328|NCT01286324|182084386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21||||||Adjusted p-value based on a general linear model adjusted for group and the baseline of the measure|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.21
91099329|NCT01286324|182084387|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6||||||Adjusted p-value based on a general linear model adjusted for group and the baseline of the measure|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.60
91099330|NCT01286324|182084388|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47||||||Adjusted p-value based on a general linear model adjusted for group and the baseline of the measure|t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical Analysis for State Subscale||||0.47
91099331|NCT01286324|182084388|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45||||||Adjusted p-value based on a general linear model adjusted for group and the baseline of the measure|t-test, 2 sided|||P-value for Trait Subscale||||0.45
91099332|NCT01286324|182084389|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11||||||P value is adjusted based on a general linear model adjusted for group and the baseline of the measure|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.11
91099333|NCT05278065|182084405|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.09||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|12.98|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Repeated measures analysis at BL and Wk 8 for experimental arm||12.98|3.20|.004
91099334|NCT05278065|182084405|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.74||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|13.87|||t-test, 2 sided||Paired t-test|Repeated measures analysis at BL and Wk 8 for control arm||13.87|-0.40|.060
90957640|NCT00190749|181795322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.204||95.0||||P-value for change to last observation.|ANCOVA|||||||0.204
91099335|NCT05278065|182084405|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.932||||0.766|TWO_SIDED||||||GEE|Corstr = AR1; test of condition x time interaction||||||.766
91099336|NCT05278065|182084405|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.39||||0.533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.41|6.19|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Repeated measures analysis at Wk 8 and Wk 16 for experimental arm||6.19|-3.41|0.533
91099337|NCT05278065|182084405|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.69||||0.296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.21|4.84|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Repeated measures analysis at Wk 8 and Wk 16 for control arm||4.84|-12.21|0.296
91099338|NCT05278065|182084405|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-5.075||||0.14|TWO_SIDED||||||GEE|Corstr = AR1; test of condition x time interaction||||||0.14
91099339|NCT05278065|182084405|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.48||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.24|14.71|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Repeated measures analysis at BL and Wk 16 for experimental arm||14.71|4.24|.002
91099340|NCT05278065|182084405|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.05||||0.291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.91|10.01|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Repeated measures analysis at BL and Wk 8 for control arm||10.01|-3.91|.291
90851301|NCT00420641|181567730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.06||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.86|5.02|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in HAMD-17 responders at Week 10.||5.02|1.86|0.0002
90851302|NCT00420641|181567730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.58||||0.553|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.13|2.6|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in HAMD-17 remitters at Week 1.||2.60|0.13|0.5530
90851303|NCT00420641|181567730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.978|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.28|3.41|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in HAMD-17 remitters at Week 1.||3.41|0.28|0.9780
90851304|NCT00420641|181567730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.8312|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.43|3.03|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in HAMD-17 remitters at Week 2.||3.03|0.43|0.8312
90851305|NCT00420641|181567730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.09||||0.1881|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|5.25|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in HAMD-17 remitters at Week 2.||5.25|0.83|0.1881
90851306|NCT00420641|181567730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.6384|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.39|1.69|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in HAMD-17 remitters at Week 3.||1.69|0.39|0.6384
90851307|NCT00420641|181567730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68||||0.216|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|3.37|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in HAMD-17 remitters at Week 3.||3.37|0.84|0.2160
90957641|NCT00190749|181795323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.184||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||||||0.184
90957642|NCT00190749|181795323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.295||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||||||0.295
90957643|NCT00190749|181795324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.256||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||||||0.256
90957644|NCT00190749|181795324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.277||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||||||0.277
91099341|NCT05278065|182084405|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-5.834||||0.067|TWO_SIDED||||||GEE|Corstr = AR1; test of condition x time interaction||||||.067
91099342|NCT05278065|182084406|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.82||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|1.71|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Repeated measures analysis at BL and Wk 8 for experimental arm||1.71|-0.07|.068
91099343|NCT05278065|182084406|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.32|2.32|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Repeated measures analysis at BL and Wk 8 for control arm||2.32|-2.32|1.00
91099344|NCT05278065|182084406|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.66||||0.44|TWO_SIDED||||||GEE|Corstr = AR1; test of condition x time interaction||||||0.44
91099345|NCT05278065|182084407|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.447||||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.184|1.078|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Repeated measures analysis at BL and Wk 8 for experimental arm||1.078|-0.184|.145
91099346|NCT05278065|182084407|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.23||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|3.95|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Repeated measures analysis at BL and Wk 8 for control arm||3.95|-1.50|0.280
91099347|NCT05278065|182084407|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.802||||0.38|TWO_SIDED||||||GEE|Corstr = AR1; test of condition x time interaction||||||0.38
91099348|NCT05278065|182084408|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.086||||0.268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.077|0.25|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Repeated measures analysis at BL and Wk 8 for experimental arm||0.250|-0.077|0.268
91099349|NCT05278065|182084408|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.047||||0.624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.291|0.198|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Repeated measures analysis at BL and Wk 8 for control arm||0.198|-0.291|0.624
91099350|NCT05278065|182084408|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.15||||0.17|TWO_SIDED||||||GEE|Corstr = AR1; test of condition x time interaction||||||0.17
91099351|NCT05278065|182084409|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.077||||0.574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.374|0.219|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Repeated measures analysis at BL and Wk 8 for experimental arm||0.219|-0.374|0.574
91099352|NCT05278065|182084409|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.116||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.252|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Repeated measures analysis at BL and Wk 8 for control arm||0.252|-0.020|.077
91099353|NCT05278065|182084409|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.193||||0.149|TWO_SIDED||||||GEE|Corstr = AR1; test of condition x time interaction||||||.149
90851308|NCT00420641|181567730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4||||0.0259|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.2|0.79|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in HAMD-17 remitters at Week 4.||0.79|0.20|0.0259
90851309|NCT00420641|181567730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73||||0.3959|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.39|1.35|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in HAMD-17 remitters at Week 4.||1.35|0.39|0.3959
90851310|NCT00420641|181567730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72||||0.3857|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.39|1.34|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in HAMD-17 remitters at Week 5.||1.34|0.39|0.3857
90851311|NCT00420641|181567730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.3126|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|2.52|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in HAMD-17 remitters at Week 5.||2.52|0.80|0.3126
90851312|NCT00420641|181567730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.61||||0.1182|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.36|1.03|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in HAMD-17 remitters at Week 6.||1.03|0.36|0.1182
90851313|NCT00420641|181567730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1||||0.0125|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.29|3.43|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in HAMD-17 remitters at Week 6.||3.43|1.29|0.0125
91099354|NCT05278065|182084410|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.116||||0.376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.396|0.163|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Repeated measures analysis at BL and Wk 8 for experimental arm||0.163|-0.396|0.376
90851314|NCT00420641|181567730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||0.2147|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.42|1.13|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in HAMD-17 remitters at Week 8.||1.13|0.42|0.2147
90851315|NCT00420641|181567730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67||||0.0783|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.03|2.69|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in HAMD-17 remitters at Week 8.||2.69|1.03|0.0783
90851316|NCT00420641|181567730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.9067||90.0|0.57|1.64|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in HAMD-17 remitters at Week 10.||1.64|0.57|0.9067
91099355|NCT05278065|182084410|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.036|0.78|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Repeated measures analysis at BL and Wk 8 for control arm||0.78|-0.036|0.065
91099356|NCT05278065|182084410|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.486||||0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||GEE|Corstr = AR1; test of condition x time interaction||||||.006
91099357|NCT05278065|182084411|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.046||||0.849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.483|0.576|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Repeated measures analysis at BL and Wk 8 for experimental arm||0.576|-0.483|0.849
90851317|NCT00420641|181567730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.83||||0.0328|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.15|2.92|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in HAMD-17 remitters at Week 10.||2.92|1.15|0.0328
90851318|NCT00420641|181567731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.6928|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.44|3.76|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in percentage of participants with CGI-I at Week 1.||3.76|0.44|0.6928
90851319|NCT00420641|181567731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.86||||0.3039|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|5.01|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in percentage of participants with CGI-I at Week 1.||5.01|0.69|0.3039
90851320|NCT00420641|181567731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.1938|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.89|2.7|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in percentage of participants with CGI-I at Week 2.||2.70|0.89|0.1938
90851321|NCT00420641|181567731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.85||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.08|3.16|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in percentage of participants with CGI-I at Week 2.||3.16|1.08|0.0600
90851322|NCT00420641|181567731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.8989|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.61|1.53|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in percentage of participants with CGI-I at Week 3.||1.53|0.61|0.8989
90851323|NCT00420641|181567731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.95||||0.0136|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.25|3.05|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in percentage of participants with CGI-I at Week 3.||3.05|1.25|0.0136
90851324|NCT00420641|181567731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77||||0.3099|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|1.18|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in percentage of participants with CGI-I at Week 4.||1.18|0.50|0.3099
90851325|NCT00420641|181567731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.1137|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|2.27|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in percentage of participants with CGI-I at Week 4.||2.27|0.98|0.1137
90851326|NCT00420641|181567731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.8682||90.0|0.67|1.64|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in percentage of participants with CGI-I at Week 5.||1.64|0.67|0.8682
90851327|NCT00420641|181567731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.56||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.63|4.03|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in percentage of participants with CGI-I at Week 5.||4.03|1.63|0.0006
90957645|NCT00190749|181795325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.766||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||||||0.766
91099358|NCT05278065|182084411|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.302||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.706|0.102|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Repeated measures analysis at BL and Wk 8 for control arm||0.102|-0.706|.107
91099359|NCT05278065|182084411|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.34||||0.19|TWO_SIDED||||||GEE|Corstr = AR1; test of condition x time interaction||||||0.19
91099360|NCT05278065|182084412|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.085||||0.828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.929|0.76|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Repeated measures analysis at BL and Wk 8 for experimental arm||0.760|-0.929|0.828
91099361|NCT05278065|182084412|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.762||||0.249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|2.33|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Repeated measures analysis at BL and Wk 8 for control arm||2.33|-0.81|0.249
91099362|NCT05278065|182084412|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.857||||0.17|TWO_SIDED||||||GEE|Corstr = AR1; test of condition x time interaction||||||0.17
91099363|NCT05278065|182084413|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.182||||0.965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.25|8.89|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||8.89|-9.25|0.965
90851328|NCT00420641|181567731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.8992|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.62|1.51|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in percentage of participants with CGI-I at Week 6.||1.51|0.62|0.8992
91099364|NCT05278065|182084413|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.25||||0.522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|17.6|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Repeated measures analysis at BL and Wk 8 for control arm||17.6|-11.1|0.522
91099365|NCT05278065|182084413|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.41||||0.781|TWO_SIDED||||||GEE|Corstr = AR1; test of condition x time interaction||||||0.781
91099366|NCT02070991|182084421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between maci. and placebo|10.08||||0.3372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.07|33.26|||Fisher Exact|||||33.26|-15.07|0.3372
91099367|NCT02070991|182084422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment effect (ratio of geom. means)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.08||||||||1.08|0.55|
91099368|NCT02070991|182084423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment effect (ratio of geom. means)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.36||||||||1.36|0.64|
90851329|NCT00420641|181567731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.61||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.67|4.09|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in percentage of participants with CGI-I at Week 6.||4.09|1.67|0.0004
90851330|NCT00420641|181567731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|2.23|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in percentage o|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in percentage of participants with CGI-I at Week 8.||2.23|0.85|0.2800
90851331|NCT00420641|181567731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.69||||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.24|6.08|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in percentage of participants with CGI-I at Week 8.||6.08|2.24|0.0000
90851332|NCT00420641|181567731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.86||||0.0507|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1|3.13|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in percentage of participants with CGI-I at Week 10.||3.13|1.10|0.0507
90851333|NCT00420641|181567731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.97||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.81|4.88|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in percentage of participants with CGI-I at Week 10.||4.88|1.81|0.0003
90851334|NCT00420641|181567732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.8782|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.62|1.5|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in percentage of participants Satisfied with Study Medication at Week 10.||1.50|0.62|0.8782
90851335|NCT00420641|181567732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.45||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.56|3.86|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in percentage of participants Satisfied with Study Medication at Week 10.||3.86|1.56|0.0011
90851336|NCT02815280|181567744|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|5.35|||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline in inflammatory lesion count was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model, which included treatment, baseline inflammatory lesion count and pooled investigational site as a blocking factor.||5.35|0.95|0.0051
90851337|NCT02815280|181567745|SUPERIORITY|P-value is for the null hypothesis that the combined log (Risk Ratio) equals 0.|Risk ratio|1.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.0424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|3.46|||Mantel Haenszel|||||3.46|1.02|0.0424
90851338|NCT02815280|181567746|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.3||0.0155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.44|23.23||Percent change from baseline was analyzed using an ANCOVA model, which included treatment, baseline non-inflammatory lesion counts and pooled investigational site as a blocking factor. For the superiority comparison between FMX101 4% and vehicle.|ANCOVA|||||23.23|2.44|0.0155
91099369|NCT02070991|182084424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment effect (mean change from BL)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|4.9||||||||4.9|-4.3|
91099370|NCT02070991|182084425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment effect (mean change from BL)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|3.6||||||||3.6|-2.2|
91099371|NCT02070991|182084426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment effect (mean change from BL)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|3.7||||||||3.7|-4.2|
90851339|NCT02815280|181567747|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline in inflammatory lesion count for Week 6 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model, which included treatment, baseline inflammatory lesion counts and pooled investigational site as a blocking factor.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.88|5.9|||ANCOVA|||||5.90|1.88|0.0001
90851340|NCT02815280|181567747|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline in inflammatory lesion count for Week 9 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model, which included treatment, baseline inflammatory lesion counts and pooled investigational site as a blocking factor.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|5.95|||ANCOVA|||||5.95|1.60|0.0007
90851341|NCT02815280|181567748|SUPERIORITY|P-value is for the null hypothesis that the combined log (Risk Ratio) equals 0. Percentage of participants achieving IGA treatment success at Week 6.|Risk Difference (RD)|3.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.44||0.0071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|6.69|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||6.69|1.06|0.0071
90851342|NCT02815280|181567748|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.52||0.5143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|6.58|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||6.58|-3.30|0.5143
90851343|NCT00603642|181567754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91099372|NCT02070991|182084427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment effect (mean change from BL)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.69||||||||0.69|0.11|
91099373|NCT02070991|182084428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment effect (mean change from BL)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|3.6||||||||3.6|-4.5|
91099374|NCT04999020|182084429|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-15.38||||0.4192|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-38.55|8.48|||Barnard's unconditional exact test|||||8.48|-38.55|0.4192
91099375|NCT06038643|182084464|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons using False Discovery Rate.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91099376|NCT06038643|182084467|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANCOVA|||We conducted one-way analyses of covariance (ANCOVAs) to assess the effect of group (intervention vs. control) on post-intervention secondary outcomes, including cognition (Test My Brain Digital Neuropsychology Toolkit). Covariates in all models included age, sex, years of education, APOE4 status, and baseline scores.||||<0.01
91030864|NCT03587207|181946151|OTHER|M07-0241084 strain-Between group ratio for comparison of rMenBOMV\_ACWY\_D group and rMenBOMV group|Geometrical mean ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.7|1.1|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||To investigate possible effects on the immune response based on strains common to rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D versus rMenBOMV study groups, on the Meningitis B M07-0241084 (NHBA) strain, one month after first vaccination.||1.10|0.70|
91099377|NCT00699751|182084497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.691||||5e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.578|0.827|||Log Rank|Stratified by total ALP, current use of bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.|The hazard ratio (Alpharadin:Placebo) is from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by total ALP, current use of bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.|The null hypothesis for the comparison of overall survival, and also for the secondary endpoints, is that there is no difference between Alpharadin and placebo for that endpoint; the alternative hypothesis is that a difference exists.||0.827|0.578|0.00005
91099378|NCT00699751|182084498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.169|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.131|0.22|||Log Rank|Stratified by total ALP, current use of bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.|The hazard ratio (Alpharadin:Placebo) is from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by total ALP, current use of bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.|The null hypothesis for the comparison of time to total ALP progression, is that there is no difference between Alpharadin and placebo for that endpoint; the alternative hypothesis is that a difference exists.||0.22|0.131|<0.00001
91099379|NCT00699751|182084499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||\>=30% reduction in blood level|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|adjusting for the binary stratification factors, total ALP, current use of Bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.||The null hypothesis for the comparison of \>=30% reduction in blood level, is that there is no difference between Alpharadin and placebo for that endpoint; the alternative hypothesis is that a difference exists.||||<0.001
91099380|NCT00699751|182084499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||\>=50% reduction in blood level|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|adjusting for the binary stratification factors, total ALP, current use of Bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.||The null hypothesis for the comparison of \>=50% reduction in blood level, is that there is no difference between Alpharadin and placebo for that endpoint; the alternative hypothesis is that a difference exists.||||<0.001
91099381|NCT00699751|182084499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Confirmed Total ALP Response (\>=30%)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|adjusting for the binary stratification factors, total ALP, current use of Bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.||The null hypothesis for the comparison of Confirmed Total ALP Response (\>=30%), is that there is no difference between Alpharadin and placebo for that endpoint; the alternative hypothesis is that a difference exists.||||<0.001
90957646|NCT00190749|181795325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.622||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||||||0.622
90957647|NCT00190749|181795326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.829||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||||||0.829
90957648|NCT00190749|181795326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.714||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||||||0.714
90957649|NCT00190749|181795327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.672||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||||||0.672
90851344|NCT00603642|181567755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
90851345|NCT00603642|181567756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0003|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0003
90851346|NCT00603642|181567757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
90851347|NCT00603642|181567758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6015|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6015
90851348|NCT00853996|181567770|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons since this was primary endpoint. A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at \<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90851349|NCT00853996|181567771|OTHER|||||||0.067||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at \<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.067
90851350|NCT00853996|181567772|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at \<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
90851351|NCT00853996|181567773|OTHER|||||||0.002||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at \<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
90851352|NCT00853996|181567774|OTHER|||||||0.002||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance set at 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
90851353|NCT01607203|181567779|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|t -test||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.04
90851354|NCT00609362|181567781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.055||95.0||||P-value is un-adjusted. A priori threshold for significance: 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||The minimum number of participants was determined by power calculations to be 44 (22 in each group), assuming a difference in change in BMD of 1.7%, a standard deviation of 2%, a power of 80%, and a level of significance of 5%.||||0.055
90851355|NCT00609362|181567782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.056||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.056
90851356|NCT00609362|181567783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
90851357|NCT02582684|181567790|OTHER|Binomial Proportion of Participants with Virologic Success and 95% Confidence Interval|proportion|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|0.95|||||Confidence interval was calculated using the Clopper-Pearson exact method.|||0.95|0.83|
90851358|NCT02582684|181567791|OTHER|Binomial Proportion of Participants with Virologic Success and 95% Confidence Interval|Proportion|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|0.94|||||Confidence interval was calculated using the Clopper-Pearson exact method.|||0.94|0.82|
90851359|NCT02582684|181567792|OTHER|Binomial Proportion of Participants with Virologic Success and 95% Confidence Interval|proportion|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.91|||||Confidence interval was calculated using the Clopper-Pearson exact method.|||0.91|0.77|
90851360|NCT01431300|181567811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|54.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.0|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||signal-to-noise (SNR) ratios of the central veins in the 0.01 mmol/kg and 0.03mmol/kg dose groups were compared.||||<0.01
90851361|NCT01431300|181567811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|43.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.0|<|0.01||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||contrast-to-noise (CNR) ratios of the central veins in the 0.01 mmol/kg and 0.03mmol/kg dose groups were compared.||||<0.01
90851362|NCT06054269|181567812|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For comparison of post-vaccination geometric mean antibody titers to the influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 vaccine virus between recipients of FLUAD Quadrivalent and FluQuadri.||||0.004
91099382|NCT00699751|182084499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Confirmed Total ALP Response (\>=50%)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|adjusting for the binary stratification factors, total ALP, current use of Bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.||The null hypothesis for the comparison of Confirmed Total ALP Response (\>=50%), is that there is no difference between Alpharadin and placebo for that endpoint; the alternative hypothesis is that a difference exists.||||<0.001
91099383|NCT00699751|182084500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||\>=30% reduction in blood level|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|adjusting for the binary stratification factors, total ALP, current use of Bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.||The null hypothesis for the comparison of \>=30% reduction in blood level, is that there is no difference between Alpharadin and placebo for that endpoint; the alternative hypothesis is that a difference exists.||||<0.001
90851363|NCT06054269|181567812|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.066|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For comparison of post-vaccination geometric mean antibody titers to the influenza A(H3N2) vaccine virus between recipients of FLUAD Quadrivalent and FluQuadri.||||0.066
90851364|NCT06054269|181567812|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.694|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For comparison of post-vaccination geometric mean antibody titers to the influenza B/Victoria vaccine virus between recipients of FLUAD Quadrivalent and FluQuadri.||||0.694
90851365|NCT06054269|181567812|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.408|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For comparison of post-vaccination geometric mean antibody titers to the influenza B/Yamagata vaccine virus between recipients of FLUAD Quadrivalent and FluQuadri.||||0.408
90900257|NCT03315130|181666841|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|57.076|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.269|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|44.955|69.197||1-sided p-value is presented for each active treatment arm compared to the Placebo treatment arm.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference and associated confidence interval are presented for each active treatment arm compared to the Placebo treatment arm.|||69.197|44.955|<0.0001
90900258|NCT00524030|181666846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wald Test|2-sided 95% adjusted confidence interval constructed using KM product limit estimation and Greenwood's formula for variance with continuity correction||Null hypothesis (H0): Exit rate greater than or equal to (≥)74%||||<0.001
90900259|NCT00524030|181666846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wald Test|2-sided 95% adjusted confidence interval constructed using KM product limit estimation and Greenwood's formula for variance with continuity correction||H0: Exite rate ≥68%||||<0.001
90900260|NCT00524030|181666847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wald test|2-sided 95% adjusted confidence interval constructed using KM product limit estimation and Greenwood's formula for variance with continuity correction||H0: Exit rate ≥74%||||<0.001
90900261|NCT00524030|181666847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wald test|2-sided 95% adjusted confidence interval constructed using KM product limit estimation and Greenwood's formula for variance with continuity correction||H0: Exit rate ≥68%||||0.001
90900262|NCT03535337|181666871|SUPERIORITY||Slope|2.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|4.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.59|0.28|0.03
90900263|NCT03535337|181666872|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|1.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.66|-1.32|0.82
90900264|NCT05879198|181666874|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.473|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired samples, one-sided t-test comparing changes in total scale scores.||||.473
90900265|NCT05879198|181666875|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.469|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired samples, one-sided t-test comparing changes in total scale scores.||||.469
91099384|NCT00699751|182084500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||\>=50% reduction in blood level|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|adjusting for the binary stratification factors, total ALP, current use of Bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.||The null hypothesis for the comparison of \>=50% reduction in blood level, is that there is no difference between Alpharadin and placebo for that endpoint; the alternative hypothesis is that a difference exists.||||<0.001
91099385|NCT00699751|182084500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Confirmed Total ALP Response (\>=50%)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|adjusting for the binary stratification factors, total ALP, current use of Bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.||The null hypothesis for the comparison of Confirmed Total ALP Response (\>=50%), is that there is no difference between Alpharadin and placebo for that endpoint; the alternative hypothesis is that a difference exists.||||<0.001
90851366|NCT06054269|181567813|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.164|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For comparison of post-vaccination geometric mean antibody titers to the influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 vaccine virus between recipients of FLUAD Quadrivalent and FluQuadri.||||0.164
90900266|NCT05879198|181666876|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.155|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired samples, one-sided t-test comparing changes in total scale scores.||||.155
90900267|NCT05879198|181666877|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.346|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired samples, one-sided t-test comparing changes in total scale scores.||||.346
90900268|NCT05879198|181666879|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.075|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired samples, one-sided t-test comparing changes in AEQ-positive scale scores.||||.075
90900269|NCT05879198|181666879|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired samples, one-sided t-test comparing changes in AEQ-negative scale scores.||||.320
90900270|NCT05879198|181666879|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.049|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired samples, one-sided t-test comparing changes in MEEQ-positive scale scores.||||.049
90900271|NCT05879198|181666879|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.089|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired samples, one-sided t-test comparing changes in MEEQ-negative scale scores.||||.089
90900272|NCT01598298|181666880|OTHER|Two-sided test at the alpha=0.05 level|Coefficient for treatment term|-0.82||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|-0.4||Two-sided p-value; alpha=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for the protocol-specified stratification factors (baseline average pain and prior taxane use)|The estimation parameter is the model-based coefficient for the treatment term, with placebo as the reference level.|The primary analysis will rely on longitudinal measures of BPI at Weeks 2, 6, and 12 for improved power. Assessment windows of +/- 7 days, +/- 14 days, and +/- 14 days will be allowed for the 2, 6, and 12 week timepoints. The analysis will be performed using mixed models, adjusted for the stratification factors.||-0.40|-1.24|0.0002
90905108|NCT02886728|181677439|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-2.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-2.0|-4.0|<0.001
91099386|NCT00699751|182084501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Total ALP normalization|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|adjusting for the binary stratification factors, total ALP, current use of Bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.||The null hypothesis for the comparison of Total ALP normalization, is that there is no difference between Alpharadin and placebo for that endpoint; the alternative hypothesis is that a difference exists.||||<0.001
91099387|NCT00699751|182084502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Percentage Change from Baseline|ANCOVA|adjusting for the binary stratification factors, total ALP, current use of Bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.||The null hypothesis for the comparison of Percentage change from baseline, is that there is no difference between Alpharadin and placebo for that endpoint; the alternative hypothesis is that a difference exists.||||<0.001
91099388|NCT00699751|182084503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Maximum Percentage decrease from baseline to week 12|ANCOVA|Adjusting for the binary stratification factors, total ALP, current use of Bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.||The null hypothesis for the comparison of Maximum Percentage decrease from baseline to week 12, is that there is no difference between Alpharadin and placebo for that endpoint; the alternative hypothesis is that a difference exists.||||<0.001
91099389|NCT00699751|182084504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Percentage change from baseline|ANCOVA|adjusting for the binary stratification factors, total ALP, current use of Bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.||The null hypothesis for the comparison of Percentage change from baseline, is that there is no difference between Alpharadin and placebo for that endpoint; the alternative hypothesis is that a difference exists.||||<0.001
91099390|NCT00699751|182084505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Maximum Percentage decrease from baseline during the 24 week treatment|ANCOVA|adjusting for the binary stratification factors, total ALP, current use of Bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.||The null hypothesis for the comparison of Maximum Percentage decrease from baseline during the 24 week treatment, is that there is no difference between Alpharadin and placebo for that endpoint; the alternative hypothesis is that a difference exists.||||<0.001
91099391|NCT00699751|182084506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.643|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.539|0.768||Time to Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA) progression|Log Rank|Stratified by total ALP, current use of bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.|The hazard ratio (Alpharadin:Placebo) is from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by total ALP, current use of bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.|The null hypothesis for the comparison of Time to PSA progression, is that there is no difference between Alpharadin and placebo for that endpoint; the alternative hypothesis is that a difference exists.||0.768|0.539|<0.00001
91099392|NCT00699751|182084507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||\>=30% reduction in blood level|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusting for the binary stratification factors, total ALP, current use of Bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.||The null hypothesis for the comparison of \>=30% reduction in blood level, is that there is no difference between Alpharadin and placebo for that endpoint; the alternative hypothesis is that a difference exists.||||<0.001
91099393|NCT00699751|182084507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.106||||||\>=50% reduction in blood level|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|adjusting for the binary stratification factors, total ALP, current use of Bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.||The null hypothesis for the comparison of \>=50% reduction in blood level, is that there is no difference between Alpharadin and placebo for that endpoint; the alternative hypothesis is that a difference exists.||||0.106
91099394|NCT00699751|182084507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.032||||||Confirmed PSA Response(\>=50%)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusting for the binary stratification factors, total ALP, current use of Bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.||The null hypothesis for the comparison of Confirmed PSA Response(\>=50%), is that there is no difference between Alpharadin and placebo for that endpoint; the alternative hypothesis is that a difference exists.||||0.032
91099395|NCT00699751|182084508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||\>=30% reduction in blood level|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusting for the binary stratification factors, total ALP, current use of Bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.||The null hypothesis for the comparison of \>=30% reduction in blood level, is that there is no difference between Alpharadin and placebo for that endpoint; the alternative hypothesis is that a difference exists.||||<0.001
90905109|NCT02886728|181677439|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.0|-2.0|<0.001
91099396|NCT00699751|182084508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||||||\>=50% reduction in blood level|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusting for the binary stratification factors, total ALP, current use of Bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.||The null hypothesis for the comparison of \>=50% reduction in blood level, is that there is no difference between Alpharadin and placebo for that endpoint; the alternative hypothesis is that a difference exists.||||0.002
91099397|NCT00699751|182084508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||||||Confirmed PSA Response(\>=50%)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusting for the binary stratification factors, total ALP, current use of Bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.||The null hypothesis for the comparison of Confirmed PSA Response(\>=50%), is that there is no difference between Alpharadin and placebo for that endpoint; the alternative hypothesis is that a difference exists.||||0.005
90851367|NCT06054269|181567813|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.113|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For comparison of post-vaccination geometric mean antibody titers to the influenza A(H3N2) vaccine virus between recipients of FLUAD Quadrivalent and FluQuadri.||||0.113
90851368|NCT06054269|181567813|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.404|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For comparison of post-vaccination geometric mean antibody titers to the influenza B/Victoria vaccine virus between recipients of FLUAD Quadrivalent and FluQuadri.||||0.404
90851369|NCT06054269|181567813|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.879|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For comparison of post-vaccination geometric mean antibody titers to the influenza B/Yamagata vaccine virus between recipients of FLUAD Quadrivalent and FluQuadri.||||0.879
90851370|NCT06054269|181567814|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||For comparison of post-vaccination seroconversion rate to the influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 vaccine virus between recipients of FLUAD Quadrivalent and FluQuadri.||||<0.001
90900273|NCT01598298|181666881|OTHER|Two-sided test at the alpha=0.05 level|Coefficient for treatment term|-1.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|-0.55||Two-sided p-value; alpha=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline worst pain score and the protocol-specified stratification factors (baseline average pain and prior taxane use).|The estimation parameter is the model-based coefficient for the treatment term, with placebo as the reference level.|The primary analysis will rely on longitudinal measures of BPI at Weeks 2, 6, and 12 for improved power. Assessment windows of +/- 7 days, +/- 14 days, and +/- 14 days will be allowed for the 2, 6, and 12 week timepoints. The analysis will be performed using mixed models, adjusted for baseline worst pain score and the stratification factors.||-0.55|-1.57|<0.0001
90900274|NCT01598298|181666882|OTHER|Two-sided test at the alpha=0.05 level|Coefficient fro treatment term|-0.95|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|-0.55||Two-sided p-value; alpha=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline pain interference score and the protocol-specified stratification factors (baseline average pain and prior taxane use).|The estimation parameter is the model-based coefficient for the treatment term, with placebo as the reference level.|The primary analysis will rely on longitudinal measures of pain interference scores at Weeks 2, 6, and 12 for improved power. Assessment windows of +/- 7 days, +/- 14 days, and +/- 14 days will be allowed for the 2, 6, and 12 week timepoints. The analysis will be performed using mixed models, adjusted for baseline pain interference score and the stratification factors.||-0.55|-1.35|<0.0001
90900275|NCT00474929|181666883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Maximum Tolerated Dose (MTD) Level|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Dose Level 1 was chosen as the MTD due to PI concerns about adverse events and frequent dose reductions seen on later cycles at dose level 2. For the best interest of the patients, dose level 1 was chosen as the MTD and the dose level for Phase II.|The Maximum Tolerated Dose (MTD) is defined as the dose level below the lowest dose that induces dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) in at least one-third of patients (at least 2 of a maximum of 6 new patients).||||
90900276|NCT03029247|181666889|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.17||||0.9694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|8.47||p-value for the difference between treatment groups were presented from ANCOVA model for the superiority assessment.|ANCOVA||LS Mean treatment difference (daprodustat minus recombinant human erythropoietin) and its corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) has been presented.|||8.47|-8.80|0.9694
90900277|NCT03029247|181666890|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.32||||0.7745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.46|7.83||p-value for the difference between treatment groups was presented from ANCOVA model for the superiority assessment.|ANCOVA||LS Mean treatment difference (daprodustat minus recombinant human erythropoietin) of SBP and its corresponding 95% CI has been presented.|||7.83|-10.46|0.7745
90900278|NCT03029247|181666890|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.95||||0.291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.62|1.71||p-value for the difference between treatment groups was presented from ANCOVA model for the superiority assessment.|ANCOVA||LS Mean treatment difference (daprodustat minus recombinant human erythropoietin) of DBP and its corresponding 95% CI has been presented.|||1.71|-5.62|0.2910
90900279|NCT03029247|181666890|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.4||||0.4611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.88|4.07||p-value for the difference between treatment groups was presented from ANCOVA model for the superiority assessment.|ANCOVA||LS Mean treatment difference (daprodustat minus recombinant human erythropoietin) of MAP and its corresponding 95% CI has been presented.|||4.07|-8.88|0.4611
91030865|NCT03587207|181946151|OTHER|M14459 strain-Between group ratio for comparison of MenABCWY group and rMenBOMV group|Geometric mean ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.71|1.15|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||To investigate possible effects on the immune response based on strains common to MenABCWY versus rMenBOMV study groups, on the Meningitis B M14459 (fHbp)strain, one month after first vaccination.||1.15|0.71|
91030866|NCT03587207|181946151|OTHER|96217 strain-Between group ratio for comparison of MenABCWY group and rMenBOMV group|Geometric mean ratio|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.47|0.73|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||To investigate possible effects on the immune response based on strains common to MenABCWY versus rMenBOMV study groups, on the Meningitis B 96217 (NadA) strain, one month after first vaccination.||0.73|0.47|
90900280|NCT03029247|181666891|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.95||||0.1648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.14|1.24||p-value for the difference between treatment groups was presented from ANCOVA model for the superiority assessment.|ANCOVA||LS Mean treatment difference (daprodustat minus recombinant human erythropoietin) and its corresponding 95% CI has been presented.|||1.24|-7.14|0.1648
90900281|NCT03029247|181666892|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-13.42||||0.9142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-261.75|234.92||p-value for the difference between treatment groups was presented from ANCOVA model for the superiority assessment.|ANCOVA||LS Mean treatment difference (daprodustat minus recombinant human erythropoietin) for AUEC of SBP and its corresponding 95% CI has been presented.|||234.92|-261.75|0.9142
90900282|NCT03029247|181666892|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-71.7||||0.2266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-189.21|45.8||p-value for the difference between treatment groups was presented from ANCOVA model for the superiority assessment.|ANCOVA||LS Mean treatment difference (daprodustat minus recombinant human erythropoietin) for AUEC of DBP and its corresponding 95% CI has been presented.|||45.80|-189.21|0.2266
90900283|NCT03029247|181666892|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-54.24||||0.5246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-223.99|115.51||p-value for the difference between treatment groups was presented from ANCOVA model for the superiority assessment.|ANCOVA||LS Mean treatment difference (daprodustat minus recombinant human erythropoietin) for AUEC of MAP and its corresponding 95% CI has been presented.|||115.51|-223.99|0.5246
90900284|NCT03029247|181666893|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-74.4||||0.1563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-178.15|29.34||p-value for the difference between treatment groups was presented from ANCOVA model for the superiority assessment.|ANCOVA||LS Mean treatment difference (daprodustat minus recombinant human erythropoietin) for AUEC of HR and its corresponding 95% CI has been presented.|||29.34|-178.15|0.1563
91099398|NCT00699751|182084509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16||||||Percentage change from baseline in PSA at Week 12|ANCOVA|Adjusting for the binary stratification factors, total ALP, current use of Bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.||The null hypothesis for the comparison of Percentage change from baseline in PSA at Week 12, is that there is no difference between Alpharadin and placebo for that endpoint; the alternative hypothesis is that a difference exists.||||0.160
90957650|NCT00190749|181795327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.191||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||||||0.191
90957651|NCT00190749|181795328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.994||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||||||0.994
91099399|NCT00699751|182084510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||||||Maximum Percentage Decrease from Baseline up to Week 12|ANCOVA|Adjusting for the binary stratification factors, total ALP, current use of Bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.||The null hypothesis for the comparison of Maximum Percentage Decrease from Baseline up to Week 12, is that there is no difference between Alpharadin and placebo for that endpoint; the alternative hypothesis is that a difference exists.||||0.004
91099400|NCT00699751|182084511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||||||Percentage change from baseline in PSA at EOT|ANCOVA|Adjusting for the binary stratification factors, total ALP, current use of Bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.||The null hypothesis for the comparison of Percentage change from baseline in PSA at EOT, is that there is no difference between Alpharadin and placebo for that endpoint; the alternative hypothesis is that a difference exists.||||0.009
91099401|NCT00699751|182084512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Maximum Percentage Decrease from Baseline in PSA response During the 24 Week Treatment Period|ANCOVA|Adjusting for the binary stratification factors, total ALP, current use of Bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.||The null hypothesis for the comparison of Maximum Percentage Decrease from Baseline in PSA response During the 24 Week Treatment Period, is that there is no difference between Alpharadin and placebo for that endpoint; the alternative hypothesis is that a difference exists.||||<0.001
91099402|NCT00699751|182084513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.657||||0.00012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.529|0.814||Time to first Skeletal Related Event (SRE)|Log Rank|Stratified by total ALP, current use of bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.|The hazard ratio (Alpharadin:Placebo) is from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by total ALP, current use of bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.|The null hypothesis for the comparison of time to first SRE, is that there is no difference between Alpharadin and placebo for that endpoint; the alternative hypothesis is that a difference exists||0.814|0.529|0.00012
91099403|NCT00699751|182084514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.639||||8e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.511|0.8||Time to External Beam Radiotherapy|Log Rank|Stratified by total ALP, current use of bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.|The hazard ratio (Alpharadin:Placebo) is from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by total ALP, current use of bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.|The null hypothesis for the comparison of time to EBRT, is that there is no difference between Alpharadin and placebo for that endpoint; the alternative hypothesis is that a difference exists||0.8|0.511|0.00008
91099404|NCT00699751|182084515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.344||||0.00191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.695||stratified by total ALP, current use of bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.|Log Rank|Stratified by total ALP, current use of bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.|The hazard ratio (Alpharadin:Placebo) is from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by total ALP, current use of bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.|The null hypothesis for the comparison of Time to Receiving Radio-isotope, is that there is no difference between Alpharadin and placebo for that endpoint; the alternative hypothesis is that a difference exists||0.695|0.17|0.00191
91099405|NCT00699751|182084516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.847||||0.53277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.504|1.426||Time to Pathological Bone Fracture|Log Rank|Stratified by total ALP, current use of bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.|The hazard ratio (Alpharadin:Placebo) is from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by total ALP, current use of bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.|The null hypothesis for the comparison of Time to Pathological Bone Fracture, is that there is no difference between Alpharadin and placebo for that endpoint; the alternative hypothesis is that a difference exists||1.426|0.504|0.53277
91099406|NCT00699751|182084517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.949||||0.89567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.435|2.07||Time to Surgical Intervention|Log Rank|Stratified by total ALP, current use of bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.|The hazard ratio (Alpharadin:Placebo) is from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by total ALP, current use of bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.|The null hypothesis for the comparison of Time to Surgical Intervention, is that there is no difference between Alpharadin and placebo for that endpoint; the alternative hypothesis is that a difference exists||2.07|0.435|0.89567
91099407|NCT00699751|182084518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.14486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.404|1.145||Time to Spinal Cord Compression|Log Rank|Stratified by total ALP, current use of bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.|The hazard ratio (Alpharadin:Placebo) is from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by total ALP, current use of bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.|The null hypothesis for the comparison of Time to Spinal Cord Compression, is that there is no difference between Alpharadin and placebo for that endpoint; the alternative hypothesis is that a difference exists.||1.145|0.404|0.14486
91099408|NCT00699751|182084519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.727||||0.00932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.571|0.925||Time to Other Cancer Treatment|Log Rank|Stratified by total ALP, current use of bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.|The hazard ratio (Alpharadin:Placebo) is from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by total ALP, current use of bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.|The null hypothesis for the comparison of Time to Other Cancer Treatment, is that there is no difference between Alpharadin and placebo for that endpoint; the alternative hypothesis is that a difference exists.||0.925|0.571|0.00932
91099409|NCT00699751|182084520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||0.00187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.546|0.873||Time to Marked Deterioration of ECOG PS|Log Rank|Stratified by total ALP, current use of bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.|The hazard ratio (Alpharadin:Placebo) is from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by total ALP, current use of bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.|The null hypothesis for the comparison of Time to Marked Deterioration of ECOG PS, is that there is no difference between Alpharadin and placebo for that endpoint; the alternative hypothesis is that a difference exists.||0.873|0.546|0.00187
91099410|NCT00294398|182084540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.87
91099411|NCT01181479|182084564|EQUIVALENCE|Comparison of AG200-15 and Lessina for cycles 1-6.||||||0.067|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.067
91099412|NCT02114684|182084570|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||Fisher Exact|||comparison of culture negative results at week 8||||0.46
91099413|NCT02114684|182084570|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||Fisher Exact|||comparison of culture negative results at month 6||||0.43
91099414|NCT02114684|182084571|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018|||||||Gehan-Breslow-Wilcoxon test|||||||0.018
91099415|NCT02114684|182084572|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.011
90957652|NCT00190749|181795328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.456||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||||||0.456
91099416|NCT02114684|182084573|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||There are significantly more adverse events in the active arm|Mantel Haenszel|||Comparison of the number of adverse events in the two arms, controlling for HIV status||||0.01
91030867|NCT03587207|181946151|OTHER|NZ98/254 strain-Between group ratio for comparison of MenABCWY group and rMenBOMV group|Geometric mean ratio|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.54|0.89|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||To investigate possible effects on the immune response based on strains common to MenABCWY versus rMenBOMV study groups, on the Meningitis B NZ98/254 (PorA) strain, one month after first vaccination.||0.89|0.54|
91030868|NCT03587207|181946151|OTHER|M07-0241084 strain-Between group ratio for comparison of MenABCWY group and rMenBOMV group|Geometric mean ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.65|1.03|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||To investigate possible effects on the immune response based on strains common to MenABCWY versus rMenBOMV study groups, on the Meningitis B M07-0241084 (NHBA) strain, one month after first vaccination.||1.03|0.65|
91099417|NCT02114684|182084573|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||Comparison of the 8-week culture conversion rates in the two arms, controlling for HIV status||||0.45
91099418|NCT02114684|182084574|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.15
91099419|NCT03345095|182084583|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.4||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|-2.5|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||-2.5|-8.6|0.0004
91099420|NCT03345095|182084584|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.55||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|0.16|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.16|-1.27|0.15
91099421|NCT00223821|182084585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.65||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.13|25.54|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA, with baseline frequency of incontinent episodes as the covariate, was used to compare the treatment groups.||The effectiveness of each intervention was calculated by comparing the weekly frequency of incontinent episodes (derived from seven-day bladder diaries) during baseline to that in the immediate post-intervention period (week 8). The primary analysis was based on intent-to-treat, in which post-treatment frequency of incontinence for non-completers was derived from the most recent week of diaries.||25.54|-5.13|.16
91099422|NCT00223821|182084586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.71||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.73|24.33|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA, with baseline frequency of incontinent episodes as the covariate, was used to compare the treatment groups.||||24.33|-10.73|.37
91099423|NCT06922760|182084589|OTHER|Statistical Test of Hypothesis||||||0.411|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.411
91099424|NCT06922760|182084589|OTHER|Statistical Test of Hypothesis||||||0.161|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.161
91099425|NCT06922760|182084590|OTHER|Statistical Test of Hypothesis||||||0.007|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.007
91099426|NCT06922760|182084590|OTHER|Statistical Test of Hypothesis||||||0.5|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.5
91099427|NCT01734928|182084627|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.77|||Based on Cox proportional hazards model|||||0.77|0.49|0.001
91099428|NCT01734928|182084628|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.15|||Log Rank|The p-value is based on a stratified log-rank test with stratification factors as above Cox model.|Based on Cox proportional hazards model, comparing the hazard functions associated with treatment groups, stratified by age, prior number of anti-myeloma regimens, and beta-2 macroglobulin at Screening.|||1.15|0.77|0.571
91099429|NCT01734928|182084630|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.02|||Unstratified log-rank test|The p-value is based on an unstratified log-rank test.|Based on Cox proportional hazards model comparing the hazard functions associated with treatment groups|||1.02|0.56|0.064
91030869|NCT01347710|181946182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value for sensitivity comparison of flurpiridaz F18 PET MPI vs SPECT MPI for majority rule|McNemar|Two-sided McNemar's (chi-squared) test superiority||||||<0.001
91099430|NCT02370394|182084652|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.14||||0.4016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.02|5.75|||t-test, 2 sided|Unequal variances handled by Satterthwaite's degrees of freedom||CAS Victimization Total Score at Follow Up||5.75|-14.02|0.4016
91099431|NCT02370394|182084652|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|14.46||||0.0072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.11|24.82|||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in CAS Victimization Total score from Baseline to Follow Up||24.82|4.11|0.0072
91030870|NCT01347710|181946183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Value for sensitivity comparison of flurpiridaz F18 PET MPI vs SPECT MPI for majority rule in patients under going pharmacologic stress|McNemar|Two-sided McNemar's (chi-squared) test superiority||||||<0.001
91030871|NCT01347710|181946183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Value for sensitivity comparison of flurpiridaz F18 PET MPI vs. SPECT MPI for majority rule in females|McNemar|p-Value based on two-sided McNemar's (Chi-squared) test superiority||||||<0.001
91099432|NCT02370394|182084653|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.6011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.12|||t-test, 2 sided|||Safety Behavior Change Score at Follow Up||0.12|-0.21|0.6011
91099433|NCT02370394|182084653|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.9116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.15|||t-test, 2 sided|||Change is Safety Behavior Change Score from Baseline to Follow Up||0.15|-0.16|0.9116
91099434|NCT02370394|182084654|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.8646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|1.36|||t-test, 2 sided|Unequal variances handled by Satterthwaite's degrees of freedom||EOR Number of issues Effective at Accomplishing at Follow Up||1.36|-1.62|0.8646
91099435|NCT02370394|182084654|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.86||||0.3045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|0.82|||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in Number of Issues Effective at Accomplishing from Baseline to Follow Up||0.82|-2.54|0.3045
91099436|NCT02370394|182084655|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9085|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Motivation Scale at Follow Up||||0.9085
91099437|NCT02370394|182084655|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3256|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in Motivation Scale from Baseline to Follow Up||||0.3256
91099438|NCT02370394|182084656|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4085|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Readiness at Follow Up||||0.4085
91099439|NCT02370394|182084656|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2467|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in Readiness from Baseline to Follow Up||||0.2467
91099440|NCT01952678|182084693|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed using the hypothesis: PPA was equal for Caucasian and non-Caucasian populations.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.8||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|20.7|||Fisher Exact|||Reader A: DaTscan™- Non-Caucasian Participants vs DaTscan™- Caucasian Participants||20.7|-17.3|1.0000
90851371|NCT06054269|181567814|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Chi-squared|||For comparison of post-vaccination seroconversion rate to the influenza A(H3N2) vaccine virus between recipients of FLUAD Quadrivalent and FluQuadri.||||0.002
91099441|NCT01952678|182084693|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed using the hypothesis: PPA was equal for Caucasian and non-Caucasian populations.|Mean Difference (Net)|-7.0||||0.4608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.8|12.1|||Fisher Exact|||Reader B: DaTscan™- Non-Caucasian Participants vs DaTscan™- Caucasian Participants||12.1|-25.8|0.4608
91099442|NCT01952678|182084693|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed using the hypothesis: PPA was equal for Caucasian and non-Caucasian populations.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.8||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|20.7|||Fisher Exact|||Reader C: DaTscan™- Non-Caucasian Participants vs DaTscan™- Caucasian Participants||20.7|-17.3|1.0000
90851372|NCT06054269|181567814|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.468|||||||Chi-squared|||For comparison of post-vaccination seroconversion rate to the influenza B/Victoria vaccine virus between recipients of FLUAD Quadrivalent and FluQuadri.||||0.468
90851373|NCT06054269|181567814|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.057|||||||Chi-squared|||For comparison of post-vaccination seroconversion rate to the influenza B/Yamagata vaccine virus between recipients of FLUAD Quadrivalent and FluQuadri.||||0.057
90851374|NCT06054269|181567815|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.112|||||||Chi-squared|||For comparison of post-vaccination seroconversion rate to the influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 vaccine virus between recipients of FLUAD Quadrivalent and FluQuadri.||||0.112
90851375|NCT06054269|181567815|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.149|||||||Chi-squared|||For comparison of post-vaccination seroconversion rate to the influenza A(H3N2) vaccine virus between recipients of FLUAD Quadrivalent and FluQuadri.||||0.149
90851376|NCT06054269|181567815|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.101|||||||Chi-squared|||For comparison of post-vaccination seroconversion rate to the influenza B/Victoria vaccine virus between recipients of FLUAD Quadrivalent and FluQuadri.||||0.101
90851377|NCT06054269|181567815|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.259|||||||Chi-squared|||For comparison of post-vaccination seroconversion rate to the influenza B/Yamagata vaccine virus between recipients of FLUAD Quadrivalent and FluQuadri.||||0.259
90851378|NCT06054269|181567816|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.097|||||||Chi-squared|||For comparison of post-vaccination seroprotection rate to the influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 vaccine virus between recipients of FLUAD Quadrivalent and FluQuadri.||||0.097
90851379|NCT06054269|181567816|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.733|||||||Chi-squared|||For comparison of post-vaccination seroprotection rate to the influenza A(H3N2) vaccine virus between recipients of FLUAD Quadrivalent and FluQuadri.||||0.733
90851380|NCT06054269|181567816|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.477|||||||Chi-squared|||For comparison of post-vaccination seroprotection rate to the influenza B/Victoria vaccine virus between recipients of FLUAD Quadrivalent and FluQuadri.||||0.477
90851381|NCT06054269|181567816|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.312|||||||Chi-squared|||For comparison of post-vaccination seroprotection rate to the influenza B/Yamagata vaccine virus between recipients of FLUAD Quadrivalent and FluQuadri.||||0.312
90851382|NCT06054269|181567817|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||Chi-squared|||For comparison of post-vaccination seroprotection rate to the influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 vaccine virus between recipients of FLUAD Quadrivalent and FluQuadri.||||0.220
90851383|NCT06054269|181567817|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Chi-squared|||For comparison of post-vaccination seroprotection rate to the influenza A(H3N2) vaccine virus between recipients of FLUAD Quadrivalent and FluQuadri.||||0.003
90851384|NCT06054269|181567817|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.897|||||||Chi-squared|||For comparison of post-vaccination seroprotection rate to the influenza B/Victoria vaccine virus between recipients of FLUAD Quadrivalent and FluQuadri.||||0.897
90851385|NCT06054269|181567817|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.931|||||||Chi-squared|||For comparison of post-vaccination seroprotection rate to the influenza B/Yamagata vaccine virus between recipients of FLUAD Quadrivalent and FluQuadri.||||0.931
90851386|NCT01587898|181567818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5888|||||||Mixed effects linear regression model|The modeled Hgb change from baseline over 4 weeks was derived using a random coefficient mixed effects linear regression model.||Subgroup: Baseline Hgb||||0.5888
90851387|NCT01587898|181567818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66||95.0|||||Mixed effects linear regression model|The modeled Hgb change from baseline over 4 weeks was derived using a random coefficient mixed effects linear regression model.||Subgroup: Baseline Weight||||0.6600
90851388|NCT01587898|181567818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7999|||||||Mixed effects linear regression model|The modeled Hgb change from baseline over 4 weeks was derived using a random coefficient mixed effects linear regression model.||Subgroup: Baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR)||||0.7999
90851389|NCT01587898|181567818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2092|||||||Mixed effects linear regression model|The modeled Hgb change from baseline over 4 weeks was derived using a random coefficient mixed effects linear regression model.||Covariate: Ethnicity||||0.2092
91030872|NCT01347710|181946183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Value for sensitivity comparison of flurpiridaz F18 PET MPI vs SPECT MPI for majority rule in patients with BMI \>/=30|McNemar|p-Value based on two-sided McNemar's (Chi-squared) test superiority||||||<0.001
90851390|NCT01587898|181567818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9996||95.0|||||Mixed effects linear regression model|The modeled Hgb change from baseline over 4 weeks was derived using a random coefficient mixed effects linear regression model.||Covariate: Geographic Ancestry||||0.9996
90851391|NCT01587898|181567818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7002|||||||Mixed effects linear regression model|The modeled Hgb change from baseline over 4 weeks was derived using a random coefficient mixed effects linear regression model.||Covariate: Sex||||0.7002
90851392|NCT01587898|181567818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5536||95.0|||||Mixed effects linear regression model|The modeled Hgb change from baseline over 4 weeks was derived using a random coefficient mixed effects linear regression model.||Covariate: Age||||0.5536
90851393|NCT01587898|181567818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0085||95.0|||||Mixed effects linear regression model|The modeled Hgb change from baseline over 4 weeks was derived using a random coefficient mixed effects linear regression model.||Co-administration with food||||0.0085
90851394|NCT01587898|181567818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0021||95.0|||||Mixed effects linear regression model|The modeled Hgb change from baseline over 4 weeks was derived using a random coefficient mixed effects linear regression model.||Covariate: Diabetic||||0.0021
90851395|NCT01587898|181567818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2194||95.0|||||Mixed effects linear regression model|The modeled Hgb change from baseline over 4 weeks was derived using a random coefficient mixed effects linear regression model.||Covariate: Region||||0.2194
91099443|NCT01952678|182084693|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed using the hypothesis: PPA was equal for Caucasian and non-Caucasian populations.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.8||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|20.7|||Fisher Exact|||Majority Read: DaTscan™- Non-Caucasian Participants vs DaTscan™- Caucasian Participants||20.7|-17.3|1.0000
91099444|NCT01952678|182084694|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed using the hypothesis: PPA was equal for Caucasian and non-Caucasian populations.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.8||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|20.9|||Fisher Exact|||Reader A: DaTscan™- Non-Caucasian Participants vs DaTscan™- Caucasian Participants||20.9|-17.5|1.0000
91099445|NCT01952678|182084694|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed using the hypothesis: PPA was equal for Caucasian and non-Caucasian populations.|Mean Difference (Net)|-7.1||||0.4599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.1|12.2|||Fisher Exact|||Reader B: DaTscan™- Non-Caucasian Participants vs DaTscan™- Caucasian Participants||12.2|-26.1|0.4599
91099446|NCT01952678|182084694|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed using the hypothesis: PPA was equal for Caucasian and non-Caucasian populations.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.8||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|20.9|||Fisher Exact|||Reader C: DaTscan™- Non-Caucasian Participants vs DaTscan™- Caucasian Participants||20.9|-17.5|1.0000
90851396|NCT02720094|181567861|SUPERIORITY||A bias-adjusted hazard ratio|0.34||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.62|||Regression, Cox||The bias-adjusted hazard ratio, CI, and p-value account for the group-sequential trial design and the early stopping time.|||0.62|0.18|0.0005
90851397|NCT02720094|181567861|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.328||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.61|||Regression, Cox||The unadjusted hazard ratio is based on a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by region.|||0.61|0.18|0.0005
90851398|NCT02720094|181567863|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.45||The P-Values are two-sided.|Regression, Cox|||The analysis population Injection Step 2 Efficacy consists of the subset of the mITT population who received at least one injection and had at least one HIV test result after the week 5 injection visit.||0.45|0.10|<0.001
90851399|NCT03735238|181567892|OTHER|Not applicable. No statistical test was performed for this outcome.||||||||||||||||This is a single arm implementation trial with no comparison group. This outcome represents the reach/penetration of the implementation at each site over the trial duration. We did not perform power calculation. There was no null hypothesis stated. Our aim was to enroll at least 28 patients per site in this implementation trial during regular outpatient rheumatology clinic visits. No statistical test was performed for this outcome.|Our aim was to enroll at least 28 patients per site in this implementation trial during regular outpatient rheumatology clinic visits. No statistical test was performed for this outcome.|||
90851400|NCT03207035|181568049|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
90851401|NCT03207035|181568050|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
90851402|NCT03207035|181568051|OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.70
90851403|NCT03207035|181568052|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.002
91099447|NCT01952678|182084694|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed using the hypothesis: PPA was equal for Caucasian and non-Caucasian populations.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.8||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|20.9|||Fisher Exact|||Majority Read: DaTscan™- Non-Caucasian Participants vs DaTscan™- Caucasian Participants||20.9|-17.5|1.0000
91099448|NCT01952678|182084695|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed using the hypothesis: NPA was equal for Caucasian and non-Caucasian populations.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|22.0|||Fisher Exact|||Reader A: DaTscan™- Non-Caucasian Participants vs DaTscan™- Caucasian Participants||22.0|-22.0|1.0000
91099449|NCT01952678|182084695|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed using the hypothesis: NPA was equal for Caucasian and non-Caucasian populations.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.4||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.8|20.8|||Fisher Exact|||Reader B: DaTscan™- Non-Caucasian Participants vs DaTscan™- Caucasian Participants||20.8|-20.8|1.0000
91099450|NCT01952678|182084695|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed using the hypothesis: NPA was equal for Caucasian and non-Caucasian populations.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.0|18.5|||Fisher Exact|||Reader C: DaTscan™- Non-Caucasian Participants vs DaTscan™- Caucasian Participants||18.5|-23.0|1.0000
91099451|NCT01952678|182084695|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed using the hypothesis: NPA was equal for Caucasian and non-Caucasian populations.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.8|20.8|||Fisher Exact|||Majority Read: DaTscan™- Non-Caucasian Participants vs DaTscan™- Caucasian Participants||20.8|-20.8|1.0000
90851404|NCT03207035|181568053|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
90851405|NCT03207035|181568054|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
90851406|NCT03207035|181568055|OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.53
90851407|NCT03207035|181568056|OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.48
90851408|NCT03645434|181568058|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.202|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.151|0.253|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.253|0.151|<0.0001
90851409|NCT03645434|181568063|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.098|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.051|0.146|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 2||0.146|0.051|<0.0001
90851410|NCT03645434|181568063|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.195|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.148|0.242|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 8||0.242|0.148|<0.0001
90851411|NCT03645434|181568064|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.306|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.266|0.346|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1||0.346|0.266|<0.0001
91099452|NCT01952678|182084696|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed using the hypothesis: NPA was equal for Caucasian and non-Caucasian populations.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.8|22.8|||Fisher Exact|||Reader A: DaTscan™- Non-Caucasian Participants vs DaTscan™- Caucasian Participants||22.8|-22.8|1.0000
90851412|NCT03645434|181568064|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.374|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.324|0.425|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 8||0.425|0.324|<0.0001
90851413|NCT03645434|181568064|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.388|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.329|0.447|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14||0.447|0.329|<0.0001
90851414|NCT03645434|181568065|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.551||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.876|-0.226|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1 to Day 8||-0.226|-0.876|0.0010
90851415|NCT03645434|181568065|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.867|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.248|-0.486|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 9 to Day 14||-0.486|-1.248|<0.0001
90851416|NCT03645434|181568065|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.722|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.047|-0.397|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1 to Day 14||-0.397|-1.047|<0.0001
91099453|NCT01952678|182084696|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed using the hypothesis: NPA was equal for Caucasian and non-Caucasian populations.|Mean Difference (Net)|5.2||||0.5187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.7|26.2|||Fisher Exact|||Reader B: DaTscan™- Non-Caucasian Participants vs DaTscan™- Caucasian Participants||26.2|-16.7|0.5187
91099454|NCT01952678|182084696|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed using the hypothesis: NPA was equal for Caucasian and non-Caucasian populations.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.5|21.5|||Fisher Exact|||Reader C: DaTscan™- Non-Caucasian Participants vs DaTscan™- Caucasian Participants||21.5|-21.5|1.0000
91099455|NCT01952678|182084696|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed using the hypothesis: NPA was equal for Caucasian and non-Caucasian populations.|Mean Difference (Net)|2.7||||0.7123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.1|23.9|||Fisher Exact|||Majority Read: DaTscan™- Non-Caucasian Participants vs DaTscan™- Caucasian Participants||23.9|-19.1|0.7123
91099456|NCT01952678|182084697|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed using the hypothesis: OPA was equal for Caucasian and non-Caucasian populations.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|15.3|||Fisher Exact|||Reader A: DaTscan™- Non-Caucasian Participants vs DaTscan™- Caucasian Participants||15.3|-13.3|1.0000
90851417|NCT03645434|181568066|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.571||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.563|-0.579|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1 to Day 8||-0.579|-2.563|0.0022
90851418|NCT03645434|181568066|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.386|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.541|-1.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 9 to Day 14||-1.230|-3.541|<0.0001
91099457|NCT01952678|182084697|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed using the hypothesis: OPA was equal for Caucasian and non-Caucasian populations.|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.8||||0.5731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|9.8|||Fisher Exact|||Reader B: DaTscan™- Non-Caucasian Participants vs DaTscan™- Caucasian Participants||9.8|-17.7|0.5731
91099458|NCT01952678|182084697|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed using the hypothesis: OPA was equal for Caucasian and non-Caucasian populations.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|13.8|||Fisher Exact|||Reader C: DaTscan™- Non-Caucasian Participants vs DaTscan™- Caucasian Participants||13.8|-13.8|1.0000
91099459|NCT01952678|182084697|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed using the hypothesis: OPA was equal for Caucasian and non-Caucasian populations.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.1||||0.834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|14.7|||Fisher Exact|||Majority Read: DaTscan™- Non-Caucasian Participants vs DaTscan™- Caucasian Participants||14.7|-12.8|0.8340
91099460|NCT01952678|182084698|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed using the hypothesis: OPA was equal for Caucasian and non-Caucasian populations.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|15.6|||Fisher Exact|||Reader A: DaTscan™- Non-Caucasian Participants vs DaTscan™- Caucasian Participants||15.6|-13.5|1.0000
91099461|NCT01952678|182084698|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed using the hypothesis: OPA was equal for Caucasian and non-Caucasian populations.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.9||||0.8429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.1|12.0|||Fisher Exact|||Reader B: DaTscan™- Non-Caucasian Participants vs DaTscan™- Caucasian Participants||12.0|-16.1|0.8429
91099462|NCT01952678|182084698|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed using the hypothesis: OPA was equal for Caucasian and non-Caucasian populations.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.1||||0.8214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|15.0|||Fisher Exact|||Reader C: DaTscan™- Non-Caucasian Participants vs DaTscan™- Caucasian Participants||15.0|-13.0|0.8214
91099463|NCT01952678|182084698|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed using the hypothesis: OPA was equal for Caucasian and non-Caucasian populations.|Mean Difference (Net)|2.2||||0.6577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|16.1|||Fisher Exact|||Majority Read: DaTscan™- Non-Caucasian Participants vs DaTscan™- Caucasian Participants||16.1|-12.0|0.6577
91099464|NCT00908388|182084728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0||||(1-Posterior probability of meeting performance goal given the data)|Bayesian adaptive|||||||.006
91099465|NCT01454063|182084754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.577|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052|<|0.0001||95.0|0.475|0.678||p-value based on the generalized Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH-weighted mean difference (OMS - Placebo) adjusted for randomization strata.||||0.678|0.475|<0.0001
90851419|NCT03645434|181568066|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.912||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.923|-0.901|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1 to Day 14||-0.901|-2.923|0.0003
91099466|NCT01454063|182084755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.199|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.076|<|0.0001||95.0|-7.307|-3.091||p-value based on the generalized CMH test stratified by randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH-weighted mean difference (OMS302-placebo) adjusted for randomization strata.||||-3.091|-7.307|<0.0001
91099467|NCT01454063|182084756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0514||||||Treatment comparisons based on CMH test adjusting for randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0514
90851420|NCT03645434|181568077|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.268|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.741|-0.794|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1 to Day 8||-0.794|-1.741|<0.0001
90851421|NCT03645434|181568077|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.302|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.804|-0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 9 to Day 14||-0.800|-1.804|<0.0001
90957653|NCT00190749|181795329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.454||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||||||0.454
90957654|NCT00190749|181795329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.974||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||||||0.974
91099468|NCT01454063|182084757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0034||||||Treatment comparisons based on CMH test adjusting for the randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0034
91099469|NCT01454063|182084758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0963||||||Treatment comparisons based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test stratified by randomization strata. For subjects without a score due to inability to read the ETDRS chart, the log score will be imputed as 1.6 for the purpose of treatment comparisons.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.0963
91099470|NCT01454063|182084759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0532||||||Treatment comparisons are based on generalized CMH test stratified by randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0532
91099471|NCT01454063|182084760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Generalized CMH test stratified by randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
90851422|NCT02880956|181568085|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean of Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.178||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.291|0.409||The statistical model: CDR change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.409|-0.291|0.740
90900285|NCT03029247|181666894|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.06||||0.3247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.23|2.1||p-value for the difference between treatment groups was presented from ANCOVA model for the superiority assessment.|ANCOVA||LS Mean treatment difference (daprodustat minus recombinant human erythropoietin) of DBP and its corresponding 95% CI has been presented.|||2.10|-6.23|0.3247
90851423|NCT02880956|181568085|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.38|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
90851424|NCT02880956|181568085|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.176||0.367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.504|0.187||The statistical model: CDR change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.187|-0.504|0.367
90851425|NCT02880956|181568085|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.33|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
90851426|NCT02880956|181568085|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.318|0.389||The statistical model: CDR change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.389|-0.318|0.843
90851427|NCT02880956|181568085|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.37|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
90851428|NCT02880956|181568085|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.222||0.703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.351|0.52||The statistical model: CDR change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.520|-0.351|0.703
90851429|NCT02880956|181568085|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.62|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
90851430|NCT02880956|181568085|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.218||0.947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.442|0.413||The statistical model: CDR change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.413|-0.442|0.947
91099472|NCT03055195|182084854|OTHER||Proportions Difference|11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.1|23.3|||||Difference in Proportions between Mepolizumab 100 mg SC versus Placebo SC has been presented.|||23.3|-1.1|
91099473|NCT03055195|182084856|OTHER||Proportion Difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.0|12.6|||||Difference in Proportions between Mepolizumab 100 mg SC Versus Placebo SC at Week 4 has been presented.|||12.6|-14.0|
91099474|NCT03055195|182084856|OTHER||Proportion Difference|11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.1|23.3|||||Difference in Proportions between Mepolizumab 100 mg SC Versus Placebo SC at Week 8 has been presented.|||23.3|-1.1|
91099475|NCT03055195|182084856|OTHER||Proportion Difference|11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.1|23.3|||||Difference in Proportions between Mepolizumab 100 mg SC Versus Placebo SC at Week 12 has been presented.|||23.3|-1.1|
91099476|NCT03055195|182084856|OTHER||Proportion Difference|11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.1|23.3|||||Difference in Proportions between Mepolizumab 100 mg SC Versus Placebo SC at Week 16 has been presented.|||23.3|-1.1|
90851431|NCT02880956|181568085|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.69|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
90851432|NCT02880956|181568085|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.222||0.732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.514|0.361||The statistical model: CDR change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.361|-0.514|0.732
90851433|NCT02880956|181568085|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.51|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
90851434|NCT02880956|181568085|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.305||0.939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.623|0.576||The statistical model: CDR change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.576|-0.623|0.939
91099477|NCT03055195|182084856|OTHER||Proportion Difference|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.3|14.4|||||Difference in Proportions between Mepolizumab 100 mg SC Versus Placebo SC at Week 20 has been presented.|||14.4|-3.3|
91099478|NCT00421733|182084888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.071||||||There were no P-value adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|1-way ANCOVA using treatment group as the factor and baseline FMV UACR as the covariate.||||||0.071
91099479|NCT00421733|182084888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.229||95.0||||There were no P-value adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|1-way ANCOVA with treatment group as the factor and baseline FMV UACR as the covariate.||||||0.229
91099480|NCT00421733|182084888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.053||95.0||||There were no P-value adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|1-way ANCOVA using treatment group as the factor and baseline FMV UACR as the covariate.||||||0.053
91099481|NCT00421733|182084889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.102||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.102
91099482|NCT00421733|182084889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.038
90851435|NCT02880956|181568085|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.19|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
90900286|NCT03029247|181666894|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.51||||0.4235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.76|3.74||p-value for the difference between treatment groups was presented from ANCOVA model for the superiority assessment.|ANCOVA||LS Mean treatment difference (daprodustat minus recombinant human erythropoietin) of MAP and its corresponding 95% CI has been presented.|||3.74|-8.76|0.4235
90851436|NCT02880956|181568085|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.299||0.872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.637|0.54||The statistical model: CDR change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.540|-0.637|0.872
90851437|NCT02880956|181568085|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.27|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
90851438|NCT02880956|181568085|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.305||0.773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.688|0.512||The statistical model: CDR change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.512|-0.688|0.773
90851439|NCT02880956|181568085|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.13|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
90851440|NCT02880956|181568085|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.387||0.848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.834|0.686||The statistical model: CDR change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.686|-0.834|0.848
90851441|NCT02880956|181568085|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.64|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
90851442|NCT02880956|181568085|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.684||The statistical model: CDR change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.684|-0.810|0.869
90851443|NCT02880956|181568085|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.75|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
90851444|NCT02880956|181568085|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.389||0.679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.603|0.925||The statistical model: CDR change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.925|-0.603|0.679
90851445|NCT02880956|181568085|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.72|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
90851446|NCT02880956|181568094|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.693||0.562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.764|0.96||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.960|-1.764|0.562
90851447|NCT02880956|181568094|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.92|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
90851448|NCT02880956|181568094|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.682||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.602|0.081||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.081|-2.602|0.066
90851449|NCT02880956|181568094|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.25|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.08|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
90900287|NCT03029247|181666895|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.13||||0.9353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.41|3.14||p-value for the difference between treatment groups was presented from ANCOVA model for the superiority assessment.|ANCOVA||LS Mean treatment difference (daprodustat minus recombinant human erythropoietin) and its corresponding 95% CI has been presented.|||3.14|-3.41|0.9353
90851450|NCT02880956|181568094|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.343|1.41||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||1.410|-1.343|0.962
90851451|NCT02880956|181568094|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.33|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
90851452|NCT02880956|181568094|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.887||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.734|0.755||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.755|-2.734|0.265
90851453|NCT02880956|181568094|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.32|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
90957655|NCT00190749|181795330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.249||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||||||0.249
90957656|NCT00190749|181795330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.163||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||||||0.163
91099483|NCT00421733|182084890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.22|||ANCOVA|2-way ANCOVA: baseline UACR as covariate; fixed factors for treatment group, stratification level, and treatment by stratification level interaction||||0.22|-0.26|0.855
90851454|NCT02880956|181568094|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.863||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.775|0.618||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.618|-2.775|0.212
90851455|NCT02880956|181568094|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.29|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
90851456|NCT02880956|181568094|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.893||0.602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.223|1.29||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||1.290|-2.223|0.602
90851457|NCT02880956|181568094|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.35|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
90851458|NCT02880956|181568094|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.019||0.635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.489|1.519||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||1.519|-2.489|0.635
90851459|NCT02880956|181568094|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.31|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
90851460|NCT02880956|181568094|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.003||0.795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.233|1.712||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||1.712|-2.233|0.795
90851461|NCT02880956|181568094|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.02|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
90851462|NCT02880956|181568094|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.027||0.281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|3.128||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||3.128|-0.910|0.281
90851463|NCT02880956|181568094|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.02|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
90851464|NCT02880956|181568094|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.261||0.729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.918|2.043||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||2.043|-2.918|0.729
90851465|NCT02880956|181568094|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.4|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
90851466|NCT02880956|181568094|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.248||0.636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.047|1.863||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||1.863|-3.047|0.636
90851467|NCT02880956|181568094|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.46|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
90851468|NCT02880956|181568094|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.294||0.427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.515|3.575||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||3.575|-1.515|0.427
90851469|NCT02880956|181568094|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.9|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
91099484|NCT00421733|182084890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.33||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.08|||ANCOVA|2-way ANCOVA: baseline UACR as covariate; fixed factors for treatment group, stratification level, and treatment by stratification level interaction||||-0.08|-0.57|0.009
91099485|NCT00421733|182084891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|1-way ANCOVA with treatment group as the factor and baseline iPTH as covariate.||||||<0.001
90851470|NCT02880956|181568095|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.083|0.126||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.126|-0.083|0.690
90851471|NCT02880956|181568095|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.39|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
90957657|NCT00190749|181795331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.201||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||||||0.201
90957658|NCT00190749|181795331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.168||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||||||0.168
91099486|NCT00421733|182084891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|1-way ANCOVA with treatment group as the factor and baseline iPTH as covariate.||||||<0.001
91099487|NCT01524705|182084999|SUPERIORITY||Wilcoxon||||<|0.024||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test was used due to nonnormality distribution|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Two-tailed t test with type I error = 0.05, a sample of 110 participants (55 per group) would give 90% power to detect a difference of a mean change from baseline of 5 CV units (SD = 8) between control and treatment groups. An ANCOVA model, adjusting for baseline value and clinical site, was to be performed. If residual values from the ANCOVA indicated nonnormality in distribution by Shapiro-Wilk testing, a Wilcoxon rank sum test was used instead.||||<0.024
90851472|NCT02880956|181568095|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.075|0.131||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.131|-0.075|0.595
90900288|NCT03029247|181666896|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-144.97||||0.2573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-399.71|109.76||p-value for the difference between treatment groups was presented from ANCOVA model for the superiority assessment.|ANCOVA||LS Mean treatment difference (daprodustat minus recombinant human erythropoietin) for AUEC of SBP and its corresponding 95% CI has been presented.|||109.76|-399.71|0.2573
91099488|NCT01524705|182085001|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90851473|NCT02880956|181568095|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.36|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
90851474|NCT02880956|181568095|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054||0.201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.037|0.175||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.175|0.037|0.201
90851475|NCT02880956|181568095|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.45|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
90851476|NCT02880956|181568095|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.064||0.361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.067|0.184||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.184|-0.067|0.361
90851477|NCT02880956|181568095|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.49|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
90851478|NCT02880956|181568095|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062||0.522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.082|0.162||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|Week 48||0.162|-0.082|0.522
90900289|NCT03029247|181666896|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-117.49||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-232.26|-2.72||p-value for the difference between treatment groups was presented from ANCOVA model for the superiority assessment.|ANCOVA||LS Mean treatment difference (daprodustat minus recombinant human erythropoietin) for AUEC of DBP and its corresponding 95% CI has been presented.|||-2.72|-232.26|0.0450
90851479|NCT02880956|181568095|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.41|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
90851480|NCT02880956|181568095|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.064||0.147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.033|0.219||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.219|-0.033|0.147
90851481|NCT02880956|181568095|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.53|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
91099489|NCT01524705|182085002|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.77
91099490|NCT00412451|182085003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.001||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|999.999|||Fisher Exact|||||999.999|0.001|0.131
91099491|NCT00412451|182085003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.562||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.132|2.4|||Fisher Exact|||||2.400|0.132|0.670
91099492|NCT00412451|182085003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.346||||0.372||95.0|0.07|1.703|||Fisher Exact|||||1.703|0.070|0.372
90900290|NCT03029247|181666896|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-131.94||||0.1341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-306.24|42.36||p-value for the difference between treatment groups was presented from ANCOVA model for the superiority assessment.|ANCOVA||LS Mean treatment difference (daprodustat minus recombinant human erythropoietin) for AUEC of MAP and its corresponding 95% CI has been presented.|||42.36|-306.24|0.1341
91099493|NCT04018001|182085061|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0115|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0115
91099494|NCT04018001|182085061|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.410198||||0.0227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0492535|1.8953079||To better assess true effect of treatment,analysis with participant's baseline characteristic was adjusted to remove influence on the outcome measure.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.8953079|1.0492535|0.0227
91099495|NCT04018001|182085062|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3564|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3564
91099496|NCT04018001|182085062|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9022||||0.2629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7534|1.0803||To better assess true effect of treatment,analysis with participant's baseline characteristic was adjusted to remove influence on the outcome measure.|Regression, Cox|||||1.0803|0.7534|0.2629
91099497|NCT04018001|182085063|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0123|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0123
91099498|NCT04018001|182085063|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares (LS) Means|0.0300853||||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0092322|0.0509385||To better assess true effect of treatment,analysis with participant's baseline characteristic was adjusted to remove influence on the outcome measure.|Generalized linear model|||||0.0509385|0.0092322|0.0047
91099499|NCT04018001|182085064|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0002
91099500|NCT04018001|182085064|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7910474||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3167136|2.4362554||To better assess true effect of treatment,analysis with participant's baseline characteristic was adjusted to remove influence on the outcome measure.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.4362554|1.3167136|0.0002
91099501|NCT04018001|182085065|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4071|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4071
91099502|NCT04018001|182085065|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|0.0104065||||0.6143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.030062|0.0508746||To better assess true effect of treatment,analysis with participant's baseline characteristic was adjusted to remove influence on the outcome measure.|Generalized linear model|||||0.0508746|-0.030062|0.6143
90851482|NCT02880956|181568095|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.091||0.492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.243|0.117||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.117|-0.243|0.492
91099503|NCT04018001|182085066|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0010
91099504|NCT04018001|182085066|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5211586||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1594614|1.9956882||To better assess true effect of treatment,analysis with participant's baseline characteristic was adjusted to remove influence on the outcome measure.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.9956882|1.1594614|0.0025
90851483|NCT02880956|181568095|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.57|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
90851484|NCT02880956|181568095|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.213|0.141||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.141|-0.213|0.691
90851485|NCT02880956|181568095|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.6|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
90851486|NCT02880956|181568095|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.091||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.043|0.317||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.317|-0.043|0.135
90851487|NCT02880956|181568095|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.19|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.74|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
91099505|NCT04018001|182085067|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4595|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4595
91099506|NCT04018001|182085067|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1225||||0.3354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8873|1.4201||To better assess true effect of treatment,analysis with participant's baseline characteristic was adjusted to remove influence on the outcome measure.|Regression, Cox|||||1.4201|0.8873|0.3354
91099507|NCT04018001|182085068|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.113|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1130
91099508|NCT04018001|182085068|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|0.0151242||||0.1194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.003908|0.0341568||To better assess true effect of treatment,analysis with participant's baseline characteristic was adjusted to remove influence on the outcome measure.|Generalized linear model|||||0.0341568|-0.003908|0.1194
91099509|NCT04018001|182085069|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0200
90957659|NCT00190749|181795332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.793||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||||||0.793
91099510|NCT04018001|182085069|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4143816||||0.0364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0221455|1.9571335||To better assess true effect of treatment,analysis with participant's baseline characteristic was adjusted to remove influence on the outcome measure.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.9571335|1.0221455|0.0364
91099511|NCT04018001|182085070|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9031|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9031
91099512|NCT04018001|182085070|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.008587||||0.6376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.044317|0.0271416||To better assess true effect of treatment,analysis with participant's baseline characteristic was adjusted to remove influence on the outcome measure.|Generalized linear model|||||0.0271416|-0.044317|0.6376
91099513|NCT04018001|182085071|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3584|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3584
91099514|NCT04018001|182085071|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1077385||||0.451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8489444|1.4454238||To better assess true effect of treatment,analysis with participant's baseline characteristic was adjusted to remove influence on the outcome measure.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.4454238|0.8489444|0.4510
91099515|NCT04018001|182085072|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0624|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0624
91099516|NCT04018001|182085073|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4914|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.4914
91099517|NCT03767894|182085142|OTHER|Descriptive analysis (paired sample t-test)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.36||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: p\<0.05 p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using Bonferroni correction.|t-test, 2 sided|Adjustment for p-value is 2.||Baseline scores compared to Post Unassisted condition (ARAT performed unassisted/without the use of the MyHand device).||||0.24
91099518|NCT03767894|182085142|OTHER|Descriptive analysis (paired sample t-test)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.72||||0.207|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: p\<0.05 p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using Bonferroni correction.|t-test, 2 sided|Adjustment for p-value is 2.||Post Unassisted condition (ARAT performed unassisted/without the use of the MyHand device) compared to Post Assisted condition (ARAT performed assisted with the use of the MyHand device).||||0.207
91099519|NCT03767894|182085143|OTHER|Descriptive analysis (paired sample t-test)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.64||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: p\<0.05|Paired sample T-test|2-tailed||Baseline scores compared to Post Unassisted condition (UEMF performed unassisted/without the use of the MyHand device).||||0.026
91099520|NCT03767894|182085145|OTHER|Descriptive analysis (paired Wilcoxon)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.09||||0.442|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: p\<0.05 p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using Bonferroni correction.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Adjustment for p-value is 2.||Baseline scores compared to Post Unassisted condition (BBT performed unassisted/without the use of the MyHand device) of the impaired (hemiparetic) hand.||||0.442
91099521|NCT03767894|182085145|OTHER|Descriptive analysis (paired Wilcoxon)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: p\<0.05 p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using Bonferroni correction.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Adjustment for p-value is 2.||Post Unassisted condition (BBT performed unassisted/without the use of the MyHand device) compared to Post Assisted condition (BBT performed assisted with the use of the MyHand device).||||1.0
90851488|NCT02880956|181568095|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.117||0.713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.273|0.187||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.187|-0.273|0.713
90851489|NCT02880956|181568095|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
90851490|NCT02880956|181568095|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.115||0.318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.341|0.111||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.111|-0.341|0.318
90900291|NCT03029247|181666897|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-97.67||||0.1119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-219.05|23.71||p-value for the difference between treatment groups was presented from ANCOVA model for the superiority assessment.|ANCOVA||LS Mean treatment difference (daprodustat minus recombinant human erythropoietin) for AUEC of HR and its corresponding 95% CI has been presented.|||23.71|-219.05|0.1119
90900292|NCT00999661|181666967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|39.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|25.12|<|0.0001||95.0|36.6|43.1||One-sample t-test for change from baseline|t-test, 2 sided|||||43.1|36.6|<0.0001
90900293|NCT00999661|181666968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|36.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.79|<|0.0001||95.0|34.0|39.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||||39.2|34.0|<0.0001
90851491|NCT02880956|181568095|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.8|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
90851492|NCT02880956|181568095|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.119||0.927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.244|0.222||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.222|-0.244|0.927
90851493|NCT02880956|181568095|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.84|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
90900294|NCT00999661|181666969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.97|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.233|<|0.0001||95.0|-8.65|-7.29|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-7.29|-8.65|<0.0001
90900295|NCT00312858|181666970|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Similarity (non-inferiority) based on lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI on the risk difference of seroresponse rates excluding a decrease of 10 percentage points or more (lower bound \>-10.0).|Risk Difference (RD)|0.7|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.4|3.8||Similarity (non-inferiority) indicated that the risk difference was statistically significantly greater than the pre-specified clinically relevant difference of -10 percentage points at the 1-sided α=0.025 level.|Miettinen and Nurminen|For testing the non-inferiority of 2 proportions. Stratified by investigator.|Difference in estimated response rates of Arm 1 - Arm 2.|Comparison of the difference (percentage points) in estimated response rates of Arm 1 - Arm 2.||3.8|-1.4|<0.001
91099522|NCT00387127|182085148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of par. with CR|10.7||||0.3658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|37.3||From exact test that common odds ratio equals 1|Fisher Exact||Complete response was defined as the percentage of participants achieving a CR as determined by an independent radiological review.|||37.3|-13.4|0.3658
91099523|NCT00387127|182085149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of par. with CR|28.8||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|53.6||From exact test that common odds ratio equals 1|Fisher Exact||Complete response was defined as the percentage of participants achieving a CR as determined by the investigator.|||53.6|5.7|0.0130
91099524|NCT00387127|182085158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in overall response rate|16.3||||0.1969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|42.1||From exact test that common odds ratio equals 1|Fisher Exact||Overall response was defined as the percentage of participants achieving a PR or CR as determined by the investigator.|||42.1|-8.6|0.1969
90905110|NCT02886728|181677439|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.0|-2.0|<0.001
90957660|NCT00190749|181795332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.777||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||||||0.777
91099525|NCT00002874|182085205|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.98||One-sided significance level = 0.046 to preserve overall significance level of 0.05 for the study.|Log Rank||Stratifying variables were fixed covariates: prior hormone therapy (yes/no), entry prostate-specific antigen (PSA) (1.6-4.0 vs. 0.2-1.5), PSA nadir after surgery (\< 0.5 vs. \>= 0.5), positive surgical margins (yes/no). Reference level = placebo arm.|||0.98|0.59|0.020
90851494|NCT02880956|181568096|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.081||0.456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.219|0.098||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.098|-0.219|0.456
90851495|NCT02880956|181568096|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.64|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
90851496|NCT02880956|181568096|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.079||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.023||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.023|-0.290|0.093
90851497|NCT02880956|181568096|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.23|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.59|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
90851498|NCT02880956|181568096|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.082||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.187|0.135||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.135|-0.187|0.750
90851499|NCT02880956|181568096|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.63|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
90851500|NCT02880956|181568096|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.106||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.049|0.366||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.366|-0.049|0.134
90851501|NCT02880956|181568096|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.79|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
90851502|NCT02880956|181568096|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.103||0.316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.099|0.305||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.305|-0.099|0.316
90851503|NCT02880956|181568096|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.72|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
90851504|NCT02880956|181568096|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.106||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.078|0.339||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.339|-0.078|0.218
90851505|NCT02880956|181568096|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.76|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
90851506|NCT02880956|181568096|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099||0.799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.219|0.169||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.169|-0.219|0.799
90851507|NCT02880956|181568096|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.7|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
91099526|NCT00002874|182085206|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.1||||0.289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.53|||Gray's test|One-sided test|||Reference level = placebo arm|1.53|0.79|0.289
91099527|NCT00002874|182085207|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.58|||Gray's test|One-sided test|Reference level = placebo arm|||0.58|0.40|<0.001
91099528|NCT00002874|182085208|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.46|||Gray's test|One-sided test|Reference level = placebo arm|||1.46|0.85|0.213
90851508|NCT02880956|181568096|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.098||0.406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.273|0.111||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.111|-0.273|0.406
90851509|NCT02880956|181568096|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.74|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
90851510|NCT02880956|181568096|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099||0.363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.285|0.105||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.105|-0.285|0.363
90851511|NCT02880956|181568096|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.76|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
91099529|NCT00002874|182085209|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91099530|NCT00002874|182085210|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.87|||Gray's test|One-sided test|Reference level = placebo arm|||0.87|0.46|0.002
90957661|NCT00190749|181795333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.815||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||||||0.815
90900296|NCT00312858|181666971|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Similarity (non-inferiority) based on lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI on the risk difference seroresponse rates excluding a decrease of 10 percentage points or more (lower bound \>-10.0).|Risk Difference (RD)|-5.1||||0.013||95.0|-9.3|-1.4||Similarity (non-inferiority) indicated that the risk difference was statistically significantly greater than the pre-specified clinically relevant difference of -10 percentage points at the 1-sided multiplicity-adjusted α=0.025 level.|Miettinen and Nurminen|For testing the non-inferiority of 2 proportions. Stratified by investigator.|Difference in estimated response rates of Arm 1 - Arm 2.|Comparison of the difference (percentage points) in estimated response rates of Arm 1 - Arm 2 for participants with initial serostatus \<1.25 gpELISA units/mL||-1.4|-9.3|0.013
90900297|NCT00312858|181666972|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority criterion is met if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval of the response ratio is \>0.5, excluding a decrease of 2-fold or more|Response ratio (Arm 1 / Arm 2)|1.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.3|||ANCOVA||Response ratio is based on statistical models adjusting the GMT for combined study center and prevaccination titer|Serotype 4||1.3|0.9|<0.001
90900298|NCT00312858|181666972|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority criterion is met if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval of the response ratio is \>0.5, excluding a decrease of 2-fold or more|Response ratio (Arm 1 / Arm 2)|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.2|||ANCOVA||Response ratio is based on statistical models adjusting the GMT for combined study center and prevaccination titer|Serotype 6B||1.2|0.8|<0.001
90900299|NCT00312858|181666972|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority criterion is met if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval of the response ratio is \>0.5, excluding a decrease of 2-fold or more|Response ratio (Arm 1 / Arm 2)|0.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.0|||ANCOVA||Response ratio is based on statistical models adjusting the GMT for combined study center and prevaccination titer|Serotype 9V||1.0|0.8|<0.001
90900300|NCT00312858|181666972|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority criterion is met if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval of the response ratio is \>0.5, excluding a decrease of 2-fold or more|Response ratio (Arm 1 / Arm 2)|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.2|||ANCOVA||Response ratio is based on statistical models adjusting the GMT for combined study center and prevaccination titer|Serotype 14||1.2|0.9|<0.001
90900301|NCT00312858|181666972|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority criterion is met if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval of the response ratio is \>0.5, excluding a decrease of 2-fold or more|Response ratio (Arm 1 / Arm 2)|1.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.3|||ANCOVA||Response ratio is based on statistical models adjusting the GMT for combined study center and prevaccination titer|Serotype 18C||1.3|0.9|<0.001
90900302|NCT00312858|181666972|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority criterion is met if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval of the response ratio is \>0.5, excluding a decrease of 2-fold or more|Response ratio (Arm 1 / Arm 2)|1.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.2|||ANCOVA||Response ratio is based on statistical models adjusting the GMT for combined study center and prevaccination titer|Serotype 19F||1.2|0.9|<0.001
90900303|NCT00312858|181666972|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority criterion is met if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval of the response ratio is \>0.5, excluding a decrease of 2-fold or more|Response ratio (Arm 1 / Arm 2)|1.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.3|||ANCOVA||Response ratio is based on statistical models adjusting the GMT for combined study center and prevaccination titer|Serotype 23F||1.3|1.0|<0.001
90900304|NCT00252590|181666994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.32
90900305|NCT01355419|181667048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A power analysis conducted prior to the study predicted that a sample of 144 patients would provide an 80% power to detect a mean difference in sleep time of 40 minutes, assuming a standard deviation of 85 minutes and using a two-sided significance level of 5%.||||<0.05
90900306|NCT01355419|181667049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Multiple regression modelling was used to determine whether actigraphic or polysomnographic data were predictors for physical activity, independently from age and BMI, stepwise forward selection of variables was performed.|Regression, Linear|||Multiple regression modelling was used to determine whether actigraphic or polysomnographic data were predictors for physical activity, independently from age and BMI, stepwise forward selection of variables was performed.||||<0.05
90900307|NCT02951351|181667050|NON_INFERIORITY|By non-inferiority analysis, proparacaine was inferior to povidone iodine with a 5% margin for non-inferiority. To detect non-inferiority with one positive culture in the proparacaine group, 45 patients would be required in the proparacaine group with a 5% margin.||||||0.28|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.28
90957662|NCT00190749|181795333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.675||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||||||0.675
91099531|NCT00002874|182085211|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.74|||Gray's test|One-sided test|Reference level = placebo arm|||0.74|0.32|<0.001
91099532|NCT00002874|182085212|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.71|||Log Rank|One-side test|||Reference level = placebo arm|0.71|0.50|< 0.001
90900308|NCT02951351|181667051|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.25
90900309|NCT02951351|181667052|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.86
90900310|NCT02951351|181667053|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.48
90900311|NCT02951351|181667054|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.76
90900312|NCT02951351|181667055|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.31
90957663|NCT00190749|181795334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.393||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||Change in Eating Behavior Item 1||||0.393
90957664|NCT00190749|181795334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||Change in Eating Behavior Item 1||||0.033
90957665|NCT00190749|181795334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.392||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||Change in Eating Behavior Item 2||||0.392
90957666|NCT00190749|181795334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.129||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||Change in Eating Behavior Item 2||||0.129
91099533|NCT00002874|182085213|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Chi-squared|||Acute radiotherapy toxicity||||0.060
91099534|NCT00002874|182085213|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029|||||||Chi-squared|||Hormone therapy and late radiotherapy toxicity||||0.029
90900313|NCT02951351|181667056|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.18
90900314|NCT02951351|181667057|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.67
90900315|NCT02006420|181667058|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Unequal variance assumption||This is the p value for the mean skin thickness of the forearm.||||0.005
90900316|NCT02006420|181667058|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Unequal variance assumption||This is the p value for the mean skin stiffness of the thigh||||0.71
90900317|NCT02006420|181667059|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Pearson correlation|||This is the p-value for the forearm||||0.002
90900318|NCT02006420|181667059|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Pearson correlation|||This is the p-value for the thigh||||0.007
90900319|NCT02006420|181667060|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Pearson correlation|||This is the p value for the forearm.||||0.002
90900320|NCT02006420|181667060|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Pearson correlation|||This is the p value for the thigh||||0.007
90900321|NCT02006420|181667062|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Pearson correlation|||This is the p-value for the forearm||||<.0001
90900322|NCT02006420|181667062|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Pearson correlation|||This is the p-value for the thigh||||<0.0001
90900323|NCT02006420|181667064|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Pearson correlation|||This is the p-value for the forearm||||0.01
90900324|NCT02006420|181667064|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Pearson correlation|||This is the p-value for the thigh||||0.10
90900325|NCT00791921|181667074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||For ACR20 responder rate at Week 12, comparison between the CDP870 200 mg group and the placebo group was performed.||||<0.05
90900326|NCT00791921|181667075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.05
90900327|NCT01965158|181667080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|13.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.19||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.8|21.3||To control the overall type I error rate to be ≤ 0.05 for the primary and secondary efficacy endpoints, a fixed-sequence (hierarchical) testing approach was applied.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was calculated by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted by the opioid dose strata.||||21.3|4.8|0.0020
90900328|NCT01965158|181667081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.271|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.83|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model has the terms for treatment group as a fixed effect and the opioid dose strata as a covariate.||||1.83|0.77|<0.0001
90900329|NCT01965158|181667082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|2.63|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model has the terms for treatment group as a fixed effect and the opioid dose strata as a covariate.||||2.63|1.60|<0.0001
90900330|NCT01965158|181667083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.48|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model has the terms for treatment group as a fixed effect and the opioid dose strata as a covariate.||||1.48|0.54|<0.0001
90900331|NCT01965158|181667084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.198||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.12|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model has the terms for treatment group as a fixed effect and the opioid dose strata as a covariate.||||1.12|0.34|0.0003
90900332|NCT00474175|181667085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|16.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.2|25.7||Alternative hypotheses tested in the study was that benzocaine 20% was significantly (p less than or equal to \[=\<\] 0.05) more effective than placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test which was adjusted for site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 20% - Placebo) and its associated confidence interval (C.I.) was calculated based on CMH weighted percentages and the corresponding standard error.||25.7|7.2|<0.001
90900333|NCT00474175|181667085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|9.8||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|19.3||Alternative hypotheses tested in the study was that benzocaine 10% was significantly (p=\<0.05) more effective than placebo provided that benzocaine 20% was more effective than placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 10% - Placebo) and its associated C.I. was calculated based on CMH weighted percentages and the corresponding standard error.||19.3|0.3|0.038
90900334|NCT00474175|181667085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|6.72||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|13.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Dose response was considered established if the percentage of responders between the 20% and 10% was greater than or equal to 5%.||P-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 20% - Benzocaine 10%) and its associated C.I. was calculated based on CMH weighted percentages and the corresponding standard error.||13.3|0.2|0.047
90900335|NCT00474175|181667086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|2.64||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox|||P-value was calculated using Cox proportional hazard regression model which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Hazard Ratio (HR) of Benzocaine 20% relative to the Placebo was calculated. C.I. was based on the Wald statistic.||2.64|1.55|<0.001
90900336|NCT00474175|181667086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|2.12||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox|||P-value was calculated using Cox proportional hazard regression model which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. HR of Benzocaine 10% relative to the Placebo was calculated. C.I. was based on the Wald statistic.||2.12|1.26|<0.001
90957667|NCT00190749|181795334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.956||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||Change in Eating Bahavior Item 3||||0.956
91099535|NCT00990769|182085236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.0|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Sample size calculation concluded that 20 patients in each group would have 80% power to detect a mean difference of 4 ± 4 with alpha equal to 0.05, as would be determined by a two-sample T test.||||>0.05
91099536|NCT00504309|182085257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Tukey p-values were used for post hoc comparisons.||Fasting triglycerides (mg/dL) were measured on two consecutive days and averaged for analysis at the end of each treatment period. The null hypothesis was that triglycerides did not differ between groups.||||0.002
91099537|NCT00504309|182085257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cholesterol values were compared as the average of two fasting values at the end of each treatment. Cholesterol values included LDL-C, HDL-C, total cholesterol, and calculated ratios.||||> 0.05
91099538|NCT00983957|182085282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|1.105|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.023|1.195|||||Point estimates and 90% Confidence Interval (CIs) for treatment differences on the log scale were exponentiated to obtain estimates for ratios of geometric means on the original scale.|Mixed effect models were fitted to log-transformed data with treatment as a fixed effect, and measurements within each participant as repeated measurements.||1.195|1.023|
91099539|NCT00983957|182085283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|1.071|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.988|1.16|||||Point estimates and 90% CIs for treatment differences on the log scale were exponentiated to obtain estimates for ratios of geometric means on the original scale.|Mixed effect models were fitted to log-transformed data with treatment as a fixed effect, and measurements within each participant as repeated measurements.||1.160|0.988|
91099540|NCT00983957|182085284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean|1.009|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.951|1.07|||||Point estimates and 90% CIs for treatment differences on the log scale were exponentiated to obtain estimates for ratios of geometric means on the original scale.|Mixed effect models were fitted to log-transformed data with treatment as a fixed effect, and measurements within each participant as repeated measurements.||1.070|0.951|
91099541|NCT00983957|182085285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|1.121|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.018|1.234|||||Point estimates and 90% CIs for treatment differences on the log scale were exponentiated to obtain estimates for ratios of geometric means on the original scale.|Mixed effect models were fitted to log-transformed data with treatment as a fixed effect, and measurements within each participant as repeated measurements.||1.234|1.018|
91099542|NCT00983957|182085288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|1.059|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.988|1.135|||||Point estimates and 90% CIs for treatment differences on the log scale were exponentiated to obtain estimates for ratios of geometric means on the original scale.|Mixed effect models were fitted to log-transformed data with treatment as a fixed effect, and measurements within each participant as repeated measurements.||1.135|0.988|
90900337|NCT00474175|181667086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.24||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.51||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox|||P-value was calculated using Cox proportional hazard regression model which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. HR of Benzocaine 20% relative to the Benzocaine 10% was calculated. C.I. was based on the Wald statistic.||1.51|1.02|0.030
90900338|NCT00474175|181667087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|2.66||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox|||P-value was calculated using Cox proportional hazard regression model which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. HR of Benzocaine 20% relative to the Placebo was calculated. C.I. was based on the Wald statistic.||2.66|1.57|<0.001
90900339|NCT00474175|181667087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|2.25||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox|||P-value was calculated using Cox proportional hazard regression model which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. HR of Benzocaine 10% relative to the Placebo was calculated. C.I. was based on the Wald statistic.||2.25|1.34|<0.001
90900340|NCT00474175|181667087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.43||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox|||P-value was calculated using Cox proportional hazard regression model which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. HR of Benzocaine 20% relative to the Benzocaine 10% was calculated. C.I. was based on the Wald statistic.||1.43|0.97|0.100
90900341|NCT00474175|181667089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.49||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.95||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||SPRID 60: P-value was calculated using Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 20% - Placebo) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.95|0.03|0.035
90900342|NCT00474175|181667089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.32||||0.173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.78||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||SPRID 60: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 10% - Placebo) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.78|-0.14|0.173
91099543|NCT00983957|182085293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|1.115|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.063|1.171|||||Point estimates and 90% CIs for treatment differences on the log scale were exponentiated to obtain estimates for ratios of geometric means on the original scale.|Mixed effect models were fitted to log-transformed data with treatment as a fixed effect, and measurements within each participant as repeated measurements.||1.171|1.063|
91104316|NCT02470377|182094876|SUPERIORITY|The hypothesis was that either Target 1 (Occipital) or Target 2 (Vermis) would be more effective than the control target (Cerebellar hemisphere) but that there may be baseline differences in participants who chose Target 1 vs Target 2.||||||0.0316|||||||ANOVA|One way ANOVA, immediate MBRS changes used for calculation.||This was an N-of-1 pilot study in which all participants received one session of each of 3 targets and chose which of the 3 led to the most acute reduction in intensity of rocking. The participants were treated with the target that they chose and then completed post stimulation diaries.||||0.0316
90957668|NCT00190749|181795334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.846||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||Change in Eating Behavior Item 3||||0.846
90851512|NCT02880956|181568096|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.125||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.093||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.093|-0.400|0.220
90851513|NCT02880956|181568096|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.18|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.85|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
90851514|NCT02880956|181568096|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.123||0.245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.386|0.099||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.099|-0.386|0.245
90851515|NCT02880956|181568096|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.83|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
90851516|NCT02880956|181568096|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.127||0.569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.323|0.178||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.178|-0.323|0.569
90851517|NCT02880956|181568096|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.95|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
90851518|NCT02880956|181568097|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.093||0.945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.177|0.19||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.190|-0.177|0.945
90851519|NCT02880956|181568097|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.86|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
90851520|NCT02880956|181568097|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.092||0.974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.184|0.178||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.178|-0.184|0.974
90851521|NCT02880956|181568097|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.74|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
90851522|NCT02880956|181568097|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094||0.963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.181||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||||0.181|-0.190|0.963
90851523|NCT02880956|181568097|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.76|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
90851524|NCT02880956|181568097|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.104||0.625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.255|0.154||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.154|-0.255|0.625
90851525|NCT02880956|181568097|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.74|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
90851526|NCT02880956|181568097|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.101||0.468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.272|0.125||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.125|-0.272|0.468
90851527|NCT02880956|181568097|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.71|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
90851528|NCT02880956|181568097|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.104||0.636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.155|0.254||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.254|-0.155|0.636
90851529|NCT02880956|181568097|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.88|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
90851530|NCT02880956|181568097|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.112||0.887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.204|0.236||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.236|-0.204|0.887
90957669|NCT00190749|181795334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.675||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||Change in Eating Behavior Item 4||||0.675
90957670|NCT00190749|181795334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.306||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||Change in Eating Behavior Item 4||||0.306
90957671|NCT00190749|181795334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.468||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||Change in Eating Behavior Item 5||||0.468
91030873|NCT01347710|181946184|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Systematic review of literature and meta-analysis of diagnostic efficacy of SPECT MPI to evaluate the performance criteria of SPECT MPI in studies with various levels of control. Analysis of study BMS747158-201. Non-inferiority margin (delta) = 7%||||||0.891|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Value for specificity comparison of flurpiridaz F18 PET MPI vs. SPECT MPI for majority rule in patients undergoing pharmacologic stress|Z test|z test for non inferiority for specificity||||||0.891
90851531|NCT02880956|181568097|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.84|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
90851532|NCT02880956|181568097|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.111||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.051|0.486||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.486|0.051|0.016
90851533|NCT02880956|181568097|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.33|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.8|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
90851534|NCT02880956|181568097|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.112||0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.097|0.342||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.342|-0.097|0.272
90851535|NCT02880956|181568097|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.81|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
90851536|NCT02880956|181568097|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145||0.671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.223|0.347||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.347|-0.223|0.671
90851537|NCT02880956|181568097|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.88|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
90851538|NCT02880956|181568097|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.143||0.493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.183|0.378||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.378|-0.183|0.493
90851539|NCT02880956|181568097|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.92|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
90851540|NCT02880956|181568097|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.147||0.501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.387||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.387|-0.190|0.501
90851541|NCT02880956|181568097|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.98|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
90851542|NCT02880956|181568098|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.188||0.742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.307|0.431||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.431|-0.307|0.742
90851543|NCT02880956|181568098|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.5|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
90851544|NCT02880956|181568098|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.185||0.431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.511|0.218||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.218|-0.511|0.431
90851545|NCT02880956|181568098|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.5|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
90851546|NCT02880956|181568098|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.574|0.172||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.172|-0.574|0.290
90851547|NCT02880956|181568098|SUPERIORITY||effect size|0.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.51|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
90851548|NCT02880956|181568098|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.191||0.541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.492|0.258||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.258|-0.492|0.541
90957672|NCT00190749|181795334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.739||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||Change in Eating Behavior Item 5||||0.739
90957673|NCT00190749|181795334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.404||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||Change in Eating Behavior Item 6||||0.404
90957674|NCT00190749|181795334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.711||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||Change in Eating Behavior Item 6||||0.711
90900343|NCT00474175|181667089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.18||||0.358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.55||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||SPRID 60: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 20% - Benzocaine 10%) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.55|-0.20|0.358
90900344|NCT00474175|181667089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.75||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|1.72||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||SPRID 120: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 20% - Placebo) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||1.72|-0.23|0.135
90900345|NCT00474175|181667089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.48||||0.332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|1.46||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||SPRID 120: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 10% - Placebo) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||1.46|-0.49|0.332
90900346|NCT00474175|181667089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.26||||0.517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|1.06||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||SPRID 120: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 20% - Benzocaine 10%) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||1.06|-0.53|0.517
90900347|NCT00474175|181667091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.35||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||5 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 20% - Placebo) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||1.35|0.50|<0.001
90900348|NCT00474175|181667091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.55||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.97||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||5 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 10% - Placebo) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.97|0.13|0.011
90957675|NCT00190749|181795334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.281||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||Change in Eating Behavior Item 7||||0.281
90957676|NCT00190749|181795334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.805||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||Change in Eating Behavior Item 7||||0.805
90957677|NCT00190749|181795334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.844||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||Change in Eating Behavior Item 8||||0.844
90900349|NCT00474175|181667091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.38||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.72||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||5 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 20% - Benzocaine 10%) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.72|0.03|0.031
90900350|NCT00474175|181667091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.23||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||10 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 20% - Placebo) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||1.23|0.33|<0.001
90900351|NCT00474175|181667091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.49||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.94||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||10 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 10% - Placebo) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.94|0.04|0.031
90957678|NCT00190749|181795334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.359||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||Change in Eating Bahavior Item 8||||0.359
90957679|NCT00190749|181795334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.642||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||Change in Eating Behavior Item 9||||0.642
90957680|NCT00190749|181795334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.043||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||Change in Eating Behavior Item 9||||0.043
90957681|NCT00190749|181795335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on Least Squares Mean (LSMean) change||||||<.001
90957682|NCT00190749|181795335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||||||0.019
90957683|NCT00190749|181795335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.065||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Overall p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares ANCOVA, Model: Change =Baseline Treatment Pooled Investigator||||||0.065
90957684|NCT00190749|181795336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|With group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||||||<.001
90957685|NCT00190749|181795336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||||||0.013
90957686|NCT00190749|181795336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.076||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Overall p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares ANCOVA, Model: Change = Baseline Treatment Pooled Investigator||||||0.076
90957687|NCT00190749|181795337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||||||0.007
90957688|NCT00190749|181795337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.266||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||||||0.266
90957689|NCT00190749|181795337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.239||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Overall p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares ANCOVA, Model: Change = Baseline Treatment Pooled Investigator||||||0.239
90851549|NCT02880956|181568098|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.55|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
90957690|NCT00190749|181795338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.274||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-vales are from t-tests on LSMean change||||||0.274
90957691|NCT00190749|181795338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.105||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change.||||||0.105
90957692|NCT00190749|181795338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.609||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Overall p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares ANCOVA, Model: Change= Baseline Treatment Pooled Investigator||||||0.609
91030874|NCT01347710|181946184|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Systematic review of literature and meta-analysis of diagnostic efficacy of SPECT MPI to evaluate the performance criteria of SPECT MPI in studies with various levels of control. Analysis of study BMS747158-201. Non-inferiority margin (delta) = 7%||||||0.546|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Value for specificity comparison of flurpiridaz F18 PET MPI vs. SPECT MPI for majority rule in female patients|z test|z test for non-inferiority for specificity||||||.546
90851550|NCT02880956|181568098|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.186||0.617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.459|0.272||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.272|-0.459|0.617
90851551|NCT02880956|181568098|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.49|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
90851552|NCT02880956|181568098|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.191||0.457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.517|0.233||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.233|-0.517|0.457
90851553|NCT02880956|181568098|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.5|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
90851554|NCT02880956|181568098|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.188||0.245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.151|0.59||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.590|-0.151|0.245
90851555|NCT02880956|181568098|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.49|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
90851556|NCT02880956|181568098|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.187||0.491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.238|0.496||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.496|-0.238|0.491
90851557|NCT02880956|181568098|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.6|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
90851558|NCT02880956|181568098|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.188||0.132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.085|0.652||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.652|-0.085|0.132
90851559|NCT02880956|181568098|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.18|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.58|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
90851560|NCT02880956|181568098|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.434|0.313||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.313|-0.434|0.751
90851561|NCT02880956|181568098|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.53|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
90851562|NCT02880956|181568098|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.188||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.635|0.103||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.103|-0.635|0.157
90851563|NCT02880956|181568098|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.63|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
90957693|NCT00190749|181795339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.406||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|With group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||||||0.406
90957694|NCT00190749|181795339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||||||0.011
90957695|NCT00190749|181795339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.076||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Overall group p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares ANCOVA, Model: Change=Baseline Treatment Pooled Investigator||||||0.076
90957696|NCT00190749|181795340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.456||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||||||0.456
90957697|NCT00190749|181795340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.712||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||||||0.712
90957698|NCT00190749|181795340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.689||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Overall p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares ANCOVA, Model: Change= Baseline Treatment Pooled Investigator||||||0.689
90957699|NCT00190749|181795341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.111||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean||Total Score||||0.111
90851564|NCT02880956|181568098|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.192||0.283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.585|0.172||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.172|-0.585|0.283
90851565|NCT02880956|181568098|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.44|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
90851566|NCT02880956|181568099|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.085|0.231||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.231|-0.085|0.363
90851567|NCT02880956|181568099|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.66|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
90851568|NCT02880956|181568099|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.079||0.688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.188|0.124||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.124|-0.188|0.688
90851569|NCT02880956|181568099|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.64|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
90851570|NCT02880956|181568099|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.081||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.039|0.281||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.281|-0.039|0.137
90851571|NCT02880956|181568099|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.18|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.67|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
90851572|NCT02880956|181568099|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.107||0.408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.122||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.122|-0.300|0.408
90851573|NCT02880956|181568099|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.89|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
90851574|NCT02880956|181568099|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.104||0.249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.325|0.085||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.085|-0.325|0.249
90851575|NCT02880956|181568099|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.79|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
90851576|NCT02880956|181568099|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.107||0.616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.265|0.157||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.157|-0.265|0.616
90851577|NCT02880956|181568099|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.95|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
90851578|NCT02880956|181568099|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.119||0.555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.163|0.304||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.304|-0.163|0.555
90851579|NCT02880956|181568099|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.83|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
90851580|NCT02880956|181568099|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.117||0.815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.203|0.258||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.258|-0.203|0.815
90851581|NCT02880956|181568099|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.82|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
90851582|NCT02880956|181568099|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.119||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.057|0.409||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.409|-0.057|0.138
90851583|NCT02880956|181568099|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.89|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
90851584|NCT02880956|181568099|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.157||0.573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.397|0.22||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.220|-0.397|0.573
90851585|NCT02880956|181568099|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.0|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
90957700|NCT00190749|181795341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.159||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean changes||Total Score||||0.159
90957701|NCT00190749|181795341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.951||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Overall p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares ANCOVA, Model: Change =Baseline Treatment Pooled Investigator||Total Score||||0.951
90957702|NCT00190749|181795341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||Positive Subscale||||0.012
90957703|NCT00190749|181795341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|With group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean||Positive subscale||||0.002
90957704|NCT00190749|181795341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.467||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Overall p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares ANCOVA, Model: Change =Baseline Treatment Pooled Investigator||Positive subscale||||0.467
90957705|NCT00190749|181795341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.365||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|With group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||Negative subscale||||0.365
90957706|NCT00190749|181795341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.846||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||Negative subscale||||0.846
91030875|NCT01347710|181946184|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Systematic review of literature and meta-analysis of diagnostic efficacy of SPECT MPI to evaluate the performance criteria of SPECT MPI in studies with various levels of control. Analysis of study BMS747158-201. Non-inferiority margin (delta) = 7%||||||0.538|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Value for specificity comparison of flurpiridaz F18 PET MPI vs. SPECT MPI for majority rule BMI \>/=30|z test|z test for non-inferiority for specificity||||||.538
90851586|NCT02880956|181568099|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.154||0.689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.241|0.365||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.365|-0.241|0.689
90851587|NCT02880956|181568099|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
90957707|NCT00190749|181795341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.559||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Overall p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares ANCOVA, Model: Change=Baseline Treatment Pooled Investigator||Negative subscale||||0.559
90957708|NCT00190749|181795341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||Anxiety-Depression subscale||||0.150
90957709|NCT00190749|181795341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.612||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||Anxiety-Depression subscale||||0.612
90957710|NCT00190749|181795341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.475||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Overall p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares ANCOVA, Model: Change=Baseline Treatment Pooled Investigator||Anxiety-Depression subscale||||0.475
90957711|NCT00190749|181795342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||95.0||||Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.012
90957712|NCT00190749|181795342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||||||0.010
90957713|NCT00190749|181795342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Overall p-values are from Type 3 sums of square ANCOVA, Model: Change=Baseline Treatment Pooled Investigator||||||0.760
90957714|NCT00190749|181795343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.943||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||||||0.943
90957715|NCT00190749|181795343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.763||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||||||0.763
90957716|NCT00190749|181795343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.832||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Overall p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares ANCOVA, Model: Change=Baseline Treatment Pooled Investigator||||||0.832
90957717|NCT00190749|181795344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.623||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||||||0.623
90957718|NCT00190749|181795344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.853||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||||||0.853
90957719|NCT00190749|181795344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.591||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Overall p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares ANCOVA, Model: Change=Baseline Treatment Pooled Investigator||||||0.591
90957720|NCT00190749|181795345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.302||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||||||0.302
90957721|NCT00190749|181795345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.922||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||||||0.922
90957722|NCT00190749|181795345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.479||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Overall group p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares ANCOVA, Model: Change=Baseline Treatment Pooled Investigator||||||0.479
90957723|NCT00190749|181795346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||Item 1||||0.004
90957724|NCT00190749|181795346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||Item 1||||0.001
90957725|NCT00190749|181795346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.549||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Overall p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares, ANCOVA, Model: Change=Baseline Treatment Pooled Investigator||Item 1||||0.549
90957726|NCT00190749|181795346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||Item 2||||0.011
90957727|NCT00190749|181795346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||Item 2||||0.009
90957728|NCT00190749|181795346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.793||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Overall p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares ANCOVA, Model: Change=Baseline Treatment Pooled Investigator||Item 2||||0.793
90957729|NCT00190749|181795346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.045||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||Item 3||||0.045
90957730|NCT00190749|181795346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||Item 3||||0.027
90957731|NCT00190749|181795346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.699||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Overall p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares ANCOVA, Model: Change=Baseline Treatment Pooled Investigator||Item 3||||0.699
91099544|NCT00397930|182085297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.009|TWO_SIDED|||||Between-group differences are expressed as differences in mean Post-Pre change for the global sleep quality PSQI score.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with post-intervention PSQI score as the outcome, with Group as the factor, and pre-intervention PSQI score as the covariate.|The negative estimated value indicates that the mean Post-Pre change for the YOCAS group was less than that of the Control group.|"H0: There is no statistically significant difference in global sleep quality between post-treatment cancer survivors under the standardized yoga intervention and control protocol at the 0.05 two-sided significance level.~Ha: There is a statistically significant difference in global sleep quality between post-treatment cancer survivors under the standardized yoga intervention and control protocol at the 0.05 two-sided significance level."||||0.009
90851588|NCT02880956|181568099|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.159||0.662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.243|0.382||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.382|-0.243|0.662
90851589|NCT02880956|181568099|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.14|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
90851590|NCT02880956|181568100|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.184||0.291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.555|0.167||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.167|-0.555|0.291
90851591|NCT02880956|181568100|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.48|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
90851592|NCT02880956|181568100|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.182||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.713|0.001||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.001|-0.713|0.051
90851593|NCT02880956|181568100|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.23|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.52|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
90900352|NCT00474175|181667091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.29||||0.119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.66||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||10 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 20% - Benzocaine 10%) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.66|-0.07|0.119
90900353|NCT00474175|181667091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.77||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.25||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||15 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 20% - Placebo) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||1.25|0.28|0.002
90900354|NCT00474175|181667091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.46||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.95||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||15 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 10% - Placebo) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.95|-0.02|0.061
90851594|NCT02880956|181568100|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.185||0.921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.346|0.383||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.383|-0.346|0.921
90851595|NCT02880956|181568100|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.53|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
90851596|NCT02880956|181568100|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.211||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.711|0.12||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.120|-0.711|0.163
90957732|NCT00190749|181795346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||Item 4||||0.002
90957733|NCT00190749|181795346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||ITem 4||||0.019
90957734|NCT00190749|181795346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.733||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Overall p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares ANCOVA, Model: Change=Baseline Treatment Pooled Investigator||Item 4||||0.733
91099545|NCT00505362|182085309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04
90957735|NCT00190749|181795346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||Item 5||||0.034
90957736|NCT00190749|181795346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.235||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||Item 5||||0.235
91099546|NCT00505362|182085310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.61
91099547|NCT02400580|182085314|OTHER|||||||0.517|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.517
91099548|NCT02400580|182085316|OTHER|||||||0.508|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.508
90957737|NCT00190749|181795346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.532||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Overall p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares ANCOVA, Model: Change=Baseline Treatment Pooled Investigator||Item 5||||0.532
91030876|NCT01347710|181946185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Value for sensitivity comparison of flurpiridaz F18 PET MPI and SPECT MPI for majority rule in the localization of coronary artery disease; LAD|McNemar|Two-sided McNemar (chi-squared) test superiority for sensitivity; LAD||||||<0.001
91030877|NCT01347710|181946185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Value for sensitivity comparison of flurpiridaz F18 PET MPI and SPECT MPI for majority rule in the localization of coronary artery disease; LCX|McNemar|p-Value based on two-sided McNemar's (Chi-squared) test superiority for sensitivity; LCX||||||<0.001
90851597|NCT02880956|181568100|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.18|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.67|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
90851598|NCT02880956|181568100|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.205||0.424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.567|0.239||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.239|-0.567|0.424
90851599|NCT02880956|181568100|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.61|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
90851600|NCT02880956|181568100|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.213||0.664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.326||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.326|-0.510|0.664
90851601|NCT02880956|181568100|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.67|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
90851602|NCT02880956|181568100|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.229||0.417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.638|0.265||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.265|-0.638|0.417
90851603|NCT02880956|181568100|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.71|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
90851604|NCT02880956|181568100|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.227||0.217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.727|0.166||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.166|-0.727|0.217
90851605|NCT02880956|181568100|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.68|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
90851606|NCT02880956|181568100|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.231||0.753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.381|0.526||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.526|-0.381|0.753
90851607|NCT02880956|181568100|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.8|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
90851608|NCT02880956|181568100|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.257||0.362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.27||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.270|-0.740|0.362
90851609|NCT02880956|181568100|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.62|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
90851610|NCT02880956|181568100|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.256||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.432|0.575||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.575|-0.432|0.780
90851611|NCT02880956|181568100|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.72|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
90851612|NCT02880956|181568100|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.263||0.974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.526|0.509||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.509|-0.526|0.974
90851613|NCT02880956|181568100|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.67|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
90957738|NCT00190749|181795346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.242||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||Item 6||||0.242
91030878|NCT01347710|181946185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Value for sensitivity comparison of flurpiridaz F18 PET MPI and SPECT MPI for majority rule in the localization of coronary artery disease; RCA|McNemar|p-Value based on two-sided McNemar's (Chi-squared) test superiority for sensitivity; RCA||||||<0.001
91030879|NCT01347710|181946185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Value for sensitivity comparison of flurpiridaz F18 PET MPI and SPECT MPI for majority rule in the localization of coronary artery disease; Non-LAD|McNemar|p-Value based on two-sided McNemar's (Chi-squared) test superiority for sensitivity; Non-LAD||||||<0.001
90957739|NCT00190749|181795346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.186||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||Item 6||||0.186
91099549|NCT01060111|182085322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6207|||||||ANOVA|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for treatment groups (Topiramate standard, Topiramate slow, Topiramate slow and Propranolol booster) was used.||||||0.6207
91099550|NCT01060111|182085322|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferioirity was to be concluded if the ratio of percentage decrease in migraine episodes was greater than 0.7. Power of calculation was 0.9, significance level was 0.025.|Ratio of percentage decrease|0.95||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.519|1.737|||t-test, 1 sided|||||1.737|0.519|0.5
90900355|NCT00474175|181667091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.3||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.7||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||15 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 20% - Benzocaine 10%) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.70|-0.09|0.131
90900356|NCT00474175|181667091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.52||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|1.03||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||20 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 20% - Placebo) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||1.03|0.01|0.044
90900357|NCT00474175|181667091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.43||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.93||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||20 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 10% - Placebo) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.93|-0.08|0.099
90900358|NCT00474175|181667091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.1||||0.647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.51||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||20 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 20% - Benzocaine 10%) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.51|-0.32|0.647
90957740|NCT00190749|181795346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.799||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Overall p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares ANCOVA, Model: Change=Baseline Treatment Pooled Investigator||Item 6||||0.799
90957741|NCT00190749|181795346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.097||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||Item 7||||0.097
90957742|NCT00190749|181795346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.214||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||Item 7||||0.214
90957743|NCT00190749|181795346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.827||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Overall p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares ANCOVA, Model: Change=Baseline Treatment Pooled Investigator||Item 7||||0.827
90957744|NCT00190749|181795346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.151||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||Item 8||||0.151
91099551|NCT01060111|182085323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7247|||||||ANOVA|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for treatment groups (Topiramate standard, Topiramate slow, Topiramate slow and Propranolol booster) was used.||||||0.7247
91099552|NCT01060111|182085324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9872|||||||ANOVA|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for treatment groups (Topiramate standard, Topiramate slow, Topiramate slow and Propranolol booster) was used.||||||0.9872
91099553|NCT01060111|182085325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4326||||||Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for treatment groups (Topiramate standard, Topiramate slow, Topiramate slow and Propranolol booster) was used.|ANOVA|||||||0.4326
91099554|NCT00976391|182085335|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|P-value from a one-sided t-test to test whether the difference of least square means (albiglutide - preprandial lispro insulin) is less than or equal to the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.0|||t-test, 1 sided|||||0.00|-0.32|<0.0001
91099555|NCT04676646|182085367|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.89|6.86|||GEE model||An odds ratio greater than 1 indicated increased odds of response on SZC compared to placebo.|||6.86|2.89|<0.001
90957745|NCT00190749|181795346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.071||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||Item 8||||0.071
90957746|NCT00190749|181795346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.629||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Overall p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares ANCOVA, Model: Change=Baseline Treatment Pooled Investigator||Item 8||||0.629
90957747|NCT00190749|181795346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||Item 9||||0.036
90957748|NCT00190749|181795346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.112||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||Item 9||||0.112
90957749|NCT00190749|181795346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.806||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Overall p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares ANCOVA, Model: Change=Baseline Treatment Pooled Investigator||Item 9||||0.806
90957750|NCT00190749|181795347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.156||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||||||0.156
90957751|NCT00190749|181795347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.829||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||||||0.829
90957752|NCT00190749|181795347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.352||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Overall p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares ANCOVA, Model: Change=Baseline Treatment Pooled Investigator||||||0.352
90851614|NCT02880956|181568101|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.139||0.976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.269|0.278||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.278|-0.269|0.976
90851615|NCT02880956|181568101|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.1|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Week 24||||
90851616|NCT02880956|181568101|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.244|0.296||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.296|-0.244|0.850
90851617|NCT02880956|181568101|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.13|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
90851618|NCT02880956|181568101|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141||0.981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.281|0.275||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.275|-0.281|0.981
90851619|NCT02880956|181568101|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.05|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
90851620|NCT02880956|181568101|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.163||0.989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.323|0.318||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.318|-0.323|0.989
90851621|NCT02880956|181568101|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.32|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
90851622|NCT02880956|181568101|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.159||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.319|0.307||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.307|-0.319|0.970
90851623|NCT02880956|181568101|SUPERIORITY||effect size|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.23|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
90900359|NCT00474175|181667091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.6||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|1.11||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||25 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 20% - Placebo) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||1.11|0.08|0.023
90900360|NCT00474175|181667091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.47||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.98||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||25 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 10% - Placebo) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.98|-0.04|0.072
90851624|NCT02880956|181568101|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.164||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.526|0.119||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.119|-0.526|0.215
90851625|NCT02880956|181568101|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.18|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
90851626|NCT02880956|181568101|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.163||0.665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.392|0.25||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.250|-0.392|0.665
90851627|NCT02880956|181568101|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.28|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
90851628|NCT02880956|181568101|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.162||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.625|0.012||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.012|-0.625|0.059
90851629|NCT02880956|181568101|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.28|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.11|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
90851630|NCT02880956|181568101|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.164||0.663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.394|0.251||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.251|-0.394|0.663
91099556|NCT04676646|182085368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.78|7.55|||GEE model||An odds ratio \>1 indicated increased odds of response on SZC compared to placebo.|||7.55|2.78|<0.001
91099557|NCT04676646|182085369|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|7.52|||GEE model||An odds ratio greater than 1 indicated increased odds of response on SZC compared to placebo.|||7.52|2.50|<0.001
91099558|NCT04676646|182085370|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51|||<|0.001||95.0|0.37|0.71|||Regression, Cox||A hazard ratio less than 1 favors SZC to be associated with a longer time to first hyperkalaemia episode than placebo.|||0.71|0.37|<0.001
91099559|NCT04676646|182085371|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.37||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.73|||Regression, Cox||A hazard ratio less than 1 favored SZC to be associated with a longer time to first instance of a decrease of spironolactone dose due to hyperkalaemia than placebo.|||0.73|0.17|0.006
91099560|NCT04676646|182085372|SUPERIORITY||Least-squares Mean Difference|-1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.84||0.724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.64|4.63|||t-test, 2 sided||A least-squares mean difference greater than 0 favors SZC compared to placebo.|||4.63|-6.64|0.724
91099561|NCT04270760|182085374|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-70.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.35|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.12|-65.9||Adjusted p-value is reported based on the Hochberg procedure to control the type I error for multiple comparisons. Each individual adjusted p-value is compared to 0.05 to determine statistical significance.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = percentage change in Group 1 - percentage change in Group 5 from Baseline at Week 36.|Group 1 versus (vs) Group 5||-65.90|-75.12|<0.001
91099562|NCT04270760|182085374|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-97.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.35|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-101.98|-92.77||Adjusted p-value is reported based on the Hochberg procedure to control the type I error for multiple comparisons. Each individual adjusted p-value is compared to 0.05 to determine statistical significance.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = percentage change in Group 2 - percentage change in Group 5 from Baseline at Week 36.|Group 2 vs Group 5||-92.77|-101.98|<0.001
91099563|NCT04270760|182085374|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-101.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.38|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-105.79|-96.47||Adjusted p-value is reported based on the Hochberg procedure to control the type I error for multiple comparisons. Each individual adjusted p-value is compared to 0.05 to determine statistical significance.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = percentage change in Group 3 - percentage change in Group 5 from Baseline at Week 36.|Group 3 vs Group 5||-96.47|-105.79|<0.001
91099564|NCT04270760|182085374|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-100.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.38|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-105.16|-95.82|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = percentage change in Group 4 - percentage change in Group 5 from Baseline at Week 36.|Group 4 vs Group 5||-95.82|-105.16|< 0.001
90851631|NCT02880956|181568101|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.27|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
91099565|NCT04270760|182085375|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-68.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.96|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.27|-62.67|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = percentage change in Group 1 - percentage change in Group 5 from Baseline at Week 48.|Group 1 vs Group 5||-62.67|-74.27|<0.001
91099566|NCT04270760|182085375|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-96.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.96|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-101.92|-90.33|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = percentage change in Group 2 - percentage change in Group 5 from Baseline at Week 48.|Group 2 vs Group 5||-90.33|-101.92|<0.001
91099567|NCT04270760|182085375|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-100.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.99|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-106.74|-95.02|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = percentage change in Group 3 - percentage change in Group 5 from Baseline at Week 48.|Group 3 vs Group 5||-95.02|-106.74|<0.001
91099568|NCT04270760|182085375|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-85.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-91.83|-80.06|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = percentage change in Group 4 - percentage change in Group 5 from Baseline at Week 48.|Group 4 vs Group 5||-80.06|-91.83|< 0.001
91099569|NCT04270760|182085376|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-23.659|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.874|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.176|-12.143|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = percentage change in Group 1 - percentage change in Group 5 from Baseline at Week 36.|Week 36: Group 1 vs Group 5||-12.143|-35.176|<0.001
91099570|NCT04270760|182085376|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-22.518|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.875|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.036|-11.0|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = percentage change in Group 2 - percentage change in Group 5 from Baseline at Week 36.|Week 36: Group 2 vs Group 5||-11.000|-34.036|<0.001
90851632|NCT02880956|181568101|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.193||0.866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.413|0.348||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.348|-0.413|0.866
90851633|NCT02880956|181568101|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.23|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
90851634|NCT02880956|181568101|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.191||0.471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.514|0.238||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.238|-0.514|0.471
90851635|NCT02880956|181568101|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.24|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
90851636|NCT02880956|181568101|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.198||0.604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.493|0.287||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.287|-0.493|0.604
90851637|NCT02880956|181568101|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.21|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
90851638|NCT02880956|181568102|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.069||0.325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.067|0.202||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.202|-0.067|0.325
90851639|NCT02880956|181568102|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.57|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
90851640|NCT02880956|181568102|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.177|0.088||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.088|-0.177|0.510
90851641|NCT02880956|181568102|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.44|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
90900361|NCT00474175|181667091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.13||||0.551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.55||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||25 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 20% - Benzocaine 10%) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.55|-0.29|0.551
90900362|NCT00474175|181667091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.54||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|1.08||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||30 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 20% - Placebo) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||1.08|0.01|0.047
90900363|NCT00474175|181667091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.27||||0.316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.81||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||30 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 10% - Placebo) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.81|-0.26|0.316
90851642|NCT02880956|181568102|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.069||0.601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.172||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.172|-0.100|0.601
90851643|NCT02880956|181568102|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.49|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
90851644|NCT02880956|181568102|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.157|0.119||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.119|-0.157|0.783
90851645|NCT02880956|181568102|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.52|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
90851646|NCT02880956|181568102|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068||0.646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.165|0.103||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.103|-0.165|0.646
90851647|NCT02880956|181568102|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.48|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
90957753|NCT00190749|181795348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||||||0.740
90957754|NCT00190749|181795348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are frm t-tests on LSMean change||||||0.760
90851648|NCT02880956|181568102|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.226|0.05||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.050|-0.226|0.209
90851649|NCT02880956|181568102|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.18|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.49|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
90851650|NCT02880956|181568102|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.091||0.454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.246|0.11||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.110|-0.246|0.454
90851651|NCT02880956|181568102|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.66|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
90851652|NCT02880956|181568102|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.089||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.306|0.043||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.043|-0.306|0.141
90851653|NCT02880956|181568102|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.23|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.58|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
90851654|NCT02880956|181568102|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.323|0.031||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.031|-0.323|0.107
90851655|NCT02880956|181568102|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.24|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.59|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Week 72||||
90851656|NCT02880956|181568102|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121||0.961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.243|0.232||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.232|-0.243|0.961
90851657|NCT02880956|181568102|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.79|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
90851658|NCT02880956|181568102|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.118||0.618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.173||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.173|-0.290|0.618
90851659|NCT02880956|181568102|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.77|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
90851660|NCT02880956|181568102|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121||0.227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.385|0.092||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.092|-0.385|0.227
90851661|NCT02880956|181568102|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.18|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.79|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Week 96||||
90851662|NCT02880956|181568103|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.009|0.697||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.697|-0.009|0.056
90851663|NCT02880956|181568103|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.23|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.49|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
90851664|NCT02880956|181568103|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.177||0.997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.348|0.349||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.349|-0.348|0.997
90851665|NCT02880956|181568103|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.34|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
90851666|NCT02880956|181568103|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.182||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.056|0.772||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.772|0.056|0.023
90851667|NCT02880956|181568103|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.36|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
90851668|NCT02880956|181568103|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.212||0.502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.274|0.558||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.558|-0.274|0.502
90851669|NCT02880956|181568103|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.58|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
90851670|NCT02880956|181568103|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.206||0.379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.587|0.224||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.224|-0.587|0.379
90851671|NCT02880956|181568103|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.61|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
90851672|NCT02880956|181568103|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.212||0.916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.439|0.394||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.394|-0.439|0.916
90851673|NCT02880956|181568103|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.57|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
90851674|NCT02880956|181568103|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.238||0.487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.633|0.302||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.302|-0.633|0.487
90851675|NCT02880956|181568103|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.7|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
90851676|NCT02880956|181568103|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.235||0.963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.451|0.473||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.473|-0.451|0.963
90851677|NCT02880956|181568103|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.66|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
90900364|NCT00474175|181667091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.27||||0.224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.71||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||30 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 20% - Benzocaine 10%) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.71|-0.17|0.224
90900365|NCT00474175|181667091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.46||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|1.01||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||40 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 20% - Placebo) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||1.01|-0.09|0.099
90900366|NCT00474175|181667091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.37||||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.92||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||40 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 10% - Placebo) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.92|-0.18|0.186
90900367|NCT00474175|181667091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.09||||0.684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.54||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||40 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 20% - Benzocaine 10%) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.54|-0.35|0.684
90957755|NCT00190749|181795348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.997||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Overall p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares ANCOVA, Model: Change=Baseline Treatment Pooled Investigator||||||0.997
90851678|NCT02880956|181568103|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.238||0.856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.424|0.51||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.510|-0.424|0.856
90851679|NCT02880956|181568103|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.71|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
90851680|NCT02880956|181568103|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.277||0.463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.341|0.748||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.748|-0.341|0.463
90851681|NCT02880956|181568103|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.87|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
90851682|NCT02880956|181568103|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.273||0.943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.518|0.557||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.557|-0.518|0.943
90851683|NCT02880956|181568103|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.93|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
90957756|NCT00190749|181795349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.176||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||||||0.176
91030880|NCT01347710|181946186|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Systematic review of literature and meta-analysis of diagnostic efficacy of SPECT MPI to evaluate the performance criteria of SPECT MPI in studies with various levels of control. Analysis of study BMS747158-201. Non-inferiority margin (delta) = 7%||||||0.379|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Value for specificity comparison of flurpiridaz F18 PET MPI and SPECT MPI for majority rule in the localization of coronary artery disease; LAD|z Test|z test for non-inferiority for specificity; LAD||||||.379
91030881|NCT01347710|181946186|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Systematic review of literature and meta-analysis of diagnostic efficacy of SPECT MPI to evaluate the performance criteria of SPECT MPI in studies with various levels of control. Analysis of study BMS747158-201. Non-inferiority margin (delta) = 7%||||||0.358|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Value for specificity comparison of flurpiridaz F18 PET MPI and SPECT MPI for majority rule in the localization of coronary artery disease; LCX|Z Test|z test for non-inferiority for specificity; LCX||||||.358
91030882|NCT01347710|181946186|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Systematic review of literature and meta-analysis of diagnostic efficacy of SPECT MPI to evaluate the performance criteria of SPECT MPI in studies with various levels of control. Analysis of study BMS747158-201. Non-inferiority margin (delta) = 7%||||||0.442|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Value for specificity comparison of flurpiridaz F18 PET MPI and SPECT MPI for majority rule in the localization of coronary artery disease; RCA|z Test|z test for non-inferiority for specificity; RCA||||||.442
91030883|NCT01347710|181946186|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Systematic review of literature and meta-analysis of diagnostic efficacy of SPECT MPI to evaluate the performance criteria of SPECT MPI in studies with various levels of control. Analysis of study BMS747158-201. Non-inferiority margin (delta) = 7%||||||0.984|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Value for specificity comparison of flurpiridaz F18 PET MPI and SPECT MPI for majority rule in the localization of coronary artery disease; Non-LAD|z Test|z test for non-inferiority for specificity; non-LAD||||||.984
91030884|NCT01347710|181946187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Value of sensitivity for flurpiridaz F18 PET MPI vs. SPECT MPI for majority rule; multivessel disease|McNemar|p-Value based on two-sided McNemar's (Chi squared) test superiority||||||<0.001
91030885|NCT01347710|181946188|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Systematic review of literature and meta-analysis of diagnostic efficacy of SPECT MPI to evaluate the performance criteria of SPECT MPI in studies with various levels of control. Analysis of study BMS747158-201. Non-inferiority margin (delta) = 7%||||||0.827|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Value of specificity for comparison of flurpiridaz F18 PET MPI vs. SPECT MPI in detecting multivessel disease|z test|p-Value based on one-sided z test for non-inferiority||||||0.827
90851684|NCT02880956|181568103|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.281||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.191|1.295||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 96||1.295|0.191|0.009
90851685|NCT02880956|181568103|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.38|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.97|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
91030886|NCT01347710|181946189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Value for sensitivity comparison of flurpiridaz F18 PET MPI vs SPECT MPI for majority rule; image quality of excellent or good|McNemar|p-Value based on two-sided McNemar's (Chi-squared) test superiority for sensitivity||||||<0.001
91030887|NCT01347710|181946190|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Systematic review of literature and meta-analysis of diagnostic efficacy of SPECT MPI to evaluate the performance criteria of SPECT MPI in studies with various levels of control. Analysis of study protocol number BMS747158-201. Non-inferiority margin (delta) = 7%||||||0.945|ONE_SIDED|||||p-Value for specificity comparison of flurpiridaz F18 PET MPI vs. SPECT MPI|Z Test|one-sided z test for non-inferiority for specificity||||||.945
91030888|NCT01347710|181946191|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Systematic review of literature and meta-analysis of diagnostic efficacy of SPECT MPI to evaluate the performance criteria of SPECT MPI in studies with various levels of control. Analysis of study BMS747158-201. Non-inferiority margin (delta) = 7%||||||0.954|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Value for specificity comparison of flurpiridaz F18 PET MPI vs SPECT MPI for majority rule; image quality excellent/good|z Test|p-Value based on on-sided z test for non-inferiority for specificity||||||0.954
91030889|NCT01347710|181946192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.001
90851686|NCT02880956|181568104|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.138||0.325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.408|0.136||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.136|-0.408|0.325
90900368|NCT00474175|181667091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.21||||0.452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.76||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||50 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 20% - Placebo) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.76|-0.34|0.452
91030890|NCT01347710|181946193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||McNemar|p-Values are from 2-sided McNemar's test of comparison in proportion of patients with definitely diagnositic certainty between PET and SPECT||||||<0.001
91030891|NCT04591626|181946196|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|-0.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.77|-1.14|<0.001
91030892|NCT04591626|181946197|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.35|22.28|||Regression, Logistic|||||22.28|5.35|<0.001
91030893|NCT04591626|181946198|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.60|-1.77|<0.001
91030894|NCT04591626|181946199|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-14.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.57|-9.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-9.08|-20.57|<0.001
90851687|NCT02880956|181568104|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.02|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
90957757|NCT00190749|181795349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.237||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||||||0.237
91030895|NCT04591626|181946200|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.64|7.95|||Regression, Logistic||OR was determined using Logistic Regression model with Baseline HbA1c value + OAM use + Treatment as variables.|||7.95|2.64|<0.001
91030896|NCT04591626|181946201|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.27|13.48|||Regression, Logistic||OR was determined using logistic regression model: Variable = Baseline HbA1c value + OAM use + Treatment as variables.|||13.48|4.27|<0.001
90851688|NCT02880956|181568104|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.274|0.263||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.263|-0.274|0.966
91030897|NCT04591626|181946202|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.64|7.95|||Regression, Logistic||OR was determined using logistic regression model with Baseline HbA1c value + OAM use + Treatment as variables.|||7.95|2.64|<0.001
90851689|NCT02880956|181568104|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.11|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
90851690|NCT02880956|181568104|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.22||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.220|-0.330|0.695
90851691|NCT02880956|181568104|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.09|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
90851692|NCT02880956|181568104|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145||0.662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.348|0.221||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.221|-0.348|0.662
90851693|NCT02880956|181568104|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.01|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
90851694|NCT02880956|181568104|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141||0.849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.304||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.304|-0.250|0.849
90900369|NCT00474175|181667091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.2||||0.479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.75||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||50 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 10% - Placebo) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.75|-0.35|0.479
90900370|NCT00474175|181667091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.01||||0.955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.46||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||50 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 20% - Benzocaine 10%) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.46|-0.44|0.955
90900371|NCT00474175|181667091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.21||||0.465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.79||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||60 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 20% - Placebo) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.79|-0.36|0.465
91030898|NCT04591626|181946203|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-26.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.0|-19.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-19.6|-33.0|<0.001
90851695|NCT02880956|181568104|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.08|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
90851696|NCT02880956|181568104|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145||0.995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.286|0.284||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.284|-0.286|0.995
90851697|NCT02880956|181568104|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.96|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
90851698|NCT02880956|181568104|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.161||0.707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.256|0.378||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.378|-0.256|0.707
90851699|NCT02880956|181568104|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.13|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
91030899|NCT04591626|181946204|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.0||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.86|-1.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.14|-6.86|0.006
91030900|NCT02003183|181946228|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.1|<|0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis applies to the Amygdala.||||<0.02
91030901|NCT03676803|181946229|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.6||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.05 was defined as significant|ANOVA|||Comparison was made to 2 weeks minus baseline changes in phylum Firmicutes abundance between groups.||||0.033
91030902|NCT03676803|181946229|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.7||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.05 was defined as significant.|ANOVA|||Comparison was made to 2 weeks minus baseline changes in phylum Bacteroidetes abundance between groups.||||0.097
90957758|NCT00190749|181795349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.996||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Overall p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares ANCOVA, Model: Change=Baseline Treatment Pooled Investigator||||||0.996
90900372|NCT00474175|181667091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.0||||0.992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.58||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||60 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 10% - Placebo) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.58|-0.57|0.992
90957759|NCT00190749|181795350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||||||0.027
91030903|NCT03676803|181946230|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|86.0||||0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison was made to 2 weeks minus baseline in mixed spices intervention group||||0.49
90851700|NCT02880956|181568104|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.159||0.901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.294|0.333||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.333|-0.294|0.901
90851701|NCT02880956|181568104|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.23|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
90851702|NCT02880956|181568104|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.161||0.451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.195|0.439||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.439|-0.195|0.451
90851703|NCT02880956|181568104|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.13|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
90851704|NCT02880956|181568104|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.185||0.722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.429|0.298||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.298|-0.429|0.722
90851705|NCT02880956|181568104|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.13|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
90851706|NCT02880956|181568104|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.181||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.503|0.21||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.210|-0.503|0.420
90851707|NCT02880956|181568104|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.21|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
90851708|NCT02880956|181568104|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.187||0.498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.495|0.241||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.241|-0.495|0.498
90851709|NCT02880956|181568104|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.2|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
90851710|NCT02880956|181568105|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.071||0.975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.138|0.142||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.142|-0.138|0.975
90851711|NCT02880956|181568105|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.45|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
90851712|NCT02880956|181568105|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.014|0.261||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.261|-0.014|0.078
90851713|NCT02880956|181568105|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.19|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.66|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
90851714|NCT02880956|181568105|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.072||0.514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.188|0.094||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.094|-0.188|0.514
90851715|NCT02880956|181568105|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.47|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
90957760|NCT00190749|181795350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.545||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||||||0.545
90957761|NCT00190749|181795350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Overall p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares ANCOVA, Model: Change=Baseline Treatment Pooled Investigator||||||0.024
90957762|NCT00190749|181795351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||HDL particles, total||||0.009
91030904|NCT03676803|181946230|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|55.7||||0.53|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison was made to 2 weeks minus baseline in placebo group||||0.53
90900373|NCT00474175|181667091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.21||||0.376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.68||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||60 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 20% - Benzocaine 10%) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.68|-0.26|0.376
90900374|NCT00474175|181667091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.36||||0.229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.93||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||70 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 20% - Placebo) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.93|-0.22|0.229
90900375|NCT00474175|181667091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.16||||0.581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.74||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||70 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 10% - Placebo) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.74|-0.41|0.581
90957763|NCT00190749|181795351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.959||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||HDL particles, total||||0.959
90957764|NCT00190749|181795351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038||95.0||||Overall p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares ANCOVA, Model: Change=Baseline TReatment Pooled Investigator|ANCOVA|||HDL particles, total||||0.038
90851716|NCT02880956|181568105|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.102||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.367|0.036||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.036|-0.367|0.107
90851717|NCT02880956|181568105|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.23|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.73|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
90851718|NCT02880956|181568105|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099||0.425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.275|0.116||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.116|-0.275|0.425
90851719|NCT02880956|181568105|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.85|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
90851720|NCT02880956|181568105|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.102||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.413|-0.011||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 48||-0.011|-0.413|0.039
90851721|NCT02880956|181568105|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.28|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.77|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
90957765|NCT00190749|181795351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||IDL||||0.013
90851722|NCT02880956|181568105|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.131||0.729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.302|0.212||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.212|-0.302|0.729
90851723|NCT02880956|181568105|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.81|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
90851724|NCT02880956|181568105|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.128||0.671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.198|0.307||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.307|-0.198|0.671
90851725|NCT02880956|181568105|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.94|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
90851726|NCT02880956|181568105|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.235|0.276||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.276|-0.235|0.876
90957766|NCT00190749|181795351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.928||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||IDL||||0.928
90957767|NCT00190749|181795351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Overall p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares ANCOVA, Model: Change=Baseline Treatment Pooled Investigator||IDL||||0.049
90957768|NCT00190749|181795351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||Medium small LDL||||0.009
90957769|NCT00190749|181795351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.662||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||Medium small LDL||||0.662
91030905|NCT01355081|181946250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square means difference|-2.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.241||0.1031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.467|0.413|||ANCOVA|Change in MADRS total score as a dependent variable, treatment as a fixed effect and the baseline MADRS total score as a covariate.||||0.413|-4.467|0.1031
90851727|NCT02880956|181568105|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.92|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
91030906|NCT01355081|181946250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.233||0.4008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.461|1.387|||ANCOVA|Change in MADRS total score as a dependent variable, treatment as a fixed effect and the baseline MADRS total score as a covariate.||||1.387|-3.461|0.4008
91030907|NCT02719522|181946274|SUPERIORITY|The primary safety objective was to determine if the 2-sided 95% upper confidence interval of the primary safety endpoint was below the threshold of 15%|||||<|0.001|||||||Clopper-Pearson|||The primary safety objective was to determine if the 2-sided 95% upper confidence interval of the primary safety endpoint was below the threshold of 15%. Missing safety data for subjects who were lost to FU without any evidence of a major stroke/death were imputed in the analysis using multiple imputation. Subjects who withdrew from the study prior to completion and had experienced a major stroke or death were counted towards the primary safety endpoint as having experienced the event.||||<0.001
91030908|NCT01868009|181946286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The response was analyzed and adjusted for study inhaler use sequence and preference question version. The method accounted for participants who indicated no preference.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91030909|NCT04603937|181946289|NON_INFERIORITY|The maximum clinically acceptable true difference between KSI-301 and aflibercept participants to be considered non-inferior is 4.5 ETDRS letters, i.e. the non-inferiority margin|Adjusted mean difference|-4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97|>|0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.04|-6.65|-2.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM model with treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization stratification factors, and continuous baseline BCVA and OCT CST.||||-2.81|-6.65|> 0.9999
91030910|NCT04603937|181946290|NON_INFERIORITY|The maximum clinically acceptable non-inferiority margin between KSI-301 and aflibercept subjects is 10% to be considered non-inferior, i.e. the non-inferiority margin is 10%|Difference of weighted percentages|0.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.04|-0.7|2.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haentzel test stratified by study identifier and randomization stratification variables.|Weighted percentages are based on weighted average of observed estimates across strata using CMH weights. The CI are based on the normal approximation to the binomial proportions.|||2|-0.7|<0.0001
91030911|NCT04603937|181946291|NON_INFERIORITY|The maximum clinically acceptable non-inferiority margin between KSI-301 and aflibercept subjects is 10% to be considered non-inferior, i.e the non-inferiority margin is 10%|Difference of weighted percentages|1.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.04|-1.4|3.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haentzel test stratified by randomization stratification variables.|Weighted percentages are based on weighted average of observed estimates across strata using CMH weights. The CI are based on the normal approximation to the binomial proportions.|||3.9|-1.4|<0.0001
91099571|NCT04270760|182085376|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-22.967|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.962|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.656|-11.278|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = percentage change in Group 3 - percentage change in Group 5 from Baseline at Week 36.|Week 36: Group 3 vs Group 5||-11.278|-34.656|<0.001
90851728|NCT02880956|181568105|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.159||0.763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.266|0.362||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.362|-0.266|0.763
91030912|NCT02585258|181946299|SUPERIORITY||mean difference over 2-years|-0.37|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||-0.23||one-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis||placebo is reference. Negative difference is beneficial, means lower disease activity in prednisolone group.|mixed model reports the effect of treatment, adjusted for stratification factors||-0.23||<0.0001
90851729|NCT02880956|181568105|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.11|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
90851730|NCT02880956|181568105|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.157||0.429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.434|0.185||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.185|-0.434|0.429
90851731|NCT02880956|181568105|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.01|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
90851732|NCT02880956|181568105|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.162||0.701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.256|0.381||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.381|-0.256|0.701
90957770|NCT00190749|181795351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Overall p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares ANCOVA, Model: Change=Baseline Treatment Pooled Investigator||Medium small LDL||||0.12
90957771|NCT00190749|181795351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.099||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||Small LDL||||0.099
91030913|NCT02585258|181946300|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.24||||0.02|ONE_SIDED|95.0|1.04|||one-sided|GEE||prednisolone/placebo|mixed model reports the effect of treatment, adjusted for stratification factors|||1.04|0.02
91030914|NCT02585258|181946301|SUPERIORITY||mean differences over 2 years|-1.67||||0.003|ONE_SIDED|95.0||-0.68||one-sided|Regression, Linear||placebo is reference. Negative difference means less damage progression in prednisolone group.|mixed model reports the effect of treatment, adjusted for stratification factors||-0.68||0.003
90851733|NCT02880956|181568105|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.02|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
90851734|NCT02880956|181568106|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.064||0.867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.115|0.137||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.137|-0.115|0.867
90851735|NCT02880956|181568106|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.48|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
90851736|NCT02880956|181568106|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063||0.898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.132|0.116||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.116|-0.132|0.898
90851737|NCT02880956|181568106|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.51|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
90851738|NCT02880956|181568106|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.065||0.537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.088|0.168||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.168|-0.088|0.537
90851739|NCT02880956|181568106|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.54|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
90900376|NCT00474175|181667091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.19||||0.422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.66||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||70 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 20% - Benzocaine 10%) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.66|-0.28|0.422
90900377|NCT00474175|181667091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.33||||0.271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.91||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||80 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 20% - Placebo) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.91|-0.26|0.271
90900378|NCT00474175|181667091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.15||||0.612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.73||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||80 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 10% - Placebo) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.73|-0.43|0.612
90900379|NCT00474175|181667091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.18||||0.465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.65||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||80 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 20% - Benzocaine 10%) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.65|-0.30|0.465
90900380|NCT00474175|181667091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.32||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.91||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||90 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 20% - Placebo) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.91|-0.27|0.290
90900381|NCT00474175|181667091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.25||||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.83||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||90 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 10% - Placebo) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.83|-0.34|0.412
90900382|NCT00474175|181667091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.07||||0.769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.55||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||90 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 20% - Benzocaine 10%) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.55|-0.41|0.769
90900383|NCT00474175|181667091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.15||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.74||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||100 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 20% - Placebo) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.74|-0.43|0.610
90851740|NCT02880956|181568106|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.074||0.176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.245|0.045||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.045|-0.245|0.176
90851741|NCT02880956|181568106|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.65|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
90957772|NCT00190749|181795351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.304||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||Small LDL||||0.304
90851742|NCT02880956|181568106|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.072||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.251|0.031||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.031|-0.251|0.125
91099572|NCT04270760|182085376|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-24.696|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.969|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.399|-12.993|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = percentage change in Group 4 - percentage change in Group 5 from Baseline at Week 36.|Week 36: Group 4 vs Group 5||-12.993|-36.399|< 0.001
91099573|NCT04270760|182085376|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-24.856|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.119|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.853|-12.859|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = percentage change in Group 1 - percentage change in Group 5 from Baseline at Week 48.|Week 48: Group 1 vs Group 5||-12.859|-36.853|<0.001
90851743|NCT02880956|181568106|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.53|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
90851744|NCT02880956|181568106|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.074||0.676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.176|0.114||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||week 48||0.114|-0.176|0.676
90851745|NCT02880956|181568106|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.61|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
90851746|NCT02880956|181568106|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.095||0.226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.301|0.071||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.071|-0.301|0.226
90851747|NCT02880956|181568106|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.18|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.62|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
90851748|NCT02880956|181568106|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.093||0.683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.222|0.145||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.145|-0.222|0.683
90851749|NCT02880956|181568106|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.63|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
90851750|NCT02880956|181568106|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094||0.848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.168|0.204||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.204|-0.168|0.848
90900384|NCT00474175|181667091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.2||||0.511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.78||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||100 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 10% - Placebo) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.78|-0.39|0.511
90900385|NCT00474175|181667091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.04||||0.859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.43||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||100 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 20% - Benzocaine 10%) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.43|-0.52|0.859
90851751|NCT02880956|181568106|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.67|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
90851752|NCT02880956|181568106|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.126||0.656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.305|0.192||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.192|-0.305|0.656
90851753|NCT02880956|181568106|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.78|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
90851754|NCT02880956|181568106|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.124||0.777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.279|0.209||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.209|-0.279|0.777
90851755|NCT02880956|181568106|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.88|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
91099574|NCT04270760|182085376|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-21.594|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.118|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.59|-9.598|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = percentage change in Group 2 - percentage change in Group 5 from Baseline at Week 48.|Week 48: Group 2 vs Group 5||-9.598|-33.590|<0.001
90957773|NCT00190749|181795351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Overall p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares ANCOVA, Model: Change=Baseline Treatment Pooled Investigator||Small LDL||||0.024
91099575|NCT04270760|182085376|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-27.421|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.194|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.565|-15.277|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = percentage change in Group 3 - percentage change in Group 5 from Baseline at Week 48.|Week 48: Group 3 vs Group 5||-15.277|-39.565|<0.001
91099576|NCT04270760|182085376|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-27.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.232|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.24|-14.801|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = percentage change in Group 4 - percentage change in Group 5 from Baseline at Week 48.|Week 48: Group 4 vs Group 5||-14.801|-39.240|<0.001
91099577|NCT04270760|182085377|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-18.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.779|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.303|-11.477|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = percentage change in Group 1 - percentage change in Group 5 from Baseline at Week 36.|Week 36: Group 1 vs Group 5||-11.477|-26.303|<0.001
91099578|NCT04270760|182085377|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-16.696|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.778|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.107|-9.284|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = percentage change in Group 2 - percentage change in Group 5 from Baseline at Week 36.|Week 36: Group 2 vs Group 5||-9.284|-24.107|<0.001
91099579|NCT04270760|182085377|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-17.635|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.825|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.139|-10.131|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = percentage change in Group 3 - percentage change in Group 5 from Baseline at Week 36.|Week 36: Group 3 vs Group 5||-10.131|-25.139|<0.001
91099580|NCT04270760|182085377|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-18.772|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.839|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.303|-11.241|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = percentage change in Group 4 - percentage change in Group 5 from Baseline at Week 36.|Week 36: Group 4 vs Group 5||-11.241|-26.303|< 0.001
91099581|NCT04270760|182085377|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-20.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.443|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.757|-11.323|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = percentage change in Group 1 - percentage change in Group 5 from Baseline at Week 48.|Week 48: Group 1 vs Group 5||-11.323|-28.757|<0.001
90851756|NCT02880956|181568106|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.128||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.106|0.397||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.397|-0.106|0.256
90851757|NCT02880956|181568106|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.89|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
90851758|NCT02880956|181568107|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.101||0.479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.269|0.126||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.126|-0.269|0.479
91099582|NCT04270760|182085377|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-17.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.442|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.774|-8.345|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = percentage change in Group 2 - percentage change in Group 5 from Baseline at Week 48.|Week 48: Group 2 vs Group 5||-8.345|-25.774|<0.001
91099583|NCT04270760|182085377|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-19.509|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.336|-10.682|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = percentage change in Group 3 - percentage change in Group 5 from Baseline at Week 48.|Week 48: Group 3 vs Group 5||-10.682|-28.336|<0.001
91099584|NCT04270760|182085377|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-21.839|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.517|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.7|-12.979|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = percentage change in Group 4 - percentage change in Group 5 from Baseline at Week 48.|Week 48: Group 4 vs Group 5||-12.979|-30.700|<0.001
91099585|NCT05156125|182085379|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.1||||0.0184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.58|29.05|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At 13 weeks||29.05|2.58|0.0184
90851759|NCT02880956|181568107|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.78|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
90957774|NCT00190749|181795351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.176||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||Very small LDL||||0.176
90957775|NCT00190749|181795351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.246||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Withn group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||Very small LDL||||0.246
91099586|NCT05156125|182085379|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.1||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|25.58|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At 13 weeks||25.58|-0.03|0.0410
91099587|NCT05156125|182085380|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.6||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.73|34.42|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At 13 weeks||34.42|5.73|0.0070
90900386|NCT00474175|181667091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.26||||0.386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.84||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||110 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 20% - Placebo) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.84|-0.33|0.386
90900387|NCT00474175|181667091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.17||||0.563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.76||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||110 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 10% - Placebo) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.76|-0.41|0.563
90900388|NCT00474175|181667091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.09||||0.721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.56||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||110 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 20% - Benzocaine 10%) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.56|-0.39|0.721
90900389|NCT00474175|181667091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.1||||0.725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.69||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||120 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 20% - Placebo) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.69|-0.48|0.725
90900390|NCT00474175|181667091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.06||||0.839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.64||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||120 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 10% - Placebo) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.64|-0.52|0.839
90900391|NCT00474175|181667091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.04||||0.855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.52||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||120 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 20% - Benzocaine 10%) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.52|-0.43|0.855
90900392|NCT00474175|181667092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.17||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.33||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test with modified ridit scores, adjusted for site baseline pain intensity. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 20% versus Placebo) and the associated confidence interval were calculated based on the weighted Gamma statistic.||0.33|0.01|0.035
90900393|NCT00474175|181667092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.16||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.33||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test with modified ridit scores, adjusted for site baseline pain intensity. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 10% versus Placebo) and the associated confidence interval were calculated based on the weighted Gamma statistic.||0.33|-0.00|0.039
90900394|NCT00474175|181667092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.01||||0.944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.13||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test with modified ridit scores, adjusted for site baseline pain intensity. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 20% versus Benzocaine 10%) and the associated confidence interval were calculated based on the weighted Gamma statistic.||0.13|-0.15|0.944
90851760|NCT02880956|181568107|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099||0.295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.299|0.091||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.091|-0.299|0.295
90851761|NCT02880956|181568107|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.77|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
90851762|NCT02880956|181568107|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.102||0.884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.186|0.215||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.215|-0.186|0.884
90851763|NCT02880956|181568107|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.83|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
90900395|NCT00058019|181667172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.022
91099588|NCT05156125|182085380|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.3||||0.0162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.75|30.67|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At Week 13||30.67|2.75|0.0162
91099589|NCT05156125|182085381|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.5||||0.0448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|31.37|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||31.37|0.65|0.0448
90851764|NCT02880956|181568107|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.111||0.569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.281|0.155||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.155|-0.281|0.569
90900396|NCT00058019|181667173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
91099590|NCT05156125|182085381|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.0||||0.0417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|30.58|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At Week 13||30.58|0.23|0.0417
91099591|NCT05156125|182085382|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.5||||0.0499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|23.38|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||23.38|-0.99|0.0499
91099592|NCT05156125|182085382|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.4||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.94|33.53|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At Week 13||33.53|7.94|0.0011
91099593|NCT05156125|182085383|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0072|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At Week 13||||0.0072
91099594|NCT05156125|182085383|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At Week 13||||<0.0001
91099595|NCT02993302|182085396|OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.48
91099596|NCT02993302|182085397|OTHER|||||||0.47|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.47
91099597|NCT02993302|182085398|OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.53
91099598|NCT00997126|182085404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.657|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.657
91099599|NCT01755637|182085405|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The bioequivalence between the two products was concluded if the 90% CIs (based on log transformed data and anti-logged) for the ratio of the geometric means lie completely within the range 80%-125%|Geometric mean Ratio of treatments|114.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.49|130.16|||||Geometric mean ratio of experimental and reference product was determined by exponentiating least-squares means of log-transformed value.|The value was log-transformed and a linear mixed effects model was applied to this value, as the dependent variable, treatment, and period as fixed effects and participants as random effect.||130.16|100.49|
91099600|NCT01755637|182085406|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The bioequivalence between the two products was concluded if the 90% CIs (based on log transformed data and anti-logged) for the ratio of the geometric means lie completely within the range 80%-125%|Geometric mean ratio of treatments|107.41|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|69.03|167.13|||||Geometric mean ratio of experimental and reference product was determined by exponentiating least-squares means of log-transformed value.|The value was log-transformed and a linear mixed effects model was applied to this value, as the dependent variable, treatment, and period as fixed effects and participants as random effect.||167.13|69.03|
90900397|NCT00058019|181667175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.695
90900398|NCT00058019|181667176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.55
90900399|NCT00007475|181667195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion with reduced proteinuria|0.6363|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0698|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3079|0.8907||Exact binomial test of proportion of participants exhibiting reduction in proteinuria (see definition below), under null hypothesis that the overall proportion is zero.|Exact binomial test|Tested under null hypothesis that the overall proportion is zero.|Proportion event definition: exhibiting reduction in proteinuria post-cyclophosphamide (complete- \[urine protein {UP} \<0.3\] or or partial-remission \[between 0.3 \& 2.0, inclusive\], limited response \[UP between 2.0 \& 3.5\] yet no relapse \[UP 3.5+\]).|No groups compared, yet null hypothesis: pooled proportion = 0, tested using counts pooled across baseline FPF assay-availability groups (7 across 3 arms) excluding 4 non-completers (yielding 7/11 with event below). Given the modest group-specific sample sizes and tendency for zero outcomes to be observed in a group, we employ exact binomial 95% confidence intervals using the method of Clopper and Pearson (1934; calculated along with corresponding tests using Michael Fay's exactci package in R).||0.8907|0.3079|<0.0001
90900400|NCT00737061|181667206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pregnancy Prevention Rate|98.9||||||95.0|97.9|100.0||||||1-sided confidence interval. No statistical hypothesis testing was performed. Confidence interval represents a 1-sided confidence interval for the pregnancy prevention rate in the EASE Trial. 95% confidence interval derived using Kaplan Meier methods (log-log with PETO adjustment).||100|97.9|
90900401|NCT00737061|181667206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pregnancy Prevention Rate|98.9||||||95.0|97.6|99.5||||||2-sided confidence interval. No statistical hypothesis testing was performed. Confidence interval represents a 2-sided confidence interval for the pregnancy prevention rate in the EASE Trial. 95% confidence interval derived using Kaplan Meier methods (log-log with PETO adjustment).||99.5|97.6|
90900402|NCT00737061|181667216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pregnancy Prevention Rate|98.4||||||95.0|97.2|100.0||||No statistical hypothesis testing was performed.||"1-sided Confidence Interval.~No hypothesis testing was performed. Confidence interval represents a 1-sided confidence interval for the pregnancy prevention rate in the EASE trial. 95% confidence interval derived using Kaplan Meier methods (log-log with PETO adjustment)."||100|97.2|
90900403|NCT00737061|181667216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pregnancy Prevention Rate|98.4||||||95.0|96.9|99.1||||No statistical hypothesis testing was performed.||"2-sided Confidence Interval~No hypothesis testing was performed. Confidence interval represents a 2-sided confidence interval for the pregnancy prevention rate in the EASE trial. 95% confidence interval derived using Kaplan Meier methods (log-log with PETO adjustment)."||99.1|96.9|
90900404|NCT00692406|181667239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0023|||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Within group repeated measures design. Null hypothesis is that there will be no difference in percent signal change during active task relative to baseline.||||<0.001
90900405|NCT00692406|181667240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1167|||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Within group repeated measures design. Null hypothesis is that there will be no difference in percent signal change during active task relative to baseline.||||<0.001
90900406|NCT00692406|181667241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0253|||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Within group repeated measures design. Null hypothesis is that there will be no difference in percent signal change during active task relative to baseline.||||<0.001
90900407|NCT00692406|181667242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1432|||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Within group repeated measures design. Null hypothesis is that there will be no difference in percent signal change during active task relative to baseline.||||<0.001
90900408|NCT00692406|181667243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0489|||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Within group repeated measures design. Null hypothesis is that there will be no difference in percent signal change during active task relative to baseline.||||<0.001
90900409|NCT00692406|181667244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0096|||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Within group repeated measures design. Null hypothesis is that there will be no difference in percent signal change during active task relative to baseline.||||<0.001
90900410|NCT00692406|181667245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0372|||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Within group repeated measures design. Null hypothesis is that there will be no difference in percent signal change during active task relative to baseline.||||<0.001
90957776|NCT00190749|181795351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033||95.0||||Overall p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares ANCOVA, Model: Change=Baseline Treatment Pooled Investigator|ANCOVA|||Very small LDL||||0.033
90957777|NCT00190749|181795351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||VLDL mean particle size||||<0.001
90957778|NCT00190749|181795351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||VLDL mean particle size||||0.047
90957779|NCT00190749|181795351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.221||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Overall p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares ANCOVA, Model: Change=Baseline Treatment Pooled Investigator||VLDL mean particle size||||0.221
90957780|NCT01090427|181795352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (less than or equal to 60 kg vs greater than 60 kg).||||||<0.001
90957781|NCT01090427|181795352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (less than or equal to 60 kg vs greater than 60 kg).||||||<0.001
90957782|NCT01090427|181795353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (less than or equal to 60 kg vs greater than 60 kg).||||||<0.001
90957783|NCT01090427|181795353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (less than or equal to 60 kg vs greater than 60 kg).||||||<0.001
90957784|NCT01090427|181795354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||ANOVA on van der Waerden normal Score|Treatment and baseline weight \[less than or equal to 60 kg vs greater than 60 kg\] will be used as factors in the model.||||||0.003
91099601|NCT01755637|182085407|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The bioequivalence between the two products was concluded if the 90% CIs (based on log transformed data and anti-logged) for the ratio of the geometric means lie completely within the range of 70% -143%.|Geometric mean ratio of treatments|111.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.76|130.68|||||Geometric mean ratio of experimental and reference product was determined by exponentiating least-squares means of log-transformed value.|The value was log-transformed and a linear mixed effects model was applied to this value, as the dependent variable, treatment, and period as fixed effects and participants as random effect.||130.68|94.76|
90851765|NCT02880956|181568107|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.78|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
90957785|NCT01090427|181795354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA on van der Waerden normal Score|Treatment and baseline weight \[less than or equal to 60 kg vs greater than 60 kg\] will be used as factors in the model.||||||<0.001
90957786|NCT01090427|181795355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (less than or equal to 60 kg vs greater than 60 kg).||||||<0.001
90957787|NCT01090427|181795355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (less than or equal to 60 kg vs greater than 60 kg).||||||<0.001
90851766|NCT02880956|181568107|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.108||0.702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.254|0.171||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.171|-0.254|0.702
90851767|NCT02880956|181568107|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.78|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
90851768|NCT02880956|181568107|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.111||0.566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.155|0.283||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.283|-0.155|0.566
90957788|NCT01090427|181795356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (less than or equal to 60 kg vs greater than 60 kg).||PGA of 0||||<0.001
90957789|NCT01090427|181795356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (less than or equal to 60 kg vs greater than 60 kg).||PGA of 0||||<0.001
90957790|NCT01090427|181795356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (less than or equal to 60 kg vs greater than 60 kg).||PGA of 0, 1, or 2||||<0.001
90957791|NCT01090427|181795356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (less than or equal to 60 kg vs greater than 60 kg).||PGA of 0, 1, or 2||||<0.001
90957792|NCT01090427|181795357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (less than or equal to 60 kg vs greater than 60 kg).||PASI 50 responders||||<0.001
90957793|NCT01090427|181795357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (less than or equal to 60 kg vs greater than 60 kg).||PASI 50 responders||||<0.001
90957794|NCT01090427|181795357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (less than or equal to 60 kg vs greater than 60 kg).||Participants with PASI score of 0||||0.014
90957795|NCT01090427|181795357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (less than or equal to 60 kg vs greater than 60 kg).||Participants with PASI score of 0||||<0.001
90957796|NCT01090427|181795358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||ANOVA on van der Waerden normal Score|Treatment and baseline weight \[less than or equal to 60 kg vs greater than 60 kg\] were used as factors in the model.||PedsQL Total Scale Score||||0.003
90957797|NCT01090427|181795358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028|||||||ANOVA on van der Waerden normal Score|Treatment and baseline weight \[less than or equal to 60 kg vs greater than 60 kg\] were used as factors in the model.||PedsQL Total Scale Score||||0.028
90957798|NCT01090427|181795358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||ANOVA on van der Waerden normal Score|Treatment and baseline weight \[less than or equal to 60 kg vs greater than 60 kg\] were used as factors in the model.||PedsQL Psychosocial health summary score||||0.005
90957799|NCT01090427|181795358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.063|||||||ANOVA on van der Waerden normal Score|Treatment and baseline weight \[less than or equal to 60 kg vs greater than 60 kg\] were used as factors in the model.||PedsQL Psychosocial health summary score||||0.063
90957800|NCT01090427|181795358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||ANOVA on van der Waerden normal Score|Treatment and baseline weight \[less than or equal to 60 kg vs greater than 60 kg\] were used as factors in the model.||PedsQL Physical health summary score||||0.007
91099602|NCT01755637|182085408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0167||||0.0011||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|The values were not adjusted for this non-parametric analysis.|The median difference was calculated as = (Experimental-Reference)|The null hypothesis considered that there is no median within-subject difference between two treatment groups.||||0.0011
90851769|NCT02880956|181568107|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.91|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
90900411|NCT00692406|181667246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.121|||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Within group repeated measures design. Null hypothesis is that there will be no difference in percent signal change during active task relative to baseline.||||<0.001
90900412|NCT02597933|181667247|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|40.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.38||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.88|79.01|||random coefficient regression||The model assumed that data were missing at random \& that patients who dropped out would have behaved similarly to those who remained in trial.|The primary analysis is a restricted maximum likelihood (REML) based approach using a random slope \& intercept model. The analysis included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, ATA status \& gender, fixed continuous effects of time \& baseline FVC (mL), age and height as well as the treatment-by time \& baseline-by-time interactions. Random effects was included for patient response for both time \& intercept.Within-patient errors are modelled by an unstructured variance-covariance matrix||79.01|2.88|0.0350
90900413|NCT02597933|181667247|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|43.13||||0.0378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.44|83.83|||random coefficient regression|The model assumed that data were missing at random \& that patients who dropped out would have behaved similarly to those who remained in trial.||"This is a sensitivity analysis (SA) on primary endpoint including only on-trt measurements of FVC \[mL\]. The random coefficient model was used. The analysis included fixed, categorical effects of trt, ATA status \& gender, fixed continuous effects of time \& bl. FVC (mL), age, height, trt -by time \& bl.-by-time interactions. Random effects included for patient response for both time \& intercept.~Within-patient errors were modelled by an Unstructured variance-covariance matrix."||83.83|2.44|0.0378
90900414|NCT02597933|181667247|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|30.0||||0.1046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.22|66.22|||random coefficient regression|||In multiple imputation SA 1, missing FVC values at wk 52 in pts who were alive at wk 52 were imputed assuming similar rate of FVC decline as in pts from corresponding trt group who prematurely disc. trial drug but had wk 52 FVC value. Missing FVC values at wk 52 in pts who died before wk 52 were imputed assuming similar rate of FVC decline as in pl. pts with wk 52 FVC value who prematurely disc. trial drug with most severe declines.The imputation model was similar to statistical model of PA.||66.22|-6.22|0.1046
90900415|NCT02597933|181667247|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.93||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.19|69.06|||random coefficient regression|||In multiple imputation SA 2, missing FVC values at wk 52 in pts who were alive at wk 52 were imputed assuming similar rate of FVC decline as in pts from pl. group who prematurely disc. trial drug but had a wk 52 FVC value. Missing FVC values at wk 52 in pts who died before wk 52 were imputed assuming similar rate of FVC decline as in pl. pts with a wk 52 FVC value who prematurely disc. trial drug with most severe declines. The imputation model was similar to the statistical model of the PA||69.06|-3.19|0.0740
90900416|NCT02597933|181667247|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.86||||0.0644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.03|69.75|||random coefficient regression|||In multiple imputation SA 3, missing FVC values at wk 52 in pts who were alive at wk 52 were imputed assuming a similar rate of FVC decline as in all pts in the pl. group who were included in the PA. Missing FVC values at wk 52 in pts who died before wk 52 were imputed assuming a similar rate of FVC decline as in all placebo patients included in the primary analysis with the most severe declines. The imputation model was similar to the statistical model of the PA.||69.75|-2.03|0.0644
90900417|NCT02597933|181667247|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|40.95||||0.0351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.88|79.01|||random coefficient regression|||This is sensitivity analysis using the model similar to the primary analysis but including a different set of covariates: the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, ATA status, the fixed continuous effects of time, baseline FVC (mL), and the treatment-by-time and baseline-by-time interactions.Random effects was included for patient response for both time and intercept.||79.01|2.88|0.0351
90900418|NCT02597933|181667247|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|40.98||||0.0349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.92|79.04|||random coefficient regression|||This is sensitivity analysis using the model similar to the primary analysis but including a different set of covariates: the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, ATA status (Positive / Negative), gender and mycophenolate mofetil /sodium background therapy use (Yes / No), fixed continuous effects of time, age , height and baseline FVC (mL), the treatment-by-time and baseline-by-time interactions. Random effects was included for patient response for both time and intercept||79.04|2.92|0.0349
90900419|NCT02597933|181667248|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.5785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.53|||MMRM|||The mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach was used. The model assumed that data were missing at random \& that patients who dropped out would have behaved similarly to those who remained in trial.||0.53|-0.94|0.5785
90900420|NCT02597933|181667249|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.24||0.1711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|4.12|||MMRM|The MMRM model assumed that data were missing at random \& that patients who dropped out would have behaved similarly to those who remained in trial.||Based on mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach was used, with fixed categorical effects of ATA status, visit, treatment-by visit interaction and baseline-by-visit interaction. Visit was the repeated measure. Within-patient errors were modelled by unstructured variance-covariance structure.||4.12|-0.73|0.1711
90851770|NCT02880956|181568107|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.133||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.458|0.065||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.065|-0.458|0.141
90851771|NCT02880956|181568107|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.22|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.91|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
91099603|NCT01755637|182085409|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The bioequivalence between the two products was concluded if the 90% CIs (based on log transformed data and anti-logged) for the ratio of the geometric means lie completely within the range 80%-125%|Geometric mean ratio of treatments|112.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.65|121.12|||||Geometric mean ratio of experimental and reference product was determined by exponentiating least-squares means of log-transformed value.|The value was log-transformed and a linear mixed effects model was applied to this value, as the dependent variable, treatment, and period as fixed effects and participants as random effect.||121.12|103.65|
90851772|NCT02880956|181568107|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.131||0.834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.285|0.23||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.230|-0.285|0.834
90851773|NCT02880956|181568107|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.99|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
90851774|NCT02880956|181568107|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.133||0.724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.309|0.215||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.215|-0.309|0.724
90851775|NCT02880956|181568107|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.0|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
90851776|NCT02880956|181568107|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.166||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.559|0.095||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.095|-0.559|0.163
90851777|NCT02880956|181568107|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.24|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.98|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
90851778|NCT02880956|181568107|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.163||0.497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.432|0.21||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.210|-0.432|0.497
90851779|NCT02880956|181568107|SUPERIORITY||effect size|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.09|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
90851780|NCT02880956|181568107|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.168||0.919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.314|0.349||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.349|-0.314|0.919
90851781|NCT02880956|181568107|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.17|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
90851782|NCT02880956|181568108|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.352||0.423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.974|0.409||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.409|-0.974|0.423
90851783|NCT02880956|181568108|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.09|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
90851784|NCT02880956|181568108|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.346||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.408|-0.047||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||-0.047|-1.408|0.036
90851785|NCT02880956|181568108|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.25|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.96|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
90851786|NCT02880956|181568108|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.355||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|0.147||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.147|-1.250|0.121
90851787|NCT02880956|181568108|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.18|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.09|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
90851788|NCT02880956|181568108|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.371||0.244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.163|0.296||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.296|-1.163|0.244
90851789|NCT02880956|181568108|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.88|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
90851790|NCT02880956|181568108|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|0.086||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.086|-1.330|0.085
90957801|NCT01090427|181795358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||ANOVA on van der Waerden normal Score|Treatment and baseline weight \[less than or equal to 60 kg vs greater than 60 kg\] were used as factors in the model.||PedsQL Physical health summary score||||0.020
90957802|NCT01090427|181795359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (less than or equal to 60 kg vs greater than 60 kg).||||||0.027
90900421|NCT02597933|181667250|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.0331|TWO_SIDED|1.15|0.09|2.21|||MMRM|The model assumed that data were missing at random \& that patients who dropped out would have behaved similarly to those who remained in trial.||"Based on a random coefficient regression with fixed categorical effects of treatment, ATA status, fixed continuous effects of time, baseline FVC \[% pred\], \& including treatment-by-time and baseline-by-time interactions. Random effect was included for patient specific intercept \& time.~Within-patient errors are modelled by an Unstructured variance-covariance matrix.~Inter-individual variability is modelled by a Variance-Components variance-covariance matrix."||2.21|0.09|0.0331
90900422|NCT02597933|181667251|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|46.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.51||0.0177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.09|84.73|||MMRM|The model assumed that data were missing at random \& that patients who dropped out would have behaved similarly to those who remained in trial.||Based on mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach was used, with fixed categorical effects of ATA status, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline-by-visit interaction. Visit was the repeated measure. Within-patient errors were modelled by unstructured variance-covariance structure.||84.73|8.09|0.0177
90900423|NCT02597933|181667252|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.39||0.4547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.77|10.21|||MMRM|The model assumed that data were missing at random \& that patients who dropped out would have behaved similarly to those who remained in trial.||Based on mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach was used, with fixed categorical effects of ATA status, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline-by-visit interaction. Visit was the repeated measure. Within-patient errors were modelled by unstructured variance-covariance structure.||10.21|-22.77|0.4547
90900424|NCT02597933|181667253|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||0.7535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|2.84|||Regression, Cox|Based on Cox's regression model (Wald test), stratified by ATA status.||||2.84|0.47|0.7535
90900425|NCT02597933|181667254|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.9115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.88|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The comparison between both treatment groups was performed using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test. CRISS score at Week 52 was transformed into 100 binary responder endpoints using multiple imputation. These were analyzed using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by ATA status OR and the 95% confidence interval (CI) as obtained from all 100 imputations were combined using Rubin´s rule.|Missing values were imputed using worst case, i.e. considered having disease progression.|1.88|0.57|0.9115
90957803|NCT01090427|181795359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (less than or equal to 60 kg vs greater than 60 kg).||||||<0.001
90900426|NCT02597933|181667255|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.5668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|1.06|||MMRM|||Based on mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach was used, with fixed categorical effects of ATA status, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline-by-visit interaction. Visit was the repeated measure. Within-patient errors were modelled by unstructured variance-covariance structure.||1.06|-1.94|0.5668
90900427|NCT02597933|181667256|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.5914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.09|||MMRM|||Based on mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach was used, with fixed categorical effects of ATA status, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline-by-visit interaction. Visit was the repeated measure. Within-patient errors were modelled by unstructured variance-covariance structure.||0.09|-0.16|0.5914
90900428|NCT02597933|181667257|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.032|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034||0.3447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.035|0.099|||MMRM|||Based on mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach was used, with fixed categorical effects of ATA status, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline-by-visit interaction. Visit was the repeated measure. Within-patient errors were modelled by unstructured variance-covariance structure.||0.099|-0.035|0.3447
90957804|NCT04493502|181795461|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.1||||0.189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|41.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||41.4|-7.3|0.189
90957805|NCT04493502|181795462|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.67||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.69|-0.64|||ANCOVA|||||-0.64|-8.69|0.024
91030915|NCT02848326|181946339|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|-0.37||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) model included baseline monthly migraine days as a covariate, treatment group and visit (month) as fixed factors, and treatment group-by-visit and baseline-by-visit as interaction terms.|MMRM|||||-0.37|-1.93|0.0039
91099604|NCT01755637|182085410|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The bioequivalence between the two products was concluded if the 90% CIs (based on log transformed data and anti-logged) for the ratio of the geometric means lie completely within the range 80%-125%|Geometric mean ratio of treatments|113.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.4|123.71|||||Geometric mean ratio of experimental and reference product was determined by exponentiating least-squares means of log-transformed value.|The value was log-transformed and a linear mixed effects model was applied to this value, as the dependent variable, treatment, and period as fixed effects and participants as random effect.||123.71|103.40|
90957806|NCT04493502|181795463|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|1.53|||ANCOVA|||||1.53|-1.44|0.949
90957807|NCT02891837|181795478|OTHER|||||||0.493|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4930
90957808|NCT02891837|181795480|OTHER|||||||0.1924|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1924
90957809|NCT02891837|181795481|OTHER|||||||0.8678|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8678
90957810|NCT02891837|181795488|OTHER|||||||0.6422|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6422
90957811|NCT02891837|181795489|OTHER|||||||0.7572|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7572
90957812|NCT02891837|181795491|OTHER|||||||0.3681|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3681
91099605|NCT01755637|182085411|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The bioequivalence between the two products was concluded if the 90% CIs (based on log transformed data and anti-logged) for the ratio of the geometric means lie completely within the range of 70% -143%.|Geometric mean ratio of treatments|114.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.99|126.93|||||Geometric mean ratio of experimental and reference product was determined by exponentiating least-squares means of log-transformed value.|The value was log-transformed and a linear mixed effects model was applied to this value, as the dependent variable, treatment, and period as fixed effects and participants as random effect.||126.93|102.99|
91099606|NCT03338023|182085426|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority of LY2963016 to Lantus® was demonstrated at the 0.4% noninferiority margin and over 80 percent power.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.08||||||||0.08|-0.32|
90851791|NCT02880956|181568108|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.03|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
90851792|NCT02880956|181568108|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.371||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|0.177||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.177|-1.280|0.137
90851793|NCT02880956|181568108|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.19|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.85|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
90900429|NCT02597933|181667258|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.2727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|1.79|||MMRM|||Based on mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach was used, with fixed categorical effects of ATA status, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline-by-visit interaction. Visit was the repeated measure. Within-patient errors were modelled by unstructured variance-covariance structure.||1.79|-0.51|0.2727
90900430|NCT01097915|181667263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.01
90900431|NCT01097915|181667264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.004|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.004
90900432|NCT01097915|181667265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.048|||||||ANCOVA|the three factors of the Stunkard and Messick Questionnaire were considered as covariates.||||||<0.048
90900433|NCT01097915|181667266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05|||||||ANOVA|||||||< 0.00001
90900434|NCT01097915|181667267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05|||||||ANOVA|||||||< 0.00001
90900435|NCT01097915|181667268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||< 0.00001
90900436|NCT01407354|181667289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.05
90900437|NCT01407354|181667289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.024|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|threshold p value for statistical significance=0.05||||||0.024
91099607|NCT03338023|182085427|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority of Lantus® to LY2963016 was demonstrated at the 0.4% noninferiority margin.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.08||||||||0.08|-0.32|
91099608|NCT03338023|182085428|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.8||||0.191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|3.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Before Morning Meal Glucose||3.4|-17.0|0.191
91099609|NCT03338023|182085428|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.8||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.2|5.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2 Hours After Morning Meal Glucose||5.5|-21.2|0.250
91099610|NCT03338023|182085428|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.1||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.7|-1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Before Mid-Day Meal Glucose||-1.5|-24.7|0.028
90851794|NCT02880956|181568108|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.352||0.258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.294|1.091||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||1.091|-0.294|0.258
90900438|NCT01036022|181667296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-75.0||||0.4788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-284.8|134.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 10 mg for ACTH 1||134.9|-284.8|0.4788
90900439|NCT01036022|181667296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|124.1||||0.2309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.6|328.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 30 mg for ACTH 1||328.9|-80.6|0.2309
90900440|NCT01036022|181667296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-185.1||||0.0758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-389.8|19.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 100 mg for ACTH 1||19.7|-389.8|0.0758
90900441|NCT01036022|181667296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|130.4||||0.2084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.4|335.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 300 mg for ACTH 1||335.1|-74.4|0.2084
90900442|NCT01036022|181667296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|132.6||||0.1684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.4|322.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo versus Asacol for ACTH 1||322.6|-57.4|0.1684
90900443|NCT01036022|181667296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-90.4||||0.5122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-364.7|184.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 10 mg for ACTH 2||184.0|-364.7|0.5122
90900444|NCT01036022|181667296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-75.5||||0.5417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-321.7|170.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 30 mg for ACTH 2||170.7|-321.7|0.5417
90900445|NCT01036022|181667296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-54.4||||0.6511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-294.2|185.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 100 mg for ACTH 2||185.3|-294.2|0.6511
90900446|NCT01036022|181667296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|64.7||||0.6117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-189.1|318.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 300 mg for ACTH 2||318.5|-189.1|0.6117
90900447|NCT01036022|181667296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-99.7||||0.3882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-329.3|129.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo versus Asacol for ACTH 2||129.9|-329.3|0.3882
90900448|NCT01036022|181667296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-125.5||||0.4781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-477.5|226.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 10 mg for ACTH effect||226.5|-477.5|0.4781
90900449|NCT01036022|181667296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-277.9||||0.0834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-593.7|37.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 30 mg for ACTH effect||37.9|-593.7|0.0834
90900450|NCT01036022|181667296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|121.7||||0.4313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-185.8|429.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 100 mg for ACTH effect||429.3|-185.8|0.4313
90900451|NCT01036022|181667296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-73.5||||0.6528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-399.1|252.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 300 mg for ACTH effect||252.0|-399.1|0.6528
90900452|NCT01036022|181667296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-248.5||||0.0966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-542.9|46.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo versus Asacol for ACTH effect||46.0|-542.9|0.0966
90900453|NCT01036022|181667296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|32.2||||0.7704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-187.6|252.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 10 mg for ACTH morning||252.0|-187.6|0.7704
90900454|NCT01036022|181667296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|165.3||||0.0988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.0|362.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 30 mg for ACTH morning||362.5|-32.0|0.0988
90900455|NCT01036022|181667296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-153.4||||0.1153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-345.5|38.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 100 mg for ACTH morning||38.7|-345.5|0.1153
90900456|NCT01036022|181667296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.7||||0.9636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-198.7|208.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 300 mg for ACTH morning||208.0|-198.7|0.9636
90900457|NCT01036022|181667296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|119.8||||0.1972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.1|303.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo versus Asacol for ACTH morning||303.8|-64.1|0.1972
90900458|NCT01036022|181667296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-207.6||||0.0495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-414.6|-0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 10 mg for ACTH 1||-0.5|-414.6|0.0495
90900459|NCT01036022|181667296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.5||||0.9333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-210.4|193.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 30 mg for ACTH 1||193.4|-210.4|0.9333
91030916|NCT02848326|181946339|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|-0.27||MMRM model included baseline monthly migraine days as a covariate, treatment group and visit (month) as fixed factors, and treatment group-by-visit and baseline-by-visit as interaction terms.|MMRM|||||-0.27|-1.55|0.0056
90900460|NCT01036022|181667296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-317.7||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-519.6|-115.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 100 mg for ACTH 1||-115.8|-519.6|0.0025
90900461|NCT01036022|181667296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.2||||0.9823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-204.1|199.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 300 mg for ACTH 1||199.6|-204.1|0.9823
90900462|NCT01036022|181667296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.3||||0.946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-265.0|283.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 10 mg for ACTH 2||283.7|-265.0|0.9460
90900463|NCT01036022|181667296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|24.2||||0.8445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-222.0|270.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 30 mg for ACTH 2||270.4|-222.0|0.8445
91030917|NCT02848326|181946339|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.0325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|-0.06||MMRM model included baseline monthly migraine days as a covariate, treatment group and visit (month) as fixed factors, and treatment group-by-visit and baseline-by-visit as interaction terms.|MMRM|||||-0.06|-1.35|0.0325
91030918|NCT02848326|181946339|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|-0.56||MMRM model included baseline monthly migraine days as a covariate, treatment group and visit (month) as fixed factors, and treatment group-by-visit and baseline-by-visit as interaction terms.|MMRM|||||-0.56|-2.21|0.0010
91099611|NCT03338023|182085428|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.6||||0.599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.8|9.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2 Hours After Mid-Day Meal Glucose||9.7|-16.8|0.599
91099612|NCT03338023|182085428|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.0||||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.4|2.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Before Evening Meal Glucose||2.5|-24.4|0.109
91099613|NCT03338023|182085428|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.4||||0.452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|8.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Bedtime Glucose||8.6|-19.4|0.452
90900464|NCT01036022|181667296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|45.3||||0.7069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-194.5|285.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 100 mg for ACTH 2||285.0|-194.5|0.7069
90900465|NCT01036022|181667296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|164.4||||0.1998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-89.4|418.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 300 mg for ACTH 2||418.2|-89.4|0.1998
90900466|NCT01036022|181667296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|123.0||||0.4871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-229.0|474.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 10 mg for ACTH effect||474.9|-229.0|0.4871
90900467|NCT01036022|181667296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-29.4||||0.8527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-345.2|286.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 30 mg for ACTH effect||286.4|-345.2|0.8527
90900468|NCT01036022|181667296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|370.2||||0.0192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.6|677.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 100 mg for ACTH effect||677.8|62.6|0.0192
90900469|NCT01036022|181667296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|174.9||||0.2865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-150.6|500.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 300 mg for ACTH effect||500.5|-150.6|0.2865
90900470|NCT01036022|181667296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-87.6||||0.4279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-307.5|132.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 10 mg for ACTH morning||132.2|-307.5|0.4279
90900471|NCT01036022|181667296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|45.4||||0.6464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-151.8|242.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 30 mg for ACTH morning||242.7|-151.8|0.6464
90900472|NCT01036022|181667296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-273.3||||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-465.4|-81.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 100 mg for ACTH morning||-81.2|-465.4|0.0061
90900473|NCT01036022|181667296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-115.2||||0.2614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-318.5|88.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 300 mg for ACTH morning||88.1|-318.5|0.2614
90900474|NCT01036022|181667298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.7559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.5||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 10 mg for Week 1 SCCAI score||1.5|-2.0|0.7559
90900475|NCT01036022|181667298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4||||0.1238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|3.2||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 30 mg for Week 1 SCCAI score||3.2|-0.4|0.1238
90900476|NCT01036022|181667298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.6302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|2.2||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 100 mg for Week 1 SCCAI score||2.2|-1.3|0.6302
91030919|NCT02848326|181946339|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|-0.49||MMRM model included baseline monthly migraine days as a covariate, treatment group and visit (month) as fixed factors, and treatment group-by-visit and baseline-by-visit as interaction terms.|MMRM|||||-0.49|-2.09|0.0016
91030920|NCT02848326|181946340|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-1.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|-0.54||MMRM model included baseline monthly headache days as a covariate, treatment group and visit (month) as fixed factors, and treatment group-by-visit and baseline-by-visit as interaction terms.|MMRM|||||-0.54|-2.23|0.0014
91099614|NCT03338023|182085428|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.4||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.3|3.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||0300 Am Glucose||3.5|-18.3|0.180
91099615|NCT03338023|182085429|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.787|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.787
91099616|NCT03338023|182085430|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.201|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.201
91099617|NCT03338023|182085431|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|3.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.4|-0.4|0.885
91099618|NCT03338023|182085432|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.5||||0.328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|3.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning Pre-meal Standard Deviation||3.6|-10.6|0.328
90851795|NCT02880956|181568108|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.88|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
90851796|NCT02880956|181568108|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.348||0.711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.555|0.814||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.814|-0.555|0.711
90851797|NCT02880956|181568108|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.05|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
90851798|NCT02880956|181568108|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.454|0.924||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.924|-0.454|0.503
90851799|NCT02880956|181568108|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.99|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
90900477|NCT01036022|181667298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.2777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|2.8|||Repeated measures mixed model|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 300 mg for Week 1 SCCAI score||2.8|-0.8|0.2777
90900478|NCT01036022|181667298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.8069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.8||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Placebo versus Asacol for Week 1 SCCAI score||1.8|-1.4|0.8069
90900479|NCT01036022|181667298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.7699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.2||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 10 mg for Week 2 SCCAI score||2.2|-1.6|0.7699
90900480|NCT01036022|181667298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.3869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.8||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 30 mg for Week 2 SCCAI score||2.8|-1.1|0.3869
90900481|NCT01036022|181667298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.6695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.5||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 100 mg for Week 2 SCCAI score||1.5|-2.4|0.6695
90900482|NCT01036022|181667298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.5152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|2.7||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 300 mg for Week 2 SCCAI score||2.7|-1.4|0.5152
90900483|NCT01036022|181667298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.4507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.1||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Placebo versus Asacol for Week 2 SCCAI score||1.1|-2.4|0.4507
90900484|NCT01036022|181667298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.8707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|2.3||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 10 mg for Week 3 SCCAI score||2.3|-1.9|0.8707
90900485|NCT01036022|181667298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.2915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|3.1||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 30 mg for Week 3 SCCAI score||3.1|-0.9|0.2915
90900486|NCT01036022|181667298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.7251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.7||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 100 mg for Week 3 SCCAI score||1.7|-2.4|0.7251
90900487|NCT01036022|181667298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.4556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|2.9||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 300 mg for Week 3 SCCAI score||2.9|-1.3|0.4556
90900488|NCT01036022|181667298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.4||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Placebo versus Asacol for Week 3 SCCAI score||1.4|-2.3|0.6620
90851800|NCT02880956|181568108|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.404||0.978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.806|0.784||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.784|-0.806|0.978
91030921|NCT02848326|181946340|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-1.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|-0.55||MMRM model included baseline monthly headache days as a covariate, treatment group and visit (month) as fixed factors, and treatment group-by-visit and baseline-by-visit as interaction terms.|MMRM|||||-0.55|-1.94|0.0005
91030922|NCT02848326|181946340|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.0087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|-0.24||MMRM model included baseline monthly headache days as a covariate, treatment group and visit (month) as fixed factors, and treatment group-by-visit and baseline-by-visit as interaction terms.|MMRM|||||-0.24|-1.64|0.0087
91030923|NCT02848326|181946340|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.41||MMRM model included baseline monthly headache days as a covariate, treatment group and visit (month) as fixed factors, and treatment group-by-visit and baseline-by-visit as interaction terms.|MMRM|||||-0.41|-2.20|0.0044
91030924|NCT02848326|181946340|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|-0.53||MMRM model included baseline monthly headache days as a covariate, treatment group and visit (month) as fixed factors, and treatment group-by-visit and baseline-by-visit as interaction terms.|MMRM|||||-0.53|-2.26|0.0017
91030925|NCT02848326|181946341|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.0617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|2.31||Generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) for repeated measures with fixed factors(treatment group,visit), covariates(baseline migraine days), interactions(treatment group;baseline migraine days by visit) with an unstructured covariance matrix.|GLMM for repeated measures|||||2.31|0.98|0.0617
91030926|NCT02848326|181946341|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46||||0.0369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|2.08||GLMM for repeated measures with fixed factors (treatment group, visit), covariates (baseline migraine days), interactions (treatment group by visit; baseline migraine days by visit) with an unstructured covariance matrix.|GLMM for repeated measures|||||2.08|1.02|0.0369
90851801|NCT02880956|181568108|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.12|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
91030927|NCT02848326|181946341|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.0512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.03||GLMM for repeated measures with fixed factors (treatment group, visit), covariates (baseline migraine days), interactions (treatment group by visit; baseline migraine days by visit) with an unstructured covariance matrix.|GLMM for repeated measures|||||2.03|1.00|0.0512
91030928|NCT02848326|181946341|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.83||||0.0113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|2.91||GLMM for repeated measures with fixed factors (treatment group, visit), covariates (baseline migraine days), interactions (treatment group by visit; baseline migraine days by visit) with an unstructured covariance matrix.|GLMM for repeated measures|||||2.91|1.15|0.0113
91030929|NCT02848326|181946341|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.03||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|3.18||GLMM for repeated measures with fixed factors (treatment group, visit), covariates (baseline migraine days), interactions (treatment group by visit; baseline migraine days by visit) with an unstructured covariance matrix.|GLMM for repeated measure|||||3.18|1.30|0.0019
91030930|NCT02848326|181946342|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|-0.6||MMRM model included baseline monthly acute medication use days as a covariate, treatment group and visit (month) as fixed factors, and treatment group-by-visit and baseline-by-visit as interaction terms.|MMRM|||||-0.60|-1.99|0.0002
91030931|NCT02848326|181946342|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-1.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.01|-0.87||MMRM model included baseline monthly acute medication use days as a covariate, treatment group and visit (month) as fixed factors, and treatment group-by-visit and baseline-by-visit as interaction terms.|MMRM|||||-0.87|-2.01|<0.0001
90851802|NCT02880956|181568108|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.402||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.239|0.342||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.342|-1.239|0.265
90851803|NCT02880956|181568108|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.15|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
90851804|NCT02880956|181568108|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.414||0.789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.704|0.925||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.925|-0.704|0.789
91030932|NCT02848326|181946342|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|-0.54||MMRM model included baseline monthly acute medication use days as a covariate, treatment group and visit (month) as fixed factors, and treatment group-by-visit and baseline-by-visit as interaction terms.|MMRM|||||-0.54|-1.68|0.0001
91030933|NCT02848326|181946342|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-1.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.08|-0.62||MMRM model included baseline monthly acute medication use days as a covariate, treatment group and visit (month) as fixed factors, and treatment group-by-visit and baseline-by-visit as interaction terms.|MMRM|||||-0.62|-2.08|0.0003
91030934|NCT02848326|181946342|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|-0.52||MMRM model included baseline monthly acute medication use days as a covariate, treatment group and visit (month) as fixed factors, and treatment group-by-visit and baseline-by-visit as interaction terms.|MMRM|||||-0.52|-1.93|0.0007
91099619|NCT03338023|182085432|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.7||||0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|3.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Daily Mean Standard Deviation||3.0|-6.5|0.467
91099620|NCT03338023|182085433|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.1|-1.7|0.090
91099621|NCT03338023|182085434|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.2|-2.6|0.089
91030935|NCT00890981|181946343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.7||||0.0766||95.0|-0.4|7.8|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance model was fit with main effects for randomized treatment in study 20050179, baseline value, time since last subcutaneous dose of denosumab or placebo in study 20050179 as a continuous variable, and the age stratification from 20050179. Model included linear, quadratic and cubic time terms with treatment-by-time interaction||7.8|-0.4|0.0766
90851805|NCT02880956|181568108|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.82|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.||||
90900489|NCT01036022|181667298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2||||0.2844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|3.5||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 10 mg for Week 4 SCCAI score||3.5|-1.1|0.2844
90900490|NCT01036022|181667298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2||||0.2799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|3.5||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 30 mg for Week 4 SCCAI score||3.5|-1.0|0.2799
90900491|NCT01036022|181667298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.7655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|2.6||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 100 mg for Week 4 SCCAI score||2.6|-1.9|0.7655
90900492|NCT01036022|181667298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2||||0.3332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|3.5||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 300 mg for Week 4 SCCAI score||3.5|-1.2|0.3332
90900493|NCT01036022|181667298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.6985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.4||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Placebo versus Asacol for Week 4 SCCAI score||2.4|-1.6|0.6985
91030936|NCT00890981|181946344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5||||0.1648||95.0|-0.6|3.5|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance model was fit with main effects for randomized treatment in study 20050179, baseline value, time since last subcutaneous dose of denosumab or placebo in study 20050179 as a continuous variable, and the age stratification from 20050179. Model included linear time term but without treatment-by-time interaction.||3.5|-0.6|0.1648
91030937|NCT00890981|181946345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.0228||95.0|0.1|1.7|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance model was fit with main effects for randomized treatment in study 20050179, baseline value, time since last subcutaneous dose of denosumab or placebo in study 20050179 as a continuous variable, and the age stratification from 20050179. Model included linear, quadratic and cubic time terms but without treatment-by-time interaction.||1.7|0.1|0.0228
90851806|NCT02880956|181568109|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.965|1.395||The statistical model: FAQ change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||1.395|-0.965|0.720
90851807|NCT02880956|181568109|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.73|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
90900494|NCT01036022|181667298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2||||0.3256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|3.7||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 10 mg for Week 5 SCCAI score||3.7|-1.3|0.3256
90900495|NCT01036022|181667298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|3.0||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 30 mg for Week 5 SCCAI score||3.0|-1.9|0.6500
91030938|NCT00890981|181946346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.656||95.0|-2.5|4.0|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance model was fit with main effects for randomized treatment in study 20050179, baseline value, time since last subcutaneous dose of denosumab or placebo in study 20050179 as a continuous variable, and the age stratification from 20050179. Model includes linear, quadratic and cubic time terms but without treatment-by-time interaction.||4.0|-2.5|0.6560
91099622|NCT03338023|182085435|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.5|-0.7|0.770
90851808|NCT02880956|181568109|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.592||0.455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.607|0.722||The statistical model: FAQ change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.722|-1.607|0.455
90900496|NCT01036022|181667298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.8758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|2.7||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 100 mg for Week 5 SCCAI score||2.7|-2.3|0.8758
90900497|NCT01036022|181667298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.7298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|3.0||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 300 mg for Week 5 SCCAI score||3.0|-2.1|0.7298
90900498|NCT01036022|181667298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.5963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|1.6||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Placebo versus Asacol for Week 5 SCCAI score||1.6|-2.8|0.5963
90900499|NCT01036022|181667298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.6498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|3.1||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 10 mg for Week 6 SCCAI score||3.1|-2.0|0.6498
90851809|NCT02880956|181568109|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.55|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
90851810|NCT02880956|181568109|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.605||0.473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.755|1.625||The statistical model: FAQ change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||1.625|-0.755|0.473
90851811|NCT02880956|181568109|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.25|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
90851812|NCT02880956|181568109|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.686||0.813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.187|1.512||The statistical model: FAQ change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||1.512|-1.187|0.813
90851813|NCT02880956|181568109|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.3|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Week 48||||
90851814|NCT02880956|181568109|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.672||0.421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.863|0.78||The statistical model: FAQ change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.780|-1.863|0.421
90851815|NCT02880956|181568109|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.51|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
90851816|NCT02880956|181568109|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.687||0.758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.139|1.564||The statistical model: FAQ change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||1.564|-1.139|0.758
90900500|NCT01036022|181667298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.7061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|3.0||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 30 mg for Week 6 SCCAI score||3.0|-2.0|0.7061
90900501|NCT01036022|181667298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.8549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|2.3||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 100 mg for Week 6 SCCAI score||2.3|-2.7|0.8549
90900502|NCT01036022|181667298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.6533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|3.1||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 300 mg for Week 6 SCCAI score||3.1|-2.0|0.6533
91030939|NCT00890981|181946347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8||||0.0594||95.0|-0.1|3.7|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance model was fit with main effects for randomized treatment in study 20050179, baseline value, time since last subcutaneous dose of denosumab or placebo in study 20050179 as a continuous variable, and the age stratification from 20050179. Model included linear time term but without treatment-by-time interaction.||3.7|-0.1|0.0594
90900503|NCT01036022|181667298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.4378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|1.4||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Placebo versus Asacol for Week 6 SCCAI score||1.4|-3.1|0.4378
91099623|NCT03338023|182085436|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|3.3|||ANCOVA|||ITSQ Inconvenience of Regimen Transformed Score||3.3|-3.9|0.879
90851817|NCT02880956|181568109|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.18|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
90851818|NCT02880956|181568109|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.815||0.511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.14|1.066||The statistical model: FAQ change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||1.066|-2.140|0.511
90851819|NCT02880956|181568109|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.19|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
90851820|NCT02880956|181568109|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.801||0.192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.623|0.527||The statistical model: FAQ change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.527|-2.623|0.192
90851821|NCT02880956|181568109|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.16|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
90851822|NCT02880956|181568109|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.816||0.398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.914|2.294||The statistical model: FAQ change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||2.294|-0.914|0.398
90851823|NCT02880956|181568109|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.92|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
90900504|NCT01036022|181667298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.5917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.3||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 10 mg for Week 1 SCCAI score||1.3|-2.2|0.5917
91099624|NCT03338023|182085436|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|4.5|||ANCOVA|||ITSQ Lifestyle Flexibility Transformed Score||4.5|-5.9|0.788
91030940|NCT00890981|181946348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.6||||0.0032||95.0|0.9|4.3|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance model was fit with main effects for randomized treatment in study 20050179, baseline value, time since last subcutaneous dose of denosumab or placebo in study 20050179 as a continuous variable, and the age stratification from 20050179. Model included linear time term but without treatment-by-time interaction.||4.3|0.9|0.0032
90851824|NCT02880956|181568109|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.924||0.296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.851|2.784||The statistical model: FAQ change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||2.784|-0.851|0.296
90851825|NCT02880956|181568109|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.74|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
90851826|NCT02880956|181568109|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.907||0.706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.126|1.442||The statistical model: FAQ change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||1.442|-2.126|0.706
90851827|NCT02880956|181568109|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.49|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
90851828|NCT02880956|181568109|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|1.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.929||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.036|3.617||The statistical model: FAQ change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||3.617|-0.036|0.055
90851829|NCT02880956|181568109|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.28|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.45|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
90851830|NCT02880956|181568110|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.266|0.166||The statistical model: ADCS-CGIC-MCI change from baseline = treatment + site + visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.166|-0.266|0.651
90900505|NCT01036022|181667298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2||||0.1764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|2.9||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 30 mg for Week 1 SCCAI score||2.9|-0.5|0.1764
90900506|NCT01036022|181667298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.7914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.0||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 100 mg for Week 1 SCCAI score||2.0|-1.5|0.7914
90851831|NCT02880956|181568110|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.82|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
90851832|NCT02880956|181568110|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.107||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.318|0.104||The statistical model: ADCS-CGIC-MCI change from baseline = treatment + site + visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.104|-0.318|0.320
90851833|NCT02880956|181568110|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.81|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
90851834|NCT02880956|181568110|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.182||The statistical model: ADCS-CGIC-MCI change from baseline = treatment + site + visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.182|-0.250|0.757
90851835|NCT02880956|181568110|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.83|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
90851836|NCT02880956|181568110|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121||0.984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.241|0.236||The statistical model: ADCS-CGIC-MCI change from baseline = treatment + site + visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.236|-0.241|0.984
90851837|NCT02880956|181568110|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.85|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
90851838|NCT02880956|181568110|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.118||0.595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.296|0.17||The statistical model: ADCS-CGIC-MCI change from baseline = treatment + site + visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.170|-0.296|0.595
90851839|NCT02880956|181568110|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.93|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
90900507|NCT01036022|181667298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.3578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|2.5||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 300 mg for Week 1 SCCAI score||2.5|-0.9|0.3578
90900508|NCT01036022|181667298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.3247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.9||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 10 mg for Week 2 SCCAI score||2.9|-1.0|0.3247
91099625|NCT03338023|182085436|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|3.3|||ANCOVA|||ITSQ Hypoglycemic Control Transformed Score||3.3|-4.5|0.775
91099626|NCT03338023|182085436|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0||||0.681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|5.6|||ANCOVA|||ITSQ Glycemic Control Transformed Score||5.6|-3.6|0.681
90851840|NCT02880956|181568110|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.122||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.187|0.291||The statistical model: ADCS-CGIC-MCI change from baseline = treatment + site + visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.291|-0.187|0.670
90851841|NCT02880956|181568110|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.91|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
90851842|NCT02880956|181568111|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.112||0.722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.18||The statistical model: ADCS-CGIC-MCI change from baseline = treatment + site + visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.180|-0.260|0.722
90851843|NCT02880956|181568111|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.86|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
90851844|NCT02880956|181568111|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.109||0.878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.232|0.198||The statistical model: ADCS-CGIC-MCI change from baseline = treatment + site + visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.198|-0.232|0.878
90851845|NCT02880956|181568111|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
90900509|NCT01036022|181667298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5||||0.1153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|3.4||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 30 mg for Week 2 SCCAI score||3.4|-0.4|0.1153
90900510|NCT01036022|181667298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.7995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|2.2||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 100 mg for Week 2 SCCAI score||2.2|-1.7|0.7995
90900511|NCT01036022|181667298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.1786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|3.3||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 300 mg for Week 2 SCCAI score||3.3|-0.6|0.1786
90900512|NCT01036022|181667298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.5824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.7||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 10 mg for Week 3 SCCAI score||2.7|-1.5|0.5824
91030941|NCT00890981|181946349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.2897||95.0|-0.4|1.2|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance model was fit with main effects for randomized treatment in study 20050179, baseline value, time since last subcutaneous dose of denosumab or placebo in study 20050179 as a continuous variable, and the age stratification from 20050179. Model included linear, quadratic and cubic time terms but without treatment-by-time interaction.||1.2|-0.4|0.2897
91030942|NCT00890981|181946350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.9||||0.0067||95.0|1.1|6.7|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance model was fit with main effects for randomized treatment in study 20050179, baseline value, time since last subcutaneous dose of denosumab or placebo in study 20050179 as a continuous variable, and the age stratification from 20050179. Model included linear time term but without treatment-by-time interaction.||6.7|1.1|0.0067
91099627|NCT03338023|182085436|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4||||0.819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|3.9|||ANCOVA|||ITSQ Insulin Delivery Device Satisfaction Transformed Score||3.9|-3.1|0.819
90851846|NCT02880956|181568111|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.112||0.535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.151|0.29||The statistical model: ADCS-CGIC-MCI change from baseline = treatment + site + visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.290|-0.151|0.535
90851847|NCT02880956|181568111|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.81|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
90851848|NCT02880956|181568111|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129||0.916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.266|0.239||The statistical model: ADCS-CGIC-MCI change from baseline = treatment + site + visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.239|-0.266|0.916
90851849|NCT02880956|181568111|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.91|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
90851850|NCT02880956|181568111|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.126||0.511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.165||The statistical model: ADCS-CGIC-MCI change from baseline = treatment + site + visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.165|-0.330|0.511
90851851|NCT02880956|181568111|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.0|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
90851852|NCT02880956|181568111|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129||0.771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.217|0.292||The statistical model: ADCS-CGIC-MCI change from baseline = treatment + site + visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.292|-0.217|0.771
90851853|NCT02880956|181568111|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.94|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Week 96||||
90900513|NCT01036022|181667298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5||||0.1392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|3.5||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 30 mg for Week 3 SCCAI score||3.5|-0.5|0.1392
91099628|NCT03338023|182085436|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8||||0.605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|2.3|||ANCOVA|||ITSQ Total Transformed Score||2.3|-3.9|0.605
91030943|NCT00890981|181946351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1||||0.0184||95.0|0.4|3.8|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance model was fit with main effects for randomized treatment in study 20050179, baseline value, time since last subcutaneous dose of denosumab or placebo in study 20050179 as a continuous variable, and the age stratification from 20050179. Model included linear time term but without treatment-by-time interaction.||3.8|0.4|0.0184
91099629|NCT02030418|182085466|SUPERIORITY|"The primary safety hypothesis is:~H0: CFR ≤ 86% vs. H1: CFR \> 86% Where CFR is the Complication Free Rate. The CFR is estimated as a binomial proportion and the 95% confidence interval (CI) of CFR is calculated using the Clopper-Pearson exact method. The null hypothesis is rejected at the 2.5% significance level if the lower bound of this CI exceeds the Performance Goal (PG) of 86%."|binomial proportion|93.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.9|95.9|||1-sided exact test for binomial proporti|||||95.9|89.9|<0.001
90851854|NCT02880956|181568112|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.086||0.903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.159|0.18||The statistical model: ADCS-CGIC-MCI change from baseline = treatment + site + visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.180|-0.159|0.903
90851855|NCT02880956|181568112|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.63|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
90851856|NCT02880956|181568112|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.084||0.811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.185|0.145||The statistical model: ADCS-CGIC-MCI change from baseline = treatment + site + visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.145|-0.185|0.811
90851857|NCT02880956|181568112|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.61|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
90900514|NCT01036022|181667298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.9665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|2.1||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 100 mg for Week 3 SCCAI score||2.1|-2.0|0.9665
90900515|NCT01036022|181667298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2||||0.2455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|3.3||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 300 mg for Week 3 SCCAI score||3.3|-0.9|0.2455
90900516|NCT01036022|181667298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.4644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|3.1||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 10 mg for Week 4 SCCAI score||3.1|-1.4|0.4644
90900517|NCT01036022|181667298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.4567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|3.0||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 30 mg for Week 4 SCCAI score||3.0|-1.4|0.4567
90900518|NCT01036022|181667298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.9594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|2.2||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 100 mg for Week 4 SCCAI score||2.2|-2.3|0.9594
91099630|NCT02030418|182085467|SUPERIORITY|"The primary effectiveness hypothesis is:~H0: Rate ≤ 85.0% vs. H1: Rate \> 85.0%~where Rate is the proportion of subjects experiencing success, and success is defined as: pacing threshold voltage ≤ 2.0 V at 0.4 ms at 6-month visit and sensed R-wave amplitude either ≥ 5.0 mV at the 6-month visit or ≥ value at implant."|binomial proportion|93.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.9|96.0||The null hypothesis is rejected at the 2.5% significance level if the lower bound of the CI exceeds the Performance Goal (PG) of 85%.|1-sided exact test for binomial proporti|||||96.0|89.9|<0.001
90851858|NCT02880956|181568112|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.086||0.775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.145|0.194||The statistical model: ADCS-CGIC-MCI change from baseline = treatment + site + visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.194|-0.145|0.775
90851859|NCT02880956|181568112|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.62|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
90851860|NCT02880956|181568112|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.337|0.096||The statistical model: ADCS-CGIC-MCI change from baseline = treatment + site + visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.096|-0.337|0.273
90851861|NCT02880956|181568112|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.73|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
90851862|NCT02880956|181568112|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.108||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.248|0.176||The statistical model: ADCS-CGIC-MCI change from baseline = treatment + site + visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.176|-0.248|0.740
90900519|NCT01036022|181667298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.5122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|3.0||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 300 mg for Week 4 SCCAI score||3.0|-1.5|0.5122
90900520|NCT01036022|181667298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8||||0.1493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|4.3||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 10 mg for Week 5 SCCAI score||4.3|-0.7|0.1493
90900521|NCT01036022|181667298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.3478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|3.6||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 30 mg for Week 5 SCCAI score||3.6|-1.3|0.3478
90900522|NCT01036022|181667298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.5238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|3.2||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 100 mg for Week 5 SCCAI score||3.2|-1.7|0.5238
90900523|NCT01036022|181667298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.4091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|3.5||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 300 mg for Week 5 SCCAI score||3.5|-1.4|0.4091
90900524|NCT01036022|181667298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5||||0.2604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|4.0||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 10 mg for Week 6 SCCAI score||4.0|-1.1|0.2604
90900525|NCT01036022|181667298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.2809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|3.8||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 30 mg for Week 6 SCCAI score||3.8|-1.1|0.2809
90900526|NCT01036022|181667298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.6038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|3.1||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 100 mg for Week 6 SCCAI score||3.1|-1.8|0.6038
90900527|NCT01036022|181667298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4||||0.2511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|3.9||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 300 mg for Week 6 SCCAI score||3.9|-1.1|0.2511
90900528|NCT01036022|181667301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|2.39||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 10 mg for Week 1 fecal calprotectin levels||2.39|0.24|
90900529|NCT01036022|181667301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.92||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 30 mg for Week 1 fecal calprotectin levels||1.92|0.21|
90900530|NCT01036022|181667301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|2.48||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 100 mg for Week 1 fecal calprotectin levels||2.48|0.26|
91030944|NCT00890981|181946352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6||||0.0911||95.0|-0.3|3.5|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance model was fit with main effects for randomized treatment in study 20050179, baseline value, time since last subcutaneous dose of denosumab or placebo in study 20050179 as a continuous variable, and the age stratification from 20050179. Model included linear time term but without treatment-by-time interaction.||3.5|-0.3|0.0911
91030945|NCT00890981|181946353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1||||0.0035||95.0|0.7|3.5|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance model was fit with main effects for randomized treatment in study 20050179, baseline value, time since last subcutaneous dose of denosumab or placebo in study 20050179 as a continuous variable, and the age stratification from 20050179. Model included linear time term but without treatment-by-time interaction.||3.5|0.7|0.0035
90900531|NCT01036022|181667301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|2.68||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 300 mg for Week 1 fecal calprotectin levels||2.68|0.27|
90900532|NCT01036022|181667301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.81||||||Placebo versus Asacol for Week 1 fecal calprotectin levels||1.81|0.23|
90900533|NCT01036022|181667301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|2.73||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 10 mg for Week 2 fecal calprotectin levels||2.73|0.26|
90900534|NCT01036022|181667301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.68||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 30 mg for Week 2 fecal calprotectin levels||1.68|0.18|
90900535|NCT01036022|181667301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|2.18||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 100 mg for Week 2 fecal calprotectin levels||2.18|0.21|
90900536|NCT01036022|181667301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|2.03||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 300 mg for Week 2 fecal calprotectin levels||2.03|0.19|
90900537|NCT01036022|181667301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.9||||||Placebo versus Asacol for Week 2 fecal calprotectin levels||1.90|0.22|
90900538|NCT01036022|181667301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|4.09||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 10 mg for Week 3 fecal calprotectin levels||4.09|0.28|
90900539|NCT01036022|181667301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|2.43||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 30 mg for Week 3 fecal calprotectin levels||2.43|0.23|
90900540|NCT01036022|181667301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|2.08||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 100 mg for Week 3 fecal calprotectin levels||2.08|0.18|
90900541|NCT01036022|181667301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|2.08||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 300 mg for Week 3 fecal calprotectin levels||2.08|0.17|
90900542|NCT01036022|181667301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.32||||||Placebo versus Asacol for Week 3 fecal calprotectin levels||1.32|0.15|
90900543|NCT01036022|181667301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|5.04||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 10 mg for Week 4 fecal calprotectin levels||5.04|0.33|
90900544|NCT01036022|181667301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.02||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 30 mg for Week 4 fecal calprotectin levels||2.02|0.20|
90900545|NCT01036022|181667301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|3.23||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 100 mg for Week 4 fecal calprotectin levels||3.23|0.29|
90900546|NCT01036022|181667301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|4.72||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 300 mg for Week 4 fecal calprotectin levels||4.72|0.39|
90900547|NCT01036022|181667301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|2.42||||||Placebo versus Asacol for Week 4 fecal calprotectin levels||2.42|0.28|
90900548|NCT01036022|181667301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|2.66||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 10 mg for Week 5 fecal calprotectin levels||2.66|0.14|
90900549|NCT01036022|181667301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|4.38||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 30 mg for Week 5 fecal calprotectin levels||4.38|0.35|
90900550|NCT01036022|181667301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.47||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 100 mg for Week 5 fecal calprotectin levels||2.47|0.20|
90900551|NCT01036022|181667301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|1.46||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 300 mg for Week 5 fecal calprotectin levels||1.46|0.11|
91030946|NCT00890981|181946354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Denosumab to Placebo|1.1||||0.0591||95.0|1.0|1.3|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA based on the log transformed actual values with main effects for randomized treatment in study 20050179, baseline value, time since last subcutaneous dose of denosumab or placebo in study 20050179 as a continuous variable, and the age stratification from 20050179. Model included linear time term but without treatment-by-time interaction.||1.3|1.0|0.0591
91030947|NCT00890981|181946355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Denosumab to Placebo|1.2||||0.0079||95.0|1.0|1.3|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA based on the log transformed actual values with main effects for randomized treatment in study 20050179, baseline value, time since last subcutaneous dose of denosumab or placebo in study 20050179 as a continuous variable, and the age stratification from 20050179. Model included linear time term but without treatment-by-time interaction.||1.3|1.0|0.0079
91030948|NCT04349917|181946383|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.532|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.532
91030949|NCT04349917|181946384|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.579|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis for GNG regular task||||0.579
91030950|NCT04349917|181946384|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.034|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis for GNG reward task||||0.034
91030951|NCT04349917|181946385|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.296|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis for reconfiguration between rest and GNG regular task||||0.296
91099631|NCT02030418|182085468|OTHER|"The hypothesis is intended to test whether the mean slope is within 35% of 1. The hypothesis is stated as follows:~H0: absolute value (Mean Slope - 100%) ≥ equivalence margin, equal to 35%~H1: absolute value (Mean Slope - 100%) \< equivalence margin, equal to 35%~The calculation of slope for individual subjects in the CAEP exercise protocol is done by setting the y-intercept to zero."|Slope|0.83|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.27||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.93|||two 1-sided test (TOST)|||||0.93|0.73|0.001
90900552|NCT01036022|181667301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.48||||||Placebo versus Asacol for Week 5 fecal calprotectin levels||1.48|0.15|
91030952|NCT04349917|181946385|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.169|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis for reconfiguration between rest and GNG reward task||||0.169
90900553|NCT01036022|181667301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|3.39||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 10 mg for Week 6 fecal calprotectin levels||3.39|0.13|
91030953|NCT04349917|181946386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.118|||||||Pearson correlation|||Change in rest modularity vs change in GNG regular commission rate||||0.118
91030954|NCT04349917|181946386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022|||||||Pearson correlation|||Change in rest modularity vs change in GNG regular omission rate||||0.022
91030955|NCT04349917|181946386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||Pearson correlation|||Change in rest modularity vs Change in GNG regular RT Variability||||0.220
91030956|NCT04349917|181946386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.496|||||||Pearson correlation|||Change in rest modularity vs change in GNG reward commission rate||||0.496
91030957|NCT04349917|181946386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.343|||||||Pearson correlation|||Change in rest modularity vs change in GNG reward omission rate||||0.343
91030958|NCT04349917|181946386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.988|||||||Pearson correlation|||Change in rest modularity vs change in GNG reward RT variability||||0.988
91030959|NCT04349917|181946386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.892|||||||Pearson correlation|||Change in GNG regular modularity vs change in GNG regular commission rate||||0.892
91030960|NCT04349917|181946386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.473|||||||Pearson correlation|||Change in GNG regular modularity vs change in GNG regular omission rate||||0.473
91030961|NCT04349917|181946386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.409|||||||Pearson correlation|||Change in GNG regular modularity vs Change in GNG regular RT Variability||||0.409
90900554|NCT01036022|181667301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|1.84||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 30 mg for Week 6 fecal calprotectin levels||1.84|0.11|
90900555|NCT01036022|181667301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.48||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 100 mg for Week 6 fecal calprotectin levels||1.48|0.09|
90900556|NCT01036022|181667301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|2.99||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 300 mg for Week 6 fecal calprotectin levels||2.99|0.19|
90900557|NCT01036022|181667301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|2.49||||||Placebo versus Asacol for Week 6 fecal calprotectin levels||2.49|0.21|
90900558|NCT01036022|181667302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|3.38||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 10 mg for Week 1 fecal lactoferrin levels||3.38|0.42|
90900559|NCT01036022|181667302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.65||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 30 mg for Week 1 fecal lactoferrin levels||3.65|0.50|
90900560|NCT01036022|181667302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|3.47||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 100 mg for Week 1 fecal lactoferrin levels||3.47|0.45|
90900561|NCT01036022|181667302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|3.59||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 300 mg for Week 1 fecal lactoferrin levels||3.59|0.44|
91030962|NCT04349917|181946386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.351|||||||Pearson correlation|||Change in GNG reward modularity vs change in GNG reward commission rate||||0.351
91030963|NCT04349917|181946386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.238|||||||Pearson correlation|||Change in GNG reward modularity vs change in GNG reward omission rate||||0.238
91030964|NCT04349917|181946386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.909|||||||Pearson correlation|||Change in GNG reward modularity vs Change in GNG reward RT Variability||||0.909
91030965|NCT04349917|181946387|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.806|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis for GNG regular task||||0.806
91030966|NCT04349917|181946387|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis for GNG reward task||||0.003
91030967|NCT04349917|181946388|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.093|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis for GNG regular task||||0.093
91030968|NCT04349917|181946388|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis for GNG reward task||||0.0001
91030969|NCT04349917|181946389|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.075|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis for GNG regular task||||0.075
91030970|NCT04349917|181946389|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis for GNG reward task||||0.0001
91030971|NCT03290326|181946399|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||One-way ANOVA was conducted to compare the effect of 40Hz tACS on EEG gamma-band spectral power. Power changes were expressed as percentage relative power variations, accordingly with the event-related synchronization/desynchronization (ERS/ERD) index.||||< 0.01
91099632|NCT00567112|182085518|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Geometric Mean Ratio of OCT (fasted)/DFC (fasted)|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.98|||>|0.2|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.05|||ANOVA|||OCT (fasted)/DFC (fasted)||1.05|0.92|>0.200
90900562|NCT01036022|181667302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.28||||||Placebo versus Asacol for Week 1 fecal lactoferrin levels||3.28|0.50|
91030972|NCT02532764|181946481|SUPERIORITY||Difference vs placebo|12.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.53||0.0592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|26.35||p-values are presented for Day 33.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed-model analysis was performed with repeated time measures on the change from baseline CFQ-R RSS as outcome variable and including treatment, baseline CFQ-R RSS value, time and interaction between time and treatment as covariates.||26.35|-0.54|0.0592
91099633|NCT00567112|182085519|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Geometric Mean Ratio of OCT (fasted)/DFC (fasted)|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.98|||>|0.2|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|1.19|||ANOVA|||OCT (fasted)/DFC (fasted)||1.19|0.80|>0.200
91099634|NCT00567112|182085520|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Geometric Mean Ratio of OCT (after meal)/OCT (fasted)|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.92||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.86|0.98|||ANOVA|||OCT (after meal)/OCT (fasted)||0.98|0.86|0.026
91099635|NCT00567112|182085521|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Geometric Mean Ratio OCT (after meal)/OCT (fasted)|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.49|0.72|||ANOVA|||OCT (after meal)/OCT (fasted)||0.72|0.49|<0.001
91099636|NCT00567112|182085522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.2||95.0|||||ANOVA|||OCT (fasted)/DFC (fasted)||||>0.200
91099637|NCT00567112|182085523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.2||95.0|||||ANOVA|||OCT (fasted)/DFC (fasted)||||>0.200
90851863|NCT02880956|181568112|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.8|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
90851864|NCT02880956|181568112|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.111||0.567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.282|0.155||The statistical model: ADCS-CGIC-MCI change from baseline = treatment + site + visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.155|-0.282|0.567
90900563|NCT01036022|181667302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|2.19||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 10 mg for Week 2 fecal lactoferrin levels||2.19|0.26|
90900564|NCT01036022|181667302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.63||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 30 mg for Week 2 fecal lactoferrin levels||1.63|0.22|
91099638|NCT00567112|182085524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||OCT (after meal)/OCT (fasted)||||<0.001
91099639|NCT00567112|182085525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.2|||||||ANOVA|||OCT (after meal)/OCT (fasted)||||>0.200
91099640|NCT00762177|182085526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
90851865|NCT02880956|181568112|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.8|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
90851866|NCT02880956|181568113|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099||0.931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.204|0.187||The statistical model: ADCS-CGIC-MCI change from baseline = treatment + site + visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.187|-0.204|0.931
91099641|NCT00762177|182085527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91099642|NCT00762177|182085528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
90900565|NCT01036022|181667302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|1.0||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 100 mg for Week 2 fecal lactoferrin levels||1.00|0.12|
90900566|NCT01036022|181667302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|2.77||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 300 mg for Week 2 fecal lactoferrin levels||2.77|0.31|
90900567|NCT01036022|181667302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.87||||||Placebo versus Asacol for Week 2 fecal lactoferrin levels||1.87|0.26|
90900568|NCT01036022|181667302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.84||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 10 mg for Week 3 fecal lactoferrin levels||1.84|0.15|
90900569|NCT01036022|181667302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|2.87||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 30 mg for Week 3 fecal lactoferrin levels||2.87|0.32|
91099643|NCT00762177|182085529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91099644|NCT00762177|182085530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91099645|NCT00762177|182085531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91099646|NCT00762177|182085532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91099647|NCT00762177|182085533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||the tongue will be scrapped 5 times with the edge of a tongue depressor. The depressor is vortex in sterile phosphate buffered saline(PBS) and the sample is then sonicated using a Branson 450A sonicator with a cup horn for 30 seconds. Samples diluted (10 fold) in PBS and plated using a spiral systems autoplate 4000 spiral plater on CFAT Agar||||0.05
91099648|NCT00762177|182085534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91099649|NCT00762177|182085535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91099650|NCT00762177|182085536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91099651|NCT00762177|182085537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91099652|NCT00762177|182085538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91099653|NCT00762177|182085539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91099654|NCT00762177|182085540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
90900570|NCT01036022|181667302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.56||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 100 mg for Week 3 fecal lactoferrin levels||1.56|0.17|
91030973|NCT02532764|181946481|SUPERIORITY||difference vs placebo|19.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.56||0.0074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.62|32.64||p-values are presented for Day 33|Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed-model analysis was performed with repeated time measures on the change from baseline CFQ-R RSS as outcome variable and including treatment, baseline CFQ-R RSS value, time and interaction between time and treatment as covariates.||32.64|5.62|0.0074
91030974|NCT02532764|181946481|SUPERIORITY||difference vs placebo|14.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.6||0.0408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|27.83||p-values are presented for Day 33|Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed-model analysis was performed with repeated time measures on the change from baseline CFQ-R RSS as outcome variable and including treatment, baseline CFQ-R RSS value, time and interaction between time and treatment as covariates.||27.83|0.64|0.0408
91030975|NCT02532764|181946481|SUPERIORITY||difference vs placebo|3.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.87||0.6193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.69|17.6||p-values are presented for Day 33|Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed-model analysis was performed with repeated time measures on the change from baseline CFQ-R RSS as outcome variable and including treatment, baseline CFQ-R RSS value, time and interaction between time and treatment as covariates.||17.60|-10.69|0.6193
91030976|NCT02532764|181946483|SUPERIORITY||Difference vs placebo|23.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.73||0.0321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.29|44.04||p-values are presented for Day 33.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed-model analysis was performed with repeated time measures on the change from baseline CFQ-R RSS as outcome variable and including treatment, baseline CFQ-R RSS value, time and interaction between time and treatment as covariates.||44.04|2.29|0.0321
91030977|NCT02532764|181946483|SUPERIORITY||Difference vs placebo|27.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.17||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.64|46.96||p-values are presented for Day 33.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed-model analysis was performed with repeated time measures on the change from baseline CFQ-R RSS as outcome variable and including treatment, baseline CFQ-R RSS value, time and interaction between time and treatment as covariates.||46.96|7.64|0.0100
91030978|NCT02532764|181946483|SUPERIORITY||Difference vs placebo|20.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.62||0.0346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.68|38.64||p-values are presented for Day 33.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed-model analysis was performed with repeated time measures on the change from baseline CFQ-R RSS as outcome variable and including treatment, baseline CFQ-R RSS value, time and interaction between time and treatment as covariates.||38.64|1.68|0.0346
91030979|NCT02532764|181946483|SUPERIORITY||Difference vs placebo|10.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.01||0.2485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.47|30.16||p-values are presented for Day 33.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed-model analysis was performed with repeated time measures on the change from baseline CFQ-R RSS as outcome variable and including treatment, baseline CFQ-R RSS value, time and interaction between time and treatment as covariates.||30.16|-8.47|0.2485
91030980|NCT02532764|181946485|SUPERIORITY||difference vs placebo|4.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.18||0.1938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|10.79||P-values are presented for Day 33|Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed-model analysis was performed with repeated time measures on the change from baseline ppFEV1 as outcome variable and including treatment, baseline ppFEV1 value, time and interaction between time and treatment as covariate||10.79|-2.30|0.1938
91030981|NCT02532764|181946485|SUPERIORITY||difference vs placebo|2.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.18||0.3943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.79|9.29||P-values are presented for Day 33|Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed-model analysis was performed with repeated time measures on the change from baseline ppFEV1 as outcome variable and including treatment, baseline ppFEV1 value, time and interaction between time and treatment as covariates.||9.29|-3.79|0.3943
91099655|NCT00762177|182085541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91099656|NCT00762177|182085542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
90900571|NCT01036022|181667302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|4.46||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 300 mg for Week 3 fecal lactoferrin levels||4.46|0.45|
90900572|NCT01036022|181667302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|1.01||||||Placebo versus Asacol for Week 3 fecal lactoferrin levels||1.01|0.14|
90900573|NCT01036022|181667302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.15||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 10 mg for Week 4 fecal lactoferrin levels||1.15|0.10|
90900574|NCT01036022|181667302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|2.03||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 30 mg for Week 4 fecal lactoferrin levels||2.03|0.23|
90900575|NCT01036022|181667302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.68||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 100 mg for Week 4 fecal lactoferrin levels||1.68|0.19|
90900576|NCT01036022|181667302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|3.7||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 300 mg for Week 4 fecal lactoferrin levels||3.70|0.38|
90900577|NCT01036022|181667302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.89||||||Placebo versus Asacol for Week 4 fecal lactoferrin levels||1.89|0.26|
90900578|NCT01036022|181667302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|4.07||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 10 mg for Week 5 fecal lactoferrin levels||4.07|0.27|
90900579|NCT01036022|181667302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|4.73||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 30 mg for Week 5 fecal lactoferrin levels||4.73|0.46|
90900580|NCT01036022|181667302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|1.02||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 100 mg for Week 5 fecal lactoferrin levels||1.02|0.11|
90900581|NCT01036022|181667302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|3.73||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 300 mg for Week 5 fecal lactoferrin levels||3.73|0.36|
90900582|NCT01036022|181667302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|2.33||||||Placebo versus Asacol for Week 5 fecal lactoferrin levels||2.33|0.29|
90900583|NCT01036022|181667302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|6.59||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 10 mg for Week 6 fecal lactoferrin levels||6.59|0.31|
90900584|NCT01036022|181667302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|2.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|9.04||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 30 mg for Week 6 fecal lactoferrin levels||9.04|0.54|
90900585|NCT01036022|181667302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|1.48||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 100 mg for Week 6 fecal lactoferrin levels||1.48|0.11|
90900586|NCT01036022|181667302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|5.91||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 300 mg for Week 6 fecal lactoferrin levels||5.91|0.46|
91099657|NCT00762177|182085543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91099658|NCT00762177|182085544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91099659|NCT00762177|182085545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91099660|NCT00762177|182085546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91099661|NCT00762177|182085547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
90851867|NCT02880956|181568113|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.73|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
90851868|NCT02880956|181568113|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.097||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.063||The statistical model: ADCS-CGIC-MCI change from baseline = treatment + site + visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.063|-0.320|0.187
91099662|NCT00762177|182085548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
90851869|NCT02880956|181568113|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.78|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
90851870|NCT02880956|181568113|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.191|0.201||The statistical model: ADCS-CGIC-MCI change from baseline = treatment + site + visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.201|-0.191|0.961
91030982|NCT02532764|181946485|SUPERIORITY||difference vs placebo|0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.18||0.8688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.01|7.07||P-values are presented for Day 33|Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed-model analysis was performed with repeated time measures on the change from baseline ppFEV1 as outcome variable and including treatment, baseline ppFEV1 value, time and interaction between time and treatment as covariates.||7.07|-6.01|0.8688
91099663|NCT00762177|182085549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91099664|NCT04180696|182085569|SUPERIORITY|Endpoint for statistical analysis is the proportion Improved.||||||0.61|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.61
91099665|NCT04180696|182085570|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.192|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.367||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.579|2.455|||Regression, Logistic|Proportional odds logistic regression model. Baseline NYHA class and time included as fixed covariates.||Due to limited number of subjects with NYHA class III or IV during follow-up, class III, IV, and death were grouped as a single category for analysis.||2.455|0.579|0.63
91099666|NCT04180696|182085571|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.476||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.492|3.175|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for NYHA class and sex.||||3.175|0.492|0.64
91099667|NCT04180696|182085572|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.78
90851871|NCT02880956|181568113|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.73|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
90851872|NCT02880956|181568113|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.124||0.894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.227||The statistical model: ADCS-CGIC-MCI change from baseline = treatment + site + visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.227|-0.260|0.894
90851873|NCT02880956|181568113|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.87|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
90851874|NCT02880956|181568113|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121||0.917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.226|0.251||The statistical model: ADCS-CGIC-MCI change from baseline = treatment + site + visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.251|-0.226|0.917
90851875|NCT02880956|181568113|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.91|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
90900587|NCT01036022|181667302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|2.62||||||Placebo versus Asacol for Week 6 fecal lactoferrin levels||2.62|0.27|
91099668|NCT04180696|182085573|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.817||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.206|5.056|||Regression, Cox|||||5.056|0.206|0.98
91099669|NCT04906421|182085579|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0018||||||Stratified CMH test stratified by T2DM status at baseline (yes or no) and amount of fibrosis at baseline (F2 or F3).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|One-sided||ITT Population analysis||||0.0018
91099670|NCT04906421|182085579|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0035||||||Stratified CMH test stratified by T2DM status at baseline (yes or no) and amount of fibrosis at baseline (F2 or F3).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Two-sided||ITT Population Analysis||||0.0035
91099671|NCT04906421|182085579|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001||||||Stratified CMH test stratified by T2DM status at baseline (yes or no) and amount of fibrosis at baseline (F2 or F3).|t-test, 1 sided|One-sided||mITT Population Analysis||||0.0001
91099672|NCT04906421|182085579|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003||||||Stratified CMH test stratified by T2DM status at baseline (yes or no) and amount of fibrosis at baseline (F2 or F3).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Two-sided||mITT Population Analysis||||0.0003
91099673|NCT04906421|182085580|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0087||||||Stratified CMH test stratified by T2DM status at baseline (yes or no) and amount of fibrosis at baseline (F2 or F3).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|One-sided||ITT Population Analysis||||0.0087
91099674|NCT04906421|182085580|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0173||||||Stratified CMH test stratified by T2DM status at baseline (yes or no) and amount of fibrosis at baseline (F2 or F3).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Two-sided||ITT Population Analysis||||0.0173
91099675|NCT04906421|182085580|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0022||||||Stratified CMH test stratified by T2DM status at baseline (yes or no) and amount of fibrosis at baseline (F2 or F3).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|One-sided||mITT Population Analysis||||0.0022
91030983|NCT02532764|181946485|SUPERIORITY||difference vs placebo|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.35||0.8813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.41|6.39||P-values are presented for Day 33|Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed-model analysis was performed with repeated time measures on the change from baseline ppFEV1 as outcome variable and including treatment, baseline ppFEV1 value, time and interaction between time and treatment as covariates.||6.39|-7.41|0.8813
91030984|NCT02532764|181946487|SUPERIORITY||Difference vs placebo|10.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.22||0.0301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|19.25||P-values are presented for Day 33|Mixed Models Analysis|||||19.25|1.13|0.0301
90851876|NCT02880956|181568113|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.124||0.639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.186|0.303||The statistical model: ADCS-CGIC-MCI change from baseline = treatment + site + visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.303|-0.186|0.639
90851877|NCT02880956|181568113|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.91|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
90851878|NCT02880956|181568114|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.175||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.851|2.703||The statistical model: UPSA-Brief change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||2.703|-5.851|0.470
90851879|NCT02880956|181568114|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.44|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
90851880|NCT02880956|181568114|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.127||0.864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.819|4.548||The statistical model: UPSA-Brief change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||4.548|-3.819|0.864
90900588|NCT04534114|181667366|OTHER|Fesomersen groups were compared to the placebo group using two-sided log-rank tests. Due to the exploratory nature of these analyses, no multiplicity adjustment was done. Cause-specific hazard ratio and corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence intervals, comparing the hazards for the event-of-interest in each of the Fesomersen groups with the placebo group were estimated based on three separate cause-specific Cox proportional hazards models as exploratory analysis.|Cause specific Hazard ratio|0.94||||0.944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|4.68|||Log Rank|||||4.68|0.19|0.944
90900589|NCT04534114|181667366|OTHER|Fesomersen groups were compared to the placebo group using two-sided log-rank tests. Due to the exploratory nature of these analyses, no multiplicity adjustment was done. Cause-specific hazard ratio and corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence intervals, comparing the hazards for the event-of-interest in each of the Fesomersen groups with the placebo group were estimated based on three separate cause-specific Cox proportional hazards models as exploratory analysis.|Cause specific Hazard ratio|0.95||||0.953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|4.72|||Log Rank|||||4.72|0.19|0.953
90900590|NCT04534114|181667366|OTHER|Fesomersen groups were compared to the placebo group using two-sided log-rank tests. Due to the exploratory nature of these analyses, no multiplicity adjustment was done. Cause-specific hazard ratio and corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence intervals, comparing the hazards for the event-of-interest in each of the Fesomersen groups with the placebo group were estimated based on three separate cause-specific Cox proportional hazards models as exploratory analysis.|Cause specific Hazard ratio|0.63||||0.605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|3.75|||Log Rank|||||3.75|0.10|0.605
90900591|NCT04534114|181667367|OTHER|Fesomersen groups were compared to the placebo group using two-sided log-rank tests. Due to the exploratory nature of these analyses, no multiplicity adjustment was done. Cause-specific hazard ratio and corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence intervals, comparing the hazards for the event-of-interest in each of the Fesomersen groups with the placebo group were estimated based on three separate cause-specific Cox proportional hazards models as exploratory analysis.|Cause specific Hazard ratio|1.45||||0.612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|6.08|||Log Rank|||||6.08|0.34|0.612
90900592|NCT04534114|181667367|OTHER|Fesomersen groups were compared to the placebo group using two-sided log-rank tests. Due to the exploratory nature of these analyses, no multiplicity adjustment was done. Cause-specific hazard ratio and corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence intervals, comparing the hazards for the event-of-interest in each of the Fesomersen groups with the placebo group were estimated based on three separate cause-specific Cox proportional hazards models as exploratory analysis.|Cause specific Hazard ratio|1.27||||0.757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|5.66|||Log Rank|||||5.66|0.28|0.757
90900593|NCT04534114|181667367|OTHER|Fesomersen groups were compared to the placebo group using two-sided log-rank tests. Due to the exploratory nature of these analyses, no multiplicity adjustment was done. Cause-specific hazard ratio and corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence intervals, comparing the hazards for the event-of-interest in each of the Fesomersen groups with the placebo group were estimated based on three separate cause-specific Cox proportional hazards models as exploratory analysis.|Cause specific Hazard ratio|0.91||||0.909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|4.52|||Log Rank|||||4.52|0.18|0.909
90900594|NCT04765735|181667383|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||"It is hypothesized that the proportion of subjects with a reduction in overstimulation sensation during CL compared to OL period exceeds a performance goal of 50%.~H0: p ≤ 50% HA: p \> 50%"|Binomial Exact Test|||||||<0.001
90900595|NCT01709305|181667392|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority criterion are met when the upper limit of the two-sided 98.34% CI for the difference in LS means is less than or equal to the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 0.3%.|Difference in LS Means|0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|98.34|0.02|0.36||||||Pairwise Comparison||0.36|0.02|
90851881|NCT02880956|181568114|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.95|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
91030985|NCT02532764|181946487|SUPERIORITY||Difference vs placebo|7.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.91||0.0601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|16.37||P-values are presented for Day 33|Mixed Models Analysis|||||16.37|-0.39|0.0601
91030986|NCT02532764|181946487|SUPERIORITY||Difference vs placebo|3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.69||0.358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|11.41||P-values are presented for Day 33|Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.41|-4.40|0.3580
91030987|NCT02532764|181946487|SUPERIORITY||Difference vs placebo|3.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.89||0.4224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.13|11.55||P-values are presented for Day 33|Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.55|-5.13|0.4224
91030988|NCT00048568|181946498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Difference|28.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.8|36.7|||Chi-squared, Corrected||Estimated difference between ABA + MTX and MTX + PLA is the estimated difference between ABA+MTX and MTX + PLA in the proportion of participants achieving ACR 20 response.|The study had a 99% power to detect a difference of 20% in ACR 20 between the 2 groups at the 5% level.||36.7|19.8|<0.001
91099676|NCT04906421|182085580|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0044||||||Stratified CMH test stratified by T2DM status at baseline (yes or no) and amount of fibrosis at baseline (F2 or F3).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Two-sided||mITT Population Analysis||||0.0044
90851882|NCT02880956|181568114|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-4.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.206||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.826|-0.15||The statistical model: UPSA-Brief change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||-0.150|-8.826|0.043
90851883|NCT02880956|181568114|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.28|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.24|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
90900596|NCT01709305|181667392|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority criterion are met when the upper limit of the two-sided 98.34% CI for the difference in LS means is less than or equal to the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 0.3%.|Difference in LS Means|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|98.34|-0.15|0.21||||||Pairwise Comparison||0.21|-0.15|
90900597|NCT01709305|181667392|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority criterion are met when the upper limit of the two-sided 98.34% CI for the difference in LS means is less than or equal to the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 0.3%.|Difference in LS Means|-0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|98.34|-0.23|0.14||||||Pairwise Comparison||0.14|-0.23|
90851884|NCT02880956|181568114|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.874||0.831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.041|6.27||The statistical model: UPSA-Brief change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||6.270|-5.041|0.831
90851885|NCT02880956|181568114|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|18.06|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
90851886|NCT02880956|181568114|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|1.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.843||0.525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.784|7.404||The statistical model: UPSA-Brief change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||7.404|-3.784|0.525
90851887|NCT02880956|181568114|OTHER||Effect size/pooled SD|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.47|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
90851888|NCT02880956|181568114|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.921||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.239|4.255||The statistical model: UPSA-Brief change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||4.255|-7.239|0.610
91030989|NCT00048568|181946499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Difference|24.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.9|32.9||Based on the hierarchical testing procedure for the co-primary measures, the study had 98% power to detect 18% difference in HAQ response rate between the two arms at the 5% level.|Chi-squared, Corrected|This model includes treatment as the main factor and baseline value as a covariate.|Estimated difference between ABA + MTX and MTX + PLA is the estimated difference between ABA+MTX and MTX + PLA in the proportion of participants achieving HAQ response at Day 365.|||32.9|15.9|<0.001
91099677|NCT04906421|182085581|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0102|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Stratified CMH test stratified by T2DM status at baseline (yes or no) and amount of fibrosis at baseline (F2 or F3).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Two-sided||mITT Population Analysis||||0.0102
90851889|NCT02880956|181568114|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.53|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
90851890|NCT02880956|181568115|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02||0.438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.798|1.214||The statistical model: ADCS-MCI-ADL-24 change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; var-covar structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||1.214|-2.798|0.438
90851891|NCT02880956|181568115|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.87|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
90851892|NCT02880956|181568115|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.005||0.419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.164|2.788||The statistical model: ADCS-MCI-ADL-24 change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; var-covar structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||2.788|-1.164|0.419
90851893|NCT02880956|181568115|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.91|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
90851894|NCT02880956|181568115|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.959|2.092||The statistical model: ADCS-MCI-ADL-24 change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; var-covar structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||2.092|-1.959|0.948
90900598|NCT01709305|181667394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimate|-8.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|-6.1|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Difference in % vs. Glimepiride||-6.1|-11.1|<0.001
90900599|NCT01709305|181667394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimate|-2.9||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|0.3|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Difference in % vs. Glimepiride||0.3|-6.1|0.072
91030990|NCT00048568|181946500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029||95.0|||||Nonparametric ANCOVA|The rank of the change from baseline=dependent variable, treatment=the main factor, rank of baseline value as covariate.||||||0.029
91099678|NCT04906421|182085581|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Stratified CMH test stratified by T2DM status at baseline (yes or no) and amount of fibrosis at baseline (F2 or F3).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Two-sided||Subgroup Fibrosis Stage F2 at Baseline Population Analysis||||0.59
90851895|NCT02880956|181568115|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.01|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
90851896|NCT02880956|181568115|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.597||0.516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.18|2.101||The statistical model: ADCS-MCI-ADL-24 change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; var-covar structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||2.101|-4.180|0.516
90851897|NCT02880956|181568115|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.87|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
90851898|NCT02880956|181568115|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.582||0.971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.055|3.168||The statistical model: ADCS-MCI-ADL-24 change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; var-covar structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||3.168|-3.055|0.971
90851899|NCT02880956|181568115|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.24|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Week 96||||
90851900|NCT02880956|181568115|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.621||0.392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.577|1.8||The statistical model: ADCS-MCI-ADL-24 change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; var-covar structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||1.800|-4.577|0.392
90851901|NCT02880956|181568115|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.87|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
90851902|NCT02880956|181568116|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.902||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.08|0.465||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.465|-3.080|0.148
90851903|NCT02880956|181568116|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.19|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.81|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
90851904|NCT02880956|181568116|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.896||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.278|0.246||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.246|-3.278|0.092
90851905|NCT02880956|181568116|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.14|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
90851906|NCT02880956|181568116|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.915||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.446|0.152||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.152|-3.446|0.073
90851907|NCT02880956|181568116|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.25|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.55|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
90851908|NCT02880956|181568116|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.081||0.662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.652|2.599||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||2.599|-1.652|0.662
90851909|NCT02880956|181568116|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.07|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
90900600|NCT01709305|181667394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimate|-5.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|-2.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Difference in % vs. Glimepiride||-2.5|-8.3|<0.001
91030991|NCT00048568|181946504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Difference|33.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.1|41.7|||Chi-squared, Corrected||Estimated difference between ABA + MTX and MTX + PLA is the estimated difference between ABA+MTX and MTX + PLA in the proportion of participants achieving ACR 20 response at Day 365.|||41.7|25.1|<0.001
91099679|NCT04906421|182085581|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Stratified CMH test stratified by T2DM status at baseline (yes or no) and amount of fibrosis at baseline (F2 or F3).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Two-Sided||Subgroup Fibrosis Stage F3 at Baseline Population Analysis||||0.0032
90851910|NCT02880956|181568116|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.057||0.992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.089|2.068||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||2.068|-2.089|0.992
90851911|NCT02880956|181568116|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.38|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
90900601|NCT01709305|181667395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimate|0.4||||0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.3|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Difference in % vs. Glimepiride||1.3|-0.3|0.158
90900602|NCT01709305|181667395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimate|0.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Difference in % vs. Glimepiride||0.7|-0.7|>0.999
90900603|NCT01709305|181667395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimate|0.2||||0.318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Difference in % vs. Glimepiride||1.0|-0.5|0.318
91099680|NCT04906421|182085581|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0764|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Stratified CMH test stratified by T2DM status at baseline (yes or no) and amount of fibrosis at baseline (F2 or F3).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Two-sided||Subgroup Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus at Baseline Population Analysis||||0.0764
91099681|NCT04906421|182085582|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0043||||||Stratified CMH test stratified by T2DM status at baseline (yes or no) and amount of fibrosis at baseline (F2 or F3).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Two-sided||mITT Population Analysis||||0.0043
91099682|NCT04906421|182085583|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0018||||||Stratified CMH test stratified by T2DM status at baseline (yes or no) and amount of fibrosis at baseline (F2 or F3).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Two-sided||mITT Population Analysis||||0.0018
90851912|NCT02880956|181568116|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.088||0.451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.961|1.32||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||1.320|-2.961|0.451
90851913|NCT02880956|181568116|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.72|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
90851914|NCT02880956|181568116|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.227||0.583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.088|1.739||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||1.739|-3.088|0.583
90851915|NCT02880956|181568116|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.67|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
90851916|NCT02880956|181568116|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.213||0.191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.975|0.795||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.795|-3.975|0.191
90851917|NCT02880956|181568116|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.37|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
90851918|NCT02880956|181568116|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.238||0.372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.541|1.329|||repeated measures model|||Week 72||1.329|-3.541|0.372
90851919|NCT02880956|181568116|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.96|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Week 72||||
90851920|NCT02880956|181568116|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.303||0.447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.553|1.571||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||1.571|-3.553|0.447
90851921|NCT02880956|181568116|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.35|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Week 96||||
90851922|NCT02880956|181568116|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.285||0.881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.334|2.719||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||2.719|-2.334|0.881
90851923|NCT02880956|181568116|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.68|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
90851924|NCT02880956|181568116|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.338||0.853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.881|2.383||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||2.383|-2.881|0.853
90851925|NCT02880956|181568116|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.54|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
90851926|NCT02880956|181568117|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.846||0.287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.567|0.762||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.762|-2.567|0.287
90851927|NCT02880956|181568117|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.76|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
90851928|NCT02880956|181568117|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.838||0.227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.661|0.633||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.633|-2.661|0.227
90851929|NCT02880956|181568117|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.83|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
90851930|NCT02880956|181568117|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.859||0.241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.698|0.681||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.681|-2.698|0.241
90851931|NCT02880956|181568117|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.22|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
90851932|NCT02880956|181568117|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.958||0.397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.073|2.696||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||2.696|-1.073|0.397
90851933|NCT02880956|181568117|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.45|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
91099683|NCT04906421|182085584|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Stratified CMH test stratified by T2DM status at baseline (yes or no) and amount of fibrosis at baseline (F2 or F3).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Two-sided||mITT Population Analysis||||<0.0001
90851934|NCT02880956|181568117|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.936||0.671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.239|1.443||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||1.443|-2.239|0.671
90851935|NCT02880956|181568117|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.59|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
90851936|NCT02880956|181568117|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.964||0.231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.052|0.738||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.738|-3.052|0.231
90851937|NCT02880956|181568117|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.25|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
90851938|NCT02880956|181568117|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|2.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.137||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|4.701||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||4.701|0.230|0.031
90851939|NCT02880956|181568117|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.29|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.65|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
90851940|NCT02880956|181568117|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.124||0.547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.532|2.888||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||2.888|-1.532|0.547
90851941|NCT02880956|181568117|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.1|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
90851942|NCT02880956|181568117|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.145||0.524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.521|2.984||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||2.984|-1.521|0.524
90851943|NCT02880956|181568117|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.42|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
90851944|NCT02880956|181568117|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.356||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.499|1.836||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||1.836|-3.499|0.540
90900604|NCT01709305|181667396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimate|0.0||||0.998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Difference in % vs. Glimepiride||0.9|-0.9|0.998
91099684|NCT01214720|182085613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.86|||Log Rank|||||0.86|0.61|0.0002
90851945|NCT02880956|181568117|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.02|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
90851946|NCT02880956|181568117|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.336||0.664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.208|2.046||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||2.046|-3.208|0.664
90851947|NCT02880956|181568117|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.16|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
90851948|NCT02880956|181568117|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.39||0.393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.923|1.546||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||1.546|-3.923|0.393
90851949|NCT02880956|181568117|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.48|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
90851950|NCT02880956|181568118|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.262||0.946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.534|0.498||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.498|-0.534|0.946
90851951|NCT02880956|181568118|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.13|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
90900605|NCT01709305|181667396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimate|-0.2||||0.319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Difference in % vs. Glimepiride||0.5|-1.0|0.319
90900606|NCT01709305|181667396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimate|0.0||||0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Difference in % vs. Glimepiride||0.9|-0.9|0.999
91099685|NCT01214720|182085614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Response Rates|3.62||||0.3621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|11.6|||Chi-squared|Approximate 95% confidence interval (CI) for difference of two rates using Hauck-Anderson method.||||11.6|-4.3|0.3621
91099686|NCT01214720|182085615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.2087||95.0|0.74|1.07|||Log Rank|||||1.07|0.74|0.2087
90900607|NCT01709305|181667397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimate|-0.2||||0.651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.8|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Difference in % vs. Glimepiride||0.8|-1.3|0.651
90900608|NCT01709305|181667397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimate|-0.2||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.8|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Difference in % vs. Glimepiride||0.8|-1.3|0.660
90900609|NCT01709305|181667397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimate|0.4||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Difference in % vs. Glimepiride||1.6|-0.8|0.480
90900610|NCT01709305|181667398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimate|0.4||||0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.3|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Difference in % vs. Glimepiride||1.3|-0.3|0.158
90900611|NCT01709305|181667398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimate|0.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Difference in % vs. Glimepiride||0.7|-0.7|>0.999
90900612|NCT01709305|181667398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimate|0.2||||0.318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Difference in % vs. Glimepiride||1.0|-0.5|0.318
90900613|NCT01672853|181667407|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.6||||||A mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for each participant was used to calculate a point estimate and a 95% confidence interval (CI) for the treatment difference between each treatment arm and placebo in least squares mean (LSMean) change from baseline in MQC at Week 96. With MMRM setting, all participants with available data from the 3 treatment groups with change in MQC at Week 48 and/or Week 96 contributed to the overall model.||1.6|-2.3|
90900614|NCT01672853|181667407|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|3.0||||||A MMRM with an unstructured variancecovariance matrix for each participant was used to calculate a point estimate and a 95% CI for the treatment difference between each treatment arm and placebo in LSMean change from baseline in MQC at Week 96. With MMRM setting, all participants with available data from the 3 treatment groups with change in MQC at Week 48 and/or Week 96 contributed to the overall model.||3.0|-1.0|
90900615|NCT05473000|181667433|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.092|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.092
91030992|NCT00048568|181946506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Difference|23.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.0|31.1|||Chi-squared, Corrected||Estimated difference between ABA + MTX and MTX + PLA is the estimated difference between ABA+MTX and MTX + PLA in the proportion of participants achieving ACR 50 response at Day 169.|||31.1|15.0|<0.001
90900616|NCT02714205|181667434|SUPERIORITY||Model generated Least Square Mean|-0.54||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|0.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Models adjusted for baseline value, age, race, and Hispanic ethnicity. Repeated measures mixed models, with unstructured co-variance matrix|Model generated LS Mean Differences|||0.58|-1.66|0.34
90900617|NCT02714205|181667435|SUPERIORITY||Model generated Least Square Mean|0.51||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.15|7.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Models adjusted for baseline value, age, race, and Hispanic ethnicity. Repeated measures mixed models, with unstructured co-variance matrix.|Model generated LS Mean Differences|||7.18|-6.15|0.88
90900618|NCT02714205|181667436|SUPERIORITY||Model generated Least Square Mean|-0.2||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Models adjusted for baseline value, age, race, and Hispanic ethnicity. Repeated measures mixed models, with unstructured co-variance matrix|Model generated LS Mean Differences|||0.48|-0.88|0.57
90900619|NCT02714205|181667437|SUPERIORITY||Model generated Least Square Mean Differ|-0.09||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Models adjusted for baseline value, age, race, and Hispanic ethnicity. Repeated measures mixed models, with unstructured co-variance matrix|Model generated LS Mean Differences|||0.63|-0.8|0.81
91030993|NCT00048568|181946507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Difference|30.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.8|38.5|||Chi-squared, Corrected||Estimated difference between ABA + MTX and MTX + PLA is the estimated difference between ABA+MTX and MTX + PLA in the proportion of participants achieving ACR 50 response at Day 365.|||38.5|21.8|<0.001
90900620|NCT02714205|181667438|SUPERIORITY||Model generated Least Square Mean Differ|0.43||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|1.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Models adjusted for baseline value, age, race, and Hispanic ethnicity. Repeated measures mixed models, with unstructured co-variance matrix|Model generated LS Mean Differences|||1.23|-0.38|0.3
90900621|NCT02714205|181667439|SUPERIORITY||Model generated Least Square Mean Differ|0.4||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|2.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Models adjusted for baseline value, age, race, and Hispanic ethnicity. Repeated measures mixed models, with unstructured co-variance matrix|Model generated LS Mean Differences|||2.32|-1.52|0.68
90900622|NCT02714205|181667440|SUPERIORITY||Model generated Least Square Mean Differ|-0.83||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Models adjusted for baseline value, age, race, and Hispanic ethnicity. Repeated measures mixed models, with unstructured co-variance matrix|Model generated LS Mean Differences|||0.23|-1.89|0.12
90900623|NCT02714205|181667441|SUPERIORITY||Model generated Least Square Mean Differ|-1.41||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.81|0.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Models adjusted for baseline value, age, race, and Hispanic ethnicity. Repeated measures mixed models, with unstructured co-variance matrix|Model generated LS Mean Differences|||0.99|-3.81|0.25
90900624|NCT00186498|181667448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.006||||||Test of within subjects contrast: CVLT Long Delay Free Recall Time 1 (baseline) vs Time 2 (30 days): Placebo (F 4.093) p= 0.071; Memantine (F 35.042) p=0.006|Regression, Linear|||||||0.006
90900625|NCT01693692|181667458|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.1683|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.2|||ANCOVA|||||0.2||0.1683
90900626|NCT01693692|181667458|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.0277|ONE_SIDED|95.0||-0.1|||ANCOVA|||||-0.1||0.0277
90900627|NCT01693692|181667459|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.48||0.2637|ONE_SIDED|95.0||2.5|||ANCOVA|||||2.5||0.2637
90900628|NCT01693692|181667459|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.47||0.0097|ONE_SIDED|95.0||-1.7|||ANCOVA|||||-1.7||0.0097
90900629|NCT01693692|181667460|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0639|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.0||0.0639
90900630|NCT01693692|181667460|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.007|ONE_SIDED|95.0||-0.1|||ANCOVA|||||-0.1||0.0070
91030994|NCT00048568|181946509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Difference|13.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|19.5|||Chi-squared, Corrected||Estimated difference between ABA + MTX and MTX + PLA is the estimated difference between ABA + MTX and MTX + PLA in the proportion of participants achieving ACR 70 response at Day 169.|||19.5|7.0|<0.001
90900631|NCT04424290|181667486|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.0234|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0157|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0558|0.0089|||||Difference calculated as \[BI\]-\[Sham\].|The Mixed model with repeated measurements (MMRM) model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit and the fixed continuous effects of baseline at each visit. Visit were treated as the repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure used to model the within-patient measurements. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors.||0.0089|-0.0558|
90900632|NCT04424290|181667487|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.0215|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0429|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.067|0.11|||||Difference calculated as \[BI\]-\[Sham\].|The Mixed model with repeated measurements (MMRM) model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit and the fixed continuous effects of baseline at each visit. Visit were treated as the repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure used to model the within-patient measurements. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors.||0.1100|-0.0670|
90900633|NCT04424290|181667488|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.0109|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0145|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0412|0.0195|||||Difference calculated as \[BI\]-\[Sham\].|The Mixed model with repeated measurements (MMRM) model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit and the fixed continuous effects of baseline at each visit. Visit were treated as the repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure used to model the within-patient measurements. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors.||0.0195|-0.0412|
90900634|NCT04424290|181667489|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.0228|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0603|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1477|0.1021|||||Difference calculated as \[BI\]-\[Sham\].|The Mixed model with repeated measurements (MMRM) model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit and the fixed continuous effects of baseline at each visit. Visit were treated as the repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure used to model the within-patient measurements. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors.||0.1021|-0.1477|
90900635|NCT04424290|181667490|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|5.5|||||Difference calculated as \[BI\]-\[Sham\].|The Mixed model with repeated measurements (MMRM) model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit and the fixed continuous effects of baseline at each visit. Visit were treated as the repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure used to model the within-patient measurements. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors.||5.5|-8.1|
90900636|NCT04424290|181667491|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|16.2|||||Difference calculated as \[BI\]-\[Sham\].|The Mixed model with repeated measurements (MMRM) model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit and the fixed continuous effects of baseline at each visit. Visit were treated as the repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure used to model the within-patient measurements. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors.||16.2|-7.3|
90900637|NCT04424290|181667492|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|3.0|||||Difference calculated as \[BI\]-\[Sham\].|The Mixed model with repeated measurements (MMRM) model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit and the fixed continuous effects of baseline at each visit. Visit were treated as the repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure used to model the within-patient measurements. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors.||3.0|-9.6|
90900638|NCT04424290|181667493|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|6.1|||||Difference calculated as \[BI\]-\[Sham\].|The Mixed model with repeated measurements (MMRM) model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit and the fixed continuous effects of baseline at each visit. Visit were treated as the repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure used to model the within-patient measurements. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors.||6.1|-7.3|
90900639|NCT04424290|181667494|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|3.1|||||Difference calculated as \[BI\]-\[Sham\].|The Mixed model with repeated measurements (MMRM) model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit and the fixed continuous effects of baseline at each visit. Visit were treated as the repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure used to model the within-patient measurements. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors.||3.1|-8.7|
90900640|NCT04424290|181667495|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|5.4|||||Difference calculated as \[BI\]-\[Sham\].|The Mixed model with repeated measurements (MMRM) model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit and the fixed continuous effects of baseline at each visit. Visit were treated as the repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure used to model the within-patient measurements. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors.||5.4|-4.9|
91099687|NCT04625972|182085617|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk Reduction|33.31||||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.92|64.68|||Poisson regression||Primary Analysis Estimates are based on Poisson regression with robust variance. The model includes covariate for treatment and the log of follow-up time as an offset. Estimated RRR greater than 0% provides evidence in favor of AZD7442.|||64.68|-25.92|0.212
90900641|NCT04424290|181667496|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|7.9|||||Difference calculated as \[BI\]-\[Sham\].|The Mixed model with repeated measurements (MMRM) model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit and the fixed continuous effects of baseline at each visit. Visit were treated as the repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure used to model the within-patient measurements. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors.||7.9|-2.7|
91030995|NCT00048568|181946510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.6|29.8|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||29.8|15.6|<0.001
91099688|NCT04625972|182085617|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk Reduction|43.28||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|67.37|||Poisson regression||Final Analysis Estimates are based on Poisson regression with robust variance. The model includes covariate for treatment and the log of follow-up time as an offset. Estimated RRR greater than 0% provides evidence in favor of AZD7442.|||67.37|1.40|0.044
91030996|NCT00048568|181946512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Difference|12.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.3|17.2|||Chi-squared, Corrected||Estimated difference between ABA + MTX and MTX + PLA is the estimated difference between ABA+MTX and MTX + PLA in the proportion of participants achieving MCR.|||17.2|7.3|<0.001
90900642|NCT04424290|181667497|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|7.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|16.5|||||Difference calculated as \[BI\]-\[Sham\].|The Mixed model with repeated measurements (MMRM) model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit and the fixed continuous effects of baseline at each visit. Visit were treated as the repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure used to model the within-patient measurements. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors.||16.5|-1.2|
91099689|NCT04625972|182085619|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk Reduction|100.0||||0.664|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-1836.98||||Poisson regression||||||-1836.98|0.664
90900643|NCT04424290|181667498|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|13.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|29.8|||||Difference calculated as \[BI\]-\[Sham\].|The Mixed model with repeated measurements (MMRM) model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit and the fixed continuous effects of baseline at each visit. Visit were treated as the repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure used to model the within-patient measurements. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors.||29.8|-2.3|
90900644|NCT04424290|181667499|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|14.5|||||Difference calculated as \[BI\]-\[Sham\].|The Mixed model with repeated measurements (MMRM) model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit and the fixed continuous effects of baseline at each visit. Visit were treated as the repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure used to model the within-patient measurements. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors.||14.5|-0.9|
90900645|NCT02914184|181667502|OTHER|The two-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of anti RV IgA antibody GMCs should be within the \[0.5; 2\] clinical limit interval.|GMC Ratio at At Month 2-4|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.44|||ANOVA|||GMC Ratio of Anti-RV IgA antibody for Liq\_A and Liq\_B groups was calculated using ANOVA model with vaccine groups and country as fixed effects.||1.44|0.79|
90900646|NCT02914184|181667502|OTHER|The two-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of anti RV IgA antibody GMCs should be within the \[0.5; 2\] clinical limit interval.|GMC Ratio at At Month 2-4|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.19|||ANOVA|||GMC Ratio of Anti-RV IgA antibody for Liq\_A and Liq\_C groups was calculated using ANOVA model with vaccine groups and country as fixed effects.||1.19|0.65|
90900647|NCT02914184|181667502|OTHER|The two-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of anti RV IgA antibody GMCs should be within the \[0.5; 2\] clinical limit interval.|GMC Ratio at At Month 2-4|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.11|||ANOVA|||GMC Ratio of Anti-RV IgA antibody for Liq\_B and Liq\_C groups was calculated using ANOVA model with vaccine groups and country as fixed effects.||1.11|0.61|
90900648|NCT02914184|181667503|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit (LL) of the two-sided asymptotic standardized 95% CI for the difference in SCR for antibodies to rota virus at month 2-4 between the Liq\_Pool group and Lyo Control group should be ≥ -10%.|SCR difference at Month 2-4|-2.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.15|2.63||||||Non-inferiority of Liq\_Pool group compared to Lyo Control group in terms of difference in % of subjects with anti-RV IgA titer ≥ specified cut off with its 2-sided 95% CI in initially seronegative subjects||2.63|-7.15|
90900649|NCT02914184|181667505|NON_INFERIORITY|LL of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of anti-RV IgA antibody GMCs between the Liq\_Pool Group and Control group should be ≥ 0.67.|GMC Ratio at At Month 2-4|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.33|||ANOVA|||Non-inferiority of Liq\_Pool Group as compared to Lyo Control group in terms of the GMC ratio calculated using ANOVA model with vaccine groups and country as fixed effects||1.33|0.82|
91030997|NCT00048568|181946513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Difference on Day 169|-1.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|-0.91|||ANCOVA||Estimated difference between ABA + MTX and MTX + PLA on Day 169.|||-0.91|-1.38|<0.001
90900650|NCT00798174|181667512|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was that the azygos coil does not reduce the DFT. (A reduced DFT is superiority).||||||0.103||||||Threshold for significance is 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the DFT using the azygos coil vs. the standard configuration.~Paired t-test (two-tailed), used due to construction of study with DFT determined in both configurations in each patient, yields p=0.103"||||0.103
90900651|NCT02318719|181667545|SUPERIORITY||Difference of least square mean|-0.41||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.07||DS-5565 20 mg and 30 mg vs placebo were tested at level of 0.025. If both were significant, 15 mg was tested at 0.05. If neither were significant, 15 mg was no longer tested. If either 20 mg or 30 mg was significant, 15 mg was tested at 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg/day at Week 14||-0.07|-0.74|0.0170
90900652|NCT02318719|181667545|SUPERIORITY||Difference of least square means|-0.47||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.14||DS-5565 20 mg and 30 mg vs placebo were tested at level of 0.025. If both were significant, 15 mg was tested at 0.05. If neither were significant, 15 mg was no longer tested. If either 20 mg or 30 mg was significant, 15 mg was tested at 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo vs DS-5565 20 mg/day at Week 14||-0.14|-0.81|0.0058
90900653|NCT02318719|181667545|SUPERIORITY||Difference of least square means|-0.77|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.44||DS-5565 20 mg and 30 mg vs placebo were tested at level of 0.025. If both were significant, 15 mg was tested at 0.05. If neither were significant, 15 mg was no longer tested. If either 20 mg or 30 mg was significant, 15 mg was tested at 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo vs DS-5565 30 mg/day at Week 14||-0.44|-1.10|<0.0001
91030998|NCT00048568|181946513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Difference on Day 365|-1.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|-1.16|||ANCOVA||Estimated difference between ABA + MTX and MTX + PLA on Day 365.|||-1.16|-1.63|<0.001
91030999|NCT00048568|181946517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference at Day 169|4.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.64|5.57|||ANCOVA|||Adjustment based on ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline value as covariate.||5.57|2.64|<0.001
91099690|NCT04625972|182085620|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk Reduction|13.9||||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.23|30.21|||Poisson regression|||||30.21|-6.23|0.163
91099691|NCT04625972|182085622|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk Reduction|25.75||||0.744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-343.53|87.57|||Poisson regression|||||87.57|-343.53|0.744
90900654|NCT00806624|181667552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in percentages|-3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|9.4||||||||9.4|-16.2|
90851952|NCT02880956|181568118|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.259||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.813|0.206||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.206|-0.813|0.242
90900655|NCT00806624|181667552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in percentages|-9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.4|4.5||||||||4.5|-22.4|
90851953|NCT02880956|181568118|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.12|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
90851954|NCT02880956|181568118|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.266||0.541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.685|0.36||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.360|-0.685|0.541
90851955|NCT02880956|181568118|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.3|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
90851956|NCT02880956|181568118|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.298||0.724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.481|0.691||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.691|-0.481|0.724
90851957|NCT02880956|181568118|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.36|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
90851958|NCT02880956|181568118|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.226|0.913||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.913|-0.226|0.236
90851959|NCT02880956|181568118|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.03|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
90851960|NCT02880956|181568118|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.298||0.714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.477|0.695||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.695|-0.477|0.714
90851961|NCT02880956|181568118|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.11|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
90851962|NCT02880956|181568118|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.277||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.496|0.593||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.593|-0.496|0.860
90851963|NCT02880956|181568118|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.08|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
91031000|NCT00048568|181946517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference at Day 365|4.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.69|5.62|||ANCOVA|||Adjustment based on ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline value as covariate.||5.62|2.69|<0.001
90851964|NCT02880956|181568118|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.274||0.476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.733|0.343||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.343|-0.733|0.476
90851965|NCT02880956|181568118|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.0|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
90851966|NCT02880956|181568118|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.276||0.586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.393|0.694||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.694|-0.393|0.586
90851967|NCT02880956|181568118|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.97|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
90851968|NCT02880956|181568118|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.324||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.371|0.903||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.903|-0.371|0.412
90851969|NCT02880956|181568118|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.2|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
90851970|NCT02880956|181568118|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.319||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.386|0.868||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.868|-0.386|0.450
90900656|NCT00806624|181667552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in percentage|-5.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.3|8.2||||||||8.2|-19.3|
90900657|NCT01863043|181667599|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.27
90900658|NCT01863043|181667600|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.12
91031001|NCT00048568|181946518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Difference|5.7||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|9.0|||Chi-squared, Corrected||Estimated difference between ABA + MTX and MTX + PLA is the estimated difference between ABA+MTX and MTX + PLA in the proportion of participants achieving extended MCR.|||9.0|2.4|0.002
91099692|NCT00433290|182085630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Week 4 Change from Baseline. Treatment effects and interaction effects were evaluated based on two-sided significance level of 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated Measures Model: Change=Treatment,NSAID use, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Baseline, Treatment\*Visit, Baseline\*Visit||Null hypothesis=the difference in the BPI average pain score between the duloxetine and placebo treatment goups at the last visit of the treatment phase is zero.||||<0.001
90900659|NCT01863043|181667601|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.28
90900660|NCT01863043|181667602|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.15
90900661|NCT01863043|181667603|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.03
90900662|NCT01863043|181667604|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.03
90900663|NCT01863043|181667605|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||Accelerated failure time regression mode|||||||0.59
90900664|NCT01863043|181667606|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||Accelerated failure time regression mode|||||||0.64
90900665|NCT01863043|181667607|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Accelerated failure time regression mode|||||||0.95
90900666|NCT01863043|181667608|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.95
90900667|NCT01863043|181667609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||Accelerated failure time regression mode|||||||0.23
90900668|NCT01863043|181667610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.98
90900669|NCT01863043|181667611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Accelerated failure time regression mode|||||||0.01
90900670|NCT01863043|181667612|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.08
90900671|NCT01863043|181667613|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.25
90900672|NCT01863043|181667615|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.27
90900673|NCT01863043|181667616|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.17
90900674|NCT01863043|181667617|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.17
90900675|NCT01863043|181667618|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.43
90900676|NCT01863043|181667619|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.694|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.694
90900677|NCT01863043|181667620|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||Accelerated failure time regression mode|||||||0.97
90900678|NCT01863043|181667621|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.60
90900679|NCT01863043|181667622|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.25
90900680|NCT01863043|181667623|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.001
90900681|NCT01863043|181667624|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.002
90900682|NCT01863043|181667625|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.03
90900683|NCT01863043|181667626|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.56
90900684|NCT01863043|181667627|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.59
90900685|NCT01863043|181667628|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.888|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.888
90900686|NCT01863043|181667629|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.694|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.694
90900687|NCT01863043|181667630|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.248|||||||general linear mixed model|||||||0.248
90900688|NCT01863043|181667631|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.694|||||||general linear mixed model|||||||0.694
90900689|NCT01863043|181667632|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.195|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.195
90900690|NCT01987596|181667638|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||||||1.00
90900691|NCT01987596|181667639|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||two-period crossover design analysis||||<0.0001
90900692|NCT01987596|181667640|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||2 treatment, 2 periiod cross-over analysis||||<0.0001
90900693|NCT02632786|181667641|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.82||||0.319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.21|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.21|0.55|0.3190
90900694|NCT02632786|181667642|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.78||||0.5563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.37|1.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.81|-3.37|0.5563
90900695|NCT02632786|181667643|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.0||||0.8992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|23.0|||ANCOVA|||||23.00|-11.50|0.8992
90900696|NCT02632786|181667644|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.54||||0.3529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.94|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.94|0.60|0.3529
90900697|NCT02632786|181667645|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|3.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.0|-4.2|0.7570
90900698|NCT02632786|181667646|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-71.97||||0.0729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-150.72|6.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.79|-150.72|0.0729
90900699|NCT02632786|181667647|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4142|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4142
90900700|NCT02674490|181667662|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54||||||Threshold for significance is two-sided alpha of 0.05.|Regression, Linear|The primary analysis was adjusted for aphasia type (Anomia, Broca, or other type), baseline aphasia severity (AQ), and age.||Sample Size Determination If sample size in each group is 20, we will have 89% power to detect a difference in means of 23 (the difference between A-tDCS mean change in accuracy of 33 and a sham mean change in accuracy of 10) assuming that the SD of change for both groups is 22.2 using a two group t-test with a two-sided alpha of 0.05.||||0.54
90900701|NCT03154359|181667676|OTHER|||||||0.197|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparing 6-week responders and 6-week non-responders||||0.197
90900702|NCT03154359|181667676|OTHER|||||||0.562|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparing 18-week responders and 18-week non-responders||||0.562
90900703|NCT03154359|181667677|OTHER|||||||0.558|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.558
90900704|NCT03154359|181667678|OTHER|||||||0.147|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.147
90900705|NCT03154359|181667679|OTHER|||||||0.495|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparing 6-week responders and 6-week non-responders||||0.495
91099693|NCT00433290|182085630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Week 7 Change from Baseline. Treatment effects and interaction effects were evaluated based on two-sided significance level of 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated Measures Model: Change=Treatment,NSAID use, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Baseline, Treatment\*Visit, Baseline\*Visit||Null hypothesis=the difference in the BPI average pain score between the duloxetine and placebo treatment goups at the last visit of the treatment phase is zero.||||<0.001
90851971|NCT02880956|181568118|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.23|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
90851972|NCT02880956|181568118|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.481|0.816||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.816|-0.481|0.612
90851973|NCT02880956|181568118|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.1|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
90900706|NCT03154359|181667679|OTHER|||||||0.955|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparing 18-week responders and 18-week non-responders||||0.955
90900707|NCT03154359|181667680|OTHER|||||||0.991|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.991
90900708|NCT03154359|181667681|OTHER|||||||0.759|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.759
90900709|NCT03154359|181667682|OTHER|||||||0.456|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparing 6-week responders and 6-week non-responders||||0.456
90900710|NCT03154359|181667682|OTHER|||||||0.822|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparing 18-week responders and 18-week non-responders||||0.822
90900711|NCT03154359|181667683|OTHER|||||||0.343|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.343
90958954|NCT01191268|181798004|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper limit of the 95% Confidence Interval (CI) of 1.5 mg LY2189265 versus Insulin Glargine was below 0.4%, 1.5 mg LY2189265 was declared non-inferior to Insulin Glargine.|LS Mean Difference|-0.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.07||Family-wise Type I error rate was controlled by applying tree-gatekeeping strategy.|ANCOVA|||The study was designed to enroll 837 randomized participants (279 per treatment arm) with 90% power to detect non-inferiority of 1.5 mg LY2189265 versus Insulin Glargine on HbA1c change from baseline at the 26-week primary endpoint with a margin of 0.4%, a standard deviation of 1.3%, and a 1-sided alpha of 0.025 assuming no true difference between treatments. This corresponds to 248 participants per arm, with an assumed drop-out rate of 11%.||-0.07|-0.38|<0.001
90851974|NCT02880956|181568119|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.405||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.058|0.535||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.535|-1.058|0.520
90900712|NCT03154359|181667684|OTHER|||||||0.539|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.539
90900713|NCT03154359|181667685|OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.130
90900714|NCT03154359|181667686|OTHER|||||||0.652|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.652
90900715|NCT04250337|181667687|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.3||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.1|31.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||31.5|5.1|0.011
90900716|NCT04250337|181667688|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|26.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.1|40.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||40.8|12.1|<.001
90900717|NCT04250337|181667689|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.9||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.1|31.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||31.7|6.1|0.008
90900718|NCT04250337|181667690|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.373||0.017263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.7|-2.7|||ANCOVA|||||-2.7|-27.7|0.017263
90900719|NCT04250337|181667691|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|19.2||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|34.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||34.1|4.3|0.017
90900720|NCT04250337|181667692|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.6||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.1|36.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||36.1|7.1|0.007
90900721|NCT04250337|181667693|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.074||3e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.6|-13.7|||ANCOVA|||||-13.7|-33.6|0.000003
90900722|NCT04250337|181667694|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.428|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.07|-7.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-7.49|-17.07|<0.001
90900723|NCT04250337|181667695|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.5||||0.454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|11.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||11.8|-4.9|0.454
90900724|NCT04250337|181667696|SUPERIORITY||Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC)|-20.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.81||0.117607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.4|5.1|||ANCOVA|||||5.1|-45.4|0.117607
90900725|NCT04250337|181667697|SUPERIORITY||Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.134||0.025293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||-0.0|-0.6|0.025293
90900726|NCT04250337|181667698|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.2||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|24.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||24.7|3.8|0.022
90900727|NCT04250337|181667699|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.2||||0.764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|9.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||9.7|-7.3|0.764
90900728|NCT04250337|181667700|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.9||||0.498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|6.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||6.7|-2.9|0.498
90900729|NCT04250337|181667701|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.6||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|25.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||25.9|5.3|0.014
90900730|NCT04250337|181667702|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.1||||0.818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|10.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.2|-8.0|0.818
90900731|NCT04250337|181667703|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.0||||0.499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|7.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||7.1|-3.1|0.499
90900732|NCT04250337|181667704|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.104||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|17.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||17.36|-2.78|0.155
90900733|NCT04250337|181667706|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.403|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.37|-9.01|||ANCOVA|||||-9.01|-26.37|<0.001
90900734|NCT04250337|181667707|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.014||0.001031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|-1.3|||ANCOVA|||||-1.3|-5.3|0.001031
91099694|NCT00433290|182085630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Week 13 Change from Baseline. Treatment effects and interaction effects were evaluated based on two-sided significance level of 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated Measures Model: Change=Treatment,NSAID use, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Baseline, Treatment\*Visit, Baseline\*Visit||Null hypothesis=the difference in the BPI average pain score between the duloxetine and placebo treatment goups at the last visit of the treatment phase is zero.||||<0.001
91099695|NCT00433290|182085631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.164||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Model: PGI-Improvement=Treatment, Pooled Investigator, baseline severity and NSAID used for main effect p-values.||||||0.164
91099696|NCT00433290|182085632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline (change = endpoint - baseline)|ANCOVA|Model: Change=Treatment, Pooled Investigator, NSAID use and Baseline for main effects p-value.||||||0.016
91099697|NCT00433290|182085633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.068||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change = Week 13 value minus baseline value.|ANCOVA|Model: Change = Treatment, Pooled Investigator, NSAID use and Baseline for main effects p-value.||||||0.068
90851975|NCT02880956|181568119|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.52|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
90851976|NCT02880956|181568119|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.401||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.201|0.374||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.374|-1.201|0.303
90851977|NCT02880956|181568119|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.28|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
90851978|NCT02880956|181568119|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.412||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.307|0.315||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.315|-1.307|0.230
90851979|NCT02880956|181568119|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.53|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
90851980|NCT02880956|181568119|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5222||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.698|0.356||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.356|-1.698|0.200
90851981|NCT02880956|181568119|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.07|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
90851982|NCT02880956|181568119|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.508||0.873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|0.917||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.917|-1.080|0.873
91099698|NCT00433290|182085634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.064||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change = Week 13 value minus baseline value.|ANCOVA|Model: Change = Treatment, Pooled Investigator, NSAID use and Baseline for main effects p-value.||||||0.064
90851983|NCT02880956|181568119|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.13|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
90851984|NCT02880956|181568119|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.524||0.388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.482|0.576||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.576|-1.482|0.388
90851985|NCT02880956|181568119|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.92|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
90851986|NCT02880956|181568119|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.587||0.734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.355|0.955||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.955|-1.355|0.734
90851987|NCT02880956|181568119|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.91|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
90900735|NCT04250337|181667708|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.2||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|34.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||34.3|0.1|0.036
90900736|NCT04250337|181667709|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.16|||ANCOVA|||Health State Index UK||0.16|0.06|<0.001
90900737|NCT04250337|181667709|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Health State Index US||0.11|0.04|<0.001
90900738|NCT04250337|181667710|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.386||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|8.32|||ANCOVA|||||8.32|-1.08|0.131
90900739|NCT04250337|181667711|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.145|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.26|-1.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.74|-6.26|<0.001
90900740|NCT04250337|181667712|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.407||0.571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.58|1.98|||ANCOVA|||||1.98|-3.58|0.571
90900741|NCT04250337|181667713|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.127||0.882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|2.06|||ANCOVA|||||2.06|-2.40|0.882
90900742|NCT04250337|181667714|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.48||0.171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|8.48|||ANCOVA|||||8.48|-1.56|0.171
90851988|NCT02880956|181568119|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.579||0.417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.608|0.668||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.668|-1.608|0.417
91099699|NCT00433290|182085635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0||||P-value for Change in Weekly 24-Hour Average Pain. Change = endpoint minus baseline.|ANCOVA|Model: Change = Treatment, Pooled Investigator, NSAID use and Baseline for main effects p-value.||||||0.008
90851989|NCT02880956|181568119|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.14|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
90851990|NCT02880956|181568119|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.589||0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.836|0.482||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.482|-1.836|0.252
90851991|NCT02880956|181568119|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.16|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
90851992|NCT02880956|181568119|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.669||0.827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|1.462||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||1.462|-1.170|0.827
90851993|NCT02880956|181568119|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.69|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
90851994|NCT02880956|181568119|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.657||0.615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.962|1.624||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||1.624|-0.962|0.615
90851995|NCT02880956|181568119|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.61|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Week 96||||
90851996|NCT02880956|181568119|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.678||0.637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.653|1.014||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||1.014|-1.653|0.637
90851997|NCT02880956|181568119|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.89|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
90851998|NCT02880956|181568120|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.367||0.261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.135|0.308||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.308|-1.135|0.261
90851999|NCT02880956|181568120|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.12|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
90852000|NCT02880956|181568120|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.361||0.423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|1.001||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||1.001|-0.420|0.423
90852001|NCT02880956|181568120|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.23|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
90852002|NCT02880956|181568120|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.371||0.322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.097|0.361||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.361|-1.097|0.322
90852003|NCT02880956|181568120|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.48|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
90852004|NCT02880956|181568120|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.397||0.498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.511|1.049||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||1.049|-0.511|0.498
91099700|NCT00433290|182085635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047||95.0||||P-value for Change in Weekly 24-Hour Worst Pain. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANCOVA|Model: Change = Treatment, Pooled Investigator, NSAID use and Baseline for main effects p-value.||||||0.047
91099701|NCT00433290|182085636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Model: Change = Treatment, Pooled Investigator, NSAID use and Baseline for main effects p-value.||||||0.009
91099702|NCT00433290|182085637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
90852005|NCT02880956|181568120|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.33|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
90852006|NCT02880956|181568120|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.386||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.006|1.51||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||1.510|-0.006|0.052
90900743|NCT04250337|181667715|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.697||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|9.89|||ANCOVA|||||9.89|-1.03|0.109
91099703|NCT00433290|182085638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.897||95.0||||P-value for Mental Component Summary Change from Baseline. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANCOVA|Model: Change = Treatment, Pooled Investigator, NSAID use and Baseline for main effects p-values.||||||0.897
91099704|NCT00433290|182085638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Physical Component Summary Change from Baseline. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANCOVA|Model: Change = Treatment, Pooled Investigator, NSAID use and Baseline for main effects p-values.||||||<0.001
91099705|NCT00433290|182085638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0||||P-value for Bodily Pain Change from Baseline. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANCOVA|Model: Change = Treatment, Pooled Investigator, NSAID use and Baseline for main effects p-values.||||||0.004
91099706|NCT00433290|182085638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.051||95.0||||P-value for General Health Change from Baseline. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANCOVA|Model: Change = Treatment, Pooled Investigator, NSAID use and Baseline for main effects p-values.||||||0.051
91099707|NCT00433290|182085638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.508||95.0||||P-value for Mental Health Change from Baseline. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANCOVA|Model: Change = Treatment, Pooled Investigator, NSAID use and Baseline for main effects p-values.||||||0.508
90852007|NCT02880956|181568120|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.23|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.26|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
91099708|NCT00433290|182085638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019||95.0||||P-value for Physical Functioning Change from Baseline. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANCOVA|Model: Change = Treatment, Pooled Investigator, NSAID use and Baseline for main effects p-values.||||||0.019
90852008|NCT02880956|181568120|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.398||0.597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.993|0.572||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.572|-0.993|0.597
90852009|NCT02880956|181568120|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.57|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
90852010|NCT02880956|181568120|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.376||0.896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.689|0.788||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.788|-0.689|0.896
90852011|NCT02880956|181568120|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.4|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Week 72||||
90852012|NCT02880956|181568120|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.369||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.192|1.258||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||1.258|-0.192|0.149
90900744|NCT04250337|181667716|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116||0.922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.24|||ANCOVA|||||0.24|-0.22|0.922
91099709|NCT00433290|182085638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.415||95.0||||P-value for Role-Emotional Change from Baseline. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANCOVA|Model: Change = Treatment, Pooled Investigator, NSAID use and Baseline for main effects p-values.||||||0.415
91099710|NCT00433290|182085638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0||||P-value for Role-Physical Change from Baseline. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANCOVA|Model: Change = Treatment, Pooled Investigator, NSAID use and Baseline for main effects p-values.||||||0.006
91099711|NCT00433290|182085638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.342||95.0||||P-value for Social Functioning Change from Baseline. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANCOVA|Model: Change = Treatment, Pooled Investigator, NSAID use and Baseline for main effects p-values.||||||0.342
91099712|NCT00433290|182085638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.135||95.0||||P-value for Vitality Change from Baseline. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANCOVA|Model: Change = Treatment, Pooled Investigator, NSAID use and Baseline for main effects p-values.||||||0.135
91099713|NCT00433290|182085639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.209||95.0||||P-value for EQ-5D Change from Baseline. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANCOVA|Model: Change=Treament, Pooled Investigator, NSAID use and Baseline for main effect p-value.||||||0.209
91099714|NCT00433290|182085640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.871||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change = Week 13 value minus baseline.|ANCOVA|Model: Change = Treatment, Pooled Investigator, NSAID use and Baseline for main effects p-value.||||||0.871
91099715|NCT00433290|182085641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.138||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANCOVA|Model: Change = Treatment, Pooled Investigator, NSAID use and Baseline for main effects p-value.||||||0.138
91099716|NCT00433290|182085642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.003
90852013|NCT02880956|181568120|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.18|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.0|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
90852014|NCT02880956|181568120|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.376||0.522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.499||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.499|-0.980|0.522
90852015|NCT02880956|181568120|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.82|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
90852016|NCT02880956|181568120|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.424||0.528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.103|0.567||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.567|-1.103|0.528
90852017|NCT02880956|181568120|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.63|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
90900745|NCT04250337|181667717|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.271||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.22|-2.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.03|-7.22|0.001
90900746|NCT00569803|181667720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Means|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.68|1.08|||||Ratio of Geometric Means: 50mg SC over 125mg IV|||1.08|0.68|
90958955|NCT01191268|181798004|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 1-sided adjusted p-value was below 0.025, then 0.75 mg LY2189265 was declared non-inferior to Insulin Glargine.|LS Mean Difference|-0.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|-0.02||Family-wise Type I error rate was controlled by applying tree-gatekeeping strategy.|ANCOVA|||||-0.02|-0.33|<0.001
91099717|NCT00433290|182085643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.015
90852018|NCT02880956|181568120|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.416||0.474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.519|1.116||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||1.116|-0.519|0.474
90852019|NCT02880956|181568120|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.2|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
90852020|NCT02880956|181568120|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.429||0.441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.176|0.513||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.513|-1.176|0.441
90852021|NCT02880956|181568120|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.02|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
90852022|NCT02880956|181568121|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.331||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.383|-0.082||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||-0.082|-1.383|0.027
90852023|NCT02880956|181568121|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.81|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
90852024|NCT02880956|181568121|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.328||0.146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.123|0.167||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.167|-1.123|0.146
90852025|NCT02880956|181568121|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.97|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
90852026|NCT02880956|181568121|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.335||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.537|-0.22||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||-0.220|-1.537|0.009
90852027|NCT02880956|181568121|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.31|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.87|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
90852028|NCT02880956|181568121|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.333||0.952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.674|0.634||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.634|-0.674|0.952
90852029|NCT02880956|181568121|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.01|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
90852030|NCT02880956|181568121|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.324||0.764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.734||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.734|-0.540|0.764
90852031|NCT02880956|181568121|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.85|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Week 48||||
90852032|NCT02880956|181568121|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.331||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.191|0.109||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.109|-1.191|0.103
90852033|NCT02880956|181568121|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.19|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.83|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
91099718|NCT00433290|182085644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91099719|NCT00433290|182085644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-value for direct analgesic effect. The null hypothesis was tested by testing a1=0 versus a1≠0.|Regression, Linear|||Path analysis was used to test null hypothesis that change in BPI average pain severity depends on improvement of BDI or HADS-A, versus improvement in BPI average pain severity is due to a direct analgesic effect of treatment and not dependent on improvement in depression or anxiety symptoms. Model:Change in BPI average pain score=a0+a1\*treatment group+a2\*change in BDI total+a3\*change in HADS-A+a4\*BL of BPI average pain+a5\*BL of BDI total+a6\*BL of HADS-A.||||0.002
91099720|NCT00433290|182085645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint minus baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.007
90852034|NCT02880956|181568121|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.362||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.396|0.028||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.028|-1.396|0.060
90852035|NCT02880956|181568121|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.22|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.09|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
91099721|NCT00433290|182085646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.050
90852036|NCT02880956|181568121|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.316|0.098||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.098|-1.316|0.091
90852037|NCT02880956|181568121|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.03|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Week 72||||
90852038|NCT02880956|181568121|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.361||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.274|0.147||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.147|-1.274|0.120
90852039|NCT02880956|181568121|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.19|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.92|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
90852040|NCT02880956|181568121|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.395||0.429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|0.464||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.464|-1.090|0.429
90852041|NCT02880956|181568121|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.13|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Week 96||||
90900747|NCT00569803|181667720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Means|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.48|0.77|||||Ratio of Geometric Means: 100mg SC over 125mg IV|||0.77|0.48|
90900748|NCT00569803|181667720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Means|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.62|0.99|||||Ratio of Geometric Means: 125mg SC over 125mg IV|||0.99|0.62|
90900749|NCT00569803|181667720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Means|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.71|1.13|||||Ratio of Geometric Means: 150mg SC over 125mg IV|||1.13|0.71|
90900750|NCT00569803|181667720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Means|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|1.11|||||Ratio of Geometric Means: 200mg SC over 125mg IV|||1.11|0.69|
90900751|NCT00569803|181667720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Means|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.57|0.92|||||Ratio of Geometric Means: 250mg SC over 125mg IV|||0.92|0.57|
90852042|NCT02880956|181568121|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.389||0.597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.559|0.97||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.970|-0.559|0.597
90852043|NCT02880956|181568121|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.98|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
90852044|NCT02880956|181568121|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.717|0.858||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.858|-0.717|0.860
90852045|NCT02880956|181568121|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.22|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
90852046|NCT02880956|181568122|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.497||0.854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.069|0.885||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.885|-1.069|0.854
90852047|NCT02880956|181568122|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.02|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
90900752|NCT00569803|181667721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Means|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|1.1|||||Ratio of Geometric Means: 50mg SC over 125mg IV|||1.10|0.69|
90900753|NCT00569803|181667721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Means|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.48|0.77|||||Ratio of Geometric Means: 100mg SC over 125mg IV|||0.77|0.48|
90900754|NCT00569803|181667721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Means|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.62|1.0|||||Ratio of Geometric Means: 125mg SC over 125mg IV|||1.00|0.62|
90900755|NCT00569803|181667721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Means|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.71|1.14|||||Ratio of Geometric Means: 150mg SC over 125mg IV|||1.14|0.71|
90900756|NCT00569803|181667721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Means|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|1.12|||||Ratio of Geometric Means: 200mg SC over 125mg IV|||1.12|0.69|
90900757|NCT00569803|181667721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Means|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.57|0.92|||||Ratio of Geometric Means: 250mg SC over 125mg IV|||0.92|0.57|
90900758|NCT00569803|181667727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Means|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.75|1.07|||||AUC(0-T) Ratio of Geometric Means: 1 injection site over 2 injection sites|||1.07|0.75|
90900759|NCT00569803|181667727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Means|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.75|1.07|||||AUC(INF) Ratio of Geometric Means: 1 injection site over 2 injection sites|||1.07|0.75|
90900760|NCT00453479|181667757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.596|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.68|10.75|||||Comparison of SBP Day 1.|||10.75|-12.68|
90900761|NCT00453479|181667757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.215|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.92|4.72|||||Comparison of SBP Day 7.|||4.72|-12.92|
90900762|NCT00453479|181667757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.727|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.78|18.19|||||Comparison of SBP Day 1.|||18.19|-5.78|
90900763|NCT00453479|181667757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.314|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.79|4.27|||||Comparison of SBP Day 7.|||4.27|-13.79|
90900764|NCT00453479|181667757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.138|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.89|5.06|||||Comparison of DBP Day 1.|||5.06|-3.89|
90900765|NCT00453479|181667757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.382|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.62|-1.65|||||Comparison of DBP Day 7.|||-1.65|-11.62|
90900766|NCT00453479|181667757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.248|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.73|5.68|||||Comparison of DBP Day 1.|||5.68|-3.73|
90900767|NCT00453479|181667757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.504|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.05|-5.57|||||Comparison of DBP Day 7.|||-5.57|-16.05|
90852048|NCT02880956|181568122|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.491||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.368|0.562||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.562|-1.368|0.412
90852049|NCT02880956|181568122|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.08|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
90900768|NCT00453479|181667758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.745|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.58|10.1|||||Comparison at Day 1.|||10.10|-5.58|
90900769|NCT00453479|181667758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.785|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|10.54|||||Comparison at Day 7.|||10.54|-5.30|
91032806|NCT01149473|181950847|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|99.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.7|101.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||101|98.7|
90852050|NCT02880956|181568122|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.503||0.262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.554|0.424||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.424|-1.554|0.262
90852051|NCT02880956|181568122|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.82|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
90900770|NCT00453479|181667758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.979|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.17|8.48|||||Comparison at Day 1.|||8.48|-8.17|
90900771|NCT00453479|181667758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.021|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.86|2.97|||||Comparison at Day 7.|||2.97|-13.86|
90900772|NCT00453479|181667759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.611|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.43|6.87|||||Comparison of SBP Day 1.|||6.87|-12.43|
90900773|NCT00453479|181667759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.913|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.07|6.31|||||Comparison of SBP Day 7.|||6.31|-10.07|
90900774|NCT00453479|181667759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.718|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.87|12.88|||||Comparison of SBP Day 1.|||12.88|-6.87|
90900775|NCT00453479|181667759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.005|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.88|4.89|||||Comparison of SBP Day 7.|||4.89|-11.88|
90900776|NCT00453479|181667759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.822|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.09|3.54|||||Comparison of DBP Day 1.|||3.54|-4.09|
91099722|NCT00433290|182085647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.913||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.913
90900777|NCT00453479|181667759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.116|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.32|0.54|||||Comparison of DBP Day 7.|||0.54|-8.32|
90900778|NCT00453479|181667759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.916|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.76|2.26|||||Comparison of DBP Day 1.|||2.26|-5.76|
90900779|NCT00453479|181667759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.224|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.04|-4.73|||||Comparison of DBP Day 7.|||-4.73|-14.04|
90900780|NCT00453479|181667760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.52|5.79|||||Comparison at Day 1.|||5.79|-5.52|
90900781|NCT00453479|181667760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.813|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|8.28|||||Comparison at Day 7.|||8.28|-3.50|
90900782|NCT00453479|181667760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.869|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.67|3.34|||||Comparison at Day 1.|||3.34|-8.67|
90900783|NCT00453479|181667760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.989|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|2.41|||||Comparison at Day 7.|||2.41|-10.10|
90900784|NCT00453479|181667762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.157|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.66|21.49|||||Comparison of QTcB Day 1.|||21.49|-12.66|
90900785|NCT00453479|181667762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.76|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.13|23.17|||||Comparison of QTcB Day 7.|||23.17|-5.13|
90900786|NCT00453479|181667762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|10.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.51|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.24|28.38|||||Comparison of QTcB Day 1.|||28.38|-7.24|
90900787|NCT00453479|181667762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|16.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.052|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.74|31.26|||||Comparison of QTcB Day 7.|||31.26|1.74|
90900788|NCT00453479|181667762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.908|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.51|20.78|||||Comparison of QTcF Day 1.|||20.78|-16.51|
90900789|NCT00453479|181667762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|12.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.298|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|23.38|||||Comparison of QTcF Day 7.|||23.38|1.20|
90900790|NCT00453479|181667762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|17.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.171|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|36.85|||||Comparison of QTcF Day 1.|||36.85|-1.53|
90900791|NCT00453479|181667762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|22.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.454|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.9|33.73|||||Comparison of QTcF Day 7.|||33.73|10.90|
90900792|NCT00453479|181667763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.262|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|20.57|||||Comparison of QTcB Day 1.|||20.57|-1.46|
90900793|NCT00453479|181667763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.902|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.97|20.74|||||Comparison of QTcB Day 7.|||20.74|-3.97|
91099723|NCT00433290|182085648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.066||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.066
91099724|NCT00433290|182085649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.001
90852052|NCT02880956|181568122|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.571||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.209|2.036||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||2.036|-0.209|0.110
90852053|NCT02880956|181568122|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.22|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.09|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
90852054|NCT02880956|181568122|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.555||0.263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.713|0.469||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.469|-1.713|0.263
90852055|NCT02880956|181568122|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.21|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
90852056|NCT02880956|181568122|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.026|1.217||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||1.217|-1.026|0.868
90852057|NCT02880956|181568122|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.92|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
90852058|NCT02880956|181568122|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.592||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.298|1.029||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||1.029|-1.298|0.820
90852059|NCT02880956|181568122|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.49|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
90852060|NCT02880956|181568122|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.583||0.781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.984|1.308||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||1.308|-0.984|0.781
90852061|NCT02880956|181568122|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.49|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
90852062|NCT02880956|181568122|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.082|1.238||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||1.238|-1.082|0.895
90900794|NCT00453479|181667763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|11.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.49|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|22.96|||||Comparison of QTcB Day 1.|||22.96|-0.02|
90900795|NCT00453479|181667763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|15.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.157|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.39|28.17|||||Comparison of QTcB Day 7.|||28.17|2.39|
90900796|NCT00453479|181667763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.622|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|18.0|||||Comparison of QTcF Day 1.|||18.00|-1.35|
90852063|NCT02880956|181568122|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.75|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
90852064|NCT02880956|181568122|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.724|1.991||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||1.991|-0.724|0.359
90852065|NCT02880956|181568122|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.55|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
90852066|NCT02880956|181568122|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.675||0.612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.985|1.67||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||1.670|-0.985|0.612
90852067|NCT02880956|181568122|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.72|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
90852068|NCT02880956|181568122|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.696||0.475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.872|1.867||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||1.867|-0.872|0.475
90852069|NCT02880956|181568122|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.57|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
90900797|NCT00453479|181667763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.239|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|19.72|||||Comparison of QTcF Day 7.|||19.72|-2.21|
90900798|NCT00453479|181667763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|16.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.759|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.87|26.79|||||Comparison of QTcF Day 1.|||26.79|6.87|
90900799|NCT00453479|181667763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|20.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.394|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.17|31.75|||||Comparison of QTcF Day 7.|||31.75|9.17|
90900800|NCT00453479|181667764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.147|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0921|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.035|0.328|||||Comparison of FEV1, Day 1, 1 hour|||0.328|-0.035|
90900801|NCT00453479|181667764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.171|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0944|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.015|0.357|||||Comparison of FEV1, Day 1, 2 hour|||0.357|-0.015|
90852070|NCT02880956|181568123|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.427||0.926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.799|0.878||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.878|-0.799|0.926
90852071|NCT02880956|181568123|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.78|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
90852072|NCT02880956|181568123|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.423||0.553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.082|0.58||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.580|-1.082|0.553
90852073|NCT02880956|181568123|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.96|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
90852074|NCT02880956|181568123|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.432||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.021|0.677||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.677|-1.021|0.690
90900802|NCT00453479|181667764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.085|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.107|0.228|||||Comparison of FEV1, Day 1, 4 hour|||0.228|-0.107|
90900803|NCT00453479|181667764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1195|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.085|0.386|||||Comparison of FEV1, Day 1, 9 hour|||0.386|-0.085|
90900804|NCT00453479|181667764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.124|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1107|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.094|0.343|||||Comparison of FEV1, Day 1, 12 hour|||0.343|-0.094|
91099725|NCT00433290|182085650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.260
90852075|NCT02880956|181568123|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.13|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
90852076|NCT02880956|181568123|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.499||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.085|1.879||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||1.879|-0.085|0.073
90852077|NCT02880956|181568123|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.22|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.03|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
90852078|NCT02880956|181568123|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.487||0.517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.641|1.273||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||1.273|-0.641|0.517
90852079|NCT02880956|181568123|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.21|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
90852080|NCT02880956|181568123|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.501||0.454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.609|1.36||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||1.360|-0.609|0.454
90852081|NCT02880956|181568123|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.45|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Week 48||||
90852082|NCT02880956|181568123|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.522||0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.456|1.596||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||1.596|-0.456|0.276
90852083|NCT02880956|181568123|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.94|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
90852084|NCT02880956|181568123|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.516||0.935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.973|1.058||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||1.058|-0.973|0.935
90852085|NCT02880956|181568123|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.35|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
90852086|NCT02880956|181568123|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.523||0.942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|1.066||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||1.066|-0.990|0.942
90900805|NCT00453479|181667764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.163|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.122|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.077|0.404|||||Comparison of FEV1, Day 1, 24 hour|||0.404|-0.077|
90900806|NCT00453479|181667764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.236|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1057|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.027|0.444|||||Comparison of FEV1, Day 7, Baseline|||0.444|0.027|
90900807|NCT00453479|181667764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.229|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1292|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.026|0.483|||||Comparison of FEV1, Day 7, 1 hour|||0.483|-0.026|
90900808|NCT00453479|181667764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.095|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1309|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.163|0.353|||||Comparison of FEV1, Day 7, 2 hour|||0.353|-0.163|
91099726|NCT00433290|182085651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.489||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.489
91099727|NCT00433290|182085652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.131||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.131
91099728|NCT00433290|182085653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.082||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.082
90852087|NCT02880956|181568123|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.35|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
90852088|NCT02880956|181568123|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.569||0.578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.802|1.436||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||1.436|-0.802|0.578
90852089|NCT02880956|181568123|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.57|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
90852090|NCT02880956|181568123|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.762|1.441||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||1.441|-0.762|0.545
90900809|NCT00453479|181667764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.173|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1243|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.072|0.418|||||Comparison of FEV1, Day 7, 4 hour|||0.418|-0.072|
90900810|NCT00453479|181667764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.205|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1499|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.501|||||Comparison of FEV1, Day 7, 9 hour|||0.501|-0.090|
90900811|NCT00453479|181667764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.143|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.062|0.502|||||Comparison of FEV1, Day 7, 12 hour|||0.502|-0.062|
90900812|NCT00453479|181667764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.206|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.152|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.093|0.506|||||Comparison of FEV1, Day 7, 24 hour|||0.506|-0.093|
90900813|NCT00453479|181667764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.206|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.097|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.015|0.397|||||Comparison of FEV1, Day 1, 1 hour|||0.397|0.015|
91032807|NCT00840099|181950855|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|ANOVA|Test/Reference Ratio of Means x 100|100.91||||||90.0|95.82|106.26|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||106.26|95.82|
90852091|NCT02880956|181568123|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.94|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
90852092|NCT02880956|181568123|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.583||0.346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.697|0.597||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.597|-1.697|0.346
90852093|NCT02880956|181568123|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.81|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
90852094|NCT02880956|181568124|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.146||0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.473|0.1||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.100|-0.473|0.202
90852095|NCT02880956|181568124|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.26|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
90900814|NCT00453479|181667764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.329|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0994|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.133|0.525|||||Comparison of FEV1, Day 1, 2 hour|||0.525|0.133|
90852096|NCT02880956|181568124|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.144||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.327|0.239||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.239|-0.327|0.760
90852097|NCT02880956|181568124|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.15|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
90852098|NCT02880956|181568124|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.147||0.419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.409|0.17||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.170|-0.409|0.419
90900815|NCT00453479|181667764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.266|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0895|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.443|||||Comparison of FEV1, Day 1, 4 hour|||0.443|0.090|
90900816|NCT00453479|181667764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1258|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.072|0.568|||||Comparison of FEV1, Day 1, 9 hour|||0.568|0.072|
90900817|NCT00453479|181667764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.172|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1165|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.058|0.402|||||Comparison of FEV1, Day 1, 12 hour|||0.402|-0.058|
90900818|NCT00453479|181667764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.154|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1285|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.099|0.407|||||Comparison of FEV1, Day 1, 24 hour|||0.407|-0.099|
90900819|NCT00453479|181667764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.256|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1113|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.036|0.475|||||Comparison of FEV1, Day 7, Baseline|||0.475|0.036|
90900820|NCT00453479|181667764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.296|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1361|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.027|0.564|||||Comparison of FEV1, Day 7, 1 hour|||0.564|0.027|
90900821|NCT00453479|181667764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.202|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1378|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.069|0.474|||||Comparison of FEV1, Day 7, 2 hour|||0.474|-0.069|
90900822|NCT00453479|181667764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.207|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1309|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.051|0.465|||||Comparison of FEV1, Day 7, 4 hour|||0.465|-0.051|
90900823|NCT00453479|181667764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1579|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.032|0.591|||||Comparison of FEV1, Day 7, 9 hour|||0.591|-0.032|
91032808|NCT00840099|181950856|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|ANOVA|Test/Reference Ratio of the mean x 100|102.79||||||90.0|100.69|104.94|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||104.94|100.69|
90852099|NCT02880956|181568124|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.03|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
90852100|NCT02880956|181568124|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.173||0.893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.363|0.317||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.317|-0.363|0.893
90852101|NCT02880956|181568124|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.26|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|||||
90852102|NCT02880956|181568124|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.168||0.886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.306|0.354||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.354|-0.306|0.886
90852103|NCT02880956|181568124|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.46|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
90852104|NCT02880956|181568124|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.172||0.306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.515|0.162||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.162|-0.515|0.306
90900824|NCT00453479|181667764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.193|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1506|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.104|0.49|||||Comparison of FEV1, Day 7, 12 hour|||0.490|-0.104|
90900825|NCT00453479|181667764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1601|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.136|0.495|||||Comparison of FEV1, Day 7, 24 hour|||0.495|-0.136|
90852105|NCT02880956|181568124|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.12|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
90852106|NCT02880956|181568124|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.535|-0.079||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||-0.079|-0.535|0.008
90852107|NCT02880956|181568124|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.2|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
90852108|NCT02880956|181568124|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.115||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.474|-0.023||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||-0.023|-0.474|0.031
90852109|NCT02880956|181568124|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.16|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
90852110|NCT02880956|181568124|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.514|-0.059||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||-0.059|-0.514|0.014
90852111|NCT02880956|181568124|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.25|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.15|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|||||
90852112|NCT02880956|181568124|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.135||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.514|0.016||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.016|-0.514|0.065
90852113|NCT02880956|181568124|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.17|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
90852114|NCT02880956|181568124|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.132||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.465|0.055||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.055|-0.465|0.121
90852115|NCT02880956|181568124|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|1.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.17|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
90852116|NCT02880956|181568124|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.438|0.097||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.097|-0.438|0.210
90852117|NCT02880956|181568124|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.0|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
90900826|NCT00453479|181667764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.137|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2029|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.263|0.537|||||Comparison of FVC, Day 1, 1 hour|||0.537|-0.263|
90900827|NCT00453479|181667764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.131|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1965|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.257|0.518|||||Comparison of FVC, Day 1, 2 hour|||0.518|-0.257|
90900828|NCT00453479|181667764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.038|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1908|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.414|0.338|||||Comparison of FVC, Day 1, 4 hour|||0.338|-0.414|
90900829|NCT00453479|181667764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2013|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.337|0.457|||||Comparison of FVC, Day 1, 9 hour|||0.457|-0.337|
90900830|NCT00453479|181667764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.115|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2322|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.343|0.572|||||Comparison of FVC, Day 1, 12 hour|||0.572|-0.343|
90900831|NCT00453479|181667764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.115|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1988|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.277|0.507|||||Comparison of FVC, Day 1, 24 hour|||0.507|-0.277|
90900832|NCT00453479|181667764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.362|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2801|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.914|||||Comparison of FVC, Day 7, Baseline|||0.914|-0.190|
90900833|NCT00453479|181667764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.269|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2696|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.263|0.8|||||Comparison of FVC, Day 7, 1 hour|||0.800|-0.263|
90900834|NCT00453479|181667764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2648|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.501|0.543|||||Comparison of FVC, Day 7, 2 hour|||0.543|-0.501|
90900835|NCT00453479|181667764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.177|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2606|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.337|0.691|||||Comparison of FVC, Day 7, 4 hour|||0.691|-0.337|
91032809|NCT00840099|181950857|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|ANOVA|Test/Reference Ratio of the mean x 100|102.75||||||90.0|100.62|104.93|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||104.93|100.62|
90852118|NCT02880956|181568125|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.188||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.564|0.176||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.176|-0.564|0.303
90852119|NCT02880956|181568125|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.42|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
90852120|NCT02880956|181568125|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.186||0.358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.536|0.194||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.194|-0.536|0.358
90852121|NCT02880956|181568125|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.31|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
90852122|NCT02880956|181568125|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.553|0.195||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.195|-0.553|0.347
90852123|NCT02880956|181568125|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.21|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
90852124|NCT02880956|181568125|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.205|0.423||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.423|-0.205|0.494
90852125|NCT02880956|181568125|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.22|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
90900836|NCT00453479|181667764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.266|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2684|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.263|0.795|||||Comparison of FVC, Day 7, 9 hour|||0.795|-0.263|
90852126|NCT02880956|181568125|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.156||0.454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.189|0.423||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.423|-0.189|0.454
90852127|NCT02880956|181568125|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.13|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
90900837|NCT00453479|181667764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.367|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2923|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.209|0.943|||||Comparison of FVC, Day 7, 12 hour|||0.943|-0.209|
90900838|NCT00453479|181667764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.242|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2665|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.283|0.768|||||Comparison of FVC, Day 7, 24 hour|||0.768|-0.283|
90900839|NCT00453479|181667764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.152|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2106|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.263|0.567|||||Comparison of FVC, Day 1, 1 hour|||0.567|-0.263|
90900840|NCT00453479|181667764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.321|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2039|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.081|0.723|||||Comparison of FVC, Day 1, 2 hour|||0.723|-0.081|
90900841|NCT00453479|181667764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.311|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1981|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.079|0.701|||||Comparison of FVC, Day 1, 4 hour|||0.701|-0.079|
90900842|NCT00453479|181667764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.348|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.209|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.064|0.76|||||Comparison of FVC, Day 1, 9 hour|||0.760|-0.064|
90900843|NCT00453479|181667764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.245|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.241|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.72|||||Comparison of FVC, Day 1, 12 hour|||0.720|-0.230|
90900844|NCT00453479|181667764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.162|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2063|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.245|0.569|||||Comparison of FVC, Day 1, 24 hour|||0.569|-0.245|
90900845|NCT00453479|181667764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.535|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2907|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.038|1.108|||||Comparison of FVC, Day 7, Baseline|||1.108|-0.038|
90900846|NCT00453479|181667764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.623|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2798|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.072|1.175|||||Comparison of FVC, Day 7, 1 hour|||1.175|0.072|
90900847|NCT00453479|181667764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.459|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2748|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.083|1.0|||||Comparison of FVC, Day 7, 2 hour|||1.000|-0.083|
90900848|NCT00453479|181667764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.464|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2705|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.069|0.997|||||Comparison of FVC, Day 7, 4 hour|||0.997|-0.069|
91032810|NCT00840099|181950858|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|ANOVA|Test/Reference Ratio of the Mean x 100|100.47||||||90.0|93.28|108.2|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||108.20|93.28|
90852128|NCT02880956|181568125|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.16||0.644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.388||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.388|-0.240|0.644
90852129|NCT02880956|181568125|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.1|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
90852130|NCT02880956|181568125|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.232||0.685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.363|0.551||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.551|-0.363|0.685
90852131|NCT02880956|181568125|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.64|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
90852132|NCT02880956|181568125|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.228||0.219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.168|0.73||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.730|-0.168|0.219
90852133|NCT02880956|181568125|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.18|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.55|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
90852134|NCT02880956|181568125|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.232||0.507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.302|0.61||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.610|-0.302|0.507
90852135|NCT02880956|181568125|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.49|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
90852136|NCT02880956|181568125|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.216||0.233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.683|0.167||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.167|-0.683|0.233
90852137|NCT02880956|181568125|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.27|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
90852138|NCT02880956|181568125|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.211||0.881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.383|0.446||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.446|-0.383|0.881
90852139|NCT02880956|181568125|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.42|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
90852140|NCT02880956|181568125|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.217||0.671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.335||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.335|-0.520|0.671
90852141|NCT02880956|181568125|OTHER||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.2|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
90852142|NCT02880956|181568126|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.409||0.297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.232|0.377||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.377|-1.232|0.297
90852143|NCT02880956|181568126|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.7|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
90852144|NCT02880956|181568126|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.405||0.979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.808|0.786||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.786|-0.808|0.979
90852145|NCT02880956|181568126|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.63|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
90852146|NCT02880956|181568126|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.415||0.663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.996|0.634||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.634|-0.996|0.663
90852147|NCT02880956|181568126|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.71|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
90852148|NCT02880956|181568126|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.636||0.961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|1.282||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||1.282|-1.220|0.961
90852149|NCT02880956|181568126|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.88|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
90900849|NCT00453479|181667764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.445|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2786|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.104|0.994|||||Comparison of FVC, Day 7, 9 hour|||0.994|-0.104|
90852150|NCT02880956|181568126|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.617||0.833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.083|1.344||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||1.344|-1.083|0.833
90852151|NCT02880956|181568126|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.06|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
90852152|NCT02880956|181568126|OTHER||LS Mean of Difference|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.636||0.714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.017|1.484||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||1.484|-1.017|0.714
90852153|NCT02880956|181568126|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.13|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
90852154|NCT02880956|181568126|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.663||0.518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.733|0.876||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.876|-1.733|0.518
90852155|NCT02880956|181568126|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.17|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
90852156|NCT02880956|181568126|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.654||0.633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.598|0.973||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.973|-1.598|0.633
90958956|NCT01191268|181798004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.22||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.07||Family-wise Type I error rate was controlled by applying tree-gatekeeping strategy.|ANCOVA|||Superiority analysis.||-0.07|-0.38|0.005
90852157|NCT02880956|181568126|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.9|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
90852158|NCT02880956|181568126|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.661||0.776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.488|1.112||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||1.112|-1.488|0.776
90852159|NCT02880956|181568126|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.93|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
90852160|NCT02880956|181568126|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.723|0.558||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.558|-1.723|0.316
90852161|NCT02880956|181568126|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.01|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
90852162|NCT02880956|181568126|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.567||0.336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|0.569||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.569|-1.660|0.336
90852163|NCT02880956|181568126|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.9|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
90852164|NCT02880956|181568126|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.587||0.403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.647|0.663||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.663|-1.647|0.403
90852165|NCT02880956|181568126|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.92|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
90852166|NCT02880956|181568127|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.856|0.716||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.716|-0.856|0.861
90852167|NCT02880956|181568127|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.51|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
90852168|NCT02880956|181568127|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.395||0.746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.648|0.905||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.905|-0.648|0.746
90852169|NCT02880956|181568127|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.46|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
90852170|NCT02880956|181568127|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.405||0.859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.724|0.868||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.868|-0.724|0.859
90958957|NCT01191268|181798004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.17||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|-0.02||Family-wise Type I error rate was controlled by applying tree-gatekeeping strategy.|ANCOVA|||Superiority analysis.||-0.02|-0.33|0.015
90852171|NCT02880956|181568127|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.64|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
90852172|NCT02880956|181568127|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.467||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.369|1.469||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||1.469|-0.369|0.240
90852173|NCT02880956|181568127|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.41|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
90852174|NCT02880956|181568127|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.454||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.023|1.087||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||1.087|0.023|0.044
90900850|NCT00453479|181667764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.284|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3034|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.314|0.882|||||Comparison of FVC, Day 7, 12 hour|||0.882|-0.314|
90900851|NCT00453479|181667764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.384|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2766|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.162|0.929|||||Comparison of FVC, Day 7, 24 hour|||0.929|-0.162|
90900852|NCT00453479|181667769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.233|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3333|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.743|9.21|||||Comparison of maximum heart rate Day 1.|||9.210|-4.743|
90900853|NCT00453479|181667769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.0907|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|22.664|||||Comparison of maximum heart rate Day 7.|||22.664|-11.200|
90900854|NCT00453479|181667769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.272|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.239|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.051|5.507|||||Comparison of maximum heart rate Day 1.|||5.507|-8.051|
90900855|NCT00453479|181667769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.988|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.8616|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.47|17.443|||||Comparison of maximum heart rate Day 7.|||17.443|-15.470|
90900856|NCT00453479|181667769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.734|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.441|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.468|9.936|||||Comparison of mean heart rate Day 1.|||9.936|-4.468|
90852175|NCT02880956|181568127|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.51|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Week 48||||
90852176|NCT02880956|181568127|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.467||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.312|1.524||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||1.524|-0.312|0.195
90852177|NCT02880956|181568127|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.53|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Week 48||||
90852178|NCT02880956|181568127|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.547||0.778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.921|1.229||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||1.229|-0.921|0.778
90852179|NCT02880956|181568127|OTHER||Effect size/pooled SD|0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.99|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Week 72||||
90852180|NCT02880956|181568127|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.539||0.558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.743|1.376||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||1.376|-0.743|0.558
90852181|NCT02880956|181568127|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.89|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Week 72||||
90852182|NCT02880956|181568127|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.546||0.928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.025|1.124||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||1.124|-1.025|0.928
90852183|NCT02880956|181568127|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.27|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Week 72||||
90852184|NCT02880956|181568127|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.541||0.238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.425|1.704||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||1.704|-0.425|0.238
90852185|NCT02880956|181568127|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.18|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.61|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
90900857|NCT00453479|181667769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.783|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9409|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.372|10.938|||||Comparison of mean heart rate Day 7.|||10.938|-1.372|
90900858|NCT00453479|181667769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.074|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3103|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.003|5.854|||||Comparison of mean heart rate Day 1.|||5.854|-8.003|
90900859|NCT00453479|181667769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.569|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8291|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.353|7.49|||||Comparison of mean heart rate Day 7.|||7.490|-4.353|
90900860|NCT00453479|181667773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.139|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1939|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.811|1.601|||||SE logs is presented as standard error of mean. Comparison of GSK233705 50 µg twice daily Day 7 versus Day 1.|||1.601|0.811|
90900861|NCT00453479|181667773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2057|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.739|1.52|||||SE logs is presented as standard error of mean. Comparison of GSK233705 100 µg twice daily Day 7 versus Day 1.|||1.520|0.739|
90900862|NCT00453479|181667774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.408|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.234|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.934|2.122|||||SE logs is presented as standard error of mean. Comparison of Cmax AM dose for GSK233705 50 µg twice daily Day 7 versus Day 1.|||2.122|0.934|
90900863|NCT00453479|181667774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2482|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.77|1.838|||||SE logs is presented as standard error of mean. Comparison of Cmax AM dose for GSK233705 100 µg twice daily Day 7 versus Day 1.|||1.838|0.770|
90900864|NCT00453479|181667774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.979|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2269|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.658|1.457|||||SE logs is presented as standard error of mean. Comparison of Cmax PM dose for GSK233705 50 µg twice daily Day 7 versus Day 1.|||1.457|0.658|
91031002|NCT03831048|181946649|NON_INFERIORITY|The primary analysis of this endpoint will be performed using a linear probability model, with the following terms in the model: (1) treatment; and (2) the known donor and recipient risk factors listed above. Variables that make the model fail to converge will be dropped from the model. The test will be conducted at the one-sided 0.05 level of significance.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.032|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.098|0.034||No multiple comparison adjustment.|Regression, Linear|||"The null and alternative hypotheses for the primary endpoint are as follows:~H0: pSOC - pDCD ≥ 0.20 vs. H1: pSOC - pDCD \< 0.20 where pDCD and pSOC represent the true survival proportions at the six months follow-up visit for DCD and SOC heart transplant patients, respectively."||0.034|-0.098|<0.0001
91099729|NCT00433290|182085655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Alkaline Phosphatase Change from Baseline. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90852186|NCT02880956|181568127|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.186|1.898||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||1.898|-0.186|0.107
90852187|NCT02880956|181568127|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.25|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.41|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
90852188|NCT02880956|181568127|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.548||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.214|1.942||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||1.942|-0.214|0.116
90852189|NCT02880956|181568127|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.23|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.75|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
90852190|NCT02880956|181568128|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.186||0.683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.442|0.29||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.290|-0.442|0.683
90852191|NCT02880956|181568128|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.98|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
90852192|NCT02880956|181568128|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.184||0.973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.356|0.368||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.368|-0.356|0.973
90852193|NCT02880956|181568128|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.78|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
90852194|NCT02880956|181568128|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.189||0.921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.389|0.352||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.352|-0.389|0.921
90852195|NCT02880956|181568128|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.74|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
90852196|NCT02880956|181568128|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.256||0.335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.751|0.257||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.257|-0.751|0.335
90852197|NCT02880956|181568128|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.2|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
90852198|NCT02880956|181568128|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.249||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.383|0.596||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.596|-0.383|0.670
90852199|NCT02880956|181568128|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.01|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
90852200|NCT02880956|181568128|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.256||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.486|0.519||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.519|-0.486|0.950
90852201|NCT02880956|181568128|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.04|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
90852202|NCT02880956|181568128|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.257||0.383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.729|0.281||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.281|-0.729|0.383
91099730|NCT00433290|182085655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0||||P-value for AST Change from Baseline. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.010
91099731|NCT00433290|182085655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023||95.0||||P-value for GGT Change from Baseline. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.023
91099732|NCT00433290|182085656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.042||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.042
91099733|NCT00433290|182085657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.005
91099734|NCT00433290|182085658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.285||95.0||||P-value for SBP Change from Baseline. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.285
91031003|NCT03831048|181946650|OTHER|No hypothesis test.||||||||||||||||No null hypothesis test.|No statistical hypothesis testing. This endpoint will be summarized for the OCS Heart Population using counts and percentages and an exact (Clopper-Pearson) 95% confidence interval for the true percentage based on the binomial distribution. It will also be summarized for the modified OCS Heart Population, defined as the number of DCD hearts that were successfully transplanted after preservation and assessment on the OCS divided by the total number of DCD donor hearts that were instrumented on the OCS.|||
91099735|NCT00433290|182085658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.668||95.0||||P-value for DBP Change from Baseline. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.668
91099736|NCT00433290|182085659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91099737|NCT00433290|182085660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.040
91099738|NCT00086307|182085663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.826|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.296||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.111|12.541||This is the omnibus effect of drug.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A linear mixed model with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and a first order autoregressive covariance structure was used to examine depressive symptoms over time. Fixed factors for drug, time, and a time by drug interaction were included in the model along with the intercept. No random factors were included because the subject factor did not contribute significantly to the model. Baseline symptoms were used as a covariate.||12.541|1.111|.018
90852203|NCT02880956|181568128|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.33|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
90957813|NCT02891837|181795495|OTHER|"Sample size calculated with nQuery 7.0. Assumed standard deviation = 50 h, \& mean values of 44 h (placebo) \& 14 h (L-citrulline group), estimated effect size = 0.600, yielding a sample size N=92/group (two-sided Wilcoxon-rank-sum test with 0.01 significance level and 90% power). Assumptions for standard deviation \& mean based on Study CIT-002-01 results.~To allow for subjects being enrolled but not assigned to the full analysis set (FAS), an overall N=95 subjects per group were to be enrolled."|Location shift|219.0||||0.156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-88.0|626.0||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Treatment difference = L-citrulline - placebo For the mean and median values, that the estimated values are given in minutes \[min\]|H0: Composite endpoint in L-citrulline group = placebo group H1: Composite endpoint in L-citrulline group ≠ placebo group H0 tested using Wilcoxon-rank-sum test. Significance level = 1% (2-sided).||626.0|-88.0|0.1560
91099739|NCT00086307|182085663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.826|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.296||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.111|12.541||The significance level was adjusted using a Bonferroni correction.|Post hoc simple effects test||The pramipexole group had a lower MADRS score than the pramipexole and escitalopram group.|Post-hoc simple effects tests with Bonferroni correction were used to compare the pramipexole group to the pramipexole and escitalopram combination group.||12.541|1.111|.014
90852204|NCT02880956|181568128|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.254||0.985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.504|0.494||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.494|-0.504|0.985
90852205|NCT02880956|181568128|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.23|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
90852206|NCT02880956|181568128|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.256||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.982|0.027||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.027|-0.982|0.064
90852207|NCT02880956|181568128|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.4|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
90852208|NCT02880956|181568128|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.374|0.729||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.729|-0.374|0.527
90852209|NCT02880956|181568128|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.3|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
90852210|NCT02880956|181568128|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.275||0.254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.226|0.854||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.854|-0.226|0.254
90852211|NCT02880956|181568128|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.32|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
90852212|NCT02880956|181568128|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.284||0.805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.628|0.488||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.488|-0.628|0.805
90852213|NCT02880956|181568128|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.13|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
90852214|NCT02880956|181568129|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.361||0.534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.935|0.485||The statistical model: MMSE change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.485|-0.935|0.534
90852215|NCT02880956|181568129|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.76|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
90852216|NCT02880956|181568129|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.356||0.735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.821||The statistical model: MMSE change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.821|-0.580|0.735
91031004|NCT02731157|181946670|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.65||||0.95|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.95
90852217|NCT02880956|181568129|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.74|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
90852218|NCT02880956|181568129|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.365||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.673|-0.24||The statistical model: MMSE change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||-0.240|-1.673|0.009
90852219|NCT02880956|181568129|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.35|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.75|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
90900865|NCT00453479|181667774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.028|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2407|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.674|1.568|||||SE logs is presented as standard error of mean. Comparison of Cmax PM dose for GSK233705 100 µg twice daily Day 7 versus Day 1.|||1.568|0.674|
90852220|NCT02880956|181568129|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.422||0.954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.854|0.806||The statistical model: MMSE change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.806|-0.854|0.954
90852221|NCT02880956|181568129|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.97|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
90852222|NCT02880956|181568129|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.412||0.649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.622|0.997||The statistical model: MMSE change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.997|-0.622|0.649
90852223|NCT02880956|181568129|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.95|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
90900866|NCT00453479|181667776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|2.556|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.131|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.033|3.213|||||SE logs is presented as standard error of mean. Comparison of Ae AM dose for GSK233705 50 µg twice daily Day 7 versus Day 1.|||3.213|2.033|
90900867|NCT00453479|181667776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.644|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.138|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.29|2.095|||||SE logs is presented as standard error of mean. Comparison of Ae AM dose for GSK233705 100 µg twice daily Day 7 versus Day 1.|||2.095|1.290|
90852224|NCT02880956|181568129|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.423||0.358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|0.443||The statistical model: MMSE change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.443|-1.220|0.358
90852225|NCT02880956|181568129|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.99|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
90852226|NCT02880956|181568129|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.539||0.859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.155|0.963||The statistical model: MMSE change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.963|-1.155|0.859
90852227|NCT02880956|181568129|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.74|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
90852228|NCT02880956|181568129|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.529||0.455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.644|1.437||The statistical model: MMSE change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||1.437|-0.644|0.455
90852229|NCT02880956|181568129|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.6|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
90900868|NCT03029780|181667779|SUPERIORITY||DIFFERENCE IN INCIDENCE RATES|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|12.3||||||||12.3|-12.3|
90900869|NCT03029780|181667779|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.39|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.39|0.30|
90900870|NCT03029780|181667780|SUPERIORITY||DIFFERENCE IN INCIDENCE RATES|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||||||||0.00|0.00|
90900871|NCT03029780|181667781|SUPERIORITY||DIFFERENCE IN INCIDENCE RATES|5.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|24.8||||||||24.8|-13.3|
90900872|NCT03029780|181667781|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.78|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.78|0.58|
90900873|NCT03029780|181667782|SUPERIORITY||DIFFERENCE IN INCIDENCE RATES|7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|25.5||||||||25.5|-10.1|
91031005|NCT01014728|181946676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.937||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.937
91031006|NCT01014728|181946677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
91031007|NCT01014728|181946678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.461||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.461
91031008|NCT01050647|181946680|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.31
90852230|NCT02880956|181568129|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.538||0.335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.578|0.539||The statistical model: MMSE change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.539|-1.578|0.335
90852231|NCT02880956|181568129|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.57|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
90852232|NCT02880956|181568129|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.681||0.875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.447|1.233||The statistical model: MMSE change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||1.233|-1.447|0.875
90852233|NCT02880956|181568129|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.57|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
90852234|NCT02880956|181568129|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.668||0.712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.068|1.561||The statistical model: MMSE change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||1.561|-1.068|0.712
90852235|NCT02880956|181568129|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.62|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
90852236|NCT02880956|181568129|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.687||0.269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.112|0.59||The statistical model: MMSE change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.590|-2.112|0.269
91031009|NCT01050647|181946681|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.99
90852237|NCT02880956|181568129|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.78|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
90852238|NCT02880956|181568130|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.785||0.966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.509|1.577||The statistical model: NPI change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||1.577|-1.509|0.966
90852239|NCT02880956|181568130|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.32|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
90852240|NCT02880956|181568130|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.775||0.874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.646|1.4||The statistical model: NPI change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||1.400|-1.646|0.874
90852241|NCT02880956|181568130|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.89|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
90852242|NCT02880956|181568130|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.794||0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.572|2.551||The statistical model: NPI change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||2.551|-0.572|0.213
90900874|NCT03029780|181667782|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|3.24|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.24|0.62|
90852243|NCT02880956|181568130|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.67|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
90852244|NCT02880956|181568130|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.695||0.208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|2.242||The statistical model: NPI change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||2.242|-0.490|0.208
90852245|NCT02880956|181568130|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.26|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
90852246|NCT02880956|181568130|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.307|2.365||The statistical model: NPI change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||2.365|-0.307|0.131
90852247|NCT02880956|181568130|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.18|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.57|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
90852248|NCT02880956|181568130|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|1.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.695||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.014|2.719||The statistical model: NPI change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||2.719|-0.014|0.052
90900875|NCT01763788|181667793|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio|0.656||||0.0161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.465|0.926|||Stratified Log Rank|||||0.926|0.465|0.0161
91031010|NCT01050647|181946682|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.59
91031011|NCT01050647|181946683|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.16
91031012|NCT01050647|181946684|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.14
91031013|NCT04276883|181946685|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
91031014|NCT04276883|181946685|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
91031015|NCT04276883|181946686|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||180 Micrograms versus placebo; 120 minutes post-dose||||<0.0001
91031016|NCT04276883|181946686|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||120 Micrograms versus placebo; 120 minutes post-dose||||<0.0001
90900876|NCT03560258|181667826|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.137|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: p24CE/full-length Gag DNA and Arm B: Full-length Gag DNA in additional number of CEs with a CD4 or CD8 T cell response from week 0 to week 26.||||0.137
90900877|NCT03560258|181667826|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: p24CE/full-length Gag DNA and Arm C: Placebo in additional number of CEs with a CD4 or CD8 T cell response from week 0 to week 26.||||0.014
90900878|NCT03560258|181667826|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm B: Full-length Gag DNA and Arm C: Placebo in additional number of CEs with a CD4 or CD8 T cell response from week 0 to week 26.||||0.100
90900879|NCT03560258|181667828|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.222|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: p24CE/full-length Gag DNA and Arm B: Full-length Gag DNA in additional number of CEs with a CD4 T cell response at week 26 from baseline.||||0.222
90900880|NCT03560258|181667828|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.222|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: p24CE/full-length Gag DNA and Arm C: Placebo in additional number of CEs with a CD4 T cell response at week 26 from baseline.||||0.222
90900881|NCT03560258|181667828|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm B: Full-length Gag DNA and Arm C: Placebo in additional number of CEs with a CD4 T cell response at week 26 from baseline.||||1.00
90900882|NCT03560258|181667829|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.678|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: p24CE/full-length Gag DNA and Arm B: Full-length Gag DNA in additional number of CEs with a CD8 T cell response from week 0 to week 26.||||0.678
90900883|NCT03560258|181667829|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.037|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: p24CE/full-length Gag DNA and Arm C: Placebo in additional number of CEs with a CD8 T cell response from week 0 to week 26.||||0.037
90900884|NCT03560258|181667829|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm B: Full-length Gag DNA and Arm C: Placebo in additional number of CEs with a CD8 T cell response from week 0 to week 26.||||0.100
90900885|NCT03560258|181667830|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.303|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: p24CE/full-length Gag DNA and Arm B: Full-length Gag DNA in change in the magnitude of CD4 T cell responses from week 0 to week 26.||||0.303
90900886|NCT03560258|181667830|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.457|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: p24CE/full-length Gag DNA and Arm C: Placebo in change in the magnitude of CD4 T cell responses from week 0 to week 26.||||0.457
91031017|NCT04276883|181946686|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||180 Micrograms versus placebo; 90 minutes post-dose||||<0.0001
91031018|NCT04276883|181946686|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||120 Micrograms versus placebo; 90 minutes post-dose||||<0.0001
90900887|NCT03560258|181667830|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.678|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm B: Full-length Gag DNA and Arm C: Placebo in change in the magnitude of CD4 T cell responses from week 0 to week 26.||||0.678
90900888|NCT03560258|181667831|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.755|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: p24CE/full-length Gag DNA and Arm B: Full-length Gag DNA in change in the magnitude of CD8 T cell responses from week 0 to week 26.||||0.755
90900889|NCT03560258|181667831|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.867|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.867
90900890|NCT03560258|181667831|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.521|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.521
90900891|NCT01460160|181667832|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of Difference|16.86||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.9|29.8||Superiority test versus AIEOP-BFM 2000|Chi-squared||Treatment difference (CA180372 - AIEOP-BFM 2000)|Difference in 3-year binomial EFS rate in all treated participants (dasatinib plus chemotherapy) vs. chemotherapy alone in AIEOP-BFM 2000 historical control||29.8|3.9|0.032
90900892|NCT01460160|181667832|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin = 5%. One-sided type I error rate of 0.05|Estimate of difference|6.91||||0.271|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.3|17.2||Superiority test versus EsPhALL|Chi-squared||Treatment difference (CA180372 - EsPhALL) Test if lower confidence limit is above -5%|Difference in 3-year binomial EFS rate for all treated participants (dasatinib plus chemotherapy) vs. continuous imatinib plus chemotherapy in the Amended EsPhALL Trial Historical Control||17.2|-3.3|0.271
90900893|NCT01460160|181667832|SUPERIORITY|Difference in 3-year binomial EFS rate in all treated participants (dasatinib plus chemotherapy) vs. chemotherapy alone in COG AALL0031 historical control|Estimate of difference|-10.75||||0.157|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.7|1.2|||Chi-squared||Treatment difference (CA180372 - COG AALL0031)|||1.2|-22.7|0.157
90900894|NCT02006121|181667838|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0047|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0047
90900895|NCT02006121|181667839|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0022|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0022
90900896|NCT02006121|181667840|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
90900897|NCT02006121|181667841|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.005
90900898|NCT02006121|181667842|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
91031019|NCT04276883|181946686|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||180 Micrograms versus placebo; 60 minutes post-dose||||<0.0001
91031020|NCT04276883|181946686|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||120 Micrograms versus placebo; 60 minutes post-dose||||<0.0001
91031021|NCT04276883|181946686|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||180 Micrograms versus placebo; 45 minutes post-dose||||<0.0001
91031022|NCT04276883|181946686|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||120 Micrograms versus placebo; 45 minutes post-dose||||<0.0001
91031023|NCT04276883|181946686|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0006|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||180 Micrograms versus placebo; 30 minutes post-dose||||0.0006
91031024|NCT04276883|181946686|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0028|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||120 Micrograms versus placebo; 30 minutes post-dose||||0.0028
91031025|NCT04276883|181946686|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||180 Micrograms versus placebo; 20 minutes post-dose||||0.0070
90852249|NCT02880956|181568130|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.24|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.55|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
90852250|NCT02880956|181568130|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.062||0.866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.908|2.268||The statistical model: NPI change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||2.268|-1.908|0.866
90852251|NCT02880956|181568130|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.15|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
90852252|NCT02880956|181568130|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.048||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.599|2.523||The statistical model: NPI change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||2.523|-1.599|0.660
90852253|NCT02880956|181568130|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.94|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
90852254|NCT02880956|181568130|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|1.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.062||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.184|3.995||The statistical model: NPI change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||3.995|-0.184|0.074
90852255|NCT02880956|181568130|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.22|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.65|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
90852256|NCT02880956|181568130|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.111||0.747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.545|1.828||The statistical model: NPI change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||1.828|-2.545|0.747
90852257|NCT02880956|181568130|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.99|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Week 96||||
90852258|NCT02880956|181568130|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.095||0.891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.004|2.304||The statistical model: NPI change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||2.304|-2.004|0.891
90852259|NCT02880956|181568130|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.28|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
90852260|NCT02880956|181568130|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12||0.621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|2.759||The statistical model: NPI change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||2.759|-1.650|0.621
90852261|NCT02880956|181568130|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.19|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
90852262|NCT02880956|181568131|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.064||The statistical model: ADCOMS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.064|-0.010|0.147
90852263|NCT02880956|181568131|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.14|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
90852264|NCT02880956|181568131|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018||0.795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.041|0.031||The statistical model: ADCOMS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.031|-0.041|0.795
90852265|NCT02880956|181568131|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.147|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
90852266|NCT02880956|181568131|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.006|0.069||The statistical model: ADCOMS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.069|-0.006|0.095
90852267|NCT02880956|181568131|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.24|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.13|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
90852268|NCT02880956|181568131|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.028|0.072||The statistical model: ADCOMS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.072|-0.028|0.390
90852269|NCT02880956|181568131|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.18|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
90852270|NCT02880956|181568131|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.052|0.045||The statistical model: ADCOMS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.045|-0.052|0.898
90852271|NCT02880956|181568131|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.19|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
90900899|NCT02354859|181667843|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportions|5.9||||0.811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|22.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The estimate is adjusted for baseline FEV1 % predicted strata (\<50% of predicted, between 50% and 70% of predicted, and \>70% of predicted).|||22.4|-11.2|0.811
90900900|NCT02354859|181667844|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportions-SAE inicidence|3.1||||0.807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|16.6|||Fisher Exact||95% confidence interval calculated using the Newcombe-Wilson method without continuity correction.|||16.6|-10.6|0.807
90900901|NCT02354859|181667845|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.81||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.93|||Poisson Regression|||Rate Ratio for Adverse Events calculated using Poisson Regression with an offset for the log of follow-up time in weeks. The total number of follow-up weeks of all participants (not per participant) in the trial was as follows: in the IV Gallium group was 486.86 and in the Placebo group was 473.57.||0.93|0.71|0.002
90900902|NCT02354859|181667845|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.89||||0.783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|2.03|||Poisson Regression|||Rate Ratio for Serious Adverse Events calculated using Poisson Regression with an offset for the log of follow-up time in weeks. The total number of follow-up weeks in the IV Gallium group was 486.86 and in the Placebo group was 473.57.||2.03|0.39|0.783
90900903|NCT02354859|181667846|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.05||||0.479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.66|7.77|||Mixed Models Analysis||Analysis includes all data for relative change from baseline at Day 6, Day 14, Day 28, and Day 56. Mixed-effects repeated measures model includes terms for the baseline FEV1 (liters), treatment, visit and a visit-by-visit interaction.|||7.77|-3.66|0.479
90900904|NCT02354859|181667847|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.74||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis||Analysis includes all data for relative change from baseline at Day 28 and Day 56. Mixed-effects repeated measures model includes terms for the baseline Pa density (log10 (CFU)), treatment, visit and a visit-by-visit interaction.|||0.01|-1.49|0.054
90900905|NCT02354859|181667848|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.23||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|8.53|||Mixed Models Analysis||Analysis includes all data for relative change from baseline at Day 6, Day 14, Day 28, and Day 56. Mixed-effects repeated measures model includes terms for the baseline CFRSD-CRISS score, treatment, visit and a visit-by-visit interaction.|||8.53|-0.06|0.053
90900906|NCT01003184|181667860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.17|13.73|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes treatment group, use of SU (yes/no), baseline HbA1c and baseline weight as main factors.||"Primary objective: to test hypothesis that the percentage of patients with HbA1c ≤7.0% with weight loss (≥1.0 kg) after exenatide QW is superior to insulin detemir.~Sample size estimation: based on the test for difference in percentage between Exenatide QW and insulin detemir. Assuming: common drop-out rate 20%, response rate at endpoint 50% in the exenatide QW group and 25% in the insulin detemir group; 5% significance. 214 patients will provide 90% power to detect a difference."||13.73|3.17|<.0001
90900907|NCT01003184|181667861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.64|13.7|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes the independent variables treatment group, use of SU (yes/no), baseline HbA1c and baseline weight.||||13.70|3.64|<.0001
90900908|NCT01003184|181667862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.104||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) includes baseline value as covariate, study treatment, use of SU (yes/no), week of visit and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and patient and error as random effects.||-0.20|-0.62|0.0001
90900909|NCT01003184|181667863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.488|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.63|-2.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed model repeated measures MMRM) includes baseline value as covariate, study treatment, use of SU (yes/no), baseline HbA1c stratum, week of visit and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and patient and error as random effects.||-2.71|-4.63|<.0001
90957814|NCT02891837|181795495|OTHER||Location shift|813.1||||0.1627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-335.5|1961.6||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|The results of the T-test should be interpreted with caution since the endpoint is not normally distributed.|Treatment difference = L-citrulline - placebo. For the mean and median values, the estimated values are given in minutes|Post hoc analyses were done for US patients on mechanical ventilation for \<=48 hours. For all post hoc analyses a significance level of 5% was applied.||1961.6|-335.5|0.1627
90958958|NCT01191268|181798005|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper limit of the 95% Confidence Interval (CI) of 1.5 mg LY2189265 versus Insulin Glargine was below 0.4%, 1.5 mg LY2189265 was declared non-inferior to Insulin Glargine.|LS Mean Difference|-0.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.07||Family-wise Type I error rate was controlled by applying tree-gatekeeping strategy.|ANCOVA|||||-0.07|-0.42|<0.001
91031026|NCT04276883|181946686|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0092|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||120 Micrograms versus placebo; 20 minutes post-dose||||0.0092
91031027|NCT02724800|181946726|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin = 3.43|Mean Difference (Net)|2.2|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|5.6||a priori|Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.6|-0.9|<0.05
91099740|NCT00086307|182085663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.353|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.296||0.454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.36|9.066||The significance level was adjusted using a Bonferroni correction.|Post hoc simple effects test||The escitalopram group had a lower MADRS score than the pramipexole and escitalopram group.|Post-hoc simple effects tests with Bonferroni correction were used to compare the escitalopram group to the pramipexole and escitalopram combination group.||9.066|-2.360|.454
90900910|NCT01003184|181667864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.79||||0.0497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|3.18|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression model includes independent variables treatment group, use of SU (yes/no), and baseline HbA1c.||3.18|1.00|0.0497
90900911|NCT01003184|181667865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.21||||0.0074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|3.96|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression model includes independent variables treatment group, use of SU (yes/no), and baseline HbA1c.||3.96|1.24|0.0074
90900912|NCT01003184|181667866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.89||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|11.35|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression model includes independent variables treatment group, use of SU (yes/no), and baseline HbA1c.||11.35|2.10|0.0002
91031028|NCT02724800|181946733|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
91031029|NCT02724800|181946736|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
91031030|NCT00262964|181946741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.019||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||null hypothesis was no difference in hepatic insulin sensitivity between normal and high IHTG subjects||||<0.019
91031031|NCT00262964|181946742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||a priori threshold for significance was P\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||null hypothesis was that VLDL-TG production would not differ between the two groups.||||<0.001
91031032|NCT00262964|181946743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||a priori threshold for significance was set at p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||null hypothesis was no difference in skeletal muscle insulin sensitivity between groups.||||<0.001
90852272|NCT02880956|181568131|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.044|0.057||The statistical model: ADCOMS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.057|-0.044|0.800
90852273|NCT02880956|181568131|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.18|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Week 48||||
90852274|NCT02880956|181568131|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033||0.977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.066|0.064||The statistical model: ADCOMS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.064|-0.066|0.977
90852275|NCT02880956|181568131|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.23|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
90852276|NCT02880956|181568131|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.063|0.064||The statistical model: ADCOMS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.064|-0.063|0.990
90852277|NCT02880956|181568131|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.24|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
90852278|NCT02880956|181568131|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033||0.944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.063|0.067||The statistical model: ADCOMS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.067|-0.063|0.944
90852279|NCT02880956|181568131|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.23|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
90852280|NCT02880956|181568131|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.042||0.942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.079|0.085||The statistical model: ADCOMS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.085|-0.079|0.942
90852281|NCT02880956|181568131|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.28|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
90852282|NCT02880956|181568131|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041||0.876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.087|0.074||The statistical model: ADCOMS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.074|-0.087|0.876
90852283|NCT02880956|181568131|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.27|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
90852284|NCT02880956|181568131|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.024|0.143||The statistical model: ADCOMS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.143|-0.024|0.163
90852285|NCT02880956|181568131|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.28|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
90852286|NCT02081859|181568132|OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.41
90852287|NCT02081859|181568133|OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.21
90852288|NCT01206387|181568140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0003
90852289|NCT01206387|181568141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90852290|NCT01206387|181568142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90852291|NCT01206387|181568143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90852292|NCT01206387|181568144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0011|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0011
90852293|NCT00282464|181568145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0056||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 1||||0.0056
91031033|NCT00262964|181946744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.002||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||null hypothesis was that there would be no difference in adipose tissue insulin sensitivity due to IHTG levels.||||<0.002
91031034|NCT00262964|181946745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.301||95.0||||A P-value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|Treatment effects determined by repeated-measures ANOVA. When significant interactions between time and group were found, a Student's t-test was used.||Student's t-test for paired samples was used to evaluate any difference between the two groups. The null hypothesis was that the IHTG percentage would be the same before and after treatment for subjects receiving fenofibrate.||||.301
91099741|NCT00086307|182085663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.473|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.162||0.349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.942|8.888||The significance level was adjusted using a Bonferroni correction.|Post hoc simple effects test||The pramipexole group had a lower MADRS score than the escitalopram group.|Post-hoc simple effects tests with Bonferroni correction were used to compare the pramipexole group to the escitalopram group.||8.888|-1.942|.349
91031035|NCT00262964|181946745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.315||95.0||||A P-value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|Treatment effects determined by repeated-measures ANOVA. When significant interactions between time and group were found, a Student's t-test was used.||A Student's t-test for paired samples was used to evaluate the effect of treatment. The null hypothesis was that the IHTG percentage for the NAFLD-niacin group at baseline and post-treatment would not change.||||.315
90852294|NCT00282464|181568145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0866||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 2||||0.0866
90852295|NCT00282464|181568145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0568||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 3||||0.0568
90852296|NCT00282464|181568145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.013||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 4||||0.0130
90852297|NCT00282464|181568145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0188||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 5||||0.0188
90852298|NCT00282464|181568145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6394||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 6||||0.6394
90900913|NCT01003184|181667867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.257||0.6993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.61|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model includes treatment group, baseline value, use of SU (yes/no) and baseline HbA1c stratum as factors.||0.61|-0.41|0.6993
90900914|NCT01003184|181667868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.853||0.0116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.37|-1.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) includes baseline value as covariate, study treatment, use of SU (yes/no), baseline HbA1c stratum, week of visit and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and patient and error as random effects.||-1.07|-8.37|0.0116
90900915|NCT01003184|181667869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.179||0.7034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.77|1.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) includes baseline value as covariate, study treatment, use of SU (yes/no), baseline HbA1c stratum, week of visit and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and patient and error as random effects.||1.88|-2.77|0.7034
90957815|NCT02891837|181795503|OTHER|||||||0.0326||||||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|||"Values at 48 hours post-surgery start for all US patients on ventilation for ≤48 hours are presented.~Treatment group, baseline values and site were included as fixed factors, site\*treatment as interaction terms in this ANOVA. The normality assumption of residuals is critical for all considered timepoints. Please interpret results with caution."||||0.0326
91031036|NCT00262964|181946746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.708||95.0||||A P-value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||a Student's t-test for paired samples was used to evaluate the effect of treatment. Null hypothesis was that VLDL-apoB would be the same before and after 16 weeks on niacin in subjects with NAFLD.||||0.708
90852299|NCT00282464|181568145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7707||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Endpoint||||0.7707
90852300|NCT00282464|181568146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2185||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 3||||0.2185
90852301|NCT00282464|181568146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4124||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 6||||0.4124
91099742|NCT03158311|182085669|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin: 0.25 points|Least Square mean (LS Mean)|-0.038|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.051|<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-0.139|||P-Value is one-sided|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||||||-0.139|<0.001
90852302|NCT00282464|181568146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6098||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Endpoint||||0.6098
90852303|NCT00282464|181568147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0005||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 1||||0.0005
90852304|NCT00282464|181568147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0099||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 2||||0.0099
90852305|NCT00282464|181568147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0423||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 3||||0.0423
91031037|NCT00262964|181946746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022||95.0||||A P-value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||A Student's t-test for paired samples was used to evaluate the effect of treatment. Null hypothesis was that VLDL-apoB would be the same before and after 8 weeks on fenofibrate in subjects with NAFLD.||||.022
91031038|NCT00262964|181946747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||the null hypothesis was that fenofibrate would not change the VLDL-Tg clearance rate||||.020
91099743|NCT03158311|182085669|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin: 0.25 points|LS Mean|0.073|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.051|<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-0.027|||P-Value is one-sided|MMRM||||||-0.027|<0.001
90852306|NCT00282464|181568147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0618||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 4||||0.0618
90852307|NCT00282464|181568147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0451||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 5||||0.0451
90852308|NCT00282464|181568147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2633||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 6||||0.2633
90852309|NCT00282464|181568147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2206||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Endpoint||||0.2206
90852310|NCT00282464|181568148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9863||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 3||||0.9863
90852311|NCT00282464|181568148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1017||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 6||||0.1017
90852312|NCT00282464|181568148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4033||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Endpoint||||0.4033
90852313|NCT00282464|181568149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002||||||No multiple comparison adjustment is applicable. Statistical significance level was 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 1||||0.002
90852314|NCT00282464|181568149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.019|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 2||||0.019
90852315|NCT00282464|181568149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.038|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 3||||0.038
91031039|NCT00262964|181946747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.358||95.0||||a priori threshold for significance was \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||the null hypothesis was that niacin would not change the VLDL-Tg clearance rate||||.358
90852316|NCT00282464|181568149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.069|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 4||||0.069
90852317|NCT00282464|181568149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.053|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 5||||0.053
90852318|NCT00282464|181568149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.154|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 6 An estimated sample size of 180 was needed per treatment arm in order to achieve 85% power to detect a treatment difference of 3.5 in the mean change from baseline to Week 6 in MADRS total score with a two-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level. The common standard deviation was estimated as 11.0. The null hypotheses is equality of mean change from baseline to Week 6 in MADRS total score between ziprasidone and placebo groups.||||0.154
90852319|NCT00282464|181568149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.007|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Overall||||0.007
90852320|NCT00282464|181568150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.112||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included effects of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate.||Week 3||||0.112
90852321|NCT00282464|181568150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.352||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included effects of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Week 6||||0.352
90852322|NCT00282464|181568150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.873||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included effects of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate.||Endpoint||||0.873
90852323|NCT00282464|181568151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.305||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included effects of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate.||Week 3||||0.305
91031040|NCT00262964|181946748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.758||95.0||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis is that fenofibrate would not effect VLDL-Tg production rates.||||0.758
91031041|NCT00262964|181946748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023||95.0||||the a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis is that niacin would not effect VLDL-Tg production rates.||||.023
91032811|NCT00840099|181950859|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|ANOVA|Ratio of the mean|104.15||||||90.0|96.35|112.58|||||Bioequivalence is established when 80% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||112.58|96.35|
91099744|NCT03158311|182085670|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.046|0.052||P-value is two-sided|MMRM|||Week 8||0.052|-0.046|0.892
91099745|NCT03158311|182085670|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.067|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.018|0.115||P-value is two-sided|MMRM|||Week 8||0.115|0.018|0.007
91099746|NCT03158311|182085670|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.047||P-value is two-sided|MMRM|||Week 16||0.047|-0.050|0.945
90852324|NCT00282464|181568151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.51||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included effects of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate.||Week 6||||0.510
90852325|NCT00282464|181568151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.71||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included effects of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate.||Endpoint||||0.710
90852326|NCT00282464|181568152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.026||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included effects of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate.||Week 3||||0.026
90852327|NCT00282464|181568152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.223||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included effects of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate.||Week 6||||0.223
90852328|NCT00282464|181568152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.848||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included effects of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate.||Endpoint||||0.848
90852329|NCT00282464|181568153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.381||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included effects of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate.||Week 3||||0.381
90852330|NCT00282464|181568153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.676||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included effects of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate.||Week 6||||0.676
90852331|NCT00282464|181568153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.295||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included effects of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate.||Endpoint||||0.295
90852332|NCT00282464|181568154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.068||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included effects of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate.||Week 3||||0.068
90852333|NCT00282464|181568154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.043||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included effects of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate.||Week 6||||0.043
90957816|NCT02891837|181795503|OTHER|||||||0.0026||||||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|||"Values at 48 hours post-surgery start for ALL patients on ventilation for ≤48 hours are presented.~Treatment group, baseline values and site were included as fixed factors, site\*treatment as interaction terms in this ANOVA. The normality assumption of residuals is critical for all considered timepoints. Please interpret results with caution."||||0.0026
91099747|NCT03158311|182085670|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.066|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.018|0.114||P-value is two-sided|MMRM|||Week 16||0.114|0.018|0.007
91099748|NCT03158311|182085670|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.009|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.041|0.06||P-value is two-sided|MMRM|||Week 24||0.060|-0.041|0.713
91099749|NCT03158311|182085670|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.096|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.046|0.146||P-value is two-sided|MMRM|||Week 24||0.146|0.046|<0.001
90852334|NCT00282464|181568154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.404||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included effects of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate.||Endpoint||||0.404
90852335|NCT00282464|181568155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.899||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included effects of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Week 3||||0.899
90852336|NCT00282464|181568155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.739||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included effects of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Week 6||||0.739
90852337|NCT00282464|181568155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.797||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included effects of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate.||Endpoint||||0.797
90852338|NCT00282464|181568156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.434||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included effects of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate.||Week 3||||0.434
90852339|NCT00282464|181568156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.777||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included effects of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate.||Week 6||||0.777
91099750|NCT03158311|182085671|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.023|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.046||0.308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.113|0.067||P-value is one-sided|MMRM|||Week 16||0.067|-0.113|0.308
91099751|NCT03158311|182085671|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.079|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.046||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.169|0.012||P-value is one-sided|MMRM|||Week 16||0.012|-0.169|0.044
91099752|NCT03158311|182085671|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.032|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047||0.245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.125|0.06||P-value is one sided|MMRM|||Week 24||0.060|-0.125|0.245
91099753|NCT03158311|182085671|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.124|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.216|-0.032||P-value is one sided|MMRM|||Week 24||-0.032|-0.216|0.004
90900916|NCT01003184|181667870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.1061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.03|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model includes treatment group, baseline value, use of SU (yes/no) and baseline HbA1c stratum as factors.||0.03|-0.32|0.1061
91099754|NCT03158311|182085672|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.018|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049||0.719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.079|0.115||P-value is two-sided|MMRM|||||0.115|-0.079|0.719
90852340|NCT00282464|181568156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.82||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included effects of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate.||Endpoint||||0.820
90852341|NCT00282464|181568157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.468||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 1||||0.468
90852342|NCT00282464|181568157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.11||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 2||||0.110
90852343|NCT00282464|181568157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.738||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 3||||0.738
90852344|NCT00282464|181568157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.617||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 4||||0.617
90852345|NCT00282464|181568157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.642||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 5||||0.642
90852346|NCT00282464|181568157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.644||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 6||||0.644
90852347|NCT00282464|181568157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.789||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Overall||||0.789
90852348|NCT00282464|181568158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.042||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 1||||0.042
90900917|NCT01003184|181667871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.4638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.02|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model includes treatment group, baseline value, use of SU (yes/no) and baseline HbA1c stratum as factors.||0.02|-0.05|0.4638
90900918|NCT01003184|181667872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.107||0.4967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.28|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model includes treatment group, baseline value, use of SU (yes/no) and baseline HbA1c stratum as factors.||0.28|-0.14|0.4967
91099755|NCT03158311|182085672|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.082|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.015|0.179||P-value is two-sided|MMRM|||||0.179|-0.015|0.097
90852349|NCT00282464|181568158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.088||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 2||||0.088
90852350|NCT00282464|181568158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.651||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 3||||0.651
90852351|NCT00282464|181568158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.665||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 4||||0.665
90852352|NCT00282464|181568158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.349||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 5||||0.349
90852353|NCT00282464|181568158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.685||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 6||||0.685
90852354|NCT00282464|181568158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.257||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Overall||||0.257
90900919|NCT01003184|181667873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.322||0.3247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.72|||Poisson regression|||The number of episodes by patient were compared between treatment groups using a poisson model with effects for treatment and baseline HbA1c and the logarithm of the days of exposure as the offset variable.||1.72|0.19|0.3247
90957817|NCT00709852|181795512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.61|<|0.0001||||||for contrast enhancement|paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
91099756|NCT03158311|182085673|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.61||P-value is one sided|Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression Model via Generalized estimating equations (GEE)||||1.61|0.94|0.061
91099757|NCT03158311|182085673|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.46||P-value is one-sided|Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression Model via GEE||||1.46|0.85|0.227
90900920|NCT05266963|181667902|SUPERIORITY|Statistical analysis will be performed using a paired samples Wilcoxon test to compare differences between the two groups.||||||0.43|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon matched-pairs||||||0.43
91099758|NCT03158311|182085674|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.49||P-value is one sided|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model via the GEE||||1.49|0.91|0.108
91099759|NCT03158311|182085674|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.7||P-Value is one sided|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model via the GEE||||1.70|1.03|0.013
91099760|NCT03158311|182085675|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.055|0.049||P-Value is two-sided|MMRM|||Week 8||0.049|-0.055|0.908
91099761|NCT03158311|182085675|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.053|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.104||P-Value is two-sided|MMRM|||Week 8||0.104|0.001|0.046
90852355|NCT00282464|181568159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0099||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical effect: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction.||Week 1||||0.0099
90852356|NCT00282464|181568159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0654||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical effect: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction.||Week 2||||0.0654
90852357|NCT00282464|181568159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1807||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical effect: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction.||Week 3||||0.1807
90852358|NCT00282464|181568159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0957||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical effect: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction.||Week 4||||0.0957
90852359|NCT00282464|181568159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0752||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical effect: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction.||Week 5||||0.0752
90852360|NCT00282464|181568159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3964||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical effect: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction.||Week 6||||0.3964
90852361|NCT00282464|181568159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0287||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical effect: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction.||Overall||||0.0287
90852362|NCT00282464|181568160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.965||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included effects of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate.||Change from baseline to endpoint||||0.965
90852363|NCT00282464|181568161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.86||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included effects of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate.||Change from baseline to endpoint||||0.860
90852364|NCT00282464|181568162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.428||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included effects of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate.||Baseline to endpoint||||0.428
90852365|NCT00282464|181568163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.708||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANOVA|ANOVA model included effects of treatment, rapid cycling, center and prior hospitalization status||Change from baseline to endpoint||||0.708
90852366|NCT00282464|181568164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.898||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANOVA|ANCOVA model included effects of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate.||Endpoint||||0.898
90852367|NCT00282464|181568165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.559||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANOVA|ANOVA model included effects of treatment, rapid cycling, center and prior hospitalization status.||Endpoint||||0.559
90852368|NCT00282464|181568166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.458||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple adjustments were made|ANOVA|ANVOVA model included effects of treatment, rapid cycling, center and prior hospitalization status.||Endpoint||||0.458
90852369|NCT00548405|181568186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58||||0.0084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.87||Hochberg method was used to adjust for the two co-primary outcomes.|Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|||Cox proportional hazards (PH) regression model with robust variance estimation using treatment group and geographic region as covariate was used.||0.87|0.38|0.0084
90852370|NCT00548405|181568187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.65||Hochberg method was used to adjust for the two co-primary outcomes.|Proportional means regression|||Proportional means regression model with robust variance estimation and covariate adjustment for geographic region was used.||0.65|0.39|<0.0001
90852371|NCT00548405|181568188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.69|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|||Cox PH regression model with robust variance estimation and covariate adjustment for geographic region was used.||0.69|0.41|<0.0001
90852372|NCT00548405|181568189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wei-Lachin|||The analysis was performed using Wei-Lachin method for non-parametric analysis of repeated measures.||||<0.0001
90900921|NCT05266963|181667903|SUPERIORITY|Statistical analysis will be performed using a standard two-tailed t test to compare differences between the two groups.||||||0.52|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.52
90900922|NCT00152971|181667904|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority Analysis with NI margin 9.2% on the absolute risk difference scale|Risk Difference (Percentage)|5.8||||0.0234||95.0|0.8|10.8||Hierarchical testing procedure: first non-inferiority, second superiority|Normal approximation|Normal approximation of independent binomial distribution without stratification||Risk difference versus Enoxaparin||10.8|0.8|0.0234
91099762|NCT03158311|182085675|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.047|0.056||P-Value is two-sided|MMRM|||Week 16||0.056|-0.047|0.870
91099763|NCT03158311|182085675|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.058|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.006|0.109||P-Value is two-sided|MMRM|||Week 16||0.109|0.006|0.028
91099764|NCT03158311|182085675|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.028|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.026|0.083||P-Value is two-sided|MMRM|||Week 24||0.083|-0.026|0.303
90852373|NCT00548405|181568190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0022|||||||Wei-Lachin|||Change at Year 2: the analysis was performed using Wei-Lachin method for non-parametric analysis of repeated measures.||||0.0022
90852374|NCT00548405|181568191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1371|TWO_SIDED||||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Ranked ANCOVA models with covariate adjustment for geographic region and Baseline T2 lesion volume was used.||||0.1371
90852375|NCT04876690|181568277|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1217|||||||t-test for Independent Samples|||PCS-12: Sex||||=0.1217
90852376|NCT04876690|181568277|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.8241|||||||ANOVA|ANOVA=Analysis of variance||PCS-12: Employment Status||||=0.8241
90852377|NCT04876690|181568277|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3471|||||||ANOVA|||PCS-12: Smoking Status||||=0.3471
90852378|NCT04876690|181568277|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.9951|||||||ANOVA|||PCS-12: Age at Onset||||=0.9951
90852379|NCT04876690|181568277|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0631|||||||ANOVA|||PCS-12: Disease Location||||=0.0631
90852380|NCT04876690|181568277|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.7473|||||||ANOVA|||PCS-12: Disease Behavior||||=0.7473
90852381|NCT04876690|181568277|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.4422|||||||t-test for Independent Samples|||PCS-12: Presence of any Extraintestinal Manifestation of CD||||=0.4422
90852382|NCT04876690|181568277|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1796|||||||t-test for Independent Samples|||PCS-12: Fistula With High Intersphincteric Type||||=0.1796
90900923|NCT00152971|181667904|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority Analysis with NI margin 9.2% on the absolute risk difference scale|Risk Difference (Percentage)|8.4||||0.0009||95.0|3.4|13.3||Hierarchical testing procedure: first non-inferiority, second superiority|Normal approximation|Normal approximation of independent binomial distribution without stratification||Risk difference versus Enoxaparin||13.3|3.4|0.0009
90852383|NCT04876690|181568277|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3535|||||||t-test for Independent Samples|||PCS-12: Fistula With High Transsphincteric Type||||=0.3535
90852384|NCT04876690|181568277|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1508|||||||t-test for Independent Samples|||PCS-12: Fistula With Suprasphincteric Type||||=0.1508
90852385|NCT04876690|181568277|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2671|||||||t-test for Independent Samples|||PCS-12: Fistula with Extrasphincteric Type||||=0.2671
90852386|NCT04876690|181568277|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0594|||||||t-test for Independent Samples|||PCS-12: Fistula With Low Intersphincteric Type||||=0.0594
90852387|NCT04876690|181568277|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5484|||||||t-test for Independent Samples|||PCS-12: Fistula With Low Transsphincteric Type||||=0.5484
91099765|NCT03158311|182085675|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.095|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.041|0.148||P-Value is two-sided|MMRM|||Week 24||0.148|0.041|<0.001
90852388|NCT04876690|181568277|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5387|||||||t-test for Independent Samples|||PCS-12: Fistula With Midline Position||||=0.5387
90852389|NCT04876690|181568277|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.527|||||||t-test for Independent Samples|||PCS-12: Fistula With Lateral Position||||=0.5270
90852390|NCT04876690|181568277|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3863|||||||t-test for Independent Samples|||PCS-12: Fistula With Seton||||=0.3863
90852391|NCT04876690|181568277|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.4206|||||||ANOVA|||PCS-12: HBI Categories (Remission, Mild and Moderate Activity)||||=0.4206
90852392|NCT04876690|181568277|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0538|||||||t-test for Independent Samples|||PCS-12: Surgery-naïve||||=0.0538
90852393|NCT04876690|181568277|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.9572|||||||t-test for Independent Samples|||PCS-12: Surgery - Fistulotomy||||=0.9572
90852394|NCT04876690|181568277|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.4742|||||||t-test for Independent Samples|||PCS-12: Surgery - Loose Seton||||=0.4742
90852395|NCT04876690|181568277|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5735|||||||t-test for Independent Samples|||PCS-12: Surgery - Other||||=0.5735
90852396|NCT04876690|181568277|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.376|||||||t-test for Independent Samples|||PCS-12: Presence of Perianal Abscess||||=0.3760
91099766|NCT03158311|182085676|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034||0.563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.048|0.087||P-value is two-sided|MMRM|||Week 8||0.087|-0.048|0.563
90852397|NCT04876690|181568278|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.4814|||||||t-test for Independent Samples|||MCS-12: Sex||||=0.4814
90852398|NCT04876690|181568278|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3136|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||MCS-12: Employment Status||||=0.3136
90852399|NCT04876690|181568278|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5808|||||||ANOVA|||MCS-12: Smoking Status||||=0.5808
90852400|NCT04876690|181568278|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2965|||||||ANOVA|||MCS-12: Age at Onset||||=0.2965
90852401|NCT04876690|181568278|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2874|||||||ANOVA|||MCS-12: Disease Location||||=0.2874
90852402|NCT04876690|181568278|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.4269|||||||ANOVA|||MCS-12: Disease Behavior||||=0.4269
90852403|NCT04876690|181568278|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.8931|||||||t-test for Independent Samples|||MCS-12: Presence of any Extraintestinal Manifestation of CD||||=0.8931
90852404|NCT04876690|181568278|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.9384|||||||t-test for Independent Samples|||MCS-12: Fistula With High Intersphincteric Type||||=0.9384
90852405|NCT04876690|181568278|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.8286|||||||Mann-Whitney|||MCS-12: Fistula With High Transsphincteric Type||||=0.8286
91099767|NCT03158311|182085676|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.062|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|0.129||P-Value is two-sided|MMRM|||Week 8||0.129|-0.005|0.068
91099768|NCT03158311|182085676|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035||0.844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.076|0.062||P-Value is two-sided|MMRM|||Week 16||0.062|-0.076|0.844
91099769|NCT03158311|182085676|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.058|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.125||P-Value is two-sided|MMRM|||Week 16||0.125|-0.010|0.097
91099770|NCT03158311|182085676|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||0.927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.067|0.074||P-Value is two-sided|MMRM|||Week 24||0.074|-0.067|0.927
90852406|NCT04876690|181568278|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1919|||||||t-test for Independent Samples|||MCS-12: Fistula With Suprasphincteric Type||||=0.1919
90852407|NCT04876690|181568278|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.6452|||||||t-test for Independent Samples|||MCS-12: Fistula with Extrasphincteric Type||||=0.6452
90852408|NCT04876690|181568278|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.7218|||||||t-test for Independent Samples|||MCS-12: Fistula With Low Intersphincteric Type||||=0.7218
90852409|NCT04876690|181568278|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.9738|||||||t-test for Independent Samples|||MCS-12: Fistula With Low Transsphincteric Type||||=0.9738
90852410|NCT04876690|181568278|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2419|||||||t-test for Independent Samples|||MCS-12: Fistula With Midline Position||||=0.2419
90852411|NCT04876690|181568278|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5524|||||||t-test for Independent Samples|||MCS-12: Fistula With Lateral Position||||=0.5524
90852412|NCT04876690|181568278|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.4443|||||||t-test for Independent Samples|||MCS-12: Fistula With Seton||||=0.4443
90852413|NCT04876690|181568278|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.4106|||||||ANOVA|||MCS-12: HBI Categories (Remission, Mild and Moderate Activity)||||=0.4106
90852414|NCT04876690|181568278|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.7795|||||||t-test for Independent Samples|||MCS-12: Surgery-naïve||||=0.7795
90900924|NCT00152971|181667905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (Percentage)|1.2||||0.2139||95.0|-0.7|3.0|||Normal approximation|Normal approximation of independent binomial distribution without stratification||Risk difference versus Enoxaparin||3.0|-0.7|0.2139
90900925|NCT00152971|181667905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (Percentage)|0.8||||0.3628||95.0|-0.9|2.5|||Normal approximation|Normal approximation of independent binomial distribution without stratification||Risk difference versus Enoxaparin||2.5|-0.9|0.3628
90900926|NCT00152971|181667906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (Percentage)|0.9||||0.2309||95.0|-0.6|2.5|||Normal approximation|Normal approximation of independent binomial distribution without stratification||Risk difference versus Enoxaparin||2.5|-0.6|0.2309
90900927|NCT00152971|181667906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (Percentage)|1.5||||0.0602||95.0|-0.1|3.2|||Normal approximation|Normal approximation of independent binomial distribution without stratification||Risk difference versus Enoxaparin||3.2|-0.1|0.0602
91099771|NCT03158311|182085676|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.089|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.019|0.159||P-Value is two-sided|MMRM|||Week 24||0.159|0.019|0.013
90852415|NCT04876690|181568278|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2964|||||||t-test for Independent Samples|||MCS-12: Surgery - Fistulotomy||||=0.2964
90852416|NCT04876690|181568278|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3287|||||||t-test for Independent Samples|||MCS-12: Surgery - Loose Seton||||=0.3287
90852417|NCT04876690|181568278|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0091|||||||t-test for Independent Samples|||MCS-12: Surgery - Other||||=0.0091
90852418|NCT04876690|181568278|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3889|||||||t-test for Independent Samples|||MCS-12: Presence of Perianal Abscess||||=0.3889
90852419|NCT04876690|181568279|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.8001|||||||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||PCS- 12: Age||||=0.8001
90852420|NCT04876690|181568279|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.4532|||||||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||PCS- 12: BMI||||=0.4532
91099772|NCT00724503|182085677|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.12|||Log Rank|||The null hypothesis tested for the primary efficacy endpoint is rate of progression (months) of SIRT/FOLFOX treatment versus FOLFOX is equal for both groups. The two-sided alternative hypothesis tested with 95% confidence is PFS rate for SIRT/FOLFOX treatment lower to that of FOLFOX.||1.12|0.77|0.551
90852421|NCT04876690|181568279|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.9597|||||||Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||PCS- 12: Time Between CD Diagnosis Date and Date of Study Visit||||=0.9597
90852422|NCT04876690|181568279|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3304|||||||Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||PCS- 12: Total Number of CPFs per Participant||||=0.3304
90852423|NCT04876690|181568279|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.6333|||||||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||PCS- 12: Time Since Seton Replacement||||=0.6333
90852424|NCT04876690|181568279|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.8003|||||||Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||PCS- 12: Time Between First CPF Diagnosis Date and Date of Study Visit||||=0.8003
90852425|NCT04876690|181568279|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0032|||||||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||PCS- 12: PDAI Score||||=0.0032
90852426|NCT04876690|181568279|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0923|||||||Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||PCS- 12: Number of Internal Fistula Openings per Participant||||=0.0923
90852427|NCT04876690|181568279|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0994|||||||Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||PCS- 12: Number of External Fistula Openings per Participant||||=0.0994
90852428|NCT04876690|181568279|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0444|||||||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||PCS- 12: SIBDQ Score||||=0.0444
90852429|NCT04876690|181568279|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.086|||||||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||PCS- 12: SQoL-M Score||||=0.0860
90852430|NCT04876690|181568279|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.9415|||||||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||PCS- 12: SQoL-F Score||||=0.9415
90852431|NCT04876690|181568279|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3709|||||||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||PCS- 12: Wexner Score||||=0.3709
90852432|NCT04876690|181568280|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0674|||||||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||MCS- 12: Age||||=0.0674
90852433|NCT04876690|181568280|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.9392|||||||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||MCS- 12: BMI||||=0.9392
90852434|NCT04876690|181568280|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.6387|||||||Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||MCS- 12: Time Between CD Diagnosis Date and Date of Study Visit||||=0.6387
90852435|NCT04876690|181568280|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.7846|||||||Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||MCS- 12: Total Number of CPFs per Participant||||=0.7846
90852436|NCT04876690|181568280|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3972|||||||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||MCS- 12: Time Since Seton Placement||||=0.3972
90900928|NCT00152971|181667907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (Percentage)|5.9||||0.0194||95.0|1.0|10.9|||Normal approximation|Normal approximation of independent binomial distribution without stratification||Risk difference versus Enoxaparin||10.9|1.0|0.0194
90900929|NCT00152971|181667907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (Percentage)|8.9||||0.0004||95.0|4.0|13.9|||Normal approximation|Normal approximation of independent binomial distribution without stratification||Risk difference versus Enoxaparin||13.9|4.0|0.0004
90900930|NCT00152971|181667908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5774||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison versus Enoxaparin||||0.5774
90900931|NCT00152971|181667908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison versus Enoxaparin||||1.0000
91099773|NCT00724503|182085678|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||A sample size of at least 450 patients for the SIRFLOX study was estimated to be needed to detect an increase in the median PFS at any site from 9.4 months to 12.5 months with 80% power and 95% confidence. Taking into account the number of patients who might receive the alternative treatment or lack of imaging data, the sample size was increased to 530. The Null hypothesis is no difference between the treatment arms with respect to PFS.||||< 0.05
90852437|NCT04876690|181568280|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.9496|||||||Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||MCS- 12: Time Between First CPF Diagnosis Date and Date of Study Visit||||=0.9496
90852438|NCT04876690|181568280|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.813|||||||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||MCS- 12: PDAI Score||||=0.8130
90852439|NCT04876690|181568280|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.4588|||||||Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||MCS- 12: Number of Internal Fistula Openings per Participant||||=0.4588
90852440|NCT04876690|181568280|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.8663|||||||Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||MCS- 12: Number of External Fistula Openings per Participant||||=0.8663
90852441|NCT04876690|181568280|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1349|||||||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||MCS- 12: SIBDQ Score||||=0.1349
90852442|NCT04876690|181568280|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5647|||||||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||MCS- 12: SQoL-M Score||||=0.5647
90852443|NCT04876690|181568280|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.9509|||||||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||MCS- 12: SQoL-F Score||||=0.9509
90852444|NCT04876690|181568280|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5328|||||||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||MCS- 12: Wexner Score||||=0.5328
90852445|NCT02660138|181568281|SUPERIORITY|If both p-values for the 2 primary tests (the test of Dysport® 800 U vs. placebo and the test of Dysport® 600 U vs. placebo) were lower than 0.05, both were declared statistically significant. If 1 of the primary tests had a p-value greater than or equal to 0.05, then the other test was declared statistically significant if its p-value was lower than 0.025.|LS Mean Difference|-10.83||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.36|-5.31|||MMRM|||Treatment group, visit (Week 2, Week 6 and Week 12), treatment-by-visit interaction, recorded stratification factors (aetiology of NDO \[SCI or MS\], prior intradetrusor \[Botulinum toxin \[BTX\]-naïve or BTX-non-naïve\]) and study baseline value (weekly number of UI episodes) as fixed effect variables, and subject as a random effect.||-5.31|-16.36|0.0001
90852446|NCT02660138|181568281|SUPERIORITY|If both p-values for the 2 primary tests (the test of Dysport® 800 U vs. placebo and the test of Dysport® 600 U vs. placebo) were lower than 0.05, both were declared statistically significant. If 1 of the primary tests had a p-value greater than or equal to 0.05, then the other test was declared statistically significant if its p-value was lower than 0.025.|LS Mean Difference|-12.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.65|-6.73|||MMRM|||Treatment group, visit (Week 2, Week 6 and Week 12), treatment-by-visit interaction, recorded stratification factors (aetiology of NDO \[SCI or MS\], prior intradetrusor \[BTX-naïve or BTX-non-naïve\]) and study baseline value (weekly number of UI episodes) as fixed effect variables, and subject as a random effect.||-6.73|-17.65|<0.0001
90852447|NCT02660138|181568282|SUPERIORITY|This secondary endpoint was included in the hierarchical analysis and was tested for both doses at the 0.05 level using a hierarchical methodology.|LS Mean Difference|160.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|109.9|211.9|||ANCOVA|||Treatment group, recorded stratification factors (aetiology of NDO \[SCI or MS\], prior intradetrusor \[BTX-naïve or BTX-non-naïve\]) and baseline value of MCC as covariates.||211.9|109.9|<0.0001
90852448|NCT02660138|181568282|SUPERIORITY|This secondary endpoint was included in the hierarchical analysis and was tested for both doses at the 0.05 level using a hierarchical methodology.|LS Mean Difference|189.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|140.1|238.2|||ANCOVA|||Treatment group, recorded stratification factors (aetiology of NDO \[SCI or MS\], prior intradetrusor \[BTX-naïve or BTX-non-naïve\]) and baseline value of MCC as covariates.||238.2|140.1|<0.0001
90852449|NCT02660138|181568283|SUPERIORITY|This secondary endpoint was included in the hierarchical analysis and was tested for both doses at the 0.05 level using a hierarchical methodology.|LS Mean Difference|-24.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.3|-16.4|||ANCOVA|||Treatment group, recorded stratification factors (aetiology of NDO \[SCI or MS\], prior intradetrusor \[BTX-naïve or BTX-non-naïve\]) and baseline value of MDP as covariates.||-16.4|-32.3|<0.0001
90852450|NCT02660138|181568283|SUPERIORITY|This secondary endpoint was included in the hierarchical analysis and was tested for both doses at the 0.05 level using a hierarchical methodology.|LS Mean Difference|-28.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.2|-21.1|||ANCOVA|||Treatment group, recorded stratification factors (aetiology of NDO \[SCI or MS\], prior intradetrusor \[BTX-naïve or BTX-non-naïve\]) and baseline value of MDP as covariates.||-21.1|-36.2|<0.0001
90852451|NCT02660138|181568284|SUPERIORITY|This secondary endpoint was included in the hierarchical analysis and was tested for both doses at the 0.05 level using a hierarchical methodology.|LS Mean Difference|155.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|100.5|210.4|||ANCOVA|||Treatment group, recorded stratification factors (aetiology of NDO \[SCI or MS\], prior intradetrusor \[BTX-naïve or BTX-non-naïve\]) and baseline value of Vol@1stIDC as covariates.||210.4|100.5|<0.0001
90852452|NCT02660138|181568284|SUPERIORITY|This secondary endpoint was included in the hierarchical analysis and was tested for both doses at the 0.05 level using a hierarchical methodology.|LS Mean Difference|181.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|129.2|234.3|||ANCOVA|||Treatment group, recorded stratification factors (aetiology of NDO \[SCI or MS\], prior intradetrusor \[BTX-naïve or BTX-non-naïve\]) and baseline value of Vol@1stIDC as covariates.||234.3|129.2|<0.0001
90852453|NCT02660138|181568285|SUPERIORITY|This secondary endpoint was included in the hierarchical analysis and was tested for both doses at the 0.05 level using a hierarchical methodology.|Odds Ratio (OR)|9.83||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.72|35.6|||Generalised linear mixed model (GLMM)|||Treatment group, recorded stratification factors, visit (Week 2, Week 6 and Week 12), treatment-by-visit interaction, study baseline-by-visit interaction and study baseline weekly number of UI episodes as fixed effect.||35.60|2.72|0.0006
90900932|NCT00152971|181667909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7724||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison versus Enoxaparin||||0.7724
90900933|NCT00152971|181667909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0308||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison versus Enoxaparin||||0.0308
90900934|NCT00152971|181667910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4968||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison versus Enoxaparin||||0.4968
90900935|NCT00152971|181667910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison versus Enoxaparin||||1.0000
90900936|NCT00152971|181667912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1416||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison versus Enoxaparin||||0.1416
90900937|NCT00152971|181667912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0942||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison versus Enoxaparin||||0.0942
91099774|NCT01186419|182085679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0765|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0765
90852454|NCT02660138|181568285|SUPERIORITY|This secondary endpoint was included in the hierarchical analysis and was tested for both doses at the 0.05 level using a hierarchical methodology.|Odds Ratio (OR)|10.99||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.05|39.61|||GLMM|||Treatment group, recorded stratification factors, visit (Week 2, Week 6 and Week 12), treatment-by-visit interaction, study baseline-by-visit interaction and study baseline weekly number of UI episodes as fixed effect.||39.61|3.05|0.0003
90852455|NCT02660138|181568286|SUPERIORITY|This secondary endpoint was included in the hierarchical analysis and was tested for both doses at the 0.05 level using a hierarchical methodology.|Odds Ratio (OR)|5.73||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|16.24|||Regression, Logistic|||Treatment group, and recorded stratification factors (aetiology of NDO, previous BTX-A usage) and study baseline (prior intradetrusor BTX-A usage for UI) as explanatory variables.||16.24|2.02|0.0010
90852456|NCT02660138|181568286|SUPERIORITY|This secondary endpoint was included in the hierarchical analysis and was tested for both doses at the 0.05 level using a hierarchical methodology.|Odds Ratio (OR)|16.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.82|44.43|||Regression, Logistic|||Treatment group, and recorded stratification factors (aetiology of NDO, previous BTX-A usage) and study baseline (prior intradetrusor BTX-A usage for UI) as explanatory variables.||44.43|5.82|<0.0001
90852457|NCT02660138|181568287|SUPERIORITY|This secondary endpoint was included in the hierarchical analysis and was tested for both doses at the 0.05 level using a hierarchical methodology.|LS Mean Difference|13.3||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.22|20.37|||MMRM|||Treatment group, visit (Week 6 and Week 12), treatment-by-visit interaction, recorded stratification factors (aetiology of NDO \[SCI or MS\], prior intradetrusor \[BTX-naïve or BTX-non-naïve\]) and study baseline value (I-QoL summary total score) as fixed variables, and subject as a random effect.||20.37|6.22|0.0003
90852458|NCT02660138|181568287|SUPERIORITY|The secondary endpoint was included in the hierarchical analysis and was tested for both doses at the 0.05 level using a hierarchical methodology.|LS Mean Difference|17.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.36|24.15|||MMRM|||Treatment group, visit (Week 6 and Week 12), treatment-by-visit interaction, recorded stratification factors (aetiology of NDO \[SCI or MS\], prior intradetrusor \[BTX-naïve or BTX-non-naïve\]) and study baseline value (I-QoL summary total score) as fixed variables, and subject as a random effect.||24.15|10.36|<0.0001
90852459|NCT02660138|181568288|SUPERIORITY|Treatment group, recorded stratification factors, visit (Week 2, Week 6 and Week 12), treatment-by-visit interaction, study baseline-by-visit interaction and study baseline weekly number of UI episodes as fixed effect.|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.0||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|8.86||This secondary endpoint was not included within the hierarchical testing procedure and was analysed for exploratory purposes only to compare each Dysport® dose to placebo at a 0.05 type one error rate.|GLMM|||Treatment comparison at ≥30% Improvement Level: Dysport® 600 U versus Placebo.||8.86|1.80|0.0007
90852460|NCT02660138|181568288|SUPERIORITY|Treatment group, recorded stratification factors, visit (Week 2, Week 6 and Week 12), treatment-by-visit interaction, study baseline-by-visit interaction and study baseline weekly number of UI episodes as fixed effect.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.63||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.68|7.86||This secondary endpoint was not included within the hierarchical testing procedure and was analysed for exploratory purposes only to compare each Dysport® dose to placebo at a 0.05 type one error rate.|GLMM|||Treatment comparison at ≥30% Improvement Level: Dysport® 800 U versus Placebo||7.86|1.68|0.0012
90852461|NCT02660138|181568288|SUPERIORITY|Treatment group, recorded stratification factors, visit (Week 2, Week 6 and Week 12), treatment-by-visit interaction, study baseline-by-visit interaction and study baseline weekly number of UI episodes as fixed effect.|Odds Ratio (OR)|8.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.56|18.09||This secondary endpoint was not included within the hierarchical testing procedure and was analysed for exploratory purposes only to compare each Dysport® dose to placebo at a 0.05 type one error rate.|GLMM|||Treatment comparison at ≥50% Improvement Level: Dysport® 600 U versus Placebo.||18.09|3.56|<0.0001
90852462|NCT02660138|181568288|SUPERIORITY|Treatment group, recorded stratification factors, visit (Week 2, Week 6 and Week 12), treatment-by-visit interaction, study baseline-by-visit interaction and study baseline weekly number of UI episodes as fixed effect.|Odds Ratio (OR)|8.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.66|18.47||This secondary endpoint was not included within the hierarchical testing procedure and was analysed for exploratory purposes only to compare each Dysport® dose to placebo at a 0.05 type one error rate.|GLMM|||Treatment comparison at ≥50% Improvement Level: Dysport® 800 U versus Placebo||18.47|3.66|<0.0001
90852463|NCT02660138|181568288|OTHER|Treatment group, recorded stratification factors, visit (Week 2, Week 6 and Week 12), treatment-by-visit interaction, study baseline-by-visit interaction and study baseline weekly number of UI episodes as fixed effect.|Odds Ratio (OR)|10.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.59|24.95||This secondary endpoint was not included within the hierarchical testing procedure and was analysed for exploratory purposes only to compare each Dysport® dose to placebo at a 0.05 type one error rate.|GLMM|||Treatment comparison at ≥75% Improvement Level: Dysport® 600 U versus Placebo.||24.95|4.59|<0.0001
90852464|NCT02660138|181568288|SUPERIORITY|Treatment group, recorded stratification factors, visit (Week 2, Week 6 and Week 12), treatment-by-visit interaction, study baseline-by-visit interaction and study baseline weekly number of UI episodes as fixed effect.|Odds Ratio (OR)|12.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.4|29.56||This secondary endpoint was not included within the hierarchical testing procedure and was analysed for exploratory purposes only to compare each Dysport® dose to placebo at a 0.05 type one error rate.|GLMM|||Treatment comparison at ≥75% Improvement Level: Dysport® 800 U versus Placebo.||29.56|5.40|<0.0001
90900938|NCT04091360|181667917|OTHER||GeoMean Ratio|1.221|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.163|1.281|||ANCOVA|||||1.281|1.163|<0.0001
90900939|NCT04091360|181667917|OTHER||GeoMean Ratio|1.203|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.146|1.263|||ANCOVA|||||1.263|1.146|<0.0001
90900940|NCT04091360|181667917|OTHER||GeoMean Ratio|1.139|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.085|1.195|||ANCOVA|||||1.195|1.085|<0.0001
90900941|NCT04091360|181667918|OTHER||GeoMean Ratio|1.253|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.151|1.363|||ANCOVA|||||1.363|1.151|<0.0001
91099775|NCT05067270|182085682|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.4||||||1 min post bolus (Bolus time: 3 hours)||2.40|1.30|
91099776|NCT05067270|182085682|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|2.59||||||1 min post bolus (Bolus time: 3 hours)||2.59|1.42|
91099777|NCT05067270|182085682|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|2.49||||||1 min post bolus (Bolus time: 3 hours)||2.49|1.37|
90852465|NCT02660138|181568289|SUPERIORITY|This secondary endpoint was not included within the hierarchical testing procedure and was analysed for exploratory purposes only to compare each Dysport® dose to placebo at a 0.05 type one error rate.|LS Mean Difference|84.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.73|125.89|||MMRM|||Treatment group, visit (Week 2, Week 6 and Week 12), treatment-by-visit interaction, recorded stratification factors (aetiology of NDO \[SCI or MS\], prior intradetrusor \[BTX-naïve or BTX-non-naïve\]) and study baseline value (total volume per void) as fixed effect variables, and subject as a random effect.||125.89|43.73|<0.0001
90852466|NCT02660138|181568289|SUPERIORITY|This secondary endpoint was not included within the hierarchical testing procedure and was analysed for exploratory purposes only to compare each Dysport® dose to placebo at a 0.05 type one error rate.|LS Mean Difference|110.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|70.17|150.98|||MMRM|||Treatment group, visit (Week 2, Week 6 and Week 12), treatment-by-visit interaction, recorded stratification factors (aetiology of NDO \[SCI or MS\], prior intradetrusor \[BTX-naïve or BTX-non-naïve\]) and study baseline value (total volume per void) as fixed effect variables, and subject as a random effect.||150.98|70.17|<0.0001
90852467|NCT00308581|181568295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.696||95.0|0.7|1.7||Logistic regression model including terms for treatment arm and geographical region (North America versus Europe).|Regression, Logistic||Direction of comparison is Q4W regimen (active 1) versus Q2W regimen (active 2).|With a sample size of 165 patients per treatment arm, assuming a percentage of responders of 45% with the Q4W regimen, the study had 80% power to show a statistically significant difference in percentage of responders at Week 26 between the two treatment groups, when there is a true difference of 16% in percentage of responders in favor of the Q2W regimen, and using a 2-sided chi-square at the 5% significance level.||1.7|0.7|0.696
90852468|NCT00899353|181568363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|11.2|||ANOVA|Games-Howell Correction was applied to adjust for unequal variances, unequal sample size and for non-parametric distribution.||"Omnibus analysis. Statistical significance was determined by Games Howell Multiple Comparison test. Significance was determined as α\< 0.05.~Analysis based on global response."||11.2|-5.0|0.78
90852469|NCT00899353|181568363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|10.7|||ANOVA|Games-Howell Correction was applied to adjust for unequal variances, unequal sample size and for non-parametric distribution.||"Omnibus analysis. Statistical significance was determined by Games Howell Multiple Comparison test. Significance was determined as α\< 0.05.~Analysis based on global response."||10.7|-4.6|0.75
90852470|NCT00899353|181568363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|13.7|||ANOVA|Games-Howell Correction was applied to adjust for unequal variances, unequal sample size and for non-parametric distribution.||"Omnibus analysis. Statistical significance was determined by Games Howell Multiple Comparison test. Significance was determined as α\< 0.05.~Analysis based on global response."||13.7|-0.6|0.08
90852471|NCT00899353|181568363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|13.2|||ANOVA|Games-Howell Correction was applied to adjust for unequal variances, unequal sample size and for non-parametric distribution.||"Omnibus analysis. Statistical significance was determined by Games Howell Multiple Comparison test. Significance was determined as α\< 0.05.~Analysis based on global response."||13.2|-1.6|0.17
90852472|NCT00899353|181568363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|17.2|||ANOVA|Games-Howell Correction was applied to adjust for unequal variances, unequal sample size and for non-parametric distribution.||"Omnibus analysis. Statistical significance was determined by Games Howell Multiple Comparison test. Significance was determined as α\< 0.05.~Analysis based on High Initial NFkB Activation Expressers."||17.2|-6.5|0.61
90852473|NCT00899353|181568363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|16.8|||ANOVA|Games-Howell Correction was applied to adjust for unequal variances, unequal sample size and for non-parametric distribution.||"Omnibus analysis. Statistical significance was determined by Games Howell Multiple Comparison test. Significance was determined as α\< 0.05.~Analysis based on High Initial NFkB Activation Expressers."||16.8|-4.1|0.32
90852474|NCT00899353|181568363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|22.3|||ANOVA|Games-Howell Correction was applied to adjust for unequal variances, unequal sample size and for non-parametric distribution.||"Omnibus analysis. Statistical significance was determined by Games Howell Multiple Comparison test. Significance was determined as α\< 0.05.~Analysis based on High Initial NFkB Activation Expressers."||22.3|1.6|0.03
90852475|NCT00899353|181568363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|21.8|||ANOVA|Games-Howell Correction was applied to adjust for unequal variances, unequal sample size and for non-parametric distribution.||"Omnibus analysis. Statistical significance was determined by Games Howell Multiple Comparison test. Significance was determined as α\< 0.05.~Analysis based on High Initial NFkB Activation Expressers."||21.8|0.5|0.04
90852476|NCT00899353|181568363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.2|||ANOVA|Games-Howell Correction was applied to adjust for unequal variances, unequal sample size and for non-parametric distribution.||"Omnibus analysis. Statistical significance was determined by Games Howell Multiple Comparison test. Significance was determined as α\< 0.05.~Analysis based on Low Initial NFkB Activation Expressers."||1.2|-1.5|1.00
90852477|NCT00899353|181568363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|2.3|||ANOVA|Games-Howell Correction was applied to adjust for unequal variances, unequal sample size and for non-parametric distribution.||"Omnibus analysis. Statistical significance was determined by Games Howell Multiple Comparison test. Significance was determined as α\< 0.05.~Analysis based on Low Initial NFkB Activation Expressers."||2.3|-3.5|0.88
90900942|NCT04091360|181667918|OTHER||GeoMean Ratio|1.146||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.054|1.246|||ANCOVA|||||1.246|1.054|0.0022
90900943|NCT04091360|181667918|OTHER||GeoMean Ratio|1.102||||0.0295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.202|||ANCOVA|||||1.202|1.010|0.0295
90900944|NCT04091360|181667918|OTHER||GeoMean Ratio|1.129||||0.0098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.032|1.235|||ANCOVA|||||1.235|1.032|0.0098
90900945|NCT04091360|181667918|OTHER||GeoMean Ratio|1.028||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.939|1.125|||ANCOVA|||||1.125|0.939|0.54
90852478|NCT00899353|181568363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.0|||ANOVA|Games-Howell Correction was applied to adjust for unequal variances, unequal sample size and for non-parametric distribution.||"Omnibus analysis. Statistical significance was determined by Games Howell Multiple Comparison test. Significance was determined as α\< 0.05.~Analysis based on Low Initial NFkB Activation Expressers."||1.0|-0.8|0.98
90852479|NCT00899353|181568363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|5.3|||ANOVA|Games-Howell Correction was applied to adjust for unequal variances, unequal sample size and for non-parametric distribution.||"Omnibus analysis. Statistical significance was determined by Games Howell Multiple Comparison test. Significance was determined as α\< 0.05.~Analysis based on Low Initial NFkB Activation Expressers."||5.3|-6.6|0.98
90852480|NCT01247298|181568376|OTHER||Kaplan Meier Estimate|82.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Kaplan Meier Estimates of Progression Free Survival (PFS)|||||
90852481|NCT00095147|181568398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean change from baseline|-1.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|-0.67|||ANCOVA|||The primary analysis was the comparison of abatacept versus placebo for changes from baseline to 6 months (Day 197) in the DAS28. This comparison was done using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group as the effect and baseline value as the covariate. A 95% confidence interval was computed for the treatment difference within the framework of the ANCOVA model.||-0.67|-1.42|<0.001
90852482|NCT00095147|181568399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean change from baseline|-0.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|-0.39|||ANCOVA|||Infliximab versus placebo were compared for changes from baseline to 6 months (Day 197) in the DAS28. This comparison was done using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group as the effect and baseline value as the covariate. A 95% confidence interval was computed for the treatment difference within the framework of the ANCOVA model.||-0.39|-1.14|<0.001
90852483|NCT00095147|181568401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimate of difference from placebo|20.6||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|33.6|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Comparisons were made between ABA and PLA at Day 197 using a continuity corrected Chi-square test. All tests and confidence intervals for treatment comparison were two-sided.||33.6|7.7|0.001
90852484|NCT00095147|181568401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimate of difference from placebo|17.9||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.1|30.7|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Comparisons were made between INF and PLA at Day 197 using a continuity corrected Chi-square test. All tests and confidence intervals for treatment comparison were two-sided.||30.7|5.1|0.005
90852485|NCT00095147|181568403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from placebo|-0.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.23|||ANCOVA|||Adjusted mean change in HAQ-DI from baseline to 6 months (Day 197) was compared between ABA and PLA. This comparison was done using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group as the effect and baseline value as the covariate. A 95% confidence interval was computed for the treatment difference within the framework of the ANCOVA model.||-0.23|-0.53|<0.001
90852486|NCT00095147|181568403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from placebo|-0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.15|||ANCOVA|||Adjusted mean change in HAQ-DI from baseline to 6 months (Day 197) was compared between INF and PLA. This comparison was done using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group as the effect and baseline value as the covariate. A 95% confidence interval was computed for the treatment difference within the framework of the ANCOVA model.||-0.15|-0.45|<0.001
90852487|NCT00095147|181568405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from placebo (PCS)|4.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.92|6.12|||ANCOVA|||Adjusted mean change in SF-36 physical component summary from baseline to 6 months (Day 197) was compared between ABA and PLA. This comparison was done using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group as the effect and baseline value as the covariate. A 95% confidence interval was computed for the treatment difference within the framework of the ANCOVA model.||6.12|1.92|<0.001
90852488|NCT00095147|181568405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from placebo (MCS)|3.51||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|5.91|||ANCOVA|||Adjusted mean change in SF-36 mental component summary from baseline to 6 months (Day 197) was compared between ABA and PLA. This comparison was done using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group as the effect and baseline value as the covariate. A 95% confidence interval was computed for the treatment difference within the framework of the ANCOVA model.||5.91|1.10|0.004
90900946|NCT04091360|181667919|OTHER||GeoMean Ratio|1.228|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.142|1.319|||ANCOVA|||||1.319|1.142|<0.0001
90852489|NCT00095147|181568405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from placebo (PCS)|3.32||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|5.4|||ANCOVA|||Adjusted mean change in SF-36 physical component summary from baseline to 6 months (Day 197) was compared between INF and PLA. This comparison was done using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group as the effect and baseline value as the covariate. A 95% confidence interval was computed for the treatment difference within the framework of the ANCOVA model.||5.40|1.25|0.002
90852490|NCT00095147|181568405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from placebo (MCS)|2.68||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|5.05|||ANCOVA|||Adjusted mean change in SF-36 mental component summary from baseline to 6 months (Day 197) was compared between INF and PLA. This comparison was done using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group as the effect and baseline value as the covariate. A 95% confidence interval was computed for the treatment difference within the framework of the ANCOVA model.||5.05|0.31|0.027
90852491|NCT03400956|181568507|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.93|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Number of subjects per treatment: 63 (Vilaprisan) / 33 (Placebo).|Vilaprisan (A1) and Vilaprisan+Placebo (B2) combined vs. Placebo+Vilaprisan (B1) in treatment period 1||0.93|0.72|<.0001
90900947|NCT04091360|181667919|OTHER||GeoMean Ratio|1.155||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.075|1.24|||ANCOVA|||||1.240|1.075|0.0002
90900948|NCT04091360|181667919|OTHER||GeoMean Ratio|1.1||||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.022|1.184|||ANCOVA|||||1.184|1.022|0.0129
90900949|NCT04091360|181667919|OTHER||GeoMean Ratio|1.112||||0.0079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.201|||ANCOVA|||||1.201|1.030|0.0079
90900950|NCT04091360|181667919|OTHER||GeoMean Ratio|1.033||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.957|1.116|||ANCOVA|||||1.116|0.957|0.39
90900951|NCT04091360|181667920|OTHER||GeoMean Ratio|1.137|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.073|1.204|||ANCOVA|||||1.204|1.073|<0.0001
91099778|NCT05067270|182085682|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.92||||||1 min post bolus (Bolus time: 3 hours)||1.92|1.05|
91099779|NCT05067270|182085682|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.46||||||1 min post bolus (Bolus time: 3 hours)||1.46|0.80|
91031042|NCT00262964|181946749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024||95.0||||the a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis was that fenofibrate would not affect VLDL-Tg concentration. We compare the pre and post-treatment results of subjects receiving an 8 week course of fenofibrate.||||.024
91031043|NCT00262964|181946749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||the a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis was that niacin would not affect VLDL-Tg concentration. We compare the pre and post-treatment results of subjects receiving a 16 week course of niacin.||||<0.001
91031044|NCT00262964|181946750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.768||95.0||||A priori threshold for significance was set for p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis was that fenofibrate would not affect adipose tissue insulin sensitivity. We compare the baseline and post-treatment results for adipose tissue insulin sensitivity in the subjects who received fenofibrate.||||.768
91099780|NCT05067270|182085682|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.41||||||1 min post bolus (Bolus time: 3 hours)||1.41|0.77|
91099781|NCT05067270|182085682|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.08||||||1 min post bolus (Bolus time: 3 hours)||1.08|0.59|
91099782|NCT05067270|182085682|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.3||||||1 min post bolus (Bolus time: 3 hours)||1.30|0.72|
91099783|NCT05067270|182085682|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.0||||||1 min post bolus (Bolus time: 3 hours)||1.00|0.55|
90852492|NCT00534313|181568524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|22.9||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|41.8||The p-value (two-sided) was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method (CMH) with stratification of baseline body surface area (BSA) affected by psoriasis.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference was based on CMH with stratification of baseline BSA affected by psoriasis.|||41.8|4.0|0.022
90852493|NCT00534313|181568524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|28.7||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.4|48.0||p-value (two-sided) was based on CMH with stratification of baseline BSA affected by psoriasis.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference was based on CMH with stratification of baseline BSA affected by psoriasis.|||48.0|9.4|0.006
90852494|NCT00534313|181568524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|14.6||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|32.6||p-value (2-sided) was based on CMH with stratification of baseline BSA affected by psoriasis.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference was based on CMH with stratification of baseline BSA affected by psoriasis.|||32.6|-3.5|0.121
90852495|NCT00534313|181568531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.0|11.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference and 95% confidence intervals (CI) was based on CMH with stratification of baseline BSA affected by psoriasis.|||11.0|-23.0|
90852496|NCT00534313|181568531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|17.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference and 95% CI was based on CMH with stratification of baseline BSA affected by psoriasis.|||17.1|-18.0|
90852497|NCT00534313|181568531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|10.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|28.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference and 95% CI was based on CMH with stratification of baseline BSA affected by psoriasis.|||28.5|-7.6|
90852498|NCT00534313|181568532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.02|44.56|||ANCOVA|||||44.56|-7.02|
90852499|NCT00534313|181568532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.93|48.6|||ANCOVA|||||48.60|-3.93|
90852500|NCT00534313|181568532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|30.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.82|56.15|||ANCOVA|||||56.15|4.82|
90852501|NCT00534313|181568534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.08||||||95.0|-4.79|8.96|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline value as covariate was used for the analysis.||||8.96|-4.79|
90852502|NCT00534313|181568534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.94|8.95|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline value as covariate was used for the analysis.||||8.95|-4.94|
90852503|NCT00534313|181568534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.08|7.58|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline value as covariate was used for the analysis.||||7.58|-6.08|
90852504|NCT00534313|181568538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.97|12.33|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as factor and baseline value as covariate was used for the analysis.||||12.33|1.97|
90852505|NCT00534313|181568538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.83|14.41|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline value as covariate was used for the analysis||||14.41|3.83|
90900952|NCT04091360|181667920|OTHER||GeoMean Ratio|1.091||||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.155|||ANCOVA|||||1.155|1.030|0.0041
90900953|NCT04091360|181667920|OTHER||GeoMean Ratio|1.019||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.081|||ANCOVA|||||1.081|0.960|0.53
90900954|NCT04091360|181667928|OTHER||GeoMean Ratio|1.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.153|1.27|||ANCOVA|||||1.270|1.153|<0.0001
90900955|NCT04091360|181667928|OTHER||GeoMean Ratio|1.193|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.136|1.252|||ANCOVA|||||1.252|1.136|<0.0001
90900956|NCT04091360|181667928|OTHER||GeoMean Ratio|1.124|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.071|1.179|||ANCOVA|||||1.179|1.071|<0.0001
90900957|NCT04091360|181667929|OTHER||GeoMean Ratio|1.139|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.087|1.194|||ANCOVA|||||1.194|1.087|<0.0001
90900958|NCT04091360|181667929|OTHER||GeoMean Ratio|1.142|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.089|1.197|||ANCOVA|||||1.197|1.089|<0.0001
90900959|NCT04091360|181667929|OTHER||GeoMean Ratio|1.08||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.031|1.132|||ANCOVA|||||1.132|1.031|0.0018
90900960|NCT04091360|181667930|OTHER||GeoMean Ratio|1.08||||0.0066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.022|1.14|||ANCOVA|||||1.140|1.022|0.0066
90900961|NCT04091360|181667930|OTHER||GeoMean Ratio|1.074||||0.0115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.017|1.134|||ANCOVA|||||1.134|1.017|0.0115
90900962|NCT04091360|181667930|OTHER||GeoMean Ratio|1.037||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.982|1.096|||ANCOVA|||||1.096|0.982|0.18
90900963|NCT04091360|181667931|OTHER||GeoMean Ratio|1.162|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.122|1.203|||ANCOVA|||||1.203|1.122|<0.0001
90900964|NCT04091360|181667931|OTHER||GeoMean Ratio|1.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.111|1.19|||ANCOVA|||||1.190|1.111|<0.0001
90900965|NCT04091360|181667931|OTHER||GeoMean Ratio|1.112|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.074|1.152|||ANCOVA|||||1.152|1.074|<0.0001
90900966|NCT04091360|181667932|OTHER||GeoMean Ratio|1.157|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.119|1.196|||ANCOVA|||||1.196|1.119|<0.0001
90900967|NCT04091360|181667932|OTHER||GeoMean Ratio|1.147|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|1.186|||ANCOVA|||||1.186|1.110|<0.0001
90900968|NCT04091360|181667932|OTHER||GeoMean Ratio|1.105|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.068|1.142|||ANCOVA|||||1.142|1.068|<0.0001
90900969|NCT04091360|181667933|OTHER||GeoMean Ratio|1.098|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.059|1.137|||ANCOVA|||||1.137|1.059|<0.0001
90900970|NCT04091360|181667933|OTHER||GeoMean Ratio|1.111|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.072|1.15|||ANCOVA|||||1.150|1.072|<0.0001
90900971|NCT04091360|181667933|OTHER||GeoMean Ratio|1.07||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|5.0|1.033|1.109|||ANCOVA|||||1.109|1.033|0.0003
90900972|NCT04091360|181667934|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|8.5||||0.47|TWO_SIDED||||||Hodges-Lehmann|||||||0.47
90957818|NCT00709852|181795512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.67|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.66|<|0.0001||||||for border delineation|paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
91031045|NCT00262964|181946750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019||95.0||||A priori threshold for significance was set for p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis was that niacin would not affect adipose tissue insulin sensitivity. Here we compare the baseline and post-treatment adipose tissue insulin sensitivity results for subjects who received a 16 week course of niacin||||.019
90852506|NCT00534313|181568538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|11.32|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline value as covariate was used for the analysis.||||11.32|1.01|
90852507|NCT00534313|181568539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|16.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|34.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference and 95% CI was based on CMH with stratification of baseline BSA affected by psoriasis.|||34.5|-2.5|
90852508|NCT00534313|181568539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|26.1||||||95.0|6.8|45.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference and 95% CI was based on CMH with stratification of baseline BSA affected by psoriasis.|||45.5|6.8|
90852509|NCT00534313|181568539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|16.6||||||95.0|-1.8|34.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference and 95% CI was based on CMH with stratification of baseline BSA affected by psoriasis.|||34.9|-1.8|
90852510|NCT00402233|181568540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.4|||<|0.0001||95.0|-6.53|-2.26|||ANCOVA|||||-2.26|-6.53|<0.0001
90852511|NCT00402233|181568540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.41|||<|0.0001||95.0|-6.54|-2.28|||ANCOVA|||||-2.28|-6.54|<0.0001
90852512|NCT00402233|181568540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.72|||<|0.0001||95.0|-6.91|-2.52|||ANCOVA|||||-2.52|-6.91|<0.0001
90852513|NCT00402233|181568541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.893||||||95.0|0.431|1.849|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.849|0.431|
90852514|NCT00402233|181568541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.885||||||95.0|0.424|1.845|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.845|0.424|
90900973|NCT04091360|181667934|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.0||||0.0059|TWO_SIDED||||||Hodges-Lehmann|||||||0.0059
91031046|NCT00262964|181946751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.318||95.0||||The a priori threshold for significance was set at p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis was that fenofibrate would not affect skeletal muscle insulin sensitivity. Here we compare the pre and post-treatment results in subjects receiving an 8 week course of fenofibrate.||||.318
91031047|NCT00262964|181946751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025||95.0||||The a priori threshold for significance was set at p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis was that niacin would not affect skeletal muscle insulin sensitivity. Here we compare the pre and post-treatment results for subjects receiving a 16 week course of niacin.||||.025
90852515|NCT00402233|181568541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.687||||||95.0|0.317|1.492|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.492|0.317|
90852516|NCT00402233|181568542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.14||||0.014||95.0|0.23|2.04|||ANCOVA|||||2.04|0.23|0.014
90852517|NCT00402233|181568542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.03||95.0|0.094|1.9|||ANCOVA|||||1.9|0.094|0.03
90852518|NCT00402233|181568542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.49||||0.0019||95.0|0.56|2.43|||ANCOVA|||||2.43|0.56|0.0019
90852519|NCT00402233|181568543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55||||0.39||95.0|-1.82|0.71|||ANCOVA|||||0.71|-1.82|0.39
90852520|NCT00402233|181568543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57||||0.37||95.0|-1.84|0.69|||ANCOVA|||||0.69|-1.84|0.37
90852521|NCT00402233|181568543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47||||0.48||95.0|-1.78|0.84|||ANCOVA|||||0.84|-1.78|0.48
90852522|NCT00827931|181568575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-99.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|131.99||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-371.4|171.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis applicable to the efficacy analyses was that there was no difference between tranexamic acid plus standard care compared to standard care alone. The alternative hypothesis was that there was a difference.||171.5|-371.4|0.460
90852523|NCT00827931|181568576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-83.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|147.61||0.579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-386.5|219.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis applicable to the efficacy analyses was that there was no difference between tranexamic acid plus standard care compared to standard care alone. The alternative hypothesis was that there was a difference.||219.3|-386.5|0.579
90900974|NCT05952297|181667967|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||mixed model|linear mixed model, time x condition effect||||||.88
90900975|NCT01373450|181668056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.87||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.77|0.98|||t-test, 1 sided|||||0.98|0.77|0.024
90900976|NCT01373450|181668057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.77||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.66|0.9|||t-test, 1 sided|||||0.90|0.66|0.004
90900977|NCT01373450|181668058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|0.014|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.008|0.019|||t-test, 1 sided|||||0.019|0.008|<0.001
90900978|NCT01373450|181668059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Intraclass Correlation Coefficient|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.72|0.98||||||||0.98|0.72|
90900979|NCT01373450|181668060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.77||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.66|0.9|||t-test, 1 sided|||||0.90|0.66|0.003
90900980|NCT01373450|181668060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.45|0.74|||t-test, 1 sided|||||0.74|0.45|<0.001
90900981|NCT01373450|181668060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.99||||0.473|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|1.16|||t-test, 1 sided|||||1.16|0.85|0.473
90900982|NCT01373450|181668060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.75||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.56|1.0|||t-test, 1 sided|||||1.00|0.56|0.049
90900983|NCT01373450|181668061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|0.021|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.015|0.026|||t-test, 1 sided|||||0.026|0.015|<0.001
90957819|NCT00709852|181795512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.62|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.47|<|0.0001||||||for internal morphology|paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
90852524|NCT00827931|181568577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-183.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|239.19||0.452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-672.6|305.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis applicable to the efficacy analyses was that there was no difference between tranexamic acid plus standard care compared to standard care alone. The alternative hypothesis was that there was a difference.||305.5|-672.6|0.452
90852525|NCT00827931|181568578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-417.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|152.51||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-729.4|-106.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis applicable to the efficacy analyses was that there was no difference between tranexamic acid plus standard care compared to standard care alone. The alternative hypothesis was that there was a difference.||-106.1|-729.4|0.010
90852526|NCT00827931|181568579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.701|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used at 5% level of significance.||||0.701
90852527|NCT00492063|181568585|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The percentage of subjects with HI titer ≥40 in the cTIV group is \>10% lower than in the TIV group (i.e., the percentage of subjects with HI titer ≥40 in the cTIV group is non-inferior to that of TIV group if, for strain A/H1N1, the lower limit of the 95% CI of the difference in the percentages is greater than -10%)|Group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|3.0||||||Non-inferiority testing in immune response (HI titer ≥40) of cTIV to that of TIV vaccine for strain A/H1N1 after one vaccination in adults.||3|-3|
90852528|NCT00492063|181568585|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The percentage of subjects with HI titer ≥40 in the cTIV group is \>10% lower than in the TIV group (i.e., the percentage of subjects with HI titer ≥40 in the cTIV group is non-inferior to that of TIV group if, for strain A/H3N2, the lower limit of the 95% CI of the difference in the percentages is greater than -10%)|Group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.0||||||Non-inferiority testing in immune response (HI titer ≥40) of cTIV to that of TIV vaccine for strain A/H3N2 after one vaccination in adults.||2|-1|
90852529|NCT00492063|181568585|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The percentage of subjects with HI titer ≥40 in the cTIV group is \>10% lower than in the TIV group (i.e., the percentage of subjects with HI titer ≥40 in the cTIV group is non-inferior to that of TIV group if, for strain B, the lower limit of the 95% CI of the difference in the percentages is greater than -10%)|Group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|3.0||||||Non-inferiority testing in immune response (HI titer ≥40) of cTIV to that of TIV vaccine for strain B after one vaccination in adults.||3|-3|
90852530|NCT00492063|181568585|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The percentage of subjects with HI titer ≥40 in the cTIV group is \>10% lower than in the TIV group (i.e., the percentage of subjects with HI titer ≥40 in the cTIV group is non-inferior to that of TIV group if, for strain A/H1N1, the lower limit of the 95% CI of the difference in the percentages is greater than -10%)|Group difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|3.0||||||Non-inferiority testing in immune response (HI titer ≥40) of cTIV to that of TIV vaccine for strain A/H1N1 after one vaccination in the elderly population.||3|-4|
90852531|NCT00492063|181568585|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The percentage of subjects with HI titer ≥40 in the cTIV group is \>10% lower than in the TIV group (i.e., the percentage of subjects with HI titer ≥40 in the cTIV group is non-inferior to that of TIV group if, for strain A/H3N2, the lower limit of the 95% CI of the difference in the percentages is greater than -10%)|Group difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.0||||||Non-inferiority testing in immune response (HI titer ≥40) of cTIV to that of TIV vaccine for strain A/H3N2 after one vaccination in the elderly population.||1|-2|
90852532|NCT00492063|181568585|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The percentage of subjects with HI titer ≥40 in the cTIV group is \>10% lower than in the TIV group (i.e., the percentage of subjects with HI titer ≥40 in the cTIV group is non-inferior to that of TIV group if, for strain B, the lower limit of the 95% CI of the difference in the percentages is greater than -10%)|Group difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|4.0||||||Non-inferiority testing in immune response (HI titer ≥40) of cTIV to that of TIV vaccine for strain B after one vaccination in the elderly population.||4|-2|
90852533|NCT00492063|181568586|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The percentage of subjects with seroconversion or significant increase in HI titer in the cTIV group is \>10% lower than in the TIV group (i.e., the percentage of subjects with seroconversion or significant in HI titer of cTIV group is non-inferior to that of the TIV group if, for strain A/H1N1, the lower limit of the 95% CI of the difference in the percentages is greater than -10%).|Group difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|7.0||||||Non-inferiority testing in immune response (seroconversion or significant increase in HI titer) after one vaccination of cTIV to that of TIV vaccine for strain A/H1N1 in adults.||7|-3|
90852534|NCT00492063|181568586|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The percentage of subjects with seroconversion or significant increase in HI titer in the cTIV group is \>10% lower than in the TIV group (i.e., the percentage of subjects with seroconversion or significant in HI titer of cTIV group is non-inferior to that of the TIV group if, for strain A/H3N2, the lower limit of the 95% CI of the difference in the percentages is greater than -10%).|Group difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|4.0||||||Non-inferiority testing in immune response (seroconversion or significant increase in HI titer) after one vaccination of cTIV to that of TIV vaccine for strain A/H3N2 in adults.||4|-6|
90900984|NCT01373450|181668061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|0.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.021|0.038|||t-test, 1 sided|||||0.038|0.021|<0.001
90900985|NCT01373450|181668061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|0.007||||0.0163|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.002|0.012|||t-test, 1 sided|||||0.012|0.002|0.0163
90900986|NCT01373450|181668061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|0.016||||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.006|0.026|||t-test, 1 sided|||||0.026|0.006|0.0056
90900987|NCT02875834|181668062|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.904|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.876|0.933|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Results derived from a mixed effects model of log-transformed S-K levels. Fixed effects are: treatment group; visit; treatment-by-visit interaction; baseline S-K values (OLP and RTP); baseline eGFR; age category; country; baseline RAAS inhibitor, chronic kidney disease, heart failure, and diabetes mellitus statuses. Patient is a random effect. p-values given are for differences of LSMEANS. The back-transformation is to the original scale of the S-K measurement.||0.933|0.876|<0.001
90900988|NCT02875834|181668062|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.823|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.797|0.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.850|0.797|<0.001
90957820|NCT00709852|181795513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.59|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.77|<|0.0001||||||for contrast enhancement|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
90957821|NCT00709852|181795513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.72|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.78|<|0.0001||||||for border delineation|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
90852535|NCT00492063|181568586|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The percentage of subjects with seroconversion or significant increase in HI titer in the cTIV group is \>10% lower than in the TIV group (i.e., the percentage of subjects with seroconversion or significant in HI titer of cTIV group is non-inferior to that of the TIV group if, for strain B, the lower limit of the 95% CI of the difference in the percentages is greater than -10%).|Group difference|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|8.0||||||Non-inferiority testing in immune response (seroconversion or significant increase in HI titer) after one vaccination of cTIV to that of TIV vaccine for strain B in adults.||8|0|
90852536|NCT00492063|181568586|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The percentage of subjects with seroconversion or significant increase in HI titer in the cTIV group is \>10% lower than in the TIV group (i.e., the percentage of subjects with seroconversion or significant in HI titer of cTIV group is non-inferior to that of the TIV group if, for strain A/H1N1, the lower limit of the 95% CI of the difference in the percentages is greater than -10%).|Group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|5.0||||||Non-inferiority testing in immune response (seroconversion or significant increase in HI titer) after one vaccination of cTIV to that of TIV vaccine for strain A/H1N1 in the elderly population.||5|-6|
90852537|NCT00492063|181568586|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The percentage of subjects with seroconversion or significant increase in HI titer in the cTIV group is \>10% lower than in the TIV group (i.e., the percentage of subjects with seroconversion or significant in HI titer of cTIV group is non-inferior to that of the TIV group if, for strain A/H3N2, the lower limit of the 95% CI of the difference in the percentages is greater than -10%).|Group difference|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|8.0||||||Non-inferiority testing in immune response (seroconversion or significant increase in HI titer) after one vaccination of cTIV to that of TIV vaccine for strain A/H3N2 in the elderly population.||8|-2|
90852538|NCT00492063|181568586|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The percentage of subjects with seroconversion or significant increase in HI titer in the cTIV group is \>10% lower than in the TIV group (i.e., the percentage of subjects with seroconversion or significant in HI titer of cTIV group is non-inferior to that of the TIV group if, for strain B, the lower limit of the 95% CI of the difference in the percentages is greater than -10%).|Group difference|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|11.0||||||Non-inferiority testing in immune response (seroconversion or significant increase in HI titer) after one vaccination of cTIV to that of TIV vaccine for strain B in the elderly population.||11|2|
90852539|NCT00492063|181568587|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The value of GMR ratio of cTIV to TIV is \>0.5 (i.e., the GMR of the cTIV group is non-inferior to that of the TIV group if, for strain A/H1N1, the lower limit of the 95% CI for ratio of GMRs at day 22 is greater than 0.5).|Ratio of GMRs|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.28||||||Non-inferiority testing in immune response (GMR) after one vaccination of cTIV to that of TIV vaccine for strain A/H1N1 in adults.||1.28|0.9|
90852540|NCT00492063|181568587|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The value of GMR ratio of cTIV to TIV is \>0.5 (i.e., the GMR of the cTIV group is non-inferior to that of the TIV group if, for strain A/H3N2, the lower limit of the 95% CI for ratio of GMRs at day 22 is greater than 0.5).|Ratio of GMRs|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.99||||||Non-inferiority testing in immune response (GMR) after one vaccination of cTIV to that of TIV vaccine for strain A/H3N2 in adults.||0.99|0.72|
90852541|NCT00492063|181568587|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The value of GMR ratio of cTIV to TIV is \>0.5 (i.e., the GMR of the cTIV group is non-inferior to that of the TIV group if, for strain B, the lower limit of the 95% CI for ratio of GMRs at day 22 is greater than 0.5).|Ratio of GMRs|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.3||||||Non-inferiority testing in immune response (GMR) after one vaccination of cTIV to that of TIV vaccine for strain B in adults.||1.3|0.99|
90852542|NCT00492063|181568587|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The value of GMR ratio of cTIV to TIV is \>0.5 (i.e., the GMR of the cTIV group is non-inferior to that of the TIV group if, for strain A/H1N1, the lower limit of the 95% CI for ratio of GMRs at day 22 is greater than 0.5).|Ratio of GMRs|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.12||||||Non-inferiority testing in immune response (GMR) after one vaccination of cTIV to that of TIV vaccine for strain A/H1N1 in the elderly population.||1.12|0.82|
90852543|NCT00492063|181568587|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The value of GMR ratio of cTIV to TIV is \>0.5 (i.e., the GMR of the cTIV group is non-inferior to that of the TIV group if, for strain A/H3N2, the lower limit of the 95% CI for ratio of GMRs at day 22 is greater than 0.5).|Ratio of GMRs|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.02||||||Non-inferiority testing in immune response (GMR) after one vaccination of cTIV to that of TIV vaccine for strain A/H3N2 in the elderly population.||1.02|0.74|
90852544|NCT00492063|181568587|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The value of GMR ratio of cTIV to TIV is \>0.5 (i.e., the GMR of the cTIV group is non-inferior to that of the TIV group if, for strain B, the lower limit of the 95% CI for ratio of GMRs at day 22 is greater than 0.5).|Ratio of GMRs|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|1.4||||||Non-inferiority testing in immune response (GMR) after one vaccination of cTIV to that of TIV vaccine for strain B in the elderly population.||1.4|1.11|
90852545|NCT01894568|181568596|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|0.4% is the margin of Non-inferiority|LS Mean Difference|-0.24||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.07|-0.41|0.005
90852546|NCT04545944|181568615|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|192.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|152.8|242.4||||||A linear mixed model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect was performed on the natural log-transformed values to assess the effect of vonoprazan on the PK of midazolam.||242.4|152.8|
90852547|NCT04545944|181568616|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|188.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|150.6|236.9||||||A linear mixed model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect was performed on the natural log-transformed values to assess the effect of vonoprazan on the PK of midazolam.||236.9|150.6|
90852548|NCT04545944|181568617|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|193.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|160.5|233.1||||||A linear mixed model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect was performed on the natural log-transformed values to assess the effect of vonoprazan on the PK of midazolam.||233.1|160.5|
91031048|NCT00262964|181946752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.419||95.0||||The a priori threshold for significance was set at p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis was that fenofibrate would not affect hepatic insulin sensitivity. Here we compare the pre and post-treatment results of subjects receiving an 8 week course of fenofibrate.||||.419
90852549|NCT01514370|181568630|OTHER|||||||0.271|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.271
90852550|NCT03720652|181568669|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the End-of-Intervention Interview relative to baseline.||||||0.18|||||||McNemar|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||0.18
90852551|NCT03720652|181568669|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the 3-Month Follow Up Interview relative to baseline.||||||0.34|||||||McNemar|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||0.34
90852552|NCT03720652|181568669|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the 6-Month Follow Up Interview relative to baseline.||||||0.13|||||||McNemar|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||0.13
90900989|NCT02875834|181668067|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.3436|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6866|14.9782|||Regression, Logistic|||Treatment group comparisons were made using a logistic regression model containing the following covariates: treatment group; both baseline S-K values (48-hours open-label initial phase and double-blind randomized phase); baseline eGFR (during 48-hour open-label initial phase); age category (\<55, 55-64, \>=65 years); country; baseline RAAS inhibitor, chronic kidney disease, heart failure, and diabetes mellitus statuses.||14.9782|2.6866|<0.001
90900990|NCT02875834|181668067|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|18.1876|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.1591|46.2054|||Regression, Logistic|||||46.2054|7.1591|<0.001
90900991|NCT02875834|181668069|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.266|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.318|10.214|||Regression, Linear|||Results derived from a linear regression model with the following covariates: treatment group; baseline S-K values (Open-label phase and Randomized treatment phase); baseline eGFR; age category; country; baseline RAAS inhibitor, chronic kidney disease, heart failure, and diabetes mellitus statuses.||10.214|4.318|<0.001
90900992|NCT02875834|181668069|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.079|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.118|15.04|||Regression, Linear|||||15.040|9.118|<0.001
90900993|NCT02875834|181668072|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.443|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2954|0.6631|||Regression, Cox|||Results derived from a Cox Proportional Hazards model with the following covariates: treatment group, both baseline S-K values (48-hours open-label initial phase and double-blind randomized phase), baseline eGFR, age category (\<55, 55-64, \>=65 years), country, baseline RAAS inhibitor, chronic kidney, disease heart failure, and diabetes mellitus statuses.||0.6631|0.2954|<0.001
90900994|NCT02875834|181668072|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.158|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0992|0.2508|||Regression, Cox|||||0.2508|0.0992|<0.001
90900995|NCT01302938|181668075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|0.6||||||Change at Week 12: Analysis was performed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with term for treatment with baseline value as a covariate.||0.6|-3.9|
90900996|NCT01302938|181668076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|29.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|35.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.8|106.6||||||Change at Week 1: Analysis was performed using an ANCOVA with term for treatment with baseline value as a covariate.||106.6|-47.8|
90957822|NCT00709852|181795513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.82|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.61|<|0.0001||||||for internal morphology|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
90852553|NCT03720652|181568670|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the End-of-Intervention Interview relative to baseline.||||||0.7|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||0.70
90852554|NCT03720652|181568670|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the 3-Month Follow Up Interview relative to baseline.||||||0.66|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||0.66
90852555|NCT03720652|181568670|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the 6-Month Follow Up Interview relative to baseline.||||||0.84|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||0.84
90852556|NCT03720652|181568671|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the End-of-Intervention Interview relative to baseline.||||||0.015|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||0.015
90852557|NCT03720652|181568671|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the 3-Month Follow Up Interview relative to baseline.||||||0.34|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||0.34
90852558|NCT03720652|181568671|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the End-of-Program Interview relative to baseline.||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||0.002
90900997|NCT01302938|181668076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|28.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|38.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.4|111.4||||||Change at Week 4: Analysis was performed using an ANCOVA with term for treatment with baseline value as a covariate.||111.4|-55.4|
90900998|NCT01302938|181668076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|43.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|31.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.2|110.3||||||Change at Week 12: Analysis was performed using an ANCOVA with term for treatment with baseline value as a covariate.||110.3|-24.2|
90900999|NCT01302938|181668077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|1.67||||||Change at Week 1: Non-parametric Hodges-Lehmann's method was used to obtain median difference and 95 percent (%) confidence intervals (CI).||1.67|-0.67|
90901000|NCT01302938|181668077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.83||||||Change at Week 4: Non-parametric Hodges-Lehmann's method was used to obtain median difference and 95% CI.||1.83|-1.00|
90901001|NCT01302938|181668077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|1.0||||||Change at Week 12: Non-parametric Hodges-Lehmann's method was used to obtain median difference and 95% CI.||1.00|-3.00|
90901002|NCT01302938|181668078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.8||||||Change at Week 1: Analysis was performed using an ANCOVA with term for treatment with baseline value as a covariate.||1.8|-1.3|
90957823|NCT00709852|181795514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.51|<|0.0001||||||for contrast enhancement|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
90957824|NCT00709852|181795514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.43|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.5|<|0.0001||||||for border delineation|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
90852559|NCT03720652|181568672|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the End-of-Intervention Interview relative to baseline.||||||0.022|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||0.022
90852560|NCT03720652|181568672|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the 3-Month Follow Up Interview relative to baseline.||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||0.020
90852561|NCT03720652|181568672|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the 6-Month Follow Up Interview relative to baseline.||||||0.09|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||0.090
90852562|NCT03720652|181568673|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the End-of-Intervention Interview relative to baseline.||||||0.051|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||0.051
90852563|NCT03720652|181568673|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the 3-Month Follow Up Interview relative to baseline.||||||0.044|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||0.044
90852564|NCT03720652|181568673|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the 6-Month Follow Up Interview relative to baseline.||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||1.00
90852565|NCT03720652|181568674|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the End-of-Intervention Interview relative to baseline.||||||0.023|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||0.023
90852566|NCT03720652|181568674|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the 3-Month Follow Up Interview relative to baseline.||||||0.56|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||0.56
90852567|NCT03720652|181568674|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the 6-Month Follow Up Interview relative to baseline.||||||0.16|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||0.16
90852568|NCT03720652|181568675|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the End-of-Intervention Interview relative to baseline.||||||0.15|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||0.15
90852569|NCT03720652|181568675|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the 3-Month Follow Up Interview relative to baseline.||||||0.12|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||0.12
90852570|NCT03720652|181568675|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the 6-Month Follow Up Interview relative to baseline.||||||0.018|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||0.018
90901003|NCT01302938|181668078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.9||||||Change at Week 4: Analysis was performed using an ANCOVA with term for treatment with baseline value as a covariate.||0.9|-2.2|
90901004|NCT01302938|181668081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.9||||||Change at Week 1: Analysis was performed using an ANCOVA with term for treatment with baseline value as a covariate.||1.9|-0.8|
90852571|NCT03720652|181568676|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the End-of-Intervention Interview relative to baseline.||||||0.33|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||0.33
90852572|NCT03720652|181568676|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the 3-Month Follow Up Interview relative to baseline.||||||0.88|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||0.88
90852573|NCT03720652|181568676|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the 6-Month Follow Up Interview relative to baseline.||||||0.67|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||0.67
90852574|NCT03720652|181568677|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the End-of-Intervention Interview relative to baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||<0.001
90852575|NCT03720652|181568677|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the 3-Month Follow Up Interview relative to baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||<0.001
90852576|NCT03720652|181568677|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the 6-Month Follow Up Interview relative to baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||<0.001
90901005|NCT01302938|181668081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|0.8||||||Change at Week 4: Analysis was performed using an ANCOVA with term for treatment with baseline value as a covariate.||0.8|-3.7|
90901006|NCT01302938|181668081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|0.4||||||Change at Week 12: Analysis was performed using an ANCOVA with term for treatment with baseline value as a covariate.||0.4|-6.3|
90957825|NCT00709852|181795514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.52|<|0.0001||||||for internal morphology|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
90957826|NCT00709852|181795515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.29|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.56|<|0.0001||||||for contrast enhancement|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
90901007|NCT01302938|181668084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-10.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.2|13.2||||||Change at Week 12: Analysis was performed using an ANCOVA with term for treatment with baseline value as a covariate.||13.2|-33.2|
90901008|NCT01302938|181668085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|11.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|30.3||||||Change at Week 12; Coping Subscale: Analysis was performed using an ANCOVA with term for treatment with baseline value as a covariate.||30.3|-6.9|
90901009|NCT01302938|181668085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.7|32.7||||||Change at Week 12; Concern Subscale: Analysis was performed using an ANCOVA with term for treatment with baseline value as a covariate.||32.7|-16.7|
90901010|NCT01302938|181668085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|10.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|33.8||||||Change at Week 12; Sleep Subscale: Analysis was performed using an ANCOVA with term for treatment with baseline value as a covariate.||33.8|-13.3|
90901011|NCT01302938|181668085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|29.0||||||Change at Week 12; Total HRQL Score: Analysis was performed using an ANCOVA with term for treatment with baseline value as a covariate.||29.0|-11.0|
90901012|NCT01302938|181668086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|20.0||||||Change at Week 12; Social Subscale: Non-parametric Hodges-Lehmann's method was used to obtain median difference and 95% CI.||20.00|-20.00|
90901013|NCT01811563|181668123|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for implant independent of time||||||0.661|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.661
90901014|NCT01811563|181668123|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for time independent of implant|||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90901015|NCT01811563|181668123|EQUIVALENCE|Interaction between implant and time||||||0.27|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.270
90901016|NCT01811563|181668124|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for implant independent of time||||||0.856|||||||ANOVA|Main effect for implant, LQ-YBT Baseline to 52 weeks||||||0.856
90957827|NCT00709852|181795515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.53|<|0.0001||||||for border delineation|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
90957828|NCT00709852|181795515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.61|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.42|<|0.0001||||||for internal morphology|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
90957829|NCT00709852|181795516|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|noninferiority margin = -0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.39|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.51|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.199|0.984|||confidence interval for paired means|lower limit of interval is compared to noninferiority margin||BR 1||0.984|-0.199|
90957830|NCT00709852|181795516|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|noninferiority margin = -0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.38|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.772|0.885|||confidence interval for paired means|lower limit of confidence interval (CI) is compared to noninferiority margin||BR 2||0.885|-1.772|
90901017|NCT01811563|181668124|EQUIVALENCE|Time independent of implant, Baseline to 52 Weeks|||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90901018|NCT01811563|181668124|EQUIVALENCE|Implant by Time interaction, Baseline to 52 Weeks between Zimmer and Stryker||||||0.822|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.822
90901019|NCT01811563|181668125|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for implant, Baseline to 52 weeks||||||0.158|||||||ANOVA|||||||.158
90901020|NCT01811563|181668125|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for time, Baseline to 52 weeks|||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90901021|NCT01811563|181668125|EQUIVALENCE|Interaction of time by implant, Baseline to 52 weeks||||||0.365|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.365
90901022|NCT01811563|181668127|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for implant, baseline to 52 weeks||||||0.416|||||||ANOVA|||||||.416
90901023|NCT01811563|181668127|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for time, Baseline to 52 weeks|||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90901024|NCT01811563|181668127|EQUIVALENCE|Implant by time interaction, baseline to 52 weeks||||||0.917|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.917
90901025|NCT01811563|181668129|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect by implant, Baseline to 52 weeks||||||0.83|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.830
90901026|NCT01811563|181668129|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect by time, baseline to 52 weeks|||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90901027|NCT01811563|181668129|EQUIVALENCE|Interaction between implant and time, baseline to 52 weeks||||||0.728|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.728
90901028|NCT01811563|181668130|EQUIVALENCE|Between implants at 6 weeks||||||0.319|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.319
90901029|NCT04249336|181668146|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|36.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05.|ANOVA||Treatment difference in percent = BioMin F- Colgate Total|It was calculated that 140 participants randomized in a 1:1:1:1 fashion between the four arms would have at least 80 % power to detect a difference of 0.20 mean scores between four treatments from baseline to week 4. Sample size was determined using PAS V.11, two independent sample t-test with 95% confidence interval.||||<0.05
90901030|NCT04249336|181668146|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|33.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Threshold P\<0.05|ANOVA||Treatment difference in percent = Colgate Sensitive Pro relief - Colgate Total|||||<0.05
90901031|NCT04249336|181668146|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|23.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05.|ANOVA||Treatment difference in percent = Sensodyne Rapid Action - Colgate Total|||||<0.05
90957831|NCT00709852|181795516|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|noninferiority margin = -0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.56|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.07|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.125|1.0|||confidence interval for paired means|lower limit of confidence interval is compared to noninferiority margin||BR 3||1.000|0.125|
90957832|NCT00709852|181795516|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|noninferiority margin = -0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.68|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.439|0.78|||confidence interval for paired means|lower limit of confidence interval is compared to noninferiority margin||AR||0.780|-0.439|
90957833|NCT00709852|181795517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.62|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.3|<|0.0001||||||for contrast enhancement|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
90957834|NCT00709852|181795517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.81|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.37|<|0.0001||||||for border delineation|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
90957835|NCT00709852|181795517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.77|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.38|<|0.0001||||||for internal morphology|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
90957836|NCT00709852|181795518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.62|<|0.0001||||||for contrast enhancement|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
90957837|NCT00709852|181795518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.86|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.46|<|0.0001||||||for border delineation|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
91099784|NCT05067270|182085682|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.04||||||1 min post bolus (Bolus time: 3 hours)||1.04|0.57|
90852577|NCT03720652|181568678|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the End-of-Intervention Interview relative to baseline.||||||0.17|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||0.17
90852578|NCT03720652|181568678|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the 3-Month Follow Up Interview relative to baseline.||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||0.020
90957838|NCT00709852|181795518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.39|<|0.0001||||||for internal morphology|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
90957839|NCT00709852|181795519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.36|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.33|<|0.0001||||||for contrast enhancement|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
90957840|NCT00709852|181795519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.33|<|0.0001||||||for border delineation|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
90957841|NCT00709852|181795519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.43|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.32|<|0.0001||||||for internal morphology|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
90957842|NCT00709852|181795520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.3|<|0.0001||||||for contrast enhancement|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
90957843|NCT00709852|181795520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.72|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.23|<|0.0001||||||for border delineation|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
91031049|NCT00262964|181946752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018||95.0||||The a priori threshold for significance was set at p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis was that niacin would not affect skeletal muscle insulin sensitivity. Here we compare the pre and post-treatment results of subjects receiving a 16 week course of niacin.||||.018
91099785|NCT05067270|182085682|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|2.02||||||1 min post bolus (Bolus time: 6 hours)||2.02|1.09|
91099786|NCT05067270|182085682|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|2.28||||||1 min post bolus (Bolus time: 6 hours)||2.28|1.25|
91099787|NCT05067270|182085682|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|2.48||||||1 min post bolus (Bolus time: 6 hours)||2.48|1.36|
91099788|NCT05067270|182085682|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.56||||||1 min post bolus (Bolus time: 6 hours)||1.56|0.85|
91099789|NCT05067270|182085682|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.54||||||1 min post bolus (Bolus time: 6 hours)||1.54|0.83|
90852579|NCT03720652|181568678|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the 6-Month Follow Up Interview relative to baseline.||||||0.062|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||0.062
90852580|NCT03720652|181568679|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the End-of-Intervention Interview relative to baseline.||||||0.013|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||0.013
90852581|NCT03720652|181568679|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the 3-Month Follow Up Interview relative to baseline.||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||0.001
90852582|NCT03720652|181568679|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the 6-Month Follow Up Interview relative to baseline.||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||0.003
90852583|NCT03720652|181568680|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the End-of-Intervention Interview relative to baseline.||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||0.001
90852584|NCT03720652|181568680|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the 3-Month Follow Up Interview relative to baseline.||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||0.010
90852585|NCT03720652|181568680|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the 6-Month Follow Up Interview relative to baseline.||||||0.085|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||0.085
90852586|NCT03720652|181568681|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the End-of-Intervention Interview relative to baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||<0.001
90852587|NCT03720652|181568681|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the 3-Month Follow Up Interview relative to baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||<0.001
90852588|NCT03720652|181568681|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the 6-Month Follow Up Interview relative to baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||<0.001
90852589|NCT03720652|181568682|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the End-of-Intervention Interview relative to baseline.||||||0.046|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||0.046
90852590|NCT03720652|181568682|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the 3-Month Follow Up Interview relative to baseline.||||||0.14|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||0.14
91031050|NCT01041781|181946761|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.076||||0.5346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.853|1.367|||Log Rank|||||1.367|0.853|0.5346
90901032|NCT04249336|181668147|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|32.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05.|ANCOVA||Treatment difference in percent = BioMin F- Colgate Total|It was calculated that 140 participants randomized in a 1:1:1:1 fashion between the four arms would have at least 80 % power to detect a difference of 0.20 mean scores between four treatments from baseline to week 4. Sample size was determined using PAS V.11, two independent sample t-test with 95% confidence interval.||||<0.05
90901033|NCT04249336|181668147|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|39.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05.|ANOVA||Treatment difference in percent = Colgate Sensitive Pro relief - Colgate Total|||||<0.05
90901034|NCT04249336|181668147|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|30.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05.|ANOVA||Treatment difference in percent = Sensodyne Rapid Action - Colgate Total|||||<0.05
90901035|NCT04249336|181668148|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|36.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05.|ANCOVA||Treatment difference in percent = BioMin F- Colgate Total|It was calculated that 140 participants randomized in a 1:1:1:1 fashion between the four arms would have at least 80 % power to detect a difference of 0.20 mean scores between four treatments from baseline to week 4. Sample size was determined using PAS V.11, two independent sample t-test with 95% confidence interval.||||<0.05
90901036|NCT04249336|181668148|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|28.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05.|ANOVA||Treatment difference in percent = Colgate Sensitive Pro relief - Colgate Total|||||<0.05
90901037|NCT04249336|181668148|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|25.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05.|ANOVA||Treatment difference in percent = Sensodyne Rapid Action - Colgate Total|||||<0.05
90901038|NCT01189890|181668150|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The predefined non-inferiority margin was 0.4%.|Difference in LS Means|0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.34|||ANCOVA|Controlled for treatment, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) stratum, age stratum, and baseline HbA1C.||||0.34|0.03|
90901039|NCT01189890|181668151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent Incidence|-3.9||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|-1.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen|Stratified by estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) stratum and age stratum.||||-1.2|-7.5|0.009
90901040|NCT01189890|181668154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|12.7|||ANCOVA|Controlled for treatment, eGFR stratum, age stratum, and baseline FPG.||||12.7|0.7|
90901041|NCT01189890|181668155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen|Stratified by eGFR stratum and age stratum.||||0.9|0.6|
90901042|NCT01189890|181668156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen|Stratified by eGFR stratum and age stratum.||||0.7|0.3|
90957844|NCT00709852|181795520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.76|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.22|<|0.0001||||||for internal morphology|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
91031051|NCT01041781|181946765|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0049|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0049
91031052|NCT01041781|181946766|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0131|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0131
90901043|NCT01189890|181668157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.7||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.2|||ANCOVA|Controlled for treatment, eGFR stratum, age stratum, and baseline body weight.||||-0.2|-1.3|0.011
91031053|NCT01041781|181946767|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0322|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0322
90901044|NCT00077636|181668158|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|These results indicated that sustained virological response achieved with 16 weeks of treatment was not equivalent to that achieved with 24 week of treatment.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.76|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|stratified by country and HCV genotype.||||0.76|0.46|<.0001
90901045|NCT00077636|181668159|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|In the analysis based on the standard population, end of treatment virological response was equivalent in the two treatment arms (94% in the 16-week arm and 92% in the 24-week arm).|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.1941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|2.03|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|stratified by country.||||2.03|0.86|0.1941
90901046|NCT00077636|181668160|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|These results indicated that sustained virological response achieved with 16 weeks of treatment was not equivalent to that achieved with 24 week of treatment.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.82|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|stratified by country and HCV genotype.||||0.82|0.52|0.0003
90901047|NCT01976364|181668175|OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|0.0255|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0513|0.1022||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Analysis was based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.1022|-0.0513|
90901048|NCT01976364|181668176|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.091|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.131|0.313||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.313|-0.131|
90901049|NCT01976364|181668210|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0486|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0192|0.1163||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 1: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.1163|-0.0192|
90957845|NCT00709852|181795521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.83|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.16|<|0.0001||||||for contrast enhancement|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
90957846|NCT00709852|181795521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.52|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.26|<|0.0001||||||for border delineation|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
91031054|NCT03561883|181946768|SUPERIORITY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-0.062||||0.5566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.146|||MMRM||Treatment difference (IW-3718 - placebo)|Treatment difference calculated as least squares mean (LSM) change from baseline at Week 8; IW-3718 - placebo based on an mixed models repeated measures (MMRM) model with week (categorical), treatment group, week-by-treatment group and week-by-baseline value interactions, baseline esophagitis status (present vs. not present), and baseline WHSS (\< 3 vs. ≥ 3) as fixed effect terms and baseline value as a covariate, with subject as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.||0.146|-0.270|0.5566
91032812|NCT00840099|181950860|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|ANOVA|Test/Reference Ratio of the mean x 100|104.06||||||90.0|95.85|112.97|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||112.97|95.85|
90901050|NCT01976364|181668210|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0325|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0372|0.1021||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 3: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.1021|-0.0372|
90901051|NCT01976364|181668210|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.0058|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0941|0.0825||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 9: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.0825|-0.0941|
90901052|NCT01976364|181668210|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0096|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0734|0.0927||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 12: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.0927|-0.0734|
90901053|NCT01976364|181668211|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.032|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.163|0.227||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 1: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.227|-0.163|
90901054|NCT01976364|181668211|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.024|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.266|0.219||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 3: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.219|-0.266|
90901055|NCT01976364|181668211|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.213|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.045|0.47||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 9: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.470|-0.045|
90901056|NCT01976364|181668211|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.061|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.309|0.188||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 12: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.188|-0.309|
90901057|NCT01976364|181668212|OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|-0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.76|9.48||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Month 1: Two-sided 95% CI was based on the normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||9.48|-9.76|
90901058|NCT01976364|181668212|OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|-4.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.91|3.77||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Month 3: Two-sided 95% CI was based on the normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||3.77|-12.91|
90901059|NCT01976364|181668212|OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|-5.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.26|2.87||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Month 6: Two-sided 95% CI was based on the normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||2.87|-14.26|
90901060|NCT01976364|181668212|OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|-2.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.59|6.87||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Month 9: Two-sided 95% CI was based on the normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||6.87|-11.59|
90901061|NCT01976364|181668212|OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|-10.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.16|-2.14||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Month 12: Two-sided 95% CI was based on the normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||-2.14|-18.16|
90901062|NCT01976364|181668213|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.5||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 1: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.5|-0.1|
90957847|NCT00709852|181795521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.82|<|0.0001||||||for internal morphology|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
90901063|NCT01976364|181668213|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.6||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 3: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.6|-0.1|
90901064|NCT01976364|181668213|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.6||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 6: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.6|0.0|
90901065|NCT01976364|181668213|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.8||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 9: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.8|0.1|
90901066|NCT01976364|181668213|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.7||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 12: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.7|-0.1|
90901067|NCT01976364|181668214|OTHER||LS mean difference|-19.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.06|19.21||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: At Month 1: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||19.21|-58.06|
90901068|NCT01976364|181668214|OTHER||LS mean difference|-30.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.58|23.37||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: At Month 3: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||23.37|-83.58|
90901069|NCT01976364|181668214|OTHER||LS mean difference|-24.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.35|34.69||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: At Month 6: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||34.69|-83.35|
90957848|NCT00709852|181795522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.89|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.29|<|0.0001||||||for contrast enhancement|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
90957849|NCT00709852|181795522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.54|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.44|<|0.0001||||||for border delineation|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
91099790|NCT05067270|182085682|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.68||||||1 min post bolus (Bolus time: 6 hours)||1.68|0.91|
90901070|NCT01976364|181668214|OTHER||LS mean difference|-11.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.87|37.58||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: At Month 9: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||37.58|-60.87|
90901071|NCT01976364|181668214|OTHER||LS mean difference|7.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.73|63.77||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: At Month 12: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||63.77|-49.73|
90901072|NCT01976364|181668216|OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|6.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.58|72.08||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Month 1: Two-sided 95% CI was based on the normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||72.08|-59.58|
90901073|NCT01976364|181668216|OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|6.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.58|72.08||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Month 3: Two-sided 95% CI was based on the normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||72.08|-59.58|
90901074|NCT01976364|181668216|OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|6.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.58|72.08||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Month 6: Two-sided 95% CI was based on the normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||72.08|-59.58|
90901075|NCT01976364|181668216|OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|6.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.58|72.08||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Month 9: Two-sided 95% CI was based on the normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||72.08|-59.58|
90901076|NCT01976364|181668216|OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|6.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.58|72.08||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Month 12: Two-sided 95% CI was based on the normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||72.08|-59.58|
90901077|NCT01976364|181668217|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.5||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 1: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.5|-0.9|
90901078|NCT01976364|181668217|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.5||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 3: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.5|-0.9|
90901079|NCT01976364|181668217|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.6||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 6: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.6|-1.1|
90901080|NCT01976364|181668217|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.1||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 9: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.1|-0.6|
91031055|NCT03561883|181946769|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.008||||0.9226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.176|0.159|||MMRM|||Treatment difference calculated as LSM change from baseline at Week 8; IW-3718 - placebo based on an MMRM model with week (categorical), treatment group, week-by-treatment group and week-by-baseline value interactions, baseline esophagitis status (present vs. not present), and baseline WHSS (\< 3 vs. ≥ 3) as fixed effect terms and baseline value as a covariate, with subject as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.||0.159|-0.176|0.9226
90901081|NCT01976364|181668217|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.0||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 12: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.0|-0.6|
90901082|NCT01976364|181668219|OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|11.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.65|38.98||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Month 1: Two-sided 95% CI was based on the normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||38.98|-15.65|
91099791|NCT05067270|182085682|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.05||||||1 min post bolus (Bolus time: 6 hours)||1.05|0.57|
91099792|NCT05067270|182085682|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.47||||||1 min post bolus (Bolus time: 6 hours)||1.47|0.81|
90901083|NCT01976364|181668219|OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|30.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|60.2||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Month 3: Two-sided 95% CI was based on the normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||60.20|0.64|
90901084|NCT01976364|181668219|OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|29.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.46|62.62||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Month 6: Two-sided 95% CI was based on the normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||62.62|-3.46|
90901085|NCT01976364|181668219|OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|24.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.14|53.47||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Month 9: Two-sided 95% CI was based on the normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||53.47|-5.14|
90957850|NCT00709852|181795522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.48|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.11|<|0.0001||||||for internal morphology|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
90957851|NCT00709852|181795523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.69|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.95|<|0.0001||||||for contrast enhancement|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
91099793|NCT05067270|182085682|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.93||||||1 min post bolus (Bolus time: 6 hours)||0.93|0.51|
91099794|NCT05067270|182085682|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.85||||||1 min post bolus (Bolus time: 6 hours)||0.85|0.47|
91099795|NCT05067270|182085682|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.03||||||1 min post bolus (Bolus time: 9 hours)||2.03|1.10|
91099796|NCT05067270|182085682|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|2.65||||||1 min post bolus (Bolus time: 9 hours)||2.65|1.45|
90852591|NCT03720652|181568682|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the 6-Month Follow Up Interview relative to baseline.||||||0.058|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||0.058
90852592|NCT03720652|181568683|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the End-of-Intervention Interview relative to baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||<0.001
90852593|NCT03720652|181568683|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the 3-Month Follow Up Interview relative to baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||<0.001
90852594|NCT03720652|181568683|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the 6-Month Follow Up Interview relative to baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||<0.001
90852595|NCT00604214|181568695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.088||||0.313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.923|1.283||No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Chi-squared|||The study was planned to have 80% power to detect a 20% relative risk reduction in 28-day all-cause mortality in drotrecogin alpha (activated) compared to placebo. The final power was 75% because of the lower than anticipated placebo mortality.||1.283|0.923|0.313
90852596|NCT00604214|181568696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.93||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.737|1.173||No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Chi-squared|||||1.173|0.737|0.540
90901086|NCT01976364|181668219|OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|17.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.96|50.12||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Month 12: Two-sided 95% CI was based on the normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||50.12|-15.96|
90901087|NCT01976364|181668220|OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|4.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.61|19.6||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Month 1: Two-sided 95% CI was based on the normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||19.60|-9.61|
90901088|NCT01976364|181668220|OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|3.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.74|18.5||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Month 3: Two-sided 95% CI was based on the normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||18.50|-10.74|
90901089|NCT01976364|181668220|OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|2.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|17.45||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Month 6: Two-sided 95% CI was based on the normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||17.45|-11.80|
90901090|NCT01976364|181668220|OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|3.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.58|18.52||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Month 9: Two-sided 95% CI was based on the normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||18.52|-10.58|
90901091|NCT01976364|181668220|OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|2.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.63|17.37||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Month 12: Two-sided 95% CI was based on the normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||17.37|-11.63|
90852597|NCT00604214|181568697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.181||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||0.181
90852598|NCT00604214|181568698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.733||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||0.733
90852599|NCT00604214|181568699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.122||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||0.122
90852600|NCT00604214|181568700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.042||||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.909|1.193||No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Chi-squared|||||1.193|0.909|0.556
90852601|NCT00604214|181568701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.02||||0.758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.898|1.16||No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Chi-squared|||||1.160|0.898|0.758
91031056|NCT03561883|181946770|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Responder Rate|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|9.5|||||95% confidence interval (CI) for Difference in Responder Rates is obtained using the Newcombe CI.|||9.5|-6.9|
91032813|NCT02163837|181950894|SUPERIORITY|the study was exploratory, the number of patients included was not calculated|||||<|0.05|||||||McNemar|||Mc Nemar symetry test for repeated measures and paired t-tests as appropriated||||<0.05
91099797|NCT05067270|182085682|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|2.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|2.74||||||1 min post bolus (Bolus time: 9 hours)||2.74|1.50|
90852602|NCT00604214|181568703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.788||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline, unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||0.788
90852603|NCT00604214|181568703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73||95.0||||P-value is for Day 28, unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||0.730
90852604|NCT00604214|181568703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.662||95.0||||P-value is for Day 90, unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||0.662
90901092|NCT01976364|181668221|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.6||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 1: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.6|-1.5|
90901093|NCT01976364|181668221|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.8||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 3: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.8|-1.6|
90957852|NCT00709852|181795523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.97|<|0.0001||||||for border delineation|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
91099798|NCT05067270|182085682|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.69||||||1 min post bolus (Bolus time: 9 hours)||1.69|0.93|
91099799|NCT05067270|182085682|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.78||||||1 min post bolus (Bolus time: 9 hours)||1.78|0.97|
91099800|NCT05067270|182085682|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.84||||||1 min post bolus (Bolus time: 9 hours)||1.84|1.01|
90852605|NCT00604214|181568703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.846||95.0||||P-value is for Day 180, unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||0.846
90901094|NCT01976364|181668221|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.0||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 6: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.0|-1.0|
90901095|NCT01976364|181668221|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.9||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 9: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.9|-0.9|
90901096|NCT01976364|181668221|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.1||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 12: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.1|-0.7|
90852606|NCT00604214|181568704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.697||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline, unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||0.697
90852607|NCT00604214|181568704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.306||95.0||||P-value is for Day 28, unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||0.306
90852608|NCT00604214|181568704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.645||95.0||||P-value is for Day 90, unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||0.645
90901097|NCT01976364|181668222|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.5||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 1: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.5|-0.3|
90901098|NCT01976364|181668222|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.6||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 3: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.6|-0.6|
90901099|NCT01976364|181668222|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.5||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 6: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.5|-0.4|
90901100|NCT01976364|181668222|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.7||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 9: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.7|-0.3|
90901101|NCT01976364|181668222|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.3||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 12: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.3|-0.5|
90957853|NCT00709852|181795523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.39|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.96|<|0.0001||||||for internal morphology|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
90852609|NCT00604214|181568704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69||95.0||||P-value is for Day 180, unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||0.690
90852610|NCT00604214|181568705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.482||95.0||||P-value is for physical component at Baseline, unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||Analysis on ranked data.||||0.482
90852611|NCT00604214|181568705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.584||95.0||||P-value is for physical component at Day 28, unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||Analysis on ranked data.||||0.584
90852612|NCT00604214|181568705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.164||95.0||||P-value is for physical component at Day 90, unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||Analysis on ranked data.||||0.164
90901102|NCT01976364|181668223|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|3.02||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 1: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||3.02|-2.51|
91099801|NCT05067270|182085682|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.14||||||1 min post bolus (Bolus time: 9 hours)||1.14|0.62|
90852613|NCT00604214|181568705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.666||95.0||||P-value is for physical component at Day 180, unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||Analysis on ranked data.||||0.666
90852614|NCT00604214|181568705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.786||95.0||||P-value is for mental component at Baseline, unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||Analysis on ranked data.||||0.786
90852615|NCT00604214|181568705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16||95.0||||P-value is for mental component at Day 28, unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||Analysis on ranked data.||||0.160
90852616|NCT00604214|181568705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.696||95.0||||P-value is for mental component at Day 90, unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||Analysis on ranked data.||||0.696
90852617|NCT00604214|181568705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.966||95.0||||P-value is for mental component at Day 180, unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||Analysis on ranked data.||||0.966
90901103|NCT01976364|181668223|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.64|4.18||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 3: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||4.18|-2.64|
90901104|NCT01976364|181668223|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|3.2||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 6: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||3.20|-2.26|
90957854|NCT00709852|181795524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.78|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.06|<|0.0001||||||for contrast enhancement|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
90957855|NCT00709852|181795524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.07|<|0.0001||||||for border delineation|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
90957856|NCT00709852|181795524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.42|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.83|<|0.0001||||||for internal morphology|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
90852618|NCT00604214|181568706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.758||95.0||||P-value is for participants with ≥1 event. No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.758
90852619|NCT00604214|181568707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.154||95.0||||Unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.154
90852620|NCT01634191|181568725|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|113.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.2|135.0|||||Geometric mean ratio (Elderly/Young) and 90% confidence interval (CI) of the ratio calculated from a 2-way ANOVA model, and presented as percentages.|To assess the effect of age on the PK of apremilast after a single 30 mg dose, a 2-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) model was performed on the log-transformed AUC0-t. The ANOVA model included age group (elderly and young), sex (male and female), and age group by sex as a fixed effect.||135|94.2|
90852621|NCT01634191|181568727|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|128.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|107.0|154.0|||||Geometric mean ratio (Female/Male) and 90% CI of the ratio calculated from a 2-way ANOVA model, and presented as percentages.|To assess the effect of sex on the PK of apremilast after a single 30 mg dose, a 2-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) model was performed on the log-transformed AUC0-t. The ANOVA model included age group (elderly and young), sex (male and female), and age group by sex as a fixed effect.||154|107|
90852622|NCT01634191|181568728|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|113.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.1|135.0|||||Geometric mean ratio (Elderly/Young) and 90% CI of the ratio calculated from a 2-way ANOVA model, and presented as percentages.|To assess the effect of age on the PK of apremilast after a single 30 mg dose, a 2-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) model was performed on the log-transformed AUC0-∞. The ANOVA model included age group (elderly and young), sex (male and female), and age group by sex as a fixed effect.||135|94.1|
90901105|NCT01976364|181668223|OTHER||LS mean difference|2.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|5.81||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 9: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||5.81|-1.46|
90901106|NCT01976364|181668223|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.25|3.01||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 12: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||3.01|-3.25|
90901107|NCT01976364|181668224|OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.58|1.52||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 1: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.52|-5.58|
90901108|NCT01976364|181668224|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.69|3.84||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 3: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||3.84|-4.69|
90901109|NCT01976364|181668224|OTHER||LS mean difference|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.48|6.06||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 6: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||6.06|-3.48|
90901110|NCT01976364|181668224|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.03|5.32||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 9: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||5.32|-4.03|
90901111|NCT01976364|181668224|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.64|4.38||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 12: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||4.38|-4.64|
90901112|NCT01976364|181668225|OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.96|2.74||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 1: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.74|-4.96|
90852623|NCT01634191|181568729|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|131.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|109.0|157.0|||||Geometric mean ratio (Female/Male) and 90% CI of the ratio calculated from a 2-way ANOVA model, and presented as percentages.|To assess the effect of sex on the PK of apremilast after a single 30 mg dose, a 2-way ANOVA model was performed on the log-transformed AUC0-∞. The ANOVA model included age group (elderly and young), sex (male and female), and age group by sex as a fixed effect.||157|109|
90852624|NCT01634191|181568730|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|106.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.5|123.0|||||Geometric mean ratio (Elderly/Young) and 90% CI of the ratio calculated from a 2-way ANOVA model, and presented as percentages.|To assess the effect of age on the PK of apremilast after a single 30 mg dose, a 2-way analysis of ANOVA model was performed on the log-transformed Cmax. The ANOVA model included age group (elderly and young), sex (male and female), and age group by sex as a fixed effect.||123|90.5|
90901113|NCT01976364|181668225|OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.11|2.65||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 3: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.65|-5.11|
90901114|NCT01976364|181668225|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.78|5.69||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 6: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||5.69|-3.78|
90901115|NCT01976364|181668225|OTHER||LS mean difference|2.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.92|6.93||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 9: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||6.93|-2.92|
90957857|NCT00709852|181795525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.24|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.53|<|0.0001||||||for contrast enhancement|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
91032814|NCT01171989|181950895|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of Non-inferiority: the upper limit of Standardised asymptotic 95% confidence interval lower or equal to 10%|Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.27|2.84||||||Difference in percentage anti-PRP ≥ 0.15 μg/mL||2.84|-3.27|
91099802|NCT05067270|182085682|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.4||||||1 min post bolus (Bolus time: 9 hours)||1.40|0.77|
90852625|NCT01634191|181568731|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|108.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.3|126.0|||||Geometric mean ratio (Female/Male) and 90% CI of the ratio calculated from a 2-way ANOVA model, and presented as percentages.|To assess the effect of sex on the PK of apremilast after a single 30 mg dose, a 2-way ANOVA model was performed on the log-transformed Cmax. The ANOVA model included age group (elderly and young), sex (male and female), and age group by sex as a fixed effect.||126|92.3|
90852626|NCT01634191|181568732|OTHER||Median Difference|0.5||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|2.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Median difference (Elderly - Young) calculated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimate.|Tmax was analyzed by nonparametric methods. The median difference and 90% CI of the median difference were calculated from the Hodges-Lehrmann estimate.||2.00|0.000|0.153
90852627|NCT01634191|181568733|OTHER||Median Difference|0.5||||0.169|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|2.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Median difference (Female - Male) and 90% CI of the difference calculated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimate.|Tmax was analyzed by nonparametric methods. The median difference and 90% CI of the median difference were calculated from the Hodges-Lehrmann estimate.||2.00|0.000|0.169
90852628|NCT00167778|181568747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99||95.0||||Statistical significance was set a-prior at p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>0.99
90852629|NCT00167778|181568748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.09||95.0||||Statistical significance was set a-prior at p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||=0.09
90852630|NCT00167778|181568749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.09||95.0||||Statistical significance was set a-prior at p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||=0.09
90852631|NCT00167778|181568750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.7||95.0||||Statistical significance was set a-prior at p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||=0.7
90852632|NCT00167778|181568751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99||95.0||||Statistical significance was set a-prior at p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>0.99
90852633|NCT00167778|181568753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.8||95.0||||Statistical significance was set a-prior at p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||=0.8
90852634|NCT00167778|181568754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.7||95.0||||Statistical significance was set a-prior at p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||=0.7
90901116|NCT01976364|181668225|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.03|5.35||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 12: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||5.35|-4.03|
90852635|NCT00167778|181568755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.4||95.0||||Statistical significance was set a-prior at p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||=.4
90852636|NCT00167778|181568756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.15||95.0||||Statistical significance was set a-prior at p\<0.05. Values of p\>0.15 were considered not significant (NS) statistically.|Mixed Models Analysis|The effect of study prosthesis was analyzed using repeated measures one-way analyses of variance.||||||>0.15
90852637|NCT00167778|181568757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.15||95.0||||Statistical significance was set a-prior at p\<0.05. Values of p\>0.15 were considered not significant (NS) statistically.|Mixed Models Analysis|The effect of study prosthesis was analyzed using repeated measures one-way analyses of variance.||||||>0.15
90852638|NCT00167778|181568758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.15||95.0||||Statistical significance was set a-prior at p\<0.05. Values of p\>0.15 were considered not significant (NS) statistically.|Mixed Models Analysis|The effect of study prosthesis was analyzed using repeated measures one-way analyses of variance.||||||>0.15
90852639|NCT00167778|181568759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.15||95.0||||Statistical significance was set a-prior at p\<0.05. Values of p\>0.15 were considered not significant (NS) statistically.|Mixed Models Analysis|The effect of study prosthesis was analyzed using repeated measures one-way analyses of variance.||||||>0.15
90852640|NCT00167778|181568760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.15||95.0||||Statistical significance was set a-prior at p\<0.05. Values of p\>0.15 were considered not significant (NS) statistically.|Mixed Models Analysis|The effect of study prosthesis was analyzed using repeated measures one-way analyses of variance.||||||>0.15
90852641|NCT00167778|181568761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.15||95.0||||Statistical significance was set a-prior at p\<0.05. Values of p\>0.15 were considered not significant (NS) statistically.|Mixed Models Analysis|The effect of study prosthesis was analyzed using repeated measures one-way analyses of variance.||||||>0.15
90852642|NCT00167778|181568762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.13||95.0||||Statistical significance was set a-prior at p\<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoon paired signed rank test for the differences between Rigid and Torsion Adapter pylons||||||=0.13
90852643|NCT00167778|181568763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.92||95.0||||Statistical significance was set a-prior at p\<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon paired signed rank test for the differences between Rigid and Torsion Adapter pylons.||||||=0.92
90852644|NCT00167778|181568764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.37||95.0||||Statistical significance was set a-prior at p\<0.1.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon paired signed rank test for the differences between the Rigid and Torsion Adapter pylons.||||||=0.37
90852645|NCT00167778|181568765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.27||95.0||||Statistical significance was set a-prior at p\<0.1.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon paired signed rank test for the differences between the Rigid and Torsion Adapter pylons.||||||=0.27
90852646|NCT00167778|181568766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.2||95.0||||Statistical significance was set a-prior at p\<0.1.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon paired signed rank test for the differences between the Rigid and Torsion Adapter pylons.||||||=0.20
90852647|NCT00167778|181568767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.59||95.0||||Statistical significance was set a-prior at p\<0.1.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon paired signed rank test for the differences between the Rigid and Torsion Adapter pylons.||||||=0.59
90852648|NCT00167778|181568768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.057||95.0||||Statistical significance was set a-prior at p\<0.1.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon paired signed rank test for the differences between the Rigid and Torsion Adapter pylons.||||||=0.057
91099803|NCT05067270|182085682|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.86||||||1 min post bolus (Bolus time: 9 hours)||0.86|0.47|
91099804|NCT05067270|182085682|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.83||||||1 min post bolus (Bolus time: 9 hours)||0.83|0.46|
91099805|NCT01560416|182085711|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.79
91099806|NCT01560416|182085713|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.68
90852649|NCT00167778|181568769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.78||95.0||||Statistical significance was set a-prior at p\<0.1.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon paired signed rank test for the differences between the Rigid and Torsion Adapter pylons.||||||=0.78
90852650|NCT01252732|181568784|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The non-inferiority hypothesis test is a one sided hypothesis test performed at the 2.5% level of significance. If the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in response rates in the mITT population is greater than -10% the NI of oritavancin to vancomycin is concluded.|Difference in Proportions|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|2.0||||||||2.0|-7.5|
90852651|NCT01252732|181568785|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The non-inferiority hypothesis test is a one sided hypothesis test performed at the 2.5% level of significance. If the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in response rates in the mITT population is greater than -10% the NI of oritavancin to vancomycin is concluded.|Difference in Proportions|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|7.0||||||||7.0|-2.6|
90852652|NCT01252732|181568786|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The non-inferiority hypothesis test is a one sided hypothesis test performed at the 2.5% level of significance. If the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in response rates in the mITT population is greater than -10% the NI of oritavancin to vancomycin is concluded.|Difference in Proportions|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|5.0||||||||5.0|-3.7|
90852653|NCT00706849|181568789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance was concluded if p ≤ 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Based upon prior clinical study experience with mipomersen, it was estimated that the standard deviation of the percent change in LDL-C is approximately 22%. With 20 patients in the control group and 40 patients in the mipomersen-treated group, this study would have at least 90% power to detect a 20% difference between the 2 treatment groups.||||<0.001
90852654|NCT00706849|181568791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Inflation of type 1 error was controlled by specifying a small number of secondary parameters and a sequential inferential approach in which inferential conclusions about each successive parameter required statistical significance of the prior one.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90852655|NCT00706849|181568793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Inflation of type 1 error was controlled by specifying a small number of secondary parameters and a sequential inferential approach in which inferential conclusions about each successive parameter required statistical significance of the prior one.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90852656|NCT00706849|181568795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Inflation of type 1 error was controlled by specifying a small number of secondary parameters and a sequential inferential approach in which inferential conclusions about each successive parameter required statistical significance of the prior one.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90852657|NCT00706849|181568797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.042||||||No adjustments were made for tertiary parameters.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.042
90852658|NCT00706849|181568799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for tertiary parameters.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90901117|NCT01976364|181668226|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.1535|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1444|1.8374||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 1: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.8374|-2.1444|
90901118|NCT01976364|181668226|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.566|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9054|0.7735||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 3: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.7735|-1.9054|
90852659|NCT00706849|181568801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023||||||No adjustments were made for tertiary parameters.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.023
90852660|NCT00706849|181568803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for tertiary parameters.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90852661|NCT00706849|181568805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||||||No adjustments were made for tertiary parameters.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004
90852662|NCT00706849|181568807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.207||||||No adjustments were made for tertiary parameters.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.207
90852663|NCT03718299|181568834|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 52||||<0.001
90852664|NCT03718299|181568835|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.011
90852665|NCT03718299|181568836|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90852666|NCT03718299|181568837|SUPERIORITY||Clopper-Pearson|62.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.5|76.2||||||||76.2|46.5|
90852667|NCT03718299|181568838|SUPERIORITY||Clopper-Pearson|93.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|81.7|98.6||||||||98.6|81.7|
90852668|NCT03718299|181568839|SUPERIORITY||Clopper-Pearson|78.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.7|90.4||||||||90.4|62.7|
90852669|NCT03718299|181568840|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90852670|NCT03718299|181568841|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90852671|NCT03718299|181568842|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90852672|NCT03718299|181568843|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90852673|NCT03718299|181568844|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90852674|NCT03718299|181568845|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90852675|NCT03718299|181568846|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90852676|NCT03718299|181568847|SUPERIORITY||Mean (Clopper-Pearson)|24.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.9|39.5||||||||39.5|12.9|
90852677|NCT03718299|181568848|SUPERIORITY||Mean (Clopper-Pearson)|17.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|32.1||||||||32.1|8.0|
90852678|NCT03718299|181568849|SUPERIORITY||Clopper-Pearson|48.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.7|64.2||||||||64.2|33.7|
90852679|NCT03718299|181568850|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Total Activity Impairment||||<0.001
90852680|NCT03718299|181568850|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Total Work Productivity Impairment||||<0.001
90852681|NCT03718299|181568851|SUPERIORITY||Mean|79.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|20.06|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication over time- Effectiveness||||
90852682|NCT03718299|181568851|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Exact binomial test|||Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication over time-Side Effects||||<0.001
90852683|NCT03718299|181568851|SUPERIORITY||Mean|82.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.35|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication over time - Convenience||||
90957858|NCT00709852|181795525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.56|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.48|<|0.0001||||||for border delineation|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
90852684|NCT03718299|181568851|SUPERIORITY||Mean|81.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|20.47|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication over time - Global Satisfaction||||
90852685|NCT03718299|181568852|SUPERIORITY||Mean|8.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.01|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Improvement in Symptoms||||
90852686|NCT03718299|181568852|SUPERIORITY||Mean|8.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.3|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Speed of Symptom Improvement||||
90852687|NCT03718299|181568852|SUPERIORITY||Mean|9.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.7|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Frequency of Taking Medication||||
90852688|NCT03718299|181568852|SUPERIORITY||Mean|9.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.68|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Side Effects||||
90852689|NCT03718299|181568853|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90852690|NCT04389970|181568857|OTHER|Single group, within subject pre/post change.||||||0.39|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired-samples t-test||This was a feasibility study and was not powered to detect statistical significance. Significance values are presented but no conclusion of significance can be made.||||.39
90852691|NCT04389970|181568858|OTHER|Single group, within subject pre/post change.||||||0.3|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired-samples t-test||This was a feasibility study and was not powered to detect statistical significance. Significance values are presented but no evaluation of significance can be concluded.||||.3
90852692|NCT04389970|181568859|OTHER|Single group, within subjects pre/post change.||||||0.77|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired-sample t-test||This was a feasibility study and was not powered to detect statistical significance. Significance values are presented but no evaluation of significance can be concluded.||||.77
90852693|NCT04389970|181568860|OTHER|Single group, within subjects pre/post change.||||||0.66|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired-samples t-test.||This was a feasibility study and was not powered to detect statistical significance. Significance values are presented but no evaluation of significance can be concluded.||||.66
90852694|NCT04389970|181568861|OTHER|Single group, within subjects pre/post change||||||0.88|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired samples t-test||This was a feasibility study and was not powered to detect statistical significance. Significance values are presented but no evaluation of significance can be concluded.||||.88
90852695|NCT04389970|181568862|OTHER|Single group, within subjects pre/post change||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired-samples t-test||This was a feasibility study and was not powered to detect statistical significance. Significance values are presented but no evaluation of significance can be concluded.||||.03
90852696|NCT04389970|181568863|OTHER|Single group, within subjects pre/post change.||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired samples t-test||This was a feasibility study and was not powered to detect statistical significance. Significance values are presented but no evaluation of significance can be concluded.||||.06
90852697|NCT04389970|181568864|OTHER|Single group, within subjects pre/post change||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired samples t-test||This was a feasibility study and was not powered to detect statistical significance. Significance values are presented but no evaluation of significance can be concluded.||||.04
90852698|NCT04389970|181568865|OTHER|Single group, within subjects analysis.||||||0|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired sample t-test||This was a feasibility study and was not powered to detect statistical significance. Significance values are presented but no evaluation of significance can be concluded.||||0
90852699|NCT03123185|181568867|OTHER|No hypothesis was tested and no acceptance range was specified.|Geometric mean (gMean) ratio (%)|158.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|133.679|188.195|||||gMean ratio = 10 mg BI 705564 fed/10 mg BI 705564 fast. Standard Error of the mean is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient variation.|"The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects nested within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect subjects within sequences will be considered as random, the other effects as fixed."||188.195|133.679|
90852700|NCT03123185|181568868|OTHER|No hypothesis was tested and no acceptance range was specified.|gMean ratio (%)|194.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|26.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|158.912|237.267|||||gMean ratio = 10 mg BI 705564 fed/10 mg BI 705564 fast. Standard Error of the mean is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient variation.|"The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects nested within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect subjects within sequences will be considered as random, the other effects as fixed."||237.267|158.912|
90852701|NCT03123185|181568869|OTHER||Slope|0.4879|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0546|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3767|0.599|||||Based on the estimate for slope parameter, a 2-sided 95% Confidence Interval (CI) for the slope was computed. Standard error of the mean is actually standard error of slope. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1.|The basic model for the investigation of dose proportionality for fasted condition was a power model that describes the functional relationship between the dose and PK endpoints.||0.5990|0.3767|
90852702|NCT03123185|181568869|OTHER||Slope|0.7553|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0876|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5736|0.937|||||Based on the estimate for slope parameter, a 2-sided 95% CI for the slope was computed. Standard error of the mean is actually standard error of slope. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1.|The basic model for the investigation of dose proportionality for fed condition was a power model that describes the functional relationship between the dose and PK endpoints.||0.9370|0.5736|
90852703|NCT03123185|181568870|OTHER||Slope|0.4651|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1274|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1935|0.7368|||||Based on the estimate for slope parameter, a 2-sided 95% CI for the slope was computed. Standard error of the mean is actually standard error of slope. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1.|The basic model for the investigation of dose proportionality for fasted condition was a power model that describes the functional relationship between the dose and PK endpoints.||0.7368|0.1935|
90852704|NCT03123185|181568870|OTHER||Slope|0.6651|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1385|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3679|0.9622|||Power model||Based on the estimate for slope parameter, a 2-sided 95% CI for the slope was computed. Standard error of the mean is actually standard error of slope. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1.|The basic model for the investigation of dose proportionality for fed condition was a power model that describes the functional relationship between the dose and PK endpoints.||0.9622|0.3679|
90901119|NCT01976364|181668226|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.7991|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0053|1.4071||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 6: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.4071|-3.0053|
90957859|NCT00709852|181795525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.58|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.41|<|0.0001||||||for internal morphology|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
90957860|NCT00709852|181795526|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|noninferiority margin = -0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.44|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.532|0.851|||confidence interval for paired means|lower limit of confidence interval is compared to noninferiority margin||||0.851|-0.532|
90957861|NCT00709852|181795527|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|noninferiority margin = -0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.33||||95.0|0.0004|0.078|||CI for paired means|lower limit of confidence interval is compared to noninferiority margin||analysis for contrast enhancement||0.078|0.0004|
90957862|NCT00709852|181795527|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|noninferiority margin = -0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.41||||95.0|-0.009|0.082|||CI for paired means|lower limit of confidence interval is compared to noninferiority margin||analysis for border delineation||0.082|-0.009|
90852705|NCT03702244|181568873|SUPERIORITY|Statistical testing for recurrent events was performed using the negative binomial methods for recurrent events.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.41|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was adjusted for age, sex, and coronary artery disease equivalent (diabetes, history of peripheral artery disease or cerebrovascular disease), and intended first test strata (invasive or noninvasive).|Sample size and power calculations for this study are based on the hypothesis that the precision evaluation arm is superior to the usual care arm on the time-to-first event of the composite 3-component endpoint: all-cause death, non-fatal MI, or invasive cardiac catheterization without obstructive CAD over a 12-month of follow-up. Time to event analysis will use the date of the event, including the date of catheterization at which the absence of obstructive CAD is demonstrated.||0.41|0.20|<.001
90852706|NCT00713310|181568879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||High-Low Dose Difference Success Rates|-1.1||||0.924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.7|20.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A total of about 100 subjects were to be enrolled in the study with the expectation that about 80 subjects (40/dose level) would complete. Minimum of 9 subjects in 5-8 year old range were to be enrolled, 4-5 per dose level (high/low). A 2-sided α=0.05 Fisher's Exact test has an estimated power of P=0.50 with 40 subjects per dose level.||20.5|-22.7|0.9240
90852707|NCT00713310|181568880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||High-Low Dose Difference Success Rates|1.4||||0.8193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.2|23.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A total of about 100 subjects were to be enrolled in the study with the expectation that about 80 subjects (40/dose level) would complete. Minimum of 9 subjects in 5-8 year old range were to be enrolled, 4-5 per dose level (high/low). A 2-sided α=0.05 Fisher's Exact test has an estimated power of P=0.50 with 40 subjects per dose level.||23.0|-20.2|0.8193
90852708|NCT00329901|181568881|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response to Tdap + MenACWY-CRM was considered non-inferior to that of Tdap+saline if for all five antigens (diphtheria, tetanus, PT, FHA, PRN) the lower limit of the 95% CI of the difference \[(Tdap + MenACWY-CRM) minus(Tdap + saline)\] was greater than -10, at 1 month (Day 29) after vaccination|Vaccine Group difference|9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|14.0||||||Non-inferiority of anti-diphtheria immune response following concomitant administration of Tdap with MenACWY-CRM as compared to Tdap given with placebo saline||14|5|
90852709|NCT00329901|181568881|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response to Tdap + MenACWY-CRM was considered non-inferior to that of Tdap+saline if for all five antigens (diphtheria, tetanus, PT, FHA, PRN) the lower limit of the 95% CI of the difference \[(Tdap + MenACWY-CRM) minus(Tdap + saline)\] was greater than -10, at 1 month (Day 29) after vaccination|Vaccine Group Difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.0||||||Non-inferiority of anti-tetanus immune response following concomitant administration of Tdap with MenACWY-CRM compared to Tdap given concomitantly with saline placebo||2|-1|
90852710|NCT00329901|181568881|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response to Tdap + MenACWY-CRM was considered non-inferior to that of Tdap+saline if for all five antigens (diphtheria, tetanus, PT, FHA, PRN) the lower limit of the 95% CI of the difference \[(Tdap + MenACWY-CRM) minus (Tdap + saline)\] was greater than -10, at 1 month (Day 29) after vaccination|Vaccine Group difference|-5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|1.0||||||Non-inferiority of anti-PT antigen immune response following concomitant administration of Tdap with MenACWY as compared to Tdap given concomitantly with saline placebo||1|-12|
90852711|NCT00329901|181568881|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response to Tdap + MenACWY-CRM was considered non-inferior to that of Tdap+saline if for all five antigens (diphtheria, tetanus, PT, FHA, PRN) the lower limit of the 95% CI of the difference \[(Tdap + MenACWY-CRM) minus (Tdap + saline)\] was greater than -10, at 1 month (Day 29) after vaccination|Vaccine Group Difference|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|3.0||||||Non-inferiority of anti-FHA antigen immune response following concomitant administration of Tdap with MenACWY as compared to Tdap given concomitantly with saline placebo||3|-9|
90852712|NCT00329901|181568881|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response to Tdap + MenACWY-CRM was considered non-inferior to that of Tdap+saline if for all five antigens (diphtheria, tetanus, PT, FHA, PRN) the lower limit of the 95% CI of the difference \[(Tdap + MenACWY-CRM) minus (Tdap + saline)\] was greater than -10, at 1 month (Day 29) after vaccination|Vaccine Group Difference|-7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|-2.0||||||Non-inferiority of anti-PRN antigen immune response following concomitant administration of Tdap with MenACWY as compared to Tdap given concomitantly with saline placebo||-2|-13|
90957863|NCT00709852|181795527|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|noninferiority margin = -0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.29||||95.0|-0.006|0.059|||CI for paired means|lower limit of confidence interval is compared to noninferiority margin||analysis for internal morphology||0.059|-0.006|
90957864|NCT00709852|181795528|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|noninferiority margin = -0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.7||||95.0|-0.601|0.622|||confidence interval for paired means|lower limit of confidence interval is compared to noninferiority margin||||0.622|-0.601|
90957865|NCT00709852|181795529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|8.3|||||||||||||for BR1|||||
90957866|NCT00709852|181795529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|-0.9|||||||||||||for BR2|||||
90957867|NCT00709852|181795529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|15.8|||||||||||||for BR3|||||
90957868|NCT00709852|181795529|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|noninferiority margin = -10%|Difference in percentages|8.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|18.4|||CI for paired percentages|confidence interval is given for AR; lower limit is compared to the noninferiority margin||||18.4|-0.5|
90957869|NCT00709852|181795530|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|noninferiority margin = -10%|Difference in percentages|3.6||||||95.0|-5.9|13.1|||CI for paired percentages|lower limit of confidence interval is compared to noninferiority margin||||13.1|-5.9|
90957870|NCT00709852|181795531|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|noninferiority margin = -10%|Difference in percentages|8.3||||||95.0|-0.9|17.6|||CI for paired percentages|lower limit of confidence interval is compared to noninferiority margin||||17.6|-0.9|
90852713|NCT05028361|181568892|NON_INFERIORITY|One-sided non-inferiority test with the alpha level set at 0.025 and non-inferiority margin of 10%, stratified by site.|Difference in proportions|-5.6||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|4.0||The upper limit of the 95% CI of the difference was 4% with a noninferiority margin of 10%.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The upper bound of a site-stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting was used.||The null hypothesis is the Simultaneous group is inferior (i.e., Simultaneous group will have a higher proportion) to the Sequential group in regards to the proportion of participants with at least one moderate or severe fever, chills, myalgia, or arthralgia event after visits 1 and 2 using 10% non-inferiority margin.||4.0|-15.2|0.0007
90852714|NCT05028361|181568893|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3851|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.3851
90852715|NCT05028361|181568894|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2886|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.2886
90852716|NCT05028361|181568896|OTHER||Comparison of Frequencies|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|1.64||The comparison in number of participants with reported SAEs regardless of relationship to study product were made using a difference in proportions along with a 95% confidence interval of the difference.||||||1.64|-1.66|
90852717|NCT01993836|181568897|OTHER||Spearman Correlation|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.18||||||Correlation between 6-week change in Tau and continuous cognitive index||0.18|-0.23|
90852718|NCT01993836|181568897|OTHER||Spearman Correlation|-0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.13||||||Correlation between 6-week change in Abeta and continuous cognitive index||0.13|-0.29|
90852719|NCT01993836|181568897|OTHER||Spearman Correlation|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.32||||||Correlation between 6-week change in P-Tau and continuous cognitive index||0.32|-0.08|
90852720|NCT01993836|181568898|OTHER||Spearman Correlation|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.22||||||Correlation between 6-week change in Tau/Abeta ratio and continuous cognitive index||0.22|-0.19|
90852721|NCT01993836|181568898|OTHER||Spearman Correlation|0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.34||||||Correlation between 6-week change in P-Tau/Abeta ratio and continuous cognitive index||0.34|-0.05|
90852722|NCT01993836|181568899|OTHER|||||||0.36|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.360
90901120|NCT01976364|181668226|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.0626|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5767|1.7018||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 9: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.7018|-1.5767|
90901121|NCT01976364|181668226|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.3672|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8107|2.545||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 12: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.5450|-1.8107|
90852723|NCT01993836|181568900|OTHER|||||||0.532|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference in 6-week Tau Change between anesthetic groups||||0.532
90852724|NCT01993836|181568900|OTHER|||||||0.565|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference in 6-week Abeta Change between anesthetic groups||||0.565
90852725|NCT01993836|181568900|OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference in 6-week P-Tau Change between anesthetic groups||||0.110
90852726|NCT01993836|181568901|OTHER|||||||0.439|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference in 6-week Tau/Abeta ratio Change between anesthetic groups||||0.439
90852727|NCT01993836|181568901|OTHER|||||||0.082|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference in 6-week P-Tau/Abeta Change between anesthetic groups||||0.082
90852728|NCT01993836|181568902|OTHER|||||||0.801|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank|||||||0.801
90852729|NCT04369924|181568924|SUPERIORITY||F test for time by condition interaction|1.49||||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.25
90852730|NCT04369924|181568925|SUPERIORITY||F test for time by condition interaction|2.8||||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.12
90852731|NCT04369924|181568926|SUPERIORITY||F test for time by condition interaction|0.7||||0.7|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.70
90852732|NCT04369924|181568927|SUPERIORITY||F test for time by condition interaction|3.67||||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.07
90852733|NCT04369924|181568928|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.16||||0.82|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.82
90852734|NCT04369924|181568929|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.41||||0.59|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.59
90852735|NCT01653132|181568933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.194|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.61|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.32|||||negative values correspond to a reduction in saliva weight with Inco-A.|Based on the primary outcome measure of mean reduction in saliva weight at 1 month post Inco-A /placebo as compared to baseline, using paired t-test with a two-sided nominal significance (alpha) of 0.05, assuming a correlation of 0.5 between observations, a sample size of 10 pairs has a power of 0.803 to detect a 50% difference in salivary weight.||0.32|-0.71|
90852736|NCT01653132|181568934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-22.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.34|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.8|6.2|||||negative numbers represent reduction in saliva weight with Inco-A|||6.2|-50.8|
90852737|NCT01653132|181568935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.33|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.41|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.69|||||negative values represent reduction in scores (improvement in drooling) with Inco-A|||0.69|-1.16|
90852738|NCT01653132|181568936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.333|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.633|0.071||||||||0.071|-0.633|
90852739|NCT01653132|181568937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.28||||||||0.28|-0.46|
90852740|NCT03828370|181568938|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||ANOVA|||||||.04
90852741|NCT03828370|181568939|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.034|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.034
90852742|NCT02514473|181568972|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-1.09|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|-0.75|||MMRM|||Analysis was performed using mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM). The model included treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects; and participant as a random effect with adjustments for baseline, weight (less than \[\<\] 25 kilogram \[kg\] versus greater than or equal to \[\>=\] 25 kg) and percent predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) severity (\<90 versus \>=90) at screening.||-0.75|-1.43|< 0.0001
90852743|NCT02106923|181568993|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Model includes effects for sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|102.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.014|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.505|105.514|||ANOVA|P-value for ratio outside interval 80%-125%|Ratio calculated as Empa/ 1000 mg Met FDC (Fasted) divided by Empa/1000 mg Glumetza® (Fasted)|||105.514|100.505|<0.0001
90957871|NCT00709852|181795532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.74|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.78|<|0.0001||||||for border delineation|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
90957872|NCT00709852|181795532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.61|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.61|<|0.0001||||||for internal morphology|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
90957873|NCT00709852|181795533|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|noninferiority margin = -0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.21||||95.0|-0.053|0.636|||confidence interval for paired means|lower limit of confidence interval is compared to noninferiority margin||||0.636|-0.053|
90957874|NCT00709852|181795534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.77|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.64|<|0.0001||||||for border delineation|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
90957875|NCT00709852|181795534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.64|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.5|<|0.0001||||||for internal morphology|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
90957876|NCT00709852|181795535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.74|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.26|<|0.0001||||||for border delineation|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
90957877|NCT00709852|181795535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.56|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.97|<|0.0001||||||for internal morphology|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
90957878|NCT00709852|181795536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.71|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.76|<|0.0001||||||for border delineation|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
91099807|NCT01033071|182085716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.3|||<|0.001||95.0|-7.6|-3.1||"Overall Type 1 error rate of 0.05 controlled using 'Closed Testing' principle (hypothesis of all treatment groups equal first tested at 0.05 significance level; upon rejection of this hypothesis, pairwise comparison was tested at the 0.05 level."|ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.||-3.1|-7.6|<0.001
91099808|NCT01033071|182085716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|-4.6||"Overall Type 1 error rate of 0.05 controlled using 'Closed Testing' principle (hypothesis of all treatment groups equal first tested at 0.05 significance level; upon rejection of this hypothesis, pairwise comparison was tested at the 0.05 level."|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.||-4.6|-9.2|<0.001
90852744|NCT02106923|181568993|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Model includes effects for sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|100.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.021|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.809|103.823|||ANOVA|P-value for ratio outside interval 80%-125%|Ratio calculated as Empa/ 1000 mg Met FDC (Fed) divided by Empa/1000 mg Glumetza ® (Fed)|||103.823|96.809|<0.0001
90852745|NCT02106923|181568993|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Model includes effects for sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|96.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.016|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.507|98.721|||ANOVA|P-value for ratio outside interval 80%-125%|Ratio calculated as Empa/ 1500 mg Met FDC (Fasted) divided by Empa/ 1500 mg Glumetza® (Fasted)|||98.721|93.507|<0.0001
90957879|NCT00709852|181795536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.58|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.63|<|0.0001||||||for internal morphology|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
90957880|NCT00709852|181795537|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|noninferiority margin = -0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.39||||95.0|-0.087|0.641|||confidence interval for paired means|lower limit of confidence interval is compared to noninferiority margin||||0.641|-0.087|
90957881|NCT00709852|181795538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.78|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.61|<|0.0001||||||for border delineation|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
90852746|NCT02106923|181568994|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Model includes effects for sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|102.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.3|112.81|||ANOVA|P-value for ratio outside interval 80%-125%|Ratio calculated as Empa/ 1000 mg Met FDC (Fasted) divided by Empa/1000 mg Glumetza® (Fasted)|||112.81|92.30|0.0011
90852747|NCT02106923|181568994|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Model includes effects for sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|98.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.45|102.53|||ANOVA|P-value for ratio outside interval 80%-125%|Ratio calculated as Empa/ 1000 mg Met FDC (Fed) divided by Empa/1000 mg Glumetza ® (Fed)|||102.53|95.45|<0.0001
90852748|NCT02106923|181568994|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Model includes effects for sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|101.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.59|110.52|||ANOVA|P-value for ratio outside interval 80%-125%|Ratio calculated as Empa/ 1500 mg Met FDC (Fasted) divided by Empa/ 1500 mg Glumetza® (Fasted)|||110.52|93.59|0.0002
90957882|NCT00709852|181795538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.63|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.49|<|0.0001||||||for internal morphology|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
91099809|NCT01033071|182085719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|-4.7||Tested at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.||-4.7|-9.4|<0.001
90852749|NCT02106923|181568995|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Model includes effects for sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|102.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.014|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.446|105.373|||ANOVA|P-value for ratio outside interval 80%-125%|Ratio calculated as Empa/ 1000 mg Met FDC (Fasted) divided by Empa/1000 mg Glumetza® (Fasted)|||105.373|100.446|<0.0001
90852750|NCT02106923|181568995|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Model includes effects for sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|100.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.021|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.448|103.738|||ANOVA|P-value for ratio outside interval 80%-125%|Ratio calculated as Empa/ 1000 mg Met FDC (Fed) divided by Empa/1000 mg Glumetza ® (Fed)|||103.738|96.448|<0.0001
90852751|NCT02106923|181568995|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Model includes effects for sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|96.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.017|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.758|99.311|||ANOVA|P-value for ratio outside interval 80%-125%|Ratio calculated as Empa/ 1500 mg Met FDC (Fasted) divided by Empa/ 1500 mg Glumetza® (Fasted)|||99.311|93.758|<0.0001
90852752|NCT02106923|181568996|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Model includes effects for sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|104.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.031|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.522|110.412|||ANOVA|P-value for ratio outside interval 80%-125%|Ratio calculated as Empa/ 1000 mg Met FDC (Fasted) divided by Empa/1000 mg Glumetza® (Fasted)|||110.412|99.522|<0.0001
90901122|NCT01976364|181668227|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|1.51||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 1: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.51|-0.85|
90901123|NCT01976364|181668227|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|1.69||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 3: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.69|-1.04|
91099810|NCT01033071|182085719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|-6.6||Tested at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.||-6.6|-11.5|<0.001
90852753|NCT02106923|181568996|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Model includes effects for sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|101.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.041|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.03|109.134|||ANOVA|P-value for ratio outside interval 80%-125%|Ratio calculated as Empa/ 1000 mg Met FDC (Fed) divided by Empa/1000 mg Glumetza ® (Fed)|||109.134|95.030|<0.0001
90852754|NCT02106923|181568996|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Model includes effects for sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|96.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.037|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.217|102.211|||ANOVA|P-value for ratio outside interval 80%-125%|Ratio calculated as Empa/ 1500 mg Met FDC (Fasted) divided by Empa/ 1500 mg Glumetza® (Fasted)|||102.211|90.217|<0.0001
90852755|NCT02106923|181568997|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Model includes effects for sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|98.94|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.071||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.925|111.329|||ANOVA|P-value for ratio outside interval 80%-125%|Ratio calculated as Empa/ 1000 mg Met FDC (Fasted) divided by Empa/1000 mg Glumetza® (Fasted)|||111.329|87.925|0.0027
90852756|NCT02106923|181568997|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Model includes effects for sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|108.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.792|113.859|||ANOVA|P-value for ratio outside interval 80%-125%|Ratio calculated as Empa/ 1000 mg Met FDC (Fed) divided by Empa/1000 mg Glumetza ® (Fed)|||113.859|102.792|<0.0001
90852757|NCT02106923|181568997|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Model includes effects for sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|103.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.071||0.006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.116|116.559|||ANOVA|P-value for ratio outside interval 80%-125%|Ratio calculated as Empa/ 1500 mg Met FDC (Fasted) divided by Empa/ 1500 mg Glumetza® (Fasted)|||116.559|92.116|0.0060
90852758|NCT02106923|181568998|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Model includes effects for sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|98.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.13|108.47|||ANOVA|P-value for ratio outside interval 80%-125%|Ratio calculated as Empa/ 1000 mg Met FDC (Fasted) divided by Empa/1000 mg Glumetza® (Fasted)|||108.47|89.13|0.0008
90852759|NCT02106923|181568998|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Model includes effects for sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|98.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.77|102.8|||ANOVA|P-value for ratio outside interval 80%-125%|Ratio calculated as Empa/ 1000 mg Met FDC (Fed) divided by Empa/1000 mg Glumetza ® (Fed)|||102.80|94.77|<0.0001
90852760|NCT02106923|181568998|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Model includes effects for sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|103.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.09|114.74|||ANOVA|P-value for ratio outside interval 80%-125%|Ratio calculated as Empa/ 1500 mg Met FDC (Fasted) divided by Empa/ 1500 mg Glumetza® (Fasted)|||114.74|94.09|0.0021
90901124|NCT01976364|181668227|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|0.55||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 6: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.55|-2.09|
90852761|NCT03485495|181568999|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is split evenly between primary and secondary endpoints. α=0.025.|t-test, 2 sided|||This analysis applies to ∆ between baseline and after 12 weeks row.||||0.007
90852762|NCT03485495|181569000|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0272||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is split evenly between primary and secondary endpoints. α=0.025.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.0272
90852763|NCT03485495|181569001|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8762|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This analysis applies to ∆ between baseline and after 12 weeks row.||||0.8762
90852764|NCT03485495|181569002|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2082|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis applies to ∆ between baseline and after 12 weeks row.||||0.2082
90852765|NCT03485495|181569003|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0038||||||"The p-value associated with treatment\*visit interaction between Divaza and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes cuff test status, treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis applies to NO-3 data.||||0.0038
90852766|NCT03485495|181569003|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0018||||||"The p-value associated with treatment\*visit interaction between Divaza and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes cuff test status, treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis applies to NO-2 data.||||0.0018
90852767|NCT03485495|181569003|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46||||||"The p-value associated with treatment\*visit interaction between Divaza and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes cuff test status, treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis applies to NO data.||||0.46
90901125|NCT01976364|181668227|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|0.91||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 9: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.91|-2.44|
90957883|NCT00709852|181795539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.65|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.27|<|0.0001||||||for border delineation|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
91099811|NCT01033071|182085721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|-4.3||Tested at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.||-4.3|-8.5|<0.001
90957884|NCT00709852|181795539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.51|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.01|<|0.0001||||||for internal morphology|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
90957885|NCT00709852|181795540|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|noninferiority margin = -0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||||95.0|0.03|0.096|||CI for paired means|lower limit of confidence interval is compared to noninferiority margin||analysis for contrast enhancement||0.096|0.030|
90957886|NCT00709852|181795540|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|noninferiority margin = -0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||||95.0|0.003|0.071|||CI for paired means|lower limit of confidence interval is compared to noninferiority margin||analysis for border delineation||0.071|0.003|
90957887|NCT00709852|181795540|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|noninferiority margin = -0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||||95.0|0.003|0.055|||CI for paired means|lower limit of confidence interval is compared to noninferiority margin||analysis for internal morphology||0.055|0.003|
90957888|NCT00709852|181795541|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|noninferiority margin = -0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.59||||95.0|-0.049|0.078|||confidence interval for paired means|lower limit of confidence interval is compared to noninferiority margin||||0.078|-0.049|
90852768|NCT03485495|181569004|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88||||||"The p-value associated with treatment\*visit interaction between Divaza and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes cuff test status, treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis applies to ADP-PA data.||||0.88
90852769|NCT03485495|181569004|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93||||||"The p-value associated with treatment\*visit interaction between Divaza and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes cuff test status, treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis applies to ADR-PA data.||||0.93
90852770|NCT01203852|181569072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value for one sided t-test of mean change in blood pressure before and after treatment with metoprolol and chlorthalidone were \<0.0001.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
90852771|NCT01203852|181569073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value for one sided t-test for mean glucose change before and after treatment with chlorthalidone was \<0.0001.|t-test, 1 sided|||Mean glucose change after treatment with chlorthalidone||||<0.0001
90852772|NCT01203852|181569073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value for one sided t-test for mean glucose change before and after treatment with metoprolol was 0.049.|t-test, 1 sided|||Mean glucose change after treatment with metoprolol||||0.049
90852773|NCT01738477|181569077|NON_INFERIORITY|To assess the non-inferiority of the second dose of Boostrix (Boostrix 2 Group) minus first dose of Boostrix (Boostrix 1 Group) for anti-diphtheria. Objective of non-inferiority was considered to be met if the lower limit (LL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) was greater than, or equal to -10%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||||95.0|-3.25|9.95||||||Non-inferiority in terms of seroprotection rates to diphtheria.||9.95|-3.25|
90852774|NCT01738477|181569077|NON_INFERIORITY|To assess the non-inferiority of the second dose of Boostrix (Boostrix 2 Group) minus first dose of Boostrix (Boostrix 1 Group) for anti-tetanus. Objective of non-inferiority was considered to be met if the LL of the 95% CI was above -10%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||||95.0|-3.25|9.95||||||Non-inferiority in terms of seroprotection rates to tetanus.||9.95|-3.25|
90852775|NCT02589600|181569089|SUPERIORITY||Incident Rate Ratio|1.05||||0.7251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.22|||Negative binomial regression||Placebo group is the reference group||Negative binomial regression implemented in the SAS®️ GENMOD procedure with fracture outcome as the dependent variable; duration of follow-up as an offset to account for each participant's exposure; treatment arm as the main independent factor of interest.|1.22|.90|0.7251
90852776|NCT01143701|181569101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.54|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.89|-1.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Utilizing the full sample (n=577), an intent-to-treat analyses was conducted comparing patient outcomes across intervention and control groups using a three-level mixed model. Baseline ratings were entered as a covariate. Post-baseline ratings collected closest to 12-months post-baseline were entered as dependent variables.||-1.19|-5.89|<.05
90852777|NCT01143701|181569102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.48|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.71|1.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||An intent-to-treat analyses was conducted comparing patient outcomes across intervention and control groups using a three-level mixed model. Baseline ratings were entered as a covariate. Post-baseline ratings collected closest to 12-months post-baseline were entered as dependent variables.||1.75|-4.71|<0.05
90852778|NCT01402427|181569111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.01||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.011|0.033|||Fisher Exact|||||0.033|-0.011|0.28
90852779|NCT01402427|181569112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.11
90852780|NCT01402427|181569113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
90852781|NCT01402427|181569114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.37
90852782|NCT01402427|181569115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.28
90852783|NCT01402427|181569116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.74
90852784|NCT01402427|181569117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.45
90852785|NCT01947855|181569118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-104.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.88|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-144.77|-64.97|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, number of previous antidiabetic medication, baseline renal function, baseline HbA1c and baseline AUC1-4h for plasma glucose.||Difference calculated as empa 25 mg minus placebo. The analyses will be performed sequentially compared with placebo from high dose of empagliflozin and the full significance level (5%) will be maintained by the hierarchical procedure.||-64.97|-144.77|<0.0001
90957889|NCT00709852|181795542|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|noninferiority margin = -0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||||95.0|-0.009|0.065|||CI for paired means|lower limit of confidence interval is compared to noninferiority margin||analysis for contrast enhancement||0.065|-0.009|
90957890|NCT00709852|181795542|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|noninferiority margin = -0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||||95.0|-0.04|0.02|||CI for paired means|lower limit of confidence interval is compared to noninferiority margin||analysis for border delineation||0.020|-0.040|
90957891|NCT00709852|181795542|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|noninferiority margin = -0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||||95.0|-0.015|0.035|||CI for paired means|lower limit of confidence interval is compared to noninferiority margin||analysis for internal morphology||0.035|-0.015|
90957892|NCT00709852|181795543|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|noninferiority margin = -0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||||95.0|0.042|0.153|||CI for paired means|lower limit of confidence interval is compared to noninferiority margin||analysis for contrast enhancement||0.153|0.042|
90852786|NCT01947855|181569118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-85.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.18|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-126.01|-44.97|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, number of previous antidiabetic medication, baseline renal function, baseline HbA1c and baseline AUC1-4h for plasma glucose.||Difference calculated as empa 10 mg minus placebo. The analyses will be performed sequentially compared with placebo from high dose of empagliflozin and the full significance level (5%) will be maintained by the hierarchical procedure.||-44.97|-126.01|<0.0001
90957893|NCT00709852|181795543|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|noninferiority margin = -0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||||95.0|0.03|0.161|||CI for paired means|lower limit of confidence interval is compared to noninferiority margin||analysis for border delineation||0.161|0.030|
91099812|NCT01033071|182085721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|-6.7||Tested at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.||-6.7|-11.0|<0.001
90852787|NCT01816451|181569125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||For pre-post training variables data were expressed as mean and standard deviation. Heart Rate and Blood Lactate, were by three-way ANOVA (Measure x Group x Time) with repeated measures for the factors Measure and Time. The variables absolute and relative VO2, tVO2, Body Fat, Body Mass, RPE, were made two-way ANOVAs (Group x Measure) with repeated measures on the factor Measure. Where the ANOVA was significant, the Tukey-Kramer as post-hoc was used.||||< 0.05
90901126|NCT01976364|181668227|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|2.0||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 12: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.00|-0.96|
90901127|NCT01976364|181668228|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|1.29||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 1: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.29|-2.22|
90901128|NCT01976364|181668228|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.65|0.92||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 3: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.92|-2.65|
90852788|NCT01816451|181569125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||For pre; during (retest I 0-6weeks; retest II 0-10 weeks) and post training data were expressed as mean and standard deviation. HR and \[La\], were by three-way ANOVA (Measure x Group x Time) with repeated measures for the factors Measure and Time. The variables RPE, Velocity were made two-way ANOVAs (Group x Measure) with repeated measures on the factor Measure. Where the ANOVA was significant, the Tukey-Kramer as post-hoc was used. Control didn't do submaximal test for training intensities.||||<0.05
90852789|NCT03445156|181569177|OTHER|ANCOVA||||||0.04|||||||ANCOVA|F(2, 273) = 3.16, p = .044, partial c\^2 = .023||||||0.04
90901129|NCT01976364|181668228|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.68|1.36||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 6: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.36|-2.68|
90901130|NCT01976364|181668228|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|2.83||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 9: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.83|-1.31|
90852790|NCT03445156|181569177|OTHER|ANCOVA||||||0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|F(1, 36) = 44.42||||||.0001
90852791|NCT03445156|181569178|OTHER|ANCOVA|||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|F(1, 36) = 44.42||Hypothesis: Participants who played a violent FPS game were expected to have more hits to targets with heads or faces than were participants who played a nonviolent shooting game.||||<.001
90852792|NCT03445156|181569178|OTHER|ANCOVA||||||0.044|||||||ANCOVA|F(2, 273) = 3.16||Hypothesis: Participants who played a violent FPS game were expected to hit the mannequin's head more often than were participants who played either the nonviolent shooting game or the nonviolent non-shooting game Covariates: participant gender, number of guns owned over their lifetime, attitudes toward guns, and number of times they had fired a gun.||||.044
90852793|NCT03445156|181569178|OTHER|ANCOVA||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t(274) = 2.40||"Hypothesis: Because the nonviolent shooting game rewards other shots, participants who played a nonviolent shooting game were expected to hit the mannequin's torso more often than were participants who played the nonviolent non-shooting game.~Covariates: participant gender, number of guns owned over their lifetime, attitudes toward guns, and number of times they had fired a gun."||||0.17
90852794|NCT03445156|181569178|OTHER|ANCOVA||||||0.449|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t(274) = -0.76||Hypothesis: participants who played a nonviolent shooting game were expected to hit the mannequin's head less often than were participants who played the nonviolent non-shooting game Covariates: participant gender, number of guns owned over their lifetime, attitudes toward guns, and number of times they had fired a gun.||||.449
90852795|NCT03445156|181569178|OTHER|ANCOVA||||||0.645|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t(273) = -0.46||"Hypothesis: participants who played a nonviolent shooting game were expected to hit the mannequin's torso more often than were participants who played the nonviolent non-shooting game.~Covariates: participant gender, number of guns owned over their lifetime, attitudes toward guns, and number of times they had fired a gun."||||.645
90901131|NCT01976364|181668228|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.01|1.84||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 12: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.84|-2.01|
90901132|NCT01976364|181668229|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|1.53||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 1: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.53|-1.09|
90901133|NCT01976364|181668229|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|1.73||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 3: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.73|-1.39|
91099813|NCT00727064|182085734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|PM compared to EM using least squares geometric means. Analysis of variance with phenotype and sequence as factors.||||||<0.001
91099814|NCT00727064|182085735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|PM compared to EM using least squares geometric means. Analysis of variance with phenotype and sequence as factors.||||||<0.001
91099815|NCT00727064|182085736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||ANOVA|PM compared to EM using least squares geometric means. Analysis of variance with phenotype and sequence as factors.||||||0.004
90957894|NCT00709852|181795543|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|noninferiority margin = -0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||||95.0|0.006|0.098|||CI for paired means|lower limit of confidence interval is compared to noninferiority margin||analysis for internal morphology||0.098|0.006|
90957895|NCT00709852|181795544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|6.2||||0.0082|||||||McNemar|||||||0.0082
90957896|NCT00709852|181795545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|9.9|||<|0.0001|||||||McNemar|||||||< 0.0001
90957897|NCT00709852|181795546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|6.8||||0.0039|||||||McNemar|||||||0.0039
90901134|NCT01976364|181668229|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|1.08||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 6: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.08|-2.15|
90901135|NCT01976364|181668229|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|2.13||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 9: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.13|-1.49|
90901136|NCT01976364|181668229|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|1.86||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 12: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.86|-1.89|
90901137|NCT01976364|181668230|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|2.05||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 1: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.05|-1.08|
90901138|NCT01976364|181668230|OTHER||LS mean difference|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|2.99||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 3: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.99|-0.49|
90901139|NCT01976364|181668230|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|2.31||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 6: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.31|-0.91|
90901140|NCT01976364|181668230|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|1.96||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 9: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.96|-1.57|
90901141|NCT01976364|181668230|OTHER||LS mean difference|1.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|3.52||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 12: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||3.52|-0.06|
90957898|NCT00709852|181795547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|9.2|||<|0.0001|||||||McNemar|||||||< 0.0001
90901142|NCT01976364|181668231|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|2.42||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 1: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.42|-1.01|
90901143|NCT01976364|181668231|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|2.18||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 3: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.18|-1.49|
90957899|NCT00709852|181795548|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|noninferiority margin = -10%|Difference in percentages|-0.4||||||95.0|-3.8|2.9|||CI for paired percentages|lower limit of confidence interval is compared to noninferiority margin||||2.9|-3.8|
90957900|NCT00709852|181795549|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|noninferiority margin = -10%|Difference in percentages|0.7||||||95.0|-0.3|1.6|||CI for paired percentages|lower limit of interval is compared to noninferiority margin||||1.6|-0.3|
90957901|NCT00709852|181795550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|10.5||||0.0002|||||||McNemar|||||||0.0002
90957902|NCT00709852|181795551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|13.6|||<|0.0001|||||||McNemar|||||||< 0.0001
90957903|NCT00709852|181795552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.0||||1|||||||McNemar|||||||1.0000
90957904|NCT00709852|181795553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|10.5||||0.0002|||||||McNemar|||||||0.0002
90957905|NCT00709852|181795554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|13.1||||0.0001|||||||McNemar|||||||0.0001
90957906|NCT00709852|181795555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|1.6||||0.763|||||||McNemar|||||||0.7630
90957907|NCT00709852|181795556|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|noninferiority margin = -10%|Difference in percentages|0.0||||||95.0|-3.1|3.1|||CI for paired percentages|lower limit of confidence interval is compared to noninferiority margin||||3.1|-3.1|
90957908|NCT00709852|181795557|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|noninferiority margin = -10%|Difference in percentages|0.5||||||95.0|-2.7|3.6|||CI for paired percentages|lower limit of confidence interval is compared to noninferiority margin||||3.6|-2.7|
90957909|NCT00709852|181795558|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|noninferiority margin = -10%|Difference in percentages|-1.6||||||95.0|-10.1|6.9|||CI for paired percentages|lower limit of confidence interval is compared to noninferiority margin||||6.9|-10.1|
90957910|NCT00709852|181795559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|6.5||||0.0006|||||||McNemar|||||||0.0006
90901144|NCT01976364|181668231|OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|0.09||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 6: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.09|-3.70|
90901145|NCT01976364|181668231|OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.99|0.48||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 9: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.48|-3.99|
90901146|NCT01976364|181668231|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.69||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 12: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.69|-2.30|
91099816|NCT00727064|182085737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018|||||||ANOVA|PM compared to EM using least squares geometric means. Analysis of variance with phenotype and sequence as factors.||||||0.018
91099817|NCT00727064|182085738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.081|||||||ANOVA|PM compared to EM using least squares geometric means. Analysis of variance with phenotype and sequence as factors.||||||0.081
90852796|NCT03445156|181569178|OTHER|Zero-order correlation||||||0.032|||||||Zero-order correlation|||Hypothesis: A positive correlation was expected between the number of violent shooting games participants listed among their three favorite video games and hits to the mannequin's head.||||.032
90852797|NCT02889562|181569197|OTHER|Pearson chi-squared tests or Fisher exact tests||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.0
90852798|NCT02889562|181569200|OTHER|t-test and Wilcoxon analysis||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.17
90852799|NCT01943474|181569202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
90901147|NCT01976364|181668232|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|0.69||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 1: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.69|-2.05|
90901148|NCT01976364|181668232|OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.57|0.31||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 3: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.31|-2.57|
90901149|NCT01976364|181668232|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.17|0.56||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 6: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.56|-2.17|
90852800|NCT01943474|181569203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
90852801|NCT01943474|181569204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
90852802|NCT01943474|181569205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90852803|NCT01943474|181569206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90852804|NCT01943474|181569209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90901150|NCT01976364|181668232|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|1.57||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 9: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.57|-1.54|
90901151|NCT01976364|181668232|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|1.53||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 12: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.53|-1.46|
90957911|NCT00709852|181795560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|19.4||||0.0004|||||||McNemar|||||||0.0004
90852805|NCT01943474|181569210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90852806|NCT03274999|181569249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.156||||||Eye-opening, T0: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T0) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.156
90852807|NCT03274999|181569249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.395||||||Eye-opening, T15: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T15) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.395
90852808|NCT03274999|181569249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.114||||||Eye-opening, T30: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T30) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.114
91099818|NCT00727064|182085739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.427|||||||ANOVA|PM compared to EM using least squares geometric means. Analysis of variance with phenotype and sequence as factors.||||||0.427
91099819|NCT05894564|182085745|SUPERIORITY|Posterior probability of efficacy (P(HR\>1))|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.1|||||The interval is a highest-density credible interval. Adjustment variables: randomization, age, sex, duration of symptoms prior to study drug, calendar time, vaccination status, geographic region, call center indicator, and baseline symptom severity.|||1.10|0.88|
91099820|NCT05894564|182085746|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|5.65|||||Low event rate precluded covariate adjustment.|No hypothesis test or decision rule was evaluated.||5.65|0.05|
91099821|NCT05894564|182085749|SUPERIORITY|Posterior probability of efficacy (P(HR\<1))|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.28|||||The interval is a highest-density credible interval. Adjustment variables: randomization, age, sex, duration of symptoms prior to study drug, calendar time, vaccination status, geographic region, call center indicator, and baseline symptom severity.|No hypothesis test or decision rule was evaluated.||1.28|0.31|
90852809|NCT03274999|181569249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.211||||||Eye-opening, T60: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T60) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.211
90852810|NCT03274999|181569249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.332||||||Eye-opening, T120: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T120) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.332
90852811|NCT03274999|181569249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.318||||||Eye-opening, T180: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T180) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.318
90852812|NCT03274999|181569249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.375||||||Eye-opening, T240: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T240) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.375
90852813|NCT03274999|181569249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.352||||||Eye-opening, T300: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T300) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.352
90901152|NCT01976364|181668233|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|1.35||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 1: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.35|-2.06|
90901153|NCT01976364|181668233|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|0.79||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 3: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.79|-2.51|
90901154|NCT01976364|181668233|OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.66|0.23||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 6: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.23|-3.66|
90901155|NCT01976364|181668233|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|1.32||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 9: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.32|-2.25|
90901156|NCT01976364|181668233|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|2.73||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 12: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.73|-0.82|
90901157|NCT01976364|181668234|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|2.82||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 1: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.82|-1.27|
90852814|NCT03274999|181569249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.312||||||Eye-opening, T360: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T360) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.312
90852815|NCT03274999|181569249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.134||||||Pre-blink, T0: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T0) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.134
90852816|NCT03274999|181569249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.315||||||Pre-blink, T15: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T15) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.315
90852817|NCT03274999|181569249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.071||||||Pre-blink, T30: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T30) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.071
90852818|NCT03274999|181569249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26||||||Pre-blink, T60: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T60) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.260
90852819|NCT03274999|181569249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.264||||||Pre-blink, T120: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T120) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.264
90901158|NCT01976364|181668234|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.46|1.71||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 3: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.71|-2.46|
90852820|NCT03274999|181569249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.381||||||Pre-blink, T180: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T180) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.381
90852821|NCT03274999|181569249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.249||||||Pre-blink, T240: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T240) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.249
91099822|NCT05894564|182085750|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.87|||||The interval is a highest-density credible interval. Adjustment variables: randomization, age, sex, duration of symptoms prior to study drug, calendar time, vaccination status, geographic region, call center indicator, and baseline symptom severity.|No hypothesis test or decision rule was evaluated.||1.87|0.56|
90852822|NCT03274999|181569249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.451||||||Pre-blink, T300: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T300) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.451
90852823|NCT03274999|181569249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.393||||||Pre-blink, T360: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T360) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.393
90852824|NCT03274999|181569250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006||||||Eye-opening, T0: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T0) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.006
90901159|NCT01976364|181668234|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.72|1.57||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 6: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.57|-2.72|
90901160|NCT01976364|181668234|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|2.36||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 9: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.36|-1.81|
90901161|NCT01976364|181668234|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|2.63||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 12: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.63|-1.58|
90901162|NCT01976364|181668235|OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.67|0.32||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 1: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.32|-3.67|
90901163|NCT01976364|181668235|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.86|1.63||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 3: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.63|-2.86|
90901164|NCT01976364|181668235|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.27|2.09||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 6: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.09|-2.27|
90901165|NCT01976364|181668235|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|2.95||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 9: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.95|-1.49|
90852825|NCT03274999|181569250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.063||||||Eye-opening, T15: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T15) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.063
90901166|NCT01976364|181668235|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|1.53||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 12: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.53|-3.10|
90901167|NCT01976364|181668236|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|2.81||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 1: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.81|-0.95|
90901168|NCT01976364|181668236|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|1.95||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 3: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.95|-1.72|
90901169|NCT01976364|181668236|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.9||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 6: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.90|-2.40|
90901170|NCT01976364|181668236|OTHER||LS mean difference|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|3.07||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 9: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||3.07|-0.93|
90852826|NCT03274999|181569250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||Eye-opening, T30: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T30) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.005
90901171|NCT01976364|181668236|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|2.38||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 12: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.38|-1.62|
91099823|NCT05894564|182085751|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.16|||||The interval is a highest-density credible interval. Adjustment variables: randomization, age, sex, duration of symptoms prior to study drug, calendar time, vaccination status, geographic region, call center indicator, and baseline symptom severity.|No hypothesis test or decision rule was evaluated.||1.16|0.25|
90957912|NCT00709852|181795561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.5||||0.6547|||||||McNemar|||||||0.6547
91099824|NCT05894564|182085752|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.74|||||The interval is a highest-density credible interval. Adjustment variables: randomization, age, sex, duration of symptoms prior to study drug, calendar time, vaccination status, geographic region, call center indicator, and baseline symptom severity.|No hypothesis test or decision rule was evaluated.||1.74|0.33|
90852827|NCT03274999|181569250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.089||||||Eye-opening, T60: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T60) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.089
90852828|NCT03274999|181569250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.112||||||Eye-opening, T120: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T120) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.112
90852829|NCT03274999|181569250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16||||||Eye-opening, T180: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T180) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.16
90852830|NCT03274999|181569250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.077||||||Eye-opening, T240: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T240) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.077
90852831|NCT03274999|181569250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.157||||||Eye-opening, T300: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T300) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.157
90852832|NCT03274999|181569250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.111||||||Eye-opening, T360: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T360) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.111
90852833|NCT03274999|181569250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||Pre-blink, T0: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T0) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.040
90852834|NCT03274999|181569250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.241||||||Pre-blink, T15: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T15) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.241
90852835|NCT03274999|181569250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.284||||||Pre-blink, T30: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T30) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.284
90852836|NCT03274999|181569250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.313||||||Pre-blink, T60: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T60) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.313
90852837|NCT03274999|181569250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.433||||||Pre-blink, T120: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T120) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.433
90852838|NCT03274999|181569250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.406||||||Pre-blink, T180: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T180) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.406
90852839|NCT03274999|181569250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.318||||||Pre-blink, T240: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T240) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.318
90852840|NCT03274999|181569250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.499||||||Pre-blink, T300: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T300) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.499
90852841|NCT03274999|181569250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39||||||Pre-blink, T360: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T360) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.390
90852842|NCT03274999|181569251|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.053||||||T0: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T0) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.053
90957913|NCT00709852|181795562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|7.9|||<|0.0001|||||||McNemar|||||||< 0.0001
90957914|NCT00709852|181795563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|21.5|||<|0.0001|||||||McNemar|||||||< 0.0001
90957915|NCT00709852|181795564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|1.5||||0.0833|||||||McNemar|||||||0.0833
90957916|NCT00709852|181795565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|4.5||||0.0236|||||||McNemar|||||||0.0236
91099825|NCT05894564|182085753|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.21|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||1.21|0.71|
90901172|NCT01976364|181668237|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|2.5||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 1: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.5|-0.9|
90901173|NCT01976364|181668237|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.2||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 3: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.2|-1.1|
90901174|NCT01976364|181668237|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.0||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 6: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.0|-2.4|
90901175|NCT01976364|181668237|OTHER||LS mean difference|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|2.9||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 9: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.9|-0.8|
90901176|NCT01976364|181668237|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.6||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 12: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.6|-1.1|
90852843|NCT03274999|181569251|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.206||||||T15: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T15) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.206
90957917|NCT00709852|181795566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|12.9||||0.0186|||||||McNemar|||||||0.0186
90957918|NCT00709852|181795567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.5||||0.7055|||||||McNemar|||||||0.7055
90852844|NCT03274999|181569251|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.221||||||T30: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T30) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.221
90852845|NCT03274999|181569251|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.126||||||T60: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T60) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.126
90852846|NCT03274999|181569251|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.124||||||T120: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T120) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.124
90852847|NCT03274999|181569251|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.167||||||T180: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T180) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.167
90852848|NCT03274999|181569251|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.377||||||T240: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T240) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.377
90852849|NCT03274999|181569251|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.397||||||T300: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T300) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.397
90957919|NCT00709852|181795568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|7.2|||<|0.0001|||||||McNemar|||||||< 0.0001
90957920|NCT00709852|181795569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|20.4|||<|0.0001|||||||McNemar|||||||< 0.0001
90957921|NCT00709852|181795570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|1.0||||0.1573|||||||McNemar|||||||0.1573
90957922|NCT00709852|181795571|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|noninferiority margin = -10%|Difference in percentages|2.1||||||95.0|0.2|3.9|||CI for paired percentages|lower limit of confidence interval is compared to noninferiority margin||||3.9|0.2|
90957923|NCT00709852|181795572|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|noninferiority margin = -10%|Difference in percentages|6.5||||||95.0|1.5|11.4|||CI for paired percentages|lower limit of confidence interval is compared to noninferiority margin||||11.4|1.5|
90957924|NCT00709852|181795573|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|noninferiority margin = -10%|Difference in percentages|0.0||||||95.0|-1.4|1.4|||CI for paired percentages|lower limit of confidence interval is compared to noninferiority margin||||1.4|-1.4|
90852850|NCT03274999|181569251|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.441||||||T360: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T360) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.441
90957925|NCT00709852|181795574|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|noninferiority margin = -10%|Difference in percentages|0.7||||||95.0|-0.3|1.6|||CI for paired percentages|lower limit of confidence interval is compared to noninferiority margin||||1.6|-0.3|
90852851|NCT03274999|181569252|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.034||||||T0: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T0) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.034
90852852|NCT03274999|181569252|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.143||||||T15: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T15) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.143
90957926|NCT00709852|181795575|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|noninferiority margin = -10%|Difference in percentages|1.1||||||95.0|-1.0|3.2|||CI for paired percentages|lower limit of confidence interval is compared to noninferiority margin||||3.2|-1.0|
90957927|NCT00709852|181795576|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|noninferiority margin = -10%|Difference in percentages|0.5||||||95.0|-0.5|1.5|||CI for paired percentages|lower limit of confidence interval is compared to noninferiority margin||||1.5|-0.5|
90957928|NCT00709852|181795577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.57|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.56|<|0.0001|||||||paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
90957929|NCT00709852|181795578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.57|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.58|<|0.0001|||||||paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
90957930|NCT00709852|181795579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.48||||||||||||||||
90957931|NCT00709852|181795580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.76|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.93|<|0.0001|||||||paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
90957932|NCT00709852|181795581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.73|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.89|<|0.0001|||||||paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
90852853|NCT03274999|181569252|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.328||||||T30: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T30) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.328
90852854|NCT03274999|181569252|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25||||||T60: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T60) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.250
90852855|NCT03274999|181569252|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09||||||T120: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T120) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.090
90852856|NCT03274999|181569252|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.328||||||T180: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T180) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.328
90852857|NCT03274999|181569252|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.055||||||T240: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T240) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.055
90852858|NCT03274999|181569252|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09||||||T300: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T300) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.090
90901177|NCT01976364|181668238|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.2||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 1: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.2|-0.4|
90901178|NCT01976364|181668238|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.7||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 3: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.7|-1.0|
90901179|NCT01976364|181668238|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.1||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 6: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.1|-1.6|
90957933|NCT00709852|181795582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.39||||||||||||||||
90957934|NCT00709852|181795583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||for all three readers|t-test, 2 sided|||||||< 0.0001
90957935|NCT00709852|181795585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.06||||||||||||||||
90957936|NCT00709852|181795586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|26.6||||||||||||||||
90957937|NCT05326815|181795696|OTHER|Spearman Correlation.|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
90957938|NCT05172050|181795708|SUPERIORITY|Analysis is based on Exact Binary logistic regression model with treatment group, age group and status as main effects.|Odds Ratio (OR)|9.99||||0.0109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.781||Upper limit is not estimable (NE) due to the low number of events||Regression, Logistic||||||1.781|0.0109
90957939|NCT05172050|181795708|SUPERIORITY|Analysis is based on Exact Binary logistic regression model with treatment group, age group and status as main effects.|Odds Ratio (OR)|5.414||||0.0673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.858||The upper limit is not estimable (NE), due to the low number of events||Regression, Logistic||||||0.858|0.0673
90852859|NCT03274999|181569252|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.233||||||T360: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T360) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.233
90957940|NCT05172050|181795708|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.186||||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.147||The upper limit was not estimable due to the low number of events|Analysis is based on Exact Binary logistic regression model with treatment group, age group and status as main effects.|Regression, Logistic|||This sensitivity analysis is conducted on the per protocol (PP) population: n=18 in the Raloxifene 60 mg arm; n=17 in the Raloxifene 120 mg arm; and n=17 in the Placebo arm.|||2.147|0.0061
90957941|NCT05172050|181795708|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.936||||0.0567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.938||The upper limit was not estimable due to the low number of events|Analysis is based on Exact Binary logistic regression model with treatment group, age group and status as main effects.|Regression, Logistic|||This sensitivity analysis is conducted on the per protocol (PP) population: n=18 in the Raloxifene 60 mg arm; n=17 in the Raloxifene 120 mg arm; and n=17 in the Placebo arm|||0.938|0.0567
90957942|NCT05172050|181795709|SUPERIORITY|Analysis is based on Exact Binary logistic regression model with treatment group, age group and status as main effects|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.663||||0.7121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.337|9.053|||Regression, Logistic|||||9.053|0.337|0.7121
90957943|NCT05172050|181795709|SUPERIORITY|Analysis is based on Exact Binary logistic regression model with treatment group, age group and status as main effects|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.963|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.185|4.977|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.977|0.185|>0.999
90957944|NCT05172050|181795709|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.34||||0.5378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|20.153||Analysis is based on Exact Binary logistic regression model with treatment group, age group and status as main effects.|Regression, Logistic|||This sensitivity analysis is conducted on the per protocol (PP) population: n=18 in the Raloxifene 60 mg arm; n=17 in the Raloxifene 120 mg arm; and n=17 in the Placebo arm||20.153|0.350|0.5378
90852860|NCT03274999|181569253|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.072||||||T0: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T0) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.072
90852861|NCT03274999|181569253|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.297||||||T15: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T15) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.297
90852862|NCT03274999|181569253|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.328||||||T30: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T30) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.328
91099826|NCT05894564|182085753|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.19|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.19|0.67|
90852863|NCT03274999|181569253|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.447||||||T60: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T60) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.447
90852864|NCT03274999|181569253|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.328||||||T120: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T120) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.328
90901180|NCT01976364|181668238|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.8||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 9: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.8|-0.9|
90901181|NCT01976364|181668238|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.8||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 12: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.8|-0.9|
90957945|NCT05172050|181795709|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.209|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.185|8.589||Analysis is based on Exact Binary logistic regression model with treatment group, age group and status as main effects.|Regression, Logistic|||This sensitivity analysis is conducted on the per protocol (PP) population: n=18 in the Raloxifene 60 mg arm; n=17 in the Raloxifene 120 mg arm; and n=17 in the Placebo arm||8.589|0.185|>0.999
90852865|NCT03274999|181569253|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09||||||T180: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T180) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.090
90901182|NCT01976364|181668239|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.6||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 1: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.6|-0.6|
90901183|NCT01976364|181668239|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.7||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 3: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.7|-0.3|
90901184|NCT01976364|181668239|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.2||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 6: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.2|-1.0|
90901185|NCT01976364|181668239|OTHER||LS mean difference|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.3||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 9: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.3|0.0|
90957946|NCT05172050|181795710|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.114|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.219|5.708|||Regression, Logistic|Analysis is based on Exact Binary logistic regression model with treatment group, age group and status as main effects.||at Day 14||5.708|0.219|>0.999
90957947|NCT05172050|181795710|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.202||||0.2553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.541|22.116|||Regression, Logistic|Analysis is based on Exact Binary logistic regression model with treatment group, age group and status as main effects.||At day 14||22.116|0.541|0.2553
90957948|NCT05172050|181795710|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.16||||0.6189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.294|18.532|||Regression, Logistic|Analysis is based on Exact Binary logistic regression model with treatment group, age group and status as main effects.||at Day 28||18.532|0.294|0.6189
90957949|NCT05172050|181795710|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.22||||0.1662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.586|413.499|||Regression, Logistic|Analysis is based on Exact Binary logistic regression model with treatment group, age group and status as main effects.||at Day 28||413.499|0.586|0.1662
91099827|NCT05894564|182085753|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.19|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||1.19|0.61|
90901186|NCT01976364|181668239|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.9||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 12: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.9|-0.3|
90901187|NCT01976364|181668240|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 1: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.2|-0.1|
90901188|NCT01976364|181668240|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 3: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.2|-0.1|
90901189|NCT01976364|181668240|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 6: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.2|-0.1|
90901190|NCT01976364|181668240|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 9: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.2|-0.1|
90901191|NCT01976364|181668240|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.2||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 12: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.2|0.0|
90957950|NCT05172050|181795711|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.972|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.193|4.906|||Regression, Logistic|Analysis is based on Exact Binary logistic regression model with treatment group, age group and status as main effects||at Day 7||4.906|0.193|>0.999
90957951|NCT05172050|181795711|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.156|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|6.822|||Regression, Logistic|Analysis is based on Exact Binary logistic regression model with treatment group, age group and status as main effects||at Day 7||6.822|0.200|>0.999
91099828|NCT05894564|182085753|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.28|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.28|0.61|
91099829|NCT05894564|182085753|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.49|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 120||1.49|0.70|
90901192|NCT01976364|181668241|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.1||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 1: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.1|0.0|
90901193|NCT01976364|181668241|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.2||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 3: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.2|0.0|
90901194|NCT01976364|181668241|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.2||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 6: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.2|0.0|
90901195|NCT01976364|181668241|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 9: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.1|-0.1|
90901196|NCT01976364|181668241|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 12: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.1|-0.1|
90901197|NCT01976364|181668242|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 1: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.1|-0.1|
90957952|NCT05172050|181795711|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.066|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.208|5.478|||Regression, Logistic|Analysis is based on Exact Binary logistic regression model with treatment group, age group and status as main effects||at Day 28||5.478|0.208|>0.999
90957953|NCT05172050|181795711|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.068||||0.5465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.369|12.58|||Regression, Logistic|Analysis is based on Exact Binary logistic regression model with treatment group, age group and status as main effects||at Day 28||12.580|0.369|0.5465
90958959|NCT01191268|181798005|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 1-sided adjusted p-value was below 0.025, then 0.75 mg LY2189265 was declared non-inferior to Insulin Glargine.|LS Mean Difference|-0.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.02||Family-wise Type I error rate was controlled by applying tree-gatekeeping strategy.|ANCOVA|||||-0.02|-0.37|<0.001
91099830|NCT05894564|182085754|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.27|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||1.27|0.80|
91099831|NCT05894564|182085754|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.26|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.26|0.77|
91099832|NCT05894564|182085754|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.14|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||1.14|0.67|
90852866|NCT03274999|181569253|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.055||||||T240: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T240) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.055
90852867|NCT03274999|181569253|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09||||||T300: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T300) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.090
90901198|NCT01976364|181668242|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 3: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.2|-0.1|
90901199|NCT01976364|181668242|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.2||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 6: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.2|0.0|
90901200|NCT01976364|181668242|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 9: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.1|-0.1|
90901201|NCT01976364|181668242|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 12: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.2|-0.1|
90901202|NCT01976364|181668243|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 1: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.1|-0.1|
90901203|NCT01976364|181668243|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 3: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.2|-0.1|
90901204|NCT01976364|181668243|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 6: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.1|-0.1|
90901205|NCT01976364|181668243|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 9: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.2|-0.1|
90901206|NCT01976364|181668243|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 12: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.2|-0.1|
90901207|NCT01976364|181668244|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 1: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.1|-0.2|
90901208|NCT01976364|181668244|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 3: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.1|-0.2|
90901209|NCT01976364|181668244|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 6: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.1|-0.2|
90901210|NCT01976364|181668244|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.0||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 9: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.0|-0.3|
90852868|NCT03274999|181569253|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5||||||T360: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T360) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.500
90852869|NCT01527357|181569260|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||< 0.0001
90852870|NCT01527357|181569261|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||< 0.0001
91099833|NCT05894564|182085754|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.36|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.36|0.77|
91099834|NCT05894564|182085754|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.33|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 120||1.33|0.76|
90852871|NCT01527357|181569262|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||< 0.0001
90852872|NCT01527357|181569263|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||< 0.0001
90852873|NCT02233946|181569268|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.02||||||Participants who reported past-12-month use of alcohol or other drugs at baseline||1.02|0.47|
90852874|NCT02233946|181569268|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.31||||||Participants who reported no past-12-month use of alcohol or other drugs at baseline||1.31|0.57|
90852875|NCT02233946|181569269|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.1||||||Participants who reported past-12-month use of alcohol or other drugs at baseline||1.10|0.40|
90852876|NCT02233946|181569270|SUPERIORITY|Participants who reported past-12-month use of alcohol or other drugs at baseline|Cox Proportional Hazard|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.94||||||||0.94|0.41|
90852877|NCT02233946|181569270|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.32||||||Participants who reported no past-12-month use of alcohol or other drugs at baseline||1.32|0.44|
90852878|NCT02233946|181569271|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.34||||||"Participants with riding risk at baseline:~Adjusted Relative Risk Ratio (ARRR) of past-3-month riding risk at 6 months follow-up, cSBI vs. TAU."||1.34|0.50|
90852879|NCT02233946|181569271|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.19||||||"Participants with riding risk at baseline:~Adjusted Relative Risk Ratio (ARRR) of past-3-month riding risk at 9 months follow-up, cSBI vs. TAU."||1.19|0.44|
90901211|NCT01976364|181668244|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.0||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 12: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.0|-0.2|
90901212|NCT01976364|181668245|OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|0.4||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 1: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.4|-6.2|
90901213|NCT01976364|181668245|OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|2.7||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 3: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.7|-5.8|
90901214|NCT01976364|181668245|OTHER||LS mean difference|-6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|-2.4||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 6: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-2.4|-10.2|
90957954|NCT05172050|181795714|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3899||||||P-Value comparing % among treatment groups Raloxifene 60mg versus Placebo using Fisher's Exact test.|Fisher Exact|||The proportion of hospitalized participants who at the beginning of the study were at domicile isolation at Day 7, Day 14 and Day 28 after randomization was analysed using comparison of proportions (i.e. comparisons of each active treatment group versus placebo at each assessment day) through Fisher's exact test and was summarized using frequency and percent by treatment and visit. Herein Day 7 R60 vs Placebo||||0.3899
90852880|NCT02233946|181569271|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.91||||||"Participants with riding risk at baseline:~Adjusted Relative Risk Ratio (ARRR) of past-3-month riding risk at 12 months follow-up, cSBI vs. TAU."||0.91|0.37|
90852881|NCT02233946|181569271|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.23||||||"Participants with no riding risk at baseline:~Adjusted Relative Risk Ratio (ARRR) of past-3-month riding risk at 6 months follow-up, cSBI vs. TAU."||1.23|0.43|
90852882|NCT02233946|181569271|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|2.66||||||"Participants with no riding risk at baseline:~Adjusted Relative Risk Ratio (ARRR) of past-3-month riding risk at 9 months follow-up, cSBI vs. TAU."||2.66|0.67|
90852883|NCT02233946|181569271|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.99||||||"Participants with no riding risk at baseline:~Adjusted Relative Risk Ratio (ARRR) of past-3-month riding risk at 12 months follow-up, cSBI vs. TAU."||1.99|0.50|
90852884|NCT01879579|181569289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
90901215|NCT01976364|181668245|OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|1.6||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 9: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.6|-7.3|
90901216|NCT01976364|181668245|OTHER||LS mean difference|-4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|0.2||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 12: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.2|-9.9|
90901217|NCT02960763|181668278|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measure of 2\*2\*3 ANOVA with age (60 - 70, \> 70), time (baseline, end of Active phase of Step 1) by treatment group (3 levels). Tests were conducted with a Hochberg Step-down procedure. If the comparison with the lowest p-value \< 0.05/3 it is significant. If the second lowest p-value is also \< 0.05/2 then it also will be significant and if the third p-value is \< 0.05 then it also will be significant.||||||0.01||||||Equivalence of group|ANOVA|||||||0.010
90901218|NCT02960763|181668278|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measure of 2\*2\*3 ANOVA with age (60 - 70, \> 70), time (baseline, end of Active phase of Step 1) by treatment group (3 levels). Tests were conducted with a Hochberg Step-down procedure. If the comparison with the lowest p-value \< 0.05/3 it is significant. If the second lowest p-value is also \< 0.05/2 then it also will be significant and if the third p-value is \< 0.05 then it also will be significant.||||||0.004||||||augment with aripiprazole vs switch to bupropion|ANOVA|||||||0.004
90852885|NCT01879579|181569290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||Interval-censoring survival analysis|||||||0.007
90852886|NCT01879579|181569291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.99
90852887|NCT01879579|181569292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.78
90852888|NCT01879579|181569293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.04
90852889|NCT01879579|181569294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.13
90852890|NCT01879579|181569299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||Generalized estimating equation modeling|||||||0.008
90852891|NCT01879579|181569300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.003
91099835|NCT05894564|182085755|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.09|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||1.09|0.65|
90852892|NCT02927067|181569304|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority (NI) margin of primary efficacy endpoint was 7%. If lower limit of 95% confidence interval (CI) was greater than -7%, NI was assumed. Power calculation: Assuming 68% (maribavir), 60% (valganciclovir) participants achieve confirmed viremia clearance,494 participants (247 per group) would yield \>90% power to declare NI based on 2-group test of equivalence in proportions. Considering 10% dropout,550 participants (275 per group) were planned to be enrolled and randomized.|Difference in Percentage of Responders|-7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.98|-0.36|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weighted average approach (stratified for baseline plasma CMV DNA concentration and acute GVHD status) was used for adjusted difference in percentage of responders (Maribavir-Valganciclovir), 95% CI, and p-value.|||-0.36|-14.98|
90852893|NCT02927067|181569305|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin of the key secondary efficacy endpoint was 7%. If the lower limit of the 95% CI was greater than -7%, then noninferiority (NI) was assumed. Because the NI of the primary efficacy endpoint was not established, the NI hypothesis of the key secondary endpoint was not tested formally.|Difference in Percentage of Responders|4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.91|12.76|||||CMH weighted average approach (stratified for baseline plasma CMV DNA concentration and acute GVHD status) was used for the adjusted difference in percentage of responders (Maribavir-Valganciclovir), the corresponding 95% CI, and the p-value.|||12.76|-3.91|
90852894|NCT02927067|181569306|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Responders|8.0|||=|0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|16.3||The CMH weighted average approach (stratified for baseline plasma CMV DNA concentration and acute GVHD status) was used for the adjusted difference in percentage of responders (Maribavir-Valganciclovir), the corresponding 95% CI, and the p-value.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||16.30|-0.38|=0.061
90852895|NCT02927067|181569307|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Responders|8.0|||=|0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|16.3||The CMH weighted average approach (stratified for baseline plasma CMV DNA concentration and acute GVHD status) was used for the adjusted difference in percentage of responders (Maribavir-Valganciclovir), the corresponding 95% CI, and the p-value.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||16.30|-0.38|=0.061
90852896|NCT02927067|181569307|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Responders|13.4|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.23|21.62||The CMH weighted average approach (stratified for baseline plasma CMV DNA concentration and acute GVHD status) was used for the adjusted difference in percentage of responders (Maribavir-Valganciclovir), the corresponding 95% CI, and the p-value.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||21.62|5.23|=0.001
90957955|NCT05172050|181795714|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4075||||||P-Value comparing % among treatment groups Raloxifene 120 mg versus Placebo using Fisher's Exact test.|Fisher Exact|||The proportion of hospitalized participants who at the beginning of the study were at domicile isolation at Day 7, Day 14 and Day 28 after randomization was analysed using comparison of proportions (i.e. comparisons of each active treatment group versus placebo at each assessment day) through Fisher's exact test and was summarized using frequency and percent by treatment and visit. Herein Day 7 R120 vs placebo||||0.4075
90901219|NCT02960763|181668278|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measure of 2\*2\*3 ANOVA with age (60 - 70, \> 70), time (baseline, end of Active phase of Step 1) by treatment group (3 levels). Tests were conducted with a Hochberg Step-down procedure. If the comparison with the lowest p-value \< 0.05/3 it is significant. If the second lowest p-value is also \< 0.05/2 then it also will be significant and if the third p-value is \< 0.05 then it also will be significant.||||||0.017||||||augment with bupropion vs switch to bupropion|ANOVA|||||||0.017
90901220|NCT02960763|181668278|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||ANOVA|||Repeated measure of 2\*2\*3 ANOVA with age (60 - 70, \> 70), time (baseline, end of Active phase of Step 1) by treatment group (3 levels). Tests were conducted with a Hochberg Step-down procedure. If the comparison with the lowest p-value \< 0.05/3 it is significant. If the second lowest p-value is also \< 0.05/2 then it also will be significant and if the third p-value is \< 0.05 then it also will be significant.||||0.650
90901221|NCT02960763|181668278|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||augmentation versus switch|ANOVA|||Repeated measure of 2\*2\*3 ANOVA with age (60 - 70, \> 70), time (baseline, end of Active phase of Step 1) by treatment group (3 levels). Tests were conducted with a Hochberg Step-down procedure. If the comparison with the lowest p-value \< 0.05/3 it is significant. If the second lowest p-value is also \< 0.05/2 then it also will be significant and if the third p-value is \< 0.05 then it also will be significant.||||0.003
90901222|NCT02960763|181668278|SUPERIORITY|For those who proceed to Step 2, analogous repeated measures 2\*2\*2 ANOVA will be used with a significance level of .05 for the time\*treatment group comparison.||||||0.385|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.385
91099836|NCT05894564|182085755|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.32|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.32|0.74|
90901223|NCT02960763|181668279|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038||||||Group effect|generalized linear model with logistic l|||||||0.038
90901224|NCT02960763|181668279|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.021||||||augmentation with aripiprazole vs switch to bupropion|generalized linear model with logistic l|||||||0.021
90901225|NCT02960763|181668279|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027||||||augmentation with bupropion vs switch to bupropion|generalized linear model with logistic l|||||||0.027
90901226|NCT02960763|181668279|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.934||||||Augmentation with aripiprazole v augmentation with bupropion|generalized linear model with logistic l|||||||0.934
90901227|NCT02960763|181668279|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011||||||augmentation versus switch|generalized linear model with logistic l|||||||0.011
90901228|NCT02960763|181668279|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||generalized linear model with logistic l|||||||0.500
90901229|NCT02960763|181668280|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.164||||||Cox models time to event comparing treatment arms.|Regression, Cox|||||||0.164
90901230|NCT02960763|181668280|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.103|||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.103
90901231|NCT02960763|181668280|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.127|||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.127
90901232|NCT02960763|181668280|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.524||||||Cox models to examine time to event comparing treatment arms.|Regression, Cox|||||||0.524
90901233|NCT01928225|181668313|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.18||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.6||\<0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Chi-squared|||||1.6|.87|.29
90852897|NCT02927067|181569307|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Responders|13.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.8|21.87||The CMH weighted average approach (stratified for baseline plasma CMV DNA concentration and acute GVHD status) was used for the adjusted difference in percentage of responders (Maribavir-Valganciclovir), the corresponding 95% CI, and the p-value.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||21.87|5.80|<0.001
90852898|NCT02927067|181569307|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Responders|9.7|||=|0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.98|17.5||The CMH weighted average approach (stratified for baseline plasma CMV DNA concentration and acute GVHD status) was used for the adjusted difference in percentage of responders (Maribavir-Valganciclovir), the corresponding 95% CI, and the p-value.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||17.50|1.98|=0.014
90852899|NCT02927067|181569308|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Responders|-7.3|||=|0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.64|0.02||The CMH weighted average approach (stratified for baseline plasma CMV DNA concentration and acute GVHD status) was used for the adjusted difference in percentage of responders (Maribavir-Valganciclovir), the corresponding 95% CI, and the p-value.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||0.02|-14.64|=0.051
90852900|NCT02927067|181569308|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Responders|2.2|||=|0.606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.05|10.37||The CMH weighted average approach (stratified for baseline plasma CMV DNA concentration and acute GVHD status) was used for the adjusted difference in percentage of responders (Maribavir-Valganciclovir), the corresponding 95% CI, and the p-value.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||10.37|-6.05|=0.606
90852901|NCT02927067|181569308|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Responders|1.0|||=|0.809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.27|9.31||The CMH weighted average approach (stratified for baseline plasma CMV DNA concentration and acute GVHD status) was used for the adjusted difference in percentage of responders (Maribavir-Valganciclovir), the corresponding 95% CI, and the p-value.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||9.31|-7.27|=0.809
90852902|NCT02519855|181569343|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A lower bound of the 95% CI on the fold difference (GMT ratio \[Concomitant / Nonconcomitant\] at 4 weeks postvaccination) \>0.67 implied that the difference is statistically significantly noninferior to the prespecified clinically relevant decrease of 1.5-fold. A p-value ≤0.025 also supported a conclusion of noninferiority.|GMT Ratio at 4 weeks postvaccination|0.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.95|||Longitudinal regression model|GMT ratio, 95% CI and p-value were based on a longitudinal regression model adjusting for prevaccination titers and age.||||0.95|0.80|<0.001
90852903|NCT02519855|181569344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMFR from Baseline|1.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.76|2.05||A lower bound of the 95% CI on the GMFR \> 1.4 indicated that the Concomitant Group induces an acceptable VZV antibody response. A p-value ≤0.025 also supported this conclusion.|Longitudinal regression||Estimated GMFR, 95% CI and p-value were based on a longitudinal regression model adjusting for age.|||2.05|1.76|<0.001
90901234|NCT01928225|181668314|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.26||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.95|||Chi-squared|||||1.95|.85|.22
90901235|NCT01678820|181668339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|0.19||||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.52|||Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|Based on a longitudinal model including terms for region, treatment, time, and the interaction of time by treatment||||0.52|-0.14|0.267
90901236|NCT01678820|181668340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percents|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|9.3|||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|||9.3|-10.2|
90901237|NCT01678820|181668340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percents|-4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|5.8|||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|||5.8|-14.7|
90901238|NCT01678820|181668342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.28|||Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|Based on a longitudinal model including terms for region, treatment, time, and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-0.28|-0.95|<0.001
90901239|NCT01678820|181668343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|1.7||||0.856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|20.6|||Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|Based on a longitudinal model including terms for region, treatment, time, and the interaction of time by treatment.||||20.6|-17.1|0.856
90901240|NCT01678820|181668343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-29.2||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.9|-10.6|||Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|Based on a longitudinal model including terms for region, treatment, time, and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-10.6|-47.9|0.002
90901241|NCT01678820|181668344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-25.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.6|-15.6|||Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|Based on a longitudinal model including terms for region, treatment, time, and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-15.6|-35.6|<0.001
90901242|NCT01678820|181668344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|5.3||||0.286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|15.2|||Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|Based on a longitudinal model including terms for region, treatment, time, and the interaction of time by treatment.||||15.2|-4.5|0.286
90901243|NCT01678820|181668345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-18.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.2|-12.0|||Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|Based on a longitudinal model including terms for region, treatment, time, and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-12.0|-24.2|<0.001
90901244|NCT01678820|181668345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|0.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|6.0|||Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|Based on a longitudinal model including terms for region, treatment, time, and the interaction of time by treatment.||||6.0|-6.0|0.990
90901245|NCT01678820|181668346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-20.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.3|-12.2|||Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|Based on a longitudinal model including terms for region, treatment, time, and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-12.2|-28.3|<0.001
90901246|NCT01678820|181668346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|2.9||||0.469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|10.7|||Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|Based on a longitudinal model including terms for region, treatment, time, and the interaction of time by treatment.||||10.7|-5.0|0.469
90958960|NCT01191268|181798005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.25||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.07||Family-wise Type I error rate was controlled by applying tree-gatekeeping strategy.|ANCOVA|||Superiority analysis.||-0.07|-0.42|0.005
90852904|NCT02519855|181569345|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A lower bound of the 95% CI on the fold difference (GMT ratio \[Concomitant / Nonconcomitant\] at 4 weeks postvaccination) \>0.67 implied that the difference is statistically significantly noninferior to the prespecified clinically relevant decrease of 1.5-fold. A p-value ≤0.025 also supported the conclusion of noninferiority.|GMT Ratio at 4 weeks postvaccination|1.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.18|||Longitudinal regression|GMT ratio, 95% CI and p-value were based on a longitudinal regression model adjusting for prevaccination titers and age.||||1.18|0.88|<0.001
90852905|NCT02519855|181569346|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A lower bound of the 95% CI on the fold difference (GMT ratio \[Concomitant / Nonconcomitant\] at 4 weeks postvaccination) \>0.67 implied that the difference is statistically significantly noninferior to the prespecified clinically relevant decrease of 1.5-fold. A p-value ≤0.025 also supported the conclusion of noninferiority.|GMT Ratio at 4 weeks postvaccination|1.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.29|||Longitudinal regression|GMT ratio, 95% CI and p-value were based on a longitudinal regression model adjusting for prevaccination titers and age.||||1.29|0.94|<0.001
90852906|NCT02519855|181569347|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A lower bound of the 95% CI on the fold difference (GMT ratio \[Concomitant / Nonconcomitant\] at 4 weeks postvaccination) \>0.67 implied that the difference is statistically significantly noninferior to the prespecified clinically relevant decrease of 1.5-fold. A p-value ≤0.025 also supported the conclusion of noninferiority.|GMT Ratio at 4 weeks postvaccination|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.14|||Longitudinal regression|GMT ratio, 95% CI and p-value were based on a longitudinal regression model adjusting for prevaccination titers and age.||||1.14|0.88|<0.001
90852907|NCT02519855|181569348|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A lower bound of the 95% CI on the fold difference (GMT ratio \[Concomitant / Nonconcomitant\] at 4 weeks postvaccination) \>0.67 implied that the difference is statistically significantly noninferior to the prespecified clinically relevant decrease of 1.5-fold. A p-value ≤0.025 also supported the conclusion of noninferiority.|GMT Ratio at 4 weeks postvaccination|0.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.13|||Longitudinal regression|GMT ratio, 95% CI and p-value were based on a longitudinal regression model adjusting for prevaccination titers and age.||||1.13|0.87|<0.001
90852908|NCT01842633|181569366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|-0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|0.42||||||||0.42|-1.36|
90852909|NCT02093351|181569383|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% confidence interval (CI) for the tamoxifen treatment ratio falls within 0.7 to 1.43, olaparib can be considered to have had an effect on tamoxifen exposure that is unlikely to be clinically relevant.|GLS Mean Ratio|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.06|1.22|||||olaparib + tamoxifen vs. tamoxifen|Analysis of tamoxifen PK parameters.||1.22|1.06|
90852910|NCT02093351|181569384|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CI for the olaparib treatment ratio falls within 0.7 to 1.43, tamoxifen can be considered to have had an effect on olaparib exposure that is unlikely to be clinically relevant.|GLS Mean Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.71|0.9|||||olaparib + tamoxifen vs. olaparib|Analysis of olaparib PK parameters.||0.90|0.71|
90852911|NCT02093351|181569385|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CI for the anastrozole treatment ratio falls within 0.8 to 1.25, olaparib can be considered to have had little or no effect on anastrozole exposure.|Geometric Least Squares (GLS) Mean Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|0.97|||||olaparib + anastrozole vs. anastrozole|Analysis of anastrozole PK parameters.||0.97|0.84|
90852912|NCT02093351|181569386|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CI for the olaparib treatment ratio falls within 0.7 to 1.43, anastrozole can be considered to have had an effect on olaparib exposure that is unlikely to be clinically relevant.|GLS Mean Ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|1.04|||||olaparib + anastrozole vs. olaparib|Analysis of olaparib PK parameters.||1.04|0.84|
90901247|NCT01678820|181668347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-24.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.6|-16.3|||Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|Based on a longitudinal model including terms for region, treatment, time, and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-16.3|-32.6|<0.001
90901248|NCT01678820|181668347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|0.3||||0.937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|8.3|||Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|Based on a longitudinal model including terms for region, treatment, time, and the interaction of time by treatment.||||8.3|-7.7|0.937
90901249|NCT01678820|181668348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in estimated means|-15.5||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.2|1.2|||Robust regression|Using M-estimation with treatment, region, and a covariate for baseline triglycerides (mg/dL). Missing data were imputed by multiple imputations.||||1.2|-32.2|0.068
90901250|NCT01678820|181668348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in estimated means|-10.3||||0.365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.6|13.0|||Robust regression|Using M-estimation with treatment, region, and a covariate for baseline triglycerides (mg/dL). Missing data were imputed by multiple imputations.||||13.0|-33.6|0.365
90901251|NCT01678820|181668349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|0.5||||0.857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|5.8|||Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|Based on a longitudinal model including terms for region, treatment, time, and the interaction of time by treatment.||||5.8|-4.8|0.857
90901252|NCT01678820|181668349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|0.4||||0.879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|5.6|||Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|Based on a longitudinal model including terms for region, treatment, time, and the interaction of time by treatment.||||5.6|-4.8|0.879
90901253|NCT01678820|181668350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-30.4||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.0|-9.7|||Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|Based on a longitudinal model including terms for region, treatment, time, and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-9.7|-51.0|0.004
90901254|NCT01678820|181668350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-15.3||||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.8|5.1|||Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|Based on a longitudinal model including terms for region, treatment, time, and the interaction of time by treatment.||||5.1|-35.8|0.141
91031057|NCT03561883|181946770|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.7424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.48|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds Ratio for Response (IW-3718 : placebo)|Treatment difference was calculated as the difference in the responder rates at Week 8; IW-3718 - placebo. The 95% CI for the difference in the responder rates was obtained using the Newcombe CI. P value was based on the odds ratio for the response rate (IW-3718:placebo) obtained from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) tests controlling for baseline esophagitis status and baseline heartburn severity level (\< 3 vs. ≥ 3).||1.48|0.76|0.7424
90901255|NCT01678820|181668351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percents|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|12.9|||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method. Missing data were imputed by multiple impuattions.|||12.9|-12.2|
90852913|NCT02093351|181569387|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CI for the letrozole treatment ratio falls within 0.8 to 1.25, olaparib can be considered to have had little or no effect on letrozole exposure.|GLS Mean Ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|0.98|||||olaparib + letrozole vs. letrozole|Analysis of letrozole PK parameters.||0.98|0.91|
90852914|NCT02093351|181569388|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CI for the olaparib treatment ratio falls within 0.7 to 1.43, letrozole can be considered to have had an effect on olaparib exposure that is unlikely to be clinically relevant.|GLS Mean Ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.99|1.21|||||olaparib + letrozole vs. olaparib|Analysis of olaparib PK parameters||1.21|0.99|
90852915|NCT02093351|181569389|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CI for the tamoxifen treatment ratio falls within 0.7 to 1.43, olaparib can be considered to have had an effect on tamoxifen exposure that is unlikely to be clinically relevant.|GLS Mean Ratio|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.11|1.21|||||olaparib + tamoxifen vs. tamoxifen|Analysis of tamoxifen PK parameters.||1.21|1.11|
90852916|NCT02093351|181569390|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CI for the olaparib treatment ratio falls within 0.7 to 1.43, tamoxifen can be considered to have had an effect on olaparib exposure that is unlikely to be clinically relevant.|GLS Mean Ratio|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.63|0.84|||||olaparib + tamoxifen vs. olaparib|Analysis of olaparib PK parameters.||0.84|0.63|
90852917|NCT02093351|181569391|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CI for the anastrozole treatment ratio falls within 0.8 to 1.25, olaparib can be considered to have had little or no effect on anastrozole exposure.|GLS Mean Ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|0.93|||||olaparib + anastrozole vs. anastrozole|Analysis of anastrozole PK parameters.||0.93|0.80|
90852918|NCT02093351|181569392|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CI for the olaparib treatment ratio falls within 0.7 to 1.43, anastrozole can be considered to have had an effect on olaparib exposure that is unlikely to be clinically relevant.|GLS Mean Ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.76|1.05|||||olaparib + anastrozole vs. olaparib|Analysis of olaparib PK parameters.||1.05|0.76|
90957956|NCT05172050|181795714|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3899||||||P-Value comparing % among treatment groups Raloxifene 60mg versus Placebo using Fisher's Exact test.|Fisher Exact|||The proportion of hospitalized participants who at the beginning of the study were at domicile isolation at Day 7, Day 14 and Day 28 after randomization was analysed using comparison of proportions (i.e. comparisons of each active treatment group versus placebo at each assessment day) through Fisher's exact test and was summarized using frequency and percent by treatment and visit. Herein Day 14 R60 vs placebo||||0.3899
90852919|NCT02093351|181569393|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CI for the letrozole treatment ratio falls within 0.8 to 1.25, olaparib can be considered to have had little or no effect on letrozole exposure.|GLS Mean Ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|0.99|||||olaparib + letrozole vs. letrozole|Analysis of letrozole PK parameters.||0.99|0.91|
90852920|NCT02093351|181569394|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CI for the olaparib treatment ratio falls within 0.7 to 1.43, letrozole can be considered to have had an effect on olaparib exposure that is unlikely to be clinically relevant.|GLS Mean Ratio|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.07|1.25|||||olaparib + letrozole vs. olaparib|Analysis of olaparib PK parameters.||1.25|1.07|
90852921|NCT02057042|181569397|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
90852922|NCT02057042|181569398|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
90852923|NCT02057042|181569399|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
90852924|NCT02057042|181569400|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
90852925|NCT02057042|181569401|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
90852926|NCT02057042|181569402|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
90852927|NCT01099709|181569403|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A mixed-model analysis of variance was used to compare (test vs reference) and the 90% confidence intervals were estimated for the ratios (test/reference).|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|105.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.06|108.51|||||Bioequivalence was established when 90% Confidence Interval fell within 80%-125%.|||108.51|101.06|
90852928|NCT01099709|181569403|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A mixed-model analysis of variance was used to compare (test vs reference) and the 90% confidence intervals were estimated for the ratios (test/reference)|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|105.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.06|108.51|||ANOVA||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80%-125%.|||108.51|101.06|
90852929|NCT01099709|181569404|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A mixed-model analysis of variance was used to compare (test vs reference) and the 90% confidence intervals were estimated for the ratios (test/reference)|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|95.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.73|97.53|||ANOVA||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80%-125%.|||97.53|93.73|
90852930|NCT01099709|181569405|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A mixed-model analysis of variance was used to compare (test vs reference) and the 90% confidence intervals were estimated for the ratios (test/reference)|Geometric test/Ref Ratio x 100|95.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.85|97.68|||ANOVA||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80%-125%.|||97.68|93.85|
90852931|NCT01555957|181569416|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||Chi-squared|||we hypothesized that among ≥ 34 weeks GA infants with GISDs, infants receiving 1g/kg/day S-ILE (lipid minimizing strategy) would have decreased incidence of IFALD compared to those receiving 2g/kg/day S-ILE. We also hypothesized that the rate of rise of DB would be lower among ≥ 34 weeks GA infants with GISDs receiving 1g/kg/day versus 2g/kg/day of S-ILE.||||0.94
90852932|NCT01555957|181569417|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||We also hypothesized that the rate of rise of direct bilirubin would be lower among ≥ 34 weeks GA infants with GISDs receiving 1g/kg/day versus 2g/kg/day of S-ILE.||||0.0005
90852933|NCT01931670|181569445|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||An elagolix dose group was to be considered more efficacious than placebo for the co-primary endpoints if and only if both co-primary endpoints (DYS and NMPP) were statistically significant for the elagolix dose group at the 0.025 significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||||||< 0.001
90958961|NCT01191268|181798005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.19||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.02||Family-wise Type I error rate was controlled by applying tree-gatekeeping strategy.|ANCOVA|||Superiority analysis.||-0.02|-0.37|0.014
90852934|NCT01931670|181569445|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||An elagolix dose group was to be considered more efficacious than placebo for the co-primary endpoints if and only if both co-primary endpoints (DYS and NMPP) were statistically significant for the elagolix dose group at the 0.025 significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||||||< 0.001
90852935|NCT01931670|181569446|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||An elagolix dose group was to be considered more efficacious than placebo for the co-primary endpoints if and only if both co-primary endpoints (DYS and NMPP) were statistically significant for the elagolix dose group at the 0.025 significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.003
90852936|NCT01931670|181569446|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||An elagolix dose group was to be considered more efficacious than placebo for the co-primary endpoints if and only if both co-primary endpoints (DYS and NMPP) were statistically significant for the elagolix dose group at the 0.025 significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||||||< 0.001
90901256|NCT01678820|181668351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percents|12.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|24.0|||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method. Missing data were imputed by multiple imputations.|||24.0|0.7|
90901257|NCT03662997|181668369|SUPERIORITY|In this superiority study the primary efficacy analysis included constructing a two sided 5% significance level, using Fisher's non-parametric permutation test for ordered categorical variables and dichotomous variables for the differences. Numbers, percentages improved, not changed, worsened were analyzed with Mantel-Haenszel Exact Chi square over the course of 4 weeks in a 2x2 weeks treatment period inferiority will be established.||||||0.046||||||Five-layer vs Hydrocellular arm, Weeks 1 \& 3|Chi-squared||||All data presented on the performance of the dressings reflect the FAS populations for the study comparison groups.|||0.046
90901258|NCT03662997|181668369|SUPERIORITY|In this superiority study the primary efficacy analysis included constructing a two sided 5% significance level, using Fisher's non-parametric permutation test for ordered categorical variables and dichotomous variables for the differences. Numbers, percentages improved, not changed, worsened were analyzed with Mantel-Haenszel Exact Chi square over the course of 4 weeks in a 2x2 weeks treatment period inferiority will be established.||||||0.56||||||Five-layer vs Hydrocellular arm; Weeks 2 \& 4|Chi-squared||||All data presented on the performance of the dressings reflect the FAS populations for the study comparison groups.|||0.56
90957957|NCT05172050|181795714|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4075|||||||Fisher Exact|P-Value comparing % among treatment groups Raloxifene 120mg versus Placebo using Fisher's Exact test.||The proportion of hospitalized participants who at the beginning of the study were at domicile isolation at Day 7, Day 14 and Day 28 after randomization was analysed using comparison of proportions (i.e. comparisons of each active treatment group versus placebo at each assessment day) through Fisher's exact test and was summarized using frequency and percent by treatment and visit. Herein Day 14 R120 vs placebo||||0.4075
90852937|NCT01931670|181569447|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean Change|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.156|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||For an elagolix dose group to be considered statistically significantly better than placebo on a secondary endpoint, the P value must have been ≤ 0.025 for that endpoint, for all higher-ranking secondary endpoints, and for the co-primary endpoints.|mixed-effects model|||Ranked secondary efficacy endpoint 1 of 7.||||<0.001
90852938|NCT01931670|181569447|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean Change|-1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.156|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||For an elagolix dose group to be considered statistically significantly better than placebo on a secondary endpoint, the P value must have been ≤ 0.025 for that endpoint, for all higher-ranking secondary endpoints, and for the co-primary endpoints.|mixed-effects model|||Ranked secondary efficacy endpoint 1 of 7.||||< 0.001
90852939|NCT01931670|181569448|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean Change|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.074|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||For an elagolix dose group to be considered statistically significantly better than placebo on a secondary endpoint, the P value must have been ≤ 0.025 for that endpoint, for all higher-ranking secondary endpoints, and for the co-primary endpoints.|mixed-effects model|||Ranked secondary efficacy endpoint 2 of 7.||||< 0.001
90852940|NCT01931670|181569448|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean Change|-1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.074|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||For an elagolix dose group to be considered statistically significantly better than placebo on a secondary endpoint, the P value must have been ≤ 0.025 for that endpoint, for all higher-ranking secondary endpoints, and for the co-primary endpoints.|mixed-effects model|||Ranked secondary efficacy endpoint 2 of 7.||||< 0.001
90901259|NCT03662997|181668369|SUPERIORITY|In this superiority study the primary efficacy analysis included constructing a two sided 5% significance level, using Fisher's non-parametric permutation test for ordered categorical variables and dichotomous variables for the differences. Numbers, percentages improved, not changed, worsened were analyzed with Mantel-Haenszel Exact Chi square over the course of 4 weeks in a 2x2 weeks treatment period inferiority will be established.||||||0.01||||||Five-layer vs Hydropolymer arm; Weeks 1 \& 3|Chi-squared||||All data presented on the performance of the dressings reflect the FAS populations for the study comparison groups.|||0.010
90901260|NCT03662997|181668369|SUPERIORITY|In this superiority study the primary efficacy analysis included constructing a two sided 5% significance level, using Fisher's non-parametric permutation test for ordered categorical variables and dichotomous variables for the differences. Numbers, percentages improved, not changed, worsened were analyzed with Mantel-Haenszel Exact Chi square over the course of 4 weeks in a 2x2 weeks treatment period inferiority will be established.||||||0.25||||||Five-layer vs Hydropolymer arm; Weeks 2 \& 4|Chi-squared||||All data presented on the performance of the dressings reflect the FAS populations for the study comparison groups.|||0.25
90901261|NCT03662997|181668370|SUPERIORITY|In this superiority study the primary efficacy analysis included constructing a two sided 5% significance level, using Fisher's non-parametric permutation test for ordered categorical variables and dichotomous variables for the differences. Numbers, percentages improved, not changed, worsened were analyzed with Mantel-Haenszel Exact Chi square over the course of 4 weeks in a 2x2 weeks treatment period inferiority will be established.||||||0.046||||||Five-layer vs Hydrocellular; End of Weeks 1 and 3.|Chi-squared, Corrected||||All data presented on the performance of the dressings reflect the FAS populations for the study comparison groups.|||0.046
90958962|NCT01191268|181798006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014||||||Treatment comparison for HbA1c less than 7.0% at 26 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.014
90958963|NCT01191268|181798006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||||||Treatment comparison for HbA1c less than 7.0% at 26 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.010
90901262|NCT03662997|181668370|SUPERIORITY|In this superiority study the primary efficacy analysis included constructing a two sided 5% significance level, using Fisher's non-parametric permutation test for ordered categorical variables and dichotomous variables for the differences. Numbers, percentages improved, not changed, worsened were analyzed with Mantel-Haenszel Exact Chi square over the course of 4 weeks in a 2x2 weeks treatment period inferiority will be established.||||||0.01||||||Five-layer vs Hydropolymer; End of Weeks 1 \& 3|Chi-squared, Corrected||||All data presented on the performance of the dressings reflect the FAS populations for the study comparison groups|||0.010
90901263|NCT03662997|181668378|SUPERIORITY|This secondary outcome measure was not planned for at the initiation of the study. Compliance rates were calculated by combining the number incidences that dressings were worn for the full 7 days and when the dressings do not have strike-through during first the week of treatment.|||||<|0.05||||||Five-layer vs Hydrocellular arm, first week of treatment|Chi-squared||||All data presented on the performance of the dressings reflect the FAS populations for the study comparison groups.|||<0.05
90901264|NCT03662997|181668378|SUPERIORITY|This secondary outcome measure was not planned for at the initiation of the study. Compliance rates were calculated by combining the number incidences that dressings were worn for the full 7 days and when the dressings do not have strike-through during the first week of treatment.|||||<|0.05||||||Five-layer vs Hydropolymer, first week of treatment.|Chi-squared||||All data presented on the performance of the dressings reflect the FAS populations for the study comparison groups.|||<0.05
90901265|NCT06173570|181668420|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-35.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.61|-26.93|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline LDL-C, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing Week 12 LDL-C values handled by the MMRM under MAR. Hierarchical testing (in the order of decreasing dose of study treatment) controls two-sided alpha = 0.05.||-26.93|-43.61|< 0.001
90901266|NCT06173570|181668420|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-37.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.31|-29.51|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline LDL-C, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing Week 12 LDL-C values handled by the MMRM under MAR. Hierarchical testing (in the order of decreasing dose of study treatment) controls two-sided alpha = 0.05.||-29.51|-46.31|< 0.001
90901267|NCT06173570|181668420|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-45.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.47|-36.86|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline LDL-C, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing Week 12 LDL-C values handled by the MMRM under MAR. Hierarchical testing (in the order of decreasing dose of study treatment) controls two-sided alpha = 0.05.||-36.86|-53.47|< 0.001
90901268|NCT06173570|181668420|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-50.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.03|-42.37|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline LDL-C, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing Week 12 LDL-C values handled by the MMRM under MAR. Hierarchical testing (in the order of decreasing dose of study treatment) controls two-sided alpha = 0.05.||-42.37|-59.03|< 0.001
90901269|NCT06173570|181668421|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-33.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.34|-25.37|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline LDL-C, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing data imputed using multiple imputation approach detailed in SAP Appendix 7.1.||-25.37|-42.34|< 0.001
90901270|NCT06173570|181668421|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-36.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.3|-28.17|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline LDL-C, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing data imputed using multiple imputation approach detailed in SAP Appendix 7.1.||-28.17|-45.30|< 0.001
90901271|NCT06173570|181668421|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-43.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.31|-35.41|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline LDL-C, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing data imputed using multiple imputation approach detailed in SAP Appendix 7.1.||-35.41|-52.31|< 0.001
90901272|NCT06173570|181668421|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-49.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.35|-41.25|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline LDL-C, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing data imputed using multiple imputation approach detailed in SAP Appendix 7.1.||-41.25|-58.35|< 0.001
90901273|NCT06173570|181668422|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-21.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.27|-16.18|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing Week 12 values handled by the MMRM under MAR.||-16.18|-26.27|< 0.001
90901274|NCT06173570|181668422|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-22.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.48|-17.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing Week 12 values handled by the MMRM under MAR.||-17.30|-27.48|< 0.001
90901275|NCT06173570|181668422|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-27.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.16|-22.11|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing Week 12 values handled by the MMRM under MAR.||-22.11|-32.16|< 0.001
90901276|NCT06173570|181668422|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-29.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.4|-24.31|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing Week 12 values handled by the MMRM under MAR.||-24.31|-34.40|< 0.001
91031058|NCT03561883|181946771|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion Ratio|1.171||||0.4164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.714||Negative binomial model was used to deal with data overdispersion.|Negative binomial model||Difference in Proportion Ratio, (1500 mg IW-3718 BID + PPI) - (Placebo + PPI)|Poisson regression including the fixed categorical effect of treatment, the baseline esophagitis status (present vs. not present) and baseline WHSS (\<3 vs. ≥3), the covariate of baseline proportion of heartburn-free days, and with the diary entry duration (in days) as a weight variable adjusted in the model was applied.||1.714|0.800|0.4164
91031059|NCT03561883|181946771|OTHER|Negative binomial model was used to deal with data overdispersion|Difference in Proportion Ratio|0.034|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.054|0.123|||||Difference in Proportion Ratio, (1500 mg IW-3718 BID + PPI) - (Placebo + PPI)|Poisson regression including the fixed categorical effect of treatment, the baseline esophagitis status (present vs. not present) and baseline WHSS (\<3 vs. ≥3), the covariate of baseline proportion of heartburn-free days, and with the diary entry duration (in days) as a weight variable adjusted in the model was applied.||0.123|-0.054|
90957958|NCT05172050|181795714|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6846||||||P-Value comparing % among treatment groups Raloxifene 60mg versus Placebo using Fisher's Exact test.|Fisher Exact|||The proportion of hospitalized participants who at the beginning of the study were at domicile isolation at Day 7, Day 14 and Day 28 after randomization was analysed using comparison of proportions (i.e. comparisons of each active treatment group versus placebo at each assessment day) through Fisher's exact test and was summarized using frequency and percent by treatment and visit. Herein Day 28 R60 vs placebo||||0.6846
90957959|NCT05172050|181795714|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6614||||||P-Value comparing % among treatment groups Raloxifene 120mg versus Placebo using Fisher's Exact test.|Fisher Exact|||The proportion of hospitalized participants who at the beginning of the study were at domicile isolation at Day 7, Day 14 and Day 28 after randomization was analysed using comparison of proportions (i.e. comparisons of each active treatment group versus placebo at each assessment day) through Fisher's exact test and was summarized using frequency and percent by treatment and visit. Herein Day 28 R120 vs placebo||||0.6614
90957960|NCT05172050|181795716|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.0|||Log Rank|||||1.00|1.00|
90957961|NCT05172050|181795716|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.0||p value= not estimable|Log Rank|||||1.00|1.00|
90852941|NCT01931670|181569449|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean Change|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056||0.009|TWO_SIDED|||||For an elagolix dose group to be considered statistically significantly better than placebo on a secondary endpoint, the P value must have been ≤ 0.025 for that endpoint, for all higher-ranking secondary endpoints, and for the co-primary endpoints.|mixed-effects model|||Ranked secondary efficacy endpoint 3 of 7.||||0.009
90852942|NCT01931670|181569449|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean Change|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||For an elagolix dose group to be considered statistically significantly better than placebo on a secondary endpoint, the P value must have been ≤ 0.025 for that endpoint, for all higher-ranking secondary endpoints, and for the co-primary endpoints.|mixed-effects model|||Ranked secondary efficacy endpoint 3 of 7.||||< 0.001
90852943|NCT01931670|181569450|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean Change|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044||0.26|TWO_SIDED|||||For an elagolix dose group to be considered statistically significantly better than placebo on a secondary endpoint, the P value must have been ≤ 0.025 for that endpoint, for all higher-ranking secondary endpoints, and for the co-primary endpoints.|mixed-effects model|||Ranked secondary efficacy endpoint 4 of 7.||||0.26
90852944|NCT01931670|181569450|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean Change|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||For an elagolix dose group to be considered statistically significantly better than placebo on a secondary endpoint, the P value must have been ≤ 0.025 for that endpoint, for all higher-ranking secondary endpoints, and for the co-primary endpoints.|mixed-effects model|||Ranked secondary efficacy endpoint 4 of 7.||||< 0.001
90852945|NCT01931670|181569451|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean Change|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.088|TWO_SIDED|||||For an elagolix dose group to be considered statistically significantly better than placebo on a secondary endpoint, the P value must have been ≤ 0.025 for that endpoint, for all higher-ranking secondary endpoints, and for the co-primary endpoints.|mixed-effects model|||Ranked secondary efficacy endpoint 5 of 7.||||0.088
90852946|NCT01931670|181569451|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean Change|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||For an elagolix dose group to be considered statistically significantly better than placebo on a secondary endpoint, the P value must have been ≤ 0.025 for that endpoint, for all higher-ranking secondary endpoints, and for the co-primary endpoints.|mixed-effects model|||Ranked secondary efficacy endpoint 5 of 7.||||< 0.001
90852947|NCT01931670|181569452|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean Change|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067||0.172|TWO_SIDED|||||For an elagolix dose group to be considered statistically significantly better than placebo on a secondary endpoint, the P value must have been ≤ 0.025 for that endpoint, for all higher-ranking secondary endpoints, and for the co-primary endpoints.|mixed-effects model|||Ranked secondary efficacy endpoint 6 of 7.||||0.172
90852948|NCT01931670|181569452|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean Change|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||For an elagolix dose group to be considered statistically significantly better than placebo on a secondary endpoint, the P value must have been ≤ 0.025 for that endpoint, for all higher-ranking secondary endpoints, and for the co-primary endpoints.|mixed-effects model|||Ranked secondary efficacy endpoint 6 of 7.||||< 0.001
90957962|NCT02909764|181795719|OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.30
91031060|NCT04646109|181946798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43||||||A p\<0.05 value was considered statistically significant|Chi-squared|||||||0.43
90852949|NCT01931670|181569453|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean Change|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.968|TWO_SIDED|||||For an elagolix dose group to be considered statistically significantly better than placebo on a secondary endpoint, the P value must have been ≤ 0.025 for that endpoint, for all higher-ranking secondary endpoints, and for the co-primary endpoints.|mixed-effects model|||Ranked secondary efficacy endpoint 7 of 7.||||0.968
90958964|NCT01191268|181798006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027||||||Treatment comparison for HbA1c less than or equal to 6.5% at 26 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.027
90958965|NCT01191268|181798006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.384||||||Treatment comparison for HbA1c less than or equal to 6.5% at 26 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.384
90852950|NCT01931670|181569453|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean Change|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.007|TWO_SIDED|||||For an elagolix dose group to be considered statistically significantly better than placebo on a secondary endpoint, the P value must have been ≤ 0.025 for that endpoint, for all higher-ranking secondary endpoints, and for the co-primary endpoints.|mixed-effects model|||Ranked secondary efficacy endpoint 7 of 7.||||0.007
90852951|NCT01931670|181569454|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.361|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.507|3.697|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 1||3.697|1.507|< 0.001
90852952|NCT01931670|181569454|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.185|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|2.707|6.469|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 1||6.469|2.707|< 0.001
90852953|NCT01931670|181569454|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.795|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.811|4.312|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 2||4.312|1.811|< 0.001
90852954|NCT01931670|181569454|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.378|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|6.615|16.282|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 2||16.282|6.615|< 0.001
90901277|NCT06173570|181668423|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.53||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.87|0.81|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; positive values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing Week 12 values handled by the MMRM under MAR.||0.81|-7.87|0.111
90901278|NCT06173570|181668423|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.38||||0.864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.98|4.74|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; positive values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing Week 12 values handled by the MMRM under MAR.||4.74|-3.98|0.864
90957963|NCT02909764|181795720|OTHER|Yates's chi-square analyses were used to determine which of the two cereals children in each group preferred at baseline and after the 8-week exposure period, and whether the number of children who shifted preference from the regular cereal at baseline to the low salt cereal after the exposure period differed between groups.|||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Yates's chi-square analyses were used to determine which of the two cereals children in each group preferred at baseline and after the 8-week exposure period, and whether the number of children who shifted preference from the regular cereal at baseline to the low salt cereal after the exposure period differed between groups.||||<0.05
90852955|NCT01931670|181569454|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.178|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|2.084|4.845|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 4||4.845|2.084|< 0.001
90852956|NCT01931670|181569454|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|15.216|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|9.429|24.554|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 4||24.554|9.429|< 0.001
90852957|NCT01931670|181569454|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.548|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.683|3.859|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 5||3.859|1.683|< 0.001
90852958|NCT01931670|181569454|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.055|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|8.716|22.664|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 5||22.664|8.716|< 0.001
90852959|NCT01931670|181569454|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.536|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.685|3.816|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 6||3.816|1.685|< 0.001
90852960|NCT01931670|181569454|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.106|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|6.434|15.874|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 6||15.874|6.434|< 0.001
90852961|NCT01931670|181569455|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.191||||0.376|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.765|1.855|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 1||1.855|0.765|0.376
91031061|NCT04646109|181946799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14||||||A p\<0.05 value was considered statistically significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.14
90852962|NCT01931670|181569455|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.376||||0.101|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.89|2.127|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 1||2.127|0.890|0.101
90852963|NCT01931670|181569455|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.358||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.909|2.029|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 2||2.029|0.909|0.088
90852964|NCT01931670|181569455|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.208|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.488|3.278|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 2||3.278|1.488|< 0.001
90852965|NCT01931670|181569455|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.678||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.136|2.477|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 4||2.477|1.136|0.003
90852966|NCT01931670|181569455|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.722|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.832|4.044|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 4||4.044|1.832|< 0.001
90852967|NCT01931670|181569455|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.537||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.042|2.267|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 5||2.267|1.042|0.013
90852968|NCT01931670|181569455|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.598|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.75|3.857|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 5||3.857|1.750|< 0.001
90852969|NCT01931670|181569455|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.565||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.062|2.306|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 6||2.306|1.062|0.01
90852970|NCT01931670|181569455|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.412|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.63|3.57|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 6||3.570|1.630|< 0.001
90852971|NCT01931670|181569456|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.028||||0.901|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.624|1.693|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 1||1.693|0.624|0.901
90852972|NCT01931670|181569456|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.103||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.68|1.789|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 1||1.789|0.680|0.65
90852973|NCT01931670|181569456|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.351||||0.154|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.841|2.17|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 2||2.170|0.841|0.154
90852974|NCT01931670|181569456|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.871||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.175|2.979|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 2||2.979|1.175|0.003
90852975|NCT01931670|181569456|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.294|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.776|2.013|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 3||2.013|0.776|0.294
90852976|NCT01931670|181569456|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.865||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.163|2.989|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 3||2.989|1.163|0.003
90852977|NCT01931670|181569456|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.145||||0.521|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.713|1.839|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 4||1.839|0.713|0.521
90852978|NCT01931670|181569456|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.474|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.544|3.963|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 4||3.963|1.544|< 0.001
90852979|NCT01931670|181569456|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.262||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.787|2.023|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 5||2.023|0.787|0.27
90901279|NCT06173570|181668423|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.68||||0.445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.99|2.63|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; positive values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing Week 12 values handled by the MMRM under MAR.||2.63|-5.99|0.445
91099837|NCT05894564|182085755|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.21|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||1.21|0.64|
90852980|NCT01931670|181569456|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.416|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.5|3.891|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 5||3.891|1.500|< 0.001
90852981|NCT01931670|181569456|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.013||||0.953|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.631|1.624|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 6||1.624|0.631|0.953
90852982|NCT01931670|181569456|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.997|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.253|3.183|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 6||3.183|1.253|< 0.001
90852983|NCT01931670|181569457|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.071|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.69|-0.37|||mixed-effects model|||Month 1||-0.37|-0.69|< 0.001
90852984|NCT01931670|181569457|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.071|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.94|-0.62|||mixed-effects model|||Month 1||-0.62|-0.94|< 0.001
90852985|NCT01931670|181569457|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.6|-0.29|||mixed-effects model|||Month 2||-0.29|-0.6|< 0.001
90852986|NCT01931670|181569457|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.43|-1.12|||mixed-effects model|||Month 2||-1.12|-1.43|< 0.001
90901280|NCT06173570|181668423|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.01||||0.648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.32|5.34|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; positive values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing Week 12 values handled by the MMRM under MAR.||5.34|-3.32|0.648
90901281|NCT06173570|181668424|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.5||||0.266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.97|4.96|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing Week 12 values handled by the MMRM under MAR.||4.96|-17.97|0.266
90901282|NCT06173570|181668424|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.67||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.17|4.84|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing Week 12 values handled by the MMRM under MAR.||4.84|-18.17|0.256
90901283|NCT06173570|181668424|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.63||||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.95|3.69|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing Week 12 values handled by the MMRM under MAR.||3.69|-18.95|0.186
90901284|NCT06173570|181668424|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.0||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.44|1.43|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing Week 12 values handled by the MMRM under MAR.||1.43|-21.44|0.086
90957964|NCT02909764|181795721|OTHER|||||||0.32|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.32
90957965|NCT02909764|181795722|OTHER|||||||0.77|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.77
90852987|NCT01931670|181569457|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.68|-0.37|||mixed-effects model|||Month 3||-0.37|-0.68|< 0.001
90852988|NCT01931670|181569457|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.4|-1.09|||mixed-effects model|||Month 3||-1.09|-1.4|< 0.001
90852989|NCT01931670|181569457|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.73|-0.42|||mixed-effects model|||Month 4||-0.42|-0.73|< 0.001
90852990|NCT01931670|181569457|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.42|-1.11|||mixed-effects model|||Month 4||-1.11|-1.42|< 0.001
90852991|NCT01931670|181569457|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.071|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.65|-0.33|||mixed-effects model|||Month 5||-0.33|-0.65|< 0.001
90852992|NCT01931670|181569457|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.071|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.42|-1.1|||mixed-effects model|||Month 5||-1.10|-1.42|< 0.001
90852993|NCT01931670|181569458|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-25.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.669|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-33.55|-17.07|||mixed-effects model|||Month 1||-17.07|-33.55|< 0.001
90852994|NCT01931670|181569458|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-39.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.657|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-47.53|-31.11|||mixed-effects model|||Month 1||-31.11|-47.53|< 0.001
90852995|NCT01931670|181569458|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-21.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.355|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-29.44|-14.36|||mixed-effects model|||Month 2||-14.36|-29.44|< 0.001
90852996|NCT01931670|181569458|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-63.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.365|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-70.87|-55.76|||mixed-effects model|||Month 2||-55.76|-70.87|< 0.001
90852997|NCT01931670|181569458|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-25.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.241|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-32.43|-17.88|||mixed-effects model|||Month 3||-17.88|-32.43|< 0.001
90852998|NCT01931670|181569458|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-61.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.233|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-69.2|-54.68|||mixed-effects model|||Month 3||-54.68|-69.20|< 0.001
90852999|NCT01931670|181569458|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-26.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.344|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-34.48|-19.46|||mixed-effects model|||Month 4||-19.46|-34.48|< 0.001
90853000|NCT01931670|181569458|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-62.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.346|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-69.89|-54.86|||mixed-effects model|||Month 4||-54.86|-69.89|< 0.001
90853001|NCT01931670|181569458|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-23.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.428|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-31.06|-15.66|||mixed-effects model|||Month 5||-15.66|-31.06|< 0.001
91099838|NCT05894564|182085755|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.73|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.73|0.87|
90853002|NCT01931670|181569458|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-62.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.42|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-70.58|-55.22|||mixed-effects model|||Month 5||-55.22|-70.58|< 0.001
90853003|NCT01931670|181569458|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-25.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.528|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-33.81|-17.97|||mixed-effects model|||Month 6||-17.97|-33.81|< 0.001
90853004|NCT01931670|181569458|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-56.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.522|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-64.53|-48.7|||mixed-effects model|||Month 6||-48.70|-64.53|< 0.001
90853005|NCT01931670|181569459|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.549|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.11|0.07|||mixed-effects model|||Month 1||0.07|-0.11|0.549
90853006|NCT01931670|181569459|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.02|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.18|0.0|||mixed-effects model|||Month 1||0.00|-0.18|0.02
90853007|NCT01931670|181569459|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044||0.11|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.17|0.03|||mixed-effects model|||Month 2||0.03|-0.17|0.11
90853008|NCT01931670|181569459|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.3|-0.11|||mixed-effects model|||Month 2||-0.11|-0.30|< 0.001
90853009|NCT01931670|181569459|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.041|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.22|0.01|||mixed-effects model|||Month 3||0.01|-0.22|0.041
90853010|NCT01931670|181569459|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.41|-0.18|||mixed-effects model|||Month 3||-0.18|-0.41|< 0.001
90853011|NCT01931670|181569459|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.081|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.21|0.03|||mixed-effects model|||Month 4||0.03|-0.21|0.081
90901285|NCT06173570|181668425|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-30.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.63|-22.12|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing Week 12 values handled by the MMRM under MAR.||-22.12|-38.63|< 0.001
90958966|NCT01191268|181798006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||Treatment comparison for HbA1c less than 7% at 52 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.05
90853012|NCT01931670|181569459|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.45|-0.22|||mixed-effects model|||Month 4||-0.22|-0.45|<0.001
90853013|NCT01931670|181569459|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054||0.062|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.22|0.02|||mixed-effects model|||Month 5||0.02|-0.22|0.062
90853014|NCT01931670|181569459|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.46|-0.22|||mixed-effects model|||Month 5||-0.22|-0.46|< 0.001
90853015|NCT01931670|181569460|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-3.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.94||0.301|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-9.64|3.56|||mixed-effects model|||Month 1||3.56|-9.64|0.301
90853016|NCT01931670|181569460|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-6.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.92||0.028|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-12.99|0.13|||mixed-effects model|||Month 1||0.13|-12.99|0.028
90958967|NCT01191268|181798006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25||||||Treatment comparison for HbA1c less than 7% at 52 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.250
90853017|NCT01931670|181569460|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-5.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.964||0.082|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-11.82|1.49|||mixed-effects model|||Month 2||1.49|-11.82|0.082
90853018|NCT01931670|181569460|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-13.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.956|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-19.83|-6.55|||mixed-effects model|||Month 2||-6.55|-19.83|< 0.001
90853019|NCT01931670|181569460|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-6.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.379||0.043|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-14.43|0.75|||mixed-effects model|||Month 3||0.75|-14.43|0.043
90853020|NCT01931670|181569460|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-19.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.364|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-26.61|-11.49|||mixed-effects model|||Month 3||-11.49|-26.61|< 0.001
90853021|NCT01931670|181569460|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-6.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.473||0.072|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-14.05|1.55|||mixed-effects model|||Month 4||1.55|-14.05|0.072
90853022|NCT01931670|181569460|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-21.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.46|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-29.35|-13.81|||mixed-effects model|||Month 4||-13.81|-29.35|< 0.001
90853023|NCT01931670|181569460|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-6.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.536||0.08|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-14.15|1.73|||mixed-effects model|||Month 5||1.73|-14.15|0.08
90853024|NCT01931670|181569460|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-21.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.52|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-29.56|-13.75|||mixed-effects model|||Month 5||-13.75|-29.56|< 0.001
90853025|NCT01931670|181569460|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-10.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.744||0.004|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-19.24|-2.43|||mixed-effects model|||Month 6||-2.43|-19.24|0.004
90853026|NCT01931670|181569460|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-21.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.729|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-29.54|-12.79|||mixed-effects model|||Month 6||-12.79|-29.54|< 0.001
90853027|NCT01931670|181569461|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059||0.688|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.11|0.16|||mixed-effects model|||Month 1||0.16|-0.11|0.688
90853028|NCT01931670|181569461|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.058||0.431|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.18|0.08|||mixed-effects model|||Month 1||0.08|-0.18|0.431
90853029|NCT01931670|181569461|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.277|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.2|0.07|||mixed-effects model|||Month 2||0.07|-0.20|0.277
90853030|NCT01931670|181569461|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.37|-0.1|||mixed-effects model|||Month 2||-0.10|-0.37|< 0.001
90853031|NCT01931670|181569461|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.071||0.494|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.21|0.11|||mixed-effects model|||Month 4||0.11|-0.21|0.494
90853032|NCT01931670|181569461|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.071|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.43|-0.11|||mixed-effects model|||Month 4||-0.11|-0.43|< 0.001
90853033|NCT01931670|181569461|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.072||0.765|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.18|0.14|||mixed-effects model|||Month 5||0.14|-0.18|0.765
90853034|NCT01931670|181569461|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.073|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.47|-0.15|||mixed-effects model|||Month 5||-0.15|-0.47|< 0.001
90853035|NCT01931670|181569461|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.076||0.468|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.23|0.12|||mixed-effects model|||Month 6||0.12|-0.23|0.468
91031062|NCT04646109|181946800|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68||||||A p\<0.05 value was considered statistically significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.68
91031063|NCT04646109|181946801|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15||||||A p\<0.05 value was considered statistically significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.15
90853036|NCT01931670|181569461|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.076|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.5|-0.16|||mixed-effects model|||Month 6||-0.16|-0.50|< 0.001
90853037|NCT01931670|181569462|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.029|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.18|0.0|||mixed-effects model|||Month 1||0.00|-0.18|0.029
90853038|NCT01931670|181569462|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.004|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.2|-0.03|||mixed-effects model|||Month 1||-0.03|-0.20|0.004
90853039|NCT01931670|181569462|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.042||0.076|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.17|0.02|||mixed-effects model|||Month 2||0.02|-0.17|0.076
90901286|NCT06173570|181668425|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-33.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.71|-25.08|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing Week 12 values handled by the MMRM under MAR.||-25.08|-41.71|< 0.001
90901287|NCT06173570|181668425|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-38.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.9|-30.43|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing Week 12 values handled by the MMRM under MAR.||-30.43|-46.90|< 0.001
90901288|NCT06173570|181668425|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-45.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.43|-36.94|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing Week 12 values handled by the MMRM under MAR.||-36.94|-53.43|< 0.001
90901289|NCT06173570|181668426|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.06||||0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.96|4.84|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing Week 12 values handled by the MMRM under MAR.||4.84|-16.96|0.276
90901290|NCT06173570|181668426|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.17||||0.568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.08|7.73|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing Week 12 values handled by the MMRM under MAR.||7.73|-14.08|0.568
91031064|NCT04646109|181946802|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37||||||A p\<0.05 value was considered statistically significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.37
90901291|NCT06173570|181668426|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.98||||0.363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.71|5.75|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing Week 12 values handled by the MMRM under MAR.||5.75|-15.71|0.363
90901292|NCT06173570|181668426|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.73||||0.223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.57|4.11|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing Week 12 values handled by the MMRM under MAR.||4.11|-17.57|0.223
91031065|NCT04646109|181946803|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12||||||A p\<0.05 value was considered statistically significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.12
91031066|NCT04646109|181946804|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22||||||A p\<0.05 value was considered statistically significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.22
91031067|NCT04646109|181946807|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1||||||A p\<0.05 value was considered statistically significant|Chi-squared|||||||0.10
91031068|NCT04646109|181946808|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37||||||A p\<0.05 value was considered statistically significant|Chi-squared|||||||0.37
91031069|NCT04646109|181946809|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||A p\<0.05 value was considered statistically significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
91031070|NCT04646109|181946810|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39||||||A p\<0.05 value was considered statistically significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.39
91031071|NCT04646109|181946811|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24||||||A p\<0.05 value was considered statistically significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.24
91031072|NCT04646109|181946812|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56||||||A p\<0.05 value was considered statistically significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.56
90853040|NCT01931670|181569462|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.042|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.28|-0.09|||mixed-effects model|||Month 2||-0.09|-0.28|< 0.001
90853041|NCT01931670|181569462|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045||0.058|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.19|0.02|||mixed-effects model|||Month 4||0.02|-0.19|0.058
91031073|NCT04646109|181946813|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||A p\<0.05 value was considered statistically significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.005
90853042|NCT01931670|181569462|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.32|-0.12|||mixed-effects model|||Month 4||-0.12|-0.32|< 0.001
90853043|NCT01931670|181569462|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049||0.284|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.16|0.06|||mixed-effects model|||Month 5||0.06|-0.16|0.284
90853044|NCT01931670|181569462|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.33|-0.11|||mixed-effects model|||Month 5||-0.11|-0.33|< 0.001
90853045|NCT01931670|181569463|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.18|||ANOVA|||Month 1||-0.18|-0.56|< 0.001
90853046|NCT01931670|181569463|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.46|||ANOVA|||Month 1||-0.46|-0.84|< 0.001
90853047|NCT01931670|181569463|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.102|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.42|||ANOVA|||Month 2||-0.42|-0.82|< 0.001
90853048|NCT01931670|181569463|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.102|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|-0.89|||ANOVA|||Month 2||-0.89|-1.29|< 0.001
90853049|NCT01931670|181569463|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.106|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.42|||ANOVA|||Month 3||-0.42|-0.84|< 0.001
90853050|NCT01931670|181569463|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.106|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|-0.93|||ANOVA|||Month 3||-0.93|-1.35|< 0.001
90853051|NCT01931670|181569463|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.109|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.41|||ANOVA|||Month 4||-0.41|-0.84|< 0.001
90853052|NCT01931670|181569463|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.109|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|-1.0|||ANOVA|||Month 4||-1.00|-1.43|< 0.001
90853053|NCT01931670|181569463|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.113|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.57|||ANOVA|||Month 5||-0.57|-1.01|< 0.001
90853054|NCT01931670|181569463|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.113|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|-1.02|||ANOVA|||Month 5||-1.02|-1.47|< 0.001
90853055|NCT01931670|181569463|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.49|||ANOVA|||Month 6||-0.49|-0.95|< 0.001
90901293|NCT06173570|181668427|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.79||||0.146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.56|0.98|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; positive values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing Week 12 values handled by the MMRM under MAR.||0.98|-6.56|0.146
90901294|NCT06173570|181668427|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.21||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.98|2.56|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; positive values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing Week 12 values handled by the MMRM under MAR.||2.56|-4.98|0.530
90901295|NCT06173570|181668427|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.85||||0.654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.56|2.87|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; positive values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing Week 12 values handled by the MMRM under MAR.||2.87|-4.56|0.654
90901296|NCT06173570|181668427|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.26||||0.509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|5.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; positive values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing Week 12 values handled by the MMRM under MAR.||5.00|-2.48|0.509
90901297|NCT06173570|181668428|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-27.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.08|-20.93|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing Week 12 values handled by the MMRM under MAR.||-20.93|-33.08|< 0.001
90901298|NCT06173570|181668428|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-28.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.42|-22.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing Week 12 values handled by the MMRM under MAR.||-22.20|-34.42|< 0.001
90901299|NCT06173570|181668428|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-37.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.27|-31.23|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing Week 12 values handled by the MMRM under MAR.||-31.23|-43.27|< 0.001
90901300|NCT06173570|181668428|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-39.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.92|-33.83|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing Week 12 values handled by the MMRM under MAR.||-33.83|-45.92|< 0.001
90958968|NCT01191268|181798006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.272||||||Treatment comparison for HbA1c less than or equal to 6.5% at 52 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.272
90853056|NCT01931670|181569463|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.117|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-1.04|||ANOVA|||Month 6||-1.04|-1.50|< 0.001
90853057|NCT01931670|181569464|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.02|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.55|-0.01|||mixed-effects model|||Month 1||-0.01|-0.55|0.02
90853058|NCT01931670|181569464|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.119|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.72|-0.18|||mixed-effects model|||Month 1||-0.18|-0.72|< 0.001
90853059|NCT01931670|181569464|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.85|-0.23|||mixed-effects model|||Month 2||-0.23|-0.85|< 0.001
90853060|NCT01931670|181569464|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.27|-0.65|||mixed-effects model|||Month 2||-0.65|-1.27|< 0.001
90853061|NCT01931670|181569464|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.164|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.95|-0.21|||mixed-effects model|||Month 4||-0.21|-0.95|< 0.001
90853062|NCT01931670|181569464|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.164|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.72|-0.99|||mixed-effects model|||Month 4||-0.99|-1.72|< 0.001
90853063|NCT01931670|181569464|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.168|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.99|-0.23|||mixed-effects model|||Month 5||-0.23|-0.99|< 0.001
90853064|NCT01931670|181569464|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.168|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.75|-1.0|||mixed-effects model|||Month 5||-1.00|-1.75|< 0.001
90853065|NCT01931670|181569464|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.175|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.08|-0.3|||mixed-effects model|||Month 6||-0.30|-1.08|< 0.001
90853066|NCT01931670|181569464|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.175|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.67|-0.89|||mixed-effects model|||Month 6||-0.89|-1.67|< 0.001
90853067|NCT01931670|181569465|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.55||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.25|-1.16|||ANCOVA|||Month 1||-1.16|-7.25|0.007
90853068|NCT01931670|181569465|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-7.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.55|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|-4.5|||ANCOVA|||Month 1||-4.50|-10.6|< 0.001
90853069|NCT01931670|181569465|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-7.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.74|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.75|-3.91|||ANCOVA|||Month 3||-3.91|-10.75|< 0.001
90901301|NCT06173570|181668429|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-19.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.09|-14.84|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing data imputed using multiple imputation approach detailed in SAP Appendix 7.1.||-14.84|-25.09|< 0.001
90957966|NCT02909764|181795723|OTHER|General estimating equations (GEE)|||||<|0.05|||||||GEE|||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were conducted on the amount of cereal in grams ingested during 28 days home-exposure period. The GEE approach accounts for the repeated measurements of outcomes over time for each child and examines whether the slopes of the lines created differ between the treatment groups.||||<0.05
90957967|NCT02909764|181795724|OTHER|T-tests were conducted to determine whether differences in baseline blood pressure between groups|||||>|0.4|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-tests were conducted to determine whether differences in baseline blood pressure between the two groups.||||>0.40
90901302|NCT06173570|181668429|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-21.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.73|-16.35|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing data imputed using multiple imputation approach detailed in SAP Appendix 7.1.||-16.35|-26.73|< 0.001
90901303|NCT06173570|181668429|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-26.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.37|-21.18|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing data imputed using multiple imputation approach detailed in SAP Appendix 7.1.||-21.18|-31.37|< 0.001
90901304|NCT06173570|181668429|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-28.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.8|-23.48|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing data imputed using multiple imputation approach detailed in SAP Appendix 7.1.||-23.48|-33.80|< 0.001
90901305|NCT06173570|181668430|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.31||||0.292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.62|1.99|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; positive values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing data imputed using multiple imputation approach detailed in SAP Appendix 7.1.||1.99|-6.62|0.292
91099839|NCT05894564|182085755|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.64|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 120||1.64|0.85|
91099840|NCT05894564|182085756|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.33|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||1.33|0.74|
91099841|NCT05894564|182085756|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.1|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.10|0.59|
90901306|NCT06173570|181668430|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.55||||0.802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.76|4.86|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; positive values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing data imputed using multiple imputation approach detailed in SAP Appendix 7.1.||4.86|-3.76|0.802
90901307|NCT06173570|181668430|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.94||||0.664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.21|3.32|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; positive values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing data imputed using multiple imputation approach detailed in SAP Appendix 7.1.||3.32|-5.21|0.664
90901308|NCT06173570|181668430|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.54||||0.481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.74|5.82|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; positive values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing data imputed using multiple imputation approach detailed in SAP Appendix 7.1.||5.82|-2.74|0.481
90957968|NCT04617275|181795734|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.31||||0.5863|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.23|19.85||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||19.85|-15.23|0.5863
90957969|NCT04617275|181795734|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.41||||0.0494|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-34.75|-0.06||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-0.06|-34.75|0.0494
91099842|NCT05894564|182085756|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.12|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||1.12|0.59|
91099843|NCT05894564|182085756|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.62|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.62|0.83|
91099844|NCT05894564|182085756|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.34|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 120||1.34|0.70|
91099845|NCT05894564|182085757|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.34|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||1.34|0.79|
91099846|NCT05894564|182085757|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.32|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.32|0.74|
91099847|NCT05894564|182085757|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.2|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||1.20|0.64|
90853070|NCT01931670|181569465|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-15.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.75|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.87|-11.99|||ANCOVA|||Month 3||-11.99|-18.87|< 0.001
90853071|NCT01931670|181569465|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-8.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.81|-4.6|||ANCOVA|||Month 6||-4.60|-12.81|< 0.001
90901309|NCT06173570|181668431|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.23||||0.278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|5.03|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing data imputed using multiple imputation approach detailed in SAP Appendix 7.1.||5.03|-17.50|0.278
90901310|NCT06173570|181668431|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.87||||0.234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.19|4.45|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing data imputed using multiple imputation approach detailed in SAP Appendix 7.1.||4.45|-18.19|0.234
90901311|NCT06173570|181668431|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.32||||0.196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.41|3.78|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing data imputed using multiple imputation approach detailed in SAP Appendix 7.1.||3.78|-18.41|0.196
90901312|NCT06173570|181668431|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.87||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.14|1.41|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing data imputed using multiple imputation approach detailed in SAP Appendix 7.1.||1.41|-21.14|0.086
90901313|NCT06173570|181668432|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-28.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.16|-20.81|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing data imputed using multiple imputation approach detailed in SAP Appendix 7.1.||-20.81|-37.16|<0.001
90901314|NCT06173570|181668432|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-32.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.54|-24.02|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing data imputed using multiple imputation approach detailed in SAP Appendix 7.1.||-24.02|-40.54|<0.001
90901315|NCT06173570|181668432|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-37.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.82|-29.44|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing data imputed using multiple imputation approach detailed in SAP Appendix 7.1.||-29.44|-45.82|<0.001
91099848|NCT05894564|182085757|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.34|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.34|0.70|
90957970|NCT04617275|181795734|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-30.85||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-48.09|-13.61||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-13.61|-48.09|0.0019
90853072|NCT01931670|181569465|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-16.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.98|-12.86|||ANCOVA|||Month 6||-12.86|-20.98|< 0.001
90853073|NCT01931670|181569466|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.95||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|3.26|||ANCOVA|||Month 1||3.26|-4.40|0.77
90901316|NCT06173570|181668432|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-44.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.47|-35.94|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing data imputed using multiple imputation approach detailed in SAP Appendix 7.1.||-35.94|-52.47|<0.001
90901317|NCT06173570|181668433|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.93||||0.275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.57|4.71|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing data imputed using multiple imputation approach detailed in SAP Appendix 7.1.||4.71|-16.57|0.275
90957971|NCT04617275|181795734|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-33.66||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-51.0|-16.32||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-16.32|-51.00|0.0009
90957972|NCT04617275|181795734|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.52||||0.0343|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-37.12|-1.92||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-1.92|-37.12|0.0343
90957973|NCT04617275|181795735|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.33||||0.3804|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.41|14.76||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||14.76|-21.41|0.3804
91099849|NCT05894564|182085757|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.25|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 120||1.25|0.64|
91099850|NCT05894564|182085758|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.01|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||1.01|0.61|
91099851|NCT05894564|182085758|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.11|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.11|0.64|
91099852|NCT05894564|182085758|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.12|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||1.12|0.63|
90853074|NCT01931670|181569466|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.19|-0.61|||ANCOVA|||Month 1||-0.61|-8.19|0.023
90853075|NCT01931670|181569466|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-2.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.42||0.257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|2.01|||ANCOVA|||Month 3||2.01|-7.50|0.257
90853076|NCT01931670|181569466|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-10.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.38|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.37|-6.01|||ANCOVA|||Month 3||-6.01|-15.37|< 0.001
90853077|NCT01931670|181569466|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-2.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.91||0.315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.66|2.8|||ANCOVA|||Month 6||2.80|-8.66|0.315
90853078|NCT01931670|181569466|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-14.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.82|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.64|-8.55|||ANCOVA|||Month 6||-8.55|-19.64|< 0.001
90853079|NCT01931670|181569467|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|-0.17|||ANCOVA|||Month 1||-0.17|-1.86|0.019
90853080|NCT01931670|181569467|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.433||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||Month 1||-0.10|-1.80|0.028
90853081|NCT01931670|181569467|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.397||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||Month 2||-0.20|-1.76|0.014
90853082|NCT01931670|181569467|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.397|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|-0.65|||ANCOVA|||Month 2||-0.65|-2.22|< 0.001
90853083|NCT01931670|181569467|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.432||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|0.18|||ANCOVA|||Month 3||0.18|-1.52|0.121
90901318|NCT06173570|181668433|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.06||||0.451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.63|6.51|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing data imputed using multiple imputation approach detailed in SAP Appendix 7.1.||6.51|-14.63|0.451
90853084|NCT01931670|181569467|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.431||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|-0.56|||ANCOVA|||Month 3||-0.56|-2.25|0.001
90853085|NCT01931670|181569467|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.561||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|-0.15|||ANCOVA|||Month 4||-0.15|-2.35|0.026
90853086|NCT01931670|181569467|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.555||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.57|-0.39|||ANCOVA|||Month 4||-0.39|-2.57|0.008
90853087|NCT01931670|181569467|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.327||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|-0.08|||ANCOVA|||Month 5||-0.08|-1.37|0.027
90853088|NCT01931670|181569467|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.327|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|-0.47|||ANCOVA|||Month 5||-0.47|-1.75|< 0.001
90853089|NCT01931670|181569467|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.391||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Month 6||0.20|-1.34|0.143
90853090|NCT01931670|181569467|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.385||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|-0.15|||ANCOVA|||Month 6||-0.15|-1.67|0.019
91099853|NCT05894564|182085758|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.12|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.12|0.60|
90853091|NCT01931670|181569468|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.415||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Month 1||0.19|-1.44|0.131
90853092|NCT01931670|181569468|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.409||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||Month 1||-0.05|-1.65|0.037
90853093|NCT01931670|181569468|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.423||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|-0.29|||ANCOVA|||Month 2||-0.29|-1.96|0.008
90853094|NCT01931670|181569468|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.426|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.27|-0.6|||ANCOVA|||Month 2||-0.60|-2.27|< 0.001
90853095|NCT01931670|181569468|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.434||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|-0.06|||ANCOVA|||Month 3||-0.06|-1.76|0.036
90853096|NCT01931670|181569468|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.431||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|-0.06|||ANCOVA|||Month 3||-0.06|-1.76|0.035
90853097|NCT01931670|181569468|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.453||0.452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|0.55|||ANCOVA|||Month 4||0.55|-1.23|0.452
90853098|NCT01931670|181569468|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.432||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|-0.48|||ANCOVA|||Month 4||-0.48|-2.18|0.002
90853099|NCT01931670|181569468|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.443||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|-0.25|||ANCOVA|||Month 5||-0.25|-1.99|0.012
90853100|NCT01931670|181569468|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.439|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-0.78|||ANCOVA|||Month 5||-0.78|-2.5|< 0.001
91099854|NCT05894564|182085758|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.24|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 120||1.24|0.67|
91099855|NCT05894564|182085759|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.27|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||1.27|0.81|
91099856|NCT05894564|182085759|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.18|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.18|0.76|
90853101|NCT01931670|181569468|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.478||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|0.21|||ANCOVA|||Month 6||0.21|-1.67|0.13
90901319|NCT06173570|181668433|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.97||||0.351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.41|5.47|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing data imputed using multiple imputation approach detailed in SAP Appendix 7.1.||5.47|-15.41|0.351
90901320|NCT06173570|181668433|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.32||||0.243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.92|4.29|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing data imputed using multiple imputation approach detailed in SAP Appendix 7.1.||4.29|-16.92|0.243
90901321|NCT06173570|181668434|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3||||0.501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.08|2.48|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; positive values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing data imputed using multiple imputation approach detailed in SAP Appendix 7.1.||2.48|-5.08|0.501
90853102|NCT01931670|181569468|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.454||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|-0.56|||ANCOVA|||Month 6||-0.56|-2.34|0.001
90853103|NCT01931670|181569469|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.01||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.32|0.65|||ANCOVA|||Month 1||0.65|-3.32|0.186
90853104|NCT01931670|181569469|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-3.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.013||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.08|-1.1|||ANCOVA|||Month 1||-1.10|-5.08|0.002
90853105|NCT01931670|181569469|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.005||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.28|0.67|||ANCOVA|||Month 2||0.67|-3.28|0.195
90853106|NCT01931670|181569469|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-3.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.007|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.63|-1.67|||ANCOVA|||Month 2||-1.67|-5.63|< 0.001
90853107|NCT01931670|181569469|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-2.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.03|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||Month 3||-0.02|-4.03|0.047
90853108|NCT01931670|181569469|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.021||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.21|-1.19|||ANCOVA|||Month 3||-1.19|-5.21|0.002
90853109|NCT01931670|181569469|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.998||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.59|0.33|||ANCOVA|||Month 4||0.33|-3.59|0.103
90901322|NCT06173570|181668434|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.93||||0.634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.74|2.89|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; positive values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing data imputed using multiple imputation approach detailed in SAP Appendix 7.1.||2.89|-4.74|0.634
90901323|NCT06173570|181668434|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.74|3.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; positive values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing data imputed using multiple imputation approach detailed in SAP Appendix 7.1.||3.70|-3.74|0.990
90901324|NCT06173570|181668434|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.73||||0.366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.03|5.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; positive values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing data imputed using multiple imputation approach detailed in SAP Appendix 7.1.||5.50|-2.03|0.366
90958969|NCT01191268|181798006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.623||||||Treatment comparison for HbA1c less than or equal to 6.5% at 52 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.623
91099857|NCT05894564|182085759|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.14|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||1.14|0.72|
90853110|NCT01931670|181569469|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-4.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.72|-2.83|||ANCOVA|||Month 4||-2.83|-6.72|< 0.001
90853111|NCT01931670|181569469|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-2.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|-0.38|||ANCOVA|||Month 5||-0.38|-4.20|0.019
90853112|NCT01931670|181569469|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-5.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.975|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.06|-3.22|||ANCOVA|||Month 5||-3.22|-7.06|< 0.001
90853113|NCT01931670|181569469|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.112||0.383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.16|1.22|||ANCOVA|||Month 6||1.22|-3.16|0.383
90853114|NCT01931670|181569469|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-3.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.092||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.17|-0.87|||ANCOVA|||Month 6||-0.87|-5.17|0.006
90853115|NCT01931670|181569470|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.422||0.975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.84|||ANCOVA|||Month 1||0.84|-0.81|0.975
90853116|NCT01931670|181569470|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.415||0.969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Month 1||0.80|-0.83|0.969
90853117|NCT01931670|181569470|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.389||0.569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.54|||ANCOVA|||Month 2||0.54|-0.99|0.569
90853118|NCT01931670|181569470|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.393||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|0.37|||ANCOVA|||Month 2||0.37|-1.17|0.311
90853119|NCT01931670|181569470|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.505||0.398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|1.42|||ANCOVA|||Month 3||1.42|-0.56|0.398
90853120|NCT01931670|181569470|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.505||0.761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|0.84|||ANCOVA|||Month 3||0.84|-1.15|0.761
91031074|NCT04646109|181946814|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||A p\<0.05 value was considered statistically significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
91031075|NCT04646109|181946815|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||A p\<0.05 value was considered statistically significant|Chi-squared|||||||0.01
91031076|NCT06176768|181946817|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.4||||0.316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|40.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||40.4|0.3|0.316
91031077|NCT06176768|181946818|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-6.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.63||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.15|3.6|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||||3.60|-17.15|0.175
91099858|NCT05894564|182085759|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.26|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.26|0.79|
91031078|NCT06176768|181946819|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-2.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.27||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.06|2.35|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||||2.35|-7.06|0.311
90853121|NCT01931670|181569470|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.491||0.874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|1.04|||ANCOVA|||Month 4||1.04|-0.89|0.874
90853122|NCT01931670|181569470|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.468||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||Month 4||-0.01|-1.85|0.048
90853123|NCT01931670|181569470|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.635||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.14|0.35|||ANCOVA|||Month 5||0.35|-2.14|0.16
90853124|NCT01931670|181569470|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.14|0.33|||ANCOVA|||Month 5||0.33|-2.14|0.152
90853125|NCT01931670|181569470|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.498||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|0.15|||ANCOVA|||Month 6||0.15|-1.81|0.095
90853126|NCT01931670|181569470|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.474||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.79|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Month 6||0.07|-1.79|0.071
90957974|NCT04617275|181795735|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.65||||0.0348|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-37.44|-1.87||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-1.87|-37.44|0.0348
91031079|NCT01606306|181946828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Rank-ordered logistic regression (ROLR) was used to model the probability of best response for each treatment and bootstrapping was used to calculate confidence intervals.|rank-order logistic regression|ROLR is in the class of Discrete Choice models, which seek to estimate the probability that an individual responds best to a specific treatments.||The primary analysis tested the null hypothesis of all three treatments having equal probability to yield the best response as defined by the criteria defining the primary outcome. A sample size of 300 participants was selected to test the primary null hypothesis of all three treatments having equal probability (one-third) to yield the best response with statistical power of at least 0.90 if any one of the three treatments actually has probability of at least one-half to yield the best response.|The probabilistic construct of the Discrete Choice (DC) model does not reflect individual behavior that is intrinsically probabilistic, but rather population heterogeneity. DC models rely on stochastic assumptions to account for unobserved factors related to the treatments themselves and to characteristics of study participants. Specifically, that each treatment has an underlying utility that may differ from one individual to another. Mathematically, these utilities are represented by U\_t, where t denotes the treatment. Utility can be thought of as a latent variable quantifying treatment response where higher values indicate better response. The U\_t can be used to find the probability (P) of best response for each treatment by the following equation: P\_t = exp(U\_t) / \[exp(U\_A) + exp(U\_B) + exp(U\_C)\], where A, B, and C, denote the three study treatments. The primary analysis tested whether the three treatments have equal utility and, thus, equal probability of best response.|||<0.0001
91031080|NCT00970281|181946829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The p-value was based on an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model that included treatment and site as a factor.|ANOVA|||Sample size of at least 45 participants per group was necessary to verify decreases in PANSS-EC total score were significantly greater in olanzapine group than placebo group using a t-test with a power of 90% and a 2-sided significance level of 5%.||||<0.001
91099859|NCT05894564|182085759|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.01|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 120||1.01|0.64|
90853127|NCT01931670|181569471|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.106||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.01|0.34|||ANCOVA|||Month 1||0.34|-4.01|0.098
90853128|NCT01931670|181569471|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-3.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.113|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.91|-1.54|||ANCOVA|||Month 1||-1.54|-5.91|< 0.001
90853129|NCT01931670|181569471|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-2.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.091||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.16|0.13|||ANCOVA|||Month 2||0.13|-4.16|0.065
90853130|NCT01931670|181569471|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.089|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.24|-2.96|||ANCOVA|||Month 2||-2.96|-7.24|< 0.001
90853131|NCT01931670|181569471|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-2.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.89|-0.41|||ANCOVA|||Month 3||-0.41|-4.89|0.02
90853132|NCT01931670|181569471|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-4.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.135|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.87|-2.41|||ANCOVA|||Month 3||-2.41|-6.87|< 0.001
90853133|NCT01931670|181569471|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-2.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.138||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.95|-0.48|||ANCOVA|||Month 4||-0.48|-4.95|0.017
90853134|NCT01931670|181569471|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-6.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.124|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.48|-4.06|||ANCOVA|||Month 4||-4.06|-8.48|< 0.001
90957975|NCT04617275|181795735|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-32.8||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-50.54|-15.05||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-15.05|-50.54|0.0014
90957976|NCT04617275|181795735|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-35.85||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-53.9|-17.81||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-17.81|-53.90|0.0007
90957977|NCT04617275|181795735|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-28.49||||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-46.6|-10.37||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-10.37|-46.60|0.0052
90853135|NCT01931670|181569471|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-2.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.095||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.64|-0.34|||ANCOVA|||Month 5||-0.34|-4.64|0.023
90853136|NCT01931670|181569471|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-5.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.095|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.98|-3.68|||ANCOVA|||Month 5||-3.68|-7.98|< 0.001
90901325|NCT06173570|181668435|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-25.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.08|-19.51|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing data imputed using multiple imputation approach detailed in SAP Appendix 7.1.||-19.51|-32.08|<0.001
90901326|NCT06173570|181668435|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-26.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.33|-20.62|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing data imputed using multiple imputation approach detailed in SAP Appendix 7.1.||-20.62|-33.33|<0.001
90901327|NCT06173570|181668435|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-36.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.5|-30.08|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing data imputed using multiple imputation approach detailed in SAP Appendix 7.1.||-30.08|-42.50|<0.001
90901328|NCT06173570|181668435|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-39.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.61|-32.99|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing data imputed using multiple imputation approach detailed in SAP Appendix 7.1.||-32.99|-45.61|<0.001
91031081|NCT00970281|181946830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0||||This is the p-value for 0.25 hour after first IM injection.|ANOVA|||||||0.009
90901329|NCT03820323|181668440|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.03|||Modified Poisson regression|||||1.03|0.94|0.55
90901330|NCT03820323|181668441|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.86||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.13|||Modified Poission regression|||||1.13|0.66|0.28
90901331|NCT00366301|181668465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Change in Log CRP|20.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted models included terms for baseline HbA1c and weight and change in weight at each time point.||As hsCRP was measured at both 6 and 14 weeks, linear mixed models conditioning on baseline hsCRP and adjusting for treatment stratum were constructed with the dependent variable being change in lnCRP. The means at each time point were estimated from a repeated-measures model incorporating all 3 time points. The interventions were assessed by fitting terms corresponding to study drug and treatment arm assignment.||||<0.05
90901332|NCT03959592|181668516|OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||Generalized Estimating Equations|||||||0.14
90957978|NCT04617275|181795736|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.58||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-46.97|-4.18||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-4.18|-46.97|0.0250
90957979|NCT04617275|181795736|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-32.95||||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-53.95|-11.95||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-11.95|-53.95|0.0053
90853137|NCT01931670|181569471|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.264||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.77|1.2|||ANCOVA|||Month 6||1.20|-3.77|0.311
90957980|NCT04617275|181795736|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-40.07||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-61.41|-18.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-18.73|-61.41|0.0012
90957981|NCT04617275|181795736|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-45.47||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-66.85|-24.1||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-24.10|-66.85|0.0003
90957982|NCT04617275|181795736|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-33.63||||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-55.19|-12.08||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-12.08|-55.19|0.0055
90957983|NCT04617275|181795737|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.79||||0.0127|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-48.12|-7.47||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-7.47|-48.12|0.0127
91031082|NCT00970281|181946830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||This is the p-value for the 0.50 hour after first IM injection.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91031083|NCT00970281|181946830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||This is the p-value for the 1 hour after first IM injection.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90853138|NCT01931670|181569471|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-3.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.241||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.42|-1.53|||ANCOVA|||Month 6||-1.53|-6.42|0.001
90853139|NCT01931670|181569472|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|0.62|||ANCOVA|||Month 1||0.62|-1.81|0.335
90853140|NCT01931670|181569472|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.611||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|0.48|||ANCOVA|||Month 1||0.48|-1.91|0.242
90853141|NCT01931670|181569472|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.652||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||Month 2||-0.05|-2.61|0.042
90957984|NCT04617275|181795737|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.67||||0.0171|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-45.51|-5.83||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-5.83|-45.51|0.0171
90958970|NCT01191268|181798007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
91031084|NCT00970281|181946830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||This is the p-value for the 1.5 hour after first IM injection.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91031085|NCT00970281|181946831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.008
90957985|NCT04617275|181795737|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-46.94||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-67.16|-26.72||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-26.72|-67.16|0.0001
90853142|NCT01931670|181569472|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.656||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.06|-0.48|||ANCOVA|||Month 2||-0.48|-3.06|0.007
90853143|NCT01931670|181569472|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|0.92|||ANCOVA|||Month 3||0.92|-1.87|0.503
90853144|NCT01931670|181569472|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.707||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.36|0.41|||ANCOVA|||Month 3||0.41|-2.36|0.169
90853145|NCT01931670|181569472|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.737||0.675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|1.14|||ANCOVA|||Month 4||1.14|-1.76|0.675
90853146|NCT01931670|181569472|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-2.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.703||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.55|-0.79|||ANCOVA|||Month 4||-0.79|-3.55|0.002
90853147|NCT01931670|181569472|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-2.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.856||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.72|-0.36|||ANCOVA|||Month 5||-0.36|-3.72|0.017
90853148|NCT01931670|181569472|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-2.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.848||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.21|-0.87|||ANCOVA|||Month 5||-0.87|-4.21|0.003
90853149|NCT01931670|181569472|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.778||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.12|-0.06|||ANCOVA|||Month 6||-0.06|-3.12|0.042
90853150|NCT01931670|181569472|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-2.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.738||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.73|-0.83|||ANCOVA|||Month 6||-0.83|-3.73|0.002
90853151|NCT01198158|181569506|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.739|||||||Log Rank|OS was analyzed based on an intent-to-treat approach using the stratified log-rank statistic adjusting on the stratification factors.||||||0.739
90853152|NCT01198158|181569507|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.832|||||||Log Rank|PFS was analyzed based on an intent-to-treat approach using the stratified log-rank statistic adjusting on the stratification factors||||||0.832
90853153|NCT05478174|181569515|NON_INFERIORITY|Non inferiority margin is -8%|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.0078|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0411|0.0255||P-Value for non inferiority test|Farrington-Manning method|||||0.0255|-0.0411|<0.001
90853154|NCT05478174|181569516|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.0716||||0.171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1742|0.031|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.0310|-0.1742|0.171
90957986|NCT04617275|181795737|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-33.79||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-54.32|-13.27||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-13.27|-54.32|0.0037
91031086|NCT00970281|181946832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.008
90853155|NCT05478174|181569517|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.231|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|-1.31|||ANOVA|||||-1.31|-2.22|<0.001
90853156|NCT01545843|181569518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.202|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.202
90853157|NCT03390842|181569529|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % of subjects|24.9|||=|0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.2|38.7|||Fisher Exact|||% Subjects Who Met Endpoint (≥ 4 mEq/L Change from Baseline Serum Bicarbonate or Serum Bicarbonate in the Normal Range \[22 - 29 mEq/L\]): TRC101-Placebo||38.7|10.2|= 0.0015
90853158|NCT03390842|181569529|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference in % of subjects|24.4|||=|0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.7|38.2|||Fisher Exact|||% Subjects with ≥ 4mEq/L Change from Baseline in Serum Bicarbonate: TRC101-Placebo||38.2|9.7|= 0.0015
90853159|NCT03390842|181569529|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference in % of subjects|30.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.6|43.7|||Fisher Exact|||% Subjects with Serum Bicarbonate in Normal Range (22 - 29 mEq/L): TRC101-Placebo||43.7|15.6|< 0.0001
90853160|NCT03390842|181569530|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference in LS means|1.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.524|=|0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|3.03|||Mixed-effect repeated measures model||Standard error presented above is for the LS mean.|Least Squares Mean Change from Baseline: TRC101-Placebo||3.03|0.96|= 0.0002
90853161|NCT03390842|181569531|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||p-value based on analysis of covariance model with rank of change from baseline in total score as dependent variable; treatment (PBO or TRC101) as a fixed effect; and baseline total score, Baseline eGFR, Baseline Bicarbonate as continuous covariates.|ANCOVA|||Mean Change from Baseline in KDQOL-PFD: TRC101-Placebo||||< 0.0001
90853162|NCT03390842|181569532|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline for Repeated Chair Stand Test: TRC101-Placebo||||< 0.0001
90853163|NCT05072470|181569543|SUPERIORITY|When p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons, the level of statistical significance must be \</= to .01666667 (.05/3)|||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Speech intelligibility will be better with hearing aids plus Roger device, than with hearing aids alone when tested using standardized speech test at 0 dB SNR||||<0.01
90853164|NCT05072470|181569543|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.031||||||When p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons, the level of statistical significance must be \</= to .01666667 (.05/3)|t-test, 2 sided|||Speech intelligibility will be better with hearing aids plus Roger device, than with hearing aids alone when tested using standardized speech test at -5 dB SNR||||.031
90853165|NCT05072470|181569543|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046||||||When p-values are adjusted for multiple comparisons, the level of statistical significance must be \</= .01666667 (.05/3)|t-test, 2 sided|||Speech intelligibility will be equal or better with hearing aids plus Roger device than with hearing aids alone when tested using standardized speech test at +5 dB SNR.||||.046
90853166|NCT00924170|181569614|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Kaplan Meier|||Published response duration of 15 patients with leukemic adult T cell leukemia treated with Alemtuzumab.||||<0.0001
90853167|NCT00579436|181569628|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.05
90853168|NCT00579436|181569629|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
90853169|NCT00579436|181569630|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5
90853170|NCT00579436|181569631|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5
90853171|NCT00899392|181569632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Student's t test|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90853172|NCT00899392|181569633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mann Whitney Test-non parametric||||>0.05
90853173|NCT00899392|181569634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|paired||||||>0.05
90957987|NCT04617275|181795737|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-42.13||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-62.85|-21.4||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-21.40|-62.85|0.0005
90957988|NCT04617275|181795738|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.85||||0.1678|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-34.9|9.21||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||9.21|-34.90|0.1678
90853174|NCT00899392|181569635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0053||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0053
90853175|NCT02081248|181569642|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37||||||Testing was performed at a significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Two-sample t-test comparing mean QuIC-A scores performed using 150 degrees of freedom||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in comprehension of the parent clinical trial, as measured by the QuIC-A, between participants reviewing a standard consent and easy-to-read informed consent (ETRIC) forms. Mean QuIC-A scores were compared between arms, which should be approximately equal under the null hypothesis.||||0.37
90853176|NCT02081248|181569643|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39||||||Testing performed at a significance level of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in participants' perception of their comprehension of the parent clinical trial, as measured by the QuIC-B, between participants reviewing a standard consent and easy-to-read informed consent (ETRIC) forms. Median QuIC-B scores were compared between arms, which should be approximately equal under the null hypothesis.||||0.39
90853177|NCT02081248|181569644|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17||||||Testing was performed at a significance level of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in participants' comprehension of the parent clinical trial, as measured by the DICCT, between participants reviewing a standard consent and easy-to-read informed consent (ETRIC) forms. Median DICCT scores were compared between arms, which should be approximately equal under the null hypothesis.||||0.17
90901333|NCT03959592|181668517|OTHER|||||||0.423|||||||Generalized Estimating Equations|||||||0.423
90901334|NCT03959592|181668520|OTHER|||||||0.985|||||||Generalized Estimating Equations|||||||0.985
91031087|NCT00970281|181946833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.167||95.0||||This is the p-value for the 0.5 hour after the first IM injection.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.167
90853178|NCT02081248|181569647|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21||||||Testing was performed at a significance level of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in participants' state anxiety, as measured by the STAI, between participants reviewing a standard consent and easy-to-read informed consent (ETRIC) forms. Median state anxiety subscores of the STAI were compared between arms, which should be equal under the null hypothesis.||||0.21
90957989|NCT04617275|181795738|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.82||||0.1223|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-35.85|6.21||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||6.21|-35.85|0.1223
90957990|NCT04617275|181795738|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-33.97||||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-55.66|-12.28||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-12.28|-55.66|0.0054
90957991|NCT04617275|181795738|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.31||||0.5398|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.38|22.99||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||22.99|-20.38|0.5398
90901335|NCT03959592|181668521|OTHER|||||||0.545|||||||Generalized Estimating Equations|||||||0.545
90901336|NCT04362137|181668523|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.73|||Regression, Logistic||Comparison is ruxolitinib 5 mg/placebo. An odds ratio \< 1 favors the ruxolitinib 5 mg arm|||1.73|0.48|0.769
90901337|NCT04362137|181668525|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.46|||Regression, Logistic||Comparison is ruxolitinib 5 mg/placebo. An odds ratio \> 1 favors the ruxolitinib 5 mg arm|Day 15||1.46|0.55|0.647
90901338|NCT04362137|181668525|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.92|||Regression, Logistic||Comparison is ruxolitinib 5 mg/placebo. An odds ratio \> 1 favors the ruxolitinib 5 mg arm|Day 29||1.92|0.52|0.997
91031088|NCT00970281|181946833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.134||95.0||||This is the p-value for the 1 hour after the first IM injection.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.134
91031089|NCT00970281|181946833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0||||This is the p-value for the 1.5 hour after the first IM injection.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.008
90853179|NCT02081248|181569647|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25||||||Testing was performed at a significance level of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in participants' trait anxiety, as measured by the STAI, between participants reviewing a standard consent and easy-to-read informed consent (ETRIC) forms. Median trait anxiety subscores of the STAI were compared between arms, which should be equal under the null hypothesis.||||0.25
90901339|NCT04362137|181668526|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.87|||Regression, Logistic||Comparison is ruxolitinib 5 mg/placebo. An odds ratio \> 1 favors the ruxolitinib 5 mg arm|Day 15||1.87|0.51|0.946
90901340|NCT04362137|181668526|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.79|||Regression, Logistic||Comparison is ruxolitinib 5 mg/placebo. An odds ratio \> 1 favors the ruxolitinib 5 mg arm|Day 29||1.79|0.35|0.573
90901341|NCT04362137|181668527|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.83|||Regression, Logistic||Comparison is ruxolitinib 5 mg/placebo. An odds ratio \< 1 favors the ruxolitinib 5 mg arm|Day 15||1.83|0.31|0.532
90957992|NCT04617275|181795738|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.42||||0.1409|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-36.56|7.72||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||7.72|-36.56|0.1409
90957993|NCT04617275|181795739|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-28.65||||0.0236|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-52.31|-4.99||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-4.99|-52.31|0.0236
90957994|NCT04617275|181795739|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.32||||0.0226|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-49.67|-4.97||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-4.97|-49.67|0.0226
90957995|NCT04617275|181795739|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-40.85||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-64.11|-17.59||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-17.59|-64.11|0.0022
90958971|NCT01191268|181798007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
90957996|NCT04617275|181795739|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.25||||0.2335|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-33.59|13.08||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||13.08|-33.59|0.2335
90957997|NCT04617275|181795739|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.38||||0.0494|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-48.69|-0.08||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-0.08|-48.69|0.0494
90957998|NCT04617275|181795740|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.2485|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.31|0.13||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||0.13|-0.31|0.2485
90957999|NCT04617275|181795740|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26||||0.0252|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.48|-0.04||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-0.04|-0.48|0.0252
90958000|NCT04617275|181795740|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.56|-0.12||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-0.12|-0.56|0.0053
90958001|NCT04617275|181795740|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.54|-0.1||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-0.10|-0.54|0.0090
90853180|NCT02081248|181569648|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8||||||Testing was performed at a significance level of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in satisfaction with the consent process, as measured by a study-specific questionnaire, between participants reviewing a standard consent and easy-to-read informed consent (ETRIC) forms. Median participant satisfaction scores were compared between arms, which should be equal under the null hypothesis.||||0.80
91031090|NCT00970281|181946833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0||||This is the p-value for the 2 hours after the first IM injection.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.008
90853181|NCT02081248|181569649|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73||||||Testing was performed at a significance level of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the time required to find the main goal of the study between participants reviewing a standard consent and easy-to-read informed consent (ETRIC) forms. Median time required to find the main goal of the study was compared between arms, which should be equal under the null hypothesis.||||0.73
90853182|NCT02081248|181569649|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26||||||Testing was performed at a significance level of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the time required to find who to contact for questions between participants reviewing a standard consent and easy-to-read informed consent (ETRIC) forms. Median time required to find who to contact for questions was compared between arms, which should be equal under the null hypothesis.||||0.26
90958002|NCT04617275|181795740|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.1066|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.39|0.05||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||0.05|-0.39|0.1066
90958003|NCT04617275|181795741|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11||||0.274|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|0.19||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||0.19|-0.40|0.2740
90958004|NCT04617275|181795741|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37||||0.0196|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.66|-0.08||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-0.08|-0.66|0.0196
90958005|NCT04617275|181795741|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.88|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-0.30|-0.88|0.0006
90958006|NCT04617275|181795741|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.82|-0.23||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-0.23|-0.82|0.0019
90958007|NCT04617275|181795741|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36||||0.0243|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.66|-0.06||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-0.06|-0.66|0.0243
90958008|NCT04617275|181795742|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0.1587|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.62|0.15||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||0.15|-0.62|0.1587
91031091|NCT00970281|181946833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.204||95.0||||This is the p-value for the 24 hours after the first IM injection.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.204
90853183|NCT02081248|181569649|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74||||||Testing was performed at a significance level of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the time required to find the risks and benefits section between participants reviewing a standard consent and easy-to-read informed consent (ETRIC) forms. Median time required to find the risks and benefits section was compared between arms, which should be equal under the null hypothesis.||||0.74
91099860|NCT05894564|182085760|SUPERIORITY|Posterior probability of efficacy (P(Difference in MTU (Active - Placebo)\<0))|Difference in model estimate time unwell|-0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.26|||||The mean time unwell is estimated from receipt of study drug to study day 14. The interval is a highest density credible interval.|No hypothesis test or decision rule was evaluated.||0.26|-0.56|
90958009|NCT04617275|181795742|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.04|-0.27||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-0.27|-1.04|0.0027
90958010|NCT04617275|181795742|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.24|-0.47||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-0.47|-1.24|0.0002
90958011|NCT04617275|181795742|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.1|-0.32||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-0.32|-1.10|0.0016
90958012|NCT04617275|181795742|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.67||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.07|-0.28||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-0.28|-1.07|0.0027
90958013|NCT04617275|181795743|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43||||0.0472|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.86|-0.01||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-0.01|-0.86|0.0472
90958014|NCT04617275|181795743|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.87||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.29|-0.45||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-0.45|-1.29|0.0004
90958015|NCT04617275|181795743|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.53|-0.68||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-0.68|-1.53|<0.0001
90958016|NCT04617275|181795743|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.93||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.36|-0.5||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-0.50|-1.36|0.0003
91099861|NCT05894564|182085761|SUPERIORITY|Posterior probability of efficacy (P(Difference days benefit (Active - Placebo)\>0))|Difference in model estimated means|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.68|||||The interval is a highest density credible interval.|Analysis is exploratory. No hypothesis test or decision rule was evaluated.||0.68|-0.29|
91099862|NCT00758043|182085787|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Estimated by evaluating the treatment differences in the SVR24planned rates (T12PR24/eRVR+ minus T12PR48/eRVR+) and the 95% CI for these groups (the entire 2 sided CI is to the right of the predefined non-inferiority margin of -10.5%).|Difference in proportions|4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|11.1||||||Primary efficacy analysis was based on CI estimates (using the normal approximation, confidence limits were constructed for the difference in proportions) to rule out the inferiority of the T12/PR24/eRVR+ treatment regimen relative to the T12/PR48/eRVR+ treatment regimen. SVR24 was defined as undetectable HCV RNA at end of treatment through 24 weeks after the last planned dose.||11.1|-2.1|
90853184|NCT02081248|181569649|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56||||||Testing was performed at a significance level of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the time required to find how to leave the study between participants reviewing a standard consent and easy-to-read informed consent (ETRIC) forms. Median time required to find how to leave the study was compared between arms, which should be equal under the null hypothesis.||||0.56
90853185|NCT02081248|181569649|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79||||||Testing was performed at a significance level of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the time required to find study procedures between participants reviewing a standard consent and easy-to-read informed consent (ETRIC) forms. Median time required to find study procedures was compared between arms, which should be equal under the null hypothesis.||||0.79
90853186|NCT02081248|181569650|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Testing was performed at a significance level of 0.05|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the consent rates to BMT CTN 0901 between participants reviewing a standard consent and easy-to-read informed consent (ETRIC) forms. Consent rates to BMT CTN 0901 were compared between arms in participants considering enrollment, which should be equal under the null hypothesis.||||1.00
90853187|NCT02081248|181569650|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77||||||Testing was performed at a significance level of 0.05|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the consent rates to BMT CTN 1101 between participants reviewing a standard consent and easy-to-read informed consent (ETRIC) forms. Consent rates to BMT CTN 1101 were compared between arms in participants considering enrollment, which should be approximately equal under the null hypothesis.||||0.77
90853188|NCT02081248|181569650|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69||||||Testing was performed at a significance level of 0.05|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the consent rates to BMT CTN 1203 between participants reviewing a standard consent and easy-to-read informed consent (ETRIC) forms. Consent rates to BMT CTN 1203 were compared between arms in participants considering enrollment, which should be approximately equal under the null hypothesis.||||0.69
90853189|NCT02081248|181569650|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26||||||Testing was performed at a significance level of 0.05|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the consent rates to BMT CTN 1301 between participants reviewing a standard consent and easy-to-read informed consent (ETRIC) forms. Consent rates to BMT CTN 1501 were compared between arms in participants considering enrollment, which should be approximately equal under the null hypothesis.||||0.26
90853190|NCT00920907|181569698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.916|1.114|||Least squared linear regression|||Biocomparability of ipilimumab Process C to ipilimumab Process B was concluded if the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of geometric means for Cmax were contained within 80% to 125%.||1.114|0.916|
90853191|NCT00920907|181569702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|1.032|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.922|1.156|||Least squared linear regression|||Biocomparability of ipilimumab Process C to ipilimumab Process B was to be concluded if the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of geometric means for ipilimumab Cmax were contained within 80% to 125%. Point estimates and 90% CIs were constructed for the ratio of geometric means (Process C/Process B) for ipilimumab Cmax.||1.156|0.922|
90853192|NCT00920907|181569707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||omnibus conditional F-test|0.4||||0.85||||||Not corrected for multiple testing|F-test|numerator 5 degrees freedom, denominator 782 degrees freedom||Time-by-process interaction. Null hypothesis that the pattern of mean ALC values over time is the same for both processes.||||0.85
90853193|NCT00920907|181569707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||F-statistic|4.35|||<|0.0001|||||||F-test|numerator 10 degrees freedom, denominator 782 degrees freedom||Overall time effect. Null hypothesis of no mean ALC changes over time in either process group (treatment arm).||||<0.0001
90901342|NCT04362137|181668527|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.49|||Regression, Logistic||Comparison is ruxolitinib 5 mg/placebo. An odds ratio \< 1 favors the ruxolitinib 5 mg arm|Day 29||3.49|0.40|0.764
90901343|NCT04362137|181668528|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.37|||Proportional hazards model||Between group comparison using competing risk framework. A hazard ratio \> 1 favors the ruxolitinib 5 mg arm|||1.37|0.90|0.330
90901344|NCT04362137|181668529|SUPERIORITY||Least squares (LS) mean|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.144||0.831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.25|||ANCOVA|||Day 15||0.25|-0.31|0.831
90901345|NCT04362137|181668529|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.155||0.624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.38|||ANCOVA|||Day 29||0.38|-0.23|0.624
90901346|NCT04362137|181668530|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|5.57|||Regression, Logistic||Comparison is ruxolitinib 5 mg/placebo. An odds ratio \< 1 favors the ruxolitinib 5 mg arm|Day 15||5.57|0.20|0.944
90901347|NCT04362137|181668530|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|5.11|||Regression, Logistic||Comparison is ruxolitinib 5 mg/placebo. An odds ratio \< 1 favors the ruxolitinib 5 mg arm|Day 29||5.11|0.35|0.775
91099863|NCT00758043|182085787|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Estimated by evaluating the treatment differences in the SVR24planned rates (T12PR24/eRVR+ minus T12PR48/eRVR+) and the 95% CI for these groups (the entire 2 sided CI is to the right of the predefined non-inferiority margin of -10.5%).|Difference in proportions|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|8.2||||||SVR24 was defined as below the limit of quantitation at 24 weeks after the planned end of treatment. For subjects who had missing data at week 24 after the planned end of treatment, the week 12 data or the last follow-up time point after week 12 was carried forward for determining SVR24.||8.2|-4.3|
90853194|NCT02616601|181569715|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% confidence interval on the percentage difference between generic fluorouracil cream and Carac (fluorouracil) cream lesion clearance were contained within the interval -0.20 to +0.20, and each of these percentages was greater than and statistically different (p\<0.05) from the vehicle cream percentage, then generic fluorouracil cream and Carac (fluorouracil) cream were considered to be therapeutically equivalent.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.03|11.11|||||90% Wald's confidence interval with a continuity correction for the difference (Generic Fluorouracil Cream - Carac \[Fluorouracil\] Cream) in complete clearance rates.|||11.11|-11.03|
90853195|NCT02616601|181569715|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
90853196|NCT02616601|181569715|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
90853197|NCT00718081|181569717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.92|<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90901348|NCT04362137|181668531|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.21|||Regression, Logistic||Comparison is ruxolitinib 5 mg/placebo. An odds ratio \< 1 favors the ruxolitinib 5 mg arm|||2.21|0.45|0.987
90901349|NCT04362137|181668532|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.28|||Proportional hazards model||Between group comparison using competing risk framework. A hazard ratio \> 1 favors the ruxolitinib 5 mg arm|||1.28|0.84|0.738
91031092|NCT00970281|181946834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||This is the p-value for Parkinsonism.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
91099864|NCT00758043|182085788|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Estimated by evaluating the treatment differences in the SVR at Week 72 planned rates (T12PR24/eRVR+ minus T12PR48/eRVR+) and the 95% CI for these groups (the entire 2 sided CI is to the right of the predefined non-inferiority margin of 10.5%).|Difference in Proportion|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|6.8||||||||6.8|-7.7|
90853198|NCT00718081|181569717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.86|<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90853199|NCT01249118|181569727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of LS Means|8.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.08|10.08|||||The 90 percent (%) confidence intervals (CI) of test group (oral dose) means relative to reference group (IV dose) means were obtained by taking antilog of corresponding 90% CI for the differences between the means on the log scale.|Least squares (LS) mean was calculated from analysis of variance (ANOVA). Data for dose-normalized Cmax were natural log-transformed prior to analysis.||10.08|7.08|
90901350|NCT04362137|181668533|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.23|||Proportional hazards model||Between group comparison using competing risk framework. A hazard ratio \> 1 favors the ruxolitinib 5 mg arm|||1.23|0.84|0.869
90901351|NCT04362137|181668536|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.61||||0.325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.63|||Regression, Logistic||Comparison is ruxolitinib 5 mg/placebo. An odds ratio \> 1 favors the ruxolitinib 5 mg arm|Day 15||1.63|0.23|0.325
90901352|NCT04362137|181668536|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|5.4||P-value was not estimable because \>97% patients fall into one category (responders) in both groups, and very few patients fall into the other one (non-responders), which made the logistic regression model fail to converge even with Firth's correction|Regression, Logistic||Comparison is ruxolitinib 5 mg/placebo. An odds ratio \> 1 favors the ruxolitinib 5 mg arm|Day 29||5.40|0.25|
90901353|NCT03556358|181668559|EQUIVALENCE|"Two one-sided hypothesis tests were performed for pCR in order to show that TX05 is equivalent to Herceptin:~* TEST 1: H0a: θ1 / θ2 \> 1.325 vs. H1a: θ1 / θ2 \< 1.325~* TEST 2: H0b: θ1 / θ2 \< 0.755 vs. H1b: θ1 / θ2 \> 0.755~Where θ1 is the proportion of pCR for subjects randomized to TX05 group, θ2 is the proportion of pCR for subjects randomized to Herceptin. Equivalence was concluded if the 95% CI of the risk ratio is completely contained within the pre-defined interval \[0.755, 1.325\]."|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0783|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9185|1.2659||||||||1.2659|0.9185|
90901354|NCT02066896|181668564|OTHER|ANOVA repeated measures||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|ANOVA repeated measures||||||0.05
90901355|NCT05067933|181668581|OTHER|Comparison between immunogenicity assay results between treatment groups on Day 57.||||||0.953|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum tests|||||||0.953
90853200|NCT01249118|181569731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of LS Means|48.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|41.43|56.94|||||The 90% CI of the test group (oral dose) means relative to the reference group (IV dose) means were obtained by taking the antilog of the corresponding 90% CI for the differences between the means on the log scale.|LS means was calculated from ANOVA. Data for dose-normalized AUC (0 - t) were natural log-transformed prior to analysis.||56.94|41.43|
90853201|NCT01249118|181569733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of LS Means|45.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|39.74|53.06|||||The 90% CI of the test group (oral dose) means relative to the reference group (IV dose) means were obtained by taking the antilog of the corresponding 90% CI for the differences between the means on the log scale.|LS mean was calculated from ANOVA. Data for dose-normalized AUC (0 - ∞) were natural log-transformed prior to analysis.||53.06|39.74|
90853202|NCT01063712|181569760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||percentage|||It is not a analysis of two groups. Only one group of patients was analyzed.||||<0.01
90853203|NCT01063712|181569761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||percentage|The analysis was made on the basis of the percentage of patients with completely regressed dilation.||It is a one arm clinical study. No comparison between groups was made.||||<0.01
90958972|NCT01191268|181798007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison at 52 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
91031093|NCT00159965|181946835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio, log|0.673|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.369||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.051|1.396|||Overdispersed Poisson Regression|||Between-group seizure change. The primary hypothesis of this pilot randomized control trial (RCT) was to assess the magnitude of seizure frequency reduction by treatment, comparing placbo to sertraline. The alternative hypothesis is that patients treated with sertraline will show a significant decrease in seizures from baseline to exit.||1.396|-0.051|0.29
91099865|NCT00758043|182085788|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Estimated by evaluating the treatment differences in the SVR at Week 72 planned rates (T12PR24/eRVR+ minus T12PR48/eRVR+) and the 95% CI for these groups (the entire 2 sided CI is to the right of the predefined non-inferiority margin of 10.5%).|Odds Ratio, log|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.82||||||||1.82|0.49|
91099866|NCT03197935|182085805|SUPERIORITY||Absolute difference in pCR rate|16.5||||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.91|27.1||(one-sided)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Stratified analysis. Strata are: tumor PD-L1 status (IC0 vs. IC1/2/3) and clinical stage at presentation (Stage II vs. III).||27.10|5.91|0.0044
90853204|NCT05033002|181569828|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value is for the t-test of the coefficient of linear (TimeXGroup) trends.|Mixed Models Analysis||The estimated value is for the slope of linear (TimeXGroup) trends. Controlled for significant covariates.|||||<.0001
90853205|NCT05033002|181569828|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.002|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value is for the t-test of the coefficient of quadratic (TimeXTimeXGroup) trends.|Mixed Models Analysis||The estimated value is for the slope of quadratic (TimeXTimeXGroup) trends. Controlled for significant covariates.|||||<.0001
90853206|NCT05033002|181569829|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.06||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value is for the t-test of the coefficient of linear (TimeXGroup) trends.|Mixed Models Analysis||The estimated value is for the slope of linear (TimeXGroup) trends. Controlled for significant covariates.|||||.002
90853207|NCT05033002|181569829|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.0003||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value is for the t-test of the coefficient of quadratic (TimeXTimeXGroup) trends.|Mixed Models Analysis||The estimated value is for the slope of quadratic (TimeXTimeXGroup) trends. Controlled for significant covariates.|||||.010
90853208|NCT05033002|181569830|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.05||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value is for the t-test of the coefficient of linear (TimeXGroup) trends.|Mixed Models Analysis||The estimated value is for the slope of linear (TimeXGroup) trends. Controlled for significant covariates.|||||.001
90853209|NCT05033002|181569830|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.0002||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value is for the t-test of the coefficient of quadratic (TimeXTimeXGroup) trends.|Mixed Models Analysis||The estimated value is for the slope of quadratic (TimeXTimeXGroup) trends. Controlled for significant covariates.|||||.032
90853210|NCT05033002|181569831|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34||||0.506|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.506
90901356|NCT05067933|181668582|OTHER|Comparison between immunogenicity assay results between treatment groups on Day 57.||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum tests|||||||0.500
90901357|NCT05067933|181668583|OTHER|Comparison between immunogenicity assay results between treatment groups on Day 57.||||||0.912|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum tests|||||||0.912
90901358|NCT05067933|181668584|OTHER|Comparison between immunogenicity assay results between treatment groups on Day 57.||||||0.678|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum tests|||||||0.678
90901359|NCT05067933|181668585|OTHER|Comparison between immunogenicity assay results between treatment groups on Day 57.||||||0.257|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum tests|||||||0.257
90901360|NCT05067933|181668586|OTHER|Comparison between immunogenicity assay results between treatment groups on Day 57.||||||0.748|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum tests|||||||0.748
90901361|NCT05067933|181668587|OTHER|Comparison between immunogenicity assay results between treatment groups on Day 57.||||||0.946|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum tests|||||||0.946
90901362|NCT05067933|181668590|OTHER|Comparison between immunogenicity assay results between treatment groups on Day 57.||||||0.356|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum tests|||||||0.356
90901363|NCT05067933|181668591|OTHER|Comparison between immunogenicity assay results between treatment groups on Day 57.||||||0.267|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum tests|||||||0.267
90853211|NCT05033002|181569832|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.441||||||The p-value is for the t-test of the coefficient of linear (TimeXGroup) trends.|Mixed Models Analysis|The estimated value is for the slope of linear (TimeXGroup) trends. Controlled for significant covariates.||||||.441
90853212|NCT05033002|181569832|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.0002||||0.734|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value is for the t-test of the coefficient of quadratic (TimeXTimeXGroup) trends.|Mixed Models Analysis||The estimated value is for the slope of quadratic (TimeXTimeXGroup) trends. Controlled for significant covariates.|||||.734
90853213|NCT00461331|181569855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|96.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.5||0.52||95.0|87.9|100.0|||Regression, Linear|7 patients underwent early termination of either one or both of their test period due to loss of glycemic control||Glucose levels for patients when they were on each insulin were analyzed. All data was analyzed on an intention to treat basis. Repeated measures, paired t-test and Pearson's correlation on SPSS 14.0 for windows and statistical R-package were used to compare the various variables. This was a pilot study.||100.0|87.9|0.52
90901364|NCT01065350|181668592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.07|26.15||A p value of \< 0.05 was considered to indicate statistical significance.|Chi-squared|||Systolic Blood Pressure (SBP) from baseline to 5 minutes post induction was compared between treatment groups.||26.15|2.07|<0.001
90901365|NCT01065350|181668592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.24|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|8.75||A p value of \< 0.05 was considered to indicate statistical significance.|Chi-squared|||Systolic Blood Pressure (SBP) from baseline to 10 minutes post induction was compared between treatment groups.||8.75|1.21|<0.01
90901366|NCT01065350|181668592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|4.55||A p value of \< 0.005 was considered to indicate statistical significance.|Chi-squared|||Systolic Blood Pressure (SBP) from baseline to 30 minutes post induction was compared between treatment groups||4.55|0.52|0.39
90958017|NCT04617275|181795743|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.91||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.34|-0.47||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-0.47|-1.34|0.0004
91099867|NCT03197935|182085806|SUPERIORITY||Difference in pCR|19.5||||0.0206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.17|34.83||(one-sided)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Stratified analysis. Strata are: AJCC stage at diagnosis (II vs. III).||34.83|4.17|0.0206
90853214|NCT00461331|181569856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.35|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.165||0.15||95.0|0.97|9.23|||Regression, Linear||This was between days 3 and 5 after the last pump infusion line change using Insulin Aspart and Insulin Lispro. Adequate samples were not available to do the analysis for day 2.|All data was analyzed on an intention to treat basis. Repeated measures, paired t-test and Pearson's correlation on SPSS 14.0 for windows and statistical R-package were used to compare the various variables.||9.23|0.97|0.15
90853215|NCT00461331|181569857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.35||0.55||95.0|4.4|9.4|||Regression, Linear||This was for test period 1 between days 3 and 5 after the last pump infusion line change.|All data was analyzed on an intention to treat basis. Repeated measures, paired t-test and Pearson's correlation on SPSS 14.0 for windows and statistical R-package were used to compare the various variables.||9.4|4.4|0.55
90853216|NCT01155479|181569858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Estimated Means|2.6||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|4.3|||constrained longitudinal analysis|||Preladenant 2 mg (Part 1) vs Placebo (Part 1)||4.30|0.86|0.0033
90853217|NCT01155479|181569858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Estimated Means|1.3||||0.1382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|2.94|||constrained longitudinal analysis|||Preladenant 5 mg (Part 1) vs Placebo (Part 1)||2.94|-0.41|0.1382
90901367|NCT01065350|181668593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.64|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|14.92||A p value of \< 0.05 was considered to indicate statistical significance.|Chi-squared|||Diastolic Blood Pressure (DBP) from baseline to 5 minutes post induction was compared between treatment groups.||14.92|1.54|<0.01
90901368|NCT01065350|181668593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.38||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|6.29||A p value of \< 0.05 was considered to indicate statistical significance.|Chi-squared|||Diastolic Blood Pressure (DBP) from baseline to 10 minutes post induction was compared between treatment groups.||6.29|0.91|0.05
90958018|NCT04617275|181795744|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69||||0.0116|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.18|-0.19||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-0.19|-1.18|0.0116
90958019|NCT04617275|181795744|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.94||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.43|-0.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-0.46|-1.43|0.0008
90958020|NCT04617275|181795744|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.66|-0.67||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-0.67|-1.66|<0.0001
90958021|NCT04617275|181795744|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.4|-0.4||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-0.40|-1.40|0.0017
90958022|NCT04617275|181795744|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.05||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.55|-0.55||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-0.55|-1.55|0.0004
91099868|NCT03197935|182085807|OTHER|This study was not designed nor formally powered to demonstrate statistically significant improvements in the secondary efficacy endpoint of EFS. The analyses of this secondary endpoint is descriptive in nature.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.21|||Stratified log-rank test|||"Stratified analysis. Strata are:~Tumor PD-L1 status (IC0 vs IC1/2/3) and AJCC stage at diagnosis (II vs. III)."||1.21|0.47|
90958023|NCT04617275|181795745|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.76||||0.0132|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.32|-0.2||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-0.20|-1.32|0.0132
90958024|NCT04617275|181795745|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.55|-0.46||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-0.46|-1.55|0.0014
90853218|NCT01155479|181569858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Estimated Means|0.4||||0.6378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|2.11|||constrained longitudinal analysis|||Preladenant 10 mg (Part 1) vs Placebo (Part 1)||2.11|-1.29|0.6378
90853219|NCT01155479|181569858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Estimated Means|0.3||||0.6923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|2.03|||constrained longitudinal analysis|||Rasagiline (Part 1) vs Placebo (Part 1)||2.03|-1.35|0.6923
90853220|NCT01155479|181569859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference vs Placebo (%)|-9.7||||0.0785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|1.82||p-value is for the estimated Odds Ratio based on a generalized linear mixed model with baseline UPDRS2+3 as a covariate and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effect and participant as random effect.|generalized linear mixed model|||Preladenant 2 mg (Part 1) vs Placebo (Part 1)||1.82|-21.0|0.0785
90901369|NCT01065350|181668593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.74||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|13.19||A p value of \< 0.05 was considered to indicate statistical significance.|Chi-squared|||Diastolic Blood Pressure (DBP) from baseline to 30 minutes post induction was compared between treatment groups.||13.19|0.68|0.11
90901370|NCT01065350|181668594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.98|31.64||A p value of \< 0.05 was considered to indicate statistical significance.|Chi-squared|||Mean Arterial Pressure (MAP) from baseline to 5 minutes post induction was compared between treatment groups.||31.64|1.98|<0.001
90901371|NCT01065350|181668594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.84||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|7.65||A p value of \< 0.05 was considered to indicate statistical significance.|Chi-squared|||Mean Arterial Pressure (MAP) from baseline to 10 minutes post induction was compared between treatment groups.||7.65|1.07|0.02
90958025|NCT04617275|181795745|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.25||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.8|-0.69||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-0.69|-1.80|0.0002
90958026|NCT04617275|181795745|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.73||||0.0174|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.29|-0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-0.16|-1.29|0.0174
90958027|NCT04617275|181795745|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.25||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.82|-0.69||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-0.69|-1.82|0.0002
90958028|NCT04617275|181795746|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26||||0.2843|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.02|0.5||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||0.50|-1.02|0.2843
90958029|NCT04617275|181795746|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.431|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.84|0.68||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||0.68|-0.84|0.4310
90958030|NCT04617275|181795746|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32||||0.2402|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.07|0.43||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||0.43|-1.07|0.2402
90958031|NCT04617275|181795746|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49||||0.1397|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.24|0.26||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||0.26|-1.24|0.1397
90958032|NCT04617275|181795746|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.4393|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.85|0.71||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||0.71|-0.85|0.4393
90958033|NCT04617275|181795747|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.77||||0.1491|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.0|0.45||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||0.45|-2.00|0.1491
90853221|NCT01155479|181569859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference vs Placebo (%)|-6.3||||0.2735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6|5.05||p-value is for the estimated Odds Ratio based on a generalized linear mixed model with baseline UPDRS2+3 as a covariate and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effect and participant as random effect.|generalized linear mixed model|||Preladenant 5 mg (Part 1) vs Placebo (Part 1)||5.05|-17.6|0.2735
90853222|NCT01155479|181569859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference vs Placebo (%)|-3.7||||0.4823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|7.99||p-value is for the estimated Odds Ratio based on a generalized linear mixed model with baseline UPDRS2+3 as a covariate and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effect and participant as random effect.|generalized linear mixed model|||Preladenant 10 mg (Part 1) vs Placebo (Part 1)||7.99|-15.2|0.4823
90853223|NCT01155479|181569859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference vs Placebo (%)|-2.3||||0.6827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|9.24||p-value is for the estimated Odds Ratio based on a generalized linear mixed model with baseline UPDRS2+3 as a covariate and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effect and participant as random effect.|generalized linear mixed model|||Rasagiline (Part 1) vs Placebo (Part 1)||9.24|-13.9|0.6827
90853224|NCT01155479|181569860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Estimated Means|0.7||||0.0235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.27|||constrained longitudinal analysis|||Preladenant 2 mg (Part 1) vs Placebo (Part 1)||1.27|0.09|0.0235
90853225|NCT01155479|181569860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Estimated Means|0.5||||0.1093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|1.04|||constrained longitudinal analysis|||Preladenant 5 mg (Part 1) vs Placebo (Part 1)||1.04|-0.11|0.1093
90853226|NCT01155479|181569860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Estimated Means|0.2||||0.5756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.75|||constrained longitudinal analysis|||Preladenant 10 mg (Part 1) vs Placebo (Part 1)||0.75|-0.42|0.5756
90853227|NCT01155479|181569860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Estimated Means|0.1||||0.6657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.7|||constrained longitudinal analysis|||Rasagiline (Part 1) vs Placebo (Part 1)||0.70|-0.45|0.6657
90853228|NCT01857310|181569865|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|2.8|||||Adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Live birth will be compared using two sided tests conducted at the 0.05 level."||2.8|-4.7|
90901372|NCT01065350|181668594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|5.97||A p value of \< 0.05 was considered to indicate statistical significance.|Chi-squared|||Mean Arterial Pressure (MAP) from baseline to 30 minutes post induction was compared between treatment groups.||5.97|0.51|0.33
90901373|NCT01065350|181668595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||Average change in Cardiac Output (CO) from baseline to 5 minutes post induction was compared between treatment groups.||0.5|-0.1|0.19
91031094|NCT00159965|181946835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio, log|-0.598|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.276||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.139|-0.073|||Overdispersed Poisson Regression|||Within-group seizure change. The hypothesis is that patients treated with sertraline will show a significant decrease in seizures from baseline to exit.||-0.073|-1.139|0.03
90853229|NCT01857310|181569865|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.09|||||Adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Live birth will be compared using two sided tests conducted at the 0.05 level."||1.09|0.88|
90853230|NCT01857310|181569866|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2|||||Adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Semen volume will be compared using two sided tests conducted at the 0.05 level."||0.2|-0.2|
90853231|NCT01857310|181569866|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2|||||Weighted for loss to follow-up and adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Semen volume will be compared using two sided tests conducted at the 0.05 level."||0.2|-0.1|
90901374|NCT01065350|181668595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||Average change in Cardiac Output (CO) from baseline to 10 minutes post induction was compared between treatment groups.||0.5|-0.3|0.6
90853232|NCT01857310|181569867|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.1|-12.5|3.9|||||Adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. The confidence interval for sperm concentration represents 95.1% coverage to properly account for the alpha spent in the interim analysis."||3.9|-12.5|
90901375|NCT01065350|181668596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||Average change in Cardiac Index (CI) from baseline to 5 minutes post induction was compared between treatment groups.||0.3|-0.1|0.26
90901376|NCT01065350|181668596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||Average change in Cardiac Index (CI) from baseline to 10 minutes post induction was compared between treatment groups.||0.3|-0.2|0.71
90901377|NCT01065350|181668597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|1.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||Average heart rate from baseline to 5 minutes post induction was compared between treatment groups.||1.7|-2.9|0.61
90901378|NCT01065350|181668597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|1.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||Average heart rate from baseline to 10 minutes post induction was compared between treatment groups.||1.1|-4.8|0.22
91031095|NCT00159965|181946835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio, log|0.077|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.252||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.431|0.571|||Overdispersed Poisson Regression|||Within-group seizure change. The hypothesis is that patients treated with placebo will not show a significant decrease in seizures from baseline to exit.||0.571|-0.431|0.78
90853233|NCT01857310|181569867|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.1|-13.6|3.1|||||Weighted for loss to follow-up and adjusted for fertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. The confidence interval for sperm concentration represents 95.1% coverage to properly account for the alpha spent in the interim analysis."||3.1|-13.6|
90853234|NCT01857310|181569868|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.1|-2.5|1.5|||||Adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. The confidence interval for sperm motility represents 95.1% coverage to properly account for the alpha spent in the interim analysis."||1.5|-2.5|
90853235|NCT01857310|181569868|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.1|-2.7|1.4|||||Weighted for loss to follow-up and adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. The confidence interval for sperm motility represents 95.1% coverage to properly account for the alpha spent in the interim analysis."||1.4|-2.7|
90853236|NCT01857310|181569869|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.1|-0.8|0.1|||||Adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. The confidence interval for sperm morphology represents 95.1% coverage to properly account for the alpha spent in the interim analysis."||0.1|-0.8|
90853237|NCT01857310|181569869|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.1|-0.9|0.0|||||Weighted for loss to follow-up and adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. The confidence interval for sperm morphology represents 95.1% coverage to properly account for the alpha spent in the interim analysis."||0|-0.9|
90853238|NCT01857310|181569870|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|4.4|||||Adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. DNA fragmentation will be compared using two sided tests conducted at the 0.05 level."||4.4|0.5|
90901379|NCT01065350|181668598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.5|20.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Average change in Systolic Blood Pressure from baseline to 5 minutes post induction was compared between treatment groups.||20.0|7.5|<0.001
90901380|NCT01065350|181668598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.8||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|9.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||Average change in Systolic Blood Pressure from baseline to 10 minutes post induction was compared between treatment groups.||9.5|0.2|0.017
90901381|NCT01065350|181668599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.1|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|11.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||Average change in Diastolic Blood Pressure from baseline to 5 minutes post induction was compared between treatment groups.||11.5|2.7|<0.01
90901382|NCT01065350|181668599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.8||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|9.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||Average change in Diastolic Blood Pressure from baseline to 10 minutes post induction was compared between treatment groups.||9.5|0.2|0.042
90901383|NCT01065350|181668600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.8|13.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||Average change in Mean Arterial Pressure (MAP) from baseline to 5 minutes post induction was compared between treatment groups.||13.9|4.8|<0.001
90901384|NCT01065350|181668600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.3||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|11.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||Average change in Mean Arterial Pressure from baseline to 10 minutes post induction was compared between treatment groups.||11.3|1.4|0.013
90901385|NCT01065350|181668601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|113.6|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.1|199.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||Average change in Total Peripheral Resistance (TPR) from baseline to 5 minutes post induction was compared between treatment groups.||199.1|28.1|<0.01
90901386|NCT01065350|181668601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|86.8||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.7|195.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||Average change in Total Peripheral Resistance (TPR) from baseline to 10 minutes post induction was compared between treatment groups.||195.3|-21.7|0.12
90901387|NCT01065350|181668602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|182.6||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.8|331.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||Average change in Total Peripheral Resistance Index (TPRI) from baseline to 5 minutes post induction was compared between treatment groups.||331.3|33.8|0.017
90901388|NCT01065350|181668602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|128.7||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.1|315.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||Average change in Total Peripheral Resistance Index (TPRI) from baseline to 10 minutes post induction was compared between treatment groups.||315.5|-58.1|0.17
90901389|NCT01065350|181668603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.4||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|8.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||Average change in Stroke Volume (SV) from baseline to 5 minutes post induction was compared between treatment groups.||8.4|0.5|0.029
90901390|NCT01065350|181668603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.8||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|9.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||Average change in Cardiac Index (CI) from baseline to 10 minutes post induction was compared between treatment groups.||9.7|-0.0|0.051
90901391|NCT01065350|181668604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|4.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||Average change in Stroke Volume Index (SVI) from baseline to 5 minutes post induction was compared between treatment groups.||4.7|0.3|0.027
90853239|NCT01857310|181569870|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|4.3|||||Weighted for loss to follow-up and adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. DNA fragmentation will be compared using two sided tests conducted at the 0.05 level."||4.3|0.3|
90853240|NCT01857310|181569871|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|22.5|||||Adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Total motile sperm count will be compared using two sided tests conducted at the 0.05 level."||22.5|-19.7|
90853241|NCT01857310|181569871|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.9|21.4|||||Weighted for loss to follow-up and adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Total motile sperm count will be compared using two sided tests conducted at the 0.05 level."||21.4|-20.9|
90853242|NCT01857310|181569872|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|3.0|||||Adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. hCG detected pregnancy will be compared using two sided tests conducted at the 0.05 level."||3.0|-4.7|
90853243|NCT01857310|181569872|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.09|||||Adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. hCG detected pregnancy will be compared using two sided tests conducted at the 0.05 level."||1.09|0.91|
90853244|NCT01857310|181569873|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|2.8|||||Adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Clinical intrauterine pregnancy will be compared using two sided tests conducted at the 0.05 level."||2.8|-4.9|
90853245|NCT01857310|181569873|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.08|||||Adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Clinical intrauterine pregnancy will be compared using two sided tests conducted at the 0.05 level."||1.08|0.89|
90853246|NCT01857310|181569874|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.6|||||Adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Ectopic pregnancy will be compared using two sided tests conducted at the 0.05 level."||0.6|-0.5|
90853247|NCT01857310|181569874|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|3.97|||||Adjusted for fertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Ectopic pregnancy will be compared using two sided tests conducted at the 0.05 level."||3.97|0.37|
90853248|NCT01857310|181569875|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|1.5|||||Adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Early pregnancy loss will be compared using two sided tests conducted at the 0.05 level."||1.5|-3.7|
90853249|NCT01857310|181569875|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.15|||||Adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Early pregnancy loss will be compared using two sided tests conducted at the 0.05 level."||1.15|0.75|
90853250|NCT01857310|181569876|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.3|||||Adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Preeclampsia/gestational hypertension will be compared using two sided tests conducted at the 0.05 level."||1.3|-1.9|
90901392|NCT01065350|181668604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.6||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|5.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||Average change in Stroke Volume Index (SVI) from baseline to 10 minutes post induction was compared between treatment groups.||5.2|-0.0|0.052
90853251|NCT01857310|181569876|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.36|||||Adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Preeclampsia/gestational hypertension will be compared using two sided tests conducted at the 0.05 level."||1.36|0.63|
90958973|NCT01191268|181798007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison at 52 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
90901393|NCT01065350|181668605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||Average change in Stroke Volume Variation (SVV) from baseline to 5 minutes post induction was compared between treatment groups.||0.6|-1.4|0.44
90853252|NCT01857310|181569877|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.6|||||Adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Gestational diabetes will be compared using two sided tests conducted at the 0.05 level."||0.6|-1.9|
90853253|NCT01857310|181569877|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.27|||||Adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Gestational diabetes will be compared using two sided tests conducted at the 0.05 level."||1.27|0.47|
90853254|NCT01857310|181569878|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|3.8|||||Adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Cesarean delivery will be compared using two sided tests conducted at the 0.05 level."||3.8|-1.4|
90853255|NCT01857310|181569878|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.39|||||Adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Cesarean delivery will be compared using two sided tests conducted at the 0.05 level."||1.39|0.89|
90853256|NCT01857310|181569879|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|3.6|||||Adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Preterm delivery will be compared using two sided tests conducted at the 0.05 level."||3.6|0.2|
90853257|NCT01857310|181569879|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|2.16|||||Adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Preterm delivery will be compared using two sided tests conducted at the 0.05 level."||2.16|1.04|
90853258|NCT01857310|181569880|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.0|||||Adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Small for gestational age will be compared using two sided tests conducted at the 0.05 level."||2.0|-1.5|
90853259|NCT01857310|181569880|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.49|||||Adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Small for gestational age will be compared using two sided tests conducted at the 0.05 level."||1.49|0.75|
90853260|NCT01857310|181569881|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1|||||Adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Gestational age will be compared using two sided tests conducted at the 0.05 level."||0.1|-0.5|
90853261|NCT01857310|181569882|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-64.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-156.0|26.4|||||Adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Birth weight will be compared using two sided tests conducted at the 0.05 level."||26.4|-156|
90853262|NCT01857310|181569883|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.1|||||Adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Stillbirth will be compared using two sided tests conducted at the 0.05 level."||0.1|-0.6|
90853263|NCT01857310|181569883|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|2.24|||||Adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Stillbirth will be compared using two sided tests conducted at the 0.05 level."||2.24|0.03|
90853264|NCT01857310|181569884|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.5|||||Adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Neonatal mortality will be compared using two sided tests conducted at the 0.05 level."||0.5|-0.3|
90853265|NCT01857310|181569884|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|8.95|||||Adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Neonatal mortality will be compared using two sided tests conducted at the 0.05 level."||8.95|0.25|
90901394|NCT01065350|181668605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||Average change in Stroke Volume Variation (SVV) from baseline to 10 minutes post induction was compared between treatment groups.||0.6|-1.6|0.37
91031096|NCT00159965|181946836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
90901395|NCT00550550|181668607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.63|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-0.66|||ANOVA|Asthma status, treatment group, and site were fixed effects.||||-0.66|-2.60|=0.001
90901396|NCT00550550|181668608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|||=|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|-0.45|||ANOVA|Asthma status, treatment group, and site were fixed effects.||||-0.45|-1.95|=0.005
90901397|NCT00550550|181668609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|||=|0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.03|||ANOVA|Asthma status, treatment group, and site were fixed effects.||||0.03|-0.88|=0.066
91031097|NCT00159965|181946837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
90901398|NCT00550550|181668610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|||=|0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.03|||ANOVA|Asthma status, treatment group, and site were fixed effects.||||-0.03|-0.60|=0.042
90901399|NCT02459093|181668624|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.61||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.99|||Chi-squared|||||0.99|0.37|0.04
90901400|NCT02459093|181668625|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.6||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.01|||Chi-squared|||||1.01|0.36|0.05
90901401|NCT01103960|181668632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1881|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.803||0.007||95.0|0.6082|3.7681||This was the first step in the closed testing procedure of multiple endpoints. The p-value was \<0.05 so this test was considered confirmatory. Proceeding to the next step was allowed, testing the same endpoint in the subgroup of Chinese patients.|ANCOVA|||A5 minus T80/A5||3.7681|0.6082|0.007
90901402|NCT01103960|181668633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9195|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9015||0.034||95.0|0.1443|3.6947||This was the second step in the closed testing procedure of multiple endpoints. The p-value was again \<0.05 so this test was also considered confirmatory.|ANCOVA|||A5 minus T80/A5||3.6947|0.1443|0.034
91031098|NCT00159965|181946838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
91031099|NCT00159965|181946839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
91031100|NCT00159965|181946840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
91031101|NCT00159965|181946841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
91031102|NCT00159965|181946842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
90901403|NCT01103960|181668634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.4879|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1217|<|0.001||95.0|2.2807|6.695|||ANCOVA|||A5 minus T80/A5||6.6950|2.2807|<0.001
90901404|NCT04921969|181668642|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.74||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.951|13.315||The unadjusted p-values between each treatment group and vehicle were calculated based on Exact Logistic Regression including treatment and stratification factors to test the treatment difference.|Exact Logistic Regression|||||13.315|1.951|0.0001
90901405|NCT04921969|181668642|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.429|30.042||The unadjusted p-values between each treatment group and vehicle were calculated based on Exact Logistic Regression including treatment and stratification factors to test the treatment difference.|Exact Logistic Regression|||||30.042|4.429|<0.0001
90901406|NCT04921969|181668643|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.4198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|3.268||The unadjusted p-values between each treatment group and vehicle were calculated based on Exact Logistic Regression including treatment and stratification factors to test the treatment difference.|Exact Logistic Regression|||||3.268|0.610|0.4198
90901407|NCT04921969|181668643|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.1685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.779|4.174||The unadjusted p-values between each treatment group and vehicle were calculated based on Exact Logistic Regression including treatment and stratification factors to test the treatment difference.|Exact Logistic Regression|||||4.174|0.779|0.1685
90901408|NCT02791490|181668662|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.23|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||-0.23|-0.59|<0.001
90901409|NCT02791490|181668663|OTHER|95% CI|Difference in % vs Placebo|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|7.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||||7.4|-10.8|
90901410|NCT02791490|181668665|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk|1.7||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||||2.5|1.2|0.002
90901411|NCT02791490|181668666|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-12.4||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.2|-4.6|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||-4.6|-20.2|0.002
90901412|NCT00574990|181668674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||chi square|12.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||Differences between roles and communication event content were assessed by Chi squared|Chi-squared|||Descriptive counts and chi squared were done on the observation data.||||0.01
90901413|NCT01381874|181668690|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.143||||0.437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.816|1.603|||stratified log-rank test|||||1.603|0.816|0.437
90901414|NCT01381874|181668690|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.958||||0.794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.695|1.32|||stratified log-rank test|||||1.320|0.695|0.794
90901415|NCT01381874|181668691|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.074||||0.807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.608|1.896|||stratified log-rank test|||||1.896|0.608|0.807
90901416|NCT01381874|181668691|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.183||||0.542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.688|2.036|||stratified log-rank test|||||2.036|0.688|0.542
90901417|NCT01381874|181668692|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.909||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.213|3.878|||Fisher Exact|||||3.878|0.213|1.000
90901418|NCT01381874|181668692|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.909||||0.366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.605|6.026|||Fisher Exact|||||6.026|0.605|0.366
90901419|NCT01381874|181668693|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.757||||0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.264|2.175|||Chi-squared|||||2.175|0.264|0.603
90901420|NCT01381874|181668693|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.79||||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.816|3.926|||Chi-squared|||||3.926|0.816|0.137
90901421|NCT00114634|181668715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||1.0
90901422|NCT02223065|181668721|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The specified bioequivalence limits (0.80, 1.25) for PK measures|Geometric mean ratio|0.975||||0.495|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.915|1.038|||ANOVA|||||1.038|0.915|0.4950
90958034|NCT04617275|181795747|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.5664|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.09|1.34||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||1.34|-1.09|0.5664
91099869|NCT03197935|182085808|OTHER|This study was not designed nor formally powered to demonstrate statistically significant improvements in the secondary efficacy endpoint of EFS. The analyses of this secondary endpoint is descriptive in nature.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.18|||Stratified log-rank test|||Stratified analysis. Strata are: AJCC stage at diagnosis (II vs. III).||1.18|0.26|
90853266|NCT01857310|181569885|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.4|||||Adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Major neonatal complications will be compared using two sided tests conducted at the 0.05 level."||0.4|-0.2|
90853267|NCT01857310|181569885|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|21.9|||||Adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Major neonatal complications will be compared using two sided tests conducted at the 0.05 level."||21.9|0.18|
90853268|NCT01857310|181569886|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.0|||||Adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Structural malformations will be compared using two sided tests conducted at the 0.05 level."||1.0|-0.8|
90853269|NCT01857310|181569886|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|2.21|||||Adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Structural malformations will be compared using two sided tests conducted at the 0.05 level."||2.21|0.53|
90853270|NCT01857310|181569887|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.3|||||Adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Severe maternal morbidity will be compared using two sided tests conducted at the 0.05 level."||1.3|-0.4|
90853271|NCT01857310|181569887|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|3.32|||||Adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Severe maternal morbidity will be compared using two sided tests conducted at the 0.05 level."||3.32|0.68|
90853272|NCT01857310|181569888|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|3.23||||||"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Fertilization rate will be compared using generalized estimating equations accounting for multiple cycles per couple."||3.23|-7.90|
90853273|NCT01857310|181569889|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.11||||||"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Number of good quality embryos will be compared using Poisson regression with generalized estimating equations accounting for multiple cycles per couple."||0.11|-0.33|
90853274|NCT01857310|181569890|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.66|4.05||||||"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Proportion of good quality embryos on day 5 will be compared using generalized estimating equations accounting for multiple cycles per couple."||4.05|-6.66|
90853275|NCT01857310|181569891|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.1||||||"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Number of embryos transferred will be compared using Poisson regression with generalized estimating equations accounting for multiple cycles per couple."||0.10|-0.11|
90853276|NCT01857310|181569892|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.18||||||"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Number of embryos cryopreserved will be compared using Poisson regression with generalized estimating equations accounting for multiple cycles per couple."||0.18|-0.23|
90853277|NCT01857310|181569893|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.4|21.2||||||"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Sperm penetration percentage will be compared using generalized estimating equations accounting for multiple cycles per couple."||21.2|-45.4|
90958035|NCT04617275|181795747|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.12||||0.0632|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.33|0.09||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||0.09|-2.33|0.0632
91031103|NCT00159965|181946843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
91031104|NCT00159965|181946844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
90853278|NCT01857310|181569894|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.03||||||"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Number of cells on day 3 will be compared with Poisson regression using generalized estimating equations accounting for multiple embryos per cycle and multiple cycles per couple."||0.03|-0.16|
90853279|NCT01857310|181569895|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.61|||||Fewer than 4 cells|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Number of cells on day 3 will be compared using generalized estimating equations accounting for multiple embryos per cycle and multiple cycles per couple."||1.61|0.88|
90853280|NCT01857310|181569896|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.43|||||Fewer than 8 cells|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Number of cells on day 5 will be compared using generalized estimating equations accounting for multiple embryos per cycle and multiple cycles per couple."||1.43|0.77|
90853281|NCT01857310|181569897|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.09|||||Excellent or good morphology|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Embryo morphology on day 3 will be compared using generalized estimating equations accounting for multiple embryos per cycle and multiple cycles per couple."||1.09|0.87|
90853282|NCT01857310|181569898|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.06|||||Excellent or good morphology|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Embryo morphology on day 5 will be compared using generalized estimating equations accounting for multiple embryos per cycle and multiple cycles per couple."||1.06|0.63|
90853283|NCT01857310|181569899|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.09|||||ICSI|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Method of fertilization will be compared using generalized estimating equations accounting for multiple embryos per cycle and multiple cycles per couple."||1.09|0.80|
90853284|NCT01857310|181569900|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.21|||||Excellent or good quality|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Quality of embryos transferred will be compared using generalized estimating equations accounting for multiple embryos per cycle and multiple cycles per couple."||1.21|0.88|
90853285|NCT01857310|181569901|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|7.43|||||Abnormal|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Chromosomal complement will be compared using generalized estimating equations accounting for multiple cycles per couple."||7.43|0.74|
90853286|NCT02360605|181569903|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61||||||p-values control for age (in years), race (African American vs Caucasian and Hispanic), gender, and literacy (2 categories) The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||FIT completion rates were defined as the percentage of FIT tests returned. Screening ratios were defined as the PC to AC ratio of FIT completion rates. Multivariate analyses adjusting for age, race, gender, and literacy level were done using generalized linear models. Multivariate analyses adjusting for age, race, gender, and literacy level were done using generalized linear models. A test for interaction between literacy level and study arm were assessed.||||0.61
90853287|NCT02360605|181569904|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3||||||p-values control for age (in years), race (African American vs Caucasian and Hispanic), gender, and literacy (2 categories) The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Multivariate analyses adjusting for age, race, gender, and health literacy level were done using generalized linear models. A test for interaction between study arm and each of literacy level, age, gender and race was performed to determine whether treatment effect differed by levels of these factors. An unadjusted test for the main effect of each of health literacy level, age, gender, race and study arm was performed to determine whether screening rates differed by levels of these factors.||||0.30
90901423|NCT02223065|181668722|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The specified bioequivalence limits (0.80, 1.25) for PK measures|Geometric mean ratio|0.993||||0.865|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.932|1.06|||ANOVA|||||1.060|0.932|0.8650
90901424|NCT02223065|181668723|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The specified bioequivalence limits (0.80, 1.25) for PK measures|Geometric mean ratio|1.022||||0.2344|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.991|1.054|||ANOVA|||||1.054|0.991|0.2344
90901425|NCT02223065|181668724|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The specified bioequivalence limits (0.80, 1.25) for PK measures|Geometric mean ratio|1.016||||0.2458|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.993|1.038|||ANOVA|||||1.038|0.993|0.2458
90901426|NCT02223065|181668725|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The specified bioequivalence limits (0.80, 1.25) for PK measures|Geometric mean ratio|1.024||||0.1947|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.993|1.056|||ANOVA|||||1.056|0.993|0.1947
91031105|NCT00159965|181946845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
91031106|NCT00159965|181946846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
91031107|NCT00159965|181946847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
91031108|NCT00159965|181946848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
91031109|NCT01993875|181946858|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.129||||||Treatment p-value is from an analysis of co-variance (ANCOVA) using the SBM rate as the dependent variable, treatment as fixed effect, and baseline rate as random effect.|ANCOVA|||||||0.1290
90958036|NCT04617275|181795747|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.01||||0.0847|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.23|0.2||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||0.20|-2.23|0.0847
90958037|NCT04617275|181795747|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.5264|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.2|1.3||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||1.30|-1.20|0.5264
90853288|NCT02360605|181569905|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97||||||p-values control for age (in years), race (African American vs Caucasian and Hispanic), gender, and literacy (2 categories) The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Multivariate analyses adjusting for age, race, gender, and health literacy level were done using generalized linear models. A test for interaction between study arm and each of literacy level, age, gender and race was performed to determine whether treatment effect differed by levels of these factors. An unadjusted test for the main effect of each of health literacy level, age, gender, race and study arm was performed to determine whether screening rates differed by levels of these factors.||||0.97
90853289|NCT00481507|181569999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.82|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.43||Reply: Only one test was performed for the primary outcome. No covariates were entered into this model and p-value is unadjusted.|Chi-squared|The results obtained from the logistic regression are equivalent to the chi-square test with one degree of freedom.||Reply: The null hypothesis was the rates of diarrhea for Kefir vs. Placebo are not different. Post power calculation was not performed because the difference observed (21.9% vs. 18%) was less than a difference that which would be considered clinically important.||1.43|0.54|>.05
90853290|NCT04711837|181570018|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin equals to -8%|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.0057|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0246|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.054|0.042||Non-inferiority margin equals to -8%: 95% CI; (-5.4%, 4.2%)|Farrington-Manning method|||||0.042|-0.054|
90901427|NCT02223065|181668726|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The specified bioequivalence limits (0.80, 1.25) for PK measures|Geometric mean ratio|1.013||||0.3191|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.992|1.034|||ANOVA|||||1.034|0.992|0.3191
90901428|NCT01614847|181668736|EQUIVALENCE|Two tailed, alpha = 0.05||||||0.4|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|df=7||Drop A: Mean change in osmolarity from baseline H0: No osmolarity change from baseline (e.g. mean change = 0) H1: Significant osmolarity change from baseline (mean change ≠ 0)||||0.4
90901429|NCT01614847|181668736|EQUIVALENCE|two-tailed, alpha = 0.05||||||0.109|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|df=7||Drop A: Mean change in osmolarity from baseline H0: No osmolarity change from baseline (e.g. mean change = 0) H1: Significant osmolarity change from baseline (mean change ≠ 0)||||0.109
90901430|NCT01614847|181668736|EQUIVALENCE|Two tailed, alpha = 0.05||||||0.779|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|df=7||Drop A: Mean change in osmolarity from baseline H0: No osmolarity change from baseline (e.g. mean change = 0) H1: Significant osmolarity change from baseline (mean change ≠ 0)||||0.779
90901431|NCT01614847|181668736|EQUIVALENCE|Two tailed, alpha = 0.05||||||0.262|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|df=7||Drop A: Mean change in osmolarity from baseline H0: No osmolarity change from baseline (e.g. mean change = 0) H1: Significant osmolarity change from baseline (mean change ≠ 0)||||0.262
90901432|NCT01614847|181668736|EQUIVALENCE|Two tailed, alpha = 0.05||||||0.15|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|df=7||Drop A: Mean change in osmolarity from baseline H0: No osmolarity change from baseline (e.g. mean change = 0) H1: Significant osmolarity change from baseline (mean change ≠ 0)||||0.150
90958038|NCT04617275|181795748|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.48||||0.0395|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.86|-0.1||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-0.10|-2.86|0.0395
90958039|NCT04617275|181795748|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27||||0.3726|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.63|1.1||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||1.10|-1.63|0.3726
90853291|NCT00814801|181570092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.49||||0.0113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.64|-0.34|||Least Square Means|||||-0.34|-2.64|0.0113
90901433|NCT01614847|181668736|EQUIVALENCE|Two tailed, alpha = 0.05||||||0.726|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|df=7||Drop A: Mean change in osmolarity from baseline H0: No osmolarity change from baseline (e.g. mean change = 0) H1: Significant osmolarity change from baseline (mean change ≠ 0)||||0.726
90958040|NCT04617275|181795748|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.36||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.74|-0.98||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-0.98|-3.74|0.0028
90853292|NCT00814801|181570092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.74|-1.44|||Least Square Means|||||-1.44|-3.74|<0.0001
90853293|NCT00814801|181570094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8||||0.0774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|3.7|||Least Square Means|||||3.7|-0.2|0.0774
90853294|NCT00814801|181570094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.6207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.4|||Least Square Means|||||2.4|-1.5|0.6207
90853295|NCT00814801|181570095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.8419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.8|||Least Square Means|||||0.8|-0.6|0.8419
90901434|NCT01614847|181668736|EQUIVALENCE|Two tailed, alpha = 0.05||||||0.055|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|df=7||Drop A: Mean change in osmolarity from baseline H0: No osmolarity change from baseline (e.g. mean change = 0) H1: Significant osmolarity change from baseline (mean change ≠ 0)||||0.055
90901435|NCT01614847|181668736|EQUIVALENCE|Two tailed, alpha = 0.05||||||0.945|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|df=7||Drop B: Mean change in osmolarity from baseline H0: No osmolarity change from baseline (e.g. mean change = 0) H1: Significant osmolarity change from baseline (mean change ≠ 0)||||0.945
90958041|NCT04617275|181795748|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.85||||0.0139|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.23|-0.47||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-0.47|-3.23|0.0139
90958042|NCT04617275|181795748|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.78||||0.1815|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.19|0.64||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||0.64|-2.19|0.1815
90958043|NCT04617275|181795749|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.16||||0.0112|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.71|-0.61||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-0.61|-3.71|0.0112
90958044|NCT04617275|181795749|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.72||||0.2161|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.24|0.8||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||0.80|-2.24|0.2161
90853296|NCT00814801|181570095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.7942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.6|||Least Square Means|||||0.6|-0.8|0.7942
90853297|NCT00814801|181570096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.3141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.5|||Least Square Means|||||0.5|-1.6|0.3141
90853298|NCT00814801|181570096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.6089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.8|||Least Square Means|||||0.8|-1.3|0.6089
90853299|NCT01037088|181570116|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||not significant|Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 1 after Administration of Cannabis||||>.05
90853300|NCT01037088|181570116|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0002|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 2 after Administration of Cannabis||||=.0002
90853301|NCT01037088|181570116|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 3 after Administration of Cannabis (after the second inhalation of cannabis)||||<.0001
90853302|NCT01037088|181570116|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0004|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 4 after Administration of Cannabis||||=.0004
90853303|NCT01037088|181570116|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0018|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 5 after Administration of Cannabis||||=.0018
90901436|NCT01614847|181668736|EQUIVALENCE|Alpha = 0.05||||||0.844|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|df=7||Drop B: Mean change in osmolarity from baseline H0: No osmolarity change from baseline (e.g. mean change = 0) H1: Significant osmolarity change from baseline (mean change ≠ 0)||||0.844
90901437|NCT01614847|181668736|EQUIVALENCE|Two tailed, alpha = 0.05||||||0.945||||||df=7|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Drop B: Mean change in osmolarity from baseline H0: No osmolarity change from baseline (e.g. mean change = 0) H1: Significant osmolarity change from baseline (mean change ≠ 0)||||0.945
90901438|NCT01614847|181668736|EQUIVALENCE|Two tailed, alpha = 0.05||||||0.383||||||Alpha = 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|df=7||Drop B: Mean change in osmolarity from baseline H0: No osmolarity change from baseline (e.g. mean change = 0) H1: Significant osmolarity change from baseline (mean change ≠ 0)||||0.383
90901439|NCT01614847|181668736|EQUIVALENCE|Two tailed, alpha = 0.05||||||0.383|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|df=7||Mean change in osmolarity from baseline. H0: No change (e.g. mean change = 0) H1: Significant change (mean change ≠ 0)||||0.383
91031110|NCT01993875|181946859|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.129||||||Treatment p-value is from an ANCOVA using the SBM rate as the dependent variable, treatment as fixed effect, and baseline rate as random effect.|ANCOVA|||||||0.1290
91031111|NCT01993875|181946860|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2177||||||Treatment p-value is from an ANCOVA using the mean stool consistency score as the dependent variable, treatment as fixed effect, and the baseline consistency score as random effect.|ANCOVA|||||||0.2177
90853304|NCT02216812|181570117|OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||Regression, Linear|||We tested the null hypothesis that there is no difference in DPC six weeks after fracture of the distal radius between patients taking vitamin C and placebo.||||0.63
90853305|NCT03036800|181570139|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.09|12.88|||Regression, Logistic|||A logistic regression with a binary outcome of weight loss of ≥15% from baseline at 52 weeks was fitted. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||12.88|2.09|<0.001
90853306|NCT03036800|181570140|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.45|14.4|||Regression, Logistic|||A logistic regression with a binary outcome of weight loss of ≥15% from baseline at 52 weeks was fitted. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||14.4|2.45|<0.001
90853307|NCT03036800|181570141|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.04||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.81|14.01|||Regression, Logistic|||A logistic regression with a binary outcome of weight loss of ≥15% from baseline at 52 weeks was fitted. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||14.01|1.81|0.002
90853308|NCT03036800|181570142|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.24||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.88|14.64|||Regression, Logistic|||A logistic regression with a binary outcome of weight loss of ≥15% from baseline at 52 weeks was fitted. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||14.64|1.88|0.002
90853309|NCT03036800|181570159|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.26|19.48|||Regression, Logistic|||A logistic regression with a binary outcome of weight loss of ≥5% from baseline at 16 weeks was fitted. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||19.48|5.26|<0.001
90853310|NCT03036800|181570160|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.86|9.36|||Regression, Logistic|||A logistic regression with a binary outcome of weight loss of ≥5% from baseline at 32 weeks was fitted. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||9.36|2.86|<0.001
90853311|NCT03036800|181570161|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.39|7.22|||Regression, Logistic|||A logistic regression with a binary outcome of weight loss of ≥5% from baseline at 52 weeks was fitted. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||7.22|2.39|<0.001
90853312|NCT03036800|181570162|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.44||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|4.84|||Regression, Logistic|||A logistic regression with a binary outcome of weight loss of ≥5% from baseline at 104 weeks was fitted. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||4.84|1.23|0.010
90853313|NCT03036800|181570163|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.14|12.39|||Regression, Logistic|||A logistic regression with a binary outcome of weight loss of ≥10% from baseline at 16 weeks was fitted. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||12.39|2.14|<0.001
90901440|NCT01614847|181668736|EQUIVALENCE|Two tailed, alpha = 0.05||||||0.672|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|df=7||Drop B: Mean change in osmolarity from baseline H0: No osmolarity change from baseline (e.g. mean change = 0) H1: Significant osmolarity change from baseline (mean change ≠ 0)||||0.672
91031112|NCT01993875|181946861|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2177||||||Treatment p-value is from an ANCOVA using the mean stool consistency score as the dependent variable, treatment as fixed effect, and the baseline consistency score as random effect.|ANCOVA|||||||0.2177
91031113|NCT01993875|181946862|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0664||||||Treatment p-value is from an ANCOVA using the mean straining score as the dependent variable, treatment as fixed effect, and the baseline straining score as random effect.|ANCOVA|||||||0.0664
91099870|NCT03197935|182085809|OTHER|This study was not designed nor formally powered to demonstrate statistically significant improvements in the secondary efficacy endpoint of DFS. The analyses of this secondary endpoint are descriptive in nature.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.3|||Stratified log-rank test|||Stratified analysis. Strata are: Tumor PD-L1 status (IC0 vs IC1/2/3) and AJCC stage at diagnosis (II vs. III).||1.30|0.44|
91031114|NCT01993875|181946863|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0664||||||Treatment p-value is from an ANCOVA using the mean straining score as the dependent variable, treatment as fixed effect, and the baseline mean score as random effect.|ANCOVA|||||||0.0664
90853314|NCT03036800|181570164|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.32|12.86|||Regression, Logistic|||A logistic regression with a binary outcome of weight loss of ≥10% from baseline at 32 weeks was fitted. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||12.86|3.32|<0.001
90853315|NCT03036800|181570165|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|17.16|||Regression, Logistic|||A logistic regression with a binary outcome of weight loss of ≥10% from baseline at 52 weeks was fitted. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||17.16|3.80|<0.001
90853316|NCT03036800|181570166|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.28||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|5.47|||Regression, Logistic|||A logistic regression with a binary outcome of weight loss of ≥10% from baseline at 104 weeks was fitted. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||5.47|0.95|0.065
90853317|NCT03036800|181570167|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.84||||0.206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|14.34|||Regression, Logistic|||A logistic regression with a binary outcome of weight loss of ≥15% from baseline at 16 weeks was fitted. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||14.34|0.56|0.206
90853318|NCT03036800|181570168|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.23||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|8.9|||Regression, Logistic|||A logistic regression with a binary outcome of weight loss of ≥32% from baseline at 16 weeks was fitted. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||8.90|1.17|0.023
90853319|NCT03036800|181570169|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.11||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|18.93|||Regression, Logistic|||A logistic regression with a binary outcome of weight loss of ≥15% from baseline at 104 weeks was fitted. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||18.93|0.89|0.070
90853320|NCT03036800|181570170|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59||||0.601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|4.24|||Regression, Logistic|||A logistic regression with a binary outcome of weight loss of ≥15% from baseline at 104 weeks was fitted. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||4.24|0.08|0.601
90853321|NCT03036800|181570171|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.85|-3.4|||Regression, Linear|||A linear regression model was fitted for the continuous outcome of absolute weight change (kg) from baseline at 16 weeks. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||-3.4|-5.85|<0.001
90853322|NCT03036800|181570172|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.76|-4.02|||Regression, Linear|||A linear regression model was fitted for the continuous outcome of absolute weight change (kg) from baseline at 32 weeks. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||-4.02|-7.76|<0.001
90853323|NCT03036800|181570173|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.03|-4.71|||Regression, Linear|||A linear regression model was fitted for the continuous outcome of absolute weight change (kg) from baseline at 52 weeks. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||-4.71|-9.03|<0.001
90901441|NCT01614847|181668736|EQUIVALENCE|Two tailed, alpha = 0.05||||||0.107|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|df=7||Drop B: Mean change in osmolarity from baseline H0: No osmolarity change from baseline (e.g. mean change = 0) H1: Significant osmolarity change from baseline (mean change ≠ 0)||||0.107
90901442|NCT01614847|181668736|EQUIVALENCE|Two tailed, alpha = 0.05||||||0.64|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|df=12||Comparison of Drop A versus Drop B change in osmolarity at this point in time. H0: No difference in osmolarity change between Drop A and B (Drop A = Drop B) H1: Significant difference in osmolarity change between Drop A and Drop B||||0.64
90901443|NCT01614847|181668736|EQUIVALENCE|Two tailed, alpha = 0.05||||||0.04|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|df=14||Comparison of Drop A versus Drop B change in osmolarity at this point in time. H0: No difference in osmolarity change between Drop A and B (Drop A = Drop B) H1: Significant difference in osmolarity change between Drop A and Drop B||||0.040
90958045|NCT04617275|181795749|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.47||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.02|-1.92||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-1.92|-5.02|0.0002
91032815|NCT01171989|181950896|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of Non-inferiority: the upper limit of Standardised asymptotic 95% confidence interval lower or equal to 10%|Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.27|2.86||||||Difference between groups for rSBA-MenC ≥1:8||2.86|-3.27|
90958046|NCT04617275|181795749|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.05||||0.0147|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.59|-0.51||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-0.51|-3.59|0.0147
91099871|NCT03197935|182085810|OTHER|This study was not designed nor formally powered to demonstrate statistically significant improvements in the secondary efficacy endpoint of DFS. The analyses of this secondary endpoint are descriptive in nature.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.43|||Stratified log-rank test|||Stratified analysis. Strata are: AJCC stage at diagnosis (II vs. III).||1.43|0.23|
91099872|NCT03197935|182085811|OTHER|This study was not designed nor formally powered to demonstrate statistically significant improvements in the secondary efficacy endpoints of OS. The analyses of this secondary endpoint are descriptive in nature.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.04|||Stratified log-rank test|||"Stratified analysis. Strata are:~Tumor PD-L1 status (IC0 vs IC1/2/3) and AJCC stage at diagnosis (II vs. III)."||1.04|0.30|
91099873|NCT03197935|182085812|OTHER|This study was not designed nor formally powered to demonstrate statistically significant improvements in the secondary efficacy endpoints of EFS, DFS and OS. The analyses of this secondary endpoint are descriptive in nature.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.91|||Stratified log-rank test|||Stratified analysis. Strata are: AJCC stage at diagnosis (II vs. III).||1.91|0.26|
91099874|NCT03593629|182085819|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin was defined as -10%|Risk Difference (RD)|2.37|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|-5.05||||||||||-5.05|
91099875|NCT03593629|182085820|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin is defined as -10%|Risk Difference (RD)|-2.6|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|-8.88||||||||||-8.88|
91099876|NCT03593629|182085821|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin is defined as -10%|Risk Difference (RD)|-1.15|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|-6.89||||||||||-6.89|
91099877|NCT00669331|182085894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio Mannitol:Control|0.92||||0.3115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.08|||Negative binomial regression model|Negative binomial regression model with treatment, region and baseline PE rate as predictors and log of follow-up time as an offset variable|For rate ratio, Mannitol rate is the numerator, Control rate is the denominator|||1.08|0.78|0.3115
91099878|NCT00669331|182085895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference across the 52 weeks|-2.4||||0.0457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.76|-0.05|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis|Model included treatment, visit, treatment\*visit, region and baseline SGRQ Total score.|difference calculated Mannitol-control. Negative difference is in favour of mannitol since lower scores indicate improved quality of life.|||-0.05|-4.76|0.0457
91099879|NCT00669331|182085896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.91||||0.2754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.08|||Negative binomial regression model|Negative binomial regression model with treatment, region and baseline pulmonary exacerbation rate as predictors, log follow-up as offset|Rate ratio is for mannitol vs control.|||1.08|0.77|0.2754
91099880|NCT00669331|182085897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.0218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.96|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression model was stratified by region and baseline PE rate||||0.96|0.63|0.0218
91099881|NCT00669331|182085898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.88||||0.3602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.16|||Negative binomial model|treatment, region and baseline pulmonary exacerbation rate as predictors, and with log of follow-up time as the offset variable||Analysed using a negative binomial model with treatment, region and baseline pulmonary exacerbation rate as predictors, and with log of follow-up time as the offset variable||1.16|0.67|0.3602
91099882|NCT00669331|182085899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ls mean difference across 52 weeks|2.76||||0.0355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|5.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, visit, treatment\*visit, region and baseline sputum weight (g).|Difference mannitol-control|||5.33|0.19|0.0355
91099883|NCT00669331|182085900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean diff across post-baseline visits|-0.44||||0.1159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, visit, treatment\*visit, region and baseline ESS score|Negative change indicates an improvement in ESS score. Difference calculated Mannitol - Control.|||0.11|-0.99|0.1159
91099884|NCT00669331|182085901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.56||||0.6677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.01|42.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model of absolute change from baseline in FEV1. Model includes terms for treatment, visit, trt\*visit, region and baseline value|ls mean difference Mannitol-Control|||42.13|-27.01|0.6677
91099885|NCT00669331|182085908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.61||||0.0928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.09|||Negative binomial regression|||||1.09|0.34|0.0928
91099886|NCT00666978|182085928|SUPERIORITY|The x2 test was used to determine whether there was a difference between treatment groups (bupropion SR vs placebo) in verified 7-day point prevalence abstinence at week 26, imputing the missing participants as smokers.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|2.35||All tests of statistical significance were two-sided, and all P values less than .05 were considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided||Raw proportions were used to estimate the verified cessation rate in each group and corresponding odds ratio along with its 95% confidence interval .|Based on our previous studies, sample size was determined a priori assuming a two-sided x2 test with a type I error rate of .05, a power of 80%, and a cotinine-verified abstinence rate of 15% in the placebo group and 25% in the bupropion SR group at week 26, with the assumption that those lost to follow-up would be imputed as smokers.||2.35|0.82|.23
91099887|NCT00666978|182085929|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|0.99||This reflects Week 7.|Regression, Logistic||This reflects Week 7.|||0.99|0.95|0.0022
91099888|NCT00666978|182085930|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.82|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Analysis relied on examining quit rates using linear regression, where the hydroxybupropion was a significant predictor of smoking cessation. CYP2B6 genotype was not a direct significant predictor of cessation in either the placebo or bupropion arm.|Regression, Linear||Bupropion adherent individuals with higher hydroxybupropion levels were more likely to be abstinent at Weeks 3, 7 and 26 compared to individuals with lower hydroxybupropion levels.|||||<0.05
91099889|NCT01428713|182085960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|536.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|162.12||0.01||||||P value \< 0.05 is considered significant in this study|Mixed Models Analysis||Comparing PBAC score value at baseline vs. end of 3 cycles for TA|||||0.01
91099890|NCT01428713|182085960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|430.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|157.35||0.03||||||P value \< 0.05 is considered significant for this study|Mixed Models Analysis||Comparing PBAC score value at baseline vs. end of 3 cycles for COCP|||||0.03
91099891|NCT01428713|182085960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.08||0.03||||||P value \< 0.05 is considered significant for this study|Mixed Models Analysis||Comparing Peds QL score value at baseline vs. end of 3 cycles for TA|||||0.03
90958047|NCT04617275|181795749|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.97||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.56|-1.37||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-1.37|-4.56|0.0013
91032816|NCT01171989|181950896|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of Non-inferiority: the upper limit of Standardised asymptotic 95% confidence interval lower or equal to 10%|Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.02|2.86||||||Difference between groups for rSBA-MenC ≥1:8||2.86|-3.02|
90853324|NCT03036800|181570174|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.34|-2.53|||Regression, Linear|||A linear regression model was fitted for the continuous outcome of absolute weight change (kg) from baseline at 104 weeks. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||-2.53|-8.34|<0.001
90853325|NCT03036800|181570175|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.63|-2.8|||Regression, Linear|||A linear regression model was fitted for the continuous outcome of relative weight change (%) from baseline at 16 weeks. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||-2.80|-4.63|<0.001
90853326|NCT03036800|181570176|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.14|-3.25|||Regression, Linear|||A linear regression model was fitted for the continuous outcome of relative weight change (%) from baseline at 32 weeks. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||-3.25|-6.14|<0.001
90853327|NCT03036800|181570177|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.02|-3.71|||Regression, Linear|||A linear regression model was fitted for the continuous outcome of relative weight change (%) from baseline at 52 weeks. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||-3.71|-7.02|<0.001
90853328|NCT03036800|181570178|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.1||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.42|-1.77|||Regression, Linear|||A linear regression model was fitted for the continuous outcome of relative weight change (%) from baseline at 104 weeks. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||-1.77|-6.42|0.001
90853329|NCT03036800|181570179|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-1.91|||Regression, Linear|||A linear regression model was fitted for the continuous outcome of absolute BMI change (kg/m2) from baseline at 52 weeks. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||-1.91|-3.5|<0.001
90853330|NCT03036800|181570180|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.91|-0.86|||Regression, Linear|||A linear regression model was fitted for the continuous outcome of absolute BMI change (kg/m2) from baseline at 104 weeks. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||-0.86|-2.91|<0.001
90853331|NCT03036800|181570181|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.28||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.77|-0.8|||Regression, Linear|||A linear regression model was fitted for the continuous outcome of absolute waist circumference change (cm) from baseline at 52 weeks. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||-0.80|-5.77|0.01
90853332|NCT03036800|181570182|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.51||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.09|-1.94|||Regression, Linear|||A linear regression model was fitted for the continuous outcome of absolute waist circumference change (cm) from baseline at 104 weeks. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||-1.94|-9.09|0.003
90853333|NCT03036800|181570202|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.83|28.97|||Regression, Logistic|||A logistic regression with a binary outcome of weight loss of ≥5% from baseline at 104 weeks was fitted. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||28.97|3.83|<0.001
90853334|NCT03036800|181570203|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|23.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.55|70.67|||Regression, Logistic|||A logistic regression with a binary outcome of weight loss of ≥10% from baseline at 16 weeks was fitted. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||70.67|7.55|<0.001
90853335|NCT03036800|181570206|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.75|21.6|||Regression, Logistic|||A logistic regression with a binary outcome of weight loss of ≥10% from baseline at 104 weeks was fitted. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||21.60|2.75|<0.001
90853336|NCT03036800|181570207|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.14||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|32.32|||Regression, Logistic|||A logistic regression with a binary outcome of weight loss of ≥15% from baseline at 16 weeks was fitted. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||32.32|1.16|0.032
90958048|NCT04617275|181795750|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.46||||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.22|-0.7||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-0.70|-4.22|0.0111
90958049|NCT04617275|181795750|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.03||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.75|0.68||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||0.68|-2.75|0.1600
90958050|NCT04617275|181795750|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.03|-2.52||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-2.52|-6.03|<0.0001
91099892|NCT01428713|182085960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.87||0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Comparing Peds QL score value at baseline vs. end of 3 cycles for COCP|||||0.01
90958051|NCT04617275|181795750|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.68||||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.42|-0.94||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-0.94|-4.42|0.0061
90958052|NCT04617275|181795750|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.71||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.52|-1.89||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-1.89|-5.52|0.0005
91099893|NCT00875667|182085965|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio|0.63||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.9||Stratification factors were: time from diagnosis to first dose, time from last prior anti-lymphoma therapy to first dose, prior stem cell transplant, and MIPI at baseline|Stratified Log Rank Test|||||0.90|0.43|0.012
91099894|NCT00875667|182085966|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio|0.6||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.85||Stratification factors were: time from diagnosis to first dose, time from last prior anti-lymphoma therapy to first dose, prior stem cell transplant, and MIPI at baseline|Stratified Log Rank Test||The weights are based on observed events at the time the third DMC meeting was held and based on the difference between observed and expected events at the time of the primary analysis.|||0.85|0.43|0.003
91099895|NCT00875667|182085967|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91099896|NCT00875667|182085968|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91099897|NCT00875667|182085969|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.68|||Log Rank|||||1.68|0.29|0.421
91099898|NCT00875667|182085970|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.74|||Log Rank|||||1.74|0.52|0.875
91099899|NCT00875667|182085971|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.313|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.313
90853337|NCT03036800|181570208|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|34.67|||Regression, Logistic|||A logistic regression with a binary outcome of weight loss of ≥15% from baseline at 32 weeks was fitted. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||34.67|3.80|<0.001
90853338|NCT03036800|181570210|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.63||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.47|75.09|||Regression, Logistic|||A logistic regression with a binary outcome of weight loss of ≥15% from baseline at 104 weeks was fitted. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||75.09|2.47|0.003
90853339|NCT03036800|181570211|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59||||0.601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|4.24|||Regression, Logistic|||A logistic regression with a binary outcome of maintenance of weight loss of ≥15% at 104 weeks was fitted. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||4.24|0.08|0.601
90901444|NCT01614847|181668736|EQUIVALENCE|Two tailed, alpha = 0.05||||||0.2|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|df=12||Comparison of Drop A versus Drop B change in osmolarity at this point in time. H0: No difference in osmolarity change between Drop A and B (Drop A = Drop B) H1: Significant difference in osmolarity change between Drop A and Drop B||||0.20
91099900|NCT00875667|182085972|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.465|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.465
90901445|NCT01614847|181668736|EQUIVALENCE|Two tailed, alpha = 0.05||||||0.15|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|df-=12||Comparison of Drop A versus Drop B change in osmolarity at this point in time. H0: No difference in osmolarity change between Drop A and B (Drop A = Drop B) H1: Significant difference in osmolarity change between Drop A and Drop B||||0.150
90901446|NCT01614847|181668736|EQUIVALENCE|Two tailed, alpha = 0.05||||||0.73|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|df=12||Comparison of Drop A versus Drop B change in osmolarity at this point in time. H0: No difference in osmolarity change between Drop A and B (Drop A = Drop B) H1: Significant difference in osmolarity change between Drop A and Drop B||||0.730
90901447|NCT01614847|181668736|EQUIVALENCE|Two tailed, alpha = 0.05||||||0.89|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|df=12||Comparison of Drop A versus Drop B change in osmolarity at this point in time. H0: No difference in osmolarity change between Drop A and B (Drop A = Drop B) H1: Significant difference in osmolarity change between Drop A and Drop B||||0.89
90901448|NCT01614847|181668736|EQUIVALENCE|Two tailed, alpha = 0.05||||||0.89|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|df=12||Comparison of Drop A versus Drop B change in osmolarity at this point in time. H0: No difference in osmolarity change between Drop A and B (Drop A = Drop B) H1: Significant difference in osmolarity change between Drop A and Drop B||||0.89
90901449|NCT02524054|181668738|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35||||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||This is a paired t-test comparing the treatment effect of furosemide to the treatment effect of saline in each individual.||||0.35
91099901|NCT00875667|182085973|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.87|||Log Rank|||||0.87|0.45|0.005
91099902|NCT00875667|182085974|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.86|||Log Rank|||||0.86|0.46|0.003
91099903|NCT00875667|182085975|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.0|||Log Rank|||||1.00|0.54|0.046
91099904|NCT00875667|182085976|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.05|||Log Rank|||||1.05|0.58|0.095
90901450|NCT02524054|181668739|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons, and the a priori threshold for significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90901451|NCT02693834|181668740|OTHER|Paired t test||||||0.293|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||In order to test the difference in gait endurance,between the two AFO conditions at baseline, a paired t-test was analyzed||||.293
90901452|NCT02693834|181668741|OTHER|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.077||||||The above value was the interaction between the type of AFO and practice time.|repeated measures ANOVA|||A repeated measures ANOVA was calculated to find the differences in gait endurance between the type of AFO and practice time.||||0.077
91099905|NCT00875667|182085977|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.95|7.85|||Log Rank|||||7.85|1.95|<0.001
91099906|NCT00875667|182085978|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.06|||<|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|3.42|||Log Rank|||||3.42|1.24|<0.004
91099907|NCT00875667|182085979|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.28|||Log Rank|||||1.28|0.62|0.519
91099908|NCT00875667|182085980|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.25|||Log Rank|||||1.25|0.67|0.558
91099909|NCT01967277|182086017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||H0: µL ≤ µs Versus Ha: µL \> µs||||<0.001
91099910|NCT03300336|182086026|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.93||a priori threshold for statistical significance p \<.05|generalized linear model|generalized linear model with a logit link and a binomial distribution|Odds in intervention numerator vs odds in usual care denominator|Model included a time-varying indicator for when STRIDE program launched, fixed effects for time (indicator variables for each of the 7 post-baseline timepoints), and a site-level random effect. Model was not adjusted for patient characteristics. Estimated means and standard errors are provided in Outcome Measure Data table.||0.93|0.64|0.01
91099911|NCT03300336|182086027|SUPERIORITY||rate ratio|1.05||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.15||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<.05|generalized linear model|generalized linear model with a log link and negative binomial distribution.|The rate ratio compares the intervention rate in the numerator vs the usual care rate in the denominator|Model included a time-varying indicator for when STRIDE program launched, fixed effects for time (indicator variables for each of the 7 post-baseline time points), a site-level random effect and random effects for each of the time periods. Model was not adjusted for patient characteristics. Estimated means and standard errors are provided in Outcome Measure Data table.||1.15|0.97|0.25
91099912|NCT03300336|182086028|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.32||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|5.33||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated difference calculated as intervention minus control|"Model included a time-varying indicator for when STRIDE program launched, fixed effects for time (indicator variables for each of the time periods) and a site-level random effect. Model was not adjusted for patient characteristics.~Missing data due to item nonresponse in usual care group: 5 out of 227 Missing data due to item nonresponse in intervention group: 18 out of 399~Estimated means and standard errors are provided in Outcome Measure Data table."||5.33|-2.70|0.52
91099913|NCT03300336|182086029|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.56||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.14|6.25||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated difference calculated as intervention minus control|"Model included a time-varying indicator for when STRIDE program launched, fixed effects for time (indicator variables for each of the time periods) and a site-level random effect. Model was not adjusted for patient characteristics.~Missing data due to item nonresponse in usual care group: 5 out of 227 Missing data due to item nonresponse in intervention group: 18 out of 399~Estimated means and standard errors are provided in Outcome Measure Data table."||6.25|-3.14|0.66
90853340|NCT03036800|181570212|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.81|-5.29|||Regression, Linear|||A linear regression model was fitted for the continuous outcome of relative weight change (%) from baseline at 16 weeks. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||-5.29|-7.81|<0.001
90853341|NCT03036800|181570213|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|-7.88|||Regression, Linear|||A linear regression model was fitted for the continuous outcome of relative weight change (%) from baseline at 32 weeks. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||-7.88|-11.30|<0.001
90853342|NCT03036800|181570214|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.51|-11.51|||Regression, Linear|||A linear regression model was fitted for the continuous outcome of relative weight change (%) from baseline at 52 weeks. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||-11.51|-15.51|<0.001
90853343|NCT03036800|181570215|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.35|-6.26|||Regression, Linear|||A linear regression model was fitted for the continuous outcome of relative weight change (%) from baseline at 104 weeks. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||-6.26|-12.35|<0.001
90853344|NCT03036800|181570216|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.03|-5.28|||Regression, Linear|||A linear regression model was fitted for the continuous outcome of absolute BMI change (kg/m2) from baseline at 52 weeks. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||-5.28|-7.03|<0.001
90853345|NCT03036800|181570217|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.56|-2.89|||Regression, Linear|||A linear regression model was fitted for the continuous outcome of absolute BMI change (kg/m2) from baseline at 104 weeks. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||-2.89|-5.56|<0.001
90853346|NCT03036800|181570218|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-8.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.96|-5.64|||Regression, Linear|||A linear regression model was fitted for the continuous outcome of absolute waist circumference change (cm) from baseline at 52 weeks. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||-5.64|-11.96|<0.001
90853347|NCT03036800|181570219|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-9.59||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.91|-4.27|||Regression, Linear|||A linear regression model was fitted for the continuous outcome of absolute waist circumference change (cm) from baseline at 104 weeks. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||-4.27|-14.91|0.001
90853348|NCT01986933|181570220|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.02||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.25|-7.53||Since a hierarchical decision procedure can be regarded as a closed testing procedure, no inflation of the alpha level due to multiple comparisons was necessary, and the global 1-sided significance alpha level of 0.025 was maintained.|ANCOVA|||||-7.53|-35.25|0.0027
90853349|NCT01986933|181570220|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-41.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.17|-27.15||Since a hierarchical decision procedure can be regarded as a closed testing procedure, no inflation of the alpha level due to multiple comparisons was necessary, and the global 1-sided significance alpha level of 0.025 was maintained.|ANCOVA|||||-27.15|-55.17|<0.0001
90958053|NCT04617275|181795751|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.21||||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.22|-1.2||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-1.20|-5.22|0.0047
90958054|NCT04617275|181795751|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.51||||0.1003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.45|0.44||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||0.44|-3.45|0.1003
90958055|NCT04617275|181795751|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.95|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.96|-2.95||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-2.95|-6.96|<0.0001
90853350|NCT01986933|181570220|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-40.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.95|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.11|-26.67||Since a hierarchical decision procedure can be regarded as a closed testing procedure, no inflation of the alpha level due to multiple comparisons was necessary, and the global 1-sided significance alpha level of 0.025 was maintained.|ANCOVA|||||-26.67|-54.11|<0.0001
90853351|NCT01077154|181570229|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.14|||Stratified Log Rank|Stratified by breast cancer therapy/LN status, hormone receptor status, HER-2 status, age, and geographic region.|Based on a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by the randomization stratification factors; a hazard ratio \< 1 favors denosumab.|||1.14|0.82|0.70
90853352|NCT01077154|181570230|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.19|||Stratified Log Rank|Stratified by breast cancer therapy/LN status, hormone receptor status, HER-2 status, age, and geographic region.|Based on a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by the randomization stratification factors; a hzard ratio \< 1 favors denosumab.|||1.19|0.91|0.57
90901453|NCT02693834|181668741|OTHER|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.046||||||main effect of the type of AFO: F(1, 19) = 4.58, ηp2= .194|repeated measures ANOVA|||The main effect of type of AFO||||.046
90901454|NCT02693834|181668741|OTHER|Repeated measures ANOVA|||||<|0.001||||||main effect of practice: F(1, 19) = 43.94, ηp2 = .698|repeated measures ANOVA|||Main effect of practice||||<.001
90901455|NCT02693834|181668742|OTHER|paired t test||||||0.688|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The significance of differences in gait symmetry, between the two AFO conditions at baseline were analyzed using a paired t test for self selected velocity||||.688
90901456|NCT02693834|181668742|OTHER|repeated measures MANOVA||||||0.397||||||The above p value is for the interaction effects between type of AFO and practice time for gait symmetry at the self selected velocity F(1, 19)= 0.75, ηp2 = .038|repeated measures MANOVA|||The significance of differences in gait symmetry at self select velocity, between the two AFO conditions and two practice conditions were analyzed using repeated measures MANOVA.||||.397
90901457|NCT02693834|181668742|OTHER|A repeated measures MANOVA||||||0.95||||||Main effect of AFO on gait symmetry at SSV: F(1, 19) = 0.004, ηp2 =.00|Repeated measures MANOVA|||Main effect of AFO on gait symmetry was analyzed at self selected velocity||||.950
90958056|NCT04617275|181795751|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5||||0.0197|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.49|-0.51||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-0.51|-4.49|0.0197
90958057|NCT04617275|181795751|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.94|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.03|-2.85||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-2.85|-7.03|<0.0001
90853353|NCT01077154|181570231|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.36|||Stratified Log Rank|Stratified by breast cancer therapy/LN status, hormone receptor status, HER-2 status, age, and geographic region.|Based on a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by the randomization stratification factors; a hazard ratio \< 1 favors denosumab.|||1.36|0.92|0.26
90853354|NCT01077154|181570232|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.22|||Stratified Log Rank|Stratified by breast cancer therapy/LN status, hormone receptor status, HER-2 status, age, and geographic region.|Based on a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by the randomization stratification factors; a hazard ratio \< 1 favors denosumab.|||1.22|0.83|0.94
90853355|NCT01077154|181570233|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.21|||Stratified Log Rank|Stratified by breast cancer therapy/LN status, hormone receptor status, HER-2 status, age, and geographic region.|Based on a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by the randomization stratification factors; a hazard ratio \< 1 favors denosumab.|||1.21|0.92|0.41
90853356|NCT04030026|181570242|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.208|0.431||Mixed-effects model: unstructured, heterogeneous toeplitz and autoregressive covariance matrices. Dependent variable: change from baseline in log-transformed scale of Daytime Cough Frequency. Fixed effects: sequence (arm), period and treatment.|Mixed-effects model|||||0.431|0.208|< 0.0001
90901458|NCT02693834|181668742|OTHER|Repeated measures MANOVA||||||0.111||||||The main effect of practice on gait symmetry at self selected velocity F(1, 19) = 2.79, ηp2 = .128|repeated measures MANOVA|||Main effect of practice on gait symmetry at Self selected velocity||||.111
90901459|NCT02693834|181668742|OTHER|||||||0.26|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The significance of differences in gait symmetry, between the two AFO conditions at baseline were analyzed using a paired t test for fast paced velocity||||.260
90901460|NCT02693834|181668742|OTHER|repeated measures MANOVA||||||0.113||||||The above p value is for the interaction effects between type of AFO and practice time for gait symmetry at fast paced velocity FPV F(1, 19) = 2.76,, ηp2 = .127|repeated measures MANOVA|||The significance of differences in gait symmetry at fast paced velocity, between the two AFO conditions and two practice conditions were analyzed using repeated measures MANOVA||||.113
90901461|NCT02693834|181668742|OTHER|Repeated measures MANOVA||||||0.918||||||The main effect of AFO on gait symmetry at fast paced velocity: F(1, 19) = 0.01, ηp2 = 0.001|repeated measures MANOVA|||The main effect of AFO on gait symmetry at fast paced velocity walk was assessed with repeated measures MANOVA||||.918
90901462|NCT02693834|181668742|OTHER|Repeated measures MANOVA||||||0.077||||||The main effect of practice on gait symmetry at fast paced velocity: F(1, 19) = 3.50, ηp2 = .155|repeated measures MANOVA|||The main effect of practice on gait symmetry at fast paced velocity walk was assessed with repeated measures MANOVA||||.077
90901463|NCT02693834|181668743|OTHER|A repeated measures MANOVA||||||0.209||||||The above p value is for the interaction effects between the type of AFO and practice time at self selected velocity: F(1, 19) = 1.69, ηp2 = .082|Repeated measures MANOVA|||The significance of differences in gait velocity at self select velocity, between the two AFO conditions and two practice conditions were analyzed using repeated measures MANOVA.||||.209
90901464|NCT02693834|181668743|OTHER|Repeated measures MANOVA||||||0.32||||||Main effect of AFO on gait velocity at self selected velocity: F(1, 19) = 1.05, ηp2 = .05|repeated measures MANOVA|||Main effect of AFO on gait velocity was analyzed at self selected velocity||||.32
90901465|NCT02693834|181668743|OTHER|Repeated measures MANOVA||||||0.001||||||Main effect of practice on gait velocity at self selected velocity:F(1, 19) = 14.38, ηp2 = .431|repeated measures MANOVA|||Main effect of Practice on gait velocity was analyzed at self selected velocity||||.001
90958058|NCT04617275|181795752|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.96||||0.0836|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.12|0.19||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||0.19|-2.12|0.0836
90958059|NCT04617275|181795753|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.59||||0.0386|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.07|-0.12||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-0.12|-3.07|0.0386
91099914|NCT03300336|182086030|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.52||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.74|3.7||a priori threshold for significance p\<.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated difference calculated as intervention minus control|"Model included a time-varying indicator for when STRIDE program launched, fixed effects for time (indicator variables for each of the time periods) and a site-level random effect.. Model was not adjusted for patient characteristics.~Missing data due to item nonresponse in usual care group: 5 out of 227 Missing data due to item nonresponse in intervention group: 14 out of 399~Estimated means and standard errors are provided in Outcome Measure Data table."||3.70|-4.74|0.81
91099915|NCT03300336|182086031|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|2.32||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<.05|generalized linear model|generalized linear model with a logit link and a binomial distribution|Odds in intervention numerator vs odds in usual care denominator|"Model included a time-varying indicator for when STRIDE program launched, fixed effects for time (indicator variables for each of the time periods) and a site-level random effect. Model was not adjusted for patient characteristics.~Missing data due to item nonresponse in usual care: 0 out of 227 Missing data due to item nonresponse in intervention: 5 out of 399~Estimated means and standard errors are provided in Outcome Measure Data table."||2.32|0.55|0.74
90853357|NCT04030026|181570244|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.208|0.431||Mixed-effects model: unstructured, heterogeneous toeplitz and autoregressive covariance matrices. Dependent variable: change from baseline in log-transformed scale of Daytime Cough Frequency. Fixed effects: sequence (arm), period and treatment.|Mixed-effects model|||||0.431|0.208|<0.0001
90853358|NCT04030026|181570245|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.47||||0.0087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.717||Mixed-effects model: unstructured, heterogeneous toeplitz and autoregressive covariance matrices. Dependent variable: change from baseline in log-transformed scale of Daytime Cough Frequency. Fixed effects: sequence (arm), period and treatment.|Mixed-effects model|||||0.717|0.230|0.0087
90853359|NCT04030026|181570246|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0014||||||Student's T-test was used to evaluate if the difference in mean change from baseline is different between planned treatments (NAL ER vs placebo).|Student's T-test|||Change from baseline at Day 9||||0.0014
90853360|NCT04030026|181570246|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001||||||Student's T-test was used to evaluate if the difference in mean change from baseline is different between planned treatments (NAL ER vs placebo).|Student's T-test|||Change from baseline at Day 16||||0.0001
90853361|NCT04030026|181570246|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||Student's T-test was used to evaluate if the difference in mean change from baseline is different between planned treatments (NAL ER vs placebo).|Student's T-test|||Change from baseline at Day 22||||0.001
90853362|NCT04030026|181570247|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0198||||||Student's T-test was used to evaluate if the difference in mean change from baseline is different between planned treatments (NAL ER vs placebo).|Student's T-test|||Change from baseline at Day 9||||0.0198
90853363|NCT04030026|181570247|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0374||||||Student's T-test was used to evaluate if the difference in mean change from baseline is different between planned treatments (NAL ER vs placebo).|Student's T-test|||Change from baseline at Day 16||||0.0374
90853364|NCT04030026|181570247|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2982||||||Student's T-test was used to evaluate if the difference in mean change from baseline is different between planned treatments (NAL ER vs placebo).|Student's T-test|||Change from baseline at Day 22||||0.2982
90853365|NCT04030026|181570248|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0054||||||Student's T-test was used to evaluate if the difference in mean change from baseline is different between planned treatments (NAL ER vs placebo)|Student's T-test|||Change from baseline at Day 8||||0.0054
90853366|NCT04030026|181570248|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Student's T-test was used to evaluate if the difference in mean change from baseline is different between planned treatments (NAL ER vs placebo).|Student's T-test|||Change from baseline at Day 15||||<0.0001
90853367|NCT04030026|181570248|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001||||||Student's T-test was used to evaluate if the difference in mean change from baseline is different between planned treatments (NAL ER vs placebo).|Student's T-test|||Change from baseline at Day 21||||0.0001
90853368|NCT04030026|181570249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0107||||||Student's T-test was used to evaluate if the difference in mean change from baseline is different between planned treatments (NAL ER vs placebo).|Student's T-test|||Change from baseline at Day 9||||0.0107
90853369|NCT04030026|181570249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0051||||||Student's T-test was used to evaluate if the difference in mean change from baseline is different between planned treatments (NAL ER vs placebo).|Student's T-test|||Change for baseline at Day 16||||0.0051
90853370|NCT04030026|181570249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1513||||||Student's T-test was used to evaluate if the difference in mean change from baseline is different between planned treatments (NAL ER vs placebo).|Student's T-test|||Change from baseline at Day 22||||0.1513
90853371|NCT04030026|181570250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3601||||||Student's T-test was used to evaluate if the difference in mean change from baseline is different between planned treatments (NAL ER vs placebo).|Student's T-test|||||||0.3601
90853372|NCT06372782|181570282|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Within-Subject Difference in VAS Score at the End of Injection (FAS)||||<0.0001
90853373|NCT01992159|181570311|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|7.5|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|6.5|||P-values were adjusted for multiplicity using a combination of a sequential test procedure and Hochberg's method to control type 1 error for the primary endpoint.|Repeated Measures Model|||The primary analysis was based on a repeated measures model with the percent change from baseline at months 6 and 12 in BMD of the lumbar spine as the dependent variable, and baseline BMD, machine type, interaction of baseline BMD and machine type, visit (categorical), treatment (categorical), and interaction of treatment and visit as the independent variables; using an unstructured variance covariance structure.|||6.5|< 0.0001
90853374|NCT01992159|181570311|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|12.4|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|11.1|||P-values were adjusted for multiplicity using a combination of a sequential test procedure and Hochberg's method to control type 1 error for the primary endpoint.|Repeated Measures Model|||The primary analysis was based on a repeated measures model with the percent change from baseline at months 6 and 12 in BMD of the lumbar spine as the dependent variable, and baseline BMD, machine type, interaction of baseline BMD and machine type, visit (categorical), treatment (categorical), and interaction of treatment and visit as the independent variables; using an unstructured variance covariance structure.|||11.1|< 0.0001
90958060|NCT04617275|181795754|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.1566|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.99|1.0||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||1.00|-3.99|0.1566
90958061|NCT04617275|181795755|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.62||||0.0916|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.91|0.67||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||0.67|-5.91|0.0916
90958062|NCT04617275|181795756|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.07||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.31|0.17||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||0.17|-6.31|0.0590
90958063|NCT04617275|181795757|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.74||||0.0826|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.23|0.75||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||0.75|-8.23|0.0826
90958064|NCT04227704|181795769|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.09
90958065|NCT04227704|181795770|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.08
90958066|NCT04227704|181795777|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.44
90958067|NCT02874924|181795925|EQUIVALENCE|Pilot study, therefore, no power calculation available.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.81||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.48|4.86|||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis||4.86|-8.48|0.56
90958068|NCT01874431|181795945|OTHER||Least square mean ratio|0.926||||0.1973|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.799|1.074|||t-test, 1 sided|||To demonstrate a dose-dependent effect of finerenone, an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with factors treatment group, type of albuminuria at screening and region, and log-transformed baseline value as covariate nested within type of albuminuria at screening was performed in the FAS using a last-observation carried-forward (LOCF) method for missing observations.||1.074|0.799|0.1973
90958069|NCT01874431|181795945|OTHER||Least square mean ratio|0.949||||0.2808|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.818|1.101|||t-test, 1 sided|||To demonstrate a dose-dependent effect of finerenone, an ANCOVA with factors treatment group, type of albuminuria at screening and region, and log-transformed baseline value as covariate nested within type of albuminuria at screening was performed in the FAS using a LOCF method for missing observations.||1.101|0.818|0.2808
90958070|NCT01874431|181795945|OTHER||Least square mean ratio|0.878||||0.0723|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.758|1.017|||t-test, 1 sided|||To demonstrate a dose-dependent effect of finerenone, an ANCOVA with factors treatment group, type of albuminuria at screening and region, and log-transformed baseline value as covariate nested within type of albuminuria at screening was performed in the FAS using a LOCF method for missing observations.||1.017|0.758|0.0723
90853375|NCT01992159|181570311|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|16.0|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|14.6|||One-sided p-values were adjusted for multiplicity using a combination of a sequential test procedure and Hochberg's method to control type 1 error for the primary endpoint.|Repeated Measures Model|||The primary analysis was based on a repeated measures model with the percent change from baseline at months 6 and 12 in BMD of the lumbar spine as the dependent variable, and baseline BMD, machine type, interaction of baseline BMD and machine type, visit (categorical), treatment (categorical), and interaction of treatment and visit as the independent variables; using an unstructured variance covariance structure.|||14.6|< 0.0001
90958974|NCT01191268|181798008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.07||||0.628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.21||Treatment comparison of Daily Mean values at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.21|-0.35|0.628
90853376|NCT01992159|181570312|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|5.3|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|4.4||||Repeated Measures Model|||The analysis was based on a repeated measures model with the percent change from baseline at months 6 and 12 in BMD of the lumbar spine as the dependent variable, and baseline BMD, machine type, interaction of baseline BMD and machine type, visit (categorical), treatment (categorical), and interaction of treatment and visit as the independent variables; using an unstructured variance covariance structure.|||4.4|< 0.0001
90853377|NCT01992159|181570312|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|9.0|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|8.0||||Repeated Measures Model|||The analysis was based on a repeated measures model with the percent change from baseline at months 6 and 12 in BMD of the lumbar spine as the dependent variable, and baseline BMD, machine type, interaction of baseline BMD and machine type, visit (categorical), treatment (categorical), and interaction of treatment and visit as the independent variables; using an unstructured variance covariance structure.|||8.0|< 0.0001
90853378|NCT01992159|181570312|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|11.9|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|10.6||||Repeated Measures Model|||The analysis was based on a repeated measures model with the percent change from baseline at months 6 and 12 in BMD of the lumbar spine as the dependent variable, and baseline BMD, machine type, interaction of baseline BMD and machine type, visit (categorical), treatment (categorical), and interaction of treatment and visit as the independent variables; using an unstructured variance covariance structure.|||10.6|< 0.0001
90853379|NCT01992159|181570313|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.6||||0.125|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.3||||Repeated Measures Model|||The analysis was based on a repeated measures model with the percent change from baseline at months 6 and 12 in BMD of the total hip as the dependent variable, and baseline BMD, machine type, interaction of baseline BMD and machine type, visit (categorical), treatment (categorical), and interaction of treatment and visit as the independent variables; using an unstructured variance covariance structure.|||-0.3|0.1250
90853380|NCT01992159|181570313|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|1.7||||0.0002|ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.9||||Repeated Measures Model|||The analysis was based on a repeated measures model with the percent change from baseline at months 6 and 12 in BMD of the total hip as the dependent variable, and baseline BMD, machine type, interaction of baseline BMD and machine type, visit (categorical), treatment (categorical), and interaction of treatment and visit as the independent variables; using an unstructured variance covariance structure.|||0.9|0.0002
90853381|NCT01992159|181570313|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|2.6|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|1.7||||Repeated Measures Model|||The analysis was based on a repeated measures model with the percent change from baseline at months 6 and 12 in BMD of the total hip as the dependent variable, and baseline BMD, machine type, interaction of baseline BMD and machine type, visit (categorical), treatment (categorical), and interaction of treatment and visit as the independent variables; using an unstructured variance covariance structure.|||1.7|< 0.0001
90853382|NCT01992159|181570314|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|1.5||||0.0012|ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.7||||Repeated Measures Model|||The analysis was based on a repeated measures model with the percent change from baseline at months 6 and 12 in BMD of the total hip as the dependent variable, and baseline BMD, machine type, interaction of baseline BMD and machine type, visit (categorical), treatment (categorical), and interaction of treatment and visit as the independent variables; using an unstructured variance covariance structure.|||0.7|0.0012
90853383|NCT01992159|181570314|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|2.6|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|1.8||||Repeated Measures Model|||The analysis was based on a repeated measures model with the percent change from baseline at months 6 and 12 in BMD of the total hip as the dependent variable, and baseline BMD, machine type, interaction of baseline BMD and machine type, visit (categorical), treatment (categorical), and interaction of treatment and visit as the independent variables; using an unstructured variance covariance structure.|||1.8|< 0.0001
90853384|NCT01992159|181570314|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|4.1|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|3.3||||Repeated Measures Model|||The analysis was based on a repeated measures model with the percent change from baseline at months 6 and 12 in BMD of the total hip as the dependent variable, and baseline BMD, machine type, interaction of baseline BMD and machine type, visit (categorical), treatment (categorical), and interaction of treatment and visit as the independent variables; using an unstructured variance covariance structure.|||3.3|< 0.0001
90853385|NCT01992159|181570315|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.3||||0.2846|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.6||||Repeated Measures Model|||The analysis was based on a repeated measures model with the percent change from baseline at months 6 and 12 in BMD of the femoral neck as the dependent variable, and baseline BMD, machine type, interaction of baseline BMD and machine type, visit (categorical), treatment (categorical), and interaction of treatment and visit as the independent variables; using an unstructured variance covariance structure.|||-0.6|0.2846
90853386|NCT01992159|181570315|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|1.3||||0.0151|ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.3||||Repeated Measures Model|||The analysis was based on a repeated measures model with the percent change from baseline at months 6 and 12 in BMD of the femoral neck as the dependent variable, and baseline BMD, machine type, interaction of baseline BMD and machine type, visit (categorical), treatment (categorical), and interaction of treatment and visit as the independent variables; using an unstructured variance covariance structure.|||0.3|0.0151
90853387|NCT01992159|181570315|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|2.6||||0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|1.5||||Repeated Measures Model|||The analysis was based on a repeated measures model with the percent change from baseline at months 6 and 12 in BMD of the femoral neck as the dependent variable, and baseline BMD, machine type, interaction of baseline BMD and machine type, visit (categorical), treatment (categorical), and interaction of treatment and visit as the independent variables; using an unstructured variance covariance structure.|||1.5|0.0001
90853388|NCT01992159|181570316|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|1.6||||0.0067|ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.5||||Repeated Measures Model|||The analysis was based on a repeated measures model with the percent change from baseline at months 6 and 12 in BMD of the femoral neck as the dependent variable, and baseline BMD, machine type, interaction of baseline BMD and machine type, visit (categorical), treatment (categorical), and interaction of treatment and visit as the independent variables; using an unstructured variance covariance structure.|||0.5|0.0067
90853389|NCT01992159|181570316|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|2.6|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|1.6||||Repeated Measures Model|||The analysis was based on a repeated measures model with the percent change from baseline at months 6 and 12 in BMD of the femoral neck as the dependent variable, and baseline BMD, machine type, interaction of baseline BMD and machine type, visit (categorical), treatment (categorical), and interaction of treatment and visit as the independent variables; using an unstructured variance covariance structure.|||1.6|< 0.0001
90853390|NCT01992159|181570316|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|3.5|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|2.3||||Repeated Measures Model|||The analysis was based on a repeated measures model with the percent change from baseline at months 6 and 12 in BMD of the femoral neck as the dependent variable, and baseline BMD, machine type, interaction of baseline BMD and machine type, visit (categorical), treatment (categorical), and interaction of treatment and visit as the independent variables; using an unstructured variance covariance structure.|||2.3|< 0.0001
90853391|NCT01992159|181570321|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-15.3||||0.5084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.8|30.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with the AUC of P1NP at month 12 as the dependent variable, and baseline P1NP and treatment (categorical) as the independent variables.||||30.2|-60.8|0.5084
90853392|NCT01992159|181570321|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|84.1||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.1|128.0|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with the AUC of P1NP at month 12 as the dependent variable, and baseline P1NP and treatment (categorical) as the independent variables.||||128.0|40.1|0.0002
90853393|NCT01992159|181570321|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|153.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|109.2|198.4|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with the AUC of P1NP at months 12 as the dependent variable, and baseline P1NP and treatment (categorical) as the independent variables.||||198.4|109.2|< 0.0001
90853394|NCT00095238|181570324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|baseline score used as covariate; treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, \& baseline angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors used as predictors||Comparison of 2 treatment arms at Month 6 (first 2 columns)||1.3|-0.8|
90853395|NCT00095238|181570324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|baseline score used as covariate; treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, \& baseline angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors used as predictors||comparison of 2 treatment arms at Month 14 (columns 3 and 4)||1.7|-0.5|
90853396|NCT06460493|181570363|OTHER|The proportion of subjects classified as responders at week 12, standard errors, and corresponding 95% CI was estimated by negative binomial regression with background therapy (LABA/LAMA or LABA/LAMA/ICS) included as a fixed effect, and with baseline CAT score included as a covariate. The scale parameter in the negative binomial model was held fixed by specifying a noscale option.|Negative binomial regression|67.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.0|100.0|||||A two-sided unadjusted 95% confidence interval for the proportion was used to determine study success with the lower bound of the CI \> 0 indicating success.|||100.0|38.0|
90853397|NCT06460493|181570364|OTHER|The proportion of subjects classified as responders at week 6, standard errors, and corresponding 95% CI was estimated by negative binomial regression with background therapy (LABA/LAMA or LABA/LAMA/ICS) included as a fixed effect, and with baseline CAT score included as a covariate. The scale parameter in the negative binomial model was held fixed by specifying a noscale option.|Negative binomial regression|44.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.0|89.5|||||A two-sided unadjusted 95% confidence interval for the proportion was used to determine study success with the lower bound of the CI \> 0 indicating success.|||89.5|22.0|
90958975|NCT01191268|181798008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.13||||0.368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.41||Treatment comparison of Daily Mean values at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.41|-0.15|0.368
91099916|NCT03300336|182086032|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.06||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated difference calculated as intervention minus control|"Model included a time-varying indicator for when STRIDE program launched, fixed effects for time (indicator variables for each of the time periods) and a site-level random effect. Model was not adjusted for patient characteristics.~Missing data due to item nonresponse in usual care: 14 out of 227 Missing data due to item nonresponse in intervention: 33 out of 399~Estimated means and standard errors are provided in Outcome Measure Data table."||0.06|-0.03|0.40
91099917|NCT03300336|182086033|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.07||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated difference calculated as intervention minus control|"Model included a time-varying indicator for when STRIDE program launched, fixed effects for time (indicator variables for each of the time periods) and a site-level random effect. Model was not adjusted for patient characteristics.~Missing data due to item nonresponse in usual care: 7 out of 227 Missing data due to item nonresponse in intervention: 23 out of 399~Estimated means and standard errors are provided in Outcome Measure Data table."||0.07|-0.01|0.18
90853398|NCT05204381|181570376|OTHER|||||||0.783|||||||ANOVA|F-statistic is 0.077||Mixed-factors ANOVA for the interaction between stimulation frequency (theta or alpha) and synchrony (in-phase or anti-phase).||||0.783
90853399|NCT05204381|181570377|OTHER|||||||0.965|||||||ANOVA|F-statistic is 0.002||Mixed-factors ANOVA for the interaction between stimulation frequency (theta or alpha) and synchrony (in-phase or anti-phase).||||0.965
90901466|NCT02693834|181668743|OTHER|repeated measures MANOVA||||||0.28||||||The above p value is for the interaction effects between the type of AFO and practice time at fast paced velocity: F( 1, 19) = 1.24, ηp2 = .61|repeated measures MANOVA|||The significance of differences in gait velocity at fast paced velocity, between the two AFO conditions and two practice conditions were analyzed using repeated measures MANOVA.||||.280
90901467|NCT02693834|181668743|OTHER|repeated measures MANOVA||||||0.072||||||Main effect of AFO on gait velocity was analyzed at self selected velocity:FPV F(1, 19) = 3.63, ηp2 =.16|repeated measures MANOVA|||Main effect of AFO on gait velocity was analyzed for self selected velocity||||.072
90901468|NCT02693834|181668743|OTHER|Repeated measures MANOVA|||||<|0.001||||||Main effect of Practice on gait velocity for fast paced velocity: F(1, 19) = 23.73, ηp2 = .555|repeated measures MANOVA|||Main effect of Practice on gait velocity was analyzed for fast paced velocity||||<.001
90901469|NCT02761629|181668750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Response Rates|12.7||||0.0536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|26.6|||Fisher Exact||Exact 95% confidence interval was from the binomial distribution for response rate.|||26.6|-0.01|0.0536
90901470|NCT02761629|181668753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0175|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0175
90901471|NCT00936221|181668771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.3873|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.67|1.28||1-sided p-value|Regression, Cox|Cox model adjusting for treatment, WHO performance status, LDH, M status and tumour sub-type.||If the true hazard ratio (HR) is 0.57, 58 deaths provides at least 80% power to demonstrate a statistically significant difference for OS, assuming a 1-sided 10% significance level.||1.28|0.67|0.3873
90901472|NCT01844115|181668776|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.2||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.72|-0.68|||MMRM|||||-0.68|-3.72|0.0048
90901473|NCT01844115|181668777|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.89||||0.0236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.52|-0.26|||MMRM|||||-0.26|-3.52|0.0236
90901474|NCT00545363|181668779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.8989|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis was done to compare the participant satisfaction between the Biofeedback and No-feedback arms.||||=0.8989
90901475|NCT00545363|181668780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.453|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis was done to compare the participant perception between the Biofeedback and No-feedback arms.||||=0.453
90901476|NCT00545363|181668781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.4917|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis was done to compare the effect of adherence (Yes/No) on percent change from baseline in CTX between the Biofeedback and No-feedback arms.||||=0.4917
90901477|NCT03125941|181668805|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|2.05|||Chi-squared|||||2.05|0.49|1
90853400|NCT05204381|181570378|OTHER|||||||0.089|||||||ANOVA|F-statistic is 3.046||Mixed-factors ANOVA for the interaction between stimulation frequency (theta or alpha) and synchrony (in-phase or anti-phase).||||0.089
90853401|NCT04972630|181570379|OTHER|Comparison via 95% confidence interval|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||Baseline control vs. intervention||||
90853402|NCT04972630|181570379|OTHER|Comparison via 95% confidence interval|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||Week 4 control vs. intervention||||
90853403|NCT04972630|181570379|OTHER|Comparison via 95% confidence interval|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||Week 12, control vs. intervention||||
90853404|NCT04972630|181570379|OTHER|Comparison via 95% confidence interval|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||Week 24, control vs. intervention||||
90853405|NCT04972630|181570380|OTHER|Comparison via 95% confidence interval|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
90853406|NCT04972630|181570381|OTHER|Comparison via 95% confidence interval|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
90853407|NCT04972630|181570382|OTHER|Comparison via 95% confidence interval|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
90853408|NCT04972630|181570383|OTHER|Comparison via 95% confidence interval|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
90853409|NCT04972630|181570384|OTHER|Comparison via 95% confidence interval|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
90853410|NCT04972630|181570385|OTHER|Comparison via 95% confidence interval|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
90901478|NCT03125941|181668806|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.114|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.114
90901479|NCT03125941|181668807|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.294|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.294
90901480|NCT03125941|181668810|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.350
90901481|NCT03125941|181668811|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.217|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.217
90901482|NCT03125941|181668813|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.193||||||a priori threshold, bonferroni corrected 0.0125|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.193
90901483|NCT03125941|181668814|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.2|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
90901484|NCT03125941|181668815|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.136|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.136
91099918|NCT03300336|182086034|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.38|7.98||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated difference calculated as intervention minus control|"Model included a time-varying indicator for when STRIDE program launched, fixed effects for time (indicator variables for each of the time periods) and a site-level random effect. Model was not adjusted for patient characteristics.~Missing data due to item nonresponse in usual care: 1 out of 227 Missing data due to item nonresponse in intervention: 4 out of 399~Estimated means and standard errors are provided in Outcome Measure Data table."||7.98|-6.38|0.83
91099919|NCT03300336|182086035|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.46||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|3.96||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated difference calculated as intervention minus control|"Model included a time-varying indicator for when STRIDE program launched, fixed effects for time (indicator variables for each of the time periods) and a site-level random effect. Model was not adjusted for patient characteristics.~Missing data due to item nonresponse in usual care: 2 out of 227 Missing data due to item nonresponse in intervention: 6 out of 399~Estimated means and standard errors are provided in Outcome Measure Data table."||3.96|-1.05|0.25
91099920|NCT03300336|182086036|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.99||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<.05|generalized linear model|generalized linear model with a logit link and a binomial distribution|Odds in intervention numerator vs odds in usual care denominator|"Model included a time-varying indicator for when STRIDE program launched, fixed effects for time (indicator variables for each of the time periods) and a site-level random effect. Model was not adjusted for patient characteristics.~Missing data due to item nonresponse in usual care: 1 out of 227 Missing data due to item nonresponse in intervention: 3 out of 399~Estimated means and standard errors are provided in Outcome Measure Data table."||1.99|0.68|0.59
91099921|NCT03300336|182086037|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.99||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|3.69||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated difference calculated as intervention minus control|"Model included a time-varying indicator for when STRIDE program launched, fixed effects for time (indicator variables for each of the time periods) and a site-level random effect. Model was not adjusted for patient characteristics.~Missing data due to item nonresponse in usual care: 11 out of 227 Missing data due to item nonresponse in intervention: 20 out of 399~Estimated means and standard errors are provided in Outcome Measure Data table."||3.69|-1.71|0.47
91099922|NCT03300336|182086038|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|1.62||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated difference calculated as intervention minus control|"Model included a time-varying indicator for when STRIDE program launched, fixed effects for time (indicator variables for each of the time periods) and a site-level random effect. Model was not adjusted for patient characteristics.~Missing data due to item nonresponse in usual care: 2 out of 227 Missing data due to item nonresponse in intervention group: 7 out of 399~Estimated means and standard errors are provided in Outcome Measure Data table."||1.62|-1.76|0.94
90853411|NCT04972630|181570386|OTHER|Comparison via 95% confidence interval|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
91099923|NCT00299221|182086043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.4||0.44||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparing ISHLT biopsy score between groups at 1 year||||0.44
90853412|NCT04972630|181570387|OTHER|Comparison via 95% confidence interval|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
90853413|NCT04972630|181570388|OTHER|Comparison via 95% confidence interval|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
90853414|NCT04972630|181570389|OTHER|Comparison via 95% confidence interval|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
90853415|NCT04972630|181570390|OTHER|Comparison via 95% confidence interval|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
90853416|NCT04972630|181570391|OTHER|Comparison via 95% confidence interval|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
91099924|NCT03676725|182086052|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.17||||0.017|ONE_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Women with PMS vs. without PMS.||||0.017
90853417|NCT04972630|181570392|OTHER|Comparison via 95% confidence interval|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||Baseline, control vs. intervention||||
91099925|NCT03676725|182086052|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Women with PMS and with ADHD vs. other women||||0.001
91099926|NCT03676725|182086052|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||ADHD vs. no ADHD||||0.8
90853418|NCT04972630|181570392|OTHER|Comparison via 95% confidence interval|Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||Week 4, control vs. intervention||||
90853419|NCT04972630|181570392|OTHER|Comparison via 95% confidence interval|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||Week 12, control vs. intervention||||
90853420|NCT04972630|181570392|OTHER|Comparison via 95% confidence interval|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||Week 24, control vs. intervention||||
90853421|NCT04972630|181570393|OTHER|Comparison via 95% confidence interval|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||Baseline, control vs. intervention||||
90853422|NCT04972630|181570393|OTHER|Comparison via 95% confidence interval|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||Week 4, control vs. intervention||||
90853423|NCT04972630|181570393|OTHER|Comparison via 95% confidence interval|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||Week 12, control vs. intervention||||
90853424|NCT04972630|181570393|OTHER|Comparison via 95% confidence interval|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||Week 24, control vs. intervention||||
90901485|NCT03125941|181668816|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.003||||||A priori threshold for statistical significans was 0.00125 due to multiple comparisons|Chi-squared|||||||>0.003
90901486|NCT03125941|181668817|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.53||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|11.6|||Chi-squared|||||11.6|1.07|0.030
90901487|NCT00406419|181668831|SUPERIORITY||Weighted difference|18.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|25.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||25.9|11|< 0.0001
90901488|NCT00406419|181668831|SUPERIORITY||Weighted difference|21.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.1|28.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||28.8|14.1|< 0.0001
90901489|NCT00406419|181668832|SUPERIORITY||Weighted difference|30.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.7|37.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||37.9|23.7|< 0.0001
90853425|NCT00075270|181570407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio, log|0.87||||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.05||P-value from stratified log-rank test, stratifying for stage of disease and site of disease at screening|Log Rank||The estimate of the treatment hazard ratio is based on the log-rank test.|||1.05|0.72|0.142
90853426|NCT00075270|181570408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio, log|0.82||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.04||P-value from stratified log-rank test, stratifying for stage of disease and site of disease at screening|Log Rank||The estimate of the treatment hazard ratio was based on the log-rank test.|||1.04|0.65|0.094
90853427|NCT00246571|181570427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.203||||0.8885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8889|1.628||One-sided log-rank test stratified for the number of prior chemotherapy regiments (1 versus more than 1), which is from the interactive voice response system (IVRS).|Log Rank|||For core radiology laboratory assessment||1.6280|0.8889|0.8885
90853428|NCT00246571|181570427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1598||||0.8472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8703|1.5457||One-sided log-rank test stratified for the number of prior chemotherapy regiments (1 versus more than 1), which is from IVRS.|Log Rank|||For investigator's assessment||1.5457|0.8703|0.8472
90901490|NCT00406419|181668832|SUPERIORITY||Weighted difference|34.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.4|41.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||41.5|27.4|< 0.0001
90853429|NCT00246571|181570428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.38||||0.9624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|1.71||The stratified analysis was from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by randomization stratification factor, the number of prior chemotherapy regimens (1 versus more than 1), which is from IVRS.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Core radiology laboratory assessment||1.71|0.06|0.9624
90853430|NCT00246571|181570428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.98||The stratified analysis was from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by randomization stratification factor, the number of prior chemotherapy regimens (1 versus more than 1), which is from IVRS.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Investigator's assessment||1.98|0.27|0.8140
90901491|NCT01461993|181668865|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority criteria margin was 1.5-fold.|GMT Ratio|0.82||||||95.0|0.72|0.94||||||HPV-6||0.94|0.72|
90901492|NCT01461993|181668865|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority criteria margin was 1.5-fold.|GMT Ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.91||||||HPV-11||0.91|0.74|
90901493|NCT01461993|181668865|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority criteria margin was 1.5-fold.|GMT Ratio|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.88||||||HPV-16||0.88|0.68|
90901494|NCT01461993|181668865|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority criteria margin was 1.5-fold.|GMT Ratio|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.81||||||HPV-18||0.81|0.62|
90901495|NCT01461993|181668866|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority criteria margin was 1.5-fold.|GMT Ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.0||||||PMB80 \[A22\]||1.00|0.85|
90901496|NCT01461993|181668866|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority criteria margin was 1.5-fold.|GMT Ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.01||||||PMB2948 \[B24\]||1.01|0.84|
90958976|NCT01191268|181798008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.13||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.42||Treatment comparison of Daily Mean values at 52 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.42|-0.16|0.370
90901497|NCT01121484|181668881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|||||Analysis of Covariance used change from baseline at Week 8 as a response variable, site and treatment as factors, and baseline score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis: no difference between treatment groups||||0.004
90901498|NCT01121484|181668882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||CGI-I analyzed as a categorical variable by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row-mean-score-difference test using ridit scores, controlling for the effect of region; p-value obtained from the alternative hypothesis of Row Mean Score Differences.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90901499|NCT01121484|181668883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||Analysis of Covariance used change from baseline at Week 8 as a response variable, site and treatment as factors, and baseline score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.002
90901500|NCT01121484|181668884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||Analysis of Covariance used change from baseline at Week 8 as a response variable, site and treatment as factors, and baseline score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.002
90901501|NCT01121484|181668885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.158|TWO_SIDED|||||Analysis of Covariance used change from baseline at Week 8 as a response variable, site and treatment as factors, and baseline score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.158
90901502|NCT01121484|181668886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Analysis of Covariance used change from baseline at Week 8 as a response variable, site and treatment as factors, and baseline score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90901503|NCT05408468|181668913|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.595|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.731||0.387|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Baseline 1.731 One week 1.894|||||0.387
90901504|NCT05408468|181668913|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.782|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.048||0.387|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Baseline 2.048 One week 2.122|||||0.387
90901505|NCT05408468|181668914|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.693||0.062|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Baseline 1.693 One week 1.840|||||0.062
90901506|NCT05408468|181668914|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.764|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.003||0.062|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Baseline 2.003 One week 2.069|||||0.062
90901507|NCT05408468|181668916|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.84||0.369|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.369
90901508|NCT05408468|181668917|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.79||0.498|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.498
90901509|NCT01396395|181668951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.503|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.435|0.581|||poisson regression: Non-calibration mode|||||0.581|0.435|<0.0001
90901510|NCT01396395|181668951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.503|||=|0.0086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.301|0.84|||Poisson regression: Calibration model|||||0.840|0.301|=0.0086
90901511|NCT02120664|181668968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R squared|0.907|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||
90901512|NCT02120664|181668969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Coefficient of Variation|2.53|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90958071|NCT01874431|181795945|OTHER||Least square mean ratio|0.787||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.68|0.912|||t-test, 1 sided|||To demonstrate a dose-dependent effect of finerenone, an ANCOVA with factors treatment group, type of albuminuria at screening and region, and log-transformed baseline value as covariate nested within type of albuminuria at screening was performed in the FAS using a LOCF method for missing observations.||0.912|0.68|0.0039
90958072|NCT01874431|181795945|OTHER||Least square mean ratio|0.755||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.651|0.875|||t-test, 1 sided|||To demonstrate a dose-dependent effect of finerenone, an ANCOVA with factors treatment group, type of albuminuria at screening and region, and log-transformed baseline value as covariate nested within type of albuminuria at screening was performed in the FAS using a LOCF method for missing observations.||0.875|0.651|0.0009
90958073|NCT01874431|181795945|OTHER||Least square mean ratio|0.671|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.584|0.772|||t-test, 1 sided|||To demonstrate a dose-dependent effect of finerenone, an ANCOVA with factors treatment group, type of albuminuria at screening and region, and log-transformed baseline value as covariate nested within type of albuminuria at screening was performed in the FAS using a LOCF method for missing observations.||0.772|0.584|< 0.0001
90958074|NCT01874431|181795945|OTHER||Least square mean ratio|0.624|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.542|0.718|||t-test, 1 sided|||To demonstrate a dose-dependent effect of finerenone, an ANCOVA with factors treatment group, type of albuminuria at screening and region, and log-transformed baseline value as covariate nested within type of albuminuria at screening was performed in the FAS using a LOCF method for missing observations.||0.718|0.542|< 0.0001
90958075|NCT01874431|181795946|OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.107||||0.0428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.003|0.21|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.21|0.003|0.0428
90958076|NCT01874431|181795946|OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.121||||0.0223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.017|0.225|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.225|0.017|0.0223
91032817|NCT00840866|181950993|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model containing factors for sequence of products, subjects within sequence, periods, and products was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|104.0||||||90.0|99.0|109.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||109|99|
91104317|NCT02470377|182094877|SUPERIORITY|The hypothesis was that either Target 1 (Occipital) or Target 2 (Vermis) would be more effective than the control target (Cerebellar hemisphere) but that there may be baseline differences in participants who chose Target 1 vs Target 2.||||||0.1754|||||||ANOVA|One way ANOVA, immediate HADS changes used for calculation.||This was an N-of-1 pilot study in which all participants received one session of each of 3 targets and chose which of the 3 led to the most acute reduction in intensity of rocking. The participants were treated with the target that they chose and then completed post stimulation diaries.||||0.1754
90853431|NCT00246571|181570431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1599||||0.8394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8648|1.5558||One-sided log rank test stratified for the number of prior chemotherapy regimens (1 versus more than 1), which is from IVRS.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio for sunitinib versus standard of care.|||1.5558|0.8648|0.8394
90853432|NCT00775203|181570447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0119|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and study center as categorical factors and HAMD-17 baseline as covariate.||The primary null hypothesis for the HAMD-17 total score is that there is no difference between the Trazodone Contramid® OAD group and the placebo group at Week 8. A sample size of 133 in each group will have 90% power to detect a difference in the absolute mean Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAMD-17) change from baseline of 3.0 units assuming that the common standard deviation is 7.5 using a two-group t-test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level.||||0.0119
90853433|NCT04251156|181570475|SUPERIORITY|Responses were analysed using an analysis of covariance model with randomized treatment and type 2 diabetes status as factors and baseline body weight as covariate.|Treatment difference|-8.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.17|-6.76|||ANCOVA|||Treatment policy estimand||-6.76|-10.17|<0.0001
90853434|NCT04251156|181570476|SUPERIORITY|Responses were analysed using a binary logistic regression model with randomized treatment and type 2 diabetes status as factors and baseline body weight as covariate.|Odds Ratio (OR)|13.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|23.1|||Regression, Logistic|||Treatment policy estimand||23.10|7.40|<0.0001
90901513|NCT02120664|181668969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Coefficient of Variation|6.69|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90958077|NCT01874431|181795946|OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.2||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.096|0.305|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.305|0.096|0.0002
90958078|NCT01874431|181795946|OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.125||||0.0181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.021|0.229|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.229|0.021|0.0181
90958079|NCT01874431|181795946|OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.166||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.061|0.27|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.27|0.061|0.0019
90958080|NCT01874431|181795946|OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.236|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.137|0.334|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.334|0.137|< 0.0001
90958081|NCT01874431|181795946|OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.186||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.088|0.284|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.284|0.088|0.0002
90958082|NCT01874431|181795947|OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.786||||0.5454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.337|1.765|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.765|-3.337|0.5454
90958083|NCT01874431|181795947|OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-1.61||||0.2186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.177|0.957|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.957|-4.177|0.2186
91104318|NCT02539394|182094885|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.394|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of Pre-operative SWAL-QOL - Burden is the same across the 2 arms||||0.394
90958084|NCT01874431|181795947|OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.918||||0.4859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.503|1.667|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.667|-3.503|0.4859
90958085|NCT01874431|181795947|OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-1.8||||0.1677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.358|0.759|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.759|-4.358|0.1677
90958086|NCT01874431|181795947|OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-2.613||||0.0462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.183|-0.044|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.044|-5.183|0.0462
90958087|NCT01874431|181795947|OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-2.228||||0.0705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.643|0.187|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.187|-4.643|0.0705
90901514|NCT01351025|181669001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|||||Two-sided p-values of \< 0.05 without adjustments for multiple testing were considered statistically significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Exact Wilcoxon rank sum test was used||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between arm A and arm B in the differences of the changes (\[week 44 - week 24\] - \[week 20 - baseline\]) in log10 IL-6||||0.94
90853435|NCT05171816|181570518|OTHER|Exploratory|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.43||||0.2592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|2.48||Nominal p-value|Log Rank|The 2-sided p-value was calculated using the log-rank test stratified by metastases.|HR and CI calculated using Cox Proportional Hazards model, where a HR \< 1 favours olaparib+abiraterone. Stratification factors are the same as those used in the stratified log-rank test.|||2.48|0.83|0.2592
90853436|NCT05171816|181570519|OTHER|Exploratory|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.7251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|2.29||Nominal p-value|Log Rank|The 2-sided p-value was calculated using the log-rank test stratified by metastases.|HR and CI calculated using Cox Proportional Hazards model, where a HR \< 1 favours olaparib+abiraterone. Stratification factors are the same as those used in the stratified log-rank test.|||2.29|0.57|0.7251
90853437|NCT05171816|181570520|OTHER|Exploratory|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.9715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.64||Nominal p-value|Log Rank|The 2-sided p-value was calculated using the log-rank test stratified by metastases.|HR and CI calculated using Cox Proportional Hazards model, where a HR \< 1 favours olaparib+abiraterone. Stratification factors are the same as those used in the stratified log-rank test.|||1.64|0.60|0.9715
90853438|NCT05171816|181570521|OTHER|Exploratory|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.4937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.06||Nominal p-value|Log Rank|The 2-sided p-value was calculated using the log-rank test stratified by metastases.|HR and CI calculated using Cox Proportional Hazards model, where a HR \< 1 favours olaparib+abiraterone. Stratification factors are the same as those used in the stratified log-rank test.|||2.06|0.20|0.4937
90853439|NCT05171816|181570522|OTHER|Exploratory|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.65||||0.4923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|4.87||Nominal p-value|Log Rank|The 2-sided p-value was calculated using the log-rank test stratified by metastases.|HR and CI calculated using Cox Proportional Hazards model, where a HR \< 1 favours olaparib+abiraterone. Stratification factors are the same as those used in the stratified log-rank test.|||4.87|0.61|0.4923
90853440|NCT05171816|181570524|OTHER|Exploratory|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.45||||0.3407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|3.39||Nominal p-value|Log Rank|The 2-sided p-value was calculated using the log-rank test stratified by metastases.|HR and CI calculated using Cox Proportional Hazards model, where a HR \< 1 favours olaparib+abiraterone. Stratification factors are the same as those used in the stratified log-rank test.|||3.39|0.63|0.3407
90853441|NCT04214288|181570528|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59||||0.0167||90.0|0.42|0.82|||Log Rank|The analysis was performed using a stratified Cox Proportional Hazards model.|A hazard ratio \< 1 favours AZD9833 to be associated with a longer progression-free survival than fulvestrant.|||0.82|0.42|0.0167
90853442|NCT04214288|181570528|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64||||0.009||90.0|0.46|0.89|||Log Rank|The analysis was performed using a stratified Cox Proportional Hazards model.|A hazard ratio \< 1 favours AZD9833 to be associated with a longer progression-free survival than fulvestrant.|||0.89|0.46|0.0090
90901515|NCT01351025|181669002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.495|TWO_SIDED|||||Two-sided p-values of \< 0.05 without adjustments for multiple testing were considered statistically significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|exact Wilcoxon rank sun test was used||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between arm A and arm B in the differences of the changes (\[week 44 - week 24\] - \[week 20 - baseline\]) in CD4+ T-cell activation percent (% CD38+/DR+ of CD4)||||0.495
90901516|NCT01351025|181669003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.704|TWO_SIDED|||||Two-sided p-values of \< 0.05 without adjustments for multiple testing were considered statistically significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|exact Wilcoxon rank sum test was used||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between arm A and arm B in the differences of the changes (\[week 44 - week 24\] - \[week 20 - baseline\]) in log10 D-dimer||||0.704
90901517|NCT01351025|181669004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.508|TWO_SIDED|||||Two-sided p-values of \< 0.05 without adjustments for multiple testing were considered statistically significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Exact Wilcoxon rank sum test was used||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between arm A and arm B in the differences of the changes (\[week 44 - week 24\] - \[week 20 - baseline\]) in CD8+ T-cell activation percent (% CD38+/DR+ of CD8+)||||0.508
90901518|NCT00180713|181669017|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.028
91104319|NCT02539394|182094885|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.017|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of POD1 SWAL-QOL - Burden is the same across the 2 arms||||0.017
90853443|NCT04214288|181570529|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.4828||90.0|0.63|3.31|||Regression, Logistic|The analysis was performed using logistic regression model adjusting for prior use of CDK4/6 inhibitors and presence of lung and/or liver metastasis.|An odds ratio \> 1 favours AZD9833.|||3.31|0.63|0.4828
90853444|NCT04214288|181570529|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.57||||0.3691||90.0|0.69|3.67|||Regression, Logistic|The analysis was performed using logistic regression model adjusting for prior use of CDK4/6 inhibitors and presence of lung and/or liver metastasis.|An odds ratio \> 1 favours AZD9833.|||3.67|0.69|0.3691
90901519|NCT00180713|181669018|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis was performed by intention to treat at 6 months and per protocol at 12 months. Missing variables were replaced with medians or means (for variables missing at baseline) or with expected variables calculated on the percentage change between baseline and 24 weeks observed for the group (placebo or statin) as a whole (a technique called imputation). Missing variables accounted for less than 5% of the data and there were no missing CMR data at baseline.||||0.86
90901520|NCT00180713|181669019|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis was performed by intention to treat at 6 months and per protocol at 12 months. Missing variables were replaced with medians or means (for variables missing at baseline) or with expected variables calculated on the percentage change between baseline and 24 weeks observed for the group (placebo or statin) as a whole (a technique called imputation). Missing variables accounted for less than 5% of the data and there were no missing CMR data at baseline.||||0.4
90901521|NCT00180713|181669020|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.041|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.041
91104320|NCT02539394|182094885|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.015|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of POD2 SWAL-QOL - Burden is the same across the 2 arms||||0.015
90901522|NCT00180713|181669021|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.26
90901523|NCT05295732|181669025|SUPERIORITY||treatment difference|-1.0||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.4|16.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||16.5|-18.4|0.39
90901524|NCT05200936|181669070|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7145||||||p-value is 1-sided|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7145
90901525|NCT05200936|181669071|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9613|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.9613
90853445|NCT04214288|181570533|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.2554|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|2.64|||Regression, Logistic|The analysis was performed using logistic regression model adjusting for prior use of CDK4/6 inhibitors and presence of lung and/or liver metastasis.|An odds ratio \> 1 favours AZD9833.|||2.64|0.84|0.2554
90901526|NCT00405353|181669089|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear regressions were used to determine slopes of brain volume changes. Statistical software package SAS was used to perform the analysis.||Percent change in brain volume against time scatter plot with a Loess regression curve was produced and a first-degree spline model was developed. This model fitted line pieces for pre-treatment and early treatment periods (month -6 to month 3) and treatment response period (months 3-12), and these pieces were joined together to achieve continuity. Slopes of these lines were estimated and compared. A random intercept was set in the model to allow the difference among subjects.||||<0.05
90853446|NCT04214288|181570533|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.62||||0.1658||90.0|0.91|2.89|||Regression, Logistic|The analysis was performed using logistic regression model adjusting for prior use of CDK4/6 inhibitors and presence of lung and/or liver metastasis.|An odds ratio \> 1 favours AZD9833.|||2.89|0.91|0.1658
90853447|NCT04902326|181570548|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Regression, Linear|||Compare the mean decrease of HbA1c of the Combo Arm, Financial Incentives arm, and the Tailored Messages arm each with the EUC arm.||||0.78
90901527|NCT03469284|181669090|OTHER|||||||0.0034|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0034
90901528|NCT03469284|181669091|OTHER|||||||0.0008|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0008
90901529|NCT03469284|181669093|OTHER|||||||0.9182|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.9182
90901530|NCT03469284|181669094|OTHER|||||||0.1046|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1046
90901531|NCT01288781|181669095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98||||||P \< 0.05 considered statistically significant.|ANOVA|Adjustments to the degrees of freedom were made when assumptions of sphericity were violated.||Omnibus analysis was performed. 2 (drug: Acetazolamide versus placebo) \* 2 (susceptibility: high altitude headache resistant versus high altitude headache susceptible) \* 6 (time: sea level, 3 \& 12; high altitude, 3, 12, 24 \& 36 hours) analysis of variance with repeated measures on the third factor. Data presented here are for the drug \* time interaction.||||0.98
90901532|NCT01288781|181669096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63||95.0||||P \< 0.05 considered statistically significant.|ANOVA|Adjustments to the degrees of freedom were made when assumptions of sphericity were violated.||Omnibus analysis was performed. 2 (drug: Acetazolamide versus placebo) \* 2 (susceptibility: high altitude headache resistant versus high altitude headache susceptible) \* 6 (time: sea level, 3 \& 12; high altitude, 3, 12, 24 \& 36 hours) analysis of variance with repeated measures on the third factor. Data presented here are for the drug \* time interaction.||||0.63
90901533|NCT01288781|181669097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2||95.0||||P \< 0.05 considered statistically significant.|ANOVA|Adjustments to the degrees of freedom were made when assumptions of sphericity were violated.||Omnibus analysis was performed. 2 (drug: Acetazolamide versus placebo) \* 2 (susceptibility: high altitude headache resistant versus high altitude headache susceptible) \* 6 (time: sea level, 3 \& 12; high altitude, 3, 12, 24 \& 36 hours) analysis of variance with repeated measures on the third factor. Data presented here are for the drug \* time interaction.||||0.20
90901534|NCT01288781|181669098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0||||P \< 0.05 considered statistically significant.|ANOVA|Adjustments to the degrees of freedom were made when assumptions of sphericity were violated.||Omnibus analysis was performed. 2 (drug: Acetazolamide versus placebo) \* 2 (susceptibility: high altitude headache resistant versus high altitude headache susceptible) \* 6 (time: sea level, 3 \& 12; high altitude, 3, 12, 24 \& 36 hours) analysis of variance with repeated measures on the third factor. Data presented here are for the drug \* time interaction.||||<0.01
90901535|NCT01288781|181669098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0||||Step down Holm Bonferroni correction was applied|t-test, 2 sided|||Post hoc follow up test. T test between acetazolamide and placebo on data at 24 hr time point.||||<0.01
90901536|NCT01288781|181669099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98||95.0||||P \< 0.05 considered statistically significant.|ANOVA|Adjustments to the degrees of freedom were made when assumptions of sphericity were violated.||Omnibus analysis was performed. 2 (drug: Acetazolamide versus placebo) \* 2 (susceptibility: high altitude headache resistant versus high altitude headache susceptible) \* 6 (time: sea level, 3 \& 12; high altitude, 3, 12, 24 \& 36 hours) analysis of variance with repeated measures on the third factor. Data presented here are for the drug \* time interaction.||||0.98
90901537|NCT01288781|181669100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98||95.0||||P \< 0.05 considered statistically significant.|ANOVA|Adjustments to the degrees of freedom were made when assumptions of sphericity were violated.||Omnibus analysis was performed. 2 (drug: Acetazolamide versus placebo) \* 2 (susceptibility: high altitude headache resistant versus high altitude headache susceptible) \* 6 (time: sea level, 3 \& 12; high altitude, 3, 12, 24 \& 36 hours) analysis of variance with repeated measures on the third factor. Data presented here are for the drug \* time interaction.||||0.98
90901538|NCT01288781|181669101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98||95.0||||P \< 0.05 considered statistically significant.|ANOVA|Adjustments to the degrees of freedom were made when assumptions of sphericity were violated.||Omnibus analysis was performed. 2 (drug: Acetazolamide versus placebo) \* 2 (susceptibility: high altitude headache resistant versus high altitude headache susceptible) \* 6 (time: sea level, 3 \& 12; high altitude, 3, 12, 24 \& 36 hours) analysis of variance with repeated measures on the third factor. Data presented here are for the drug \* time interaction.||||0.98
90901539|NCT01946243|181669102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test to test whether the change is equal to zero or not.||||0.0029
90901540|NCT01946243|181669103|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority demonstrated if the lower bound of the one-sided 97.5% confidence interval is greater than -3%.|Mean Difference (Net)|4.2|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|2.7||||||Units: Percent Accuracy||||2.7|
90901541|NCT01946243|181669104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||lower bound of two-sided 95% CI|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.018|0.112||||||Superiority demonstrated if lower bound of two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) greater than 0, for the change in kappa statistic.||0.112|0.018|
91104321|NCT02539394|182094885|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.125|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of 4-6 weeks SWAL-QOL - Burden is the same across the 2 arms||||0.125
90853448|NCT04902326|181570549|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||Regression, Linear|||Compare the mean decrease of HbA1c of the Combo Arm, Financial Incentives arm, and the Tailored Messages arm each with the EUC arm.||||0.64
91032818|NCT00840866|181950994|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model containing factors for sequence of products, subjects within sequence, periods, and products was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|99.9||||||90.0|98.6|101.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||101|98.6|
90853449|NCT04902326|181570550|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||Regression, Linear|||Compare the mean decrease of weight of the Combo Arm, Financial Incentives arm, and the Tailored Messages arm each with the EUC arm.||||0.87
90853450|NCT04902326|181570551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||Regression, Linear|||Compare the mean decrease of weight of the Combo Arm, Financial Incentives arm, and the Tailored Messages arm each with the EUC arm.||||0.87
90853451|NCT04902326|181570552|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Linear|||Compare the mean months engaged (with DPP or metformin) of the Combo Arm, Financial Incentives arm, and the Tailored Messages arm each with the EUC arm.||||<0.0001
90853452|NCT02397564|181570553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.019
90853453|NCT01848782|181570555|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.7|-0.4|0.5
90853454|NCT01848782|181570556|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.6|-0.5|0.8
90853455|NCT01848782|181570557|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.7|-0.4|0.6
90853456|NCT01848782|181570558|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.5|-0.6|0.8
90853457|NCT01848782|181570559|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.2|-1.0|0.2
90853458|NCT04761627|181570564|EQUIVALENCE|The prespecified similarity margin was 0.8 to 1.25.|Geometric Least Squares (LS) Means Ratio|0.9325|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8874|0.9799|||||Switching group vs Continued-use group.|The ratio of geometric LS means, and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model adjusted for the actual stratification factors if prior biologic use for psoriasis, baseline body weight group, geographic region, and PK trough concentration at week 28.||0.9799|0.8874|
90853459|NCT04761627|181570565|EQUIVALENCE|The prespecified similarity margin was 0.8 to 1.25.|Geometric LS Means Ratio|0.9483|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8977|1.0018|||||Switching group vs Continued-use group.|The ratio of geometric LS means, and 90% CIs were estimated using the ANCOVA model adjusted for the actual stratification factors if prior biologic use for psoriasis, baseline body weight group, geographic region, and PK trough concentration at week 28.||1.0018|0.8977|
90853460|NCT04761627|181570567|EQUIVALENCE|The prespecified similarity margin was 0.8 to 1.25.|Geometric LS Means Ratio|0.9617|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8319|1.1119|||||Ctrough,ss at Week 28: Switching group vs Continued-use group|The ratio of Geometric LS means, and 90% CI for Ctrough,ss at week 28 were estimated based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for the actual stratification factors of prior biologic use for psoriasis, baseline body weight group, and geographic region.||1.1119|0.8319|
90853461|NCT04761627|181570567|EQUIVALENCE|The prespecified similarity margin was 0.8 to 1.25.|Geometric LS Means Ratio|0.9662|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8879|1.0515|||||Ctrough,ss at Week 40: Switching group vs Continued-use group|The ratio of geometric LS means, and 90% CI for Ctrough,ss at week 40 between the 2 treatment groups were estimated using an ANCOVA model adjusting for stratification factors and PK trough concentration at week 28.||1.0515|0.8879|
90853462|NCT04761627|181570567|EQUIVALENCE|The prespecified similarity margin was 0.8 to 1.25.|Geomtric LS Means Ratio|0.9806|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8916|1.0785|||||Ctrough,ss at Week 52: Switching group vs Continued-use group|The ratio of geometric LS means, and 90% CI for Ctrough,ss at week 52 between the 2 treatment groups were estimated using an ANCOVA model adjusting for stratification factors and PK trough concentration at week 28.||1.0785|0.8916|
90901542|NCT01946243|181669105|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority demonstrated if the lower bound of the one-sided 97.5% confidence interval is greater than -3%.|Mean Difference (Net)|2.3|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|0.8||||||Units: Percent Accuracy||||0.8|
90901543|NCT01946243|181669106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||lower bound of two-sided 95% CI|0.07||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.007|0.125|||Monte Carlo test|||Superiority demonstrated if lower bound of two-sided 95% CI greater than 0, for the change in kappa statistic.||0.125|0.007|0.0280
90901544|NCT01946243|181669107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test to test whether the change is equal to zero or not.||||0.0025
90901545|NCT01242176|181669108|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability|Geometric Mean Ratio|101.67|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.1|105.37|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV).|Ratio calculated as empa final formulation divided by empa trial formulation 2||105.37|98.10|
90853463|NCT04761627|181570568|EQUIVALENCE|The prespecified similarity margin was 0.8 to 1.25.|Mean difference|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.62|2.77|||||Mean difference in PASI percent improvement from baseline at Week 64: Switching group - Continued-use group|Multiple imputation was applied for the point estimate and CI of the mean difference between the switching and continued-use groups. Missing PASI scores at the week 64 visit were imputed by MI.||2.77|-2.62|
90853464|NCT04761627|181570569|EQUIVALENCE|The prespecified similarity margin was 0.8 to 1.25.|Response difference|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.7|6.2|||||Response difference in PASI 75 Response at Week 64: Switching group - Continued-use group|Response difference was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate, and the 90% CIs were estimated by the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for the prior biologic use of psoriasis, baseline body weight group, geographic region. Missing post-baseline binary response data were imputed by NRI.||6.2|-5.7|
90901546|NCT01242176|181669109|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability|Geometric Mean Ratio|99.46|STANDARD_DEVIATION|18.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.18|109.68|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the gCV.|Ratio calculated as empa final formulation divided by empa trial formulation 2||109.68|90.18|
90958088|NCT01874431|181795947|OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-2.446||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.869|-0.022|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.022|-4.869|0.048
91032819|NCT00840866|181950995|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model containing factors for sequence of products, subjects within sequence, periods, and products was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|99.8||||||90.0|98.5|101.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||101|98.5|
91099927|NCT01579305|182086064|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is pre-defined as 15% i.e., if the difference in responder rates is significantly greater than -15% (i.e., the lower confidence limit is greater than -15%), statistical non-inferiority of VOLBELLA® to Restylane-L® is established.|Difference in responder rates|4.9|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|-6.7||||||Difference in responder rates is calculated as the responder rate at Month 3 for VOLBELLA® minus the responder rate at Month 3 for Restylane-L®.|The null hypothesis is that VOLBELLA® is inferior to Restylane-L® in terms of responder rate at Month 3, and the alternative hypothesis is that VOLBELLA® is inferior to Restylane-L® in terms of responder rate at Month 3 with 15% pre-defined non-inferiority margin. To test the null hypothesis, a difference in responder rates of these products (VOLBELLA® - Restylane-L®) at Month 3 and a 1-sided 97.5% Wald confidence interval for the difference is calculated.|||-6.7|
90853465|NCT04761627|181570570|EQUIVALENCE|The prespecified similarity margin was 0.8 to 1.25.|Response difference|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.4|7.8|||||Response difference in PASI 100 Response at Week 64: Switching group - Continued-use group|Response difference was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate, and the 90% CIs were estimated by the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for the prior biologic use of psoriasis, baseline body weight group, geographic region. Missing post-baseline binary response data were imputed by NRI.||7.8|-7.4|
90901547|NCT01242176|181669110|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability|Geometric Mean Ratio|101.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.26|105.48|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the gCV.|Ratio calculated as empa final formulation divided by empa trial formulation 2||105.48|98.26|
90901548|NCT00358215|181669111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.13||Stratification factors are: region and type of device (cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) with or without implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD), ICD without CRT, or none)|Stratified Log Rank||The hazard ratio and 95% confidence intervals are from the Cox proportional hazards model adjusted by the stratification factors.|||1.13|0.90|0.871
90901549|NCT00358215|181669112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.19||Stratification factors are: region and type of device (cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) with or without implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD), ICD without CRT, or none).|Stratified Log Rank||The hazard ratio and 95% confidence intervals are from the Cox proportional hazards model adjusted by the stratification factors.|||1.19|0.92|0.512
90901550|NCT00358215|181669113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.14||Stratification factors are: region and type of device (cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) with or without implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD), ICD without CRT, or none).|Stratified Log Rank||The hazard ratio and 95% confidence intervals are from the Cox proportional hazards model adjusted by the stratification factors.|||1.14|0.89|0.922
90901551|NCT00358215|181669114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|3.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model estimating treatment effect adjusted for region, type of device, and Baseline KCCQ score.||||3.75|0.65|0.005
90901552|NCT00358215|181669115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|4.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model estimating treatment effect adjusted for region, type of device, and Baseline KCCQ score.||||4.05|0.53|0.011
90901553|NCT00871351|181669116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|-5.8|||Hochberg's method|||||-5.8|-15.4|<0.0001
90901554|NCT00871351|181669116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-26.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.8|-21.2|||Hochberg's method|||||-21.2|-31.8|<0.0001
90901555|NCT00871351|181669117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0003||95.0|||||Hochberg's method|||||||0.0003
90901556|NCT00871351|181669117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Hochberg's method|||||||<0.0001
90901557|NCT02291289|181669150|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95|||=|0.872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.82|||Log Rank|||||1.82|0.50|= 0.872
90901558|NCT02291289|181669150|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95|||=|0.666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.18|||Log Rank|||||1.18|0.77|= 0.666
90901559|NCT02291289|181669150|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.44|||=|0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.29|||Log Rank|||||2.29|0.90|= 0.128
90901560|NCT02291289|181669151|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||=|0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.32|||Log Rank|||||1.32|0.39|= 0.276
90901561|NCT02291289|181669151|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81|||=|0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.02|||Log Rank|||||1.02|0.64|= 0.076
90901562|NCT02291289|181669151|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.157|||||||Log Rank|||||||= 0.157
90901563|NCT02291289|181669151|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.25|||=|0.415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.14|||Log Rank|||||2.14|0.73|= 0.415
90901564|NCT02291289|181669153|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.064|||||||Chi-squared|||||||= 0.064
90901565|NCT02291289|181669153|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.658|||||||Chi-squared|||||||= 0.658
90901566|NCT02291289|181669153|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.093|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.093
90901567|NCT02291289|181669154|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.125|||||||Chi-squared|||||||= 0.125
90901568|NCT02291289|181669154|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.739|||||||Chi-squared|||||||= 0.739
90901569|NCT02291289|181669154|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.362|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.362
90901570|NCT02291289|181669156|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.421|||||||Log Rank|||||||= 0.421
90901571|NCT02291289|181669156|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.495|||||||Log Rank|||||||= 0.495
90901572|NCT02291289|181669156|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.357|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.357
90901573|NCT01017120|181669158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The p-value indicates treatment differences between tazarotene foam and vehicle foam for ILs|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90901574|NCT01017120|181669158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The p-value indicates treatment differences between tazarotene foam and vehicle foam for NILs|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90901575|NCT01017120|181669158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The p-value indicates treatment differences between tazarotene foam and vehicle foam for TLs|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90901576|NCT01017120|181669159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|32.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.4|36.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants receiving tazarotene foam with a minimum 2 G improvement in the ISGA score from Baseline at Week 12.|||36.9|27.4|<0.001
90901577|NCT01017120|181669159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|18.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.2|22.1|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants receiving vehicle foam with a minimum 2 G improvement in the ISGA score from Baseline at Week 12.|||22.1|14.2|
90901578|NCT01017120|181669160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|27.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.1|32.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants receiving tazarotene foam with an ISGA score of 0 or 1 at Week 12.|||32.2|23.1|<0.001
91099928|NCT02384460|182086065|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.004||||0.985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.651|1.549||p-value is for Type 3 chi-square test for comparison between treatments.|Cox Model Analysis|||Cox proportional hazards model compares treatment groups with baseline target wound size, target wound age, and EB type as covariates.||1.549|0.651|0.985
90853466|NCT04761627|181570572|EQUIVALENCE|The prespecified similarity margin was 0.8 to 1.25.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.17|3.1|||||Switching group - continued-use group|Risk difference for any EOI: risk difference and CIs were estimated by Wald asymptotic confidence limits, or exact confidence limits if n \< 25 for either treatment.||3.10|-4.17|
90853467|NCT02757950|181570574|OTHER|The comparison of the relative risk with its two sided 95% CI of each primary endpoint between the Exposed cohort and the Unexposed cohort was obtained by means of logistic regression model, using the exposure status as a binary independent variable in the model. Absence of increased relative risk was concluded if the respective 95% CI contained 1.|Incidence rate ratio|0.548||||0.1147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.259|1.157||A multiple logistic regression model was fitted with a backward selection to identify the possible confounding factors for each of the primary safety event using an alpha level of 0.1.|Regression, Logistic|||The analysis contained only the subjects with vaccination date in the Exposed cohort and subjects from the Unexposed cohort.||1.157|0.259|0.1147
90901579|NCT01017120|181669160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|13.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.8|16.7|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants receiving vehicle foam with an ISGA score of 0 or 1 at Week 12.|||16.7|9.8|
90901580|NCT01118455|181669184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.507|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.507
90901581|NCT01118455|181669184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.220
90901582|NCT01118455|181669184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.168||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.168
90901583|NCT01118455|181669184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.620
90901584|NCT01118455|181669185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.727|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.727
90901585|NCT01118455|181669185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.217|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.217
90901586|NCT01118455|181669185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.270
90901587|NCT01118455|181669185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.036
90901588|NCT01118455|181669186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.448||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.448
90901589|NCT01118455|181669186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.025
90901590|NCT01118455|181669186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.799|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.799
90901591|NCT01118455|181669186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.142|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.142
90901592|NCT01118455|181669187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.714||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.714
90901593|NCT01118455|181669187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.426||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.426
90901594|NCT01118455|181669187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.467|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.467
90901595|NCT01118455|181669187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.654|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.654
90901596|NCT01118455|181669188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.691|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.691
90901597|NCT01118455|181669188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.494|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.494
90901598|NCT01118455|181669188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.343|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.343
90901599|NCT01118455|181669188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.295|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.295
90901600|NCT03377790|181669192|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Differences between treatments arms are compared using a chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
90901601|NCT03377790|181669193|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0067|||||||Chi-squared|Differences between treatments arms are compared using a chi-square test.||||||0.0067
90901602|NCT03377790|181669194|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0152|||||||Chi-squared|Differences between treatments arms are compared using a chi-square test.||||||0.0152
90901603|NCT03377790|181669195|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0302|||||||Chi-squared|Differences between treatments arms are compared using a chi-square test.||||||0.0302
90901604|NCT03377790|181669196|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5921|||||||ANCOVA|Differences between Tx arms are compared using an ANCOVA with treatment as the independent factor and baseline CDLQI composite score as the covariate.||||||0.5921
90901605|NCT03377790|181669197|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Differences between treatment arms are compared using an ANCOVA, with treatment as the independent factor and baseline lesion count as the covariate.||||||<0.0001
90901606|NCT03377790|181669198|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Differences between treatment arms are compared using an ANCOVA, with treatment as the independent factor and baseline lesion count as the covariate.||||||<0.0001
90901607|NCT03377790|181669199|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|Differences between treatments arms are compared using a chi-square test.||||||<0.0001
90901608|NCT03377790|181669200|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|Differences between treatments arms are compared using a chi-square test.||||||<0.0001
90901609|NCT03377790|181669201|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.052|||||||Chi-squared|Differences between treatments arms are compared using a chi-square test.||||||0.0520
90901610|NCT00919893|181669204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Null hypothesis: Cernilton compared to placebo induces a better or the same outcome of symptomatic improvement in the pain domain of symptomatic Pelvic Pain Syndrome verified by the National Institutes of Health-Chronic Prostatitis Symptom Index (NIH-CPSI).~Power calculation: A power of 1-beta=0.8 was calculated."||||<0.05
91104322|NCT02539394|182094886|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.043|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of Pre-operative SWAL-QOL - Eating desire is the same across the 2 arms||||0.043
90901611|NCT01622543|181669206|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.59||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.53|||Log Rank|||||2.53|1.00|0.046
90901612|NCT01622543|181669207|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.45
90901613|NCT01622543|181669208|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.09||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|4.55|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.55|0.96|0.06
90901614|NCT01622543|181669209|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.24||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.98|||Log Rank|||||1.98|0.78|0.36
90901615|NCT00345384|181669210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Precentage Difference|41.0||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided||The percentage in opioid use by the dexmedetomidine group in comparison to the placebo for the period of time on study drug is calculated as follows: numerator = 29, denominator = 49.|||||0.03
90901616|NCT00345384|181669210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage difference|35.0||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided||A measure of opioid use, weighted for total time on study drug. This is examined by a comparison of the dexmedetomidine group to the placebo group: numerator = 35, denominator = 54.|||||0.04
90901617|NCT00345384|181669211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The p-value reported in this table corresponds with the 6 to 16 hour time frame.||||0.02
90901618|NCT00365378|181669212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|94.3||||||95.0|87.8|97.7|||||"Vaccine Efficacy (% relative risk reduction)~Confidence Interval based on binomial tail probabilities and not from a dispersion parameter."|||97.7|87.8|
90901619|NCT00365378|181669213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|100.0||||||95.0|84.0|100.0|||||"Vaccine Efficacy (% relative risk reduction)~Confidence Interval based on binomial tail probabilities and not from a dispersion parameter."|||100.0|84.0|
90901620|NCT01421589|181669274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Regression, Linear|||Univariate regression analyses was performed to assess the relationship between change in skeletal muscle IGF-1 mRNA expression after 12 weeks treatment with rhGH and change in ViPCr.||||0.02
90901621|NCT01421589|181669275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90901622|NCT01421589|181669276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
90901623|NCT01421589|181669277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
90901624|NCT01421589|181669278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
90901625|NCT01421589|181669279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
90901626|NCT01421589|181669280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
90901627|NCT00249496|181669299|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.73||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|8.69|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||8.69|1.60|.004
90901628|NCT00249496|181669301|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8|||=|0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|2.43|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||2.43|0.26|=0.57
90901629|NCT00249496|181669303|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)||The Odds Ratio and Confidence Intervals could not be calculated because one of the groups was at 0.|||0|0|0.046
90901630|NCT00759772|181669306|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||Calculated p-value.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||< 0.01
90901631|NCT04548531|181669346|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.94|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.94|0.41|<.001
90901632|NCT04548531|181669347|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.0||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|35.0|||Chi-squared|||||35|7|0.003
90901633|NCT04548531|181669348|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.0||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|16.0|||Chi-squared|||We tested for a clear preference for screening, if a patient chose a colonoscopy or a stool-based test vs. the other response options.||16|-10|.75
90901634|NCT04548531|181669349|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.0||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|26.0|||Chi-squared|||We categorized for likelihood to follow through with screening. We reported on results from patients who indicated 'Very Likely' on their response option vs. the other options (likely, unsure, unlikely, very unlikely)||26|-3|0.14
90901635|NCT04548531|181669350|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|18.0|||Chi-squared|||Assessed how many patients completed any colorectal cancer screening test within 6-months after randomization.||18|6|<.001
90901636|NCT01108510|181669378|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: ATV+COBI+FTC/TDF group was at least 12% worse than the ATV+RTV+FTC/TDF group; alternative hypothesis: ATV+COBI+FTC/TDF group was less than 12% worse than the ATV+RTV+FTC/TDF group. ATV+COBI+FTC/TDF was noninferior if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95.2% confidence interval (CI) (COBI group - RTV group) was \> -12%.|Difference in percentages|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.2|-7.4|3.0|||||Difference in percentages of success and its 95.2% confidence interval (CI) were calculated based on baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel (MH) proportion.|700 planned subjects had 95% power to evaluate noninferiority assuming a response rate of 79.5% for both arms and a noninferiority margin of 12%.||3.0|-7.4|
90901637|NCT01108510|181669379|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was that the response rate in the ATV+COBI+FTC/TDF group was at least 12% worse than the response rate in ATV+RTV+FTC/TDF group; the alternative hypothesis was that the response rate in the ATV+COBI+FTC/TDF group was less than 12% worse than that in the ATV+RTV+FTC/TDF group.|Difference in percentages|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|4.7|||||Difference in percentages of success and its 95% CI were calculated based on baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum-adjusted MH proportion.|||4.7|-7.6|
90958089|NCT01874431|181795948|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-2.863||||0.0757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.022|0.297|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.297|-6.022|0.0757
90958090|NCT01874431|181795948|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.643||||0.6941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.851|2.565|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.565|-3.851|0.6941
90958091|NCT01874431|181795948|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-1.976||||0.2228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.155|1.203|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.203|-5.155|0.2228
91104323|NCT02539394|182094886|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.606|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of POD1 SWAL-QOL - Eating desire is the same across the 2 arms||||0.606
91104324|NCT02539394|182094886|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.155|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of POD2 SWAL-QOL - Eating desire is the same across the 2 arms||||0.155
90958092|NCT01874431|181795948|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-1.932||||0.2313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.098|1.234|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.234|-5.098|0.2313
90901638|NCT01108510|181669380|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was that the response rate in the ATV+COBI+FTC/TDF group was at least 12% worse than the response rate in ATV+RTV+FTC/TDF group; the alternative hypothesis was that the response rate in the ATV+COBI+FTC/TDF group was less than 12% worse than that in the ATV+RTV+FTC/TDF group.|Difference in percentages|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|4.5|||||Difference in percentages of success and its 95% CI were calculated based on baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum-adjusted MH proportion.|||4.5|-8.7|
90901639|NCT01108510|181669381|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was that the response rate in the ATV+COBI+FTC/TDF group was at least 12% worse than the response rate in ATV+RTV+FTC/TDF group; the alternative hypothesis was that the response rate in the ATV+COBI+FTC/TDF group was less than 12% worse than that in the ATV+RTV+FTC/TDF group.|Difference in percentages|-8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.2|6.3|||||Difference in percentages of success and its 95% CI were calculated based on baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum-adjusted MH proportion.|||6.3|-22.2|
90901640|NCT01108510|181669382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean (LSM)|-5.0||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.0|18.0||P-values were obtained from an ANOVA model including baseline HIV-1 RNA category in the model.|ANOVA||The difference in LSM and its 95% CI were computed using ANOVA model, including baseline HIV-1 RNA category in the model.|||18|-28|0.67
90901641|NCT01108510|181669383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|-10.0||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.0|19.0||P-values were obtained from an ANOVA model including baseline HIV-1 RNA category in the model.|ANOVA||The difference in LSM and its 95% CI were computed using ANOVA model, including baseline HIV-1 RNA category in the model.|||19|-38|0.51
90901642|NCT01108510|181669384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|-22.0||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.0|10.0||P-values were obtained from an ANOVA model including baseline HIV-1 RNA category in the model.|ANOVA||The difference in LSM and its 95% CI were computed using ANOVA model, including baseline HIV-1 RNA category in the model.|||10|-54|0.18
90901643|NCT01108510|181669385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|6.0||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.0|67.0||P-values were obtained from an ANOVA model including baseline HIV-1 RNA category in the model.|ANOVA||The difference in LSM and its 95% CI were computed using ANOVA model, including baseline HIV-1 RNA category in the model.|||67|-55|0.84
90901644|NCT02340520|181669433|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
90958093|NCT01874431|181795948|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-3.342||||0.0386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.509|-0.176|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.176|-6.509|0.0386
90958094|NCT01874431|181795948|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.634||||0.677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.624|2.355|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.355|-3.624|0.677
91031115|NCT02937701|181946883|EQUIVALENCE|Clinical equivalence for the primary endpoint was to be evaluated sequentially by first comparing the 2-sided 90% CI for RD of ACR20 at week 22 between ABP 710 and infliximab with an equivalence margin of (-15%, 15%). If the first test was successful, RD of ACR20 at week 22 was to be further evaluated by comparing the 2-sided 90% CI between ABP 710 and infliximab with an equivalence margin of (-12%, 15%).|Response Difference|9.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.67|15.96||||||For the primary analysis of ACR20, the response difference (RD) was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel (MH) estimate and the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) of RD were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use for RA).||15.96|2.67|
90901645|NCT02340520|181669434|OTHER||||||>|0.1|||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.1
90958095|NCT01874431|181795948|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.688||||0.6536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.699|2.322|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.322|-3.699|0.6536
90958096|NCT01874431|181795949|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-3.044||||0.0816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.471|0.383|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.383|-6.471|0.0816
91104325|NCT02539394|182094886|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.019|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of 4-6 weeks SWAL-QOL - Eating desire is the same across the 2 arms||||0.019
90901646|NCT01586338|181669436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for significance = 0.05.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.0001
90901647|NCT01586338|181669436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Sign Rank Test|||||||<0.0001
90901648|NCT01544491|181669462|NON_INFERIORITY|Kaplan-Meier estimates and between treatment differences are estimated using the Kaplan-Meier product-limit formula and 80% confidence intervals derived using standard errors estimated from Greenwood's formula.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.25||0.9712|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.6|6.8|||Log Rank|||at 12 months||6.8|-6.6|0.9712
90901649|NCT01544491|181669462|NON_INFERIORITY|Kaplan-Meier estimates and between treatment differences are estimated using the Kaplan-Meier product-limit formula and 80% confidence intervals derived using standard errors estimated from Greenwood's formula.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.84||0.9634|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-7.3|7.7|||Log Rank|||36 months||7.7|-7.3|0.9634
90901650|NCT01544491|181669463|NON_INFERIORITY|KM estimates and between treatment differences are estimated using the Kaplan-Meier product-limit formula and 80% confidence intervals derived using standard errors estimated from Greenwood's formula.|Mean Difference (Net)|5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.26||0.3455|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.8|11.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||at 12 months||11.8|-1.8|0.3455
90901651|NCT01544491|181669463|NON_INFERIORITY|KM estimates and between treatment differences are estimated using the Kaplan-Meier product-limit formula and 80% confidence intervals derived using standard errors estimated from Greenwood's formula.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.95||0.8642|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.5|7.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||36 months||7.2|-5.5|0.8642
90901652|NCT01234649|181669475|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.04|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures design||||<0.04
90901653|NCT01234649|181669476|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.005|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA||||<.005
90958097|NCT01874431|181795949|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.537||||0.7625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.027|2.953|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.953|-4.027|0.7625
90958098|NCT01874431|181795949|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-1.301|||=|0.4603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.759|2.157|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.157|-4.759|= 0.4603
90958099|NCT01874431|181795949|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-1.574||||0.3678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.004|1.855|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.855|-5.004|0.3678
90958100|NCT01874431|181795949|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-1.727||||0.3279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.191|1.736|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.736|-5.191|0.3279
90958101|NCT01874431|181795949|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-1.682||||0.3102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.935|1.57|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.57|-4.935|0.3102
90958102|NCT01874431|181795949|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-2.511||||0.1317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.778|0.755|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.755|-5.778|0.1317
90853468|NCT02757950|181570575|OTHER|The comparison of the relative risk with its two sided 95% CI of each primary endpoint between the Exposed cohort and the Unexposed cohort was obtained by means of logistic regression model, using the exposure status as a binary independent variable in the model. Absence of increased relative risk was concluded if the respective 95% CI contained 1.|Incidence rate ratio|0.428||||0.0155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.215|0.851||A multiple logistic regression model was fitted with a backward selection to identify the possible confounding factors for each of the primary safety event using an alpha level of 0.1.|Regression, Logistic|||The analysis contained only the subjects with vaccination date in the Exposed cohort and subjects from the Unexposed cohort.||0.851|0.215|0.0155
90853469|NCT02757950|181570576|OTHER|The comparison of the relative risk with its two sided 95% CI of each primary endpoint between the Exposed cohort and the Unexposed cohort was obtained by means of logistic regression model, using the exposure status as a binary independent variable in the model. Absence of increased relative risk was concluded if the respective 95% CI contained 1.|Incidence rate ratio|0.254||||0.0127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.086|0.746||A multiple logistic regression model was fitted with a backward selection to identify the possible confounding factors for each of the primary safety event using an alpha level of 0.1.|Regression, Logistic|||The analysis contained only the subjects with vaccination date in the Exposed cohort and subjects from the Unexposed cohort.||0.746|0.086|0.0127
90853470|NCT02757950|181570577|OTHER|The comparison of the relative risk with its two sided 95% CI of each primary endpoint between the Exposed cohort and the Unexposed cohort was obtained by means of logistic regression model, using the exposure status as a binary independent variable in the model. Absence of increased relative risk was concluded if the respective 95% CI contained 1.|Incidence rate ratio|0.638||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.471|0.863||A multiple logistic regression model was fitted with a backward selection to identify the possible confounding factors for each of the primary safety event using an alpha level of 0.1.|Regression, Logistic|||The analysis contained only the subjects with vaccination date in the Exposed cohort and subjects from the Unexposed cohort.||0.863|0.471|0.0036
90853471|NCT02757950|181570578|OTHER|The comparison of the relative risk with its two sided 95% CI of each primary endpoint between the Exposed cohort and the Unexposed cohort was obtained by means of logistic regression model, using the exposure status as a binary independent variable in the model. Absence of increased relative risk was concluded if the respective 95% CI contained 1.|Incidence rate ratio|1.342||||0.0931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.952|1.89||A multiple logistic regression model was fitted with a backward selection to identify the possible confounding factors for each of the primary safety event using an alpha level of 0.1.|Regression, Logistic|||The analysis contained only the subjects with vaccination date in the Exposed cohort and subjects from the Unexposed cohort.||1.890|0.952|0.0931
90853472|NCT03102190|181570590|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The analysis of the safety endpoints will be presented with means and standard deviations of their occurrence within the study population. The safety of the drug will be determined by analyzing the rate of adverse events in both phases of the trial. An occurrence of 10% within the study population will be considered significant.|||
90853473|NCT02207946|181570610|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|0.16|||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) means are from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and site included as fixed factors and baseline included as covariate.||0.16|-1.02|0.144
90901654|NCT01234649|181669477|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.011|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA||||<0.011
90853474|NCT01730937|181570646|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.0554|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.59|1.01|||Log Rank||Reference arm = Sorafenib Alone|Original design: Hypothesized 28% reduction (HR=0.72) with SBRT (corresponds to median OS = 14.5 months). Assuming an exponential distribution and constant hazards, 292 patients were required to reach 238 OS events, with 80% statistical power, a 1-sided α of 0.05. Revised design (see limitations/caveats): For same above hypotheses, at least 155 OS events from 193 randomized patients provided 65% statistical power, with a 1-sided α of 0.05.||1.01|0.59|0.0554
90853475|NCT01730937|181570647|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.99||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Gray's test||Reference arm = Sorafenib Alone|||0.99|0.48|0.034
90901655|NCT01234649|181669478|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Nested repeated measures design||||>0.05
90901656|NCT01234649|181669479|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.03|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA||||<0.03
90901657|NCT01234649|181669480|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA||||>0.05
90853476|NCT01730937|181570648|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.55||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.75||Two-sided significance level=0.05|Log Rank||Reference arm = Sorafenib Alone|||0.75|0.40|0.0001
90853477|NCT03947684|181570653|OTHER|Generalized linear model (GLM) with log link function and exchangeable correlation structure.|||||>|0.05|||||||F-test|||Significance was accepted for p values \<0.05.||||>0.05
90901658|NCT01234649|181669481|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.048|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA||||<0.048
90901659|NCT01234649|181669482|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.04|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.04
90901660|NCT01234649|181669483|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.047|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA||||<0.047
90901661|NCT01234649|181669484|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.023|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA||||<0.023
90901662|NCT01234649|181669485|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA||||>0.05
90901663|NCT01234649|181669486|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.042|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA||||0.042
90901664|NCT01234649|181669487|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA||||>0.05
90901665|NCT01234649|181669488|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA||||>0.05
90901666|NCT01234649|181669489|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA||||>0.05
90901667|NCT01234649|181669490|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.046|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA||||<0.046
90901668|NCT01234649|181669491|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.049|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA||||<0.049
90901669|NCT01234649|181669492|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA||||>0.05
90901670|NCT01234649|181669493|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA||||>0.05
90901671|NCT01234649|181669494|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA||||>0.05
90901672|NCT01234649|181669495|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA||||>0.05
90901673|NCT01234649|181669496|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA||||>0.05
91104326|NCT02539394|182094887|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of Pre-operative SWAL-QOL - Eating duration is the same across the 2 arms||||0.250
90901674|NCT00680056|181669504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|56.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|60.0||0.038||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference= Formoterol plus Tiotropium minus Formoterol plus Placebo(Tiotropium)|It was calculated a total sample size of a 2x2 cross-over design as 24 for a two-sided t-test achieves 85% power to infer that the mean difference is not zero, the actual mean difference is 20, the standard deviation of the differences is 15, and the significance level is 0.05||||0.038
91031116|NCT02937701|181946883|EQUIVALENCE|Clinical equivalence for the primary endpoint was to be evaluated sequentially by first comparing the 2-sided 90% CI for RD of ACR20 at week 22 between ABP 710 and infliximab with an equivalence margin of (-15%, 15%). If the first test was successful, RD of ACR20 at week 22 was to be further evaluated by comparing the 2-sided 90% CI between ABP 710 and infliximab with an equivalence margin of (-12%, 15%).|Response Difference|9.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.67|15.92|||||Response Difference is based on a generalized linear model with actual stratification variables (geographic region and prior biologic use for RA) as covariates in the model.|A sensitivity analysis with the RD estimate and CIs for RD of ACR20 estimated using a generalized linear model with geographic region and prior biologic use for RA as covariates was also conducted.||15.92|2.67|
91032820|NCT04638153|181951001|OTHER||least square mean difference|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.6|||||Month 3|Results based on Mixed-Effect Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis with gender as a covariate, participant (and/or time) as a random effect; treatment, visit, age and gender as fixed effects using an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.6|-0.2|
90853478|NCT03947684|181570654|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) with log link function and exchangeable correlation structure.|||||>|0.05|||||||Wald test|||Significance was accepted for p values \<0.05. Data is obtained during follicular phase.||||>0.05
90853479|NCT03947684|181570654|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) with log link function and exchangeable correlation structure.|||||<|0.05|||||||Wald test|||Significance was accepted for p values \<0.05. Data is obtained during luteal phase.||||<0.05
90853480|NCT03947684|181570655|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) with log link function and exchangeable correlation structure.|||||>|0.05|||||||Wald test|||Significance was accepted for p values \<0.05. Data is obtained during follicular phase.||||>0.05
90853481|NCT03947684|181570655|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) with log link function and exchangeable correlation structure.|||||>|0.05|||||||Wald test|||Significance was accepted for p values \<0.05. Data is obtained during luteal phase.||||>0.05
90853482|NCT03947684|181570656|OTHER|Repeated measures ANOVA|||||>|0.05|||||||F-test|||Significance was accepted for p values \<0.05.||||>0.05
90853483|NCT03947684|181570657|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) with log link function and exchangeable correlation structure.|||||>|0.05|||||||Wald test|||Significance was accepted for p values \<0.05. Data obtained during active pill phase.||||>0.05
90853484|NCT03947684|181570657|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) with log link function and exchangeable correlation structure.|||||<|0.05|||||||Wald test|||Significance was accepted for p values \<0.05. Data obtained during inactive pill phase.||||<0.05
90853485|NCT03947684|181570658|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) with log link function and exchangeable correlation structure.|||||>|0.05|||||||Wald test|||Significance was accepted for p values \<0.05. Data is obtained during follicular phase.||||>0.05
90853486|NCT03947684|181570658|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) with log link function and exchangeable correlation structure.|||||<|0.05|||||||Wald test|||Significance was accepted for p values \<0.05. Data is obtained during luteal phase.||||<0.05
90853487|NCT03947684|181570659|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) with log link function and exchangeable correlation structure.|||||>|0.05|||||||Wald test|||Significance was accepted for p values \<0.05. Data is obtained during follicular phase.||||>0.05
90853488|NCT03947684|181570659|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) with log link function and exchangeable correlation structure.|||||>|0.05|||||||Wald test|||Significance was accepted for p values \<0.05. Data is obtained during luteal phase.||||>0.05
90853489|NCT03947684|181570660|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) with log link function and exchangeable correlation structure.|||||>|0.05|||||||Wald test|||Significance was accepted for p values \<0.05. Data is obtained during follicular phase.||||>0.05
90853490|NCT03947684|181570660|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) with log link function and exchangeable correlation structure.|||||>|0.05|||||||Wald test|||Significance was accepted for p values \<0.05. Data is obtained during luteal phase.||||>0.05
91104327|NCT02539394|182094887|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.478|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of POD1 SWAL-QOL - Eating duration is the same across the 2 arms||||0.478
90853491|NCT03947684|181570661|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) with log link function and exchangeable correlation structure.|||||>|0.05|||||||Wald test|||Significance was accepted for p values \<0.05. Data is obtained during follicular phase.||||>0.05
90853492|NCT03947684|181570661|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) with log link function and exchangeable correlation structure.|||||<|0.05|||||||Wald test|||Significance was accepted for p values \<0.05. Data is obtained during luteal phase.||||<0.05
90853493|NCT03947684|181570662|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) with log link function and exchangeable correlation structure.|||||>|0.05|||||||Wald test|||Significance was accepted for p values \<0.05. Data is obtained during active pill phase.||||>0.05
90853494|NCT03947684|181570662|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) with log link function and exchangeable correlation structure.|||||>|0.05|||||||Wald test|||Significance was accepted for p values \<0.05. Data is obtained during inactive pill phase.||||>0.05
90853495|NCT03947684|181570663|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) with log link function and exchangeable correlation structure.|||||>|0.05|||||||Wald test|||Significance was accepted for p values \<0.05. Data is obtained during active pill phase.||||>0.05
90901675|NCT00680056|181669505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.88|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.39||0.054||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference=Arm 2 minus Arm 1|||||0.054
90958103|NCT02257567|181795973|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|5.82||||0.5353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.53|25.38|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||25.38|-14.53|0.5353
90958104|NCT02257567|181795973|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates (4.89|25.0||||0.0128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.89|42.63|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||42.63|4.89|0.0128
90958105|NCT02257567|181795982|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|0.69||||0.8817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.68|20.86|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||20.86|-19.68|0.8817
90958106|NCT02257567|181795982|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|27.5||||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.66|44.74|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||44.74|7.66|0.0061
90958107|NCT02257567|181795984|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|-1.0||||0.9523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.66|16.46|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||16.46|-18.66|0.9523
90958108|NCT02257567|181795984|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|30.0||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.48|47.37|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||47.37|9.48|0.0036
90958109|NCT02257567|181795985|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|3.75||||0.6574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.14|22.11|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||22.11|-15.14|0.6574
90958110|NCT02257567|181795985|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|25.0||||0.0128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.89|42.63|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||42.63|4.89|0.0128
90958111|NCT02257567|181795988|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|3.88||||0.6225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.49|21.72|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.72|-14.49|0.6225
91104328|NCT02539394|182094887|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.019|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of POD2 SWAL-QOL - Eating duration is the same across the 2 arms||||0.019
90958112|NCT02257567|181795988|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|30.0||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.94|47.12|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||47.12|9.94|0.0032
90958113|NCT02257567|181795989|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|-6.13||||0.4835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.14|12.12|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||12.12|-24.14|0.4835
90958114|NCT02257567|181795989|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|25.0||||0.0096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.39|42.33|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||42.33|5.39|0.0096
90958115|NCT02257567|181795990|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|-0.5||||0.939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.07|13.71|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||13.71|-15.07|0.9390
90958116|NCT02257567|181795990|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|37.5||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.64|54.71|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||54.71|15.64|0.0006
90958117|NCT02257567|181795991|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|37.5||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.82|54.62|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||54.62|15.82|0.0005
91104329|NCT02539394|182094887|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.049|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of 4-6 weeks SWAL-QOL - Eating duration is the same across the 2 arms||||0.049
90853496|NCT03947684|181570663|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) with log link function and exchangeable correlation structure.|||||<|0.05|||||||Wald test|||Significance was accepted for p values \<0.05. Data is obtained during inactive pill phase.||||<0.05
90853497|NCT03947684|181570664|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) with log link function and exchangeable correlation structure.|||||<|0.05|||||||Wald test|||Significance was accepted for p values \<0.05. Data is obtained during active pill phase.||||<0.05
90853498|NCT03947684|181570664|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) with log link function and exchangeable correlation structure.|||||<|0.05|||||||Wald test|||Significance was accepted for p values \<0.05. Data is obtained during inactive pill phase.||||<0.05
90853499|NCT03947684|181570665|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) with log link function and exchangeable correlation structure.|||||>|0.05|||||||Wald test|||Significance was accepted for p values \<0.05. Data is obtained from follicular phase.||||>0.05
90853500|NCT03947684|181570665|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) with log link function and exchangeable correlation structure.|||||>|0.05|||||||Wald test|||Significance was accepted for p values \<0.05. Data is obtained from luteal phase.||||>0.05
90853501|NCT03947684|181570667|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) with log link function and exchangeable correlation structure.|||||>|0.05|||||||Wald test|||Significance was accepted for p values \<0.05. Data is obtained from follicular phase.||||>0.05
90958118|NCT02257567|181795992|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.42||||0.0245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.91|||Log Rank|||||0.91|0.19|0.0245
90958119|NCT02257567|181795993|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.2451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.43|||Log Rank|||||1.43|0.25|0.2451
90958120|NCT02257567|181795994|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.56|||Log Rank|||||0.56|0.20|<.0001
90958121|NCT02257567|181795995|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.39||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.66|||Log Rank|||||0.66|0.23|0.0003
90958122|NCT00946101|181796046|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For the calculation of the power to rule out a 10% increase of fever rate in vaccine recipients with 300 evaluable subjects (240 vaccine and 60 placebo recipients), it is assumed that the true fever rate in the monovalent vaccine group is 3.0% to 8.0%,and the true fever rate in placebo group is 0% to 3% lower than the fever rate in the vaccine group.|rate difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|3.1|||score|||The rate of subjects with fever between the two treatment groups was compared based on the upper limit of the two-sided 95% exact confidence intervals for the rate difference (Vaccine minus Placebo). The upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence intervals was evaluated against the pre-specified equivalence criterion of 10% which corresponds to the following hypotheses: H0 (null): rate difference ≥ 10%, HA (alternative): rate difference \< 10%||3.1|-6.4|
90958123|NCT00946101|181796047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||rate difference|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|9.8|||score|||The number of subjects who experienced a post-dose seroresponse was compared based on the upper limit of the two-sided 95% exact confidence intervals for the rate difference (Vaccine minus Placebo).||9.8|-12.8|
90958124|NCT00946101|181796048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||rate difference|4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|13.8|||score|||The number of subjects who experienced a post-dose seroresponse was compared based on the upper limit of the two-sided 95% exact confidence intervals for the rate difference (Vaccine minus Placebo).||13.8|-9.6|
90958125|NCT00946101|181796049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||rate difference|17.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.5|27.1|||score|||The number of subjects who experienced a post-dose seroresponse was compared based on the upper limit of the two-sided 95% exact confidence intervals for the rate difference (Vaccine minus Placebo).||27.1|5.5|
90958977|NCT01191268|181798008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.02||||0.879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.3||Treatment comparison of Daily Mean values at 52 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.30|-0.26|0.879
90958126|NCT00946101|181796050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||rate difference|5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|17.6|||score|||Rates of solicited symptoms following each dose (Days 1 to 8 and Days 1 to 15) between the two treatment groups were compated following each dose. Exact two-sided 95% confidence intervals (Chan and Zhang, 1999) on the rate difference (Vaccine minus Placebo) were constructed. There were no prespecified equivalence criteria for the secondary analyses.||17.6|-8.4|
90958127|NCT00946101|181796053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||rate difference|13.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|25.7|||score|||Rates of solicited symptoms following each dose (Days 1 to 8 and Days 1 to 15) between the two treatment groups were compared following each dose. Exact two-sided 95% confidence intervals (Chan and Zhang, 1999) on the rate difference (Vaccine minus Placebo) were constructed. There were no prespecified equivalence criteria for the secondary analyses.||25.7|-0.4|
90958128|NCT00946101|181796056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||rate difference|-6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|6.1|||score|||Rates of solicited symptoms following each dose (Days 1 to 8 and Days 1 to 15) between the two treatment groups were compared following each dose. Exact two-sided 95% confidence intervals (Chan and Zhang, 1999) on the rate difference (Vaccine minus Placebo) were constructed. There were no prespecified equivalence criteria for the secondary analyses.||6.1|-19.7|
90958129|NCT00946101|181796059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||rate difference|-6.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.3|7.1|||score|||Rates of solicited symptoms following each dose (Days 1 to 8 and Days 1 to 15) between the two treatment groups were compared following each dose. Exact two-sided 95% confidence intervals (Chan and Zhang, 1999) on the rate difference (Vaccine minus Placebo) were constructed. There were no prespecified equivalence criteria for the secondary analyses.||7.1|-20.3|
90958130|NCT00946101|181796068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||rate difference|7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|14.7|||score|||The number of subjects who achieved a post Dose 1 HAI titer greater than or equal to 32 against the H1N1 strain was compared based on the upper limit of the two-sided 95% exact confidence intervals for the rate difference (Vaccine minus Placebo).||14.7|-6.1|
90958131|NCT00946101|181796069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||rate difference|7.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|15.1|||score|||The number of subjects who achieved a post Dose 1 HAI titer greater than or equal to 32 against the H1N1 strain was compared based on the upper limit of the two-sided 95% exact confidence intervals for the rate difference (Vaccine minus Placebo).||15.1|-5.8|
90958132|NCT00946101|181796070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||rate difference|16.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.9|25.2|||score|||The number of subjects who achieved a post Dose 2 HAI titer greater than or equal to 32 against the H1N1 strain was compared based on the upper limit of the two-sided 95% exact confidence intervals for the rate difference (Vaccine minus Placebo).||25.2|5.9|
90958133|NCT01288521|181796085|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis is that the tacrolimus biovailability alone is equal to the tacrolimus bioavailability when given with ketoconazole.||||||0.006|||||||Regression, Linear|The bioavailability with Tac alone vs. Tac +keto was compared using linear model adjusting for sex and creatinine clearance.||The bioavailability of Tac alone vs. Tac +keto was compared using a general linear model including sex and creatinine clearance as covariates.||||0.006
90853502|NCT03947684|181570667|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) with log link function and exchangeable correlation structure.|||||>|0.05|||||||Wald test|||Significance was accepted for p values \<0.05. Data is obtained from luteal phase.||||>0.05
90853503|NCT03947684|181570668|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) with log link function and exchangeable correlation structure.|||||>|0.05|||||||Wald test|||Significance was accepted for p values \<0.05. Data is obtained from follicular phase.||||>0.05
90958134|NCT02081417|181796086|NON_INFERIORITY|Based on the PCL-C if the interventions fell within 2.5 points of each other|Mean Difference (Net)|0.18||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|3.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.8|-3.4|0.01
90958135|NCT03086213|181796097|NON_INFERIORITY|the definition of non-inferiority analysis is that the new method is no less effective than standard interventions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.025||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|95.0||whether or not the p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance|t-test, 2 sided|degrees of freedom|Paravertebral nerve block arm represents the numerator and intercostal block represents the denominator for relative risk|null hypothesis||95|5|0.025
90958136|NCT03086213|181796098|SUPERIORITY|During the calculation of sample size,a sample size of 24 patients per group was calculated as being required to ensure 90% power of detecting the difference-if any-as statistically significant at the 5% level|||||<|0.05||||||the p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|degrees of freedom is defined as sample size subtraction one.||null hypothesis||||<0.05
90958137|NCT03086213|181796101|SUPERIORITY|During the calculation of sample size,a sample size of 24 patients per group was calculated as being required to ensure 90% power of detecting the difference-if any-as statistically significant at the 5% level||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Degree of freedom is defined as sample size subtraction one.||null hypothesis||||0.05
90958138|NCT02891408|181796142|OTHER||Geometric least-square mean (GLSM) ratio|181.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.0|332.0||||||AUClast of Firsocostat||332|98|
90958139|NCT02891408|181796142|OTHER||GLSM ratio|881.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|488.0|1589.0||||||AUClast of Firsocostat||1589|488|
90958140|NCT02891408|181796142|OTHER||GLSM ratio|3081.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2446.0|3881.0||||||AUClast of Firsocostat||3881|2446|
90958141|NCT02891408|181796142|OTHER||GLSM ratio|430.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|185.0|998.0||||||AUClast of GS-834773||998|185|
90958142|NCT02891408|181796142|OTHER||GLSM ratio|4417.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1867.0|10449.0||||||AUClast of GS-834773||10449|1867|
90958143|NCT02891408|181796142|OTHER||GLSM ratio|14676.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|7932.0|27153.0||||||AUClast of GS-834773||27153|7932|
90853504|NCT03947684|181570668|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) with log link function and exchangeable correlation structure.|||||<|0.05|||||||Wald test|||Significance was accepted for p values \<0.05. Data is obtained from luteal phase.||||<0.05
90958144|NCT02891408|181796142|OTHER||GLSM ratio|122.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.0|173.0||||||AUClast of Fenofibric Acid||173|86|
90958145|NCT02891408|181796143|OTHER||GLSM ratio|183.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.0|337.0||||||AUCinf of Firsocostat||337|100|
90958146|NCT02891408|181796143|OTHER||GLSM ratio|869.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|482.0|1568.0||||||AUCinf of Firsocostat||1568|482|
90853505|NCT03947684|181570669|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) with log link function and exchangeable correlation structure.|||||>|0.05|||||||Wald test|||Significance was accepted for p values \<0.05. Data is obtained during active pill phase.||||>0.05
90958147|NCT02891408|181796143|OTHER||GLSM ratio|2976.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2389.0|3708.0||||||AUCinf of Firsocostat||3708|2389|
90901676|NCT03688711|181669506|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||The recovery rates of dasiglucagon and placebo were evaluated using a Kaplan Meier (KM) approach, with treatment group as a stratification factor. Differences between the KM curves (dasiglucagon versus placebo) were evaluated inferentially using pairwise two-sided log-rank tests stratified by injection site.||||<0.0001
90901677|NCT03688711|181669507|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0012|||||||Fisher Exact|||Assessed at 30 minutes. The recovery rates of dasiglucagon and placebo were compared at each time point using a Fisher's exact test. Testing followed an a priori defined hierarchical inferential test order, proceeding until the first failure to reject the null hypothesis comparing dasiglucagon versus placebo.||||0.0012
90901678|NCT03688711|181669507|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||Assessed at 20 minutes. The recovery rates of dasiglucagon and placebo were compared at each time point using a Fisher's exact test. Testing followed an a priori defined hierarchical inferential test order, proceeding until the first failure to reject the null hypothesis comparing dasiglucagon versus placebo.||||<0.0001
90958148|NCT02891408|181796143|OTHER||GLSM ratio|399.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|179.0|892.0||||||AUCinf of GS-834773||892|179|
90958149|NCT02891408|181796143|OTHER||GLSM ratio|3843.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1641.0|9000.0||||||AUCinf of GS-834773||9000|1641|
90853506|NCT03947684|181570669|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) with log link function and exchangeable correlation structure.|||||>|0.05|||||||Wald test|||Significance was accepted for p values \<0.05. Data is obtained during inactive pill phase.||||>0.05
90853507|NCT03947684|181570670|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) with log link function and exchangeable correlation structure.|||||<|0.05|||||||Wald test|||Significance was accepted for p values \<0.05. Data is obtained during active pill phase.||||<0.05
90853508|NCT03947684|181570670|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) with log link function and exchangeable correlation structure.|||||>|0.05|||||||Wald test|||Significance was accepted for p values \<0.05. Data is obtained during inactive pill phase.||||>0.05
90853509|NCT03947684|181570671|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) with log link function and exchangeable correlation structure.|||||<|0.05|||||||Wald test|||Significance was accepted for p values \<0.05. Data is obtained during active pill phase.||||<0.05
90853510|NCT03947684|181570671|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) with log link function and exchangeable correlation structure.|||||>|0.05|||||||Wald test|||Significance was accepted for p values \<0.05. Data is obtained during inactive pill phase.||||>0.05
90853511|NCT03947684|181570672|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) with log link function and exchangeable correlation structure.|||||<|0.05|||||||Wald test|||Significance was accepted for p values \<0.05. Data is obtained during active pill phase.||||<0.05
90853512|NCT03947684|181570672|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) with log link function and exchangeable correlation structure.|||||>|0.05|||||||Wald test|||Significance was accepted for p values \<0.05. Data is obtained during inactive pill phase.||||>0.05
90853513|NCT05772702|181570685|OTHER|This was a single-arm, open-label trial. Reported statistics reflect changes from baseline levels.|||||<|0.0005|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||HDRS-17 change score were submitted to a t-test to estimate the group difference from 0 (i.e., no change in depression symptoms from D1 to FU2). Null hypothesis: D1 == FU2||||<0.0005
90853514|NCT05772702|181570686|OTHER|This was a single-arm, open-label trial. Reported statistics reflect changes from baseline levels.|||||<|0.0005|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||HDRS-17 change score were submitted to a t-test to estimate the group difference from 0 (i.e., no change in depression symptoms from D1 to D5). Note: D5 HDRS-17 were determined prior to receiving the final treatment on D5. Null hypothesis: D1 == D5||||<0.0005
90958150|NCT02891408|181796143|OTHER||GLSM ratio|10712.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|6525.0|17585.0||||||AUCinf of GS-834773||17585|6525|
90853515|NCT05772702|181570688|OTHER|This was a single-arm, open-label trial. Reported statistics reflect changes from baseline levels.|||||<|0.0005|||||||ANOVA|Mauchly's test of sphericity determined the sphericity assumption was violated, so Greenhouse-Geisser corrections were applied.||QIDS change score were submitted to a repeated measures ANOVA to measure change from baseline over time. Note: D5 QIDS surveys were completed prior to receiving the final treatment on D5. Null hypothesis: D1 = D5 = FU1 = FU2||||<0.0005
90958151|NCT02891408|181796143|OTHER||GLSM ratio|125.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.0|174.0||||||AUCinf of Fenofibric Acid||174|89|
90853516|NCT05772702|181570689|OTHER|This was a single-arm, open-label trial. Reported statistics reflect changes from baseline levels.|||||<|0.0005|||||||ANOVA|||ASRM scores were submitted to a repeated measures ANOVA to measure change from baseline over time. Note: D5 ASRM surveys were completed prior to receiving the final treatment on D5. Null hypothesis: D1 = D5 = FU1 = FU2||||<0.0005
90853517|NCT05772702|181570690|OTHER|This was a single-arm, open-label trial. Reported statistics reflect changes from baseline levels.|||||<|0.0005|||||||ANOVA|Mauchly's test of sphericity determined the sphericity assumption was violated, so Greenhouse-Geisser corrections were applied.||SHAPS scores were submitted to a repeated measures ANOVA to measure change from baseline over time. Note: D5 SHAPS surveys were completed prior to receiving the final treatment on D5. Null hypothesis: D1 = D5 = FU1 = FU2||||<0.0005
90901679|NCT03688711|181669507|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||Assessed at 15 minutes. The recovery rates of dasiglucagon and placebo were compared at each time point using a Fisher's exact test. Testing followed an a priori defined hierarchical inferential test order, proceeding until the first failure to reject the null hypothesis comparing dasiglucagon versus placebo.||||<0.0001
90958152|NCT02891408|181796144|OTHER||GLSM ratio|169.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.0|326.0||||||Cmax of Firsocostat||326|87|
90958153|NCT02891408|181796144|OTHER||GLSM ratio|905.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|537.0|1526.0||||||Cmax of Firsocostat||1526|537|
90958154|NCT02891408|181796144|OTHER||GLSM ratio|2719.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1994.0|3708.0||||||Cmax of Firsocostat||3708|1994|
90958155|NCT02891408|181796144|OTHER||GLSM ratio|391.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|163.0|942.0||||||Cmax of GS-834773||942|163|
90958156|NCT02891408|181796144|OTHER||GLSM ratio|4470.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2170.0|9207.0||||||Cmax of GS-834773||9207|2170|
90958157|NCT02891408|181796144|OTHER||GLSM ratio|9278.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4945.0|17407.0||||||Cmax of GS-834773||17407|4945|
90958158|NCT02891408|181796144|OTHER||GLSM ratio|109.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.0|146.0||||||Cmax of Fenofibric Acid||146|81|
90958978|NCT01191268|181798009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.79||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.79|0.83|<0.001
90958159|NCT05249829|181796155|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 99% CI of the Geometric Mean Ratio was \>0.667.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.73|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|1.493|2.005||||||Geometric Mean Ratio = GMCmRNA-1273.529/GMCmRNA-1273 against the B.1.1.529 strain at Day 29 after study vaccine administration.||2.005|1.493|
90853518|NCT05772702|181570691|OTHER|This was a single-arm, open-label trial. Reported statistics reflect changes from baseline levels.|||||<|0.0005|||||||ANOVA|Mauchly's test of sphericity determined the sphericity assumption was violated, so Greenhouse-Geisser corrections were applied.||DASS-42 OVERALL scores were submitted to a repeated measures ANOVA to measure change from baseline over time. Note: D5 DASS-42 surveys were completed prior to receiving the final treatment on D5. Null hypothesis: D1 = D5 = FU1 = FU2||||<0.0005
90853519|NCT05772702|181570691|OTHER|This was a single-arm, open-label trial. Reported statistics reflect changes from baseline levels.|||||<|0.0005|||||||ANOVA|This subscale did not require sphericity corrections.||DASS-42 DEPRESSION SUBSCORES were submitted to a repeated measures ANOVA to measure change from baseline over time. Note: D5 DASS-42 surveys were completed prior to receiving the final treatment on D5. Null hypothesis: D1 = D5 = FU1 = FU2||||<0.0005
90853520|NCT05772702|181570691|OTHER|This was a single-arm, open-label trial. Reported statistics reflect changes from baseline levels.|||||<|0.0005|||||||ANOVA|Mauchly's test of sphericity determined the sphericity assumption was violated, so Greenhouse-Geisser corrections were applied.||DASS-42 ANXIETY SUBSCORES were submitted to a repeated measures ANOVA to measure change from baseline over time. Note: D5 DASS-42 surveys were completed prior to receiving the final treatment on D5. Null hypothesis: D1 = D5 = FU1 = FU2||||<0.0005
90853521|NCT05772702|181570691|OTHER|This was a single-arm, open-label trial. Reported statistics reflect changes from baseline levels.|||||<|0.0005|||||||ANOVA|Mauchly's test of sphericity determined the sphericity assumption was violated, so Greenhouse-Geisser corrections were applied.||DASS-42 STRESS SUBSCORES were submitted to a repeated measures ANOVA to measure change from baseline over time. Note: D5 DASS-42 surveys were completed prior to receiving the final treatment on D5. Null hypothesis: D1 = D5 = FU1 = FU2||||<0.0005
90901680|NCT03688711|181669507|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0006|||||||Fisher Exact|||Assessed at 10 minutes. The recovery rates of dasiglucagon and placebo were compared at each time point using a Fisher's exact test. Testing followed an a priori defined hierarchical inferential test order, proceeding until the first failure to reject the null hypothesis comparing dasiglucagon versus placebo.||||0.0006
90901681|NCT03688711|181669508|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline in plasma glucose at 30 minutes after investigational product injection was calculated using nominal sampling times and analyzed using an analysis of variance model with treatment, age group and injection site for each endpoint. Testing followed an a priori defined hierarchical inferential test order, proceeding until the first failure to reject the null hypothesis comparing dasiglucagon versus placebo.||||<0.0001
90901682|NCT03688711|181669508|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline in plasma glucose at 20 minutes after investigational product injection was calculated using nominal sampling times and analyzed using an analysis of variance model with treatment, age group and injection site for each endpoint. Testing followed an a priori defined hierarchical inferential test order, proceeding until the first failure to reject the null hypothesis comparing dasiglucagon versus placebo.||||<0.0001
90958160|NCT05249829|181796156|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 96% CI of the Geometric Mean Ratio was \>0.667.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.763|||||TWO_SIDED|96.0|1.546|2.01||||||Geometric Mean Ratio = GMCmRNA-1273.529/GMCmRNA-1273 against the B.1.1.529 strain at Day 85 after study vaccine administration.||2.010|1.546|
90958161|NCT05249829|181796157|OTHER|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 99% CI of the Geometric Mean Ratio was \>0.667. Superiority was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 99% CI of the Geometric Mean Ratio was \>1.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.535|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|1.409|1.672||||||Geometric Mean Ratio = GMCmRNA-1273.214/GMCmRNA-1273 against the B.1.1.529 strain at Day 29 after study vaccine administration.||1.672|1.409|
91032821|NCT04638153|181951001|OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.9|||||Month 3|Results based on MMRM analysis with gender as a covariate, participant (and/or time) as a random effect; treatment, visit, age and gender as fixed effects using an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.9|0.1|
91099929|NCT02384460|182086066|OTHER|Multiple imputation was implemented by 2 steps. The first step used Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) to get monotonic missing data pattern. In the second step, a logistic regression model was used, with the following covariates included in the imputation model: treatment, EB type, baseline target wound size, target wound age, and non-missing data from earlier time points. The seed number was 010005 and the number of imputations was 5.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.733||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.365|1.474||p-value is from the logistic regression model for treatment comparison.|Regression, Logistic|||Comparison between treatment groups of complete closure of target wound within 3 months was performed using a logistic regression model with multiple imputation with EB type, baseline target wound size, and baseline target wound age as covariates.||1.474|0.365|0.39
91104330|NCT02539394|182094888|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.376|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of Pre-operative SWAL-QOL - Food selection is the same across the 2 arms||||0.376
90901683|NCT03688711|181669508|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline in plasma glucose at 15 minutes after investigational product injection was calculated using nominal sampling times and analyzed using an analysis of variance model with treatment, age group and injection site for each endpoint. Testing followed an a priori defined hierarchical inferential test order, proceeding until the first failure to reject the null hypothesis comparing dasiglucagon versus placebo.||||<0.0001
90958162|NCT05249829|181796158|OTHER|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 99% CI of the Geometric Mean Ratio was \>0.667. Superiority was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 99% CI of the Geometric Mean Ratio was \>1.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.713|||||TWO_SIDED|96.0|1.583|1.853||||||Geometric Mean Ratio = GMCmRNA-1273.214/GMCmRNA-1273 against the B.1.1.529 strain at Day 85 after study vaccine administration.||1.853|1.583|
90958979|NCT01191268|181798009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|2.28||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.28|1.32|<0.001
91104331|NCT02539394|182094888|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.013|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of POD1 SWAL-QOL - Food selection is the same across the 2 arms||||0.013
91099930|NCT02384460|182086067|OTHER|Multiple imputation was implemented by 2 steps. The first step used MCMC to get the monotonic missing data pattern. In the second step, a logistic regression model was used, with the following covariates included in the imputation method: treatment, EB type, baseline target wound size, target wound age, and non-missing data from earlier time points. The seed number was 01005 and the number of imputations was 5.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.633||||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.758|3.517||p-value is from the logistic regression model for treatment comparison.|Regression, Logistic|||Logistic Regression Analysis at Month 1 visit. Comparison between treatment groups of complete closure of target wound within 1 month was performed using a logistic regression model with multiple imputation with EB type, baseline target wound size, and baseline target wound age as covariates.||3.517|0.758|0.212
90853522|NCT05772702|181570692|OTHER|This was a single-arm, open-label trial. Reported statistics reflect changes from baseline levels.||||||0.021|||||||ANOVA|Mauchly's test of sphericity determined the sphericity assumption was violated, so Greenhouse-Geisser corrections were applied.||STAI scores were submitted to a repeated measures ANOVA to measure change from baseline over time. Note: D5 STAI surveys were completed prior to receiving the final treatment on D5. Null hypothesis: D1 = D5 = FU1 = FU2||||0.021
90853523|NCT05772702|181570693|OTHER|This was a single-arm, open-label trial. Reported statistics reflect changes from baseline levels.|||||<|0.0005|||||||ANOVA|||QIDS scores were submitted to a repeated measures ANOVA to measure change from baseline over time. Note: D5 QIDS surveys were completed prior to receiving the final treatment on D5. Null hypothesis: D1 = D5 = FU1 = FU2||||<0.0005
90853524|NCT05772702|181570694|OTHER|This was a single-arm, open-label trial. Reported statistics reflect changes from baseline levels.|||||<|0.0005|||||||ANOVA|||CGI severity scores were submitted to a repeated measures ANOVA to measure change from baseline over time. Note: D5 CGI assessments were completed prior to receiving the final treatment on D5. Null hypothesis: D1 = D5 = FU2||||<0.0005
90853525|NCT05772702|181570694|OTHER|This was a single-arm, open-label trial. Reported statistics reflect changes from baseline levels.||||||0.006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||CGI improvement scores were submitted to a paired t-test to measure difference between the improvement assessment on D5 and the assessment at FU2. Note: D5 CGI assessments were completed prior to receiving the final treatment on D5. Null hypothesis: D5 = FU2||||0.006
90853526|NCT00562627|181570706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.009
90901684|NCT03688711|181669508|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline in plasma glucose at 10 minutes after investigational product injection was calculated using nominal sampling times and analyzed using an analysis of variance model with treatment, age group and injection site for each endpoint. Testing followed an a priori defined hierarchical inferential test order, proceeding until the first failure to reject the null hypothesis comparing dasiglucagon versus placebo.||||<0.0001
90901685|NCT03688711|181669509|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||Evaluated using a Kaplan Meier (KM) approach, with treatment group as a stratification factor, analogous to that used for the primary endpoint analysis. Differences between the KM curves (dasiglucagon versus placebo) were evaluated inferentially using pairwise two-sided log-rank tests. Subjects whose time to first plasma glucose concentration ≥70 mg/dL (3.9 mmol/L) was not met within 45 minutes post-dosing were censored, at the time of the last valid plasma glucose measurement up to 45 minutes.||||<0.0001
90901686|NCT03688711|181669510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.71|6.05|||ANCOVA|||The analysis was an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group as factor and the baseline of the dependent variable plasma glucose as a covariate.||6.05|2.71|<0.0001
90901687|NCT01370005|181669539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.52||Hierarchical testing, no adjustment of p-values.|ANCOVA|Model includes baseline HbA1c as lin. covariate and treatment, baseline renal function, region and baseline N of antihyperten. med. as fixed effects|Difference calculated as empa 10mg minus placebo|Hierarchical testing structure was: 1) Change from baseline to week 12 in HbA1c, empa 25mg vs placebo 2) Change from baseline to week 12 in mean 24h SBP, empa 25mg vs placebo 3) Change from baseline to week 12 in HbA1c, empa 10mg vs placebo 4) Change from baseline in mean 24h SBP, empa 10mg vs placebo 5) Change from baseline in mean 24h DBP, empa 25mg vs placebo 6) Change from baseline in mean 24h DBP empa 10mg vs placebo.||-0.52|-0.72|<0.0001
90901688|NCT01370005|181669539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.55||Hierarchical testing, no adjustment of p-values|ANCOVA|Model includes baseline HbA1c as lin. covariate and treatment, baseline renal function, region and baseline N of antihyperten. med. as fixed effects|Difference calculated as empa 25mg minus placebo|Hierarchical testing structure was: 1) Change from baseline to week 12 in HbA1c, empa 25mg vs placebo 2) Change from baseline to week 12 in mean 24h SBP, empa 25mg vs placebo 3) Change from baseline to week 12 in HbA1c, empa 10mg vs placebo 4) Change from baseline in mean 24h SBP, empa 10mg vs placebo 5) Change from baseline in mean 24h DBP, empa 25mg vs placebo 6) Change from baseline in mean 24h DBP empa 10mg vs placebo.||-0.55|-0.75|<0.0001
90958163|NCT05249829|181796159|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 99% CI of the Geometric Mean Ratio was \>0.667.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.048|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.958|1.147||||||Geometric Mean Ratio = GMCmRNA-1273.214/GMCmRNA-1273 against the ancestral strain at Day 29 after study vaccine administration. Reported statistical analysis based upon the number of participants with non-missing data at baseline and the corresponding timepoint (N=1818).||1.147|0.958|
91104332|NCT02539394|182094888|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.049|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of POD2 SWAL-QOL - Food selection is the same across the 2 arms||||0.049
90853527|NCT00562627|181570707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.001
90958980|NCT01191268|181798009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.64||Treatment comparison at 52 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.64|0.55|<0.001
90853528|NCT00562627|181570708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90853529|NCT05710185|181570717|OTHER||||||||||||||||||It was a descriptive study|||
90853530|NCT04948866|181570725|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.522|||||||Poisson regression|||||||0.522
90853531|NCT04948866|181570726|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90853532|NCT04948866|181570727|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.402|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.402
90853533|NCT04948866|181570728|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.803|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.803
90853534|NCT04948866|181570729|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.045|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.045
90853535|NCT04948866|181570730|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.977|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.977
90853536|NCT04948866|181570731|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.010
90853537|NCT04948866|181570732|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.935|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.935
90853538|NCT04948866|181570733|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
90853539|NCT04948866|181570734|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
90853540|NCT04948866|181570735|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.417|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.417
90901689|NCT01370005|181669540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.78|-2.09||Hierarchical testing, no adjustment of p-values.|ANCOVA|Model incl. baseline (bl) HbA1c, bl mean 24h SBP as lin. covariates; treatment, bl renal function, region, bl N of antihyperten. med. as fixed effects|Difference calculated as empa 10mg minus placebo|Hierarchical testing structure was: 1) Change from baseline to week 12 in HbA1c, empa 25mg vs placebo 2) Change from baseline to week 12 in mean 24h SBP, empa 25mg vs placebo 3) Change from baseline to week 12 in HbA1c, empa 10mg vs placebo 4) Change from baseline in mean 24h SBP, empa 10mg vs placebo 5) Change from baseline in mean 24h DBP, empa 25mg vs placebo 6) Change from baseline in mean 24h DBP empa 10mg vs placebo.||-2.09|-4.78|<0.0001
90901690|NCT01370005|181669540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|-2.83||Hierarchical testing, no adjustment of p-values.|ANCOVA|Model incl. baseline (bl) HbA1c, bl mean 24h SBP as lin. covariates; treatment, bl renal function, region, bl N of antihyperten. med. as fixed effects|Difference calculated as empa 25mg minus placebo|Hierarchical testing structure was: 1) Change from baseline to week 12 in HbA1c, empa 25mg vs placebo 2) Change from baseline to week 12 in mean 24h SBP, empa 25mg vs placebo 3) Change from baseline to week 12 in HbA1c, empa 10mg vs placebo 4) Change from baseline in mean 24h SBP, empa 10mg vs placebo 5) Change from baseline in mean 24h DBP, empa 25mg vs placebo 6) Change from baseline in mean 24h DBP empa 10mg vs placebo.||-2.83|-5.50|<0.0001
90901691|NCT01370005|181669541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|-0.56||Hierarchical testing, no adjustment of p-values.|ANCOVA|Model incl. baseline (bl) HbA1c, bl mean 24h DBP as lin. covariates; treatment, bl renal function, region, bl N of antihyperten. med. as fixed effects|Difference calculated as empa 10mg minus placebo|Hierarchical testing structure was: 1) Change from baseline to week 12 in HbA1c, empa 25mg vs placebo 2) Change from baseline to week 12 in mean 24h SBP, empa 25mg vs placebo 3) Change from baseline to week 12 in HbA1c, empa 10mg vs placebo 4) Change from baseline in mean 24h SBP, empa 10mg vs placebo 5) Change from baseline in mean 24h DBP, empa 25mg vs placebo 6) Change from baseline in mean 24h DBP empa 10mg vs placebo.||-0.56|-2.15|0.0008
90901692|NCT01370005|181669541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|-0.93||Hierarchical testing, no adjustment of p-values.|ANCOVA|Model incl. baseline (bl) HbA1c, bl mean 24h DBP as lin. covariates; treatment, bl renal function, region, bl N of antihyperten. med. as fixed effects|Difference calculated as empa 25mg minus placebo|Hierarchical testing structure was: 1) Change from baseline to week 12 in HbA1c, empa 25mg vs placebo 2) Change from baseline to week 12 in mean 24h SBP, empa 25mg vs placebo 3) Change from baseline to week 12 in HbA1c, empa 10mg vs placebo 4) Change from baseline in mean 24h SBP, empa 10mg vs placebo 5) Change from baseline in mean 24h DBP, empa 25mg vs placebo 6) Change from baseline in mean 24h DBP empa 10mg vs placebo.||-0.93|-2.51|<0.0001
90901693|NCT01370005|181669542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.51|11.18|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes treatment, baseline renal function, region, baseline number of antihypertensive medications and baseline HbA1c||||11.18|3.51|<0.0001
90958981|NCT01191268|181798009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.96||Treatment comparison at 52 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.96|0.88|<0.001
90901694|NCT01370005|181669542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|11.75|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes treatment, baseline renal function, region, baseline number of antihypertensive medications and baseline HbA1c||||11.75|3.70|<0.0001
90901695|NCT01370005|181669543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.63|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.91|-18.6|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, baseline renal function, geographical region, baseline N of antihyperten. med., baseline HbA1c and baseline FPG|Difference calculated as empa 10mg minus placebo.|||-18.60|-28.91|<0.0001
90958982|NCT01191268|181798011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.81|-2.59||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||-2.59|-3.81|<0.001
90853541|NCT04948866|181570736|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.531|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.531
90853542|NCT04948866|181570737|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.012
90853543|NCT04948866|181570738|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.876|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.876
90853544|NCT02278341|181570759|NON_INFERIORITY|Non Inferiority, Margin = -0.75|LSM Difference|0.235|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.132|0.339||p-value for non-inferiority test based on 1-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The model includes treatment arm, region, CV History, previous ESA treatment, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline Hb by visit as continuous variable.||0.339|0.132|<0.001
90853545|NCT02278341|181570760|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-Inferiority, Margin = -0.75|LSM Difference|0.171|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.082|0.261||p-value for non-inferiority test based on 1-sided significance level.|ANCOVA|||The model includes treatment arm, region, CV History, previous ESA treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb as continuous variable. Statistical analysis used was ANCOVA model with multiple imputations (MI). Missing hemoglobin data was imputed for each treatment relying on non-missing data from all participants within each treatment group using the MCMC imputation model.||0.261|0.082|<0.001
90853546|NCT02278341|181570761|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of roxadustat versus ESA (the non-inferiority margin for the difference between groups is -15%).|Difference of Percentages|2.3|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|7.6||p-value for non-inferiority test based on 1-sided significance level.|Miettinen and Nurminen|||A generalized linear model was used to estimate the difference in response rates between the arms, as an approximation for the Miettinen and Nurminen method, adjusting for following covariates: region, previous ESA treatment, cardiovascular history and baseline Hb as categorical variables.||7.6|-2.9|<0.05
90853547|NCT02278341|181570762|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.377|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.451|-0.304||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level|Mixed Models Analysis|||The model includes treatment arm, region, CV History, previous ESA treatment, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline LDL, baseline Hb as continuous variables.||-0.304|-0.451|<0.001
90853548|NCT02278341|181570763|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-31.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.4|-22.4||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level|ANCOVA|||The model includes treatment arm, region, CV History, previous ESA treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb as continuous variable.||-22.4|-41.4|<0.001
90901696|NCT01370005|181669543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-30.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.61|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.32|-25.08|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, baseline renal function, geographical region, baseline N of antihyperten. med., baseline HbA1c and baseline FPG|Difference calculated as empa 25mg minus placebo.|||-25.08|-35.32|<0.0001
90901697|NCT01370005|181669544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|-1.13|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, baseline renal function, geographical region, baseline number of antihypertensive med., baseline HbA1c and baseline weight|Difference calculated as empa 10mg minus placebo.|||-1.13|-1.85|<0.0001
90901698|NCT01370005|181669544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|-1.62|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, baseline renal function, geographical region, baseline number of antihypertensive med., baseline HbA1c and baseline weight|Difference calculated as empa 10mg minus placebo.|||-1.62|-2.33|<0.0001
90901699|NCT01370005|181669545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.37|-2.52|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, baseline renal function, geographical region, N of antihypertensive medications, baseline HbA1c and baseline daytime SBP|Difference calculated as empa 10mg minus placebo.|||-2.52|-5.37|<0.0001
90901700|NCT01370005|181669545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|-3.36|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, baseline renal function, geographical region, baseline N of antihyperten. med., baseline HbA1c and baseline daytime SBP|Difference calculated as empa 25mg minus placebo.|||-3.36|-6.20|<0.0001
90901701|NCT01370005|181669546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.42|-0.69|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, baseline renal function, geographical region, baseline N of antihyperten. med., baseline HbA1c and baseline daytime DBP|Difference calculated as empa 10mg minus placebo.|||-0.69|-2.42|0.0004
90901702|NCT01370005|181669546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.84|-1.12|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, baseline renal function, geographical region, baseline N of antihyperten. med., baseline HbA1c and baseline daytime DBP|Difference calculated as empa 25mg minus placebo.|||-1.12|-2.84|<0.0001
90901703|NCT01370005|181669547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.09|-0.91|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, baseline renal function, geographical region, baseline N of antihyperten. med., baseline HbA1c and baseline night-time SBP|Difference calculated as empa 10mg minus placebo.|||-0.91|-4.09|0.0021
90901704|NCT01370005|181669547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.48|-1.32|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, baseline renal function, geographical region, baseline N of antihyperten. med., baseline HbA1c and baseline night-time SBP|Difference calculated as empa 25mg minus placebo.|||-1.32|-4.48|0.0003
90901705|NCT01370005|181669548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.0566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|0.03|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, baseline renal function, geographical region, baseline N of antihyperten. med., baseline HbA1c and baseline night-time DBP|Difference calculated as empa 10mg minus placebo.|||0.03|-1.93|0.0566
90901706|NCT01370005|181669548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.0208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|-0.18|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, baseline renal function, geographical region, baseline N of antihyperten. med., baseline HbA1c and baseline night-time DBP|Difference calculated as empa 25mg minus placebo.|||-0.18|-2.12|0.0208
90901707|NCT01370005|181669549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.86|-1.98|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, baseline renal function, geographical region, baseline N of antihyperten. med., baseline HbA1c and baseline seated SBP|Difference calculated as empa 10mg minus placebo.|||-1.98|-5.86|<0.0001
90901708|NCT01370005|181669549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.73|-2.87|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, baseline renal function, geographical region, baseline N of antihyperten. med., baseline HbA1c and baseline seated SBP|Difference calculated as empa 25mg minus placebo.|||-2.87|-6.73|<0.0001
90853549|NCT02278341|181570764|NON_INFERIORITY|The margin for non-inferiority was -3.|LSM Difference|0.205|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.649|1.059||p-value for non-inferiority test based on 1-sided significance level|Mixed Models Analysis|||The model includes treatment arm, region, CV History, previous ESA treatment, visits (week 8, week 12, week 28) and visit by treatment as categorical variables, and baseline SF-36 PF, baseline Hb as continuous variables.||1.059|-0.649|<0.05
90958164|NCT05249829|181796160|OTHER|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 99% CI of the Geometric Mean Ratio was \>0.667.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.104|||||TWO_SIDED|96.0|1.032|1.18||||||Geometric Mean Ratio = GMCmRNA-1273.214/GMCmRNA-1273 against the ancestral strain at Day 85 after study vaccine administration. Reported statistical analysis based upon the number of participants with non-missing data at baseline and the corresponding timepoint (N=1418).||1.180|1.032|
90958983|NCT01191268|181798011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.76|-1.54||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||-1.54|-2.76|<0.001
90901709|NCT01370005|181669550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.01|-0.84|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, baseline renal function, geographical region, baseline N of antihyperten. med., baseline HbA1c and baseline seated DBP|Difference calculated as empa 10mg minus placebo.|||-0.84|-3.01|0.0005
90853550|NCT02278341|181570765|NON_INFERIORITY|The margin for non-inferiority was -3.|LSM Difference|0.856|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.115|1.828|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The model includes treatment arm, region, CV History, previous ESA treatment, visits (week 8, week 12, week 28) and visit by treatment as categorical variables, and baseline SF-36 VT, baseline Hb as continuous variables.||1.828|-0.115|<0.05
90853551|NCT02278341|181570766|NON_INFERIORITY|The margin for non-inferiority was 1.|LSM Difference|-0.849|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.971|0.273||p-value for non-inferiority test based on 1-sided significance level|Mixed Models Analysis|||The model includes treatment arm, region, CV History, previous ESA treatment, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables, and baseline MAP, baseline Hb as continuous variables.||0.273|-1.971|<0.05
90853552|NCT02278341|181570767|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority (hazard ratio margin of 1.3).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.924|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.669|1.276||p-value for non-inferiority test based on 1-sided significance level.|Regression, Cox|||Hazard Ratio was calculated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazards regression stratifying on region, CV history, previous ESA treatment, and adjusting on Hb at baseline as continuous covariate. Non-inferiority was declared if the upper bound of the 95% CI is below 1.3.||1.276|0.669|<0.05
90901710|NCT01370005|181669550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.97|-0.82|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, baseline renal function, geographical region, baseline N of antihyperten. med., baseline HbA1c and baseline seated DBP|Difference calculated as empa 25mg minus placebo.|||-0.82|-2.97|0.0006
90901711|NCT01370005|181669551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.49||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|4.45|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes treatment, baseline renal function, region, baseline number of antihypertensive medications and baseline HbA1c||||4.45|1.39|0.0021
90853553|NCT02278341|181570768|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.579|||=|0.308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.694|0.536||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The model includes treatment arm, region, CV History, previous ESA treatment, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables, and baseline MAP, baseline Hb as continuous variables.||0.536|-1.694|=0.308
90853554|NCT02278341|181570769|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.915|||=|0.582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.668|1.254||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Regression, Cox|||Hazard Ratio was calculated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazards regression stratifying on region, CV history, previous ESA treatment, and adjusting on Hb at baseline as continuous covariate. Superiority was declared if the upper bound of the 95% CI is lower than 1.||1.254|0.668|=0.582
90853555|NCT02278341|181570770|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Percentages|1.4|||=|0.609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|6.5||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level|Miettinen and Nurminen method|||A generalized linear model was used to estimate the difference in response rates between the arms, as an approximation for the Miettinen and Nurminen method, adjusting for following covariates: region, previous ESA treatment, cardiovascular history and baseline Hb as categorical variables.||6.5|-3.8|=0.609
90853556|NCT02278341|181570771|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.164|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.072|0.256||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1- The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb as continuous covariates.||0.256|0.072|<0.001
90853557|NCT02278341|181570771|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.443|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.339|0.546||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2- The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb as continuous covariates.||0.546|0.339|<0.001
90853558|NCT02278341|181570771|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.561|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.451|0.672||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb as continuous covariates.||0.672|0.451|<0.001
90853559|NCT02278341|181570771|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.708|||<|0.001||95.0|0.588|0.828||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb as continuous covariates.||0.828|0.588|<0.001
90853560|NCT02278341|181570771|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.768|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.645|0.89||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 5 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb as continuous covariates.||0.890|0.645|<0.001
90853561|NCT02278341|181570771|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.729|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.604|0.855||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb as continuous covariates.||0.855|0.604|<0.001
90853562|NCT02278341|181570771|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.729|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.603|0.856||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 7 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb as continuous covariates.||0.856|0.603|<0.001
90853563|NCT02278341|181570771|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.574|0.826||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb as continuous covariates.||0.826|0.574|<0.001
90853564|NCT02278341|181570771|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.659|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.788||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 10 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb as continuous covariates.||0.788|0.530|<0.001
90901712|NCT01370005|181669551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2||||0.0088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|3.96|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes treatment, baseline renal function, region, baseline number of antihypertensive medications and baseline HbA1c||||3.96|1.22|0.0088
90901713|NCT03691948|181669559|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.531|||||||ANOVA|||||||.531
90901714|NCT03691948|181669560|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.076|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.076
90901715|NCT04524598|181669603|SUPERIORITY||t|-1.911||||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A linear mixed-effects model (LMM) analysis was implemented on an averaged imputed dataset to evaluate main effects of Group (Spark, Control) and Week (0-5), and the Group x Week interaction. Group and Week were entered as fixed factors. Spark version, and assessment completion days since baseline were included as fixed factors to control for effects of app version and differences in time between completion of successive weekly assessments.||||0.06
90958984|NCT01191268|181798011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.99|-2.48||Treatment comparison at 52 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||-2.48|-3.99|<0.001
90853565|NCT02278341|181570771|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.593|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.459|0.727||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb as continuous covariates.||0.727|0.459|<0.001
90853566|NCT02278341|181570771|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.503|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.366|0.64||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 14 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb as continuous covariates.||0.640|0.366|<0.001
90901716|NCT04524598|181669603|SUPERIORITY||t|-2.546||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||We used a Per Protocol approach that included participants who completed the PHQ at baseline and each week. A linear mixed-effects model (LMM) analysis was implemented on an averaged imputed dataset to evaluate main effects of Group (Spark, Control) and Week (0-5), and the Group x Week interaction.||||0.01
90901717|NCT04524598|181669606|SUPERIORITY||F|1.46||||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||We conducted a repeated measures ANOVA (Group x Time) on GAD-7 scores to compare the change in anxiety symptoms from Baseline to Post treatment for Phase II participants who had a baseline PHQ-8 score \>= 10. The interaction term is presented.||||0.23
90901718|NCT04524598|181669606|SUPERIORITY||F|2.59||||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||We conducted a repeated measures ANOVA (Group x Time) on the PROMIS - General Health Score to compare the change in general health from Baseline to Post treatment for Phase II participants who had a baseline PHQ-8 score \>= 10. The interaction term is reported.||||0.11
90901719|NCT04524598|181669607|SUPERIORITY||F|0.94||||0.33|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||We conducted a repeated measures ANOVA (Time x Group) on the MFQ to compare the change in parent report of depressive symptoms from Baseline to Post treatment for Phase II participants who had a baseline PHQ-8 score \>= 10. The interaction term is presented.||||0.33
90958165|NCT05249829|181796167|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 99% CI of the Geometric Mean Ratio was \>1.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.73|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|1.493|2.005||||||Geometric Mean Ratio = GMCmRNA-1273.529/GMCmRNA-1273 against the B.1.1.529 strain at Day 29 after study vaccine administration.||2.005|1.493|
90958166|NCT05249829|181796167|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 96% CI of the Geometric Mean Ratio was \>1.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.763|||||TWO_SIDED|96.0|1.546|2.01||||||Geometric Mean Ratio = GMCmRNA-1273.529/GMCmRNA-1273 against the B.1.1.529 strain at Day 85 after study vaccine administration. Reported statistical analysis based upon the number of participants with non-missing data at baseline and the corresponding timepoint (N=460).||2.010|1.546|
91031117|NCT02937701|181946883|EQUIVALENCE|Clinical equivalence for the primary endpoint was to be evaluated sequentially by first comparing the 2-sided 90% CI for RD of ACR20 at week 22 between ABP 710 and infliximab with an equivalence margin of (-15%, 15%). If the first test was successful, RD of ACR20 at week 22 was to be further evaluated by comparing the 2-sided 90% CI between ABP 710 and infliximab with an equivalence margin of (-12%, 15%).|Response Difference|7.184|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.748|13.62|||||The ACR core set includes tender joint count, swollen joint count, subject's global health assessment, investigator's global health assessment, subject's assessment of disease related pain, HAQ-DI, and CRP.|A post-hoc analysis was conducted to adjust for the impact of random imbalance in baseline demographic and disease characteristics between the 2 treatment groups. The MH estimate of RD and corresponding CIs were estimated using a nonparametric analysis of covariance method with stratification factors geographic region and prior biologic use, and adjustment for baseline covariates (ACR core set, age, use of oral corticosteroid, use of NSAID, body mass index categories, and methotrexate dose).||13.620|0.748|
90958167|NCT02842827|181796233|OTHER|||||||0.3868|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|p-value of the treatment effect was calculated between all dose arms with ≥3 participants||||||0.3868
90853567|NCT02278341|181570771|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.369|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.229|0.51||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb as continuous covariates.||0.510|0.229|<0.001
90853568|NCT02278341|181570771|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.363|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.496||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 18 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb as continuous covariates.||0.496|0.230|<0.001
90853569|NCT02278341|181570771|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.284|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.154|0.414||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 20 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb as continuous covariates.||0.414|0.154|<0.001
90958168|NCT02842827|181796234|OTHER|||||||0.7744|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|p-value of the treatment effect was calculated between all dose arms with ≥3 participants||||||0.7744
90901720|NCT04524598|181669607|SUPERIORITY||F|0.02||||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||We conducted a repeated measures ANOVA (Group x Time) on the PROMIS Parent Proxy - General Health Score to compare the change in parent reported general health from Baseline to Post treatment for Phase II participants who had a baseline PHQ-8 score \>= 10. The interaction term is reported.||||0.90
90901721|NCT02306122|181669611|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic||Comparator is control arm|||||<0.01
90901722|NCT02306122|181669611|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic||Comparator is control arm|||||<0.01
90901723|NCT02306122|181669611|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic||Comparator is control arm|||||<0.01
90901724|NCT02306122|181669612|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.128|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.523|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Comparator is the control arm|||||<0.01
90901725|NCT02306122|181669612|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.582|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.997|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Comparator is the control arm|||||<0.01
90901726|NCT02306122|181669612|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.308|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.38|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Comparator is the control arm|||||<0.01
91031118|NCT02937701|181946884|OTHER||Response Difference|8.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.15|14.81||||||The response difference at week 2 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||14.81|1.15|
90853570|NCT02278341|181570771|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.197|||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.065|0.329||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 22 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb as continuous covariates.||0.329|0.065|=0.003
90853571|NCT02278341|181570771|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.187|||=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.059|0.316||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb as continuous covariates.||0.316|0.059|=0.004
90853572|NCT02278341|181570771|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.243|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.113|0.373||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 26 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb as continuous covariates.||0.373|0.113|<0.001
90853573|NCT02278341|181570771|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.207|||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.074|0.34||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 28 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb as continuous covariates.||0.340|0.074|=0.002
90853574|NCT02278341|181570771|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.227|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.096|0.358||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 30 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb as continuous covariates.||0.358|0.096|<0.001
90853575|NCT02278341|181570771|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.199|||=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.064|0.334|||Mixed Models Analysis|p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.||Week 32 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb as continuous covariates.||0.334|0.064|=0.004
90853576|NCT02278341|181570771|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.279|||<|0.001||95.0|0.15|0.409||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 34 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb as continuous covariates.||0.409|0.150|<0.001
90853577|NCT02278341|181570771|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.256|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.121|0.391||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 36- The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb as continuous covariates.||0.391|0.121|<0.001
90901727|NCT02306122|181669613|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.043|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic||Comparator is the information arm|||||<0.01
90901728|NCT02306122|181669613|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic||Comparator is the information arm|||||<0.01
90901729|NCT02306122|181669614|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.071|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic||Comparator is the choice arm|||||<0.01
90901730|NCT02322814|181669615|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.247||95.0|0.43|1.24|||Log Rank|||||1.24|0.43|0.2470
90901731|NCT02322814|181669617|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18||||0.5912||95.0|0.65|2.13|||Log Rank|||||2.13|0.65|0.5912
90901732|NCT01744860|181669639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Kappa coefficient|0.8611|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8125|0.9097||||||"Kappa coefficient was used to compare the concordance between INCa Molecular Genetics Laboratory in-house methods and Cobas 4800 Mutation Test."||0.9097|0.8125|
90901733|NCT02564055|181669814|OTHER||Difference in percentages|22.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|45.5|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 percent BID and Vehicle BID has been presented.|||45.5|-2.4|
90901734|NCT02564055|181669814|OTHER||Difference in percentages|7.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.3|32.0|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 percent QD and Vehicle QD has been presented.|||32.0|-18.3|
90901735|NCT02564055|181669814|OTHER||Difference in percentages|14.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|38.7|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 percent BID and Vehicle BID has been presented.|||38.7|-11.2|
90901736|NCT02564055|181669814|OTHER||Difference in percentages|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.3|21.6|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 percent QD and Vehicle QD has been presented.|||21.6|-29.3|
90901737|NCT02564055|181669822|OTHER||Difference in percentages|21.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|43.1|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % BID and Vehicle BID at Week 1 has been presented.|||43.1|-2.7|
90901738|NCT02564055|181669822|OTHER||Difference in percentages|26.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|47.5|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % QD and Vehicle QD at Week 1 has been presented.|||47.5|3.3|
90901739|NCT02564055|181669822|OTHER||Difference in percentages|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.5|24.5|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % BID and Vehicle BID at Week 1 has been presented.|||24.5|-19.5|
90901740|NCT02564055|181669822|OTHER||Difference in percentages|9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|32.0|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % QD and Vehicle QD at Week 1 has been presented.|||32.0|-14.5|
90901741|NCT02564055|181669822|OTHER||Difference in percentages|23.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|44.6|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % BID and Vehicle BID at Week 2 has been presented.|||44.6|-0.3|
90901742|NCT02564055|181669822|OTHER||Difference in percentages|37.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.7|57.6|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % QD and Vehicle QD at Week 2 has been presented.|||57.6|14.7|
90901743|NCT02564055|181669822|OTHER||Difference in percentages|5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|27.8|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % BID and Vehicle BID at Week 2 has been presented.|||27.8|-18.0|
90901744|NCT02564055|181669822|OTHER||Difference in percentages|17.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|39.0|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % QD and Vehicle QD at Week 2 has been presented.|||39.0|-6.4|
90901745|NCT02564055|181669822|OTHER||Difference in percentages|39.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.0|60.0|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % BID and Vehicle BID at Week 4 has been presented.|||60.0|16.0|
90901746|NCT02564055|181669822|OTHER||Difference in percentages|31.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.8|52.1|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % QD and Vehicle QD at Week 4 has been presented.|||52.1|7.8|
91031119|NCT02937701|181946884|OTHER||Response Difference|4.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.8|11.64||||||The response difference at week 6 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||11.64|-1.80|
90853578|NCT02278341|181570771|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.136|||=|0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.006|0.277||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 40 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb as continuous covariates.||0.277|-0.006|=0.060
90853579|NCT02278341|181570771|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.082|||=|0.293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.071|0.236||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 44 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb as continuous covariates.||0.236|-0.071|=0.293
90853580|NCT02278341|181570771|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.027|||=|0.723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.123|0.177||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb as continuous covariates.||0.177|-0.123|=0.723
90853581|NCT02278341|181570771|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.199|||=|0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.049|0.348||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb as continuous covariates.||0.348|0.049|=0.009
90901747|NCT02564055|181669822|OTHER||Difference in percentages|26.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|48.4|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % BID and Vehicle BID at Week 4 has been presented.|||48.4|2.3|
90901748|NCT02564055|181669822|OTHER||Difference in percentages|18.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|40.5|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % QD and Vehicle QD at Week 4 has been presented.|||40.5|-5.3|
90901749|NCT02564055|181669822|OTHER||Difference in percentages|21.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|44.7|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % BID and Vehicle BID at Week 8 has been presented.|||44.7|-2.3|
90901750|NCT02564055|181669822|OTHER||Difference in percentages|36.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.1|57.6|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % QD and Vehicle QD at Week 8 has been presented.|||57.6|12.1|
90901751|NCT02564055|181669822|OTHER||Difference in percentages|26.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|49.0|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % BID and Vehicle BID at Week 8 has been presented.|||49.0|1.7|
90901752|NCT02564055|181669822|OTHER||Difference in percentages|23.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|46.1|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % QD and Vehicle QD at Week 8 has been presented.|||46.1|-1.5|
90901753|NCT02564055|181669822|OTHER||Difference in percentages|19.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|42.3|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % BID and Vehicle BID at Week 12 has been presented.|||42.3|-6.0|
90901754|NCT02564055|181669822|OTHER||Difference in percentages|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.0|25.0|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % QD and Vehicle QD at Week 12 has been presented.|||25.0|-25.0|
90901755|NCT02564055|181669822|OTHER||Difference in percentages|32.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|55.0|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % BID and Vehicle BID at Week 12 has been presented.|||55.0|6.9|
90901756|NCT02564055|181669822|OTHER||Difference in percentages|-9.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.6|16.1|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % QD and Vehicle QD at Week 12 has been presented.|||16.1|-34.6|
90901757|NCT02564055|181669822|OTHER||Difference in percentages|22.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|45.3|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % BID and Vehicle BID at Week 14 has been presented.|||45.3|-3.1|
90901758|NCT02564055|181669822|OTHER||Difference in percentages|6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.5|31.5|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % QD and Vehicle QD at Week 14 has been presented.|||31.5|-19.5|
90901759|NCT02564055|181669822|OTHER||Difference in percentages|17.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|41.9|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % BID and Vehicle BID at Week 14 has been presented.|||41.9|-8.4|
90901760|NCT02564055|181669822|OTHER||Difference in percentages|7.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|33.1|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % QD and Vehicle QD at Week 14 has been presented.|||33.1|-17.8|
90901761|NCT02564055|181669822|OTHER||Difference in percentages|9.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5|33.9|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % BID and Vehicle BID at Week 16 has been presented.|||33.9|-15.5|
90901762|NCT02564055|181669822|OTHER||Difference in percentages|5.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|30.5|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % QD and Vehicle QD at Week 16 has been presented.|||30.5|-19.7|
90901763|NCT02564055|181669822|OTHER||Difference in percentages|17.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|41.4|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % BID and Vehicle BID at Week 16 has been presented.|||41.4|-9.0|
90853582|NCT02278341|181570771|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.147|||=|0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.298||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 56 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb as continuous covariates.||0.298|-0.004|=0.056
90853583|NCT02278341|181570771|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.196|||=|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.047|0.346||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 60 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb as continuous covariates.||0.346|0.047|=0.010
90901764|NCT02564055|181669822|OTHER||Difference in percentages|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.0|25.0|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % QD and Vehicle QD at Week 16 has been presented.|||25.0|-26.0|
90901765|NCT02564055|181669822|OTHER||Difference in percentages|33.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.9|90.6|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % BID and Vehicle BID at EW has been presented.|||90.6|-31.9|
90901766|NCT02564055|181669822|OTHER||Difference in percentages|-9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.4|47.8|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % QD and Vehicle QD at EW has been presented.|||47.8|-62.4|
91032822|NCT04638153|181951001|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.1|||||Month 3|Results based on MMRM analysis with gender as a covariate, participant (and/or time) as a random effect; treatment, visit, age and gender as fixed effects using an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.1|-0.7|
90853584|NCT02278341|181570771|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.275|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.123|0.427||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 64 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb as continuous covariates.||0.427|0.123|<0.001
90853585|NCT02278341|181570771|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.206|||=|0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.059|0.353||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 68 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb as continuous covariates.||0.353|0.059|=0.006
90853586|NCT02278341|181570771|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.118|||=|0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.033|0.269||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 72 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb as continuous covariates.||0.269|-0.033|=0.127
90853587|NCT02278341|181570771|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.211|||=|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.051|0.371||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 76 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb as continuous covariates.||0.371|0.051|=0.010
90853588|NCT02278341|181570771|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.102|||=|0.191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.051|0.255||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 80 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb as continuous covariates.||0.255|-0.051|=0.191
90853589|NCT02278341|181570771|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.192|||=|0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.033|0.351||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 84 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb as continuous covariates.||0.351|0.033|=0.018
90853590|NCT02278341|181570771|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.044|||=|0.576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.111|0.2||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 88 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb as continuous covariates.||0.200|-0.111|=0.576
90853591|NCT02278341|181570771|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.203|||=|0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.037|0.369||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 92 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb as continuous covariates.||0.369|0.037|=0.017
90853592|NCT02278341|181570771|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.184|||=|0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.031|0.338||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 96 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb as continuous covariates.||0.338|0.031|=0.019
90901767|NCT02564055|181669822|OTHER||Difference in percentages|28.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.2|71.0|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % BID and Vehicle BID at EW has been presented.|||71.0|-19.2|
90901768|NCT02564055|181669822|OTHER||Difference in percentages|24.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.3|80.9|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % QD and Vehicle QD at EW has been presented.|||80.9|-40.3|
90901769|NCT02564055|181669823|OTHER||Difference in percentages|5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.3|28.4|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % BID and Vehicle BID at Week 1 has been presented.|||28.4|-18.3|
90901770|NCT02564055|181669823|OTHER||Difference in percentages|5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|28.4|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % QD and Vehicle QD at Week 1 has been presented.|||28.4|-17.1|
90901771|NCT02564055|181669823|OTHER||Difference in percentages|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.0|22.7|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % QD and Vehicle QD at Week 1 has been presented.|||22.7|-24.0|
90901772|NCT02564055|181669823|OTHER||Difference in percentages|11.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|33.9|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % BID and Vehicle BID at Week 2 has been presented.|||33.9|-12.0|
90901773|NCT02564055|181669823|OTHER||Difference in percentages|30.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|51.0|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % QD and Vehicle QD at Week 2 has been presented.|||51.0|6.8|
90901774|NCT02564055|181669823|OTHER||Difference in percentages|3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|26.6|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % BID and Vehicle BID at Week 2 has been presented.|||26.6|-19.4|
90901775|NCT02564055|181669823|OTHER||Difference in percentages|17.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|39.5|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % QD and Vehicle QD at Week 2 has been presented.|||39.5|-6.0|
90853593|NCT02278341|181570771|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.164|||=|0.056||95.0|-0.004|0.333||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 100 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb as continuous covariates.||0.333|-0.004|=0.056
90853594|NCT02278341|181570771|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.099|||=|0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.076|0.273||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 104 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb as continuous covariates.||0.273|-0.076|=0.267
90853595|NCT02278341|181570772|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.237|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.127|0.347||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Weeks 28-36 - The model includes treatment arm, region, CV History, previous ESA treatment, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb as continuous variable.||0.347|0.127|<0.001
90853596|NCT02278341|181570772|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.105|||=|0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.015|0.225||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level|Mixed Models Analysis|||Weeks 44-52 - The model includes treatment arm, region, CV History, previous ESA treatment, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb as continuous variable.||0.225|-0.015|=0.086
90853597|NCT02278341|181570772|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.149|||=|0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.014|0.284||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level|Mixed Models Analysis|||Weeks 96-104 - The model includes treatment arm, region, CV History, previous ESA treatment, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb as continuous variable.||0.284|0.014|=0.031
90853598|NCT02278341|181570773|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.235|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.125|0.346|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Weeks 28-36 - The model includes treatment arm, region, CV History, previous ESA treatment, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb as continuous variable.||0.346|0.125|<0.001
90853599|NCT02278341|181570773|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.104|||=|0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.024|0.232|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Weeks 44-52 - The model includes treatment arm, region, CV History, previous ESA treatment, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb as continuous variable.||0.232|-0.024|=0.110
90853600|NCT02278341|181570773|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.149|||=|0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.288|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Weeks 96-104 - The model includes treatment arm, region, CV History, previous ESA treatment, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb as continuous variable.||0.288|0.010|=0.036
90853601|NCT02278341|181570778|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.154|||=|0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.943|1.411||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level|Regression, Cox|||Hazard Ratio was calculated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazards regression stratifying on region, CV history, previous ESA treatment and adjusting on Hb at baseline as continuous covariate. Superiority was declared if the upper bound of the 95% CI was below 1.0.||1.411|0.943|=0.164
90853602|NCT02278341|181570779|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.979|||=|0.917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.656|1.462|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard Ratio was calculated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazards regression stratifying on region, CV history, previous ESA treatment and adjusting on Hb at baseline as continuous covariate. Superiority was declared if the upper bound of the 95% CI was below 1.0.||1.462|0.656|=0.917
90853603|NCT02278341|181570780|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.867|||=|0.501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.573|1.313||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level|Regression, Cox|||Hazard Ratio was calculated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazards regression stratifying on region, CV history, previous ESA treatment, and adjusting on Hb at baseline as continuous covariate. Superiority was declared if the upper bound of the 95% CI was below 1.0.||1.313|0.573|=0.501
90853604|NCT02278341|181570781|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.006|||=|0.507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.01||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level|ANCOVA|||The model included treatment arm, region, CV History, previous ESA treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb as continuous variable.||0.01|-0.02|=0.507
90853605|NCT02278341|181570782|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.132|||=|0.949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|4.16|||ANCOVA|||The model included treatment arm, region, CV History, previous ESA treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb as continuous variable.||4.16|-3.90|=0.949
90853606|NCT02278341|181570783|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.368|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.291|0.465|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard Ratio was calculated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazards regression stratifying on region, CV history, previous ESA treatment and adjusting on Hb at baseline as continuous covariate. Superiority was declared if the upper bound of the 95% CI was below 1.0.||0.465|0.291|<0.001
90853607|NCT02278341|181570784|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-35.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.8|-18.4|||ANCOVA|||Weeks 37-52 - Participants with no or missing medication records of IV Iron had their monthly IV Iron use set to 0 mg. The model includes treatment arm, region, CV History, previous ESA treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb as continuous variable.||-18.4|-51.8|<0.001
90853608|NCT02278341|181570784|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-48.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.3|-27.0|||ANCOVA|||Weeks 53-104 - Participants with no or missing medication records of IV Iron had their monthly IV Iron use set to 0 mg. The model includes treatment arm, region, CV History, previous ESA treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb as continuous variable.||-27.0|-70.3|<0.001
90853609|NCT02278341|181570794|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.521|||=|0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.208|1.25||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level|Mixed Models Analysis|||The model includes treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline SF-36 PCS, baseline Hb, as continuous covariates.||1.250|-0.208|=0.161
90853610|NCT02278341|181570795|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.126|||=|0.845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.135|1.387||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level|Mixed Models Analysis|||The model includes treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline FACT-An Ans, baseline Hb, as continuous covariates.||1.387|-1.135|=0.845
90853611|NCT02278341|181570796|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.128|||=|0.922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.703|2.447||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level|Mixed Models Analysis|||The model includes treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline FACT-An Ans, baseline Hb, as continuous covariates.||2.447|-2.703|=0.922
91104333|NCT02539394|182094888|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.3|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of 4-6 weeks SWAL-QOL - Food selection is the same across the 2 arms||||0.300
90853612|NCT02047318|181570822|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis that the mean change was equal to zero was tested using the Student's t-test to determine if the mean change in sBA levels between MRX baseline and Week 48 was statistically significant.|Mean Difference (Net)|-94.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|98.915||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-145.26|-43.55||Data for this analysis were obtained from 19 participants at MRX baseline; 17 of those participants contributed Week 48 data.|Student's t-test|||This analysis investigated whether a statistically significant change in sBA levels was observed when comparing MRX baseline to Week 48. The analysis was based on the safety population.||-43.55|-145.26|0.0012
90853613|NCT02047318|181570823|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis that the mean change was equal to zero was tested using the Student's t-test to determine if the mean change in sBA levels from baseline over time (to Week 252) was statistically significant.|Mean Difference (Net)|-141.94|STANDARD_DEVIATION|117.992||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-265.77|-18.12||Data for this analysis were obtained from 19 participants at MRX baseline; 6 of those participants contributed Week 252 data.|Student's t-test|||This analysis investigated whether a statistically significant change in sBA levels was observed over time (with Week 252 chosen as the end point, as the last analysis visit with at least 6 participants). The analysis was based on the safety population.||-18.12|-265.77|0.032
90853614|NCT02047318|181570824|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis that the mean change was equal to zero was tested using the Student's t-test to determine if the mean change in sBA levels between MRX baseline and Week 48 was statistically significant.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.095|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.7173|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.464|-0.726||Data for this analysis were obtained from 19 participants at MRX baseline; 17 of those participants contributed Week 48 data.|Student's t-test|||This analysis investigated whether a statistically significant change in ItchRO(Obs) scores was observed when comparing MRX baseline to Week 48. The analysis was based on the safety population.||-0.726|-1.464|< 0.0001
90853615|NCT02047318|181570825|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis that the mean change was equal to zero was tested using the Student's t-test to determine if the mean change in ItchRO(Obs) scores from baseline over time (to Week 158) was statistically significant.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.958|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.7868||0.0307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.784|-0.132||Data for this analysis were obtained from 19 participants at MRX baseline; 6 of those participants contributed Week 158 data.|Student's t-test|||This analysis investigated whether a statistically significant change in ItchRO(Obs) scores was observed over time (with Week 158 chosen as the end point, as the last analysis visit with at least 6 participants). The analysis was based on the safety population.||-0.132|-1.784|0.0307
90853616|NCT02047318|181570828|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis that the mean change was equal to zero was tested using the Student's t-test to determine if the mean change in ALP levels between MRX baseline and Week 48 was statistically significant.|Mean Difference (Net)|7.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|210.32||0.8863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.7|115.6||Data for this analysis were obtained from 19 participants at MRX baseline; 17 of those participants contributed Week 48 data.|Student's t-test|||This analysis investigated whether a statistically significant change in ALP levels was observed when comparing MRX baseline to Week 48. The analysis was based on the safety population.||115.6|-100.7|0.8863
90853617|NCT02047318|181570829|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis that the mean change was equal to zero was tested using the Student's t-test to determine if the mean change in ALP levels from baseline over time (to Week 252) was statistically significant.|Mean Difference (Net)|-184.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|322.22||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-522.5|153.8||Data for this analysis were obtained from 19 participants at MRX baseline; 6 of those participants contributed Week 252 data.|Student's t-test|||This analysis investigated whether a statistically significant change in ALP levels was observed over time (with Week 252 chosen as the end point as the last analysis visit with at least 6 participants). The analysis was based on the safety population.||153.8|-522.5|0.22
90853618|NCT02047318|181570830|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis that the mean change was equal to zero was tested using the Student's t-test to determine if the mean change in ALT levels between MRX baseline and Week 48 was statistically significant.|Mean Difference (Net)|51.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|89.77||0.0307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.4|97.7||Data for this analysis were obtained from 19 participants at MRX baseline; 17 of those participants contributed Week 48 data.|Student's t-test|||This analysis investigated whether a statistically significant change in ALT levels was observed when comparing MRX baseline to Week 48. The analysis was based on the safety population.||97.7|5.4|0.0307
90853619|NCT02047318|181570831|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis that the mean change was equal to zero was tested using the Student's t-test to determine if the mean change in ALT levels from baseline over time (to Week 252) was statistically significant.|Mean Difference (Net)|42.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|140.41||0.4934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-105.0|189.7||Data for this analysis were obtained from 19 participants at MRX baseline; 6 of those participants contributed Week 252 data.|Student's t-test|||This analysis investigated whether a statistically significant change in ALT levels was observed over time (with Week 252 chosen as the end point, as the last analysis visit with at least 6 participants). The analysis was based on the safety population.||189.7|-105|0.4934
90853620|NCT02047318|181570832|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis that the mean change was equal to zero was tested using the Student's t-test to determine if the mean change in AST levels between MRX baseline and Week 48 was statistically significant|Mean Difference (Net)|21.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|58.98||0.1571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|51.6||Data for this analysis were obtained from 19 participants at MRX baseline; 17 of those participants contributed Week 48 data.|Student's t-test|||This analysis investigated whether a statistically significant change in AST levels was observed when comparing MRX baseline to Week 48. The analysis was based on the safety population.||51.6|-9.1|0.1571
90853621|NCT02047318|181570833|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis that the mean change was equal to zero was tested using the Student's t-test to determine if the mean change in AST levels from baseline over time (to Week 252) was statistically significant.|Mean Difference (Net)|12.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|101.84||0.7815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-94.7|119.0||Data for this analysis were obtained from 19 participants at MRX baseline; 6 of those participants contributed Week 252 data.|Student's t-test|||This analysis investigated whether a statistically significant change in AST levels was observed over time (with Week 252 chosen as the end point as the last analysis visit with at least 6 participants). The analysis was based on the safety population.||119|-94.7|0.7815
90853622|NCT02047318|181570834|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis that the mean change was equal to zero was tested using the Student's t-test to determine if the mean change in GGT levels between MRX baseline and Week 48 was statistically significant.|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|257.78||0.9513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-136.4|128.7||Data for this analysis were obtained from 19 participants at MRX baseline; 17 of those participants contributed Week 48 data.|Student's t-test|||This analysis investigated whether a statistically significant change in GGT levels was observed when comparing MRX baseline to Week 48. The analysis was based on the safety population.||128.7|-136.4|0.9513
90958169|NCT02842827|181796235|OTHER|||||||0.508|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|p-value of the treatment effect was calculated between all dose arms with ≥3 participants||||||0.5080
90958170|NCT02842827|181796236|OTHER|||||||0.6109|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|p-value of the treatment effect was calculated between all dose arms with ≥3 participants||||||0.6109
90958171|NCT02842827|181796237|OTHER|||||||0.1151|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|p-value of the treatment effect was calculated between all dose arms with ≥3 participants||||||0.1151
90958172|NCT02842827|181796238|OTHER|||||||0.0791|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|p-value of the treatment effect was calculated between all dose arms with ≥3 participants||||||0.0791
90958173|NCT01815138|181796240|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.05|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
90958174|NCT01815138|181796241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04
90958175|NCT00825825|181796243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.000704||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis is a comparison between the escitalopram and citalopram medication periods.||||0.000704
90958176|NCT00825825|181796244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1.62e-05||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis is a comparison between the escitalopram and citalopram medication periods.||||0.0000162
91031120|NCT02937701|181946884|OTHER||Response Difference|9.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.51|12.87||||||The response difference at week 14 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||12.87|-0.51|
90853623|NCT02047318|181570835|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis that the mean change was equal to zero was tested using the Student's t-test to determine if the mean change in GGT levels from baseline over time (to Week 252) was statistically significant.|Mean Difference (Net)|-56.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|356.88||0.7133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-431.2|317.9||Data for this analysis were obtained from 19 participants at MRX baseline; 6 of those participants contributed Week 252 data.|Student's t-test|||This analysis investigated whether a statistically significant change in GGT levels was observed over time (with Week 252 chosen as the end point as the last analysis visit with at least 6 participants). The analysis was based on the safety population.||317.9|-431.2|0.7133
90853624|NCT02047318|181570836|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis that the mean change was equal to zero was tested using the Student's t-test to determine if the mean change in total bilirubin levels between MRX baseline and Week 48 was statistically significant.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.348||0.7839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|1.37||Data for this analysis were obtained from 19 participants at MRX baseline; 17 of those participants contributed Week 48 data.|Student's t-test|||This analysis investigated whether a statistically significant change in total bilirubin levels was observed when comparing MRX baseline to Week 48. The analysis was based on the safety population.||1.37|-1.05|0.7839
90853625|NCT02047318|181570836|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis that the mean change was equal to zero was tested using the Student's t-test to determine if the mean change in direct bilirubin levels between MRX baseline and Week 48 was statistically significant.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.982||0.5298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.35||Data for this analysis were obtained from 19 participants at MRX baseline; 17 of those participants contributed Week 48 data.|Student's t-test|||This analysis investigated whether a statistically significant change in direct bilirubin levels was observed when comparing MRX baseline to Week 48. The analysis was based on the safety population.||0.35|-0.66|0.5298
90853626|NCT02047318|181570837|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis that the mean change was equal to zero was tested using the Student's t-test to determine if the mean change in total bilirubin levels from baseline over time (to Week 252) was statistically significant.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.53|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.505||0.8218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.31|5.24||Data for this analysis were obtained from 19 participants at MRX baseline; 6 of those participants contributed Week 252 data.|Student's t-test|||This analysis investigated whether a statistically significant change in total bilirubin levels was observed over time (with Week 252 chosen as the end point as the last analysis visit with at least 6 participants). The analysis was based on the safety population.||5.24|-6.31|0.8218
90853627|NCT02047318|181570837|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis that the mean change was equal to zero was tested using the Student's t-test to determine if the mean change in direct bilirubin levels from baseline over time (to Week 252) was statistically significant.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.52|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.001||0.5549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.62|1.58||Data for this analysis were obtained from 19 participants at MRX baseline; 6 of those participants contributed Week 252 data.|Student's t-test|||This analysis investigated whether a statistically significant change in direct bilirubin levels was observed over time (with Week 252 chosen as the end point as the last analysis visit with at least 6 participants). The analysis was based on the safety population.||1.58|-2.62|0.5549
90853628|NCT00708201|181570849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.773|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.359|2.311|||Wald's Chi-Square|||||2.311|1.359|<0.0001
90853629|NCT00708201|181570850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.8|-11.5|||Log Rank|||||-11.5|-37.8|<0.001
90853630|NCT00708201|181570851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.0|-9.9|||Log Rank|||||-9.9|-35.0|<0.001
90853631|NCT00708201|181570852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
90853632|NCT00708201|181570853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|1.38|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.71|||Fisher Exact||This is the relative risk for being a responder (alvimopan/placebo).|||1.71|1.12|<0.01
90853633|NCT00708201|181570854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-20.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact||Percent difference = alvimopan - placebo|Statistical analysis for overall POM is presented.||||<0.001
90853634|NCT00708201|181570855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|27.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact||Percent difference = alvimopan - placebo|Statistical analysis for day of surgery (Day 0) through PSD 7 is presented.||||<0.0001
90901776|NCT02564055|181669823|OTHER||Difference in percentages|16.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|39.4|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % BID and Vehicle BID at Week 4 has been presented.|||39.4|-7.1|
90901777|NCT02564055|181669823|OTHER||Difference in percentages|41.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.2|61.2|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % QD and Vehicle QD at Week 4 has been presented.|||61.2|19.2|
90901778|NCT02564055|181669823|OTHER||Difference in percentages|8.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|32.0|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % BID and Vehicle BID at Week 4 has been presented.|||32.0|-14.9|
90901779|NCT02564055|181669823|OTHER||Difference in percentages|16.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|38.3|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % QD and Vehicle QD at Week 4 has been presented.|||38.3|-7.3|
90901780|NCT02564055|181669823|OTHER||Difference in percentages|13.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|36.5|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % BID and Vehicle BID at Week 8 has been presented.|||36.5|-11.3|
90901781|NCT02564055|181669823|OTHER||Difference in percentages|30.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.1|52.8|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % QD and Vehicle QD at Week 8 has been presented.|||52.8|6.1|
90901782|NCT02564055|181669823|OTHER||Difference in percentages|21.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|44.9|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % BID and Vehicle BID at Week 8 has been presented.|||44.9|-3.0|
90901783|NCT02564055|181669823|OTHER||Difference in percentages|10.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|34.7|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % QD and Vehicle QD at Week 8 has been presented.|||34.7|-13.5|
90958177|NCT00825825|181796245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||9.36e-06||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis is a comparison between the citalopram and placebo medication periods.||||0.00000936
90958178|NCT00825825|181796246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0279||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis is a comparison between the citalopram and placebo medication periods.||||0.0279
90958179|NCT00825825|181796247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.00124||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis is a comparison between the escitalopram and placebo medication periods.||||0.00124
90958180|NCT00825825|181796248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||6.33e-05||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis is a comparison between the placebo and citalopram medication periods.||||0.0000633
90958181|NCT00825825|181796249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0241||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis is a comparison between the escitalopram and citalopram medication periods.||||0.0241
90958182|NCT00882687|181796250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3235|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.3235
90958183|NCT00882687|181796250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9144|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.9144
90958184|NCT00882687|181796250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3324|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.3324
90958185|NCT00882687|181796251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5846|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.5846
90958186|NCT00882687|181796251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1493|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.1493
90901784|NCT02564055|181669823|OTHER||Difference in percentages|27.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|49.9|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % BID and Vehicle BID at Week 12 has been presented.|||49.9|2.5|
90901785|NCT02564055|181669823|OTHER||Difference in percentages|16.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|40.7|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % QD and Vehicle QD at Week 12 has been presented.|||40.7|-9.0|
90901786|NCT02564055|181669823|OTHER||Difference in percentages|29.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|52.3|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % BID and Vehicle BID at Week 12 has been presented.|||52.3|3.7|
90901787|NCT02564055|181669823|OTHER||Difference in percentages|5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.1|30.9|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % QD and Vehicle QD at Week 12 has been presented.|||30.9|-20.1|
90901788|NCT02564055|181669823|OTHER||Difference in percentages|9.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|33.8|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % BID and Vehicle BID at Week 14 has been presented.|||33.8|-16.2|
90901789|NCT02564055|181669823|OTHER||Difference in percentages|12.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|37.3|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % QD and Vehicle QD at Week 14 has been presented.|||37.3|-13.4|
90901790|NCT02564055|181669823|OTHER||Difference in percentages|27.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|50.5|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % BID and Vehicle BID at Week 14 has been presented.|||50.5|0.7|
90901791|NCT02564055|181669823|OTHER||Difference in percentages|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.6|25.6|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % QD and Vehicle QD at Week 14 has been presented.|||25.6|-25.6|
90901792|NCT02564055|181669823|OTHER||Difference in percentages|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.6|27.6|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % BID and Vehicle BID at Week 16 has been presented.|||27.6|-22.6|
90901793|NCT02564055|181669823|OTHER||Difference in percentages|6.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.7|31.7|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % QD and Vehicle QD at Week 16 has been presented.|||31.7|-18.7|
90901794|NCT02564055|181669823|OTHER||Difference in percentages|16.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|41.4|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % BID and Vehicle BID at Week 16 has been presented.|||41.4|-9.5|
90901795|NCT02564055|181669823|OTHER||Difference in percentages|10.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|35.8|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % QD and Vehicle QD at Week 16 has been presented.|||35.8|-14.9|
90901796|NCT02564055|181669823|OTHER||Difference in percentages|33.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.9|90.6|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % BID and Vehicle BID at EW has been presented.|||90.6|-31.9|
90901797|NCT02564055|181669823|OTHER||Difference in percentages|-9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.4|47.8|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % QD and Vehicle QD at EW has been presented.|||47.8|-62.4|
90901798|NCT02564055|181669823|OTHER||Difference in percentages|14.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.2|57.9|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % BID and Vehicle BID at EW has been presented.|||57.9|-32.2|
90901799|NCT02564055|181669823|OTHER||Difference in percentages|24.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.3|80.9|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % QD and Vehicle QD at EW has been presented.|||80.9|-40.3|
90901800|NCT02564055|181669830|OTHER||Difference in percentages|-7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.8|32.5|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % BID and Vehicle BID at Week 1 has been presented.|||32.5|-45.8|
90958187|NCT00882687|181796251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0404|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.0404
90958188|NCT00882687|181796252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0578|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.0578
90958189|NCT00882687|181796252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8988|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.8988
90958190|NCT00882687|181796252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4709|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.4709
90958191|NCT00882687|181796253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1773|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.1773
90958192|NCT00882687|181796253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4222|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.4222
90901801|NCT02564055|181669830|OTHER||Difference in percentages|15.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.7|52.6|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % QD and vehicle QD at Week 1 has been presented.|||52.6|-25.7|
90853635|NCT00708201|181570856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|25.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact||Percent difference = alvimopan - placebo|Statistical analysis for day of surgery (Day 0) through PSD 7 is presented.||||<0.0001
90853636|NCT00708201|181570857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-6.94||||0.0946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|0.62|||Fisher Exact||Percent difference = alvimopan - placebo.|||0.62|-14.5|0.0946
90853637|NCT02554279|181570859|NON_INFERIORITY|The study had at least 80% power, to demonstrate the non-inferiority of menotropin to recombinant FSH at 1-sided significance level of 0.025 with a -12% non-inferiority margin.|Absolute difference|4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|12.1||||||Null hypothesis was defined as the difference between ongoing pregnancy rate of participants randomized and treated with menotropin and recombinant FSH, as ≤-12%.||12.1|-2.7|
90853638|NCT02554279|181570860|OTHER||Absolute difference|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|8.9||||||||8.9|-6.6|
90853639|NCT02554279|181570861|OTHER||Absolute difference|3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|11.3||||||||11.3|-3.8|
90853640|NCT02554279|181570862|OTHER||Absolute difference|-9.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.2|0.2||||||||0.2|-19.2|
90853641|NCT00998764|181570882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.74||||0.324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|2.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline in Alzheimer's Disease Assesment Scale-Cognitive Subscale (ADAS-Cog) at week 13||2.23|-0.74|0.324
90901802|NCT02564055|181669830|OTHER||Difference in percentages|-7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.0|32.6|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % BID and vehicle BID at Week 1 has been presented.|||32.6|-46.0|
90958193|NCT00882687|181796253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4326|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.4326
90958985|NCT01191268|181798011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|-1.27||Treatment comparison at 52 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||-1.27|-2.78|<0.001
91032823|NCT04638153|181951001|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1|||||Month 6|Results based on MMRM analysis with gender as a covariate, participant (and/or time) as a random effect; treatment, visit, age and gender as fixed effects using an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.1|-0.4|
90853642|NCT00998764|181570882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29||||0.723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|1.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline in Alzheimer's Disease Assesment Scale-Cognitive Subscale (ADAS-Cog) at week 26||1.92|-1.33|0.723
90853643|NCT00998764|181570882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|1.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline in Alzheimer's Disease Assesment Scale-Cognitive Subscale (ADAS-Cog) at week 39||1.89|-1.81|0.966
90853644|NCT00998764|181570882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|1.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline in Alzheimer's Disease Assesment Scale-Cognitive Subscale (ADAS-Cog) at week 52||1.92|-1.93|0.996
90853645|NCT00998764|181570882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.21||||0.336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.67|1.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline in Alzheimer's Disease Assesment Scale-Cognitive Subscale (ADAS-Cog) at week 78||1.26|-3.67|0.336
90853646|NCT00998764|181570883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16||||0.737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|0.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from extension study baseline in ADAS-Cog at week 13||0.79|-1.11|0.737
90853647|NCT00998764|181570883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68||||0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from extension study baseline in ADAS-Cog at week 26||0.40|-1.76|0.213
90853648|NCT00998764|181570883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.19|0.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from extension study baseline in ADAS-Cog at week 39||0.38|-2.19|0.168
90853649|NCT00998764|181570883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.91||||0.197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from extension study baseline in ADAS-Cog at week 52||0.48|-2.30|0.197
90853650|NCT00998764|181570883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.13||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.21|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from extension study baseline in ADAS-Cog at week 78||0.06|-4.21|0.044
90853651|NCT00998764|181570884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.99||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from base study baseline in DAD score at Week 13||0.33|-6.30|0.077
90853652|NCT00998764|181570884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.67||||0.117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.02|0.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from base study baseline in DAD score at Week 26||0.67|-6.02|0.117
90853653|NCT00998764|181570884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.6||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.38|0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from base study baseline in DAD score at Week 39||0.19|-7.38|0.063
90853654|NCT00998764|181570884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.75||||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.95|2.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from base study baseline in DAD score at Week 52||2.44|-5.95|0.412
90853655|NCT00998764|181570884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.78||||0.321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.28|2.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from base study baseline in DAD score at Week 78||2.73|-8.28|0.321
90853656|NCT00998764|181570885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.08||||0.329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.24|1.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from extension study baseline in DAD score at Week 13||1.09|-3.24|0.329
90901803|NCT02564055|181669830|OTHER||Difference in percentages|9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.2|48.8|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % QD and vehicle QD at Week 1 has been presented.|||48.8|-32.2|
90901804|NCT02564055|181669830|OTHER||Difference in percentages|-24.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.8|14.8|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % BID and vehicle BID at Week 2 has been presented.|||14.8|-60.8|
90901805|NCT02564055|181669830|OTHER||Difference in percentages|28.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|63.0|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % QD and vehicle QD at Week 2 has been presented.|||63.0|-13.7|
90901806|NCT02564055|181669830|OTHER||Difference in percentages|-33.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.4|6.1|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % BID and vehicle BID at Week 2 has been presented.|||6.1|-67.4|
90901807|NCT02564055|181669830|OTHER||Difference in percentages|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.7|40.7|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % QD and vehicle QD at Week 2 has been presented.|||40.7|-40.7|
90958986|NCT01191268|181798013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|-0.96||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.96|-1.44|<0.001
91031121|NCT02937701|181946885|OTHER||Response Difference|3.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.26|11.73||||||The response difference (ABP 710/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) at week 30 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||11.73|-5.26|
91031122|NCT02937701|181946885|OTHER||Response Difference|8.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.18|17.97||||||The response difference (Infliximab/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) at week 30 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||17.97|-1.18|
90853657|NCT00998764|181570885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.31|1.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from extension study baseline in DAD score at Week 26||1.92|-3.31|0.601
90853658|NCT00998764|181570885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.55||||0.328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.67|1.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from extension study baseline in DAD score at Week 39||1.56|-4.67|0.328
90853659|NCT00998764|181570885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.71||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|4.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from extension study baseline in DAD score at Week 52||4.13|-2.70|0.680
90853660|NCT00998764|181570885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.05|4.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from extension study baseline in DAD score at Week 78||4.77|-5.05|0.954
90853661|NCT00998764|181570886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|2.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from base study baseline in NPI score at week 26.||2.62|-2.40|0.931
90901808|NCT02564055|181669830|OTHER||Difference in percentages|-15.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.8|23.5|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % BID and vehicle BID at Week 4 has been presented.|||23.5|-53.8|
90901809|NCT02564055|181669830|OTHER||Difference in percentages|43.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|74.6|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % QD and vehicle QD at Week 4 has been presented.|||74.6|2.7|
90901810|NCT02564055|181669830|OTHER||Difference in percentages|-15.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.8|23.5|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % BID and vehicle BID at Week 4 has been presented.|||23.5|-53.8|
90958194|NCT02649946|181796257|SUPERIORITY|TLPP evaluated at 6 months post-index procedure to assess if TLPP of COVERA is superior to that of PTA alone, by direct comparison.|||||<|0.001||||||Test successful if the one-side p-value is less than 0.025 and the result is in favor of the COVERA Vascular Covered Stent.|Chi-squared|||"Hypothesis: The (survival) rate in subjects treated with the COVERA Vascular Covered Stent (following PTA) with respect to TLPP through 6 months is greater than that in subjects treated with PTA alone in the treatment of stenoses in the upper extremity venous outflow of subjects dializing with an AV fistula.~Sample size calculation: 238 randomized subjects \[214 evaluable\] will give 92% power with one-sided type 1 error = 0.025."||||<0.001
91032824|NCT04638153|181951001|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2|||||Month 6|Results based on MMRM analysis with gender as a covariate, participant (and/or time) as a random effect; treatment, visit, age and gender as fixed effects using an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.2|-0.4|
90853662|NCT00998764|181570886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.26|1.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from base study baseline in NPI score at week 52.||1.67|-3.26|0.524
90853663|NCT00998764|181570886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.03||||0.353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.32|2.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from base study baseline in NPI score at week 78.||2.27|-6.32|0.353
90853664|NCT00998764|181570887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71||||0.531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.92|1.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from extension study baseline in NPI score at week 26.||1.51|-2.92|0.531
90853665|NCT00998764|181570887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.84||||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.28|0.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from extension study baseline in NPI score at week 52.||0.59|-4.28|0.137
90853666|NCT00998764|181570887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.32||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|0.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from extension study baseline in NPI score at week 78.||0.96|-7.60|0.128
90853667|NCT00998764|181570888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from base study baseline in MMSE score at Week 6.||0.63|-0.49|0.811
90853668|NCT00998764|181570888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from base study baseline in MMSE score at Week 19.||0.69|-0.45|0.681
90853669|NCT00998764|181570888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from extension study baseline in MMSE score at Week 32.||0.72|-0.51|0.742
90853670|NCT00998764|181570888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from extension study baseline in MMSE score at Week 45.||0.83|-0.48|0.598
90853671|NCT00998764|181570888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from extension study baseline in MMSE score at Week 78.||0.77|-0.85|0.922
90853672|NCT00998764|181570889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from extension study baseline in MMSE score at Week 6.||0.90|-0.08|0.099
90901811|NCT02564055|181669830|OTHER||Difference in percentages|9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.6|51.2|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % QD and vehicle QD at Week 4 has been presented.|||51.2|-35.6|
90901812|NCT02564055|181669830|OTHER||Difference in percentages|18.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.1|57.1|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % BID and vehicle BID at Week 8 has been presented.|||57.1|-25.1|
90901813|NCT02564055|181669830|OTHER||Difference in percentages|47.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.8|78.7|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % QD and vehicle QD at Week 8 has been presented.|||78.7|4.8|
90901814|NCT02564055|181669830|OTHER||Difference in percentages|-11.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.3|30.2|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % BID and vehicle BID at Week 8 has been presented.|||30.2|-51.3|
90901815|NCT02564055|181669830|OTHER||Difference in percentages|9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.6|51.2|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % QD and vehicle QD at Week 8 has been presented.|||51.2|-35.6|
90901816|NCT02564055|181669830|OTHER||Difference in percentages|6.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.4|48.5|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % BID and Vehicle BID at Week 12 has been presented.|||48.5|-35.4|
90901817|NCT02564055|181669830|OTHER||Difference in percentages|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.8|47.1|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % QD and Vehicle QD at Week 12 has been presented.|||47.1|-35.8|
90901818|NCT02564055|181669830|OTHER||Difference in percentages|-13.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.0|31.2|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % BID and Vehicle BID at Week 12 has been presented.|||31.2|-54.0|
90901819|NCT02564055|181669830|OTHER||Difference in percentages|-25.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.3|22.4|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % QD and Vehicle QD at Week 12 has been presented.|||22.4|-65.3|
90901820|NCT02564055|181669830|OTHER||Difference in percentages|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.5|42.7|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % BID and Vehicle BID at Week 14 has been presented.|||42.7|-44.5|
90901821|NCT02564055|181669830|OTHER||Difference in percentages|5.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.8|47.3|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % QD and Vehicle QD at Week 14 has been presented.|||47.3|-37.8|
90901822|NCT02564055|181669830|OTHER||Difference in percentages|-5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.9|37.6|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % BID and Vehicle BID at Week 14 has been presented.|||37.6|-47.9|
90901823|NCT02564055|181669830|OTHER||Difference in percentages|-4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.3|41.5|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % QD and Vehicle QD at Week 14 has been presented.|||41.5|-48.3|
90901824|NCT02564055|181669830|OTHER||Difference in percentages|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.5|42.7|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % BID and Vehicle BID at Week 16 has been presented.|||42.7|-44.5|
90901825|NCT02564055|181669830|OTHER||Difference in percentages|8.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.0|49.2|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % QD and Vehicle QD at Week 16 has been presented.|||49.2|-35.0|
90901826|NCT02564055|181669830|OTHER||Difference in percentages|-3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.0|42.3|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % BID and Vehicle BID at Week 16 has been presented.|||42.3|-46.0|
90901827|NCT04542226|181669854|OTHER||||||<|1e-07||||||the a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed-rank test for repeated measures was used to compare with baseline.||||||<0.0000001
90901828|NCT01580098|181669869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.025
90901829|NCT01580098|181669870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.182|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Blood pressure: diastolic||||0.182
90901830|NCT00708305|181669900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.0||||0.9762||95.0|-0.21|0.2||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was predefined.|ANCOVA|The model included mean baseline fluoride level for treatment period (covariate), treatment and period as fixed and subject was random factor.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments in comparison. Tests were 2-sided at 5% significance levels.||0.20|-0.21|0.9762
90901831|NCT00708305|181669901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean DIfference|0.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.7||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons as the comparisons were predefined.|ANCOVA|The model included mean baseline fluoride level for treatment period (covariate), treatment and period as fixed and subject was random factor.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments being compared. Tests were 2 sided at 5% significance levels.||0.70|0.28|<0.0001
90901832|NCT00708305|181669901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.44|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.23|1.65||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons because the comparisons were predefined.|ANCOVA|The model included mean baseline fluoride level for treatment period (covariate), treatment and period as fixed and subject was random factor.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Tests were 2 sided at 5% significance levels.||1.65|1.23|<0.0001
90901833|NCT00708305|181669901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.49|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.28|0.7||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons because the comparisons were predefined.|ANCOVA|The model included mean baseline fluoride level for treatment period (covariate), treatment and period as fixed and subject was random factor.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Tests were 2 sided at 5% significance levels.||0.70|0.28|<0.0001
90901834|NCT00708305|181669901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|1.65||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons because the comparison was predefined.|ANCOVA|The model included mean baseline fluoride level for treatment period (covariate), treatment and period as fixed and subject was random factor.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Tests were 2 sided at 5% significance levels.||1.65|1.23|<0.0001
90901835|NCT00708305|181669901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.95|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.16||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons as the comparisons were predefined.|ANCOVA|The model included mean baseline fluoride level for treatment period (covariate), treatment and period as fixed and subject was random factor.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Tests were 2 sided at 5% significance levels.||1.16|0.74|<0.0001
90901836|NCT00708305|181669902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.83||||0.0151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|1.72||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||1.72|0.12|0.0151
90901837|NCT00708305|181669902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.36|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|2.36||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||2.36|0.69|<0.0001
90958987|NCT01191268|181798013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.55||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.55|-1.03|<0.001
91104334|NCT02539394|182094889|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.037|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of Pre-operative SWAL-QOL - Communication is the same across the 2 arms||||0.037
90853673|NCT00998764|181570889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|1.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from extension study baseline in MMSE score at Week 19.||1.01|-0.07|0.089
90901838|NCT00708305|181669902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|3.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.06|4.05||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments. Tests were 2-sided.||4.05|2.06|<0.0001
91031123|NCT02937701|181946885|OTHER||Response Difference|3.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.61|11.7||||||The response difference (ABP 710/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) at week 34 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||11.70|-4.61|
91032825|NCT04638153|181951001|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2|||||Month 6|Results based on MMRM analysis with gender as a covariate, participant (and/or time) as a random effect; treatment, visit, age and gender as fixed effects using an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.2|-0.4|
90853674|NCT00998764|181570889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45||||0.152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|1.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from extension study baseline in MMSE score at Week 32.||1.08|-0.17|0.152
90853675|NCT00998764|181570889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.52||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|1.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from extension study baseline in MMSE score at Week 45.||1.25|-0.21|0.160
90853676|NCT00998764|181570889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26||||0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|1.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from extension study baseline in MMSE score at Week 78.||1.26|-0.73|0.603
90853677|NCT01634178|181570907|OTHER|Food was considered to have no effect on the PK of apremilast if the 90% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric least squares (LS) mean ratios for AUC0-t and Cmax were completely contained within the range of 80% to 125%.|Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|98.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.7|106.6|||||Ratio of the geometric LS means (Fed/Fasted), reported as percentages.|To assess the food effect, an analysis of variance model (ANOVA) with treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects, and subject nested within sequence as a random effect, was performed on the natural log-transformed Cmax of apremilast.||106.6|90.7|
90853678|NCT01634178|181570909|OTHER||Median Difference|0.75||||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.25|1.25|||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Median difference (Fed - Fasted) calculated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimate.|Tmax was analyzed by nonparametric methods. The median difference and 90% CI of the median difference were calculated from the Hodges-Lehrmann estimate.||1.25|0.25|0.0077
90853679|NCT01634178|181570910|OTHER|Food was considered to have no effect on the PK of apremilast if the 90% CI of the geometric LS mean ratios for AUC0-t and Cmax were completely contained within the range of 80% to 125%.|Ratio of Geometric LS Means|112.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|109.3|115.6|||||Ratio of the geometric LS means (Fed/Fasted), reported as percentages.|To assess the food effect, an analysis of variance model (ANOVA) with treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects, and subject nested within sequence as a random effect, was performed on the natural log-transformed AUC0-t of apremilast.||115.6|109.3|
90853680|NCT01634178|181570911|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|112.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|108.9|115.1|||||Ratio of the geometric LS means (Fed/Fasted), reported as percentages.|To assess the food effect, an ANOVA with treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects, and subject nested within sequence as a random effect, was performed on the natural log-transformed AUC0-∞ of apremilast.||115.1|108.9|
90853681|NCT01933789|181570915|SUPERIORITY||Probit regression coefficient|1.145|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.844|1.446||No adjustment for multiple tests. A priori threshold of 0.05 for statistical significance.|Clustered probit regression|Patients clustered under clinicians. Bivariate model; there were no confounders.|Control group coded 0; intervention group coded 1.|||1.446|0.844|<0.001
90853682|NCT01933789|181570916|SUPERIORITY||Probit regression coefficient|1.251|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.583||No adjustment for multiple tests. A priori threshold of 0.05 for statistical significance.|Clustered probit regression|Patients clustered under clinicians. Bivariate model; there were no confounders.|Control group coded 0; intervention group coded 1.|||1.583|0.920|<0.001
90853683|NCT01933789|181570917|SUPERIORITY||Probit regression coefficient|1.381|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.046|1.715||No adjustment for multiple tests. A priori threshold of 0.05 for statistical significance.|Clustered probit regression|Patients clustered under clinicians. Bivariate model; there were no confounders.|Control group coded 0; intervention group coded 1.|||1.715|1.046|<0.001
90853684|NCT01933789|181570919|SUPERIORITY||Probit regression coefficient|0.334||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.031|0.699||No adjustment for multiple tests. A priori threshold of 0.05 for statistical significance.|Clustered probit regression|Patients clustered under clinicians. Adjusted for the patient's treatment preference (focus on life extension vs. comfort care).|Control group coded 0; intervention group coded 1.|Occurrence of goal-concordant care||0.699|-0.031|0.073
90853685|NCT01933789|181570920|SUPERIORITY||Probit regression coefficient|0.481||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.085|0.877||No adjustment for multiple tests. A priori threshold of 0.05 for statistical significance.|Clustered probit regression|Patients clustered under clinicians. Adjusted for the patient's treatment preference (focus on life extension vs. comfort care).|Control group coded 0; intervention group coded 1.|||0.877|0.085|0.017
90853686|NCT01933789|181570921|SUPERIORITY||Probit regression coefficient|2.022||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.476|3.569||No adjustment for multiple tests. A priori threshold of 0.05 for statistical significance.|Clustered probit regression|Patients clustered under clinicians. Adjusted for the latent variable as measured at baseline.|Control group coded 0; intervention group coded 1.|||3.569|0.476|0.010
90901839|NCT00708305|181669902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.75|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.27||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||1.27|0.41|<0.0001
90853687|NCT01933789|181570922|SUPERIORITY||Tobit regression coefficient|2.209||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.939|3.479||No adjustment for multiple tests. A priori threshold of 0.05 for statistical significance.|Clustered Tobit regression|Patients clustered under clinicians. Adjusted for the outcome variable as measured at baseline.|Control group coded 0; intervention group coded 1.|"Patient rating of clinician's quality of communication about patient's feelings about getting sicker.~Variable with range 0-11, defined as censored from below because of strong floor effect."||3.479|0.939|0.001
91031124|NCT02937701|181946885|OTHER||Response Difference|4.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.4|13.4||||||The response difference (Infliximab/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) at week 34 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||13.40|-5.40|
90901840|NCT00708305|181669902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|2.74||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||2.74|1.50|<0.0001
91099931|NCT02384460|182086067|OTHER|Multiple imputation was implemented by 2 steps. The first step used MCMC to get monotonic missing data pattern. In the second step, a logistic regression model was used, with the following covariates included in the imputation model: treatment, EB type, baseline target wound size, target wound age, and non-missing data from earlier time points. The seed number was 01005 and the number of imputations was 5.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.891||||0.802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.436|1.821||p-value is from the logistic regression model for treatment comparison.|Regression, Logistic|||Logistic Regression Analysis at Month 2 visit. Comparison between treatment groups of complete closure of target wound within 2 months was performed using a logistic regression model with multiple imputation with EB type, baseline target wound size, and baseline target wound age as covariates.||1.821|0.436|0.802
90853688|NCT01933789|181570922|SUPERIORITY||Tobit regression coefficient|1.237||||0.122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|2.804||No adjustment for multiple tests. A priori threshold of 0.05 for statistical significance.|Clustered Tobit regression|Patients clustered under clinicians. Adjusted for the outcome variable as measured at baseline.|Control group coded 0; intervention group coded 1.|"Patient rating of clinician's quality of communication about details of getting sicker.~Variable with range 0-11, defined as censored from below because of strong floor effect."||2.804|-0.330|0.122
90853689|NCT01933789|181570922|SUPERIORITY||Tobit regression coefficient|2.329||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.426|5.083||No adjustment for multiple tests. A priori threshold of 0.05 for statistical significance.|Clustered Tobit regression|Patients clustered under clinicians. Adjusted for the outcome variable as measured at baseline and clinician specialty.|Control group coded 0; intervention group coded 1.|"Patient rating of clinician's quality of communication about how long the patient might have to live.~Variable with range 0-11, defined as censored from below because of strong floor effect."||5.083|-0.426|0.098
90853690|NCT01933789|181570922|SUPERIORITY||Tobit regression coefficient|1.573||||0.352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.742|4.887||No adjustment for multiple tests. A priori threshold of 0.05 for statistical significance.|Clustered Tobit regression|Pts clustered under clins. Adjusted for outcome variable as measured at baseline: pt. minority status, education, income; clinician type \& specialty.|Control group coded 0; intervention group coded 1.|"Patient rating of clinician's quality of communication about what dying might be like.~Variable with range 0-11, defined as censored from below because of strong floor effect."||4.887|-1.742|0.352
90853691|NCT01933789|181570922|SUPERIORITY||Tobit regression coefficient|4.625|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.06|7.19||No adjustment for multiple tests. A priori threshold of 0.05 for statistical significance.|Clustered Tobit regression|Patients clustered under clinicians. Adjusted for the outcome variable as measured at baseline.|Control group coded 0; intervention group coded 1.|"Patient rating of clinician's quality of communication about patient's involvement in end-of-life treatment decisions.~Variable with range 0-11, defined as censored from below because of strong floor effect."||7.190|2.060|<0.001
90853692|NCT01933789|181570922|SUPERIORITY||Tobit regression coefficient|2.404||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.898|3.909||No adjustment for multiple tests. A priori threshold of 0.05 for statistical significance.|Clustered Tobit regression|Patients clustered under clinicians. Adjusted for the outcome variable as measured at baseline.|Control group coded 0; intervention group coded 1.|"Patient rating of clinician's quality of communication about things in life that are important to the patient.~Variable with range 0-11, defined as censored from below because of strong floor effect."||3.909|0.898|0.002
90853693|NCT01933789|181570922|SUPERIORITY||Tobit regression coefficient|2.455||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|5.159||No adjustment for multiple tests. A priori threshold of 0.05 for statistical significance.|Clustered Tobit regression|Patients clustered under clinicians. Adjusted for the outcome variable as measured at baseline and clinician type.|Control group coded 0; intervention group coded 1.|"Patient rating of clinician's quality of communication about patient's religious/spiritual beliefs.~Variable with range 0-11, defined as censored from below because of strong floor effect."||5.159|-0.250|0.075
90853694|NCT01933789|181570923|SUPERIORITY||Probit regression coefficient|-0.103||||0.369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.327|0.122||No adjustment for multiple tests. A priori threshold of 0.05 for statistical significance.|Clustered probit regression|Patients clustered under clinicians. Adjusted for baseline level of the latent depression variable and for the patient racial/ethnic minority status.|Control group coded 0; intervention group coded 1.|Symptoms of depression - Two-indicator latent variable with measurement invariance imposed between groups and over time.||0.122|-0.327|0.369
90958988|NCT01191268|181798013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|-0.94||Treatment comparison at 52 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.94|-1.55|<0.001
90958989|NCT01191268|181798013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.46||Treatment comparison at 52 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.46|-1.06|<0.001
91031125|NCT02937701|181946885|OTHER||Response Difference|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.34|9.4||||||The response difference (ABP 710/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) at week 38 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||9.40|-7.34|
90958195|NCT02649946|181796258|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority Farrington and Manning Exact Test is used to test the primary safety hypothesis. The test is successful if the one-sided p-value is less than 0.025.||||||0.0022|||||||Farrington and Manning|Non-inferiority test with non-inferiority margin of 10%.||"Hypothesis: The safety rate in subjects treated with the COVERA Vascular Covered Stent (following PTA) is non-inferior to the safety rate in subjects treated with PTA alone through 30 days in the treatment of stenotic lesions.~Sample size: 238 randomized subjects \[226 evaluable\] will give 85% power with one-sided type 1 error = 0.025."||||0.0022
90958196|NCT01588496|181796371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-29.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.54|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.94|-18.62||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level (\< 420 vs ≥ 420 mg/dL), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-18.62|-40.94|<0.001
90958197|NCT01588496|181796372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-23.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.81|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.83|-11.45||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level (\< 420 vs ≥ 420 mg/dL), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-11.45|-34.83|<0.001
91031126|NCT02937701|181946885|OTHER||Response Difference|2.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.86|12.34||||||The response difference (Infliximab/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) at week 38 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||12.34|-6.86|
91099932|NCT02384460|182086068|OTHER|Multiple imputation was used by 2 steps. The first step used MCMC to get monotonic missing data pattern. In the second step, a linear regression model was used, with the following covariates included in the imputation model: treatment, EB type, baseline BSAI of lesional skin, and non-missing data from earlier time points. The seed number was 01005 and the number of imputations was 5.|LS means difference|0.682||||0.706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.873|4.238||The p-value is calculated based on the hypothesis testing for the difference of least-squares (LS)-means between treatment and placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) Analysis. The MMRM approach (using restricted maximum likelihood \[REML\] estimation) was used on each multiply-imputed data set. The model included treatment, baseline BSAI of lesional skin, EB type, visit, and visit-treatment interaction as the fixed effects.||4.238|-2.873|0.706
91099933|NCT02384460|182086069|OTHER|Multiple imputation was used by 2 steps. The first step used MCMC to get monotonic missing data pattern. In the second step, a linear regression model was used, with the following covariates included in the imputation model: treatment, EB type, baseline BSAI of lesional skin, and non-missing data from earlier time points. The seed number was 01005 and the number of imputations was 5.|LS means difference|0.128||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.116|1.861||The p-value is calculated based on the hypothesis testing for the difference of LS-means between treatment and placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM Analysis. The MMRM approach (using REML estimation) was used on each multiply-imputed data set. The model included treatment, baseline BSAI of lesional skin, EB type, visit, and visit-treatment interaction as the fixed effects.||1.861|-2.116|0.9
91104335|NCT02539394|182094889|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.858|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of POD1 SWAL-QOL - Communication is the same across the 2 arms||||0.858
90853695|NCT01933789|181570924|SUPERIORITY||Probit regression coefficient|0.263||||0.536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.571|1.097||No adjustment for multiple tests. A priori threshold of 0.05 for statistical significance.|Clustered robust linear regression|Patients clustered under clinicians. Adjusted for baseline level of the PHQ-8 composite score.|Control group coded 0; intervention group coded 1.|Symptoms of depression: standard PHQ-8 composite score.||1.097|-0.571|0.536
90853696|NCT01933789|181570925|SUPERIORITY||Probit regression coefficient|0.208||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.044|0.461||No adjustment for multiple tests. A priori threshold of 0.05 for statistical significance.|Clustered probit regression|Pts clustered under clins. Adjusted for baseline level of the latent depression var; pt age, minority status, education, health status; clin specialty|Control group coded 0; intervention group coded 1.|Symptoms of depression: Two-indicator latent variable with measurement invariance imposed between groups and over time||0.461|-0.044|0.106
90958198|NCT01588496|181796373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-22.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.38|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.72|-12.05||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level (\< 420 vs ≥ 420 mg/dL), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-12.05|-33.72|<0.001
90958990|NCT01270971|181798085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.001
90958991|NCT01270971|181798086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90958992|NCT01270971|181798087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90853697|NCT01933789|181570926|SUPERIORITY||Probit regression coefficient|0.446||||0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.476|1.368||No adjustment for multiple tests. A priori threshold of 0.05 for statistical significance.|Clustered robust linear regression|Patients clustered under clinicians. Adjusted for baseline level of the PHQ-8 composite score and clinician specialty.|Control group coded 0; intervention group coded 1.|Symptoms of depression: Standard PHQ-8 composite score||1.368|-0.476|0.343
90853698|NCT01933789|181570927|SUPERIORITY||Probit regression coefficient|-0.034||||0.734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.232|0.163||No adjustment for multiple tests. A priori threshold of 0.05 for statistical significance.|Clustered probit regression|Patients clustered under clinicians. Adjusted for baseline level of the latent anxiety variable.|Control group coded 0; intervention group coded 1.|Symptoms of anxiety: Two-indicator latent variable with measurement invariance imposed between groups and over time||0.163|-0.232|0.734
90853699|NCT01933789|181570928|SUPERIORITY||Tobit regression coefficient|0.041||||0.935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.946|1.028||No adjustment for multiple tests. A priori threshold of 0.05 for statistical significance.|Clustered Tobit regression|Pts clustered under clins. Clustered Tobit regression because strong floor effect on composite score. Adjusted for baseline level of composite score.|Control group coded 0; intervention group coded 1.|Symptoms of anxiety: Standard GAD-7 composite score||1.028|-0.946|0.935
91031127|NCT02937701|181946885|OTHER||Response Difference|-3.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.27|5.17||||||The response difference (ABP 710/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) at week 46 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||5.17|-12.27|
91031128|NCT02937701|181946885|OTHER||Response Difference|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.89|11.08||||||The response difference (Infliximab/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) at week 46 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||11.08|-8.89|
91031129|NCT02937701|181946885|OTHER||Response Difference|-5.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.24|3.29||||||The response difference (ABP 710/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) at week 50 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||3.29|-13.24|
91031130|NCT02937701|181946885|OTHER||Response Difference|-1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.01|8.04||||||The response difference (Infliximab/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) at week 50 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||8.04|-11.01|
91031131|NCT02937701|181946886|OTHER||Response Difference|4.41|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.56|9.38||||||The response difference at week 2 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||9.38|-0.56|
91099934|NCT02384460|182086070|OTHER|Pre-specified.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.445||||0.262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.759|2.752||p-value is from the logistic regression model for treatment comparison.|Regression, Logistic|||The proportion of participants experiencing improvement in itching versus non-improvement (including missing) was compared between the 2 treatment groups for Day 7 using the logistic regression model with baseline itching score, and EB type as covariates.||2.752|0.759|0.262
91099935|NCT02384460|182086071|OTHER|Pre-specified.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.596||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.323|1.1||p-value is from the logistic regression model for treatment comparison.|Regression, Logistic|||The proportion of participants experiencing improvement in pain versus non-improvement (including missing) was compared between the 2 treatment groups for Day 7 using the logistic regression model with baseline pain score and EB type as covariates.||1.1|0.323|0.098
91099936|NCT01004393|182086082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.161|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.161
90853700|NCT01933789|181570929|SUPERIORITY||Probit regression coefficient|-0.042||||0.689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.247|0.163||No adjustment for multiple tests. A priori threshold of 0.05 for statistical significance.|Clustered probit regression|Patients clustered under clinicians. Adjusted for baseline level of the latent anxiety variable.|Control group coded 0; intervention group coded 1.|Symptoms of anxiety: Two-indicator latent variable with measurement invariance imposed between groups and over time||0.163|-0.247|0.689
90853701|NCT01933789|181570930|SUPERIORITY||Tobit regression coefficient|-0.105||||0.852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.204|0.995||"No adjustment for multiple tests. A priori threshold of 0.05 for statistical significance.~Patients clustered under clinicians. Clustered Tobit regression because of strong floor effect on composite score."|Clustered Tobit regression|Adjusted for baseline level of the GAD-7 composite score.|Control group coded 0; intervention group coded 1.|||0.995|-1.204|0.852
90853702|NCT01933789|181570931|SUPERIORITY||probit regression coefficient|-0.221||||0.418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.923|0.482||"No adjustment for multiple tests. A priori threshold of 0.05 for statistical significance.~Patients clustered under clinicians."|clustered probit regression|Adjusted for confounding by patient race and health status and by clinician type and specialty|Control group coded 0; intervention group coded 1.|||0.482|-0.923|0.418
90853703|NCT01933789|181570932|SUPERIORITY||probit regression coefficient|0.175||||0.568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.613|0.962||"No adjustment for multiple tests. A priori threshold of 0.05 for statistical significance.~Patients clustered under clinicians."|clustered probit regression|No covariate adjustment.|Control group coded 0; intervention group coded 1.|||0.962|-0.613|0.568
90853704|NCT01933789|181570933|SUPERIORITY||probit regression coefficient|0.14||||0.592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.534|0.815||"No adjustment for multiple tests. A priori threshold of 0.05 for statistical significance.~Patients clustered under clinicians."|clustered probit regression|No covariate adjustment|Control group coded 0; intervention group coded 1.|||0.815|-0.534|0.592
90958199|NCT01588496|181796374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-11.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.77||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.48|1.82||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level (\< 420 vs ≥ 420 mg/dL), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||1.82|-25.48|0.088
90958993|NCT01270971|181798088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91031132|NCT02937701|181946886|OTHER||Response Difference|1.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.71|7.94||||||The response difference at week 6 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||7.94|-4.71|
91031133|NCT02937701|181946886|OTHER||Response Difference|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.45|9.03||||||The response difference at week 14 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||9.03|-4.45|
91099937|NCT02933476|182086091|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||We compared off therapy UPDRS III scores at baseline to one and four weeks after stimulation.||||>0.05
91099938|NCT02933476|182086092|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.008
91099939|NCT02933476|182086093|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91099940|NCT02734147|182086094|OTHER|||||||0.631|||||||Other|||||||0.631
91099941|NCT02734147|182086095|OTHER|||||||0.64|||||||Other|||||||0.640
91099942|NCT02734147|182086096|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.006
91099943|NCT02734147|182086097|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.655|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.655
91099944|NCT02734147|182086098|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.133|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.133
91099945|NCT02734147|182086099|OTHER|||||||0.566|||||||Other|||||||0.566
91099946|NCT02734147|182086100|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.0
90901841|NCT00708305|181669902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.35||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||1.35|0.73|<0.0001
91099947|NCT01179516|182086134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.488||0.597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.71|2.14||Pre-specified sequential statistical testing procedure indicates that when p-value \>0.025, hierarchical testing stops and for subsequent endpoints in the sequence a nominal p-value is provided.|Mixed model for repeated measurements|MMRM ANCOVA with treatment, center, week, treatment-by-week interaction, baseline MADRS total score-by-week as fixed effects.||All statistical tests were 2-sided with the estimated P-values at the 5% level of significance. To control for multiplicity, a pre-specified sequential testing procedure for each dose was applied to compare 10 mg and 15 mg vortioxetine to placebo. Efficacy endpoints were tested for each dose in sequential order at significance level 0.025; as soon as an endpoint was non-significant at 0.025, the testing procedure stopped for all subsequent endpoints.||2.14|-3.71|0.597
91099948|NCT01179516|182086134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.501||0.745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.44|2.46||Pre-specified sequential statistical testing procedure indicates that when p-value \>0.025, hierarchical testing stops and for subsequent endpoints in the sequence a nominal p-value is provided.|Mixed model for repeated measurements|MMRM ANCOVA with treatment, center, week, treatment-by-week interaction, baseline MADRS total score-by-week as fixed effects.||||2.46|-3.44|0.745
90901842|NCT00708305|181669903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.5545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.47||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||0.47|-0.22|0.5545
90901843|NCT00708305|181669903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.71||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||0.71|0.15|0.0003
91099949|NCT01179516|182086135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.232||||0.396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.761|1.995|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with explanatory variables for treatment and Baseline MADRS score.||||1.995|0.761|0.396
90853705|NCT01933789|181570936|SUPERIORITY||probit regression coefficient|-0.179||||0.705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.398|1.04||"No adjustment for multiple tests. A priori threshold of 0.05 for statistical significance.~Patients clustered under clinicians."|clustered probit regression|No covariate adjustment|Control group coded 0; intervention group coded 1.|||1.040|-1.398|0.705
90853706|NCT01933789|181570937|SUPERIORITY||probit regression coefficient|0.123||||0.644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.805||"No adjustment for multiple tests. A priori threshold of 0.05 for statistical significance.~Patients clustered under clinicians."|clustered probit regression|No covariate adjustment|Control group coded 0; intervention group coded 1.|||0.805|-0.560|0.644
90853707|NCT01933789|181570938|SUPERIORITY||probit regression coefficient|-0.165||||0.908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.833|3.503||"No adjustment for multiple tests. A priori threshold of 0.05 for statistical significance.~Patients clustered under clinicians."|clustered probit regression|Adjusted for confounding by patient education and health status and by clinician gender.|Control group coded 0; intervention group coded 1.|||3.503|-3.833|0.908
90853708|NCT01933789|181570939|SUPERIORITY||probit regression coefficient|-0.121||||0.552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.646|0.403||"No adjustment for multiple tests. A priori threshold of 0.05 for statistical significance.~Patients clustered under clinicians."|clustered probit regression|No covariate adjustment.|Control group coded 0; intervention group coded 1.|||0.403|-0.646|0.552
90853709|NCT01933789|181570940|SUPERIORITY||probit regression coefficient|-0.293||||0.372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.139|0.553||"No adjustment for multiple tests. A priori threshold of 0.05 for statistical significance.~Patients clustered under clinicians."|clustered probit regression|No covariate adjustment.|Control group coded 0; intervention group coded 1.|||0.553|-1.139|0.372
90853710|NCT01933789|181570941|SUPERIORITY||probit regression coefficient|-0.13||||0.501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.369||"No adjustment for multiple tests. A priori threshold of 0.05 for statistical significance.~Patients clustered under clinicians."|clustered probit regression|No covariate adjustment.|Control group coded 0; intervention group coded 1.|||0.369|-0.630|0.501
90901844|NCT00708305|181669903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.91|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.56||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||1.56|0.58|<0.0001
91099950|NCT01179516|182086135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.212||||0.435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.748|1.963|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with explanatory variables for treatment and Baseline MADRS score.||||1.963|0.748|0.435
91099951|NCT01179516|182086136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.149||0.554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.21|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|MMRM ANCOVA with treatment, center, week, treatment-by-week interaction, baseline CGI-S score-by-week as fixed effects.||||0.21|-0.38|0.554
90853711|NCT01933789|181570942|SUPERIORITY||probit regression coefficient|-0.39||||0.192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.38||"No adjustment for multiple tests. A priori threshold of 0.05 for statistical significance.~Patients clustered under clinicians."|clustered probit regression|No covariate adjustment.|Control group coded 0; intervention group coded 1.|||0.380|-1.160|0.192
90958994|NCT01551212|181798089|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.09||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|8.91|||ANCOVA|factors: treatment, center, HCV-Class (positive, negative) and lab MELD (≤ 30 vs \> 30) covariate: baseline value||||8.91|-0.74|0.097
91099952|NCT01179516|182086136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.151||0.739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.25|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|MMRM ANCOVA with treatment, center, week, treatment-by-week interaction, baseline CGI-S score-by-week as fixed effects.||||0.25|-0.35|0.739
91099953|NCT01179516|182086137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.261||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.43|3.5|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|MMRM ANCOVA with treatment, center, week, treatment-by-week interaction, baseline MADRS total score-by-week as fixed effects.||||3.50|-5.43|0.670
91099954|NCT01179516|182086137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.295||0.451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|6.26|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|MMRM ANCOVA with treatment, center, week, treatment-by-week interaction, baseline MADRS total score-by-week as fixed effects.||||6.26|-2.80|0.451
90853712|NCT01933789|181570943|SUPERIORITY||probit regression coefficient|-0.014||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.489|0.461||"No adjustment for multiple tests. A priori threshold of 0.05 for statistical significance.~Patients clustered under clinicians."|clustered probit regression|No covariate adjustment.|Control group coded 0; intervention group coded 1.|||0.461|-0.489|0.940
90853713|NCT01933789|181570944|SUPERIORITY||probit regression coefficient|-0.229||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.044|0.587||"No adjustment for multiple tests. A priori threshold of 0.05 for statistical significance.~Patients clustered under clinicians."|clustered probit regression|No covariate adjustment.|Control group coded 0; intervention group coded 1.|||0.587|-1.044|0.470
90853714|NCT01933789|181570945|SUPERIORITY||probit regression coefficient|-0.01||||0.955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.474|0.454||"No adjustment for multiple tests. A priori threshold of 0.05 for statistical significance.~Patients clustered under clinicians."|clustered probit regression|No covariate adjustment.|Control group coded 0; intervention group coded 1.|||0.454|-0.474|0.955
90853715|NCT01933789|181570946|SUPERIORITY||probit regression coefficient|-0.287||||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.005|0.431||"No adjustment for multiple tests. A priori threshold of 0.05 for statistical significance.~Patients clustered under clinicians."|clustered probit regression|No covariate adjustment.|Control group coded 0; intervention group coded 1.|||0.431|-1.005|0.303
90853716|NCT02915874|181570950|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.02
90853717|NCT02915874|181570951|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.19|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.19
90901845|NCT00708305|181669903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.36|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.68||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|Wilcoxon Signal Rank Test||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||0.68|0.15|<0.0001
90901846|NCT00708305|181669903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.91|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.35||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||1.35|0.58|<0.0001
90901847|NCT00708305|181669903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.56||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||0.56|0.26|<0.0001
90901848|NCT00708305|181669904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.6865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.08||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||0.08|-0.13|0.6865
90901849|NCT00708305|181669904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.1756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.12||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||0.12|-0.02|0.1756
91099955|NCT01179516|182086138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.291||||0.352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.754|2.211|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with explanatory variables for treatment and Baseline MADRS total score.||||2.211|0.754|0.352
91099956|NCT01179516|182086138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.116||||0.694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.646|1.928|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with explanatory variables for treatment and Baseline MADRS total score.||||1.928|0.646|0.694
90853718|NCT02915874|181570952|SUPERIORITY||Slope|2.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86||0.27|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.27
90853719|NCT02915874|181570953|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.3||0.98|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.98
90853720|NCT02915874|181570954|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.58||0.69|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori: 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.69
90853721|NCT02915874|181570955|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.93||0.58|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.58
90853722|NCT02915874|181570956|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.08|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.08
90901850|NCT00708305|181669904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.24|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.38||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||0.38|0.16|<0.0001
90901851|NCT00708305|181669904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.22||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||0.22|0.04|0.0023
90901852|NCT00708305|181669904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.51||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||0.51|0.22|<0.0001
90901853|NCT00708305|181669904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.25||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||0.25|0.12|<0.0001
90901854|NCT00708305|181669905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.0783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.0||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||0.00|-0.08|0.0783
91099957|NCT01179516|182086139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25||0.464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.38|1.55|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|MMRM ANCOVA with treatment, center, week, treatment-by-week interaction, baseline SDS total score-by-week as fixed effects.||||1.55|-3.38|0.464
91099958|NCT01179516|182086139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.322||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|3.3|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|MMRM ANCOVA with treatment, center, week, treatment-by-week interaction, baseline SDS total score-by-week as fixed effects.||||3.30|-1.91|0.600
90901855|NCT00708305|181669905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.0531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.07||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||0.07|0.00|0.0531
90901856|NCT00708305|181669905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.14||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||0.14|0.07|<0.0001
90901857|NCT00708305|181669905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.15||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||0.15|0.03|0.0005
90901858|NCT00708305|181669905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.2||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||0.20|0.08|<0.0001
90901859|NCT00708305|181669905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.1||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||0.10|0.04|<0.0001
90901860|NCT00708305|181669906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.4309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.01||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||0.01|-0.03|0.4309
90958995|NCT01551212|181798090|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.99||||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.06|13.92|||ANCOVA|factors: treatment, center, HCV-Class (positive, negative) and lab MELD (≤ 30 vs \> 30) covariate: baseline value||||13.92|2.06|0.0085
91099959|NCT01668537|182086140|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin to show that the FD formulation is non-inferior to the LF formulation in terms of ELISA GMTs at the peak visit (Week 6) was predefined as '1.5' for the GMT ratio (LF/FD). Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the upper 95% CI of the GMT ratio (LF/FD) is entirely below 1.5|GMT ratio (LF/FD)|0.796|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.707|0.896||||||||0.896|0.707|
90901861|NCT00708305|181669906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.0726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.04||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||0.04|0.00|0.0726
90901862|NCT00708305|181669906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.06||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||0.06|0.03|<0.0001
90901863|NCT00708305|181669906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.0107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.06||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||0.06|0.01|0.0107
90958996|NCT01551212|181798091|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.699|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.699
90958997|NCT04217590|181798096|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|15.12|||Fisher Exact||The CI for OR is calculated as an exact CI. An OR \> 1 favours SZC.|||15.12|1.90|<0.001
91099960|NCT02122952|182086167|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||One-sided Exact Binomial Test|||Data for the current study were compared to historical control data (Pediatric Neuromuscular Clinical Research \[PNCR\], Finkel et al 2014 - PubMed 25080519) where 0 participants were able to sit independently.||||<0.001
91099961|NCT01659541|182086172|OTHER|Statistical analyses were performed using a repeated measures analysis of variance and Paired t test. A p value was calculated.|||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|Statistical analyses will be performed using a repeated measures analysis of variance and Paired t test.||Each patient was served as their own control (Pre-Implant); comparisons was made at various points in the study (Week #28, #40 and #52).||||<0.05
91099962|NCT01659541|182086173|OTHER|Statistical analyses were performed using a repeated measures analysis of variance and Paired t test. A p value was calculated.|||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|Statistical analyses will be performed using a repeated measures analysis of variance and Paired t test.||Each patient was served as their own control (Pre-Implant); comparisons were made at various points in the study (Week #28, #40 and #52).||||<0.05
90853723|NCT01903252|181570957|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority, pre-defined non-inferiority margin 10% A two-sided 95% confidence interval about the difference in proportions was constructed. If the lower limit of the confidence interval was no less than -10% it would be concluded that the test product is non-inferior to the comparator.|Risk Difference (RD)|-2.2||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|3.8|||Non-inferiority|||If the lower limit of the confidence interval was no less than -10% it would be concluded that the test product is non-inferior to the comparator.||3.8|-8.1|0.005
90853724|NCT01903252|181570958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentag|75.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|69.4|80.6||||||||80.6|69.4|
90853725|NCT01903252|181570960|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|non-inferiority|Risk Difference (RD)|-2.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|2.2|||Non-inferiority|||||2.2|-6.5|<0.001
90853726|NCT01903252|181570961|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority|Risk Difference (RD)|-3.1||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|3.9|||Non-inferiority|||||3.9|-10.1|0.026
90853727|NCT01903252|181570962|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority|Risk Difference (RD)|-4.8||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|1.4|||Non-inferiority|||||1.4|-10.9|0.048
90853728|NCT01903252|181570963|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-Inferiority|Risk Difference (RD)|-3.9||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|3.1|||Non-inferiortiy|||||3.1|-10.8|0.042
90853729|NCT01903252|181570964|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-Inferiority|Risk Difference (RD)|-4.2||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|2.7|||Non-inferiority|||||2.7|-11.0|0.048
90853730|NCT01903252|181570965|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority|Risk Difference (RD)|-5.3||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|0.9|||Non-inferiority|||||0.9|-11.5|0.068
90853731|NCT01903252|181570966|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority|Risk Difference (RD)|-2.9||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|4.0|||Non-inferiortiy|||||4.0|-9.8|0.021
90853732|NCT01903252|181570967|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority|Risk Difference (RD)|-3.4||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|3.7|||Non-inferiortiy|||||3.7|-10.3|0.031
90853733|NCT01903252|181570968|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority|Risk Difference (RD)|-3.7||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|1.8|||Non-inferiority|||||1.8|-9.2|0.013
90853734|NCT01903252|181570969|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority|Risk Difference (RD)|-3.9||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|3.0|||Non-inferiority|||||3.0|-10.8|0.042
90853735|NCT01903252|181570970|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.3|-0.5|0.557
90853736|NCT01903252|181570971|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.3|-0.3|0.987
90853737|NCT01903252|181570972|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2|||t-test, 2 sided||The result of the mean difference is not corresponding to the values in the table due to rounding as specified in the Statistical Analysis Plan (SAP).|||0.2|-0.1|0.455
90853738|NCT01903252|181570973|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||t-test, 2 sided||The apparent difference between the values in the table and the mean difference is due to rounding as defined in the SAP.|||0.1|-0.1|0.937
90853739|NCT01903252|181570974|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.1|-0.2|0.357
90853740|NCT01903252|181570975|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.0|-0.2|0.099
90853741|NCT01903252|181570976|OTHER||Percentage|21.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.8|27.5||||||||27.5|16.8|
90853742|NCT01903252|181570977|OTHER||Percentage|60.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.6|66.3||||||||66.3|53.6|
90853743|NCT01903252|181570978|OTHER||Percentage|26.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.9|32.3||||||||32.3|20.9|
90853744|NCT01903252|181570979|OTHER||Percentage|44.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.5|51.3||||||||51.3|38.5|
90853745|NCT01903252|181570980|OTHER||Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.5||||||||1.5|0.0|
90853746|NCT01150474|181571034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.82
90853747|NCT01150474|181571035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.75
90853748|NCT01150474|181571036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.07
90853749|NCT01150474|181571037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.43
90853750|NCT01150474|181571038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.30
90853751|NCT01150474|181571039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.14
90853752|NCT01150474|181571040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.83
90853753|NCT01150474|181571041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.55
90853754|NCT01150474|181571042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.59
90853755|NCT02581943|181571051|OTHER|||||||0.366|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.366
91031134|NCT02937701|181946886|OTHER||Response Difference|7.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.27|13.83||||||The response difference at week 22 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||13.83|0.27|
91031135|NCT02937701|181946887|OTHER||Response Difference|-1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.4|7.62||||||The response difference (ABP 710/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) at week 30 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||7.62|-10.40|
90853756|NCT02581943|181571052|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: no difference between treatment arms in the post-pre difference in cell counts.||||||0.327|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|test for CD4+FoxP3||||||0.327
90853757|NCT02581943|181571052|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: no difference between treatment arms in the post-pre difference in cell counts.||||||0.142|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|test for MDSC||||||0.142
90853758|NCT02581943|181571052|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: no difference between treatment arms in the post-pre difference in cell counts.||||||0.462||||||test for CD4+ICOS+|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.462
90853759|NCT02581943|181571052|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: no difference between treatment arms in the post-pre difference in cell counts.||||||0.87||||||test for CD8+ICOS+|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.870
90853760|NCT02581943|181571052|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: no difference between treatment arms in the post-pre difference in cell counts.||||||0.414||||||test for Plamacytoid DC|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.414
90853761|NCT02581943|181571052|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: no difference between treatment arms in the post-pre difference in cell counts.||||||0.121||||||test for Monocytes|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.121
90853762|NCT02581943|181571052|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: no difference between treatment arms in the post-pre difference in cell counts.||||||0.624||||||test for T cells (CD3+)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.624
90853763|NCT02581943|181571053|OTHER|||||||0.348|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.348
90853764|NCT02581943|181571054|OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.63
90853765|NCT02581943|181571055|OTHER|||||||0.692|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.692
90853766|NCT02581943|181571056|OTHER|||||||0.345|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.345
90853767|NCT02581943|181571057|OTHER|||||||0.917|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|Test for CD8+ICOS||||||0.917
90853768|NCT02581943|181571057|OTHER|||||||0.746|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|test for MDSC||||||0.746
90853769|NCT02581943|181571057|OTHER|||||||0.302||||||test for CD4+ICOS|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.302
90853770|NCT02581943|181571057|OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|test for CD8+ICOS+||||||0.130
90853771|NCT02581943|181571057|OTHER|||||||0.628||||||test for Plamacytoid DC|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.628
90853772|NCT02581943|181571057|OTHER|||||||0.567||||||test for Monocytes|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.567
90853773|NCT02581943|181571057|OTHER|||||||0.311||||||test for T cells (CD3+)|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.311
90853774|NCT02197234|181571067|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|90% CIs being within 70% to 143%.|Geometric mean ratio|77.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|63.41|93.7|||||Simvastatin + AZD9291 / Simvastatin alone. Based on linear mixed-effects model with treatment as fixed effect and patient as a random effect.|Study sized so experiment-wise power for the 90% CIs of geometric mean ratios for both AUC and Cmax of AUC9291 being within 70-143% was 90% (95% for each parameter). Within patient CV assumed to be 45%. No change in exposure was also assumed.||93.70|63.41|
90853775|NCT02197234|181571068|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|90% CIs being within 70% to 143%.|Geometric mean ratio|91.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.16|108.41|||||Simvastatin + AZD9291 / Simvastatin alone. Based on linear mixed-effects model with treatment as fixed effect and patient as a random effect.|Study sized so experiment-wise power for the 90% CIs of geometric mean ratios for both AUC and Cmax of AUC9291 being within 70-143% was 90% (95% for each parameter). Within patient CV assumed to be 45%. No change in exposure was also assumed.||108.41|77.16|
90853776|NCT02119676|181571099|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.49||1-sided|Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified by modified Glasgow Prognostic Score (mGPS) and geographical region.|Estimated using a Cox regression model with Efron's method used for ties, stratified by mGPS score and geographical region|||1.49|0.73|0.588
90853777|NCT02119676|181571099|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.23||1-sided|Log Rank|Log rank test stratified by geographical region.|Estimated using Cox regression model with Efron's method used for ties, stratified by geographical region|||1.23|0.48|0.136
90853778|NCT00219544|181571105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.0018||95.0|-1.27|-0.3|||ANCOVA||Difference = pregabalin minus placebo|The study is powered to detect clinically significant difference of 1.2 between treatment groups in mean pain score at end of treatment. The statistical sample size calculation requires a total of 144 subjects to complete the Double-Blind phase of the study: a sample size of 72 in each treatment group will have 90% power to detect a difference in treatment mean pain scores of 1.2 assuming that the common standard deviation is 2.2 using a two group t-test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level.||-0.30|-1.27|0.0018
90853779|NCT00219544|181571108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.001||95.0|-1.15|-0.3|||ANCOVA||pregabalin minus placebo|Week 5||-0.30|-1.15|0.0010
90853780|NCT00219544|181571108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.41|-0.53|||ANCOVA||pregabalin minus placebo|Week 6||-0.53|-1.41|<.0001
90853781|NCT00219544|181571108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.39|-0.47|||ANCOVA||pregabalin minus placebo|Week 7||-0.47|-1.39|<.0001
90853782|NCT00219544|181571108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.39|-0.47|||ANCOVA||pregabalin minus placebo|Week 8||-0.47|-1.39|<.0001
90853783|NCT00219544|181571108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0022||95.0|-1.14|-0.25|||ANCOVA||pregabalin minus placebo|Week 9||-0.25|-1.14|0.0022
91099963|NCT01659541|182086174|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||nonparametric analog (Freidman Test)|||The data prior to implantation (Pre-Implant)) were compared with data obtained after implantation (Week ##28, #40, #52) of the cough system using a nonparametric analog (Friedman Test) to the standard repeated measures analysis of variance. A p value was calculated. This alpha level was chosen as a correlation for inflated type I error rates because of multiple comparisons. Results are reported as means ± Standard Error.||||<0.05
90853784|NCT00219544|181571114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0031||95.0|-1.18|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||||-0.24|-1.18|0.0031
90901864|NCT00708305|181669906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.07|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||0.07|0.03|<0.0001
91099964|NCT01659541|182086175|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||nonparametric analog (Freidman Test)|||The data prior to implantation (Pre-Implant) were compared with data obtained after implantation (Week #28, #40, #52) of the cough system using a nonparametric analog (Friedman Test) to the standard repeated measures analysis of variance. A p value was calculated. This alpha level was chosen as a correlation for inflated type I error rates because of multiple comparisons. Results are reported as means ± Standard Error.||||<0.05
91099965|NCT01659541|182086176|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||nonparametric analog (Freidman Test)|||The data prior to implantation (Pre-Implant) were compared with data obtained after implantation (Week #28 ,#40, #52) of the cough system using a nonparametric analog (Friedman Test) to the standard repeated measures analysis of variance. Paired t test. A p value was calculated. This alpha level was chosen as a correlation for inflated type I error rates because of multiple comparisons. Results are reported as means ± Standard Error.||||<0.05
90853785|NCT00219544|181571117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0177||95.0|-0.94|-0.09|||ANCOVA||pregabalin minus placebo|Week 5||-0.09|-0.94|0.0177
90901865|NCT00708305|181669906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.04||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||0.04|0.01|0.0012
90901866|NCT04711460|181669907|SUPERIORITY|Threshold of statistically significance was set at p=0.05. No power calculation was conducted.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.003|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.59||0.003|TWO_SIDED|0.05||||Threshold of statistically significance was set at p=0.05. No power calculation was conducted.|t-test, 2 sided|Threshold of statistically significance was set at p=0.05. No power calculation was conducted.||||||0.003
90901867|NCT04711460|181669907|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05. No power analysis was conducted.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.009|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.59||0.009|ONE_SIDED|95.0||||Threshold of statistically significance was set at p=0.05. No power calculation was conducted.|ANOVA|Threshold of statistically significance was set at p=0.05. No power calculation was conducted.|Threshold of statistically significance was set at p=0.05. No power calculation was conducted.|||||0.009
90901868|NCT04711460|181669907|SUPERIORITY|The Tukey Kramer Post Hoc Test q value = 0.05 threshold|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.609|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|0.05||||Threshold of statistically significance was set at p=0.05. No power calculation was conducted.|Tukey Kramer Post-Hoc|Threshold of statistically significance was set at p=0.05.|Threshold of statistically significance was set at p=0.05. No power calculation was conducted.|||||<0.05
90853786|NCT00219544|181571117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.31|-0.44|||ANCOVA||pregabalin minus placebo|Week 6||-0.44|-1.31|<.0001
90853787|NCT00219544|181571117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0005||95.0|-1.28|-0.36|||ANCOVA||pregabalin minus placebo|Week 7||-0.36|-1.28|0.0005
91104336|NCT02539394|182094889|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.042|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of POD2 SWAL-QOL - Communication is the same across the 2 arms||||0.042
90853788|NCT00219544|181571117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0003||95.0|-1.31|-0.39|||ANCOVA||pregabalin minus placebo|Week 8||-0.39|-1.31|0.0003
90853789|NCT00219544|181571117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0011||95.0|-1.18|-0.3|||ANCOVA||pregabalin minus placebo|Week 9||-0.30|-1.18|0.0011
90853790|NCT00219544|181571118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3||0.0069||95.0|-15.5|-2.5|||ANCOVA|||||-2.5|-15.5|0.0069
90853791|NCT00219544|181571119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.0023||95.0|-2.1|-0.5|||ANCOVA||pregabalin minus placebo|HADS-A||-0.5|-2.1|0.0023
90853792|NCT00219544|181571119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.0013||95.0|-1.9|-0.5|||ANCOVA||pregabalin minus placebo|HADS-D||-0.5|-1.9|0.0013
90853793|NCT00219544|181571120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.42||0.0828||95.0|-0.79|12.75|||ANCOVA||pregabalin minus placebo|Impact||12.75|-0.79|0.0828
90901869|NCT04711460|181669907|SUPERIORITY|Threshold of statistically significance was set at p=0.05. No power calculation was conducted.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.13||0.003|TWO_SIDED|0.05||||Threshold of statistically significance was set at p=0.05. No power calculation was conducted.|t-test, 2 sided|Threshold of statistically significance was set at p=0.05. No power calculation was conducted.|Threshold of statistically significance was set at p=0.05. No power calculation was conducted.|Threshold of statistically significance was set at p=0.05. No power calculation was conducted.||||0.003
90901870|NCT04711460|181669907|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.07||0.454|ONE_SIDED|0.05||||Threshold of statistically significance was set at p=0.05. No power calculation was conducted.|ANOVA|Threshold of statistically significance was set at p=0.05. No power calculation was conducted.|Threshold of statistically significance was set at p=0.05. No power calculation was conducted.|Threshold of statistically significance was set at p=0.05. No power calculation was conducted.||||0.454
91099966|NCT01659541|182086177|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||nonparametric analog (Freidman Test)|||The data prior to implantation (Pre-Implant) were compared with data obtained after implantation (Week #28, #40, #52) of the cough system using a nonparametric analog (Friedman Test) to the standard repeated measures analysis of variance. A p value was calculated. This alpha level was chosen as a correlation for inflated type I error rates because of multiple comparisons. Results are reported as means ± Standard Error.||||<0.05
90901871|NCT04711460|181669908|SUPERIORITY|Threshold of statistically significance was set at p=0.05. No power calculation was conducted.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.194||0.002|TWO_SIDED|0.05||||Threshold of statistically significance was set at p=0.05. No power calculation was conducted.|t-test, 2 sided|Threshold of statistically significance was set at p=0.05. No power calculation was conducted.|Threshold of statistically significance was set at p=0.05. No power calculation was conducted.|||||0.002
90901872|NCT04711460|181669908|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.09||0.054|ONE_SIDED|0.05||||Threshold of statistically significance was set at p=0.05. No power calculation was conducted.|ANOVA|Threshold of statistically significance was set at p=0.05. No power calculation was conducted.|Threshold of statistically significance was set at p=0.05. No power calculation was conducted.|Threshold of statistically significance was set at p=0.05. No power calculation was conducted.||||0.054
90901873|NCT04711460|181669908|SUPERIORITY|Threshold of statistically significance was set at p=0.05. No power calculation was conducted.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.93||0.019|TWO_SIDED|0.05||||Threshold of statistically significance was set at p=0.05. No power calculation was conducted.|t-test, 2 sided|Threshold of statistically significance was set at p=0.05. No power calculation was conducted.|Threshold of statistically significance was set at p=0.05. No power calculation was conducted.|Threshold of statistically significance was set at p=0.05. No power calculation was conducted.||||0.019
90901874|NCT04711460|181669908|SUPERIORITY|Threshold of statistically significance was set at p=0.05. No power calculation was conducted.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.04||0.101|ONE_SIDED|95.0||||Threshold of statistically significance was set at p=0.05. No power calculation was conducted.|ANOVA|Threshold of statistically significance was set at p=0.05. No power calculation was conducted.||Threshold of statistically significance was set at p=0.05. No power calculation was conducted.||||0.101
90901875|NCT00192023|181669911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Change to Week 8 Endpoint. Change = Endpoint minus baseline. Model: Change to Week 8=score at Week 8+treatment+site+treatment-by-site interaction. If treatment-by-site interaction isn't significant it will be removed from model.|ANCOVA|||Using an estimate of the common standard deviation of 13 points, the planned sample size will give about 80% power to detect a difference between the groups of 8 points on the SNAP-IV. The sample size was determined using a two-sided test with p=0.05, and assumes that up to 10% of patients will discontinue the study without providing post-baseline efficacy data in Study Period III.||||<0.001
90901876|NCT00192023|181669912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Change to 8 Week Endpoint. Change = Endpoint minus baseline. Model: Change to 8 Week Endpoint=Score at 8 weeks+treatment+site.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91031136|NCT02937701|181946887|OTHER||Response Difference|3.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.28|13.67||||||The response difference (Infliximab/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) at week 30 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||13.67|-7.28|
91099967|NCT01740427|182086216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.576|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.463|0.718||1-sided p-value from the stratified log-rank test.|Stratified Log Rank|||||0.718|0.463|<0.000001
91099968|NCT01740427|182086217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.428||||0.0224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.008|2.03||1-sided p-value is from exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Stratified analysis: Stratified by disease site (visceral vs non-visceral) per randomization.||2.030|1.008|0.0224
91099969|NCT01740427|182086218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.594||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|2.347||1-sided p-value is from exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Stratified analysis: Stratified by disease site (visceral vs non-visceral) per randomization.||2.347|1.080|0.0090
90853794|NCT00219544|181571120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.75||0.0197||95.0|1.05|11.94|||ANCOVA||pregabalin minus placebo|Satisfaction||11.94|1.05|0.0197
90853795|NCT00219544|181571121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0278||95.0|||||Mantel Haenszel|||The distribution of the responses to the PGIC at EOT was compared between the 2 treatment groups using the 7 categories of the PGIC.||||0.0278
90853796|NCT00219544|181571122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.0049||95.0|-1.28|-0.23|||ANCOVA|||Pain interference||-0.23|-1.28|0.0049
90853797|NCT00219544|181571122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.0037||95.0|-1.29|-0.25|||ANCOVA|||Pain severity||-0.25|-1.29|0.0037
90853798|NCT00219544|181571123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0719||95.0|0.0|0.11|||ANCOVA||pregabalin minus placebo|Health State Profile||0.11|-0.00|0.0719
90853799|NCT00219544|181571123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.54||0.418||95.0|-2.96|7.1|||ANCOVA||pregabalin minus placebo|Visual Analog Scale||7.10|-2.96|0.4180
90901877|NCT00192023|181669913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||P-value for Change to 8 Week Endpoint. Change = Endpoint minus baseline. Model: Change to 8 Week Endpoint=Score at 8 weeks+treatment+site.|ANCOVA|||||||0.001
90901878|NCT00192023|181669914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.836||95.0||||P-value for Change to 8 Week Endpoint. Change = Endpoint minus baseline. Model: Change to 8 Week Endpoint=Score at 8 weeks+treatment+site.|ANCOVA|||||||0.836
90901879|NCT00192023|181669915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87||95.0||||P-value for Change to 8 Week Endpoint. Change = Endpoint minus baseline. Model: Change to 8 Week Endpoint=Score at 8 weeks+treatment+site.|ANCOVA|||||||0.870
90901880|NCT00192023|181669916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-value for Oppositional Change to 8 Week Endpoint. Change = Endpoint minus baseline. Model: Change to 8 Week Endpoint=Score at 8 weeks+treatment+site.|ANCOVA|||||||0.002
90901881|NCT00192023|181669916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Cognitive Problems Change to 8 Week Endpoint. Change = Endpoint minus baseline. Model: Change to 8 Week Endpoint=Score at 8 weeks+treatment+site.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90853800|NCT05038904|181571128|SUPERIORITY|We estimated that 10 subjects allowed for 80% power to detect a 3-fold increase (1.1 natural log units; i.e. 1 food dose escalation) in the threshold food dose using a paired t test with p\<0.05. For this sample size determination, the primary endpoint was assumed to be normally distributed with a standard deviation of 1.1 natural log units.||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
90853801|NCT05038904|181571129|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0014|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0014
90901882|NCT00192023|181669916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022||95.0||||P-value for Hyperactivity Change to 8 Week Endpoint. Change = Endpoint minus baseline. Model: Change to 8 Week Endpoint=Score at 8 weeks+treatment+site.|ANCOVA|||||||0.022
90901883|NCT00192023|181669916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for ADHD Index Change to 8 Week Endpoint. Change = Endpoint minus baseline. Model: Change to 8 Week Endpoint=Score at 8 weeks+treatment+site.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90901884|NCT00192023|181669917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.071||95.0||||P-value for Change to 8 Week Endpoint. Change = Endpoint minus baseline. Model: Change to 8 Week Endpoint=Score at 8 weeks+treatment+site.|ANCOVA|||||||0.071
90901885|NCT00192023|181669918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-value for Oppositional Change to 8 Week Endpoint. Change = Endpoint minus baseline. Model: Change to 8 Week Endpoint=Score at 8 weeks+treatment+site.|ANCOVA|||||||0.002
90901886|NCT00192023|181669918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.113||95.0||||P-value for Cognitive Problems Change to 8 Week Endpoint. Change = Endpoint minus baseline. Model: Change to 8 Week Endpoint=Score at 8 weeks+treatment+site.|ANCOVA|||||||0.113
90901887|NCT00192023|181669918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.051||95.0||||P-value for Hyperactivity Change to 8 Week Endpoint. Change = Endpoint minus baseline. Model: Change to 8 Week Endpoint=Score at 8 weeks+treatment+site.|ANCOVA|||||||0.051
90901888|NCT00192023|181669918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.061||95.0||||P-value for ADHD Index Change to 8 Week Endpoint. Change = Endpoint minus baseline. Model: Change to 8 Week Endpoint=Score at 8 weeks+treatment+site.|ANCOVA|||||||0.061
90901889|NCT02572817|181669925|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|2.29|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.29|0.65|0.54
91031137|NCT02937701|181946887|OTHER||Response Difference|6.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.62|15.48||||||The response difference (ABP 710/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) at week 34 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||15.48|-2.62|
90853802|NCT05038904|181571130|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
90853803|NCT05038904|181571131|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Participants' ex vivo basophil activation during acalabrutinib treatment was compared to their own baseline level.||||0.002
90853804|NCT00873873|181571142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Is there a difference in airway wall thickness among the 4 groups?||||0.2
90901890|NCT02572817|181669926|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.66|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.66|0.45|0.66
90901891|NCT02572817|181669927|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.8|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.8|0.5|0.87
90901892|NCT02572817|181669928|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|2.41|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.41|0.65|0.49
90901893|NCT02572817|181669929|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|2.08|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.08|0.55|0.83
90901894|NCT02572817|181669930|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|2.56|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.56|0.65|0.47
90901895|NCT02572817|181669931|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3
90901896|NCT02572817|181669932|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|2.64|||Log Rank|||||2.64|0.21|0.64
90901897|NCT02572817|181669933|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.69
90901898|NCT02572817|181669934|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|2.71|||Regression, Logistic|||Composite mortality and hospitalization, Day 7||2.71|0.65|0.43
90901899|NCT02572817|181669934|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.48|||Regression, Logistic|||Composite mortality and hospitalization, Day 14||2.48|0.5|0.79
90901900|NCT02572817|181669934|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.65||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|4.12|||Regression, Logistic|||Composite mortality and hospitalization, Day 28||4.12|0.66|0.29
90901901|NCT02572817|181669935|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehman estimate of location shift|-1.0||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in NEW from baseline to Day 3||0|-2|0.2
90901902|NCT02572817|181669935|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehman estimate of location shift|0.0||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in NEW from baseline to Day 3||1|-1|0.66
90901903|NCT02572817|181669936|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in PEW from baseline to Day 3||||0.18
90901904|NCT02572817|181669936|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in PEW from baseline to Day 7||||0.61
90901905|NCT02572817|181669937|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehman estimate of location shift|0.0||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1|-2|0.68
90901906|NCT02572817|181669938|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|11.01|||Regression, Logistic|||||11.01|0.23|0.98
90901907|NCT02572817|181669939|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehman estimate of location shift|-1.5||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|2.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||2|-6|0.37
90901908|NCT02572817|181669940|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.55
90901909|NCT02572817|181669941|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehman estimate of location shift|-3.0||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|2.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||2|-14|0.22
90901910|NCT02572817|181669942|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|9.29|||Regression, Logistic|||||9.29|0.08|1
90901911|NCT02572817|181669944|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.33||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|1.79|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.79|0.05|0.24
90901912|NCT02572817|181669946|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
90901913|NCT02572817|181669947|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehman estimate of location shift|0.0||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in SOFA from baseline to Day 3||0|-1|0.06
90901914|NCT02572817|181669947|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehman estimate of location shift|-1.0||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in SOFA from baseline to Day 7||0|-1|0.13
90901915|NCT02572817|181669948|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in PELOD from baseline to Day 3||||0.36
91099970|NCT01740427|182086220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.451|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.619|3.722||1-sided p-value is from exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Stratified analysis: Stratified by disease site (visceral, non-visceral) per randomization.||3.722|1.619|<0.0001
90901916|NCT02572817|181669948|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in PELOD from baseline to Day 7||||0.15
90901917|NCT02572817|181669949|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|3.44|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.44|0.87|0.12
90901918|NCT02572817|181669950|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.47||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.43|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.43|0.13|0.23
90901919|NCT01304082|181670021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7535||||||Bonferroni correction for pairwise comparisons|non-parametric Friedman ANOVA test|||"Analysis: Non-parametric Friedman ANOVA test on rank-transformed outcome with Bonferroni correction for pairwise comparisons.~Null hypothesis: No difference between the groups"||||0.7535
90901920|NCT01304082|181670022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Bonferroni correction for pairwise comparisons|non-parametric Friedman ANOVA test|||"Analysis: Non-parametric Friedman ANOVA test on rank-transformed outcome with Bonferroni correction for pairwise comparisons.~Null hypothesis: No difference between the groups"||||<0.0001
90901921|NCT01304082|181670023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Bonferroni correction for pairwise comparisons|non-parametric Friedman ANOVA test|||"Analysis: Non-parametric Friedman ANOVA test on rank-transformed outcome with Bonferroni correction for pairwise comparisons.~Null hypothesis: No difference between the groups"||||<0.0001
90901922|NCT01304082|181670024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Bonferroni correction for pairwise comparisons|non-parametric Friedman ANOVA test|||"Analysis: Non-parametric Friedman ANOVA test on rank-transformed outcome with Bonferroni correction for pairwise comparisons.~Null hypothesis: No difference between the groups"||||<0.0001
90901923|NCT00856661|181670037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.64|||Regression, Logistic|If no assessment was available for last observation carried forward after baseline, the mRS score was set to 5 if alive, or 6, if otherwise = death||All patients who were treated and had at least one valid post-baseline assessment of the mRS. As death is a valid outcome on the mRS, patients who died within 90 days after IMP administration were included.||2.64|0.79|0.2290
90958200|NCT01588496|181796375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-11.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.86||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.11|0.56||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects|Model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level (\< 420 vs ≥ 420 mg/dL), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||0.56|-23.11|0.088
91099971|NCT01740427|182086221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.571|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.443|0.737|||Unstratified log-rank test||Unstratified Cox proportional hazards model was used.|Statistical analysis for ER positive||0.737|0.443|<0.0001
90901924|NCT00856661|181670038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.9401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.62|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.62|0.59|0.9401
90901925|NCT00856661|181670039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.5076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|2.18|||Regression, Logistic|||All patients treated, who had at least one valid post-baseline assessment of the mRS and with a baseline NIHSS score of 8 to 24. If no assessment was available for last observation carried forward after baseline, the mRS score was set to 5 if the patient was known to be alive, or 6, if otherwise = dead.||2.18|0.68|0.5076
90901926|NCT00856661|181670040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.6146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.75|||Regression, Logistic|||all patients treated, who had at least one valid post-baseline assessment of the mRS. As death is a valid outcome on the mRS, patients who died within 90 days after IMP administration were included||1.75|0.72|0.6146
90901927|NCT02301156|181670051|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0463|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was estimated by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the randomization strata prior lines of therapy.||||||0.0463
90901928|NCT02301156|181670052|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0159|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was estimated by CMH test stratified by the randomization strata prior lines of therapy.||||||0.0159
90901929|NCT02301156|181670053|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|35.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.39|49.88|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was estimated using CMH test stratified by the randomization strata prior lines of therapy.|95% Confidence Interval (CI) was estimated using Clopper-Pearson method based on the binomial distribution.|||49.88|21.39|<0.0001
90901930|NCT02301156|181670054|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.573||||0.0961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.295|1.113|||Log Rank|P-value was estimated by stratified log rank test and the stratification was based on the randomization strata prior lines of therapy.|Stratified Hazard Ratio and 95% CI were estimated using Cox proportion hazard model and the stratification was based on the randomization strata prior lines of therapy.|||1.113|0.295|0.0961
90901931|NCT02301156|181670055|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.569||||0.1486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.263|1.234|||Log Rank|P-value was estimated by stratified log rank test and the stratification was based on the randomization strata prior lines of therapy.|Stratified Hazard Ratio and 95% CI were estimated using Cox proportion hazard model and the stratification was based on the randomization strata prior lines of therapy.|||1.234|0.263|0.1486
90901932|NCT02301156|181670056|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.163||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.399|3.344|||Log Rank|P-value was estimated by stratified log rank test and the stratification was based on the randomization strata prior lines of therapy.|Stratified Hazard Ratio and 95% CI were estimated using Cox proportion hazard model and the stratification was based on the randomization strata prior lines of therapy.|||3.344|1.399|0.0004
90958998|NCT04217590|181798097|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.64|15.55|||Regression, Logistic|The OR, 95% CI and p-value are obtained from a pooled logistic regression model after multiple imputation (MI) of missing pre-dialysis S-K values.|An OR \> 1 favours SZC.|||15.55|2.64|<0.001
91099972|NCT01740427|182086221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.405||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.218|0.751|||Unstratified log-rank test||Unstratified Cox proportional hazards model was used.|Statistical analysis for ER Negative||0.751|0.218|0.0030
91099973|NCT01740427|182086221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.531|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.416|0.68|||Unstratified log-rank test||Unstratified Cox proportional hazards model was used.|Statistical analysis for Rb Positive||0.680|0.416|<0.0001
91099974|NCT01740427|182086221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.675||||0.3237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.308|1.481|||Unstratified log-rank test||Unstratified Cox proportional hazards model was used.|Statistical analysis for Rb Negative||1.481|0.308|0.3237
90853805|NCT04035486|181571162|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.79|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio of less than 1 favors the Osimertinib (AZD9291) + Chemo treatment arm.|The analysis was performed using a log rank test stratified by race (Chinese/Asian vs. Non-Chinese/Asian vs. Non-Asian), WHO performance status (0 vs. 1), and method used for tissue testing (central vs. local).||0.79|0.49|<0.0001
90853806|NCT04035486|181571163|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.8|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio of less than 1 favors the Osimertinib (AZD9291) + Chemo treatment arm.|The analysis was performed using a log rank test stratified by race (Chinese/Asian vs. Non-Chinese/Asian vs. Non-Asian), WHO performance status (0 vs. 1), and method used for tissue testing (central vs. local).||0.80|0.48|0.0002
90853807|NCT04035486|181571168|OTHER||Percentage of Participants|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|88.43|100.0|||Clopper-Pearson|||A 95% CI was calculated on the percentage of participants with a Response or Stable Disease using the exact (Clopper-Pearson) method.||100.00|88.43|
90853808|NCT04035486|181571169|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.5238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.24|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio of less than 1 favors the Osimertinib (AZD9291) + Chemo treatment arm.|The analysis was performed using a log rank test stratified by race (Chinese/Asian vs. Non-Chinese/Asian vs. Non-Asian), WHO performance status (0 vs. 1), and method used for tissue testing (central vs. local).|An adjusted CI of (0.54, 1.51) was computed at the 2-sided 99.84% level, considering a 2-sided significance level of 0.00158 for the overall survival interim analysis, based on the O'Brien and Fleming spending function, assuming 334 deaths for the final overall survival analysis.|1.24|0.65|0.5238
90853809|NCT04035486|181571171|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.61||||0.0261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.44|||Regression, Logistic||And odds ratio of greater than 1 favors the Osimertinib (AZD9291) + Chemo treatment arm.|The analysis was performed using a logistic regression stratified by race (Chinese/Asian vs. Non-Chinese/Asian vs. Non-Asian), WHO performance status (0 vs. 1), and method used for tissue testing (central vs. local).||2.44|1.06|0.0261
90853810|NCT04035486|181571173|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.36||||0.1067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.44|0.72|||ANCOVA||A difference in least square means less than 0 favors the Osimertinib (AZD9291) + Chemo treatment arm.|The analysis was performed using analysis of covariance with baseline tumor size and time from baseline scan to randomization as covariates and with factors race (Chinese/Asian vs. Non-Chinese/Asian vs. Non-Asian), WHO performance status (0 vs. 1), and method used for tissue testing (central vs. local).||0.72|-7.44|0.1067
90853811|NCT04035486|181571174|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.4483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.81|||Regression, Logistic||An odds ratio greater than 1 favors the Osimertinib (AZD9291) + Chemo treatment arm.|The analysis was performed using a logistic regression stratified by race (Chinese/Asian vs. Non-Chinese/Asian vs. Non-Asian), WHO performance status (0 vs. 1), and method used for tissue testing (central vs. local).||2.81|0.63|0.4483
90853812|NCT04035486|181571175|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.0132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.93|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio less than 1 favors the Osimertinib (AZD9291) + Chemo treatment arm.|The analysis was performed using a log rank test stratified by race (Chinese/Asian vs. Non-Chinese/Asian vs. Non-Asian), WHO performance status (0 vs. 1), and method used for tissue testing (central vs. local).||0.93|0.52|0.0132
90901933|NCT04195880|181670058|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|5.0|||||negative-binomial regression coefficient|||We assumed the average monthly pre-intervention hospitalization rates of intervention and control CLCs were equal, so only average monthly post-intervention hospitalization rates might diverge. Each CLC had its own start month and contributed 18 months pre-intervention and 18 months post-intervention. Hospitalizations rates were modeled using a multilevel negative-binomial regression because it allows for over-dispersion, which is commonly observed with medical events such as a count.||||<.05
90901934|NCT03012061|181670102|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1758|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0426|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.092|0.2595|||Mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM)||UMEC 31.25 mcg versus placebo|||0.2595|0.0920|<0.001
90901935|NCT03012061|181670102|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1841|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0424|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1008|0.2675|||MMRM||UMEC 62.5 mcg versus placebo|||0.2675|0.1008|<0.001
90901936|NCT03012061|181670103|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1895|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0455|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.2789||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA)|ANCOVA||UMEC 31.25 mcg vs Placebo|||0.2789|0.1000|<0.001
90901937|NCT03012061|181670103|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1976|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0453|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1086|0.2866|||ANCOVA||UMEC 62.5 mcg vs Placebo|||0.2866|0.1086|<0.001
90901938|NCT03012061|181670106|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|3.7|||MMRM||UMEC 31.25 mcg vs Placebo, SBP, Week 4|||3.7|-0.2|0.083
91099975|NCT01740427|182086221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.555|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.437|0.705|||Unstratified log-rank test||Unstratified Cox proportional hazards model was used.|Statistical analysis for Cyclin D1 Positive||0.705|0.437|<0.0001
90901939|NCT03012061|181670106|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|1.7|||MMRM||UMEC 31.25 mcg vs Placebo, SBP, Week 12|||1.7|-2.7|0.636
90901940|NCT03012061|181670106|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|3.9|||MMRM||UMEC 31.25 mcg vs Placebo, SBP, Week 24|||3.9|-0.4|0.115
90901941|NCT03012061|181670106|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99||0.336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.9|||MMRM||UMEC 62.5 mcg vs Placebo, SBP, Week 4|||2.9|-1.0|0.336
90901942|NCT03012061|181670106|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|2.5|||MMRM||UMEC 62.5 mcg vs Placebo, SBP, Week 12|||2.5|-1.9|0.787
90901943|NCT03012061|181670106|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.7|||MMRM||UMEC 62.5 mcg vs Placebo, SBP, Week 24|||2.7|-1.6|0.625
90901944|NCT03012061|181670106|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|2.3|||MMRM||UMEC 31.25 mcg vs Placebo, DBP, Week 4|||2.3|-0.7|0.309
90901945|NCT03012061|181670106|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.1|||MMRM||UMEC 31.25 mcg vs Placebo, DBP, Week 12|||1.1|-2.1|0.521
90901946|NCT03012061|181670106|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.2|||MMRM||UMEC 31.25 mcg vs Placebo, DBP, Week 24|||3.2|0.0|0.047
90901947|NCT03012061|181670106|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.8|||MMRM||UMEC 62.5 mcg versus placebo, DBP, Week 4|||1.8|-1.3|0.779
91099976|NCT01740427|182086221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.997||||0.9964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.287|3.461|||Unstratified log-rank test||Unstratified Cox proportional hazards model was used.|Statistical analysis for Cyclin D1 Negative||3.461|0.287|0.9964
91099977|NCT01740427|182086221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.518|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.67|||Unstratified log-rank test||Unstratified Cox proportional hazards model was used.|Statistical analysis for p16 Positive||0.670|0.400|<0.0001
91099978|NCT01740427|182086221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.731||||0.3221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.392|1.364|||Unstratified log-rank test||Unstratified Cox proportional hazards model was used.|Statistical analysis for p16 Negative||1.364|0.392|0.3221
91099979|NCT01740427|182086221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.581|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.455|0.742|||Unstratified log-rank test||Unstratified Cox proportional hazards model was used.|Statistical analysis for p16 HScore\<175||0.742|0.455|<0.0001
90853813|NCT04035486|181571176|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.0159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.94|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio less than 1 favors the Osimertinib (AZD9291) + Chemo treatment arm.|The analysis was performed using a log rank test stratified by race (Chinese/Asian vs. Non-Chinese/Asian vs. Non-Asian), WHO performance status (0 vs. 1), and method used for tissue testing (central vs. local).||0.94|0.56|0.0159
90853814|NCT04035486|181571177|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||0.0157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.93|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio less than 1 favors the Osimertinib (AZD9291) + Chemo treatment arm.|The analysis was performed using a log rank test stratified by race (Chinese/Asian vs. Non-Chinese/Asian vs. Non-Asian), WHO performance status (0 vs. 1), and method used for tissue testing (central vs. local).||0.93|0.51|0.0157
90853815|NCT04035486|181571184|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.83|||Cox proportional hazards model||A hazard ratio less than 1 favors the Osimertinib (AZD9291) + Chemo treatment arm.|Subgroup analysis was performed using a Cox proportional hazards model including treatment, subgroup and a treatment-by subgroup interaction term.||0.83|0.44|
90853816|NCT04035486|181571185|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.9|||||A hazard ratio less than 1 favors the Osimertinib (AZD9291) + Chemo treatment arm.|Subgroup analysis was performed using a Cox proportional hazards model including treatment, subgroup and a treatment-by subgroup interaction term.||0.90|0.44|
90853817|NCT06661954|181571193|OTHER|paired t-tests were used to identify statistically significant differences|||||<|0.05||||||Paired t-tests compared pressure of Bed A and Bed B at each time at each head of bed position (4 tests, two-tailed test, alpha=0.05). A Holm-Bonferroni correction was used to control type 1 error.|t-test, 2 sided|||Peak sacral pressure (mmHg) was collected for every minute of the 10 minute recording. Two averages for each test condition were analyzed (Minutes 1-3 (Min1-3) and 6-8 (Min6-8)). These averages capture pressure during two different 5 minute cycles, when conceivably, sacral pressure would differ. Paired t-tests compared pressure of Bed A and Bed B at each time at each head of bed position (4 tests, two-tailed test, alpha=0.05). A Holm-Bonferroni correction controlled type 1 error.||||<0.05
90853818|NCT03875235|181571197|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|97.0|0.64|0.99||The analysis was performed using a stratified log-rank test adjusting for disease status (initially unresectable versus recurrent) and primary tumor location (IHCC versus EHCC versus GBC), and tested at 0.03 significance level.|Log Rank||The HR and CI were estimated from a stratified Cox proportional hazard model adjusting for disease status and primary tumor location.|The 2-sided significance level for OS at the second interim analysis was 3%.|95% CI 0.66 to 0.97|0.99|0.64|0.021
90853819|NCT03875235|181571200|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.19|0.63|0.89||The p-value is based on a stratified log-rank test adjusting for disease status (initially unresectable versus recurrent) and primary tumor location (IHCC versus EHCC versus GBC), and tested at 0.0481 significance level.|Log Rank||The HR and CI were estimated from a stratified Cox proportional hazard model adjusting for disease status and primary tumor location.|The 2-sided significance level for PFS at the second interim analysis was 4.81%.|95% CI 0.63 to 0.89|0.89|0.63|0.001
90901948|NCT03012061|181670106|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|2.6|||MMRM||UMEC 62.5 mcg versus placebo, DBP, Week 12|||2.6|-0.6|0.204
91099980|NCT01740427|182086221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.255||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.65|||Unstratified log-rank test||Unstratified Cox proportional hazards model was used.|Statistical analysis for p16 HScore\>=175||0.650|0.100|0.0022
91099981|NCT01740427|182086221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.379|0.742|||Unstratified log-rank test||Unstratified Cox proportional hazards model was used.|Statistical analysis for Ki67 \<=20%||0.742|0.379|0.0002
91099982|NCT01740427|182086221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.569||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.409|0.791|||Unstratified log-rank test||Unstratified Cox proportional hazards model was used.|Statistical analysis for Ki67 \>20%||0.791|0.409|0.0007
91099983|NCT01740427|182086225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.023||||0.0925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.051|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||||0.051|-0.004|0.0925
91099984|NCT01740427|182086226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.325||||0.7822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.63|1.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||||1.98|-2.63|0.7822
91099985|NCT01740427|182086228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.956||||0.33775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.777|1.177||1-sided p-value from the stratified log-rank test.|Stratified Log Rank|||||1.177|0.777|0.337750
90853820|NCT03875235|181571203|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|2.31|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||OR and CI were estimated from a stratified CMH test adjusting for disease status and primary tumor location.|||2.31|1.11|0.011
90853821|NCT02104739|181571212|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||Non-parametric Wilcoxon paired rank sum|||Exenatide at baseline and 2 hours after ingestion of meal is compared.||||0.27
90853822|NCT02104739|181571212|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||Non-parametric Wilcoxon paired rank sum|||Saxagliptin at baseline and 2 hours after ingestion of meal is compared.||||0.59
90853823|NCT02104739|181571212|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||Non-parametric Wilcoxon paired rank sum|||Placebo at baseline and 2 hours after ingestion of meal is compared.||||0.51
90853824|NCT02104739|181571212|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||Non-parametric Wilcoxon paired rank sum|||Exenatide extended-release (ER) at baseline and 2 hours after ingestion of meal is compared.||||0.31
90853825|NCT02104739|181571214|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.02
90853826|NCT02104739|181571216|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||The reported p-value compares exenatide and saxagliptin over all time points (2 hours, 4 hours, 6 hours).||||<0.05
90853827|NCT02104739|181571216|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||The reported p-value compares exenatide and placebo over all time points (2 hours, 4 hours, 6 hours).||||<0.05
90853828|NCT02104739|181571218|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.018
90853829|NCT02104739|181571220|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||The reported p-value compares exenatide and saxagliptin over all time points (2 hours, 4 hours, 6 hours).||||<0.05
90853830|NCT02104739|181571220|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||The reported p-value compares exenatide and placebo over all time points (2 hours, 4 hours, 6 hours).||||<0.05
90853831|NCT02104739|181571222|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.5
90853832|NCT02104739|181571223|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||The reported p-value compares exenatide and saxagliptin over all time points (3 hours, 6 hours).||||>0.05
90853833|NCT02104739|181571223|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||The reported p-value compares exenatide and placebo over all time points (3 hours, 6 hours).||||>0.05
90853834|NCT04268823|181571229|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean|-0.203|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1938||0.298|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.524|0.119|||Mixed effects Model for Repeated Measure||Treatment difference (QBW251-placebo)|||0.119|-0.524|0.298
90901949|NCT03012061|181670106|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|3.1|||MMRM||UMEC 62.5 mcg versus placebo, DBP, Week 24|||3.1|-0.1|0.066
90901950|NCT03012061|181670107|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|3.2|||MMRM||UMEC 31.25 mcg vs Placebo, Week 4|||3.2|-0.7|0.195
91099986|NCT01740427|182086229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.921||||0.208706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.755|1.124||1-sided p-value from the stratified log-rank test.|Stratified Log Rank|||||1.124|0.755|0.208706
90853835|NCT04268823|181571230|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.651|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.9|0.5|||Mixed effects Model for Repeated Measure||Treatment difference (QBW251-placebo)|||0.5|-0.9|0.651
90853836|NCT04268823|181571231|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean|-1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29||0.288|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.55|0.78|||Mixed effects Model for Repeated Measure||Treatment difference (QBW251-placebo)|||0.78|-3.55|0.288
90853837|NCT04268823|181571232|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean|4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.336||0.338|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.09|11.48|||Mixed effects Model for Repeated Measure||Treatment difference (QBW251-placebo)|||11.48|-3.09|0.338
90853838|NCT04268823|181571233|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.147||0.795|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.05|4.42|||Mixed effects Model for Repeated Measure||Treatment difference (QBW251-placebo)|Total score||4.42|-6.05|0.795
90853839|NCT04268823|181571233|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean|5.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.155||0.17|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.16|12.66|||Mixed effects Model for Repeated Measure||Treatment difference (QBW251-placebo)|Symptoms score||12.66|-1.16|0.170
90853840|NCT04268823|181571233|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.259||0.851|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.02|4.8|||Mixed effects Model for Repeated Measure||Treatment difference (QBW251-placebo)|Activity score||4.80|-6.02|0.851
90853841|NCT04268823|181571233|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean|-2.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.035||0.61|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-8.78|4.65|||Mixed effects Model for Repeated Measure||Treatment difference (QBW251-placebo)|Impact score||4.65|-8.78|0.610
90853842|NCT04268823|181571234|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.557||0.956|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-7.3|7.8|||Mixed effects Model for Repeated Measure||Treatment difference (QBW251-placebo)|Cough symptom score||7.80|-7.30|0.956
90853843|NCT04268823|181571234|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean|4.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.671||0.369|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.55|11.99|||Mixed effects Model for Repeated Measure||Treatment difference (QBW251-placebo)|Sputum symptom score||11.99|-3.55|0.369
90853844|NCT04268823|181571234|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean|2.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.001||0.613|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.61|8.68|||Mixed effects Model for Repeated Measure||Treatment difference (QBW251-placebo)|Cough impact score||8.68|-4.61|0.613
90853845|NCT04268823|181571234|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean|0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.518||0.835|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.58|8.47|||Mixed effects Model for Repeated Measure||Treatment difference (QBW251-placebo)|Sputum impact score||8.47|-6.58|0.835
90853846|NCT04268823|181571236|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.335|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.0|0.1|||Mixed effects Model for Repeated Measure||Treatment difference (QBW251-placebo)|||0.1|0.0|0.335
90853847|NCT04268823|181571237|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.645|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.1|0.1|||Mixed effects Model for Repeated Measure||Treatment difference (QBW251-placebo)|||0.1|-0.1|0.645
90901951|NCT03012061|181670107|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.3|||MMRM||UMEC 31.25 mcg versus Placebo, Week 12|||2.3|-1.0|0.457
90901952|NCT03012061|181670107|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.07||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|3.2|||MMRM||UMEC 31.25 mcg versus Placebo, Week 24|||3.2|-1.0|0.300
90901953|NCT03012061|181670107|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|3.3|||MMRM||UMEC 62.5 mcg versus Placebo, Week 4|||3.3|-0.5|0.140
90901954|NCT03012061|181670107|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.3|||MMRM||UMEC 62.5 mcg versus Placebo, Week 12|||3.3|0.0|0.045
91099987|NCT02184156|182086238|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
90958201|NCT01588496|181796376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-30.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.42|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.86|-18.0||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level (\< 420 vs ≥ 420 mg/dL), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|LDL-C lowering was analyzed by comparing evolocumab and placebo. Statistical analysis was 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||-18.00|-43.86|<0.001
91031138|NCT02937701|181946887|OTHER||Response Difference|10.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.12|21.03||||||The response difference (Infliximab/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) at week 34 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||21.03|0.12|
91099988|NCT02184156|182086239|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.25
91099989|NCT02405962|182086242|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Incidence Rate Ratio|0.2|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.53|0.08|<0.05
90901955|NCT03012061|181670107|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.07||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|5.5|||MMRM||UMEC 62.5 mcg versus Placebo, Week 24|||5.5|1.3|0.002
90901956|NCT02294474|181670132|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of SAR342434 over Humalog was demonstrated if upper bound of 2-sided 95% confidence interval(CI) of difference between SAR342434 \& Humalog was \<0.3%.Inverse non-inferiority of Humalog over SAR342434 was tested using hierarchical step-down testing procedure: if non-inferiority of SAR342434 over Humalog was demonstrated,then inverse non-inferiority of Humalog over SAR342434 was tested and demonstrated if lower bound of 2-sided 95% CI of difference between SAR342434 \& Humalog\>-0.3%.|Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.072|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.215|0.067|||||SAR342434 vs. Humalog|Analysis was performed using a MMRM approach with treatment groups, randomization strata, visit (Week 12, Week 26) and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed categorical effects and baseline HbA1c value and baseline HbA1c value-by-visit interaction as continuous fixed covariates. An unstructured correlation matrix was used to model within-participant errors.||0.067|-0.215|
90901957|NCT02041923|181670164|EQUIVALENCE|A t-test was conducted to evaluate equivalency.|Mean Difference (Net)|46.3|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
90901958|NCT00309608|181670186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.95|-0.39||There was no adjustment for multiple testing, however a hierarchy approach to control for the Type-I error was used. If the 10mg was not successful, any analysis of the 5mg will be descriptive, and similarly for the next step for the 1mg.|Pairwise comparison based on ANCOVA|||"Linagliptin 10 mg vs. Placebo~Missing endpoints after 12 weeks of treatment were replaced using Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF)"||-0.39|-0.95|<0.0001
90901959|NCT00309608|181670186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.01|-0.44||There was no adjustment for multiple testing, however a hierarchy approach to control for the Type-I error was used. If the 10mg was not successful, any analysis of the 5mg will be descriptive, and similarly for the next step for the 1mg.|Pairwise comparison based on ANCOVA|||"Linagliptin 5 mg vs. Placebo~missing endpoints after 12 weeks of treatment were replaced using Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF)"||-0.44|-1.01|<0.0001
90901960|NCT00309608|181670186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0055||95.0|-0.68|-0.12||There was no adjustment for multiple testing, however a hierarchy approach to control for the Type-I error was used. If the 10mg was not successful, any analysis of the 5mg will be descriptive, and similarly for the next step for the 1mg.|Pairwise comparison based on ANCOVA|||"Linagliptin 1 mg vs. Placebo~Missing endpoints after 12 weeks of treatment were replaced using Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF)"||-0.12|-0.68|0.0055
90901961|NCT00309608|181670186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.99|-0.46|||Pairwise comparison based on ANCOVA|||"Placebo vs. Linagliptin 10 mg~Analysis additionally adjusted for previous anti-diabetic medication.~Missing endpoints after 12 weeks of treatment were replaced using Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF)."||-0.46|-0.99|<0.0001
91031139|NCT02937701|181946887|OTHER||Response Difference|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.54|9.59||||||The response difference (ABP 710/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) at week 38 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||9.59|-8.54|
91031140|NCT02937701|181946887|OTHER||Response Difference|2.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.62|13.39||||||The response difference (Infliximab/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) at week 38 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||13.39|-7.62|
91099990|NCT01623752|182086292|OTHER|||||||0.278|||||||Paired t-test|||P-value was calculated using Paired t-test for the change in normalized progression.||||0.278
91099991|NCT01623752|182086292|OTHER|||||||0.222|||||||Paired t-test|||P-value was calculated using Paired t-test for the change in normalized progression.||||0.222
91099992|NCT01623752|182086293|OTHER|||||||0.251|||||||Paired t-test|||P-value was calculated using Paired t-test for the change in normalized progression.||||0.251
90901962|NCT00309608|181670186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.02|-0.48|||Pairwise comparison based on ANCOVA|||"Linagliptin 5 mg vs. Placebo~Analysis additionally adjusted for previous anti-diabetic medication.~Missing endpoints after 12 weeks of treatment were replaced using last observation carried forward (LOCF)."||-0.48|-1.02|<0.0001
91099993|NCT01623752|182086293|OTHER|||||||0.218|||||||Paired t-test|||P-value was calculated using Paired t-test for the change in normalized progression.||||0.218
91099994|NCT01623752|182086296|OTHER|||||||0.675|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.675
91099995|NCT01623752|182086296|OTHER|||||||0.357|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.357
91099996|NCT01623752|182086297|OTHER|||||||0.106|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis (P value) composite for all categories.||||0.106
91099997|NCT01623752|182086297|OTHER|||||||0.181|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis (P value) composite for all categories.||||0.181
91099998|NCT01623752|182086298|OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis (P value) composite for all categories.||||0.015
90853848|NCT04268823|181571238|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.01|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.8|3.4|||Mixed effects Model for Repeated Measure||Treatment difference (QBW251-placebo)|||3.4|0.8|0.010
90853849|NCT02186301|181571272|OTHER||Kaplan-Meier Median|274.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|109.0||Upper Confidence Limit is not available because it cannot be calculated||||||||109|
90853850|NCT02186301|181571272|OTHER||Kaplan-Meier Median|207.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|112.0|260.0||||||||260.0|112.0|
90853851|NCT02186301|181571272|OTHER||Kaplan Meier Median|390.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|282.0|499.0||||||||499.0|282.0|
90853852|NCT02186301|181571273|OTHER||Percentage|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.7|49.1||||||||49.1|8.7|
90853853|NCT02186301|181571273|OTHER||Percentage|40.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.7|59.4||||||||59.4|22.7|
90853854|NCT02186301|181571273|OTHER||Percentage|78.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.0|88.5||||||||88.5|64.0|
90853855|NCT02186301|181571274|OTHER||Kaplan Meier Median|225.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|113.0||Upper Confidence Limit is not available because it cannot be calculated.||||||||113|
90853856|NCT02186301|181571274|OTHER||Kaplan Meier Median|195.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|143.0|617.0||||||||617.0|143.0|
90853857|NCT02186301|181571274|OTHER||Kaplan Meier Median|335.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|282.0|480.0||||||||480.0|282.0|
90853858|NCT05867342|181571280|OTHER|||||||0.77||||||A p-value of \< 0.05 would be considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.77
90901963|NCT00309608|181670186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0049||95.0|-0.66|-0.12|||Pairwise comparison based on ANCOVA|||"Linagliptin 1 mg vs. Placebo~Analysis additionally adjusted for previous anti-diabetic medication.~Missing endpoints after 12 weeks of treatment were replaced using last observation carried forward (LOCF)."||-0.12|-0.66|0.0049
90901964|NCT00309608|181670187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|18.575||||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.367|145.781|||Regression, Logistic|||Linagliptin 10 mg vs. Placebo||145.781|2.367|0.0054
90853859|NCT05867342|181571281|OTHER|||||||0.002||||||A p-value of \< 0.05 would be considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.002
90853860|NCT05867342|181571282|OTHER|||||||0.126||||||A p-value of \< 0.05 would be considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.126
91031141|NCT02937701|181946887|OTHER||Response Difference|-1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.11|7.93||||||The response difference (ABP 710/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) at week 46 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||7.93|-10.11|
90853861|NCT05867342|181571284|OTHER|||||||0.213||||||A p-value of \< 0.05 would be considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.213
90853862|NCT05867342|181571285|OTHER|||||||0.418||||||A p-value of \< 0.05 would be considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.418
90853863|NCT05867342|181571286|OTHER|||||||0.756||||||A p-value of \< 0.05 would be considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.756
91099999|NCT01623752|182086298|OTHER|||||||0.969|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis (P value) composite for all categories.||||0.969
90853864|NCT02524977|181571290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.02
90853865|NCT01673282|181571299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|=|0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||Based on an ANCOVA model for absolute change in ratio of dose and DDD with group as a fixed effect and the ratio of dose and DDD at Baseline as a covariate.||-0.11|-0.36|=0.0003
90853866|NCT03935399|181571310|SUPERIORITY|Exploratory analysis without power calculation||||||0.83|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures one factor ANOVA||Exploratory analysis without power calculation||||0.83
90853867|NCT03935399|181571311|SUPERIORITY|Exploratory analysis without power calculation||||||0.92|||||||ANOVA|One factor repeated measures ANOVA||Exploratory analysis without power calculation||||0.92
90853868|NCT03935399|181571312|SUPERIORITY|Exploratory analysis without power calculation||||||0.79|||||||ANOVA|One factor repeated measures ANOVA||Exploratory analysis without power calculation||||0.79
90853869|NCT03935399|181571313|SUPERIORITY|Exploratory analysis without power calculation||||||0.93||||||Exploratory analysis without power calculation|ANOVA|One factor repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.93
90853870|NCT03935399|181571314|SUPERIORITY|Exploratory analysis without power calculation||||||0.89||||||Exploratory analysis without power calculation|ANOVA|Two factor repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.89
90853871|NCT03935399|181571315|SUPERIORITY|Exploratory analysis without power calculation||||||0.83||||||Exploratory analysis without power calculation|ANOVA|Two way repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.83
90853872|NCT03935399|181571316|SUPERIORITY|Exploratory analysis without power caclulation||||||0.57||||||Exploratory analysis without power caclulation|ANOVA|Two way repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.57
90853873|NCT01112683|181571317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.403|ONE_SIDED|90.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|An alpha level of 0.05 or lower represents statistical significance, no correction was made for multiple comparisons to minimize type II errors.||20 subjects per group were expected to provide 60% power to detect a between-group mean difference of 1.2 correct patterns (change from baseline to week 16) on the Paired Associates Learning and to provide 40% power to detect a between-group mean difference of 1.2 patterns recognized on the Pattern Recognition Memory. A two-sided test at type I error rate of 5% was used. Sample size incorporated an inflation factor of 20% to account for ineligibility of 10% of randomized participants.||||0.403
90853874|NCT01112683|181571318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.371|ONE_SIDED|90.0||||This P-Value refers to the SIB-R Broad independence score.|Mixed Models Analysis|An alpha level of 0.05 or lower represents statistical significance, no correction was made for multiple comparisons to minimize type II errors.||No power calculations were performed for the secondary measures.||||0.371
90901965|NCT00309608|181670187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.715||||0.0214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.439|95.351|||Regression, Logistic|||Linagliptin 5 mg vs. Placebo||95.351|1.439|0.0214
90901966|NCT00309608|181670187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.776||||0.0167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.586|102.895|||Regression, Logistic|||Linagliptin 1 mg vs. Placebo||102.895|1.586|0.0167
90901967|NCT00309608|181670187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|31.36||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.063|242.028|||Regression, Logistic|||Glimepiride vs. Placebo||242.028|4.063|0.0010
91100000|NCT01623752|182086299|OTHER|||||||0.489|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis (P value) composite for all categories.||||0.489
91100001|NCT01623752|182086299|OTHER|||||||0.386|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis (P value) composite for all categories.||||0.386
91100002|NCT01623752|182086300|OTHER|||||||0.364|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis (P value) composite for all categories.||||0.364
91100003|NCT01623752|182086300|OTHER|||||||0.849|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis (P value) composite for all categories.||||0.849
90853875|NCT02129777|181571320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.008||||0.925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.162|0.179|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) P-values are from a CMH Chi-Square test using a 2\*2 contingency table of treatment and responder status controlling for visit.||0.179|-0.162|0.925
91100004|NCT05987540|182086351|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8125|||||||Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank|||||||.8125
90853876|NCT02129777|181571320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.087||||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.202|0.028|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|CMH P-values are from a CMH Chi-Square test using a 2\*2 contingency table of treatment and responder status controlling for visit.||0.028|-0.202|0.162
90853877|NCT02129777|181571320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.034||||0.671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.187|0.118|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|CMH P-values are from a CMH Chi-Square test using a 2\*2 contingency table of treatment and responder status controlling for visit.||0.118|-0.187|0.671
90853878|NCT02129777|181571320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.087||||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.202|0.028|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|CMH P-values are from a CMH Chi-Square test using a 2\*2 contingency table of treatment and responder status controlling for visit.||0.028|-0.202|0.182
90853879|NCT02129777|181571322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.75||0.435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|4.9|||MMRM||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from a MMRM model with main effect of study site, treatment, visit and interaction between visit and treatment as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate with an unstructured covariance structure.||4.9|-2.1|0.435
90853880|NCT02129777|181571322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.74||0.279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|5.4|||MMRM||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from a MMRM model with main effect of study site, treatment, visit and interaction between visit and treatment as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate with an unstructured covariance structure.||5.4|-1.6|0.279
90853881|NCT02129777|181571322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.74||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|6.5|||MMRM||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from a MMRM model with main effect of study site, treatment, visit and interaction between visit and treatment as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate with an unstructured covariance structure.||6.5|-0.4|0.085
90853882|NCT02129777|181571322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.76||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|6.3|||MMRM||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from a MMRM model with main effect of study site, treatment, visit and interaction between visit and treatment as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate with an unstructured covariance structure.||6.3|-0.7|0.110
90853883|NCT02129777|181571323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.027||||0.827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.265|0.211|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: CMH P-values are from a CMH Chi-Square test using a 2\*2 contingency table of treatment and responder status controlling for visit.||0.211|-0.265|0.827
90853884|NCT02129777|181571323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.036||||0.768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.269|0.198|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: CMH P-values are from a CMH Chi-Square test using a 2\*2 contingency table of treatment and responder status controlling for visit.||0.198|-0.269|0.768
90901968|NCT00309608|181670188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.07|<|0.0001||95.0|-41.4|-17.5|||Pairwise comparison based on ANCOVA|||Linagliptin 10mg vs. Placebo||-17.5|-41.4|<0.0001
90901969|NCT00309608|181670188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-34.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.16|<|0.0001||95.0|-47.0|-22.8|||Pairwise comparison based on ANCOVA|||Linagliptin 5mg vs. Placebo||-22.8|-47.0|<0.0001
91100005|NCT05987540|182086354|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999|||||||Wilconxon matched-pairs signed rank test|||||||>0.9999
91100006|NCT04053452|182086355|OTHER||Area under the curve|0.7262|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve.|||||
91100007|NCT04053452|182086356|OTHER||Area under the curve|0.6667|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve.|||||
91100008|NCT04053452|182086357|OTHER||Area under the curve|0.7083|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve.|||||
91100009|NCT04053452|182086358|OTHER|Median at wrist|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|-0.0623|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5005|0.4791||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and length of hospital stay.||0.4791|-0.5005|
91100010|NCT04053452|182086358|OTHER|Median at forearm|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|-0.1628|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6503|0.4222||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and length of hospital stay.||0.4222|-0.6503|
91100011|NCT04053452|182086358|OTHER|Median at cubital fossa|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|-0.185|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.549|0.1829||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and length of hospital stay.||0.1829|-0.5490|
91100012|NCT04053452|182086358|OTHER|Median at humerus|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.0512|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3411|0.5017||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and length of hospital stay.||0.5017|-0.3411|
91100013|NCT04053452|182086358|OTHER|Median at axilla|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.0476|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4335|0.5592||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and length of hospital stay.||0.5592|-0.4335|
91100014|NCT04053452|182086358|OTHER|Ulnar at wrist|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|-0.1229|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5092|0.304||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and length of hospital stay.||0.3040|-0.5092|
90853885|NCT02129777|181571323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.112||||0.338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.106|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: CMH P-values are from a CMH Chi-Square test using a 2\*2 contingency table of treatment and responder status controlling for visit.||0.106|-0.330|0.338
90853886|NCT02129777|181571323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.017||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.261|0.226|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: CMH P-values are from a CMH Chi-Square test using a 2\*2 contingency table of treatment and responder status controlling for visit.||0.226|-0.261|0.890
90853887|NCT02129777|181571324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.048||||0.295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.043|0.139|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12:CMH P-values are from a CMH Chi-Square test using a 2\*2 contingency table of treatment and responder status controlling for visit.||0.139|-0.043|0.295
90853888|NCT02129777|181571325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.012||||0.906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.191|0.216|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: CMH P-values are from a CMH Chi-Square test using a 2\*2 contingency table of treatment and sPGA response category controlling for visit.||0.216|-0.191|0.906
90853889|NCT02129777|181571325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.04||||0.677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.222|0.143|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: CMH P-values are from a CMH Chi-Square test using a 2\*2 contingency table of treatment and sPGA response category controlling for visit.||0.143|-0.222|0.677
90853890|NCT02129777|181571325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.13||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.268|0.007|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: CMH P-values are from a CMH Chi-Square test using a 2\*2 contingency table of treatment and sPGA response category controlling for visit.||0.007|-0.268|0.107
90853891|NCT02129777|181571325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.08||||0.371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.248|0.087|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: CMH P-values are from a CMH Chi-Square test using a 2\*2 contingency table of treatment and sPGA response category controlling for visit.||0.087|-0.248|0.371
90853892|NCT02129777|181571326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.095||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.221|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: CMH P-values are from a CMH Chi-Square test using a 2\*2 contingency table of treatment and sPGA response category controlling for visit.||0.221|-0.030|0.134
90853893|NCT02129777|181571327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.2|||MMRM||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from a MMRM model with main effect of study site, treatment, visit and interaction between visit and treatment as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate with an unstructured covariance structure. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with terms for treatment and study site.||0.2|-0.6|0.258
90853894|NCT02129777|181571327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.2|||MMRM||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from a MMRM model with main effect of study site, treatment, visit and interaction between visit and treatment as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate with an unstructured covariance structure. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||0.2|-0.5|0.365
90853895|NCT02129777|181571327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.4|||MMRM||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from a MMRM model with main effect of study site, treatment, visit and interaction between visit and treatment as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate with an unstructured covariance structure. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||0.4|-0.3|0.757
90853896|NCT02129777|181571327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.825|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.3|||MMRM||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from a MMRM model with main effect of study site, treatment, visit and interaction between visit and treatment as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate with an unstructured covariance structure. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||0.3|-0.4|0.825
90901970|NCT00309608|181670188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.13||0.0022||95.0|-31.0|-6.87|||Pairwise comparison based on ANCOVA|||Linagliptin 1 mg vs. Placebo||-6.87|-31.0|0.0022
90901971|NCT01087723|181670206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative risk|0.6||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.82|||Chi-squared|||||0.82|0.43|0.0014
90901972|NCT01757665|181670259|SUPERIORITY||percent of patients|0.1|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.7|||||Upper 95% CI was calculated by the method of Clopper and Pearson, using the Beta distribution with parameters x + 1 and n - x where x is the number of SVD events by POD 390 and n is the number of subjects followed at the 1 year assessment.|The null hypothesis is that the rate of structural valve deterioration at one year is greater than 1%. The alternative hypothesis is that this rate is less than 1%.||0.7||
90901973|NCT02441946|181670382|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric Means|0.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.13|0.28|||t-test, 1 sided|||||0.28|0.13|<0.001
91100015|NCT04053452|182086358|OTHER|Ulnar at forearm|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.0603|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3057|0.4137||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and length of hospital stay.||0.4137|-0.3057|
91100016|NCT04053452|182086358|OTHER|Ulnar at cubital fossa|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.1059|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4028|0.57||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and length of hospital stay.||0.5700|-0.4028|
90901974|NCT02441946|181670382|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric Means|0.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.17|0.38|||t-test, 1 sided|||||0.38|0.17|<0.001
90901975|NCT00600743|181670389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|128.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|41.4||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||t test following ANOVA for difference between drug and placebo - There were 3 doses, and the value reported is for the highest and only effective dose|t-test, 2 sided|The overall error term was used to compare differences between placebo and drug||Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.007
90901976|NCT00600743|181670390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|49.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.8||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||t-test after ANOVA with repeated measures on placebo minus drug (within groups) between binge and normal instructions (between groups)|t-test, 2 sided|This was part of an overall ANOVA (SAS proc mixed) with all four groups (3 doses eat normally. 4 ng dose, binge eat) and the error term had 76 df.||Each group was compared separately in an overall ANOVA with all dose groups included. The results are presented for the groups which received 4 mg dose and instructions to eat normally (normal group) or to binge eat (binge group). The test is the interaction between drug and group i.e. drug effect difference (placebo minus drug) in fullness between the group instructed to binge and the group instructed to eat normally.||||.033
90901977|NCT00600743|181670391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.4286|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.134|<|0.014|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value is based on ANOVA with all groups and conditions and is a planned comparison|ANOVA||df = 53. 26 Used proc GLMMIX in SAS 9.4.|Tests the difference between drug and placebo for group = binge instructions||||<.014
90901978|NCT00579982|181670392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Paired t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90901979|NCT00988351|181670410|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin -0.55 (mean hours of APAP arm no lower than 0.55 hours below CPAP arm)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|=|0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|1.26||level of significance \<0.05, Power = 0.80|t-test, 2 sided|||||1.26|-.35|= 0.27
90958202|NCT03143166|181796377|OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio Test/Reference (%)|28.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|86.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|21.346|38.996|||ANOVA|An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'subjects' and 'treatment'.|The dispersion value standard error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) (%).|||38.996|21.346|
90958203|NCT03143166|181796378|OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio Test/Reference (%)|26.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|76.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|20.066|34.665|||ANOVA|An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'subjects' and 'treatment'.|The dispersion value standard error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) (%).|||34.665|20.066|
90958204|NCT03143166|181796379|OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio Test/Reference (%)|28.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|83.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|20.914|37.537|||ANOVA|An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'subjects' and 'treatment'.|The dispersion value standard error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) (%).|||37.537|20.914|
90853897|NCT02129777|181571328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.163||0.931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.48|4.1|||MMRM||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from a MMRM model with main effect of study site, treatment, visit and interaction between visit and treatment as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate with an unstructured covariance structure. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||4.10|-4.48|0.931
90853898|NCT02129777|181571328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.143||0.459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.65|5.84|||MMRM||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from a MMRM model with main effect of study site, treatment, visit and interaction between visit and treatment as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate with an unstructured covariance structure. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||5.84|-2.65|0.459
90853899|NCT02129777|181571328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.161||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|7.93|||MMRM||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from a MMRM model with main effect of study site, treatment, visit and interaction between visit and treatment as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate with an unstructured covariance structure. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||7.93|-0.63|0.094
90901980|NCT00988351|181670411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|||=|0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|2.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||Patients using PAP (average of \>=1/2 hour per night) at 6 weeks clinic visit||2.1|-1.3|= 0.65
90901981|NCT00988351|181670412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71|=|0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|2.1||\< 0.05 criteria for statistical significance|t-test, 2 sided|||Patients using PAP (average \>=1/2 hour per nightly use) at 6 weeks clinic visit||2.1|-0.73|=0.33
90901982|NCT00988351|181670413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.58|||=|0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|2.29|||t-test, 2 sided|||Patients using PAP (average \>= 1/2 hour of nightly use) at 6 weeks clinic visit||2.29|-1.12|=0.49
90901983|NCT00988351|181670414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51|=|0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.92|0.09||P \< 0.05 considered statistically significant|t-test, 2 sided|||participants using PAP (average \>=1/2 hour of use) at 6 weeks clinic visit||0.09|-1.92|=0.07
90901984|NCT03912220|181670519|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.33
90901985|NCT03912220|181670520|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.54
91100017|NCT04053452|182086358|OTHER|Ulnar at humerus|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|-0.1786|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6503|0.2838||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and length of hospital stay.||0.2838|-0.6503|
91100018|NCT04053452|182086358|OTHER|Ulnar at axilla|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|-0.2396|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5714|0.195||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and length of hospital stay.||0.1950|-0.5714|
91100019|NCT04053452|182086358|OTHER|C6|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|-0.0671|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4667|0.3336||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and length of hospital stay.||0.3336|-0.4667|
90853900|NCT02129777|181571328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.173||0.203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|7.09|||MMRM||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from a MMRM model with main effect of study site, treatment, visit and interaction between visit and treatment as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate with an unstructured covariance structure. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||7.09|-1.52|0.203
90853901|NCT02129777|181571329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.92|0.86|||MMRM||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from a MMRM model with main effect of study site, treatment, visit and interaction between visit and treatment as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate with an unstructured covariance structure. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||0.86|-1.92|0.448
90853902|NCT02129777|181571329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.692||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.53|0.22|||MMRM||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from a MMRM model with main effect of study site, treatment, visit and interaction between visit and treatment as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate with an unstructured covariance structure. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||0.22|-2.53|0.099
90853903|NCT02129777|181571329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|0.78|||MMRM||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from a MMRM model with main effect of study site, treatment, visit and interaction between visit and treatment as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate with an unstructured covariance structure. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||0.78|-1.96|0.396
90853904|NCT02129777|181571329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.697||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|0.23|||MMRM||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from a MMRM model with main effect of study site, treatment, visit and interaction between visit and treatment as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate with an unstructured covariance structure. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||0.23|-2.54|0.102
90853905|NCT02129777|181571330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.626||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|-0.2|||MMRM||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from a MMRM model with main effect of study site, treatment, visit and interaction between visit and treatment as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate with an unstructured covariance structure. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||-0.20|-2.29|0.099
90853906|NCT02129777|181571330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.619||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.49|-0.03|||MMRM||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from a MMRM model with main effect of study site, treatment, visit and interaction between visit and treatment as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate with an unstructured covariance structure. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||-0.03|-2.49|0.045
90901986|NCT04654468|181670547|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired McNemar|||Percentage of participants who achieved TA from baseline through Week 25 were compared with the percentage of participants who reported TA within 24 weeks prior to screening.||||<.0001
91100020|NCT04053452|182086358|OTHER|C7|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|-0.2134|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7018|0.3193||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and length of hospital stay.||0.3193|-0.7018|
91100021|NCT04053452|182086358|OTHER|Vagus|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.0246|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3506|0.4596||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and length of hospital stay.||0.4596|-0.3506|
91100022|NCT04053452|182086359|OTHER|Median at wrist|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7686494||||0.36|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Null hypothesis: Nerve ultrasound measurement has no effect on the log-odds of walking (i.e., nerve ultrasound measurements do not predict whether a subject is ambulatory at discharge).||||0.360
91100023|NCT04053452|182086359|OTHER|Median at forearm|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9315228||||0.521|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Null hypothesis: Nerve ultrasound measurement has no effect on the log-odds of walking (i.e., nerve ultrasound measurements do not predict whether a subject is ambulatory at discharge).||||0.521
90901987|NCT05064735|181670622|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Treatment Difference|-10.48|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.34|-8.63|||ANCOVA|||The responses at week 68 were analyzed using an analysis of covariance model with randomized treatment as factor and baseline body weight as covariate.||-8.63|-12.34|<0.0001
90901988|NCT05064735|181670623|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Treatment Difference|-14.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.98|-8.3|||ANCOVA|||The responses at week 68 were analyzed using an analysis of covariance model with randomized treatment as factor and baseline WOMAC pain score as covariate.||-8.30|-19.98|<0.0001
90901989|NCT00930943|181670647|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||repeated-measure ANOVA tested time-post-dose effect for Rapid Visual Information Processing (RVP): sensitivity (A')|ANOVA|||The a priori sample-size estimation for a power of 80% with alpha = 0.05 was based on the primary-outcome measure, the rapid visual information processing (RVP) sensitivity (A') score. Using a repeated-measure ANOVA for the food effect (fed versus fasting) and assuming an effect size of f =0.26 generated a required sample size of 32 participants. However, only 30 subjects completed both testing visits, generating a power of 78.2%.|(F\[1,28\] = 22.71; η2 = 0.45)|||<0.001
91100024|NCT04053452|182086359|OTHER|Median at cubital fossa|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7949528||||0.245|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Null hypothesis: Nerve ultrasound measurement has no effect on the log-odds of walking (i.e., nerve ultrasound measurements do not predict whether a subject is ambulatory at discharge).||||0.245
91100025|NCT04053452|182086359|OTHER|Median at humerus|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8603349||||0.541|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Null hypothesis: Nerve ultrasound measurement has no effect on the log-odds of walking (i.e., nerve ultrasound measurements do not predict whether a subject is ambulatory at discharge).||||0.541
91100026|NCT04053452|182086359|OTHER|Median at axilla|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8767973||||0.415|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Null hypothesis: Nerve ultrasound measurement has no effect on the log-odds of walking (i.e., nerve ultrasound measurements do not predict whether a subject is ambulatory at discharge).||||0.415
91100027|NCT04053452|182086359|OTHER|Ulnar at wrist|Odds Ratio, log|0.7613965||||0.504|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Null hypothesis: Nerve ultrasound measurement has no effect on the log-odds of walking (i.e., nerve ultrasound measurements do not predict whether a subject is ambulatory at discharge).||||0.504
91100028|NCT04053452|182086359|OTHER|Ulnar at forearm|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8061505||||0.393|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Null hypothesis: Nerve ultrasound measurement has no effect on the log-odds of walking (i.e., nerve ultrasound measurements do not predict whether a subject is ambulatory at discharge).||||0.393
91100029|NCT04053452|182086359|OTHER|Ulnar at cubital fossa|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8336885||||0.222|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Null hypothesis: Nerve ultrasound measurement has no effect on the log-odds of walking (i.e., nerve ultrasound measurements do not predict whether a subject is ambulatory at discharge).||||0.222
91100030|NCT04053452|182086359|OTHER|Ulnar at humerus|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1214848||||0.615|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Null hypothesis: Nerve ultrasound measurement has no effect on the log-odds of walking (i.e., nerve ultrasound measurements do not predict whether a subject is ambulatory at discharge).||||0.615
91100031|NCT04053452|182086359|OTHER|Ulnar at axilla|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9898411||||0.926|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Null hypothesis: Nerve ultrasound measurement has no effect on the log-odds of walking (i.e., nerve ultrasound measurements do not predict whether a subject is ambulatory at discharge).||||0.926
90901990|NCT00930943|181670647|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||repeated-measure ANOVA tested food x time-post-dose effect for Rapid Visual Information Processing (RVP): sensitivity (A')|ANOVA||||F\[1,28\]=6.88; η2=0.20|||0.01
91100032|NCT04053452|182086359|OTHER|C6|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9402829||||0.519|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Null hypothesis: Nerve ultrasound measurement has no effect on the log-odds of walking (i.e., nerve ultrasound measurements do not predict whether a subject is ambulatory at discharge).||||0.519
90901991|NCT00930943|181670647|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||repeated-measure ANOVA testing food effect for Rapid Visual Information Processing (RVP): sensitivity (A')|ANOVA|||||||>0.05
91100033|NCT04053452|182086359|OTHER|C7|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9347906||||0.379|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Null hypothesis: Nerve ultrasound measurement has no effect on the log-odds of walking (i.e., nerve ultrasound measurements do not predict whether a subject is ambulatory at discharge).||||0.379
90901992|NCT00930943|181670648|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Repeated-measure ANOVA testing time-post-dose effect for Rapid Visual Information Processing (RVP): response latency|ANOVA||||(F\[1,28\] = 14.05; η2 = 0.33)|||<0.001
90901993|NCT00930943|181670648|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||"repeated-measure ANOVA testing food and food x time post dose effect for Rapid Visual Information Processing (RVP): response latency"|ANOVA|||||||>0.05
91100034|NCT04053452|182086359|OTHER|Vagus|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8968658||||0.511|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Null hypothesis: Nerve ultrasound measurement has no effect on the log-odds of walking (i.e., nerve ultrasound measurements do not predict whether a subject is ambulatory at discharge).||||0.511
91100035|NCT04053452|182086360|OTHER|Median at wrist|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|-0.057735|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4273|0.3293||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and respiratory dysfunction.||0.3293|-0.4273|
91100036|NCT04053452|182086360|OTHER|Median at forearm|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|-0.0359442|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.548|0.5248||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and respiratory dysfunction.||0.5248|-0.5480|
91100037|NCT04053452|182086360|OTHER|Median at cubital fossa|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.1429483|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1938|0.4763||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and respiratory dysfunction.||0.4763|-0.1938|
91100038|NCT04053452|182086360|OTHER|Median at humerus|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|-0.3955939|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6811|-0.0874||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and respiratory dysfunction.||-0.0874|-0.6811|
91100039|NCT04053452|182086360|OTHER|Median at axilla|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|-0.3681051|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7032|0.1185||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and respiratory dysfunction.||0.1185|-0.7032|
91100040|NCT04053452|182086360|OTHER|Ulnar at wrist|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|-0.4938292|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7112|-0.1978||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and respiratory dysfunction.||-0.1978|-0.7112|
91100041|NCT04053452|182086360|OTHER|Ulnar at forearm|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.1304373|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2201|0.5014||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and respiratory dysfunction.||0.5014|-0.2201|
91100042|NCT04053452|182086360|OTHER|Ulnar at cubital fossa|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.3273268|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0679|0.6612||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and respiratory dysfunction.||0.6612|-0.0679|
91100043|NCT04053452|182086360|OTHER|Ulnar at humerus|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|-0.0552157|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4213|0.361||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and respiratory dysfunction.||0.3610|-0.4213|
91100044|NCT04053452|182086360|OTHER|Ulnar at axilla|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|-0.1666667|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5389|0.2057||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and respiratory dysfunction.||0.2057|-0.5389|
91100045|NCT04053452|182086360|OTHER|C6|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|-0.3194892|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6539|0.2288||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and respiratory dysfunction.||0.2288|-0.6539|
91100046|NCT04053452|182086360|OTHER|C7|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|-0.4959498|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.686|-0.2065||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and respiratory dysfunction.||-0.2065|-0.6860|
91100047|NCT04053452|182086360|OTHER|Vagus|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|-0.3228883|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6487|0.0||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and respiratory dysfunction.||0.0000|-0.6487|
90853907|NCT02129777|181571330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|0.25|||MMRM||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from a MMRM model with main effect of study site, treatment, visit and interaction between visit and treatment as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate with an unstructured covariance structure. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||0.25|-2.21|0.118
91031142|NCT02937701|181946887|OTHER||Response Difference|6.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.44|16.54||||||The response difference (Infliximab/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) at week 46 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||16.54|-4.44|
91031143|NCT02937701|181946887|OTHER||Response Difference|-5.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.39|3.71||||||The response difference (ABP 710/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) at week 50 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||3.71|-14.39|
91031144|NCT02937701|181946887|OTHER||Response Difference|2.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.51|13.37||||||The response difference (Infliximab/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) at week 50 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||13.37|-7.51|
90853908|NCT02129777|181571330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.616||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|0.0|||MMRM||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from a MMRM model with main effect of study site, treatment, visit and interaction between visit and treatment as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate with an unstructured covariance structure. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||0.00|-2.44|0.050
90853909|NCT02129777|181571331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.503||0.211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|0.36|||MMRM||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from a MMRM model with main effect of study site, treatment, visit and interaction between visit and treatment as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate with an unstructured covariance structure. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||0.36|-1.63|0.211
90901994|NCT00930943|181670649|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||"repeated-measure ANOVA testing food, time-post-dose, and food x time-post-dose effect for SRM percentage of correct hits"|ANOVA|||||||>0.05
90958205|NCT03143166|181796380|OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio Test/Reference (%)|27.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|75.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|21.023|36.118|||ANOVA|An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'subjects' and 'treatment'.|The dispersion value standard error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) (%).|||36.118|21.023|
91031145|NCT02937701|181946888|OTHER||Response Difference|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.84|0.83||||||The response difference at week 2 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||0.83|-5.84|
91100048|NCT04053452|182086361|OTHER|Median at wrist|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|-0.1415346|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.735|0.4247||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and strength by hand dynamometer.||0.4247|-0.7350|
91100049|NCT04053452|182086361|OTHER|Median at forearm|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.1987845|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4377|0.8004||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and strength by hand dynamometer.||0.8004|-0.4377|
91100050|NCT04053452|182086361|OTHER|Median at cubital fossa|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|-0.0789747|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5256|0.3778||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and strength by hand dynamometer.||0.3778|-0.5256|
91100051|NCT04053452|182086361|OTHER|Median at humerus|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.1621509|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3591|0.5606||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and strength by hand dynamometer.||0.5606|-0.3591|
91100052|NCT04053452|182086361|OTHER|Median at axilla|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.1499412|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3901|0.6374||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and strength by hand dynamometer.||0.6374|-0.3901|
91100053|NCT04053452|182086361|OTHER|Ulnar at wrist|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|-0.0140441|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5773|0.5407||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and strength by hand dynamometer.||0.5407|-0.5773|
90901995|NCT00930943|181670650|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Repeated-measure ANOVA testing time-post-dose effect for Spatial Recognition Memory (SRM) response latency|ANOVA||||(F\[1,28\] = 31.26; η2 = 0.53)|||<0.001
90901996|NCT00930943|181670650|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||"repeated-measure ANOVA testing food and food x time-post-dose effect for SRM response latency"|ANOVA|||||||>0.05
90901997|NCT00930943|181670651|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||"repeated-measure ANOVA testing food, time-post-dose, and food x time-post-dose effect for SWM total errors"|ANOVA|||||||>0.05
91100054|NCT04053452|182086361|OTHER|Ulnar at forearm|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.01383297|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5288|0.5485||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and strength by hand dynamometer.||0.5485|-0.5288|
90853910|NCT02129777|181571331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.497||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|0.13|||MMRM||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from a MMRM model with main effect of study site, treatment, visit and interaction between visit and treatment as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate with an unstructured covariance structure. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||0.13|-1.85|0.087
90853911|NCT02129777|181571331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.494||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|0.71|||MMRM||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from a MMRM model with main effect of study site, treatment, visit and interaction between visit and treatment as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate with an unstructured covariance structure. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||0.71|-1.26|0.580
90853912|NCT02129777|181571331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.496||0.873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|0.9|||MMRM||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from a MMRM model with main effect of study site, treatment, visit and interaction between visit and treatment as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate with an unstructured covariance structure. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||0.90|-1.06|0.873
90853913|NCT02129777|181571332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.7||0.803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|11.8|||MMRM||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from a MMRM model with main effect of study site, treatment, visit and interaction between visit and treatment as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate with an unstructured covariance structure. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||11.8|-15.2|0.803
90853914|NCT02129777|181571332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.73||0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|21.4|||MMRM||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from a MMRM model with main effect of study site, treatment, visit and interaction between visit and treatment as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate with an unstructured covariance structure. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||21.4|-5.7|0.248
90853915|NCT02129777|181571332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.67||0.914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|14.2|||MMRM||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from a MMRM model with main effect of study site, treatment, visit and interaction between visit and treatment as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate with an unstructured covariance structure. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||14.2|-12.7|0.914
90853916|NCT02129777|181571332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.74||0.523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|17.9|||MMRM||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from a MMRM model with main effect of study site, treatment, visit and interaction between visit and treatment as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate with an unstructured covariance structure. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||17.9|-9.2|0.523
90853917|NCT02129777|181571333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.37||0.978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|2.8|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from an Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with main effect of study site and treatment with baseline value as a covariate. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||2.8|-2.7|0.978
90853918|NCT02129777|181571333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36||0.389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|1.5|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from an ANCOVA model with main effect of study site and treatment with baseline value as a covariate. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||1.5|-3.9|0.389
90853919|NCT02129777|181571333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.39||0.316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|1.4|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from an ANCOVA model with main effect of study site and treatment with baseline value as a covariate. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||1.4|-4.2|0.316
90853920|NCT02129777|181571333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.41||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|0.7|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from an ANCOVA model with main effect of study site and treatment with baseline value as a covariate. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||0.7|-4.9|0.142
90853921|NCT02129777|181571334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.73||0.229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|1.4|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Physical Health Summary Score: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from an ANCOVA model with main effect of study site and treatment with baseline value as a covariate. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||1.4|-5.6|0.229
90901998|NCT00930943|181670652|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||"repeated-measure ANOVA testing food, time-post-dose, and food x time-post-dose effect for SWM strategy score"|ANOVA|||||||>0.05
90853922|NCT02129777|181571334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.65||0.863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|3.0|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Physical Health Summary Score: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from an ANCOVA model with main effect of study site and treatment with baseline value as a covariate. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||3.0|-3.6|0.863
90853923|NCT02129777|181571334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.67||0.403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|4.7|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Physical Health Summary Score: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from an ANCOVA model with main effect of study site and treatment with baseline value as a covariate. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||4.7|-1.9|0.403
90853924|NCT02129777|181571334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.74||0.597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|4.4|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Physical Health Summary Score: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from an ANCOVA model with main effect of study site and treatment with baseline value as a covariate. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||4.4|-2.5|0.597
90853925|NCT02129777|181571334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.32||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|6.5|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Mental Health Summary Score: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from an ANCOVA model with main effect of study site and treatment with baseline value as a covariate. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||6.5|-2.7|0.416
90853926|NCT02129777|181571334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.24||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|5.1|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Mental Health Summary Score: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from an ANCOVA model with main effect of study site and treatment with baseline value as a covariate. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||5.1|-3.8|0.770
90853927|NCT02129777|181571334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.31||0.798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|5.2|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Mental Health Summary Score: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from an ANCOVA model with main effect of study site and treatment with baseline value as a covariate. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||5.2|-4.0|0.798
90853928|NCT02129777|181571334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|5.5|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Mental Health Summary Score: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from an ANCOVA model with main effect of study site and treatment with baseline value as a covariate. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||5.5|-4.1|0.767
90853929|NCT02129777|181571335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.06|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from an ANCOVA model with main effect of study site and treatment with baseline value as a covariate. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||0.06|-0.11|0.570
90853930|NCT02129777|181571335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.042||0.619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.06|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from an ANCOVA model with main effect of study site and treatment with baseline value as a covariate. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||0.06|-0.10|0.619
90853931|NCT02129777|181571335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.11|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from an ANCOVA model with main effect of study site and treatment with baseline value as a covariate. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||0.11|-0.06|0.597
90901999|NCT03169881|181670677|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|2.64||The mean difference in Bayley-III cognitive scores between treatment groups was adjusted for center, gestational age group, and familial clustering.|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted mean difference in cognitive score for the Darbepoetin minus Placebo treatment groups.|Null hypothesis: Weekly administration of Darbepoetin during the neonatal period will not impact neurocognitive outcomes at 22-26 months compared to Placebo in premature infants 23 to 28 weeks gestation.||2.64|-3.09|0.88
90902000|NCT02090634|181670693|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95||||||Cliff's d = 0.01; calculated to estimate the effect size for between-group comparisons with non-parametric data|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We conducted Wilcoxon rank sum (Mann-Whitney) tests in order to examine group (i.e., iTAB vs. CTRL) differences on overall adherence to ARV medications.||||0.95
90902001|NCT02090634|181670693|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Cliff's d = -0.13; calculated to estimate the effect size for between-group comparisons with non-parametric data||We conducted Wilcoxon rank sum (Mann-Whitney) tests in order to examine group (i.e., iTAB vs. CTRL) differences on overall adherence to PSY medications.||||0.43
90958206|NCT03143166|181796381|OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio Test/Reference (%)|30.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|76.8|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|23.26|40.234|||ANOVA|An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'subjects' and 'treatment'.|The dispersion value standard error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) (%).|||40.234|23.260|
90958999|NCT04217590|181798098|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.71|15.12|||Regression, Logistic|The OR, 95% CI and p-value are obtained from a pooled logistic regression model after multiple imputation (MI) of missing pre-dialysis S-K values.|An OR \> 1 favours SZC.|||15.12|2.71|<0.001
90853932|NCT02129777|181571335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044||0.509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.12|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from an ANCOVA model with main effect of study site and treatment with baseline value as a covariate. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||0.12|-0.06|0.509
90853933|NCT02129777|181571336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.32||0.845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|9.6|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from an ANCOVA model with main effect of study site and treatment with baseline value as a covariate. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||9.6|-11.7|0.845
90853934|NCT02129777|181571336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.8||0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|14.4|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from an ANCOVA model with main effect of study site and treatment with baseline value as a covariate. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||14.4|-4.8|0.323
90853935|NCT02129777|181571336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.89||0.697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|7.8|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from an ANCOVA model with main effect of study site and treatment with baseline value as a covariate. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||7.8|-11.7|0.697
90853936|NCT02129777|181571336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.1||0.633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|7.7|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from an ANCOVA model with main effect of study site and treatment with baseline value as a covariate. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||7.7|-12.6|0.633
90853937|NCT02129777|181571337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.64||0.537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|4.3|||MMRM||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from a MMRM model with main effect of study site,treatment,visit and interaction between visit and treatment as fixed effects,baseline value as a covariate with an unstructured covariance structure. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||4.3|-2.2|0.537
90853938|NCT02129777|181571337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.62||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|5.6|||MMRM||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from a MMRM model with main effect of study site,treatment,visit and interaction between visit and treatment as fixed effects,baseline value as a covariate with an unstructured covariance structure. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||5.6|-0.8|0.142
90853939|NCT02129777|181571337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|7.3|||MMRM||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from a MMRM model with main effect of study site,treatment,visit and interaction between visit and treatment as fixed effects,baseline value as a covariate with an unstructured covariance structure. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||7.3|0.8|0.015
90853940|NCT02129777|181571337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.64||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|5.8|||MMRM||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from a MMRM model with main effect of study site,treatment,visit and interaction between visit and treatment as fixed effects,baseline value as a covariate with an unstructured covariance structure. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||5.8|-0.7|0.121
90853941|NCT04973137|181571363|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.915||||0.768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.508|1.649|||Log Rank|||||1.649|.508|0.7680
90853942|NCT04973137|181571364|SUPERIORITY||Hodge-Lehmann Median Difference (Net)|-8.5||||0.5288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.47|18.46|||Rank ANCOVA|||||18.46|-35.47|0.5288
90853943|NCT04973137|181571365|SUPERIORITY||Hodge-Lehmann Median Difference (Net)|0.34||||0.9597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.68|3.37|||Rank ANCOVA|||||3.37|-2.68|0.9597
90853944|NCT05040971|181571366|SUPERIORITY|Week 52 responses were analysed using an analysis of covariance model (ANCOVA) with randomised treatment as factor and baseline body weight as covariate.|Treatment difference|-11.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.97|-9.42|||ANCOVA|||Treatment policy estimand||-9.42|-12.97|<0.0001
90958207|NCT03143166|181796382|OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio Test/Reference (%)|30.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|74.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|23.404|40.037|||ANOVA|An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'subjects' and 'treatment'.|The dispersion value standard error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) (%).|||40.037|23.404|
90958208|NCT04619251|181796386|OTHER|Since the main focus is on estimation and not testing, a formal hypothesis test and associated acceptance range is not specified.|Geometric Least Squares Mean ratio (%)|337.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|302.8|376.4|||||Geometric Least Squares Mean ratio was estimated by the ratios of the geometric means (T/R). Intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV %) =15.9|The PK endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: subject and treatment. The effect 'subject' was considered as random, whereas the effect 'treatment' was considered as fixed. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale.||376.4|302.8|
90853945|NCT05040971|181571367|SUPERIORITY|Week 52 responses were analysed using a logistic regression model with randomised treatment as factor and baseline glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c) and fasting plasma glucose (FPG) as covariates.|Odds Ratio (OR)|19.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.68|45.21|||Regression, Logistic|||Treatment policy estimand||45.21|8.68|<0.0001
90853946|NCT04391569|181571416|OTHER|||||||0||||||P-value from logistic regression is used for interim data, and Boschloo's test p-value is used for post interim data.|fixed weight combination test|P-value is derived by fixed weight (2/3 for interim and 1/3 for post interim) combination test.||||||0.0000
90853947|NCT04391569|181571417|OTHER|||||||0.1619||||||P-value from logistics regression is used for interim data, and Boschloo's test p-value is used for post interim data.|fixed weight combination test|P-value is derive by fixed weight (2/3 for interim and 1/3 for post interim) combination test.||||||0.1619
90853948|NCT04391569|181571419|OTHER|||||||0.2097|||||||fixed weight combination test|||||||0.2097
90853949|NCT04391569|181571420|OTHER|||||||0|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0000
90853950|NCT04391569|181571421|OTHER|||||||0.0075||||||P-value is derived by fixed weight (2/3 for interim and 1/3 for post interim) combination test. P-value from logistics regression is used for interim data, and Boschloo's test p-value is used for post interim data.|fixed weight combination test|||||||0.0075
90853951|NCT04641221|181571428|SUPERIORITY||incidence rate ratio|1.1||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.02|1.18||main effect for one-on-one sessions.|zero-inflated negative-binomial (ZINB)|We specified a multilevel (week nested within participant) model which included terms for each main effect and each interaction effect and covariates.|Main effect for One-one sessions.|There were four potential intervention components. This study used a 2x2x2x2 factorial design. Thus, we analyzed main and interaction effects for the four potential intervention components.||1.18|1.02|0.028
90853952|NCT04641221|181571428|SUPERIORITY|Interaction effect for one-on-one sessions and incentives for participation|incidence rate ratio|1.09||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.02|1.17|||zero-inflated negative binomial||Interaction effect for one-on-one sessions and incentives for participation|There were four potential intervention components. This study used a 2x2x2x2 factorial design. Thus, we analyzed main and interaction effects for the four potential intervention components.||1.17|1.02|0.039
90853953|NCT04641221|181571428|SUPERIORITY||incident rate ratio|0.86||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|0.93||3-way interaction: study videos X one-on-one X incentives for class attendance|Zero-inflated negative binomial||3-way interaction: study videos X one-on-one X incentives for class attendance|There were four potential intervention components. This study used a 2x2x2x2 factorial design. Thus, we analyzed main and interaction effects for the four potential intervention components.||0.93|0.80|0.001
90902002|NCT02090634|181670694|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||Cliff's d = 0.37; calculated to estimate the effect size for between-group comparisons with non-parametric data|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We conducted Wilcoxon rank sum (Mann-Whitney) tests in order to examine group (i.e., iTAB vs. CTRL) differences on overall dose timing windows for ARV medications.||||0.02
90902003|NCT02090634|181670694|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42||||||Cliff's d = 0.14; calculated to estimate the effect size for between-group comparisons with non-parametric data|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We conducted Wilcoxon rank sum (Mann-Whitney) tests in order to examine group (i.e., iTAB vs. CTRL) differences on overall dose timing windows for PSY medications.||||0.42
90902004|NCT03757234|181670695|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|6.9|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from levofloxacin (omadacycline minus levofloxacin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||6.9|-12.4|
90902005|NCT03757234|181670695|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-9.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.8|5.3|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from levofloxacin (omadacycline minus levofloxacin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||5.3|-34.8|
90902006|NCT03757234|181670695|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.6|8.2|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from levofloxacin (omadacycline minus levofloxacin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||8.2|-30.6|
90958209|NCT04619251|181796387|OTHER|Since the main focus is on estimation and not testing, a formal hypothesis test and associated acceptance range is not specified.|Geometric Least Squares Mean ratio (%)|184.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|156.0|218.0|||||Geometric Least Squares Mean ratio was estimated by the ratios of the geometric means (T/R). Intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV %) =26.4|The PK endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: subject and treatment. The effect 'subject' was considered as random, whereas the effect 'treatment' was considered as fixed. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale.||218.0|156.0|
90853954|NCT00997113|181571445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.94|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the change in serum catecholamines from one minute before the procedure to one minute after. In order to detect a 20% difference in mean catecholamine values between groups, assuming a 30% standard deviation, with an alpha of 0.05 and a beta of 0.2 (80% power), power analysis indicated that 10 patients per group were required.||||0.940
90853955|NCT03044574|181571450|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
90853956|NCT03044574|181571451|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.03
90853957|NCT03044574|181571452|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
90853958|NCT03044574|181571453|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.03
90853959|NCT03044574|181571454|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.05
90853960|NCT03044574|181571455|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.05
90853961|NCT03044574|181571456|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
90853962|NCT03044574|181571458|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
90902007|NCT03757234|181670695|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment Difference|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.4|11.8|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from levofloxacin (omadacycline minus levofloxacin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||11.8|-22.4|
90902008|NCT03757234|181670696|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.6|12.7|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from levofloxacin (omadacycline minus levofloxacin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||12.7|-23.6|
90902009|NCT03757234|181670696|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-47.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.3|-6.0|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from levofloxacin (omadacycline minus levofloxacin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||-6.0|-71.3|
90959000|NCT04217590|181798099|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.53|7.67|||Generalised linear mixed model (GLMM)|The p-value was obtained from a test of equality of odds ratios.|The OR was obtained from GLMM model with random intercept and logit link. Treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction and baseline were specified as fixed effects. An OR \> 1 favours SZC.|||7.67|2.53|<0.001
90853963|NCT00645788|181571461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.076|||||||ANCOVA|||"Ho: \|Cipro 32.5 mg - matching placebo\|=0 and \|Cipro 48.75 mg - matching placebo\|=0"||||0.076
90853964|NCT00645788|181571463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.068|||||||ANCOVA|||"At visit 7 (End of treatment) Ho: \|Cipro 32.5 - matching placebo\| =0 and~\|Cipro 48.75 - matching placebo\| =0"||||0.068
90853965|NCT04090411|181571474|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.9||||0.0545|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|27.65||One-sided P-value|Chan and Zhang Method|||||27.65|-0.20|0.0545
90853966|NCT04090411|181571474|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.71||||0.0823|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.7|24.09||One-sided P-value|Chan and Zhang Method|||||24.09|-1.70|0.0823
90853967|NCT04090411|181571474|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.24||||0.0642|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.64|22.91||One-sided P-value|Chan and Zhang Method|||||22.91|-0.64|0.0642
90853968|NCT04090411|181571481|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.92||||0.1398|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.62|20.04||One-sided P-value|Chan and Zhang Method|||||20.04|-3.62|0.1398
90853969|NCT04090411|181571481|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.36||||0.2038|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.88|17.06||One-sided P-value|Chan and Zhang Method|||||17.06|-4.88|0.2038
90853970|NCT04090411|181571481|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.8||||0.1498|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.7|17.06||One-sided P-value|Chan and Zhang Method|||||17.06|-3.70|0.1498
90853971|NCT04090411|181571482|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.16||||0.0189|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.25|32.23||One-sided P-value|Chan and Zhang Method|||||32.23|3.25|0.0189
90853972|NCT04090411|181571482|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|23.37||||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.24|36.28||One-sided P-value|Chan and Zhang Method|||||36.28|6.24|0.0045
90853973|NCT04090411|181571482|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.19||||0.0117|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.22|31.31||One-sided P-value|Chan and Zhang Method|||||31.31|3.22|0.0117
90853974|NCT04090411|181571483|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.82||||0.0146|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.14|37.3||One-sided P-value|Chan and Zhang Method|||||37.30|4.14|0.0146
90853975|NCT04090411|181571483|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|19.73||||0.0167|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.76|34.05||One-sided P-value|Chan and Zhang Method|||||34.05|2.76|0.0167
90853976|NCT04090411|181571483|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|22.3||||0.0094|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.22|34.95||One-sided P-value|Chan and Zhang Method|||||34.95|3.22|0.0094
90853977|NCT04090411|181571484|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.17||||0.0489|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.05|25.25||One-sided P-value|Chan and Zhang Method|||||25.25|0.05|0.0489
90853978|NCT04090411|181571484|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.02||||0.3396|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.66|12.88||One-sided P-value|Chan and Zhang Method|||||12.88|-7.66|0.3396
90853979|NCT04090411|181571484|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.25||||0.3995|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.42|11.58||One-sided P-value|Chan and Zhang Method|||||11.58|-7.42|0.3995
90853980|NCT03764033|181571506|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.27||0.729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.66|5.24||The threshold for statistical significance was p=.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.24|-3.66|0.729
90853981|NCT03764033|181571507|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.31||0.975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.46|4.61||The threshold for statistical significance was p=.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.61|-4.46|0.975
90853982|NCT03764033|181571508|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.43||0.831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.27|4.24||The threshold for statistical significance was p=.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.24|-5.27|0.831
90853983|NCT03764033|181571509|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.42||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.31|-1.87||The threshold for statistical significance was p=.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.87|-11.31|0.006
90853984|NCT03764033|181571510|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.44||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.34|-1.74||The threshold for statistical significance was p=.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.74|-11.34|0.008
90853985|NCT03764033|181571511|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.01||The threshold for statistical significance was p=.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.01|-0.37|0.066
90959001|NCT04217590|181798100|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.64|||||Endpoint analysed with Generalised linear mixed model. The CI for the mean difference was calculated by bootstrapping. A mean difference \> 0 favours SZC.|||1.64|0.77|
90853986|NCT03764033|181571512|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.01||The threshold for statistical significance was p=.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.01|-0.69|0.043
90853987|NCT03764033|181571513|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.04||The threshold for statistical significance was p=.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.04|-0.43|0.016
90853988|NCT03764033|181571514|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.04||The threshold for statistical significance was p=.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.04|-0.74|0.028
90853989|NCT02477696|181571526|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of acalabrutinib was demonstrated if the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the hazard ratio was below 1.429.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.27|||||Cox Proportional Hazards model stratified by 17p deletion status (yes versus no) and number of prior therapies (1-3 versus \>=4).|||1.27|0.79|
90853990|NCT03505671|181571537|OTHER|||||||0.61|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.61
90853991|NCT03505671|181571537|OTHER||Correlation Coefficient|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Correlation between EORTC Sensory Subscale baseline and 12 weeks (overall, N=20)|||||
90853992|NCT03505671|181571537|OTHER||Correlation coefficient|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Correlation between EORTC Sensory Subscale baseline and 12 weeks (intervention, N=9)|||||
90853993|NCT03505671|181571537|OTHER||Correlation coefficient|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Correlation between EORTC Sensory Subscale baseline and 12 weeks (Usual Care, N=11)|||||
90853994|NCT03505671|181571538|OTHER|||||||0.91||||||P value for the motor subscale|ANCOVA|||||||0.91
90853995|NCT03505671|181571538|OTHER|||||||0.55||||||P value for autonomic subscale|ANCOVA|||||||0.55
90853996|NCT03505671|181571539|OTHER|||||||0.41||||||P value for baseline numbness or tingling severity data|Fisher Exact|||||||0.41
90853997|NCT03505671|181571539|OTHER|||||||0.22||||||P value for baseline numbness or tingling interference data|Fisher Exact|||||||0.22
90853998|NCT03505671|181571539|OTHER|||||||0.58||||||Week 12 p value for numbness or tingling severity data|Fisher Exact|||||||0.58
90853999|NCT03505671|181571539|OTHER|||||||0.12||||||P value for Week 12 numbness or tingling interference data|Fisher Exact|||||||0.12
90854000|NCT03505671|181571539|OTHER|||||||0.57||||||Week 12 - Baseline p value for numbness or tingling severity data|Fisher Exact|||||||0.57
90854001|NCT03505671|181571539|OTHER|||||||0.55||||||Week 12 - Baseline p value for numbness or tingling interference|Fisher Exact|||||||0.55
90854002|NCT03505671|181571540|OTHER|||||||0.99||||||P value for baseline numbness or tingling severity Grade 1-3|Fisher Exact|||||||0.99
90854003|NCT03505671|181571540|OTHER|||||||0.99||||||P value for 12 weeks numbness or tingling severity Grade 1-3|Fisher Exact|||||||0.99
90854004|NCT03505671|181571540|OTHER|||||||0.99||||||P value for week 12 - baseline change in numbness or tingling severity|Fisher Exact|||||||0.99
90854005|NCT03505671|181571541|OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.99
90854006|NCT03505671|181571542|OTHER|||||||0.69|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.69
90854007|NCT03505671|181571543|OTHER|||||||0.46||||||P value for cross sectional area sural data|ANCOVA|||||||0.46
90854008|NCT03505671|181571543|OTHER|||||||0.22||||||P value for cross sectional area for median data|ANCOVA|||||||0.22
90854009|NCT03505671|181571544|OTHER|||||||0.2||||||P value for amplitude - sural data|ANCOVA|||||||0.20
90854010|NCT03505671|181571544|OTHER|||||||0.28||||||P value for amplitude - tibial, ankle|ANCOVA|||||||0.28
90854011|NCT03505671|181571544|OTHER|||||||0.13||||||P value for amplitude tibial, pop fossa|ANCOVA|||||||0.13
90854012|NCT03505671|181571544|OTHER|||||||0.71||||||P value for amplitude median, wrist|ANCOVA|||||||0.71
90854013|NCT03505671|181571544|OTHER|||||||0.46||||||P value for amplitude, median, elbow|ANCOVA|||||||0.46
90854014|NCT03505671|181571545|OTHER|||||||0.81||||||P value for latency sural data|ANCOVA|||||||0.81
90854015|NCT03505671|181571545|OTHER|||||||0.76||||||P value for latency tibial, ankle data|ANCOVA|||||||0.76
90854016|NCT03505671|181571545|OTHER|||||||0.24||||||P value for latency tibial, pop fossa|ANCOVA|||||||0.24
90854017|NCT03505671|181571545|OTHER|||||||0.2||||||P value for latency median wrist data|ANCOVA|||||||0.20
90854018|NCT03505671|181571545|OTHER|||||||0.51||||||P value for latency median elbow data|ANCOVA|||||||0.51
90854019|NCT03505671|181571546|OTHER|||||||0.98||||||P value for velocity sural data|ANCOVA|||||||0.98
90854020|NCT03505671|181571546|OTHER|||||||0.03||||||P value for velocity tibial data|ANCOVA|||||||0.03
90854021|NCT03505671|181571546|OTHER|||||||0.81||||||P value for velocity median data|ANCOVA|||||||0.81
90854022|NCT02038829|181571548|SUPERIORITY|A sample size of 66 subjects (rounding to 72 for using Williams squares and 96 with dropouts) provides \~90% power to detect a 100 mL treatment difference in mean change trough FEV1 between SUN-101 and placebo at a Bonferroni-adjusted significance level of 0.0125 using a 2-tailed paired t-test and assuming a within-subject standard deviation for change in trough FEV1 of 176 and a within-subject correlation of 0.3.|LS Mean (SE)|0.0126|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0225||0.973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0318|0.0569||P-values were adjusted using Dunnett's method for comparing the multiple treatments to placebo. The comparison of aclidinium to placebo was performed at the 0.05 significance level to establish assay sensitivity.|LS Mean (SE)|||An mixed effects model was used with mean change from baseline in trough FEV1 as the response, with factors for treatment, period, sequence, baseline FEV1 as a covariate and a random effect for subject nested within sequence. The Kenward and Roger correction to the degrees of freedom was used. An unstructured covariance model was used to model intrasubject correlation.||0.0569|-0.0318|0.9730
90854023|NCT02038829|181571548|SUPERIORITY|A sample size of 66 subjects (rounding to 72 for using Williams squares and 96 with dropouts) provides \~90% power to detect a 100 mL treatment difference in mean change trough FEV1 between SUN-101 and placebo at a Bonferroni-adjusted significance level of 0.0125 using a 2-tailed paired t-test and assuming a within-subject standard deviation for change in trough FEV1 of 176 and a within-subject correlation of 0.3.|LS Mean (SE)|0.0822|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0225||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.038|0.1264||P-values were adjusted using Dunnett's method for comparing the multiple treatments to placebo. The comparison of aclidinium to placebo was performed at the 0.05 significance level to establish assay sensitivity.|LS Mean (SE)|||An mixed effects model was used with mean change from baseline in trough FEV1 as the response, with factors for treatment, period, sequence, baseline FEV1 as a covariate and a random effect for subject nested within sequence. The Kenward and Roger correction to the degrees of freedom was used. An unstructured covariance model was used to model intrasubject correlation.||0.1264|0.0380|0.0014
90854024|NCT02038829|181571548|SUPERIORITY|A sample size of 66 subjects (rounding to 72 for using Williams squares and 96 with dropouts) provides \~90% power to detect a 100 mL treatment difference in mean change trough FEV1 between SUN-101 and placebo at a Bonferroni-adjusted significance level of 0.0125 using a 2-tailed paired t-test and assuming a within-subject standard deviation for change in trough FEV1 of 176 and a within-subject correlation of 0.3.|LS Mean (SE)|0.1088|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0226|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0644|0.1532||P-values were adjusted using Dunnett's method for comparing the multiple treatments to placebo. The comparison of aclidinium to placebo was performed at the 0.05 significance level to establish assay sensitivity.|LS Mean (SE)|||An mixed effects model was used with mean change from baseline in trough FEV1 as the response, with factors for treatment, period, sequence, baseline FEV1 as a covariate and a random effect for subject nested within sequence. The Kenward and Roger correction to the degrees of freedom was used. An unstructured covariance model was used to model intrasubject correlation.||0.1532|0.0644|<0.0001
90854025|NCT02038829|181571548|SUPERIORITY|A sample size of 66 subjects (rounding to 72 for using Williams squares and 96 with dropouts) provides \~90% power to detect a 100 mL treatment difference in mean change trough FEV1 between SUN-101 and placebo at a Bonferroni-adjusted significance level of 0.0125 using a 2-tailed paired t-test and assuming a within-subject standard deviation for change in trough FEV1 of 176 and a within-subject correlation of 0.3.|LS Mean (SE)|0.1375|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0226|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0931|0.1818||P-values were adjusted using Dunnett's method for comparing the multiple treatments to placebo. The comparison of aclidinium to placebo was performed at the 0.05 significance level to establish assay sensitivity.|LS Mean (SE)|||An mixed effects model was used with mean change from baseline in trough FEV1 as the response, with factors for treatment, period, sequence, baseline FEV1 as a covariate and a random effect for subject nested within sequence. The Kenward and Roger correction to the degrees of freedom was used. An unstructured covariance model was used to model intrasubject correlation||0.1818|0.0931|<0.0001
90854026|NCT02038829|181571548|SUPERIORITY|A sample size of 66 subjects (rounding to 72 for using Williams squares and 96 with dropouts) provides \~90% power to detect a 100 mL treatment difference in mean change trough FEV1 between SUN-101 and placebo at a Bonferroni-adjusted significance level of 0.0125 using a 2-tailed paired t-test and assuming a within-subject standard deviation for change in trough FEV1 of 176 and a within-subject correlation of 0.3.|LS Mean (SE)|0.1567|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0226|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1121|0.2012||P-values were adjusted using Dunnett's method for comparing the multiple treatments to placebo. The comparison of aclidinium to placebo was performed at the 0.05 significance level to establish assay sensitivity.|LS Mean (SE)|||An mixed effects model was used with mean change from baseline in trough FEV1 as the response, with factors for treatment, period, sequence, baseline FEV1 as a covariate and a random effect for subject nested within sequence. The Kenward and Roger correction to the degrees of freedom was used. An unstructured covariance model was used to model intrasubject correlation.||0.2012|0.1121|<0.0001
90854027|NCT02038829|181571549|SUPERIORITY|A sample size of 78 subjects (rounding to 84 for using Williams squares) provides \~80% power to detect a 55 mL treatment difference in mean change trough FEV1 between SUN-101 and placebo at a Bonferroni-adjusted significance level of 0.0125 using a 2-tailed paired t-test and assuming a within-subject standard deviation for change in AUC(0-12) of 143 and a within-subject correlation of 0.3.|LS Mean (SE)|0.0526|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0184||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0163|0.0888|||LS Mean (SE)|||An mixed effects model was used with standardized FEV1 AUC(0-12) on Day 7 as the response, with factors for treatment, period, sequence, baseline FEV1 as a covariate and a random effect for subject nested within sequence. The Kenward and Roger correction to the degrees of freedom was used. An unstructured covariance model was used to model intrasubject correlation.||0.0888|0.0163|0.0046
90854028|NCT02038829|181571549|SUPERIORITY|A sample size of 78 subjects (rounding to 84 for using Williams squares) provides \~80% power to detect a 55 mL treatment difference in mean change trough FEV1 between SUN-101 and placebo at a Bonferroni-adjusted significance level of 0.0125 using a 2-tailed paired t-test and assuming a within-subject standard deviation for change in AUC(0-12) of 143 and a within-subject correlation of 0.3.|LS Mean (SE)|0.0842|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0185|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0478|0.1206|||LS Mean (SE)|||An mixed effects model was used with standardized FEV1 AUC(0-12) on Day 7 as the response, with factors for treatment, period, sequence, baseline FEV1 as a covariate and a random effect for subject nested within sequence. The Kenward and Roger correction to the degrees of freedom was used. An unstructured covariance model was used to model intrasubject correlation.||0.1206|0.0478|<0.0001
90854029|NCT02038829|181571549|NON_INFERIORITY|A sample size of 78 subjects (rounding to 84 for using Williams squares) provides \~80% power to detect a 55 mL treatment difference in mean change trough FEV1 between SUN-101 and placebo at a Bonferroni-adjusted significance level of 0.0125 using a 2-tailed paired t-test and assuming a within-subject standard deviation for change in AUC(0-12) of 143 and a within-subject correlation of 0.3.|LS Mean (SE)|0.1255|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0186|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.089|0.1621|||LS Mean (SE)|||An mixed effects model was used with standardized FEV1 AUC(0-12) on Day 7 as the response, with factors for treatment, period, sequence, baseline FEV1 as a covariate and a random effect for subject nested within sequence. The Kenward and Roger correction to the degrees of freedom was used. An unstructured covariance model was used to model intrasubject correlation.||0.1621|0.0890|<0.0001
90854030|NCT02038829|181571549|SUPERIORITY|A sample size of 78 subjects (rounding to 84 for using Williams squares) provides \~80% power to detect a 55 mL treatment difference in mean change trough FEV1 between SUN-101 and placebo at a Bonferroni-adjusted significance level of 0.0125 using a 2-tailed paired t-test and assuming a within-subject standard deviation for change in AUC(0-12) of 143 and a within-subject correlation of 0.3.|LS Mean (SE)|0.1963|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0184|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1601|0.2325|||LS Mean (SE)|||An mixed effects model was used with standardized FEV1 AUC(0-12) on Day 7 as the response, with factors for treatment, period, sequence, baseline FEV1 as a covariate and a random effect for subject nested within sequence. The Kenward and Roger correction to the degrees of freedom was used. An unstructured covariance model was used to model intrasubject correlation.||0.2325|0.1601|<0.0001
90854031|NCT02038829|181571549|SUPERIORITY|A sample size of 78 subjects (rounding to 84 for using Williams squares) provides \~80% power to detect a 55 mL treatment difference in mean change trough FEV1 between SUN-101 and placebo at a Bonferroni-adjusted significance level of 0.0125 using a 2-tailed paired t-test and assuming a within-subject standard deviation for change in AUC(0-12) of 143 and a within-subject correlation of 0.3.|LS Mean (SE)|0.1902|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0186|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1537|0.2268|||LS Mean (SE)|||An mixed effects model was used with standardized FEV1 AUC(0-12) on Day 7 as the response, with factors for treatment, period, sequence, baseline FEV1 as a covariate and a random effect for subject nested within sequence. The Kenward and Roger correction to the degrees of freedom was used. An unstructured covariance model was used to model intrasubject correlation.||0.2268|0.1537|<0.0001
90854032|NCT00749580|181571552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.935|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.935
90902010|NCT03757234|181670696|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-10.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.8|15.1|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from levofloxacin (omadacycline minus levofloxacin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||15.1|-40.8|
90902011|NCT03757234|181670696|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-36.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.6|-1.1|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from levofloxacin (omadacycline minus levofloxacin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||-1.1|-62.6|
90902012|NCT00610701|181670700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||>0.05
90902013|NCT01152294|181670701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.4||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|7.96|||t-test, 2 sided|||We tested for a difference in the mean total knowledge score between the decision aid and control groups using independent t-test (2 sided). With 100 patients in each arm, the study had more than 90% power to detect a 10% difference in knowledge assuming a common standard deviation of 18%.||7.96|1.02|0.01
90902014|NCT02023879|181670703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square (LS) mean difference|-56.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.9|-49.9||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W/Up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo|Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W/up to 150 mg Q2W was compared to placebo group using an appropriate contrast statement.||-49.9|-62.9|<0.0001
91100055|NCT04053452|182086361|OTHER|Ulnar at cubital fossa|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|-0.2935683|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6968|0.2414||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and strength by hand dynamometer.||0.2414|-0.6968|
91100056|NCT04053452|182086361|OTHER|Ulnar at humerus|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.1067521|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5204|0.6392||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and strength by hand dynamometer.||0.6392|-0.5204|
91100057|NCT04053452|182086361|OTHER|Ulnar at axilla|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.0549235|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4633|0.5594||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and strength by hand dynamometer.||0.5594|-0.4633|
91100058|NCT04053452|182086361|OTHER|C6|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|-0.2597622|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6816|0.1857||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and strength by hand dynamometer.||0.1857|-0.6816|
91100059|NCT04053452|182086361|OTHER|C7|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|-0.0129034|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4476|0.4025||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and strength by hand dynamometer.||0.4025|-0.4476|
91100060|NCT04053452|182086361|OTHER|Vagus|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.02457737|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3506|0.4596||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and strength by hand dynamometer.||0.4596|-0.3506|
91100061|NCT04053452|182086362|OTHER|Median at wrist|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.1704986|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.395|0.6584||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and strength by MRC sum score.||0.6584|-0.3950|
90854033|NCT05128929|181571556|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.614||||0.541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|2.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis was adjusted for the randomization stratum of PAH Group.||"Null: There is no significant difference in the mean primary endpoint (PVR) at 24 weeks between the treatment (H01) and placebo group.~The following analysis utilizes PVR determined by TD."||2.79|-1.47|0.541
90854034|NCT05128929|181571558|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.47||||0.599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.34|7.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis was adjusted for the randomization stratum of PAH Group.||Null: There is no significant difference in the mean secondary endpoint (mPAP) at 24 weeks between the treatment (H01) and placebo group.||7.27|-4.34|0.599
90902015|NCT02023879|181670704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-59.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.6|-53.8||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W/Up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||-53.8|-65.6|<0.0001
90902016|NCT02023879|181670705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-44.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.8|-38.1||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W/Up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-38.1|-51.8|<0.0001
90902017|NCT02023879|181670706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-48.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.8|-41.9||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W/Up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-41.9|-54.8|<0.0001
91031146|NCT02937701|181946888|OTHER||Response Difference|-2.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.47|2.64||||||The response difference at week 6 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||2.64|-7.47|
91100062|NCT04053452|182086362|OTHER|Median at forearm|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.1704986|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.395|0.6584||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and strength by MRC sum score.||0.6584|-0.3950|
91100063|NCT04053452|182086362|OTHER|Median at cubital fossa|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.09040847|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3821|0.5979||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and strength by MRC sum score.||0.5979|-0.3821|
90902018|NCT02023879|181670707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-55.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.1|-49.8||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W/Up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-49.8|-61.1|<0.0001
91100064|NCT04053452|182086362|OTHER|Median at humerus|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.02501955|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4158|0.479||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and strength by MRC sum score.||0.4790|-0.4158|
91100065|NCT04053452|182086362|OTHER|Median at axilla|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|-0.0349215|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5033|0.443||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and strength by MRC sum score.||0.4430|-0.5033|
91100066|NCT04053452|182086362|OTHER|Ulnar at wrist|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|-0.0961|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5458|0.4037||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and strength by MRC sum score.||0.4037|-0.5458|
91100067|NCT04053452|182086362|OTHER|Ulnar at forearm|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|-0.2239171|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6514|0.2935||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and strength by MRC sum score.||0.2935|-0.6514|
91100068|NCT04053452|182086362|OTHER|Ulnar at cubital fossa|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|-0.0805076|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5371|0.2974||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and strength by MRC sum score.||0.2974|-0.5371|
90854035|NCT05128929|181571559|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|47.26||||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.43|115.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis was adjusted for the randomization stratum of PAH Group.||Null: There is no significant difference in the mean secondary endpoint (6MWT distance) at 24 weeks between the treatment (H01) and placebo group.||115.95|-21.43|0.166
90854036|NCT05128929|181571560|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.22|7.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis was adjusted for the randomization stratum of PAH Group.||Null: There is no significant difference in the mean secondary endpoint (emPHasis-10 score) at 24 weeks between the treatment (H01) and placebo group.||7.98|-8.22|0.975
90902019|NCT02023879|181670708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-58.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.8|-53.4||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W/Up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-53.4|-63.8|<0.0001
90902020|NCT02023879|181670709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-46.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.4|-40.4||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W/Up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-40.4|-52.4|<0.0001
90902021|NCT02023879|181670710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-48.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.3|-42.8||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W/Up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-42.8|-54.3|<0.0001
90902022|NCT02023879|181670711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-49.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.9|-43.2||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W/Up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-43.2|-54.9|<0.0001
90902023|NCT02023879|181670712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-51.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.1|-46.4||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W/Up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-46.4|-57.1|<0.0001
90902024|NCT02023879|181670713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-35.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.8|-30.8||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W/Up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-30.8|-39.8|<0.0001
90902025|NCT02023879|181670714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-38.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.3|-32.1||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W/Up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-32.1|-44.3|<0.0001
90902026|NCT02023879|181670715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-37.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.9|-31.8||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W/Up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-31.8|-43.9|<0.0001
90959002|NCT04217590|181798101|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.15|10.73|||Generalised linear mixed model (GLMM)|The p-value was obtained from a test of equality of odds ratios.|The OR was obtained from GLMM model with random intercept and logit link. Treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction and baseline were specified as fixed effects. An OR \> 1 favours SZC.|||10.73|3.15|<0.001
90854037|NCT05128929|181571561|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.0||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis was adjusted for the randomization stratum of PAH Group.||Null: There is no significant difference in the mean secondary endpoint (SGRQ Score) at 24 weeks between the treatment (H01) and placebo group.||1.4|-19.40|0.086
90854038|NCT05128929|181571562|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|73.92||||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.61|193.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis was adjusted for the randomization stratum of PAH Group.||Null: There is no significant difference in the mean secondary endpoint (serum HA) at 24 weeks between the treatment (H01) and placebo group.||193.46|-45.61|0.215
90854039|NCT05128929|181571563|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|231.47||||0.442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-377.26|840.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||There is no significant difference in the mean secondary endpoint (NT-proBNP) at 24 weeks between the treatment (H01) and placebo group.||840.20|-377.26|0.442
90902027|NCT02023879|181670716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-26.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.9|-21.7||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W/Up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-21.7|-30.9|<0.0001
90902028|NCT02023879|181670717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|279.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.1|2690.1||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model.|Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W/Up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||2690.1|29.1|<0.0001
90902029|NCT02023879|181670718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|354.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.2|3479.5||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model.|Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W/Up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||3479.5|36.2|<0.0001
90902030|NCT02023879|181670719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|126.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.0|9999.0||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|LOCF approach followed by logistic regression model.|Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W/Up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo (Confidence interval should be read as 20.0 to \>9999)|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||9999|20.0|<0.0001
90902031|NCT02023879|181670720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|141.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.2|9999.0||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|LOCF approach followed by logistic regression model.|Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W/Up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo (Confidence interval should be read as 20.0 to \>9999)|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||9999|22.2|<0.0001
90854040|NCT03553836|181571573|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61||||0.00046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.82||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by melanoma T Stage (T3b, T4a, T4b).|Log Rank||Hazard Ratio based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by melanoma T Stage (T3b, T4a, T4b).|||0.82|0.45|0.00046
90854041|NCT03553836|181571576|OTHER|Difference in percentage based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in Percentage|4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|7.3||||||||7.3|1.0|
90902032|NCT02023879|181670721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-19.6||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.8|-9.4||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Robust|Multiple imputation approach followed by robust regression model.|Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W/Up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-9.4|-29.8|0.0002
90902033|NCT02023879|181670722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-7.9||||0.0892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|1.2||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Robust|Multiple imputation approach followed by robust regression model.|Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W/Up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||1.2|-17.1|0.0892
90902034|NCT00874432|181670730|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.685|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||p-value for CBPWV between CKD and Control groups||||0.685
90902035|NCT00874432|181670730|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.739|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||p-value for CRPWV between CKD and Control groups||||0.739
90902036|NCT00874432|181670730|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.471|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||p-value for CFPWV between CKD and Control groups||||0.471
91031147|NCT02937701|181946888|OTHER||Response Difference|5.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.01|10.91||||||The response difference at week 14 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||10.91|-0.01|
91031148|NCT02937701|181946888|OTHER||Response Difference|4.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.21|10.34||||||The response difference at week 22 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||10.34|-1.21|
91031149|NCT02937701|181946889|OTHER||Response Difference|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.12|8.02||||||The response difference (ABP 710/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) at week 30 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||8.02|-8.12|
91100069|NCT04053452|182086362|OTHER|Ulnar at humerus|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.2910126|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2791|0.7651||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and strength by MRC sum score.||0.7651|-0.2791|
91100070|NCT04053452|182086362|OTHER|Ulnar at axilla|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.02342428|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4531|0.5267||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and strength by MRC sum score.||0.5267|-0.4531|
91100071|NCT04053452|182086362|OTHER|C6|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.06536087|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2786|0.4454||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and strength by MRC sum score.||0.4454|-0.2786|
90854042|NCT03553836|181571577|OTHER|Difference in percentage based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in percentage|12.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.1|16.9||||||||16.9|9.1|
91100072|NCT04053452|182086362|OTHER|C7|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.2207792|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2459|0.6708||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and strength by MRC sum score.||0.6708|-0.2459|
90854043|NCT02604017|181571583|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority of the rate of SVR12 for the 12-week treatment group as compared with the historical rate was analyzed; the lower confidence bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (95% CI) for the percentage of participants with SVR12 must exceed 91% to achieve noninferiority.|Percentage of Participants|99.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.1|100.0||||||Based on a 2-sided significance level of 0.05 and an underlying rate of ≥97% in the 12-week arm, 270 participants provides \>90% power to demonstrate noninferiority of the 12-week arm to the historical control rate for HCV GT1 subjects who are treatment-naïve or treated with pegIFN/RBV (based on the normal approximation of a single binomial proportion in a one-sample test for superiority).||100.0|99.1|
90854044|NCT02604017|181571584|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority of the rate of SVR12 for the 8-week treatment group as compared with the 12-week treatment group was analyzed; the lower confidence bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (95% CI) for the difference in percentage of participants with SVR12 (8-week group minus 12-week group) must be above -5% to achieve noninferiority.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.1||||||Based on a 2-sided significance level of 0.05 and an -5% noninferiority margin and an underlying rate of ≥97% in the 8-week arm (270 participants) and ≥97% in the 12-week arm (270 participants) provides \>90% power to demonstrate noninferiority of the 8-week arm to the 12-week arm.||1.1|-1.1|
90902037|NCT00874432|181670731|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.685|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This p-value compares the baseline CBPWV measures for the CKD vs Controls group||||0.685
90902038|NCT00874432|181670731|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.869|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This p-value compares the 12 month CBPWV measures for the CKD vs Controls group||||0.869
90902039|NCT00874432|181670731|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.709|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This p-value compares the baseline CRPWV measures for the CKD vs Controls group||||0.709
90902040|NCT00874432|181670731|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This p-value compares the 12 month CBPWV measures for the CKD vs Controls group||||0.340
90902041|NCT00874432|181670731|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This p-value compares the baseline CFPWV measures for the CKD vs Controls group||||0.730
90902042|NCT00874432|181670731|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.204|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This p-value compares the 12 month CFPWV measures for the CKD vs Controls group||||0.204
90902043|NCT00874432|181670731|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.963|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This compares the 12 month CBPWV measure of ACE-I CKD and Control groups||||0.963
90902044|NCT00874432|181670731|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.991|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This compares the 12 month CRPWV measure of ACE-I CKD and Control groups||||0.991
90902045|NCT00874432|181670731|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.176|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This compares the 12 month CFPWV measure of ACE-I CKD and Control groups||||0.176
90902046|NCT00874432|181670731|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.402|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This compares the baseline and 12 month CBPWV measure of the ACE-I CKD||||0.402
90854045|NCT02604017|181571585|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority of the rate of SVR12 for the 8-week treatment group as compared with the 12-week treatment group was analyzed; the lower confidence bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (95% CI) for the difference in percentage of participants with SVR12 must be above -5% to achieve noninferiority.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.6||||||Based on a 2-sided significance level of 0.05 and a -5% noninferiority margin, and an underlying rate of ≥97% in the 8-week arm (270 participants) and ≥97% in the 12-week arm (270 participants) provides \>90% power to demonstrate noninferiority of the 8-week arm to the 12-week arm.||0.6|-1.8|
90958210|NCT04619251|181796388|OTHER|Since the main focus is on estimation and not testing, a formal hypothesis test and associated acceptance range is not specified.|Geometric Least Squares Mean ratio (%)|356.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|315.7|403.2|||||Geometric Least Squares Mean ratio was estimated by the ratios of the geometric means (T/R). Intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV %) =18.4|The PK endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: subject and treatment. The effect 'subject' was considered as random, whereas the effect 'treatment' was considered as fixed. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale.||403.2|315.7|
90958211|NCT00803751|181796398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.17
90958212|NCT00803751|181796399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.45
90958213|NCT00803751|181796400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.36
90958214|NCT00803751|181796401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.002
91100073|NCT04053452|182086362|OTHER|Vagus|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.14415|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2333|0.4899||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and strength by MRC sum score.||0.4899|-0.2333|
91100074|NCT04053452|182086363|OTHER|Median at wrist|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9310743||||0.548|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Null hypothesis: Nerve ultrasound measurement has no effect on the log-odds of having autonomic dysfunction (i.e., higher ultrasound measurements do not predict whether a subject has autonomic dysfunction during their hospitalization).||||0.548
90854046|NCT01315236|181571624|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.072||||||Conducted in the mITT population using a stratified Wilcoxon rank sum test, to compare the treatment arms at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05, adjusting for the randomization strata (presence/absence of CF and MAC versus Mycobacterium abscessus).|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||"The primary efficacy analysis tested the following hypotheses:~* H0: There is no difference at Day 84 between the LAI arm and the placebo arm~* Ha: There is a difference at Day 84 between the LAI arm and the placebo arm~Statistical analysis applies to all day 84 rows."||||0.072
90854047|NCT01315236|181571625|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test||||0.003
90854048|NCT01315236|181571626|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|5.68||||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|25.79|||Regression, Cox|||Cox proportional hazard model||25.79|1.25|0.0129
90854049|NCT01315236|181571627|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.077|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Ordinal Logistic Regressions Model||||0.077
90854050|NCT01315236|181571628|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4545|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Stratified Wilcoxon-rank sum||||0.4545
90854051|NCT01315236|181571630|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|2.69||||0.0076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|5.64|||Regression, Cox|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||5.64|1.28|0.0076
90958215|NCT00803751|181796402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
90958216|NCT00803751|181796403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0004
90958217|NCT03102645|181796404|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.5||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|13.5|||t-test, 2 sided|CROS. DF=14.||CROS test||13.5|-0.5|0.07
90958218|NCT03102645|181796405|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.2||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|28.2|||t-test, 2 sided|CROS test||CROS test||28.2|2.0|0.03
90958219|NCT01413087|181796406|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.483|||||||Log Rank|P value by log-rank test for the difference between treatment groups||||||0.483
90854052|NCT01277081|181571641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean difference|0.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.86|||Repeated Measure Analysis|Repeated measures analysis with factors for time and treatment\*time interaction. Baseline score was adjusted as part of the repeated measures series.|Difference was first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favours the first named treatment|Null Hypothesis considered no difference in treatments being compared for breathing score over the first 15 minutes compared to baseline.||0.86|0.58|<0.0001
90958220|NCT01413087|181796407|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.992|||||||Log Rank|P value by log-rank test for the difference between treatment groups||||||0.992
90958221|NCT05026710|181796426|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.26
90958222|NCT05026710|181796427|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.57
90958223|NCT05026710|181796428|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.58
90958224|NCT05026710|181796429|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.72
90958225|NCT05026710|181796430|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.50
90958226|NCT05026710|181796431|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed effects; covariates: days since URS, study arm, days\*arm, baseline LURN, stone location; random intercept with unstructured covariance||||||0.80
90958227|NCT05026710|181796432|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||WinRatio, unmatched unstratified|WinRatio using unmatched method.||||||0.25
90958228|NCT05026710|181796433|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.44
90958229|NCT05026710|181796434|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.85
90958230|NCT02495792|181796442|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|5.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|21.7||||||||21.7|1.6|
90959003|NCT01395888|181798107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.259||||0.484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.468|0.986|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM)||||0.986|-0.468|0.484
90959004|NCT02112838|181798124|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.9||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-910.6|950.5|||ANCOVA|||||950.5|-910.6|0.97
90854053|NCT01277081|181571642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.72|||Repeated measures analysis|Repeated measures analysis with factors for time and treatment\*time interaction. Baseline score was adjusted as part of the repeated measures series.|Difference was first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered no difference in treatments being compared for breathing score over 60 minutes.||0.72|0.44|<0.0001
90854054|NCT01277081|181571643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.65|||Repeated measures analysis|Repeated measures analysis with factors for time and treatment\*time interaction. Baseline score was adjusted as part of the repeated measures series.|Difference was first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favours the first named treatment.|Null Hypothesis considered no difference in treatments being compared for cold symptoms score after 60 minutes.||0.65|0.36|<0.0001
90854055|NCT01277081|181571644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.67|||Repeated measures analysis|Repeated measures analysis with factors for time and treatment\*time interaction. Baseline score was adjusted as part of the repeated measures series.|Difference was first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered two treatments being compared to be equal for cold symptom score after 60 minutes.||0.67|0.38|<0.0001
90854056|NCT01293799|181571674|SUPERIORITY|Patients who stopped PD treatment due to causes other than peritonitis were managed according to the intention-to-treat principle. Patients were censored when the PD treatment was stopped.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.19||The threshold for statistical significance was P = 0.05|Log Rank|Log-rank follow-up was used to compare the peritonitis-free survival curves in the two arms.|Hazard ratio was the ratio between the hazard rate of the retraining group (nominator) and the hazard rate of the control group (denominator).|Time to the first peritonitis episode was analyzed as the cumulative time without peritonitis (peritonitis-free survival) using the Cox proportional hazards regression model from which unadjusted hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated. Actuarial survival curves showing proportions of of peritonitis-free participants over time in the two groups were estimated by means of the Kaplan-Meier method. Log-rank follow-up was used to compare the two peritonitis-free survival curves.||1.19|0.71|0.51
90854057|NCT01293799|181571675|OTHER|The number of peritonitis events between the two groups was tested by assuming a Poisson distribution of the number of events per follow-up time, log (follow-up time) as offset time, by using generalized linear models.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.92||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.19||P-value \<0.05 is regarded as significant.|Generalized linear methods||In calculation of the Risk Ratio, data for the Retraining group represents the nominator and data for the Control group represents the denominator.|||1.19|0.70|0.51
90854058|NCT01293799|181571676|OTHER|The number of recurrent peritonitis events between the two groups was tested by assuming a Poisson distribution of the number of events per follow-up time, log (follow-up time) as offset time, by using generalized linear models.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.93||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.16||P-value \<0.05 was significant.|Generalized linear methods|The analysis includes all peritonitis events in the study.|In the calculation of the relative risk, data for the retraining group represents the nominator and data for the control group represents the denominator.|||1.16|0.75|0.54
90854059|NCT01293799|181571677|OTHER|The association of factors associated with time to first peritonitis was analysed using the Cox proportional hazard regression model. Subjects were censored for various reasons to leave the study. Univariable Cox regression was used to identify factors associated with with time to first peritonitis episode. Multivariable Cox regression was performed using the backward elimination procedure, stopping when all remaining factors were significant at p \< 0.05.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.27||Unit of measure: Age (hazard ratio per 10 years). The threshold for statistical significance was P = 0.05|Regression, Cox|The association of a age (HR per 10 years) and time to first peritonitis episode by univariable Cox regression.||The association of age and time to first peritonitis episode is analysed by univariable Cox regression. Multivariable Cox regression was performed using a backward elimination procedure stopping when all remaining factors were significant at p \< 0.05. No collinearity among the procedure was found.||1.27|1.04|0.0052
90854060|NCT01293799|181571677|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.29||Unit of measure: Age (hazard ratio per 10 years) and time to first peritonitis episode by multivariable Cox regression. The threshold for statistical significance was P = 005.|Regression, Cox|Multivariable Cox regression||Univariable Cox regression was used to identify variables significantly associated with time to first peritonitis episode (see statistical analysis 1). Multivariable Cox regression was performed using a backward elimination procedure stopping when all remaining factors were significant at p \< 0.05. No collinearity among the procedure was found.||1.29|1.05|0.0041
90902047|NCT00874432|181670731|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.586|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This compares the baseline and 12 month CRPWV measure of the ACE-I CKD||||0.586
90902048|NCT00874432|181670731|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.455|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This compares the baseline and 12 month CFPWV measure of the ACE-I CKD||||0.455
90902049|NCT00874432|181670731|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.418|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This compares the baseline and 12 month CBPWV measure of the ACE-I Control Group||||0.418
90902050|NCT00874432|181670731|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.091|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This compares the baseline and 12 month CRPWV measure of the ACE-I Control Group||||0.091
90902051|NCT00874432|181670731|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.034|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This compares the baseline and 12 month CFPWV measure of the ACE-I Control Group||||0.034
90902052|NCT00874432|181670731|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.921|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This compares the 12 month CBPWV measure of the CKD and Control groups||||0.921
90902053|NCT00874432|181670731|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.887|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This compares the 12 month CRPWV measure of the CKD and Control groups||||0.887
90902054|NCT00874432|181670731|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.759|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This compares the 12 month CFPWV measure of the CKD and Control groups||||0.759
90902055|NCT00874432|181670731|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.851|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This compares the baseline and 12 month CBPWV measure of the Control groups||||0.851
90959005|NCT02112838|181798124|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-399.7||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1320.8|521.3|||ANCOVA|||||521.3|-1320.8|0.40
90902056|NCT00874432|181670731|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.733|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This compares the baseline and 12 month CRPWV measure of the Control groups||||0.733
90902057|NCT00874432|181670731|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.902|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This compares the baseline and 12 month CFPWV measure of the Control groups||||0.902
90902058|NCT00874432|181670731|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.414|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This compares the 12 month CBPWV measure between the CKD ACE-I and CKD Control groups.||||0.414
90902059|NCT00874432|181670731|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.942|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This compares the 12 month CRPWV measure between the CKD ACE-I and CKD Control groups.||||0.942
90902060|NCT00874432|181670731|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This compares the 12 month CFPWV measure between the CKD ACE-I and CKD Control groups.||||0.990
90902061|NCT00874432|181670731|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.273|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This compares the 12 month CBPWV measure between the ACE-I Control and CKD Control groups.||||0.273
90958231|NCT03519971|181796443|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.647|1.123|||Log Rank|The analysis was performed using the stratified log-rank test, adjusting for age (\< 65 vs. \>= 65 years) and stage (IIIA vs. IIIB/C).||The hazard ratio (HR) and confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for age \[\< 65 versus (vs.) \>= 65 years\] and stage (IIIA vs. IIIB/C), with treatment as the only covariate and ties handled by Efron approach.||1.123|0.647|0.247
91031150|NCT02937701|181946889|OTHER||Response Difference|-0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.39|9.28||||||The response difference (Infliximab/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) at week 30 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||9.28|-9.39|
91100075|NCT04053452|182086363|OTHER|Median at forearm|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9310743||||0.548|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Null hypothesis: Nerve ultrasound measurement has no effect on the log-odds of having autonomic dysfunction (i.e., higher ultrasound measurements do not predict whether a subject has autonomic dysfunction during their hospitalization).||||0.548
90854061|NCT01293799|181571678|OTHER|The association of factors associated with time to first peritonitis was analysed using the Cox proportional hazard regression model. Subjects were censored for various reasons to leave the study. Univariable Cox regression was used to identify factors associated with with time to first peritonitis episode. Multivariable Cox regression was performed using the backward elimination procedure, stopping when all remaining factors were significant at p \< 0.05.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.25||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.66||Unit of measure: Gender (male vs. female). P \<0.05 is regarded as statistically significant.|Regression, Cox|Univariable Cox regression was used.||The association of gender (male vs. female) and time to first peritonitis episode was analysed by univariable Cox regression.||1.66|0.93|0.13
90854062|NCT01293799|181571679|OTHER|The association of factors associated with time to first peritonitis was analysed using the Cox proportional hazard regression model. Subjects were censored for various reasons to leave the study. Univariable Cox regression was used to identify factors associated with with time to first peritonitis episode.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.0068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.21||Unit of measure: Body weight (hazard ratio per 10 kg). The threshold for statistical significance was P = 0.05.|Regression, Cox|Univariable Cox regression was used.||The association of body weight (HR per 10 kg) with time to first peritonitis episode was analysed by univariable Cox regression (Statistical analysis 1) and multivariable Cox regression (Statistical analysis 2)||1.21|1.03|0.0068
90902062|NCT00874432|181670731|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.516|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This compares the 12 month CRPWV measure between the ACE-I Control and CKD Control groups.||||0.516
91100076|NCT04053452|182086363|OTHER|Median at cubital fossa|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23944918||||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Null hypothesis: Nerve ultrasound measurement has no effect on the log-odds of having autonomic dysfunction (i.e., higher ultrasound measurements do not predict whether a subject has autonomic dysfunction during their hospitalization).||||0.250
90902063|NCT00874432|181670731|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.102|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This compares the 12 month CFPWV measure between the ACE-I Control and CKD Control groups.||||0.102
90902064|NCT01518946|181670765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|521.0||||0.0131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|124.2|917.7|||ANOVA|||||917.7|124.2|0.0131
90902065|NCT03918239|181670810|OTHER|Analysis was performed for estimation of least square means only. Descriptive statistical analysis was the main analysis.|Ratio of Geometric least squares Means|1.079|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.986|1.181|||ANOVA|||An analysis of variance was performed with the natural log-transformed PK parameters as the dependent variable and treatment group as a fixed effect variable.||1.181|0.986|
90902066|NCT03918239|181670811|OTHER|Analysis was performed for estimation of least square means only. Descriptive statistical analysis was the main analysis.|Ratio of Geometric least squares Means|1.079|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.987|1.179||||||An analysis of variance was performed with the natural log-transformed PK parameters as the dependent variable and treatment group as a fixed effect variable.||1.179|0.987|
90902067|NCT03918239|181670812|OTHER|Analysis was performed for estimation of least square means only. Descriptive statistical analysis was the main analysis.|Ratio of Geometric least squares Means|1.157|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.044|1.281||||||An analysis of variance was performed with the natural log-transformed PK parameters as the dependent variable and treatment group as a fixed effect variable.||1.281|1.044|
90902068|NCT01984424|181670836|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|LS Mean Treatment Difference|-37.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.29|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.31|-33.28|||Repeated Measures Model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C), scheduled visit and interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||The null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from baseline at week 24 of part B or in the mean percent change from baseline at weeks 22 and 24 of part B in LDL-C between evolocumab 420 mg and ezetimibe, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-33.28|-42.31|<0.0001
90958232|NCT03519971|181796444|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|0.2||||0.976|TWO_SIDED|99.5|-15.2|16.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was performed using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, stratified by age (\< 65 vs. \>= 65 years) and stage (IIIA vs. IIIB/C).|The CIs for difference in percentages were estimated using Miettinen and Nurminen's method.|||16.3|-15.2|0.976
90902069|NCT01984424|181670837|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-36.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.53|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.07|-31.08||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated Measures Model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C), scheduled visit and interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||The null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from baseline at week 24 of part B or in the mean percent change from baseline at weeks 22 and 24 of part B in LDL-C between evolocumab 420 mg and ezetimibe, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-31.08|-41.07|<0.0001
90902070|NCT01984424|181670838|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-75.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.7|-67.0||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated Measures Model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C), scheduled visit and interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-67.0|-84.7|<0.0001
90958233|NCT03519971|181796445|SUPERIORITY|The HR and CIs were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for age (\< 65 vs. \>= 65 years) and stage (IIIA vs. IIIB/C), with treatment as the only covariate and ties handled by Efron approach.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.778|1.386|||Log Rank|The analysis was performed using the stratified log-rank test, adjusting for age (\< 65 vs. \>= 65 years) and stage (IIIA vs. IIIB/C).||||1.386|0.778|0.823
90854063|NCT01293799|181571679|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.19||Unit of measure: Body weight (hazard ratio per 10 kg). P \< 0.05 is considered significant.|Regression, Cox|Multivariable Cox regression||The association of body weight (HR per 10 kg) with time to first peritonitis episode was analysed by univariable Cox regression (Statistical analysis 1) and multivariable Cox regression (Statistical analysis 2)||1.19|1.01|0.03
90854064|NCT01293799|181571680|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.38||Unit of measure: Body mass index (hazard ratio per 5 kg/m2). P \< 0,05 is regarded as statistically significant.|Regression, Cox|Univariable Cox regression.||"The association of Diabetic nephropathy as primary cause of kidney failure with time to first peritonitis episode was analysed by univariable Cox regression. Multivariable Cox regression was performed using a backward elimination procedure stopping when all remaining factors were significant at p \< 0.05. No collinearity among the procedure was found."||1.38|1.04|0.012
90854065|NCT01293799|181571681|OTHER|The association of factors associated with time to first peritonitis was analysed using the Cox proportional hazard regression model. Subjects were censored for various reasons to leave the study. Univariable Cox regression was used to identify factors associated with with time to first peritonitis episode.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.25||Unit of measure: Diabetic nephropathy as primary cause of kidney failure vs. all other causes. P-value \< 0.05 is regarded as statistically significant.|Regression, Cox|Univariable Cox regression||"The association of Diabetic nephropathy as primary cause of kidney failure with time to first peritonitis episode was analysed by univariable Cox regression."||1.25|0.66|0.56
90854066|NCT01293799|181571682|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.42||Unit of measure: Glomerulonephritis as primary cause of kidney failure vs. all other causes. P-value \< 0.05 is regarded as statistically significant.|Regression, Cox|Univariable Cox regression||"The association of Glomerulonephritis as primary cause of kidney failure with time to first peritonitis episode was analysed by univariable Cox regression."||1.42|0.78|0.74
90854067|NCT01293799|181571683|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.25||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.15||Unit of measure: Tubulointerstitial nephritis as primary cause of kidney failure vs. all other causes. P-value \< 0.05 is regarded as statistically significant.|Regression, Cox|Univariable Cox regression||"The association of Tubulointerstitial Nephritis as primary cause of kidney failure with time to first peritonitis episode was analysed by univariable Cox regression."||2.15|0.73|0.42
90854068|NCT01293799|181571684|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.97||Unit of measure: Polycystic kidney disease as primary cause of kidney failure vs. all other causes. P-value \< 0.05 is regarded as statistically significant.|Regression, Cox|Cox regression||"The association of Diabetic nephropathy as primary cause of kidney failure with time to first peritonitis episode was analysed by univariable Cox regression. Multivariable Cox regression was performed using a backward elimination procedure stopping when all remaining factors were significant at p \< 0.05. No collinearity among the procedure was found."||0.97|0.33|0.038
90854069|NCT01293799|181571685|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.92||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|13.68||Unit of measure: Ischemic kidney disease as primary cause of kidney failure vs. all other causes. P-value \< 0.05 is regarded as statistically significant.|Regression, Cox|Univariable Cox regression||"The association of Ischemic kidney disease as primary cause of kidney failure with time to first peritonitis episode was analysed by univariable Cox regression."||13.68|0.27|0.52
90854070|NCT01293799|181571686|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.26||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.71||Unit of measure: Nephrosclerosis/Hypertension as primary cause of kidney failure vs. all other causes. P \< 0.05 is regarded as statistically significant.|Regression, Cox|Univariable Cox regression||"The association of Nephrosclerosis/Hypertension as primary cause of kidney failure with time to first peritonitis episode was analysed by univariable Cox regression."||1.71|0.93|0.13
90902071|NCT01984424|181670839|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-71.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.8|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-81.3|-62.2||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated Measures Model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C), scheduled visit and interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-62.2|-81.3|<0.0001
90902072|NCT01984424|181670840|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|28.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.1|36.7||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factor (screening LDL-C).||||36.7|19.1|<0.0001
90902073|NCT01984424|181670841|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|27.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.7|36.1||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factor (screening LDL-C).||||36.1|17.7|<0.0001
91032826|NCT04638153|181951001|OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2|||||Month 9|Results based on MMRM analysis with gender as a covariate, participant (and/or time) as a random effect; treatment, visit, age and gender as fixed effects using an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.2|-0.2|
90902074|NCT01984424|181670842|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-26.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.69|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.95|-23.27||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated Measures Model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C), scheduled visit and interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-23.27|-29.95|<0.0001
90902075|NCT01984424|181670843|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-25.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.82|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.67|-21.48||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated Measures Model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C), scheduled visit and interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-21.48|-28.67|<0.0001
90902076|NCT01984424|181670844|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-33.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.06|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.12|-28.99||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated Measures Model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C), scheduled visit and interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-28.99|-37.12|<0.0001
90902077|NCT01984424|181670845|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-31.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.44|-16.76||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated Measures Model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C), scheduled visit and interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-16.76|-35.44|<0.0001
90902078|NCT01984424|181670846|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-33.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.15|-29.58||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated Measures Model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C), scheduled visit and interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-29.58|-38.15|<0.0001
90958234|NCT03519971|181796446|SUPERIORITY|For the comparison between treatments, the Kaplan-Meier estimator of survival at 24 months for each treatment was used to obtain the HR and the test is based on the method described in Klein 2007. To account for the stratification factors, the estimates and test statistics in each strata were combined by weighting inversely proportionately according to each within stratum variance.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.716|1.502|||Log Rank|The analysis was performed using the stratified log-rank test, adjusting for age (\< 65 vs. \>= 65 years) and stage (IIIA vs. IIIB/C).||||1.502|0.716|0.847
90854071|NCT01293799|181571687|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.45||"Unit of measure: Other Diagnosis as primary cause of kidney failure vs. all other causes. P-value \< 0.05 is regarded as statistically significant."|Regression, Cox|Univariable Cox regression||"The association of Other Diagnosis as primary cause of kidney failure (yes vs. no) with time to first peritonitis episode was analysed by univariable Cox regression."||1.45|0.58|0.71
90854072|NCT01293799|181571688|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.91||Unit of measure: Unknown cause as primary cause of kidney failure vs. all other causes. P-value \< 0.05 is regarded as statistically significant.|Regression, Cox|Univariable Cox regression||"The association of Unknown Primary Cause of Kidney Failure as primary cause of kidney failure with time to first peritonitis episode was analysed by univariable Cox regression."||1.91|0.57|0.89
90854073|NCT01293799|181571689|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.53||Unit of measure: Comorbidity at PD start according to Stoke comorbidity score (1-2 vs. 0) i.e. 1-2 comorbidities vs. no comorbidity. P-value \< 0.05 is regarded as statistically significant.|Regression, Cox|Univariable Cox regression||"The association of Comorbidity according to Stoke comorbidity score with time to first peritonitis episode was analysed by univariable Cox regression."||1.53|0.88|0.28
90902079|NCT01984424|181670847|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-31.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.33|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.35|-27.16||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated Measures Model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C), scheduled visit and interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-27.16|-36.35|<0.0001
90902080|NCT01984424|181670848|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-29.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.06|-25.77||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated Measures Model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C), scheduled visit and interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-25.77|-34.06|<0.0001
90902081|NCT01984424|181670849|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-27.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.22|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.58|-22.82||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated Measures Model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C), scheduled visit and interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-22.82|-31.58|<0.0001
90958235|NCT03519971|181796447|SUPERIORITY|The analysis was performed using a CMH test, stratified by age (\< 65 vs. \>= 65 years) and stage (IIIA vs. IIIB/C).|Difference in percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|3.0|||||The CIs for difference in percentages was calculated using Miettinen and Nurminen's method.|||3.0|-4.8|
91031151|NCT02937701|181946889|OTHER||Response Difference|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.0|9.51||||||The response difference (ABP 710/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) at week 34 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||9.51|-7.00|
90902082|NCT01984424|181670850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-34.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.59|-29.67||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated Measures Model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C), scheduled visit and interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-29.67|-38.59|<0.0001
90902083|NCT01984424|181670851|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-31.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.36|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.64|-27.32||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated Measures Model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C), scheduled visit and interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-27.32|-36.64|<0.0001
90958236|NCT03519971|181796450|SUPERIORITY|The HR and CIs were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for age (\< 65 vs. \>= 65 years) and stage (IIIA vs. IIIB/C), with treatment as the only covariate and ties handled by Efron approach.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.649|1.413|||Log Rank|The analysis was performed using the stratified log-rank test, adjusting for age (\< 65 vs. \>= 65 years) and stage (IIIA vs. IIIB/C).||||1.413|0.649|0.790
90854074|NCT01293799|181571689|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.29||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|2.45||Unit of measure: Comorbidity at PD start according to Stoke comorbidity score (\>2 vs. 0) i.e. more than 2 comorbidities vs. no comorbidity. P-value \< 0.05 is regarded as statistically significant.|Regression, Cox|Univariable Cox regression||"The association of Comorbidity according to Stoke comorbidity score with time to first peritonitis episode was analysed by univariable Cox regression."||2.45|0.68|0.44
90854075|NCT01293799|181571690|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.35||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.87||Unit of measure: Ischemic heart disease as comorbidity at baseline (yes vs. no). P \< 0.5 is regarded as statistically significant.|Regression, Cox|Univariable Cox regression||"The association of Ischemic Heart Disease as Comorbidity with time to first peritonitis episode was analysed by univariable Cox regression."||1.87|0.97|0.07
90854076|NCT01293799|181571691|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.63||"Unit of measure: Peripheral vascular disease or stroke as comorbidity at PD start (yes vs. no). P-value \<0.05 regarded as statistically significant."|Regression, Cox|Univariable Cox regression||"The association of Peripheral Vascular Disease or Stroke as Comorbidity with time to first peritonitis episode was analysed by univariable Cox regression."||1.63|0.69|0.80
90854077|NCT01293799|181571692|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.77||"Unit of measure: Left ventricular dysfunction as comorbidity (yes vs. no). P-value \<0.05 is significant."|Regression, Cox|Univariable Cox regression||"The association of Left ventricular dysfunction as comorbidity (yes vs. no) with time to first peritonitis episode was analysed by univariable Cox regression. Multivariable Cox regression was performed using a backward elimination procedure stopping when all remaining factors were significant at p \< 0.05. No collinearity among the procedure was found."||1.77|0.75|0.53
90854078|NCT01293799|181571693|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.44||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|2.22||"Unit of measure: Diabetes Mellitus as Comorbidity (yes vs. no). P-value \< 0.05 is regarded as statistically significant."|Regression, Cox|Univariable Cox regression||"The association of Diabetes Mellitus as Comorbidity (yes vs. no) with time to first peritonitis episode was analysed by univariable Cox regression."||2.22|0.93|0.099
90854079|NCT01293799|181571694|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.32||"Unit of measure: System Collagen Vascular Disease as Comorbidity (yes vs. no). P-value \<0.05 is regarded as statistically significant."|Regression, Cox|Univariable Cox regression||"The association of System Collagen Vascular Disease as Comorbidity (yes vs. no) with time to first peritonitis episode was analysed by univariable Cox regression."||1.32|0.29|0.22
90854080|NCT01293799|181571695|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.46||"Unit of measure: Other Significant Pathology as Comorbidity (yes vs. no). P \< 0.05 is regarded as statistically significant."|Regression, Cox|Univariable Cox regression||"The association of Other Significant Pathology as Comorbidity (yes vs. no) with time to first peritonitis episode was analysed by univariable Cox regression."||1.46|0.61|0.79
90854081|NCT01293799|181571696|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.4||"Unit of measure: Diabetes Mellitus as Comorbidity or Main Cause of Kidney Failure (yes vs. no. P-value \< 0.05 is regarded as significantly significant."|Regression, Cox|Univariable Cox regression||"The association of Diabetes Mellitus as Comorbidity or Main Cause of Kidney Failure with time to first peritonitis episode was analysed by univariable Cox regression."||1.40|0.80|0.69
90854082|NCT01293799|181571697|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.42||"Unit of measure: Previous Kidney Replacement Therapy (yes vs. no). P-value \< 0.05 is regarded as significant."|Regression, Cox|Univariable Cox regression||"The association of Previous Kidney Replacement Therapy (yes vs. no) with time to first peritonitis episode was analysed by univariable Cox regression."||1.42|0.74|0.86
90854083|NCT01293799|181571698|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.01||Unit of measure: Functional status (Karnofsky score). Functional status was estimated by the Karnofsky Performance Scale. Scores from 100 (Normal, no complaints) to 0 = (dead). 90 = Able to carry on normal activity. 80 = Normal activity with effort.|Regression, Cox|Univariable Cox regression||"The association of Functional status (Karnofsky score) with time to first peritonitis episode was analysed by univariable Cox regression."||1.01|0.98|0.60
90854084|NCT01293799|181571698|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.57||Unit of measure: Functional status (Karnofsky score 80 - 90 vs. 100). Functional status was estimated by the Karnofsky Performance Scale (see Statistical analysis 1). P \< 0.05 is regarded as statistically significant.|Regression, Cox|Univariable Cox regression||"The association of Functional status (Karnofsky score 80 - 90 vs. 100) with time to first peritonitis episode was analysed by univariable Cox regression."||1.57|0.81|0.48
90854085|NCT01293799|181571698|OTHER|Univariable Cox regression|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.85||Unit of measure: Functional status (Karnofsky score \< 80 vs. 100). Functional status was estimated by the Karnofsky Performance Scale (see Statistical analysis 1). P \< 0.05 is regarded as statistically significant.|Regression, Cox|||"The association of Functional status (Karnofsky score \< 80 vs. 100) with time to first peritonitis episode was analysed by univariable Cox regression."||1.85|0.69|0.63
90854086|NCT01293799|181571699|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.53||Unit of measure: Visual impairment (yes vs. no). P-value \< 0.05 is regarded as statistically significant.|Regression, Cox|||"The association of the Social Factor Visual Impairment (yes vs. no) with time to first peritonitis episode was analysed by univariable Cox regression."||1.53|0.54|0.71
90958237|NCT03519971|181796451|SUPERIORITY|The HR and CIs were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for age (\< 65 vs. \>= 65 years) and stage (IIIA vs. IIIB/C), with treatment as the only covariate and ties handled by Efron approach.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.614|1.071|||Log Rank|The analysis was performed using the stratified log-rank test, adjusting for age (\< 65 vs. \>= 65 years) and stage (IIIA vs. IIIB/C).||||1.071|0.614|0.132
91104337|NCT02539394|182094889|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.031|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of 4-6 weeks SWAL-QOL - Communication is the same across the 2 arms||||0.031
91100077|NCT04053452|182086363|OTHER|Median at humerus|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9613236||||0.874|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Null hypothesis: Nerve ultrasound measurement has no effect on the log-odds of having autonomic dysfunction (i.e., higher ultrasound measurements do not predict whether a subject has autonomic dysfunction during their hospitalization).||||0.874
90854087|NCT01293799|181571700|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.29||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.06||"Unit of measure: Impaired Hand Function (yes vs. no). P-value \< 0.05 is considered statistically significant."|Regression, Cox|Univariable Cox regression||"The association of Impaired Hand Function (yes vs. no) with time to first peritonitis episode was analysed by univariable Cox regression."||2.06|0.80|0.29
90854088|NCT01293799|181571701|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.93||"Units of measure: Working full or part time (yes vs no). P-value \< 0.05 is considered significant."|Regression, Cox|Univariable Cox regression||"The association of Working Full or Part Time (yes vs. no) with time to first peritonitis episode analysed by univariable Cox regression. Multivariable Cox regression was performed using a backward elimination procedure stopping when all remaining factors were significant at p \< 0.05. No collinearity among the procedure was found."||0.93|0.50|0.016
90902084|NCT01984424|181670852|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-21.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.33|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.65|-14.51||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated Measures Model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C), scheduled visit and interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-14.51|-27.65|<0.0001
90902085|NCT01984424|181670853|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-21.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.64|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.42|-14.05||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated Measures Model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C), scheduled visit and interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-14.05|-28.42|<0.0001
90902086|NCT01984424|181670854|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-4.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.72||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.74|4.87||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated Measures Model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C), scheduled visit and interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||4.87|-13.74|0.37
90902087|NCT01984424|181670855|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-1.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.0||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.64|10.01||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated Measures Model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C), scheduled visit and interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||10.01|-13.64|0.37
90902088|NCT01984424|181670856|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|6.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.05||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.15|10.22||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated Measures Model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C), scheduled visit and interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||10.22|2.15|0.0083
91031152|NCT02937701|181946889|OTHER||Response Difference|7.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.39|17.22||||||The response difference (Infliximab/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) at week 34 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||17.22|-2.39|
90902089|NCT01984424|181670857|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.27||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|8.98||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated Measures Model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C), scheduled visit and interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||8.98|0.02|0.0083
90958238|NCT02545933|181796459|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|27.0||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.0|34.0|||ANOVA||DAPT group vs DAPT plus vorapaxar group|We hypothesized that adjunctive vorapaxar would result in a significant reduction of CAT-induced platelet aggregation. Assuming a 10% absolute reduction in CAT-induced maximal platelet aggregation with a common standard deviation of 13%, 37 patients per group with valid primary endpoint data were required to detect a significant difference with a 90% power and 2-sided alpha=0.05.||34|19|0.011
90958239|NCT02317432|181796466|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.12|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.01
90958240|NCT02317432|181796467|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.6||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.03
91031153|NCT02937701|181946889|OTHER||Response Difference|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.03|7.59||||||The response difference (ABP 710/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) at week 38 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||7.59|-9.03|
91100078|NCT04053452|182086363|OTHER|Median at axilla|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9442314||||0.698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||Null hypothesis: Nerve ultrasound measurement has no effect on the log-odds of having autonomic dysfunction (i.e., higher ultrasound measurements do not predict whether a subject has autonomic dysfunction during their hospitalization).||||0.698
90902090|NCT01984424|181670858|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-4.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.85||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.25|2.94||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated Measures Model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C), scheduled visit and interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||2.94|-12.25|0.37
90902091|NCT01984424|181670859|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.67||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.45|7.98||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated Measures Model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C), scheduled visit and interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||7.98|-10.45|0.37
90902092|NCT01807221|181670863|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.3||||0.8771|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.9|2.3|||Chi-squared|||Estimates and two-sided 90% confidence intervals are provided for each treatment group and for the treatment differences πBi - πC. Clopper-Pearson confidence intervals were calculated for each treatment group, while for treatment differences the exact unconditional confidence limits were calculated.||2.3|-14.9|0.8771
91100079|NCT04053452|182086363|OTHER|Ulnar at wrist|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.193941||||0.665|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Null hypothesis: Nerve ultrasound measurement has no effect on the log-odds of having autonomic dysfunction (i.e., higher ultrasound measurements do not predict whether a subject has autonomic dysfunction during their hospitalization).||||0.665
90854089|NCT01293799|181571702|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.32||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.73||"Unit of measure: Retired (yes vs. no). P-value \< 0.05 is considered significant."|Regression, Cox|Univariable Cox regression||"The association of being retired (yes vs. no) with time to first peritonitis episode was analysed by univariable Cox regression. Multivariable Cox regression was performed using a backward elimination procedure stopping when all remaining factors were significant at p \< 0.05. No collinearity among the procedure was found."||1.73|1.01|0.041
90902093|NCT01807221|181670863|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.7||||0.7945|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.4|4.0|||Chi-squared|||Estimates and two-sided 90% confidence intervals are provided for each treatment group and for the treatment differences πBi - πC. Clopper-Pearson confidence intervals were calculated for each treatment group, while for treatment differences the exact unconditional confidence limits were calculated.||4|-13.4|0.7945
90854090|NCT01293799|181571703|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.31||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.76||"Unit of measure: Living alone (yes vs. no). P-value \< 0.05 is considered significant."|Regression, Cox|Univariable Cox regression||"The association of Living alone (yes vs. no) with time to first peritonitis episode was analysed by univariable Cox regression."||1.76|0.98|0.064
90854091|NCT01293799|181571704|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.48||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.29||"Unit of measure: Need for translation/interpreter (yes vs. no). P-value \< 0.05 is considered significant."|Regression, Cox|Univariable Cox regression||"The association of Need for translation/interpreter with time to first peritonitis episode was analysed by univariable Cox regression."||1.29|0.18|0.14
90854092|NCT01293799|181571705|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.65||"Unit of measure: Current smoking (yes vs. no). P-value \< 0.05 is considered significant."|Regression, Cox|Univariable Cox regression||"The association of Current smoking (yes vs. no) with time to first peritonitis episode was analysed by univariable Cox regression."||1.65|0.75|0.60
90854093|NCT01293799|181571706|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.02||"Unit of measure: Serum creatinine (HR per 100 micromol/L. P-value \< 0.05 is considered significant."|Regression, Cox|Univariable Cox regression||"The association of Serum creatinine (Hazard ratio per 100 micromol/L with time to first peritonitis episode was analysed by univariable Cox regression."||1.02|0.90|0.18
90854094|NCT01293799|181571707|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.04||Unit of measure: Serum urea (Hazard ratio per 5 mmol/L). P-value \< 0.05 is considered significant.|Regression, Cox|Univariable Cox regression||"The association of Serum urea (Hazard ratio per 5 mmol/l) with time to first peritonitis episode was analysed by univariable Cox regression."||1.04|0.90|0.34
90854095|NCT01293799|181571708|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.98||Unit of measure: Serum albumin (Hazard ratio per 5g/L). P-value \< 0.05 is considered significant.|Regression, Cox|Univariable Cox regression||The association of Serum albumin (Hazard ratio per 5 g/L) with time to first peritonitis episode was analysed by univariable Cox regression. Multivariable Cox regression was performed using a backward elimination procedure stopping when all remaining factors were significant at p \< 0.05. No collinearity among the procedure was found.||0.98|0.79|0.019
90854096|NCT01293799|181571709|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.41||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.82||Unit of measure: Serum albumin (\<35 g/L vs. 35 g/L or more). P-value \<0.05 is regarded as significant.|Regression, Cox|Univariable Cox regression||Analysis of the association of serum albumin (\<35 g/L vs. 35 g/l or more) with time to first peritonitis episode by univariable Cox regression. Multivariable Cox regression was performed using a backward elimination procedure stopping when all remaining factors were significant at p \< 0.05. No collinearity among the procedure was found.||1.82|1.08|0.013
90902094|NCT01807221|181670863|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.5|8.8|||Chi-squared|||Estimates and two-sided 90% confidence intervals are provided for each treatment group and for the treatment differences πBi - πC. Clopper-Pearsonconfidence intervals were calculated for each treatment group, while for treatment differences the exact unconditional confidence limits were calculated.||8.8|-8.5|0.5
90854097|NCT01293799|181571709|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.39||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.82||Unit of measure: Serum albumin (\<35 g/l vs. 35 g/l or more). P-value \<0.05 is regarded as significant.|Regression, Cox|Multivariable Cox regression||Analysis of the association of serum albumin (\<35 g/L vs. 35 g/L or more) with time to first peritonitis episode by multivariable Cox regression.||1.82|1.06|0.015
90854098|NCT01293799|181571710|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|2.17||Unit of measure: Haemoglobin (HR per 10 g/L). P-value \< 0.05 was considered significant.|Regression, Cox|Univariable Cox regression||The association of Haemoglobin (Hazard ratio per 10 g/L) with time to first peritonitis episode was analysed by univariable Cox regression.||2.17|0.27|0.61
91100080|NCT04053452|182086363|OTHER|Ulnar at forearm|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0524489||||0.82|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Null hypothesis: Nerve ultrasound measurement has no effect on the log-odds of having autonomic dysfunction (i.e., higher ultrasound measurements do not predict whether a subject has autonomic dysfunction during their hospitalization).||||0.820
90854099|NCT01293799|181571711|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.23||"Unit of measure. The time-dependent variable Corticosteroid treatment (yes vs. no). Time-updated data were used. P-value \< 0.05 was considered significant."|Regression, Cox|Time-dependent univariable Cox regression||"The association of the time-dependent variable Corticosteroid treatment (yes vs. no) with time to first peritonitis episode was analysed by time-dependent univariable Cox regression."||1.23|0.54|0.33
90902095|NCT01807221|181670863|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6||||0.4225|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.1|10.2|||Chi-squared|||Estimates and two-sided 90% confidence intervals are provided for each treatment group and for the treatment differences πBi - πC. Clopper-Pearsonconfidence intervals were calculated for each treatment group, while for treatment differences the exact unconditional confidence limits were calculated.||10.2|-7.1|0.4225
90958241|NCT02317432|181796468|SUPERIORITY||Slope|6.0||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.02
90902096|NCT01807221|181670863|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0||||0.6865|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.7|5.7|||Chi-squared|||Estimates and two-sided 90% confidence intervals are provided for each treatment group and for the treatment differences πBi - πC. Clopper-Pearson confidence intervals were calculated for each treatment group, while for treatment differences the exact unconditional confidence limits were calculated.||5.7|-11.7|0.6865
90902097|NCT01649596|181670875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent|10.0||||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.12
90902098|NCT01649596|181670876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent|48.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|A t-test for percents was used to compare the number of participants (%) from each group reporting satisfaction (somewhat and highly satisfied).||||||<0.05
91100081|NCT04053452|182086363|OTHER|Ulnar at cubital fossa|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21669122||||0.193|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Null hypothesis: Nerve ultrasound measurement has no effect on the log-odds of having autonomic dysfunction (i.e., higher ultrasound measurements do not predict whether a subject has autonomic dysfunction during their hospitalization).||||0.193
90854100|NCT01293799|181571712|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.84||Unit of measure: Cytotoxic treatment (yes vs. no). Time-updated data was used. P-value \< 0.05 was considered significant.|Regression, Cox|Time-updated univariable Cox regression||"The association of the time-dependent variable Cytotoxic treatment (yes vs. no) with time to first peritonitis episode was analysed by univariable time-dependent Cox regression."||1.84|0.70|0.60
90958242|NCT02317432|181796469|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.24||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.15
90958243|NCT02317432|181796470|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.49||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.35
91100082|NCT04053452|182086363|OTHER|Ulnar at humerus|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2994068||||0.314|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Null hypothesis: Nerve ultrasound measurement has no effect on the log-odds of having autonomic dysfunction (i.e., higher ultrasound measurements do not predict whether a subject has autonomic dysfunction during their hospitalization).||||0.314
91100083|NCT04053452|182086363|OTHER|Ulnar at axilla|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1015629||||0.405|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Null hypothesis: Nerve ultrasound measurement has no effect on the log-odds of having autonomic dysfunction (i.e., higher ultrasound measurements do not predict whether a subject has autonomic dysfunction during their hospitalization).||||0.405
91100084|NCT04053452|182086363|OTHER|C6|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9140133||||0.389|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Null hypothesis: Nerve ultrasound measurement has no effect on the log-odds of having autonomic dysfunction (i.e., higher ultrasound measurements do not predict whether a subject has autonomic dysfunction during their hospitalization).||||0.389
90854101|NCT01293799|181571713|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.57||Unit of measure: Type of PD start (planned vs. acute). P-value \< 0.05 was considered significant.|Regression, Cox|Univariable Cox regression||"The association of Type of PD start with time to first peritonitis episode was analysed by univariable Cox regression."||1.57|0.73|0.72
90854102|NCT01293799|181571714|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.76||Unit of measure: Antibiotics prior to PD catheter insertion (yes vs. no). P-value \< 0.05 is considered significant.|Regression, Cox|Univariable Cox regression||"The association of Antibiotics prior to PD catheter insertion (yes vs. no) with time to first peritonitis episode was analysed by univariable Cox regression."||1.76|0.66|0.77
90854103|NCT01293799|181571715|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.28||Unit of measure: Type of PD-catheter (straight vs. coiled). P-value \< 0.05 is considered significant.|Regression, Cox|Univariable Cox regression||"The association of Type of PD catheter used (straight vs. coiled) with time to first peritonitis episode was analysed by univariable Cox regression."||1.28|0.68|0.68
90854104|NCT01293799|181571716|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.26||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.66||Unit of measure: PD modality (CAPD, continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis vs. APD, automated peritoneal dialysis). Time-updated data were used. P-value \< 0.05 is regarded as significant.|Regression, Cox|Univariable time-dependent Cox regression||The PD modality (CAPD or APD) may vary with time and is thus time-dependent. Data were included as time-varying covariates in a time-dependent Cox regression. Univariable Cox regression was used to identify variables significantly associated with time to first peritonitis episode. Multivariable Cox regression was performed using a backward elimination procedure stopping when all remaining factors were significant at p \< 0.05. No collinearity among the procedure was found.||1.66|0.96|0.10
90854105|NCT01293799|181571717|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|1.57||Unit of measure: Number of PD bags used/24h. Time-updated data was used. P-value \<0.05 was regarded as significant.|Regression, Cox|Univariable time-dependent Cox regression. (The result of multivariable Cox regression is presented in Statistical analysis 2)||The data regarding the number of PD bags used/24h were included as time-varying covariates in a time-dependent Cox regression. Univariable Cox regression was used to identify variables significantly associated with time to first peritonitis episode. Multivariable Cox regression was performed using a backward elimination procedure stopping when all remaining factors were significant at p \< 0.05. No collinearity was found. The risk (hazard ratio) associated with the studied variable is reported.||1.57|1.17|< 0.0001
90854106|NCT01293799|181571717|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.32|||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|1.54||Unit of measure: Number of PD bags used /24h. Time-updated data was used. P-value \< 0.05 was regarded as significant.|Regression, Cox|Multivariable time-dependent Cox regression||"Analysis of the association of Number of PD bags used per 24 hours with time to first peritonitis episode by multivariable time-dependent Cox regression. The multivariable Cox regression was performed using a backward elimination procedure stopping when all remaining factors were significant at p \< 0.05. No collinearity among the factors affecting the backward elimination procedure was found. The risk (hazard ratio) associated with the studied variable is reported."||1.54|1.13|<0.0005
90854107|NCT01293799|181571718|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.08||Unit of measure: Volume of dialysis fluid/24h (L). Time-updated data was used. P-value \< 0.05 was considered significant.|Regression, Cox|Univariable time-dependent Cox regression||"Data regarding Volume of dialysis fluid used/24h was included as time-varying covariates in a time-dependent Cox regression. Univariable Cox regression was used to identify variables significantly associated with time to first peritonitis episode. Multivariable Cox regression was performed using a backward elimination procedure stopping when all remaining factors were significant at p \< 0.05. No collinearity was found. The risk (hazard ratio) associated with the studied variable is reported."||1.08|0.99|0.13
90958244|NCT00346268|181796485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least square (LS) mean difference (net)|-7.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.55||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.63|-0.53||Adjusted for treatment group and center|ANOVA|||||-0.53|-14.63|0.035
90902099|NCT01027364|181670933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Bleeding Rate Ratio|0.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.24||A hierarchical approach was applied to the comparison of the annualized bleeding rates between the prophylaxis arms and the episodic arm.|negative binomial model|||The null hypothesis for the primary endpoint is no difference between any prevention regimen and the on-demand regimen. The sample size of this study was mainly based on clinical rather than statistical considerations. However it was projected to have \> 95% power at the 2-sided 0.05 level of significance, based upon this hypothesis test.||0.24|0.11|<0.001
90902100|NCT01027364|181670933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Bleeding Rate Ratio|0.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.2||A hierarchical approach was applied to the comparison of the annualized bleeding rates between the prophylaxis arms and the episodic arm.|negative binomial model|||The null hypothesis for the primary endpoint is no difference between any prevention regimen and the on-demand regimen. The sample size of this study was mainly based on clinical rather than statistical considerations.||0.20|0.08|<0.001
90902101|NCT00267111|181670936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05||95.0||||Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS v12, USA). Pain scores were compared between groups by means of the Student t-test. A p-value of \< 0.05 was considered significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||We hypothesized that topical amethocaine gel 4% would reduce the pain from IM injection. The sample size was based on the pain scores obtained from a previous study that compared pain response during IM injection. To achieve a clinically significant reduction in pain scores by 20% between groups with 80% power and an alpha value of \< 0.05, we estimated sample size of 49 neonates in each group. A total of 110 neonates were enrolled to account for possible dropouts and missing data.||||< 0.05
90902102|NCT00267111|181670937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05||95.0||||Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS v12, USA). Pain scores were compared between groups by means of the Student t-test. A p-value of \< 0.05 was considered significant|t-test, 2 sided|||We hypothesized that parents and nurses will report lower pain scores as assessed by visual analogue scale in topical amethocaine gel 4% compared to placebo group. This was a secondary outcome and no power calculation was performed.||||<0.05
90958245|NCT00346268|181796486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least square (LS) mean difference (net)|-15.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.2||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.47|-4.85||Adjusted for treatment group and center|ANOVA|||||-4.85|-25.47|0.004
90958246|NCT00346268|181796487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.257||95.0|||||Log Rank|Stratified by center||||||0.257
91100085|NCT04053452|182086363|OTHER|C7|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7982946||||0.139|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Null hypothesis: Nerve ultrasound measurement has no effect on the log-odds of having autonomic dysfunction (i.e., higher ultrasound measurements do not predict whether a subject has autonomic dysfunction during their hospitalization).||||0.139
91100086|NCT04053452|182086363|OTHER|Vagus|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9330042||||0.622|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Null hypothesis: Nerve ultrasound measurement has no effect on the log-odds of having autonomic dysfunction (i.e., higher ultrasound measurements do not predict whether a subject has autonomic dysfunction during their hospitalization).||||0.622
90902103|NCT01613027|181670949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Paired t-test|||Difference in change at Month 6||||<0.001
90958247|NCT00346268|181796488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference (net)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.53||Adjusted for treatment group and center|ANCOVA|Covariates:Total RBCUs and RBCUs substituted during surgery, baseline hemoglobin, swab and lavage weights, intraoperative blood loss fluid volume||||0.53|-0.68|0.810
90958248|NCT00346268|181796490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference (net)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.35|||ANOVA|||The difference in pain at rest prior to administration and pain at rest post administration compared between treatments at 48 hours post surgery.||0.35|-0.01|0.070
91032827|NCT04638153|181951001|OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2|||||Month 9|Results based on MMRM analysis with gender as a covariate, participant (and/or time) as a random effect; treatment, visit, age and gender as fixed effects using an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.2|-0.2|
90902104|NCT01613027|181670949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Paired t-test|||Difference in change at Month 12||||<0.001
90902105|NCT02354963|181670965|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.302|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.302
90902106|NCT02354963|181670966|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.449|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.449
90902107|NCT02354963|181670967|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.021|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.021
90902108|NCT02354963|181670968|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.427|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.427
90902109|NCT02354963|181670969|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.496|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.496
90902110|NCT02354963|181670970|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.71||||0.684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|3.68|||Chi-squared|||||3.68|0.13|0.684
90902111|NCT02354963|181670971|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.480
90958249|NCT00346268|181796490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (net)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.33|||ANOVA|||The difference in pain at movement prior to administration and pain at movement post administration compared between treatments at 48 hours post surgery.||0.33|-0.02|0.074
90958250|NCT00346268|181796491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference (net)|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|-0.26||Adjusted for treatment group and center|ANOVA|||24 hours post surgery||-0.26|-1.16|0.002
90958251|NCT00346268|181796491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference (net)|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|-0.23||Adjusted for treatment group and center|ANOVA|||48 hours post surgery||-0.23|-1.22|0.004
90958252|NCT00346268|181796492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference (net)|-1.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|-0.56||Adjusted for treatment group and center|ANOVA|||24 hours post surgery||-0.56|-1.77|0.001
90958253|NCT00346268|181796492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference (net)|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|-0.24||Adjusted for treatment group and center|ANOVA|||48 hours post surgery||-0.24|-1.41|0.006
90958254|NCT00118755|181796500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.3883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.17|||Log Rank|||||1.17|0.67|0.3883
90958255|NCT00118755|181796501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.2458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.12|||Log Rank|||||1.12|0.64|0.2458
90902112|NCT02354963|181670972|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.236|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.236
90902113|NCT02354963|181670973|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.71||||0.684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|3.68|||Chi-squared|||||3.68|0.13|0.684
90902114|NCT02354963|181670974|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.36||||0.512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|3.05|||Chi-squared|||||3.05|0.04|0.512
90902115|NCT04267614|181670975|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
90902116|NCT04267614|181670976|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
90902117|NCT04267614|181670977|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
90902118|NCT04267614|181670978|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
90902119|NCT00183456|181670990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.28|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.63|||Generalized Estimating Equations|||||0.63|0.13|<0.01
90902120|NCT00183456|181670991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.68||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|5.89|||Generalized Estimating Equations|||||5.89|1.22|0.05
90958256|NCT00118755|181796502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Response Rate|9.8||||||95.0|0.9|18.7|||||95% Wald asymptotic CI using normal approximation (continuity corrected)|||18.7|0.9|
91031154|NCT02937701|181946889|OTHER||Response Difference|3.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.41|13.14||||||The response difference (Infliximab/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) at week 38 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||13.14|-6.41|
91100087|NCT04053452|182086364|OTHER|Median at wrist, 3 months|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.2641183|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2344|0.7511||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and GBS Disability score at 3 months after enrollment.||0.7511|-0.2344|
91100088|NCT04053452|182086364|OTHER|Median at forearm, 3 months|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.02596308|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4859|0.5555||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and GBS Disability score at 3 months after enrollment.||0.5555|-0.4859|
90902121|NCT00183456|181670992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.36||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.84|||Generalized Estimating Equations|||||0.84|0.16|0.05
90902122|NCT00183456|181670993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.82||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|5.64|||Generalized Estimating Equations|||||5.64|1.41|0.01
90902123|NCT00183456|181670994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.24||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.68|||Generalized Estimating Equations|||||0.68|0.09|0.01
90902124|NCT00183456|181670995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.47||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.87|||Generalized Estimating Equations|||||0.87|0.25|0.05
90902125|NCT00183456|181670996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.41||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.77|||Generalized Estimating Equations|||||0.77|0.21|0.01
90902126|NCT00183456|181670997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.33||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.79|||Generalized Estimating Equations|||||0.79|0.14|0.05
90902127|NCT00183456|181670998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.3||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.64|||Generalized Estimating Equations|||||0.64|0.14|0.01
90902128|NCT00183456|181670999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.41||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|4.65|||Generalized Estimating Equations|||||4.65|1.25|0.01
90902129|NCT00981825|181671040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
90902130|NCT00305864|181671042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27||95.0|||||Log Rank|One-sided||A one-sided one-sample log-rank test at significance level of 0.10 was predicted to have 85% power to detect a survival difference against the historical control (13.7 vs. 18.5 months) with 60 deaths.||||0.27
90902131|NCT01263106|181671102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.05|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.20|1.05|
90902132|NCT01263106|181671103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.01|0.92|
90902133|NCT01263106|181671104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.8008|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.00|-3.00|0.8008
90902134|NCT03662360|181671107|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The Mann-Whitney test has been used to evaluate the statistical significance of the difference between the variations in scores (T3 - T1) regarding the two interest groups of patients (control and treated).||||<0.001
90902135|NCT03662360|181671108|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The Mann-Whitney test has been used to evaluate the statistical significance of the difference between the variations scores in T3 and T1, concerning the distress of the professional caregivers in the two intereste groups of patients||||<0.01
90902136|NCT05027074|181671128|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.26||From log-rank test stratified by region (US, Non-US), previous thrombosis of active AVG (yes, no) and regular aspirin use up to 150 mg daily at baseline (yes, no).|Log Rank||HR based on stratified Cox model with Efron's method of tie handling and with a single treatment covariate, controlling for stratification factors of region, previous thrombosis of active AVG and regular aspirin use up to 150 mg daily at baseline.|||1.26|0.60|0.470
90902137|NCT05027074|181671128|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.19|||||HR based on stratified Cox model with Efron's method of tie handling and with a single treatment covariate, controlling for stratification factors of region, previous thrombosis of active AVG and regular aspirin use up to 150 mg daily at baseline.|||1.19|0.57|
90902138|NCT05027074|181671129|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.21|||||HR based on Andersen-Gill model with stratification factors of region, previous thrombosis of active AVG, and regular aspirin use up to 150 mg daily at baseline as fixed effect.|||1.21|0.68|
90902139|NCT05027074|181671129|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.23|||||HR based on Andersen-Gill model with stratification factors of region, previous thrombosis of active AVG, and regular aspirin use up to 150 mg daily at baseline as fixed effect.|||1.23|0.70|
90902140|NCT05027074|181671131|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.68||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|2.62||From log-rank test stratified by region (US, Non-US), previous thrombosis of active AVG (yes, no) and regular aspirin use up to 150 mg daily at baseline (yes, no).|Log Rank||HR based on stratified Cox model with Efron's method of tie handling and with a single treatment covariate, controlling for stratification factors of region, previous thrombosis of active AVG and regular aspirin use up to 150 mg daily at baseline.|||2.62|1.07|0.022
90958257|NCT00118755|181796503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.6294||95.0|0.66|1.97|||Log Rank|||||1.97|0.66|0.6294
90854108|NCT01293799|181571719|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.41||Unit of measure: Help needed with exit-site care (yes vs. no). Time-updated data was used. P-value \< 0.05 was considered significant.|Regression, Cox|Univariable time-dependent Cox regression||"Data regarding the variable Help needed with exit-site care (yes vs. no) were included as time-varying covariates in a univariable time-dependent Cox regression in order to identify variables significantly associated with time to first peritonitis episode. The risk (hazard ratio) associated with the studied variable is reported.."||1.41|0.77|0.79
90958258|NCT01765192|181796517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0219|0.1795|||ANCOVA|||The primary endpoint was analyzed using an analysis of covariance model adapted for the crossover design. The following fixed factors and covariates were included in the model: Treatment, sequence, period, and baseline FEV1 measurement of the respective treatment period. The reported analysis results are for the 2 crossover treatment periods combined.||0.1795|0.0219|0.013
91100089|NCT04053452|182086364|OTHER|Median at cubital fossa, 3 months|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.05162687|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3342|0.417||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and GBS Disability score at 3 months after enrollment.||0.4170|-0.3342|
91100090|NCT04053452|182086364|OTHER|Median at humerus, 3 months|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|-0.1714461|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6473|0.2723||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and GBS Disability score at 3 months after enrollment.||0.2723|-0.6473|
91100091|NCT04053452|182086364|OTHER|Median at axilla, 3 months|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|-0.0531775|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.583|0.4451||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and GBS Disability score at 3 months after enrollment.||0.4451|-0.5830|
90854109|NCT01293799|181571720|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.19||Unit of measure: Study group (retraining group vs. control group). P-value \<0.05 is regarded as significant.|Regression, Cox|||Association ot the Retraining group vs. the Control group with time to first peritonitis episode by univariable Cox regression||1.19|0.71|0.52
90854110|NCT02635646|181571733|OTHER|T test for mean comparisons between independent groups||||||0.844||||||Significant p value less than 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.844
90854111|NCT02635646|181571734|OTHER|||||||0.624|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.624
90854112|NCT02635646|181571735|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
90854113|NCT02635646|181571736|OTHER|||||||0.516|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.516
90854114|NCT02635646|181571737|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
90854115|NCT02387476|181571740|NON_INFERIORITY|This analysis was planned to assume a non-inferiority (NI) margin of 5 units and a 1-sided alpha level of 2.5%. A 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was also planned to be provided around the difference between treatments, where non-inferiority would also be demonstrated if the upper bound of the 95% CI is less than or equal to the NI margin of 5 units. In this scenario, the 2-sided 95% CI equates to testing the 1-sided non-inferiority hypothesis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.13|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|2.9||The p-value to test non-inferiority of FRESCA Mask compared with CPAP Mask (FRESCA-CPAP\<5 units) assumes a 1-sided test using a level of significance of 2.5% and NI margin of 5 units.|t-test, 1 sided||The mean AHI is rounded to a single decimal point in the text of the report (3.0 and 2.4, respectively), in order to be consistent with standard reporting of AHI.|This analysis was planned to assume a non-inferiority (NI) margin of 5 units and a 1-sided alpha level of 2.5%. A 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was also planned to be provided around the difference between treatments, where non-inferiority would also be demonstrated if the upper bound of the 95% CI is less than or equal to the NI margin of 5 units. In this scenario, the 2-sided 95% CI equates to testing the 1-sided non-inferiority hypothesis.||2.9|-1.7|<0.001
90854116|NCT02387476|181571741|NON_INFERIORITY|This analysis was planned to assume a non-inferiority (NI) margin of 5 units and a 1-sided alpha level of 2.5%. A 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was also planned to be provided around the difference between treatments, where non-inferiority would also be demonstrated if the upper bound of the 95% CI is less than or equal to the NI margin of 5 units. In this scenario, the 2-sided 95% CI equates to testing the 1-sided non-inferiority hypothesis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.36|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.0||The p-value to test non-inferiority of FRESCA Mask compared with CPAP Mask (FRESCA-CPAP\<5 units) assumes a 1-sided test using a level of significance of 2.5% and NI margin of 5 units.|t-test, 1 sided||The mean ODI values are rounded to a single decimal point value in the text of the table (1.4 and 1.1, respectively) to ensure consistency with ODI reporting standards.|This analysis was planned to assume a non-inferiority (NI) margin of 5 units and a 1-sided alpha level of 2.5%. A 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was also planned to be provided around the difference between treatments, where non-inferiority would also be demonstrated if the upper bound of the 95% CI is less than or equal to the NI margin of 5 units. In this scenario, the 2-sided 95% CI equates to testing the 1-sided non-inferiority hypothesis.||1.0|-0.4|<0.001
90854117|NCT00829985|181571760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio, log|1.92|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|2.45|||Mixed Models Analysis||The estimated value and associated confidence interval represent the ratio of baseline-to-post-baseline change in the placebo group (denominator = 1.12) vs. the extract group (numerator = 2.16).|||2.45|1.51|<0.0001
90854118|NCT00829985|181571761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio, log|1.13||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.32|||Mixed Models Analysis||The estimated value and associated confidence interval represent the ratio of baseline-to-post-baseline change in the placebo group (denominator = 0.93) vs. the extract group (numerator = 1.06).|||1.32|0.98|0.088
90854119|NCT00829985|181571762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Effect|0.37||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.89|12.99|||Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated value and associated confidence interval represent the treatment effect: change in the extract group (4.7) minus change in the placebo group (0.7).|||12.99|-4.89|0.37
90854120|NCT00829985|181571763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Effect|5.4||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|11.51|||Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated value and associated confidence interval represent the treatment effect: change in the extract group (4.0) minus change in the placebo group (-1.3).|||11.51|-0.77|0.09
90854121|NCT01076075|181571788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.5|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model controlling for treatment, stratum (type of sulfonylurea) and baseline value.||Pairwise comparison - Sitagliptin vs. Placebo, using the difference in the Least Squares Means.||-0.50|-0.87|<0.001
90958259|NCT01765192|181796518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0185|0.1422||P-values were obtained using an ANCOVA model with treatment sequence, treatment period, and study treatment as fixed factors with Baseline pre-bronchodilator FVC measurement as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.1422|-0.0185|0.129
90958260|NCT01765192|181796519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0113|0.2364||P-values were obtained using an ANCOVA model with treatment sequence, treatment period, and study treatment as fixed factors with Baseline pre-bronchodilator FEF measurement as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.2364|0.0113|0.032
90958261|NCT01765192|181796520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.105||0.635||95.0|-23.0531|37.466||P-values were obtained using an ANCOVA model with treatment sequence, treatment period, and study treatment as fixed factors with Baseline pre-bronchodilator PEF measurement as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||37.4660|-23.0531|0.635
90958262|NCT01765192|181796521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|13.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.206||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1896|24.0553||P-values were obtained using an ANCOVA model with treatment sequence, treatment period, and study treatment as fixed factors with Baseline pre-bronchodilator PEF measurement as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||24.0553|3.1896|0.011
91100092|NCT04053452|182086364|OTHER|Ulnar at wrist, 3 months|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.1371924|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3592|0.6944||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and GBS Disability score at 3 months after enrollment.||0.6944|-0.3592|
90854122|NCT01076075|181571789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-33.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.3|-21.7|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model controlling for treatment, stratum (type of sulfonylurea) and baseline value.||Pairwise comparison - Sitagliptin vs. Placebo, difference in the Least Squares Means.||-21.7|-45.3|<0.001
90958263|NCT01765192|181796522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.089||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.385|-0.0271||P-values were obtained using an ANCOVA model with treatment sequence, treatment period, and study treatment as fixed factors with Baseline Daytime Asthma Symptom Score as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-0.0271|-0.3850|0.025
91100093|NCT04053452|182086364|OTHER|Ulnar at forearm, 3 months|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|-0.0134595|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5145|0.4627||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and GBS Disability score at 3 months after enrollment.||0.4627|-0.5145|
90854123|NCT01076075|181571790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-18.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.4|-10.7|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model controlling for treatment, stratum (type of sulfonylurea) and baseline value.||Pairwise comparison - Sitagliptin vs. Placebo, using the difference in the Least Squares Means.||-10.7|-26.4|<0.001
90854124|NCT02751931|181571823|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|72.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.28|98.89||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Children||98.89|45.28|<0.001
90854125|NCT02751931|181571823|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|113.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.95|147.47||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Adolescents||147.47|78.95|<0.001
90958264|NCT01765192|181796523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.075||0.217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2426|0.0563||P-values were obtained using an ANCOVA model with treatment sequence, treatment period, and study treatment as fixed factors with Baseline Nighttime Asthma Symptoms measurement as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.0563|-0.2426|0.217
90958265|NCT01016977|181796524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9597||95.0||||Week 1|ANCOVA|||||||0.9597
90958266|NCT01016977|181796524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5538||95.0||||Week 2|ANCOVA|||||||0.5538
90958267|NCT01016977|181796524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6315||95.0||||Week 4|ANCOVA|||||||0.6315
90958268|NCT01016977|181796524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5655||95.0||||Week 8|ANCOVA|||||||0.5655
91100094|NCT04053452|182086364|OTHER|Ulnar at cubital fossa, 3 months|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.01313517|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5056|0.4833||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and GBS Disability score at 3 months after enrollment.||0.4833|-0.5056|
91100095|NCT04053452|182086364|OTHER|Ulnar at humerus, 3 months|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|-0.1196495|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5876|0.3467||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and GBS Disability score at 3 months after enrollment.||0.3467|-0.5876|
90854126|NCT02751931|181571824|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.09||||0.618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.55|12.38||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 4 - Children||12.38|-20.55|0.618
90854127|NCT02751931|181571824|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|15.16||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.1|25.22||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 4 - Adolescents||25.22|5.10|0.005
90854128|NCT02751931|181571824|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|14.62||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|29.54||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Children||29.54|-0.31|0.055
90854129|NCT02751931|181571824|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|13.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.75|20.42||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Adolescents||20.42|6.75|<0.001
90958269|NCT01016977|181796524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7917||95.0||||Week 12|ANCOVA|||||||0.7917
90958270|NCT01016977|181796525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5961||95.0||||Week 1|ANCOVA|||||||0.5961
90958271|NCT01016977|181796525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2293||95.0||||Week 2|ANCOVA|||||||0.2293
90958272|NCT01016977|181796525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9852||95.0||||Week 4|ANCOVA|||||||0.9852
90958273|NCT01016977|181796525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5538||95.0||||Week 8|ANCOVA|||||||0.5538
90958274|NCT01016977|181796525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.654||95.0||||Week 12|ANCOVA|||||||0.6540
90958275|NCT01016977|181796526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8545||95.0||||Week 1|ANCOVA|||||||0.8545
90958276|NCT01016977|181796526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2895||95.0||||Week 2|ANCOVA|||||||0.2895
90958277|NCT01016977|181796526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8234||95.0||||Week 4|ANCOVA|||||||0.8234
90958278|NCT01016977|181796526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3644||95.0||||Week 8|ANCOVA|||||||0.3644
90958279|NCT01016977|181796526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.654||95.0||||Week 12|ANCOVA|||||||0.6540
90854130|NCT02751931|181571825|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|41.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.75|63.97||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline at week 4 - Children.||63.97|18.75|<0.001
90958280|NCT01016977|181796527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7546||95.0||||Week 1|ANCOVA|||||||0.7546
90958281|NCT01016977|181796527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7705||95.0||||Week 2|ANCOVA|||||||0.7705
90958282|NCT01016977|181796527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0259||95.0||||Week 4|ANCOVA|||||||0.0259
90958283|NCT01016977|181796527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9252||95.0||||Week 8|ANCOVA|||||||0.9252
90958284|NCT01016977|181796527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2927||95.0||||Week 12|ANCOVA|||||||0.2927
91031155|NCT02937701|181946889|OTHER||Response Difference|-0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.98|7.66||||||The response difference (ABP 710/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) at week 46 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||7.66|-8.98|
91100096|NCT04053452|182086364|OTHER|Ulnar at axilla, 3 months|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3682|0.3885||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and GBS Disability score at 3 months after enrollment.||0.3885|-0.3682|
91100097|NCT04053452|182086364|OTHER|C6, 3 months|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.1194695|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.422|0.6686||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and GBS Disability score at 3 months after enrollment.||0.6686|-0.4220|
91100098|NCT04053452|182086364|OTHER|C7, 3 months|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|-0.0593456|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5651|0.454||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and GBS Disability score at 3 months after enrollment.||0.4540|-0.5651|
90958285|NCT01016977|181796528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.401||95.0||||Week 1|ANCOVA|||||||0.4010
90958286|NCT01016977|181796528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0963||95.0||||Week 2|ANCOVA|||||||0.0963
91031156|NCT02937701|181946889|OTHER||Response Difference|7.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.13|17.68||||||The response difference (Infliximab/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) at week 46 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||17.68|-2.13|
91100099|NCT04053452|182086364|OTHER|Vagus, 3 months|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|-0.1920694|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.549|0.238||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and GBS Disability score at 3 months after enrollment.||0.238|-0.5490|
91100100|NCT04053452|182086364|OTHER|Median at wrist, 6 months|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.3150905|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and GBS Disability score at 6 months after enrollment.||||
90854131|NCT02751931|181571825|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|80.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.2|122.36||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 4 - Adolescents||122.36|39.20|<0.001
90854132|NCT02751931|181571826|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.44||||0.632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|2.28||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 4 - Children||2.28|-1.40|0.632
90854133|NCT02751931|181571826|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.64||||0.321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|0.67|||t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 4 - Adolescents||0.67|-1.94|0.321
90854134|NCT02751931|181571826|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.86||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.27|-0.45||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Children||-0.45|-3.27|0.011
90854135|NCT02751931|181571826|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.77||||0.359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.49|0.94||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Adolescents||0.94|-2.49|0.359
90854136|NCT02751931|181571827|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.56|-6.21||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 4 - Children||-6.21|-18.56|<0.001
90854137|NCT02751931|181571827|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.48||||0.334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.09|7.13||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 4 - Adolescents||7.13|-20.09|0.334
90854138|NCT02751931|181571827|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-18.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.87|-11.35||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Children||-11.35|-24.87|<0.001
90854139|NCT02751931|181571827|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.19||||0.005||95.0|-22.02|-4.36||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Adolescents||-4.36|-22.02|0.005
90854140|NCT02751931|181571828|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||From a Wilcoxon signed-rank test, testing the null hypothesis that week 4 median is equal to baseline median.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Change From Baseline at Week 4 - Children||||<0.001
90854141|NCT02751931|181571828|OTHER|||||||0.148||||||From a Wilcoxon signed-rank test, testing the null hypothesis that week 4 median is equal to baseline median.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Change From Baseline at Week 4 - Adolescents||||0.148
90854142|NCT02751931|181571828|OTHER|||||||0.002||||||From a Wilcoxon signed-rank test, testing the null hypothesis that week 24 median is equal to baseline median.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Children||||0.002
90854143|NCT02751931|181571828|OTHER|||||||0.039||||||From a Wilcoxon signed-rank test, testing the null hypothesis that week 24 median is equal to baseline median.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Adolescents||||0.039
90854144|NCT02751931|181571829|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||From a Wilcoxon signed-rank test, testing the null hypothesis that week 4 median is equal to baseline median.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Change From Baseline at Week 4 - Children||||<0.001
90958287|NCT01016977|181796528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9291||95.0||||Week 4|ANCOVA|||||||0.9291
90958288|NCT01016977|181796528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5523||95.0||||Week 8|ANCOVA|||||||0.5523
90958289|NCT01016977|181796528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2556||95.0||||Week 12|ANCOVA|||||||0.2556
90958290|NCT01016977|181796529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4037||95.0||||Week 1|ANCOVA|||||||0.4037
91100101|NCT04053452|182086364|OTHER|Median at forearm, 6 months|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.1203751|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and GBS Disability score at 6 months after enrollment.||||
90854145|NCT02751931|181571829|OTHER|||||||0.007||||||From a Wilcoxon signed-rank test, testing the null hypothesis that week 4 median is equal to baseline median.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Change From Baseline at Week 4 - Adolescents||||0.007
90854146|NCT02751931|181571829|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||From a Wilcoxon signed-rank test, testing the null hypothesis that week 24 median is equal to baseline median.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Children||||< 0.001
90854147|NCT02751931|181571829|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||From a Wilcoxon signed-rank test, testing the null hypothesis that week 24 median is equal to baseline median.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Adolescents||||< 0.001
90854148|NCT02751931|181571830|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline was equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 4 - Children||||<0.001
90854149|NCT02751931|181571830|OTHER|||||||0.006||||||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline was equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 4 - Adolescents||||0.006
90854150|NCT02751931|181571830|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline was equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Children||||< 0.001
90854151|NCT02751931|181571830|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline was equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Adolescents||||0.001
90854152|NCT02751931|181571831|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|14.58||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|28.1||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 2 - Children||28.1|1.0|0.035
90854153|NCT02751931|181571831|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|35.99||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.1|58.9||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 2 - Adolescents||58.9|13.1|0.003
90958291|NCT01016977|181796529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8662||95.0||||Week 2|ANCOVA|||||||0.8662
90958292|NCT01016977|181796529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5951||95.0||||Week 4|ANCOVA|||||||0.5951
90854154|NCT02751931|181571831|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|30.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.7|45.5||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 4 - Children||45.5|14.7|<0.001
90854155|NCT02751931|181571831|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|51.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.6|79.3||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 4 - Adolescents||79.3|24.6|<0.001
90958293|NCT01016977|181796529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2349||95.0||||Week 8|ANCOVA|||||||0.2349
90854156|NCT02751931|181571831|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|36.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.7|51.1||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 8 - Children||51.1|22.7|<0.001
90854157|NCT02751931|181571831|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|45.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.3|68.9||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 8 - Adolescents||68.9|21.3|<0.001
90854158|NCT02751931|181571831|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|32.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.2|46.3||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 12 - Children||46.3|18.2|<0.001
90854159|NCT02751931|181571831|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|43.94||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.2|68.6||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 12 - Adolescents||68.6|19.2|0.001
90854160|NCT02751931|181571831|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|41.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.3|60.0||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Children||60.0|23.3|<0.001
90854161|NCT02751931|181571831|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|59.31||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.8|94.9||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Adolescents||94.9|23.8|0.002
90854162|NCT02751931|181571831|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|53.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.5|83.2||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 36 - Children||83.2|24.5|<0.001
90854163|NCT02751931|181571831|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|52.14||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.5|83.8||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 36 - Adolescents||83.8|20.5|0.002
90854164|NCT02751931|181571831|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|42.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.0|63.7||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 52 - Children||63.7|22.0|<0.001
90958294|NCT01016977|181796529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3461||95.0||||Week 12|ANCOVA|||||||0.3461
90958295|NCT01016977|181796530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.725||95.0||||Week 1|ANCOVA|||||||0.7250
90958296|NCT01016977|181796530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9743||95.0||||Week 2|ANCOVA|||||||0.9743
90958297|NCT01016977|181796530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9816||95.0||||Week 4|ANCOVA|||||||0.9816
90958298|NCT01016977|181796530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8809||95.0||||Week 8|ANCOVA|||||||0.8809
90958299|NCT01016977|181796530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1679||95.0||||Week 12|ANCOVA|||||||0.1679
91031157|NCT02937701|181946889|OTHER||Response Difference|1.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.81|10.29||||||The response difference (ABP 710/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) at week 50 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||10.29|-6.81|
90958300|NCT01981473|181796625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||As there was only one primary endpoint, no adjustment was made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|Logistic regression was to be used but the model was not fit as there were no antibodies in the etanercept group. Fisher's exact test was used.||This sample was to provide \>95% power to detect a difference of 12% in the proportion of participants positive for antidrug antibodies between the group of participants treated with a soluble receptor TNF inhibitor (etanercept) and the group of participants treated with mAB TNF inhibitors (adalimumab and infliximab) (5% vs 17%, respectively), using a Chi square test with continuity correction, an alpha of 0.05, and attrition rate of 15%.||||<0.0001
90958301|NCT03405792|181796666|OTHER|||||||||||||||||We will use one-sample log-rank test to compare PFS between the triple combination arm relative to the historical control arm.|We took a look at median survival time and CI of our population and we compared it to the median PFS and CI of the historical control descriptively. There is no yielded P value.|||
90958302|NCT03405792|181796667|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Every participant (26/26; 100%) experienced an adverse event.|||
91100102|NCT04053452|182086364|OTHER|Median at cubital fossa, 6 months|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.2526605|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1865|0.643||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and GBS Disability score at 6 months after enrollment.||0.6430|-0.1865|
90854165|NCT02751931|181571831|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|42.4||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.5|72.3||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 52 - Adolescents||72.3|12.5|0.008
90854166|NCT02751931|181571832|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|17.5||||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|40.1||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 2 - Children||40.1|-5.1|0.126
90854167|NCT02751931|181571832|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|42.38||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.3|75.4||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 2 - Adolescents||75.4|9.3|0.014
90854168|NCT02751931|181571832|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|46.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.7|71.7||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 4 - Children||71.7|21.7|<0.001
90854169|NCT02751931|181571832|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|73.25||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.3|117.2||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 4 - Adolescents||117.2|29.3|0.002
90854170|NCT02751931|181571832|OTHER|Pre-Specified|Mean Difference (Net)|45.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.1|68.4||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 8 - Children||68.4|22.1|<0.001
90854171|NCT02751931|181571832|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|42.86||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|78.3||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 8 - Adolescents||78.3|7.4|0.020
90854172|NCT02751931|181571832|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|33.23||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.2|54.3||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 12 - Children||54.3|12.2|0.003
90854173|NCT02751931|181571832|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|47.29||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.8|76.8||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 12 - Adolescents||76.8|17.8|0.003
90854174|NCT02751931|181571832|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|49.88||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.1|82.6||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Children||82.6|17.1|0.004
90854175|NCT02751931|181571832|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|84.39||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.6|137.1||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Adolescents||137.1|31.6|0.003
90854176|NCT02751931|181571832|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|60.09||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.2|99.0||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 36 - Children||99.0|21.2|0.003
90854177|NCT02751931|181571832|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|54.78||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.6|98.9||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 36 - Adolescents||98.9|10.6|0.017
90854178|NCT02751931|181571832|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|53.51||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.6|84.4||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 52 - Children||84.4|22.6|0.001
90854179|NCT02751931|181571832|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|54.3||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.0|99.6||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 52 - Adolescents||99.6|9.0|0.021
90854180|NCT02751931|181571833|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|18.13||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|40.7||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 2 - Children||40.7|-4.5|0.113
90854181|NCT02751931|181571833|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|35.58||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|72.2||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 2 - Adolescents||72.2|-1.1|0.056
90854182|NCT02751931|181571833|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|37.71||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.7|63.7|||t-test, 2 sided|From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.||Change From Baseline at Week 4 - Children||63.7|11.7|0.005
90854183|NCT02751931|181571833|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|70.35||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.2|118.5||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 4 - Adolescents||118.5|22.2|0.006
90854184|NCT02751931|181571833|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|43.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.0|66.8||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 8 - Children||66.8|21.0|<0.001
90854185|NCT02751931|181571833|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|38.11||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|78.4||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 8 - Adolescents||78.4|-2.2|0.063
90902141|NCT05027074|181671131|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.27||||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.0||From log-rank test stratified by region (US, Non-US), previous thrombosis of active AVG (yes, no) and regular aspirin use up to 150 mg daily at baseline (yes, no).|Log Rank||HR based on stratified Cox model with Efron's method of tie handling and with a single treatment covariate, controlling for stratification factors of region, previous thrombosis of active AVG and regular aspirin use up to 150 mg daily at baseline.|||2.00|0.800|0.311
90854186|NCT02751931|181571833|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|29.05||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.2|49.9||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 12 - Children||49.9|8.2|0.008
90854187|NCT02751931|181571833|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|43.04||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.9|74.2||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 12 - Adolescents||74.2|11.9|0.009
90854188|NCT02751931|181571833|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|44.2||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.2|75.2||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Children||75.2|13.2|0.006
90854189|NCT02751931|181571833|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|81.37||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.4|132.3||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Adolescents||132.3|30.4|0.003
90854190|NCT02751931|181571833|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|58.49||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.8|97.2||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 36 - Children||97.2|19.8|0.004
90854191|NCT02751931|181571833|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|50.9||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|99.1||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 36 - Adolescents||99.1|2.7|0.039
90854192|NCT02751931|181571833|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|53.76||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.7|85.8||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 52 - Children||85.8|21.7|0.002
90854193|NCT02751931|181571833|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|49.13||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|99.8||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 52 - Adolescents||99.8|-1.6|0.057
90902142|NCT02736968|181671174|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportions|0.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.12||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Fisher Exact||Adjusted Wald Intervals|The null hypothesis is that the probability of resolution of diarrhea by Day 5 for participants receiving auranofin is equal to that for those receiving placebo.||0.12|-0.12|>0.999
90902143|NCT02736968|181671175|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportions|0.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.34||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Fisher Exact||Adjusted Wald Intervals|The null hypothesis is that the probability of parasitological response by Day 5 for participants receiving auranofin is equal to that for those receiving placebo.||0.34|-0.34|>0.999
90958303|NCT03486457|181796696|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|32.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.45|42.25|||Normal approximation|||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between tofacitinib 5 mg BID and placebo and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||42.25|22.45|<0.0001
90958304|NCT03486457|181796697|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|15.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.79||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.05|24.83|||Normal approximation|||Week 2: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||24.83|6.05|0.0013
90854194|NCT02751931|181571834|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.98||||0.617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.0|40.0||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 2 - Children||40.0|-24.0|0.617
90854195|NCT02751931|181571834|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|39.52||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|76.0||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 2 - Adolescents||76.0|3.0|0.035
90854196|NCT02751931|181571834|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|19.81||||0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|48.3||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 4 - Children||48.3|-8.7|0.167
90854197|NCT02751931|181571834|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|75.25||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.8|124.7||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 4 - Adolescents||124.7|25.8|0.005
90854198|NCT02751931|181571834|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|34.01||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|62.3||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 8 - Children||62.3|5.7|0.020
90854199|NCT02751931|181571834|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|44.43||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|84.9||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 8 - Adolescents||84.9|3.9|0.033
90902144|NCT02736968|181671180|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.142||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in time to resolution of diarrhea between treatment arms, with a two-sided alternative.||||0.142
90902145|NCT01861457|181671201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
90902146|NCT01861457|181671202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
90902147|NCT01567865|181671218|EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots of new GMP facility LJEVac would be considered equivalent (i.e., the SP does not differ between lots by ≥10%) if all 3 null hypotheses are rejected, and the alternate hypotheses are accepted.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.97|9.66||||||"Null hypotheses: each new lot does not differ in seroprotection (SP) rates among each other by more than 10%.~Slower than anticipated enrollment resulted in a smaller number of subjects with antibody response data for analysis. Consequently, additional power estimates were made in anticipation of the occurrence of smaller sample sizes. With a total study population of only 772 subjects, the power of the study to test lot-to-lot consistency declined from 90% to 85%."||9.66|-5.97|
90854200|NCT02751931|181571834|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.68||||0.503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|34.7||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 12 - Children||34.7|-17.3|0.503
90854201|NCT02751931|181571834|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|38.23||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.8|68.6||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 12 - Adolescents||68.6|7.8|0.016
90854202|NCT02751931|181571834|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|40.76||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|80.2||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Children||80.2|1.4|0.043
90905111|NCT02886728|181677439|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.0|-3.0|<0.001
90958305|NCT03486457|181796697|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|30.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.41|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.53|40.76|||Normal approximation|||Month 1: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||40.76|19.53|<0.0001
91100103|NCT04053452|182086364|OTHER|Median at humerus, 6 months|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|-0.073601|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5806|0.4223||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and GBS Disability score at 6 months after enrollment.||0.4223|-0.5806|
91100104|NCT04053452|182086364|OTHER|Median at axilla, 6 months|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.01369735|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5619|0.5236||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and GBS Disability score at 6 months after enrollment.||0.5236|-0.5619|
91100105|NCT04053452|182086364|OTHER|Ulnar at wrist, 6 months|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.2685663|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2488|0.7683||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and GBS Disability score at 6 months after enrollment.||0.7683|-0.2488|
90854203|NCT02751931|181571834|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|86.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.5|131.8||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Adolescents||131.8|41.5|<0.001
90854204|NCT02751931|181571834|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|31.08||||0.203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|79.6||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 36 - Children||79.6|-17.5|0.203
90854205|NCT02751931|181571834|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|68.47||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.7|124.2||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 36 - Adolescents||124.2|12.7|0.019
90905112|NCT02886728|181677439|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.0|-1.0|<0.001
90905113|NCT02886728|181677439|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||0.0|-1.0|0.12
90905114|NCT02886728|181677439|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.0|-1.0|0.019
90905115|NCT02886728|181677439|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.0|-2.0|<0.001
90905116|NCT02886728|181677439|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.0|-1.0|0.032
91100106|NCT04053452|182086364|OTHER|Ulnar at forearm, 6 months|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.1802776|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2573|0.6027||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and GBS Disability score at 6 months after enrollment.||0.6027|-0.2573|
91100107|NCT04053452|182086364|OTHER|Ulnar at cubital fossa, 6 months|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.2571327|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2595|0.6227||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and GBS Disability score at 6 months after enrollment.||0.6227|-0.2595|
91100108|NCT04053452|182086364|OTHER|Ulnar at humerus, 6 months|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|-0.0684867|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5757|0.3944||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and GBS Disability score at 6 months after enrollment.||0.3944|-0.5757|
91100109|NCT04053452|182086364|OTHER|Ulnar at axilla, 6 months|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.1929429|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1828|0.555||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and GBS Disability score at 6 months after enrollment.||0.5550|-0.1828|
90854206|NCT02751931|181571834|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|31.83||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|62.4||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 52 - Children||62.4|1.3|0.042
90854207|NCT02751931|181571834|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|38.14||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|87.3||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 52 - Adolescents||87.3|-11.0|0.121
90854208|NCT02751931|181571835|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.35||||0.818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|3.4||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 2 - Children||3.4|-2.7|0.818
90854209|NCT02751931|181571835|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.53||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.1||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 2 - Adolescents||0.1|-1.2|0.114
90854210|NCT02751931|181571835|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.14||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.0||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 4 - Children||0.0|-2.3|0.052
90902148|NCT01567865|181671218|EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots of new GMP facility LJEVac would be considered equivalent (i.e., the SP does not differ between lots by ≥10%) if all 3 null hypotheses are rejected, and the alternate hypotheses are accepted.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.48|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.92|4.98|||t-test, 2 sided|The 95% CI for the difference in rates is calculated based on the Newcombe-Wilson method without continuity correction.||"Null hypotheses: each new lot does not differ in seroprotection (SP) rates among each other by more than 10%.~Slower than anticipated enrollment resulted in a smaller number of subjects with antibody response data for analysis. Consequently, additional power estimates were made in anticipation of the occurrence of smaller sample sizes. With a total study population of only 772 subjects, the power of the study to test lot-to-lot consistency declined from 90% to 85%."||4.98|-9.92|<0.05
90902149|NCT01567865|181671218|EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots of new GMP facility LJEVac would be considered equivalent (i.e., the SP does not differ between lots by ≥10%) if all 3 null hypotheses are rejected, and the alternate hypotheses are accepted.|Mean Difference (Net)|-4.33|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.94|3.31|||t-test, 2 sided|||"Null hypotheses: each new lot does not differ in seroprotection (SP) rates among each other by more than 10%.~Slower than anticipated enrollment resulted in a smaller number of subjects with antibody response data for analysis. Consequently, additional power estimates were made in anticipation of the occurrence of smaller sample sizes. With a total study population of only 772 subjects, the power of the study to test lot-to-lot consistency declined from 90% to 85%."||3.31|-11.94|<0.05
90958306|NCT03486457|181796697|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|51.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.56|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.57|62.37|||Normal approximation|||Month 2: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||62.37|40.57|<0.0001
91100110|NCT04053452|182086364|OTHER|C6, 6 months|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.1975146|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3557|0.7344||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and GBS Disability score at 6 months after enrollment.||0.7344|-0.3557|
90854211|NCT02751931|181571835|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.87||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.1||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 4 - Adolescents||0.1|-1.8|0.066
90854212|NCT02751931|181571835|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.16||||0.674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|6.7||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 8 - Children||6.7|-4.4|0.674
90854213|NCT02751931|181571835|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.65||||0.278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.6||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 8 - Adolescents||0.6|-1.9|0.278
90854214|NCT02751931|181571835|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.37||||0.871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|5.0||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 12 - Children||5.0|-4.2|0.871
90854215|NCT02751931|181571835|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.65||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.3||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 12 - Adolescents||0.3|-1.6|0.153
90854216|NCT02751931|181571835|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.18||||0.922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|3.9||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Children||3.9|-3.5|0.922
90854217|NCT02751931|181571835|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.75||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.0||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Adolescents||0.0|-1.5|0.047
90854218|NCT02751931|181571835|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.98||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|-0.4||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 36 - Children||-0.4|-3.6|0.018
91100111|NCT04053452|182086364|OTHER|C7, 6 months|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|-0.0754722|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.615|0.5083||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and GBS Disability score at 6 months after enrollment.||0.5083|-0.6150|
91031158|NCT02937701|181946889|OTHER||Response Difference|12.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.74|22.04||||||The response difference (Infliximab/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) at week 50 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||22.04|1.74|
91031159|NCT02937701|181946890|OTHER||Mean Difference|-0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|0.007||||||Week 2 difference between means (ABP 710 minus infliximab) and 90% CIs for difference between means were based on ANCOVA model with the DAS28-CRP change from baseline as the response and adjusted for the baseline DAS28-CRP measurement and the actual stratification factors: geographic region and prior biologic use for RA.||0.007|-0.20|
91031160|NCT02937701|181946890|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.17|0.16||||||Week 6 difference between means (ABP 710 minus infliximab) and 90% CIs for difference between means were based on ANCOVA model with the DAS28-CRP change from baseline as the response and adjusted for the baseline DAS28-CRP measurement and the actual stratification factors: geographic region and prior biologic use for RA.||0.16|-0.17|
91031161|NCT02937701|181946890|OTHER||Mean Difference|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.21|0.14||||||Week 14 difference between means (ABP 710 minus infliximab) and 90% CIs for difference between means were based on ANCOVA model with the DAS28-CRP change from baseline as the response and adjusted for the baseline DAS28-CRP measurement and the actual stratification factors: geographic region and prior biologic use for RA.||0.14|-0.21|
91031162|NCT02937701|181946890|OTHER||Mean Difference|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|0.17||||||Week 22 difference between means (ABP 710 minus infliximab) and 90% CIs for difference between means were based on ANCOVA model with the DAS28-CRP change from baseline as the response and adjusted for the baseline DAS28-CRP measurement and the actual stratification factors: geographic region and prior biologic use for RA.||0.17|-0.20|
91031163|NCT02937701|181946891|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.08|0.4||||||Week 30 difference between means (ABP 710/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) and 90% CIs for difference between means were based on ANCOVA model with the DAS28-CRP change from baseline as the response and adjusted for the baseline DAS28-CRP measurement and the actual stratification factors: geographic region and prior biologic use for RA.||0.40|-0.08|
91031164|NCT02937701|181946891|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.27|0.28||||||Week 30 difference between means (Infliximab/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) and 90% CIs for difference between means were based on ANCOVA model with the DAS28-CRP change from baseline as the response and adjusted for the baseline DAS28-CRP measurement and the actual stratification factors: geographic region and prior biologic use for RA.||0.28|-0.27|
91031165|NCT02937701|181946891|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.12|0.35||||||Week 34 difference between means (ABP 710/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) and 90% CIs for difference between means were based on ANCOVA model with the DAS28-CRP change from baseline as the response and adjusted for the baseline DAS28-CRP measurement and the actual stratification factors: geographic region and prior biologic use for RA.||0.35|-0.12|
91031166|NCT02937701|181946891|OTHER||Mean Difference|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|0.24||||||Week 34 difference between means (Infliximab/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) and 90% CIs for difference between means were based on ANCOVA model with the DAS28-CRP change from baseline as the response and adjusted for the baseline DAS28-CRP measurement and the actual stratification factors: geographic region and prior biologic use for RA.||0.24|-0.30|
91031167|NCT02937701|181946891|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.18|0.3||||||Week 38 difference between means (ABP 710/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) and 90% CIs for difference between means were based on ANCOVA model with the DAS28-CRP change from baseline as the response and adjusted for the baseline DAS28-CRP measurement and the actual stratification factors: geographic region and prior biologic use for RA.||0.30|-0.18|
91031168|NCT02937701|181946891|OTHER||Mean Difference|-0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.36|0.2||||||Week 38 difference between means (Infliximab/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) and 90% CIs for difference between means were based on ANCOVA model with the DAS28-CRP change from baseline as the response and adjusted for the baseline DAS28-CRP measurement and the actual stratification factors: geographic region and prior biologic use for RA.||0.20|-0.36|
91031169|NCT02937701|181946891|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.14|0.37||||||Week 46 difference between means (ABP 710/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) and 90% CIs for difference between means were based on ANCOVA model with the DAS28-CRP change from baseline as the response and adjusted for the baseline DAS28-CRP measurement and the actual stratification factors: geographic region and prior biologic use for RA.||0.37|-0.14|
91100112|NCT04053452|182086364|OTHER|Vagus, 6 months|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|-0.0706753|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5042|0.3963||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and GBS Disability score at 6 months after enrollment.||0.3963|-0.5042|
91100113|NCT01421134|182086365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-7.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.37|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|-4.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.8|-10.2|<0.0001
91031170|NCT02937701|181946891|OTHER||Mean Difference|-0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.34|0.25||||||Week 46 difference between means (Infliximab/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) and 90% CIs for difference between means were based on ANCOVA model with the DAS28-CRP change from baseline as the response and adjusted for the baseline DAS28-CRP measurement and the actual stratification factors: geographic region and prior biologic use for RA.||0.25|-0.34|
91031171|NCT02937701|181946891|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.24|0.24||||||Week 50 difference between means (ABP 710/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) and 90% CIs for difference between means were based on ANCOVA model with the DAS28-CRP change from baseline as the response and adjusted for the baseline DAS28-CRP measurement and the actual stratification factors: geographic region and prior biologic use for RA.||0.24|-0.24|
91031172|NCT02937701|181946891|OTHER||Mean Difference|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.47|0.08||||||Week 50 difference between means (Infliximab/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) and 90% CIs for difference between means were based on ANCOVA model with the DAS28-CRP change from baseline as the response and adjusted for the baseline DAS28-CRP measurement and the actual stratification factors: geographic region and prior biologic use for RA.||0.08|-0.47|
91100114|NCT01421134|182086366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.157|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.34|-0.96|<0.0001
91100115|NCT01421134|182086367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.1|-3.1|<0.0001
91100116|NCT01421134|182086368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|-2.4|||ANCOVA|||||-2.4|-7.2|0.0001
90958307|NCT03486457|181796697|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|36.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.81|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.41|50.12|||Normal approximation|||Month 3: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||50.12|23.41|<0.0001
90958308|NCT03486457|181796697|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|24.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.21||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.14|38.39|||Normal approximation|||Month 4: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||38.39|10.14|0.0008
91100117|NCT01421134|182086369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|-2.9|||ANCOVA|||||-2.9|-6.1|<0.0001
90854219|NCT02751931|181571835|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.81||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.1||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 36 - Adolescents||0.1|-1.7|0.070
90854220|NCT02751931|181571835|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.94||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.1||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 52 - Children||0.1|-2.0|0.083
90854221|NCT02751931|181571835|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.12||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.1||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 52 - Adolescents||0.1|-2.3|0.064
90854222|NCT02751931|181571836|OTHER|||||||0.692||||||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 2 - Children||||0.692
90854223|NCT02751931|181571836|OTHER|||||||0.018||||||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 2 - Adolescents||||0.018
90854224|NCT02751931|181571836|OTHER|||||||0.061||||||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 4 - Children||||0.061
90854225|NCT02751931|181571836|OTHER|||||||0.008||||||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 4 - Adolescents||||0.008
90854226|NCT02751931|181571836|OTHER|||||||0.612||||||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 8 - Children||||0.612
90854227|NCT02751931|181571836|OTHER|||||||0.018||||||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 8 - Adolescents||||0.018
90958309|NCT03486457|181796697|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|13.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.08||0.0486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|27.85|||Normal approximation|||Month 6: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||27.85|0.09|0.0486
90958310|NCT03486457|181796698|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.53||0.473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|4.1|||Normal approximation|||Week 2: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||4.10|-1.90|0.4730
91100118|NCT01421134|182086370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.615|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.251|13.459|||Regression, Logistic||Odds Ratio was based on a logistic regression of response, with treatment group, baseline MADRS total score, and pooled center as fixed effects.|||13.459|3.251|<0.0001
90854228|NCT02751931|181571836|OTHER|||||||0.858||||||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 12 - Children||||0.858
90854229|NCT02751931|181571836|OTHER|||||||0.004||||||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 12 - Adolescents||||0.004
90854230|NCT02751931|181571836|OTHER|||||||0.003||||||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Children||||0.003
90854231|NCT02751931|181571836|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Adolescents||||< 0.001
90854232|NCT02751931|181571836|OTHER|||||||0.045||||||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 36 - Children||||0.045
90854233|NCT02751931|181571836|OTHER|||||||0.002||||||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 36 - Adolescents||||0.002
90854234|NCT02751931|181571836|OTHER|||||||0.006||||||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 52 - Children||||0.006
90854235|NCT02751931|181571836|OTHER|||||||0.007||||||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 52 - Adolescents||||0.007
90854236|NCT02751931|181571837|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.34||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.6||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 2 - Children||0.6|0.1|0.018
90854237|NCT02751931|181571837|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.82||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.6||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 2 - Adolescents||1.6|0.0|0.045
90854238|NCT02751931|181571837|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.68||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.2||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 4 - Children||1.2|0.1|0.013
90854239|NCT02751931|181571837|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.36||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.2||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 4 - Adolescents||2.2|0.6|0.002
91100119|NCT01421134|182086371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.105|8.663|||Regression, Logistic|||||8.663|2.105|<0.0001
90958311|NCT03486457|181796698|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|1.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.69||0.2792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|5.14|||Normal approximation|||Month 1: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||5.14|-1.48|0.2792
90958312|NCT03486457|181796698|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|7.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.84||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.79|12.91|||Normal approximation|||Month 2: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||12.91|1.79|0.0095
91031173|NCT02289963|181946892|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-63.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.6|-55.2||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 75 mg Q2W/ Up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo Q2W|Alirocumab group was compared to placebo group using an appropriate contrast statement.||-55.2|-71.6|<0.0001
90854240|NCT02751931|181571837|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.14||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.8||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 8 - Children||1.8|0.5|0.001
90854241|NCT02751931|181571837|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|3.3||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 8 - Adolescents||3.3|1.2|<0.001
90854242|NCT02751931|181571837|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.31||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.1||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 12 - Children||2.1|0.5|0.001
90854243|NCT02751931|181571837|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|3.0||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 12 - Adolescents||3.0|0.9|<0.001
90854244|NCT02751931|181571837|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.0||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Children||2.0|0.7|<0.001
90854245|NCT02751931|181571837|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|3.2||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Adolescents||3.2|1.2|<0.001
90854246|NCT02751931|181571837|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.33||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.1||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 36 - Children||2.1|0.5|0.002
90854247|NCT02751931|181571837|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.8||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 36 - Adolescents||2.8|1.0|<0.001
90854248|NCT02751931|181571837|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.38||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.2||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 52 - Children||2.2|0.5|0.002
90854249|NCT02751931|181571837|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|3.2||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 52 - Adolescents||3.2|1.1|<0.001
90854250|NCT02751931|181571838|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.04||||0.352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|6.49||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Children||6.49|-2.40|0.352
90854251|NCT02751931|181571838|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.9||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.34|1.53||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Adolescents||1.53|-11.34|0.127
90854252|NCT02751931|181571838|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.3||||0.613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.96|6.57||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 52 - Children||6.57|-3.96|0.613
90854253|NCT02751931|181571838|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.79||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.78|0.2||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 52 - Adolescents||0.20|-13.78|0.056
90854254|NCT02751931|181571839|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.36||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.86||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Children||0.86|-0.14|0.153
90854255|NCT02751931|181571839|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.64||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.08||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Adolescents||1.08|0.19|0.007
90854256|NCT02751931|181571839|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.42||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.93||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 52 - Children||0.93|-0.10|0.106
90854257|NCT02751931|181571839|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.95||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.51||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 52 - Adolescents||1.51|0.38|0.003
90854258|NCT03326206|181571866|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance \< 0.05|Regression, Linear|Mixed linear regression||Mixed linear regression models were performed to assess differences over time for continuous variables, comparing COPE versus control groups. The models included a random effect for patients to account for within-patient correlation over time in the outcome measures and a random effect for the primary health facility, to account for within-site correlation. In the sensitivity analyses we also adjusted the models for the random effect of matching groups.||||<0.0001
90854259|NCT03326206|181571867|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||a priori threshold for significance p\<0.05|Regression, Linear|Mixed linear regression as described in primary endpoint||||||0.004
90854260|NCT03326206|181571868|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||a priori threshold for significant p\<0.05|Regression, Linear|Mixed linear regression as described in primary endpoint||||||0.02
90854261|NCT03326206|181571869|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93||||||a priori threshold for significance p\<0.05|Regression, Linear|Mixed linear regression model as described for primary endpoint||||||0.93
90854262|NCT03326206|181571870|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0091||||||Primary result is coefficient on post intervention change in visits by COPE pts relative to controls: if significant and \>0, COPE visits have increased relative to controls; if significant and \<0, COPE visits have decreased relative to controls.|Regression, Linear|||Generalized linear mixed regression models were used for count outcomes (SAS 9.3: PROC GLIMMIX) to estimate change in health care visits by COPE pts relative to non-COPE pts. Random effects accounted for within-site correlation at service units. Adjusted for covariates: age, gender, language, primary care physician, and diagnoses: essential hypertension, major depression disorder, alcohol abuse, major cardiovascular disease, and dyslipidemia.||||0.0091
90854263|NCT03326206|181571871|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||Regression, Linear|||As described for primary outpatient services||||0.0003
90854264|NCT03326206|181571872|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4296|||||||Regression, Linear|||as described for primary outpatient services||||0.4296
90854265|NCT03326206|181571873|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Linear|||As described for primary outpatient services||||<0.0001
90854266|NCT03326206|181571874|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0431|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.0431
90854267|NCT03326206|181571875|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0516|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.0516
90854268|NCT03326206|181571876|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3582|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.3582
90854269|NCT03326206|181571877|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2461|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.2461
90854270|NCT03326206|181571878|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0613|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.0613
90854271|NCT03326206|181571879|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.0001
90854272|NCT03326206|181571880|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.54
90854273|NCT03326206|181571881|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19||||||P-value corresponds to patient-reported health compared to a year ago and compared to others their age|Chi-squared|||||||0.19
90854274|NCT03326206|181571882|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0028||||||P value corresponds with Ability to cope with negative life events|Fisher Exact|||||||0.0028
90854275|NCT02233478|181571884|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.001||||0.82|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Comparison of ellagic acid concentration 0 to 24 hours post-dose area under the curve was made to PJ alone vs. PJ with soy protein after intervention.~Due to the quality issue of soybean flour, data from this intervention group was not analyzed."||||0.82
90902150|NCT01567865|181671218|NON_INFERIORITY|The new GMP facility lots will be considered non-inferior (i.e., equivalent) to the existing facility lot if the null hypothesis is rejected and the alternate hypothesis is accepted.|Mean Difference (Net)|-4.03|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.74|3.1|||t-test, 2 sided|The 95% CI for the difference in rates is calculated based on the Newcombe-Wilson method without continuity correction.||"Null hypothesis: reference lot vs. Lot 1, 2, and 3 combined do differ in seroprotection (SP) rates among each other by more than 10%.~Slower than anticipated enrollment resulted in a smaller number of subjects with antibody response data for analysis. Consequently, additional power estimates were made in anticipation of the occurrence of smaller sample sizes. The power of the study to test non-inferiority of the combined new lots compared to the reference lot dropped from 99% to 87%."||3.1|-9.74|<0.05
90902151|NCT05569954|181671260|OTHER|Estimated difference in percent and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in Percent|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|0.7|||||V116 minus PPSV23|Injection site erythema: estimated difference in percent||0.7|-4.0|
91032828|NCT04638153|181951001|OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2|||||Month 9|Results based on MMRM analysis with gender as a covariate, participant (and/or time) as a random effect; treatment, visit, age and gender as fixed effects using an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.2|-0.2|
90854276|NCT04594369|181571904|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.789|||=|0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.916||Adjusted p-value = 0.0038. The enhanced mixture-based gatekeeping procedure was used to control the overall type I error rate. Multiplicity adjusted p-value for the primary endpoint was tested at two-sided alpha = 0.01.|Negative binomial regression|||Model treatment \& randomization stratification factor=geographic region, sputum sample (Pseudomonas aeruginosa) at start \& PE last 12 months, age group (fixed effects) \& time at risk (log scale) as offset variable. Robust sandwich covariance estimator used.||0.916|0.680|=0.0019
90854277|NCT04594369|181571904|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.806|||=|0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.694|0.936||Adjusted p-value = 0.0048. The enhanced mixture-based gatekeeping procedure was used to control the overall type I error rate. Multiplicity adjusted p-value for the primary endpoint was tested at two-sided alpha = 0.01.|Negative binomial regression|||Model treatment \& randomization stratification factor=geographic region, sputum sample (Pseudomonas aeruginosa) at start \& PE last 12 months, age group (fixed effects) \& time at risk (log scale) as offset variable. Robust sandwich covariance estimator used.||0.936|0.694|=0.0046
90854278|NCT04594369|181571905|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.813|||=|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.695|0.952||Adjusted p-value = 0.0200. The enhanced mixture-based gatekeeping procedure was used to control the overall type I error rate. Multiplicity adjusted p-value for the secondary endpoints were tested at two-sided alpha = 0.05.|Cox proportional hazard|||Estimate of Cox proportional hazard model=effect for treatment, sputum sample for Pseudomonas aeruginosa at screening and PE \[\<3 or ≥3\] in last 12 months, stratification region and age group. Robust sandwich covariance estimator used.||0.952|0.695|=0.01
90854279|NCT04594369|181571905|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.825|||=|0.0182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.703|0.968||Adjusted p-value = 0.0364. The enhanced mixture-based gatekeeping procedure was used to control the overall type I error rate. Multiplicity adjusted p-value for the secondary endpoints were tested at two-sided alpha = 0.05.|Cox proportional hazard|||Estimate of Cox proportional hazard model=effect for treatment, sputum sample for Pseudomonas aeruginosa at screening and PE \[\<3 or ≥3\] in last 12 months, stratification region and age group. Robust sandwich covariance estimator used.||0.968|0.703|=0.0182
90854280|NCT04594369|181571906|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.412|||=|0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.105|1.806||Adjusted p-value = 0.0200. The enhanced mixture-based gatekeeping procedure was used to control the overall type I error rate. Multiplicity adjusted p-value for the secondary endpoints were tested at two-sided alpha = 0.05.|Logistic Regression|||Missing responder status was imputed 100 times. Dataset was analyzed via logistic regression with treatment group, sputum P. aeruginosa status, prior PEs (\<3/≥3), region, and age group as fixed effects. Results were then combined using Rubin's rules.||1.806|1.105|=0.0059
90902152|NCT05569954|181671260|OTHER|Estimated difference in percent and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in Percent|3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|8.7|||||V116 minus PPSV23|Injection site pain: estimated difference in percent||8.7|-1.2|
91031174|NCT02289963|181946893|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-66.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.9|-58.4||Threshold for significance was at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 75 mg Q2W/Up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo Q2W|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||-58.4|-73.9|<0.0001
91031175|NCT02289963|181946894|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-62.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.8|-56.3||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 75 mg Q2W/Up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo Q2W|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-56.3|-68.8|<0.0001
91100120|NCT01835756|182086504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00001
91100121|NCT01835756|182086505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91100122|NCT00888849|182086551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.69||0.7774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|10.9||Adjusted for multiplicity via the Bonferroni-Holm method|ANOVA|||||10.9|-19.4|0.7774
91100123|NCT00888849|182086552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|4.5||Adjusted for multiplicity via Bonferroni-Holm procedure|ANOVA|||||4.5|1.4|0.0008
90854281|NCT04594369|181571906|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4|||=|0.0074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.095|1.792||Adjusted p-value = 0.0364. The enhanced mixture-based gatekeeping procedure was used to control the overall type I error rate. Multiplicity adjusted p-value for the secondary endpoints were tested at two-sided alpha = 0.05.|Logistic Regression|||Missing responder status was imputed 100 times. Dataset was analyzed via logistic regression with treatment group, sputum P. aeruginosa status, prior PEs (\<3/≥3), region, and age group as fixed effects. Results were then combined using Rubin's rules.||1.792|1.095|=0.0074
90854282|NCT04594369|181571907|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least square (LS) Mean|0.011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0132|=|0.3841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.014|0.037||Adjusted p-value = 0.3841. The enhanced mixture-based gatekeeping procedure was used to control the overall type I error rate. Multiplicity adjusted p-value was tested at two-sided alpha = 0.05.|Linear repeated measures model|||Analysis on linear repeated measure model=treatment visit, sputum sample for Pseudomonas aeruginosa at start, PE \[\<3 or ≥3\] last 12 months, stratification region, age group (fixed effect) \& baseline (covariate). Robust sandwich covariance estimator used.||0.037|-0.014|=0.3841
90854283|NCT04594369|181571907|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.038|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0136|=|0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.011|0.065||Adjusted p-value = 0.0364. The enhanced mixture-based gatekeeping procedure was used to control the overall type I error rate. Multiplicity adjusted p-value was tested at two-sided alpha = 0.05.|Linear repeated measures model|||Analysis on linear repeated measure model=treatment visit, sputum sample for Pseudomonas aeruginosa at start, PE \[\<3 or ≥3\] last 12 months, stratification region, age group (fixed effect) \& baseline (covariate). Robust sandwich covariance estimator used.||0.065|0.011|=0.0054
90854284|NCT04594369|181571908|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.742|||=|0.1277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.505|1.089||Adjusted p-value = 0.3841. The enhanced mixture-based gatekeeping procedure was used to control the overall type I error rate. Multiplicity adjusted p-value was tested at two-sided alpha = 0.05.|Negative binomial regression|||Analysis based on a negative binomial model including treatment, sputum sample for Pseudomonas aeruginosa at screening, PE \[\<3 or ≥3\] in previous 12 months, stratification region and age group. Robust sandwich covariance estimator used.||1.089|0.505|=0.1277
90854285|NCT04594369|181571908|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.74|||=|0.1025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.515|1.062||Adjusted p-value = 0.2050. The enhanced mixture-based gatekeeping procedure was used to control the overall type I error rate. Multiplicity adjusted p-value was tested at two-sided alpha = 0.05.|Negative binomial regression|||Analysis based on a negative binomial model including treatment, sputum sample for Pseudomonas aeruginosa at screening, PE \[\<3 or ≥3\] in previous 12 months, stratification region and age group. Robust sandwich covariance estimator used.||1.062|0.515|=0.1025
90902153|NCT05569954|181671260|OTHER|Estimated difference in percent and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in Percent|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.7|||||V116 minus PPSV23|Injection site swelling: estimated difference in percent||2.7|-1.6|
90902154|NCT05569954|181671261|OTHER|Estimated difference in percent and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in Percent|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|4.6|||||V116 minus PPSV23|Fatigue: estimated difference in percent||4.6|-2.9|
90902155|NCT05569954|181671261|OTHER|Estimated difference in percent and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in Percent|1.7||||||95.0|-1.8|5.1|||||V116 minus PPSV23|Headache: estimated difference in percent||5.1|-1.8|
90902156|NCT05569954|181671261|OTHER|Estimated difference in percent and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in Percent|-0.7||||||95.0|-3.1|1.7|||||V116 minus PPSV23|Myalgia: estimated difference in percent||1.7|-3.1|
90902157|NCT05569954|181671261|OTHER|Estimated difference in percent and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in Percent|-0.3||||||95.0|-1.5|0.9|||||V116 minus PPSV23|Pyrexia: estimated difference in percent||0.9|-1.5|
90902158|NCT05569954|181671262|OTHER|Estimated difference in percent and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in Percent|0.0||||||95.0|-0.5|0.5|||||V116 minus PPSV23|Vaccine-Related Serious Adverse Events||0.5|-0.5|
90902159|NCT05569954|181671263|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) being \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.23||1-sided|cLDA model||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 3: V116/PPSV23 GMT Ratio||1.23|0.96|<0.001
90902160|NCT05569954|181671263|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) being \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|1.68||1-sided|cLDA model||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 7F: V116/PPSV23 GMT Ratio||1.68|1.29|<0.001
90902161|NCT05569954|181671263|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) being \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.32||1-sided|cLDA model||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 8: V116/PPSV23 GMT Ratio||1.32|1.04|<0.001
90958313|NCT03486457|181796698|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|13.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.37|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.63|19.84|||Normal approximation|||Month 3: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||19.84|6.63|<0.0001
91100124|NCT00888849|182086553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.7774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.6||Adjusted for multiplicity via Bonferroni-Holm procedure|ANOVA|||||0.6|-0.2|0.7774
91100125|NCT05064800|182086554|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|233.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|172.14|315.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment 1 was Reference and Treatment 2 was Test. Natural log-transformed Cmax of dabigatran was analyzed using mixed effect model with treatment, period, sequence as fixed effects; participant within sequence as a random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences(AMD) (Test-Reference) and 90%CIs were obtained from the model. The AMD and 90%CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90%CI for the ratios.||315.54|172.14|
90854286|NCT04594369|181571909|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.031|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0775|=|0.0594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.081|4.143||Adjusted p-value = 0.3841. The enhanced mixture-based gatekeeping procedure was used to control the overall type I error rate. Multiplicity adjusted p-value was tested at two-sided alpha = 0.05.|linear repeated measures model|||Analysis based on a linear repeated measures model with treatment group, visit, sputum sample for Pseudomonas aeruginosa at screening, pulmonary exacerbations \[\<3 or ≥3\] in previous 12 months, stratification region fixed effect, baseline as covariate.||4.143|-0.081|=0.0594
90854287|NCT04594369|181571909|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.766|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0642|=|0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.68|5.852||Adjusted p-value = 0.2050. The enhanced mixture-based gatekeeping procedure was used to control the overall type I error rate. Multiplicity adjusted p-value was tested at two-sided alpha = 0.05.|linear repeated measures model|||Analysis based on a linear repeated measures model with treatment group, visit, sputum sample for Pseudomonas aeruginosa at screening, pulmonary exacerbations \[\<3 or ≥3\] in previous 12 months, stratification region fixed effect, baseline as covariate.||5.852|1.680|=0.0004
90854288|NCT03070444|181571939|OTHER|GEE analysis|GEE analysis|0.99||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.51|||GEE analysis|||||1.51|0.48|0.0002
90854289|NCT03070444|181571940|OTHER|Mann-Whitney U test||||||0.55|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.55
90854290|NCT01373489|181571941|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
90854291|NCT02582255|181571942|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Clopper-Pearson|||||||0.05
90854292|NCT02582255|181571943|OTHER|||||||0.025|||||||Clopper-Pearson|||||||0.025
90854293|NCT02582255|181571944|OTHER|||||||0.025|||||||Clopper-Pearson|||||||0.025
90854294|NCT02582255|181571945|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Clopper-Pearson|||||||0.05
90854295|NCT01709578|181571946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.711|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.73|4.247||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level|Mantel Haenszel||Sarilumab 150 mg q2w vs Placebo q2w|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error rate at 0.05 and handle multiple endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.025 level.||4.247|1.730|<0.0001
90854296|NCT01709578|181571946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.284|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.108|5.115||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level|Mantel Haenszel||Sarilumab 200 mg q2w vs Placebo q2w|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||5.115|2.108|<0.0001
90854297|NCT01709578|181571947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.202||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.318|-0.086||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level|Mixed Models Analysis||Sarilumab 150 mg q2w vs Placebo q2w|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-0.086|-0.318|0.0007
90854298|NCT01709578|181571947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.21||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.325|-0.095||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level|Mixed Models Analysis||Sarilumab 200 mg q2w vs Placebo q2w|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-0.095|-0.325|0.0004
90854299|NCT01709578|181571948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.971|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.283|-0.658||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level|Mixed Models Analysis||Sarilumab 150 mg q2w vs Placebo q2w|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-0.658|-1.283|<0.0001
90854300|NCT01709578|181571948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.444|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.752|-1.135||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level|Mixed Models Analysis||Sarilumab 200 mg q2w vs Placebo q2w|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-1.135|-1.752|<0.0001
90854301|NCT01709578|181571949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.958|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.764|4.959||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level|Mantel Haenszel||Sarilumab 150 mg q2w vs Placebo q2w|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||4.959|1.764|<0.0001
90854302|NCT01709578|181571949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.374|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.045|5.566||Threshold for significance was 0.025 level|Mantel Haenszel||Sarilumab 200 mg q2w vs Placebo q2w|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||5.566|2.045|<0.0001
90854303|NCT01709578|181571950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.607||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.774|7.332||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level|Mantel Haenszel||Sarilumab 150 mg q2w vs Placebo q2w|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||7.332|1.774|0.0002
90854304|NCT01709578|181571950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.653||||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.308|5.383||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level|Mantel Haenszel||Sarilumab 200 mg q2w vs Placebo q2w|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||5.383|1.308|0.0056
90854305|NCT01709578|181571951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.622|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.339|9.132||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level|Mantel Haenszel||Sarilumab 150 mg q2w vs Placebo q2w|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||9.132|2.339|<0.0001
90902162|NCT05569954|181671263|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) being \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.12|||<|0.001||95.0|1.0|1.26||1-sided|cLDA model||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 9N: V116/PPSV23 GMT Ratio||1.26|1.00|<0.001
90902163|NCT05569954|181671263|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) being \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|1.77|||cLDA model||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 10A: V116/PPSV23 GMT Ratio||1.77|1.37|<0.001
90902164|NCT05569954|181671263|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) being \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|2.05|||<|0.001||95.0|1.82|2.31|||cLDA model||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 11A: V116/PPSV23 GMT Ratio||2.31|1.82|<0.001
90902165|NCT05569954|181671263|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) being \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|1.9|||cLDA model||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 12F: V116/PPSV23 GMT Ratio||1.90|1.40|<0.001
90902166|NCT05569954|181671263|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) being \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|2.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|2.31|||cLDA model||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 17F: V116/PPSV23GMT Ratio||2.31|1.77|<0.001
90902167|NCT05569954|181671263|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) being \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|1.6|||cLDA model||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 19A: V116/PPSV23 GMT Ratio||1.60|1.26|<0.001
90902168|NCT05569954|181671263|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) being \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|1.88|||cLDA model||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 20A: V116/PPSV23 GMT Ratio||1.88|1.46|<0.001
90902169|NCT05569954|181671263|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) being \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|1.75|||cLDA model||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 22F: V116/PPSV23 GMT Ratio||1.75|1.34|<0.001
90958314|NCT03486457|181796698|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|13.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.69||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.03|22.44|||Normal approximation|||Month 4: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||22.44|4.03|0.0048
91031176|NCT02289963|181946895|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-63.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.2|-57.0||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 75 mg Q2W/Up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo Q2W|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-57.0|-69.2|<0.0001
90902170|NCT05569954|181671263|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) being \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|0.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.04|||cLDA model||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 33F: V116/PPSV23 GMT Ratio||1.04|0.76|<0.001
91031177|NCT02289963|181946896|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-46.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.0|-39.7||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 75 mg Q2W/Up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo Q2W|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-39.7|-53.0|<0.0001
90902171|NCT05569954|181671263|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) being \>2.0 (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|3.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.84|3.87||1-sided|cLDA model||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 6A: V116/PPSV23 GMT Ratio||3.87|2.84|<0.001
90902172|NCT05569954|181671263|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) being \>2.0 (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|4.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.99|5.33||1-sided|cLDA model||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 15A: V116/PPSV23 GMT Ratio||5.33|3.99|<0.001
90902173|NCT05569954|181671263|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) being \>2.0 (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|2.92|||<|0.001||95.0|2.5|3.42||1-sided|cLDA model||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 15C: V116/PPSV23 GMT Ratio||3.42|2.50|<0.001
90902174|NCT05569954|181671263|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) being \>2.0 (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|4.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.99|5.09||1-sided|cLDA model||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 16F: V116/PPSV23 GMT Ratio||5.09|3.99|<0.001
90902175|NCT05569954|181671263|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) being \>2.0 (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|5.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.81|6.85||1-sided|cLDA model||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 23A: V116/PPSV23 GMT Ratio||6.85|4.81|<0.001
90902176|NCT05569954|181671263|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) being \>2.0 (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|16.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.46|20.03||1-sided|cLDA model||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 23B: V116/PPSV23 GMT Ratio||20.03|13.46|<0.001
90902177|NCT05569954|181671263|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) being \>2.0 (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|3.39|||<|0.001||95.0|2.97|3.87||1-sided|cLDA model||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 24F: V116/PPSV23 GMT Ratio||3.87|2.97|<0.001
90902178|NCT05569954|181671263|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) being \>2.0 (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|11.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.16|13.91||1-sided|cLDA model||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 31: V116/PPSV23 GMT Ratio||13.91|10.16|<0.001
90902179|NCT05569954|181671263|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) being \>2.0 (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|6.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.54|6.87||1-sided|cLDA model||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 35B: V116/PPSV23 GMT Ratio||6.87|5.54|<0.001
90902180|NCT05569954|181671264|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference \[V116 - PPSV23\] between the percentages of participants with a ≥4-fold rise from baseline to 30 days postvaccination being \>10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percent Difference|26.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.9|31.0||1-sided|Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen method||V116 minus PPSV23|Serotype 6A: V116-PPSV23 Percentage Difference||31.0|20.9|<0.001
90958315|NCT03486457|181796698|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|13.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.6||0.0449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|26.17|||Normal approximation|||Month 6: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||26.17|0.30|0.0449
90902181|NCT05569954|181671264|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference \[V116 - PPSV23\] between the percentages of participants with a ≥4-fold rise from baseline to 30 days postvaccination being \>10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percent Difference|39.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.6|44.8||1-sided|Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen method||V116 minus PPSV23|Serotype 15A: V116-PPSV23 Percentage Difference||44.8|33.6|<0.001
90902182|NCT05569954|181671264|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference \[V116 - PPSV23\] between the percentages of participants with a ≥4-fold rise from baseline to 30 days postvaccination being \>10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percent Difference|11.7||||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.5|15.9||1-sided|Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen method||V116 minus PPSV23|Serotype 15C: V116-PPSV23 Percentage Difference||15.9|7.5|0.214
90902183|NCT05569954|181671264|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference \[V116 - PPSV23\] between the percentages of participants with a ≥4-fold rise from baseline to 30 days postvaccination being \>10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percent Difference|42.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.8|47.8||1-sided|Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen method||V116 minus PPSV23|Serotype 16F: V116-PPSV23 Percentage Difference||47.8|37.8|<0.001
90902184|NCT05569954|181671264|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference \[V116 - PPSV23\] between the percentages of participants with a ≥4-fold rise from baseline to 30 days postvaccination being \>10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percent Difference|35.9|||<|0.001||95.0|29.6|41.8||1-sided|Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen method||V16 minus PPSV23|Serotype 23A: V116-PPSV23 Percentage Difference||41.8|29.6|<0.001
90902185|NCT05569954|181671264|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference \[V116 - PPSV23\] between the percentages of participants with a ≥4-fold rise from baseline to 30 days postvaccination being \>10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percent Difference|42.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.6|47.0||1-sided|Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen method||V116 minus PPSV23|Serotype 23B: V116-PPSV23 Percentage Difference||47.0|37.6|<0.001
90902186|NCT05569954|181671264|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference \[V116 - PPSV23\] between the percentages of participants with a ≥4-fold rise from baseline to 30 days postvaccination being \>10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percent Difference|35.9|||<|0.001||95.0|30.6|41.0||1-sided|Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen method||V116 minus PPSV23|Serotype 24F: V116-PPSV23 Percentage Difference||41.0|30.6|<0.001
90902187|NCT05569954|181671264|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference \[V116 - PPSV23\] between the percentages of participants with a ≥4-fold rise from baseline to 30 days postvaccination being \>10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percent Difference|56.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.5|60.5||1-sided|Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen method||V116 minus PPSV23|Serotype 31: V116-PPSV23 Percentage Difference||60.5|51.5|<0.001
90958316|NCT03486457|181796699|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|2.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.29||0.1985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|7.42|||Normal approximation|||Week 2: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||7.42|-1.54|0.1985
90958317|NCT03486457|181796699|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|8.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.91||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.38|13.8|||Normal approximation|||Month 1: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||13.80|2.38|0.0055
90958318|NCT03486457|181796699|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|27.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.44|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.51|35.9|||Normal approximation|||Month 2: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||35.90|18.51|<0.0001
91032829|NCT04638153|181951001|OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2|||||Month 12|Results based on MMRM analysis with gender as a covariate, participant (and/or time) as a random effect; treatment, visit, age and gender as fixed effects using an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.2|-0.2|
90902188|NCT05569954|181671264|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference \[V116 - PPSV23\] between the percentages of participants with a ≥4-fold rise from baseline to 30 days postvaccination being \>10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percent Difference|58.7|||<|0.001||95.0|54.6|62.7||1-sided|Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen method||V116 minus PPSV23|Serotype 35B: V116-PPSV23 Percentage Difference||62.7|54.6|<0.001
90902189|NCT05569954|181671265|OTHER|"A conclusion of acceptability is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI of the percentages of participants with a~≥4 fold rise from baseline to 30 days postvaccination being \>50 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025)."||||||0.093||||||1-sided|Clopper-Pearson method|||Serotype 6C||||0.093
90902190|NCT05569954|181671265|OTHER|"A conclusion of acceptability is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI of the percentages of participants with a~≥4 fold rise from baseline to 30 days postvaccination being \>50 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025)."|||||<|0.001||||||1-sided|Clopper-Pearson method|||Serotype 15B||||<0.001
90902191|NCT05569954|181671267|OTHER|GMCs, GMC ratio, and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.25|||||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 3: V116/PPSV23 GMC Ratio||1.25|1.04|
90902192|NCT05569954|181671267|OTHER|GMCs, GMC ratio, and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|2.1|||||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 7F: V116/PPSV23 GMC Ratio||2.10|1.65|
90854306|NCT01709578|181571951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.801|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.948|11.413||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level|Mantel Haenszel||Sarilumab 200 mg q2w vs Placebo q2w|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||11.413|2.948|<0.0001
90958319|NCT03486457|181796699|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|22.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.37||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.58|34.54|||Normal approximation|||Month 4: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||34.54|9.58|0.0005
91100126|NCT05064800|182086555|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|169.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|135.25|211.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment 1 was Reference and Treatment 2 was Test. Natural log-transformed AUCinf of dabigatran was analyzed using mixed effect model with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects and participant in sequence as random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences(AMD)(Test-Reference) and 90%CIs were obtained from the model. The AMD and 90%CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means(Test/Reference) and 90%CI for the ratios.||211.35|135.25|
90854307|NCT01709578|181571952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.306|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.444|-4.167||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level|Mixed Models Analysis||Sarilumab 150 mg q2w vs Placebo q2w|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-4.167|-10.444|<0.0001
90854308|NCT01709578|181571952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-9.727|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.833|-6.622||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level|Mixed Models Analysis||Sarilumab 200 mg q2w vs Placebo q2w|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-6.622|-12.833|<0.0001
90854309|NCT01709578|181571953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.183||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.318|-0.048||Threshold for significance was 0.025 level|Mixed Models Analysis||Sarilumab 150 mg q2w vs Placebo q2w|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-0.048|-0.318|0.0078
90854310|NCT01709578|181571953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.242||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.376|-0.109||Threshold for significance was 0.025 level|Mixed Models Analysis||Sarilumab 200 mg q2w vs Placebo q2w|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-0.109|-0.376|0.0004
90958320|NCT03486457|181796699|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|18.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.24||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|32.57|||Normal approximation|||Month 6: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||32.57|4.20|0.0111
90854311|NCT01709578|181571954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.25||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|5.049||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level|Mixed Models Analysis||Sarilumab 150 mg q2w vs Placebo q2w|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||5.049|1.450|0.0004
90854312|NCT01709578|181571954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.075|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.305|5.846||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level|Mixed Models Analysis||Sarilumab 200 mg q2w vs Placebo q2w|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||5.846|2.305|<0.0001
90854313|NCT01709578|181571955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.515||||0.2026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.818|3.848||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level|Mixed Models Analysis||Sarilumab 150 mg q2w vs Placebo q2w|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||3.848|-0.818|0.2026
90854314|NCT01709578|181571955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.013||||0.0854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.282|4.309||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level|Mixed Models Analysis||Sarilumab 200 mg q2w vs Placebo q2w|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||4.309|-0.282|0.0854
90854315|NCT00472459|181572017|NON_INFERIORITY|Participant's number of new skin lesions between treated and contralateral control area were evaluated using a paired t-test for lesions of any type as well as stratified by lesion type.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.514||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.116|0.911|||t-test, 2 sided||The 95 % confidence intervals for the lesion complete response rates and lesion recurrence rates were estimated using the method of Clopper and Pearson.|||0.911|0.116|0.0120
90854316|NCT00472459|181572018|NON_INFERIORITY|Participant's number of new skin lesions between treated and contralateral control area were evaluated using a paired t-test for lesions of any type as well as stratified by lesion type.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.413||||0.1761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|1.016|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.016|-0.190|0.1761
90854317|NCT00472459|181572019|NON_INFERIORITY|Participant's number of new skin lesions between treated and contralateral control area were evaluated using a paired t-test for lesions of any type as well as stratified by lesion type.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.1183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.156|1.357|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.357|-0.156|0.1183
90854318|NCT00472459|181572020|NON_INFERIORITY|Participant's number of new skin lesions between treated and contralateral control area were evaluated using a paired t-test for lesions of any type as well as stratified by lesion type.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.493||||0.2322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.323|1.309|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.309|-0.323|0.2322
90854319|NCT00472459|181572021|NON_INFERIORITY|Participant's number of new skin lesions between treated and contralateral control area were evaluated using a paired t-test for lesions of any type as well as stratified by lesion type.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.68||||0.1286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.202|1.562|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.562|-0.202|0.1286
90958321|NCT03486457|181796700|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044||0.0097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|-0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Analysis performed using mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-0.03|-0.20|0.0097
90958322|NCT03486457|181796700|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|-0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-0.04|-0.22|0.0043
90958323|NCT03486457|181796700|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 2: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-0.11|-0.30|<0.0001
90854320|NCT05803603|181572107|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|10.92|||McNemar|||We recruited 8 homeless individuals and followed them for 12 months. 4 individuals (50%) were housed at 6 months and 3 (37.5) were housed at 12 months.|See results above|10.92|.37|.125
90958324|NCT03486457|181796700|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|-0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-0.11|-0.32|<0.0001
90958325|NCT03486457|181796700|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.046||0.0535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||0.00|-0.18|0.0535
90958326|NCT03486457|181796700|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||0.01|-0.16|0.0940
90854321|NCT03977454|181572139|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.2||||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The primary endpoint was a comparison between groups at 24 hours.||||0.69
90854322|NCT03977454|181572140|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.92|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Scores were compared at 2 days post operation.||||0.92
90854323|NCT03977454|181572141|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5||||0.91|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.91
90854324|NCT03977454|181572143|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.85|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Scores were compared at 2 weeks.||||0.85
90854325|NCT04193410|181572146|OTHER|Linear mixed model analyses assessed longitudinal intervention effects on children's BMI z-score. A two-level model with measurements as first level and participants as second was used. The model's fixed part consisted of group (medium/low implementers), time (T0/T1/T2), interaction term of group with time, and covariates sex (boy/girl), study year at T0 (four/five/six), SES (low/middle/high), and children's weight status at T0 (underweight/normal weight/overweight). This analyses reports T1-T0.||||||0.21|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.210
90854326|NCT04193410|181572146|OTHER|||||||0.793|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model analyses assessed longitudinal intervention effects on children's BMI z-score. A two-level model with measurements as first level and participants as second was used. The model's fixed part consisted of group (medium/low implementers), time (T0/T1/T2), interaction term of group with time, and covariates sex (boy/girl), study year at T0 (four/five/six), SES (low/middle/high), and children's weight status at T0 (underweight/normal weight/overweight). This analyses reports T2-T0.||||0.793
90958327|NCT03486457|181796701|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|13.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.56||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.72|29.85|||Normal approximation|||Week 2: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||29.85|-3.72|0.1270
90854327|NCT04193410|181572147|OTHER|||||||0.444|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model analyses were used to assess longitudinal intervention effects on children's dietary behaviours. A two-level model with measurements as first level and participants as second level was used. The model's fixed part consisted of group (medium/low implementers), time (T0/T1/T2), interaction term of group with time, and covariates sex (boy/girl), study year at baseline (four/five/six), SES (low/middle/high), and children's BMI z-score at baseline. This analysis reports T1-T0.||||0.444
90854328|NCT04193410|181572147|OTHER|||||||0.863|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model analyses were used to assess longitudinal intervention effects on children's dietary behaviours. A two-level model with measurements as first level and participants as second level was used. The model's fixed part consisted of group (medium/low implementers), time (T0/T1/T2), interaction term of group with time, and covariates sex (boy/girl), study year at baseline (four/five/six), SES (low/middle/high), and children's BMI z-score at baseline. This analysis reports T2-T0.||||0.863
90854329|NCT04193410|181572148|OTHER|||||||0.053|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model analyses were used to assess longitudinal intervention effects on children's PA score. A two-level model with measurements as first level and participants as second level was used. The model's fixed part consisted of group (medium/low implementers), time (T0/T1/T2), interaction term of group with time, and covariates sex (boy/girl), study year at baseline (four/five/six), SES (low/middle/high), and children's BMI z-score at baseline. This analysis reports T1-T0.||||0.053
90854330|NCT04193410|181572148|OTHER|||||||0.209|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model analyses were used to assess longitudinal intervention effects on children's PA score. A two-level model with measurements as first level and participants as second level was used. The model's fixed part consisted of group (medium/low implementers), time (T0/T1/T2), interaction term of group with time, and covariates sex (boy/girl), study year at baseline (four/five/six), SES (low/middle/high), and children's BMI z-score at baseline. This analysis reports T2-T0.||||0.209
90902193|NCT05569954|181671267|OTHER|GMCs, GMC ratio, and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.31|||||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 8: V116/PPSV23 GMC Ratio||1.31|1.04|
90902194|NCT05569954|181671267|OTHER|GMCs, GMC ratio, and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|1.76|||||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 9N: V116/PPSV23 GMC Ratio||1.76|1.37|
90902195|NCT05569954|181671267|OTHER|GMCs, GMC ratio, and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|2.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.79|2.31|||||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 10A: V116/PPSV23 GMC Ratio||2.31|1.79|
90902196|NCT05569954|181671267|OTHER|GMCs, GMC ratio, and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.97|2.46|||||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 11A: V116/PPSV23 GMC Ratio||2.46|1.97|
90902197|NCT05569954|181671267|OTHER|GMCs, GMC ratio, and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|2.3|||||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 12F: V116/PPSV23 GMC Ratio||2.30|1.72|
90902198|NCT05569954|181671267|OTHER|GMCs, GMC ratio, and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|2.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.12|2.7|||||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 17F: V116/PPSV23 GMC Ratio||2.70|2.12|
90958328|NCT03486457|181796701|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|4.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.23||0.6634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.07|22.1|||Normal approximation|||Month 1: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||22.10|-14.07|0.6634
90958329|NCT03486457|181796701|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|21.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.46||0.0214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.23|40.33|||Normal approximation|||Month 2: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||40.33|3.23|0.0214
91031178|NCT02289963|181946897|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-49.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.3|-43.1||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 75 mg Q2W/Up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo Q2W|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-43.1|-55.3|<0.0001
91031179|NCT02289963|181946898|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-51.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.4|-44.6||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 75 mg Q2W/Up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo Q2W|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-44.6|-58.4|<0.0001
91031180|NCT02289963|181946899|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-54.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.6|-47.8||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 75 mg Q2W/Up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo Q2W|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-47.8|-60.6|<0.0001
91031181|NCT02289963|181946900|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-35.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.3|-30.1||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 75 mg Q2W/Up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo Q2W|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-30.1|-40.3|<0.0001
90902199|NCT05569954|181671267|OTHER|GMCs, GMC ratio, and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|1.67||||||Serotype 19A: V116/PPSV23 GMC Ratio|V116/PPSV23|1.67|1.32|
90902200|NCT05569954|181671267|OTHER|GMCs, GMC ratio, and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|2.1|||||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 20A: V116/PPSV23 GMC Ratio||2.10|1.65|
90958330|NCT03486457|181796701|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|24.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.46||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.5|42.57|||Normal approximation|||Month 3: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||42.57|5.50|0.0110
90958331|NCT03486457|181796701|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|12.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.58||0.1896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.21|31.36|||Normal approximation|||Month 4: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||31.36|-6.21|0.1896
90958332|NCT03486457|181796701|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|6.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.97||0.4466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.75|24.41|||Normal approximation|||Month 6: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||24.41|-10.75|0.4466
90958333|NCT03486457|181796702|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|13.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.56||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.72|29.85|||Normal approximation|||Week 2: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||29.85|-3.72|0.1270
90958334|NCT03486457|181796702|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|4.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.23||0.6634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.07|22.1|||Normal approximation|||Month 1: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||22.10|-14.07|0.6634
91031182|NCT02289963|181946901|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-46.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.2|-41.0||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 75 mg Q2W/Up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo Q2W|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-41.0|-51.2|<0.0001
91031183|NCT02289963|181946902|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-51.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.4|-46.1||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 75 mg Q2W/Up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo Q2W|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-46.1|-56.4|<0.0001
91031184|NCT02289963|181946903|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-35.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.7|-31.9||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 75 mg Q2W/Up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo Q2W|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant.||-31.9|-39.7|<0.0001
91031185|NCT02289963|181946904|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|46.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.4|119.4||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model.|Alirocumab 75 mg Q2W/Up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo Q2W|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||119.4|18.4|<0.0001
90902201|NCT05569954|181671267|OTHER|GMCs, GMC ratio, and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|2.02|||||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 22F: V116/PPSV23 GMC Ratio||2.02|1.55|
90902202|NCT05569954|181671267|OTHER|GMCs, GMC ratio, and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.37|||||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 33F: V116/PPSV23 GMC Ratio||1.37|1.08|
90902203|NCT05569954|181671267|OTHER|GMCs, GMC ratio, and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|3.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.29|4.35|||||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 6A: V116/PPSV23 GMC Ratio||4.35|3.29|
90902204|NCT05569954|181671267|OTHER|GMCs, GMC ratio, and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|8.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.89|10.09|||||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 15A: V116/PPSV23 GMC Ratio||10.09|7.89|
90854331|NCT04193410|181572149|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model analyses were used to assess longitudinal intervention effects on children's waist circumference. A two-level model with measurements as first level and participants as second level was used. The model's fixed part consisted of group (medium/low implementers), time (T0/T1/T2), interaction term of group with time, and covariates sex (boy/girl), study year at baseline (four/five/six), SES (low/middle/high), and children's BMI z-score at baseline. This analysis reports T1-T0.||||0.003
90854332|NCT04193410|181572149|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model analyses were used to assess longitudinal intervention effects on children's waist circumference. A two-level model with measurements as first level and participants as second level was used. The model's fixed part consisted of group (medium/low implementers), time (T0/T1/T2), interaction term of group with time, and covariates sex (boy/girl), study year at baseline (four/five/six), SES (low/middle/high), and children's BMI z-score at baseline. This analysis reports T2-T0.||||<0.001
90854333|NCT04193410|181572150|OTHER|||||||0.815|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model analyses were used to assess longitudinal intervention effects on children's dietary behaviours. A two-level model with measurements as first level and participants as second level was used. The model's fixed part consisted of group (medium/low implementers), time (T0/T1/T2), interaction term of group with time, and covariates sex (boy/girl), study year at baseline (four/five/six), SES (low/middle/high), and children's BMI z-score at baseline. This analysis reports T1-T0.||||0.815
90854334|NCT04193410|181572150|OTHER|||||||0.418|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model analyses were used to assess longitudinal intervention effects on children's dietary behaviours. A two-level model with measurements as first level and participants as second level was used. The model's fixed part consisted of group (medium/low implementers), time (T0/T1/T2), interaction term of group with time, and covariates sex (boy/girl), study year at baseline (four/five/six), SES (low/middle/high), and children's BMI z-score at baseline. This analysis reports T2-T0.||||0.418
90854335|NCT04193410|181572151|OTHER|||||||0.307|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model analyses were used to assess longitudinal intervention effects on children's dietary behaviours. A two-level model with measurements as first level and participants as second level was used. The model's fixed part consisted of group (medium/low implementers), time (T0/T1/T2), interaction term of group with time, and covariates sex (boy/girl), study year at baseline (four/five/six), SES (low/middle/high), and children's BMI z-score at baseline. This analysis reports T1-T0.||||0.307
90854336|NCT04193410|181572151|OTHER|||||||0.263|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model analyses were used to assess longitudinal intervention effects on children's dietary behaviours. A two-level model with measurements as first level and participants as second level was used. The model's fixed part consisted of group (medium/low implementers), time (T0/T1/T2), interaction term of group with time, and covariates sex (boy/girl), study year at baseline (four/five/six), SES (low/middle/high), and children's BMI z-score at baseline. This analysis reports T2-T0.||||0.263
90854337|NCT04193410|181572152|OTHER|||||||0.249|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Logistic mixed model analyses were used to assess longitudinal intervention effects on children's binary dietary behaviours. A two-level model with measurements as first level and participants as second level was used. The model's fixed part consisted of group (medium/low implementers), time (T0/T1/T2), interaction term of group with time, and covariates sex (boy/girl), study year at baseline (four/five/six), SES (low/middle/high), and children's BMI z-score at baseline. Analysis reports T1-T0.||||0.249
90854338|NCT04193410|181572152|OTHER|||||||0.803|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Logistic mixed model analyses were used to assess longitudinal intervention effects on children's binary dietary behaviours. A two-level model with measurements as first level and participants as second level was used. The model's fixed part consisted of group (medium/low implementers), time (T0/T1/T2), interaction term of group with time, and covariates sex (boy/girl), study year at baseline (four/five/six), SES (low/middle/high), and children's BMI z-score at baseline. Analysis reports T2-T0.||||0.803
90854339|NCT04193410|181572153|OTHER|||||||0.073|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Logistic mixed model analyses were used to assess longitudinal intervention effects on children's binary dietary behaviours. A two-level model with measurements as first level and participants as second level was used. The model's fixed part consisted of group (medium/low implementers), time (T0/T1/T2), interaction term of group with time, and covariates sex (boy/girl), study year at baseline (four/five/six), SES (low/middle/high), and children's BMI z-score at baseline. Analysis reports T1-T0.||||0.073
90902205|NCT05569954|181671267|OTHER|GMCs, GMC ratio, and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|3.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.01|3.92|||||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 15C: V116/PPSV23 GMC Ratio||3.92|3.01|
91031186|NCT02289963|181946905|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|70.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.3|210.8||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model|Alirocumab 75 mg Q2W/Up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo Q2W|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||210.8|23.3|<0.0001
90902206|NCT05569954|181671267|OTHER|GMCs, GMC ratio, and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|9.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.83|10.97|||||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 16F: V116/PPSV23 GMC Ratio||10.97|8.83|
90902207|NCT05569954|181671267|OTHER|GMCs, GMC ratio, and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|7.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.68|8.61|||||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 23A: V116/PPSV23 GMC Ratio||8.61|6.68|
90902208|NCT05569954|181671267|OTHER|GMCs, GMC ratio, and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|4.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.26|5.38|||||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 23B: V116/PPSV23 GMC Ratio||5.38|4.26|
90902209|NCT05569954|181671267|OTHER|GMCs, GMC ratio, and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|21.19||||||95.0|18.98|23.65|||||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 24F: V116/PPSV23 GMC Ratio||23.65|18.98|
91031187|NCT02289963|181946906|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-33.611|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.883|-25.338||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Robust|Multiple imputation approach followed by a robust regression model.|Alirocumab 75 mg Q2W/Up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo Q2W|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-25.338|-41.883|<0.0001
91031188|NCT02289963|181946907|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|7.5||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|12.4||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 75 mg Q2W/Up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo Q2W|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||12.4|2.6|0.0029
91100127|NCT05064800|182086556|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|160.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|119.19|214.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment 1 was Reference and Treatment 2 was Test. Natural log-transformed AUClast of dabigatran was analyzed using mixed effect model with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects and participant in sequence as random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences(AMD)(Test-Reference) and 90%CIs were obtained from the model.The AMD and 90%CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means(Test/Reference) and 90%CI for the ratios.||214.90|119.19|
90854340|NCT04193410|181572153|OTHER|||||||0.658|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Logistic mixed model analyses were used to assess longitudinal intervention effects on children's binary dietary behaviours. A two-level model with measurements as first level and participants as second level was used. The model's fixed part consisted of group (medium/low implementers), time (T0/T1/T2), interaction term of group with time, and covariates sex (boy/girl), study year at baseline (four/five/six), SES (low/middle/high), and children's BMI z-score at baseline. Analysis reports T2-T0.||||0.658
91031189|NCT02289963|181946908|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.515||||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.25|4.219||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Robust|Multiple imputation approach followed by a robust regression model.|Alirocumab 75 mg Q2W/Up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo Q2W|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||4.219|-13.250|0.3110
90854341|NCT04193410|181572154|OTHER|||||||0.742|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Logistic mixed model analyses were used to assess longitudinal intervention effects on children's binary dietary behaviours. A two-level model with measurements as first level and participants as second level was used. The model's fixed part consisted of group (medium/low implementers), time (T0/T1/T2), interaction term of group with time, and covariates sex (boy/girl), study year at baseline (four/five/six), SES (low/middle/high), and children's BMI z-score at baseline. Analysis reports T1-T0.||||0.742
90854342|NCT04193410|181572154|OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Logistic mixed model analyses were used to assess longitudinal intervention effects on children's binary dietary behaviours. A two-level model with measurements as first level and participants as second level was used. The model's fixed part consisted of group (medium/low implementers), time (T0/T1/T2), interaction term of group with time, and covariates sex (boy/girl), study year at baseline (four/five/six), SES (low/middle/high), and children's BMI z-score at baseline. Analysis reports T2-T0.||||0.370
90854343|NCT04193410|181572155|OTHER|||||||0.483|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Logistic mixed model analyses were used to assess longitudinal intervention effects on children's binary dietary behaviours. A two-level model with measurements as first level and participants as second level was used. The model's fixed part consisted of group (medium/low implementers), time (T0/T1/T2), interaction term of group with time, and covariates sex (boy/girl), study year at baseline (four/five/six), SES (low/middle/high), and children's BMI z-score at baseline. Analysis reports T1-T0.||||0.483
90854344|NCT04193410|181572155|OTHER|||||||0.626|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Logistic mixed model analyses were used to assess longitudinal intervention effects on children's binary dietary behaviours. A two-level model with measurements as first level and participants as second level was used. The model's fixed part consisted of group (medium/low implementers), time (T0/T1/T2), interaction term of group with time, and covariates sex (boy/girl), study year at baseline (four/five/six), SES (low/middle/high), and children's BMI z-score at baseline. Analysis reports T2-T0.||||0.626
90854345|NCT04193410|181572156|OTHER|||||||0.771|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Logistic mixed model analyses were used to assess longitudinal intervention effects on children's binary dietary behaviours. A two-level model with measurements as first level and participants as second level was used. The model's fixed part consisted of group (medium/low implementers), time (T0/T1/T2), interaction term of group with time, and covariates sex (boy/girl), study year at baseline (four/five/six), SES (low/middle/high), and children's BMI z-score at baseline. Analysis reports T1-T0.||||0.771
90854346|NCT04193410|181572156|OTHER|||||||0.861|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Logistic mixed model analyses were used to assess longitudinal intervention effects on children's binary dietary behaviours. A two-level model with measurements as first level and participants as second level was used. The model's fixed part consisted of group (medium/low implementers), time (T0/T1/T2), interaction term of group with time, and covariates sex (boy/girl), study year at baseline (four/five/six), SES (low/middle/high), and children's BMI z-score at baseline. Analysis reports T1-T0.||||0.861
90854347|NCT04193410|181572157|OTHER|||||||0.766|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Logistic mixed model analyses were used to assess longitudinal intervention effects on children's binary dietary behaviours. A two-level model with measurements as first level and participants as second level was used. The model's fixed part consisted of group (medium/low implementers), time (T0/T1/T2), interaction term of group with time, and covariates sex (boy/girl), study year at baseline (four/five/six), SES (low/middle/high), and children's BMI z-score at baseline. Analysis reports T1-T0.||||0.766
90854348|NCT04193410|181572157|OTHER|||||||0.995|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Logistic mixed model analyses were used to assess longitudinal intervention effects on children's binary dietary behaviours. A two-level model with measurements as first level and participants as second level was used. The model's fixed part consisted of group (medium/low implementers), time (T0/T1/T2), interaction term of group with time, and covariates sex (boy/girl), study year at baseline (four/five/six), SES (low/middle/high), and children's BMI z-score at baseline. Analysis reports T2-T0.||||0.995
90854349|NCT04193410|181572158|OTHER|||||||0.437|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Logistic mixed model analyses were used to assess longitudinal intervention effects on children's binary dietary behaviours. A two-level model with measurements as first level and participants as second level was used. The model's fixed part consisted of group (medium/low implementers), time (T0/T1/T2), interaction term of group with time, and covariates sex (boy/girl), study year at baseline (four/five/six), SES (low/middle/high), and children's BMI z-score at baseline. Analysis reports T1-T0.||||0.437
90854350|NCT04193410|181572158|OTHER|||||||0.798|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Logistic mixed model analyses were used to assess longitudinal intervention effects on children's binary dietary behaviours. A two-level model with measurements as first level and participants as second level was used. The model's fixed part consisted of group (medium/low implementers), time (T0/T1/T2), interaction term of group with time, and covariates sex (boy/girl), study year at baseline (four/five/six), SES (low/middle/high), and children's BMI z-score at baseline. Analysis reports T1-T0.||||0.798
90854351|NCT03160859|181572173|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi Square||||0.62
90854352|NCT01101191|181572177|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A mixed-model analysis of variance was used to compare (test vs reference) and the 90% confidence intervals were estimated for the ratios (test/reference)|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|103.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.67|106.66|||ANOVA||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80%-125%.|||106.66|98.67|
90854353|NCT01101191|181572178|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A mixed-model analysis of variance was used to compare (test vs reference) and the 90% confidence intervals were estimated for the ratios (test/reference)|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|97.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.2|99.81|||ANOVA||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80%-125%.|||99.81|94.20|
90854354|NCT01101191|181572179|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A mixed-model analysis of variance was used to compare (test vs reference) and the 90% confidence intervals were estimated for the ratios (test/reference)|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|97.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.41|99.94|||ANOVA||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80%-125%.|||99.94|94.41|
90854355|NCT04779216|181572185|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
90854356|NCT02674854|181572191|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|PG324 vs. netarsudil||||||<0.0001
90854357|NCT02674854|181572191|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|PG324 vs. latanoprost||||||<0.0001
90854358|NCT05217927|181572223|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean (LSM) Difference|-0.6|||=|0.022|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.22|-0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed effects model with repeated measures with the number of total migraine days per month in the OP as a covariate; treatment group, randomization stratum (use of previous prophylactic migraine medication generally considered to have efficacy), month and month-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||-0.01|-1.22|=0.0220
90854359|NCT05217927|181572223|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.35|-1.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed effects model with repeated measures with the number of total migraine days per month in the OP as a covariate; treatment group, randomization stratum (use of previous prophylactic migraine medication generally considered to have efficacy), month and month-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||-1.19|-2.35|<0.0001
90854360|NCT05217927|181572224|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|7.4|||=|0.0966|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.6|17.4|||Mantel Haenszel|||Mantel-Haenszel risk estimation was used.||17.4|-2.6|=0.0966
90854361|NCT05217927|181572224|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|24.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|14.6|34.8|||Mantel Haenszel|||Mantel-Haenszel risk estimation was used.||34.8|14.6|<0.0001
90854362|NCT05217927|181572225|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|||=|0.5314|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.95|0.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed effects model with repeated measures with the number of total migraine days per month in the OP as a covariate; treatment group, randomization stratum (use of previous prophylactic migraine medication generally considered to have efficacy) month and month-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||0.54|-0.95|=0.5314
90854363|NCT05217927|181572225|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.12|-0.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed effects model with repeated measures with the number of total migraine days per month in the OP as a covariate; treatment group, randomization stratum (use of previous prophylactic migraine medication generally considered to have efficacy) month and month-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||-0.71|-2.12|<0.0001
90854364|NCT05217927|181572226|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|||=|0.0002|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.84|-0.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed effects model with repeated measures with the number of total migraine days per month in the OP as a covariate; treatment group, randomization stratum (use of previous prophylactic migraine medication generally considered to have efficacy) month and month-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||-0.47|-1.84|=0.0002
90902210|NCT05569954|181671267|OTHER|GMCs, GMC ratio, and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|8.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.82|9.65|||||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 31: V116/PPSV23 GMC Ratio||9.65|7.82|
90902211|NCT05569954|181671267|OTHER|GMCs, GMC ratio, and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|15.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.13|17.07|||||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 35B: V116/PPSV23 GMC Ratio||17.07|14.13|
90902212|NCT02708433|181671271|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|49.0||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.57|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.57|-0.49|0.74
90902213|NCT02708433|181671272|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|48.0||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.52|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.52|-0.89|0.5
91031190|NCT01507051|181946957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS-Mean Ratio|2.793|||<|0.0001||90.0|2.633|2.962|||ANOVA|||||2.962|2.633|<0.0001
90902214|NCT00384059|181671275|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-3.8|3.9||||||For Meningococcal C the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 1:8 titer was calculated||3.9|-3.8|
90902215|NCT00384059|181671275|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|-1.5||||||95.0|-7.1|3.7||||||For Haemophilus influenzae type b the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.15 µg/mL threshold was calculated||3.7|-7.1|
90902216|NCT00384059|181671275|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|-4.1||||||95.0|-13.4|5.1||||||For Haemophilus influenzae type b the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 1.0 µg/mL threshold was calculated||5.1|-13.4|
90902217|NCT00384059|181671275|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-3.2|3.3||||||For Pertussis PT the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 5 EU/mL threshold was calculated||3.3|-3.2|
90902218|NCT00384059|181671275|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|1.1||||||95.0|-4.5|7.1||||||For Pertussis PT the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 17 EU/mL threshold was calculated||7.1|-4.5|
91031191|NCT01507051|181946958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS-Mean Ratio|6.151|||<|0.0001||90.0|5.598|6.759|||ANOVA|||||6.759|5.598|<0.0001
90958335|NCT03486457|181796702|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|21.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.46||0.0214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.23|40.33|||Normal approximation|||Month 2: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||40.33|3.23|0.0214
90958336|NCT03486457|181796702|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|24.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.46||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.5|42.57|||Normal approximation|||Month 3: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||42.57|5.50|0.0110
90958337|NCT03486457|181796702|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|12.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.58||0.1896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.21|31.36|||Normal approximation|||Month 4: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||31.36|-6.21|0.1896
91031192|NCT01507051|181946985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS-Mean Ratio (%)|95.17||||0.5008||95.0|82.2|110.2|||ANOVA|||||110.2|82.20|0.5008
91031193|NCT01507051|181946986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS-Mean Ratio (%)|99.46||||0.9429||95.0|85.47|115.7|||ANOVA|||||115.7|85.47|0.9429
90854365|NCT05217927|181572226|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.78|-1.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed effects model with repeated measures with the number of total migraine days per month in the OP as a covariate; treatment group, randomization stratum (use of previous prophylactic migraine medication generally considered to have efficacy) month and month-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||-1.46|-2.78|<0.0001
90854366|NCT05217927|181572227|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|||=|0.144|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.2|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed effects model with repeated measures has treatment group, randomization stratum, month, and month-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||0.25|-1.20|=0.1440
90854367|NCT05217927|181572227|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.97|-0.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed effects model with repeated measures has treatment group, randomization stratum, month, and month-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||-0.65|-1.97|<0.0001
90854368|NCT05217927|181572228|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.4|||=|0.2029|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.84|6.66|||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression model with treatment group and randomization stratum as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate for participants with non-missing domain scores at both baseline and Week 12.||6.66|-1.84|=0.2029
90854369|NCT05217927|181572228|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|10.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|5.71|14.52|||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression model with treatment group and randomization stratum as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate for participants with non-missing domain scores at both baseline and Week 12.||14.52|5.71|<0.0001
90854370|NCT00076024|181572259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.237||||0.156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.819|1.867|||Log Rank|One-sided log-rank test at alpha = 0.1 significance level was used.||P-value was calculated using one-sided Log rank test, stratified for estrogen receptor (ER) status (ER-positive or ER-negative/unknown), prior adjuvant chemotherapy (yes or no), and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (less than or equal to \[=\<1\] or 2). The stratified Cox proportional hazards model was fitted, using the same stratification variables as above.||1.867|0.819|0.156
90854371|NCT00076024|181572260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rates|17.4||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|31.9|||Fisher Exact|||||31.9|3.0|0.038
90854372|NCT01362595|181572265|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Due to the small sample size, the statistical approach is primarily descriptive in nature.|||
90854373|NCT04243421|181572272|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|6.0||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0007
90854374|NCT04243421|181572273|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.25||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0005
90854375|NCT04243421|181572273|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0034
90854376|NCT04243421|181572274|OTHER|||||||0.39|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.39
90854377|NCT02284178|181572275|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.432|||||||GEE analysis|||||||0.432
90854378|NCT02284178|181572276|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.684|||||||GEE|||||||0.684
90854379|NCT02284178|181572277|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.858|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.858
90854380|NCT02284178|181572279|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||GEE analysis|||||||0.460
90854381|NCT02284178|181572280|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.214|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.214
90854382|NCT02284178|181572281|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.155|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.155
90854383|NCT02284178|181572282|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.050
90854384|NCT04123665|181572287|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|-0.04|||ANCOVA|Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) with factors for treatment group and gender, and the baseline whole mouth mean BI and whole mouth MGI as covariates.|Difference is first named treatment (experimental) minus second named treatment (control).|||-0.04|-0.11|<0.0001
90854385|NCT00958789|181572304|NON_INFERIORITY|"For the primary efficacy hypothesis, H0, the total KSS change from preoperative to 2 years postoperative will be less than or equal to delta. The alternative hypothesis, Ha, will be that the total KSS change from preop to 2 years postoperative is greater than delta. When delta=63, the hypothesis will test for non-inferiority. When delta=70, the hypothesis will test for superiority.~H0: mean 2-year - mean preop less than or equal to delta. Ha: mean 2-year - mean preop greater than delta."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|70.7|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|64.43||||||||||64.43|
90854386|NCT00478881|181572326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.045||||0.5293||95.0|-33.194|17.104||Bladder volume (mL) at first detrusor contraction tested first. If significant, the change in the average number of daily micturitions was to be tested using a P\<0.05.|ANCOVA||Placebo-Vardenafil|Countries were pooled into 2 clusters, which allowed for testing of Treatment by Center interaction. An ANCOVA including Baseline (Visit 2) as a covariate with main effects for treatment and country (see pooling above) was used to test treatment difference for the primary variable and co-primary variable.||17.104|-33.194|0.5293
91031194|NCT01507051|181946987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS-Mean Ratio (%)|100.4||||0.9525||95.0|88.0|114.5|||ANOVA|||||114.5|88.00|0.9525
91031195|NCT01507051|181946988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS-Mean Ratio (%)|95.87||||0.4397||95.0|85.99|106.9|||ANOVA|||||106.9|85.99|0.4397
90902219|NCT00384059|181671275|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-3.2|3.2||||||For Pertussis FHA the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 5 EU/mL threshold was calculated||3.2|-3.2|
90902220|NCT00384059|181671275|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-3.2|3.2||||||For Pertussis FHA the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 7.82 EU/mL threshold was calculated||3.2|-3.2|
90902221|NCT00384059|181671275|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|-1.5||||||95.0|-7.9|4.8||||||For Pertussis FHA the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 20 EU/mL threshold was calculated||4.8|-7.9|
90958338|NCT03486457|181796702|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|6.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.97||0.4466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.75|24.41|||Normal approximation|||Month 6: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||24.41|-10.75|0.4466
90958339|NCT03486457|181796703|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.633|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.95|-1.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Analysis performed using mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-1.45|-3.95|<0.0001
90854387|NCT00478881|181572327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.668||||0.0575||95.0|-0.021|1.358||Bladder volume (mL) at first detrusor contraction tested first. If significant, the change in the average number of daily micturitions was to be tested using a P \<0.05.|ANCOVA||Placebo - Vardenafil|Countries were pooled into 2 clusters, which allowed for testing of Treatment by Center interaction. An ANCOVA including Baseline (Visit 2) as a covariate with main effects for treatment and country (see pooling above) was used to test treatment difference for the primary variable and co-primary variable.||1.358|-0.021|0.0575
90854388|NCT00478881|181572328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.657||||0.8533||95.0|-6.335|7.65||P-values were reported as nominal values and without any adjustments for multiplicity.|ANCOVA||Placebo- Vardenafil|ANCOVA models used for the secondary efficacy variables were the models determined for the primary efficacy variable or co-primary efficacy variable depending on the type of variable.||7.650|-6.335|0.8533
90854389|NCT00478881|181572329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.59||||0.1539||95.0|-37.057|5.876||P-values were reported as nominal values and without any adjustments for multiplicity.|ANCOVA||Placebo- Vardenafil|ANCOVA models used for the secondary efficacy variables were the models determined for the primary efficacy variable or co-primary efficacy variable depending on the type of variable.||5.876|-37.057|0.1539
90854390|NCT00478881|181572330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.374||||0.2348||95.0|-32.834|8.087||P-values were reported as nominal values and without any adjustments for multiplicity.|ANCOVA||placebo - vardenafil|ANCOVA models used for the secondary efficacy variables were the models determined for the primary efficacy variable or co-primary efficacy variable depending on the type of variable.||8.087|-32.834|0.2348
90854391|NCT00478881|181572331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.195||||0.3289||95.0|-24.692|8.303||P-values were reported as nominal values and without any adjustments for multiplicity.|ANCOVA||placebo - vardenafil|ANCOVA models used for the secondary efficacy variables were the models determined for the primary efficacy variable or co-primary efficacy variable depending on the type of variable.||8.303|-24.692|0.3289
90854392|NCT00478881|181572332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.721||||0.0609||95.0|-0.033|1.476||P-values were reported as nominal values and without any adjustments for multiplicity.|ANCOVA||placebo - vardenafil|ANCOVA models used for the secondary efficacy variables were the models determined for the primary efficacy variable or co-primary efficacy variable depending on the type of variable.||1.476|-0.033|0.0609
90854393|NCT00478881|181572333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.118||||0.4928||95.0|-0.22|0.456||P-values were reported as nominal values and without any adjustments for multiplicity.|ANCOVA||placebo - vardenafil|ANCOVA models used for the secondary efficacy variables were the models determined for the primary efficacy variable or co-primary efficacy variable depending on the type of variable.||0.456|-0.220|0.4928
90902222|NCT00384059|181671275|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-3.2|3.2||||||For Pertussis PRN the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 5 EU/mL threshold was calculated||3.2|-3.2|
90958340|NCT03486457|181796703|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.711|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|-2.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-2.39|-5.20|<0.0001
91032830|NCT04638153|181951001|OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.3|||||Month 12|Results based on MMRM analysis with gender as a covariate, participant (and/or time) as a random effect; treatment, visit, age and gender as fixed effects using an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.3|-0.2|
90902223|NCT00384059|181671275|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|-3.1||||||95.0|-10.0|3.4||||||For Pertussis PRN the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 15 EU/mL threshold was calculated||3.4|-10.0|
90958341|NCT03486457|181796703|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-4.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.39|-3.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 2: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-3.39|-6.39|<0.0001
90958342|NCT03486457|181796703|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-5.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.852|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.53|-4.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-4.17|-7.53|<0.0001
91104338|NCT02539394|182094890|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.343|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of Pre-operative SWAL-QOL - Fear swallow is the same across the 2 arms||||0.343
90958343|NCT03486457|181796703|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.583|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.35|-2.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-2.04|-4.35|<0.0001
90958344|NCT03486457|181796703|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.668||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.91|-1.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-1.27|-3.91|0.0002
91031196|NCT01475838|181947030|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was that the Stribild group was at least 12% worse than the PI+RTV+FTC/TDF group with respect to the percentage of participants maintaining HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL at Week 48. The alternative hypothesis was that the Stribild group was less than 12% worse than the PI+RTV+FTC/TDF group.|Difference in proportions|6.7||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|13.7|||Fisher Exact||The 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference was from unconditional exact method using 2 inverted 1-sided tests with the standardized statistic using StatXact.|||13.7|0.4|0.025
91031197|NCT03765502|181947034|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||McNemar|Crossover design: paired test||||||<.0001
91031198|NCT03765502|181947035|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||McNemar|Crossover design: paired test||||||<.0001
90854394|NCT00478881|181572334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.823||||0.3248||95.0|-2.476|0.829||P-values were reported as nominal values and without any adjustments for multiplicity.|ANCOVA||placebo - vardenafil|ANCOVA models used for the secondary efficacy variables were the models determined for the primary efficacy variable or co-primary efficacy variable depending on the type of variable.||0.829|-2.476|0.3248
90854395|NCT00478881|181572335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.095||||0.5312||95.0|-4.533|2.342||P-values were reported as nominal values and without any adjustments for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA models used for the secondary efficacy variables were the models determined for the primary efficacy variable or co-primary efficacy variable depending on the type of variable.||2.342|-4.533|0.5312
90854396|NCT00930982|181572343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least square means|-2.368|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.674|<|0.001||||||p-value should be \< 0.023 (one-sided) for a significant result as an interim analysis was performed. Results based on the no-interaction model which was defined as primary analysis.|ANCOVA|Baseline cfu was covariate, treatment and pooled centers factors. As the p-value for interaction was 0.214, the no-interaction model is appropriate.|Least square mean Ciprofloxacin minus placebo|"Ho: CFU(EOT\|Cipro) - CFU(baseline\|Cipro) \> CFU(EOT\|Placebo) - CFU(baseline\|Placebo) CFU = colony forming units EOT=End of treatment (Day 29) Sample size was based a difference of 1.2 log10 CFU/g between placebo and Ciprofloxacin and a standard deviation of 2 log10 CFU/g"||||< 0.001
90854397|NCT00518973|181572358|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15||||||t = 2.8|t-test, 2 sided|Hours occupied by preoccupations.||||||.15
90854398|NCT00518973|181572358|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4||||||t = .56|t-test, 2 sided|Hours of rituals||||||.40
90854399|NCT00518973|181572359|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72||||||t = .13|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.72
90854400|NCT00518973|181572360|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48||||||t = .52|t-test, 2 sided|Reporting for Trait||||||.48
90854401|NCT00518973|181572360|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77||||||t = .09|t-test, 2 sided|Reporting for State||||||.77
90854402|NCT00518973|181572361|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83||||||t = .05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.83
90854403|NCT00518973|181572362|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4||||||t = .78|t-test, 2 sided|Positive Scale||||||.40
90854404|NCT00518973|181572362|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11||||||t=3.0|t-test, 2 sided|Negative Scale||||||.11
90854405|NCT00518973|181572362|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9||||||t = .02|t-test, 2 sided|General Scale||||||.90
90854406|NCT01923168|181572402|OTHER|Bayesian double criteria|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.282|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.5|1.7|||Posterior mean diff. & credible interval|||||1.7|-4.5|0.282
90854407|NCT01923168|181572403|OTHER|Bayesian double criteria|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.697|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.9|4.2|||Posterior mean difference|Posterior mean difference||||4.2|-1.9|0.697
90854408|NCT01923168|181572404|OTHER|Bayesian double criteria|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0.435|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-12.5|9.7|||Posterior mean diff. & credible interval|||||9.7|-12.5|0.435
90854409|NCT01923168|181572405|OTHER|Bayesian double criteria|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4||||0.611|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-8.4|13.2|||Posterior mean diff. & credible interval|||||13.2|-8.4|0.611
90854410|NCT00773838|181572452|OTHER|||||||0.419|||||||Exact Test for Binomial Parameter|||||||0.419
90854411|NCT02502006|181572468|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
90854412|NCT02502006|181572469|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0004
90854413|NCT02502006|181572470|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
90854414|NCT02502006|181572471|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2217|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.2217
90854415|NCT02502006|181572472|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77||||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|||||||0.77
90854416|NCT02502006|181572472|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18||||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|||||||0.18
90854417|NCT02502006|181572473|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57||||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|||||||0.57
90854418|NCT02502006|181572473|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07||||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|||||||0.07
90854419|NCT02502006|181572474|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88||||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|||||||0.88
90854420|NCT02502006|181572474|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|||||||<0.05
90854421|NCT02522871|181572476|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin = 0.075|Difference of Proportion|-0.132|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||-0.049|||one-sided Farrington and Manning|||||-0.049||<0.0001
90854422|NCT02522871|181572476|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin = 0.075|Difference of Proportion|-0.145|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||-0.062|||one-sided Farrington and Manning|||||-0.062||<0.0001
90854423|NCT02522871|181572477|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin of 1.0|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.084|0.025|||t-test, 1 sided|||||0.025|-0.084|<0.0001
90854424|NCT02522871|181572478|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin = 0.075|Difference of Proportion|0.0||||0.0004|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.036|||one-sided Farrington and Manning|||||0.036||0.0004
90854425|NCT02522871|181572478|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin = 0.075|Difference of Proportion|0.0||||0.0004|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.036|||one-sided Farrington and Manning|||||0.036||0.0004
90854426|NCT02522871|181572479|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin = 0.075|Difference of Proportion|-0.001||||0.0006|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.038|||one-sided Farrington and Manning|||||0.038||0.0006
90854427|NCT02522871|181572479|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin = 0.075|Difference of Proportion|-0.001||||0.0006|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.038|||one-sided Farrington and Manning|||||0.038||0.0006
91031199|NCT01027780|181947073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0||||Please note that this analysis tested the differences between groups following the intervention.|GEE|Generalized estimating equations (GEE) approach was used to assess robustness of population parameters, such as treatment effects.||||||.007
90854428|NCT02398227|181572487|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.968|||||||ANCOVA|p value reported for overall effect across all-time points between treatment arms||||||.968
90854429|NCT02398227|181572488|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||ANCOVA|p value reported for overall effect across all-time points between treatment arms||||||.560
90854430|NCT03149848|181572517|OTHER||Ratio|0.786|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.743|0.831||||||||0.831|0.743|
90854431|NCT03149848|181572518|OTHER||Ratio|0.825|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.761|0.895||||||||0.895|0.761|
90854432|NCT03149848|181572519|OTHER||Ratio|0.738|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.702|0.776||||||||0.776|0.702|
90854433|NCT03149848|181572522|OTHER||Ratio|1.272|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.204|1.345||||||||1.345|1.204|
90854434|NCT01892722|181572570|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Negative binomial regression model|||||||<0.001
90854435|NCT00902161|181572588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squared Mean Treatment Difference|32.0||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.0|49.0||There was only 1 primary hypothesis, so no multiplicity adjustment was required.|A linear mixed effect (LME) model|||The p-value is for testing the null hypothesis that the difference on Rt(65) between the \[MK-0893 1g + Propranolol\] vs. \[PBO + Propranolol\] \>=60 min. If p-value \< 0.05, then the null hypothesis is rejected at the significance level of 0.05, thus supporting the primary hypothesis that the treatment difference is less than 60 minutes.||49|15|0.005
90854436|NCT00988325|181572604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median time to cessation of viral sheddi|119.0|||=|0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|113.0|230.0||p-value is for the comparison of the age cohorts (treatment groups)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Test was used for testing homogeneity of survival curves|Median time was estimated from the Kaplan-Meier curve (unstratified)|||230|113|=0.166
90854437|NCT00988325|181572606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Time to Resolution of Fever in Patients|14.5|||=|0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|20.0||The p-value is for the comparison of the age cohorts (not including Total)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Median time was estimated from the Kaplan-Meier curve (unstratified)|||20|12|=0.059
90854438|NCT01155219|181572610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
90854439|NCT03052764|181572611|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.561|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.68|-1.46|||ANCOVA|||||-1.46|-3.68|<.0001
90854440|NCT03052764|181572612|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|50.37|||||Values obtained were from a Cochran Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the number of UUI episodes reported at Baseline (\<= 9 versus \> 9 daily episodes)at each scheduled visit.|||50.37|0.75|
90854441|NCT03052764|181572613|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.534|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-1.18|||ANCOVA|||||-1.18|-3.30|<.0001
90854442|NCT03052764|181572614|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.73|-1.39|||ANCOVA|||||-1.39|-3.73|<.0001
90854443|NCT03052764|181572615|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.192||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|-0.32|||ANCOVA|||||-0.32|-1.09|0.0004
90854444|NCT03052764|181572616|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.23|52.57|||||Values were obtained from a Cochran Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the number of UUI episodes reported at Baseline (\<= 9 versus \> 9 daily episodes) at each scheduled visit.|||52.57|3.23|
90854445|NCT01314911|181572617|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.6||0.0097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.4|-3.0||P-value was not adjusted for multiple interim analyses.|Z-test, 2-sided|Comparison of randomized arms was based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|The difference in percents was calculated as the percent detectable in the Oseltamivir arm minus the percent detectable in the Placebo arm.|Assuming that pooled percentage of participants with virus detectable by PCR at Day 3 is 50%, assuming that the Oseltamivir arm was better than the placebo arm and that the detectable rate in the Oseltamivir arm was 42.5% compared to 57.5% in the placebo arm (a 15% reduction), and assuming 10% subjects with missing qPCR at Day 3, in a two-sided, two-sample 0.05-level t- test with 546 participants combined across both arms, there was 90% power.||-3.0|-21.4|0.0097
90854446|NCT01314911|181572620|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0243||||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple interim analyses.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0243
90854447|NCT01314911|181572621|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41||||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple interim analyses.|Log Rank|||||||0.41
90854448|NCT01314911|181572622|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88||||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple interim analyses.|Log Rank|||||||0.88
90854449|NCT01314911|181572623|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7461||||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple interim analyses.|Log Rank|||||||0.7461
90854450|NCT01314911|181572624|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1501||||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple interim analyses.|Log Rank|||||||0.1501
90854451|NCT01314911|181572625|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3025||||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple interim analyses.|Log Rank|||||||0.3025
90854452|NCT01314911|181572626|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5466||||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple interim analyses.|Log Rank|||||||0.5466
90854453|NCT01314911|181572628|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.5311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|3.0||P-value was not adjusted for multiple interim analyses.|two-sample binomial exact test|The two-sample binomial exact test was performed in PROC STATXACT.|The difference in percents was calculated as the percent in the Oseltamivir arm minus the percent in the placebo arm.|||3.0|-1.4|0.5311
91104339|NCT02539394|182094890|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.022|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of POD1 SWAL-QOL - Fear swallow is the same across the 2 arms||||0.022
90854454|NCT01314911|181572629|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.8498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|4.7||P-value was not adjusted for multiple interim analyses.|Z test||The difference in percents was calculated as the percent in the Oseltamivir arm minus the percent in the placebo arm.|This test compared the difference in percentages of participants with at least one complication between two randomized arms.||4.7|-3.8|0.8498
90854455|NCT01314911|181572631|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.6||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.2|-5.1||P-value was not adjusted for multiple interim analyses.|Z test||||The difference in percents was calculated as the percent with detectable in the Oseltamivir arm minus the percent with detectable in the placebo arm.|-5.1|-22.2|0.0021
90854456|NCT01314911|181572634|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022||||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple interim analyses.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.022
90854457|NCT03150485|181572684|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was established is the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval was above 50%.|Estimated Proportion|77.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.15|90.29|||Agresti-Coull|||The Agresti-Coull method was used to estimate the confidence interval of the binomial proportions of subjects with less than 2 lens modifications.||90.29|56.15|
90854458|NCT03560739|181572803|EQUIVALENCE|For reference-scaled average bioequivalence testing, both criteria have to be met: 1) geo-mean ratio needs to fall in \[0.8, 1.25\]; 2) 95% upper bound of the linearized criterion needs to be \<= 0. This part is regarding criterion 1.|Geo-mean ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|1.25|||||The confidence interval reported in the Point Estimate section below is the one from the criterion, not the estimated confidence interval.|Criteria 1 for bioequivalence testing of AUCtau||1.25|.8|
90854459|NCT03560739|181572803|EQUIVALENCE|For reference-scaled average bioequivalence testing, both criteria have to be met: 1) geo-mean ratio needs to fall in \[0.8, 1.25\]; 2) 95% upper bound of the linearized criterion needs to be \<= 0. This part is regarding criterion 2.|95% upper bound of the linearized criter|-0.3131|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.0|||||The upper limit reported in the Point Estimate section below is the limit on the 95% upper bound from the criterion, not the estimated upper limit of the 95% upper bound of the linearized criterion|Criteria 2 for bioequivalence testing of AUCtau||0||
90854460|NCT03560739|181572804|EQUIVALENCE|For reference-scaled average bioequivalence testing, both criteria have to be met: 1) geo-mean ratio needs to fall in \[0.8, 1.25\]; 2) 95% upper bound of the linearized criterion needs to be \<= 0. This part is regarding criterion 1.|geo-mean ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|1.25|||||The confidence interval reported in the Point Estimate section below is the one from the criterion, not the estimated confidence interval.|Criteria 1 for bioequivalence testing of Cmax||1.25|.8|
90854461|NCT03560739|181572804|EQUIVALENCE|For reference-scaled average bioequivalence testing, both criteria have to be met: 1) geo-mean ratio needs to fall in \[0.8, 1.25\]; 2) 95% upper bound of the linearized criterion needs to be \<= 0. This part is regarding criterion 2.|95% upper bound of the linearized criter|-0.2446|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.0|||||The upper limit reported in the Point Estimate section below is the limit on the 95% upper bound from the criterion, not the estimated upper limit of the 95% upper bound of the linearized criterion.|Criteria 2 for bioequivalence testing of Cmax||0||
90854462|NCT04190680|181572912|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|A three-level linear mixed model analysis, with classes as third level, participants as second level, and measurements as first level, was used.||Statistical analysis at T1 (directly after the evaluation lesson).||||0.001
90854463|NCT04190680|181572912|OTHER|||||||0.31|||||||Regression, Linear|A three-level linear mixed model analysis, with classes as third level, participants as second level, and measurements as first level, was used.||Statistical analysis at T2 (three months after the evaluation lesson).||||0.31
90854464|NCT04190680|181572913|OTHER|||||||0.55|||||||Regression, Linear|A three-level linear mixed model analysis, with classes as third level, participants as second level, and measurements as first level, was used.||Statistical analysis at T1 (directly after evaluation lesson).||||0.55
90902224|NCT00384059|181671275|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|2.7||||||95.0|-0.5|7.6||||||For Pertussis FIM the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 2.2 EU/mL threshold was calculated||7.6|-0.5|
90854465|NCT04190680|181572913|OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||Regression, Linear|A three-level linear mixed model analysis, with classes as third level, participants as second level, and measurements as first level, was used.||Statistical analysis at T2 (three months after evaluation lesson).||||0.33
90854466|NCT04190680|181572914|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Regression, Linear|A three-level linear mixed model analysis, with classes as third level, participants as second level, and measurements as first level, was used.||Statistical analysis at T1 (directly after evaluation lesson).||||0.004
90854467|NCT04190680|181572914|OTHER|||||||0.84|||||||Regression, Linear|A three-level linear mixed model analysis, with classes as third level, participants as second level, and measurements as first level, was used.||Statistical analysis at T2 (three months after evaluation lesson).||||0.84
91031200|NCT01027780|181947074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0||||Note that this is the p value for differences between groups immediately following the intervention|GEE|Generalized estimating equations (GEE) approach was used to assess robustness of population parameters, such as treatment effects.||||||.04
91104340|NCT02539394|182094890|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.018|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of POD2 SWAL-QOL - Fear swallow is the same across the 2 arms||||0.018
91104341|NCT02539394|182094890|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.008|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of 4-6 weeks SWAL-QOL - Fear swallow is the same across the 2 arms||||0.008
91104342|NCT02539394|182094891|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.28|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of Pre-operative SWAL-QOL - Social is the same across the 2 arms||||0.280
91104343|NCT02539394|182094891|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.483|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of POD1 SWAL-QOL - Social is the same across the 2 arms||||0.483
90902225|NCT00384059|181671275|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|1.0||||||95.0|-4.1|6.5||||||For Pertussis FIM the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 5 EU/mL threshold was calculated||6.5|-4.1|
90902226|NCT00384059|181671276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-5.3||||||95.0|-19.7|8.8||||||For Meningococcal C the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 1:8 titer was calculated||8.8|-19.7|
90902227|NCT00384059|181671276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-0.1||||||95.0|-8.0|8.1||||||For Meningococcal C the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 1:8 titer was calculated||8.1|-8.0|
90902228|NCT00384059|181671277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-3.5|3.8||||||For Haemophilus influenzae type b the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.15 µg/mL threshold was calculated||3.8|-3.5|
90902229|NCT00384059|181671277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-1.0||||||95.0|-5.3|2.8||||||For Haemophilus influenzae type b the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 1.0 µg/mL threshold was calculated||2.8|-5.3|
90902230|NCT00384059|181671278|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for the concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.89||||||95.0|0.68|1.16||||||For Meningococcal C the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.16|0.68|
90958345|NCT03486457|181796704|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.012||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|-1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Analysis performed using mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-1.40|-5.40|0.0010
90902231|NCT00384059|181671279|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for the concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.77||||||95.0|0.54|1.08||||||For Haemophilus influenzae type b the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.08|0.54|
90902232|NCT00384059|181671280|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for the concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.98||||||95.0|0.82|1.16||||||For Pertussis FHA the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.16|0.82|
90902233|NCT00384059|181671280|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for the concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.99||||||95.0|0.83|1.17||||||For Pertussis PT the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.17|0.83|
90902234|NCT00384059|181671280|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for the concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|1.0||||||95.0|0.8|1.26||||||For Pertussis PRN the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.26|0.80|
90958346|NCT03486457|181796704|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-5.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.024|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.05|-3.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-3.01|-7.05|<0.0001
91104344|NCT02539394|182094891|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of POD2 SWAL-QOL - Social is the same across the 2 arms||||0.070
91104345|NCT02539394|182094891|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.2|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of 4-6 weeks SWAL-QOL - Social is the same across the 2 arms||||0.200
90902235|NCT00384059|181671280|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for the concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|1.0||||||95.0|0.81|1.23||||||For Pertussis FIM the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.23|0.81|
90902236|NCT00384059|181671281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.13||||||95.0|0.83|1.53||||||For Haemophilus influenzae type b the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.53|0.83|
90902237|NCT00384059|181671286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ration|0.85||||||95.0|0.48|1.49||||||For Meningococcal C the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.49|0.48|
90902238|NCT00381641|181671292|SUPERIORITY|"Null (historical) response rate for iodine refractory subgroup is 10%. Power=90% for 30% alternative.~Null (historical) response rate for metastatic medullary subgroup is 5%. Power=88% for 25% alternative."|||||<|0.1||||||"For iodine refractory subgroup, null hypothesis could be rejected if 6 or more responses were observed.~For metastatic medullary subgroup, null hypothesis could be rejected if 3 or more responses were observed."|Simon, two-stage design|||Note. The objective was not to compare the two arms (subgroups), but to compare each with historical data.||||<0.10
90902239|NCT00802737|181671322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||proportion of responders|0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.5|||||Two-sided 95% exact confidence intervals were calculated based on the binomial distribution. The estimated value was calculated using the number of responders (CR+nPR+PR) as the numerator and the total number of par. in the group as the denominator.|||0.50|0.07|
90902240|NCT00802737|181671322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||proportion of responders|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.52|||||Two-sided 95% exact confidence intervals were calculated based on the binomial distribution. The estimated value was calculated using the number of responders (CR+nPR+PR) as the numerator and the total number of par. in the group as the denominator.|||0.52|0.02|
90902241|NCT00802737|181671322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||proportion of responders|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|1.0|||||Two-sided 95% exact confidence intervals were calculated based on the binomial distribution. The estimated value was calculated using the number of responders (CR+nPR+PR) as the numerator and the total number of par. in the group as the denominator.|||1.00|0.03|
90902242|NCT00445601|181671346|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.9|||Log Rank|||||0.90|0.48|0.01
90958347|NCT03486457|181796704|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-5.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.023|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|-3.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 2: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-3.66|-7.70|<0.0001
90958348|NCT03486457|181796704|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-7.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.111|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|-4.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-4.82|-9.20|<0.0001
90902243|NCT00445601|181671347|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.49|||Log Rank|||||1.49|0.18|0.23
90902244|NCT00619476|181671350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean difference versus placebo|-0.81||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.23||This p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity using a step-down procedure that uses Dunnett's test within a closed testing scheme for multiple comparisons with a common control in order to maintain the overall experiment-wise alpha level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|An ANCOVA model with body mass index (BMI), baseline 24-hour average pain intensity, and grouped center as covariates was used.||||-0.23|-1.40|0.013
91031201|NCT01027780|181947075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0||||Difference between groups following intervention|ANOVA|||||||.03
90854468|NCT04190680|181572915|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Regression, Linear|A three-level linear mixed model analysis, with classes as third level, participants as second level, and measurements as first level, was used.||Statistical analysis at T1 (directly after evaluation lesson).||||0.002
90854469|NCT04190680|181572915|OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||Regression, Linear|A three-level linear mixed model analysis, with classes as third level, participants as second level, and measurements as first level, was used.||Statistical analysis at T2 (three months after evaluation lesson).||||0.16
90902245|NCT00619476|181671350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean difference versus placebo|-0.7||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.07||This p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity using a step-down procedure that uses Dunnett's test within a closed testing scheme for multiple comparisons with a common control in order to maintain the overall experiment-wise alpha level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|An ANCOVA model with body mass index (BMI), baseline 24-hour average pain intensity, and grouped center as covariates was used.||||-0.07|-1.33|0.029
90902246|NCT00619476|181671350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean difference versus placebo|-1.07||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|-0.45||This p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity using a step-down procedure that uses Dunnett's test within a closed testing scheme for multiple comparisons with a common control in order to maintain the overall experiment-wise alpha level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|An ANCOVA model with body mass index (BMI), baseline 24-hour average pain intensity, and grouped center as covariates was used.||||-0.45|-1.68|0.002
90902247|NCT00214903|181671396|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size calculations were based on a non-inferiority test to exclude a two-fold risk of cardiovascular events in users of DRSP/E2 compared to other oral continuous combined HRT. These calculations are based on the following assumptions: 1) one-sided α 0.05; 2) power (1-β) of 0.80; 3) Estimated incidence of cardiovascular events, ATE and VTE would be at least 1.0, 0.3 and 0.2 event/100 woman-years and 4) non-inferiority limit hazard ratio of 2.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.3|||||Hazard ratio was adjusted for age, BMI, duration of current use, family history of VTE, region, and HRT user status.|Tested null hypotheses: the VTE hazard ratio for DRSP/E2 vs. ooccHRT is higher or equal to 2.||1.3|0.5|
90902248|NCT00214903|181671397|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size calculations were based on a non-inferiority test to exclude a two-fold risk of cardiovascular events in users of DRSP/E2 compared to other oral continuous combined HRT. These calculations are based on the following assumptions: 1) one-sided α 0.05; 2) power (1-β) of 0.80; 3) Estimated incidence of cardiovascular events, ATE and VTE would be at least 1.0, 0.3 and 0.2 event/100 woman-years and 4) non-inferiority limit hazard ratio of 2.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.8|||||Hazard ratio was adjusted for age, BMI, hypertension, diabetes, family history of fatal ATE, region, and smoking.|Tested null hypotheses: the ATE hazard ratio for DRSP/E2 vs. ooccHRT is higher or equal to 2.||0.8|0.3|
90902249|NCT01625910|181671398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.21||||||Baseline data by group assignment status (intervention or control) using means of the calculated BMI z-scores (U.S. CDC-2000 growth charts) implemented by applying the published LMS (shape, median, and scale) age- and sex/gender-specific parameters. Because of random assignment of a reasonably large number of children, an unadjusted analysis of change in outcomes between intervention and control groups is presented as well as the covariate-adjusted analysis of differences in changes.||0.21|-0.10|
90902250|NCT01625910|181671399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.4||||||unadjusted net difference between groups||0.40|-0.74|
90902251|NCT02959138|181671400|OTHER|The test-to-reference ratio (geometric least squares mean (GLSM) ratio) and associated 90% CI were calculated by taking the exponential of the point estimate and the corresponding lower and upper limits, which was consistent with the two 1-sided tests approach.|GLSM ratio|111.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.94|143.47||||||The Estimate statement was used to produce the point estimate and the corresponding 90% confidence interval of the difference in PK parameters of interest on a logarithmic scale.||143.47|86.94|
91031202|NCT00365300|181947092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.004||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
90854470|NCT04190680|181572916|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Regression, Linear|A three-level linear mixed model analysis, with classes as third level, participants as second level, and measurements as first level, was used.||Statistical analysis at T1 (directly after evaluation lesson).||||0.01
90854471|NCT04190680|181572916|OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||Regression, Linear|A three-level linear mixed model analysis, with classes as third level, participants as second level, and measurements as first level, was used.||Statistical analysis at T2 (three months after evaluation lesson).||||0.19
90854472|NCT03780400|181572917|OTHER|test for within group change from baseline to 4 month follow-up||||||0.5145|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5145
90854473|NCT03780400|181572918|OTHER|test for within group change from baseline to 4 month follow-up||||||0.3683|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3683
90854474|NCT03780400|181572919|OTHER|test for within group change from baseline to 4 month follow-up||||||0.9858|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9858
90854475|NCT03780400|181572920|OTHER|test for within group change from baseline to 4 month follow-up|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90854476|NCT03780400|181572921|OTHER|test for within group change from baseline to 4 month follow-up|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90958349|NCT03486457|181796704|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.073||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.07|-1.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-1.83|-6.07|0.0003
91104346|NCT02539394|182094892|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.148|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of Pre-operative SWAL-QOL - Mental is the same across the 2 arms||||0.148
91031203|NCT01029353|181947124|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.14|||||RR: Initial Laparotomy over Peritoneal Drain. RR from robust Poisson regression with log link, reference cell coding, center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, and pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP) as covariates.|A frequentist analysis. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, and pre-operative diagnosis (Necrotizing Enterocolitis (NEC) or Isolated Intestinal Perforation (IP)) as covariates.||1.14|0.87|
91031204|NCT01029353|181947124|OTHER|||||||0.03||||||Pre-specified threshold = 0.05|Robust Poisson regression|||A frequentist analysis. Using Robust Poisson regression with log link and center as repeated measure, and effect coding, test for an interaction between treatment (Initial Laparotomy/Initial Peritoneal Drain) and pre-operative diagnosis (Necrotizing Enterocolitis (NEC) or Isolated Intestinal Perforation (IP)) as covariates. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-operative diagnosis as covariates.||||0.03
91031205|NCT01029353|181947124|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||A Bayesian analysis. Initial Laparotomy and Initial Peritoneal Drain were compared using log-binomial regression. The SAS procedure PROC MCMC with reference cell coding was used. Center (random effect), treatment, pre-operative diagnosis, and baseline risk of death or NDI were binary covariates. Pre-operative diagnosis levels were NEC and IP. Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) characteristics: three chains, 10000 tunings, 10000 burn-ins, 1000000 samples, thinning=20.|Priors for model parameters: intercept = Normal(mean=0, variance=100), baseline risk and preop diagnosis parameters = Normal(mean=0, variance=1), treatment and the interaction term = Normal(mean=0, variance=0.31416), random effect standard deviation = Half-Normal(mean=0, variance=10). The posterior median relative risk of Initial Laparotomy over Initial Drainage was 0.95, 95% credible interval of (0.82, 1.11).|||
90854477|NCT01850602|181572922|NON_INFERIORITY|"Non-Inferiority margin: 1.0 mg/dL~Non-Inferiority was considerd to be confirmed if the upper limit of two-sided confidence interval became 1.0 mg/dL or less."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||||-0.05|-0.63|0.020
90854478|NCT00740051|181572932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.86|-0.29||No adjustment of p-values|ANCOVA|||Linagliptin versus Placebo||-0.29|-0.86|<0.0001
90854479|NCT00740051|181572933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.88|-0.32||No adjustment of p-values|ANCOVA|||Linagliptin versus Placebo. The primary analysis performed at the interim was re-run at the end of the study to accommodate changes made to the final study database.||-0.32|-0.88|<0.0001
90854480|NCT00740051|181572934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4||0.0002||95.0|-31.1|-9.9||No adjustment of p-values|ANCOVA|||Linagliptin versus Placebo||-9.9|-31.1|0.0002
90854481|NCT00740051|181572935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.576||||0.0374||95.0|1.057|6.279||No adjustment of p-values|Regression, Logistic|||Linagliptin versus Placebo||6.279|1.057|0.0374
90854482|NCT00740051|181572936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.285||||0.1281||95.0|0.71|15.196||No adjustment of p-values|Regression, Logistic|||Linagliptin vs. Placebo||15.196|0.710|0.1281
90854483|NCT00740051|181572937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.801||||0.0046||95.0|1.374|5.711||No adjustment of p-values|Regression, Logistic|||Linagliptin versus Placebo||5.711|1.374|0.0046
90854484|NCT03239665|181572942|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)||||||0.0081||||||Two-sided Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Testing total knowledge score change between groups from baseline to post intervention||||0.0081
90854485|NCT03239665|181572942|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)||||||0.0243||||||Two-sided Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Testing zoster knowledge score change between groups from baseline to post intervention||||0.0243
90854486|NCT03239665|181572942|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)||||||0.071||||||Two-sided Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Testing pneumonia knowledge score change between groups from baseline to post intervention||||0.0710
90854487|NCT03239665|181572942|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)||||||0.0008||||||Two-sided Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Testing influenza knowledge score change between groups from baseline to post intervention||||0.0008
90854488|NCT03239665|181572942|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)||||||0.1094||||||Two-sided Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Testing total knowledge score change between groups from baseline to one-month follow-up||||0.1094
90854489|NCT03239665|181572942|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)||||||0.2029||||||Two-sided Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Testing zoster knowledge score change between groups from baseline to one-month follow-up||||0.2029
90854490|NCT03239665|181572942|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)||||||0.8599||||||Two-sided Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Testing pneumonia knowledge score change between groups from baseline to one-month follow-up||||0.8599
90854491|NCT03239665|181572942|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)||||||0.0007||||||Two-sided Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Testing influenza knowledge score change between groups from baseline to one-month follow-up||||0.0007
90854492|NCT03239665|181572942|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)||||||0.0246||||||Two-sided Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Testing total knowledge score change between groups from post-intervention to one-month follow-up||||0.0246
90958350|NCT03486457|181796704|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.108||0.0323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.58|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-0.20|-4.58|0.0323
90958351|NCT03486457|181796705|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-6.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.481||0.0087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.46|-1.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Analysis performed using mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-1.68|-11.46|0.0087
91100128|NCT05064800|182086557|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|171.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|127.51|231.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment 1 was Reference and Treatment 3 was Test. Natural log-transformed Cmax of dabigatran was analyzed using mixed effect model with treatment, period, sequence as fixed effects; participant within sequence as a random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences(AMD) (Test-Reference) and 90%CIs were obtained from the model. The AMD and 90%CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90%CI for the ratios.||231.77|127.51|
90854493|NCT03239665|181572942|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)||||||0.078||||||Two-sided Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Testing zoster knowledge score change between groups from post-intervention to one-month follow-up||||0.0780
90854494|NCT03239665|181572942|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)||||||0.0167||||||Two-sided Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Testing pneumonia knowledge score change between groups from post-intervention to one-month follow-up||||0.0167
90854495|NCT03239665|181572942|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)||||||0.9417||||||Two-sided Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Testing influenza knowledge score change between groups from post-intervention to one-month follow-up||||0.9417
90854496|NCT03239665|181572943|EQUIVALENCE|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)||||||0.0011||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Sign test|||"Testing within-group changes in beliefs for the statement Getting vaccinations is important to my health from baseline to post-intervention"||||0.0011
90854497|NCT03239665|181572943|EQUIVALENCE|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|||||<|0.0001||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Sign test|||"Testing within-group changes in beliefs for the statement Getting vaccinations is important to my health from baseline to post-intervention"||||<0.0001
90854498|NCT03239665|181572943|EQUIVALENCE|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)||||||0.0028||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Sign test|||"Testing within-group changes in beliefs for the statement Getting vaccinations is important to my health from baseline to one-month follow-up"||||0.0028
90854499|NCT03239665|181572943|EQUIVALENCE|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|||||<|0.0001||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Sign test|||"Testing within-group changes in beliefs for the statement Getting vaccinations is important to my health from baseline to one-month follow-up"||||<0.0001
90854500|NCT03239665|181572943|EQUIVALENCE|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)||||||1||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Sign test|||"Testing within-group changes in beliefs for the statement Getting vaccinations is important to my health from post-intervention to one-month follow-up"||||1.0
90854501|NCT03239665|181572943|EQUIVALENCE|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)||||||0.643||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Sign test|||"Testing within-group changes in beliefs for the statement Getting vaccinations is important to my health from post-intervention to one-month follow-up"||||0.6430
90854502|NCT03239665|181572943|EQUIVALENCE|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)||||||0.1193||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Sign test|||"Testing within-group changes in beliefs for the statement Getting vaccinations can be harmful to my health from baseline to post-intervention"||||0.1193
90854503|NCT03239665|181572943|EQUIVALENCE|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|||||<|0.0001||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Sign test|||"Testing within-group changes in beliefs for the statement Getting vaccinations can be harmful to my health from baseline to post-intervention"||||<0.0001
90854504|NCT03239665|181572943|EQUIVALENCE|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)||||||0.4861||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Sign test|||"Testing within-group changes in beliefs for the statement Getting vaccinations can be harmful to my health from baseline to one-month follow-up"||||0.4861
90958352|NCT03486457|181796705|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-11.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.487|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|-6.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-6.79|-16.60|<0.0001
90958353|NCT03486457|181796705|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-16.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.796|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.66|-10.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 2: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-10.63|-21.66|<0.0001
91104347|NCT02539394|182094892|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.04|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of POD1 SWAL-QOL - Mental is the same across the 2 arms||||0.040
90854505|NCT03239665|181572943|EQUIVALENCE|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)||||||0.0002||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Sign test|||"Testing within-group changes in beliefs for the statement Getting vaccinations can be harmful to my health from baseline to one-month follow-up"||||0.0002
90854506|NCT03239665|181572943|EQUIVALENCE|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)||||||0.3247||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Sign test|||"Testing within-group changes in beliefs for the statement Getting vaccinations can be harmful to my health from post-intervention to one-month follow-up"||||0.3247
90854507|NCT03239665|181572943|EQUIVALENCE|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)||||||0.4627||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Sign test|||"Testing within-group changes in beliefs for the statement Getting vaccinations can be harmful to my health from post-intervention to one-month follow-up"||||0.4627
90854508|NCT03239665|181572943|EQUIVALENCE|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)||||||0.1244||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Sign test|||"Testing within-group changes in beliefs for the statement I trust my doctor to give me information about vaccines and the diseases they prevent from baseline to post-intervention"||||0.1244
90854509|NCT03239665|181572943|EQUIVALENCE|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)||||||0.0575||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Sign test|||"Testing within-group changes in beliefs for the statement I trust my doctor to give me information about vaccines and the diseases they prevent from baseline to post-intervention"||||0.0575
90854510|NCT03239665|181572943|EQUIVALENCE|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)||||||0.7489||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Sign test|||"Testing within-group changes in beliefs for the statement I trust my doctor to give me information about vaccines and the diseases they prevent from baseline to one-month follow-up"||||0.7489
90902252|NCT02959138|181671400|OTHER|The test-to-reference ratio GLSM ratio and associated 90% CI were calculated by taking the exponential of the point estimate and the corresponding lower and upper limits, which was consistent with the two 1-sided tests approach.|GLSM ratio|107.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.47|146.02||||||The Estimate statement was used to produce the point estimate and the corresponding 90% CI of the difference in PK parameters of interest on a logarithmic scale.||146.02|78.47|
90902253|NCT02959138|181671401|OTHER|The test-to-reference ratio GLSM ratio and associated 90% CI were calculated by taking the exponential of the point estimate and the corresponding lower and upper limits, which was consistent with the two 1-sided tests approach.|GLSM ratio|111.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.92|144.12||||||The Estimate statement was used to produce the point estimate and the corresponding 90% CI of the difference in PK parameters of interest on a logarithmic scale.||144.12|86.92|
90902254|NCT02959138|181671401|OTHER|The test-to-reference ratio GLSM ratio and associated 90% CI were calculated by taking the exponential of the point estimate and the corresponding lower and upper limits, which was consistent with the two 1-sided tests approach.|GLSM ratio|107.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.63|145.65||||||The Estimate statement was used to produce the point estimate and the corresponding 90% CI of the difference in PK parameters of interest on a logarithmic scale.||145.65|79.63|
90902255|NCT02959138|181671402|OTHER|The test-to-reference ratio GLSM ratio and associated 90% CI were calculated by taking the exponential of the point estimate and the corresponding lower and upper limits, which was consistent with the two 1-sided tests approach.|GLSM ratio|102.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.42|127.79||||||The Estimate statement was used to produce the point estimate and the corresponding 90% CI of the difference in PK parameters of interest on a logarithmic scale.||127.79|81.42|
90902256|NCT02959138|181671402|OTHER|The test-to-reference ratio GLSM ratio and associated 90% CI were calculated by taking the exponential of the point estimate and the corresponding lower and upper limits, which was consistent with the two 1-sided tests approach.|GLSM ratio|87.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|68.14|113.13||||||The Estimate statement was used to produce the point estimate and the corresponding 90% CI of the difference in PK parameters of interest on a logarithmic scale.||113.13|68.14|
90902257|NCT01327547|181671463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-0.002||||0.4598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0417|0.0376|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in proportion: CMH approach weighted by hepatitis B virus (HBV) status and usage of protease inhibitor (PI) regimen strata was used to calculate the statistics.|A stratified analysis was conducted by summarizing the difference in proportions adjusted for the randomization strata formed by crossing levels of stratification variables. The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) approach was used. No formal hypothesis test was performed.||0.0376|-0.0417|0.4598
90902258|NCT01327547|181671464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0167|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0653|0.0319|||||CMH approach weighted by HBV status and usage of PI regiment strata, is used to calculate the statistics. The point estimate and 95% CI are difference in proportions between MVC and placebo for the participants meeting secondary endpoint.|||0.0319|-0.0653|
90902259|NCT01327547|181671464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0177|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0805|0.0452|||||CMH approach weighted by HBV status and usage of PI regiment strata, is used to calculate the statistics. The point estimate and 95% CI are difference in proportions between maraviroc and placebo for the participants meeting secondary endpoint.|||0.0452|-0.0805|
90902260|NCT01327547|181671469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-0.015|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1484|0.1185|||||Difference in proportion: CMH approach weighted by HBV status and usage of PI regimen strata was used to calculate the statistics.|A stratified analysis was conducted by summarizing the difference in proportions adjusted for the randomization strata formed by crossing levels of stratification variables. The CMH approach was used. No formal hypothesis test was performed. Week 48 data presented here.||0.1185|-0.1484|
91032831|NCT04638153|181951001|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1|||||Month 12|Results based on MMRM analysis with gender as a covariate, participant (and/or time) as a random effect; treatment, visit, age and gender as fixed effects using an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.1|-0.4|
91100129|NCT05064800|182086558|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|169.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|135.25|211.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment 1 was Reference and Treatment 3 was Test. Natural log-transformed AUCinf of dabigatran was analyzed using mixed effect model with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects and participant in sequence as random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences(AMD)(Test-Reference) and 90%CIs were obtained from the model. The AMD and 90%CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means(Test/Reference) and 90%CI for the ratios.||211.35|135.25|
90854511|NCT03239665|181572943|EQUIVALENCE|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)||||||0.0098||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Sign test|||"Testing within-group changes in beliefs for the statement I trust my doctor to give me information about vaccines and the diseases they prevent from baseline to one-month follow-up"||||0.0098
90854512|NCT03239665|181572943|EQUIVALENCE|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)||||||0.1797||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Sign test|||"Testing within-group changes in beliefs for the statement I trust my doctor to give me information about vaccines and the diseases they prevent from post-intervention to one-month follow-up"||||0.1797
90902261|NCT01327547|181671469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0255|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1784|0.1274|||||Difference in proportion: CMH approach weighted by HBV status and usage of PI regimen strata was used to calculate the statistics.|A stratified analysis was conducted by summarizing the difference in proportions adjusted for the randomization strata formed by crossing levels of stratification variables. The CMH approach was used. No formal hypothesis test was performed. Week 96 data presented here.||0.1274|-0.1784|
90902262|NCT01327547|181671469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.083|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2421|0.0761|||||Difference in proportion: CMH approach weighted by HBV status and usage of PI regimen strata was used to calculate the statistics.|A stratified analysis was conducted by summarizing the difference in proportions adjusted for the randomization strata formed by crossing levels of stratification variables. The CMH approach was used. No formal hypothesis test was performed. Week 144 data presented here.||0.0761|-0.2421|
90902263|NCT01327547|181671470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square (LS) Mean|-41.12||||0.1174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-92.72|10.49|||ANCOVA||Difference in Least Square (LS) Mean|The above analysis is for CD4+ cells at week 48. Results are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with change from baseline as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment (Maraviroc or placebo), baseline value of the response variable, hepatitis B virus status (HBV), Protease inhibitor (PI)-based regimen.||10.49|-92.72|0.1174
90902264|NCT01327547|181671470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-21.96||||0.593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-103.05|59.12|||ANCOVA||Difference in LS Mean|The above analysis is for CD8+ cells at Week 48. Results are from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment (Maraviroc or placebo), baseline value of the response variable, hepatitis B virus status (HBV), Protease inhibitor (PI)-based regimen.||59.12|-103.05|0.5930
90902265|NCT01327547|181671470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-48.26||||0.0669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-99.93|3.41|||ANCOVA|||The above analysis is for CD4+ cells at Week 96. Results are from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment (Maraviroc or placebo), baseline value of the response variable, hepatitis B virus status (HBV), Protease inhibitor (PI)-based regimen.||3.41|-99.93|0.0669
90854513|NCT03239665|181572943|EQUIVALENCE|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)||||||0.3613||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Sign test|||"Testing within-group changes in beliefs for the statement I trust my doctor to give me information about vaccines and the diseases they prevent from post-intervention to one-month follow-up"||||0.3613
90854514|NCT03239665|181572943|EQUIVALENCE|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)||||||0.5972||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Sign test|||"Testing within-group changes in beliefs for the statement I trust my pharmacist to give me information about vaccines and the diseases they prevent from baseline to post-intervention"||||0.5972
90854515|NCT03239665|181572943|EQUIVALENCE|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)||||||0.024||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Sign test|||"Testing within-group changes in beliefs for the statement I trust my pharmacist to give me information about vaccines and the diseases they prevent from baseline to post-intervention"||||0.0240
90854516|NCT03239665|181572943|EQUIVALENCE|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)||||||0.2437||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Sign test|||"Testing within-group changes in beliefs for the statement I trust my pharmacist to give me information about vaccines and the diseases they prevent from baseline to one-month follow-up"||||0.2437
90854517|NCT03239665|181572943|EQUIVALENCE|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)||||||0.0631||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Sign test|||"Testing within-group changes in beliefs for the statement I trust my pharmacist to give me information about vaccines and the diseases they prevent from baseline to one-month follow-up"||||0.0631
90854518|NCT03239665|181572943|EQUIVALENCE|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)||||||0.054||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Sign test|||"Testing within-group changes in beliefs for the statement I trust my pharmacist to give me information about vaccines and the diseases they prevent from post-intervention to one-month follow-up"||||0.0540
90854519|NCT03239665|181572943|EQUIVALENCE|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)||||||0.7298||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Sign test|||"Testing within-group changes in beliefs for the statement I trust my pharmacist to give me information about vaccines and the diseases they prevent from post-intervention to one-month follow-up"||||0.7298
90902266|NCT01327547|181671470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-65.28||||0.1799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-161.07|30.5|||ANCOVA|||The above analysis is for CD8+ cells at Week 96. Results are from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment (Maraviroc or placebo), baseline value of the response variable, hepatitis B virus status (HBV), Protease inhibitor (PI)-based regimen.||30.50|-161.07|0.1799
90902267|NCT01327547|181671470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-27.71||||0.3859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-90.71|35.29|||ANCOVA|||The above analysis is for CD4+ cells at Week 144. Results are from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment (Maraviroc or placebo), baseline value of the response variable, hepatitis B virus status (HBV), Protease inhibitor (PI)-based regimen.||35.29|-90.71|0.3859
90902268|NCT01327547|181671470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-31.86||||0.5571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-138.93|75.21|||ANCOVA|||The above analysis is for CD8+ cells at Week 144. Results are from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment (Maraviroc or placebo), baseline value of the response variable, hepatitis B virus status (HBV), Protease inhibitor (PI)-based regimen.||75.21|-138.93|0.5571
90902269|NCT01327547|181671471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-56.06||||0.0153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-101.2|-10.92|||ANCOVA||Difference in LS Mean|The above analysis is for CD38 expression on CD4 and CD8 cells at Week 48. Results are from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment (Maraviroc or placebo), baseline value of the response variable, HBV, PI-based regimen.||-10.92|-101.20|0.0153
90902270|NCT01327547|181671471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-44.93||||0.0947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-97.72|7.87|||ANCOVA|||The above analysis is for CD38 expression on CD4 and CD8 cells for Week 96. Results are from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment (Maraviroc or placebo), baseline value of the response variable, HBV, PI-based regimen.||7.87|-97.72|0.0947
90902271|NCT01327547|181671471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-29.75||||0.3595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-93.74|34.24|||ANCOVA|||The above analysis is for CD38 expression on CD4 and CD8 cells for Week 144. Results are from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment (Maraviroc or placebo), baseline value of the response variable, HBV, PI-based regimen.||34.24|-93.74|0.3595
90902272|NCT01327547|181671472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-2.53||||0.4476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.11|4.05|||ANCOVA||Difference in LS Mean|The above analysis is for C-reactive protein cells at Week 48. Results are from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment (Maraviroc or placebo), baseline value of the response variable, HBV, PI-based regimen.||4.05|-9.11|0.4476
90902273|NCT01327547|181671472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.67||||0.3012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|1.96|||ANCOVA|||The above analysis is for C-reactive protein cells at Week 96. Results are from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment (Maraviroc or placebo), baseline value of the response variable, HBV, PI-based regimen.||1.96|-0.61|0.3012
90902274|NCT01327547|181671472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.92||||0.4196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|3.17|||ANCOVA|||The above analysis is for C-reactive protein cells at Week 144. Results are from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment (Maraviroc or placebo), baseline value of the response variable, HBV, PI-based regimen.||3.17|-1.33|0.4196
90854520|NCT03239665|181572943|EQUIVALENCE|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)||||||0.4218||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Sign test|||"Testing within-group changes in beliefs for the statement I trust a peer educator to give me information about vaccines and the diseases they prevent from baseline to post-intervention"||||0.4218
90854521|NCT03239665|181572943|EQUIVALENCE|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)||||||0.2282||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Sign test|||"Testing within-group changes in beliefs for the statement I trust a peer educator to give me information about vaccines and the diseases they prevent from baseline to post-intervention"||||0.2282
90902275|NCT01327547|181671473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.3||||0.9904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.66|49.26||Not specifed.|ANCOVA||Difference in LS Mean|The above analysis is for D-Dimer cells at Week 48. Results are from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment (Maraviroc or placebo), baseline value of the response variable, HBV, PI-based regimen.||49.26|-48.66|0.9904
90902276|NCT01327547|181671473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|10.87||||0.7697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.44|84.18|||ANCOVA||Difference in LS Mean|The above analysis is for D-Dimer cells at Week 96. Results are from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment (Maraviroc or placebo), baseline value of the response variable, HBV, PI-based regimen.||84.18|-62.44|0.7697
90902277|NCT01327547|181671473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-24.49||||0.5816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-112.21|63.23|||ANCOVA||Difference in LS Mean|The above analysis is for D-Dimer cells at Week 144. Results are from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment (Maraviroc or placebo), baseline value of the response variable, HBV, PI-based regimen.||63.23|-112.21|0.5816
90958354|NCT03486457|181796705|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-21.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.027|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.84|-15.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-15.90|-27.84|<0.0001
90958355|NCT03486457|181796705|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-6.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.865||0.0163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|-1.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-1.29|-12.60|0.0163
90902278|NCT01327547|181671474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|498.04||||0.3786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-617.33|1613.41|||ANCOVA||Difference in LS Mean|The above analysis is for TGF-beta cells at Week 48. Results are from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment (Maraviroc or placebo), baseline value of the response variable, HBV, PI-based regimen.||1613.41|-617.33|0.3786
91031206|NCT01029353|181947124|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.26|||||RR: Initial Laparotomy over Peritoneal Drain. RR from robust regression with log link, reference cell coding, center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, and pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP) as covariate.|A frequentist analysis. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, and pre-operative diagnosis (Necrotizing Enterocolitis (NEC) or Isolated Intestinal Perforation (IP)) covariates.||1.26|0.75|
90902279|NCT01327547|181671474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|348.7||||0.4388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-539.61|1237.01|||ANCOVA||Difference in LS Mean|The above analysis is for TGF-beta cells at Week 96. Results are from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment (Maraviroc or placebo), baseline value of the response variable, HBV, PI-based regimen.||1237.01|-539.61|0.4388
90902280|NCT01327547|181671474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-173.57||||0.8559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2060.81|1713.68|||ANCOVA||Difference in LS Mean|The above analysis is for TGF-beta cells at Week 144. Results are from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment (Maraviroc or placebo), baseline value of the response variable, HBV, PI-based regimen.||1713.68|-2060.81|0.8559
90902281|NCT01327547|181671475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.03||||0.8024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.28|||ANCOVA||Difference in LS Mean|The above analysis is change for baseline in Log10 plasma HCV RNA at 48 Weeks. Results are from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment (Maraviroc or placebo), baseline value of the response variable, HBV, PI-based regimen.||0.28|-0.22|0.8024
90902282|NCT01327547|181671475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.15||||0.266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.43|||ANCOVA||Difference in LS Mean|The above analysis is change for baseline in Log10 plasma HCV RNA at 96 Weeks. Results are from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment (Maraviroc or placebo), baseline value of the response variable, HBV, PI-based regimen.||0.43|-0.12|0.2660
90902283|NCT01327547|181671475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS mean|0.15||||0.2855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.41|||ANCOVA||Difference in LS mean|The above analysis is change for baseline in Log10 plasma HCV RNA at 144 Weeks. Results are from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment (Maraviroc or placebo), baseline value of the response variable, HBV, PI-based regimen.||0.41|-0.12|0.2855
90902284|NCT01327547|181671476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.15||||0.7778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|1.23|||ANCOVA||Difference in LS Mean|Results are from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline at Week 48 as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment (Maraviroc or placebo), baseline value of the response variable, HBV, PI-based regimen.||1.23|-0.93|0.7778
90902285|NCT01327547|181671476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS mean|0.0||||0.9991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||ANCOVA||Difference in LS Mean|Results are from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline at Week 96 as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment (Maraviroc or placebo), baseline value of the response variable, HBV, PI-based regimen.||0.10|-0.10|0.9991
90902286|NCT01327547|181671476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS mean|-0.02||||0.7275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.11|||ANCOVA||Difference in LS Mean|Results are from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline at Week 144 as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment (Maraviroc or placebo), baseline value of the response variable, HBV, PI-based regimen.||0.11|-0.16|0.7275
90902287|NCT01327547|181671477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.07||||0.5201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.3|||ANCOVA||Difference in LS Mean|Results are from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline at Week 48 as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment (Maraviroc or placebo), baseline value of the response variable, HBV, PI-based regimen.||0.30|-0.15|0.5201
90902288|NCT01327547|181671477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.08||||0.4657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.13|||ANCOVA|||Results are from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline at Week 96 as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment (Maraviroc or placebo), baseline value of the response variable, HBV, PI-based regimen.||0.13|-0.28|0.4657
90902289|NCT01327547|181671477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.03||||0.8087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.2|||ANCOVA||Difference in LS Mean|Results are from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline at Week 144 as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment (Maraviroc or placebo), baseline value of the response variable, HBV, PI-based regimen.||0.20|-0.25|0.8087
90902290|NCT01327547|181671478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-1.84||||0.1417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.31|0.63|||ANCOVA||Difference in LS Mean|Results are from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline at Week 48 as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment (Maraviroc or placebo), baseline value of the response variable, HBV, PI-based regimen.||0.63|-4.31|0.1417
90958356|NCT03486457|181796705|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.967||0.2977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.95|2.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||2.76|-8.95|0.2977
91100130|NCT05064800|182086559|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|160.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|119.19|214.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment 1 was Reference and Treatment 3 was Test. Natural log-transformed AUClast of dabigatran was analyzed using mixed effect model with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects and participant in sequence as random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences(AMD)(Test-Reference) and 90%CIs were obtained from the model.The AMD and 90%CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means(Test/Reference) and 90%CI for the ratios.||214.90|119.19|
91100131|NCT02508207|182086588|OTHER|||||||0.7151||||||p-value for within TEZ/IVA group was analyzed using a 2-sided, paired, t-test at a 5% level of significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7151
91100132|NCT02508207|182086589|OTHER|||||||0.0004||||||p-value for within TEZ/IVA group was analyzed using a 2-sided, paired, t-test at a 5% level of significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0004
90854522|NCT03239665|181572943|EQUIVALENCE|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)||||||0.8711||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Sign test|||"Testing within-group changes in beliefs for the statement I trust a peer educator to give me information about vaccines and the diseases they prevent from baseline to one-month follow-up"||||0.8711
90854523|NCT03239665|181572943|EQUIVALENCE|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)||||||0.0027||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Sign test|||"Testing within-group changes in beliefs for the statement I trust a peer educator to give me information about vaccines and the diseases they prevent from baseline to one-month follow-up"||||0.0027
90854524|NCT03239665|181572943|EQUIVALENCE|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)||||||0.7579||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Sign test|||"Testing within-group changes in beliefs for the statement I trust a peer educator to give me information about vaccines and the diseases they prevent from post-intervention to one-month follow-up"||||0.7579
90854525|NCT03239665|181572943|EQUIVALENCE|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)||||||0.1299||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Sign test|||"Testing within-group changes in beliefs for the statement I trust a peer educator to give me information about vaccines and the diseases they prevent from post-intervention to one-month follow-up"||||0.1299
90854526|NCT03239665|181572945|EQUIVALENCE|Fisher's Exact test was used (2 x 2) with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||1||||||Fisher's Exact test was used (2 x 2) with a significance threshold of 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Testing between-group differences in dichotomous engagement in the program immediately post-intervention via Fisher's Exact test||||1.0
90854527|NCT03239665|181572945|EQUIVALENCE|Fisher's Exact test was used (2 x 2) with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.6806||||||Fisher's Exact test was used (2 x 2) with a significance threshold of 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Testing between-group differences in dichotomous engagement in the program at the one-month follow-up via Fisher's Exact test||||0.6806
90854528|NCT03239665|181572945|EQUIVALENCE|Fisher's Exact test was used (2 x 2) with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||1||||||Fisher's Exact test was used (2 x 2) with a significance threshold of 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Testing between-group differences in dichotomous satisfaction with the program's content immediately post-intervention via Fisher's Exact test||||1.0
90854529|NCT03239665|181572945|EQUIVALENCE|Fisher's Exact test was used (2 x 2) with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.4908||||||Fisher's Exact test was used (2 x 2) with a significance threshold of 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Testing between-group differences in dichotomous satisfaction with the program's content at the one-month follow-up via Fisher's Exact test||||0.4908
90854530|NCT03239665|181572946|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test was used with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.7728|||||||Chi-squared|||Testing between-group differences in number of participants planning to receive zoster vaccine at baseline via Chi-squared test||||0.7728
90854531|NCT03239665|181572946|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test was used with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.6871|||||||Chi-squared|||Testing between-group differences in number of participants planning to receive zoster vaccine post-intervention via Chi-squared test||||0.6871
90854532|NCT03239665|181572946|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test was used with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.8259|||||||Chi-squared|||Testing between-group differences in number of participants planning to receive zoster vaccine at one-month follow-up via Chi-squared test||||0.8259
90854533|NCT03239665|181572946|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test was used with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.8868|||||||Chi-squared|||Testing between-group differences in number of participants planning to receive influenza vaccine at baseline via Chi-squared test||||0.8868
90854534|NCT03239665|181572946|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test was used with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.8069|||||||Chi-squared|||Testing between-group differences in number of participants planning to receive influenza vaccine post-intervention via Chi-squared test||||0.8069
90854535|NCT03239665|181572946|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test was used with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.8489|||||||Chi-squared|||Testing between-group differences in number of participants planning to receive influenza vaccine at one-month follow-up via Chi-squared test||||0.8489
90854536|NCT03239665|181572946|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test was used with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.3985|||||||Chi-squared|||Testing between-group differences in number of participants planning to receive pneumonia vaccine at baseline via Chi-squared test||||0.3985
90854537|NCT03239665|181572946|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test was used with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.1722|||||||Chi-squared|||Testing between-group differences in number of participants planning to receive pneumonia vaccine post-intervention via Chi-squared test||||0.1722
90854538|NCT03239665|181572946|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test was used with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.7318|||||||Chi-squared|||Testing between-group differences in number of participants planning to receive pneumonia vaccine at one-month follow-up via Chi-squared test||||0.7318
90854539|NCT03239665|181572946|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test was used with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.6309|||||||Chi-squared|||Among those without positive vaccination history at post-test, testing between-group differences in number of participants planning to receive zoster vaccine post-intervention via Chi-squared test||||0.6309
90854540|NCT03239665|181572946|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test was used with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.7881|||||||Chi-squared|||Among those without positive vaccination history at post-test, testing between-group differences in number of participants planning to receive zoster vaccine at one-month follow-up via Chi-squared test||||0.7881
90902291|NCT01327547|181671478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-1.44||||0.2679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.01|1.14|||ANCOVA||Difference in LS Mean|Results are from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline at Week 96 as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment (Maraviroc or placebo), baseline value of the response variable, HBV, PI-based regimen.||1.14|-4.01|0.2679
91100133|NCT02508207|182086590|OTHER|||||||0.3345|||||||t-test, 2 sided|p-value for within TEZ/IVA group was analyzed using a 2-sided, paired, t-test at a 5% level of significance.||||||0.3345
91100134|NCT02508207|182086591|OTHER|||||||0.0002||||||p-value for within TEZ/IVA group was analyzed using a 2-sided, paired, t-test at a 5% level of significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0002
90854541|NCT03239665|181572946|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test was used with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.6798|||||||Chi-squared|||Among those without positive vaccination history at post-test, testing between-group differences in number of participants planning to receive influenza vaccine post-intervention via Chi-squared test||||0.6798
90854542|NCT03239665|181572946|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test was used with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.8548|||||||Chi-squared|||Among those without positive vaccination history at post-test, testing between-group differences in number of participants planning to receive influenza vaccine at one-month follow-up via Chi-squared test||||0.8548
90854543|NCT03239665|181572946|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test was used with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.3182|||||||Chi-squared|||Among those without positive vaccination history at post-test, testing between-group differences in number of participants planning to receive pneumonia vaccine post-intervention via Chi-squared test||||0.3182
90854544|NCT03239665|181572946|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test was used with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.7986|||||||Chi-squared|||Among those without positive vaccination history at post-test, testing between-group differences in number of participants planning to receive pneumonia vaccine at one-month follow-up via Chi-squared test||||0.7986
90854545|NCT03239665|181572947|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test was used with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.0163|||||||Chi-squared|||Testing between-group differences in number of participants reporting positive history of zoster vaccine at baseline via Chi-squared test||||0.0163
90854546|NCT03239665|181572947|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test was used with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.0028|||||||Chi-squared|||Testing between-group differences in number of participants reporting positive history of zoster vaccine post-intervention via Chi-squared test||||0.0028
90854547|NCT03239665|181572947|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test was used with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.0433|||||||Chi-squared|||Testing between-group differences in number of participants reporting positive history of zoster vaccine at one-month follow-up via Chi-squared test||||0.0433
90854548|NCT03239665|181572947|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test was used with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.0592|||||||Chi-squared|||Testing between-group differences in number of participants reporting positive history of influenza vaccine at baseline via Chi-squared test||||0.0592
90854549|NCT03239665|181572947|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test was used with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.1843|||||||Chi-squared|||Testing between-group differences in number of participants reporting positive history of influenza vaccine post-intervention via Chi-squared test||||0.1843
90854550|NCT03239665|181572947|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test was used with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.5933|||||||Chi-squared|||Testing between-group differences in number of participants reporting positive history of influenza vaccine at one-month follow-up via Chi-squared test||||0.5933
90854551|NCT03239665|181572947|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test was used with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.3942|||||||Chi-squared|||Testing between-group differences in number of participants reporting positive history of pneumonia vaccine at baseline via Chi-squared test||||0.3942
90854552|NCT03239665|181572947|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test was used with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.9062|||||||Chi-squared|||Testing between-group differences in number of participants reporting positive history of pneumonia vaccine post-intervention via Chi-squared test||||0.9062
90854553|NCT03239665|181572947|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test was used with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.9618|||||||Chi-squared|||Testing between-group differences in number of participants reporting positive history of pneumonia vaccine at one-month follow-up via Chi-squared test||||0.9618
90854554|NCT03239665|181572947|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test was used with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.114|||||||Chi-squared|||Among those without positive vaccination history at post-test, testing between-group differences in number of participants reporting positive history of zoster vaccine at one-month follow-up via Chi-squared test||||0.1140
90854555|NCT03239665|181572947|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test was used with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.0141|||||||Chi-squared|||Among those without positive vaccination history at post-test, testing between-group differences in number of participants reporting positive history of influenza vaccine at one-month follow-up via Chi-squared test||||0.0141
90854556|NCT03239665|181572947|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test was used with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.0457|||||||Chi-squared|||Among those without positive vaccination history at post-test, testing between-group differences in number of participants reporting positive history of pneumonia vaccine at one-month follow-up via Chi-squared test||||0.0457
90854557|NCT03239665|181572948|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test was used with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.6153|||||||Chi-squared|||Testing between-group differences in number of participants planning to discuss vaccines with their doctor at baseline via Chi-squared test||||0.6153
90854558|NCT03239665|181572948|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test was used with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.8299|||||||Chi-squared|||Testing between-group differences in number of participants planning to discuss vaccines with their doctor post-intervention via Chi-squared test||||0.8299
90854559|NCT03239665|181572948|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test was used with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.0405|||||||Chi-squared|||Testing between-group differences in number of participants planning to discuss vaccines with their doctor at one-month follow-up via Chi-squared test||||0.0405
90854560|NCT03239665|181572948|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test was used with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.3776|||||||Chi-squared|||Testing between-group differences in number of participants planning to discuss vaccines with their pharmacist at baseline via Chi-squared test||||0.3776
90854561|NCT03239665|181572948|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test was used with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.2856|||||||Chi-squared|||Testing between-group differences in number of participants planning to discuss vaccines with their pharmacist post-intervention via Chi-squared test||||0.2856
90854562|NCT03239665|181572948|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test was used with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.0016|||||||Chi-squared|||Testing between-group differences in number of participants planning to discuss vaccines with their pharmacist at one-month follow-up via Chi-squared test||||0.0016
90854563|NCT03239665|181572948|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test was used with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.9449|||||||Chi-squared|||Testing between-group differences in number of participants planning to discuss vaccines with their family/friends at baseline via Chi-squared test||||0.9449
90854564|NCT03239665|181572948|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test was used with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.6143|||||||Chi-squared|||Testing between-group differences in number of participants planning to discuss vaccines with their family/friends post-intervention via Chi-squared test||||0.6143
90854565|NCT03239665|181572948|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test was used with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.0036|||||||Chi-squared|||Testing between-group differences in number of participants planning to discuss vaccines with their family/friends at one-month follow-up via Chi-squared test||||0.0036
90854566|NCT03239665|181572949|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test was used with a significance threshold of 0.05.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||Testing between-group differences in number of participants having discussed vaccines with their doctor at one-month follow-up via Chi-squared test||||<0.0001
90854567|NCT03239665|181572949|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test was used with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.0012|||||||Chi-squared|||Testing between-group differences in number of participants having discussed vaccines with their pharmacist at one-month follow-up via Chi-squared test||||0.0012
90854568|NCT03239665|181572949|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test was used with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.0034|||||||Chi-squared|||Testing between-group differences in number of participants having discussed vaccines with their family/friends at one-month follow-up via Chi-squared test||||0.0034
90854569|NCT04445792|181572964|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7195|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7195
90854570|NCT04445792|181572964|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8054|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8054
90854571|NCT04445792|181572964|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.861|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.861
90854572|NCT04445792|181572965|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4385|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4385
90854573|NCT04445792|181572965|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7185|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7185
90854574|NCT04445792|181572965|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.431|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.431
90854575|NCT04445792|181572966|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9222|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.9222
90854576|NCT04445792|181572966|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1918|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1918
90854577|NCT04445792|181572966|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0119|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0119
90854578|NCT04445792|181572967|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6971|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6971
90854579|NCT04445792|181572967|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2309|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2309
90854580|NCT04445792|181572967|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0441|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0441
90854581|NCT04445792|181572968|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7988|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7988
90854582|NCT04445792|181572968|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0483|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0483
90854583|NCT04445792|181572968|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0104|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0104
90854584|NCT04445792|181572969|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.521|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.521
90854585|NCT04445792|181572969|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2348|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2348
91104348|NCT02539394|182094892|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.042|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of POD2 SWAL-QOL - Mental is the same across the 2 arms||||0.042
90854586|NCT04445792|181572969|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0517|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0517
90854587|NCT04445792|181572970|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6835|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6835
90854588|NCT04445792|181572970|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0205|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0205
90854589|NCT04445792|181572970|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0036|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0036
90854590|NCT04445792|181572971|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5878|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5878
90854591|NCT04445792|181572971|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1051|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1051
90854592|NCT04445792|181572971|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0292|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0292
90854593|NCT04445792|181572972|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
90854594|NCT04445792|181572972|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5973|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5973
90854595|NCT04445792|181572972|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0046|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0046
90854596|NCT00403403|181572996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.528||||0.0097||95.0|0.323|0.862|||Log Rank||HR estimated from a stratified Cox regression model, stratified for ECOG performance (0-1 vs. 2) and chemotherapy type (cisplatin vs. carboplatin)|||0.862|0.323|0.0097
90854597|NCT00403403|181572997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||0.6054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.039|||Log Rank||HR estimated from a stratified Cox regression model, stratified for ECOG performance (0-1 vs. 2) and chemotherapy type (cisplatin vs. carboplatin)|||2.039|0.660|0.6054
90854598|NCT00403403|181572998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.7||||0.3269||95.0|-9.6|29.0|||Chi-squared|||||29.0|-9.6|0.3269
90854599|NCT00403403|181573000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.305||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.144|0.644|||Log Rank||HR estimated from a stratified Cox regression model, stratified for ECOG performance (0-1 vs. 2) and chemotherapy type (cisplatin vs. carboplatin)|||0.644|0.144|0.0011
90854600|NCT01885871|181573034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
90854601|NCT03228420|181573056|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||2-sided alpha level of 0.05|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
90854602|NCT01083173|181573069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||CD4 cell counts at 24 weeks as compared to baseline||||< 0.0001
90854603|NCT01083173|181573069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||CD4 cell counts at 48 weeks as compared to baseline||||< 0.0001
90854604|NCT04626310|181573077|SUPERIORITY||Linear slope difference DBT-ER-IP|0.096|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparisons of Linear Slopes (DBT-ER vs. IP) in latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) with quadratic effects.||||.8
90854605|NCT04626310|181573077|SUPERIORITY||Linear Slope difference DBT-IE-IP|-0.234|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.385||0.544|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparisons of Linear Slopes (DBT-IE vs. IP) in latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) with quadratic effects.||||.544
90854606|NCT04626310|181573077|SUPERIORITY||Linear Slope difference DBT-ER-DBT-IE|0.329|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.429||0.442|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparisons of Linear Slopes (DBT-ER vs. DBT-IE) in latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) with quadratic effects.||||.442
90854607|NCT04626310|181573078|SUPERIORITY||Linear slope difference DBT-ER-IP|1.951|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparisons of Linear Slopes (DBT-ER vs. IP) in latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) with quadratic effects.||||.09
90854608|NCT04626310|181573078|SUPERIORITY||Linear slope difference DBT-IE-IP|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.228||0.93|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparisons of Linear Slopes (DBT-ER vs. DBT-IE) in latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) with quadratic effects.||||.93
90854609|NCT04626310|181573078|SUPERIORITY||Linear slope difference DBT-ER-DBT-IE|1.851|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.103||0.93|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparisons of Linear Slopes (DBT-ER vs. DBT-IE) in latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) with quadratic effects.||||.93
90854610|NCT04626310|181573078|SUPERIORITY||Quad slope difference DBT-ER-IP|-0.028|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.93|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparisons of Quadratic Slopes (DBT-ER vs. IP) in latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) with quadratic effects.||||.93
90854611|NCT04626310|181573078|SUPERIORITY||Quad slope difference DBT-IE-IP|-0.029|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145||0.836|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparisons of Quadratic Slopes (DBT-IE vs. IP) in latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) with quadratic effects.||||.836
90854612|NCT04626310|181573078|SUPERIORITY||Quad slope difference DBT-ER-DBT-IE|0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145||0.994|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparisons of Quadratic Slopes (DBT-IE vs. IP) in latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) with quadratic effects.||||.994
90854613|NCT04626310|181573079|SUPERIORITY||Linear slope difference DBT-ER-IP|0.059|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.083||0.475|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) were estimated with maximum likelihood. The slopes of the difference between neutral and negative-maintain were regressed on time (weeks, centered around the start of treatment) and calculated per condition. Models tested whether these slopes differed by condition. This test compared DBT-ER to IP.||||.475
90854614|NCT04626310|181573079|SUPERIORITY||Linear slope difference DBT-IE-IP|0.037|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.082||0.654|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) were estimated with maximum likelihood. The slopes of the difference between neutral and negative-maintain were regressed on time (weeks, centered around the start of treatment) and calculated per condition. Models tested whether these slopes differed by condition. This test compared DBT-IE to IP.||||.654
90854615|NCT04626310|181573079|SUPERIORITY||Linear slope difference DBT-ER-DBT-IE|0.022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.085||0.791|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) were estimated with maximum likelihood. The slopes of the difference between neutral and negative-maintain were regressed on time (weeks, centered around the start of treatment) and calculated per condition. Models tested whether these slopes differed by condition. This test compared DBT-ER to DBT-IE.||||.791
90854616|NCT04626310|181573080|SUPERIORITY||Linear slope difference DBT-ER-IP|-0.332|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.095||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) were estimated with maximum likelihood. We examined the effect of Negative Decrease vs. Negative Maintain over time per condition. Models tested whether these slopes differed by condition. This test compared DBT-ER to IP.||||.001
90854617|NCT04626310|181573080|SUPERIORITY||Linear slope difference DBT-IE-IP|-0.165|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094||0.078|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) were estimated with maximum likelihood. We examined the effect of Negative Decrease vs. Negative Maintain over time per condition. Models tested whether these slopes differed by condition. This test compared DBT-IE to IP.||||.078
90854618|NCT04626310|181573080|SUPERIORITY||Linear slope difference DBT-ER-DBT-IE|-0.167|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.095||0.08|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) were estimated with maximum likelihood. We examined the effect of Negative Decrease vs. Negative Maintain over time per condition. Models tested whether these slopes differed by condition. This test compared DBT-ER to DBT-IE.||||.080
90854619|NCT04626310|181573081|SUPERIORITY||Linear Slope Diff DBT-ER-IP|0.091|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) were estimated with maximum likelihood. The Negative x Novel x time (weeks, centered around the start of treatment) slopes were calculated per condition. Models tested whether these slopes differed by condition. This test compared DBT-ER to IP.||||.13
90854620|NCT04626310|181573081|SUPERIORITY||Linear slope difference DBT-IE-IP|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.046|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) were estimated with maximum likelihood. The Negative x Novel x time (weeks, centered around the start of treatment) slopes were calculated per condition. Models tested whether these slopes differed by condition. This test compared DBT-IE to IP.||||.046
90854621|NCT04626310|181573081|SUPERIORITY||Linear slope difference DBT-ER-DBT-IE|-0.028|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057||0.617|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) were estimated with maximum likelihood. The Negative x Novel x time (weeks, centered around the start of treatment) slopes were calculated per condition. Models tested whether these slopes differed by condition. This test compared DBT-ER to DBT-IE.||||.617
90854622|NCT04626310|181573082|SUPERIORITY||Linear slope difference DBT-ER-IP|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.103||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) were estimated with maximum likelihood. Simple slopes of change in this interaction effect were calculated for each condition. Models tested whether these slopes differed by condition. This test compared DBT-ER to IP.||||.005
90854623|NCT04626310|181573082|SUPERIORITY||Linear slope difference DBT-IE-IP|-0.111|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.103||0.281|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) were estimated with maximum likelihood. Simple slopes of change in this interaction effect were calculated for each condition. Models tested whether these slopes differed by condition. This test compared DBT-IE to IP.||||.281
90958357|NCT03486457|181796706|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-6.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.646||0.0211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.37|-0.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Analysis performed using mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-0.93|-11.37|0.0211
90902292|NCT01327547|181671478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-1.48||||0.1366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.45|0.49|||ANCOVA||Difference in LS Mean|Results are from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline at Week 144 as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment (Maraviroc or placebo), baseline value of the response variable, HBV, PI-based regimen.||0.49|-3.45|0.1366
90902293|NCT03390036|181671485|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8106|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.8106
90902294|NCT03390036|181671486|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3007|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.3007
90902295|NCT03390036|181671487|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6354|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.6354
90902296|NCT03390036|181671488|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5754|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.5754
90902297|NCT03390036|181671489|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4759|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.4759
90902298|NCT03390036|181671490|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5596|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.5596
90958358|NCT03486457|181796706|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-13.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.79|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.59|-7.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-7.58|-18.59|<0.0001
90902299|NCT03390036|181671491|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4551|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.4551
90902300|NCT03390036|181671492|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7931|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.7931
91031207|NCT01029353|181947125|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.45|||||RR: Initial Laparotomy over Peritoneal Drain. RR from robust Poisson regression with log link, reference cell coding, center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, and pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP) as covariates.|A frequentist analysis.||1.45|0.69|
91100135|NCT00395512|182086627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.33||ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as class variables and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||The primary efficacy variable was defined as change from Baseline in HbA1c level at Week 26. The null hypothesis was that the average change from Baseline in HbA1c at Week 26 for the A25 + P30 group would be equal to the average changes for the P30 alone and A25 alone groups; further, under the null hypothesis, the average change from Baseline in HbA1c at Week 26 for the A12.5 + P30 group was equal to the average change for the P30 alone group.||-0.33|-0.78|<0.001
91100136|NCT00395512|182086627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.53||ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as class variables and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-0.53|-0.98|<0.001
90902301|NCT06017999|181671510|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean (LSM) difference|-153.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-173.8|-132.91|||ANCOVA|||||-132.91|-173.80|<0.0001
90902302|NCT06017999|181671511|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean (LSM) difference|-131.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-153.13|-110.16|||ANCOVA|||||-110.16|-153.13|<0.0001
90902303|NCT00900627|181671548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Maximum Tolerated Dose|40.0|||||||||||||Dosing started at 160mg. Based on the data seen, 240mg with 33% patients with DLTs, 120mg with 50% patients with DLTs, 80mg with 33% of patients with DLTs and 40mg with 0% patients with DLTs, 40mg was deemed the maximum tolerated dose.|A tolerated dose was defined as one where ≤25% of the patients experienced a DLT. If a dose was tolerated, an increased dose was to be investigated in another group of 3-6 evaluable patients. A non-tolerated dose was defined as one where \>25% of the patients experience a DLT. If a dose was non tolerated, a decreased/intermediate dose could be investigated in another group of 3-6 evaluable patients. The maximum tolerated dose was determined as the maximum dose level that was defined as tolerated.||||
90902304|NCT00900627|181671549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.52||Statistical significance threshold at this analysis was 5%|Cox Proportional Hazard model|Cox PH test with terms for treatment , prior taxane, hormone receptor status, prior chemotherapy for breast cancer and AZD8931 diagnostic test|The Hazard Ratio is for AZD8931 40mg + paclitaxel / Placebo + paclitaxel, ie a hazard ratio \<1 favours AZD8931 40mg + paclitaxel|Originally, 166 patients were to be randomised to observe at least 133 progression events, based on HR=0.67, 80% power, 2-sided 5% significant level and a median of 6 months for the placebo arm. After 190 patients were randomised, the analysis was agreed to be performed at an similar level of maturity (70%) as originally planned (72%), after approximately 133 events.||1.52|0.76|0.679
90902305|NCT00900627|181671550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.02||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|3.75||Statistical significance threshold at this analysis was 5%|Logistic Regression|Logistic reg. model with terms for treatment, prior taxane, hormone receptor status, prior chemotherapy for breast cancer and AZD8931 diagnostic test|The odds Ratio is for AZD8931 40mg + paclitaxel / Placebo + paclitaxel, ie a odds ratio \<1 favours AZD8931 40mg + paclitaxel|Originally, 166 patients were to be randomised to observe at least 133 progression events, based on HR=0.67, 80% power, 2-sided 5% significant level and a median of 6 months for the placebo arm. After 190 patients were randomised, the analysis was agreed to be performed at an similar level of maturity (70%) as originally planned (72%), after approximately 133 events.||3.75|1.09|0.026
90958359|NCT03486457|181796706|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-13.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.928|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.93|-7.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 2: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-7.38|-18.93|<0.0001
90958360|NCT03486457|181796706|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-18.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.187|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.06|-12.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-12.49|-25.06|<0.0001
90958361|NCT03486457|181796706|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-7.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.827||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.59|-1.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-1.43|-12.59|0.0140
91032832|NCT04638153|181951011|OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.2|||||Month 3|Results based on MMRM analysis with gender as a covariate, participant (and/or time) as a random effect; treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, age and gender as fixed effects using an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.2|-0.5|
91031208|NCT01029353|181947125|SUPERIORITY|A Bayesian analysis. Initial Laparotomy and Initial Peritoneal Drain were compared using log-binomial regression. The SAS procedure PROC MCMC with reference cell coding was used. Center (random effect), treatment, pre-operative diagnosis, and baseline risk of death or NDI were binary covariates. Pre-operative diagnosis levels were NEC and IP. Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) characteristics: three chains, 10000 tunings, 10000 burn-ins, 1000000 samples, thinning=20.|||||||||||||||||Priors for model parameters: intercept = Normal(mean=0, variance=100), baseline risk and preop diagnosis parameters = Normal(mean=0, variance=1), treatment and the interaction term = Normal(mean=0, variance=0.31416), random effect standard deviation = Half-Normal(mean=0, variance=10). The posterior median relative risk of Initial Laparotomy over Initial Drainage was 0.95, 95% credible interval of (0.69, 1.30).|||
91031209|NCT01029353|181947126|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.34|||||RR: Initial Laparotomy over Peritoneal Drain. RR from robust Poisson regression with log link, reference cell coding, center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, and pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP) as covariates.|A frequentist analysis. Estimate based on model fit using only data from study survivors.||1.34|0.78|
91031210|NCT01029353|181947126|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||A Bayesian analysis among study survivors. Initial Laparotomy and Initial Peritoneal Drain were compared using log-binomial regression. The SAS procedure PROC MCMC with reference cell coding was used. Center (random effect), treatment, pre-operative diagnosis, and baseline risk of death or NDI were binary covariates. Pre-operative diagnosis levels were NEC and IP. Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) characteristics: three chains, 10000 tunings, 10000 burn-ins, 1000000 samples, thinning=20.|Priors for model parameters: intercept = Normal(mean=0, variance=100), baseline risk and preop diagnosis parameters = Normal(mean=0, variance=1), treatment and the interaction term = Normal(mean=0, variance=0.31416), random effect standard deviation = Half-Normal(mean=0, variance=10). The posterior median relative risk of Initial Laparotomy over Initial Drainage was 0.99, 95% credible interval of (0.78, 1.25).|||
91031211|NCT01029353|181947127|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.06|||||RR: Initial Laparotomy over Peritoneal Drain. RR from robust Poisson regression with log link, reference cell coding, center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, and pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP) as covariates.|A frequentist analysis.||1.06|0.66|
91100137|NCT00395512|182086627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.18||ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as class variables and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-0.18|-0.63|<0.001
91100138|NCT00395512|182086628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.33||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.12|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as class variables and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||Comparison of change from Baseline at Week 20 between Pioglitazone 30 mg and Alogliptin 12.5 mg + Pioglitazone 30 mg.||-0.12|-0.55|0.003
90854624|NCT04626310|181573082|SUPERIORITY||Linear slope difference DBT-ER-DBT-IE|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.098||0.066|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) were estimated with maximum likelihood. Simple slopes of change in this interaction effect were calculated for each condition. Models tested whether these slopes differed by condition. This test compared DBT-ER to DBT-IE.||||.066
90854625|NCT04626310|181573083|SUPERIORITY||Linear slope difference DBT-ER-IP|1.049|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.653||0.108|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) were estimated with maximum likelihood. Simple slopes of the effect of negative maintain vs. neutral images on weeks were calculated for each condition. Models tested whether these slopes differed by condition. This test compared DBT-ER to IP.||||.108
90854626|NCT04626310|181573083|SUPERIORITY||Linear slope difference DBT-IE-IP|-1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.454||0.014|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) were estimated with maximum likelihood. Simple slopes of the effect of negative maintain vs. neutral images on weeks were calculated for each condition. Models tested whether these slopes differed by condition. This test compared DBT-IE to IP.||||.014
90854627|NCT04626310|181573083|SUPERIORITY||Linear slope difference DBT-ER-DBT-IE|2.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.631||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) were estimated with maximum likelihood. Simple slopes of the effect of negative maintain vs. neutral images on weeks were calculated for each condition. Models tested whether these slopes differed by condition. This test compared DBT-ER to DBT-IE.||||.001
90854628|NCT04626310|181573084|OTHER||Linear Slope difference DBT-ER-IP|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136||0.211|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) were estimated with maximum likelihood. Simple slopes of the effect of negative maintain vs. negative decrease on weeks were calculated for each condition. Models tested whether these slopes differed by condition. This test compared DBT-ER to IP.||||.211
90854629|NCT04626310|181573084|SUPERIORITY||Linear Slope difference DBT-IE-IP|-0.195|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.135||0.148|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) were estimated with maximum likelihood. Simple slopes of the effect of negative maintain vs. negative decrease on weeks were calculated for each condition. Models tested whether these slopes differed by condition. This test compared DBT-IE to IP.||||.148
90854630|NCT04626310|181573084|SUPERIORITY||Linear Slope difference DBT-ER-DBT-IE|-0.025|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.857|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) were estimated with maximum likelihood. Simple slopes of the effect of negative maintain vs. negative decrease on weeks were calculated for each condition. Models tested whether these slopes differed by condition. This test compared DBT-ER to DBT-IE.||||.857
90854631|NCT04626310|181573085|SUPERIORITY||Linear Slope Difference in DSS DBT-ER-IP|-0.313|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.794||0.693|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) were estimated with maximum likelihood. Simple slopes of DSS over weeks were calculated for each condition. Models tested whether these slopes differed by condition. This test compared DBT-ER to IP.||||.693
90854632|NCT04626310|181573085|SUPERIORITY||Linear Slope Difference in DSS DBT-IE-IP|0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.767||0.998|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) were estimated with maximum likelihood. Simple slopes of DSS over weeks were calculated for each condition. Models tested whether these slopes differed by condition. This test compared DBT-IE to IP.||||.998
90854633|NCT04626310|181573085|SUPERIORITY||Linear Slope Diff in DSS DBT-ER-DBT-IE|-0.315|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.765||0.68|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) were estimated with maximum likelihood. Simple slopes of DSS over weeks were calculated for each condition. Models tested whether these slopes differed by condition. This test compared DBT-ER to DBT-IE.||||.680
90854634|NCT04626310|181573085|SUPERIORITY||Linear Slope Difference in DC1 DBT-ER-IP|0.098|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.101||0.333|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) were estimated with maximum likelihood. Simple slopes of DC1 over weeks were calculated for each condition. Models tested whether these slopes differed by condition. This test compared DBT-ER to IP.||||.333
90854635|NCT04626310|181573085|SUPERIORITY||Linear Slope Diff in DC1 DBT-IE-IP|-0.046|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.097||0.632|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) were estimated with maximum likelihood. Simple slopes of DC1 over weeks were calculated for each condition. Models tested whether these slopes differed by condition. This test compared DBT-IE to IP.||||.632
90854636|NCT04626310|181573085|SUPERIORITY||Linear Slope Diff in DC1 DBT-ER-DBT-IE|0.144|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.107||0.178|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) were estimated with maximum likelihood. Simple slopes of DC1 over weeks were calculated for each condition. Models tested whether these slopes differed by condition. This test compared DBT-IE to DBT-ER.||||.178
90854637|NCT04626310|181573085|SUPERIORITY||Linear Slope Diff in DC2 DBT-ER-IP|0.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.112||0.689|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) were estimated with maximum likelihood. Simple slopes of DC2 over weeks were calculated for each condition. Models tested whether these slopes differed by condition. This test compared the slope differences DBT-ER to IP.||||.689
90854638|NCT04626310|181573085|SUPERIORITY||Linear Slope Diff in DC2 DBT-IE-IP|-0.011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.109||0.917|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) were estimated with maximum likelihood. Simple slopes of DC2 over weeks were calculated for each condition. Models tested whether these slopes differed by condition. This test compared the slope differences DBT-IE to IP.||||.917
90854639|NCT04626310|181573085|SUPERIORITY||Linear Slope Diff in DC2 DBT-ER-DBT-IE|0.056|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.108||0.603|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) were estimated with maximum likelihood. Simple slopes of DC2 over weeks were calculated for each condition. Models tested whether these slopes differed by condition. This test compared the slope differences DBT-ER to DBT-IE.||||.603
90854640|NCT04626310|181573086|SUPERIORITY||Other[Quad Slope difference DBT-ER-IP]|0.013|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044||0.762|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparisons of Quadratic Slopes (DBT-ER vs. IP) in latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) with quadratic effects.||||.762
90854641|NCT04626310|181573086|SUPERIORITY||Quad Slope difference DBT-IE-IP|0.034|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047||0.478|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparisons of Quadratic Slopes (DBT-IE vs. IP) in latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) with quadratic effects.||||.478
90902306|NCT00900627|181671551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||0.607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|2.01||Statistical significance threshold at this analysis was 5%|Cox proportional hazard model|Cox PH test with terms for treatment , prior taxane, hormone receptor status, prior chemotherapy for breast cancer|The Hazard Ratio is for AZD8931 40mg + paclitaxel / Placebo + paclitaxel, ie a hazard ratio \<1 favours AZD8931 40mg + paclitaxel|Originally, 166 patients were to be randomised to observe at least 133 progression events, based on HR=0.67, 80% power, 2-sided 5% significant level and a median of 6 months for the placebo arm. After 190 patients were randomised, the analysis was agreed to be performed at an similar level of maturity (70%) as originally planned (72%), after approximately 133 events.||2.01|0.67|0.607
90902307|NCT01474512|181671567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression analysis included treatment, geographic region, previous non-biologic systemic therapy and baseline weight category as factors.||||||<0.001
90902308|NCT01474512|181671567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression analysis included treatment, geographic region, previous non-biologic systemic therapy and baseline weight category as factors.||||||<0.001
90902309|NCT01474512|181671568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression analysis included treatment, geographic region, previous non-biologic systemic therapy and baseline weight category as factors.||||||<0.001
90902310|NCT01474512|181671568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression analysis included treatment, geographic region, previous non-biologic systemic therapy and baseline weight category as factors.||||||<0.001
90854642|NCT04626310|181573086|SUPERIORITY||Quad Slope difference DBT-ER-DBT-IE|-0.089|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054||0.705|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparisons of Quadratic Slopes (DBT-ER vs. DBT-IE) in latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) with quadratic effects.||||.705
90854643|NCT04626310|181573087|SUPERIORITY||Quad slope difference DBT-ER-IP|-0.028|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.93|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparisons of Quadratic Slopes (DBT-ER vs. IP) in latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) with quadratic effects.||||.93
90854644|NCT04626310|181573087|SUPERIORITY||Quad slope difference DBT-IE-IP|-0.029|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145||0.836|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparisons of Quadratic Slopes (DBT-IE vs. IP) in latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) with quadratic effects.||||.836
90902311|NCT01474512|181671569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|Due to the zero count in placebo group, p-values from Logistic Regression were not obtainable, therefore the p-value is from Fisher's exact test.||||||<0.001
90902312|NCT01474512|181671569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|Due to the zero count in placebo group, p-values from Logistic Regression were not obtainable, therefore the p-value is from Fisher's exact test.||||||<0.001
90902313|NCT01474512|181671570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for PASI90.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression analysis included treatment, geographic region, previous non-biologic systemic therapy and baseline weight category as factors.||||||<0.001
90854645|NCT04626310|181573087|SUPERIORITY||Quad slope difference DBT-ER-DBT-IE|0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145||0.994|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparisons of Quadratic Slopes (DBT-IE vs. IP) in latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) with quadratic effects.||||.994
90854646|NCT04626310|181573088|SUPERIORITY||Quad slope diff in DC1 DBT-ER-IP|0.013|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.313|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) were estimated with maximum likelihood. Simple slopes of DC1 over weeks were calculated for each condition. Models tested whether these slopes differed by condition. This test compared the quadratic effects differed DBT-ER to IP.||||.313
90854647|NCT04626310|181573088|SUPERIORITY||Quad Slope in DC1 DBT-IE-IP|0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.747|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) were estimated with maximum likelihood. Simple slopes of DC1 over weeks were calculated for each condition. Models tested whether these slopes differed by condition. This test compared the quadratic effects differed DBT-IE to IP.||||.747
90854648|NCT04626310|181573088|SUPERIORITY||Quad slope diff in DC1 DBT-ER-DBT-IE|0.009|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.444|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) were estimated with maximum likelihood. Simple slopes of DC1 over weeks were calculated for each condition. Models tested whether these slopes differed by condition. This test compared the quadratic effects differed DBT-ER to DBT-IE.||||.444
90854649|NCT02011893|181573089|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin is 7.5 points, where the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) scores were measured on a scale of 0 to 100. Testing was carried out at a 5% significance level.|||||<|0.001|||||||t-distribution|95% UCB and p-value for non-inferiority are based on t-distribution with n1 + n2-2 degrees of freedom where n1 and n2 are number of subjects per arm.||||||<0.001
90854650|NCT02011893|181573090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.083||||||Superiority analysis performed|McNemar|||||||0.083
90854651|NCT02011893|181573092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017||||||Superiority analysis performed|t-distribution|95% UCB and p-value for superiority are based on t-distribution with n1 + n2-2 degrees of freedom where n1 and n2 are number of subjects per arm.||||||0.017
90854652|NCT01255787|181573141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.123||0.907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.258|2.035||Adjustment for multiplicity for the comparisons was based on the Dunnett-Hsu procedure.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), with treatment as a fixed factors and baseline MADRS as a covariate.||All statistical tests were 2-sided with the estimated P-values at the 5% level of significance.||2.035|-3.258|0.9070
90854653|NCT01255787|181573141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.114||0.3006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.31|0.938|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), with treatment as a fixed factors and baseline MADRS as a covariate.||||0.938|-4.310|0.3006
90854654|NCT01255787|181573141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.2399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.436|0.794|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), with treatment as a fixed factors and baseline MADRS as a covariate.||||0.794|-4.436|0.2399
90854655|NCT00509262|181573186|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The pre-specified non-inferiority margin was 0.4%; i.e., non-inferiority required that the upper boundary of the 95% confidence interval for the treatment difference (sitagliptin minus glipizide) to be less than 0.4%.|Difference in least squares mean|-0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.74|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.06|||ANCOVA||Based on analysis of covariance with terms for treatment, renal insufficiency stratum at Visit 4/Week -2 (moderate, or severe), prior diabetes pharmacotherapy (on or not on oral antihyperglycemic agent), and a covariate for baseline A1C.|||0.06|-0.29|
90854656|NCT00509262|181573187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.8||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|-4.8|||Miettirnen& Nurminen method||Miettirnen \& Nurminen method stratified by renal insufficiency stratum at Visit 4/Week -2 (moderate or severe) \& prior diabetes pharmacotherapy|||-4.8|-17.1|0.001
90854657|NCT00509262|181573188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|7.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|38.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|16.1|||ANCOVA||Analysis of covariance with terms for treatment, renal insufficiency stratum at Visit 4/Week -2 (moderate or severe), prior diabetes pharmacotherapy (on or not on oral antihyperglycemic agent), and a covariate for baseline Fasting Plasma Glucose.|||16.1|-1.9|
90854658|NCT00509262|181573189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-1.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-1.0|||ANCOVA||Analysis of covariance with terms of treatment, renal insufficiency stratum at Visit 4/Week -2 (moderate or severe), prior diabetes pharmacotherapy (on or not on oral antihyperglycemic agent), and a covariate for baseline body weight.|||-1.0|-2.6|<0.001
90854659|NCT04777331|181573232|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.0657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.01|||Log Rank|||Stratified Analysis||1.01|0.69|0.0657
90854660|NCT04777331|181573233|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.0914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.03|||Cox-regression adjusted|||||1.03|0.66|0.0914
90854661|NCT04777331|181573234|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.1574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.05|||Cox-regression adjusted|||||1.05|0.73|0.1574
90854662|NCT04777331|181573235|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.0622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.01|||Cox-regression adjusted|||||1.01|0.69|0.0622
90854663|NCT04777331|181573236|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.5515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.17|||Cox-regression adjusted|||||1.17|0.75|0.5515
90854664|NCT04777331|181573237|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.39||||0.5944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|1.05|||Mixed-model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||1.05|-1.84|0.5944
90854665|NCT04777331|181573238|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.08||||0.8955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|1.24|||MMRM|||||1.24|-1.08|0.8955
90854666|NCT00400153|181573263|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin is 0.05 liter|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0035|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0095||0.7135||95.0|-0.0222|0.0152|||ANCOVA|||||0.0152|-0.0222|0.7135
90854667|NCT00400153|181573264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.047|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01|<|0.0001||95.0|0.028|0.066|||ANCOVA|||||0.066|0.028|< 0.0001
90854668|NCT00400153|181573265|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin is 0.05 liters|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.017|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011||0.1389||95.0|-0.039|0.005|||ANCOVA|||||0.005|-0.039|0.1389
90854669|NCT00400153|181573266|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This analysis is purely exploratory. Non-inferiority margin is not established for this comparison.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.124||95.0|-0.036|0.004|||ANCOVA|||||0.004|-0.036|0.124
90902314|NCT01474512|181671570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for PASI90.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression analysis included treatment, geographic region, previous non-biologic systemic therapy and baseline weight category as factors.||||||<0.001
90902315|NCT01474512|181671570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for PASI100.|Fisher Exact|Due to the zero count in placebo group, p-values from Logistic Regression were not obtainable; therefore the p-value is from Fisher's exact test.||||||<0.001
90902316|NCT01474512|181671570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for PASI100.|Fisher Exact|Due to the zero count in placebo group, p-values from Logistic Regression were not obtainable; therefore the p-value is from Fisher's exact test.||||||<0.001
90902317|NCT01474512|181671571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression analysis included treatment and baseline weight category as factors.||||||<0.001
91032833|NCT04638153|181951011|OTHER||Least square mean difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.8|||||Month 3|Results based on MMRM analysis with gender as a covariate, participant (and/or time) as a random effect; treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, age and gender as fixed effects using an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.8|0.2|
90854670|NCT00400153|181573267|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This analysis is purely exploratory. Non-inferiority margin is not established for this comparison.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.4888||95.0|-0.026|0.013|||ANCOVA|||||0.013|-0.026|0.4888
90902318|NCT01474512|181671571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression analysis included treatment and baseline weight category as factors.||||||<0.001
90854671|NCT00400153|181573268|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This analysis is purely exploratory. Non-inferiority margin is not established for this comparison.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.014||||0.1433||95.0|-0.033|0.005|||ANCOVA|||||0.005|-0.033|0.1433
90854672|NCT00400153|181573269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.061|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011|<|0.0001||95.0|0.04|0.083|||ANCOVA|||This analysis is purely exploratory.||0.083|0.04|< 0.0001
90854673|NCT00400153|181573270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.044|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01|<|0.0001||95.0|0.024|0.065|||ANCOVA|||This analysis is purely exploratory.||0.065|0.024|< 0.0001
90854674|NCT00400153|181573271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.047|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01|<|0.0001||95.0|0.027|0.067|||ANCOVA|||This analysis is purely exploratory.||0.067|0.027|< 0.0001
90854675|NCT00400153|181573272|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This analysis is purely exploratory. Non-inferiority margin is not established.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.026|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.0258||95.0|0.003|0.049|||ANCOVA|||||0.049|0.003|0.0258
90854676|NCT00400153|181573273|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This analysis is purely exploratory. Non-inferiority margin is not established.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011||0.3749||95.0|-0.032|0.012|||ANCOVA|||||0.012|-0.032|0.3749
90854677|NCT00400153|181573274|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This analysis is purely exploratory. Non-inferiority margin is not established.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011||0.3355||95.0|-0.033|0.011|||ANCOVA|||||0.011|-0.033|0.3355
90854678|NCT00400153|181573275|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This analysis is purely exploratory. Non-inferiority margin is not established.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011||0.0743||95.0|-0.042|0.002|||ANCOVA|||||0.002|-0.042|0.0743
90854679|NCT00400153|181573276|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This analysis is purely exploratory. Non-inferiority margin is not established.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011||0.5711||95.0|-0.015|0.028|||ANCOVA|||||0.028|-0.015|0.5711
90854680|NCT00400153|181573277|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This analysis is purely exploratory. Non-inferiority margin is not established.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.013|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011||0.2274||95.0|-0.033|0.008|||ANCOVA|||||0.008|-0.033|0.2274
90854681|NCT00400153|181573278|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This analysis is purely exploratory. Non-inferiority margin is not established.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011||0.8065||95.0|-0.018|0.024|||ANCOVA|||||0.024|-0.018|0.8065
90854682|NCT00400153|181573279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.065|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011|<|0.0001||95.0|0.043|0.087|||ANCOVA|||This analysis is purely exploratory.||0.087|0.043|< 0.0001
90854683|NCT00400153|181573280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.065|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011|<|0.0001||95.0|0.044|0.087|||ANCOVA|||This analysis is purely exploratory.||0.087|0.044|< 0.0001
90854684|NCT00400153|181573281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011|<|0.0001||95.0|0.04|0.081|||ANCOVA|||This analysis is purely exploratory.||0.081|0.04|< 0.0001
90854685|NCT00400153|181573282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.068|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011|<|0.0001||95.0|0.047|0.089|||ANCOVA|||This analysis is purely exploratory.||0.089|0.047|< 0.0001
90854686|NCT00400153|181573295|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This analysis is purely exploratory. Non-inferiority margin is not established.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.017|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021||0.417||95.0|-0.058|0.024|||ANCOVA|||||0.024|-0.058|0.417
90854687|NCT00400153|181573296|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This analysis is purely exploratory. Non-inferiority margin is not established.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.3505||95.0|-0.059|0.021|||ANCOVA|||||0.021|-0.059|0.3505
90854688|NCT00400153|181573297|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This analysis is purely exploratory. Non-inferiority margin is not established.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.3499||95.0|-0.058|0.021|||ANCOVA|||||0.021|-0.058|0.3499
90854689|NCT00400153|181573298|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This analysis is purely exploratory. Non-inferiority margin is not established.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.8288||95.0|-0.044|0.035|||ANCOVA|||||0.035|-0.044|0.8288
90902319|NCT01474512|181671572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression analysis included treatment, geographic region, previous non-biologic systemic therapy and baseline weight category as factors.||||||<0.001
90902320|NCT01474512|181671572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression analysis included treatment, geographic region, previous non-biologic systemic therapy and baseline weight category as factors.||||||<0.001
91104349|NCT02539394|182094892|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.319|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of 4-6 weeks SWAL-QOL - Mental is the same across the 2 arms||||0.319
90958362|NCT03486457|181796706|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-5.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.931||0.0811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.93|0.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||0.64|-10.93|0.0811
90958363|NCT03486457|181796707|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-9.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.939|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.46|-5.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Analysis performed using mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-5.81|-13.46|<0.0001
90958364|NCT03486457|181796707|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-9.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.305|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.07|-4.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-4.98|-14.07|<0.0001
90958365|NCT03486457|181796707|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-16.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.472|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.85|-12.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 2: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-12.10|-21.85|<0.0001
90958366|NCT03486457|181796707|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-18.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.506|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.36|-13.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-13.48|-23.36|<0.0001
90958367|NCT03486457|181796707|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-7.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.453||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.06|-2.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-2.38|-12.06|0.0037
90958368|NCT03486457|181796707|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-7.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.267||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.13|-3.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-3.18|-12.13|0.0009
90958369|NCT03486457|181796708|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-7.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.108|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.39|-5.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Analysis performed using mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-5.02|-9.39|<0.0001
90854690|NCT00400153|181573299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.112|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.069|0.154|||ANCOVA|||This analysis is purely exploratory.||0.154|0.069|< 0.0001
90854691|NCT00400153|181573300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001||95.0|0.049|0.132|||ANCOVA|||This analysis is purely exploratory.||0.132|0.049|< 0.0001
90854692|NCT00400153|181573301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.097|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001||95.0|0.056|0.138|||ANCOVA|||This analysis is purely exploratory.||0.138|0.056|< 0.0001
90854693|NCT00400153|181573302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.094|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001||95.0|0.054|0.135|||ANCOVA|||This analysis is purely exploratory.||0.135|0.054|< 0.0001
90958370|NCT03486457|181796708|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-7.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.171|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.18|-5.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-5.56|-10.18|<0.0001
90958371|NCT03486457|181796708|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-7.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.182|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.74|-5.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 2: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-5.08|-9.74|<0.0001
90958372|NCT03486457|181796708|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-7.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.221|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.21|-5.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-5.39|-10.21|<0.0001
90958373|NCT03486457|181796708|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.615||0.6264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|1.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||1.51|-0.91|0.6264
90958374|NCT03486457|181796708|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.778||0.1008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.82|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||0.25|-2.82|0.1008
90958375|NCT03486457|181796709|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.77||0.8032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.02|3.9|||Normal approximation|||Month 1: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||3.90|-3.02|0.8032
90958376|NCT03486457|181796709|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|7.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.44||0.0298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|14.21|||Normal approximation|||Month 3: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||14.21|0.73|0.0298
90958377|NCT03486457|181796709|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-11.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.48||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.88|1.5|||Normal approximation|||Month 6: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||1.50|-23.88|0.0840
90958378|NCT03486457|181796710|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.111||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-0.13|-0.57|0.0020
90958379|NCT03486457|181796710|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-0.32|-0.87|<0.0001
90958380|NCT03486457|181796710|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.156||0.9678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||0.31|-0.30|0.9678
90902321|NCT01474512|181671573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||LS mean and P-value were calculated using MMRM with baseline score as a covariate, treatment, geographic region, previous non-biologic systemic therapy, baseline weight category, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
90902322|NCT01474512|181671573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||LS mean and P-value were calculated using MMRM with baseline score as a covariate, treatment, geographic region, previous non-biologic systemic therapy, baseline weight category, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
90902323|NCT01474512|181671574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||LS mean and P-value were calculated using MMRM with baseline score as a covariate, treatment, geographic region, previous non-biologic systemic therapy, baseline weight category, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
90902324|NCT01474512|181671574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||LS mean and P-value were calculated using MMRM with baseline score as a covariate, treatment, geographic region, previous non-biologic systemic therapy, baseline weight category, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
90902325|NCT01474512|181671575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||LS mean and P-value were calculated using MMRM with baseline score as a covariate, treatment, geographic region, previous non-biologic systemic therapy, baseline weight category, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
90902326|NCT01474512|181671575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||LS mean and P-value were calculated using MMRM with baseline score as a covariate, treatment, geographic region, previous non-biologic systemic therapy, baseline weight category, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
90902327|NCT01474512|181671576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||LS mean and P-value were calculated using MMRM with baseline score as a covariate, treatment, geographic region, previous non-biologic systemic therapy, baseline weight category, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
90902328|NCT01474512|181671576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||LS mean and P-value were calculated using MMRM with baseline score as a covariate, treatment, geographic region, previous non-biologic systemic therapy, baseline weight category, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91032834|NCT04638153|181951011|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.1|||||Month 3|Results based on MMRM analysis with gender as a covariate, participant (and/or time) as a random effect; treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, age and gender as fixed effects using an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.1|-1.5|
91100139|NCT00395512|182086628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.3|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as class variables and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||Comparison of change from Baseline at Week 20 between Pioglitazone 30 mg and Alogliptin 25 mg + Pioglitazone 30 mg.||-0.30|-0.74|<0.001
90854694|NCT00400153|181573303|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This analysis is purely exploratory. Non-inferiority margin is not established.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.043|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||0.0688||95.0|-0.003|0.09|||ANCOVA|||||0.09|-0.003|0.0688
90854695|NCT00400153|181573304|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This analysis is purely exploratory. Non-inferiority margin is not established.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023||0.3895||95.0|-0.064|0.025|||ANCOVA|||||0.025|-0.064|0.3895
90854696|NCT00400153|181573305|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This analysis is purely exploratory. Non-inferiority margin is not established.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022||0.959||95.0|-0.045|0.042|||ANCOVA|||||0.042|-0.045|0.959
90854697|NCT00400153|181573306|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This analysis is purely exploratory. Non-inferiority margin is not established.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023||0.7652||95.0|-0.053|0.039|||ANCOVA|||||0.039|-0.053|0.7652
90902329|NCT01474512|181671577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The LS Mean and p-values were calculated using an ANCOVA model and included treatment, geographic region, previous non-biologic systemic therapy, baseline weight category, and baseline WPAI value.|ANCOVA|P-value is for Absenteeism.||||||<0.001
90902330|NCT01474512|181671577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|||||The LS Mean and p-values were calculated using an ANCOVA model and included treatment, geographic region, previous non-biologic systemic therapy, baseline weight category, and baseline WPAI value.|ANCOVA|P-value is for absenteeism.||||||0.003
90902331|NCT01474512|181671577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The LS Mean and p-values were calculated using an ANCOVA model and included treatment, geographic region, previous non-biologic systemic therapy, baseline weight category, and baseline WPAI value.|ANCOVA|P-value is for activity impairment.||||||<0.001
90854698|NCT00400153|181573307|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This analysis is purely exploratory. Non-inferiority margin is not established.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023||0.6244||95.0|-0.057|0.034|||ANCOVA|||||0.034|-0.057|0.6244
90854699|NCT00400153|181573308|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This analysis is purely exploratory. Non-inferiority margin is not established.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023||0.873||95.0|-0.041|0.049|||ANCOVA|||||0.049|-0.041|0.873
90854700|NCT00400153|181573309|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This analysis is purely exploratory. Non-inferiority margin is not established.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023||0.5294||95.0|-0.06|0.031|||ANCOVA|||||0.031|-0.06|0.5294
90854701|NCT00400153|181573310|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This analysis is purely exploratory. Non-inferiority margin is not established.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.013|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023||0.563||95.0|-0.032|0.058|||ANCOVA|||||0.058|-0.032|0.563
90854702|NCT00400153|181573311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.121|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001||95.0|0.075|0.167|||ANCOVA|||This analysis is purely exploratory.||0.167|0.075|< 0.0001
90902332|NCT01474512|181671577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The LS Mean and p-values were calculated using an ANCOVA model and included treatment, geographic region, previous non-biologic systemic therapy, baseline weight category, and baseline WPAI value.|ANCOVA|P-value is for activity impairment.||||||<0.001
90854703|NCT00400153|181573312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.129|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001||95.0|0.084|0.174|||ANCOVA|||This analysis is purely exploratory.||0.174|0.084|< 0.0001
90902333|NCT01474512|181671577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The LS Mean and p-values were calculated using an ANCOVA model and included treatment, geographic region, previous non-biologic systemic therapy, baseline weight category, and baseline WPAI value.|ANCOVA|P-value is for presenteeism.||||||<0.001
90902334|NCT01474512|181671577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The LS Mean and p-values were calculated using an ANCOVA model and included treatment, geographic region, previous non-biologic systemic therapy, baseline weight category, and baseline WPAI value.|ANCOVA|P-value is for presenteeism.||||||<0.001
90902335|NCT01474512|181671577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The LS Mean and p-values were calculated using an ANCOVA model and included treatment, geographic region, previous non-biologic systemic therapy, baseline weight category, and baseline WPAI value.|ANCOVA|P-value is for work productively loss.||||||<0.001
90902336|NCT01474512|181671577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The LS Mean and p-values were calculated using an ANCOVA model and included treatment, geographic region, previous non-biologic systemic therapy, baseline weight category, and baseline WPAI value.|ANCOVA|P-value is for work productively loss.||||||<0.001
90902337|NCT01474512|181671578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||LS Mean and p-values were calculated using an ANCOVA model that included treatment, geographic region, previous non-biologic systemic therapy, baseline weight category, and baseline QIDS value in the model.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90902338|NCT01474512|181671578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||LS Mean and p-values were calculated using an ANCOVA model that included treatment, geographic region, previous non-biologic systemic therapy, baseline weight category, and baseline QIDS value in the model.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90902339|NCT01474512|181671579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The LS Mean and p-values were calculated using an ANCOVA model and included treatment, geographic region, previous non-biologic systemic therapy, baseline weight category, and baseline SF-36 value in the model.|ANCOVA|P-value is for PCS.||||||<0.001
90902340|NCT01474512|181671579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The LS Mean and p-values were calculated using an ANCOVA model and included treatment, geographic region, previous non-biologic systemic therapy, baseline weight category, and baseline SF-36 value in the model.|ANCOVA|P-value is for PCS.||||||<0.001
90958381|NCT03486457|181796711|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|14.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.78||0.0097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.63|26.3|||Normal approximation|||Month 1: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||26.30|3.63|0.0097
90854704|NCT00400153|181573313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001||95.0|0.072|0.163|||ANCOVA|||This analysis is purely exploratory.||0.163|0.072|< 0.0001
90854705|NCT00400153|181573314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.126|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001||95.0|0.081|0.171|||ANCOVA|||This analysis is purely exploratory.||0.171|0.081|< 0.0001
90854706|NCT00400153|181573319|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This analysis is purely exploratory. Non-inferiority margin is not established.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.00045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06396||0.9943||95.0|-0.1259|0.125|||ANCOVA|||||0.125|-0.1259|0.9943
90902341|NCT01474512|181671579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The LS Mean and p-values were calculated using an ANCOVA model and included treatment, geographic region, previous non-biologic systemic therapy, baseline weight category, and baseline SF-36 value in the model.|ANCOVA|P-value is for MCS.||||||<0.001
90902342|NCT01474512|181671579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The LS Mean and p-values were calculated using an ANCOVA model and included treatment, geographic region, previous non-biologic systemic therapy, baseline weight category, and baseline SF-36 value in the model.|ANCOVA|P-value is for MCS.||||||<0.001
90902343|NCT01474512|181671580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||LS mean and P-value were calculated using MMRM with baseline score as a covariate, treatment, geographic region, previous non-biologic systemic therapy, baseline weight category, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
90902344|NCT01474512|181671580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||LS mean and P-value were calculated using MMRM with baseline score as a covariate, treatment, geographic region, previous non-biologic systemic therapy, baseline weight category, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
90854707|NCT00400153|181573319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01995|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06441||0.7569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1463|0.1064|||ANCOVA|||This analysis is purely exploratory.||0.1064|-0.1463|0.7569
90902345|NCT01474512|181671581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for PPASI50.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression analysis included treatment, geographic region, previous non-biologic systemic therapy and baseline weight category as factors.||||||<0.001
90902346|NCT01474512|181671581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for PPASI50.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression analysis included treatment, geographic region, previous non-biologic systemic therapy and baseline weight category as factors.||||||<0.001
90902347|NCT01474512|181671581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for PPASI75|Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression analysis included treatment, geographic region, previous non-biologic systemic therapy and baseline weight category as factors.||||||<0.001
90902348|NCT01474512|181671581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for PPASI75|Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression analysis included treatment, geographic region, previous non-biologic systemic therapy and baseline weight category as factors.||||||<0.001
90902349|NCT01474512|181671581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for PPASI100|Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression analysis included treatment, geographic region, previous non-biologic systemic therapy and baseline weight category as factors.||||||<0.001
90902350|NCT01474512|181671581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value if for PPASI100.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression analysis included treatment, geographic region, previous non-biologic systemic therapy and baseline weight category as factors.||||||<0.001
90902351|NCT01089556|181671596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences (Final Values)|-0.192||||0.37||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.370
90854708|NCT00400153|181573320|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This analysis is purely exploratory. Non-inferiority margin is not established.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1091|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1206||0.3659||95.0|-0.1276|0.3458|||ANCOVA|||||0.3458|-0.1276|0.3659
90854709|NCT00400153|181573320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1554|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.122||0.203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3947|0.08395|||ANCOVA|||This analysis is purely exploratory.||0.08395|-0.3947|0.203
90854710|NCT00400153|181573321|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This analysis is purely exploratory. Non-inferiority margin is not established.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.007734|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03199||0.809||95.0|-0.05503|0.0705|||ANCOVA|||||0.0705|-0.05503|0.809
90854711|NCT00400153|181573321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06501|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03225||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001746|0.1283|||ANCOVA|||This analysis is purely exploratory.||0.1283|0.001746|0.044
90854712|NCT00400153|181573322|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This analysis is purely exploratory. Non-inferiority margin is not established.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0129|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03002||0.6674||95.0|-0.04598|0.07179|||ANCOVA|||||0.07179|-0.04598|0.6674
90854713|NCT00400153|181573322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01573|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03033||0.604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04376|0.07523|||ANCOVA|||This analysis is purely exploratory.||0.07523|-0.04376|0.604
90854714|NCT00400153|181573323|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This analysis is purely exploratory. Non-inferiority margin is not established.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6526|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0653||0.4238||95.0|-2.3995|5.7047|||ANCOVA|||||5.7047|-2.3995|0.4238
90854715|NCT00400153|181573323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4376|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0874||0.2431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6578|6.533|||ANCOVA|||This analysis is purely exploratory.||6.533|-1.6578|0.2431
90854716|NCT00400153|181573324|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This analysis is purely exploratory. Non-inferiority margin is not established.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.077|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056||0.173||95.0|-0.034|0.187|||ANCOVA|||||0.187|-0.034|0.173
90854717|NCT00400153|181573324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.054|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056||0.336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.165|0.056|||ANCOVA|||This analysis is purely exploratory.||0.056|-0.165|0.336
90854718|NCT00400153|181573325|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This analysis is purely exploratory. Non-inferiority margin is not established.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062||0.924||95.0|-0.115|0.127|||ANCOVA|||||0.127|-0.115|0.924
90854719|NCT00400153|181573325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.069|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062||0.266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.053|||ANCOVA|||This analysis is purely exploratory.||0.053|-0.19|0.266
90854720|NCT00400153|181573326|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This analysis is purely exploratory. Non-inferiority margin is not established.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.097|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.065||0.139||95.0|-0.031|0.225|||ANCOVA|||||0.225|-0.031|0.139
90854721|NCT00400153|181573326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.018|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066||0.788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.111|0.146|||ANCOVA|||This analysis is purely exploratory.||0.146|-0.111|0.788
90854722|NCT00400153|181573331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.398|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.065|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Difference: Respimat - MDI||||< 0.0001
90854723|NCT00400153|181573332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.482|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.065|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Difference: Respimat - MDI||||<0.0001
90854724|NCT00400153|181573333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.612|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.075|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Difference: Respimat - MDI||||<0.0001
90854725|NCT00400153|181573334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.508|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.058|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Difference: Respimat - MDI||||<0.0001
90854726|NCT00400153|181573335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.421|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Difference: Respimat - MDI||||< 0.0001
90854727|NCT00400153|181573336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.226|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Difference: Respimat - MDI||||< 0.0001
90854728|NCT00400153|181573337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.265|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Difference: Respimat - MDI||||< 0.0001
90854729|NCT00400153|181573338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.378|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Difference: Respimat - MDI||||< 0.0001
90854730|NCT00400153|181573339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.402|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Difference: Respimat - MDI||||< 0.0001
90854731|NCT00400153|181573340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.464|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Difference: Respimat - MDI||||< 0.0001
90854732|NCT01423604|181573352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.733||||0.0494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.506|1.061||One-sided p-value.|Log Rank|||||1.061|0.506|0.0494
90854733|NCT01423604|181573352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.502||||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.281|0.888||One-sided p-value.|Log Rank|||Cox Regression Analysis of Overall Survival: C-reactive protein (CRP) \> 13 μg/ml; Statistical analysis plan (SAP) specified subgroup analysis||0.888|0.281|0.0081
90854734|NCT01423604|181573353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Efron approximation of hazard ratio|0.75||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.513|1.094||Two-sided p-value.|Cox proportional hazards model|||||1.094|0.513|0.1340
90854735|NCT01423604|181573355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0236|||||||Pearson's chi-square test|||||||0.0236
90854736|NCT04473482|181573383|SUPERIORITY|Generalized estimating equations with robust sandwich estimators used with Wald 95% confidence intervals and conversion to odds ratios|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||Generalized estimating equations with robust sandwich estimators used with Wald 95% confidence intervals and conversion to odds ratios||Generalized estimating equations with robust sandwich estimators used with Wald 95% confidence intervals|||
90854737|NCT04473482|181573384|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||GEEs with robust sandwich estimators and Wald 95% CIs with conversion to Odds Ratios|||||
90854738|NCT05494632|181573385|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||the threshold for statistical significance was \<=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90854739|NCT03954041|181573463|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|4.62|||=|0.3752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.74|14.98||P-value was analyzed by ANCOVA model with covariates: treatment, interactive response technology (IRT) stratification factors at randomization, baseline total contusion volume based on central read, imaging modality at Hour 96 (MRI vs NCCT).|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of combined BIIB093 vs placebo||14.98|-5.74|= 0.3752
90902352|NCT01089556|181671597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences (Final Values)|-0.614|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
90902353|NCT01089556|181671598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences (Final Values)|-0.003||||0.991||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.991
90902354|NCT01089556|181671599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.431|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.233|1.662|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.662|1.233|<0.001
90958382|NCT03486457|181796711|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|24.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.2||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.81|40.97|||Normal approximation|||Month 3: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||40.97|8.81|0.0024
90902355|NCT01089556|181671600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.052||||0.565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.884|1.253|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.253|0.884|0.565
90902356|NCT01089556|181671601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.467|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.214|1.771|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.771|1.214|<0.001
90902357|NCT01089556|181671602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.233||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.55|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.550|0.980|0.068
90902358|NCT01089556|181671603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.279|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.125|1.456|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.456|1.125|<0.001
91032835|NCT04638153|181951011|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.6|||||Month 6|Results based on MMRM analysis with gender as a covariate, participant (and/or time) as a random effect; treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, age and gender as fixed effects using an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.6|-1.6|
91100140|NCT00395512|182086628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.51|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as class variables and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||Comparison of change from Baseline at Week 20 between Alogliptin 25 mg and Alogliptin 25 mg + Pioglitazone 30 mg.||-0.51|-0.94|<0.001
91100141|NCT00395512|182086629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-11.2||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.3|-2.0|||ANCOVA|P-value is from an ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as class variables and Baseline fasting plasma glucose as covariate.||Comparison of change from Baseline in fasting plasma glucose at Week 26 between Pioglitazone 30 mg and Alogliptin 12.5 mg + Pioglitazone 30 mg.||-2.0|-20.3|0.017
90902359|NCT01089556|181671604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.985||||0.843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.842|1.151|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.151|0.842|0.843
90902360|NCT01089556|181671605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.341|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
90902361|NCT01089556|181671606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.073||||0.475||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.475
90902362|NCT01089556|181671607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.758|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
90902363|NCT01089556|181671608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.933||||0.289||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.289
90902364|NCT01089556|181671609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.02||||0.071||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.071
90902365|NCT01089556|181671610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.193||||0.78||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.780
90902366|NCT01089556|181671611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.558||||0.008||95.0||||P-value is for anxiety subscale score.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.008
90902367|NCT01089556|181671611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.423||||0.031||95.0||||p-value is for depression subscale score.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.031
90902368|NCT01089556|181671612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.615||||0.049||95.0||||P-value is for anxiety subscale score.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.049
90902369|NCT01089556|181671612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.378||||0.198||95.0||||P-value is for depression subscale score.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.198
90958383|NCT03486457|181796711|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-17.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.03||0.1042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.55|3.7|||Normal approximation|||Month 6: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||3.70|-39.55|0.1042
91100142|NCT00395512|182086629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-12.9||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|-3.8|||ANCOVA|P-value is from an ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as class variables and Baseline fasting plasma glucose as covariate.||Comparison of change from Baseline in fasting plasma glucose at Week 26 between Pioglitazone 30 mg and Alogliptin 25 mg + Pioglitazone 30 mg.||-3.8|-22.0|0.006
90902370|NCT01089556|181671617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.343|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
90902371|NCT01089556|181671618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.095||||0.385||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.385
90902372|NCT01089556|181671619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.02||||0.064||95.0||||P-value is for systolic BP.|ANCOVA|||||||0.064
90902373|NCT01089556|181671619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.135||||0.843||95.0||||P-value is for diastolic BP.|ANCOVA|||||||0.843
90902374|NCT01089556|181671620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.329||||0.354||95.0||||P-value is for systolic BP.|ANCOVA|||||||0.354
90902375|NCT01089556|181671620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.003||||0.997||95.0||||P-value is for diastolic BP.|ANCOVA|||||||0.997
90902376|NCT01089556|181671621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.317|||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90902377|NCT01089556|181671622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.942||||0.332||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.332
90902378|NCT01089556|181671623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.618||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.618
90902379|NCT01089556|181671624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.571||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.571
90902380|NCT01089556|181671625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.744||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.744
90902381|NCT01089556|181671626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
90902382|NCT02500979|181671639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-21.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.88||0.0118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.8|-5.2|||Linear mixed-effects model|||||-5.2|-37.8|0.0118
90958384|NCT03486457|181796712|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-25.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.858||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.49|-10.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-10.29|-41.49|0.0014
90854740|NCT03954041|181573464|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.36||||||Statistical analysis of combined BIIB093 vs placebo||3.36|0.40|
90854741|NCT03954041|181573465|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47|||=|0.4306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|3.86||P-value was analyzed by ordinal logistic regression on mRS adjusting for covariates: treatment, IRT stratification factors at randomization, baseline mRS score, and baseline total contusion volume based on central read.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis of combined BIIB093 vs placebo||3.86|0.56|=0.4306
90854742|NCT03954041|181573467|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-1.53|||=|0.6478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.19|5.13||P-value was analyzed by ANCOVA model with covariates: treatment, IRT stratification factors at randomization, baseline total contusion volume based on central read.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of combined BIIB093 vs placebo||5.13|-8.19|= 0.6478
90854743|NCT03954041|181573468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.09|||=|0.9314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|2.02||P-value was analyzed by ANCOVA model with covariates: treatment, IRT stratification factors at randomization, baseline Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) based on eCRF, and baseline absolute hematoma volume based on central read.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of combined BIIB093 vs placebo||2.02|-2.20|=0.9314
90854744|NCT03954041|181573469|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|2.18|||=|0.6569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.61|11.98||P-value was analyzed by ANCOVA model with covariates: treatment, IRT stratification factors at randomization, baseline absolute edema volume based on central read, baseline GCS based on eCRF, and imaging modality at Hour 96 (MRI vs NCCT).|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of combined BIIB093 vs placebo||11.98|-7.61|= 0.6569
90854745|NCT05454657|181573489|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.01|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.015|-0.008|||Mixed Models Analysis||Cross-level interaction effect of Study Day X Treatment Group|To test the effect of HRVB vs control on negative affect, a multilevel model was estimated where study day predicted mean negative affect that same day (L1; within-person), while controlling for day-of-the-week. At Level 2 (between-person), treatment condition and sex were included as predictors of negative affect. The focal effects were the main effect of treatment condition (L2) and cross-level interactions between study day (L1) and treatment condition (L2) predicting daily negative affect.||-.008|-.015|<.05
90902383|NCT02500979|181671640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference (pramlintide-placebo)|-7.897||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.356|-3.438|||Linear mixed effects model|||||-3.438|-12.356|0.0013
90902384|NCT02500979|181671641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference (pramlintide-placebo)|-5.277||||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.175|-1.378|||Linear mixed effects model|||||-1.378|-9.175|0.0091
90902385|NCT02500979|181671642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference (pramlintide-placebo)|-4.435||||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.445|-1.424|||Linear mixed effects model|||||-1.424|-7.445|0.0057
91032836|NCT04638153|181951011|OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.9|||||Month 6|Results based on MMRM analysis with gender as a covariate, participant (and/or time) as a random effect; treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, age and gender as fixed effects using an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.9|-0.4|
90854746|NCT05454657|181573490|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.01|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.677|0.857|||Mixed Models Analysis||Cross-level interaction effect of Study Day X Treatment Group|To test the effect of HRVB vs. control on positive affect, a multilevel model was estimated where study day predicted mean positive affect that same day (L1; within-person), while controlling for day-of-the-week. At Level 2 (between-person), treatment condition and sex were included as predictors of positive affect. The focal effects were the main effect of treatment condition (L2) and cross-level interactions between study day (L1) and treatment condition (L2) predicting daily positive affect.||.857|-.677|<.05
90854747|NCT05454657|181573491|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.02|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.026|-0.014|||Mixed Models Analysis||Cross-level interaction effect of Study Day X Treatment Group|To test the effect of HRVB vs. control on craving, a multilevel model was estimated where study day predicted mean craving that same day (L1; within-person), while controlling for day-of-the-week. At Level 2 (between-person), treatment condition and sex were included as predictors of craving. The focal effects were the main effect of treatment condition (L2) and cross-level interactions between study day (L1) and treatment condition (L2) predicting daily craving.||-.014|-.026|<.05
90902386|NCT02500979|181671643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-28733.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4163.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37326.0|-20139.0|||Linear mixed-effects model|||||-20139|-37326|<0.0001
90902387|NCT02500979|181671644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-28.418||||0.0258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.099|-3.737|||Linear mixed-effects model|||||-3.737|-53.099|0.0258
90902388|NCT02500979|181671646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Ratio (Pramlintide/Placebo)|1.31||||0.0456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.7|||Linear mixed-effects model|||||1.70|1.01|0.0456
90958385|NCT03486457|181796712|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-34.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.948||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.69|-17.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-17.13|-52.69|0.0002
90958386|NCT03486457|181796712|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|5.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.663||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.9|26.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||26.51|-15.90|0.6200
90902389|NCT02500979|181671647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean ratio (pramlintide/placebo)|0.951||||0.1015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.896|1.011|||Linear mixed-effects model|||||1.011|0.896|0.1015
90902390|NCT02500979|181671649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean ratio (pramlintide/placebo)|1.085||||0.373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.901|1.307|||Linear mixed effects model|||||1.307|0.901|0.3730
90902391|NCT00119262|181671655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.12
90902392|NCT00119262|181671656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.32
90902393|NCT03881059|181671671|SUPERIORITY||Slope Coefficient of Dose|0.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.17|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.17|0.05|<0.001
90902394|NCT02743793|181671707|OTHER|No test was performed.|Kaplan-Meier survival estimate|64.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.3|87.9|||||Percent of participants that remained tolerant during study participation.|||87.9|21.3|
90854748|NCT05454657|181573492|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.36|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.245|0.543||95% Bayesian Credible Intervals Intervals are used to determine significance, and significance is represented by credible intervals that do not include 0 or 1.00 when odds ratios are calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis||Main effect of treatment group|To test the effect of HRVB vs. control on AOD use A Bayesian logistic multilevel model was estimated where study day predicted AOD use that same day (L1; within-person), while controlling for day-of-the-week. At Level 2 (between-person), treatment condition and sex were included as predictors of AOD use. The focal effects were the main effect of treatment condition (L2) and cross-level interactions between study day (L1) and treatment condition (L2) predicting daily AOD use.||0.543|0.245|<0.05
90854749|NCT05454657|181573493|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sample t test with unequal variances|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.33||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.07|5.13|||t-test, 2 sided|Unequal variances were specified as part of the model.||Two-sample t test with unequal variances||5.13|-8.07|.660
90854750|NCT01041495|181573499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.869||||0.869|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||P values below 0.05 were considered statistically significant|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.869
90854751|NCT01041495|181573500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.0||||0.486|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Visual Analogue Pain Scale (VAPS). The final visit VAPS at 8th week will be compared against baseline VAPS scores for both treatment groups||||.486
90854752|NCT01041495|181573500|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.486|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||.486
90854753|NCT01041495|181573501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.0||||0.869|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||As above- this was the difference between the groups on mean avg, it was used here|||||.869
90854754|NCT01041495|181573501|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.0||||0.275|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||.275
90854755|NCT03584373|181573502|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of 1.3|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.60|-0.89|0.70
90854756|NCT03584373|181573503|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of 1.3|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.23||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|0.61|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.61|-1.08|0.58
90854757|NCT03584373|181573504|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of 1.3|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.91||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.25|-0.56|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.56|-3.25|0.006
90854758|NCT03584373|181573505|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of 1.3|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.16||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|-0.06|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.06|-2.26|0.04
90854759|NCT03584373|181573506|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of 1.3|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.55||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|0.56|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.56|-1.67|0.33
90854760|NCT03584373|181573507|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of 1.3|Mean Difference (Net)|0.06||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.21|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.21|-0.10|0.47
90958387|NCT03486457|181796713|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-39.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.862||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.21|-18.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1, Erythema: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-18.08|-61.21|0.0004
90854761|NCT00366340|181573519|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|2.6||||||For serotype 4 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||2.6|-2.5|
90854762|NCT00366340|181573519|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|-9.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|-3.3||||||For serotype 6B the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||-3.3|-16.0|
90854763|NCT00366340|181573519|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|5.2||||||For serotype 9V the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||5.2|-0.4|
90854764|NCT00366340|181573519|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|4.1||||||For serotype 14 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||4.1|-0.9|
90854765|NCT00366340|181573519|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|1.2||||||For serotype 18C the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||1.2|-4.2|
90854766|NCT00366340|181573519|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|3.3||||||For serotype 19F the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||3.3|-3.8|
90854767|NCT00366340|181573519|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|4.5||||||For serotype 23F the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||4.5|-6.0|
90854768|NCT00366340|181573520|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.84||||||For serotype 4 the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||0.84|0.63|
90854769|NCT00366340|181573520|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.82||||||For serotype 6B the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||0.82|0.52|
90854770|NCT00366340|181573520|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.96||||||For serotype 9V the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||0.96|0.74|
90854771|NCT00366340|181573520|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.07||||||For serotype 14 the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.07|0.76|
90854772|NCT00366340|181573520|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|2.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.04|2.49||||||For serotype 18C the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||2.49|2.04|
90854773|NCT00366340|181573520|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.71||||||For serotype 19F the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||0.71|0.51|
90854774|NCT00366340|181573520|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.06||||||For serotype 23F the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.06|0.73|
90854775|NCT00366340|181573523|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|8.3||||||For Haemophilus influenzae type b the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.15 µg/mL threshold was calculated||8.3|-3.0|
90854776|NCT00366340|181573523|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|13.0||||||For Haemophilus influenzae type b the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 1.0 µg/mL threshold was calculated||13.0|-4.1|
90854777|NCT00366340|181573523|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-1.4|1.5||||||For diphtheria toxoid the difference in percentages between the two groups(13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.01 IU/mL threshold was calculated||1.5|-1.4|
90854778|NCT00366340|181573523|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|-4.5||||||95.0|-9.3|0.3||||||For diphtheria toxoid the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.1 IU/mL threshold was calculated||0.3|-9.3|
90854779|NCT00366340|181573523|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.5||||||For Haemophilus Influenzae Type b the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.15 µg/mL threshold was calculated||1.5|-1.5|
90854780|NCT00366340|181573523|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|-1.3||||||95.0|-5.0|2.3||||||For hepatitis B the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at ≥ 10.0 mIU/mL threshold was calculated||2.3|-5.0|
90854781|NCT00366340|181573523|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|4.4||||||For Haemophilus influenzae type b the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 1.0 µg/mL threshold was calculated||4.4|-0.4|
90854782|NCT00366340|181573523|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-1.4|1.4||||||For diphtheria toxoid the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.01 IU/mL threshold was calculated||1.4|-1.4|
90854783|NCT00366340|181573523|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-1.4|1.4||||||For diphtheria toxoid the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.1 IU/mL threshold was calculated||1.4|-1.4|
90854784|NCT00366340|181573523|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.8||||||95.0|-1.3|3.3||||||For hepatitis B the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at ≥ 10.0 mIU/mL threshold was calculated||3.3|-1.3|
90854785|NCT00366340|181573524|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for the concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.58||||||For Haemophilus influenzae type b the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.58|0.96|
90854786|NCT00366340|181573524|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for the concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.39||||||For Haemophilus influenzae type b µg/mL the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.39|0.95|
90854787|NCT00366340|181573525|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for the concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.8||||||For diphtheria toxoid the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||0.80|0.57|
90854788|NCT00366340|181573525|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for the concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.01||||||For diphtheria toxoid the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.01|0.75|
90854789|NCT00366340|181573526|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for the concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.11||||||For hepatitis B the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated.||1.11|0.69|
90854790|NCT00366340|181573526|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for the concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.22||||||For hepatitis B the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.22|0.71|
90958388|NCT03486457|181796713|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-25.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.453||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.97|-8.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1, Induration: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-8.40|-41.97|0.0037
91100143|NCT00395512|182086629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-24.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.5|-15.4|||ANCOVA|P-value is from an ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as class variables and Baseline fasting plasma glucose as covariate.||Comparison of change from Baseline in fasting plasma glucose at Week 26 between Alogliptin 25 mg and Alogliptin 25 mg + Pioglitazone 30 mg.||-15.4|-33.5|<0.001
90902395|NCT02065570|181671711|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|0.3||||0.939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|8.8||Adjusted for previous infliximab use (or prior anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) use for participants randomized under original protocol), hs-CRP at Baseline (\<10 mg/L, \>=10 mg/L) and Crohn's disease severity at Baseline (CDAI ≤ 300, CDAI \> 300).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab higher induction dose - adalimumab standard induction dose).|||8.8|-8.1|0.939
90902396|NCT02065570|181671712|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|3.2||||0.462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|11.7||Adjusted for previous infliximab use (or prior anti-TNF use for participants randomized under original protocol), hs-CRP at Baseline (\<10 mg/L, \>=10 mg/L) and Crohn's disease severity at Baseline (CDAI ≤ 300, CDAI \> 300).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab higher induction dose - adalimumab standard induction dose).|||11.7|-5.3|0.462
91100144|NCT01222351|182086690|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was that there is no difference in the rate of cognitive decline between participants with and without amyloid.|Slope|-0.034||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||latent growth curve model|Latent growth curve models tested cognitive decline rate by amyloid status.|B weights were the estimates for the association between Aβ and cognitive change.|||||0.02
91100145|NCT03055507|182086691|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|96.0|-2.4|0.5|||t-test, 1 sided|||||0.5|-2.4|<0.05
90854791|NCT00718237|181573591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy (1-Relative Risk [RR])|80.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.4|94.1||Hypothesis: Efficacy \>0%. Based on p\< 1/(1+k); p = proportion of participants with outcome in vaccine group relative to total number of subjects with outcome; k = ratio of follow-up time; placebo/vaccine. Based on conditional binomial approach.|Exact Conditional Test|Exact Conditional Test based on Binomial Distribution|Efficacy = 1-RR, expressed as a percentage; the RR is the incidence in the vaccine group / the incidence in the placebo group, adjusted for the ratio of the follow-up period in each group.|||94.1|47.4|<0.001
90854792|NCT00718237|181573592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy (1-Relative Risk [RR])|74.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.9|90.6||Hypothesis: Efficacy \>0%. Based on p\< 1/(1+k); p = proportion of participants with outcome in vaccine group relative to total number of subjects with outcome; k = ratio of follow-up time; placebo/vaccine. Based on conditional binomial approach.|Exact Conditional Test|Exact Conditional Test based on Binomial Distribution|Efficacy = 1-RR, expressed as a percentage; the RR is the incidence in the vaccine group / the incidence in the placebo group, adjusted for the ratio of the follow-up period in each group.|||90.6|39.9|<0.001
90854793|NCT00718237|181573593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy (1-Relative Risk [RR])|100.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.4|100.0||Hypothesis: Efficacy \>0%. Based on p\< 1/(1+k); p = proportion of participants with outcome in vaccine group relative to total number of subjects with outcome; k = ratio of follow-up time; placebo/vaccine. Based on conditional binomial approach.|Exact Conditional Test|Exact Conditional Test based on Binomial Distribution|Efficacy = 1-RR, expressed as a percentage; the RR is the incidence in the vaccine group / the incidence in the placebo group, adjusted for the ratio of the follow-up period in each group.|||100.0|55.4|<0.001
90854794|NCT01244490|181573596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-8.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|-5.8|||ANCOVA|||||-5.8|-11.9|<0.001
90854795|NCT01244490|181573596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-3.8||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|-0.7|||ANCOVA|||||-0.7|-6.8|0.017
90854796|NCT01244490|181573597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentage Improvement|23.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.1|36.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||36.4|11.1|<0.001
90854797|NCT01244490|181573597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentage Improvement|12.1||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|25.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||25.1|-0.9|0.024
90854798|NCT01244490|181573598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.217||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.358|-0.076|||ANCOVA|||||-0.076|-0.358|0.003
90854799|NCT01244490|181573598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.162||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.305|-0.019|||ANCOVA|||||-0.019|-0.305|0.026
90854800|NCT01244490|181573599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.209||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.358|-0.059|||ANCOVA|||||-0.059|-0.358|0.006
90854801|NCT01244490|181573599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.09||||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.241|0.061|||ANCOVA|||||0.061|-0.241|0.242
90854802|NCT01244490|181573600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||Nominal p-value uncorrected for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90854803|NCT01244490|181573600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.196||||||Nominal p-value uncorrected for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.196
90854804|NCT01244490|181573602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.165||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.266|-0.064||Nominal p-value uncorrected for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||-0.064|-0.266|0.001
90854805|NCT01244490|181573602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.104||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.207|-0.001||Nominal p-value uncorrected for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||-0.001|-0.207|0.048
90854806|NCT01244490|181573603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.211||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.416|-0.007||Nominal p-value uncorrected for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||-0.007|-0.416|0.043
90902397|NCT02065570|181671714|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|4.6||||0.269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|12.8||Adjusted for previous infliximab use (or prior anti-TNF use for participants randomized under original protocol), hs-CRP at Baseline (\<10 mg/L, \>=10 mg/L) and Crohn's disease severity at Baseline (CDAI ≤ 300, CDAI \> 300).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab higher induction dose - adalimumab standard induction dose).|||12.8|-3.6|0.269
90902398|NCT02065570|181671715|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|1.8||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|8.7||Adjusted for previous infliximab use (or prior anti-TNF use for participants randomized under original protocol), hs-CRP at Baseline (\<10 mg/L, \>=10 mg/L) and Crohn's disease severity at Baseline (CDAI ≤ 300, CDAI \> 300).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab higher induction dose - adalimumab standard induction dose).|||8.7|-5.1|0.610
90854807|NCT01244490|181573603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.125||||0.231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.331|0.08||Nominal p-value uncorrected for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||0.080|-0.331|0.231
90854808|NCT01244490|181573604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Diiference in Least Squares Mean|-0.229|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.364|-0.094||Nominal p-value uncorrected for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||-0.094|-0.364|<0.001
90854809|NCT01244490|181573604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.181||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.317|-0.045||Nominal p-value uncorrected for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||-0.045|-0.317|0.009
90854810|NCT01244490|181573605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.094||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.204|0.017||Nominal p-value uncorrected for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||0.017|-0.204|0.096
90854811|NCT01244490|181573605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.067||||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.046||Nominal p-value uncorrected for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||0.046|-0.180|0.242
90854812|NCT01244490|181573606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.049||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.191|0.094||Nominal p-value uncorrected for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||0.094|-0.191|0.500
90854813|NCT01244490|181573606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.078||||0.288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.222|0.066||Nominal p-value uncorrected for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||0.066|-0.222|0.288
90854814|NCT01244490|181573607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.233||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.374|-0.092||Nominal p-value uncorrected for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||-0.092|-0.374|0.001
90854815|NCT01244490|181573607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.111||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.253|0.031||Nominal p-value uncorrected for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||0.031|-0.253|0.124
90854816|NCT01244490|181573608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.056||||0.139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.131|0.018||Nominal p-value uncorrected for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||0.018|-0.131|0.139
90854817|NCT01244490|181573608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.039||||0.315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.115|0.037||Nominal p-value uncorrected for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||0.037|-0.115|0.315
90854818|NCT00971620|181573613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann|0.0||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|4.0|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||4.00|-2.00|.70
90854819|NCT00971620|181573615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||.06
90854820|NCT00971620|181573616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||WIlcoxon rank sum test|||||||.007
90902399|NCT02065570|181671716|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|11.2||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|19.6||Adjusted for previous infliximab use (or prior anti-TNF use for participants randomized under original protocol), hs-CRP at Baseline (\<10 mg/L, \>=10 mg/L) and Crohn's disease severity at Baseline (CDAI ≤ 300, CDAI \> 300).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab higher induction dose - adalimumab standard induction dose).|||19.6|2.9|0.008
90902400|NCT02065570|181671717|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|6.0||||0.336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|18.2||Adjusted for previous infliximab use (or prior anti-TNF use for participants randomized under original protocol), hs-CRP at Baseline (\<10 mg/L, \>=10 mg/L) and Crohn's disease severity at Baseline (CDAI ≤ 300, CDAI \> 300).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab higher induction dose - adalimumab standard induction dose).|||18.2|-6.2|0.336
90958389|NCT03486457|181796713|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-21.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.423||0.0438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.0|-0.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1, Scaling: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-0.61|-42.00|0.0438
90854821|NCT00971620|181573617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.48
90854822|NCT00971620|181573618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||.04
90854823|NCT00971620|181573620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||.07
90854824|NCT02290431|181573625|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||single-sample binomial test|||||||< 0.0001
90854825|NCT03324581|181573647|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.81|||=|0.7554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|5.92||The change from baseline in CAARS-O:SV was analyzed using a Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) methodology with the unstructured variance covariance matrix.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures|It included fixed class-effect terms: treatment,trial site,visit week, interaction term: treatment by visit week, Baseline CAARS-O:SV as a covariate.||||5.92|-4.30|=0.7554
90854826|NCT03324581|181573647|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-6.61|||=|0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|-1.6||The change from baseline in CAARS-O:SV was analyzed using a MMRM methodology with the unstructured variance covariance matrix.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures|It included fixed class-effect terms: treatment,trial site,visit week, interaction term: treatment by visit week, Baseline CAARS-O:SV as a covariate.||||-1.60|-11.6|=0.0101
90854827|NCT03324581|181573647|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-7.42|||=|0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|-2.5||The change from baseline in CAARS-O:SV was analyzed using a MMRM methodology with the unstructured variance covariance matrix.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures|It included fixed class-effect terms: treatment,trial site,visit week, interaction term: treatment by visit week, Baseline CAARS-O:SV as a covariate.||||-2.50|-12.3|=0.0033
90854828|NCT02380690|181573672|SUPERIORITY|ECLIPSE was powered to detect an effect size of 0.45.||||||0.981||||||Statistical significance was set at p\<0.05|Regression, Linear|||||||0.981
90854829|NCT02380690|181573673|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.774|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.774
90854830|NCT02380690|181573674|SUPERIORITY|Power was based on primary outcome.||||||0.999||||||Statistical significance was set at p\<0.05. A Sidak adjustment was used to account for multiple comparisons. Unadjusted p-value = 0.546.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.999
90854831|NCT02380690|181573675|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999||||||Statistical significance was set at p\<0.05. A Sidak adjustment was used to account for multiple comparisons. Unadjusted p-value = 0.403.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.999
90854832|NCT02380690|181573676|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999||||||Statistical significance was set at p\<0.05. A Sidak adjustment was used to account for multiple comparisons. Unadjusted p-value = 0.452.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.999
90854833|NCT02380690|181573677|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98||||||Statistical significance was set at p\<0.05. A Sidak adjustment was used to account for multiple comparisons. Unadjusted p-value = 0.243.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.980
90854834|NCT02380690|181573678|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.864||||||Statistical significance was set at p\<0.05. A Sidak adjustment was used to account for multiple comparisons. Unadjusted p-value = 0.133.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.864
90854835|NCT02380690|181573679|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78||||||Statistical significance was set at p\<0.05. A Sidak adjustment was used to account for multiple comparisons. Unadjusted p-value = 0.102.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.780
90854836|NCT02380690|181573680|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999||||||Statistical significance was set at p\<0.05. A Sidak adjustment was used to account for multiple comparisons. Unadjusted p-value = 0.536.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.999
90854837|NCT02380690|181573681|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.997||||||Statistical significance was set at p\<0.05. A Sidak adjustment was used to account for multiple comparisons. Unadjusted p-value = 0.340.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.997
91032837|NCT04638153|181951011|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.1|||||Month 6|Results based on MMRM analysis with gender as a covariate, participant (and/or time) as a random effect; treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, age and gender as fixed effects using an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.1|-2.3|
90854838|NCT02380690|181573682|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999||||||Statistical significance was set at p\<0.05. A Sidak adjustment was used to account for multiple comparisons. Unadjusted p-value = 0.384.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.999
90854839|NCT02380690|181573683|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999||||||Statistical significance was set at p\<0.05. A Sidak adjustment was used to account for multiple comparisons. Unadjusted p-value = 0.730.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.999
90854840|NCT02380690|181573684|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.914||||||Statistical significance was set at p\<0.05. A Sidak adjustment was used to account for multiple comparisons. Unadjusted p-value = 0.161.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.914
90854841|NCT02380690|181573685|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999||||||Statistical significance was set at p\<0.05. A Sidak adjustment was used to account for multiple comparisons. Unadjusted p-value = 0.930.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.999
90854842|NCT02380690|181573686|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999||||||Statistical significance was set at p\<0.05. A Sidak adjustment was used to account for multiple comparisons. Unadjusted p-value = 0.379.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.999
90854843|NCT02380690|181573687|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999||||||Statistical significance was set at p\<0.05. A Sidak adjustment was used to account for multiple comparisons. Unadjusted p-value = 0.969.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.999
90854844|NCT00266864|181573688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.7|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||One sample t -tests were performed on the percent change from baseline to month 12 \[(month 12- baseline)/baseline\*100\] for comparison to the null hypothesis. An a priori level of significance was set at p ≤ 0.05.|ANOVA|||Separate 2 factor (group: treatment, control) analysis of variance (ANOVA) with repeated measures on visit (baseline, month 12) were performed to identify changes in lean tissue mass across time. To further characterize significant main and interaction effects, post-hoc paired t -tests were performed within group.||||<0.01
90854845|NCT00266864|181573689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|101.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|103.0||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||One sample t -tests were performed on the percent change from baseline to month 12 \[(month 12- baseline)/baseline\*100\] for comparison to the null hypothesis. An a priori level of significance was set at p ≤ 0.05.|ANOVA|||Separate 2 factor (group: treatment, control) analysis of variance (ANOVA) with repeated measures on visit (baseline, month 12) were performed to identify changes in resting energy expenditure across time. To further characterize significant main and interaction effects, post-hoc paired t -tests were performed within group.||||0.051
90854846|NCT00829933|181573693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.429|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||For the incidence of bleeding events, paired comparison between the DU-176b groups was performed using the χ2 test.||||0.429
90854847|NCT00829933|181573693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.077|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.077
90854848|NCT00829933|181573693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|8.1|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||8.1|-11.2|
90854849|NCT00829933|181573693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.320
90854850|NCT00829933|181573693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|12.3|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||12.3|-7.6|
90854851|NCT00829933|181573693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|18.1|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||18.1|-2.7|
90854852|NCT03687970|181573711|OTHER|Multivariable logistic regression was applied to predict binary outcome while controlling for other potential confounding factors (age, cumulative chemotherapy dose, chemotherapy group).|Slope|-0.13||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||threshold for p value is 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.05
90854853|NCT03687970|181573712|OTHER|Spearman correlation coefficient between the Aδ:C fiber detection threshold ratio and the severity of painful CIPN on NPSI scale for patients with painful CIPN was calculated.|rho coefficient|0.22||||0.7525|TWO_SIDED|||||The thrshold for p value is 0.05.|Spearman's correlation coefficient|||||||0.7525
90854854|NCT03687970|181573712|OTHER|Spearman correlation coefficient between the Aδ:C fiber detection threshold ratio and the severity of painful CIPN on NPSI scale for Control group patients without painful CIPN was calculated.|rho coefficient|0.32||||0.1876|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for p value is 0.05.|Spearman's correlation coefficien|||||||0.1876
90854855|NCT03687970|181573712|OTHER|Spearman correlation coefficient between the Aδ:C fiber pain threshold ratio and the severity of painful CIPN on NPSI scale for patients with painful CIPN was calculated.|rho coefficient|0.13||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for p value is 0.05.|Spearman's correlation coefficient|||||||0.61
90854856|NCT03687970|181573712|OTHER|Spearman correlation coefficient between the Aδ:C fiber detection threshold ratio and the severity of painful CIPN on NPSI scale for patients with painful CIPN was calculated.|rho coefficient|-0.2812205||||0.2914|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for p value is 0.05.|Spearman's correlation coefficient|||||||0.2914
90854857|NCT06374394|181573720|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority (NI) was to be demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the GMT ratio between the Control Group (at Day 61) versus Co-Ad Group (at Day 31) for RSV-A neutralizing titers 1-month after the RSVPreF3 OA vaccine dose was less than or equal to (≤) 1.5.|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.28|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included the treatment group and age category at vaccination as fixed effects and the pre-dose log10 titer as covariate.|The GMR is based on the back transformation of the group comparisons in the ANCOVA model applied to the logarithmically-transformed titers.|To demonstrate non-inferiority of humoral immune response to RSVPreF3 OA vaccine when co-administered with a COVID-19 mRNA vaccine compared to RSVPreF3 OA vaccine administered alone.||1.28|0.97|
90902401|NCT02065570|181671718|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|1.5||||0.694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|9.1||Adjusted for previous infliximab use (or prior anti-TNF use for participants randomized under original protocol), hs-CRP at Baseline (\<10 mg/L, \>=10 mg/L) and Crohn's disease severity at Baseline (CDAI ≤ 300, CDAI \> 300).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab higher induction dose - adalimumab standard induction dose).|||9.1|-6.1|0.694
90902402|NCT02065570|181671719|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|6.8||||0.946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-192.3|205.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||205.9|-192.3|0.946
90902403|NCT02065570|181671720|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|4.0||||0.293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|11.5||Adjusted for previous infliximab use (or prior anti-TNF use for participants randomized under original protocol), hs-CRP at Baseline (\<10 mg/L, \>=10 mg/L) and Crohn's disease severity at Baseline (CDAI ≤ 300, CDAI \> 300).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab higher induction dose - adalimumab standard induction dose).|||11.5|-3.5|0.293
90902404|NCT02065570|181671721|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|3.0||||0.304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|8.6||Adjusted for previous infliximab use (or prior anti-TNF use for participants randomized under original protocol), hs-CRP at Baseline (\<10 mg/L, \>=10 mg/L) and Crohn's disease severity at Baseline (CDAI ≤ 300, CDAI \> 300).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab higher induction dose - adalimumab standard induction dose).|||8.6|-2.7|0.304
90902405|NCT02065570|181671722|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|4.2||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|9.1||Adjusted for previous infliximab use (or prior anti-TNF use for participants randomized under original protocol), hs-CRP at Baseline (\<10 mg/L, \>=10 mg/L) and Crohn's disease severity at Baseline (CDAI ≤ 300, CDAI \> 300).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab higher induction dose - adalimumab standard induction dose).|||9.1|-0.7|0.092
90902406|NCT02065570|181671723|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|3.6||||0.278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|10.2||Adjusted for previous infliximab use (or prior anti-TNF use for participants randomized under original protocol), hs-CRP at Baseline (\<10 mg/L, \>=10 mg/L) and Crohn's disease severity at Baseline (CDAI ≤ 300, CDAI \> 300).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab higher induction dose - adalimumab standard induction dose).|||10.2|-2.9|0.278
90902407|NCT02065570|181671724|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|3.7||||0.353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|11.5||Adjusted for previous infliximab use (or prior anti-TNF use for participants randomized under original protocol), hs-CRP at Baseline (\<10 mg/L, \>=10 mg/L) and Crohn's disease severity at Baseline (CDAI ≤ 300, CDAI \> 300).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab higher induction dose - adalimumab standard induction dose).|||11.5|-4.1|0.353
90902408|NCT02065570|181671725|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|8.9||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|16.0||Adjusted for previous infliximab use (or prior anti-TNF use for participants randomized under original protocol), hs-CRP at Baseline (\<10 mg/L, \>=10 mg/L) and Crohn's disease severity at Baseline (CDAI ≤ 300, CDAI \> 300).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab higher induction dose - adalimumab standard induction dose).|||16.0|1.8|0.015
91100146|NCT02021318|182086698|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of roxadustat versus darbepoetin alfa, margin = -15% (non-inferiority is concluded if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the difference was \>-15%).|Difference in percentage|11.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.66|17.36||||||A generalized linear model as an approximation for the Miettinen and Nurminen method, adjusted for stratification factors (actual) was used to estimate the difference of proportions and 95% confidence interval.||17.36|5.66|
90902409|NCT02065570|181671726|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|3.4||||0.394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|11.1||Adjusted for previous infliximab use (or prior anti-TNF use for participants randomized under original protocol), hs-CRP at Baseline (\<10 mg/L, \>=10 mg/L) and Crohn's disease severity at Baseline (CDAI ≤ 300, CDAI \> 300).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab higher induction dose - adalimumab standard induction dose).|||11.1|-4.4|0.394
90902410|NCT02065570|181671727|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|3.6||||0.349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|11.2||Adjusted for previous infliximab use (or prior anti-TNF use for participants randomized under original protocol), hs-CRP at Baseline (\<10 mg/L, \>=10 mg/L) and Crohn's disease severity at Baseline (CDAI ≤ 300, CDAI \> 300).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab higher induction dose - adalimumab standard induction dose)|||11.2|-4.0|0.349
90902411|NCT02065570|181671728|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|7.6||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|15.3||Adjusted for previous infliximab use (or prior anti-TNF use for participants randomized under original protocol), hs-CRP at Baseline (\<10 mg/L, \>=10 mg/L) and Crohn's disease severity at Baseline (CDAI ≤ 300, CDAI \> 300).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab higher induction dose - adalimumab standard induction dose)|||15.3|-0.1|0.054
90902412|NCT01088529|181671744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative risk|1.432||||0.2148|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.859|2.386|||Chi-squared|||||2.386|0.859|0.2148
90902413|NCT01088529|181671745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative risk|0.477||||0.1796|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.205|1.109|||Fisher Exact|||||1.109|0.205|0.1796
90902414|NCT01088529|181671746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative risk|6.523|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.701|15.753|||Chi-squared|||||15.753|2.701|<0.0001
90902415|NCT04159415|181671787|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|2.3|||||Confidence interval (CI) based on treatment group difference (R4461 Low dose vs. placebo) of the LS means using mixed-effect model with repeated measures (MMRM) model|||2.3|-1.9|
90902416|NCT04159415|181671788|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|38.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|27.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.3|97.5|||||Confidence interval (CI) based on treatment group difference (R4461 Low dose vs. placebo) of the LS means using mixed-effect model with repeated measures (MMRM) model|||97.5|-21.3|
90902417|NCT04159415|181671789|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|29.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.9|56.9|||||Combined estimate for adjusted mean difference (SE) vs Placebo obtained by combining adjusted means and SE from ANCOVA model analyses of the different imputed data sets.|||56.9|-56.9|
90902418|NCT04159415|181671790|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|17.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|43.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.6|103.2|||||Combined estimate for adjusted mean difference (SE) vs Placebo obtained by combining adjusted means and SE from robust regression model analyses of the different imputed data sets.|||103.2|-67.6|
90902419|NCT00337662|181671809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Between-group p-values for each baseline to post-baseline visit were the same, p\<0.001.|Mixed Effects Model Repeated Measures|||||||<0.001
90902420|NCT00337662|181671810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.266||95.0||||Change from Week 2 to Week 3 p-value|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated-Measures|||||||0.266
90854858|NCT06374394|181573721|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio between the Control Group (at Day 61) versus Co-Ad Group (at Day 31) for RSV-B neutralizing titers 1-month after the RSVPreF3 OA vaccine dose was ≤1.5.|GMR|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.23|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included the treatment group and age category at vaccination as fixed effects and the pre-dose log10 titer as covariate.|The GMR is based on the back transformation of the group comparisons in the ANCOVA model applied to the logarithmically-transformed titers.|To demonstrate non-inferiority of humoral immune response to RSVPreF3 OA vaccine when co-administered with a COVID-19 mRNA vaccine compared to RSVPreF3 OA vaccine administered alone.||1.23|0.94|
90854859|NCT06374394|181573722|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio between the Control Group (at Day 31) versus Co-Ad group (at Day 31) for SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing titers 1-month after the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine dose was ≤1.5.|GMR|1.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|1.51|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included the treatment group and age category at vaccination as fixed effects and the pre-dose log10 titer as covariate.|The GMR is based on the back transformation of the group comparisons in the ANCOVA model applied to the logarithmically-transformed titers.|To demonstrate non-inferiority of humoral immune response to a COVID-19 mRNA vaccine when co-administered with the RSVPreF3 OA vaccine compared to COVID-19 mRNA vaccine administered alone.||1.51|1.13|
90854860|NCT04854642|181573781|OTHER||Least square mean difference|71.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|68.13|75.29|||ANOVA|||||75.29|68.13|<0.0001
90854861|NCT04854642|181573782|OTHER||Least square mean difference|90.93||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.3|96.93|||ANOVA|||||96.93|85.30|0.0170
90854862|NCT04854642|181573783|OTHER||Least square mean difference|90.9||||0.0213|TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.04|97.16|||ANOVA|||||97.16|85.04|0.0213
90854863|NCT04854642|181573784|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
90854864|NCT02417844|181573802|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric mean ratio (%)|99.66|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.15|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.19|107.74|||||"The standard deviation in the statistical analysis is actually the intra-individual coefficient of variation.~Ratio calculated as test divided by reference."|||107.74|92.19|
90854865|NCT02417844|181573803|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric mean ratio (%)|99.58|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.51|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.23|105.24|||||"The standard deviation in the statistical analysis is actually the intra-individual coefficient of variation.~Ratio calculated as test divided by reference."|||105.24|94.23|
90854866|NCT02417844|181573804|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric mean ratio (%)|99.48|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.12|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.9|105.39|||||"The standard deviation in the statistical analysis is actually the intra-individual coefficient of variation.~Ratio calculated as test divided by reference."|||105.39|93.90|
90854867|NCT01865084|181573820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.307||||||The p-value is based on the treatment difference LS Mean changes from baseline between tadalafil and placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.307
90854868|NCT01865084|181573820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.538||||||The p-value is based on the treatment difference LS Mean changes from baseline between tadalafil and placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.538
90902421|NCT00337662|181671810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.884||95.0||||Change from Week 2 to Week 4 p-value|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated-Measures|||||||0.884
90902422|NCT00337662|181671810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.151||95.0||||Change from Week 2 to Week 6 p-value|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated-Measures|||||||0.151
90902423|NCT00337662|181671810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.216||95.0||||Change from Week 2 to Week 8 p-value|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated-Measures|||||||0.216
90902424|NCT00337662|181671810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0||||Change from Week 2 to Week 12 p-value|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated-Measures|||||||0.020
90902425|NCT00337662|181671811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
90902426|NCT00337662|181671812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.604||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.604
90902427|NCT00337662|181671813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
90902428|NCT00337662|181671814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.745||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.745
90902429|NCT00337662|181671815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.474||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.474
90902430|NCT00337662|181671816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034||95.0||||P-values (Change from Baseline) are based on Type III sums of squares from ANOVA model: change = group pooled investigator.|ANOVA|||||||0.034
90902431|NCT00337662|181671816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.125||95.0||||P-values (Change from Baseline) are based on Type III sums of squares from ANOVA model: change = group pooled investigator.|ANOVA|||||||0.125
90902432|NCT00337662|181671817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0||||All comparisons between EO-RIS and NEO-RIS and between NEO-RIS and NEO-OLZ had p-values greater than 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||>0.05
90902433|NCT00337662|181671818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.355||95.0|||||ANOVA|p-value is from ANOVA with treatment and pooled investigator in the model.||||||0.355
90902434|NCT00337662|181671818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.244||95.0|||||ANOVA|p-value is from ANOVA with treatment and pooled investigator in the model.||||||0.244
90902435|NCT00337662|181671819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.998||95.0|||||ANOVA|P-value is from ANOVA with treatment and pooled investigator in the model.||||||0.998
90902436|NCT00337662|181671819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.505||95.0|||||ANOVA|P-value is from ANOVA with treatment and pooled investigator in the model.||||||0.505
90902437|NCT00337662|181671820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.266||95.0|||||ANOVA|P-value is from ANOVA with treatment and pooled investigator in the model.||||||0.266
90902438|NCT00337662|181671820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015||95.0|||||ANOVA|P-value is from ANOVA with treatment and pooled investigator in the model.||||||0.015
90902439|NCT00337662|181671821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14||95.0||||P-values (Change from Baseline) are based on Type III sums of squares from ANOVA model: change = group pooled investigator.|ANOVA|||||||0.140
90902440|NCT00337662|181671821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.181||95.0||||P-values (Change from Baseline) are based on Type III sums of squares from ANOVA model: change = group pooled investigator.|ANOVA|||||||0.181
90902441|NCT00337662|181671822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.254||95.0||||P-values (Change from Baseline) are based on Type III sums of squares from ANOVA model: change = group pooled investigator.|ANOVA|||||||0.254
90902442|NCT00337662|181671822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.299||95.0|||||ANOVA|P-values (Change from Baseline) are based on Type III sums of squares from ANOVA model: change = group pooled investigator.||||||0.299
90854869|NCT01966692|181573850|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence of the two treatments was to be concluded if the 90% CIs for the ratio of geometric means for AUC0-last fell completely within (80%, 125%).|ratio (%) of geometric means|106.0||||0.4132|TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.0|114.0||The threshold for statistical significane was p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference and the 90% CI for the difference were exponentiated to provide an estimate of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (test/reference).|"Test: Fluticasone Propionate Formulation 2 (B-3.8 µm); Reference: Fluticasone Propionate Formulation 1 (A-4.5 µm); Natural log transformed AUC0-last: mixed models analysis with sequence, period, treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect.~All reported p-values are Bonferroni adjusted p-values."||114|99|0.4132
90854870|NCT01966692|181573850|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence of the two treatments was to be concluded if the 90% CIs for the ratio of geometric means for AUC0-last fell completely within (80%, 125%).|ratio (%) of geometric means|109.0||||0.1295|TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.0|116.0||The threshold for statistical significane was p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference and the 90% CI for the difference were exponentiated to provide an estimate of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (test/reference).|"Test: Fluticasone Propionate Formulation 3 (C-3.7 µm); Reference: Fluticasone Propionate Formulation 1 (A-4.5 µm); Natural log transformed AUC0-last: mixed models analysis with sequence, period, treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect.~All reported p-values are Bonferroni adjusted p-values."||116|102|0.1295
90854871|NCT01966692|181573850|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence of the two treatments was to be concluded if the 90% CIs for the ratio of geometric means for AUC0-last fell completely within (80%, 125%).|ratio (%) of geometric means|114.0||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|90.0|106.0|122.0||The threshold for statistical significane was p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference and the 90% CI for the difference were exponentiated to provide an estimate of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (test/reference).|"Test: Fluticasone Propionate Formulation 3 (C-3.7 µm)\*; Reference: Fluticasone Propionate Formulation 1 (A-4.5 µm); Natural log transformed AUC0-last: mixed models analysis with sequence, period, treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect.~All reported p-values are Bonferroni adjusted p-values."||122|106|0.0078
90854872|NCT01966692|181573851|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence of the two treatments was to be concluded if the 90% CIs for the ratio of geometric means for Cmax fell completely within (80%, 125%).|ratio (%) of geometric means|182.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|159.0|208.0||The threshold for statistical significane was p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference and the 90% CI for the difference were exponentiated to provide an estimate of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (test/reference).|"Test: Fluticasone Propionate Formulation 2 (B-3.8 µm); Reference: Fluticasone Propionate Formulation 1 (A-4.5 µm); Natural log transformed Cmax: mixed models analysis with sequence, period, treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect.~All reported p-values are Bonferroni adjusted p-values."||208|159|<0.001
90854873|NCT01966692|181573851|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence of the two treatments was to be concluded if the 90% CIs for the ratio of geometric means for Cmax fell completely within (80%, 125%).|ratio (%) of geometric means|190.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|166.0|217.0||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference and the 90% CI for the difference were exponentiated to provide an estimate of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (test/reference).|"Test: Fluticasone Propionate Formulation 3 (C-3.7 µm); Reference: Fluticasone Propionate Formulation 1 (A-4.5 µm); Natural log transformed Cmax: mixed models analysis with sequence, period, treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect.~All reported p-values are Bonferroni adjusted p-values."||217|166|<0.001
90854874|NCT01966692|181573851|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence of the two treatments was to be concluded if the 90% CIs for the ratio of geometric means for Cmax fell completely within (80%, 125%).|ratio (%) of geometric means|213.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|186.0|244.0||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference and the 90% CI for the difference were exponentiated to provide an estimate of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (test/reference).|"Test: Fluticasone Propionate Formulation 3 (C-3.7 µm)\*; Reference: Fluticasone Propionate Formulation 1 (A-4.5 µm); Natural log transformed Cmax: mixed models analysis with sequence, period, treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect.~All reported p-values are Bonferroni adjusted p-values."||244|186|<0.001
90854875|NCT00509392|181573899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90854876|NCT00509392|181573900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90854877|NCT00509392|181573901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90854878|NCT00509392|181573902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2962||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2962
90854879|NCT00509392|181573903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0048||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0048
90854880|NCT00509392|181573904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0036||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0036
90902443|NCT00337662|181671823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.291||95.0||||P-values (Change from Baseline) are based on Type III sums of squares from ANOVA model: change = group pooled investigator.|ANOVA|||||||0.291
90902444|NCT00337662|181671823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.259||95.0||||P-values (Change from Baseline) are based on Type III sums of squares from ANOVA model: change = group pooled investigator.|ANOVA|||||||0.259
90902445|NCT00337662|181671824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.209||95.0||||P-values (Change from Baseline) are based on Type III sums of squares from ANOVA model: change = group pooled investigator.|ANOVA|||||||0.209
90902446|NCT00337662|181671824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.411||95.0||||P-values (Change from Baseline) are based on Type III sums of squares from ANOVA model: change = group pooled investigator.|ANOVA|||||||0.411
90902447|NCT00337662|181671825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.544||95.0||||P-values (Change from Baseline) are based on Type III sums of squares from ANOVA model: change = group pooled investigator.|ANOVA|||||||0.544
90958390|NCT03486457|181796713|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-49.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.529|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.03|-28.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3, Erythema: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-28.19|-70.03|<0.0001
90902448|NCT00337662|181671825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.386||95.0||||P-values (Change from Baseline) are based on Type III sums of squares from ANOVA model: change = group pooled investigator.|ANOVA|||||||0.386
90902449|NCT00337662|181671826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026||95.0||||P-values (Change from Baseline) are based on Type III sums of squares from ANOVA model: change = group pooled investigator.|ANOVA|||||||0.026
90902450|NCT00337662|181671826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.143||95.0||||P-values (Change from Baseline) are based on Type III sums of squares from ANOVA model: change = group pooled investigator.|ANOVA|||||||0.143
90902451|NCT00882921|181671827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Relative Risk|2.873||||0.1309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.731|11.296|||Negative Binomial Model|||The groups compared are Ab+ vs Ab-||11.296|0.731|0.1309
90902452|NCT00882921|181671827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Relative Risk|2.082||||0.2718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.563|7.706|||Negative Binomial Model|||The groups compared are Ab+ (age adjusted) vs Ab- (age adjusted)||7.706|0.563|0.2718
90902453|NCT01702428|181671853|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|For each pair-wise comparison, the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the lot difference in seroresponse rates should be within the \[-5%;5%\] margin for antibodies to measles virus.|Difference in seroresponse rate|-0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|0.58|||||Asymptotic standardized 95% CI for the pair-wise differences in seroresponse.|Difference between groups (INV\_MMR\_L1 Group minus INV\_MMR\_L2 Group) in percentage of subjects with anti-measles antibody concentration ≥200 mIU/mL.||0.58|-1.69|
90902454|NCT01702428|181671853|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|For each pair-wise comparison, the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the lot difference in seroresponse rates should be within the \[-5%;5%\] margin for antibodies to measles virus.|Difference in seroresponse rate|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|1.98|||||Asymptotic standardized 95% CI for the pair-wise differences in seroresponse.|Difference between groups (INV\_MMR\_L2 Group minus INV\_MMR\_L3 Group) in percentage of subjects with anti-measles antibody concentration ≥200 mIU/mL.||1.98|-0.35|
90902455|NCT01702428|181671853|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|For each pair-wise comparison, the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the lot difference in seroresponse rates should be within the \[-5%;5%\] margin for antibodies to measles virus.|Difference in seroresponse rate|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|1.5|||||Asymptotic standardized 95% CI for the pair-wise differences in seroresponse.|Difference between groups (INV\_MMR\_L1 Group minus INV\_MMR\_L3 Group) in percentage of subjects with anti-measles antibody concentration ≥200 mIU/mL.||1.50|-0.98|
90902456|NCT01702428|181671854|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|For each pair-wise comparison, the 2-sided 95% CI on the lot ratio should be within the \[0.67;1.5\] margin for antibodies to measles.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.06|||ANOVA|95% CI for GMC of each INV\_MMR lots pair was computed using ANOVA (3 INV\_MMR lot groups \& country as fixed effects) on log-transformed concentrations.||Adjusted GMC ratio (INV\_MMR\_L1 Group divided by INV\_MMR\_L2 Group) for antibodies to measles virus at Day 42.||1.06|0.91|
90854881|NCT00509392|181573905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0005
90854882|NCT00509392|181573906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5761||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5761
90854883|NCT00509392|181573907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
90854884|NCT00509392|181573908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
90854885|NCT00509392|181573909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
90854886|NCT00509392|181573910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0050
90854887|NCT00509392|181573912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0009||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0009
90854888|NCT00509392|181573913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0002
90854889|NCT00509392|181573914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0035||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0035
90854890|NCT00509392|181573915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2825||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2825
90854891|NCT00509392|181573916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0854||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0854
90854892|NCT00509392|181573917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0044||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0044
90854893|NCT00509392|181573918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0457||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0457
90854894|NCT00509392|181573919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9463||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9463
90854895|NCT01896479|181573921|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin used was 1.58.|Cox Proportional Hazard|1.24||||0.1916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.7||Stratification factors comprised RET M918T mutational status (positive, negative, and unknown).|Log Rank|||||1.70|0.90|0.1916
90854896|NCT01896479|181573922|OTHER|Descriptive statistical analysis.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0195||||0.9437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification factors comprised RET M918T mutational status (positive, negative, and unknown).||||1.7|0.6|0.9437
90854897|NCT03519386|181573994|NON_INFERIORITY|criteria for statistical and clinical non-inferiority: upper limit of the 95% CI of the difference between the implant group and the timolol group was \< 1.5 mmHg and also \< 1 mmHg for all 6 timepoints for Implant Group 2 vs. Timolol|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|-0.13||"Fixed sequence hierarchical testing procedure was used, first testing for non-inferiority of Implant Group 2 to timolol at all 6 timepoints before testing non-inferiority of Implant Group~1 to timolol"||||Day 10, 8AM Difference between Implant Group 2 and timolol||-0.13|-1.45|
90902457|NCT01702428|181671854|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|For each pair-wise comparison, the 2-sided 95% CI on the lot ratio should be within the \[0.67;1.5\] margin for antibodies to measles.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.05|||ANOVA|95% CI for GMC of each INV\_MMR lots pair was computed using ANOVA (3 INV\_MMR lot groups \& country as fixed effects) on log-transformed concentrations.||Adjusted GMC ratio (INV\_MMR\_L1 Group divided by INV\_MMR\_L3 Group) for antibodies to measles virus at Day 42.||1.05|0.90|
90902458|NCT01702428|181671854|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|For each pair-wise comparison, the 2-sided 95% CI on the lot ratio should be within the \[0.67;1.5\] margin for antibodies to measles.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.09|||ANOVA|95% CI for GMC of each INV\_MMR lots pair was computed using ANOVA (3 INV\_MMR lot groups \& country as fixed effects) on log-transformed concentrations.||Adjusted GMC ratio (INV\_MMR\_L2 Group divided by INV\_MMR\_L1 Group) for antibodies to measles virus at Day 42.||1.09|0.94|
90902459|NCT01702428|181671854|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|For each pair-wise comparison, the 2-sided 95% CI on the lot ratio should be within the \[0.67;1.5\] margin for antibodies to measles.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.06|||ANOVA|95% CI for GMC of each INV\_MMR lots pair was computed using ANOVA (3 INV\_MMR lot groups \& country as fixed effects) on log-transformed concentrations.||Adjusted GMC ratio (INV\_MMR\_L2 Group divided by INV\_MMR\_L3 Group) for antibodies to measles virus at Day 42.||1.06|0.91|
91104350|NCT02539394|182094893|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.161|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of Pre-operative SWAL-QOL - Sleep is the same across the 2 arms||||0.161
91032838|NCT04638153|181951011|OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.7|||||Month 9|Results based on MMRM analysis with gender as a covariate, participant (and/or time) as a random effect; treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, age and gender as fixed effects using an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.7|-0.8|
91100147|NCT02021318|182086699|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-Inferiority, margin = -0.75 (non-inferiority is concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI of the least square mean difference (LSM) is \> -0.75 g/dL).|LSM Difference|0.015||||0.839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.131|0.162|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of cardiovascular disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.162|-0.131|0.839
90854898|NCT03519386|181573994|NON_INFERIORITY|criteria for statistical and clinical non-inferiority: upper limit of the 95% CI of the difference between the implant group and the timolol group was \< 1.5 mmHg and also \< 1 mmHg for all 6 timepoints for Implant Group 2 vs Timolol|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.92|-0.56||"Fixed sequence hierarchical testing procedure was used, first testing for non-inferiority of Implant Group 2 to timolol at all 6 timepoints before testing non-inferiority of Implant Group~1 to timolol"||||Day 10, 10AM Difference between Implant Group 2 and timolol||-0.56|-1.92|
90854899|NCT03519386|181573994|NON_INFERIORITY|criteria for statistical and clinical non-inferiority: upper limit of the 95% CI of the difference between the implant group and the timolol group was \< 1.5 mmHg and also \< 1 mmHg for all 6 timepoints for Implant Group 2 vs Timolol|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.51||"Fixed sequence hierarchical testing procedure was used, first testing for non-inferiority of Implant Group 2 to timolol at all 6 timepoints before testing non-inferiority of Implant Group~1 to timolol"||||Week 6, 8AM Difference between Implant Group 2 and timolol||0.51|-0.86|
90854900|NCT03519386|181573994|NON_INFERIORITY|criteria for statistical and clinical non-inferiority: upper limit of the 95% CI of the difference between the implant group and the timolol group was \< 1.5 mmHg and also \< 1 mmHg for all 6 timepoints for Implant Group 2 vs Timolol|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|-0.11||"Fixed sequence hierarchical testing procedure was used, first testing for non-inferiority of Implant Group 2 to timolol at all 6 timepoints before testing non-inferiority of Implant Group~1 to timolol"||||Week 6, 10AM Difference between Implant Group 2 and timolol||-0.11|-1.43|
90854901|NCT03519386|181573994|NON_INFERIORITY|criteria for statistical and clinical non-inferiority: upper limit of the 95% CI of the difference between the implant group and the timolol group was \< 1.5 mmHg and also \< 1 mmHg for all 6 timepoints for Implant Group 2 vs Timolol|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.82||"Fixed sequence hierarchical testing procedure was used, first testing for non-inferiority of Implant Group 2 to timolol at all 6 timepoints before testing non-inferiority of Implant Group~1 to timolol"||||Month 3, 8AM Difference between Implant Group 2 and timolol||0.82|-0.63|
90854902|NCT03519386|181573994|NON_INFERIORITY|criteria for statistical and clinical non-inferiority: upper limit of the 95% CI of the difference between the implant group and the timolol group was \< 1.5 mmHg and also \< 1 mmHg for all 6 timepoints for Implant Group 2 vs Timolol|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.57||"Fixed sequence hierarchical testing procedure was used, first testing for non-inferiority of Implant Group 2 to timolol at all 6 timepoints before testing non-inferiority of Implant Group~1 to timolol"||||Month 3, 10AM Difference between Implant Group 2 and timolol||0.57|-0.89|
90854903|NCT03519386|181573994|NON_INFERIORITY|criteria for statistical and clinical non-inferiority: upper limit of the 95% CI of the difference between the implant group and the timolol group was \< 1.5 mmHg and also \< 1 mmHg for all 6 timepoints for Implant Group 1 vs. Timolol|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|-0.06||"Fixed sequence hierarchical testing procedure was used, first testing for non-inferiority of Implant Group 2 to timolol at all 6 timepoints before testing non-inferiority of Implant Group~1 to timolol"||||Day 10, 8AM Difference between Implant Group 1 vs. Timolol||-0.06|-1.38|
90854904|NCT03519386|181573994|NON_INFERIORITY|criteria for statistical and clinical non-inferiority: upper limit of the 95% CI of the difference between the implant group and the timolol group was \< 1.5 mmHg and also \< 1 mmHg for all 6 timepoints for Implant Group 1 vs Timolol|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|-0.48||"Fixed sequence hierarchical testing procedure was used, first testing for non-inferiority of Implant Group 2 to timolol at all 6 timepoints before testing non-inferiority of Implant Group~1 to timolol"||||Day 10, 10AM Difference between Implant Group 1 vs. Timolol||-0.48|-1.83|
90854905|NCT03519386|181573994|NON_INFERIORITY|criteria for statistical and clinical non-inferiority: upper limit of the 95% CI of the difference between the implant group and the timolol group was \< 1.5 mmHg and also \< 1 mmHg for all 6 timepoints for Implant Group 1 vs. Timolol|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.43||"Fixed sequence hierarchical testing procedure was used, first testing for non-inferiority of Implant Group 2 to timolol at all 6 timepoints before testing non-inferiority of Implant Group~1 to timolol"||||Week 6, 8AM Difference between Implant Group 1 and timolol||0.43|-0.93|
90854906|NCT03519386|181573994|NON_INFERIORITY|criteria for statistical and clinical non-inferiority: upper limit of the 95% CI of the difference between the implant group and the timolol group was \< 1.5 mmHg and also \< 1 mmHg for all 6 timepoints for Implant Group 1 vs Timolol|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.08||"Fixed sequence hierarchical testing procedure was used, first testing for non-inferiority of Implant Group 2 to timolol at all 6 timepoints before testing non-inferiority of Implant Group~1 to timolol"||||Week 6, 10AM Difference between Implant Group 1 and timolol||-0.08|-1.40|
90902460|NCT01702428|181671854|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|For each pair-wise comparison, the 2-sided 95% CI on the lot ratio should be within the \[0.67;1.5\] margin for antibodies to measles.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.11|||ANOVA|95% CI for GMC of each INV\_MMR lots pair was computed using ANOVA (3 INV\_MMR lot groups \& country as fixed effects) on log-transformed concentrations.||Adjusted GMC ratio (INV\_MMR\_L3 Group divided by INV\_MMR\_L1 Group) for antibodies to measles virus at Day 42.||1.11|0.95|
90902461|NCT01702428|181671854|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|For each pair-wise comparison, the 2-sided 95% CI on the lot ratio should be within the \[0.67;1.5\] margin for antibodies to measles.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.09|||ANOVA|95% CI for GMC of each INV\_MMR lots pair was computed using ANOVA (3 INV\_MMR lot groups \& country as fixed effects) on log-transformed concentrations.||Adjusted GMC ratio (INV\_MMR\_L3 Group divided by INV\_MMR\_L2 Group) for antibodies to measles virus at Day 42.||1.09|0.94|
90958391|NCT03486457|181796713|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-29.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.47||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.52|-10.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3, Induration: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-10.89|-48.52|0.0023
90958392|NCT03486457|181796713|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-36.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.72||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.08|-15.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3, Scaling: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-15.49|-58.08|0.0009
90958393|NCT03486457|181796713|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|7.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.495||0.5048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.84|27.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6, Erythema: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||27.90|-13.84|0.5048
90958394|NCT03486457|181796713|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|9.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.273||0.4575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.24|33.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6, Induration: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||33.57|-15.24|0.4575
90958395|NCT03486457|181796713|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.539||0.9523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.26|23.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6, Scaling: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||23.65|-22.26|0.9523
90854907|NCT03519386|181573994|NON_INFERIORITY|criteria for statistical and clinical non-inferiority: upper limit of the 95% CI of the difference between the implant group and the timolol group was \< 1.5 mmHg and also \< 1 mmHg for all 6 timepoints for Implant Group 1 vs. Timolol|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.83||"Fixed sequence hierarchical testing procedure was used, first testing for non-inferiority of Implant Group 2 to timolol at all 6 timepoints before testing non-inferiority of Implant Group~1 to timolol"||||Month 3, 8AM Difference between Implant Group 1 and timolol||0.83|-0.62|
90854908|NCT03519386|181573994|NON_INFERIORITY|criteria for statistical and clinical non-inferiority: upper limit of the 95% CI of the difference between the implant group and the timolol group was \< 1.5 mmHg and also \< 1 mmHg for all 6 timepoints for Implant Group 1 vs Timolol|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.69||"Fixed sequence hierarchical testing procedure was used, first testing for non-inferiority of Implant Group 2 to timolol at all 6 timepoints before testing non-inferiority of Implant Group~1 to timolol"||||Month 3, 10AM Difference between Implant Group 1 and timolol||0.69|-0.77|
90854909|NCT05714644|181573996|SUPERIORITY|FIT-DNA hypothesized to be higher than FIT|Risk Difference (RD)|4.7||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|8.7|||Regression, Logistic|logistic regression models with generalized estimating equations to account for clustering of data within CHCs, adjusting for age and race/ethnicity||||8.7|0.8|0.05
90854910|NCT05714644|181573997|SUPERIORITY|FIT-DNA greater than FIT|Risk Difference (RD)|4.5|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|8.5|||Regression, Logistic|||||8.5|0.4|<0.05
90854911|NCT01582854|181574002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|-0.7|||ANCOVA|||||-0.7|-3.9|0.005
90958396|NCT03486457|181796714|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-28.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.386||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.24|-12.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-12.15|-45.24|0.0008
90854912|NCT01582854|181574003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Month 3||0.3|-2.6|0.122
90854913|NCT01582854|181574003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|-1.9|||ANCOVA|||Month 12||-1.9|-5.5|<0.001
90854914|NCT01582854|181574004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.7|||ANCOVA|||End of Infusion Period||0.7|-0.1|0.111
90854915|NCT01582854|181574004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.2|||ANCOVA|||Month 3||1.2|0.1|0.016
90854916|NCT01582854|181574004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.3|||ANCOVA|||Month 6||1.3|0.2|0.013
90854917|NCT01582854|181574004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.7|||ANCOVA|||Month 12||1.7|0.3|0.003
90958397|NCT03486457|181796714|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-46.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.632|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.45|-25.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-25.49|-67.45|<0.0001
90958398|NCT03486457|181796714|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-26.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.778||0.0141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.05|-5.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-5.47|-48.05|0.0141
90958399|NCT03486457|181796715|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-10.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.399|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.48|-6.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-6.02|-15.48|<0.0001
91032839|NCT04638153|181951011|OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.5|||||Month 9|Results based on MMRM analysis with gender as a covariate, participant (and/or time) as a random effect; treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, age and gender as fixed effects using an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.5|-0.2|
91032840|NCT04638153|181951011|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.2|||||Month 9|Results based on MMRM analysis with gender as a covariate, participant (and/or time) as a random effect; treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, age and gender as fixed effects using an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.2|-1.5|
90854918|NCT01582854|181574005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|10.2||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|19.5|||Chi-squared|||Month 3||19.5|0.9|0.032
90854919|NCT01582854|181574005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|10.2||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|19.5|||Chi-squared|||Month 6||19.5|0.8|0.034
90854920|NCT01582854|181574005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|10.1||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|19.3|||Chi-squared|||Month 12||19.3|0.8|0.035
90854921|NCT01582854|181574006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-3.2||||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|2.1|||Fisher Exact|||Month 6||2.1|-8.5|0.251
90854922|NCT01582854|181574006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-4.0||||0.221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|1.7|||Fisher Exact|||Month 12||1.7|-9.7|0.221
90854923|NCT01582854|181574007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1|||ANCOVA|||End of Infusion Period||0.1|-0.4|0.239
90854924|NCT01582854|181574007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Month 3||0.1|-0.5|0.136
90854925|NCT01582854|181574007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Month 6||0.2|-0.3|0.890
90854926|NCT01582854|181574007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Month 12||0.2|-0.4|0.455
90854927|NCT02325791|181574052|SUPERIORITY||percentage treatment difference|1.15||||0.5773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.898|5.201|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical inferential approach was used to control Type-1 error at 0.05 for pairwise comparisons of each suptavumab dose regimen to placebo. Missing values were imputed to KM estimate from the placebo group. Randomization strata adjusted in CMH test include region (North America vs. Rest of World) \& gestational age category (\<= 31 weeks 6 days GA vs \>= 32 weeks 0 days and \<= 35 weeks 6 days GA). Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.||5.201|-2.898|0.5773
90854928|NCT02325791|181574052|SUPERIORITY||percentage treatment difference|-0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.318|3.438||Analysis performed using CMH statistics with randomization stratum adjusted using Mantel-Haenzel (MH) method to assess pairwise treatment difference (i.e. absolute risk reduction of each suptavumab arm compared to placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical inferential approach was used to control Type-1 error at 0.05 for pairwise comparisons of each Suptavumab dose regimen to placebo. Missing values were imputed to Kaplan-Meier (KM) estimate from the placebo group. Randomization strata adjusted in Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test include region (North America vs. Rest of World) \& gestational age category (\<= 31 weeks 6 days GA vs \>= 32 weeks 0 days and \<= 35 weeks 6 days GA). Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.||3.438|-4.318|
90854929|NCT02325791|181574056|SUPERIORITY||percentage treatment difference|-0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.291|3.959|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical inferential approach was used to control Type-1 error at 0.05 for pairwise comparisons of each suptavumab dose regimen to placebo. Missing values were imputed to KM estimate from the placebo group. Randomization strata adjusted in CMH test include region (North America vs. Rest of World) \& gestational age category (\<= 31 weeks 6 days GA vs \>= 32 weeks 0 days and \<= 35 weeks 6 days GA). Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.||3.959|-5.291|
90854930|NCT02325791|181574056|SUPERIORITY||percentage treatment difference|2.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.836|6.867|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical inferential approach was used to control Type-1 error at 0.05 for pairwise comparisons of each suptavumab dose regimen to placebo. Missing values were imputed to KM estimate from the placebo group. Randomization strata adjusted in CMH test include region (North America vs. Rest of World) \& gestational age category (\<= 31 weeks 6 days GA vs \>= 32 weeks 0 days and \<= 35 weeks 6 days GA). Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.||6.867|-2.836|
90854931|NCT00322153|181574078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.6||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|4.2|||ANCOVA|Least-squares mean (-0.4 in placebo and 2.2 in memantine ER) are controlled for center and adjusted for SIB baseline value.||The co-primary efficacy parameter was change from Baseline to Week 24 in SIB total score. Missing SIB total scores at Week 24 were imputed using the last-observation-carried-forward (LOCF) approach.||4.2|1.0|0.001
90854932|NCT00322153|181574079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The co-primary efficacy parameter was CIBIC-Plus total score at week 24. Missing CIBIC-Plus total scores at Week 24 were imputed using the last-observation-carried-forward (LOCF) approach.||||0.008
90854933|NCT00322153|181574080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.8|||ANCOVA|Least-squares mean (-1.7 in placebo and -1.0 in memantine ER) are controlled for center and adjusted for ADCS-ADL19 baseline value.||The secondary efficacy parameter was change from Baseline at Week 24 in the total score of the 19-Item Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study-Activities of Daily Living Inventory (ADCS-ADL19). Missing scores at week 24 were imputed using the last-observation-carried-forward (LOCF) approach.||1.8|-0.3|0.177
90854934|NCT04644783|181574081|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, non-linear mixed effects|||||||<0.0001
91032841|NCT04638153|181951011|OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.5|||||Month 12|Results based on MMRM analysis with gender as a covariate, participant (and/or time) as a random effect; treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, age and gender as fixed effects using an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.5|-1.3|
90854935|NCT04644783|181574082|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, non-linear mixed effects|||||||<0.0001
90854936|NCT03437512|181574153|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||familywise error rate (FWE) corrected to .05 with cluster threshold of 80 voxels.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
90854937|NCT03437512|181574154|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.936||||||Interaction between visit and group.|ANOVA|||Analyses conduced with a mixed ANOVA, with between-subjects factor of group (active, sham) and two within-subjects factors: time (post, follow up) and speech task (reading, conversation).||||.936
90854938|NCT03437512|181574155|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.619||||||Interaction between visit and group.|ANOVA|||||||.619
90854939|NCT03332771|181574159|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority hypothesis was declared significant if the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the adjusted mean difference is \<0.3.|Difference in Least Squares (LS) Mean|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.122||0.3306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.357|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 52 is analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||0.357|-0.120|0.3306
90854940|NCT03332771|181574159|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority hypothesis was declared significant if the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the adjusted mean difference is \<0.3.|Difference in LS Mean|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.114||0.7112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.265|0.181|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 52 is analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||0.181|-0.265|0.7112
91104351|NCT02539394|182094893|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.763|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of POD1 SWAL-QOL - Sleep is the same across the 2 arms||||0.763
90854941|NCT03332771|181574160|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.119||0.0827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.027|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 is analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||0.027|-0.440|0.0827
90854942|NCT03332771|181574160|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.103||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.571|-0.167|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 is analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||-0.167|-0.571|0.0003
90854943|NCT03332771|181574161|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-1.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.349|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.173|-0.803|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 is analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups (placebo, sotagliflozin 200 mg, sotagliflozin 400 mg, glimepiride), randomization strata of HbA1c (≤ 8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of SBP (\<130,≥ 130 mmHg) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and baseline body weight as a covariate.||-0.803|-2.173|<0.0001
90854944|NCT03332771|181574161|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-3.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.544|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.651|-2.517|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 52 is analyzed using analysis of ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, and country as fixed effects and baseline body weight as a covariate.||-2.517|-4.651|< 0.0001
90854945|NCT03332771|181574162|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-4.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.288||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.701|-1.65|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 12 is analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and baseline SBP as a covariate.||-1.650|-6.701|0.0012
90854946|NCT03332771|181574162|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0973||0.0973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.89|0.491|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 12 is analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and baseline SBP as a covariate.||0.491|-5.890|0.0973
90854947|NCT03332771|181574163|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-4.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.73|-2.319|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 12 is analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤ 8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and baseline SBP as a covariate.||-2.319|-5.730|<0.0001
90854948|NCT03332771|181574164|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|-15.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.67|-11.12|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Weighted average of percentage difference between treatment groups from each stratum \[randomization strata of HbA1c \[≤8.5%, \>8.5%\] at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP \[\<130, ≥130 mmHg\] at screening using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.||-11.12|-19.67|<0.0001
90854949|NCT03693170|181574171|OTHER|||||||||||||||||"The null hypothesis that the true response rate is 30% will be tested against a one-sided alternative.~The cORR will be provided with a corresponding Clopper-Pearson (exact) binomial 95% CI for the Efficacy Set.~This design yields a 1-sided type I error rate equal to 1.6% and power of 80% when the true response rate is 45%."|If 37 or more confirmed responses were observed in the 90 treated subjects with a centrally confirmed BRAFV600E mutation, corresponding to a lower limit of Clopper-Pearson (exact) binomial 95% CI exceeding 30%, the study was considered to have met its primary endpoint. If more than 90 subjects were enrolled, the lower limit of Clopper-Pearson was to be used for decision.|||
90854950|NCT03718871|181574259|SUPERIORITY||intracluster correlation coefficient|0.086|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.015|0.363||The threshold for significance was set at p \< 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Given that the intervention arm showed 100% uptake, a multi-level regression model could not be created with a zero in the denominator in the intervention group. We therefore used Fisher's exact test to assess for significant differences in proportion of HIV testing between study arms.||0.363|0.015|<0.001
90854951|NCT03718871|181574260|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.002
91032842|NCT04638153|181951011|OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|2.8|||||Month 12|Results based on MMRM analysis with gender as a covariate, participant (and/or time) as a random effect; treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, age and gender as fixed effects using an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.8|-1.4|
90854952|NCT03718871|181574261|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.015
90854953|NCT03718871|181574262|OTHER|No comparison between study arm groups was made in this analysis, as it was limited to control arm only.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.039|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.06||Significance threshold two-sided alpha = 0.05|Regression, Linear|||We considered variables that predicted the primary outcome of receiving an HIV test among control arm only, as uptake was 100% in the intervention. First we identified variables that were significant (two-sided p-value\<0.05) in univariate analysis and creating multivariate mixed-effects logistic regression model accounting for covariates and intercorrelation between participants from the same healer by including healers as random effects.||1.06|1.02|<0.01
90854954|NCT03718871|181574263|OTHER|No comparison was made with the intervention arm|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.56||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.04||Univariate analysis|Fisher Exact|||We considered variables that predicted the primary outcome of receiving an HIV test among control arm only, as uptake was 100% in the intervention. First we identified variables that were significant (two-sided p-value\<0.05) in univariate analysis and creating multivariate mixed-effects logistic regression model accounting for covariates and intercorrelation between participants from the same healer by including healers as random effects.||1.04|0.30|0.07
90854955|NCT03718871|181574264|OTHER|Comparison between study arms was not performed|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.43||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.18|||Fisher Exact|||We considered variables that predicted the primary outcome of receiving an HIV test among control arm only, as uptake was 100% in the intervention. First we identified variables that were significant (two-sided p-value\<0.05) in univariate analysis and creating multivariate mixed-effects logistic regression model accounting for covariates and intercorrelation between participants from the same healer by including healers as random effects.||1.18|0.16|0.09
90854956|NCT00737464|181574266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90854957|NCT00905827|181574283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons (ANOVA simple effect comparisons) adjusted for baseline scores||||<0.01
90854958|NCT00905827|181574283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons (ANOVA simple effect comparisons) adjusted for baseline scores||||0.01
90854959|NCT03347188|181574287|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.1876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|3.67||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||3.67|-0.73|0.1876
90854960|NCT03868124|181574302|NON_INFERIORITY|criteria for statistical and clinical non-inferiority: upper limit of the 95% CI of the difference between the implant group and the timolol group was \< 1.5 mmHg and also \< 1 mmHg for all 6 timepoints for Implant Group 2 vs Timolol|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|-0.5||Fixed sequence hierarchical testing procedure was used, first testing for non-inferiority of Implant Group 2 to timolol at all 6 timepoints before testing non-inferiority of Implant Group 1 to timolol||||"Day 10, 8AM Difference between Implant Group 2 and timolol~Note: Multiple imputation techniques were used to account for missing data such that the sample size at each visit /timepoint was the same for purposes of statistical analyses"||-0.50|-1.99|
90854961|NCT03868124|181574302|NON_INFERIORITY|criteria for statistical and clinical non-inferiority: upper limit of the 95% CI of the difference between the implant group and the timolol group was \< 1.5 mmHg and also \< 1 mmHg for all 6 timepoints for Implant Group 2 vs Timolol|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|-0.52||Fixed sequence hierarchical testing procedure was used, first testing for non-inferiority of Implant Group 2 to timolol at all 6 timepoints before testing non-inferiority of Implant Group 1 to timolol||||"Month 3, 10AM Difference between Implant Group 2 and timolol~Note: Multiple imputation techniques were used to account for missing data such that the sample size at each visit /timepoint was the same for purposes of statistical analyses"||-0.52|-1.88|
90854962|NCT03868124|181574302|NON_INFERIORITY|criteria for statistical and clinical non-inferiority: upper limit of the 95% CI of the difference between the implant group and the timolol group was \< 1.5 mmHg and also \< 1 mmHg for all 6 timepoints for Implant Group 2 vs Timolol|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.69||Fixed sequence hierarchical testing procedure was used, first testing for non-inferiority of Implant Group 2 to timolol at all 6 timepoints before testing non-inferiority of Implant Group 1 to timolol||||"Week 6, 8AM Difference between Implant Group 2 and timolol~Note: Multiple imputation techniques were used to account for missing data such that the sample size at each visit /timepoint was the same for purposes of statistical analyses"||0.69|-0.76|
90854963|NCT03868124|181574302|NON_INFERIORITY|criteria for statistical and clinical non-inferiority: upper limit of the 95% CI of the difference between the implant group and the timolol group was \< 1.5 mmHg and also \< 1 mmHg for all 6 timepoints for Implant Group 2 vs Timolol|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|1.01||Fixed sequence hierarchical testing procedure was used, first testing for non-inferiority of Implant Group 2 to timolol at all 6 timepoints before testing non-inferiority of Implant Group 1 to timolol||||"Week 6, 10AM Difference between Implant Group 2 and Timolol~Note: Multiple imputation techniques were used to account for missing data such that the sample size at each visit /timepoint was the same for purposes of statistical analyses"||1.01|-0.37|
90854964|NCT03868124|181574302|NON_INFERIORITY|criteria for statistical and clinical non-inferiority: upper limit of the 95% CI of the difference between the implant group and the timolol group was \< 1.5 mmHg and also \< 1 mmHg for all 6 timepoints for Implant Group 2 vs Timolol|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.91||Fixed sequence hierarchical testing procedure was used, first testing for non-inferiority of Implant Group 2 to timolol at all 6 timepoints before testing non-inferiority of Implant Group 1 to timolol||||"Month 3, 8AM Difference between Implant Group 2 and timolol~Note: Multiple imputation techniques were used to account for missing data such that the sample size at each visit /timepoint was the same for purposes of statistical analyses"||0.91|-0.59|
90854965|NCT03868124|181574302|NON_INFERIORITY|criteria for statistical and clinical non-inferiority: upper limit of the 95% CI of the difference between the implant group and the timolol group was \< 1.5 mmHg and also \< 1 mmHg for all 6 timepoints for Implant Group 2 vs Timolol|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.71||Fixed sequence hierarchical testing procedure was used, first testing for non-inferiority of Implant Group 2 to timolol at all 6 timepoints before testing non-inferiority of Implant Group 1 to timolol||||"Month 3, 10AM Difference between Implant Group 2 and timolol~Note: Multiple imputation techniques were used to account for missing data such that the sample size at each visit /timepoint was the same for purposes of statistical analyses"||0.71|-0.77|
90902462|NCT01702428|181671855|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|For each pair-wise comparison, the 2-sided 95% CI on the lot difference in seroresponse rates should be within the \[-5%;5%\] margin for antibodies to mumps virus.|Difference in seroresponse rate|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|1.09|||||Asymptotic standardized 95% CI for the pair-wise differences in seroresponse.|Difference between groups (INV\_MMR\_L1 Group minus INV\_MMR\_L2 Group) in percentage of subjects with anti-mumps antibody concentration ≥10 EU/mL.||1.09|-1.05|
90902463|NCT01702428|181671855|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|For each pair-wise comparison, the 2-sided 95% CI on the lot difference in seroresponse rates should be within the \[-5%;5%\] margin for antibodies to mumps virus.|Difference in seroresponse rate|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.81|||||Asymptotic standardized 95% CI for the pair-wise differences in seroresponse.|Difference between groups (INV\_MMR\_L1 Group minus INV\_MMR\_L3 Group) in percentage of subjects with anti-mumps antibody concentration ≥10 EU/mL.||1.81|-0.50|
90902464|NCT01702428|181671855|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|For each pair-wise comparison, the 2-sided 95% CI on the lot difference in seroresponse rates should be within the \[-5%;5%\] margin for antibodies to mumps virus.|Difference in seroresponse rate|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|1.79|||||Asymptotic standardized 95% CI for the pair-wise differences in seroresponse.|Difference between groups (INV\_MMR\_L2 Group minus INV\_MMR\_L3 Group) in percentage of subjects with anti-mumps antibody concentration ≥10 EU/mL.||1.79|-0.53|
90902465|NCT01702428|181671856|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|For each pair-wise comparison, the 2-sided 95% CI on the lot ratio should be within the \[0.67;1.5\] margin for antibodies to mumps.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.0|||ANOVA|95% CI for GMC of each INV\_MMR lots pair was computed using ANOVA (3 INV\_MMR lot groups \& country as fixed effects) on log-transformed concentrations.||Adjusted GMC ratio (INV\_MMR\_L1 Group divided by INV\_MMR\_L2 Group) for antibodies to mumps virus at Day 42.||1.00|0.87|
91032843|NCT04638153|181951011|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|1.4|||||Month 12|Results based on MMRM analysis with gender as a covariate, participant (and/or time) as a random effect; treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, age and gender as fixed effects using an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.4|-2.6|
90902466|NCT01702428|181671856|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|For each pair-wise comparison, the 2-sided 95% CI on the lot ratio should be within the \[0.67;1.5\] margin for antibodies to mumps.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.11|||ANOVA|95% CI for GMC of each INV\_MMR lots pair was computed using ANOVA (3 INV\_MMR lot groups \& country as fixed effects) on log-transformed concentrations.||Adjusted GMC ratio (INV\_MMR\_L1 Group divided by INV\_MMR\_L3 Group) for antibodies to mumps virus at Day 42.||1.11|0.97|
90902467|NCT01702428|181671856|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|For each pair-wise comparison, the 2-sided 95% CI on the lot ratio should be within the \[0.67;1.5\] margin for antibodies to mumps.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.15|||ANOVA|95% CI for GMC of each INV\_MMR lots pair was computed using ANOVA (3 INV\_MMR lot groups \& country as fixed effects) on log-transformed concentrations.||Adjusted GMC ratio (INV\_MMR\_L2 Group divided by INV\_MMR\_L1 Group) for antibodies to mumps virus at Day 42.||1.15|1.00|
90902468|NCT01702428|181671856|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|For each pair-wise comparison, the 2-sided 95% CI on the lot ratio should be within the \[0.67;1.5\] margin for antibodies to mumps.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.19|||ANOVA|95% CI for GMC of each INV\_MMR lots pair was computed using ANOVA (3 INV\_MMR lot groups \& country as fixed effects) on log-transformed concentrations.||Adjusted GMC ratio (INV\_MMR\_L2 Group divided by INV\_MMR\_L3 Group) for antibodies to mumps virus at Day 42.||1.19|1.04|
90902469|NCT01702428|181671856|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|For each pair-wise comparison, the 2-sided 95% CI on the lot ratio should be within the \[0.67;1.5\] margin for antibodies to mumps.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.03|||ANOVA|95% CI for GMC of each INV\_MMR lots pair was computed using ANOVA (3 INV\_MMR lot groups \& country as fixed effects) on log-transformed concentrations.||Adjusted GMC ratio (INV\_MMR\_L3 Group divided by INV\_MMR\_L1 Group) for antibodies to mumps virus at Day 42.||1.03|0.90|
90902470|NCT01702428|181671856|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|For each pair-wise comparison, the 2-sided 95% CI on the lot ratio should be within the \[0.67;1.5\] margin for antibodies to mumps.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|0.96|||ANOVA|95% CI for GMC of each INV\_MMR lots pair was computed using ANOVA (3 INV\_MMR lot groups \& country as fixed effects) on log-transformed concentrations.||Adjusted GMC ratio (INV\_MMR\_L3 Group divided by INV\_MMR\_L2 Group) for antibodies to mumps virus at Day 42.||0.96|0.84|
90902471|NCT01702428|181671857|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|For each pair-wise comparison, the 2-sided 95% CI on the lot difference in seroresponse rates should be within the \[-5%;5%\] margin for antibodies to rubella virus.|Difference in seroresponse rate|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.58|||||Asymptotic standardized 95% CI for the pair-wise differences in seroresponse.|Difference between groups (INV\_MMR\_L1 Group minus INV\_MMR\_L2 Group) in percentage of subjects with anti-rubella antibody concentration ≥10 IU/mL.||1.58|-1.3|
90958400|NCT03486457|181796715|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-19.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.575|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.52|-14.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-14.37|-24.52|<0.0001
90902472|NCT01702428|181671857|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|For each pair-wise comparison, the 2-sided 95% CI on the lot difference in seroresponse rates should be within the \[-5%;5%\] margin for antibodies to rubella virus.|Difference in seroresponse rate|-0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|0.86|||||Asymptotic standardized 95% CI for the pair-wise differences in seroresponse.|Difference between groups (INV\_MMR\_L1 Group minus INV\_MMR\_L3 Group) in percentage of subjects with anti-rubella antibody concentration ≥10 IU/mL.||0.86|-1.86|
90958401|NCT03486457|181796715|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.289||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.22|-2.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-2.18|-11.22|0.0039
90958402|NCT03486457|181796716|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|14.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.89||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.64|25.73|||Normal approximation|||Month 1: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||25.73|2.64|0.0160
91032844|NCT01389102|181951035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
90902473|NCT01702428|181671857|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|For each pair-wise comparison, the 2-sided 95% CI on the lot difference in seroresponse rates should be within the \[-5%;5%\] margin for antibodies to rubella virus.|Difference in seroresponse rate|-0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|0.74|||||Asymptotic standardized 95% CI for the pair-wise differences in seroresponse.|Difference between groups (INV\_MMR\_L2 Group minus INV\_MMR\_L3 Group) in percentage of subjects with anti-rubella antibody concentration ≥10 IU/mL.||0.74|-2.02|
90902474|NCT01702428|181671858|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|For each pair-wise comparison, the 2-sided 95% CI on the lot ratio should be within the \[0.67;1.5\] margin for antibodies to measles.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.15|||ANOVA|95% CI for GMC of each INV\_MMR lots pair was computed using ANOVA (3 INV\_MMR lot groups \& country as fixed effects) on log-transformed concentrations.||"Adjusted GMC ratio (INV\_MMR\_L1 Group divided by INV\_MMR\_L2 Group) for antibodies to rubella virus at Day 42.~."||1.15|1.01|
90902475|NCT01702428|181671858|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|For each pair-wise comparison, the 2-sided 95% CI on the lot ratio should be within the \[0.67;1.5\] margin for antibodies to measles.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.07|||ANOVA|95% CI for GMC of each INV\_MMR lots pair was computed using ANOVA (3 INV\_MMR lot groups \& country as fixed effects) on log-transformed concentrations.||Adjusted GMC ratio (INV\_MMR\_L1 Group divided by INV\_MMR\_L3 Group) for antibodies to rubella virus at Day 42.||1.07|0.94|
90958403|NCT03486457|181796716|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|25.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.06||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.86|41.44|||Normal approximation|||Month 3: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||41.44|9.86|0.0015
91032845|NCT01389102|181951035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0099||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0099
91032846|NCT01389102|181951035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0004
91032847|NCT01389102|181951036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91032848|NCT01389102|181951036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0406||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0406
91032849|NCT01389102|181951036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
90854966|NCT03868124|181574302|NON_INFERIORITY|criteria for statistical and clinical non-inferiority: upper limit of the 95% CI of the difference between the implant group and the timolol group was \< 1.5 mmHg and also \< 1 mmHg for all 6 timepoints for Implant Group 1 vs. Timolol|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|-0.36||Fixed sequence hierarchical testing procedure was used, first testing for non-inferiority of Implant Group 2 to timolol at all 6 timepoints before testing non-inferiority of Implant Group 1 to timolol||||"Day 10, 8AM Difference between Implant Group 1 vs. Timolol~Note: Multiple imputation techniques were used to account for missing data such that the sample size at each visit /timepoint was the same for purposes of statistical analyses"||-0.36|-1.84|
90854967|NCT03868124|181574302|NON_INFERIORITY|criteria for statistical and clinical non-inferiority: upper limit of the 95% CI of the difference between the implant group and the timolol group was \< 1.5 mmHg and also \< 1 mmHg for all 6 timepoints for Implant Group 1 vs Timolol|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|-0.45||Fixed sequence hierarchical testing procedure was used, first testing for non-inferiority of Implant Group 2 to timolol at all 6 timepoints before testing non-inferiority of Implant Group 1 to timolol||||"Day 10, 10AM Difference between Implant Group 1 vs. Timolol~Note: Multiple imputation techniques were used to account for missing data such that the sample size at each visit /timepoint was the same for purposes of statistical analyses"||-0.45|-1.81|
90854968|NCT03868124|181574302|NON_INFERIORITY|criteria for statistical and clinical non-inferiority: upper limit of the 95% CI of the difference between the implant group and the timolol group was \< 1.5 mmHg and also \< 1 mmHg for all 6 timepoints for Implant Group 1 vs Timolol|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|1.06||Fixed sequence hierarchical testing procedure was used, first testing for non-inferiority of Implant Group 2 to timolol at all 6 timepoints before testing non-inferiority of Implant Group 1 to timolol||||"Week 6, 8AM Difference between Implant Group 1 vs. Timolol~Note: Multiple imputation techniques were used to account for missing data such that the sample size at each visit /timepoint was the same for purposes of statistical analyses"||1.06|-0.39|
90854969|NCT03868124|181574302|NON_INFERIORITY|criteria for statistical and clinical non-inferiority: upper limit of the 95% CI of the difference between the implant group and the timolol group was \< 1.5 mmHg and also \< 1 mmHg for all 6 timepoints for Implant Group 1 vs Timolol|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.93||Fixed sequence hierarchical testing procedure was used, first testing for non-inferiority of Implant Group 2 to timolol at all 6 timepoints before testing non-inferiority of Implant Group 1 to timolol||||"Week 6, 10AM Difference between Implant Group 1 vs. Timolol~Note: Multiple imputation techniques were used to account for missing data such that the sample size at each visit /timepoint was the same for purposes of statistical analyses"||0.93|-0.46|
90902476|NCT01702428|181671858|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|For each pair-wise comparison, the 2-sided 95% CI on the lot ratio should be within the \[0.67;1.5\] margin for antibodies to measles.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|0.99|||ANOVA|95% CI for GMC of each INV\_MMR lots pair was computed using ANOVA (3 INV\_MMR lot groups \& country as fixed effects) on log-transformed concentrations.||Adjusted GMC ratio (INV\_MMR\_L2 Group divided by INV\_MMR\_L1 Group) for antibodies to rubella virus at Day 42.||0.99|0.87|
90902477|NCT01702428|181671858|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|For each pair-wise comparison, the 2-sided 95% CI on the lot ratio should be within the \[0.67;1.5\] margin for antibodies to measles.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|0.99|||ANOVA|95% CI for GMC of each INV\_MMR lots pair was computed using ANOVA (3 INV\_MMR lot groups \& country as fixed effects) on log-transformed concentrations.||Adjusted GMC ratio (INV\_MMR\_L2 Group divided by INV\_MMR\_L3 Group) for antibodies to rubella virus at Day 42.||0.99|0.87|
90854970|NCT03868124|181574302|NON_INFERIORITY|criteria for statistical and clinical non-inferiority: upper limit of the 95% CI of the difference between the implant group and the timolol group was \< 1.5 mmHg and also \< 1 mmHg for all 6 timepoints for Implant Group 1 vs Timolol|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|1.28||Fixed sequence hierarchical testing procedure was used, first testing for non-inferiority of Implant Group 2 to timolol at all 6 timepoints before testing non-inferiority of Implant Group 1 to timolol||||"Month 3, 8AM Difference between Implant Group 1 and Timolol~Note: Multiple imputation techniques were used to account for missing data such that the sample size at each visit /timepoint was the same for purposes of statistical analyses"||1.28|-0.23|
90859891|NCT00408629|181583119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019||||||Testing for ranked co-primary endpoints occurred in hierarchical order to control for multiple testing. Week 8 remission rate was tested first. If a significant difference in group rates was found at alpha=0.05, Week 52 rate was tested at alpha=0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification levels for Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel = prior anti-TNF versus anti-TNF-naive.||Assuming that 5% of the subjects in the placebo group achieve clinical remission at Week 52 or Week 8, a sample size of 250 in each treatment group will be adequate to detect a difference of at least 7 percentage points from the adalimumab group using Chi squared test with 80% power at a 0.05 two-sided significance level.||||0.019
90902478|NCT01702428|181671858|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|For each pair-wise comparison, the 2-sided 95% CI on the lot ratio should be within the \[0.67;1.5\] margin for antibodies to measles.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.07|||ANOVA|95% CI for GMC of each INV\_MMR lots pair was computed using ANOVA (3 INV\_MMR lot groups \& country as fixed effects) on log-transformed concentrations.||Adjusted GMC ratio (INV\_MMR\_L3 Group divided by INV\_MMR\_L1 Group) for antibodies to rubella virus at Day 42.||1.07|0.93|
90902479|NCT01702428|181671858|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|For each pair-wise comparison, the 2-sided 95% CI on the lot ratio should be within the \[0.67;1.5\] margin for antibodies to measles.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.15|||ANOVA|95% CI for GMC of each INV\_MMR lots pair was computed using ANOVA (3 INV\_MMR lot groups \& country as fixed effects) on log-transformed concentrations.||Adjusted GMC ratio (INV\_MMR\_L3 Group divided by INV\_MMR\_L2 Group) for antibodies to rubella virus at Day 42.||1.15|1.01|
91100148|NCT02021318|182086700|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.403|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.296|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of cardiovascular disease as fixed class factors and baseline LDL, baseline Hb, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate as continuous covariates.||-0.296|-0.510|<0.001
91100149|NCT02021318|182086701|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.45||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.78|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard Ratio was calculated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazards regression stratifying on cardiovascular history and region and adjusting on Hb and eGFR at baseline as continuous covariate. Superiority was declared if the upper bound of the 95% CI was below 1.0.||0.78|0.26|0.004
91100150|NCT02021318|182086702|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-Inferiority, margin = -3 (non-inferiority is concluded if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval of the LSM difference is \> -3 points).|LSM Difference|-1.284||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.423|-0.145|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The model included treatment, visit (weeks 8, 12 and 28) visit by treatment interaction, region and history of cardiovascular disease as fixed class factors and baseline SF-36 PF, baseline Hb, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate as continuous covariates.||-0.145|-2.423|0.027
90854971|NCT03868124|181574302|NON_INFERIORITY|criteria for statistical and clinical non-inferiority: upper limit of the 95% CI of the difference between the implant group and the timolol group was \< 1.5 mmHg and also \< 1 mmHg for all 6 timepoints for Implant Group 1 vs Timolol|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|1.29||Fixed sequence hierarchical testing procedure was used, first testing for non-inferiority of Implant Group 2 to timolol at all 6 timepoints before testing non-inferiority of Implant Group 1 to timolol||||"Month 3, 10AM Difference between Implant Group 1 and Timolol~Note: Multiple imputation techniques were used to account for missing data such that the sample size at each visit /timepoint was the same for purposes of statistical analyses"||1.29|-0.19|
90854972|NCT02742246|181574311|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11||||||Group by Time interaction.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.11
90854973|NCT02742246|181574312|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14||||||Group by time interaction.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.14
90854974|NCT00054717|181574314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Weighted by the size of enfuvirtide and protease inhibitor strata||||||0.0001
90854975|NCT00054717|181574315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.0001
90854976|NCT00054717|181574316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Weighted by the size of enfuvirtide and protease inhibitor strata||||||0.0001
90854977|NCT00054717|181574317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Weighted by the size of enfuvirtide and protease inhibitor strata||||||0.0001
90854978|NCT00054717|181574318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Weighted by the size of enfuvirtide and protease inhibitor strata||||||0.0001
90854979|NCT00054717|181574319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Weighted by the size of enfuvirtide and protease inhibitor strata||||||0.0001
90854980|NCT00054717|181574320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Weighted by the size of enfuvirtide and protease inhibitor strata||||||0.0001
90854981|NCT00054717|181574321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Weighted by the size of enfuvirtide and protease inhibitor strata||||||0.0001
90854982|NCT00054717|181574322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Weighted by the size of enfuvirtide and protease inhibitor strata||||||0.0001
90854983|NCT00054717|181574323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Weighted by the size of enfuvirtide and protease inhibitor strata||||||0.0001
91100151|NCT02021318|182086703|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-Inferiority, margin = -3 (non-inferiority is concluded if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval of the LSM difference is \> -3 points).|LSM Difference|-0.457||||0.454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.656|0.742|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The model included treatment, visit (weeks 8, 12 and 28), visit by treatment interaction, region and history of cardiovascular disease as fixed class factors and baseline SF-36 VT, baseline Hb, baseline eGFR as continuous covariates.||0.742|-1.656|0.454
90854984|NCT00054717|181574324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Weighted by the size of enfuvirtide and protease inhibitor strata||||||0.0001
90854985|NCT00054717|181574325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Weighted by the size of enfuvirtide and protease inhibitor strata||||||0.0001
90854986|NCT00054717|181574326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Weighted by the size of enfuvirtide and protease inhibitor strata||||||0.0001
90854987|NCT00054717|181574327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Weighted by the size of enfuvirtide and protease inhibitor strata||||||0.0001
90854988|NCT00054717|181574328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Weighted by the size of enfuvirtide and protease inhibitor strata||||||0.0001
90854989|NCT00054717|181574329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Weighted by the size of enfuvirtide and protease inhibitor strata||||||0.0001
90854990|NCT00054717|181574330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Weighted by the size of enfuvirtide and protease inhibitor strata||||||0.0001
90854991|NCT00054717|181574331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.0001
90854992|NCT00054717|181574332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.0001
90854993|NCT00054717|181574333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.0001
90854994|NCT00054717|181574373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9894||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.9894
90854995|NCT03139604|181574405|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.0782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.959|2.204||Not adjusted for multiplicity with interim and final analyses|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||binomial distribution||2.204|0.959|0.0782
90854996|NCT04543409|181574473|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|117.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.17|361.64|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The OR estimate and p-value was obtained from the CMH test controlling for region (North America and Rest of the world), baseline steroid use, and presence of strictures at baseline. Odds ratio values \>1 favor Benra 30 mg treatment group.|Analysis completed at Week 24.||361.64|38.17|<0.0001
90854997|NCT04543409|181574474|SUPERIORITY|For any patients with intercurrent events, the DSQ scores after the occurrence of those events were imputed using return-to-baseline MI. Missing data not due to intercurrent events were imputed using MI (MAR). Analysis was repeated on 100 imputed datasets, and results were combined using Rubin's formula.|Difference in Least Squares Means|2.999||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|7.35|||ANCOVA|Model: Change from baseline in DSQ = Treatment + baseline DSQ + Region + Baseline steroid use + Presence of strictures at baseline.||Analysis completed at Week 24.||7.35|-1.36|0.1770
90854998|NCT04543409|181574475|SUPERIORITY|For any patients with intercurrent events, the Peak Esophageal intraepithelial eosinophil (eos) counts after the occurrence of those events were imputed using return-to-baseline MI. Missing data not due to intercurrent events were imputed using MI (MAR).|Difference in Least Squares Means|-96.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-114.53|-77.85|||ANCOVA|Model: Percent change from baseline in Peak Esophageal intraepithelial eos counts = Treatment + baseline Peak Esophageal intraepithelial eos counts.||Analysis completed at Week 24.||-77.85|-114.53|<0.0001
90958404|NCT03486457|181796716|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|23.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.16||0.0118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.11|41.0|||Normal approximation|||Month 6: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||41.00|5.11|0.0118
90854999|NCT04543409|181574476|SUPERIORITY|For any patients with intercurrent events, the EoE-HSS total grade score after the occurrence of those events were imputed using return-to-baseline MI. Missing data not due to intercurrent events were imputed using MI (MAR).|Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.175|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|-0.14|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline in EoE-HSS TGS = Treatment + baseline EoE-HSS grade score + Region + Baseline steroid use + Presence of strictures at baseline||||-0.14|-0.21|<0.0001
90855000|NCT04543409|181574477|SUPERIORITY|For any patients with intercurrent events, the EoE-HSS total stage score after the occurrence of those events were imputed using return-to-baseline MI. Missing data not due to intercurrent events were imputed using MI (MAR).|Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.122|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|-0.09|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline in EoE-HSS TSS = Treatment + baseline EoE-HSS stage score + Region + Baseline steroid use + Presence of strictures at baseline||||-0.09|-0.16|<0.0001
90855001|NCT04543409|181574478|SUPERIORITY|For any patients with intercurrent events, the centrally-read EREFS total score after the occurrence of those events were imputed using return-to-baseline MI. Missing data not due to intercurrent events were imputed using MI (MAR).|Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.1||||0.7322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.32|||ANCOVA|Model: Change from baseline in EREFS TS = Treatment + baseline EREFS TS + Region + Baseline steroid use + Presence of strictures at baseline||Analysis completed at Week 24.||0.32|-0.52|0.7322
90855002|NCT04543409|181574479|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|15.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.79|43.47|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Controlling for region (North America and Rest of the world), baseline steroid use, and presence of strictures at baseline. OR values \>1 would favor Benra 30 mg treatment group.|||43.47|5.79|<0.0001
90855003|NCT04543409|181574483|SUPERIORITY|For any patients with intercurrent events, the EoE-3D scores after the occurrence of those events were imputed using return-to-baseline MI. Missing data not due to intercurrent events were imputed using MI (MAR).|Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.04||||0.8656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.42|||ANCOVA|Model: Change from baseline item score = Treatment + baseline item score + Region + Baseline steroid use + Presence of strictures at baseline.||Dysphagia-related pain.||0.42|-0.50|0.8656
90855004|NCT04543409|181574483|SUPERIORITY|For any patients with intercurrent events, the EoE-3D scores after the occurrence of those events were imputed using return-to-baseline MI. Missing data not due to intercurrent events were imputed using MI (MAR).|Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.181||||0.3926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.23|||ANCOVA|Model: Change from baseline item score = Treatment + baseline item score + Region + Baseline steroid use + Presence of strictures at baseline.||Dysphagia-related discomfort.||0.23|-0.60|0.3926
90855005|NCT04543409|181574483|SUPERIORITY|For any patients with intercurrent events, the EoE-3D scores after the occurrence of those events were imputed using return-to-baseline MI. Missing data not due to intercurrent events were imputed using MI (MAR).|Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.344||||0.0867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.05|||ANCOVA|Model: Change from baseline item score = Treatment + baseline item score + Region + Baseline steroid use + Presence of strictures at baseline||Overall episode severity.||0.05|-0.74|0.0867
90855006|NCT04543409|181574485|SUPERIORITY|For any patients with intercurrent events, the EoE-3D scores after the occurrence of those events were imputed using return-to-baseline MI. Missing data not due to intercurrent events were imputed using MI (MAR).|Difference in Least Squares Means|0.267||||0.2248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.7|||ANCOVA|Model: Change from baseline item score = Treatment + baseline item score + Region + Baseline steroid use + Presence of strictures at baseline.||Abdominal pain severity||0.70|-0.16|0.2248
90855007|NCT04543409|181574485|SUPERIORITY|For any patients with intercurrent events, the EoE-3D scores after the occurrence of those events were imputed using return-to-baseline MI. Missing data not due to intercurrent events were imputed using MI (MAR).|Difference in Least Squares Means|0.296||||0.1575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.71|||ANCOVA|Model: Change from baseline item score = Treatment + baseline item score + Region + Baseline steroid use + Presence of strictures at baseline||Nausea severity.||0.71|-0.11|0.1575
90855008|NCT04543409|181574488|SUPERIORITY|For any patients with intercurrent events, the EoE-QoL-A scores after the occurrence of those events were imputed using return-to-baseline MI. Missing data not due to intercurrent events were imputed using MI (MAR).|Difference in Least Squares Means|0.202||||0.8239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|1.98|||ANCOVA|Model: Change from baseline item score = Treatment + baseline item score + Region + Baseline steroid use + Presence of strictures at baseline.||Eating/Diet Impact||1.98|-1.57|0.8239
90855009|NCT04543409|181574488|SUPERIORITY|For any patients with intercurrent events, the EoE-QoL-A scores after the occurrence of those events were imputed using return-to-baseline MI. Missing data not due to intercurrent events were imputed using MI (MAR).|Difference in Least Squares Means|0.147||||0.7623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.1|||ANCOVA|Model: Change from baseline item score = Treatment + baseline item score + Region + Baseline steroid use + Presence of strictures at baseline||Social Impact||1.10|-0.80|0.7623
90855010|NCT04543409|181574488|SUPERIORITY|For any patients with intercurrent events, the EoE-QoL-A scores after the occurrence of those events were imputed using return-to-baseline MI. Missing data not due to intercurrent events were imputed using MI (MAR).|Difference of Least Squares Means|0.01||||0.9898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|1.49|||ANCOVA|Model: Change from baseline item score = Treatment + baseline item score + Region + Baseline steroid use + Presence of strictures at baseline||Emotional Impact||1.49|-1.47|0.9898
90855011|NCT04543409|181574488|SUPERIORITY|For any patients with intercurrent events, the EoE-QoL-A scores after the occurrence of those events were imputed using return-to-baseline MI. Missing data not due to intercurrent events were imputed using MI (MAR).|Difference in Least Squares Means|0.386||||0.4603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|1.41|||ANCOVA|Model: Change from baseline item score = Treatment + baseline item score + Region + Baseline steroid use + Presence of strictures at baseline||Disease Anxiety||1.41|-0.64|0.4603
90958405|NCT03486457|181796717|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.259||0.0156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.58|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-0.60|-5.58|0.0156
91077908|NCT02913105|182041137|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.84||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.78|0.9|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||HDL Cholesterol: Day 84||0.90|0.78|0.0002
91100152|NCT02021318|182086704|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-Inferiority, margin = 1 mmHg (non-inferiority is concluded if the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval of the LSM difference is \< 1).|LSM Difference|-0.372||||0.547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.587|0.842|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline MAP, baseline Hb, baseline eGFR as continuous covariates.||0.842|-1.587|0.547
90855012|NCT04543409|181574488|SUPERIORITY|For any patients with intercurrent events, the EoE-QoL-A scores after the occurrence of those events were imputed using return-to-baseline MI. Missing data not due to intercurrent events were imputed using MI (MAR).|Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.162||||0.6613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.56|||ANCOVA|Model: Change from baseline item score = Treatment + baseline item score + Region + Baseline steroid use + Presence of strictures at baseline||Swallowing Anxiety||0.56|-0.89|0.6613
90855013|NCT04543409|181574488|SUPERIORITY|For any patients with intercurrent events, the EoE-QoL-A scores after the occurrence of those events were imputed using return-to-baseline MI. Missing data not due to intercurrent events were imputed using MI (MAR).|Difference in Least Squares Means|1.017||||0.6965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.09|6.13|||ANCOVA|Model: Change from baseline item score = Treatment + baseline item score + Region + Baseline steroid use + Presence of strictures at baseline||Total Score||6.13|-4.09|0.6965
90855014|NCT04543409|181574490|SUPERIORITY|For any patients with intercurrent events, the SF-36 domain scores after the occurrence of those events were imputed using return-to-baseline MI. Missing data not due to intercurrent events were imputed using MI (MAR).|Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.3||||0.6852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|1.27|||ANCOVA|Model: Change from baseline item score = Treatment + baseline item score + Region + Baseline steroid use + Presence of strictures at baseline.||Physical functioning (PF)||1.27|-1.93|0.6852
90855015|NCT04543409|181574490|SUPERIORITY|For any patients with intercurrent events, the SF-36 domain scores after the occurrence of those events were imputed using return-to-baseline MI. Missing data not due to intercurrent events were imputed using MI (MAR).|Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.9||||0.2685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.57|0.72|||ANCOVA|Model: Change from baseline item score = Treatment + baseline item score + Region + Baseline steroid use + Presence of strictures at baseline||Role limitations due to physical health (RP)||0.72|-2.57|0.2685
90855016|NCT04543409|181574490|SUPERIORITY|For any patients with intercurrent events, the SF-36 domain scores after the occurrence of those events were imputed using return-to-baseline MI. Missing data not due to intercurrent events were imputed using MI (MAR).|Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.8||||0.538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.27|1.71|||ANCOVA|Model: Change from baseline item score = Treatment + baseline item score + Region + Baseline steroid use + Presence of strictures at baseline||Bodily pain (BP)||1.71|-3.27|0.5380
90855017|NCT04543409|181574490|SUPERIORITY|For any patients with intercurrent events, the SF-36 domain scores after the occurrence of those events were imputed using return-to-baseline MI. Missing data not due to intercurrent events were imputed using MI (MAR).|Difference in Least Squares Means|0.0||||0.9734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|1.75|||ANCOVA|Model: Change from baseline item score = Treatment + baseline item score + Region + Baseline steroid use + Presence of strictures at baseline.||General health perceptions (GH)||1.75|-1.81|0.9734
90855018|NCT04543409|181574490|SUPERIORITY|For any patients with intercurrent events, the SF-36 domain scores after the occurrence of those events were imputed using return-to-baseline MI. Missing data not due to intercurrent events were imputed using MI (MAR).|Difference in Least Squares Means|0.0||||0.9653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|2.19|||ANCOVA|Model: Change from baseline item score = Treatment + baseline item score + Region + Baseline steroid use + Presence of strictures at baseline||Vitality (VT)||2.19|-2.09|0.9653
90855019|NCT04543409|181574490|SUPERIORITY|For any patients with intercurrent events, the SF-36 domain scores after the occurrence of those events were imputed using return-to-baseline MI. Missing data not due to intercurrent events were imputed using MI (MAR).|Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.5||||0.2326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.04|0.98|||ANCOVA|Model: Change from baseline item score = Treatment + baseline item score + Region + Baseline steroid use + Presence of strictures at baseline||Social functioning (SF)||0.98|-4.04|0.2326
90855020|NCT04543409|181574490|SUPERIORITY|For any patients with intercurrent events, the SF-36 domain scores after the occurrence of those events were imputed using return-to-baseline MI. Missing data not due to intercurrent events were imputed using MI (MAR).|Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.7||||0.6274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.44|2.08|||ANCOVA|Model: Change from baseline item score = Treatment + baseline item score + Region + Baseline steroid use + Presence of strictures at baseline||Role limitations due to emotional problems (RE)||2.08|-3.44|0.6274
90855021|NCT04543409|181574490|SUPERIORITY|For any patients with intercurrent events, the SF-36 domain scores after the occurrence of those events were imputed using return-to-baseline MI. Missing data not due to intercurrent events were imputed using MI (MAR).|Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.9||||0.4599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.14|1.42|||ANCOVA|Model: Change from baseline item score = Treatment + baseline item score + Region + Baseline steroid use + Presence of strictures at baseline||Mental health (MH)||1.42|-3.14|0.4599
91077909|NCT02913105|182041137|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.95||||0.228|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.89|1.02|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||HDL Cholesterol: Day 112 (EOS)||1.02|0.89|0.2280
91077910|NCT02913105|182041137|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.93||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.89|0.97|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||HDL Cholesterol: Day 7||0.97|0.89|0.0090
90855022|NCT04543409|181574490|SUPERIORITY|For any patients with intercurrent events, the SF-36 domain scores after the occurrence of those events were imputed using return-to-baseline MI. Missing data not due to intercurrent events were imputed using MI (MAR).|Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.4||||0.6456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|1.28|||ANCOVA|Model: Change from baseline item score = Treatment + baseline item score + Region + Baseline steroid use + Presence of strictures at baseline||Psychometrically-based physical summary score (PCS)||1.28|-2.07|0.6456
90958406|NCT03486457|181796717|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-4.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.989|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.02|-2.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-2.10|-6.02|<0.0001
91100153|NCT02021318|182086705|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority (hazard ratio margin of 1.3). Non-Inferiority was declared if the upper bound of the 95% CI is below 1.3.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.22|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard Ratio was calculated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazards regression stratifying on CV history and Region and adjusting on Hb and eGFR at baseline as continuous covariates.||1.22|0.56|0.336
90958407|NCT03486457|181796717|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.346||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|-0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-0.28|-1.65|0.0061
90958408|NCT03486457|181796718|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|13.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.01||0.193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.59|32.64|||Normal approximation|||Month 1: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||32.64|-6.59|0.1930
90958409|NCT03486457|181796718|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|24.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.11||0.0162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.48|44.11|||Normal approximation|||Month 3: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||44.11|4.48|0.0162
90958410|NCT03486457|181796718|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|4.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.83||0.7068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.15|25.3|||Normal approximation|||Month 6: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||25.30|-17.15|0.7068
90958411|NCT03486457|181796719|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.271||0.2811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||0.25|-0.83|0.2811
91100154|NCT02021318|182086706|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.136||||0.818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.299|1.026|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of cardiovascular disease as fixed class factors and baseline MAP, baseline Hb, baseline eGFR as continuous covariates.||1.026|-1.299|0.818
90855023|NCT04543409|181574490|SUPERIORITY|For any patients with intercurrent events, the SF-36 domain scores after the occurrence of those events were imputed using return-to-baseline MI. Missing data not due to intercurrent events were imputed using MI (MAR).|Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.6||||0.6206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.08|1.84|||ANCOVA|Model: Change from baseline item score = Treatment + baseline item score + Region + Baseline steroid use + Presence of strictures at baseline.||Mental health component summary scores (MCS)||1.84|-3.08|0.6206
90855024|NCT01052844|181574502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Complete protection from nausea and vomiting (CP) was defined as the absence of any episode of nausea or vomiting and no use of rescue medication. CP was further defined as either acute (ACP), when occurring during the first 24 hours after chemotherapy; delayed (DCP), when occurring during the period from days 2 through 5 after chemotherapy; or overall, when occurring over the entire period of the study (first 120 hours).||||0.04
90855025|NCT01052844|181574503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||We evaluated associations between categorical variables using the Chi-Square test||||0.06
90958412|NCT03486457|181796719|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.295||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||0.22|-0.96|0.2140
90958413|NCT03486457|181796719|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.239||0.2817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||0.22|-0.74|0.2817
90958414|NCT03486457|181796720|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.182||0.9407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||0.35|-0.37|0.9407
90958415|NCT03486457|181796720|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.293||0.4295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||0.35|-0.81|0.4295
90958416|NCT03486457|181796720|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.314||0.2946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||0.29|-0.95|0.2946
90958417|NCT03486457|181796721|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|21.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.62||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.32|32.33|||Normal approximation|||Week 2: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||32.33|10.32|0.0001
90958418|NCT03486457|181796721|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|36.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.49|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.31|48.75|||Normal approximation|||Month 1: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||48.75|23.31|<0.0001
91104352|NCT02539394|182094893|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.178|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of POD2 SWAL-QOL - Sleep is the same across the 2 arms||||0.178
91031212|NCT01029353|181947127|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||A Bayesian analysis. Initial Laparotomy and Initial Peritoneal Drain were compared using log-binomial regression. The SAS procedure PROC MCMC with reference cell coding was used. Center (random effect), treatment, pre-operative diagnosis, and baseline risk of death or NDI were binary covariates. Pre-operative diagnosis levels were NEC and IP. Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) characteristics: three chains, 10000 tunings, 10000 burn-ins, 1000000 samples, thinning=20.|Priors for model parameters: intercept = Normal(mean=0, variance=100), baseline risk and preop diagnosis parameters = Normal(mean=0, variance=1), treatment and the interaction term = Normal(mean=0, variance=0.31416), random effect standard deviation = Half-Normal(mean=0, variance=10). The posterior median relative risk of Initial Laparotomy over Initial Drainage was 0.82, 95% credible interval of (0.65, 1.02).|||
91031213|NCT01029353|181947128|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.18|||||RR: Initial Laparotomy over Peritoneal Drain. RR from robust Poisson regression with log link, reference cell coding, center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, and pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP) as covariates.|A frequentist analysis.||1.18|0.89|
91100155|NCT02021318|182086707|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.26|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard Ratio was calculated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazards regression stratifying on cardiovascular history and region and adjusting on Hb and eGFR at baseline as continuous covariates. Superiority was declared if the upper bound of the 95% CI is lower than 1.||1.26|0.60|0.452
90855026|NCT01289782|181574504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions of SVR12|29.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.1|38.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference in proportions of SVR12 between the treatment groups.||38.6|20.1|<0.001
90855027|NCT01289782|181574505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions of SVRW72|28.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.6|38.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||There is no difference in proportions of SVRW72 between the treatment groups.||38.2|19.6|<0.001
90855028|NCT01289782|181574506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions of SVR24|30.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.8|39.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||There is no difference in proportions of SVR24 between the treatment groups.||39.3|20.8|<0.001
90855029|NCT01289782|181574507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions of SVR4|25.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.8|34.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||There is no difference in proportions of SVR4 between the treatment groups.||34.8|16.8|<0.001
90902480|NCT01702428|181671859|NON_INFERIORITY|The Lower Limit (LL) of 2-sided 95 % CI for the difference in seroresponse (INV\_MMR Group minus COM\_MMR Group) should be ≥-5% for antibodies to measles virus.|Difference in seroresponse rate|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|1.25|||||Asymptotic standardized 95% CIs for the difference in seroresponse rate.|Difference in percentage (INV\_MMR Group minus COM\_MMR Group) of subjects with anti-measles antibody concentration at Day 42.||1.25|-0.68|
90902481|NCT01702428|181671860|NON_INFERIORITY|The LL of the 2-sided 95% CI on GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group over COM\_MMR Group) should be ≥0.67 for antibodies to measles virus.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.05|||ANOVA|95% CI for GMC ratio (INV\_MMR over COM\_ MMR) was computed using ANOVA (vaccine groups \& country as fixed effects) on log-transformed concentrations.||Adjusted GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group divided by COM\_MMR Group) for antibodies to measles virus at Day 42.||1.05|0.93|
90902482|NCT01702428|181671861|NON_INFERIORITY|The LL of 2-sided 95 % CI for the difference in seroresponse (INV\_MMR Group minus COM\_MMR Group) should be ≥-5% for antibodies to mumps virus.|Difference in seroresponse rate|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.96|||||Asymptotic standardized 95% CIs for the difference in seroresponse rate.|Difference in percentage (INV\_MMR Group minus COM\_MMR Group) of subjects with anti-mumps antibody concentration at Day 42.||1.96|-0.1|
90902483|NCT01702428|181671862|NON_INFERIORITY|The LL of the 2-sided 95% CI on GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group over COM\_MMR Group) should be ≥0.67 for antibodies to mumps virus.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.11|||ANOVA|95% CI for GMC ratio (INV\_MMR over COM\_ MMR) was computed using ANOVA (vaccine groups \& country as fixed effects) on log-transformed concentrations.||Adjusted GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group divided by COM\_MMR Group) for antibodies to mumps virus at Day 42.||1.11|0.99|
90902484|NCT01702428|181671863|NON_INFERIORITY|The LL of 2-sided 95 % CI for the difference in seroresponse (INV\_MMR Group minus COM\_MMR Group) should be ≥-5% for antibodies to rubella virus.|Difference in seroresponse rate|-1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.15|||||Asymptotic standardized 95% CIs for the difference in seroresponse rate.|Difference in percentage (INV\_MMR Group minus COM\_MMR Group) of subjects with anti-rubella antibody concentration at Day 42.||-0.15|-2.00|
91100156|NCT02021318|182086708|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.038||||0.529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.081|0.157|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of cardiovascular disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline eGFR and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.157|-0.081|0.529
91104353|NCT02539394|182094893|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.091|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of 4-6 weeks SWAL-QOL - Sleep is the same across the 2 arms||||0.091
90855030|NCT01289782|181574534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean differences|-20.679|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.0979|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.6399|-8.7181|||Piecewise-Linear Model Approach|||Fatigue Severity Score AUC60||-8.7181|-32.6399|<0.001
90902485|NCT01702428|181671864|NON_INFERIORITY|The LL of the 2-sided 95% CI on GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group over COM\_MMR Group) should be ≥0.67 for antibodies to measles virus.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|0.92|||ANOVA|95% CI for GMC ratio (INV\_MMR over COM\_ MMR) was computed using ANOVA (vaccine groups \& country as fixed effects) on log-transformed concentrations.||Adjusted GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group divided by COM\_MMR Group) for antibodies to rubella virus at Day 42.||0.92|0.83|
90902486|NCT01702428|181671865|NON_INFERIORITY|The LL of 2-sided 95 % CI for the difference in seroresponse (pooled INV\_MMR Group minus pooled COM\_MMR Group) should be ≥-10% for antibodies to VZV.|Difference in seroresponse rate|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|4.29|||||Asymptotic standardized 95% CIs for the difference in seroresponse rate.|In US sub-cohort: Difference in percentage (INV\_MMR Group minus COM\_MMR Group) of subjects with anti-VZV antibody concentration at Day 42.||4.29|-1.31|
90902487|NCT01702428|181671866|NON_INFERIORITY|The LL of the 2-sided 95% CI on GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group over COM\_MMR Group) should be ≥0.67 for antibodies to VZV.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.08|||ANOVA|95% CI for GMC ratio (INV\_MMR over COM\_ MMR) was computed using ANOVA (vaccine groups \& country as fixed effects) on log-transformed concentrations.||In US sub-cohort: Adjusted GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group divided by COM\_MMR Group) for antibodies to VZV virus at Day 42.||1.08|0.95|
91077911|NCT02913105|182041137|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.98||||0.6237|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|1.04|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||HDL Cholesterol: Day 14||1.04|0.93|0.6237
90855031|NCT01289782|181574534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean differences|-23.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.2358|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.9931|-9.6064|||Piecewise Linear Model|||Fatigue Severity Score AUC72||-9.6064|-37.9931|<0.001
90855032|NCT01289782|181574535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean differences|-230.464|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|105.9203||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-438.2662|-22.6626|||Piecewise Linear Model|||Impairment in Work Productivity AUC60||-22.6626|-438.2662|0.030
90855033|NCT01289782|181574535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean differences|-248.208|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|124.6753||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-492.8253|-3.5916|||Piecewise Linear Model|||Impairment in Work Productivity AUC72||-3.5916|-492.8253|0.047
90855034|NCT01289782|181574536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Differences|-278.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|105.6088||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-485.2529|-70.8668|||Piecewise linear model|||Impairment in Daily Activities AUC60||-70.8668|-485.2529|0.009
90855035|NCT01289782|181574536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean differences|-307.722|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|124.1956||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-551.4006|-64.0429|||Piecewise Linear Model|||Impairment in Daily Activities AUC72||-64.0429|-551.4006|0.013
90855036|NCT01289782|181574537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean differences|46.399|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|99.7966||0.642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-149.6374|242.436|||Piecewise linear model|||Time Missed from Work AUC60||242.4360|-149.6374|0.642
90855037|NCT01289782|181574537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean differences|57.164|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|115.1548||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-169.1143|283.4414|||Piecewise Linear Model|||Time Missed from Work AUC72||283.4414|-169.1143|0.620
90855038|NCT01754909|181574573|SUPERIORITY|Occurrence rates, comparison by t test||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
90855039|NCT01466595|181574581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028||||||not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|no other adjustments||"Null hypothesis:~There is no difference between the two arms in the change in T-cell activation from baseline to week 4"||||0.028
90855040|NCT02313454|181574624|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.8||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.19|||Paired t-test||Intranasal Application relative to the Extranasal Application|||-0.19|-1.0|0.008
90855041|NCT02313454|181574625|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.7||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|-3.4|||Paired t-test||Intranasal application relative to Extranasal application|||-3.4|-19.0|0.004
90855042|NCT00450112|181574626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.1
90855043|NCT00450112|181574627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||One-sample 2 sided t-test of change from baseline within 2Gel-200 group; no between-group test was performed.||||<0.0001
90855044|NCT00450112|181574627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||One-sample 2 sided t-test of change from baseline within 1PBS1Gel-200 group; no between-group test was performed.||||<0.0001
90902488|NCT01702428|181671868|NON_INFERIORITY|The LL of the 2-sided 95% CI on GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group over COM\_MMR Group) was ≥0.5 for antibodies to HAV virus.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.11|||ANOVA|95% CI for GMC ratio (INV\_MMR over COM\_ MMR) was computed using ANOVA (vaccine groups \& country as fixed effects) on log-transformed concentrations.||In US sub-cohort: Adjusted GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group divided by COM\_MMR Group) for antibodies to HAV virus at Day 42.||1.11|0.86|
90902489|NCT01702428|181671869|NON_INFERIORITY|The LL of the 2-sided 95% CI for GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group over COM\_MMR Group) should be ≥0.5 for antibodies to for antibodies to PS serotypes.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.05|||ANCOVA|95% CI for GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group over the COM\_MMR Group) was computed using an ANCOVA model: Adjustment for baseline concentration-pooled variance.||In US sub-cohort: Adjusted GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group divided by COM\_MMR Group) for anti-PnPS 1 antibody at Day 42.||1.05|0.85|
90855045|NCT00450112|181574628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||One-sample 2 sided t-test of change from baseline within 2Gel-200 group; no between-group test was performed.||||<0.0001
90855046|NCT00450112|181574628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||One-sample 2 sided t-test of change from baseline within 1PBS1Gel-200 group; no between-group test was performed.||||<0.0001
90855047|NCT00450112|181574629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||One-sample 2 sided t-test of change from baseline within 2Gel-200 group; no between-group test was performed.||||<0.0001
90855048|NCT00450112|181574629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||One-sample 2 sided t-test of change from baseline within 1PBS1Gel-200 group; no between-group test was performed.||||<0.0001
90855049|NCT00450112|181574630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||One-sample 2 sided t-test of change from baseline within 2Gel-200 group; no between-group test was performed..||||<0.0001
90855050|NCT00450112|181574630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||One-sample 2 sided t-test of change from baseline within 1PBS1Gel-200 group; no between-group test was performed.||||<0.0001
90855051|NCT00450112|181574632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||One-sample 2 sided t-test of change from baseline within 2Gel-200 group; no between-group test was performed.||||<0.0001
90855052|NCT00450112|181574632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||One-sample 2 sided t-test of change from baseline within 1PBS1Gel-200 group; no between-group test was performed.||||<0.0001
90855053|NCT00450112|181574633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||One-sample 2 sided t-test of change from baseline within 2Gel-200 group; no between-group test was performed.||||<0.0001
90855054|NCT00450112|181574633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||One-sample 2 sided t-test of change from baseline within 1PBS1Gel-200 group; no between-group test was performed.||||<0.0001
90855055|NCT00559754|181574640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4915|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4915
90902490|NCT01702428|181671869|NON_INFERIORITY|The LL of the 2-sided 95% CI for GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group over COM\_MMR Group) should be ≥0.5 for antibodies to for antibodies to PS serotypes.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.08|||ANCOVA|95% CI for GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group over the COM\_MMR Group) was computed using an ANCOVA model: Adjustment for baseline concentration-pooled variance.||In US sub-cohort: Adjusted GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group divided by COM\_MMR Group) for anti-PnPS 3 antibody at Day 42.||1.08|0.91|
91100157|NCT02021318|182086709|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|1.96|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard Ratio was calculated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazards regression stratifying on cardiovascular history and region and adjusting on Hb and eGFR at baseline as continuous covariates.||1.96|1.38|<0.001
90855056|NCT00559754|181574641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4864|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.4864
90855057|NCT00559754|181574642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3613|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.3613
90902491|NCT01702428|181671869|NON_INFERIORITY|The LL of the 2-sided 95% CI for GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group over COM\_MMR Group) should be ≥0.5 for antibodies to for antibodies to PS serotypes.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.88||||||95.0|0.79|0.98|||ANCOVA|95% CI for GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group over the COM\_MMR Group) was computed using an ANCOVA model: Adjustment for baseline concentration-pooled variance.||In US sub-cohort: Adjusted GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group divided by COM\_MMR Group) for anti-PnPS 4 antibody at Day 42.||0.98|0.79|
90902492|NCT01702428|181671869|NON_INFERIORITY|The LL of the 2-sided 95% CI for GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group over COM\_MMR Group) should be ≥0.5 for antibodies to for antibodies to PS serotypes.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.01|||ANCOVA|95% CI for GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group over the COM\_MMR Group) was computed using an ANCOVA model: Adjustment for baseline concentration-pooled variance.||In US sub-cohort: Adjusted GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group divided by COM\_MMR Group) for anti-PnPS 5 antibody at Day 42.||1.01|0.83|
90902493|NCT01702428|181671869|NON_INFERIORITY|The LL of the 2-sided 95% CI for GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group over COM\_MMR Group) should be ≥0.5 for antibodies to for antibodies to PS serotypes.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.11|||ANCOVA|95% CI for GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group over the COM\_MMR Group) was computed using an ANCOVA model: Adjustment for baseline concentration-pooled variance.||In US sub-cohort: Adjusted GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group divided by COM\_MMR Group) for anti-PnPS 6A antibody at Day 42.||1.11|0.92|
90902494|NCT01702428|181671869|NON_INFERIORITY|The LL of the 2-sided 95% CI for GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group over COM\_MMR Group) should be ≥0.5 for antibodies to for antibodies to PS serotypes.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.09|||ANCOVA|95% CI for GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group over the COM\_MMR Group) was computed using an ANCOVA model: Adjustment for baseline concentration-pooled variance.||In US sub-cohort: Adjusted GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group divided by COM\_MMR Group) for anti-PnPS 6B antibody at Day 42.||1.09|0.89|
90902495|NCT01702428|181671869|NON_INFERIORITY|The LL of the 2-sided 95% CI for GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group over COM\_MMR Group) should be ≥0.5 for antibodies to for antibodies to PS serotypes.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.03|||ANCOVA|95% CI for GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group over the COM\_MMR Group) was computed using an ANCOVA model: Adjustment for baseline concentration-pooled variance.||In US sub-cohort: Adjusted GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group divided by COM\_MMR Group) for anti-PnPS 7F antibody at Day 42.||1.03|0.86|
90902496|NCT01702428|181671869|NON_INFERIORITY|The LL of the 2-sided 95% CI for GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group over COM\_MMR Group) should be ≥0.5 for antibodies to for antibodies to PS serotypes.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.08|||ANCOVA|95% CI for GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group over the COM\_MMR Group) was computed using an ANCOVA model: Adjustment for baseline concentration-pooled variance.||In US sub-cohort: Adjusted GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group divided by COM\_MMR Group) for anti-PnPS 9V antibody at Day 42.||1.08|0.90|
90958419|NCT03486457|181796721|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|52.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.79|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.86|63.55|||Normal approximation|||Month 2: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||63.55|40.86|<0.0001
90855058|NCT00559754|181574643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6605|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6605
90855059|NCT00559754|181574644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8311|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.8311
90855060|NCT00559754|181574645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.223|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2230
90855061|NCT00559754|181574646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8696|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.8696
90855062|NCT00559754|181574647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0074|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0074
90855063|NCT00559754|181574648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3235|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.3235
90855064|NCT00559754|181574649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0693|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0693
90855065|NCT00559754|181574651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4254|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4254
90855066|NCT00559754|181574653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
90855067|NCT00559754|181574654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
90855068|NCT00559754|181574656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
90855069|NCT03595774|181574664|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0833||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance of P\<0.05|ANOVA|One-way ANOVA for repeated measures followed by Holm-Šídák's multiple comparisons test||||||0.0833
90855070|NCT03595774|181574665|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0131||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance of P\<0.05|ANOVA|One-way ANOVA for repeated measures followed by Holm-Šídák's multiple comparisons test||||||0.0131
90902497|NCT01702428|181671869|NON_INFERIORITY|The LL of the 2-sided 95% CI for GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group over COM\_MMR Group) should be ≥0.5 for antibodies to for antibodies to PS serotypes.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.02|||ANCOVA|95% CI for GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group over the COM\_MMR Group) was computed using an ANCOVA model: Adjustment for baseline concentration-pooled variance.||In US sub-cohort: Adjusted GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group divided by COM\_MMR Group) for anti-PnPS 14 antibody at Day 42.||1.02|0.81|
90902498|NCT01702428|181671869|NON_INFERIORITY|The LL of the 2-sided 95% CI for GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group over COM\_MMR Group) should be ≥0.5 for antibodies to for antibodies to PS serotypes.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.02|||ANCOVA|95% CI for GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group over the COM\_MMR Group) was computed using an ANCOVA model: Adjustment for baseline concentration-pooled variance.||In US sub-cohort: Adjusted GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group divided by COM\_MMR Group) for anti-PnPS 18C antibody at Day 42.||1.02|0.84|
90902499|NCT01702428|181671869|NON_INFERIORITY|The LL of the 2-sided 95% CI for GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group over COM\_MMR Group) should be ≥0.5 for antibodies to for antibodies to PS serotypes.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.07|||ANCOVA|95% CI for GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group over the COM\_MMR Group) was computed using an ANCOVA model: Adjustment for baseline concentration-pooled variance.||In US sub-cohort: Adjusted GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group divided by COM\_MMR Group) for anti-PnPS 19A antibody at Day 42.||1.07|0.87|
91100158|NCT02021318|182086710|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|1.98|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard ratio was calculated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazards regression stratifying on CV history and region and adjusting on Hb and eGFR at baseline as continuous covariates.||1.98|1.39|<0.001
90855071|NCT03595774|181574666|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012728||||||a prior threshold for significant of P\<0.05|ANOVA|Two-way ANOVA for repeated measured followed by Holm-Šídák's multiple comparisons test||||||0.012728
90855072|NCT03595774|181574667|SUPERIORITY|||||||2e-08||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance of P\<0.05|ANOVA|Two-way ANOVA for repeated measures followed by Holm-Šídák's multiple comparisons test||||||0.00000002
90902500|NCT01702428|181671869|NON_INFERIORITY|The LL of the 2-sided 95% CI for GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group over COM\_MMR Group) should be ≥0.5 for antibodies to for antibodies to PS serotypes.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.06|||ANCOVA|95% CI for GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group over the COM\_MMR Group) was computed using an ANCOVA model: Adjustment for baseline concentration-pooled variance.||In US sub-cohort: Adjusted GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group divided by COM\_MMR Group) for anti-PnPS 19F antibody at Day 42.||1.06|0.87|
91031214|NCT01029353|181947128|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||A Bayesian analysis. Initial Laparotomy and Initial Peritoneal Drain were compared using log-binomial regression. The SAS procedure PROC MCMC with reference cell coding was used. Center (random effect), treatment, pre-operative diagnosis, and baseline risk of death or NDI were binary covariates. Pre-operative diagnosis levels were NEC and IP. Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) characteristics: three chains, 10000 tunings, 10000 burn-ins, 1000000 samples, thinning=20.|Priors for model parameters: intercept = Normal(mean=0, variance=100), baseline risk and preop diagnosis parameters = Normal(mean=0, variance=1), treatment and the interaction term = Normal(mean=0, variance=0.31416), random effect standard deviation = Half-Normal(mean=0, variance=10). The posterior median relative risk of Initial Laparotomy over Initial Drainage was 0.98, 95% credible interval of (0.84, 1.15).|||
91104354|NCT02539394|182094894|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.602|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of Pre-operative SWAL-QOL - Fatigue is the same across the 2 arms||||0.602
90855073|NCT03595774|181574668|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017215||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance of P\<0.05|ANOVA|Two-way ANOVA for repeated measures followed by Holm-Šídák's multiple comparisons test||||||0.017215
90855074|NCT03101267|181574671|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.09||||0.777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.69|||Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||3TNSS treatment comparison||0.69|-0.52|0.777
90855075|NCT03101267|181574671|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.01||||0.983||95.0|-0.61|0.59|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||3TNSS treatment comparison||0.59|-0.61|0.983
90855076|NCT03101267|181574672|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.17||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|1.1|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||4TNSS treatment comparison at day 127||1.10|-0.75|0.710
90855077|NCT03101267|181574672|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.07||||0.872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.99|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||4TNSS treatment comparison at day 127||0.99|-0.84|0.872
90855078|NCT03101267|181574672|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.18||||0.701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|1.08|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||4TNSS treatment comparison at day 155||1.08|-0.73|0.701
90855079|NCT03101267|181574672|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.04||||0.925||95.0|-0.95|0.86|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||4TNSS treatment comparison at day 155||0.86|-0.95|0.925
90855080|NCT03101267|181574672|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.16||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.97|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||4TNSS treatment comparison at day 183||0.97|-0.64|0.690
90855081|NCT03101267|181574672|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.07||||0.868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.87|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||4TNSS treatment comparison at day 183||0.87|-0.73|0.868
90855082|NCT03101267|181574673|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.07||||0.502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.29|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||Sneezing score treatment comparison at day 127||0.29|-0.14|0.502
90855083|NCT03101267|181574673|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.02||||0.879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.2|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||Sneezing score treatment comparison at day 127||0.20|-0.23|0.879
90902501|NCT01702428|181671869|NON_INFERIORITY|The LL of the 2-sided 95% CI for GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group over COM\_MMR Group) should be ≥0.5 for antibodies to for antibodies to PS serotypes.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.06|||ANCOVA|95% CI for GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group over the COM\_MMR Group) was computed using an ANCOVA model: Adjustment for baseline concentration-pooled variance.||In US sub-cohort: Adjusted GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group divided by COM\_MMR Group) for anti-PnPS 23F antibody at Day 42.||1.06|0.85|
90855084|NCT03101267|181574673|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.06||||0.444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.22|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||Sneezing score treatment comparison at day 155||0.22|-0.10|0.444
90902502|NCT02771210|181671889|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|3.08|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.08|0.87|0.136
90902503|NCT04397523|181671901|OTHER|||||||0.05||||||p=0.00000|ANOVA|df 2||||||0.05
90902504|NCT04397523|181671906|OTHER|||||||0.05||||||Chi- square = 24.98174, p = 0.00000|Chi-squared|df = 2||Overall survival between the three WHO score groups 3, 4 and 5||||0.05
90902505|NCT04397523|181671906|OTHER|||||||0.05||||||p=0.000|Chi-squared|df = 2||Correlation of mortality versus WHO disease progression score of patients||||0.05
90902506|NCT04397523|181671906|OTHER|||||||0.05||||||p = 0.000|Chi-squared|df = 1||Correlation of mortality versus stay in the intensive care unit (ICU)||||0.05
91031215|NCT01029353|181947129|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.31|||||RR: Initial Laparotomy over Peritoneal Drain. RR from robust Poisson regression with log link, reference cell coding, center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, and pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP) as covariates.|A frequentist analysis.||1.31|0.64|
90855085|NCT03101267|181574673|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.0||||0.987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.16|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||Sneezing score treatment comparison at day 155||0.16|-0.16|0.987
90855086|NCT03101267|181574673|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.03||||0.645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.18|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||Sneezing score treatment comparison at day 183||0.18|-0.12|0.645
90855087|NCT03101267|181574673|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.07||||0.357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.08|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||Sneezing score treatment comparison at day 183||0.08|-0.22|0.357
90855088|NCT03101267|181574674|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.12||||0.472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.44|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||Nasal discharge score treatment comparison at day 127||0.44|-0.20|0.472
90902507|NCT01275196|181671907|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This trial was powered to detect an odds ratio of at least 2.333 which corresponds, for example, to increases of 18% (from 22% to 40%) and increases of 20% (from 30% to 50%).||||||0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0001
91031216|NCT01029353|181947129|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||A Bayesian analysis. Initial Laparotomy and Initial Peritoneal Drain were compared using log-binomial regression. The SAS procedure PROC MCMC with reference cell coding was used. Center (random effect), treatment, pre-operative diagnosis, and baseline risk of death or NDI were binary covariates. Pre-operative diagnosis levels were NEC and IP. Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) characteristics: three chains, 10000 tunings, 10000 burn-ins, 1000000 samples, thinning=20.|Priors for model parameters: intercept = Normal(mean=0, variance=100), baseline risk and preop diagnosis parameters = Normal(mean=0, variance=1), treatment and the interaction term = Normal(mean=0, variance=0.31416), random effect standard deviation = Half-Normal(mean=0, variance=10). The posterior median relative risk of Initial Laparotomy over Initial Drainage was 0.86, 95% credible interval of (0.64, 1.16).|||
91031217|NCT01029353|181947130|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.36|||||RR: Initial Laparotomy over Peritoneal Drain. RR from robust Poisson regression with log link, reference cell coding, center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, and pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP) as covariates.|A frequentist analysis.||1.36|0.69|
91100159|NCT02021318|182086711|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.051||||0.478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.091|0.194|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Weeks 28-36 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.194|-0.091|0.478
90855089|NCT03101267|181574674|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.11||||0.497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.21|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||Nasal discharge score treatment comparison at day 127||0.21|-0.43|0.497
90855090|NCT03101267|181574674|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.04||||0.821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.36|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||Nasal discharge score treatment comparison at day 155||0.36|-0.28|0.821
90855091|NCT03101267|181574674|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.13||||0.414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.19|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||Nasal discharge score treatment comparison at day 155||0.19|-0.45|0.414
90855092|NCT03101267|181574674|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.12||||0.414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.41|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||Nasal discharge score treatment comparison at day 183||0.41|-0.17|0.414
90855093|NCT03101267|181574674|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.08||||0.566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.37|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||Nasal discharge score treatment comparison at day 183||0.37|-0.20|0.566
90855094|NCT03101267|181574675|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.04||||0.822||95.0|-0.37|0.3|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||Nasal congestion score treatment comparison at day 127||0.30|-0.37|0.822
90855095|NCT03101267|181574675|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.09||||0.587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.42|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||Nasal congestion score treatment comparison at day 127||0.42|-0.24|0.587
90855096|NCT03101267|181574675|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.0||||0.975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.31|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||Nasal congestion score treatment comparison at day 155||0.31|-0.30|0.975
90902508|NCT01744496|181671928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|0.34|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model for the change from Baseline to the End of Treatment containing treatment and region as factors and Baseline value as a covariate.||||0.34|-1.87|0.172
90902509|NCT01744496|181671930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean|-8.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.77||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.56|-0.46|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model for the change from Baseline to the End of Treatment containing treatment and region as factors and Baseline value as a covariate.||||-0.46|-15.56|0.038
90902510|NCT01744496|181671931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.76|0.73|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model for the change from Baseline to the End of Treatment containing treatment and region as factors and Baseline value as a covariate.||||0.73|-2.76|0.247
91104355|NCT02539394|182094894|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.302|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of POD1 SWAL-QOL - Fatigue is the same across the 2 arms||||0.302
91100160|NCT02021318|182086711|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.003||||0.969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.149|0.143|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Weeks 44-52 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.143|-0.149|0.969
91100161|NCT02021318|182086711|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.009||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.157|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Weeks 72-80 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.157|-0.140|0.910
90855097|NCT03101267|181574675|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.0||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.31|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||Nasal congestion score treatment comparison at day 155||0.31|-0.31|0.980
90855098|NCT03101267|181574675|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.07||||0.621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.21|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||Nasal congestion score treatment comparison at day 183||0.21|-0.35|0.621
90855099|NCT03101267|181574675|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.03||||0.831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.25|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||Nasal congestion score treatment comparison at day 183||0.25|-0.31|0.831
90855100|NCT03101267|181574676|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.03||||0.864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.35|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||Itchy nose score treatment comparison at day 127||0.35|-0.29|0.864
90902511|NCT01744496|181671932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|0.7|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model for the change from Baseline to the End of Treatment containing treatment and region as factors and Baseline value as a covariate.||||0.70|-1.85|0.371
90902512|NCT01744496|181671933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean|-2.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.97||0.346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.76|3.13|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model for the change from Baseline to the End of Treatment containing treatment and region as factors and Baseline value as a covariate.||||3.13|-8.76|0.346
90902513|NCT01380990|181671939|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Percentage of patients alive at 1-year post-treatment in the historical control groups (without MRD) were compared to the percentage of study patients alive at 1-year post-treatment with OTL-101\* (on-study). Results are reported as percentage difference in OS of historical control group from OTL-101\* on-study subjects.||||
90902514|NCT01380990|181671939|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Percentage of patients alive at 1-year post-treatment in the historical control groups (with MRD) were compared to the percentage of study patients alive at 1-year post-treatment with OTL-101\* (on-study). Results are reported as percentage difference in OS of historical control group from OTL-101\* on-study subjects.||||
90855101|NCT03101267|181574676|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.11||||0.502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.43|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||Itchy nose score treatment comparison at day 127||0.43|-0.21|0.502
90855102|NCT03101267|181574676|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.07||||0.652|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.4|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||Itchy nose score treatment comparison at day 155||0.40|-0.25|0.652
90855103|NCT03101267|181574676|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.08||||0.633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.41|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||Itchy nose score treatment comparison at day 155||0.41|-0.25|0.633
90855104|NCT03101267|181574676|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.07||||0.596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.35|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||Itchy nose score treatment comparison at day 183||0.35|-0.20|0.596
90855105|NCT03101267|181574676|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.07||||0.621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.34|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||Itchy nose score treatment comparison at day 183||0.34|-0.21|0.621
90855106|NCT03101267|181574677|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.21||||0.336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.65|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||TNNSS treatment comparison at day 127||0.65|-0.22|0.336
90855107|NCT03101267|181574677|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.36||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.8|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||TNNSS treatment comparison at day 127||0.80|-0.07|0.102
90902515|NCT01380990|181671939|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Percentage of patients alive at 1-year post-treatment in the historical control groups (all historical controls) were compared to the percentage of study patients alive at 1-year post-treatment with OTL-101\* (on-study). Results are reported as percentage difference in OS of historical control group from OTL-101\* on-study subjects.||||
90902516|NCT01380990|181671939|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Percentage of patients alive at 1-year post-treatment in the historical control groups (without MRD) were compared to the percentage of patients alive at 1-year post-treatment with OTL-101\* (on-study and CUP). Results are reported as percentage difference in OS of historical control group from OTL-101\* on-study and CUP subjects.||||
90902517|NCT01380990|181671939|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Percentage of patients alive at 1-year post-treatment in the historical control groups (with MRD) were compared to the percentage of patients alive at 1-year post-treatment with OTL-101\* (on-study and CUP). Results are reported as percentage difference in OS of historical control group from OTL-101\* on-study and CUP subjects.||||
91100162|NCT02021318|182086711|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.024||||0.775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.188|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Weeks 96-104 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.188|-0.140|0.775
90958420|NCT03486457|181796721|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|39.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.8|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.38|53.03|||Normal approximation|||Month 3: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||53.03|26.38|<0.0001
90958421|NCT03486457|181796721|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|18.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.23||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.22|32.55|||Normal approximation|||Month 4: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||32.55|4.22|0.0110
90958422|NCT03486457|181796721|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|16.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.8||0.0173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.85|29.5|||Normal approximation|||Month 6: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||29.50|2.85|0.0173
90958423|NCT03486457|181796722|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Analysis performed using mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-0.47|-0.79|<0.0001
90958424|NCT03486457|181796722|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.095|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-0.62|-0.99|<0.0001
90958425|NCT03486457|181796722|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.105|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 2: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-0.66|-1.08|<0.0001
90958426|NCT03486457|181796722|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.122|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|-0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-0.80|-1.28|<0.0001
90855108|NCT03101267|181574677|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.11||||0.625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.56|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||TNNSS treatment comparison at day 155||0.56|-0.34|0.625
90958427|NCT03486457|181796722|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-0.18|-0.69|0.0009
91032850|NCT00050778|181951037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.24||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.545||An alpha-sharing approach was used to adjust for multiple treatment group comparisons, endpoints, and two pre-planned interim analyses, including a Lan-Demets error-spending function. Pre-specified threshold for statistical significance was 0.0165.|Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|||Cox proportional hazards (PH) regression model using treatment group, Baseline EDSS group (grouped by less than or equal to 1.5 and greater than 1.5), and country (investigative center grouped by country) as covariates was used.||0.545|0.110|0.0006
90855109|NCT03101267|181574677|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.33||||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.78|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||TNNSS treatment comparison at day 155||0.78|-0.12|0.145
90855110|NCT03101267|181574677|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.19||||0.364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.59|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||TNNSS treatment comparison at day 183||0.59|-0.22|0.364
90855111|NCT03101267|181574677|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.35||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.76|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||TNNSS treatment comparison at day 183||0.76|-0.05|0.082
90855112|NCT03101267|181574678|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.07||||0.623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.35|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||Itchy eyes treatment comparison at day 127||0.35|-0.21|0.623
90958428|NCT03486457|181796722|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145||0.1202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||0.06|-0.51|0.1202
90855113|NCT03101267|181574678|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.15||||0.288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.43|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||Itchy eyes treatment comparison at day 127||0.43|-0.13|0.288
90855114|NCT03101267|181574678|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.03||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.3|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||Itchy eyes treatment comparison at day 155||0.30|-0.24|0.830
90855115|NCT03101267|181574678|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.17||||0.208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.44|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||Itchy eyes treatment comparison at day 155||0.44|-0.10|0.208
90855116|NCT03101267|181574678|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.06||||0.616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.31|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||Itchy eyes treatment comparison at day 183||0.31|-0.19|0.616
90958429|NCT03486457|181796723|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.998||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.76|5.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1, Physical Functioning Domain: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||5.69|1.76|0.0003
90958430|NCT03486457|181796723|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.102||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|5.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1, Role - Physical Domain: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||5.35|1.01|0.0043
90855117|NCT03101267|181574678|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.16||||0.207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.41|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||Itchy eyes treatment comparison at day 183||0.41|-0.09|0.207
90855118|NCT03101267|181574679|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.15||||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.35|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||Watery eyes treatment comparison at day 127||0.35|-0.06|0.157
90855119|NCT03101267|181574679|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.21||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.41|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||Watery eyes treatment comparison at day 127||0.41|0.01|0.039
90902518|NCT01380990|181671939|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Percentage of patients alive at 1-year post-treatment in the historical control groups (all historical controls) were compared to the percentage of patients alive at 1-year post-treatment with OTL-101\* (on-study and CUP). Results are reported as percentage difference in OS of historical control group from OTL-101\* on-study and CUP subjects.||||
90902519|NCT01380990|181671940|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Percentage of patients with EvFS at 1-year post-treatment in the historical control groups (without MRD) were compared to the percentage of study patients with EvFS at 1-year post-treatment with OTL-101\* (on-study). Results are reported as percentage difference in EvFS of historical control group from OTL-101\* on-study subjects.||||
90902520|NCT01380990|181671940|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Percentage of patients with EvFS at 1-year post-treatment in the historical control groups (with MRD) were compared to the percentage of study patients with EvFS at 1-year post-treatment with OTL-101\* (on-study). Results are reported as percentage difference in EvFS of historical control group from OTL-101\* on-study subjects.||||
90855120|NCT03101267|181574679|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.08||||0.459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.3|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||Watery eyes treatment comparison at day 155||0.30|-0.14|0.459
90902521|NCT01380990|181671940|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Percentage of patients with EvFS at 1-year post-treatment in the historical control groups (all historical controls) were compared to the percentage of study patients with EvFS at 1-year post-treatment with OTL-101\* (on-study). Results are reported as percentage difference in EvFS of historical control group from OTL-101\* on-study subjects.||||
90902522|NCT01380990|181671940|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Percentage of patients with EvFS at 1-year post-treatment in the historical control groups (without MRD) were compared to the percentage of study patients with EvFS at 1-year post-treatment with OTL-101\* (on-study and CUP). Results are reported as percentage difference in EvFS of historical control group from OTL-101\* on-study and CUP subjects.||||
90855121|NCT03101267|181574679|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.16||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.38|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||Watery eyes treatment comparison at day 155||0.38|-0.06|0.153
90855122|NCT03101267|181574679|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.12||||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.31|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||Watery eyes treatment comparison at day 183||0.31|-0.06|0.195
90855123|NCT03101267|181574679|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.2||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.38|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||Watery eyes treatment comparison at day 183||0.38|0.01|0.038
90855124|NCT03101267|181574680|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.37||||0.433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|1.29|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||5TSS treatment comparison at day 127||1.29|-0.56|0.433
90855125|NCT03101267|181574680|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.33||||0.479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|1.24|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||5TSS treatment comparison at day 127||1.24|-0.59|0.479
90855126|NCT03101267|181574680|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.22||||0.648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|1.14|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||5TSS treatment comparison at day 155||1.14|-0.71|0.648
90855127|NCT03101267|181574680|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.21||||0.654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|1.14|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||5TSS treatment comparison at day 155||1.14|-0.72|0.654
90902523|NCT01380990|181671940|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Percentage of patients with EvFS at 1-year post-treatment in the historical control groups (with MRD) were compared to the percentage of study patients with EvFS at 1-year post-treatment with OTL-101\* (on-study and CUP). Results are reported as percentage difference in EvFS of historical control group from OTL-101\* on-study and CUP subjects.||||
90902524|NCT01380990|181671940|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Percentage of patients with EvFS at 1-year post-treatment in the historical control groups (all historical controls) were compared to the percentage of study patients with EvFS at 1-year post-treatment with OTL-101\* (on-study and CUP). Results are reported as percentage difference in EvFS of historical control group from OTL-101\* on-study and CUP subjects.||||
90902525|NCT01380990|181671945|OTHER|Model includes fixed effects for visit and Baseline, subject as random effect, with compound symmetry covariance structure. Observations with a value of 0 were imputed as 0.01. Model analyses log transformed data, so the adjusted mean refers to the geometric mean ratio between Month 12 and Baseline.|||||=|0.002|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure (MMRM) Analysis of Change from Baseline to Month 12 in Log-Transformed CD3+ T Cell count (OTL-101\*) for OTL-101\* on-study subjects group."||||= 0.002
90902526|NCT01380990|181671945|OTHER|Model includes fixed effects for visit and Baseline, subject as random effect, with compound symmetry covariance structure. Observations with a value of 0 were imputed as 0.01. Model analyses log transformed data, so the adjusted mean refers to the geometric mean ratio between Month 12 and Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||"MMRM Analysis of Change from Baseline to Month 12 in Log-Transformed CD3+ T Cell count (OTL-101\*) for OTL-101\* on-study and CUP subjects group."||||< 0.001
90902527|NCT01380990|181671950|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Percentage of patients with OS at 3-years post-treatment in the historical control groups (without MRD) were compared to the percentage of study patients with OS at 3-years post-treatment with OTL-101\* (on study). Results are reported as percentage difference in OS of historical control group from OTL-101\* on-study subjects.||||
90902528|NCT01380990|181671950|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|11.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.41|48.25||||||Percentage of patients with OS at 3-years post-treatment in the historical control groups (with MRD) were compared to the percentage of study patients with OS at 3-years post-treatment with OTL-101\* (on study). Results are reported as percentage difference in OS of historical control group from OTL-101\* on-study subjects.||48.25|-22.41|
90958431|NCT03486457|181796723|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.861||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|4.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1, Bodily Pain Domain: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||4.82|1.42|0.0004
91031218|NCT01029353|181947130|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||A Bayesian analysis. Initial Laparotomy and Initial Peritoneal Drain were compared using log-binomial regression. The SAS procedure PROC MCMC with reference cell coding was used. Center (random effect), treatment, pre-operative diagnosis, and baseline risk of death or NDI were binary covariates. Pre-operative diagnosis levels were NEC and IP. Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) characteristics: three chains, 10000 tunings, 10000 burn-ins, 1000000 samples, thinning=20.|Priors for model parameters: intercept = Normal(mean=0, variance=100), baseline risk and preop diagnosis parameters = Normal(mean=0, variance=1), treatment and the interaction term = Normal(mean=0, variance=0.31416), random effect standard deviation = Half-Normal(mean=0, variance=10). The posterior median relative risk of Initial Laparotomy over Initial Drainage was 0.92, 95% credible interval of (0.68, 1.25).|||
90855128|NCT03101267|181574680|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.27||||0.514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|1.09|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||5TSS treatment comparison at day 183||1.09|-0.55|0.514
90855129|NCT03101267|181574680|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.35||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|1.17|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||5TSS treatment comparison at day 183||1.17|-0.47|0.400
90855130|NCT03101267|181574681|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference,|0.39||||0.505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|1.54||The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.|MMRM|||6TSS treatment comparison at day 127||1.54|-0.76|0.505
90855131|NCT03101267|181574681|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference,|0.44||||0.451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|1.58|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||6TSS treatment comparison at day 127||1.58|-0.71|0.451
90855132|NCT03101267|181574681|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference,|0.29||||0.623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|1.46|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||6TSS treatment comparison at day 155||1.46|-0.88|0.623
90855133|NCT03101267|181574681|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference,|0.29||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|1.46|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||6TSS treatment comparison at day 155||1.46|-0.87|0.620
90855134|NCT03101267|181574681|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference,|0.35||||0.504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|1.37|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||6TSS treatment comparison at day 183||1.37|-0.68|0.504
90855135|NCT03101267|181574681|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference,|0.42||||0.414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.45|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||6TSS treatment comparison at day 183||1.45|-0.60|0.414
90855136|NCT01262352|181574700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.069||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.98|-1.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The primary analysis for the primary efficacy variable was based on a mixed effect model. The model included the absolute change from the baseline in each period as the dependent variable, sequence, treatment, and period as fixed effects, study baseline LCI as the covariate, and subject nested within sequence as the random effect.||-1.15|-2.98|0.0004
90855137|NCT01262352|181574701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.007||||0.0117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|12.21||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis for this efficacy variable was performed in a similar way as the analysis for the primary efficacy variable.||12.21|1.80|0.0117
90855138|NCT01262352|181574702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-45.848|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.54|-38.16||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis for change from baseline in average sweat chloride was similar to the analysis of the primary efficacy variable.||-38.16|-53.54|<0.0001
90855139|NCT01262352|181574703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.991||||0.3796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|13.39||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The raw scores in CFQ-R were summarized into different domains of health (12 domains for adolescents and adults 14 years of age and older, 8 domains for children ages 12 and 13 years, 8 domains for children ages 6 to 11 years, and 11 domains for parents/caregivers). Each domain was analyzed in a similar way as for the primary efficacy variable. The primary analytical focus was the respiratory health domain which was analyzed by combining all self-response questionnaire versions.||13.39|-5.40|0.3796
90855140|NCT02925793|181574719|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-2.9||||0.0106|TWO_SIDED||||||SAS Proc Mixed||For each subject, change in NRS score from baseline to week 8 was calculated as Week 8 NRS value minus Baseline NRS value. Mean change in NRS score from baseline to week 8 for each group was then calculated using a Generalized Linear Mixed Model.|Both 1% and 5% groups (statistical analysis 2) produced the same estimated value (-2.9)||||0.0106
90855141|NCT02925793|181574719|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-2.9||||0.0483|TWO_SIDED||||||SAS Proc Mixed||For each subject, change in NRS score from baseline to week 8 was calculated as Week 8 NRS value minus Baseline NRS value. Mean change in NRS score from baseline to week 8 for each group was then calculated using a Generalized Linear Mixed Model.|Both 1%(statistical analysis 1) and 5% groups produced the same estimated value (-2.9)||||0.0483
90902529|NCT01380990|181671950|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|7.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.1|34.23||||||Percentage of patients with OS at 3-years post-treatment in the historical control groups (all historical controls) were compared to the percentage of study patients with OS at 3-years post-treatment with OTL-101\* (on study). Results are reported as percentage difference in OS of historical control group from OTL-101\* on-study subjects.||34.23|-28.10|
90902530|NCT01380990|181671950|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Percentage of patients with OS at 3-years post-treatment in the historical control groups (without MRD) were compared to the percentage of study patients with OS at 3-years post-treatment with OTL-101\* (on study and CUP). Results are reported as percentage difference in OS of historical control group from OTL-101\* on-study and CUP subjects.||||
90958432|NCT03486457|181796723|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.938||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.69|5.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1, General Health Domain: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||5.39|1.69|0.0002
90958433|NCT03486457|181796723|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.203||0.0123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|5.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1, Vitality Domain: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||5.41|0.67|0.0123
90902531|NCT01380990|181671950|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|11.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.01|48.25||||||Percentage of patients with OS at 3-years post-treatment in the historical control groups (with MRD) were compared to the percentage of study patients with OS at 3-years post-treatment with OTL-101\* (on study and CUP). Results are reported as percentage difference in OS of historical control group from OTL-101\* on-study and CUP subjects.||48.25|-10.01|
90902532|NCT01380990|181671950|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|7.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.91|33.87||||||Percentage of patients with OS at 3-years post-treatment in the historical control groups (all historical controls) were compared to the percentage of study patients with OS at 3-years post-treatment with OTL-101\* (on study and CUP). Results are reported as percentage difference in OS of historical control group from OTL-101\* on-study and CUP subjects.||33.87|-12.91|
90902533|NCT01380990|181671951|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.645|||||||Log Rank|||||||=0.645
90902534|NCT01380990|181671951|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.299|||||||Log Rank|||||||=0.299
90958434|NCT03486457|181796723|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.115||0.0216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|4.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1, Social Function Domain: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||4.78|0.38|0.0216
90958435|NCT03486457|181796723|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.336||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|4.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1, Role - Emotional Domain: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||4.67|-0.60|0.1290
90958436|NCT03486457|181796723|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.172||0.1043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|4.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1, Mental Health Domain: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||4.22|-0.40|0.1043
90958437|NCT03486457|181796723|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.763|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.26|5.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1, Physical Component Summary: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||5.27|2.26|<0.0001
90958438|NCT03486457|181796723|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.178||0.1318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|4.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1, Mental Component Summary: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||4.10|-0.54|0.1318
90958439|NCT03486457|181796723|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.225||0.0402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|4.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3, Physical Functioning Domain: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||4.95|0.11|0.0402
90958440|NCT03486457|181796723|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|4.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.227||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.99|6.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3, Role - Physical Domain: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||6.83|1.99|0.0004
90902535|NCT01380990|181671951|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2|||||||Log Rank|||||||= 0.2
90902536|NCT01380990|181671951|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.028|||||||Log Rank|||||||= 0.028
90902537|NCT01380990|181671951|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.259|||||||Log Rank|||||||= 0.259
90902538|NCT01380990|181671951|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.044|||||||Log Rank|||||||= 0.044
90902539|NCT01380990|181671951|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.05|61.97||||||Percentage of patients with EvFS at 3-years post-treatment in the historical control groups (without MRD) were compared to the percentage of study patients with EvFS at 3-years post-treatment with OTL-101\* (on-study). Results are reported as percentage difference in EvFS of historical control group from OTL-101\* on-study subjects.||61.97|-32.05|
90902540|NCT01380990|181671951|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|30.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.72|65.87||||||Percentage of patients with EvFS at 3-years post-treatment in the historical control groups (with MRD) were compared to the percentage of study patients with EvFS at 3-years post treatment with OTL-101\* (on-study). Results are reported as percentage difference in EvFS of historical control group from OTL-101\* on-study subjects.||65.87|-10.72|
90902541|NCT01380990|181671951|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|23.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.24|54.59||||||Percentage of patients with EvFS at 3-years post-treatment in the historical control groups (all historical controls) were compared to the percentage of study patients with EvFS at 3-years post-treatment with OTL-101\* (on-study). Results are reported as percentage difference in EvFS of historical control group from OTL-101\* on-study subjects.||54.59|-15.24|
90902542|NCT01380990|181671951|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|63.54||||||Percentage of patients with EvFS at 3-years post-treatment in the historical control groups (without MRD) were compared to the percentage of study patients with EvFS at 3-years post-treatment with OTL-101\* (on-study and CUP). Results are reported as percentage difference in EvFS of historical control group from OTL-101\* on-study and CUP subjects.||63.54|-13.70|
90902543|NCT01380990|181671951|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|35.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.29|68.45||||||Percentage of patients with EvFS at 3-years post-treatment in the historical control groups (with MRD) were compared to the percentage of study patients with EvFS at 3-years post-treatment with OTL-101\* (on-study and CUP). Results are reported as percentage difference in EvFS of historical control group from OTL-101\* on-study and CUP subjects.||68.45|2.29|
90902544|NCT01380990|181671951|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|28.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.04|56.36||||||Percentage of patients with EvFS at 3-years post-treatment in the historical control groups (all historical controls) were compared to the percentage of study patients with EvFS at 3-years post-treatment with OTL-101\* (on-study and CUP). Results are reported as percentage difference in EvFS of historical control group from OTL-101\* on-study and CUP subjects.||56.36|2.04|
90902545|NCT01284140|181671955|OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||Extra sum-of-squares F test|The null hypothesis that model parameters of amplitude and phase were the same on Day 1 and Day 3 was not rejected for the Usual Care group.||Nonlinear regression using the least-squares approach was used to fit a single 24-hour cosine curve to all normalized data in each group on each day of 24-hour urine collection. Model parameters of acrophase and amplitude and their standard errors were derived from these curves. Using the extra sum-of-squares F test, the null hypothesis that model parameters of amplitude and phase were the same on Day 1 and Day 3 was tested for the Usual Care group.||||0.37
90902546|NCT01284140|181671955|OTHER|||||||0.0074|||||||Extra sum-of-squares F test|This result suggests that the best-fit values for amplitude and phase are different between Day 1 and Day 3 in the Sleep Promotion group.||Nonlinear regression using the least-squares approach was used to fit a single 24-hour cosine curve to all normalized data in each group on each day of 24-hour urine collection. Model parameters of acrophase and amplitude and their standard errors were derived from these curves. Using the extra sum-of-squares F test, the null hypothesis that model parameters of amplitude and phase were the same on Day 1 and Day 3 was tested for the Sleep promotion group.||||0.0074
90902547|NCT01284140|181671956|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.55
90902548|NCT01284140|181671957|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Nonlinear regression using the least-squares approach was used to fit a single 24-hour cosine curve to all normalized data in each group on each day of 24-hour urine collection. This resulted in 4 separate best-fit curves. The model parameter of amplitude was derived from the best-fit curves.||||0.03
90958441|NCT03486457|181796723|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|5.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.069|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.18|7.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3, Bodily Pain Domain: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||7.40|3.18|<0.0001
90958442|NCT03486457|181796723|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|5.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.261|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.79|7.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3, General Health Domain: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||7.76|2.79|<0.0001
90958443|NCT03486457|181796723|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.366||0.1254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|4.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3, Vitality Domain: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||4.80|-0.59|0.1254
90958444|NCT03486457|181796723|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|4.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.186||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|6.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3, Social Function Domain: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||6.68|2.00|0.0003
91031219|NCT01029353|181947131|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.63|||||RR: Initial Laparotomy over Peritoneal Drain. RR from robust Poisson regression with log link, reference cell coding, center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, and pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP) as covariates.|A frequentist analysis.||0.63|0.35|
91100163|NCT02021318|182086712|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.087||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.012|0.185|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1- The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline eGFR and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.185|-0.012|0.086
91100164|NCT02021318|182086712|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.278|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.165|0.391|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2- The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline eGFR and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.391|0.165|<0.001
90902549|NCT03192215|181671983|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.55|||Log Rank|||||1.55|0.64|0.99
90902550|NCT03192215|181671984|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.44|||Log Rank|||||1.44|0.59|0.72
90902551|NCT03192215|181671985|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.52|||Log Rank|||||1.52|0.76|0.67
90902552|NCT03192215|181671986|SUPERIORITY||Difference of annual rate.|-0.011||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.018|-0.003|||Exact Binomial Test|||||-0.003|-0.018|.02
90902553|NCT03192215|181671987|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|3.52|||Log Rank|||||3.52|0.29|0.98
90902554|NCT03192215|181671988|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.53||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|3.75|||Log Rank|||||3.75|0.63|0.35
90902555|NCT02733042|181672067|OTHER|||||||||||||||||The safety review committee identified a preliminary recommended Phase 2 dose (RP2D) for each dose finding cohort based on an integrated assessment of the safety, pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic, and preliminary efficacy (as available).|For Arm B, ibrutinib 420 mg was confirmed as the RP2D for CLL/SLL participants and ibrutinib 560 mg was confirmed as the RP2D for MCL participants.|||
90902556|NCT02733042|181672067|OTHER|||||||||||||||||The safety review committee identified a preliminary recommended Phase 2 dose (RP2D) for each dose finding cohort based on an integrated assessment of the safety, pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic, and preliminary efficacy (as available).|For Arm C the RP2D was confirmed as rituximab 375 mg/m² + bendamustine 70 mg/m².|||
90902557|NCT05033080|181672100|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin represents a clinically acceptable loss of effectiveness that margin preserve at least 50% of the treatment effect of the active control (ELX/TEZ/IVA) compared to placebo, where the treatment effect is estimated by the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI).|LS Mean difference|0.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.1|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||||1.1|-0.7|< 0.0001
90902558|NCT05033080|181672101|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-8.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|-6.3|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||||-6.3|-10.5|< 0.0001
90902559|NCT05033080|181672102|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|3.15|||Generalized Estimated Equation Model|||||3.15|1.55|< 0.0001
90902560|NCT05033080|181672103|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|4.12|||Generalized Estimated Equation Model|||||4.12|2.00|< 0.0001
90902561|NCT03560245|181672105|EQUIVALENCE|"The change from baseline to Week 13 in the SIB total score was summarized descriptively and compared using Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) adjusted for baseline SIB total score.~If the normality assumption was not met, a non-parametric method or a rank-ANCOVA analysis (i.e., an ANCOVA analysis on rank-transformed data) was to be used."||||||0.373|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3730
90902562|NCT02058290|181672136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
90958445|NCT03486457|181796723|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.384||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|6.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3, Role - Emotional Domain: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||6.16|0.70|0.0140
90958446|NCT03486457|181796723|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.268||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|5.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3, Mental Health Domain: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||5.98|0.97|0.0067
90958447|NCT03486457|181796723|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|4.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.986|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.23|6.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3, Physical Component Summary: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||6.12|2.23|<0.0001
90958448|NCT03486457|181796723|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.248||0.0094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|5.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3, Mental Component Summary: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||5.73|0.81|0.0094
90958449|NCT03486457|181796723|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.049||0.7098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|2.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6, Physical Functioning Domain: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||2.46|-1.68|0.7098
90958450|NCT03486457|181796723|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.234||0.4019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|3.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6, Role - Physical Domain: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||3.47|-1.40|0.4019
90958451|NCT03486457|181796723|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.186||0.7537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.97|2.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6, Bodily Pain Domain: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||2.71|-1.97|0.7537
90958452|NCT03486457|181796723|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.33||0.3595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|3.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6, General Health Domain: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||3.85|-1.40|0.3595
90902563|NCT02058290|181672137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2612|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.2612
90902564|NCT02058290|181672138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0019|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0019
90902565|NCT02262260|181672169|NON_INFERIORITY|"In order to demonstrate that the wait and extend regimen of ranibizumab is non-inferior to the posology described in the prescribing information, mean change in BCVA at month 12 from the baseline visit were determined for both treatment groups, and a comparison was made between the two groups using the Independent Samples t-test."||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5
90902566|NCT02262260|181672170|NON_INFERIORITY|"In order to demonstrate that the wait and extend regimen of ranibizumab is non-inferior to the posology described in the prescribing information, mean change in Central Retinal Thickness determined with Optical Coherence Tomography for both eyes were calculated for both groups and were compared using the Mann Whitney u test."||||||0.082|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.082
90902567|NCT02262260|181672173|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison was made between the two groups using the Independent Samples t-test.||||||0.095|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.095
90902568|NCT02262260|181672174|NON_INFERIORITY|comparison was made between the two groups using the Independent Samples t-test.||||||0.072|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.072
90902569|NCT02262260|181672175|NON_INFERIORITY|comparison was made between the two groups using the Independent Samples t-test||||||0.466|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.466
90902570|NCT01794117|181672182|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.033|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.033
90902571|NCT01233609|181672313|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-150.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|71.37||0.035|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|degrees of freedom = 830|Right eye and Left Eye within each of the 2 treatment groups (Placebo and Valproic Acid) were combined to estimate the difference|||||0.035
90902572|NCT01233609|181672314|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.581|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.581
90902573|NCT01233609|181672315|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.409|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.409
90902574|NCT01233609|181672316|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.229|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.229
90902575|NCT00654940|181672377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.305||||80.0|-1.21|-0.41|||ANCOVA|||Treatment comparison of pregabalin - placebo: mixed effects analysis of covariance model fitted on the full analysis set population, accounting for period and treatment effects. Subject was fitted as a random effect, and baseline was fitted as two covariates.||-0.41|-1.21|
90902576|NCT00654940|181672378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.493||||80.0|-3.82|2.78|||ANCOVA|||Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory treatment comparison: Pregabalin - Placebo. Total score was analyzed using a mixed effect analysis of covariance model based on the full analysis set (FAS), accounting for period and treatment effects. Subject was fitted as a random effect and baseline was fitted as two covariates.||2.78|-3.82|
90902577|NCT00654940|181672379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|29000.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17000.0||||80.0|6100.0|51000.0|||ANCOVA|||Difference in least squares means Pregabalin-Placebo. Model of day (8 am to 8 pm) total activity score at end of treatment. Mixed effects analysis of covariance model was fitted on the full analysis set population, accounting for period and treatment effects. Subject was fitted as a random effect and baseline was fitted as two covariates.||51000|6100|
90958453|NCT03486457|181796723|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52||0.1919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|4.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6, Vitality Domain: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||4.99|-1.01|0.1919
90958454|NCT03486457|181796723|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.209||0.8163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6, Social Function Domain: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||2.67|-2.10|0.8163
90855142|NCT01723696|181574747|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.1||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|30.3||P-value adjusted for design factors of site, gestational age at randomization and covariates of length, race, and sex of infant.|ANCOVA|||Our targeted sample size of 218 infants with successful FEFs at 3 months of age was determined to detect with 90% power, at a significance level of 0.05, increases of 15% in mean FEF75 in the vitamin C group compared to the placebo group.||30.3|-6.1|0.19
90855143|NCT04233034|181574764|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included age, days from T1D diagnosis to randomization, and drug group as fixed effects and clinical site as a random effect.|Mean difference (HCL - Non-HCL) at 52 weeks adjusted for age, days from T1D diagnosis to randomization, RCT drug group, and clinical site.|||0.10|-0.11|0.89
90855144|NCT04233034|181574764|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included age, days from T1D diagnosis to randomization, and Intensive group as fixed effects and clinical site as a random effect.|Mean difference (Verapamil - Placebo) at 52 weeks adjusted for age, days from T1D diagnosis to randomization, RCT intensive/standard care group, and clinical site.|||0.27|0.01|0.04
90855145|NCT04233034|181574765|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.08||P-value adjusted for multiplicity using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure.|Mixed Models Analysis|The model included age, days from T1D diagnosis to randomization, and drug group as fixed effects and clinical site as a random effect.|Mean difference (HCL - Non-HCL) at 13 weeks adjusted for age, days from T1D diagnosis to randomization, RCT drug group, and clinical site.|||0.08|-0.10|0.80
90855146|NCT04233034|181574765|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.13||P-value adjusted for multiplicity using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure.|Mixed Models Analysis|The model included age, days from T1D diagnosis to randomization, and drug group as fixed effects and clinical site as a random effect.|Mean difference (HCL - Non-HCL) at 26 weeks adjusted for age, days from T1D diagnosis to randomization, RCT drug group, and clinical site.|||0.13|-0.08|0.80
90855147|NCT04233034|181574765|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.09||P-value was adjusted for multiplicity using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure.|Mixed Models Analysis|The model included age, days from T1D diagnosis to randomization, and drug group as fixed effects and clinical site as a random effect.|Mean difference (HCL - Non-HCL) at 39 weeks adjusted for age, days from T1D diagnosis to randomization, RCT drug group, and clinical site.|||0.09|-0.13|0.80
90855148|NCT04233034|181574765|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.13||P-value adjusted for multiplicity using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure.|Mixed Models Analysis|The model included age, days from T1D diagnosis to randomization, and Intensive group as fixed effects and clinical site as a random effect.|Mean difference (Verapamil - Placebo) at 13 weeks adjusted for age, days from T1D diagnosis to randomization, RCT intensive/standard care group, and clinical site.|||0.13|-0.09|0.69
90855149|NCT04233034|181574765|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.25||P-value was adjusted for multiplicity using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure.|Mixed Models Analysis|The model included age, days from T1D diagnosis to randomization, and Intensive group as fixed effects and clinical site as a random effect.|Mean difference (Verapamil - Placebo) at 26 weeks adjusted for age, days from T1D diagnosis to randomization, RCT intensive/standard care group, and clinical site.|||0.25|-0.02|0.08
90958455|NCT03486457|181796723|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.368||0.1048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|4.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6, Role - Emotional Domain: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||4.93|-0.47|0.1048
90958456|NCT03486457|181796723|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.392||0.6118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|3.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6, Mental Health Domain: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||3.45|-2.04|0.6118
90855150|NCT04233034|181574765|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.28||P-value adjusted for multiplicity using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure.|Mixed Models Analysis|The model included age, days from T1D diagnosis to randomization, and Intensive group as fixed effects and clinical site as a random effect.|Mean difference (Verapamil - Placebo) at 39 weeks adjusted for age, days from T1D diagnosis to randomization, RCT intensive/standard care group, and clinical site.|||0.28|-0.01|0.08
90855151|NCT04233034|181574768|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.0|-14.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference (HCL - Non-HCL) at 52 weeks adjusted for age, days from T1D diagnosis to randomization, RCT drug group, and clinical site.|||-14|-37|<0.001
90855152|NCT04233034|181574768|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.0|16.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference (Verapamil - Placebo) at 52 weeks adjusted for age, days from T1D diagnosis to randomization, RCT intensive/standard care group, and clinical site.|||16|-25|0.74
90855153|NCT04233034|181574769|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|22.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference (HCL - Non-HCL) at 52 weeks adjusted for age, days from T1D diagnosis to randomization, RCT drug group, and clinical site.|||22|10|<0.001
90855154|NCT04233034|181574769|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|13.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference (Verapamil - Placebo) at 52 weeks adjusted for age, days from T1D diagnosis to randomization, RCT intensive/standard care group, and clinical site.|||13|-9|0.74
90855155|NCT04233034|181574770|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|22.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference (HCL - Non-HCL) at 52 weeks adjusted for age, days from T1D diagnosis to randomization, RCT drug group, and clinical site.|||22|10|<0.001
90902578|NCT03677128|181672380|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
90902579|NCT03677128|181672380|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
90902580|NCT04834362|181672398|OTHER|||||||0.677|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.677
90902581|NCT04834362|181672399|OTHER|||||||0.053|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.053
90902582|NCT04834362|181672400|OTHER|||||||0.918|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.918
90902583|NCT04834362|181672401|OTHER|||||||0.729|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.729
90902584|NCT02802020|181672440|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||"We hypothesized that pain reduction (as defined in Study endpoints above) would be achieved in a performance goal of at least 53% of patients receiving the study SEMS. Assuming an observed pain reduction rate of 75% and using an exact test with a one-sided alpha of 0.025, 43 patients were required to obtain power of at least 80%."||||0.999
90958457|NCT03486457|181796723|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.014||0.6996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|2.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6, Physical Component Summary: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||2.39|-1.61|0.6996
90958458|NCT03486457|181796723|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.424||0.2122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|4.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6, Mental Component Summary: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||4.59|-1.03|0.2122
90958459|NCT03486457|181796724|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067||0.0722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1, Mobility: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||0.01|-0.25|0.0722
90958460|NCT03486457|181796724|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|-0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1, Self-Care: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-0.05|-0.27|0.0035
91031220|NCT01029353|181947131|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||A Bayesian analysis. Initial Laparotomy and Initial Peritoneal Drain were compared using log-binomial regression. The SAS procedure PROC MCMC with reference cell coding was used. Center (random effect), treatment, pre-operative diagnosis, and baseline risk of death or NDI were binary covariates. Pre-operative diagnosis levels were NEC and IP. Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) characteristics: three chains, 10000 tunings, 10000 burn-ins, 1000000 samples, thinning=20.|Priors for model parameters: intercept = Normal(mean=0, variance=100), baseline risk and preop diagnosis parameters = Normal(mean=0, variance=1), treatment and the interaction term = Normal(mean=0, variance=0.31416), random effect standard deviation = Half-Normal(mean=0, variance=10). The posterior median relative risk of Initial Laparotomy over Initial Drainage was 0.51, 95% credible interval of (0.37, 0.69).|||
91100165|NCT02021318|182086712|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.435|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.284|0.586|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4- The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline eGFR and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.586|0.284|<0.001
90902585|NCT02802020|181672441|SUPERIORITY|we hypothesized that the proportion of patients reporting one or more related SAE(s) would be below a performance goal of 32%. Assuming an observed SAE rate of 15% and using an exact test with one-sided alpha of 0.025, 57 patients were required to obtain power of at least 80%.||||||0.513|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.513
90902586|NCT00883103|181672492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
90902587|NCT03268590|181672535|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
90902588|NCT03268590|181672536|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
90902589|NCT03268590|181672537|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
90902590|NCT03954158|181672566|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean of difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.0071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Day 15, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) included the fixed effect of visit, and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.5|-2.7|0.0071
90902591|NCT03954158|181672566|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean of difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Day 15, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of visit, and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.8|-3.3|0.0029
90902592|NCT03954158|181672566|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean of difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Day 15, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of visit, and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.2|-2.7|0.0250
90902593|NCT03954158|181672566|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean of difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Day 15, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of visit, and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.9|-3.3|0.0014
90902594|NCT03954158|181672567|OTHER||Difference of least squares mean|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4295|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.9||||||Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen, visit, dosing regimen-by-visit interaction, and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.9|-2.0|
90902595|NCT03954158|181672567|OTHER||Difference of least squares mean|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.4||||||Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen, visit, dosing regimen-by-visit interaction, and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.4|-2.1|
90902596|NCT03954158|181672568|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-0.7||||||Change at Day 8, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effect of visit, and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.7|-3.1|
90902597|NCT03954158|181672568|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.2||||||Change at Day 8, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effect of visit, and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.2|-2.7|
90902598|NCT03954158|181672568|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.2||||||Change at Day 8, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effect of visit, and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.2|-2.2|
91031221|NCT01029353|181947132|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|2.36|||||RR: Initial Laparotomy over Peritoneal Drain. RR from robust Poisson regression with log link, reference cell coding, center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, and pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP) as covariates.|A frequentist analysis.||2.36|1.04|
91032851|NCT00050778|181951037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.31||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.151|0.658||An alpha-sharing approach was used to adjust for multiple treatment group comparisons, endpoints, and two pre-planned interim analyses, including a Lan-Demets error-spending function. Pre-specified threshold for statistical significance was 0.0165.|Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|||Cox PH regression model using treatment group, Baseline EDSS group (grouped by less than or equal to 1.5 and greater than 1.5), and country (investigative center grouped by country) as covariates was used.||0.658|0.151|0.0021
90855156|NCT04233034|181574770|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|14.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference (Verapamil - Placebo) at 52 weeks adjusted for age, days from T1D diagnosis to randomization, RCT intensive/standard care group, and clinical site.|||14|-8|0.95
90855157|NCT04233034|181574771|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.53|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.53|0.21|<0.001
90855158|NCT04233034|181574771|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.03||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.32|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.32|-0.26|0.79
90855159|NCT04233034|181574773|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|-9.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference (HCL - Non-HCL) at 52 weeks adjusted for age, days from T1D diagnosis to randomization, RCT drug group, and clinical site.|||-9|-22|<0.001
90855160|NCT04233034|181574773|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|9.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference at 52 weeks (verapamil - placebo) adjusted for age, days from T1D diagnosis to randomization, RCT intensive/standard care group, and clinical site.|||9|-13|0.74
90855161|NCT04233034|181574774|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|-1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference (HCL - Non-HCL) at 52 weeks adjusted for age, days from T1D diagnosis to randomization, RCT drug group, and clinical site.|||-1|-7|0.003
90855162|NCT04233034|181574774|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|4.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference (verapamil - placebo) at 52 weeks adjusted for age, days from T1D diagnosis to randomization, RCT intensive/standard care group, and clinical site.|||4|-6|0.74
90902599|NCT03954158|181672568|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-0.5||||||Change at Day 8, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effect of visit, and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.5|-2.8|
90902600|NCT03954158|181672568|OTHER||Difference of least square mean|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.3||||||Change at Day 8, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen, visit, dosing regimen-by-visit interaction, and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||1.3|-1.5|
90855163|NCT04233034|181574775|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.17|||Regression, Linear||Mean difference (HCL - Non-HCL) at 52 weeks adjusted for age, days from T1D diagnosis to randomization, RCT drug group, and clinical site.|||0.17|-0.04|0.23
90855164|NCT04233034|181574775|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.6|||Regression, Linear||Mean difference (Verapamil - Placebo) at 52 weeks adjusted for age, days from T1D diagnosis to randomization, RCT intensive/standard care group, and clinical site.|||0.6|-1.0|0.79
90855165|NCT04233034|181574776|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.7|||Regression, Linear||Mean difference (HCL - Non-HCL) at 52 weeks adjusted for age, days from T1D diagnosis to randomization, RCT drug group, and clinical site.|||0.7|-0.3|0.39
90855166|NCT04233034|181574776|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.6|||Regression, Linear||Mean difference (Verapamil - Placebo) at 52 weeks adjusted for age, days from T1D diagnosis to randomization, RCT intensive/standard care group, and clinical site.|||0.6|-1.0|0.74
90855167|NCT04233034|181574778|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference (HCL - Non-HCL) at 52 weeks adjusted for age, days from T1D diagnosis to randomization, RCT drug group, and clinical site.|||-0.3|-1.1|<0.001
90855168|NCT04233034|181574778|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference (Verapamil - Placebo) at 52 weeks adjusted for age, days from T1D diagnosis to randomization, RCT intensive/standard care group, and clinical site.|||0.4|-1.0|0.65
90855169|NCT04233034|181574781|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference (HCL - Non-HCL) at 52 weeks adjusted for age, days from T1D diagnosis to randomization, RCT drug group, and clinical site.|||0.20|-0.01|0.07
90855170|NCT04233034|181574781|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference (Verapamil - Placebo) at 52 weeks adjusted for age, days from T1D diagnosis to randomization, RCT intensive/standard care group, and clinical site.|||0.05|-0.30|0.52
90855171|NCT05523323|181574818|OTHER||Estimate difference|29.5||||0.0002014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.0|43.9|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|One-sided p-value was calculated using the unstratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|The exact binomial method by Clopper and Pearson was used to generate the estimate difference and the associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|||43.9|14.0|0.0002014
90902601|NCT03954158|181672568|OTHER||Difference of least square mean|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.0||||||Change at Day 8, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen, visit, dosing regimen-by-visit interaction, and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||1.0|-1.2|
90902602|NCT03954158|181672569|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.1||||||Change at Day 8, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effect of visit, and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.1|-0.9|
90902603|NCT03954158|181672569|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.0||||||Change at Day 8, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effect of visit, and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.0|-0.9|
90902604|NCT03954158|181672569|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.1||||||Change at Day 8, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effect of visit, and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.1|-0.8|
90902605|NCT03954158|181672569|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.0||||||Change at Day 8, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effect of visit, and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.0|-0.8|
90902606|NCT03954158|181672569|OTHER||Difference of least square mean|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.6||||||Change at Day 8, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen, visit, dosing regimen-by-visit interaction, and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.6|-0.4|
90902607|NCT03954158|181672569|OTHER||Difference of least square mean|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.7||||||Change at Day 8, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen, visit, dosing regimen-by-visit interaction, and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.7|-0.3|
90902608|NCT03954158|181672569|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.4||||||Change at Day 15, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effect of visit, and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.4|-1.4|
90902609|NCT03954158|181672569|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.2||||||Change at Day 15, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effect of visit, and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.2|-1.2|
90902610|NCT03954158|181672569|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.2||||||Change at Day 15, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effect of visit, and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.2|-1.2|
90902611|NCT03954158|181672569|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.6||||||Change at Day 15, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effect of visit, and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.6|-1.4|
90958461|NCT03486457|181796724|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.069||0.0475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1, Usual Activities: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||0.00|-0.27|0.0475
90958462|NCT03486457|181796724|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066||0.0537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1, Pain/Discomfort: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||0.00|-0.26|0.0537
90958463|NCT03486457|181796724|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062||0.1977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1, Anxiety/Depression: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||0.04|-0.20|0.1977
90902612|NCT03954158|181672569|OTHER||Difference of least square mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.6||||||Change at Day 15, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen, visit, dosing regimen-by-visit interaction, and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.6|-0.5|
90902613|NCT03954158|181672569|OTHER||Difference of least square mean|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.5||||||Change at Day 15, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen, visit, dosing regimen-by-visit interaction, and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.5|-0.7|
90902614|NCT03954158|181672570|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.2||||||Change at Day 2, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effect of day, and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.2|-1.0|
90902615|NCT03954158|181672570|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.5||||||Change at Day 2, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effect of day, and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.5|-0.7|
90902616|NCT03954158|181672570|OTHER||Difference of least squares mean|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.7||||||Change at Day 2, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen, day, dosing regimen-by-day interaction, and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||1.7|-0.5|
90902617|NCT03954158|181672570|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.1||||||Change at Day 3, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effect of day, and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.1|-1.3|
90902618|NCT03954158|181672570|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.4||||||Change at Day 3, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effect of day, and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.4|-0.9|
90902619|NCT03954158|181672570|OTHER||Difference of least square mean|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.3||||||Change at Day 3, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen, day, dosing regimen-by-day interaction, and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||1.3|-0.9|
90902620|NCT03954158|181672570|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.5||||||Change at Day 4, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effect of day, and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.5|-2.1|
90902621|NCT03954158|181672570|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.1||||||Change at Day 4, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effect of day, and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.1|-1.5|
90902622|NCT03954158|181672570|OTHER||Difference of least square mean|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.4||||||Change at Day 4, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen, day, dosing regimen-by-day interaction, and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||1.4|-0.6|
90902623|NCT03954158|181672570|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.3||||||Change at Day 5, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effect of day, and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.3|-1.9|
90902624|NCT03954158|181672570|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.1||||||Change at Day 5, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effect of day, and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.1|-1.5|
90902625|NCT03954158|181672570|OTHER||Difference of least square mean|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.0||||||Change at Day 5, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen, day, dosing regimen-by-day interaction, and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||1.0|-1.1|
90902626|NCT03954158|181672570|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.4||||||Change at Day 6, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effect of day, and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.4|-2.1|
90902627|NCT03954158|181672570|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.4||||||Change at Day 6, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effect of day, and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.4|-1.1|
90958464|NCT03486457|181796724|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.064||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3, Mobility: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-0.13|-0.38|0.0001
90855172|NCT05523323|181574819|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.34||||3.7e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.55|||unstratified Log-rank test.|One-sided p-value was calculated using unstratified Log-rank test.|The unstratified Cox-Regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as covariate was used to generate Hazard Ratio (HR) and the associated 95%CI.|||0.55|0.21|0.0000037
90855173|NCT05523323|181574820|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.30933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.54|||Unstratified Log-rank test|One-sided p-value was calculated using unstratified Log-rank test.|The unstratified Cox-Regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as covariate was used to generate Hazard Ratio (HR) and the associated 95%CI.|||1.54|0.49|0.30933
90855174|NCT05654441|181574824|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90855175|NCT05654441|181574825|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90855176|NCT05654441|181574826|OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.007
90855177|NCT05654441|181574827|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90855178|NCT05654441|181574828|OTHER|||||||0.886|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.886
90855179|NCT05654441|181574829|OTHER|||||||0.666|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.666
90855180|NCT05654441|181574830|OTHER|||||||0.522|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.522
90855181|NCT05654441|181574831|OTHER|||||||0.438|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.438
90855182|NCT05654441|181574832|OTHER|||||||0.181|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.181
90855183|NCT05654441|181574833|OTHER|||||||0.833|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.833
90855184|NCT05654441|181574834|OTHER|||||||0.455|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.455
90855185|NCT01117051|181574844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.305||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.305
90855186|NCT03355664|181574895|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.9|||Regression, Cox|||||1.9|0.2|0.38
90855187|NCT02821910|181574929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio (%)|96.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.89|100.66|||||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the adjusted gMean ratio of T1 divided by R1. Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|The statistical model used was an Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||100.66|92.89|
90855188|NCT02821910|181574929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio (%)|100.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.8|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.99|103.7|||||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the adjusted gMean ratio of T2 divided by R2. Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|The statistical model used was an Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||103.70|97.99|
90902628|NCT03954158|181672570|OTHER||Difference of least square mean|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.5||||||Change at Day 6, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen, day, dosing regimen-by-day interaction, and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||1.5|-0.6|
90902629|NCT03954158|181672570|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.1||||||Change at Day 7, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effect of day, and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.1|-2.3|
90902630|NCT03954158|181672570|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.2||||||Change at Day 7, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effect of day, and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.2|-1.0|
90902631|NCT03954158|181672570|OTHER||Difference of least square mean|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.3||||||Change at Day 7, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen, day, dosing regimen-by-day interaction, and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||1.3|-0.6|
90902632|NCT03954158|181672570|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.3||||||Change at Day 8, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effect of day, and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.3|-2.0|
90902633|NCT03954158|181672570|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.1||||||Change at Day 8, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effect of day, and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.1|-1.3|
90902634|NCT03954158|181672570|OTHER||Difference of least square mean|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.2||||||Change at Day 8, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen, day, dosing regimen-by-day interaction, and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||1.2|-0.6|
90902635|NCT03954158|181672570|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.9||||||Change at Day 9, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effect of day, and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.9|-2.4|
90902636|NCT03954158|181672570|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.7||||||Change at Day 9, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effect of day, and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.7|-1.5|
90902637|NCT03954158|181672570|OTHER||Difference of least square mean|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.6||||||Change at Day 9, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen, day, dosing regimen-by-day interaction, and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||1.6|-0.7|
90902638|NCT03954158|181672570|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.9||||||Change at Day 10, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effect of day, and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.9|-2.3|
90958465|NCT03486457|181796724|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|-0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3, Self-Care: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-0.07|-0.29|0.0018
90902639|NCT03954158|181672570|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.1||||||Change at Day 10, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effect of day, and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.1|-2.1|
90902640|NCT03954158|181672570|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Mean|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.2||||||Change at Day 10, Inter-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen, day, dosing regimen-by-day interaction, and baseline value, and the covariance structure UN was used.||1.2|-0.8|
90958466|NCT03486457|181796724|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3, Usual Activities: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-0.19|-0.47|<0.0001
90958467|NCT03486457|181796724|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.073||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3, Pain/Discomfort: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-0.14|-0.42|0.0002
90958468|NCT03486457|181796724|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063||0.0835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3, Anxiety/Depression: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||0.01|-0.23|0.0835
90958469|NCT03486457|181796724|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056||0.0825|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6, Mobility: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||0.01|-0.21|0.0825
90958470|NCT03486457|181796724|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049||0.5616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6, Self-Care: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||0.07|-0.13|0.5616
90958471|NCT03486457|181796724|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.065||0.0748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6, Usual Activities: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||0.01|-0.24|0.0748
90958472|NCT03486457|181796724|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.9477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6, Pain/Discomfort: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||0.16|-0.15|0.9477
90902641|NCT03954158|181672570|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.0||||||Change at Day 11, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effect of day, and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.0|-1.7|
90902642|NCT03954158|181672570|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.7||||||Change at Day 11, Intra-participant: MMRM included the fixed effect of day, and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.7|-2.3|
90902643|NCT03954158|181672570|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Mean|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.1||||||Change at Day 11, Inter-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen, day, dosing regimen-by-day interaction, and baseline value, and the covariance structure UN was used.||1.1|-0.7|
90902644|NCT03954158|181672570|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.5||||||Change at Day 12, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effect of day, and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.5|-2.0|
90902645|NCT03954158|181672570|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.0||||||Change at Day 12, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effect of day, and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.0|-2.0|
90902646|NCT03954158|181672570|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Mean|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.2||||||Change at Day 12, Inter-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen, day, dosing regimen-by-day interaction, and baseline value, and the covariance structure UN was used.||1.2|-0.9|
90902647|NCT03954158|181672570|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.3||||||Change at Day 13, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effect of day, and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.3|-1.8|
90902648|NCT03954158|181672570|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.1||||||Change at Day 13, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effect of day, and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.1|-2.0|
90902649|NCT03954158|181672570|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Mean|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.9||||||Change at Day 13, Inter-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen, day, dosing regimen-by-day interaction, and baseline value, and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.9|-1.3|
90855189|NCT02821910|181574929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio (%)|99.83|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.96|103.85|||||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the adjusted gMean ratio of T3 divided by R3. Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|The statistical model used was an Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||103.85|95.96|
91032852|NCT00050778|181951037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.152|0.515|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|||Cox PH regression model using treatment group, Baseline EDSS group (grouped by less than or equal to 1.5 and greater than 1.5), and country (investigative center grouped by country) as covariates was used.||0.515|0.152|<0.0001
90855190|NCT02821910|181574930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio (%)|96.82|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.65|103.42|||||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the adjusted gMean ratio of T1 divided by R1. Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|The statistical model used was an Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||103.42|90.65|
90855191|NCT02821910|181574930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio (%)|95.67|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.44|104.68|||||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the adjusted gMean ratio of T2 divided by R2. Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|The statistical model used was an Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||104.68|87.44|
90855192|NCT02821910|181574930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio (%)|98.47|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.12|105.25|||||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the adjusted gMean ratio of T3 divided by R3. Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|The statistical model used was an Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||105.25|92.12|
90855193|NCT02821910|181574931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio (%)|94.94|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.8|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.6|104.08|||||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the adjusted gMean ratio of T1 divided by R1. Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|The statistical model used was an Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||104.08|86.60|
90855194|NCT02821910|181574931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio (%)|106.63|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.65|112.96|||||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the adjusted gMean ratio of T2 divided by R2. Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|The statistical model used was an Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||112.96|100.65|
90855195|NCT02821910|181574931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio (%)|100.41|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.54|106.64|||||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the adjusted gMean ratio of T3 divided by R3. Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|The statistical model used was an Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||106.64|94.54|
90855196|NCT02821910|181574932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio (%)|97.97|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.46|104.94|||||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the adjusted gMean ratio of T1 divided by R1. Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|The statistical model used was an Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||104.94|91.46|
90902650|NCT03954158|181672570|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.5||||||Change at Day 14, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effect of day, and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.5|-1.9|
90902651|NCT03954158|181672570|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.1||||||Change at Day 14, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effect of day, and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.1|-1.8|
90902652|NCT03954158|181672570|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Mean|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.7||||||Change at Day 14, Inter-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen, day, dosing regimen-by-day interaction, and baseline value, and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.7|-1.5|
90902653|NCT03954158|181672570|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.8||||||Change at Day 15, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effect of day, and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.8|-2.2|
90902654|NCT03954158|181672570|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.0||||||Change at Day 15, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effect of visit, and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.0|-1.5|
91104356|NCT02539394|182094894|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.114|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of POD2 SWAL-QOL - Fatigue is the same across the 2 arms||||0.114
90958473|NCT03486457|181796724|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067||0.3829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6, Anxiety/Depression: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||0.19|-0.07|0.3829
90902655|NCT03954158|181672570|OTHER||Difference of least square mean|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.8||||||Change at Day 15, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen, day, dosing regimen-by-day interaction, and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.8|-1.4|
90902656|NCT03954158|181672571|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.2||||||Change at Day 2, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.2|-1.0|
90902657|NCT03954158|181672571|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.5||||||Change at Day 2, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures includes the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure AR1 is used.||0.5|-1.1|
90902658|NCT03954158|181672571|OTHER||Difference of least squares mean|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.1||||||Change at Day 2, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen day dosing regimen-by-day interaction and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||1.1|-0.5|
90902659|NCT03954158|181672571|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.7||||||Change at Day 3, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.7|-0.6|
90902660|NCT03954158|181672571|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.2||||||Change at Day 3, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures includes the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure AR1 is used.||0.2|-1.5|
90902661|NCT03954158|181672571|OTHER||Difference of least squares mean|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.5||||||Change at Day 3, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen day dosing regimen-by-day interaction and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.5|-1.0|
90958474|NCT03486457|181796725|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|6.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.084||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|10.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||10.12|1.90|0.0044
90958475|NCT03486457|181796725|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|10.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.578|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.71|15.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||15.88|5.71|<0.0001
91104357|NCT02539394|182094894|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of 4-6 weeks SWAL-QOL - Fatigue is the same across the 2 arms||||0.005
90902662|NCT03954158|181672571|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52|||TWO_SIDED|96.0|-1.1|1.1||||||Change at Day 4, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||1.1|-1.1|
90958476|NCT03486457|181796725|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.442||0.7062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|5.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||5.74|-3.90|0.7062
90958477|NCT03486457|181796726|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.404||0.7228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.92|5.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3, Work Time Missed: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||5.63|-3.92|0.7228
90902663|NCT03954158|181672571|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.8||||||Change at Day 4, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures includes the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure AR1 is used.||0.8|-0.8|
90902664|NCT03954158|181672571|OTHER||Difference of least squares mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.8||||||Change at Day 4, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen day dosing regimen-by-day interaction and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.8|-0.9|
90902665|NCT03954158|181672571|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.3||||||Change at Day 5, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.3|-1.2|
90902666|NCT03954158|181672571|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.4||||||Change at Day 5, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures includes the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure AR1 is used.||0.4|-1.2|
90902667|NCT03954158|181672571|OTHER||Difference of least squares mean|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.0||||||Change at Day 5, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen day dosing regimen-by-day interaction and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||1.0|-0.8|
90902668|NCT03954158|181672571|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.6||||||Change at Day 6, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.6|-1.2|
90902669|NCT03954158|181672571|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.7||||||Change at Day 6, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures includes the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure AR1 is used.||0.7|-0.9|
90902670|NCT03954158|181672571|OTHER||Difference of least squares mean|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.8||||||Change at Day 6, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen day dosing regimen-by-day interaction and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.8|-0.5|
90902671|NCT03954158|181672571|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.9||||||Change at Day 7, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.9|-1.0|
90902672|NCT03954158|181672571|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.7||||||Change at Day 7, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures includes the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure AR1 is used.||0.7|-1.0|
90902673|NCT03954158|181672571|OTHER||Difference of least squares mean|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.5||||||Change at Day 7, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen day dosing regimen-by-day interaction and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.5|-1.2|
90902674|NCT03954158|181672571|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.5||||||Change at Day 8, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.5|-1.3|
90902675|NCT03954158|181672571|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.2||||||Change at Day 8, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures includes the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure AR1 is used.||0.2|-1.4|
90902676|NCT03954158|181672571|OTHER||Difference of least squares mean|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.8||||||Change at Day 8, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen day dosing regimen-by-day interaction and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.8|-0.5|
90902677|NCT03954158|181672571|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.6||||||Change at Day 9, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.6|-1.2|
90902678|NCT03954158|181672571|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.4||||||Change at Day 9, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures includes the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure AR1 is used.||0.4|-1.2|
90902679|NCT03954158|181672571|OTHER||Difference of least squares mean|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.1||||||Change at Day 9, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen day dosing regimen-by-day interaction and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.1|-1.2|
91100166|NCT02021318|182086712|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.422|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.254|0.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6- The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline eGFR and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.590|0.254|<0.001
91100167|NCT02021318|182086712|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.205|0.556|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8- The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline eGFR and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.556|0.205|<0.001
90902680|NCT03954158|181672571|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.7||||||Change at Day 10, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.7|-1.3|
90902681|NCT03954158|181672571|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.6||||||Change at Day 10, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures includes the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure AR1 is used.||0.6|-1.0|
90902682|NCT03954158|181672571|OTHER||Difference of least squares mean|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.5||||||Change at Day 10, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen day dosing regimen-by-day interaction and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.5|-0.8|
90902683|NCT03954158|181672571|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.3||||||Change at Day 11, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.3|-1.6|
90902684|NCT03954158|181672571|OTHER||Difference of least squares mean|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.0||||||Change at Day 11, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen day dosing regimen-by-day interaction and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||1.0|-0.4|
90902685|NCT03954158|181672571|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.5||||||Change at Day 11, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures includes the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure AR1 is used.||0.5|-1.2|
90902686|NCT03954158|181672571|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.0||||||Change at Day 12, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.0|-1.9|
90902687|NCT03954158|181672571|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.2||||||Change at Day 12, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures includes the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure AR1 is used.||0.2|-1.5|
90902688|NCT03954158|181672571|OTHER||Difference of least squares mean|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.5||||||Change at Day 12, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen day dosing regimen-by-day interaction and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.5|-1.0|
90902689|NCT03954158|181672571|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.4||||||Change at Day 13, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.4|-1.5|
90902690|NCT03954158|181672571|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.2||||||Change at Day 13, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures includes the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure AR1 is used.||0.2|-1.5|
90902691|NCT03954158|181672571|OTHER||Least squares mean|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.3||||||Change at Day 13, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen day dosing regimen-by-day interaction and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.3|-1.1|
91100168|NCT02021318|182086712|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.155|0.505|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 10- The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline eGFR and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.505|0.155|<0.001
90958478|NCT03486457|181796726|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-6.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.561||0.1682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.39|2.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3, Impairment While Working: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||2.72|-15.39|0.1682
90855197|NCT02821910|181574932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio (%)|100.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.23|110.91|||||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the adjusted gMean ratio of T2 divided by R2. Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|The statistical model used was an Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||110.91|90.23|
90855198|NCT02821910|181574932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio (%)|101.24|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.58|108.38|||||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the adjusted gMean ratio of T3 divided by R3. Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|The statistical model used was an Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||108.38|94.58|
90855199|NCT02821910|181574933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio (%)|97.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.94|105.71|||||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the adjusted gMean ratio of T1 divided by R1. Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|The statistical model used was an Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||105.71|89.94|
90902692|NCT03954158|181672571|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.4||||||Change at Day 14, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.4|-1.4|
90902693|NCT03954158|181672571|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.5||||||Change at Day 14, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures includes the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure AR1 is used.||0.5|-1.1|
90902694|NCT03954158|181672571|OTHER||Difference of least squares mean|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.6||||||Change at Day 14, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen day dosing regimen-by-day interaction and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.6|-1.0|
90902695|NCT03954158|181672571|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.5||||||Change at Day 15, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.5|-0.9|
90902696|NCT03954158|181672571|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.5||||||Change at Day 15, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures includes the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure AR1 is used.||0.5|-1.2|
90902697|NCT03954158|181672571|OTHER||Difference of least squares mean|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.6||||||Change at Day 15, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen day dosing regimen-by-day interaction and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.6|-1.0|
90958479|NCT03486457|181796726|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-6.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.707||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.56|3.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3, Overall Work Impairment: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||3.13|-15.56|0.1900
90958480|NCT03486457|181796726|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.581||0.6757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.22|4.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6, Work Time Missed: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||4.05|-6.22|0.6757
90902698|NCT03954158|181672572|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.7||||||Change at Day 2, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.7|-0.9|
90902699|NCT03954158|181672572|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.0||||||Change at Day 2, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||1.0|-0.6|
90902700|NCT03954158|181672572|OTHER||Difference of least squares mean|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.2||||||Change at Day 2, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen day dosing regimen-by-day interaction and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||1.2|-0.8|
90902701|NCT03954158|181672572|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.5||||||Change at Day 3, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.5|-0.9|
90902702|NCT03954158|181672572|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.0||||||Change at Day 3, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||1.0|-1.5|
90902703|NCT03954158|181672572|OTHER||Difference of least squares mean|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.5||||||Change at Day 3, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen day dosing regimen-by-day interaction and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.5|-1.6|
90902704|NCT03954158|181672572|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.8||||||Change at Day 4, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.8|-1.1|
90902705|NCT03954158|181672572|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.1||||||Change at Day 4, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||1.1|-1.5|
90958481|NCT03486457|181796726|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.905||0.6285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.13|7.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6, Impairment While Working: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||7.37|-12.13|0.6285
91100169|NCT02021318|182086712|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.3||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.119|0.482|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12- The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline eGFR and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.482|0.119|0.001
90855200|NCT02821910|181574933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio (%)|117.31|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.41|133.07|||||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the adjusted gMean ratio of T2 divided by R2. Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|The statistical model used was an Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||133.07|103.41|
90855201|NCT02821910|181574933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio (%)|102.74|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.56|107.1|||||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the adjusted gMean ratio of T3 divided by R3. Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|The statistical model used was an Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||107.10|98.56|
90855202|NCT02821910|181574934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio (%)|96.34|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.13|100.75|||||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the adjusted gMean ratio of T1 divided by R1. Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|The statistical model used was an Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||100.75|92.13|
90855203|NCT02821910|181574934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio (%)|105.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.95|110.45|||||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the adjusted gMean ratio of T2 divided by R2. Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|The statistical model used was an Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||110.45|99.95|
90855204|NCT02821910|181574934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio (%)|100.31|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.41|104.38|||||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the adjusted gMean ratio of T3 divided by R3. Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|The statistical model used was an Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||104.38|96.41|
90855205|NCT02821910|181574935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio (%)|96.63|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.8|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.86|100.54|||||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the adjusted gMean ratio of T1 divided by R1. Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|The statistical model used was an Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||100.54|92.86|
90855206|NCT02821910|181574935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio (%)|100.87|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.96|103.86|||||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the adjusted gMean ratio of T2 divided by R2. Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|The statistical model used was an Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||103.86|97.96|
90855207|NCT02821910|181574935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio (%)|99.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.81|103.86|||||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the adjusted gMean ratio of T3 divided by R3. Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|The statistical model used was an Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||103.86|95.81|
90855208|NCT02821910|181574936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio (%)|96.57|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.94|102.56|||||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the adjusted gMean ratio of T1 divided by R1. Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|The statistical model used was an Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||102.56|90.94|
91100170|NCT02021318|182086712|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.159||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.018|0.336|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 14- The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline eGFR and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.336|-0.018|0.079
91100171|NCT02021318|182086712|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.183||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.005|0.361|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16- The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline eGFR and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.361|0.005|0.044
91100172|NCT02021318|182086712|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.173||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.336|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 18- The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline eGFR and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.336|0.010|0.037
90855209|NCT02821910|181574936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio (%)|95.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.5|104.01|||||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the adjusted gMean ratio of T2 divided by R2. Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|The statistical model used was an Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||104.01|87.50|
91100173|NCT02021318|182086712|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.085||||0.319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.083|0.253|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 20- The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline eGFR and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.253|-0.083|0.319
91100174|NCT02021318|182086712|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.03||||0.709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.129|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 22- The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline eGFR and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.129|-0.190|0.709
91100175|NCT02021318|182086712|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.061||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.219|0.097|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24- The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline eGFR and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.097|-0.219|0.450
91100176|NCT02021318|182086712|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.065||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.231|0.101|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 28- The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline eGFR and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.101|-0.231|0.440
91100177|NCT02021318|182086712|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.014||||0.874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.157|0.184|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 32- The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline eGFR and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.184|-0.157|0.874
91100178|NCT02021318|182086712|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.131||||0.132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.039|0.302|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 36- The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline eGFR and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.302|-0.039|0.132
90902706|NCT03954158|181672572|OTHER||Difference of least squares mean|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.6||||||Change at Day 4, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen day dosing regimen-by-day interaction and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.6|-2.4|
90902707|NCT03954158|181672572|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.5||||||Change at Day 5, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.5|-2.2|
91100179|NCT02021318|182086712|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.187||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.024|0.351|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 40- The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline eGFR and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.351|0.024|0.024
91100180|NCT02021318|182086712|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.022||||0.807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.153|0.197|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 44- The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline eGFR and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.197|-0.153|0.807
91100181|NCT02021318|182086712|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.012||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.185|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48- The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline eGFR and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.185|-0.160|0.890
91100182|NCT02021318|182086712|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.029||||0.746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.201|0.144|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52- The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline eGFR and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.144|-0.201|0.746
91100183|NCT02021318|182086712|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.032||||0.715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.202|0.139|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 56- The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline eGFR and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.139|-0.202|0.715
90902708|NCT03954158|181672572|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.5||||||Change at Day 5, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||1.5|-1.3|
91100184|NCT02021318|182086712|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.066||||0.463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.242|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 60- The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline eGFR and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.242|-0.110|0.463
91100185|NCT02021318|182086712|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.002||||0.987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.187|0.184|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 64- The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline eGFR and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.184|-0.187|0.987
91100186|NCT02021318|182086712|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.104||||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.074|0.281|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 68- The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline eGFR and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.281|-0.074|0.251
91100187|NCT02021318|182086712|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.067||||0.473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.117|0.251|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 72- The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline eGFR and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.251|-0.117|0.473
90855210|NCT02821910|181574936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio (%)|98.45|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.44|104.85|||||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the adjusted gMean ratio of T3 divided by R3. Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|The statistical model used was an Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||104.85|92.44|
90855211|NCT02821910|181574937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio (%)|95.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.36|103.48|||||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the adjusted gMean ratio of T1 divided by R1. Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|The statistical model used was an Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||103.48|87.36|
90855212|NCT02821910|181574937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio (%)|105.72|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.78|113.15|||||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the adjusted gMean ratio of T2 divided by R2. Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|The statistical model used was an Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||113.15|98.78|
90855213|NCT02821910|181574937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio (%)|101.61|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.0|112.22|||||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the adjusted gMean ratio of T3 divided by R3. Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|The statistical model used was an Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||112.22|92.00|
90855214|NCT04218123|181574938|EQUIVALENCE|p value \<0.05 required to be considered nonequivalent|||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90855215|NCT04218123|181574938|EQUIVALENCE|p value of \<0.05 required for result to be considered nonequivalent|||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|Anova Post Hoc Analysis||||||<0.05
90855216|NCT04218123|181574938|EQUIVALENCE|p value of \<0.05 required for result to be considered nonequivalent|||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|Anova Post Hoc Analysis||||||<0.05
90855217|NCT04218123|181574938|EQUIVALENCE|p value of \<0.05 required for result to be considered nonequivalent|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|Anova Post Hoc Analysis||||||>0.05
90855218|NCT04218123|181574940|EQUIVALENCE|p value \<0.05 required to be considered nonequivalent|||||=|0.31|||||||ANOVA|||SF20 Physical Functioning||||=0.31
90855219|NCT04218123|181574940|EQUIVALENCE|p value of \<0.05 required for result to be considered nonequivalent||||||0.633|||||||ANOVA|||SF20 Role Functioning||||0.633
90855220|NCT04218123|181574940|EQUIVALENCE|p value of \<0.05 required for result to be considered nonequivalent||||||0.424|||||||ANOVA|||SF20 Mental Health||||0.424
90855221|NCT04218123|181574940|EQUIVALENCE|p value of \<0.05 required for result to be considered nonequivalent||||||0.057|||||||ANOVA|||SF20 Social Functioning||||0.057
90855222|NCT04218123|181574940|EQUIVALENCE|p value of \<0.05 required for result to be considered nonequivalent||||||0.296|||||||ANOVA|||SF20 Health Perceptions||||0.296
90855223|NCT04218123|181574940|EQUIVALENCE|p value of \<0.05 required for result to be considered nonequivalent||||||0.872|||||||ANOVA|||SF20 Pain||||0.872
90855224|NCT04218123|181574941|EQUIVALENCE|p value \<0.05 required to be considered nonequivalent|||||=|0.538|||||||ANOVA|||||||=0.538
90855225|NCT04218123|181574942|EQUIVALENCE|p value \<0.05 required to be considered nonequivalent|||||=|0.686|||||||ANOVA|||||||=0.686
90855226|NCT04218123|181574943|EQUIVALENCE|p value \<0.05 required to be considered nonequivalent|||||=|0.167|||||||ANOVA|||||||=0.167
90855227|NCT04218123|181574944|EQUIVALENCE|p value \<0.05 required to be considered nonequivalent|||||=|0.8|||||||ANOVA|||||||=0.8
90855228|NCT04218123|181574945|EQUIVALENCE|p value \<0.05 required to be considered nonequivalent|||||=|0.425|||||||ANOVA|||||||=0.425
90902709|NCT03954158|181672572|OTHER||Difference of least squares mean|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.2||||||Change at Day 5, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen day dosing regimen-by-day interaction and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||1.2|-1.7|
90958482|NCT03486457|181796726|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.333||0.6228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.23|7.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6, Overall Work Impairment: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||7.97|-13.23|0.6228
90855229|NCT04218123|181574946|EQUIVALENCE|p value \<0.05 required to be considered nonequivalent.|||||=|0.054|||||||ANOVA|||||||=0.054
90855230|NCT01082640|181574952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.134||0.459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.17||No adjustment for multiplicity was made.|ANCOVA|The model included treatment as a factor, and the baseline value and prior use of an ARB or an ACEi or none as covariates.||All statistical tests were two sided and conducted at the 0.05 significance level.||0.17|-0.37|0.459
90855231|NCT01082640|181574952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.133||0.789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.3||No adjustment for multiplicity was made.|ANCOVA|The model included treatment as a factor, and the baseline value and prior use of an ARB or an ACEi or none as covariates.||All statistical tests were two sided and conducted at the 0.05 significance level.||0.30|-0.23|0.789
90855232|NCT01082640|181574953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.687||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|5.73||No adjustment for multiplicity was made.|ANCOVA|The model included treatment as a factor, and the baseline value and prior use of an ARB or an ACEi or none as covariates.||||5.73|-0.97|0.162
90902710|NCT03954158|181672572|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.0||||||Change at Day 6, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.0|-2.0|
91031222|NCT01029353|181947132|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||A Bayesian analysis. Initial Laparotomy and Initial Peritoneal Drain were compared using log-binomial regression. The SAS procedure PROC MCMC with reference cell coding was used. Center (random effect), treatment, pre-operative diagnosis, and baseline risk of death or NDI were binary covariates. Pre-operative diagnosis levels were NEC and IP. Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) characteristics: three chains, 10000 tunings, 10000 burn-ins, 1000000 samples, thinning=20.|Priors for model parameters: intercept = Normal(mean=0, variance=100), baseline risk and preop diagnosis parameters = Normal(mean=0, variance=1), treatment and the interaction term = Normal(mean=0, variance=0.31416), random effect standard deviation = Half-Normal(mean=0, variance=10). The posterior median relative risk of Initial Laparotomy over Initial Drainage was 1.45, 95% credible interval of (0.92, 2.31).|||
91031223|NCT01029353|181947133|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|3.5|||||RR: Initial Laparotomy over Peritoneal Drain. RR from robust Poisson regression with log link, reference cell coding, center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, and pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP) as covariates.|A frequentist analysis.||3.50|0.71|
91100188|NCT02021318|182086712|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.022||||0.813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.204|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 76- The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline eGFR and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.160|-0.204|0.813
90855233|NCT01082640|181574953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.698||0.485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|4.57||No adjustment for multiplicity was made.|ANCOVA|The model included treatment as a factor, and the baseline value and prior use of an ARB or an ACEi or none as covariates.||||4.57|-2.18|0.485
90855234|NCT01082640|181574954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Prior use of an ARB, ACEi, or none was a stratification variable.||||||<0.001
90855235|NCT01082640|181574954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Prior use of an ARB, ACEi, or none was a stratification variable.||||||<0.001
90855236|NCT01082640|181574954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.062|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Prior use of an ARB, ACEi, or none was a stratification variable.||||||0.062
90855237|NCT03577171|181574966|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.154||||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.986|-0.322|||Repeated measures analysis|||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference ABI-H0731 + SOC ETV minus Placebo + SOC ETV at Week 12||-0.322|-1.986|0.0077
90855238|NCT03577171|181574966|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.141||||0.0084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.973|-0.309|||Repeated measures analysis|||Least Squares Mean Difference ABI-H0731 + SOC ETV minus Placebo + SOC ETV at Week 24||-0.309|-1.973|0.0084
90855239|NCT03190369|181574998|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|0.125|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.144|0.395||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|Least-square (LS) means, standard errors (SE) were analyzed from repeated measures ANCOVA.||Least-square (LS) means, standard errors (SE) were analyzed from repeated measures analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). The model included treatment groups (Hylan G-F 20 and placebo), site, visit and visit by treatment interaction, as well as the baseline WOMAC A1 score as a covariate).||0.395|-0.144|0.3610
90855240|NCT00048061|181575056|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The monthly dosing regimen (Ibandronate 50/50 mg monthly) was considered non-inferior to the 2.5 mg daily regimen if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI on the difference in mean percent change in BMD was greater or equal to -1 percentage point.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.615||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.013|1.216|||ANOVA||Treatment effect is the difference in the mean values of the monthly oral dose regimens (Ibandronate 50/50) and the active-control.|||1.216|0.013|0.045
90855241|NCT00048061|181575056|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The monthly dosing regimen (Ibandronate 100 mg) was considered non-inferior to the 2.5 mg daily regimen if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI on the difference in mean percent change in BMD was greater or equal to -1 percentage point.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.297||||0.338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.312|0.906|||ANOVA||Treatment effect is the difference in the mean values of the monthly oral dose regimens (Ibandronate 100 mg) and the active-control|||0.906|-0.312|0.338
90855242|NCT00048061|181575056|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The monthly dosing regimen (Ibandronate 150 mg) was considered non-inferior to the 2.5 mg daily regimen if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI on the difference in mean percent change in BMD was greater or equal to -1 percentage point.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.395|1.605|||ANOVA||Treatment effect is the difference in the mean values of the monthly oral dose regimens (Ibandronate 150 mg) and the active-control.|||1.605|0.395|0.001
90855243|NCT03475875|181575078|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of -5 points was used. This margin is based on a 10% shift in the distribution of CLUE scores.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.73|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|-0.9|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger Method was used for the Degrees of Freedom|Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|It was calculated that 80 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the two sequences would have at least 90% power to detect a 5 points difference in mean overall comfort at the 2-week follow-up. Sample size was determined using Stroup's Method (alpha=0.05).||-0.9|-7.7|
90855244|NCT03475875|181575079|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of -5 points was used. This margin is based on a 10% shift in the distribution of CLUE scores.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.43|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|1.0|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger Method was used for the Degrees of Freedom|Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|It was calculated that 80 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the two sequences would have at least 90% power to detect a 5 points difference in mean overall comfort at the 2-week follow-up. Sample size was determined using Stroup's Method (alpha=0.05).||1.0|-4.7|
90902711|NCT03954158|181672572|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.5||||||Change at Day 6, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.5|-1.4|
90902712|NCT03954158|181672572|OTHER||Difference of least squares mean|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.8||||||Change at Day 6, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen day dosing regimen-by-day interaction and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.8|-1.7|
90902713|NCT03954158|181672572|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.2||||||Change at Day 7, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.2|-2.0|
91031224|NCT01029353|181947133|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||A Bayesian analysis. Initial Laparotomy and Initial Peritoneal Drain were compared using log-binomial regression. The SAS procedure PROC MCMC with reference cell coding was used. Center (random effect), treatment, pre-operative diagnosis, and baseline risk of death or NDI were binary covariates. Pre-operative diagnosis levels were NEC and IP. Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) characteristics: three chains, 10000 tunings, 10000 burn-ins, 1000000 samples, thinning=20.|Priors for model parameters: intercept = Normal(mean=0, variance=100), baseline risk and preop diagnosis parameters = Normal(mean=0, variance=1), treatment and the interaction term = Normal(mean=0, variance=0.31416), random effect standard deviation = Half-Normal(mean=0, variance=10). The posterior median relative risk of Initial Laparotomy over Initial Drainage was 1.31, 95% credible interval of (0.66, 2.62).|||
91031225|NCT01029353|181947134|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||A frequentist analysis.|This analysis used model identical to other by treatment analyses for binary outcome. RR estimated from robust Poisson regression with log link, reference cell coding, center as repeated measure. RR: Initial Laparotomy over Peritoneal Drain. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, and pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP) as covariates. However, adjusted RR estimates could not be calculated due to the iteration limit being excessed in PROC GENMOD.|||
91031226|NCT01029353|181947134|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||A Bayesian analysis. Initial Laparotomy and Initial Peritoneal Drain were compared using log-binomial regression. The SAS procedure PROC MCMC with reference cell coding was used. Center (random effect), treatment, pre-operative diagnosis, and baseline risk of death or NDI were binary covariates. Pre-operative diagnosis levels were NEC and IP. Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) characteristics: three chains, 10000 tunings, 10000 burn-ins, 1000000 samples, thinning=20.|Priors for model parameters: intercept = Normal(mean=0, variance=100), baseline risk and preop diagnosis parameters = Normal(mean=0, variance=1), treatment and the interaction term = Normal(mean=0, variance=0.31416), random effect standard deviation = Half-Normal(mean=0, variance=10). The posterior median relative risk of Initial Laparotomy over Initial Drainage was 1.16, 95% credible interval of (0.50, 2.65).|||
91031227|NCT01029353|181947135|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|2.2|||||RR: Initial Laparotomy over Peritoneal Drain. RR from robust Poisson regression with log link, reference cell coding, center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, and pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP) as covariates.|A frequentist analysis.||2.20|0.34|
91031228|NCT01029353|181947135|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||A Bayesian analysis. Initial Laparotomy and Initial Peritoneal Drain were compared using log-binomial regression. The SAS procedure PROC MCMC with reference cell coding was used. Center (random effect), treatment, pre-operative diagnosis, and baseline risk of death or NDI were binary covariates. Pre-operative diagnosis levels were NEC and IP. Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) characteristics: three chains, 10000 tunings, 10000 burn-ins, 1000000 samples, thinning=20.|Priors for model parameters: intercept = Normal(mean=0, variance=100), baseline risk and preop diagnosis parameters = Normal(mean=0, variance=1), treatment and the interaction term = Normal(mean=0, variance=0.31416), random effect standard deviation = Half-Normal(mean=0, variance=10). The posterior median relative risk of Initial Laparotomy over Initial Drainage was 0.93, 95% credible interval of (0.45, 1.91).|||
91031229|NCT01029353|181947136|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.42|||||RR: Initial Laparotomy over Peritoneal Drain. RR from robust Poisson regression with log link, reference cell coding, center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, and pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP) as covariates.|A frequentist analysis.||1.42|0.37|
91031230|NCT01029353|181947136|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||A Bayesian analysis. Initial Laparotomy and Initial Peritoneal Drain were compared using log-binomial regression. The SAS procedure PROC MCMC with reference cell coding was used. Center (random effect), treatment, pre-operative diagnosis, and baseline risk of death or NDI were binary covariates. Pre-operative diagnosis levels were NEC and IP. Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) characteristics: three chains, 10000 tunings, 10000 burn-ins, 1000000 samples, thinning=20.|Priors for model parameters: intercept = Normal(mean=0, variance=100), baseline risk and preop diagnosis parameters = Normal(mean=0, variance=1), treatment and the interaction term = Normal(mean=0, variance=0.31416), random effect standard deviation = Half-Normal(mean=0, variance=10). The posterior median relative risk of Initial Laparotomy over Initial Drainage was 0.75, 95% credible interval of (0.48, 1.16).|||
91031231|NCT01029353|181947137|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.15|||||RR: Initial Laparotomy over Peritoneal Drain. RR from robust Poisson regression with log link, reference cell coding, center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, and pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP) as covariates.|A frequentist analysis.||1.15|0.70|
91031232|NCT01029353|181947137|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||A Bayesian analysis. Initial Laparotomy and Initial Peritoneal Drain were compared using log-binomial regression. The SAS procedure PROC MCMC with effect coding was used. Center (random effect), treatment, pre-operative diagnosis, and baseline risk of death or NDI were binary covariates. Pre-operative diagnosis levels were NEC and IP. Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) characteristics: three chains, 10000 tunings, 10000 burn-ins, 1000000 samples, thinning=20.|Priors for model parameters: intercept = Normal(mean=0, variance=100), baseline risk and preop diagnosis parameters = Normal(mean=0, variance=1), treatment and the interaction term = Normal(mean=0, variance=0.31416), random effect standard deviation = Half-Normal(mean=0, variance=10). The posterior median relative risk of Initial Laparotomy over Initial Drainage was 0.91, 95% credible interval of (0.65, 1.27).|||
91100189|NCT02021318|182086712|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.045||||0.622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.223|0.134|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 80- The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline eGFR and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.134|-0.223|0.622
91104358|NCT02539394|182094895|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.933|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of Pre-operative Eat-10 is the same across the 2 arms||||0.933
90855245|NCT01856023|181575127|SUPERIORITY|one -sample binomial test - 1-year estimated OS for these 28 patients was 75% (95%CI: 51%, 88%)||||||0.001||||||compared to the historical control rate of 46% one year survival|Log Rank|||OS rates of the Evaluable population in entire cohort was compared with the historical control rate of 46% (Hodi, et al NEJM 2010) using a one-sample binomial test due to early termination of enrollment without reaching target accrual; planned analysis to be the difference between treatment arms using log-rank test. One year OS along with 95% CI estimated for entire population and each treatment arm separately.||||.001
90855246|NCT00424255|181575131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2251||95.0||||The one-sided p-value is unstratified as there are too few events per stratum to perform a stratified test.|Non-stratified log-rank test|||||||0.2251
91100190|NCT02021318|182086712|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.045||||0.632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.138|0.227|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 84- The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline eGFR and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.227|-0.138|0.632
90855247|NCT00424255|181575131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4502||95.0||||The two-sided p-value is unstratified as there are too few events per stratum to perform a stratified test.|Non-stratified log-rank test|||||||0.4502
90855248|NCT00424255|181575131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.43|||||Hazard Ratios were estimated using a Pike estimator.|||1.43|0.85|
90855249|NCT02431247|181575154|NON_INFERIORITY|One-sided p-value for non-inferiority of Test versus Control arm. The non-|Difference in percentage|2.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|7.1||inferiority margin is 10%.|Mantel Haenszel|||||7.1|-1.6|< 0.001
90855250|NCT02431247|181575157|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063|=|0.437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.171|0.074|||ANCOVA|||||0.074|-0.171|= 0.437
90855251|NCT02431247|181575158|OTHER||LS mean difference|18.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.808|=|0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.595|47.55|||ANCOVA|||||47.550|-10.595|= 0.213
90855252|NCT02431247|181575159|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.008|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||||-0.02|-0.05|< 0.001
90855253|NCT02431247|181575160|OTHER||LS mean difference|3.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.786|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|4.66|||ANCOVA|||||4.66|1.57|< 0.001
90855254|NCT02431247|181575161|OTHER||LS mean difference|6.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.126|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.83|8.25|||ANCOVA|||||8.25|3.83|< 0.001
90855255|NCT02431247|181575162|OTHER||LS mean difference|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.747|=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|3.87|||ANCOVA|||||3.87|0.93|= 0.001
90855256|NCT02431247|181575164|OTHER||||||=|0.033|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||= 0.033
90855257|NCT02431247|181575165|OTHER||||||=|0.033|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||= 0.033
90855258|NCT02431247|181575166|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||< 0.001
91031233|NCT01029353|181947138|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.36|||||RR: Initial Laparotomy over Peritoneal Drain. RR from robust Poisson regression with log link, reference cell coding, center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, and pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP) as covariates.|A frequentist analysis.||1.36|0.44|
91100191|NCT02021318|182086712|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.055||||0.568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.133|0.242|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 88- The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline eGFR and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.242|-0.133|0.568
90855259|NCT02431247|181575167|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||< 0.001
90855260|NCT02431247|181575168|OTHER||||||=|0.147|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||= 0.147
90855261|NCT02431247|181575173|OTHER||LS mean difference|1.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.368|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.227|2.678|||ANCOVA|||Hip region BMD (Week 24)||2.678|1.227|< 0.001
90855262|NCT02431247|181575173|OTHER||LS mean difference|2.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.934|3.791|||ANCOVA|||Hip region BMD (Week 48)||3.791|1.934|< 0.001
90855263|NCT02431247|181575173|OTHER||LS mean difference|2.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.421|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.259|2.919|||ANCOVA|||Spine region BMD (Week 24)||2.919|1.259|< 0.001
90855264|NCT02431247|181575173|OTHER||LS mean difference|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.588|=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.539|2.858|||ANCOVA|||Spine region BMD (Week 48)||2.858|0.539|= 0.004
90855265|NCT00591578|181575222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.59|-1.69||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons controlled using stepwise testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||-1.69|-5.59|<0.001
90855266|NCT00591578|181575222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.01|-2.06||Unadjusted p-value presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons controlled using stepwise testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||-2.06|-6.01|<0.001
90855267|NCT00591578|181575223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.27||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|-0.63||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). The unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.63|-5.90|0.015
90855268|NCT00591578|181575223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|-2.68||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). The unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-2.68|-8.00|<0.001
91100192|NCT02021318|182086712|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.034||||0.729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.158|0.226|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 92- The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline eGFR and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.226|-0.158|0.729
91100193|NCT02021318|182086712|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.025||||0.797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.168|0.218|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 96- The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline eGFR and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.218|-0.168|0.797
91100194|NCT02021318|182086712|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.11||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 100- The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline eGFR and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.090|-0.310|0.280
90855269|NCT00591578|181575224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.44|-0.88||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). The unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.88|-3.44|<0.001
90855270|NCT00591578|181575224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.99|-1.4||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). The unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.40|-3.99|<0.001
90855271|NCT00591578|181575225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.52||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.06|-0.98||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). The unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.98|-4.06|0.001
90855272|NCT00591578|181575225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.32|-1.21||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). The unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.21|-4.32|<0.001
90902714|NCT03954158|181672572|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.1||||||Change at Day 7, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.1|-2.1|
90902715|NCT03954158|181672572|OTHER||Difference of least squares mean|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.6||||||Change at Day 7, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen day dosing regimen-by-day interaction and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.6|-1.9|
90902716|NCT03954158|181672572|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.0||||||Change at Day 8, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.0|-2.0|
90902717|NCT03954158|181672572|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.2||||||Change at Day 8, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.2|-2.4|
90902718|NCT03954158|181672572|OTHER||Difference of least squares mean|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.7||||||Change at Day 8, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen day dosing regimen-by-day interaction and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.7|-1.9|
90902719|NCT03954158|181672572|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.1||||||Change at Day 9, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.1|-2.3|
91031234|NCT01029353|181947138|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||A Bayesian analysis. Initial Laparotomy and Initial Peritoneal Drain were compared using log-binomial regression. The SAS procedure PROC MCMC with reference cell coding was used. Center (random effect), treatment, pre-operative diagnosis, and baseline risk of death or NDI were binary covariates. Pre-operative diagnosis levels were NEC and IP. Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) characteristics: three chains, 10000 tunings, 10000 burn-ins, 1000000 samples, thinning=20.|Priors for model parameters: intercept = Normal(mean=0, variance=100), baseline risk and preop diagnosis parameters = Normal(mean=0, variance=1), treatment and the interaction term = Normal(mean=0, variance=0.31416), random effect standard deviation = Half-Normal(mean=0, variance=10). The posterior median relative risk of Initial Laparotomy over Initial Drainage was 0.82, 95% credible interval of (0.49, 1.33).|||
91031235|NCT01029353|181947139|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.77|0.75|||||Mean Difference (MD): Laparotomy minus Drain. MD from mixed model using PROC MIXED in SAS, center as random effect, and reference cell coding. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, and pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP) as covariates.|A frequentist analysis.||0.75|-12.77|
91100195|NCT02021318|182086712|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.037||||0.733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.177|0.251|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 104- The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline eGFR and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.251|-0.177|0.733
90855273|NCT00591578|181575226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.53|-1.44||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). The unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.44|-5.53|<0.001
90855274|NCT00591578|181575226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.96|-1.83||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). The unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.83|-5.96|<0.001
90902720|NCT03954158|181672572|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.1||||||Change at Day 9, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.1|-1.9|
90902721|NCT03954158|181672572|OTHER||Difference of least squares mean|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.2||||||Change at Day 9, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen day dosing regimen-by-day interaction and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.2|-2.4|
90902722|NCT03954158|181672572|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.1||||||Change at Day 10, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.1|-2.4|
90902723|NCT03954158|181672572|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-0.7||||||Change at Day 10, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.7|-2.5|
90902724|NCT03954158|181672572|OTHER||Difference of least squares mean|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-0.2||||||Change at Day 10, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen day dosing regimen-by-day interaction and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.2|-2.6|
90902725|NCT03954158|181672572|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.1||||||Change at Day 11, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.1|-2.4|
90902726|NCT03954158|181672572|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.1||||||Change at Day 11, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.1|-2.2|
90902727|NCT03954158|181672572|OTHER||Difference of least squares mean|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.5||||||Change at Day 11, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen day dosing regimen-by-day interaction and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.5|-2.2|
90902728|NCT03954158|181672572|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|0.0||||||Change at Day 12, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.0|-2.9|
91100196|NCT02021318|182086713|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.026||||0.727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.119|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Weeks 28-36 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.170|-0.119|0.727
91100197|NCT02021318|182086713|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.001||||0.985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.151|0.148|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Weeks 44-52 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.148|-0.151|0.985
91100198|NCT02021318|182086713|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.003||||0.965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.148|0.154|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Weeks 72-80 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.154|-0.148|0.965
90855275|NCT00591578|181575227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.17||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.54|-0.79||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). The unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.79|-3.54|0.002
91031236|NCT01029353|181947139|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||A Bayesian analysis. Initial Laparotomy and Initial Peritoneal Drain were compared using a hierarchical linear regression. The SAS procedure PROC MCMC with reference cell coding was used. Center (random effect), treatment, pre-operative diagnosis, and baseline risk of death or NDI were binary covariates. Pre-operative diagnosis levels were NEC and IP. Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) characteristics: three chains, 10000 tunings, 10000 burn-ins, 1000000 samples, thinning=20.|Priors for model parameters: intercept = Normal(mean=0, variance=1000), treatment, baseline risk, and preop diagnosis parameters = Normal(mean=0, variance=10), random effect standard deviation = Half-Normal(mean=0, variance=10). The posterior median difference Initial Laparotomy minus Initial Drainage was -2.68, 95% credible interval of (-7.11, 1.83).|||
91031237|NCT01029353|181947140|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.05|-0.46|||||Mean Difference (MD): Laparotomy minus Drain. MD from mixed model using PROC MIXED in SAS, center as random effect, and reference cell coding. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, and pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP) as covariates.|A frequentist analysis.||-0.46|-17.05|
91100199|NCT02021318|182086713|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.016||||0.856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.188|0.157|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Weeks 96-104 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.157|-0.188|0.856
90855276|NCT00591578|181575227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.06|-1.28||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). The unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.28|-4.06|<0.001
90855277|NCT00591578|181575228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.96|-1.62||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). The unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.62|-5.96|<0.001
90855278|NCT00591578|181575228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.63|-2.24||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). The unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-2.24|-6.63|<0.001
90855279|NCT00591578|181575229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.48|-0.53||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). The unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.53|-3.48|0.008
90855280|NCT00591578|181575229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.33|-1.35||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). The unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.35|-4.33|<0.001
90855281|NCT00591578|181575230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.44||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.57|-1.3||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). The unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.30|-5.57|0.002
90855282|NCT00591578|181575230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.16|-1.85||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). The unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.85|-6.16|<0.001
90855283|NCT00591578|181575231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.18||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.63|-0.72||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). The unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.72|-3.63|0.003
91100200|NCT02021318|182086715|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|2.22|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard Ratio was calculated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazards regression stratifying on CV history and Region and adjusting on Hb and eGFR at baseline as continuous covariates.||2.22|1.36|<0.001
91100201|NCT02021318|182086718|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.21||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.5|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard ratio was calculated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazards regression stratifying on CV history and Region and adjusting on Hb and eGFR at baseline as continuous covariates. Superiority was declared if the upper bound of the 95% CI is below 1.0.||1.50|0.98|0.079
90855284|NCT00591578|181575231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|-1.25||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). The unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.25|-4.20|<0.001
90855285|NCT00591578|181575232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.38||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.76|-1.0||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). The unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.00|-5.76|0.005
90855286|NCT00591578|181575232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.47||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.87|-1.06||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). The unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.06|-5.87|0.005
91100202|NCT02021318|182086719|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.11|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard Ratio was calculated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazards regression stratifying on CV history and region and adjusting on Hb and eGFR at baseline as continuous covariates. Superiority was declared if the upper bound of the 95% CI is below 1.0.||2.11|0.79|0.300
91100203|NCT02021318|182086723|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.59||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|2.54|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard Ratio was calculated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazards regression stratifying on CV history and Region and adjusting on Hb and eGFR at baseline as continuous covariates. Superiority was declared if the upper bound of the 95% CI is below 1.0.||2.54|0.99|0.055
91100204|NCT02021318|182086726|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.0|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard Ratio was calculated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazards regression stratifying on CV history and region and adjusting on Hb and eGFR at baseline as continuous covariate. Superiority was declared if the upper bound of the 95% CI is below 1.0.||1.00|0.51|0.052
91100205|NCT02021318|182086736|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.068||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.012|-0.124|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Weeks 12-28 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of cardiovascular disease as fixed class factors and baseline SF-36 PCS, baseline Hb, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate as continuous covariates.||-0.124|-2.012|0.027
91100206|NCT02021318|182086736|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.603||||0.239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.606|0.401|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Weeks 36-52 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of cardiovascular disease as fixed class factors and baseline SF-36 PCS, baseline Hb, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate as continuous covariates.||0.401|-1.606|0.239
91100207|NCT02021318|182086737|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.528||||0.517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.127|1.072|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Weeks 12-28 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of cardiovascular disease as fixed class factors and baseline FACT-An AnS, baseline Hb, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate as continuous covariates.||1.072|-2.127|0.517
90855287|NCT00591578|181575233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.31||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.04|-0.59||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). The unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.59|-4.04|0.009
90855288|NCT00591578|181575233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.59||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.34|-0.84||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). The unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.84|-4.34|0.004
90855289|NCT00591578|181575234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|2.0||P-value for response criteria for systolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|Includes only those participants with a baseline and at least one post-baseline value.||||2.00|1.07|0.016
90855290|NCT00591578|181575234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|2.23||P-value for response criteria for systolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|Includes only those participants with a baseline and at least one post-baseline value.||||2.23|1.19|0.002
90855291|NCT00591578|181575235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|2.1||P-value for response criteria for diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic diastolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|Includes only those participants with a baseline and at least one post-baseline value.||||2.10|1.02|0.041
90855292|NCT00591578|181575235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.58||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|2.28||P-value for response criteria for diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic diastolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|Includes only those participants with a baseline and at least one post-baseline value.||||2.28|1.09|0.015
91100208|NCT02021318|182086737|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.947||||0.308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.771|0.877|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Weeks 36-52 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of cardiovascular disease as fixed class factors and baseline FACT-An AnS, baseline Hb, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate as continuous covariates.||0.877|-2.771|0.308
91100209|NCT02021318|182086738|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.904||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.032|2.224|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12-28 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of cardiovascular disease as fixed class factors and baseline FACT-An total score, baseline Hb, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate as continuous covariates.||2.224|-4.032|0.570
91100210|NCT02021318|182086738|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.767||||0.334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.354|1.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Weeks 36-52 -The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of cardiovascular disease as fixed class factors and baseline FACT-An total score, baseline Hb, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate as continuous covariates.||1.820|-5.354|0.334
90902729|NCT03954158|181672572|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.7||||||Change at Day 12, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.7|-2.4|
91100211|NCT02021318|182086740|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.784||||0.497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.481|3.049|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The model includes treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline EQ-5D 5L VAS, baseline Hb, baseline eGFR as continuous covariates.||3.049|-1.481|0.497
91100212|NCT02021318|182086751|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.05||||0.902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.82|-0.93|0.902
91100213|NCT02021318|182086753|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.29|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard Ratio was calculated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazards regression stratifying on CV history and region and adjusting on Hb and eGFR at baseline as continuous covariates. Superiority was declared if the upper bound of the 95% CI was below 1.0.||1.29|0.79|0.960
91104359|NCT02539394|182094895|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.95|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of Pre-operative modified Eat-10 is the same across the 2 arms||||0.950
91100214|NCT02021318|182086755|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.25|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard Ratio was calculated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazards regression stratifying on CV history and region and adjusting on Hb and eGFR at baseline as continuous covariates. Superiority was declared if the upper bound of the 95% CI was below 1.0.||1.25|0.79|0.939
90855293|NCT00591578|181575236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.99||P-value for joint response criteria for systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|Includes only those participants with a baseline and at least one post-baseline value.||||1.99|1.07|0.018
90855294|NCT00591578|181575236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|2.33||P-value for joint response criteria for systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|Includes only those participants with a baseline and at least one post-baseline value.||||2.33|1.24|<0.001
90855295|NCT00586196|181575262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.3|||GEE|||||2.3|0.4|
90855296|NCT00586196|181575263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.2|||GEE|||||1.2|-1.5|
90855297|NCT04721067|181575283|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.27||||0.607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.14|10.6|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline values||||10.60|-15.14|0.607
90855298|NCT04721067|181575284|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.99||||0.766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.74|4.76|||ANCOVA|||||4.76|-10.74|0.766
90855299|NCT04721067|181575285|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|145.54||||0.465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-264.05|555.14|||ANCOVA|||||555.14|-264.05|0.465
90855300|NCT04721067|181575286|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|137.79||||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.71|344.3|||ANCOVA|||||344.30|-68.71|0.178
90855301|NCT04721067|181575287|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.87||||0.548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.58|8.31|||ANCOVA|||||8.31|-4.58|0.548
90855302|NCT04721067|181575288|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.67||||0.579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.14|1.8|||ANCOVA|||||1.80|-3.14|0.579
90855303|NCT04721067|181575289|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.63||||0.766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|3.74|||ANCOVA|||||3.74|-5.00|0.766
90855304|NCT04721067|181575290|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.23||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.39|1.93|||ANCOVA|||||1.93|-4.39|0.42
90855305|NCT04721067|181575291|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|1.2|||ANCOVA|||||1.20|-1.34|0.91
90855306|NCT04721067|181575292|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.79||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.03|5.6|||ANCOVA|||||5.60|-4.03|0.73
90855307|NCT04721067|181575293|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.19||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.68|||ANCOVA|||||0.68|-0.30|0.42
90855308|NCT04721067|181575294|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.79||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|4.48|||ANCOVA|||||4.48|-0.90|0.18
90855309|NCT04721067|181575295|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.03||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.97|3.9|||ANCOVA|||||3.90|-7.97|0.48
90855310|NCT04721067|181575296|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.42||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|3.08|||ANCOVA|||||3.08|-0.24|0.08
90855311|NCT04721067|181575297|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.51||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|14.52|||ANCOVA|||||14.52|-13.50|0.94
90855312|NCT04721067|181575300|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.43||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|1.32|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.32|-0.45|0.32
90855313|NCT04721067|181575301|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|1.25|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.25|-0.75|0.61
90855314|NCT04721067|181575302|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.05||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.42|2.31|||ANCOVA|||||2.31|-4.42|0.52
90855315|NCT04721067|181575303|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.44||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.32|||ANCOVA|||||1.32|-2.20|0.61
90855316|NCT04721067|181575304|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.68||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|8.97|||ANCOVA|||||8.97|-1.61|0.16
90855317|NCT04721067|181575305|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.43||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|1.0|||ANCOVA|||||1.00|-0.13|0.13
90855318|NCT04721067|181575306|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.88||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|7.41|||ANCOVA|||||7.41|0.35|0.03
90855319|NCT04721067|181575307|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.2||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.07|4.66|||ANCOVA|||||4.66|-11.07|0.41
90855320|NCT04721067|181575308|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.7||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|4.22|||ANCOVA|||||4.22|-0.83|0.17
90855321|NCT04721067|181575309|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.49||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.58|16.55|||ANCOVA|||||16.55|-9.58|0.58
91100215|NCT02021318|182086756|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.27|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard Ratio was calculated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazards regression stratifying on CV history and region and adjusting on Hb and eGFR at baseline as continuous covariates. Superiority was declared if the upper bound of the 95% CI was below 1.0.||1.27|0.77|0.948
91100216|NCT02021318|182086757|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.17|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard Ratio was calculated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazards regression stratifying on CV history and region and adjusting on Hb and eGFR at baseline as continuous covariates. Superiority was declared if the upper bound of the 95% CI was below 1.0.||1.17|0.75|0.568
91100217|NCT00963508|182086759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91100218|NCT00963508|182086760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0005
91100219|NCT00165698|182086761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26||95.0|||||Symbols rank sum test|||||||0.26
91100220|NCT00165698|182086762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19||95.0|||||Symbols rank sum test|||||||0.19
91100221|NCT00165698|182086763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31||95.0|||||Symbols rank sum test|||||||0.31
91100222|NCT00165698|182086764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.869||95.0|||||symbols rank sum test|||||||0.869
91100223|NCT00165698|182086765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.174||95.0|||||symbols rank sum test|||||||0.174
91100224|NCT00165698|182086766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0||95.0|||||symbols rank sum test|||||||0.000
91100225|NCT00165698|182086767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0||95.0|||||symbols rank sum test|||||||0.000
91100226|NCT00165698|182086768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0||95.0|||||symbols rank sum test|||||||0.000
91100227|NCT02641353|182086772|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|84.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.3|93.2|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Treatment B / Treatment A) expressed as a percentage.|To assess the bioavailability between the apremilast oral suspension and tablet formulation an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model, with treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect, was performed on the natural log-transformed Cmax.||93.2|77.3|
90855322|NCT04721067|181575310|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.15||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|1.1|||ANCOVA|||||1.10|-0.79|0.74
90855323|NCT04721067|181575311|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|129.077||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.78|315.92|||ANCOVA|||||315.92|-57.78|0.17
90855324|NCT04721067|181575312|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|109.71||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-108.37|327.78|||ANCOVA|||||327.78|-108.37|0.31
90855325|NCT04721067|181575313|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.24||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.52|5.0|||ANCOVA|||||5.00|-4.52|0.92
90855326|NCT04721067|181575314|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.11||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.28|4.06|||ANCOVA|||||4.06|-6.28|0.66
90855327|NCT04480424|181575360|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference|-4.0||||0.8275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.3|14.5||p-value was calculated using Fisher's exact method with 5% level of significance to test the null hypothesis of no difference in mortality rate between the two treatment groups.|Fisher Exact|||||14.5|-22.3|0.8275
90855328|NCT04480424|181575361|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8599||||||p-value was calculated using Gray's test for equality of the Cumulative Incidence Function (CIF) between treatment groups.|Gray's test|||||||0.8599
90855329|NCT04480424|181575362|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean (LSM) Difference|2.58||||0.2626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|7.12||p-value was calculated using an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model, including the number of days on mechanical ventilation as a dependent variable and treatment group as a fixed effect.|ANOVA|||||7.12|-1.96|0.2626
90855330|NCT04480424|181575363|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6854||||||p-value was calculated using Gray's test for equality of the CIF between treatment groups.|Gray's test|||||||0.6854
90855331|NCT04480424|181575364|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.02||||0.9917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.82|3.78||95% CI for difference in least square mean (LSM) between treatment groups and the associated p-value were calculated using an ANOVA model, including the number of days on oxygen as a dependent variable and treatment group as a fixed effect.|ANOVA|||||3.78|-3.82|0.9917
90855332|NCT04480424|181575365|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.05||||0.7557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.4|||Kenward-Roger|p-value were calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method for calculating the denominator degrees of freedom.||||0.40|-0.29|0.7557
90855333|NCT04480424|181575366|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.4||||0.0922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.86||p-value were calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method for calculating the denominator degrees of freedom.|Kenward-Roger|||||0.86|-0.07|0.0922
90855334|NCT04480424|181575370|SUPERIORITY||Kenward-Roger|0.4||||0.3611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|1.28||p-value was calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method for calculating the denominator degrees of freedom.|LSM Difference|||||1.28|-0.47|0.3611
90902730|NCT03954158|181672572|OTHER||Difference of least squares mean|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-0.3||||||Change at Day 12, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen day dosing regimen-by-day interaction and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.3|-2.9|
90902731|NCT03954158|181672572|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.3||||||Change at Day 13, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.3|-2.5|
90902732|NCT03954158|181672572|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.6||||||Change at Day 13, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.6|-2.4|
90855335|NCT04480424|181575370|SUPERIORITY||Kenward-Roger|-0.1||||0.9238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|1.94||p-value was calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method for calculating the denominator degrees of freedom.|LSM Difference|||||1.94|-2.13|0.9238
90855336|NCT04480424|181575370|SUPERIORITY||Kenward-Roger|0.08||||0.9541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.58|2.73||p-value was calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method for calculating the denominator degrees of freedom.|LSM Difference|||||2.73|-2.58|0.9541
90855337|NCT04480424|181575371|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.06||||0.9366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|1.53||p-value was calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method for calculating the denominator degrees of freedom.|LSM Difference|||||1.53|-1.42|0.9366
90855338|NCT04894916|181575374|OTHER|single group|mean|81.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"One-sample t-test comparing the sample mean to the threshold value of 71 indicative of good usability. The null hypothesis: true mean is equal to 71."||||<0.001
90855339|NCT04894916|181575377|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.73|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
90855340|NCT04894916|181575378|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.17||||0.08|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.08
90855341|NCT04894916|181575379|OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||McNemar|||Analysis for pre-post change in knowledge of definition of A1C||||0.68
90855342|NCT04894916|181575379|OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||McNemar|||Analysis for pre-post change in knowledge of goal range for hemoglobin A1c.||||0.18
90855343|NCT04894916|181575379|OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||McNemar|||Analysis for pre-post change in knowledge of definition of systolic blood pressure||||0.18
90902733|NCT03954158|181672572|OTHER||Difference of least squares mean|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-0.5||||||Change at Day 13, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen day dosing regimen-by-day interaction and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.5|-3.0|
90902734|NCT03954158|181672572|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-0.6||||||Change at Day 14, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.6|-2.5|
90855344|NCT04894916|181575379|OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||McNemar|||Analysis of pre-post change in knowledge of goal range for systolic blood pressure||||0.17
90855345|NCT04894916|181575379|OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||McNemar|||Analysis of pre-post change in knowledge of definition of LDL cholesterol||||0.33
90855346|NCT04894916|181575379|OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||McNemar|||Analysis for pre-post change in knowledge of goal range for LDL cholesterol||||0.40
91100228|NCT02641353|182086772|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|78.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|71.2|86.0|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Treatment C / Treatment B) expressed as a percentage.|To assess the effect of food on the PK of apremilast oral suspension formulation, an ANOVA model, with treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect, was performed on the natural log-transformed Cmax.||86.0|71.2|
91100229|NCT02641353|182086773|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|87.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.0|92.5|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Treatment B / Treatment A) expressed as a percentage.|To assess the bioavailability between the apremilast oral suspension and tablet formulation an ANOVA model, with treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect, was performed on the natural log-transformed AUC0-t.||92.5|83.0|
91100230|NCT02641353|182086773|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|115.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|109.2|121.7|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Treatment C / Treatment B) expressed as a percentage.|To assess the effect of food on the PK of apremilast oral suspension formulation, an ANOVA model, with treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect, was performed on the natural log-transformed AUC0-t.||121.7|109.2|
90855347|NCT04894916|181575379|OTHER|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||Analysis of pre-post change in knowledge of definition of flu vaccine||||1.00
90855348|NCT04894916|181575379|OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||McNemar|||Analysis of pre-post change in knowledge of recommended frequency of flu vaccination||||0.37
90855349|NCT04894916|181575380|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.71||||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.16
90855350|NCT04894916|181575381|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||McNemar|||Analysis of pre-post change in interest in information about how my diabetes health data compares to other patients like me (i.e., social comparison information)||||0.03
90902735|NCT03954158|181672572|OTHER||Difference of least squares mean|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-0.4||||||Change at Day 14, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen day dosing regimen-by-day interaction and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.4|-2.8|
91100231|NCT02641353|182086774|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|87.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.2|92.6|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Treatment B / Treatment A) expressed as a percentage.|To assess the bioavailability between the apremilast oral suspension and tablet formulation an ANOVA model, with treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect, was performed on the natural log-transformed AUC0-∞.||92.6|83.2|
90855351|NCT04894916|181575381|OTHER|||||||0.45|||||||McNemar|||Analysis of pre-post change in interest in information about how their diabetes health data compares to the goal range (i.e., goal-based comparison information)||||0.45
90902736|NCT03954158|181672572|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.1||||||Change at Day 14, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.1|-2.5|
91032853|NCT00050778|181951038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.196|0.552||An alpha-sharing approach was used to adjust for multiple treatment group comparisons, endpoints, and two pre-planned interim analyses, including a Lan-Demets error-spending function. Pre-specified threshold for statistical significance was 0.0040.|Andersen-Gill Model|||Treatment effects were estimated using an Anderson-Gill multiplicative intensity model with robust variance estimation. Covariates included treatment group, Baseline EDSS group (grouped by less than or equal to 1.5 and greater than 1.5), and country (investigative center grouped by country).||0.552|0.196|<0.0001
90855352|NCT04894916|181575381|OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||McNemar|||Analysis of pre-post change in agreement with statement: 'Information about how my diabetes health data compares to other patients like me \[social comparison information\] is useful.||||0.17
90855353|NCT04894916|181575381|OTHER|||||||0.62|||||||McNemar|||Analysis of pre-post change in agreement with statement: 'Information about how my diabetes health data compares to the goals range \[goal-based comparison information\] is useful.||||0.62
90855354|NCT04894916|181575383|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.09||||0.53|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.53
90855355|NCT04894916|181575384|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03||||0.86|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.86
90855356|NCT04894916|181575385|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.28||||0.22|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.22
90855357|NCT04894916|181575386|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.25||||0.21|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.21
90855358|NCT04894916|181575387|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.39||||0.18|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.18
90855359|NCT00734747|181575390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<.001
90855360|NCT00920829|181575398|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.724|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A linear mixed model with unstructured variance/covariance matrices was used to evaluate the primary outcome measure.||||0.724
90855361|NCT00920829|181575398|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.023|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is a test of the main effect of medication, with a null hypothesis of no difference between Naltrexone and Placebo groups.||||0.023
91100232|NCT02641353|182086774|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|115.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|109.0|121.7|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Treatment C / Treatment B) expressed as a percentage.|To assess the effect of food on the PK of apremilast oral suspension formulation, an ANOVA model, with treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect, was performed on the natural log-transformed AUC0-∞.||121.7|109.0|
91100233|NCT02641353|182086775|OTHER||Median Difference|0.25||||0.1508|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.5|||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Median difference (Treatment B - Treatment A) calculated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimate|Tmax was analyzed by nonparametric methods. The median difference and 90% confidence interval (CI) of the median difference were calculated from the Hodges-Lehrmann estimate.||0.50|0.00|0.1508
90855362|NCT02237911|181575401|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|98.3|-4.9|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Contrasts from a linear mixed models analysis at 3 months adjusted for randomization factors (age, gender, BMI, WOMAC-PF, knee flexion).||||0.7|-4.9|0.071
90855363|NCT02237911|181575401|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|98.3|-5.0|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Contrasts from a linear mixed models analysis at 6 months adjusted by baseline age, gender, BMI, WOMAC-PF, knee flexion.||0.7|-5.0|0.074
90855364|NCT02237911|181575401|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|98.3|-2.7|2.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Contrasts from a linear mixed models analysis at 3 months adjusted by baseline age, gender, BMI, WOMAC-PF, knee flexion.||2.9|-2.7|0.930
90958483|NCT03486457|181796727|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-12.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.089|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9|-6.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3, Activity Impairment: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-6.72|-18.90|<0.0001
90958484|NCT03486457|181796727|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.157||0.7384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.17|7.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6, Activity Impairment: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||7.28|-5.17|0.7384
91031238|NCT01029353|181947140|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||A Bayesian analysis. Initial Laparotomy and Initial Peritoneal Drain were compared using a hierarchical linear regression. The SAS procedure PROC MCMC with reference cell coding was used. Center (random effect), treatment, pre-operative diagnosis, and baseline risk of death or NDI were binary covariates. Pre-operative diagnosis levels were NEC and IP. Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) characteristics: three chains, 10000 tunings, 10000 burn-ins, 1000000 samples, thinning=20.|Priors for model parameters: intercept = Normal(mean=0, variance=1000), treatment, baseline risk, and preop diagnosis parameters = Normal(mean=0, variance=10), random effect standard deviation = Half-Normal(mean=0, variance=10). The posterior median difference Initial Laparotomy minus Initial Drainage was -3.23, 95% credible interval of (-8.08, 1.68).|||
91100234|NCT02641353|182086775|OTHER||Median Difference|2.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.27|3.25|||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Median difference (Treatment C - Treatment B) calculated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimate|Tmax was analyzed by nonparametric methods. The median difference and 90% CI of the median difference were calculated from the Hodges-Lehrmann estimate.||3.25|1.27|<0.0001
91100235|NCT02547935|182086782|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted mean change|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.37||Statistical significance level = 0.025.|MMRM|||A longitudinal repeated measures analysis included the fixed categorical effects of treatment, week, randomisation stratification factor (i.e. anti-diabetic treatment strata), and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline measurement and baseline measurement-by-week interaction.||-0.37|-0.80|<0.001
91100236|NCT02547935|182086783|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted mean change|-38.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.2|-25.8||Statistical significance level = 0.025.|MMRM|||A longitudinal repeated measures model of the logarithms of the post-baseline to baseline ratios included the fixed categorical effects of treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and randomisation stratification factor (i.e. anti-diabetic treatment strata), as well as the continuous fixed covariates of log-baseline UACR value and log-baseline UACR value-by-week interaction.||-25.8|-48.2|<0.001
91104360|NCT02539394|182094895|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.059|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of POD1 Eat-10 is the same across the 2 arms||||0.059
90855365|NCT02237911|181575401|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.491|TWO_SIDED|98.3|-3.7|2.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Contrasts from a linear mixed models analysis at 6 months adjusted for randomization factors (age, gender, BMI, WOMAC-PF, knee flexion).||||2.0|-3.7|0.491
90855366|NCT02237911|181575401|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|98.3|-4.5|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Contrasts from a linear mixed models analysis at 3 months adjusted for randomization factors (age, gender, BMI, WOMAC-PF, knee flexion).||||0.1|-4.5|0.021
90855367|NCT02237911|181575401|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.179|TWO_SIDED|98.3|-3.6|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Contrasts from a linear mixed models analysis at 6 months adjusted for randomization factors (age, gender, BMI, WOMAC-PF, knee flexion).||||1.0|-3.6|0.179
90855368|NCT02237911|181575402|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.1|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Contrasts from a linear mixed models analysis at 3 months adjusted for randomization factors (age, gender, BMI, WOMAC-PF, knee flexion).||||0.4|0.1|<0.0001
90855369|NCT02237911|181575402|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.01|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Contrasts from a linear mixed models analysis at 6 months adjusted for randomization factors (age, gender, BMI, WOMAC-PF, knee flexion).||||0.4|0.01|0.012
90855370|NCT02237911|181575402|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.02|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Contrasts from a linear mixed models analysis at 3 months adjusted for randomization factors (age, gender, BMI, WOMAC-PF, knee flexion).||||0.3|0.02|0.005
90855371|NCT02237911|181575402|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|98.3|-0.003|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Contrasts from a linear mixed models analysis at 6 months adjusted for randomization factors (age, gender, BMI, WOMAC-PF, knee flexion).||||0.3|-0.003|0.052
90855372|NCT02237911|181575402|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.02|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Contrasts from a linear mixed models analysis at 3 months adjusted for randomization factors (age, gender, BMI, WOMAC-PF, knee flexion).||||0.3|0.02|0.015
90855373|NCT02237911|181575402|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.489|TWO_SIDED|98.3|-0.003|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Contrasts from a linear mixed models analysis at 6 months adjusted for randomization factors (age, gender, BMI, WOMAC-PF, knee flexion).||||0.3|-0.003|0.489
90855374|NCT02237911|181575403|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.0||||0.943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-106.0|114.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Contrasts from a linear mixed models analysis at 3 months adjusted for randomization factors (age, gender, BMI, WOMAC-PF, knee flexion).||||114|-106|0.943
90958485|NCT00372229|181796728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-28.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.45|||TWO_SIDED|96.0|-39.7|-17.3||||||||-17.3|-39.7|
90958486|NCT00372229|181796729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-11.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.83|||TWO_SIDED|96.0|-19.2|-3.4||||||||-3.4|-19.2|
90958487|NCT00372229|181796730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2509|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1838||0.1739|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-0.2271|0.7289|||F-test|||||0.7289|-0.2271|0.1739
90958488|NCT00372229|181796763|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.71|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.2|13.9||||||||13.9|-20.2|
90958489|NCT00372229|181796764|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.21|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|24.2||||||||24.2|-0.1|
91104361|NCT02539394|182094895|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.042|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of POD1 modified Eat-10 is the same across the 2 arms||||0.042
90855375|NCT02237911|181575403|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.0||||0.814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-112.0|142.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Contrasts from a linear mixed models analysis at 6 months adjusted for randomization factors (age, gender, BMI, WOMAC-PF, knee flexion).||||142|-112|0.814
91031239|NCT01029353|181947141|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.09|22.27|||||Mean Difference (MD): Laparotomy minus Drain. MD from mixed model using PROC MIXED in SAS, center as random effect, and reference cell coding. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, and pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP) as covariates.|A frequentist analysis.||22.27|-9.09|
91031240|NCT01029353|181947141|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||A Bayesian analysis. Initial Laparotomy and Initial Peritoneal Drain were compared using a hierarchical linear regression. The SAS procedure PROC MCMC with reference coding was used. Center (random effect), treatment, pre-operative diagnosis, and baseline risk of death or NDI were binary covariates. Pre-operative diagnosis levels were NEC and IP. Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) characteristics: three chains, 10000 tunings, 10000 burn-ins, 1000000 samples, thinning=20.|Priors for model parameters: intercept = Normal(mean=0, variance=1000), treatment, baseline risk, and preop diagnosis parameters = Normal(mean=0, variance=10), random effect standard deviation = Half-Normal(mean=0, variance=10). The posterior median difference Initial Laparotomy minus Initial Drainage was 1.65, 95% credible interval of (-3.97, 7.23).|||
90855376|NCT02237911|181575403|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.0||||0.787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-125.0|95.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Contrasts from a linear mixed models analysis at 3 months adjusted for randomization factors (age, gender, BMI, WOMAC-PF, knee flexion).||||95|-125|0.787
90902737|NCT03954158|181672572|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.1||||||Change at Day 15, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.1|-2.4|
90902738|NCT03954158|181672572|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.3||||||Change at Day 15, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.3|-2.2|
90902739|NCT03954158|181672572|OTHER||Difference of least squares mean|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-0.1||||||Change at Day 15, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen day dosing regimen-by-day interaction and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.1|-2.8|
90902740|NCT04076020|181672594|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99||||||Results presented from Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test with PDC as the dependent variable.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Proportion of days covered (PDC) at 12 months. A sample size of 119 in each study arm enabled us to detect a minimum difference in PDC of 11.7% with 85% power (assuming a standard deviation=30%). Our power calculations assume use of 2-sided tests with 0.05 significance level.||||0.99
90902741|NCT04076020|181672594|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Proportion of days covered (PDC) analyzed as a binary variable with optimal adherence determined as ≥0.80) variables using logistic regression and adjustment for trial stratification factors. Our power calculations assume use of 2-sided tests with 0.05 significance level.||||<0.05
90958490|NCT04055090|181796782|OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.438||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) with treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, and use of gabapentin/pregabalin as main fixed effects|Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measures with treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, and use of gabapentin/pregabalin as main fixed effects. The Baseline average 24-hour pain score was included as a covariate.|||-0.02|-1.76|0.0460
90902742|NCT04076020|181672595|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Difference in self-reported adherence reported across baseline, 4-, 8-, and 12-month visits using generalized estimating equations and adjusted for trial stratification factors.||||<0.05
90902743|NCT03230864|181672602|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.47||||0.0809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|11.65|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||The mean changes from randomization in PANNS total score was analysed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) approach. The model will include the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, fixed covariates of baseline scores and baseline scores-by-visit interaction. An unstructured (co)variance structure will be used to model the within-patient errors. The Kenward-Roger approximation will be used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||11.65|-0.70|0.0809
90902744|NCT05462652|181672612|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.68|-1.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.59|-3.68|<0.001
90902745|NCT05462652|181672613|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion z-test|20.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.1|31.0|||Chi-squared|||"Missing values imputed with multiple imputation.~P-values are obtained from a Pearson Chi-Squared test; differences and 95% CIs are obtained from a difference in proportions Z- test."||31.0|9.1|<0.001
90958491|NCT04055090|181796784|OTHER|||||||0.219|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2190
91031241|NCT01029353|181947142|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.02|7.91|||||Mean Difference (MD): Laparotomy minus Drain. MD from mixed model using PROC MIXED in SAS, center as random effect, and reference cell coding. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, and pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP) as covariates.|A frequentist analysis.||7.91|-13.02|
91104362|NCT02539394|182094895|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.032|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of POD2 Eat-10 is the same across the 2 arms||||0.032
91104363|NCT02539394|182094895|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.014|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of POD2 modified Eat-10 is the same across the 2 arms||||0.014
91104364|NCT02539394|182094895|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of 4-6 weeks Eat-10 is the same across the 2 arms||||0.030
91104365|NCT02539394|182094895|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.039|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of 4-6 weeks modified Eat-10 is the same across the 2 arms||||0.039
91104366|NCT02539394|182094896|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided||||||0.121|||||||Chi-squared|||Proportion of Pre-operative Bazaz Liquid is the same between the 2 arms||||0.121
91104367|NCT02539394|182094896|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided||||||0.006|||||||Chi-squared|||Proportion of POD1 Bazaz Liquid is the same between the 2 arms||||0.006
91104368|NCT02539394|182094896|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided||||||0.329|||||||Chi-squared|||Proportion of POD2 Bazaz Liquid is the same between the 2 arms||||0.329
91100237|NCT02547935|182086783|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted mean change|-21.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.3||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.1|-5.2||Statistical significance level = 0.025.|MMRM|||A longitudinal repeated measures model of the logarithms of the post-baseline to baseline ratios included the fixed categorical effects of treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and randomisation stratification factor (i.e. anti-diabetic treatment strata), as well as the continuous fixed covariates of log-baseline UACR value and log-baseline UACR value-by-week interaction.||-5.2|-34.1|0.011
91100238|NCT02547935|182086784|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted mean change|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|1.26||Statistical significance level = 0.025.|MMRM|||A longitudinal repeated measures model of the logarithms of the post-baseline to baseline ratios included the fixed categorical effects of treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and randomisation stratification factor (i.e. anti-diabetic treatment strata), as well as the continuous fixed covariates of log-baseline total body weight value and log-baseline total body weight value-by-week interaction.||1.26|-1.32|0.953
91100239|NCT02547935|182086784|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted mean change|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.17|0.44||Statistical significance level = 0.025.|MMRM|||A longitudinal repeated measures model of the logarithms of the post-baseline to baseline ratios included the fixed categorical effects of treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and randomisation stratification factor (i.e. anti-diabetic treatment strata), as well as the continuous fixed covariates of log-baseline total body weight value and log-baseline total body weight value-by-week interaction.||0.44|-2.17|0.193
90855377|NCT02237911|181575403|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-36.0||||0.581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-164.0|92.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Contrasts from a linear mixed models analysis at 6 months adjusted for randomization factors (age, gender, BMI, WOMAC-PF, knee flexion).||||92|-164|0.581
90855378|NCT02237911|181575403|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.0||||0.676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.0|109.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Contrasts from a linear mixed models analysis at 3 months adjusted for randomization factors (age, gender, BMI, WOMAC-PF, knee flexion).||||109|-71|0.676
90855379|NCT02237911|181575403|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|51.0||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.0|154.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Contrasts from a linear mixed models analysis at 6 months adjusted for randomization factors (age, gender, BMI, WOMAC-PF, knee flexion).||||154|-52|0.330
90855380|NCT05007717|181575450|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.04||||0.631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for ever missing a visit during a 6 months pre-enrollment period and always coming to clinic by yourself.||||1.20|0.89|0.631
90855381|NCT05007717|181575451|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.79||||0.237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for ever being virally unsuppressed during a 6 months pre-enrollment period and always coming to clinic by yourself.||||1.16|0.54|0.237
90855382|NCT05007717|181575452|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98||||0.386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for always having \>80% coverage during a 6 months pre-enrollment period and always coming to clinic by yourself.||||1.02|0.94|0.386
90855383|NCT05007717|181575453|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.41|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for always coming to clinic by yourself.||||1.41|0.71|0.991
90855384|NCT05007717|181575454|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.21||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for having been given fast track visits during a 6 months pre-enrollment period and always coming to clinic by yourself.||||1.46|1.01|0.037
90855385|NCT05007717|181575455|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.04||||0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for having been given long intervals during a 6 months pre-enrollment period and always coming to clinic by yourself.||||1.12|0.97|0.276
90855386|NCT01617148|181575460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90855387|NCT01617148|181575461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90855388|NCT01617148|181575462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.038
90855389|NCT01617148|181575463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.038
90855390|NCT00423670|181575472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference in SVR|16.7||||0.0126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|30.0|||Cochran-Mantel Haenszel Chi-square test|Adjusted for baseline stratification factors: black versus non-black, and cirrhosis versus no cirrhosis.||||30|3.5|0.0126
90855391|NCT00423670|181575472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference in SVR|18.8||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.5|32.2|||Cochran-Mantel Haenszel Chi-square test|Adjusted for baseline stratification factors: black versus non-black, and cirrhosis versus no cirrhosis.||||32.2|5.5|0.0048
90902746|NCT05462652|181672614|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions z-test|15.4||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|25.6|||Chi-squared|||P-values are obtained from a Pearson Chi-Squared test; differences and 95% CIs are obtained from a difference in proportions Z- test.||25.6|5.3|0.003
90855392|NCT00423670|181575472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference in SVR|29.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.5|42.5|||Cochran-Mantel Haenszel Chi-square test|Adjusted for baseline stratification factors: black versus non-black, and cirrhosis versus no cirrhosis.||||42.5|16.5|<0.0001
90855393|NCT00423670|181575472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference in SVR|37.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.7|49.8|||Cochran-Mantel Haenszel Chi-square test|Adjusted for baseline stratification factors: black versus non-black, and cirrhosis versus no cirrhosis.||||49.8|24.7|<0.0001
90855394|NCT00423670|181575473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference in SVR rates|5.1||||0.2864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|14.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Chi-Square Test|Adjusted for baseline stratification factors: black versus non black, and cirrhosis versus no cirrhosis.||||14.3|-4.2|0.2864
90855395|NCT00423670|181575474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference in SVR rates|15.6||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|24.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Chi-Square Test|Adjusted for the baseline stratification factors: black versus non black, and cirrhosis versus no cirrhosis.||||24.8|6.5|0.0009
90855396|NCT02131532|181575480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.321||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.398|17.102|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test|P values below 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Null hypothesis: there was no difference in fatigue scores between baseline and three-month assessments||17.102|1.398|0.03
90902747|NCT05462652|181672615|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion z-test|24.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.0|36.4|||Chi-squared|||Missing values imputed with multiple imputation. P-values are obtained from a Pearson Chi-Squared test; differences and 95% CIs are obtained from a difference in proportions Z- test.||36.4|13.0|<0.001
90855397|NCT02131532|181575481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.625|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.401||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.687|5.937|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test|P values below 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Null hypothesis: there was no difference in depression scores between baseline and three-month assessments||5.937|-0.687|0.10
90855398|NCT02131532|181575482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.313||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.991|0.491|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test|P values below 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Null hypothesis: there was no difference in independence scores between baseline and three-month assessments||0.491|-0.991|0.45
90902748|NCT03537261|181672624|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.8||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|13.1|||Regression, Linear|Repeated measures linear regression controlling for score at screening visit|(P-CPI training change) - (waitlist change)|||13.1|-1.4|0.11
90902749|NCT03537261|181672625|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.2||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|3.0|||Regression, Linear|Repeated measures linear regression controlling for score at screening visit|(P-CPI training change) - (waitlist change)|||3.0|-7.4|0.40
90902750|NCT03537261|181672626|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|4.2|||Regression, Linear|Repeated measures linear regression controlling for score at screening visit|(P-CPI training change) - (waitlist change)|||4.2|-2.9|0.72
90902751|NCT00479037|181672627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|360.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|256.5|494.3||P-values corresponding to the tests of treatment effect for the primary endpoints were adjusted using the Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|||The bone marker values were log-transformed for the primary analysis as they were heavily skewed. Changes in log-transformed bone marker values were analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and center as fixed effects and the baseline bone marker value as a covariate. An F-test was used to test the effect of treatment and the least square means were computed to assess the clinical difference between treatment groups.||494.3|256.5|<0.0001
90902752|NCT00479037|181672628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|92.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.8|127.1||P-values corresponding to the tests of treatment effect for the primary endpoints were adjusted using the Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|||The bone marker values were log-transformed for the primary analysis as they were heavily skewed. Changes in log-transformed bone marker values were analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and center as fixed effects and the baseline bone marker value as a covariate. An F-test was used to test the effect of treatment and the least square means were computed to assess the clinical difference between treatment groups.||127.1|63.8|<0.0001
90902753|NCT00479037|181672629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|138.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.8|191.8||P-value corresponding to the tests of treatment effect was adjusted using the Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|||The bone marker values were log-transformed for the primary analysis as they were heavily skewed. Changes in log-transformed bone marker values were analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and center as fixed effects and the baseline bone marker value as a covariate. An F-test was used to test the effect of treatment and the least square means were computed to assess the clinical difference between treatment groups.||191.8|94.8|<0.0001
91031242|NCT01029353|181947142|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||A Bayesian analysis. Initial Laparotomy and Initial Peritoneal Drain were compared using a hierarchical linear regression. The SAS procedure PROC MCMC with reference cell coding was used. Center (random effect), treatment, pre-operative diagnosis, and baseline risk of death or NDI were binary covariates. Pre-operative diagnosis levels were NEC and IP. Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) characteristics: three chains, 10000 tunings, 10000 burn-ins, 1000000 samples, thinning=20.|Priors for model parameters: intercept = Normal(mean=0, variance=1000), treatment, baseline risk, and preop diagnosis parameters = Normal(mean=0, variance=10), random effect standard deviation = Half-Normal(mean=0, variance=10). The posterior median difference Initial Laparotomy minus Initial Drainage was -0.71, 95% credible interval of (-5.89, 4.48).|||
91031243|NCT01029353|181947143|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.54|2.63|||||Mean Difference (MD): Laparotomy minus Drain. MD from mixed model using PROC MIXED in SAS, center as random effect, and reference cell coding. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, and pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP) as covariates.|A frequentist analysis.||2.63|-30.54|
91031244|NCT01029353|181947143|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||A Bayesian analysis. Initial Laparotomy and Initial Peritoneal Drain were compared using a hierarchical linear regression. The SAS procedure PROC MCMC with reference cell coding was used. Center (random effect), treatment, pre-operative diagnosis, and baseline risk of death or NDI were binary covariates. Pre-operative diagnosis levels were NEC and IP. Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) characteristics: three chains, 10000 tunings, 10000 burn-ins, 1000000 samples, thinning=20.|Priors for model parameters: intercept = Normal(mean=0, variance=1000), treatment, baseline risk, and preop diagnosis parameters = Normal(mean=0, variance=10), random effect standard deviation = Half-Normal(mean=0, variance=10). The posterior median difference Initial Laparotomy minus Initial Drainage was -1.78, 95% credible interval of (-7.44, 3.87).|||
91031245|NCT01029353|181947144|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.04|||||The model was fit using PROC GENMOD in SAS, using center as the repeated effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a robust Poisson regression model, with log link and center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy over drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to NEC.||1.04|0.64|
91031246|NCT01029353|181947144|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.31|||||The model was fit using PROC GENMOD in SAS, using center as the repeated effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a robust Poisson regression model, with log link and center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy over drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to IP.||1.31|0.95|
91104369|NCT02539394|182094896|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided||||||0.687|||||||Chi-squared|||Proportion of 4-6 weeks Bazaz Liquid is the same between the 2 arms||||0.687
91104370|NCT02539394|182094897|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided||||||0.066|||||||Chi-squared|||Proportion of Pre-operative Bazaz Solid is the same between the 2 arms||||0.066
90855399|NCT02131532|181575483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.875|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.03||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.769|-1.981|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test|P values below 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Null hypothesis: there was no difference in scores of general rating of recovery between baseline and three-month assessments||-1.981|-25.769|0.03
91032786|NCT03979079|181950794|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.3||Estimation was performed using a Bayesian approach. As such, p-values are not estimated.|Two-stage model.||||Two-stage model within a Bayesian framework to assess the role of the prostate-specific antigens profile on clinical failure while accounting for a secondary treatment prescribed by indication. Prostatespecific antigens modeled using a hierarchical piecewise linear trajectory with a random changepoint. Residual prostate-specific antigens variability was expressed as a function of prostate-specific antigens concentration. Covariates in the survival model included hormone therapy, baseline characteristics, and individual predictions of the prostate-specific antigens nadir and timing and prostate-specific antigens slopes before and after the nadir as provided by the longitudinal process.|0.30|0.14|
91100240|NCT02547935|182086785|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted mean change|-6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.8||0.298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|5.4||Statistical significance level = 0.025.|MMRM|||A longitudinal repeated measures analysis included the fixed categorical effects of treatment, week, randomisation stratification factor (i.e.anti-diabetic treatment strata), and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline measurement and baseline measurement-by-week interaction.||5.4|-17.5|0.298
91104371|NCT02539394|182094897|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided||||||0.252|||||||Chi-squared|||Proportion of POD1 Bazaz Solid is the same between the 2 arms||||0.252
90855400|NCT02131532|181575484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.781|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.594||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.01|12.448|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test|P values below 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Null hypothesis: there was no difference in physical strength scores between baseline and three-month assessments||12.448|-14.010|0.89
90855401|NCT02131532|181575485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.105|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.378||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.729|3.519|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test|P values below 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Null hypothesis: there was no difference in memory and thinking scores between baseline and three-month assessments||3.519|-7.729|0.009
90855402|NCT02131532|181575486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.403|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.168||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.624|-6.183|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test|P values below 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Null hypothesis: there was no difference in emotion scores between baseline and three-month assessments||-6.183|-30.624|0.009
90855403|NCT02131532|181575487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.142|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.696||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.883|1.598|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test|P values below 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Null hypothesis: there was no difference in communication scores between baseline and three-month assessments||1.598|-15.883|0.10
90855404|NCT02131532|181575488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.455|0.455|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test|P values below 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Null hypothesis: there was no difference in daily activities scores between baseline and three-month assessments||0.455|-5.455|0.09
90855405|NCT02131532|181575489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.821|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.382||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.091|-0.551|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test|P values below 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Null hypothesis: there was no difference in mobility scores between baseline and three-month assessments||-0.551|-7.091|0.03
90855406|NCT02131532|181575490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.875|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.264||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.594|5.844||The critical level was adjusted for the multiple comparisons for the eight subscales of the Stroke Impact Scale|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test|P values below 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Null hypothesis: there was no difference in hand function scores between baseline and three-month assessments||5.844|-9.594|0.58
90855407|NCT02131532|181575491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.576|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.691||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.304|-5.847||The critical level was adjusted for the multiple comparisons for the eight subscales of the Stroke Impact Scale|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test|P values below 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Null hypothesis: there was no difference in social activity scores between baseline and three-month assessments||-5.847|-23.304|0.006
90855408|NCT03583073|181575503|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.053|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|DF = 1||||||.053
90855409|NCT03583073|181575504|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.94||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|4.06|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||4.06|-0.18|.072
90855410|NCT01369485|181575598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3636|||||||Chi-squared|||The sample size calculation was determined using the 2-sided Chi-square test with a significance level of 5% and 80% power based upon the following assumptions: (1) proportion of responders at end of 12 weeks of treatment would be 50% in the active (test) group and 25% in the inactive (control) group; (2) a responder was defined as a subject who experienced decrease of ≥50% in mean urgency urinary incontinence episodes (leaks) between baseline and Week 12 of the study; (3) 20 % dropout rate.||||0.3636
90855411|NCT01369485|181575598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4849|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.4849
90855412|NCT01369485|181575599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2893|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2893
90855413|NCT01369485|181575599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3223|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3223
90855414|NCT01369485|181575600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3387|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3387
90855415|NCT01369485|181575601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6557|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6557
90855416|NCT01369485|181575602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4354|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4354
90855417|NCT01369485|181575603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9918|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.9918
90855418|NCT01369485|181575603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.377|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3770
90855419|NCT01369485|181575604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4147|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4147
91104372|NCT02539394|182094897|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided||||||0.1|||||||Chi-squared|||Proportion of POD2 Bazaz Solid is the same between the 2 arms||||0.100
91104373|NCT02539394|182094897|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided||||||0.279|||||||Chi-squared|||Proportion of 4-6 weeks Bazaz Solid is the same between the 2 arms||||0.279
90855420|NCT01369485|181575604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0877|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0877
90855421|NCT01369485|181575605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2032|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2032
90855422|NCT01369485|181575606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4151||||||Calculated for only those patients who had prior OAB treatment only.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4151
90855423|NCT01369485|181575607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9814|||||||Fisher Exact|||"Endpoint defined as percentage of patients that much improved or very much improved following treatment."||||0.9814
90855424|NCT01369485|181575607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7305|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.7305
90855425|NCT01369485|181575608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2191|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2191
90855426|NCT01369485|181575608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5357|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5357
90855427|NCT01306877|181575622|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The objective is to reject H0 at the 0.05 significance level. A one-sided 95% confidence upper limit for PC - PE will be constructed by Newcombe's generalized Wilson score method (Newcombe 1998). H0 will be rejected at the 0.05 significance level if this upper limit is \<7%.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.314||||0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||-0.18||P-value calculated from per protocol analysis set|Chi-squared|||||-0.18||0.0001
90902754|NCT02368002|181672716|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25||||||2 df re-random\*time interaction tested if baseline to 6M or 18M PCM and ABT weight changes differed; primary hypothesis tests were 2 planned contrasts estimating baseline to 6M (H1a, expected neg) and 18M (H1b, expected pos) PCM vs. ABT weight change|Mixed Models Analysis|The mixed model included a random participant intercept. Fixed covariates were baseline weight, TRA timing, sex, weight loss rate.||H1 predicted that suboptimal responders re-randomized to PCM would lose more weight at 6m (H1a) while those re-randomized to ABT would lose more weight at 18m (H1b). A mixed linear model predicted weight change from fixed re-randomization, measurement time, the re-randomization by measurement time interaction and covariate parameters.|The primary hypothesis tests were two planned contrasts that estimated weight change from baseline to 6M and 18M relative to baseline in PCM relative to ABT. A mixed linear model predicted weight changes between baseline and post-baseline for suboptimal responders, and this model included two a priori simple effects tests resulting in two mean differences, confidence intervals, and p-values. H1a: -2.7 lbs; 95% CI: -5.8, 0.5; p=0.09. H1b: -1.0 lbs; 95% CI: -4.2, 2.2; p=0.53|||0.25
90902755|NCT02368002|181672717|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|The mixed model included a random participant intercept. Fixed covariates were baseline weight, sex, TRA result (PCM, ABT, responder, pre-TRA quit).||Hypothesis 2 predicted that among all participants, those randomized to Early TRA would lose more weight at 6 and 18 months than those randomized to Late TRA. A mixed linear model predicted weight change from fixed treatment response assessment timing and covariate parameters.||2.3|-2.4|0.96
90902756|NCT02001974|181672729|OTHER|||||||0.0341|||||||ANOVA|||DF1681Y Cmax at Day -3||||0.0341
90902757|NCT02001974|181672729|OTHER|||||||0.0636|||||||ANOVA|||DF1681Y Cmax at Day -3||||0.0636
90902758|NCT02001974|181672729|OTHER|||||||0.0487|||||||ANOVA|||DF1681Y Cmax at Day 1||||0.0487
91031247|NCT01029353|181947144|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||A Bayesian analysis. Within pre-operative diagnosis, Initial Laparotomy and Initial Peritoneal Drain were compared using log-binomial regression. Pre-operative diagnosis levels were NEC and IP. PROC MCMC with effect coding was used. Center (random effect), treatment, pre-operative diagnosis, baseline risk, and the treatment by Preoperative diagnosis were the covariates. Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) characteristics: three chains, 10000 tunings, 10000 burn-ins, 1000000 samples, thinning=20.|Priors for model parameters: intercept = Normal(mean=0, variance=100), baseline risk and preop diagnosis parameters = Normal(mean=0, variance=1), treatment and the interaction term = Normal(mean=0, variance=0.31416), random effect standard deviation = Half-Normal(mean=0, variance=10). For the NEC pre-operative diagnosis, the posterior median relative risk of Initial Laparotomy over Initial Drainage was 0.81, 95% credible interval of (0.63, 1.00). For the IP pre-operative diagnosis, the posterior median relative risk of Initial Laparotomy over Initial Drainage was 1.09, 95% credible interval of (0.90, 1.33).|||
90902759|NCT02001974|181672729|OTHER|||||||0.3498|||||||ANOVA|||DF1681Y Cmax at Day 1||||0.3498
91032787|NCT00667095|181950799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline to 1 month.||||0.024
90855428|NCT01306877|181575626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1844|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1844
90855429|NCT01306877|181575627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5647|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5647
90902760|NCT02001974|181672729|OTHER|||||||0.0096|||||||ANOVA|||DF1681Y Cmax at Day 8||||0.0096
90855430|NCT01306877|181575628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9062|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.9062
90855431|NCT02730208|181575666|OTHER|Treatment effect outcomes are estimates.|Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.47|4.52||||||||4.52|-7.47|
90855432|NCT00245219|181575690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The comparison between the peer support condition and the control condition at Time 2. The full regression model included 2 dummy coded variables, 1 contrasting the education and control condition, and 1 contrasting the peer support and control condition. The baseline measure of the outcome variable was included, in order to examine changes in the outcomes over time. This model tested the main effects of the conditions among patients with early stage cancer, late stage patients were excluded.||||>0.05
90902761|NCT02001974|181672729|OTHER|||||||0.1374|||||||ANOVA|||DF1681Y Cmax at Day 8||||0.1374
90902762|NCT02001974|181672729|OTHER|||||||0.0065|||||||ANOVA|||DF1681Y Cmax at Day 21||||0.0065
90902763|NCT02001974|181672729|OTHER|||||||0.147|||||||ANOVA|||DF1681Y Cmax at Day 21||||0.1470
90902764|NCT02001974|181672730|OTHER|||||||0.0015|||||||ANOVA|||DF2243 Cmax at Day -3||||0.0015
90902765|NCT02001974|181672730|OTHER|||||||0.0176|||||||ANOVA|||DF2243 Cmax at Day -3||||0.0176
90902766|NCT02001974|181672730|OTHER|||||||0.0048|||||||ANOVA|||DF2243 Cmax at Day 1||||0.0048
90902767|NCT02001974|181672730|OTHER|||||||0.2083|||||||ANOVA|||DF2243 Cmax at Day 1||||0.2083
90902768|NCT02001974|181672730|OTHER|||||||0.0111|||||||ANOVA|||DF2243 Cmax at Day 8||||0.0111
90902769|NCT02001974|181672730|OTHER|||||||0.1441|||||||ANOVA|||DF2243 Cmax at Day 8||||0.1441
90902770|NCT02001974|181672730|OTHER|||||||0.0283|||||||ANOVA|||DF2243 Cmax at Day 21||||0.0283
90902771|NCT02001974|181672730|OTHER|||||||0.1331|||||||ANOVA|||DF2243 Cmax at Day 21||||0.1331
90902772|NCT02001974|181672731|OTHER|||||||0.0097|||||||ANOVA|||DF2188Y, Cmax, Day -3||||0.0097
91032788|NCT00667095|181950799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline to 3 months.||||0.036
90855433|NCT00245219|181575690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The comparison between the education condition and the control condition at Time 2. The full regression model included 2 dummy coded variables, 1 contrasting the education and control condition, and 1 contrasting the peer support and control condition. The baseline measure of the outcome variable was included, in order to examine changes in the outcomes over time. This model tested the main effects of the conditions among patients with early stage cancer, late stage patients were excluded.||||>0.05
90855434|NCT00245219|181575690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The comparison between the peer support condition and the control condition at Time 3. The full regression model included 2 dummy coded variables, 1 contrasting the education and control condition, and 1 contrasting the peer support and control condition. The baseline measure of the outcome variable was included, in order to examine changes in the outcomes over time. This model tested the main effects of the conditions among patients with early stage cancer, late stage patients were excluded.||||>0.05
90855435|NCT00245219|181575690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The comparison between the education condition and the control condition at Time 3. The full regression model included 2 dummy coded variables, 1 contrasting the education and control condition, and 1 contrasting the peer support and control condition. The baseline measure of the outcome variable was included, in order to examine changes in the outcomes over time. This model tested the main effects of the conditions among patients with early stage cancer, late stage patients were excluded.||||>0.05
90855436|NCT00245219|181575690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The comparison between the peer support condition and control condition at Time 2, among both late and early stage patients. The full regression model consisted of 3 steps: The 1st step contained the baseline measure of the dependent variable. The 2nd step contained two dummy coded variables contrasting each condition with control. The 3rd step contained the interaction between the peer support condition and cancer stage. Patients in the education condition were excluded from this analysis.||||>0.05
90855437|NCT00245219|181575690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The comparison between the peer support condition and control condition at Time 3, among both late and early stage patients. The full regression model consisted of 3 steps: The 1st step contained the baseline measure of the dependent variable. The 2nd step contained two dummy coded variables contrasting each condition with control. The 3rd step contained the interaction between the peer support condition and cancer stage. Patients in the education condition were excluded from this analysis.||||>0.05
90855438|NCT00245219|181575690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The interaction between the peer support condition and cancer stage at Time 2. The full regression model consisted of 3 steps: The 1st step contained the baseline measure of the dependent variable. The 2nd step contained two dummy coded variables contrasting each condition with control. The 3rd step contained the interaction between the peer support condition and cancer stage. Patients in the education condition were excluded from this analysis.||||>0.05
90855439|NCT00245219|181575690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The interaction between the peer support condition and cancer stage at Time 3. The full regression model consisted of 3 steps: The 1st step contained the baseline measure of the dependent variable. The 2nd step contained two dummy coded variables contrasting each condition with control. The 3rd step contained the interaction between the peer support condition and cancer stage. Patients in the education condition were excluded from this analysis.||||>0.05
90855440|NCT00245219|181575691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The comparison between the peer support condition and the control condition at Time 2. The full regression model included 2 dummy coded variables, 1 contrasting the education and control condition, and 1 contrasting the peer support and control condition. The baseline measure of the outcome variable was included, in order to examine changes in the outcomes over time. This model tested the main effects of the conditions among patients with early stage cancer, late stage patients were excluded.||||>0.05
90855441|NCT00245219|181575691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The comparison between the education condition and the control condition at Time 2. The full regression model included 2 dummy coded variables, 1 contrasting the education and control condition, and 1 contrasting the peer support and control condition. The baseline measure of the outcome variable was included, in order to examine changes in the outcomes over time. This model tested the main effects of the conditions among patients with early stage cancer, late stage patients were excluded.||||>0.05
90855442|NCT00245219|181575691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The comparison between the peer support condition and the control condition at Time 3. The full regression model included 2 dummy coded variables, 1 contrasting the education and control condition, and 1 contrasting the peer support and control condition. The baseline measure of the outcome variable was included, in order to examine changes in the outcomes over time. This model tested the main effects of the conditions among patients with early stage cancer, late stage patients were excluded.||||>0.05
90855443|NCT00245219|181575691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The comparison between the education condition and the control condition at Time 3. The full regression model included 2 dummy coded variables, 1 contrasting the education and control condition, and 1 contrasting the peer support and control condition. The baseline measure of the outcome variable was included, in order to examine changes in the outcomes over time. This model tested the main effects of the conditions among patients with early stage cancer, late stage patients were excluded.||||>0.05
90855444|NCT00245219|181575691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The comparison between the peer support condition and control condition at Time 2, among both late and early stage patients. The full regression model consisted of 3 steps: The 1st step contained the baseline measure of the dependent variable. The 2nd step contained two dummy coded variables contrasting each condition with control. The 3rd step contained the interaction between the peer support condition and cancer stage. Patients in the education condition were excluded from this analysis.||||>0.05
90902773|NCT02001974|181672731|OTHER|||||||0.0354|||||||ANOVA|||DF2188Y, Cmax, Day -3||||0.0354
90902774|NCT02001974|181672731|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||ANOVA|||DF2188Y, Cmax, Day 1||||0.0200
90902775|NCT02001974|181672731|OTHER|||||||0.2134|||||||ANOVA|||DF2188Y, Cmax, Day 1||||0.2134
90902776|NCT02001974|181672731|OTHER|||||||0.0235|||||||ANOVA|||DF2188Y, Cmax, Day 8||||0.0235
91100241|NCT02547935|182086785|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted mean change|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.9||0.746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|9.8||Statistical significance level = 0.025.|MMRM|||A longitudinal repeated measures analysis included the fixed categorical effects of treatment, week, randomisation stratification factor (i.e.anti-diabetic treatment strata), and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline measurement and baseline measurement-by-week interaction.||9.8|-13.6|0.746
90855445|NCT00245219|181575691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The interaction between the peer support condition and breast cancer stage at Time 2. The full regression model consisted of 3 steps: The 1st step contained the baseline measure of the dependent variable. The 2nd step contained two dummy coded variables contrasting each condition with control. The 3rd step contained the interaction between the peer support condition and cancer stage. Patients in the education condition were excluded from this analysis.||||>0.05
90855446|NCT00245219|181575691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The comparison between the peer support condition and control condition at Time 3, among both late and early stage patients. The full regression model consisted of 3 steps: The 1st step contained the baseline measure of the dependent variable. The 2nd step contained two dummy coded variables contrasting each condition with control. The 3rd step contained the interaction between the peer support condition and cancer stage. Patients in the education condition were excluded from this analysis.||||>0.05
90855447|NCT00245219|181575691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The interaction between the peer support condition and breast cancer stage at Time 3. The full regression model consisted of 3 steps: The 1st step contained the baseline measure of the dependent variable. The 2nd step contained two dummy coded variables contrasting each condition with control. The 3rd step contained the interaction between the peer support condition and cancer stage. Patients in the education condition were excluded from this analysis.||||>0.05
90855448|NCT00245219|181575692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||The comparison between the peer support condition and the control condition at Time 2. The full regression model included 2 dummy coded variables, 1 contrasting the education and control condition, and 1 contrasting the peer support and control condition. The baseline measure of the outcome variable was included, in order to examine changes in the outcomes over time. This model tested the main effects of the conditions among patients with early stage cancer, late stage patients were excluded.||||>0.05
90855449|NCT00245219|181575692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||The comparison between the education condition and the control condition at Time 2. The full regression model included 2 dummy coded variables, 1 contrasting the education and control condition, and 1 contrasting the peer support and control condition. The baseline measure of the outcome variable was included, in order to examine changes in the outcomes over time. This model tested the main effects of the conditions among patients with early stage cancer, late stage patients were excluded.||||>0.05
90855450|NCT00245219|181575692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||The comparison between the peer support condition and the control condition at Time 3. The full regression model included 2 dummy coded variables, 1 contrasting the education and control condition, and 1 contrasting the peer support and control condition. The baseline measure of the outcome variable was included, in order to examine changes in the outcomes over time. This model tested the main effects of the conditions among patients with early stage cancer, late stage patients were excluded.||||>0.05
90855451|NCT00245219|181575692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||The comparison between the education condition and the control condition at Time 3. The full regression model included 2 dummy coded variables, 1 contrasting the education and control condition, and 1 contrasting the peer support and control condition. The baseline measure of the outcome variable was included, in order to examine changes in the outcomes over time. This model tested the main effects of the conditions among patients with early stage cancer, late stage patients were excluded.||||>0.05
90855452|NCT00245219|181575692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||The comparison between the peer support condition and control condition at Time 2, among both late and early stage patients. The full regression model consisted of 3 steps: The 1st step contained the baseline measure of the dependent variable. The 2nd step contained two dummy coded variables contrasting each condition with control. The 3rd step contained the interaction between the peer support condition and cancer stage. Patients in the education condition were excluded from this analysis.||||>0.05
90855453|NCT00245219|181575692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||The interaction between the peer support condition and breast cancer stage at Time 2. The full regression model consisted of 3 steps: The 1st step contained the baseline measure of the dependent variable. The 2nd step contained two dummy coded variables contrasting each condition with control. The 3rd step contained the interaction between the peer support condition and cancer stage. Patients in the education condition were excluded from this analysis.||||>0.05
90855454|NCT00245219|181575692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||The comparison between the peer support condition and control condition at Time 3, among both late and early stage patients. The full regression model consisted of 3 steps: The 1st step contained the baseline measure of the dependent variable. The 2nd step contained two dummy coded variables contrasting each condition with control. The 3rd step contained the interaction between the peer support condition and cancer stage. Patients in the education condition were excluded from this analysis.||||>0.05
90855455|NCT00245219|181575692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||The interaction between the peer support condition and breast cancer stage at Time 3. The full regression model consisted of 3 steps: The 1st step contained the baseline measure of the dependent variable. The 2nd step contained two dummy coded variables contrasting each condition with control. The 3rd step contained the interaction between the peer support condition and cancer stage. Patients in the education condition were excluded from this analysis.||||>0.05
91100242|NCT02547935|182086786|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|4.8||Statistical significance level = 0.025.|Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression model analysis with adjustment for baseline UACR and pooled randomisation strata.||4.8|1.8|<0.001
91100243|NCT02547935|182086786|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.86||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|3.0||Statistical significance level = 0.025.|Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression model analysis with adjustment for baseline UACR and pooled randomisation strata.||3.0|1.1|0.013
90902777|NCT02001974|181672731|OTHER|||||||0.0964|||||||ANOVA|||DF2188Y, Cmax, Day 8||||0.0964
90902778|NCT02001974|181672731|OTHER|||||||0.0314|||||||ANOVA|||DF2188Y, Cmax, Day 21||||0.0314
90902779|NCT02001974|181672731|OTHER|||||||0.0773|||||||ANOVA|||DF2188Y, Cmax, Day 21||||0.0773
90902780|NCT02001974|181672732|OTHER|||||||0.1016|||||||ANOVA|||Cmax, ibuprofen, Day -3||||0.1016
90902781|NCT02001974|181672732|OTHER|||||||0.2001|||||||ANOVA|||Cmax, ibuprofen, Day -3||||0.2001
90902782|NCT02001974|181672732|OTHER|||||||0.0802|||||||ANOVA|||Cmax, ibuprofen, Day 1||||0.0802
90902783|NCT02001974|181672732|OTHER|||||||0.4728|||||||ANOVA|||Cmax, ibuprofen, Day 1||||0.4728
90902784|NCT02001974|181672732|OTHER|||||||0.0355|||||||ANOVA|||Cmax, ibuprofen, Day 8||||0.0355
90902785|NCT02001974|181672732|OTHER|||||||0.1709|||||||ANOVA|||Cmax, ibuprofen, Day 8||||0.1709
90902786|NCT02001974|181672732|OTHER|||||||0.0685|||||||ANOVA|||Cmax, ibuprofen, Day 21||||0.0685
91100244|NCT02547935|182086787|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|11.2||Statistical significance level = 0.025.|Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression model analysis with adjustment for baseline HbA1c and pooled randomisation strata.||11.2|2.6|<0.001
91100245|NCT02547935|182086787|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74||||0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|3.8||Statistical significance level = 0.025.|Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression model analysis with adjustment for baseline HbA1c and pooled randomisation strata.||3.8|0.8|0.167
91100246|NCT02547935|182086788|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted mean change|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|-1.2||Statistical significance level = 0.025.|MMRM|||A longitudinal repeated measures model of the logarithms of the post-baseline to baseline ratios, included the fixed categorical effects of treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and randomisation strata, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of log-baseline SBP value and log-baseline SBP value-by-week interaction.||-1.2|-8.3|0.009
90855456|NCT02021656|181575700|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Binomial Exact Test|||A sample size of 100 Chinese participants in the treatment naive group provided at least 90% power to detect a 17% improvement in SVR12 rate from the historical control rate of 57% using 2-sided exact one-sample binomial test at significant level of 0.05.||||<0.001
90855457|NCT01827358|181575709|OTHER|For strong control of the family-wise error rate at the 0.05 confidence level, the Holm procedure (Holm 1979) is used. Under this procedure, the p-values from the two tests are sorted as p\_((1)) (smaller p-value) and p\_((2)) (larger p-value). If p\_((1))=0.025 and p\_((2))=0.05, then the null hypotheses for both tests are rejected. If p\_((1))=0.025 and p\_((2))\>0.05, then only the null hypothesis associated with the smaller p-value is rejected. In any other case, neither null hypothesis is rejected|Odds Ratio (OR)|315.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|49.6|2698.8|||Fisher Exact|||||2698.8|49.6|<0.001
90855458|NCT01827358|181575710|OTHER|For strong control of the family-wise error rate at the 0.05 confidence level, the Holm procedure (Holm 1979) is used. Under this procedure, the p-values from the two tests are sorted as p\_((1)) (smaller p-value) and p\_((2)) (larger p-value). If p\_((1))=0.025 and p\_((2))=0.05, then the null hypotheses for both tests are rejected. If p\_((1))=0.025 and p\_((2))\>0.05, then only the null hypothesis associated with the smaller p-value is rejected. In any other case, neither null hypothesis is rejected|Odds Ratio (OR)|39.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.5|1666.3|||Fisher Exact|||||1666.3|5.5|<0.001
90855459|NCT01827358|181575711|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.28|||Cox proportional hazards model|||The association between mupirocin treatment and non-clinical SA Infection on or before Day 85 was assessed via a Cox Proportional Hazards Model. Onset time was defined as the first day of non-SA infection. Infants were right-censored at the time of discharge from the hospital or at Day 85, whichever came first.||3.28|0.30|0.997
90855460|NCT01827358|181575712|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.33||||0.656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|4.76|||Cox proportional hazards model|||The association between mupirocin treatment and non-clinical SA Infection on or before Day 85 was assessed via a Cox Proportional Hazards Model. Onset time was defined as the first day of non-SA infection. Infants were right-censored at the time of discharge from the hospital or at Day 85, whichever came first.||4.76|0.37|0.656
90855461|NCT01827358|181575714|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.23||||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|2.01|||Cox proportional hazards models|||The time to clinical infection with SA on or prior to Day 22 was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier estimates of the survival curve and Cox proportional hazards models (with treatment as the only independent variable). Infants were censored at Day 22 or completion or early termination from the study. Estimates of the hazard ratio (values less than one indicating a treatment benefit) with Wald 95% confidence intervals and accompanying p-values were calculated.||2.01|0.03|0.182
90855462|NCT01827358|181575715|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.24||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|2.12|||Cox proportional hazards model|||The time to clinical infection with SA on or prior to Day 22 was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier estimates of the survival curve and Cox proportional hazards models (with treatment as the only independent variable). Infants were censored at Day 22 or completion or early termination from the study. Estimates of the hazard ratio (values less than one indicating a treatment benefit) with Wald 95% confidence intervals and accompanying p-values were calculated.||2.12|0.03|0.198
90902787|NCT02001974|181672732|OTHER|||||||0.3189|||||||ANOVA|||Cmax, ibuprofen, Day 21||||0.3189
90902788|NCT02001974|181672733|OTHER|||||||0.2375|||||||ANOVA|||Paclitaxel, Cmax, Day 1||||0.2375
90902789|NCT02001974|181672733|OTHER|||||||0.3608|||||||ANOVA|||Cmax, ibuprofen, Day 1||||0.3608
91100247|NCT02547935|182086788|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted mean change|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|0.8||Statistical significance level = 0.025.|MMRM|||A longitudinal repeated measures model of the logarithms of the post-baseline to baseline ratios, included the fixed categorical effects of treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and randomisation strata, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of log-baseline SBP value and log-baseline SBP value-by-week interaction.||0.8|-6.4|0.122
91100248|NCT02547935|182086789|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted mean change|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.05||Statistical significance level = 0.025.|MMRM|||A longitudinal repeated measures analysis included the fixed categorical effects of treatment, week, randomisation stratification factor (i.e. anti-diabetic treatment strata), and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline measurement and baseline measurement-by-week interaction.||0.05|-0.38|0.142
91100249|NCT01398475|182086790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares (LS) mean ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.951|1.1|||||The geometric LS mean ratio (TF1 fasted divided by RF fasted) was calculated using a linear mixed-effects model adjusted for treatment, sequence, period, and participant.|||1.10|0.951|
91100250|NCT01398475|182086790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS mean ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.947|1.09|||||The geometric LS mean ratio (TF2 fasted divided by RF fasted) was calculated using a linear mixed-effects model adjusted for treatment, sequence, period, and participant.|||1.09|0.947|
91100251|NCT01398475|182086790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS mean ratio|0.888|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.827|0.953|||||The geometric LS mean ratio (TF2 fed divided by TF2 fasted) was calculated using a linear mixed-effects model adjusted for treatment, sequence, period, and participant.|||0.953|0.827|
91104374|NCT02539394|182094898|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.145|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The means Pre-operative NDI for the two populations is equal||||0.145
90902790|NCT02001974|181672733|OTHER|||||||0.0442|||||||ANOVA|||Cmax, ibuprofen, Day 8||||0.0442
90902791|NCT02001974|181672733|OTHER|||||||0.1067|||||||ANOVA|||Cmax, ibuprofen, Day 8||||0.1067
90902792|NCT02001974|181672739|OTHER|||||||0.0134|||||||ANOVA|||DF1681Y, AUC0-8, Day -3||||0.0134
91031248|NCT01029353|181947145|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.13|||||The model was fit using PROC GENMOD in SAS, using center as the repeated effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a robust Poisson regression model, with log link and center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy over drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to NEC.||1.13|0.52|
90902793|NCT02001974|181672739|OTHER|||||||0.0799|||||||ANOVA|||DF1681Y, AUC0-8, Day -3||||0.0799
91031249|NCT01029353|181947145|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.06|||||The model was fit using PROC GENMOD in SAS, using center as the repeated effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a robust Poisson regression model, with log link and center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy over drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to IP.||2.06|0.79|
91031250|NCT01029353|181947145|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||A Bayesian analysis. Within pre-operative diagnosis, Initial Laparotomy and Initial Peritoneal Drain were compared using log-binomial regression. Pre-operative diagnosis levels were NEC and IP. PROC MCMC with effect coding was used. Center (random effect), treatment, pre-operative diagnosis, baseline risk, and the treatment by Preoperative diagnosis were the covariates. Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) characteristics: three chains, 10000 tunings, 10000 burn-ins, 1000000 samples, thinning=20.|Priors for model parameters: intercept = Normal(mean=0, variance=100), baseline risk and preop diagnosis parameters = Normal(mean=0, variance=1), treatment and the interaction term = Normal(mean=0, variance=0.31416), random effect standard deviation = Half-Normal(mean=0, variance=10). For the NEC pre-operative diagnosis, the posterior median relative risk of Initial Laparotomy over Initial Drainage was 0.82, 95% credible interval of (0.53, 1.20). For the IP pre-operative diagnosis, the posterior median relative risk of Initial Laparotomy over Initial Drainage was 1.18, 95% credible interval of (0.74, 1.87).|||
91031251|NCT01029353|181947146|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.27|||||The model was fit using PROC GENMOD in SAS, using center as the repeated effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a robust Poisson regression model, with log link and center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy over drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to NEC.||1.27|0.42|
91031252|NCT01029353|181947146|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.45|||||The model was fit using PROC GENMOD in SAS, using center as the repeated effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a robust Poisson regression model, with log link and center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy over drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to IP.||1.45|0.85|
91031253|NCT01029353|181947146|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||A Bayesian analysis. Within pre-operative diagnosis, Initial Laparotomy and Initial Peritoneal Drain were compared using log-binomial regression. Pre-operative diagnosis levels were NEC and IP. PROC MCMC with effect coding was used. Center (random effect), treatment, pre-operative diagnosis, baseline risk, and the treatment by Pre-operative diagnosis were the covariates. Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) characteristics: three chains, 10000 tunings, 10000 burn-ins, 1000000 samples, thinning=20.|Priors for model parameters: intercept = Normal(mean=0, variance=100), baseline risk and preop diagnosis parameters = Normal(mean=0, variance=1), treatment and the interaction term = Normal(mean=0, variance=0.31416), random effect standard deviation = Half-Normal(mean=0, variance=10). For the NEC pre-operative diagnosis, the posterior median relative risk of Initial Laparotomy over Initial Drainage was 0.76, 95% credible interval of (0.48, 1.18). For the IP pre-operative diagnosis, the posterior median relative risk of Initial Laparotomy over Initial Drainage was 1.08, 95% credible interval of (0.83, 1.42).|||
91031254|NCT01029353|181947147|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.05|||||The model was fit using PROC GENMOD in SAS, using center as the repeated effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a robust Poisson regression model, with log link and center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy over drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to NEC.||1.05|0.47|
91031255|NCT01029353|181947147|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.19|||||The model was fit using PROC GENMOD in SAS, using center as the repeated effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a robust Poisson regression model, with log link and center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy over drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to IP.||1.19|0.76|
91032789|NCT00667095|181950800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.051|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline to 1 month.||||0.051
91032790|NCT00667095|181950800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline to 3 months.||||0.12
91032791|NCT00667095|181950801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline to 1 month.||||0.42
91032792|NCT00667095|181950801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline to 3 months.||||0.15
91032793|NCT00667095|181950802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline to 1 month||||0.18
91032794|NCT00667095|181950802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline to 3 months.||||0.77
91032795|NCT00667095|181950803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline to one month||||0.67
91100252|NCT01398475|182086791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares (LS) mean ratio|0.979|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.868|1.1|||||The geometric LS mean ratio (TF1 fasted divided by RF fasted) was calculated using a linear mixed-effects model adjusted for treatment, sequence, period, and participant.|||1.10|0.868|
91100253|NCT01398475|182086791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS mean ratio|0.962|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.852|1.08|||||The geometric LS mean ratio (TF2 fasted divided by RF fasted) was calculated using a linear mixed-effects model adjusted for treatment, sequence, period, and participant.|||1.08|0.852|
91100254|NCT01398475|182086791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS mean ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.727|0.925|||||The geometric LS mean ratio (TF2 fed divided by TF2 fasted) was calculated using a linear mixed-effects model adjusted for treatment, sequence, period, and participant.|||0.925|0.727|
91100255|NCT01398475|182086792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.719|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.25|0.5|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The median difference was calculated as TF1 fasted minus RF fasted.|||0.500|-0.250|0.719
91100256|NCT01398475|182086792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.25|0.75|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The median difference was calculated as TF2 fasted minus RF fasted.|||0.750|-0.250|0.960
90855463|NCT00510952|181575720|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority margin was 0.4%.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05||||0.551||95.0|-0.21|0.11||P-value for Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable = Treatment + Baseline + Country + Baseline Sulfonylurea Group.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval is for the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments (Insulin Lispro Protamine Suspension minus Glargine).|Hypothesis: Basal analog insulin lispro protamine suspension, injected once or twice daily is noninferior to basal analog insulin glargine, injected once a day, with regard to glycemic control as measured by change in HbA1c from baseline to 24 week endpoint (last observation carried forward).||0.11|-0.21|0.551
90855464|NCT00510952|181575721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06||||0.427||95.0|-0.21|0.09||P-value for Week 12 HbA1c.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable = Treatment + Baseline + Country + Baseline Sulfonylurea Group.|The two-sides 95% confidence interval is for the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments (Insulin Lispro Protamine Suspension minus Glargine).|||0.09|-0.21|0.427
90855465|NCT00510952|181575721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06||||0.427||95.0|-0.21|0.09||P-value for Week 12 Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable = Treatment + Baseline + Country + Baseline Sulfonylurea Group.|The two-sides 95% confidence interval is for the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments (Insulin Lispro Protamine Suspension minus Glargine).|||0.09|-0.21|0.427
90855466|NCT00510952|181575721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09||||0.254||95.0|-0.25|0.07||P-value for Week 24 HbA1c.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable = Treatment + Baseline + Country + Baseline Sulfonylurea Group.|The two-sides 95% confidence interval is for the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments (Insulin Lispro Protamine Suspension minus Glargine).|||0.07|-0.25|0.254
90855467|NCT00510952|181575721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09||||0.254||95.0|-0.25|0.07||P-value for Week 24 Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable = Treatment + Baseline + Country + Baseline Sulfonylurea Group.|The two-sides 95% confidence interval is for the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments (Insulin Lispro Protamine Suspension minus Glargine).|||0.07|-0.25|0.254
90855468|NCT00510952|181575722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.634||95.0||||P-value for HbA1c \<7.0%.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.634
90855469|NCT00510952|181575722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.504||95.0||||P-value for HbA1c ≤6.5%.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.504
90855470|NCT00510952|181575723|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority margin of 0.8 millimoles per liter (mmol/L).|Mean Difference (Net)|0.06||||0.323||95.0|-0.06|0.19|||ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Variable = Treatment + Country + Baseline HbA1c + Baseline Sulfonylurea Group.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval is for the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatment groups (Insulin Lispro Protamine Suspension minus Glargine).|Hypothesis: Insulin lispro protamine suspension is noninferior to glargine at actual morning pre-meal at endpoint.||0.19|-0.06|0.323
90855471|NCT00510952|181575724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.302||95.0||||P-value for Actual Morning Pre-Meal.|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Variable = Treatment + Country + Baseline HbA1c + Baseline Sulfonylurea Group.||||||0.302
91100257|NCT01398475|182086792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|2.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The median difference was calculated as TF2 fed minus TF2 fasted.|||2.00|0|0.006
91100258|NCT03461861|182086806|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.083|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0056||0.007567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0886|-0.0774|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis (H0) of this superiority trials asserts that there is no true difference in functional connectivity between the interventions of placebo and AGB101, and the alternative hypothesis (H1) states that there is a difference between the interventions of placebo and AGB101. A type I error is the error of rejecting H0 when it is actually true.||-0.0774|-0.0886|0.007567
91100259|NCT03461861|182086807|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.4||0.900593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|4.52|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis (H0) of this trial asserts that there is no true difference in AVLT between the interventions of placebo and AGB101, and the alternative hypothesis (H1) states that there is a difference between the interventions of placebo and AGB101. A type I error is the error of rejecting H0 when it is actually true.||4.52|1.72|0.900593
91100260|NCT01928771|182086808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.71|||Negative binomial|Model includes covariates treatment group, region, number of exacerbations in the previous year, and use of maintenance oral corticosteroids||||0.71|0.42|<0.001
91100261|NCT01928771|182086808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.64|||Negative binomial|Model includes covariates treatment group, region, number of exacerbations in the previous year, and use of maintenance oral corticosteroids||||0.64|0.37|<0.001
91100262|NCT01928771|182086809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.7||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.0|||Negative binomial|Model includes covariates treatment group, region, number of exacerbations in the previous year, and use of maintenance oral corticosteroids||||1.0|0.5|0.047
91100263|NCT01928771|182086809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.83||||0.268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.16|||Negative binomial|Model includes covariates treatment group, region, number of exacerbations in the previous year, and use of maintenance oral corticosteroids||||1.16|0.59|0.268
90855472|NCT00510952|181575724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.144||95.0||||P-value for Actual Morning Postprandial Meal.|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Variable = Treatment + Country + Baseline HbA1c + Baseline Sulfonylurea Group.||||||0.144
91100264|NCT01928771|182086810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.61||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.01|||Negative binomial|Model includes covariates treatment group, region, number of exacerbations resulting in ER/hospitalization in the previous year, and use of OCS||||1.01|0.37|0.053
91100265|NCT01928771|182086810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.67|||Negative binomial|Model includes covariates treatment group, region, number of exacerbations resulting in ER/hospitalization in the previous year, and use of OCS||||0.67|0.2|<0.001
91100266|NCT01928771|182086811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.78|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for region, number of exacerbations in the previous year, use of OCS||Proportion of patients with \>=1 asthma exacerbation||0.78|0.37|<0.001
91100267|NCT01928771|182086811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.62||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for region, number of exacerbations from the previous year, use of OCS||Proportion of patients with \>=1 asthma exacerbation||0.90|0.43|0.01
91100268|NCT01928771|182086812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.82|||Regression, Cox|Model includes treatment, number of exacerbations in the previous year, region, use of OCS||Time to first exacerbation||0.82|0.49|<0.001
91100269|NCT01928771|182086812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.78|||Regression, Cox|Model includes treatment, number of exacerbations from the previous year, region, use of OCS||Time to first exacerbation||0.78|0.46|<0.001
90958492|NCT04055090|181796785|OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-1.48||||0.0155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.67|-0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) with treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, and use of gabapentin/pregabalin as main fixed effects. Baseline average 24-hour pain score is included as a covariate.|||-0.29|-2.67|0.0155
91100270|NCT01928771|182086813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.106||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.016|0.196|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline pre-BD FEV1, region, use of OCS, visit and treatment by visit||||0.196|0.016|0.022
91100271|NCT01928771|182086813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.159||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.068|0.249|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline pre-BD FEV1, region, use of OCS, visit and treatment by visit||||0.249|0.068|0.001
91100272|NCT01928771|182086814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.025||||0.644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.134|0.083|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline pre-BD FEV1, region, use of OCS, visit and treatment by visit||||0.083|-0.134|0.644
91100273|NCT01928771|182086814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.102||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.003|0.208|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline pre-BD FEV1, region, use of OCS, visit and treatment by visit||||0.208|-0.003|0.057
91100274|NCT01928771|182086815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline asthma symptom score, region, use of OCS, visit and visit by treatment||||0.12|-0.27|0.442
91100275|NCT01928771|182086815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline asthma symptom score, region, use of OCS, visit and visit by treatment||||-0.06|-0.45|0.012
91100276|NCT01928771|182086816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline asthma symptom score, region, use of OCS, visit and visit by treatment||||0.08|-0.48|0.169
91100277|NCT01928771|182086816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline asthma symptom score, region, use of OCS, visit and visit by treatment||||-0.01|-0.57|0.043
91100278|NCT01928771|182086817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline asthma medication use, region, use of OCS, visit and visit by treatment||||0.10|-1.16|0.1
91100279|NCT01928771|182086817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline asthma medication use, region, use of OCS, visit and visit by treatment||||0.07|-1.21|0.081
91100280|NCT01928771|182086818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.32||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.2|37.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline morning PEF, region, use of OCS, visit and visit by treatment||Morning PEF change from baseline to Week 48||37.43|9.20|0.001
91100281|NCT01928771|182086818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.46||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.08|30.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline morning PEF, region, use of OCS, visit and visit by treatment||Morning PEF change from baseline to Week 48||30.83|2.08|0.025
91100282|NCT01928771|182086819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.75||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.86|35.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline evening PEF, region, use of OCS, visit and visit by treatment||Evening PEF change from baseline to Week 48||35.65|7.86|0.002
91032796|NCT00667095|181950803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline to 3 months.||||0.20
91100283|NCT01928771|182086819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.18||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.09|33.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline evening PEF, region, use of OCS, visit and visit by treatment||Evening PEF change from baseline to Week 48||33.28|5.09|0.008
91100284|NCT01928771|182086820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline proportion of nights with nocturnal awakenings, region, use of OCS, visit and visit by treatment||||0.04|-0.05|0.964
91100285|NCT01928771|182086820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|-0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline proportion of nights with nocturnal awakenings, region, use of OCS, visit and visit by treatment||||-0.01|-0.11|0.012
91100286|NCT01928771|182086821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline ACQ-6 score, region, use of OCS, visit and visit by treatment||||0.04|-0.34|0.111
91100287|NCT01928771|182086821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline ACQ-6 score, region, use of OCS, visit and visit by treatment||||-0.10|-0.48|0.003
91104375|NCT02539394|182094898|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.234|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The means 4-6 weeks NDI for the two populations is equal||||0.234
91100288|NCT01928771|182086822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline ACQ-6 score, region, use of OCS, visit and visit by treatment||||0.27|-0.27|0.99
91100289|NCT01928771|182086822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline ACQ-6 score, region, use of OCS, visit and visit by treatment||||0.05|-0.48|0.107
91100290|NCT01928771|182086826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes covariates treatment, baseline AQLQ(S)+12 score, region, use of OCS, visit, and visit by treatment||||0.37|-0.02|0.081
91100291|NCT01928771|182086826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes covariates treatment, baseline AQLQ(S)+12 score, region, use of OCS, visit, and visit by treatment||||0.5|0.1|0.004
91100292|NCT01271855|182086849|SUPERIORITY||Z-Score|0.93||||0.35|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The z-score is a standardized version of the Wilcoxon test statistic. In this study, z-scores with an absolute value exceeding 1.96 signal the two groups have meaningfully different pain scores. Other values would fail to reject the null hypothesis.|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the visual analogue pain score scale (VAS) between participants in the Glycerin suppository group and those in the Belladonna and opioid suppository group 24-hours after delivery.||||.35
91100293|NCT01271855|182086850|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.88||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|6.21|||Regression, Logistic|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the odds of taking additional pain medications between participants in the Glycerin suppository group and those in the Belladonna and opioid suppository group 24-hours after delivery.||6.21|0.57|.30
91100294|NCT01271855|182086851|SUPERIORITY||Z-Score|2.34||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The z-score is a standardized version of the Wilcoxon test statistic. In this study, z-scores with an absolute value exceeding 1.96 signal the two groups have meaningfully different satisfaction scores. Other values fail to reject the null hypothesis|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the pain satisfaction score between participants in the Glycerin suppository group and those in the Belladonna and opioid suppository group at discharge||||.02
90902794|NCT02001974|181672739|OTHER|||||||0.0241|||||||ANOVA|||DF1681Y, AUC0-8, Day 1||||0.0241
90902795|NCT02001974|181672739|OTHER|||||||0.01384|||||||ANOVA|||DF1681Y, AUC0-8, Day 1||||0.01384
90902796|NCT02001974|181672739|OTHER|||||||0.0091|||||||ANOVA|||DF1681Y, AUC0-8, Day 8||||0.0091
90902797|NCT02001974|181672739|OTHER|||||||0.5687|||||||ANOVA|||DF1681Y, AUC0-8, Day 8||||0.5687
90902798|NCT02001974|181672739|OTHER|||||||0.0058|||||||ANOVA|||DF1681Y, AUC0-8, Day 21||||0.0058
90902799|NCT02001974|181672739|OTHER|||||||0.3667|||||||ANOVA|||DF1681Y, AUC0-8, Day 21||||0.3667
90902800|NCT02001974|181672740|OTHER|||||||0.0029|||||||ANOVA|||DF2243Y - AUC0-8 - Day -3||||0.0029
90902801|NCT02001974|181672740|OTHER|||||||0.0349|||||||ANOVA|||DF2243Y - AUC0-8 - Day -3||||0.0349
90902802|NCT02001974|181672740|OTHER|||||||0.0119|||||||ANOVA|||DF2243Y - AUC0-8 - Day 1||||0.0119
90902803|NCT02001974|181672740|OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||ANOVA|||DF2243Y - AUC0-8 - Day 1||||0.2100
90902804|NCT02001974|181672740|OTHER|||||||0.0165|||||||ANOVA|||DF2243Y - AUC0-8 - Day 8||||0.0165
90902805|NCT02001974|181672740|OTHER|||||||0.1496|||||||ANOVA|||DF2243Y - AUC0-8 - Day 8||||0.1496
90902806|NCT02001974|181672740|OTHER|||||||0.0321|||||||ANOVA|||DF2243Y - AUC0-8 - Day 21||||0.0321
90902807|NCT02001974|181672740|OTHER|||||||0.1404|||||||ANOVA|||DF2243Y - AUC0-8 - Day 21||||0.1404
90902808|NCT02001974|181672741|OTHER|||||||0.0081|||||||ANOVA|||AUC0-8 for DF2188Y, Day -3||||0.0081
91104376|NCT02539394|182094903|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.99
91104377|NCT00834587|182094913|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|99.1||||||90.0|92.4|106.2|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||106.2|92.4|
91104378|NCT00834587|182094914|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|100.7||||||90.0|98.8|102.6|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||102.6|98.8|
91104379|NCT00834587|182094915|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|100.6||||||90.0|98.8|102.5|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||102.5|98.8|
91104380|NCT00834587|182094916|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|101.7||||||90.0|97.3|106.3|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||106.3|97.3|
91104381|NCT00834587|182094917|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|99.2||||||90.0|96.5|102.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||102.0|96.5|
91104382|NCT00834587|182094918|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|99.1||||||90.0|96.5|101.8|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||101.8|96.5|
91104383|NCT02037984|182094976|OTHER|PT1 GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT1 GMC Ratio|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.1||||||||1.10|0.60|
91104384|NCT02037984|182094976|OTHER|PT3 GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT3 GMC Ratio|2.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.64|3.02||||||||3.02|1.64|
91104385|NCT02037984|182094976|OTHER|PT4 GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT4 GMG Ratio|1.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.84||||||||1.84|1.01|
91104386|NCT02037984|182094976|OTHER|PT5 GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT5 GMC Ratio|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.05||||||||1.05|0.48|
91104387|NCT02037984|182094976|OTHER|PT6A GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT6A GMC Ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.13||||||||1.13|0.32|
91104388|NCT02037984|182094976|OTHER|PT6B GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT6B GMG Ratio|0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.73||||||||0.73|0.16|
91104389|NCT02037984|182094976|OTHER|PT7F GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT7F GMC Ratio|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.02||||||||1.02|0.51|
91104390|NCT02037984|182094976|OTHER|PT9V GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT9V GMC Ratio|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.08||||||||1.08|0.51|
91104391|NCT02037984|182094976|OTHER|PT14 GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar®)|PT9V GMC Ratio|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.9||||||||0.90|0.39|
91031256|NCT01029353|181947147|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||A Bayesian analysis. Within pre-operative diagnosis, Initial Laparotomy and Initial Peritoneal Drain were compared using log-binomial regression. Pre-operative diagnosis levels were NEC and IP. PROC MCMC with effect coding was used. Center (random effect), treatment, pre-operative diagnosis, baseline risk, and the treatment by Preoperative diagnosis were the covariates. Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) characteristics: three chains, 10000 tunings, 10000 burn-ins, 1000000 samples, thinning=20.|Priors for model parameters: intercept = Normal(mean=0, variance=100), baseline risk and preop diagnosis parameters = Normal(mean=0, variance=1), treatment and the interaction term = Normal(mean=0, variance=0.31416), random effect standard deviation = Half-Normal(mean=0, variance=10). For the NEC pre-operative diagnosis, the posterior median relative risk of Initial Laparotomy over Initial Drainage was 0.73, 95% credible interval of (0.52, 0.96). For the IP pre-operative diagnosis, the posterior median relative risk of Initial Laparotomy over Initial Drainage was 0.95, 95% credible interval of (0.68, 1.32).|||
91032797|NCT00667095|181950804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change between baseline and one month||||0.31
90902809|NCT02001974|181672741|OTHER|||||||0.064|||||||ANOVA|||AUC0-8 for DF2188Y, Day -3||||0.0640
90902810|NCT02001974|181672741|OTHER|||||||0.0397|||||||ANOVA|||AUC0-8 for DF2188Y, Day 1||||0.0397
90902811|NCT02001974|181672741|OTHER|||||||0.1898|||||||ANOVA|||AUC0-8 for DF2188Y, Day 1||||0.1898
90902812|NCT02001974|181672741|OTHER|||||||0.025|||||||ANOVA|||AUC0-8 for DF2188Y, Day 8||||0.0250
90902813|NCT02001974|181672741|OTHER|||||||0.1605|||||||ANOVA|||AUC0-8 for DF2188Y, Day 8||||0.1605
90902814|NCT02001974|181672741|OTHER|||||||0.0786|||||||ANOVA|||AUC0-8 for DF2188Y, Day 21||||0.0786
90902815|NCT02001974|181672741|OTHER|||||||0.2652|||||||ANOVA|||AUC0-8 for DF2188Y, Day 21||||0.2652
90902816|NCT02001974|181672742|OTHER|||||||0.1335|||||||ANOVA|||Ibuprofen, AUC0-8, Day -3||||0.1335
90902817|NCT02001974|181672742|OTHER|||||||0.2658|||||||ANOVA|||Ibuprofen, AUC0-8, Day -3||||0.2658
90902818|NCT02001974|181672742|OTHER|||||||0.1063|||||||ANOVA|||Ibuprofen, AUC0-8, Day 1||||0.1063
90902819|NCT02001974|181672742|OTHER|||||||0.4959|||||||ANOVA|||Ibuprofen, AUC0-8, Day 1||||0.4959
90902820|NCT02001974|181672742|OTHER|||||||0.0452|||||||ANOVA|||Ibuprofen, AUC0-8, Day 8||||0.0452
90902821|NCT02001974|181672742|OTHER|||||||0.2223|||||||ANOVA|||Ibuprofen, AUC0-8, Day 8||||0.2223
90902822|NCT02001974|181672742|OTHER|||||||0.0737|||||||ANOVA|||Ibuprofen, AUC0-8, Day 21||||0.0737
90902823|NCT02001974|181672742|OTHER|||||||0.2804|||||||ANOVA|||Ibuprofen, AUC0-8, Day21||||0.2804
90902824|NCT02001974|181672743|OTHER|||||||0.1449|||||||ANOVA|||Paclitaxel, AUC0-8, Day 1||||0.1449
90902825|NCT02001974|181672743|OTHER|||||||0.1338|||||||ANOVA|||Ibuprofen, AUC0-8, Day 1||||0.1338
90902826|NCT02001974|181672743|OTHER|||||||0.0633|||||||ANOVA|||Ibuprofen, AUC0-8, Day 8||||0.0633
90902827|NCT02001974|181672743|OTHER|||||||0.6939|||||||ANOVA|||Ibuprofen, AUC0-8, Day 8||||0.6939
90902828|NCT00672958|181672761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.74||||0.407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|1.01||Pre-specified sequential statistical testing procedure indicates that when p-value for change from baseline in HAMD-24 at Week 6 \>0.05, hierarchical testing stops and for subsequent endpoints in the sequence a nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), with treatment and center as fixed factors and baseline HAM-D24 as a covariate.||Change from Baseline in HAM-D24 total score at Week 6 was tested at significance level 0.05. To control for multiplicity, subsequent endpoints were to be tested in a sequential testing procedure at significance level 0.025; as soon as an endpoint in a sequence was non-significant at 0.025, the testing procedure was stopped for all subsequent endpoints in that sequence.||1.01|-2.48|0.407
90902829|NCT00672958|181672762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.07||||0.901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|1.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and center as fixed factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||Comparison of change from Baseline at Week 1.||1.10|-0.97|0.901
90902830|NCT00672958|181672762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.26||||0.701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|1.59|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and center as fixed factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||Change from Baseline at Week 2||1.59|-1.07|0.701
90902831|NCT00672958|181672762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.68||||0.356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|0.76|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and center as fixed factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||Change from Baseline at Week 3||0.76|-2.11|0.356
90902832|NCT00672958|181672762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.33||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|1.19|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and center as fixed factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||Change from Baseline at Week 4||1.19|-1.85|0.670
90902833|NCT00672958|181672762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.87||||0.304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|0.79|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and center as fixed factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||Change from Baseline at Week 5||0.79|-2.52|0.304
90902834|NCT01682538|181672813|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was established if the 90% confidence interval of the ratio was completely within the acceptance range (0.80-1.25)|Ratio of geometric means|0.858|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|0.91|||ANOVA|||||0.91|0.81|
90902835|NCT01682538|181672814|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was established if the 90% confidence interval of the ratio was completely within the acceptance range (0.80-1.25)|Ratio of geometric means|0.954|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|1.07|||ANOVA|||||1.07|0.85|
90902836|NCT01682538|181672815|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence (no food effect) was established if the 90% confidence interval of the ratio was completely within the acceptance range (0.80 - 1.25).|Ratio of geometric means|1.013|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.07|||ANOVA|||||1.07|0.96|
90902837|NCT01682538|181672816|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence (no food effect) was established if the 90% confidence interval of the ratio was completely within the acceptance range (0.80 - 1.25)|Ratio of geometric means|0.802|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.71|0.9|||ANOVA|||||0.90|0.71|
90958493|NCT05478499|181796792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|15.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Full Analysis Set||15.3|2.5|<0.0001
90958494|NCT05478499|181796792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|18.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Patient sub-population (s-PGA ≥ 3)||18.4|2.7|<0.0001
91032798|NCT00667095|181950804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change between baseline and 3 months||||0.038
91104392|NCT02037984|182094976|OTHER|PT18C GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT18C GMC Ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.31||||||||1.31|0.64|
91104393|NCT02037984|182094976|OTHER|PT19A GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT19A GMC Ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.27||||||||1.27|0.61|
91100295|NCT01407367|182086855|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.38||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.94||calculated p-value. Results adjusted for gender, race, age, BMI, MAP, eGFR, smoking history, diabetes, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, cancer, education employment status, health literacy and RAAS use.|Regression, Cox|||||0.94|0.16|.04
90902838|NCT00777803|181672834|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% Newcombe confidence interval for proportions (paired data) was applied. The lower bound of the Newcombe-Wilson confidence interval of the difference in response rates between groups was compared to the non-inferiority margin of -15%.|difference of response rates|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|7.1|||||Difference of response rates = response rate in IncobotulinumtoxinA (Xeomin®/Bocouture®) - response rate in OnabotulinumtoxinA (Vistabel®)|Null Hypothesis: Response rate of IncobotulinumtoxinA (Xeomin®/Bocouture®) minus the response rate of OnabotulinumtoxinA (Vistabel®) is lower or equal -15% (non-inferiority margin).||7.1|-3.2|
90902839|NCT01755689|181672848|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority criteria: the upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided standardised asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for the ratio of rSBA GMTs had to be below the pre-defined limit of 2.|Adjusted GMT Ratio|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.43|||ANCOVA|||Adjusted GMT ratio of the Nimenrix Group versus Nimenrix+Cervarix+Boostrix Group in terms of rSBA-MenA titers.||1.43|0.99|
90902840|NCT01755689|181672848|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority criteria: the UL of the 2-sided standardised asymptotic 95% CI for the ratio of rSBA GMTs had to be below the pre-defined limit of 2.|Adjusted GMT Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.21|||ANCOVA|||Adjusted GMT ratio of the Nimenrix Group versus Nimenrix+Cervarix Group in terms of rSBA-MenA titers.||1.21|0.84|
90902841|NCT01755689|181672848|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority criteria: the UL of the 2-sided standardised asymptotic 95% CI for the ratio of rSBA GMTs had to be below the pre-defined limit of 2.|Adjusted GMT Ratio|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.51|||ANCOVA|||Adjusted GMT ratio of the Nimenrix Group versus Nimenrix+Cervarix+Boostrix Group in terms of rSBA-MenC titers.||1.51|0.93|
90902842|NCT01755689|181672848|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority criteria: the UL of the 2-sided standardised asymptotic 95% CI for the ratio of rSBA GMTs had to be below the pre-defined limit of 2.|Adjusted GMT Ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.06|||ANCOVA|||Adjusted GMT ratio of the Nimenrix Group versus Nimenrix+Cervarix Group in terms of rSBA-MenC titers.||1.06|0.66|
90902843|NCT01755689|181672848|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority criteria: the UL of the 2-sided standardised asymptotic 95% CI for the ratio of rSBA GMTs had to be below the pre-defined limit of 2.|Adjusted GMT Ratio|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.64|||ANCOVA|||Adjusted GMT ratio of the Nimenrix Group versus Nimenrix+Cervarix+Boostrix Group in terms of rSBA-MenW-135 titers.||1.64|0.97|
90902844|NCT01755689|181672848|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority criteria: the UL of the 2-sided standardised asymptotic 95% CI for the ratio of rSBA GMTs had to be below the pre-defined limit of 2.|Adjusted GMT Ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.07|||ANCOVA|||Adjusted GMT ratio of the Nimenrix Group versus Nimenrix+Cervarix Group in terms of rSBA-MenW-135 titers.||1.07|0.63|
90902845|NCT01755689|181672848|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority criteria: the UL of the 2-sided standardised asymptotic 95% CI for the ratio of rSBA GMTs had to be below the pre-defined limit of 2.|Adjusted GMT Ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.24|||ANCOVA|||Adjusted GMT ratio of the Nimenrix Group versus Nimenrix+Cervarix+Boostrix Group in terms of rSBA-MenY titers.||1.24|0.89|
90902846|NCT01755689|181672848|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority criteria: the UL of the 2-sided standardised asymptotic 95% CI for the ratio of rSBA GMTs had to be below the pre-defined limit of 2.|Adjusted GMT Ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.12|||ANCOVA|||Adjusted GMT ratio of the Nimenrix Group versus Nimenrix+Cervarix Group in terms of rSBA-MenY titers.||1.12|0.80|
90902847|NCT01755689|181672849|NON_INFERIORITY|For HPV-16, one month after the third dose of Cervarix, the UL of the two-sided standardized asymptotic 95% CI on the group GMT ratio had to be below the pre-defined limit of 2.|Adjusted GMT|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.15|||ANCOVA|||Adjusted GMT ratio of the Cervarix Group versus Nimenrix+Cervarix (0,1,6-Month) Group in terms of HPV-16 titers.||1.15|0.81|
90902848|NCT01755689|181672849|NON_INFERIORITY|For HPV-18, one month after the third dose of Cervarix, the UL of the two-sided standardized asymptotic 95% CI on the group GMT ratio had to be below the pre-defined limit of 2.|Adjusted GMT|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.29|||ANCOVA|||Adjusted GMT ratio of the Cervarix Group versus Nimenrix+Cervarix (0,1,6-Month) Group in terms of HPV-18 titers.||1.29|0.92|
90902849|NCT01755689|181672849|NON_INFERIORITY|For HPV-16, one month after the third dose of Cervarix, the UL of the two-sided standardized asymptotic 95% CI on the group GMT ratio had to be below the pre-defined limit of 2.|Adjusted GMT|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.43|||ANCOVA|||Adjusted GMT ratio of the Boostrix+Cervarix Group versus Nimenrix+Cervarix+Boostrix Group in terms of HPV-16 titers.||1.43|1.01|
91100296|NCT01407367|182086856|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.99||calculated p-value. Results adjusted for gender, race, age, BMI, MAP, eGFR, smoking history, diabetes, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, cancer, education employment status, health literacy and RAAS use.|Regression, Cox|||||1.99|0.53|0.86
91100297|NCT00004859|182086876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.99
91100298|NCT00126737|182086877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.395||||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.41|-1.38|||ANCOVA|Co-variates entered into the model were BMI and WOMAC function subscale.||||-1.38|-11.41|0.0129
90902850|NCT01755689|181672849|NON_INFERIORITY|For HPV-18, one month after the third dose of Cervarix, the UL of the two-sided standardized asymptotic 95% CI on the group GMT ratio had to be below the pre-defined limit of 2.|Adjusted GMT|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.41|||ANCOVA|||Adjusted GMT ratio of the Boostrix+Cervarix Group versus Nimenrix+Cervarix+Boostrix Group in terms of HPV-18 titers.||1.41|1.00|
90958495|NCT05478499|181796793|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|40.2|||<|0.0001||95.0|4.6|352.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Full Analysis Set||352.0|4.6|<0.0001
91100299|NCT00126737|182086877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.174||||0.0535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.43|0.079|||ANCOVA|Covariates entered into the model were BMI and WOMAC function||||0.079|-10.43|0.0535
91100300|NCT00126737|182086878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.545||||0.0307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.432|8.659|||ANCOVA|||||8.659|0.432|0.0307
91100301|NCT00126737|182086880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|39.94||||0.0158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.655|72.215|||ANCOVA|Total disease (co-morbidity) as covariate was entered into the model||||72.215|7.655|0.0158
91100302|NCT00126737|182086880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|62.25||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.97|94.54|||ANCOVA|Total disease (co-morbidity) as covariate was entered into the model||||94.54|29.97|0.0002
90902851|NCT01755689|181672850|NON_INFERIORITY|For anti-D the lower limit (LL) of the 2-sided standardised asymptotic 95% CI for the group difference (Nimenrix+Cervarix+Boostrix Group minus Boostrix +Cervarix Group) had to be greater than or equal to the pre-defined limit of -10%.|Difference between groups|-2.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|0.81||||||The group difference of the Nimenrix+Cervarix+Boostrix Group and Boostrix+Cervarix Group in terms of Anti-D titers.||0.81|-6.90|
90902852|NCT01755689|181672850|NON_INFERIORITY|For anti-T the LL of the 2-sided standardised asymptotic 95% CI for the group difference (Nimenrix+Cervarix+Boostrix Group minus Boostrix +Cervarix Group) had to be greater than or equal to the pre-defined limit of -10%.|Difference between groups|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|1.08||||||The group difference of the Nimenrix+Cervarix+Boostrix Group and Boostrix+Cervarix Group in terms of Anti-T titers.||1.08|-2.23|
90902853|NCT01755689|181672851|NON_INFERIORITY|For anti-PRN the UL of the 2-sided standardised asymptotic 95% CI for the adjusted group ratio of GMCs (Nimenrix+Cervarix+Boostrix Group/Boostrix+Cervarix Group) had to be less than or equal to the pre-defined limit of 1.5.|Adjusted GMT Ratio|1.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|1.87|||ANCOVA|||Adjusted GMT ratio of the Nimenrix+Cervarix+Boostrix Group versus Boostrix+ Cervarix Group in terms of anti-PRN titers.||1.87|1.25|
90902854|NCT01755689|181672851|NON_INFERIORITY|For anti-FHA the UL of the 2-sided standardised asymptotic 95% CI for the adjusted group ratio of GMCs (Nimenrix+Cervarix+Boostrix Group/Boostrix+Cervarix Group) had to be less than or equal to the pre-defined limit of 1.5.|Adjusted GMT Ratio|1.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|1.93|||ANCOVA|||Adjusted GMT ratio of the Nimenrix+Cervarix Group versus Boostrix+ Cervarix Group in terms of anti-FHA titers.||1.93|1.42|
90902855|NCT01755689|181672851|NON_INFERIORITY|For anti-PT the UL of the 2-sided standardised asymptotic 95% CI for the adjusted group ratio of GMCs (Nimenrix+Cervarix+Boostrix Group/Boostrix+Cervarix Group) had to be less than or equal to the pre-defined limit of 1.5.|Adjusted GMT Ratio|1.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|1.61|||ANCOVA|||Adjusted GMT ratio of the Nimenrix+Cervarix Group versus Boostrix+ Cervarix Group in terms of anti-PT titers.||1.61|1.20|
90902856|NCT02609659|181672884|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority of the rate of sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment for the 3-DAA + RBV 600 mg treatment group as compared with the historical rate for 3-DAA + weight-based RBV was analyzed; the lower confidence bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (95% CI) for the percentage of participants with sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment must exceed 92% to achieve noninferiority.|percentage of participants|89.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|83.7|95.4||||||||95.4|83.7|
90902857|NCT00377741|181672922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean exposure ratio for AUC(0-tau)|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|1.55||||||||1.55|0.98|
91100303|NCT00126737|182086880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|43.95||||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.54|75.36|||ANCOVA|Total disease (co-morbidity) as covariate was entered into the model||||75.36|12.54|0.0056
90902858|NCT00377741|181672923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean exposure ratio for Cmax|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.42||||||||1.42|0.88|
91100304|NCT00126737|182086881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.129||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.767|45.492|||ANCOVA|Kellgren Lawrence Scale was entered into the model||||45.492|10.767|0.0018
91100305|NCT00126737|182086881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|26.71||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.675|43.746|||ANCOVA|Kellgren Lawrence scale was entered into the model||||43.746|9.675|0.0024
91100306|NCT00126737|182086881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.747||||0.0368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.169|36.325|||ANCOVA|Kellgren Lawrence Scale was entered into the model||||36.325|1.169|0.0368
90902859|NCT01115998|181672927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||||||The a priori alpha level was \< 0.10 and was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|||"Mobility functional skills~Null hypothesis: The change scores of children in the power mobility and control groups will not differ from baseline to 12 months."||||0.02
90902860|NCT01115998|181672927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52||||||The a priori alpha level was \<0.10 and was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|||"Self-care functional skills~Null hypothesis: The change scores of children in the power mobility and control groups will not differ from baseline to 12 months."||||0.52
90958496|NCT05478499|181796793|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|37.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|317.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Patient sub-population (s-PGA ≥ 3)||317.6|4.4|<0.0001
90958497|NCT05478499|181796794|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|<|0.0001||95.0|-3.3|-1.6|||analysis of covariance model||analysis of covariance model|Full Analysis Set||-1.6|-3.3|<0.0001
90958498|NCT05478499|181796794|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-1.5|||analysis of covariance model||analysis of covariance model|Patient sub-population (s-PGA ≥ 3)||-1.5|-3.3|<0.0001
91100307|NCT03882801|182086882|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Geometric Means Ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.73|1.17|||||Back transformed least squares mean and confidence interval from linear mixed effects model performed on natural log-transformed values.|||1.17|0.73|
91100308|NCT01793129|182086885|SUPERIORITY|This trial estimated the probability that the intervention has no effect on the outcome (or conversely, the probability that id does), given the data obtained in the trial and any prior evidence.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|2.0|||||The relative risk estimate was calculated by dividing risk under hypothermia by risk under normothermia.|Whole-body Hypothermia vs. Normothermia (Normothermia is the comparison group)|To get estimates of RR from the Bayesian logistic regression model, predicted probabilities of the outcome were generated for all infants assuming the infants were treated with and without hypothermia and with/without severe encephalopathy. Next subject level RR values were estimated for all infants and 2.5, 50, and 97.5 percentiles were calculated.|2.00|0.74|
91100309|NCT01567085|182086895|OTHER|Exact binomial test|||||<|0.001||||||The p-value was calculated from an exact binomial test, where the null hypothesis was that the true failure rate = 40%.|Exact binomial test|Exact 95% confidence interval (3.6, 17.2)||Analysis of post-transplantation treatment failure rate||||< 0.001
91100310|NCT04193176|182086898|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.67||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.67|-3.67|||ANCOVA|||||-3.67|-19.67|0.004
91104394|NCT02037984|182094976|OTHER|PT19F GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT19F GMC Ratio|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.78||||||||1.78|0.83|
91100311|NCT00324857|182086901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"Please note that although the outcome is measured using a Likert scale, for the analysis we dichotomized the results.~P-value not adjusted for multiple comparison. Lastly, \<0.05 is the actual computed P-value."|Regression, Logistic|||Comparisons of the baseline demographic and clinical characteristics (TKR) across the 4 intervention groups were performed using chi-square tests for categorical data and analysis of variance for continuous variables. Willingness were compared across the groups over time using mixed-effect logistic regressions for dichotomous outcomes.||||<0.05
91100312|NCT00944645|182086903|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Primary research hypothesis I: The Cmax of nicotinuric acid (NUA) following the administration of MK0524A (ER niacin 1000 mg/ laropiprant 20 mg) tablets from 2 manufacturing sites is similar (i.e., the true GMR of NUA Cmax is contained within the bioequivalence interval (0.80, 1.25)).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.98||||||90.0|0.93|1.03||||||"MK0524A (1000 mg ER Niacin/20 mg MK-laropiprant) tablet from new manufacturing site (Source 2)~MK0524A (1000 mg ER Niacin/20 mg MK-laropiprant) Phase III tablet (Source 1)"||1.03|0.93|
91100313|NCT00944645|182086904|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Primary research hypothesis II: The total urinary excretion of niacin and niacin metabolites following the administration of MK0524 (ER niacin 1000 mg/ laropiprant 20 mg) tablets from 2 manufacturing sites is similar (i.e., the true GMR of total urinary excretion of niacin and its metabolites is contained within the bioequivalence interval (0.80, 1.25)).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.94||||||90.0|0.89|0.98||||||"MK0524A (1000 mg ER Niacin/20 mg MK-laropiprant) tablet from new manufacturing site (Source 2)~MK0524A (1000 mg ER Niacin/20 mg MK-laropiprant) Phase III tablet (Source 1)"||0.98|0.89|
91100314|NCT00944645|182086905|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Primary research hypothesis III: The AUC0-infinity of laropiprant following the administration of MK0524A (ER niacin 1000 mg/ laropiprant 20 mg) tablets from 2 manufacturing sites is similar (i.e., the true GMR of MK0524 AUC0-∞ is contained within the bioequivalence interval (0.80, 1.25)).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.0||||||95.0|0.95|1.05||||||"Group B: MK0524A (1000 mg ER Niacin/20 mg MK-laropiprant) tablet from new manufacturing site (Source 2)~Group A: MK0524A (1000 mg ER Niacin/20 mg MK-laropiprant) Phase III tablet (Source 1)"||1.05|0.95|
91100315|NCT00944645|182086906|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Primary research hypothesis IV: The Cmax of laropiprant following the administration of MK0524A (ER niacin 1000 mg/ laropiprant 20 mg) tablets from 2 manufacturing sites is similar (i.e., the true GMR of MK0524 Cmax is contained within the bioequivalence interval (0.80, 1.25)).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.02||||||95.0|0.96|1.09||||||"MK0524A (1000 mg ER Niacin/20 mg MK-laropiprant) tablet from new manufacturing site (Source 2)~MK0524A (1000 mg ER Niacin/20 mg MK-laropiprant) Phase III tablet (Source 1)"||1.09|0.96|
91100316|NCT03537729|182086909|SUPERIORITY|Power was based on planned 12 sites and effect size Cohen's d=0.42 for pairwise differences between arms, intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.0012, and reduction in variance due to adjustment for baseline and repeated measures with correlation of 0.4 between pairs of measures. The sample size requirement was 38 per group, or 114 total for power of .80 in two-sided tests at .05 level of significance.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.91||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates included baseline value of the outcome, age, sex, and cognition score at baseline, and use of wheelchair on the route.|Cues minus control|The null hypothesis was that means of two arms on the low complexity route are equal, the alternative was that means were not equal.||0.91|0.18|<.01
91100317|NCT03537729|182086909|SUPERIORITY|Power was based on planned 12 sites and effect size Cohen's d=0.42 for pairwise differences between arms, intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.0012, and reduction in variance due to adjustment for baseline and repeated measures with correlation of 0.4 between pairs of measures. The sample size requirement was 38 per group, or 114 total for power of .80 in two-sided tests at .05 level of significance.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.37||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates included baseline value of the outcome, age, sex, and cognition score at baseline, and use of wheelchair on the route.|Spaced retrieval minus control.|The null hypothesis was that means of two arms on the low complexity route are equal, the alternative was that means were not equal.||0.37|-0.35|.96
91100318|NCT03537729|182086909|SUPERIORITY|Power was based on planned 12 sites and effect size Cohen's d=0.42 for pairwise differences between arms, intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.0012, and reduction in variance due to adjustment for baseline and repeated measures with correlation of 0.4 between pairs of measures. The sample size requirement was 38 per group, or 114 total for power of .80 in two-sided tests at .05 level of significance.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.18||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates included baseline value of the outcome, age, sex, and cognition score at baseline, and use of wheelchair on the route.|Spaced retrieval minus cues only|The null hypothesis was that means of two arms on the low complexity route are equal, the alternative was that means were not equal.||-0.18|-0.89|<.01
91100319|NCT03537729|182086909|SUPERIORITY|Power was based on planned 12 sites and effect size Cohen's d=0.42 for pairwise differences between arms, intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.0012, and reduction in variance due to adjustment for baseline and repeated measures with correlation of 0.4 between pairs of measures. The sample size requirement was 38 per group, or 114 total for power of .80 in two-sided tests at .05 level of significance.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.38||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates included baseline value of the outcome, age, sex, and cognition score at baseline, and use of wheelchair on the route.|Cues minus control|The null hypothesis was that means of two arms on the moderate complexity route are equal, the alternative was that means were not equal.||0.38|-0.09|.23
90855473|NCT00510952|181575724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.279||95.0||||P-value for Actual Midday Pre-Meal.|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Variable = Treatment + Country + Baseline HbA1c + Baseline Sulfonylurea Group.||||||0.279
90855474|NCT00510952|181575724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.928||95.0||||P-value for Actual Midday Postprandial Meal.|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Variable = Treatment + Country + Baseline HbA1c + Baseline Sulfonylurea Group.||||||0.928
90855475|NCT00510952|181575724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.918||95.0||||P-value for Actual Evening Pre-Meal.|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Variable = Treatment + Country + Baseline HbA1c + Baseline Sulfonylurea Group.||||||0.918
90902861|NCT01115998|181672927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38||||||The a priori alpha level was 0.10 and it was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|||"Social function functional skills~Null hypothesis: The change scores of children in the power mobility and control groups will not differ from baseline to 12 months."||||0.38
90902862|NCT01115998|181672927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||||||The a priori alpha level was 0.10 and it was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|||"Mobility care giver assistance.~Null hypothesis: The change scores of children in the power mobility and control groups will not differ from baseline to 12 months."||||0.03
90902863|NCT01115998|181672927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|The a priori alpha level was 0.10 and it was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.||"Self-care caregiver assistance~Null hypothesis: The change scores of children in the power mobility and control groups will not differ from baseline to 12 months."||||.006
90902864|NCT01115998|181672927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45||||||The a priori alpha level was \<0.10 and it was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|||"Social function caregiver assistance~Null hypothesis: The change scores of children in the power mobility and control groups will not differ from baseline to 12 months."||||0.45
90958499|NCT05478499|181796795|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|23.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.4|105.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||105.6|5.4|<0.0001
90958500|NCT00552240|181796818|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A point estimate of -6.5% or higher for the diff. in the prop. of responders (NVP - ATV/r) was to be considered consistent with a successful ArTEN study. In the worst case for both studies, if the 2 studies were to be pooled, the non-inferiority margin of -12% would then be outside the 95% confidence interval (CI).|Difference in proportion of responders|-0.041||||0.7142||95.0|-0.183|0.101|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for screening viral load and CD4+ categories||With 75 evaluable patients per treatment group, this study had 80% power to observe a difference no lower than -6.5% assuming the true proportions of responders are both 65%.||0.101|-0.183|0.7142
91100320|NCT03537729|182086909|SUPERIORITY|Power was based on planned 12 sites and effect size Cohen's d=0.42 for pairwise differences between arms, intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.0012, and reduction in variance due to adjustment for baseline and repeated measures with correlation of 0.4 between pairs of measures. The sample size requirement was 38 per group, or 114 total for power of .80 in two-sided tests at .05 level of significance.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.22||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates included baseline value of the outcome, age, sex, and cognition score at baseline, and use of wheelchair on the route.|Spaced retrieval minus control|The null hypothesis was that means of two arms on the moderate complexity route are equal, the alternative was that means were not equal.||0.22|-0.25|.90
91100321|NCT03537729|182086909|SUPERIORITY|Power was based on planned 12 sites and effect size Cohen's d=0.42 for pairwise differences between arms, intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.0012, and reduction in variance due to adjustment for baseline and repeated measures with correlation of 0.4 between pairs of measures. The sample size requirement was 38 per group, or 114 total for power of .80 in two-sided tests at .05 level of significance.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.07||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates included baseline value of the outcome, age, sex, and cognition score at baseline, and use of wheelchair on the route.|Spaced retrieval minus cues only.|The null hypothesis was that means of two arms on the moderate complexity route are equal, the alternative was that means were not equal.||0.07|-0.38|.17
91100322|NCT03537729|182086909|SUPERIORITY|Power was based on planned 12 sites and effect size Cohen's d=0.42 for pairwise differences between arms, intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.0012, and reduction in variance due to adjustment for baseline and repeated measures with correlation of 0.4 between pairs of measures. The sample size requirement was 38 per group, or 114 total for power of .80 in two-sided tests at .05 level of significance.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.28||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates included baseline value of the outcome, age, sex, and cognition score at baseline, and use of wheelchair on the route.|Cues minus control.|The null hypothesis was that means of two arms on the high complexity route are equal, the alternative was that means were not equal.||0.28|-0.16|.58
91104395|NCT02037984|182094976|OTHER|PT23F GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT23F GMC Ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.45||||||||1.45|0.57|
91104396|NCT02037984|182094976|OTHER|non-PT22F GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|non-PT22F GMC Ratio|67.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.58|99.97||||||||99.97|45.58|
91104397|NCT02037984|182094976|OTHER|non-PT33F GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|non-PT33F GMC Ratio|23.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.21|43.24||||||||43.24|13.21|
90902865|NCT01115998|181672928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92||||||The a priori alpha level was \<0.10 and it was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|||"Adaptive total~Null hypothesis: The change scores of children in the power mobility and control groups will not differ from baseline to 12 months."||||0.92
90902866|NCT01115998|181672928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38||||||The a priori alpha level was \<0.10 and it was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|||"Cognitive total~Null hypothesis: The change scores of children in the power mobility and control groups will not differ from baseline to 12 months."||||0.38
90902867|NCT01115998|181672928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42||90.0||||The a priori alpha level was \<0.10 and it was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|||"Communication total~Null hypothesis: The change scores of children in the power mobility and control groups will not differ from baseline to 12 months."||||0.42
90902868|NCT01115998|181672928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57||||||The a priori alpha level was \<0.10 and it was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|||"Motor total~Null hypothesis: The change scores of children in the power mobility and control groups will not differ from baseline to 12 months."||||0.57
90902869|NCT01115998|181672928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69||||||The a priori alpha level was \<0.10 and it was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|||"Personal-social total~Null hypothesis: The change scores of children in the power mobility and control groups will not differ from baseline to 12 months."||||0.69
91104398|NCT02037984|182094977|OTHER|PT1 GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT1 GMC Ratio|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.7||||||||0.70|0.39|
91100323|NCT03537729|182086909|SUPERIORITY|Power was based on planned 12 sites and effect size Cohen's d=0.42 for pairwise differences between arms, intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.0012, and reduction in variance due to adjustment for baseline and repeated measures with correlation of 0.4 between pairs of measures. The sample size requirement was 38 per group, or 114 total for power of .80 in two-sided tests at .05 level of significance.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.37||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates included baseline value of the outcome, age, sex, and cognition score at baseline, and use of wheelchair on the route.|Spaced retrieval minus control.|The null hypothesis was that means of two arms on the high complexity route are equal, the alternative was that means were not equal.||0.37|-0.06|.15
91100324|NCT03537729|182086909|SUPERIORITY|Power was based on planned 12 sites and effect size Cohen's d=0.42 for pairwise differences between arms, intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.0012, and reduction in variance due to adjustment for baseline and repeated measures with correlation of 0.4 between pairs of measures. The sample size requirement was 38 per group, or 114 total for power of .80 in two-sided tests at .05 level of significance.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.29||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates included baseline value of the outcome, age, sex, and cognition score at baseline, and use of wheelchair on the route.|Spaced retrieval minus cues only.|The null hypothesis was that means of two arms on the high complexity route are equal, the alternative was that means were not equal.||0.29|-0.11|.37
91100325|NCT03537729|182086910|SUPERIORITY|Sample size was determined by power analysis for the adjusted wayfinding speed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|-0.01||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates included baseline value of the outcome, age, sex, and cognition score at baseline, and use of wheelchair on the route.|Cues minus control.|The null hypothesis was that means of two arms on the low complexity route are equal, the alternative was that means were not equal.||-0.01|-0.07|.04
91100326|NCT03537729|182086910|SUPERIORITY|Sample size was determined by power analysis for the adjusted wayfinding speed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.01||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates included baseline value of the outcome, age, sex, and cognition score at baseline, and use of wheelchair on the route.|Spaced retrieval minus control.|The null hypothesis was that means of two arms on the low complexity route are equal, the alternative was that means were not equal.||0.01|-0.07|.10
91100327|NCT03537729|182086910|SUPERIORITY|Sample size was determined by power analysis for the adjusted wayfinding speed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.04||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates included baseline value of the outcome, age, sex, and cognition score at baseline, and use of wheelchair on the route.|Spaced retrieval minus cues only.|The null hypothesis was that means of two arms on the low complexity route are equal, the alternative was that means were not equal.||0.04|-0.03|.69
90902870|NCT01115998|181672928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28||||||The a priori alpha level was \<0.10 and it was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|||"BID total score~Null hypothesis: The change scores of children in the power mobility and control groups will not differ from baseline to 12 months."||||0.28
90902871|NCT01115998|181672929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.1|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|||"Reactive scale~Null hypothesis: The change scores of children in the power mobility and control groups will not differ from baseline to 12 months."||||>0.10
90902872|NCT01115998|181672929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.1|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|||"Self Initiated Scale~Null hypothesis: The change scores of children in the power mobility and control groups will not differ from baseline to 12 months."||||>0.10
90902873|NCT02451930|181672981|OTHER|||||||0.4491|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4491
90902874|NCT00962585|181672989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.573||||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was P \<0.05.|ANCOVA|"Model (Analysis of covariance): Week 4 = Baseline (MSVS) + Treatment + Site~Difference Between Means: S-equol treatment group - Placebo"||"\# of MSVS per week at each protocol visits = (# of Moderate+Severe hot flushes)/(Current protocol visit date-Previous protocol visit date (days)) x 7.~The ANCOVA procedure was used to test the following hypotheses:~H0: μ1 = μp versus HA: μ1 ≠ μp where μ1 and μp denote the mean frequency of MSVS (at Week 4 in case of primary efficacy endpoint), adjusted for Baseline MSVS values, in the treatment and placebo groups, respectively."||||0.5730
91104399|NCT02037984|182094977|OTHER|PT3 GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT3 GMC Ratio|1.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|2.41||||||||2.41|1.33|
91104400|NCT02037984|182094977|OTHER|PT4 GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT4 GMG Ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.16||||||||1.16|0.65|
91104401|NCT02037984|182094977|OTHER|PT5 GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT5 GMC Ratio|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.74||||||||0.74|0.35|
91104402|NCT02037984|182094977|OTHER|PT6A GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT6A GMC Ratio|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.58||||||||0.58|0.17|
91104403|NCT02037984|182094977|OTHER|PT6B GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT6B GMG Ratio|0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.34||||||||0.34|0.08|
90902875|NCT00962585|181672989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|1.13|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.06|12.32|||Pair-wise comparisons|||||12.32|-10.06|>0.05
90902876|NCT00962585|181672989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|6.98|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.87|17.84|||Pair-wise comparisons|||||17.84|-3.87|>0.05
90902877|NCT00962585|181672989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|0.94|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.16|12.04|||Pair-wise comparisons|||||12.04|-10.16|>0.05
90902878|NCT00962585|181672990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7364||||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was P \<0.05.|ANCOVA|"Model: Week 4 = Baseline (MSVS) + Treatment + Site~Difference Between Means: S-equol treatment group - Placebo"||"\# of MSVS per week at each protocol visits = (# of Moderate+Severe hot flushes)/(Current protocol visit date-Previous protocol visit date (days)) x 7~1-week period = remaining days of the period since the last visit (i.e. period following first 7 days, as per CRF)"||||0.7364
91100328|NCT03537729|182086911|SUPERIORITY|Sample size was determined by power analysis for the adjusted wayfinding speed.|Ratio of mean proportions of errors|0.65||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.99||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Generalized mixed model analysis|Covariates included baseline value of the outcome, age, sex, and cognition score at baseline, and use of wheelchair on the route.|Ratio of mean proportion of errors for cues divided by proportion of errors for control. Log of the mean was estimated from generalized linear mixed effects models for each arm. The difference between logs of means for two arms was exponentiated.|The null hypothesis was that means of two arms on the moderate complexity route are equal, the alternative was that means were not equal.||0.99|0.44|0.04
91104404|NCT02037984|182094977|OTHER|PT7F GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT7F GMC Ratio|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.67||||||||0.67|0.34|
91104405|NCT02037984|182094977|OTHER|PT9V GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT9V GMC Ratio|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.82||||||||0.82|0.39|
91104406|NCT02037984|182094977|OTHER|PT14 GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar®)|PT9V GMC Ratio|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.97||||||||0.97|0.42|
91104407|NCT02037984|182094977|OTHER|PT18C GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT18C GMC Ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.21||||||||1.21|0.60|
91104408|NCT02037984|182094977|OTHER|PT19A GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT19A GMC Ratio|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.95||||||||0.95|0.46|
90855476|NCT00510952|181575724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.875||95.0||||P-value for Actual Evening Postprandial Meal.|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Variable = Treatment + Country + Baseline HbA1c + Baseline Sulfonylurea Group.||||||0.875
90855477|NCT00510952|181575724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.316||95.0||||P-value for Actual 0300 Hours.|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Variable = Treatment + Country + Baseline HbA1c + Baseline Sulfonylurea Group.||||||0.316
90855478|NCT00510952|181575724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.389||95.0||||P-value for Daily Mean 7-Point SMBG.|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Variable = Treatment + Country + Baseline HbA1c + Baseline Sulfonylurea Group.||||||0.389
90902879|NCT00962585|181672990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|-0.19|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.38|12.01|||Pair-wise comparisons|||||12.01|-12.38|>0.05
90902880|NCT00962585|181672990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|4.77|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.94|16.48|||Pair-wise comparisons|||||16.48|-6.94|>0.05
90902881|NCT00962585|181672990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|-1.63|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.41|10.15|||Pair-wise comparisons|||||10.15|-13.41|>0.05
90902882|NCT00962585|181672991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1217||||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was P \<0.05. Treatment effect averaged across Weeks 1 and 2.|Repeated measures ANCOVA|"Mixed Model: MSVS = Baseline (MSVS) + Treatment + Site + Weeks + Treatment x Weeks~Difference Between Means: S-equol treatment group - Placebo"||\# of MSVS per week at each protocol visits = (# of Moderate+Severe hot flushes)/(Current protocol visit date-Previous protocol visit date (days)) x 7.||||0.1217
90902883|NCT00962585|181672991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|-3.77|||>|0.05||95.0|-12.69|5.16|||Pair-wise comparisons|||Week 1, Treatment Effect||5.16|-12.69|>0.05
90902884|NCT00962585|181672991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|9.69|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|18.6|||Pair-wise comparisons|||Week 1, Treatment Effect||18.60|0.79|<0.05
90902885|NCT00962585|181672991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|1.31|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.73|10.36|||Pair-wise comparisons|||Week 1, Treatment Effect||10.36|-7.73|>0.05
90902886|NCT00962585|181672991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|-6.7|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.36|4.96|||Pair-wise comparisons|||Week 2, Treatment Effect||4.96|-18.36|>0.05
90902887|NCT00962585|181672991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|3.56|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.01|15.14|||Pair-wise comparisons|||Week 2, Treatment Effect||15.14|-8.01|>0.05
90902888|NCT00962585|181672991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|0.91|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.77|12.58|||Pair-wise comparisons|||Week 2, Treatment Effect||12.58|-10.77|>0.05
90902889|NCT00962585|181672992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1609||||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was P \<0.05. Treatment effect averaged across Weeks 1, 2 and 4.|Repeated measures ANCOVA|Mixed Model: Severity of VMS = Baseline (severity of VMS) + Treatment + Site + Weeks + Treatment x Weeks||Severity of VMS per week at each protocol visits = (Sum of scores of Mild, Moderate, Severe hot flushes)/(Current protocol visit date-Previous protocol visit date (days)) x 7, where severity of vasomotor symptoms are scored as: 1 = mild, 2 = moderate and 3 = severe.||||0.1609
90902890|NCT00962585|181672992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|-6.34|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.41|13.73|||Pair-wise comparisons|||Week 1, Treatment Effect||13.73|-26.41|>0.05
90902891|NCT00962585|181672992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|25.67|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.64|45.69|||Pair-wise comparisons|||Week 1, Treatment Effect||45.69|5.64|<0.05
91100329|NCT03537729|182086911|SUPERIORITY|Sample size was determined by power analysis for the adjusted wayfinding speed.|Ratio of mean proportions of errors|0.59||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.9||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Generalized mixed model analysis|Covariates included baseline value of the outcome, age, sex, and cognition score at baseline, and use of wheelchair on the route.|Ratio of mean proportion of errors for spaced retrieval divided by proportion of errors for control. Log of the mean was estimated from generalized linear mixed effects models for each arm. The difference between logs of means was exponentiated.|The null hypothesis was that means of two arms on the moderate complexity route are equal, the alternative was that means were not equal.||0.90|0.39|.01
91104409|NCT02037984|182094977|OTHER|PT19F GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT19F GMC Ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.6||||||||1.60|0.77|
91104410|NCT02037984|182094977|OTHER|PT23F GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT23F GMC Ratio|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.07||||||||1.07|0.43|
91104411|NCT02037984|182094977|OTHER|non-PT22F GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|non-PT22F GMC Ratio|44.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.42|65.43||||||||65.43|30.42|
90902892|NCT00962585|181672992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|2.09|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.21|22.39|||Pair-wise comparisons|||Week 1, Treatment Effect||22.39|-18.21|>0.05
90902893|NCT00962585|181672992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|-16.14|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.29|11.01|||Pair-wise comparisons|||Week 2, Treatment Effect||11.01|-43.29|>0.05
90902894|NCT00962585|181672992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|8.73|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.19|35.65|||Pair-wise comparisons|||Week 2, Treatment Effect||35.65|-18.19|>0.05
90902895|NCT00962585|181672992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|-0.65|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.8|26.5|||Pair-wise comparisons|||Week 2, Treatment Effect||26.50|-27.80|>0.05
90902896|NCT00962585|181672992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|-1.69|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.68|25.3|||Pair-wise comparisons|||Week 4, Treatment Effect||25.30|-28.68|>0.05
90902897|NCT00962585|181672992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|16.15|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|42.71|||Pair-wise comparisons|||Week 4, Treatment Effect||42.71|-10.40|>0.05
90902898|NCT00962585|181672992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|-1.29|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.18|25.6|||Pair-wise comparisons|||Week 4, Treatment Effect||25.60|-28.18|>0.05
90902899|NCT00962585|181672993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2211||||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was P \<0.05. Treatment effect averaged across Weeks 2 and 4.|Repeated measures ANCOVA|Mixed Model: (Vaginal pH) = Baseline (Vaginal pH) + Treatment + Site + Weeks + Treatment x Weeks||||||0.2211
90902900|NCT00962585|181672993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|-0.21|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.12|||Pair-wise comparisons|||Week 2, Treatment Effect||0.12|-0.53|>0.05
90902901|NCT00962585|181672993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|-0.23|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.09|||Pair-wise comparisons|||Week 2, Treatment Effect||0.09|-0.55|>0.05
90902902|NCT00962585|181672993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|0.03|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.35|||Pair-wise comparisons|||Week 2, Treatment Effect||0.35|-0.28|>0.05
90902903|NCT00962585|181672993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|-0.26|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.02|||Pair-wise comparisons|||Week 4, Treatment Effect||0.02|-0.54|>0.05
90902904|NCT00962585|181672993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|-0.13|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.14|||Pair-wise comparisons|||Week 4, Treatment Effect||0.14|-0.40|>0.05
90902905|NCT00962585|181672993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|-0.24|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.03|||Pair-wise comparisons|||Week 4, Treatment Effect||0.03|-0.51|>0.05
91100330|NCT03537729|182086911|SUPERIORITY|Sample size was determined by power analysis for the adjusted wayfinding speed.|Ratio of mean proportions of errors|0.9||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.35||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Generalized mixed model analysis|Covariates included baseline value of the outcome, age, sex, and cognition score at baseline, and use of wheelchair on the route.|Ratio of mean proportion of errors for spaced retrieval divided by proportion of errors for cues. Log of the mean was estimated from generalized linear mixed effects models for each arm. The difference between logs of means was exponentiated.|The null hypothesis was that means of two arms on the moderate complexity route are equal, the alternative was that means were not equal.||1.35|0.60|.61
91100331|NCT03537729|182086911|SUPERIORITY|Sample size was determined by power analysis for the adjusted wayfinding speed.|Ratio of mean proportions of errors|1.26||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.88||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Generalized mixed model analysis|Covariates included baseline value of the outcome, age, sex, and cognition score at baseline, and use of wheelchair on the route.|Ratio of mean proportion of errors for cues divided by proportion of errors for control. Log of the mean was estimated from generalized linear mixed effects models for each arm. The difference between logs of means was exponentiated.|The null hypothesis was that means of two arms on the high complexity route are equal, the alternative was that means were not equal.||1.88|0.84|.26
90958501|NCT00552240|181796819|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Same as for the primary analysis|Difference in proportion of responders|-0.027||||0.6479||95.0|-0.167|0.113|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for screening viral load and CD4+ categories||||0.113|-0.167|0.6479
90958502|NCT00552240|181796820|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Same as for primary analysis|Difference in proportion of responders|0.084||||0.1477||95.0|-0.03|0.197|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for screening viral load and CD4+ categories||||0.197|-0.030|0.1477
90958503|NCT00552240|181796821|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Same as for primary analysis|Difference in proportion of responders|-0.067||||0.3703||95.0|-0.215|0.08|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for screening viral load and CD4+ categories||||0.080|-0.215|0.3703
90958504|NCT00552240|181796822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.666||||0.0314||95.0|0.46|0.964|||Regression, Cox|Controlling for screening viral load and CD4+ categories.||Hazard ratio Atazanavir plus ritonavir / Nevirapine. Values \< 1 indicate faster response in nevirapine.||0.964|0.460|0.0314
90958505|NCT00552240|181796823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.628||||0.0172||95.0|0.428|0.921|||Regression, Cox|Controlling for screening viral load and CD4+ categories||"Responders only~Hazard ratio Atazanavir plus ritonavir / Nevirapine. Values \< 1 indicate faster response in nevirapine."||0.921|0.428|0.0172
91100332|NCT03537729|182086911|SUPERIORITY|Sample size was determined by power analysis for the adjusted wayfinding speed.|Ratio of mean proportions of errors|0.79||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.19||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Generalized mixed model analysis|Covariates included baseline value of the outcome, age, sex, and cognition score at baseline, and use of wheelchair on the route.|Ratio of mean proportion of errors for spaced retrieval divided by proportion of errors for control. Log of the mean was estimated from generalized linear mixed effects models for each arm. The difference between logs of means was exponentiated.|The null hypothesis was that means of two arms on the high complexity route are equal, the alternative was that means were not equal.||1.19|0.53|.25
90855479|NCT00510952|181575724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.836||95.0||||P-value for Daily Mean Pre-Meal.|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Variable = Treatment + Country + Baseline HbA1c + Baseline Sulfonylurea Group.||||||0.836
90855480|NCT00510952|181575724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.394||95.0||||P-value for Daily Mean Postprandial Meal.|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Variable = Treatment + Country + Baseline HbA1c + Baseline Sulfonylurea Group.||||||0.394
90855481|NCT00510952|181575724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.609||95.0||||P-value for Daily Mean Morning+Evening Pre-Meal.|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Variable = Treatment + Country + Baseline HbA1c + Baseline Sulfonylurea Group.||||||0.609
90855482|NCT00510952|181575725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.468||95.0||||P-value for All Hypoglycemic Episodes.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.468
90855483|NCT00510952|181575725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011||95.0||||P-value for Nocturnal Hypoglycemic Episodes.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.011
90855484|NCT00510952|181575725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036||95.0||||P-value for Severe Hypoglycemic Episodes.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.036
90855485|NCT00510952|181575726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.316||95.0||||P-value for Hypoglycemic Rate.|ANOVA|Nonparametric ANOVA Model: Rank of Variable=Treatment + Country + Baseline HbA1c + Baseline Sulfonylurea Group. Hypoglycemic Rate (1 year) was used.||||||0.316
90855486|NCT00510952|181575726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-Value for Nocturnal Hypoglycemic Rate.|ANOVA|Nonparametric ANOVA Model: Rank of Variable=Treatment + Country + Baseline HbA1c + Baseline Sulfonylurea Group. Hypoglycemic Rate (1 year) was used.||||||<0.001
90855487|NCT00510952|181575726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.102||95.0||||P-value for Severe Hypoglycemic Rate.|ANOVA|Nonparametric ANOVA Model: Rank of Variable=Treatment + Country + Baseline HbA1c + Baseline Sulfonylurea Group. Hypoglycemic Rate (1 year) was used.||||||0.102
90855488|NCT00510952|181575728|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority margin of 1.5 kilograms (kg).|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.975||95.0|-0.61|0.59||P-value for Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable = Treatment + Baseline + Country + Baseline HbA1c + Baseline Sulfonylurea Group.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval is for the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments (Insulin Lispro Protamine Suspension minus Glargine).|Hypothesis: insulin lispro protamine suspension is noninferior to glargine with regard to change in absolute body weight from baseline to endpoint.||0.59|-0.61|0.975
90855489|NCT00510952|181575729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable = Treatment + Country + Baseline HbA1c + Baseline Sulfonylurea Group + Change in HbA1c from Baseline.||||||0.031
90855490|NCT00510952|181575730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable = Treatment + Country + Baseline HbA1c + Baseline Sulfonylurea Group + Change in HbA1c from Baseline.||||||0.015
90855491|NCT02338336|181575731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90855492|NCT02043379|181575751|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|We used alpha level of 0.05 and power of 0.8 to calculate the sample size necessary to detect a meaningful clinical difference for our primary endpoint.||||||1||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance.|Chi-squared|||||||1
91100333|NCT03537729|182086911|SUPERIORITY|Sample size was determined by power analysis for the adjusted wayfinding speed.|Ratio of mean proportions of errors|0.63||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.94||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Generalized mixed model analysis|Covariates included baseline value of the outcome, age, sex, and cognition score at baseline, and use of wheelchair on the route.|Ratio of mean proportion of errors for spaced retrieval divided by proportion of errors for cues. Log of the mean was estimated from generalized linear mixed effects models for each arm. The difference between logs of means was exponentiated.|The null hypothesis was that means of two arms on the high complexity route are equal, the alternative was that means were not equal.||0.94|0.42|.03
90855493|NCT02043379|181575752|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation.||||||1||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance.|Chi-squared|||||||1
90855494|NCT02043379|181575753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation.||||||0.38||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance.|Chi-squared|||||||0.38
90855495|NCT02043379|181575754|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation.||||||0.26||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance.|Chi-squared|||||||0.26
90855496|NCT02043379|181575755|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||24 hour post-CPB albumin||||0.42
90855497|NCT02043379|181575755|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.06||||||a p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for test signficance|t-test, 2 sided|||48 hour post CPB albumin||||0.06
91100334|NCT03537729|182086912|SUPERIORITY|Sample size was determined by power analysis for the adjusted wayfinding speed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.69||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.03|1.6||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates included baseline value of the outcome, age, sex, and cognition score at baseline.|Cues minus control.|The null hypothesis was that means of two arms are equal, the alternative was that means were not equal.||1.60|-5.03|.31
91104412|NCT02037984|182094977|OTHER|non-PT33F GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|non-PT33F GMC Ratio|15.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.58|27.26||||||||27.26|8.58|
90855498|NCT02043379|181575756|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation.||||||0.52||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.52
90855499|NCT02043379|181575757|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation.||||||0.81||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Admit Inotrope Score||||0.81
90855500|NCT02043379|181575757|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.82||||||a p value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||12 hours post-operative inotrope score||||0.82
90855501|NCT02043379|181575757|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.9||||||a p value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||24 hours post-operative inotrope score||||0.9
90855502|NCT02043379|181575757|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.23||||||a p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical signficance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||48 hours post-operative inotrope score||||0.23
90855503|NCT02043379|181575758|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation.||||||0.49||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.49
90855504|NCT02043379|181575759|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation.||||||0.79||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.79
90855505|NCT02043379|181575760|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation.||||||0.32||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||pre-operative IgG level||||0.32
90855506|NCT02043379|181575760|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.36||||||a p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||12 hours post-operative IgG level||||0.36
90855507|NCT02043379|181575760|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation|||||<|0.01||||||p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical signficance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||post-operative day 3 (72 hours) IgG level||||<0.01
90855508|NCT02043379|181575760|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation|||||<|0.01||||||p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||post-operative day 5 (120 hours) IgG level||||<0.01
90855509|NCT02043379|181575761|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.6||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||pre-operative||||0.60
90855510|NCT02043379|181575761|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.06||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||0 hour post-operative||||0.06
90855511|NCT02043379|181575761|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.06||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||4 hour post-operative||||0.06
90855512|NCT02043379|181575761|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.33||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||12 hours post-operative||||0.33
90855513|NCT02043379|181575761|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.05||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||24 hours post-operative||||0.05
91104413|NCT02037984|182094978|OTHER|PT1 GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT1 GMC Ratio|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.07||||||||1.07|0.57|
91100335|NCT03537729|182086912|SUPERIORITY|Sample size was determined by power analysis for the adjusted wayfinding speed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.75||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.23|2.66||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates included baseline value of the outcome, age, sex, and cognition score at baseline.|Spaced retrieval minus control.|The null hypothesis was that means of two arms are equal, the alternative was that means were not equal.||2.66|-4.23|.66
91100336|NCT03537729|182086912|SUPERIORITY|Sample size was determined by power analysis for the adjusted wayfinding speed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.65||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|4.17||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates included baseline value of the outcome, age, sex, and cognition score at baseline.|Spaced retrieval minus cues only.|The null hypothesis was that means of two arms are equal, the alternative was that means were not equal.||4.17|-2.30|.57
91100337|NCT02504775|182086973|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Log-transformed PK parameter was compared between products using a linear mixed effects model including terms for product, period, sequence as fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as random effect. Bioequivalence was concluded, when the 90% confidence interval (CI) for the geometric LS mean ratios were fully contained within the predefined equivalence limits of 0.80 to 1.25|Ratio of Averages of Tylenol/Mejoral|94.704|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.329|101.54|||ANOVA|||||101.540|88.329|
91100338|NCT02504775|182086974|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Log-transformed PK parameter was compared between products using a linear mixed effects model including terms for product, period, sequence as fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as random effect. Bioequivalence was concluded, when the 90% confidence interval (CI) for the geometric LS mean ratios were fully contained within the predefined equivalence limits of 0.80 to 1.25|Ratio of Averages of Tylenol/Mejoral|95.989|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.826|102.574|||ANOVA|||||102.574|89.826|
91100339|NCT02504775|182086975|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Log-transformed PK parameter was compared between products using a linear mixed effects model including terms for product, period, sequence as fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as random effect. Bioequivalence was concluded, when the 90% confidence interval (CI) for the geometric LS mean ratios were fully contained within the predefined equivalence limits of 0.80 to 1.25|Ratio of Averages of Tylenol/Mejoral|106.132|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.151|132.283|||ANOVA|||||132.283|85.151|
90855514|NCT02043379|181575761|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.83||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||48 hours post-operative||||0.83
90855515|NCT02043379|181575762|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.27||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||0 hour levels||||0.27
90855516|NCT02043379|181575762|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.34||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||4 hour level||||0.34
90855517|NCT02043379|181575762|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.14||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||8 hour level||||0.14
90855518|NCT02043379|181575762|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.13||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||12 hour level||||0.13
90855519|NCT02043379|181575762|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.02||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||24 hour level||||0.02
90855520|NCT02043379|181575763|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation.||||||1||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance.|Chi-squared|||||||1
90855521|NCT02043379|181575764|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation.||||||0.4||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4
90855522|NCT02043379|181575765|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation.||||||0.09||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||0-48 hours post-CPB||||0.09
90902906|NCT00962585|181672994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6375||||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was P \<0.05. Treatment effect averaged across Weeks 2 and 4.|Repeated measures ANCOVA|Mixed Model: (Vaginal Maturation Index) = Baseline (Vaginal Maturation Index) + Treatment + Site + Weeks + Treatment x Weeks||Vaginal maturation index = 0.2 x (% parabasal cells) + 0.6 x(% intermediate cells) + 1.0 x (% superficial cells)||||0.6375
90902907|NCT00962585|181672994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|-1.58|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.57|6.42|||Pair-wise comparisons|||Week 2, Treatment Effect||6.42|-9.57|>0.05
90902908|NCT00962585|181672994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|-1.58|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.63|6.46|||Pair-wise comparisons|||Week 2, Treatment Effect||6.46|-9.63|>0.05
90902909|NCT00962585|181672994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|-1.59|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.66|6.47|||Pair-wise comparisons|||Week 2, Treatment Effect||6.47|-9.66|>0.05
90902910|NCT00962585|181672994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|-0.31|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.73|6.11|||Pair-wise comparisons|||Week 4, Treatment Effect||6.11|-6.73|>0.05
90855523|NCT02043379|181575765|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation.||||||0.52||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||0-24 hours post CPB||||0.52
90902911|NCT00962585|181672994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|-6.14|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.36|0.07|||Pair-wise comparisons|||Week 4, Treatment Effect||0.07|-12.36|>0.05
90902912|NCT00962585|181672994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|-2.88|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.05|3.28|||Pair-wise comparisons|||Week 4, Treatment Effect||3.28|-9.05|>0.05
90958506|NCT00552240|181796851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.8||||0.7315||95.0|-8.4|11.9|||ANCOVA|Controlling for screening viral load and CD4+ categories||||11.9|-8.4|0.7315
91100340|NCT00504556|182087009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.367|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||All bleeds||||.367
91100341|NCT00504556|182087009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.104|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||All bleeds||||.104
91100342|NCT00504556|182087009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.864|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||All bleeds||||.864
91100343|NCT00504556|182087009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||All bleeds||||.002
91100344|NCT00504556|182087009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Major or Clinically Relevant (CR) non-major bleeding||||1.000
91100345|NCT00504556|182087009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Major or Clinically Relevant (CR) non-major bleeding||||0.029
91100346|NCT00504556|182087009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.807|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Major or Clinically Relevant (CR) non-major bleeding||||0.807
91100347|NCT00504556|182087009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Major or Clinically Relevant (CR) non-major bleeding||||0.002
91100348|NCT00504556|182087009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Major bleeds||||1.000
91100349|NCT00504556|182087009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.119|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Major bleeds||||0.119
91100350|NCT00504556|182087009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Major bleeds||||1.000
91100351|NCT00504556|182087009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Major bleeds||||0.023
91100352|NCT01368185|182087112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||% change SUA from baseline|4.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.9|<|0.01||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided||Percent change of month 3 SUA minus baseline SUA.|Comparison between Month 3 and Baseline||||<0.01
91100353|NCT01368185|182087113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||McNemar|||||||<0.0001
91100354|NCT01368185|182087114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||% change DBP from Baseline|-7.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.4|<|0.01||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided||Percent change of month 3 DBP minus baseline DBP (n=1239).|Comparison between Month 3 and Baseline||||<0.01
91100355|NCT01368185|182087115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||% change SBP from Baseline|-9.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.3|<|0.01||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided||Percent change of month 3 SBP minus baseline SBP (n=1245).|Comparison between Month 3 and Baseline||||<0.01
91100356|NCT04535362|182087116|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.93|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The fixed effects in the mixed models were infusion rate (2.5 minutes, 5 minutes and 10 minutes (placebo)), cigarette condition (menthol vs. non-menthol), and their interaction. We also controlled for order effects of cigarette condition by including session in the models Subject was a clustering factor and different variance-covariance structures were considered within each condition and subject. The best-fitting structure was selected based on Schwartz's Bayesian Criterion.||||0.93
91100357|NCT04535362|182087117|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.68|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The fixed effects in the mixed models were infusion rate (2.5 minutes, 5 minutes and 10 minutes (placebo)), cigarette condition (menthol vs. non-menthol), and their interaction. We also controlled for order effects of cigarette condition by including session in the models Subject was a clustering factor and different variance-covariance structures were considered within each condition and subject. The best-fitting structure was selected based on Schwartz's Bayesian Criterion.||||0.68
91100358|NCT04535362|182087119|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.37|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The fixed effects in the mixed models were infusion rate (2.5 minutes, 5 minutes and 10 minutes (placebo)), cigarette condition (menthol vs. non-menthol), and their interaction. We also controlled for order effects of cigarette condition by including session in the models Subject was a clustering factor and different variance-covariance structures were considered within each condition and subject. The best-fitting structure was selected based on Schwartz's Bayesian Criterion.||||0.37
91100359|NCT04535362|182087120|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The fixed effects in the mixed models were infusion rate (2.5 minutes, 5 minutes and 10 minutes (placebo)), cigarette condition (menthol vs. non-menthol), and their interaction. We also controlled for order effects of cigarette condition by including session in the models Subject was a clustering factor and different variance-covariance structures were considered within each condition and subject. The best-fitting structure was selected based on Schwartz's Bayesian Criterion.||||0.20
91100360|NCT03203512|182087128|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment effect: p\<0.001; period effect : p=0.552; treatment x period interaction: p=0.622|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of total EV numbers detected by NTA between fish oil and placebo capsules. A general linear model with fixed factors of treatment and period was conducted to determine the differences in the effect of two treatments and two periods on total EV numbers.||||<0.001
91100361|NCT03203512|182087129|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.001||||||Treatment: p=0.001; period: p=0.646; treatment x period interaction: p=0.267|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of total PS+EV numbers detected by FCM between fish oil and placebo capsules. A general linear model with fixed factors of treatment and period was conducted to determine the differences in the effect of two treatments and two periods on total PS+EV numbers.||||=0.001
91100362|NCT03203512|182087130|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.002||||||Treatment: p=0.002; period: p=0.350; treatment x period interaction: p=0.572|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of PDEV numbers detected by FCM between fish oil and placebo capsules. A general linear model with fixed factors of treatment and period was conducted to determine the differences in the effect of two treatments and two periods on PDEV numbers.||||=0.002
91100363|NCT03203512|182087130|SUPERIORITY|Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of EDEV numbers detected by FCM between fish oil and placebo capsules. A general linear model with fixed factors of treatment and period was conducted to determine the differences in the effect of two treatments and two periods on EDEV numbers.|||||<|0.001||||||Treatment: p\<0.001; period: p=0.362; treatment x period interaction: p=0.225|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91100364|NCT03203512|182087131|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment: p\<0.001; period: p=0.010; treatment x period: p=0.608|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of EV thrombogenicity in affecting lag time for TF-dependent thrombin generation between fish oil and placebo capsules. A general linear model with fixed factors of treatment and period was conducted to determine the differences in the effect of two treatments and two periods on EV thrombogenicity.||||<0.001
90855524|NCT02043379|181575766|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation.||||||0.72||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.72
90958507|NCT00552240|181796852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-10.6||||0.3625||95.0|-33.4|12.3|||ANCOVA|Controlling for screening viral load and CD4+ categories||||12.3|-33.4|0.3625
91100365|NCT03203512|182087132|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment: p\<0.001; period: p=0.073; treatment x period: p=0.667|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of EV thrombogenicity in affecting TF-dependent thrombin peak concentration between fish oil and placebo capsules. A general linear model with fixed factors of treatment and period was conducted to determine the differences in the effect of two treatments and two periods on EV thrombogenicity.||||<0.001
91100366|NCT03203512|182087133|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment: p\<0.001; period: p=0.138; treatment x period: p=0.872|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of EV thrombogenicity in affecting the time to reach peak TF-dependent thrombin concentration between fish oil and placebo capsules. A general linear model with fixed factors of treatment and period was conducted to determine the differences in the effect of two treatments and two periods on EV thrombogenicity.||||<0.001
91100367|NCT03203512|182087134|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.015||||||Treatment: p=0.015; period: p=0.059; treatment x period: p=0.220|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of EV thrombogenicity in affecting TF-dependent velocity index between fish oil and placebo capsules. A general linear model with fixed factors of treatment and period was conducted to determine the differences in the effect of two treatments and two periods on EV thrombogenicity.||||=0.015
91100368|NCT03203512|182087135|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment: p\<0.001; period: p=0.118; treatment x period: p=0.802|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of EV thrombogenicity in affecting TF-dependent endogenous thrombin potential (ETP) between fish oil and placebo capsules. A general linear model with fixed factors of treatment and period was conducted to determine the differences in the effect of two treatments and two periods on EV thrombogenicity.||||<0.001
91100369|NCT03203512|182087136|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of platelet function in affecting LogEC50 values in response to ADP between fish oil and placebo capsules. Comparisons of this parameter after each intervention were drawn using 2-way ANOVA with the Turkey multiple comparisons test.||||>0.05
91100370|NCT03203512|182087136|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of platelet function in affecting LogEC50 values in response to epinephrine between fish oil and placebo capsules. Comparisons of this parameter after each intervention were drawn using 2-way ANOVA with the Turkey multiple comparisons test.||||>0.05
91100371|NCT03203512|182087136|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of platelet function in affecting LogEC50 values in response to TRAP-6 between fish oil and placebo capsules. Comparisons of this parameter after each intervention were drawn using 2-way ANOVA with the Turkey multiple comparisons test.||||>0.05
91100372|NCT03203512|182087136|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of platelet function in affecting LogEC50 values in response to U46619 between fish oil and placebo capsules. Comparisons of this parameter after each intervention were drawn using 2-way ANOVA with the Turkey multiple comparisons test.||||>0.05
91100373|NCT03203512|182087137|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of platelet function in affecting LogEC50 values in response to CRP-XL between fish oil and placebo capsules. Comparisons of this parameter after each intervention were drawn using 2-way ANOVA with the Turkey multiple comparisons test.||||>0.05
91100374|NCT03203512|182087138|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of pro-thrombotic activity of PDEVs in affecting endpoint for ex vivo thrombus formation between fish oil and placebo capsules. A general linear model with fixed factors of treatment and period was conducted to determine the differences in the effect of two treatments and two periods on the pro-thrombotic activity of PDEVs.||||>0.05
91104414|NCT02037984|182094978|OTHER|PT3 GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT3 GMC Ratio|2.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.95|3.68||||||||3.68|1.95|
91104415|NCT02037984|182094978|OTHER|PT4 GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT4 GMG Ratio|1.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|2.07||||||||2.07|1.11|
90855525|NCT02043379|181575767|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation.||||||0.63||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.63
90855526|NCT02043379|181575768|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation.||||||0.41||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||pre-operative||||0.41
90855527|NCT02043379|181575768|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.34||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||0 hour post-operative||||0.34
90855528|NCT02043379|181575768|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.47||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||4 hour post-operative||||0.47
90855529|NCT02043379|181575768|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.42||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||12 hour post-operative||||0.42
90855530|NCT02043379|181575768|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.82||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||24 hour post-operative||||0.82
90855531|NCT02043379|181575768|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.44||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||48 hour post-operative||||0.44
90958508|NCT00552240|181796853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.8||||0.0164||95.0|0.9|8.8|||ANCOVA|Controlling for screening viral load and CD4+ categories||||8.8|0.9|0.0164
90958509|NCT00552240|181796854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.9257||95.0|-8.4|9.3|||ANCOVA|Controlling for screening viral load and CD4+ categories||||9.3|-8.4|0.9257
90958510|NCT00552240|181796855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33||||0.0375||95.0|-0.64|-0.02|||ANCOVA|Controlling for screening viral load and CD4+ categories||||-0.02|-0.64|0.0375
90958511|NCT00552240|181796856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28||||0.4645||95.0|-1.02|0.47|||ANCOVA|Controlling for screening viral load and CD4+ categories||||0.47|-1.02|0.4645
90855532|NCT02043379|181575769|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation.||||||0.28||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||pre-operative||||0.28
90855533|NCT02043379|181575769|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.37||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||0 hour post-operative||||0.37
90855534|NCT02043379|181575769|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.42||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||4 hour post-operative||||0.42
90855535|NCT02043379|181575769|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.31||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||12 hour post-operative||||0.31
90855536|NCT02043379|181575769|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.38||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||24 hour post-operative||||0.38
90902913|NCT00962585|181672995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0681||||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was P \<0.05. Treatment effect averaged across Weeks 2 and 4.|Repeated measures ANCOVA|Mixed Model: (Estradiol) = Baseline (Estradiol) + Treatment + Site + Weeks + Treatment x Weeks||||||0.0681
91100375|NCT03203512|182087138|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of pro-thrombotic activity of PDEVs in affectingamximum for ex vivo thrombus formation between fish oil and placebo capsules. A general linear model with fixed factors of treatment and period was conducted to determine the differences in the effect of two treatments and two periods on the pro-thrombotic activity of PDEVs.||||>0.05
91100376|NCT03203512|182087139|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of pro-thrombotic activity of PDEVs in affecting area under curve for ex vivo thrombus formation between fish oil and placebo capsules. A general linear model with fixed factors of treatment and period was conducted to determine the differences in the effect of two treatments and two periods on the pro-thrombotic activity of PDEVs.||||>0.05
91100377|NCT03203512|182087140|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment: \<0.001; period: p=0.978; treatment x period interaction: p=0.140|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of EPA in circulating EV total lipids between fish oil and placebo capsules. A general linear model with fixed factors of treatment and period was conducted to determine the differences in the effect of two treatments and two periods on EPA in circulating EV total lipids.||||<0.001
90855537|NCT02043379|181575769|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.4||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||48 hour post-operative||||0.4
90855538|NCT02043379|181575770|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation.||||||0.1||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||pre-operative||||0.1
90855539|NCT02043379|181575770|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.12||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||0 hour post-operative||||0.12
90855540|NCT02043379|181575770|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.51||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||4 hour post-operative||||0.51
90855541|NCT02043379|181575770|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.27||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||12 hour post-operative||||0.27
90855542|NCT02043379|181575770|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.88||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||24 hour post-operative||||0.88
90855543|NCT02043379|181575770|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.38||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||48 hour post-operative||||0.38
90855544|NCT02043379|181575771|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation.||||||0.35||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||pre-operative||||0.35
90855545|NCT02043379|181575771|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.39||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||0 hour post-operative||||0.39
90855546|NCT02043379|181575771|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.58||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||4 hour post-operative||||0.58
90855547|NCT02043379|181575771|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.36||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||12 hour post-operative||||0.36
90902914|NCT00962585|181672995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|35.32|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.75|68.9|||Pair-wise comparisons|||Week 2, Treatment Effect||68.90|1.75|>0.05
90902915|NCT00962585|181672995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|3.61|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.12|36.34|||Pair-wise comparisons|||Week 2, Treatment Effect||36.34|-29.12|>0.05
90902916|NCT00962585|181672995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|-4.58|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.39|28.23|||Pair-wise comparisons|||Week 2, Treatment Effect||28.23|-37.39|>0.05
91100378|NCT03203512|182087140|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment: p\<0.001; period: p=0.699; treatment x period interaction: p=0.114|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of DHA in circulating EV total lipids between fish oil and placebo capsules. A general linear model with fixed factors of treatment and period was conducted to determine the differences in the effect of two treatments and two periods on DHA in circulating EV total lipids.||||<0.001
91104416|NCT02037984|182094978|OTHER|PT5 GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT5 GMC Ratio|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.02||||||||1.02|0.46|
91104417|NCT02037984|182094978|OTHER|PT6A GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT6A GMC Ratio|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.64||||||||0.64|0.17|
91031257|NCT01029353|181947148|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.06|||||The model was fit using PROC GENMOD in SAS, using center as the repeated effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a robust Poisson regression model, with log link and center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy over drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to NEC.||1.06|0.61|
91100379|NCT03203512|182087140|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.011||||||Treatment: p=0.011; period: p=0.381; treatment x period interaction: p=0.762|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of oleic acid in circulating EV total lipids between fish oil and placebo capsules. A general linear model with fixed factors of treatment and period was conducted to determine the differences in the effect of two treatments and two periods on oleic acid in circulating EV total lipids.||||=0.011
90855548|NCT02043379|181575771|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.61||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||24 hour post-operative||||0.61
90855549|NCT02043379|181575771|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.38||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||48 hour post-operative||||0.38
90902917|NCT00962585|181672995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|22.12|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.56|67.8|||Pair-wise comparisons|||Week 4, Treatment Effect||67.80|-23.56|>0.05
90855550|NCT02043379|181575772|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation.||||||0.1||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||pre-operative||||0.1
90855551|NCT02043379|181575772|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.02||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||0 hour post-operative||||0.02
90855552|NCT02043379|181575772|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.34||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||4 hour post-operative||||0.34
90855553|NCT02043379|181575772|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.35||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||12 hour post-operative||||0.35
90855554|NCT02043379|181575772|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.67||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||24 hour post-operative||||0.67
90855555|NCT02043379|181575772|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.47||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||48 hour post-operative||||0.47
90855556|NCT02043379|181575773|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.46||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||pre-operative||||0.46
90855557|NCT02043379|181575773|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.04||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||0 hour post-operative||||0.04
90855558|NCT02043379|181575773|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.14||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||4 hour post-operative||||0.14
90855559|NCT02043379|181575773|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.82||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||12 hour post-operative||||0.82
90855560|NCT02043379|181575773|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.9||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||24 hour post-operative||||0.9
90855561|NCT02043379|181575773|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.78||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||48 hour post-operative||||0.78
90855562|NCT02043379|181575774|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation.||||||0.37||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||0 hour level||||0.37
90855563|NCT02043379|181575774|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.47||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||4 hour level||||0.47
90855564|NCT02043379|181575774|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.47||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||8 hour level||||0.47
90855565|NCT02043379|181575774|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.79||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||12 hour level||||0.79
90855566|NCT02043379|181575774|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.04||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||24 hour level||||0.04
90855567|NCT02043379|181575775|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation.||||||0.43||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||pre-operative||||0.43
90902918|NCT00962585|181672995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|7.8|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.7|52.29|||Pair-wise comparisons|||Week 4, Treatment Effect||52.29|-36.70|>0.05
91100380|NCT03203512|182087140|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment: p\<0.001; period: p=0.512; treatment x period interaction: p=0.812|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of AA in circulating EV total lipids between fish oil and placebo capsules. A general linear model with fixed factors of treatment and period was conducted to determine the differences in the effect of two treatments and two periods on AA in circulating EV total lipids.||||<0.001
91100381|NCT03203512|182087140|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment: p\<0.001; period: p=0.160; treatment x period interaction: p=0.132|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of total n-3 PUFA in circulating EV total lipids between fish oil and placebo capsules. A general linear model with fixed factors of treatment and period was conducted to determine the differences in the effect of two treatments and two periods on total n-3 PUFA in circulating EV total lipids.||||<0.001
91100382|NCT03203512|182087140|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.013||||||Treatment: p=0.013; period: p=0.500; treatment x period interaction: p=0.522|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of total MUFA in circulating EV total lipids between fish oil and placebo capsules. A general linear model with fixed factors of treatment and period was conducted to determine the differences in the effect of two treatments and two periods on total MUFA in circulating EV total lipids.||||=0.013
91100383|NCT03203512|182087141|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment: p\<0.001; period: p=0.169; treatment x period interaction: p=0.629|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of EPA in plasma total phospholipids between fish oil and placebo capsules. A general linear model with fixed factors of treatment and period was conducted to determine the differences in the effect of two treatments and two periods on EPA in plasma total phospholipids.||||<0.001
91100384|NCT03203512|182087141|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment: p\<0.001; period: p=0.262; treatment x period interaction: p=0.150|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of DHA in plasma total phospholipids between fish oil and placebo capsules. A general linear model with fixed factors of treatment and period was conducted to determine the differences in the effect of two treatments and two periods on DHA in plasma total phospholipids.||||<0.001
91100385|NCT03203512|182087141|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment: p\<0.001; period: p=0.302; treatment x period interaction: p=0.385|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of DPA in plasma total phospholipids between fish oil and placebo capsules. A general linear model with fixed factors of treatment and period was conducted to determine the differences in the effect of two treatments and two periods on DPA in plasma total phospholipids.||||<0.001
90855568|NCT02043379|181575775|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.68||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|t-test, 2 sided|||max||||0.68
90855569|NCT02043379|181575776|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation.||||||0.87||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||pre-operative||||0.87
90855570|NCT02043379|181575776|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.79||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|t-test, 2 sided|||24 hour post-operative max||||0.79
90855571|NCT05985980|181575777|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is true that the ST/HR index (μV/bpm) ıs similar between the early and late follicular phases||||||0.521|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.521
90855572|NCT05985980|181575778|EQUIVALENCE|High-sensitive cardiac troponin T (hs-cTnT) levels before and after ETT at the early and late follicular phases are compared.||||||0.109|||||||ANOVA|||High-sensitive cardiac troponin T (hs-cTnT) levels before and after ETT at the early and late follicular phases are compared.||||0.109
90855573|NCT05985980|181575779|EQUIVALENCE|ETT maximal exercise capacity (METs score) is compared between the early and late follicular phases of menstrual cycle||||||0.111|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||ETT maximal exercise capacity (METs score) is compared between the early and late follicular phases of menstrual cycle||||0.111
91031258|NCT01029353|181947148|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.37|||||The model was fit using PROC GENMOD in SAS, using center as the repeated effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a robust Poisson regression model, with log link and center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy over drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to IP.||1.37|1.01|
90855574|NCT05985980|181575780|EQUIVALENCE|ETT ST/HR slope (μV/bpm) is compared between the early and late follicular phases of menstrual cycle||||||0.414|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||ETT ST/HR slope (μV/bpm) is compared between the early and late follicular phases of menstrual cycle||||0.414
90855575|NCT05985980|181575781|EQUIVALENCE|Maximal horizontal or down slope ST segment depression (mm) during exercise treadmill test is compared between the early and late follicular phases of menstrual cycle||||||0.062|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Maximal horizontal or down slope ST segment depression (mm) during exercise treadmill test is compared between the early and late follicular phases of menstrual cycle||||0.062
90855576|NCT05985980|181575782|EQUIVALENCE|Estrogen levels increase at the late follicular phase.|||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90855577|NCT00282347|181575823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5538|TWO_SIDED||||||Stratified Wilcoxon-Rank Sum Test|||||||0.5538
90855578|NCT02101112|181575832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|1.054|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.994|1.118||||||Apixaban, 10 mg (crushed and suspended in water) vs. Apixaban, 10 mg (whole tablets)||1.118|0.994|
90855579|NCT02101112|181575832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|0.788|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.741|0.839||||||Apixaban, 10 mg (crushed and mixed with applesauce) vs. Apixaban, 10 mg (whole tablets)||0.839|0.741|
90855580|NCT02101112|181575833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|1.027|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.981|1.076||||||Apixaban, 10 mg (crushed and suspended in water) vs. Apixaban, 10 mg (whole tablets)||1.076|0.981|
91100386|NCT03203512|182087141|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment: p\<0.001; period: p=0.793; treatment x period interaction: p=0.522|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of linoleic acid in plasma total phospholipids between fish oil and placebo capsules. A general linear model with fixed factors of treatment and period was conducted to determine the differences in the effect of two treatments and two periods on linoleic acid in plasma total phospholipids.||||<0.001
91100387|NCT03203512|182087141|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment: p\<0.001; period: p=0.956; treatment x period interaction: p=0.238|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of dihomo-γ-linolenic acid (DGLA) in plasma total phospholipids between fish oil and placebo capsules. A general linear model with fixed factors of treatment and period was conducted to determine the differences in the effect of two treatments and two periods on DGLA in plasma total phospholipids.||||<0.001
91104418|NCT02037984|182094978|OTHER|PT6B GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT6B GMG Ratio|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.23||||||||0.23|0.05|
91100388|NCT03203512|182087141|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment: p\<0.001; period: p=0.457; treatment x period interaction: p=0.613|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of AA in plasma total phospholipids between fish oil and placebo capsules. A general linear model with fixed factors of treatment and period was conducted to determine the differences in the effect of two treatments and two periods on AA in plasma total phospholipids.||||<0.001
91100389|NCT03203512|182087141|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment: p\<0.001; period: p=0.134; treatment x period interaction: p=0.260|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of total n-3 PUFA in plasma total phospholipids between fish oil and placebo capsules. A general linear model with fixed factors of treatment and period was conducted to determine the differences in the effect of two treatments and two periods on total n-3 PUFA in plasma total phospholipids.||||<0.001
91100390|NCT03203512|182087141|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment: p\<0.001; period: p=0.917; treatment x period interaction: p=0.603|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of total n-6 PUFA in plasma total phospholipids between fish oil and placebo capsules. A general linear model with fixed factors of treatment and period was conducted to determine the differences in the effect of two treatments and two periods on total n-6 PUFA in plasma total phospholipids.||||<0.001
91100391|NCT03203512|182087142|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.016||||||Treatment: p=0.016; period: p=0.566; treatment x period interaction: p=0.659|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of plasma TAG between fish oil and placebo capsules. A general linear model with fixed factors of treatment and period was conducted to determine the differences in the effect of two treatments and two periods on plasma TAG.||||=0.016
91100392|NCT03203512|182087142|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.014||||||Treatment: p=0.014; period: p=0.842; treatment x period interaction: p=0.943|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of plasma LDL-C between fish oil and placebo capsules. A general linear model with fixed factors of treatment and period was conducted to determine the differences in the effect of two treatments and two periods on plasma LDL-C.||||=0.014
91100393|NCT03203512|182087142|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.077||||||Treatment: p=0.077; period: p=0.921; treatment x period interaction: p=0.793|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of plasma TC between fish oil and placebo capsules. A general linear model with fixed factors of treatment and period was conducted to determine the differences in the effect of two treatments and two periods on plasma TC.||||=0.077
91100394|NCT03203512|182087142|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.379||||||Treatment: p=0.379; period: p=0.938; treatment x period interaction: p=0.341|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of plasma HDL-C between fish oil and placebo capsules. A general linear model with fixed factors of treatment and period was conducted to determine the differences in the effect of two treatments and two periods on plasma HDL-C.||||=0.379
91100395|NCT03203512|182087143|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.285||||||Treatment: p=0.285; period: p=0.954; treatment x period interaction: p=0.528|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of plasma TC/HDL-C ratio between fish oil and placebo capsules. A general linear model with fixed factors of treatment and period was conducted to determine the differences in the effect of two treatments and two periods on plasma TC/HDL-C ratio.||||=0.285
90855581|NCT02101112|181575833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|0.835|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.797|0.875||||||Apixaban, 10 mg (crushed and mixed with applesauce) vs. Apixaban, 10 mg (whole tablets)||0.875|0.797|
90855582|NCT02101112|181575834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|1.027|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.981|1.075||||||Apixaban, 10 mg (crushed and suspended in water) vs. Apixaban, 10 mg (whole tablets)||1.075|0.981|
90855583|NCT02101112|181575834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|0.832|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.794|0.871||||||Apixaban, 10 mg (crushed and mixed with applesauce) vs. Apixaban, 10 mg (whole tablets)||0.871|0.794|
90855584|NCT04340063|181575839|OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.55||Effect of time (pre-, mid-, and post- assessments)|Mixed Models Analysis|||A linear mixed-effects model (LMM) evaluated the effect of training (pre-, mid-, and post- assessments). Random effect of participant was used and fixed effects were time (assessment order) and a time by group interaction (Treadmill or Movement Amplification). A binomial distribution was used for this model.||0.55|0.25|<0.001
90855585|NCT04340063|181575839|OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|-0.03||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.16||Interaction effect for time (pre-, mid-, and post- assessments) by group (Movement Amplification)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.16|-0.22|0.8
90855586|NCT04340063|181575839|OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|0.09||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.36||Effect of time (post-training and follow-up assessments)|Mixed Models Analysis|||A linear mixed-effects model (LMM) evaluated the post-training and follow-up assessments if an effect was found during training. Random effect of participant and fixed effects of time (assessment order) and the time by group (Treadmill or Movement Amplification) interaction were used. A binomial distribution was used for this model.||0.36|-0.18|0.5
91100396|NCT03203512|182087144|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment: p\<0.001; period effect: p=0.011; treatment x period interaction: p=0.033|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of SBP between fish oil and placebo capsules. A general linear model with fixed factors of treatment and period was conducted to determine the differences in the effect of two treatments and two periods on SBP.||||<0.001
91100397|NCT03203512|182087144|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.002||||||Treatment: p=0.002; period: p=0.952; treatment x period interaction: p=0.114|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of DBP between fish oil and placebo capsules. A general linear model with fixed factors of treatment and period was conducted to determine the differences in the effect of two treatments and two periods on DBP.||||=0.002
91100398|NCT06083493|182087166|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.02
91100399|NCT06083493|182087167|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.20
91100400|NCT01810952|182087174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35||||||This is the p-value for Day 5|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.35
91100401|NCT01810952|182087175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.65
91100402|NCT01810952|182087176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||||||Comparison of the 5 day averages resulted in a p-value of 0.06.|t-test, 2 sided|||Daily values for each protocol were compared using t-tests.||||0.06
91100403|NCT01810952|182087177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in binomial proportions|||||0.795||||||Comparison of the number of participants in each group with glucose value \<70 mg/dL resulted in p-value 0.795.|Chi-squared|||||||0.795
91100404|NCT01810952|182087178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.055||||||Comparison between groups of percent of glucose values \>180 mg/dL.|Chi-squared|||Values in each group were compared by Chi squared.||||0.055
91100405|NCT02618187|182087190|OTHER|Null hypothesis: the two groups compared show no difference in mean ranks Alternative hypothesis: the two groups compared show a difference in mean ranks||||||0.766|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2-sided||||||0.766
91032799|NCT01520909|181950805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|17.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.29|140.93|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The proportion of participants achieving platelet counts \>=50 Gi/L for those participants receiving eltrombopag versus placebo was compared.||Indicated significance at the 5% (two-sided) level of significance||140.93|2.29|<0.001
90855587|NCT04340063|181575839|OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|-0.07||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.17||Interaction effect of time (post-training and follow-up assessments) by group (Movement Amplification)|Mixed Models Analysis|||A linear mixed-effects model (LMM) evaluated the post-training and follow-up assessments if an effect was found during training. Random effect of participant and fixed effects of time (assessment order) and the time by group (Treadmill or Movement Amplification) interaction were used. A binomial distribution was used for this model.||0.17|-0.31|0.6
90855588|NCT04340063|181575840|OTHER||Slope|0.06||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.62||Effect of time (pre-, mid-, and post- assessments)|Mixed Models Analysis|||A linear mixed-effects model (LMM) evaluated the effect of training (pre-, mid-, and post- assessments). Random effect of participant and fixed effects of time (assessment order) and time by group (Treadmill or Movement Amplification) interaction were used||0.62|-0.50|0.8
90855589|NCT04340063|181575840|OTHER||Slope|-0.7||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.16||Interaction effect of time by group (Movement Amplification)|Mixed Models Analysis|||A linear mixed-effects model (LMM) evaluated the effect of training (pre-, mid-, and post- assessments). Random effect of participant and fixed effects of time (assessment order) and the time by group (Treadmill or Movement Amplification) interaction were used.||-0.16|-1.2|0.012
90855590|NCT04340063|181575840|OTHER||Slope|0.26||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.75||Effect of time (post-training to follow-up)|Mixed Models Analysis|||A linear mixed-effects model (LMM) evaluated the post-training and follow-up assessments if an effect was found during training. Random effect of participant and fixed effects of time (assessment order) and the time by group (Treadmill or Movement Amplification) interaction were used.||0.75|-0.22|0.3
90855591|NCT04340063|181575840|OTHER||Slope|-0.2||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.29||Interaction effect of time (post-training to follow-up) by group|Mixed Models Analysis|||A linear mixed-effects model (LMM) evaluated the post-training and follow-up assessments if an effect was found during training. Random effect of participant and fixed effects of time (assessment order) and the time by group (Treadmill or Movement Amplification) interaction were used.||0.29|-0.69|0.4
90855592|NCT04340063|181575841|OTHER||Slope|-52.0||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-651.0|456.0||Effect of time (pre-, mid-, and post- assessments)|Mixed Models Analysis|||A linear mixed-effects model (LMM) evaluated the effect of training (pre-, mid-, and post- assessments). Random effect of participant and fixed effects of time (assessment order) and the time by group (Treadmill or Movement Amplification) interaction were used.||456|-651|0.9
90855593|NCT04340063|181575841|OTHER||Slope|79.0||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-622.0|780.0||Interaction effect of time by group (Movement Amplification)|Mixed Models Analysis|||A linear mixed-effects model (LMM) evaluated the effect of training (pre-, mid-, and post- assessments). Random effect of participant and fixed effects of time (assessment order) and the time by group (Treadmill or Movement Amplification) interaction were used.||780|-622|0.8
90855594|NCT00491556|181575859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|-7.97|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Baseline minus Week 48|Null hypothesis is no changes between Baseline and Week 48.||-7.97|-12.20|<0.0001
90855595|NCT00491556|181575860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.81|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.0||0.0834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.87|0.26|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Week 48 minus Week 152|Null hypothesis is no changes between Week 48 and Week 152||0.26|-3.87|0.0834
90855596|NCT00491556|181575861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-317.36|STANDARD_DEVIATION|176.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-390.04|-244.68|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Baseline minus Week 48|Null hypothesis is no changes between Baseline and Week 48.||-244.68|-390.04|<0.0001
90855597|NCT00491556|181575862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|242.38||0.6222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-124.25|75.85|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Week 48 minus Week 152|Null hypothesis is no changes between Week 48 and Week 152||75.85|-124.25|0.6222
90855598|NCT00491556|181575863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-58.79|STANDARD_DEVIATION|152.57||0.0781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-124.77|7.18|||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis is no changes between Baseline and Week 48.||7.18|-124.77|0.0781
90855599|NCT00491556|181575864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-103.53|STANDARD_DEVIATION|176.61||0.0102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-179.9|-27.16|||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis is no changes between Week 48 and Week 152||-27.16|-179.90|0.0102
90855600|NCT00491556|181575865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|56.72||0.1616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.66|7.4|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Baseline minus Week 48|Null hypothesis is no changes between Baseline and Week 48.||7.40|-41.66|0.1616
90855601|NCT00491556|181575866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-43.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|75.17||0.0117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.59|-10.58|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Week 48 minus Week 152|Null hypothesis is no changes between Week 48 and Week 152||-10.58|-75.59|0.0117
90855602|NCT00491556|181575867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-76.92|STANDARD_DEVIATION|56.31|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-101.27|-52.57|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Baseline minus Week 48|Null hypothesis is no changes between Week 48 and Week 152||-52.57|-101.27|< 0.0001
90855603|NCT00491556|181575868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.87|STANDARD_DEVIATION|68.75||0.2519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.86|46.6|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Week 48 minus Week 152|Null hypothesis is no changes between Week 48 and Week 152||46.60|-12.86|0.2519
91032800|NCT01520909|181950806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|25.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.15|78.73|||Repeated measures model for binary data|Repeated measures model for binary data using Generalized linear mixed model||||78.73|8.15|<0.001
91100406|NCT02618187|182087190|OTHER|Null hypothesis: the two groups compared show no difference in mean ranks Alternative hypothesis: the two groups compared show a difference in mean ranks||||||0.037|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2-sided||||||0.037
91104419|NCT02037984|182094978|OTHER|PT7F GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT7F GMC Ratio|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.04||||||||1.04|0.51|
90855604|NCT00491556|181575869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-126.79|STANDARD_DEVIATION|105.61|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-172.46|-81.12|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Baseline minus Week 48.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Baseline and Week 48.||-81.12|-172.46|< 0.0001
90855605|NCT00491556|181575870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|87.64|STANDARD_DEVIATION|97.71||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.39|129.9|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Week 48 minus Week 152.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Week 48 and Week 152.||129.90|45.39|0.0003
90855606|NCT00491556|181575871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|40.46|STANDARD_DEVIATION|213.77||0.3739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.98|132.9|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Baseline minus Week 48.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Baseline and Week 48.||132.90|-51.98|0.3739
90855607|NCT00491556|181575872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-91.86|STANDARD_DEVIATION|166.4||0.0147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-163.82|-19.9|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Week 48 minus Week 152.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Week 48 and Week 152.||-19.90|-163.82|0.0147
90855608|NCT00491556|181575873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|79.81|STANDARD_DEVIATION|76.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.92|112.71|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Baseline minus Week 48.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Baseline and Week 48.||112.71|46.92|< 0.0001
90855609|NCT00491556|181575874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|58.18||0.1067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.56|4.76|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Week 48 minus Week 152.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Week 48 and Week 152.||4.76|-45.56|0.1067
90855610|NCT00491556|181575875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|90.82|STANDARD_DEVIATION|107.8||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.2|137.43|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Baseline minus Week 48.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Baseline and Week 48.||137.43|44.20|0.0005
90855611|NCT00491556|181575876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.49|STANDARD_DEVIATION|64.41||0.0207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.64|61.34|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Week 48 minus Week 152.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Week 48 and Week 152.||61.34|5.64|0.0207
90855612|NCT00491556|181575877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-39.37|STANDARD_DEVIATION|145.62||0.2082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-102.34|23.6|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Baseline minus Week 48.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Week 48 and Week 152.||23.60|-102.34|0.2082
90855613|NCT00491556|181575878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|86.98|STANDARD_DEVIATION|139.33||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.73|147.23|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Week 48 minus Week 152.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Week 48 and Week 152.||147.23|26.73|0.0067
90855614|NCT00491556|181575879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.78|-12.36|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Baseline minus Week 48.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Baseline and Week 48.||-12.36|-23.78|< 0.0001
90855615|NCT00491556|181575880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.66|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.2||0.5815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.48|7.8|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Week 48 minus Week 152.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Week 48 and Week 152.||7.80|-4.48|0.5815
90855616|NCT00491556|181575881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.24|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.82|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.85|14.62|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Baseline minus Week 48.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Baseline and Week 48.||14.62|7.85|< 0.0001
90855617|NCT00491556|181575882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.87|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.93||0.0594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.87|0.12|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Week 48 minus Week 152.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Week 48 and Week 152.||0.12|-5.87|0.0594
90855618|NCT00491556|181575883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.58|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.24||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.15|17.01|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Baseline minus Week 48.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Baseline and Week 48.||17.01|8.15|0.0001
90855619|NCT00491556|181575884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.93|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.95||0.0995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|8.66|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Week 48 minus Week 152.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Week 48 and Week 152.||8.66|-0.81|0.0995
90855620|NCT00491556|181575885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.95|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.07||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|2.84|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Baseline minus Week 48.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Baseline and Week 48.||2.84|1.05|0.0002
90855621|NCT00491556|181575886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.49||0.915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.68|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Week 48 minus Week 152.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Week 48 and Week 152.||0.68|-0.61|0.9150
90855622|NCT00491556|181575887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.52|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.79|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.48|-17.55|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Baseline minus Week 48.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Baseline and Week 48.||-17.55|-29.48|< 0.0001
90855623|NCT00491556|181575888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.95|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.96||0.5864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.38|9.28|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Week 48 minus Week 152.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Week 48 and Week 152.||9.28|-5.38|0.5864
90855624|NCT00491556|181575889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.98|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.48|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.31|25.65|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Baseline minus Week 48.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Baseline and Week 48.||25.65|18.31|< 0.0001
90855625|NCT00491556|181575890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.25||0.1592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.34|0.93|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Week 48 minus Week 152.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Week 48 and Week 152.||0.93|-5.34|0.1592
90855626|NCT00491556|181575891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.97|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.04||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|9.74|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Baseline minus Week 48.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Baseline and Week 48.||9.74|0.20|0.0420
90855627|NCT00491556|181575892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.39||0.4029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.56|3.16|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Week 48 minus Week 152.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Week 48 and Week 152.||3.16|-7.56|0.4029
91032801|NCT01149473|181950842|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|109.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.1|120.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||120|98.1|
91100407|NCT02618187|182087190|OTHER|Null hypothesis: the two groups compared show no difference in mean ranks Alternative hypothesis: the two groups compared show a difference in mean ranks||||||0.313|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2-sided||||||0.313
91100408|NCT02618187|182087190|OTHER|Null hypothesis: the two groups compared show no difference in mean ranks Alternative hypothesis: the two groups compared show a difference in mean ranks||||||0.384|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2-sided||||||0.384
91100409|NCT02618187|182087190|OTHER|Null hypothesis: the two groups compared show no difference in mean ranks Alternative hypothesis: the two groups compared show a difference in mean ranks||||||0.237|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2-sided||||||0.237
91100410|NCT02618187|182087191|SUPERIORITY|Weekly SER-287, after Placebo Pre-Treat. tested against Daily placebo, after Placebo Pre-Treat., for superiority||||||0.257|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|1-sided||||||0.257
91100411|NCT02618187|182087191|SUPERIORITY|Daily SER-287, After Vanco. Pre-Treat. tested against Daily Placebo, After Placebo Pre-Treat., for superiority||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|1-sided||||||0.001
90855628|NCT00491556|181575893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.99|17.21|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Baseline minus Week 48.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Baseline and Week 48.||17.21|11.99|< 0.0001
90855629|NCT00491556|181575894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.2||0.0239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.81|-0.46|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Week 48 minus Week 152.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Week 48 and Week 152.||-0.46|-5.81|0.0239
90855630|NCT00491556|181575895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.35|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.26|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.79|-14.91|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Baseline minus Week 48.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Baseline and Week 48.||-14.91|-23.79|< 0.0001
90855631|NCT00491556|181575896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.45|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.6||0.2363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.33|2.43|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Week 48 minus Week 152.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Week 48 and Week 152.||2.43|-9.33|0.2363
90855632|NCT00491556|181575897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.69|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.7|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.93|23.45|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Baseline minus Week 48.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Baseline and Week 48.||23.45|15.93|< 0.0001
90855633|NCT00491556|181575898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.55||0.0929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.43|0.37|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Week 48 minus Week 152.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Week 48 and Week 152.||0.37|-4.43|0.0929
90855634|NCT00491556|181575899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.53|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.94||0.1886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|1.34|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Baseline minus Week 48.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Baseline and Week 48.||1.34|-6.40|0.1886
90855635|NCT00491556|181575900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.87|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.13||0.2831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|5.38|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Week 48 minus Week 152.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Week 48 and Week 152.||5.38|-1.65|0.2831
90855636|NCT00491556|181575901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.52|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.59|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.1|13.94|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Baseline minus Week 48.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Baseline and Week 48.||13.94|9.10|< 0.0001
90855637|NCT00491556|181575902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.88||0.0157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.75|-0.67|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Week 48 minus Week 152.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Week 48 and Week 152.||-0.67|-5.75|0.0157
91100412|NCT02618187|182087191|SUPERIORITY|Weekly SER-287, After Vanco. Pre-Treat. tested against Daily Placebo, After Placebo Pre-Treat., for superiority||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|1-sided||||||0.001
91100413|NCT02618187|182087191|SUPERIORITY|Weekly SER-287, After Vanco. Pre-Treat. tested against Weekly SER-287, After Placebo Pre-Treat., for superiority||||||0.009|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|1-sided||||||0.009
91100414|NCT02618187|182087191|SUPERIORITY|Daily SER-287, After Vanco. Pre-Treat., tested against Weekly SER-287, After Vanco. Pre-Treat., for superiority||||||0.168|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|1-sided||||||0.168
91100415|NCT02618187|182087192|SUPERIORITY||Rate difference (SER-287 - placebo)|13.3||||0.4923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.87|30.54|||Fisher Exact|||||30.54|-3.87|0.4923
91100416|NCT02618187|182087192|SUPERIORITY||Rate difference (SER-287 - placebo)|40.0||||0.0237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.21|64.79|||Fisher Exact|||||64.79|15.21|0.0237
91100417|NCT02618187|182087192|SUPERIORITY||Rate difference (SER-287 - placebo)|17.6||||0.2579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|35.77|||Fisher Exact|||||35.77|-0.47|0.2579
91100418|NCT02618187|182087193|SUPERIORITY||Rate difference (SER-287 - placebo)|24.2||||0.1973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.04|53.53|||Fisher Exact|||||53.53|-5.04|0.1973
91100419|NCT02618187|182087193|SUPERIORITY||Rate difference (SER-287 - placebo)|30.9||||0.1783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|60.96|||Fisher Exact|||||60.96|0.86|0.1783
91100420|NCT02618187|182087193|SUPERIORITY||Rate difference (SER-287 - placebo)|14.4||||0.6195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.93|40.81|||Fisher Exact|||||40.81|-11.93|0.6195
91100421|NCT04560309|182087229|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.993||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.993
91100422|NCT04560309|182087230|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.883||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|Unpaired T-Test|||||||0.883
91100423|NCT04560309|182087231|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.034||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|Unpaired T-Test|||||||0.034
91100424|NCT04560309|182087232|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.038
91100425|NCT04560309|182087233|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.423||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.423
90855638|NCT00491556|181575903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.65|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.93|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.24|-17.06|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Baseline minus Week 48.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Baseline and Week 48.||-17.06|-28.24|< 0.0001
90855639|NCT00491556|181575904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.23|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.37||0.1999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|10.88|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Week 48 minus Week 152.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Week 48 and Week 152.||10.88|-2.41|0.1999
90855640|NCT00491556|181575905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.47|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.81|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.52|15.41|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Baseline minus Week 48.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Baseline and Week 48.||15.41|9.52|< 0.0001
90855641|NCT00491556|181575906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.95|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.12||0.0808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.17|0.26|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Week 48 minus Week 152.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Week 48 and Week 152.||0.26|-4.17|0.0808
90855642|NCT00491556|181575907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.83||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.72|17.69|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Baseline minus Week 48.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Baseline and Week 48.||17.69|5.72|0.0005
90855643|NCT00491556|181575908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.12||0.9198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.41|5.81|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Week 48 minus Week 152.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Week 48 and Week 152.||5.81|-6.41|0.9198
90855644|NCT00491556|181575909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.69|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.97|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|4.97|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Baseline minus Week 48.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Baseline and Week 48.||4.97|2.40|< 0.0001
90902919|NCT00962585|181672995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|-22.74|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.44|21.96|||Pair-wise comparisons|||Week 4, Treatment Effect||21.96|-67.44|>0.05
90902920|NCT00962585|181672999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0475||||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was P \<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney test: S-equol treatment group versus Placebo: Percentage Change from Baseline at Week 4||||||0.0475
90855645|NCT00491556|181575910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.31|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.54||0.0215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|-0.21|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Week 48 minus Week 152.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Week 48 and Week 152.||-0.21|-2.41|0.0215
90855646|NCT05063318|181575947|SUPERIORITY||Least-squares geometric mean ratio|272.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|213.22|348.86|||ANOVA|ANOVA mixed-effects model included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, and patient (sequence) as a random effect||||348.86|213.22|
90902921|NCT00962585|181672999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0258||||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance P \<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney test: S-equol treatment group versus Placebo: Percentage Change from Baseline at Week 4||||||0.0258
90902922|NCT00962585|181672999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0281||||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was P \<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney test: S-equol treatment group versus Placebo: Percentage Change from Baseline at Week 4||||||0.0281
90855647|NCT05063318|181575948|SUPERIORITY||Least-squares geometric mean ratio|236.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|177.35|316.0|||ANOVA|ANOVA mixed-effects model included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, and patient (sequence) as a random effect||||316.00|177.35|
91031259|NCT01029353|181947148|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||A Bayesian analysis. Within pre-operative diagnosis, Initial Laparotomy and Initial Peritoneal Drain were compared using log-binomial regression. Pre-operative diagnosis levels were NEC and IP. PROC MCMC with effect coding was used. Center (random effect), treatment, pre-operative diagnosis, baseline risk, and the treatment by Preoperative diagnosis were the covariates. Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) characteristics: three chains, 10000 tunings, 10000 burn-ins, 1000000 samples, thinning=20.|Priors for model parameters: intercept = Normal(mean=0, variance=100), baseline risk and preop diagnosis parameters = Normal(mean=0, variance=1), treatment and the interaction term = Normal(mean=0, variance=0.31416), random effect standard deviation = Half-Normal(mean=0, variance=10). For the NEC pre-operative diagnosis, the posterior median relative risk of Initial Laparotomy over Initial Drainage was 0.80, 95% credible interval of (0.61, 1.01). For the IP pre-operative diagnosis, the posterior median relative risk of Initial Laparotomy over Initial Drainage was 1.15, 95% credible interval of (0.94, 1.42).|||
91031260|NCT01029353|181947149|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.01|||||The model was fit using PROC GENMOD in SAS, using center as the repeated effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a robust Poisson regression model, with log link and center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy over drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to NEC.||1.01|0.46|
91100426|NCT04560309|182087234|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.216||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|Unpaired T-Test|||||||0.216
90855648|NCT05063318|181575949|SUPERIORITY||least-squares geometric mean ratio.|115.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.07|133.33|||ANOVA|ANOVA mixed-effects model included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, and patient (sequence) as a random effect||||133.33|100.07|
90855649|NCT05063318|181575950|SUPERIORITY||Least-squares geometric mean ratio.|217.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|151.81|311.82|||ANOVA|ANOVA mixed-effects model included treatment, period and sequence (TR or RT) as fixed effects, and patient (sequence) as a random effect.||||311.82|151.81|
90855650|NCT05063318|181575951|SUPERIORITY||Least-squares geometric mean ratio|36.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|28.66|46.9|||ANOVA|ANOVA mixed-effects model included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, and patient (sequence) as a random effect||||46.9|28.66|
90902923|NCT00962585|181672999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0645||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||All three S-equol treatment arms were aggregated and compared to placebo.||||0.0645
90902924|NCT00962585|181673000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0097||||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was P \<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney test: S-equol groups combined versus Placebo: Change from Baseline at Week 4||||||0.0097
91100427|NCT04560309|182087235|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|Unpaired T-Test|||||||0.001
91100428|NCT04560309|182087236|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.043||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|Unpaired T-Test|||||||0.043
91100429|NCT04560309|182087237|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|Unpaired T-Test|||||||0.011
91100430|NCT04560309|182087238|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.975||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.975
91100431|NCT04560309|182087239|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.031||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.031
91100432|NCT04560309|182087240|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.549||||||The threshold of statistical significance was p \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.549
91100433|NCT04560309|182087241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.645||||||The threshold of statistical significance was p \< 0.05|Unpaired T-Test|||||||0.645
91100434|NCT04560309|182087242|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33||||||The threshold of statistical significance was p \< 0.05|Unpaired T-Test|||After induction to anesthesia||||0.330
90855651|NCT05063318|181575952|SUPERIORITY||Least-squares geometric mean ratio|99.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|65.76|151.74|||ANOVA|ANOVA mixed-effects model included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, and patient (sequence) as a random effect||||151.74|65.76|
91100435|NCT04560309|182087242|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.352||||||The threshold of statistical significance was p \< 0.05|Unpaired T-Test|||5 minutes after cardiopulmonary bypass||||0.352
90855652|NCT00396032|181575956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0044||95.0||||Stratified by baseline BFR: 0-199 mL/min, 200-274 mL/min, and 275-299 mL/min.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0044
90855653|NCT00396032|181575956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0035||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0035
90855654|NCT00396032|181575958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0396||95.0||||Stratified by baseline BFR: 0-199 mL/min, 200-274 mL/min, and 275-299 mL/min.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0396
90855655|NCT04090957|181575961|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-8.42||||0.0436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.64|-0.2|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||1\_Week 4; E4 15 mg vs Placebo||-0.20|-16.64|0.0436
90855656|NCT04090957|181575961|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-10.21||||0.0117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.44|-1.98|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||2\_Week 4; E4 20 mg vs Placebo||-1.98|-18.44|0.0117
90855657|NCT04090957|181575961|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-12.2||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.69|-3.71|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||3\_Week 12; E4 15 mg vs Placebo||-3.71|-20.69|0.0029
90855658|NCT04090957|181575961|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-15.49||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.04|-6.94|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||4\_Week 12; E4 20 mg vs Placebo||-6.94|-24.04|0.0001
90855659|NCT04090957|181575962|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.04||||0.7786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.12|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||1\_Week 4; E4 15 mg vs Placebo||0.12|-0.20|0.7786
90855660|NCT04090957|181575962|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.17||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|-0.01|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||2\_Week 4; E4 20 mg vs Placebo||-0.01|-0.33|0.0310
90855661|NCT04090957|181575962|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.04||||0.7941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.12|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||3\_Week 12; E4 15 mg vs Placebo||0.12|-0.21|0.7941
90855662|NCT04090957|181575962|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.18|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||4\_Week 12; E4 20 mg vs Placebo||-0.18|-0.51|<.0001
90855663|NCT04090957|181575966|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.2||||0.9666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|7.7|||Chi-squared|||1\_Week 1, ≥50% reduction, E4 15 mg vs placebo||7.7|-8.0|0.9666
90855664|NCT04090957|181575966|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.6||||0.3759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|11.7|||Chi-squared|||2\_Week 1, ≥50% reduction, E4 20 mg vs placebo||11.7|-4.4|0.3759
90855665|NCT04090957|181575966|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.9||||0.7164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|5.6|||Chi-squared|||3\_Week 1, ≥75% reduction, E4 15 mg vs placebo||5.6|-3.9|0.7164
90855666|NCT04090957|181575966|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.6||||0.7859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|3.7|||Chi-squared|||4\_Week 1, ≥75% reduction, E4 20 mg vs placebo||3.7|-4.9|0.7859
90855667|NCT04090957|181575966|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.1||||0.6744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|11.6|||Chi-squared|||5\_Week 2, ≥50% reduction, E4 15 mg vs placebo||11.6|-7.5|0.6744
90855668|NCT04090957|181575966|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.6||||0.5931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|12.0|||Chi-squared|||6\_Week 2, ≥50% reduction, E4 20 mg vs placebo||12.0|-6.9|0.5931
90855669|NCT04090957|181575966|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.2||||0.964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|7.1|||Chi-squared|||7\_Week 2, ≥75% reduction, E4 15 mg vs placebo||7.1|-7.5|0.9640
90855670|NCT04090957|181575966|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.2||||0.7449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|5.9|||Chi-squared|||8\_Week 2, ≥75% reduction, E4 20 mg vs placebo||5.9|-8.2|0.7449
90855671|NCT04090957|181575966|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.1||||0.3271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|15.4|||Chi-squared|||9\_Week 3, ≥50% reduction, E4 15 mg vs placebo||15.4|-5.1|0.3271
90855672|NCT04090957|181575966|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.9||||0.1842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|17.0|||Chi-squared|||10\_Week 3, ≥50% reduction, E4 20 mg vs placebo||17.0|-3.2|0.1842
90855673|NCT04090957|181575966|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.2||||0.7716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|6.9|||Chi-squared|||11\_Week 3, ≥75% reduction, E4 15 mg vs placebo||6.9|-9.4|0.7716
90855674|NCT04090957|181575966|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.6||||0.2934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|13.0|||Chi-squared|||12\_Week 3, ≥75% reduction, E4 20 mg vs placebo||13.0|-3.9|0.2934
90855675|NCT04090957|181575966|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.3||||0.1701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|17.8|||Chi-squared|||13\_Week 4, ≥50% reduction, E4 15 mg vs placebo||17.8|-3.1|0.1701
90855676|NCT04090957|181575966|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.5||||0.0723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|19.8|||Chi-squared|||14\_Week 4, ≥50% reduction, E4 20 mg vs placebo||19.8|-0.8|0.0723
90855677|NCT04090957|181575966|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.7||||0.1258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|15.2|||Chi-squared|||15\_Week 4, ≥75% reduction, E4 15 mg vs placebo||15.2|-1.9|0.1258
90855678|NCT04090957|181575966|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.2||||0.0126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|19.9|||Chi-squared|||16\_Week 4, ≥75% reduction, E4 20 mg vs placebo||19.9|2.5|0.0126
90855679|NCT04090957|181575966|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.9||||0.0436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|21.5|||Chi-squared|||17\_Week 5, ≥50% reduction, E4 15 mg vs placebo||21.5|0.4|0.0436
90902925|NCT00962585|181673001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4352||||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was P \<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney test: S-equol treatment group versus Placebo: Percentage Change from Baseline at Week 4||||||0.4352
90902926|NCT00962585|181673001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26||||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was P \<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney test: S-equol treatment group versus Placebo: Percentage Change from Baseline at Week 4||||||0.2600
90902927|NCT00962585|181673001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7037||||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was P \<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney test: S-equol treatment group versus Placebo: Percentage Change from Baseline at Week 4||||||0.7037
90902928|NCT00962585|181673001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7155|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||All three S-equol treatment arms were aggregated and compared to placebo.||||0.7155
90902929|NCT00962585|181673002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0381||||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was P \<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney test: S-equol groups combined versus Placebo: Change from Baseline at Week 4||||||0.0381
90902930|NCT02593032|181673108|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|12.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||This is the calculated p-value, not a threshold.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
90902931|NCT04844918|181673109|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-16.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.7|-13.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-13.5|-18.7|<0.001
91031261|NCT01029353|181947149|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|2.01|||||The model was fit using PROC GENMOD in SAS, using center as the repeated effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a robust Poisson regression model, with log link and center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy over drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to IP.||2.01|0.74|
91031262|NCT01029353|181947149|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||A Bayesian analysis. Within pre-operative diagnosis, Initial Laparotomy and Initial Peritoneal Drain were compared using log-binomial regression. Pre-operative diagnosis levels were NEC and IP. PROC MCMC with effect coding was used. Center (random effect), treatment, pre-operative diagnosis, baseline risk, and the treatment by Preoperative diagnosis were the covariates. Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) characteristics: three chains, 10000 tunings, 10000 burn-ins, 1000000 samples, thinning=20.|Priors for model parameters: intercept = Normal(mean=0, variance=100), baseline risk and preop diagnosis parameters = Normal(mean=0, variance=1), treatment and the interaction term = Normal(mean=0, variance=0.31416), random effect standard deviation = Half-Normal(mean=0, variance=10). For the NEC pre-operative diagnosis, the posterior median relative risk of Initial Laparotomy over Initial Drainage was 0.72, 95% credible interval of (0.48, 1.05). For the IP pre-operative diagnosis, the posterior median relative risk of Initial Laparotomy over Initial Drainage was 1.12, 95% credible interval of (0.71, 1.76).|||
90902932|NCT04844918|181673109|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-21.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.6|-18.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-18.5|-23.6|<0.001
90902933|NCT04844918|181673110|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|119.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.06|492.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||492.67|29.06|<0.001
90902934|NCT04844918|181673110|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|153.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.03|654.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||654.53|36.03|<0.001
90902935|NCT04844918|181673111|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|24.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.62|68.28|||Regression, Logistic|||||68.28|8.62|<0.001
90902936|NCT04844918|181673111|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|38.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.21|110.89|||Regression, Logistic|||||110.89|13.21|<0.001
90902937|NCT04844918|181673112|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-15.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.91|-11.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-11.09|-18.91|<0.001
90902938|NCT04844918|181673112|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-12.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.56|-9.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-9.05|-16.56|<0.001
91031263|NCT01029353|181947150|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.04|||||The model was fit using PROC GENMOD in SAS, using center as the repeated effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a robust Poisson regression model, with log link and center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy over drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to NEC.||1.04|0.51|
90902939|NCT04844918|181673113|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-55.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.74|-41.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-41.77|-69.74|<0.001
91031264|NCT01029353|181947150|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.93|||||The model was fit using PROC GENMOD in SAS, using center as the repeated effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to infants with IP.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a robust Poisson regression model, with log link and center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy over drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to IP.||1.93|0.82|
91031265|NCT01029353|181947150|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||A Bayesian analysis. Within pre-operative diagnosis, Initial Laparotomy and Initial Peritoneal Drain were compared using log-binomial regression. Pre-operative diagnosis levels were NEC and IP. PROC MCMC with effect coding was used. Center (random effect), treatment, pre-operative diagnosis, baseline risk, and the treatment by Preoperative diagnosis were the covariates. Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) characteristics: three chains, 10000 tunings, 10000 burn-ins, 1000000 samples, thinning=20.|Priors for model parameters: intercept = Normal(mean=0, variance=100), baseline risk and preop diagnosis parameters = Normal(mean=0, variance=1), treatment and the interaction term = Normal(mean=0, variance=0.31416), random effect standard deviation = Half-Normal(mean=0, variance=10). For the NEC pre-operative diagnosis, the posterior median relative risk of Initial Laparotomy over Initial Drainage was 0.77, 95% credible interval of (0.51, 1.14). For the IP pre-operative diagnosis, the posterior median relative risk of Initial Laparotomy over Initial Drainage was 1.17, 95% credible interval of (0.76, 1.81).|||
91100436|NCT04560309|182087242|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.544||||||The threshold of statistical significance was p \< 0.05|Unpaired T-Test|||2 hours after cardiopulmonary bypass||||0.544
91100437|NCT04560309|182087242|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022||||||The threshold of statistical significance was p \< 0.05|Unpaired T-Test|||6 hours after cardiopulmonary bypass||||0.022
90855680|NCT04090957|181575966|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.5||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.3|27.8|||Chi-squared|||18\_Week 5, ≥50% reduction, E4 20 mg vs placebo||27.8|7.3|0.0010
90902940|NCT04844918|181673113|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-64.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.2|-51.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-51.43|-78.20|<0.001
90902941|NCT04844918|181673114|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-40.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.0|-29.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-29.7|-50.0|<0.001
91031266|NCT01029353|181947151|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.89|||||The model was fit using PROC GENMOD in SAS, using center as the repeated effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a robust Poisson regression model, with log link and center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy over drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to NEC.||0.89|0.31|
90855681|NCT04090957|181575966|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.6||||0.1623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|15.9|||Chi-squared|||19\_Week 5, ≥75% reduction, E4 15 mg vs placebo||15.9|-2.7|0.1623
90855682|NCT04090957|181575966|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.5||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|26.1|||Chi-squared|||20\_Week 5, ≥75% reduction, E4 20 mg vs placebo||26.1|7.0|0.0009
90855683|NCT04090957|181575966|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.9||||0.0677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|20.4|||Chi-squared|||21\_Week 6, ≥50% reduction, E4 15 mg vs placebo||20.4|-0.7|0.0677
90855684|NCT04090957|181575966|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.5||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.2|28.7|||Chi-squared|||22\_Week 6, ≥50% reduction, E4 20 mg vs placebo||28.7|8.2|0.0005
90855685|NCT04090957|181575966|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.0||||0.8432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|9.0|||Chi-squared|||23\_Week 6, ≥75% reduction, E4 15 mg vs placebo||9.0|-11.0|0.8432
90855686|NCT04090957|181575966|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.3||||0.0073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|24.6|||Chi-squared|||24\_Week 6, ≥75% reduction, E4 20 mg vs placebo||24.6|4.0|0.0073
90855687|NCT04090957|181575966|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.1||||0.1894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|17.7|||Chi-squared|||25\_Week 7, ≥50% reduction, E4 15 mg vs placebo||17.7|-3.5|0.1894
90855688|NCT04090957|181575966|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.8||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.6|26.1|||Chi-squared|||26\_Week 7, ≥50% reduction, E4 20 mg vs placebo||26.1|5.6|0.0028
90855689|NCT04090957|181575966|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.6||||0.4844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|13.8|||Chi-squared|||27\_Week 7, ≥75% reduction, E4 15 mg vs placebo||13.8|-6.5|0.4844
90855690|NCT04090957|181575966|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.0||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.6|28.4|||Chi-squared|||28\_Week 7, ≥75% reduction, E4 20 mg vs placebo||28.4|7.6|0.0009
90855691|NCT04090957|181575966|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.3||||0.122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|18.9|||Chi-squared|||29\_Week 8, ≥50% reduction, E4 15 mg vs placebo||18.9|-2.2|0.1220
90855692|NCT04090957|181575966|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.7||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|25.0|||Chi-squared|||30\_Week 8, ≥50% reduction, E4 20 mg vs placebo||25.0|4.4|0.0058
90855693|NCT04090957|181575966|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.2||||0.4151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|14.4|||Chi-squared|||31\_Week 8, ≥75% reduction, E4 15 mg vs placebo||14.4|-5.9|0.4151
90855694|NCT04090957|181575966|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.7||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.3|31.2|||Chi-squared|||32\_Week 8, ≥75% reduction, E4 20 mg vs placebo||31.2|10.3|0.0001
90855695|NCT04090957|181575966|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.7||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.6|26.9|||Chi-squared|||33\_Week 9, ≥50% reduction, E4 15 mg vs placebo||26.9|6.6|0.0015
90855696|NCT04090957|181575966|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.3||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.1|25.5|||Chi-squared|||34\_Week 9, ≥50% reduction, E4 20 mg vs placebo||25.5|5.1|0.0036
90855697|NCT04090957|181575966|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.3||||0.333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|15.9|||Chi-squared|||35\_Week 9, ≥75% reduction, E4 15 mg vs placebo||15.9|-5.4|0.3330
90855698|NCT04090957|181575966|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.9||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.2|27.5|||Chi-squared|||36\_Week 9, ≥75% reduction, E4 20 mg vs placebo||27.5|6.2|0.0023
90855699|NCT04090957|181575966|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.6||||0.0146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|22.7|||Chi-squared|||37\_Week 10, ≥50% reduction, E4 15 mg vs placebo||22.7|2.6|0.0146
90855700|NCT04090957|181575966|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.2||||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|24.1|||Chi-squared|||38\_Week 10, ≥50% reduction, E4 20 mg vs placebo||24.1|4.3|0.0055
90855701|NCT04090957|181575966|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.8||||0.1635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|18.8|||Chi-squared|||39\_Week 10, ≥75% reduction, E4 15 mg vs placebo||18.8|-3.1|0.1635
90855702|NCT04090957|181575966|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.2||||0.0119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|25.2|||Chi-squared|||40\_Week 10, ≥75% reduction, E4 20 mg vs placebo||25.2|3.3|0.0119
90855703|NCT04090957|181575966|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.5||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|26.5|||Chi-squared|||41\_Week 11, ≥50% reduction, E4 15 mg vs placebo||26.5|6.5|0.0014
90855704|NCT04090957|181575966|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.7||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.8|27.6|||Chi-squared|||42\_Week 11, ≥50% reduction, E4 20 mg vs placebo||27.6|7.8|0.0006
91100438|NCT04560309|182087242|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038||||||The threshold of statistical significance was p \< 0.05|Unpaired T-Test|||24 hour after cardiopulmonary bypass||||0.038
91100439|NCT04560309|182087243|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2||||||The threshold of statistical significance was p \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.200
91100440|NCT04560309|182087244|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72||||||The threshold of statistical significance was p \< 0.05|Unpaired T-Test|||||||0.720
91100441|NCT04560309|182087245|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.042||||||The threshold of statistical significance was p \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.042
91100442|NCT04560309|182087246|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.044||||||The threshold of statistical significance was p \< 0.05|Unpaired T-Test|||||||0.044
91100443|NCT04560309|182087247|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.349||||||The threshold of statistical significance was p \< 0.05|Unpaired T-Test|||||||0.349
91100444|NCT04560309|182087248|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95||||||The threshold of statistical significance was p \< 0.05|Unpaired T-Test|||||||0.950
91100445|NCT04560309|182087249|SUPERIORITY|The threshold of statistical significance was p \< 0.05||||||0.862|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.862
90855705|NCT04090957|181575966|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.0||||0.0075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|25.8|||Chi-squared|||43\_Week 11, ≥75% reduction, E4 15 mg vs placebo||25.8|4.1|0.0075
91100446|NCT04560309|182087250|SUPERIORITY|The threshold of statistical significance was p \< 0.05||||||0.075|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.075
90855706|NCT04090957|181575966|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.5||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.6|29.3|||Chi-squared|||44\_Week 11, ≥75% reduction, E4 20 mg vs placebo||29.30|7.6|0.0010
90855707|NCT04090957|181575966|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.0||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|29.9|||Chi-squared|||45\_Week 12, ≥50% reduction, E4 15 mg vs placebo||29.9|10.0|0.0001
90855708|NCT04090957|181575966|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.5|30.3|||Chi-squared|||46\_Week 12, ≥50% reduction, E4 20 mg vs placebo||30.3|10.5|<0.0001
90855709|NCT04090957|181575966|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.7||||0.0392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|22.7|||Chi-squared|||47\_Week 12, ≥75% reduction, E4 15 mg vs placebo||22.7|0.7|0.0392
90855710|NCT04090957|181575966|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|19.5||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.5|30.6|||Chi-squared|||48\_Week 12, ≥75% reduction, E4 20 mg vs placebo||30.6|8.5|0.0007
90855711|NCT04090957|181575967|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.8||||0.7283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|12.0|||Chi-squared|||1\_Week 4, CID, E4 15 mg vs Placebo||12.0|-8.4|0.7283
90855712|NCT04090957|181575967|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.7||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.4|27.0|||Chi-squared|||2\_Week 4, CID, E4 20 mg vs Placebo||27.0|6.4|0.0017
90855713|NCT04090957|181575967|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.9||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|19.3|||Chi-squared|||3\_Week 4, MCID, E4 15 mg vs Placebo||19.3|-1.5|0.0950
90855714|NCT04090957|181575967|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.9||||0.1208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|2.0|||Chi-squared|||4\_Week 4, MCID, E4 20 mg vs Placebo||2.0|-17.8|0.1208
90855715|NCT04090957|181575967|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.7||||0.0154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.3|-2.1|||Chi-squared|||5\_Week 4, Worsen/No change, E4 15 mg vs Placebo||-2.1|-19.3|0.0154
90855716|NCT04090957|181575967|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.9||||0.0461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6|-0.2|||Chi-squared|||6\_Week 4, Worsen/No change, E4 20 mg vs Placebo||-0.2|-17.6|0.0461
90855717|NCT04090957|181575967|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.7||||0.0629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|22.0|||Chi-squared|||7\_Week 12, CID, E4 15 mg vs Placebo||22.0|-0.5|0.0629
90855718|NCT04090957|181575967|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.6||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.5|29.6|||Chi-squared|||8\_Week 12, CID, E4 20 mg vs Placebo||29.6|7.5|0.0012
90855719|NCT04090957|181575967|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.9||||0.3552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.3|5.5|||Chi-squared|||9\_Week 12, MCID, E4 15 mg vs Placebo||5.5|-15.3|0.3552
90855720|NCT04090957|181575967|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-13.1||||0.0103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.9|-3.2|||Chi-squared|||10\_Week 12, MCID, E4 20 mg vs Placebo||-3.2|-22.9|0.0103
90855721|NCT04090957|181575967|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.8||||0.1383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|1.9|||Chi-squared|||11\_Week 12, Worsen/No change, E4 15 mg vs Placebo||1.9|-13.5|0.1383
90855722|NCT04090957|181575967|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.5||||0.1706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|2.3|||Chi-squared|||12\_Week 12, Worsen/No change, E4 20 mg vs Placebo||2.3|-13.3|0.1706
90855723|NCT04090957|181575968|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.15||||0.1565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.04|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||1\_Week 12 Estetrol 15 mg vs Placebo||0.04|-0.34|0.1565
90855724|NCT04090957|181575968|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.14||||0.1823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.05|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||2\_Week 12 Estetrol 20 mg vs Placebo||0.05|-0.33|0.1823
90855725|NCT04090957|181575968|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.23||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.0|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||3\_Week 52 Estetrol 15 mg vs Placebo||-0.00|-0.46|0.0460
90855726|NCT04090957|181575968|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.24||||0.0417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.01|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||4\_Week 52 Estetrol 20 mg vs Placebo||-0.01|-0.47|0.0417
90855727|NCT04090957|181575970|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.08||||0.4616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.09|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||1\_Week 12 Estetrol 15 mg vs Placebo||0.09|-0.24|0.4616
90855728|NCT04090957|181575970|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.2||||0.0112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.04|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||2\_Week 12 Estetrol 20 mg vs Placebo||-0.04|-0.37|0.0112
90855729|NCT04090957|181575970|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.12||||0.2773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.07|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||3\_Week 52 Estetrol 15 mg vs Placebo||0.07|-0.32|0.2773
90855730|NCT04090957|181575970|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.09||||0.4881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.11|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||4\_Week 52 Estetrol 20 mg vs Placebo||0.11|-0.29|0.4881
91100447|NCT01860404|182087257|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.871|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.871
91100448|NCT01860404|182087258|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.140
91100449|NCT01860404|182087259|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.267|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.267
91100450|NCT01860404|182087260|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.476|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.476
91100451|NCT01860404|182087261|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.581|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.581
91100452|NCT01860404|182087262|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.203|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.203
91100453|NCT01860404|182087263|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
91100454|NCT01860404|182087264|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.482|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.482
91100455|NCT01860404|182087265|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.393|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.393
91100456|NCT01860404|182087266|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.629|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.629
91100457|NCT01860404|182087267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.624|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.624
91100458|NCT01860404|182087268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2554|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.2554
91100459|NCT01860404|182087269|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7964|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.7964
91100460|NCT01860404|182087270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7749|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.7749
91100461|NCT01860404|182087271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0036|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.0036
91100462|NCT01860404|182087272|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0053|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.0053
90855731|NCT04090957|181575972|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.02||||0.7875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.04|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||1\_Week 12 Estetrol 15 mg vs Placebo||0.040|-0.08|0.7875
90902942|NCT04844918|181673114|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-44.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.7|-34.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-34.9|-52.7|<0.001
90902943|NCT04844918|181673115|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-44.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.0|-35.7|||ANCOVA|||||-35.7|-53.0|<0.001
90902944|NCT04844918|181673115|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-50.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.8|-41.9|||ANCOVA|||||-41.9|-58.8|<0.001
90855732|NCT04090957|181575972|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.04||||0.3092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.1|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||2\_Week 12 Estetrol 20 mg vs Placebo||0.10|-0.02|0.3092
90855733|NCT04090957|181575972|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.01||||0.9129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.06|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||3\_Week 52 Estetrol 15 mg vs Placebo||0.06|-0.08|0.9129
90902945|NCT04844918|181673116|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|25.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.25|89.14|||Regression, Logistic|||||89.14|7.25|<0.001
90902946|NCT04844918|181673116|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|70.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.73|392.24|||Regression, Logistic|||||392.24|12.73|<0.001
90902947|NCT04844918|181673117|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.86|30.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||30.20|2.86|<0.001
90902948|NCT04844918|181673117|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|15.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.78|51.37|||Regression, Logistic|||||51.37|4.78|<0.001
90902949|NCT04844918|181673118|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|27.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.35|80.88|||Regression, Logistic|||||80.88|9.35|<0.001
90902950|NCT04844918|181673118|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|40.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.27|120.57|||Regression, Logistic|||||120.57|13.27|<0.001
91100463|NCT01860404|182087273|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8234|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.8234
90855734|NCT04090957|181575972|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.02||||0.8023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.06|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||4\_Week 52 Estetrol 20 mg vs Placebo||0.06|-0.09|0.8023
90855735|NCT04090957|181575974|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.23||||0.0084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.05|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||1\_Week 12 Estetrol 15 mg vs Placebo||-0.05|-0.41|0.0084
90855736|NCT04090957|181575974|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.21||||0.0146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|-0.04|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||2\_Week 12 Estetrol 20 mg vs Placebo||-0.04|-0.39|0.0146
90902951|NCT04844918|181673119|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|185.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.39|745.16|||Regression, Logistic|||||745.16|46.39|<0.001
90902952|NCT04844918|181673119|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|318.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|74.49|1357.79|||Regression, Logistic|||||1357.79|74.49|<0.001
90902953|NCT04844918|181673120|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|100.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.64|538.74|||Regression, Logistic|||||538.74|18.64|<0.001
90902954|NCT04844918|181673120|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|286.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.68|1622.06|||Regression, Logistic|||||1622.06|50.68|<0.001
90902955|NCT04844918|181673121|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-14.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.8|-12.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-12.2|-16.8|<0.001
90902956|NCT04844918|181673121|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-19.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.6|-17.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-17.0|-21.6|<0.001
90902957|NCT04844918|181673122|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|-4.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.4|-6.1|<0.001
90902958|NCT04844918|181673122|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|-6.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-6.3|-8.0|<0.001
90902959|NCT04844918|181673123|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-36.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.9|-29.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-29.3|-42.9|<0.001
90902960|NCT04844918|181673123|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-41.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.8|-34.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-34.4|-47.8|<0.001
90902961|NCT04844918|181673124|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-27.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.6|-21.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-21.9|-32.6|<0.001
90902962|NCT04844918|181673124|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-31.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.7|-26.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-26.2|-36.7|<0.001
90902963|NCT04844918|181673125|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|-0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.03|-0.16|0.004
90902964|NCT04844918|181673125|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.09||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|-0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.03|-0.15|0.006
90902965|NCT04844918|181673126|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|28.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.31|188.55|||Regression, Logistic|||||188.55|4.31|<0.001
90902966|NCT04844918|181673126|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|57.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.68|383.88|||Regression, Logistic|||||383.88|8.68|<0.001
90902967|NCT04844918|181673127|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-11.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|-9.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-9.0|-13.8|<0.001
90902968|NCT04844918|181673127|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-15.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|-13.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-13.0|-17.7|<0.001
90902969|NCT04844918|181673128|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.53|-0.77|<0.001
90902970|NCT04844918|181673128|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.55|-0.77|<0.001
90902971|NCT04844918|181673129|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.74|-2.08||||||||-2.08|-5.74|
90902972|NCT04844918|181673129|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.29|-2.81||||||||-2.81|-6.29|
90902973|NCT04844918|181673130|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-13.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|-9.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-9.3|-17.0|<0.001
90902974|NCT04844918|181673130|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-13.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|-10.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-10.1|-17.7|<0.001
90902975|NCT04844918|181673131|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|-3.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.4|-9.3|<0.001
90902976|NCT04844918|181673131|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|-3.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.9|-9.7|<0.001
90902977|NCT04844918|181673132|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.3||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.3|||ANCOVA|||||2.3|0.2|0.022
91104420|NCT02037984|182094978|OTHER|PT9V GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT9V GMC Ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.3||||||||1.30|0.59|
90902978|NCT04844918|181673132|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|3.2|||ANCOVA|||||3.2|1.1|<0.001
90902979|NCT04844918|181673133|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|13.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|18.7|||ANCOVA|||||18.7|7.4|<0.001
90902980|NCT04844918|181673133|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|10.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.4|16.3|||ANCOVA|||||16.3|5.4|<0.001
90902981|NCT04844918|181673134|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.03||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.06|||ANCOVA|||||0.06|0.00|0.099
91100464|NCT02187055|182087303|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was a treatment difference larger than -13% at the population level|Difference in response rate|-7.73||||0.2101|TWO_SIDED|98.34|-16.29|0.83|||Normal approximation to proportions|Multiplicity-adjusted||||0.83|-16.29|0.2101
90855737|NCT04090957|181575974|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.3||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.09|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||3\_Week 52 Estetrol 15 mg vs Placebo||-0.09|-0.51|0.0029
90855738|NCT04090957|181575974|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.3||||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.08|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||4\_Week 52 Estetrol 20 mg vs Placebo||-0.08|-0.51|0.0045
90855739|NCT04090957|181575976|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-3.34||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.63|-1.05|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||1\_Week 12 Estetrol 15 mg vs Placebo||-1.05|-5.63|0.0026
90855740|NCT04090957|181575976|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-4.03||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.31|-1.75|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||2\_Week 12 Estetrol 20 mg vs Placebo||-1.75|-6.31|0.0002
90855741|NCT04090957|181575976|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-3.01||||0.0295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.75|-0.26|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||3\_Week 52 Estetrol 15 mg vs Placebo||-0.26|-5.75|0.0295
90855742|NCT04090957|181575976|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-2.73||||0.0564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.53|0.06|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||4\_Week 52 Estetrol 20 mg vs Placebo||0.06|-5.53|0.0564
90855743|NCT04090957|181575978|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.24||||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.42|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||1\_Week 12 Estetrol 15 mg vs Placebo||0.42|0.06|0.0051
90855744|NCT04090957|181575978|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.22||||0.0126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.4|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||2\_Week 12 Estetrol 20 mg vs Placebo||0.40|0.04|0.0126
90855745|NCT04090957|181575978|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.14||||0.2372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.35|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||3\_Week 52 Estetrol 15 mg vs Placebo||0.35|-0.07|0.2372
90855746|NCT04090957|181575978|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.2||||0.0644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.42|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||4\_Week 52 Estetrol 20 mg vs Placebo||0.42|-0.01|0.0644
90855747|NCT04090957|181575980|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.04||||0.5631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.05|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||1\_Week 12 Estetrol 15 mg vs Placebo||0.05|-0.12|0.5631
90855748|NCT04090957|181575980|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.11||||0.0174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|-0.02|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||2\_Week 12 Estetrol 20 mg vs Placebo||-0.02|-0.20|0.0174
90855749|NCT04090957|181575980|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.0||||0.9992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||3\_Week 52 Estetrol 15 mg vs Placebo||0.10|-0.10|0.9992
90855750|NCT04090957|181575980|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.07||||0.2941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.04|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||4\_Week 52 Estetrol 20 mg vs Placebo||0.04|-0.17|0.2941
90855751|NCT04090957|181575982|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.06||||0.7112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.12|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||1\_Week 12 Estetrol 15 mg vs Placebo||0.12|-0.24|0.7112
90855752|NCT04090957|181575982|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.1||||0.3618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.08|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||2\_Week 12 Estetrol 20 mg vs Placebo||0.08|-0.28|0.3618
90855753|NCT04090957|181575982|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.01||||0.9933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.21|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||3\_Week 52 Estetrol 15 mg vs Placebo||0.21|-0.23|0.9933
90855754|NCT04090957|181575982|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.099||||0.9024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.26|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||4\_Week 52 Estetrol 20 mg vs Placebo||0.26|-0.18|0.9024
90855755|NCT04090957|181575984|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.16||||0.8961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|0.74|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||1\_Week 12 Estetrol 15 mg vs Placebo||0.74|-1.05|0.8961
90855756|NCT04090957|181575984|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.09||||0.9619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.81|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||2\_Week 12 Estetrol 20 mg vs Placebo||0.81|-0.99|0.9619
90855757|NCT04090957|181575984|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.2||||0.892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|0.92|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||3\_Week 52 Estetrol 15 mg vs Placebo||0.92|-1.33|0.8920
90855758|NCT04090957|181575984|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.73||||0.2826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|1.89|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||4\_Week 52 Estetrol 20 mg vs Placebo||1.89|-0.43|0.2826
90855759|NCT04090957|181575986|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-3.87||||0.9039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.86|19.12|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||1\_Week 12 Estetrol 15 mg vs Placebo||19.12|-26.86|0.9039
90855760|NCT04090957|181575986|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-2.24||||0.966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.12|20.63|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||2\_Week 12 Estetrol 20 mg vs Placebo||20.63|-25.12|0.9660
90902982|NCT04844918|181673134|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.02||||0.236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.05|||ANCOVA|||||0.05|-0.01|0.236
90902983|NCT01009047|181673135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-squares (LS) mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.83||0.935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.46|3.76||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment (paliperidone ER, aripiprazole) and country as factors, and baseline value as a covariate was used.|ANCOVA|||||3.76|-3.46|0.935
90902984|NCT01009047|181673136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2||0.877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.68|4.0||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment groups (paliperidone ER, aripiprazole) and country as factors, and baseline value as a covariate was used.|ANCOVA|||||4.00|-4.68|0.877
90902985|NCT01009047|181673137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|1.59||Day 56: Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment (paliperidone ER, aripiprazole) and country as factors, and baseline value as a covariate was used.|ANCOVA|||||1.59|-0.55|0.341
90855761|NCT04090957|181575986|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-5.73||||0.8708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.55|23.08|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||3\_Week 52 Estetrol 15 mg vs Placebo||23.08|-34.55|0.8708
91100465|NCT02187055|182087303|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was a treatment difference larger than -13% at the population level|Difference in response rate|-5.5||||0.0512|TWO_SIDED|98.34|-13.98|2.98|||Normal approximation to proportions|Multiplicity-adjusted||||2.98|-13.98|0.0512
91100466|NCT02187055|182087303|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was a treatment difference larger than -13% at the population level|Difference in response rate|2.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.34|-6.4|10.86|||Normal approximation to proportions|Multiplicity adjusted||||10.86|-6.40|<0.0001
91100467|NCT02187055|182087304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|4.41||||||||4.41|1.23|
91100468|NCT02187055|182087304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|3.49||||||||3.49|0.33|
91100469|NCT02187055|182087304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|0.68||||||||0.68|-2.51|
91100470|NCT02187055|182087305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|4.18||||||||4.18|1.08|
91100471|NCT02187055|182087305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.48||||||||3.48|0.40|
91100472|NCT02187055|182087305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.24|0.86||||||||0.86|-2.24|
91100473|NCT02187055|182087306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.5||||||||0.50|0.16|
90855762|NCT04090957|181575986|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|17.15||||0.3357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.48|46.77|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||4\_Week 52 Estetrol 20 mg vs Placebo||46.77|-12.48|0.3357
90855763|NCT04090957|181575988|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|17.36|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.76|21.96|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||1\_Week 12 Estetrol 15 mg vs Placebo||21.96|12.76|< 0.0001
90855764|NCT04090957|181575988|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|19.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.8|23.98|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||2\_Week 12 Estetrol 20 mg vs Placebo||23.98|14.80|<0.0001
90855765|NCT04090957|181575988|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|17.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.05|22.83|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||3\_Week 52 Estetrol 15 mg vs Placebo||22.83|12.05|<0.0001
90902986|NCT01009047|181673137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|1.53||Day 182: Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment (paliperidone ER, aripiprazole) and country as factors, and baseline value as a covariate was used.|ANCOVA|||||1.53|-1.06|0.723
91100474|NCT02187055|182087306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.39||||||||0.39|0.05|
91100475|NCT02187055|182087306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.06||||||||0.06|-0.28|
91100476|NCT02187055|182087307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.51||||||||0.51|0.15|
91100477|NCT02187055|182087307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.46||||||||0.46|0.10|
91100478|NCT02187055|182087307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.13||||||||0.13|-0.23|
91100479|NCT02187055|182087308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in remission rate|-1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.99|2.56||||||||2.56|-4.99|
91100480|NCT02187055|182087308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in remission rate|-1.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.59|2.04||||||||2.04|-5.59|
91100481|NCT02187055|182087308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in remission rate|-0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.53|3.4||||||||3.40|-4.53|
91100482|NCT02187055|182087309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in remission rate|-3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.95|1.15||||||||1.15|-7.95|
91100483|NCT02187055|182087309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in remission rate|-3.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.55|1.43||||||||1.43|-7.55|
91100484|NCT02187055|182087309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in remission rate|0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.45|5.14||||||||5.14|-4.45|
91100485|NCT02187055|182087310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in remission rate|-3.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.29|0.94||||||||0.94|-8.29|
91100486|NCT02187055|182087310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in remission rate|-3.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.59|1.48||||||||1.48|-7.59|
91100487|NCT02187055|182087310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in remission rate|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.24|5.47||||||||5.47|-4.24|
91100488|NCT02187055|182087311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in remission rate|-1.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.03|2.93||||||||2.93|-6.03|
91100489|NCT02187055|182087311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in remission rate|-2.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.51|2.47||||||||2.47|-6.51|
91100490|NCT02187055|182087311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in remission rate|-0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.11|4.18||||||||4.18|-5.11|
91100491|NCT02187055|182087312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in remission rate|-9.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.68|-3.3||||||||-3.30|-15.68|
91100492|NCT02187055|182087312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in remission rate|-6.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.94|-0.83||||||||-0.83|-12.94|
91100493|NCT02187055|182087312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in remission rate|2.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.86|9.07||||||||9.07|-3.86|
91100494|NCT02187055|182087313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rate|-6.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.32|0.84||||||||0.84|-13.32|
91100495|NCT02187055|182087313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rate|-3.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.69|3.37||||||||3.37|-10.69|
91100496|NCT02187055|182087313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rate|2.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.51|9.68||||||||9.68|-4.51|
91100497|NCT02187055|182087314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rate|-6.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.29|0.85||||||||0.85|-13.29|
91100498|NCT02187055|182087314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rate|-3.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.94|3.09||||||||3.09|-10.94|
91100499|NCT02187055|182087314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rate|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.79|9.39||||||||9.39|-4.79|
91100500|NCT02187055|182087315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rate|-6.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.05|0.0||||||||0.00|-12.05|
91100501|NCT02187055|182087315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rate|-6.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|-0.87||||||||-0.87|-12.90|
91100502|NCT02187055|182087315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rate|-0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.17|5.44||||||||5.44|-7.17|
91100503|NCT02187055|182087316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rate|-4.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.92|2.18||||||||2.18|-11.92|
91100504|NCT02187055|182087316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rate|-5.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.49|1.52||||||||1.52|-12.49|
91100505|NCT02187055|182087316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in rresponse rate|-0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|6.47||||||||6.47|-7.70|
91100506|NCT02187055|182087317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rate|-8.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.84|-1.75||||||||-1.75|-14.84|
91100507|NCT02187055|182087317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rate|-6.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.72|0.44||||||||0.44|-12.72|
91100508|NCT02187055|182087317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rate|2.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.22|8.52||||||||8.52|-4.22|
91100509|NCT02187055|182087318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rate|-6.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.61|-0.93||||||||-0.93|-12.61|
90855766|NCT04090957|181575988|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|20.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.5|25.89|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||4\_Week 52 Estetrol 20 mg vs Placebo||25.89|14.50|<0.0001
90855767|NCT04090957|181575989|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-8.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.86|-4.7|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||1\_Week 12 Estetrol 15 mg vs Placebo||-4.70|-11.86|<0.0001
90855768|NCT04090957|181575989|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-8.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|-4.61|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||2\_Week 12 Estetrol 20 mg vs Placebo||-4.61|-11.90|< 0.0001
90855769|NCT04090957|181575989|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-7.68||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.07|-3.29|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||3\_Week 52 Estetrol 15 mg vs Placebo||-3.29|-12.07|0.0002
90855770|NCT04090957|181575989|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-5.51||||0.0181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.21|-0.82|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||4\_Week 52 Estetrol 20 mg vs Placebo||-0.82|-10.21|0.0181
90902987|NCT01009047|181673138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.351||||||Change at Day 56: Positive Symptoms - ANCOVA model with treatment groups (paliperidone ER, aripiprazole) and country as factors, and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.351
90902988|NCT01009047|181673138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.691||||||Change at Day 182:Positive Symptoms - ANCOVA model with treatment groups (paliperidone ER, aripiprazole) and country as factors, and baseline value as a covariate was used.|ANCOVA|||||||0.691
90902989|NCT01009047|181673138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.965||||||Change at Day 56: Disorganized thoughts - ANCOVA model with treatment groups (paliperidone ER, aripiprazole) and country as factors, and baseline value as a covariate was used.|ANCOVA|||||||0.965
90902990|NCT01009047|181673138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.766||||||Change at Day 182: Disorganized thoughts - ANCOVA model with treatment groups (paliperidone ER, aripiprazole) and country as factors, and baseline value as a covariate was used.|ANCOVA|||||||0.766
90855771|NCT04090957|181575990|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.01||||0.8862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.05|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||1\_Week 12 Estetrol 15 mg vs Placebo||0.05|-0.08|0.8862
90855772|NCT04090957|181575990|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.02||||0.6013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.04|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||2\_Week 12 Estetrol 20 mg vs Placebo||0.04|-0.09|0.6013
90855773|NCT04090957|181575990|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.01||||0.9723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.07|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||3\_Week 52 Estetrol 15 mg vs Placebo||0.07|-0.08|0.9723
90855774|NCT04090957|181575990|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.03||||0.5778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.05|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||4\_Week 52 Estetrol 20 mg vs Placebo||0.05|-0.11|0.5778
90855775|NCT04090957|181575991|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|5.86||||0.9865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-89.5|101.23|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||1\_Week 12 Estetrol 15 mg vs Placebo||101.23|-89.50|0.9865
90855776|NCT04090957|181575991|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-7.05||||0.9814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-104.73|90.63|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||2\_Week 12 Estetrol 20 mg vs Placebo||90.63|-104.73|0.9814
90855777|NCT04090957|181575991|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-46.46||||0.6049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-167.23|74.3|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||3\_Week 52 Estetrol 15 mg vs Placebo||74.30|-167.23|0.6049
90902991|NCT01009047|181673138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.984||||||Change at Day 56: Uncontrolled hostility/ excitement - ANCOVA model with treatment groups (paliperidone ER, aripiprazole) and country as factors, and baseline value as a covariate was used.|ANCOVA|||||||0.984
90902992|NCT01009047|181673138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.985||||||Change at Day 182: Uncontrolled Hositility/ Excitement - ANCOVA model with treatment groups (paliperidone ER, aripiprazole) and country as factors, and baseline value as a covariate was used.|ANCOVA|||||||0.985
90902993|NCT01009047|181673138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.803||||||Change at Day 56: Anxiety/ depression - ANCOVA model with treatment groups (paliperidone ER, aripiprazole) and country as factors, and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.803
90902994|NCT01009047|181673138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.745||||||Change at Day 182: Anxiety/ depression - ANCOVA model with treatment groups (paliperidone ER, aripiprazole) and country as factors, and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.745
90902995|NCT01009047|181673140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.296||||||Generalized Cochran- Mantel- Haenszel test for row mean score differences controlling for country was used.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.296
91100510|NCT02187055|182087318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rate|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.09|3.1||||||||3.10|-8.09|
91100511|NCT02187055|182087318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rate|4.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|10.23||||||||10.23|-1.68|
91100512|NCT02187055|182087319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.011|0.148||||||||0.148|-0.011|
91100513|NCT02187055|182087319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.054|0.105||||||||0.105|-0.054|
91100514|NCT02187055|182087319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.122|0.037||||||||0.037|-0.122|
91100515|NCT02187055|182087320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rate|-4.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.68|2.55||||||||2.55|-10.68|
91100516|NCT02187055|182087320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rate|-1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.87|5.44||||||||5.44|-7.87|
91100517|NCT02187055|182087320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rate|2.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.72|9.43||||||||9.43|-3.72|
91100518|NCT02187055|182087321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28|-0.11||||||||-0.11|-2.28|
91100519|NCT02187055|182087321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|0.01||||||||0.01|-2.16|
91100520|NCT02187055|182087321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|1.2||||||||1.20|-0.97|
91100521|NCT02187055|182087322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|0.85||||||||0.85|-1.74|
91100522|NCT02187055|182087322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|2.11||||||||2.11|-0.48|
91100523|NCT02187055|182087322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|2.56||||||||2.56|-0.04|
91100524|NCT02187055|182087323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|0.39||||||||0.39|-2.22|
91100525|NCT02187055|182087323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.19|0.42||||||||0.42|-2.19|
90855778|NCT04090957|181575991|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-71.64||||0.3717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-202.08|58.81|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||4\_Week 52 Estetrol 20 mg vs Placebo||58.81|-202.08|0.3717
90855779|NCT04090957|181575992|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|1.93||||0.8439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.89|10.74|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||1\_Week 12 Estetrol 15 mg vs Placebo||10.74|-6.89|0.8439
90855780|NCT04090957|181575992|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|5.66||||0.2727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.28|14.61|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||2\_Week 12 Estetrol 20 mg vs Placebo||14.61|-3.28|0.2727
90855781|NCT04090957|181575992|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-3.86||||0.6389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.53|6.81|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||3\_Week 52 Estetrol 15 mg vs Placebo||6.81|-14.53|0.6389
90902996|NCT01009047|181673141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.843||||||Change at Day 56: ANCOVA model on ranks with treatment groups (paliperidone ER, aripiprazole) and country as factors, and baseline value (unranked) as a covariate was used.|ANCOVA|||||||0.843
90902997|NCT01009047|181673141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.914||||||Change at Day 182: ANCOVA model on ranks with treatment groups (paliperidone ER, aripiprazole) and country as factors, and baseline value (unranked) as a covariate was used.|ANCOVA|||||||0.914
90902998|NCT01009047|181673142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.27||0.895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|2.67||Change at Day 56: Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment groups(paliperidone ER, aripiprazole) and country as factors, and baseline value as a covariate was used.|ANCOVA|||||2.67|-2.34|0.895
90902999|NCT01009047|181673142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.66||0.705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.64|3.89||Change at Day 182: Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment groups (paliperidone ER, aripiprazole) and country as factors, and baseline value as a covariate was used.|ANCOVA|||||3.89|-2.64|0.705
90903000|NCT01009047|181673143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.119||||||Day 56: Generalized Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for row mean score differences was used.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.119
90903001|NCT01009047|181673143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.444||||||Day 182: Generalized Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for row mean score differences was used.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.444
90903002|NCT02731313|181673144|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis (H0): kappa coefficient = 0.90||||||0.7436|||||||Kappa-test p-value, 2 sided|||Rationale for the determination of the number of samples:The following hypotheses were considered: two-sided risk alpha = 5%, power (1 - beta) = 90%, a success rate (rate of positive HER-2 status) = 17%, null hypothesis (H0): kappa coefficient = 0.90. 359 samples would allow determining a first estimate of the 0.90 coefficient of correlation kappa. The total number of samples, which had to be included in this study was 395, considering a 10% rate of non-evaluable samples.||||0.7436
90903003|NCT01751113|181673166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||AUC ratio|1.158|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.219|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.219|1.100|<0.001
90855782|NCT04090957|181575992|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|5.52||||0.4544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.84|16.88|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||4\_Week 52 Estetrol 20 mg vs Placebo||16.88|-5.84|0.4544
90903004|NCT01751113|181673166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||AUC ratio|1.288|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.224|1.355|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.355|1.224|<0.001
90903005|NCT01751113|181673167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||AUC ratio|0.856|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.812|0.902|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.902|0.812|<0.001
90903006|NCT01751113|181673167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||AUC ratio|0.774|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.735|0.816|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.816|0.735|<0.001
90903007|NCT01751113|181673168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||specific airway conductance ratio|1.181|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.104|1.263|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for 30 minutes|||1.263|1.104|<0.001
90903008|NCT01751113|181673168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||specific airway conductance ratio|1.303|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.219|1.393|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for 30 minutes|||1.393|1.219|<0.001
90903009|NCT01751113|181673168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||specific airway conductance ratio|1.175|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.099|1.257|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for 75 minutes|||1.257|1.099|<0.001
90903010|NCT01751113|181673168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||specific airway conductance ratio|1.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.253|1.432|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for 75 minutes|||1.432|1.253|<0.001
90903011|NCT01751113|181673168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||specific airway conductance ratio|1.151|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.076|1.231|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for 120 minutes|||1.231|1.076|<0.001
90903012|NCT01751113|181673168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||specific airway conductance ratio|1.301|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.217|1.391|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for 120 minutes|||1.391|1.217|<0.001
90903013|NCT01751113|181673168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||specific airway conductance ratio|1.141|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.067|1.22|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for 240 minutes|||1.220|1.067|<0.001
90903014|NCT01751113|181673168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||specific airway conductance ratio|1.239|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.159|1.325|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for 240 minutes|||1.325|1.159|<0.001
90903015|NCT01751113|181673169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||specific airway conductance ratio|0.846|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.792|0.905|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for 30 minutes|||0.905|0.792|<0.001
91100526|NCT02187055|182087323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|1.34||||||||1.34|-1.27|
91100527|NCT02187055|182087324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|0.87||||||||0.87|-1.52|
91100528|NCT02187055|182087324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.58||||||||1.58|-0.80|
91100529|NCT02187055|182087324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|1.91||||||||1.91|-0.47|
91100530|NCT02187055|182087325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.25|-0.8||||||||-0.80|-3.25|
91100531|NCT02187055|182087325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.91|-0.47||||||||-0.47|-2.91|
91100532|NCT02187055|182087325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|1.55||||||||1.55|-0.89|
91100533|NCT02187055|182087326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.27|-0.05||||||||-0.05|-2.27|
91100534|NCT02187055|182087326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.82||||||||0.82|-1.40|
91031267|NCT01029353|181947151|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.66|||||The model was fit using PROC GENMOD in SAS, using center as the repeated effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a robust Poisson regression model, with log link and center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy over drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to IP.||0.66|0.29|
91100535|NCT02187055|182087326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|1.98||||||||1.98|-0.25|
91100536|NCT02187055|182087327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|0.68||||||||0.68|-1.71|
91100537|NCT02187055|182087327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|1.05||||||||1.05|-1.33|
91100538|NCT02187055|182087327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|1.57||||||||1.57|-0.83|
91100539|NCT02187055|182087328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.45||||||||0.45|-2.20|
91100540|NCT02187055|182087328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|1.51||||||||1.51|-1.13|
91100541|NCT02187055|182087328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|2.39||||||||2.39|-0.26|
91100542|NCT02187055|182087329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|0.39||||||||0.39|-2.54|
90855783|NCT04090957|181575993|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.57||||0.0084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.02|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||1\_Week 12 Estetrol 15 mg vs Placebo||1.02|0.13|0.0084
90855784|NCT04090957|181575993|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.77||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.2|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||2\_Week 12 Estetrol 20 mg vs Placebo||1.20|0.33|0.0002
90855785|NCT04090957|181575993|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.19||||0.6337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.72|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||3\_Week 52 Estetrol 15 mg vs Placebo||0.72|-0.33|0.6337
90855786|NCT04090957|181575993|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.44||||0.1287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.98|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||4\_Week 52 Estetrol 20 mg vs Placebo||0.98|-0.10|0.1287
90855787|NCT04090957|181575994|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-2.45||||0.3445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.76|1.86|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||1\_Week 12 Estetrol 15 mg vs Placebo||1.86|-6.76|0.3445
90855788|NCT04090957|181575994|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.03||||0.9998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.33|4.4|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||2\_Week 12 Estetrol 20 mg vs Placebo||4.40|-4.33|0.9998
90903016|NCT01751113|181673169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||specific airway conductance ratio|0.767|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.717|0.819|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for 30 minutes|||0.819|0.717|<0.001
90903017|NCT01751113|181673169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||specific airway conductance ratio|0.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.795|0.909|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for 75 minutes|||0.909|0.795|<0.001
90903018|NCT01751113|181673169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||specific airway conductance ratio|0.746|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.698|0.798|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for 75 minutes|||0.798|0.698|<0.001
91100543|NCT02187055|182087329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|2.16||||||||2.16|-0.76|
91100544|NCT02187055|182087329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.24||||||||3.24|0.30|
90855789|NCT04090957|181575994|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-2.38||||0.4874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.51|2.76|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||3\_Week 52 Estetrol 15 mg vs Placebo||2.76|-7.51|0.4874
90903019|NCT01751113|181673169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||specific airway conductance ratio|0.868|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.812|0.928|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for 120 minutes|||0.928|0.812|<0.001
90903020|NCT01751113|181673169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||specific airway conductance ratio|0.769|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.719|0.822|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for 120 minutes|||0.822|0.719|<0.001
90903021|NCT01751113|181673169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||specific airway conductance ratio|0.877|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|0.938|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for 240 minutes|||0.938|0.820|<0.001
90903022|NCT01751113|181673169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||specific airway conductance ratio|0.809|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.757|0.865|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for 240 minutes|||0.865|0.757|<0.001
90903023|NCT01751113|181673170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference of FEV1|0.157|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.116|0.198|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for FEV1|||0.198|0.116|<0.001
90903024|NCT01751113|181673170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference of FEV1|0.118|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.077|0.159|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for FEV1|||0.159|0.077|<0.001
90903025|NCT01751113|181673170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference of FVC|0.082||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.031|0.133|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for FVC|||0.133|0.031|0.002
91100545|NCT02187055|182087330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|1.08||||||||1.08|-1.55|
91100546|NCT02187055|182087330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|1.62||||||||1.62|-1.01|
91100547|NCT02187055|182087330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|1.86||||||||1.86|-0.78|
91100548|NCT02187055|182087331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.279|1.427||||||Work hours missed due to problems||1.427|-2.279|
91100549|NCT02187055|182087331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.783|1.044||||||Work hours missed due to problems||1.044|-2.783|
91100550|NCT02187055|182087331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.349|1.462||||||Work hours missed due to problems||1.462|-2.349|
91100551|NCT02187055|182087331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.928|2.346||||||Work hours missed other reason||2.346|-2.928|
91100552|NCT02187055|182087331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.832|3.64||||||Work hours missed other reason||3.640|-1.832|
91100553|NCT02187055|182087331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|3.911||||||Work hours missed other reason||3.911|-1.520|
91100554|NCT02187055|182087331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|4.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|9.37||||||Hours worked in past 7 days||9.370|0.520|
91100555|NCT02187055|182087331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.736|7.43||||||Hours worked in past 7 days||7.430|-1.736|
91031268|NCT01029353|181947152|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|3.57|||||The model was fit using PROC GENMOD in SAS, using center as the repeated effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a robust Poisson regression model, with log link and center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy over drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to NEC.||3.57|0.58|
91031269|NCT01029353|181947152|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.5|||||The model was fit using PROC GENMOD in SAS, using center as the repeated effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a robust Poisson regression model, with log link and center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy over drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to IP.||2.50|1.06|
91100556|NCT02187055|182087331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.65|2.454||||||Hours worked in past 7 days||2.454|-6.650|
91031270|NCT01029353|181947153|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|7.55|||||The model was fit using PROC GENMOD in SAS, using center as the repeated effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a robust Poisson regression model, with log link and center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy over drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to NEC.||7.55|0.84|
91100557|NCT02187055|182087331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.373|0.786||||||Problems affecting productivity||0.786|-0.373|
91100558|NCT02187055|182087331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.578|0.607||||||Problems affecting productivity||0.607|-0.578|
91100559|NCT02187055|182087331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.784|0.4||||||Problems affecting productivity||0.400|-0.784|
91100560|NCT02187055|182087331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.112|0.587||||||Problem affecting daily activities||0.587|-0.112|
90903026|NCT01751113|181673170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference of FVC|0.135|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.084|0.186|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for FVC|||0.186|0.084|<0.001
90903027|NCT01751113|181673170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference of IC|0.054||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|0.104|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for IC|||0.104|0.004|0.035
90903028|NCT01751113|181673170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference of IC|0.064||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.015|0.114|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for IC|||0.114|0.015|0.011
91100561|NCT02187055|182087331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.341|0.357||||||Problem affecting daily activities||0.357|-0.341|
90903029|NCT01751113|181673170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference of RV|-0.107||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.187|-0.028|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for RV|||-0.028|-0.187|0.009
90903030|NCT01751113|181673170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference of RV|-0.102||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|-0.023|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for RV|||-0.023|-0.180|0.012
90903031|NCT01751113|181673170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference of TLC|-0.013||||0.632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.066|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for TLC|||0.040|-0.066|0.632
90903032|NCT01751113|181673170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference of TLC|-0.014||||0.596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.067|0.038|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for TLC|||0.038|-0.067|0.596
90903033|NCT01751113|181673170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference of TGV|-0.065||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.123|-0.007|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for TGV|||-0.007|-0.123|0.028
90903034|NCT01751113|181673170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference of TGV|-0.075||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.133|-0.018|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for TGV|||-0.018|-0.133|0.010
90903035|NCT01751113|181673171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||FEV1/FVC ratio|0.032|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.023|0.041|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for FEV1/FVC ratio|||0.041|0.023|<0.001
91100562|NCT02187055|182087331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.582|0.122||||||Problem affecting daily activities||0.122|-0.582|
91100563|NCT02187055|182087331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.748|3.553||||||% work time missed due to health||3.553|-5.748|
91100564|NCT02187055|182087331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.339|2.067||||||% work time missed due to health||2.067|-7.339|
91100565|NCT02187055|182087331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.283|3.207||||||% work time missed due to health||3.207|-6.283|
91100566|NCT02187055|182087331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.726|7.858||||||% impairment while working due to health||7.858|-3.726|
91100567|NCT02187055|182087331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.777|6.068||||||% impairment while working due to health||6.068|-5.777|
91100568|NCT02187055|182087331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.839|3.998||||||% impairment while working due to health||3.998|-7.839|
91100569|NCT02187055|182087331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.664|8.877||||||% overall work impairment due to health||8.877|-4.664|
91100570|NCT02187055|182087331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.164|8.58||||||% overall work impairment due to health||8.580|-5.164|
91100571|NCT02187055|182087331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.307|6.51||||||% overall work impairment due to health||6.510|-7.307|
91100572|NCT02187055|182087331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.118|5.873||||||% activity impairment due to health||5.873|-1.118|
91100573|NCT02187055|182087331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.411|3.573||||||% activity impairment due to health||3.573|-3.411|
91100574|NCT02187055|182087331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.818|1.225||||||% activity impairment due to health||1.225|-5.818|
91100575|NCT02187055|182087332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.057|0.011||||||Utility score||0.011|-0.057|
91100576|NCT02187055|182087332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.054|0.013||||||Utility score||0.013|-0.054|
90903036|NCT01751113|181673171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||FEV1/FVC ratio|0.017|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.008|0.026|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for FEV1/FVC ratio|||0.026|0.008|<0.001
90903037|NCT01751113|181673172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||specific airway conductance ratio|0.835|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.905|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.905|0.770|<0.001
90903038|NCT01751113|181673172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||specific airway conductance ratio|0.803|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.741|0.869|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.869|0.741|<0.001
90903039|NCT01751113|181673173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||specific airway conductance ratio|1.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.108|1.301|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.301|1.108|<0.001
90903040|NCT01751113|181673173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||specific airway conductance ratio|1.249|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.153|1.352|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.352|1.153|<0.001
90903041|NCT01751113|181673174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference of FEV1|0.161|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.086|0.236|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for FEV1|||0.236|0.086|<0.001
91031271|NCT01029353|181947153|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|2.88|||||The model was fit using PROC GENMOD in SAS, using center as the repeated effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a robust Poisson regression model, with log link and center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy over drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to IP.||2.88|0.38|
91031272|NCT01029353|181947154|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|3.86|||||The model was fit using PROC GENMOD in SAS, using center as the repeated effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a robust Poisson regression model, with log link and center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy over drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to NEC.||3.86|0.82|
91031273|NCT01029353|181947154|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|3.2|||||The model was fit using PROC GENMOD in SAS, using center as the repeated effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a robust Poisson regression model, with log link and center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy over drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to IP.||3.20|0.42|
91100577|NCT02187055|182087332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.031|0.036||||||Utility score||0.036|-0.031|
91100578|NCT02187055|182087332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.098|0.042||||||Mobility score||0.042|-0.098|
90855790|NCT04090957|181575994|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.17||||0.9964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.61|5.26|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||4\_Week 52 Estetrol 20 mg vs Placebo||5.26|-5.61|0.9964
90855791|NCT04090957|181575995|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-3.94||||0.0119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.12|-0.76|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||1\_Week 12 Estetrol 15 mg vs Placebo||-0.76|-7.12|0.0119
91077912|NCT02913105|182041137|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.91||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|0.97|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||HDL Cholesterol: Day 28||0.97|0.87|0.0080
90855792|NCT04090957|181575995|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-4.77||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.93|-1.62|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||2\_Week 12 Estetrol 20 mg vs Placebo||-1.62|-7.93|0.0017
90903042|NCT01751113|181673174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference of FEV1|0.103||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.028|0.178|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for FEV1|||0.178|0.028|0.008
90903043|NCT01751113|181673174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference of FVC|0.104||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.209|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for FVC|||0.209|0.000|0.051
90903044|NCT01751113|181673174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference of FVC|0.148||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.043|0.253|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for FVC|||0.253|0.043|0.006
90903045|NCT01751113|181673174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference of IC|-0.008||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.104|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for IC|||0.104|-0.120|0.890
90903046|NCT01751113|181673174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference of IC|-0.008||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.118|0.103|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for IC|||0.103|-0.118|0.890
90903047|NCT01751113|181673174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference of RV|-0.229|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.355|-0.103|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for RV|||-0.103|-0.355|<0.001
90903048|NCT01751113|181673174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference of RV|-0.189||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.314|-0.064|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for RV|||-0.064|-0.314|0.003
90903049|NCT01751113|181673174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference of TLC|-0.101||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.204|0.002|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for TLC|||0.002|-0.204|0.055
90903050|NCT01751113|181673174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference of TLC|-0.105||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.206|-0.003|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for TLC|||-0.003|-0.206|0.044
90903051|NCT01751113|181673174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference of TGV|-0.092||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.197|0.013|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for TGV|||0.013|-0.197|0.085
90903052|NCT01751113|181673174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference of TGV|-0.091||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.195|0.012|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for TGV|||0.012|-0.195|0.083
90903053|NCT01751113|181673175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||FEV1/FVC ratio|0.027|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.014|0.041|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for FEV1/FVC ratio|||0.041|0.014|<0.001
90903054|NCT01751113|181673175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||FEV1/FVC ratio|0.008||||0.223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|0.021|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for FEV1/FVC ratio|||0.021|-0.005|0.223
90903055|NCT01558674|181673183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares (LS) Means|-98.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-138.0|-59.1|||Linear mixed effect model||8-mg MK-7145 LS Mean minus Furosemide LS Mean|||-59.1|-138.0|
90855793|NCT04090957|181575995|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-4.56||||0.0186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.46|-0.66|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||3\_Week 52 Estetrol 15 mg vs Placebo||-0.66|-8.46|0.0186
90855794|NCT04090957|181575995|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-3.79||||0.0687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.81|0.24|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||4\_Week 52 Estetrol 20 mg vs Placebo||0.24|-7.81|0.0687
90903056|NCT01558674|181673185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.99|1.22|||Mixed Linear Effects Model||GMR = Geometric mean (GM) MK-7145 8 mg divided by GM Furosemide|||1.22|0.99|
90903057|NCT02471404|181673223|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin was determined to be 0.30% (in absolute terms). A difference of ≤0.30%, in HbA1c change from b/l to wk 52 between the treatment groups was considered clinically equivalent. NI was assessed using the 2-sided 95% CI of adjusted mean difference between dapagliflozin or dapagliflozin plus saxagliptin and glimepiride.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0294|0.2986|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.2986|0.0294|
90903058|NCT02471404|181673223|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin was determined to be 0.30% (in absolute terms). A difference of ≤0.30%, in HbA1c change from b/l to wk 52 between the treatment groups was considered clinically equivalent. NI was assessed using the 2-sided 95% Confidence Interval of adjusted mean difference between dapagliflozin or dapagliflozin plus saxagliptin and glimepiride.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3443|-0.0825||(superiority)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.0825|-0.3443|0.001
91100579|NCT02187055|182087332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.079|0.06||||||Mobility score||0.060|-0.079|
90903059|NCT02471404|181673224|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.45|-1.97|||Fisher Exact|||||-1.97|-6.45|<0.001
91100580|NCT02187055|182087332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.051|0.089||||||Mobility score||0.089|-0.051|
91100581|NCT02187055|182087332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.014|0.127||||||Self-care score||0.127|-0.014|
91100582|NCT02187055|182087332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.027|0.114||||||Self-care score||0.114|-0.027|
90855795|NCT04090957|181575996|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|27.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.4|39.41|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||1\_Week 12 Estetrol 15 mg vs Placebo||39.41|16.40|<0.0001
90855796|NCT04090957|181575996|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|44.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.53|56.44|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||2\_Week 12 Estetrol 20 mg vs Placebo||56.44|33.53|<0.0001
90903060|NCT02471404|181673224|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.21|-1.56|||Fisher Exact|||||-1.56|-6.21|<0.001
90855797|NCT04090957|181575996|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|29.92|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.13|42.71|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||3\_Week 52 Estetrol 15 mg vs Placebo||42.71|17.13|<0.0001
90903061|NCT02471404|181673225|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.93|-4.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.67|-5.93|<0.001
90903062|NCT02471404|181673225|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.52|-4.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.29|-5.52|<0.001
90903063|NCT02471404|181673226|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.16|-0.43|0.374
90903064|NCT02471404|181673226|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.31|-0.88|<0.001
90903065|NCT02471404|181673227|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.35|||Regression, Cox|||||1.35|0.67|0.777
90903066|NCT02471404|181673227|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.57|||Regression, Cox|||||0.57|0.23|<0.001
90903067|NCT02204293|181673240|SUPERIORITY|Fisher's exact test with a two-tailed level of significance of α = 0.05.||||||0.1811|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1811
90903068|NCT02204293|181673255|SUPERIORITY|Fisher's exact test with a two-tailed level of significance of α = 0.05.|Difference in Response Rates|19.9||||0.3175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|51.3|||Fisher Exact|||||51.3|-15.0|0.3175
90903069|NCT02204293|181673256|SUPERIORITY|Fisher's exact test with a two-tailed level of significance of α = 0.05.|Difference in Response Rates|31.7||||0.0922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|61.8|||Fisher Exact|||||61.8|-2.9|0.0922
90903070|NCT02204293|181673257|SUPERIORITY|Fisher's exact test with a two-tailed level of significance of α = 0.05.|Difference in Response Rates|32.0||||0.0858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|61.1|||Fisher Exact|||||61.1|-1.5|0.0858
91100583|NCT02187055|182087332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.083|0.058||||||Self-care score||0.058|-0.083|
91100584|NCT02187055|182087332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.062|0.084||||||Usual activities score||0.084|-0.062|
91100585|NCT02187055|182087332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.018|0.129||||||Usual activities score||0.129|-0.018|
91100586|NCT02187055|182087332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.029|0.118||||||Usual activities score||0.118|-0.029|
91100587|NCT02187055|182087332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.041|0.091||||||Pain/discomfort score||0.091|-0.041|
91100588|NCT02187055|182087332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.015|0.116||||||Pain/discomfort score||0.116|-0.015|
91100589|NCT02187055|182087332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.041|0.091||||||Pain/discomfort score||0.091|-0.041|
91100590|NCT02187055|182087332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.046|0.103||||||Anxiety/depression score||0.103|-0.046|
91100591|NCT02187055|182087332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.066|0.083||||||Anxiety/depression score||0.083|-0.066|
91100592|NCT02187055|182087332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.094|0.055||||||Anxiety/depression score||0.055|-0.094|
91100593|NCT02187055|182087332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.934|2.648||||||VAS score||2.648|-2.934|
91100594|NCT02187055|182087332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.556|4.016||||||VAS score||4.016|-1.556|
91100595|NCT02187055|182087332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.425|4.171||||||VAS score||4.171|-1.425|
91100596|NCT02187055|182087333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.706|0.808||||||||0.808|-1.706|
91100597|NCT02187055|182087333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.178|2.325||||||||2.325|-0.178|
91100598|NCT02187055|182087333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.266|2.779||||||||2.779|0.266|
90855798|NCT04090957|181575996|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|49.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.92|62.37|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||4\_Week 52 Estetrol 20 mg vs Placebo||62.37|35.92|<0.0001
90855799|NCT04090957|181575997|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.04||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|-0.02|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||1\_Week 12 Estetrol 15 mg vs Placebo||-0.02|-0.07|0.0004
90855800|NCT04090957|181575997|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|-0.05|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||2\_Week 12 Estetrol 20 mg vs Placebo||-0.05|-0.10|<0.0001
90855801|NCT04090957|181575997|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.03||||0.0898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.0|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||3\_Week 52 Estetrol 15 mg vs Placebo||0.00|-0.06|0.0898
90855802|NCT04090957|181575997|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|-0.04|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||4\_Week 52 Estetrol 20 mg vs Placebo||-0.04|-0.10|<0.0001
90855803|NCT04090957|181575998|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|-0.08|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||1\_Week 12 Estetrol 15 mg vs Placebo||-0.08|-0.18|<0.0001
90855804|NCT04090957|181575998|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|-0.09|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||2\_Week 12 Estetrol 20 mg vs Placebo||-0.09|-0.18|<0.0001
90855805|NCT04090957|181575998|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|-0.11|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||3\_Week 52 Estetrol 15 mg vs Placebo||-0.11|-0.23|<0.0001
90855806|NCT04090957|181575998|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|-0.08|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||4\_Week 52 Estetrol 20 mg vs Placebo||-0.08|-0.20|<0.0001
90855807|NCT04090957|181575999|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-6.22||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.67|-0.78|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||1\_Week 12 Estetrol 15 mg vs Placebo||-0.78|-11.67|0.0220
90855808|NCT04090957|181575999|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-11.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.02|-6.21|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||2\_Week 12 Estetrol 20 mg vs Placebo||-6.21|-17.02|<0.0001
90855809|NCT04090957|181575999|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-15.93|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.7|-9.17|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||3\_Week 52 Estetrol 15 mg vs Placebo||-9.17|-22.70|<0.0001
91100599|NCT00441896|182087358|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7391|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.7391
90855810|NCT04090957|181575999|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-13.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.63|-6.74|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||4\_Week 52 Estetrol 20 mg vs Placebo||-6.74|-20.63|<0.0001
90855811|NCT04090957|181576000|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|1.86||||0.7531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.69|8.42|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||1\_Week 12 Estetrol 15 mg vs Placebo||8.42|-4.69|0.7531
90855812|NCT04090957|181576000|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-2.7||||0.5548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.18|3.79|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||2\_Week 12 Estetrol 20 mg vs Placebo||3.79|-9.18|0.5548
90855813|NCT04090957|181576000|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|6.81||||0.117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|14.99|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||3\_Week 52 Estetrol 15 mg vs Placebo||14.99|-1.36|0.1170
90855814|NCT04090957|181576000|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-1.55||||0.8885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.97|6.87|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||4\_Week 52 Estetrol 20 mg vs Placebo||6.87|-9.97|0.8885
90855815|NCT04090957|181576001|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.45||||0.0781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.04|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||1\_Week 12, Vasomotor Domain, E4 15 mg vs Placebo||0.04|-0.95|0.0781
90855816|NCT04090957|181576001|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.78||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|-0.28|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||2\_Week 12, Vasomotor Domain, E4 20 mg vs Placebo||-0.28|-1.27|0.0011
90855817|NCT04090957|181576001|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.76||||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|-0.17|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||3\_Week 52, Vasomotor Domain, E4 15 mg vs Placebo||-0.17|-1.35|0.0085
90855818|NCT04090957|181576001|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.75||||0.0127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|-0.14|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||4\_Week 52, Vasomotor Domain, E4 20 mg vs Placebo||-0.14|-1.35|0.0127
90855819|NCT04090957|181576001|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.12||||0.6211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.21|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||5\_Week 12, Psychosocial Domain, E4 15 mg vs Placebo||0.21|-0.46|0.6211
90855820|NCT04090957|181576001|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.16||||0.4544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.17|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||6\_Week 12, Psychosocial Domain, E4 20 mg vs Placebo||0.17|-0.50|0.4544
90855821|NCT04090957|181576001|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.32||||0.1349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.08|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||7\_Week 52, Psychosocial Domain, E4 15 mg vs Placebo||0.08|-0.72|0.1349
91100600|NCT00441896|182087358|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.537|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.5370
90855822|NCT04090957|181576001|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.08||||0.8875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.49|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||8\_Week 52, Psychosocial Domain, E4 20 mg vs Placebo||0.49|-0.33|0.8875
90855823|NCT04090957|181576001|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.08||||0.8109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.24|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||9\_Week 12, Physical Domain, E4 15 mg vs Placebo||0.24|-0.40|0.8109
90855824|NCT04090957|181576001|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.12||||0.6184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.44|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||10\_Week 12, Physical Domain, E4 20 mg vs Placebo||0.44|-0.20|0.6184
90855825|NCT04090957|181576001|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.25||||0.2548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.13|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||11\_Week 52, Physical Domain, E4 15 mg vs Placebo||0.13|-0.63|0.2548
91100601|NCT00441896|182087358|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.908|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.9080
90855826|NCT04090957|181576001|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.09||||0.8282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.48|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||12\_Week 52, Physical Domain, E4 20 mg vs Placebo||0.48|-0.30|0.8282
90855827|NCT04090957|181576001|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.27||||0.3299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.2|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||13\_Week 12, Sexual Domain, E4 15 mg vs Placebo||0.20|-0.75|0.3299
91100602|NCT00441896|182087358|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2539|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2539
91100603|NCT00441896|182087358|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6657|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.6657
91100604|NCT00441896|182087359|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4249|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.4249
91100605|NCT00441896|182087359|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4177|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.4177
91100606|NCT00441896|182087359|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3033|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3033
91031274|NCT01029353|181947155|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|8.05|||||The model was fit using PROC GENMOD in SAS, using center as the repeated effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a robust Poisson regression model, with log link and center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy over drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to NEC.||8.05|0.35|
91100607|NCT00441896|182087359|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3014|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3014
91100608|NCT00441896|182087359|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1839|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1839
91100609|NCT01301092|182087367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|0.443|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.395|0.497|||Mixed Linear effects model analyses|||||0.497|0.395|
90855828|NCT04090957|181576001|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.22||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.25|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||14\_Week 12, Sexual Domain, E4 20 mg vs Placebo||0.25|-0.69|0.4800
90855829|NCT04090957|181576001|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.39||||0.2133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.17|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||15\_Week 52, Sexual Domain, E4 15 mg vs Placebo||0.17|-0.96|0.2133
90855830|NCT04090957|181576001|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.14||||0.8116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.73|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||16\_Week 52, Sexual Domain, E4 20 mg vs Placebo||0.73|-0.44|0.8116
90855831|NCT04090957|181576001|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.23||||0.1853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.08|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||17\_Week 12, Total MENQOL, E4 15 mg vs Placebo||0.08|-0.53|0.1853
90855832|NCT04090957|181576001|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.26||||0.1176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.05|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||18\_Week 12, Total MENQOL, E4 20 mg vs Placebo||0.05|-0.57|0.1176
90855833|NCT04090957|181576001|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.43||||0.0176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.06|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||19\_Week 52, Total MENQOL, E4 15 mg vs Placebo||-0.06|-0.79|0.0176
90855834|NCT04090957|181576001|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.12||||0.6909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.25|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||20\_Week 52, Total MENQOL, E4 20 mg vs Placebo||0.25|-0.49|0.6909
90855835|NCT03981822|181576041|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0048||||||P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.0048
90855836|NCT03981822|181576041|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0075||||||P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.0075
90855837|NCT03981822|181576042|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3642||||||P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment Visit 2 - Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.3642
90855838|NCT03981822|181576042|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0967||||||P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment Visit 2: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.0967
91100610|NCT01301092|182087368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.84|2.41|||Mixed Linear effects model analyses|||||2.41|1.84|
90855839|NCT03981822|181576042|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0648||||||P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment Visit 3: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.0648
90855840|NCT03981822|181576042|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1357||||||P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment Visit 3: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.1357
91100611|NCT01301092|182087369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|0.962|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.858|1.08|||Mixed Linear effects model analyses|||||1.08|0.858|
90855841|NCT03981822|181576042|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019||||||P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender. Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment Visit 4 Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.0190
90855842|NCT03981822|181576042|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0184||||||P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment Visit 4 Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.0184
90855843|NCT03981822|181576042|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0048||||||P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Study Day 84 EOT Visit - Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.0048
90855844|NCT03981822|181576042|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0075||||||P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Study Day 84 EOT Visit - Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.0075
90903071|NCT02204293|181673258|SUPERIORITY|Fisher's exact test with a two-tailed level of significance of α = 0.05.|Difference in Response Rates|32.4||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|60.5|||Fisher Exact|||||60.5|-0.7|0.075
90903072|NCT02204293|181673259|SUPERIORITY|Fisher's exact test with a two-tailed level of significance of α = 0.05.|Difference in Response Rates|16.0||||0.4018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|43.4|||Fisher Exact|||||43.4|-12.6|0.4018
90903073|NCT02204293|181673260|SUPERIORITY|Fisher's exact test with a two-tailed level of significance of α = 0.05.|Difference in Response Rates|5.2||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.8|29.2|||Fisher Exact|||||29.2|-18.8|1
91100612|NCT01301092|182087370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.924|1.19|||Mixed Linear effects model analyses|||||1.19|0.924|
91100613|NCT03277274|182087379|OTHER|TAK-954 (Total): An analysis of variance (ANOVA) were performed on log transformed Cmax (total TAK-954) to compare each hepatically impaired group with the normal hepatic function group.||||||0.579|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.579
91100614|NCT03277274|182087379|OTHER|TAK-954 (Total): An ANOVA were performed on log transformed Cmax (total TAK-954) to compare each hepatically impaired group with the normal hepatic function group.||||||0.026|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.026
91100615|NCT03277274|182087379|OTHER|TAK-954 (Free): An ANOVA were performed on log transformed Cmax (Free TAK-954) to compare each hepatically impaired group with the normal hepatic function group.||||||0.02|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.020
91100616|NCT03277274|182087379|OTHER|TAK-954 (Free): An ANOVA were performed on log transformed Cmax (Free TAK-954) to compare each hepatically impaired group with the normal hepatic function group.||||||0.031|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.031
91100617|NCT03277274|182087380|OTHER|TAK-954 (Total): An ANOVA were performed on log transformed AUClast (Total TAK-954) to compare each hepatically impaired group with the normal hepatic function group.||||||0.151|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.151
91100618|NCT03277274|182087380|OTHER|TAK-954 (Total): An ANOVA were performed on log transformed AUClast (Total TAK-954) to compare each hepatically impaired group with the normal hepatic function group.||||||0.017|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.017
90855845|NCT03981822|181576042|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0539||||||P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Follow-up Visit Day 112 - Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.0539
90855846|NCT03981822|181576042|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1638||||||P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Follow-up Visit Day 112 - Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.1638
91100619|NCT03277274|182087380|OTHER|TAK-954 (Free): An ANOVA were performed on log transformed AUClast (Free TAK-954) to compare each hepatically impaired group with the normal hepatic function group.||||||0.129|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.129
91100620|NCT03277274|182087380|OTHER|TAK-954 (Free): An ANOVA were performed on log transformed AUClast (Free TAK-954) to compare each hepatically impaired group with the normal hepatic function group.||||||0.023|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.023
90855847|NCT03981822|181576042|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4766||||||P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Follow-up Visit Day 147 EOS - Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.4766
90855848|NCT03981822|181576042|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1588||||||P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Follow-up Visit Day 147 EOS - Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.1588
90855849|NCT03981822|181576043|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3642||||||P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender. Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment Visit 2 Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.3642
90855850|NCT03981822|181576043|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0356|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.||Treatment Visit 3 Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.0356
90855851|NCT03981822|181576043|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0118|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender||Treatment Visit 4 Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.0118
90855852|NCT03981822|181576043|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0026||||||P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Study Day84 EOT Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.0026
90855853|NCT03981822|181576043|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0174|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.||Follow-up Visit Day 112 Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.0174
90855854|NCT03981822|181576043|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1311|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.||Follow-up Visit Day 147 EOS Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.1311
90855855|NCT03981822|181576043|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0967|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.||Treatment Visit 2 Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.0967
90855856|NCT03981822|181576043|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1357|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.||Treatment Visit 3 Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.1357
91100621|NCT03277274|182087381|OTHER|TAK-954 (Total): An ANOVA were performed on log transformed AUCinf (Total TAK-954) to compare each hepatically impaired group with the normal hepatic function group.||||||0.138|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.138
90855857|NCT03981822|181576043|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0184|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.||Treatment Visit 4 Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.0184
90855858|NCT03981822|181576043|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0024|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.||Study Day 84 EOT Visit Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.0024
90855859|NCT03981822|181576043|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1034|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.||Follow-up Visit Day 112 Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.1034
90855860|NCT03981822|181576043|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1029|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.||Follow-up Visit Day 147 EOS Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.1029
90855861|NCT03981822|181576044|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0356|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.||Treatment Visit 2: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.0356
90855862|NCT03981822|181576044|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1477|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.||Treatment Visit 2: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.1477
90855863|NCT03981822|181576044|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0062|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.||Treatment Visit 3: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.0062
90855864|NCT03981822|181576044|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0046|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.||Treatment Visit 3: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.0046
90855865|NCT03981822|181576044|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0177|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.||Treatment Visit 4: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.0177
90855866|NCT03981822|181576044|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0054|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.||Treatment Visit 4: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.0054
90855867|NCT03981822|181576044|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0013|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.||Study Day 84 (EOT) visit: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.0013
91100622|NCT03277274|182087381|OTHER|TAK-954 (Total): An ANOVA were performed on log transformed AUCinf (Total TAK-954) to compare each hepatically impaired group with the normal hepatic function group.||||||0.029|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.029
91100623|NCT03277274|182087381|OTHER|TAK-954 (Free): An ANOVA were performed on log transformed AUCinf (Free TAK-954) to compare each hepatically impaired group with the normal hepatic function group.||||||0.201|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.201
91100624|NCT03277274|182087381|OTHER|TAK-954 (Free): An ANOVA were performed on log transformed AUCinf (Free TAK-954) to compare each hepatically impaired group with the normal hepatic function group.||||||0.023|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.023
91104421|NCT02037984|182094978|OTHER|PT14 GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar®)|PT9V GMC Ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.6||||||||1.60|0.66|
91100625|NCT03548415|182087410|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.306||||||The p-value was analyzed using the nonparametric test, Van Elteren test with IGF-1 level as stratification factor.|Van Elteren test|||||||0.306
91100626|NCT01230814|182087421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.92||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.37||The a priori threshold for statistical significance for VVC was p\<0.020 (two-sided).|Clustered chi-squared statistic||For the relative risk estimate, the metronidazole plus miconazole arm represented the numerator and the placebo arm represented the denominator such that a relative risk \<1 indicates a lower percentage of positive test visits in the treated arm.|Each participant within a study arm was considered a cluster, with observations at a maximum of 6 visits. The percentage of visits at which VVC was detected was compared between metronidazole plus miconazole arm versus placebo arm using a chi-squared statistic adjusted for clustering using the method of Donner and Klar (2000).||1.37|0.62|0.690
91100627|NCT01230814|182087422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.65||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.87||The a priori threshold for statistical significance for BV was p\<0.030 (two-sided).|clutstered chi-squared statistic||For the relative risk estimate, the metronidazole plus miconazole arm represented the numerator and the placebo arm represented the denominator such that a relative risk \<1 indicates a lower percentage of test visits in the treated arm.|Each participant within a study arm was considered a cluster, with observations at a maximum of 6 visits. The percentage of visits at which BV was detected was compared between metronidazole plus miconazole arm versus placebo arm using a chi-squared statistic adjusted for clustering using the method of Donner and Klar (2000).||0.87|0.48|0.005
91100628|NCT00676052|182087438|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.067||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.017|0.117||Analysis performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, sex, age, smoking status, responsiveness stratum and treatment. Missing trough FEV1 data at Day 29 was imputed using LOCF.|ANCOVA|||||0.117|0.017|0.009
90855868|NCT03981822|181576044|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0034|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.||Study Day 84 (EOT) Visit: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.0034
90855869|NCT03981822|181576044|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0156|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.||Follow-up visit day 112: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.0156
90903074|NCT02204293|181673261|SUPERIORITY|Fisher's exact test with a two-tailed level of significance of α = 0.05.|Difference in Response Rates|24.8||||0.1642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|54.2|||Fisher Exact|||EULAR DAS28-ESR Response||54.2|-8.0|0.1642
90903075|NCT02204293|181673261|SUPERIORITY|Fisher's exact test with a two-tailed level of significance of α = 0.05.|Difference in Response Rates|25.2||||0.1756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|55.1|||Fisher Exact|||EULAR DAS28-CRP Response||55.1|-9.1|0.1756
90903076|NCT02204293|181673262|SUPERIORITY|Fisher's exact test with a two-tailed level of significance of α = 0.05.|Difference in Response Rates|3.9||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.7|35.0|||Fisher Exact|||DAS28 (ESR) LDA||35.0|-27.7|1
90903077|NCT02204293|181673262|SUPERIORITY|Fisher's exact test with a two-tailed level of significance of α = 0.05.|Difference in Response Rates|26.5||||0.1642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|56.0|||Fisher Exact|||DAS28 (CRP) LDA||56.0|-6.6|0.1642
90903078|NCT02204293|181673263|SUPERIORITY|Fisher's exact test with a two-tailed level of significance of α = 0.05.|Difference in Response Rates|21.6||||0.2285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|49.9|||Fisher Exact|||DAS28 (ESR) remission||49.9|-8.1|0.2285
91031275|NCT01029353|181947155|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.44|||||The model was fit using PROC GENMOD in SAS, using center as the repeated effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a robust Poisson regression model, with log link and center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy over drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to IP.||2.44|0.10|
90855870|NCT03981822|181576044|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0367|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.||Follow-up visit day 112: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.0367
90855871|NCT03981822|181576044|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1746|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.||Follow-up visit day 147 (EOS): Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.1746
90855872|NCT03981822|181576044|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0123|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.||Follow-up visit day 147 (EOS): Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.0123
90855873|NCT03981822|181576045|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.96||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.41|-1.24||Analysis is based on MMRM model|Mixed Models Analysis|"MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, Tx by visit interaction, and baseline wart count as factors.~An unstructured covariance model was used."||Treatment Visit 2: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||-1.24|-5.41|0.0021
90855874|NCT03981822|181576045|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-4.72||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.95|-0.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|"MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart count as factors.~An unstructured covariance model was used."||Treatment Visit 3: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||-0.66|-5.95|0.0150
90903079|NCT02204293|181673263|SUPERIORITY|Fisher's exact test with a two-tailed level of significance of α = 0.05.|Difference in Response Rates|27.1||||0.1212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|54.6|||Fisher Exact|||DAS28 (CRP) Remission||54.6|-4.6|0.1212
90903080|NCT02204293|181673263|SUPERIORITY|Fisher's exact test with a two-tailed level of significance of α = 0.05.|Difference in Response Rates|16.0||||0.4018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|43.4|||Fisher Exact|||Extended Remission||43.4|-12.6|0.4018
90959006|NCT02482870|181798197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.119|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Chi-squared|Chi-square value = 2.424; degrees of freedom = 1||Sample size was calculated according to the first 60 patients. To obtain 90% power with an alpha error of 0.05, a total of 378 patients were required. Considering a possible drop-out rate of 2.5% due to unexpected complications, we aimed for 388 patients.||||0.119
91100629|NCT00676052|182087438|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.097|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.047|0.147||Analysis performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, sex, age, smoking status, responsiveness stratum and treatment. Missing trough FEV1 data at Day 29 was imputed using LOCF.|ANCOVA|||||0.147|0.047|<0.001
91104422|NCT02037984|182094978|OTHER|PT18C GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT18C GMC Ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.39||||||||1.39|0.66|
90903081|NCT00614198|181673267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||A priori p threshold set for stage 1 (baseline - 8m; p\<0.01) or (baseline - 12 months, p\<0.05) in order to progress to stage 2 (8 or 12 months - 20 or 24 months).|Mixed Models Analysis|||1st stage analysis (baseline-8m or 12m) used a repeated measures model for all assessment measures. Model included baseline, age, time and time\*treatment interaction. Results informed 2nd stage (8 or 12 months - 20 or 24 months). 2nd stage analysis based on various statistical scenarios (baseline vs 12 months on intervention, 12 months of no intervention vs 12 on intervention, baseline vs 24 months on intervention). No ADOS assessments were used at 12 months because of risk of practice effects.||||<0.01
90903082|NCT01225835|181673269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||The significance level is 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
90903083|NCT01225835|181673269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015||95.0||||The significance level is 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Age \< 39 years||||0.015
90903084|NCT01225835|181673269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027||95.0||||The significance level is 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Age \>= 39 years||||0.027
90903085|NCT01225835|181673271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||The significance level is 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
90903086|NCT01225835|181673272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0||||The significance level is 0.05. P-values are not adjusted for multiple tests and have to be interpreted exploratively.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.004
90903087|NCT01225835|181673273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.121||95.0||||The significance level is 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.121
90903088|NCT01225835|181673274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Level of significance is 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90903089|NCT01225835|181673275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The significance level is 0.05. P-values are not adjusted for multiple tests and have to be interpreted exploratively.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90903090|NCT01225835|181673277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.482||95.0||||The significance level is 0.05. P-values are not adjusted for multiple tests and have to be interpreted exploratively.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.482
91031276|NCT01029353|181947156|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.69|||||The model was fit using PROC GENMOD in SAS, using center as the repeated effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a robust Poisson regression model, with log link and center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy over drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to NEC.||2.69|0.62|
90903091|NCT01225835|181673278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.871||||||The significance level is 0.05. P-values are not adjusted for multiple tests and have to be interpreted exploratively.|Chi-squared|||||||0.871
90903092|NCT01225835|181673279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The significance level is 0.05. P-values are not adjusted for multiple tests and have to be interpreted exploratively.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90903093|NCT01225835|181673280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62||95.0||||The significance level is 0.05. P-values are not adjusted for multiple tests and have to be interpreted exploratively.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.620
90903094|NCT01225835|181673281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.478||95.0||||The significance level is 0.05. P-values are not adjusted for multiple tests and have to be interpreted exploratively.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.478
91031277|NCT01029353|181947156|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.32|||||The model was fit using PROC GENMOD in SAS, using center as the repeated effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a robust Poisson regression model, with log link and center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy over drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to IP.||1.32|0.27|
90903095|NCT01225835|181673282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69||95.0||||The significance level is 0.05. P-values are not adjusted for multiple tests and have to be interpreted exploratively.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.69
90903096|NCT01225835|181673283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.295||95.0||||The significance level is 0.05. P-values are not adjusted for multiple tests and have to be interpreted exploratively.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.295
90903097|NCT01225835|181673284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.405||95.0||||The significance level is 0.05. P-values are not adjusted for multiple tests and have to be interpreted exploratively.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.405
90903098|NCT01225835|181673285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||The significance level is 0.05. P-values are not adjusted for multiple tests and have to be interpreted exploratively.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
90903099|NCT04779242|181673342|OTHER|Difference was observed difference in early clinical success rate between the omadacycline and moxifloxacin groups|Percentage difference|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|6.8|||||95% CI is constructed based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification.|||6.8|-3.0|
90903100|NCT04779242|181673343|OTHER|Difference was observed difference in overall clinical success rate at PTE between the omadacycline and moxifloxacin groups.|Percentage difference|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|3.4|||||95% CI is constructed based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|||3.4|-6.9|
90903101|NCT04779242|181673344|OTHER|Difference was observed difference in overall clinical success rate at PTE between the omadacycline and moxifloxacin groups|Percentage difference|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|2.0|||||95% CI is constructed based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|||2.0|-5.7|
90903102|NCT01757067|181673346|OTHER|The previously stated primary and secondary endpoints cannot be calculated as the study was halted prematurely due to lack of enrollment. Only the reported EF data was collected. This makes further statistical analyses impossible.|||||||||||||||||The previously stated primary and secondary endpoints cannot be calculated as the study was halted prematurely due to lack of enrollment. Only the reported EF data was collected. This makes further statistical analyses impossible.|||
90903103|NCT04285229|181673351|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.68|21.76|||Regression, Logistic|||||21.76|2.68|<0.001
90903104|NCT04285229|181673352|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.42|16.9|||Regression, Logistic|||||16.90|2.42|<0.001
90903105|NCT04285229|181673353|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.58||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|5.09|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.09|1.31|0.006
90903106|NCT04285229|181673354|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|-0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.90|-1.38|<0.001
90903107|NCT04285229|181673355|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|-0.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.94|-2.04|<0.001
90903108|NCT04285229|181673356|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|-0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.32|-1.43|0.002
90903109|NCT04285229|181673357|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.58|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.85|-4.6|||ANCOVA|||||-4.60|-10.85|<0.001
90903110|NCT04285229|181673358|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.785||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|4.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.17|1.07|0.001
90903111|NCT04285229|181673359|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.152||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|2.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.79|-1.77|0.660
90903112|NCT04285229|181673360|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-12.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.594|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.91|-9.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-9.59|-15.91|<0.001
90903113|NCT04285229|181673361|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.106|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.15|-0.57|<0.001
91100630|NCT00676052|182087438|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.069||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.019|0.118||Analysis performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, sex, age, smoking status, responsiveness stratum and treatment. Missing trough FEV1 data at Day 29 was imputed using LOCF.|ANCOVA|||||0.118|0.019|0.007
90903114|NCT04285229|181673362|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.413||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.10|-1.54|0.086
91100631|NCT00676052|182087438|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.082||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.032|0.132||Analysis performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, sex, age, smoking status, responsiveness stratum and treatment. Missing trough FEV1 data at Day 29 was imputed using LOCF.|ANCOVA|||||0.132|0.032|0.001
91100632|NCT00676052|182087438|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.137|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.086|0.187||Analysis performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, sex, age, smoking status, responsiveness stratum and treatment. Missing trough FEV1 data at Day 29 was imputed using LOCF.|ANCOVA|||||0.187|0.086|<0.001
90903115|NCT04285229|181673363|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.034|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.71|-3.62|||ANCOVA|||||-3.62|-7.71|<0.001
90903116|NCT02559609|181673374|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Group A/C (contrast -1) compared to Group B/D (contrast 1) to test Aim 1||||.028
90903117|NCT02559609|181673375|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Group A/C (contrast -1) compared to Group B/D (contrast 1)||||.027
90903118|NCT02559609|181673376|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||ANOVA|df = 1||Group A/B (contrast -1) was compared to Group C/D (contrast 1) to test Aim 2.||||.66
90903119|NCT02559609|181673377|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|||||||Regression, Cox|||Group A/B (contrast -1) compared to Group C/D (contrast 1) to test Aim 2.||||.89
90903120|NCT02559609|181673378|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||ANOVA|df = 1||Group A/B (contrast -1) compared to Group C/D (contrast 1) to test Aim 2.||||.58
90903121|NCT02559609|181673379|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Group A/C (contrast -1) compared to Group B/D (contrast 1) to test Aim 1.||||.024
90903122|NCT02855164|181673393|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: ALT (U/L) change from baseline up to EOT (Parts A + B) (Full analysis set)|LS mean change|-15.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.76||0.362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.2|-0.6|||ANCOVA|||10 micrograms of Tropifexor vs placebo (Part A)||-0.6|-31.2|0.362
90903123|NCT02855164|181673393|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: ALT (U/L) change from baseline up to EOT (Parts A + B) (Full analysis set)|LS mean change|-10.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.12||0.729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.8|3.3|||ANCOVA|||30 micrograms of Tropifexor vs placebo (Part A)||3.3|-24.8|0.729
90903124|NCT02855164|181673393|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: ALT (U/L) change from baseline up to EOT (Parts A + B) (Full analysis set)|Least Square Mean Change|-16.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.73||0.173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.8|-7.1|||ANCOVA|||60 micrograms of Tropifexor vs placebo (Parts A + B)||-7.1|-25.8|0.173
90903125|NCT02855164|181673393|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: ALT (U/L) change from baseline up to EOT (Parts A + B) (Full analysis set)|Least Square Mean Change|-14.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.25||0.185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.3|-8.5|||ANCOVA|||90 micrograms of Tropifexor vs placebo (Parts A + B)||-8.5|-21.3|0.185
90903126|NCT02855164|181673393|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: ALT (U/L) change from baseline up to EOT (Part C) (Full analysis set)|LS Mean Change|-31.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.71||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.9|-16.3|||ANCOVA|||140 micrograms of Tropifexor (Part C) vs placebo||-16.3|-46.9|0.020
90903127|NCT02855164|181673393|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: ALT (U/L) change from baseline up to EOT (Part C) (Full analysis set)|LS Mean Change|-32.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.1||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.6|-14.5|||ANCOVA|||200 micrograms of Tropifexor vs placebo (Part C)||-14.5|-50.6|0.030
90903128|NCT02855164|181673393|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: ALT (U/L) change from baseline to Week 12 (Parts A+B+C) Full analysis set (FAS)|LS Mean change|-13.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.86||0.456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.3|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||10 micrograms of Tropifexor vs placebo (Parts A + B + C)||-0.4|-26.3|0.456
90903129|NCT02855164|181673393|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: ALT (U/L) change from baseline to Week 12 (Parts A+B+C) Full analysis set (FAS)|LS Mean change|-7.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.27||0.966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.5|4.4|||ANCOVA|||30 micrograms of Tropifexor vs placebo (Parts A + B + C)||4.4|-19.5|0.966
91100633|NCT00676052|182087439|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.106|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.065|0.146||Analysis performed using repeated measures with covariates of Baseline, sex, age, smoking status, responsiveness stratum, Day (nominal), treatment and Day by treatment and Day by Baseline interactions|Repeated Measures Model|||FEV1, Day 1||0.146|0.065|<0.001
91100634|NCT00676052|182087439|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.107|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.067|0.147||Analysis performed using repeated measures with covariates of Baseline, sex, age, smoking status, responsiveness stratum, Day (nominal), treatment and Day by treatment and Day by Baseline interactions|Repeated Measures Model|||FEV1, Day 1||0.147|0.067|<0.001
91100635|NCT00676052|182087439|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.123|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.083|0.163||Analysis performed using repeated measures with covariates of Baseline, sex, age, smoking status, responsiveness stratum, Day (nominal), treatment and Day by treatment and Day by Baseline interactions.|Repeated Measures Model|||FEV1, Day 1||0.163|0.083|<0.001
91100636|NCT00676052|182087439|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.152|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.112|0.193||Analysis performed using repeated measures with covariates of Baseline, sex, age, smoking status, responsiveness stratum, Day (nominal), treatment and Day by treatment and Day by Baseline interactions|Repeated Measures Model|||FEV1, Day 1||0.193|0.112|<0.001
91100637|NCT00676052|182087439|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.176|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.135|0.216||Analysis performed using repeated measures with covariates of Baseline, sex, age, smoking status, responsiveness stratum, Day (nominal), treatment and Day by treatment and Day by Baseline interactions.|Repeated Measures Model|||FEV1, Day 1||0.216|0.135|<0.001
91100638|NCT00676052|182087439|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.106|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.056|0.157||Analysis performed using repeated measures with covariates of Baseline, sex, age, smoking status, responsiveness stratum, Day (nominal), treatment and Day by treatment and Day by Baseline interactions|Repeated Measures Model|||FEV1, Day 28||0.157|0.056|<0.001
90855875|NCT03981822|181576045|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-5.31||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.54|-1.69||Analysis is based on MMRM model|Mixed Models Analysis|"MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart count as factors.~An unstructured covariance model was used."||Treatment Visit 4: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||-1.69|-6.54|0.0011
90903130|NCT02855164|181673393|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: ALT (U/L) change from baseline to Week 12 (Parts A+B+C) Full analysis set (FAS)|LS Mean change|-13.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.93||0.275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.4|-5.2|||ANCOVA|||60 micrograms of Tropifexor vs placebo (Parts A + B + C)||-5.2|-21.4|0.275
91100639|NCT00676052|182087439|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.142|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.092|0.192||Analysis performed using repeated measures with covariates of Baseline, sex, age, smoking status, responsiveness stratum, Day (nominal), treatment and Day by treatment and Day by Baseline interactions.|Repeated Measures Model|||FEV, Day 28||0.192|0.092|<0.001
91100640|NCT00676052|182087439|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.124|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.074|0.174||Analysis performed using repeated measures with covariates of Baseline, sex, age, smoking status, responsiveness stratum, Day (nominal), treatment and Day by treatment and Day by Baseline interactions|Repeated Measures Model|||FEV1, Day 28||0.174|0.074|<0.001
91100641|NCT00676052|182087439|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.142|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.092|0.193||Analysis performed using repeated measures with covariates of Baseline, sex, age, smoking status, responsiveness stratum, Day (nominal), treatment and Day by treatment and Day by Baseline interactions.|Repeated Measures Model|||FEV1, Day 28||0.193|0.092|<0.001
90855876|NCT03981822|181576045|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-6.5||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.25|-2.32||P-value is based on MMRM model|Mixed Models Analysis|"MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart count as factors.~An unstructured covariance model was used."||Study Day 84 EOT Visit: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||-2.32|-8.25|0.0007
90855877|NCT03981822|181576045|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-6.15||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|-1.91||P-value is based on MMRM model|Mixed Models Analysis|"MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart count as factors.~An unstructured covariance model was used."||Follow-up day 112: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||-1.91|-7.50|0.0012
90855878|NCT03981822|181576045|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-5.02||||0.0349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.78|-0.26||P-value is based on MMRM model|Mixed Models Analysis|"MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart count as factors.~An unstructured covariance model was used."||Follow-up visit day 147 (EOS): Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||-0.26|-6.78|0.0349
90903131|NCT02855164|181673393|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: ALT (U/L) change from baseline to Week 12 (Parts A+B+C) Full analysis set (FAS)|LS Mean change|-11.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.56||0.304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6|-5.9|||ANCOVA|||90 micrograms of Tropifexor vs placebo (Parts A + B + C)||-5.9|-17.6|0.304
90855879|NCT03981822|181576045|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-4.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.47|-2.85||P-value is based on MMRM mode|Mixed Models Analysis|"MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart count as factors.~An unstructured covariance model was used."||Treatment visit 2: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||-2.85|-7.47|<0.0001
91031278|NCT01029353|181947157|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.36|||||The model was fit using PROC GENMOD in SAS, using center as the repeated effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a robust Poisson regression model, with log link and center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy over drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to NEC.||1.36|0.41|
91031279|NCT01029353|181947157|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.42|||||The model was fit using PROC GENMOD in SAS, using center as the repeated effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a robust Poisson regression model, with log link and center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy over drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to IP.||1.42|0.69|
91100642|NCT00676052|182087439|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.22||Analysis performed using repeated measures with covariates of Baseline, sex, age, smoking status, responsiveness stratum, Day (nominal), treatment and Day by treatment and Day by Baseline interactions.|Repeated Measures Model|||FEV1, Day 28||0.220|0.120|<0.001
91100643|NCT00676052|182087440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.166|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.094|0.237||Analysis performed using repeated measures with covariates of Baseline, sex, age, smoking status, responsiveness stratum, Day (nominal), treatment and Day by treatment and Day by Baseline interactions.|Repeated Measures Model|||Day 1||0.237|0.094|<0.001
91100644|NCT00676052|182087440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.186|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.115|0.258||Analysis performed using repeated measures with covariates of Baseline, sex, age, smoking status, responsiveness stratum, Day (nominal), treatment and Day by treatment and Day by Baseline interactions.|Repeated Measures Model|||Day 1||0.258|0.115|<0.001
91100645|NCT00676052|182087440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.198|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.127|0.268||Analysis performed using repeated measures with covariates of Baseline, sex, age, smoking status, responsiveness stratum, Day (nominal), treatment and Day by treatment and Day by Baseline interactions.|Repeated Measures Model|||Day 1||0.268|0.127|<0.001
91100646|NCT00676052|182087440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.244|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.172|0.315||Analysis performed using repeated measures with covariates of Baseline, sex, age, smoking status, responsiveness stratum, Day (nominal), treatment and Day by treatment and Day by Baseline interactions.|Repeated Measures Model|||Day 1||0.315|0.172|<0.001
91100647|NCT00676052|182087440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.301|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.229|0.372||Analysis performed using repeated measures with covariates of Baseline, sex, age, smoking status, responsiveness stratum, Day (nominal), treatment and Day by treatment and Day by Baseline interactions.|Repeated Measures Model|||Day 1||0.372|0.229|<0.001
90855880|NCT03981822|181576045|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-6.0||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.37|-2.43||Analysis is based on MMRM model|Mixed Models Analysis|"MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart count as factors.~An unstructured covariance model was used."||Treatment Visit 3: Degrees of freedom associated with the error term were computed using Kenward-Rogers method.||-2.43|-8.37|0.0005
90855881|NCT03981822|181576045|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-6.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.65|-4.12||Analysis based on MMRM model|Mixed Models Analysis|"MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart count as factors.~An unstructured covariance model was used."||Treatment visit 4: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||-4.12|-9.65|<0.0001
90855882|NCT03981822|181576045|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-6.49||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.67|-2.92||Analysis is based on MMRM model|Mixed Models Analysis|"MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart count as factors.~An unstructured covariance model was used."||Study Day 84 (EOT): Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||-2.92|-9.67|0.0004
90855883|NCT03981822|181576045|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-6.96|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.89|-3.57||Analysis based on MMRM model|Mixed Models Analysis|"MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart count as factors.~An unstructured covariance model was used."||Follow-up day 112: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||-3.57|-9.89|<0.0001
90855884|NCT03981822|181576045|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-6.99||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|-2.94||Analysis based on MMRM model|Mixed Models Analysis|"MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart count as factors.~An unstructured covariance model was used."||Follow up day 147 (EOS): Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||-2.94|-10.20|0.0005
90855885|NCT03981822|181576046|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-41.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.31|-20.87||P-value is based on MMRM model|Mixed Models Analysis|"MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart count as factors.~An unstructured covariance model was used."||Treatment Visit 2: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||-20.87|-51.31|<0.0001
90855886|NCT03981822|181576046|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-50.95||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.18|-19.56||P-value is based on MMRM model|Mixed Models Analysis|"MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart count as factors.~An unstructured covariance model was used."||Treatment Visit 3: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||-19.56|-66.18|0.0004
90855887|NCT03981822|181576046|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-66.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-88.15|-35.87||P-value is based on MMRM model|Mixed Models Analysis|"MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart count as factors.~An unstructured covariance model was used."||Treatment Visit 4: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||-35.87|-88.15|<0.0001
90855888|NCT03981822|181576046|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-79.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-111.44|-49.77||P-value is based on MMRM model|Mixed Models Analysis|"MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart count as factors.~An unstructured covariance model was used."||Study Day 84 End of Treatment Visit: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||-49.77|-111.44|<0.0001
90855889|NCT03981822|181576046|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-69.79||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-103.17|-35.25||P-value is based on MMRM model|Mixed Models Analysis|"MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart count as factors.~An unstructured covariance model was used."||Follow up Day 112: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||-35.25|-103.17|0.0001
91100648|NCT00676052|182087440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.178|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.098|0.258||Analysis performed using repeated measures with covariates of Baseline, sex, age, smoking status, responsiveness stratum, Day (nominal), treatment and Day by treatment and Day by Baseline interactions.|Repeated Measures Model|||Day 28||0.258|0.098|<0.001
91100649|NCT00676052|182087440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.219|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.139|0.298||Analysis performed using repeated measures with covariates of Baseline, sex, age, smoking status, responsiveness stratum, Day (nominal), treatment and Day by treatment and Day by Baseline interactions.|Repeated Measures Model|||Day 28||0.298|0.139|<0.001
90855890|NCT03981822|181576046|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-41.22||||0.1033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-90.61|8.56||P-value is based on MMRM model|Mixed Models Analysis|"MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart count as factors.~An unstructured covariance model was used."||Follow up Visit Day 147 End of Study: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||8.56|-90.61|0.1033
90903132|NCT02855164|181673393|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: ALT (U/L) change from baseline up to EOT (Parts A + B) FAS|LS Mean change|-17.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.45||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.5|-9.8|||ANCOVA|||140 micrograms of Tropifexor vs placebo (Parts A + B + C)||-9.8|-24.5|0.057
91100650|NCT00676052|182087440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.191|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.111|0.27||Analysis performed using repeated measures with covariates of Baseline, sex, age, smoking status, responsiveness stratum, Day (nominal), treatment and Day by treatment and Day by Baseline interactions.|Repeated Measures Model|||Day 28||0.270|0.111|<0.001
91100651|NCT00676052|182087440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.232|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.152|0.312||Analysis performed using repeated measures with covariates of Baseline, sex, age, smoking status, responsiveness stratum, Day (nominal), treatment and Day by treatment and Day by Baseline interactions.|Repeated Measures Model|||Day 28||0.312|0.152|<0.001
91031280|NCT01029353|181947158|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|4.45|||||The model was fit using PROC GENMOD in SAS, using center as the repeated effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a robust Poisson regression model, with log link and center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy over drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to NEC.||4.45|0.04|
91100652|NCT00676052|182087440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.294|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.214|0.373||Analysis performed using repeated measures with covariates of Baseline, sex, age, smoking status, responsiveness stratum, Day (nominal), treatment and Day by treatment and Day by Baseline interactions.|Repeated Measures Model|||Day 28||0.373|0.214|<0.001
91100653|NCT00676052|182087441|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.099||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.015|0.182||Analysis performed using repeated measures with covariates of Baseline, sex, age, smoking status, responsiveness stratum, Day (nominal), treatment and Day by treatment and Day by Baseline interactions.|Repeated Measures Model|||||0.182|0.015|0.021
91100654|NCT00676052|182087441|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.067|0.233||Analysis performed using repeated measures with covariates of Baseline, sex, age, smoking status, responsiveness stratum, Day (nominal), treatment and Day by treatment and Day by Baseline interactions.|Repeated Measures Model|||||0.233|0.067|<0.001
91100655|NCT00676052|182087441|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.094||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.011|0.177||Analysis performed using repeated measures with covariates of Baseline, sex, age, smoking status, responsiveness stratum, Day (nominal), treatment and Day by treatment and Day by Baseline interactions.|Repeated Measures Model|||||0.177|0.011|0.026
91100656|NCT00676052|182087441|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.163|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.247||Analysis performed using repeated measures with covariates of Baseline, sex, age, smoking status, responsiveness stratum, Day (nominal), treatment and Day by treatment and Day by Baseline interactions.|Repeated Measures Model|||||0.247|0.080|<0.001
91100657|NCT00676052|182087441|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.235|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.152|0.319||Analysis performed using repeated measures with covariates of Baseline, sex, age, smoking status, responsiveness stratum, Day (nominal), treatment and Day by treatment and Day by Baseline interactions.|Repeated Measures Model|||||0.319|0.152|<0.001
91100658|NCT01243424|182087461|NON_INFERIORITY|This was the first step in a pre-defined hierarchical testing approach. The upper bound of the confidence interval (CI) of the Hazard ratio (HR) of linagliptin vs. glimepiride was compared with this noninferiority margin for the testing of non-inferiority. All non-inferiority tests were based on a margin of 1.3.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.47|0.84|1.14||P-values derived from Wald´s Chi-square test for non-inferiority were calculated.|Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazard model with factor treatment was applied to compare linagliptin with glimepiride||||1.14|0.84|<0.0001
91100659|NCT01243424|182087461|SUPERIORITY|This was the second step in a pre-defined hierarchical testing approach.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.3813|TWO_SIDED|95.47|0.84|1.14||P-values derived from Wald´s Chi-square test.|Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazard model with factor treatment was applied to compare linagliptin with glimepiride.||||1.14|0.84|0.3813
91100660|NCT01243424|182087462|SUPERIORITY|This was the third step in a pre-defined hierarchical testing approach.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.4334|TWO_SIDED|95.47|0.86|1.14||P-values derived from Wald´s Chi-square test for non-inferiority.|Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazard model with factor treatment was applied to compare linagliptin with glimepiride.||||1.14|0.86|0.4334
91100661|NCT01243424|182087463|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.47|1.43|1.96||p-value derived from logistic regression.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio and confidence interval are based on logistic regression with factor for treatment.|||1.96|1.43|<0.0001
91100662|NCT01243424|182087464|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.47|1.11|1.48||p-value derived from logistic regression.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio and confidence interval are based on logistic regression with factor for treatment.|This was the fifth step in a pre-defined hierarchical testing approach.||1.48|1.11|0.0004
91100663|NCT01243424|182087468|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.5249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.09||p-value derived from Wald´s chi-square test.|Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio and confidence interval derived from Cox regression with factor treatment.|This was the fifth step in a pre-defined hierarchical testing approach.||1.09|0.85|0.5249
91100664|NCT01243424|182087469|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|-0.03|||ANCOVA|The Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model includes the fixed categorical effect of treatment and the continuous covariate of baseline HbA1c.|Mean difference = Linagliptin mean - Glimepiride mean|This was the fifth step in a pre-defined hierarchical testing approach.||-0.03|-0.15|0.0023
91100665|NCT01243424|182087470|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|-4.8|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes the fixed categorical effect of treatment and the continuous covariate of baseline FPG.|Mean difference = Linagliptin mean - Glimepiride mean|This was the fifth step in a pre-defined hierarchical testing approach.||-4.8|-9.7|<0.0001
91100666|NCT01243424|182087471|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.47|-1.3|2.1|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes the fixed categorical effect of treatment and the continuous covariate of baseline LDL cholesterol.|Mean difference = Linagliptin mean - Glimepiride mean|LDL cholesterol, this was the fifth step in a pre-defined hierarchical testing approach.||2.1|-1.3|0.6400
91100667|NCT01243424|182087471|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.0|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes the fixed categorical effect of treatment and the continuous covariate of baseline HDL cholesterol.|Mean difference = Linagliptin mean - Glimepiride mean|HDL cholesterol, this was the fifth step in a pre-defined hierarchical testing approach.||1.0|0.0|0.0497
91100668|NCT01243424|182087471|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.6823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.6|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes the fixed categorical effect of treatment and the continuous covariate of baseline total cholesterol.|Mean difference = Linagliptin mean - Glimepiride mean|Total cholesterol, this was the fifth step in a pre-defined hierarchical testing approach.||1.6|-2.4|0.6823
91104423|NCT02037984|182094978|OTHER|PT19A GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT19A GMC Ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.39||||||||1.39|0.64|
90903133|NCT02855164|181673393|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: ALT (U/L) change from baseline up to EOT (Parts A + B + C) FAS|LS Mean change|-23.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.49||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.5|-15.6|||ANCOVA|||200 micrograms of Tropifexor vs placebo (Parts A + B + C)||-15.6|-30.5|0.003
90903134|NCT02855164|181673394|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: AST (U/L) change from baseline up to EOT (Full analysis set)|LS Mean change|-9.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.56||0.722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.9|3.0|||ANCOVA|||10 micrograms of Tropifexor vs placebo (Part A)||3.0|-22.9|0.722
90903135|NCT02855164|181673394|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: AST (U/L) change from baseline up to EOT (Full analysis set)|LS Mean change|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.96||0.468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|9.5|||ANCOVA|||30 micrograms of Tropifexor vs placebo (Part A)||9.5|-14.0|0.468
90903136|NCT02855164|181673394|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: AST (U/L) change from baseline up to EOT (Parts A+B) (Full analysis set)|LS Mean change|-8.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.97||0.774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.7|-1.0|||ANCOVA|||60 micrograms of Tropifexor vs placebo (Parts A+B)||-1.0|-16.7|0.774
90903137|NCT02855164|181673394|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: AST (U/L) change from baseline up to EOT (Parts A+B) (Full analysis set)|LS Mean change|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.76||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|4.9|||ANCOVA|||90 micrograms of Tropifexor vs placebo (Parts A+B)||4.9|-6.0|0.136
90903138|NCT02855164|181673394|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: AST (U/L) change from baseline up to EOT (Part C) (Full analysis set)|LS Mean change|-16.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.97||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.9|-8.2|||ANCOVA|||140 micrograms of Tropifexor vs placebo (Part C)||-8.2|-23.9|0.145
91031281|NCT01029353|181947158|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.49|||||The model was fit using PROC GENMOD in SAS, using center as the repeated effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a robust Poisson regression model, with log link and center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy over drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to IP.||1.49|0.44|
91100669|NCT01243424|182087472|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1||0.2678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|2.7|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes the fixed categorical effect of treatment and the continuous covariate of baseline FPG.|Mean difference = Linagliptin mean - Glimepiride mean|This was the fifth step in a pre-defined hierarchical testing approach.||2.7|-9.6|0.2678
91104424|NCT02037984|182094978|OTHER|PT19F GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT19F GMC Ratio|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.84||||||||1.84|0.84|
90855891|NCT03981822|181576046|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-58.43|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.26|-39.39||P-value is based on MMRM model|Mixed Models Analysis|"MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart count as factors.~An unstructured covariance model was used."||Treatment Visit 2: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||-39.39|-73.26|<0.0001
90855892|NCT03981822|181576046|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-69.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-81.61|-28.8||P-value is based on MMRM model|Mixed Models Analysis|"MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart count as factors.~An unstructured covariance model was used."||Treatment Visit 3: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||-28.80|-81.61|<0.0001
90855893|NCT03981822|181576046|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-76.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-107.19|-45.61||P-value is based on MMRM model with gender, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart count as factors.|Mixed Models Analysis|"MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart count as factors.~An unstructured covariance model was used."||Treatment Visit 4: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||-45.61|-107.19|<0.0001
90855894|NCT03981822|181576046|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-74.29||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-102.96|-31.55||P-value is based on MMRM model with gender, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart count as factors.|Mixed Models Analysis|"MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart count as factors.~An unstructured covariance model was used."||Study Day 84 End of Treatment Visit: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||-31.55|-102.96|0.0003
90855895|NCT03981822|181576046|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-77.1||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-110.32|-32.78||P-value is based on MMRM model|Mixed Models Analysis|"MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart count as factors.~An unstructured covariance model was used."||Follow-up Day 112: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||-32.78|-110.32|0.0004
90903139|NCT02855164|181673394|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: AST (U/L) change from baseline up to EOT (Part C) (Full analysis set)|LS Mean change|-15.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.49||0.236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.2|-6.4|||ANCOVA|||200 micrograms of Tropifexor vs placebo (Part C)||-6.4|-24.2|0.236
90903140|NCT02855164|181673394|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: AST (U/L) change from baseline up to EOT (Parts A+B+C) Full analysis set (FAS)|LS Mean change|-7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.0||0.788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.7|4.4|||ANCOVA|||10 micrograms of Tropifexor vs placebo (Parts A+B+ C)||4.4|-18.7|0.788
90903141|NCT02855164|181673394|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: AST (U/L) change from baseline up to EOT (Parts A+B+C) Full analysis set (FAS)|LS Mean change|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.43||0.413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|11.0|||ANCOVA|||30 micrograms of Tropifexor vs placebo (Parts A+B+ C)||11.0|-10.2|0.413
90903142|NCT02855164|181673394|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: AST (U/L) change from baseline up to EOT (Parts A+B+C) Full analysis set (FAS)|LS Mean change|-6.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.38||0.833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|1.0|||ANCOVA|||60 micrograms of Tropifexor vs placebo (Parts A+B+ C)||1.0|-13.4|0.833
90903143|NCT02855164|181673394|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: AST (U/L) change from baseline up to EOT (Parts A+B+C) Full analysis set (FAS)|LS Mean change|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.19||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|7.3|||ANCOVA|||90 micrograms of Tropifexor vs placebo (Parts A+B+ C)||7.3|-3.2|0.068
90903144|NCT02855164|181673394|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: AST (U/L) change from baseline up to EOT (Parts A+B+C) Full analysis set (FAS)|LS Mean change|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.98||0.269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|6.5|||ANCOVA|||140 micrograms of Tropifexor vs placebo (Parts A+B+ C)||6.5|-6.6|0.269
91104425|NCT02037984|182094978|OTHER|PT23F GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT23F GMC Ratio|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.23||||||||1.23|0.46|
91100670|NCT01243424|182087473|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.5165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.01|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes the fixed categorical effect of treatment and the continuous covariate of baseline creatinine.|Mean difference = Linagliptin mean - Glimepiride mean|This was the fifth step in a pre-defined hierarchical testing approach.||0.01|-0.03|0.5165
91100671|NCT01243424|182087474|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.5165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.8|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes the fixed categorical effect of treatment and the continuous covariate of baseline eGFR.|Mean difference = Linagliptin mean - Glimepiride mean|This was the fifth step in a pre-defined hierarchical testing approach.||1.8|0.2|0.5165
91100672|NCT01243424|182087475|OTHER||geometric mean (gMean) ratio (%)|0.97||||0.2921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.03|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes the fixed categorical effect of treatment and the continuous covariate of baseline UACR.|gMean ration= Linagliptin mean/ Glimepiride mean|This was the fifth step in a pre-defined hierarchical testing approach.||1.03|0.91|0.2921
90903145|NCT02855164|181673394|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: AST (U/L) change from baseline up to EOT (Parts A+B+C) Full analysis set (FAS)|LS Mean change|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.05||0.777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|2.9|||ANCOVA|||200 micrograms of Tropifexor vs placebo (Parts A+B+ C)||2.9|-10.5|0.777
90903146|NCT02855164|181673395|SUPERIORITY|ANCOVA: Relative change in percentage of fat in the liver from baseline to Week 12|LS Mean change|-7.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.174||0.853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.66|4.7|||ANCOVA|||10 microgramsof Tropifexor - Change in percentage of fat in the liver Part A||4.70|-19.66|0.853
90903147|NCT02855164|181673395|SUPERIORITY|ANCOVA: Relative change in percentage of fat in the liver from baseline to Week 12|LS Mean change|-14.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.661||0.232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.24|-2.91|||ANCOVA|||30 micrograms of Tropifexor - Change in percentage of fat in the liver Part A||-2.91|-25.24|0.232
90903148|NCT02855164|181673395|SUPERIORITY|ANCOVA: Relative change in percentage of fat in the liver from baseline to Week 12|LS Mean change|-15.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.754||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.45|-7.64|||ANCOVA|||60 micrograms of Tropifexor - Change in percentage of fat in the liver Parts A+B||-7.64|-22.45|0.077
90903149|NCT02855164|181673395|SUPERIORITY|ANCOVA: Relative change in percentage of fat in the liver from baseline|LS Mean change|-12.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.482||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.23|-7.44|||ANCOVA|||90 micrograms of Tropifexor - Change in percentage of fat in the liver Parts A+B||-7.44|-17.23|0.141
90903150|NCT02855164|181673395|SUPERIORITY|ANCOVA: Relative change in percentage of fat in the liver from baseline to Week 12|LS Mean change|-31.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.228|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.58|-20.92|||ANCOVA|||140 micrograms of Tropifexor - Change in percentage of fat in the liver Part C||-20.92|-41.58|<0.001
90903151|NCT02855164|181673395|SUPERIORITY|ANCOVA: Relative change in percentage of fat in the liver from baseline to Week 12 (Parts A+B+C)|LS Mean change|-39.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.968|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.37|-29.71|||ANCOVA|||200 micrograms of Tropifexor - Change in percentage of fat in the liver Part C||-29.71|-49.37|<0.001
90903152|NCT02855164|181673395|SUPERIORITY|ANCOVA: Relative change in percentage of fat in the liver from baseline to Week 12 (Parts A+B+C)|LS Mean change|-8.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.65||0.872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.06|2.88|||ANCOVA|||10 micrograms of Tropifexor - Change in percentage of fat in the liver Parts A+B+C||2.88|-19.06|0.872
91100673|NCT01243424|182087477|EQUIVALENCE|This was the fifth step in a pre-defined hierarchical testing approach.|Mean Difference (Net)|4.13||||0.8402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.46|44.71|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes the fixed categorical effects of treatment and the continuous covariate of baseline ISR.|Mean difference= Linagliptin mean- Glimepiride mean|||44.71|-36.46|0.8402
91100674|NCT01243424|182087478|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.9112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.18|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with terms for treatment as a fixed effect with Wald confidence Interval was used.|Linagliptin vs. Glimepiride odds is presented.|This was the fifth step in a pre-defined hierarchical testing approach.||1.18|0.86|0.9112
91100675|NCT02391584|182087492|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||p\<0.025 was considered significant.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
90903153|NCT02855164|181673395|SUPERIORITY|ANCOVA: Relative change in percentage of fat in the liver from baseline to Week 12 (Parts A+B+C)|LS Mean change|-14.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.198||0.465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.36|-3.91|||ANCOVA|||30 micrograms of Tropifexor - Change in percentage of fat in the liver Parts A+B+C||-3.91|-24.36|0.465
90903154|NCT02855164|181673395|SUPERIORITY|ANCOVA: Relative change in percentage of fat in the liver from baseline to Week 12 (Parts A+B+C)|LS Mean change|-15.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.078||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.75|-8.29|||ANCOVA|||60 micrograms of Tropifexor - Change in percentage of fat in the liver Parts A+B+C||-8.29|-21.75|0.228
91100676|NCT02391584|182087496|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Dunnett's t-test was used for the multiple comparisons with baseline. A p value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
91100677|NCT02391584|182087497|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Dunnett's t-test was used for the multiple comparisons with baseline. A p value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
91100678|NCT02391584|182087498|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Dunnett's t-test was used for the multiple comparisons with baseline. A p value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
90903155|NCT02855164|181673395|SUPERIORITY|ANCOVA: Relative change in percentage of fat in the liver from baseline to Week 12 (Parts A+B+C)|LS Mean change|-12.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.717||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.04|-8.08|||ANCOVA|||90 micrograms - Change in percentage of fat in the liver Parts A+B+C||-8.08|-17.04|0.370
90903156|NCT02855164|181673395|SUPERIORITY|ANCOVA: Relative change in percentage of fat in the liver from baseline to Week 12 (Parts A+B+C)|LS Mean change|-18.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.517||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.51|-12.91|||ANCOVA|||140 micrograms - Change in percentage of fat in the liver Parts A+B+C||-12.91|-24.51|0.029
90959007|NCT02482870|181798198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|4.6||A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||4.6|3|<0.0001
91100679|NCT02391584|182087499|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Dunnett's t-test was used for the multiple comparisons with baseline. A p value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
91104426|NCT02037984|182094978|OTHER|non-PT22F GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|non-PT22F GMC Ratio|77.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.6|116.6||||||||116.60|51.60|
91104427|NCT02037984|182094978|OTHER|non-PT33F GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|non-PT33F GMC Ratio|15.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.46|28.98||||||||28.98|8.46|
91100680|NCT00710554|182087501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||estimated mean treatment difference|-0.34||||0.139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.11|||ANCOVA|||The model used for the analysis of the end of study value was an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline value as a covariate and treatment group and centre group as main effect. Due to the low power of the test for interaction, the test was performed at the 10% significance level as a possible indicator of an interactive effect. The null hypothesis was one of no difference between treatments.||0.11|-0.79|0.139
90903157|NCT02855164|181673395|SUPERIORITY|ANCOVA: Relative change in percentage of fat in the liver from baseline to Week 12 (Parts A+B+C)|LS Mean change|-34.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.482|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.13|-28.64|||ANCOVA|||200 micrograms of Tropifexor - Change in percentage of fat in the liver Parts A+B+C||-28.64|-40.13|<0.001
90903158|NCT02855164|181673396|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: Change in weight from baseline to EOT (Parts A + B) (Full analysis set)|LS Mean change|-1.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.608||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.99|0.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||10 micrograms of Tropifexor (Part A) vs Placebo||0.59|-2.99|0.010
90903159|NCT02855164|181673396|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: Change in weight from baseline to EOT (Parts A + B) (Full analysis set)|LS Mean change|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.567||0.237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||30 micrograms of Tropifexor (Part A) vs Placebo||0.34|-1.90|0.237
90903160|NCT02855164|181673396|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: Change in weight from baseline to EOT (Parts A + B) (Full analysis set)|LS Mean change|-1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.377||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||60 micrograms of Tropifexor (Parts A + B) vs Placebo||0.31|-1.80|0.037
90903161|NCT02855164|181673396|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: Change in weight from baseline to EOT (Parts A + B) (Full analysis set)|LS Mean change|-1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.253||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|0.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|||90 micrograms of Tropifexor (Parts A + B) vs Placebo||0.65|-1.65|0.007
90903162|NCT02855164|181673396|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: Change in weight from baseline to EOT (Parts C) (Full analysis set)|LS Mean change|-5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.988||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.05|-3.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||140 micrograms of Tropifexor (Part C) vs Placebo||-3.14|-7.05|0.053
90903163|NCT02855164|181673396|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: Change in weight from baseline to EOT (Parts C) (Full analysis set)|LS Mean change|-5.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.002||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.87|-3.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||200 micrograms of Tropifexor (Part C) vs Placebo||-3.91|-7.87|0.013
90903164|NCT02855164|181673397|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: Change in BMI from baseline to EOT (Full analysis set)|LS Mean change|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.208||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||10 micrograms of Tropifexor (Part A) vs Placebo||0.23|-1.05|0.006
91031282|NCT01029353|181947159|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|11.6|||||The model was fit using PROC MIXED in SAS, using center as the random effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a mixed linear regression model, using center as the random effect. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy minus drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to NEC.||11.60|-14.10|
91100681|NCT00710554|182087502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-2.86||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.22|1.5|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline in mean Neuropathic Pain Scale score was compared between treatment groups and centres using ANCOVA. The model was to include treatment and centre group as factors and baseline mean usage as a covariate.||1.50|-7.22|0.198
91104428|NCT02037984|182094979|OTHER|PT1 GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT1 GMC Ratio|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.93||||||||0.93|0.50|
90903165|NCT02855164|181673397|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: Change in BMI from baseline to EOT (Full analysis set)|LS Mean change|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.194||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||30 micrograms of Tropifexor (Part A) vs Placebo||0.09|-0.67|0.177
90903166|NCT02855164|181673397|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: Change in BMI from baseline to EOT (Parts C) (Full analysis set)|LS Mean change|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||60 micrograms of Tropifexor (Parts A + B) vs Placebo||0.10|-0.61|0.032
90903167|NCT02855164|181673397|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: Change in BMI from baseline to EOT (Full analysis set)|LS Mean change|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.087||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||90 micrograms of Tropifexor (Parts A + B) vs Placebo||0.25|-0.59|0.003
90903168|NCT02855164|181673397|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: Change in BMI from baseline to EOT (Full analysis set)|LS Mean change|-1.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.322||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|-1.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||140 micrograms of Tropifexor (Part C) vs Placebo||-1.24|-2.51|0.015
91104429|NCT02037984|182094979|OTHER|PT3 GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT3 GMC Ratio|2.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.62|3.02||||||||3.02|1.62|
90903169|NCT02855164|181673397|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: Change in BMI from baseline to EOT (Parts C) (Full analysis set)|LS Mean change|-2.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.327||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.75|-1.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||200 micrograms of Tropifexor (Part C) vs Placebo||-1.46|-2.75|0.004
90903170|NCT02855164|181673398|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: Change in WTH ratio from baseline to EOT (Parts A+B) (Full analysis set)|LS Mean change|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.009||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||10 micrograms of Tropifexor (Part A) vs Placebo||0.01|-0.03|0.530
90903171|NCT02855164|181673398|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: Change in WTH ratio from baseline to EOT (Parts A+B) (Full analysis set)|LS Mean change|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.008||0.857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||30 micrograms of Tropifexor (Part A) vs Placebo||0.01|-0.02|0.857
90903172|NCT02855164|181673398|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: Change in WTH ratio from baseline to EOT (Parts A+B) (Full analysis set)|LS Mean change|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.005||0.262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||60 micrograms of Tropifexor (Part A) vs Placebo||0.00|-0.02|0.262
90903173|NCT02855164|181673398|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: Change in WTH ratio from baseline to EOT (Parts A+B) (Full analysis set)|LS Mean change|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.004||0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||90 micrograms of Tropifexor (Parts A + B) vs Placebo||0.01|0.00|0.323
90959008|NCT02482870|181798199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.4||A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.4|0.5|<0.0001
91100682|NCT00710554|182087503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.83||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|-0.23|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline score was compared between treatment groups and centres using ANCOVA. The model was to include treatment and centre group as factors and baseline mean usage as a covariate.||-0.23|-1.43|0.007
91100683|NCT00710554|182087504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|0.08||||0.795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.68|||ANCOVA|||The change in the dynamic allodynia pain score from baseline to the end of treatment was analysed using ANCOVA with the baseline value as a covariate and country and treatment group as factors.||0.68|-0.52|0.795
91100684|NCT00710554|182087505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.14||||0.233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.09|||ANCOVA|||The change in the punctate allodynia pain threshold force from baseline to the end of treatment was analysed using ANCOVA with the baseline value as a covariate and country and treatment group as factors.||0.09|-0.37|0.233
91100685|NCT00710554|182087506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.762||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|2.88|||Regression, Logistic|||The two treatment groups were compared using ordinal logistic regression and the proportional odds model. The initial model incorporated treatment and centre group as factors. The odds ratio together with its 95% CI and associated p-value are presented.||2.88|1.08|0.023
91100686|NCT00710554|182087507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.25||||0.288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.21|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline in mean Brief Pain Inventory (short form) score was compared between treatment groups and centres using ANCOVA. The model was to include treatment and centre group as factors and baseline mean usage as a covariate.||0.21|-0.72|0.288
90855896|NCT03981822|181576046|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-77.52||||0.0178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-120.82|-11.88||P-value is based on MMRM model|Mixed Models Analysis|"MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart count as factors.~An unstructured covariance model was used."||Follow-up Visit Day 147 End of Study: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||-11.88|-120.82|0.0178
90855897|NCT03981822|181576047|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004||||||P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment Visit 2: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.0004
90855898|NCT03981822|181576047|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005||||||P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment Visit 2: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.0005
90855899|NCT03981822|181576047|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0698||||||P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment Visit 3: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.0698
90855900|NCT03981822|181576047|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment Visit 3: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.0100
90855901|NCT03981822|181576047|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0101||||||P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment Visit 4: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.0101
90903174|NCT02855164|181673398|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: Change in WTH ratio from baseline to EOT (Part C) (Full analysis set)|LS Mean change|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.008||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||140 micrograms of Tropifexor (Part C) vs Placebo||0.01|-0.02|0.100
90903175|NCT02855164|181673398|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: Change in WTH ratio from baseline to EOT (Part C) (Full analysis set)|LS Mean change|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.007||0.693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||200 micrograms of Tropifexor (Part C) vs Placebo||0.00|-0.03|0.693
91100687|NCT00710554|182087508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.01||||0.617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.04|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline in mean EuroQol-5D score was compared between treatment groups and centres using ANCOVA. The model included treatment and centre groups as factors and baseline mean usage as a covariate.||0.04|-0.06|0.617
90855902|NCT03981822|181576047|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0077||||||P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment Visit 4: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.0077
90855903|NCT03981822|181576047|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.064||||||P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Study Day 84 EOT Visit: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.0640
90903176|NCT02855164|181673410|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.004||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.214|0.223|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At least one point improvement in fibrosis (NASH CRN staging) without worsening of steatohepatitis (total score)||0.223|-0.214|1.0000
91104430|NCT02037984|182094979|OTHER|PT4 GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT4 GMG Ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.31||||||||1.31|0.71|
90855904|NCT03981822|181576047|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0045||||||P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Study Day 84 EOT: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.0045
90855905|NCT03981822|181576047|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.284||||||P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Follow-up Visit Day 112: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.2840
90855906|NCT03981822|181576047|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0132||||||P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Follow-up Visit Day 112: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.0132
90855907|NCT03981822|181576047|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4668||||||P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Follow-up Visit Day 147 EOS: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.4668
90855908|NCT03981822|181576047|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0064||||||P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Follow-up Visit Day 147 EOS: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.0064
90855909|NCT03981822|181576048|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0364|||||||Mantel Haenszel|Stratified by gender||Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.0364
90855910|NCT03981822|181576048|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0215|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by gender||Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.0215
90903177|NCT02855164|181673410|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.029||||0.8074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.196|0.251|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At least one point improvement in fibrosis (NASH CRN staging) without worsening of steatohepatitis (total score)||0.251|-0.196|0.8074
91104431|NCT02037984|182094979|OTHER|PT5 GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT5 GMC Ratio|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.79||||||||0.79|0.36|
91100688|NCT00710554|182087509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.459||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|4.09|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline in mean EuroQol-5D score was compared between treatment groups and centres using ANCOVA. The model included treatment and centre groups as factors and baseline mean usage as a covariate.||4.09|-5.60|0.76
91100689|NCT00710554|182087510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.38||||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.09|||ANCOVA|||The model used for the analysis of the end of study value was an ANCOVA with baseline value as a covariate and treatment group and centre group as main effect. The null hypothesis was one of no difference between treatments.||0.09|-0.85|0.112
91100690|NCT00292370|182087514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
90855911|NCT03981822|181576049|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-59.63||||0.1222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.1|9.23||Analysis is based on MMRM model|Mixed Models Analysis|"MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart area as factors.~An unstructured covariance model was used."||Study Day 84 (EOT: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||9.23|-76.10|0.1222
90903178|NCT02855164|181673411|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.028||||0.807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.191|0.246|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At least one point improvement in fibrosis (NASH CRN staging) without worsening of steatohepatitis (FDA)||0.246|-0.191|0.8070
91100691|NCT01301001|182087523|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.0|-0.7|0.07
91100692|NCT01301001|182087524|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.6|-0.9|0.76
91100693|NCT01301001|182087525|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.2|-0.5|0.36
91100694|NCT03737032|182087543|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: post-TBS dmPFC activation will not vary by TBS condition. This is tested using the main effect of condition in a repeated measures model.||||0.80
91100695|NCT03737032|182087544|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA with time (pre or post), condition (cTBS, iTBS, sham TBS), and time\*condition effects.||Null hypothesis: pre-post change in positive affect will not vary by TBS condition. This is tested using the interaction of time\*condition in a repeated measures model.||||0.23
91100696|NCT03737032|182087545|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: post-TBS functional connectivity between the dmPFC and ventral striatum (VS) will not vary by TBS condition. This is tested using the main effect of condition in a repeated measures model.||||0.84
91100697|NCT02421510|182087556|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.058|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.25||Threshold for significance \<= 0.05|MMRM||Sotagliflozin 200 mg versus Placebo|LS means and p-values were obtained from MMRM model with treatment, randomization strata of insulin delivery (MDI, CSII) and Week -2 A1C (\<= 8.5%, \>8.5%), time (study week), and a treatment-by-time interaction as fixed categorical effects, and baseline A1C-by-time interaction as a covariate.||-0.25|-0.48|< 0.001
91100698|NCT02421510|182087556|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.24||Threshold for significance \<= 0.05|MMRM||Sotagliflozin 400 mg versus Placebo|LS means and p-values were obtained from Mixed effect Model Repeat Measurement (MMRM) model with treatment, randomization strata of insulin delivery (MDI, CSII) and Week -2 A1C (\<= 8.5%, \>8.5%), time (study week), and a treatment-by-time interaction as fixed categorical effects, and baseline A1C- by-time interaction as a covariate.||-0.24|-0.47|< 0.001
91100699|NCT02421510|182087557|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints were reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.|Percentage difference|16.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.17|23.43||Threshold for significance \<= 0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Sotagliflozin 200 mg versus Placebo|P-values were obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the different levels of the randomization stratification factors of insulin delivery method (MDI, CSII) and Week -2 A1C (\<=8.5%, \>8.5%). The 95% Confidence Limits (CL) were calculated using asymptotic Wald method. Only positively adjudicated severe hypoglycemia and diabetic ketoacidosis were included in the analysis.||23.43|9.17|< 0.001
91100700|NCT02421510|182087557|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints were reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.|Percentage difference|17.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.06|24.35||Threshold for significance \<= 0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Sotagliflozin 400 mg versus Placebo|P-values were obtained from a CMH test stratified by the different levels of the randomization stratification factors of insulin delivery method (MDI, CSII) and Week -2 A1C (\<= 8.5%, \>8.5%). The 95% CL were calculated using asymptotic Wald method.||24.35|10.06|< 0.001
91100701|NCT02421510|182087558|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints were reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.|Least squares mean difference|-1.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.276|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.53|-1.44||Threshold for significance \<= 0.05|MMRM||Sotagliflozin 200 mg versus Placebo|LS means and p-values were obtained from MMRM model with treatment, randomization strata of insulin delivery (MDI, CSII) and Week -2 A1C (\<= 8.5%, \>8.5%), time (study week), and a treatment-by-time interaction as fixed categorical effects.||-1.44|-2.53|< 0.001
91100702|NCT02421510|182087558|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints were reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.|Least squares mean difference|-2.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.276|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.12|-2.04|||MMRM||Sotagliflozin 400 mg versus Placebo|LS means and p-values were obtained from MMRM model with treatment, randomization strata of insulin delivery (MDI, CSII) and Week -2 A1C (\<= 8.5%, \>8.5%), time (study week), and a treatment-by-time interaction as fixed categorical effects.||-2.04|-3.12|< 0.001
91104432|NCT02037984|182094979|OTHER|PT6A GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT6A GMC Ratio|0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.94||||||||0.94|0.26|
91104433|NCT02037984|182094979|OTHER|PT6B GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT6B GMG Ratio|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.77||||||||0.77|0.17|
90903179|NCT02855164|181673411|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.052||||0.6233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.173|0.273|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At least one point improvement in fibrosis (NASH CRN staging) without worsening of steatohepatitis (FDA)||0.273|-0.173|0.6233
91100703|NCT02421510|182087559|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints were reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.|Least squares mean difference|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.847|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.86|-1.53||Threshold for significance \<=0.05|MMRM||Sotagliflozin 200 mg versus Placebo|LS means and p-values were obtained from MMRM model with treatment, randomization strata of insulin delivery (MDI, CSII) and Week -2 A1C (\<= 8.5%, \>8.5%), time (study week), and a treatment-by-time interaction as fixed categorical effects, and Baseline mean daily bolus insulin dose-by-time interaction as a covariate.||-1.53|-4.86|< 0.001
91100704|NCT02421510|182087559|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints were reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.|Least squares mean difference|-3.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.845|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.25|-1.93||Threshold for significance \<= 0.05|MMRM||Sotagliflozin 400 mg versus Placebo|LS means and p-values were obtained from MMRM model with treatment, randomization strata of insulin delivery (MDI, CSII) and Week -2 A1C (\<= 8.5%, \>8.5%), time (study week), and a treatment-by-time interaction as fixed categorical effects, and Baseline mean daily bolus insulin dose-by-time interaction as a covariate.||-1.93|-5.25|< 0.001
91100705|NCT02421510|182087560|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints were reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.|Least squares mean difference|-21.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.38|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.2|-11.0||Threshold for significance \<= 0.05|MMRM||Sotagliflozin 200 mg versus Placebo|LS means and p-values were obtained from MMRM model with treatment, randomization strata of insulin delivery (MDI, CSII) and Week -2 A1C (\<= 8.5%, \>8.5%), time (study week), and a treatment-by-time interaction as fixed categorical effects, and baseline Fasting Plasma Glucose-by-time interaction as a covariate.||-11|-32.2|< 0.001
91100706|NCT02421510|182087560|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints were reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.|Least squares mean difference|-25.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.37|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.2|-15.1||Threshold for significance \<= 0.05|MMRM||Sotagliflozin 400 mg versus Placebo|LS means and p-values were obtained from MMRM model with treatment, randomization strata of insulin delivery (MDI, CSII) and Week -2 A1C (\<= 8.5%, \>8.5%), time (study week), and a treatment-by-time interaction as fixed categorical effects, and baseline Fasting Plasma Glucose-by-time interaction as a covariate.||-15.1|-36.2|< 0.001
90903180|NCT02855164|181673412|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.004||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.214|0.233|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At least one point improvement in fibrosis (NASH CRN staging) without worsening of steatohepatitis (EMA)||0.233|-0.214|1.0000
90903181|NCT02855164|181673412|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.029||||0.8074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.196|0.251|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At least one point improvement in fibrosis (NASH CRN staging) without worsening of steatohepatitis (EMA)||0.251|-0.196|0.8074
91031283|NCT01029353|181947159|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.84|0.13|||||The model was fit using PROC MIXED in SAS, using center as the random effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a mixed linear regression model, using center as the random effect. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy minus drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to IP.||0.13|-15.84|
91100707|NCT02421510|182087561|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints were reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.|Least squares mean difference|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.7||Threshold for significance \<= 0.05.|MMRM||Sotagliflozin 200 mg versus Placebo|LS means and p-values were obtained from MMRM model with treatment, randomization strata of insulin delivery (MDI, CSII) and Week -2 A1C (\<= 8.5%, \>8.5%), time (study week), and a treatment-by-time interaction as fixed categorical effects, and baseline DTSQs total score-by-time interaction as a covariate.||2.7|1.3|< 0.001
91104434|NCT02037984|182094979|OTHER|PT7F GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT7F GMC Ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.85||||||||0.85|0.42|
90903182|NCT02855164|181673413|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.034||||0.7028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.184|0.252|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Resolution of steatohepatitis (diagnostic category) without worsening of fibrosis (NASH CRN staging)||0.252|-0.184|0.7028
90903183|NCT02855164|181673413|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.129||||0.1713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.098|0.345|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Resolution of steatohepatitis (diagnostic category) without worsening of fibrosis (NASH CRN staging)||0.345|-0.098|0.1713
90903184|NCT02855164|181673414|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.057||||0.2033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.168|0.278|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Resolution of steatohepatitis (FDA, EMA) without worsening of fibrosis (NASH CRN staging)||0.278|-0.168|0.2033
90903185|NCT00383240|181673432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-Value for Endpoint|ANCOVA|||||||<.001
90903186|NCT00383240|181673432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-Value for Endpoint|ANCOVA|||||||<.001
90903187|NCT00383240|181673432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-Value for Endpoint|ANCOVA|||||||<.001
90903188|NCT00383240|181673432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.491||95.0||||P-Value for Endpoint|ANCOVA|||||||0.491
90903189|NCT00383240|181673432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.055||95.0||||P-Value for Endpoint|ANCOVA|||||||0.055
90903190|NCT00383240|181673432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.008||95.0||||P-Value for Endpoint|ANCOVA|||||||0.008
90903191|NCT00383240|181673433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.174||95.0||||P-Value for Endpoint|ANCOVA|||||||0.174
90903192|NCT00383240|181673433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-Value for Endpoint|ANCOVA|||||||<.001
90903193|NCT00383240|181673433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-Value for Endpoint|ANCOVA|||||||<.001
90903194|NCT00383240|181673433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-Value for Endpoint|ANCOVA|||||||<.001
90903195|NCT00383240|181673433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-Value for Endpoint|ANCOVA|||||||<.001
90903196|NCT00383240|181673433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.521||95.0||||P-Value for Endpoint|ANCOVA|||||||0.521
90903197|NCT00383240|181673435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.026||95.0||||P-Value for Endpoint|ANCOVA|||||||0.026
90903198|NCT00383240|181673435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-Value for Endpoint|ANCOVA|||||||<.001
90903199|NCT00383240|181673435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-Value for Endpoint|ANCOVA|||||||<.001
90903200|NCT00383240|181673435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-Value for Endpoint|ANCOVA|||||||<.001
91031284|NCT01029353|181947160|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.15|4.01|||||The model was fit using PROC MIXED in SAS, using center as the random effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a mixed linear regression model, using center as the random effect. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy minus drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to NEC.||4.01|-27.15|
91104435|NCT02037984|182094979|OTHER|PT9V GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT9V GMC Ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.16||||||||1.16|0.54|
90903201|NCT00383240|181673435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-Value for Endpoint|ANCOVA|||||||<.001
90903202|NCT00383240|181673435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.738||95.0||||P-Value for Endpoint|ANCOVA|||||||0.738
90903203|NCT00383240|181673436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.063||95.0||||P-Value for endpoint|ANCOVA|||||||0.063
90903204|NCT00383240|181673436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-Value for Endpoint|ANCOVA|||||||<.001
90903205|NCT00383240|181673436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-Value for Endpoint|ANCOVA|||||||<.001
90903206|NCT00383240|181673436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-Value for Endpoint|ANCOVA|||||||<.001
90903207|NCT00383240|181673436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.003||95.0||||P-Value for Endpoint|ANCOVA|||||||0.003
91077913|NCT02913105|182041137|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.91||||0.0105|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.86|0.97|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||HDL Cholesterol: Day 42||0.97|0.86|0.0105
90903208|NCT00383240|181673436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.601||95.0||||P-Value for Endpoint|ANCOVA|||||||0.601
90903209|NCT02049710|181673438|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|15.0||||||Summation scores are reported across 3 items measured on a 5-point scale from 1(not at all sure)to5(very sure), which loaded together on a principal components analysis of the baseline data.The summation score thus represents a theoretical range from 3 to 15.The 3 items were as follows:Indicate How Sure You are that You Would be Able to Perform Each of the Following:a)Get the money needed to buy condoms b)Walk into a store\&buy condoms c)Find a place to get condoms for free(Cronbach alpha-0.72)||15|3|
90903210|NCT01216293|181673445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|19.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|30.2|||||Difference estimated using Hodges-Lehmann estimation, and corresponding 95% CIs calculated using Moses method.|||30.2|7.0|
90903211|NCT01216293|181673445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|18.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.7|30.4|||||Difference estimated using Hodges-Lehmann estimation, and corresponding 95% CIs calculated using Moses method.|||30.4|6.7|
90903212|NCT01216293|181673446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|27.366|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.749|42.957|||||Difference estimated using Hodges-Lehmann estimation, and corresponding 95% CIs calculated using Moses method.|||42.957|12.749|
90903213|NCT01216293|181673446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|22.025|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.357|35.714|||||Difference estimated using Hodges-Lehmann estimation, and corresponding 95% CIs calculated using Moses method.|||35.714|8.357|
90903214|NCT01216293|181673447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|20.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|34.4|||||Difference estimated using Hodges-Lehmann estimation, and corresponding 95% CIs calculated using Moses method.|||34.4|4.0|
90903215|NCT01216293|181673447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|11.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|28.3|||||Difference estimated using Hodges-Lehmann estimation, and corresponding 95% CIs calculated using Moses method.|||28.3|-2.7|
90903216|NCT01216293|181673448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|6.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|12.78|||||Difference estimated using Hodges-Lehmann estimation, and corresponding 95% CIs calculated using Moses method.|||12.78|0.40|
90903217|NCT01216293|181673448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|7.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|12.86|||||Difference estimated using Hodges-Lehmann estimation, and corresponding 95% CIs calculated using Moses method.|||12.86|0.59|
90903218|NCT02555371|181673479|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.86|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model||Treatment comparison between mepolizumab 100 mg SC and placebo using hazards ratio and 95% confidence interval has been presented.|||0.86|0.45|0.004
90903219|NCT02555371|181673480|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.24|||Mixed model repeated measures||Treatment comparison between mepolizumab 100 mg SC and placebo using ratio of mepolizumab to placebo and its 95% confidence interval at Week 12 has been presented.|||0.24|0.15|<0.001
90903220|NCT02555371|181673480|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.2|||Mixed model repeated measures||Treatment comparison between mepolizumab 100 mg SC and placebo using ratio of mepolizumab to placebo and its 95% confidence interval at Week 24 has been presented.|||0.20|0.12|<0.001
90903221|NCT02555371|181673480|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.24|||Mixed model repeated measures||Treatment comparison between mepolizumab 100 mg SC and placebo using ratio of mepolizumab to placebo and its 95% confidence interval at Week 36 has been presented.|||0.24|0.15|<0.001
91104436|NCT02037984|182094979|OTHER|PT14 GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar®)|PT9V GMC Ratio|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.14||||||||1.14|0.48|
90903222|NCT02555371|181673480|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.2|||Mixed model repeated measures||Treatment comparison between mepolizumab 100 mg SC and placebo using ratio of mepolizumab to placebo and its 95% confidence interval at Week 52 has been presented.|||0.20|0.13|<0.001
90903223|NCT02555371|181673481|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.88|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model||Treatment comparison between mepolizumab 100 mg SC and placebo using hazards ratio and 95% confidence interval has been presented.|||0.88|0.49|0.005
91104437|NCT02037984|182094979|OTHER|PT18C GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT18C GMC Ratio|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.95||||||||0.95|0.46|
90855912|NCT03981822|181576049|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-69.51||||0.0403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-81.3|-1.9||Analysis based on MMRM model|Mixed Models Analysis|"MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart area as factors.~An unstructured covariance model was used."||Study Day 112 (EOT: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||-1.90|-81.30|0.0403
90855913|NCT03981822|181576049|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-58.88||||0.0863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.79|5.33||Analysis is based on MMRM model|Mixed Models Analysis|"MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart area as factors.~An unstructured covariance model was used."||Follow-up Visit Day 147 (EOS): Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||5.33|-77.79|0.0863
90855914|NCT03981822|181576049|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-62.13||||0.0428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.76|-1.73||Analysis is based on MMRM model|Mixed Models Analysis|"MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart area as factors.~An unstructured covariance model was used."||Study Day 84 (EOT): Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||-1.73|-100.76|0.0428
90855915|NCT03981822|181576049|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-71.93||||0.0084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-110.46|-17.0||Analysis is based on MMRM model|Mixed Models Analysis|"MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart area as factors.~An unstructured covariance model was used."||Follow-up Day 112: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||-17.00|-110.46|0.0084
90855916|NCT03981822|181576049|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-63.11||||0.0273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-103.08|-6.35||Analysis is based on MMRM model|Mixed Models Analysis|"MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart area as factors.~An unstructured covariance model was used."||Follow-up Visit Day 147 (EOS): Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||-6.35|-103.08|0.0273
90855917|NCT03981822|181576050|SUPERIORITY|Analysis is based on MMRM model|LS mean difference|-44.65||||0.3083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.96|22.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|"MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart area as factors.~An unstructured covariance model was used."||Study Day 84 (EOT): Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||22.47|-69.96|0.3083
90855918|NCT03981822|181576050|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-55.8||||0.1686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-86.93|15.56||Analysis is based on MMRM model|Mixed Models Analysis|"MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart area as factors.~An unstructured covariance model was used."||Follow-up Day 112: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||15.56|-86.93|0.1686
90855919|NCT03981822|181576050|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-38.06||||0.2384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-87.04|22.1||Analysis is based on MMRM model|Mixed Models Analysis|"MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart area as factors.~An unstructured covariance model was used."||Follow-up Visit Day 147 End of Study: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||22.10|-87.04|0.2384
90855920|NCT03981822|181576050|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-61.96||||0.0603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-103.37|2.27||Analysis is based on MMRM model|Mixed Models Analysis|"MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart area as factors.~An unstructured covariance model was used."||Study Day 84 (EOT): Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||2.27|-103.37|0.0603
90855921|NCT03981822|181576050|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-74.87||||0.0109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-138.71|-18.83||Analysis is based on MMRM model|Mixed Models Analysis|"MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart area as factors.~An unstructured covariance model was used."||Follow-up Visit Day 112: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||-18.83|-138.71|0.0109
90855922|NCT03981822|181576050|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-66.62||||0.0467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-127.64|-0.99||Analysis is base on MMRM model|Mixed Models Analysis|"MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart area as factors.~An unstructured covariance model was used."||Follow-up Visit Day 147 End of Study: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||-0.99|-127.64|0.0467
90855923|NCT03463031|181576088|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.2|-0.9|0.001
90855924|NCT03463031|181576089|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.3|-1.0|<0.001
90855925|NCT03463031|181576090|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||||-0.1|-0.5|< 0.001
90855926|NCT03463031|181576091|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.1|-0.6|0.233
90855927|NCT03170232|181576166|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-67.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|159.7||0.679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-400.6|266.2|||Repeated measures random coefficient|||||266.2|-400.6|0.679
90903224|NCT02555371|181673482|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.33||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.51|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model||Treatment comparison between mepolizumab 100 mg SC and placebo using hazards ratio and 95% confidence interval has been presented.|||3.51|0.50|0.570
90903225|NCT03615482|181673520|OTHER|Difference in Percent vs. Non-concomitant Group|Difference in Percent|-0.9||||0.617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|2.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen|Estimated differences, confidence intervals (CIs), and p-values were calculated based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.||Injection-Site Erythema||2.7|-4.5|0.617
90903226|NCT03615482|181673520|OTHER|Difference in Percent vs. Non-concomitant Group|Difference in Percent|-2.6||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|2.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen|Estimated differences, confidence intervals (CIs), and p-values were calculated based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.||Injection-Site Pain||2.6|-7.8|0.320
91104438|NCT02037984|182094979|OTHER|PT19A GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT19A GMC Ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.02||||||||1.02|0.48|
91031285|NCT01029353|181947160|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.46|2.2|||||The model was fit using PROC MIXED in SAS, using center as the random effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a mixed linear regression model, using center as the random effect. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy minus drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to IP.||2.20|-17.46|
91031286|NCT01029353|181947161|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.84|26.83|||||The model was fit using PROC MIXED in SAS, using center as the random effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a mixed linear regression model, using center as the random effect. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy minus drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to NEC.||26.83|-18.84|
90855928|NCT02117414|181576193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|100.0|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|97.75|||A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|one-proportion binomial exact test|||The alternative hypothesis is that the MRI-related event-free rate between the MRI procedure and one month post-MRI is greater than 90%. The null hypothesis will be rejected if the one-sided 97.5% lower confidence bound is greater than 90% or, equivalently, if the p-value is less than 0.025. Assuming type I error rate 0.025, even-free rate under null hypothesis 90% and true even-free rate 0.995, the minimum required sample size is 54 MRI scanned subjects in order to obtain 90% power.|||97.75|<0.0001
90855929|NCT02117414|181576194|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was 10%.|Difference in percentages|1.2|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|||A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|Farrington-Manning non-inferiority test|||"The percentage of subjects who experience a VPCT increase less than or equal to 0.5V from the pre-MRI/waiting period to one month post-MRI/waiting period in the MRI group is greater than that in the Control group minus 10%.~H0: % successes MRI group ≤ % successes Control group - 10% HA: % successes MRI group \> % successes Control group - 10%"|||-3.8|<0.0001
90855930|NCT02117414|181576195|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is 8%.|Difference in percentages|0.6||||0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|||A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|Farrington-Manning non-inferiority test|||"The percentage of subjects who do not experience a significant decrease in ventricular sensing amplitude from the pre-MRI/waiting period to one month post-MRI/waiting period is greater than that in the Control group minus 8%.~H0: % successes MRI group ≤ % successes Control group - 8% HA: % successes MRI group \> % successes Control group - 8%"|||-4.1|0.0001
90855931|NCT02117414|181576196|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis will be rejected if the one-sided 95% log-log transformed lower confidence bound at 120 days post-implant calculated using Kaplan-Meier (K-M) method is greater than 80%.|Complication-free rate|95.9|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|93.0|||A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Kaplan-Meier method|||"The system-related complication-free rate between the implant procedure and the one month post-MRI/waiting period is greater than 80%.~H0: p ≤ 0.80 HA: p \> 0.80 where p is the system-related complication-free rate between the implant procedure and 120 days (the approximate time of the one month post-MRI/waiting period visit)."|||93.0|<0.0001
90855932|NCT02117414|181576197|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is 10%.|Difference in percentages|1.2|||<|1e-05|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-3.1|||A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Farrington-Manning non-inferiority test|||"The percentage of subjects who have a defibrillation impedance between 20 and 100 ohms at the one month post-MRI/waiting period visit in the MRI group is greater than that in the Control group minus 10%.~H0: % successes MRI group ≤ % successes Control group - 10% HA: % successes MRI group \> % successes Control group - 10% Where % successes means the % of subjects whose defibrillation impedance at the one month post-MRI/waiting period visit is between 20 and 100 ohms."|||-3.1|<0.00001
90855933|NCT02117414|181576198|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is 10%|Difference in percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. Because the success rate was 100% in each group, a p-value could not be calculated.|Farrington-Manning non-inferiority test|||"The percentage of subjects who have a SVC defibrillation impedance between 20 and 100 ohms at the one month post-MRI/waiting period visit in the MRI group is greater than that in the Control group minus 10%.~H0: % successes MRI group ≤ % successes Control group - 10% HA: % successes MRI group \> % successes Control group - 10% Where % successes means the % of subjects whose SVC defibrillation impedance at the one month post-MRI/waiting period visit is between 20 and 100 ohms."||||
90855934|NCT02117414|181576199|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is 10%.|Difference in percentages|-1.3||||0.006|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-7.0||||Farrington-Manning non-inferiority test|||"The percentage of subjects who experience an APCT increase less than or equal to 0.5V from the pre-MRI/waiting period to one month post-MRI/waiting period in the MRI group is greater than that in the Control group minus 10%.~H0: % successes MRI group ≤ % successes Control group - 10% HA: % successes MRI group \> % successes Control group - 10%"|||-7.0|0.006
90855935|NCT02117414|181576200|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is 10%.|Difference in percentages|0.3||||0.005|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-6.2|||A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|Farrington-Manning non-inferiority test|||"The percentage of subjects who do not experience a 50% decrease in atrial sensing amplitude from the pre-MRI/waiting period to one month post-MRI/waiting period is greater than that in the Control group minus 10%.~H0: % successes MRI group ≤ % successes Control group - 10% HA: % successes MRI group \> % successes Control group - 10%"|||-6.2|0.005
90855936|NCT00701376|181576201|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.32||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|99.8|-15.6|2.94|||paired t-test|||||2.94|-15.6|0.03
90855937|NCT00701376|181576202|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.56||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|99.8|-22.0|6.83|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||6.83|-22.0|0.08
91077914|NCT02913105|182041137|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.92||||0.0217|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.86|0.98|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||HDL Cholesterol: Day 56||0.98|0.86|0.0217
90855938|NCT00701376|181576203|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.84||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|99.8|-7.55|19.2|||paired t-test|||||19.2|-7.55|0.14
90855939|NCT00701376|181576205|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|99.8|-0.38|-0.02|||paired t-test|||||-0.02|-0.38|<0.001
90855940|NCT00701376|181576206|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.23||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|99.8|-0.68|0.23|||paired t-test|||||0.23|-0.68|0.10
90903227|NCT03615482|181673520|OTHER|Difference in Percent vs. Non-concomitant Group|Difference in Percent|-2.1||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|2.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen|Estimated differences, confidence intervals (CIs), and p-values were calculated based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.||Injection-Site Swelling||2.0|-6.2|0.310
90855941|NCT00701376|181576207|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.72||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|99.8|-8.68|5.25|||paired t-test|||||5.25|-8.68|0.21
90855942|NCT00701376|181576209|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.002
90855943|NCT00701376|181576210|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.04
90903228|NCT03615482|181673521|OTHER|Difference in Percent vs. Non-concomitant Group|Difference in Percent|-2.2||||0.205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|1.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen|Estimated differences, confidence intervals (CIs), and p-values were calculated based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.||Arthralgia||1.2|-5.8|0.205
90903229|NCT03615482|181673521|OTHER|Difference in Percent vs. Non-concomitant Group|Difference in Percent|-2.9||||0.273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|2.3|||Miettinen & Nurminen|Estimated differences, confidence intervals (CIs), and p-values were calculated based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.||Fatigue||2.3|-8.0|0.273
90903230|NCT03615482|181673521|OTHER|Difference in Percent vs. Non-concomitant Group|Difference in Percent|-2.2||||0.372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|2.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen|Estimated differences, confidence intervals (CIs), and p-values were calculated based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.||Headache||2.6|-6.9|0.372
90903231|NCT03615482|181673521|OTHER|Difference in Percent vs. Non-concomitant Group|Difference in Percent|2.4||||0.329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|7.1|||Miettinen & Nurminen|Estimated differences, confidence intervals (CIs), and p-values were calculated based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.||Myalgia||7.1|-2.4|0.329
91031287|NCT01029353|181947161|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.29|31.38|||||The model was fit using PROC MIXED in SAS, using center as the random effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a mixed linear regression model, using center as the random effect. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy minus drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to IP.||31.38|-13.29|
90855944|NCT00701376|181576211|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.005
90855945|NCT00701376|181576212|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.001
90855946|NCT02537574|181576222|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.264||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.7|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.70|0.61|0.940
90855947|NCT02537574|181576222|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.207||0.383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.33|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.33|0.48|0.383
90855948|NCT00417482|181576241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.94||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|3.45|||Stratified Cox analysis|||The primary hypothesis of a difference in survival functions between the initial Phase B placebo (Arm 3) and risperidone continuation (Arms 1+2) conditions was tested in the primary analysis using the stratified Cox analysis. For descriptive purposes, the overall rate of relapse was assessed as the number of follow-up or for secondary interpretative support, as a simple proportion of patients entering a 16-week period.||3.45|1.09|0.02
90855949|NCT00417482|181576242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.88||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|21.98|||stratified cox analyses|||Similar analyses were used to test the secondary hypothesis in the relapse risk in weeks 17 to 32 of Phase B between the patients who continued to receive risperidone (Arm 1) \& the patients who discontinued risperidone at week 16 \& were switched to placebo (Arm 2). Patients who died \& those in whom a relapse was considered to be imminent before they were dropped out in Phase B were classified as having relapse.||21.98|1.08|0.02
90855950|NCT00417482|181576243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|1.35|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the risperidone and placebo groups over the 16 week period post randomization, with respect to change in MMSE.||1.35|-0.08|0.08
90903232|NCT03615482|181673522|OTHER||Difference in Percent|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.6||||||||0.6|-0.6|
90903233|NCT03615482|181673523|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) on the estimated GMT ratio (Concomitant Group/Nonconcomitant Group) being \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|0.66||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.82|||cLDA|GMT ratio, 95% CI and p-value were estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model including all vaccinated participants.||Serotype 1||0.82|0.54|0.004
90903234|NCT03615482|181673523|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) on the estimated GMT ratio (Concomitant Group/Nonconcomitant Group) being \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|0.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.09|||cLDA|GMT ratio, 95% CI and p-value were estimated from a cLDA model.||Serotype 3||1.09|0.81|<0.001
90903235|NCT03615482|181673523|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) on the estimated GMT ratio (Concomitant Group/Nonconcomitant Group) being \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|0.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.01|||cLDA|GMT ratio, 95% CI and p-value were estimated from a cLDA model.||Serotype 4||1.01|0.69|<0.001
90855951|NCT00417482|181576244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.94||95.0|-1.01|0.93|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the risperidone and placebo groups over the 16 week period post randomization, with respect to change in TESS.||0.93|-1.01|0.94
90903236|NCT03615482|181673523|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) on the estimated GMT ratio (Concomitant Group/Nonconcomitant Group) being \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|0.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.98|||cLDA|GMT ratio, 95% CI and p-value were estimated from a cLDA model.||Serotype 5||0.98|0.64|<0.001
91104439|NCT02037984|182094979|OTHER|PT19F GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT19F GMC Ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.29||||||||1.29|0.60|
90855952|NCT00417482|181576245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.41|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the difference between placebo and risperidone groups in terms of mean change in EPS, between randomization and week 16, is zero.||0.41|-1.50|0.26
90855953|NCT00417482|181576246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.07|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the difference between placebo and risperidone groups in terms of mean change in AIMS, between randomization and week 16, is zero.||0.07|-0.50|0.13
90855954|NCT00417482|181576247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|0.23|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the difference between placebo and risperidone groups in terms of mean change in PSMS, between randomization and week 16, is zero.||0.23|-1.47|0.149
90855955|NCT00417482|181576248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.69||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.77|2.95|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the difference between placebo and risperidone groups in terms of mean change in weight, between randomization and week 16, is zero.||2.95|-3.77|0.81
90855956|NCT05014490|181576278|EQUIVALENCE|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. The level of significance was set to the standard value of 5% (0.05) for all statistical tests.|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|102.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.54|110.37|||||The ratio of geometric LSmeans with corresponding 90% CI calculated from the exponential of the difference between the test and reference products for the ln-transformed parameters should be within the acceptance interval of 80.00 - 125.00%.|||110.37|94.54|
90855957|NCT05014490|181576279|EQUIVALENCE|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. The level of significance was set to the standard value of 5% (0.05) for all statistical tests.|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|99.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.97|101.54|||||The ratio of geometric LSmeans with corresponding 90% CI calculated from the exponential of the difference between the test and reference products for the ln-transformed parameters should be within the acceptance interval of 80.00 - 125.00%.|||101.54|96.97|
90855958|NCT00107952|181576292|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin of 20% was specified based on historical regulatory precedent.|Risk Difference (RD)|-1.6||||||95.0|-8.6|5.5||p-values were not calculated in deference to confidence intervals.|||"Statistical analysis applies to cure"|||5.5|-8.6|
90855959|NCT00251004|181576294|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was set at 10%.|Difference in percentage|2.2||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|7.3||To control for multiple comparisons, the two-sided significance level was set at 0.025.|Z-test|||Everolimus is non-inferior to mycophenolic acid (MPA) if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval for the difference in combined graft loss, death or loss to follow-up rates is \<10%.||7.3|-2.9|0.001
90855960|NCT00251004|181576294|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was set at 10%.|Difference in Percentage|0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|5.2||To control for multiple comparisons, the two-sided significance level was set at 0.025.|Z-test|||Everolimus is non-inferior to MPA if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval for the difference in combined graft loss, death or loss to follow-up rates is \<10%.||5.2|-4.6|<0.001
90855961|NCT00251004|181576295|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was set at 10%.|Difference in percentage|1.8||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|9.1||To control for multiple comparisons, the two-sided significance level was set at 0.025.|Z - test|||Everolimus is non-inferior to mycophenolic acid (MPA) if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval for the difference in percentage of participants composite efficacy failure is \<10%.||9.1|-5.5|0.014
90855962|NCT00251004|181576295|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was set at 10%.|Difference in percentage|-3.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|3.3||To control for multiple comparisons, the two-sided significance level was set at 0.025.|Z-test|||Everolimus is non-inferior to MPA if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval for the difference in composite efficacy failure rates is \<10%.||3.3|-10.8|<0.001
90903237|NCT03615482|181673523|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) on the estimated GMT ratio (Concomitant Group/Nonconcomitant Group) being \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|0.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.0|||cLDA|GMT ratio, 95% CI and p-value were estimated from a cLDA model.||Serotype 6A||1.00|0.71|<0.001
90855963|NCT00251004|181576296|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was set at -8 mL/min/1.73m\^2.|Mean Difference (Net)|2.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|6.5||To control for multiple comparisons, the two-sided significance level was set at 0.025.|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis: the mean GFR of the everolimus arm is lower (worse) than that of the MPA arm by 8 mL/min/1.73m\^2 or more.||6.5|-1.6|<0.001
90855964|NCT00251004|181576296|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was set at -8 mL/min/1.73m\^2.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|3.3||To control for multiple comparisons, the two-sided significance level was set at 0.025.|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis: the mean GFR of the everolimus arm is lower (worse) than that of the MPA arm by 8 mL/min/1.73m\^2 or more.||3.3|-4.9|<0.001
91104440|NCT02037984|182094979|OTHER|PT23F GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT23F GMC Ratio|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.12||||||||1.12|0.43|
90855965|NCT01569464|181576303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36||0.8451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.96|2.42||A hierarchical test procedure was done for the primary efficacy variables at an α-level of 5 %. If a test was statistically significant, a test for the next variable was performed. If a test was not statistically significant the procedure stopped.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model was used for analysis with fixed effects for treatment assignment (main factor) and the subject's investigational center (stratifying factor) and a covariate for the Baseline Visit value of the IRLS sum score.||2.42|-2.96|0.8451
90903238|NCT03615482|181673523|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) on the estimated GMT ratio (Concomitant Group/Nonconcomitant Group) being \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|0.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.04|||cLDA|GMT ratio, 95% CI and p-value were estimated from a cLDA model.||Serotype 6B||1.04|0.74|<0.001
91104441|NCT02037984|182094979|OTHER|non-PT22F GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|non-PT22F GMC Ratio|56.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.66|83.52||||||||83.52|37.66|
91104442|NCT02037984|182094979|OTHER|non-PT33F GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|non-PT33F GMC Ratio|25.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.18|46.78||||||||46.78|14.18|
91104443|NCT02037984|182094980|OTHER|PT1 GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT1 GMC Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.09||||||||1.09|0.58|
91100708|NCT02421510|182087561|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints were reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.|Least squares mean difference|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.4||Threshold for significance \<= 0.05.|MMRM||Sotagliflozin 400 mg versus Placebo|LS means and p-values were obtained from MMRM model with treatment, randomization strata of insulin delivery (MDI, CSII) and Week -2 A1C (\<= 8.5%, \>8.5%), time (study week), and a treatment-by-time interaction as fixed categorical effects, and baseline DTSQs total score-by-time interaction as a covariate.||2.4|1|< 0.001
91100709|NCT02421510|182087562|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints were reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.|Least squares mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.0||Threshold for significance \<= 0.05.|MMRM||Sotagliflozin 200 mg versus Placebo|LS means and p-values were obtained from MMRM model with treatment, randomization strata of insulin delivery (MDI, CSII) and Week -2 A1C (\<= 8.5%, \>8.5%), time (study week), and a treatment-by-time interaction as fixed categorical effects, and baseline DDS2 total score-by-time interaction as a covariate.||0|-0.6|0.025
91100710|NCT02421510|182087562|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints were reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.|Least squares mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.2||Threshold for significance \<= 0.05.|MMRM||Sotagliflozin 400 mg versus Placebo|LS means and p-values were obtained from MMRM model with treatment, randomization strata of insulin delivery (MDI, CSII) and Week -2 A1C (\<=8.5%, \>8.5%), time (study week), and a treatment-by-time interaction as fixed categorical effects, and baseline DDS2 total score-by-time interaction as a covariate.||-0.2|-0.7|0.003
91100711|NCT04098302|182087576|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.012
91100712|NCT04098302|182087577|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.019
90855966|NCT01569464|181576304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.8336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.75||A hierarchical test procedure was done for the primary efficacy variables at an α-level of 5 %. If a test was statistically significant, a test for the next variable was performed. If a test was not statistically significant the procedure stopped.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model was used for analysis with fixed effects for treatment assignment (main factor) and the subject's investigational center (stratifying factor) and a covariate for the Baseline Visit value of the IRLS sum score.||0.75|-0.61|0.8336
90855967|NCT04025710|181576325|OTHER|single arm design|SADE-free rate|0.97||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||The primary hypothesis evaluates the SADE free rate (pSADE\_free) at 3 months. Ho: SADE-free rate through 3 months post-implant ≤ 90.0% Ha: SADE-free rate through 3 months post-implant \> 90.0%||1|0.9|0.05
90903239|NCT03615482|181673523|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) on the estimated GMT ratio (Concomitant Group/Nonconcomitant Group) being \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|0.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|0.99|||cLDA|GMT ratio, 95% CI and p-value were estimated from a cLDA model.||Serotype 7F||0.99|0.75|<0.001
91100713|NCT04098302|182087578|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
90903240|NCT03615482|181673523|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) on the estimated GMT ratio (Concomitant Group/Nonconcomitant Group) being \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|0.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.15|||cLDA|GMT ratio, 95% CI and p-value were estimated from a cLDA model.||Serotype 9V||1.15|0.86|<0.001
91100714|NCT04098302|182087579|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.29
91100715|NCT05061706|182087580|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.03|-3.02|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-3.02|-6.03|<0.0001
90903241|NCT03615482|181673523|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) on the estimated GMT ratio (Concomitant Group/Nonconcomitant Group) being \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|0.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.08|||cLDA|GMT ratio, 95% CI and p-value were estimated from a cLDA model.||Serotype 14||1.08|0.77|<0.001
90903242|NCT03615482|181673523|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) on the estimated GMT ratio (Concomitant Group/Nonconcomitant Group) being \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|0.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.92|||cLDA|GMT ratio, 95% CI and p-value were estimated from a cLDA model.||Serotype 18C||0.92|0.68|<0.001
91100716|NCT05061706|182087581|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.33|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-0.33|-0.72|<0.0001
91100717|NCT00191152|182087582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.145||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.145
91100718|NCT00191152|182087583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.361||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.361
91100719|NCT00191152|182087584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.145||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.145
91100720|NCT00191152|182087585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.385||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.385
91100721|NCT00191152|182087586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.377||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.377
91100722|NCT00191152|182087587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.446||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.446
91100723|NCT00191152|182087588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.785||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.785
91100724|NCT00191152|182087589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.364||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.364
91100725|NCT00191152|182087590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.446||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.446
91100726|NCT00191152|182087591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.990
91100727|NCT00191152|182087592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.117||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.117
91100728|NCT00191152|182087593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.801||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.801
91100729|NCT00191152|182087594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.190
91104444|NCT02037984|182094980|OTHER|PT3 GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT3 GMC Ratio|2.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.86|3.49||||||||3.49|1.86|
91100730|NCT00114777|182087604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treament Difference|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|-7.2|9.4|||||The treatment differences between each belatacept treatment group and cyclosporin group was tested at the 0.027 significance level for participant and graft survival (based on 10% non-inferiority margin).|||9.4|-7.2|
90855968|NCT02797054|181576344|OTHER|||||||0.069|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.069
90855969|NCT02797054|181576345|OTHER|||||||0.303|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.303
90855970|NCT02797054|181576346|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.001
90855971|NCT02797054|181576347|OTHER|||||||0.895|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.895
90855972|NCT02797054|181576348|OTHER|||||||0.58|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.58
90903243|NCT03615482|181673523|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) on the estimated GMT ratio (Concomitant Group/Nonconcomitant Group) being \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|0.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.95|||cLDA|GMT ratio, 95% CI and p-value were estimated from a cLDA model.||Serotype 19A||0.95|0.73|<0.001
90903244|NCT03615482|181673523|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) on the estimated GMT ratio (Concomitant Group/Nonconcomitant Group) being \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.17|||cLDA|GMT ratio, 95% CI and p-value were estimated from a cLDA model.||Serotype 19F||1.17|0.89|<0.001
90903245|NCT03615482|181673523|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) on the estimated GMT ratio (Concomitant Group/Nonconcomitant Group) being \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|0.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.91|||cLDA|GMT ratio, 95% CI and p-value were estimated from a cLDA model.||Serotype 22F||0.91|0.64|<0.001
90903246|NCT03615482|181673523|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) on the estimated GMT ratio (Concomitant Group/Nonconcomitant Group) being \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|0.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.03|||cLDA|GMT ratio, 95% CI and p-value were estimated from a cLDA model.||Serotype 23F||1.03|0.70|<0.001
91100731|NCT00114777|182087604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|-5.0|11.4|||||The treatment differences between each belatacept treatment group and cyclosporin group was tested at the 0.027 significance level for participant and graft survival (based on 10% non-inferiority margin).|||11.4|-5.0|
90855973|NCT02797054|181576349|OTHER|||||||0.0015|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0015
90855974|NCT02797054|181576350|OTHER|||||||0.0056|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0056
90855975|NCT02797054|181576351|OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.21
90855976|NCT02398409|181576367|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.117||0.8407|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusting for the covariates of diagnosis and baseline mean value in caregivers' depression.|Mixed Models Analysis|||12 weeks compared to Baseline (BL)||||.8407
90855977|NCT02398409|181576367|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.201|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.015|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusting for the covariates of diagnosis and baseline mean value in caregivers' depression.|Mixed Models Analysis|||At 6 months compared to BL||||.0150
90855978|NCT02398409|181576367|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.114|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.188||0.8373|TWO_SIDED|||||adjusting for the covariates of diagnosis and baseline mean value in caregivers' depression|Mixed Models Analysis|||1 year compared BL||||.8373
90855979|NCT02398409|181576368|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.173||0.6445|TWO_SIDED|||||adjusting for the covariates of diagnosis and baseline mean value in caregivers' depression|Mixed Models Analysis|||12 weeks compared to BL||||.6445
90855980|NCT02398409|181576368|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.033|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.158||0.5247|TWO_SIDED|||||adjusting for the covariates of diagnosis and baseline mean value in caregivers' depression|Mixed Models Analysis|||6 months compared to BL||||.5247
90855981|NCT02398409|181576368|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.1224|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.187||0.9974|TWO_SIDED|||||adjusting for the covariates of diagnosis and baseline mean value in caregivers' depression|Mixed Models Analysis|||1 year compared to BL||||.9974
90855982|NCT02398409|181576369|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.054|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.087||0.1918|TWO_SIDED|||||adjusting for the covariates of diagnosis and baseline mean value in caregivers' depression|Mixed Models Analysis|||12 weeks compared to BL||||.1918
90855983|NCT02398409|181576369|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.046|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.078||0.9212|TWO_SIDED|||||adjusting for the covariates of diagnosis and baseline mean value in caregivers' depression|Mixed Models Analysis|||6 months compared to BL||||.9212
90855984|NCT02398409|181576369|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.026|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.083||0.2358|TWO_SIDED|||||adjusting for the covariates of diagnosis and baseline mean value in caregivers' depression|Mixed Models Analysis|||1 year compared to BL||||.2358
90855985|NCT02398409|181576370|SUPERIORITY|adjusting for the covariates of diagnosis and baseline mean value in caregivers' depression|Median Difference (Net)|0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.168||0.1107|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||12 weeks compared to BL||||.1107
90855986|NCT02398409|181576370|SUPERIORITY|adjusting for the covariates of diagnosis and baseline mean value in caregivers' depression|Median Difference (Net)|0.251|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.211||0.0562|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||6 months compared to BL||||.0562
90855987|NCT02398409|181576370|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.226|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.218||0.8579|TWO_SIDED|||||adjusting for the covariates of diagnosis and baseline mean value in caregivers' depression|Mixed Models Analysis|||1 year compared to BL||||.8579
90855988|NCT00633867|181576401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||<0.01
90855989|NCT05308290|181576403|OTHER|||||||0.6||||||the a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.60
90855990|NCT05308290|181576404|OTHER|||||||0.6||||||the a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.60
90855991|NCT05308290|181576405|OTHER|||||||1||||||the a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
90855992|NCT05308290|181576406|OTHER|||||||1||||||the a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
90855993|NCT05308290|181576407|OTHER|||||||0.28||||||the a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|Fisher Exact|||||||0.28
90855994|NCT04706416|181576435|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.48|||Fisher Exact|||||1.48|0.26|0.297
90855995|NCT04706416|181576435|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.68||||0.541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|2.3|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.30|0.19|0.541
90855996|NCT04706416|181576436|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.37||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.91|||Fisher Exact|||||0.91|0.15|0.039
90855997|NCT04706416|181576436|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.34||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.07|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.07|0.09|0.081
90855998|NCT04706416|181576437|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|0.0||||0.643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|3.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||3.0|-1.0|0.643
90855999|NCT04706416|181576437|SUPERIORITY||β-coefficient|-4.27||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.67|-2.87|||Regression, Linear|||||-2.87|-5.67|0.001
90856000|NCT04706416|181576438|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.53||||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.19|||Fisher Exact|||||1.19|0.25|0.133
90856001|NCT04706416|181576439|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|4.0||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|12.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||12.0|-1.0|0.092
90856002|NCT04706416|181576440|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|0.0||||0.834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|2.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||2.0|-2.0|0.834
90856003|NCT04706416|181576441|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.001||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.52|||Fisher Exact|||||1.52|0|0.149
90856004|NCT04706416|181576442|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.3||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.8|||Fisher Exact|||||0.80|0.12|0.015
90856005|NCT01484054|181576443|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A non-inferiority margin of -5 points(CLUE) was used.|Least square mean difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.117|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|5.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The alternative hypothesis is that etafilcon A with PVP lenses is non-inferior to etafilcon A control lenses for the Overall Quality of Lens Vision at 7-9 days of follow-up.||5.20|-3.20|
90856006|NCT01484054|181576444|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A non-inferiority margin of -5 points(CLUE) was used.|Least square mean difference|4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.772|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|10.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The alternative hypothesis is that etafilcon A with PVP lenses is non-inferior to etafilcon A control lenses for the Overall Lens Comfort at 7-9 days of follow-up.||10.19|-0.79|
90856007|NCT01484054|181576445|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A non-inferiority margin of -5 points(CLUE) was used.|Least square mean difference|9.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.829|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.81|13.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Ho: The test lens is non-inferior to the active comparator lens for Handling at 7-9 days follow-up.||13.07|5.81|
90856008|NCT03737851|181576472|OTHER|a statistical test was not performed|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.202|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.559|2.584||||||Logistic regression model for EDSS+ includes baseline values for EDSS, Timed 25-Foot Walk, 9-Hole Peg Test-dominant, 9-Hole Peg Test-nondominant, and treatment as a main effect. Subjects with missing values were imputed as non-responders.||2.584|0.559|
90856009|NCT03737851|181576472|OTHER|a statistical test was not performed|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.615|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.266|1.421||||||Logistic regression model for EDSS+ includes baseline values for EDSS, Timed 25-Foot Walk, 9-Hole Peg Test-dominant, 9-Hole Peg Test-nondominant, and treatment as a main effect. Subjects with missing values were imputed as non-responders.||1.421|0.266|
90903247|NCT03615482|181673523|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) on the estimated GMT ratio (Concomitant Group/Nonconcomitant Group) being \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|0.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.96|||cLDA|GMT ratio, 95% CI and p-value were estimated from a cLDA model.||Serotype 33F||0.96|0.72|<0.001
91104445|NCT02037984|182094980|OTHER|PT4 GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT4 GMG Ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.46||||||||1.46|0.79|
90856010|NCT00410202|181576476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|8.9||||0.1336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|19.9|||Hochberg procedure|||||19.9|-2.0|0.1336
90856011|NCT00410202|181576476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|5.7||||0.2619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|15.5|||Hochberg procedure|||||15.5|-4.2|0.2619
90856012|NCT00410202|181576477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference estimate|15.0||||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|26.4|||Hochberg procedure|||||26.4|3.7|0.0095
90856013|NCT00410202|181576478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|11.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|21.1||||||||21.1|2.5|
90856014|NCT00410202|181576478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|8.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|18.2||||||||18.2|-1.1|
90856015|NCT00410202|181576479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference estimate|12.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|23.9||||||||23.9|1.8|
90856016|NCT00410202|181576480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|8.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|17.4||||||||17.4|0.3|
90856017|NCT00410202|181576480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|8.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|17.3||||||||17.3|-0.1|
90856018|NCT00410202|181576481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference estimate|12.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|23.4||||||||23.4|2.4|
90856019|NCT00410202|181576484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.534|-0.994|||Regression, Linear|||||-0.994|-1.534|
90856020|NCT00410202|181576484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.824|-0.281|||Regression, Linear|||||-0.281|-0.824|
90856021|NCT00410202|181576486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5|10.7||||||||10.7|-15.5|
90856022|NCT00410202|181576486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|12.6||||||||12.6|-15.0|
90856023|NCT00410202|181576487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|10.6||||||||10.6|-16.2|
90856024|NCT00410202|181576488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|6.7||||||||6.7|-5.2|
90856025|NCT00410202|181576488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|7.2||||||||7.2|-4.6|
90856026|NCT00410202|181576489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|6.4||||||||6.4|-9.5|
90856027|NCT00410202|181576490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|6.8||||||||6.8|-2.4|
90856028|NCT00410202|181576490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|6.2||||||||6.2|-3.5|
90856029|NCT00410202|181576491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|7.8||||||||7.8|-3.6|
90856030|NCT00410202|181576492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|2.1||||||||2.1|-0.7|
90856031|NCT00410202|181576492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|2.0||||||||2.0|-2.0|
90856032|NCT00410202|181576494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|2.1||||||||2.1|-0.7|
90856033|NCT00410202|181576494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|2.1||||||||2.1|-0.7|
90856034|NCT01352468|181576501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||ANCOVA|Controlling for baseline scores||||||.35
90856035|NCT01352468|181576502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||ANCOVA|Controlling for baseline scores||||||.68
90856036|NCT01352468|181576503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57|||||||ANCOVA|Controlling for baseline scores||||||.57
91100732|NCT00114777|182087605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage difference|-14.4||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|97.3|-24.0|-4.7|||Chi-squared||A continuity-corrected chi-squared test at the significance level 0.027 was performed to assess the effect of each belatacept regimen compared with cyclosporin A.|||-4.7|-24|0.0018
90856037|NCT01178073|181576504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.502||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.348|0.724|||Stratified Log Rank||Analysis of time to first adjudicated clinical failure event through FAV. HR is calculated using the Cox proportional hazards model. HR is for Combination Therapy: Ambrisentan + Tadalafil / Monotherapy Pooled: Ambrisentan or Tadalafil.|||0.724|0.348|0.0002
90856038|NCT01178073|181576504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.477||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.314|0.723|||Stratified Log Rank||Analysis of time to first adjudicated clinical failure event through FAV. HR is calculated using the Cox proportional hazards model. HR is for Combination Therapy: Ambrisentan + Tadalafil / Ambrisentan Monotherapy.|||0.723|0.314|0.0004
90856039|NCT01178073|181576504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.528||||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.338|0.827|||Stratified Log Rank||Analysis of time to first adjudicated clinical failure event through FAV. HR is calculated using the Cox proportional hazards model. HR is for Combination Therapy: Ambrisentan + Tadalafil / Tadalafil Monotherapy.|||0.827|0.338|0.0045
90856040|NCT01178073|181576505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Percent Difference|-33.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.78|-20.66|||ANCOVA||Mean percent difference is for Combination Therapy: Ambrisentan + Tadalafil - Monotherapy Pooled: Ambrisentan or Tadalafil.|||-20.66|-44.78|<0.0001
90856041|NCT01178073|181576505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Percent Difference|-25.09||||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.04|-6.4|||ANCOVA||Mean percent difference is for Combination Therapy: Ambrisentan + Tadalafil - Ambrisentan Monotherapy.|||-6.40|-40.04|0.0111
90856042|NCT01178073|181576505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Percent Difference|-41.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.16|-26.97|||ANCOVA||Mean percent difference is for Combination Therapy: Ambrisentan + Tadalafil - Tadalafil Monotherapy.|||-26.97|-53.16|<0.0001
90856043|NCT01178073|181576506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.563||||0.0264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.054|2.319|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio is for Combination Therapy: Ambrisentan + Tadalafil / Monotherapy Pooled: Ambrisentan or Tadalafil.|||2.319|1.054|0.0264
90856044|NCT01178073|181576506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.424||||0.1518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.878|2.308|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio is for Combination Therapy: Ambrisentan + Tadalafil / Ambrisentan Monotherapy.|||2.308|0.878|0.1518
90903248|NCT03615482|181673524|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) on the estimated GMT ratio (Concomitant Group/Nonconcomitant Group) being \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.25|||cLDA|GMT ratio, 95% CI and p-value were estimated from a cLDA model.||H1N1||1.25|0.94|<0.001
90903249|NCT03615482|181673524|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) on the estimated GMT ratio (Concomitant Group/Nonconcomitant Group) being \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.17|||cLDA|GMT ratio, 95% CI and p-value were estimated from a cLDA model.||H3N2||1.17|0.90|<0.001
90903250|NCT03615482|181673524|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) on the estimated GMT ratio (Concomitant Group/Nonconcomitant Group) being \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|0.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.08|||cLDA|GMT ratio, 95% CI and p-value were estimated from a cLDA model.||B-Victoria||1.08|0.86|<0.001
90903251|NCT03615482|181673524|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) on the estimated GMT ratio (Concomitant Group/Nonconcomitant Group) being \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.13|||cLDA|GMT ratio, 95% CI and p-value were estimated from a cLDA model.||B-Yamagata||1.13|0.90|<0.001
90903252|NCT03615482|181673525|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.89||||||Serotype 1||0.89|0.67|
90903253|NCT03615482|181673525|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.99||||||Serotype 3||0.99|0.76|
90856045|NCT01178073|181576506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.723||||0.0321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.047|2.833|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio is for Combination Therapy: Ambrisentan + Tadalafil / Tadalafil Monotherapy.|||2.833|1.047|0.0321
90856046|NCT01178073|181576507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference|22.75|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|33.5|||Stratified Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test||Median difference is for Combination Therapy: Ambrisentan + Tadalafil - Monotherapy Pooled: Ambrisentan or Tadalafil.|||33.50|12.00|<0.0001
90856047|NCT01178073|181576507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference|24.75||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|38.5|||Stratified Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test||Median difference is for Combination Therapy: Ambrisentan + Tadalafil - Ambrisentan Monotherapy.|||38.50|11.00|0.0005
90856048|NCT01178073|181576507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference|20.85||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|33.7|||Stratified Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test||Median difference is for Combination Therapy: Ambrisentan + Tadalafil - Tadalafil Monotherapy.|||33.70|8.00|0.0030
90856049|NCT01178073|181576508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference|0.0||||0.2287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Stratified Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test||Median difference is for Combination Therapy: Ambrisentan + Tadalafil - Monotherapy Pooled: Ambrisentan or Tadalafil.|||0.0|0.0|0.2287
90856050|NCT01178073|181576508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Stratified Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|This comparison was not formally tested according to the pre-defined hierarchical testing procedure.|Median difference is for Combination Therapy: Ambrisentan + Tadalafil - Ambrisentan Monotherapy.|||0.0|0.0|
90856051|NCT01178073|181576508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Stratified Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|This comparison was not formally tested according to the pre-defined hierarchical testing procedure.|Median difference is for Combination Therapy: Ambrisentan + Tadalafil - Tadalafil Monotherapy.|||0.0|0.0|
90856052|NCT01178073|181576509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference|-0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.0|||Stratified Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|This endpoint was not formally tested according to the pre-defined hierarchical testing procedure.|Median difference is for Combination Therapy: Ambrisentan + Tadalafil - Monotherapy Pooled: Ambrisentan or Tadalafil.|||0.00|-0.75|
90856053|NCT01178073|181576509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||Stratified Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|This endpoint was not formally tested according to the pre-defined hierarchical testing procedure.|Median difference is for Combination Therapy: Ambrisentan + Tadalafil - Ambrisentan Monotherapy.|||0.00|-1.00|
91031288|NCT01029353|181947162|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.62|18.36|||||The model was fit using PROC MIXED in SAS, using center as the random effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a mixed linear regression model, using center as the random effect. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy minus drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to NEC.||18.36|-24.62|
91031289|NCT01029353|181947162|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.42|9.63|||||The model was fit using PROC MIXED in SAS, using center as the random effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to infants with IP.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a mixed linear regression model, using center as the random effect. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy minus drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to IP.||9.63|-14.42|
90903254|NCT03615482|181673525|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.91||||||Serotype 4||0.91|0.68|
91031290|NCT01029353|181947163|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.41|11.55|||||The model was fit using PROC MIXED in SAS, using center as the random effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a mixed linear regression model, using center as the random effect. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy minus drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to NEC.||11.55|-48.41|
91100733|NCT00114777|182087605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage difference|-8.5||||0.0616|TWO_SIDED|97.3|-18.0|0.9|||Chi-squared||A continuity-corrected chi-squared test at the significance level 0.027 was performed to assess the effect of each belatacept regimen compared with cyclosporin A.|||0.9|-18|0.0616
90903255|NCT03615482|181673525|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.02||||||Serotype 5||1.02|0.77|
90903256|NCT03615482|181673525|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.87||||||Serotype 6A||0.87|0.61|
90903257|NCT03615482|181673525|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.91||||||Serotype 6B||0.91|0.64|
90903258|NCT03615482|181673525|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.01||||||Serotype 7F||1.01|0.76|
91104446|NCT02037984|182094980|OTHER|PT5 GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT5 GMC Ratio|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.76||||||||0.76|0.34|
90903259|NCT03615482|181673525|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.03||||||Serotype 9V||1.03|0.79|
90903260|NCT03615482|181673525|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.99||||||Serotype 14||0.99|0.73|
90903261|NCT03615482|181673525|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.91||||||Serotype 18C||0.91|0.68|
90903262|NCT03615482|181673525|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.02||||||Serotype 19A||1.02|0.78|
90903263|NCT03615482|181673525|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.03||||||Serotype 19F||1.03|0.77|
90903264|NCT03615482|181673525|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.89||||||Serotype 22F||0.89|0.65|
90903265|NCT03615482|181673525|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.98||||||Serotype 23F||0.98|0.70|
90903266|NCT03615482|181673525|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|0.99||||||Serotype 33F||0.99|0.75|
90903267|NCT05454449|181673572|OTHER|||||||0.047|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.047
90903268|NCT05454449|181673573|OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.009
90903269|NCT05454449|181673574|OTHER|||||||0.082|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.082
90903270|NCT05454449|181673575|OTHER|||||||0.022|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.022
90903271|NCT05454449|181673576|OTHER|||||||0.016|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.016
90903272|NCT05454449|181673577|OTHER|||||||0.029|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.029
90903273|NCT05454449|181673578|OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.007
90903274|NCT01950273|181673608|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Standard equivalence limit 80% to 125%.|Least Squares (LS) mean ratio|89.53|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.42|106.29|||||Ratio of the adjusted geometric means calculated as (LS mean ratio of BI 695500/Rituximab (MabThera®)).|||106.29|75.42|
90903275|NCT01950273|181673609|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Standard equivalence limit 80% to 125%.|Least Squares (LS) means ratio|94.6||||||90.0|85.04|105.23|||||Ratio of the adjusted geometric means calculated as (LS mean ratio of BI 695500/Rituximab (MabThera®)).|||105.23|85.04|
90903276|NCT01950273|181673610|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Standard equivalence limit 80% to 125%.|Least Squares (LS) means ratio|89.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.62|104.23|||||Ratio of the adjusted geometric means calculated as (LS mean ratio of BI 695500/Rituximab (MabThera®)).|||104.23|77.62|
90903277|NCT01950273|181673611|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Standard equivalence limit 80% to 125%.|Least Squares (LS) means ratio|97.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.45|105.42|||||Ratio of the adjusted geometric means calculated as (LS mean ratio of BI 695500/Rituximab (MabThera®)).|||105.42|90.45|
91031291|NCT01029353|181947163|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.96|8.06|||||The model was fit using PROC MIXED in SAS, using center as the random effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a mixed linear regression model, using center as the random effect. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy minus drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to IP.||8.06|-31.96|
91104447|NCT02037984|182094980|OTHER|PT6A GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT6A GMC Ratio|0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.65||||||||0.65|0.17|
91104448|NCT02037984|182094980|OTHER|PT6B GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT6B GMG Ratio|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.38||||||||0.38|0.08|
91100734|NCT01181128|182087632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Bleeding Rate Ratio|0.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.13|||negative binomial model|||The null hypothesis for the primary endpoint is no difference between the individualized (tailored) prophylaxis regimen and the on-demand regimen. The sample size of this study was mainly based on clinical rather than statistical considerations. However it was projected to have \> 90% power at the 2-sided 0.05 level of significance to detect a 60% reduction in annualized bleeding episodes, based upon this hypothesis test.||0.13|0.05|<0.001
91100735|NCT01181128|182087638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Bleeding Rate Ratio|0.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.46|||negative binomial model|||||0.46|0.12|<0.001
90856054|NCT01178073|181576509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||Stratified Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|This endpoint was not formally tested according to the pre-defined hierarchical testing procedure.|Median difference is for Combination Therapy: Ambrisentan + Tadalafil - Tadalafil Monotherapy.|||0.00|-1.00|
90856055|NCT04533685|181576549|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.02|||||Adjusted risk ratio. These results compare arms which received reminder letters to the arm receiving no reminder letter (control)|Comparing the risk of receiving an influenza vaccination||1.02|1.00|
90856056|NCT04533685|181576549|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.01|||||These results compare arms which received direct appointment scheduling to the arms not receiving direct appointment scheduling.|Comparing the risk of receiving an influenza vaccination||1.01|0.98|
90856057|NCT04533685|181576549|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.01|||||These results compare arms which received pre-commitment reminders to the arms not receiving pre-commitment reminders.|Comparing the risk of receiving an influenza vaccination||1.01|1.00|
90856058|NCT04533685|181576549|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.01|||||These results compare arms which received pre-appointment reminder to the arms not receiving pre-appointment reminder.|Comparing the risk of receiving an influenza vaccination||1.01|0.99|
90856059|NCT01226043|181576550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.15|2.44|||ANOVA|The last observation carried forward (LOCF) method was applied to impute missing Week 4 overall patient preference values for ANOVA analysis.||The hypothesis was to determine whether patients have higher preference score for Lantus® SoloSTAR® pen compared to Lantus® vial/syringe. Differences of patient preference score greater than 0.5 were considered clinically meaningful. The power for detecting a true difference of 0.5 considering a standard deviation from 1.6 to 2.5, assuming 130 evaluable patients per arm and a two-sided test at 0.05 significance level ranged from 89% to more than 99%.||2.44|2.15|<0.0001
90856060|NCT02247531|181576652|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.157||||0.0479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.313|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline GA area, lesion location, contiguity, biomarker status, modified baseline BCVA and sex.||0.313|0.001|0.0479
90856061|NCT02247531|181576652|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.087||||0.2739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.069|0.243|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline GA area, lesion location, contiguity, biomarker status, modified baseline BCVA and sex.||0.243|-0.069|0.2739
90903278|NCT01950273|181673612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|249.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-210.6|709.0|||||Mean difference calculated as BI 695500-Rituximab (MabThera®).|||709|-210.6|
90903279|NCT01950273|181673614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.4|11.1|||||Difference in ORR calculated as ORR (BI695500) - ORR (MabThera®). The confidence interval represented is 95% difference in proportions.|||11.1|-29.4|
90903280|NCT01950273|181673615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|22.1|||||Difference in TEAE incidence calculated as BI695500 - TEAE incidence (MabThera®). The confidence interval represented is 95% difference in proportions.|||22.1|-18.0|
90856062|NCT02247531|181576653|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.4||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|3.9|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline number of absolute scotomatous points, GA lesion location, contiguity, biomarker status, modified baseline BCVA and sex.||3.9|-4.8|0.8400
90856063|NCT02247531|181576653|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|1.3||||0.5587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|5.7|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline number of absolute scotomatous points, GA lesion location, contiguity, biomarker status, modified baseline BCVA and sex.||5.7|-3.1|0.5587
90856064|NCT02247531|181576654|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.1||||0.8358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|1.09|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline mean macular sensitivity, GA lesion location, contiguity, biomarker status, modified baseline BCVA and sex.||1.09|-0.88|0.8358
90856065|NCT02247531|181576654|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.26||||0.6117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|0.74|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline mean macular sensitivity, GA lesion location, contiguity, biomarker status, modified baseline BCVA and sex.||0.74|-1.25|0.6117
90856066|NCT02247531|181576655|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.7||||0.4651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|2.5|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline BCVA, GA lesion location, biomarker status, and sex.||2.5|-1.2|0.4651
90856067|NCT02247531|181576655|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.3||||0.7885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.1|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline BCVA, GA lesion location, biomarker status, and sex.||2.1|-1.6|0.7885
90856068|NCT02247531|181576656|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.6892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.8|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.8|0.7|0.6892
90856069|NCT02247531|181576656|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.9104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.6|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.6|0.6|0.9104
90903281|NCT00179010|181673632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.854|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.854
90903282|NCT03748979|181673641|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was obtained using MMRM analysis. The p-value for each treatment group is for the comparison of that treatment group to the placebo treatment group on Day 1.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||||<0.0001
90903283|NCT03748979|181673641|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was obtained using MMRM analysis. The p-value for each treatment group is for the comparison of that treatment group to the placebo treatment group on Day 1.|MMRM|||||||<0.0001
90903284|NCT03748979|181673641|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002||||||P-value was obtained using MMRM analysis. The p-value for each treatment group is for the comparison of that treatment group to the placebo treatment group on Day 7.|MMRM|||||||0.0002
90903285|NCT03748979|181673641|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was obtained using MMRM analysis. The p-value for each treatment group is for the comparison of that treatment group to the placebo treatment group on Day 7.|MMRM|||||||<0.0001
90903286|NCT03748979|181673641|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was obtained using MMRM analysis. The p-value for each treatment group is for the comparison of that treatment group to the placebo treatment group on Day 1.|MMRM|||||||<0.0001
90903287|NCT03748979|181673641|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was obtained using MMRM analysis. The p-value for each treatment group is for the comparison of that treatment group to the placebo treatment group on Day 1.|MMRM|||||||<0.0001
90903288|NCT03748979|181673641|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was obtained using MMRM analysis. The p-value for each treatment group is for the comparison of that treatment group to the placebo treatment group on Day 7.|MMRM|||||||<0.0001
90903289|NCT03748979|181673641|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was obtained using MMRM analysis. The p-value for each treatment group is for the comparison of that treatment group to the placebo treatment group on Day 7.|MMRM|||||||<0.0001
90903290|NCT03249376|181673642|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.34|-2.83|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-2.83|-6.34|<0.0001
90903291|NCT03249376|181673643|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|-0.51|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-0.51|-1.37|<0.0001
90903292|NCT03249376|181673644|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|4.6||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|7.69|||ANCOVA|||||7.69|1.42|0.005
90903293|NCT02694640|181673658|SUPERIORITY|The study was powered to detect significant between-group differences in mean min/week MVPA at follow-up.|effect size|0.11|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made|Regression, Linear||Effect size refers to between-group difference at follow-up.|A series of longitudinal mixed effects models with subject-specific intercepts were used to examine between-group differences in mean min/week of self reported moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA).||||<.05
91031292|NCT04538170|181947165|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013||||||threshold for statistical significance|Fisher Exact|||Preliminary work showed that approximately 25% of patients report phantom pain after orchidectomy. A difference of 20% between the GAC and ORC groups was considered relevant. Power was set to 80% and the significance level to 5%, resulting in a minimum of 40 women to be recruited, which was fulfilled.||||0.013
91031293|NCT00637299|181947168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.01
91100736|NCT04477486|182087671|SUPERIORITY|Comparing against a historical reference of 12.5% CRR.|||||<|0.001|||||||Exact Binomial Distribution|||||||<0.001
91100737|NCT01543503|182087685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.851|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.112|-0.589|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Difference between Tocilizumab and TNF inhibitor: Analysis is based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with change from baseline in DAS28-ESR at 24 weeks as dependent variable; therapy, site country, and treatment as fixed effects; DAS28-ESR at baseline as covariates.||-0.589|-1.112|<0.001
90903294|NCT02694640|181673659|SUPERIORITY||effect size|0.09|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<.05
90903295|NCT00432679|181673669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.102|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.61||Change from Baseline in HbA1c = Treatment+ Baseline HbA1c+ Gender+ body mass index (BMI)|ANCOVA|||||-0.61|-1.01|<0.001
90903296|NCT00432679|181673670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-22.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.1|-12.1|||Unpaired t-test|||||-12.1|-32.1|<0.001
90903297|NCT00432679|181673671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.718|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8102||0.377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.883|2.319|||Unpaired t-test|||||2.319|-0.883|0.377
90903298|NCT00432679|181673672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.094||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.18|2.09|||Unpaired t-test|||||2.09|-6.18|0.330
90903299|NCT00432679|181673673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.473||0.983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.945|0.925|||Unpaired t-test|||||0.925|-0.945|0.983
90903300|NCT00432679|181673674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|8.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.556||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.191|15.248|||Unpaired t-test|||||15.248|1.191|0.022
90903301|NCT00432679|181673675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|8.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.52|9.91|||Unpaired t-test|||||9.91|6.52|<0.001
90903302|NCT00432679|181673676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.355||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|1.35|||Unpaired t-test||Comparison of leptin.|||1.35|-0.05|0.069
90903303|NCT00432679|181673676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-888.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|803.96||0.271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2477.7|700.1|||Unpaired t-test||Comparison of hs-CRP|||700.1|-2477.7|0.271
90903304|NCT00432679|181673677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|40.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.1|54.1|||||Comparison of HbA1c, decrease by 0.7%|||54.1|27.1|
90903305|NCT00432679|181673677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|13.8|||||Comparison of HbA1c, fell below 6.5%|||13.8|-0.3|
90903306|NCT00432679|181673677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|40.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.1|54.1|||||Comparison of HbA1c, satisfied either 1 or 2|||54.1|27.1|
90903307|NCT00432679|181673677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.5|36.6|||||Comparison of FPG, decrease of 30 milligrams per decilliter|||36.6|9.5|
91031294|NCT00637299|181947169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.05
91031295|NCT00324168|181947174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.009||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.085|0.068|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for enrollment BSCVA||||0.068|-0.085|0.82
91031296|NCT00324168|181947175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.06||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.15|||Regression, Linear|||||0.15|-0.09|0.40
91104449|NCT02037984|182094980|OTHER|PT7F GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT7F GMC Ratio|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.84||||||||0.84|0.41|
90958512|NCT02679573|181796866|NON_INFERIORITY|Used on a normal approximation approach (Miettinen and Nurminen's Likelihood Score Test), 860 subjects in the ITT population provided a 90% power to assess non-inferiority of delafloxacin vs. moxifloxacin based on the following assumptions: (1) a rate of ECR for moxifloxacin therapy and delafloxacin of 77% and 74%, respectively; (2) 1 sided type I error (α) of 0.025; and (3) a non-inferiority margin of 12.5%.|Difference in responder rates|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|4.1|||||Difference = Difference in responder rates (Delafloxacin treatment group minus Moxifloxacin treatment group). Confidence intervals are calculated using Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification.|"The null (H0) and alternative (Ha) hypotheses to be tested to establish the noninferiority of delafloxacin were:~H0: Pd - Pm ≤ -0.125 Ha: Pd - Pm \> -0.125 where Pd and Pm are the probabilities of the ECR for delafloxacin and moxifloxacin, respectively.~The treatment difference (delafloxacin - moxifloxacin) were presented, and the Miettinen-Nurminen test, without stratification, was used for the 2 sided 95% CI on the difference in response rate."||4.1|-4.4|
90958513|NCT02679573|181796867|NON_INFERIORITY|Used on a normal approximation approach (Miettinen and Nurminen's Likelihood Score Test), 860 subjects in the ITT population provided a 90% power to assess non-inferiority of delafloxacin vs. moxifloxacin based on the following assumptions: (1) a rate of ECR for moxifloxacin therapy and delafloxacin of 77% and 74%, respectively; (2) 1 sided type I error (α) of 0.025; and (3) a non-inferiority margin of 12.5%.|Difference in responder rates|9.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|16.3||||||"The null (H0) and alternative (Ha) hypotheses to be tested to establish the noninferiority of delafloxacin were:~H0: Pd - Pm ≤ -0.125 Ha: Pd - Pm \> -0.125~where Pd and Pm are the probabilities of the ECR for delafloxacin and moxifloxacin, respectively.~The treatment difference (delafloxacin - moxifloxacin) was presented, and the Miettinen-Nurminen test without stratification was used for the 2 sided 95% CI on the difference in response rate."||16.3|3.0|
90958514|NCT02679573|181796868|NON_INFERIORITY|Used on a normal approximation approach (Miettinen and Nurminen's Likelihood Score Test), 860 subjects in the ITT population provided a 90% power to assess non-inferiority of delafloxacin vs. moxifloxacin based on the following assumptions: (1) a rate of ECR for moxifloxacin therapy and delafloxacin of 77% and 74%, respectively; (2) 1 sided type I error (α) of 0.025; and (3) a non-inferiority margin of 12.5%.|Difference in responder rates|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|4.8||||||"The null (H0) and alternative (Ha) hypotheses to be tested to establish the noninferiority of delafloxacin were:~H0: Pd - Pm ≤ -0.125 Ha: Pd - Pm \> -0.125~where Pd and Pm are the probabilities of the ECR for delafloxacin and moxifloxacin, respectively.~The treatment difference (delafloxacin - moxifloxacin) was presented, and the Miettinen-Nurminen test without stratification was used for the 2 sided 95% CI on the difference in response rate."||4.8|-3.3|
91031297|NCT00324168|181947176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.08|||Regression, Linear|||||0.08|-0.07|0.873
91031298|NCT00324168|181947177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.12|||Regression, Cox|||||1.12|0.76|0.44
91031299|NCT00324168|181947178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.99
91100738|NCT01543503|182087686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.204|-0.617|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Difference between Tocilizumab and TNF inhibitor: Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with change from baseline to 12 months in DAS28-ESR as dependent variable; therapy and treatment as fixed effects; DAS28-ESR at baseline as covariates.||-0.617|-1.204|<0.001
91100739|NCT01543503|182087687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.513|-10.947|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Difference between Tocilizumab and TNF inhibitor for ESR at Week 24: Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with change from baseline to 6 months in ESR as a dependent variable; therapy and treatment as fixed effects; ESR at baseline as the covariate.||-10.947|-15.513|<0.001
91100740|NCT01543503|182087687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.648|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.419|-9.876|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Difference between Tocilizumab and TNF inhibitor for ESR at Week 52: Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with change from baseline to 12 months in ESR, as the dependent variable; therapy and treatment as fixed effects; ESR at baseline as the covariate.||-9.876|-15.419|<0.001
91100741|NCT01543503|182087688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.673|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.271|-3.074|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Difference between Tocilizumab and TNF inhibitor for CRP at Week 24: Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with change from baseline to 6 months in CRP as a dependent variable; therapy and treatment as fixed effects; CRP at baseline as the covariate.||-3.074|-10.271|<0.001
90856070|NCT02247531|181576657|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.1||||0.8931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.5|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline LLVA, GA lesion location, biomarker status, modified baseline BCVA ETDRS chart Snellen equivalent category, and sex.||1.5|-1.8|0.8931
90856071|NCT02247531|181576657|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-1.1||||0.1754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|0.5|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline LLVA, GA lesion location, biomarker status, modified baseline BCVA ETDRS chart Snellen equivalent category, and sex.||0.5|-2.8|0.1754
91031300|NCT00324168|181947179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.05|||Regression, Linear|||||0.05|-0.12|0.39
91031301|NCT00324168|181947180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.78||95.0|-0.09|0.07|||Regression, Linear|||||0.07|-0.09|0.78
91031302|NCT00324168|181947181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.011|0.35|||Regression, Linear|||Nocardia spp||0.35|-.011|0.30
91104450|NCT02037984|182094980|OTHER|PT9V GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT9V GMC Ratio|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.01||||||||1.01|0.46|
90856072|NCT02247531|181576658|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.3707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.2|0.7|0.3707
90856073|NCT02247531|181576658|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.8382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.6|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.6|0.6|0.8382
90856074|NCT02247531|181576659|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|1.35||||0.6841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.16|7.85|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, baseline maximum reading speed, type of reading charts, baseline BCVA of better seeing eye, biomarker status, and sex.||7.85|-5.16|0.6841
91031303|NCT00324168|181947181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.86||95.0|-0.12|0.1|||Regression, Linear|||Streptococcus pneumoniae||0.10|-0.12|0.86
91104451|NCT02037984|182094980|OTHER|PT14 GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar®)|PT9V GMC Ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.22||||||||1.22|0.51|
91100742|NCT01543503|182087688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.116||||0.659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.074|3.842|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Difference between Tocilizumab and TNF inhibitor for CRP at Week 52: Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with change from baseline to 12 months in CRP as the dependent variable; therapy and treatment as fixed effects; CRP at baseline as the covariate.||3.842|-6.074|0.659
91100743|NCT01543503|182087689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.576||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.078|-0.075|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Difference between Tocilizumab and TNF inhibitor for SJC at Week 24: Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with change from baseline to 6 months in SJC as the dependent variable; therapy and treatment as fixed effects; SJC at baseline as the covariate.||-0.075|-1.078|0.024
91100744|NCT01543503|182087689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.752||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.238|-0.267|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Difference between Tocilizumab and TNF inhibitor for SJC at Week 52: Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with change from baseline to 12 months in SJC, as the dependent variable; therapy and treatment as fixed effects; SJC, at baseline as the covariate.||-0.267|-1.238|0.002
90856075|NCT02247531|181576659|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|1.07||||0.7443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.37|7.52|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, baseline maximum reading speed, type of reading charts, baseline BCVA of better seeing eye, biomarker status, and sex.||7.52|-5.37|0.7443
90958515|NCT02679573|181796869|NON_INFERIORITY|Used on a normal approximation approach (Miettinen and Nurminen's Likelihood Score Test), 860 subjects in the ITT population provided a 90% power to assess non-inferiority of delafloxacin vs. moxifloxacin based on the following assumptions: (1) a rate of ECR for moxifloxacin therapy and delafloxacin of 77% and 74%, respectively; (2) 1 sided type I error (α) of 0.025; and (3) a non-inferiority margin of 12.5%.|Difference in responder rates|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|4.6||||||"The null (H0) and alternative (Ha) hypotheses to be tested to establish the noninferiority of delafloxacin were:~H0: Pd - Pm ≤ -0.125 Ha: Pd - Pm \> -0.125~where Pd and Pm are the probabilities of the ECR for delafloxacin and moxifloxacin, respectively.~The treatment difference (delafloxacin - moxifloxacin) was presented, and the Miettinen-Nurminen test without stratification was used for the 2 sided 95% CI on the difference in response rate."||4.6|-3.0|
91100745|NCT01543503|182087690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.62||||0.123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.408|0.169|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Difference between Tocilizumab and TNF inhibitor for TJC at Week 24: Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with change from baseline to 6 months in TJC as the dependent variable; therapy and treatment as fixed effects; TJC at baseline as the covariate.||0.169|-1.408|0.123
90856076|NCT02247531|181576660|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.12||||0.9713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.28|6.52|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, baseline maximum reading speed, biomarker status, modified baseline BCVA, and sex.||6.52|-6.28|0.9713
90856077|NCT02247531|181576660|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-1.72||||0.5945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.08|4.63|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, baseline maximum reading speed, biomarker status, modified baseline BCVA, and sex.||4.63|-8.08|0.5945
90856078|NCT02247531|181576661|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|1.22||||0.2438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|3.27|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, baseline score, baseline BCVA of better seeing eye, biomarker status, and sex.||3.27|-0.83|0.2438
90856079|NCT02247531|181576661|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|1.03||||0.3202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|3.07|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, baseline score, baseline BCVA of better seeing eye, biomarker status, and sex.||3.07|-1.01|0.3202
91031304|NCT00324168|181947181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.55|||Regression, Linear|||Moraxella spp||0.55|-0.34|0.65
91031305|NCT00324168|181947181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.13|||Regression, Linear|||Pseudomonas aeruginosa||0.13|-0.20|0.67
91100746|NCT01543503|182087690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.216||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.039|-0.393|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Difference between Tocilizumab and TNF inhibitor for TJC at Week 52: Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with change from baseline to 12 months in TJC as the dependent variable; therapy and treatment as fixed effects; TJC at baseline as the covariate.||-0.393|-2.039|0.004
91100747|NCT01543503|182087691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.475|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.481|-1.469|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Difference between Tocilizumab and TNF inhibitor for CDAI score at Week 24: Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with change from baseline to 6 months in CDAI the dependent variable; therapy and treatment as fixed effects; CDAI at baseline as the covariate.||-1.469|-5.481|<0.001
91104452|NCT02037984|182094980|OTHER|PT18C GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT18C GMC Ratio|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.05||||||||1.05|0.50|
90856080|NCT02247531|181576662|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|2.64||||0.0388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|5.14|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, baseline score, baseline BCVA of better seeing eye, biomarker status, and sex.||5.14|0.14|0.0388
90856081|NCT02247531|181576662|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|2.2||||0.0833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|4.68|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, baseline score, baseline BCVA of better seeing eye, biomarker status, and sex.||4.68|-0.29|0.0833
90856082|NCT02247531|181576663|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|1.04||||0.4795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|3.91|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, baseline score, baseline BCVA of better seeing eye, biomarker status, and sex.||3.91|-1.84|0.4795
90856083|NCT02247531|181576663|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.6||||0.6822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|3.45|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, baseline score, baseline BCVA of better seeing eye, biomarker status, and sex.||3.45|-2.26|0.6822
90856084|NCT02247531|181576664|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.04||||0.5227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.14|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, baseline Mean FRI Index score, baseline BCVA of better seeing eye, biomarker status, and sex.||0.14|-0.07|0.5227
90856085|NCT02247531|181576664|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.02||||0.7475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.13|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, baseline Mean FRI Index score, baseline BCVA of better seeing eye, biomarker status, and sex.||0.13|-0.09|0.7475
91100748|NCT01543503|182087691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.708|-2.492|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Difference between Tocilizumab and TNF inhibitor for CDAI score at Week 52: Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with change from baseline to 12 months in CDAI as the dependent variable; therapy and treatment as fixed effects; CDAI at baseline as the covariate.||-2.492|-6.708|<0.001
91104453|NCT02037984|182094980|OTHER|PT19A GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT19A GMC Ratio|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.8||||||||0.80|0.37|
90856086|NCT02247531|181576665|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.049||||0.6333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.153|0.252|||MMRM|||CFI Positive: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline GA area, lesion location, contiguity, biomarker status, modified baseline BCVA and sex.||0.252|-0.153|0.6333
90856087|NCT02247531|181576665|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.025||||0.8105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.23|||MMRM|||CFI Positive: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline GA area, lesion location, contiguity, biomarker status, modified baseline BCVA and sex.||0.230|-0.180|0.8105
90856088|NCT02247531|181576665|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.34||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.097|0.584|||MMRM|||CFI Negative: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline GA area, lesion location, contiguity, biomarker status, modified baseline BCVA and sex.||0.584|0.097|0.0063
90856089|NCT02247531|181576665|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.182||||0.1359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.058|0.422|||MMRM|||CFI Negative: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline GA area, lesion location, contiguity, biomarker status, modified baseline BCVA and sex.||0.422|-0.058|0.1359
90856090|NCT02882074|181576679|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27||||0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.64|||Regression, Linear|||||0.64|-0.11|0.158
90856091|NCT02882074|181576680|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric means|0.86||||0.388|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.57|1.28||The significance criterion is p-value \< 0.025 (i.e. 0.05/2), corrected for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis||Syndecan values were all log-transformed to meet the linearity requirement. Thus the treatment effect was presented as the ratio of geometric means.|||1.28|0.57|0.388
90856092|NCT02882074|181576681|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric means|1.19||||0.257|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.84|1.68||The significance criterion is p-value \< 0.025 (i.e. 0.05/2), corrected for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis||Endocan values were all log-transformed to meet the linearity requirement. Thus the treatment effect was presented as the ratio of geometric means.|||1.68|0.84|0.257
90856093|NCT02882074|181576682|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.62||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.01|||Regression, Linear|||||1.01|0.23|0.003
90856094|NCT01068652|181576748|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The treatment comparison was based on a non-inferiority criterion and the following hypotheses were tested: H0: μDetemir - μBIAsp 30 ≥0.4% against the alternative hypothesis (Detemir non-inferior to BIAsp 30) HA: μDetemir - μBIAsp 30 \<0.4% where μBIAsp 30 and μDetemir are the mean HbA1c after 50 weeks of treatment with the two treatment regimens.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.3406||95.0|-0.12|0.34|||ANCOVA|||To investigate the effect of different treatments, an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used to analyse HbA1c at week 50 with treatment group (2 categories: insulin detemir and aspart; BIAsp 30), country and pre-trial OAD(s) treatment (one OAD vs. more OADs) as factors and HbA1c at baseline (week 0) as a covariate. The treatment difference was estimated and a 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference was calculated.||0.34|-0.12|0.3406
90856095|NCT00708071|181576777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|0.25||||0.143||95.0|-0.04|0.49|||McNemar||Difference in Proportions = SoC - FS VH S/D 4|||0.49|-0.04|0.143
90856096|NCT00708071|181576778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.12|0.48|||||Difference in proportions = SoC - FS VH S/D 4|||0.48|0.12|
90856097|NCT00708071|181576779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.111|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.11|0.32|||||Difference in proportions = SoC - FS VH S/D 4|||0.32|-0.11|
90856098|NCT00708071|181576780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.032|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.24|0.18|||||Difference in proportions = SoC - FS VH S/D 4|||0.18|-0.24|
90856099|NCT00708071|181576781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.21|0.21|||||Difference in proportions = SoC - FS VH S/D 4|||0.21|-0.21|
90856100|NCT00708071|181576782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.038|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.17|0.24|||||Difference in proportions = SoC - FS VH S/D 4|||0.24|-0.17|
90856101|NCT00708071|181576783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.645|||||||Two-sided Wilcoxon paired sample tests|alpha = 10%||||||0.645
90856102|NCT00708071|181576784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.103||90.0|||||Two-sided Wilcoxon paired sample tests|alpha = 10%||||||0.103
90856103|NCT00708071|181576785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.833||90.0|||||Two-sided Wilcoxon paired sample tests|alpha = 10%||||||0.833
90856104|NCT00708071|181576786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.501||90.0|||||Two-sided Wilcoxon paired sample tests|alpha = 10%||||||0.501
90856105|NCT00708071|181576787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.247||90.0|||||Two-sided Wilcoxon paired sample tests|alpha = 10%||||||0.247
91031306|NCT00324168|181947182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.08||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.25|||Regression, Linear|||\<20/40||0.25|-0.08|0.33
91104454|NCT02037984|182094980|OTHER|PT19F GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT19F GMC Ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.44||||||||1.44|0.66|
90856106|NCT00708071|181576788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.715||90.0|||||Two-sided Wilcoxon paired sample tests|alpha = 10%||||||0.715
90856107|NCT00708071|181576790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.754||90.0|||||Two-sided Wilcoxon paired sample tests|alpha = 10%||||||0.754
90856108|NCT00708071|181576791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.388||90.0|||||Two-sided Wilcoxon paired sample tests|alpha = 10%||||||0.388
90856109|NCT00708071|181576792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.234||90.0|||||Two-sided Wilcoxon paired sample tests|alpha = 10%||||||0.234
90856110|NCT00708071|181576793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.688||90.0||||Two-sided Wilcoxon paired sample tests|Two-sided Wilcoxon paired sample tests|alpha = 10%||||||0.688
90856111|NCT00708071|181576794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.625||90.0|||||Two-sided Wilcoxon paired sample tests|alpha = 10%||||||0.625
90856112|NCT00708071|181576795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.688||90.0|||||Two-sided Wilcoxon paired sample tests|alpha = 10%||||||0.688
90856113|NCT00708071|181576796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||90.0|||||Two-sided Wilcoxon paired sample tests|alpha = 10%||||||1.000
91100749|NCT01543503|182087691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.229||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.806|-0.652|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Difference between Tocilizumab and TNF inhibitor for SDAI score at Week 24: Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with change from baseline to 6 months in SDAI as the dependent variable; therapy and treatment as fixed effects; SDAI at baseline as the covariate.||-0.652|-5.806|0.014
91100750|NCT01543503|182087691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.245||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.121|-0.37|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Difference between Tocilizumab and TNF inhibitor for SDAI score at Week 52: Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with change from baseline to 12 months in SDAI as the dependent variable; therapy and treatment as fixed effects; SDAI at baseline as the covariate.||-0.370|-6.121|0.027
91100751|NCT01543503|182087692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.655|-5.404|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Difference between Tocilizumab and TNF inhibitor for Physician Global Assessment score at Week 24: Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with change from baseline to 6 months in Physician Global Assessment of Disease Activity as the dependent variable; therapy and treatment as fixed effects; Physician Global Assessment of Disease Activity at baseline as covariates.||-5.404|-12.655|<0.001
90856114|NCT00708071|181576797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.521||90.0|||||Two-sided Wilcoxon paired sample tests|alpha = 10%||||||0.521
90856115|NCT00708071|181576798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.324||90.0||||alpha = 10%|Two-sided Wilcoxon paired sample tests|||||||0.324
90856116|NCT00708071|181576799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.661||90.0|||||Two-sided Wilcoxon paired sample tests|alpha = 10%||||||0.661
90856117|NCT00708071|181576800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||90.0|||||Two-sided Wilcoxon paired sample tests|alpha = 10%||||||1.000
90856118|NCT00708071|181576801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.699||90.0|||||Two-sided Wilcoxon paired sample tests|alpha = 10%||||||0.699
90856119|NCT00708071|181576804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||two-sided paired t-test|alpha = 5%||||||0.0010
90856120|NCT00708071|181576806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.182||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.34|||McNemar's test of paired proportions|Alpha = 5%|Difference in Proportions = (Number of SoC Participants with Hematoma/Seroma) - (Number of FS VH S/D 4 Participants with Hematoma/Seroma)|||0.34|0.04|0.014
90856121|NCT02140775|181576812|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.602|||||||Chi-squared|degrees of freedom = 1||A Chi-Square test was conducted between the treatment groups and the dichotomous outcome of successful achievement of employment goal.||||.602
90856122|NCT02140775|181576813|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.75|0.26|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.26|-7.75|.066
90856123|NCT02140775|181576814|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.68||0.674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.59|12.09|||t-test, 2 sided|||||12.09|-18.59|.674
90856124|NCT01858636|181576844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|A one-sided Fisher's exact test was performed with a 95% upper confidence bound of 5.5%||Ho: Pt ≥ 8% Ha: Pt \< 8%, where Pt is the proportion of deployed subjects with a protocol-defined vascular complication.||||0.0029
90856125|NCT01858636|181576845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|A one-sided Fisher's exact test was performed with a 95% lower confidence bound of 96.4%||Ho: St ≤ 90% Ha: St \> 90%, where St is the proportion of deployed subjects achieving hemostasis within 5 minutes.||||<0.0001
90856126|NCT01227564|181576873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.002||||0.9538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.075|0.071||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|||A mixed-effect model repeated measures was used, with the baseline measure of average SUVRs over ROIs and Apo E4 Status (Carrier or Non-carrier) as covariates, time, treatment, and treatment\*time as fixed effects. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (test-reference) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals were obtained from the model. ACC 3 µg+QS-21 50 µg was the test treatment and placebo was the reference treatment. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 52.||0.071|-0.075|0.9538
90856127|NCT01227564|181576873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.006||||0.8787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.081||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed-effect model repeated measures was used, with the baseline measure of average SUVRs over ROIs and Apo E4 Status (Carrier or Non-carrier) as covariates, time, treatment, and treatment\*time as fixed effects. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (test-reference) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals were obtained from the model. ACC 10 µg+QS-21 50 µg was the test treatment and placebo was the reference treatment. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 52.||0.081|-0.070|0.8787
90856128|NCT01227564|181576873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.002||||0.9544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.062|0.066||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed-effect model repeated measures was used, with the baseline measure of average SUVRs over ROIs and Apo E4 Status (Carrier or Non-carrier) as covariates, time, treatment, and treatment\*time as fixed effects. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (test-reference) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals were obtained from the model. ACC 3 µg or ACC 10 µg + QS-21 50 µg was the test treatment and placebo was the reference treatment. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 52.||0.066|-0.062|0.9544
90903308|NCT00432679|181673677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|18.9|||||Comparison of FPG, fell below 126 milligrams per deciliter|||18.9|-5.1|
90903309|NCT00432679|181673677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.6|35.3|||||Comparison of FPG, satisfied either 1 or 2|||35.3|5.6|
90903310|NCT00906503|181673678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|31.1||||||||31.1|0.06|
90903311|NCT03405662|181673679|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||non-parametric Kolmogorov-Smirnov test|||||||0.07
90903312|NCT03405662|181673680|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||non-parametric Kolmogorov-Smirnov test|||||||0.29
90903313|NCT03405662|181673681|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||non-parametric Kolmogorov-Smirnov test|||||||0.07
91031307|NCT00324168|181947182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.11|||Regression, Linear|||20/40 to 20/800||0.11|-0.09|0.85
91031308|NCT00324168|181947182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|-0.02|||Regression, Linear|||CF or worse||-0.02|-0.31|0.03
91031309|NCT00324168|181947183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.06||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.17|||Regression, Linear|||\>0-33%||0.17|-0.05|0.31
91100752|NCT01543503|182087692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.237|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.13|-6.345|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Difference between Tocilizumab and TNF inhibitor for Physician Global Assessment score at Week 52: Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with change from baseline to 12 months in Physician Global Assessment of Disease Activity as the dependent variable; therapy and treatment as fixed effects; Physician Global Assessment of Disease Activity at baseline as covariates.||-6.345|-14.130|<0.001
91100753|NCT01543503|182087696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.001
91100754|NCT01543503|182087700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.146||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.269|-0.024|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Difference between Tocilizumab and TNF inhibitor at Week 24: Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with change from baseline to 6 months in HAQ-DI as dependent variable; therapy and treatment as fixed effects; HAQ-DI at baseline as covariates.||-0.024|-0.269|0.020
90856129|NCT01227564|181576873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.003||||0.955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.106|0.112||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed-effect model repeated measures was used, with the baseline measure of average SUVRs over ROIs and Apo E4 Status (Carrier or Non-carrier) as covariates, time, treatment, and treatment\*time as fixed effects. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (test-reference) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals were obtained from the model. ACC 3 µg+QS-21 50 µg was the test treatment and placebo was the reference treatment. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 78.||0.112|-0.106|0.9550
90856130|NCT01227564|181576873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.008||||0.8874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.121|0.105||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed-effect model repeated measures was used, with the baseline measure of average SUVRs over ROIs and Apo E4 Status (Carrier or Non-carrier) as covariates, time, treatment, and treatment\*time as fixed effects. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (test-reference) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals were obtained from the model. ACC 10 µg+QS-21 50 µg was the test treatment and placebo was the reference treatment. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 78.||0.105|-0.121|0.8874
90856131|NCT01227564|181576873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.002||||0.9595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.099|0.095||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed-effect model repeated measures was used, with the baseline measure of average SUVRs over ROIs and Apo E4 Status (Carrier or Non-carrier) as covariates, time, treatment, and treatment\*time as fixed effects. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (test-reference) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals were obtained from the model. ACC 3 µg or ACC 10 µg + QS-21 50 µg was the test treatment and placebo was the reference treatment. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 78.||0.095|-0.099|0.9595
90856132|NCT01227564|181576873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.3826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.164|0.064||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed-effect model repeated measures was used, with the baseline measure of average SUVRs over ROIs and Apo E4 Status (Carrier or Non-carrier) as covariates, time, treatment, and treatment\*time as fixed effects. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (test-reference) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals were obtained from the model. ACC 3 µg+QS-21 50 µg was the test treatment and placebo was the reference treatment. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||0.064|-0.164|0.3826
91031310|NCT00324168|181947183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.14|||Regression, Linear|||\>33%-67%||0.14|-0.13|0.94
91031311|NCT00324168|181947183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.01|||Regression, Linear|||\>67%-100%||0.01|-0.31|0.07
91031312|NCT00324168|181947184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2|||Regression, Linear|||0-1.90 mm||0.20|-0.10|0.53
91031313|NCT00324168|181947184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.16|||Regression, Linear|||1.91-2.70 mm||0.16|-0.15|0.95
91031314|NCT00324168|181947184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.18|||Regression, Linear|||2.71-4.06 mm||0.18|-0.12|0.70
91031315|NCT00324168|181947184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.01|||Regression, Linear|||4.07-8.90 mm||0.01|-0.31|0.07
91031316|NCT01682083|181947195|SUPERIORITY|Hazard ratio is obtained from the stratified Pike estimator. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with Dabrafenib + Trametinib compared with Placebo.|Hazard Ratio, log|0.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.58|||Log Rank|||The null hypothesis, H0: λ = 1 or reject it in favor of the alternative hypothesis, HA: λ ≠ 1, where λ is the hazard ratio (HR) of combination therapy relative to placebo.||0.58|0.39|< 0.0001
91100755|NCT01543503|182087700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.164||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.301|-0.026|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Difference between Tocilizumab and TNF inhibitor at Week 52: Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with change from baseline to 12 months in HAQ-DI as dependent variable; therapy and treatment as fixed effects; HAQ-DI at baseline as covariates.||-0.026|-0.301|0.020
91104455|NCT02037984|182094980|OTHER|PT23F GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT23F GMC Ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.28||||||||1.28|0.49|
91104456|NCT02037984|182094980|OTHER|non-PT22F GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|non-PT22F GMC Ratio|68.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.81|102.84||||||||102.84|45.81|
90856133|NCT01227564|181576873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.049||||0.3912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.164|0.065||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed-effect model repeated measures was used, with the baseline measure of average SUVRs over ROIs and Apo E4 Status (Carrier or Non-carrier) as covariates, time, treatment, and treatment\*time as fixed effects. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (test-reference) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals were obtained from the model. ACC 10 µg+QS-21 50 µg was the test treatment and placebo was the reference treatment. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||0.065|-0.164|0.3912
90856134|NCT01227564|181576873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.3221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.149|0.05||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed-effect model repeated measures was used, with the baseline measure of average SUVRs over ROIs and Apo E4 Status (Carrier or Non-carrier) as covariates, time, treatment, and treatment\*time as fixed effects. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (test-reference) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals were obtained from the model. ACC 3 µg or ACC 10 µg + QS-21 50 µg was the test treatment and placebo was the reference treatment. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||0.050|-0.149|0.3221
90856135|NCT01227564|181576874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|48.18||||0.9384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1197.07|1293.42||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) was used with baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, in addition to treatment included in the ANCOVA model.||1293.42|-1197.07|0.9384
90856136|NCT01227564|181576874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|581.98||||0.3945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-778.17|1942.13||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was used with baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, in addition to treatment included in the ANCOVA model.||1942.13|-778.17|0.3945
90856137|NCT01227564|181576874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|315.08||||0.5773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-812.15|1442.3||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was used with baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, in addition to treatment included in the ANCOVA model.||1442.30|-812.15|0.5773
90903314|NCT03405662|181673682|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||non-parametric Kolmogorov-Smirnov test|||||||0.23
91031317|NCT01682083|181947196|SUPERIORITY|A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with dabrafenib + trametinib compared with Placebo.|Hazard Ratio, log|0.57||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.79|||Log Rank|the two-sided threshold for significance at this first interim analysis was p=0.000019||Hazard ratio is obtained from the stratified Pike estimator.||0.79|0.42|0.006
91100756|NCT01543503|182087701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.893||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.457|-0.329|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Difference between Tocilizumab and TNF inhibitor at Week 24: Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with change from baseline to 6 months in FACIT-F score as dependent variable; therapy and treatment as fixed effects; FACIT-F score at baseline as covariates.||-0.329|-7.457|0.032
90856138|NCT01227564|181576875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.16||||0.5818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.31|111.62||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was used with baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, in addition to treatment included in the ANCOVA model.||111.62|-63.31|0.5818
90903315|NCT03405662|181673683|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||non-parametric Kolmogorov-Smirnov test|||||||0.68
90903316|NCT03405662|181673684|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||non-parametric Kolmogorov-Smirnov test|||||||0.13
90856139|NCT01227564|181576875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|84.42||||0.0648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.37|174.21||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was used with baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, in addition to treatment included in the ANCOVA model.||174.21|-5.37|0.0648
90856140|NCT01227564|181576875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|54.29||||0.1672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.47|132.05||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was used with baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, in addition to treatment included in the ANCOVA model.||132.05|-23.47|0.1672
90903317|NCT03405662|181673685|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||non-parametric Kolmogorov-Smirnov test|||||||0.32
90903318|NCT03405662|181673686|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||non-parametric Kolmogorov-Smirnov test|||||||0.68
90903319|NCT03405662|181673687|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||non-parametric Kolmogorov-Smirnov test|||||||0.86
90903320|NCT03405662|181673688|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||non-parametric Kolmogorov-Smirnov test|||||||0.32
90903321|NCT01177813|181673693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.9|-0.57||Difference calculated as empagliflozin 10mg minus placebo|ANCOVA|||Model was adjusted for treatment,geographical region, and renal function at baseline as fixed effects, and baseline HbA1c as linear covariate||-0.57|-0.90|<0.0001
90903322|NCT01177813|181673693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.01|-0.69||Difference calculated as empagliflozin 25mg minus placebo|ANCOVA|||Model was adjusted for treatment,geographical region, and renal function at baseline as fixed effects, and baseline HbA1c as linear covariate||-0.69|-1.01|<0.0001
91031318|NCT01682083|181947197|SUPERIORITY|A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with Dabrafenib + Trametinib compared with Placebo.|Hazard Ratio, log|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.65||||||Hazard ratio is estimated using Pike estimator.||0.65|0.40|
91104457|NCT02037984|182094980|OTHER|non-PT33F GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|non-PT33F GMC Ratio|20.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.88|36.88||||||||36.88|10.88|
90856141|NCT01227564|181576876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.36||||0.3106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.94|3.22||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was used with baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, in addition to treatment included in the ANCOVA model.||3.22|-9.94|0.3106
90856142|NCT01227564|181576876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.51||||0.1876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.28|2.27||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was used with baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, in addition to treatment included in the ANCOVA model.||2.27|-11.28|0.1876
90856143|NCT01227564|181576876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.93||||0.1742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.66|1.79||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was used with baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, in addition to treatment included in the ANCOVA model.||1.79|-9.66|0.1742
90856144|NCT01227564|181576877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-30.36||||0.4089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-103.52|42.81||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was used with baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, in addition to treatment included in the ANCOVA model.||42.81|-103.52|0.4089
90856145|NCT01227564|181576877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-83.4||||0.0327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-159.69|-7.11||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was used with baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, in addition to treatment included in the ANCOVA model.||-7.11|-159.69|0.0327
90856146|NCT01227564|181576877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-56.88||||0.0801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-120.82|7.06||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was used with baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, in addition to treatment included in the ANCOVA model.||7.06|-120.82|0.0801
90856147|NCT01227564|181576878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.78||||0.4892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.15|76.71||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 12.||76.71|-37.15|0.4892
90856148|NCT01227564|181576878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|51.06||||0.0915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.51|110.63||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 12.||110.63|-8.51|0.0915
90856149|NCT01227564|181576878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|35.42||||0.1638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.88|85.72||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 12.||85.72|-14.88|0.1638
90856150|NCT01227564|181576878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|99.29||||0.2006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.28|252.86||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 26.||252.86|-54.28|0.2006
90856151|NCT01227564|181576878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|225.63||||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.18|386.09||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 26.||386.09|65.18|0.0067
91031319|NCT01682083|181947198|SUPERIORITY|A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with Dabrafenib + Trametinib compared with Placebo.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.57||||||Hazard ratio is estimated using Pike estimator.||0.57|0.39|
91031320|NCT03828734|181947205|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.263|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.263
91031321|NCT03828734|181947206|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-06|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.000001
91104458|NCT02037984|182094984|OTHER|PT1 Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT1 Percentage Point Difference|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|6.5|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||6.5|-16.3|
91100757|NCT01543503|182087701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.787||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.763|1.189|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Difference between Tocilizumab and TNF inhibitor for Week 52: Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with change from baseline to 12 months in FACIT-F score as dependent variable; therapy and treatment as fixed effects; FACIT-F score at baseline as covariates.||1.189|-6.763|0.168
90856152|NCT01227564|181576878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|162.46||||0.0204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.05|298.87||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 26.||298.87|26.05|0.0204
90856153|NCT01227564|181576878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|114.13||||0.0766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.63|240.89||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 52.||240.89|-12.63|0.0766
90856154|NCT01227564|181576878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|226.82||||0.0181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.23|413.41||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 52.||413.41|40.23|0.0181
90856155|NCT01227564|181576878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|167.33||||0.0387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.03|325.63||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 52.||325.63|9.03|0.0387
90856156|NCT01227564|181576878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|107.84||||0.2277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.29|284.97||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 78.||284.97|-69.29|0.2277
90856157|NCT01227564|181576878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|226.82||||0.0181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.23|413.41||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 78.||413.41|40.23|0.0181
90903323|NCT01177813|181673694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.48|-1.38||Difference calculated as empagliflozin 10mg minus placebo|ANCOVA|||Model was adjusted for treatment,geographical region,and renal function at baseline as fixed effects,baseline body weight and baseline HbA1c as linear covariate||-1.38|-2.48|<0.0001
90903324|NCT01177813|181673694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-1.6||Difference calculated as empagliflozin 25mg minus placebo|ANCOVA|||Model was adjusted for treatment,geographical region,and renal function at baseline as fixed effects,baseline body weight and baseline HbA1c as linear covariate||-1.60|-2.70|<0.0001
91031322|NCT03828734|181947207|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.399|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.399
91100758|NCT01543503|182087702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.661||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.912|-1.411|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Difference between Tocilizumab and TNF inhibitor at Week 24: Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with change from baseline to 6 months in participant's VAS score as dependent variable; therapy and treatment as fixed effects; participant's VAS score at baseline as covariates.||-1.411|-9.912|0.009
90903325|NCT01177813|181673695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.0231|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-5.2|0.0||Difference calculated as empagliflozin 10mg minus placebo|ANCOVA|||"Comparison for Systolic Blood Pressure~Model was adjusted for treatment,geographical region, and renal function at baseline as fixed effects, baseline SBP and baseline HbA1c as linear covariate"||0.0|-5.2|0.0231
91031323|NCT03952143|181947208|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority margin = 0.4% for HbA1c|LS Mean Difference|0.07||||0.321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.21|-0.07|0.321
91031324|NCT03952143|181947209|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-14.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.9|-7.4|||ANCOVA|||||-7.4|-21.9|<0.001
91031325|NCT03952143|181947210|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-21.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.9|-12.6|||ANCOVA|||||-12.6|-30.9|<0.001
91104459|NCT02037984|182094984|OTHER|PT3 Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT3 Percentage Point Difference|14.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|32.5|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||32.5|-4.1|
91100759|NCT01543503|182087702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.802|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.245|-5.36|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Difference between Tocilizumab and TNF inhibitor at Week 52: Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with change from baseline to 12 months in participant's VAS score as dependent variable; therapy and treatment as fixed effects; participant's VAS score at baseline as covariates.||-5.360|-14.245|<0.001
91100760|NCT01543503|182087704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.108||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.017|-1.2|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Difference between Tocilizumab and TNF inhibitor at Week 24: Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with change from baseline to 6 months in Patient's Global Assessment of Disease as dependent variable; therapy and treatment as fixed effects; Patient's Global Assessment of Disease at baseline as covariates.||-1.200|-9.017|0.010
91100761|NCT01543503|182087704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.767|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.161|-3.372|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Difference between Tocilizumab and TNF inhibitor at Week 52: Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with change from baseline to 12 months in Patient's Global Assessment of Disease as dependent variable; therapy and treatment as fixed effects; Patient's Global Assessment of Disease at baseline as covariates.||-3.372|-12.161|<0.001
90856158|NCT01227564|181576878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|167.33||||0.0387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.03|325.63||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 78.||325.63|9.03|0.0387
90856159|NCT01227564|181576878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|141.92||||0.0747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.62|298.45||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||298.45|-14.62|0.0747
90856160|NCT01227564|181576878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|204.4||||0.0151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.02|367.79||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||367.79|41.02|0.0151
90856161|NCT01227564|181576878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|173.16||||0.0161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.25|313.07||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||313.07|33.25|0.0161
90856162|NCT01227564|181576879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.652||||0.1807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.57|1.267||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline total brain volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 10.||1.267|-6.570|0.1807
90903326|NCT01177813|181673695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-6.0|-0.9||Difference calculated as empagliflozin 25mg minus placebo|ANCOVA|||"Comparison for Systolic blood pressure~Model was adjusted for treatment,geographical region, and renal function at baseline as fixed effects, baseline SBP and baseline HbA1c as linear covariate"||-0.9|-6.0|0.0028
90903327|NCT01177813|181673695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.3987|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.1|0.9||Difference calculated as empagliflozin 10mg minus placebo|ANCOVA|||"Comparison for diastolic blood pressure~Model was adjusted for treatment,geographical region, and renal function at baseline as fixed effects, baseline DBP and baseline HbA1c as linear covariate"||0.9|-2.1|0.3987
90903328|NCT01177813|181673695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.0296|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.0|0.0||Difference calculated as empagliflozin 25mg minus placebo|ANCOVA|||"Comparison for diastolic blood pressure~Model was adjusted for treatment,geographical region, and renal function at baseline as fixed effects, baseline DBP and baseline HbA1c as linear covariate"||0.0|-3.0|0.0296
91104460|NCT02037984|182094984|OTHER|PT4 Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT4 Percentage Point Difference|-7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.8|5.7|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||5.7|-22.8|
90903329|NCT00581256|181673697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||Fisher Exact|||A Perfusion Defect (PD) increase of greater than 5% for a 2.5 SD threshold was considered significant.||||0.6
90903330|NCT00581256|181673697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46|||||||Fisher Exact|||A PD increase of greater than 10% for a 1.5 SD threshold was considered significant.||||0.46
91031326|NCT03952143|181947211|SUPERIORITY||Relative rate|0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|2.86||||||||2.86|0.02|
91031327|NCT03952143|181947212|SUPERIORITY||Relative rate|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.66||||||For ≤30 minutes post meal||1.66|0.49|
91104461|NCT02037984|182094984|OTHER|PT5 Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT5 Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|9.5|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.5|-11.2|
90856163|NCT01227564|181576879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.497||||0.8051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.515|4.508||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline total brain volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 10.||4.508|-3.515|0.8051
90903331|NCT03220737|181673735|NON_INFERIORITY|This analysis was based on the lower confidence limit and did not entail a comparative group. The requirement was for the lower limit of the 98.3% CI be at least 70%. Multiplicity adjustment due to co-primary endpoints allotted alpha=0.017 to this endpoint resulting in a 98.3% confidence interval|Proportion|0.985|||||ONE_SIDED|98.3|0.7||||||||||0.7|
90856164|NCT01227564|181576879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.078||||0.5331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.519|2.364||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline total brain volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 10.||2.364|-4.519|0.5331
90856165|NCT01227564|181576879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.174||||0.9274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.99|3.641||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline total brain volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 24.||3.641|-3.990|0.9274
90856166|NCT01227564|181576879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.549||||0.0743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|7.458||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline total brain volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 24.||7.458|-0.360|0.0743
90856167|NCT01227564|181576879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.687||||0.3163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.656|5.031||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline total brain volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 24.||5.031|-1.656|0.3163
90856168|NCT01227564|181576879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.645||||0.519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.721|3.43||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline total brain volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 50.||3.430|-6.721|0.5190
90856169|NCT01227564|181576879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.758||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.476|9.991||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline total brain volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 50.||9.991|-0.476|0.0740
90856170|NCT01227564|181576879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|5.394||||0.4909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.937|6.049||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline total brain volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 50.||6.049|-2.937|0.4909
91031328|NCT03952143|181947212|SUPERIORITY||Relative rate|1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.31||||||For ≤ 1 hour post meal||2.31|0.79|
90903332|NCT03220737|181673736|NON_INFERIORITY|This analysis was based on the lower confidence limit and did not entail a comparative group. The requirement was for the lower limit of the 98.3% CI be at least 70%. Multiplicity adjustment due to coprimary endpoints allotted alpha=0.017 to this endpoint resulting in a 98.3% confidence interval.|Proportion|0.985|||||ONE_SIDED|98.3|0.7||||||||||0.7|
90903333|NCT03220737|181673737|NON_INFERIORITY|This analysis was based on the lower confidence limit and did not entail a comparative group. The requirement was for the lower limit of the 98.3% CI be at least 70%. Multiplicity adjustment due to coprimary endpoints allotted alpha=0.017 to this endpoint resulting in a 98.3% confidence interval.|Proportion|0.985|||||ONE_SIDED|98.3|0.7||||||||||0.7|
91031329|NCT03952143|181947212|SUPERIORITY||Relative rate|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.42||||||For \>1 to ≤2 hours post meal||2.42|1.06|
90856171|NCT01227564|181576879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.383||||0.9151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.549|6.783||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline total brain volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 76.||6.783|-7.549|0.9151
90856172|NCT01227564|181576879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.394||||0.1533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.069|12.857||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline total brain volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 76.||12.857|-2.069|0.1533
90903334|NCT03220737|181673738|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was determined using the Newcombe method of determining the difference between two independent binomial distributions. Multiple comparison adjustment for co-primary endpoints allotted alpha=0.033 to this comparison. The lower limit of the 96.7% CI needed to be greater than -10 percentage points to prove non-inferiority.|Risk Difference (RD)|5.8|||||TWO_SIDED|96.7|2.4|7.1|||||Newcombe method of determining the difference between two independent binomial distributions|||7.1|2.4|
90903335|NCT03220737|181673739|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was determined using the Newcombe method of determining the difference between two independent binomial distributions. Multiple comparison adjustment for co-primary endpoints allotted alpha=0.033 to this comparison. The lower limit of the 96.7% CI needed to be greater than -10 percentage points to prove non-inferiority.|Risk Difference (RD)|4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|96.7|-0.3|6.2||||||||6.2|-0.3|
90856173|NCT01227564|181576879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.506||||0.4371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.904|8.915||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline total brain volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 76.||8.915|-3.904|0.4371
91100762|NCT00514917|182087750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.29||||0.0501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.65||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05|Log Rank|P-value was not adjusted for multiplicity of tests.|The hazard ratio Leuprolide+Bicalutamide vs. Docetaxel+Leuprolide+Bicalutamide was estimated using an un-stratified Cox proportional hazards model. A hazard ratio \>1 indicates a lower risk of Docetaxel+Leuprolide, compared to Leuprolide.|"Null hypothesis: No difference between new treatment combination (Docetaxel+Leuprolide+Bicalutamide) and conventional treatment (Leuprolide+Bicalutamide).~The study was sized to have 90% power to detect a difference between treatment arms at a 2-sided 0.05 significance level with 186 events and anticipating 10% non-evaluable participants."||1.65|1.00|0.0501
91100763|NCT01666314|182087770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1078|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1078
90856174|NCT01227564|181576879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.21||||0.6167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.999|6.579||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline total brain volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||6.579|-10.999|0.6167
90856175|NCT01227564|181576879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.11||||0.1844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.993|15.212||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline total brain volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||15.212|-2.993|0.1844
90856176|NCT01227564|181576879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.95||||0.6205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.888|9.878||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline total brain volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||9.878|-5.888|0.6205
90856177|NCT01227564|181576880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.418||||0.1695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.183|1.018||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline ventricular volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 10.||1.018|-0.183|0.1695
90856178|NCT01227564|181576880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.147||||0.6331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.465|0.759||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline ventricular volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 10.||0.759|-0.465|0.6331
90856179|NCT01227564|181576880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.282||||0.2907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.247|0.812||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline ventricular volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 10.||0.812|-0.247|0.2907
90903336|NCT03220737|181673740|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was determined using the Newcombe method of determining the difference between two independent binomial distributions. Multiple comparison adjustment for co-primary endpoints allotted alpha=0.033 to this comparison. The lower limit of the 96.7% CI needed to be greater than -10 percentage points to prove non-inferiority.|Risk Difference (RD)|4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|96.7|-1.1|6.4||||||||6.4|-1.1|
90903337|NCT03220737|181673741|SUPERIORITY|Fisher's exact test was used to compare Vaxchora vaccine to placebo on the percent of subjects who seroconverted. For Vaxchora vs placebo within each cohort at each Day on study timepoint, the p-value was the same (p\<0.0001).|||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
90903338|NCT03220737|181673742|SUPERIORITY|Fisher's exact test was used to compare Vaxchora vaccine to placebo on the percent of subjects who seroconverted. For Vaxchora vs placebo within each cohort at each Day on study timepoint, the p-value was the same (p\<0.0001).|||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
91100764|NCT01666314|182087771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.145||||0.0355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9895|18.7606|||Fisher Exact||Odds ratio \>1 favors orteronel.|||18.7606|0.9895|0.0355
91100765|NCT04739709|182087824|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
90856180|NCT01227564|181576880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.007||||0.9846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.675|0.688||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline ventricular volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 24.||0.688|-0.675|0.9846
90903339|NCT03220737|181673743|SUPERIORITY|Fisher's exact test was used to compare Vaxchora vaccine to placebo on the percent of subjects who seroconverted. For Vaxchora vs placebo within each cohort at each Day on study timepoint, the p-value was the same (p\<0.0001).|||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
90903340|NCT03220737|181673747|SUPERIORITY|Fisher's exact test was used to compare Vaxchora vaccine to placebo on the percent of subjects who seroconverted. For Vaxchora vs placebo within each cohort at each Day on study timepoint, the p-value was the same (p\<0.0001).|||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
90903341|NCT03220737|181673748|SUPERIORITY|Fisher's exact test was used to compare Vaxchora vaccine to placebo on the percent of subjects who seroconverted. For Vaxchora vs placebo within each cohort at each Day on study timepoint, the p-value was the same (p\<0.0001).|||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
90903342|NCT00684983|181673759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.89|||Regression, Cox|||Analysis of the primary endpoint, PFS, will be performed using Cox regression with treatment group as a single covariate.||1.89|0.58|.89
91031330|NCT03952143|181947212|SUPERIORITY||Relative rate|1.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|2.23||||||For ≤2 hours post meal||2.23|1.05|
91100766|NCT04739709|182087825|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
90856181|NCT01227564|181576880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.304||||0.3845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.392||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline ventricular volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 24.||0.392|-1.000|0.3845
90856182|NCT01227564|181576880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.149||||0.6204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.748|0.45||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline ventricular volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 24.||0.450|-0.748|0.6204
90856183|NCT01227564|181576880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.014||||0.981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.221|1.192||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline ventricular volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 50.||1.192|-1.221|0.9810
90856184|NCT01227564|181576880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.796||||0.2034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.034|0.443||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline ventricular volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 50.||0.443|-2.034|0.2034
90903343|NCT00684983|181673760|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.22||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.0|||Log Rank|||||3|0.5|0.93
90903344|NCT00684983|181673761|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.92|||Log Rank|||||1.92|.53|.66
90903345|NCT00684983|181673763|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.39||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.53|||Log Rank|||||1.53|.09|.26
90903346|NCT04147260|181673808|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 90% CI with an acceptance range of -0.4 to 0.4|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.03|0.2|||Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values||0.20|-0.03|
90903347|NCT04147260|181673808|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 90% CI with an acceptance range of -0.4 to 0.4|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.07|0.16|||Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values||0.16|-0.07|
91031331|NCT03952143|181947212|SUPERIORITY||Relative rate|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.39||||||For \>2 to ≤4 hours post meal||1.39|0.69|
91031332|NCT03952143|181947212|SUPERIORITY||Relative rate|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.57||||||For ≤4 hours post meal||1.57|0.84|
91031333|NCT03952143|181947213|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.53||||||||0.53|-1.10|
91031334|NCT03952143|181947214|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|7.2||||||For Morning Premeal||7.2|-2.8|
91031335|NCT03952143|181947214|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|2.0||||||For Morning 1-hour Postmeal||2.0|-12.6|
91100767|NCT04739709|182087827|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91100768|NCT04739709|182087828|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91100769|NCT04739709|182087829|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
90856185|NCT01227564|181576880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.405||||0.4491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.469|0.659||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline ventricular volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 50.||0.659|-1.469|0.4491
90958516|NCT02679573|181796870|NON_INFERIORITY|Used on a normal approximation approach (Miettinen and Nurminen's Likelihood Score Test), 860 subjects in the ITT population provided a 90% power to assess non-inferiority of delafloxacin vs. moxifloxacin based on the following assumptions: (1) a rate of ECR for moxifloxacin therapy and delafloxacin of 77% and 74%, respectively; (2) 1 sided type I error (α) of 0.025; and (3) a non-inferiority margin of 12.5%.|Difference in responder rates|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|5.9||||||"The null (H0) and alternative (Ha) hypotheses to be tested to establish the noninferiority of delafloxacin were:~H0: Pd - Pm ≤ -0.125 Ha: Pd - Pm \> -0.125~where Pd and Pm are the probabilities of the ECR for delafloxacin and moxifloxacin, respectively.~The treatment difference (delafloxacin - moxifloxacin) was presented, and the Miettinen-Nurminen test without stratification was used for the 2 sided 95% CI on the difference in response rate."||5.9|-4.8|
90856186|NCT01227564|181576880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.255||||0.8074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.827|2.337||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline ventricular volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 76.||2.337|-1.827|0.8074
90856187|NCT01227564|181576880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.029||||0.3444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.189|1.131||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline ventricular volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 76.||1.131|-3.189|0.3444
90856188|NCT01227564|181576880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.387||||0.6772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.239|1.464||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline ventricular volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 76.||1.464|-2.239|0.6772
90856189|NCT01227564|181576880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.652||||0.6325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.063|3.367||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline ventricular volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||3.367|-2.063|0.6325
90856190|NCT01227564|181576880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.5706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.606|2.007||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline ventricular volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||2.007|-3.606|0.5706
90856191|NCT01227564|181576880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.074||||0.9513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.485|2.337||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline ventricular volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||2.337|-2.485|0.9513
91031336|NCT03952143|181947214|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|1.7||||||For Morning 2-hour Postmeal||1.7|-12.5|
91100770|NCT04739709|182087830|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91031337|NCT03952143|181947214|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|10.1||||||For Midday Premeal||10.1|-1.8|
91031338|NCT03952143|181947214|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|8.1||||||For Midday 1-hour Postmeal||8.1|-5.7|
91031339|NCT03952143|181947214|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|8.9||||||For Midday 2-hour Postmeal||8.9|-5.1|
91031340|NCT03952143|181947214|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|14.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.6|20.6||||||For Evening Premeal||20.6|7.6|
91031341|NCT03952143|181947214|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|9.1||||||For Evening 1-hour Postmeal||9.1|-5.1|
91100771|NCT04739709|182087831|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91100772|NCT04739709|182087832|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91100773|NCT04739709|182087833|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91100774|NCT04739709|182087834|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
90958517|NCT02679573|181796871|OTHER|||||||0.5951||||||The log-rank test was used to compare the time to all-cause mortality between the 2 treatment groups.|Log Rank|||||||0.5951
91031342|NCT03952143|181947214|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|6.8||||||For Evening 2-hour Postmeal||6.8|-7.3|
91100775|NCT04739709|182087835|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-1.3|||ANCOVA||Treatment Difference = APP13007-Placebo. Mean Difference Is the least-squares mean difference from the ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.|||-1.3|-1.8|<0.001
91100776|NCT04739709|182087836|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.6|||ANCOVA||Treatment Difference = APP13007-Placebo. Mean Difference Is the least-squares mean difference from the ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.|||-0.6|-0.9|<0.001
91100777|NCT04739709|182087837|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.5|||ANCOVA||Treatment Difference = APP13007-Placebo. Mean Difference Is the least-squares mean difference from the ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.|||-0.5|-0.8|<0.001
91100778|NCT04739709|182087838|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|-0.01|||ANCOVA||Treatment Difference = APP13007-Placebo. Mean Difference Is the least-squares mean difference from the ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.|||-0.01|-0.06|0.017
90856192|NCT01227564|181576881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.015||||0.6054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.074|0.043||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 10.||0.043|-0.074|0.6054
90856193|NCT01227564|181576881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.025||||0.4087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.035|0.084||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 10.||0.084|-0.035|0.4087
90856194|NCT01227564|181576881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.005||||0.8518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.046|0.056||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 10.||0.056|-0.046|0.8518
90856195|NCT01227564|181576881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.025||||0.4216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.085|0.036||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 24.||0.036|-0.085|0.4216
90856196|NCT01227564|181576881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.034||||0.273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.028|0.097||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 24.||0.097|-0.028|0.2730
90856197|NCT01227564|181576881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.005||||0.8549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.048|0.058||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 24.||0.058|-0.048|0.8549
90903348|NCT04147260|181673808|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055||0.572|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.14|0.08||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||0.08|-0.14|0.572
91031343|NCT03952143|181947214|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|8.1||||||For Bedtime||8.1|-4.7|
91031344|NCT03952143|181947215|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|5.4||||||For Total Daily Insulin Dose||5.4|0.1|
91031345|NCT03952143|181947215|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.5||||||For Daily Basal Insulin Dose||1.5|0.0|
91100779|NCT04739709|182087839|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|-0.04|||ANCOVA||Treatment Difference = APP13007-Placebo. Mean Difference Is the least-squares mean difference from the ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.|||-0.04|-0.10|<0.001
91100780|NCT04739709|182087840|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|-0.06|||ANCOVA||Treatment Difference = APP13007-Placebo. Mean Difference Is the least-squares mean difference from the ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.|||-0.06|-0.11|<0.001
91100781|NCT04739709|182087841|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
90856198|NCT01227564|181576881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.026||||0.5847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.068||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 50.||0.068|-0.120|0.5847
90856199|NCT01227564|181576881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.067||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.163||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 50.||0.163|-0.030|0.1740
90856200|NCT01227564|181576881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.6255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.063|0.103||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 50.||0.103|-0.063|0.6255
90856201|NCT01227564|181576881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.023||||0.7658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.177|0.131||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 76.||0.131|-0.177|0.7658
90856202|NCT01227564|181576881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.079||||0.3309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.082|0.24||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 76.||0.240|-0.082|0.3309
90856203|NCT01227564|181576881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.028||||0.6872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.166||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 76.||0.166|-0.110|0.6872
90903349|NCT04147260|181673808|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.075||0.315|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.07|0.23||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||0.23|-0.07|0.315
90903350|NCT04147260|181673808|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059||0.286|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.18|0.05||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||0.05|-0.18|0.286
90903351|NCT04147260|181673808|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.077||0.057|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.31||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||0.31|0.00|0.057
90903352|NCT04147260|181673809|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 90% CI with an acceptance range of -0.4 to 0.4|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.153|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.02|0.49|||Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values||0.49|-0.02|
91100782|NCT02186171|182087897|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|10.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.6|12.2||ANCOVA model adjusting for treatment, baseline BMD value, machine type, machine type-by-baseline BMD value, baseline testosterone level, geographic region, and using a variance structure allowing for heterogeneity between treatment groups.|ANCOVA|||||12.2|9.6|< 0.0001
91031346|NCT03952143|181947215|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|4.5||||||For Daily Prandial Insulin Dose||4.5|-0.5|
91104462|NCT02037984|182094984|OTHER|PT6A Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT6A Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|9.5|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.5|-11.2|
90856204|NCT01227564|181576881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.003||||0.9752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.196|0.202||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||0.202|-0.196|0.9752
91031347|NCT03952143|181947216|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.52|||Regression, Logistic|||For HbA1c \< 7%||1.52|0.69|0.924
91031348|NCT03952143|181947216|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.49|||Regression, Logistic|||For HbA1c ≤6.5%||1.49|0.64|0.908
91031349|NCT01328093|181947232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|<|0.001||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. The treatment comparison was evaluated at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Type III Tests|||||||<0.001
91031350|NCT01328093|181947233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.11||95.0||||P-value is for ≥7% increase.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.110
91031351|NCT01328093|181947233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for ≥7% decrease.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91104463|NCT02037984|182094984|OTHER|PT6B Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT6B Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|9.5|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.5|-11.2|
90856205|NCT01227564|181576881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.143||||0.1715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.064|0.349||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||0.349|-0.064|0.1715
90856206|NCT01227564|181576881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.073||||0.4145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.105|0.25||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||0.250|-0.105|0.4145
90856207|NCT01227564|181576882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.011||||0.5134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.043|0.022||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline left hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 10.||0.022|-0.043|0.5134
90856208|NCT01227564|181576882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.008||||0.6083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.024|0.041||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline left hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 10.||0.041|-0.024|0.6083
90903353|NCT04147260|181673809|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 90% CI with an acceptance range of -0.4 to 0.4|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.124|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|0.22|||Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values||0.22|-0.20|
91031352|NCT01328093|181947234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.353||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. The treatment comparison was evaluated at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Type III Tests|||||||0.353
91031353|NCT01328093|181947235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.698||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. The treatment comparison was evaluated at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Type III Tests|||||||0.698
91031354|NCT01328093|181947236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.924||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. The treatment comparison was evaluated at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Type III Tests|||||||0.924
91031355|NCT01328093|181947237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|3.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.77||0.045||95.0||||P-value is for PANSS Total Score. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. The treatment comparison was evaluated at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Type III Tests|||||||0.045
91031356|NCT01328093|181947237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.032||95.0||||P-value is for PANSS Positive Score. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. The treatment comparison was evaluated at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Type III Tests|||||||0.032
91031357|NCT01328093|181947237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.509||95.0||||P-value is for PANSS Negative Score. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. The treatment comparison was evaluated at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Type III Tests|||||||0.509
91104464|NCT02037984|182094984|OTHER|PT7F Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT7F Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|9.5|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.5|-11.2|
91100783|NCT02186171|182087898|SUPERIORITY|The Hochberg procedure was employed to control the overall type 1 error for the percent change from baseline at 12 months in total hip and femoral neck to maintain the overall significance level at 0.05.|LS Mean Difference|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|3.7||ANCOVA model adjusting for treatment, baseline BMD value, machine type, machine type-by-baseline BMD value, baseline testosterone level, geographic region, and using a variance structure allowing for heterogeneity between treatment groups.|ANCOVA|||||3.7|2.3|< 0.0001
91100784|NCT02186171|182087899|SUPERIORITY|The Hochberg procedure was employed to control the overall type 1 error for the percent change from baseline at 12 months in total hip and femoral neck to maintain the overall significance level at 0.05.|LS Mean Difference|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|3.3||ANCOVA model adjusting for treatment, baseline BMD value, machine type, machine type-by-baseline BMD value, baseline testosterone level, geographic region, and using a variance structure allowing for heterogeneity between treatment groups.|ANCOVA|||||3.3|1.5|< 0.0001
91100785|NCT02186171|182087900|SUPERIORITY|The Hochberg procedure was employed to control the overall type 1 error for the percent change from baseline at 6 months at the lumbar spine, total hip and femoral neck BMD in order to maintain the overall significance level at 0.05.|LS Mean Difference|8.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.6|9.7||ANCOVA model adjusting for treatment, baseline BMD value, machine type, machine type-by-baseline BMD value, baseline testosterone level, geographic region, and using a variance structure allowing for heterogeneity between treatment groups.|ANCOVA|||||9.7|7.6|< 0.0001
91100786|NCT02186171|182087901|SUPERIORITY|The Hochberg procedure was employed to control the overall type 1 error for the percent change from baseline at 6 months at the lumbar spine, total hip and femoral neck BMD in order to maintain the overall significance level at 0.05.|LS Mean Difference|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.0||ANCOVA model adjusting for treatment, baseline BMD value, machine type, machine type-by-baseline BMD value, baseline testosterone level, geographic region, and using a variance structure allowing for heterogeneity between treatment groups.|ANCOVA|||||2.0|0.8|< 0.0001
91100787|NCT02186171|182087902|SUPERIORITY|The Hochberg procedure was employed to control the overall type 1 error for the percent change from baseline at 6 months at the lumbar spine, total hip and femoral neck BMD in order to maintain the overall significance level at 0.05.|LS Mean Difference|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|=|0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.1||ANCOVA model adjusting for treatment, baseline BMD value, machine type, machine type-by-baseline BMD value, baseline testosterone level, geographic region, and using a variance structure allowing for heterogeneity between treatment groups.|ANCOVA|||||2.1|0.4|= 0.0033
91100788|NCT01245062|182087903|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.64||P-value from a stratified log-rank test was adjusted for prior chemotherapy for advanced or metastatic disease and Baseline lactate dehydrogenase.|Log Rank||Investigator-Assessed PFS. HR \<1 indicates a lower risk with Trametinib compared with CT. HR from a stratified log-rank test was adjusted for prior chemotherapy for advanced or metastatic disease and Baseline lactate dehydrogenase.|||0.64|0.31|<0.0001
91100789|NCT01245062|182087903|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.6||P-value from a stratified log-rank test was adjusted for prior chemotherapy for advanced or metastatic disease and Baseline lactate dehydrogenase.|Log Rank||Independent Review PFS. HR \<1 indicates a lower risk with Trametinib compared with CT. HR from a stratified log-rank test was adjusted for prior chemotherapy for advanced or metastatic disease and Baseline lactate dehydrogenase.|||0.60|0.29|<0.0001
91100790|NCT06025695|182087920|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority (NI) was to be demonstrated if the lower limit (LL) of the two-sided asymptotic standardized 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in seroconversion rate between the HRV PCV-free group and HRV group is greater than or equal to -10%.|Difference in seroconversion rate|-3.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.93|-0.55|||||The asymptotic standardized 95% CI for the difference in seroconversion rate between HRV PCV-free Group minus HRV Group is computed using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of HRV PCV-free Group as compared to HRV Group in terms of seroconversion rates 1 month post-Dose 2.||-0.55|-6.93|
91100791|NCT06025695|182087921|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the LL of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of anti-RV IgA Ab GMC between the HRV PCV-free group and HRV group is greater than or equal to 0.67.|GMC Ratio|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.84|||||The comparison is done using the group GMC ratio (HRV PCV-free/HRV) (ANOVA model applied to the log10-transformed titers). The ANOVA model included the group as a fixed effect.|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the HRV PCV-free Group as compared to HRV Group in terms of serum anti-RV IgA Ab concentrations 1 month post-Dose 2.||0.84|0.60|
91104465|NCT02037984|182094984|OTHER|PT9V Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT9V Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|9.5|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.5|-11.2|
91104466|NCT02037984|182094984|OTHER|PT14 Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT14 Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|9.5|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.5|-11.2|
90856209|NCT01227564|181576882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.001||||0.9401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.029|0.027||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline left hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 10.||0.027|-0.029|0.9401
90856210|NCT01227564|181576882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.018||||0.295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.051|0.016||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline left hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 24.||0.016|-0.051|0.2950
90903354|NCT04147260|181673809|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.102|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.72|-0.31||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||-0.31|-0.72|<0.001
90903355|NCT04147260|181673809|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.138|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.24|0.8||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||0.80|0.24|<0.001
90903356|NCT04147260|181673809|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.132||0.01|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.62|-0.09||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||-0.09|-0.62|0.010
90903357|NCT04147260|181673809|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.173||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.24|0.93||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||0.93|0.24|0.001
90903358|NCT04147260|181673810|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 90% CI with an acceptance range of -0.4 to 0.4|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.05|0.1|||Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values||0.10|-0.05|
90903359|NCT04147260|181673810|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038||0.998|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.08|0.08||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||0.08|-0.08|0.998
90903360|NCT04147260|181673810|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.618|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.08|0.13||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||0.13|-0.08|0.618
90903361|NCT04147260|181673810|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 90% CI with an acceptance range of -0.4 to 0.4|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|0.23|||Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values||0.23|-0.10|
91031358|NCT01328093|181947237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|2.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.04||95.0||||P-value is for PANSS General Psychopathology Score. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. The treatment comparison was evaluated at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Type III Tests|||||||0.040
91104467|NCT02037984|182094984|OTHER|PT18C Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT18C Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|9.5|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.5|-11.2|
90903362|NCT04147260|181673810|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.081||0.451|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|0.23||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||0.23|-0.10|0.451
90903363|NCT04147260|181673810|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.22|0.22||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||0.22|-0.22|1.000
90903364|NCT04147260|181673811|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 90% CI with an acceptance range of -0.4 to 0.4|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.152|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.15|0.36|||Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values||0.36|-0.15|
90903365|NCT04147260|181673811|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.131||0.446|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.16|0.36||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||0.36|-0.16|0.446
90903366|NCT04147260|181673811|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.172||0.972|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.34|0.35||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||0.35|-0.34|0.972
90958518|NCT02476279|181796872|NON_INFERIORITY|To declare noninferiority, the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the risk difference in post-ERCP pancreatitis (indomethacin alone minus indomethacin plus stent) needed to be less than 5% in both the intention-to-treat and per protocol analysis populations.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.036|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.006|0.066|||||These numbers are in the intention-to-treat analysis population. Risk difference in post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) is calculated as risk of PEP in indomethacin alone arm minus risk of PEP in indomethacin plus stent arm.|||0.066|0.006|
91104468|NCT02037984|182094984|OTHER|PT19A Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT19A Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|9.5|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.5|-11.2|
91031359|NCT01328093|181947238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.601||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. The treatment comparison was evaluated at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Type III Tests|||||||0.601
91100792|NCT06025695|182087922|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the LL of the two-sided asymptotic standardized 95% CI for the difference in the percentage between the HRV PCV-free group and HRV group is greater than or equal to -10%.|Difference in percentage|-6.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.81|-1.92|||||The asymptotic standardized 95% CI for the difference in in the percentage between HRV PCV-free Group minus HRV Group is computed using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of HRV PCV-free Group as compared to HRV Group in terms of percentage of participants with anti-RV IgA antibody concentrations \>=90 U/mL 1 month post-Dose 2.||-1.92|-10.81|
91100793|NCT01452347|182087926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean ratio|74.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||||95.0|68.08|80.91|||ANOVA|The Ctrough,ss (predicted or observed) was log transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model.|"The standard error of the mean is actually the geometric standard error.~(Observed vs Predicted)"|"Null hypothesis: The difference of the population average responses was either ≤ to the lower bound or ≥ to the upper bound of the acceptance range .~Alternative hypothesis: The difference of the population average responses was both \> than the lower bound and \< than the upper bound of the acceptance range \[Note: The acceptance range for the geometric mean is 80-125%\]"||80.91|68.08|
90903367|NCT04147260|181673811|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 90% CI with an acceptance range of -0.4 to 0.4|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.182|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.02|0.6|||Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values||0.60|-0.02|
90903368|NCT04147260|181673811|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.091|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.04|0.56||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||0.56|-0.04|0.091
90903369|NCT04147260|181673811|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.203||0.88|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.38|0.44||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||0.44|-0.38|0.880
90903370|NCT04147260|181673812|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 90% CI with an acceptance range of -0.4 to 0.4|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.15|-0.01|||Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values||-0.01|-0.15|
90958519|NCT02476279|181796872|NON_INFERIORITY|To declare noninferiority, the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the risk difference in post-ERCP pancreatitis (indomethacin alone minus indomethacin plus stent) needed to be less than 5% in both the intention-to-treat and per protocol analysis populations.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.028|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.003|0.06|||||These numbers are in the per protocol analysis population. Risk difference in post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) is calculated as risk of PEP in indomethacin alone arm minus risk of PEP in indomethacin plus stent arm.|||0.060|-0.003|
90958520|NCT02476279|181796873|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.021|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.002|0.043|||||These numbers are in the intention-to-treat analysis population. Risk difference is calculated as risk of moderate-severe PEP in indomethacin alone arm minus risk of moderate-severe PEP in indomethacin plus stent arm.|||0.043|-0.002|
90856211|NCT01227564|181576882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.003||||0.8817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.031|0.037||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline left hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 24.||0.037|-0.031|0.8817
90903371|NCT04147260|181673812|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.757|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.09|0.06||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||0.06|-0.09|0.757
90903372|NCT04147260|181673812|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049||0.158|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.17|0.03||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||0.03|-0.17|0.158
90958521|NCT02476279|181796873|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.044|||||These numbers are in the per protocol analysis population. Risk difference is calculated as risk of moderate-severe PEP in indomethacin alone arm minus risk of moderate-severe PEP in indomethacin plus stent arm.|||0.044|-0.004|
90958522|NCT00912301|181796883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031||95.0|||||Dunnett's test|pairwise comparison low dose NaCDC against placebo||||||0.031
90958523|NCT00912301|181796883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||Dunnett's test|pairwise comparison high dose NaCDC against placebo||||||0.010
90903373|NCT04147260|181673812|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 90% CI with an acceptance range of -0.4 to 0.4|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.101|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.12|0.22|||Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values||0.22|-0.12|
90903374|NCT04147260|181673812|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.083||0.33|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.09|0.25||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||0.25|-0.09|0.330
90958524|NCT00116753|181796905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of partcipants|78.3|||||TWO_SIDED|96.5|69.0|86.0|||||Estimated value is the percentage of participants with all testosterone values from Day 28 to end of study \<=0.5 ng/mL. Measure dispersion is the 96.5% two-sided confidence interval which was calculated by the Clopper-Pearson method.|||86|69|
90903375|NCT04147260|181673812|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.113||0.754|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.26|0.19||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||0.19|-0.26|0.754
90903376|NCT04147260|181673813|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 90% CI with an acceptance range of -0.4 to 0.4|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.128|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.09|0.52|||Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values||0.52|0.09|
90903377|NCT04147260|181673813|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.151|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.06|0.38||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||0.38|-0.06|0.151
90903378|NCT04147260|181673813|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145||0.319|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.15|0.44||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||0.44|-0.15|0.319
90903379|NCT04147260|181673813|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 90% CI with an acceptance range of -0.4 to 0.4|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.04|0.42|||Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values||0.42|-0.04|
90903380|NCT04147260|181673813|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.112||0.246|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.09|0.36||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||0.36|-0.09|0.246
91031360|NCT01328093|181947239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.322||95.0||||P-value is for ER/Facility (Psych) visits. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. The treatment comparison was evaluated at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Type III Tests|||||||0.322
91031361|NCT01328093|181947239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.099||95.0||||P-value is for ER/Facility (Non-Psych) visits. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. The treatment comparison was evaluated at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Type III Tests|||||||0.099
91031362|NCT01328093|181947239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.787||95.0||||P-value is for Outpatient (Non-Psych or Dentist) visits. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. The treatment comparison was evaluated at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Type III Tests|||||||0.787
91031363|NCT01328093|181947240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.892||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. The treatment comparison was evaluated at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Type III Tests|||||||0.892
91031364|NCT01328093|181947241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.63||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. The treatment comparison was evaluated at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Type III Tests|||||||0.630
91031365|NCT01328093|181947242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.679||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. The treatment comparison was evaluated at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Type III Tests|||||||0.679
91031366|NCT01328093|181947243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.055||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. The treatment comparison was evaluated at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Type III Tests|||||||0.055
90903381|NCT04147260|181673813|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.151||0.704|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.25|0.36||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||0.36|-0.25|0.704
90903382|NCT04147260|181673814|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.929||0.692|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.92|7.99||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||7.99|-11.92|0.692
91031367|NCT01328093|181947244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.891||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. The treatment comparison was evaluated at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Type III Tests|||||||0.891
91031368|NCT01328093|181947246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.064||95.0||||P-value is for Treatment-Emergent Suicidal Ideation.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.064
90903383|NCT04147260|181673814|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.048||0.63|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.14|6.21||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||6.21|-10.14|0.630
90903384|NCT04147260|181673814|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.482||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.07|11.07||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||11.07|-11.07|1.000
90903385|NCT04147260|181673814|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.518||0.751|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.55|7.66||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||7.66|-10.55|0.751
90856212|NCT01227564|181576882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.008||||0.6072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.037|0.022||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline left hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 24.||0.022|-0.037|0.6072
91100794|NCT01452347|182087927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean ratio|84.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||||95.0|70.32|101.44|||ANOVA|The Ctrough,ss (predicted or observed) was log transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model.|"The standard error of the mean is actually the geometric standard error.~(Observed vs Predicted)"|"Null hypothesis: The difference of the population average responses was either ≤ to the lower bound or ≥ to the upper bound of the acceptance range .~Alternative hypothesis: The difference of the population average responses was both \> than the lower bound and \< than the upper bound of the acceptance range \[Note: The acceptance range for the geometric mean is 80-125%\]"||101.44|70.32|
91100795|NCT01452347|182087928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean ratio|95.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||||95.0|88.69|102.84|||ANOVA|The Ctrough,ss (predicted or observed) was log transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model.|"The standard error of the mean is actually the geometric standard error.~(Observed vs Predicted)"|"Null hypothesis: The difference of the population average responses was either ≤ to the lower bound or ≥ to the upper bound of the acceptance range .~Alternative hypothesis: The difference of the population average responses was both \> than the lower bound and \< than the upper bound of the acceptance range \[Note: The acceptance range for the geometric mean is 80-125%\]"||102.84|88.69|
91100796|NCT01452347|182087929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean ratio|103.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||||95.0|86.4|123.4|||ANOVA|The Ctrough,ss (predicted or observed) was log transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model.|"The standard error of the mean is actually the geometric standard error.~(Observed vs Predicted)"|"Null hypothesis: The difference of the population average responses was either ≤ to the lower bound or ≥ to the upper bound of the acceptance range .~Alternative hypothesis: The difference of the population average responses was both \> than the lower bound and \< than the upper bound of the acceptance range \[Note: The acceptance range for the geometric mean is 80-125%\]"||123.40|86.40|
91100797|NCT01452347|182087930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Probability that P remains \< 10% are presented, where P=Percentage of patients with observed Ctrough,ss value \< 50 ng/mL|Beta Function|Probability calculated using Beta function \~B(1 + r, 1 + n - r),r=no. of patients(observed Ctrough,ss value \< 50 ng/mL), n=no. of patients evaluated||||||<0.001
91100798|NCT01452347|182087931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||||||Probability that P remains \< 10% are presented, where P=Percentage of patients with observed Ctrough,ss value \< 50 ng/mL|Beta Function|Probability calculated using Beta function \~B(1 + r, 1 + n - r),r=no. of patients(observed Ctrough,ss value \< 50 ng/mL), n=no. of patients evaluated||||||0.05
91100799|NCT01452347|182087932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46||||||Probability that P remains \< 10% are presented, where P=Percentage of patients with observed Ctrough,ss value \< 50 ng/mL|Beta Function|Probability calculated using Beta function \~B(1 + r, 1 + n - r),r=no. of patients(observed Ctrough,ss value \< 50 ng/mL), n=no. of patients evaluated||||||0.46
91100800|NCT01452347|182087933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65||||||Probability that P remains \< 10% are presented, where P=Percentage of patients with observed Ctrough,ss value \< 50 ng/mL|Beta Function|Probability calculated using Beta function \~B(1 + r, 1 + n - r),r=no. of patients(observed Ctrough,ss value \< 50 ng/mL), n=no. of patients evaluated||||||0.65
90856213|NCT01227564|181576882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.012||||0.6259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.036||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline left hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 50.||0.036|-0.060|0.6259
90903386|NCT04147260|181673814|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.894||0.669|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.17|9.52||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||9.52|-6.17|0.669
91031369|NCT01328093|181947246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.205||95.0||||P-value is for Treatment-Emergent Suicidal Behavior.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.205
91031370|NCT04421508|181947248|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.36||||0.6316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.6316
91031371|NCT04421508|181947248|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.502||||0.4127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.567|3.977||Odds ratio, 95% CI and p-value are from a logistic regression model modelling the response using the covariates treatment, age, number of co-morbidities and baseline oxygem level|Regression, Logistic|||||3.977|0.567|0.4127
91100801|NCT05762744|182087934|OTHER|Unpaired two-tailed t-test to test null hypothesis||||||0.37||||||The t-test was conducted on the logarithms of the variable.|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: the order of FSIGTs (saline or exenatide-stimulated) does not affect the response during an FSIGT||||0.37
91100802|NCT05762744|182087935|OTHER|Two-tailed unpaired t-test to test null hypothesis||||||0.66|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: The order of FSIGT (exenatide-stimulated or saline) does not affect the response to an FSIGT.||||0.66
91100803|NCT05762744|182087936|OTHER|Two-tailed unpaired t-test to test null hypothesis||||||0.55|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: the order of testing (exenatide-stimulated or saline FSIGT) does not affect data obtained in the FSIGTs.||||0.55
91031372|NCT04421508|181947256|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6635|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.6635
91031373|NCT03657160|181947264|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.73|||Log Rank|||||0.73|0.27|<0.001
91031374|NCT03657160|181947265|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.86|||Log Rank|||||0.86|0.37|0.0043
91031375|NCT03657160|181947266|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59||||0.0204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.91|||Log Rank|||||0.91|0.39|0.0204
91031376|NCT03657160|181947267|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.48||||0.0668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.04|||Log Rank|||||1.04|0.22|0.0668
91031377|NCT03657160|181947268|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63||||0.1458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.17|||Log Rank|||||1.17|0.34|0.1458
91031378|NCT03657160|181947269|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64||||0.0105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.91|||Log Rank|||||0.91|0.46|0.0105
91031379|NCT00686959|181947278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.2|||Log Rank|||||1.20|0.79|0.831
91100804|NCT05762744|182087937|OTHER|Unpaired, two-tailed t-test to test the null hypothesis||||||0.45|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The order of FSIGTs (exenatide-stimulated or saline) does not affect the response during an FSIGT||||0.45
91100805|NCT05762744|182087938|OTHER|Two-tailed unpaired t-test to test null hypothesis||||||0.86||||||The t-test was conducted on the logarithms of the variable|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: the order of FSIGT (exenatide or saline) does not affect the response during an FSIGT||||0.86
90856214|NCT01227564|181576882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.027||||0.2807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.023|0.076||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline left hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 50.||0.076|-0.023|0.2807
90856215|NCT01227564|181576882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.008||||0.7224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.035|0.05||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline left hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 50.||0.050|-0.035|0.7224
90856216|NCT01227564|181576882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.007||||0.8532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.067||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline left hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 76.||0.067|-0.080|0.8532
90856217|NCT01227564|181576882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.039||||0.3116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.038|0.116||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline left hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 76.||0.116|-0.038|0.3116
90856218|NCT01227564|181576882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.016||||0.6246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.049|0.082||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline left hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 76.||0.082|-0.049|0.6246
90903387|NCT04147260|181673814|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.123||0.546|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.44|7.21||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||7.21|-13.44|0.546
90903388|NCT04147260|181673815|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.385||0.281|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-35.44|10.54||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||10.54|-35.44|0.281
91031380|NCT00686959|181947279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.04|||Log Rank|||||1.04|0.71|0.130
91031381|NCT00686959|181947280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.458|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.458
91031382|NCT00686959|181947283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.132|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Relapsed within the radiation treatment field||||0.132
91031383|NCT00686959|181947283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.337|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Relapsed inside thorax, outside of radiation field||||0.337
91031384|NCT00686959|181947283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.457|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Relapsed distant disease||||0.457
91031385|NCT00686959|181947284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.150
91031386|NCT01062256|181947296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.1||p-values calculated from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time) as the offset parameter.|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of number of cough bouts over 4-hour postdose period.||1.10|0.64|0.216
91100806|NCT05762744|182087939|OTHER|Two-tailed p-test for unpaired data||||||0.44||||||The t-test was conducted on the logarithms of the variable.|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: The order of FSIGTs (exenatide-stimulated or saline) does not affect the response to an FSIGT||||0.44
91100807|NCT05762744|182087940|OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Null hypothesis: no differences between the two groups with respect to exenatide's effect on first-phase insulin secretion.~t-test conducted on logarithms of the values"||||0.41
91100808|NCT05762744|182087940|OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: no difference between two groups with respect to exenatide's effect on first phase insulin secretion||||0.38
91100809|NCT05762744|182087941|OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: the two genotype groups do not differ with respect to the effect of exenatide on the rate of glucose disappearance||||0.80
90958525|NCT00116753|181796905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|79.5|||||TWO_SIDED|96.5|71.0|87.0|||||Estimated value is the percentage of participants with all testosterone values from Day 28 to end of study \<=0.5 ng/mL. Measure dispersion is the 96.5% two-sided confidence interval which was calculated by the Clopper-Pearson method.|||87|71|
91031387|NCT01062256|181947296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.18||p-values calculated from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time) as the offset parameter.|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of number of cough bouts over 4-hour postdose period.||1.18|0.72|0.513
91100810|NCT05762744|182087941|OTHER|||||||0.98|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: the two genotype groups do not differ with respect to the effect of exenatide on the rate of glucose disappearance during an FSIGT||||0.98
91100811|NCT03403517|182087986|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.859||||0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.682|1.082|||Fisher Exact|||||1.082|0.682|0.213
91100812|NCT03403517|182087990|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.977|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.557|1.715|||Fisher Exact|||||1.715|0.557|>0.999
91100813|NCT03403517|182087991|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.160
90958526|NCT00116753|181796905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|85.3|||||TWO_SIDED|96.5|77.0|91.0|||||Estimated value is the percentage of participants with all testosterone values from Day 28 to end of study \<=0.5 ng/mL. Measure dispersion is the 96.5% two-sided confidence interval which was calculated by the Clopper-Pearson method.|||91|77|
90958527|NCT00116753|181796905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3022||95.0|||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.3022
91031388|NCT01062256|181947296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.38||p-values calculated from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time) as the offset parameter.|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of number of cough bouts over 4-hour postdose period.||1.38|0.87|0.459
91100814|NCT01245751|182088023|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Week 6 GMT value for Group 1 is statistically non-inferior to Group 2 for the prespecified clinically relevant 1.5-fold ratio if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval for the GMT ratio is \>0.67|GMT Ratio|1.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.15||The alpha threshold for statistical significance is 0.025 (1-sided)|Longitudinal regression model|The analyzed GMT ratio, 95% confidence interval, and P-value were based on a longitudinal regression model adjusting for age and vaccination group||Week 6 analysis||1.15|0.97|<0.001
91100815|NCT01245751|182088024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|1.66||The alpha threshold for statistical significance is 0.025 (1-sided)|Longitudinal regression model|The analyzed GMFR, 95% confidence interval, and P-value were based on a longitudinal regression model adjusting for age||A booster dose induces a statistically acceptable VZV antibody response if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval is \>1.0.||1.66|1.44|<0.001
91100816|NCT01260324|182088039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.01|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability of having NAION predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate Age 18 to 34||0.01|0.01|
91100817|NCT01260324|182088039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.01|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability of having NAION predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate Age 35 to 44||0.01|0.01|
90958528|NCT00116753|181796905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7797||95.0|||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.7797
90958529|NCT00116753|181796905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1557||95.0|||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.1557
90958530|NCT00116753|181796905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2208||95.0|||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.2208
91031389|NCT01062256|181947297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.09||p-values calculated from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time) as the offset parameter.|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of number of cough bouts over 2-hour postdose period.||1.09|0.65|0.195
91031390|NCT01062256|181947297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.16||p-values calculated from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)as the offset parameter.|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of number of cough bouts over 2-hour postdose period.||1.16|0.71|0.438
91031391|NCT01062256|181947297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.34||p-values calculated from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)as the offset parameter.|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of number of cough bouts over 2-hour postdose period.||1.34|0.87|0.497
91031392|NCT01062256|181947298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.12||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts within 15 minutes postdose||1.12|0.64|0.250
91031393|NCT01062256|181947298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.25||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts within 15 minutes postdose||1.25|0.75|0.802
91031394|NCT01062256|181947298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.39||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts within 15 minutes postdose||1.39|0.94|0.188
91031395|NCT01062256|181947298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.04||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 15 and 30 minutes postdose||1.04|0.58|0.091
91031396|NCT01062256|181947298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.19||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 15 and 30 minutes postdose||1.19|0.69|0.465
91031397|NCT01062256|181947298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.46||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 15 and 30 minutes postdose||1.46|0.92|0.207
91100818|NCT01260324|182088039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.04|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability of having NAION predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate Age 45 to 54||0.04|0.03|
91100819|NCT01260324|182088039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.09|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability of having NAION predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate Age 55 to 64||0.09|0.07|
90856219|NCT01227564|181576882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.008||||0.8697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.092|0.108||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline left hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||0.108|-0.092|0.8697
91100820|NCT01260324|182088039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.14|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability of having NAION predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate Age 65 to 74||0.14|0.11|
91100821|NCT01260324|182088039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.21|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability of having NAION predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate Age ≥75||0.21|0.15|
90958531|NCT00116753|181796906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|80.7|||||TWO_SIDED|96.5|72.0|88.0|||||Estimated value is the percentage of participants with all testosterone values from after Day 28 to end of study \<=0.5 ng/mL. Measure dispersion is the 96.5% two-sided confidence interval which was calculated by the Clopper-Pearson method.|||88|72|
91100822|NCT01260324|182088039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.13|||||Odds ratio derived from covariate-adjusted logisitic regression model and adjusted for all other covariates in the table.|Odds ratio Age 18 to 34||0.13|0.06|
91100823|NCT01260324|182088039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.16|||||Odds ratio derived from covariate-adjusted logisitic regression model and adjusted for all other covariates in the table.|Odds ratio Age 35 to 44||0.16|0.08|
91100824|NCT01260324|182088039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.45|||||Odds ratio derived from covariate-adjusted logisitic regression model and adjusted for all other covariates in the table.|Odds ratio Age 45 to 54||0.45|0.30|
91100825|NCT01260324|182088039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.68|5.47|||||Odds ratio derived from covariate-adjusted logisitic regression model and adjusted for all other covariates in the table.|Odds ratio Age 65 to 74||5.47|2.68|
90958532|NCT00116753|181796906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|80.2|||||TWO_SIDED|96.5|72.0|87.0|||||Estimated value is the percentage of participants with all testosterone values from Day 28 to end of study \<=0.5 ng/mL. Measure dispersion is the 96.5% two-sided confidence interval which was calculated by the Clopper-Pearson method.|||87|72|
90958533|NCT00116753|181796906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|86.0|||||TWO_SIDED|96.5|78.0|92.0|||||Estimated value is the percentage of participants with all testosterone values from Day 28 to end of study \<=0.5 ng/mL. Measure dispersion is the 96.5% two-sided confidence interval which was calculated by the Clopper-Pearson method.|||92|78|
91031398|NCT01062256|181947298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.06||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 30 and 45 minutes postdose||1.06|0.62|0.122
91031399|NCT01062256|181947298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.07||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 30 and 45 minutes postdose||1.07|0.66|0.165
91031400|NCT01062256|181947298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.32||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 30 and 45 minutes postdose||1.32|0.83|0.711
91100826|NCT01260324|182088039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|8.22|||||Odds ratio derived from covariate-adjusted logisitic regression model and adjusted for all other covariates in the table.|Odds ratio Age ≥75||8.22|4.00|
90856220|NCT01227564|181576882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.072||||0.1707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.032|0.176||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline left hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||0.176|-0.032|0.1707
90856221|NCT01227564|181576882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.3732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.049|0.129||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline left hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||0.129|-0.049|0.3732
90856222|NCT01227564|181576883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.006||||0.7259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.028||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline right hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 10.||0.028|-0.040|0.7259
90856223|NCT01227564|181576883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.016||||0.3517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.018|0.051||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline right hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 10.||0.051|-0.018|0.3517
90856224|NCT01227564|181576883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.005||||0.7311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.024|0.035||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline right hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 10.||0.035|-0.024|0.7311
90958534|NCT00116753|181796906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.383||95.0|||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.3830
91031401|NCT01062256|181947298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.11||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 45 and 60 minutes postdose||1.11|0.64|0.215
91031402|NCT01062256|181947298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.16||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 45 and 60 minutes postdose||1.16|0.67|0.367
90958535|NCT00116753|181796906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9587||95.0|||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.9587
90958536|NCT00116753|181796906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2579||95.0|||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.2579
90958537|NCT00116753|181796906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2072||95.0|||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.2072
90903389|NCT04147260|181673815|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.35||0.092|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-35.02|2.74||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||2.74|-35.02|0.092
91100827|NCT01260324|182088040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.05|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability of having NAION predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate Female||0.05|0.04|
91100828|NCT01260324|182088040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.06|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability of having NAION predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate Male||0.06|0.05|
91100829|NCT01260324|182088040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|2.22|||||Odds ratio derived from covariate-adjusted logisitic regression model and adjusted for all other covariates in the table.|Odds ratio Male||2.22|1.50|
91100830|NCT01260324|182088041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.05|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability of having NAION predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate Year 2003||0.05|0.04|
91100831|NCT01260324|182088041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.05|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability of having NAION predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate Year 2004||0.05|0.04|
91100832|NCT01260324|182088041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.05|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability of having NAION predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate Year 2005||0.05|0.04|
91100833|NCT01260324|182088041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.05|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability of having NAION predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate Year 2006||0.05|0.04|
91100834|NCT01260324|182088041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.05|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability of having NAION predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate Year 2007||0.05|0.04|
91100835|NCT01260324|182088041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.96|||||Odds ratio derived from covariate-adjusted logisitic regression model and adjusted for all other covariates in the table.|Odds ratio Year 2004||0.96|0.61|
91100836|NCT01260324|182088041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.91|||||Odds ratio derived from covariate-adjusted logisitic regression model and adjusted for all other covariates in the table.|Odds ratio Year 2005||0.91|0.58|
90856225|NCT01227564|181576883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.008||||0.6446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.041|0.026||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline right hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 24.||0.026|-0.041|0.6446
90903390|NCT04147260|181673815|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.662||0.772|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.88|29.27||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||29.27|-21.88|0.772
91100837|NCT01260324|182088041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.12|||||Odds ratio derived from covariate-adjusted logisitic regression model and adjusted for all other covariates in the table.|Odds ratio Year 2006||1.12|0.68|
91100838|NCT01260324|182088041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.19|||||Odds ratio derived from covariate-adjusted logisitic regression model and adjusted for all other covariates in the table.|Odds ratio Year 2007||1.19|0.72|
91100839|NCT01260324|182088042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.06|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability of having NAION predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate Northeast||0.06|0.04|
91100840|NCT01260324|182088042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.05|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability of having NAION predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate Midwest||0.05|0.04|
91100841|NCT01260324|182088042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.06|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability of having NAION predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate South||0.06|0.05|
91100842|NCT01260324|182088042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.05|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability of having NAION predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate West||0.05|0.04|
90903391|NCT04147260|181673815|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.255||0.539|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-34.93|18.5||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||18.50|-34.93|0.539
91100843|NCT01260324|182088042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.56|||||Odds ratio derived from covariate-adjusted logisitic regression model and adjusted for all other covariates in the table.|Odds ratio Northeast||0.56|0.31|
91100844|NCT01260324|182088042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.84|||||Odds ratio derived from covariate-adjusted logisitic regression model and adjusted for all other covariates in the table.|Odds ratio Midwest||0.84|0.56|
91100845|NCT01260324|182088042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.93|||||Odds ratio derived from covariate-adjusted logisitic regression model and adjusted for all other covariates in the table.|Odds ratio West||0.93|0.57|
91031403|NCT01062256|181947298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.35||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 45 and 60 minutes postdose||1.35|0.82|0.687
91031404|NCT01062256|181947298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.32||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 60 and 75 minutes postdose||1.32|0.67|0.730
91031405|NCT01062256|181947298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.39||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 60 and 75 minutes postdose||1.39|0.74|0.923
91100846|NCT01260324|182088043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.1|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability of having NAION predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate Diabetes||0.10|0.08|
91031406|NCT01062256|181947298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.4||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 60 and 75 minutes postdose||1.40|0.83|0.573
91031407|NCT01062256|181947298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.16||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 75 and 90 minutes postdose||1.16|0.61|0.289
91031408|NCT01062256|181947298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.18||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 75 and 90 minutes postdose||1.18|0.64|0.379
91031409|NCT01062256|181947298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.37||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 75 and 90 minutes postdose||1.37|0.79|0.785
91100847|NCT01260324|182088043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.14|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability of having NAION predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate Smoking||0.14|0.08|
91100848|NCT01260324|182088043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.06|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability of having NAION predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate Obesity||0.06|0.03|
90856226|NCT01227564|181576883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.032||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.002|0.066||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline right hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 24.||0.066|-0.002|0.0640
90856227|NCT01227564|181576883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.012||||0.4057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.017|0.041||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline right hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 24.||0.041|-0.017|0.4057
90958538|NCT00116753|181796907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|97.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.0|99.0|||||Estimated value is the percentage of participants with testosterone \<=0.5 ng/mL at Day 28. Measure dispersion is the 95% two-sided confidence interval which was calculated by the Clopper-Pearson method.|||99|93|
91031410|NCT01062256|181947298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.11||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 90 and 105 minutes postdose||1.11|0.60|0.194
91031411|NCT01062256|181947298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.11||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 90 and 105 minutes postdose||1.11|0.62|0.212
91031412|NCT01062256|181947298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.34||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 90 and 105 minutes postdose||1.34|0.77|0.901
91100849|NCT01260324|182088043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.09|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability of having NAION predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate Nitrates||0.09|0.06|
91100850|NCT01260324|182088043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.18|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability of having NAION predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate Anti-platelet agents||0.18|0.12|
91031413|NCT01062256|181947298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.23||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 105 and 120 minutes postdose||1.23|0.70|0.600
91100851|NCT01260324|182088043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.17|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability of having NAION predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate Diuretics||0.17|0.09|
91100852|NCT01260324|182088043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.04|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability of having NAION predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate Recent PDE-5 inhibitors use||0.04|0.01|
91100853|NCT01260324|182088043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|2.25|||||Odds ratio derived from covariate-adjusted logisitic regression model and adjusted for all other covariates in the table.|Odds ratio Diabetes||2.25|1.47|
91100854|NCT01260324|182088043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.85|||||Odds ratio derived from covariate-adjusted logisitic regression model and adjusted for all other covariates in the table.|Odds ratio Smoking||2.85|0.63|
91100855|NCT01260324|182088043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.81|||||Odds ratio derived from covariate-adjusted logisitic regression model and adjusted for all other covariates in the table.|Odds ratio Obesity||0.81|0.23|
91100856|NCT01260324|182088043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.94|||||Odds ratio derived from covariate-adjusted logisitic regression model and adjusted for all other covariates in the table.|Odds ratio Nitrates||0.94|0.42|
91100857|NCT01260324|182088043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|2.94|||||Odds ratio derived from covariate-adjusted logisitic regression model and adjusted for all other covariates in the table.|Odds ratio Anti-platelet agents||2.94|1.53|
91100858|NCT01260324|182088043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|3.43|||||Odds ratio derived from covariate-adjusted logisitic regression model and adjusted for all other covariates in the table.|Odds ratio Diuretics||3.43|1.46|
91100859|NCT01260324|182088043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.04|||||Odds ratio derived from covariate-adjusted logisitic regression model and adjusted for all other covariates in the table.|Odds ratio Recent PDE-5 inhibitors use||1.04|0.31|
91100860|NCT01260324|182088044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.39|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability of having NAION predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate Other retinal disorders||0.39|0.28|
91100861|NCT01260324|182088044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.16|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability of having NAION predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate Glaucoma||0.16|0.11|
91100862|NCT01260324|182088044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.41|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability of having NAION predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate Cataract||0.41|0.08|
90856228|NCT01227564|181576883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.015||||0.5742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.066|0.037||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline right hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 50.||0.037|-0.066|0.5742
91100863|NCT01260324|182088044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.17|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability of having NAION predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate Visual disturbances||1.17|0.83|
91100864|NCT01260324|182088044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|2.46|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability of having NAION predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate Blindness and low vision||2.46|1.60|
91100865|NCT01260324|182088044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.23|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability of having NAION predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate Other disorders of eye||0.23|0.16|
91100866|NCT01260324|182088044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.27|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability of having NAION predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate Occlusion and stenosis of precerebral arteries||0.27|0.18|
91100867|NCT01260324|182088044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.08|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability of having NAION predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate Acute sinusitis||0.08|0.05|
91100868|NCT01260324|182088044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.08|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability of having NAION predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate Other dermatoses||0.08|0.05|
91104469|NCT02037984|182094984|OTHER|PT19F Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT19F Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|9.5|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.5|-11.2|
91104470|NCT02037984|182094984|OTHER|PT23F Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT23F Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|9.5|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.5|-11.2|
91031414|NCT01062256|181947298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.29||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 105 and 120 minutes postdose||1.29|0.74|0.853
91031415|NCT01062256|181947298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.39||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 105 and 120 minutes postdose||1.39|0.79|0.736
91031416|NCT01062256|181947298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.3||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 120 and 135 minutes postdose||1.30|0.70|0.744
91031417|NCT01062256|181947298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.33||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 120 and 135 minutes postdose||1.33|0.72|0.904
91031418|NCT01062256|181947298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.39||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 120 and 135 minutes postdose||1.39|0.77|0.828
91100869|NCT01260324|182088044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.1|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability of having NAION predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate Other disorders of bone and cartilage||0.10|0.06|
91100870|NCT01260324|182088044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.14|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability of having NAION predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate Symptoms involving head and neck||0.14|0.10|
91100871|NCT01260324|182088044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.18|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability of having NAION predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate Other ill defined and unknown causes of morbidity and mortality||0.18|0.10|
90856229|NCT01227564|181576883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.1336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.013|0.093||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline right hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 50.||0.093|-0.013|0.1336
90856230|NCT01227564|181576883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.013||||0.5734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.033|0.058||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline right hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 50.||0.058|-0.033|0.5734
90903392|NCT04147260|181673815|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.424||0.682|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.74|18.31||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||18.31|-27.74|0.682
91031419|NCT01062256|181947298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.08||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 135 and 150 minutes postdose||1.08|0.59|0.147
91031420|NCT01062256|181947298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.16||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 135 and 150 minutes postdose||1.16|0.65|0.345
91100872|NCT01260324|182088044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.72|9.38|||||Odds ratio derived from covariate-adjusted logisitic regression model and adjusted for all other covariates in the table.|Odds ratio Other retinal disorders||9.38|4.72|
91100873|NCT01260324|182088044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|3.81|||||Odds ratio derived from covariate-adjusted logisitic regression model and adjusted for all other covariates in the table.|Odds ratio Glaucoma||3.81|1.77|
91100874|NCT01260324|182088044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.68|||||Odds ratio derived from covariate-adjusted logisitic regression model and adjusted for all other covariates in the table.|Odds ratio Cataract||1.68|1.02|
91100875|NCT01260324|182088044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.4|19.3|||||Odds ratio derived from covariate-adjusted logisitic regression model and adjusted for all other covariates in the table.|Odds ratio Visual disturbances||19.30|10.40|
91100876|NCT01260324|182088044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|15.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.6|34.5|||||Odds ratio derived from covariate-adjusted logisitic regression model and adjusted for all other covariates in the table.|Odds ratio Blindness and low vision||34.50|6.60|
91031421|NCT01062256|181947298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.44||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 135 and 150 minutes postdose||1.44|0.83|0.532
90856231|NCT01227564|181576883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.016||||0.7067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.104|0.071||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline right hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 76.||0.071|-0.104|0.7067
90856232|NCT01227564|181576883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.042||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.049|0.132||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline right hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 76.||0.132|-0.049|0.3600
90856233|NCT01227564|181576883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.013||||0.7454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.065|0.09||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline right hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 76.||0.090|-0.065|0.7454
90856234|NCT01227564|181576883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.006||||0.9037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.113|0.1||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline right hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||0.100|-0.113|0.9037
90856235|NCT01227564|181576883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.2082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.181||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline right hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||0.181|-0.040|0.2082
90856236|NCT01227564|181576883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.032||||0.5044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.063|0.127||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline right hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||0.127|-0.063|0.5044
90903393|NCT04147260|181673815|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.03||0.817|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-33.79|26.79||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||26.79|-33.79|0.817
90903394|NCT04147260|181673816|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.327||0.891|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.49|10.02||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||10.02|-11.49|0.891
90903395|NCT04147260|181673816|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.375||0.417|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.42|5.25||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||5.25|-12.42|0.417
90903396|NCT04147260|181673816|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.925||0.633|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.11|14.82||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||14.82|-9.11|0.633
90903397|NCT04147260|181673816|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.384||0.129|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.05|15.62||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||15.62|-2.05|0.129
91100877|NCT01260324|182088044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|2.82|||||Odds ratio derived from covariate-adjusted logisitic regression model and adjusted for all other covariates in the table.|Odds ratio Other disorders of eye||2.82|1.44|
91100878|NCT01260324|182088044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|2.31|||||Odds ratio derived from covariate-adjusted logisitic regression model and adjusted for all other covariates in the table.|Odds ratio Occlusion and stenosis of precerebral arteries||2.31|0.64|
91031422|NCT01062256|181947298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.15||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 150 and 165 minutes postdose||1.15|0.61|0.261
91031423|NCT01062256|181947298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.24||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 150 and 165 minutes postdose||1.24|0.69|0.601
91031424|NCT01062256|181947298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.47||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 150 and 165 minutes postdose||1.47|0.84|0.470
91031425|NCT01062256|181947298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.32||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 165 and 180 minutes postdose||1.32|0.71|0.834
91031426|NCT01062256|181947298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.43||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 165 and 180 minutes postdose||1.43|0.81|0.628
90856237|NCT01227564|181576884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.7687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.17||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 26.||0.17|-0.23|0.7687
90856238|NCT01227564|181576884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.6804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.24||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 26.||0.24|-0.16|0.6804
90856239|NCT01227564|181576884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.9452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.18||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 26.||0.18|-0.17|0.9452
90856240|NCT01227564|181576884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.8825|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.23||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 52.||0.23|-0.27|0.8825
90856241|NCT01227564|181576884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.8791|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.24||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 52.||0.24|-0.28|0.8791
90856242|NCT01227564|181576884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.8628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.2||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 52.||0.20|-0.24|0.8628
91031427|NCT01062256|181947298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.48||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 165 and 180 minutes postdose||1.48|0.83|0.481
91031428|NCT01062256|181947298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.37||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 180 and 195 minutes postdose||1.37|0.65|0.749
90856243|NCT01227564|181576884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.7843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.26||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 78.||0.26|-0.35|0.7843
90856244|NCT01227564|181576884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28||||0.0857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.6||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 78.||0.60|-0.04|0.0857
90856245|NCT01227564|181576884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.3878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.39||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 78.||0.39|-0.15|0.3878
90856246|NCT01227564|181576884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.8918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.45||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||0.45|-0.39|0.8918
90856247|NCT01227564|181576884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33||||0.1233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.76||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||0.76|-0.09|0.1233
90903398|NCT04147260|181673816|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.778||0.548|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.33|9.9||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||9.90|-5.33|0.548
91031429|NCT01062256|181947298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.35||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 180 and 195 minutes postdose||1.35|0.70|0.857
91031430|NCT01062256|181947298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.41||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 180 and 195 minutes postdose||1.41|0.76|0.847
91031431|NCT01062256|181947298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77||||0.146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.09||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 195 and 210 minutes postdose||1.09|0.54|0.146
91031432|NCT01062256|181947298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.29||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 195 and 210 minutes postdose||1.29|0.69|0.702
91100879|NCT01260324|182088044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.74|||||Odds ratio derived from covariate-adjusted logisitic regression model and adjusted for all other covariates in the table.|Odds ratio Acute sinusitis||1.74|0.96|
91031433|NCT01062256|181947298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.69||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 195 and 210 minutes postdose||1.69|0.88|0.228
91031434|NCT01062256|181947298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.09||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 210 and 225 minutes postdose||1.09|0.51|0.130
91031435|NCT01062256|181947298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.21||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 210 and 225 minutes postdose||1.21|0.60|0.371
91031436|NCT01062256|181947298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.58||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 210 and 225 minutes postdose||1.58|0.82|0.430
91031437|NCT01062256|181947298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.13||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 225 and 240 minutes postdose||1.13|0.51|0.177
91031438|NCT01062256|181947298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.28||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 225 and 240 minutes postdose||1.28|0.64|0.580
91031439|NCT01062256|181947298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.7||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 225 and 240 minutes postdose||1.70|0.84|0.333
90856248|NCT01227564|181576884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.3302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.55||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||0.55|-0.19|0.3302
90903399|NCT04147260|181673816|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.97||0.37|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.51|14.52||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||14.52|-5.51|0.370
91031440|NCT01062256|181947299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.27||p-values from ANOVA model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), and site terms.|ANOVA|||Pairwise comparison of change from baseline in cough severity at 1 hour postdose||0.27|-0.08|0.264
91031441|NCT01062256|181947299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.14||p-values from ANOVA model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), and site terms.|ANOVA|||Pairwise comparison of change from baseline in cough severity at 1 hour postdose||0.14|-0.20|0.737
91031442|NCT01062256|181947299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.01||p-values from ANOVA model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), and site terms.|ANOVA|||Pairwise comparison of change from baseline in cough severity at 1 hour postdose||0.01|-0.27|0.078
91100880|NCT01260324|182088044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.77|||||Odds ratio derived from covariate-adjusted logisitic regression model and adjusted for all other covariates in the table.|Odds ratio Other dermatoses||1.77|1.02|
91100881|NCT01260324|182088044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.77|||||Odds ratio derived from covariate-adjusted logisitic regression model and adjusted for all other covariates in the table.|Odds ratio Other disorders of bone and cartilage||1.77|0.98|
91100882|NCT01260324|182088044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.84|||||Odds ratio derived from covariate-adjusted logisitic regression model and adjusted for all other covariates in the table.|Odds ratio Symptoms involving head and neck||1.84|1.02|
91100883|NCT01260324|182088044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|2.49|||||Odds ratio derived from covariate-adjusted logisitic regression model and adjusted for all other covariates in the table.|Odds ratio Ill defined and unknown causes of morbidity and mortality||2.49|1.08|
91100884|NCT01260324|182088045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.07|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate Recent use||0.07|0.03|
90856249|NCT01227564|181576885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.65||||0.1597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|3.97||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 26.||3.97|-0.67|0.1597
90856250|NCT01227564|181576885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.55||||0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.01|0.91||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 26.||0.91|-4.01|0.2130
90856251|NCT01227564|181576885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.9616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|2.16||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 26.||2.16|-2.06|0.9616
90856252|NCT01227564|181576885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.78||||0.2143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|4.62||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 52.||4.62|-1.06|0.2143
90856253|NCT01227564|181576885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.87||||0.2151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.87|1.12||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 52.||1.12|-4.87|0.2151
90856254|NCT01227564|181576885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.9704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|2.51||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 52.||2.51|-2.61|0.9704
90903400|NCT04147260|181673817|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.379||0.375|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-30.26|11.66||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||11.66|-30.26|0.375
91100885|NCT01260324|182088045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.08|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate Any use (includes chronic and non-chronic use)||0.08|0.04|
91100886|NCT01260324|182088045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.08|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate Chronic use||0.08|0.03|
91100887|NCT01260324|182088045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.11|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate Non-chronic use||0.11|0.03|
91100888|NCT01260324|182088045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.1|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate Never use||0.10|0.08|
91100889|NCT01160744|182088059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.1318|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.55|1.03|||Log Rank|||||1.03|0.55|0.1318
91100890|NCT01160744|182088059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.5215|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.64|1.22|||Log Rank|||||1.22|0.64|0.5215
91100891|NCT01160744|182088060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.58||||0.1797|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|2.78|||Chi-squared|||||2.78|0.90|0.1797
91100892|NCT01160744|182088060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.66||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.45|4.86|||Chi-squared|||||4.86|1.45|0.0070
91100893|NCT01160744|182088061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.8916|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.74|1.42|||Log Rank|||||1.42|0.74|0.8916
91100894|NCT01160744|182088061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.6847|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.68|1.27|||Log Rank|||||1.27|0.68|0.6847
91100895|NCT01160744|182088064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.48||||0.0316|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.22|5.02|||Chi-squared|||||5.02|1.22|0.0316
91100896|NCT01160744|182088064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.3962|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.74|2.52|||Chi-squared|||||2.52|0.74|0.3962
91100897|NCT01160744|182088065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1571|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1571
91100898|NCT01160744|182088065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1597|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1597
91100899|NCT03636269|182088093|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.61||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|2.41|||Cui, Hung, Wang|||||2.41|1.08|0.020
90856255|NCT01227564|181576885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47||||0.7857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|3.95||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 78.||3.95|-3.00|0.7857
90856256|NCT01227564|181576885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.79||||0.1323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.45|0.87||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 78.||0.87|-6.45|0.1323
90856257|NCT01227564|181576885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.16||||0.4618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.29|1.97||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 78.||1.97|-4.29|0.4618
90903401|NCT04147260|181673817|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.524||0.185|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-28.7|5.73||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||5.73|-28.70|0.185
90903402|NCT04147260|181673817|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.544||0.851|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.12|25.5||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||25.50|-21.12|0.851
90903403|NCT04147260|181673817|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.405||0.007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-45.59|-7.69||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||-7.69|-45.59|0.007
90903404|NCT04147260|181673817|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.106||0.071|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-31.34|1.33||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||1.33|-31.34|0.071
91100900|NCT03636269|182088094|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|2.74|||Cui, Hung, Wang|||||2.74|1.14|0.010
91100901|NCT03636269|182088095|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29||0.171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|0.8|||ANCOVA|||||0.8|-4.3|0.171
91100902|NCT03636269|182088096|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||||-0.4|-1.7|0.002
91100903|NCT03992482|182088097|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||1.000
91100904|NCT03992482|182088098|OTHER|||||||0.0044|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0044
91100905|NCT03992482|182088099|OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0002
91100906|NCT04250363|182088125|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.57||||0.00284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.85|10.6|||Regression, Logistic|||||10.6|1.85|0.00284
91100907|NCT04250363|182088125|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.19||||0.00367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|14.8|||Regression, Logistic|||||14.8|2.00|0.00367
91100908|NCT04250363|182088125|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.22||||0.0137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|23.7|||Regression, Logistic|||||23.7|1.90|0.0137
91100909|NCT04250363|182088125|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.23||||0.00349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|4.48|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.48|1.47|0.00349
91100910|NCT04250363|182088125|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.6||||0.00594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.19|129.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||129|3.19|0.00594
91104471|NCT02037984|182094984|OTHER|non-PT22F Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|non-PT22F Percentage Point Difference|89.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|75.2|95.7|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||95.7|75.2|
91031443|NCT01062256|181947299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.36||p-values from ANOVA model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), and site terms.|ANOVA|||Pairwise comparison of change from baseline in cough severity at 2 hour postdose||0.36|-0.04|0.125
91031444|NCT01062256|181947299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.24||p-values from ANOVA model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), and site terms.|ANOVA|||Pairwise comparison of change from baseline in cough severity at 2 hour postdose||0.24|-0.16|0.688
91031445|NCT01062256|181947299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.05||p-values from ANOVA model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), and site terms.|ANOVA|||Pairwise comparison of change from baseline in cough severity at 2 hour postdose||0.05|-0.29|0.166
90903405|NCT04147260|181673817|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.664||0.281|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-33.13|9.86||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||9.86|-33.13|0.281
90903406|NCT04147260|181673818|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.37||0.599|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.69|8.0||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||8.00|-13.69|0.599
90903407|NCT04147260|181673818|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.41||0.824|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.92|9.9||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||9.90|-7.92|0.824
90958539|NCT00116753|181796907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|97.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.0|100.0|||||Estimated value is the percentage of participants with testosterone \<=0.5 ng/mL at Day 28. Measure dispersion is the 95% two-sided confidence interval which was calculated by the Clopper-Pearson method.|||100|94|
91100911|NCT01507103|182088126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect estimate|-0.04||||0.794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.65||Arm effect|type III SS F-test|||Category: CD8+ The difference between baseline and surgical tumor samples was analysed and compared across the 3 treatment arms (effect estimate for Arm A vs Arm C) based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model. Difference from baseline = Surgery value-Baseline value. Adjustment was based on ANCOVA model with treatment arm as factor and baseline value as covariate. No interaction included. Pairwise tests have been performed to compare Arm A with Arm C, Arm B with Arm C, and Arm A with Arm B||0.65|-0.72|0.794
91100912|NCT01507103|182088126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect estimate|-0.2||||0.794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.43||Arm effect|type III SS F-test|||Category: CD8+ The difference between baseline and surgical tumor samples was analysed and compared across the 3 treatment arms (effect estimate for Arm B vs Arm C) based on an ANCOVA model. Difference from baseline = Surgery value-Baseline value. Adjustment was based on ANCOVA model with treatment arm as factor and baseline value as covariate. No interaction included. Pairwise tests have been performed to compare Arm A with Arm C, Arm B with Arm C, and Arm A with Arm B||0.43|-0.82|0.794
91100913|NCT01507103|182088126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect estimate|0.16||||0.794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.82||Arm effect|type III SS F-test|||Category: CD8+ The difference between baseline and surgical tumor samples was analysed and compared across the 3 treatment arms (effect estimate for Arm A vs Arm B) based on an ANCOVA model. Difference from baseline = Surgery value-Baseline value. Adjustment was based on ANCOVA model with treatment arm as factor and baseline value as covariate. No interaction included. Pairwise tests have been performed to compare Arm A with Arm C, Arm B with Arm C, and Arm A with Arm B||0.82|-0.49|0.794
91104472|NCT02037984|182094984|OTHER|non-PT33F Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|non-PT33F Percentage Point Difference|97.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|85.1|99.5|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||99.5|85.1|
90903408|NCT04147260|181673818|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.973||0.525|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.9|8.23||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||8.23|-15.90|0.525
90903409|NCT04147260|181673818|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.867||0.25|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.84|5.84||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||5.84|-21.84|0.250
90903410|NCT04147260|181673818|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.919||0.386|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.74|17.12||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||17.12|-6.74|0.386
90903411|NCT04147260|181673818|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.787||0.097|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-28.88|2.51||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||2.51|-28.88|0.097
91031446|NCT01062256|181947299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.35||p-values from ANOVA model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), and site terms.|ANOVA|||Pairwise comparison of change from baseline in cough severity at 3 hour postdose||0.35|-0.09|0.233
91031447|NCT01062256|181947299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.19||p-values from ANOVA model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), and site terms.|ANOVA|||Pairwise comparison of change from baseline in cough severity at 3 hour postdose||0.19|-0.24|0.848
90903412|NCT04147260|181673819|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.842||0.885|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.83|14.81||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||14.81|-12.83|0.885
90903413|NCT04147260|181673819|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.619|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|17.55|40.25||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||40.25|17.55|<0.001
90903414|NCT04147260|181673819|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.61|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-43.28|-12.54||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||-12.54|-43.28|<0.001
90903415|NCT04147260|181673819|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.041||0.016|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-36.33|-3.92||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||-3.92|-36.33|0.016
90903416|NCT04147260|181673819|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.931||0.011|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.53|32.46||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||32.46|4.53|0.011
90903417|NCT04147260|181673819|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-38.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.118|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-57.0|-20.25||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||-20.25|-57.00|<0.001
90903418|NCT00507026|181673875|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
90958540|NCT00116753|181796907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|97.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.0|100.0|||||Estimated value is the percentage of participants with testosterone \<=0.5 ng/mL at Day 28. Measure dispersion is the 95% two-sided confidence interval which was calculated by the Clopper-Pearson method.|||100|94|
91104473|NCT02037984|182094985|OTHER|PT1 Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT1 Percentage Point Difference|-4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.4|5.6|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||5.6|-20.4|
90903419|NCT00507026|181673875|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
90903420|NCT00507026|181673876|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
90903421|NCT00507026|181673876|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
90903422|NCT00507026|181673877|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
90903423|NCT00507026|181673877|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
90903424|NCT00507026|181673878|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
90903425|NCT00507026|181673878|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
90903426|NCT00507026|181673879|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
90903427|NCT00507026|181673879|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
90903428|NCT04230980|181673890|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.13||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|-0.24|||t-test, 2 sided||Direction of mean difference is Gabapentin arm minus placebo arm.|Mean NRS-11 score at post-operative day 7 (compared between the two arms).||-0.24|-2.02|0.01
90903429|NCT04230980|181673891|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.03|||t-test, 2 sided||Direction of mean difference is Gabapentin arm minus placebo arm.|Mean number of opioid tablets taken at post-operative day 7 (compared between the two arms).||0.03|-0.13|0.19
90903430|NCT01952301|181673894|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The primary hypothesis of the study evaluated whether CM was not inferior to Control in the generation of KT width from baseline to 6 months. A paired t-test was used to test for non-inferiority, using a one-sided significance level of 0.05 and a non-inferiority margin of 1.0 mm.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
90958541|NCT01200589|181796910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.49||||||||1.49|0.89|
91104474|NCT02037984|182094985|OTHER|PT3 Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT3 Percentage Point Difference|11.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|30.6|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||30.6|-10.0|
90903431|NCT01850082|181673898|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.51|||Regression, Cox|||||1.51|0.83|0.47
90903432|NCT01850082|181673899|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.821|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.821
90903433|NCT01850082|181673900|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.99
90903434|NCT01850082|181673901|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.923||||0.517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.724|1.176|||Regression, Cox|||||1.176|0.724|0.517
90903435|NCT02138747|181673908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-2.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.997||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.86|-0.93||p-value based on the ANOVA model|ANOVA|||Tolerability score was analyzed using the ANOVA model (Model #1), with sequence group, study period, period-by-sequence interaction, gender and treatment group as factors, and subject-within-sequence as a random term. p-value based on the ANOVA model. Difference used mirabegron as the reference (difference =tolterodine ER -mirabegron). A negative difference indicates better reported tolerability with mirabegron than with tolterodine ER.||-0.93|-4.86|0.004
90958542|NCT00986973|181796920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
90958543|NCT00986973|181796921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82|TWO_SIDED||||||Friedman test|Non-parametric test was used to examine neuropsychological outcomes||||||0.82
90958544|NCT00986973|181796922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46|TWO_SIDED||||||Friedman test|Non-parametric test was used to examine neuropsychological outcomes||||||0.46
90958545|NCT00986973|181796923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.071|TWO_SIDED||||||Friedman test|Non-parametric test was used to examine neuropsychological outcomes||||||0.071
90958546|NCT00986973|181796924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||Friedman test|Non-parametric test was used to examine neuropsychological outcomes||||||0.25
91100914|NCT01507103|182088126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect estimate|0.02||||0.654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.57||Arm effect|type III SS F-test|||Category: CD8+/GrB+ The difference between baseline and surgical tumor samples was analysed and compared across the 3 treatment arms (effect estimate for Arm A vs Arm C) based on an ANCOVA model. Difference from baseline = Surgery value-Baseline value. Adjustment was based on ANCOVA model with treatment arm as factor and baseline value as covariate. No interaction included. Pairwise tests have been performed to compare Arm A with Arm C, Arm B with Arm C, and Arm A with Arm B||0.57|-0.52|0.654
90903436|NCT02138747|181673909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.77||||||P value was obtained using Mainland-Gart test to compare the proportion of preference for each treatment group. The denominator excluded patients with No Preference.|Mainland-Gart|||Participants who selected Mirabegron or Tolterodine ER were included in the denominator and participants with No Preference were excluded. Comparison was between Mirabegron vs Tolterodine ER.||||0.77
90903437|NCT02138747|181673918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.224||0.971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.49||Adjusted P value was generated from the ANCOVA model for the period-by-treatment interaction.|ANCOVA|||Adjusted difference vs mirabegron where difference used mirabegron as the reference (difference = tolterodine ER - mirabegron).||0.49|-0.39|0.971
90903438|NCT02138747|181673919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.199||0.211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.5||Adjusted P value was generated from the ANCOVA model for the period-by-treatment interaction.|ANCOVA|||Adjusted difference vs mirabegron where difference used mirabegron as the reference (difference = tolterodine ER - mirabegron).||0.50|-0.28|0.211
90903439|NCT04793464|181673938|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.77||||0.26|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Number analyzed is the number of participants with valid baseline and follow-up data.||||.26
90903440|NCT04793464|181673939|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.87||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Ratio of Means||Number analyzed is the number of participants with valid baseline and follow-up data.||||.02
90903441|NCT04793464|181673940|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.68|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Logistic regression||Number analyzed is the number of participants with valid baseline and follow-up data.||||.68
90903442|NCT04793464|181673941|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.44|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Logistic regression||Number analyzed is the number of participants with valid baseline and follow-up data.||||.44
90903443|NCT04793464|181673942|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.015||||0.77|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Number analyzed is the number of participants with valid baseline and follow-up data.||||.77
90903444|NCT04793464|181673943|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.017||||0.66|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Number analyzed is the number of participants with valid baseline and follow-up data.||||.66
90958547|NCT00986973|181796925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Friedman test|Non-parametric test was used to examine neuropsychological outcomes||||||0.050
91100915|NCT01507103|182088126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect estimate|-0.19||||0.654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.31||Arm effect|type III SS F-test|||Category: CD8+/GrB+ The difference between baseline and surgical tumor samples was analysed and compared across the 3 treatment arms (effect estimate for Arm B vs Arm C) based on an ANCOVA model. Difference from baseline = Surgery value-Baseline value. Adjustment was based on ANCOVA model with treatment arm as factor and baseline value as covariate. No interaction included. Pairwise tests have been performed to compare Arm A with Arm C, Arm B with Arm C, and Arm A with Arm B||0.31|-0.69|0.654
90903445|NCT04793464|181673944|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.44|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Number analyzed is the number of participants with valid baseline and follow-up data.||||.44
90903446|NCT04793464|181673945|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.017|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Number analyzed is the number of participants with valid baseline and follow-up data.||||0.017
90903447|NCT00405704|181673953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.001
90903448|NCT00405704|181673954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.55|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.55
90903449|NCT00405704|181673955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.37|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.37
90903450|NCT00405704|181673956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.94|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.94
90903451|NCT00405704|181673957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.04
90903452|NCT00405704|181673958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.065|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.065
90903453|NCT00405704|181673959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90903454|NCT00405704|181673960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90903455|NCT02696902|181673961|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk reduction|-23.7||||0.491|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-83.8|16.8|||Poisson regression with robust variance|||||16.8|-83.8|0.491
90903456|NCT01857622|181673979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|26.8|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|no statistical test||||26.8|-14.7|
90903457|NCT01857622|181673979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|25.2|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||25.2|-15.4|
90903458|NCT00322868|181674088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2772|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|Paired t-test analysis of the intra-subject change in log10 sputum white cell count||||||0.2772
90903459|NCT00322868|181674089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2467|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|Paired t-test analysis of the intra-subject change in log10 sputum neutrophil count||||||0.2467
90903460|NCT00322868|181674090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0288|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|Paired t-test analysis of the intra-subject change in sputum percent neutrophils||||||0.0288
90903461|NCT00322868|181674091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|Paired t-test analysis of the intra-subject change in log10 sputum active elastase||||||0.50
90903462|NCT00322868|181674092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|Paired t-test analysis of the intra-subject change in log10 sputum TNFα||||||0.62
90903463|NCT00322868|181674093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|Paired t-test analysis of the intra-subject change in log10 sputum IL-1ß||||||0.50
90903464|NCT00322868|181674094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|Paired t-test analysis of the intra-subject change in log10 sputum IL-6||||||0.55
90958548|NCT00986973|181796926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.34
91100916|NCT01507103|182088126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect estimate|0.21||||0.654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.74||Arm effect|type III SS F-test|||Category: CD8+/GrB+ The difference between baseline and surgical tumor samples was analysed and compared across the 3 treatment arms (effect estimate for Arm A vs Arm B) based on an ANCOVA model. Difference from baseline = Surgery value-Baseline value. Adjustment was based on ANCOVA model with treatment arm as factor and baseline value as covariate. No interaction included. Pairwise tests have been performed to compare Arm A with Arm C, Arm B with Arm C, and Arm A with Arm B||0.74|-0.31|0.654
91104475|NCT02037984|182094985|OTHER|PT4 Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT4 Percentage Point Difference|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.8|10.3|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||10.3|-18.8|
90856258|NCT01227564|181576885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.24||||0.2622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|6.22||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||6.22|-1.74|0.2622
90856259|NCT01227564|181576885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.55||||0.4499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.64|2.55||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||2.55|-5.64|0.4499
90856260|NCT01227564|181576885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.35||||0.8454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.21|3.91||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||3.91|-3.21|0.8454
90856261|NCT01227564|181576886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.39||||0.1796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.96||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 26.||0.96|-0.18|0.1796
90856262|NCT01227564|181576886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.7281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.69||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 26.||0.69|-0.49|0.7281
90856263|NCT01227564|181576886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25||||0.3347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.75||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 26.||0.75|-0.26|0.3347
90903465|NCT00322868|181674095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|Paired t-test analysis of the intra-subject change in log10 sputum IL-8||||||0.75
90903466|NCT01852162|181674096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) method with a general linear model, using the corresponding baseline PD value as a covariate, was used to evaluate the comparisons between dabigatran and placebo at 7 days.|ANCOVA|||Assuming a 20% relative difference in TRAP induced MPA between dabigatran and placebo with a common standard deviation of 10%, 13 patients with available data needed to be randomized to obtain a 95% power and 2-sided alpha=0.05.||||<0.05
90903467|NCT01500226|181674101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.0||To control for multiplicity, analyses were performed hierarchically. For the CR delayed the threshold for statistical significance was 0.05; no further adjustment for multiplicity were required for the primary endpoint.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test was stratified by sex. Missing data were imputed as treatment failures.||||2.0|1.2|<0.001
90903468|NCT01500226|181674102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.6||To control for multiplicity, analyses were performed hierarchically. CR-acute was tested only if the result for the primary endpoint, CR delayed, was statistically significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test was stratified by sex. Missing data were imputed as treatment failures.||||1.6|0.9|0.143
90903469|NCT01500226|181674103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.0||To control for multiplicity, analyses were performed hierarchically. CR overall was tested only if both CR delayed and CR acute were statistically significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test was stratified by sex. Missing data were imputed as treatment failures.||||2.0|1.3|<0.001
91100917|NCT01507103|182088127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means estimate|-0.03||||0.921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.67|||type III SS F-test||Difference between Means adjusted on covariates baseline value and MSI category.|Category: CD8+ The difference in T cell infiltration from baseline to surgery was analysed and compared across the 3 treatment arms (effect estimate for Arm A vs Arm C) based on an ANCOVA model. Difference from baseline = Surgery value-Baseline value. Adjustment was based on ANCOVA model with treatment arm as factor and baseline value and MSI category as covariates. No interaction included. Pairwise tests have been performed to compare Arm A with Arm C, Arm B with Arm C, and Arm A with Arm B.||0.67|-0.73|0.921
90856264|NCT01227564|181576886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.39||||0.3425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|1.2||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 52.||1.20|-0.43|0.3425
90856265|NCT01227564|181576886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32||||0.4501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.52||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 52.||0.52|-1.16|0.4501
90856266|NCT01227564|181576886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.9227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.75||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 52.||0.75|-0.68|0.9227
90856267|NCT01227564|181576886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47||||0.345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|1.45||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 78.||1.45|-0.51|0.3450
90856268|NCT01227564|181576886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56||||0.274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|0.45||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 78.||0.45|-1.58|0.2740
90856269|NCT01227564|181576886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.82||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 78.||0.82|-0.92|0.9140
90903470|NCT00506285|181674147|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|F(1,47)=26.7, p=.001||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|F(1,47)=26.7, p=.001||||||.001
90903471|NCT00506285|181674148|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|mixed models analysis||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||F(1,47)=24.8, p=.001|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.001
90903472|NCT01646320|181674181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0964|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.53||Tested at alpha=0.05|Longitudinal Repeated Measures Analysis|||||-0.53|-0.91|<0.0001
90903473|NCT01646320|181674182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.015|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.4|-19.6||Secondary end points are tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05|Longitudinal Repeated Measures Analysis|||||-19.6|-35.4|<0.0001
90903474|NCT01646320|181674183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-35.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.493|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.3|-24.7||Secondary end points are tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05|Longitudinal Repeated Measures Analysis|||||-24.7|-46.3|<0.0001
91031448|NCT01062256|181947299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.03||p-values from ANOVA model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), and site terms.|ANOVA|||Pairwise comparison of change from baseline in cough severity at 3 hour postdose||0.03|-0.33|0.093
90903475|NCT01646320|181674184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3126|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|-0.89||Secondary endpoints are tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05|Longitudinal Repeated Measures Analysis|||||-0.89|-2.12|<0.0001
90903476|NCT01646320|181674185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.7|34.4||Secondary end points are tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05|Modified logistic regression|||||34.4|16.7|<0.0001
91100918|NCT01507103|182088127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means estimate|-0.2||||0.921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.44|||type III SS F-test||Difference between Means adjusted on covariates baseline value and MSI category.|Category: CD8+ The difference in T cell infiltration from baseline to surgery was analysed and compared across the 3 treatment arms (effect estimate for Arm B vs Arm C) based on an ANCOVA model. Difference from baseline = Surgery value-Baseline value. Adjustment was based on ANCOVA model with treatment arm as factor and baseline value and MSI category as covariates. No interaction included. Pairwise tests have been performed to compare Arm A with Arm C, Arm B with Arm C, and Arm A with Arm B.||0.44|-0.83|0.921
91100919|NCT01507103|182088127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means estimate|0.17||||0.921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.83|||type III SS F-test||Difference between Means adjusted on covariates baseline value and MSI category.|Category: CD8+ The difference in T cell infiltration from baseline to surgery was analysed and compared across the 3 treatment arms (effect estimate for Arm A vs Arm B) based on an ANCOVA model. Difference from baseline = Surgery value-Baseline value. Adjustment was based on ANCOVA model with treatment arm as factor and baseline value and MSI category as covariates. No interaction included. Pairwise tests have been performed to compare Arm A with Arm C, Arm B with Arm C, and Arm A with Arm B.||0.83|-0.50|0.921
91104476|NCT02037984|182094985|OTHER|PT5 Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT5 Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|9.6|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.6|-14.0|
91104477|NCT02037984|182094985|OTHER|PT6A Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT6A Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|9.6|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.6|-14.5|
90856270|NCT01227564|181576886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.03||||0.0923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|2.24||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||2.24|-0.18|0.0923
90856271|NCT01227564|181576886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.8482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|1.35||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||1.35|-1.11|0.8482
90856272|NCT01227564|181576886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.57||||0.284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|1.64||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||1.64|-0.49|0.2840
90856273|NCT01227564|181576887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.99||||0.1767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|0.92||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 26.||0.92|-4.90|0.1767
90856274|NCT01227564|181576887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.26||||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.23|-1.29||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 26.||-1.29|-7.23|0.0057
90903477|NCT02892409|181674191|EQUIVALENCE|LS Mean Ratio (TAK-438/Lansoprazole), 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) of the ratio were obtained by taking the anti-log of the difference or confidence limits of difference between the LS means of test and reference on the natural logarithmic scale.|Least Square (LS) Mean Ratio|105.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|66.051|167.183||||||||167.183|66.051|
90903478|NCT02892409|181674192|EQUIVALENCE|LS Mean Ratio (TAK-438/Lansoprazole), 95% CI of the ratio were obtained by taking the anti-log of the difference or confidence limits of difference between the LS means of test and reference on the natural logarithmic scale.|LS Mean Ratio|93.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.137|130.569||||||||130.569|67.137|
91031449|NCT01062256|181947299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.34||p-values from ANOVA model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), and site terms.|ANOVA|||Pairwise comparison of change from baseline in cough severity at 4 hour postdose||0.34|-0.14|0.406
91031450|NCT01062256|181947299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.24||p-values from ANOVA model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), and site terms.|ANOVA|||Pairwise comparison of change from baseline in cough severity at 4 hour postdose||0.24|-0.24|0.991
91031451|NCT01062256|181947299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.09||p-values from ANOVA model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), and site terms.|ANOVA|||Pairwise comparison of change from baseline in cough severity at 4 hour postdose||0.09|-0.30|0.306
91100920|NCT01507103|182088127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means estimate|0.02||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.58|||type III SS F-test||Difference between Means adjusted on covariates baseline value and MSI category.|Category:CD8+/GrB+ The difference in T cell infiltration from baseline to surgery was analysed and compared across the 3 treatment arms (effect estimate for Arm A vs Arm C) based on an ANCOVA model. Difference from baseline=Surgery value-Baseline value. Adjustment was based on ANCOVA model with treatment arm as factor and baseline value and MSI category as covariates. No interaction included. Pairwise tests have been performed to compare Arm A with Arm C, Arm B with Arm C, and Arm A with Arm B.||0.58|-0.54|0.890
91100921|NCT01507103|182088127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means estimate|-0.19||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.31|||type III SS F-test||Difference between Means adjusted on covariates baseline value and MSI category.|Category:CD8+/GrB+ The difference in T cell infiltration from baseline to surgery was analysed and compared across the 3 treatment arms (effect estimate for Arm B vs Arm C) based on an ANCOVA model. Difference from baseline=Surgery value-Baseline value. Adjustment was based on ANCOVA model with treatment arm as factor and baseline value and MSI category as covariates. No interaction included. Pairwise tests have been performed to compare Arm A with Arm C, Arm B with Arm C, and Arm A with Arm B.||0.31|-0.70|0.890
91100922|NCT01507103|182088127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means estimate|0.21||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.74|||type III SS F-test||Difference between Means adjusted on covariates baseline value and MSI category.|Category:CD8+/GrB+ The difference in T cell infiltration from baseline to surgery was analysed and compared across the 3 treatment arms (effect estimate for Arm A vs Arm B) based on an ANCOVA model. Difference from baseline=Surgery value-Baseline value. Adjustment was based on ANCOVA model with treatment arm as factor and baseline value and MSI category as covariates. No interaction included. Pairwise tests have been performed to compare Arm A with Arm C, Arm B with Arm C, and Arm A with Arm B.||0.74|-0.32|0.890
91100923|NCT05075772|182088138|OTHER||Ratio of gMeans (%)|46.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|38.3|55.9|||||"Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means (gMeans) was calculated as (gMean of SC injection (T))/(gMean of IV infusion (R)).~Intra-matched-pair geometric coefficient of variation=28.2."|The statistical model used for the analysis of this primary endpoint was an analysis of variance (ANOVA). The PK endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. The model included a fixed effect for treatment assignment and a random effect for matching pair (each matched pair in the study was assigned a number for the analysis).||55.9|38.3|
91100924|NCT05075772|182088139|OTHER||Ratio of gMeans (%)|26.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|23.2|31.1|||||"Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means (gMeans) was calculated as (gMean of SC injection (T))/(gMean of IV infusion (R)). Intra-matched-pair geometric coefficient of variation=22.5"|The statistical model used for the analysis of this primary endpoint was an analysis of variance (ANOVA). The PK endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. The model included a fixed effect for treatment assignment and a random effect for matching pair (each matched pair in the study was assigned a number for the analysis).||31.1|23.2|
91100925|NCT05075772|182088140|OTHER||Ratio of gMeans (%)|47.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|39.0|56.6|||||"Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means (gMeans) was calculated as (gMean of SC injection (T))/(gMean of IV infusion (R)).~Intra-matched-pair geometric coefficient of variation=27.7."|The statistical model used for the analysis of this secondary endpoint was an analysis of variance (ANOVA). The PK endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. The model included a fixed effect for treatment assignment and a random effect for matching pair (each matched pair in the study was assigned a number for the analysis).||56.6|39.0|
91100926|NCT00927186|182088148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The pre-specified significance level 0.05 was used.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90856275|NCT01227564|181576887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.13||||0.0176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.69|-0.57||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 26.||-0.57|-5.69|0.0176
91100927|NCT00927186|182088149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
91100928|NCT00927186|182088150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for 6 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90856276|NCT01227564|181576887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68||||0.679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.98|2.61||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 52.||2.61|-3.98|0.6790
90903479|NCT02254421|181674194|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-0.02||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.57||P-value was calculated from the ANCOVA model including baseline values and stratification factors.|ANCOVA|||||0.57|-0.62|0.94
90903480|NCT02254421|181674195|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84||||||P-value was calculated from the negative binomial model with stratification factors as covariates.|Negative binomial|||||||0.84
91100929|NCT00927186|182088150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-value is for 24 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
91100930|NCT00927186|182088151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL) and no labels (NL).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91100931|NCT00927186|182088151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL), imputed single labels (ISL) and no labels (NL).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91100932|NCT00927186|182088152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL) and no labels (NL).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
91100933|NCT00927186|182088152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL), imputed single labels (ISL) and no labels (NL).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
90903481|NCT02254421|181674196|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98||||||P-value was calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.98
90856277|NCT01227564|181576887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21||||0.9028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.62|3.2||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 52.||3.20|-3.62|0.9028
90856278|NCT01227564|181576887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.45||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.36|2.47||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 52.||2.47|-3.36|0.7600
90856279|NCT01227564|181576887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.32||||0.4089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.51|1.86||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 78.||1.86|-4.51|0.4089
90856280|NCT01227564|181576887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.17||||0.1964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.49|1.15||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 78.||1.15|-5.49|0.1964
90856281|NCT01227564|181576887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.75||||0.2234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.58|1.09||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 78.||1.09|-4.58|0.2234
90856282|NCT01227564|181576887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.6186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.52|2.12||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||2.12|-3.52|0.6186
90856283|NCT01227564|181576887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.77||||0.5853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|2.06||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||2.06|-3.60|0.5853
90903482|NCT02254421|181674197|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19||||||P-value was calculated from the CMH test stratified by stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.19
90903483|NCT01154036|181674228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M-estimates|-12.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|-8.7||The primary hypotheses were tested at 0.045, applying Hochberg's procedure.|Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||-8.7|-16.6|<0.001
90903484|NCT01154036|181674228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M-estimate|-9.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|-5.4||The primary hypotheses were tested at 0.045, applying Hochberg's procedure.|Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||-5.4|-12.9|<0.001
90903485|NCT01154036|181674229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M-estimates|-10.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.9|-5.1||The secondary hypotheses were tested at an adaptive alpha level depending on the hypotheses testing result of the primary hypotheses.|Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||-5.1|-15.9|<0.001
91031452|NCT01062256|181947300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Goodman-Kruskal Gamma statistic|0.15||||0.254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.39||p-values from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with modified ridit scores, controlling for gender, time stratum, and site.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Pairwise comparison of global evaluation of study medication.||0.39|-0.09|0.254
91100934|NCT00927186|182088153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL) and no labels (NL) at 6 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91100935|NCT00927186|182088153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL), imputed single labels (ISL) and no labels (NL) at 6 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91031453|NCT01062256|181947300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||weighted Goodman-Kruskal Gamma statistic|-0.01||||0.949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.23||p-values from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with modified ridit scores, controlling for gender, time stratum, and site.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Pairwise comparison of global evaluation of study medication.||0.23|-0.25|0.949
91031454|NCT01062256|181947300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||weighted Goodman-Kruskal Gamma statistic|-0.12||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.08||p-values from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with modified ridit scores, controlling for gender, time stratum, and site.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Pairwise comparison of global evaluation of study medication.||0.08|-0.32|0.256
91100936|NCT00927186|182088153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL) and no labels (NL) at 24 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
90856284|NCT01227564|181576887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.74||||0.5541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.23|1.75||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||1.75|-3.23|0.5541
90856285|NCT01227564|181576888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|1.93||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 26.||1.93|-2.09|0.9370
90856286|NCT01227564|181576888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.16||||0.2597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.19|0.88||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 26.||0.88|-3.19|0.2597
90856287|NCT01227564|181576888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62||||0.4852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.38|1.14||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 26.||1.14|-2.38|0.4852
90903486|NCT01154036|181674229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M-estimates|-9.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|-5.5||The secondary hypotheses were tested at an adaptive alpha level depending on the hypotheses testing result of the primary hypotheses.|Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||-5.5|-13.6|<0.001
90903487|NCT01154036|181674230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.62|3.89|||Logistic Regression Model|Logistic regression model included terms for treatment and baseline LDL-C (where baseline LDL-C was fitted as 3 categories based on tertiles)||||3.89|1.62|<0.001
90903488|NCT01154036|181674230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|2.67|||Logistic Regression Model|Logistic regression model included terms for treatment and baseline LDL-C (where baseline LDL-C was fitted as 3 categories based on tertiles)||||2.67|1.17|0.007
90903489|NCT01154036|181674231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|4.73|||Logistic regression Model|Logistic regression model included terms for treatment and baseline LDL-C (where baseline LDL-C was fitted as 3 categories based on tertiles)||||4.73|1.55|<0.001
91031455|NCT03006978|181947324|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Simple mixed effects linear models|||||||<0.0001
91031456|NCT03006978|181947325|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Simple mixed effects linear models|||||||<0.0001
91031457|NCT03006978|181947326|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Simple mixed effects linear models|||||||<0.0001
90903490|NCT01154036|181674231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|3.63|||Logistic Regression Model|Logistic regression model included terms for treatment and baseline LDL-C (where baseline LDL-C was fitted as 3 categories based on tertiles)||||3.63|1.56|<0.001
91031458|NCT03006978|181947327|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Simple mixed effects linear models|||||||<0.0001
91031459|NCT03006978|181947328|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Simple mixed effects linear models|||||||<0.0001
91077915|NCT02913105|182041137|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.88||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.82|0.94|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||HDL Cholesterol: Day 84||0.94|0.82|0.0031
91077916|NCT02913105|182041137|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.01||||0.774|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|1.07|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||HDL Cholesterol: Day 112 (EOS)||1.07|0.95|0.7740
90903491|NCT01154036|181674232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.56|19.62|||Logistic Regression Model|Logistic regression model included terms for treatment and baseline LDL-C (where baseline LDL-C was fitted as 3 categories based on tertiles)||||19.62|4.56|<0.001
90856288|NCT01227564|181576888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.73||||0.4542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.69|1.22||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 52.||1.22|-2.69|0.4542
90856289|NCT01227564|181576888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.03||||0.3061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.04|0.97||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 52.||0.97|-3.04|0.3061
90856290|NCT01227564|181576888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.88||||0.3082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|0.84||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 52.||0.84|-2.61|0.3082
90856291|NCT01227564|181576888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.11||||0.2672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|0.87||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 78.||0.87|-3.09|0.2672
90856292|NCT01227564|181576888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.11||||0.0427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.15|-0.07||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 78.||-0.07|-4.15|0.0427
90856293|NCT01227564|181576888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.61||||0.0716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.37|0.15||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 78.||0.15|-3.37|0.0716
90856294|NCT01227564|181576888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.46||||0.7184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|3.0||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||3.00|-2.09|0.7184
90856295|NCT01227564|181576888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.49||||0.7004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|3.03||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||3.03|-2.06|0.7004
90903492|NCT01154036|181674232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.23|6.82|||Logistic Regression Model|Logistic regression model included terms for treatment and baseline LDL-C (where baseline LDL-C was fitted as 3 categories based on tertiles)||||6.82|2.23|<0.001
90903493|NCT01154036|181674233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|27.77||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.64|211.83|||Logistic Regression Model|Logistic regression model included terms for treatment and baseline LDL-C (where baseline LDL-C was fitted as 3 categories based on tertiles)||||211.83|3.64|0.001
90903494|NCT01154036|181674233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.85|17.56|||Logistic Regression Model|Logistic regression model included terms for treatment and baseline LDL-C (where baseline LDL-C was fitted as 3 categories based on tertiles)||||17.56|2.85|<0.001
91100937|NCT00927186|182088153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL), imputed single labels (ISL) and no labels (NL) at 24 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
90903495|NCT01154036|181674234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M-estimates|-7.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|-4.4|||Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||-4.4|-9.7|<0.001
90903496|NCT01154036|181674234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M-estimates|-5.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|-3.3|||Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||-3.3|-8.3|<0.001
90903497|NCT01154036|181674235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M-estimates|-6.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|-3.0|||Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||-3.0|-10.7|<0.001
90903498|NCT01154036|181674235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M-estimates|-7.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|-4.5|||Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||-4.5|-10.2|<0.001
90903499|NCT01154036|181674236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|-2.1||||0.466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|3.5|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Geometric mean percent changes from baseline were calculated based on back-transformation via exponentiation of the model-based least square means||||3.5|-7.8|0.466
90903500|NCT01154036|181674236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-squares means|-4.9||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|0.5|||Constrained Longitudinal Analysis|Geometric mean percent changes from baseline were calculated based on back-transformation via exponentiation of the model-based least square means||||0.5|-10.3|0.081
90903501|NCT01154036|181674237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-squares Means|-2.8||||0.466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|4.7|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Geometric mean percent changes from baseline were calculated based on back-transformation via exponentiation of the model-based least square means||||4.7|-10.2|0.466
90903502|NCT01154036|181674237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-squarres Means|-7.1||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|-1.6|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Geometric mean percent changes from baseline were calculated based on back-transformation via exponentiation of the model-based least square means||||-1.6|-12.6|0.011
91031460|NCT01395030|181947336|OTHER||||||||||||||||||"Analysis was performed using Gene Set Enrichment Analysis (GSEA version 19.0.24, Broad Institute, Cambridge, MA) implemented in GenePattern (Broad Institute, Cambridge, MA) by uploading expression array data to this cloud-computing genomics platform. The specific details of this statistical approach can be found in the following publicly available references:~Reich M, Liefeld T, Gould J, Lerner J, Tamayo P, Mesirov JP. GenePattern 2.0 Nature Genetics 38 no. 5 (2006): pp500-501~Subramanian A, Tamayo P, Mootha VK, Mukherjee S, Ebert BL, Gillette MA, Paulovich A, Pomeroy SL, Golub TR, Lander ES, Mesirov JP. Gene set enrichment analysis: A knowledge-based approach for interpreting genome-wide expression profiles. PNAS. 2005;102(43);15545-15550."|||
91100938|NCT00927186|182088154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL) and no labels (NL).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90856296|NCT01227564|181576888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47||||0.6723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|2.71||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||2.71|-1.77|0.6723
90903503|NCT01154036|181674238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M--estimates|1.7||||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|4.0|||Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||4.0|-0.5|0.133
90903504|NCT01154036|181674238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M-estimates|-0.6||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|1.6|||Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||1.6|-2.7|0.610
90903505|NCT01154036|181674239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M-estimates|-1.0||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|2.1|||Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||2.1|-4.2|0.520
91100939|NCT00927186|182088154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL), imputed single labels (ISL) and no labels (NL).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91031461|NCT02672553|181947339|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-12.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
90903506|NCT01154036|181674239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M-estimates|-0.7||||0.567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|1.7|||Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||1.7|-3.1|0.567
90903507|NCT01154036|181674240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M-estimates|-5.3||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|-1.8|||Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||-1.8|-8.8|0.003
90903508|NCT01154036|181674240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M-estimates|-4.3||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|-1.0|||Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||-1.0|-7.7|0.011
91100940|NCT00927186|182088155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL) and no labels (NL).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
91100941|NCT00927186|182088155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL), imputed single labels (ISL) and no labels (NL).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
91100942|NCT00927186|182088156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL) and no labels (NL) at 6 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91100943|NCT00927186|182088156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL), imputed single labels (ISL) and no labels (NL) at 6 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90856297|NCT01227564|181576889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.9535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|1.68||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 26.||1.68|-1.58|0.9535
90856298|NCT01227564|181576889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.9914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|1.65||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 26.||1.65|-1.63|0.9914
90856299|NCT01227564|181576889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.9682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|1.44||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 26.||1.44|-1.39|0.9682
90856300|NCT01227564|181576889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.16||||0.2008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.96|0.64||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 52.||0.64|-2.96|0.2008
90856301|NCT01227564|181576889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0.7988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|1.6||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 52.||1.60|-2.07|0.7988
90856302|NCT01227564|181576889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.3764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.27|0.87||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 52.||0.87|-2.27|0.3764
90856303|NCT01227564|181576889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.86||||0.4177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.98|1.25||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 78.||1.25|-2.98|0.4177
90856304|NCT01227564|181576889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.6494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.67|1.68||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 78.||1.68|-2.67|0.6494
90903509|NCT01154036|181674241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M-estimates|-4.3||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|0.5|||Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||0.5|-9.2|0.079
90903510|NCT01154036|181674241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M-estimates|-7.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|-4.1|||Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||-4.1|-11.4|<0.001
91031462|NCT02672553|181947340|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-10.5||||0.2077|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2077
91100944|NCT00927186|182088156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL) and no labels (NL) at 24 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.003
91100945|NCT00927186|182088156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL), imputed single labels (ISL) and no labels (NL) at 24 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
90856305|NCT01227564|181576889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68||||0.4674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|1.18||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 78.||1.18|-2.54|0.4674
90856306|NCT01227564|181576889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.02||||0.4709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.85|1.81||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||1.81|-3.85|0.4709
90856307|NCT01227564|181576889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.19||||0.4128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|4.07||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||4.07|-1.70|0.4128
90856308|NCT01227564|181576889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.9478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|2.58||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||2.58|-2.41|0.9478
90856309|NCT01227564|181576890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53||||0.7146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|2.35||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 54.||2.35|-3.40|0.7146
90856310|NCT01227564|181576890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.64||||0.2733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|1.33||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 54.||1.33|-4.60|0.2733
90903511|NCT01154036|181674242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M-estimates|1.6||||0.156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|3.8|||Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||3.8|-0.6|0.156
90903512|NCT01154036|181674242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M-estimates|-0.9||||0.425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|1.2|||Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||1.2|-2.9|0.425
90903513|NCT01154036|181674243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M-estimates|0.5||||0.739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|3.6|||Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||3.6|-2.5|0.739
90903514|NCT01154036|181674243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M-estimates|-1.0||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|1.3|||Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||1.3|-3.3|0.410
90903515|NCT01154036|181674244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M-estimates|-10.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|-6.6|||Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||-6.6|-13.6|<0.001
90958549|NCT00598273|181796927|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A non-inferiority margin of -1.0 g/dL was used in the primary efficacy assessments. Non-inferiority was established if the lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% confidence interval for the difference between the means of the primary endpoint (peginesatide minus control ESA) was ≥ -1.0 g/dL.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.19|0.26|||ANOVA|The ANOVA cell means model was used to estimate primary efficacy endpoint within the specified cells formed by the combination of treatment and strata||The sample size for this study was determined based on a two-group evaluation of non-inferiority in means with a non-inferiority margin (Δ) of -1.0 g/dL (one-sided significance level of 0.0125, or, comparably, a two-sided significance level of 0.025). A sample size of 450 (150 per treatment group) provided power greater than 99% for the evaluation of non-inferiority, assuming an expected treatment difference of 0.0 g/dL and a pooled standard deviation of 1.5 g/dL.||0.26|-0.19|
91100946|NCT00927186|182088157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL) and no labels (NL).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91031463|NCT01054599|181947437|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
91031464|NCT01054599|181947440|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||||||>0.05
91031465|NCT01101022|181947476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.9|-6.4|||ANCOVA|||||-6.4|-15.9|<0.0001
91031466|NCT01101022|181947477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.5|29.7|||ANCOVA|||Performance and Daily Functioning||29.7|13.5|<0.0001
90856311|NCT01227564|181576890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.08||||0.3969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.62|1.46||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 54.||1.46|-3.62|0.3969
90856312|NCT01227564|181576890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24||||0.8566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.43|2.92||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 86.||2.92|-2.43|0.8566
90856313|NCT01227564|181576890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.28||||0.346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.98|1.42||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 86.||1.42|-3.98|0.3460
90856314|NCT01227564|181576890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.52||||0.6582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.86|1.82||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 86.||1.82|-2.86|0.6582
90856315|NCT01227564|181576892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5||||0.7537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.36|13.36||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 26.||13.36|-18.36|0.7537
90856316|NCT01227564|181576892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.51||||0.1266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.86|3.65||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 26.||3.65|-28.86|0.1266
90856317|NCT01227564|181576892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.96||||0.6724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.34|18.41||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 52.||18.41|-28.34|0.6724
90903516|NCT01154036|181674244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M-estimates|-7.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|-4.3|||Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||-4.3|-10.9|<0.001
90903517|NCT01154036|181674245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M-estimates|-9.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|-4.5|||Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||-4.5|-14.0|<0.001
91031467|NCT01101022|181947477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.8|22.0|||ANCOVA|||Daily Interference||22.0|7.8|<0.0001
91031468|NCT01101022|181947477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.5||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|20.7|||ANCOVA|||Bother/Concern||20.7|6.3|0.0003
91031469|NCT01101022|181947477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.8||||0.0302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|14.9|||ANCOVA|||Relationships/Communication||14.9|0.8|0.0302
91031470|NCT01101022|181947478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.9||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|-1.9|||ANCOVA|||Global Executive Composite||-1.9|-7.8|0.0016
91031471|NCT01101022|181947478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.1||||0.0355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||Behavioral Regulation Index||-0.2|-6.0|0.0355
91100947|NCT00927186|182088157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL), imputed single labels (ISL) and no labels (NL).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91100948|NCT00927186|182088158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL) and no labels (NL).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.020
90856318|NCT01227564|181576892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.7||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.89|-5.5||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 52.||-5.50|-53.89|0.0170
91100949|NCT00927186|182088158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL), imputed single labels (ISL) and no labels (NL).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.005
90856319|NCT01227564|181576892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-30.94||||0.3196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-92.67|30.78||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 78.||30.78|-92.67|0.3196
90856320|NCT01227564|181576892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-64.97||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-129.64|-0.31||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 78.||-0.31|-129.64|0.0490
90856321|NCT01227564|181576892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.04||||0.2969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|46.79||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||46.79|-14.70|0.2969
90856322|NCT01227564|181576892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.2||||0.0973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.42|5.03||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||5.03|-57.42|0.0973
91031472|NCT01101022|181947478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.7||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|-2.7|||ANCOVA|||Metacognition Index||-2.7|-8.7|0.0003
91031473|NCT01101022|181947479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.4||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|-4.0|||ANCOVA|||Behavioral Regulation Index||-4.0|-12.7|0.0002
91100950|NCT00927186|182088159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL) and no labels (NL) at 6 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91100951|NCT00927186|182088159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL), imputed single labels (ISL) and no labels (NL) at 6 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91100952|NCT00927186|182088159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.039||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL) and no labels (NL) at 24 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.039
91100953|NCT00927186|182088159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL), imputed single labels (ISL) and no labels (NL) at 24 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.025
91100954|NCT00927186|182088160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL) and no labels (NL).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91100955|NCT00927186|182088160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL), imputed single labels (ISL) and no labels (NL).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91100956|NCT00927186|182088161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL) and no labels (NL).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.050
91100957|NCT00927186|182088161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL), imputed single labels (ISL) and no labels (NL).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.016
91100958|NCT00927186|182088162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL) and no labels (NL) at 6 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91100959|NCT00927186|182088162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL), imputed single labels (ISL) and no labels (NL) at 6 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91100960|NCT00927186|182088162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL) and no labels (NL) at 24 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.003
91100961|NCT00927186|182088162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL), imputed single labels (ISL) and no labels (NL) at 24 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.003
91100962|NCT00927186|182088163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL) and no labels (NL).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91100963|NCT00927186|182088163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL), imputed single labels (ISL) and no labels (NL).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90856323|NCT01227564|181576893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.42||||0.6653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.94|5.1||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 26.||5.10|-7.94|0.6653
90856324|NCT01227564|181576893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.48||||0.4613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|9.15||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 26.||9.15|-4.20|0.4613
90856325|NCT01227564|181576893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.72||||0.771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.18|5.61||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 52.||5.61|-4.18|0.7710
90856326|NCT01227564|181576893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.02||||0.2328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|8.04||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 52.||8.04|-1.99|0.2328
90856327|NCT01227564|181576893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.3693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|2.58||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 78.||2.58|-0.97|0.3693
90856328|NCT01227564|181576893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.74||||0.422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|2.56||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 78.||2.56|-1.09|0.4220
90856329|NCT01227564|181576893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.51||||0.3728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.25|9.23||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||9.23|-24.25|0.3728
90856330|NCT01227564|181576893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.07||||0.3452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.05|8.91||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||8.91|-25.05|0.3452
90856331|NCT02376283|181576934|OTHER|A p value \< 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant.Comparison of means between groups assessed using ANOVA allowing comparison of more than 2 means and enabled assessment made of the relationship between different drugs (clopidogrel vs prasugrel vs ticagrelor), different clinical states (STEMI vs NSTEMI/UA (Unstable angina)) and different time points.|||||<|0.05||||||Assessment made of relationship between groups-clop vs pras vs tic,rows of STEMI vs NSTEMI/UA and different time points.P-values reported are calculated values based on data collated during sample collection and review of clinical characteristics.|ANOVA|||Continuous variables expressed as mean ± SD (standard deviation) and categorical variables as frequencies (%).Continuous variables analysed individually using student's independent sample t-tests. Categorical variables assessed using separate Fisher's exact (Chi-square) test.||||<0.05
91031474|NCT01101022|181947479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|-7.0|||ANCOVA|||Metacognition Index||-7.0|-16.3|<0.0001
91031475|NCT01101022|181947480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.3||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|-4.1|||ANCOVA|||Inhibit||-4.1|-12.6|0.0001
91031476|NCT01101022|181947480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.7||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|-2.5|||ANCOVA|||Shift||-2.5|-10.8|0.0018
91100964|NCT00927186|182088164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.906||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL) and no labels (NL).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.906
91100965|NCT00927186|182088164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.159||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL), imputed single labels (ISL) and no labels (NL).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.159
91100966|NCT00927186|182088165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL) and no labels (NL) at 6 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.049
90903518|NCT01154036|181674245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M-estimates|-9.8||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|-6.2|||Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||-6.2|-13.5|0.001
91100967|NCT00927186|182088165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL), imputed single labels (ISL) and no labels (NL) at 6 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91100968|NCT00927186|182088165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.151||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL) and no labels (NL) at 24 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.151
91100969|NCT00927186|182088165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.196||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL), imputed single labels (ISL) and no labels (NL) at 24 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.196
91100970|NCT00927186|182088166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.502||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL) and no labels (NL).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.502
90903519|NCT01154036|181674246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M-estimates|-8.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|-4.9|||Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||-4.9|-11.2|<0.001
90903520|NCT01154036|181674246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M-estimates|-4.8||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|-1.9|||Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||-1.9|-7.8|0.001
90903521|NCT01154036|181674247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M-estimates|-6.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|-2.8|||Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||-2.8|-11.0|<0.001
90903522|NCT01154036|181674247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M-estimates|-6.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|-3.3|||Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||-3.3|-9.4|<0.001
91031477|NCT01101022|181947480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.2||||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|-1.5|||ANCOVA|||Emotional control||-1.5|-8.8|0.0056
91031478|NCT01101022|181947480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.2||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|-4.1|||ANCOVA|||Sef-monitor||-4.1|-12.3|0.0001
91100971|NCT00927186|182088166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.597||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL), imputed single labels (ISL) and no labels (NL).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.597
91100972|NCT00927186|182088167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.077||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL) and no labels (NL).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.077
91100973|NCT00927186|182088167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.358||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL), imputed single labels (ISL) and no labels (NL).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.358
91100974|NCT00927186|182088168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.647||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL) and no labels (NL) at 6 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.647
91100975|NCT00927186|182088168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL), imputed single labels (ISL) and no labels (NL) at 6 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.120
91100976|NCT00927186|182088168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.695||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL) and no labels (NL) at 24 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.695
91100977|NCT00927186|182088168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL), imputed single labels (ISL) and no labels (NL) at 24 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.00
91100978|NCT00927186|182088169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL) and no labels (NL).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91100979|NCT00927186|182088169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL), imputed single labels (ISL) and no labels (NL).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91100980|NCT00927186|182088170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL) and no labels (NL).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.00
91100981|NCT00927186|182088170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.198||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL), imputed single labels (ISL) and no labels (NL).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.198
91100982|NCT00927186|182088171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL) and no labels (NL) at 6 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.022
91100983|NCT00927186|182088171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL), imputed single labels (ISL) and no labels (NL) at 6 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91100984|NCT00927186|182088171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.151||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL) and no labels (NL) at 24 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.151
91100985|NCT00927186|182088171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.139||95.0||||-value is for double labels (DL), imputed single labels (ISL) and no labels (NL) at 24 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.139
91100986|NCT00927186|182088172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.154||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL) and no labels (NL).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.154
91100987|NCT00927186|182088172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.052||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL), imputed single labels (ISL) and no labels (NL).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.052
91031479|NCT01101022|181947480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|-5.4|||ANCOVA|||Initiate||-5.4|-13.2|<0.0001
91100988|NCT00927186|182088173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.906||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL) and no labels (NL).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.906
91100989|NCT00927186|182088173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.159||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL), imputed single labels (ISL) and no labels (NL).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.159
91100990|NCT00927186|182088174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.979||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL) and no labels (NL) at 6 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.979
90903523|NCT01154036|181674248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M-estimates|-13.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.1|-9.3|||Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||-9.3|-18.1|<0.001
91100991|NCT00927186|182088174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL), imputed single labels (ISL) and no labels (NL) at 6 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
90856332|NCT02376283|181576934|OTHER|Comparison of means between groups assessed using ANOVA allowing comparison of more than 2 means and enabled assessment made of the relationship between different drugs (clopidogrel vs prasugrel vs ticagrelor), different clinical states (STEMI vs NSTEMI/UA (Unstable angina)) and different time points.|||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|ANOVA F(3,36) = 12.282||STEMI- clop vs prasl vs tic||||< 0.0001
90856333|NCT02376283|181576934|OTHER|Comparison of means between groups assessed using ANOVA allowing comparison of more than 2 means and enabled assessment made of the relationship between different drugs (clopidogrel vs prasugrel vs ticagrelor), different clinical states (STEMI vs NSTEMI/UA (Unstable angina)) and different time points.|||||<|0.0001||||||Assessment made of relationship between groups-clop vs pras vs tic,rows of STEMI vs NSTEMI/UA and different time points.P-values reported are calculated values based on data collated during sample collection and review of clinical characteristics.|ANOVA|ANOVA F(2,40) = 29.097||NSTEMI- clopidogrel vs prasugrel vs ticagrelor||||< 0.0001
90856334|NCT02376283|181576935|OTHER|Comparison of means between groups was assessed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) technique. ANOVA allowed for a comparison of more than two means and enabled an assessment to be made of the relationship between, different drugs (clopidogrel active metabolite vs prasugrel active metabolite vs ticagrelor parent compound and active metabolite), different clinical states (STEMI vs NSTEMI/UA (Unstable angina)) and different time points.|||||<|0.05||||||Assessment made of relationship between groups-clop vs pras vs tic, rows of STEMI vs NSTEMI/UA and different time points. P-values reported are calculated values based on data collated during sample collection and review of clinical characteristics.|ANOVA|||"Continuous variables were expressed as mean ± SEM (Standard Error of Measurement) and categorical variables as frequencies (%).~Continuous variables were analysed individually using student's independent sample t-tests. Categorical variables were assessed using separate Fisher's exact (Chi-square) test."||||<0.05
90856335|NCT02376283|181576935|OTHER|Comparison of means between groups was assessed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) technique. ANOVA allowed for a comparison of more than two means and enabled an assessment to be made of the relationship between, different drugs (clopidogrel active metabolite vs prasugrel active metabolite vs ticagrelor parent compound and active metabolite), different clinical states (STEMI vs NSTEMI/UA (Unstable angina)) and different time points.|||||=|0.123|||||||ANOVA|ANOVA F(6,56)=1.707||STEMI- different drugs (as stated above)||||=0.123
90856336|NCT02376283|181576935|OTHER|Comparison of means between groups was assessed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) technique. ANOVA allowed for a comparison of more than two means and enabled an assessment to be made of the relationship between, different drugs (clopidogrel active metabolite vs prasugrel active metabolite vs ticagrelor parent compound and active metabolite), different clinical states (STEMI vs NSTEMI/UA (Unstable angina)) and different time points.|||||<|0.0001||||||Assessment made of relationship between groups-clop vs pras vs tic, rows of STEMI vs NSTEMI/UA and different time points. P-values reported are calculated values based on data collated during sample collection and review of clinical characteristics.|ANOVA|ANOVA F(4,62)=18.932||NSTEMI- different drugs (as stated above)||||<0.0001
90903524|NCT01154036|181674248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M-estimates|-7.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|-3.6|||Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||-3.6|-11.9|<0.001
90903525|NCT01154036|181674249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M-estimates|-10.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.8|-4.9|||Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||-4.9|-15.8|<0.001
90903526|NCT01154036|181674249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M-estimates|-8.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|-4.2|||Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||-4.2|-12.5|<0.001
90903527|NCT01154036|181674250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M-estimates|-6.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|-2.5|||Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||-2.5|-10.0|<0.001
90903528|NCT01154036|181674250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M-estimates|-3.5||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|0.0|||Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||0.0|-7.1|0.052
90903529|NCT01154036|181674251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M-estimates|-5.8||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|-0.8|||Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||-0.8|-10.8|0.024
90903530|NCT01154036|181674251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M-estimates|-6.1||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|-2.3|||Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||-2.3|-9.9|0.002
90903531|NCT01154036|181674252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M-estimates|-10.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|-6.4|||Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||-6.4|-14.9|<0.001
91031480|NCT01101022|181947480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|-6.6|||ANCOVA|||Working memory||-6.6|-16.0|<0.0001
91100992|NCT00927186|182088174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.695||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL) and no labels (NL) at 24 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.695
91100993|NCT00927186|182088174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.853||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL), imputed single labels (ISL) and no labels (NL) at 24 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.853
91100994|NCT00927186|182088175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for sLS/BS.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90903532|NCT01154036|181674252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M-estimates|-6.2||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|-2.2|||Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||-2.2|-10.2|0.002
91100995|NCT00927186|182088175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for dLS/BS.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91100996|NCT00927186|182088176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0||||P-value is for sLS/BS.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.006
90903533|NCT01154036|181674253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M-estimates|-9.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|-3.9|||Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||-3.9|-14.8|<0.001
90903534|NCT01154036|181674253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M-estimates|-8.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|-4.2|||Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||-4.2|-12.6|<0.001
90859892|NCT00408629|181583120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||||||Testing for ranked co-primary endpoints occurred in hierarchical order to control for multiple testing. Week 8 remission rate was tested first. If a significant difference in group rates was found at alpha=0.05, Week 52 rate was tested at alpha=0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification levels for Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel = prior anti-TNF versus anti-TNF-naive.||Assuming that 5% of the subjects in the placebo group achieve clinical remission at Week 52 or Week 8, a sample size of 250 in each treatment group will be adequate to detect a difference of at least 7 percentage points from the adalimumab group using Chi squared test with 80% power at a 0.05 two-sided significance level.||||0.004
90903535|NCT01154036|181674254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-squares Means|-3.9||||0.613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9|11.1|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Geometric mean percent changes from baseline were calculated based on back-transformation via exponentiation of the model-based least square means||||11.1|-18.9|0.613
90903536|NCT01154036|181674254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-squares Means|-1.5||||0.831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.7|12.6|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Geometric mean percent changes from baseline were calculated based on back-transformation via exponentiation of the model-based least square means||||12.6|-15.7|0.831
90903537|NCT01154036|181674255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-squares Means|-13.1||||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.6|6.4|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Geometric mean percent changes from baseline were calculated based on back-transformation via exponentiation of the model-based least square means||||6.4|-32.6|0.187
90959009|NCT02482870|181798200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.67||A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|t value = -11.224, degrees of freedom = 773.99||"For each patient, the difference between Cormack-Lehane score and Mallampati class was calculated for each laryngoscope. As an example, the first patient had a Mallampati score 3. Macintosh laryngoscope provided a Cormack-Lehane score of 2, therefore the difference is - 1, calculated as 2 - 3. In the same patient, King Vision video laryngoscope provided a Cormack-Lehane score of 1, therefore the difference is - 2, calculated as 1 - 3. T-test was used to compare the differences."||-0.67|-0.95|<0.0001
90903538|NCT01154036|181674255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-squares Means|-11.6||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.7|4.4|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Geometric mean percent changes from baseline were calculated based on back-transformation via exponentiation of the model-based least square means||||4.4|-27.7|0.153
90903539|NCT02264574|181674256|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.231|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.145|0.367|||Log Rank|The treatment effect was tested with an unstratified log rank test.|The hazard ratio and its 95% confidence interval were estimated using a Cox regression model with treatment as the only covariate.|To preserve the study wise type I error rate of 0.05, the primary and secondary endpoints were tested based on serial gatekeeping testing procedure at the two-sided significance level of 0.05 according to the hierarchical order of the primary analysis outcome measures presented in this record.||0.367|0.145|<0.0001
91031481|NCT01101022|181947480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|-6.4|||ANCOVA|||Plan/Organize||-6.4|-15.4|<0.0001
91031482|NCT01101022|181947480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.3||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|-4.7|||ANCOVA|||Task monitor||-4.7|-14.0|0.0001
91031483|NCT01101022|181947480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|-5.3|||ANCOVA|||Organization of materials||-5.3|-12.5|<0.0001
91031484|NCT01101022|181947481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.4||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|-1.4|||ANCOVA|||Inhibit||-1.4|-7.4|0.0048
91100997|NCT00927186|182088176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||P-value is for dLS/BS.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
91100998|NCT00927186|182088177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for sLS/BS at 6 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91100999|NCT00927186|182088177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for dLS/BS at 6 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91101000|NCT00927186|182088177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0||||P-value is for sLS/BS at 24 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.004
91101001|NCT00927186|182088177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0||||P-value is for dLS/BS at 24 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.006
91101002|NCT00927186|182088178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"P-value is a comparison of No Label vs. Single, Double, Single and Double Label."|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91101003|NCT00927186|182088179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033||95.0||||"P-value is a comparison of No Label vs. Single, Double, Single and Double Label."|Fisher Exact|||||||0.033
91101004|NCT00927186|182088180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"P-value is a comparison of No Label vs. Single, Double, Single and Double Label at 6 months."|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91101005|NCT00927186|182088180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0||||"P-value is a comparison of No Label vs. Single, Double, Single and Double Label at 24 months."|Fisher Exact|||||||0.009
90856337|NCT02376283|181576936|OTHER|Comparison of means between groups was assessed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) technique. ANOVA allowed for a comparison of more than two means and enabled an assessment to be made of the relationship between, different drugs (clopidogrel vs prasugrel vs ticagrelor), different clinical states (STEMI vs NSTEMI/UA) and different time points.|||||<|0.05||||||Assessment made of relationship between groups-clop vs pras vs tic, rows of STEMI vs NSTEMI/UA and different time points. P-values reported are calculated values based on data collated during sample collection and review of clinical characteristics.|ANOVA|||"Continuous variables were expressed as mean ± SD and categorical variables as frequencies (%).~Continuous variables were analysed individually using student's independent sample t-tests. Categorical variables were assessed using separate Fisher's exact (Chi-square) test."||||<0.05
90856338|NCT02376283|181576936|OTHER|Comparison of means between groups was assessed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) technique. ANOVA allowed for a comparison of more than two means and enabled an assessment to be made of the relationship between, different drugs (clopidogrel vs prasugrel vs ticagrelor), different clinical states (STEMI vs NSTEMI/UA) and different time points.|||||=|0.81||||||STEMI- clopidogrel vs prasugrel vs ticagrelor|ANOVA|ANOVA F(3,17) = 0.321||"Continuous variables were expressed as mean ± SD and categorical variables as frequencies (%).~Continuous variables were analysed individually using student's independent sample t-tests. Categorical variables were assessed using separate Fisher's exact (Chi-square) test."||||=0.810
90856339|NCT02376283|181576936|OTHER|Comparison of means between groups was assessed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) technique. ANOVA allowed for a comparison of more than two means and enabled an assessment to be made of the relationship between, different drugs (clopidogrel vs prasugrel vs ticagrelor), different clinical states (STEMI vs NSTEMI/UA) and different time points.|||||<|0.0001||||||NSTEMI- clopi vs pras vs tic|ANOVA|ANOVA F(2,25) = 14.103||"Continuous variables were expressed as mean ± SD and categorical variables as frequencies (%).~Continuous variables were analysed individually using student's independent sample t-tests. Categorical variables were assessed using separate Fisher's exact (Chi-square) test."||||< 0.0001
90856340|NCT02378025|181576937|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.25
90903540|NCT02264574|181674257|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.119|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.046|0.307|||Log Rank|The treatment effect was tested with an unstratified log rank test.|The hazard ratio and its 95% confidence interval were estimated using a Cox regression model with treatment as the only covariate.|To preserve the study wise type I error rate of 0.05, the primary and secondary endpoints were tested based on serial gatekeeping testing procedure at the two-sided significance level of 0.05 according to the hierarchical order of the primary analysis outcome measures presented in this record.||0.307|0.046|< 0.0001
90903541|NCT02264574|181674258|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5253|||||||Chi-squared|||To preserve the study wise type I error rate of 0.05, the primary and secondary endpoints were tested based on serial gatekeeping testing procedure at the two-sided significance level of 0.05 according to the hierarchical order of the primary analysis outcome measures presented in this record.||||0.5253
90903542|NCT02264574|181674259|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5465|||||||Chi-squared|||To preserve the study wise type I error rate of 0.05, the primary and secondary endpoints were tested based on serial gatekeeping testing procedure at the two-sided significance level of 0.05 according to the hierarchical order of the primary analysis outcome measures presented in this record.||||0.5465
90903543|NCT02264574|181674260|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|1.208||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.062|1.373|||Chi-squared|||To preserve the study wise type I error rate of 0.05, the primary and secondary endpoints were tested based on serial gatekeeping testing procedure at the two-sided significance level of 0.05 according to the hierarchical order of the primary analysis outcome measures presented in this record.||1.373|1.062|0.0035
90903544|NCT02264574|181674261|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.921||||0.8057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.479|1.772|||Log Rank|The treatment effect was tested with an unstratified log rank test.|The hazard ratio and its 95% confidence interval were estimated using a Cox regression model with treatment as the only covariate.|To preserve the study wise type I error rate of 0.05, the primary and secondary endpoints were tested based on serial gatekeeping testing procedure at the two-sided significance level of 0.05 according to the hierarchical order of the primary analysis outcome measures presented in this record.||1.772|0.479|0.8057
90903545|NCT02264574|181674262|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0835|||||||Fisher Exact|||"IRR Preferred Term~To preserve the study wise type I error rate of 0.05, the primary and secondary endpoints were tested based on serial gatekeeping testing procedure at the two-sided significance level of 0.05 according to the hierarchical order of the primary analysis outcome measures presented in this record."||||0.0835
90903546|NCT02264574|181674262|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1944|||||||Fisher Exact|||"IRR By Customized SMQ~To preserve the study wise type I error rate of 0.05, the primary and secondary endpoints were tested based on serial gatekeeping testing procedure at the two-sided significance level of 0.05 according to the hierarchical order of the primary analysis outcome measures presented in this record."||||0.1944
90903547|NCT02264574|181674263|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0045|||||||Chi-squared|||To preserve the study wise type I error rate of 0.05, the primary and secondary endpoints were tested based on serial gatekeeping testing procedure at the two-sided significance level of 0.05 according to the hierarchical order of the primary analysis outcome measures presented in this record.||||0.0045
91101006|NCT00927186|182088181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
91101007|NCT00927186|182088182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.906||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.906
91101008|NCT00927186|182088183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.536||95.0||||P-value is for 6 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.536
91101009|NCT00927186|182088183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.896||95.0||||P-value is for 24 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.896
91101010|NCT00927186|182088184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91101011|NCT00927186|182088185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
91101012|NCT00927186|182088186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91101013|NCT00927186|182088187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.008
91031485|NCT01101022|181947481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.8||||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|-1.5|||ANCOVA|||Shift||-1.5|-8.0|0.0045
90856341|NCT02378025|181576938|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.08
90856342|NCT02378025|181576939|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.04
90856343|NCT02378025|181576940|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||.25
91031486|NCT01101022|181947481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.3605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|1.5|||ANCOVA|||Emotional control||1.5|-4.0|0.3605
91101014|NCT00927186|182088188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for 6 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91101015|NCT00927186|182088188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0||||P-value is for 24 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.006
90856344|NCT02378025|181576941|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||.22
90856345|NCT02378025|181576942|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||.41
90856346|NCT04437368|181576951|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.291|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2838|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.195|0.777|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 12||0.777|-0.195|
90856347|NCT04437368|181576951|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.282|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2843|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.206|0.769|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 12||0.769|-0.206|
90903548|NCT02264574|181674264|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.859|||||||Chi-squared|||To preserve the study wise type I error rate of 0.05, the primary and secondary endpoints were tested based on serial gatekeeping testing procedure at the two-sided significance level of 0.05 according to the hierarchical order of the primary analysis outcome measures presented in this record.||||0.8590
91031487|NCT01101022|181947481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2||||0.1468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Self-monitor||0.8|-5.1|0.1468
90856348|NCT04437368|181576951|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.658|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.373|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.017|1.299|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 24||1.299|0.017|
91031488|NCT01101022|181947481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.5||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|-2.7|||ANCOVA|||Initiate||-2.7|-8.3|0.0002
91031489|NCT01101022|181947481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.3||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|-2.9|||ANCOVA|||Working memory||-2.9|-9.8|0.0004
90856349|NCT04437368|181576951|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3791|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.189|1.49|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 24||1.490|0.189|
90856350|NCT04437368|181576951|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.668|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4954|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.177|1.512|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 36||1.512|-0.177|
91031490|NCT01101022|181947481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.9||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|-1.9|||ANCOVA|||Plan/Organize||-1.9|-7.9|0.0015
91031491|NCT01101022|181947481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.3||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|-2.9|||ANCOVA|||Task monitor||-2.9|-9.7|0.0003
91101016|NCT00927186|182088189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91101017|NCT00927186|182088190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.079||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.079
91101018|NCT00927186|182088191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for 6 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91101019|NCT00927186|182088191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.039||95.0||||P-value is for 24 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.039
91101020|NCT00927186|182088192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.014
91101021|NCT00927186|182088193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.079||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.079
90856351|NCT04437368|181576951|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.912|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4887|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.078|1.746|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 36||1.746|0.078|
90856352|NCT04437368|181576951|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.976|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4813|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.15|1.803|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 48||1.803|0.150|
90856353|NCT04437368|181576951|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.233|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4573|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.445|2.022|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 48||2.022|0.445|
90856354|NCT04437368|181576952|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.769|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2808|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.441|3.979|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 72||3.979|-0.441|
90856355|NCT04437368|181576952|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.274|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2349|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.863|3.412|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 72||3.412|-0.863|
90856356|NCT04437368|181576952|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.041|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4177|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.386|4.468|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 96||4.468|-0.386|
90856357|NCT04437368|181576952|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|1.278|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3857|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.099|3.655|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 96||3.655|-1.099|
90856358|NCT04437368|181576958|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.49|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.3|8.1|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 12||8.1|-10.3|
90856359|NCT04437368|181576958|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.96|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.3|3.7|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 12||3.7|-16.3|
90856360|NCT04437368|181576958|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.54|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.5|4.1|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 24||4.1|-14.5|
91031492|NCT01101022|181947481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.2||||0.0234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||Organization of materials||-0.4|-5.9|0.0234
91031493|NCT01101022|181947482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|-7.3|||ANCOVA|||||-7.3|-14.9|<0.0001
91031494|NCT01101022|181947485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
91031495|NCT01101022|181947486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.4|12.7|||ANCOVA|||Living with ADHD||12.7|5.4|<0.0001
91031496|NCT01101022|181947486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|15.5|||ANCOVA|||General Well-being||15.5|6.0|<0.0001
91101022|NCT00927186|182088194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027||95.0||||P-value is for 6 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.027
91101023|NCT00927186|182088194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.268||95.0||||P-value is for 24 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.268
91101024|NCT00927186|182088195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91101025|NCT00927186|182088196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.025
91101026|NCT00927186|182088197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||95.0||||P-value is for 6 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.012
91101027|NCT00927186|182088197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.092||95.0||||P-value is for 24 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.092
91101028|NCT00927186|182088198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for change from baseline at 1 month.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91101029|NCT00927186|182088198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for change from baseline at 3 months.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91101030|NCT00927186|182088198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for change from baseline at 6 months.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91101031|NCT00927186|182088199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91101032|NCT00927186|182088200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for change from baseline at 1 month.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90856361|NCT04437368|181576958|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-11.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.7|-1.6|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 24||-1.6|-21.7|
90903549|NCT02264574|181674265|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.169|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.102|0.282|||Log Rank|The treatment effect was tested with an unstratified log rank test.|The hazard ratio and its 95% confidence interval were estimated using a Cox regression model with treatment as the only covariate.|||0.282|0.102|< 0.0001
90856362|NCT04437368|181576958|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.63|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.4|0.5|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 36||0.5|-18.4|
90903550|NCT02264574|181674266|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9657|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.9657
90903551|NCT02264574|181674267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1612|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1612
90903552|NCT02264574|181674268|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|1.125||||0.0273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.013|1.25|||Chi-squared|||||1.250|1.013|0.0273
90903553|NCT02264574|181674269|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.083||||0.7934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.595|1.973|||Log Rank|The treatment effect was tested with an unstratified log rank test.|The hazard ratio and its 95% confidence interval were estimated using a Cox regression model with treatment as the only covariate.|||1.973|0.595|0.7934
90903554|NCT02264574|181674270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0050
91101033|NCT00927186|182088200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for change from baseline at 3 months.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91101034|NCT00927186|182088200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for change from baseline at 6 months.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91101035|NCT00927186|182088201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91101036|NCT00927186|182088202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for change from baseline at 1 month.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91101037|NCT00927186|182088202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for change from baseline at 3 months.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91101038|NCT00927186|182088202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for change from baseline at 6 months.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91101039|NCT00927186|182088203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91101040|NCT01145222|182088204|SUPERIORITY|Overall comparison between remimazolam and midazolam||||||0.007|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.007
91101041|NCT00604383|182088207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.034
91101042|NCT01429623|182088274|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55|||<|0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|3.25|||Log Rank|||||3.25|0.74|<0.16
91101043|NCT01429623|182088275|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.61|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.61
91101044|NCT01429623|182088276|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.066|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.085|<|0.32|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.32
91101045|NCT01429623|182088277|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17|<|0.97|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.97
91101046|NCT00793611|182088292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.07|||||||t-test, 2 sided|19 degrees of freedom||ITT between group differences in change scores compared for behavioral therapy and hypnotherapy groups. Power analysis: This is a pilot study underpowered find between group differences based on our power analysis(a 20% difference between groups would require 88 women, assuming 80% power and α=0.05 based on Freeman's study cited later). The purpose of this pilot study is to evaluate the feasibility of the larger study and determine the appropriate control intervention and outcomes||||.07
91101047|NCT00793611|182088293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||intent to treat.||||.17
91101048|NCT00793611|182088294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||intent to treat||||.009
91101049|NCT04299425|182088334|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04
91101050|NCT04299425|182088335|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.0
91101051|NCT04299425|182088337|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.55
91101052|NCT04299425|182088338|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.36
91101053|NCT00601107|182088421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|4.22||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons or a prior significance threshold.|Regression, Exact Logistic|||Estimate of the log odds, relative to the Placebo, in participants with at least 50 % reduction in PASI score at Week 12 or early termination was analyzed using exact logistic regression model adjusted for site and baseline PASI strata (\<=16, \>16).||4.22|0.17|1.000
91101054|NCT00601107|182088421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.992||95.0|0.13|4.14||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons or a prior significance threshold.|Regression, Exact Logistic|||Estimate of the log odds, relative to the Placebo, in participants with at least 50 % reduction in PASI score at Week 12 or early termination was analyzed using exact logistic regression model adjusted for site and baseline PASI strata (\<=16, \>16).||4.14|0.13|0.992
90856363|NCT04437368|181576958|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-11.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.08|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.1|-1.7|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 36||-1.7|-22.1|
90856364|NCT04437368|181576958|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.88|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.7|6.9|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 48||6.9|-12.7|
91031497|NCT01101022|181947487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.0184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.0|||ANCOVA|||Question 1||1.0|0.1|0.0184
91101055|NCT00601107|182088421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|4.59||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons or a prior significance threshold.|Regression, Exact Logistic|||Estimate of the log odds, relative to the Placebo, in participants with at least 50 % reduction in PASI score at Week 12 or early termination was analyzed using exact logistic regression model adjusted for site and baseline PASI strata (\<=16, \>16).||4.59|0.15|1.000
91101056|NCT03892915|182088424|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.93||||||||1.93|0.73|
91101057|NCT03892915|182088425|SUPERIORITY||beta coefficient|5.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.39|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91101058|NCT03892915|182088427|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|6.5||||||||6.50|0.53|
90856365|NCT04437368|181576958|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.14|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.9|2.7|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 48||2.7|-17.9|
90856366|NCT04437368|181576958|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.96|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.4|12.5|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 72||12.5|-7.4|
90856367|NCT04437368|181576958|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.18|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.1|9.6|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 72||9.6|-11.1|
90856368|NCT04437368|181576958|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.07|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.7|11.5|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 96||11.5|-8.7|
90856369|NCT04437368|181576958|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.47|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.8|7.8|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 96||7.8|-13.8|
90903555|NCT02264574|181674271|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.251|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.162|0.389|||Log Rank|The treatment effect was tested with an unstratified log rank test.|The hazard ratio and its 95% confidence interval were estimated using a Cox regression model with treatment as the only covariate.|||0.389|0.162|< 0.0001
90903556|NCT02080520|181674272|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.31
90903557|NCT02080520|181674273|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.52
90856370|NCT00744471|181576995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-1.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|-0.69||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.69|-1.87|<0.001
90903558|NCT02080520|181674274|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.32
90903559|NCT00390455|181674276|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The null hypothesis then is that the hazard ratio of the two treatment arms is 1.0; the alternative hypothesis is that the hazard ratio of the control to the experimental regimen is 1.5 (0.67). The test of these hypotheses is one-sided (alpha = 0.025), and interim analyses will be used to stop for futility and superiority. Under these assumptions, there is at least 90% power to detect the stated difference in median PFS between the two treatment arms.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.33||Tests were stratified by prior tamoxifen therapy (yes/no) and bone disease only (yes/no).|Log Rank|||||1.33|0.82|0.37
90903560|NCT04102540|181674310|OTHER|In this analysis, our null hypothesis was that the median CD4 count at baseline/exposure 1 was exactly equivalent to the median CD4 count following exposure 2 to the intervention.|Median Difference (Net)|57.39||||0.283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.9|163.7||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for significance was alpha = 0.05.|Quantile Regression|Random intercepts for subjects were included in the model.|This is the difference in median CD4 count between baseline/exposure 1 and exposure 2.|Statistical analysis of CD4 count between baseline/exposure 1 and exposure 2 to the intervention.||163.7|-48.9|0.283
90959010|NCT02482870|181798201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Chi-squared, Corrected|Chi-square test with Yates' continuity correction: chi-square = 0.101; degrees of freedom = 1||||||0.75
91101059|NCT03892915|182088428|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|16.64||||||||16.64|0.45|
91101060|NCT03892915|182088429|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.83||||||||0.83|0.05|
91101061|NCT00682838|182088435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.50
91101062|NCT00986583|182088440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of medians|1.34||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.72||This is for the primary comparison at 20 minute|ANCOVA||Ratio of medians of myoglobin measured at 20 minute for statin users vs. non-statin users|||1.72|1.05|0.018
91101063|NCT02864914|182088451|OTHER||Adjusted incidence rate ratio|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.19|||||Adjusted incidence rate ratio = incidence rate empagliflozin / incidence rate DPP-4 inhibitors|Adjusted IR ratio was generated overall with corresponding 95% CIs through the application of a Poisson regression model where the outcome was modelled as a function of treatment cohort (empagliflozin or DPP-4 inhibitors) and propensity score decile (specified as a categorical variable) with the log of time of exposure (in years) as the offset. If any variable remained unbalanced after trimming, it was added as an independent variable in the Poisson regression model.||1.19|0.50|
91101064|NCT02864914|182088451|OTHER||Adjusted incidence rate ratio|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.32|||||Adjusted incidence rate ratio = incidence rate empagliflozin / incidence rate DPP-4 inhibitors|Adjusted IR ratio was generated overall with corresponding 95% CIs through the application of a Poisson regression model where the outcome was modelled as a function of treatment cohort (empagliflozin or DPP-4 inhibitors) and propensity score decile (specified as a categorical variable) with the log of time of exposure (in years) as the offset. If any variable remained unbalanced after trimming, it was added as an independent variable in the Poisson regression model.||1.32|0.23|
91104478|NCT02037984|182094985|OTHER|PT6B Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT6B Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|9.6|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.6|-14.5|
90856371|NCT00744471|181576995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28|-1.1||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.10|-2.28|<0.001
90856372|NCT00744471|181576995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|-1.16||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.16|-2.34|<0.001
91101065|NCT02864914|182088451|OTHER||Adjusted incidence rate ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.41|||||Adjusted incidence rate ratio = incidence rate empagliflozin / incidence rate DPP-4 inhibitors|Adjusted IR ratio was generated overall with corresponding 95% CIs through the application of a Poisson regression model where the outcome was modelled as a function of treatment cohort (empagliflozin or DPP-4 inhibitors) and propensity score decile (specified as a categorical variable) with the log of time of exposure (in years) as the offset. If any variable remained unbalanced after trimming, it was added as an independent variable in the Poisson regression model.||1.41|0.52|
91101066|NCT02864914|182088452|OTHER||Adjusted incidence rate ratio|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.73|||||Adjusted incidence rate ratio = incidence rate empagliflozin / incidence rate DPP-4 inhibitors|Adjusted IR ratio was generated overall with corresponding 95% CIs through the application of a Poisson regression model where the outcome was modelled as a function of treatment cohort (empagliflozin or DPP-4 inhibitors) and propensity score decile (specified as a categorical variable) with the log of time of exposure (in years) as the offset. If any variable remained unbalanced after trimming, it was added as an independent variable in the Poisson regression model.||0.73|0.41|
91101067|NCT02864914|182088452|OTHER||Adjusted incidence rate ratio|0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.55|||||Adjusted incidence rate ratio = incidence rate empagliflozin / incidence rate DPP-4 inhibitors|Adjusted IR ratio was generated overall with corresponding 95% CIs through the application of a Poisson regression model where the outcome was modelled as a function of treatment cohort (empagliflozin or DPP-4 inhibitors) and propensity score decile (specified as a categorical variable) with the log of time of exposure (in years) as the offset. If any variable remained unbalanced after trimming, it was added as an independent variable in the Poisson regression model.||0.55|0.30|
91101068|NCT02864914|182088452|OTHER||Adjusted incidence rate ratio|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.05|||||Adjusted incidence rate ratio = incidence rate empagliflozin / incidence rate DPP-4 inhibitors|Adjusted IR ratio was generated overall with corresponding 95% CIs through the application of a Poisson regression model where the outcome was modelled as a function of treatment cohort (empagliflozin or DPP-4 inhibitors) and propensity score decile (specified as a categorical variable) with the log of time of exposure (in years) as the offset. If any variable remained unbalanced after trimming, it was added as an independent variable in the Poisson regression model.||1.05|0.45|
91101069|NCT02864914|182088452|OTHER||Adjusted incidence rate ratio|0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.86|||||Adjusted incidence rate ratio = incidence rate empagliflozin / incidence rate DPP-4 inhibitors|Adjusted IR ratio was generated overall with corresponding 95% CIs through the application of a Poisson regression model where the outcome was modelled as a function of treatment cohort (empagliflozin or DPP-4 inhibitors) and propensity score decile (specified as a categorical variable) with the log of time of exposure (in years) as the offset. If any variable remained unbalanced after trimming, it was added as an independent variable in the Poisson regression model.||0.86|0.20|
91101070|NCT02864914|182088452|OTHER||Adjusted incidence rate ratio|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.76|||||Adjusted incidence rate ratio = incidence rate empagliflozin / incidence rate DPP-4 inhibitors|Adjusted IR ratio was generated overall with corresponding 95% CIs through the application of a Poisson regression model where the outcome was modelled as a function of treatment cohort (empagliflozin or DPP-4 inhibitors) and propensity score decile (specified as a categorical variable) with the log of time of exposure (in years) as the offset. If any variable remained unbalanced after trimming, it was added as an independent variable in the Poisson regression model.||0.76|0.56|
91101071|NCT02864914|182088453|OTHER||Adjusted incidence rate ratio|2.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.74|2.76|||||Adjusted incidence rate ratio = incidence rate empagliflozin / incidence rate DPP-4 inhibitors|Adjusted IR ratio was generated overall with corresponding 95% CIs through the application of a Poisson regression model where the outcome was modelled as a function of treatment cohort (empagliflozin or DPP-4 inhibitors) and propensity score decile (specified as a categorical variable) with the log of time of exposure (in years) as the offset. If any variable remained unbalanced after trimming, it was added as an independent variable in the Poisson regression model.||2.76|1.74|
90856373|NCT00744471|181576996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|-0.61||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.61|-1.74|<0.001
90856374|NCT00744471|181576996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|-0.92||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: ANCOVA model includes treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.92|-2.06|<0.001
91104479|NCT02037984|182094985|OTHER|PT7F Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT7F Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|9.6|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.6|-14.0|
91104480|NCT02037984|182094985|OTHER|PT9V Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT9V Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|9.6|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.6|-14.0|
91104481|NCT02037984|182094985|OTHER|PT14 Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT14 Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|9.6|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.6|-14.0|
91104482|NCT02037984|182094985|OTHER|PT18C Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT18C Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|9.6|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.6|-14.5|
90903561|NCT04102540|181674310|OTHER|In this analysis, our null hypothesis was that the median CD4 count at baseline/exposure 1 was exactly equivalent to the median CD4 count following the exposure 3 to the intervention.|Median Difference (Net)|60.83||||0.1823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.5|151.2||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for significance was alpha = 0.05.|Quantile regression|Random intercepts for subjects were included in the model.|This is the difference in median CD4 count between baseline/exposure 1 and exposure 3.|Statistical analysis of CD4 count between baseline/exposure 1 and exposure 3 to the intervention.||151.2|-29.5|0.1823
90959011|NCT01620255|181798202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.08||||0.0213|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.019|0.14||1-sided p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|PF-00547659 7.5 mg versus (vs) placebo, centrally read||0.140|0.019|0.0213
91101072|NCT02864914|182088453|OTHER||Adjusted incidence rate ratio|2.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|4.36|||||Adjusted incidence rate ratio = incidence rate empagliflozin / incidence rate DPP-4 inhibitors|Adjusted IR ratio was generated overall with corresponding 95% CIs through the application of a Poisson regression model where the outcome was modelled as a function of treatment cohort (empagliflozin or DPP-4 inhibitors) and propensity score decile (specified as a categorical variable) with the log of time of exposure (in years) as the offset. If any variable remained unbalanced after trimming, it was added as an independent variable in the Poisson regression model.||4.36|1.77|
91101073|NCT02864914|182088453|OTHER||Adjusted incidence rate ratio|2.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|4.12|||||Adjusted incidence rate ratio = incidence rate empagliflozin / incidence rate DPP-4 inhibitors|Adjusted IR ratio was generated overall with corresponding 95% CIs through the application of a Poisson regression model where the outcome was modelled as a function of treatment cohort (empagliflozin or DPP-4 inhibitors) and propensity score decile (specified as a categorical variable) with the log of time of exposure (in years) as the offset. If any variable remained unbalanced after trimming, it was added as an independent variable in the Poisson regression model.||4.12|1.11|
91101074|NCT02864914|182088453|OTHER||Adjusted incidence rate ratio|1.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|2.66|||||Adjusted incidence rate ratio = incidence rate empagliflozin / incidence rate DPP-4 inhibitors|Adjusted IR ratio was generated overall with corresponding 95% CIs through the application of a Poisson regression model where the outcome was modelled as a function of treatment cohort (empagliflozin or DPP-4 inhibitors) and propensity score decile (specified as a categorical variable) with the log of time of exposure (in years) as the offset. If any variable remained unbalanced after trimming, it was added as an independent variable in the Poisson regression model.||2.66|1.48|
91031498|NCT01101022|181947487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||Question 4||-0.3|-0.9|0.0004
90856375|NCT00744471|181576996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.17|-1.04||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: ANCOVA model includes treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.04|-2.17|<0.001
90856376|NCT00744471|181576997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.13||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: ANCOVA model includes treatment as main effect, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.13|-0.51|0.001
90856377|NCT00744471|181576997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|-0.25||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: ANCOVA model includes treatment as main effect, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.25|-0.64|<0.001
90856378|NCT00744471|181576997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.28||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: ANCOVA model includes treatment as main effect, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.28|-0.66|<0.001
90856379|NCT00744471|181576998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|-0.88||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA model includes treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.88|-1.93|<0.001
90856380|NCT00744471|181576998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|-1.2||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA model includes treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.20|-2.26|<0.001
90856381|NCT00744471|181576998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|-0.8||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA model includes treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.80|-1.85|<0.001
90856382|NCT00744471|181576998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|-1.02||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.02|-2.11|<0.001
90959012|NCT01620255|181798202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.128||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.056|0.199||1-sided p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|PF-00547659 22.5 mg vs placebo, centrally read||0.199|0.056|0.0025
90856383|NCT00744471|181576998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-2.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.57|-1.48||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.48|-2.57|<0.001
90856384|NCT00744471|181576998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-1.41||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.41|-2.50|<0.001
90856385|NCT00744471|181576998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|-0.53||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA model was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.53|-1.65|<0.001
90856386|NCT00744471|181576998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-1.08||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.08|-2.20|<0.001
90856387|NCT00744471|181576998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.56|-1.45||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA model was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.45|-2.56|<0.001
91031499|NCT01101022|181947488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.5||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|-2.1|||ANCOVA|||||-2.1|-9.0|0.0019
90903562|NCT04102540|181674311|OTHER|In this analysis, our null hypothesis was that the median viral load at baseline/exposure 1 was exactly equivalent to the median viral load following exposure 2 to the intervention.|Median Difference (Net)|-42.0||||0.7795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-339.8|255.8||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for significance was alpha = 0.05.|Quantile Regression||This is the difference in median viral load between baseline/exposure 1 and exposure 2.|Statistical analysis of viral load between baseline/exposure 1 and exposure 2 to the intervention.||255.8|-339.8|0.7795
90903563|NCT04102540|181674311|OTHER|In this analysis, our null hypothesis was that the median viral load at baseline/exposure 1 was exactly equivalent to the median viral load following exposure 3 to the intervention.|Median Difference (Net)|-63.0||||0.5971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-296.1|170.1||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for significance was alpha = 0.05.|Quantile Regression|||Statistical analysis of viral load between baseline/exposure 1 and exposure 3 to the intervention.|This is the difference in median viral load between baseline/exposure 1 and exposure 3.|170.1|-296.1|0.5971
90903564|NCT04102540|181674312|OTHER|In this analysis, our null hypothesis was that the median HIV-related knowledge score at baseline/exposure 1 was exactly equivalent to the median HIV-related knowledge score following exposure 2 to the intervention.|Median Difference (Net)|2.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|3.0||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for significance was alpha = 0.05.|Quantile Regression|Random intercepts for subjects were included in the model.|This is the difference in median HIV-Related knowledge scores between baseline/exposure 1 and exposure 2.|Statistical analysis of HIV-related knowledge scores between baseline/exposure 1 and exposure 2 to the intervention.||3.0|1.2|<.0001
90903565|NCT04102540|181674312|OTHER|In this analysis, our null hypothesis was that the median HIV-related knowledge score at baseline/exposure 1 was exactly equivalent to the median HIV-related knowledge score following exposure 3 to the intervention.|Median Difference (Net)|2.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.8||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for significance was alpha = 0.05.|Quantile Regression|Random intercepts for subjects were included in the model.|This is the difference in median HIV-related knowledge score between baseline/exposure 1 and exposure 3.|Statistical analysis of HIV-related knowledge scores between baseline/exposure 1 and exposure 3 to the intervention.||2.8|1.2|<.0001
90903566|NCT04102540|181674314|OTHER|In this analysis, our null hypothesis was that the median self-efficacy to manage HIV scale score at baseline/exposure 1 was exactly equivalent to the median self-efficacy to manage HIV scale score following exposure 2 to the intervention.|Median Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.9879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.7||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for significance was alpha = 0.05.|Quantile Regression|Random intercepts for subjects were included in the model.|This is the difference in median self-efficacy to manage HIV scale scores between baseline/exposure 1 and exposure 2.|Statistical analysis of self-efficacy to manage HIV scale score between baseline/exposure 1 and exposure 2 to the intervention.||0.7|-0.7|0.9879
90903567|NCT04102540|181674314|OTHER|In this analysis, our null hypothesis was that the median self-efficacy to manage HIV scale score at baseline/exposure 1 was exactly equivalent to the median self-efficacy to manage HIV scale score following exposure 3 to the intervention.|Median Difference (Net)|0.57||||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.4||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for significance was alpha = 0.05.|Quantile Regression|Random intercepts for subjects were included in the model.|This is the difference in median self-efficacy to manage HIV scale scores between baseline/exposure 1 and exposure 3.|Statistical analysis of self-efficacy to manage HIV scale score between baseline/exposure 1 and exposure 3 to the intervention.||1.4|-0.2|0.1550
90959013|NCT01620255|181798202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.118||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.048|0.188||1-sided p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|PF-00547659 75 mg vs placebo, centrally read||0.188|0.048|0.0040
90856388|NCT00744471|181576998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.88||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA model was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.88|-2.10|<0.001
90856389|NCT00744471|181576998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.46|-1.25||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA model was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.25|-2.46|<0.001
90856390|NCT00744471|181576998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.57|-1.37||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA model was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.37|-2.57|<0.001
90856391|NCT00744471|181576998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|-0.56||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: ANCOVA model was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.56|-1.75|<0.001
91101075|NCT02864914|182088454|OTHER||Adjusted incidence rate ratio|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.72|||||Adjusted incidence rate ratio = incidence rate empagliflozin / incidence rate DPP-4 inhibitors|Adjusted IR ratio was generated overall with corresponding 95% CIs through the application of a Poisson regression model where the outcome was modelled as a function of treatment cohort (empagliflozin or DPP-4 inhibitors) and propensity score decile (specified as a categorical variable) with the log of time of exposure (in years) as the offset. If any variable remained unbalanced after trimming, it was added as an independent variable in the Poisson regression model.||0.72|0.37|
91101076|NCT02864914|182088455|OTHER||Adjusted incidence rate ratio|4.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.46|4.71|||||Adjusted incidence rate ratio = incidence rate empagliflozin / incidence rate DPP-4 inhibitors|Adjusted IR ratio was generated overall with corresponding 95% CIs through the application of a Poisson regression model where the outcome was modelled as a function of treatment cohort (empagliflozin or DPP-4 inhibitors) and propensity score decile (specified as a categorical variable) with the log of time of exposure (in years) as the offset. If any variable remained unbalanced after trimming, it was added as an independent variable in the Poisson regression model.||4.71|3.46|
91031500|NCT01101022|181947489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.1||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|-1.9|||ANCOVA|||Inattention/Memory Problems||-1.9|-8.2|0.0017
91101077|NCT02864914|182088456|OTHER||Adjusted incidence rate ratio|3.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.81|3.74|||||Adjusted incidence rate ratio = incidence rate empagliflozin / incidence rate DPP-4 inhibitors|Adjusted IR ratio was generated overall with corresponding 95% CIs through the application of a Poisson regression model where the outcome was modelled as a function of treatment cohort (empagliflozin or DPP-4 inhibitors) and propensity score decile (specified as a categorical variable) with the log of time of exposure (in years) as the offset. If any variable remained unbalanced after trimming, it was added as an independent variable in the Poisson regression model.||3.74|2.81|
91101078|NCT02864914|182088457|OTHER||Adjusted incidence rate ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.88|||||Adjusted incidence rate ratio = incidence rate empagliflozin / incidence rate DPP-4 inhibitors|Adjusted IR ratio was generated overall with corresponding 95% CIs through the application of a Poisson regression model where the outcome was modelled as a function of treatment cohort (empagliflozin or DPP-4 inhibitors) and propensity score decile (specified as a categorical variable) with the log of time of exposure (in years) as the offset. If any variable remained unbalanced after trimming, it was added as an independent variable in the Poisson regression model.||0.88|0.56|
90856392|NCT00744471|181576998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|-0.92||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: ANCOVA model was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.92|-2.12|<0.001
90856393|NCT00744471|181576998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-1.01||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: ANCOVA model was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.01|-2.20|<0.001
90856394|NCT00744471|181576999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|-0.88||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.88|-1.93|<0.001
90903568|NCT04102540|181674315|OTHER|In this model, the null hypothesis was that the odds of being non-adherent at baseline/exposure 1 were exactly equal to the odds of being non-adherent at exposure 2 giving an odds ratio of one for the null hypothesis.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|4.52||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for significance was alpha = 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|This model included random effects for subjects.|In this model, the odds ratio estimate is for the odds of being non-adherent at exposure 2 relative to the odds of being non-adherent at baseline/exposure 1.|"For analysis, we dichotomized participants adherence as adherent or non-adherent."||4.52|0.30|0.8190
90903569|NCT04102540|181674315|OTHER|In this model, the null hypothesis was that the odds of being non-adherent at baseline/exposure 1 were exactly equal to the odds of being non-adherent at exposure 3 giving an odds ratio of one for the null hypothesis.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.3||||0.1332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.43||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for significance was alpha = 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|This model included random effects for subjects.|In this model, the odds ratio estimate is for the odds of being non-adherent at exposure 3 relative to the odds of being non-adherent at baseline/exposure 1.|"For analysis, we dichotomized participants adherence as adherent or non-adherent."||1.43|0.07|0.1332
90903570|NCT04102540|181674316|OTHER|In this model, the null hypothesis was that the odds of good health at baseline/exposure 1 were exactly equal to the odds of good health at exposure 2 giving an odds ratio of one for the null hypothesis.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77||||0.316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|5.46||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for significance was alpha = 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|This model included random effects for subjects.|This is the estimated odds ratio of having good health at exposure 2 relative to baseline/exposure 1.|"For analysis, we dichotomized participants' responses into the following categories: good vs bad health, where good included participant responses: excellent, very good, good, and bad included the participant responses: more or less and bad."||5.46|0.57|0.3160
90903571|NCT04102540|181674316|OTHER|In this model, the null hypothesis was that the odds of having good health at baseline/exposure 1 were exactly equal to the odds of having good health at exposure 3 giving an odds ratio of one for the null hypothesis.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.8609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|3.93||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for significance was alpha = 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|This model included random effects for subjects.|This is the estimated odds ratio of having good health at exposure 3 relative to baseline/exposure 1.|"For analysis, we dichotomized participants' responses into the following categories: good vs bad health, where good included participant responses: excellent, very good, good, and bad included the participant responses: more or less and bad."||3.93|0.32|0.8609
91031501|NCT01101022|181947489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.1||||0.0174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|-0.7|||ANCOVA|||Hyperactivity/Restlessness||-0.7|-7.5|0.0174
90903572|NCT04102540|181674317|OTHER|In this analysis, our null hypothesis was that the median current health status at baseline/exposure 1 was exactly equivalent to the median current health status following exposure 2 to the intervention.|Median Difference (Net)|9.13||||0.0572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|18.6||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for significance was alpha = 0.05.|Quantile Regression|Random intercepts for subjects were included in the model.|This is the difference in median current health status between baseline/exposure 1 and exposure 2.|Statistical analysis of current health status between baseline/exposure 1 and exposure 2 to the intervention.||18.6|-0.3|0.0572
90856395|NCT00744471|181576999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|-1.2||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.20|-2.26|<0.001
90856396|NCT00744471|181576999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|-0.8||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.80|-1.85|<0.001
90856397|NCT00744471|181576999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.08|-1.02||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.02|-2.08|<0.001
90856398|NCT00744471|181576999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|-1.46||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.46|-2.52|<0.001
90856399|NCT00744471|181576999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-2.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|-1.48||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.48|-2.54|<0.001
90856400|NCT00744471|181576999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|-0.63||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.63|-1.71|<0.001
90856401|NCT00744471|181576999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|-1.12||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.12|-2.21|<0.001
90856402|NCT00744471|181576999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-2.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-1.52||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.52|-2.60|<0.001
90856403|NCT00744471|181576999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|-0.99||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.99|-2.11|<0.001
90856404|NCT00744471|181576999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.45|-1.32||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.32|-2.45|<0.001
90856405|NCT00744471|181576999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-2.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.82|-1.7||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.70|-2.82|<0.001
90856406|NCT00744471|181576999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|-0.71||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.71|-1.82|<0.001
90856407|NCT00744471|181576999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|-1.03||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.03|-2.15|<0.001
90856408|NCT00744471|181576999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|-1.4||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.40|-2.51|<0.001
90856409|NCT00744471|181576999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|-0.72||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.72|-1.85|<0.001
90856410|NCT00744471|181576999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|-1.01||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.01|-2.15|<0.001
90856411|NCT00744471|181576999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-1.27||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.27|-2.40|<0.001
91031502|NCT01101022|181947489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|-1.1|||ANCOVA|||Impulsivity/Emotional Liability||-1.1|-6.8|0.0063
91104483|NCT02037984|182094985|OTHER|PT19A Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT19A Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|9.6|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.6|-14.0|
91104484|NCT02037984|182094985|OTHER|PT19F Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT19F Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|9.6|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.6|-14.0|
90856412|NCT00744471|181577000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|-0.8||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.80|-1.83|<0.001
90856413|NCT00744471|181577000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|-1.19||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.19|-2.23|<0.001
90856414|NCT00744471|181577000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|-0.8||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.80|-1.83|<0.001
90856415|NCT00744471|181577000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|-1.08||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.08|-2.12|<0.001
90856416|NCT00744471|181577000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-2.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.64|-1.6||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.60|-2.64|<0.001
90856417|NCT00744471|181577000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.46|-1.43||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.43|-2.46|<0.001
90856418|NCT00744471|181577000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|-0.64||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.64|-1.72|<0.001
90856419|NCT00744471|181577000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|-1.09||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.09|-2.18|<0.001
90856420|NCT00744471|181577000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.43|-1.35||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.35|-2.43|<0.001
90856421|NCT00744471|181577000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|-0.77||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.77|-1.93|<0.001
90856422|NCT00744471|181577000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-1.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.31|-1.15||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12 :Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.15|-2.31|<0.001
90856423|NCT00744471|181577000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.47|-1.32||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.32|-2.47|<0.001
90856424|NCT00744471|181577000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|-0.4||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24 : ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.40|-1.52|<0.001
90856425|NCT00744471|181577000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|-0.78||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24 :Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.78|-1.91|<0.001
90856426|NCT00744471|181577000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|-0.97||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24 :Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.97|-2.09|<0.001
90856427|NCT00744471|181577001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|-0.8||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.80|-1.83|<0.001
90856428|NCT00744471|181577001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|-1.19||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.19|-2.23|<0.001
90856429|NCT00744471|181577001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|-0.8||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.80|-1.83|<0.001
90856430|NCT00744471|181577001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-1.08|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.08|-2.10|<0.001
91031503|NCT01101022|181947489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.4||||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|-1.3|||ANCOVA|||Problems with Self-concept||-1.3|-7.5|0.0059
90856431|NCT00744471|181577001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|-1.59||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.59|-2.61|<0.001
90856432|NCT00744471|181577001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|-1.49||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.49|-2.51|<0.001
90856433|NCT00744471|181577001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|-0.76||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.76|-1.83|<0.001
90856434|NCT00744471|181577001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|-1.19||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.19|-2.26|<0.001
90856435|NCT00744471|181577001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|-1.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.53|-1.46||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.46|-2.53|<0.001
91031504|NCT01101022|181947490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.0||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.4|33.6|||ANCOVA|||Life Productivity||33.6|8.4|0.0016
91031505|NCT01101022|181947490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.1||||0.0242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|22.5|||ANCOVA|||Psychological Health||22.5|1.6|0.0242
91104485|NCT02037984|182094985|OTHER|PT23F Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT23F Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|9.6|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.6|-14.0|
90856436|NCT00744471|181577001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|-1.0||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.00|-2.11|<0.001
90856437|NCT00744471|181577001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-1.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.49|-1.37||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.37|-2.49|<0.001
90856438|NCT00744471|181577001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-2.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.83|-1.72||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.72|-2.83|<0.001
90856439|NCT00744471|181577001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|-0.75||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.75|-1.87|<0.001
90856440|NCT00744471|181577001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.14|-1.02||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.02|-2.14|<0.001
90856441|NCT00744471|181577001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.47|-1.36||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.36|-2.47|<0.001
90856442|NCT00744471|181577001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|-0.74||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.74|-1.86|<0.001
90856443|NCT00744471|181577001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.17|-1.05||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.05|-2.17|<0.001
90856444|NCT00744471|181577001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|-1.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.47|-1.36||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.36|-2.47|<0.001
90856445|NCT00744471|181577002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.18||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.18|-0.55|<0.001
90856446|NCT00744471|181577002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.45||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.45|-0.83|<0.001
90856447|NCT00744471|181577002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.22||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.22|-0.60|<0.001
91031506|NCT01101022|181947490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.5||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|20.8|||ANCOVA|||Life Outlook||20.8|4.2|0.0038
91031507|NCT01101022|181947490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.3||||0.1752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|18.0|||ANCOVA|||Relationships||18.0|-3.4|0.1752
91101079|NCT02864914|182088457|OTHER||Adjusted incidence rate ratio|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.85|||||Adjusted incidence rate ratio = incidence rate empagliflozin / incidence rate DPP-4 inhibitors|Adjusted IR ratio was generated overall with corresponding 95% CIs through the application of a Poisson regression model where the outcome was modelled as a function of treatment cohort (empagliflozin or DPP-4 inhibitors) and propensity score decile (specified as a categorical variable) with the log of time of exposure (in years) as the offset. If any variable remained unbalanced after trimming, it was added as an independent variable in the Poisson regression model.||0.85|0.29|
91101080|NCT02864914|182088457|OTHER||Adjusted incidence rate ratio|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.29|||||Adjusted incidence rate ratio = incidence rate empagliflozin / incidence rate DPP-4 inhibitors|Adjusted IR ratio was generated overall with corresponding 95% CIs through the application of a Poisson regression model where the outcome was modelled as a function of treatment cohort (empagliflozin or DPP-4 inhibitors) and propensity score decile (specified as a categorical variable) with the log of time of exposure (in years) as the offset. If any variable remained unbalanced after trimming, it was added as an independent variable in the Poisson regression model.||1.29|0.34|
90856448|NCT00744471|181577002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.27||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.27|-0.65|<0.001
90856449|NCT00744471|181577002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.5||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.50|-0.88|<0.001
90856450|NCT00744471|181577002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.36||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.36|-0.73|<0.001
90856451|NCT00744471|181577002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.0||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.00|-0.39|0.054
90856452|NCT00744471|181577002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.29||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.29|-0.68|<0.001
90856453|NCT00744471|181577002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.26||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.26|-0.65|<0.001
90903573|NCT04102540|181674317|OTHER|In this analysis, our null hypothesis was that the median current health status at baseline/exposure 1 was exactly equivalent to the median current health status following exposure 3 to the intervention.|Median Difference (Net)|13.1||||0.0332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|25.1||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for significance was alpha = 0.05.|Quantile Regression|Random intercepts for subjects were included in the model.|This is the difference in median current health status between baseline/exposure 1 and exposure 3.|Statistical analysis of self-efficacy to manage HIV scale score between baseline/exposure 1 and exposure 3 to the intervention.||25.1|1.1|0.0332
91104486|NCT02037984|182094985|OTHER|non-PT22F Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|non-PT22F Percentage Point Difference|85.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.8|93.6|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||93.6|65.8|
91104487|NCT02037984|182094985|OTHER|non-PT33F Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|non-PT33F Percentage Point Difference|92.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|75.1|98.1|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||98.1|75.1|
90856454|NCT00744471|181577002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.15||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.15|-0.55|<0.001
90856455|NCT00744471|181577002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.4||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.40|-0.81|<0.001
90856456|NCT00744471|181577002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.32||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.32|-0.73|<0.001
90856457|NCT00744471|181577002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.07||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.07|-0.45|0.008
90856458|NCT00744471|181577002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.22||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.22|-0.60|<0.001
90856459|NCT00744471|181577002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.05||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.05|-0.43|0.012
90856460|NCT00744471|181577003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.18||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.18|-0.55|<0.001
90903574|NCT01183650|181674339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|1.32|||||Day 1 Tadalafil Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means (Japanese/Caucasian)|||1.32|0.84|
91101081|NCT02864914|182088457|OTHER||Adjusted incidence rate ratio|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.97|||||Adjusted incidence rate ratio = incidence rate empagliflozin / incidence rate DPP-4 inhibitors|Adjusted IR ratio was generated overall with corresponding 95% CIs through the application of a Poisson regression model where the outcome was modelled as a function of treatment cohort (empagliflozin or DPP-4 inhibitors) and propensity score decile (specified as a categorical variable) with the log of time of exposure (in years) as the offset. If any variable remained unbalanced after trimming, it was added as an independent variable in the Poisson regression model.||0.97|0.61|
91101082|NCT02864914|182088458|OTHER||Adjusted incidence rate ratio|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.65|||||Adjusted incidence rate ratio = incidence rate empagliflozin / incidence rate DPP-4 inhibitors|Adjusted IR ratio was generated overall with corresponding 95% CIs through the application of a Poisson regression model where the outcome was modelled as a function of treatment cohort (empagliflozin or DPP-4 inhibitors) and propensity score decile (specified as a categorical variable) with the log of time of exposure (in years) as the offset. If any variable remained unbalanced after trimming, it was added as an independent variable in the Poisson regression model.||0.65|0.43|
91101083|NCT02864914|182088459|OTHER||Adjusted incidence rate ratio|4.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.44|4.75|||||Adjusted incidence rate ratio = incidence rate empagliflozin / incidence rate DPP-4 inhibitors|Adjusted IR ratio was generated overall with corresponding 95% CIs through the application of a Poisson regression model where the outcome was modelled as a function of treatment cohort (empagliflozin or DPP-4 inhibitors) and propensity score decile (specified as a categorical variable) with the log of time of exposure (in years) as the offset. If any variable remained unbalanced after trimming, it was added as an independent variable in the Poisson regression model.||4.75|3.44|
90959014|NCT01620255|181798202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.026||||0.1803|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.012|0.064||1-sided p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|PF-00547659 225 mg vs placebo, centrally read||0.064|-0.012|0.1803
90856461|NCT00744471|181577003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.45||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.45|-0.83|<0.001
91101084|NCT02864914|182088460|OTHER||Adjusted incidence rate ratio|3.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.83|3.95|||||Adjusted incidence rate ratio = incidence rate empagliflozin / incidence rate DPP-4 inhibitors|Adjusted IR ratio was generated overall with corresponding 95% CIs through the application of a Poisson regression model where the outcome was modelled as a function of treatment cohort (empagliflozin or DPP-4 inhibitors) and propensity score decile (specified as a categorical variable) with the log of time of exposure (in years) as the offset. If any variable remained unbalanced after trimming, it was added as an independent variable in the Poisson regression model.||3.95|2.83|
90856462|NCT00744471|181577003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.22||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.22|-0.60|<0.001
90856463|NCT00744471|181577003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.27||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.27|-0.65|<0.001
90856464|NCT00744471|181577003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.5||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.50|-0.87|<0.001
91104488|NCT02037984|182094986|OTHER|PT1 Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT1 Percentage Point Difference|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5|6.7|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||6.7|-15.5|
90856465|NCT00744471|181577003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.39||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.39|-0.76|<0.001
90856466|NCT00744471|181577003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.03||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.03|-0.43|0.022
90856467|NCT00744471|181577003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.27||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.27|-0.67|<0.001
90856468|NCT00744471|181577003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.26||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.26|-0.65|<0.001
90856469|NCT00744471|181577003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.19||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.19|-0.60|<0.001
90856470|NCT00744471|181577003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.47||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.47|-0.88|<0.001
90959015|NCT01620255|181798202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.08||||0.0582|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.002|0.159||1-sided p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|PF-00547659 7.5 mg vs placebo, locally read||0.159|0.002|0.0582
91031508|NCT01101022|181947490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.7||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.9|23.6|||ANCOVA|||Total Score||23.6|5.9|0.0015
91101085|NCT03501277|182088494|EQUIVALENCE|Alogliptin: For each analyte, an analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on natural logarithm transformed Cmax with factors for sequence, the participant nested within sequence, period, and regimen. For the relative bioavailability (BA) determination, pairwise comparisons were performed to assess the relative BA of alogliptin and pioglitazone via point estimates and 90 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) for the ratio of Cmax for Regimen A (test) versus Regimen B (reference).|Least Square Mean (LSM) difference|1.0706||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.023|1.1204|||ANOVA|||||1.1204|1.0230|0.014
91101086|NCT03501277|182088494|EQUIVALENCE|Alogliptin: For each analyte, ANOVA was performed on natural logarithm transformed Cmax with factors for sequence, the participant nested within sequence, period, and regimen. For the relative BA determination, pairwise comparisons were performed to assess the relative BA of alogliptin and pioglitazone via point estimates and 90% CI for the ratio of Cmax for Regimen C (test) versus Regimen D (reference).|LSM difference|1.0276||||0.326|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9817|1.0757|||ANOVA|||||1.0757|0.9817|0.326
91101087|NCT03501277|182088494|EQUIVALENCE|Pioglitazone: For each analyte, ANOVA was performed on natural logarithm transformed Cmax with factors for sequence, the participant nested within sequence, period, and regimen. For the relative BA determination, pairwise comparisons were performed to assess the relative BA of alogliptin and pioglitazone via point estimates and 90% CI for the ratio of Cmax for Regimen A (test) versus Regimen B (reference).|LSM diiference|0.9594||||0.405|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8837|1.0415|||ANOVA|||||1.0415|0.8837|0.405
91101088|NCT03501277|182088494|EQUIVALENCE|Pioglitazone: For each analyte, ANOVA was performed on natural logarithm transformed Cmax with factors for sequence, the participant nested within sequence, period, and regimen. For the relative BA determination, pairwise comparisons were performed to assess the relative BA of alogliptin and pioglitazone via point estimates and 90% CI for the ratio of Cmax for Regimen C (test) versus Regimen D (reference).|LSM difference|0.9257||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8523|1.0053|||ANOVA|||||1.0053|0.8523|0.124
91101089|NCT03501277|182088495|EQUIVALENCE|Alogliptin: For each analyte, ANOVA was performed on natural logarithm transformed AUC(0-72) with factors for sequence, the participant nested within sequence, period, and regimen. For the relative BA determination, pairwise comparisons were performed to assess the relative BA of alogliptin and pioglitazone via point estimates and 90% CI for the ratio of Cmax for Regimen A (test) versus Regimen B (reference).|LSM difference|1.0157||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0009|1.0308|||ANOVA|||||1.0308|1.0009|0.081
91101090|NCT03501277|182088495|EQUIVALENCE|Alogliptin: For each analyte, ANOVA was performed on natural logarithm transformed AUC(0-72) with factors for sequence, the participant nested within sequence, period, and regimen. For the relative BA determination, pairwise comparisons were performed to assess the relative BA of alogliptin and pioglitazone via point estimates and 90% CI for the ratio of AUC(0-72) for Regimen C (test) versus Regimen D (reference).|LSM difference|1.0009||||0.922|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9862|1.0158|||ANOVA|||||1.0158|0.9862|0.922
91101091|NCT03501277|182088495|EQUIVALENCE|Pioglitazone: For each analyte, ANOVA was performed on natural logarithm transformed AUC(0-72) with factors for sequence, the participant nested within sequence, period, and regimen. For the relative BA determination, pairwise comparisons were performed to assess the relative BA of alogliptin and pioglitazone via point estimates and 90% CI for the ratio of AUC(0-72) for Regimen A (test) versus Regimen B (reference).|LSM difference|1.0486||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0051|1.0939|||ANOVA|||||1.0939|1.0051|0.066
90856471|NCT00744471|181577003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.39||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.39|-0.79|<0.001
90856472|NCT00744471|181577003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.14||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.14|-0.53|<0.001
91101092|NCT03501277|182088495|EQUIVALENCE|Pioglitazone: For each analyte, ANOVA was performed on natural logarithm transformed AUC(0-72) with factors for sequence, the participant nested within sequence, period, and regimen. For the relative BA determination, pairwise comparisons were performed to assess the relative BA of alogliptin and pioglitazone via point estimates and 90% CI for the ratio of AUC(0-72) for Regimen C (test) versus Regimen D (reference).|LSM difference|1.0267||||0.308|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9839|1.0714|||ANOVA|||||1.0714|0.9839|0.308
90903575|NCT01183650|181674339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.64|1.0|||||Day 10 Tadalafil Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means (Japanese/Caucasian)|||1.00|0.64|
90903576|NCT01183650|181674339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|1.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.05|1.64|||||Day 1 Metabolite IC710 Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means (Japanese/Caucasian)|||1.64|1.05|
90856473|NCT00744471|181577003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.28||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.28|-0.68|<0.001
90856474|NCT00744471|181577003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.32||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.32|-0.71|<0.001
90856475|NCT00744471|181577003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.06||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.06|-0.47|0.010
90903577|NCT01183650|181674339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.79|1.24|||||Day 10 Metabolite IC710 Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means (Japanese/Caucasian)|||1.24|0.79|
90903578|NCT01183650|181674340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|1.18|||||Day 1 Tadalafil Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means(Japanese/Caucasian)|||1.18|0.81|
90903579|NCT01183650|181674340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.67|0.97|||||Day 10 Tadalafil Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means (Japanese/Caucasian)|||0.97|0.67|
90903580|NCT01183650|181674340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Mean|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.07|1.67|||||Day 1 Metabolite IC710 Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means (Japanese/Caucasian)|||1.67|1.07|
91101093|NCT00098293|182088515|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 1-sided 97.5% CI was greater than (\>) -10%.|Difference in Percentage|-3.0|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|-9.5|||||||Less than 400 copies/mL: Treatment difference in percentages stratified by randomization strata (screening viral load and geographic region) was presented along with the lower bound of the 1-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution. Positive value would favor maraviroc. Step down procedure used to control for multiple comparisons.|||-9.5|
91101094|NCT00098293|182088515|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 1-sided 97.5% CI was \> -10%.|Difference in Percentage|-4.2|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|-10.9|||||||Less than 50 copies/mL: Treatment difference in percentages stratified by randomization strata (screening viral load and geographic region) was presented along with the lower bound of the 1-sided 97.5% CI based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution. Positive value would favor maraviroc. Step down procedure used to control for multiple comparisons.|||-10.9|
91101095|NCT00098293|182088516|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 1-sided 97.5% CI was \> -10%.|Difference in Percentage|-4.1|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|-10.5|||||||Less than 400 copies/mL: Treatment difference in percentage stratified by randomization strata (screening viral load and geographic region) was presented along with the lower bound of the 1-sided 97.5% CI based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution. Positive value would favor maraviroc. Step down procedure used to control for multiple comparisons.|||-10.5|
91101096|NCT00098293|182088516|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 1-sided 97.5% CI was \> -10%.|Difference in Percentage|-4.4|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|-11.2|||||||Less than 50 copies/mL: Treatment difference in percentage stratified by randomization strata (screening viral load and geographic region) was presented along with the lower bound of the 1-sided 97.5% CI based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution. Positive value would favor maraviroc. Step down procedure used to control for multiple comparisons.|||-11.2|
91101097|NCT00098293|182088517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.4485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.22|||Regression, Logistic|||Less than 400 copies/mL: Two-sided 95% CI was presented for the odds ratio between treatment groups. CIs were calculated using the Wald-approximation. Logistic model with treatment, screening HIV concentrations (\<100,000 or \>=100,000), geographic region (Northern or Southern Hemisphere) as covariates was used. Odds ratio \> 1 would favor maraviroc.||1.22|0.64|0.4485
91101098|NCT00098293|182088517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.2724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.15|||Regression, Logistic|||Less than 50 copies/mL: Two-sided 95% CI was presented for the odds ratio between treatment groups. CIs were calculated using the Wald-approximation. Logistic model with treatment, screening HIV concentrations (\<100,000 or \>=100,000), geographic region (Northern or Southern Hemisphere) as covariates were used. Odds ratio \> 1 would favor maraviroc.||1.15|0.61|0.2724
91101099|NCT00098293|182088518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.3943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.19|||Regression, Logistic|||Less than 400 copies/mL: Two-sided 95% CI was presented for the odds ratio between treatment groups. CIs were calculated using the Wald-approximation. Logistic model with treatment, screening HIV concentrations (\<100,000 or \>=100,000), geographic region (Northern or Southern Hemisphere) as covariates were used. Odds ratio \> 1 would favor maraviroc.||1.19|0.65|0.3943
91101100|NCT00098293|182088518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.1289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.07|||Regression, Logistic|||Less than 50 copies/mL: Two-sided 95% CI was presented for the odds ratio between treatment groups. CIs were calculated using the Wald-approximation. Logistic model with treatment, screening HIV concentrations (\<100,000 or \>=100,000), geographic region (Northern or Southern Hemisphere) as covariates were used. Odds ratio \> 1 would favor maraviroc.||1.07|0.59|0.1289
91101101|NCT00098293|182088519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1077||0.2741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.094|0.329|||ANCOVA|||Change at week 48: P-value was calculated using Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) with the model including treatment arm and, as covariates, the randomization strata (screening viral load and geographic region). The difference between the treatment least squares means (LS means) adjusted for the covariates was presented in addition to 2-sided 95% CI. Negative value would favor maraviroc.||0.329|-0.094|0.2741
91101102|NCT00098293|182088519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1162||0.3899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.128|0.328|||ANCOVA|||Change at week 96: P-value was calculated using ANCOVA with the model including treatment arm and, as covariates, the randomization strata (screening viral load and geographic region). The difference between the treatment LS means adjusted for the covariates was presented in addition to 2-sided 95% CI. Negative value would favor maraviroc.||0.328|-0.128|0.3899
91101103|NCT00098293|182088520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.111|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1002||0.2693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.086|0.307|||ANCOVA|||Week 48: P-value was calculated using ANCOVA with the model including treatment arm and, as covariates, the randomization strata (screening viral load and geographic region). The difference between the treatment LS means adjusted for the covariates was presented in addition to 2-sided 95% CI. Negative value would favor maraviroc.||0.307|-0.086|0.2693
91101104|NCT00098293|182088520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.089|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1121||0.427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.131|0.309|||ANCOVA|||Week 96: P-value was calculated using ANCOVA with the model including treatment arm and, as covariates, the randomization strata (screening viral load and geographic region). The difference between the treatment LS means adjusted for the covariates was presented in addition to 2-sided 95% CI. Negative value would favor maraviroc.||0.309|-0.131|0.4270
91104489|NCT02037984|182094986|OTHER|PT3 Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT3 Percentage Point Difference|24.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.6|40.2|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||40.2|12.6|
90903581|NCT01183650|181674340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|1.29|||||Day 10 Metabolite IC710 Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means (Japanese/Caucasian)|||1.29|0.83|
90903582|NCT01183650|181674341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Tadalafil Median Difference (Day 1 - Day 10) in Japanese Participants||||||
90903583|NCT01183650|181674341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Tadalafil Median Difference (Day 1 - Day 10) in Caucasian Participants||||||
90903584|NCT01183650|181674341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|19.83||||||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Metabolite IC710 Median Difference (Day 1 - Day 10) in Japanese participants||||||
91031509|NCT00581139|181947508|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||ANOVA|||||||.02
91101105|NCT00098293|182088521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|26.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.827||0.0075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.04|45.63|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 48: P-value was calculated using ANCOVA with the model including treatment arm and, as covariates, baseline CD4 count and the randomization strata (screening viral load and geographic region). The difference between the treatment LS means adjusted for the covariates was presented in addition to 2-sided 95% CI. Positive value would favor maraviroc.||45.63|7.04|0.0075
90903585|NCT01183650|181674341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.02||||||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Metabolite IC710 Median Difference (Day 1 - Day 10) in Caucasian participants||||||
90959016|NCT01620255|181798202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.178||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.083|0.272||1-sided p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|PF-00547659 22.5 mg vs placebo, locally read||0.272|0.083|0.0014
91101106|NCT00098293|182088521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|35.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.419||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.02|57.86|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 96: P-value was calculated using ANCOVA with the model including treatment arm and, as covariates, baseline CD4 count and the randomization strata (screening viral load and geographic region). The difference between the treatment LS means adjusted for the covariates was presented in addition to 2-sided 95% CI. Positive value would favor maraviroc.||57.86|13.02|0.0020
91101107|NCT00098293|182088522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|166.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|25.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|117.13|215.46|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 48: P-value was calculated using ANCOVA with the model including treatment arm and, as covariates, baseline CD8 count and the randomization strata (screening viral load and geographic region). The difference between the treatment LS means adjusted for the covariates was presented in addition to 2-sided 95% CI. Positive value would favor maraviroc.||215.46|117.13|<0.0001
91101108|NCT00098293|182088522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|172.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|25.471|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|122.21|222.23|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 96: P-value was calculated using ANCOVA with the model including treatment arm and, as covariates, baseline CD8 count and the randomization strata (screening viral load and geographic region). The difference between the treatment LS means adjusted for the covariates was presented in addition to 2-sided 95% CI. Positive value would favor maraviroc.||222.23|122.21|<0.0001
91101109|NCT00098293|182088523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.5874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.45|||Log Rank|||Week 48: P-value was calculated using Log rank test controlling for the effect of the randomization strata. Hazard ratio was calculated by fitting a Cox proportional hazards model including treatment group and the two randomization strata, HIV-1 RNA at screening and geographic region. Hazard ratio \< 1 would favor maraviroc.||1.45|0.83|0.5874
91101110|NCT00098293|182088523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.4811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.4|||Log Rank|||Week 96: P-value was calculated using Log rank test controlling for the effect of the randomization strata. Hazard ratio was calculated by fitting a Cox proportional hazards model including treatment group and the two randomization strata, HIV-1 RNA at screening and geographic region. Hazard ratio \< 1 would favor maraviroc.||1.40|0.86|0.4811
90856476|NCT00744471|181577003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.25||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.25|-0.66|<0.001
91104490|NCT02037984|182094986|OTHER|PT4 Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT4 Percentage Point Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|14.0|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||14.0|-8.0|
90856477|NCT00744471|181577003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.13||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.13|-0.53|0.001
90856478|NCT03496571|181577150|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference from Placebo|-95.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-122.0|-68.0|||ANCOVA|||||-68|-122|<0.001
90856479|NCT03496571|181577150|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference from Placebo|-102.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-128.0|-76.0|||ANCOVA|||||-76|-128|<0.001
90903586|NCT04827134|181674342|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Means|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8344|0.9282|||||An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on parameter AUC(0-inf) for Analyte DTG to compare treatment arms Cohort 1: TRIUMEQ (DTG/ABC/3TC) Fed with Cohort 1: TRIUMEQ (DTG/ABC/3TC) Fasted.|||0.9282|0.8344|
90959017|NCT01620255|181798202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.122||||0.0125|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.036|0.208||1-sided p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|PF-00547659 75 mg vs placebo, locally read||0.208|0.036|0.0125
90856480|NCT03496571|181577150|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference from Placebo|-98.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-121.0|-76.0|||ANCOVA|||||-76|-121|<0.001
90856481|NCT03496571|181577151|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference from Placebo|55.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.0|76.0|||Fisher Exact|||||76|27|<0.001
90856482|NCT03496571|181577151|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference from Placebo|62.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.0|82.0|||Fisher Exact|||||82|34|<0.001
90856483|NCT03496571|181577151|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference from Placebo|58.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.0|74.0|||Fisher Exact|||||74|36|<0.001
90856484|NCT03496571|181577152|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference from Placebo|-20.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.0|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0|-40|0.05
90856485|NCT03496571|181577152|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference from Placebo|-33.0||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.0|-13.0|||ANCOVA|||||-13|-53|0.002
90903587|NCT04827134|181674342|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Means|0.8578|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8168|0.9007|||||An analysis of variance was performed on parameter AUC(0-inf) for Analyte ABC to compare treatment arms Cohort 1: TRIUMEQ (DTG/ABC/3TC) Fed with Cohort 1: TRIUMEQ (DTG/ABC/3TC) Fasted.|||0.9007|0.8168|
91031510|NCT00581139|181947510|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.01
90856486|NCT03496571|181577152|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference from Placebo|-26.0||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.0|-9.0|||ANCOVA|||||-9|-44|0.004
90856487|NCT03119701|181577154|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|8.19||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||||8.19|0.21|0.78
91031511|NCT00581139|181947511|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.01
91101111|NCT00098293|182088530|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 1-sided 97.5% CI was greater than (\>) -10%.|Difference in Percentage|-3.2|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|-10.2|||||||Less than 400 copies/mL: Treatment difference in percentage stratified by randomization strata was presented along with the lower bound of the 1-sided 97.5% CI based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution. Positive value would favor maraviroc. Step down procedure used to control for multiple comparisons.|||-10.2|
91101112|NCT00098293|182088530|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 1-sided 97.5% CI was \> -10%.|Difference in Percentage|-5.8|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|-12.8|||||||Less than 50 copies/mL: Treatment difference in percentage stratified by randomization strata was presented along with the lower bound of the 1-sided 97.5% CI based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution. Positive value would favor maraviroc. Step down procedure used to control for multiple comparisons.|||-12.8|
91101113|NCT00098293|182088531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.6|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|-6.4|||||||Less than 400 copies/mL: Treatment difference in percentage stratified by randomization strata was presented along with the lower bound of the 1-sided 97.5% CI based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution. Positive value would favor maraviroc. Due to its post-hoc nature, this analysis was considered descriptive only rather than inferential.|||-6.4|
91101114|NCT00098293|182088531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-0.2|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|-7.4|||||||Less than 50 copies/mL: Treatment difference in percentage stratified by randomization strata was presented along with the lower bound of the 1-sided 97.5% CI based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution. Positive value would favor maraviroc. Due to its post-hoc nature, this analysis was considered descriptive only rather than inferential.|||-7.4|
91101115|NCT00098293|182088532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-0.4|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|-7.9|||||||Less than 400 copies/mL: Treatment difference in percentage stratified by randomization strata was presented along with the lower bound of the 1-sided 97.5% CI based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution. Positive value would favor maraviroc. Due to its post-hoc nature, this analysis was considered descriptive only rather than inferential.|||-7.9|
91101116|NCT00098293|182088532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-3.9|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|-11.5|||||||Less than 50 copies/mL: Treatment difference in percentage stratified by randomization strata was presented along with the lower bound of the 1-sided 97.5% CI based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution. Positive value would favor maraviroc. Due to its post-hoc nature, this analysis was considered descriptive only rather than inferential.|||-11.5|
91101117|NCT03193307|182088556|OTHER||Geometric Mean (T1/R1) ratio (%)|153.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|134.34|174.7|||||"Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model including random effect for 'subject' and fixed effect for 'treatment' was used.~Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\]) =21.4."|||174.70|134.34|
91101118|NCT03193307|182088557|OTHER||Geometric Mean (T1/R1) ratio (%)|115.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|104.559|128.502|||||"Analysis of variance (ANOVA) including random effect for 'subject' and fixed effect for 'treatment' was used.~Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\]) = 16.7."|||128.502|104.559|
90856488|NCT03119701|181577155|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|10.52||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||||10.52|0.28|0.57
90856489|NCT03119701|181577156|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.08
91101119|NCT03193307|182088558|OTHER||Geometric Mean (T2/R2) ratio (%)|104.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.092|107.613|||||"Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model including random effect for 'subject' and fixed effect for 'treatment' was used.~Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\]) =4.3."|||107.613|102.092|
91101120|NCT03193307|182088559|OTHER||Geometric Mean (T2/R2) ratio (%)|102.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.66|104.92|||||"Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model including random effect for 'subject' and fixed effect for 'treatment' was used.~Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\]) = 3.3."|||104.92|100.66|
91101121|NCT03193307|182088560|OTHER||Geometric Mean (T2/R2) ratio (%)|114.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|109.266|119.183|||||"Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model including random effect for 'subject' and fixed effect for 'treatment' was used.~Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\])=7.0."|||119.183|109.266|
90903588|NCT04827134|181674342|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Means|0.8919|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8316|0.9566|||||An analysis of variance was performed on parameter AUC(0-inf) for Analyte 3TC to compare treatment arms Cohort 1: TRIUMEQ (DTG/ABC/3TC) Fed with Cohort 1: TRIUMEQ (DTG/ABC/3TC) Fasted.|||0.9566|0.8316|
91101122|NCT03193307|182088561|OTHER||Geometric Mean (T2/R2) ratio (%)|110.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|105.8|115.83|||||"Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model including random effect for 'subject' and fixed effect for 'treatment' was used.~Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\]) = 7.3."|||115.83|105.80|
90856490|NCT03119701|181577158|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.999
90856491|NCT03119701|181577161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.362||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Exact Mantel-Haenszel Chi-Square Test||||||0.3620
90856492|NCT03119701|181577164|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Day 2, Day 3, Day 4, Day 5, and Day 6.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||The lower limit of quantification (LLOQ) is equal 5 ng/ml. Values below the LLOQ were set to LLOQ/2 = 2.5 ng/ml. Values over the upper limit of quantitation (ULOQ) were set to 320 ng/ml.||||<.0001
90856493|NCT03119701|181577164|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13||||||Baseline visit|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||The lower limit of quantification (LLOQ) is equal 5 ng/ml. Values below the LLOQ were set to LLOQ/2 = 2.5 ng/ml. Values over the upper limit of quantitation (ULOQ) were set to 320 ng/ml.||||0.13
91031512|NCT00581139|181947512|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.01
91101123|NCT03193307|182088562|OTHER||Geometric Mean (T1/R1) ratio (%)|154.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|133.81|177.58|||||"Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model including random effect for 'subject' and fixed effect for 'treatment' was used.~Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\]) = 22.4."|||177.58|133.81|
91101124|NCT01350973|182088565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.37||||0.876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2491|4.983||An ANCOVA model was employed, using the baseline triglyceride level as covariate and the treatment group as an independent variable.|ANCOVA|||||4.9830|-4.2491|0.8760
91101125|NCT01350973|182088565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-11.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.9442|-6.7637||An ANCOVA model was employed, using the baseline triglyceride level as covariate and the treatment group as an independent variable.|ANCOVA|||||-6.7637|-15.9442|< 0.0001
90856494|NCT03119701|181577164|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0035||||||Day 1|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||The lower limit of quantification (LLOQ) is equal 5 ng/ml. Values below the LLOQ were set to LLOQ/2 = 2.5 ng/ml. Values over the upper limit of quantitation (ULOQ) were set to 320 ng/ml.||||0.0035
90856495|NCT03119701|181577164|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009||||||Day 9|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||The lower limit of quantification (LLOQ) is equal 5 ng/ml. Values below the LLOQ were set to LLOQ/2 = 2.5 ng/ml. Values over the upper limit of quantitation (ULOQ) were set to 320 ng/ml.||||0.009
90856496|NCT03119701|181577164|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1||||||Day 13|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||The lower limit of quantification (LLOQ) is equal 5 ng/ml. Values below the LLOQ were set to LLOQ/2 = 2.5 ng/ml. Values over the upper limit of quantitation (ULOQ) were set to 320 ng/ml.||||0.10
90856497|NCT03119701|181577165|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||Patients with an observation below the lower limit of quantification (LLOQ) value at baseline for CD73 were set to have the LLOQ value (LLOQ = 4 ng/ml) at baseline for subgroup determination purposes (2-fold increase in CD73 from baseline). Values below the LLOQ were set to LLOQ/2 = 2 ng/mL.||||0.66
90856498|NCT03119701|181577166|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||Observations of zero were imputed as 1 pg/ml before logarithmic transformation.||||0.3
90856499|NCT01659658|181577205|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1|||=|0.7623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.01||P-value was calculated from the unstratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test to compare hematologic response rate between the treatment arms.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio was derived from a logistic regression model with treatment and 95% confidence interval (CI) for the odds ratio was based on the Wald approximation.|Statistical analysis was planned to be collected and analyzed in a combined manner for the non-ixazomib arm groups versus ixazomib group in this outcome measure.||2.01|0.60|=0.7623
90856500|NCT01659658|181577206|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75|||=|0.351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.38||P-value was calculated from the unstratified CMH test to make comparisons between the 2 treatment arms.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio was derived from a logistic regression model with treatment and 95% CI for the odds ratio was based on the Wald approximation.|||1.38|0.41|=0.3510
90903589|NCT04827134|181674343|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Means|0.8744|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8293|0.9219|||||An analysis of variance was performed on parameter AUC(0-t) for Analyte DTG to compare treatment arms Cohort 1: TRIUMEQ (DTG/ABC/3TC) Fed with Cohort 1: TRIUMEQ (DTG/ABC/3TC) Fasted.|||0.9219|0.8293|
90856501|NCT01659658|181577208|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82|||=|0.389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.29||P-value was calculated using log-rank test stratified by the stratification factors.|Log Rank||||Unadjusted stratified Cox regression model was used to estimate the hazard ratio and its 95% CIs for the treatment effect using the stratification factors.|1.29|0.52|=0.389
90856502|NCT01659658|181577209|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76|||=|0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.09||P-value was calculated using stratified log-rank test with stratification factors.|Log Rank||||Unadjusted stratified Cox regression model was used to estimate the hazard ratio and its 95% CIs for the treatment effect using the stratification factors.|1.09|0.52|=0.135
90856503|NCT01659658|181577210|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.2421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.21||P-value was calculated using log-rank test stratified by the stratification factors.|Log Rank||||Unadjusted stratified Cox regression model was used to estimate the hazard ratio and its 95% CIs for the treatment effect using the stratification factors.|1.21|0.48|0.2421
90856504|NCT01659658|181577211|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62|||=|0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.97||P-value was calculated using log-rank test stratified by the stratification factors.|Log Rank||||Unadjusted stratified Cox regression model was used to estimate the hazard ratio and its 95% CIs for the treatment effect using the stratification factors.|0.97|0.39|=0.036
90856505|NCT01659658|181577212|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.69|||=|0.226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|3.99||P-value was calculated from the unstratified CMH test to compare vital organ response rate between the 2 treatment arms.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio was calculated from a logistic regression model with treatment and 95% CI for the odds ratio was based on the Wald approximation.|||3.99|0.72|=0.2260
90903590|NCT04827134|181674343|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Means|0.8567|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8159|0.8995|||||An analysis of variance was performed on parameter AUC(0-t) for Analyte ABC to compare treatment arms Cohort 1: TRIUMEQ (DTG/ABC/3TC) Fed with Cohort 1: TRIUMEQ (DTG/ABC/3TC) Fasted.|||0.8995|0.8159|
90903591|NCT04827134|181674343|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Means|0.8798|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8202|0.9438|||||An analysis of variance was performed on parameter AUC(0-t) for Analyte 3TC to compare treatment arms Cohort 1: TRIUMEQ (DTG/ABC/3TC) Fed with Cohort 1: TRIUMEQ (DTG/ABC/3TC) Fasted.|||0.9438|0.8202|
91031513|NCT00581139|181947513|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||ANOVA|||||||.02
91031514|NCT00581139|181947514|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||ANOVA|||||||.04
90856506|NCT01659658|181577213|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76|||=|0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.12||P-value was calculated using stratified log-rank test with stratification factors.|Log Rank||Unadjusted stratified Cox regression model was used to estimate the hazard ratio and its 95% CIs for the treatment effect using the stratification factors.|||1.12|0.52|=0.163
90856507|NCT01659658|181577216|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68|||=|0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.96||P-value was calculated using stratified log-rank test with stratification factors.|Log Rank||||Unadjusted stratified Cox regression model was used to estimate the hazard ratio and its 95% CIs for the treatment effect using the stratification factors.|0.96|0.49|=0.025
90856508|NCT01659658|181577217|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58|||=|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.88||P-value was calculated using stratified log-rank test with stratification factors.|Log Rank||||Unadjusted stratified Cox regression model was used to estimate the hazard ratio and its 95% CIs for the treatment effect using the stratification factors.|0.88|0.38|=0.010
90856509|NCT00090051|181577260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.0218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.96|||Log Rank|non-stratified|The hazard ratio was estimated using Cox regression. The hazard ratio is relative to the fludarabine+cyclophosphamide(FC) group.|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the 2 treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was that progression-free survival was longer in the fludarabine+cyclophosphamide+rituximab (FCR) group.||0.96|0.60|0.0218
90856510|NCT00090051|181577261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2874||95.0|||||Log Rank|non-stratified||||||0.2874
90856511|NCT00090051|181577263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||95.0|||||Log Rank|non-stratified||||||0.0002
91031515|NCT00581139|181947515|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||ANOVA|||||||.04
91101126|NCT02507284|182088576|NON_INFERIORITY|Results for the secondary safety endpoint, adverse events (AEs) in study subjects, was performed using a test for non-inferiority with a threshold of 0.50. The null hypothesis is that the treatment minus placebo proportion difference is greater than (or equal to) the margin of 0.50 and the alternative hypothesis is that the difference is less than 0.50.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.025||||0.5|ONE_SIDED|97.5|||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.50
91101127|NCT03156621|182088581|SUPERIORITY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-35.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.8|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.2|-19.9||P-value taken from MMRM (mixed-effect model with repeated measures) analysis|MMRM||p-value vs Placebo|||-19.9|-51.2|<0.0001
91101128|NCT03156621|182088582|SUPERIORITY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-29.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.3|-17.3||p-value taken from MMRM (mixed-effect model with repeated measures) analysis|MMRM|||||-17.3|-42.3|< 0.0001
91101129|NCT03156621|182088583|SUPERIORITY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-32.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.6|-18.2||P-value taken from MMRM (mixed-effect model with repeated measures) analysis|MMRM|||||-18.2|-47.6|< 0.0001
91101130|NCT03156621|182088584|SUPERIORITY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-26.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.9|-14.0||P-value taken from MMRM (mixed-effect model with repeated measures) analysis.|MMRM|||||-14.0|-38.9|< 0.0001
91101131|NCT03156621|182088585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|12.2|||=|0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|48.8|||Regression, Logistic|||||48.8|3.1|= 0.0004
90856512|NCT00090051|181577266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8842||95.0|||||Log Rank|non-stratified||||||0.8842
90856513|NCT00090051|181577268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.8|||Log Rank|||||0.80|0.54|<.0001
90856514|NCT00090051|181577269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.5976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.19|||Log Rank|||||1.19|0.74|0.5976
90856515|NCT00090051|181577270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.79|||Log Rank|||||0.79|0.54|<.0001
90856516|NCT00090051|181577271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.15||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|3.35|||Chi-squared|||||3.35|1.39|0.0005
90856517|NCT00090051|181577272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.3085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.28|||Log Rank|||||1.28|0.46|0.3085
90903592|NCT04827134|181674344|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Means|0.7102|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6598|0.7643|||||An analysis of variance was performed on parameter Cmax for Analyte DTG to compare treatment arms Cohort 1: TRIUMEQ (DTG/ABC/3TC) Fed with Cohort 1: TRIUMEQ (DTG/ABC/3TC) Fasted.|||0.7643|0.6598|
91101132|NCT03156621|182088586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|36.5|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|308.9|||Regression, Logistic|||||308.9|4.3|= 0.0010
90856518|NCT00090051|181577273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.84|||Log Rank|||||0.84|0.51|0.0007
90856519|NCT00090051|181577274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.84|||Log Rank|||||0.84|0.55|0.0002
90856520|NCT03646643|181577282|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.12||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.97||A priori threshold \<0.05. Multiple comparisons adjustments: not needed.|Log Rank||The distal CS to LA connection elimination group had fewer recurrences (6.7%) compared with the standard group (46.7%), which translated to an 88% lower hazard of recurrence compared with the standard group.|Power calculation: assuming alpha 0.05, power 0.8, 1:1 randomization, and estimated relative risk of 14.4 for AF susceptibility with rate-dependent CS-LA conduction block, we anticipated a minimum sample size of 6 patients per group would be necessary to detect a difference using the log-rank test. Additional patients were recruited to account for potential losses to follow-up and a smaller detectable difference.||0.97|0.02|0.047
90856521|NCT02840240|181577290|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority deltas were defined a priori as 1.1 for the ratio in geometric means of opioid consumption converted to IV morphine equivalents (ie, no more than 10% difference between group's median doses) and 1 point for pain score (ie, no more than 1 point worse).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|0.69|||Regression, Linear|||||0.69|-1.07|0.003
90856522|NCT02840240|181577291|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority deltas were defined a priori as 1.1 for the ratio in geometric means of opioid consumption converted to IV morphine equivalents (ie, no more than 10% difference between group's median doses) and 1 point for pain score (ie, no more than 1 point worse).|Ratio of geometric means|2.12||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|18.54|||Regression, Linear|||Comparisons of opioid consumption were conducted independently for each study site. This analysis is for patients at the Cleveland Clinic main campus.||18.54|0.21|0.77
90856523|NCT02840240|181577291|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority deltas were defined a priori as 1.1 for the ratio in geometric means of opioid consumption converted to IV morphine equivalents (ie, no more than 10% difference between group's median doses) and 1 point for pain score (ie, no more than 1 point worse).|Ratio of geometric means|0.32||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|3.16|||Regression, Linear|||Comparisons of opioid consumption were conducted independently for each study site. This analysis is for patients at the Cleveland Clinic Fairview hospital.||3.16|0.03|0.09
90856524|NCT02840240|181577292|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.5||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|98.75|0.5|24.3|||Regression, Logistic|||||24.3|0.5|0.11
91101133|NCT03156621|182088587|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-28.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.7|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.5|-15.2|||Regression model|||||-15.2|-41.5|< 0.0001
91101134|NCT03156621|182088588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|17.7|||=|0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3||Maximum likelihood estimate does not exist||Exact Conditional Logistic Regression||||||3.3|= 0.0017
91101135|NCT03156621|182088589|SUPERIORITY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8|=|0.3541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|11.3||P-value taken from MMRM (mixed-effect model with repeated measures) analysis.|MMRM|||||11.3|-4.1|= 0.3541
91101136|NCT03156621|182088590|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.2|2.6||||||||2.6|-25.2|
91101137|NCT03156621|182088591|SUPERIORITY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|3.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|10.7||||||||10.7|-3.6|
91101138|NCT03156621|182088592|SUPERIORITY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-35.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.2|-19.9||||||||-19.9|-51.2|
91101139|NCT03156621|182088593|SUPERIORITY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-29.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.3|-17.3||||||||-17.3|-43.3|
91101140|NCT03156621|182088594|SUPERIORITY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-32.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.6|-18.2||||||||-18.2|-47.6|
91101141|NCT03156621|182088595|SUPERIORITY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-26.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.9|-14.0||||||||-14.0|-28.9|
91101142|NCT03156621|182088596|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-28.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.5|-15.2||||||||-15.2|-41.5|
91101143|NCT03156621|182088597|SUPERIORITY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|11.3||||||||11.3|-4.1|
91101144|NCT03156621|182088598|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.2|2.6||||||||2.6|-25.2|
91101145|NCT03156621|182088599|SUPERIORITY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|10.7||||||||10.7|-3.6|
91101146|NCT03156621|182088600|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|48.8||||||≥15% reduction||48.8|3.1|
91101147|NCT03156621|182088600|SUPERIORITY|≥ 30% reduction|Odds Ratio (OR)|36.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|308.9||||||||308.9|4.3|
91101148|NCT03156621|182088600|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|17.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3||Maximum likelihood estimate does not exist|||||≥ 50% reduction|||3.3|
91101149|NCT03156621|182088601|SUPERIORITY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.1||||||||-0.1|-0.6|
90856525|NCT02840240|181577293|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|98.75|0.2|3.1|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.1|0.2|0.60
90856526|NCT01593722|181577318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.68
90856527|NCT03739840|181577390|SUPERIORITY||Percent reduction|-5.6|||=|0.687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.1|19.2||Adjusted p-values are from the Hochberg step-up procedure within SAS® Proc Multtest to control Type I error.|ANCOVA|||Percent reduction over placebo was calculated as 100\*(1-exp(diff)), where diff was the model estimate of the log ratio between each PSL group and placebo group.||19.2|-38.1|=0.687
90856528|NCT03739840|181577390|SUPERIORITY||Percent reduction|6.5|||=|0.687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.7|28.7||Adjusted p-values were from the Hochberg step-up procedure within SAS® Proc Multtest to control Type I error.|ANCOVA|||Percent reduction over placebo was calculated as 100\*(1-exp(diff)), where diff was the model estimate of the log ratio between each PSL group and placebo group.||28.7|-22.7|=0.687
90856529|NCT03739840|181577390|SUPERIORITY||Percent reduction|6.3|||=|0.687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.9|28.6||Adjusted p-values were from the Hochberg step-up procedure within SAS® Proc Multtest to control Type I error.|ANCOVA|||Percent reduction over placebo was calculated as 100\*(1-exp(diff)), where diff was the model estimate of the log ratio between each PSL group and placebo group.||28.6|-22.9|=0.687
90903593|NCT04827134|181674344|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Means|0.4503|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.3976|0.51|||||An analysis of variance was performed on parameter Cmax for Analyte ABC to compare treatment arms Cohort 1: TRIUMEQ (DTG/ABC/3TC) Fed with Cohort 1: TRIUMEQ (DTG/ABC/3TC) Fasted.|||0.5100|0.3976|
90903594|NCT04827134|181674344|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Means|0.6373|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5594|0.726|||||An analysis of variance was performed on parameter Cmax for Analyte 3TC to compare treatment arms Cohort 1: TRIUMEQ (DTG/ABC/3TC) Fed with Cohort 1: TRIUMEQ (DTG/ABC/3TC) Fasted.|||0.7260|0.5594|
90856530|NCT03739840|181577394|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15|||=|0.803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|3.38||Nominal p-values were not adjusted for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||PSL dose/Placebo calculated using logistic regression with categorical factors for treatment group (each PSL dose group referenced to the placebo group), Region (Europe, non-Europe), Baseline SV2A use (Yes, No) and log-transformed Baseline seizure frequency as a continuous covariate.||3.38|0.39|=0.803
90903595|NCT04827134|181674345|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Means|0.9148|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8834|0.9472|||||An analysis of variance was performed on parameter AUC(0-inf) for Analyte DTG to compare treatment arms Cohort 2: DOVATO (DTG/3TC) Fed with Cohort 2: DOVATO (DTG/3TC) Fasted.|||0.9472|0.8834|
91101150|NCT03016403|182088605|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.75||||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|2.98||Since there are three primary outcomes (depression, anxiety and coping scores) in the study, the significance level was set a priori at 0.0167 (alpha = 0.05/3).|Mixed Models Analysis|The pvalue corresponds to the hypothesis of the interaction effect between time and group (intervention arm).|The estimate represents the difference in expected means at the 6-month time point between the intervention and usual care arms.|A linear mixed model (LMM) with random intercepts for both patients and clinics has been used, with adjustment for cancer type and cancer stage. The study was powered for testing the hypothesis of no group differences in change over the four time points (baseline, 6-weeks, 3-months and 6-months). A significant group by time interaction was hypothesized.||2.98|0.52|0.0057
91101151|NCT03016403|182088606|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.46||||0.0243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|2.73||Since there are three primary outcomes (depression, anxiety and coping scores) in the study, the significance level was set a priori at 0.0167 (alpha = 0.05/3).|Mixed Models Analysis|The pvalue corresponds to the hypothesis of the interaction effect between time and group (intervention arm).|The estimate represents the difference in expected means at the 6-month time point between the intervention and usual care arms.|Linear mixed models (LMM) have been used with time and the interaction between time and group as fixed effects. A structure of random effects that includes random intercepts for patients was used. The study was powered for testing the hypothesis of no group differences in change over the four time points. A significant group by time interaction was hypothesized.||2.73|0.19|0.0243
91101152|NCT03016403|182088607|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.31||||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.23|-4.39||Since there are three primary outcomes (depression, anxiety and coping scores) in the study, the significance level was set a priori at 0.0167 (alpha = 0.05/3).|Mixed Models Analysis|The pvalue corresponds to the hypothesis of an interaction between time and intervention arm.|The estimate represents the difference in expected means at the 6-month time point between the intervention and usual care arms.|Linear mixed models (LMM) have been used with time and the interaction between time and group as fixed effects. A structure of random effects that includes random intercepts for patients was used. The study was powered for testing the hypothesis of no group differences in change over the four time points. A significant group by time interaction was hypothesized.||-4.39|-26.23|0.0061
91104491|NCT02037984|182094986|OTHER|PT5 Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT5 Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|9.5|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.5|-10.6|
91104492|NCT02037984|182094986|OTHER|PT6A Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT6A Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|9.5|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.5|-10.6|
90856531|NCT03739840|181577394|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84|||=|0.772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|2.65||Nominal p-values were not adjusted for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||PSL dose/Placebo calculated using logistic regression with categorical factors for treatment group (each PSL dose group referenced to the placebo group), Region (Europe, non-Europe), Baseline SV2A use (Yes, No) and log-transformed Baseline seizure frequency as a continuous covariate.||2.65|0.27|=0.772
91101153|NCT03016403|182088608|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.73||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.73|4.27||Since there are three primary outcomes (depression, anxiety and coping scores) in the study, the significance level was set a priori at 0.0167 (alpha = 0.05/3).|Mixed Models Analysis|The pvalue corresponds to the hypothesis of the interaction effect between time and group (intervention arm).|The estimate represents the difference in expected means at the 6-month time point between the intervention and usual care arms.|A linear mixed model (LMM) with random intercepts for both patients and clinics has been used, with adjustment for cancer type and cancer stage. The study was powered for testing the hypothesis of no group differences in change over the four time points (baseline, 6-weeks, 3-months and 6-months). A significant group by time interaction was hypothesized.||4.27|-19.73|0.21
91101154|NCT03016403|182088609|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.52||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|3.05||Since there are three primary outcomes (depression, anxiety and coping scores) in the study, the significance level was set a priori at 0.0167 (alpha = 0.05/3).|Mixed Models Analysis|The pvalue corresponds to the hypothesis of the interaction effect between time and group (intervention arm).|The estimate represents the difference in expected means at the 6-month time point between the intervention and usual care arms.|A linear mixed model (LMM) with random intercepts for both patients and clinics has been used, with adjustment for cancer type and cancer stage. The study was powered for testing the hypothesis of no group differences in change over the four time points (baseline, 6-weeks, 3-months and 6-months). A significant group by time interaction was hypothesized.||3.05|-0.01|0.052
91101155|NCT03016403|182088610|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.91||||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|2.36||Since there are three primary outcomes (depression, anxiety and coping scores) in the study, the significance level was set a priori at 0.0167 (alpha = 0.05/3).|Mixed Models Analysis|The pvalue corresponds to the hypothesis of the interaction effect between time and group (intervention arm).|The estimate represents the difference in expected means at the 6-month time point between the intervention and usual care arms.|A linear mixed model (LMM) with random intercepts for both patients and clinics has been used, with adjustment for cancer type and cancer stage. The study was powered for testing the hypothesis of no group differences in change over the four time points (baseline, 6-weeks, 3-months and 6-months). A significant group by time interaction was hypothesized.||2.36|-0.52|0.214
91101156|NCT03016403|182088611|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.16||||0.0134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.45|-0.87||Since there are three primary outcomes (depression, anxiety and coping scores) in the study, the significance level was set a priori at 0.0167 (alpha = 0.05/3).|Mixed Models Analysis|The pvalue corresponds to the hypothesis of the interaction effect between time and group (intervention arm).|The estimate represents the difference in expected means at the 6-month time point between the intervention and usual care arms.|A linear mixed model (LMM) with random intercepts for both patients and clinics has been used, with adjustment for cancer type and cancer stage. The study was powered for testing the hypothesis of no group differences in change over the four time points (baseline, 6-weeks, 3-months and 6-months). A significant group by time interaction was hypothesized.||-0.87|-7.45|0.0134
91101157|NCT03016403|182088612|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.61||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|2.12||Since there are three primary outcomes (depression, anxiety and coping scores) in the study, the significance level was set a priori at 0.0167 (alpha = 0.05/3).|Mixed Models Analysis|The pvalue corresponds to the hypothesis of the interaction effect between time and group (intervention arm).|The estimate represents the difference in expected means at the 6-month time point between the intervention and usual care arms.|A linear mixed model (LMM) with random intercepts for both patients and clinics has been used, with adjustment for cancer type and cancer stage. The study was powered for testing the hypothesis of no group differences in change over the four time points (baseline, 6-weeks, 3-months and 6-months). A significant group by time interaction was hypothesized.||2.12|-0.9|0.42
91101158|NCT03016403|182088613|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.77||||0.0269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|3.34||Since there are three primary outcomes (depression, anxiety and coping scores) in the study, the significance level was set a priori at 0.0167 (alpha = 0.05/3).|Mixed Models Analysis|The pvalue corresponds to the hypothesis of the interaction effect between time and group (intervention arm).|The estimate represents the difference in expected means at the 6-month time point between the intervention and usual care arms.|A linear mixed model (LMM) with random intercepts for both patients and clinics has been used, with adjustment for cancer type and cancer stage. The study was powered for testing the hypothesis of no group differences in change over the four time points (baseline, 6-weeks, 3-months and 6-months). A significant group by time interaction was hypothesized.||3.34|0.2|0.0269
91104493|NCT02037984|182094986|OTHER|PT6B Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT6B Percentage Point Difference|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5|6.7|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||6.7|-15.5|
91104494|NCT02037984|182094986|OTHER|PT7F Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT7F Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|9.5|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.5|-10.6|
91104495|NCT02037984|182094986|OTHER|PT9V Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT9V Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|9.5|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.5|-10.6|
90856532|NCT03739840|181577394|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01|||=|0.989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|3.08||Nominal p-values were not adjusted for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||PSL dose/Placebo calculated using logistic regression with categorical factors for treatment group (each PSL dose group referenced to the placebo group), Region (Europe, non-Europe), Baseline SV2A use (Yes, No) and log-transformed Baseline seizure frequency as a continuous covariate.||3.08|0.33|=0.989
90856533|NCT03739840|181577395|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4|||=|0.425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|3.18||Nominal p-values were not adjusted for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||PSL dose/Placebo calculated using logistic regression with categorical factors for treatment group (each PSL dose group referenced to the placebo group), Region (Europe, non-Europe), Baseline SV2A use (Yes, No) and log-transformed Baseline seizure frequency as a continuous covariate.||3.18|0.61|=0.425
91101159|NCT03016403|182088614|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.56||||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|4.32||Since there are three primary outcomes (depression, anxiety and coping scores) in the study, the significance level was set a priori at 0.0167 (alpha = 0.05/3).|Mixed Models Analysis|The pvalue corresponds to the hypothesis of the interaction effect between time and group (intervention arm).|The estimate represents the difference in expected means at the 6-month time point between the intervention and usual care arms.|A linear mixed model (LMM) with random intercepts for both patients and clinics has been used, with adjustment for cancer type and cancer stage. The study was powered for testing the hypothesis of no group differences in change over the four time points (baseline, 6-weeks, 3-months and 6-months). A significant group by time interaction was hypothesized.||4.32|0.8|0.0044
91101160|NCT04641975|182088639|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|2.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.34||0.121|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.15|4.59|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) was performed with change from baseline at week 12 Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF) as response, treatment group, sex and geographical region as fixed effects and the mean number of micturitions per 24 hours at baseline as covariate.||4.59|-0.15|0.121
91101161|NCT04641975|182088640|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.91||0.43|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-49.47|18.46|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was performed with change from baseline at week 12 without LOCF as response, treatment group, sex and geographical region as fixed effects and the mean volume voided per 24 hours at baseline as covariate. Statistically significant treatment difference at 0.10 level for mirabegron vs placebo.||18.46|-49.47|0.430
91101162|NCT04641975|182088640|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.91||0.43|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-49.47|18.46|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was performed with change from baseline at week 12 with LOCF as response, treatment group, sex and geographical region as fixed effects and the mean volume voided per 24 hours at baseline as covariate. Statistically significant treatment difference at 0.10 level for mirabegron vs placebo.||18.46|-49.47|0.430
91101163|NCT04641975|182088641|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|31.08||0.935|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-53.23|58.38|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was performed with change from baseline at week 12 without LOCF as response, treatment group, sex and geographical region as fixed effects and the mean volume voided per 24 hours at baseline as covariate. Statistically significant treatment difference at 0.10 level for mirabegron vs placebo.||58.38|-53.23|0.935
91101164|NCT04641975|182088641|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|31.08||0.935|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-53.23|58.38|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was performed with change from baseline at week 12 with LOCF as response, treatment group, sex and geographical region as fixed effects and the mean volume voided per 24 hours at baseline as covariate. Statistically significant treatment difference at 0.10 level for mirabegron vs placebo.||58.38|-53.23|0.935
91101165|NCT04641975|182088642|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.073|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.99|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was performed with change from baseline at week 12 without LOCF as response, treatment group, sex and geographical region as fixed effects and the mean volume voided per 24 hours at baseline as covariate. Statistically significant treatment difference at 0.10 level for mirabegron vs placebo.||-0.10|-1.99|0.073
91101166|NCT04641975|182088642|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.044|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.8|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was performed with change from baseline at week 12 with LOCF as response, treatment group, sex and geographical region as fixed effects and the mean volume voided per 24 hours at baseline as covariate. Statistically significant treatment difference at 0.10 level for mirabegron vs placebo.||-0.20|-1.80|0.044
91101167|NCT04641975|182088643|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.91|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.74|0.64|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA as performed with change from baseline at week 12 without LOCF as response, treatment group, sex and geographical region as fixed effects and the mean number of daytime incontinence episodes per 24 hours at baseline as covariate. Statistically significant treatment difference at 0.10 level for mirabegron vs placebo.||0.64|-0.74|0.910
91101168|NCT04641975|182088643|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.91|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.74|0.64|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA as performed with change from baseline at week 12 with LOCF as response, treatment group, sex and geographical region as fixed effects and the mean number of daytime incontinence episodes per 24 hours at baseline as covariate. Statistically significant treatment difference at 0.10 level for mirabegron vs placebo.||0.64|-0.74|0.910
90856534|NCT03739840|181577395|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23|||=|0.625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|2.85||Nominal p-values were not adjusted for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||PSL dose/Placebo calculated using logistic regression with categorical factors for treatment group (each PSL dose group referenced to the placebo group), Region (Europe, non-Europe), Baseline SV2A use (Yes, No) and log-transformed Baseline seizure frequency as a continuous covariate||2.85|0.53|=0.625
90856535|NCT03739840|181577395|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9|||=|0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|4.34||Nominal p-values were not adjusted for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||PSL dose/Placebo calculated using logistic regression with categorical factors for treatment group (each PSL dose group referenced to the placebo group), Region (Europe, non-Europe), Baseline SV2A use (Yes, No) and log-transformed Baseline seizure frequency as a continuous covariate||4.34|0.84|=0.125
90903596|NCT04827134|181674345|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Means|0.8847|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8303|0.9426|||||An analysis of variance was performed on parameter AUC(0-inf) for Analyte 3TC to compare treatment arms Cohort 2: DOVATO (DTG/3TC) Fed with Cohort 2: DOVATO (DTG/3TC) Fasted.|||0.9426|0.8303|
90903597|NCT04827134|181674346|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Means|0.9163|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8862|0.9475|||||An analysis of variance was performed on parameter AUC(0-t) for Analyte DTG to compare treatment arms Cohort 2: DOVATO (DTG/3TC) Fed with Cohort 2: DOVATO (DTG/3TC) Fasted.|||0.9475|0.8862|
90903598|NCT04827134|181674346|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Means|0.8806|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8251|0.9398|||||An analysis of variance was performed on parameter AUC(0-t) for Analyte 3TC to compare treatment arms Cohort 2: DOVATO (DTG/3TC) Fed with Cohort 2: DOVATO (DTG/3TC) Fasted.|||0.9398|0.8251|
90903599|NCT04827134|181674347|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Means|0.7284|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6576|0.8068|||||An analysis of variance was performed on parameter Cmax for Analyte DTG to compare treatment arms Cohort 2: DOVATO (DTG/3TC) Fed with Cohort 2: DOVATO (DTG/3TC) Fasted.|||0.8068|0.6576|
91101169|NCT04641975|182088644|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.012|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|3.99|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was performed with change from baseline at week 12 without LOCF as response, treatment group, sex and geographical region as fixed effects and the mean number of daytime micturitions per 24 hours at baseline as covariate. Statistically significant treatment difference at 0.10 level for mirabegron vs placebo.||3.99|0.97|0.012
91101170|NCT04641975|182088644|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1|3.82|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was performed with change from baseline at week 12 with LOCF as response, treatment group, sex and geographical region as fixed effects and the mean number of daytime micturitions per 24 hours at baseline as covariate. Statistically significant treatment difference at 0.10 level for mirabegron vs placebo.||3.82|1.10|0.007
91101171|NCT04641975|182088645|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.2||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.04|1.02|||Binomial regression|||Without LOCF: From a negative binomial regression model including treatment group, sex and region as factors and the log baseline rate of number of dry days (the log of the ratio of dry days at baseline and number of diary days at baseline) as covariate.||1.02|0.04|0.105
91101172|NCT04641975|182088645|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.22||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.05|1.05|||Binomial regression|||With LOCF: From a negative binomial regression model including treatment group, sex and region as factors and the log baseline rate of number of dry days (the log of the ratio of dry days at baseline and number of diary days at baseline) as covariate.||1.05|0.05|0.111
91101173|NCT01657500|182088660|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|See above|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Main outcome measure was endothelial cell loss at 6 months after EK. Sample size and statistical power calculations for testing equivalence of means within 10% range were performed at 80% power/0.025 level of significance. 20% variability was assumed. 6-month endothelial cell loss) should not differ significantly for surgeon-prepared versus eye bank-prepared tissue. Assuming pairs of corneas matched by pt. diagnosis and other characteristics, the required sample size was 34 donor pairs.||||< 0.05
91101174|NCT03142334|182088661|OTHER|HR and the associated 95% CIs were calculated based on Cox Regression model and p-value was calculated based on log-rank test, in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.87|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value was based on log-rank test stratified by metastasis status, ECOG PS, US participant within M0 group by investigator.|Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by metastasis status, ECOG PS, and US participant within M0 group by investigator was used to calculate HR and 95% CIs.|||0.87|0.53|0.0010
91101175|NCT00449007|182088771|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.5||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Difference between 6 months and baseline for Bupropion treated group.~Due to the low number of participants, the results are unreliable."||||1.0
90856536|NCT03739840|181577396|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|3.25|||=|0.737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.08|20.36||Nominal p-values were not adjusted for multiplicity.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Dose group comparisons to Placebo p-value are based on the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test. Hodges Lehmann nonparametric effect estimates and corresponding two-sided 95% asymptotic confidence intervals are provided for the effect difference between each PSL dose and placebo.||20.36|-17.08|=0.737
90856537|NCT03739840|181577396|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|6.17|||=|0.458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|21.91||Nominal p-values were not adjusted for multiplicity.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Dose group comparisons to Placebo p-value are based on the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test. Hodges Lehmann nonparametric effect estimates and corresponding two-sided 95% asymptotic confidence intervals are provided for the effect difference between each PSL dose and placebo.||21.91|-10.00|=0.458
90856538|NCT03739840|181577396|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|9.31|||=|0.341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.92|28.21||Nominal p-values were not adjusted for multiplicity.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Dose group comparisons to Placebo p-value are based on the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test. Hodges Lehmann nonparametric effect estimates and corresponding two-sided 95% asymptotic confidence intervals are provided for the effect difference between each PSL dose and placebo.||28.21|-10.92|=0.341
91101176|NCT03566550|182088774|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.04
91101177|NCT03566550|182088775|OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3
91031516|NCT00420303|181947516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.47||||0.029||95.0|-32.93|-2.01|||ANCOVA|Treatment groups as fixed factors, baseline value as covariate||Comparison of adjusted means||-2.01|-32.93|0.029
91101178|NCT03566550|182088776|OTHER|||||||0.021|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.021
90859893|NCT00408629|181583121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047||||||Testing of ranked secondary measures was only started if significant group differences existed for both co-primary measures. Significant results for higher-ranked measure was needed to test next lower-ranked measure to control for multiple testing.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification levels for Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel = prior anti-TNF versus anti-TNF-naive.||The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was used to test the null hypothesis of no difference between adalimumab and placebo. Treatment differences were deemed statistically significant at a significance level of 0.05.||||0.047
90903600|NCT04827134|181674347|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Means|0.5191|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4535|0.5943|||||An analysis of variance was performed on parameter Cmax for Analyte 3TC to compare treatment arms Cohort 2: DOVATO (DTG/3TC) Fed with Cohort 2: DOVATO (DTG/3TC) Fasted.|||0.5943|0.4535|
91031517|NCT00420303|181947517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.0||||0.02||95.0|1.44|69.26|||Generalized estimating equations (GEE)|Logit link, a binomial distribution and an auto-regressive correlation structure with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors.||||69.26|1.44|0.02
91101179|NCT03566550|182088777|OTHER|||||||0.012|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.012
91101180|NCT03566550|182088778|OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.13
91101181|NCT03518203|182088782|EQUIVALENCE|A binomial test was used to test 6 month survival in study cohort against an 18% historical rate.|Proportion|0.714|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold was 0.05.|binomial test|||||||<0.0001
91101182|NCT00345592|182088804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.987|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.684|1.503||||||||1.503|0.684|
91101183|NCT00137280|182088805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|3.58|||Regression, Logistic||Comparison group is the control (denominator)|||3.58|1.47|<0.01
91101184|NCT00137280|182088806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.93||0.03|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.03
91101185|NCT00137280|182088807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|4.34|||Regression, Logistic||Comparison group is the control (denominator)|||4.34|1.22|<0.01
91101186|NCT00137280|182088808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.11
91101187|NCT05001165|182088809|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.7|||Regression, Linear|||||0.7|-0.1|
91101188|NCT05001165|182088810|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.14|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.14|0.84|
91101189|NCT05001165|182088811|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.76|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.76|0.64|<0.05
91101190|NCT05001165|182088812|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.93|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.93|0.73|
91101191|NCT05001165|182088813|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|2.05|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.05|0.68|
91101192|NCT05001165|182088814|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.51|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.51|0.88|
91101193|NCT05001165|182088815|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|3.64|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.64|0.99|
91101194|NCT05001165|182088816|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.33|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.33|0.34|
91101195|NCT03467945|182088821|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence boundaries of 80.000% to 125.00% were used.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|81.4421|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.2805|88.1079||||||||88.1079|75.2805|
91101196|NCT03467945|182088821|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence boundaries of 80.000% to 125.00% were used.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|102.293|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.8819|106.9028||||||||106.9028|97.8819|
90903601|NCT03657264|181674421|NON_INFERIORITY|The upper limit of the 90% confidence interval was expected lower to the margin of 10 milliseconds for all tests.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.23|2.69||p-value is not shown, as this is a non-inferiority study.|ANCOVA|Each timepoint was tested through a separate model.||For the timepoint 5 min||2.69|-1.23|
91101197|NCT03467945|182088821|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence boundaries of 80.000% to 125.00% were used.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|81.0112|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.8823|87.6417||||||||87.6417|74.8823|
90903602|NCT03657264|181674421|NON_INFERIORITY|The upper limit of the 90% confidence interval was expected lower to the margin of 10 milliseconds for all tests.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.32|2.29||p-value is not shown, as this is a non-inferiority study.|ANCOVA|Each timepoint was tested through a separate model.||For the timepoint 10 min||2.29|-1.32|
91031518|NCT00420303|181947518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||ANCOVA|Treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate and patients as a random factor.||||||0.007
91101198|NCT03467945|182088822|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence boundaries of 80.000% to 125.00% were used.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|102.293|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.8819|106.9028||||||||106.9028|97.8819|
91101199|NCT03467945|182088822|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence boundaries of 80.000% to 125.00% were used.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|105.7255|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.1665|110.49||||||||110.4900|101.1665|
91101200|NCT03467945|182088822|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence boundaries of 80.000% to 125.00% were used.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|96.7533|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.5812|101.1135||||||||101.1135|92.5812|
91101201|NCT03467945|182088823|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence boundaries of 80.000% to 125.00% were used.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|77.6923|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.383|85.7606||||||||85.7606|70.3830|
91101202|NCT03467945|182088823|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence boundaries of 80.000% to 125.00% were used.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|108.0819|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.237|114.2609||||||||114.2609|102.2370|
91101203|NCT03467945|182088823|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence boundaries of 80.000% to 125.00% were used.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|79.4367|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|71.9633|87.6861||||||||87.6861|71.9633|
91101204|NCT03467945|182088824|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence boundaries of 80.000% to 125.00% were used.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|108.0819|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.237|114.2609||||||||114.2609|102.2370|
91101205|NCT03467945|182088824|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence boundaries of 80.000% to 125.00% were used.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|93.6828|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.6166|99.0386||||||||99.0386|88.6166|
91101206|NCT03467945|182088824|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence boundaries of 80.000% to 125.00% were used.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|115.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|109.131|121.9658||||||||121.9658|109.1310|
91101207|NCT03467945|182088825|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence boundaries of 80.000% to 125.00% were used.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|82.6022|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.5513|89.1314||||||||89.1314|76.5513|
91101208|NCT03467945|182088825|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence boundaries of 80.000% to 125.00% were used.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|101.8499|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.8819|106.9028||||||||106.9028|97.8819|
91101209|NCT03467945|182088825|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence boundaries of 80.000% to 125.00% were used.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|81.0112|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.8823|87.6417||||||||87.6417|74.8823|
91101210|NCT03467945|182088826|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence boundaries of 80.000% to 125.00% were used.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|101.8499|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.5947|106.2906||||||||106.2906|97.5947|
91101211|NCT03467945|182088826|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence boundaries of 80.000% to 125.00% were used.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|105.915|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.49|110.533||||||||110.5330|101.4900|
91101212|NCT03467945|182088826|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence boundaries of 80.000% to 125.00% were used.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|96.1619|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.1443|100.3546||||||||100.3546|92.1443|
91101213|NCT03336866|182088864|OTHER|The effect of IXT-m200 on METH exposure was evaluated with a linear mixed effects model. The response variable in the model was the natural-log transformed change in METH exposure parameters: AUCinf. The model contained fixed effects for treatment, day (categorical day postdose), natural-log transformed Day 1 baseline parameter and a treatment-by-day interaction, and a random effect for subject.|||||<|0.0001||||||Geometric LS Means Ratios of change in METH exposure for IXT-m200 compared to Placebo on Day 5 (primary). Threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Values were compared by a statistical analysis of change from Day 1 in METH PK parameters following IXT-m200 dosing. Geometric LS Mean change from Day 1 for each treatment on each day were calculated. Geometric LS Means Ratios of change in METH exposure for each dose level of IXT-m200 compared to Placebo on each Day 5 (primary), Day 12, Day 19 and Day 26 were calculated along with the 95% confidence intervals.||||<0.0001
91104496|NCT02037984|182094986|OTHER|PT14 Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT14 Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|9.5|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.5|-10.6|
91101214|NCT03336866|182088864|OTHER|The effect of IXT-m200 on METH exposure was evaluated with a linear mixed effects model. The response variable in the model was the natural-log transformed change in METH exposure parameters: AUCinf. The model contained fixed effects for treatment, day (categorical day postdose), natural-log transformed Day 1 baseline parameter and a treatment-by-day interaction, and a random effect for subject.|||||<|0.0001||||||Geometric LS Means Ratios of change in METH exposure for IXT-m200 compared to Placebo on Day 12. Threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Values were compared by a statistical analysis of change from Day 1 in METH PK parameters following IXT-m200 dosing. Geometric LS Mean change from Day 1 for each treatment on each day were calculated. Geometric LS Means Ratios of change in METH exposure for each dose level of IXT-m200 compared to Placebo on each Day 5 (primary), Day 12, Day 19 and Day 26 were calculated along with the 95% confidence intervals.||||<0.0001
91101215|NCT03336866|182088864|OTHER|The effect of IXT-m200 on METH exposure was evaluated with a linear mixed effects model. The response variable in the model was the natural-log transformed change in METH exposure parameters: AUCinf. The model contained fixed effects for treatment, day (categorical day postdose), natural-log transformed Day 1 baseline parameter and a treatment-by-day interaction, and a random effect for subject.|||||<|0.0001||||||Geometric LS Means Ratios of change in METH exposure for IXT-m200 compared to Placebo on Day 19 (primary). Threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Values were compared by a statistical analysis of change from Day 1 in METH PK parameters following IXT-m200 dosing. Geometric LS Mean change from Day 1 for each treatment on each day were calculated. Geometric LS Means Ratios of change in METH exposure for each dose level of IXT-m200 compared to Placebo on each Day 5 (primary), Day 12, Day 19 and Day 26 were calculated along with the 95% confidence intervals.||||<0.0001
91101216|NCT03336866|182088864|OTHER|The effect of IXT-m200 on METH exposure was evaluated with a linear mixed effects model. The response variable in the model was the natural-log transformed change in METH exposure parameters: AUCinf. The model contained fixed effects for treatment, day (categorical day postdose), natural-log transformed Day 1 baseline parameter and a treatment-by-day interaction, and a random effect for subject.|||||<|0.0001||||||Geometric LS Means Ratios of change in METH exposure for IXT-m200 compared to Placebo on Day 26. Threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Values were compared by a statistical analysis of change from Day 1 in METH PK parameters following IXT-m200 dosing. Geometric LS Mean change from Day 1 for each treatment on each day were calculated. Geometric LS Means Ratios of change in METH exposure for each dose level of IXT-m200 compared to Placebo on each Day 5 (primary), Day 12, Day 19 and Day 26 were calculated along with the 95% confidence intervals.||||<0.0001
91101217|NCT03336866|182088864|OTHER|The effect of IXT-m200 on METH exposure was evaluated with a linear mixed effects model. The response variable in the model was the natural-log transformed change in METH exposure parameters: AUCinf. The model contained fixed effects for treatment, day (categorical day postdose), natural-log transformed Day 1 baseline parameter and a treatment-by-day interaction, and a random effect for subject.|||||<|0.0001||||||Geometric LS Means Ratios of change in METH exposure for IXT-m200 compared to Placebo on Day 5 (primary). Threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Values were compared by a statistical analysis of change from Day 1 in METH PK parameters following IXT-m200 dosing. Geometric LS Mean change from Day 1 for each treatment on each day were calculated. Geometric LS Means Ratios of change in METH exposure for each dose level of IXT-m200 compared to Placebo on each Day 5 (primary), Day 12, Day 19 and Day 26 were calculated along with the 95% confidence intervals.||||<0.0001
91101218|NCT03336866|182088864|OTHER|The effect of IXT-m200 on METH exposure was evaluated with a linear mixed effects model. The response variable in the model was the natural-log transformed change in METH exposure parameters: AUCinf. The model contained fixed effects for treatment, day (categorical day postdose), natural-log transformed Day 1 baseline parameter and a treatment-by-day interaction, and a random effect for subject.|||||<|0.0001||||||Geometric LS Means Ratios of change in METH exposure for IXT-m200 compared to Placebo on Day 12. Threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Values were compared by a statistical analysis of change from Day 1 in METH PK parameters following IXT-m200 dosing. Geometric LS Mean change from Day 1 for each treatment on each day were calculated. Geometric LS Means Ratios of change in METH exposure for each dose level of IXT-m200 compared to Placebo on each Day 5 (primary), Day 12, Day 19 and Day 26 were calculated along with the 95% confidence intervals.||||<0.0001
91101219|NCT03336866|182088864|OTHER|The effect of IXT-m200 on METH exposure was evaluated with a linear mixed effects model. The response variable in the model was the natural-log transformed change in METH exposure parameters: AUCinf. The model contained fixed effects for treatment, day (categorical day postdose), natural-log transformed Day 1 baseline parameter and a treatment-by-day interaction, and a random effect for subject.|||||<|0.0001||||||Geometric LS Means Ratios of change in METH exposure for IXT-m200 compared to Placebo on Day 19. Threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Values were compared by a statistical analysis of change from Day 1 in METH PK parameters following IXT-m200 dosing. Geometric LS Mean change from Day 1 for each treatment on each day were calculated. Geometric LS Means Ratios of change in METH exposure for each dose level of IXT-m200 compared to Placebo on each Day 5 (primary), Day 12, Day 19 and Day 26 were calculated along with the 95% confidence intervals.||||<0.0001
91104497|NCT02037984|182094986|OTHER|PT18C Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT18C Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|9.5|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.5|-10.6|
90856539|NCT02788474|181577397|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.00066|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00282||0.8146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00621|0.00488||random coefficient regression (random slopes and intercepts) model including sex, age and height as covariates (Due to the low number of measurements per patient, baseline CRPM was included as a response rather than as a covariate in the analysis)|random coefficient regression|The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominators degrees of freedom.|Difference calculated as Nintedanib minus Placebo|"The rate of change (slope) in blood CRPM was assumed to be linear in each subject over the 12 weeks of treatment. The intercepts and slopes were assumed to be normally distributed with arbitrary covariance matrix.~Since the distribution of the data was not normal, a log10 transformation was performed before conducting the statistical analyses.~Significance tests were based on least-square means using 2-sided 95% confidence intervals (2-sided α=0.05)."||0.00488|-0.00621|0.8146
91101220|NCT03336866|182088864|OTHER|The effect of IXT-m200 on METH exposure was evaluated with a linear mixed effects model. The response variable in the model was the natural-log transformed change in METH exposure parameters: AUCinf. The model contained fixed effects for treatment, day (categorical day postdose), natural-log transformed Day 1 baseline parameter and a treatment-by-day interaction, and a random effect for subject.|||||<|0.0001||||||Geometric LS Means Ratios of change in METH exposure for IXT-m200 compared to Placebo on Day 26. Threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Values were compared by a statistical analysis of change from Day 1 in METH PK parameters following IXT-m200 dosing. Geometric LS Mean change from Day 1 for each treatment on each day were calculated. Geometric LS Means Ratios of change in METH exposure for each dose level of IXT-m200 compared to Placebo on each Day 5 (primary), Day 12, Day 19 and Day 26 were calculated along with the 95% confidence intervals.||||<0.0001
90856540|NCT02788474|181577398|OTHER||slope estimate|22.001||||0.2084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.83|57.58|||Regression, Logistic||Slope estimate is the monthly rate of change in CRPM up to week 12|To assess the association between disease progression (as defined by absolute forced vital capacity (FVC) decline \>=10% or death) and the change in the Extracellular matrix (ECM) biomarker CRPM in the first 12 weeks, a logistic regression analysis including baseline blood CRPM and the monthly rate of change (slope) in blood CRPM in the first 12 weeks as covariates was applied for placebo-treated patients only to evaluate the potential of CRPM as a prognostic biomarker.||57.58|-11.83|0.2084
91101221|NCT03336866|182088865|OTHER|The effect of IXT-m200 on METH exposure was evaluated with a linear mixed effects model. The response variable in the model was the natural-log transformed change in METH exposure parameters: Cmax. The model contained fixed effects for treatment, day (categorical day postdose), natural-log transformed Day 1 baseline parameter and a treatment-by-day interaction, and a random effect for subject.|||||<|0.0001||||||Geometric LS Means Ratios of change in METH exposure for IXT-m200 compared to Placebo on Day 5 (primary). Threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Values were compared by a statistical analysis of change from Day 1 in METH PK parameters following IXT-m200 dosing. Geometric LS Mean change from Day 1 for each treatment on each day were calculated. Geometric LS Means Ratios of change in METH exposure for each dose level of IXT-m200 compared to Placebo on each Day 5 (primary), Day 12, Day 19 and Day 26 were calculated along with the 95% confidence intervals.||||<0.0001
90856541|NCT02788474|181577398|OTHER||slope estimate|-45.566||||0.1537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-109.55|16.37|||Regression, Logistic||Slope estimate is the monthly rate of change in CRPM up to week 12|To assess how nintedanib treatment affected the association between disease progression (as defined by absolute forced vital capacity (FVC) decline \>=10% or death) and the change in CRPM in the first 12 weeks, a logistic regression analysis including baseline blood CRPM, the monthly rate of change (slope) in blood CRPM up to Week 12, treatment and treatment-CRPM slope interaction as covariates was applied.||16.37|-109.55|0.1537
90856542|NCT02788474|181577398|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.769||||0.3116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.27|||Regression, Logistic|||To assess whether the overall treatment regimen affected disease progression (as defined by absolute forced vital capacity (FVC) decline \>=10% or death), a logistic regression analysis including baseline blood CRPM and randomised treatment as covariates was applied.||1.27|0.46|0.3116
90856543|NCT02788474|181577398|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.772||||0.3175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.27|||Regression, Logistic|||To assess whether the monthly rate of change (slope) in blood CRPM in the first 12 weeks could explain the effect of treatment on disease progression (as defined by absolute forced vital capacity (FVC) decline \>=10% or death), a logistic regression analysis including baseline blood CRPM, the rate of change (slope) in blood CRPM in the first 12 weeks and randomised treatment as covariates was applied.||1.27|0.46|0.3175
90856544|NCT02788474|181577399|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.00121|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.002||0.5469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00273|0.00515||random coefficient regression model (C1M (negative reciprocal root-transformed)) with fixed effects for gender, age, height and random effect of patient specific intercept and time.|random coefficient regression||Difference calculated as Nintedanib minus Placebo. Inter-individual variability is modelled by a Variance-Components variance-covariance matrix.|"The rate of change (slope) in blood C1M was assumed to be linear in each subject over the 12 weeks of treatment.~Within-patient errors are modelled by an Unstructured variance-covariance matrix."||0.00515|-0.00273|0.5469
90856545|NCT02788474|181577400|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.00307|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00262||0.2429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00823|0.00209||random coefficient regression model (C3M (log10-transformed)) with fixed effects for gender, age, height and random effect of patient specific intercept and time.|random coefficient regression||Difference calculated as Nintedanib minus Placebo. Inter-individual variability is modelled by a Variance-Components variance-covariance matrix.|"The rate of change (slope) in blood C3M was assumed to be linear in each subject over the 12 weeks of treatment.~Within-patient errors are modelled by an Unstructured variance-covariance matrix."||0.00209|-0.00823|0.2429
90856546|NCT04718103|181577483|SUPERIORITY|Analysis performed using a generalized linear model assuming a negative binomial distribution and covariates of treatment group, baseline ICS dose (medium or high), exacerbation history (2, 3, 4+), geographical region and baseline pre-bronchodilator percent predicted Forced Expiratory Volume in one second (FEV1) and offset of log (total time in the study in years).|Rate Ratio|0.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.73|||Negative Binomial Distribution|||To demonstrate the superiority of GSK3511294 100 mg SC + SoC following two doses (at Week 0 and at Week 26) compared with placebo + SoC, assessed by the annualized rate of clinically significant exacerbations measured over the study intervention period of 52 weeks.||0.73|0.36|<0.001
90856547|NCT04718103|181577484|SUPERIORITY||Least-square (LS) means|-2.31||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.84|1.23|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||To demonstrate the superiority of GSK3511294 100 mg SC + SoC following two doses (at Week 0 and at Week 26) compared with placebo + SoC, assessed by SGRQ Total Score measured over the study intervention period of 52 weeks.||1.23|-5.84|0.200
90903603|NCT03657264|181674421|NON_INFERIORITY|The upper limit of the 90% confidence interval was expected lower to the margin of 10 milliseconds for all tests.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.76|2.08||p-value is not shown, as this is a non-inferiority study.|ANCOVA|Each timepoint was tested through a separate model.||For the timepoint 20 min||2.08|-1.76|
90903604|NCT03657264|181674421|NON_INFERIORITY|The upper limit of the 90% confidence interval was expected lower to the margin of 10 milliseconds for all tests.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.09|2.35||p-value is not shown, as this is a non-inferiority study.|ANCOVA|Each timepoint was tested through a separate model.||For the timepoint 30 min||2.35|-1.09|
91031519|NCT04455633|181947522|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.249||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|-0.18|||MMRM model|||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) model included fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-week interaction, the randomization stratum of Baseline pain severity (moderate, severe), and the Baseline ADPS score as a covariate.||-0.18|-1.16|0.007
91101222|NCT03336866|182088865|OTHER|The effect of IXT-m200 on METH exposure was evaluated with a linear mixed effects model. The response variable in the model was the natural-log transformed change in METH exposure parameters: Cmax. The model contained fixed effects for treatment, day (categorical day postdose), natural-log transformed Day 1 baseline parameter and a treatment-by-day interaction, and a random effect for subject.|||||<|0.0001||||||Geometric LS Means Ratios of change in METH exposure for IXT-m200 compared to Placebo on Day 12. Threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Values were compared by a statistical analysis of change from Day 1 in METH PK parameters following IXT-m200 dosing. Geometric LS Mean change from Day 1 for each treatment on each day were calculated. Geometric LS Means Ratios of change in METH exposure for each dose level of IXT-m200 compared to Placebo on each Day 5 (primary), Day 12, Day 19 and Day 26 were calculated along with the 95% confidence intervals.||||<0.0001
91104498|NCT02037984|182094986|OTHER|PT19A Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT19A Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|9.5|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.5|-10.6|
91104499|NCT02037984|182094986|OTHER|PT19F Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT19F Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|9.5|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.5|-10.6|
90856548|NCT04718103|181577485|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least-Square Mean|-0.11||||0.333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.11|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment group, baseline ICS dose (medium or high), exacerbation history (2, 3, 4+), geographical region, baseline ACQ-5 score, baseline pre-bronchodilator percent predicted FEV1, visit, visit by baseline ACQ-5 score and visit by treatment group.||0.11|-0.33|0.333
90856549|NCT04718103|181577486|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least-Square Means|0.056||||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.043|0.154|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment group, baseline ICS dose (medium or high), exacerbation history (2, 3, 4+), geographical region, baseline pre-bronchodilator FEV1, visit, visit by baseline pre-bronchodilator FEV1 and visit by treatment group.||0.154|-0.043|0.267
90856550|NCT04718103|181577487|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least square means|-0.21||||0.173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.09|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment group, baseline ICS dose (medium or high), exacerbation history (2, 3, 4+), geographical region, baseline ANSD weekly mean score, baseline pre-bronchodilator percent predicted FEV1, visit, visit by baseline ANSD weekly mean score and visit by treatment group.||0.09|-0.52|0.173
90856551|NCT04718103|181577488|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least square means|-0.21||||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.07|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment group, baseline ICS dose (medium or high), exacerbation history (2, 3, 4+), geographical region, baseline ADSD weekly mean score, baseline pre-bronchodilator percent predicted FEV1, visit, visit by baseline ADSD weekly mean score and visit by treatment group.||0.07|-0.48|0.138
90856552|NCT04718103|181577489|SUPERIORITY|Analysis performed using a generalized linear model assuming a negative binomial distribution and covariates of treatment group, baseline ICS dose (medium or high), exacerbation history (2, 3, 4+), geographical region and baseline pre-bronchodilator percent predicted FEV1.|Rate Ratio|0.42||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.13|||Negative binomial distribution|||||1.13|0.16|0.087
90856553|NCT02017171|181577493|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.001||||0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.9||p value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons, a priori threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|linear model for correlated errors||Treatment difference = Allopurinol-Placebo|||1.9|-1.9|0.999
90856554|NCT02017171|181577494|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.2||For secondary outcomes, 95% confidence intervals are reported, without P values. The confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity and should not be used to infer treatment effects.|||Treatment difference = Allopurinol - Placebo|||2.2|-1.6|
90856555|NCT02017171|181577495|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|2.3||For secondary outcomes, 95% confidence intervals are reported, without P values. The confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity and should not be used to infer treatment effects.|||Treatment difference = Allopurinol - Placebo|||2.3|-1.7|
90903605|NCT03657264|181674421|NON_INFERIORITY|The upper limit of the 90% confidence interval was expected lower to the margin of 10 milliseconds for all tests.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.88|2.25||p-value is not shown, as this is a non-inferiority study.|ANCOVA|Each timepoint was tested through a separate model.||For the timepoint 1 hour||2.25|-1.88|
90856556|NCT02017171|181577496|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.4||For secondary outcomes, 95% confidence intervals are reported, without P values.|||Treatment difference = Allopurinol - Placebo. Confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity and should not be used to infer treatment effects.|||0.4|-1.5|
91031520|NCT04455633|181947522|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.254||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.05|||MMRM model|||MMRM model included fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-week interaction, the randomization stratum of Baseline pain severity (moderate, severe), and the Baseline ADPS score as a covariate.||-0.05|-1.06|0.030
91031521|NCT04455633|181947523|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Responders|9.6||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|20.76|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage of responders were analyzed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the randomization factor of Baseline severity score (moderate, severe). The 95% confidence interval (CI) are calculated using the asymptotic Wald method. Missing observations at Week 6 are imputed as nonresponses.||20.76|-1.55|0.091
90903606|NCT03657264|181674421|NON_INFERIORITY|The upper limit of the 90% confidence interval was expected lower to the margin of 10 milliseconds for all tests.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.47|2.37||p-value is not shown, as this is a non-inferiority study.|ANCOVA|Each timepoint was tested through a separate model.||For the timepoint 1.5 hours||2.37|-1.47|
91101223|NCT03336866|182088865|OTHER|The effect of IXT-m200 on METH exposure was evaluated with a linear mixed effects model. The response variable in the model was the natural-log transformed change in METH exposure parameters: Cmax. The model contained fixed effects for treatment, day (categorical day postdose), natural-log transformed Day 1 baseline parameter and a treatment-by-day interaction, and a random effect for subject.|||||<|0.0001||||||Geometric LS Means Ratios of change in METH exposure for IXT-m200 compared to Placebo on Day 19. Threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Values were compared by a statistical analysis of change from Day 1 in METH PK parameters following IXT-m200 dosing. Geometric LS Mean change from Day 1 for each treatment on each day were calculated. Geometric LS Means Ratios of change in METH exposure for each dose level of IXT-m200 compared to Placebo on each Day 5 (primary), Day 12, Day 19 and Day 26 were calculated along with the 95% confidence intervals.||||<0.0001
91101224|NCT03336866|182088865|OTHER|The effect of IXT-m200 on METH exposure was evaluated with a linear mixed effects model. The response variable in the model was the natural-log transformed change in METH exposure parameters: Cmax. The model contained fixed effects for treatment, day (categorical day postdose), natural-log transformed Day 1 baseline parameter and a treatment-by-day interaction, and a random effect for subject.|||||<|0.0001||||||Geometric LS Means Ratios of change in METH exposure for IXT-m200 compared to Placebo on Day 26. Threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Values were compared by a statistical analysis of change from Day 1 in METH PK parameters following IXT-m200 dosing. Geometric LS Mean change from Day 1 for each treatment on each day were calculated. Geometric LS Means Ratios of change in METH exposure for each dose level of IXT-m200 compared to Placebo on each Day 5 (primary), Day 12, Day 19 and Day 26 were calculated along with the 95% confidence intervals.||||<0.0001
91104500|NCT02037984|182094986|OTHER|PT23F Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT23F Percentage Point Difference|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5|6.7|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||6.7|-15.5|
90856557|NCT02017171|181577497|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.5||For secondary outcomes, 95% confidence intervals are reported, without P values.|||Treatment difference = Allopurinol - Placebo. Confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity and should not be used to infer treatment effects.|||0.5|-1.0|
90856558|NCT02017171|181577498|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.9||For secondary outcomes, 95% confidence intervals are reported, without P values.|||Hazard ratio = Allopurinol / Placebo. Confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity and should not be used to infer treatment effects.|||2.9|0.5|
90903607|NCT03657264|181674421|NON_INFERIORITY|The upper limit of the 90% confidence interval was expected lower to the margin of 10 milliseconds for all tests.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.99|1.92||p-value is not shown, as this is a non-inferiority study.|ANCOVA|Each timepoint was tested through a separate model.||For the timepoint 2 hours||1.92|-1.99|
90903608|NCT03657264|181674421|NON_INFERIORITY|The upper limit of the 90% confidence interval was expected lower to the margin of 10 milliseconds for all tests.|Least Squares Mean Difference|2.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.23|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.35|4.43||p-value is not shown, as this is a non-inferiority study.|ANCOVA|Each timepoint was tested through a separate model.||For the timepoint 3 hours||4.43|0.35|
90903609|NCT03657264|181674421|NON_INFERIORITY|The upper limit of the 90% confidence interval was expected lower to the margin of 10 milliseconds for all tests.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.57|2.12||p-value is not shown, as this is a non-inferiority study.|ANCOVA|Each timepoint was tested through a separate model.||For the timepoint 4 hours||2.12|-1.57|
90903610|NCT03657264|181674421|NON_INFERIORITY|The upper limit of the 90% confidence interval was expected lower to the margin of 10 milliseconds for all tests.|Least Squares Mean Difference|1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.15|3.37||p-value is not shown, as this is a non-inferiority study.|ANCOVA|Each timepoint was tested through a separate model.||For the timepoint 8 hours||3.37|-1.15|
90958550|NCT00598273|181796927|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A non-inferiority margin of -1.0 g/dL was used in the primary efficacy assessments. Non-inferiority was established if the lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% confidence interval for the difference between the means of the primary endpoint (peginesatide minus control ESA) was ≥ -1.0 g/dL.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.098|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.04|0.48|||ANOVA|The ANOVA cell means model was used to estimate primary efficacy endpoint within the specified cells formed by the combination of treatment and strata||The sample size for this study was determined based on a two-group evaluation of non-inferiority in means with a non-inferiority margin (Δ) of -1.0 g/dL (one-sided significance level of 0.0125, or, comparably, a two-sided significance level of 0.025). A sample size of 450 (150 per treatment group) provided power greater than 99% for the evaluation of non-inferiority, assuming an expected treatment difference of 0.0 g/dL and a pooled standard deviation of 1.5 g/dL.||0.48|0.04|
90856559|NCT02017171|181577499|SUPERIORITY||Ratio (Final Values)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.8||For secondary outcomes, 95% confidence intervals are reported, without P values.|||Ratio = Allopurinol / Placebo. Confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity and should not be used to infer treatment effects.|||1.8|1.0|
90903611|NCT03657264|181674421|NON_INFERIORITY|The upper limit of the 90% confidence interval was expected lower to the margin of 10 milliseconds for all tests.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.52|2.14||p-value is not shown, as this is a non-inferiority study.|ANCOVA|Each timepoint was tested through a separate model.||For the timepoint 24 hours||2.14|-1.52|
90903612|NCT03657264|181674421|NON_INFERIORITY|The upper limit of the 90% confidence interval was expected lower to the margin of 10 milliseconds for all tests.|Least Squares Mean Difference|4.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.19|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.84|6.78||p-value is not shown, as this is a non-inferiority study.|ANCOVA|Each timepoint was tested through a separate model.||For the timepoint 5 min||6.78|2.84|
90903613|NCT03657264|181674421|NON_INFERIORITY|The upper limit of the 90% confidence interval was expected lower to the margin of 10 milliseconds for all tests.|Least Squares Mean Difference|1.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.12|3.73||p-value is not shown, as this is a non-inferiority study.|ANCOVA|Each timepoint was tested through a separate model.||For the timepoint 10 min||3.73|0.12|
90958551|NCT00598273|181796928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|3.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.10|0.51|
90856560|NCT02017171|181577500|SUPERIORITY||Ratio (Final Values)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.6||For secondary outcomes, 95% confidence intervals are reported, without P values.|||||Ratio = Allopurinol / Placebo. Confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity and should not be used to infer treatment effects.|1.6|1.0|
90856561|NCT02017171|181577501|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|4.5||For secondary outcomes, 95% confidence intervals are reported, without P values.|||Hazard Ratio = Allopurinol / Placebo. Confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity and should not be used to infer treatment effects.|||4.5|0.8|
90856562|NCT02220998|181577502|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A sample size of 120 per treatment group provided 90% power to establish non-inferiority in the SVR12 rates between the SOF/VEL group and the SOF+RBV group. It was based on the assumptions that the non-inferiority margin is 10%, both groups have a SVR12 rate of 94%, and the significance level is 0.025 one-sided.|Difference in proportions|5.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|10.3|||||Difference in proportions between treatment groups and associated 95% confidence intervals (CI) are calculated based on stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel proportions.|||10.3|0.2|
90856563|NCT02220998|181577502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018||||||P-value was stratified by cirrhosis status and prior treatment experience.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The superiority of SOF/VEL for 12 weeks over SOF+RBV for 12 weeks was to be tested if the efficacy of SOF/VEL for 12 weeks was demonstrated to be statistically noninferior to SOF+RBV for 12 weeks (ie, if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the strata-adjusted difference in the proportions between groups was greater than the prespecified noninferiority margin of -10%).||||0.018
90856564|NCT00873860|181577511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.573||||||Change at Day 92: p-value was based on analysis of variance (ANOVA).|ANOVA|||||||0.573
90856565|NCT00873860|181577511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64||||||Change at Day 92: p-value was based on ANOVA.|ANOVA|||||||0.640
90856566|NCT00873860|181577511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.224||||||Change at Day 92: p-value was based on ANOVA.|ANOVA|||||||0.224
90856567|NCT00873860|181577512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4686||||||Day 1 to 92: P-value was calculated against placebo group from a stratified log-rank test with atopic asthma status and tertile of baseline mean ACQ score as the stratification factors.|Log Rank|||P-value were calculated with log-rank test, which was constructed by computing the observed and expected number of events (defined as achieving improvement from baseline in mean ACQ-6 score \>= 0.5) at each observed event time and added to obtain an overall summary across all-time points where there was an event. Number of events was different for data through Day 92 comparing with data through Day 169. Therefore, the p-values were different for data through Day 92 and Day 169.||||0.4686
90856568|NCT00873860|181577512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.317||||||Day 1 to 92: P-value was calculated against placebo group from a stratified log-rank test with atopic asthma status and tertile of baseline mean ACQ score as the stratification factors.|Log Rank|||P-value were calculated with log-rank test, which was constructed by computing the observed and expected number of events (defined as achieving improvement from baseline in mean ACQ-6 score \>= 0.5) at each observed event time and added to obtain an overall summary across all-time points where there was an event. Number of events was different for data through Day 92 comparing with data through Day 169. Therefore, the p-values were different for data through Day 92 and Day 169.||||0.3170
90856569|NCT00873860|181577512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1664||||||Day 1 to 92: P-value was calculated against placebo group from a stratified log-rank test with atopic asthma status and tertile of baseline mean ACQ score as the stratification factors.|Log Rank|||P-value were calculated with log-rank test, which was constructed by computing the observed and expected number of events (defined as achieving improvement from baseline in mean ACQ-6 score \>= 0.5) at each observed event time and added to obtain an overall summary across all-time points where there was an event. Number of events was different for data through Day 92 comparing with data through Day 169. Therefore, the p-values were different for data through Day 92 and Day 169.||||0.1664
90903614|NCT03657264|181674421|NON_INFERIORITY|The upper limit of the 90% confidence interval was expected lower to the margin of 10 milliseconds for all tests.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.71|2.12||p-value is not shown, as this is a non-inferiority study.|ANCOVA|Each timepoint was tested through a separate model.||For the timepoint 20 min||2.12|-1.71|
90903615|NCT03657264|181674421|NON_INFERIORITY|The upper limit of the 90% confidence interval was expected lower to the margin of 10 milliseconds for all tests.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.29|2.15||p-value is not shown, as this is a non-inferiority study.|ANCOVA|Each timepoint was tested through a separate model.||For the timepoint 30 min||2.15|-1.29|
91104501|NCT02037984|182094986|OTHER|non-PT22F Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|non-PT22F Percentage Point Difference|89.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|75.2|95.7|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||95.7|75.2|
90903616|NCT03657264|181674421|NON_INFERIORITY|The upper limit of the 90% confidence interval was expected lower to the margin of 10 milliseconds for all tests.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.6|2.53||p-value is not shown, as this is a non-inferiority study.|ANCOVA|Each timepoint was tested through a separate model.||For the timepoint 1 hour||2.53|-1.60|
90903617|NCT03657264|181674421|NON_INFERIORITY|The upper limit of the 90% confidence interval was expected lower to the margin of 10 milliseconds for all tests.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.03|0.81||p-value is not shown, as this is a non-inferiority study.|ANCOVA|Each timepoint was tested through a separate model.||For the timepoint 1.5 hours||0.81|-3.03|
90903618|NCT03657264|181674421|NON_INFERIORITY|The upper limit of the 90% confidence interval was expected lower to the margin of 10 milliseconds for all tests.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.13|0.78||p-value is not shown, as this is a non-inferiority study.|ANCOVA|Each timepoint was tested through a separate model.||For the timepoint 2 hours||0.78|-3.13|
90958552|NCT00598273|181796928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|3.56|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.56|0.62|
90958553|NCT00598273|181796929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.05|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.05|0.94|
90958554|NCT00598273|181796929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.06|0.95|
91104502|NCT02037984|182094986|OTHER|non-PT33F Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|non-PT33F Percentage Point Difference|97.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|85.7|99.5|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||99.5|85.7|
91101225|NCT03336866|182088865|OTHER|The effect of IXT-m200 on METH exposure was evaluated with a linear mixed effects model. The response variable in the model was the natural-log transformed change in METH exposure parameters: Cmax. The model contained fixed effects for treatment, day (categorical day postdose), natural-log transformed Day 1 baseline parameter and a treatment-by-day interaction, and a random effect for subject.|||||<|0.0001||||||Geometric LS Means Ratios of change in METH exposure for IXT-m200 compared to Placebo on Day 5 (primary). Threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Values were compared by a statistical analysis of change from Day 1 in METH PK parameters following IXT-m200 dosing. Geometric LS Mean change from Day 1 for each treatment on each day were calculated. Geometric LS Means Ratios of change in METH exposure for each dose level of IXT-m200 compared to Placebo on each Day 5 (primary), Day 12, Day 19 and Day 26 were calculated along with the 95% confidence intervals.||||<0.0001
91101226|NCT03336866|182088865|OTHER|The effect of IXT-m200 on METH exposure was evaluated with a linear mixed effects model. The response variable in the model was the natural-log transformed change in METH exposure parameters: Cmax. The model contained fixed effects for treatment, day (categorical day postdose), natural-log transformed Day 1 baseline parameter and a treatment-by-day interaction, and a random effect for subject.|||||<|0.0001||||||Geometric LS Means Ratios of change in METH exposure for IXT-m200 compared to Placebo on Day 12. Threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Values were compared by a statistical analysis of change from Day 1 in METH PK parameters following IXT-m200 dosing. Geometric LS Mean change from Day 1 for each treatment on each day were calculated. Geometric LS Means Ratios of change in METH exposure for each dose level of IXT-m200 compared to Placebo on each Day 5 (primary), Day 12, Day 19 and Day 26 were calculated along with the 95% confidence intervals.||||<0.0001
91101227|NCT03336866|182088865|OTHER|The effect of IXT-m200 on METH exposure was evaluated with a linear mixed effects model. The response variable in the model was the natural-log transformed change in METH exposure parameters: Cmax. The model contained fixed effects for treatment, day (categorical day postdose), natural-log transformed Day 1 baseline parameter and a treatment-by-day interaction, and a random effect for subject.|||||<|0.0001||||||Geometric LS Means Ratios of change in METH exposure for IXT-m200 compared to Placebo on Day 19. Threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Values were compared by a statistical analysis of change from Day 1 in METH PK parameters following IXT-m200 dosing. Geometric LS Mean change from Day 1 for each treatment on each day were calculated. Geometric LS Means Ratios of change in METH exposure for each dose level of IXT-m200 compared to Placebo on each Day 5 (primary), Day 12, Day 19 and Day 26 were calculated along with the 95% confidence intervals.||||<0.0001
91101228|NCT00032487|182088876|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The statistical analysis tested was for equivalence. We assumed 86% power with 21% of effect size and the sample size 1700 with 5% drop out rate.|Cox Proportional Hazard|0.79|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.99|||Log Rank|||It was hypothesized 21% reduction in intensive glycemic control group compared to standard control group on primary cardiovascular composite outcomes.||.99|.79|<0.05
91101229|NCT01125748|182088895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|33.6||||||||33.6|5.0|
91101230|NCT01028391|182088897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0||||95.0|-0.76|-0.26|||||This is a difference in least squares means, based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and baseline (i.e., Week 0 of the 24-week base study) HbA1c.|||-0.26|-0.76|
91101231|NCT01028391|182088898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0||||95.0|-16.3|-0.7|||||This is a difference in least squares means, based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and baseline (i.e., Week 0 of the 24-week base study) FPG.|||-0.7|-16.3|
91101232|NCT01107457|182088899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.079|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.079
91101233|NCT01107457|182088899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91101234|NCT01107457|182088899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91101235|NCT01107457|182088899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91101236|NCT01107457|182088900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
90856570|NCT00873860|181577512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3234||||||Day 1 to 169: P-value was calculated against placebo group from a stratified log-rank test with atopic asthma status and tertile of baseline mean ACQ score as the stratification factors.|Log Rank|||P-value were calculated with log-rank test, which was constructed by computing the observed and expected number of events (defined as achieving improvement from baseline in mean ACQ-6 score \>= 0.5) at each observed event time and added to obtain an overall summary across all-time points where there was an event. Number of events was different for data through Day 92 comparing with data through Day 169. Therefore, the p-values were different for data through Day 92 and Day 169.||||0.3234
90856571|NCT00873860|181577512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3133||||||Day 1 to 169: P-value was calculated against placebo group from a stratified log-rank test with atopic asthma status and tertile of baseline mean ACQ score as the stratification factors.|Log Rank|||P-value were calculated with log-rank test, which was constructed by computing the observed and expected number of events (defined as achieving improvement from baseline in mean ACQ-6 score \>= 0.5) at each observed event time and added to obtain an overall summary across all-time points where there was an event. Number of events was different for data through Day 92 comparing with data through Day 169. Therefore, the p-values were different for data through Day 92 and Day 169.||||0.3133
90856572|NCT00873860|181577512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2108||||||Day 1 to 169: P-value was calculated against placebo group from a stratified log-rank test with atopic asthma status and tertile of baseline mean ACQ score as the stratification factors.|Log Rank|||P-value were calculated with log-rank test, which was constructed by computing the observed and expected number of events (defined as achieving improvement from baseline in mean ACQ-6 score \>= 0.5) at each observed event time and added to obtain an overall summary across all-time points where there was an event. Number of events was different for data through Day 92 comparing with data through Day 169. Therefore, the p-values were different for data through Day 92 and Day 169.||||0.2108
90856573|NCT00873860|181577519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.934||||||ACQ score \<=0.75, Day 92: Fisher exact test was used to compare all arms.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.934
91101237|NCT01107457|182088900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91101238|NCT01107457|182088900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91101239|NCT01107457|182088900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91101240|NCT01227395|182088979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.696|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Age. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between \<65 years and \>=65 years  in the frequency of Treatment Related Adverse Events(TRAEs)."||||=0.696
91101241|NCT01227395|182088980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.334|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Gender. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between Male and Female  in the frequency of Treatment Related Adverse Events(TRAEs)."||||=0.334
91101242|NCT01227395|182088981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was concomitant drugs. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without concomitant drugs  in the frequency of Treatment Related Adverse Events(TRAEs)."||||=1.000
91101243|NCT01227395|182088982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Renal Dysfunction. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without renal dysfunction  in the frequency of Treatment Related Adverse Events(TRAEs)."||||=1.000
91101244|NCT01227395|182088983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.015|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Allergies. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without allergies in the frequency of Treatment Related Adverse Events(TRAEs)."||||=0.015
90856574|NCT00873860|181577519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.592||||||ACQ score \<=0.75, Day 169: Fisher exact test was used to compare all arms.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.592
90856575|NCT00873860|181577524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||Day 92: Fisher exact test was used for the analysis.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
90856576|NCT00873860|181577524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6022||||||Day 92: Fisher exact test was used for the analysis.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.6022
90856577|NCT00873860|181577524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||Day 92: Fisher exact test was used for the analysis.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
90856578|NCT00873860|181577524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||Day 169: Fisher exact test was used for the analysis.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
90856579|NCT00873860|181577524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||Day 169: Fisher exact test was used for the analysis.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
90856580|NCT00873860|181577524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||Day 169: Fisher exact test was used for the analysis.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
90856581|NCT00873860|181577525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.551||||||Day 1 to 92: P-value was calculated against placebo group from Van Elteren Test.|Van Elteren Test|||||||0.551
90856582|NCT00873860|181577525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.492||||||Day 1 to 92: P-value was calculated against placebo group from Van Elteren Test.|Van Elteren Test|||||||0.492
90856583|NCT00873860|181577525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.983||||||Day 1 to 92: P-value was calculated against placebo group from Van Elteren Test.|Van Elteren Test|||||||0.983
90856584|NCT00873860|181577525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.991||||||Day 1 to 169: P-value was calculated against placebo group from Van Elteren Test.|Van Elteren Test|||||||0.991
90856585|NCT00873860|181577525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9||||||Day 1 to 169: P-value was calculated against placebo group from Van Elteren Test.|Van Elteren Test|||||||0.900
90856586|NCT00873860|181577525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.673||||||Day 1 to 169: P-value was calculated against placebo group from Van Elteren Test.|Van Elteren Test|||||||0.673
91101245|NCT01227395|182088984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Age. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between \<65 years and \>=65 years  in the frequency of Treatment Related Adverse Events(TRAEs)."||||=1.000
90856587|NCT00873860|181577526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.546||||||Day 1 to 92: P-value was calculated against placebo group from a stratified log-rank test with atopic asthma status and tertile of baseline mean ACQ score as the stratification factors.|Log Rank|||||||0.546
90856588|NCT00873860|181577526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.534||||||Day 1 to 92: P-value was calculated against placebo group from a stratified log-rank test with atopic asthma status and tertile of baseline mean ACQ score as the stratification factors.|Log Rank|||||||0.534
90856589|NCT00873860|181577526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.847||||||Day 1 to 92: P-value was calculated against placebo group from a stratified log-rank test with atopic asthma status and tertile of baseline mean ACQ score as the stratification factors.|Log Rank|||||||0.847
90856590|NCT00873860|181577526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.987||||||Day 1 to 169: P-value was calculated against placebo group from a stratified log-rank test with atopic asthma status and tertile of baseline mean ACQ score as the stratification factors.|Log Rank|||||||0.987
90856591|NCT00873860|181577526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.992||||||Day 1 to 169: P-value was calculated against placebo group from a stratified log-rank test with atopic asthma status and tertile of baseline mean ACQ score as the stratification factors.|Log Rank|||||||0.992
90856592|NCT00873860|181577526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.688||||||Day 1 to 169: P-value was calculated against placebo group from a stratified log-rank test with atopic asthma status and tertile of baseline mean ACQ score as the stratification factors.|Log Rank|||||||0.688
90856593|NCT00945854|181577582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
91101246|NCT01227395|182088985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.29|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Gender. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between Male and Female  in the frequency of Treatment Related Adverse Events(TRAEs)."||||=0.290
91101247|NCT01227395|182088986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Renal Dysfunction. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without renal dysfunction  in the frequency of Treatment Related Adverse Events(TRAEs)."||||=0.003
91101248|NCT01227395|182088987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.707|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Allergies. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without allergies in the frequency of Treatment Related Adverse Events(TRAEs)."||||=0.707
91104503|NCT02037984|182094987|OTHER|PT1 Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT1 Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|9.5|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.5|-10.3|
91104504|NCT02037984|182094987|OTHER|PT3 Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT3 Percentage Point Difference|18.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|35.5|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||35.5|1.7|
91104505|NCT02037984|182094987|OTHER|PT4 Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT4 Percentage Point Difference|-14.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.4|-1.2|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||-1.2|-31.4|
91101249|NCT00809146|182089016|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assay sensitivity established by extensive review of lorazepam efficacy data. Noninferiority margin of 10% established by both clinical and statistical reasoning.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.16|||one-sided z statistic|||The null hypothesis of inferiority was tested with a one-sided z statistic. Sample size was estimated assuming independent proportions, 2 interim analyses, 70% control event rate; 90% power; a noninferiority margin of 10%; and a 1-sided test with type I error probability of 0.025. A sample size of 890 (445 per treatment group) was inflated by 15% (1024 subjects) to account for inadvertent repeated enrollment of the same subjects. Repeated enrollments of the same subject were not analyzed.||0.16|0.04|<0.001
91101250|NCT00809146|182089017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.34||||||||1.34|0.70|
91101251|NCT00809146|182089018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.98||||||||0.98|0.79|
90856594|NCT00495131|181577605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: no difference between 2 groups SVR estimation: 24 weeks (60%), 48 weeks (75%) alfa erros: 0.05, power: 0.80||||< 0.001
90856595|NCT01539317|181577608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0149|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Phase II: During Blinded 4 weeks||||0.0149
90903619|NCT03657264|181674421|NON_INFERIORITY|The upper limit of the 90% confidence interval was expected lower to the margin of 10 milliseconds for all tests.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.23|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.36|0.71||p-value is not shown, as this is a non-inferiority study.|ANCOVA|Each timepoint was tested through a separate model.||For the timepoint 3 hours||0.71|-3.36|
90903620|NCT03657264|181674421|NON_INFERIORITY|The upper limit of the 90% confidence interval was expected lower to the margin of 10 milliseconds for all tests.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.69|1.0||p-value is not shown, as this is a non-inferiority study.|ANCOVA|Each timepoint was tested through a separate model.||For the timepoint 4 hours||1.00|-2.69|
90903621|NCT03657264|181674421|NON_INFERIORITY|The upper limit of the 90% confidence interval was expected lower to the margin of 10 milliseconds for all tests.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.19|0.32||p-value is not shown, as this is a non-inferiority study.|ANCOVA|Each timepoint was tested through a separate model.||For the timepoint 8 hours||0.32|-4.19|
91101252|NCT00809146|182089019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.95||||||||0.95|0.65|
91101253|NCT00809146|182089020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.56||||||All participants were included in this analysis of rate of recurrence because this is the most clinically relevant denominator, although, by definition, only participants who stopped could have recurrent seizures.||1.56|0.74|
91031522|NCT04455633|181947523|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Responders|-0.8||||0.883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.95|9.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage of responders were analyzed using the CMH test stratified by the randomization factor of Baseline severity score (moderate, severe). The 95% CI are calculated using the asymptotic Wald method. Missing observations at Week 6 are imputed as nonresponses.||9.40|-10.95|0.883
91101254|NCT00809146|182089021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.98||||||||1.98|0.42|
91101255|NCT00809146|182089022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|10.7||||||||10.70|0.30|
91101256|NCT00809146|182089024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.09
90856596|NCT01539317|181577608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.412|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Phase III||||0.412
90958555|NCT01323972|181796955|OTHER||GMT ratio|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.65|||||Consistency was demonstrated if one month post Dose 3, the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio between all pairs of lots were within \[0.5, 2\].|Demonstration of the lot-to-lot consistency between GSK 257049-Lot 1 and GSK 257049-Lot 2 in terms of anti-Circumsporozoite (anti-CS) immunogenicity.||1.65|1.06|
91101257|NCT00809146|182089025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.11
91101258|NCT01348490|182089026|OTHER|1-sample t-test with null hypothesis mean \>= 0||||||0.025||||||1-sample t-test was used.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0250
91101259|NCT01348490|182089026|OTHER|1-sample t-test with null hypothesis mean \>= 0||||||0.0163||||||1-sample t-test was used.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0163
90856597|NCT01539317|181577609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Desire||||0.66
91101260|NCT01348490|182089026|OTHER|1-sample t-test with null hypothesis mean \>= 0|||||<|0.0001||||||1-sample t-test was used.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
90856598|NCT01539317|181577609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Arousal (S)||||0.11
91101261|NCT01348490|182089026|OTHER|1-sample t-test with null hypothesis mean \>= 0||||||0.2019||||||1-sample t-test was used.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.2019
91101262|NCT01348490|182089027|OTHER|||||||0.6887||||||1-sample t-test was used.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.6887
91101263|NCT01348490|182089027|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||1-sample t-test was used.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
91101264|NCT01348490|182089027|OTHER|||||||0.8701||||||1-sample t-test was used.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.8701
91101265|NCT01348490|182089031|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||1-sample t-test was used.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
90856599|NCT01539317|181577609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Arousal (L)||||0.15
90856600|NCT01539317|181577609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Arousal (C)||||0.28
90856601|NCT01539317|181577609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Orgasm||||0.07
90856602|NCT01539317|181577609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Pain||||0.004
90856603|NCT01539317|181577609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Enjoyment||||0.54
90903622|NCT03657264|181674421|NON_INFERIORITY|The upper limit of the 90% confidence interval was expected lower to the margin of 10 milliseconds for all tests.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.62|2.04||p-value is not shown, as this is a non-inferiority study.|ANCOVA|Each timepoint was tested through a separate model.||For the timepoint 24 hours||2.04|-1.62|
90903623|NCT03657264|181674422|SUPERIORITY|The lower limit of the adjusted confidence interval was expected upper to the margin of 5 milliseconds.|Least Squares Mean Difference|4.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.23|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.58|6.66||p-value is not shown, as this is a non-inferiority study.|ANCOVA|As multiple timepoints were examined separately, the overall type I error rate needed to be adjusted.||For the timepoint 1 hour||6.66|2.58|
90856604|NCT01539317|181577609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Partner||||0.92
90856605|NCT01539317|181577610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Each of 8 site comparisons had its own P-value and a value of \<0.001 was the difference at the most tender sites|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91101266|NCT01348490|182089032|OTHER|||||||0.0028||||||1-sample t-test was used.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0028
90903624|NCT03657264|181674422|SUPERIORITY|The lower limit of the adjusted confidence interval was expected upper to the margin of 5 milliseconds.|Least Squares Mean Difference|9.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.14|11.66||p-value is not shown, as this is a non-inferiority study.|ANCOVA|As multiple timepoints were examined separately, the overall type I error rate needed to be adjusted.||For the timepoint 1.5 hours||11.66|7.14|
90958556|NCT01323972|181796955|OTHER||GMT ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.32|||||Consistency was demonstrated if one month post Dose 3, the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio between all pairs of lots were within \[0.5, 2\].|Demonstration of the lot-to-lot consistency between GSK 257049-Lot 1 and GSK 257049-Lot 3 in terms of anti-Circumsporozoite (anti-CS) immunogenicity.||1.32|0.85|
91101267|NCT03632720|182089039|NON_INFERIORITY|The overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) was greater (\>) -10% for all four serogroups.|Difference in Percentage|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|3.54||||||Serogroup A||3.54|-1.78|
91101268|NCT03632720|182089039|NON_INFERIORITY|The overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was \> -10% for all four serogroups.|Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.24|2.28||||||Serogroup C||2.28|-2.24|
91101269|NCT03632720|182089039|NON_INFERIORITY|The overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was \> -10% for all four serogroups.|Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|2.36||||||Serogroup Y||2.36|-2.33|
91101270|NCT03632720|182089039|NON_INFERIORITY|The overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was \> -10% for all four serogroups.|Difference in Percentage|-0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.22|1.81||||||Serogroup W||1.81|-3.22|
91101271|NCT01049828|182089083|OTHER|The analysis is based on a threshold-free cluster enhancement permutation technique.|||||<|0.01||||||all correlations were transformed into z scores using Fisher's transformation and a t test evaluated group differences.|Fisher Exact|The analysis is based on a threshold-free cluster enhancement permutation technique.||Null hypothesis: Fisher's transform z scores for a seed region were comparable between the control and non-bothered tinnitus groups.||||<0.01
90856606|NCT00364130|181577613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38||||||The outcome is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Linear|||||||0.38
90856607|NCT00364130|181577614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8||||||The outcome is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Linear|||||||0.80
90856608|NCT00364130|181577615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||||||The outcome is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Linear|||||||0.02
90958557|NCT01323972|181796955|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.8||||||95.0|0.64|1.0|||||Consistency was demonstrated if one month post Dose 3, the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio between all pairs of lots were within \[0.5, 2\].|Demonstration of the lot-to-lot consistency between GSK 257049-Lot 2 and GSK 257049-Lot 3 in terms of anti-Circumsporozoite (anti-CS) immunogenicity.||1|0.64|
90959018|NCT01620255|181798202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.066||||0.0927|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.009|0.142||1-sided p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|PF-00547659 225 mg vs placebo, locally read||0.142|-0.009|0.0927
90856609|NCT00364130|181577616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27||||||The outcome was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Linear|||||||0.27
91101272|NCT03572218|182089103|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.22|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.22
91101273|NCT03572218|182089104|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.45|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.45
91101274|NCT03572218|182089105|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||WSSQ-Total||||0.03
91101275|NCT03572218|182089105|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||WSSQ-SD||||0.02
91101276|NCT03572218|182089105|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.19|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||WSSQ-FNE||||0.19
91101277|NCT03572218|182089106|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||WSSQ-Total||||0.11
91101278|NCT03572218|182089106|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||WSSQ-SD||||0.03
91101279|NCT03572218|182089106|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.53|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||WSSQ-FNE||||0.53
91101280|NCT03572218|182089107|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.12
91101281|NCT03572218|182089108|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.09
91101282|NCT03572218|182089109|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9||0.84|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Estimated mean change score on the Impact of Weight on Quality of Life Questionnaire-Lite for Total score||||0.84
90856610|NCT00364130|181577617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84||||||The outcome is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Linear|||||||0.84
90856611|NCT00364130|181577618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66||||||The outcome is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Linear|||||||0.66
90856612|NCT00364130|181577619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7||||||The outcome is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Linear|||||||0.70
90856613|NCT00364130|181577620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98||||||Outcome is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Linear|||||||0.98
90903625|NCT03657264|181674422|SUPERIORITY|The lower limit of the adjusted confidence interval was expected upper to the margin of 5 milliseconds.|Least Squares Mean Difference|10.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.92|13.17||p-value is not shown, as this is a non-inferiority study.|ANCOVA|As multiple timepoints were examined separately, the overall type I error rate needed to be adjusted.||For the timepoint 2 hours||13.17|7.92|
90856614|NCT04616027|181577621|OTHER|ANOVA|Ratio (Test/Reference) of Adjusted Means|99.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.15|141.6||||||"T2DM Normal Renal Function was test, Healthy and Normal Renal Function was reference."||141.60|70.15|
90856615|NCT04616027|181577621|OTHER|ANOVA|Ratio (Test/Reference) of Adjusted Means|101.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.51|145.63||||||"T2DM Mild Renal Impairment was test, T2DM Normal Renal Function was reference."||145.63|70.51|
90856616|NCT04616027|181577621|OTHER|ANOVA|Ratio (Test/Reference) of Adjusted Means|146.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.16|208.22||||||"T2DM Moderate Renal Impairment was test, T2DM Normal Renal Function was reference."||208.22|103.16|
90856617|NCT04616027|181577621|OTHER|ANOVA|Ratio (Test/Reference) of Adjusted Means|101.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|71.31|143.92||||||"T2DM Severe Renal Impairment was test, T2DM Normal Renal Function was reference."||143.92|71.31|
90856618|NCT04616027|181577622|OTHER|ANOVA|Ratio (Test/Reference) of Adjusted Means|111.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.52|156.93||||||"T2DM Normal Renal Function was test, Healthy and Normal Renal Function was reference."||156.93|79.52|
90856619|NCT04616027|181577622|OTHER|ANOVA|Ratio (Test/Reference) of Adjusted Means|120.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.49|173.38||||||"T2DM Mild Renal Impairment was test, T2DM Normal Renal Function was reference."||173.38|83.49|
90856620|NCT04616027|181577622|OTHER|ANOVA|Ratio (Test/Reference) of Adjusted Means|134.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.46|190.62||||||"T2DM Moderate Renal Impairment was test, T2DM Normal Renal Function was reference."||190.62|94.46|
90856621|NCT04616027|181577622|OTHER|ANOVA|Ratio (Test/Reference) of Adjusted Means|100.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|71.89|141.87||||||"T2DM Severe Renal Impairment was test, T2DM Normal Renal Function was reference."||141.87|71.89|
90856622|NCT04616027|181577623|OTHER|ANOVA|Ratio (Test/Reference) of Adjusted Means|111.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.6|154.86||||||"T2DM Normal Renal Function was test, Healthy and Normal Renal Function was reference."||154.86|79.60|
90856623|NCT04616027|181577623|OTHER|ANOVA|Ratio (Test/Reference) of Adjusted Means|116.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.76|164.56||||||"T2DM Mild Renal Impairment was test, T2DM Normal Renal Function was reference."||164.56|82.76|
90856624|NCT04616027|181577623|OTHER|ANOVA|Ratio (Test/Reference) of Adjusted Means|134.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.56|187.85||||||"T2DM Moderate Renal Impairment was test, T2DM Normal Renal Function was reference."||187.85|96.56|
90856625|NCT04616027|181577623|OTHER|ANOVA|Ratio (Test/Reference) of Adjusted Means|101.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|72.63|141.3||||||"T2DM Severe Renal Impairment was test, T2DM Normal Renal Function was reference."||141.30|72.63|
90856626|NCT04616027|181577624|OTHER|ANOVA|Ratio (Test/Reference) of Adjusted Means|101.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.89|115.94||||||"T2DM Normal Renal Function was test, Healthy and Normal Renal Function was reference."||115.94|88.89|
90856627|NCT04616027|181577624|OTHER|ANOVA|Ratio (Test/Reference) of Adjusted Means|110.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.05|126.37||||||"T2DM Mild Renal Impairment was test, T2DM Normal Renal Function was reference."||126.37|96.05|
90856628|NCT04616027|181577624|OTHER|ANOVA|Ratio (Test/Reference) of Adjusted Means|120.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|105.63|137.77||||||"T2DM Moderate Renal Impairment was test, T2DM Normal Renal Function was reference."||137.77|105.63|
90856629|NCT04616027|181577624|OTHER|ANOVA|Ratio (Test/Reference) of Adjusted Means|127.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|111.26|145.12||||||"T2DM Severe Renal Impairment was test, T2DM Normal Renal Function was reference."||145.12|111.26|
90856630|NCT04221230|181577692|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|0.4|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||0.4|-3.8|0.121
90856631|NCT00191646|181577759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.199||95.0|||||Log Rank|||Using a two-sided log-rank test with a Type I error of 0.05, 636 events for PFS out of the 919 patients would give an 80% statistical power under the alternative hypothesis that the hazard ratio of the G/C arm versus the P/C arm was 0.08.||||0.199
90856632|NCT00191646|181577760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.771||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.771
90856633|NCT00191646|181577760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.784||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.784
90856634|NCT00191646|181577761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.621||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.621
90856635|NCT00191646|181577762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.013
90856636|NCT00252629|181577792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The change of fatigue complaint from baseline (before treatment) to post treatment ( after 3 weeks treatment) on either therapeutic CPAP or sham CPAP was compared with student t-test.||||0.0002
90856637|NCT00252629|181577793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The change of pain symptom from baseline (before treatment) to post treatment ( after 3 weeks treatment) on either therapeutic CPAP or sham CPAP was compared with student t-test.||||0.0008
90856638|NCT00252629|181577794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The change of cognitive dysfunction complaint from baseline (before treatment) to post treatment ( after 3 weeks treatment) on either therapeutic CPAP or sham CPAP was compared with student t-test.||||0.004
90856639|NCT00252629|181577795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The p value was based on t-test||||0.0001
90856640|NCT00395538|181577802|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the cn.BV/TV between the baseline and the year 1 biopsy.||||||0.015||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Cn.BV/TV at biopsy baseline, year 1, 2 \& 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, covariate for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2. No bone biopsy baseline covariate was included because it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.015
90903626|NCT03657264|181674422|SUPERIORITY|The lower limit of the adjusted confidence interval was expected upper to the margin of 5 milliseconds.|Least Squares Mean Difference|10.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.22|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.7|12.95||p-value is not shown, as this is a non-inferiority study.|ANCOVA|As multiple timepoints were examined separately, the overall type I error rate needed to be adjusted.||For the timepoint 3 hours||12.95|7.70|
90903627|NCT03657264|181674422|SUPERIORITY|The lower limit of the adjusted confidence interval was expected upper to the margin of 5 milliseconds.|Least Squares Mean Difference|10.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.05|13.25||p-value is not shown, as this is a non-inferiority study.|ANCOVA|As multiple timepoints were examined separately, the overall type I error rate needed to be adjusted.||For the timepoint 4 hours||13.25|8.05|
91101283|NCT03572218|182089109|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0||0.82|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Estimated mean change score on the Physical Function Subscale of the Impact of Weight on Quality of Life Questionnaire-Lite||||0.82
90856641|NCT00395538|181577802|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the cn.BV/TV between the baseline and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.002||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, because the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Cn.BV/TV at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2. No bone biopsy baseline covariate included because it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.002
91101284|NCT03572218|182089109|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3||0.39|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Estimated mean change score on the Self Esteem Subscale of the Impact of Weight on Quality of Life Questionnaire-Lite||||0.39
91101285|NCT03572218|182089109|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0||0.42|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Estimated mean change score on the Sexual Life Subscale of the Impact of Weight on Quality of Life Questionnaire-Lite||||0.42
90856642|NCT00395538|181577802|EQUIVALENCE|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the cn.BV/TV between the year 1 biopsy and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.649||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis was performed with: Cn.BV/TV change from baseline at biopsy year 1 or years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year, and baseline Cn.BV/TV, as model covariates; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay of 30 to 31 months from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered to stabilize variance) was added as a covariate to the model for Cohort 2 only (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable).||||0.649
90856643|NCT00395538|181577803|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ct.Po.N between the baseline and the year 1 biopsy. P-value interpretation is questionable since there were only 4 participants with non-missing Ct.Po.N values for both their baseline and year 1 biopsies.||||||0.371||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, because the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ct.Po.N at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.371
90856644|NCT00395538|181577803|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ct.Po.N between the baseline and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.129||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis was performed with: Ct.Po.N change from baseline at biopsy year 1 or years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year, and baseline Ct.Po.N, as model covariates; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay of 30 to 31 months from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered to stabilize variance) was added as a covariate to the model for Cohort 2 only (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable).||||0.129
90903628|NCT00924469|181674427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean ratio|0.61||||0.0216||90.0|0.429|0.865||Test for no difference of natural log transformed values between treatments was calculated using two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) adjusting for Baseline risk factor.|ANOVA|||Statistical Analysis 1 for testosterone concentration at Week 12||0.865|0.429|0.0216
90903629|NCT00924469|181674428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean ratio|1.43||||0.1423||90.0|0.956|2.145||Test for no difference of natural log transformed values between treatments was calculated using two-way ANOVA adjusting for Baseline risk factor.|ANOVA|||Statistical Analysis 1 for testosterone concentration at Week 24||2.145|0.956|0.1423
90903630|NCT00924469|181674428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean ratio|0.82||||0.6639||90.0|0.386|1.746||Test for no difference of natural log transformed values between treatments was calculated using two-way ANOVA adjusting for Baseline risk factor.|ANOVA|||Statistical Analysis 2 for DHT concentration at Week 24||1.746|0.386|0.6639
90958558|NCT01323972|181796955|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if one month post Dose 3, the upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio of the pilot scale lot (Control Group) over the pooled commercial scale lots (Pooled Log Group) was below 2.|GMT ratio|0.95||||||95.0|0.79|1.15||||||Demonstration of non-inferiority of the commercial scale lots of GSK 257049 to the pilot scale lot in terms of anti-Circumsporozoite (anti-CS) immunogenicity.||1.15|0.79|
91031523|NCT04455633|181947524|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Responders|4.8||||0.289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.11|13.73|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage of responders were analyzed using the CMH test stratified by the randomization factor of Baseline severity score (moderate, severe). The 95% CI are calculated using the asymptotic Wald method. Missing observations at Week 6 are imputed as nonresponses.||13.73|-4.11|0.289
91101286|NCT03572218|182089109|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3||0.64|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Estimated mean change score on the Work Subscale of the Impact of Weight on Quality of Life Questionnaire-Lite||||0.64
91101287|NCT03572218|182089109|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6||0.59|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Estimated mean change score on the Public Distress Subscale of the Impact of Weight on Quality of Life Questionnaire-Lite||||0.59
91101288|NCT03572218|182089110|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0||0.58|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Estimated mean change score on the Impact of Weight on Quality of Life Questionnaire-Lite for Total score||||0.58
91101289|NCT03572218|182089110|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0||0.89|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Estimated mean change score on the Physical Function Subscale of the Impact of Weight on Quality of Life Questionnaire-Lite||||0.89
91101290|NCT03572218|182089110|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.7||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Estimated mean change score on the Self Esteem Subscale of the Impact of Weight on Quality of Life Questionnaire-Lite||||0.90
91101291|NCT03572218|182089110|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Estimated mean change score on the Sexual Life Subscale of the Impact of Weight on Quality of Life Questionnaire-Lite||||0.16
91101292|NCT03572218|182089110|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3||0.68|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Estimated mean change score on the Work Subscale of the Impact of Weight on Quality of Life Questionnaire-Lite||||0.68
91101293|NCT03572218|182089110|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6||0.72|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Estimated mean change score on the Public Distress Subscale of the Impact of Weight on Quality of Life Questionnaire-Lite||||0.72
91101294|NCT03572218|182089111|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.08|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.08
91101295|NCT03572218|182089112|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.10
91101296|NCT03572218|182089113|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.40
91101297|NCT03572218|182089114|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.98|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.98
91101298|NCT03572218|182089115|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|9.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.5||0.14|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.14
91101299|NCT03572218|182089116|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|12.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.5||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.06
91101300|NCT03572218|182089117|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.4||0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.80
91101301|NCT03572218|182089118|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.4||0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.49
90856645|NCT00395538|181577803|EQUIVALENCE|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ct.Po.N between the year 1 biopsy and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.538||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ct.Po.N at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.538
90856646|NCT00395538|181577804|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Cn.BFR/BS between the baseline and the year 1 biopsy.||||||0.009||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|A baseline covariate not added to model since it would over-parameterize the model.||Mixed models analysis: Cn.BFR/BS at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.009
90856647|NCT00395538|181577804|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Cn.BFR/BS between the baseline and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.|||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Cn.BFR/BS at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||<0.001
90856648|NCT00395538|181577804|EQUIVALENCE|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Cn.BFR/BS between the year 1 biopsy and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.374||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Cn.BFR/BS at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.374
90903631|NCT00924469|181674429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean ratio|0.32|||<|0.0001||90.0|0.239|0.418||Test for no difference of natural log transformed values between treatments was calculated using two-way ANOVA adjusting for Baseline risk factor.|ANOVA|||Statistical Analysis 1 for androstenedione concentration at Week 12||0.418|0.239|<0.0001
90903632|NCT00924469|181674429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean ratio|1.13||||0.5061||90.0|0.828|1.554||Test for no difference of natural log transformed values between treatments was calculated using two-way ANOVA adjusting for Baseline risk factor.|ANOVA|||Statistical Analysis 2 for androstenedione concentration at Week 24||1.554|0.828|0.5061
90903633|NCT00924469|181674429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean ratio|0.03|||<|0.0001||90.0|0.017|0.05||Test for no difference of natural log transformed values between treatments was calculated using two-way ANOVA adjusting for Baseline risk factor.|ANOVA|||Statistical Analysis 3 for DHEA concentration at Week 12||0.050|0.017|<0.0001
90903634|NCT00924469|181674429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean ratio|0.79||||0.5767||90.0|0.398|1.581||Test for no difference of natural log transformed values between treatments was calculated using two-way ANOVA adjusting for Baseline risk factor.|ANOVA|||Statistical Analysis 4 for DHEA concentration at Week 24||1.581|0.398|0.5767
91101302|NCT03572218|182089119|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.31|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.31
91101303|NCT03572218|182089120|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.54|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.54
91101304|NCT03572218|182089121|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2||0.94|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Systolic Blood Pressure||||0.94
91101305|NCT03572218|182089121|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.64|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Diastolic Blood Pressure||||0.64
91101306|NCT03572218|182089122|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.58|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Full Scale||||0.58
91101307|NCT03572218|182089122|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Negative Affect||||0.49
91101308|NCT03572218|182089122|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.96|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Maladaptive Eating||||0.96
90856649|NCT00395538|181577805|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Cn.MS/BS between the baseline and the year 1 biopsy.||||||0.002||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Cn.MS/BS at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.002
90903635|NCT00924469|181674430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean ratio|0.14|||<|0.0001||90.0|0.097|0.207||Test for no difference of natural log transformed values between treatments was calculated using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) adjusting for Baseline risk factor and Baseline androgen.|ANCOVA|||Statistical Analysis 1 for serum testosterone concentration at Week 12||0.207|0.097|<0.0001
90903636|NCT00924469|181674430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean ratio|0.84||||0.4364||90.0|0.571|1.225||Test for no difference of natural log transformed values between treatments was calculated using ANCOVA adjusting for Baseline risk factor and Baseline androgen.|ANCOVA|||Statistical Analysis 2 for serum testosterone concentration at Week 24||1.225|0.571|0.4364
91101309|NCT03572218|182089122|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.71|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Healthy Lifestyle||||0.71
90903637|NCT00924469|181674430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean ratio|0.75||||0.1515||90.0|0.54|1.044||Test for no difference of natural log transformed values between treatments was calculated using ANCOVA adjusting for Baseline risk factor and Baseline androgen.|ANCOVA|||Statistical Analysis 3 for serum DHT concentration at Week 12||1.044|0.540|0.1515
91101310|NCT03572218|182089122|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.41|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Exercise Avoidance||||0.41
91101311|NCT03572218|182089123|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.61|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Full Scale||||0.61
91101312|NCT03572218|182089123|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.73|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Negative Affect||||0.73
91101313|NCT03572218|182089123|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.94|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Maladaptive Eating||||0.94
91101314|NCT03572218|182089123|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.47|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Healthy Lifestyle||||0.47
91101315|NCT03572218|182089123|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Exercise Avoidance||||0.99
91101316|NCT03572218|182089124|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.13
91101317|NCT03572218|182089125|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.13
91101318|NCT03572218|182089126|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.53|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.53
91101319|NCT03572218|182089127|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.24|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.24
91101320|NCT03572218|182089128|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.83|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Global||||0.83
91101321|NCT03572218|182089128|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Eating Restraint||||0.69
91101322|NCT03572218|182089128|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Eating Concern||||0.30
91101323|NCT03572218|182089128|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Weight Concern||||0.99
91101324|NCT03572218|182089128|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.36|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Shape Concern||||0.36
91101325|NCT03572218|182089129|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Global||||0.30
91101326|NCT03572218|182089129|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Eating Restraint||||0.69
91101327|NCT03572218|182089129|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.7|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Eating Concern||||0.70
91101328|NCT03572218|182089129|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.26|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Weight Concern||||0.26
91101329|NCT03572218|182089129|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.18|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Shape Concern||||0.18
91101330|NCT03572218|182089130|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Dietary Restraint||||0.69
91101331|NCT03572218|182089130|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.28|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Disinhibition||||0.28
91101332|NCT03572218|182089130|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hunger||||0.02
91101333|NCT03572218|182089131|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.29|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Dietary Restraint||||0.29
91101334|NCT03572218|182089131|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Disinhibition||||0.34
91101335|NCT03572218|182089131|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hunger||||0.001
91101336|NCT03572218|182089132|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.32|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.32
90856650|NCT00395538|181577805|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Cn.MS/BS between the baseline and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.|||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Cn.MS/BS at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||<0.001
90856651|NCT00395538|181577805|EQUIVALENCE|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Cn.MS/BS between the year 1 biopsy and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.168||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Cn.MS/BS at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.168
90856652|NCT00395538|181577806|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ec.BFR/BS between the baseline and the year 1 biopsy. P-value interpretation is questionable since there were only 4 participants with non-missing Ec.BFR/BS values for both their baseline and year 1 biopsies.||||||0.083||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ec.BFR/BS at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.083
90856653|NCT00395538|181577806|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ec.BFR/BS between the baseline and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ec.BFR/BS at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.001
90903638|NCT00924469|181674430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean ratio|0.84||||0.3965||90.0|0.589|1.188||Test for no difference of natural log transformed values between treatments was calculated using ANCOVA adjusting for Baseline risk factor and Baseline androgen.|ANCOVA|||Statistical Analysis 4 for serum DHT concentration at Week 24||1.188|0.589|0.3965
90903639|NCT00924469|181674430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean ratio|0.42||||0.0003||90.0|0.29|0.615||Test for no difference of natural log transformed values between treatments was calculated using ANCOVA adjusting for Baseline risk factor and Baseline androgen.|ANCOVA|||Statistical Analysis 5 for serum Androsterone concentration at Week 12||0.615|0.290|0.0003
90903640|NCT00924469|181674430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean ratio|1.22||||0.2494||90.0|0.916|1.625||Test for no difference of natural log transformed values between treatments was calculated using ANCOVA adjusting for Baseline risk factor and Baseline androgen.|ANCOVA|||Statistical Analysis 6 for serum androsterone concentration at Week 24||1.625|0.916|0.2494
91101337|NCT03572218|182089133|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.16
91101338|NCT03572218|182089134|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.8||0.59|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.59
91101339|NCT03572218|182089135|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.1||0.44|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.44
91101340|NCT03572218|182089136|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.46|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Self-Reported Weighing||||0.46
91101341|NCT03572218|182089136|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Track Food/Drink||||0.12
91101342|NCT03572218|182089136|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.42|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Track Calories||||0.42
91101343|NCT03572218|182089136|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Track Activity||||0.03
91101344|NCT03572218|182089137|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Self-Reported Weighing||||0.23
91101345|NCT03572218|182089137|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Track Food/Drink||||0.90
91101346|NCT03572218|182089137|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.36|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Track Calories||||0.36
91101347|NCT03572218|182089137|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.29|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Track Activity||||0.29
91101348|NCT03572218|182089138|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.25
91101349|NCT03572218|182089139|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2||0.27|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||WSSQ-Total||||0.27
90958559|NCT03218397|181796961|SUPERIORITY||Difference in means|5.6||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|10.0||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided||Difference in mean hours to first antibiotic modification (Standard Blood Culture and AST minus Rapid Organism Identification and AST)|||10|1.2|0.013
90958560|NCT03218397|181796962|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.265||||||alpha = 0.05|Fisher Exact|||||||0.265
90958561|NCT03218397|181796963|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.093||||||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|T-test for the difference in mean length of stay (days) between treatment arms among subjects alive at 30 days.||||||0.093
90958562|NCT03218397|181796964|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014||||||alpha = 0.05|Fisher Exact|||||||0.014
90958563|NCT03218397|181796965|SUPERIORITY||Difference in means|7.5||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|13.1||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided||Difference in mean hours to first antibiotic escalation (Standard Blood Culture and AST minus Rapid Organism Identification and AST)|||13.1|1.9|0.009
91101350|NCT03572218|182089139|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||WSSQ-SD||||0.13
91101351|NCT03572218|182089139|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.65|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||WSSQ-FNE||||0.65
91101352|NCT03572218|182089140|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.21|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.21
91101353|NCT03572218|182089141|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.7|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7
90859894|NCT00408629|181583122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Testing of ranked secondary measures was only started if significant group differences existed for both co-primary measures. Significant results for higher-ranked measure was needed to test next lower-ranked measure to control for multiple testing.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification levels for Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel = prior anti-TNF versus anti-TNF-naive.||The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was used to test the null hypothesis of no difference between adalimumab and placebo. Treatment differences were deemed statistically significant at a significance level of 0.05.||||<0.001
91101354|NCT03572218|182089142|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2
91101355|NCT03572218|182089143|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.9||0.59|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.59
90958564|NCT03218397|181796966|SUPERIORITY||Difference in means|6.5||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|12.0||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided||Difference in mean hours to first gram-negative antibiotic escalation (Standard Blood Culture and AST minus Rapid Organism Identification and AST)|||12.0|0.9|0.022
90958565|NCT03218397|181796967|SUPERIORITY||Difference in means|0.7||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|2.7||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided||Difference in mean hours to first gram-positive antibiotic escalation (Standard Blood Culture and AST minus Rapid Organism Identification and AST)|||2.7|-1.2|0.46
90958566|NCT03218397|181796968|SUPERIORITY||Difference in means|4.6||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|9.6||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided||Difference in mean hours to first antibiotic de-escalation (Standard Blood Culture and AST minus Rapid Organism Identification and AST)|||9.6|-0.4|0.074
90958567|NCT03218397|181796969|SUPERIORITY||Difference in means|6.5||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|11.2||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided||Difference in mean hours to first gram-negative antibiotic de-escalation (Standard Blood Culture and AST minus Rapid Organism Identification and AST)|||11.2|1.7|0.008
90958568|NCT03218397|181796970|SUPERIORITY||Difference in means|-1.9||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|2.2||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided||Difference in mean hours to first gram-positive antibiotic de-escalation (Standard Blood Culture and AST minus Rapid Organism Identification and AST)|||2.2|-5.9|0.37
90958569|NCT01049217|181796990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.191||0.709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.45|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, dideoxynucleoside analogue (D-drug) anti-retroviral agent (ART) use and baseline score.||0.45|-0.30|0.7090
91101356|NCT03572218|182089144|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5||0.81|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Total||||0.81
91101357|NCT03572218|182089144|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.4||0.86|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Physical Function||||0.86
91101358|NCT03572218|182089144|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.0||0.87|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Self Esteem||||0.87
91101359|NCT03572218|182089144|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.2||0.73|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sexual Life||||0.73
91101360|NCT03572218|182089144|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.4||0.95|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Work||||0.95
91101361|NCT03572218|182089144|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8||0.19|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Public Distress||||0.19
90958570|NCT01049217|181796991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5049|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Overall p-value was derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for pooled site and D-drug ART use using modified ridit scores.||||0.5049
90958571|NCT01049217|181796992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4271|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Overall p-value was derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for pooled site and D-drug ART use using modified ridit scores.||||0.4271
90958572|NCT01049217|181796993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.095||0.2084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.07|-0.31|0.2084
90958573|NCT01049217|181796993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.126||0.1516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.07|-0.43|0.1516
90958574|NCT01049217|181796993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.142||0.0468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 3: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||-0.00|-0.56|0.0468
91101362|NCT03572218|182089145|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|7.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.9||0.14|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.14
91101363|NCT03572218|182089146|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.53|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.53
91101364|NCT03572218|182089147|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.99
91101365|NCT03572218|182089148|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6||0.71|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Systolic Blood Pressure||||0.71
90856654|NCT00395538|181577806|EQUIVALENCE|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ec.BFR/BS between the year 1 biopsy and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.164||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ec.BFR/BS at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.164
90856655|NCT00395538|181577807|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ec.MS/BS between the baseline and the year 1 biopsy. P-value interpretation is questionable since there were only 4 participants with non-missing Ec.MS/BS values for both their baseline and year 1 biopsies.||||||0.031||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ec.MS/BS at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.031
90856656|NCT00395538|181577807|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ec.MS/BS between the baseline and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ec.MS/BS at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.001
90856657|NCT00395538|181577807|EQUIVALENCE|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ec.MS/BS between the year 1 biopsy and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.178||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ec.MS/BS at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.178
90856658|NCT00395538|181577808|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ic.BFR/BS between the baseline and the year 1 biopsy. P-value interpretation is questionable since there were only 4 participants with non-missing Ic.BFR/BS values for both their baseline and year 1 biopsies.||||||0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ic.BFR/BS at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.001
90859895|NCT00408629|181583123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||||||Testing of ranked secondary measures was only started if significant group differences existed for both co-primary measures. Significant results for higher-ranked measure was needed to test next lower-ranked measure to control for multiple testing.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification levels for Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel = prior anti-TNF versus anti-TNF-naive.||The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was used to test the null hypothesis of no difference between adalimumab and placebo. Treatment differences were deemed statistically significant at a significance level of 0.05.||||0.002
90958575|NCT01049217|181796993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.177||0.1224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.07|-0.62|0.1224
90958576|NCT01049217|181796993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.184||0.0373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 5: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||-0.02|-0.75|0.0373
90958577|NCT01049217|181796993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.199||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.12|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.12|-0.67|0.1660
91101366|NCT03572218|182089148|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.72|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Diastolic Blood Pressure||||0.72
91101367|NCT03572218|182089149|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.07
91101368|NCT03572218|182089150|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.52|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Full Scale||||0.52
91101369|NCT03572218|182089150|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Negative Affect||||0.02
91101370|NCT03572218|182089150|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.63|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Maladaptive Eating||||0.63
91101371|NCT03572218|182089150|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.74|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Exercise Avoidance||||0.74
90856659|NCT00395538|181577808|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ic.BFR/BS between the baseline and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.022||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ic.BFR/BS at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.022
90856660|NCT00395538|181577808|EQUIVALENCE|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ic.BFR/BS between the year 1 biopsy and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.172||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ic.BFR/BS at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.172
90856661|NCT00395538|181577809|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ic.MS/BS between the baseline and the year 1 biopsy. P-value interpretation is questionable since there were only 4 participants with non-missing Ic.MS/BS values for both their baseline and year 1 biopsies.||||||0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ic.MS/BS at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.001
90856662|NCT00395538|181577809|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ic.MS/BS between the baseline and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.018||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ic.MS/BS at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.018
90856663|NCT00395538|181577809|EQUIVALENCE|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ic.MS/BS between the year 1 biopsy and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.155||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ic.MS/BS at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.155
90856664|NCT00395538|181577810|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Tb.Th between the baseline and the year 1 biopsy.||||||0.72||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Tb.Th at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.720
90903641|NCT00924469|181674430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean ratio|0.04|||<|0.0001||90.0|0.023|0.073||Test for no difference of natural log transformed values between treatments was calculated using ANCOVA adjusting for Baseline risk factor and Baseline androgen.|ANCOVA|||Statistical Analysis 7 for serum DHEA concentration at Week 12||0.073|0.023|<0.0001
90903642|NCT00924469|181674430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean ratio|1.24||||0.5144||90.0|0.717|2.137||Test for no difference of natural log transformed values between treatments was calculated using ANCOVA adjusting for Baseline risk factor and Baseline androgen.|ANCOVA|||Statistical Analysis 8 for serum DHEA concentration at Week 24||2.137|0.717|0.5144
90903643|NCT00924469|181674430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean ratio|0.1|||<|0.0001||90.0|0.055|0.189||Test for no difference of natural log transformed values between treatments was calculated using ANCOVA adjusting for Baseline risk factor and Baseline androgen.|ANCOVA|||Statistical Analysis 9 for serum DHEA-glucuronide concentration at Week 12||0.189|0.055|<0.0001
90958578|NCT01049217|181796993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.214||0.3246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.21|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 7: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.21|-0.63|0.3246
90958579|NCT01049217|181796993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.219||0.4879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.28|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.28|-0.58|0.4879
91101372|NCT03572218|182089150|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Healthy Lifestyle||||0.49
91101373|NCT03572218|182089151|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.33|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.33
90903644|NCT00924469|181674430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean ratio|0.55||||0.1329||90.0|0.286|1.06||Test for no difference of natural log transformed values between treatments was calculated using ANCOVA adjusting for Baseline risk factor and Baseline androgen.|ANCOVA|||Statistical Analysis 10 for serum DHEA-glucuronide concentration at Week 24||1.060|0.286|0.1329
90903645|NCT00924469|181674430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean ratio|0.01|||<|0.0001||90.0|0.008|0.028||Test for no difference of natural log transformed values between treatments was calculated using ANCOVA adjusting for Baseline risk factor and Baseline androgen.|ANCOVA|||Statistical Analysis 11 for serum DHEA-sulfate concentration at Week 12||0.028|0.008|<0.0001
90903646|NCT00924469|181674430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean ratio|1.2||||0.7061||90.0|0.53|2.73|||ANCOVA|||Statistical Analysis 12 for serum DHEA-sulfate concentration at Week 24||2.730|0.530|0.7061
90903647|NCT00924469|181674430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean ratio|0.42|||<|0.0001||90.0|0.29|0.615||Test for no difference of natural log transformed values between treatments was calculated using ANCOVA adjusting for Baseline risk factor and Baseline androgen.|ANCOVA|||Statistical Analysis 13 for serum delta-4-androstenedione concentration at Week 12||0.615|0.290|<0.0001
90903648|NCT00924469|181674430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean ratio|1.22||||0.2673||90.0|0.916|1.625||Test for no difference of natural log transformed values between treatments was calculated using ANCOVA adjusting for Baseline risk factor and Baseline androgen.|ANCOVA|||Statistical Analysis 14 for serum delta-4-androstenedione concentration at Week 24||1.625|0.916|0.2673
90856665|NCT00395538|181577810|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Tb.Th between the baseline and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.944||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Tb.Th at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.944
90859896|NCT00408629|181583124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Testing of ranked secondary measures was only started if significant group differences existed for both co-primary measures. Significant results for higher-ranked measure was needed to test next lower-ranked measure to control for multiple testing.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification levels for Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel = prior anti-TNF versus anti-TNF-naive.||The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was used to test the null hypothesis of no difference between adalimumab and placebo. Treatment differences were deemed statistically significant at a significance level of 0.05.||||<0.001
90903649|NCT00924469|181674431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative risk|25.533|||<|0.0001||90.0|4.989|130.68|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical Analysis 1 for PSA response at Week 12||130.680|4.989|<0.0001
90903650|NCT00924469|181674431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative risk|1.131||||0.2319||90.0|0.956|1.337|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical Analysis 2 for PSA response at Week 24||1.337|0.956|0.2319
90903651|NCT00924469|181674432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative risk|2.744||||0.3427||90.0|1.018|5.015|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical Analysis 1 for CR at Week 24||5.015|1.018|0.3427
90903652|NCT00924469|181674435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean ratio|0.17|||<|0.0001||90.0|0.098|0.289||Test for no difference of natural log transformed values between treatments was calculated using two-way ANOVA adjusting for Baseline risk factor.|ANOVA|||Statistical Analysis 2 for DHT concentration at Week 12||0.289|0.098|<0.0001
90903653|NCT01651936|181674436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least squares means|-0.52||||0.308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|0.5|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||0.50|-1.54|0.308
90903654|NCT01651936|181674437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentages|-0.26||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.52|23.01|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||23.01|-23.52|0.91
91101374|NCT03572218|182089152|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.11
90903655|NCT01651936|181674439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentages|8.46||||0.468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|27.32|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||27.32|-10.40|0.468
90903656|NCT01651936|181674441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least squares means|-0.41||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.02|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||-0.02|-0.79|0.038
90903657|NCT03875911|181674489|EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA was used to analyze equivalence between arms||||||0.52|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.52
90903658|NCT03875911|181674490|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence calculated using ANOVA||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.01
90903659|NCT03875911|181674491|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was assessed using ANOVA||||||0.25|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.25
90903660|NCT03875911|181674492|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence determined by ANOVA||||||0.93|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.93
90903661|NCT03875911|181674493|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence determined by ANOVA||||||0.83|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.83
90903662|NCT03875911|181674494|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was determined using ANOVA||||||0.54|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.54
90903663|NCT02293837|181674538|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.277||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with outcome variable of change in mAUC from screening and covariates of treatment, screening mAUC, and age.|ANCOVA|||Week 52; Primary imputation method used for missing Week 52 mAUC.||||0.277
90903664|NCT02293837|181674539|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.499||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with outcome variable of change in mAUC from screening and covariates of treatment, screening mAUC, and age.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.499
90903665|NCT02293837|181674539|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.267||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with outcome variable of change in mAUC from screening and covariates of treatment, screening mAUC, and age.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||0.267
90903666|NCT02293837|181674539|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.226||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with outcome variable of change in mAUC from screening and covariates of treatment, screening mAUC, and age.|ANCOVA|||Week 104||||0.226
90903667|NCT02293837|181674539|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.758||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with outcome variable of change in mAUC from screening and covariates of treatment, screening mAUC, and age.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.758
91101375|NCT03572218|182089153|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.35|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Global||||0.35
91101376|NCT03572218|182089153|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.46|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Eating Restraint||||0.46
91101377|NCT03572218|182089153|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.33|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Eating Concern||||0.33
91101378|NCT03572218|182089153|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.18|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Weight Concern||||0.18
91101379|NCT03572218|182089153|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Shape Concern||||0.16
91101380|NCT03572218|182089154|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.82|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Dietary Restraint||||0.82
91101381|NCT03572218|182089154|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.45|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Disinhibition||||0.45
91101382|NCT03572218|182089154|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hunger||||0.007
91101383|NCT03572218|182089155|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Self-Reported Weighing||||0.23
91101384|NCT03572218|182089155|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.48|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Track Food/Drink||||0.48
90856666|NCT00395538|181577810|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Tb.Th between the year 1 biopsy and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.73||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Tb.Th at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.730
90903668|NCT02293837|181674539|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.341||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with outcome variable of change in mAUC from screening and covariates of treatment, screening mAUC, and age.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||0.341
90903669|NCT02293837|181674539|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.969||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with outcome variable of change in mAUC from screening and covariates of treatment, screening mAUC, and age.|ANCOVA|||Week 104||||0.969
91101385|NCT03572218|182089155|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.89|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Track Calories||||0.89
91101386|NCT03572218|182089155|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Track Activity||||0.30
91101387|NCT03572218|182089156|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||ANOVA|||BWL component||||0.32
90903670|NCT02293837|181674539|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.689||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with outcome variable of change in mAUC from screening and covariates of treatment, screening mAUC, and age.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.689
91101388|NCT03572218|182089157|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.14
91101389|NCT03738215|182089158|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.5||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.17|-0.89||Adjusted P-Value (based on truncated Hochberg with parameter=0.9)|MMRM|MMRM = mixed-effects model for repeated measures||||-0.89|-4.17|0.0050
91101390|NCT03738215|182089158|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.5||||0.0727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.16|0.12||Adjusted P-Value (based on truncated Hochberg with parameter=0.9)|MMRM|MMRM = mixed-effects model for repeated measures||||0.12|-3.16|0.0727
90903671|NCT02293837|181674539|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with outcome variable of change in mAUC from screening and covariates of treatment, screening mAUC, and age.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||0.400
91101391|NCT03738215|182089159|SUPERIORITY||Lease Squares Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.0727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|-0.07||Adjusted P-Value (based on Hochberg procedure)|MMRM|MMRM = mixed-effects model for repeated measures||||-0.07|-0.49|0.0727
91101392|NCT03738215|182089159|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.0944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.03||Adjusted P-Value (based on Hochberg procedure)|MMRM|MMRM = mixed-effects model for repeated measures.||||0.03|-0.39|0.0944
91101393|NCT06765889|182089181|OTHER||Bayes Factor (BF₁₀)|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91101394|NCT06765889|182089184|OTHER||Mean (of both conditions)|4.17|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91101395|NCT02935036|182089234|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.33||||0.5947|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.5947
91101396|NCT02935036|182089235|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.75||||0.2912|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.2912
91101397|NCT02935036|182089236|SUPERIORITY||Percent difference|2.4||||0.692|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.6920
91101398|NCT03606213|182089260|OTHER|||||||0.56||||||P-value week 14 versus baseline (Cohort A, arm 1; placebo)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.56
91101399|NCT01697501|182089274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.7831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|2.57|||univariate logistic analysis|||||2.57|0.29|0.7831
91101400|NCT01697501|182089275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.25||||0.1951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|7.67|||univariate logistic analysis|||||7.67|0.66|0.1951
91101401|NCT01697501|182089276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2642|TWO_SIDED||||||Wald Chi Square|||||||0.2642
91101402|NCT01697501|182089277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0672|TWO_SIDED||||||Wald Chi Square|||||||0.0672
91101403|NCT03074643|182089340|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for age, sex, race||||||0.16
91101404|NCT03074643|182089340|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for age, sex, race||||||0.45
91101405|NCT03074643|182089341|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for age, sex, race||||||0.81
91101406|NCT03074643|182089341|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for age, sex, race||||||0.80
91101407|NCT03074643|182089342|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for age, sex, race||||||0.56
91101408|NCT03074643|182089342|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for age, sex, race||||||0.96
91101409|NCT03074643|182089343|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for age, sex, race||||||0.76
91101410|NCT03074643|182089343|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for age, sex, race||||||0.45
91101411|NCT03074643|182089344|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for age, sex, race||||||0.75
91101412|NCT03074643|182089344|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for age, sex, race||||||0.95
91101413|NCT03074643|182089345|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for age, sex, race||||||0.06
91101414|NCT03074643|182089345|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for age, sex, race||||||0.22
91101415|NCT03074643|182089346|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for age, sex, race||||||0.48
91101416|NCT03074643|182089346|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for age, sex, race||||||0.22
91101417|NCT00215553|182089359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.794||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis: No difference between treatment groups||||0.794
91101418|NCT00215553|182089359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.236||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis: No difference between treatment groups||||0.236
91101419|NCT00215553|182089359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.396||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis: No difference between treatment groups||||0.396
91101420|NCT00215553|182089360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.346||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.346
90859897|NCT00408629|181583125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.032||||||Testing of ranked secondary measures was only started if significant group differences existed for both co-primary measures. Significant results for higher-ranked measure were needed to test next lower-ranked measure to control for multiple testing.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification levels for Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel = prior anti-TNF versus anti-TNF-naive.||The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was used to test the null hypothesis of no difference between adalimumab and placebo. Treatment differences were deemed statistically significant at a significance level of 0.05.||||0.032
90903672|NCT02293837|181674539|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.969||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with outcome variable of change in mAUC from screening and covariates of treatment, screening mAUC, and age.|ANCOVA|||Week 104||||0.969
90903673|NCT02293837|181674540|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.679||||||P-value is for group difference in time trends from a longitudinal mixed effects model. Response variable was 2-hour C-peptide mAUC and covariates were treatment, study week, age, treatment\*study week, age\*study week.|Longitudinal mixed model|Random within-subject effects for intercept and study week were included assuming an unstructured covariance matrix.||Screening to Week 104||||0.679
90903674|NCT02293837|181674540|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.373||||||P-value is for group difference in time trends from a longitudinal mixed effects model. Response variable was 2-hour C-peptide mAUC and covariates were treatment, study week, age, treatment\*study week, age\*study week.|Longitudinal mixed model|Random within-subject effects for intercept and study week were included assuming an unstructured covariance matrix.||Screening to Week 104||||0.373
91101421|NCT00215553|182089360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.286||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.286
91101422|NCT00215553|182089360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.964||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.964
91101423|NCT00215553|182089361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA on ranks||||||0.028
91101424|NCT00215553|182089361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.147||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA on ranks||||||0.147
91101425|NCT00215553|182089361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.293||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA on ranks||||||0.293
91101426|NCT02006654|182089363|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.2365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|0.36||Corrected for multiplicity|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for effects of country, MMSE stratum-by-week, treatment-by-week, base treatment stratum-by-week, and baseline score-by-week interactions|A negative mean difference indicates a treatment effect in favor of idalopirdine|For demonstrating efficacy, change in cognition (ADAS-cog) and either change in daily functioning (ADCS-ADL23) or change in global clinical impression (ADCS-CGIC) had to show statistically significant favourable differences compared to placebo at Week 24. Multiple testing procedures were used to control the overall type 1 error at 5%. The null hypothesis of no difference in mean change from baseline in ADAS-cog total score at Week 24 was tested for idalopirdine at significance level 5%.||0.36|-1.45|0.2365
91101427|NCT02006654|182089364|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.4064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.23||Corrected for multiplicity according to the multiple testing procedure|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for effects of country, MMSE stratum-by-week, treatment-by-week, base treatment stratum-by-week, and baseline score-by-week interactions|A negative mean difference indicates a treatment effect in favor of idalopirdine|For demonstrating efficacy, change in cognition (ADAS-cog) and either change in daily functioning (ADCS-ADL23) or change in global clinical impression (ADCS-CGIC) had to show statistically significant favourable differences compared to placebo at Week 24. Multiple testing procedures were used to control the overall type 1 error at 5%. The null hypothesis of no difference in mean change from baseline in ADAS-cog total score at Week 24 was tested at significance level 5%.||0.23|-0.09|0.4064
91101428|NCT02006654|182089365|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.4064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|1.92||Corrected for multiplicity according to the multiple testing procedure|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for effects of country, MMSE stratum-by-week, treatment-by-week, base treatment stratum-by-week, and baseline score-by-week interactions|A positive mean difference indicates a treatment effect in favour of idalopirdine|For demonstrating efficacy, change in cognition (ADAS-cog) and either change in daily functioning (ADCS-ADL23) or change in global clinical impression (ADCS-CGIC) had to show statistically significant favourable differences compared to placebo at Week 24. Multiple testing procedures were used to control the overall type 1 error at 5%. The null hypothesis of no difference in mean change from baseline in ADAS-cog total score at Week 24 was tested at significance level 5%.||1.92|-0.57|0.4064
91101429|NCT00676689|182089391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier|0.971|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.889|0.993||||||||0.993|0.889|
91101430|NCT00676689|182089392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier|0.941|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.851|0.978||||||Freedom from Major Adverse Cardiovascular and Cerebrovascular Event (MACCE) at 6 months in the valve implant population.||0.978|0.851|
91101431|NCT00676689|182089393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage|87.9|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Overall functional improvement at 6 months for patients in the valve implant population with baseline and 6 month data.||||
91101432|NCT01487161|182089402|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.1249|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.2|0.2|||Longitudinal mixed effect model|||||0.2|-1.2|0.1249
91101433|NCT01487161|182089403|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.2002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.1|0.3|||Longitudinal mixed effect model|||||0.3|-1.1|0.2002
91101434|NCT01487161|182089404|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.5541|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|0.8|||Longitudinal mixed effect model|||||0.8|-0.7|0.5541
91104506|NCT02037984|182094987|OTHER|PT5 Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT5 Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|9.5|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.5|-10.3|
90856667|NCT00395538|181577811|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Tb.N between the baseline and the year 1 biopsy.||||||0.019||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis was performed with: Tb.N change from baseline at biopsy year 1 or years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year, and baseline Tb.N, as model covariates; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay of 30 to 31 months from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered to stabilize variance) was added as a covariate to the model for Cohort 2 only (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable).||||0.019
90856668|NCT00395538|181577811|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Tb.N between the baseline and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.017||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis was performed with: Tb.N change from baseline at biopsy year 1 or years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year, and baseline Tb.N, as model covariates; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay of 30 to 31 months from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered to stabilize variance) was added as a covariate to the model for Cohort 2 only (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable).||||0.017
90856669|NCT00395538|181577811|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Tb.N between the year 1 biopsy and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.843||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis was performed with: Tb.N change from baseline at biopsy year 1 or years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year, and baseline Tb.N, as model covariates; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay of 30 to 31 months from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered to stabilize variance) was added as a covariate to the model for Cohort 2 only (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable).||||0.843
90856670|NCT00395538|181577812|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Tb.Sp between the baseline and the year 1 biopsy.||||||0.013||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Tb.Sp at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.013
90856671|NCT00395538|181577812|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Tb.Sp between the baseline and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.025||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Tb.Sp at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.025
90856672|NCT00395538|181577812|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Tb.Sp between the year 1 biopsy and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.608||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Tb.Sp at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.608
90859898|NCT00408629|181583126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||||||Testing of ranked secondary measures was only started if significant group differences existed for both co-primary measures. Significant results for higher-ranked measure was needed to test next lower-ranked measure to control for multiple testing.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification levels for Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel = prior anti-TNF versus anti-TNF-naive.||The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was used to test the null hypothesis of no difference between adalimumab and placebo. Treatment differences were deemed statistically significant at a significance level of 0.05.||||0.009
90903675|NCT02293837|181674540|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.395||||||P-value is for group difference in time trends from a longitudinal mixed effects model. Response variable was 2-hour C-peptide mAUC and covariates were treatment, study week, age, treatment\*study week, age\*study week.|Longitudinal mixed model|Random within-subject effects for intercept and study week were included assuming an unstructured covariance matrix.||Screening to Week 104||||0.395
90903676|NCT02293837|181674541|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.176||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with outcome variable of change in mAUC from screening and covariates of treatment, screening mAUC, and age.|ANCOVA|||Week 52. Only participants \>=12 years old had the 4-hour MMTT performed.||||0.176
90903677|NCT02293837|181674541|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.285||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with outcome variable of change in mAUC from screening and covariates of treatment, screening mAUC, and age.|ANCOVA|||Week 104. Only participants \>=12 years old had the 4-hour MMTT performed.||||0.285
90903678|NCT02293837|181674541|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.435||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with outcome variable of change in mAUC from screening and covariates of treatment, screening mAUC, and age.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||0.435
90903679|NCT02293837|181674541|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.931||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with outcome variable of change in mAUC from screening and covariates of treatment, screening mAUC, and age.|ANCOVA|||Week 104||||0.931
91101435|NCT02362412|182089482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|2.3||p-value was not adjusted|||Analysis of variance with treatment sequence, time point, and formulation as fixed effects and patient as a random effect using the data at Week 12 and Week 20 of the treatment period.|||2.3|-3.4|
90856673|NCT00395538|181577813|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ct.Th between the baseline and the year 1 biopsy. P-value interpretation is questionable since there were only 4 participants with non-missing Ct.Th values for both their baseline and year 1 biopsies.||||||0.043||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ct.Th at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.043
90856674|NCT00395538|181577813|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ct.Th between the baseline and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.334||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ct.Th at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.334
90856675|NCT00395538|181577813|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ct.Th between the year 1 biopsy and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.269||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis was performed with: Ct.Th change from baseline at biopsy year 1 or years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year, and baseline Ct.Th, as model covariates; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay of 30 to 31 months from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered to stabilize variance) was added as a covariate to the model for Cohort 2 only (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable).||||0.269
90856676|NCT00395538|181577814|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ct.Ar between the baseline and the year 1 biopsy. P-value interpretation is questionable since there were only 4 participants with non-missing Ct.Ar values for both their baseline and year 1 biopsies.||||||0.358||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ct.Ar at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.358
90903680|NCT02293837|181674541|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with outcome variable of change in mAUC from screening and covariates of treatment, screening mAUC, and age.|ANCOVA|||Week 52. Only participants \>=12 years old had the 4-hour MMTT performed.||||0.280
90903681|NCT02293837|181674541|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.985||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with outcome variable of change in mAUC from screening and covariates of treatment, screening mAUC, and age.|ANCOVA|||Week 104. Only participants \>=12 years old had the 4-hour MMTT performed.||||0.985
90903682|NCT02293837|181674542|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.762||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with outcome variable of change in average insulin use per kg from baseline and covariates of treatment, baseline average insulin use per kg, and age.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.762
90903683|NCT02293837|181674542|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with outcome variable of change in average insulin use per kg from baseline and covariates of treatment, baseline average insulin use per kg, and age.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||0.640
90903684|NCT02293837|181674542|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.145||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with outcome variable of change in avg insulin use per kg from baseline and covariates of treatment, baseline average insulin use per kg, and age.|ANCOVA|||Week 104||||0.145
90903685|NCT02293837|181674542|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.033||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with outcome variable of change in average insulin use per kg from baseline and covariates of treatment, baseline average insulin use per kg, and age.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.033
90903686|NCT02293837|181674542|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.591||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with outcome variable of change in avg insulin use per kg from baseline and covariates of treatment, baseline avg insulin use per kg, and age.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||0.591
91101436|NCT02362412|182089483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.9|||||Analysis of variance with treatment sequence, time point, and formulation as fixed effects and patient as a random effect using the data at Week 12 and Week 20 of the treatment period.|||1.9|-1.7|
90903687|NCT02293837|181674542|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with outcome variable of change in average insulin use per kg from baseline and covariates of treatment, baseline average insulin use per kg, and age.|ANCOVA|||Week 104||||0.810
91101437|NCT02362412|182089484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.4|||||Analysis of variance with treatment sequence, time point, and formulation as fixed effects and patient as a random effect using the data at Week 12 and Week 20 of the treatment period.|||0.4|-0.3|
91101438|NCT02362412|182089485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.4|||||Analysis of variance with treatment sequence, time point, and formulation as fixed effects and patient as a random effect using the data at Week 12 and Week 20 of the treatment period.|||0.4|-0.3|
90856677|NCT00395538|181577814|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ct.Ar between the baseline and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.76||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ct.Ar at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.760
90856678|NCT00395538|181577814|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ct.Ar between the year 1 biopsy and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.57||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ct.Ar at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.570
90856679|NCT00395538|181577815|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ct.Po.Ar between the baseline and the year 1 biopsy. P-value interpretation is questionable since there were only 4 participants with non-missing Ct.Po.Ar values for both their baseline and year 1 biopsies.||||||0.166||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ct.Po.Ar at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.166
90856680|NCT00395538|181577815|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ct.Po.Ar between the baseline and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.895||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ct.Po.Ar at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.895
90856681|NCT00395538|181577815|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ct.Po.Ar between the year 1 biopsy and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.282||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ct.Po.Ar at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.282
90856682|NCT00395538|181577816|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Cn.O.Th between the baseline and the year 1 biopsy.||||||0.003||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Cn.O.Th at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.003
90856683|NCT00395538|181577816|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Cn.O.Th between the baseline and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.|||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Cn.O.Th at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||<0.001
90856684|NCT00395538|181577816|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Cn.O.Th between the year 1 biopsy and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.68||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Cn.O.Th at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.680
90903688|NCT02293837|181674542|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.178||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with outcome variable of change in average insulin use per kg from baseline and covariates of treatment, baseline average insulin use per kg, and age.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.178
90856685|NCT00395538|181577817|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Cn.MAR between the baseline and the year 1 biopsy.||||||0.006||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Cn.MAR at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.006
91101439|NCT02362412|182089487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5|||||Analysis of variance with treatment sequence, time point, and formulation as fixed effects and patient as a random effect using the data at Week 12 and Week 20 of the treatment period.|||0.5|-0.5|
91101440|NCT02362412|182089488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5|||||Analysis of variance with treatment sequence, time point, and formulation as fixed effects and patient as a random effect using the data at Week 12 and Week 20 of the treatment period.|||0.5|-0.5|
91101441|NCT04595370|182089517|OTHER||F test statistics|1.07||||0.3645|||||||F-Test|||||||0.3645
91101442|NCT04595370|182089518|OTHER||Percent difference between treatment|-33.606||||0.1588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.53|17.644|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||17.644|-62.530|0.1588
90856686|NCT00395538|181577817|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Cn.MAR between the baseline and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.004||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Cn.MAR at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.004
90856687|NCT00395538|181577817|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Cn.MAR between the year 1 biopsy and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.904||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Cn.MAR at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.904
90903689|NCT02293837|181674542|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with outcome variable of change in average insulin use per kg from baseline and covariates of treatment, baseline average insulin use per kg, and age.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||0.430
90903690|NCT02293837|181674542|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.149||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with outcome variable of change in average insulin use per kg from baseline and covariates of treatment, baseline average insulin use per kg, and age.|ANCOVA|||Week 104||||0.149
90903691|NCT02293837|181674543|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.103||||||P-value is for group difference in time trends from a longitudinal mixed effects model. Response variable was average insulin use per kg and covariates were treatment, study week, age, treatment\*study week, age\*study week.|Longitudinal mixed model|Random within-subject effects for intercept and study week were included assuming an unstructured covariance matrix.||Screening to Week 104||||0.103
91101443|NCT04595370|182089518|OTHER||Percent difference between treatment|-11.826||||0.6846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.195|62.634|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||62.634|-52.195|0.6846
90903692|NCT02293837|181674543|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.452||||||P-value is for group difference in time trends from a longitudinal mixed effects model. Response variable was average insulin use per kg and covariates were treatment, study week, age, treatment\*study week, age\*study week.|Longitudinal mixed model|Random within-subject effects for intercept and study week were included assuming an unstructured covariance matrix.||Screening to Week 104||||0.452
90903693|NCT02293837|181674543|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.091||||||P-value is for group difference in time trends from a longitudinal mixed effects model. Response variable was average insulin use per kg and covariates were treatment, study week, age, treatment\*study week, age\*study week.|Longitudinal mixed model|Random within-subject effects for intercept and study week were included assuming an unstructured covariance matrix.||Screening to Week 104||||0.091
91101444|NCT04595370|182089518|OTHER||Percent difference between treatment|-36.127||||0.1398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.85|16.066|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||16.066|-64.850|0.1398
91101445|NCT03520387|182089524|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|3.7|||||Analysis of the MAIN EFFECT of LRFA (Group A + Group C) vs. simulated LRFA (Group B + Group D) on the outcome at 3 months, after adjustment for age and baseline value of the outcome. Negative scores indicate benefit with LRFA over simulated LRFA.|||3.7|-10.2|
91101446|NCT03520387|182089524|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|-1.6|||||Analysis of the MAIN EFFECT of AcTIVE-CBT (Group A + Group B) vs. TBSCE (Group C + Group D) on the outcome at 3 months, after adjustment for age and baseline value of the outcome. Negative scores indicate benefit with AcTIVE-CBT over TBSCE.|||-1.6|-11.0|
90903694|NCT02293837|181674544|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.154||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with outcome variable of change in HbA1c from baseline and covariates of treatment, baseline HbA1c, and age.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.154
91101447|NCT03520387|182089525|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6059.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2832.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12467.0|349.1|||||This is an analysis of the MAIN EFFECT of LRFA (Group A + Group C) vs. simulated LRFA (Group B + Group D) on CHANGE in step counts, after adjustment for age and baseline step counts. Positive values show increased steps with LRFA over simulated LRFA.|||349.1|-12467.0|
91104507|NCT02037984|182094987|OTHER|PT6A Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT6A Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|9.5|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.5|-10.3|
90856688|NCT00395538|181577818|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Cn.OS/BS between the baseline and the year 1 biopsy.||||||0.002||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Cn.OS/BS at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.002
90856689|NCT00395538|181577818|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Cn.OS/BS between the baseline and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.|||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Cn.OS/BS at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||<0.001
90856690|NCT00395538|181577818|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Cn.OS/BS between the year 1 biopsy and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.01||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Cn.OS/BS at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.010
90856691|NCT00395538|181577819|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Cn.ES/BS between the baseline and the year 1 biopsy.||||||0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Cn.ES/BS at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.001
90856692|NCT00395538|181577819|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Cn.ES/BS between the baseline and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.|||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Cn.ES/BS at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||<0.001
90856693|NCT00395538|181577819|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Cn.ES/BS between the year 1 biopsy and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.02||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Cn.ES/BS at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.020
90903695|NCT02293837|181674544|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.193||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with outcome variable of change in HbA1c from baseline and covariates of treatment, baseline HbA1c, and age.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||0.193
90903696|NCT02293837|181674544|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.397||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with outcome variable of change in HbA1c from baseline and covariates of treatment, baseline HbA1c, and age.|ANCOVA|||Week 104||||0.397
90903697|NCT02293837|181674544|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.125||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with outcome variable of change in HbA1c from baseline and covariates of treatment, baseline HbA1c, and age.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.125
90903698|NCT02293837|181674544|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.705||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with outcome variable of change in HbA1c from baseline and covariates of treatment, baseline HbA1c, and age.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||0.705
90903699|NCT02293837|181674544|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.378||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with outcome variable of change in HbA1c from baseline and covariates of treatment, baseline HbA1c, and age.|ANCOVA|||Week 104||||0.378
90903700|NCT02293837|181674544|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with outcome variable of change in HbA1c from baseline and covariates of treatment, baseline HbA1c, and age.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.035
90903701|NCT02293837|181674544|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.262||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with outcome variable of change in HbA1c from baseline and covariates of treatment, baseline HbA1c, and age.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||0.262
90958580|NCT01049217|181796993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.223||0.2669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 9: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.19|-0.69|0.2669
90903702|NCT02293837|181674544|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.338||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with outcome variable of change in HbA1c from baseline and covariates of treatment, baseline HbA1c, and age.|ANCOVA|||Week 104||||0.338
91101448|NCT03520387|182089525|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2081.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2983.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4666.6|8830.4|||||This is an analysis of the MAIN EFFECT of AcTIVE-CBT (Group A + Group B) vs. TBSCE (Group C + Group D) on CHANGE in step counts, after adjustment for age and baseline step counts.Positive values show increased steps with AcTIVE-CBT over TBSCE.|||8830.4|-4666.6|
90903703|NCT02293837|181674545|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.493||||||P-value is for group difference in time trends from a longitudinal mixed effects model. Response variable was HbA1c and covariates were treatment, study week, spline week (at week 4), age, treatment\*spline week, treatment\*study week, age\*study week.|Longitudinal mixed model|Random within-subject effects for intercept, study week, and spline week were included assuming an unstructured covariance matrix.||Screening to Week 104||||0.493
90903704|NCT02293837|181674545|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.659||||||P-value is for group difference in time trends from a longitudinal mixed effects model. Response variable was HbA1c and covariates were treatment, study week, spline week (at week 4), age, treatment\*spline week, treatment\*study week, age\*study week.|Longitudinal mixed model|Random within-subject effects for intercept, study week, and spline week were included assuming an unstructured covariance matrix.||Screening to Week 104||||0.659
90903705|NCT02293837|181674545|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.407||||||P-value is for group difference in time trends from a longitudinal mixed effects model. Response variable was HbA1c and covariates were treatment, study week, spline week (at week 4), age, treatment\*spline week, treatment\*study week, age\*study week.|Longitudinal mixed model|Random within-subject effects for intercept, study week, and spline week were included assuming an unstructured covariance matrix.||Screening to Week 104||||0.407
90903706|NCT02293837|181674546|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.634||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with a hypoglycemic event between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Baseline to Week 52||||0.634
90903707|NCT02293837|181674546|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with a hypoglycemic event between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Baseline to Week 104/End of Study||||1.000
90903708|NCT02293837|181674546|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.329||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with a hypoglycemic event between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Baseline to Week 52||||0.329
90903709|NCT02293837|181674546|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with a hypoglycemic event between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Baseline to Week 104/End of Study||||1.000
90903710|NCT02293837|181674546|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.847||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with a hypoglycemic event between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Baseline to Week 52||||0.847
90903711|NCT02293837|181674546|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.858||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with a hypoglycemic event between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Baseline to Week 104/End of Study||||0.858
90903712|NCT02293837|181674547|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.296||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with the AEs of interest between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Treatment start to Week 52||||0.296
90903713|NCT02293837|181674547|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.145||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with the AEs of interest between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Treatment start to Week 52||||0.145
90903714|NCT02293837|181674547|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with the AEs of interest between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Treatment start to Week 52||||0.027
90903715|NCT02293837|181674548|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.547||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with the AEs of interest between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Treatment start to Week 52||||0.547
90903716|NCT02293837|181674548|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.551||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with the AEs of interest between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Treatment start to Week 52||||0.551
90903717|NCT01076088|181674553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.27||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.04||Pairwise comparison, sitagliptin 50 mg + metformin 850 mg vs. metformin 850 mg. The normality assumption required for validity of ANCOVA was violated due to a biologically implausible extreme outlier. See below for results using robust regression.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment and prior antihyperglycemic agent (AHA) therapy status (yes/no) and a covariate for baseline A1C.||||0.04|-0.58|0.087
90903718|NCT01076088|181674553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|-0.52||Pairwise comparison, sitagliptin 50 mg + metformin 850 mg vs. sitagliptin 100 mg. The normality assumption required for validity of ANCOVA was violated due to a biologically implausible extreme outlier. See below for results using robust regression.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment and prior AHA therapy status (yes/no) and a covariate for baseline A1C.||||-0.52|-1.15|<0.001
90903719|NCT01076088|181674553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.39||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.08||Pairwise comparison, sitagliptin 50 mg + metformin 500 mg vs. metformin 500 mg. The normality assumption required for validity of ANCOVA was violated due to a biologically implausible extreme outlier. See below for results using robust regression.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment and prior AHA therapy status (yes/no) and a covariate for baseline A1C.||||-0.08|-0.69|0.014
90903720|NCT01076088|181674553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.37||Pairwise comparison, sitagliptin 50 mg + metformin 500 mg vs. sitagliptin 100 mg. The normality assumption required for validity of ANCOVA was violated due to a biologically implausible extreme outlier. See below for results using robust regression.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment and prior AHA therapy status (yes/no) and a covariate for baseline A1C.||||-0.37|-0.99|<0.001
90958581|NCT01049217|181796993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.219||0.5452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 10: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.30|-0.56|0.5452
91101449|NCT03520387|182089526|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|3.1|||||Analysis of the MAIN EFFECT of LRFA (Group A + Group C) vs. simulated LRFA (Group B + Group D) on the outcome at 3 months, after adjustment for age and baseline value of the outcome. Negative scores indicate benefit with LRFA over simulated LRFA.|||3.1|-5.2|
90903721|NCT01076088|181674553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-1.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|-0.93||Pairwise comparison, sitagliptin 50 mg + metformin 850 mg vs. placebo. The normality assumption required for validity of ANCOVA was violated due to a biologically implausible extreme outlier. See below for results using robust regression.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment and prior AHA therapy status (yes/no) and a covariate for baseline A1C.||||-0.93|-1.55|<0.001
90903722|NCT01076088|181674553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|-0.66||Pairwise comparison, metformin 850 mg vs. placebo. The normality assumption required for validity of ANCOVA was violated due to a biologically implausible extreme outlier. See below for results using robust regression.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment and prior AHA therapy status (yes/no) and a covariate for baseline A1C.||||-0.66|-1.28|<0.001
90903723|NCT01076088|181674553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-1.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|-0.78||Pairwise comparison, sitagliptin 50 mg + metformin 500 mg vs. placebo. The normality assumption required for validity of ANCOVA was violated due to a biologically implausible extreme outlier. See below for results using robust regression.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment and prior AHA therapy status (yes/no) and a covariate for baseline A1C.||||-0.78|-1.39|<0.001
91101450|NCT03520387|182089526|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|3.6|||||Analysis of the MAIN EFFECT of AcTIVE-CBT (Group A + Group B) vs. TBSCE (Group C + Group D) on the outcome at 3 months, after adjustment for age and baseline value of the outcome. Negative scores indicate benefit with AcTIVE-CBT over TBSCE.|||3.6|-4.2|
91101451|NCT03520387|182089527|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|10.1|||||Analysis of the MAIN EFFECT of LRFA (Group A + Group C) vs. simulated LRFA (Group B + Group D) on the outcome at 3 months after adjustment for age and baseline value of the outcome. Positive scores indicate better health with LRFA vs. simulated LRFA.|PROMIS physical health scores||10.1|-8.1|
91101452|NCT03520387|182089527|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|12.9|||||Analysis of the MAIN EFFECT of AcTIVE-CBT (Group A + Group B) vs. TBSCE (Group C + Group D) on the outcome at 3 months after adjustment for age and baseline value of the outcome. Positive scores indicate better health with AcTIVE-CBT vs. TBSCE|PROMIS physical health scores||12.9|-0.4|
91101453|NCT03520387|182089527|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|12.7|||||Analysis of the MAIN EFFECT of LRFA (Group A + Group C) vs. simulated LRFA (Group B + Group D) on the outcome at 3 months after adjustment for age and baseline value of the outcome. Positive scores indicate better health with LRFA vs. simulated LRFA.|PROMIS mental health scores||12.7|-5.4|
91101454|NCT03520387|182089527|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|10.6|||||Analysis of the MAIN EFFECT of AcTIVE-CBT (Group A + Group B) vs. TBSCE (Group C + Group D) on the outcome at 3 months after adjustment for age and baseline value of the outcome. Positive scores indicate better health with AcTIVE-CBT vs. TBSCE|PROMIS mental health scores||10.6|-7.0|
91101455|NCT03520387|182089528|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|1.9|||||Analysis of the MAIN EFFECT of LRFA (Group A + Group C) vs. simulated LRFA (Group B + Group D) on the outcome at 3 months, after adjustment for age and baseline value of the outcome. Negative scores indicate lower doses with LRFA over simulated LRFA.|||1.9|-7.7|
90903724|NCT01076088|181674553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.39||Pairwise comparison, metformin 500 mg vs. placebo. The normality assumption required for validity of ANCOVA was violated due to a biologically implausible extreme outlier. See below for results using robust regression.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment and prior AHA therapy status (yes/no) and a covariate for baseline A1C.||||-0.39|-1.01|<0.001
91101456|NCT03520387|182089528|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|1.0|||||Analysis of the MAIN EFFECT of AcTIVE-CBT (Group A + Group B) vs. TBSCE (Group C + Group D) on the outcome at 3 months, after adjustment for age and baseline value of the outcome. Negative scores indicate lower doses with AcTIVE-CBT over TBSCE.|||1.0|-7.5|
91101457|NCT03520387|182089529|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.7|||||Analysis of the MAIN EFFECT of LRFA (Group A + Group C) vs. simulated LRFA (Group B + Group D) on the outcome at 3 months, after adjustment for age. Positive scores indicate perceived benefit with LRFA over simulated LRFA.|||1.7|-1.4|
91101458|NCT03520387|182089529|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.5|||||Analysis of the MAIN EFFECT of AcTIVE-CBT (Group A + Group B) vs. TBSCE (Group C + Group D) on the outcome at 3 months, after adjustment for age and baseline value of the outcome. Positive scores indicate perceived benefit with AcTIVE-CBT over TBSCE.|||1.5|-1.3|
91101459|NCT03520387|182089530|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|3.7|||||Analysis of the MAIN EFFECT of LRFA (Group A + Group C) vs. simulated LRFA (Group B + Group D) on the outcome at 3 months after adjustment for age and baseline value of the outcome. Negative scores indicate less pain with LRFA over simulated LRFA.|||3.7|-5.5|
91101460|NCT03520387|182089530|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|2.6|||||Analysis of the MAIN EFFECT of AcTIVE-CBT (Group A + Group B) vs. TBSCE (Group C + Group D) on the outcome at 3 months after adjustment for age and baseline value of the outcome. Negative scores indicate less pain with AcTIVE-CBT vs. TBSCE|||2.6|-5.4|
90958582|NCT01049217|181796993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.229||0.5469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.31|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 11: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.31|-0.59|0.5469
91101461|NCT03520387|182089531|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|3.0|||||Analysis of the MAIN EFFECT of LRFA (Group A + Group C) vs. simulated LRFA (Group B + Group D) on the outcome at 3 months, after adjustment for age. Positive scores indicate more satisfaction with LRFA over simulated LRFA.|||3.0|-0.5|
91101462|NCT03520387|182089531|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|2.8|||||Analysis of the MAIN EFFECT of AcTIVE-CBT (Group A + Group B) vs. TBSCE (Group C + Group D) on the outcome at 3 months, after adjustment for age. Positive scores indicate more satisfaction with AcTIVE-CBT over TBSCE.|||2.8|-0.4|
91101463|NCT03520387|182089532|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-637.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|433.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1636.2|362.1|||||Analysis of the MAIN EFFECT of LRFA (Group A + Group C) vs. simulated LRFA (Group B + Group D) on the outcome at 3 months adjusting for age and baseline value of the outcome. Positive scores indicate greater activity with LRFA over simulated LRFA.|||362.1|-1636.2|
90903725|NCT01076088|181674553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.4||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.09||Pairwise comparison, sitagliptin 100 mg vs. placebo. The normality assumption required for validity of ANCOVA was violated due to a biologically implausible extreme outlier. See below for results using robust regression.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment and prior AHA therapy status (yes/no) and a covariate for baseline A1C.||||-0.09|-0.71|0.011
90903726|NCT01076088|181674553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-0.36||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.09||Pairwise comparison, sitagliptin 50 mg + metformin 850 mg vs. metformin 850 mg. This is a post-hoc analysis using robust regression, a valid method in the presence of outliers.|Regression, Robust|The Robust Regression model included terms for treatment and prior AHA therapy status (yes/no) and a covariate for baseline A1C.||||-0.09|-0.62|0.008
90903727|NCT01076088|181674553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|-0.6||Comparing co-administration with individual components. This is a post-hoc analysis using robust regression, a valid method in the presence of outliers.|Regression, Robust|The Robust Regression model included terms for treatment and prior AHA therapy status (yes/no) and a covariate for baseline A1C.||||-0.60|-1.13|<0.001
90903728|NCT01076088|181674553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.36||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.1||Comparing co-administration with individual components. This is a post-hoc analysis using robust regression, a valid method in the presence of outliers.|Regression, Robust|The Robust Regression model included terms for treatment and prior AHA therapy status (yes/no) and a covariate for baseline A1C.||||-0.10|-0.63|0.007
90903729|NCT01076088|181674553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.35||Comparing co-administration with individual components. This is a post-hoc analysis using robust regression, a valid method in the presence of outliers.|Regression, Robust|The Robust Regression model included terms for treatment and prior AHA therapy status (yes/no) and a covariate for baseline A1C.||||-0.35|-0.88|<0.001
90903730|NCT01076088|181674553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-1.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|-0.99||Comparing co-administration with individual components. This is a post-hoc analysis using robust regression, a valid method in the presence of outliers.|Regression, Robust|The Robust Regression model included terms for treatment and prior AHA therapy status (yes/no) and a covariate for baseline A1C.||||-0.99|-1.52|<0.001
90903731|NCT01076088|181674553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|-0.63||Comparing co-administration with individual components. This is a post-hoc analysis using robust regression, a valid method in the presence of outliers.|Regression, Robust|The Robust Regression model included terms for treatment and prior AHA therapy status (yes/no) and a covariate for baseline A1C.||||-0.63|-1.16|<0.001
91101464|NCT03520387|182089532|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|572.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|334.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-199.3|1343.6|||||Analysis of the MAIN EFFECT of AcTIVE-CBT (Group A + Group B) vs. TBSCE (Group C + Group D) on the outcome at 3 months adjusting for age and baseline value of the outcome. Positive scores indicate more satisfaction with AcTIVE-CBT over TBSCE.|||1343.6|-199.3|
90903732|NCT01076088|181674553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|-0.74||Comparing co-administration with individual components. This is a post-hoc analysis using robust regression, a valid method in the presence of outliers.|Regression, Robust|The Robust Regression model included terms for treatment and prior AHA therapy status (yes/no) and a covariate for baseline A1C.||||-0.74|-1.26|<0.001
91101465|NCT00541775|182089533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<=|0.001||95.0|-0.7|-0.32|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance with a term for treatment, and a covariate for baseline value.||||-0.32|-0.70|<=0.001
90903733|NCT01076088|181674553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.37||Comparing co-administration with individual components. This is a post-hoc analysis using robust regression, a valid method in the presence of outliers.|Regression, Robust|The Robust Regression model included terms for treatment and prior AHA therapy status (yes/no) and a covariate for baseline A1C.||||-0.37|-0.90|<0.001
90903734|NCT01076088|181674553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.39||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.12||Comparing co-administration with individual components. This is a post-hoc analysis using robust regression, a valid method in the presence of outliers.|Regression, Robust|The Robust Regression model included terms for treatment and prior AHA therapy status (yes/no) and a covariate for baseline A1C.||||-0.12|-0.65|0.004
90903735|NCT01076088|181674554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-18.52||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.75|-3.29||Pairwise comparison, sitagliptin 50 mg + metformin 850 mg vs. metformin 850 mg.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment and prior antihyperglycemic agent (AHA) therapy status (yes/no) and a covariate for baseline 2-H PMG.||||-3.29|-33.75|0.017
90903736|NCT01076088|181674554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-61.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.61|-46.07||Pairwise comparison, sitagliptin 50 mg + metformin 850 mg vs. sitagliptin 100 mg|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment and prior antihyperglycemic agent (AHA) therapy status (yes/no) and a covariate for baseline 2-H PMG.||||-46.07|-76.61|<0.001
91101466|NCT00541775|182089534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-17.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0|<=|0.001||95.0|-27.6|-8.1|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance with a term for treatment, and a covariate for baseline value.||||-8.1|-27.6|<=0.001
91101467|NCT00541775|182089535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-30.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.9|<=|0.001||95.0|-46.0|-15.0|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance with a term for treatment, and a covariate for baseline value.||||-15.0|-46.0|<=0.001
91031524|NCT04455633|181947524|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Responders|-0.8||||0.837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.85|7.16|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage of responders were analyzed using the CMH test stratified by the randomization factor of Baseline severity score (moderate, severe). The 95% CI are calculated using the asymptotic Wald method. Missing observations at Week 6 are imputed as nonresponses.||7.16|-8.85|0.837
91104508|NCT02037984|182094987|OTHER|PT6B Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT6B Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|9.5|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.5|-10.3|
90856694|NCT00395538|181577820|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Cn.AjAR between the baseline and the year 1 biopsy.||||||0.002||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Cn.AjAR at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.002
90856695|NCT00395538|181577820|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Cn.AjAR between the baseline and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.022||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Cn.AjAR at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.022
90856696|NCT00395538|181577820|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Cn.AjAR between the year 1 biopsy and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.228||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Cn.AjAR at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.228
90856697|NCT00395538|181577821|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ec.O.Th between the baseline and the year 1 biopsy. P-value interpretation is questionable since there were only 4 participants with non-missing Ec.O.Th values for both their baseline and year 1 biopsies.||||||0.004||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ec.O.Th at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.004
90856698|NCT00395538|181577821|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ec.O.Th between the baseline and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.006||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ec.O.Th at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.006
90856699|NCT00395538|181577821|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ec.O.Th between the year 1 biopsy and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.67||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ec.O.Th at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.670
90856700|NCT00395538|181577822|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ec.MAR between the baseline and the year 1 biopsy. P-value interpretation is questionable since there were only 4 participants with non-missing Ec.MAR values for both their baseline and year 1 biopsies.||||||0.003||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ec.MAR at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.003
90958583|NCT01049217|181796993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.7843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.41|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.41|-0.54|0.7843
90856701|NCT00395538|181577822|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ec.MAR between the baseline and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ec.MAR at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.001
90856702|NCT00395538|181577822|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ec.MAR between the year 1 biopsy and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.712||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ec.MAR at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.712
90856703|NCT00395538|181577823|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ec.OS/BS between the baseline and the year 1 biopsy. P-value interpretation is questionable since there were only 4 participants with non-missing Ec.OS/BS values for both their baseline and year 1 biopsies.||||||0.029||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ec.OS/BS at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.029
90856704|NCT00395538|181577823|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ec.OS/BS between the baseline and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.|||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ec.OS/BS at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||<0.001
90856705|NCT00395538|181577823|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ec.OS/BS between the year 1 biopsy and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.104||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ec.OS/BS at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.104
90856706|NCT00395538|181577824|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ec.ES/BS between the baseline and the year 1 biopsy. P-value interpretation is questionable since there were only 4 participants with non-missing Ec.ES/BS values for both their baseline and year 1 biopsies.||||||0.088||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ec.ES/BS at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.088
90903737|NCT01076088|181674554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-31.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.49|-16.28||Pairwise comparison, sitagliptin 50 mg + metformin 500 mg vs. metformin 500 mg|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment and prior antihyperglycemic agent (AHA) therapy status (yes/no) and a covariate for baseline 2-H PMG.||||-16.28|-46.49|<0.001
90903738|NCT01076088|181674554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-48.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.21|-33.67||Pairwise comparison, sitagliptin 50 mg + metformin 500 mg vs. sitagliptin 100 mg|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment and prior antihyperglycemic agent (AHA) therapy status (yes/no) and a covariate for baseline 2-H PMG.||||-33.67|-64.21|<0.001
90903739|NCT01076088|181674554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-87.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-102.87|-72.27||Pairwise comparison, sitagliptin 50 mg + metformin 850 mg vs. placebo|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment and prior antihyperglycemic agent (AHA) therapy status (yes/no) and a covariate for baseline 2-H PMG.||||-72.27|-102.87|<0.001
90903740|NCT01076088|181674554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-69.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.41|-53.7||Pairwise comparison, metformin 850 mg vs. placebo|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment and prior antihyperglycemic agent (AHA) therapy status (yes/no) and a covariate for baseline 2-H PMG.||||-53.70|-84.41|<0.001
90903741|NCT01076088|181674554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-75.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-90.47|-59.87||Pairwise comparison, sitagliptin 50 mg + metformin 500 mg vs. placebo|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment and prior antihyperglycemic agent (AHA) therapy status (yes/no) and a covariate for baseline 2-H PMG.||||-59.87|-90.47|<0.001
91101468|NCT04913675|182089543|NON_INFERIORITY|This outcome measure was analyzed using a hypothetical estimand and assessing non-inferiority of 500 mg IM dose versus 500 mg IV using a non-inferiority margin of 3.5 percent (%) on the risk difference scale. A post-hoc weekly imputation algorithm imputes the missing outcome iteratively for each week, where missing outcomes at Day 8, 15, 22, 29 are imputed.|Risk Difference (RD)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|3.26|||||Analysis was performed using a binomial regression model with identity link function and with treatment (Sotrovimab 500mg IM, 500mg IV), age (\<65, =\>65 years old) and gender (male, female) as covariates.|||3.26|-1.15|
91101469|NCT04913675|182089543|NON_INFERIORITY|This outcome measure was analyzed using a hypothetical estimand and assessing non-inferiority of 500 mg IM vs 500 mg IV using a non-inferiority margin of 3.5 percent (%) on the risk difference scale. A pre-specified daily imputation algorithm imputed the missing outcome iteratively for each study day starting with Day 2 and ending at Day 29.|Risk Difference (RD)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|3.56|||||Analysis was performed using a binomial regression model with identity link function and with treatment (Sotrovimab 500mg IM, 500mg IV), age (\<65, =\>65 years old) and gender (male, female) as covariates.|||3.56|-1.23|
90856707|NCT00395538|181577824|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ec.ES/BS between the baseline and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.009||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ec.ES/BS at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.009
90856708|NCT00395538|181577824|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ec.ES/BS between the year 1 biopsy and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.325||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ec.ES/BS at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.325
90856709|NCT00395538|181577825|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ec.AjAR between the baseline and the year 1 biopsy. P-value interpretation is questionable since there were only 3 participants with non-missing Ec.AjAR values for both their baseline and year 1 biopsies.||||||0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ec.AjAR at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.001
90856710|NCT00395538|181577825|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ec.AjAR between the baseline and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ec.AjAR at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.001
90856711|NCT00395538|181577825|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ec.AjAR between the year 1 biopsy and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.974||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ec.AjAR at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.974
90903742|NCT01076088|181674554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-43.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.99|-28.58||Pairwise comparison, metformin 500 mg vs. placebo|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment and prior antihyperglycemic agent (AHA) therapy status (yes/no) and a covariate for baseline 2-H PMG.||||-28.58|-58.99|<0.001
90903743|NCT01076088|181674554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-26.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.62|-10.84||Pairwise comparison, sitagliptin 100 mg vs. placebo|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment and prior antihyperglycemic agent (AHA) therapy status (yes/no) and a covariate for baseline 2-H PMG.||||-10.84|-41.62|<0.001
90903744|NCT01076088|181674555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-8.11||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.86|0.64||Pairwise comparison, sitagliptin 50 mg + metformin 850 mg vs. metformin 850 mg|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment and prior antihyperglycemic agent (AHA) therapy status (yes/no) and a covariate for baseline FPG.||||0.64|-16.86|0.069
91104509|NCT02037984|182094987|OTHER|PT7F Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT7F Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|9.5|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.5|-10.3|
91104510|NCT02037984|182094987|OTHER|PT9V Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT9V Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|9.5|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.5|-10.3|
91031525|NCT04455633|181947525|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.298||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|-0.15|||MMRM model|||Pain at its Worst: change from baseline was analyzed using MMRM model including fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, the randomization stratum of baseline pain severity (moderate, severe), and the baseline pain at its worst score as a covariate.||-0.15|-1.32|0.014
91031526|NCT04455633|181947525|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|-0.13|||MMRM model|||Pain at its Worst: change from baseline was analyzed using MMRM model including fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, the randomization stratum of baseline pain severity (moderate, severe), and the baseline pain at its worst score as a covariate.||-0.13|-1.27|0.017
91031527|NCT04455633|181947525|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.302||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.15|||MMRM model|||Pain at its Least: change from baseline was analyzed using MMRM model including fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, the randomization stratum of baseline pain severity (moderate, severe), and the baseline pain at its least score as a covariate.||-0.15|-1.33|0.015
91031528|NCT04455633|181947525|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.294||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|-0.11|||MMRM model|||Pain at its Least: change from baseline was analyzed using MMRM model including fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, the randomization stratum of baseline pain severity (moderate, severe), and the baseline pain at its least score as a covariate.||-0.11|-1.27|0.020
90856712|NCT00395538|181577826|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ic.O.Th between the baseline and the year 1 biopsy. P-value interpretation is questionable since there were only 4 participants with non-missing Ic.O.Th values for both their baseline and year 1 biopsies.||||||0.004||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ic.O.Th at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.004
90856713|NCT00395538|181577826|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ic.O.Th between the baseline and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.023||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ic.O.Th at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.023
90856714|NCT00395538|181577826|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ic.O.Th between the year 1 biopsy and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.288||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ic.O.Th at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.288
90903745|NCT01076088|181674555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-25.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.72|-17.04||Pairwise comparison, sitagliptin 50 mg + metformin 850 mg vs. sitagliptin 100 mg|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment and prior antihyperglycemic agent (AHA) therapy status (yes/no) and a covariate for baseline FPG.||||-17.04|-34.72|<0.001
90903746|NCT01076088|181674555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-5.72||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.44|3.0||Pairwise comparison, sitagliptin 50 mg + metformin 500 mg vs. metformin 500 mg|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment and prior antihyperglycemic agent (AHA) therapy status (yes/no) and a covariate for baseline FPG.||||3.00|-14.44|0.198
91101470|NCT04913675|182089561|NON_INFERIORITY|This outcome measure was analyzed using a hypothetical estimand and assessing non-inferiority of IM dose versus IV using a non-inferiority margin of 3.5% on the risk difference scale. Weekly imputation algorithm imputes the missing outcome iteratively for each week, where missing outcomes at Day 8, 15, 22, 29 are imputed.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|3.28|||||Post-hoc analysis was performed using a binomial regression model with identify link function and with treatment (Sotrovimab 500 mg IM, 500 mg IV), age (\<65, \>-65 years old), and sex (male, female) as covariates.|||3.28|-1.56|
90903747|NCT01076088|181674555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-17.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.33|-8.72||Pairwise comparison, sitagliptin 50 mg + metformin 500 mg vs. sitagliptin 100 mg|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment and prior antihyperglycemic agent (AHA) therapy status (yes/no) and a covariate for baseline FPG.||||-8.72|-26.33|<0.001
91031529|NCT04455633|181947525|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.309||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|-0.27|||MMRM model|||Pain Right Now: change from baseline was analyzed using MMRM model including fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, the randomization stratum of baseline pain severity (moderate, severe), and the baseline pain right now score as a covariate.||-0.27|-1.48|0.005
91101471|NCT04913675|182089564|EQUIVALENCE|IM dose was assessed for equivalence to IV based on the two-sided 90% confidence interval for the treatment ratio falling within equivalence bounds of 0.5 to 2.0.|Ratio of least square(LS) geometric mean|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.07|||||LS geometric mean was calculated for 500mg IV versus IM by using an Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) Model with treatment group (sotrovimab 500mg IM, 500mg IV), age (\<65, =\>65 years old), gender (male, female) and Baseline viral load as covariates.|||1.07|1.00|
91101472|NCT02057666|182089686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.406||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.182|0.903|||Log Rank|Stratified as per randomisation.|Stratified as per randomisation.|||0.903|0.182|0.027
91101473|NCT02057666|182089687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.465||||0.448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.065|3.355|||Log Rank|||||3.355|0.065|0.448
91031530|NCT04455633|181947525|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.301||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|0.11|||MMRM model|||Pain Right Now: change from baseline was analyzed using MMRM model including fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, the randomization stratum of baseline pain severity (moderate, severe), and the baseline pain right now score as a covariate.||0.11|-1.07|0.111
90856715|NCT00395538|181577827|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ic.MAR between the baseline and the year 1 biopsy. P-value interpretation is questionable since there were only 4 participants with non-missing Ic.MAR values for both their baseline and year 1 biopsies.||||||0.202||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ic.MAR at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.202
90859899|NCT00408629|181583127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013||||||Testing of ranked secondary measures was only started if significant group differences existed for both co-primary measures. Significant results for higher-ranked measure was needed to test next lower-ranked measure to control for multiple testing.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification levels for Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel = prior anti-TNF versus anti-TNF-naive.||The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was used to test the null hypothesis of no difference between adalimumab and placebo. Treatment differences were deemed statistically significant at a significance level of 0.05.||||0.013
90958584|NCT01049217|181796993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.9008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.44|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 13: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.44|-0.50|0.9008
90958585|NCT01049217|181796993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.9064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 14: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.50|-0.45|0.9064
91031531|NCT04455633|181947525|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.35|||MMRM model|||Interference score averaged Over Questions 9A - G: change from baseline was analyzed using MMRM model including fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, the randomization stratum of baseline pain severity (moderate, severe), and the baseline pain interference score as a covariate.||0.35|-0.87|0.399
91031532|NCT04455633|181947525|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.302||0.441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.36|||MMRM model|||Interference score averaged Over Questions 9A - G: change from baseline was analyzed using MMRM model including fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, the randomization stratum of baseline pain severity (moderate, severe), and the baseline pain interference score as a covariate.||0.36|-0.83|0.441
91031533|NCT04455633|181947525|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.346||0.575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.49|||MMRM model|||General Activity: change from baseline was analyzed using MMRM model including fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, the randomization stratum of baseline pain severity (moderate, severe), and the baseline general activity score as a covariate.||0.49|-0.87|0.575
90859900|NCT00408629|181583128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035||||||Testing of ranked secondary measures was only started if significant group differences existed for both co-primary measures. Significant results for higher-ranked measure was needed to test next lower-ranked measure to control for multiple testing.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification levels for Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel = prior anti-TNF versus anti-TNF-naive.||The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was used to test the null hypothesis of no difference between adalimumab and placebo. Treatment differences were deemed statistically significant at a significance level of 0.05.||||0.035
90859901|NCT00408629|181583129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.058||||||Testing of ranked secondary measures was only started if significant group differences existed for both co-primary measures. Significant results for higher-ranked measure was needed to test next lower-ranked measure to control for multiple testing.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification levels for Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel = prior anti-TNF versus anti-TNF-naive.||The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was used to test the null hypothesis of no difference between adalimumab and placebo. Treatment differences were deemed statistically significant at a significance level of 0.05.||||0.058
90859902|NCT00408629|181583130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028||||||Testing of ranked secondary measures was only started if significant group differences existed for both co-primary measures. Significant results for higher-ranked measure was needed to test next lower-ranked measure to control for multiple testing.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification levels for Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel = prior anti-TNF versus anti-TNF-naive.||The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was used to test the null hypothesis of no difference between adalimumab and placebo. Treatment differences were deemed statistically significant at a significance level of 0.05.||||0.028
90859903|NCT00408629|181583131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||||||Testing of ranked secondary measures was only started if significant group differences existed for both co-primary measures. Significant results for higher-ranked measure was needed to test next lower-ranked measure to control for multiple testing.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification levels for Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel = prior anti-TNF versus anti-TNF-naive.||The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was used to test the null hypothesis of no difference between adalimumab and placebo. Treatment differences were deemed statistically significant at a significance level of 0.05.||||0.006
90859904|NCT00408629|181583132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035||||||Testing of ranked secondary measures was only started if significant group differences existed for both co-primary measures. Significant results for higher-ranked measure was needed to test next lower-ranked measure to control for multiple testing.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification levels for Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel = prior anti-TNF versus anti-TNF-naive.||The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was used to test the null hypothesis of no difference between adalimumab and placebo. Treatment differences were deemed statistically significant at a significance level of 0.05.||||0.035
91031534|NCT04455633|181947525|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.337||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.61|||MMRM model|||General Activity: change from baseline was analyzed using MMRM model including fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, the randomization stratum of baseline pain severity (moderate, severe), and the baseline general activity score as a covariate.||0.61|-0.71|0.880
90856716|NCT00395538|181577827|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ic.MAR between the baseline and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.486||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ic.MAR at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.486
90903748|NCT01076088|181674555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-35.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.56|-27.06||Pairwise comparison, sitagliptin 50 mg + metformin 850 mg vs. placebo.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment and prior antihyperglycemic agent (AHA) therapy status (yes/no) and a covariate for baseline FPG.||||-27.06|-44.56|<0.001
90903749|NCT01076088|181674555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-27.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.4|-19.0||Pairwise comparison, metformin 850 mg vs. placebo.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment and prior antihyperglycemic agent (AHA) therapy status (yes/no) and a covariate for baseline FPG.||||-19.00|-36.40|<0.001
90903750|NCT01076088|181674555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-27.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.18|-18.73||Pairwise comparison, sitagliptin 50 mg + metformin 500 mg vs. placebo.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment and prior antihyperglycemic agent (AHA) therapy status (yes/no) and a covariate for baseline FPG.||||-18.73|-36.18|<0.001
90856717|NCT00395538|181577827|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ic.MAR between the year 1 biopsy and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.535||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ic.MAR at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.535
90856718|NCT00395538|181577828|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ic.OS/BS between the baseline and the year 1 biopsy. P-value interpretation is questionable since there were only 4 participants with non-missing Ic.OS/BS values for both their baseline and year 1 biopsies.||||||0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ic.OS/BS at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.001
90856719|NCT00395538|181577828|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ic.OS/BS between the baseline and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.003||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ic.OS/BS at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.003
90856720|NCT00395538|181577828|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ic.OS/BS between the year 1 biopsy and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.328||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ic.OS/BS at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.328
90903751|NCT01076088|181674555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-21.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.42|-13.04||Pairwise comparison, metformin 500 mg vs. placebo.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment and prior antihyperglycemic agent (AHA) therapy status (yes/no) and a covariate for baseline FPG.||||-13.04|-30.42|<0.001
90903752|NCT01076088|181674555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-9.93||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.72|-1.14||Pairwise comparison, sitagliptin 100 mg vs. placebo.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment and prior antihyperglycemic agent (AHA) therapy status (yes/no) and a covariate for baseline FPG.||||-1.14|-18.72|0.027
90958586|NCT01049217|181796993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.243||0.7205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.39|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 15: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.39|-0.57|0.7205
90958587|NCT01049217|181796993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.259||0.4334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.31|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.31|-0.71|0.4334
91031535|NCT04455633|181947525|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.368||0.978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.71|||MMRM model|||Mood: change from baseline was analyzed using MMRM model including fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, the randomization stratum of baseline pain severity (moderate, severe), and the baseline mood score as a covariate.||0.71|-0.73|0.978
90856721|NCT00395538|181577829|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ic.ES/BS between the baseline and the year 1 biopsy. P-value interpretation is questionable since there were only 4 participants with non-missing Ic.ES/BS values for both their baseline and year 1 biopsies.||||||0.002||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ic.ES/BS at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.002
90856722|NCT00395538|181577829|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ic.ES/BS between the baseline and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.|||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ic.ES/BS at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||<0.001
90856723|NCT00395538|181577829|EQUIVALENCE|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ic.ES/BS between the year 1 biopsy and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.789||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ic.ES/BS at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.789
90856724|NCT00395538|181577830|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ic.AjAR between the baseline and the year 1 biopsy. P-value interpretation is questionable since there were only 4 participants with non-missing Ic.AjAR values for both their baseline and year 1 biopsies.||||||0.651||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ic.AjAR at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.651
90856725|NCT00395538|181577830|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ic.AjAR between the baseline and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.58||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ic.AjAR at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.580
90856726|NCT00395538|181577830|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ic.AjAR between the year 1 biopsy and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.338||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ic.AjAR at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.338
90903753|NCT05515679|181674560|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.72|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.48|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.94|||t-test, 2 sided|||Using a paired sample t-test (two tailed), we wished to examine whether there was an increase in Constructive Engagement and Pleasure and a reduction in Passive Engagement, Distracted Engagement, and Non-Engagement, from baseline to treatment. With an anticipated PWD sample of 24, and using means and standard deviations from the PI's previous studies, we calculated a power of 90% to detect effects (alpha = .05; one-tailed test). (3) PWD and staff report high satisfaction wi||.94|.51|<0.01
90903754|NCT05515679|181674561|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.6||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.07|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.07|-0.59|.017
90903755|NCT05515679|181674562|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.41||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.07|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.07|-0.43|.008
90903756|NCT05515679|181674563|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.34||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-.00|-.30|0.053
90958588|NCT01049217|181796993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.199||0.8402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.35|||ANCOVA|||Change at Endpoint: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.35|-0.43|0.8402
91101474|NCT05181657|182089709|OTHER|The intervention effect was determined via a two sided, 0.05 level of significance, multivariable Poisson regression model, with Intervention group as the primary predictor.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.45|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|1.78||"Alpha significance levels used:~For the primary predictor (i.e., intervention group): alpha=0.05; For covariates: alpha=0.10; For interactions: alpha=0.15"|Poisson Regression||The estimate refers to the relative risk of getting a COVID-19 test onsite (Intervention/Control). Also, the above estimate is from the unadjusted Poisson regression model (i.e., model not adjusted for covariates and interactions).|To assess whether the active intervention was more successful than the control condition at increasing COVID-19 testing, we used univariable and multivariable Poisson regression models, with whether one received onsite testing right after the intervention as the outcome and intervention group as the main predictor. Potential clustering due to the randomization by week was accounted for by specifying an exchangeable correlation structure for participants who were recruited during the same week.||1.78|1.18|<0.05
90856727|NCT00395538|181577831|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Cortex 1 Spectral Calcium Mean between the baseline and the year 1 biopsy.||||||0.02||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis was performed with Cortex 1 Spectral Calcium Mean as the dependent variable; biopsy year (baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined) as the independent variable; study cohort as a covariate; and a random effect for participant. No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.020
90856728|NCT00395538|181577831|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Cortex 1 Spectral Calcium Mean between the baseline and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.11||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis was performed with Cortex 1 Spectral Calcium Mean as the dependent variable; biopsy year (baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined) as the independent variable; study cohort as a covariate; and a random effect for participant. No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.110
90856729|NCT00395538|181577831|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Cortex 1 Spectral Calcium Mean between the year 1 biopsy and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.764||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis was performed with Cortex 1 Spectral Calcium Mean as the dependent variable; biopsy year (baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined) as the independent variable; study cohort as a covariate; and a random effect for participant. No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.764
90856730|NCT00395538|181577832|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Cortex 1 Spectral Calcium Peak between the baseline and the year 1 biopsy.||||||0.227||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis was performed with Cortex 1 Spectral Calcium Peak as the dependent variable; biopsy year (baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined) as the independent variable; study cohort as a covariate; and a random effect for participant. No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.227
90856731|NCT00395538|181577832|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Cortex 1 Spectral Calcium Peak between the baseline and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.194||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis was performed with Cortex 1 Spectral Calcium Peak as the dependent variable; biopsy year (baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined) as the independent variable; study cohort as a covariate; and a random effect for participant. No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.194
90903757|NCT05515679|181674564|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.66|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.28|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.79|||t-test, 2 sided|||||.79|.54|<.01
90903758|NCT05515679|181674565|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.35|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.62|5.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.60|2.62|<.001
90903759|NCT05515679|181674566|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|-0.58|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.58|-1.55|<.001
90903760|NCT05515679|181674567|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|6.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.4||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|11.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||11.1|0.97|.022
90903761|NCT05515679|181674568|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.23|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.5||0.551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|5.44|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.44|-2.90|.551
90903762|NCT05515679|181674569|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.43|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.11|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.7|37.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||||37.2|17.7|<.001
90903763|NCT01448044|181674574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in percentages|38.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.703|55.997||The pvalue was based on the CochranMantelHaenszel (CMH) test, stratified by IL28B host genotype, geography, and baseline cirrhosis status.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||55.997|21.703|<0.0001
90903764|NCT02216422|181674579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of Participants|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|90.4|100.0|||||95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated using Wilson score method.|||100.0|90.4|
90903765|NCT04033991|181674612|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||Data were compared statistically across all 3 categories (favorable, intermediate and poor).||||<0.0001
90903766|NCT04033991|181674612|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||Data were compared statistically across all 3 categories (favorable, intermediate and poor).||||<0.0001
90903767|NCT04033991|181674613|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||Data were compared statistically across all 3 categories (favorable, intermediate and poor).||||<0.0001
90903768|NCT04033991|181674613|OTHER|||||||0.0068|||||||Log Rank|||Data were compared statistically across all 3 categories (favorable, intermediate and poor).||||0.0068
90856732|NCT00395538|181577832|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Cortex 1 Spectral Calcium Peak between the year 1 biopsy and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.434||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis was performed with Cortex 1 Spectral Calcium Peak as the dependent variable; biopsy year (baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined) as the independent variable; study cohort as a covariate; and a random effect for participant. No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.434
91101475|NCT00694122|182089711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|277.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|164.9|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.9|631.6|||t-test, 2 sided|No adjustments were made. T-test type: Paired samples t-test (df=14) was performed using 15 within subject differences.|The comparative measures was defined as (mean AUC of glargine (Lantus)) minus (mean AUC of NPH).|||631.6|-75.9|<0.05
90856733|NCT00395538|181577833|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Cortex 1 Spectral Calcium Width between the baseline and the year 1 biopsy.||||||0.003||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis was performed with Cortex 1 Spectral Calcium Width as the dependent variable; biopsy year (baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined) as the independent variable; study cohort as a covariate; and a random effect for participant. No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.003
90856734|NCT00395538|181577833|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Cortex 1 Spectral Calcium Width between the baseline and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.002||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis was performed with Cortex 1 Spectral Calcium Width as the dependent variable; biopsy year (baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined) as the independent variable; study cohort as a covariate; and a random effect for participant. No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.002
90856735|NCT00395538|181577833|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Cortex 1 Spectral Calcium Width between the year 1 biopsy and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.787||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis was performed with Cortex 1 Spectral Calcium Width as the dependent variable; biopsy year (baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined) as the independent variable; study cohort as a covariate; and a random effect for participant. No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.787
90856736|NCT00395538|181577834|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Cortex 1 Spectral Calcium Low between the baseline and the year 1 biopsy.||||||0.082||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis was performed with Cortex 1 Spectral Calcium Low as the dependent variable; biopsy year (baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined) as the independent variable; study cohort as a covariate; and a random effect for participant. No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.082
90903769|NCT04033991|181674615|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||Data were compared statistically across all 3 categories (favorable, intermediate and poor).||||<0.0001
90903770|NCT04033991|181674615|OTHER|||||||0.0004|||||||Log Rank|||Data were compared statistically across all 3 categories (favorable, intermediate and poor).||||0.0004
90903771|NCT04033991|181674616|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||Data were compared statistically across all 3 categories (favorable, intermediate and poor).||||<0.0001
90903772|NCT04033991|181674616|OTHER|||||||0.0014|||||||Log Rank|||Data were compared statistically across all 3 categories (favorable, intermediate and poor).||||0.0014
90903773|NCT04033991|181674621|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||Data were compared statistically across all 3 categories (favorable, intermediate and poor).||||<0.0001
91101476|NCT00694122|182089712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
90903774|NCT04033991|181674621|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||Data were compared statistically across all 3 categories (favorable, intermediate and poor).||||<0.0001
91101477|NCT00694122|182089716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91101478|NCT00063232|182089721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||paired t-test|||"self-controlled comparison of NASH activity index at 48 weeks and baseline. Null hypothesis is no change."||||<0.001
91101479|NCT00063232|182089722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||self-controlled comparison of serum aminotransferase levels at 48 weeks and baseline. Null hypothesis: No change||||0.04
90903775|NCT04033991|181674622|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||Data were compared statistically across all 3 categories (favorable, intermediate and poor).||||<0.0001
90903776|NCT04033991|181674622|OTHER|||||||0.0094|||||||Log Rank|||Data were compared statistically across all 3 categories (favorable, intermediate and poor).||||0.0094
90903777|NCT00577720|181674631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (LS Mean 35 mg DRFB/35 mg IRBB)|1.437|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.091|1.964||||||For power calculations, assumed that variability in test treatment groups is no more than 50% higher than reference group. If true ratio of CTX is 0.65, the power to detect this departure from a ratio of 1.0 in the primary analysis is 0.88.||1.964|1.091|
90903778|NCT00577720|181674631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (LS Mean 50 mg DRBB/35 mg IRBB)|1.507|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.139|2.066||||||For power calculations, assumed that variability in test treatment groups is no more than 50% higher than reference group. If true ratio of CTX is 0.65, the power to detect this departure from a ratio of 1.0 in the primary analysis is 0.88.||2.066|1.139|
91101480|NCT00063232|182089723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||paired t-test|||||||0.04
91101481|NCT03339453|182089724|NON_INFERIORITY|95% Confidence Interval of the treatment differences in treatment success rate.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|1.52||||||||1.52|-1.52|
91101482|NCT03834883|182089751|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.07
91101483|NCT03834883|182089752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.006
91101484|NCT03834883|182089753|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.16
91101485|NCT03834883|182089754|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.002
91101486|NCT03834883|182089755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.20
91101487|NCT03834883|182089756|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.01
90856737|NCT00395538|181577834|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Cortex 1 Spectral Calcium Low between the baseline and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.057||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis was performed with Cortex 1 Spectral Calcium Low as the dependent variable; biopsy year (baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined) as the independent variable; study cohort as a covariate; and a random effect for participant. No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.057
90856738|NCT00395538|181577834|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Cortex 1 Spectral Calcium Low between the year 1 biopsy and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.547||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis was performed with Cortex 1 Spectral Calcium Low as the dependent variable; biopsy year (baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined) as the independent variable; study cohort as a covariate; and a random effect for participant. No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.547
90856739|NCT00395538|181577835|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Cortex 1 Spectral Calcium High between the baseline and the year 1 biopsy.||||||0.922||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis was performed with Cortex 1 Spectral Calcium High as the dependent variable; biopsy year (baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined) as the independent variable; study cohort as a covariate; and a random effect for participant. No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.922
90856740|NCT00395538|181577835|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Cortex 1 Spectral Calcium High between the year 1 and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.342||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis was performed with Cortex 1 Spectral Calcium High as the dependent variable; biopsy year (baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined) as the independent variable; study cohort as a covariate; and a random effect for participant. No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.342
90903779|NCT00577720|181674631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (LS Mean 50 mg DRFB/35 mg IRBB)|1.535|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.177|2.086||||||For power calculations, assumed that variability in test treatment groups is no more than 50% higher than reference group. If true ratio of CTX is 0.65, the power to detect this departure from a ratio of 1.0 in the primary analysis is 0.88.||2.086|1.177|
91031536|NCT04455633|181947525|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.358||0.877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.76|||MMRM model|||Mood: change from baseline was analyzed using MMRM model including fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, the randomization stratum of baseline pain severity (moderate, severe), and the baseline mood score as a covariate.||0.76|-0.65|0.877
91101488|NCT03834883|182089758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.015
91101489|NCT03834883|182089759|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0005
91101490|NCT03834883|182089760|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.017
91101491|NCT03834883|182089761|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.83
91101492|NCT03834883|182089762|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
91101493|NCT02933151|182089772|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.14|||||Reference group is usual care|||1.14|0.92|
91101494|NCT03211858|182089776|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of SAR341402 over NovoLog/NovoRapid was demonstrated if upper bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the difference between SAR341402 and NovoLog/NovoRapid was \<0.3%. If non-inferiority was demonstrated, using a hierarchical step down testing procedure, the inverse non-inferiority of NovoLog/NovoRapid over SAR341402 was tested and was demonstrated if lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between SAR341402 and NovoLog/NovoRapid was \> -0.3%.|LS Mean difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.192|0.039|||||SAR341402 vs NovoLog/NovoRapid|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with treatment group (SAR341402, NovoLog/NovoRapid), the randomization strata of geographical region, type of diabetes and prior use of NovoLog/NovoRapid as fixed categorical effects, as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline HbA1c value.||0.039|-0.192|
91101495|NCT00004228|182089809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||"A Cox model was used to assess evidence of a difference in event-free survival comparing regimens A1+A2 (A: CCG BFM) to regimens B1+B2 (B: NHL/BFM-95) while adjusting for the other intervention through stratification."||||.97
91101496|NCT00004228|182089809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||"A Cox model was used to assess evidence of a difference in event-free survival comparing A1+B1 (1: no intensification) to A2 +B2 (2: intensification), while adjusting for the other intervention through stratification."||||.63
91101497|NCT01934231|182089821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate of Cure|88.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|69.85|97.55|||||"The estimated parameter represents the rate of cure, calculated as (number of participants with an outcome of Cure/number of participants analyzed) \* 100."|||97.55|69.85|
91101498|NCT02457546|182089827|NON_INFERIORITY|"The statistical hypothesis for testing the treatment difference was presented as follows:~H0: Δ ≤ -0.10 tested against the alternative hypothesis Ha: Δ \> -0.10. where:~* Δ is the difference between the success rates of Experimental (Evicel®) and Control (DuraSeal™) (Experimental minus Control)~* -0.10 is the non-inferiority difference PC is the proportion of success in DuraSeal™ Control subjects and PE is the proportion of success in EVICEL® subjects."|Difference in Success Rates|6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|14.4||||||||14.4|-1.8|
91101499|NCT00090402|182089829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age and body mass index||||||0.83
91101500|NCT02462057|182089843|EQUIVALENCE|The anticipated sample size of 3500 provided 80% power to detect a 3% pairwise difference between the proportions of participants who enrolled in HF with significance testing conducted at the Bonferroni-corrected significance level of 0.005 (0.05/10) to account for the 10 pairwise between-arm comparisons and pessimistically allowing for up to 10% further exclusions. The baseline monthly enrolment rate was estimated at ∼1%/month.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
91101501|NCT01750281|182089888|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|A hazard ratio \<1 favours selumetinib in combination with docetaxel|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.584|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|1.61|||Cox Proportional Hazards|||||1.61|0.80|0.584
91101502|NCT01750281|182089888|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|A hazard ratio \<1 favours selumetinib in combination with docetaxel|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.65|1.31|||Cox Proportional Hazards|||||1.31|0.65|0.690
91101503|NCT01750281|182089889|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|A hazard ratio \<1 favours selumetinib in combination with docetaxel|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.43||||0.126|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|2.13|||Cox Proportional Hazards|||||2.13|0.97|0.126
91101504|NCT01750281|182089889|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|A hazard ratio \<1 favours selumetinib in combination with docetaxel|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18||||0.485|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|1.78|||Cox Proportional Hazards|||||1.78|0.80|0.485
91101505|NCT01122680|182089944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.113|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.0043||95.0|0.036|0.19||First step of closed testing procedure, where the active treatments are compared to placebo. If this statisical test significant at the 0.05 alpha level then proceed to comparison of the next lower dose to placebo.|Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|This MMRM model includes treatment, period and baseline as fixed effects, and patient as a random effect.||Tio R5 minus Placebo||0.190|0.036|0.0043
91101506|NCT01122680|182089944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.057|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.1484||95.0|-0.021|0.135||Second step of closed testing procedure. If this statisical test significant at the 0.05 alpha level then proceed to comparison of the next lower dose to placebo.|Mixed effect repeated measures (MMRM)|This MMRM model includes treatment, period and baseline as fixed effects, and patient as a random effect.||Tio R2.5 minus Placebo||0.135|-0.021|0.1484
90903780|NCT00577720|181674631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (LS Mean 50 mg DRFB/50 mg DRBB)|1.068|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.867|1.321||||||For power calculations, assumed that variability in test treatment groups is no more than 50% higher than reference group. If true ratio of CTX is 0.65, the power to detect this departure from a ratio of 1.0 in the primary analysis is 0.88.||1.321|0.867|
90903781|NCT00577720|181674631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (LS Mean 50 mg DRFB/50 mg DRBB)|1.018|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.824|1.267||||||For power calculations, assumed that variability in test treatment groups is no more than 50% higher than reference group. If true ratio of CTX is 0.65, the power to detect this departure from a ratio of 1.0 in the primary analysis is 0.88.||1.267|0.824|
90903782|NCT00577720|181674632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (LS Mean 35 mg DRFB/35 mg IRBB)|1.208|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.749|2.099||||||The target numbers of subjects assessable for the primary analysis are 70 in the 50 mg DRFB group and 35 in the 35 mg IRBB group. Sample sizes are determined to provide adequate power for the primary comparison (ie, serum CTX for 50 mg DRFB vs. 35 mg IRBB).||2.099|0.749|
91101507|NCT01122680|182089944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.067|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||0.0664||95.0|-0.005|0.138||This test is considered as descriptive.|Mixed effect repeated measures (MMRM)|This MMRM model includes treatment, period and baseline as fixed effects, and patient as a random effect.||Tio R1.25 minus Placebo||0.138|-0.005|0.0664
91101508|NCT01122680|182089944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.046|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||||95.0|-0.031|0.124|||Mixed effect repeated measures (MMRM)|This MMRM model includes treatment, period and baseline as fixed effects, and patient as a random effect.||Tio R5 minus Tio R1.25||0.124|-0.031|
91101509|NCT01122680|182089944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.056|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||||95.0|-0.014|0.126|||Mixed effect repeated measures (MMRM)|This MMRM model includes treatment, period and baseline as fixed effects, and patient as a random effect.||Tio R5 minus Tio R2.5||0.126|-0.014|
91101510|NCT01122680|182089944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||||95.0|-0.088|0.069|||Mixed effect repeated measures (MMRM)|This MMRM model includes treatment, period and baseline as fixed effects, and patient as a random effect.||Tio R2.5 minus Tio R1.25||0.069|-0.088|
91101511|NCT03760640|182089964|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.86||||0.339|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.35|0.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.63|-2.35|0.339
91101512|NCT03760640|182089965|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.0||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1|4.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.90|1.10|0.011
91101513|NCT03760640|182089966|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.56||||0.557|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.02|2.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.14|-1.02|0.557
91101514|NCT03760640|182089967|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04||||0.548|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.15|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.07|-0.15|0.548
91101515|NCT03760640|182089969|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.49||||0.577|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.97|1.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.94|-0.97|0.577
91101516|NCT00564070|182089973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|30.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.37|42.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|General linear model, controlling for baseline values|The Mean Difference was calculated as percent adherence to glucose monitoring for the CBT-AD Arm minus the adherence to glucose monitoring for the Enhanced Treatment as Usual Arm.|Multiple imputation was used to handle missing data; analyses are reported for the acute outcomes of glucose monitoring (i.e., 4 month)||42.9|17.37|<.0001
91101517|NCT00564070|182089974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.72|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.15|||ANCOVA|General linear model; Controlling for baseline values|The Mean Difference was calculated as percent of HbA1c for the Enhanced Treatment as Usual Arm minus percent of HbA1c for the CBT-AD Arm.|Multiple imputation was used to handle missing data; results are reported for HbA1c at the acute outcome (i.e., 4 months)||1.15|.29|=.001
91104511|NCT02037984|182094987|OTHER|PT14 Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT14 Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|9.5|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.5|-10.3|
90903783|NCT00577720|181674632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (LS Mean 50 mg DRBB/35 mg IRBB)|1.132|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.665|2.003||||||The target numbers of subjects assessable for the primary analysis are 70 in the 50 mg DRFB group and 35 in the 35 mg IRBB group. Sample sizes are determined to provide adequate power for the primary comparison (ie, serum CTX for 50 mg DRFB vs. 35 mg IRBB).||2.003|0.665|
91101518|NCT00564070|182089975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.22|31.14|||Mixed Models Analysis||The Mean Difference was calculated as percent pill adherence via MEMs for the CBT-AD Arm minus the percent pill adherence for the Enhanced Treatment as Usual Arm.|Analyses are reported for the acute outcomes of MEMs monitoring (4 month). Higher percentages represent better adherence.||31.14|10.22|<0.0001
91101519|NCT00564070|182089976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.22|||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.33|10.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|General linear model, controlling for baseline values.|The Mean Difference was calculated as MADRS unit scale for the CBT-AD Arm minus the MADRS unit scale for the Enhanced Treatment as Usual Arm.|Analyses are reported for the acute outcomes of depression as assessed on the MADRS at acute outcome.||10.56|2.33|=.002
91031537|NCT04455633|181947525|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.354||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|0.07|||MMRM model|||Walking Ability: change from baseline was analyzed using MMRM model including fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, the randomization stratum of baseline pain severity (moderate, severe), and the baseline walking ability score as a covariate.||0.07|-1.32|0.079
91101520|NCT00564070|182089977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.74|||=|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.32|||ANCOVA|using GLM|The Mean Difference was calculated as CGI unit scale for the Enhanced Treatment as Usual Arm minus the CGI unit scale for the CBT-AD Arm.|||1.32|.16|=.01
91101521|NCT00564070|182089978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|22.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.0|=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.6|36.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||We hypothesized that differences in glucose monitoring adherence would continue to be superior in the CBT-AD condition compared to ETAU||36.1|8.6|=.002
91101522|NCT00564070|182089979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0|=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|26.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||We hypothesized that the CBT-AD condition would maintain higher medication adherence over follow up compared to ETAU||26.1|6.5|=.001
91101523|NCT00564070|182089980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|7.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||We hypothesized that the lower depression scores would remain in the CBT arm compared to ETAU over follow up.||7.2|-1.2|.16
91101524|NCT00564070|182089981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||We hypothesized that depression scores would remain lower in the CBT-AD arm compared to the ETAU arm||1.1|-.1|.10
91101525|NCT00564070|182089982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||We hypothesized that glucose control (HbA1C) would remain superior in the CBT-AD arm compared to the ETAU arm over follow up.||1.2|.6|.03
90856741|NCT00395538|181577835|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Cortex 1 Spectral Calcium High between the year 1 biopsy and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.449||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis was performed with Cortex 1 Spectral Calcium High as the dependent variable; biopsy year (baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined) as the independent variable; study cohort as a covariate; and a random effect for participant. No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.449
90856742|NCT01074047|181577868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.0829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.02|||Log Rank|The p-value is two-sided from an unstratified log-rank test|The hazard ratio is from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by ECOG performance status and cytogenetic risk status.|||1.02|0.69|0.0829
90856743|NCT01074047|181577868|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.1009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.03|||Log Rank||The hazard ratio is from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by ECOG performance status and cytogenetic risk status.|||1.03|0.69|0.1009
90903784|NCT00577720|181674632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (LS Mean 50 mg DRFB/35 mg IRBB)|1.407|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.913|2.404||||||The target numbers of subjects assessable for the primary analysis are 70 in the 50 mg DRFB group and 35 in the 35 mg IRBB group. Sample sizes are determined to provide adequate power for the primary comparison (ie, serum CTX for 50 mg DRFB vs. 35 mg IRBB).||2.404|0.913|
91101526|NCT01655069|182090017|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|-0.71|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 3 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||-0.71|-1.19|
91101527|NCT01655069|182090017|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|-1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|-0.88|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 6 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||-0.88|-1.34|
91101528|NCT01655069|182090017|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|-1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|-1.0|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 9 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||-1.00|-1.53|
91101529|NCT01655069|182090017|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|-1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|-1.16|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 12 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||-1.16|-1.63|
90958589|NCT01049217|181796994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.085||0.3098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.08|-0.25|0.3098
91101530|NCT01655069|182090017|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|-1.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|-1.32|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 24 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||-1.32|-1.76|
91101531|NCT01655069|182090017|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|-1.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|-1.31|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 40 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant"||-1.31|-1.81|
91101532|NCT01655069|182090017|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|-1.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.19|-1.67|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 52 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||-1.67|-2.19|
91101533|NCT01655069|182090017|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|-0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|-0.23|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 3 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||-0.23|-1.62|
91101534|NCT01655069|182090017|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|-1.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|-0.68|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 6 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant"||-0.68|-2.09|
90903785|NCT00577720|181674632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (LS Mean 50 mg DRFB/35 mg DRFB)|1.165|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.797|1.752||||||The target numbers of subjects assessable for the primary analysis are 70 in the 50 mg DRFB group and 35 in the 35 mg IRBB group. Sample sizes are determined to provide adequate power for the primary comparison (ie, serum CTX for 50 mg DRFB vs. 35 mg IRBB).||1.752|0.797|
91101535|NCT01655069|182090017|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|-0.7|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 9 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||-0.70|-2.09|
91101536|NCT01655069|182090017|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|-1.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.27|-0.88|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 12 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||-0.88|-2.27|
91101537|NCT01655069|182090017|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-1.1|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 24 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||-1.10|-2.50|
90903786|NCT00577720|181674632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (LS Mean 50 mg DRFB/50 mg DRBB)|1.243|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.828|1.99||||||The target numbers of subjects assessable for the primary analysis are 70 in the 50 mg DRFB group and 35 in the 35 mg IRBB group. Sample sizes are determined to provide adequate power for the primary comparison (ie, serum CTX for 50 mg DRFB vs. 35 mg IRBB).||1.990|0.828|
90903787|NCT00577720|181674633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (LS Mean 35 mg DRFB/35 mg IRBB)|0.947|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.316|2.993||||||The target numbers of subjects assessable for the primary analysis are 70 in the 50 mg DRFB group and 35 in the 35 mg IRBB group. Sample sizes are determined to provide adequate power for the primary comparison (ie, serum CTX for 50 mg DRFB vs. 35 mg IRBB).||2.993|0.316|
90958590|NCT01049217|181796994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.118||0.2429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.09|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.09|-0.37|0.2429
90958591|NCT01049217|181796994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.0504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 3: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.00|-0.54|0.0504
90903788|NCT00577720|181674633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (LS Mean 50 mg DRBB/35 mg IRBB)|1.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.929|5.429||||||The target numbers of subjects assessable for the primary analysis are 70 in the 50 mg DRFB group and 35 in the 35 mg IRBB group. Sample sizes are determined to provide adequate power for the primary comparison (ie, serum CTX for 50 mg DRFB vs. 35 mg IRBB).||5.429|0.929|
91101538|NCT01655069|182090017|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|-1.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|-0.85|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 40 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||-0.85|-2.29|
91104512|NCT02037984|182094987|OTHER|PT18C Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT18C Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|9.5|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.5|-10.3|
90958592|NCT01049217|181796994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.164||0.1141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.06|-0.58|0.1141
91101539|NCT01655069|182090017|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.83|-1.17|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 52 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||-1.17|-2.83|
91101540|NCT01655069|182090018|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|1.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.73|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 3 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||1.73|0.97|
91101541|NCT01655069|182090018|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|1.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.83|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 6 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||1.83|1.02|
91101542|NCT01655069|182090018|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|1.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|2.16|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 9 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||2.16|1.27|
90903789|NCT00577720|181674633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (LS Mean 50 mg DRFB/35 mg IRBB)|1.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.801|4.718||||||The target numbers of subjects assessable for the primary analysis are 70 in the 50 mg DRFB group and 35 in the 35 mg IRBB group. Sample sizes are determined to provide adequate power for the primary comparison (ie, serum CTX for 50 mg DRFB vs. 35 mg IRBB).||4.718|0.801|
91101543|NCT01655069|182090018|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|2.24|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 12 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||2.24|1.36|
91101544|NCT01655069|182090018|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|2.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.74|2.67|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 24 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||2.67|1.74|
91101545|NCT01655069|182090018|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|2.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.79|2.77|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 40 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||2.77|1.79|
91101546|NCT01655069|182090018|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|2.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.19|3.49|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 52 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||3.49|2.19|
91101547|NCT01655069|182090018|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|1.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|2.89|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 3 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||2.89|0.17|
91101548|NCT01655069|182090018|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|3.27|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 6 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||3.27|0.52|
90903790|NCT00577720|181674633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (LS Mean 50 mg DRFB/35 mg DRFB)|1.668|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.856|4.668||||||The target numbers of subjects assessable for the primary analysis are 70 in the 50 mg DRFB group and 35 in the 35 mg IRBB group. Sample sizes are determined to provide adequate power for the primary comparison (ie, serum CTX for 50 mg DRFB vs. 35 mg IRBB).||4.668|0.856|
91101549|NCT01655069|182090018|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|1.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|3.1|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 9 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||3.10|0.39|
91104513|NCT02037984|182094987|OTHER|PT19A Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT19A Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|9.5|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.5|-10.3|
90958593|NCT01049217|181796994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.173||0.0667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 5: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.02|-0.66|0.0667
90958594|NCT01049217|181796994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.189||0.2104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.13|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.13|-0.61|0.2104
91101550|NCT01655069|182090018|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|2.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|4.05|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 12 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||4.05|1.34|
91101551|NCT01655069|182090018|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|3.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|4.43|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 24 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||4.43|1.70|
91101552|NCT01655069|182090018|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|2.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|3.85|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 40 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||3.85|1.05|
91101553|NCT01655069|182090018|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|3.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.34|5.53|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 52 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||5.53|2.34|
91101554|NCT01655069|182090019|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|-0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|-0.69|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 3 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||-0.69|-1.27|
91101555|NCT01655069|182090019|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|-1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|-0.86|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 6 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant"||-0.86|-1.44|
91101556|NCT01655069|182090019|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|-1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-1.02|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 9 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant"||-1.02|-1.60|
91101557|NCT01655069|182090019|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|-1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|-0.93|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 12 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant"||-0.93|-1.51|
91101558|NCT01655069|182090019|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-1.21|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 24 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||-1.21|-1.80|
91101559|NCT01655069|182090019|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|-1.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|-1.22|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 40 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||-1.22|-1.83|
91101560|NCT01655069|182090019|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|-1.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|-1.43|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 52 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||-1.43|-2.22|
91101561|NCT01655069|182090019|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|-0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|-0.13|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 3 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||-0.13|-1.73|
91101562|NCT01655069|182090019|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|-0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|-0.4|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 6 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||-0.40|-1.48|
91104514|NCT02037984|182094987|OTHER|PT19F Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT19F Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|9.5|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.5|-10.3|
90903791|NCT00577720|181674633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (LS Mean 50 mg DRFB/50 mgDRBB)|0.868|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.504|1.488||||||The target numbers of subjects assessable for the primary analysis are 70 in the 50 mg DRFB group and 35 in the 35 mg IRBB group. Sample sizes are determined to provide adequate power for the primary comparison (ie, serum CTX for 50 mg DRFB vs. 35 mg IRBB).||1.488|0.504|
91101563|NCT01655069|182090019|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|-0.17|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 9 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||-0.17|-1.46|
91101564|NCT01655069|182090019|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|-0.28|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 12 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||-0.28|-1.53|
91101565|NCT01655069|182090019|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.38|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 24 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||-0.38|-1.80|
91101566|NCT01655069|182090019|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|-1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.92|-0.44|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 40 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||-0.44|-1.92|
91101567|NCT01655069|182090019|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|-1.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.59|-1.0|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 52 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||-1.00|-2.59|
91101568|NCT01655069|182090020|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|0.17|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 3 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||0.17|-1.65|
91101569|NCT01655069|182090020|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|-0.36|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 6 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||-0.36|-2.23|
91101570|NCT01655069|182090020|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|-1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|-0.22|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 9 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||-0.22|-2.06|
91101571|NCT01655069|182090020|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|-1.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|-0.38|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 12 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||-0.38|-2.18|
91101572|NCT01655069|182090020|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|-1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|-0.12|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 24 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant"||-0.12|-1.95|
91101573|NCT01655069|182090020|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|-1.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.93|-1.0|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 40 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||-1.00|-2.93|
91101574|NCT01655069|182090020|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.48|-0.93|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 52 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||-0.93|-3.48|
91104515|NCT02037984|182094987|OTHER|PT23F Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT23F Percentage Point Difference|-5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.2|3.9|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||3.9|-19.2|
90958595|NCT01049217|181796994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.197||0.483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.25|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 7: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.25|-0.53|0.4830
90856744|NCT01074047|181577869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|12.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|21.0|||||Estimates of the 1-year (365 day) survival probabilities and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) were presented by treatment group. The CI for the difference in the 1-year survival probabilities was derived using Greenwoods variance estimate.|||21.0|3.5|
90856745|NCT01074047|181577870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.1495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.05|||Log Rank|2 sided unstratified|The hazard ratio is from an unstratified Cox proportional hazards model.|Median is estimated from a Kaplan-Meier distribution of EFS||1.05|0.72|0.1495
90958596|NCT01049217|181796994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.203||0.5757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.29|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.29|-0.51|0.5757
91101575|NCT00835042|182090039|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|92.5||||||90.0|85.8|99.8|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||99.8|85.8|
91101576|NCT00835042|182090040|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|98.9||||||90.0|92.2|106.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||106|92.2|
91101577|NCT00835042|182090041|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|99.1||||||90.0|92.3|106.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||106|92.3|
91101578|NCT00835042|182090042|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|105.0||||||90.0|99.3|111.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||111|99.3|
91101579|NCT00835042|182090043|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|99.1||||||90.0|96.4|102.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||102|96.4|
91101580|NCT00835042|182090044|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|99.3||||||90.0|96.7|102.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||102|96.7|
91101581|NCT00835042|182090045|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|91.0||||||90.0|81.8|101.0|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||101|81.8|
91101582|NCT00835042|182090046|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|98.9||||||90.0|94.6|103.0|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||103|94.6|
91101583|NCT00835042|182090047|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|103.0||||||90.0|97.6|108.0|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||108|97.6|
91101584|NCT02571244|182090068|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.85||||||||1.85|0.99|
91101585|NCT02571244|182090069|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.28
91101586|NCT02571244|182090070|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.42
91101587|NCT02571244|182090071|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.95||||||||1.95|1.08|
91101588|NCT02571244|182090072|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.92||||||||1.92|1.07|
91101589|NCT00185900|182090073|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.01
90958597|NCT01049217|181796994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.208||0.3231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 9: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.20|-0.62|0.3231
91101590|NCT00286455|182090189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.31||A step-down strategy was used for the primary analysis. First, the 25mg dose was compared to placebo at the 2-sided 0.05 significance level. The 12.5 mg dose was compared to placebo only if the comparison of the 25mg dose to placebo was significant.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint (HbA1c) as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|Null Hypothesis: No difference between treatment and placebo arms in change from baseline in glycosylated hemoglobin. Sample size calculated based on normally distributed means. For comparison of either dose vs. placebo (2-sample t-test), study sample size \>=325 subjects had 95% power to detect a treatment difference as small as 0.5% in the supportive per protocol analysis set assuming SD=0.8%, 2-sided \>0.05 significance level and \>=80% of subjects meeting per protocol criteria.||-0.31|-0.76|<0.001
91101591|NCT00286455|182090189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.35|||ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint (HbA1c) as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|Null Hypothesis: No difference between treatment and placebo arms in change from baseline in glycosylated hemoglobin. Sample size calculated based on normally distributed means. For comparison of either dose vs. placebo (2-sample t-test), study sample size \>=325 subjects had 95% power to detect a treatment difference as small as 0.5% in the supportive per protocol analysis set assuming SD=0.8%, 2-sided \>0.05 significance level and \>=80% of subjects meeting per protocol criteria.||-0.35|-0.80|<0.001
91101592|NCT00286455|182090190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|-0.14||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.14|-0.39|<0.001
91101593|NCT00286455|182090190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.21||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.21|-0.46|<0.001
91101594|NCT00286455|182090191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.23||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.23|-0.57|<0.001
91101595|NCT00286455|182090191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.33||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.33|-0.68|<0.001
91101596|NCT00286455|182090192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.25||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.25|-0.63|<0.001
91101597|NCT00286455|182090192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.35||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.35|-0.73|<0.001
91101598|NCT00286455|182090193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.27||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.27|-0.68|<0.001
91101599|NCT00286455|182090193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.33||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.33|-0.74|<0.001
91101600|NCT00286455|182090194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.24||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.24|-0.67|<0.001
91101601|NCT00286455|182090194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.27||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.27|-0.70|<0.001
91101602|NCT00286455|182090195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.2||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.5|-5.0||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-5.0|-21.5|0.002
91101603|NCT00286455|182090195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.0|-10.4||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-10.4|-27.0|<0.001
91101604|NCT00286455|182090196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.7|-10.1||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-10.1|-26.7|<0.001
91101605|NCT00286455|182090196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.7|-13.0||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-13.0|-29.7|<0.001
91101606|NCT00286455|182090197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.1|-9.7||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-9.7|-27.1|<0.001
91104516|NCT02037984|182094987|OTHER|non-PT22F Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|non-PT22F Percentage Point Difference|89.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|75.2|95.7|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||95.7|75.2|
91101607|NCT00286455|182090197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.2|-15.7||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-15.7|-33.2|<0.001
91101608|NCT00286455|182090198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.7||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.8|-6.7||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-6.7|-26.8|0.001
91101609|NCT00286455|182090198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.4|-12.2||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-12.2|-32.4|<0.001
91101610|NCT00286455|182090199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.5||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.8|-6.2||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-6.2|-26.8|0.002
91031538|NCT04455633|181947525|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.345||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.2|||MMRM model|||Walking Ability: change from baseline was analyzed using MMRM model including fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, the randomization stratum of baseline pain severity (moderate, severe), and the baseline walking ability score as a covariate.||0.20|-1.16|0.163
91101611|NCT00286455|182090199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.6|-10.8||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-10.8|-31.6|<0.001
91101612|NCT00286455|182090200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.9|-8.7||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-8.7|-30.9|<0.001
90856746|NCT01074047|181577871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.5832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.66|||Log Rank|2 sided unstratified|The hazard ratio is from an unstratified Cox proportional hazards model.|Median is estimated from a Kaplan-Meier distribution of RFS||1.66|0.75|0.5832
90856747|NCT01074047|181577872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5384|||||||Fisher Exact|P-value is from Fishers exact test||||||0.5384
90856748|NCT01074047|181577874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0376|||||||Fisher Exact|P-value is from Fishers exact test||||||0.0376
90856749|NCT01074047|181577898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Ratio|0.79||||0.0721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.02|||negative binomial regression analysis|||||1.02|0.62|0.0721
90856750|NCT01711372|181577936|OTHER||||||||||||||Chi-squared|||AUC or ROC for Groundskeeper Game|AUC of ROC is 0.78|||
90856751|NCT01711372|181577937|OTHER||||||||||||||||||AUC of ROC. Proportion of accurate ADHD diagnoses is 0.76|||
90856752|NCT01711372|181577938|OTHER|AUC of ROC|||||||||||||||||AUC of ROC. Proportion of accurate ADHD diagnosis is 0.62|||
90856753|NCT01557894|181577985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|ONE_SIDED|95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at .05|ANCOVA|Changes in primary outcome measures were evaluated using univariate ANCOVA, with pre-intervention scores as covariates, and group as a fixed factor||||||<0.01
90856754|NCT01557894|181577986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|ONE_SIDED|95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at .05|ANCOVA|Changes in primary outcome measures were evaluated using univariate ANCOVA, with pre-intervention scores as covariates, and group as a fixed factor||||||<0.01
90856755|NCT01557894|181577987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Changes in primary outcome measures were evaluated using univariate ANCOVA, with pre-intervention scores as covariates, and group as a fixed factor.||||||<0.01
90856756|NCT01557894|181577988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.01
90856757|NCT01557894|181577989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.01
90856758|NCT03402659|181577990|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06098|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.105548||0.564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26973|0.14777|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mean change from baseline neflamapimod vs placebo||0.14777|-0.26973|0.564
90856759|NCT03402659|181577991|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.72||0.823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|4.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mean change from baseline neflamapimod vs placebo||4.8|-6.0|0.823
90856760|NCT03402659|181577992|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mean change from baseline neflamapimod vs placebo||0.6|-0.4|0.806
90856761|NCT03402659|181577993|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Mean change from baseline neflamapimod vs placebo||0.5|-1.0|0.489
90856762|NCT03402659|181577994|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.6||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.8|-1.8|||ANCOVA|||Mean change from baseline neflamapimod vs placebo||-1.8|-35.8|0.031
90856763|NCT03402659|181577995|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|-0.5|||ANCOVA|||Mean change from baseline neflamapimod vs placebo||-0.5|-3.6|0.012
90856764|NCT03402659|181577996|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-117.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|314.0||0.709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-738.9|504.2|||ANCOVA|||Mean change from baseline neflamapimod vs placebo||504.2|-738.9|0.709
90856765|NCT03402659|181577997|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.03||0.192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.7|10.7|||ANCOVA|||Mean change from baseline neflamapimod vs placebo||10.7|-52.7|0.192
90903792|NCT03216902|181674646|SUPERIORITY|Claim superiority of DE-126 compare to Placebo at 3 timepoints (9:00, 13:00 and 17:00)|||||<|0.0001||||||P value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using Hochberg step-up procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|||This endpoint is to test if one of four concentrations of DE-126 is superior to the placebo in lowering IOP at each specified timepoint (9:00, 13:00 and 17:00) at Week 6 compared to baseline. Therefore, 0.005% Latanoprost group is not included in the analysis.||||<0.0001
91101613|NCT00286455|182090200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.6|-12.2||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-12.2|-34.6|<0.001
91101614|NCT00286455|182090201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.6|-8.0||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-8.0|-30.6|<0.001
91101615|NCT00286455|182090201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.7|-12.9||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-12.9|-35.7|<0.001
91101616|NCT00286455|182090202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.1|-9.0||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-9.0|-34.1|<0.001
91101617|NCT00286455|182090202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.4|-15.1||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-15.1|-40.4|<0.001
91101618|NCT00286455|182090203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.569||||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.257|1.262|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, diabetes duration and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||1.262|0.257|0.165
90903793|NCT03216902|181674646|SUPERIORITY|Claim superiority of DE-126 compare to Placebo at 3 timepoints (9:00, 13:00 and 17:00)|||||<|0.0001||||||P value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using Hochberg step-up procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|||This endpoint is to test if one of four concentrations of DE-126 is superior to the placebo in lowering IOP at each specified timepoint (9:00, 13:00 and 17:00) at Week 6 compared to baseline. Therefore, 0.005% Latanoprost group is not included in the analysis.||||<0.0001
90903794|NCT03216902|181674646|SUPERIORITY|Claim superiority of DE-126 compare to Placebo at 3 timepoints (9:00, 13:00 and 17:00)|||||<|0.0001||||||P value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using Hochberg step-up procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|||This endpoint is to test if one of four concentrations of DE-126 is superior to the placebo in lowering IOP at each specified timepoint (9:00, 13:00 and 17:00) at Week 6 compared to baseline. Therefore, 0.005% Latanoprost group is not included in the analysis.||||<0.0001
90903795|NCT03216902|181674646|SUPERIORITY|Claim superiority of DE-126 compare to Placebo at 3 timepoints (9:00, 13:00 and 17:00)|||||<|0.0001||||||P value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using Hochberg step-up procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|||This endpoint is to test if one of four concentrations of DE-126 is superior to the placebo in lowering IOP at each specified timepoint (9:00, 13:00 and 17:00) at Week 6 compared to baseline. Therefore, 0.005% Latanoprost group is not included in the analysis.||||<0.0001
90903796|NCT01374802|181674665|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing)|Geometric Mean Ratio|115.29|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.36|131.13|||ANOVA||the standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|relative bioavailability comparison (Faldaprevir+DRV/r : DRV/r) of Darunavir||131.13|101.36|
90903797|NCT01374802|181674666|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing)|Geometric Mean Ratio|87.91|STANDARD_DEVIATION|38.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|68.609|112.63|||ANOVA||the standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|relative bioavailability comparison (Faldaprevir+DRV/r : DRV/r) of Darunavir||112.630|68.609|
91101619|NCT00286455|182090203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.32||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.138|0.739|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, diabetes duration and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||0.739|0.138|0.008
91101620|NCT00286455|182090204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.194||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.073|0.516|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, diabetes duration and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||0.516|0.073|0.001
91101621|NCT00286455|182090204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.145|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.052|0.405|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, diabetes duration and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||0.405|0.052|<0.001
91101622|NCT00286455|182090205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.6||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.3|0.2||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.2|-15.3|0.056
91104517|NCT02037984|182094987|OTHER|non-PT33F Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|non-PT33F Percentage Point Difference|97.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|85.9|99.5|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||99.5|85.9|
90958598|NCT01049217|181796994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.212||0.3143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 10: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.20|-0.63|0.3143
90958599|NCT01049217|181796994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.222||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.33|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 11: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.33|-0.54|0.6300
90958600|NCT01049217|181796994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.227||0.5752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.32|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.32|-0.57|0.5752
90958601|NCT01049217|181796994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.219||0.8905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 13: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.40|-0.46|0.8905
90958602|NCT01049217|181796994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.228||0.9991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.45|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 14: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.45|-0.45|0.9991
90958603|NCT01049217|181796994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.228||0.8927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.42|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 15: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.42|-0.48|0.8927
91031539|NCT04455633|181947525|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.344||0.875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.62|||MMRM model|||Normal Work: change from baseline was analyzed using MMRM model including fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, the randomization stratum of baseline pain severity (moderate, severe), and the baseline normal work score as a covariate.||0.62|-0.73|0.875
90958604|NCT01049217|181796994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.245||0.8067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.42|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.42|-0.54|0.8067
90958605|NCT01049217|181796994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.9009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Change at Endpoint: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.40|-0.35|0.9009
90958606|NCT01049217|181796995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.177||0.0948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4, PSI: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.05|-0.64|0.0948
90958607|NCT01049217|181796995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.203||0.4167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.23|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8, PSI: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.23|-0.57|0.4167
90856766|NCT03402659|181577998|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.43||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.6|1.6|||ANCOVA|||Mean change from baseline neflamapimod vs placebo||1.6|-43.6|0.068
90958608|NCT01049217|181796995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.226||0.8179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12, PSI: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.50|-0.39|0.8179
90958609|NCT01049217|181796995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.209||0.6913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16, PSI: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.50|-0.33|0.6913
91031540|NCT04455633|181947525|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.335||0.914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.62|||MMRM model|||Normal Work: change from baseline was analyzed using MMRM model including fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, the randomization stratum of baseline pain severity (moderate, severe), and the baseline normal work score as a covariate.||0.62|-0.69|0.914
91104518|NCT02037984|182094988|OTHER|PT1 Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT1 Percentage Point Difference|-3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|6.3|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||6.3|-17.3|
90856767|NCT03402659|181577999|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-110.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|77.11||0.156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-262.7|42.4|||ANCOVA|||Mean change from baseline neflamapimod vs placebo||42.4|-262.7|0.156
90856768|NCT03402659|181578000|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Mean change from baseline neflamapimod vs placebo||0.0|-0.0|0.590
90856769|NCT02128828|181578006|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0079|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0079
90856770|NCT00145600|181578017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||KM Event-free survival estimate|0.886|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|0.953||||||||0.953|0.820|
90856771|NCT00145600|181578017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||KM event-free survival estimate|0.844|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.739|0.95||||||||0.950|0.739|
90856772|NCT00145600|181578017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||KM event-free survival estimate|0.667|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.933||||||||0.933|0.400|
90856773|NCT00145600|181578017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||KM event-free survival estimate|0.793|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.726|0.86||||||||0.860|0.726|
90856774|NCT00145600|181578018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3097||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.3097
90856775|NCT00145600|181578018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.6|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
90856776|NCT00145600|181578018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.0001
90856777|NCT00145600|181578018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.5|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
90856778|NCT00145600|181578018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.0001
90856779|NCT00145600|181578018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.37|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
90856780|NCT00145600|181578018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0197||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0197
90856781|NCT00145600|181578018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.51|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
90856782|NCT00145600|181578019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.0001
91101623|NCT00286455|182090205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.1|-5.5||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-5.5|-21.1|<0.001
91101624|NCT00286455|182090206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|9.4||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||9.4|-7.8|0.850
91101625|NCT00286455|182090206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5||||0.571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|11.2||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||11.2|-6.2|0.571
91101626|NCT00286455|182090207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|7.0||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||7.0|-7.8|0.917
91101627|NCT00286455|182090207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.7||||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|1.7||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||1.7|-13.2|0.133
91101628|NCT00286455|182090208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.9||||0.348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|4.3||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||4.3|-12.1|0.348
91101629|NCT00286455|182090208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.0||||0.152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|2.2||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||2.2|-14.3|0.152
91101630|NCT00286455|182090209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.2||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|1.4||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||1.4|-11.7|0.120
91101631|NCT00286455|182090209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.5||||0.104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|1.1||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||1.1|-12.1|0.104
91101632|NCT00286455|182090210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0||||0.247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|2.8||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||2.8|-10.9|0.247
91101633|NCT00286455|182090210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.4||||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|1.6||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||1.6|-12.3|0.129
91101634|NCT00286455|182090211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.73||||0.671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.14|2.67||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||2.67|-4.14|0.671
91101635|NCT00286455|182090211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.15||||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.57|1.27||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||1.27|-5.57|0.218
90903798|NCT01374802|181674667|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing)|Geometric Mean Ratio|128.41|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|115.724|142.489|||ANOVA||the standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|relative bioavailability comparison (Faldaprevir+DRV/r : DRV/r) of Darunavir||142.489|115.724|
90903799|NCT01370603|181674674|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Equivalence was declared if the 97.5% expanded confidence interval for the mean difference between the fixed-dose combination and co-administration in percent change from baseline was contained within ±4%.|Difference in Least-squares means|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.9|1.4|||ANCOVA|||It was anticipated that 85% of the enrolled participants would be evaluable to achieve 95% power in order to establish equivalence between the Ezetimibe/Atorvastatin Fixed Dose Combination and the co-administration of Ezetimibe and Atorvastatin with respect to percent change from baseline in LDL-C after 6 weeks of treatment using two one-sided tests each at 2.5% α-level, assuming the underlying true treatment difference is ±1.08% and that the standard deviation of the difference is 12.8%.||1.4|-1.9|
91101636|NCT00286455|182090212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.54||||0.403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|5.14||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||5.14|-2.07|0.403
91101637|NCT00286455|182090212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.29||||0.487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|4.93||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||4.93|-2.35|0.487
91101638|NCT00286455|182090213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.6||||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|6.08||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||6.08|-0.88|0.143
91101639|NCT00286455|182090213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.46|3.57||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||3.57|-3.46|0.974
91101640|NCT00286455|182090214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.97||||0.612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|4.71||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||4.71|-2.78|0.612
91101641|NCT00286455|182090214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.04||||0.587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.82|2.74||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||2.74|-4.82|0.587
91101642|NCT00286455|182090215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|3.99||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||3.99|-2.00|0.514
91101643|NCT00286455|182090215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.83|3.22||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||3.22|-2.83|0.899
91101644|NCT00286455|182090216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24||||0.885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|3.58||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||3.58|-3.09|0.885
91101645|NCT00286455|182090216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.28|3.46||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||3.46|-3.28|0.958
91101646|NCT00286455|182090217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.051||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.084|-0.018||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.018|-0.084|0.003
91101647|NCT00286455|182090217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.072|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.105|-0.038||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.038|-0.105|<0.001
91101648|NCT00286455|182090218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.069|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.099|-0.038||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.038|-0.099|<0.001
91101649|NCT00286455|182090218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.052||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.083|-0.021||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.021|-0.083|0.001
91104519|NCT02037984|182094988|OTHER|PT3 Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT3 Percentage Point Difference|14.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|32.0|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||32.0|-5.5|
90958610|NCT01049217|181796995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.203||0.9475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.41|||ANCOVA|||Change at Endpoint, PSI: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.41|-0.39|0.9475
90856783|NCT00145600|181578019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.46|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
90856784|NCT00145600|181578019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0001
91101650|NCT00286455|182090219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.068|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.103|-0.032||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.032|-0.103|<0.001
91101651|NCT00286455|182090219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.073|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.109|-0.037||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.037|-0.109|<0.001
91101652|NCT00286455|182090220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.045||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.084|-0.007||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.007|-0.084|0.021
91101653|NCT00286455|182090220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.079|-0.001||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.001|-0.079|0.043
91101654|NCT00286455|182090221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.162|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.255|-0.069||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.069|-0.255|<0.001
91101655|NCT00286455|182090221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.159||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.254|-0.065||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.065|-0.254|0.001
91101656|NCT00286455|182090222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.086||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.138|-0.034||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.034|-0.138|0.001
91101657|NCT00286455|182090222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.084||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.137|-0.032||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.032|-0.137|0.002
91101658|NCT00286455|182090223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.216||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.568|0.137||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.137|-0.568|0.230
90856785|NCT00145600|181578019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.41|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
90856786|NCT00145600|181578019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.0001
91101659|NCT00286455|182090223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.154||||0.393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.508|0.2||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.200|-0.508|0.393
91101660|NCT00286455|182090224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.084||||0.703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.348|0.515||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.515|-0.348|0.703
91101661|NCT00286455|182090224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.282||||0.203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.153|0.717||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.717|-0.153|0.203
90856787|NCT00145600|181578019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.42|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
90856788|NCT00145600|181578019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3624||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.3624
90856789|NCT00145600|181578019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.52|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
90856790|NCT00145600|181578020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0254||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0254
90856791|NCT00145600|181578020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.44|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
91101662|NCT00286455|182090225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.169||||0.408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.232|0.569||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.569|-0.232|0.408
90856792|NCT00145600|181578020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0004||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0004
91101663|NCT00286455|182090225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.013||||0.949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.391|0.417||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.417|-0.391|0.949
91101664|NCT00286455|182090226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.38||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.380|-0.440|0.886
90958611|NCT01049217|181796995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.204||0.7412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.33|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4, PII: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.33|-0.47|0.7412
90958612|NCT01049217|181796995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.213||0.9715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.43|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8, PII: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.43|-0.41|0.9715
90958613|NCT01049217|181796995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.218||0.8163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.48|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12, PII: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.48|-0.38|0.8163
90958614|NCT01049217|181796995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.204||0.3682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.58|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16, PII: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.58|-0.22|0.3682
90958615|NCT01049217|181796995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.199||0.3511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.58|||ANCOVA|||Change at Endpoint, PII: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.58|-0.21|0.3511
91101665|NCT00286455|182090226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.097||||0.645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.317||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.317|-0.510|0.645
90856793|NCT00145600|181578020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.32||||0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||0.0001
91101666|NCT00286455|182090227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.378|0.239||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.239|-0.378|0.656
90856794|NCT00145600|181578020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
90856795|NCT00145600|181578020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.39|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
90856796|NCT00145600|181578020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0014||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0014
90856797|NCT00145600|181578020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.26||||0.0061||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||0.0061
90856798|NCT00145600|181578021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0687||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0687
90856799|NCT00145600|181578021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.65|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||||||<0.0001
90856800|NCT00145600|181578021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9478||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.9478
90856801|NCT00145600|181578021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.42|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
90856802|NCT00145600|181578021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2999||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.2999
90856803|NCT00145600|181578021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.49|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
90856804|NCT00145600|181578021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3121||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.3121
90856805|NCT00145600|181578021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.52|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
90856806|NCT00145600|181578022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0014||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0014
90856807|NCT00145600|181578022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.57|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
90856808|NCT00145600|181578022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0282||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0282
90856809|NCT00145600|181578022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.35||||0.0002||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||0.0002
90856810|NCT00145600|181578022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0038||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0038
90856811|NCT00145600|181578022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.43|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
90856812|NCT00145600|181578022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1474||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.1474
90856813|NCT00145600|181578022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.49|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
90856814|NCT00145600|181578023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0281||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0281
90856815|NCT00145600|181578023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.63|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
90856816|NCT00145600|181578023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.005||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0050
90958616|NCT01049217|181796996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.9686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Change at Endpoint, Burning: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.5|-0.5|0.9686
91031541|NCT04455633|181947525|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.351||0.219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|1.12|||MMRM model|||Relations with Other People: change from baseline was analyzed using MMRM model including fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, the randomization stratum of baseline pain severity (moderate, severe), and the baseline relations with other people score as a covariate.||1.12|-0.26|0.219
91031542|NCT04455633|181947525|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.341||0.551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.87|||MMRM model|||Relations with Other People: change from baseline was analyzed using MMRM model including fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, the randomization stratum of baseline pain severity (moderate, severe), and the baseline relations with other people score as a covariate.||0.87|-0.47|0.551
91101667|NCT00286455|182090227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.036||||0.819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.347|0.275||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.275|-0.347|0.819
91101668|NCT00286455|182090228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.079||||0.642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.411|0.253||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.253|-0.411|0.642
91101669|NCT00286455|182090228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.003||||0.986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.332|0.338||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.338|-0.332|0.986
91101670|NCT00286455|182090229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.686||||0.305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.622|4.571|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, diabetes duration and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||4.571|0.622|0.305
91101671|NCT00286455|182090229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.349||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.873|6.321|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, diabetes duration and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||6.321|0.873|0.091
91101672|NCT00286455|182090230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.704||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.694|8.1|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, diabetes duration and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||8.100|1.694|0.001
91101673|NCT00286455|182090230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.305||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.505|7.255|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, diabetes duration and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||7.255|1.505|0.003
91101674|NCT00286455|182090231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.905||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.359|6.21|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, diabetes duration and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||6.210|1.359|0.006
90903800|NCT01370603|181674675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-squares means|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.4|1.2|||ANCOVA|||||1.2|-1.4|
90903801|NCT01370603|181674676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-squares means|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.8|1.2|||ANCOVA|||||1.2|-1.8|
91101675|NCT00286455|182090231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.552|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.068|10.017|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, diabetes duration and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||10.017|2.068|<0.001
91101676|NCT00286455|182090232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.663||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.367|5.188|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, diabetes duration and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||5.188|1.367|0.004
91101677|NCT00286455|182090232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.277|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.671|6.429|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, diabetes duration and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||6.429|1.671|<0.001
90903802|NCT01370603|181674677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-squares Means|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.7|1.4|||ANCOVA|||||1.4|-1.7|
91031543|NCT04455633|181947525|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.339||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|-0.3|||MMRM model|||Sleep: change from baseline was analyzed using MMRM model including fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, the randomization stratum of baseline pain severity (moderate, severe), and the baseline sleep score as a covariate.||-0.30|-1.63|0.005
91031544|NCT04455633|181947525|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.329||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|-0.39|||MMRM model|||Sleep: change from baseline was analyzed using MMRM model including fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, the randomization stratum of baseline pain severity (moderate, severe), and the baseline sleep score as a covariate.||-0.39|-1.68|0.002
90903803|NCT01370603|181674678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-squares means|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.9|1.0|||ANCOVA|||||1.0|-1.9|
90903804|NCT01370603|181674679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-squares Means|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-4.9|4.9|||constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||4.9|-4.9|
90903805|NCT04212169|181674714|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.981||0.888|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.67|16.22|||Mixed Models Analysis||Differences less than 0 favours MEDI3506|||16.22|-13.67|0.888
91101678|NCT00286455|182090233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.331||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.714|10.947|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, diabetes duration and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||10.947|1.714|0.002
91101679|NCT00286455|182090233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.732||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.862|12.025|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, diabetes duration and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||12.025|1.862|0.001
91101680|NCT00286455|182090234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.766||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.685|11.16|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, diabetes duration and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||11.160|0.685|0.153
91101681|NCT00286455|182090234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.632||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.169|18.354|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, diabetes duration and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||18.354|1.169|0.029
91101682|NCT00286455|182090235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.102||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|Mantel Haenszel|Odd's Ratio and 95% CI not estimable using logistic regression model. Tested using extended Mantel-Haenszel test.||||||0.102
91101683|NCT00286455|182090235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.063||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|Mantel Haenszel|Odd's Ratio and 95% CI not estimable using logistic regression model. Tested using extended Mantel-Haenszel test.||||||0.063
91101684|NCT00286455|182090236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37||||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.93||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.93|-0.18|0.186
91101685|NCT00286455|182090236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34||||0.237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.89||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.89|-0.22|0.237
91101686|NCT00286455|182090237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.5||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.50|-0.74|0.702
91101687|NCT00286455|182090237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.93||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.93|-0.32|0.338
90856817|NCT00145600|181578023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.45|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
91101688|NCT00286455|182090238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.72||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.72|-0.74|0.978
91101689|NCT00286455|182090238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.74||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.74|-0.73|0.991
91101690|NCT00286455|182090239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28||||0.539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.61||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.61|-1.16|0.539
91101691|NCT00286455|182090239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|0.49||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.49|-1.29|0.379
91101692|NCT00286455|182090240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5||||0.616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|7.5||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||7.5|-4.4|0.616
91101693|NCT00286455|182090240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|5.8||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||5.8|-6.4|0.930
91104520|NCT02037984|182094988|OTHER|PT4 Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT4 Percentage Point Difference|-7.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.2|5.2|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||5.2|-24.2|
90856818|NCT00145600|181578023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0005||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0005
91101694|NCT00286455|182090241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|6.0||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||6.0|-5.3|0.915
91101695|NCT00286455|182090241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|6.7||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||6.7|-4.8|0.745
91031545|NCT04455633|181947525|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.361||0.955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.69|||MMRM model|||Enjoyment of Life: change from baseline was analyzed using MMRM model including fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, the randomization stratum of baseline pain severity (moderate, severe), and the baseline enjoyment of life score as a covariate.||0.69|-0.73|0.955
91031546|NCT04455633|181947525|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.351||0.777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.59|||MMRM model|||Enjoyment of Life: change from baseline was analyzed using MMRM model including fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, the randomization stratum of baseline pain severity (moderate, severe), and the baseline enjoyment of life score as a covariate.||0.59|-0.79|0.777
91031547|NCT04455633|181947527|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.163||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.03|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model was used for the analysis with treatment and the randomization stratum of baseline pain severity (moderate, severe) as fixed covariates.||-0.03|-0.67|0.031
91031548|NCT04455633|181947527|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.165||0.351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.17|||ANOVA|||ANOVA model was used for the analysis with treatment and the randomization stratum of baseline pain severity (moderate, severe) as fixed covariates.||0.17|-0.48|0.351
91031549|NCT00959660|181947557|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Main effects analysis with Diet vs. No Diet.|ANCOVA|Least Square Mean at follow up adjusted for the following covariates: baseline measure of the outcome measure, sex, and beta blocker usage.||||||<0.001
91031550|NCT00959660|181947557|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Main effects analysis with Exercise vs. No Exercise.|ANCOVA|Least Square Mean at follow up adjusted for the following covariates: baseline measure of the outcome measure, sex, and beta blocker usage.||||||<0.001
91031551|NCT00959660|181947558|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||Main effects analyses with Diet vs. No Diet.|ANCOVA|Least Square Mean at follow up adjusted for the following covariates: baseline measure of the outcome measure, sex, and beta blocker usage.||||||0.004
91031552|NCT00959660|181947558|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43||||||Main effects analysis for Exercise vs. No Exercise.|ANCOVA|Least Square Mean at follow up adjusted for the following covariates: baseline measure of the outcome measure, sex, and beta blocker usage.||||||0.43
91031553|NCT00959660|181947559|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Main effects analyses with Diet vs. No Diet.|ANCOVA|Least Square Mean at follow up adjusted for the following covariates: baseline measure of the outcome measure, sex, and beta blocker usage.||Total Body Fat Mass||||<0.001
91031554|NCT00959660|181947559|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||Main effects analysis of Exercise vs. No Exercise.|ANCOVA|Least Square Mean at follow up adjusted for the following covariates: baseline measure of the outcome measure, sex, and beta blocker usage.||Total Body Fat Mass||||0.001
91031555|NCT00959660|181947559|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Main effects analyses with Diet vs. No Diet.|ANCOVA|Least Square Mean at follow up adjusted for the following covariates: baseline measure of the outcome measure, sex, and beta blocker usage.||Total Non-Bone Lean Mass||||<0.001
91031556|NCT00959660|181947559|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25||||||Main effects analysis for Exercise vs. No Exercise.|ANCOVA|Least Square Mean at follow up adjusted for the following covariates: baseline measure of the outcome measure, sex, and beta blocker usage.||Total Non-Bone Lean Mass||||0.25
91031557|NCT00959660|181947560|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Main effects analyses with Diet vs. No Diet.|ANCOVA|Least Square Mean at follow up adjusted for the following covariates: baseline measure of the outcome measure, sex, and beta blocker usage.||Thigh Subcutaneous Fat||||<0.001
91031558|NCT00959660|181947560|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26||||||Main effects analysis for Exercise vs. No Exercise.|ANCOVA|Least Square Mean at follow up adjusted for the following covariates: baseline measure of the outcome measure, sex, and beta blocker usage.||Thigh Subcutaneous Fat||||0.26
91031559|NCT00959660|181947560|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Main effects analyses with Diet vs. No Diet.|ANCOVA|Least Square Mean at follow up adjusted for the following covariates: baseline measure of the outcome measure, sex, and beta blocker usage.||Thigh Skeletal Muscle||||<0.001
91031560|NCT00959660|181947560|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26||||||Main effects analysis of Exercise vs. No Exercise.|ANCOVA|Least Square Mean at follow up adjusted for the following covariates: baseline measure of the outcome measure, sex, and beta blocker usage.||Thigh Skeletal Muscle||||0.26
91031561|NCT00849901|181947561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.999||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.999
91104521|NCT02037984|182094988|OTHER|PT5 Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT5 Percentage Point Difference|-3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|6.3|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||6.3|-17.3|
91031562|NCT00262223|181947573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence Rate Ratio|1.6||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|4.23|||Generalized Estimating Equations|Negative binomial models with log link were applied to the alcohol consumption measure.||Between group analyses were conducted of time-by-treatment interaction that included the four study time points (baseline, end-of-treatment, 6-mos and 12-mos).||4.23|0.61|0.34
91031563|NCT00262223|181947574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Parameter Estimate|-16.15||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.18|-1.13||A trend-level time-by-treatment interaction (p = .096) was probed for simple effects, which revealed a significantly greater reduction in CAPS scores at end-of-treatment in the SS+Sertraline group relative to the SS+Placebo group.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were utilized to model PTSD outcomes. This method is an extension of the generalized linear model that handles correlated data arising from repeated measurements, requires no parametric distribution assumption, and provides robust inference with respect to misspecification of the within-subject correlation. A temporal within-subjects autoregressive \[AR(1)\] correlation matrix was used to model participants across timepoints.||-1.13|-31.18|0.04
91101696|NCT00286455|182090242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|7.5||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||7.5|-3.4|0.466
91101697|NCT00286455|182090242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.0||||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|9.6||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||9.6|-1.5|0.154
91101698|NCT00286455|182090243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|6.9||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||6.9|-5.1|0.774
90903806|NCT04212169|181674714|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.756||0.549|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.36|22.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Differences less than 0 favours MEDI3506|||22.10|-10.36|0.549
90903807|NCT04212169|181674714|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.014||0.807|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.38|9.95|||Mixed Models Analysis||Differences less than 0 favours MEDI3506|||9.95|-13.38|0.807
90903808|NCT04212169|181674716|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53||||0.6396|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.19|9.94|||Fisher Exact||Odds ratio greater than 1 favours MEDI3506|||9.94|0.19|0.6396
90903809|NCT04212169|181674716|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.9999|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.03|6.38|||Fisher Exact||Odds ratio greater than 1 favours MEDI3506|||6.38|0.03|0.9999
90903810|NCT04212169|181674716|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.89||||0.0935|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|10.49|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio greater than 1 favours MEDI3506|||10.49|0.91|0.0935
90903811|NCT04212169|181674718|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.06||||0.445|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.08|119.65|||Fisher Exact||Odds ratio greater than one favour MEDI3506|||119.65|0.08|0.4450
90903812|NCT04212169|181674718|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||0.9999|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|28.0|||Fisher Exact||Odds ratio greater than 1 favours MEDI3506|||28.0|0.0|0.9999
91101699|NCT00286455|182090243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|7.1||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||7.1|-5.2|0.761
91101700|NCT00286455|182090244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8||||0.559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|7.7||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||7.7|-4.2|0.559
90903813|NCT04212169|181674718|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.5||||0.1132|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.75|130.35|||Fisher Exact||Odds ratio greater than 1 favours MEDI3506|||130.35|0.75|0.1132
90903814|NCT01603940|181674745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.616|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.616
90903815|NCT01603940|181674746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.28
90903816|NCT01603940|181674747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.618|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.618
90903817|NCT01567163|181674765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio geometric least squares (LS) means|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||The ratio of geometric LS means was calculated using a mixed effect model adjusted for cycle, participant and random error. Ratio of geometric LS means is AUC(0-∞) of Cycle 2/Cycle 1.|||1.10|0.84|
90903818|NCT01567163|181674767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares means|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|1.55|||Mixed Models Analysis||The ratio of geometric least squares means was calculated using a mixed effect model adjusted for cycle, participant and random error. Ratio of Geo LS mean is Cmax of Cycle 2/Cycle 1.|||1.55|0.84|
90903819|NCT02571439|181674772|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90903820|NCT02571439|181674773|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90903821|NCT02571439|181674774|OTHER|||||||0.61|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.61
90903822|NCT02571439|181674775|OTHER|||||||0.46|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.46
90903823|NCT02571439|181674776|OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.33
90903824|NCT02571439|181674777|OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.13
90903825|NCT02571439|181674778|OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.17
90903826|NCT02571439|181674779|OTHER|||||||0.87|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.87
90903827|NCT02571439|181674780|OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.27
90903828|NCT02571439|181674781|OTHER|||||||0.91|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.91
90903829|NCT00318149|181674825|NON_INFERIORITY|Non inferiority criteria: The upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 98.75% confidence interval (CI) on geometric mean ratio of influenza-specific T-cells (between Fluarix 18-40 Y Group and Fluarix-AS25 Group) was smaller than (\<) 2.0.|Geometric mean ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|98.75|0.7|1.16||||||Demonstration of non inferiority of the influenza adjuvanted vaccine Fluarix-AS25 administered to elderly subjects (aged 65 years and older) as compared to the licensed influenza vaccine Fluarix administered to adults (aged 18-40 years) in terms of frequency of influenza-specific CD4 T-cells producing at least 2 different cytokines (CD40L, IL-2, TNF-α or IFN-γ), 21 days post-vaccination.||1.16|0.7|
90903830|NCT00318149|181674825|NON_INFERIORITY|Non inferiority criteria: The upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 98.75% confidence interval (CI) on geometric mean ratio of influenza-specific T-cells (between Fluarix 18-40 Y Group and Fluarix-AS50 Group) was smaller than (\<) 2.0.|Geometric mean ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|98.75|0.71|1.56||||||Demonstration of non inferiority of the influenza adjuvanted vaccine Fluarix-AS50 administered to elderly subjects (aged 65 years and older) as compared to the licensed influenza vaccine Fluarix administered to adults (aged 18-40 years) in terms of frequency of influenza-specific CD4 T-cells producing at least 2 different cytokines (CD40L, IL-2, TNF-α or IFN-γ), 21 days post-vaccination.||1.56|0.71|
91101701|NCT00286455|182090244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|8.0||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||8.0|-4.1|0.523
91101702|NCT00286455|182090245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|5.2||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||5.2|-7.4|0.739
91101703|NCT00286455|182090245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.8||||0.388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|3.6||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||3.6|-9.3|0.388
91101704|NCT04826731|182090246|OTHER|||||||0.374|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Nonparametric testing was utilized due to non-standard distribution and reduced sample size. Comparison between groups was made by Mann-Whitney U testing. Spearman's rho was utilized for correlation analysis. No subgroup analyses were planned for the study.||||0.374
91101705|NCT04826731|182090247|OTHER|||||||0.635|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Nonparametric testing was utilized due to non-standard distribution and reduced sample size. Comparison between groups was made by Mann-Whitney U testing. Spearman's rho was utilized for correlation analysis. No subgroup analyses were planned for the study.||||0.635
91101706|NCT01654250|182090253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square(LS) Mean Difference|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.99|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|-3.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point, and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.||-3.1|-10.9|<0.001
91101707|NCT01654250|182090254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-8.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|-3.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 0.75 post-dose: Nominal p value-treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.||-3.7|-12.7|<0.001
90903831|NCT00318149|181674825|NON_INFERIORITY|Non inferiority criteria: The upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 98.75% confidence interval (CI) on geometric mean ratio of influenza-specific T-cells (between Fluarix 18-40 Y Group and Fluarix-AS01B Group) was smaller than (\<) 2.0.|Geometric mean ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|98.75|0.79|1.38||||||Demonstration of non inferiority of the influenza adjuvanted vaccine Fluarix-AS01B administered to elderly subjects (aged 65 years and older) as compared to the licensed influenza vaccine Fluarix administered to adults (aged 18-40 years) in terms of frequency of influenza-specific CD4 T-cells producing at least 2 different cytokines (CD40L, IL-2, TNF-α or IFN-γ), 21 days post-vaccination.||1.38|0.79|
91101708|NCT01654250|182090254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.133|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 0.75 post-dose: Adjusted p-values were generated using a fixed sequence testing procedure from p-values which were generated from the mixed effects model.||||0.133
91101709|NCT01654250|182090254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-12.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|-8.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 2 post-dose: Nominal p value-treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.||-8.3|-17.3|<0.001
91101710|NCT01654250|182090254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 2 post-dose: Adjusted p-values were generated using a fixed sequence testing procedure from p-values which were generated from the mixed effects model.||||<0.001
91101711|NCT01654250|182090254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-12.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.8|-7.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 4 post-dose: Nominal p value-treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.||-7.8|-16.8|<0.001
90903832|NCT00318149|181674825|NON_INFERIORITY|Non inferiority criteria: The upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 98.75% confidence interval (CI) on geometric mean ratio of influenza-specific T-cells (between Fluarix 18-40 Y Group and Fluarix-AS01E Group) was smaller than (\<) 2.0.|Geometric mean ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|98.75|0.79|1.44||||||Demonstration of non inferiority of the influenza adjuvanted vaccine Fluarix-AS01E administered to elderly subjects (aged 65 years and older) as compared to the licensed influenza vaccine Fluarix administered to adults (aged 18-40 years) in terms of frequency of influenza-specific CD4 T-cells producing at least 2 different cytokines (CD40L, IL-2, TNF-α or IFN-γ), 21 days post-vaccination.||1.44|0.79|
90903833|NCT03088137|181674858|EQUIVALENCE|Study power of at least 80% at a significance level (alpha error) 5% and a pre-determined clinical equivalence margin of +/- 3.4 oocytes for the relevant population.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.546|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.297||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.026|3.116|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||3.116|-2.026|0.002
90903834|NCT03088137|181674859|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.709|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.067||0.806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.405|2.824|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||2.824|-1.405|0.806
91101712|NCT01654250|182090254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 4 post-dose: Adjusted p-values were generated using a fixed sequence testing procedure from p-values which were generated from the mixed effects model.||||<0.001
91101713|NCT01654250|182090254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|-3.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 8 post-dose: Nominal p value-treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effect and participant intercept as a random effect.||-3.3|-12.3|<0.001
91101714|NCT01654250|182090254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 8 post-dose: Adjusted p-values were generated using a fixed sequence testing procedure from p-values which were generated from the mixed effects model.||||<0.001
91101715|NCT01654250|182090254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.28||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 10 post-dose: Nominal p-value -treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.||1.1|-7.9|0.133
91101716|NCT01654250|182090254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.133|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 10 post-dose: Adjusted p-value were generated using a fixed sequence testing procedure from p-values generated from the mixed effects model.||||0.133
91101717|NCT01654250|182090254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.28||0.206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 12 post-dose: Nominal p value-treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.||1.6|-7.4|0.206
91101718|NCT01654250|182090254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.133|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 12 post-dose: Adjusted p-values are generated using a fixed sequence testing procedure from p-values which were generated from the mixed effects model.||||0.133
91101719|NCT01654250|182090254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.28||0.496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|2.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 13 post-dose: Nominal p value-treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.||2.9|-6.0|0.496
91101720|NCT01654250|182090254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.133|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 13 post-dose: Adjusted p-value were generated using a fixed sequence testing procedure from p-values generated from the mixed effects model.||||0.133
91101721|NCT01654250|182090255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 0.75 post-dose attention subscale: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.||-0.4|-2.6|0.007
91101722|NCT01654250|182090255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|-1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 2 post-dose attention subscale: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.||-1.4|-3.6|<0.001
91101723|NCT01654250|182090255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 4 post-dose attention subscale: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.||-1.2|-3.4|<0.001
91101724|NCT01654250|182090255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 8 post-dose attention subscale: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.||-0.6|-2.8|0.003
91101725|NCT01654250|182090255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 10 post-dose attention subscale: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.||0.2|-2.0|0.097
91101726|NCT01654250|182090255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 12 post-dose attention subscale: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.||0.7|-1.5|0.490
90903835|NCT03088137|181674860|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.218|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.129||0.617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.455|2.019|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||2.019|-2.455|0.617
90903836|NCT03088137|181674861|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.636|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.19||0.445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.995|1.723|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.723|-2.995|0.445
90903837|NCT03088137|181674862|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.623|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.623
90903838|NCT03088137|181674863|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|49.8||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.9|113.6|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||113.6|-83.9|0.488
90903839|NCT03088137|181674864|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.018|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.201||0.629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.379|0.416|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.416|-0.379|0.629
90903840|NCT03088137|181674865|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.644|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.644
90903841|NCT03088137|181674868|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|17.0|||Chi-squared|||95% confidence intervals (CIs) of point estimates were calculated using the exact binomial distribution (Clopper-Pearson method) for proportions.||17.0|-21.0|0.833
91101727|NCT01654250|182090255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 13 post-dose attention subscale: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.||0.3|-1.9|0.164
90903842|NCT03088137|181674869|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62||||0.507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.3|11.9|||Chi-squared|||95% confidence intervals (CIs) of point estimates were calculated using the exact binomial distribution (Clopper-Pearson method) for proportions.||11.9|-24.3|0.507
90903843|NCT05108649|181674872|OTHER|We treated the exposure as a four-level categorical variable with control messaging + NNC cigarettes as the control condition.||||||0.0008|||||||ANOVA|ANOVA compared scale scores across the conditions.||||||0.0008
91101728|NCT01654250|182090255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|-0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 0.75 post-dose deportment subscale: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.||-0.9|-4.6|0.004
91101729|NCT01654250|182090255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|-2.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 2 post-dose deportment subscale: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.||-2.1|-5.8|<0.001
91101730|NCT01654250|182090255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|-2.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 4 post-dose deportment sub scale: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.||-2.1|-5.8|<0.001
91101731|NCT01654250|182090255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 8 post-dose deportment subscale: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.||-0.1|-3.8|0.042
91101732|NCT01654250|182090255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 10 post-dose deportment sub scale: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.||0.4|-3.3|0.118
91101733|NCT01654250|182090255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94||0.342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|1.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 12 post-dose deportment sub scale: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.||1.9|-2.7|0.342
91101734|NCT01654250|182090255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94||0.962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 13 post-dose deportment sub scale: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.||1.9|-1.8|0.962
91101735|NCT01654250|182090256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|25.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.12||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|47.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 0.75 post-dose (Problems attempted): Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.||47.1|3.4|0.024
91101736|NCT01654250|182090256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|36.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.12||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.2|57.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 2 post-dose (Problems attempted): Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.||57.9|14.2|0.001
91101737|NCT01654250|182090256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|34.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.12||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.8|56.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 4 post-dose (Problems attempted): Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.||56.6|12.8|0.002
91101738|NCT01654250|182090256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|29.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.12||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|51.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 8 post-dose (Problems attempted): Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.||51.1|7.4|0.009
91101739|NCT01654250|182090256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|12.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.12||0.261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|34.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 10 post-dose (Problems attempted): Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.||34.4|-9.3|0.261
91101740|NCT01654250|182090256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|15.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.12||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|37.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 12 post-dose (Problems attempted): Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.||37.0|-6.7|0.175
91101741|NCT01654250|182090256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|18.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.12||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|40.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 13 post-dose (Problems attempted): Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.||40.5|-3.2|0.094
91101742|NCT01654250|182090256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|22.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.44||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|45.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 0.75 post-dose (Problems correct): Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.||45.1|0.1|0.049
90903844|NCT05108649|181674873|OTHER|||||||0.9804|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.9804
91101743|NCT01654250|182090256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|34.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.44||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.9|56.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 2 post-dose (Problems correct): Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.||56.9|11.9|0.003
91101744|NCT01654250|182090256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|32.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.44||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.5|55.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 4 post-dose (Problems correct): Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.||55.4|10.5|0.004
91101745|NCT01654250|182090256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|27.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.44||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|49.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 8 post-dose (Problems correct): Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.||49.5|4.5|0.019
91101746|NCT01654250|182090256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|8.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.44||0.451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|31.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 10 (Problems correct): Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.||31.1|-13.9|0.451
91101747|NCT01654250|182090256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|9.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.44||0.394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|32.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 12 post-dose (Problems correct): Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.||32.2|-12.7|0.394
90903845|NCT05108649|181674874|OTHER|||||||0.6579|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.6579
90903846|NCT05108649|181674875|OTHER|||||||0.4208|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.4208
90903847|NCT05108649|181674876|OTHER|||||||0.245|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.245
91101748|NCT01654250|182090256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|8.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.44||0.466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|30.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 13 post-dose (Problems correct): Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.||30.8|-14.1|0.466
91101749|NCT02596893|182090260|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Difference|-2.9||||0.2523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|3.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights.|||3.9|-9.7|0.2523
90903848|NCT05108649|181674877|OTHER|||||||0.6396|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.6396
90903849|NCT05108649|181674878|OTHER|||||||0.0235|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0235
91101750|NCT02596893|182090260|SUPERIORITY||Slope|4.8||||0.1626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|11.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights.|||11.8|-3.0|0.1626
91101751|NCT02596893|182090260|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Difference|-2.1||||0.442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|5.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights.|||5.3|-9.1|0.4420
90903850|NCT05108649|181674879|OTHER|||||||0.3564|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.3564
91101752|NCT02596893|182090261|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Difference|-2.6||||0.1799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|5.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights.|||5.0|-9.5|0.1799
91101753|NCT02596893|182090261|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Difference|-2.4||||0.2309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|4.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights.|||4.9|-9.4|0.2309
91101754|NCT02596893|182090261|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Difference|-2.1||||0.3264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|4.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights.|||4.6|-9.1|0.3264
91101755|NCT02596893|182090262|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Difference|-11.7||||0.0299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|-1.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights.|||-1.1|-22.0|0.0299
90903851|NCT05108649|181674880|OTHER|||||||0.6057|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.6057
90903852|NCT05108649|181674881|OTHER|||||||0.2304|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.2304
90958617|NCT01049217|181796996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.4476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Change at Endpoint, Squeezing: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.3|-0.6|0.4476
90903853|NCT00918749|181674888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.598|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.215||0.3946|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.568|3.372|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and center.||A two group t-test with a 0.100 one-sided significance level would have 96% power to detect the difference between a risedronate 150 mg IRBB mean, µ1, of -46.000 and a risedronate 75 mg DRFB mean, µ2, of -29.900 (a difference in means of -16.100), assuming that the common SD was 28.000, with sample sizes of 60 per group, respectively. Estimates were based on Study 2005107 (35 mg DR once a week Phase 2 study). The sample size calculation was not adjusted for multiplicity.||3.372|-10.568|0.3946
90903854|NCT00918749|181674888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-12.197|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.241||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-19.208|-5.185|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and center.||||-5.185|-19.208|0.0045
90903855|NCT00918749|181674889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.765|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.952||0.3372|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.421|12.952|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and center.||||12.952|-3.421|0.3372
90903856|NCT00918749|181674889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.218|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.966||0.965|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.427|7.991|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and center.||||7.991|-8.427|0.9650
90903857|NCT00918749|181674890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.388|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.269||0.9276|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.67|7.447|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and center.||||7.447|-6.670|0.9276
90903858|NCT00918749|181674890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-10.787|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.313||0.0133|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.917|-3.657|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and center.||||-3.657|-17.917|0.0133
91101756|NCT02596893|182090262|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference|-9.9||||0.0582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.3|0.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights.|||0.7|-20.3|0.0582
91101757|NCT02596893|182090262|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference|-9.7||||0.0741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.1|1.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights.|||1.0|-20.1|0.0741
91101758|NCT02596893|182090263|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference|-5.8||||0.2493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5|4.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights.|||4.0|-15.5|0.2493
91101759|NCT02596893|182090263|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference|-1.8||||0.716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|8.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights.|||8.2|-11.8|0.7160
91101760|NCT02596893|182090263|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference|-5.8||||0.2452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5|4.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights.|||4.1|-15.5|0.2452
91101761|NCT02596893|182090264|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference|-1.3||||0.7541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|7.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights.|||7.1|-9.8|0.7541
91101762|NCT02596893|182090264|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference|-3.7||||0.3784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|4.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights.|||4.6|-12.0|0.3784
91101763|NCT02596893|182090264|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference|-4.4||||0.2865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|3.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights.|||3.8|-12.6|0.2865
90903859|NCT00918749|181674891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|14.528|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.28||0.1192|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.813|29.868|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and center.||||29.868|-0.813|0.1192
91101764|NCT02596893|182090265|SUPERIORITY||Unstratified CMH|-2.2||||0.3572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|7.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p-values were based on the unstratified CMH test when 1 and only 1 of the 2 treatment groups being compared had no subjects in a stratum.|The weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights.|2-sided 95% CI were based on the unstratified Newcombe method.||7.0|-11.3|0.3572
91101765|NCT02596893|182090265|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference|4.7||||0.2823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|18.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights.|||18.9|-8.8|0.2823
91101766|NCT02596893|182090265|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference|0.0|||>|0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|13.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights.|||13.7|-12.8|> 0.9999
91101767|NCT02596893|182090266|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference|-0.5||||0.8031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|5.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights.|||5.9|-6.7|0.8031
91101768|NCT02596893|182090266|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference|1.4||||0.5583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|7.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights.|||7.3|-5.1|0.5583
91101769|NCT02596893|182090266|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference|-1.0||||0.6123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|6.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||||The weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights.|6.8|-7.2|0.6123
91101770|NCT02596893|182090267|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference|-10.6||||0.0239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.6|-1.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights.|||-1.4|-19.6|0.0239
91101771|NCT02596893|182090267|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference|-1.0||||0.8334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|8.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights.|||8.7|-10.8|0.8334
91101772|NCT02596893|182090267|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference|-3.9||||0.4383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|5.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights.|||5.8|-13.5|0.4383
91101773|NCT02596893|182090268|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference|-1.6||||0.3573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|5.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with CMH weights.|||5.9|-8.3|0.3573
91101774|NCT02596893|182090268|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference|-2.0||||0.2221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|5.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights.|||5.1|-8.7|0.2221
91101775|NCT02596893|182090268|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference|-2.0||||0.2578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|5.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights.|||5.6|-8.7|0.2578
91101776|NCT02596893|182090271|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Difference|0.5||||0.9141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|10.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights|||10.0|-8.9|0.9141
91101777|NCT02596893|182090271|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Difference|-3.6||||0.4286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|5.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights.|||5.6|-12.8|0.4286
91101778|NCT02596893|182090271|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Difference|-2.7||||0.5591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|6.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights.|||6.6|-12.0|0.5591
91101779|NCT03280615|182090272|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.257|||||||Fisher Exact|||A Fisher exact test was performed||||0.257
91101780|NCT03280615|182090273|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.231|||||||Fisher Exact|||A mixed linear regression model for repeated measures was performed to test if the outcome behaved differently in both treatment groups||||0.231
91101781|NCT03280615|182090274|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.043|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed linear regression model for repeated measures was performed to test if the outcome behaved differently in both treatment groups||||0.043
90903860|NCT00918749|181674891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|14.215|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.343||0.1298|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.23|29.659|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and center.||||29.659|-1.230|0.1298
90903861|NCT00918749|181674892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.119|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.093||0.8546|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.956|11.193|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and center.||||11.193|-8.956|0.8546
91101782|NCT03052257|182090275|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.3|||Regression, Linear|||||0.30|0.15|<0.0001
91101783|NCT02327143|182090347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares|0.448|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.395|0.508|||||Absolute bioavailability of LY2835219 following the administration of 200 mg LY2835219 (oral) with 0.4 mg \[13C8\]-LY2835219 (IV).|||0.508|0.395|
91101784|NCT02123511|182090350|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1232|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.1232
91101785|NCT02123511|182090351|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0422|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0422
90903862|NCT00918749|181674892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.393|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.126||0.2291|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.522|2.737|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and center.||||2.737|-17.522|0.2291
90903863|NCT00918749|181674893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.505|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.046||0.5436|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.452|20.462|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and center.||||20.462|-9.452|0.5436
90903864|NCT00918749|181674893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.914|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.1||0.9201|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.959|14.132|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and center.||||14.132|-15.959|0.9201
91031564|NCT00437658|181947580|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical non-inferiority was defined when the lower bound of the 95% 2-sided confidence interval for the difference between an elagolix dose and DMPA-SC in the response rate was no less than -20% at week 24 for both dysmenorrhea and non-menstrual pelvic pain.|Difference in response rates|-0.3||||0.963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|12.7|||Pearson chi-squared||Difference in response rate = elogolix - DMPA-SC|||12.7|-13.4|0.9630
91031565|NCT00437658|181947580|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical non-inferiority was defined when the lower bound of the 95% 2-sided confidence interval for the difference between an elagolix dose and DMPA-SC in the response rate was no less than -20% at week 24 for both dysmenorrhea and non-menstrual pelvic pain.|Difference in response rates|-12.4||||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.7|1.8|||Pearson chi-squared||Difference in response rate = elogolix - DMPA-SC|||1.8|-26.7|0.1010
91031566|NCT00437658|181947581|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical non-inferiority was defined when the lower bound of the 95% 2-sided confidence interval for the difference between an elagolix dose and DMPA-SC in the response rate was no less than -20% at week 24 for both dysmenorrhea and non-menstrual pelvic pain.|Difference in response rates|9.5||||0.2048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|24.2|||Pearson chi-squared||Difference in response rates = elagolix - DMPA-SC|||24.2|-5.2|0.2048
91031567|NCT00437658|181947581|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical non-inferiority was defined when the lower bound of the 95% 2-sided confidence interval for the difference between an elagolix dose and DMPA-SC in the response rate was no less than -20% at week 24 for both dysmenorrhea and non-menstrual pelvic pain.|Difference in response rates|0.5||||0.9544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.1|16.0|||Pearson chi-squared||Difference in response rates = elagolix - DMPA-SC|||16.0|-15.1|0.9544
91031568|NCT00437658|181947584|OTHER||Least squares mean|-5.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|-4.8||P-value for test of null hypothesis that the treatment group least squares mean is equal to zero.|t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group analysis of change from baseline in total CPSSS at week 24. Change from baseline was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures (MERM) analysis of covariance model which included fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for patient, and terms for baseline value and the baseline-by-time interaction.||-4.8|-6.2|< 0.0001
91031569|NCT00437658|181947584|OTHER||Least squares mean|-5.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|-4.5||P-value for test of null hypothesis that the treatment group least squares mean is equal to zero.|t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group analysis of change from baseline in total CPSSS at week 24. Change from baseline was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures (MERM) analysis of covariance model which included fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for patient, and terms for baseline value and the baseline-by-time interaction.||-4.5|-5.8|< 0.0001
91101786|NCT02123511|182090352|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5634|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.5634
91101787|NCT02123511|182090353|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.02
91101788|NCT02123511|182090354|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.22
91101789|NCT02123511|182090355|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.02
91101790|NCT02123511|182090356|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.95
91101791|NCT02123511|182090357|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.17
91101792|NCT02123511|182090358|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.48
91101793|NCT02123511|182090359|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3824|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3824
91101794|NCT01423084|182090360|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Two different lots of rMenB+OMV NZ are to be considered equivalent in terms of hSBA GMTs against H44/76 strain if the two sided 95% Confidence Interval (CI) between groups GMTs ratio at day 31 (ie, one month after the second vaccination) does not exceed the range 0.5 (lower limit) - 2.0 (higher limit).|between groups ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.23||||||Equivalence of 2 different lots of rMenB+OMV NZ in terms of hSBA GMTs against H44/76 strain||1.23|0.82|
91101795|NCT01423084|182090360|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Two different lots of rMenB+OMV NZ are to be considered equivalent in terms of hSBA GMTs against 5/99 strain if the two sided 95% Confidence Interval (CI) between groups GMTs ratio at day 31 (ie, one month after the second vaccination ) does not exceed the range 0.5 (lower limit) - 2.0 (higher limit).|between groups ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.1||||||Equivalence of 2 different lots of rMenB+OMV NZ in terms of hSBA GMTs against 5/99 strain||1.1|0.77|
91101796|NCT01423084|182090360|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Two different lots of rMenB+OMV NZ are to be considered equivalent in terms of hSBA GMTs against NZ 98/254 strain if the two sided 95% Confidence Interval (CI) between groups GMTs ratio at day 31 (ie, one month after the second vaccination ) does not exceed the range 0.5 (lower limit) - 2.0 (higher limit).|between groups ratio|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.09||||||Equivalence of 2 different lots of rMenB+OMV NZ in terms of hSBA GMTs against NZ98/254 strain||1.09|0.6|
91104522|NCT02037984|182094988|OTHER|PT6A Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT6A Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|9.5|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.5|-11.9|
90903865|NCT00918749|181674894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.108|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.052||0.444|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.59|9.807|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and center.||||9.807|-3.590|0.4440
90903866|NCT00918749|181674894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.842|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.063||0.2349|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.874|11.559|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and center.||||11.559|-1.874|0.2349
91031570|NCT00437658|181947584|OTHER||Least squares mean|-5.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|-4.6||P-value for test of null hypothesis that the treatment group least squares mean is equal to zero.|t-test, 2 sided|||"Within-group analysis of change from baseline in total CPSSS at week 24.~Change from baseline was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures (MERM) analysis of covariance model which included fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for patient, and terms for baseline value and the baseline-by-time interaction."||-4.6|-6.0|< 0.0001
91031571|NCT00437658|181947585|OTHER||Least squares mean|-4.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|-4.0||P-value for test of null hypothesis that the treatment group least squares mean is equal to zero.|t-test, 2 sided|||"Within-group analysis of change from baseline in total CPSSS excluding dyspareunia at week 24.~Change from baseline was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures (MERM) analysis of covariance model which included fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for patient, and terms for baseline value and the baseline-by-time interaction."||-4.0|-5.1|<0.0001
91031572|NCT00437658|181947585|OTHER||Least squares mean|-4.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|-3.9||P-value for test of null hypothesis that the treatment group least squares mean is equal to zero.|t-test, 2 sided|||"Within-group analysis of change from baseline in total CPSSS excluding dyspareunia at week 24.~Change from baseline was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures (MERM) analysis of covariance model which included fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for patient, and terms for baseline value and the baseline-by-time interaction."||-3.9|-5.0|<0.0001
91031573|NCT00437658|181947585|OTHER||Least squares mean|-4.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|-3.9||P-value for test of null hypothesis that the treatment group least squares mean is equal to zero.|t-test, 2 sided|||"Within-group analysis of change from baseline in total CPSSS excluding dyspareunia at week 24.~Change from baseline was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures (MERM) analysis of covariance model which included fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for patient, and terms for baseline value and the baseline-by-time interaction."||-3.9|-5.1|< 0.0001
91031574|NCT00437658|181947586|OTHER||Least squares mean|-1.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-1.2||P-value for test of null hypothesis that the treatment group least squares mean is equal to zero.|t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group analysis of change from baseline in dysmenorrhea at week 24. Change from baseline was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures (MERM) analysis of covariance model which included fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for patient, and terms for baseline value and the baseline-by-time interaction.||-1.2|-1.7|< 0.0001
91031575|NCT00437658|181947586|OTHER||Least squares mean|-1.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-1.2||P-value for test of null hypothesis that the treatment group least squares mean is equal to zero.|t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group analysis of change from baseline in dysmenorrhea at week 24. Change from baseline was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures (MERM) analysis of covariance model which included fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for patient, and terms for baseline value and the baseline-by-time interaction.||-1.2|-1.6|< 0.0001
91031576|NCT00437658|181947586|OTHER||Least squares mean|-1.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-1.4||P-value for test of null hypothesis that the treatment group least squares mean is equal to zero.|t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group analysis of change from baseline in dysmenorrhea at week 24. Change from baseline was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures (MERM) analysis of covariance model which included fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for patient, and terms for baseline value and the baseline-by-time interaction.||-1.4|-1.9|< 0.0001
91031577|NCT00437658|181947587|OTHER||Least squares mean|-1.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.9||P-value for test of null hypothesis that the treatment group least squares mean is equal to zero.|t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group analysis of change from baseline in dyspareunia at week 24. Change from baseline was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures (MERM) analysis of covariance model which included fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for patient, and terms for baseline value and the baseline-by-time interaction.||-0.9|-1.4|< 0.0001
91031578|NCT00437658|181947587|OTHER||Least squares mean|-1.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|2.0|-1.2|-0.7||P-value for test of null hypothesis that the treatment group least squares mean is equal to zero.|t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group analysis of change from baseline in dyspareunia at week 24. Change from baseline was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures (MERM) analysis of covariance model which included fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for patient, and terms for baseline value and the baseline-by-time interaction.||-0.7|-1.2|< 0.0001
91031579|NCT00437658|181947587|OTHER||Least squares mean|-0.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.5||P-value for test of null hypothesis that the treatment group least squares mean is equal to zero.|t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group analysis of change from baseline in dyspareunia at week 24. Change from baseline was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures (MERM) analysis of covariance model which included fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for patient, and terms for baseline value and the baseline-by-time interaction.||-0.5|-1.1|< 0.0001
91031580|NCT00437658|181947588|OTHER||Least squares mean|-1.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-1.0||P-value for test of null hypothesis that the treatment group least squares mean is equal to zero.|t-test, 2 sided|||"Within-group analysis of change from baseline in non-menstrual pelvic pain at week 24.~Change from baseline was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures (MERM) analysis of covariance model which included fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for patient, and terms for baseline value and the baseline-by-time interaction."||-1.0|-1.4|< 0.0001
91101797|NCT01423084|182090368|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Two different lots of rMenB+OMV NZ are to be considered equivalent in terms of ELISA GMCs against vaccine antigen 287-953 if the two sided 95% Confidence Interval (CI) between groups GMTs ratio at day 31 (ie, one month after the second vaccination ) does not exceed the range 0.5 (lower limit) - 2.0 (higher limit).|between groups ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.02||||||Equivalence of 2 different lots of rMenB+OMV NZ in terms of hSBA GMTs||1.02|0.67|
90903867|NCT00918749|181674895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.966|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.327||0.2527|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.189|12.12|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and center.||||12.120|-2.189|0.2527
90903868|NCT00918749|181674895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.926|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.371||0.2613|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.301|12.153|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and center.||||12.153|-2.301|0.2613
91101798|NCT01133977|182090376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.75||||||The current study was not powered or designed to determine superiority of the '20 mg Lenvatinib + Dacarbazine (Phase 2)' arm compared with 'Dacarbazine (Phase 2) ' arm.||0.75|0.23|
91101799|NCT01791205|182090405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.538||||0.1194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|19.33||The relation between retention rate and duration of disease for phase II was estimated with the Cox regression model.|Regression, Cox|||The relation between retention rate and DAS28 (\<2.6 vs \<3.2) was assayed with the Cox regression.||19.33|0.65|0.1194
91101800|NCT01791205|182090406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3895|||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.3895
91101801|NCT01791205|182090407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.211||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.703|2.086|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.086|0.703|0.4900
91101802|NCT01791205|182090408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Delta|-0.042||||0.6908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.251|0.167|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.167|-0.251|0.6908
91101803|NCT01791205|182090409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021|||||||Pearson's chi-squared test|||||||0.0210
91101804|NCT03615534|182090442|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001||||||Results were evaluated in terms of adjusted end line TG levels, embracing the least significant difference (LSD) for pair-wise comparison. Probability of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|MANCOVA|Covariates appearing in MANCOVA model are evaluated at the following baseline values: TG= 240.4 mg/dl, HDL-C = 31.8 mg/dl, ApoA1 = 144.6 mg/dl.||Multivariate Analysis of Covariance (MANCOVA), was applied to assess treatment effects among different arms, comprising the influence of the baseline TG level as a covariate, with further adjustments for baseline HDL-C, ApoA1levels.||||0.0001
91101805|NCT03615534|182090443|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06||||||Results were evaluated in terms of adjusted end line TC levels, embracing the least significant difference (LSD) for pair-wise comparison. Probability of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|MANCOVA|Covariates appearing in MANCOVA model are evaluated at the following baseline values: TC=199.9 mg/dl, Non HDL-C= 168.0 mg/dl, d-LDL-C= 119.1 mg/dl.||Multivariate Analysis of Covariance (MANCOVA), was applied to assess treatment effects among different arms, comprising the influence of the baseline TC level as a covariate, with further adjustments for baseline Non HDL-C and d-LDL-C.||||0.060
91101806|NCT03615534|182090443|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001||||||Results were evaluated in terms of adjusted end line HDL-C levels, embracing the least significant difference (LSD) for pair-wise comparison. Probability of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|MANCOVA|Covariates appearing in MANCOVA model are evaluated at the following baseline values: HDL-C = 31.8 mg/dL,TG= 240.4 mg/dL, ApoA1 = 144.6 mg/dL.||Multivariate Analysis of Covariance (MANCOVA), was applied to assess treatment effects among different arms, comprising the influence of the baseline HDL-C level as a covariate, with further adjustments for baselineTG, ApoA1levels.||||0.0001
91101807|NCT03615534|182090443|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.334||||||Results were evaluated in terms of adjusted end line d-LDL-C levels, embracing the least significant difference (LSD) for pair-wise comparison. Probability of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|MANCOVA|Covariates appearing in MANCOVA model are evaluated at the following baseline values: d-LDL-C= 119.1 mg/dl.TC=199.9 mg/dl, Non HDL-C= 168.0 mg/dl,||Multivariate Analysis of Covariance (MANCOVA), was applied to assess treatment effects among different arms, comprising the influence of the baseline d-LDL-C level as a covariate, with further adjustments for baseline TC and Non HDL-C .||||0.334
91101808|NCT03615534|182090443|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012||||||Results were evaluated in terms of adjusted end line Non HDL-C levels, embracing the least significant difference (LSD) for pair-wise comparison. Probability of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|MANCOVA|Covariates appearing in MANCOVA model are evaluated at the following baseline values: Non HDL-C= 168.0 mg/dl,TC=199.9 mg/dl, d-LDL-C= 119.1 mg/dl.||Multivariate Analysis of Covariance (MANCOVA), was applied to assess treatment effects among different arms, comprising the influence of the baseline Non HDL-C level as a covariate, with further adjustments for baseline TC and d-LDL-C.||||0.012
91101809|NCT03615534|182090443|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||Results were evaluated in terms of adjusted end line RC levels, embracing the least significant difference (LSD) for pair-wise comparison. Probability of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|MANCOVA|Covariates appearing in MANCOVA model are evaluated at the following baseline values:RC=48.9,TC=199.9, Non HDL-C=168.0, d-LDL-C=119.1, ApoB=133.1mg/dl||Multivariate Analysis of Covariance (MANCOVA), was applied to assess treatment effects among different arms, comprising the influence of the baseline RC level as a covariate, with further adjustments for baselineTC, Non HDL-C, d-LDL-C, and ApoB.||||0.001
91101810|NCT03615534|182090444|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.058||||||Results were evaluated in terms of adjusted end line ApoA1 levels, embracing the least significant difference (LSD) for pair-wise comparison. Probability of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|MANCOVA|Covariates appearing in MANCOVA model are evaluated at the following baseline values: ApoA1 = 144.6 mg/dl, TG= 240.4 mg/dl, HDL-C = 31.8 mg/dl.||Multivariate Analysis of Covariance (MANCOVA), was applied to assess treatment effects among different arms, comprising the influence of the baseline ApoA1 level as a covariate, with further adjustments for baseline TG and HDL-C levels.||||0.058
91101811|NCT03615534|182090444|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.067||||||Results were evaluated in terms of adjusted end line ApoB levels, embracing the least significant difference (LSD) for pair-wise comparison. Probability of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|MANCOVA|Covariates appearing in MANCOVA model are evaluated at the following baseline values:ApoB=133.1, RC=48.9,TC=199.9, Non HDL-C=168.0, d-LDL-C=119.1mg/dl||Multivariate Analysis of Covariance (MANCOVA), was applied to assess treatment effects among different arms, comprising the influence of the baseline ApoB level as a covariate, with further adjustments for baselineTC, Non HDL-C, dLDL-C, and RC .||||0.067
90856819|NCT00145600|181578023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.37||||0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||0.0001
90856820|NCT00145600|181578023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0552||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0552
90856821|NCT00145600|181578023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.54|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
90856822|NCT00145600|181578024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.0001
90856823|NCT00145600|181578024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.53|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
90856824|NCT00145600|181578024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxan signed rank test|||||||<0.0001
91101812|NCT03615534|182090445|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||Results were evaluated in terms of adjusted end line FSG levels, embracing the least significant difference (LSD) for pair-wise comparison. Probability of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|ANCOVA|Covariates appearing in ANCOVA model are evaluated at the following baseline values: FSG= 95.7 mg/dl.||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA), was applied to assess treatment effects among different arms, comprising the influence of the baseline FSG level as a covariate.||||0.001
91101813|NCT03615534|182090446|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.786||||||Results were evaluated in terms of adjusted end line eGFR levels, embracing the least significant difference (LSD) for pair-wise comparison. Probability of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|ANCOVA|Covariates appearing in ANCOVA model are evaluated at the following baseline values: eGFR= 88.0 ml/min per 1.73 m\^2.||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA), was applied to assess treatment effects among different arms, comprising the influence of the baseline eGFR level as a covariate.||||0.786
91101814|NCT03615534|182090447|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001||||||Results were evaluated in terms of adjusted end line serum uric acid levels, embracing the least significant difference (LSD) for pair-wise comparison. Probability of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|ANCOVA|Covariates appearing in ANCOVA model are evaluated at the following baseline values: serum uric acid= 5.0 mg/dl.||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA), was applied to assess treatment effects among different arms, comprising the influence of the baseline serum uric acid level as a covariate.||||0.0001
91101815|NCT03615534|182090448|OTHER|||||||0.201||||||Results were evaluated in terms of adjusted end line AST levels, embracing the least significant difference (LSD) for pair-wise comparison. Probability of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|ANCOVA|"Covariates appearing in ANCOVA model are evaluated at the following baseline values: AST= 18.1 IU/L.~."||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA), was applied to assess treatment effects among different arms, comprising the influence of the baseline AST level as a covariate.||||0.201
91101816|NCT03615534|182090448|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.033||||||Results were evaluated in terms of adjusted end line ALT levels, embracing the least significant difference (LSD) for pair-wise comparison. Probability of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|ANCOVA|Covariates appearing in ANCOVA model are evaluated at the following baseline values: ALT= 16.0 IU/L.||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA), was applied to assess treatment effects among different arms, comprising the influence of the baseline ALT level as a covariate.||||0.033
91101817|NCT03615534|182090448|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.511||||||Results were evaluated in terms of adjusted end line CK levels, embracing the least significant difference (LSD) for pair-wise comparison. Probability of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|ANCOVA|Covariates appearing in ANCOVA model are evaluated at the following baseline values: CK= 28.0 IU/L.||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA), was applied to assess treatment effects among different arms, comprising the influence of the baseline CK level as a covariate.||||0.511
91101818|NCT03615534|182090449|OTHER|||||||0.434||||||Results were evaluated in terms of adjusted end line diastolic blood pressure levels, embracing the least significant difference (LSD) for pair-wise comparison. Probability of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|ANCOVA|Covariates appearing in ANCOVA model are evaluated at the following baseline values: diastolic blood pressure= 80.0 mmHg.||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA), was applied to assess treatment effects among different arms, comprising the influence of the baseline diastolic blood pressure level as a covariate.||||0.434
91101819|NCT03615534|182090449|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.966||||||Results were evaluated in terms of adjusted end line systolic blood pressure levels, embracing the least significant difference (LSD) for pair-wise comparison. Probability of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|ANCOVA|Covariates appearing in ANCOVA model are evaluated at the following baseline values: systolic blood pressure= 121.5 mmHg.||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA), was applied to assess treatment effects among different arms, comprising the influence of the baseline systolic blood pressure level as a covariate.||||0.966
91101820|NCT03757715|182090521|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.16
91101821|NCT03757715|182090522|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.42
91101822|NCT05463705|182090569|EQUIVALENCE|We estimated that 178 providers caring for 1,249 eligible patients would provide 80% power to observe an 11 percentage-point difference in prescribing rates between each intervention arm and control, assuming a control arm prescribing rate of 30%, an ICC of 0.07 (estimated based on prior studies in this system), an average of 7 patients per provider, and a type I error rate of 5%.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.96||||||||1.96|0.88|
91101823|NCT05463705|182090569|EQUIVALENCE|We estimated that 178 providers caring for 1,249 eligible patients would provide 80% power to observe an 11 percentage-point difference in prescribing rates between each intervention arm and control, assuming a control arm prescribing rate of 30%, an ICC of 0.07 (estimated based on prior studies in this system),72,73 an average of 7 patients per provider, and a type I error rate of 5%.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.52||||||||1.52|0.66|
91101824|NCT05463705|182090570|SUPERIORITY|We estimated that 178 providers caring for 1,249 eligible patients would provide 80% power to observe an 11 percentage-point difference in prescribing rates between each intervention arm and control, assuming a control arm prescribing rate of 30%, an ICC of 0.07 (estimated based on prior studies in this system), an average of 7 patients per provider, and a type I error rate of 5%.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.61||||||||1.61|0.83|
91101825|NCT05463705|182090570|EQUIVALENCE|We estimated that 178 providers caring for 1,249 eligible patients would provide 80% power to observe an 11 percentage-point difference in prescribing rates between each intervention arm and control, assuming a control arm prescribing rate of 30%, an ICC of 0.07 (estimated based on prior studies in this system), an average of 7 patients per provider, and a type I error rate of 5%.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.3||||||||1.30|0.64|
91101826|NCT05463705|182090571|SUPERIORITY||Difference in HbA1c %|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.43||||||||0.43|-0.07|
91101827|NCT05463705|182090571|SUPERIORITY||Difference in HbA1c %|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.34||||||||0.34|-0.22|
91101828|NCT03071965|182090573|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.053|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0881||0.5455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.226|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.120|-0.226|0.5455
91101829|NCT05529173|182090578|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91104523|NCT02037984|182094988|OTHER|PT6B Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT6B Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|9.5|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.5|-11.9|
91101830|NCT02662582|182090598|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-12.0||||0.734|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-71.2|47.2||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Least square means (LSMeans), LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||47.2|-71.2|0.734
91101831|NCT02662582|182090599|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.0219||||0.438|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0694|0.0256||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Peak: LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||0.0256|-0.0694|0.438
91101832|NCT02662582|182090599|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.0325||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0663|0.0014||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Isotime: LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||0.0014|-0.0663|0.114
91101833|NCT02662582|182090600|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.75||||0.612|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.75|3.24||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Peak: LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||3.24|-1.75|0.612
91101834|NCT02662582|182090600|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.29||||0.789|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.55|2.14||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Isotime: LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||2.14|-1.55|0.789
91101835|NCT02662582|182090601|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.72||||0.225|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.26|1.7||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Peak: LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||1.70|-0.26|0.225
91101836|NCT02662582|182090601|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.92||||0.064||90.0|0.11|1.174||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Isotime: LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||1.174|0.11|0.064
91101837|NCT02662582|182090602|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.052||||0.447|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.063|0.167||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||0.167|-0.063|0.447
91101838|NCT02662582|182090603|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.8||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.7|0.0||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Borg (Dyspnea) at Peak: LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||0.0|-1.7|0.099
91101839|NCT02662582|182090603|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5||||0.255|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.3|0.2||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Borg (Dyspnea) at isotime: LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||0.2|-1.3|0.255
91101840|NCT02662582|182090603|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2||||0.651|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.1|0.6||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Borg (Leg Effort) at Peak: LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||0.6|-1.1|0.651
91101841|NCT02662582|182090603|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3||||0.591|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|0.5||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Borg (Leg Effort) at isotime: LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||0.5|-1.0|0.591
91101842|NCT02662582|182090604|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.0286||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0061|0.0511||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Peak: LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||0.0511|0.0061|0.040
90903869|NCT00918749|181674896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.269|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.16||0.7606|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.609|8.148|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and center.||||8.148|-5.609|0.7606
91101843|NCT02662582|182090604|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differencce|0.0185||||0.155|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0031|0.0401||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Isotime: LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||0.0401|-0.0031|0.155
91101844|NCT02662582|182090605|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.001||||0.972|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0459|0.0479||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Peak: LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||0.0479|-0.0459|0.972
90903870|NCT00918749|181674896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.825|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.185||0.5006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.744|4.095|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and center.||||4.095|-9.744|0.5006
91101845|NCT02662582|182090605|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.0118||||0.578|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0471|0.0236||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Isotime: LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||0.0236|-0.0471|0.578
91101846|NCT02662582|182090606|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.65||||0.235|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.55|0.26||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Peak: LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||0.26|-1.55|0.235
91101847|NCT02662582|182090606|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differencce|-0.57||||0.215|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.33|0.19||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Isotime: LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||0.19|-1.33|0.215
91101848|NCT02662582|182090607|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.7||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.38|1.77||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Peak: LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||1.77|-0.38|0.280
91101849|NCT02662582|182090607|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.46||||0.424|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.49|1.4||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Isotime: LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||1.40|-0.49|0.424
91101850|NCT02662582|182090608|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.039||||0.187|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0099|0.0879||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Peak: LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||0.0879|-0.0099|0.187
91101851|NCT02662582|182090608|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.0488||||0.213|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0163|0.114||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Isotime: LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||0.1140|-0.0163|0.213
91101852|NCT02662582|182090609|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4||||0.64||90.0|-2.1|1.2||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Peak: LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||1.2|-2.1|0.640
90856825|NCT00145600|181578024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.68|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
90958618|NCT01049217|181796996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Change at Endpoint, Pressure: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.3|-0.6|0.5630
91101853|NCT02662582|182090609|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.7||||0.487|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.5|1.1||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Isotime: LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||1.1|-2.5|0.487
91101854|NCT02662582|182090610|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.095||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.189||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Peak: LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||0.189|0.000|0.100
91101855|NCT02662582|182090610|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.133||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.053|0.213||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Isotime: LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||0.213|0.053|0.008
91101856|NCT02662582|182090611|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.051||||0.408|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.052|0.154||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Peak: LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||0.154|-0.052|0.408
91101857|NCT02662582|182090611|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.094||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.013|0.174||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Isotime: LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||0.174|0.013|0.058
91101858|NCT02662582|182090612|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|1.44||||0.648|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.85|6.73||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Peak: LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||6.73|-3.85|0.648
90856826|NCT00145600|181578024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0017||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0017
90958619|NCT01049217|181796996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.9937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Change at Endpoint, Electric Shocks: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.5|-0.5|0.9937
91101859|NCT02662582|182090612|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.85||||0.775|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.12|5.82||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Isotime: LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||5.82|-4.12|0.775
90903871|NCT03055832|181674934|NON_INFERIORITY|"This study provides a combined power of co-primary endpoints of 88% given the following primary endpoint assumptions:~* MGS non-inferiority delta of 5 points and standard deviation of 8 points provides power of 93.9%~* TBT non-inferiority delta of 2.5 seconds and standard deviation of 4 seconds, provides a TBT primary endpoint power of 93.9%~* Power that both endpoitns are significant, assuming independence was 0.939\^2 = 0.882 or 88.2% power."|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.88|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.82|3.56||||||||3.56|-3.82|
90903872|NCT03055832|181674935|NON_INFERIORITY|"This study provides a combined power of co-primary endpoints of 88% given the following primary endpoint assumptions:~* MGS non-inferiority delta of 5 points and standard deviation of 8 points provides power of 93.9%~* TBT non-inferiority delta of 2.5 seconds and standard deviation of 4 seconds, provides a TBT primary endpoint power of 93.9%~* Power that both endpoitns are significant, assuming independence was 0.939\^2 = 0.882 or 88.2% power."|Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|1.16||||||||1.16|-0.97|
91031581|NCT00437658|181947588|OTHER||Least squares mean|-1.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-1.0||P-value for test of null hypothesis that the treatment group least squares mean is equal to zero.|t-test, 2 sided|||"Within-group analysis of change from baseline in non-menstrual pelvic pain at week 24.~Change from baseline was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures (MERM) analysis of covariance model which included fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for patient, and terms for baseline value and the baseline-by-time interaction."||-1.0|-1.4|< 0.0001
91031582|NCT00437658|181947588|OTHER||Least squares mean|-1.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.8||P-value for test of null hypothesis that the treatment group least squares mean is equal to zero.|t-test, 2 sided|||"Within-group analysis of change from baseline in non-menstrual pelvic pain at week 24.~Change from baseline was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures (MERM) analysis of covariance model which included fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for patient, and terms for baseline value and the baseline-by-time interaction."||-0.8|-1.3|< 0.0001
91031583|NCT00437658|181947589|OTHER||Least squares mean|-1.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.8||P-value for test of null hypothesis that the treatment group least squares mean is equal to zero.|t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group analysis of change from baseline in pelvic tenderness at week 24. Change from baseline was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures (MERM) analysis of covariance model which included fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for patient, and terms for baseline value and the baseline-by-time interaction.||-0.8|-1.2|< 0.0001
91031584|NCT00437658|181947589|OTHER||Least squares mean|-1.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.8||P-value for test of null hypothesis that the treatment group least squares mean is equal to zero.|t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group analysis of change from baseline in pelvic tenderness at week 24. Change from baseline was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures (MERM) analysis of covariance model which included fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for patient, and terms for baseline value and the baseline-by-time interaction.||-0.8|-1.1|< 0.0001
91031585|NCT00437658|181947589|OTHER||Least squares mean|-0.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.7||P-value for test of null hypothesis that the treatment group least squares mean is equal to zero.|t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group analysis of change from baseline in pelvic tenderness at week 24. Change from baseline was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures (MERM) analysis of covariance model which included fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for patient, and terms for baseline value and the baseline-by-time interaction.||-0.7|-1.1|< 0.0001
91031586|NCT00437658|181947590|OTHER||Least squares mean|-0.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.7||P-value for test of null hypothesis that the treatment group least squares mean is equal to zero.|t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group analysis of change from baseline in pelvic induration at week 24. Change from baseline was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures (MERM) analysis of covariance model which included fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for patient, and terms for baseline value and the baseline-by-time interaction.||-0.7|-1.0|< 0.0001
91031587|NCT00437658|181947590|OTHER||Least squares mean|-0.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.7||P-value for test of null hypothesis that the treatment group least squares mean is equal to zero.|t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group analysis of change from baseline in pelvic induration at week 24. Change from baseline was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures (MERM) analysis of covariance model which included fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for patient, and terms for baseline value and the baseline-by-time interaction.||-0.7|-1.1|< 0.0001
91031588|NCT00437658|181947590|OTHER||Least squares mean|-0.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group analysis of change from baseline in pelvic induration at week 24. Change from baseline was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures (MERM) analysis of covariance model which included fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for patient, and terms for baseline value and the baseline-by-time interaction.||-0.6|-0.9|<0.0001
91031589|NCT00437658|181947591|OTHER||Least squares mean|-32.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.2|-25.4||P-value for test of null hypothesis that the treatment group least squares mean is equal to zero.|t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group analysis of change from baseline in peak VAS for pelvic pain at week 24. Change from baseline was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures (MERM) analysis of covariance model which included fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for patient, and terms for baseline value and the baseline-by-time interaction.||-25.4|-39.2|< 0.0001
91101860|NCT02662582|182090613|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|1.1||||0.544|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.9|4.0||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Peak: LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||4.0|-1.9|0.544
91031590|NCT00437658|181947591|OTHER||Least squares mean|-32.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.4|-26.4||P-value for test of null hypothesis that the treatment group least squares mean is equal to zero.|t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group analysis of change from baseline in peak VAS for pelvic pain at week 24. Change from baseline was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures (MERM) analysis of covariance model which included fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for patient, and terms for baseline value and the baseline-by-time interaction.||-26.4|-39.4|< 0.0001
91101861|NCT02662582|182090613|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|2.1||||0.216|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|5.0||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Isotime: LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||5.0|-0.7|0.216
91101862|NCT02662582|182090614|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-7.4||||0.171|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.5|1.6||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Peak: LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||1.6|-16.5|0.171
91101863|NCT02662582|182090614|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.2||||0.976|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.3|10.7||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Isotime: LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||10.7|-10.3|0.976
91101864|NCT02662582|182090615|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.6||||0.844|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.1|4.9||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Peak: LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||4.9|-6.1|0.844
91101865|NCT02662582|182090615|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.9||||0.751|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.8|4.0||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Isotime: LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||4.0|-5.8|0.751
90856827|NCT00145600|181578024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.5|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
90856828|NCT00145600|181578025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2758||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.2758
90856829|NCT00145600|181578025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.6|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
90856830|NCT00145600|181578025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1731||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.1731
90856831|NCT00145600|181578025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.6|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
90856832|NCT00145600|181578025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0846||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0846
90856833|NCT00145600|181578025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.46|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
90856834|NCT00145600|181578026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4263||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.4263
90856835|NCT00145600|181578026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.51|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
90856836|NCT00145600|181578026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.0001
90856837|NCT00145600|181578026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.54|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
90856838|NCT00145600|181578026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0468||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0468
90856839|NCT00145600|181578026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.55|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
90856840|NCT00145600|181578027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.0001
90856841|NCT00145600|181578027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.26||||0.0019||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||0.0019
90856842|NCT00145600|181578027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.0001
90856843|NCT00145600|181578027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.16||||0.0704||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||0.0704
90856844|NCT00145600|181578027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0200
90856845|NCT00145600|181578027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.42|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
90856846|NCT00145600|181578028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7192||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.7192
90856847|NCT00145600|181578028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.42|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
90856848|NCT00145600|181578028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8663||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.8663
90856849|NCT00145600|181578028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.41|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
90856850|NCT00145600|181578028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7626||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.7626
90856851|NCT00145600|181578028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.58|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
90856852|NCT00145600|181578029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4807||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.4807
90856853|NCT00145600|181578029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.36|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
90856854|NCT00145600|181578029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0824||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0824
90856855|NCT00145600|181578029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.39|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
91031591|NCT00437658|181947591|OTHER||Least squares mean|-35.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.0|-28.6||P-value for test of null hypothesis that the treatment group least squares mean is equal to zero.|t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group analysis of change from baseline in peak VAS for pelvic pain at week 24. Change from baseline was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures (MERM) analysis of covariance model which included fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for patient, and terms for baseline value and the baseline-by-time interaction.||-28.6|-43.0|< 0.0001
91031592|NCT00437658|181947592|OTHER||Least squares mean|-18.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.3|-13.1||P-value for test of null hypothesis that the treatment group least squares mean is equal to zero.|t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group analysis of change from baseline in monthly mean VAS for pelvic pain at week 24. Change from baseline was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures (MERM) analysis of covariance model which included fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for patient, and terms for baseline value and the baseline-by-time interaction.||-13.1|-23.3|< 0.0001
91101866|NCT02662582|182090616|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.2||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|0.9||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Peak: LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||0.9|-0.5|0.590
91031593|NCT00437658|181947592|OTHER||Least squares mean|-23.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.3|-18.5||P-value for test of null hypothesis that the treatment group least squares mean is equal to zero.|t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group analysis of change from baseline in monthly mean VAS for pelvic pain at week 24. Change from baseline was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures (MERM) analysis of covariance model which included fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for patient, and terms for baseline value and the baseline-by-time interaction.||-18.5|-28.3|< 0.0001
91031594|NCT00437658|181947592|OTHER||Least squares mean|-17.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.1|-12.7||P-value for test of null hypothesis that the treatment group least squares mean is equal to zero.|t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group analysis of change from baseline in peak VAS for pelvic pain at week 24. Change from baseline was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures (MERM) analysis of covariance model which included fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for patient, and terms for baseline value and the baseline-by-time interaction.||-12.7|-23.1|< 0.0001
91031595|NCT01866319|181947604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.72|||Log Rank|||Statistical testing was stratified by line of therapy (1st vs. 2nd), programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) status (positive vs. negative) and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (0 vs. 1)||0.72|0.46|<0.00001
91031596|NCT01866319|181947604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.72|||Log Rank|||Statistical testing was stratified by line of therapy (1st vs. 2nd), programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) status (positive vs. negative) and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (0 vs. 1)||0.72|0.47|<0.00001
91031597|NCT01866319|181947604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.75869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.21|||Log Rank|||Statistical testing was stratified by line of therapy (1st vs. 2nd), programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) status (positive vs. negative) and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (0 vs. 1)||1.21|0.77|0.75869
91101867|NCT02662582|182090616|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.3||||0.399|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|0.9||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Isotime: LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||0.9|-0.3|0.399
91101868|NCT02662582|182090617|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.09||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|0.01||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||0.01|-0.20|0.151
91101869|NCT02662582|182090618|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.007||||0.857|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.07|0.056||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||0.056|-0.070|0.857
91101870|NCT02662582|182090619|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|1.56||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.05|3.17||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||3.17|-0.05|0.110
91101871|NCT02662582|182090620|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|2.07||||0.766|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.57|13.71||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Peak: LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||13.71|-9.57|0.766
91101872|NCT02662582|182090620|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|2.94||||0.642|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.66|13.54||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Isotime: LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||13.54|-7.66|0.642
91101873|NCT02777190|182090674|NON_INFERIORITY|Margin of 4 hours|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.09|ONE_SIDED|97.5||6.7|||t-test, 1 sided|one-sided two-sample t-test with alpha=0.025|Difference calculated as oral minus vaginal|||6.7||0.09
91101874|NCT02777190|182090675|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.54
91101875|NCT02777190|182090676|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.64
91101876|NCT02777190|182090677|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.12
91101877|NCT02777190|182090678|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.34
91101878|NCT02777190|182090679|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
91101879|NCT02777190|182090680|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.60
91031598|NCT01866319|181947605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63||||0.00052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.83|||Regression, Cox|||Statistical testing was stratified by line of therapy (1st vs. 2nd), PD-L1) status (positive vs. negative) and ECOG performance status (0 vs. 1).||0.83|0.47|0.00052
90856856|NCT00145600|181578029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0496||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0496
90856857|NCT00145600|181578029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.5|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
90856858|NCT00145600|181578030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0157||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0157
90856859|NCT00145600|181578030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.37|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
90856860|NCT00145600|181578030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0014||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0014
90856861|NCT00145600|181578030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.43|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
90856862|NCT00145600|181578030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1478||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.1478
90856863|NCT00145600|181578030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.56|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
91031599|NCT01866319|181947605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||0.00358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.9|||Regression, Cox|||Statistical testing was stratified by line of therapy (1st vs. 2nd), PD-L1) status (positive vs. negative) and ECOG performance status (0 vs. 1).||0.90|0.52|0.00358
90856864|NCT00145600|181578031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0831||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0831
90856865|NCT00145600|181578031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.25||||0.0027||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||0.0027
90856866|NCT00145600|181578031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0135||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0135
90856867|NCT00145600|181578031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.27||||0.0024||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||0.0024
90856868|NCT00145600|181578031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9848||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.9848
90856869|NCT00145600|181578031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.16||||0.0974||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||0.0974
90856870|NCT00145600|181578032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0040
90856871|NCT00145600|181578032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.43|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
90856872|NCT00145600|181578032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0012||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0012
90856873|NCT00145600|181578032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.54|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
90856874|NCT00145600|181578032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8108||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.8108
90856875|NCT00145600|181578032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.55|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
90856876|NCT00145600|181578033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||KM Event-free survival estimate|0.874|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.805|0.944||||||||0.944|0.805|
90856877|NCT00145600|181578033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||KM event-free survival estimate|0.844|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.739|0.95||||||||0.950|0.739|
90856878|NCT00145600|181578033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||KM event-free survival estimate|0.667|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.933||||||||0.933|0.400|
90856879|NCT00145600|181578033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||KM event-free survival estimate|0.785|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.716|0.853||||||||0.853|0.716|
91101880|NCT02777190|182090682|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.40
91101881|NCT02777190|182090683|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
91101882|NCT02777190|182090684|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.04
91101883|NCT02777190|182090685|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
91101884|NCT02777190|182090686|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.12
91101885|NCT01452789|182090694|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||van Elteren|||||||<0.05
91101886|NCT01452789|182090695|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||van Elteren|||||||<0.05
91101887|NCT01452789|182090696|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.05
91101888|NCT00066170|182090698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Dunnett's|||||||<0.001
91101889|NCT00066170|182090698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Dunnett's|||||||<0.001
91101890|NCT00452530|182090715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.5||||0.0003||||||1-sided P-value|Yanagawa, Tango, and Hiejima test||Apixaban-enoxaparin|Sequential testing was used to control for overall type-I error and to compare the effect of apixaban with that of enoxaparin. Noninferiority (NI) of apixaban compared with enoxaparin for primary endpoint was tested first at 1-sided α=0.025 level. If superiority was demonstrated on the primary endpoint, NI was then tested on the secondary endpoint at a 1-sided α=0.025 level. If NI of the secondary endpoint was demonstrated, superiority was then tested at the 1-sided α=0.025 level.||||0.0003
91101891|NCT00452530|182090715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.04||||||95.0|-2.03|-0.05|||Inverse variance method|||Sequential testing was used to control for overall type-I error and to compare the effect of apixaban with that of enoxaparin. Noninferiority (NI) of apixaban compared with enoxaparin for primary endpoint was tested first at 1-sided α=0.025 level. If superiority was demonstrated on the primary endpoint, NI was then tested on the secondary endpoint at a 1-sided α=0.025 level. If NI of the secondary endpoint was demonstrated, superiority was then tested at the 1-sided α=0.025 level.||-0.05|-2.03|
91101892|NCT00452530|182090716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted difference of event rates|-0.33||||0.3014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.29|||Mantel Haenszel||Apixaban-enoxaparin|Major bleeding||0.29|-0.95|0.3014
91101893|NCT00452530|182090716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted difference of event rates|-0.91||||0.1668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.38|||Mantel Haenszel||Apixaban-enoxaparin|CRNM||0.38|-2.20|0.1668
91101894|NCT00452530|182090716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted difference of event rates|-1.24||||0.0881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.66|0.18|||Mantel Haenszel||Apixaban-enoxaparin|Major or CRNM||0.18|-2.66|0.0881
91101895|NCT00452530|182090716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted difference of event rates|-1.39||||0.1412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.29|0.51|||Mantel Haenszel||Apixaban-enoxaparin|Any bleeding||0.51|-3.29|0.1412
91031600|NCT01866319|181947605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.51319||95.0|0.67|1.22|||Regression, Cox|||Statistical testing was stratified by line of therapy (1st vs. 2nd), PD-L1) status (positive vs. negative) and ECOG performance status (0 vs. 1).||1.22|0.67|0.51319
91031601|NCT01866319|181947606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent difference|16.1||||0.00013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.8|24.5|||Miettinen & Nurmimen|||Statistical testing was stratified by line of therapy (1st vs. 2nd), PD-L1) status (positive vs. negative) and ECOG performance status (0 vs. 1)||24.5|7.8|0.00013
91101896|NCT00452530|182090717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.74||P-value was statistically significant at the 1-sided 0.025 level|Yanagawa, Tango, and Hiejima test||Apixaban-enoxaparin|Sequential testing was used to control for overall type-I error and to compare the effect of apixaban with that of enoxaparin. Noninferiority (NI) of apixaban compared with enoxaparin for primary endpoint was tested first at 1-sided α=0.025 level. If NI on primary endpoint was demonstrated, superiority for the endpoint was then tested at 1-sided α=0.025 level. If superiority was demonstrated on the primary endpoint, NI was then tested on the key secondary endpoint at 1-sided α=0.025 level.||0.74|0.51|<0.0001
91101897|NCT00452530|182090717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-9.27|||<|0.0001||95.0|-12.74|-5.79||P-value is statistically significant at the 1-sided 0.025 level|Yanagawa, Tango, and Hiejima test||Apixaban-enoxaparin|Sequential testing was used to control for overall type-I error and to compare the effect of apixaban with that of enoxaparin. Noninferiority (NI) of apixaban compared with enoxaparin for primary endpoint was tested first at 1-sided α=0.025 level. If NI on primary endpoint was demonstrated, superiority for the endpoint was then tested at 1-sided α=0.025 level. If superiority was demonstrated on the primary endpoint, NI was then tested on the key secondary endpoint at 1-sided α=0.025 level.||-5.79|-12.74|<0.0001
91101898|NCT02222181|182090722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.23
91101899|NCT02222181|182090723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.05
91101900|NCT02222181|182090724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.03
91101901|NCT02222181|182090725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
91101902|NCT02222181|182090726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.025
90856880|NCT04824365|181578035|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3379|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1438||0.0197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6213|-0.0545|||ANOVA|two-way ANOVA||||-0.0545|-0.6213|0.0197
90856881|NCT04824365|181578036|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0381|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1129||0.736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1843|0.2605|||ANOVA|Two-way ANOVA||||0.2605|-0.1843|0.736
90856882|NCT04824365|181578037|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3131|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1049||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1069|0.5193|||ANOVA|Two-way ANOVA||||0.5193|0.1069|0.0030
90856883|NCT04824365|181578038|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.704|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3035|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.105|2.302|||ANOVA|Two-way ANOVA||||2.302|1.105|<0.0001
90856884|NCT04824365|181578039|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.633|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3362|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9672|2.298|||ANOVA|Two-way ANOVA||||2.298|0.9672|<0.0001
90856885|NCT04824365|181578040|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.964|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2473|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.477|2.452|||ANOVA|Two-way ANOVA||||2.452|1.477|<0.0001
90856886|NCT04824365|181578041|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4831|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2382||0.0435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9521|-0.01413|||ANOVA|Two-way ANOVA||||-0.01413|-0.9521|0.0435
91101903|NCT02222181|182090727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
91101904|NCT02222181|182090728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.05
91101905|NCT00754559|182090729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Exact Binomial Test|||Null hypothesis: Proportion of participants reaching LDAS (≤ 3.2) at Week 24 equals (=) expected proportion of 42%.||||<0.001
91104524|NCT02037984|182094988|OTHER|PT7F Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT7F Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|9.5|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.5|-11.9|
91104525|NCT02037984|182094988|OTHER|PT9V Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT9V Percentage Point Difference|-3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|6.3|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||6.3|-17.3|
90856887|NCT04824365|181578042|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05102|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2711||0.8509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5862|0.4841|||ANOVA|Two-way ANOVA||||0.4841|-0.5862|0.8509
90856888|NCT04824365|181578043|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1339|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3177||0.6738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4921|0.76|||ANOVA|Two-way ANOVA||||0.7600|-0.4921|0.6738
90856889|NCT04824365|181578044|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3095|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2832||0.2753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2478|0.8669|||ANOVA|Two-way ANOVA||||0.8669|-0.2478|0.2753
90856890|NCT04824365|181578045|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.426|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2636|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.948|-0.9043|||ANOVA|Two-way ANOVA||||-0.9043|-1.948|<0.0001
90856891|NCT02694523|181578069|OTHER||difference in percentage of participants|24.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.5|32.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for baseline weight (≤100 kg vs \>100 kg) and prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor (TNF) antagonists (0 vs ≥1).||32.4|17.5|<0.001
90856892|NCT02694523|181578070|OTHER||difference in percentage of participants|23.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.6|30.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for baseline weight (≤100 kg vs \>100 kg) and prior exposure to TNF antagonists (0 vs ≥1).||30.1|16.6|<0.001
90856893|NCT02694523|181578071|OTHER||difference in percentage of participants|45.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.9|61.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for baseline weight (≤100 kg vs \>100 kg) and prior exposure to TNF antagonists (0 vs ≥1).||61.1|28.9|<0.001
91031602|NCT01866319|181947606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent difference|17.2||||2e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.5|25.6|||Miettinen & Nurmimen|||Statistical testing was stratified by line of therapy (1st vs. 2nd), PD-L1) status (positive vs. negative) and ECOG performance status (0 vs. 1)||25.6|9.5|0.00002
91101906|NCT02191397|182090754|NON_INFERIORITY|A one-sided 97.5% confidence interval for the between-treatment difference (bupropion XL-escitalopram) was compared with the pre-defined non-inferiority margin of 2.2. If the upper limit of the one-sided 97.5% confidence interval was below 2.2, then it indicated that bupropion was not inferior in efficacy to escitalopram.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|1.94||Analysis included Baseline HAMD-17 total score as covariate, treatment, gender, visit and treatment-visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Observed Cases (OC) dataset was used, where available data at a given time point was used with no missing values filled in with estimates.|||1.94|-0.27|0.139
91101907|NCT02191397|182090755|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.33||P-value was estimated from a Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) model with Response based on HADM-17 as response variable and treatment, gender as explanatory variables.|GEE model|||||1.33|0.55|0.479
91031603|NCT01866319|181947606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent difference|-1.1||||0.82636||95.0|-10.6|8.6|||Miettinen & Nurmimen|||Statistical testing was stratified by line of therapy (1st vs. 2nd), PD-L1) status (positive vs. negative) and ECOG performance status (0 vs. 1)||8.6|-10.6|0.82636
91101908|NCT02191397|182090756|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73||||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.1||P-value was estimated from a Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) model with Response based on HADM-17 as response variable and treatment, gender as explanatory variables|GEE model|||||1.10|0.48|0.129
91101909|NCT02191397|182090757|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.24||P-value was estimated from a GEE model with Response based on HADM-17 as response variable and treatment, gender as explanatory variables|GEE model|||||1.24|0.55|0.354
91101910|NCT02191397|182090758|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.34||P-value was estimated from a GEE model with Response based on HADM-17 as response variable and treatment, gender as explanatory variables|GEE model|||||1.34|0.54|0.489
91101911|NCT02191397|182090759|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.16||Analysis included Baseline MADRS total score as covariate, treatment, gender, visit and treatment-visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Week 1. OC dataset was used, where available data at a given time point was used with no missing values filled in with estimates.|||1.16|-0.70|0.627
91031604|NCT03980483|181947607|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.62||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|0.95|1.19|2.21|||Regression, Logistic|OR and corresponding 95% CI for OR are generated from the logistic regression model adjusted for Baseline TJC68, Baseline SJC66 and Treatment Group.||The null hypothesis is defined as there is no difference between the 90mg dose of GSK3196165 and placebo in the proportion of participants achieving ACR20 response at Week 12, versus the alternative hypothesis that the 90mg dose of GSK3196165 differs from placebo in the proportion of participants achieving ACR20 response at Week 12.||2.21|1.19|0.0023
90856894|NCT02694523|181578072|OTHER||difference in percentage of participants|18.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.0|24.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for baseline weight (≤100 kg vs \>100 kg) and prior exposure to TNF antagonists (0 vs ≥1).||24.9|13.0|<0.001
91101912|NCT02191397|182090759|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|2.66||Analysis included Baseline MADRS total score as covariate, treatment, gender, visit and treatment-visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Week 2. OC dataset was used, where available data at a given time point was used with no missing values filled in with estimates.|||2.66|0.08|0.037
91101913|NCT02191397|182090759|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2||||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|2.78||Analysis included Baseline MADRS total score as covariate, treatment, gender, visit and treatment-visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Week 4. OC dataset was used, where available data at a given time point was used with no missing values filled in with estimates.|||2.78|-0.40|0.143
91101914|NCT02191397|182090759|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|2.4||Analysis included Baseline MADRS total score as covariate, treatment, gender, visit and treatment-visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Week 6. OC dataset was used, where available data at a given time point was used with no missing values filled in with estimates.|||2.40|-0.81|0.330
90856895|NCT02694523|181578073|OTHER||difference in percentage of participants|16.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.5|23.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for baseline weight (≤100 kg vs \>100 kg) and prior exposure to TNF antagonists (0 vs ≥1).||23.9|9.5|<0.001
91101915|NCT02191397|182090759|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|2.4||Analysis included Baseline MADRS total score as covariate, treatment, gender, visit and treatment-visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Week 8. OC dataset was used, where available data at a given time point was used with no missing values filled in with estimates.|||2.40|-0.69|0.278
91101916|NCT02191397|182090760|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.16||Analysis included Baseline HAMD-17 depressed mood subscale score as covariate, treatment, gender, visit and treatment-visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison for Week 1. OC dataset was used, where available data at a given time point was used with no missing values filled in with estimates.|||0.16|-0.09|0.579
90903873|NCT03055832|181674936|OTHER|A formal hypothesis was not proposed for this endpoint and therefore a power calculation was not performed. A Fisher's Exact test was performed post hoc to determine if a significant difference existed between the two arms.||||||0.12|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.12
90903874|NCT03055832|181674937|NON_INFERIORITY|A standard deviation of 14 was assumed based on pilot data and the non-inferiority delta was set to 7. The chosen sample size and alpha = 0.025 provides 80% power for this endpoint|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.89|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.75|2.59||||||All questions||2.59|-8.75|
90903875|NCT00136916|181674944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011||||90.0|-0.064|-0.026|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline pulmonary function tests (PFTs), center, age, sex, and height.|M3||-0.026|-0.064|
91031605|NCT03980483|181947607|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.0362|TWO_SIDED|0.95|1.02|1.89|||Regression, Logistic|OR and corresponding 95% CI for OR are generated from the logistic regression model adjusted for Baseline TJC68, Baseline SJC66 and Treatment Group.||The null hypothesis is defined as there is no difference between the 150mg dose of GSK3196165 and placebo in the proportion of participants achieving ACR20 response at Week 12, versus the alternative hypothesis that the 150mg dose of GSK3196165 differs from placebo in the proportion of participants achieving ACR20 response at Week 12.||1.89|1.02|0.0362
91031606|NCT03980483|181947607|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|0.95|1.62|3.37|||Regression, Logistic|OR and corresponding 95% CI for OR are generated from the logistic regression model adjusted for Baseline TJC68, Baseline SJC66 and Treatment Group.||The null hypothesis is defined as there is no difference between the 05mg dose of Tofacitinib and placebo in the proportion of participants achieving ACR20 response at Week 12, versus the alternative hypothesis that the 05mg dose of Tofacitinib differs from placebo in the proportion of participants achieving ACR20 response at Week 12.||3.37|1.62|<0.0001
91031607|NCT03980483|181947607|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|0.95|0.5|0.95|||Regression, Logistic|OR and corresponding 95% CI for OR are generated from the logistic regression model adjusted for Baseline TJC68, Baseline SJC66 and Treatment Group.||The null hypothesis is defined as there is no difference between the 90mg dose of GSK3196165 and 05mg dose of Tofacitinib in the proportion of participants achieving ACR20 response at Week 12, versus the alternative hypothesis that the 90mg dose of GSK3196165 differs from 05mg dose of Tofacitinib in the proportion of participants achieving ACR20 response at Week 12.||0.95|0.50|0.0230
91101917|NCT02191397|182090760|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.26||Analysis included Baseline HAMD-17 depressed mood subscale score as covariate, treatment, gender, visit and treatment-visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison for Week 2. OC dataset was used, where available data at a given time point was used with no missing values filled in with estimates.|||0.26|-0.04|0.163
91101918|NCT02191397|182090760|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.34||Analysis included Baseline HAMD-17 depressed mood subscale score as covariate, treatment, gender, visit and treatment-visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison for Week 4. OC dataset was used, where available data at a given time point was used with no missing values filled in with estimates.|||0.34|0.00|0.050
90903876|NCT00136916|181674944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014||||90.0|-0.025|0.02|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|M6||0.020|-0.025|
91031608|NCT03980483|181947607|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|0.95|0.43|0.82|||Regression, Logistic|OR and corresponding 95% CI for OR are generated from the logistic regression model adjusted for Baseline TJC68, Baseline SJC66 and Treatment Group.||The null hypothesis is defined as there is no difference between the 150mg dose of GSK3196165 and 05mg dose of Tofacitinib in the proportion of participants achieving ACR20 response at Week 12, versus the alternative hypothesis that the 150mg dose of GSK3196165 differs from 05mg dose of Tofacitinib in the proportion of participants achieving ACR20 response at Week 12.||0.82|0.43|0.0013
91101919|NCT02191397|182090760|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.26||Analysis included Baseline HAMD-17 depressed mood subscale score as covariate, treatment, gender, visit and treatment-visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison for Week 6. OC dataset was used, where available data at a given time point was used with no missing values filled in with estimates.|||0.26|-0.09|0.337
91104526|NCT02037984|182094988|OTHER|PT14 Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT14 Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|9.5|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.5|-11.9|
90903877|NCT00136916|181674944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014||||90.0|-0.033|0.013|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline pulmonary function tests (PFTs), center, age, sex, and height.|M9||0.013|-0.033|
90903878|NCT00136916|181674944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014||||90.0|-0.044|0.004|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|M12||0.004|-0.044|
90958620|NCT01049217|181796996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.8718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Change at Endpoint, Stabbing: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.5|-0.5|0.8718
91101920|NCT02191397|182090760|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.2||Analysis included Baseline HAMD-17 depressed mood subscale score as covariate, treatment, gender, visit and treatment-visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison for Week 8. OC dataset was used, where available data at a given time point was used with no missing values filled in with estimates.|||0.20|-0.14|0.714
91101921|NCT02191397|182090761|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.18||Analysis included Baseline HAMD-17 anxiety/somatization subscale score as covariate, treatment, gender, visit and treatment-visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison for Week 1. OC dataset was used, where available data at a given time point was used with no missing values filled in with estimates.|||0.18|-0.50|0.358
91101922|NCT02191397|182090761|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.75||Analysis included Baseline HAMD-17 anxiety/somatization subscale score as covariate, treatment, gender, visit and treatment-visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison for Week 2. OC dataset was used, where available data at a given time point was used with no missing values filled in with estimates.|||0.75|-0.04|0.081
91101923|NCT02191397|182090761|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.99||Analysis included Baseline HAMD-17 anxiety/somatization subscale score as covariate, treatment, gender, visit and treatment-visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison for Week 4. OC dataset was used, where available data at a given time point was used with no missing values filled in with estimates.|||0.99|-0.02|0.062
91101924|NCT02191397|182090761|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.85||Analysis included Baseline HAMD-17 anxiety/somatization subscale score as covariate, treatment, gender, visit and treatment-visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison for Week 6. OC dataset was used, where available data at a given time point was used with no missing values filled in with estimates.|||0.85|-0.10|0.118
91101925|NCT02191397|182090761|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.71||Analysis included Baseline HAMD-17 anxiety/somatization subscale score as covariate, treatment, gender, visit and treatment-visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison for Week 8. OC dataset was used, where available data at a given time point was used with no missing values filled in with estimates.|||0.71|-0.19|0.252
91101926|NCT02191397|182090762|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.35||Analysis included Baseline HAMD-17 Retardation subscale score as covariate, treatment, gender, visit and treatment-visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison for Week 1. OC dataset was used, where available data at a given time point was used with no missing values filled in with estimates.|||0.35|-0.20|0.573
91101927|NCT02191397|182090762|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.58||Analysis included Baseline HAMD-17 Retardation subscale score as covariate, treatment, gender, visit and treatment-visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison for Week 2. OC dataset was used, where available data at a given time point was used with no missing values filled in with estimates.|||0.58|-0.13|0.209
91101928|NCT02191397|182090762|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.58||Analysis included Baseline HAMD-17 Retardation subscale score as covariate, treatment, gender, visit and treatment-visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison for Week 4. OC dataset was used, where available data at a given time point was used with no missing values filled in with estimates.|||0.58|-0.25|0.427
91101929|NCT02191397|182090762|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.48||Analysis included Baseline HAMD-17 Retardation subscale score as covariate, treatment, gender, visit and treatment-visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison for Week 6. OC dataset was used, where available data at a given time point was used with no missing values filled in with estimates.|||0.48|-0.40|0.851
91101930|NCT02191397|182090762|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.66||Analysis included Baseline HAMD-17 Retardation subscale score as covariate, treatment, gender, visit and treatment-visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison for Week 8. OC dataset was used, where available data at a given time point was used with no missing values filled in with estimates.|||0.66|-0.25|0.370
91101931|NCT02191397|182090763|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.37||Analysis included Baseline HAMD-17 Sleep Disorder subscale score as covariate, treatment, gender, visit and treatment-visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison for Week 1. OC dataset was used, where available data at a given time point was used with no missing values filled in with estimates.|||0.37|-0.16|0.438
91101932|NCT02191397|182090763|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.66||Analysis included Baseline HAMD-17 Sleep Disorder subscale score as covariate, treatment, gender, visit and treatment-visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison for Week 2. OC dataset was used, where available data at a given time point was used with no missing values filled in with estimates.|||0.66|0.07|0.014
91101933|NCT02191397|182090763|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.5||Analysis included Baseline HAMD-17 Sleep Disorder subscale score as covariate, treatment, gender, visit and treatment-visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison for Week 4. OC dataset was used, where available data at a given time point was used with no missing values filled in with estimates.|||0.50|-0.11|0.207
91104527|NCT02037984|182094988|OTHER|PT18C Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT18C Percentage Point Difference|-3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|6.3|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||6.3|-17.3|
91101934|NCT02191397|182090763|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.54||Analysis included Baseline HAMD-17 Sleep Disorder subscale score as covariate, treatment, gender, visit and treatment-visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison for Week 6. OC dataset was used, where available data at a given time point was used with no missing values filled in with estimates.|||0.54|-0.07|0.137
91101935|NCT02191397|182090763|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.46||Analysis included Baseline HAMD-17 Sleep Disorder subscale score as covariate, treatment, gender, visit and treatment-visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison for Week 8. OC dataset was used, where available data at a given time point was used with no missing values filled in with estimates.|||0.46|-0.14|0.299
91101936|NCT02191397|182090764|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.13||Analysis included Baseline CGI-S score as covariate, treatment, gender, visit and treatment-visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison for Week 1. OC dataset was used, where available data at a given time point was used with no missing values filled in with estimates.|||0.13|-0.10|0.804
91101937|NCT02191397|182090764|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.28||Analysis included Baseline CGI-S score as covariate, treatment, gender, visit and treatment-visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison for Week 2. OC dataset was used, where available data at a given time point was used with no missing values filled in with estimates.|||0.28|-0.02|0.079
91101938|NCT02191397|182090764|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.38||Analysis included Baseline CGI-S score as covariate, treatment, gender, visit and treatment-visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison for Week 4. OC dataset was used, where available data at a given time point was used with no missing values filled in with estimates.|||0.38|0.01|0.036
91101939|NCT02191397|182090764|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.31||Analysis included Baseline CGI-S score as covariate, treatment, gender, visit and treatment-visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison for Week 6. OC dataset was used, where available data at a given time point was used with no missing values filled in with estimates.|||0.31|-0.08|0.248
91101940|NCT02191397|182090764|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.35||Analysis included Baseline CGI-S score as covariate, treatment, gender, visit and treatment-visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison for Week 8. OC dataset was used, where available data at a given time point was used with no missing values filled in with estimates.|||0.35|-0.04|0.110
91101941|NCT02191397|182090765|OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|0.78||||0.545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.75||P-value was estimated from a GEE model repeated measures with CGI-I score of 1 or 2 as response variable and treatment, gender as explanatory variables|GEE model repeated measures||Comparison for Week 1. OC dataset was used, where available data at a given time point was used with no missing values filled in with estimates.|||1.75|0.35|0.545
91101942|NCT02191397|182090765|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.54||P-value was estimated from a GEE model repeated measures with CGI-I score of 1 or 2 as response variable and treatment, gender as explanatory variables|GEE model repeated measures||Comparison for Week 2. OC dataset was used, where available data at a given time point was used with no missing values filled in with estimates.|||1.54|0.58|0.822
91101943|NCT02191397|182090765|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.57||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.86||P-value was estimated from a GEE model repeated measures with CGI-I score of 1 or 2 as response variable and treatment, gender as explanatory variables|GEE model repeated measures||Comparison for Week 4. OC dataset was used, where available data at a given time point was used with no missing values filled in with estimates.|||0.86|0.38|0.007
91101944|NCT02191397|182090765|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.29||P-value was estimated from a GEE model repeated measures with CGI-I score of 1 or 2 as response variable and treatment, gender as explanatory variables|GEE model repeated measures||Comparison for Week 6. OC dataset was used, where available data at a given time point was used with no missing values filled in with estimates.|||1.29|0.54|0.417
91101945|NCT02191397|182090765|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.4||P-value was estimated from a GEE model repeated measures with CGI-I score of 1 or 2 as response variable and treatment, gender as explanatory variables|GEE model repeated measures||Comparison for Week 8. OC dataset was used, where available data at a given time point was used with no missing values filled in with estimates.|||1.40|0.49|0.485
91101946|NCT04000724|182090811|SUPERIORITY||Average treatment effect|-0.54||||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|0.18|||Longitudinal Targeted Maximum Likelihood|||||0.18|-1.26|0.141
91101947|NCT04000724|182090811|SUPERIORITY||Average treatment effect|-0.51||||0.123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.14|||Longitudinal Targeted Maximum Likelihood|||||0.14|-1.16|0.123
91101948|NCT04000724|182090812|SUPERIORITY||Average treatment effect|-0.24||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.07|||Longitudinal Targeted Maximum Likelihood|||||.07|-.56|.127
91101949|NCT04000724|182090812|SUPERIORITY||Average treatment effect|-0.02||||0.899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.3|||Longitudinal Targeted Maximum Likelihood|||||.30|-.34|.899
90903879|NCT00136916|181674944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.023|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015||||90.0|-0.048|0.003|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline pulmonary function tests (PFTs), center, age, sex, and height.|M15||0.003|-0.048|
90903880|NCT00136916|181674944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.023|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016||||90.0|-0.05|0.004|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline pulmonary function tests (PFTs), center, age, sex, and height.|M18||0.004|-0.050|
90903881|NCT00136916|181674944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017||||90.0|-0.047|0.007|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline pulmonary function tests (PFTs), center, age, sex, and height.|M21||0.007|-0.047|
90903882|NCT00136916|181674944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.026|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017||||90.0|-0.054|0.002|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|M24||0.002|-0.054|
91101950|NCT00472641|182090822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05|||||||Random Regression Mixed Effects Modeling|||||||<0.00001
91101951|NCT00472641|182090823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05|||||||Random Regression Mixed Effects Modeling|||||||<0.00001
91101952|NCT00309244|182090829|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size was set to meet regulatory requirement of 250 subjects per arm with 52-week data, resulting in \> 90% power for a non-inferiority test of the difference in 12-month change of HbA1c scores between treatment groups with non-inferiority margin of 0.4%, standard deviation of 1.2 and 1-sided alpha of 0.025. Allowing for a 25% drop-out rate, 677 subjects were randomized.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.085|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.29|||ANCOVA|||||0.29|-0.05|
91101953|NCT00309244|182090830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.7|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with terms of pooled site and treatment as fixed effects and baseline weight as covariate||-0.7|-2.4|0.0002
91101954|NCT00309244|182090831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-17.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.9||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.3|-6.1|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with terms of pooled site and treatment as fixed effects and baseline fasting plasma glucose as covariate||-6.1|-29.3|0.0029
90856896|NCT02694523|181578074|OTHER||difference in percentage of participants|32.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.8|46.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for baseline weight (≤100 kg vs \>100 kg) and prior exposure to TNF antagonists (0 vs ≥1).||46.9|18.8|<0.001
90856897|NCT02694523|181578075|OTHER||difference in percentage of participants|32.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.8|46.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for baseline weight (≤100 kg vs \>100 kg) and prior exposure to TNF antagonists (0 vs ≥1).||46.9|18.8|<0.001
90856898|NCT02694523|181578076|OTHER||difference in percentage of participants|38.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.0|55.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for baseline weight (≤100 kg vs \>100 kg) and prior exposure to TNF antagonists (0 vs ≥1).||55.8|22.0|<0.001
90856899|NCT01058265|181578089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.487||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in PCS between two groups.||||0.487
90856900|NCT01058265|181578090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.817||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in MCS between two groups.||||0.817
90856901|NCT02869438|181578101|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.077||||0.0707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.007|0.161|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes covariates of treatment, baseline pre-BD FEV1, region, visit, treatment by visit interaction.|For Day 28|||0.161|-0.007|0.0707
90856902|NCT02869438|181578101|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.013||||0.7747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.077|0.104|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes covariates of treatment, baseline pre-BD FEV1, region, visit, treatment by visit interaction.|For Day 56|||0.104|-0.077|0.7747
90856903|NCT02869438|181578101|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.079||||0.0969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.014|0.173|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes covariates of treatment, baseline pre-BD FEV1, region, visit, treatment by visit interaction.|For Day 84|||0.173|-0.014|0.0969
90856904|NCT02869438|181578101|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.057||||0.1558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.022|0.135|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes covariates of treatment, baseline pre-BD FEV1, region, visit, treatment by visit interaction.|For average over Day 28, 56, and 84|||0.135|-0.022|0.1558
90856905|NCT02869438|181578102|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.176||||0.2847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.505|0.153|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes covariates of treatment, baseline RV, region, visit, treatment by visit interaction.||||0.153|-0.505|0.2847
90856906|NCT02869438|181578103|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-101.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-118.9|-83.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes covariates of treatment, baseline eosinophils counts, region, visit, treatment by visit interaction.||||-83.06|-118.9|<0.0001
90856907|NCT02869438|181578104|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.015||||0.6384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.049|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes covariates of treatment, baseline pre-BD FEV1, region, visit, treatment by visit interaction.|For Day 3|||0.08|-0.049|0.6384
90856908|NCT02869438|181578104|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.046||||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.016|0.109|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes covariates of treatment, baseline pre-BD FEV1, region, visit, treatment by visit interaction.|For Day 7|||0.109|-0.016|0.148
90856909|NCT02869438|181578104|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.026||||0.4959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.049|0.101|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes covariates of treatment, baseline pre-BD FEV1, region, visit, treatment by visit interaction.|For Day 14|||0.101|-0.049|0.4959
90856910|NCT02869438|181578105|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.006||||0.8667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.062|0.073|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes covariates of treatment, baseline pre-BD FVC, region, visit, treatment by visit interaction.|For Day 3|||0.073|-0.062|0.8667
90903883|NCT00136916|181674944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017||||90.0|-0.021|0.034|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|FU M1||0.034|-0.021|
90903884|NCT00136916|181674944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.014|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018||||90.0|-0.016|0.044|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|FU M3||0.044|-0.016|
90903885|NCT00136916|181674944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.027|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017||||90.0|-0.002|0.055|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|FU M6||0.055|-0.002|
91101955|NCT00309244|182090832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.774||||0.2793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.486|1.231|||Regression, Logistic|||logistic regression analysis with the terms of treatment and baseline HbA1c in the model||1.231|0.486|0.2793
91101956|NCT00309244|182090833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.423|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.307|0.581|||Regression, Logistic||Model: Treatment + Site|||0.581|0.307|<0.001
91101957|NCT00309244|182090834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.409||||0.0066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.215|0.78|||Regression, Logistic||Model: Treatment + Site|||0.780|0.215|0.0066
91101958|NCT00309244|182090835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0027|||||||Generalized Estimation Equation|Based on Poisson distribution||||||0.0027
91101959|NCT00309244|182090836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0591|||||||Generalized Estimating Equation|Based on Poission distribution||||||0.0591
91101960|NCT04223687|182090850|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance, p\<0.05|Chi-squared|||||||<0.01
91101961|NCT04223687|182090851|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance, p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
91101962|NCT04223687|182090852|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance, p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
90958621|NCT01049217|181796996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.8241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Change at Endpoint, Light Touching: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.4|-0.5|0.8241
90856911|NCT02869438|181578105|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.041||||0.2734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.033|0.115|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes covariates of treatment, baseline pre-BD FVC, region, visit, treatment by visit interaction.|For Day 7|||0.115|-0.033|0.2734
90856912|NCT02869438|181578105|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.015||||0.7252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.068|0.098|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes covariates of treatment, baseline pre-BD FVC, region, visit, treatment by visit interaction.|For Day 14|||0.098|-0.068|0.7252
90856913|NCT02869438|181578105|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.075||||0.0976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.014|0.164|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes covariates of treatment, baseline pre-BD FVC, region, visit, treatment by visit interaction.|For Day 28|||0.164|-0.014|0.0976
90856914|NCT02869438|181578105|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.023||||0.6536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.077|0.122|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes covariates of treatment, baseline pre-BD FVC, region, visit, treatment by visit interaction.|For Day 56|||0.122|-0.077|0.6536
90856915|NCT02869438|181578105|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.092||||0.0595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.188|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes covariates of treatment, baseline pre-BD FVC, region, visit, treatment by visit interaction.|For Day 84|||0.188|-0.004|0.0595
90856916|NCT02869438|181578105|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.063||||0.1377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.147|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes covariates of treatment, baseline pre-BD FVC, region, visit, treatment by visit interaction.|For average of Day 28, 56, 84.|||0.147|-0.02|0.1377
90856917|NCT02869438|181578106|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.1604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|2.58|||Regression, Logistic|Model includes covariates of treatment, baseline pre-BD FEV1, region, visit, treatment by visit interaction.|For Day 3|||2.58|0.85|0.1604
90856918|NCT02869438|181578106|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.19|||Regression, Logistic|Model includes covariates of treatment, baseline pre-BD FEV1, region, visit, treatment by visit interaction.|For Day 7|||2.19|0.76|0.3400
90856919|NCT02869438|181578106|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.58||||0.0924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|2.7|||Regression, Logistic|Model includes covariates of treatment, baseline pre-BD FEV1, region, visit, treatment by visit interaction.|For Day 14|||2.70|0.93|0.0924
90856920|NCT02869438|181578106|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.57||||0.1052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|2.71|||Regression, Logistic|Model includes covariates of treatment, baseline pre-BD FEV1, region, visit, treatment by visit interaction.|For Day 28|||2.71|0.91|0.1052
90856921|NCT02869438|181578106|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.3271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.21|||Regression, Logistic|Model includes covariates of treatment, baseline pre-BD FEV1, region, visit, treatment by visit interaction.|For Day 56|||2.21|0.77|0.3271
90856922|NCT02869438|181578106|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.3017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.29|||Regression, Logistic|Model includes covariates of treatment, baseline pre-BD FEV1, region, visit, treatment by visit interaction.|For Day 84|||2.29|0.77|0.3017
90856923|NCT02869438|181578107|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.293||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.481|-0.105|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes covariates of treatment, baseline ACQ-6 score, region, visit, treatment by visit interaction.|For Day 14|||-0.105|-0.481|0.0024
90856924|NCT02869438|181578107|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.402||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.609|-0.195|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes covariates of treatment, baseline ACQ-6 score, region, visit, treatment by visit interaction.|For Day 28|||-0.195|-0.609|0.0002
90856925|NCT02869438|181578107|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.312||||0.0117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.554|-0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes covariates of treatment, baseline ACQ-6 score, region, visit, treatment by visit interaction.|For Day 56|||-0.07|-0.554|0.0117
90856926|NCT02869438|181578107|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.472||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.731|-0.213|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes covariates of treatment, baseline ACQ-6 score, region, visit, treatment by visit interaction.|For Day 84|||-0.213|-0.731|0.0004
90856927|NCT02869438|181578107|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.395||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.603|-0.188|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes covariates of treatment, baseline ACQ-6 score, region, visit, treatment by visit interaction.|For average of Day 28, 56, 84.|||-0.188|-0.603|0.0002
90856928|NCT02869438|181578108|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.229||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.832|-3.626|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes covariates of treatment, baseline SGRQ score, region, visit, treatment by visit interaction.|For Day 28|||-3.626|-10.832|0.0001
90856929|NCT02869438|181578108|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.942||||0.0115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.538|-1.346|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes covariates of treatment, baseline SGRQ score, region, visit, treatment by visit interaction.|For Day 56|||-1.346|-10.538|0.0115
91101963|NCT04223687|182090853|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance, p\<0.05|Chi-squared|||||||0.37
91101964|NCT04223687|182090854|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance, p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91101965|NCT04223687|182090855|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance, p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91101966|NCT04223687|182090856|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance, p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91101967|NCT04223687|182090857|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance, p\<0.05|Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91101968|NCT04223687|182090858|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance, p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.06
91101969|NCT04223687|182090859|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance, p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.37
91101970|NCT04223687|182090860|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance, p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91101971|NCT04223687|182090861|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance, p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.42
91101972|NCT04223687|182090862|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance, p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.13
91101973|NCT04223687|182090863|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance, p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
91101974|NCT02945046|182090870|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.9093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.72|2.42||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||2.42|-2.72|0.9093
91101975|NCT02945046|182090870|OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29||0.1345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.49|0.61||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||0.61|-4.49|0.1345
91101976|NCT03907579|182090890|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|z= -3.861||||||0.0001
91101977|NCT03319654|182090893|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE)-model with an exchangeable correlation structure and a logit link function was used to analyze the probability of live birth and clinical pregnancy respectively. All IUI cycles are used in this model with correction for the fact that cycles of the same couple are not independent.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|0.9985|||GEE-model|||The null hypothesis is: there is no association between % total Sperm DNA Fragmentation and live birth.||0.9985|0.90|0.04
91101978|NCT03319654|182090893|OTHER||Area under the ROC curve|0.576|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Receiver Operating Characteristics curve|||||||>0.05
91101979|NCT03259308|182090900|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by actual status of prior anti-TNF treatment and glucocorticoid at baseline.||||||0.027
91101980|NCT03259308|182090900|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by actual status of prior anti-TNF treatment and glucocorticoid at baseline.||||||0.014
91101981|NCT03259308|182090901|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by actual status of prior anti-TNF treatment and glucocorticoid at baseline.||||||0.001
91101982|NCT03259308|182090901|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by actual status of prior anti-TNF treatment and glucocorticoid at baseline.||||||0.003
91101983|NCT03259308|182090902|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by actual status of prior anti-TNF treatment and glucocorticoid at baseline.||||||<0.001
91101984|NCT03259308|182090902|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by actual status of prior anti-TNF treatment and glucocorticoid at baseline.||||||<0.001
91101985|NCT03259308|182090903|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by actual status of prior anti-TNF treatment and glucocorticoid at baseline.||||||<0.001
91101986|NCT03259308|182090903|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by actual status of prior anti-TNF treatment and glucocorticoid at baseline.||||||<0.001
91101987|NCT03259308|182090904|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by actual status of prior anti-TNF treatment and glucocorticoid at baseline.||||||0.002
91101988|NCT03259308|182090904|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by actual status of prior anti-TNF treatment and glucocorticoid at baseline.||||||0.017
91101989|NCT00066937|182090924|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVAs compared baseline to each timepoint||||||<.05
91101990|NCT00066937|182090925|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVAs compared baseline scores to each period of follow-up (post-treatment, 3-months, 6 months)||||||<.05
91101991|NCT00066937|182090926|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVAs compared baseline scores to each period of follow-up (post-treatment, 3-months, 6 months)||||||<.05
90856930|NCT02869438|181578108|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.599||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|-3.898|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes covariates of treatment, baseline SGRQ score, region, visit, treatment by visit interaction.|For Day 84|||-3.898|-13.3|0.0004
90903886|NCT00136916|181674944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022||||90.0|-0.04|0.032|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|Ext M1||0.032|-0.040|
90903887|NCT00136916|181674944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.033|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023||||90.0|-0.07|0.004|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|Ext M3||0.004|-0.070|
90903888|NCT00136916|181674944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.039|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023||||90.0|-0.077|-0.002|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|Ext M6||-0.002|-0.077|
91101992|NCT00066937|182090927|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVAs compared baseline scores to each period of follow-up (post-treatment, 3-months, 6 months)||||||<.05
90856931|NCT02869438|181578108|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.257||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.133|-3.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes covariates of treatment, baseline SGRQ score, region, visit, treatment by visit interaction.|For average of Day 28, 56, 84.|||-3.38|-11.133|0.0003
90856932|NCT02869438|181578109|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.414||||0.2825|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.492|15.321|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes covariates of treatment, baseline FeNO value, region, visit, treatment by visit interaction.||||15.321|-4.492|0.2825
90856933|NCT02869438|181578119|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.365||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.649|-0.081|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes covariates of treatment, baseline PGI-S score, region, visit, treatment by visit interaction.|For Day 84|||-0.081|-0.649|0.0120
90903889|NCT00136916|181674944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.036|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||||90.0|-0.075|0.003|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline pulmonary function tests (PFTs), center, age, sex, and height.|Ext M9||0.003|-0.075|
90903890|NCT00136916|181674944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.018|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||||90.0|-0.058|0.022|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|Ext M12||0.022|-0.058|
90903891|NCT00136916|181674944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||||90.0|-0.034|0.048|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline pulmonary function tests (PFTs), center, age, sex, and height.|Ext M15||0.048|-0.034|
90903892|NCT00136916|181674944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||||90.0|-0.055|0.033|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|Ext M18||0.033|-0.055|
90903893|NCT00136916|181674944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||||90.0|-0.058|0.029|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline pulmonary function tests (PFTs), center, age, sex, and height.|Ext M21||0.029|-0.058|
90903894|NCT00136916|181674944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028||||90.0|-0.061|0.03|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|Ext M24||0.030|-0.061|
90903895|NCT00136916|181674944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||||90.0|-0.044|0.043|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline pulmonary function tests (PFTs), center, age, sex, and height.|Ext M27||0.043|-0.044|
90903896|NCT00136916|181674944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||||90.0|-0.051|0.04|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|Ext M30||0.040|-0.051|
90903897|NCT00136916|181674944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||||90.0|-0.042|0.058|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline pulmonary function tests (PFTs), center, age, sex, and height.|Ext M33||0.058|-0.042|
90903898|NCT00136916|181674944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032||||90.0|-0.03|0.077|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|Ext M36||0.077|-0.030|
90903899|NCT00136916|181674944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023||||90.0|-0.042|0.035|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height. Ext M36 (LOCF) based on data in the extension phase only.|Ext M36 LOCF||0.035|-0.042|
90903900|NCT00136916|181674944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||||90.0|-0.023|0.062|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|Ext FU M3||0.062|-0.023|
90903901|NCT00136916|181674950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.119|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.058||||90.0|-0.215|-0.023|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline HbA1c, and center.|M3||-0.023|-0.215|
90903902|NCT00136916|181674950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.023|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067||||90.0|-0.133|0.087|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline HbA1c, and center.|M6||0.087|-0.133|
90903903|NCT00136916|181674950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.069||||90.0|-0.104|0.124|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline HbA1c, and center.|M9||0.124|-0.104|
90903904|NCT00136916|181674950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.091|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.075||||90.0|-0.033|0.214|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline HbA1c, and center.|M12||0.214|-0.033|
90903905|NCT00136916|181674950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.052|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.081||||90.0|-0.081|0.185|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline HbA1c, and center.|M15||0.185|-0.081|
91101993|NCT03389750|182090929|EQUIVALENCE|An F-test was used to assess for significant differences among the 13 dose conditions.||||||0.0001|||||||ANOVA|F = 7.06 (DF=12)||||||.0001
91101994|NCT01117350|182090930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.54||||0.439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.88|8.93||"If superiority not demonstrated, switching from superiority to non-inferiority considered.~Conclusion of non-inferiority reached if lower limit of 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the difference (insulin glargine - liraglutide) \> or = to - 3.5%"|Chi-squared|||"Superiority testing~H0: Rate measured with insulin glargine = rate measured with liraglutide~H1: Rate measured with insulin glargine ≠ rate measured with liraglutide~Sample size calculation (465 randomized patients per arm) was based on the assumption of an expected success rate of 46% with insulin glargine and 35% with liraglutide, an alpha risk of 5% (2-sided) and a power of 90%, taking into account an estimated non evaluability rate of 10%."||8.93|-3.88|0.439
91101995|NCT06868667|182090954|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|1.52|||||Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox Proportional Hazards model stratified by the number of lines of prior therapy, prior bortezomib and revised international staging system (R-ISS) at screening, with a covariate of treatment.|||1.52|0.11|
90903906|NCT00136916|181674950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.087||||90.0|-0.054|0.234|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline HbA1c, and center.|M18||0.234|-0.054|
91101996|NCT03681093|182090982|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.323||0.979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.7||Adjusted p-value is reported. The adjusted p-value was obtained from the Dunnet Multiplicity Correction applied to control the Type I error for the primary analysis.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||0.70|-0.59|0.979
91101997|NCT03681093|182090982|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.319||0.656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.39||Adjusted p-value is reported. The adjusted p-value was obtained from the Dunnet Multiplicity Correction applied to control the Type I error for the primary analysis.|MMRM|||||0.39|-0.88|0.656
91101998|NCT03681093|182090983|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.249||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.14||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM|||||1.14|0.15|0.012
90903907|NCT00136916|181674950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.068|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.085||||90.0|-0.073|0.208|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline HbA1c, and center.|M21||0.208|-0.073|
90903908|NCT00136916|181674950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.096||||90.0|-0.058|0.257|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline HbA1c, and center.|M24||0.257|-0.058|
91101999|NCT03681093|182090983|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.248||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.94||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM|||||0.94|-0.04|0.074
91102000|NCT03681093|182090984|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|5.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.881||0.288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.49|14.93||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM|||||14.93|-4.49|0.288
91102001|NCT03681093|182090984|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-2.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.936||0.661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.99|7.65||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM|||||7.65|-11.99|0.661
90903909|NCT00136916|181674950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||||90.0|-0.143|0.154|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline HbA1c, and center.|FU M3||0.154|-0.143|
90903910|NCT00136916|181674950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.036|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094||||90.0|-0.119|0.19|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline HbA1c, and center.|FU M6||0.190|-0.119|
91102002|NCT03681093|182090985|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.809||0.735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.98|4.21||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM|||||4.21|-2.98|0.735
90903911|NCT00136916|181674950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||||90.0|-0.2|0.161|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline HbA1c, and center.|Ext M1||0.161|-0.200|
90903912|NCT00136916|181674950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.081|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||||90.0|-0.101|0.263|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline HbA1c, and center.|Ext M3||0.263|-0.101|
90903913|NCT00136916|181674950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.141|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.108||||90.0|-0.038|0.32|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline HbA1c, and center.|Ext M6||0.320|-0.038|
90903914|NCT00136916|181674950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116||||90.0|-0.041|0.342|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline HbA1c, and center.|Ext M9||0.342|-0.041|
90903915|NCT00136916|181674950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.104|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.118||||90.0|-0.09|0.298|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline HbA1c, and center.|Ext M12||0.298|-0.090|
90903916|NCT00136916|181674950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.074|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.125||||90.0|-0.132|0.279|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline HbA1c, and center.|Ext M15||0.279|-0.132|
90903917|NCT00136916|181674950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.087|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||||90.0|-0.111|0.284|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline HbA1c, and center.|Ext M18||0.284|-0.111|
91102003|NCT03681093|182090985|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|4.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.821||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|8.13||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM|||||8.13|0.89|0.015
91102004|NCT01027754|182090986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.03|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.03
91102005|NCT01027754|182090987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.24|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.24
90903918|NCT00136916|181674950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.064|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.124||||90.0|-0.141|0.27|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline HbA1c, and center.|Ext M21||0.270|-0.141|
90903919|NCT00136916|181674950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.047|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.123||||90.0|-0.156|0.249|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline HbA1c, and center.|Ext M24||0.249|-0.156|
90903920|NCT00136916|181674950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.067|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.124||||90.0|-0.138|0.272|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline HbA1c, and center.|Ext M27||0.272|-0.138|
91102006|NCT01027754|182090996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.15|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.15
91104528|NCT02037984|182094988|OTHER|PT19A Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT19A Percentage Point Difference|-6.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.1|3.0|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||3.0|-22.1|
91104529|NCT02037984|182094988|OTHER|PT19F Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT19F Percentage Point Difference|-3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|6.3|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||6.3|-17.3|
91031609|NCT03980483|181947610|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority over tofacitinib on ACR20 was concluded if the lower limit of the multiplicity corrected 97.5 % Confidence Interval (CI) in the difference in proportions (GSK3196165 minus tofacitinib) was greater than -12%|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.4|||||TWO_SIDED|0.975|-18.6|-2.3|||Regression, Logistic|Difference in proportion and 97.5% CI are generated from logistic regression model adjusted for Baseline TJC68, Baseline SJC66 and Treatment Group.||||-2.3|-18.6|
90903921|NCT00136916|181674950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.046|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.132||||90.0|-0.171|0.264|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline HbA1c, and center.|Ext M30||0.264|-0.171|
90903922|NCT00136916|181674950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.824|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.319||||90.0|-3.92|23.569|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline HbA1c, and center.|Ext M33||23.569|-3.920|
91031610|NCT03980483|181947610|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority over tofacitinib on ACR20 was concluded if the lower limit of the multiplicity corrected 97.5% CI in the difference in proportions (GSK3196165 minus tofacitinib) was greater than -12%|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|0.975|-21.2|-4.8|||Regression, Logistic|Difference in proportion and 97.5% CI are generated from logistic regression model adjusted for Baseline TJC68, Baseline SJC66 and Treatment Group.||||-4.8|-21.2|
91031611|NCT05150964|181947705|OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||Significance was indicated by p \<. 05, Cohen's d was calculated to indicate effect size.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"A Linear Mixed Model Analysis was performed. The hearing aid prescription (NAL/National Acoustic Laboratory or DSL/Desired Sensation Level) and ASG (Adaptive Situational Gain) setting (on, off) were entered as fixed factors while the individual participants were entered as a random factor.~Null hypothesis: The hearing aid fitting prescription will have no effect on the speech reception thresholds."||||<0.05
91102007|NCT05033561|182091002|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority would be verified if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI around each difference (shorter interval minus standard interval) is greater than -10%.||||||0.05||||||This is the nominal alpha level for the two-sided confidence interval comparison.|Miettinen-Nurminen|Pairwise comparisons with two-sided Miettinen-Nurminen confidence intervals.||This study was designed to demonstrate the non-inferiority of Group A (1-week interval nOPV2 administration) and Group B (2-weeks interval nOPV2 administration) versus Group C (standard 4-week interval).||||0.05
90903923|NCT00136916|181674950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.197||||90.0|-0.316|0.337|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline HbA1c, and center.|Ext M36||0.337|-0.316|
91102008|NCT05033561|182091002|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority would be verified if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI around each difference (shorter interval minus standard interval) is greater than -10%.||||||0.05||||||This is the nominal alpha level for the two-sided confidence interval comparison.|Miettinen-Nurminen|Pairwise comparisons with two-sided Miettinen-Nurminen confidence intervals.||This study was designed to demonstrate the non-inferiority of Group A (1-week interval nOPV2 administration) and Group B (2-weeks interval nOPV2 administration) versus Group C (standard 4-week interval).||||0.05
91102009|NCT05033561|182091003|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority would be verified if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI around each difference (shorter interval minus standard interval) is greater than -10%.||||||0.05||||||This is the nominal alpha level for the two-sided confidence interval comparison.|Miettinen-Nurminen|Pairwise comparisons with two-sided Miettinen-Nurminen confidence intervals.||This study was designed to demonstrate the non-inferiority of Group A (1-week interval nOPV2 administration) and Group B (2-weeks interval nOPV2 administration) versus Group C (standard 4-week interval).||||0.05
91102010|NCT05033561|182091003|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority would be verified if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI around each difference (shorter interval minus standard interval) is greater than -10%.||||||0.05||||||This is the nominal alpha level for the two-sided confidence interval comparison.|Miettinen-Nurminen|Pairwise comparisons with two-sided Miettinen-Nurminen confidence intervals.||This study was designed to demonstrate the non-inferiority of Group A (1-week interval nOPV2 administration) and Group B (2-weeks interval nOPV2 administration) versus Group C (standard 4-week interval).||||0.05
91102011|NCT01557244|182091016|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value was calculated for change from Baseline at Week 12, based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with terms for treatment group, baseline maximum cystometric bladder capacity and baseline weight.||||0.0001
91102012|NCT01557244|182091016|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value was calculated for change from Baseline at Week 12, based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline maximum cystometric bladder capacity and baseline weight.||||<.0001
91102013|NCT01557244|182091016|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value was calculated for change from Baseline at Week 12, based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline maximum cystometric bladder capacity and baseline weight.||||<.0001
91102014|NCT01557244|182091016|OTHER||Difference in Least square (LS) Mean|-29.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.42|13.31||||||||13.31|-71.42|
91102015|NCT01557244|182091016|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-3.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.87|38.23||||||||38.23|-45.87|
91102016|NCT01557244|182091017|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2334|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value was calculated for change from Baseline at Week 12, based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline detrusor pressure at maximum bladder capacity and baseline weight.||||0.2334
91102017|NCT01557244|182091017|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5087|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value was calculated for change from Baseline at Week 12, based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline detrusor pressure at maximum bladder capacity and baseline weight.||||0.5087
90903924|NCT00136916|181674950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.163||||90.0|-0.245|0.292|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline HbA1c, and center.|Ext FU M3||0.292|-0.245|
90903925|NCT00136916|181674951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.054||||90.0|-19.07|-5.71|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline fasting plasma glucose, and center.|M3||-5.710|-19.07|
90903926|NCT00136916|181674951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.795||||90.0|-22.11|-6.312|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline fasting plasma glucose, and center.|M6||-6.312|-22.11|
90903927|NCT00136916|181674951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.92||||90.0|-19.07|-2.852|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline fasting plasma glucose, and center.|M12||-2.852|-19.07|
90903928|NCT00136916|181674951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.052||||90.0|-20.89|-4.232|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline fasting plasma glucose, and center.|M24||-4.232|-20.89|
90903929|NCT00136916|181674951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.867||||90.0|-80.69|47.019|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline fasting plasma glucose, and center.|FU M3||47.019|-80.69|
90903930|NCT00136916|181674951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.578|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.173||||90.0|-9.257|14.412|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline fasting plasma glucose, and center.|FU M6||14.412|-9.257|
90903931|NCT00136916|181674951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.007||||90.0|-19.37|0.45|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline fasting plasma glucose, and center.|Ext M1||0.450|-19.37|
90903932|NCT00136916|181674951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.481|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.446||||90.0|-20.11|1.153|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline fasting plasma glucose, and center.|Ext M3||1.153|-20.11|
90903933|NCT00136916|181674951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.785||||90.0|-21.95|0.438|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline fasting plasma glucose, and center.|Ext M6||0.438|-21.95|
90903934|NCT00136916|181674951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.827|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.154||||90.0|-16.98|3.328|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline fasting plasma glucose, and center.|Ext M9||3.328|-16.98|
90903935|NCT00136916|181674951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.287|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.192||||90.0|-19.15|4.579|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline fasting plasma glucose, and center.|Ext M12||4.579|-19.15|
90903936|NCT00136916|181674951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.848|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.219||||90.0|-13.76|10.066|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline fasting plasma glucose, and center.|Ext M15||10.066|-13.76|
90903937|NCT00136916|181674951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.156||||90.0|-20.83|2.79|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline fasting plasma glucose, and center.|Ext M18||2.790|-20.83|
90903938|NCT00136916|181674951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.078|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.217||||90.0|-18.99|4.834|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline fasting plasma glucose, and center.|Ext M21||4.834|-18.99|
90903939|NCT00136916|181674951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.329||||90.0|-24.63|-0.429|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline fasting plasma glucose, and center.|Ext M24||-0.429|-24.63|
91031612|NCT05150964|181947705|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Significance was indicated by p \<. 05, Cohen's d was calculated to indicate effect size.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"A Linear Mixed Model Analysis was performed. The hearing aid prescription (NAL/National Acoustic Laboratory or DSL/Desired Sensation Level) and ASG (Adaptive Situational Gain) setting (on, off) were entered as fixed factors while the individual participants were entered as a random factor.~Null hypothesis: The ASG setting will have no effect on the speech reception threshold."||||>0.05
91102018|NCT01557244|182091017|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3333|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value was calculated for change from Baseline at Week 12, based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline detrusor pressure at maximum bladder capacity and baseline weight.||||0.3333
90903940|NCT00136916|181674951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.895||||90.0|-30.45|-7.685|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline fasting plasma glucose, and center.|Ext M27||-7.685|-30.45|
90903941|NCT00136916|181674951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.223||||90.0|-15.15|8.705|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline fasting plasma glucose, and center.|Ext M30||8.705|-15.15|
90903942|NCT00136916|181674951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.625||||90.0|-21.09|4.107|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline fasting plasma glucose, and center.|Ext M33||4.107|-21.09|
90903943|NCT00136916|181674951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.906||||90.0|-36.66|-7.105|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline fasting plasma glucose, and center.|Ext M36||-7.105|-36.66|
90903944|NCT00136916|181674951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.673|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.77||||90.0|-19.16|9.812|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline fasting plasma glucose, and center.|Ext FU M3||9.812|-19.16|
90903945|NCT00136916|181674952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.059|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.217||||90.0|-0.416|0.299|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline weight, and center.|M3||0.299|-0.416|
90903946|NCT00136916|181674952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.735|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.297||||90.0|-1.224|-0.246|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline weight, and center.|M6||-0.246|-1.224|
90903947|NCT00136916|181674952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.642|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||||90.0|-1.251|-0.032|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline weight, and center.|M12||-0.032|-1.251|
90903948|NCT00136916|181674952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.355|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.464||||90.0|-2.12|-0.589|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline weight, and center.|M24||-0.589|-2.120|
90903949|NCT00136916|181674952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.303|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.475||||90.0|-2.086|-0.52|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline weight, and center.|FU M3||-0.520|-2.086|
90903950|NCT00136916|181674952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.557|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.596||||90.0|-2.539|-0.575|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline weight, and center.|FU M6||-0.575|-2.539|
90903951|NCT00136916|181674952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.904|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.603||||90.0|-1.898|0.09|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline weight, and center.|Ext M1||0.090|-1.898|
90903952|NCT00136916|181674952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.573||||90.0|-2.225|-0.334|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline weight, and center.|Ext M3||-0.334|-2.225|
91102019|NCT01557244|182091017|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.28|6.33||||||||6.33|-7.28|
91102020|NCT01557244|182091017|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.96|7.6||||||||7.60|-5.96|
91102021|NCT01557244|182091019|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0336|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value was calculated for change from Baseline at Week 12, based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline bladder volume at first IDC and baseline weight.||||0.0336
91102022|NCT01557244|182091019|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0327|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value was calculated for change from Baseline at Week 12, based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline bladder volume at first IDC and baseline weight.||||0.0327
91102023|NCT01557244|182091019|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0017|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value was calculated for change from Baseline at Week 12, based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline bladder volume at first IDC and baseline weight.||||0.0017
91031613|NCT05150964|181947706|OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||Significance was indicated by p \<. 05 and Cohen's d was calculated to indicate effect size.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"A Linear Mixed Model Analysis was performed. The hearing aid prescription (DSL, NAL) and ASG setting (on, off) were entered as fixed factors while the individual participants were entered as a random factor. An additional fixed factor of presentation level (40, 70 dB SPL) was added to the analyses.~Null Hypothesis: The ASG setting will have no effect on the Word Recognition Scores."||||<0.05
91031614|NCT05150964|181947706|OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||Significance was indicated by p \<. 05 and Cohen's d was calculated to indicate effect size.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"A Linear Mixed Model Analysis was performed. The hearing aid prescription (DSL, NAL) and ASG setting (on, off) were entered as fixed factors while the individual participants were entered as a random factor. An additional fixed factor of presentation level (40, 70 dB SPL) was added to the analyses.~Null Hypothesis: The presentation level will have no effect on the Word Recognition Scores."||||<0.05
91102024|NCT01557244|182091019|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-10.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.75|27.19||||||||27.19|-48.75|
91102025|NCT01557244|182091019|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-15.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.15|19.64||||||||19.64|-50.15|
91102026|NCT01557244|182091020|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0679|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value was calculated for change from Baseline at Week 12, based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline bladder compliance and baseline weight.||||0.0679
91102027|NCT01557244|182091020|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1233|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value was calculated for change from Baseline at Week 12, based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline bladder compliance and baseline weight.||||0.1233
91102028|NCT01557244|182091020|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0019|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value was calculated for change from Baseline at Week 12, based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline bladder compliance and baseline weight.||||0.0019
91102029|NCT01557244|182091020|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-4.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.81|4.89||||||||4.89|-14.81|
91102030|NCT01557244|182091020|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-5.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.85|3.95||||||||3.95|-15.85|
91102031|NCT01557244|182091021|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0116|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value was calculated for change from Baseline at Week 12, based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline number of micturitions per 24 hours and baseline weight.||||0.0116
90903953|NCT00136916|181674952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.834|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.652||||90.0|-1.909|0.241|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline weight, and center.|Ext M6||0.241|-1.909|
90903954|NCT00136916|181674952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.654||||90.0|-2.08|0.078|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline weight, and center.|Ext M9||0.078|-2.080|
90903955|NCT00136916|181674952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.316|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.676||||90.0|-2.431|-0.2|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline weight, and center.|Ext M12||-0.200|-2.431|
91102032|NCT01557244|182091021|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0765|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value was calculated for change from Baseline at Week 12, based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline number of micturitions per 24 hours and baseline weight.||||0.0765
91102033|NCT01557244|182091021|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0061|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value was calculated for change from Baseline at Week 12, based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline number of micturitions per 24 hours and baseline weight.||||0.0061
91102034|NCT01557244|182091021|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.97||||||||0.97|-1.16|
91102035|NCT01557244|182091021|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|1.31||||||||1.31|-0.74|
91102036|NCT01557244|182091022|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0787|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value was calculated for change from Baseline at Week 12, based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline number of catheterizations per 24 hours and baseline weight.||||0.0787
91102037|NCT01557244|182091022|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0727|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value was calculated for change from Baseline at Week 12, based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline number of catheterizations per 24 hours and baseline weight.||||0.0727
91102038|NCT01557244|182091022|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0666|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value was calculated for change from Baseline at Week 12, based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline number of catheterizations per 24 hours and baseline weight.||||0.0666
91102039|NCT01557244|182091022|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.54||||||||0.54|-0.45|
91102040|NCT01557244|182091022|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.52||||||||0.52|-0.49|
91102041|NCT01557244|182091023|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0111|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value was calculated for change from Baseline at Week 12, based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline number of micturitions and catheterizations combined per 24 hours and baseline weight.||||0.0111
91102042|NCT01557244|182091023|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0171|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value was calculated for change from Baseline at Week 12, based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline number of micturitions and catheterizations combined per 24 hours and baseline weight.||||0.0171
91102043|NCT01557244|182091023|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0028|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value was calculated for change from Baseline at Week 12, based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline number of micturitions and catheterizations combined per 24 hours and baseline weight.||||0.0028
91102044|NCT01557244|182091023|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.82||||||||0.82|-0.53|
91102045|NCT01557244|182091023|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.84||||||||0.84|-0.54|
91102046|NCT01557244|182091024|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0496|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value was calculated for change from Baseline at Week 12, based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours and baseline weight.||||0.0496
91102047|NCT01557244|182091024|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value was calculated for change from Baseline at Week 12, based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours and baseline weight.||||0.0002
91102048|NCT01557244|182091024|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value was calculated for change from Baseline at Week 12, based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours and baseline weight.||||<.0001
91102049|NCT01557244|182091024|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|1.19||||||||1.19|-0.09|
91102050|NCT01557244|182091024|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.77||||||||0.77|-0.52|
91102051|NCT01557244|182091025|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0298|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value was calculated for change from Baseline at Week 12, based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline number of urgency episodes per 24 hours and baseline weight.||||0.0298
91102052|NCT01557244|182091025|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1417|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value was calculated for change from Baseline at Week 12, based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline number of urgency episodes per 24 hours and baseline weight.||||0.1417
90903956|NCT00136916|181674952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.512|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.696||||90.0|-2.661|-0.363|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline weight, and center.|Ext M15||-0.363|-2.661|
91102053|NCT01557244|182091025|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6219|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value was calculated for change from Baseline at Week 12, based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline number of urgency episodes per 24 hours and baseline weight.||||0.6219
90903957|NCT00136916|181674952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.313|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.916||||90.0|-2.824|0.198|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline weight, and center.|Ext M18||0.198|-2.824|
90903958|NCT00136916|181674952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.399|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.904||||90.0|-3.891|-0.907|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline weight, and center.|Ext M21||-0.907|-3.891|
91102054|NCT01557244|182091025|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|0.32||||||||0.32|-1.28|
91102055|NCT01557244|182091025|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|0.52||||||||0.52|-1.24|
91102056|NCT01557244|182091026|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7986|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value was calculated for change from Baseline at Week 12, based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline mean volume voided per micturition and baseline weight.||||0.7986
91102057|NCT01557244|182091026|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2313|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value was calculated for change from Baseline at Week 12, based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline mean volume voided per micturition and baseline weight.||||0.2313
91102058|NCT01557244|182091026|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7571|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value was calculated for change from Baseline at Week 12, based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline mean volume voided per micturition and baseline weight.||||0.7571
91102059|NCT01557244|182091026|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.11|42.0||||||||42.00|-42.11|
91102060|NCT01557244|182091026|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|15.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.5|56.63||||||||56.63|-26.50|
90903959|NCT00136916|181674952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.566|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.788||||90.0|-2.867|-0.265|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline weight, and center.|Ext M24||-0.265|-2.867|
91031615|NCT05150964|181947706|OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||Significance was indicated by p \<. 05 and Cohen's d was calculated to indicate effect size.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"A Linear Mixed Model Analysis was performed. The hearing aid prescription (DSL, NAL) and ASG setting (on, off) were entered as fixed factors while the individual participants were entered as a random factor. An additional fixed factor of presentation level (40, 70 dB SPL) was added to the analyses.~Null Hypothesis: Hearing aid prescription will have no effect on the Word Recognition Scores."||||<0.05
91102061|NCT01557244|182091027|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.061|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value was calculated for change from Baseline at Week 12, based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline mean volume voided per catheterization and baseline weight.||||0.0610
91102062|NCT01557244|182091027|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0048|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value was calculated for change from Baseline at Week 12, based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline mean volume voided per catheterization and baseline weight.||||0.0048
91102063|NCT01557244|182091027|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value was calculated for change from Baseline at Week 12, based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline mean volume voided per catheterization and baseline weight.||||0.0100
91102064|NCT01557244|182091027|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-16.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.14|30.29||||||||30.29|-63.14|
91102065|NCT01557244|182091027|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.0|48.57||||||||48.57|-46.00|
91102066|NCT01557244|182091028|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2246|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value was calculated for change from Baseline at Week 12, based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline mean volume voided per micturition or catheterization and baseline weight.||||0.2246
91102067|NCT01557244|182091028|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value was calculated for change from Baseline at Week 12, based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline mean volume voided per micturition or catheterization and baseline weight.||||0.0003
91102068|NCT01557244|182091028|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0161|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value was calculated for change from Baseline at Week 12, based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline mean volume voided per micturition or catheterization and baseline weight.||||0.0161
91102069|NCT01557244|182091028|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-18.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.0|24.53||||||||24.53|-61.00|
91102070|NCT01557244|182091028|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|18.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.93|60.65||||||||60.65|-22.93|
91102071|NCT01313676|182091064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.878||||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.739|1.042|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||||1.042|0.739|0.137
90856934|NCT02869438|181578120|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.97||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|5.88|||Regression, Logistic|Model includes covariates of treatment, region.|For Day 84|Responder analysis: responder is defined as Very much improved, improved, and minimally improved.||5.88|1.50|0.0018
91031616|NCT05150964|181947707|OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||Significance was indicated by p \<. 05 and Cohen's d was calculated to indicate effect size.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"A Linear Mixed Model Analysis was performed. The hearing aid prescription (DSL, NAL) and ASG setting (on, off) were entered as fixed factors while the individual participants were entered as a random factor. An additional fixed factor of presentation level (40, 70 dB SPL) was added to the analyses.~Null hypothesis: Presentation level will have no effect on multi-word recognition scores."||||<0.05
91031617|NCT05150964|181947707|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Significance was indicated by p \<. 05 and Cohen's d was calculated to indicate effect size.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"A Linear Mixed Model Analysis was performed. The hearing aid prescription (DSL, NAL) and ASG setting (on, off) were entered as fixed factors while the individual participants were entered as a random factor. An additional fixed factor of presentation level (40, 70 dB SPL) was added to the analyses.~Null hypothesis: The ASG setting will have no effect on multi-word recognition scores."||||>0.05
91031618|NCT05150964|181947707|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Significance was indicated by p \<. 05 and Cohen's d was calculated to indicate effect size.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"A Linear Mixed Model Analysis was performed. The hearing aid prescription (DSL, NAL) and ASG setting (on, off) were entered as fixed factors while the individual participants were entered as a random factor. An additional fixed factor of presentation level (40, 70 dB SPL) was added to the analyses.~Null hypothesis: Hearing aid prescription will have no effect on multi-word recognition scores."||||>0.05
91031619|NCT05150964|181947708|OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||Significance was indicated by p \<. 05 and Cohen's d was calculated to indicate effect size.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"A Linear Mixed Model Analysis was performed. The hearing aid prescription (DSL, NAL) and ASG setting (on, off) were entered as fixed factors while the individual participants were entered as a random factor. An additional fixed factor of presentation level (40, 70 dB SPL) was added to the analyses.~Null hypothesis: Presentation level will have no effect on Nonword Detection scores."||||<0.05
91031620|NCT05150964|181947708|OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||Significance was indicated by p \<. 05 and Cohen's d was calculated to indicate effect size.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"A Linear Mixed Model Analysis was performed. The hearing aid prescription (DSL, NAL) and ASG setting (on, off) were entered as fixed factors while the individual participants were entered as a random factor. An additional fixed factor of presentation level (40, 70 dB SPL) was added to the analyses.~Null hypothesis: Hearing aid prescription will have no effect on Nonword Detection scores."||||<0.05
91102072|NCT01313676|182091064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent reduction in risk of death|12.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|26.1|||||Confidence Interval (95%) and Estimated Value is presented for the percent reduction in risk of death at any time up to or on the CED, calculated as (1-hazard ratio)\*100|||26.1|-4.2|
91102073|NCT01313676|182091064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.911||||0.284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.767|1.081|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||||1.081|0.767|0.284
91102074|NCT01313676|182091064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent reduction in risk of death|8.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|23.3|||||Confidence Interval (95%) and Estimated Value is presented for the percent reduction in risk of death at any time up to or on the CED, calculated as (1-hazard ratio)\*100|||23.3|-8.1|
91102075|NCT01313676|182091064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.962||||0.655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.813|1.139|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||||1.139|0.813|0.655
91102076|NCT01313676|182091064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent reduction in risk of death|3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|18.7|||||Confidence Interval (95%) and Estimated Value is presented for the percent reduction in risk of death at any time up to or on the CED, calculated as (1-hazard ratio)\*100|||18.7|-13.9|
91102077|NCT01313676|182091064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.964||||0.681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.808|1.149|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||||1.149|0.808|0.681
91031621|NCT05150964|181947708|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Significance was indicated by p \<. 05 and Cohen's d was calculated to indicate effect size.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"A Linear Mixed Model Analysis was performed. The hearing aid prescription (DSL, NAL) and ASG setting (on, off) were entered as fixed factors while the individual participants were entered as a random factor. An additional fixed factor of presentation level (40, 70 dB SPL) was added to the analyses.~Null hypothesis: The ASG setting will have no effect on Nonword Detection scores."||||>0.05
91102078|NCT01313676|182091064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent reduction in risk of death|3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|19.2|||||Confidence Interval (95%) and Estimated Value is presented for the percent reduction in risk of death at any time up to or on the CED, calculated as (1-hazard ratio)\*100|||19.2|-14.9|
91102079|NCT01313676|182091064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.912||||0.299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.767|1.085|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||||1.085|0.767|0.299
91102080|NCT01313676|182091064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent reduction in risk of death|8.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|23.3|||||Confidence Interval (95%) and Estimated Value is presented for the percent reduction in risk of death at any time up to or on the CED, calculated as (1-hazard ratio)\*100|||23.3|-8.5|
91102081|NCT01313676|182091065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|15.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||15|1|0.019
91102082|NCT01313676|182091065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|14.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||14|1|0.026
91102083|NCT01313676|182091065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4||0.654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|5.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5|-8|0.654
91102084|NCT01313676|182091065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4||0.913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|7.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7|-6|0.913
91102085|NCT01313676|182091065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|16.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||16|3|0.004
91102086|NCT01313676|182091066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.926||||0.475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.143|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||||1.143|0.750|0.475
91102087|NCT01313676|182091066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent reduction in risk of CV event|7.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|25.0|||||Confidence Interval and Estimated Value is presented for the percent reduction in risk of death at any time up to or on the CED, calculated as (1-hazard ratio)\*100|||25.0|-14.3|
90903960|NCT00136916|181674952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.041||||90.0|-4.439|-1.001|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline weight, and center.|Ext M27||-1.001|-4.439|
90903961|NCT00136916|181674952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.401|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||||90.0|-2.755|-0.047|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline weight, and center.|Ext M30||-0.047|-2.755|
90903962|NCT00136916|181674952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.281|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.908||||90.0|-3.781|-0.782|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline weight, and center.|Ext M33||-0.782|-3.781|
91102088|NCT01313676|182091066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.896||||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.723|1.111|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||||1.111|0.723|0.317
91102089|NCT01313676|182091066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent reduction in risk of CV event|10.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|27.7|||||Confidence Interval and Estimated Value is presented for the percent reduction in risk of death at any time up to or on the CED, calculated as (1-hazard ratio)\*100|||27.7|-11.1|
91102090|NCT01313676|182091066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.988||||0.908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.802|1.217|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||||1.217|0.802|0.908
91102091|NCT01313676|182091066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent reduction in risk of death|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.7|19.8|||||Confidence Interval and Estimated Value is presented for the percent reduction in risk of death at any time up to or on the CED, calculated as (1-hazard ratio)\*100|||19.8|-21.7|
91102092|NCT01313676|182091066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.033||||0.763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.834|1.281|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||||1.281|0.834|0.763
91102093|NCT01313676|182091066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent reduction in risk of death|-3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.1|16.6|||||Confidence Interval and Estimated Value is presented for the percent reduction in risk of death at any time up to or on the CED, calculated as (1-hazard ratio)\*100|||16.6|-28.1|
91102094|NCT01313676|182091066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.938||||0.545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.761|1.155|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||||1.155|0.761|0.545
91102095|NCT01313676|182091066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent reduction in risk of death|6.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5|23.9|||||Confidence Interval and Estimated Value is presented for the percent reduction in risk of death at any time up to or on the CED, calculated as (1-hazard ratio)\*100|||23.9|-15.5|
90903963|NCT00136916|181674952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.766|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.305||||90.0|-4.932|-0.599|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline weight, and center.|Ext M36||-0.599|-4.932|
90903964|NCT00136916|181674952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.637|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.898||||90.0|-3.12|-0.153|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline weight, and center.|Ext FU M3||-0.153|-3.120|
91102096|NCT01902303|182091067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||>.5000
91102097|NCT01902303|182091068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3835|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||.3835
91102098|NCT01292473|182091124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.69||||0.4637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|1.16||Refer to the Type-I error control plan.|ANCOVA|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline weekly itch severity score (\< 13 vs ≥ 13) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the placebo and omalizumab 75 mg groups.||1.16|-2.54|0.4637
91102099|NCT01292473|182091124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.04||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.85|-1.24||Refer to the Type-I error control plan.|ANCOVA|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline weekly itch severity score (\< 13 vs ≥ 13) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the placebo and omalizumab 150 mg groups.||-1.24|-4.85|0.0011
90903965|NCT00136916|181674958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.251|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||||90.0|-0.466|-0.037|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|M3||-0.037|-0.466|
91102100|NCT01292473|182091124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.49|-3.13||Refer to the Type-I error control plan.|ANCOVA|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline weekly itch severity score (\< 13 vs ≥ 13) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the placebo and omalizumab 300 mg groups.||-3.13|-6.49|<0.0001
90903966|NCT00136916|181674958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.095|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.139||||90.0|-0.323|0.134|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|M6||0.134|-0.323|
90903967|NCT00136916|181674958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.084|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.146||||90.0|-0.158|0.325|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|M9||0.325|-0.158|
91102101|NCT01292473|182091125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.73||||0.1575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.53|1.07||Refer to the Type-I error control plan. The p-value was not evaluated for statistical significance in accordance with the Type I error control plan provided in the Detailed Description.|ANCOVA|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline UAS7 (\< median vs ≥ median) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the placebo and omalizumab 75 mg groups.||1.07|-6.53|0.1575
90856935|NCT02869438|181578121|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.51||||0.0107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|5.09|||Regression, Logistic|Model includes covariates of treatment, region.|For Day 84|Responder analysis: responder is defined as Very much improved, improved, and minimally improved.||5.09|1.24|0.0107
90856936|NCT02169284|181578131|OTHER|||||||0.208|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Nucleus P-EGFR in benign tissue between erlotinib and placebo||||0.208
90856937|NCT02169284|181578131|OTHER|||||||0.208|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Cytoplasm P-EGFR in benign tissue between erlotinib and placebo||||0.208
90856938|NCT02169284|181578131|OTHER|||||||0.272|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Membrane P-EGFR in benign tissue between erlotinib and placebo||||0.272
90856939|NCT02169284|181578131|OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Entire Cell P-EGFR in benign tissue between erlotinib and placebo||||0.220
90856940|NCT02169284|181578132|OTHER|||||||0.361|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Nucleus P-EGFR in Tumor Tissue, p-value between placebo and Erlotinib||||0.361
91102102|NCT01292473|182091125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.69||||0.0001||95.0|-11.49|-3.88||Refer to the Type-I error control plan.|ANCOVA|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline UAS7 (\< median vs ≥ median) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the placebo and omalizumab 150 mg groups.||-3.88|-11.49|0.0001
90856941|NCT02169284|181578132|OTHER|||||||0.383|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Cytoplasm P-EGFR in Tumor Tissue, p-value between placebo and Erlotinib||||0.383
90856942|NCT02169284|181578132|OTHER|||||||0.427|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Membrane P-EGFR in Tumor Tissue, p-value between placebo and Erlotinib||||0.427
90856943|NCT02169284|181578132|OTHER|||||||0.416|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Entire Cell P-EGFR in Tumor Tissue, p-value between placebo and Erlotinib||||0.416
90856944|NCT02169284|181578133|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Baseline visit - p-value between erlotinib and placebo arms||||1.000
90856945|NCT02169284|181578133|OTHER|||||||0.199|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Day 8 - p-value between erlotinib and placebo arms||||0.199
90856946|NCT02169284|181578133|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Surgery visit - p-value between erlotinib and placebo arms||||<0.001
90856947|NCT02169284|181578134|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Baseline visit - p-value between erlotinib and placebo arms||||1.000
90856948|NCT02169284|181578134|OTHER|||||||0.288|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Day 8 - p-value between erlotinib and placebo arms||||0.288
90903968|NCT00136916|181674958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.266|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.156||||90.0|-0.524|-0.009|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|M12||-0.009|-0.524|
90856949|NCT02169284|181578134|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Surgery visit - p-value between erlotinib and placebo arms||||<0.001
90856950|NCT02169284|181578135|OTHER|||||||0.792|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||P-value between groups at Baseline||||0.792
90856951|NCT02169284|181578135|OTHER|||||||0.261|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||P-value between groups at surgery visit||||0.261
90856952|NCT02169284|181578136|OTHER|||||||0.721|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Expression of e-cadherin in Benign Tissue, P-Value between arms||||0.721
90856953|NCT02169284|181578136|OTHER|||||||0.108|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Expression of e-cadherin in Tumor Tissue, P-Value between arms||||0.108
90856954|NCT02169284|181578137|OTHER|||||||0.444|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Expression of KI-67 in Benign Tissue, P-Value between arms||||0.444
90856955|NCT02169284|181578137|OTHER|||||||0.663|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Expression of KI-67 in Tumor Tissue, P-Value between arms||||0.663
90856956|NCT02169284|181578138|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Difference in p-ERK between Normal and Tumor Tissue, P-Value between arms||||1.000
90856957|NCT02169284|181578138|OTHER|||||||0.792|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Difference in Cytoplasm p-ERK between Normal and Tumor Tissue, P-Value between arms||||0.792
90856958|NCT02169284|181578138|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Difference in Entire Cell p-ERK between Normal and Tumor Tissue, p-value between arms||||1.000
90856959|NCT02169284|181578139|OTHER|||||||0.772|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.772
90856960|NCT01367119|181578141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.171||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-values take into account variability across treatments and within subject.||||0.171
90856961|NCT01367119|181578142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.258||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-values take into account variability across treatments and within subject.||||0.258
90856962|NCT01367119|181578143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.091||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between groups for nausea||||0.091
90856963|NCT01367119|181578143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.763||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between groups for headache||||0.763
90856964|NCT01367119|181578143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.356||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between groups for myalgia||||0.356
90903969|NCT00136916|181674958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.181|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.165||||90.0|-0.453|0.091|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|M15||0.091|-0.453|
90958622|NCT01049217|181796996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.3164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Change at Endpoint, Pressure of Area: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.2|-0.7|0.3164
90903970|NCT00136916|181674958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.141|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.173||||90.0|-0.427|0.145|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|M18||0.145|-0.427|
90958623|NCT01049217|181796996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.8996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Change at Endpoint, Cold of Area: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.5|-0.5|0.8996
90958624|NCT01049217|181796996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.9676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Change at Endpoint, Pins and Needles: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.5|-0.5|0.9676
90958625|NCT01049217|181796996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.9091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Change at Endpoint, Tingling: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.5|-0.5|0.9091
90958626|NCT01049217|181796997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.73|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Duration of Spontaneous Pain: Overall p-value was derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled site and D-drug ART use using modified ridit scores.||||0.7300
90958627|NCT01049217|181796997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0559|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Number of Pain Attacks: Overall p-value was derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled site and D-drug ART use using modified ridit scores.||||0.0559
91031622|NCT05150964|181947709|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Significance was indicated by p \<. 05 and Cohen's d was calculated to indicate effect size.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"A Linear Mixed Model Analysis was performed. The hearing aid prescription (DSL, NAL) and ASG setting (on, off) were entered as fixed factors while the individual participants were entered as a random factor. An additional fixed factor of presentation level (40, 70 dB SPL) was added to the analyses.~Null hypothesis: The ASG setting will have no effect on Rapid Word Learning scores."||||>0.05
91031623|NCT05150964|181947709|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Significance was indicated by p \<. 05 and Cohen's d was calculated to indicate effect size.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"A Linear Mixed Model Analysis was performed. The hearing aid prescription (DSL, NAL) and ASG setting (on, off) were entered as fixed factors while the individual participants were entered as a random factor. An additional fixed factor of presentation level (40, 70 dB SPL) was added to the analyses.~Null hypothesis: Presentation level will have no effect on Rapid Word Learning scores."||||>0.05
90903971|NCT00136916|181674958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.155|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.176||||90.0|-0.445|0.134|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|M21||0.134|-0.445|
90903972|NCT00136916|181674958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.119|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.189||||90.0|-0.193|0.431|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|M24||0.431|-0.193|
90958628|NCT01049217|181796998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.9686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Change at Endpoint, Burning Pain: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.05|-0.05|0.9686
90958629|NCT01049217|181796998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022||0.4711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Change at Endpoint, Pressing Pain: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.03|-0.06|0.4711
90958630|NCT01049217|181796998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023||0.9215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Change at Endpoint, Paroxysmal Pain: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.05|-0.04|0.9215
90958631|NCT01049217|181796998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021||0.6042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Change at Endpoint, Evoked Pain: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.03|-0.05|0.6042
90958632|NCT01049217|181796998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||0.9394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.04|||ANCOVA|||Change at Endpoint, P/D: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.04|-0.05|0.9394
90958633|NCT01049217|181796998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.7801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Change at Endpoint, Total Score: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.03|-0.04|0.7801
90903973|NCT00136916|181674958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.617|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.179||||90.0|0.322|0.911|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|FU M1||0.911|0.322|
90958634|NCT01049217|181796999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-3.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.58||0.6012|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Endpoint TST: ANCOVA model was used with treatment as a fixed effect and D-drug ART, pooled site value, baseline value as covariates.||||0.6012
90958635|NCT01049217|181796999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-3.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.89||0.0534|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Endpoint MIS: ANCOVA model was used with treatment as a fixed effect and D-drug ART, pooled site value, baseline value as covariates.||||0.0534
90958636|NCT01049217|181797000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.0966|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model was used with treatment as a fixed effect and D-drug ART, pooled site value, baseline value as covariates.||||0.0966
90903974|NCT00136916|181674958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.354|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.184||||90.0|0.051|0.657|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|FU M3||0.657|0.051|
90958637|NCT01049217|181797001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.0611|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model was used with treatment as a fixed effect and D-drug ART, pooled site value, baseline value as covariates.||||0.0611
90958638|NCT01049217|181797002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-8436.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6855.2||0.2195|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model was used with treatment as a fixed effect and D-drug ART, pooled site value, baseline value as covariates.||||0.2195
91102103|NCT01292473|182091125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-12.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.13|-8.66||Refer to the Type-I error control plan.|ANCOVA|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline UAS7 (\< median vs ≥ median) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the placebo and omalizumab 300 mg groups.||-8.66|-16.13|<0.0001
90903975|NCT00136916|181674958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.318|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.186||||90.0|0.011|0.626|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|FU M6||0.626|0.011|
90903976|NCT00136916|181674958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.136|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||||90.0|-0.227|0.5|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|Ext M1||0.500|-0.227|
90903977|NCT00136916|181674958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.098|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.235||||90.0|-0.289|0.485|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|Ext M3||0.485|-0.289|
90856965|NCT01367119|181578143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.093||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between groups for visual disturbance||||0.093
90856966|NCT01367119|181578143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between groups for confusion||||0.003
90856967|NCT01367119|181578143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between groups for recovery room agitation||||0.860
90856968|NCT02675231|181578144|SUPERIORITY|The abemaciclib plus trastuzumab plus fulvestrant arm will be compared to the standard of care (SOC) chemotherapy plus trastuzumab arm first, and the abemaciclib doublet arm will be compared to the SOC chemotherapy plus trastuzumab arm only if the test for the triplet vs the SOC chemotherapy plus trastuzumab arm is significant.||||||0.0506|||||||Log Rank|Stratified by number of prior systemic regimens for advanced breast cancer (2 to 3 versus(vs) \>3) and status of disease(measurable vs non-measurable).||PFS analysis was planned after approximately 165 PFS events occurred in the enrolled population, yielding greater than or equal to (≥) 80% power assuming a Hazard ration (HR) of 0·667 at an experiment-wise 2-sided alpha level of 0·2.||||0.0506
90856969|NCT02675231|181578144|SUPERIORITY|The abemaciclib plus trastuzumab plus fulvestrant arm will be compared to the standard of care (SOC) chemotherapy plus trastuzumab arm first, and the abemaciclib doublet arm will be compared to the SOC chemotherapy plus trastuzumab arm only if the test for the triplet vs the SOC chemotherapy plus trastuzumab arm is significant.||||||0.7695|||||||Log Rank|Stratified by number of prior systemic regimens for advanced breast cancer (2 to 3 versus(vs) \>3) and status of disease(measurable vs non-measurable).||PFS analysis was planned after approximately 165 PFS events occurred in the enrolled population, yielding greater than or equal to (≥) 80% power assuming a Hazard ration (HR) of 0·667 at an experiment-wise 2-sided alpha level of 0·2.||||0.7695
90856970|NCT02675231|181578145|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.3|||Log Rank||Stratified by the number of previous regimens (excluding single-agent endocrine therapy) for advanced breast cancer and the status of disease (measurable vs. non-measurable).|||1.30|0.36|0.241
90856971|NCT02675231|181578145|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.36|||Log Rank||Stratified by the number of previous regimens (excluding single-agent endocrine therapy) for advanced breast cancer and the status of disease (measurable vs. non-measurable).|||1.36|0.38|0.313
90903978|NCT00136916|181674958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.202|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.226||||90.0|-0.576|0.172|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|Ext M6||0.172|-0.576|
91102104|NCT01292473|182091126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.01||||0.0603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.11|0.09||Refer to the Type-I error control plan. The p-value was not evaluated for statistical significance in accordance with the Type I error control plan provided in the Detailed Description.|ANCOVA|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline weekly number of hives (\< median vs ≥ median) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the placebo and omalizumab 75 mg groups.||0.09|-4.11|0.0603
91102105|NCT01292473|182091126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.65|-2.36||Refer to the Type-I error control plan.|ANCOVA|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline weekly number of hives (\< median vs ≥ median) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the placebo and omalizumab 150 mg groups.||-2.36|-6.65|<0.0001
91102106|NCT01292473|182091126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.09|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.26|-4.93||Refer to the Type-I error control plan.|ANCOVA|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline weekly number of hives (\< median vs ≥ median) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the placebo and omalizumab 300 mg groups.||-4.93|-9.26|<0.0001
91102107|NCT01292473|182091127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.43||||0.0478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.05||Refer to the Type-I error control plan. The p-value was not evaluated for statistical significance in accordance with the Type I error control plan provided in the Detailed Description.|Cox proportional hazards model|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline weekly itch severity score (\< 13 vs ≥ 13) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between Placebo and Omalizumab 75 mg.||2.05|1.00|0.0478
91102108|NCT01292473|182091127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.59||||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|2.26||Refer to the Type-I error control plan.|Cox proportional hazards model|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline weekly itch severity score (\< 13 vs ≥ 13) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the placebo and omalizumab 150 mg groups.||2.26|1.12|0.0101
91102109|NCT01292473|182091127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|3.03||Refer to the Type-I error control plan.|Cox proportional hazards model|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline weekly itch severity score (\< 13 vs ≥ 13) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between placebo and omalizumab 300 mg groups.||3.03|1.48|<0.0001
91104530|NCT02037984|182094988|OTHER|PT23F Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT23F Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|9.5|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.5|-11.9|
90856972|NCT02675231|181578146|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.08|||Log Rank||Stratified by the number of previous regimens (excluding single-agent endocrine therapy) for advanced breast cancer and the status of disease (measurable vs. non-measurable).|||1.08|0.42|0.104
90856973|NCT02675231|181578146|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.1|||Log Rank||Stratified by the number of previous regimens (excluding single-agent endocrine therapy) for advanced breast cancer and the status of disease (measurable vs. non-measurable).|||1.10|0.43|0.120
90903979|NCT00136916|181674958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.245|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.257||||90.0|-0.18|0.669|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|Ext M9||0.669|-0.180|
90903980|NCT00136916|181674958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.126|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.248||||90.0|-0.284|0.535|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|Ext M12||0.535|-0.284|
90903981|NCT00136916|181674958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.023|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.253||||90.0|-0.395|0.441|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|Ext M15||0.441|-0.395|
90903982|NCT00136916|181674958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.146|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.247||||90.0|-0.262|0.554|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|Ext M18||0.554|-0.262|
90903983|NCT00136916|181674958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.321|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.278||||90.0|-0.138|0.78|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|Ext M21||0.780|-0.138|
90903984|NCT00136916|181674958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.043|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||||90.0|-0.419|0.506|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|Ext M24||0.506|-0.419|
91104531|NCT02037984|182094988|OTHER|non-PT22F Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|non-PT22F Percentage Point Difference|89.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|75.2|95.7|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||95.7|75.2|
90856974|NCT02675231|181578147|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.0|||Log Rank||Stratified by the number of previous regimens (excluding single-agent endocrine therapy) for advanced breast cancer and the status of disease (measurable vs. non-measurable).|||1.00|0.42|0.049
90856975|NCT02675231|181578147|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.12|||Log Rank||Stratified by the number of previous regimens (excluding single-agent endocrine therapy) for advanced breast cancer and the status of disease (measurable vs. non-measurable).|||1.12|0.48|0.153
90903985|NCT00136916|181674958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.284||||90.0|-0.279|0.659|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|Ext M27||0.659|-0.279|
90903986|NCT00136916|181674958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.117|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||||90.0|-0.579|0.346|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|Ext M30||0.346|-0.579|
90903987|NCT00136916|181674958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.262|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.273||||90.0|-0.189|0.714|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|Ext M33||0.714|-0.189|
90856976|NCT02675231|181578152|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31||||0.232|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares mixed models repeated measures model (MMRM): Change from baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Baseline.|MMRM Model|||||||0.232
90903988|NCT00136916|181674958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.267|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.383||||90.0|-0.37|0.904|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|Ext M36||0.904|-0.370|
90903989|NCT00136916|181674958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.399|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.244||||90.0|-0.003|0.802|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height. Ext M36 (LOCF) based on data in the extension phase only.|Ext M36 LOCF||0.802|-0.003|
90903990|NCT00136916|181674958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.619|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.292||||90.0|0.137|1.102|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|Ext FU M3||1.102|0.137|
90903991|NCT01994720|181674968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.01||In order to address the issue of multiple testing, a hierarchical test sequence will be used. Tested at 4.98% level.|Regression, Cox|||Composite of stroke/MI/death||1.01|0.78|0.0670
90903992|NCT01994720|181674969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.0462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.0||If the treatment effect on the primary efficacy variable is significant at the 4.98% level, the secondary efficacy variable will be tested in a confirmatory sense. Otherwise it will be tested in an exploratory manner.|Regression, Cox|||Ischemic stroke||1.00|0.76|0.0462
90903993|NCT01994720|181674970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.0928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.02|||Regression, Cox|||||1.02|0.79|0.0928
90903994|NCT01994720|181674971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.0771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.01|||Regression, Cox|||||1.01|0.78|0.0771
90903995|NCT01994720|181674972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18||||0.3641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.67|||Regression, Cox|||||1.67|0.83|0.3641
90903996|NCT01994720|181674973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18||||0.4828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.85|||Regression, Cox|||||1.85|0.75|0.4828
90903997|NCT01994720|181674974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.5457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|2.14|||Regression, Cox|||||2.14|0.67|0.5457
91104532|NCT02037984|182094988|OTHER|non-PT33F Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|non-PT33F Percentage Point Difference|93.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.5|98.3|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||98.3|78.5|
90856977|NCT02675231|181578153|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.689|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares mixed models repeated measures model (MMRM): Change from baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Baseline.|MMRM Model|||Global health status||||0.689
90856978|NCT02675231|181578153|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3||0.141|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares mixed models repeated measures model (MMRM): Change from baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Baseline.|MMRM Model|||Functional scales: Physical functioning||||0.141
91031624|NCT05150964|181947709|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Significance was indicated by p \<. 05 and Cohen's d was calculated to indicate effect size.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"A Linear Mixed Model Analysis was performed. The hearing aid prescription (DSL, NAL) and ASG setting (on, off) were entered as fixed factors while the individual participants were entered as a random factor. An additional fixed factor of presentation level (40, 70 dB SPL) was added to the analyses.~Null hypothesis: Hearing aid prescripton will have no effect on Rapid Word Learning scores."||||>0.05
91031625|NCT01629381|181947738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.3||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|-0.4|||Fisher Exact|||||-0.4|-11.3|0.03
91031626|NCT01629381|181947740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.3||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|-0.1|||Fisher Exact|||||-0.1|-11.7|0.03
90856979|NCT02675231|181578153|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3||0.095|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares mixed models repeated measures model (MMRM): Change from baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Baseline.|MMRM Model|||Functional scale: Role functioning||||0.095
90856980|NCT02675231|181578153|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.591|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares mixed models repeated measures model (MMRM): Change from baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Baseline.|MMRM Model|||Functional scale: Emotional functioning||||0.591
90856981|NCT02675231|181578153|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.935|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares mixed models repeated measures model (MMRM): Change from baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Baseline.|MMRM Model|||Functional scale: Cognitive functioning||||0.935
90856982|NCT02675231|181578153|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7||0.578|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares mixed models repeated measures model (MMRM): Change from baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Baseline.|MMRM Model|||Functional scale: Social functioning||||0.578
90856983|NCT02675231|181578153|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8||0.308|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares mixed models repeated measures model (MMRM): Change from baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Baseline.|MMRM Model|||Symptom scale: Fatigue||||0.308
90856984|NCT02675231|181578153|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.043|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares mixed models repeated measures model (MMRM): Change from baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Baseline.|MMRM Model|||Symptom scale: Nausea and vomiting||||0.043
90856985|NCT02675231|181578153|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0||0.026|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares mixed models repeated measures model (MMRM): Change from baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Baseline.|MMRM Model|||Symptom scale: Pain||||0.026
90856986|NCT02675231|181578153|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8||0.276|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares mixed models repeated measures model (MMRM): Change from baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Baseline.|MMRM Model|||Symptom scale: Dyspnoea||||0.276
90856987|NCT02675231|181578153|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1||0.041|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares mixed models repeated measures model (MMRM): Change from baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Baseline.|MMRM Model|||Symptom scale: Insomnia||||0.041
90856988|NCT02675231|181578153|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4||0.262|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares mixed models repeated measures model (MMRM): Change from baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Baseline.|MMRM Model|||Symptom scale: Appetite loss||||0.262
90856989|NCT02675231|181578153|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7||0.285|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares mixed models repeated measures model (MMRM): Change from baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Baseline.|MMRM Model|||Symptom scale: Constipation||||0.285
91031627|NCT01629381|181947741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.0||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|3.7|||Fisher Exact|||||3.7|-8.0|0.53
90856990|NCT02675231|181578153|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|19.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares mixed models repeated measures model (MMRM): Change from baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Baseline.|MMRM Model|||Symptom scale: Diarrhoea||||< 0.001
90856991|NCT02675231|181578153|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0||0.18|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares mixed models repeated measures model (MMRM): Change from baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Baseline.|MMRM Model|||Symptom scale: Financial difficulties||||0.180
90856992|NCT02675231|181578154|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.033|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares mixed models repeated measures model: Change from baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Baseline.|MMRM Model|||||||0.033
90856993|NCT02675231|181578154|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.275|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares mixed models repeated measures model: Change from baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Baseline.|MMRM Model|||||||0.275
90856994|NCT02675231|181578155|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.02||0.546|TWO_SIDED||||||MMRM Model|||||||0.546
91031628|NCT02158494|181947742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-Value for Sensory Organization Test results at 2 weeks||||0.41
90856995|NCT02675231|181578155|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.62|TWO_SIDED||||||MMRM Model|||||||0.620
90903998|NCT01994720|181674975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.1393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.02|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.02|0.85|0.1393
90903999|NCT01994720|181674976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.0342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|0.99|||Regression, Cox|||||0.99|0.75|0.0342
91031629|NCT02158494|181947742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-Value for Sensory Organization Test results at 14 weeks||||0.47
91031630|NCT02158494|181947742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-Value for Sensory Organization Test results at 26 weeks||||0.99
91031631|NCT02545998|181947796|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.510
91031632|NCT02545998|181947797|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.014
91031633|NCT02545998|181947798|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91031634|NCT02545998|181947799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.589|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.589
90856996|NCT05323656|181578157|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.077||0.7008|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-11.98|22.0|||ANCOVA||The LS Mean difference is for the Setanaxib Group minus the Placebo Group|Null hypothesis: the mean best percentage change in the tumour size between the treatment groups are the same. With 25 patients per treatment group, using a 2-sided t-test, there will be 85% power to detect a 20% mean difference between the treatment groups in best percentage change in tumour size, with an estimated standard deviation of 30% and a 2 sided alpha of 20%.||22.0|-11.98|0.7008
90856997|NCT05323656|181578158|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58||||0.1023|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.38|0.89|||Regression, Cox|||Null hypothesis: The risk for progression, as defined by RECIST v1.1, is the same between treatment groups. If the true hazard ratio is 0.5, approximately 38 progression events as defined by RECIST v1.1 will be required to have \> 80% power to demonstrate a statistically significant difference in PFS with 2-sided p\<0.2||0.89|0.38|.1023
90904000|NCT01994720|181674977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.8557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|2.06|||Regression, Cox|||||2.06|0.55|0.8557
90904001|NCT01994720|181674978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.2126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.06|||Regression, Cox|||||1.06|0.77|0.2126
90904002|NCT01994720|181674984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.4511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.34|||Regression, Cox|||PLATO Major bleeding||1.34|0.52|0.4511
90904003|NCT01994720|181674985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|3.34|||Regression, Cox|||||3.34|1.53|<0.0001
90904004|NCT01991197|181674986|SUPERIORITY||U value|43.5||||0.648|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.648
90904005|NCT01991197|181674989|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
90904006|NCT01991197|181674992|SUPERIORITY||U|29.5||||0.128|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.128
90904007|NCT01012973|181675002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted difference|38.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.4|52.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The estimate is calculated as Eylea minus Sham. A positive value shows Eylea showed a higher BCVA total score compared to Sham.|Null hypothesis of difference of Eylea minus Sham of 0 was tested. In the database close after Week 24, basis for primary efficacy evaluation, 56 Sham / 96 Eylea subjects were considered as week 24 completers.||52.1|24.4|<.0001
91031635|NCT02545998|181947800|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.471|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.471
91031636|NCT02545998|181947801|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.264|||||||Sign test|||||||0.264
91031637|NCT04567342|181947828|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.08||||0.531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.37|||Regression, Logistic||||Arm 3 vs. Arm 1|1.37|0.85|0.531
91031638|NCT04567342|181947828|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.84||||0.189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.09|||Regression, Logistic||||Arm 2 vs. Arm 1|1.09|0.65|0.189
90904008|NCT01012973|181675003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least square means|14.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.8|18.7||As primary efficacy evaluation was significant, and this p-value was below significance level of two-sided \<.05, the fixed sequence testing did continue with next secondary endpoint.|ANOVA|ANOVA, adjusting for region and baseline BCVA category as fixed factors.|The difference is calculated as Eylea minus Sham. A positive value indicates Eylea showed a higher change in BCVA total score until week 24 compared to Sham.|Null hypothesis was equality in change from baseline to Week 24 in BCVA total letter score between Eylea and Sham. If primary efficacy was successful, secondary efficacy endpoints were tested in a pre-specified fixed sequence testing procedure. Change in BCVA letter score was to be tested first in this sequence.||18.7|10.8|<.0001
90904009|NCT01012973|181675004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least square (LS) means|-239.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-286.31|-192.53||As fixed sequence testing did reject nullhypothesis of change from baseline in BCVA until week 24, and this p-value was below significance level of two-sided \<.05, the fixed sequence testing did continue with next secondary endpoint.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA, stratified by region and baseline BCVA category, baseline central retinal thickness added as covariate.|The difference is calculated as Eylea minus Sham. A negative value indicates Eylea showed a higher reduction in change in central retinal thickness until week 24 compared to Sham.|Null hypothesis was equality in change from baseline to Week 24 in central retinal thickness between Eylea and Sham. If primary efficacy was successful, secondary efficacy end points were to be tested in a pre-specified fixed sequence testing procedure. Change in central retinal thickness was to be tested at second place in this sequence.||-192.53|-286.31|<.0001
90904010|NCT01012973|181675005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted Difference|-1.5||||0.5947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|4.4||As fixed sequence testing did reject nullhypothesis of change from baseline in CRT until week 24, and this p-value was not below significance level of two-sided \<.05, the fixed sequence testing did end with this evaluation.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochrane-Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by region and baseline BCVA category.||Nullhypothesis of no difference in development of neovascularizations between Eylea and Sham group was tested. (Any neovascularization)||4.4|-7.4|0.5947
90904011|NCT01012973|181675006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|6.8|||||As the fixed sequence of secondary endpoints stopped with proportion of neovascularizations developed until week 24, 95% confidence interval is only of descriptive nature.|||6.8|1.7|
90904012|NCT01012973|181675007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.044|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.002|0.09|||||As the fixed sequence of secondary endpoints stopped with proportion of neovascularizations developed until week 24, 95% confidence interval is only of descriptive nature.|||0.09|-0.002|
91031639|NCT04567342|181947828|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.29||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.66|||Regression, Logistic||||Arm 3 vs. Arm 2|1.66|0.10|0.054
91031640|NCT04567342|181947828|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.05||||0.654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.32|||Regression, Logistic||||Arm 4 vs. Arm 3|1.32|0.84|0.654
91031641|NCT04567342|181947828|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.36||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.74|||Regression, Logistic||||Arm 4 vs. Arm 2|1.74|1.05|0.018
91031642|NCT04567342|181947828|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.14||||0.283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.44|||Regression, Logistic||||Arm 4 vs. Arm 1|1.44|0.90|0.283
91031643|NCT04567342|181947829|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.93|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|2.62|||Regression, Logistic||||Arm 3 vs. Arm 1|2.62|1.42|<0.01
91031644|NCT04567342|181947829|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.82||||0.318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.21|||Regression, Logistic||||Arm 2 vs. Arm 1|1.21|0.56|0.318
91104533|NCT00581100|182094993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted change calculated from mixed-model. Model for change = \[Group visit Group\*visit baseline baseline\*visit\].||||||<0.0001
91102110|NCT01292473|182091128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3419||||||Refer to the Type-I error control plan. The p-value was not evaluated for statistical significance in accordance with the Type I error control plan provided in the Detailed Description.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline UAS7 (\< median vs ≥ median) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the placebo and omalizumab 75 mg groups.||||0.3419
91102111|NCT01292473|182091128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||||||Refer to the Type-I error control plan.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline UAS7 (\< median vs ≥ median) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the placebo and omalizumab 150 mg groups.||||0.0010
91102112|NCT01292473|182091128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Refer to the Type-I error control plan.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline UAS7 (\< median vs ≥ median) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between placebo and omalizumab 300 mg groups.||||<0.0001
90856998|NCT05323656|181578159|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|9.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.89||0.2986|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.3|21.3||a priori threshold for significance (0.2) not met.|ANCOVA||The LS Mean difference is for the Setanaxib Group minus the Placebo Group.|Null Hypothesis: Mean difference in postbaseline CAF levels does not differ between treatment groups. ANCOVA model is on postbaseline CAFs level with a fixed factor for treatment and a covariate for baseline.||21.3|-2.3|0.2986
90904013|NCT02923895|181675012|SUPERIORITY|All statistical analyses were conducted under the null hypothesis (H0) of no difference between treatments versus the alternate hypothesis (H1) of a difference between treatments.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-1.128||From ANCOVA model with change from baseline in Schiff Sensitivity Score as response and treatment as a factor and baseline Schiff sensitivity score as a covariate.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named dentifrice minus second named dentifrice such that a negative difference favours first named dentifrice.|||-1.128|-1.500|<.0001
90904014|NCT00846742|181675016|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003||||||Comparison of proportion of patients' complete response rate between HOD99 (NCT number: NCT00145600) and HOD08|Exact Binominal Test|||The proportion of patients' complete response rate was provided with a 95% confidence interval.||||0.0003
90904015|NCT00846742|181675021|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.969||||0.732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.159|||Fine-Gray model||The sub-distribution hazard ratio for the 2-year cumulative incidence of local failure with a 1-year increase in age.|||1.159|0.810|0.732
90904016|NCT00846742|181675022|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Fine-Gray model||The sub-distribution hazard ratio for the 2-year cumulative incidence of local failure comparing males to females.|Male vs. Female, with Female as the reference level||0.000|0.000|<0.001
91031645|NCT04567342|181947829|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.34|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.68|3.26|||Regression, Logistic||||Arm 3 vs. Arm 2|3.26|1.68|<0.01
90904017|NCT00846742|181675023|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|30101.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3329.573|272135.5|||Fine-Gray model||The sub-distribution hazard ratio for the 2-year cumulative incidence of local failure comparing Stage IIA to Stage IA.|Stage IIA vs. Stage IA, with Stage IA as the reference level||272135.500|3329.573|<0.001
91102113|NCT01292473|182091129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4366||||||Refer to the Type-I error control plan. The p-value was not evaluated for statistical significance in accordance with the Type I error control plan provided in the Detailed Description.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline weekly itch severity score (\< 13 vs ≥ 13) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the placebo and omalizumab 75 mg groups.||||0.4366
91102114|NCT01292473|182091129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0045||||||Refer to the Type-I error control plan.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline weekly itch severity score (\< 13 vs ≥ 13) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the placebo and omalizumab 150 mg groups.||||0.0045
91102115|NCT01292473|182091129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Refer to the Type-I error control plan.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline weekly itch severity score (\< 13 vs ≥ 13) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the placebo and omalizumab 300 mg groups.||||<0.0001
90856999|NCT05323656|181578160|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|6.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.48||0.5918|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-9.86|23.52|||ANCOVA||The LS Mean difference is for the Setanaxib Group minus the Placebo Group.|Null Hypothesis: Mean difference in postbaseline CD8+ TILs does not differ between treatment groups. ANCOVA model is on postbaseline CD8+ TILs level with a fixed factor for treatment and a covariate for baseline.||23.52|-9.86|0.5918
90857000|NCT05323656|181578161|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|10.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.37||0.2135|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.34|22.02|||ANCOVA||The LS Mean difference is for the Setanaxib Group minus the Placebo Group.|Null Hypothesis: Mean difference in postbaseline number of regulatory T-cells in tumour tissue does not differ between treatment groups. ANCOVA model is on postbaseline number of regulatory T-cells in tumour tissue level with a fixed factor for treatment and a covariate for baseline.||22.02|-0.34|0.2135
90857001|NCT05323656|181578165|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.448|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.24|0.85||||||No formal test of significance undertaken.||0.85|0.24|
90857002|NCT05323656|181578168|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.4||0.0782|TWO_SIDED|80.0|5.17|30.36|||ANCOVA|The LS Mean difference is for the Setanaxib Group minus the Placebo Group.||Null Hypothesis: Mean difference in postbaseline PD-L1 combined positive score (CPS) does not differ between treatment groups. ANCOVA model is on postbaseline PD-L1 CPS with a fixed factor for treatment and a covariate for baseline. Threshold for statistical significance = 0.2.||30.36|5.17|0.0782
90857003|NCT05323656|181578169|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.578||0.22|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Within group test of hypothesis that screening and week 9 values are equal.||||0.22
90857004|NCT05323656|181578169|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.18|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.395||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Within group test of hypothesis that screening and week 9 values are equal.||||0.20
90857005|NCT05323656|181578170|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.069||0.037|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Within group test of hypothesis that screening and week 9 values are equal.||||0.037
91031646|NCT04567342|181947829|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.08||||0.535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.36|||Regression, Logistic||||Arm 4 vs. Arm 3|1.36|0.85|0.535
91102116|NCT01292473|182091130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.48||||0.0082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.32|-0.65||Refer to the Type-I error control plan. The p-value was not evaluated for statistical significance in accordance with the Type I error control plan provided in the Detailed Description.|ANCOVA|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline weekly size of largest hive score (\< median vs ≥ median) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the placebo and omalizumab 75 mg groups.||-0.65|-4.32|0.0082
91102117|NCT01292473|182091130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.61|-1.9||Refer to the Type-I error control plan.|ANCOVA|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline weekly size of largest hive score (\< median vs ≥ median) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the placebo and omalizumab 150 mg groups.||-1.90|-5.61|<0.0001
91102118|NCT01292473|182091130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.03|-5.27||Refer to the Type-I error control plan.|ANCOVA|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline weekly size of largest hive score (\< median vs ≥ median) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 300 mg groups.||-5.27|-9.03|<0.0001
91102119|NCT01292473|182091131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.68||||0.1207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.82|0.45||Refer to the Type-I error control plan. The p-value was not evaluated for statistical significance in accordance with the Type I error control plan provided in the Detailed Description.|ANCOVA|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline overall DLQI score (\< median vs ≥ median) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the placebo and omalizumab 75 mg groups.||0.45|-3.82|0.1207
91102120|NCT01292473|182091131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.51||||0.0215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.64|-0.38||Refer to the Type-I error control plan.|ANCOVA|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline overall DLQI score (\< median vs ≥ median) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the placebo and omalizumab 150 mg groups.||-0.38|-4.64|0.0215
91102121|NCT01292473|182091131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.79||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.85|-1.73||Refer to the Type-I error control plan.|ANCOVA|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline overall DLQI score (\< median vs ≥ median) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the placebo and omalizumab 300 mg groups.||-1.73|-5.85|0.0004
91102122|NCT01292473|182091132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1361||||||Refer to the Type-I error control plan. The p-value was not evaluated for statistical significance in accordance with the Type I error control plan provided in the Detailed Description.|Stratified Wilcoxon|Stratification variables included in the analysis were presence of angioedema at baseline (yes vs no) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the placebo and omalizumab 75 mg groups.||||0.1361
91102123|NCT01292473|182091132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0905||||||Refer to the Type-I error control plan.|Stratified Wilcoxon|Stratification variables included in the analysis were presence of angioedema at baseline (yes vs no) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the placebo and omalizumab 150 mg groups.||||0.0905
91102124|NCT01292473|182091132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Refer to the Type-I error control plan.|Stratified Wilcoxon|Stratification variables included in the analysis were presence of angioedema at baseline (yes vs no) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the placebo and omalizumab 300 mg.||||<0.0001
91102125|NCT03777176|182091145|SUPERIORITY|The negative binomial regression used region and treatment group as fixed effects, and Baseline hypoglycemic rate as covariate and number of hypoglycemic events during Weeks 2-4 as dependent variable.|Event rate ratio|0.85||||0.5028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.36|||Negative binomial regression|||The primary analysis was performed as a negative binominal regression analysis on the difference of the SMPG-detected hypoglycemia episode rate between treatment groups over the Weeks 2-4.||1.36|0.54|0.5028
91031647|NCT04567342|181947829|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.52|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.82|3.5|||Regression, Logistic||||Arm 4 vs Arm 2|3.50|1.82|<0.01
91031648|NCT04567342|181947829|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.07|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|2.8|||Regression, Logistic||||Arm 4 vs. Arm 1|2.80|1.53|<0.01
91102126|NCT03777176|182091146|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.84||||0.6433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.71|4.39||The P value should be interpreted with caution given the procedural issues (hypoglycemia at the beginning of the test, test meals not being the same, and some children only having 1 test) which affected the preplanned statistical evaluation.|ANCOVA|||||4.39|-2.71|0.6433
91102127|NCT03777176|182091147|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.15||||0.9653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.48|6.78||There was 1 missing value at Baseline for the dasiglucagon + standard of care group.|ANCOVA|||||6.78|-6.48|0.9653
91102128|NCT03777176|182091148|SUPERIORITY||Event rate ratio|0.93||||0.8114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.74|||Negative binominal regression|The negative binomial regression used region and treatment group as fixed effects, and Baseline hypoglycemic rate as covariate.||||1.74|0.49|0.8114
91102129|NCT00378560|182091160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Relative Risk Reduction|87.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.2|97.6|||||Binomial probability conditional on the fixed number of events.|||97.6|59.2|
91102130|NCT00378560|182091161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91102131|NCT00378560|182091162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91102132|NCT00378560|182091163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91102133|NCT00378560|182091164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91104534|NCT00581100|182094993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Adjusted change calculated from mixed-model. Model for change = \[Group visit Group\*visit baseline baseline\*visit\].|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
91104535|NCT00581100|182094994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted change calculated from mixed-model. Model for change = \[Group visit Group\*visit baseline baseline\*visit\].||||||<0.0001
91031649|NCT04567342|181947830|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.17||||0.192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.48|||Regression, Logistic||||Arm 3 vs. Arm 1|1.48|0.92|0.192
91031650|NCT04567342|181947830|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.81||||0.132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.06|||Regression, Logistic||||Arm 2 vs. Arm 1|1.06|0.62|0.132
91102134|NCT02070380|182091165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||∆Percentage MH better minus DM better|47.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.5|60.7||Only 1 primary endpoint, no adjustment for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||Difference in percentage MultiHance better minus percentage Dotarem better (%) , 2-sided 95% confidence interval was estimated using Altman's general approximate normal method.|"Null hypotheses:~A 0.1 mmol/kg dose of MULTIHANCE is equal to a 0.1 mmol/kg dose of DOTAREM, in terms of the assessment of global diagnostic preference in an off-site pre-dose plus postdose paired global assessment."||60.7|34.5|<0.0001
90904018|NCT00846742|181675024|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|34027.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4072.872|284291.6|||Fine-Gray model||The sub-distribution hazard ratio for the 2-year cumulative incidence of local failure comparing Classical (all combined) to Nodular Lymphocyte Predominant Hodgkin Lymphoma.|Classical (all combined) vs. Nodular lymphocyte predominant, with Nodular lymphocyte predominant as the reference level||284291.600|4072.872|<0.001
90904019|NCT00846742|181675025|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.461|||||||Log Rank|||Comparing the 2-year EFS between HOD08 Participants and HOD99 Participants||||0.461
91031651|NCT04567342|181947830|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.44|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|1.86|||Regression, Logistic||||Arm 3 vs. Arm 2|1.86|1.11|<0.01
91102135|NCT02070380|182091165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||∆Percentage MH better minus DM better|7.3||||0.1295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|16.5||Only 1 primary endpoint, no adjustment for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||Difference in percentage MultiHance better minus percentage Dotarem better (%) , 2-sided 95% confidence interval was estimated using Altman's general approximate normal method.|"Null hypotheses:~A 0.05 mmol/kg dose of MULTIHANCE is equal to a 0.1 mmol/kg dose of DOTAREM, in terms of the assessment of global diagnostic preference in an off-site pre-dose plus post-dose paired global assessment."||16.5|-2.0|0.1295
91104536|NCT00581100|182094994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Adjusted change calculated from mixed-model. Model for change = \[Group visit Group\*visit baseline baseline\*visit\].|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
90904020|NCT00846742|181675025|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Log Rank|||Comparing the 2-year OS between HOD08 Participants and HOD99 Participants||||1.000
90904021|NCT00846742|181675025|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.836|||||||Gray's test|||Comparing the 2-year CI of Local Failure between HOD08 Participants and HOD99 Participants||||0.836
90904022|NCT00846742|181675027|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.384|||||||Log Rank|||Comparing the 2-year EFS between HOD08 - CR and HOD99 - CR||||0.384
90904023|NCT00846742|181675027|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Log Rank|||Comparing the 2-year OS between HOD08 - CR and HOD99 - CR||||1.000
91031652|NCT04567342|181947830|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.92||||0.462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.16|||Regression, Logistic||||Arm 4 vs. Arm 3|1.16|0.73|0.462
91104537|NCT00581100|182094995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value from generalized linear models for correlated data using Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE), with treatment and visits as fixed factors. Model for proportion = \[Group visit Group\*visit\].|GEE model|||Week 12||||<0.001
91031653|NCT04567342|181947830|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.32||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.72|||Regression, Logistic||||Arm 4 vs. Arm 2|1.72|1.01|0.039
90904024|NCT00846742|181675027|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.386|||||||Gray's test|||Comparing the 2-year CI of Local Failure between HOD08 - CR and HOD99 - CR||||0.386
90904025|NCT00846742|181675028|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.986|||||||Log Rank|||Comparing the 2-year EFS of patients treated without and with RT||||0.986
90904026|NCT02341144|181675067|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.11
90904027|NCT02341144|181675068|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.08
90904028|NCT02341144|181675069|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.39
90904029|NCT02341144|181675070|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.11
90904030|NCT02341144|181675071|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.44
90904031|NCT03257995|181675106|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1861|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1293|0.2429|||ANOVA|||||0.2429|0.1293|<0.001
90904032|NCT03257995|181675106|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1463|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0898|0.2029|||ANOVA|||||0.2029|0.0898|<0.001
90904033|NCT03257995|181675106|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0398|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0942|0.0147|||ANOVA|||||0.0147|-0.0942|
90904034|NCT03257995|181675112|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.33|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.33|-0.83|0.823
90904035|NCT03257995|181675112|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.51|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.51|-0.82|0.801
91031654|NCT04567342|181947830|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.07||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.37|||Regression, Logistic||||Arm 4 vs. Arm 1|1.37|0.84|0.570
90904036|NCT03257995|181675112|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.73|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.73|-0.50|0.984
90904037|NCT03257995|181675113|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2177|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1482|0.2872|||ANOVA|||at 5 min||0.2872|0.1482|<0.001
90904038|NCT03257995|181675113|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2724|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.203|0.3417|||ANOVA|||15min||0.3417|0.2030|<0.001
90904039|NCT03257995|181675113|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.273|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2036|0.3423|||ANOVA|||30 min||0.3423|0.2036|<0.001
90904040|NCT03257995|181675113|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2609|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1915|0.3302|||ANOVA|||1 hour||0.3302|0.1915|<0.001
90904041|NCT03257995|181675113|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2494|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.3188|||ANOVA|||2 hour||0.3188|0.1800|<0.001
91031655|NCT01226797|181947831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5834||||0.6668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|3.51|||Fisher Exact||Odds-ratio and confidence interval obtained from logistic regression with treatment as fixed effect|||3.51|0.10|0.6668
91031656|NCT01226797|181947832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.1591||||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|1.73|||Fisher Exact||Odds-ratio and confidence interval obtained from logistic regression with treatment as fixed effect.|||1.73|0.01|0.1550
91031657|NCT01226797|181947833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.45||||0.1259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.79|58.69||Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||At Week 1||58.69|-7.79|0.1259
90904042|NCT03257995|181675113|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2273|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1578|0.2968|||ANOVA|||4 hour||0.2968|0.1578|<0.001
90904043|NCT03257995|181675113|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2396|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1697|0.3096|||ANOVA|||8 hour||0.3096|0.1697|<0.001
91031658|NCT01226797|181947833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.49||||0.3297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.67|41.66||Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||At Week 2||41.66|-14.67|0.3297
91102136|NCT02070380|182091165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||∆Percentage MH better minus DM better|79.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.1|91.0||Only 1 primary endpoint, no adjustment for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Wilcoxon signed rank test||Difference in percentage MultiHance better minus percentage Dotarem better (%) , 2-sided 95% confidence interval was estimated using Altman's general approximate normal method.|"Null hypotheses:~A 0.1 mmol/kg dose of MULTIHANCE is equal to a 0.1 mmol/kg dose of DOTAREM, in terms of the assessment of global diagnostic preference in an off-site pre-dose plus postdose paired global assessment"||91.0|67.1|<0.0001
91102137|NCT02070380|182091165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage MH better minus DM better|-2.1||||0.7503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|10.7||Only 1 primary endpoint, no adjustment for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Wilcoxon signed rank test||Difference in percentage MultiHance better minus percentage Dotarem better (%) , 2-sided 95% confidence interval was estimated using Altman's general approximate normal method.|"Null hypotheses:~A 0.05 mmol/kg dose of MULTIHANCE is equal to a 0.1 mmol/kg dose of DOTAREM, in terms of the assessment of global diagnostic preference in an off-site pre-dose plus post-dose paired global assessment."||10.7|-15.0|0.7503
91102138|NCT02070380|182091165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||∆Percentage MH better minus DM better|66.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.8|79.5||Only 1 primary endpoint, no adjustment for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Wilcoxon signed rank test||Difference in percentage MultiHance better minus percentage Dotarem better (%) , 2-sided 95% confidence interval was estimated using Altman's general approximate normal method.|"Null hypotheses:~A 0.1 mmol/kg dose of MULTIHANCE is equal to a 0.1 mmol/kg dose of DOTAREM, in terms of the assessment of global diagnostic preference in an off-site pre-dose plus post-dose paired global assessment"||79.5|52.8|<0.0001
91102139|NCT02070380|182091165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||∆Percentage MH better minus DM better|-2.1||||0.7297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|9.6||Only 1 primary endpoint, no adjustment for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Wilcoxon signed rank test||Difference in percentage MultiHance better minus percentage Dotarem better (%) , 2-sided 95% confidence interval was estimated using Altman's general approximate normal method.|"Null hypotheses:~A 0.05 mmol/kg dose of MULTIHANCE is equal to a 0.1 mmol/kg dose of DOTAREM, in terms of the assessment of global diagnostic preference in an off-site pre-dose plus post-dose paired global assessment."||9.6|-13.8|0.7297
91102140|NCT02070380|182091166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||"This is a secondary analysis.~Null hypotheses:~A 0.1 mmol/kg dose of MULTIHANCE is equal to a 0.1 mmol/kg dose of DOTAREM, in terms of the assessment of Lesion Border Delineation in an off-site pre-dose plus postdose paired global assessment."||||<0.0001
91102141|NCT02070380|182091166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8238||||||The priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||"This is a secondary analysis.~Null hypotheses:~A 0.05 mmol/kg dose of MULTIHANCE is equal to a 0.1 mmol/kg dose of DOTAREM, in terms of the assessment of Lesion Border Delineation in an off-site pre-dose plus post-dose paired global assessment."||||0.8238
91102142|NCT02070380|182091166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||"This is a secondary analysis.~Null hypotheses:~A 0.1 mmol/kg dose of MULTIHANCE is equal to a 0.1 mmol/kg dose of DOTAREM, in terms of the assessment of Lesion Border Delineation in an off-site pre-dose plus postdose paired global assessment."||||<0.0001
91031659|NCT01226797|181947833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.17||||0.3925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.04|51.39||Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||At Week 3||51.39|-21.04|0.3925
90857006|NCT05323656|181578170|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.039||0.123|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Within group test of hypothesis that screening and week 9 values are equal.||||0.123
90857007|NCT05323656|181578171|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.017||0.41|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Within group test of hypothesis that screening and week 9 values are equal.||||0.41
90904044|NCT03257995|181675113|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2443|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1742|0.3144|||ANOVA|||12 hour||0.3144|0.1742|<0.001
90904045|NCT03257995|181675113|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.228|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1563|0.2997|||ANOVA|||23 hour 15 min||0.2997|0.1563|<0.001
90857008|NCT05323656|181578171|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.023||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Within group test of hypothesis that screening and week 9 values are equal.||||0.11
90857009|NCT00591266|181578222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.29|-9.09||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons controlled using closed testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||-9.09|-13.29|<0.001
90904046|NCT03257995|181675113|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1954|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1237|0.2671|||ANOVA|||23 hour 45 min||0.2671|0.1237|<0.001
90904047|NCT03257995|181675113|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2195|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1502|0.2889|||ANOVA|||5 min||0.2889|0.1502|<0.001
90904048|NCT03257995|181675113|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2684|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1988|0.338|||ANOVA|||15 min||0.3380|0.1988|<0.001
90904049|NCT03257995|181675113|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2572|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1879|0.3266|||ANOVA|||30 min||0.3266|0.1879|<0.001
90904050|NCT03257995|181675113|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2348|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1656|0.304|||ANOVA|||1 hour||0.3040|0.1656|<0.001
90904051|NCT03257995|181675113|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2546|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1852|0.3239|||ANOVA|||2 hour||0.3239|0.1852|<0.001
90904052|NCT03257995|181675113|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2322|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1627|0.3017|||ANOVA|||4 hour||0.3017|0.1627|<0.001
90904053|NCT03257995|181675113|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2324|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1627|0.302|||ANOVA|||8 hour||0.3020|0.1627|<0.001
90904054|NCT03257995|181675113|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2057|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1359|0.2755|||ANOVA|||12 hour||0.2755|0.1359|<0.001
90904055|NCT03257995|181675113|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1625|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0912|0.2337|||ANOVA|||23 hour 15 min||0.2337|0.0912|<0.001
90904056|NCT03257995|181675113|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1793|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.108|0.2505|||ANOVA|||23 hour 45 min||0.2505|0.1080|<0.001
90904057|NCT03257995|181675114|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|9.2|||ANOVA|||at 5 min||9.2|5.0|<.001
90904058|NCT03257995|181675114|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.4|10.6|||ANOVA|||at 15 min||10.6|6.4|<.001
90904059|NCT03257995|181675114|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|10.7|||ANOVA|||at 30||10.7|6.5|<0.001
90904060|NCT03257995|181675114|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|10.1|||ANOVA|||at 1 hour||10.1|6.0|<0.001
90904061|NCT03257995|181675114|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.5|9.7|||ANOVA|||at 2 hours||9.7|5.5|<0.001
90904062|NCT03257995|181675114|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|9.1|||ANOVA|||at 4 hours||9.1|5.0|<0.001
90904063|NCT03257995|181675114|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.2|9.4|||ANOVA|||at 8 hours||9.4|5.2|<0.001
90904064|NCT03257995|181675114|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.5|9.7|||ANOVA|||at 12 hours||9.7|5.5|<0.001
90904065|NCT03257995|181675114|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.8|9.1|||ANOVA|||at 23 hours 15 min||9.1|4.8|<0.001
90904066|NCT03257995|181675114|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|8.6|||ANOVA|||at 23 hours 45 min||8.6|4.2|<0.001
90904067|NCT03257995|181675114|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|9.2|||ANOVA|||at 5 min||9.2|5.0|<0.001
90904068|NCT03257995|181675114|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.2|10.4|||ANOVA|||at 15 min||10.4|6.2|<0.001
90904069|NCT03257995|181675114|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|10.2|||ANOVA|||at 30 min||10.2|6.0|<0.001
90904070|NCT03257995|181675114|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|9.4|||ANOVA|||at 1 hour||9.4|5.3|<0.001
90904071|NCT03257995|181675114|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|9.9|||ANOVA|||at 2 hours||9.9|5.7|<0.001
90904072|NCT03257995|181675114|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.2|9.4|||ANOVA|||at 4 hours||9.4|5.2|<0.001
90904073|NCT03257995|181675114|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|9.5|||ANOVA|||at 8 hours||9.5|5.3|<0.001
90904074|NCT03257995|181675114|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|8.4|||ANOVA|||at 12 hours||8.4|4.2|<0.001
90904075|NCT03257995|181675114|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|7.2|||ANOVA|||at 23 hours 15 min||7.2|2.9|<0.001
90904076|NCT03257995|181675114|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|8.0|||ANOVA|||at 23 hours 45 min||8.0|3.7|<0.001
90904077|NCT03257995|181675115|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1866|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1121|0.2611|||ANOVA|||5 min||0.2611|0.1121|<0.001
90904078|NCT03257995|181675115|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2249|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1506|0.2992|||ANOVA|||15 min||0.2992|0.1506|<0.001
90904079|NCT03257995|181675115|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2404|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1661|0.3148|||ANOVA|||30 min||0.3148|0.1661|<0.001
90904080|NCT03257995|181675115|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2074|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.133|0.2817|||ANOVA|||1 hour||0.2817|0.1330|<0.001
90904081|NCT03257995|181675115|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1802|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1059|0.2545|||ANOVA|||2 hours||0.2545|0.1059|<0.001
90904082|NCT03257995|181675115|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1621|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0876|0.2366|||ANOVA|||4 hours||0.2366|0.0876|<0.001
90904083|NCT03257995|181675115|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.199|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1239|0.2742|||ANOVA|||8 hours||0.2742|0.1239|<0.001
90904084|NCT03257995|181675115|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1747|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0994|0.2501|||ANOVA|||12 hours||0.2501|0.0994|<0.001
90904085|NCT03257995|181675115|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1856|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1081|0.2631|||ANOVA|||23 hours 15 min||0.2631|0.1081|<0.001
90904086|NCT03257995|181675115|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1484|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0709|0.2259|||ANOVA|||23 hours 45 min||0.2259|0.0709|<0.001
90904087|NCT03257995|181675115|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.213|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1386|0.2873|||ANOVA|||5 min||0.2873|0.1386|<0.001
90904088|NCT03257995|181675115|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2173|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1426|0.292|||ANOVA|||15 min||0.2920|0.1426|<0.001
90904089|NCT03257995|181675115|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2375|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1632|0.3118|||ANOVA|||30 min||0.3118|0.1632|<0.001
90904090|NCT03257995|181675115|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2013|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1272|0.2754|||ANOVA|||1 hour||0.2754|0.1272|<0.001
90904091|NCT03257995|181675115|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2005|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1262|0.2749|||ANOVA|||2 hours||0.2749|0.1262|<0.001
90904092|NCT03257995|181675115|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1946|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1201|0.2691|||ANOVA|||4 hours||0.2691|0.1201|<0.001
90904093|NCT03257995|181675115|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1937|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.119|0.2684|||ANOVA|||8 hours||0.2684|0.1190|<0.001
90904094|NCT03257995|181675115|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1619|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.087|0.2369|||ANOVA|||12 hour||0.2369|0.0870|<0.001
90904095|NCT03257995|181675115|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1249|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.048|0.2018|||ANOVA|||23 hour 15 min||0.2018|0.0480|<0.001
90904096|NCT03257995|181675115|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1546|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0777|0.2315|||ANOVA|||23 hour 45 min||0.2315|0.0777|<0.001
90904097|NCT03257995|181675116|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|7.0|||ANOVA|||5 min||7.0|3.1|<0.001
90904098|NCT03257995|181675116|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|7.9|||ANOVA|||15 min||7.9|4|<0.001
90904099|NCT03257995|181675116|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.6|8.5|||ANOVA|||30 min||8.5|4.6|<0.001
90904100|NCT03257995|181675116|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|7.4|||ANOVA|||1 hour||7.4|3.5|<0.001
90904101|NCT03257995|181675116|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|6.7|||ANOVA|||2 hour||6.7|2.8|<0.001
90904102|NCT03257995|181675116|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|6.3|||ANOVA|||4 hour||6.3|2.3|<0.001
90904103|NCT03257995|181675116|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|7.0|||ANOVA|||8 hour||7|3|<0.001
90904104|NCT03257995|181675116|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|6.5|||ANOVA|||12 hour||6.5|2.5|<0.001
90904105|NCT03257995|181675116|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|6.7|||ANOVA|||23 hour 15 min||6.7|2.6|<0.001
90904106|NCT03257995|181675116|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|6.2|||ANOVA|||23 hour 45 min||6.2|2.0|<0.001
90904107|NCT03257995|181675116|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|7.8|||ANOVA|||5 min||7.8|3.9|<0.001
90904108|NCT03257995|181675116|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|7.8|||ANOVA|||15 min||7.8|3.9|<0.001
90904109|NCT03257995|181675116|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|8.3|||ANOVA|||30 min||8.3|4.4|<0.001
90904110|NCT03257995|181675116|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|7.5|||ANOVA|||1 hour||7.5|3.5|<0.001
90904111|NCT03257995|181675116|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|7.4|||ANOVA|||2 hour||7.4|3.5|<0.001
90904112|NCT03257995|181675116|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|7.0|||ANOVA|||4 hour||7.0|3.1|<0.001
90904113|NCT03257995|181675116|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|7.0|||ANOVA|||8 hour||7.0|3.0|<0.001
90904114|NCT03257995|181675116|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|6.2|||ANOVA|||12 hour||6.2|2.2|<0.001
90904115|NCT03257995|181675116|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|5.0|||ANOVA|||23 hour 15 min||5.0|1.0|0.004
90904116|NCT03257995|181675116|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|6.1|||ANOVA|||23 hour 45 min||6.1|2.1|<0.001
90904117|NCT03257995|181675117|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0249|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0139|0.0359|||ANOVA|||5 min||0.0359|0.0139|<.001
90904118|NCT03257995|181675117|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.033|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.022|0.044|||ANOVA|||15 min||0.0440|0.0220|<.001
90904119|NCT03257995|181675117|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0306|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0197|0.0416|||ANOVA|||30 min||0.0416|0.0197|<0.001
90904120|NCT03257995|181675117|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0324|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0214|0.0434|||ANOVA|||1 hour||0.0434|0.0214|<0.001
90904121|NCT03257995|181675117|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0338|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0228|0.0447|||ANOVA|||2 hour||0.0447|0.0228|<0.001
90904122|NCT03257995|181675117|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0325|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0215|0.0435|||ANOVA|||4 hour||0.0435|0.0215|<0.001
90904123|NCT03257995|181675117|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0311|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.0422|||ANOVA|||8 hour||0.0422|0.0200|<0.001
90904124|NCT03257995|181675117|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0359|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0248|0.047|||ANOVA|||12 hour||0.0470|0.0248|<0.001
90904125|NCT03257995|181675117|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0326|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0211|0.044|||ANOVA|||23 hour 15 min||0.0440|0.0211|<0.001
90904126|NCT03257995|181675117|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0301|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0187|0.0415|||ANOVA|||23 hour 45 min||0.0415|0.0187|<0.001
90904127|NCT03257995|181675117|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0222|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0113|0.0332|||ANOVA|||5 min||0.0332|0.0113|<0.001
90904128|NCT03257995|181675117|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0344|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0234|0.0454|||ANOVA|||15 min||0.0454|0.0234|<0.001
90904129|NCT03257995|181675117|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.029|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.018|0.0399|||ANOVA|||30 min||0.0399|0.0180|<0.001
90904130|NCT03257995|181675117|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0278|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0169|0.0387|||ANOVA|||1 hour||0.0387|0.0169|<0.001
90904131|NCT03257995|181675117|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0338|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0228|0.0447|||ANOVA|||2 hour||0.0447|0.0228|<0.001
90904132|NCT03257995|181675117|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0278|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0168|0.0387|||ANOVA|||4 hour||0.0387|0.0168|<0.001
90904133|NCT03257995|181675117|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0316|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0206|0.0426|||ANOVA|||8 hour||0.0426|0.0206|<0.001
90904134|NCT03257995|181675117|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0285|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0175|0.0396|||ANOVA|||12 hour||0.0396|0.0175|<0.001
90904135|NCT03257995|181675117|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0281|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0167|0.0394|||ANOVA|||23 hour 15 min||0.0394|0.0167|<0.001
90904136|NCT03257995|181675117|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0266|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0152|0.0379|||ANOVA|||23 hour 45 min||0.0379|0.0152|<0.001
90904137|NCT03257995|181675118|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2025|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1059|0.2952|||ANOVA|||5 min||0.2952|0.1059|<0.001
90904138|NCT03257995|181675118|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2923|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1979|0.3867|||ANOVA|||15 min||0.3867|0.1979|<0.001
90904139|NCT03257995|181675118|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2657|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1713|0.3601|||ANOVA|||30 min||0.3601|0.1713|<0.001
90904140|NCT03257995|181675118|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2752|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1808|0.3696|||ANOVA|||1 hour||0.3696|0.1808|<0.001
90904141|NCT03257995|181675118|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2819|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1875|0.3763|||ANOVA|||2 hours||0.3763|0.1875|<0.001
91031660|NCT01226797|181947833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.62||||0.208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.85|64.09||Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||At Week 4||64.09|-14.85|0.2080
90857010|NCT00591266|181578222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|-8.81||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons controlled using closed testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||-8.81|-13.00|<0.001
90857011|NCT00591266|181578223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.93|-8.1||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons controlled using closed testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||-8.10|-13.93|<0.001
90857012|NCT00591266|181578223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.48|-6.63||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons controlled using closed testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||-6.63|-12.48|<0.001
90857013|NCT00591266|181578224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.84|-6.11||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-6.11|-8.84|<0.001
90857014|NCT00591266|181578224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.01|-6.28||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-6.28|-9.01|<0.001
90857015|NCT00591266|181578225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.62|-3.23||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-3.23|-6.62|<0.001
90857016|NCT00591266|181578225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.28|-3.88||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-3.88|-7.28|<0.001
90857017|NCT00591266|181578226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.86|-9.41||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-9.41|-13.86|<0.001
90857018|NCT00591266|181578226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.39|-8.95||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-8.95|-13.39|<0.001
90857019|NCT00591266|181578227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.47|-6.5||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-6.50|-9.47|<0.001
90857020|NCT00591266|181578227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.52|-6.55||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-6.55|-9.52|<0.001
90904142|NCT03257995|181675118|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.282|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1874|0.3766|||ANOVA|||4 hours||0.3766|0.1874|<0.001
90904143|NCT03257995|181675118|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2538|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1585|0.3492|||ANOVA|||8 hours||0.3492|0.1585|<0.001
90904144|NCT03257995|181675118|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2687|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1732|0.3643|||ANOVA|||12 hours||0.3643|0.1732|<0.001
91031661|NCT01226797|181947835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.87||||0.0577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|44.53||Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||At Week 1||44.53|-0.78|0.0577
91031662|NCT01226797|181947835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.3||||0.3669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.71|30.3||Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||At Week 2||30.30|-11.71|0.3669
90857021|NCT00591266|181578228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.07|-7.34||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-7.34|-12.07|<0.001
90857022|NCT00591266|181578228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.03|-7.31||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-7.31|-12.03|<0.001
90857023|NCT00591266|181578229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.94|-4.57||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-4.57|-7.94|<0.001
90857024|NCT00591266|181578229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.96|-4.6||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-4.60|-7.96|<0.001
90857025|NCT00591266|181578230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.63|-9.92||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-9.92|-14.63|<0.001
90857026|NCT00591266|181578230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.93|-9.23||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-9.23|-13.93|<0.001
90857027|NCT00591266|181578231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.98|-6.79||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-6.79|-9.98|<0.001
91031663|NCT01226797|181947835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.09||||0.2482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.62|38.8||Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||At Week 3||38.80|-10.62|0.2482
91031664|NCT01226797|181947835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|29.19||||0.0801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.84|62.22||Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||At Week 4||62.22|-3.84|0.0801
91102143|NCT02070380|182091166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4597||||||The priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||"This is a secondary analysis.~Null hypotheses:~A 0.05 mmol/kg dose of MULTIHANCE is equal to a 0.1 mmol/kg dose of DOTAREM, in terms of the assessment of Lesion Border Delineation in an off-site pre-dose plus postdose paired global assessment."||||0.4597
90857028|NCT00591266|181578231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.82|-6.64||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-6.64|-9.82|<0.001
90857029|NCT00591266|181578232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.45|-6.22||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-6.22|-11.45|<0.001
90857030|NCT00591266|181578232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.51|-6.3||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-6.30|-11.51|<0.001
90857031|NCT00591266|181578233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.88|-4.0||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-4.00|-7.88|<0.001
90857032|NCT00591266|181578233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.47|-4.61||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-4.61|-8.47|<0.001
90857033|NCT00591266|181578234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.15|5.26||P-value for response criteria for systolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||5.26|2.15|<0.001
90857034|NCT00591266|181578234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.05|5.03||P-value for response criteria for systolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||5.03|2.05|<0.001
90857035|NCT00591266|181578235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.08|6.02||P-value for response criteria for diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic diastolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||6.02|2.08|<0.001
90857036|NCT00591266|181578235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.25|6.75||P-value for response criteria for diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic diastolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||6.75|2.25|<0.001
90857037|NCT00591266|181578236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.71|4.02||P-value for joint response criteria for systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||4.02|1.71|<0.001
90857038|NCT00591266|181578236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.01|4.82||P-value for joint response criteria for systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||4.82|2.01|<0.001
91031665|NCT01226797|181947843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.06||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.67|-8.44||Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||At Week 2||-8.44|-35.67|0.0031
90857039|NCT05080660|181578239|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.73|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.73|-0.26|
90857040|NCT05080660|181578240|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.76|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.76|-0.39|
90904145|NCT03257995|181675118|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2453|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1473|0.3434|||ANOVA|||23 hours 15 min||0.3434|0.1473|<0.001
90904146|NCT03257995|181675118|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1862|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0882|0.2842|||ANOVA|||23 hours 45 min||0.2842|0.0882|<0.001
90904147|NCT03257995|181675118|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1956|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1012|0.2899|||ANOVA|||5 min||0.2899|0.1012|<0.001
91031666|NCT01226797|181947843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.34||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.64|-7.04||Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||At Week 4||-7.04|-25.64|0.0015
90857041|NCT05080660|181578241|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|1.47|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||1.47|-0.23|
90857042|NCT05080660|181578242|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|1.34|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||1.34|-0.67|
90857043|NCT05080660|181578243|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.5|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.50|-0.35|
90904148|NCT03257995|181675118|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2927|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1979|0.3875|||ANOVA|||15 min||0.3875|0.1979|<0.001
91031667|NCT00577460|181947846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0039||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with factors treatment and country and covariate OL baseline||PPX ER versus Placebo||||0.0039
91102144|NCT02070380|182091166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||"This is a secondary analysis.~Null hypotheses:~A 0.1 mmol/kg dose of MULTIHANCE is equal to a 0.1 mmol/kg dose of DOTAREM, in terms of the assessment of Lesion Border Delineation in an off-site pre-dose plus postdose paired global assessment."||||<0.0001
90958639|NCT01049217|181797003|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|ANCOVA model was used with treatment as a fixed effect and D-drug ART, pooled site value, baseline value as covariates.|LS Mean Difference|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.8241|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.8241
91102145|NCT02070380|182091166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8145||||||The priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||"This is a secondary analysis.~Null hypotheses:~A 0.05 mmol/kg dose of MULTIHANCE is equal to a 0.1 mmol/kg dose of DOTAREM, in terms of the assessment of Lesion Border Delineation in an off-site pre-dose plus postdose paired global assessment."||||0.8145
91102146|NCT02070380|182091167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||"Null hypotheses:~A 0.1 mmol/kg dose of MULTIHANCE is equal to a 0.1 mmol/kg dose of DOTAREM, in terms of the assessment of Lesion Internal Morphology in an off-site pre-dose plus postdose paired global assessment."||||0.0020
91102147|NCT02070380|182091167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||"Null hypotheses:~A 0.05 mmol/kg dose of MULTIHANCE is equal to a 0.1 mmol/kg dose of DOTAREM, in terms of the assessment of Lesion Internal Morphology in an off-site pre-dose plus post-dose paired global assessment."||||1.0000
91102148|NCT02070380|182091167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||"Null hypotheses:~A 0.1 mmol/kg dose of MULTIHANCE is equal to a 0.1 mmol/kg dose of DOTAREM, in terms of the assessment of Lesion Internal Morphology in an off-site pre-dose plus postdose paired global assessment."||||0.0001
91102149|NCT02070380|182091167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||"Null hypotheses:~A 0.05 mmol/kg dose of MULTIHANCE is equal to a 0.1 mmol/kg dose of DOTAREM, in terms of the assessment of Lesion Internal Morphology in an off-site pre-dose plus postdose paired global assessment."||||1.0000
91102150|NCT02070380|182091167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||"Null hypotheses:~A 0.1 mmol/kg dose of MULTIHANCE is equal to a 0.1 mmol/kg dose of DOTAREM, in terms of the assessment of Lesion Internal Morphology in an off-site pre-dose plus postdose paired global assessment."||||<0.0001
91102151|NCT02070380|182091167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5811|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||"Null hypotheses:~A 0.05 mmol/kg dose of MULTIHANCE is equal to a 0.1 mmol/kg dose of DOTAREM, in terms of the assessment of Lesion Internal Morphology in an off-site pre-dose plus postdose paired global assessment."||||0.5811
91102152|NCT02070380|182091168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||"Null hypotheses:~A 0.1 mmol/kg dose of MULTIHANCE is equal to a 0.1 mmol/kg dose of DOTAREM, in terms of the assessment of Extent of Disease in an off-site pre-dose plus postdose paired global assessment."||||<0.0001
90904149|NCT03257995|181675118|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2723|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.178|0.3667|||ANOVA|||30 min||0.3667|0.1780|<0.001
90904150|NCT03257995|181675118|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2386|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1445|0.3328|||ANOVA|||1 hour||0.3328|0.1445|<0.001
90904151|NCT03257995|181675118|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2986|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2042|0.393|||ANOVA|||2 hours||0.3930|0.2042|<0.001
90904152|NCT03257995|181675118|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2661|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1715|0.3607|||ANOVA|||4 hours||0.3607|0.1715|<0.001
90904153|NCT03257995|181675118|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2558|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1609|0.3506|||ANOVA|||8 hours||0.3506|0.1609|<0.001
90904154|NCT03257995|181675118|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1987|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1036|0.2938|||ANOVA|||12 hours||0.2938|0.1036|<0.001
90904155|NCT03257995|181675118|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2044|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1071|0.3017|||ANOVA|||23 hours 15 min||0.3017|0.1071|<0.001
90904156|NCT03257995|181675118|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1997|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1023|0.297|||ANOVA|||23 hours 45 min||0.2970|0.1023|<0.001
90904157|NCT03257995|181675119|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2476|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1857|0.3095|||ANOVA|||||0.3095|0.1857|<.001
90904158|NCT03257995|181675119|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2448|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.183|0.3066|||ANOVA|||||0.3066|0.1830|<.001
90904159|NCT03257995|181675119|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0028|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0647|0.059|||ANOVA|||||0.0590|-0.0647|
90904160|NCT03257995|181675120|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.11|||ANOVA|||||0.11|-0.73|0.009
90904161|NCT03257995|181675120|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.11|||ANOVA|||||0.11|-0.73|0.008
90904162|NCT03257995|181675121|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.6|40.3|||ANOVA|||||40.3|25.6|<0.001
90904163|NCT03257995|181675121|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|30.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.5|38.2|||ANOVA|||||38.2|23.5|<0.001
90904164|NCT00064025|181675155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.701|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.701
90904165|NCT00064025|181675156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Paired t-test|||||||<.001
90904166|NCT00064025|181675157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Paired t-test|||||||<.001
90904167|NCT01644474|181675192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-31.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.2|-23.0||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs Ezetimibe|Alirocumab group was compared to ezetimibe group using an appropriate contrast statement.||-23.0|-40.2|<0.0001
90904168|NCT01644474|181675193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-28.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.7|-21.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs Ezetimibe|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||-21.2|-35.7|<0.0001
90904169|NCT01644474|181675194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-25.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.3|-19.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs Ezetimibe|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-19.2|-32.3|<0.0001
90904170|NCT01644474|181675195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-25.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.5|-17.4||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs Ezetimibe|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-17.4|-33.5|<0.0001
90958640|NCT01049217|181797004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.052||0.8528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.42|3.66|||ANCOVA|||Change at Endpoint, Sleep Disturbance: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||3.66|-4.42|0.8528
90904171|NCT01644474|181675196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-18.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.7|-12.7||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs Ezetimibe|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-12.7|-24.7|<0.0001
90857044|NCT05080660|181578244|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.55|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.55|-0.35|
90904172|NCT01644474|181675197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-25.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.5|-19.8||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs Ezetimibe|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-19.8|-31.5|<0.0001
90904173|NCT01644474|181675198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-25.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.4|-19.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs Ezetimibe|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-19.2|-32.4|<0.0001
90958641|NCT01049217|181797004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|2.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.179||0.365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.37|9.14|||ANCOVA|||Change at Endpoint, Snoring: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||9.14|-3.37|0.3650
90958642|NCT01049217|181797004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.525||0.7237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.07|5.86|||ANCOVA|||Change at Endpoint, SOB: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||5.86|-4.07|0.7237
90958643|NCT01049217|181797004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.165||0.2783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.15|||ANCOVA|||Change at Endpoint, Quantity: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.15|-0.50|0.2783
90958644|NCT01049217|181797004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|3.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.611||0.2475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|8.16|||ANCOVA|||Change at Endpoint, Adequacy: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||8.16|-2.11|0.2475
91102153|NCT02070380|182091168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||"Null hypotheses:~A 0.05 mmol/kg dose of MULTIHANCE is equal to a 0.1 mmol/kg dose of DOTAREM, in terms of the assessment of Extent of Disease in an off-site pre-dose plus post-dose paired global assessment."||||1.0000
91102154|NCT02070380|182091168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||"Null hypotheses:~A 0.1 mmol/kg dose of MULTIHANCE is equal to a 0.1 mmol/kg dose of DOTAREM, in terms of the assessment of Extent of Disease in an off-site pre-dose plus postdose paired global assessment."||||<0.0001
90958645|NCT01049217|181797004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.933||0.5492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.64|4.96|||ANCOVA|||Change at Endpoint, Somnolence: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||4.96|-2.64|0.5492
90958646|NCT01049217|181797004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.614||0.9113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|3.36|||ANCOVA|||Change at Endpoint, Sleep Problems Index: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||3.36|-3.00|0.9113
90857045|NCT05080660|181578245|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|1.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|4.88|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||4.88|-0.88|
90904174|NCT01644474|181675199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-18.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.1|-13.5||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs Ezetimibe|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-13.5|-23.1|<0.0001
90857046|NCT05080660|181578246|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|3.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|6.38|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||6.38|-0.29|
90904175|NCT01644474|181675200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|34.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.7|139.0||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model.|Alirocumab vs Ezetimibe|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||139.0|8.7|<0.0001
90958647|NCT01049217|181797005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7399|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Endpoint: Overall p-value was derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled site and D-drug ART use using modified ridit scores.||||0.7399
90958648|NCT01049217|181797006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.386||0.8258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.84|||ANCOVA|||Change at Endpoint, HADS-A: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.84|-0.67|0.8258
90958649|NCT01049217|181797006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.372||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|1.38|||ANCOVA|||Change at Endpoint, HADS-D: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||1.38|-0.09|0.0840
90958650|NCT01049217|181797007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.393||0.6114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.49|5.92|||ANCOVA|||Change at Endpoint, Ph Fn: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||5.92|-3.49|0.6114
90958651|NCT01049217|181797007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.522||0.8209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.39|5.53|||ANCOVA|||Change at Endpoint, R-P: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||5.53|-4.39|0.8209
91031668|NCT00577460|181947846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with factors treatment and country and covariate OL baseline||PPX IR versus Placebo||||0.0001
91031669|NCT00577460|181947849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.559||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance with factors for treatment, country and baseline as a covariate||||||0.5590
90857047|NCT05080660|181578247|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.5|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.50|-0.23|
91031670|NCT00577460|181947849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1289||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance with factors for treatment, country and baseline as a covariate||||||0.1289
91031671|NCT00577460|181947851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1073||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance with factors for treatment, country and baseline as a covariate||||||0.1073
91102155|NCT02070380|182091168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||"Null hypotheses:~A 0.05 mmol/kg dose of MULTIHANCE is equal to a 0.1 mmol/kg dose of DOTAREM, in terms of the assessment of Extent of Disease in an off-site pre-dose plus postdose paired global assessment."||||1.0000
91102156|NCT02070380|182091168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0023|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||"Null hypotheses:~A 0.1 mmol/kg dose of MULTIHANCE is equal to a 0.1 mmol/kg dose of DOTAREM, in terms of the assessment of Extent of Disease in an off-site pre-dose plus postdose paired global assessment."||||0.0023
91102157|NCT02070380|182091168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||"Null hypotheses:~A 0.05 mmol/kg dose of MULTIHANCE is equal to a 0.1 mmol/kg dose of DOTAREM, in terms of the assessment of Extent of Disease in an off-site pre-dose plus postdose paired global assessment."||||1.0000
91102158|NCT02070380|182091169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||"Null hypotheses:~A 0.1 mmol/kg dose of MULTIHANCE is equal to a 0.1 mmol/kg dose of DOTAREM, in terms of the assessment of Lesion Contrast Enhancement in an off-site pre-dose plus postdose paired global assessment."||||<0.0001
91102159|NCT02070380|182091169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||"Null hypotheses:~A 0.05 mmol/kg dose of MULTIHANCE is equal to a 0.1 mmol/kg dose of DOTAREM, in terms of the assessment of Lesion Contrast Enhancement in an off-site pre-dose plus post-dose paired global assessment."||||1.0000
91102160|NCT02070380|182091169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||"Null hypotheses:~A 0.1 mmol/kg dose of MULTIHANCE is equal to a 0.1 mmol/kg dose of DOTAREM, in terms of the assessment of Lesion Contrast Enhancement in an off-site pre-dose plus postdose paired global assessment."||||<0.0001
91102161|NCT02070380|182091169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7503|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||"Null hypotheses:~A 0.05 mmol/kg dose of MULTIHANCE is equal to a 0.1 mmol/kg dose of DOTAREM, in terms of the assessment of Lesion Contrast Enhancement in an off-site pre-dose plus postdose paired global assessment."||||0.7503
91102162|NCT02070380|182091169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||"Null hypotheses:~A 0.1 mmol/kg dose of MULTIHANCE is equal to a 0.1 mmol/kg dose of DOTAREM, in terms of the assessment of Lesion Contrast Enhancement in an off-site pre-dose plus postdose paired global assessment."||||<0.0001
90857048|NCT05080660|181578248|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.37|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.37|-0.39|
91031672|NCT00577460|181947851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8694||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance with factors for treatment, country and baseline as a covariate||||||0.8694
91031673|NCT00577460|181947852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0009||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance with factors for treatment, country and baseline as a covariate||||||0.0009
91102163|NCT02070380|182091169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5983|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||"Null hypotheses:~A 0.05 mmol/kg dose of MULTIHANCE is equal to a 0.05 mmol/kg dose of DOTAREM, in terms of the assessment of Lesion Contrast Enhancement in an off-site pre-dose plus postdose paired global assessment."||||0.5983
91102164|NCT02070380|182091170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with period, sequence, and IP and fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as random effect||||||<0.0001
91102165|NCT02070380|182091170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6898|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with period, sequence, and IP and fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as random effect||||||0.6898
91102166|NCT02070380|182091170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with period, sequence, and IP and fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as random effect.||||||<0.0001
91102167|NCT02070380|182091170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1156|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with period, sequence, and IP and fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as random effect||||||0.1156
91102168|NCT02070380|182091170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
91102169|NCT02070380|182091170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7726|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7726
91102170|NCT02070380|182091171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Investigation product (IP) effect from mixed model with period, sequence, and IP as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect.||||||0.0002
91102171|NCT02070380|182091171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Investigation product (IP) effect from mixed model with period, sequence, and IP as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect.||||||<0.0001
90857049|NCT05080660|181578249|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.81|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.81|-0.21|
91102172|NCT02070380|182091171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Investigation product (IP) effect from mixed model with period, sequence, and IP as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect.||||||<0.0001
91102173|NCT02070380|182091171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Investigation product (IP) effect from mixed model with period, sequence, and IP as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect.||||||<0.0001
91102174|NCT02070380|182091171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Investigation product (IP) effect from mixed model with period, sequence, and IP as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect.||||||<0.0001
91102175|NCT02070380|182091171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Investigation product (IP) effect from mixed model with period, sequence, and IP as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect.||||||0.0003
91102176|NCT03850431|182091172|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.139||||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.956|1.357|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with clustering for clinics and patients||||1.357|0.956|0.145
91102177|NCT03850431|182091172|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.912|1.35|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with clustering for clinics and patients||||1.35|0.912|0.298
90857050|NCT05080660|181578250|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.9|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.90|-0.31|
90857051|NCT05080660|181578251|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|6.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|12.52|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||12.52|-0.24|
90857052|NCT05080660|181578252|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|5.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.18|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||12.18|-1.90|
91031674|NCT00577460|181947852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0573||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance with factors for treatment, country and baseline as a covariate||||||0.0573
90904176|NCT01644474|181675201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|69.8||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.8|556.0||Threshold for significance was ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model.|Alirocumab vs Ezetimibe|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||556.0|8.8|0.0001
90904177|NCT01644474|181675202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-4.4||||0.4013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|5.9||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Robust|Multiple imputation approach followed by robust regression model.|Alirocumab vs Ezetimibe|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||5.9|-14.8|0.4013
90904178|NCT00050089|181675210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.165||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.856|1.585|||Log Rank||The comparison was Mega-ART (intensification) vs Standard-ART (standard).|Time-to-event (Kaplan-Meier) and stratified log-rank test was used for the comparison.||1.585|0.856|0.69
90904179|NCT00050089|181675211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.927||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.674|1.275|||Log Rank||The comparison was ARDFP (interruption) vs No ARDFP (continuation)|Time-to-event (Kaplan-Meier) and stratified log-rank analysis was performed.||1.275|0.674|0.49
90904180|NCT00050089|181675212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Stratified Log-rank test was used to compare the four treatment||||0.87
90904181|NCT00050089|181675213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.008||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.35|||Log Rank||The comparison was Standard-ART (standard) vs Mega-ART (intensification)|Time-to-event (Kaplan-Meier) and stratified log-rank test was used for the comparison||1.35|0.75|0.92
90857053|NCT05080660|181578253|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.27|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.27|-0.32|
90904182|NCT00050089|181675214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.46|||Log Rank||The comparison was ARDFP (interruption) vs No ARDFP (continuation) of ART|Time-to-event (Kaplan-Meier) and stratified log-rank test was used for the comparison.||1.46|0.8|0.68
90904183|NCT02044458|181675224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.70
90857054|NCT05080660|181578254|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.13|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.13|-0.52|
90857055|NCT05080660|181578255|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|98.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.95|250.88|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||250.88|-51.95|
90857056|NCT05080660|181578256|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|123.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.51|293.69|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||293.69|-46.51|
90857057|NCT05080660|181578257|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.05|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.05|-0.06|
90857058|NCT05080660|181578258|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.07|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.07|-0.07|
90857059|NCT01977937|181578304|OTHER|Differences in average pre-operative \& total post-operative average VAS scores were compared between groups using an unpaired Mann-Whitney rank sum test. Hospitalization outcomes including number of days to transition off PCA, number of days with Foley catheter, \& episodes of nausea, emesis, or POSS \> 3 were compared between groups using an unpaired two-tailed Student's t-test. Statistical significance was defined as p\<0.05 for all unpaired parametric and non-parametric comparisons.||||||0.07|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||D'Agostino \& Pearson normality test was used to assess for normal distribution. Experimental \& control groups were assessed for significant differences in age, hospital days, \& spinal levels fused using unpaired two-tailed Student's t-test. Differences in weight \& BMI were assessed using unpaired Mann-Whitney rank sum test. Differences in average VAS scores on the operative day, each post-operative day, and average total daily opioid were compared using an unpaired two-tailed Student's t-test.||||0.07
90857060|NCT01977937|181578305|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in the average total daily opioid were compared between groups using an unpaired two-tailed Student's t-test||||0.02
90857061|NCT03911843|181578334|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||the p-value of significance was calculated using the analysis system|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
90857062|NCT03911843|181578334|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
90857063|NCT03911843|181578335|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
90857064|NCT03911843|181578336|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
90857065|NCT02819518|181578339|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.98||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by chemotherapy (taxane versus \[vs\] gemcitabine/carboplatin), tumor PD-L1 status (CPS ≥1 vs CPS \<1) and prior treatment with same class of chemotherapy in the (neo)adjuvant setting (yes vs. no).|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by chemotherapy on study, tumor PD-L1 status, and prior treatment with same class of chemotherapy in the (neo)adjuvant setting.|||0.98|0.70|0.0120
90857066|NCT02819518|181578340|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.91||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by chemotherapy on study (taxane vs gemcitabine/carboplatin), and prior treatment with same class of chemotherapy in the (neo)adjuvant setting (yes vs no).|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by chemotherapy on study, and prior treatment with same class of chemotherapy in the (neo)adjuvant setting.|||0.91|0.62|0.0016
90857067|NCT02819518|181578341|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.88||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by chemotherapy on study (taxane vs gemcitabine/carboplatin), and prior treatment with same class of chemotherapy in the (neo)adjuvant setting (yes vs no).|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by chemotherapy on study, and prior treatment with same class of chemotherapy in the (neo)adjuvant setting.|||0.88|0.50|0.0018
90857068|NCT02819518|181578342|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.0797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.05||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by chemotherapy on study (taxane vs gemcitabine/carboplatin), tumor PD-L1 status (CPS ≥1 vs CPS \<1) and prior treatment with same class of chemotherapy in the (neo)adjuvant setting (yes vs no).|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by chemotherapy on study, tumor PD-L1 status, and prior treatment with same class of chemotherapy in the (neo)adjuvant setting.|||1.05|0.76|0.0797
90904184|NCT02044458|181675225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.38|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.38
91102178|NCT03850431|182091172|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.178||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.955|1.452|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with clustering for clinics and patients||||1.452|0.955|0.127
91031675|NCT00577460|181947853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6434||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance with factors for treatment, country and baseline as a covariate||||||0.6434
91031676|NCT00577460|181947853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2469||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance with factors for treatment, country and baseline as a covariate||||||0.2469
91102179|NCT03850431|182091172|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.117||||0.286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.911|1.37|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with clustering for clinics and patients||||1.37|0.911|0.286
91102180|NCT03850431|182091172|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.179||||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.925|1.504|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with clustering for clinics and patients||||1.504|0.925|0.183
91102181|NCT03850431|182091172|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.903|1.595|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with clustering for clinics and patients||||1.595|0.903|0.209
90857069|NCT02819518|181578343|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.0563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.04||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by chemotherapy on study (taxane vs gemcitabine/carboplatin), and prior treatment with same class of chemotherapy in the (neo)adjuvant setting (yes vs no).|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by chemotherapy on study, and prior treatment with same class of chemotherapy in the (neo)adjuvant setting.|||1.04|0.72|0.0563
90857070|NCT02819518|181578344|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.0093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.95||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by chemotherapy on study (taxane vs gemcitabine/carboplatin), and prior treatment with same class of chemotherapy in the (neo)adjuvant setting (yes vs no).|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by chemotherapy on study, and prior treatment with same class of chemotherapy in the (neo)adjuvant setting.|||0.95|0.55|0.0093
90857071|NCT02819518|181578345|SUPERIORITY||Difference in ORR (%) vs. Control|3.8||||0.1413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|10.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by chemotherapy on study (taxane vs gemcitabine/carboplatin), tumor PD-L1 status (CPS ≥1 vs CPS \<1) and prior treatment with same class of chemotherapy in the (neo)adjuvant setting (yes vs no).|||10.6|-3.2|0.1413
90857072|NCT02819518|181578346|SUPERIORITY||Difference in ORR (%) vs. Control|6.1||||0.0725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|14.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by chemotherapy on study (taxane vs gemcitabine/carboplatin), and prior treatment with same class of chemotherapy in the (neo)adjuvant setting (yes vs no).|||14.0|-2.1|0.0725
90857073|NCT02819518|181578347|SUPERIORITY||Difference in ORR(%) vs. Control|12.1||||0.0213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|23.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by chemotherapy on study (taxane vs gemcitabine/carboplatin) and prior treatment with same class of chemotherapy in the (neo)adjuvant setting (yes vs no).|||23.4|0.4|0.0213
90857074|NCT02819518|181578351|SUPERIORITY||Difference in DCR (%) vs. control|4.7||||0.0966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|11.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by chemotherapy on study (taxane vs gemcitabine/carboplatin), tumor PD-L1 status (CPS ≥1 vs CPS \<1) and prior treatment with same class of chemotherapy in the (neo) adjuvant setting (yes vs no).|||11.8|-2.4|0.0966
90857075|NCT02819518|181578352|SUPERIORITY||Difference in DCR (%) vs. Control|5.0||||0.1164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|13.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by chemotherapy on study (taxane vs gemcitabine/carboplatin) and prior treatment with same class of chemotherapy in the (neo) adjuvant setting (yes vs no).|||13.1|-3.2|0.1164
90857076|NCT02819518|181578353|SUPERIORITY||Difference in DCR (%) vs. Control|10.8||||0.0327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|22.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by chemotherapy on study (taxane vs gemcitabine/carboplatin) and prior treatment with same class of chemotherapy in the (neo) adjuvant setting (yes vs no).|||22.3|-0.7|0.0327
90857077|NCT01505647|181578365|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The GMT induced by ZOSTAVAX™ (AMP) vaccine is statistically non-inferior to that induced by the current process vaccine if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval of the GMT ratio is \>0.67.|GMT Ratio|1.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.2||The threshold for statistical significance is 0.025 (1-sided). The P-value was not adjusted.|Longitudinal regression model|The analyzed GMT ratio, 95% confidence interval, and P-value were based on a longitudinal regression model adjusting for age and vaccination group||The hypothesis tested is that the GMT at Week 6 postvaccination with ZOSTAVAX™ (AMP) vaccine is non-inferior to that with the current process vaccine||1.20|0.98|<0.001
90857078|NCT01505647|181578366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The threshold for statistical significance is 0.025 (1-sided). The P-value was not adjusted.|t-test, 1 sided|||The hypothesis tested was that ZOSTAVAX™ (AMP) induces an acceptable GMFR in VZV antibody titer from prevaccination to 6 weeks postvaccination||||<0.001
90857079|NCT02750943|181578384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square (LS) mean difference|-25.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.682|-19.998||From ANCOVA analysis with treatment group, gender and baseline MGI stratification as factors baseline as covariates.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|||-19.998|-30.682|<0.0001
90857080|NCT00674973|181578426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.1909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.1|||Log Rank|||Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate the Hazard Ratio (erlotinib compared with placebo), including 95 percent (%) confidence intervals (CIs).||1.10|0.63|0.1909
90857081|NCT00763048|181578436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||<0.05
91102182|NCT03850431|182091172|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.144||||0.463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.799|1.638|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with clustering for clinics and patients||||1.638|0.799|0.463
91102183|NCT03850431|182091172|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.331||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.972|1.822|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with clustering for clinics and patients||||1.822|0.972|0.074
91102184|NCT03850431|182091172|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.169||||0.306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.867|1.577|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with clustering for clinics and patients||||1.577|0.867|0.306
91102185|NCT03850431|182091172|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.845|1.565|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with clustering for clinics and patients||||1.565|0.845|0.373
91102186|NCT03850431|182091173|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.923||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.826|1.03|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with clustering for clinics and patients||||1.03|0.826|0.153
91102187|NCT03850431|182091173|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.911||||0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.777|1.068|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with clustering for clinics and patients||||1.068|0.777|0.252
91102188|NCT03850431|182091173|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.941||||0.413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.815|1.088|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with clustering for clinics and patients||||1.088|0.815|0.413
91102189|NCT03850431|182091173|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.946||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.079|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with clustering for clinics and patients||||1.079|0.83|0.41
91102190|NCT03850431|182091173|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.887||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.766|1.027|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with clustering for clinics and patients||||1.027|0.766|0.11
90857082|NCT00763048|181578437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||<0.05
90904185|NCT02044458|181675226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.57|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.57
91102191|NCT03850431|182091173|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.833||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.654|1.062|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with clustering for clinics and patients||||1.062|0.654|0.14
91102192|NCT03850431|182091173|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.882||||0.404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.657|1.184|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with clustering for clinics and patients||||1.184|0.657|0.404
91102193|NCT03850431|182091173|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.743||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.538|1.027|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with clustering for clinics and patients||||1.027|0.538|0.072
91102194|NCT03850431|182091173|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.778||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.008|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with clustering for clinics and patients||||1.008|0.6|0.057
91102195|NCT03850431|182091173|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.932||||0.637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.697|1.247|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with clustering for clinics and patients||||1.247|0.697|0.637
91102196|NCT03654326|182091200|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.5||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|0.03||Based on the longitudinal analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including factors for average pelvic pain scores at baseline cycle, stratum, treatment, cycle, interaction of stratum-by-cycle, and the interaction of treatment-by-cycle as covariates|ANCOVA|||||0.03|-1.01|0.066
91102197|NCT03654326|182091201|OTHER|Difference in percentage of participants who experienced one or more adverse events|Difference in % vs Placebo|17.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|31.3|||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|||31.3|3.4|
90857083|NCT00763048|181578438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||<0.05
91102198|NCT03654326|182091202|OTHER|Difference in percentage of participants who discontinued study drug due to an adverse event|Difference in % vs Placebo|3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|9.0|||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|||9.0|-0.9|
91102199|NCT03654326|182091203|OTHER|The difference in least squares mean was based on the longitudinal analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including factors for average pelvic pain scores at baseline cycle, stratum, treatment, cycle, interaction of stratum-by-cycle, and the interaction of treatment-by-cycle as covariates|Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|-0.06||||||||-0.06|-1.18|
91102200|NCT03654326|182091204|OTHER|The difference in least squares mean was based on the longitudinal analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including factors for average pelvic pain scores at baseline cycle, stratum, treatment, cycle, interaction of stratum-by-cycle, and the interaction of treatment-by-cycle as covariates|Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|0.03||||||||0.03|-1.04|
91102201|NCT05287685|182091205|OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Preliminary pre-post outcome analysis for the open trial (n = 7). The analysis was a paired samples t-test comparing baseline (week 0) to posttest (week 8) scores.||||.29
91102202|NCT05287685|182091205|OTHER|||||||0.34|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Preliminary outcome analysis for the open trial (n = 7). The analysis was a paired samples t-test comparing baseline(week 0) to follow-up (week 16) scores.||||.34
90857084|NCT00763048|181578439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
90857085|NCT00763048|181578440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
90857086|NCT00763048|181578441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
90857087|NCT00763048|181578442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
90857088|NCT00763048|181578443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
90857089|NCT00763048|181578444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
91102203|NCT05287685|182091205|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA analysis for the pilot RCT, comparing the outcome variable at posttest (Week 8) between the two groups, with pretest (baseline) scores, annual household income and household size (to approximate income-to-needs ratio), caregiver education, and child externalizing behavior as covariates.||||.02
90857090|NCT00518687|181578465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy (VE)|18.5||||0.584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.6|55.8||A 1-sided p-value \<0.025 implies that the V710 vaccine efficacy is statistically significantly greater than 20%|Exact 1-sided binomial test||VE = 1 - Relative Risk of V710 compared with placebo|||55.8|-48.6|0.584
90857091|NCT00518687|181578466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|0.0||||0.997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||0.1|-0.1|0.997
90857092|NCT00518687|181578467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy (VE)|12.9||||0.347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.8|50.0||A 1-sided p-value \<0.025 implies that the V710 vaccine efficacy is statistically significant|Exact 1-sided binomial test||VE = 1 - Relative Risk of V710 compared with placebo|||50.0|-50.8|0.347
90857093|NCT00518687|181578468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy (VE)|29.3||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|51.2||A 1-sided p-value \<0.025 implies that the V710 vaccine efficacy is statistically significant|Exact 1-sided binomial test||VE = 1 - Relative Risk of V710 compared with placebo|||51.2|-1.8|0.032
90857094|NCT01442038|181578476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.948||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.818|1.099||The p-value and hazard ratio are from Cox proportional hazards model stratifying by reason for qualifying percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI): acute coronary syndrome (ACS) versus non-ACS indication, and history of diabetes (yes versus no).|Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||||1.099|0.818|0.48
90857095|NCT01442038|181578477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.665||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.244|1.691||The p-value and hazard ratio are from Cox proportional hazards model stratifying by reason for qualifying PCI: ACS versus non-ACS indication, and history of diabetes (yes versus no).|Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||||1.691|0.244|0.40
90857096|NCT01442038|181578478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.073||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.579|1.994||The p-value and hazard ratio are from Cox proportional hazards model stratifying by reason for qualifying PCI: ACS versus non-ACS indication, and history of diabetes (yes versus no).|Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||||1.994|0.579|0.82
90857097|NCT01442038|181578479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.968||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.745|1.256||The p-value and hazard ratio are from Cox proportional hazards model stratifying by reason for qualifying PCI: ACS versus non-ACS indication, and history of diabetes (yes versus no).|Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||||1.256|0.745|0.81
90904186|NCT02218203|181675227|OTHER|We report the interaction between the lidocaine dose response and dextromethorphan dose response. The type of statistical test was a linear regression model with Chi-square test.|Lidocaine dose*dextromethorphan dose|0.0042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.002||0.0322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0004|0.0081|||Pearson's Chi-squared test||The estimated value is an estimated interaction term, and not a P-value.|We performed a lidocaine dose response clinical trial nested within a dextromethorphan clinical trial to evaluate a potential interaction between lidocaine dose and dextromethorphan dose (pain intensity; Gracely scale).||0.0081|0.0004|0.0322
91102204|NCT05287685|182091205|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA analysis for the pilot RCT, comparing the outcome variable at follow-up (Week 16) between the two groups, with pretest (baseline) scores, annual household income and household size (to approximate income-to-needs ratio), caregiver education, and child externalizing behavior as covariates.||||.04
91102205|NCT05287685|182091206|OTHER|||||||0.88|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Preliminary outcome analysis for the open trial (n = 7). The analysis was a paired samples t-test comparing baseline (week 0) to posttest (week 8) scores.||||.88
91102206|NCT05287685|182091206|OTHER|||||||0.87|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Preliminary outcome analysis for the open trial (n = 7). The analysis was a paired samples t-test comparing baseline(week 0) to follow-up (week 16) scores.||||.87
90857098|NCT02611960|181578485|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.2262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.19||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by presence of liver metastasis.|Stratified Log-Rank Test|||Comparison based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by presence of liver metastasis.||1.19|0.67|0.2262
90857099|NCT02611960|181578486|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.28||||0.9419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.75||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by presence of liver metastasis.|Stratified Log-Rank Test|||Comparison based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by presence of liver metastasis.||1.75|0.94|0.9419
90857100|NCT02611960|181578487|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|-1.9||||0.63479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|8.9||One-sided p-value for testing. H0: difference in percentage = 0 versus H1: difference in percentage \> 0.|Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen Method|||Comparison based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by presence of liver metastasis.||8.9|-12.7|0.63479
90857101|NCT00137631|181578495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.58|||<|0.05||95.0|0.33|1.01|||negative binomial regression|||||1.01|0.33|< 0.05
90857102|NCT00137631|181578496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33|||<|0.05||95.0|1.05|1.68|||generalized estimating equations|Tests intervention efficacy over all study periods (baseline, 3-months, and 6-months)||||1.68|1.05|< 0.05
90857103|NCT00137631|181578497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17|||<|0.05||95.0|0.69|1.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.98|0.69|< 0.05
90857104|NCT00137631|181578498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.49|||<|0.05||95.0|0.28|0.87|||generalized estimating equations|Tests intervention efficacy over all study periods (baseline, 3-months, and 6-months)||||0.87|0.28|< 0.05
90857105|NCT00137631|181578499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.8|||<|0.05||95.0|0.42|1.53|||generalized estimating equations|Tests intervention efficacy over all study periods (baseline, 3-months, and 6-months)||||1.53|0.42|< 0.05
90857106|NCT00351000|181578521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.956||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.956
90857107|NCT00351000|181578522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.988||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.988
90857108|NCT00085709|181578523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Cox|The interim analysis only reported a p-value for testing whether the hazard ratio was not equal to 1.5.||Interim futility analysis of the alternative hypothesis for disease-free survival. The design specified a hazard ratio of (observation: GO) of 1.5.||||<0.001
90857109|NCT00085709|181578524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0025||95.0|||||Test of difference of proportions|||Interim futility analysis alternative hypothesis based on the design specification that the 7+3+GO arm would have a 12% increase in CR rate.||||<0.0025
91031677|NCT00577460|181947854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9741||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance with factors for treatment, country and baseline as a covariate||||||0.9741
91031678|NCT00577460|181947854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.762||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance with factors for treatment, country and baseline as a covariate||||||0.7620
91031679|NCT00577460|181947858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0831||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance with factors for treatment, country and baseline as a covariate||||||0.0831
91031680|NCT00577460|181947858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0759||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance with factors for treatment, country and baseline as a covariate||||||0.0759
91102207|NCT05287685|182091206|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA analysis for the pilot RCT, comparing the outcome variable at posttest (Week 8) between the two groups, with pretest (baseline) scores, annual household income and household size (to approximate income-to-needs ratio), caregiver education, and child externalizing behavior as covariates.||||.10
91102208|NCT05287685|182091206|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA analysis for the pilot RCT, comparing the outcome variable at follow-up (Week 16) between the two groups, with pretest (baseline) scores, annual household income and household size (to approximate income-to-needs ratio), caregiver education, and child externalizing behavior as covariates.||||.90
91102209|NCT05287685|182091207|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis to test whether groups had equivalent levels of satisfaction with treatment (defined as the groups not being significantly different at the level of p\<.05).||||||0.8|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test analysis for the pilot RCT, comparing the outcome variable at posttest (Week 8) between the two groups.||||.80
91102210|NCT05287685|182091208|OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Preliminary outcome analysis for the open trial (n = 7). The analysis was a paired samples t-test comparing baseline (week 0) to posttest (week 8) scores.||||.35
90857110|NCT04131556|181578526|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence analysis based on confidence intervals (CIs). If the 90% CIs of the geometric mean ratios were within (0.8, 1.25), bioequivalence between the two formulations (test powder for oral suspension versus reference tablet) was to be claimed. A linear mixed effect ANOVA model with treatment, period, sequence as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect was used to fit to ln-transformed PK parameters.|% Ratio of Geometric least square means|67.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|59.5|77.16|||ANOVA|||||77.16|59.50|
90857111|NCT04131556|181578526|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence analysis based on confidence intervals (CIs). If the 90% CIs of the geometric mean ratios were within (0.8, 1.25), bioequivalence between the two formulations (test powder for oral suspension versus reference tablet) was to be claimed. A linear mixed effect ANOVA model with treatment, period, sequence as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect was used to fit to ln-transformed PK parameters.|% Ratio of Geometric least squares means|62.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|54.73|70.9|||ANOVA|||||70.90|54.73|
91102211|NCT05287685|182091208|OTHER|||||||0.049|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Preliminary outcome analysis for the open trial (n = 7). The analysis was a paired samples t-test comparing baseline(week 0) to follow-up (week 16) scores.||||.049
91102212|NCT05287685|182091208|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA analysis for the pilot RCT, comparing the outcome variable at posttest (Week 8) between the two groups, with pretest (baseline) scores, annual household income and household size (to approximate income-to-needs ratio), caregiver education, and child externalizing behavior as covariates.||||.45
90857112|NCT04131556|181578527|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.75|1.75|||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Statistical analysis of tmax was performed using a nonparametric test. The median difference of tmax between treatments and 90% CIs of the median differences were calculated from Hodges-Lehman estimate, and p-value was produced from Wilcoxon signed rank test.||1.75|0.75|<.001
91031681|NCT00577460|181947859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1713||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance with factors for treatment, country and baseline as a covariate||||||0.1713
91031682|NCT00577460|181947859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance with factors for treatment, country and baseline as a covariate||||||0.0130
90958652|NCT01049217|181797007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.335||0.9737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.52|4.67|||ANCOVA|||Change at Endpoint, BP: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||4.67|-4.52|0.9737
91031683|NCT00577460|181947860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0015||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance with factors for treatment, country and baseline as a covariate||||||0.0015
91031684|NCT00577460|181947860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance with factors for treatment, country and baseline as a covariate||||||0.0002
91031685|NCT00577460|181947861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.876||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance with factors for treatment, country and baseline as a covariate||||||0.8760
91031686|NCT00577460|181947861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5113||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance with factors for treatment, country and baseline as a covariate||||||0.5113
91031687|NCT00577460|181947862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0148||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance with factors for treatment, country and baseline as a covariate||||||0.0148
90958653|NCT01049217|181797007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.937||0.6966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.05|4.57|||ANCOVA|||Change at Endpoint, GH: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||4.57|-3.05|0.6966
91031688|NCT00577460|181947862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0201||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance with factors for treatment, country and baseline as a covariate||||||0.0201
91031689|NCT02016170|181947882|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was assessed using a 95% confidence interval (CI) of the difference in mean PRU between prasugrel and ticagrelor (two arms combined). Under the assumption of 0 difference in mean PRU between ticagrelor 90 mg bid MD and prasugrel 10 mg qd MD and a common standard deviation of 60 PRU, a sample size of 24 patients per group allowed for the 95% CI to stay within ± 45 PRU with a 90% power and alpha=0.05.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.0|5.0||||||||5|-41|
91031690|NCT02016170|181947883|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was assessed using a 95% confidence interval (CI) of the difference in mean PRU between prasugrel and ticagrelor (two arms combined).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|-4.0||||||||-4|-18|
91031691|NCT01968382|181947916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3198|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.3198
91031692|NCT01968382|181947919|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8462|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.8462
91031693|NCT03629249|181947974|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.714|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.714
91031694|NCT03629249|181947974|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.734|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.734
91102213|NCT05287685|182091208|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA analysis for the pilot RCT, comparing the outcome variable at follow-up (Week 16) between the two groups, with pretest (baseline) scores, annual household income and household size (to approximate income-to-needs ratio), caregiver education, and child externalizing behavior as covariates.||||.20
90857113|NCT04131556|181578527|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.75|1.25|||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Statistical analysis of tmax was performed using a nonparametric test. The median difference of tmax between treatments and 90% CIs of the median differences were calculated from Hodges-Lehman estimate, and p-value was produced from Wilcoxon signed rank test.||1.25|0.75|<.001
90857114|NCT04131556|181578528|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence analysis based on confidence intervals (CIs). If the 90% CIs of the geometric mean ratios were within (0.8, 1.25), bioequivalence between the two formulations (test powder for oral suspension versus reference tablet) was to be claimed. A linear mixed effect ANOVA model with treatment, period, sequence as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect was used to fit to ln-transformed PK parameters.|% Ratio of Geometric least squares means|81.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|73.88|89.4|||ANOVA|||||89.40|73.88|
90857115|NCT04131556|181578528|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence analysis based on confidence intervals (CIs). If the 90% CIs of the geometric mean ratios were within (0.8, 1.25), bioequivalence between the two formulations (test powder for oral suspension versus reference tablet) was to be claimed. A linear mixed effect ANOVA model with treatment, period, sequence as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect was used to fit to ln-transformed PK parameters.|% Ratio of Geometric least squares means|78.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.92|85.79|||ANOVA|||||85.79|70.92|
90857116|NCT04131556|181578529|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence analysis based on confidence intervals (CIs). If the 90% CIs of the geometric mean ratios were within (0.8, 1.25), bioequivalence between the two formulations (test powder for oral suspension versus reference tablet) was to be claimed. A linear mixed effect ANOVA model with treatment, period, sequence as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect was used to fit to ln-transformed PK parameters.|% Ratio of Geometric least squares means|83.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.12|91.64|||ANOVA|||||91.64|76.12|
90857117|NCT04131556|181578529|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence analysis based on confidence intervals (CIs). If the 90% CIs of the geometric mean ratios were within (0.8, 1.25), bioequivalence between the two formulations (test powder for oral suspension versus reference tablet) was to be claimed. A linear mixed effect ANOVA model with treatment, period, sequence as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect was used to fit to ln-transformed PK parameters.|% Ratio of Geometric least squares means|80.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|73.26|88.16|||ANOVA|||||88.16|73.26|
90857118|NCT04131556|181578532|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.13|0.25|||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Statistical analysis of Tlag was performed using a nonparametric test. The median difference of Tlag between treatments and 90% CIs of the median differences were calculated from Hodges-Lehman estimate, and p-value was produced from Wilcoxon signed rank test.||0.25|0.13|0.006
91031695|NCT03629249|181947975|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.665|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.665
91031696|NCT03629249|181947975|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.910
91031697|NCT03633721|181947995|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||ANOVA|||Hypothesis Being Tested in 2 way ANOVA is that the difference in the change from Baseline to the Average of 15 and 60 minutes post baseline while on cannabis Vs. the change while on placebo (i.e. the last row in the outcomes) is greater for HIV+ subjects than for HIV- subjects.||||0.17
91031698|NCT03633721|181947996|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||ANOVA|||Hypothesis Being Tested in 2 way ANOVA is that the difference in the change from Baseline to the Average of 15 and 60 minutes post baseline while on cannabis Vs. the change while on placebo (i.e. the last row in the outcomes) is greater for HIV+ subjects than for HIV- subjects.||||0.18
91031699|NCT03633721|181947997|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||ANOVA|||Hypothesis Being Tested in 2 way ANOVA is that the difference in the change from Baseline to the Average of 15 and 60 minutes post baseline while on cannabis Vs. the change while on placebo (i.e. the last row in the outcomes) is greater for HIV+ subjects than for HIV- subjects.||||0.72
91031700|NCT01475474|181948002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test used to evaluate median Percent Change-from-Baseline in ABL different from zero||||<0.001
91031701|NCT01475474|181948003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test used to evaluate median Percent Change-from-Baseline in Wexner score||||<0.001
91031702|NCT01691248|181948042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|2.2||||0.2778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|9.5||1-sided Wald test for a difference in proportions using an unpooled estimate of variance.|One-sided Wald p-value||Placebo minus Fidaxomicin|||9.5|-5.1|0.2778
91031703|NCT01691248|181948043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage difference|0.6||||0.442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|8.2||1-sided Wald test for a difference in proportions using an unpooled estimate of variance.|One-sided Wald p-value||Placebo minus Fidaxomicin|||8.2|-7.1|0.4420
90857119|NCT04131556|181578532|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.13|0.25|||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Statistical analysis of Tlag was performed using a nonparametric test. The median difference of Tlag between treatments and 90% CIs of the median differences were calculated from Hodges-Lehman estimate, and p-value was produced from Wilcoxon signed rank test.||0.25|0.13|0.011
91102214|NCT05287685|182091209|OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Preliminary outcome analysis for the open trial (n = 7). The analysis was a paired samples t-test comparing baseline (week 0) to posttest (week 8) scores.||||.006
91102215|NCT05287685|182091209|OTHER|||||||0.011|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Preliminary outcome analysis for the open trial (n = 7). The analysis was a paired samples t-test comparing baseline(week 0) to follow-up (week 16) scores.||||.011
91102216|NCT05287685|182091209|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA analysis for the pilot RCT, comparing the outcome variable at posttest (Week 8) between the two groups, with pretest (baseline) scores, annual household income and household size (to approximate income-to-needs ratio), caregiver education, and child externalizing behavior as covariates.||||.22
91102217|NCT05287685|182091209|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA analysis for the pilot RCT, comparing the outcome variable at follow-up (Week 16) between the two groups, with pretest (baseline) scores, annual household income and household size (to approximate income-to-needs ratio), caregiver education, and child externalizing behavior as covariates.||||.25
91102218|NCT04829214|182091210|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.9|=|0.385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.0|5.0|||Mantel Haenszel|||The percentage of responders will be compared between the two groups using the Mantel Haenszel test controlling for category of duration of tinnitus and category of baseline TFI overall score. The primary efficacy analysis will be conducted for the comparison of OTO-313 and placebo, using a 2-sided test and an alpha level of 5%. The 95% confidence intervals (CI) around the common risk difference will also be provided.||5|-26|=0.385
91102219|NCT06399471|182091215|OTHER|One-way Repeated Measures ANOVA with sphericity correction (Huynh-Feldt) applied if necessary.||||||0.126||||||One-way Repeated Measures ANOVA with sphericity correction (Huynh-Feldt) applied if necessary.|ANOVA|||An ANOVA was used to compare the Power Knee and the C-Leg 4.0 when used during Ten Meter Walking Test.||||0.126
91102220|NCT06399471|182091215|OTHER|One-way Repeated Measures ANOVA with sphericity correction (Huynh-Feldt) applied if necessary.||||||0.015|||||||ANOVA|||An ANOVA was used to compare the Power Knee and the Rheo when used during Ten Meter Walking Test.||||0.015
91102221|NCT06399471|182091215|OTHER|One-way Repeated Measures ANOVA with sphericity correction (Huynh-Feldt) applied if necessary.||||||0.852|||||||ANOVA|||An ANOVA was used to compare the Rheo and the C-Leg 4.0 when used during Ten Meter Walking Test.||||0.852
91102222|NCT06399471|182091216|OTHER|One-way Repeated Measures ANOVA with sphericity correction (Huynh-Feldt) applied if necessary||||||0.003|||||||ANOVA|||An ANOVA was used to compare the Power Knee and the C-Leg 4.0 when used during Two Meter Walking Test.||||0.003
91102223|NCT06399471|182091216|OTHER|One-way Repeated Measures ANOVA with sphericity correction (Huynh-Feldt) applied if necessary||||||0.027|||||||ANOVA|||An ANOVA was used to compare the Power Knee and the Rheo when used during Two Meter Walking Test.||||0.027
91102224|NCT06399471|182091216|OTHER|One-way Repeated Measures ANOVA with sphericity correction (Huynh-Feldt) applied if necessary||||||0.425|||||||ANOVA|||An ANOVA was used to compare the Rheo and the C-Leg 4.0 when used during Two Meter Walking Test.||||0.425
90857120|NCT00736879|181578543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1672|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.37||Tested at alpha=0.019 applying Dunnett's adjustment|ANCOVA|||||-0.37|-1.02|<0.0001
90857121|NCT00736879|181578543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1679|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.41|||ANCOVA|Tested at alpha=0.019 applying Dunnett's adjustment.||||-0.41|-1.07|<0.0001
91102225|NCT06399471|182091217|OTHER|Non-parametric Friedman's test with multiple comparison correction||||||0.006|||||||Non-parametric Friedman's test with mult|||The Non-parametric Friedman's test was used to compare the survey results between the participants using the Power Knee and the C-Leg 4.0.||||0.006
91102226|NCT06399471|182091217|OTHER|Non-parametric Friedman's test with multiple comparison correction||||||0.236|||||||Non-parametric Friedman's test with mult|||The Non-parametric Friedman's test was used to compare the survey results between the participants using the Power Knee and the Rheo.||||0.236
91102227|NCT06399471|182091217|OTHER|Non-parametric Friedman's test with multiple comparison correction||||||0.118|||||||Non-parametric Friedman's test with mult|||The Non-parametric Friedman's test was used to compare the survey results between the participants using the Rheo and the C-Leg 4.0.||||0.118
91102228|NCT06399471|182091218|OTHER|One-way Repeated Measures ANOVA with sphericity correction (Huynh-Feldt) applied if necessary.||||||0.687|||||||ANOVA|||An ANOVA was used to compare the Power Knee, the C-Leg 4.0, and the Rheo when used during Stance Time Asymmetry Index test.||||0.687
91102229|NCT06399471|182091219|OTHER|One-way Repeated Measures ANOVA with sphericity correction (Huynh-Feldt) applied if necessary.||||||0.082|||||||ANOVA|||An ANOVA was used to compare the Power Knee, the C-Leg 4.0, and Rheo when used during the Narrowing beam walking test.||||0.082
91102230|NCT06399471|182091220|OTHER|One-way Repeated Measures ANOVA with sphericity correction (Huynh-Feldt) applied if necessary.||||||0.943|||||||ANOVA|||An ANOVA was used to compare the reported falls when for when the Power Knee, C-Leg 4.0, and the Rheo were used.||||0.943
91102231|NCT06399471|182091221|OTHER|One-way Repeated Measures ANOVA with sphericity correction (Huynh-Feldt) applied if necessary.||||||0.535|||||||ANOVA|||An ANOVA was used to compare the Physiological cost index for when the Power Knee, the C-Leg 4.0, and the Rheo were used.||||0.535
90857122|NCT00736879|181578543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.171|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|-0.5|||ANCOVA|Tested at alpha=0.019 applying Dunnett's adjustment.||||-0.50|-1.17|<0.0001
90857123|NCT00736879|181578544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5481||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.81|-0.65||Test was performed at alpha=0.05.|ANCOVA|||By applying sequential testing procedure, the testing was performed since the primary endpoint was significant.||-0.65|-2.81|0.0018
90857124|NCT00736879|181578544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5474||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.76|-0.6||Test was performed at alpha=0.05.|ANCOVA|||||-0.60|-2.76|0.0024
90857125|NCT00736879|181578544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5598||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.83|-0.63||Test was performed at alpha=0.05.|ANCOVA|||||-0.63|-2.83|0.0022
90904187|NCT02819479|181675233|OTHER||eta^2|0.37||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|F(1,14) = 8.29||CHANGE IN VOLUME OF RADIATION NECROSIS: To explore durability of radiographic responses, we invoked a linear mixed model in which we addressed heterogeneity of time points by fitting the most appropriate model among compound symmetry, Huyhn-Felt structure, and an unstructured covariance matrix (multivariate analysis of variance).||||0.012
90904188|NCT02819479|181675233|OTHER||eta^2|0.19||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|F(1,14) = 3.29||CHANGE IN VOLUME OF CEREBRAL EDEMA: To explore durability of radiographic responses, we invoked a linear mixed model in which we addressed heterogeneity of time points by fitting the most appropriate model among compound symmetry, Huyhn-Felt structure, and an unstructured covariance matrix (multivariate analysis of variance).||||0.09
90904189|NCT02819479|181675234|OTHER||eta^2|0.29||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|F(5,34) = 2.74||To explore durability of clinical response, Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) TOTAL SCORES were analyzed using a linear mixed model in which we addressed heterogeneity of time points by fitting the most appropriate model among compound symmetry, Huyhn Felt structure, and an unstructured covariance matrix (multivariate analysis of variance)||||0.02
90904190|NCT02819479|181675235|OTHER||eta^2|0.37||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|F(5,34) = 3.17||To explore durability of clinical response, Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) DAYS OF HEADACHE were analyzed using a linear mixed model in which we addressed heterogeneity of time points by fitting the most appropriate model among compound symmetry, Huyhn Felt structure, and an unstructured covariance matrix (multivariate analysis of variance).||||0.019
90904191|NCT02819479|181675236|OTHER||eta^2|0.3||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|F(5,35) = 3.96||To explore durability of clinical response, Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) MIDAS PAIN LEVEL data were analyzed using a linear mixed model in which we addressed heterogeneity of time points by fitting the most appropriate model among compound symmetry, Huyhn Felt structure, and an unstructured covariance matrix (multivariate analysis of variance).||||0.0006
90904192|NCT02819479|181675237|OTHER||eta^2|0.3||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|F(5, 35) = 2.98||To explore durability of clinical response, Headache Impact Test (HIT-6™) scores were analyzed using a linear mixed model in which we addressed heterogeneity of time points by fitting the most appropriate model among compound symmetry, Huyhn-Felt structure, and an unstructured covariance matrix (multivariate analysis of variance).||||0.02
90904193|NCT02819479|181675238|OTHER||eta^2|0.19||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|F(2,14) = 1.62||To explore durability of clinical response, Karnofsky Performance Status Scale (KPS) data were analyzed using a linear mixed model in which we addressed heterogeneity of time points by fitting the most appropriate model among compound symmetry, Huyhn-Felt structure, and an unstructured covariance matrix (multivariate analysis of variance).||||0.23
90904194|NCT02819479|181675239|OTHER||Pearson's r|-0.199||||0.374|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Z = -0.889||Wilcoxon signed rank test (2-sided) was used to compare the total number of days on steroids in the 12 months prior versus the 12 months immediately following single dose IA Avastin (bevacizumab).||||0.374
91102232|NCT06399471|182091222|OTHER|One-way Repeated Measures ANOVA with sphericity correction (Huynh-Feldt) applied if necessary.||||||0.229|||||||ANOVA|||An ANOVA was used to compare the Stair Ascent Speed for the Power Knee, C-Leg 4.0, and the Rheo when used.||||0.229
90857126|NCT00736879|181578545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.859||0.0103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.7|-3.6||Test was performed at alpha=0.05.|ANCOVA|||||-3.6|-26.7|0.0103
90904195|NCT02819479|181675240|OTHER||partial eta^2|0.153||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|One way Repeat Meas ANOVA|F(2,5) = 0.451||DIGITS FORWARD: To explore post-operative change in Neurocognitive performance after intra-arterial bevacizumab, repeated measures ANOVA was performed for the DIGITS FORWARD variable across 3 time points (BL, 3 months, 12 months) where IQ was placed in the model as covariate.||||0.660
90857127|NCT00736879|181578545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.816|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.2|-14.3||Test was performed at alpha=0.05.|ANCOVA|||||-14.3|-37.2|<0.0001
91102233|NCT06399471|182091223|OTHER|One-way Repeated Measures ANOVA with sphericity correction (Huynh-Feldt) applied if necessary.||||||0.528|||||||ANOVA|||An ANOVA was used to compare the Stair Descent Speed for the Power Knee, C-Leg 4.0, and the Rheo when used.||||0.528
91102234|NCT06399471|182091224|OTHER|One-way Repeated Measures ANOVA with sphericity correction (Huynh-Feldt) applied if necessary.||||||0.144|||||||ANOVA|||An ANOVA was used to compare the Ramp Ascent Speed between the Power Knee and the C-Leg 4.0.||||0.144
91102235|NCT06399471|182091224|OTHER|One-way Repeated Measures ANOVA with sphericity correction (Huynh-Feldt) applied if necessary.||||||0.024|||||||ANOVA|||An ANOVA was used to compare the Ramp Ascent Speed between the Power Knee and the Rheo.||||0.024
90857128|NCT00736879|181578545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-32.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.962|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.3|-20.8||Test was performed at alpha=0.05.|ANCOVA|||||-20.8|-44.3|<0.0001
90857129|NCT00736879|181578546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-42.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.8681|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.56|-24.61||Test was performed at alpha=0.05.|ANCOVA|||||-24.61|-59.56|<0.0001
90857130|NCT00736879|181578546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-48.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.1963|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.27|-30.03||Test was performed at alpha=0.05.|ANCOVA|||||-30.03|-66.27|<0.0001
90857131|NCT00736879|181578546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-60.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.1796|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.67|-42.5||Test was performed at alpha=0.05.|ANCOVA|||||-42.50|-78.67|<0.0001
90857132|NCT00736879|181578547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|18.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.38||0.0157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.6|34.3||Test was performed at alpha=0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression based on the methodology of Zhang, Tsiatis and Davidian and Tsiatis, Davidian, Zhang and Lu, with adjustment for baseline HbA1c.||The probability of response was modeled using a logistic regression model with baseline HbA1c as the covariate. Treatment group estimates of response rate were then obtained by integrating each group's modeled probability of response over the observed distribution of baseline covariate (combined across groups).||34.3|3.6|0.0157
90904196|NCT02819479|181675240|OTHER||partial eta^2|0.602||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|One way Repeat Meas ANOVA|F(2,5) = 3.78||DIGITS BACKWARD: To explore post-operative change in Neurocognitive performance after intra-arterial bevacizumab, repeated measures ANOVA was performed for the DIGITS BACKWARD variable across 3 time points (BL, 3 months, 12 months) where IQ was placed in the model as covariate.||||0.100
90904197|NCT02819479|181675240|OTHER||partial eta^2|0.532||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|One way Repeat Meas ANOVA|F(2,5) = 2.847||NUMBERS \& LETTERS SPEED: To explore post-operative change in Neurocognitive performance after intra-arterial bevacizumab, repeated measures ANOVA was performed for the NUMBERS \& LETTERS SPEED variable across 3 time points (BL, 3 months, 12 months) where IQ was placed in the model as covariate.||||0.149
90904198|NCT02819479|181675240|OTHER||partial eta^2|0.721||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|One way Repeat Meas ANOVA|F(2,5) = 6.470||NUMBERS \& LETTERS ERRORS: To explore post-operative change in Neurocognitive performance after intra-arterial bevacizumab, repeated measures ANOVA was performed for the NUMBERS \& LETTERS ERRORS variable across 3 time points (BL, 3 months, 12 months) where IQ was placed in the model as covariate.||||0.041
90904199|NCT02819479|181675240|OTHER||partial eta^2|0.566||||0.124|TWO_SIDED||||||One way Repeat Meas ANOVA|F (2,5) = 3.256||NUMBERS \& LETTERS EFFICIENCY: To explore post-operative change in Neurocognitive performance after intra-arterial bevacizumab, repeated measures ANOVA was performed for the NUMBERS \& LETTERS EFFICIENCY variable across 3 time points (BL, 3 months, 12 months) where IQ was placed in the model as covariate.||||0.124
90904200|NCT02819479|181675240|OTHER||partial eta^2|0.042||||0.898|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|One way Repeat Meas ANOVA|F(2,5) = 0.110||NAMING: To explore post-operative change in Neurocognitive performance after intra-arterial bevacizumab, repeated measures ANOVA was performed for the NAMING variable across 3 time points (BL, 3 months, 12 months) where IQ was placed in the model as covariate.||||0.898
90904201|NCT02819479|181675240|OTHER||partial eta^2|0.107||||0.754|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|One way Repeat Meas ANOVA|F(2,5) = 0.299||LIST LEARNING LIST IMMEDIATE RECALL: To explore post-operative change in Neurocognitive performance after intra-arterial bevacizumab, repeated measures ANOVA was performed for the LIST LEARNING LIST IMMEDIATE RECALL variable across 3 time points (BL, 3 months, 12 months) where IQ was placed in the model as covariate.||||0.754
90904202|NCT02819479|181675240|OTHER||partial eta^2|0.751||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|One way Repeat Meas ANOVA|F(2,5) = 7.556||LIST LEARNING LIST LONG DELAYED RECALL: To explore post-operative change in Neurocognitive performance after intra-arterial bevacizumab, repeated measures ANOVA was performed for the LIST LEARNING LIST LONG DELAYED RECALL variable across 3 time points (BL, 3 months, 12 months) where IQ was placed in the model as covariate.||||0.031
90958654|NCT01049217|181797007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.807||0.8569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|1.73|||ANCOVA|||Change at Endpoint, Ph C: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||1.73|-1.44|0.8569
91031704|NCT01691248|181948044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage difference|1.9||||0.3091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|9.2||1-sided Wald test for a difference in proportions using an unpooled estimate of variance.|One-sided Wald p-value||Placebo minus Fidaxomicin|||9.2|-5.5|0.3091
90904203|NCT02819479|181675240|OTHER||partial eta^2|0.289||||0.426|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|One way Repeat Meas ANOVA|F(2,5) = 1.018||SHAPE LEARNING IMMEDIATE RECOGNITION: To explore post-operative change in Neurocognitive performance after intra-arterial bevacizumab, repeated measures ANOVA was performed for the SHAPE LEARNING IMMEDIATE RECOGNITION variable across 3 time points (BL, 3 months, 12 months) where IQ was placed in the model as covariate.||||0.426
90904204|NCT02819479|181675240|OTHER||partial eta^2|0.361||||0.326|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|One way Repeat Meas ANOVA|F(2,5) = 1.412||SHAPE LEARNING DELAYED RECOGNITION: To explore post-operative change in Neurocognitive performance after intra-arterial bevacizumab, repeated measures ANOVA was performed for the SHAPE LEARNING DELAYED RECOGNITION variable across 3 time points (BL, 3 months, 12 months) where IQ was placed in the model as covariate.||||0.326
90904205|NCT02819479|181675240|OTHER||partial eta^2|0.09||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|One way Repeat Meas ANOVA|F(2,5) = 0.247||STORY LEARNING PHRASE UNIT IMMEDIATE RECALL: To explore post-operative change in Neurocognitive performance after intra-arterial bevacizumab, repeated measures ANOVA was performed for the STORY LEARNING PHRASE UNIT IMMEDIATE RECALL variable across 3 time points (BL, 3 months, 12 months) where IQ was placed in the model as covariate.||||0.790
90904206|NCT02819479|181675240|OTHER||partial eta^2|0.239||||0.505|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|One way Repeat Meas ANOVA|F(2,5) = 0.786||STORY LEARNING PHRASE UNIT DELAYED RECALL: To explore post-operative change in Neurocognitive performance after intra-arterial bevacizumab, repeated measures ANOVA was performed for the STORY LEARNING PHRASE UNIT DELAYED RECALL variable across 3 time points (BL, 3 months, 12 months) where IQ was placed in the model as covariate.||||0.505
90958655|NCT01049217|181797007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.847||0.4734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.96|2.31|||ANCOVA|||Change at Endpoint, Vit: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||2.31|-4.96|0.4734
90904207|NCT02819479|181675240|OTHER||partial eta^2|0.636||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|One way Repeat Meas ANOVA|F(2,5) = 4.362||DESIGN CONSTRUCTION: To explore post-operative change in Neurocognitive performance after intra-arterial bevacizumab, repeated measures ANOVA was performed for the DESIGN CONSTRUCTION variable across 3 time points (BL, 3 months, 12 months) where IQ was placed in the model as covariate.||||0.080
90904208|NCT02819479|181675240|OTHER||partial eta^2|0.693||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|One way Repeat Meas ANOVA|F(2,5) = 5.654||MAZES: To explore post-operative change in Neurocognitive performance after intra-arterial bevacizumab, repeated measures ANOVA was performed for the MAZES variable across 3 time points (BL, 3 months, 12 months) where IQ was placed in the model as covariate.||||0.052
91031705|NCT00705536|181948070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog alone and Humalog + rHuPH20 using a pairwise t-test.|ANOVA|||||||0.0006
91031706|NCT00705536|181948070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||||||Treatment comparison of Humulin-R alone and Humulin-R + rHuPH20 using a pairwise t-test.|ANOVA|||||||0.0002
90857133|NCT00736879|181578547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|8.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.65||0.2512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|23.8||Test was performed at alpha=0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression based on the methodology of Zhang, Tsiatis and Davidian and Tsiatis, Davidian, Zhang and Lu, with adjustment for baseline HbA1c||The probability of response was modeled using a logistic regression model with baseline HbA1c as the covariate. Treatment group estimates of response rate were then obtained by integrating each group's modeled probability of response over the observed distribution of baseline covariate (combined across groups).||23.8|-6.2|0.2512
90857134|NCT00736879|181578547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|14.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.069||0.0726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|30.3||Test was performed at alpha=0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression based on the methodology of Zhang, Tsiatis and Davidian and Tsiatis, Davidian, Zhang and Lu, with adjustment for baseline HbA1c||The probability of response was modeled using a logistic regression model with baseline HbA1c as the covariate. Treatment group estimates of response rate were then obtained by integrating each group's modeled probability of response over the observed distribution of baseline covariate (combined across groups).||30.3|-1.3|0.0726
90857135|NCT00736879|181578548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7954||0.3163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.37|0.77||Test was performed at alpha=0.05.|ANCOVA|||||0.77|-2.37|0.3163
90857136|NCT00736879|181578548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8154|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|0.99|||ANCOVA|||Following a sequential testing procedure, this comparison was not statistically tested, ie, the previous comparison did not meet the criterion for statistical significance.||0.99|-2.22|
90857137|NCT00736879|181578548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8238|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|0.16|||ANCOVA|||Following a sequential testing procedure, this comparison was not statistically tested, ie, the previous comparison did not meet the criterion for statistical significance.||0.16|-3.09|
90857138|NCT03880461|181578575|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.014
90857139|NCT03880461|181578576|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
90857140|NCT03880461|181578577|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.108|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.108
90857141|NCT02652767|181578600|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.012||||0.889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.182|0.158|||ANCOVA|||A mixed model of analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used with change from baseline at Week 48 as the response, and participants, eyes of the participant as random factor, treatment and baseline LogMAR value as covariates in the model. P-value is used to assess the significance of the difference between All-GS010 and All-Sham with respect to change of LogMAR from baseline.||0.158|-0.182|0.8890
90904209|NCT02819479|181675240|OTHER||partial eta^2|0.013||||0.968|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|One way Repeat Meas ANOVA|F(2,5) = 0.033||CATEGORIES: To explore post-operative change in Neurocognitive performance after intra-arterial bevacizumab, repeated measures ANOVA was performed for the CATEGORIES variable across 3 time points (BL, 3 months, 12 months) where IQ was placed in the model as covariate.||||0.968
90904210|NCT02819479|181675240|OTHER||partial eta^2|0.261||||0.469|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|One way Repeat Meas ANOVA|F(2,5) = 0.884||WORD GENERATION: To explore post-operative change in Neurocognitive performance after intra-arterial bevacizumab, repeated measures ANOVA was performed for the WORD GENERATION variable across 3 time points (BL, 3 months, 12 months) where IQ was placed in the model as covariate.||||0.469
90958656|NCT01049217|181797007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.159||0.3625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.22|2.28|||ANCOVA|||Change at Endpoint, So Fn: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||2.28|-6.22|0.3625
91031707|NCT00705536|181948071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog alone and Humalog + rHuPH20 using a pairwise t-test.|ANOVA|||||||0.0003
91031708|NCT00705536|181948071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Treatment comparison of Humulin-R alone and Humulin-R + rHuPH20 using a pairwise t-test.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91031709|NCT00705536|181948072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0059||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog alone and Humalog + rHuPH20 using a pairwise t-test.|ANOVA|||||||0.0059
90857142|NCT02393690|181578650|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0787|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0787
90857143|NCT02393690|181578651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0787|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0787
90857144|NCT02393690|181578652|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1764|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.1764
90857145|NCT02393690|181578653|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0756|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0756
90857146|NCT05298306|181578657|SUPERIORITY|No formal sample size estimation was undertaken due to the exploratory nature of the study. Analysis was based a mixed model repeated measures model, with fixed-effects including treatment, time point and period factors. Baseline was included as a covariate. Random effects for participants and participant by period were also included.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.25||||0.5196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|0.52||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made due to the exploratory nature of the study|Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is LAT8881 minus placebo|Change from baseline VAS score at 0.25 hours||0.52|-1.02|0.5196
90904211|NCT02718417|181675241|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.43||||0.989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.051|1.946||One-sided log-rank test was used.|Log Rank|Analysis was performed using a Cox's Proportional Hazard model stratified by the randomization strata and a stratified log-rank test.||||1.946|1.051|0.9890
91031710|NCT00705536|181948072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0105||||||Treatment comparison of Humulin-R alone and Humulin-R + rHuPH20 using a pairwise t-test.|ANOVA|||||||0.0105
91031711|NCT00705536|181948073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||||||Treatment comparison for Humalog alone and Humalog + rHuPH20 using a pairwise t-test.|ANOVA|||||||0.0002
91031712|NCT00705536|181948073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Treatment comparison of Humulin-R alone and Humulin-R + rHuPH20 using a pairwise t-test.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91031713|NCT00705536|181948074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3019||||||Treatment comparison for Humalog alone and Humalog + rHuPH20 using a pairwise t-test.|ANOVA|||||||0.3019
91031714|NCT00705536|181948075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0401||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog alone and Humalog + rHuPH20 using a pairwise t-test.|ANOVA|||||||0.0401
91031715|NCT00705536|181948075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004||||||Treatment comparison of Humulin-R alone and Humulin-R + rHuPH20 using a pairwise t-test.|ANOVA|||||||0.0004
91031716|NCT00705536|181948076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog alone and Humalog +rHuPH20 using a pairwise t-test.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91031717|NCT00705536|181948076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Treatment comparison of Humulin-R alone and Humulin-R + rHuPH20 using a pairwise t-test.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91031718|NCT00705536|181948078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5589||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog alone and Humalog + rHuPH20 using a pairwise t-test.|ANOVA|||||||0.5589
90857147|NCT05298306|181578657|SUPERIORITY|No formal sample size estimation was undertaken due to the exploratory nature of the study. Analysis was based a mixed model repeated measures model, with fixed-effects including treatment, time point and period factors. Baseline was included as a covariate. Random effects for participants and participant by period were also included.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.32||||0.3983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|0.44||No adjustment for multiple comparisons has been made due to the exploratory nature of the study|Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is LAT8881 minus placebo|Change in VAS score from baseline at 0.5 hours||0.44|-1.09|0.3983
90857148|NCT05298306|181578657|SUPERIORITY|No formal sample size estimation was undertaken due to the exploratory nature of the study. Analysis was based a mixed model repeated measures model, with fixed-effects including treatment, time point and period factors. Baseline was included as a covariate. Random effects for participants and participant by period were also included.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.26||||0.489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|0.5||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made due to the exploratory nature of the study|Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is LAT8881 minus placebo|Change from baseline VAS score at 0.75 hours||0.5|-1.03|0.4890
90857149|NCT05298306|181578657|SUPERIORITY|No formal sample size estimation was undertaken due to the exploratory nature of the study. Analysis was based a mixed model repeated measures model, with fixed-effects including treatment, time point and period factors. Baseline was included as a covariate. Random effects for participants and participant by period were also included.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.21||||0.5903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|0.56||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made due to the exploratory nature of the study|Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is LAT8881 minus placebo|Change from baseline VAS score at 1 hour||0.56|-0.97|0.5903
90857150|NCT05298306|181578657|SUPERIORITY|No formal sample size estimation was undertaken due to the exploratory nature of the study. Analysis was based a mixed model repeated measures model, with fixed-effects including treatment, time point and period factors. Baseline was included as a covariate. Random effects for participants and participant by period were also included.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13||||0.7352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.64||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made due to the exploratory nature of the study.|Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is LAT8881 minus placebo.|Change from baseline VAS score at 1.5 hours||0.64|-0.90|0.7352
90857151|NCT05298306|181578657|SUPERIORITY|No formal sample size estimation was undertaken due to the exploratory nature of the study. Analysis was based a mixed model repeated measures model, with fixed-effects including treatment, time point and period factors. Baseline was included as a covariate. Random effects for participants and participant by period were also included.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15||||0.6892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.61||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made due to the exploratory nature of the study.|Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is LAT8881 minus placebo.|Change from baseline VAS score at 2 hours||0.61|-0.92|0.6892
90857152|NCT05298306|181578657|SUPERIORITY|No formal sample size estimation was undertaken due to the exploratory nature of the study. Analysis was based a mixed model repeated measures model, with fixed-effects including treatment, time point and period factors. Baseline was included as a covariate. Random effects for participants and participant by period were also included.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.9767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.76||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made due to the exploratory nature of the study.|Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is LAT8881 minus placebo.|Change from baseline VAS score at 2.5 hours||0.76|-0.78|0.9767
90857153|NCT05298306|181578657|SUPERIORITY|No formal sample size estimation was undertaken due to the exploratory nature of the study. Analysis was based a mixed model repeated measures model, with fixed-effects including treatment, time point and period factors. Baseline was included as a covariate. Random effects for participants and participant by period were also included.|Median Difference (Net)|0.32||||0.3964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|1.09||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made due to the exploratory nature of the study.|Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is LAT8881 minus placebo.|Change from baseline VAS score at 3 hours||1.09|-0.44|0.3964
90857154|NCT05298306|181578657|SUPERIORITY|No formal sample size estimation was undertaken due to the exploratory nature of the study. Analysis was based a mixed model repeated measures model, with fixed-effects including treatment, time point and period factors. Baseline was included as a covariate. Random effects for participants and participant by period were also included.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.22||||0.5669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.98||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made due to the exploratory nature of the study.|Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is LAT8881 minus placebo.|Change from baseline VAS score at 3.5 hours||0.98|-0.55|0.5669
90857155|NCT05298306|181578657|SUPERIORITY|No formal sample size estimation was undertaken due to the exploratory nature of the study. Analysis was based a mixed model repeated measures model, with fixed-effects including treatment, time point and period factors. Baseline was included as a covariate. Random effects for participants and participant by period were also included.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15||||0.7006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.62||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made due to the exploratory nature of the study.|Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is LAT8881 minus placebo.|Change from baseline VAS score at 4 hours||0.62|-0.91|0.7006
90857156|NCT05298306|181578657|SUPERIORITY|No formal sample size estimation was undertaken due to the exploratory nature of the study. Analysis was based a mixed model repeated measures model, with fixed-effects including treatment, time point and period factors. Baseline was included as a covariate. Random effects for participants and participant by period were also included.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.67||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made due to the exploratory nature of the study.|Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is LAT8881 minus placebo.|Change from baseline VAS score at 5 hours||0.67|-0.87|0.7940
91031719|NCT00705536|181948078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0067||||||Treatment comparison of Humulin-R alone and Humulin-R + rHuPH20 using a pairwise t-test.|ANOVA|||||||0.0067
91031720|NCT00840632|181948144|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of Least Squares Means|93.26||||||90.0|83.39|104.31|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||104.31|83.39|
91102236|NCT06399471|182091224|OTHER|One-way Repeated Measures ANOVA with sphericity correction (Huynh-Feldt) applied if necessary.||||||0.949|||||||ANOVA|||An ANOVA was used to compare the Ramp Ascent Speed between the Rheo and the C-Leg 4.0.||||0.949
90857157|NCT05298306|181578657|SUPERIORITY|No formal sample size estimation was undertaken due to the exploratory nature of the study. Analysis was based a mixed model repeated measures model, with fixed-effects including treatment, time point and period factors. Baseline was included as a covariate. Random effects for participants and participant by period were also included.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15||||0.6892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made due to the exploratory nature of the study.||Change from baseline VAS score at 6 hours|Difference is LAT8881 minus placebo.|0.61|-0.92|0.6892
90857158|NCT00144027|181578675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.57||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|47.53|||Regression, Logistic|logistic regression predicting 6-month adherence, controling for baseline depression, extrapyramidal side effects, and baseline adherence.||||47.53|1.21|0.03
90857159|NCT00910988|181578690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||This p-value corresponds to the two way interaction between time and order and is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is alpha equal to 0.05. There was no 3 way interaction.|ANCOVA|Repeated measures ANCOVA with time as the repeated measure, drug assignment as a fixed factor, and order as a fixed factor.||The hypothesis being tested is whether there is a significant effect of one or both antipsychotics on whole body insulin sensitivity. Sample size was calculated using power calculations to detect significant effects of treatment on insulin sensitivity. Drug assignment is a 2-level fixed factor (olanzapine vs ziprasidone) as is order (drug first vs placebo first). Baseline of the dependent variable as well as baseline DEXA total fat were entered into the model as covariates.||||0.001
90857160|NCT00910988|181578693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||This p-value corresponds to the 3 way interaction between time, drug (olanzapine vs ziprasidone), and order (drug first vs placebo first) and is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis is that olanzapine and ziprasidone would result in acute decreases in insulin sensitivity compared to placebo at adipose tissue, which was measured by evaluating the rate of appearance of labeled glycerol. The alternative hypothesis is that olanzapine, but not ziprasidone, would result in acute decreases in insulin sensitivity compared to placebo at adipose tissue.||||0.57
90857161|NCT02766465|181578695|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This is the result comparing severe vaso-occlusive pain (VOC) with hospitalization or parenteral opioid drugs in outpatient setting between two biologically assigned arms during the first year after biologic assignment. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in biologically assigned arms during the first year after assignment.||||<0.001
90857162|NCT02766465|181578695|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This is the result comparing significant cerebrovascular event between two biologically assigned arms during the first year after biologic assignment. Significant cerebrovascular event includes stroke, transient ischemic attack, and seizure. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in biologically assigned arms during the first year after assignment.||||0.027
90857163|NCT02766465|181578695|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This is the result comparing severe Vaso-occlusive pain (VOC) with hospitalization or parenteral opioid drugs in outpatient setting between two biologically assigned arms during the second year after biologic assignment. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in biologically assigned arms during the second year after assignment.||||< 0.001
90857164|NCT02766465|181578696|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.869||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This is the result comparing 6MWD from 2 years after biologic assignment to baseline between two biologically assigned arms. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between biologically assigned arms||||0.869
90857165|NCT02766465|181578697|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.636||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This is the result comparing TRJV from 2 years after biologic assignment to baseline between two biologically assigned arms. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between biologically assigned arms||||0.636
90857166|NCT02766465|181578699|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.242||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This is the result comparing Physical Function changes from 2 years after biologic assignment to baseline between two biologically assigned arms. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between biologically assigned arms||||0.242
90857167|NCT02766465|181578700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.343||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This is the result comparing Anxiety changes from 2 years after biologic assignment to baseline between two biologically assigned arms. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between biologically assigned arms||||0.343
90857168|NCT02766465|181578701|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.491||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This is the result comparing Depression changes from 2 years after biologic assignment to baseline between two biologically assigned arms. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between biologically assigned arms||||0.491
90857169|NCT02766465|181578702|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This is the result comparing fatigue score changes from 2 years after biologic assignment to baseline between two biologically assigned arms. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between biologically assigned arms||||0.003
90904212|NCT02718417|181675241|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.7935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.832|1.565||One-sided log-rank test was used.|Log Rank|Analysis was performed using a Cox's Proportional Hazard model stratified by the randomization strata and a stratified log-rank test.||||1.565|0.832|0.7935
90904213|NCT02718417|181675242|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.53||||0.8848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|3.08||One-sided log-rank test was used.|Log Rank|Analysis was performed using a Cox's Proportional Hazard model stratified by the randomization strata and a stratified log-rank test.||||3.080|0.760|0.8848
90904214|NCT02718417|181675242|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.55||||0.8953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.776|3.111||One-sided log-rank test was used.|Log Rank|Analysis was performed using a Cox's Proportional Hazard model stratified by the randomization strata and a stratified log-rank test.||||3.111|0.776|0.8953
90904215|NCT02718417|181675243|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.21||||0.9278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.935|1.578||One-sided log-rank test was used.|Log Rank|||||1.578|0.935|0.9278
90857170|NCT02766465|181578703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.594||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This is the result comparing Sleep Disturbance changes from 2 years after biologic assignment to baseline between two biologically assigned arms. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between biologically assigned arms||||0.594
90857171|NCT02766465|181578704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This is the result comparing social roles score changes from 2 years after biologic assignment to baseline between two biologically assigned arms. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between biologically assigned arms||||0.003
90857172|NCT02766465|181578705|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.071||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This is the result comparing pain interference score changes from 2 years after biologic assignment to baseline between two biologically assigned arms. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between biologically assigned arms||||0.071
90857173|NCT02766465|181578706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.146||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This is the result comparing Pain Intensity changes from 2 years after biologic assignment to baseline between two biologically assigned arms. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between biologically assigned arms||||0.146
90857174|NCT02766465|181578707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.649||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This is the result comparing 28-Day Pain Diary Average Pain Intensity changes from 2 years after biologic assignment to baseline between two biologically assigned arms. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between biologically assigned arms||||0.649
90857175|NCT02766465|181578708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.207||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This is the result comparing ASCQ-Me Stiffness changes from 2 years after biologic assignment to baseline between two biologically assigned arms. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between biologically assigned arms||||0.207
90857176|NCT02766465|181578709|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.596||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This is the result comparing FEV1 changes from 2 years after biologic assignment to baseline between two biologically assigned arms. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between biologically assigned arms||||0.596
90857177|NCT02766465|181578710|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.684||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This is the result comparing FVC changes from 2 years after biologic assignment to baseline between two biologically assigned arms. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between biologically assigned arms||||0.684
90857178|NCT02766465|181578711|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.863||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This is the result comparing FEV1/FVC changes from 2 years after biologic assignment to baseline between two biologically assigned arms. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between biologically assigned arms||||0.863
90904216|NCT02718417|181675243|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.2367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.688|1.189||One-sided log-rank test was used.|Log Rank|||||1.189|0.688|0.2367
90904217|NCT05199233|181675331|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|The mean change from baseline was compared to zero using a one-sample t-test.||||||<0.001
90857179|NCT02766465|181578712|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.455||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This is the result comparing VC changes from 2 years after biologic assignment to baseline between two biologically assigned arms. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between biologically assigned arms||||0.455
90857180|NCT02766465|181578713|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.767||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This is the result comparing TLC changes from 2 years after biologic assignment to baseline between two biologically assigned arms. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between biologically assigned arms||||0.767
90857181|NCT02766465|181578714|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.241||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This is the result comparing RV changes from 2 years after biologic assignment to baseline between two biologically assigned arms. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between biologically assigned arms||||0.241
90857182|NCT02766465|181578715|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.268||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This is the result comparing ERV changes from 2 years after biologic assignment to baseline between two biologically assigned arms. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between biologically assigned arms||||0.268
90857183|NCT02766465|181578716|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This is the result comparing IC changes from 2 years after biologic assignment to baseline between two biologically assigned arms. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between biologically assigned arms||||>0.999
90857184|NCT02766465|181578717|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.832||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This is the result comparing FRC changes from 2 years after biologic assignment to baseline between two biologically assigned arms. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between biologically assigned arms||||0.832
90857185|NCT02766465|181578718|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This is the result comparing DLCO changes from 2 years after biologic assignment to baseline between two biologically assigned arms. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between biologically assigned arms||||0.370
90904218|NCT05199233|181675332|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|The mean change from baseline was compared to zero using a one-sample t-test.||||||<0.001
90904219|NCT00688259|181675336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.30
90904220|NCT00688259|181675337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.09|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.09
90904221|NCT00688259|181675338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.46|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.46
90904222|NCT00688259|181675339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.55|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.55
90904223|NCT00688259|181675340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.50
90904224|NCT00688259|181675341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.25|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.25
90904225|NCT02144519|181675369|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.88||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|3.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.00|1.18|0.008
90904226|NCT02144519|181675370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.8||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|9.95|||Regression, Logistic|||||9.95|1.45|0.003
91102237|NCT06399471|182091225|OTHER|One-way Repeated Measures ANOVA with sphericity correction (Huynh-Feldt) applied if necessary||||||0.051|||||||ANOVA|||An ANOVA was used to compare the Ramp Descent Speed for the Power Knee, C-Leg 4.0, and the Rheo when used.||||0.051
91102238|NCT06399471|182091226|OTHER|One-way Repeated Measures ANOVA with sphericity correction (Huynh-Feldt) applied if necessary||||||0.367|||||||ANOVA|||An ANOVA was used to compare the Steps per Day for the Power Knee, C-Leg 4.0, and the Rheo when used.||||0.367
90857186|NCT02766465|181578719|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.094||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05;|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This is the result comparing oxygen saturation changes from 2 years after biologic assignment to baseline between two biologically assigned arms. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between biologically assigned arms||||0.094
90857187|NCT02766465|181578721|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.313||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of grade II-IV acute GVHD in patients who received different donor type at transplant||||0.313
90857188|NCT02766465|181578722|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.233||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of chronic GVHD in patients who received different donor type at transplant||||0.233
90857189|NCT01907100|181578724|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.555||||0.0174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.907|||Proportional hazards mode||Hazard ratio, confidence interval and p-value obtained from proportional hazards model stratified by tumour histology (epithelioid vs. biphasic).|Phase II Part||0.907|0.340|0.0174
90857190|NCT01907100|181578724|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.3||one-sided p-value|Proportional hazards model||Hazard ratio, confidence interval and p-value obtained from a non-stratified proportional hazards model.|"Phase III part:~A Cox proportional hazards model was fitted to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the comparison of treatment arms (Nintedanib vs Placebo).~If the hazard ratio is below 1 then it favours nintedanib."||1.30|0.79|0.5430
90857191|NCT01907100|181578725|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.782||||0.4132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.433|1.412|||Proportional hazards mode||Hazard ratio, confidence interval and p-value obtained from proportional hazards model stratified by tumour histology (epithelioid vs. biphasic).|Phase II||1.412|0.433|0.4132
90857192|NCT01907100|181578725|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.7306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.58||one-sided p-value|Proportional hazards model||Hazard ratio, confidence interval and p-value obtained from a non-stratified proportional hazards model.|"Phase III:~A Cox proportional hazards model was fitted to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the comparison of treatment arms (Nintedanib vs Placebo).~If the hazard ratio is below 1 then it favours nintedanib."||1.58|0.79|0.7306
90857193|NCT01907100|181578726|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.3189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.58||one-sided p-value|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio and one-sided p-value are obtained from an un-adjusted logistic regression model (Nintedanib vs Placebo).|Odds ratio above 1 favours nintedanib.||Exact 95% CI by Clopper and Pearson.|1.58|0.76|0.3189
90904227|NCT01058863|181675399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.42||Significance at the 0.05 level.|ANOVA|Fixed effects of baseline FEV1 as a covariate, sequence, treatment group, period, and center, and random effect for subject within sequence.||Of interest was the mean difference between each active group and placebo at each dose level. Analyses were performed at the 2-sided 0.05 significance level in this sequence: Albuterol Spiromax 180 mcg versus placebo; Albuterol Spiromax 90 mcg versus placebo, ProAir HFA 180 mcg versus placebo, and ProAir HFA 90 mcg versus placebo. If a test was not significant, no further tests were done. This sequential procedure preserved the error rate for the family of tests at the 0.05 level.||1.42|0.88|<0.0001
90904228|NCT01058863|181675399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.24||Significance at the 0.05 level.|ANOVA|Fixed effects of baseline FEV1 as a covariate, sequence, treatment group, period, and center, and random effect for subject within sequence.||Of interest was the mean difference between each active group and placebo at each dose level. Analyses were performed at the 2-sided 0.05 significance level in this sequence: Albuterol Spiromax 180 mcg versus placebo; Albuterol Spiromax 90 mcg versus placebo, ProAir HFA 180 mcg versus placebo, and ProAir HFA 90 mcg versus placebo. If a test was not significant, no further tests were done. This sequential procedure preserved the error rate for the family of tests at the 0.05 level.||1.24|0.70|<0.0001
90904229|NCT01058863|181675399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.35||Significance at the 0.05 level.|ANOVA|Fixed effects of baseline FEV1 as a covariate, sequence, treatment group, period, and center, and random effect for subject within sequence.||Of interest was the mean difference between each active group and placebo at each dose level. Analyses were performed at the 2-sided 0.05 significance level in this sequence: Albuterol Spiromax 180 mcg versus placebo; Albuterol Spiromax 90 mcg versus placebo, ProAir HFA 180 mcg versus placebo, and ProAir HFA 90 mcg versus placebo. If a test was not significant, no further tests were done. This sequential procedure preserved the error rate for the family of tests at the 0.05 level..||1.35|0.81|<0.0001
90958657|NCT01049217|181797007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|2.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.543||0.2736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|7.79|||ANCOVA|||Change at Endpoint, R-E: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||7.79|-2.21|0.2736
91102239|NCT02046200|182091239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0563|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0563
91102240|NCT02046200|182091240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0342|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0342
91102241|NCT02046200|182091241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1597|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.1597
91102242|NCT02046200|182091242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7617|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.7617
91102243|NCT02046200|182091243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.93
91102244|NCT02046200|182091244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.95
91102245|NCT02046200|182091245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.43
91102246|NCT02046200|182091246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.06
90857194|NCT01907100|181578727|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.7512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.55||one-sided p-value|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio and one-sided p-value are obtained from an un-adjusted logistic regression model (Nintedanib vs Placebo).|Odds ratio above 1 favours nintedanib.|||1.55|0.40|0.7512
91102247|NCT02046200|182091247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.21
91102248|NCT02046200|182091248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.09
91102249|NCT02046200|182091249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.99
91102250|NCT01691482|182091256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|0.058|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0046||||95.0|0.049|0.067|||||Treatment: A/S alone. A mixed model analysis, with period, treatment (A+I, I+A, Albuterol alone, Ipratropium alone), FEV1 Baseline, smoking status at Screening, and center fitted as fixed effects and participant as a random effect was used.|||0.067|0.049|
91102251|NCT01691482|182091256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|0.071|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0046||||95.0|0.062|0.08|||||Treatment: ipratropium alone. A mixed model analysis, with period, treatment (A+I, I+A, Albuterol alone, Ipratropium alone), FEV1 Baseline, smoking status at Screening, and center fitted as fixed effects and participant as a random effect was used.|||0.080|0.062|
91102252|NCT01691482|182091256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|0.053|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0046||||95.0|0.044|0.062|||||Treatment: A+I. A mixed model analysis, with period, treatment (A+I, I+A, Albuterol alone, Ipratropium alone), FEV1 Baseline, smoking status at Screening, and center fitted as fixed effects and participant as a random effect was used.|||0.062|0.044|
91102253|NCT01691482|182091256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.062|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0046||||95.0|0.053|0.071|||||Treatment: I+A. A mixed model analysis, with period, treatment (A+I, I+A, Albuterol alone, Ipratropium alone), FEV1 Baseline, smoking status at Screening, and center fitted as fixed effects and participant as a random effect was used.|||0.071|0.053|
91102254|NCT01691482|182091260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|0.058|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0046||||95.0|0.049|0.067|||||Treatment: A/S alone. A mixed model analysis, with period, treatment (A+I, I+A, Albuterol alone, Ipratropium alone), FEV1 Baseline, smoking status at Screening, and center fitted as fixed effects and participant as a random effect was used.|||0.067|0.049|
91102255|NCT01691482|182091260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|0.071|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0046||||95.0|0.062|0.08|||||Treatment: ipratropium alone. A mixed model analysis, with period, treatment (A+I, I+A, Albuterol alone, Ipratropium alone), FEV1 Baseline, smoking status at Screening, and center fitted as fixed effects and participant as a random effect was used.|||0.080|0.062|
91102256|NCT01691482|182091260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|0.053|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0046||||95.0|0.044|0.062|||||Treatment: A+I. A mixed model analysis, with period, treatment (A+I, I+A, Albuterol alone, Ipratropium alone), FEV1 Baseline, smoking status at Screening, and center fitted as fixed effects and participant as a random effect was used.|||0.062|0.044|
91102257|NCT01691482|182091260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|0.062||||||95.0|0.053|0.071|||||Treatment: I+A. A mixed model analysis, with period, treatment (A+I, I+A, Albuterol alone, Ipratropium alone), FEV1 Baseline, smoking status at Screening, and center fitted as fixed effects and participant as a random effect was used.|||0.071|0.053|
91102258|NCT01691482|182091261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|0.067|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0045||||95.0|0.058|0.076|||||Treatment: A/S alone. A mixed model analysis, with period, treatment (A+I, I+A, Albuterol alone, Ipratropium alone), IC Baseline, smoking status at Screening, and center fitted as fixed effects and participant as a random effect was used.|||0.076|0.058|
91102259|NCT01691482|182091261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0045||||95.0|0.061|0.079|||||Treatment: ipratropium alone. A mixed model analysis, with period, treatment (A+I, I+A, Albuterol alone, Ipratropium alone), IC Baseline, smoking status at Screening, and center fitted as fixed effects and participant as a random effect was used.|||0.079|0.061|
91102260|NCT01691482|182091261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|0.069|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0045||||95.0|0.06|0.078|||||Treatment: A+I. A mixed model analysis, with period, treatment (A+I, I+A, Albuterol alone, Ipratropium alone), IC Baseline, smoking status at Screening, and center fitted as fixed effects and participant as a random effect was used.|||0.078|0.060|
91102261|NCT01691482|182091261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|0.064|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0045||||95.0|0.055|0.073|||||Treatment: I+A. A mixed model analysis, with period, treatment (A+I, I+A, Albuterol alone, Ipratropium alone), IC Baseline, smoking status at Screening, and center fitted as fixed effects and participant as a random effect was used.|||0.073|0.055|
91102262|NCT01691482|182091262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|0.228|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014||||95.0|0.2|0.255|||||Treatment: A/S alone. A mixed model analysis, with period, treatment (A+I, I+A, Albuterol alone, Ipratropium alone), IC Baseline, smoking status at Screening, and center fitted as fixed effects and participant as a random effect was used.|||0.255|0.200|
91102263|NCT01691482|182091262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|0.231|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014||||95.0|0.203|0.258|||||Treatment: ipratropium alone. A mixed model analysis, with period, treatment (A+I, I+A, Albuterol alone, Ipratropium alone), IC Baseline, smoking status at Screening, and center fitted as fixed effects and participant as a random effect was used.|||0.258|0.203|
91102264|NCT01691482|182091262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|0.232|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014||||95.0|0.204|0.259|||||Treatment: A+I. A mixed model analysis, with period, treatment (A+I, I+A, Albuterol alone, Ipratropium alone), IC Baseline, smoking status at Screening, and center fitted as fixed effects and participant as a random effect was used.|||0.259|0.204|
91102265|NCT01691482|182091262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|0.217|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014||||95.0|0.19|0.245|||||Treatment: I+A. A mixed model analysis, with period, treatment (A+I, I+A, Albuterol alone, Ipratropium alone), IC Baseline, smoking status at Screening, and center fitted as fixed effects and participant as a random effect was used.|||0.245|0.190|
91102266|NCT01953354|182091263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||P-value is testing for a difference in proportions using a Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
91102267|NCT01953354|182091264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||P-value is testing for a difference in proportions using a Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
91102268|NCT01953354|182091265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.242||||||P-value is testing for a difference in proportions using a Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.242
91102269|NCT01953354|182091266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55||||||P-value is testing for a difference in proportions using a Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.550
91102270|NCT01953354|182091269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55||||||P-value is testing for a difference in proportions using a Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.550
90904230|NCT01058863|181675399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.15||Significance at the 0.05 level.|ANOVA|Fixed effects of baseline FEV1 as a covariate, sequence, treatment group, period, and center, and random effect for subject within sequence.||Of interest was the mean difference between each active group and placebo at each dose level. Analyses were performed at the 2-sided 0.05 significance level in this sequence: Albuterol Spiromax 180 mcg versus placebo; Albuterol Spiromax 90 mcg versus placebo, ProAir HFA 180 mcg versus placebo, and ProAir HFA 90 mcg versus placebo. If a test was not significant, no further tests were done. This sequential procedure preserved the error rate for the family of tests at the 0.05 level.||1.15|0.61|<0.0001
90904231|NCT01058863|181675400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.69|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.21|40.74||Significance at the 0.05 level.|ANOVA|Fixed effects of baseline PPFEV1 as a covariate, sequence, treatment group, period, and center, and random effect for subject within sequence.||Of interest was the mean difference between each active group and placebo at each dose level. Analyses were performed at the 2-sided 0.05 significance level in this sequence: Albuterol Spiromax 180 mcg versus placebo; Albuterol Spiromax 90 mcg versus placebo, ProAir HFA 180 mcg versus placebo, and ProAir HFA 90 mcg versus placebo. If a test was not significant, no further tests were done. This sequential procedure preserved the error rate for the family of tests at the 0.05 level.||40.74|26.21|<0.0001
90904232|NCT01058863|181675400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.686|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.47|34.99||Significance at the 0.05 level.|ANOVA|Fixed effects of baseline PPFEV1 as a covariate, sequence, treatment group, period, and center, and random effect for subject within sequence.||Of interest was the mean difference between each active group and placebo at each dose level. Analyses were performed at the 2-sided 0.05 significance level in this sequence: Albuterol Spiromax 180 mcg versus placebo; Albuterol Spiromax 90 mcg versus placebo, ProAir HFA 180 mcg versus placebo, and ProAir HFA 90 mcg versus placebo. If a test was not significant, no further tests were done. This sequential procedure preserved the error rate for the family of tests at the 0.05 level.||34.99|20.47|<0.001
90904233|NCT01058863|181675400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.686|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.84|40.35||Significance at the 0.05 level.|ANOVA|Fixed effects of baseline PPFEV1 as a covariate, sequence, treatment group, period, and center, and random effect for subject within sequence.||Of interest was the mean difference between each active group and placebo at each dose level. Analyses were performed at the 2-sided 0.05 significance level in this sequence: Albuterol Spiromax 180 mcg versus placebo; Albuterol Spiromax 90 mcg versus placebo, ProAir HFA 180 mcg versus placebo, and ProAir HFA 90 mcg versus placebo. If a test was not significant, no further tests were done. This sequential procedure preserved the error rate for the family of tests at the 0.05 level.||40.35|25.84|<0.0001
90904234|NCT01058863|181675400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.68|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.36|32.85||Significance at the 0.05 level.|ANOVA|Fixed effects of baseline PPFEV1 as a covariate, sequence, treatment group, period, and center, and random effect for subject within sequence.||Of interest was the mean difference between each active group and placebo at each dose level. Analyses were performed at the 2-sided 0.05 significance level in this sequence: Albuterol Spiromax 180 mcg versus placebo; Albuterol Spiromax 90 mcg versus placebo, ProAir HFA 180 mcg versus placebo, and ProAir HFA 90 mcg versus placebo. If a test was not significant, no further tests were done. This sequential procedure preserved the error rate for the family of tests at the 0.05 level.||32.85|18.36|<0.0001
90857195|NCT00667602|181578750|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY-CRM - PConcomitant Vaccine + MenC)|Percentage Difference|-8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|-1.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||The primary criterion for immunogenicity was that the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference between one dose of MenACWY-CRM197 and MenC in the percentage of subjects with hSBA ≥1:8 for serogroup C at 1 month following the 12 months vaccination was greater than -10% .||-1|-15|
90857196|NCT00667602|181578751|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY-CRM - PConcomitant Vaccine + MenC)|Percentage difference|-7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|-2.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||The primary criterion for immunogenicity was that the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference between one dose of MenACWY-CRM197 and MenC in the percentage of subjects with hSBA ≥ 1:4 for serogroup C at 1 month following the 12 months vaccination was greater than -10%.||-2|-13|
90857197|NCT00667602|181578752|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PMenACWY - PMenC \> -10%).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|72.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.0|79.0|||Percentage difference|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||Comparisons to MenC were based on the percentages of subjects with response (hSBA ≥1:8, prevaccination) to serogroup C. MenACWY was determined to be noninferior to MenC if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference between MenACWY and MenC in the percentage of subjects with response towards serogroup C was greater than -10%.||79|64|
90904235|NCT04675242|181675422|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9||||0.4434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|15.3|||Fisher Exact|||Difference in the proportion of study eyes with complete cure||15.3|-11.5|0.4434
90904236|NCT04675242|181675423|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.7||||0.2105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|2.1|||ANCOVA|adjusted for baseline eye dryness VAS score||Difference in the change from baseline between treatment groups||2.1|-9.5|0.2105
90904237|NCT04675242|181675424|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.5936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||ANCOVA|adjusted for baseline eye dryness VAS score||Difference in the mean change from baseline||0.1|-0.2|0.5936
90904238|NCT01168674|181675440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.57|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.67||0.48|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||The report is of the mean MADRS difference between ziprasidone versus placebo after linear mixed regression, correcting for confounding effects of order of treatment as well as other identified potential confounders.|Linear mixed effects regression model||||0.48
90904239|NCT01556763|181675456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.1||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Baseline value was the covariate and all values obtained during the treatment period were averaged together. This value was adjusted by regression against the baseline and estimation of a new value as if all subjects possessed the same baseline.||||=0.10
90857198|NCT00667602|181578752|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PMenACWY - PMenC \> -10%).|Mean Difference (Net)|7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|13.0|||Percentage difference|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||Comparisons to MenC were based on the percentages of subjects with response (hSBA ≥1:8, one month postvaccination) to serogroup C. MenACWY was determined to be noninferior to MenC if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference between MenACWY and MenC in the percentage of subjects with response towards serogroup C was greater than -10%.||13|3|
91031721|NCT00840632|181948145|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of Least Squares Means|100.35||||||90.0|92.08|109.36|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||109.36|92.08|
91031722|NCT00840632|181948146|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of Least Squares Means|99.17||||||90.0|92.71|106.08|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||106.08|92.71|
91031723|NCT00840632|181948147|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of Least Squares Means|102.93||||||90.0|99.8|106.15|||||Informational Purposes Only|||106.15|99.80|
90857199|NCT00667602|181578752|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PMenACWY - PMenC \> -10%).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|80.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|73.0|86.0|||Percentage difference|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||Comparisons to MenC were based on the percentages of subjects with response (hSBA ≥1:4, prevaccination) to serogroup C. MenACWY was determined to be noninferior to MenC if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference between MenACWY and MenC in the percentage of subjects with response towards serogroup C was greater than -10%.||86|73|
90857200|NCT00667602|181578752|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PMenACWY - PMenC \> -10%).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|5.0|||Percentage difference|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||Comparisons to MenC were based on the percentages of subjects with response (hSBA ≥1:4, one month postvaccination) to serogroup C. MenACWY was determined to be noninferior to MenC if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference between MenACWY and MenC in the percentage of subjects with response towards serogroup C was greater than -10%.||5|-2|
90857201|NCT00667602|181578754|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(GMTMenACWY/GMTMenC \> 0.5).|Ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.12|||ANOVA|||For comparison of the Geometric Mean Titers, prevaccination at 12 months of age, MenACWY-CRM197 was determined to be non-inferior to MenC if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the MenACWY-CRM197 to MenC Geometric Mean Titers for serogroup C was greater than 0.5.||1.12|0.76|
90857202|NCT00667602|181578754|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(GMTMenACWY/GMTMenC \> 0.5).|Ratio|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.93|||ANOVA|||For comparison of the Geometric Mean Titers, one month postvaccination at 12 months of age, MenACWY-CRM197 was determined to be non-inferior to MenC if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the MenACWY-CRM197 to MenC Geometric Mean Titers for serogroup C was greater than 0.5.||0.93|0.57|
90857203|NCT00667602|181578756|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(GMTMenACWY/GMTMenjugate \> 0.5).|Ratio|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.43|13.0|||ANOVA|||For comparison of the GMTs (prevaccination), MenACWY was determined to be non-inferior to MenC if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the MenACWY to MenC GMTs for serogroup C was greater than 0.5 .||13|8.43|
90857204|NCT00667602|181578756|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(GMTMenACWY/GMTMenjugate \> 0.5).|Ratio|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.35|10.0|||ANOVA|||For comparison of the GMTs (one month postvaccination), MenACWY was determined to be non-inferior to MenC if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the MenACWY to MenC GMTs for serogroup C was greater than 0.5.||10|6.35|
90857205|NCT00667602|181578757|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY - PConcomitant Vaccine+MenC).|Percentage difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|2.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||Immunogenicity of DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib (Anti-Diptheria Toxin ≥0.1 IU/mL, one month postvaccination) given concomitantly with two dose of MenACWY was considered non-inferior to DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib given concomitantly with one dose of MenC, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than the cut-off level specified for that antigen was greater than -10%.||2|-2|
90857206|NCT00667602|181578757|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY - PConcomitant Vaccine+MenC).|Percentage difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|2.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||Immunogenicity of DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib (Anti-Diptheria Toxin ≥0.1 IU/mL, one month postvaccination) given concomitantly with one dose of MenACWY was considered non-inferior to DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib given concomitantly with one dose of MenC, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than the cut-off level specified for that antigen was greater than -10%.||2|-2|
90904240|NCT01556763|181675457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.07||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Baseline value was the covariate and all values obtained during the treatment period were averaged together. This value was adjusted by regression against the baseline and estimation of a new value as if all subjects possessed the same baseline.||||=0.07
90904241|NCT01556763|181675458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.02||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Baseline value was the covariate and all values obtained during the treatment period were averaged together. This value was adjusted by regression against the baseline and estimation of a new value as if all subjects possessed the same baseline.||||=0.02
91102271|NCT01953354|182091270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.633||||||P-value is testing for a difference in proportions using a Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.633
91102272|NCT02965976|182091275|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.773|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.773
91102273|NCT02965976|182091276|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.773|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.773
91102274|NCT02965976|182091277|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.368|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.368
91102275|NCT02965976|182091278|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.987|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.987
91102276|NCT02965976|182091279|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.423|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.423
91102277|NCT02965976|182091280|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||1.000
91031724|NCT00840632|181948148|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of Least Squares Means|100.24||||||90.0|98.11|102.43|||||Informational Purposes Only|||102.43|98.11|
91031725|NCT00840632|181948149|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of Least Squares Means|100.1||||||90.0|98.12|102.12|||||Informational Purposes Only|||102.12|98.12|
91104538|NCT00581100|182094995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value from generalized linear models for correlated data using Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE), with treatment and visits as fixed factors. Model for proportion = \[Group visit Group\*visit\].|GEE model|||Week 12||||<0.001
90857207|NCT00667602|181578757|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY - PConcomitant Vaccine+MenC).|Percentage difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|5.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||Immunogenicity of DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib (Anti-Diptheria Toxin ≥1.0 IU/mL, one month postvaccination) given concomitantly with two dose of MenACWY was considered non-inferior to DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib given concomitantly with one dose of MenC, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than the cut-off level specified for that antigen was greater than -10%.||5|-3|
90857208|NCT00667602|181578757|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY - PConcomitant Vaccine+MenC).|Percentage difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|4.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||Immunogenicity of DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib (Anti-Diptheria Toxin ≥1.0 IU/mL, one month postvaccination) given concomitantly with one dose of MenACWY was considered non-inferior to DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib given concomitantly with one dose of MenC, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than the cut-off level specified for that antigen was greater than -10%.||4|-3|
90857209|NCT00667602|181578757|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY - PConcomitant Vaccine+MenC).|Percentage difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|2.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||Immunogenicity of DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib (Anti-Tetanus Toxin ≥ 0.1 IU/mL, one month postvaccination) given concomitantly with two dose of MenACWY was considered non-inferior to DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib given concomitantly with one dose of MenC, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than the cut-off level specified for that antigen was greater than -10%.||2|-2|
90857210|NCT00667602|181578757|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY - PConcomitant Vaccine+MenC).|Percentage difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|2.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||Immunogenicity of DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib (Anti-Tetanus Toxin ≥ 0.1 IU/mL, one month postvaccination) given concomitantly with one dose of MenACWY was considered non-inferior to DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib given concomitantly with one dose of MenC, for any of the antigens, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than the cut-off level specified for that antigen was greater than -10%.||2|-2|
90857211|NCT00667602|181578757|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY - PConcomitant Vaccine+MenC).|Percentage difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|3.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||Immunogenicity of DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib (Anti-Tetanus Toxin ≥ 1.0 IU/mL, one month postvaccination) given concomitantly with two dose of MenACWY was considered non-inferior to DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib given concomitantly with one dose of MenC, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than the cut-off level specified for that antigen was greater than -10%.||3|-6|
90857212|NCT00667602|181578757|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY - PConcomitant Vaccine+MenC).|Percentage difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|3.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||Immunogenicity of DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib (Anti-Tetanus Toxin ≥ 1.0 IU/mL, one month postvaccination) given concomitantly with one dose of MenACWY was considered non-inferior to DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib given concomitantly with one dose of MenC, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than the cut-off level specified for that antigen was greater than -10%.||3|-6|
90857213|NCT00667602|181578757|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY - PConcomitant Vaccine+MenC).|Percentage difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|4.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||Immunogenicity of DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib (polio 1, one month postvaccination), given concomitantly with two dose of MenACWY was considered non-inferior to DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib given concomitantly with one dose of MenC, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than the cut-off level specified for that antigen was greater than -10%.||4|-2|
90857214|NCT00667602|181578757|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY - PConcomitant Vaccine+MenC).|Percentage difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|4.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||Immunogenicity of DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib (polio 1, one month postvaccination) given concomitantly with one dose of MenACWY was considered non-inferior to DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib given concomitantly with one dose of MenC, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than the cut-off level specified for that antigen was greater than -10%.||4|-2|
91031726|NCT05628675|181948181|OTHER||Effect size (Hedge's g)|0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.96||||||Effect size calculation from Time 1 to Time 2 on MAAS||0.96|-0.33|
91031727|NCT05628675|181948181|OTHER||Effect size (Hedge's g)|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|1.42||||||Effect size calculation from Time 1 to Time 3 on MAAS||1.42|0.02|
91031728|NCT05628675|181948182|OTHER||Effect size (Hedge's g)|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|1.01||||||Effect size calculation from Time 1 to Time 2 on P-PRFQ||1.01|-0.29|
91031729|NCT05628675|181948182|OTHER||Effect size (Hedge's g)|0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.17||||||Effect size calculation from Time 1 to Time 3 on P-PRFQ||1.17|-0.20|
90904242|NCT01556763|181675459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.008||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Baseline value was the covariate and all values obtained during the treatment period were averaged together. This value was adjusted by regression against the baseline and estimation of a new value as if all subjects possessed the same baseline.||||=0.008
91031730|NCT05628675|181948183|OTHER||Effect size (Hedge's g)|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.21||||||Effect size calculation from Time 1 to Time 2 on EPDS||2.21|0.75|
90904243|NCT02258464|181675460|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (Radium 223/Placebo)|0.745||||0.3339|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.504|1.102||The SSE-FS was compared using a stratified log-rank test with a 2-sided alpha of 0.2|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis that both treatment groups have the same SSE-FS distribution will be tested against the alternative hypothesis that the distribution of SSE-FS time in radium-223 dichloride is different from the placebo group||1.102|0.504|0.3339
90904244|NCT02258464|181675461|OTHER||Hazard ratio (Radium 223/Placebo)|0.888||||0.7259|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.576|1.37|||Log Rank|||||1.370|0.576|0.7259
90904245|NCT02258464|181675462|OTHER||Hazard ratio (Radium 223/Placebo)|0.932||||0.8785|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.513|1.693|||Log Rank|||||1.693|0.513|0.8785
90904246|NCT02258464|181675463|OTHER||Hazard ratio (Radium 223/Placebo)|0.824||||0.524|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.556|1.22|||Log Rank|||||1.220|0.556|0.5240
90904247|NCT02258464|181675464|OTHER||Difference (Radium 223 - Placebo) %|11.8||||0.345|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.7|26.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||26.3|-2.7|0.345
90904248|NCT02258464|181675465|OTHER||Hazard ratio (Radium 223/Placebo)|0.968||||0.9128|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.657|1.425|||Log Rank|||||1.425|0.657|0.9128
90904249|NCT02258464|181675466|OTHER||Hazard ratio (Radium 223/Placebo)|1.023||||0.9227|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.753|1.391|||Log Rank|||||1.391|0.753|0.9227
90904250|NCT00932646|181675469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.172|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001||95.0|0.139|0.205|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.205|0.139|<0.0001
91031731|NCT05628675|181948183|OTHER||Effect size (Hedge's g)|2.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|2.88||||||Effect size calculation from Time 1 to Time 3 on EPDS||2.88|1.28|
91031732|NCT02028715|181948199|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.55501|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.96535||0.356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3904|17.50042|||t-test for Equality of Means|||||17.50042|-6.39040|.356
90904251|NCT00932646|181675469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.174|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001||95.0|0.14|0.208|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.208|0.140|<0.0001
90904252|NCT00932646|181675469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.158|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001||95.0|0.124|0.191|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.191|0.124|<0.0001
90904253|NCT00932646|181675470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.145|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016|<|0.0001||95.0|0.114|0.176|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.176|0.114|<0.0001
90904254|NCT00932646|181675470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.147|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016|<|0.0001||95.0|0.116|0.179|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.179|0.116|<0.0001
90904255|NCT00932646|181675470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.156|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016|<|0.0001||95.0|0.125|0.187|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.187|0.125|<0.0001
90904256|NCT00932646|181675471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.186|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.149|0.223|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.223|0.149|<0.0001
90904257|NCT00932646|181675471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.198|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.162|0.235|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.235|0.162|<0.0001
90904258|NCT00932646|181675471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.213|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.176|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.250|0.176|<0.0001
90904259|NCT00932646|181675472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.192|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.154|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.230|0.154|<0.0001
90904260|NCT00932646|181675472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.197|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.158|0.235|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.235|0.158|<0.0001
90904261|NCT00932646|181675472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.217|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.178|0.255|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.255|0.178|<0.0001
90904262|NCT00932646|181675473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.097|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.0003||95.0|0.045|0.148|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.148|0.045|0.0003
90904263|NCT00932646|181675473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.103|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.0001||95.0|0.051|0.155|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.155|0.051|0.0001
91031733|NCT02028715|181948200|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|11.51818|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.98569||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.49963|25.53599|||t-test for Equality of Means|||||25.53599|-2.49963|.105
91031734|NCT02028715|181948201|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029|||||||ANOVA|||||||.029
91031735|NCT02028715|181948202|SUPERIORITY|Within subjects Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) of time, sphericity assumed, was used for pain, nausea, bloating and pruritus.||||||0.643|||||||ANOVA|||||||.643
91031736|NCT02028715|181948203|SUPERIORITY|Within subjects Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) of time, sphericity assumed, was used for pain, nausea, bloating and pruritus.||||||0.217|||||||ANOVA|||||||.217
90904264|NCT00932646|181675473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.0026||95.0|0.028|0.132|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.132|0.028|0.0026
90904265|NCT00932646|181675474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.251|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.0001||95.0|0.195|0.306|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.306|0.195|<0.0001
90904266|NCT00932646|181675474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.246|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.0001||95.0|0.19|0.302|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.302|0.190|<0.0001
90904267|NCT00932646|181675474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.235|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.0001||95.0|0.179|0.291|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.291|0.179|<0.0001
90904268|NCT00932646|181675475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.161|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031|<|0.0001||95.0|0.101|0.222|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.222|0.101|<0.0001
90958658|NCT01049217|181797007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.811||0.8199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.98|3.15|||ANCOVA|||Change at Endpoint, MnH: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||3.15|-3.98|0.8199
90958659|NCT01049217|181797007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.967||0.9361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|1.98|||ANCOVA|||Change at Endpoint, Mn C: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||1.98|-1.82|0.9361
91102278|NCT00806026|182091283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|-3.2||This analysis was step 1 in a step-down procedure (if p\<0.05, then continue to next step) used to control the Type I error rate. This procedure was stopped at Step 6. The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|Spatial power covariance structure was used.||For pregabalin 300 mg versus placebo: Mixed model analysis was used to analyze RLS symptom severity score with baseline value, region \[United states (US) or European union (EU)\], treatment, week and treatment by week interaction as fixed effects.||-3.20|-5.90|<0.0001
91104539|NCT00581100|182094995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value from generalized linear models for correlated data using Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE), with treatment and visits as fixed factors. Model for proportion = \[Group visit Group\*visit\].|GEE model|||Week 24||||<0.001
90958660|NCT00589121|181797023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|The fixed rate of 37% comes from the published National Cancer Institute of Canada trial SR2 (CAN-NCIC-SR2: Phase III Randomized Study of Pre- vs Postoperative Radiotherapy in Curable Extremity Soft Tissue Sarcoma) receiving preoperative radiation therapy without image-guided radiation therapy (IGRT).||||||0.0005|||||||Fisher Exact|||Initially designed to test for a 20% absolute improvement from 37% (fixed rate) to 17% using Fisher's exact test, requiring 41 patients per cohort (51 with 20% ineligibility) with 5% type I error and 90% statistical power. During accrual, the sample size for cohort B was increased to 66 (83 with 20% ineligibility) to test for a 15% improvement with 5% type I error and 85% power.||||0.0005
90958661|NCT05180500|181797044|OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.70
90958662|NCT05180500|181797045|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Concentrations that were below the lower limit of quantification (\<15 ng/mL) were set to 7.5 ng/mL for analyses.||||<.001
90958663|NCT05180500|181797048|OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.28
90958664|NCT05180500|181797049|OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.60
91104540|NCT00581100|182094995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value from generalized linear models for correlated data using Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE), with treatment and visits as fixed factors. Model for proportion = \[Group visit Group\*visit\].|GEE model|||Week 24||||<0.001
90904269|NCT00932646|181675475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.157|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031|<|0.0001||95.0|0.096|0.218|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.218|0.096|<0.0001
90904270|NCT00932646|181675475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.223|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031|<|0.0001||95.0|0.162|0.284|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.284|0.162|<0.0001
90904271|NCT00932646|181675476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.206|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001||95.0|0.155|0.258|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.258|0.155|<0.0001
90958665|NCT05180500|181797050|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Concentrations that were below the lower limit of quantification (\<15 ng/mL) were set to 7.5 ng/mL for analyses.||||<.001
90958666|NCT05180500|181797051|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Concentrations that were below the lower limit of quantification (\<15 ng/mL) were set to 7.5 ng/mL for analyses.||||<.001
90958667|NCT05180500|181797052|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Concentrations that were below the lower limit of quantification (\<15 ng/mL) were set to 7.5 ng/mL for analyses.||||<.001
90958668|NCT05180500|181797053|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91104541|NCT00581100|182094996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0||||P-value from generalized linear models for correlated data using Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) with treatment and visits as fixed factors. Model for proportion=\[Group visit Group\*visit\].|GEE model|||Week 12||||0.007
91104542|NCT00581100|182094996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0||||P-value from generalized linear models for correlated data using Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) with treatment and visits as fixed factors. Model for proportion=\[Group visit Group\*visit\].|GEE model|||Week 12||||0.006
91104543|NCT00581100|182094996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value from generalized linear models for correlated data using Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) with treatment and visits as fixed factors. Model for proportion=\[Group visit Group\*visit\].|GEE model|||Week 24||||<0.001
90904272|NCT00932646|181675476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.202|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027|<|0.0001||95.0|0.15|0.255|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.255|0.150|<0.0001
90904273|NCT00932646|181675476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.229|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027|<|0.0001||95.0|0.176|0.281|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.281|0.176|<0.0001
90904274|NCT00932646|181675477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.299|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034|<|0.0001||95.0|0.233|0.365|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.365|0.233|<0.0001
90904275|NCT00932646|181675477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.302|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034|<|0.0001||95.0|0.236|0.369|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.369|0.236|<0.0001
90904276|NCT00932646|181675477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.338|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034|<|0.0001||95.0|0.271|0.405|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.405|0.271|<0.0001
90904277|NCT00932646|181675478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.132|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055||0.0163||95.0|0.024|0.239|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.239|0.024|0.0163
90904278|NCT00932646|181675478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.139|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055||0.0118||95.0|0.031|0.247|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.247|0.031|0.0118
90904279|NCT00932646|181675478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.148|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055||0.0076||95.0|0.04|0.256|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.256|0.040|0.0076
90904280|NCT00932646|181675479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|0.082|0.154|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.154|0.082|<0.0001
91031737|NCT02028715|181948204|SUPERIORITY|Within subjects Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) of time, sphericity assumed, was used for pain, nausea, bloating and pruritus.||||||0.647|||||||ANOVA|||||||.647
90857215|NCT00667602|181578757|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY - PConcomitant Vaccine+MenC).|Percentage difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|3.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||Immunogenicity of DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib (polio 2, one month postvaccination) given concomitantly with two dose of MenACWY was considered non-inferior to DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib given concomitantly with one dose of MenC, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than the cut-off level specified for that antigen was greater than -10%.||3|-2|
90857216|NCT00667602|181578757|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY - PConcomitant Vaccine+MenC).|Percentage difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|2.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||Immunogenicity of DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib (polio 2, one month postvaccination) given concomitantly with one dose of MenACWY was considered non-inferior to DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib given concomitantly with one dose of MenC, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than the cut-off level specified for that antigen was greater than -10%.||2|-3|
90904281|NCT00932646|181675479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|0.084|0.157|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.157|0.084|<0.0001
90904282|NCT00932646|181675479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.155|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|0.119|0.191|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.191|0.119|<0.0001
90958669|NCT01775124|181797071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.95|-0.2|||ANOVA|||Descriptive, no hypothesis||-0.2|-2.95|
90904283|NCT00653263|181675481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Means and ranges were computed for the continuous baseline characteristics.For data with 5 time points (baseline and weeks 1 through 4), hypothesis tests were performed to test for a differences between baseline and each subsequent time point as well as differences between each time point For data with 3 time points hypothesis tests were performed to test for a differences between baseline and wk 2, wk 2 and wk 4, as well as between baseline and wk 4.||||<0.05
90904284|NCT00653263|181675482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Means and ranges were computed for continuous baseline(BL)characteristics.For longitudinal data,Proc GLIMMIX in SAS was used to fit a Mixed Model with Random Intercept.For data with 5 time points, hypothesis tests were performed to test for a differences between BL and each subsequent time point as well as differences between each time point. For data with 3 time points, hypothesis tests were performed to test for a differences between BL and wk 2,wk 2and wk 4,as well as between BL and wk 4.||||<0.05
90958670|NCT03992846|181797087|OTHER|The criterion for defining a subject as a responder over the last 28 days of randomized treatment up to Month 3 was a reduction of 1.10 or greater from baseline pain for Dysmenorrhea (DYS).|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.46|4.49|||Bonferroni-corrected p-value|||||4.49|1.46|<0.001
91031738|NCT02028715|181948205|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.054|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.587|0.695||||||||.695|-.587|
91104544|NCT00581100|182094996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value from generalized linear models for correlated data using Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) with treatment and visits as fixed factors. Model for proportion=\[Group visit Group\*visit\].|GEE model|||Week 24||||<0.001
91031739|NCT01492361|181948206|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||1e-08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.83||The 2-sided alpha level for the primary analysis was adjusted to 0.0437 from 0.05 to account for the two interim analyses based on a group sequential design with O'Brien-Fleming boundaries generated using the Lan-DeMets alpha-spending function.|Log Rank|Stratified by CV risk category, use of ezetimibe, and geographical region||||0.83|0.68|0.00000001
91031740|NCT01492361|181948207|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||6e-07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.83||Prespecified secondary end points were tested in a hierarchical fashion, in the order listed here, at the final alpha level of 0.0437.|Log Rank|Stratified by CV risk category, use of ezetimibe, and geographical region.||||0.83|0.65|0.0000006
91031741|NCT01492361|181948208|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.86||Prespecified secondary end points were tested in a hierarchical fashion, in the order listed here, at the final alpha level of 0.0437.|Log Rank|Stratified by CV risk category, use of ezetimibe, and geographical region.||||0.86|0.66|<0.0001
91031742|NCT01492361|181948209|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.81||Prespecified secondary end points were tested in a hierarchical fashion, in the order listed here, at the final alpha level of 0.0437.|Log Rank|Stratified by CV risk category, use of ezetimibe, and geographical region.||||0.81|0.58|<0.0001
90857217|NCT00667602|181578757|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY - PConcomitant Vaccine+MenC).|Percentage difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|3.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||Immunogenicity of DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib (polio 3, one month postvaccination) given concomitantly with two dose of MenACWY was considered non-inferior to DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib given concomitantly with one dose of MenC, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than the cut-off level specified for that antigen was greater than -10%.||3|-3|
90857218|NCT00667602|181578757|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY - PConcomitant Vaccine+MenC).|Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|3.0||Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Miettinen and Nurminen|||Immunogenicity of DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib (Polio 3, one month postvaccination) given concomitantly with one dose of MenACWY was considered non-inferior to DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib given concomitantly with one dose of MenC, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than the cut-off level specified for that antigen was greater than -10%.||3|-2|
90857219|NCT00667602|181578757|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY - PConcomitant Vaccine+MenC).|Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|2.0||Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Miettinen and Nurminen|||Immunogenicity of DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib (Anti- PRP ≥ 0.15 μg/mL, one month postvaccination) given concomitantly with two dose of MenACWY was considered non-inferior to DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib given concomitantly with one dose of MenC, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than the cut-off level specified for that antigen was greater than -10%.||2|-2|
90857220|NCT00667602|181578757|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY - PConcomitant Vaccine+MenC).|Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|2.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||Immunogenicity of DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib (Anti- PRP ≥ 0.15 μg/mL, one month postvaccination) given concomitantly with one dose of MenACWY was considered non-inferior to DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib given concomitantly with one dose of MenC, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than the cut-off level specified for that antigen was greater than -10%.||2|-2|
90857221|NCT00667602|181578757|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY - PConcomitant Vaccine+MenC).|Percentage Difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|4.0||Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Miettinen and Nurminen|||Immunogenicity of DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib (Anti- PRP ≥ 1.0 μg/mL, one month postvaccination) given concomitantly with two dose of MenACWY was considered non-inferior to DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib given concomitantly with one dose of MenC, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than the cut-off level specified for that antigen was greater than -10%.||4|-2|
90857222|NCT00667602|181578757|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY - PConcomitant Vaccine+MenC).|Percentage Difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|2.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||Immunogenicity of DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib (Anti- PRP ≥ 1.0 μg/mL, one month postvaccination) given concomitantly with one dose of MenACWY was considered non-inferior to DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib given concomitantly with one dose of MenC, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than the cut-off level specified for that antigen was greater than -10%.||2|-4|
90904285|NCT00653263|181675483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Means and ranges were computed for continuous baseline(BL)characteristics.For longitudinal data,Proc GLIMMIX in SAS was used to fit a Mixed Model with Random Intercept.For data with 5 time points, hypothesis tests were performed to test for a differences between BL and each subsequent time point as well as differences between each time point. For data with 3 time points, hypothesis tests were performed to test for a differences between BL and wk 2,wk 2and wk 4,as well as between BL and wk 4.||||<0.05
90904286|NCT03786094|181675501|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.445|TWO_SIDED|96.0|0.85|1.41|||t-test, 2 sided||HR and associated 2-sided 96% CI are estimated by a Cox proportional hazards model stratified for randomization stratification factors including a fixed effect term for treatment arm.|||1.41|0.85|0.4450
91031743|NCT01492361|181948210|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.78||Prespecified secondary end points were tested in a hierarchical fashion, in the order listed here, at the final alpha level of 0.0437.|Log Rank|Stratified by CV risk category, use of ezetimibe, and geographical region.||||0.78|0.55|<0.0001
90904287|NCT03786094|181675502|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.6158|TWO_SIDED|96.0|0.81|1.41|||t-test, 2 sided||HR and associated 2-sided 96% CI are estimated by a Cox proportional hazards model stratified for randomization stratification factors including a fixed effect term for treatment arm.|||1.41|0.81|0.6158
90904288|NCT03786094|181675503|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.6126|TWO_SIDED|99.9|0.66|1.77|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.77|0.66|0.6126
90905117|NCT02886728|181677439|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.0|-2.0|<0.001
90958671|NCT03992846|181797087|OTHER|The criterion for defining a subject as a responder over the last 28 days of randomized treatment up to Month 3 was a reduction of 1.10 or greater from baseline pain for Dysmenorrhea (DYS).|Odds Ratio (OR)|8.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|4.86|15.91|||Bonferroni-corrected p-value|||||15.91|4.86|<0.001
91031744|NCT01492361|181948211|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.0315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.98||Prespecified secondary end points were tested in a hierarchical fashion, in the order listed here, at the final alpha level of 0.0437.|Log Rank|Stratified by CV risk category, use of ezetimibe, and geographical region.||||0.98|0.66|0.0315
91031745|NCT01492361|181948212|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.87||Prespecified secondary end points were tested in a hierarchical fashion, in the order listed here, at the final alpha level of 0.0437.|Log Rank|Stratified by CV risk category, use of ezetimibe, and geographical region.||||0.87|0.53|0.0018
91104545|NCT00581100|182094997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value from generalized linear models for correlated data using Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE), with treatment and visits as fixed factors. Model for proportion =\[Group visit Group\*visit\].|GEE model|||Week 12||||<0.001
90857223|NCT00667602|181578757|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY - PConcomitant Vaccine+MenC).|Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|3.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||Immunogenicity of DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib (Hep B, one month postvaccination) given concomitantly with two dose of MenACWY was considered non-inferior to DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib given concomitantly with one dose of MenC, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than the cut-off level specified for that antigen was greater than -10%.||3|-3|
90857224|NCT00667602|181578757|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY - PConcomitant Vaccine+MenC)|Percentage Difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|3.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||Immunogenicity of DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib (Hep B, one month postvaccination) given concomitantly with one dose of MenACWY was considered non-inferior to DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib given concomitantly with one dose of MenC, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than the cut-off level specified for that antigen was greater than -10%.||3|-4|
90857225|NCT00667602|181578758|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY - PConcomitant Vaccine+MenC).|Percentage difference|-5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|3.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||Immunogenicity of PCV7 (PNC4, one month postvaccination)given concomitantly with one dose of MenACWY was considered non-inferior to PCV7 given concomitantly with one dose of MenC, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than the cut-off level specified for that antigen was greater than -10%.||3|-13|
90857226|NCT00667602|181578758|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY - PConcomitant Vaccine+MenC).|Percentage difference|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|-1.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||Immunogenicity of PCV7(PNC 6B, one month postvaccination) given concomitantly with one dose of MenACWY was considered non-inferior to PCV7 given concomitantly with one dose of MenC, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than the cut-off level specified for that antigen was greater than -10%.||-1|-12|
90857227|NCT00667602|181578758|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY-CRM - PConcomitant Vaccine + MenC).|Percentage difference|-5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|2.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||Immunogenicity of PCV7(PnC 9V, one month postvaccination) given concomitantly with MenACWY-CRM197 or MenC was considered non-inferior, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than -10%.||2|-11|
90857228|NCT00667602|181578758|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY - PConcomitant Vaccine+MenC).|Percentage difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|3.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||Immunogenicity of PCV7 (PNC 14, one month postvaccination) given concomitantly with one dose of MenACWY was considered non-inferior to PCV7 given concomitantly with one dose of MenC, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than the cut-off level specified for that antigen was greater than -10%.||3|-3|
90857229|NCT00667602|181578758|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY - PConcomitant Vaccine+MenC).|Percentage difference|-10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|-2.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||Immunogenicity of PCV7( PNC 18C, one month postvaccination) given concomitantly with one dose of MenACWY was considered non-inferior to PCV7 given concomitantly with one dose of MenC, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than the cut-off level specified for that antigen was greater than -10%.||-2|-19|
90857230|NCT00667602|181578758|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY - PConcomitant Vaccine+MenC).|Percentage difference|-10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|-2.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||Immunogenicity of PCV7 (PNC 19F, one month postvaccination), given concomitantly with one dose of MenACWY was considered non-inferior to PCV7 given concomitantly with one dose of MenC, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than the cut-off level specified for that antigen was greater than -10%.||-2|-17|
91031746|NCT01492361|181948213|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.93||Prespecified secondary end points were tested in a hierarchical fashion, in the order listed here, at the final alpha level of 0.0437.|Log Rank|Stratified by CV risk category, use of ezetimibe, and geographical region.||||0.93|0.55|0.0129
90904289|NCT03844321|181675557|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Slopes|-0.02||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.19||A two-sided significance level of 0.05 was used for all analyses.|Mixed Models Analysis|df = 1607|Slope estimate = difference in slopes between conditions (Mindfulness Light vs. Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy) during time frame.|We used a linear mixed effects model to examine the difference in effect of time on weekly WHO-5 scores in Mindfulness Light vs. Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy conditions from baseline to 8 weeks. This model accounts for the covariance of repeated measurements within subjects, and we used maximum likelihood estimation to adjust for missing assessment scores. The model includes a random slope and intercept, and fixed effects for intervention, time, and an intervention by time interaction.||0.19|-0.24|.820
90904290|NCT03844321|181675557|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Slopes|-0.08||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.02||A two-sided significance level of .05 was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|df = 1147|Slope estimate = difference in slopes between conditions (Mindfulness Light vs. Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy) during time frame.|We used a linear mixed effects model to examine the difference in effect of time on weekly WHO-5 scores in Mindfulness Light vs. Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy conditions from baseline to 20 weeks. This model accounts for the covariance of repeated measurements within subjects, and we used maximum likelihood estimation to adjust for missing assessment scores. The model includes a random slope and intercept, and fixed effects for intervention, time, and an intervention by time interaction.||0.02|-0.18|.110
90904291|NCT03844321|181675558|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Slopes|-0.03||||0.284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.02||A two-sided significance level of .05 was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|df= 1726|Slope estimate = difference in slopes between conditions (Mindfulness Light vs. Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy) during time frame.|As with the primary outcome, we used a linear mixed effects model to examine the difference in effect of time on weekly PSS scores in Mindfulness Light vs. Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy conditions from baseline to 8 weeks.||0.02|-0.07|.284
90904292|NCT03844321|181675558|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Slopes|0.01||||0.394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.03||A two-sided significance level of .05 was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|df = 1018|Slope estimate = difference in slopes between conditions (Mindfulness Light vs. Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy) during time frame.|As with the primary outcome, we used a linear mixed effects model to examine the difference in effect of time on weekly PSS scores in Mindfulness Light vs. Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy conditions from baseline to 20 weeks.||0.03|-0.01|.394
90904293|NCT03844321|181675559|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Slopes|0.03||||0.431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.09||A two-sided significance level of .05 was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|df = 1591|Slope estimate = difference in slopes between conditions (Mindfulness Light vs. Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy) during time frame.|As with the primary outcome, we used a linear mixed effects model to examine the difference in effect of time on weekly PROMIS: Emotional Distress-Depression Short Form scores in Mindfulness Light vs. Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy conditions from baseline to 8 weeks.||0.09|-0.04|.431
90904294|NCT03844321|181675559|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Slopes|0.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.08||A two-sided significance level of .05 was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|df = 1159|Slope estimate = difference in slopes between conditions (Mindfulness Light vs. Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy) during time frame.|As with the primary outcome, we used a linear mixed effects model to examine the difference in effect of time on weekly PROMIS: Emotional Distress-Depression Short Form scores in Mindfulness Light vs. Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy conditions from baseline to 20 weeks.||0.08|0.02|<.001
90904295|NCT03844321|181675560|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Slopes|-0.01||||0.399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.02||A two-sided significance level of .05 was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|df = 1601|Slope estimate = difference in slopes between conditions (Mindfulness Light vs. Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy) during time frame.|As with the primary outcome, we used a linear mixed effects model to examine the difference in effect of time on weekly PROMIS: Emotional Distress-Anxiety Short Form scores in Mindfulness Light vs. Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy conditions from baseline to 8 weeks.||0.02|-0.05|.399
90904296|NCT03844321|181675560|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Slopes|0.02||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.03||A two-sided significance level of .05 was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|df = 1171|Slope estimate = difference in slopes between conditions (Mindfulness Light vs. Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy) during time frame.|As with the primary outcome, we used a linear mixed effects model to examine the difference in effect of time on weekly PROMIS: Emotional Distress-Anxiety Short Form scores in Mindfulness Light vs. Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy conditions from baseline to 20 weeks.||0.03|0.00|.048
90958672|NCT03992846|181797088|OTHER|The criterion for defining a subject as a responder over the last 28 days of randomized treatment up to Month 3 was a reduction of 0.80 or greater from baseline pain for Non-Menstrual Pelvic Pain (NMPP).|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.279|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.83|2.45|||Bonferroni-corrected p-value|||||2.45|0.83|0.279
91031747|NCT01492361|181948214|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.86||Prespecified secondary end points were tested in a hierarchical fashion, in the order listed here, at the final alpha level of 0.0437.|Log Rank|Stratified by CV risk category, use of ezetimibe, and geographical region.||||0.86|0.69|<0.0001
90958673|NCT03992846|181797088|OTHER|The criterion for defining a subject as a responder over the last 28 days of randomized treatment up to Month 3 was a reduction of 0.80 or greater from baseline pain for Non-Menstrual Pelvic Pain (NMPP).|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.01||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.18|3.42|||Bonferroni-corrected p-value|||||3.42|1.18|0.007
91031748|NCT01492361|181948215|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.0915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.02||Prespecified secondary end points were tested in a hierarchical fashion, in the order listed here, at the final alpha level of 0.0437.|Log Rank|Stratified by CV risk category, use of ezetimibe, and geographical region.||||1.02|0.74|0.0915
91104546|NCT00581100|182094997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value from generalized linear models for correlated data using Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE), with treatment and visits as fixed factors. Model for proportion =\[Group visit Group\*visit\].|GEE model|||Week 12||||<0.001
90958674|NCT01919814|181797095|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Threshold P-Value was 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
90857231|NCT00667602|181578758|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY - PConcomitant Vaccine+MenC).|Percentage difference|-5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|1.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||Immunogenicity of PCV7 (PNC 23F, one month postvaccination) given concomitantly with one dose of MenACWY was considered non-inferior to PCV7 given concomitantly with one dose of MenC, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than the cut-off level specified for that antigen was greater than -10%.||1|-12|
90857232|NCT00667602|181578758|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY - PConcomitant Vaccine+MenC).|Percentage difference|-5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|4.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||Immunogenicity of PCV7 (PNC4, one month postvaccination) given concomitantly with two doses of MenACWY was considered non-inferior to PCV7 given concomitantly with one dose of MenC, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than the cut-off level specified for that antigen was greater than -10%.||4|-12|
90857233|NCT00667602|181578758|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY - PConcomitant Vaccine+MenC).|Percentage difference|-5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|0.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||Immunogenicity of PCV7 (PNC6B, one month postvaccination) given concomitantly with two doses of MenACWY was considered non-inferior to PCV7 given concomitantly with one dose of MenC, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than the cut-off level specified for that antigen was greater than -10%.||0|-11|
90857234|NCT00667602|181578758|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY - PConcomitant Vaccine+MenC).|Percentage difference|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|3.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||Immunogenicity of PCV7 (PNC 9V, one month postvaccination) given concomitantly with two doses of MenACWY was considered non-inferior to PCV7 given concomitantly with one dose of MenC, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than the cut-off level specified for that antigen was greater than -10%.||3|-10|
90904297|NCT03844321|181675561|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Slopes|-0.02||||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.03||A two-sided significance level of .05 was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|df = 1560|Slope estimate = difference in slopes between conditions (Mindfulness Light vs. Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy) during time frame.|As with the primary outcome, we used a linear mixed effects model to examine the difference in effect of time on weekly PROMIS: Ability to Participate in Social Roles and Activities Short Form scores (reverse scored) in Mindfulness Light vs. Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy conditions from baseline to 8 weeks.||0.03|-0.06|.488
91031749|NCT03227445|181948249|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.97|54.28|||stratified exact logistic model||Participants included in the model as fixed strata, treatment option was included in the exact statement and period included as fixed effects.||"There are three intercurrent events identified which could impact upon the estimand of interest:~* The participant could withdraw from randomised study device sequence and therefore withdraw from the study~* The participant could change their standard COPD maintenance medication device to one delivered via ELLIPTA, DISKUS or HANDIHALER; these subjects should have been withdrawn from the study according to the protocol.~* The participant could attend the visit without the device/s they were randomised to, in which case correct use cannot be assessed as described in the protocol.~Rescue Medication use and change to maintenance COPD medication which is not delivered via ELLIPTA, DISKUS or HANDIHALER are not considered intercurrent events"|54.28|1.97|<0.001
90857235|NCT00667602|181578758|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY - PConcomitant Vaccine+MenC).|Percentage difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|3.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||Immunogenicity of PCV7 (PNC14, one month postvaccination) given concomitantly with two doses of MenACWY was considered non-inferior to PCV7 given concomitantly with one dose of MenC, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than the cut-off level specified for that antigen was greater than -10%.||3|-4|
90857236|NCT00667602|181578758|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY - PConcomitant Vaccine+MenC).|Percentage difference|-15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.0|-6.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||Immunogenicity of PCV7 (PNC18C, one month postvaccination) given concomitantly with two doses of MenACWY was considered non-inferior to PCV7 given concomitantly with one dose of MenC, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than the cut-off level specified for that antigen was greater than -10%.||-6|-24|
90958675|NCT02164383|181797098|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.82||||0.85|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA||ANOVA results: F(1,28)=.04, p=.85, partial eta-squared (as a measure of effect size) = .001|||||.85
91031750|NCT03227445|181948251|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Sensitivity Analyses (Primary Estimand: Hypothetical)||||||<0.001
91031751|NCT03227445|181948256|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.45||The upper bound of the 95% CI could not be calculated due to the low number of events and is therefore displayed as NA.||stratified exact logistic model||Participants included in the model as fixed strata, treatment option was included in the exact statement and period included as fixed effects.||||3.45|<0.001
91031752|NCT03227445|181948257|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Sensitivity Analyses (Supplementary Estimand: Composite)||||||<0.001
91031753|NCT03227445|181948258|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Sensitivity Analyses (Primary Estimand: Hypothetical)||||||<0.001
91031754|NCT03227445|181948259|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Sensitivity Analyses (Supplementary Composite Estimand)||||||<0.001
91031755|NCT03227445|181948260|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.08|24.55|||stratified exact logistic model||Participants included in the model as fixed strata, treatment option was included in the exact statement and period included as fixed effects.|||24.55|2.08|<0.001
91031756|NCT01287013|181948273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91031757|NCT01287013|181948274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90958676|NCT04487834|181797116|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
90958677|NCT04487834|181797117|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0001
91031758|NCT01287013|181948275|OTHER||||||<|0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.04
90857237|NCT00667602|181578758|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY - PConcomitant Vaccine+MenC).|Percentage difference|-9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|-1.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||Immunogenicity of PCV7 (PNC19F, one month postvaccination) given concomitantly with two doses of MenACWY was considered non-inferior to PCV7 given concomitantly with one dose of MenC, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than the cut-off level specified for that antigen was greater than -10%.||-1|-17|
90857238|NCT00667602|181578758|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY - PConcomitant Vaccine+MenC).|Percentage difference|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|0.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||Immunogenicity of PCV7 (PNC23F, one month postvaccination) given concomitantly with two doses of MenACWY was considered non-inferior to PCV7 given concomitantly with one dose of MenC, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than the cut-off level specified for that antigen was greater than -10%.||0|-13|
90857239|NCT00667602|181578763|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY-CRM - PConcomitant Vaccine + MenC).|Percentage difference|71.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.0|78.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||For the comparisons to MenC based on percentages of subjects with response (rSBA ≥1:8, prevaccination), MenACWY-CRM197 was determined to be non-inferior to MenC if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference between MenACWY-CRM197 and MenC in the percentage of subjects with response against serogroup C was greater than -10%.||78|63|
90857240|NCT00667602|181578763|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY-CRM - PConcomitant Vaccine + MenC).|Percentage difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|6.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||For the comparisons to MenC based on percentages of subjects with response (rSBA ≥1:8, one month postvaccination), MenACWY-CRM197 was determined to be non-inferior to MenC if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference between MenACWY-CRM197 and MenC in the percentage of subjects with response against serogroup C was greater than -10%.||6|-3|
90857241|NCT00667602|181578763|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY-CRM - PConcomitant Vaccine + MenC).|Percentage difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|7.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||For the comparisons to MenC based on percentages of subjects with response (rSBA ≥1:8, prevaccination), MenACWY-CRM197 was determined to be non-inferior to MenC if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference between MenACWY-CRM197 and MenC in the percentage of subjects with response against serogroup C was greater than -10%.||7|-2|
90857242|NCT00667602|181578763|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY-CRM - PConcomitant Vaccine + MenC).|Percentage difference|-5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|1.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||For the comparisons to MenC based on percentages of subjects with response (rSBA ≥1:8, one month postvaccination), MenACWY-CRM197 was determined to be non-inferior to MenC if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference between MenACWY-CRM197 and MenC in the percentage of subjects with response against serogroup C was greater than -10%.||1|-11|
90857243|NCT00667602|181578763|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY-CRM - PConcomitant Vaccine + MenC).|Percentage difference|31.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.0|39.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||For the comparisons to MenC based on percentages of subjects with response (rSBA ≥1:128, prevaccination), MenACWY-CRM197 was determined to be non-inferior to MenC if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference between MenACWY-CRM197 and MenC in the percentage of subjects with response against serogroup C was greater than -10%.||39|24|
90857244|NCT00667602|181578763|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY-CRM - PConcomitant Vaccine + MenC).|Percentage difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|4.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||For the comparisons to MenC based on percentages of subjects with response (rSBA ≥1:128, one month postvaccination), MenACWY-CRM197 was determined to be non-inferior to MenC if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference between MenACWY-CRM197 and MenC in the percentage of subjects with response against serogroup C was greater than -10%.||4|-2|
90857245|NCT00667602|181578763|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY-CRM - PConcomitant Vaccine + MenC).|Percentage Difference|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|11.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||For the comparisons to MenC based on percentages of subjects with response (rSBA ≥1:128, prevaccination), MenACWY-CRM197 was determined to be non-inferior to MenC if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference between MenACWY-CRM197 and MenC in the percentage of subjects with response against serogroup C was greater than -10%.||11|-3|
90958678|NCT04487834|181797118|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4852|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4852
90958679|NCT02831387|181797124|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.88||||0.749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.696|9.936|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Analysis 1 for Change From Baseline to Day 29 in the Subject Reported Dry Eye Questionnaire||9.936|-13.696|0.749
90958680|NCT02831387|181797125|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.6||||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.4|5.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Analysis 1 for Change From Baseline (Visit 2) to Day 29 in Frequency Scores||5.3|-18.4|0.267
90958681|NCT02831387|181797126|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.9||||0.495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|15.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Analysis 1 for Change From Baseline (Visit 2) to Day 29 in Severity Scores||15.4|-7.6|0.495
91031759|NCT01287013|181948276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91031760|NCT01287013|181948277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.67|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.67
90958682|NCT02831387|181797127|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6||||0.316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Analysis 1 for Change From Baseline to Day 29 in Fluorescein Staining of the Cornea||1.9|-0.6|0.316
90958683|NCT02831387|181797128|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Analysis 1 for Change From Baseline to Day 29 in Lissamine Green Staining of the Conjunctiva||1.5|-1.9|0.823
90958684|NCT02831387|181797129|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.923|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.515|7.184||||||Statistical Analysis 1 for the Number of participants with at least 20% improvement in symptoms from baseline to Day 29||7.184|0.515|
90958685|NCT02831387|181797130|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.666||||0.723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.759|11.092|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Analysis 1 for Change From Baseline (Visit 2) to Day 15 (Visit 3) in the Subject-reported Dry Eye Symptom Score||11.092|-7.759|0.723
90958686|NCT00192647|181797131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.2893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.52|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by viral load and country||||1.52|0.88|0.2893
90958687|NCT00192647|181797132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.63||||||||1.63|0.91|
90958688|NCT00192647|181797133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|2.27||||||Week 4||2.27|1.24|
90857246|NCT00667602|181578763|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY-CRM - PConcomitant Vaccine + MenC).|Percentage Difference|-13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|-5.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||For the comparisons to MenC based on percentages of subjects with response (rSBA ≥1:128, one month postvaccination), MenACWY-CRM197 was determined to be non-inferior to MenC if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference between MenACWY-CRM197 and MenC in the percentage of subjects with response against serogroup C was greater than -10%.||-5|-22|
90857247|NCT00667602|181578763|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY-CRM - PConcomitant Vaccine + MenC).|Percentage Difference|-10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|-4.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||For the comparisons to MenC based on percentages of subjects with response (four-fold rise in titers), MenACWY-CRM197 was determined to be non-inferior to MenC if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference between MenACWY-CRM197 and MenC in the percentage of subjects with response against serogroup C was greater than -10%.||-4|-17|
90857248|NCT00667602|181578763|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY-CRM - PConcomitant Vaccine + MenC).|Percentage Difference|-5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|1.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||For the comparisons to MenC based on percentages of subjects with response (four-fold rise in titers), MenACWY-CRM197 was determined to be non-inferior to MenC if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference between MenACWY-CRM197 and MenC in the percentage of subjects with response against serogroup C was greater than -10%.||1|-11|
90857249|NCT00667602|181578765|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY-CRM - PConcomitant Vaccine + MenC)|Ratio|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.83|||ANOVA|||For comparison of the Geometric Mean Titers at one month postvaccination at 12 months of age, MenACWY-CRM197 was determined to be non-inferior to MenC if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the MenACWY-CRM197 to MenC Geometric Mean Titers for serogroup C was greater than 0.5.||1.83|0.96|
90857250|NCT01436162|181578773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.92||0.583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.3|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeat Measures|||||1.3|-2.3|0.583
90857251|NCT01436162|181578774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.7|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeat Measures|||||0.7|-1.9|0.354
90857252|NCT05032859|181578787|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio, log|2.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|3.32|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Baseline vIGA-AD Score and Age Group|Adjusted logit-based estimate of the common relative risk of success (Tapinarof Cream 1%/Vehicle Cream) over all strata. Multiple imputation p-value is for null hypothesis that the log (Relative Risk) equals 0.|H0: The proportion of subjects who achieve a vIGA-AD score of clear (0) or almost clear (1) and at least a 2-grade reduction from Baseline at Week 8 is equal between tapinarof cream, 1% and vehicle cream; H1: The proportion of subjects who achieve a vIGA-AD score of clear (0) or almost clear (1) and at least a 2-grade reduction from Baseline at Week 8 is different between the tapinarof cream, 1% and vehicle cream.||3.32|1.54|<0.0001
90857253|NCT05032859|181578788|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio, log|2.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|3.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by vIGA-AD score at Baseline (vIGA-AD scores of 3 or 4) and age group (2-6 yrs, 7-11 yrs, 12-17 yrs, 18+ yrs)|Adjusted logit-based estimate of the common relative risk of success (Tapinarof Cream 1%/Vehicle Cream) over all strata. Multiple imputation p-value is for null hypothesis that the log (Relative Risk) equals 0.|||3.00|1.53|<0.0001
90958689|NCT00192647|181797133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|2.17||||||Week 8||2.17|1.24|
90958690|NCT00192647|181797133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|2.53||||||Week 12||2.53|1.40|
90958691|NCT00192647|181797133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.98||||||Week 24||1.98|1.08|
90958692|NCT01828073|181797139|OTHER||Clopper-Pearson Confidence Interval (CI)|31.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|16.0|51.5|||||With the small sample size, the CI estimate tend to be wide.|Point and 90% CI estimates of percentage of full term infants meeting the composite safety endpoint (grade 3/4 adverse event, adverse birth outcome, death)||51.50|16.00|
90958693|NCT01828073|181797139|OTHER||Clopper-Pearson Confidence Interval (CI)|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|29.1|70.9|||||With the small sample size, the CI estimate tend to be wide.|Point and 90% CI estimates of percentage of full term infants meeting the composite safety endpoint (grade 3/4 adverse event, death)||70.90|29.10|
90958694|NCT01828073|181797143|OTHER|||||||0.747||||||The study was not powered to do the comparison. This was an exploratory analysis.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||To investigate the relationship between neonatal RAL elimination and UGT1A1 genotype in full term infants.||||0.747
90958695|NCT01828073|181797143|OTHER|||||||0.341||||||The study was not powered to do the comparison. This was an exploratory analysis.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||To investigate the relationship between neonatal RAL elimination and UGT1A1 genotype in LBW infants.||||0.341
90958696|NCT04234425|181797167|OTHER|paired t test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.702|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.36||0.017|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.017
90958697|NCT04234425|181797168|OTHER|paired t test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.06||0.08|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.08
90958698|NCT04234425|181797169|OTHER|paired t test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.47|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.33||0.026|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.026
90958699|NCT00876928|181797170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of patients developing diabetes|10.0||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|12.0||A chi square test was used for the number of participants developing diabetes and a 2-way repeated measures ANOVA for the disposition index|Chi-squared||Primary outcome compared the number of participants developing diabetes after receiving vitamin D or placebo for one year. Secondary outcome compared changes in 2-way repeated measures ANOVA; therefore,no confidence intervals/dispersion parameters|Null hypothesis is that there is no effect of vitamin D on the development of diabetes in people with pre-diabetes and hypovitaminosis D. There were no published data when this trial was started on the effect of vitamin D in pre-diabetes making a power calculation difficult.||12|8|0.61
90958700|NCT00876928|181797171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis is that there would be no difference in the changes in the Disposition Index between the 2 groups over the year.||||0.39
90958701|NCT02795429|181797177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.561|||||||||||Bayesian Logistic Regression Model||Posterior probability that the odds ratio (ORRspartalizumab +capmatinib to ORRspartalizumab) was ≥ 1|||||
90958702|NCT01831856|181797250|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.5749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.85|||Log Rank|||The primary criterion, time to first Atrial Fibrillation (AF) recurrence or atrial flutter emergence, was described using survival curves according to the Kaplan-Meier method, reporting the first and third quartiles (Q1, Q3), median, and 95% confidence interval. The time to first AF recurrence or atrial flutter emergence was compared between treatment groups using the Log rank test. Hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals were estimated with the Cox regression model.||1.85|0.71|0.5749
91102279|NCT00806026|182091283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.3603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.7||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p\<0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error. The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|Spatial power covariance structure was used.||For pramipexole 0.25 mg versus placebo: Mixed model analysis was used to analyze RLS symptom severity score with baseline value, region (US or EU), treatment, week and treatment by week interaction as fixed effects.||0.7|-2.0|0.3603
90857254|NCT05032859|181578789|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.803|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.17|-5.02|||ANCOVA|age\*vIGA cohort and treatment as categorical covariates, and baseline %BSA as a continuous covariate||||-5.02|-8.17|<0.0001
90857255|NCT05032859|181578790|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio, log|2.34||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|3.94|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Baseline vIGA-AD Score and Age Group|Adjusted logit-based estimate of the common relative risk of success (Tapinarof Cream 1%/Vehicle Cream) over all strata. Multiple imputation p-value is for null hypothesis that the log (Relative Risk) equals 0.||Adjusted logit-based estimate of the common relative risk of success (Tapinarof Cream 1%/Vehicle Cream) over all strata. Multiple imputation p-value is for null hypothesis that the log (Relative Risk) equals 0.|3.94|1.39|0.0013
90857256|NCT05032859|181578791|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio, log|2.17||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|3.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Baseline vIGA-AD Score and Age Group|Adjusted logit-based estimate of the common relative risk of success (Tapinarof Cream 1%/Vehicle Cream) over all strata. Multiple imputation p-value is for null hypothesis that the log (Relative Risk) equals 0.|||3.50|1.34|0.0015
90857258|NCT00859027|181578832|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||One way ANOVA|||Percent change in femoral neck BMD from baseline||||0.004
90857259|NCT00859027|181578832|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||One way ANOVA|||Percent change in total hip BMD from baseline||||0.001
90857260|NCT00859027|181578832|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||One way ANOVA|||Percent change in lumbar spine BMD from baseline||||0.04
90857261|NCT00859027|181578832|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Between group difference of percent change for the femoral neck BMD||||<0.01
90857262|NCT00859027|181578832|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Between group difference of percent change for total hip BMD||||<0.01
90857263|NCT00859027|181578833|OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||ANOVA|||Between group difference of percent change for NTX||||0.015
90857264|NCT00859027|181578833|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Between group difference of percent change for CTX||||0.01
90857265|NCT05419908|181578883|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-12.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.89|-7.79||Least square (LS) mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hot flash score as covariate. P-value of the t-statistic testing whether there is a treatment difference.|ANCOVA|Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA)||||-7.79|-16.89|<0.001
90857266|NCT05419908|181578884|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.134|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.466|-0.802||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hot flash score as covariate. P-value of the t-statistic testing whether there is a treatment difference.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||-0.802|-1.466|<0.001
90857267|NCT05419908|181578884|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.948|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.362|-0.535||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hot flash score as covariate. P-value of the t-statistic testing whether there is a treatment difference.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||-0.535|-1.362|<0.001
90857268|NCT05419908|181578884|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.122|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.504|-0.741||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hot flash score as covariate. P-value of the t-statistic testing whether there is a treatment difference.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||-0.741|-1.504|<0.001
90904298|NCT03844321|181675561|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Slopes|0.01||||0.446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.03||A two-sided significance level of .05 was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|df = 1179|Slope estimate = difference in slopes between conditions (Mindfulness Light vs. Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy) during time frame.|As with the primary outcome, we used a linear mixed effects model to examine the difference in effect of time on weekly PROMIS: Ability to Participate in Social Roles and Activities Short Form scores (reverse scored) in Mindfulness Light vs. Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy conditions from baseline to 20 weeks.||0.03|-0.01|.446
91102280|NCT00806026|182091283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|-1.9||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p\<0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error. The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|Spatial power covariance structure was used.||For pramipexole 0.5 mg versus placebo: Mixed model analysis was used to analyze RLS symptom severity score with baseline value, region (US or EU), treatment, week and treatment by week interaction as fixed effects.||-1.9|-4.5|<0.0001
90857269|NCT05419908|181578885|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-13.28|||<|0.001||95.0|-17.02|-9.54||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hot flash score as covariate. P-value of the t-statistic testing whether there is a treatment difference.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||-9.54|-17.02|<0.001
90857270|NCT05419908|181578885|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-11.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|-7.27||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hot flash score as covariate. P-value of the t-statistic testing whether there is a treatment difference.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||-7.27|-16.30|<0.001
90857271|NCT05419908|181578885|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-12.42|||<|0.001||95.0|-17.0|-7.83||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hot flash score as covariate. P-value of the t-statistic testing whether there is a treatment difference.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||-7.83|-17.00|<0.001
90857272|NCT05419908|181578886|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-39.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.5|-29.1||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as factor. P-value of the t-statistic testing whether there is a treatment difference.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||-29.1|-50.5|<0.001
90857273|NCT05419908|181578886|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-35.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.9|-23.0||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as factor. P-value of the t-statistic testing whether there is a treatment difference.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||-23.0|-47.9|<0.001
90857274|NCT05419908|181578886|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-35.0|||<|0.001||95.0|-47.9|-22.1||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as factor. P-value of the t-statistic testing whether there is a treatment difference.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||-22.1|-47.9|<0.001
90857275|NCT05419908|181578887|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|65.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.15|81.0||Likelihood-ratio test based 95% confidence interval of the percentage difference.|Likelihood-Ratio Chi-Square Test|||Week 4||81.00|49.15|<0.001
90857276|NCT05419908|181578887|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|48.5|||<|0.001||95.0|30.37|66.59||Likelihood-ratio test based 95% confidence interval of the percentage difference.|Likelihood-Ratio Chi-Square Test|||Week 8||66.59|30.37|<0.001
90857277|NCT05419908|181578887|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|52.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.76|69.24||Likelihood-ratio test based 95% confidence interval of the percentage difference.|Likelihood-Ratio Chi-Square Test|||Week 12||69.24|35.76|<0.001
90857278|NCT05419908|181578888|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|69.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.7|84.21||Likelihood-ratio test based 95% confidence interval of the percentage difference.|Likelihood-Ratio Chi-Square Test|||Week 4||84.21|53.70|<0.001
90857279|NCT05419908|181578888|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|50.7|||<|0.001||95.0|31.93|69.42||Likelihood-ratio test based 95% confidence interval of the percentage difference|Likelihood-Ratio Chi-Square Test|||Week 8||69.42|31.93|<0.001
90857280|NCT05419908|181578888|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|57.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.99|75.01||Likelihood-ratio test based 95% confidence interval of the percentage difference|Likelihood-Ratio Chi-Square Test|||Week 12||75.01|39.99|<0.001
90857281|NCT05419908|181578889|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|54.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.47|70.84||Likelihood-ratio test based 95% confidence interval of the percentage difference.|Likelihood-Ratio Chi-Square Test|||Week 4||70.84|37.47|<0.001
90857282|NCT05419908|181578889|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|47.8|||<|0.001||95.0|29.62|65.99||Likelihood-ratio test based 95% confidence interval of the percentage difference.|Likelihood-Ratio Chi-Square Test|||Week 8||65.99|29.62|<0.001
90857283|NCT05419908|181578889|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|47.5|||<|0.001||95.0|28.86|66.14||Likelihood-ratio test based 95% confidence interval of the percentage difference.|Likelihood-Ratio Chi-Square Test|||Week 12||66.14|28.86|<0.001
90857284|NCT05419908|181578890|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|49.7|||<|0.001||95.0|33.54|65.79||Likelihood-ratio test based 95% confidence interval of the percentage difference.|Likelihood-Ratio Chi-Square Test|||Week 4||65.79|33.54|<0.001
90904299|NCT03844321|181675562|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Slopes|-0.04||||0.469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.07||A two-sided significance level of .05 was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|df = 1618|Slope estimate = difference in slopes between conditions (Mindfulness Light vs. Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy) during time frame.|As with the primary outcome, we used a linear mixed effects model to examine the difference in effect of time on weekly FFMQ scores in Mindfulness Light vs. Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy conditions from baseline to 8 weeks.||0.07|-0.16|.469
90904300|NCT03844321|181675562|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Slopes|-0.06||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|-0.01||A two-sided significance level of .05 was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|df = 1067|Slope estimate = difference in slopes between conditions (Mindfulness Light vs. Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy) during time frame.|As with the primary outcome, we used linear mixed effects models to examine the effect of time on weekly FFMQ scores across both intervention conditions from baseline to 20 weeks.||-0.01|-0.11|.033
90958703|NCT02996565|181797286|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.76||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.84|1.33||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|planned contrast|The planned contrast compares model-predicted change in SBP from index to 365 days in Telehealth Care vs. Best Practice Clinic-Based Care.|adjusted for baseline SBP, baseline DBP, baseline age, sex, Asian race|||1.33|-2.84|0.45
90904301|NCT03844321|181675563|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046||||||Reported p-value is for estimated weekly change in WHO-5 score by treatment by moderator interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Age measured at the beginning of the intervention period was analyzed as a moderator of the relationship between treatment and weekly WHO-5 scores. We added a main effect for the moderator, as well as treatment by time, moderator by time, and treatment by moderator by time interactions to the linear mixed model and used a likelihood ratio test to compare this interaction model to one without the three-way interaction. These analyses were completed over Baseline to Week 8.||||.046
90958704|NCT02996565|181797287|SUPERIORITY|Random coefficients model predicted all EHR-documented DBPs from treatment group, days elapsed from index to each DBP (time) and treatment group by time with random clinic and patient intercepts.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.28||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|1.51||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|planned contrast|The planned contrast compares the model-predicted change in DBP from index to 365 days in Telehealth care vs. index to 365 days in clinic based care.|adjusted for baseline SBP, baseline DBP, baseline age, sex, Asian race|||1.51|-0.95|0.64
90958705|NCT02996565|181797288|SUPERIORITY|Random coefficients model predicted baseline and 6 month patient-reported outcome from treatment group, time point and treatment group by time with random clinic intercept and patient scale parameter.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|1.85||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|The interaction RR compares the likelihood pf reporting high satisfaction at 6 months relative to baseline in Telehealth care vs. clinic based care|adjusted for baseline DBP, baseline age, sex|||1.85|1.27|<0.001
90958706|NCT02996565|181797289|SUPERIORITY|Random coefficients model predicted baseline and 6 month patient-reported outcome from treatment group, time point and treatment group by time with random clinic intercept and patient scale parameter.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.25||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.52||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|The interaction RR compares the likelihood pf reporting high satisfaction at 6 months relative to baseline in Telehealth care vs. clinic based care|adjusted for baseline DBP, baseline age, sex|||1.52|1.02|0.03
91102281|NCT00806026|182091284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||This analysis was step 2 in a step-down procedure (if p\<0.05, then continue to next step) used to control the Type I error rate. This procedure was stopped at Step 6. The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For pregabalin 300 mg versus placebo: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by geographical region (US or EU) was used to analyze CGI-I responder status.||||<0.0001
90958707|NCT02996565|181797290|SUPERIORITY|Random coefficients model predicted the likelihood that smoking was current 12 months by treatment group with random clinic intercept.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.07||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|The risk ratio compares the likelihood of current smoking at 12 months in Telehealth care vs. clinic based care|unadjusted|||1.07|0.95|0.73
90958708|NCT02996565|181797291|SUPERIORITY|Random coefficients model predicted baseline and 6 month patient-reported outcome from treatment group, time point and treatment group by time with random clinic intercept and patient scale parameter.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.17||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.4||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|The interaction RR compares the likelihood of reporting the side effect was a problem at 6m relative to baseline in Telehealth vs. clinic based care|adjusted for baseline DBP, baseline age, sex|||1.4|.98|0.08
90958709|NCT02996565|181797292|SUPERIORITY|Random coefficients model predicted baseline and 6 month patient-reported outcome from treatment group, time point and treatment group by time with random clinic intercept and patient scale parameter.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.11||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.29||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|The interaction RR compares the likelihood of reporting the side effect was a problem at 6m relative to baseline in Telehealth vs. clinic based care|adjusted for baseline DBP, baseline age, sex|||1.29|0.95|0.18
90958710|NCT02996565|181797293|SUPERIORITY|Random coefficients model predicted baseline and 6 month patient-reported outcome from treatment group, time point and treatment group by time with random clinic intercept and patient scale parameter.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.11||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|The interaction RR compares the likelihood of reporting the side effect was a problem at 6m relative to baseline in Telehealth vs. clinic based care|adjusted for baseline DBP, baseline age, sex|||1.11|0.87|0.77
91102282|NCT00806026|182091284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4393|TWO_SIDED|||||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p\<0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error. The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For pramipexole 0.25 mg versus placebo: CMH test stratified by geographical region (US or EU) was used to analyze CGI-I responder status.||||0.4393
91102283|NCT00806026|182091284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|||||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p\<0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error. The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For pramipexole 0.5 mg versus placebo: CMH test stratified by geographical region (US or EU) was used to analyze CGI-I responder status.||||0.0022
91102284|NCT00806026|182091285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0826|TWO_SIDED|||||This analysis was step 6 in a step-down procedure (if p\<0.05, then continue to next step) used to control the Type I error rate. This procedure was stopped at Step 6. The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided.|Log Rank|||For pramipexole 0.25 mg versus pregabalin 300 mg: Stratified log rank test by block (40 weeks versus 52 weeks of active treatment) was used to calculate p-value.||||0.0826
91104547|NCT00581100|182094997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value from generalized linear models for correlated data using Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE), with treatment and visits as fixed factors. Model for proportion =\[Group visit Group\*visit\].|GEE model|||Week 24||||<0.001
90904302|NCT03844321|181675563|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.275||||||Reported p-value is for estimated weekly change in WHO-5 score by treatment by moderator interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Age measured at the beginning of the intervention period was analyzed as a moderator of the relationship between treatment and weekly WHO-5 scores. We added a main effect for the moderator, as well as treatment by time, moderator by time, and treatment by moderator by time interactions to the linear mixed model and used a likelihood ratio test to compare this interaction model to one without the three-way interaction. These analyses were completed over Baseline to Week 20.||||.275
90857285|NCT05419908|181578890|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|43.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.83|59.85||Likelihood-ratio test based 95% confidence interval of the percentage difference.|Likelihood-Ratio Chi-Square Test|||Week 8||59.85|27.83|<0.001
90857286|NCT05419908|181578890|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|42.5|||<|0.001||95.0|26.34|58.66||Likelihood-ratio test based 95% confidence interval of the percentage difference.|Likelihood-Ratio Chi-Square Test|||Week 12||58.66|26.34|<0.001
90857287|NCT05419908|181578891|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|62.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.56|79.05||Likelihood-ratio test based 95% confidence interval of the percentage difference.|Likelihood-Ratio Chi-Square Test|||Week 4||79.05|46.56|<0.001
90857288|NCT05419908|181578891|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|46.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.85|63.47||Likelihood-ratio test based 95% confidence interval of the percentage difference.|Likelihood-Ratio Chi-Square Test|||Week 8||63.47|28.85|<0.001
90857289|NCT05419908|181578891|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|57.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.57|73.43||Likelihood-ratio test based 95% confidence interval of the percentage difference.|Likelihood-Ratio Chi-Square Test|||Week 12||73.43|41.57|<0.001
90904303|NCT03844321|181675564|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.977||||||Reported p-value is for estimated weekly change in WHO-5 score by treatment by moderator interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||PSS measured at the beginning of the intervention period was analyzed as a moderator of the relationship between treatment and weekly WHO-5 scores. We added a main effect for the moderator, as well as treatment by time, moderator by time, and treatment by moderator by time interactions to the linear mixed model and used a likelihood ratio test to compare this interaction model to one without the three-way interaction. These analyses were completed over Baseline to Week 8.||||.977
90904304|NCT03844321|181675564|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.341||||||Reported p-value is for estimated weekly change in WHO-5 score by treatment by moderator interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||PSS measured at the beginning of the intervention period was analyzed as a moderator of the relationship between treatment and weekly WHO-5 scores. We added a main effect for the moderator, as well as treatment by time, moderator by time, and treatment by moderator by time interactions to the linear mixed model and used a likelihood ratio test to compare this interaction model to one without the three-way interaction. These analyses were completed over Baseline to Week 20.||||.341
90958711|NCT02996565|181797294|SUPERIORITY|Random coefficients model predicted baseline and 6 month patient-reported outcome from treatment group, time point and treatment group by time with random clinic intercept and patient scale parameter.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.93||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.08||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|The interaction RR compares the likelihood of reporting the side effect was a problem at 6m relative to baseline in Telehealth vs. clinic based care|adjusted for baseline DBP, baseline age, sex|||1.08|0.80|0.32
91032802|NCT01149473|181950843|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|102.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.8|106.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||106|98.8|
90857290|NCT05419908|181578892|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|61.5|||<|0.001||95.0|45.4|77.55||Likelihood-ratio test based 95% confidence interval of the percentage difference.|Likelihood-Ratio Chi-Square Test|||Week 4||77.55|45.40|<0.001
90857291|NCT05419908|181578892|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|43.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.53|62.69||Likelihood-ratio test based 95% confidence interval of the percentage difference.|Likelihood-Ratio Chi-Square Test|||Week 8||62.69|23.53|<0.001
90857292|NCT05419908|181578892|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|52.5|||<|0.001||95.0|33.92|71.08||Likelihood-ratio test based 95% confidence interval of the percentage difference.|Likelihood-Ratio Chi-Square Test|||Week 12||71.08|33.92|<0.001
90857293|NCT05419908|181578893|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.45|-1.6||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hfrdis as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: Work||-1.60|-3.45|<0.001
90857294|NCT05419908|181578893|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.15|-1.42||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hfrdis as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: Work||-1.42|-3.15|<0.001
90857295|NCT05419908|181578893|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.03|-1.2||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hfrdis as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: Work||-1.20|-3.03|<0.001
90857296|NCT05419908|181578893|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.19|-1.46||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hfrdis as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: Social Activities||-1.46|-3.19|<0.001
90857297|NCT05419908|181578893|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.21|-1.47||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hfrdis as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: Social Activties||-1.47|-3.21|<0.001
90857298|NCT05419908|181578893|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|-1.29||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hfrdis as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: Social Activties||-1.29|-3.09|<0.001
90857299|NCT05419908|181578893|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.99|-1.31||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hfrdis as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: Leisure Activities||-1.31|-2.99|<0.001
90857300|NCT05419908|181578893|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.19|-1.55||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hfrdis as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: Leisure Activties||-1.55|-3.19|<0.001
90857301|NCT05419908|181578893|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.64||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.66|-0.62||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hfrdis as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: Leisure Activties||-0.62|-2.66|0.002
91102285|NCT00806026|182091285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|||||This analysis was step 3 in a step-down procedure (if p\<0.05, then continue to next step) used to control the Type I error rate. This procedure was stopped at Step 6. The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided.|Log Rank|||For pramipexole 0.5 mg versus pregabalin 300 mg: Stratified log rank test by block (40 weeks versus 52 weeks of active treatment) was used to calculate p-value.||||0.0012
90904305|NCT03844321|181675565|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.885||||||Reported p-value is for estimated weekly change in WHO-5 score by treatment by moderator interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||PROMIS: EDD measured at the beginning of the intervention period was analyzed as a moderator of the relationship between treatment and weekly WHO-5 scores. We added a main effect for the moderator, as well as treatment by time, moderator by time, and treatment by moderator by time interactions to the linear mixed model and used a likelihood ratio test to compare this interaction model to one without the three-way interaction. These analyses were completed over Baseline to Week 8.||||.885
91102286|NCT00806026|182091287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-17.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.332|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.76|-8.74||This analysis was step 7 in a step-down procedure (if p\<0.05, then continue to next step) used to control the Type I error rate. This procedure was stopped at Step 6. The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|Spatial power covariance structure was used.||For pregabalin 300 mg versus placebo: Mixed model analysis was used to analyze SSQ-Subjective WASO score with baseline value, region (US or EU), treatment, week and treatment by week interaction as fixed effects.||-8.74|-25.76|<0.0001
91102287|NCT00806026|182091287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.408||0.8075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.73|7.58||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p\<0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error. The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|Spatial power covariance structure was used.||For pramipexole 0.25 mg versus placebo: Mixed model analysis was used to analyze SSQ-Subjective WASO score with baseline value, region (US or EU), treatment, week and treatment by week interaction as fixed effects.||7.58|-9.73|0.8075
90857302|NCT05419908|181578893|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.08|-1.78||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hfrdis as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: Sleep||-1.78|-4.08|<0.001
90857303|NCT05419908|181578893|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.86|-1.57||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hfrdis as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: Sleep||-1.57|-3.86|<0.001
90857304|NCT05419908|181578893|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.67|-1.54||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hfrdis as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: Sleep||-1.54|-3.67|<0.001
90857305|NCT05419908|181578893|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.67|-0.81||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hfrdis as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: Mood||-0.81|-2.67|<0.001
90857306|NCT05419908|181578893|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|-1.16||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hfrdis as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: Mood||-1.16|-3.09|<0.001
90857307|NCT05419908|181578893|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.69|-0.88||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hfrdis as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: Mood||-0.88|-2.69|<0.001
90857308|NCT05419908|181578893|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.86|-0.97||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hfrdis as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: Concentration||-0.97|-2.86|<0.001
90857309|NCT05419908|181578893|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|94.0|-3.21|-1.25||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hfrdis as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: Concentration||-1.25|-3.21|<0.001
90857310|NCT05419908|181578893|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.91|-0.88||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hfrdis as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: Concentration||-0.88|-2.91|<0.001
90857311|NCT05419908|181578893|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.33||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.46||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hfrdis as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: Relations With Others||-0.46|-2.20|0.003
90857312|NCT05419908|181578893|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-0.9||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hfrdis as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: Relations With others||-0.90|-2.80|<0.001
90857313|NCT05419908|181578893|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.66|-0.77||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hfrdis as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: Relations With Others||-0.77|-2.66|<0.001
90857314|NCT05419908|181578893|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.06||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|0.13||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hfrdis as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: Sexuality||0.13|-2.25|0.081
90857315|NCT05419908|181578893|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.4||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|0.0||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hfrdis as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: Sexuality||0.00|-2.80|0.050
90857316|NCT05419908|181578893|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.51||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.84|-0.19||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hfrdis as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: Sexuality||-0.19|-2.84|0.026
90857317|NCT05419908|181578893|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|-0.79||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hfrdis as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: Enjoyment of Life||-0.79|-2.51|<0.001
91102288|NCT00806026|182091287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-4.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.318||0.2906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.05|3.91||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p\<0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error. The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|Spatial power covariance structure was used.||For pramipexole 0.5 mg versus placebo: Mixed model analysis was used to analyze SSQ-Subjective WASO score with baseline value, region (US or EU), treatment, week and treatment by week interaction as fixed effects.||3.91|-13.05|0.2906
90857318|NCT05419908|181578893|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.97|-1.18||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hfrdis as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: Enjoyment of Life||-1.18|-2.97|<0.001
90857319|NCT05419908|181578893|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.88|-0.78||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hfrdis as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: Enjoyment of Life||-0.78|-2.88|<0.001
90857320|NCT05419908|181578893|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.86|-0.97||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hfrdis as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week4: Overall Quality of Life||-0.97|-2.86|<0.001
90857321|NCT05419908|181578893|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.41|-1.61||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hfrdis as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: Overall Quality of Life||-1.61|-3.41|<0.001
90857322|NCT05419908|181578893|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.31|-1.41||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hfrdis as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: Overall Quality of Life||-1.41|-3.31|<0.001
90857323|NCT05419908|181578893|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.73|-1.23||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hfrdis as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: Overall Mean Score||-1.23|-2.73|<0.001
90857324|NCT05419908|181578893|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.02|-1.4||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hfrdis as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: Overall Mean Score||-1.40|-3.02|<0.001
90857325|NCT05419908|181578893|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.83|-1.13||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hfrdis as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: Overall Mean Score||-1.13|-2.83|<0.001
90857326|NCT05419908|181578894|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|1.375|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.651|2.1||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline LSEQ as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: Getting to Sleep||2.100|0.651|<0.001
90857327|NCT05419908|181578894|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|1.166|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.505|1.827||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline LSEQ as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: Getting to Sleep||1.827|0.505|<0.001
90857328|NCT05419908|181578894|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.895||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.599||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline LSEQ as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: Getting to Sleep||1.599|0.190|0.014
91102289|NCT00806026|182091293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.93||0.7073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|6.3||This analysis was step 8 in a step-down procedure (if p\<0.05, then continue to next step) used to control the Type I error rate. This procedure was stopped at Step 6. The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|Spatial power covariance structure was used.||For pregabalin 300 mg versus placebo: Mixed model analysis was used to analyze RLS-NDI with baseline value, region (US or EU), treatment, week and treatment by week interaction as fixed effects.||6.30|-9.30|0.7073
90857329|NCT05419908|181578894|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|2.423|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.308|3.539||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline LSEQ as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: Quality of Sleep||3.539|1.308|<0.001
90857330|NCT05419908|181578894|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|2.291|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|3.251||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline LSEQ as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: Quality of Sleep||3.251|1.31|<0.001
90857331|NCT05419908|181578894|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|2.433|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.334|3.532||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline LSEQ as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: Quality of Sleep||3.532|1.334|<0.001
90857332|NCT05419908|181578894|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.877||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.034|1.789||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline LSEQ as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: Awake Following Sleep||1.789|-0.034|0.059
90857333|NCT05419908|181578894|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|1.457||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.579|2.335||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline LSEQ as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: Awake Following Sleep||2.335|0.579|0.001
90857334|NCT05419908|181578894|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|1.113||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.107|2.12||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline LSEQ as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: Awake Following Sleep||2.120|0.107|0.031
90857335|NCT05419908|181578894|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|1.203||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.317|2.088||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline LSEQ as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: Behaviour Following Wakening||2.088|0.317|0.008
90857336|NCT05419908|181578894|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|1.597||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.639|2.556||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline LSEQ as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: Behaviour Following Wakening||2.556|0.639|0.001
91102290|NCT00806026|182091293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.78||0.5299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|9.9||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p\<0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error. The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|Spatial power covariance structure was used.||For pramipexole 0.25 mg versus placebo: Mixed model analysis was used to analyze RLS-NDI with baseline value, region (US or EU), treatment, week and treatment by week interaction as fixed effects.||9.9|-5.1|0.5299
91104548|NCT00581100|182094997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value from generalized linear models for correlated data using Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE), with treatment and visits as fixed factors. Model for proportion =\[Group visit Group\*visit\].|GEE model|||Week 24||||<0.001
90857337|NCT05419908|181578894|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.842||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.116|1.8||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline LSEQ as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: Behaviour Following Sleep||1.800|-0.116|0.084
90857338|NCT05419908|181578895|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.0||||0.881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline GCS as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: Loss of Interest in Sex||0.3|-0.3|0.881
90857339|NCT05419908|181578895|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.2||||0.383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.2||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline GCS as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: Loss of Interest in Sex||0.2|-0.6|0.383
90857340|NCT05419908|181578895|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.2||||0.301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.2||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline GCS as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: Loss of Interest in Sex||0.2|-0.6|0.301
90857341|NCT05419908|181578895|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.5||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|-0.4||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline GCS as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: Psychological||-0.4|-4.5|0.020
90857342|NCT05419908|181578895|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-3.3||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|-1.2||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline GCS as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: Psychological||-1.2|-5.4|0.003
90857343|NCT05419908|181578895|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-3.1||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|-1.0||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline GCS as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: Psychological||-1.0|-5.2|0.005
90857344|NCT05419908|181578895|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.2||||0.732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.9||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline GCS as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: Physical||0.9|-1.2|0.732
90857345|NCT05419908|181578895|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.7||||0.282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.6||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline GCS as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: Physical||0.6|-1.9|0.282
90857346|NCT05419908|181578895|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.6||||0.254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.5||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline GCS as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: Physical||0.5|-1.7|0.254
90857347|NCT05419908|181578895|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-1.4||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline GCS as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: Vasomotor||-1.4|-2.7|<0.001
90857348|NCT05419908|181578895|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-1.1||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline GCS as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: Vasomotor||-1.1|-2.4|<0.001
90857349|NCT05419908|181578895|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-1.3||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline GCS as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: Vasomotor||-1.3|-2.6|<0.001
90857350|NCT05419908|181578895|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-4.6||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|-1.0||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline GCS as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: Total Symptom Score||-1.0|-8.2|0.013
90857351|NCT05419908|181578895|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-6.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|-3.1||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline GCS as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: Total Symptom Score||-3.1|-10.7|<0.001
90857352|NCT05419908|181578895|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-6.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|-2.8||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline GCS as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: Total Symptom Score||-2.8|-9.9|<0.001
90857353|NCT05419908|181578896|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.8||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline SDS as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: Work/School||-0.8|-2.7|<0.001
90857354|NCT05419908|181578896|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-1.3||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline SDS as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: Work/School||-1.3|-2.8|<0.001
90857355|NCT05419908|181578896|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-0.8||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline SDS as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: Work/School||-0.8|-2.5|<0.001
90857356|NCT05419908|181578896|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.6||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline SDS as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: Social Life||-0.6|-2.2|<0.001
90857357|NCT05419908|181578896|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-1.1||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline SDS as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: Social Life||-1.1|-2.7|<0.001
91102291|NCT00806026|182091293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-7.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.69||0.0354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|-0.5||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p\<0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error. The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|Spatial power covariance structure was used.||For pramipexole 0.5 mg versus placebo: Mixed model analysis was used to analyze RLS-NDI with baseline value, region (US or EU), treatment, week and treatment by week interaction as fixed effects.||-0.5|-15.2|0.0354
90857358|NCT05419908|181578896|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.7||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline SDS as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: Social Life||-0.7|-2.4|<0.001
90857359|NCT05419908|181578896|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.3||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.4||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline SDS as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: Family Life/Home Responsibilities||-0.4|-2.2|0.005
90857360|NCT05419908|181578896|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-0.9||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline SDS as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: Family Life/Home Responsibilities||-0.9|-2.5|<0.001
90857361|NCT05419908|181578896|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.7||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline SDS as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: Family Life/Home Responsibilities||-0.7|-2.4|<0.001
90857362|NCT05419908|181578896|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-4.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|-2.0||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline SDS as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: Global Functional Impairment||-2.0|-6.9|<0.001
90857363|NCT05419908|181578896|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-5.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|-3.6||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline SDS as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: Global Functional Impairment||-3.6|-8.0|<0.001
90857364|NCT05419908|181578896|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-5.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|-2.8||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline SDS as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: Global Functional Impairment||-2.8|-7.8|<0.001
90857365|NCT05419908|181578897|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.0||||0.936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.6||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline SDS as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: Days Lost||0.6|-0.5|0.936
90857366|NCT05419908|181578897|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.0||||0.884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline SDS as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: Days Lost||0.1|-0.1|0.884
90857367|NCT05419908|181578897|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline SDS as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: Days Lost||0.1|-0.4|0.124
90857368|NCT05419908|181578897|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.9||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.0||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline SDS as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: Days Unproductive||0.0|-1.8|0.052
90857369|NCT05419908|181578897|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.9||||0.06||95.0|-1.7|0.0||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline SDS as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: Days Unproductive||0.0|-1.7|0.060
90857370|NCT05419908|181578897|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.8||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.0||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline SDS as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: Days Unproductive||0.0|-1.7|0.049
90857371|NCT02160782|181578922|EQUIVALENCE|The P-value for testing if the treatment group least squares (LS) means were equal was calculated to determine if the change in sBA levels between the treatment groups was statistically significant.|Mean Difference (Net)|-117.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|52.828||0.0464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-232.38|-2.18|||ANCOVA|||The difference between treatment groups in change from Week 18 to Week 22 in fasting sBA levels was evaluated using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group as a factor, and Week 18 sBA as a covariate. The analysis used a tabulation of fitted summary statistics from ANCOVA in the MITT population, which included all participants who were enrolled, received study drug through Week 18, and had a reduction from baseline in sBA of ≥50% at the Week 12 or Week 18 measurement.||-2.18|-232.38|0.0464
90857372|NCT02160782|181578923|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis that the mean change was equal to zero was tested using the Student's t-test to determine if the mean change in sBA levels between baseline and Week 18 (the open-label period) was statistically significant.|Mean Difference (Net)|-87.73|STANDARD_DEVIATION|119.979||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-133.37|-42.09||Data for this analysis were obtained from 31 participants at baseline; 29 of those participants contributed Week 18 data.|Student's t-test|||This analysis investigated whether a statistically significant change in sBA levels was observed when comparing baseline to Week 18 (the open-label period, during which all participants received MRX). The analysis was based on the ITT population.||-42.09|-133.37|0.0005
90904306|NCT03844321|181675565|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.319||||||Reported p-value is for estimated weekly change in WHO-5 score by treatment by moderator interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||PROMIS: EDD measured at the beginning of the intervention period was analyzed as a moderator of the relationship between treatment and weekly WHO-5 scores. We added a main effect for the moderator, as well as treatment by time, moderator by time, and treatment by moderator by time interactions to the linear mixed model and used a likelihood ratio test to compare this interaction model to one without the three-way interaction. These analyses were completed over Baseline to Week 20.||||.319
90958712|NCT02996565|181797295|SUPERIORITY|Random coefficients model predicted baseline and 6 month patient-reported outcome from treatment group, time point and treatment group by time with random clinic intercept and patient scale parameter.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.95||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.19||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|The interaction RR compares the likelihood of reporting the side effect was a problem at 6m relative to baseline in Telehealth vs. clinic based care|adjusted for baseline DBP, baseline age, sex|||1.19|0.76|0.62
90857373|NCT02160782|181578924|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis that the mean change was equal to zero was tested using the Student's t-test to determine if the mean change in ItchRO(Obs) scores between baseline and Week 18 (the open-label period) was statistically significant.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.704|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.9114|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.051|-1.357|||Student's t-test|||This analysis investigated whether a statistically significant change in ItchRO(Obs) score was observed when comparing baseline to Week 18 (the open-label period, during which all participants received MRX). The analysis was based on the ITT population. ItchRO scores range from 0 to 4; the higher score indicates increasing itch severity.||-1.357|-2.051|< 0.0001
90857374|NCT02160782|181578925|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis that the mean change was equal to zero was tested using the Student's t-test to determine if the mean change in ItchRO(Pt) scores between baseline and Week 18 (the open-label period) was statistically significant.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.072|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.9931|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.645|-1.498|||Student's t-test|||This analysis investigated whether a statistically significant change in ItchRO(Pt) score was observed when comparing baseline to Week 18 (the open-label period, during which all participants received MRX). The analysis was based on the ITT population. ItchRO scores range from 0 to 4; the higher score indicates increasing itch severity.||-1.498|-2.645|< 0.0001
90857375|NCT02160782|181578926|EQUIVALENCE|The P-value for testing if the treatment group LS means were equal was calculated to determine if the change in ItchRO(Obs) between the treatment groups was statistically significant.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.483|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3103|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.122|-0.844|||ANCOVA|||The difference between treatment groups in change from Week 18 to Week 22 in ItchRO(Obs) was evaluated using an ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor, and Week 18 ItchRO(Obs) as a covariate. The analysis used a tabulation of fitted summary statistics from ANCOVA in the intent-to-treat population, which included all participants who were enrolled, and received at least one dose of study drug.||-0.844|-2.122|< 0.0001
90857376|NCT02160782|181578927|EQUIVALENCE|The P-value for testing if the treatment group LS means were equal was calculated to determine if the change in ItchRO(Pt) between the treatment groups was statistically significant. While the number of participants included in analysis for the end point indicates 28, there were only 14; n = 5 for ItchRO(Pt): MRX and n = 9 for ItchRO(Pt): placebo.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.988|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4641||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.009|-0.967|||ANCOVA|||The difference between treatment groups in change from Week 18 to Week 22 in ItchRO (Pt) was evaluated using an ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor, and Week 18 ItchRO(Pt) as a covariate. The analysis used a tabulation of fitted summary statistics from ANCOVA in the intent-to-treat population, which included all participants who were enrolled, and received at least one dose of study drug.||-0.967|-3.009|0.0013
90857377|NCT02160782|181578928|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis that the mean change was equal to zero was tested using the Student's t-test to determine if the mean change in ALP levels between baseline and Week 18 (the open-label period) was statistically significant.|Mean Difference (Net)|-27.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|118.33||0.2163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.8|17.2||Data for this analysis were obtained from 31 participants at baseline; 29 of those participants contributed Week 18 data.|Student's t-test|||This analysis investigated whether a statistically significant change in ALP levels was observed when comparing baseline to Week 18 (the open-label period, during which all participants received MRX). The analysis was based on the ITT population.||17.2|-72.8|0.2163
90857378|NCT02160782|181578929|EQUIVALENCE|The P-value for testing if the treatment group LS means were equal was calculated to determine if the change in ALP levels between the treatment groups was statistically significant.|Mean Difference (Net)|10.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|30.44||0.7455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.6|72.6|||ANCOVA|||The difference between treatment groups in change from Week 18 to Week 22 in ALP levels was evaluated using an ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor, and Week 18 ALP as a covariate. The analysis used a tabulation of fitted summary statistics from ANCOVA in the intent-to-treat population, which included all participants who were enrolled, and received at least one dose of study drug.||72.6|-52.6|0.7455
90857379|NCT02160782|181578930|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis that the mean change was equal to zero was tested using the Student's t-test to determine if the mean change in ALT levels between baseline and Week 18 (the open-label period) was statistically significant.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|84.54||0.9358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.4|30.9||Data for this analysis were obtained from 31 participants at baseline; 29 of those participants contributed Week 18 data.|Student's t-test|||This analysis investigated whether a statistically significant change in ALT levels was observed when comparing baseline to Week 18 (the open-label period, during which all participants received MRX). The analysis was based on the ITT population.||30.9|-33.4|0.9358
90857380|NCT02160782|181578931|EQUIVALENCE|The P-value for testing if the treatment group LS means were equal was calculated to determine if the change in ALT levels between the treatment groups was statistically significant.|Mean Difference (Net)|15.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.53||0.4472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.1|55.2|||ANCOVA|||The difference between treatment groups in change from Week 18 to Week 22 in ALT levels was evaluated using an ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor, and Week 18 ALT as a covariate. The analysis used a tabulation of fitted summary statistics from ANCOVA in the intent-to-treat population, which included all participants who were enrolled, and received at least one dose of study drug.||55.2|-25.1|0.4472
90857381|NCT02160782|181578932|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis that the mean change was equal to zero was tested using the Student's t-test to determine if the mean change in total bilirubin levels between baseline and Week 18 (the open-label period) was statistically significant.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.47|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.424||0.0893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|0.08|||Student's t-test|||||0.08|-1.01|0.0893
90857382|NCT02160782|181578933|EQUIVALENCE|The P-value for testing if the treatment group LS means were equal was calculated to determine if the change in total bilirubin between the treatment groups was statistically significant.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.361||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.6|||ANCOVA|||The difference between treatment groups in change from Week 18 to Week 22 in total bilirubin was evaluated using an ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor, and Week 18 total bilirubin as a covariate. The analysis used a tabulation of fitted summary statistics from ANCOVA in the intent-to-treat population, which included all participants who were enrolled, and received at least one dose of study drug.||0.6|-0.88|0.7
91104549|NCT00581100|182094998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.069||95.0||||P-value from generalized linear models for correlated data using Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) with treatment and visits as fixed factors. Model for proportion=\[Group visit Group\*visit\].|GEE model|||Week 12||||0.069
90857383|NCT02160782|181578934|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis that the mean change was equal to zero was tested using the Student's t-test to determine if the mean change in direct bilirubin levels between baseline and Week 18 (the open-label period) was statistically significant.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.012||0.0139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.11|||Student's t-test|||||-0.11|-0.9|0.0139
90857384|NCT02160782|181578935|EQUIVALENCE|The P-value for testing if the treatment group LS means were equal was calculated to determine if the change in direct bilirubin between the treatment groups was statistically significant.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.265||0.9517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.53|||ANCOVA|||The difference between treatment groups in change from Week 18 to Week 22 in direct bilirubin levels was evaluated using an ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor, and Week 18 direct bilirubin as a covariate. The analysis used a tabulation of fitted summary statistics from ANCOVA in the intent-to-treat population, which included all participants who were enrolled, and received at least one dose of study drug.||0.53|-0.56|0.9517
90857385|NCT01298531|181578981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.27||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.17|-10.38|||ANCOVA|Not specifed.||The primary analysis of the primary endpoint was an Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA)with Baseline NSAID score and treatment as explanatory variables. The hypothesis tested for the primary endpoint was as follows: H0: ΔETN = ΔPlacebo; H1: ΔETN ≠ ΔPlacebo.||-10.38|-44.17|0.0019
90857386|NCT01298531|181578982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.78||||0.0115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.99|-4.57|||ANCOVA|||The analysis of secondary endpoints was an ANCOVA using linear regression with Baseline NSAID score and MMRM was run using the model and using the repeated measures for the changes from Baseline in each outcome at Week 8.||-4.57|-34.99|0.0115
90857387|NCT01298531|181578983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.93||||0.0153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|-0.18|||ANCOVA|||The analysis of secondary endpoints was an ANCOVA using linear regression with Baseline NSAID score and MMRM was run using the model as detailed for the primary endpoint and using the repeated measures for the changes from Baseline in each outcome at Week 4.||-0.18|-1.68|0.0153
90857388|NCT01298531|181578984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.88||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|0.0|||ANCOVA|||The analysis of secondary endpoints was an ANCOVA using linear regression with Baseline NSAID score and MMRM was run using the model as detailed for the primary endpoint and using the repeated measures for the changes from Baseline in each outcome at Week 8.||0.00|-1.76|0.0510
90857389|NCT01298531|181578986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.209||||0.0066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.65|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression with baseline score and treatment group included as covariates.||0.65|0.07|0.0066
90857390|NCT01298531|181578987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-53.7||||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-91.01|-16.38|||ANCOVA|||The changes from baseline in the continuous endpoints of mini BASDAI was analyzed using ANCOVA. The total NSAID score for the first 8 weeks of randomized treatment was calculated as an AUC using the linear trapezoidal rule.||-16.38|-91.01|0.0053
90857391|NCT01298531|181578988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.963||||0.0324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|8.01|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression with baseline morning stiffness score and treatment group included as covariates.||8.01|1.10|0.0324
90857392|NCT01298531|181578991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.696||||0.0501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|7.27|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8 was analyzed using a logistic regression to assess treatment effect. Logistic regression with baseline morning stiffness score and treatment group included as covariates.||7.27|1.00|0.0501
90904307|NCT03844321|181675566|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.838||||||Reported p-value is for estimated weekly change in WHO-5 score by treatment by moderator interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||PROMIS: EDA measured at the beginning of the intervention period was analyzed as a moderator of the relationship between treatment and weekly WHO-5 scores. We added a main effect for the moderator, as well as treatment by time, moderator by time, and treatment by moderator by time interactions to the linear mixed model and used a likelihood ratio test to compare this interaction model to one without the three-way interaction. These analyses were completed over Baseline to Week 8.||||.838
90958713|NCT02996565|181797296|SUPERIORITY|Random coefficients model predicted baseline and 6 month patient-reported outcome from treatment group, time point and treatment group by time with random clinic intercept and patient scale parameter.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.08||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|The interaction RR compares the likelihood of reporting the side effect was a problem at 6m relative to baseline in Telehealth vs. clinic based care|adjusted for baseline DBP, baseline age, sex|||1.08|0.91|0.87
90959019|NCT01620255|181798203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.089||||0.1379|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.037|0.214||1-sided p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|PF-00547659 7.5 mg vs placebo, centrally read||0.214|-0.037|0.1379
90857393|NCT01298531|181578993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.103||||0.0284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|8.54|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8 was analyzed using a logistic regression to assess treatment effect. Logistic regression with baseline morning stiffness score and treatment group included as covariates.||8.54|1.13|0.0284
90857394|NCT01298531|181578995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.13||||0.3291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|9.72|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8 was analyzed using a logistic regression to assess treatment effect. Logistic regression with baseline morning stiffness score and treatment group included as covariates.||9.72|0.47|0.3291
90857395|NCT01298531|181578996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.44|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model on change from baseline ASDAS CRP score fitting baseline ASDAS CRP score as a covariate, plus treatment as a factor.||-0.44|-1.11|<0.0001
90857396|NCT01298531|181578997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|-0.28|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model on change from baseline ASDAS CRP score fitting baseline ASDAS CRP score as a covariate, plus treatment as a factor.||-0.28|-1.09|0.0011
90857397|NCT01298531|181578999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model on change from baseline ASDAS ESR score fitting baseline ASDAS ESR score as a covariate, plus treatment as a factor.||-0.24|-0.90|0.0011
90857398|NCT01298531|181579000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.67||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.22|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model on change from baseline ASDAS ESR score fitting baseline ASDAS ESR score as a covariate, plus treatment as a factor.||-0.22|-1.11|0.0037
91102292|NCT00806026|182091295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|-0.45||This analysis was step 9 in a step-down procedure (if p\<0.05, then continue to next step) used to control the Type I error rate. This procedure was stopped at Step 6. The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|Spatial power covariance structure was used.||For pregabalin 300 mg versus placebo: Mixed model analysis was used to analyze limb pain-VAS with baseline value, region (US or EU), treatment, week and treatment by week interaction as fixed effects.||-0.45|-1.55|0.0004
91102293|NCT00806026|182091295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.282||0.1242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.12||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p\<0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error. The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|Spatial power covariance structure was used.||For pramipexole 0.25 mg versus placebo: Mixed model analysis was used to analyze limb pain-VAS with baseline value, region (US or EU), treatment, week and treatment by week interaction as fixed effects.||0.12|-0.99|0.1242
90857399|NCT01298531|181579004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model on change from baseline BAS-G score fitting baseline BAS-G score as a covariate, plus treatment as a factor.||-0.40|-2.20|0.0050
90958714|NCT02996565|181797297|SUPERIORITY|Random coefficients model predicted baseline and 6 month patient-reported outcome from treatment group, time point and treatment group by time with random clinic intercept and patient scale parameter.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.95||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.11||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|The interaction RR compares the likelihood of reporting the activity is helpful at 6m relative to baseline in Telehealth care vs. clinic based care|adjusted for baseline DBP, baseline age, sex|||1.11|0.82|0.51
91102294|NCT00806026|182091295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.287||0.0553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|0.01||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p\<0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error. The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|Spatial power covariance structure was used.||For pramipexole 0.5 mg versus placebo: Mixed model analysis was used to analyze limb pain-VAS with baseline value, region (US or EU), treatment, week and treatment by week interaction as fixed effects.||0.01|-1.12|0.0553
90857400|NCT01298531|181579005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.24||||0.0256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|-0.16|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model on change from baseline BAS-G score fitting baseline BAS-G score as a covariate, plus treatment as a factor.||-0.16|-2.33|0.0256
90857401|NCT01298531|181579007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.01||||0.0474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model on change from baseline total back pain fitting baseline total back pain as a covariate, plus treatment as a factor.||-0.01|-2.00|0.0474
90857402|NCT01298531|181579008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.28||||0.0212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.36|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model on change from baseline total back pain fitting baseline total back pain as a covariate, plus treatment as a factor||-0.20|-2.36|0.0212
90857403|NCT01298531|181579010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.31||||0.0198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.21|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model on change from baseline nocturnal back pain fitting baseline nocturnal back pain as a covariate, plus treatment as a factor||-0.21|-2.40|0.0198
90857404|NCT01298531|181579011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.51||||0.0132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.69|-0.32|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model on change from baseline nocturnal back pain fitting baseline nocturnal back pain as a covariate, plus treatment as a factor||-0.32|-2.69|0.0132
90857405|NCT01298531|181579013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.81||||0.0237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model on change from baseline BASFI score fitting baseline BASFI score as a covariate, plus treatment as a factor.||-0.11|-1.50|0.0237
90857406|NCT01298531|181579014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.91||||0.0297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|-0.09|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model on change from baseline BASFI score fitting baseline BASFI score as a covariate, plus treatment as a factor.||-0.09|-1.74|0.0297
90857407|NCT01298531|181579015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.16||||0.0152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|-0.23|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model on change from each baseline BASDAI component score fitting each baseline component score as a covariate, plus treatment as a factor.||-0.23|-2.09|0.0152
90958715|NCT02996565|181797298|SUPERIORITY|Random coefficients model predicted baseline and 6 month patient-reported outcome from treatment group, time point and treatment group by time with random clinic intercept and patient scale parameter.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.09||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.37||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|The interaction RR compares the likelihood of reporting the activity is helpful at 6m relative to baseline in Telehealth care vs. clinic based care|adjusted for baseline DBP, baseline age, sex|||1.37|0.87|0.41
90958716|NCT02996565|181797299|SUPERIORITY|Random coefficients model predicted baseline and 6 month patient-reported outcome from treatment group, time point and treatment group by time with random clinic intercept and patient scale parameter.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.06||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|The interaction RR compares the likelihood of reporting the activity was helpful at 6m relative to baseline in Telehealth care vs. clinic based care|adjusted for baseline DBP, baseline age, sex|||1.06|0.77|0.18
90857408|NCT01298531|181579016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.15||||0.0344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|-0.09|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model on change from each baseline BASDAI component score fitting each baseline component score as a covariate, plus treatment as a factor.||-0.09|-2.22|0.0344
90857409|NCT01298531|181579018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.34||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|-0.52|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model on change from baseline PGA score fitting baseline PGA score as a covariate, plus treatment as a factor||-0.52|-2.16|0.0017
90857410|NCT01298531|181579019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.12||||0.0233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|-0.16|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model on change from baseline PGA score fitting baseline PGA score as a covariate, plus treatment as a factor.||-0.16|-2.07|0.0233
90857411|NCT01298531|181579028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.01||||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.822|4.901|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8 was analyzed using logistic regression with baseline score and treatment group included as covariates.||4.901|0.822|0.1260
91102295|NCT03733483|182091307|EQUIVALENCE|Maximum likelihood estimates in a repeated measures model were used to assess the effect of insufficient sleep on P1NP levels. Change in P1NP in response to insufficient sleep was assessed using values measured every two hours on two, 24-h profiles obtained at baseline and on night 6 of sleep restriction. Circadian rhythmicity was included in the repeated-measures model as diurnal variation has been documented in prior studies. Data are presented as estimate ± standard error of the estimate.||||||0.53|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.53
90857412|NCT01298531|181579031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.47||||0.0498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|6.08|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression with baseline morning stiffness score and treatment group included as covariates. Week 8 was analyzed using a logistic regression to assess treatment effect.||6.08|1.00|0.0498
90857413|NCT01298531|181579033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36||||0.1601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.15|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model on change from baseline BASMI score fitting baseline BASMI score as a covariate, plus treatment as a factor||0.15|-0.87|0.1601
90857414|NCT01298531|181579034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.2967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.27|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model on change from baseline BASMI score fitting baseline BASMI score as a covariate, plus treatment as a factor||0.27|-0.86|0.2967
90857415|NCT01298531|181579040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.41||||0.2735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|6.75|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model on change from baseline in chest expansion mobility score fitting baseline chest expansion mobility score as a covariate, plus treatment as a factor.||6.75|-1.94|0.2735
90857416|NCT01298531|181579041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.68||||0.0422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|1.34|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model on change from baseline in chest expansion mobility score fitting baseline chest expansion mobility score as a covariate, plus treatment as a factor.||1.34|0.02|0.0422
90857417|NCT02360995|181579059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.652|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.652
90857418|NCT02360995|181579060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||<0.001
90857419|NCT02360995|181579061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||<0.001
90958717|NCT02996565|181797300|SUPERIORITY|Random coefficients model predicted baseline and 6 month patient-reported outcome from treatment group, time point and treatment group by time with random clinic intercept and patient scale parameter.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.92||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.09||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|The interaction RR compares the likelihood of reporting the activity is helpful at 6m relative to baseline in Telehealth care vs. clinic based care|adjusted for baseline DBP, baseline age, sex|||1.09|0.78|0.31
90857420|NCT02360995|181579062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.533|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.533
90857421|NCT02360995|181579063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||<0.001
90857422|NCT02360995|181579064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||<0.001
91102296|NCT03733483|182091308|EQUIVALENCE|Maximum likelihood estimates in a repeated measures model were used to assess the effect of insufficient sleep on CTX levels. Change in CTX in response to insufficient sleep was assessed using values measured every two hours on two, 24-h profiles obtained at baseline and on night 6 of sleep restriction. Circadian rhythmicity was included in the repeated-measures model as diurnal variation has been documented in prior studies. Data are presented as estimate ± standard error of the estimate.||||||0.1|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.10
90857423|NCT04622735|181579086|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0031|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0031
90857424|NCT04622735|181579086|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6787|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.6787
90857425|NCT05015530|181579104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.908|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||α-diversity assessed using the Kruskal-Wallis test||||0.908
90857426|NCT02476422|181579147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.2||||0.211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|8.3|||ANCOVA|||||8.3|-1.8|0.211
90959020|NCT01620255|181798203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.254||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.121|0.388||1-sided p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|PF-00547659 22.5 mg vs placebo, centrally read||0.388|0.121|0.0011
90857427|NCT00994318|181579160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.95|||Log Rank|||"FCM (Ferinject / Injectafer) targeting high ferritin level (400 - 600 mcg/L) compared with Oral Iron (Ferrous sulphate 100 mg iron twice daily).~Three primary comparisons using a hierarchical step-down procedure on the log-rank test to preserve the overall alpha level of 0.05, performed in the following order:~1. FCM (high ferritin target) compared with oral iron.~2. FCM (high ferritin target) compared with FCM (low ferritin target).~3. FCM (low ferritin target) compared with oral iron."||0.95|0.44|0.026
90857428|NCT00994318|181579160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.05|||Log Rank|||"FCM (Ferinject / Injectafer) targeting high ferritin level (400-600mcg/L) compared with FCM targeting low ferritin level (100 - 200 mcg/L).~Three primary comparisons using a hierarchical step-down procedure on the log-rank test to preserve the overall alpha level of 0.05, performed in the following order:~1. FCM (high ferritin target) compared with oral iron.~2. FCM (high ferritin target) compared with FCM (low ferritin target).~3. FCM (low ferritin target) compared with oral iron."||1.05|0.45|0.082
90857429|NCT00994318|181579160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.93|||Log Rank|||"Sensitivity analysis of the primary endpoint. Time to initiation of additional or alternative anaemia management without taking into account the Hb trigger.~FCM (Ferinject / Injectafer) targeting high ferritin level (400 - 600 mcg/L) compared with Oral Iron (Ferrous sulphate 100 mg iron twice daily)."||0.93|0.39|0.020
90857430|NCT00994318|181579160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.88|||Log Rank|||"Sensitivity analysis of the primary endpoint. Time to initiation of additional or alternative anaemia management taking into account the Hb trigger based on local laboratory data, instead of central laboratory data.~FCM (Ferinject / Injectafer) targeting high ferritin level (400 - 600 mcg/L) compared with Oral Iron (Ferrous sulphate 100 mg iron twice daily)."||0.88|0.43|0.008
90857431|NCT00994318|181579160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.1|||Log Rank|||"Sensitivity analysis of the primary endpoint. Time to initiation of additional or alternative anaemia management taking into account the Hb trigger based on subjects with a complete set of Hb values from central laboratory.~FCM (Ferinject / Injectafer) targeting high ferritin level (400 - 600 mcg/L) compared with Oral Iron (Ferrous sulphate 100 mg iron twice daily)"||1.10|0.45|0.12
90857432|NCT02545075|181579167|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5059|||||||Chi-squared|One-sided p-value based on unstratified chi-square test||||||0.5059
90857433|NCT02545075|181579168|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6202|||||||Chi-squared|One-sided unstratified chi-square||||||0.6202
90857434|NCT02545075|181579169|SUPERIORITY||Stratified cox proportional hazard model|1.13||||0.7267|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.87|1.45|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value from Log-rank Test stratified by M substage (M1a+M1b vs. M1c)||||1.45|0.87|0.7267
90857435|NCT02545075|181579170|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Cox proportional hazard|0.9||||0.2503|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.71|1.15|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value from Log-rank Test stratified by M substage (M1a+M1b vs. M1c) and BRAF mutation status as entered into the IVRS||||1.15|0.71|0.2503
90857436|NCT02545075|181579171|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.9932|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.64|1.55|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.55|0.64|0.9932
90857437|NCT02545075|181579172|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.9738|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.48|2.03|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.03|0.48|0.9738
90857438|NCT06400979|181579191|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.008
90857439|NCT06400979|181579192|SUPERIORITY|To assess the reduction of nausea following aromatherapy, pre- and post- aromatherapy scores were compared using paired t-tests||||||0.13|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.13
90857440|NCT06400979|181579193|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
90857441|NCT06400979|181579194|OTHER|Perceived effectiveness of aromatherapy for patient satisfaction were compared with respect to post-aromatherapy scores and pre-post changes in scores using two-sample t-tests||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|73.4|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
90857442|NCT06400979|181579195|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.02
90857443|NCT06400979|181579196|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.02
90857444|NCT02343081|181579208|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assuming an intrasubject CV of 15%, an enrollment of 16 subjects was selected to provide a minimum of 80% power for the 90% CI of the ratio of the mean for Cmax for Temozolomide reference and test to fall within the 80-125% confidence range.|Cmax|94.37|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.69|107.69|||ANOVA|Primary parameters were analyzed using ANOVA. A linear, mixed model for crossover designs (two-period, two-sequence, two-treatment) was used.|Cmax Test/Reference Ratio|Bioequivalence assessment was made for the 90% CI for the ratio of log transformed pharmacokinetic parameters μT / μR and with the two one-sided Schuirmann T-test procedure under the null hypothesis||107.69|82.69|<0.05
90857445|NCT02343081|181579212|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assuming an intrasubject CV of 15%, an enrollment of 16 subjects was selected to provide a minimum of 80% power for the 90% CI of the means ratio for AUC0-t for Temozolomide reference and test to fall within the 80-125% confidence range.|AUC0-t|100.99|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.81|104.28|||ANOVA||AUC0-t Test/Reference Ratio|||104.28|97.81|<0.05
91102297|NCT01370642|182091309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference in Percentages|29.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.2|40.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||To compare the percentage of participants achieving SVR24 between the vaniprevir and control arms, 95% confidence intervals and corresponding p-values for the between-treatment difference (vaniprevir - control) were computed using Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by Interleukin 28B (IL28B) and age utilizing Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.||40.5|17.2|<0.001
90857446|NCT02343081|181579213|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assuming an intrasubject CV of 15%, an enrollment of 16 subjects was selected to provide a minimum of 80% power for the 90% CI of the means ratio for AUC0-inf for Temozolomide reference and test to fall within the 80-125% confidence range.|AUC0-inf|101.53|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.6|104.54|||ANOVA||AUC0-inf Test/Reference Ratio|||104.54|98.60|<0.05
90857447|NCT00277446|181579255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.03||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The two groups tested were baseline and after 4 weeks of treatment with the soy isoflavone supplement."||||<0.03
90857448|NCT00277446|181579256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The two groups tested were baseline and after 4 weeks of treatment with the soy isoflavone supplement."||||0.02
90857449|NCT00277446|181579257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The two groups tested were baseline and after 4 weeks of treatment with the soy isoflavone supplement."||||0.88
90857450|NCT01680887|181579258|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.403|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.403
90857451|NCT00573248|181579260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.025|ONE_SIDED|||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|||2 (nicotine versus placebo) x 2 (smokers versus nonsmokers) ANOVA for each diary item||||<0.025
90857452|NCT00573248|181579261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.025|ONE_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 (nicotine versus placebo) x 2 (smoker versus nonsmoker) ANOVA||||<0.025
90857453|NCT00573248|181579262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.025|ONE_SIDED|||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|||2 (nicotine versus placebo) x 2 (smokers versus nonsmokers) ANOVA for each diary item||||<0.025
90857454|NCT00573248|181579263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.025|ONE_SIDED|||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|||2 (nicotine versus placebo) x 2 (smokers versus nonsmokers) ANOVA for each diary item||||<0.025
90857455|NCT03091777|181579284|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||<0.001
90857456|NCT03091777|181579284|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||<0.001
90857457|NCT02536833|181579285|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.46||||0.575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.57|3.65|||ANCOVA|||||3.65|-6.57|0.575
90857458|NCT02536833|181579285|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.27||||0.643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.63|4.09|||ANCOVA|||||4.09|-6.63|0.643
90857459|NCT02536833|181579285|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34||||0.901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.07|5.75|||ANCOVA|||||5.75|-5.07|0.901
90857460|NCT02536833|181579286|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.99||||0.271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.31|2.33|||ANCOVA|||||2.33|-8.31|0.271
90857461|NCT02536833|181579286|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37||||0.898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.06|5.32|||ANCOVA|||||5.32|-6.06|0.898
90857462|NCT02536833|181579286|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.72||||0.795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.74|6.18|||ANCOVA|||||6.18|-4.74|0.795
90857463|NCT02536833|181579287|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.74||||0.283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.74|2.26|||ANCOVA|||||2.26|-7.74|0.283
91102298|NCT01370642|182091309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference in Percentages|28.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.4|40.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||To compare the percentage of participants achieving SVR24 between the vaniprevir and control arms, 95% confidence intervals and corresponding p-values for the between-treatment difference (vaniprevir - control) were computed using Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by IL28B and age utilizing Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.||40.0|17.4|<0.001
91102299|NCT01370642|182091310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference in Percentages|30.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.1|41.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||To compare the percentage of participants achieving SVR12 between the vaniprevir and control arms, 95% confidence intervals and corresponding p-values for the between-treatment difference (vaniprevir - control) were computed using Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by IL28B and age utilizing Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.||41.5|18.1|<0.001
91102300|NCT01370642|182091310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference in Percentages|29.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.3|41.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||To compare the percentage of participants achieving SVR12 between the vaniprevir and control arms, 95% confidence intervals and corresponding p-values for the between-treatment difference (vaniprevir - control) were computed using Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by IL28B and age utilizing Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.||41.0|18.3|<0.001
91102301|NCT01370642|182091311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference in Percentages|78.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.2|85.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||To compare the percentage of participants achieving RVR between the vaniprevir and control arms, 95% confidence intervals and corresponding p-values for the between-treatment difference (vaniprevir - control) were computed using Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by IL28B and age utilizing Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.||85.3|68.2|<0.001
91102302|NCT01370642|182091311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference in Percentages|76.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|66.7|84.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||To compare the percentage of participants achieving RVR between the vaniprevir and control arms, 95% confidence intervals and corresponding p-values for the between-treatment difference (vaniprevir - control) were computed using Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by IL28B and age utilizing Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.||84.1|66.7|<0.001
91102303|NCT01370642|182091312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference in Percentages|48.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.2|58.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||To compare the percentage of participants achieving cEVR between the vaniprevir and control arms, 95% confidence intervals and corresponding p-values for the between-treatment difference (vaniprevir - control) were computed using Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by IL28B and age utilizing Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.||58.9|37.2|<0.001
91102304|NCT01370642|182091312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference in Percentages|49.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.5|60.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||To compare the percentage of participants achieving cEVR between the vaniprevir and control arms, 95% confidence intervals and corresponding p-values for the between-treatment difference (vaniprevir - control) were computed using Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by IL28B and age utilizing Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.||60.0|38.5|<0.001
90959021|NCT01620255|181798203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.163||||0.0239|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.032|0.293||1-sided p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|PF-00547659 75 mg vs placebo, centrally read||0.293|0.032|0.0239
91102305|NCT01370642|182091313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference in Percentages|17.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.1|27.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||To compare the percentage of participants achieving undetectable HCV RNA at EOT between the vaniprevir and control arms, 95% confidence intervals and corresponding p-values for the between-treatment difference (vaniprevir - control) were computed using Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by IL28B and age utilizing Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.||27.3|8.1|<0.001
91102306|NCT01370642|182091313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference in Percentages|17.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.3|27.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||To compare the percentage of participants achieving undetectable HCV RNA at EOT between the vaniprevir and control arms, 95% confidence intervals and corresponding p-values for the between-treatment difference (vaniprevir - control) were computed using Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by IL28B and age utilizing Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.||27.8|9.3|<0.001
90857464|NCT02536833|181579287|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.48||||0.588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.82|3.86|||ANCOVA|||||3.86|-6.82|0.588
90857465|NCT02536833|181579287|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.76|4.76|||ANCOVA|||||4.76|-5.76|0.853
90857466|NCT02536833|181579288|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.89||||0.292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.26|2.49|||ANCOVA|||||2.49|-8.26|0.292
90857467|NCT02536833|181579288|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25||||0.931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.34|5.83|||ANCOVA|||||5.83|-5.34|0.931
90857468|NCT02536833|181579288|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.42||||0.878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.92|5.76|||ANCOVA|||||5.76|-4.92|0.878
90857469|NCT02536833|181579289|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.16||||0.648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.83|6.16|||ANCOVA|||||6.16|-3.83|0.648
90857470|NCT02536833|181579289|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.14||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.02|1.75|||ANCOVA|||||1.75|-8.02|0.209
90857471|NCT02536833|181579289|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28||||0.915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.78|5.33|||ANCOVA|||||5.33|-4.78|0.915
90857472|NCT02536833|181579290|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.16|5.36|||ANCOVA|||||5.36|-5.16|0.969
90857473|NCT02536833|181579290|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.64||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.89|1.61|||ANCOVA|||||1.61|-8.89|0.174
91102307|NCT01370642|182091314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|4.1||||0.385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|13.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||Difference in percentage of participants with ≥1 Tier 1 AEs between vaniprevir and control.||13.7|-5.4|0.385
90857474|NCT02536833|181579290|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31||||0.908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.97|5.59|||ANCOVA|||||5.59|-4.97|0.908
90857475|NCT02536833|181579291|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.29|||ANCOVA|||||0.29|-0.10|0.334
90857476|NCT02536833|181579291|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.3|||ANCOVA|||||0.30|-0.04|0.124
90857477|NCT02536833|181579291|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.36|||ANCOVA|||||0.36|0.02|0.032
90857478|NCT02536833|181579292|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.38||||0.405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|3.24|||ANCOVA|||||3.24|-8.00|0.405
90857479|NCT02536833|181579292|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.89||||0.552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.37|8.16|||ANCOVA|||||8.16|-4.37|0.552
90857480|NCT02536833|181579292|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.89||||0.763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.91|6.68|||ANCOVA|||||6.68|-4.91|0.763
90857481|NCT02536833|181579293|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.9||||0.173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|1.71|||ANCOVA|||||1.71|-9.50|0.173
90857482|NCT02536833|181579293|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.12||||0.724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.12|7.36|||ANCOVA|||||7.36|-5.12|0.724
90857483|NCT02536833|181579293|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32||||0.914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.17|5.53|||ANCOVA|||||5.53|-6.17|0.914
91102308|NCT01370642|182091314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|-2.2||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|8.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||Difference in percentage of participants with ≥1 Tier 1 AEs between vaniprevir and control.||8.1|-12.6|0.670
90857484|NCT02536833|181579294|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.24|||ANCOVA|||||0.24|-0.12|0.529
90857485|NCT02536833|181579294|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.28|||ANCOVA|||||0.28|-0.08|0.259
90857486|NCT02536833|181579294|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.16|||ANCOVA|||||0.16|-0.21|0.807
90857487|NCT02536833|181579295|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.73||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.44|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||||-0.03|-17.44|0.049
90857488|NCT02536833|181579295|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.03||||0.211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.49|3.43|||ANCOVA|||||3.43|-15.49|0.211
90857489|NCT02536833|181579295|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.23||||0.254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.24|3.78|||ANCOVA|||||3.78|-14.24|0.254
90857490|NCT02536833|181579296|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.26||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.82|-0.69|||ANCOVA|||||-0.69|-19.82|0.036
90857491|NCT02536833|181579296|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.07||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.18|3.05|||ANCOVA|||||3.05|-17.18|0.170
90857492|NCT02536833|181579296|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.29||||0.171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.33|2.74|||ANCOVA|||||2.74|-15.33|0.171
90857493|NCT02536833|181579297|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.39||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.72|||ANCOVA|||||0.72|0.06|0.021
90857494|NCT02536833|181579297|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.55|||ANCOVA|||||0.55|-0.07|0.131
90857495|NCT02536833|181579297|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.26|||ANCOVA|||||0.26|-0.35|0.789
90857496|NCT00089674|181579298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.7|||<|0.0001||95.0|6.2|7.1|||ANCOVA|||||7.1|6.2|<0.0001
90857497|NCT00089674|181579299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.9|||<|0.0001||95.0|3.5|4.4||Adjusted for multiplicity using the prespecified hierarchical analysis strategy and Hochberg procedure|ANCOVA|||||4.4|3.5|<0.0001
90857498|NCT00089674|181579300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.8|||<|0.0001||95.0|4.4|5.1||Adjusted for multiplicity using the prespecified hierarchical analysis strategy and Hochberg procedure|ANCOVA|||||5.1|4.4|<0.0001
90857499|NCT00089674|181579301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.9|||<|0.0001||95.0|7.4|8.4||Adjusted for multiplicity using the prespecified hierarchical analysis strategy and Hochberg procedure|ANCOVA|||||8.4|7.4|<0.0001
90857500|NCT00089674|181579302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.9|||<|0.0001||95.0|4.4|5.4||Adjusted for multiplicity using the prespecified hierarchical analysis strategy and Hochberg procedure|ANCOVA|||||5.4|4.4|<0.0001
90857501|NCT00089674|181579303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.7|||<|0.0001||95.0|5.4|6.1||Adjusted for multiplicity using the prespecified hierarchical analysis strategy and Hochberg procedure|ANCOVA|||||6.1|5.4|<0.0001
90857502|NCT00089674|181579304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.1048||95.0|0.46|1.08||Adjusted for multiplicity using the prespecified hierarchical analysis strategy and Hochberg procedure|Regression, Logistic|||||1.08|0.46|0.1048
91102309|NCT01370642|182091314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|-4.1||||0.557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|9.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||Difference in percentage of participants with anemia Tier 1 AEs between vaniprevir and control.||9.5|-17.5|0.557
90904308|NCT03844321|181675566|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89||||||Reported p-value is for estimated weekly change in WHO-5 score by treatment by moderator interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||PROMIS: EDA measured at the beginning of the intervention period was analyzed as a moderator of the relationship between treatment and weekly WHO-5 scores. We added a main effect for the moderator, as well as treatment by time, moderator by time, and treatment by moderator by time interactions to the linear mixed model and used a likelihood ratio test to compare this interaction model to one without the three-way interaction. These analyses were completed over Baseline to Week 20.||||.890
90904309|NCT03844321|181675567|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.425||||||Reported p-value is for estimated weekly change in WHO-5 score by treatment by moderator interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||PROMIS: APRA measured at the beginning of the intervention period was analyzed as a moderator of the relationship between treatment and weekly WHO-5 scores. We added a main effect for the moderator, as well as treatment by time, moderator by time, and treatment by moderator by time interactions to the linear mixed model and used a likelihood ratio test to compare this interaction model to one without the three-way interaction. These analyses were completed over Baseline to Week 8.||||.425
90904310|NCT03844321|181675567|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.733||||||Reported p-value is for estimated weekly change in WHO-5 score by treatment by moderator interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||PROMIS: APRA measured at the beginning of the intervention period was analyzed as a moderator of the relationship between treatment and weekly WHO-5 scores. We added a main effect for the moderator, as well as treatment by time, moderator by time, and treatment by moderator by time interactions to the linear mixed model and used a likelihood ratio test to compare this interaction model to one without the three-way interaction. These analyses were completed over Baseline to Week 20.||||.733
90904311|NCT03844321|181675568|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.582||||||Reported p-value is for estimated weekly change in WHO-5 score by treatment by moderator interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||FFMQ measured at the beginning of the intervention period was analyzed as a moderator of the relationship between treatment and weekly WHO-5 scores. We added a main effect for the moderator, as well as treatment by time, moderator by time, and treatment by moderator by time interactions to the linear mixed model and used a likelihood ratio test to compare this interaction model to one without the three-way interaction. These analyses were completed over Baseline to Week 8.||||.582
90904312|NCT03844321|181675568|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.666||||||Reported p-value is for estimated weekly change in WHO-5 score by treatment by moderator interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||FFMQ measured at the beginning of the intervention period was analyzed as a moderator of the relationship between treatment and weekly WHO-5 scores. We added a main effect for the moderator, as well as treatment by time, moderator by time, and treatment by moderator by time interactions to the linear mixed model and used a likelihood ratio test to compare this interaction model to one without the three-way interaction. These analyses were completed over Baseline to Week 20.||||.666
90904313|NCT03844321|181675569|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.355||||||Reported p-value is for estimated weekly change in WHO-5 score by treatment by moderator interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Presence of psychiatric illness at the beginning of the intervention period was analyzed as a moderator of the relationship between treatment and weekly WHO-5 scores. We added a main effect for the moderator, as well as treatment by time, moderator by time, and treatment by moderator by time interactions to the linear mixed model and used a likelihood ratio test to compare this interaction model to one without the three-way interaction. These analyses were completed over Baseline to Week 8.||||.355
91032803|NCT01149473|181950844|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|101.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.6|104.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||104|98.6|
90904314|NCT03844321|181675569|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.361||||||Reported p-value is for estimated weekly change in WHO-5 score by treatment by moderator interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Presence of psychiatric illness at the beginning of the intervention period was analyzed as a moderator of the relationship between treatment and weekly WHO-5 scores. We added a main effect for the moderator, as well as treatment by time, moderator by time, and treatment by moderator by time interactions to the linear mixed model and used a likelihood ratio test to compare this interaction model to one without the three-way interaction. These analyses were completed over Baseline to Week 20.||||.361
91031761|NCT01179048|181948281|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of liraglutide versus placebo was considered confirmed, if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the hazard ratio was below 1.3 or if the p-value for the one-sided test of H0: HR \>=1.3 against Ha: HR \<1.3 was less than 2.5% (or equivalent to 5% in two-sided test). If non-inferiority was established for the primary outcome, a test for superiority was to be performed.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.868|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.778|0.968||p-value is reported for one-sided (α-level 0.025) test for non-inferiority (hazard ratio \>=1.3).|Regression, Cox|||The primary endpoint was evaluated using the Cox regression model to estimate the hazard ratio (HR) (liraglutide/placebo) and the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) including treatment group as factor. Non-inferiority of liraglutide versus placebo was considered confirmed, if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the hazard ratio was below 1.3 or if the p-value for the one-sided test of H0: HR \>=1.3 against Ha: HR \<1.3 was less than 2.5% (or equivalent to 5% in two-sided test).||0.968|0.778|<0.001
91077917|NCT02913105|182041137|OTHER|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.95||||0.1783|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.89|1.01|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||LDL Cholesterol Friedwald: Day 7||1.01|0.89|0.1783
90857503|NCT00089674|181579305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.37||||0.0125||95.0|0.18|0.78||Adjusted for multiplicity using the prespecified hierarchical analysis strategy and Hochberg procedure|Regression, Logistic|||||0.78|0.18|0.0125
90857504|NCT00089674|181579306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.7961||95.0|0.57|1.55||Adjusted for multiplicity using the prespecified hierarchical analysis strategy and Hochberg procedure|Regression, Cox|||||1.55|0.57|0.7961
90857505|NCT00089674|181579307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.7961||95.0|0.44|1.11||Adjusted for multiplicity using the prespecified hierarchical analysis strategy and Hochberg procedure|Regression, Logistic|||||1.11|0.44|0.7961
90857506|NCT02301988|181579320|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|3.77||||0.519||95.0|-8.99|16.54|||Chi-squared||95% CI for difference in rates were constructed using normal approximation (Wald) with continuity correction.|Unstratified Analysis||16.54|-8.99|0.519
90857507|NCT02301988|181579321|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|3.29||||0.7817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.52|32.1|||Chi-squared||95% CI for difference in rates were constructed using normal approximation (Wald) with continuity correction.|Unstratified analysis||32.10|-25.52|0.7817
90857508|NCT02301988|181579322|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|7.7||||0.2234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.95|21.35|||Chi-squared||95% CI for difference in rates were constructed using normal approximation (Wald) with continuity correction.|Unstratified analysis||21.35|-5.95|0.2234
90857509|NCT02301988|181579323|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-2.96||||0.8169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.91|27.99|||Chi-squared||95% CI for difference in rates were constructed using normal approximation (Wald) with continuity correction.|Unstratified analysis||27.99|-33.91|0.8169
90857510|NCT02301988|181579324|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rate|11.11||||0.1607||95.0|-5.64|27.85|||Chi-squared||95% CI for difference in rates were constructed using normal approximation (Wald) with continuity correction.|Unstratified analysis||27.85|-5.64|0.1607
90857511|NCT02301988|181579325|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|23.68||||0.1486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.57|60.94|||Chi-squared||95% CI for difference in rates were constructed using normal approximation (Wald) with continuity correction.|Unstratified Analysis||60.94|-13.57|0.1486
90857512|NCT02301988|181579326|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|6.09||||0.498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.01|27.2|||Chi-squared||95% CI for difference in rates were constructed using normal approximation (Wald) with continuity correction method.|||27.20|-15.01|0.4980
90857513|NCT02301988|181579327|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|9.66||||0.3032||95.0|-12.25|31.58|||Chi-squared||95% CI for difference in rates were constructed using normal approximation (Wald) with continuity correction method.|||31.58|-12.25|0.3032
90857514|NCT02301988|181579329|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|4.2||||0.628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.37|22.76|||Chi-squared||95% CI for difference in rates were constructed using normal approximation (Wald) with continuity correction method.|||22.76|-14.37|0.6280
90857515|NCT02301988|181579330|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|8.33||||0.6291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.04|49.71|||Chi-squared||95% CI for difference in rates were constructed using normal approximation (Wald) with continuity correction method.|||49.71|-33.04|0.6291
90857516|NCT02567552|181579334|OTHER|||||||0.3395|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3395
90857517|NCT02567552|181579335|OTHER|||||||0.1523|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1523
90857518|NCT02567552|181579336|OTHER|||||||0.1189|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparison between groups||||0.1189
90857519|NCT02567552|181579338|OTHER|||||||0.2042|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2042
90857520|NCT02567552|181579339|OTHER|||||||0.6262|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6262
90857521|NCT02567552|181579340|OTHER|||||||0.2301|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2301
90857522|NCT02567552|181579341|OTHER|||||||0.5118|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5118
90857523|NCT02567552|181579342|OTHER|||||||0.8371|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.8371
90857524|NCT02567552|181579343|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90857525|NCT02567552|181579344|OTHER|||||||0.3107|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3107
90857526|NCT02567552|181579345|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.5
90857527|NCT01876810|181579387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||For all analyses, results are considered significant at p\<.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1
90857528|NCT01876810|181579387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||For all analyses, results were considered significant at p\< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1
90857529|NCT01876810|181579388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||For all analyses, results were considered significant at p\< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9
90857530|NCT01876810|181579388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||For all analyses, results were considered significant at p\< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9
90857531|NCT01876810|181579389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|51.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|31.7||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|Repeated-measures ANOVA on Drug X Cue X Time were used|participants self-reportd VAS craving at the time of neutral cue presentation|||||0.4
90904315|NCT03844321|181675570|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64||||||Reported p-value is for estimated weekly change in WHO-5 score by treatment by moderator interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Presence of medical problems at the beginning of the intervention period was analyzed as a moderator of the relationship between treatment and weekly WHO-5 scores. We added a main effect for the moderator, as well as treatment by time, moderator by time, and treatment by moderator by time interactions to the linear mixed model and used a likelihood ratio test to compare this interaction model to one without the three-way interaction. These analyses were completed over Baseline to Week 8.||||.640
90904316|NCT03844321|181675570|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.396||||||Reported p-value is for estimated weekly change in WHO-5 score by treatment by moderator interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Presence of medical problems at the beginning of the intervention period was analyzed as a moderator of the relationship between treatment and weekly WHO-5 scores. We added a main effect for the moderator, as well as treatment by time, moderator by time, and treatment by moderator by time interactions to the linear mixed model and used a likelihood ratio test to compare this interaction model to one without the three-way interaction. These analyses were completed over Baseline to Week 20.||||.396
90904317|NCT03844321|181675571|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||Reported p-value is for estimated weekly change in WHO-5 score by treatment by moderator interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Percentage of sessions completed was analyzed as a moderator of the relationship between treatment and weekly WHO-5 scores. We added a main effect for the moderator, as well as treatment by time, moderator by time, and treatment by moderator by time interactions to the linear mixed model and used a likelihood ratio test to compare this interaction model to one without the three-way interaction. These analyses were completed over Baseline to Week 8.||||.004
90904318|NCT03844321|181675571|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.291||||||Reported p-value is for estimated weekly change in WHO-5 score by treatment by moderator interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Percentage of sessions completed was analyzed as a moderator of the relationship between treatment and weekly WHO-5 scores. We added a main effect for the moderator, as well as treatment by time, moderator by time, and treatment by moderator by time interactions to the linear mixed model and used a likelihood ratio test to compare this interaction model to one without the three-way interaction. These analyses were completed over Baseline to Week 20.||||.291
90904319|NCT03844321|181675572|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.603||||||Reported p-value is for estimated weekly change in WHO-5 score by treatment by moderator interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Level of education was analyzed as a moderator of the relationship between treatment and weekly WHO-5 scores. We added a main effect for the moderator, as well as treatment by time, moderator by time, and treatment by moderator by time interactions to the linear mixed model and used a likelihood ratio test to compare this interaction model to one without the three-way interaction. These analyses were completed over Baseline to Week 8.||||.603
90904320|NCT03844321|181675572|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.333||||||Reported p-value is for estimated weekly change in WHO-5 score by treatment by moderator interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Level of education was analyzed as a moderator of the relationship between treatment and weekly WHO-5 scores. We added a main effect for the moderator, as well as treatment by time, moderator by time, and treatment by moderator by time interactions to the linear mixed model and used a likelihood ratio test to compare this interaction model to one without the three-way interaction. These analyses were completed over Baseline to Week 20.||||.333
90904321|NCT03844321|181675573|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.224||||||Reported p-value is for estimated weekly change in WHO-5 score by treatment by moderator interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Race was analyzed as a moderator of the relationship between treatment and weekly WHO-5 scores. We added a main effect for the moderator, as well as treatment by time, moderator by time, and treatment by moderator by time interactions to the linear mixed model and used a likelihood ratio test to compare this interaction model to one without the three-way interaction. These analyses were completed over Baseline to Week 20.||||.224
91102310|NCT01370642|182091314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|-12.7||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.2|1.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||Difference in percentage of participants with anemia Tier 1 AEs between vaniprevir and control.||1.2|-26.2|0.072
91102311|NCT01370642|182091314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|0.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|7.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||Difference in percentage of participants with bilirubin increased Tier 1 AEs between vaniprevir and control.||7.9|-7.9|>0.999
91102312|NCT01370642|182091314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|5.2||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|14.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||Difference in percentage of participants with bilirubin increased Tier 1 AEs between vaniprevir and control.||14.2|-3.3|0.220
90904322|NCT03844321|181675573|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.885||||||Reported p-value is for estimated weekly change in WHO-5 score by treatment by moderator interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Race was analyzed as a moderator of the relationship between treatment and weekly WHO-5 scores. We added a main effect for the moderator, as well as treatment by time, moderator by time, and treatment by moderator by time interactions to the linear mixed model and used a likelihood ratio test to compare this interaction model to one without the three-way interaction. These analyses were completed over Baseline to Week 20.||||.885
90959022|NCT01620255|181798203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.213||||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.08|0.347||1-sided p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|PF-00547659 225 mg vs placebo, centrally read||0.347|0.080|0.0052
91102313|NCT01370642|182091314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|15.3||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|28.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||Difference in percentage of participants with GI Tier 1 AEs between vaniprevir and control.||28.7|1.3|0.032
91102314|NCT01370642|182091314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|5.6||||0.432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|19.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||Difference in percentage of participants with GI Tier 1 AEs between vaniprevir and control.||19.4|-8.4|0.432
90904323|NCT03844321|181675574|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49||||||Reported p-value is for estimated weekly change in WHO-5 score by treatment by moderator interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Sex was analyzed as a moderator of the relationship between treatment and weekly WHO-5 scores. We added a main effect for the moderator, as well as treatment by time, moderator by time, and treatment by moderator by time interactions to the linear mixed model and used a likelihood ratio test to compare this interaction model to one without the three-way interaction. These analyses were completed over Baseline to Week 8.||||.490
91031762|NCT01179048|181948281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.868||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.778|0.968||p-value is reported for one-sided (α-level 0.025) test for superiority (hazard ratio\>=1.0).|Regression, Cox|||If non-inferiority was established for the primary outcome, a test for superiority was performed. Superiority of liraglutide versus placebo was considered confirmed, if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the hazard ratio was below 1.0 or equivalent if the p-value for the one-sided test of H0: HR \>=1.0 against Ha: HR \<1.0 was less than 2.5% (or equivalent to 5% in two-sided test).||0.968|0.778|0.005
91031763|NCT01179048|181948282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.881|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.807|0.962|||Regression, Cox|The analysis was done using a Cox regression model with treatment as a fixed factor including all randomised subjects.||||0.962|0.807|
91031764|NCT01179048|181948283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.847|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.739|0.971|||Regression, Cox|The analysis was done using a Cox regression model with treatment as a fixed factor including all randomised subjects.||||0.971|0.739|
91031765|NCT01179048|181948284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.783|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.656|0.934|||Regression, Cox|||Analysis for percentage of subjects experiencing cardiovascular death was done by Cox regression model with treatment as fixed factor.||0.934|0.656|
90958718|NCT02996565|181797301|SUPERIORITY|Random coefficients model predicted baseline and 6 month patient-reported outcome from treatment group, time point and treatment group by time with random clinic intercept and patient scale parameter.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.04||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.22||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|The interaction RR compares the likelihood of reporting the activity is helpful at 6m relative to baseline in Telehealth care vs. clinic based care|adjusted for baseline DBP, baseline age, sex|||1.22|0.89|0.56
91031766|NCT01179048|181948284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.894|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.721|1.107|||Regression, Cox|||Analysis for percentage of subjects experiencing non-fatal stroke was done by Cox regression model with treatment as fixed factor||1.107|0.721|
91031767|NCT01179048|181948284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.878|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.747|1.031|||Regression, Cox|||Analysis for percentage of subjects experiencing non-fatal myocardial infarction was done by Cox regression model with treatment as fixed factor||1.031|0.747|
90857532|NCT01876810|181579389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|43.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|26.5||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||For all analyses, results were considered significant at p\< 0.05|ANOVA|Repeated-measures ANOVA on Drug X Cue X Time were used||||||0.4
90857533|NCT01298544|181579390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMCs|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.94|||||Calculated by back transforming the ratio difference between vaccine groups on logarithmic scale. Back transformations of CIs based on Student t distribution for ratio difference of the logarithms of the measures (Group 2-Group 1).|Serotype 4||0.94|0.48|
90857534|NCT01298544|181579390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMCs|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.04|||||Calculated by back transforming the ratio difference between vaccine groups on logarithmic scale. Back transformations of CIs based on Student t distribution for ratio difference of the logarithms of the measures (Group 2-Group 1).|Serotype 6B||1.04|0.64|
90857535|NCT01298544|181579390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMCs|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.23|||||Calculated by back transforming the ratio difference between vaccine groups on logarithmic scale. Back transformations of CIs based on Student t distribution for ratio difference of the logarithms of the measures (Group 2-Group 1).|Serotype 9V||1.23|0.74|
90857536|NCT01298544|181579390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMCs|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.01|||||Calculated by back transforming the ratio difference between vaccine groups on logarithmic scale. Back transformations of CIs based on Student t distribution for ratio difference of the logarithms of the measures (Group 2-Group 1).|Serotype 14||1.01|0.45|
90857537|NCT01298544|181579390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMCs|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.31|||||Calculated by back transforming the ratio difference between vaccine groups on logarithmic scale. Back transformations of CIs based on Student t distribution for ratio difference of the logarithms of the measures (Group 2-Group 1).|Serotype 18C||1.31|0.70|
90958719|NCT02996565|181797302|SUPERIORITY|Random coefficients model predicted baseline and 6 month patient-reported outcome from treatment group, time point and treatment group by time with random clinic intercept and patient scale parameter.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.84||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.03||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|The interaction RR compares the likelihood of reporting the burden was a problem at 6m relative to baseline in Telehealth care vs. clinic based care|adjusted for baseline DBP, baseline age, sex|||1.03|0.68|0.08
90958720|NCT02996565|181797303|SUPERIORITY|Random coefficients model predicted baseline and 6 month patient-reported outcome from treatment group, time point and treatment group by time with random clinic intercept and patient scale parameter.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.11||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|The interaction RR compares the likelihood of reporting the burden was a problem at 6m relative to baseline in Telehealth care vs. clinic based care|adjusted for baseline DBP, baseline age, sex|||1.11|.73|0.32
90958721|NCT02996565|181797304|SUPERIORITY|Random coefficients model predicted baseline and 6 month patient-reported outcome from treatment group, time point and treatment group by time with random clinic intercept and patient scale parameter.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.14||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.33||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|The interaction RR compares the likelihood of reporting the burden was a problem at 6m relative to baseline in Telehealth care vs. clinic based care|adjusted for baseline DBP, baseline age, sex|||1.33|0.98|0.09
90958722|NCT02996565|181797305|SUPERIORITY|Random coefficients model predicted baseline and 6 month patient-reported outcome from treatment group, time point and treatment group by time with random clinic intercept and patient scale parameter.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.16||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|The interaction RR compares the likelihood of reporting the burden was a problem at 6m relative to baseline in Telehealth care vs. clinic based care|adjusted for baseline DBP, baseline age, sex|||1.16|0.83|0.77
90958723|NCT02996565|181797306|SUPERIORITY|Random coefficients model predicted baseline and 6 month patient-reported outcome from treatment group, time point and treatment group by time with random clinic intercept and patient scale parameter.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.21||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.5||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|The interaction RR compares the likelihood of reporting the burden was a problem at 6m relative to baseline in Telehealth care vs. clinic based care|adjusted for baseline DBP, baseline age, sex|||1.5|.97|0.09
90857538|NCT01298544|181579390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMCs|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.77|||||Calculated by back transforming the ratio difference between vaccine groups on logarithmic scale. Back transformations of CIs based on Student t distribution for ratio difference of the logarithms of the measures (Group 2-Group 1).|Serotype 19F||0.77|0.40|
90857539|NCT01298544|181579390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMCs|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.05|||||Calculated by back transforming the ratio difference between vaccine groups on logarithmic scale. Back transformations of CIs based on Student t distribution for ratio difference of the logarithms of the measures (Group 2-Group 1).|Serotype 23F||1.05|0.64|
90857540|NCT01298544|181579390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMCs|1.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|2.8|||||Calculated by back transforming the ratio difference between vaccine groups on logarithmic scale. Back transformations of CIs based on Student t distribution for ratio difference of the logarithms of the measures (Groups 1 and 2 combined-Group 3).|Serotype 4||2.80|1.39|
90857541|NCT01298544|181579390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMCs|3.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.41|3.84|||||Calculated by back transforming the ratio difference between vaccine groups on logarithmic scale. Back transformations of CIs based on Student t distribution for ratio difference of the logarithms of the measures (Groups 1 and 2 combined-Group 3).|Serotype 6B||3.84|2.41|
91102315|NCT01370642|182091314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|8.2||||0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|21.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||Difference in percentage of participants with neutropenia Tier 1 AEs between vaniprevir and control.||21.8|-5.8|0.252
90958724|NCT02996565|181797307|SUPERIORITY|Random coefficients model predicted baseline and 6 month patient-reported outcome from treatment group, time point and treatment group by time with random clinic intercept and patient scale parameter.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.64||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.92||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|The interaction RR compares the likelihood of reporting the burden was a problem at 6m relative to baseline in Telehealth care vs. clinic based care|adjusted for baseline DBP, baseline age, sex|||0.92|0.45|0.02
91031768|NCT01179048|181948284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.763|1.258|||Regression, Cox|||Analysis for percentage of subjects experiencing hospitalisation for unstable angina pectoris was done by Cox regression model with treatment as fixed factor||1.258|0.763|
90857542|NCT01298544|181579390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMCs|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.62|||||Calculated by back transforming the ratio difference between vaccine groups on logarithmic scale. Back transformations of CIs based on Student t distribution for ratio difference of the logarithms of the measures (Groups 1 and 2 combined-Group 3).|Serotype 9V||1.62|0.98|
90857543|NCT01298544|181579390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMCs|6.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.53|9.79|||||Calculated by back transforming the ratio difference between vaccine groups on logarithmic scale. Back transformations of CIs based on Student t distribution for ratio difference of the logarithms of the measures (Groups 1 and 2 combined-Group 3).|Serotype 14||9.79|4.53|
90857544|NCT01298544|181579390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMCs|2.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.68|3.24|||||Calculated by back transforming the ratio difference between vaccine groups on logarithmic scale. Back transformations of CIs based on Student t distribution for ratio difference of the logarithms of the measures (Groups 1 and 2 combined-Group 3).|Serotype 18C||3.24|1.68|
90857545|NCT01298544|181579390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMCs|4.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.29|6.07|||||Calculated by back transforming the ratio difference between vaccine groups on logarithmic scale. Back transformations of CIs based on Student t distribution for ratio difference of the logarithms of the measures (Groups 1 and 2 combined-Group 3).|Serotype 19F||6.07|3.29|
90857546|NCT01298544|181579390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMCs|2.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|2.63|||||Calculated by back transforming the ratio difference between vaccine groups on logarithmic scale. Back transformations of CIs based on Student t distribution for ratio difference of the logarithms of the measures (Groups 1 and 2 combined-Group 3).|Serotype 23F||2.63|1.65|
90857547|NCT01298544|181579391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|-18.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.4|-7.3|||||Difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage. Exact 2 sided CI for the difference in proportions (Group 2-Group 1), expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 4||-7.3|-29.4|
90857548|NCT01298544|181579391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|3.0|||||Difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage. Exact 2 sided CI for the difference in proportions (Group 2-Group 1), expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 6B||3.0|-3.1|
90857549|NCT01298544|181579391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|7.3|||||Difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage. Exact 2 sided CI for the difference in proportions (Group 2-Group 1), expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 9V||7.3|-5.9|
90857550|NCT01298544|181579391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|3.1|||||Difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage. Exact 2 sided CI for the difference in proportions (Group 2-Group 1), expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 14||3.1|-10.3|
90857551|NCT01298544|181579391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|-11.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.7|-1.0|||||Difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage. Exact 2 sided CI for the difference in proportions (Group 2-Group 1), expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 18C||-1.0|-22.7|
90857552|NCT01298544|181579391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|0.6|||||Difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage. Exact 2 sided CI for the difference in proportions (Group 2-Group 1), expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 19F||0.6|-7.1|
91102316|NCT01370642|182091314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|0.5||||0.942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|14.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||Difference in percentage of participants with neutropenia Tier 1 AEs between vaniprevir and control.||14.4|-13.4|0.942
90857553|NCT01298544|181579391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|2.3|||||Difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage. Exact 2 sided CI for the difference in proportions (Group 2-Group 1), expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 23F||2.3|-4.5|
90857554|NCT01298544|181579391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.7|37.0|||||Difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage. Exact 2 sided CI for the difference in proportions (Group 1 and 2 combined-Group 3), expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 4||37.0|12.7|
90857555|NCT01298544|181579391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.011|7.715|||||Difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage. Exact 2 sided CI for the difference in proportions (Group 1 and 2 combined-Group 3), expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 6B||7.715|-0.011|
90857556|NCT01298544|181579391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|10.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|19.6|||||Difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage. Exact 2 sided CI for the difference in proportions (Group 1 and 2 combined-Group 3), expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 9V||19.6|1.9|
90857557|NCT01298544|181579391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|29.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.4|40.5|||||Difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage. Exact 2 sided CI for the difference in proportions (Group 1 and 2 combined-Group 3), expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 14||40.5|19.4|
90857558|NCT01298544|181579391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|30.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.9|41.5|||||Difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage. Exact 2 sided CI for the difference in proportions (Group 1 and 2 combined-Group 3), expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 18C||41.5|17.9|
91104550|NCT00581100|182094998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0||||P-value from generalized linear models for correlated data using Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) with treatment and visits as fixed factors. Model for proportion=\[Group visit Group\*visit\].|GEE model|||Week 12||||0.006
91104551|NCT00581100|182094998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value from generalized linear models for correlated data using Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) with treatment and visits as fixed factors. Model for proportion=\[Group visit Group\*visit\].|GEE model|||Week 24||||<0.001
91031769|NCT01179048|181948284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.912|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.797|1.044|||Regression, Cox|||Analysis for percentage of subjects experiencing coronary revascularisation was done by Cox regression model with treatment as fixed factor||1.044|0.797|
91031770|NCT01179048|181948284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.872|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.727|1.046|||Regression, Cox|||Analysis for percentage of subjects experiencing hospitalisation for heart failure was done by Cox regression model with treatment as fixed factor||1.046|0.727|
91031771|NCT01179048|181948285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.841|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.969|||Regression, Cox|||Analysis for percentage of subjects experiencing a first microvascular event was done by Cox regression model with treatment as fixed factor.||0.969|0.730|
91102317|NCT01370642|182091315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference at Week 2|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-3.0|||Constrained LDA Model|||Change from BL in HCV RNA at Week 2 was computed using a constrained longitudinal data analysis model including treatment, time and the interaction of time by treatment with a restriction of the same baseline mean across treatment groups as well as adjusting for IL28B and age, and their interaction terms with time will be included in the model.||-3.0|-3.5|
90857559|NCT01298544|181579391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|13.9|||||Difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage. Exact 2 sided CI for the difference in proportions (Group 1 and 2 combined-Group 3), expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 19F||13.9|1.2|
90857560|NCT01298544|181579391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|6.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|13.0|||||Difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage. Exact 2 sided CI for the difference in proportions (Group 1 and 2 combined-Group 3), expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 23F||13.0|1.8|
90857561|NCT01857583|181579392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|12.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|33.6|||ANCOVA|||||33.6|-10.0|
90857562|NCT01857583|181579392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|17.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|42.1|||ANCOVA|||||42.1|-10.2|
90857563|NCT02775903|181579405|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1838|||||||Wald asymptotic two-sided test|||||||0.1838
90857564|NCT02775903|181579406|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.618|||||||Wald asymptotic two-sided test|||||||0.6180
90857565|NCT02775903|181579407|OTHER|P-values were not part of the formal testing.||||||0.7016|||||||Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified according to the cytogenetic risk at time of randomization (very good, good and intermediate vs poor and very poor)||||||0.7016
90857566|NCT02775903|181579408|OTHER|P-values were not part of the formal testing.||||||0.6076|||||||Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified according to the cytogenetic risk at time of randomization (very good, good and intermediate vs poor and very poor).||||||0.6076
90857567|NCT02775903|181579409|OTHER|P-values were not part of the formal testing.||||||0.384|||||||Wald asymptotic two-sided test|||||||0.3840
91031772|NCT01179048|181948286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.782|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.666|0.918|||Regression, Cox|||Analysis for percentage of subjects experiencing a composite nephropathy event was done by Cox regression model with treatment as fixed factor.||0.918|0.666|
90857568|NCT02775903|181579410|OTHER|P-values were not part of the formal testing.||||||0.8961|||||||Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified according to the cytogenetic risk at time of randomization (very good, good and intermediate vs poor and very poor).||||||0.8961
90857569|NCT02775903|181579411|OTHER|P-values were not part of the formal testing.||||||0.3591|||||||Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified according to the cytogenetic risk at time of randomization (very good, good and intermediate vs poor and very poor).||||||0.3591
90857570|NCT02775903|181579412|OTHER|P-values were not part of the formal testing.||||||0.9031|||||||Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified according to the cytogenetic risk at time of randomization (very good, good and intermediate vs poor and very poor).||||||0.9031
90857571|NCT02775903|181579414|OTHER|P-values were not part of the formal testing.||||||0.2409|||||||Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified according to the cytogenetic risk at time of randomization (very intermediate vs poor).||||||0.2409
90857572|NCT02775903|181579415|OTHER|P-values were not part of the formal testing.||||||0.0688|||||||Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified according to the cytogenetic risk at time of randomization (intermediate vs poor).||||||0.0688
90857573|NCT02775903|181579416|OTHER|P-values were not part of the formal testing.||||||0.4894|||||||Wald asymptotic two-sided test|||||||0.4894
90857574|NCT02775903|181579418|OTHER|P-values were not part of the formal testing.||||||0.0381|||||||Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified according to the cytogenetic risk at time of randomization (intermediate vs poor).||||||0.0381
90857575|NCT02775903|181579420|OTHER|P-values were not part of the formal testing.||||||0.8973|||||||Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified according to the cytogenetic risk at time of randomization (very good, good and intermediate vs poor and very poor).||||||0.8973
90857576|NCT02775903|181579420|OTHER|P-values were not part of the formal testing.||||||0.0691|||||||Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified according to the cytogenetic risk at time of randomization (intermediate vs poor).||||||0.0691
90857577|NCT03552965|181579452|OTHER||||||||||||||||||"Descriptive statistics were used to evaluate the prevalence and grade of xerostomia over time.~Margin-based: Mean=1.14, SD=0.378, Range=1, 25th percentile=1, Median=1, 75th percentile=1, n=7 Robust: Mean=1.17, SD=0.577, Range=2, 25th percentile=1, Median=1, 75th percentile=1, n=12"|||
90857578|NCT03552965|181579453|OTHER||||||||||||||||||"Descriptive statistics were used to evaluate the prevalence and grade of xerostomia over time.~Margin-based: Mean=2, SD=0.894, Range=2, 25th percentile=1, Median=2, 75th percentile=3, n=6 Robust: Mean=2.91, SD=1.136, Range=3, 25th percentile=2, Median=3, 75th percentile=4, n=11"|||
90857579|NCT03552965|181579454|OTHER||||||||||||||||||"Descriptive statistics were used to evaluate the prevalence and grade of xerostomia over time.~Margin-based: Mean=2.5, SD=0.577, Range=1, 25th percentile=2, Median=2.5, 75th percentile=3, n=4 Robust: Mean=2.33, SD=1.225, Range=3, 25th percentile=1, Median=2, 75th percentile=3.5, n=9"|||
90857580|NCT03552965|181579455|OTHER||||||||||||||||||"Descriptive statistics were used to evaluate the prevalence and grade of xerostomia over time.~Margin-based: Mean=1.83, SD=0.753, Range=2, 25th percentile=1, Median=2, 75th percentile=2.25, n=6 Robust: Mean=2.33, SD=1, Range=3, 25th percentile=1.5, Median=2, 75th percentile=3, n=9"|||
91031773|NCT01179048|181948286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.738|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.602|0.905|||Regression, Cox|||Analysis for percentage of subjects experiencing a new onset of persistant macroalbuminaria event was done by Cox regression model with treatment as fixed factor.||0.905|0.602|
91104552|NCT00581100|182094998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value from generalized linear models for correlated data using Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) with treatment and visits as fixed factors. Model for proportion=\[Group visit Group\*visit\].|GEE model|||Week 24||||<0.001
91031774|NCT01179048|181948286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.667|1.189|||Regression, Cox|||Analysis for percentage of subjects experiencing persistent doubling of serum creatinine was done by Cox regression model with treatment as fixed factor.||1.189|0.667|
91102318|NCT01370642|182091315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference at Week 2|-3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|-3.2|||Constrained LDA Model|||Change from BL in HCV RNA at Week 2 was computed using a constrained longitudinal data analysis model including treatment, time and the interaction of time by treatment with a restriction of the same baseline mean across treatment groups as well as adjusting for IL28B and age, and their interaction terms with time will be included in the model.||-3.2|-3.7|
90857581|NCT03552965|181579456|OTHER||||||||||||||||||"Descriptive statistics were used to evaluate the prevalence and grade of xerostomia over time.~Margin-based: Mean=2, SD=0.707, Range=2, 25th percentile=1.5, Median=2, 75th percentile=2.5, n=5 Robust: Mean=2.38, SD=1.188, Range=3, 25th percentile=1.25, Median=2, 75th percentile=3.75, n=8"|||
90857582|NCT03552965|181579457|OTHER||||||||||||||||||"Descriptive statistics were used to evaluate the prevalence and grade of xerostomia over time.~Margin-based: Mean=15.5, SD=23.76242, Range=75, 25th percentile=0, Median=5, 75th percentile=21.25, n=10 Robust: Mean=14.1346, SD=17.87095, Range=52.5, 25th percentile=0, Median=6.25, 75th percentile=27.5, n=13"|||
90857583|NCT03552965|181579458|OTHER||||||||||||||||||"Descriptive statistics were used to evaluate the prevalence and grade of xerostomia over time.~Margin-based: Mean=45.625, SD=30.68744, Range=71.25, 25th percentile=11.25, Median=58.125, 75th percentile=71.25, n=6 Robust: Mean=64.3182, SD=15.0142, Range=48.75, 25th percentile=66.25, Median=70, 75th percentile=71.25, n=11"|||
90857584|NCT03552965|181579459|OTHER||||||||||||||||||"Descriptive statistics were used to evaluate the prevalence and grade of xerostomia over time.~Margin-based: Mean=60, SD=23.68412, Range=60, 25th percentile=38.125, Median=68.75, 75th percentile=77.5, n=5 Robust: Mean=54.8611, SD=29.91815, Range=80, 25th percentile=24.375, Median=66.25, 75th percentile=80, n=9"|||
90857585|NCT03552965|181579460|OTHER||||||||||||||||||"Descriptive statistics were used to evaluate the prevalence and grade of xerostomia over time.~Margin-based: Mean=31.67, SD=31.38139, Range=85, 25th percentile=5.625, Median=25, 75th percentile=56.875, n=6 Robust: Mean=54.0278, SD=24.57274, Range=67.5, 25th percentile=33.75, Median=62.5, 75th percentile=72.5, n=9"|||
90857586|NCT03552965|181579461|OTHER||||||||||||||||||"Descriptive statistics were used to evaluate the prevalence and grade of xerostomia over time.~Margin-based: Mean=50.75, SD=30.29284, Range=72.5, 25th percentile=21.875, Median=48.75, 75th percentile=80.625, n=5 Robust: Mean=38.4375, SD=26.69897, Range=66.25, 25th percentile=15, Median=29.375, 75th percentile=68.75, n=8"|||
90857587|NCT00729924|181579471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The hypothesis was that the ratio of the 4-hour CSF concentration value to the partial plasma area-under-the-curve 0-4h value would differ between participants with ABCB1 C/C and T/T genotypes.||||0.43
90857588|NCT00729924|181579472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We explored post-hoc whether the ratio of the 4-hour CSF concentration value to the 2-hour plasma concentration differs between participants with ABCB1 C/C and T/T genotypes.||||0.43
90857589|NCT00413400|181579473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||treatment effect (etanercept vs. placebo) using ANCOVA including baseline CRP, age, and race||||0.20
90857590|NCT00413400|181579474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92||95.0|||||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||within subject percent changes calculated for each timepoint and repeated measures ANCOVA controlling for age and race performed||||0.92
90857591|NCT00413400|181579475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||within subject percent changes were calculated for each time point, then repeated measures ANCOVA controlling for age and race performed||||0.02
90857592|NCT00413400|181579476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||repeated measures ANCOVA|||percent change calculated then repeated measures ANCOVA performed controlling for age and race||||0.02
90857593|NCT00413400|181579477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA controlling for baseline value, age, race||||0.46
90857594|NCT00413400|181579478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.78
90857595|NCT00413400|181579479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.11
90857596|NCT00413400|181579480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA controlling for baseline value, age, race||||0.59
90857597|NCT00413400|181579481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||within subject percent changes calculated then repeated measures ANCOVA controlling for age and race performed||||<0.0001
90857598|NCT00413400|181579482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08||95.0|||||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||within subject percent changes calculated then repeated measures ANCOVA performed controlling for age and race||||0.08
90857599|NCT00413400|181579483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA controlling for baseline value, age, and race||||0.55
91031775|NCT01179048|181948286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.869|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.607|1.244|||Regression, Cox|||Analysis for percentage of subjects experiencing a need for continuous renal-replacement therapy was done by Cox regression model with treatment as fixed factor.||1.244|0.607|
90857600|NCT00891462|181579485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.086|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.13|||ANCOVA|||||0.13|0.05|<0.0001
90857601|NCT00891462|181579485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.124|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.16|||ANCOVA|||||0.16|0.08|<0.0001
90857602|NCT01083485|181579487|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Previously provided|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.3||A P value was not part of the analysis plan. A within SD 1.7, and expected treatment difference of 0 and a non-inferiority margin was -1.0 meaning that OXN PR can be one unit inferior to OXY PR and still be considered non-inferior.|ANCOVA|The primary efficacy endpoint was analysed on the PP data using a mixed-model repeat measure analysis of covariance RMANCOVA.||The sample size was calculated for a significance level of 2.5% (1 sided) with 90% power. A within SD 1.7, and expected treatment difference of 0 and a non-inferiority margin of 1.0 were assumed.||0.3|-0.5|
90857603|NCT01948310|181579500|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||2-0 weeks||||>0.05
90857604|NCT01948310|181579500|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||0-14 weeks||||0.03
91104553|NCT00581100|182094999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Adjusted change calculated from mixed model. Model for change=\[Group visit group\*visit baseline baseline\*visit\].|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
91102319|NCT01370642|182091315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference at Week 4|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-2.7|||Constrained LDA Model|||Change from BL in HCV RNA at Week 4 was computed using a constrained longitudinal data analysis model including treatment, time and the interaction of time by treatment with a restriction of the same baseline mean across treatment groups as well as adjusting for IL28B and age, and their interaction terms with time will be included in the model.||-2.7|-3.3|
90857605|NCT01948310|181579500|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||2-0 weeks||||>0.05
91031776|NCT01179048|181948286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.593|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.521|4.869|||Regression, Cox|||Analysis for percentage of subjects experiencing death due to renal disease was done by Cox regression model with treatment as fixed factor.||4.869|0.521|
91102320|NCT01370642|182091315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference at Week 4|-3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-2.8|||Constrained LDA Model|||Change from BL in HCV RNA at Week 4 was computed using a constrained longitudinal data analysis model including treatment, time and the interaction of time by treatment with a restriction of the same baseline mean across treatment groups as well as adjusting for IL28B and age, and their interaction terms with time will be included in the model.||-2.8|-3.4|
91102321|NCT01370642|182091315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference at Week 8|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-1.6|||Constrained LDA Model|||Change from BL in HCV RNA at Week 8 was computed using a constrained longitudinal data analysis model including treatment, time and the interaction of time by treatment with a restriction of the same baseline mean across treatment groups as well as adjusting for IL28B and age, and their interaction terms with time will be included in the model.||-1.6|-2.2|
91102322|NCT01370642|182091315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference at Week 8|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-1.7|||Constrained LDA Model|||Change from BL in HCV RNA at Week 8 was computed using a constrained longitudinal data analysis model including treatment, time and the interaction of time by treatment with a restriction of the same baseline mean across treatment groups as well as adjusting for IL28B and age, and their interaction terms with time will be included in the model.||-1.7|-2.3|
91102323|NCT01370642|182091315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference at Week 12|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-1.1|||Constrained LDA Model|||Change from BL in HCV RNA at Week 12 was computed using a constrained longitudinal data analysis model including treatment, time and the interaction of time by treatment with a restriction of the same baseline mean across treatment groups as well as adjusting for IL28B and age, and their interaction terms with time will be included in the model.||-1.1|-1.7|
91102324|NCT01370642|182091315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference at Week 12|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-1.1|||Constrained LDA Model|||Change from BL in HCV RNA at Week 12 was computed using a constrained longitudinal data analysis model including treatment, time and the interaction of time by treatment with a restriction of the same baseline mean across treatment groups as well as adjusting for IL28B and age, and their interaction terms with time will be included in the model.||-1.1|-1.7|
91102325|NCT01370642|182091315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference at Week 24|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.5|||Constrained LDA Model|||Change from BL in HCV RNA at Week 24 was computed using a constrained longitudinal data analysis model including treatment, time and the interaction of time by treatment with a restriction of the same baseline mean across treatment groups as well as adjusting for IL28B and age, and their interaction terms with time will be included in the model.||-0.5|-1.1|
91102326|NCT01370642|182091315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference at Week 24|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.6|||Constrained LDA Model|||Change from BL in HCV RNA at Week 24 was computed using a constrained longitudinal data analysis model including treatment, time and the interaction of time by treatment with a restriction of the same baseline mean across treatment groups as well as adjusting for IL28B and age, and their interaction terms with time will be included in the model.||-0.6|-1.2|
91102327|NCT00147537|182091324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.027|TWO_SIDED||||||binomial test|||A one-sided p-value for H0: objective response rate \<=0.28 using exact binomial test at level 0.05.||||=0.027
91102328|NCT00147537|182091325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.121|TWO_SIDED||||||binomial test|||A One-sided p-value for H0: objective response rate \<=0.30 using exact binomial test at level 0.05.||||=0.121
91102329|NCT01927861|182091355|OTHER||Treatment difference|0.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.88|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline (week 0) in the height SDS after 104 weeks of treatment was analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline height SDS as a covariate.||0.88|0.38|< 0.0001
90857606|NCT01948310|181579500|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||14-0 weeks||||0.005
90857607|NCT01948310|181579501|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||2-0 weeks||||>0.05
91102330|NCT00987935|182091423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.357|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.802|2.296|||||"Hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazards model stratified by macroscopic vacular invasion, extrahepatic spread, or both present vs both absent.~HR below 1 favors Nintedanib."|||2.296|0.802|
91102331|NCT00987935|182091424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.213|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.014|||||"Hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazards model stratified by macroscopic vacular invasion, extrahepatic spread, or both present vs both absent.~HR below 1 favors Nintedanib."|||2.014|0.730|
91102332|NCT00987935|182091428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.186|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.728|1.932|||||"Hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazards model stratified by macroscopic vacular invasion, extrahepatic spread, or both present vs both absent.~HR below 1 favors Nintedanib."|||1.932|0.728|
91102333|NCT00987935|182091429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.593|1.489|||||"Hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazards model stratified by macroscopic vacular invasion, extrahepatic spread, or both present vs both absent.~HR below 1 favors Nintedanib."|||1.489|0.593|
91102334|NCT00728182|182091437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.445||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Data were cubic root transformed and modelled with multiple linear regression.||Comparison of the summed volume of new FLAIR lesions in the NA-1 and placebo treated groups.||||0.445
91102335|NCT00728182|182091438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Incidence Rate Ratio|0.53||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.74|||Generalized linear model|With log link and negative bnomial distribution.||Comparison of the total number of new ischemic lesions on DWI for NA-1 versus placebo treated groups.||0.74|0.38|0.018
91102336|NCT00728182|182091439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Incidence Rate Ratio|0.59||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.83|||Generalized linear model|With log link and negative binomial distribution.||Comparison of the total number of new FLAIR lesions in the NA-1 versus placebo treated groups.||0.83|0.42|0.048
90857608|NCT01948310|181579501|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||14-0 weeks||||>0.05
90857609|NCT01948310|181579501|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||2-0 weeks||||0.03
90857610|NCT01948310|181579501|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||14-0 weeks||||>0.05
90857611|NCT01948310|181579502|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||2-0 weeks||||>0.05
90857612|NCT01948310|181579502|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||0-14 weeks||||0.13
91102337|NCT00728182|182091440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.306||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Data were cubic root transformed and modelled with multiple linear regresion.||Comparison of the summed volume of new ischemic lesions on DWI.||||0.306
90857613|NCT01948310|181579502|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||2-0 weeks||||>0.05
90857614|NCT01948310|181579502|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||14-0 weeks||||0.013
90857615|NCT02600351|181579519|NON_INFERIORITY|With a 10% non-inferiority margin, a sample size of 90 participants per treatment group was required to provide at least 90% power to establish non-inferiority at the 1-sided 0.025 level, assuming the SVR12 rates were 98% for both groups.|Difference in percentages|-18.8||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.7|3.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.2|-40.7|0.065
90857616|NCT02600351|181579519|NON_INFERIORITY|With a 10% non-inferiority margin, a sample size of 125 participants per treatment group was required to provide at least 90% power to establish non-inferiority at the 1-sided 0.025 level, assuming the SVR12 rates were 95% for both groups.|Difference in percentages|-11.7||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.1|8.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||8.8|-32.1|0.25
90857617|NCT00567593|181579548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test||||||.01
90857618|NCT01272284|181579561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Proportion successful|85.4|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.81|78.1||||Fisher Exact|||The final significance level is 0.04191 accounting for one interim analysis conducted at 80% of final information, thus a 95.81% Confidence Limit (CL) was used.|||78.1|<0.0001
90857619|NCT01086423|181579578|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of Non-inferiority: The upper limit (UL) of the standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) on the group difference \[Infanrix-Hib + Poliorix Group minus Infanrix-IPV+Hib 1 Group\] in percentage of seroprotected subjects ≤ 10%.|Difference in seroprotection rate|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|3.76||||||To demonstrate that the immunogenicity of Infanrix™ -IPV+Hib vaccine administered at 2, 3 and 4 months of age was non-inferior to that of the concomitant administration of Infanrix™-Hib and Poliorix™ vaccines at the same age, in terms of immune response to anti-D, one month after the third vaccine dose.||3.76|-1.88|
90857620|NCT01086423|181579578|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of Non-inferiority: The UL of the standardized asymptotic 95% CI on the group difference \[Infanrix-Hib + Poliorix Group minus Infanrix-IPV+Hib 1 Group\] in percentage of seroprotected subjects ≤ 10%.|Difference in seroprotection rate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.56|2.56||||||To demonstrate that the immunogenicity of Infanrix™-IPV+Hib vaccine administered at 2, 3 and 4 months of age was non-inferior to that of the concomitant administration of Infanrix™-Hib and Poliorix™ vaccines at the same age, in terms of immune response to anti-T, one month after the third vaccine dose.||2.56|-2.56|
90857621|NCT01086423|181579579|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of Non-inferiority: The UL of the standardized asymptotic 95% CI on the group difference \[Infanrix-Hib + Poliorix Group minus Infanrix-IPV+Hib 1 Group\] in percentage of seroprotected subjects ≤ 10%.|Difference in seroprotection rate|-7.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.44|-2.13||||||To demonstrate that the immunogenicity of Infanrix™-IPV+Hib vaccine administered at 2, 3 and 4 months of age was non-inferior to that of the concomitant administration of Infanrix™-Hib and Poliorix™ vaccines at the same age, in terms of immune response to anti-PRP antibodies, one month after the third vaccine dose.||-2.13|-14.44|
90857622|NCT01086423|181579580|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of Non-inferiority: The UL of the standardized asymptotic 95% CI on the group difference \[Infanrix-Hib + Poliorix Group minus Infanrix-IPV+Hib 1 Group\] in percentage of seroprotected subjects ≤ 10%.|Difference in seroprotection rate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|2.56||||||To demonstrate that the immunogenicity of Infanrix™-IPV+Hib vaccine administered at 2, 3 and 4 months of age was non-inferior to that of the concomitant administration of Infanrix™-Hib and Poliorix™ vaccines at the same age, in terms of immune response to anti-Polio type 1 antibodies, one month after the third vaccine dose.||2.56|-2.51|
90857623|NCT01086423|181579580|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of Non-inferiority: The UL of the standardized asymptotic 95% CI on the group difference \[Infanrix-Hib + Poliorix Group minus Infanrix-IPV+Hib 1 Group\] in percentage of seroprotected subjects ≤ 10%.|Difference in seroprotection rate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|2.56||||||To demonstrate that the immunogenicity of Infanrix™-IPV+Hib vaccine administered at 2, 3 and 4 months of age was non-inferior to that of the concomitant administration of Infanrix™-Hib and Poliorix™ vaccines at the same age, in terms of immune response to anti-Polio type 2 antibodies, one month after the third vaccine dose.||2.56|-2.51|
90857624|NCT01086423|181579580|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of Non-inferiority: The UL of the standardized asymptotic 95% CI on the group difference \[Infanrix-Hib + Poliorix Group minus Infanrix-IPV+Hib 1 Group\] in percentage of seroprotected subjects ≤ 10%.|Difference in seroprotection rate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|2.56||||||To demonstrate that the immunogenicity of Infanrix™-IPV+Hib vaccine administered at 2, 3 and 4 months of age was non-inferior to that of the concomitant administration of Infanrix™-Hib and Poliorix™ vaccines at the same age, in terms of immune response to anti-Polio type 3 antibodies, one month after the third vaccine dose.||2.56|-2.51|
90857625|NCT01086423|181579581|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of Non-inferiority: The UL of the standardized asymptotic 95% CI on the group difference \[Infanrix-Hib + Poliorix Group minus Infanrix-IPV+Hib 1 Group\] in percentage of seroprotected subjects ≤ 10%.|Difference in seroprotection rate|-0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.74|1.89||||||To demonstrate that the immunogenicity of Infanrix™-IPV+Hib vaccine administered at 2, 3 and 4 months of age was non-inferior to that of the concomitant administration of Infanrix™-Hib and Poliorix™ vaccines at the same age, in terms of immune response to anti-PT antigens, one month after the third vaccine dose.||1.89|-3.74|
91102338|NCT00728182|182091441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|1.0||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.1|||Chi-squared|||Number of patients obtaining a score on the NIHSS of 0-1 at Day 30.||1.1|0.9|0.43
91102339|NCT00728182|182091442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.1|||Chi-squared|||Comparison of the number of patients with mRS scores of 0-2 at Day 30 for NA-1 and placebo treated groups.||1.1|0.9|1.00
91102340|NCT00728182|182091443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.023
90958725|NCT02996565|181797308|SUPERIORITY|Random coefficients model predicted baseline and 6 month patient-reported outcome from treatment group, time point and treatment group by time with random clinic intercept and patient scale parameter.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.7||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.89||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|The interaction RR compares the likelihood of reporting the burden was a problem at 6m relative to baseline in Telehealth care vs. clinic based care|adjusted for baseline DBP, baseline age, sex|||.89|.55|0.006
91102341|NCT00728182|182091444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Incidence Rate Ratio|0.36||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.73|||Adjusted Incidence Rate Ratio|||||0.73|0.17|0.027
91102342|NCT00728182|182091445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Incidence Rate Ratio|0.36||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.75|||Generalized linear model|||||0.75|0.17|0.046
90857626|NCT01086423|181579581|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of Non-inferiority: The UL of the standardized asymptotic 95% CI on the group difference \[Infanrix-Hib + Poliorix Group minus Infanrix-IPV+Hib 1 Group\] in percentage of seroprotected subjects ≤ 10%.|Difference in seroprotection rate|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.75|-0.11||||||To demonstrate that the immunogenicity of Infanrix™-IPV+Hib vaccine administered at 2, 3 and 4 months of age was non-inferior to that of the concomitant administration of Infanrix™-Hib and Poliorix™ vaccines at the same age, in terms of immune response to anti-FHA antigens, one month after the third vaccine dose.||-0.11|-6.75|
91102343|NCT00728182|182091446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.015
90857627|NCT01086423|181579581|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of Non-inferiority: The UL of the standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) on the group difference \[Infanrix-Hib + Poliorix Group minus Infanrix-IPV+Hib 1 Group\] in percentage of seroprotected subjects ≤ 10%.|Difference in seroprotection rate|-0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|3.04||||||To demonstrate that the immunogenicity of Infanrix™-IPV+Hib vaccine administered at 2, 3 and 4 months of age was non-inferior to that of the concomitant administration of Infanrix™-Hib and Poliorix™ vaccines at the same age, in terms of immune response to anti-PRN antigens, one month after the third vaccine dose.||3.04|-4.6|
90857628|NCT01130103|181579621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||incident rate ratio|0.5||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|||caps total score at weeks 5 and 10||.85|.30|.01
90857629|NCT01130103|181579621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||incident rate ratio|0.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||rate of change in CAPS total from week 5 to week 10||.74|.43|<.001
90857630|NCT01130103|181579625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.6||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|129.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||treatment group effect: remission rate at weeks 5 and 10||129|1.23|.03
90857631|NCT01130103|181579625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|20.8||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.44|176.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||rate of change over time in remission rate from week 5 to 10||176|2.44|0.007
90857632|NCT03614975|181579626|OTHER|||||||0.28||||||A/H1N1|Chi-squared|||||||0.28
90857633|NCT03614975|181579626|OTHER|||||||0.64||||||A/H3N2|Chi-squared|||||||0.64
90857634|NCT03614975|181579626|OTHER|||||||0.64||||||B/Colorado|Chi-squared|||||||0.64
90857635|NCT03614975|181579626|OTHER|||||||0.23||||||B/Phuket|Chi-squared|||||||0.23
90958726|NCT02996565|181797309|SUPERIORITY|Random coefficients model predicted baseline and 6 month patient-reported outcome from treatment group, time point and treatment group by time with random clinic intercept and patient scale parameter.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.78||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.01||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|The interaction RR compares the likelihood of reporting the burden was a problem at 6m relative to baseline in Telehealth care vs. clinic based care|adjusted for baseline DBP, baseline age, sex|||1.01|0.60|0.06
90958727|NCT02996565|181797310|SUPERIORITY|Random coefficients model predicted baseline and 6 month patient-reported outcome from treatment group, time point and treatment group by time with random clinic intercept and patient scale parameter.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.02||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.1||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|The interaction RR compares the likelihood of reporting very/extremely confident at 6m relative to baseline in Telehealth care vs. clinic based care|adjusted for baseline DBP, baseline age, sex|||1.10|0.94|0.65
91031777|NCT01179048|181948286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.149|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.869|1.519|||Regression, Cox|||Analysis for percentage of subjects experiencing composite retinopathy was done by Cox regression model with treatment as fixed factor.||1.519|0.869|
91102344|NCT00728182|182091447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|1.5||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.0|||Chi-squared|||||2.0|1.1|0.02
90857636|NCT03614975|181579627|OTHER|||||||0.42||||||Vaccine Strain: A/H1N1:Day 0|Chi-squared|||||||0.42
90857637|NCT03614975|181579627|OTHER|||||||0.16||||||Vaccine Strain: A/H1N1: Day 21|Chi-squared|||||||0.16
90857638|NCT03614975|181579627|OTHER|||||||0.42||||||Vaccine Strain: A/H3N2: Day 0|Chi-squared|||||||0.42
90857639|NCT03614975|181579627|OTHER|||||||0.94||||||Vaccine Strain: A/H3N2: Day 21|Chi-squared|||||||0.94
91102345|NCT00728182|182091448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|1.3||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.7|||Chi-squared|||||1.7|0.95|0.18
90857640|NCT03614975|181579627|OTHER|||||||0.87||||||Vaccine Strain: B/Colorado :Day 0|Chi-squared|||||||0.87
90857641|NCT03614975|181579627|OTHER|||||||0.77||||||Vaccine Strain: B/Colorado : Day 21|Chi-squared|||||||0.77
90857642|NCT03614975|181579627|OTHER|||||||0.33||||||Vaccine Strain: B/Phuket: Day 0|Chi-squared|||||||0.33
90857643|NCT03614975|181579627|OTHER|||||||0.21||||||Vaccine Strain: B/Phuket: Day 21|Chi-squared|||||||0.21
91102346|NCT03856177|182091449|OTHER|||||||0.071|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.071
91102347|NCT01898091|182091450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84|||||||Wilcoxin rank sum test|||Simulations determined power to detect significant difference defined as a mean difference of 1 unit (MTS scale). Feasibility study provided proportion of patients in control and neem group with change scores of 0, 1, 2, 3, and 4 as (5%, 10%, 10%, 45% and 30%) and (15%, 20%, 30%, 25% and 10%), respectively. Simulated 10,000 trials using multinomial distributions by the percentages above, with 20 patients per group, provided 80% power to detect 0.9 unit difference using a one-sided alpha of 0.05.||||0.84
91102348|NCT01933425|182091451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.59|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.59|0.07|<0.05
91102349|NCT01933425|182091452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.54|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.54|0.06|<0.05
90857644|NCT03614975|181579628|OTHER|||||||0.49||||||Vaccine Strain: A/H1N1: Day 0|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.49
90857645|NCT03614975|181579628|OTHER|||||||0.23||||||Vaccine Strain: A/H1N1: Day 21|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.23
90857646|NCT03614975|181579628|OTHER|||||||0.1||||||Vaccine Strain: A/H3N2: Day 0|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.10
90857647|NCT03614975|181579628|OTHER|||||||0.86||||||Vaccine Strain: A/H3N2: Day 21|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.86
90857648|NCT03614975|181579628|OTHER|||||||0.73||||||Vaccine Strain: B/Colorado: Day 0|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.73
90857649|NCT03614975|181579628|OTHER|||||||0.67||||||Vaccine Strain: B/Colorado: Day 21|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.67
90857650|NCT03614975|181579628|OTHER|||||||0.36||||||Vaccine Strain: B/Phuket: Day 0|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.36
90857651|NCT03614975|181579628|OTHER|||||||0.65||||||Vaccine Strain: B/Phuket: Day 21|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.65
90857652|NCT01390220|181579629|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0109|||||||Fisher Exact|2-sided||||||0.0109
90857653|NCT01390220|181579630|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0043|||||||Fisher Exact|2-sided||||||0.0043
90857654|NCT01390220|181579631|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0124|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0124
90857655|NCT01390220|181579632|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0124|||||||Log Rank|||Kaplan-Meier estimates.||||0.0124
90857656|NCT00136604|181579647|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for non-inferiority evaluation: The lower limit (LL) of the standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) on the difference in the percentage of subjects with SBA-MenC titre ≥ 1:128 between the Tritanrix-Hepb/Hib-MenAC-TT Group and (minus) the TRITANRIX-HEPB+Mencevax + Meningitec control group was above -10%.|Difference in percentage of subjects|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|3.05||||||Demonstration of non-inferiority of a fourth dose of the Tritanrix-HepB/Hib-MenAC-TT vaccine versus a fourth dose of the Tritanrix-HepB/Hiberix and Meningitec vaccine given concomitantly in terms of the percentage of subjects with an SBA-MenC titre ≥ 1:128.||3.05|-1.53|
90857657|NCT00136604|181579649|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for non-inferiority evaluation: The lower limit (LL) of the standardized asymptotic 95% CI on the difference in seroprotection (anti-PRP concentration ≥ 1.0 µg/mL) between the Tritanrix-Hepb/Hib-MenAC-TT Group and (minus) the Tritanrix-Hepb/Mencevax+Tritanrix-HepB/Hiberix Group was above -10%.|Difference in seroprotection rate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|3.05||||||Demonstration of non-inferiority of the Tritanrix-HepB/Hib-MenAC-TT vaccine versus the Tritanrix-HepB/Hiberix vaccine when used as a booster vaccine in Tritanrix-HepB/Hib-MenAC-TT primed subjects in terms of the percentage of subjects with an anti-PRP concentration ≥ 1.0 µg/mL.||3.05|-1.53|
90857658|NCT01476644|181579693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.01|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.01
90857659|NCT04105543|181579702|OTHER|nonparametric rank test|Median Difference (Final Values)|-4.22||||0.173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.64|4.24|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Tests|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Tests for MDADI Composite Baseline to 3 months (n=9)||4.24|-12.64|0.173
90857660|NCT04105543|181579702|OTHER|nonparametric rank test|Median Difference (Final Values)|-9.998||||0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.43|7.39|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test for MDADI Composite Baseline to 6 months (n=5)||7.39|-28.43|0.225
90857661|NCT04105543|181579703|OTHER|nonparametric rank test|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.037||||0.779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.246|0.09|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Tests|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Tests for Stimulated Saliva Flow Baseline to 3 months (n=8)||0.09|-0.246|0.779
90857662|NCT04105543|181579703|OTHER|nonparametric rank test|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.049||||0.465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.218|0.12|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test for Stimulated Saliva Flow Baseline to 6 months (n=4)||0.12|-0.218|0.465
90857663|NCT04105543|181579704|OTHER|nonparametric rank test|Median Difference (Final Values)|-4.444||||0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|4.4|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Tests|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Tests for EORTC QLQ-C30 Functional Score Baseline to 3 months (n=9)||4.4|-14.4|0.213
90857664|NCT04105543|181579704|OTHER|nonparametric rank test|Median Difference (Final Values)|-6.667||||0.686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|20.0|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test for EORTC QLQ-C30 Functional Scores Baseline to 6 months (n=5)||20|-17.8|0.686
90857665|NCT04105543|181579704|OTHER|nonparametric rank test|Median Difference (Final Values)|3.846||||0.498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.769|12.82|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Tests for EORTC QLQ-C30 Symptom Score Baseline to 3 months (n=9)||12.82|-0.769|0.498
90857666|NCT04105543|181579704|OTHER|nonparametric rank test|Median Difference (Final Values)|10.256||||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.39|35.89|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test for EORTC QLQ-C30 Symptom Scores Baseline to 6 months (n=5)||35.89|-15.39|0.416
90857667|NCT04105543|181579704|OTHER|nonparametric rank test|Median Difference (Final Values)|-8.33||||0.778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.84|16.67|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Tests for EORTC QLQ-C30 Global Health Status Score Baseline to 3 months (n=9)||16.67|-20.84|0.778
90857668|NCT04105543|181579704|OTHER|nonparametric rank test|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.0|25.0|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test for EORTC QLQ-C30 Global Health Status Scores Baseline to 6 months (n=5)||25|-25|0.89
90857669|NCT04105543|181579705|OTHER|nonparametric rank test|Median Difference (Final Values)|3.5||||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|9.5|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Tests for XeQOL Baseline to 3 months (n=9)||9.5|-2|0.138
90857670|NCT04105543|181579705|OTHER|nonparametric rank test|Median Difference (Final Values)|6.0||||0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|16.0|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test for XeQOL Baseline to 6 months (n=5)||16|-10|0.225
90857671|NCT04105543|181579706|OTHER|nonparametric rank test|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|5.0|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Tests for Xerostomia Inventory Baseline to 3 months (n=9)||5|-3|0.674
90857672|NCT04105543|181579706|OTHER|nonparametric rank test|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|6.0|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test for Xerostomia Inventory Baseline to 6 months (n=5)||6|-6|0.892
91102350|NCT03888482|182091454|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin = 0.05|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.01|||Mixed effects repeated measures model|Mixed effects repeated measures model with terms for lens, period and sequence as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.|Difference = DDT2 - Clariti|||0.01||
91102351|NCT04679818|182091468|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.895|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-1.43|1.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.58|-1.43|0.895
91102352|NCT04679818|182091469|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.84||||0.228|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-2.66|0.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.99|-2.66|0.228
91102353|NCT04679818|182091470|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.81||||0.565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.65|||generalized linear mixed effects model|||||1.65|0.40|0.565
91102354|NCT04679818|182091471|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.48||||0.379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|3.54|||Generalized linear mixed effects model|||||3.54|0.62|0.379
91102355|NCT04679818|182091472|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.54||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.97|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.97|0.30|0.039
91102356|NCT04679818|182091473|NON_INFERIORITY|We tested noninferiority of NOL to routine care on the Ramsey score using an a priori-defined noninferiority delta of 1.2 for the proportional odds ratio; NOL would be deemed noninferior if the upper confidence limit for the odds ratio was \<1.2.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.82|||proportional odds model|||||1.82|0.35|0.169
91102357|NCT04679818|182091474|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.63|||Cox proportional hazards regression|||||1.63|0.63|0.967
91102358|NCT02205359|182091479|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.888|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.779|1.013|||Regression, Cox|Stratified by NYHA class and with investigational site as a random effect|Stratified by NYHA class and with investigational site as a random effect, Standard Error reported on log hazard scale|||1.013|0.779|0.077
91102359|NCT02205359|182091480|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.881|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.081||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.752|1.032|||Regression, Cox|Stratified by NYHA class and with investigational site as a random effect|Stratified by NYHA class and with investigational site as a random effect, Standard Error reported on log hazard scale|||1.032|0.752|0.12
91102360|NCT02205359|182091481|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.906|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.759|1.082|||Regression, Cox|Stratified by NYHA class and with investigational site as a random effect|Stratified by NYHA class and with investigational site as a random effect, Standard Error reported on log hazard scale|||1.082|0.759|0.28
91102361|NCT02205359|182091482|SUPERIORITY|Endpoint for statistical analysis is the proportion Improved.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.888|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.074||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.768|1.026|||Regression, Logistic|Stratified by NYHA class and with investigational site as a random effect|Standard Error is on log-odds ratio scale|||1.026|0.768|0.11
91102362|NCT02205359|182091483|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.16|||Regression, Cox|Stratified by NYHA class and with investigational site as a random effect||||1.16|0.85|0.89
90857673|NCT00471146|181579707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.014||||0.5436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.786|1.309||One-sided log-rank test at alpha = 0.025 significance level was used.|Log Rank|||Differences in OS between treatment arms was analyzed by 1-sided log rank test, stratified for extent of disease (locally advanced cancer versus metastatic cancer).||1.309|0.786|0.5436
90857674|NCT00471146|181579708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.006||||0.5203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.779|1.298||One-sided log-rank test at alpha = 0.025 significance level was used.The p-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|Log Rank|||Differences in PFS between treatment arms was analyzed by 1-sided log rank test, stratified for extent of disease (locally advanced cancer versus metastatic cancer).||1.298|0.779|0.5203
91102363|NCT02205359|182091484|SUPERIORITY||Difference in mean change from baseline|-0.07||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|0.89|||ANCOVA|Stratified by NYHA class and with investigational site as a random effect||||0.89|-1.03|0.88
91102364|NCT02205359|182091485|SUPERIORITY||Difference in mean change from baseline|0.0013||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0068|0.0094|||ANCOVA|Stratified by NYHA class and with investigational site as a random effect||||0.0094|-0.0068|0.75
90857675|NCT00471146|181579709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|3.2||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|10.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Differences in OR between treatment arms was analyzed by 1-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, stratified for extent of disease (locally advanced cancer versus metastatic cancer).||10.1|1.0|0.038
90857676|NCT01460368|181579735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.38|2.63|||||Treatment comparison at 2 hours.|||2.63|-1.38|
90857677|NCT01460368|181579735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Means Difference|3.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.67|5.71|||||Treatment comparison at 4 hours.|||5.71|1.67|
90857678|NCT01460368|181579735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Means Difference|9.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.12|11.16|||||Treatment comparison at 6 hours.|||11.16|7.12|
91102365|NCT02205359|182091486|SUPERIORITY||rate ratio|1.15||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.75|||negative binomial regression|Stratified by NYHA class||||1.75|0.75|0.52
91102366|NCT00480025|182091492|SUPERIORITY|RMF included: 1) Number of chemotherapy cycles received (1, 2 vs. 3, 4), if any; 2) Pathological stage of the disease (IB vs. II vs. IIIA); 3) Type of lymph-node sampling (minimal lymph-node sampling vs. systematic radical mediastinal lymphadenectomy); 4) ECOG performance status randomization (0, 1 vs. 2); 5) Smoking status ( 100 cigarettes a lifetime vs. \> 100 cigarettes and current smoker vs. \>100 cigarettes and past smoker).|Treatment Efficacy|1.024||||0.7379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.891|1.177||2-sided p-value of Likelihood Ratio test from RMF-adjusted Cox regression, Efron method used to handle ties.|Regression, Cox|Overall population objective reached if p-value \< 2.56%/4% in absence/presence of statistically significant effect in the No-CT population.||Analysis compared DFS PYAR between groups for period from 1st treatment dose to DLP. A Cox model was used to evaluate treatment efficacy (TE). TE was calculated as PYAR in GSK1572932 Group (PYAR1) divided by PYAR in Placebo Group (PYAR2), and weighed for adjustment factors. This comparison in all patients (overall population) also included taking into account stratification by previous CT vs. No-CT treatment and weighing using randomization-minimization factors (RMF) as regressors.||1.177|0.891|0.7379
91104554|NCT00581100|182094999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Adjusted change calculated from mixed model. Model for change=\[Group visit group\*visit baseline baseline\*visit\].|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
90857679|NCT01460368|181579735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Means Difference|9.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.1|11.07|||||Treatment comparison at 8 hours.|||11.07|7.10|
91104555|NCT00581100|182095000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value from generalized linear models for correlated data using Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) with treatment and visits as fixed factors. Model for proportion=\[Group visit Group\*visit\].|GEE model|||Week 12||||<0.001
91104556|NCT00581100|182095000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value from generalized linear models for correlated data using Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) with treatment and visits as fixed factors. Model for proportion=\[Group visit Group\*visit\].|GEE model|||Week 12||||<0.001
91104557|NCT00581100|182095000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value from generalized linear models for correlated data using Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) with treatment and visits as fixed factors. Model for proportion=\[Group visit Group\*visit\].|GEE model|||Week 24||||<0.001
91104558|NCT00581100|182095000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value from generalized linear models for correlated data using Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) with treatment and visits as fixed factors. Model for proportion=\[Group visit Group\*visit\].|GEE model|||Week 24||||<0.001
90857680|NCT01460368|181579735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Means Difference|-0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.14|1.85|||||Treatment comparison at 12 hours.|||1.85|-2.14|
90857681|NCT01460368|181579735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Means Difference|3.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.63|5.63|||||Treatment comparison at 24 hours.|||5.63|1.63|
90857682|NCT01460368|181579736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|8.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.21|10.94|||||Treatment comparison at 2 hours.|||10.94|5.21|
90857683|NCT01460368|181579736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|10.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.69|13.43|||||Treatment comparison at 4 hours.|||13.43|7.69|
90857684|NCT02001181|181579752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-51.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.48|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-62.8|-40.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|The mixed model for repeated measures analysis included all the participants in FAS.||||-40.8|-62.8|<0.0001
90857685|NCT02520661|181579776|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.22||||||treatment relevant change in number of ED visits by 14 days||1.22|0.62|
90857686|NCT02520661|181579776|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.3||||||treatment relevant change in number of ED visits by 30 days||1.30|0.72|
90904324|NCT03844321|181675574|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.266||||||Reported p-value is for estimated weekly change in WHO-5 score by treatment by moderator interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Sex was analyzed as a moderator of the relationship between treatment and weekly WHO-5 scores. We added a main effect for the moderator, as well as treatment by time, moderator by time, and treatment by moderator by time interactions to the linear mixed model and used a likelihood ratio test to compare this interaction model to one without the three-way interaction. These analyses were completed over Baseline to Week 20.||||.266
90904325|NCT03844321|181675575|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.928||||||Reported p-value is for estimated weekly change in WHO-5 score by treatment by moderator interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Ethnicity was analyzed as a moderator of the relationship between treatment and weekly WHO-5 scores. We added a main effect for the moderator, as well as treatment by time, moderator by time, and treatment by moderator by time interactions to the linear mixed model and used a likelihood ratio test to compare this interaction model to one without the three-way interaction. These analyses were completed over Baseline to Week 8.||||.928
90904326|NCT03844321|181675575|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.307||||||Reported p-value is for estimated weekly change in WHO-5 score by treatment by moderator interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Ethnicity was analyzed as a moderator of the relationship between treatment and weekly WHO-5 scores. We added a main effect for the moderator, as well as treatment by time, moderator by time, and treatment by moderator by time interactions to the linear mixed model and used a likelihood ratio test to compare this interaction model to one without the three-way interaction. These analyses were completed over Baseline to Week 20.||||.307
90857687|NCT02443519|181579788|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.6||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|3.9||Significance threshold set a priori at .025 to adjust for two co-primary outcomes.|Mixed Models Analysis|The key test was the Treatment (MBCT-M vs. WL.TAU) X Time (Month 1 vs 4) interaction with both Treatment and Time in the model.|A positive slope indicates greater reduction in the proportino of people with Severe MIDAS scores (Score \>=21) in the MBCT-M group vs. the WL/TAU group.|||3.9|-0.7|.027
90857688|NCT02443519|181579789|SUPERIORITY||Slope|14.1|||<|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|21.8||Significance threshold set a priori at .025 to account for two co-primary outcomes.|Mixed Models Analysis|The key test was the Treatment (MBCT-M vs. WL.TAU) X Time (Month 1 vs 4) interaction with both Treatment and Time in the model.|Positive slope indicated larger reductions in HDI in the MBCT-M group compared to the WL/TAU group.|||21.8|0.8|<.004
90857689|NCT02443519|181579790|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.05||||0.773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|2.8||Threshold for statistical significance set a priori at .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Key test was the Treatment (MBCT-M vs. WL/TAU) X Time (Month 1 vs. 4) interaction with Treatment and Time in the model|A positive slope indicates greater reduction in headache days in the MBCT-M group vs. the WL/TAU group.|||2.8|-3.7|.773
90857690|NCT02443519|181579791|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.01||||0.888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.16||Threshold for significance set a priori at .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The key test was the Treatment (MBCT-M vs. WL.TAU) X Time (Month 1 vs 4) interaction with both Treatment and Time in the model.|A positive slope indicates a greater reduction in headache attack pain intensity in the MBCT-M group vs. WL/TAU.|||0.16|-0.14|.888
90857691|NCT02443519|181579792|SUPERIORITY||Slope|7.45||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.48|12.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|The key test was the Treatment (MBCT-M vs. WL.TAU) X Time (Month 1 vs 4) interaction with both Treatment and Time in the model.|A positive slope indicates a greater reduction in Pain Catastrophizing Scale in the MBCT-M group vs. WL/TAU.|||12.42|2.48|.035
90857692|NCT02443519|181579793|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-3.05||||0.572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.83|4.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|The key test was the Treatment (MBCT-M vs. WL.TAU) X Time (Month 1 vs 4) interaction with both Treatment and Time in the model.|A negative slope indicates a greater improvement in Chronic Pain Acceptance in the MBCT-M group vs. WL/TAU.|||4.74|-10.83|.572
90857693|NCT02443519|181579794|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.65||||0.609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.76|6.46||Threshold for significance set a priori at .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The key test was the Treatment (MBCT-M vs. WL.TAU) X Time (Month 1 vs 4) interaction with both Treatment and Time in the model.|A negative slope indicates a smaller decrease in the Five Factor Mindfulness Questionnaire in the MBCT-M group vs. WL/TAU.|||6.46|-11.76|.609
90904327|NCT05822921|181675584|OTHER|Independent t-test was used.||||||0.871|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.871
90904328|NCT05822921|181675585|OTHER|Independent t-test was used.||||||0.896|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.896
90904329|NCT05822921|181675586|OTHER|Independent t-test was used.||||||0.351|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.351
90958728|NCT02996565|181797311|SUPERIORITY|Random coefficients model predicted baseline and 6 month patient-reported outcome from treatment group, time point and treatment group by time with random clinic intercept and patient scale parameter.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.02||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.25||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|The interaction RR compares the likelihood of reporting very/extremely confident at 6m relative to baseline in Telehealth care vs. clinic based care|adjusted for baseline DBP, baseline age, sex|||1.25|0.83|0.83
90958729|NCT02996565|181797312|SUPERIORITY|Random coefficients model predicted baseline and 6 month patient-reported outcome from treatment group, time point and treatment group by time with random clinic intercept and patient scale parameter.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.04||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.13||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|The interaction RR compares the likelihood of reporting very/extremely confident at 6m relative to baseline in Telehealth care vs. clinic based care|adjusted for baseline DBP, baseline age, sex|||1.13|0.95|0.41
90958730|NCT02996565|181797313|SUPERIORITY|Random coefficients model predicted baseline and 6 month patient-reported outcome from treatment group, time point and treatment group by time with random clinic intercept and patient scale parameter.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.04||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.16||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|The interaction RR compares the likelihood of reporting very/extremely confident at 6m relative to baseline in Telehealth care vs. clinic based care|adjusted for baseline DBP, baseline age, sex|||1.16|0.94|0.40
91104559|NCT00581100|182095001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value from generalized linear models for correlated data using Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) with treatment and visits as fixed factors. Model for proportion=\[Group visit Group\*visit\].|GEE model|||Week 12||||<0.001
91104560|NCT00581100|182095001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value from generalized linear models for correlated data using Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) with treatment and visits as fixed factors. Model for proportion=\[Group visit Group\*visit\].|GEE model|||Week 12||||<0.001
91104561|NCT00581100|182095001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value from generalized linear models for correlated data using Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) with treatment and visits as fixed factors. Model for proportion=\[Group visit Group\*visit\].|GEE model|||Week 24||||<0.001
90857694|NCT02443519|181579795|SUPERIORITY||Slope|8.45||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.99|13.91||Threshold for significance set a priori at .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The key test was the Treatment (MBCT-M vs. WL.TAU) X Time (Month 1 vs 4) interaction with both Treatment and Time in the model.|A positive slope indicates a greater reduction in Headache Specific Locus of Control Scale score in the MBCT-M group vs. WL/TAU.|||13.91|2.99|.022
90857695|NCT02443519|181579796|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.01||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.56|3.53||Threshold for significance set a priori at .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The key test was the Treatment (MBCT-M vs. WL.TAU) X Time (Month 1 vs 4) interaction with both Treatment and Time in the model.|A negative slope indicates a greater improvement in Headache Management Self-Efficacy Scale score in the MBCT-M group vs. WL/TAU.|||3.53|-7.56|.124
90857696|NCT02443519|181579797|SUPERIORITY||Slope|3.48||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|6.33||Threshold for significance set a priori at .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The key test was the Treatment (MBCT-M vs. WL.TAU) X Time (Month 1 vs 4) interaction with both Treatment and Time in the model.|A positive slope indicates a greater reduction in PROMIS-Depression score in the MBCT-M group vs. WL/TAU.|||6.33|0.63|.017
90857697|NCT02443519|181579798|SUPERIORITY||Slope|2.82||||0.259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|5.68||Threshold for significance set a priori at .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The key test was the Treatment (MBCT-M vs. WL.TAU) X Time (Month 1 vs 4) interaction with both Treatment and Time in the model.|A positive slope indicates a greater reduction in PROMIS-Anxiety score in the MBCT-M group vs. WL/TAU.|||5.68|-0.03|.259
90857698|NCT02443519|181579799|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.0||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|The key test was the Treatment (MBCT-M vs. WL/TAU) X Time (Month 1 vs. 4) interaction with both Treatment and Time in the model.|A negative slope indicated a larger decrease in MIDI scores in the MBCT-M group vs. WL/TAU|||-0.3|-1.6|.007
90857699|NCT01535664|181579817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least square means|4.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.51||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|7.2||A step-down procedure using the primary statistical analysis was followed. If the p-value for the overall gait was less than 0.05, then overall balance was tested in the same manner. Otherwise, the testing procedure was stopped.|Mixed Models Analysis|P-value is based on a mixed model ANOVA with a fixed effect for treatment.||The co-primary efficacy variable was overall gait. This novel composite score was created from standardized individual NeuroCom test results (Z-scores). Overall gait was the average of WA, TW, and SQT; a higher score is indicative of better performance.||7.20|0.87|0.015
90857700|NCT01535664|181579818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least square means|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|P-value is based on a mixed model ANOVA with a fixed effect for treatment||||2.8|0.7|0.003
90857701|NCT01535664|181579819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least square means|7.729|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.495||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.507|12.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|P-value is based on a mixed model ANOVA with a fixed effect for treatment||||12.950|2.507|0.006
90857702|NCT01535664|181579820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least square means|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|P-value is based on a mixed model ANOVA with a fixed effect for treatment||||0.54|0.19|<.001
90857703|NCT01535664|181579821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least square means|-2.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.97||0.434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|3.84||A step-down procedure using the primary statistical analysis was followed. If the p-value for the overall gait was less than 0.05, then overall balance was tested in the same manner. Otherwise, the testing procedure was stopped.|Mixed Models Analysis|P-value is based on a mixed model ANOVA with a fixed effect for treatment||The co-primary efficacy variable was overall balance. This novel composite score was created from standardized individual NeuroCom test results (Z-scores). Overall balance was a weighted average of SOT, LOS, and ADT.||3.84|-8.60|0.434
90857704|NCT05108922|181579825|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|29.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|100.0|||Regression, Logistic|||Analysis was based on logistic regression model with treatment, Apolipoprotein (ApoE) ε4 Carrier Status, baseline amyloid Level, baseline age as factors.||100.0|5.30|<0.001
91102367|NCT00480025|182091493|SUPERIORITY|RMF taken into account included: 1) Number of chemotherapy cycles received (1, 2 vs. 3, 4), if any; 2) Pathological stage of the disease (IB vs. II vs. IIIA); 3) Type of lymph-node sampling (minimal lymph-node sampling vs. systematic radical mediastinal lymphadenectomy); 4) ECOG performance status randomization (0, 1 vs. 2); 5) Smoking status ( 100 cigarettes a lifetime vs. \> 100 cigarettes and current smoker vs. \> 100 cigarettes and past smoker).|Treatment Efficacy|0.97||||0.7572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.797|1.179||2-sided p-value of Likelihood Ratio test from RMF-adjusted Cox regression, Efron method used to handle ties.|Regression, Cox|No-CT population objective reached if p-value \< 2.56%/4% in absence/presence of statistically significant effect in the No-CT population.||Analysis compared DFS PYAR between groups for the period from 1st treatment dose to DLP. A Cox model was used to evaluate treatment efficacy (TE). TE was calculated as PYAR in GSK1572932 No-CT Group (PYAR1) divided by PYAR in Placebo No-CT Group (PYAR2) and weighed for adjustment factors. This comparison in all patients (overall population) also included taking into account weighing using randomization-minimization factors (RMF) as regressors.||1.179|0.797|0.7572
90857705|NCT05108922|181579826|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|15.18||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.04|100.0|||Regression, Logistic|||Analysis was based on logistic regression model with treatment, ApoE ε4 Carrier Status, baseline amyloid Level, baseline age as factors.||100.0|2.04|0.008
90857706|NCT05108922|181579827|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-45.691|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.6132|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.84|-36.54||Analysis between treatment group comparison p-value using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model for endpoint measures: Change (CHG) = Baseline + ApoE ε4 Carrier Status + Baseline Age + Treatment|ANCOVA|||||-36.54|-54.84|<0.001
90857707|NCT05108922|181579828|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-48.213|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.9276|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.99|-38.44||Analysis between treatment group comparison p-value using ANCOVA model for endpoint measures: Percent change (PCHG) = Baseline + ApoE ε4 Carrier Status + Baseline Age + Treatment|ANCOVA|||||-38.44|-57.99|<0.001
90857708|NCT05108922|181579829|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-40.252|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.551|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.87|-18.64||Analysis between treatment group comparison p-value using ANCOVA model for endpoint measures: CHG = Baseline + ApoE ε4 Carrier Status + Baseline Age + Treatment|ANCOVA|||||-18.64|-61.87|<0.001
90857709|NCT05108922|181579830|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-23.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.231|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.35|-15.6||Analysis between treatment group comparison p-value using mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) model for Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + ApoE4 Carrier Status + Baseline Brain Amyloid Level + Baseline Age.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-15.60|-32.35|<0.001
90857710|NCT05108922|181579831|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-25.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.381|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.49|-17.15||Analysis between treatment group comparison p-value using MMRM model for Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + ApoE4 Carrier Status + Baseline Brain Amyloid Level + Baseline Age.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-17.15|-34.49|<0.001
90857711|NCT05108922|181579832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.37|20.81||Analysis was based on logistic regression model with 1 (Screening) value, ApoE4 Status, Age, Treatment, Time, and Treatment-by-time interaction as factors. Variance-Covariance structure = Unstructured|Regression, Logistic|||||20.81|3.37|<0.001
90857712|NCT05108922|181579833|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|37.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.71|99.99||Analysis between treatment group comparison p-value using MMRM model for Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + ApoE4 Carrier Status + Baseline Brain Amyloid Level + Baseline Age.|Regression, Logistic|||||99.99|5.71|<.001
90857713|NCT05108922|181579834|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-26.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.479|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.78|-13.73||Analysis between treatment group comparison p-value using MMRM model for Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + ApoE4 Carrier Status + Baseline Brain Amyloid Level + Baseline Age.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-13.73|-39.78|<0.001
90857714|NCT05108922|181579835|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-7.931|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1187||0.0558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.06|0.199||Analysis between treatment group comparison p-value using MMRM model for Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + ApoE4 Carrier Status + Baseline Brain Amyloid Level + Baseline Age.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.199|-16.060|0.0558
90857715|NCT05108922|181579836|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of interest: 5 Centiloids|LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-7.931|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1187|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.06|0.199||Analysis between treatment group comparison p-value using MMRM model for Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + ApoE4 Carrier Status + Baseline Brain Amyloid Level + Baseline Age.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.199|-16.060|
90857716|NCT05108922|181579837|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-12.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.12||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.19|-3.88||Analysis between treatment group comparison p-value using MMRM model for Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + ApoE4 Carrier Status + Baseline Brain Amyloid Level + Baseline Age.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.88|-20.19|0.004
90857717|NCT05108922|181579838|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.001
90857718|NCT05108922|181579839|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-13.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.96|-4.93||Analysis between treatment group comparison p-value using MMRM model for Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + ApoE4 Carrier Status + Baseline Brain Amyloid Level + Baseline Age.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.93|-21.96|0.002
90857719|NCT05108922|181579840|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.93|11.34||Analysis was based on logistic regression model with 1 (Screening) value, ApoE4 Status, Age, Treatment, Time, and Treatment-by-time interaction as factors. Variance-Covariance structure = Unstructured.|Regression, Logistic|||||11.34|1.93|<0.001
90857720|NCT05108922|181579841|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.34||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|30.54||Analysis was based on logistic regression model with 1 (Screening) value, ApoE4 Status, Age, Treatment, Time, and Treatment-by-time interaction as factors. Variance-Covariance structure = Unstructured.|Regression, Logistic|||||30.54|1.32|0.022
90857721|NCT05108922|181579842|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-14.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.333||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.07|-1.59||Analysis between treatment group comparison p-value using MMRM model for Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + ApoE4 Carrier Status + Baseline Brain Amyloid Level + Baseline Age.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.59|-27.07|0.028
91102368|NCT01064622|182091524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.22||Reported p-value is one-sided. p\<0.10 required for statistical significance.|Log Rank|Stratified by Karnofsky performance status (90-100 vs. 80) and disease status (newly diagnosed vs. recurrent after surgery)|Hazard ratio is for (gemcitabine hydrochloride plus vismodegib)/(gemcitabine hydrochloride plus placebo), adjusted for Karnofsky performance status (90-100 vs. 80) and disease status (newly diagnosed vs. recurrent after surgery)|||1.22|0.55|0.15
91102369|NCT01064622|182091525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.46|||Log Rank|Stratified by Karnofsky performance status (90-100 vs. 80) and disease status (newly diagnosed vs. recurrent after surgery)|Hazard ratio is for (gemcitabine hydrochloride plus vismodegib)/(gemcitabine hydrochloride plus placebo), adjusted for Karnofsky performance status (90-100 vs. 80) and disease status (newly diagnosed vs. recurrent after surgery)|||1.46|0.64|0.37
90857722|NCT05108922|181579843|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of interest: 5 Centiloids.|LS Mean difference (Final Values)|7.831|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.087|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.226|15.889||Analysis between treatment group comparison p-value using MMRM model for Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + ApoE4 Carrier Status + Baseline Brain Amyloid Level + Baseline Age.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||15.889|-0.226|
91102370|NCT01064622|182091526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|||||Two-sided p-value for Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Karnofsky performance status and disease status.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.42
90857723|NCT01854658|181579875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||At 5 min post dose||||<0.0001
90857724|NCT01854658|181579875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||At 15 min post dose||||<0.0001
90857725|NCT01854658|181579875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||At 5 min post dose||||<0.0001
90857726|NCT01854658|181579875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||At 15 min post dose||||<0.0001
90857727|NCT01854658|181579875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||At 5 min post dose||||<0.0001
90958731|NCT02996565|181797314|SUPERIORITY|Random coefficients model predicted baseline and 6 month patient-reported outcome from treatment group, time point and treatment group by time with random clinic intercept and patient scale parameter.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.07||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|The interaction RR compares the likelihood of reporting very/extremely confident at 6m relative to baseline in Telehealth care vs. clinic based care|adjusted for baseline DBP, baseline age, sex|||1.07|0.95|0.74
91102371|NCT05330429|182091532|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.956||||0.9323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.339|2.691|||Unstratified Log-rank Test|2-Sided P-value was based on unstratified log-rank test.|Hazard ratio and its 95% CI were calculated using unstratified Cox proportional hazards regression model.|||2.691|0.339|0.9323
90857728|NCT01854658|181579875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||At 15 min post dose||||<0.0001
90857729|NCT02007512|181579948|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.3631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.535|1.257|||Stratified log-rank|||Hazard ratio was based on stratified Cox regression model.||1.257|0.535|0.3631
90857730|NCT02007512|181579948|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.022||||0.9212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.659|1.586|||Stratified log-rank|||Hazard ratio was based on stratified Cox regression model.||1.586|0.659|0.9212
90857731|NCT02007512|181579949|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.442||||0.0335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.205|0.955|||Stratified log-rank|||Hazard ratio was based on stratified Cox regression model.||0.955|0.205|0.0335
90857732|NCT02007512|181579949|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.554||||0.1936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.225|1.363|||Stratified log-rank|||Hazard ratio was based on stratified Cox regression model.||1.363|0.225|0.1936
90857733|NCT02007512|181579966|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.928||||0.7378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.599|1.438|||Stratified log-rank|||Hazard ratio was based on stratified Cox regression model.||1.438|0.599|0.7378
90857734|NCT02007512|181579966|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.968||||0.8817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.632|1.483|||Stratified log-rank|||Hazard ratio was based on stratified Cox regression model.||1.483|0.632|0.8817
90857735|NCT02007512|181579967|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.522||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.224|1.217|||Stratified log-rank|||Hazard ratio was based on stratified Cox regression model.||1.217|0.224|0.1270
90857736|NCT02007512|181579967|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.37||||0.0359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.143|0.961|||Stratified log-rank|||Hazard ratio was based on stratified Cox regression model.||0.961|0.143|0.0359
90857737|NCT05402020|181579975|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.15|||||Ratio calculated as \[Tio/Olo\]/\[ICS/LABA\]|Univariate proportional hazards regression was used to compare the time to event (first moderate or severe COPD exacerbations) between the two treatment groups. In the event that there were baseline covariates with unequal distribution between the treatment groups, defined as absolute standardized difference larger than 0.1, the covariate(s) were included in a multiple regression model in addition to the exposure status (Tio/Olo or ICS/LABA).||1.15|0.87|
90857738|NCT05402020|181579976|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.85|||||Ratio calculated as \[Tio/Olo\]/\[ICS/LABA\]|Univariate proportional hazards regression was used to compare the time to event (triple therapy escalation) between the two treatment groups. In the event that there were baseline covariates with unequal distribution between the treatment groups, defined as absolute standardized difference larger than 0.1, the covariate(s) were included in a multiple regression model in addition to the exposure status (Tio/Olo or ICS/LABA).||0.85|0.53|
90857739|NCT05402020|181579977|OTHER||Incidence difference|-37.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.1|-15.8|||||Incidence difference calculated as \[incidence rate of Tio/Olo\]-\[incidence rate of ICS/LABA\].|The rate ratio of Tio+Olo - exposed group relative to LABA/ICS group, along with 95% CIs were derived using a univariate negative binomial model. In the event that there are baseline covariates with unequal distribution between the treatment groups, defined as absolute standardized difference larger than 0.1, the covariate(s) will be included in a multiple regression model in addition to the exposure status (Tio/Olo or LABA/ICS).||-15.8|-60.1|
90857740|NCT05402020|181579977|OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.85|||||Ratio calculated as \[incidence rate of Tio/Olo\]/\[incidence rate of ICS/LABA\].|The rate ratio of Tio+Olo - exposed group relative to LABA/ICS group, along with 95% CIs were derived using a univariate negative binomial model. In the event that there are baseline covariates with unequal distribution between the treatment groups, defined as absolute standardized difference larger than 0.1, the covariate(s) will be included in a multiple regression model in addition to the exposure status (Tio/Olo or LABA/ICS).||0.85|0.51|
90857741|NCT05402020|181579978|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.93|||||Ratio calculated as \[Tio/Olo\]/\[ICS/LABA\]|Univariate proportional hazards regression was used to compare the time to event (first hospitalization for community-acquired pneumonia after initiation of study drug) between the two treatment groups. In the event that there were baseline covariates with unequal distribution between the treatment groups, defined as absolute standardized difference larger than 0.1, the covariate(s) were included in a multiple regression model in addition to the exposure status (Tio/Olo or ICS/LABA).||1.93|0.36|
90857742|NCT05402020|181579979|OTHER||Annualized rate ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.03|||||Annualized rate ratio calculated as \[annualized rate of Tio/Olo\]/\[annualized rate of ICS/LABA\].|The rate ratio of Tio+Olo - exposed group relative to LABA/ICS group, along with 95% CIs were derived using a univariate negative binomial model. In the event that there are baseline covariates with unequal distribution between the treatment groups, defined as absolute standardized difference larger than 0.1, the covariate(s) will be included in a multiple regression model in addition to the exposure status (Tio/Olo or LABA/ICS).||1.03|0.81|
91031778|NCT01179048|181948286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.159|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.869|1.546|||Regression, Cox|||Analysis for percentage of subjects experiencing treatment with photocoagulation or intravitreal agents was done by Cox regression model with treatment as fixed factor.||1.546|0.869|
91031779|NCT01179048|181948286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.335|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|30.847|||Regression, Cox|||Analysis for percentage of subjects experiencing development of diabetes-related blindness was done by Cox regression model with treatment as fixed factor.||30.847|0.004|
91031780|NCT01179048|181948286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.454|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.845|2.502|||Regression, Cox|||Analysis for percentage of subjects experiencing vitreous haemorrhage was done by Cox regression model with treatment as fixed factor.||2.502|0.845|
90857743|NCT05402020|181579980|OTHER||Annualized rate ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.18|||||Annualized rate ratio calculated as \[annualized rate of Tio/Olo\]/\[annualized rate of ICS/LABA\].|The rate ratio of Tio+Olo - exposed group relative to LABA/ICS group, along with 95% CIs were derived using a univariate negative binomial model. In the event that there are baseline covariates with unequal distribution between the treatment groups, defined as absolute standardized difference larger than 0.1, the covariate(s) will be included in a multiple regression model in addition to the exposure status (Tio/Olo or LABA/ICS).||1.18|0.87|
90904330|NCT02036515|181675608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-0.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.5|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Model is fitted with effects for treatment, time, interaction of time by treatment, effects for baseline eGFR and prior antihyperglycemic medication||||-0.50|-0.87|<0.001
91031781|NCT03203447|181948293|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|-7.1||||0.191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.9|3.6||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.050. Prior to evaluating the results of the CMH test, a Breslow-Day test with Tarone's adjustment was conducted to confirm the homogeneity of the odds ratios between RVO strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH test was stratified by the type of retinal vein occlusion, i.e., branch vs. central.|Estimated value was calculated as the percentage of subjects in the Active arm meeting the primary endpoint minus the percentage of subjects in the Control arm meeting the primary endpoint.|Based on a Pearson chi-square test, a total sample size of approximately 460 subjects provided 90% power to detect a difference of 15% between the Active and Control arms assuming the Control arm showed a proportion of 0.50 at 8 weeks. The primary analysis was a test of superiority of the Active arm over the Control arm, and was based on a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by type of retinal vein occlusion.||3.6|-17.9|0.191
91031782|NCT00445003|181948302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|9.0||adjusted for baseline visual acuity, number of planned panretinal photocoagulation sittings, and correlation between two study eyes|ANCOVA||adjusted for multiple comparison|||9.0|2.2|<.001
91031783|NCT00445003|181948302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|10.1||adjusted for baseline visual acuity, number of planned panretinal photocoagulation sittings, and correlation between two study eyes|ANCOVA||adjusted for multiple comparisons|||10.1|3.2|<.001
91031784|NCT00445003|181948304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-35.0|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.0|-6.0||Adjusted for baseline optical coherence tomography retinal thickness and visual acuity, number of planned panretinal photocoagulation sittings, and correlation between 2 study eyes|ANCOVA||adjusted for multiple comparisons|||-6|-64|<.01
91031785|NCT00445003|181948304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-100.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-128.0|-71.0||adjusted for baseline optical coherence tomography retinal thickness and visual acuity, number of planned panretinal photocoagulation sittings, and correlation between 2 study eyes|ANCOVA||adjusted for multiple comparisons|||-71|-128|<.001
91102372|NCT05330429|182091535|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.299|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.056|1.6|||||Hazard ratio and its 95% CI were calculated using unstratified Cox proportional hazards regression model.|||1.600|0.056|
90857744|NCT03180684|181580049|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0071|||||||Clopper Pearson|A 1-sided p-value was calculated to prove superiority over historical control of 2%. Superiority of VGX-3100 alone was declared if p-value is \<0.025.||||||0.0071
90857745|NCT03180684|181580049|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004|||||||Clopper Pearson|1-sided p-value was calculated to prove superiority over historical control of 2%.Superiority of VGX-3100+imiquimod was declared if p-value is \<0.025.||||||0.0004
90857746|NCT00857415|181580061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Correlation coefficient|0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.194|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.89||A one-sided test (rho \> 0) was performed with a significance level of alpha=0.05 to assess a significant correlation.|Spearman's Rank Correlation test||Asymptotic standard error and 95 percent CI used Fisher z-transformation.|Spearman's Rank Order Correlation of the median semiquantitative read (three readers) and the quantitative IHC measurement of cortical amyloid plaque density averaged across six brain regions.||0.89|0.58|<0.0001
90904331|NCT02036515|181675608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-0.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.58|||cLDA|Model is fitted with effects for treatment, time, interaction of time by treatment, effects for baseline eGFR and prior antihyperglycemic medication||||-0.58|-0.95|<0.001
90904332|NCT02036515|181675609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|5.2||||||||5.2|-16.5|
90904333|NCT02036515|181675609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|7.6||||||||7.6|-14.1|
90904334|NCT02036515|181675610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|5.6||||||||5.6|-4.4|
90904335|NCT02036515|181675610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|4.9||||||||4.9|-4.9|
91102373|NCT02931539|182091545|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of responders|32.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.8|42.74|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||42.74|22.80|<0.001
91102374|NCT02931539|182091546|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of responders|9.5||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|16.88|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||16.88|2.02|0.013
91102375|NCT02931539|182091561|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.549|2.357|||Log Rank|Two-sided p-value comparing treatment groups was calculated from the log rank test by Kaplan-Meier Method.|Stratified Cox regression model was used as transplant type and baseline plasma CMV DNA level as stratification factors.|||2.357|0.549|0.647
90857747|NCT00857415|181580062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Specificity|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.0|100.0|||||95% CI calculated by Wilson score method|Proportion of subjects who had a negative scan based on majority of 3 blinded readers||100|91|
90857748|NCT02448810|181580079|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.246|TWO_SIDED|70.0|0.5|1.1||P-value is based on a one-sided log-rank test.|Log Rank||||Hazard Ratio and 70% CI are based on a Cox proportional hazards model with a covariate for treatment (imalumab vs SoC).|1.1|0.5|0.246
90857749|NCT02448810|181580079|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.354|TWO_SIDED|70.0|0.5|1.4||P-value is based on a one-sided log-rank test.|Log Rank||||Hazard Ratio and 70% CI are based on a Cox proportional hazards model with a covariate for treatment (imalumab vs SoC).|1.4|0.5|0.354
90857750|NCT02035475|181580114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.412|||||||McNemar|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the incidence of detected lymphoceles whether the EndoWrist 1 Vessel Sealer or the Fenestrated Maryland BiPolar Instrument were used.||||0.412
90857751|NCT02047227|181580117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.235||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4741|0.003|||Poisson Regression Model|||||0.003|-0.4741|0.054
90958732|NCT02996565|181797315|SUPERIORITY|Random coefficients model predicted the likelihood that a new statin was current at 12 months by treatment group with random clinic intercept.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.05||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.37||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|The risk ratio compares the likelihood of a new statin medication that is current at 12 months in Telehealth care vs. clinic based care|adjusted for baseline SBP , baseline DBP, baseline age, sex, Asian race|||1.37|0.81|0.71
90958733|NCT01602562|181797318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|16.11|||||The estimated value reflects the percentage of participants with an HSV infection.|||16.11|0.00|
90958734|NCT01602562|181797318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|17.65|||||The estimated value reflects the percentage of participants with an HSV infection.|||17.65|0.00|
91102376|NCT02059642|182091571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.1||||0.1358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.87|0.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM: Model of Repeated Measures||||0.66|-4.87|0.1358
90857752|NCT01385371|181580128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.98|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.2|-0.4|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||-0.4|-1.2|<0.001
90857753|NCT01385371|181580129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.64||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.2|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||-0.2|-0.7|0.001
90857754|NCT01385371|181580130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.5|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||-0.5|-1.4|<0.001
90857755|NCT01385371|181580131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.027||95.0|-0.2|0.0|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||0.0|-0.2|0.027
90857756|NCT01385371|181580132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.22||A zero-inflated log-normal mixed distribution model was used with treatment, baseline asthma status, age category (\<18 or \>=18 years) and pollen region as covariates.|Zero-Inflated Log-Normal Model|||||-0.22|-0.73|0.0003
90857757|NCT01385371|181580133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.2|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||-0.2|-0.9|<0.001
90857758|NCT01385371|181580134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.31||A zero-inflated log-normal mixed distribution model was used with treatment, baseline asthma status, age category (\<18 or \>=18 years) and pollen region as covariates.|Zero-Inflated Log-Normal Model|||||-0.31|-0.94|0.0001
90857759|NCT01385371|181580135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.6|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||0.6|-0.4|0.644
90857760|NCT01302379|181580140|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-97.5|97.5||No adjustment for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|||||97.5|-97.5|<0.05
90857761|NCT02436681|181580154|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
90857762|NCT02436681|181580156|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0468|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||= 0.0468
90857763|NCT02436681|181580158|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.014|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||=0.014
90857764|NCT02436681|181580159|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.018|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||= 0.018
90904336|NCT02036515|181675611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Differenc in least squares means|-25.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.76|-17.54|||cLDA|Model is fitted with effects for treatment, time, interaction of time by treatment, effects for baseline eGFR and prior antihyperglycemic medication||||-17.54|-32.76|<0.001
90904337|NCT02036515|181675611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-31.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.9|-23.66|||cLDA|Model is fitted with effects for treatment, time, interaction of time by treatment, effects for baseline eGFR and prior antihyperglycemic medication||||-23.66|-38.90|<0.001
90904338|NCT02036515|181675612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.65|-1.4|||cLDA|Model is fitted with effects for treatment, time, interaction of time by treatment, effects for baseline eGFR and prior antihyperglycemic medication||||-1.40|-2.65|<0.001
90904339|NCT02036515|181675612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|-1.09|||cLDA|Model is fitted with effects for treatment, time, interaction of time by treatment, effects for baseline eGFR and prior antihyperglycemic medication||||-1.09|-2.35|<0.001
90958735|NCT04964414|181797337|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.6
90958736|NCT04964414|181797338|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank|||||||0.6
90857765|NCT02103218|181580160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||count GEE|||Results from count GEE models for outcome with IPW propensity score adjustment and multiple imputation for missing data. Numbers presented above are model-based least-squares means, (SE). Overall p-values from omnibus test (group by time interaction) for any differences in change over time between groups as well as p-values from testing difference in least-square mean estimates in post-hoc pairwise comparisons with pre-intervention were estimated.||||0.62
90857766|NCT02103218|181580161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||logistic GEE|||Results from logistic GEE models for outcome with IPW propensity score adjustment and multiple imputation for missing data. Numbers presented above are model-based least-squares predicted probabilities converted to %, (SE). Overall p-values from omnibus test (group by time interaction) for any differences in change over time between groups as well as p-values from testing difference in least-square estimates in post-hoc pairwise comparisons with pre-intervention were estimated.||||0.15
90857767|NCT02103218|181580162|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||logistic GEE|||Results from logistic GEE models for outcome with IPW propensity score adjustment and multiple imputation for missing data. Numbers presented above are model-based least-squares predicted probabilities converted to %, (SE). Overall p-values from omnibus test (group by time interaction) for any differences in change over time between groups as well as p-values from testing difference in least-square estimates in post-hoc pairwise comparisons with pre-intervention were estimated.||||0.47
90857768|NCT02103218|181580163|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||logistic GEE|||Results from logistic GEE models for outcome with IPW propensity score adjustment and multiple imputation for missing data. Numbers presented above are model-based least-squares predicted probabilities converted to %, (SE). Overall p-values from omnibus test (group by time interaction) for any differences in change over time between groups as well as p-values from testing difference in least-square estimates in post-hoc pairwise comparisons with pre-intervention were estimated.||||0.29
90857769|NCT02103218|181580164|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||linear GEE|||Results from linear GEE models for outcome with IPW propensity score adjustment and multiple imputation for missing data. Numbers presented above are model-based least-squares means, (SE). Overall p-values from omnibus test (group by time interaction) for any differences in change over time between groups as well as p-values from testing difference in least-square mean estimates in post-hoc pairwise comparisons with pre-intervention were estimated.||||<0.001
90857770|NCT02103218|181580165|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||Omnibus overall test for any group x time interaction was p = 0.77.|linear GEE|||Results from linear GEE models for outcome with IPW propensity score adjustment and multiple imputation for missing data. Numbers presented above are model-based least-squares means, (SE). Overall p-values from omnibus test (group by time interaction) for any differences in change over time between groups as well as p-values from testing difference in least-square mean estimates in post-hoc pairwise comparisons with pre-intervention were estimated.||||0.02
90857771|NCT02103218|181580166|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||linear GEE|||Results from linear GEE models for outcome with IPW propensity score adjustment and multiple imputation for missing data. Numbers presented above are model-based least-squares means, (SE). Overall p-values from omnibus test (group by time interaction) for any differences in change over time between groups as well as p-values from testing difference in least-square mean estimates in post-hoc pairwise comparisons with pre-intervention were estimated.||||0.67
90857772|NCT02103218|181580167|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||count GEE|||Results from count GEE models for outcome with IPW propensity score adjustment and multiple imputation for missing data. Numbers presented above are model-based least-squares means, (SE). Overall p-values from omnibus test (group by time interaction) for any differences in change over time between groups as well as p-values from testing difference in least-square mean estimates in post-hoc pairwise comparisons with pre-intervention were estimated.||||0.45
90857773|NCT02103218|181580168|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||count GEE|||Results from count GEE models for outcome with IPW propensity score adjustment and multiple imputation for missing data. Numbers presented above are model-based least-squares means, (SE). Overall p-values from omnibus test (group by time interaction) for any differences in change over time between groups as well as p-values from testing difference in least-square mean estimates in post-hoc pairwise comparisons with pre-intervention were estimated.||||0.70
90857774|NCT02103218|181580169|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||linear GEE|||Results from linear GEE models for outcome with IPW propensity score adjustment and multiple imputation for missing data. Numbers presented above are model-based least-squares means, (SE). Overall p-values from omnibus test (group by time interaction) for any differences in change over time between groups as well as p-values from testing difference in least-square mean estimates in post-hoc pairwise comparisons with pre-intervention were estimated.||||0.42
90857775|NCT02103218|181580170|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||count GEE|||Results from count GEE models for outcome with IPW propensity score adjustment and multiple imputation for missing data. Numbers presented above are model-based least-squares means, (SE). Overall p-values from omnibus test (group by time interaction) for any differences in change over time between groups as well as p-values from testing difference in least-square mean estimates in post-hoc pairwise comparisons with pre-intervention were estimated.||||0.63
90857776|NCT02103218|181580171|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||Omnibus overall test for any group x time interaction was p = 0.78.|count GEE|||Results from count GEE models for outcome with IPW propensity score adjustment and multiple imputation for missing data. Numbers presented above are model-based least-squares means, (SE). Overall p-values from omnibus test (group by time interaction) for any differences in change over time between groups as well as p-values from testing difference in least-square mean estimates in post-hoc pairwise comparisons with pre-intervention were estimated.||||0.05
90904340|NCT02036515|181675613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.74|5.72|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model fitted with terms for treatment, baseline A1C, baseline eGFR and prior antihyperglycemic medication.||||5.72|1.74|<0.001
90904341|NCT02036515|181675613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|4.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.44|8.02|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model fitted with terms for treatment, baseline A1C, baseline eGFR and prior antihyperglycemic medication.||||8.02|2.44|<0.001
90904342|NCT02036515|181675614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.93||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.36|-0.49|||cLDA|Model is fitted with effects for treatment, time, interaction of time by treatment, effects for baseline eGFR and prior antihyperglycemic medication||||-0.49|-5.36|0.019
91102377|NCT06097273|182091573|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority in GM level in the Cohort A1 group compared with that of Cohort A2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 97.5% CI of the GMR was \>0.667.|GMR|1.155|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.086|1.229||||||GMR (Cohort A1 vs Cohort A2) for Influenza A H1N1 Antibody||1.229|1.086|
91102378|NCT06097273|182091573|SUPERIORITY|The superiority in GM level in the Cohort A1 group compared with that of Cohort A2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \>1.|GMR|1.155|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.094|1.22||||||GMR (Cohort A1 vs Cohort A2) for Influenza A H1N1 Antibody||1.220|1.094|
90857777|NCT02103218|181580172|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||count GEE|||Results from count GEE models for outcome with IPW propensity score adjustment and multiple imputation for missing data. Numbers presented above are model-based least-squares means, (SE). Overall p-values from omnibus test (group by time interaction) for any differences in change over time between groups as well as p-values from testing difference in least-square mean estimates in post-hoc pairwise comparisons with pre-intervention were estimated.||||0.50
90857778|NCT02103218|181580174|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||count GEE|||Results from count GEE models for outcome with IPW propensity score adjustment and multiple imputation for missing data. Numbers presented above are model-based least-squares means, (SE). Overall p-values from omnibus test (group by time interaction) for any differences in change over time between groups as well as p-values from testing difference in least-square mean estimates in post-hoc pairwise comparisons with pre-intervention were estimated.||||0.86
90857779|NCT02103218|181580175|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||count GEE|||Results from count GEE models for outcome with IPW propensity score adjustment and multiple imputation for missing data. Numbers presented above are model-based least-squares means, (SE). Overall p-values from omnibus test (group by time interaction) for any differences in change over time between groups as well as p-values from testing difference in least-square mean estimates in post-hoc pairwise comparisons with pre-intervention were estimated.||||0.46
90857780|NCT02103218|181580176|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||linear GEE|||Results from linear GEE models for outcome with IPW propensity score adjustment and multiple imputation for missing data. Numbers presented above are model-based least-squares means, (SE). Overall p-values from omnibus test (group by time interaction) for any differences in change over time between groups as well as p-values from testing difference in least-square mean estimates in post-hoc pairwise comparisons with pre-intervention were estimated.||||0.70
90857781|NCT02103218|181580177|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||linear GEE|||Results from linear GEE models for outcome with IPW propensity score adjustment and multiple imputation for missing data. Numbers presented above are model-based least-squares means, (SE). Overall p-values from omnibus test (group by time interaction) for any differences in change over time between groups as well as p-values from testing difference in least-square mean estimates in post-hoc pairwise comparisons with pre-intervention were estimated.||||0.29
90857782|NCT02103218|181580178|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||linear GEE|||Results from linear GEE models for outcome with IPW propensity score adjustment and multiple imputation for missing data. Numbers presented above are model-based least-squares means, (SE). Overall p-values from omnibus test (group by time interaction) for any differences in change over time between groups as well as p-values from testing difference in least-square mean estimates in post-hoc pairwise comparisons with pre-intervention were estimated.||||0.43
90857783|NCT03635788|181580192|SUPERIORITY|The study had approximately 80% power to show superiority of the LA ART compared to daily SOC with respect to the Step 2, week 48, cumulative probability of regimen failure|Cumulative probability difference|-18.4|||||TWO_SIDED|98.4|-32.4|-4.3|||||Treatment difference was calculated as LA-ART minus SOC. 98.4% is nominal confidence interval.|Treatment comparison was conducted by cumulative probability of regimen failure in Step 2 up to Step 2 Week 48 visit by treatment arm. The treatment difference was assessed using the 95% repeated confidence interval adjusted for interim efficacy analyses, i.e., a nominal 98.4% confidence interval.||-4.3|-32.4|
90857784|NCT03635788|181580193|SUPERIORITY|The study had at least 80% power to show superiority of the LA ART compared to daily SOC with respect to the Step 2, week 48, cumulative probability of virologic failure|cumulative probability difference|-21.4|||||TWO_SIDED|98.4|-33.5|-9.3|||||Treatment difference was calculated as LA-ART minus SOC.98.4% is nominal confidence interval.|Treatment comparison was conducted by cumulative probability of virologic failure in Step 2 up to Step 2 Week 48 visit by treatment arm. The treatment difference was assessed using the 95% repeated confidence interval adjusted for interim efficacy analyses, i.e., a nominal 98.4% confidence interval.||-9.3|-33.5|
90857785|NCT03635788|181580194|SUPERIORITY||cumulative probability diffeence|-19.2|||||TWO_SIDED|98.4|-31.6|-6.9||||||Treatment comparison was conducted by cumulative probability of treatment-related failure in Step 2 up to Step 2 Week 48 visit by treatment arm. The treatment difference was assessed using the 95% repeated confidence interval adjusted for interim efficacy analyses, i.e., a nominal 98.4% confidence interval.|Treatment difference was calculated as LA-ART minus SOC.98.4% is nominal confidence interval.|-6.9|-31.6|
91102379|NCT06097273|182091573|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority in GM level in the Cohort A1 group compared with that of Cohort A2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 97.5% CI of the GMR was \>0.667.|GMR|1.063|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.999|1.13||||||GMR (Cohort A1 vs Cohort A2) for Influenza A H3N2 Antibody||1.130|0.999|
90857786|NCT03635788|181580195|SUPERIORITY|The proportions of participants with HIV-1 RNA ≥ 50 copies/ml was compared by Fisher's Exact Test.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.6|-8.1|||Fisher Exact||||Treatment difference in the proportions of participants with HIV-1 RNA ≥ 50 copies/ml was calculated as LA-ART minus SOC.|-8.1|-35.6|<0.001
91102380|NCT06097273|182091573|SUPERIORITY|The superiority in GM level in the Cohort A1 group compared with that of Cohort A2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 95% CI of the GMR was \>1.|GMR|1.063|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.007|1.122||||||GMR (Cohort A1 vs Cohort A2) for Influenza A H3N2 Antibody||1.122|1.007|
91102381|NCT06097273|182091573|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority in GM level in the Cohort B1 group compared with that of Cohort B2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 97.5% CI of the GMR was \>0.667.|GMR|1.414|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.322|1.513||||||GMR (Cohort B1 vs Cohort B2) for Influenza A H1N1 Antibody||1.513|1.322|
90857787|NCT03635788|181580196|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.1|-12.8|||Fisher Exact||Difference in the proportions of participants with HIV-1 RNA ≥ 200 copies was calculated as LA-ART minus SOC.|The proportions of participants with HIV-1 RNA ≥ 200 copies/ml was compared by Fisher's Exact Test.||-12.8|-36.1|<0.001
90857788|NCT03635788|181580201|SUPERIORITY||Cumulative probability difference|-8.4|||||TWO_SIDED|98.4|-21.3|4.5|||||Treatment difference in cumulative of permanent treatment discontinuation was calculated as LA-ART minus SOC.98.4% is nominal confidence interval.|Treatment comparison was conducted by cumulative probability of permanent treatment discontinuation in Step 2 up to Step 2 Week 48 visit by treatment arm. The treatment difference was assessed using the 95% repeated confidence interval adjusted for interim efficacy analyses, i.e., a nominal 98.4% confidence interval.||4.5|-21.3|
90857789|NCT05595382|181580212|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures of likelihood to enroll (on a 1 to 7 scale with higher numbers indicating a greater likelihood) pre/post intervention||||||0.001|||||||ANOVA|Degrees of freedom (1, 359)||||||.001
90857790|NCT05595382|181580213|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.357|||||||ANOVA|Degrees of freedom (1, 358)||Repeated measures ANOVA comparing mood (rated on a 1-10 scale with higher scores indicating better mood) given to participants before and after the study manipulation by group||||.357
90857791|NCT05595382|181580214|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.102|||||||ANOVA|||||||.102
90857792|NCT03722173|181580215|OTHER|Since the main focus was on estimation and not testing, a formal hypothesis test and associated acceptance range was not specified; no hypothesis was tested.|gMeans ratio (T/R) %|141.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|129.64|154.71|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'subjects' and 'treatment' was used.|Standard error of the mean is actually an intra-individual coefficient variation (CV). Confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated based on the residual error from the ANOVA and quantiles from the t distribution.|Point estimates for the ratios of the geometric means (gMeans) (T/R) for AUC0-tz and their 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were provided. The difference between the expected means for log(T) - log(R) were estimated by the difference in the corresponding adjusted means (Least Squares Means).||154.71|129.64|
90857793|NCT03722173|181580216|OTHER|Since the main focus was on estimation and not testing, a formal hypothesis test and associated acceptance range was not specified; no hypothesis was tested.|gMeans ratio (T/R) %|113.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.47|125.32|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'subjects' and 'treatment' was used.|Standard error of the mean is actually an intra-individual coefficient variation (CV). Confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated based on the residual error from the ANOVA and quantiles from the t distribution.|Point estimates for the ratios of the gMeans (T/R) for Cmax and their 2-sided 90% CIs were provided. The difference between the expected means for log(T) - log(R) were estimated by the difference in the corresponding adjusted means (Least Squares Means).||125.32|102.47|
90857794|NCT03722173|181580217|OTHER|Since the main focus was on estimation and not testing, a formal hypothesis test and associated acceptance range was not specified; no hypothesis was tested.|gMeans ratio (T/R) %|142.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|130.3|155.93|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'subjects' and 'treatment' was used.|Standard error of the mean is actually an intra-individual coefficient variation (CV). Confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated based on the residual error from the ANOVA and quantiles from the t distribution.|Point estimates for the ratios of the gMeans (T/R) for AUC0-∞ and their 2-sided 90% CIs were provided. The difference between the expected means for log(T) - log(R) were estimated by the difference in the corresponding adjusted means (Least Squares Means).||155.93|130.30|
90857795|NCT04571515|181580218|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.25||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.9|46.6|||Emax|||||46.6|9.9|0.003
90857796|NCT04571515|181580218|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|29.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.94|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.8|45.3|||Emax|||||45.3|13.8|<0.001
90857797|NCT04571515|181580218|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|30.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.04|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.4|46.2|||Emax|||||46.2|14.4|<0.001
90857798|NCT04571515|181580218|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|31.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.87|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.5|48.6|||Emax|||||48.6|13.5|<0.001
90857799|NCT04571515|181580219|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.1||||||||1.1|-1.4|
90857800|NCT04571515|181580219|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.9||||||||0.9|-1.5|
90857801|NCT04571515|181580219|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.6||||||||0.6|-1.8|
90857802|NCT04571515|181580219|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.3||||||||1.3|-1.1|
90904343|NCT02036515|181675614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-3.94||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.39|-1.5|||cLDA|Model is fitted with effects for treatment, time, interaction of time by treatment, effects for baseline eGFR and prior antihyperglycemic medication||||-1.50|-6.39|0.002
90857803|NCT04571515|181580220|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.99|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.3|23.1|||Emax|||||23.1|7.3|<0.001
90904344|NCT02036515|181675615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.54||||||||-0.54|-0.98|
90857804|NCT04571515|181580220|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.43|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.3|22.9|||Emax|||||22.9|9.3|<0.001
90857805|NCT04571515|181580220|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.47|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.7|23.4|||Emax|||||23.4|9.7|<0.001
90857806|NCT04571515|181580220|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.84|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.4|24.7|||Emax|||||24.7|9.4|<0.001
90857807|NCT04571515|181580221|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.208|||||||Log Rank|||Time to Perceptible Pain Relief Subjects are censored at 24 hours if they do not report relief.||||0.208
90904345|NCT02036515|181675615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.61||||||||-0.61|-1.05|
90904346|NCT02036515|181675616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-28.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.44|-21.09||||||||-21.09|-36.44|
90904347|NCT02036515|181675616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-29.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.3|-21.85||||||||-21.85|-37.30|
90904348|NCT02036515|181675617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.43|-1.59||||||||-1.59|-3.43|
90904349|NCT02036515|181675617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.81|-0.95||||||||-0.95|-2.81|
90904350|NCT02036515|181675618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.98|6.64||||||||6.64|1.98|
91102382|NCT06097273|182091573|SUPERIORITY|The superiority in GM level in the Cohort B1 group compared with that of Cohort B2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 95% CI of the GMR was \>1.|GMR|1.414|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.333|1.5||||||GMR (Cohort B1 vs Cohort B2) for Influenza A H1N1 Antibody||1.500|1.333|
90857808|NCT04571515|181580221|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Log Rank|||Time to Perceptible Pain Relief Subjects are censored at 24 hours if they do not report relief.||||0.005
90857809|NCT04571515|181580221|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.192|||||||Log Rank|||Time to Perceptible Pain Relief Subjects are censored at 24 hours if they do not report relief.||||0.192
90857810|NCT04571515|181580221|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.067|||||||Log Rank|||Time to Perceptible Pain Relief Subjects are censored at 24 hours if they do not report relief.||||0.067
90857811|NCT04571515|181580221|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.059|||||||Log Rank|||Time to Meaningful Pain Relief Subjects are censored at 24 hours if they do not report relief.||||0.059
90857812|NCT04571515|181580221|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||Time to Meaningful Pain Relief Subjects are censored at 24 hours if they do not report relief.||||<0.001
90857813|NCT04571515|181580221|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017|||||||Log Rank|||Time to Meaningful Pain Relief Subjects are censored at 24 hours if they do not report relief.||||0.017
90857814|NCT04571515|181580221|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Log Rank|||Time to Meaningful Pain Relief Subjects are censored at 24 hours if they do not report relief.||||0.002
90857815|NCT04571515|181580222|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.051|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.051
90857816|NCT04571515|181580222|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.035
90857817|NCT04571515|181580222|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.016
90857818|NCT04571515|181580222|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.180
90904351|NCT02036515|181675618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.22|7.28||||||||7.28|2.22|
90857819|NCT04571515|181580223|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||||0.022
90857820|NCT04571515|181580223|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||||0.028
90857821|NCT04571515|181580223|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||||0.007
90857822|NCT04571515|181580223|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||||0.005
90857823|NCT06624449|181580224|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
90857824|NCT05098938|181580240|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.716|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.716
90857825|NCT05098938|181580241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.102|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.102
90857826|NCT05098938|181580242|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.712|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.712
90857827|NCT05098938|181580243|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.575|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.575
90857828|NCT01828320|181580249|SUPERIORITY||d (effect size)|-0.08||||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||||||0.34
90857829|NCT01828320|181580250|SUPERIORITY||d (effect size)|-0.06||||0.93|TWO_SIDED||||||intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||||||0.93
90857830|NCT01828320|181580251|SUPERIORITY||d (effect size)|-0.5||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random was used to examine continuous outcomes.|Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|||||||0.01
90857831|NCT01828320|181580252|SUPERIORITY||d (effect size)|0.18||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|||||Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random was used to examine continuous outcomes.|Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|||||||0.17
90857832|NCT01828320|181580253|SUPERIORITY||d (effect size)|0.07||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|||||Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random was used to examine continuous outcomes.|Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|||||||0.31
90857833|NCT01828320|181580254|SUPERIORITY||d (effect size)|0.001||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|||||Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random was used to examine continuous outcomes.|Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|||||||0.80
90857834|NCT01828320|181580255|SUPERIORITY||d (effect size)|0.04||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|||||Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random was used to examine continuous outcomes.|Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|||||||0.96
90857835|NCT01828320|181580256|SUPERIORITY||d (effect size)|-0.05||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|||||Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random was used to examine continuous outcomes.|intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|||||||0.83
90857836|NCT01828320|181580257|SUPERIORITY||d (effect size)|0.35||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random was used to examine continuous outcomes.|Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|||||||0.02
90857837|NCT01828320|181580258|SUPERIORITY||d (effect size)|0.28||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random was used to examine continuous outcomes.|Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|||||||0.04
90857838|NCT01828320|181580259|SUPERIORITY||d (effect size)|0.29||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random was used to examine continuous outcomes.|Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|||||||0.04
90857839|NCT01828320|181580260|SUPERIORITY||d (effect size)|-0.44||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||||||0.03
90904352|NCT02036515|181675619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-4.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.82|-2.15||||||||-2.15|-7.82|
90904353|NCT02036515|181675619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-4.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.76|-2.07||||||||-2.07|-7.76|
90904354|NCT02036515|181675620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.97|0.48||||||||0.48|-2.97|
90904355|NCT02036515|181675620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.11|0.36||||||||0.36|-3.11|
90904356|NCT02036515|181675621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.82|0.84||||||||0.84|-2.82|
91102383|NCT06097273|182091573|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority in GM level in the Cohort B1 group compared with that of Cohort B2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 97.5% CI of the GMR was \>0.667.|GMR|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.3|1.465||||||GMR (Cohort B1 vs Cohort B2) for Influenza A H3N2 Antibody||1.465|1.300|
91102384|NCT06097273|182091573|SUPERIORITY|The superiority in GM level in the Cohort B1 group compared with that of Cohort B2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 95% CI of the GMR was \>1.|GMR|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|1.454||||||GMR (Cohort B1 vs Cohort B2) for Influenza A H3N2 Antibody||1.454|1.310|
90857840|NCT01828320|181580261|SUPERIORITY||d (effect size)|0.07||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|||||Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random was used to examine continuous outcomes.|intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|||||||0.71
90857841|NCT01828320|181580262|SUPERIORITY||d (effect size)|0.02||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|||||Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random was used to examine continuous outcomes.|intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|||||||0.83
90857842|NCT01828320|181580263|SUPERIORITY||d (effect size)|-0.11||||0.85|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||||||0.85
90857843|NCT01828320|181580264|SUPERIORITY||d (effect size)|-0.55||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random was used to examine continuous outcomes.|Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|||||||0.02
90857844|NCT01828320|181580265|SUPERIORITY||d (effect size)|-0.33||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random was used to examine continuous outcomes.|intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|||||||0.05
90857845|NCT01828320|181580266|SUPERIORITY||d (effect size)|0.04||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|||||Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random was used to examine continuous outcomes.|intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|||||||0.88
90857846|NCT01828320|181580267|SUPERIORITY||d (effect size)|0.04||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|||||Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random was used to examine continuous outcomes.|intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|||||||0.97
90904357|NCT02036515|181675621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.69|0.99||||||||0.99|-2.69|
90904358|NCT02036515|181675622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percent|-15.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.9|-9.4||||||||-9.4|-21.9|
90904359|NCT02036515|181675622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percent|-14.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.3|-8.5||||||||-8.5|-21.3|
90904360|NCT02036515|181675623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-29.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.3|-19.4||||||||-19.4|-38.3|
90904361|NCT02036515|181675623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-28.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.5|-18.4||||||||-18.4|-37.5|
90904362|NCT02036515|181675627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|12.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.83|18.68||||||||18.68|6.83|
90904363|NCT02036515|181675627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|11.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.94|17.88||||||||17.88|5.94|
90904364|NCT02036515|181675628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|12.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.54|19.03||||||||19.03|6.54|
90904365|NCT02036515|181675628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|12.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.54|19.18||||||||19.18|6.54|
90904366|NCT02036515|181675630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.02||||||||0.02|-0.04|
90904367|NCT02036515|181675630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.04||||||||0.04|-0.02|
90904368|NCT02036515|181675631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.04||||||||0.04|-0.04|
90904369|NCT02036515|181675631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.02||||||||0.02|-0.07|
90904370|NCT00518713|181675632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with the percent reduction in drop seizures as the dependent variable and treatment, pooled center, and baseline drop seizure rate as the independent variables. A step-down procedure used, starting with the high dose versus placebo.||||0.0120
90904371|NCT00518713|181675632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0015||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA with the percent reduction in drop seizures as the dependent variable and treatment, pooled center, and baseline drop seizure rate as the independent variables. A step-down procedure used, starting with the high dose versus placebo.||||0.0015
90958737|NCT04964414|181797339|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.09
90958738|NCT04964414|181797344|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.2
90958739|NCT04964414|181797345|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.2
91102385|NCT06097273|182091573|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority in GM level in the Cohort A1 group compared with that of Cohort A2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 97.5% CI of the GMR was \>0.667.|GMR|1.118|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.063|1.175||||||GMR (Cohort A1 vs Cohort A2) for Influenza B Victoria-lineage Antibody||1.175|1.063|
91102386|NCT06097273|182091573|SUPERIORITY|The superiority in GM level in the Cohort A1 group compared with that of Cohort A2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 95% CI of the GMR was \>1.|GMR|1.118|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.167||||||GMR (Cohort A1 vs Cohort A2) for Influenza B Victoria-lineage Antibody||1.167|1.070|
91102387|NCT06097273|182091573|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority in GM level in the Cohort A1 group compared with that of Cohort A2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 97.5% CI of the GMR was \>0.667.|GMR|1.007|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.969|1.047||||||GMR (Cohort A1 vs Cohort A2) for Influenza B Yamagata-lineage Antibody||1.047|0.969|
91102388|NCT06097273|182091573|SUPERIORITY|The superiority in GM level in the Cohort A1 group compared with that of Cohort A2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 95% CI of the GMR was \>1.|GMR|1.007|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.973|1.042||||||GMR (Cohort A1 vs Cohort A2) for Influenza B Yamagata-lineage Antibody||1.042|0.973|
90904372|NCT00518713|181675632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA with the percent reduction in drop seizures as the dependent variable and treatment, pooled center, and baseline drop seizure rate as the independent variables. A step-down procedure used, starting with the high dose versus placebo.||||<0.0001
90904373|NCT00518713|181675633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0027||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA with the percent reduction in drop seizures as the dependent variable and treatment, pooled center, and baseline drop seizure rate as the independent variables. A step-down procedure used, starting with the high dose versus placebo.||||0.0027
90904374|NCT00518713|181675633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA with the percent reduction in drop seizures as the dependent variable and treatment, pooled center, and baseline drop seizure rate as the independent variables. A step-down procedure used, starting with the high dose versus placebo.||||<0.0001
90904375|NCT00518713|181675633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA with the percent reduction in drop seizures as the dependent variable and treatment, pooled center, and baseline drop seizure rate as the independent variables. A step-down procedure used, starting with the high dose versus placebo.||||<0.0001
90904376|NCT00518713|181675634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1041||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA with the percent reduction in drop seizures as the dependent variable and treatment, pooled center, and baseline drop seizure rate as the independent variables. A step-down procedure used, starting with the high dose versus placebo.||||0.1041
90904377|NCT00518713|181675634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2207||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA with the percent reduction in drop seizures as the dependent variable and treatment, pooled center, and baseline drop seizure rate as the independent variables. A step-down procedure used, starting with the high dose versus placebo.||||0.2207
90904378|NCT00518713|181675634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0025||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA with the percent reduction in drop seizures as the dependent variable and treatment, pooled center, and baseline drop seizure rate as the independent variables. A step-down procedure used, starting with the high dose versus placebo.||||0.0025
90958740|NCT03881553|181797346|OTHER|Non-parametric Friedmans||||||0.081||||||χ2 =5.03|Friedman's|||||||0.081
90857847|NCT01828320|181580268|SUPERIORITY||d (effect size)|0.01||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|||||Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random was used to examine continuous outcomes.|intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|||"Composite Risk Score of Functioning in Social Domain measured via Ecological Momentary Assessment: Alone"||||0.88
90857848|NCT01828320|181580268|SUPERIORITY||d (effect size)|-0.18||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|||||Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random was used to examine continuous outcomes.|intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|||"Composite Risk Score of Functioning in Social Domain measured via Ecological Momentary Assessment: With a family member"||||0.43
90857849|NCT01828320|181580268|SUPERIORITY||d (effect size)|0.21||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|||||Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random was used to examine continuous outcomes.|intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|||"Composite Risk Score of Functioning in Social Domain measured via Ecological Momentary Assessment: With a peer"||||0.37
90857850|NCT01828320|181580269|SUPERIORITY||d (effect size)|0.29||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random was used to examine continuous outcomes.|Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|||||||0.02
91031786|NCT00445003|181948306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|7.5||Adjusted for baseline visual acuity, number of planned panretinal photocoagulation sittings, and correlation between 2 study eyes|ANCOVA||adjusted for multiple comparisons|||7.5|-3.7|0.44
90904379|NCT00518713|181675635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1469||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA with the percent reduction in drop seizures as the dependent variable and treatment, pooled center, and baseline drop seizure rate as the independent variables. A step-down procedure used, starting with the high dose versus placebo.||||0.1469
90904380|NCT00518713|181675635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0161||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA with the percent reduction in drop seizures as the dependent variable and treatment, pooled center, and baseline drop seizure rate as the independent variables. A step-down procedure used, starting with the high dose versus placebo.||||0.0161
90904381|NCT00518713|181675635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0024||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA with the percent reduction in drop seizures as the dependent variable and treatment, pooled center, and baseline drop seizure rate as the independent variables. A step-down procedure used, starting with the high dose versus placebo.||||0.0024
90904382|NCT00518713|181675636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1324||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||≥ 25% reduction. ANCOVA with the percent reduction in drop seizures as the dependent variable and treatment, pooled center, and baseline drop seizure rate as the independent variables. A step-down procedure used, starting with the high dose versus placebo.||||0.1324
90904383|NCT00518713|181675636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0026||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||≥ 25% reduction. ANCOVA with the percent reduction in drop seizures as the dependent variable and treatment, pooled center, and baseline drop seizure rate as the independent variables. A step-down procedure used, starting with the high dose versus placebo.||||0.0026
90904384|NCT00518713|181675636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||≥ 25% reduction. ANCOVA with the percent reduction in drop seizures as the dependent variable and treatment, pooled center, and baseline drop seizure rate as the independent variables. A step-down procedure used, starting with the high dose versus placebo.||||0.0004
90904385|NCT00518713|181675636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3383||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||≥ 50% reduction. ANCOVA with the percent reduction in drop seizures as the dependent variable and treatment, pooled center, and baseline drop seizure rate as the independent variables. A step-down procedure used, starting with the high dose versus placebo.||||0.3383
90904386|NCT00518713|181675636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0159||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||≥ 50% reduction. ANCOVA with the percent reduction in drop seizures as the dependent variable and treatment, pooled center, and baseline drop seizure rate as the independent variables. A step-down procedure used, starting with the high dose versus placebo.||||0.0159
90958741|NCT03881553|181797346|OTHER|Post hoc: Wilcoxon||||||0.05||||||ON1 compared to OFF1|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
90958742|NCT03881553|181797346|OTHER|Post Hoc Wilcoxon||||||0.021||||||ON1 compared to OFF2|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.021
90958743|NCT01313689|181797362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.2677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.24|||Log Rank|P-value is based on the stratified log-rank test adjusted for 'interval' and pooled stratum|Hazard ratios are estimated using the Pike estimator, adjusted for 'interval' and pooled stratum|||1.24|0.50|0.2677
91102389|NCT06097273|182091573|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority in GM level in the Cohort B1 group compared with that of Cohort B2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 97.5% CI of the GMR was \>0.667.|GMR|1.216|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.156|1.278||||||GMR (Cohort B1 vs Cohort B2) for Influenza B Victoria-lineage Antibody||1.278|1.156|
90958744|NCT01313689|181797362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54||||0.0837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.53|||Log Rank|P-value is based on the stratified log-rank test adjusted for 'interval' and pooled stratum|Hazard ratios are estimated using the Pike estimator, adjusted for 'interval' and pooled stratum|||1.53|0.19|0.0837
91102390|NCT06097273|182091573|SUPERIORITY|The superiority in GM level in the Cohort B1 group compared with that of Cohort B2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 95% CI of the GMR was \>1.|GMR|1.216|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.163|1.27||||||GMR (Cohort B1 vs Cohort B2) for Influenza B Victoria-lineage Antibody||1.270|1.163|
90857851|NCT01828320|181580270|SUPERIORITY||d (effect size)|0.07||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|||||Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random was used to examine continuous outcomes.|intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|||||||0.49
90857852|NCT01828320|181580271|SUPERIORITY||d (effect size)|0.11||||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||||||0.60
90857853|NCT01828320|181580272|SUPERIORITY||d (effect size)|0.08||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|||||Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random was used to examine continuous outcomes.|Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|||||||0.42
90857854|NCT01828320|181580273|SUPERIORITY||d (effect size)|0.4||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||||||0.01
90857855|NCT01920555|181580309|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.18||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.93|-0.43||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 0.1mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 1:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||-0.43|-5.93|0.14
90857856|NCT01920555|181580309|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.13||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.75|1.49||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 0.2mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 1:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||1.49|-3.75|0.79
90857857|NCT01920555|181580309|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.79|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.35|-2.24||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 0.5mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 1:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||-2.24|-7.35|<0.01
90857858|NCT01920555|181580309|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.76||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.37|-1.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 1.0mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 1:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||-1.15|-6.37|0.04
90857859|NCT01920555|181580309|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.04||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.04|0.95||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 0.1mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 3:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||0.95|-5.04|0.72
90857860|NCT01920555|181580309|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.18|2.46||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 0.2mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 3:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||2.46|-3.18|0.80
90857861|NCT01920555|181580309|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.12||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.97|-0.44||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 0.5mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 3:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||-0.44|-5.97|0.14
91102391|NCT06097273|182091573|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority in GM level in the Cohort B1 group compared with that of Cohort B2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 97.5% CI of the GMR was \>0.667.|GMR|1.154|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.109|1.201||||||GMR (Cohort B1 vs Cohort B2) for Influenza B Yamagata-lineage Antibody||1.201|1.109|
91102392|NCT06097273|182091573|SUPERIORITY|The superiority in GM level in the Cohort B1 group compared with that of Cohort B2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 95% CI of the GMR was \>1.|GMR|1.154|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.115|1.195||||||GMR (Cohort B1 vs Cohort B2) for Influenza B Yamagata-lineage Antibody||1.195|1.115|
91102393|NCT06097273|182091574|SUPERIORITY|The superiority in GM level in the Cohort A1 group compared with that of Cohort A2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 95% CI of the GMR was \>1.|GMR|1.641|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.526|1.765||||||GMR (Cohort A1 vs Cohort A2) for SARS-CoV-2 Antibody||1.765|1.526|
90904387|NCT00518713|181675636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||≥ 50% reduction. ANCOVA with the percent reduction in drop seizures as the dependent variable and treatment, pooled center, and baseline drop seizure rate as the independent variables. A step-down procedure used, starting with the high dose versus placebo.||||<0.0001
90958745|NCT01313689|181797363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.87|||Log Rank|P-value is based on the stratified log-rank test adjusted for 'interval' and pooled stratum|Hazard ratios are estimated using the Pike estimator, adjusted for 'interval' and pooled stratum.|||0.87|0.35|0.0030
90958746|NCT01313689|181797363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.49||||0.0262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.17|||Log Rank|P-value is based on the stratified log-rank test adjusted for 'interval' and pooled stratum|Hazard ratios are estimated using the Pike estimator, adjusted for 'interval' and pooled stratum|||1.17|0.21|0.0262
90857862|NCT01920555|181580309|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.84||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.65|0.96||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 1.0mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 3:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||0.96|-4.65|0.72
90857863|NCT01920555|181580310|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.15||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.44|2.14||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 0.1 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 3:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were four pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-4), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||2.14|-12.44|0.33
90857864|NCT01920555|181580310|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.16||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.03|4.72||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 0.2 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 3:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were four pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-4), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||4.72|-9.03|0.53
90857865|NCT01920555|181580310|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.85||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.56|-3.15||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 0.5 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 3:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were four pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-4), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||-3.15|-16.56|0.02
90857866|NCT01920555|181580310|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.72||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.52|-0.93||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 1.0 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 3:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were four pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-4), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||-0.93|-14.52|0.08
90857867|NCT01920555|181580311|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.03||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|-0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 0.1 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 1:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||-0.22|-1.83|0.08
90904388|NCT00518713|181675636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0279||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||≥ 75% reduction. ANCOVA with the percent reduction in drop seizures as the dependent variable and treatment, pooled center, and baseline drop seizure rate as the independent variables. A step-down procedure used, starting with the high dose versus placebo.||||0.0279
90958747|NCT01313689|181797364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.942||||0.0223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.166|7.424|||Regression, Logistic|conditional logistic regression with interval and pooled stratum||||7.424|1.166|0.0223
91102394|NCT06097273|182091574|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority in GM level in the Cohort A1 group compared with that of Cohort A2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 97.5% CI of the GMR was \>0.667.|GMR|1.641|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.51|1.783||||||GMR (Cohort A1 vs Cohort A2) for SARS-CoV-2 Antibody||1.783|1.510|
91102395|NCT06097273|182091574|SUPERIORITY|The superiority in GM level in the Cohort B1 group compared with that of Cohort B2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 95% CI of the GMR was \>1.|GMR|1.308|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.219|1.404||||||GMR (Cohort B1 vs Cohort B2) for SARS-CoV-2 Antibody||1.404|1.219|
91102396|NCT06097273|182091574|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority in GM level in the Cohort B1 group compared with that of Cohort B2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 97.5% CI of the GMR was \>0.667.|GMR|1.308|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.207|1.418||||||GMR (Cohort B1 vs Cohort B2) for SARS-CoV-2 Antibody||1.418|1.207|
91102397|NCT06097273|182091575|SUPERIORITY|The superiority in seroconversion rate (SCR) in the Cohort A1 group compared with that of Cohort A2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 95% CI of the SCR difference was \>0%.|Percentage Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|8.4||||||Percentage Difference (Cohort A1 vs Cohort A2) for Influenza A H1N1 Antibody||8.4|2.4|
90857868|NCT01920555|181580311|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|0.51||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 0.2 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 1:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||0.51|-1.02|0.82
90857869|NCT01920555|181580311|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.28||||0.0072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|-0.54||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 0.5 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 1:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||-0.54|-2.02|0.00720
90857870|NCT01920555|181580311|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.05||||0.04884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|-0.29||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 1.0 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 1:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||-0.29|-1.81|0.04884
90857871|NCT01920555|181580311|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.28||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 0.1 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 3:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||0.28|-1.70|0.48
90857872|NCT01920555|181580311|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|0.55||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 0.2 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 3:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||0.55|-1.32|0.82
90904389|NCT00518713|181675636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||≥ 75% reduction. ANCOVA with the percent reduction in drop seizures as the dependent variable and treatment, pooled center, and baseline drop seizure rate as the independent variables. A step-down procedure used, starting with the high dose versus placebo.||||0.0010
90904390|NCT00518713|181675636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||≥ 75% reduction. ANCOVA with the percent reduction in drop seizures as the dependent variable and treatment, pooled center, and baseline drop seizure rate as the independent variables. A step-down procedure used, starting with the high dose versus placebo.||||<0.0001
90904391|NCT00518713|181675643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.721||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA with the percent reduction in drop seizures as the dependent variable and treatment, pooled center, and baseline drop seizure rate as the independent variables. A step-down procedure used, starting with the high dose versus placebo.||||0.7210
90904392|NCT00518713|181675643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2505||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA with the percent reduction in drop seizures as the dependent variable and treatment, pooled center, and baseline drop seizure rate as the independent variables. A step-down procedure used, starting with the high dose versus placebo.||||0.2505
90904393|NCT00518713|181675643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0924||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA with the percent reduction in drop seizures as the dependent variable and treatment, pooled center, and baseline drop seizure rate as the independent variables. A step-down procedure used, starting with the high dose versus placebo.||||0.0924
90958748|NCT01313689|181797364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|999.999||||0.9985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|999.999|||Regression, Logistic|conditional logistic regression with interval and pooled stratum||||999.999|0.001|0.9985
90958749|NCT01313689|181797365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.366||||0.4159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.644|2.899||Odds ratios and p-value are based on conditional logistic regression with interval and pooled stratum included in the Strata statement|Regression, Logistic|||||2.899|0.644|0.4159
91102398|NCT06097273|182091575|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority in SCR in the Cohort A1 group compared with that of Cohort A2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 97.5% CI of the SCR difference was \>-10%.|Percentage Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.9|8.8||||||Percentage Difference (Cohort A1 vs Cohort A2) for Influenza A H1N1 Antibody||8.8|1.9|
91102399|NCT06097273|182091575|SUPERIORITY|The superiority in SCR in the Cohort A1 group compared with that of Cohort A2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 95% CI of the SCR difference was \>0%.|Percentage Difference|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|7.1||||||Percentage Difference (Cohort A1 vs Cohort A2) for Influenza A H3N2 Antibody||7.1|1.0|
90958750|NCT01313689|181797365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.225||||0.8866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.076|19.862||Odds ratios and p-value are based on conditional logistic regression with interval and pooled stratum in the strata statement|Regression, Logistic|||||19.862|0.076|0.8866
90958751|NCT01313689|181797366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.1732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.17|||Log Rank|P-value is based on the stratified log-rank test adjusted for 'interval' and pooled stratum|Hazard ratios are estimated using the Pike estimator, adjusted for 'interval' and pooled stratum|||1.17|0.48|0.1732
90958752|NCT01313689|181797366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.8128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|2.68||P-value is based on the stratified log-rank test adjusted for 'interval' and pooled stratum|Log Rank||Hazard ratios are estimated using the Pike estimator, adjusted for 'interval' and pooled stratum|||2.68|0.46|0.8128
91102400|NCT06097273|182091575|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority in SCR in the Cohort A1 group compared with that of Cohort A2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 97.5% CI of the SCR difference was \>-10%.|Percentage Difference|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.5|7.6||||||Percentage Difference (Cohort A1 vs Cohort A2) for Influenza A H3N2 Antibody||7.6|0.5|
90857873|NCT01920555|181580311|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|-0.09||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 0.5 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 3:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||-0.09|-1.91|0.16
90857874|NCT01920555|181580311|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.86||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|0.07||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 1.0 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 3:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||0.07|-1.78|0.27
90857875|NCT01920555|181580312|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.54||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|0.17||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 0.1 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 1:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||0.17|-1.25|0.54
90857876|NCT01920555|181580312|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.58||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 0.2 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 1:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||0.58|-0.78|1.00
90857877|NCT01920555|181580312|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.98||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|-0.31||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 0.5 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 1:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||-0.31|-1.64|0.03
90857878|NCT01920555|181580312|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|0.11||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 1.0 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 1:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||0.11|-1.24|0.54
90857879|NCT01920555|181580312|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.57||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 0.1 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 3:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||0.57|-0.96|1.00
90958753|NCT01337115|181797418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.55|45.34|||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference between mean VAS pain scores. Power 80%. Null hypothesis states there is no difference between pains scores in both groups||45.34|11.55|0.001
90958754|NCT01337115|181797419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.537||||||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in patient satisfaction distribution by the three categories used (Bad; Reasonable; Good/Very Good) between groups.|Fisher's exact test|Fisher's Exact test allows to test for the significance of the distribution in the results table with three categories.||||||0.537
91102401|NCT06097273|182091575|SUPERIORITY|The superiority in SCR in the Cohort A1 group compared with that of Cohort A2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 95% CI of the SCR difference was \>0%.|Percentage Difference|4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|7.2||||||Percentage Difference (Cohort A1 vs Cohort A2) for Victoria-lineage Antibody||7.2|1.9|
90904394|NCT00518713|181675644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0414||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA with the percent reduction in drop seizures as the dependent variable and treatment, pooled center, and baseline drop seizure rate as the independent variables. A step-down procedure used, starting with the high dose versus placebo.||||0.0414
90904395|NCT00518713|181675644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0044||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA with the percent reduction in drop seizures as the dependent variable and treatment, pooled center, and baseline drop seizure rate as the independent variables. A step-down procedure used, starting with the high dose versus placebo.||||0.0044
90904396|NCT00518713|181675644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA with the percent reduction in drop seizures as the dependent variable and treatment, pooled center, and baseline drop seizure rate as the independent variables. A step-down procedure used, starting with the high dose versus placebo.||||<0.0001
90904397|NCT04039503|181675654|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|-1.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.43|-1.88|<0.001
90904398|NCT04039503|181675654|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|-1.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.43|-1.88|<0.001
90904399|NCT04039503|181675655|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|-1.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.07|-1.52|<0.001
90904400|NCT04039503|181675656|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|-6.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-6.3|-9.4|<0.001
90904401|NCT04039503|181675656|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|-8.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.3|-11.5|<0.001
90904402|NCT04039503|181675656|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-12.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.2|-11.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-11.0|-14.2|<0.001
90958755|NCT01337115|181797420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|16.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.67||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.52|28.33|||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups. Power 80%||28.33|5.52|0.006
90958756|NCT01337115|181797421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.14||0.723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.93|11.83|||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis states there is no difference between both groups. Power 80% to detect 15% difference in means||11.83|-16.93|0.723
90904403|NCT04039503|181675657|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|37.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.23|93.7|||Regression, Logistic|||||93.70|15.23|<0.001
90904404|NCT04039503|181675657|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|100.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.02|333.62|||Regression, Logistic|||||333.62|30.02|<0.001
90904405|NCT04039503|181675657|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|43.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.92|110.83|||Regression, Logistic|||||110.83|16.92|<0.001
90904406|NCT04039503|181675658|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-22.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.5|-15.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-15.4|-29.5|<0.001
90904407|NCT04039503|181675658|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-29.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.0|-22.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-22.0|-36.0|<0.001
90904408|NCT04039503|181675658|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-28.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.9|-21.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-21.6|-35.9|<0.001
90904409|NCT04039503|181675660|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|17.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.55|38.93|||Regression, Logistic|||||38.93|7.55|<0.001
90904410|NCT04039503|181675660|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|27.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.87|62.55|||Regression, Logistic|||||62.55|11.87|<0.001
90904411|NCT04039503|181675660|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|79.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.76|193.44|||Regression, Logistic|||||193.44|32.76|<0.001
90904412|NCT04039503|181675661|SUPERIORITY||Estimate Difference|-35.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.0|-22.8||||||||-22.8|-46.0|
90904413|NCT04039503|181675661|SUPERIORITY||Estimate Difference|-38.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.3|-26.1||||||||-26.1|-48.3|
90904414|NCT04039503|181675661|SUPERIORITY||Estimate Difference|-49.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.7|-39.4||||||||-39.4|-57.7|
90904415|NCT04039503|181675664|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.93|38.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||38.00|3.93|<0.001
90904416|NCT04039503|181675664|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|32.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.52|99.49|||Regression, Logistic|||||99.49|10.52|<0.001
90904417|NCT04039503|181675664|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|56.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.27|173.26|||Regression, Logistic|||||173.26|18.27|<0.001
90904418|NCT05220501|181675694|NON_INFERIORITY|The justification of the noninferiority margin is based on review of 11 studies reporting on the benefit of multiparametric MRI-directed biopsy over systematic biopsy. The differences between the multiparametric MRI-directed biopsy and systematic biopsy were tabulated and found to range from 5%to 18%. Panel selected 10% noninferiority and a 1-sided α of .025 as a reasonable threshold that would demonstrate clinically similar outcomes.|||||<|0.001|||||||Jeffreys interval|||||||<0.001
90904419|NCT00802841|181675697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3106|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.3106
90904420|NCT05160025|181675705|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||"rmANOVA \< 0.001~post hoc paired t-tests or nonparametric equivalent with correction (x3) indicated the following: self-competition \> feedback (p \< 0.001) other-competition \> feedback (p \< 0.001) self-competition = other-competition (p \> 0.05)"|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90904421|NCT05160025|181675708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.111||||||"rmANOVA p = 0.111~post hoc paired t-tests not performed"|ANOVA|||||||0.111
90904422|NCT05160025|181675711|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||"rmANOVA \< 0.001~post hoc paired t-tests or nonparametric equivalent corrected (x3) indicated the following: self-competition \> feedback (p = 0.003) other-competition \> feedback (p = 0.007) self-competition = other-competition (p \> 0.05)"|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90904423|NCT05160025|181675714|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||"rmANOVA p \> 0.05 with a partial eta squared effect size = 0.073~post hoc paired t-tests not performed"|ANOVA|||||||> 0.05
91031787|NCT00445003|181948306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|6.8||Adjusted for baseline visual acuity, number of planned panretinal photocoagulation sittings, and correlation between 2 study eyes|ANCOVA||adjusted for multiple comparisons|||6.8|-4.4|0.63
91102402|NCT06097273|182091575|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority in SCR in the Cohort A1 group compared with that of Cohort A2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 97.5% CI of the SCR difference was \>-10%.|Percentage Difference|4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|7.5||||||Percentage Difference (Cohort A1 vs Cohort A2) for Victoria-lineage Antibody||7.5|1.5|
91102403|NCT06097273|182091575|SUPERIORITY|The superiority in SCR in the Cohort A1 group compared with that of Cohort A2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 95% CI of the SCR difference was \>0%.|Percentage Difference|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|0.4||||||Percentage Difference (Cohort A1 vs Cohort A2) for Yamagata-lineage Antibody||0.4|-3.3|
90857880|NCT01920555|181580312|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.51||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 0.2 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 3:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||0.51|-0.93|1.00
90857881|NCT01920555|181580312|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.64||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|0.06||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 0.5 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 3:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||0.06|-1.35|0.52
90857882|NCT01920555|181580312|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|0.1||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 1.0 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 3:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||0.10|-1.33|0.54
90857883|NCT01920555|181580313|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.08||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 0.1 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 1:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||0.08|-0.79|0.74
90857884|NCT01920555|181580313|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.45||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 0.2 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 1:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||0.45|-0.37|1.00
90857885|NCT01920555|181580313|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.21||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 0.5 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 1:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||-0.21|-1.01|0.02
90857886|NCT01920555|181580313|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.1||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 1.0 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 1:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||0.10|-0.72|0.80
90859905|NCT00408629|181583133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||||||Testing of ranked secondary measures was only started if significant group differences existed for both co-primary measures. Significant results for higher-ranked measure was needed to test next lower-ranked measure to control for multiple testing.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification levels for Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel = prior anti-TNF versus anti-TNF-naive.||The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was used to test the null hypothesis of no difference between adalimumab and placebo. Treatment differences were deemed statistically significant at a significance level of 0.05.||||0.002
90958757|NCT03386110|181797431|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio, log|1.19||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|2.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model testing whether condition predicted illicit drug use at 3-months||Multi-level models tested whether treatment condition predicted outcome at 3-month follow-up, and controlled for the nesting of participants within couples.||2.54|-0.15|0.08
91102404|NCT06097273|182091575|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority in SCR in the Cohort A1 group compared with that of Cohort A2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 97.5% CI of the SCR difference was \>-10%.|Percentage Difference|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.6|0.7||||||Percentage Difference (Cohort A1 vs Cohort A2) for Yamagata-lineage Antibody||0.7|-3.6|
91102405|NCT06097273|182091575|SUPERIORITY|The superiority in SCR in the Cohort B1 group compared with that of Cohort B2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 95% CI of the SCR difference was \>0%.|Percentage Difference|17.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.8|21.0||||||Percentage Difference (Cohort B1 vs Cohort B2) for Influenza A H1N1 Antibody||21.0|14.8|
90904424|NCT05160025|181675719|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||"rmANOVA = 0.004~post hoc paired t-tests or nonparametric equivalent corrected (x3) indicated the following: self-competition \> feedback (p = 0.007) other-competition \> feedback (p = 0.002) self-competition = other-competition (p \> 0.05)"|ANOVA|||||||0.004
90904425|NCT05160025|181675727|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||ranking compared to expected value for each condition and the p-value was adjusted for 3 comparisons for each condition: self-competition (p \> 0.05) other-competition (p \> 0.05) feedback (p \> 0.05)|Chi-squared|||||||> 0.05
90904426|NCT05160025|181675728|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||ranking compared to expected value for each condition and the p-value was adjusted for 3 comparisons for each condition: self-competition (p \> 0.05) other-competition (p \> 0.05) feedback (p \> 0.05)|Chi-squared|||||||> 0.05
90904427|NCT01268059|181675735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.205||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|4.5|||Log Rank|The 2-sided p-value was calculated using the log-rank test stratified by histology, disease stage, and ECOG performance status.|Hazard ratio and its 95 percent (%) confidence interval ( CIs) were calculated using the Cox proportional hazard model stratified by histology, disease stage, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status.|||4.5|1.1|0.027
90904428|NCT01268059|181675737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.487||||||The 2-sided p-value was calculated by adjusting for the stratification factors histology, disease stage, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment effect Carboplatin/Paclitaxel + MEDI-575 versus Carboplatin/Paclitaxel.||||0.487
90904429|NCT01268059|181675737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.386||||||The 2-sided p-value was calculated by adjusting for the stratification factors histology, disease stage, and ECOG performance status.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment effect Carboplatin/Paclitaxel + MEDI-575 versus Carboplatin/Paclitaxel.||||0.386
90904430|NCT01268059|181675740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.017|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|7.4|||||The 95% confidence interval calculated using the Cox proportional hazard model stratified by histology, disease stage, and ECOG performance status.|||7.4|1.2|
90904431|NCT01268059|181675740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.134|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|4.3|||||The 95% confidence interval calculated using the Cox proportional hazard model stratified by histology, disease stage, and ECOG performance status.|||4.3|0.3|
90958758|NCT03386110|181797431|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio, log|0.7||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|1.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model testing whether condition predicted illicit drug use at 6-months||Multi-level models tested whether treatment condition predicted outcome at 6-months, and controlled for the nesting of participants within couples.||1.89|-0.49|0.25
91102406|NCT06097273|182091575|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority in SCR in the Cohort B1 group compared with that of Cohort B2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 97.5% CI of the SCR difference was \>-10%.|Percentage Difference|17.9|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|14.3|21.4||||||Percentage Difference (Cohort B1 vs Cohort B2) for Influenza A H1N1 Antibody||21.4|14.3|
91102407|NCT06097273|182091575|SUPERIORITY|The superiority in SCR in the Cohort B1 group compared with that of Cohort B2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 95% CI of the SCR difference was \>0%.|Percentage Difference|14.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.6|17.6||||||Percentage Difference (Cohort B1 vs Cohort B2) for Influenza A H3N2 Antibody||17.6|11.6|
91102408|NCT06097273|182091575|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority in SCR in the Cohort B1 group compared with that of Cohort B2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 97.5% CI of the SCR difference was \>-10%.|Percentage Difference|14.6|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|11.1|18.0||||||Percentage Difference (Cohort B1 vs Cohort B2) for Influenza A H3N2 Antibody||18.0|11.1|
90904432|NCT01268059|181675741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.315|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.4|||||The 95% confidence interval calculated using the Cox proportional hazard model stratified by histology, disease stage, and ECOG performance status.|||2.4|0.7|
90904433|NCT01268059|181675741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.083|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|10.8|||||The 95% confidence interval calculated using the Cox proportional hazard model stratified by histology, disease stage, and ECOG performance status.|||10.8|0.4|
90904434|NCT03660943|181675754|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.192||0.0833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.42|0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The MMRM analysis included the change from study baseline in scores as the dependent variable, with terms for treatment, pooled study center, study baseline K-L grade category for the index knee, study baseline BMI category, study baseline OA type (unilateral or bilateral knee OA), sex, study visit, treatment by visit interaction, and study baseline score as covariates, using an unstructured covariance structure.||0.27|-4.42|0.0833
90904435|NCT03660943|181675755|SUPERIORITY|The number of NPRS subjects differed from the WOMAC outcomes because of differences in missing data.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.251||0.0935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The MMRM analysis included the change from study baseline in scores as the dependent variable, with terms for treatment, pooled study center, study baseline K-L grade category for the index knee, study baseline BMI category, study baseline OA type (unilateral or bilateral knee OA), sex, study visit, treatment by visit interaction, and study baseline score as covariates, using an unstructured covariance structure.||0.07|-0.91|0.0935
90959023|NCT01620255|181798203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.056||||0.2617|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.075|0.186||1-sided p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|PF-00547659 7.5 mg vs placebo, locally read||0.186|-0.075|0.2617
91102409|NCT06097273|182091575|SUPERIORITY|The superiority in SCR in the Cohort B1 group compared with that of Cohort B2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 95% CI of the SCR difference was \>0%.|Percentage Difference|8.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|11.2||||||Percentage Difference (Cohort B1 vs Cohort B2) for Victoria-lineage Antibody||11.2|6.0|
91102410|NCT06097273|182091575|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority in SCR in the Cohort B1 group compared with that of Cohort B2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 97.5% CI of the SCR difference was \>-10%.|Percentage Difference|8.6|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|5.6|11.6||||||Percentage Difference (Cohort B1 vs Cohort B2) for Victoria-lineage Antibody||11.6|5.6|
91102411|NCT06097273|182091575|SUPERIORITY|The superiority in SCR in the Cohort B1 group compared with that of Cohort B2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 95% CI of the SCR difference was \>0%.|Percentage Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|4.7||||||Percentage Difference (Cohort B1 vs Cohort B2) for Yamagata-lineage Antibody||4.7|0.6|
91102412|NCT06097273|182091575|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority in SCR in the Cohort B1 group compared with that of Cohort B2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 97.5% CI of the SCR difference was \>-10%.|Percentage Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.3|5.0||||||Percentage Difference (Cohort B1 vs Cohort B2) for Yamagata-lineage Antibody||5.0|0.3|
90857887|NCT01920555|181580313|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.18||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 0.1 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 3:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||0.18|-0.83|0.88
90857888|NCT01920555|181580313|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.44||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 0.2 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 3:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||0.44|-0.53|1.00
90857889|NCT01920555|181580313|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.15||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 0.5 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 3:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||0.15|-0.79|0.88
90857890|NCT01920555|181580313|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.19||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 1.0 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 3:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||0.19|-0.76|0.88
90857891|NCT01920555|181580314|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.18||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|23.29||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 0.1 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 1:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||23.29|-0.94|0.49
90857892|NCT01920555|181580314|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.37||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.19|12.93||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 0.2 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 1:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||12.93|-10.19|1.00
90857893|NCT01920555|181580314|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.54||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.31|27.77||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 0.5 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 1:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||27.77|5.31|0.03
91031788|NCT00445003|181948309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.2||adjusted for baseline retinal volume, optical coherence tomography retinal thickness and visual acuity, number of planned panretinal photocoagulation sittings, and correlation between 2 study eyes|ANCOVA||adjusted for multiple comparisons|||-0.2|-1.0|0.001
91102413|NCT06097273|182091576|SUPERIORITY|The superiority in seroresponse rate (SRR) in the Cohort A1 group compared with that of Cohort A2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 95% CI of the SRR difference was \>0%.|Percentage Difference|12.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|15.5||||||Percentage Difference (Cohort A1 vs Cohort A2) for SARS-CoV-2 Antibody||15.5|10.0|
91102414|NCT06097273|182091576|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority in SRR in the Cohort A1 group compared with that of Cohort A2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 97.5% CI of the SRR difference was \>-10%.|Percentage Difference|12.8|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|9.6|15.9||||||Percentage Difference (Cohort A1 vs Cohort A2) for SARS-CoV-2 Antibody||15.9|9.6|
91102415|NCT06097273|182091576|SUPERIORITY|The superiority in SRR in the Cohort B1 group compared with that of Cohort B2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 95% CI of the SRR difference was \>0%.|Percentage Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.5|10.6||||||Percentage Difference (Cohort B1 vs Cohort B2) for SARS-CoV-2 Antibody||10.6|5.5|
90904436|NCT03660943|181675756|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.506||0.0163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|-0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The MMRM analysis included the change from study baseline in scores as the dependent variable, with terms for treatment, pooled study center, study baseline K-L grade category for the index knee, study baseline BMI category, study baseline OA type (unilateral or bilateral knee OA), sex, study visit, treatment by visit interaction, and study baseline score as covariates, using an unstructured covariance structure.||-0.23|-2.22|0.0163
90904437|NCT03660943|181675757|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.076||0.0509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.01|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The MMRM analysis included the change from study baseline in scores as the dependent variable, with terms for treatment, pooled study center, study baseline K-L grade category for the index knee, study baseline BMI category, study baseline OA type (unilateral or bilateral knee OA), sex, study visit, treatment by visit interaction, and study baseline score as covariates, using an unstructured covariance structure.||0.03|-16.01|0.0509
90904438|NCT03699124|181675758|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between two lot groups is demonstrated if the confidence interval of the ratio of the GMTs lies within the interval \[½, 2\]. For the trial to be successful, all three lot group comparisons must be equivalent by this definition.|GMT Ratio|0.936|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.816|1.073||||||||1.073|0.816|
91102416|NCT06097273|182091576|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority in SRR in the Cohort B1 group compared with that of Cohort B2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 97.5% CI of the SRR difference was \>-10%.|Percentage Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|5.2|11.0||||||Percentage Difference (Cohort B1 vs Cohort B2) for SARS-CoV-2 Antibody||11.0|5.2|
90857894|NCT01920555|181580314|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.68||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.81|20.16||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 1.0 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 1:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||20.16|-2.81|0.82
90857895|NCT01920555|181580314|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.11||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.83|19.05||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 0.1 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 3:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||19.05|-8.83|1.00
90857896|NCT01920555|181580314|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.64||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.87|6.59||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 0.2 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 3:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||6.59|-19.87|1.00
90857897|NCT01920555|181580314|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.64||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.26|20.53||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 0.5 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 3:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||20.53|-5.26|1.00
90857898|NCT01920555|181580314|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.8||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.31|17.91||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 1.0 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 3:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||17.91|-8.31|1.00
90857899|NCT01920555|181580315|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.21||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.99|1.56||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 0.1 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 1:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||1.56|-3.99|1.00
90904439|NCT03699124|181675758|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between two lot groups is demonstrated if the confidence interval of the ratio of the GMTs lies within the interval \[½, 2\]. For the trial to be successful, all three lot group comparisons must be equivalent by this definition.|GMT Ratio|1.115|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.967|1.287||||||||1.287|0.967|
91102417|NCT00368849|182091598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.65||||0.63|||||||ANCOVA|||The primary measures were analyzed as pretreatment and posttreatment difference scores using a series of analyses of covariance controlling for age. The results were screened for model violations (e.g., outliers). Preliminary analyses assured no treatment order effects by examining block by treatment interactions.||||0.63
91102418|NCT00368849|182091599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.09|||||||ANCOVA|||The primary measures were analyzed as pretreatment and posttreatment difference scores using a series of analyses of covariance controlling for age. The results were screened for model violations (e.g., outliers). Preliminary analyses assured no treatment order effects by examining block by treatment interactions.||||0.09
90904440|NCT03699124|181675758|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between two lot groups is demonstrated if the confidence interval of the ratio of the GMTs lies within the interval \[½, 2\]. For the trial to be successful, all three lot group comparisons must be equivalent by this definition.|GMT Ratio|1.044|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.915|1.191||||||||1.191|0.915|
90904441|NCT03226457|181675867|OTHER|Details of the power calculation are published in the Circulation, DOI: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.120.048739|||||=|0.005||||||(calculated)|ANCOVA|||"Details on the statistical analysis are published in the Circulation, DOI: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.120.048739~Analyses were performed on the primary and secondary measures comparing empagliflozin versus placebo and assessed by 2-way analysis of covariance correcting for treatment order, baseline value, and any percentage change in furosemide dose at the visit. Data for continuous outcome measures were assessed for normality before analysis."||||= 0.005
90904442|NCT01196104|181675891|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Study terminated early due to business reasons, results are not properly powered.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0473|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2158||0.8283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4901|0.3956|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with terms of treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HbA1c as covariate||0.3956|-0.4901|0.8283
90904443|NCT00594932|181675927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||superiority|4.0|||=|0.041||||||This was the primary endpoint therefore no adjustment for multiple comparisons was necessary|Fisher Exact|||this is a categorical assessment. Prespecified. Fishers exact test. Significant is calculated as \< 0.05||||=0.041
90904444|NCT05126459|181675936|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: there is no significant difference in Musculo skeletal related sedation related events during sedation.||||0.016
90904445|NCT05126459|181675937|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.211||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: there is no significant difference in Musculo skeletal related sedation related events at 8 hours after sedation.||||0.211
90904446|NCT05126459|181675938|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.374||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.374
91102419|NCT00368849|182091600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.26||||0.46|||||||ANCOVA|||The primary measures were analyzed as pretreatment and posttreatment difference scores using a series of analyses of covariance controlling for age. The results were screened for model violations (e.g., outliers). Preliminary analyses assured no treatment order effects by examining block by treatment interactions.||||0.46
91102420|NCT00368849|182091601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44||||0.84|||||||ANCOVA|||The secondary measures were analyzed as pretreatment and posttreatment difference scores using a series of analyses of covariance controlling for age. The results were screened for model violations (e.g., outliers). Preliminary analyses assured no treatment order effects by examining block by treatment interactions.||||0.84
91102421|NCT00368849|182091602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.77||||0.76|||||||ANCOVA|||The secondary measures were analyzed as pretreatment and posttreatment difference scores using a series of analyses of covariance controlling for age. The results were screened for model violations (e.g., outliers). Preliminary analyses assured no treatment order effects by examining block by treatment interactions.||||0.76
90904447|NCT05126459|181675939|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: there is no significant difference in GI reaction between the 3 regimens.||||0.55
90904448|NCT05126459|181675940|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: there is no significant difference in GI reaction between the 3 regimens 8 hours after sedation.||||0.16
90904449|NCT05126459|181675941|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: there is no significant difference in GI reaction between the 3 regimens at 24 hours after sedation.||||0.012
90904450|NCT00065468|181675942|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|2 null hypotheses (Ho) were tested: 1) Survival distributions for temsirolimus alone and Interferon Alfa (IFN)-alone treatment groups were identical. 2) Survival distributions for temsirolimus in combination with IFN and IFN-alone treatment groups were identical. The alternative hypothesis (Ha) for each test was that the survival distributions differed.|Cox Proportional Hazard|0.78||||0.0252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.97|||Log Rank|Stratified by prior nephrectomy and region||||0.97|0.63|0.0252
90904451|NCT00065468|181675942|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|2 null hypotheses (Ho) were tested: 1) Survival distributions for temsirolimus alone and IFN-alone treatment groups were identical. 2) Survival distributions for temsirolimus in combination with IFN and IFN-alone treatment groups were identical. The alternative hypothesis (Ha) for each test was that the survival distributions differed.|Cox Proportional Hazard|0.93||||0.4902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.15|||Log Rank|Stratified by prior nephrectomy and region||||1.15|0.75|0.4902
90904452|NCT00065468|181675943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.74||||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.91|||Log Rank|Stratified by prior nephrectomy and region||||0.91|0.60|0.0042
90904453|NCT00065468|181675943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.76||||0.0107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.94|||Log Rank|Stratified by prior nephrectomy and region||||0.94|0.62|0.0107
90904454|NCT00065468|181675944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1361|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by prior nephrectomy and region||||||0.1361
90904455|NCT00065468|181675944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1062|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by prior nephrectomy and region||||||0.1062
90904456|NCT00065468|181675945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by prior nephrectomy and region||||||<0.0001
90904457|NCT00065468|181675945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by prior nephrectomy and region||||||0.0011
90904458|NCT00065468|181675947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.76|||Log Rank|Stratified by prior nephrectomy and region||||0.76|0.51|<0.0001
90904459|NCT00065468|181675947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.73||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.89|||Log Rank|Stratified by prior nephrectomy and region||||0.89|0.60|0.0020
91102422|NCT05058456|182091630|OTHER|The primary safety hypothesis is: H0: ΠS \> PGS vs. HA: ΠS ≤ PGS where ΠS is the proportion of patients who experience a MAE within 30 days of procedure and PGS is the Safety Performance Goal. All subjects in whom a Mini S IVL catheter was introduced into the vasculature will be included in the analysis (i.e., it is an intent-to-treat analysis). The hypothesis will be tested using a one-sided Exact Binomial Test at α=0.025.|||||<|0.025|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<.025
91102423|NCT05058456|182091631|OTHER|The primary effectiveness hypothesis is: H0: ΠE ≤ PGE vs. HA: ΠE \> PGE, where ΠE is the proportion of target lesions with technical success and PG is the effectiveness Performance Goal. One-sided statistical significance level of 0.025 = α. The hypothesis will be tested using a one-sided Exact Binomial Test.|||||<|0.025|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<.025
91102424|NCT02802865|182091639|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|1.8||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|2.75|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||2.75|1.18|0.007
90857900|NCT01920555|181580315|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.76||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|3.43||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 0.2 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 1:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||3.43|-1.90|0.17
90857901|NCT01920555|181580315|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.74||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.32|-0.16||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 0.5 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 1:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||-0.16|-5.32|0.30
90857902|NCT01920555|181580315|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.35|1.93||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 1.0 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 1:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||1.93|-3.35|1.00
90857903|NCT01920555|181580315|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.25|2.66||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 0.1 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 3:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||2.66|-3.25|1.00
90857904|NCT01920555|181580315|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.76||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|5.59||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 0.2 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 3:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||5.59|-0.06|0.39
90857905|NCT01920555|181580315|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.17||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.91|1.58||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 0.5 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 3:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||1.58|-3.91|1.00
90857906|NCT01920555|181580315|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.22|2.35||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 1.0 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 3:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||2.35|-3.22|1.00
90857907|NCT00942448|181580339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.2|||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||"The sample size calculation was based on a hypothesis of superiority of diclofenac HPBCD s.c. 25mg/ml and 50 mg/ml compared to Placebo with regard to the primary efficacy variable (PID at 1.5 hours following drug administration).~A sample size of 60 in each group had 95% power to detect a difference between diclofenac HPBCD s.c. 25 mg/ml and placebo in means of 15 mm, assuming that the common standard deviation was 22.5 and using a two group t-test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level."||||< 0.001
90857908|NCT00942448|181580339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.1||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.4|31.7|||ANCOVA|||||31.7|18.4|0.001
90904460|NCT04496167|181675950|OTHER||Least Square Mean Treatment Difference|1.386||||0.659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.804|7.577||Considered significant if p-value is less than 0.05.|MMRM||"The model included treatment, visit and interaction of treatment, visit as fixed effects, Baseline as a covariate, and repeated measures with visit/participant.~Treatment difference: EN3835 - Placebo"|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) was performed to estimate the change from Baseline treatment effect of the adapted ASES composite score in the affected shoulder comparing EN3835 to placebo treatment.||7.577|-4.804|0.659
90904461|NCT00598481|181675992|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||One-sided Poisson-regression|||||||0.005
91102425|NCT02802865|182091640|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91102426|NCT02802865|182091641|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.004
91102427|NCT02802865|182091642|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.006
91102428|NCT02802865|182091643|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.709|||||||Chi-squared|||This study was not powered to detect significant between-group differences for this conception.||||0.709
91102429|NCT02802865|182091644|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.356|||||||Chi-squared|||This study was not powered to detect significant between-group differences for clinical pregnancy.||||0.356
90857909|NCT00942448|181580352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.6|30.8|||ANCOVA|||"The sample size calculation was based on a hypothesis of superiority of diclofenac HPBCD s.c. 25mg/ml and 50 mg/ml compared to Placebo with regard to the primary efficacy variable (PID at 1.5 hours following drug administration).~A sample size of 60 in each group had 95% power to detect a difference between diclofenac HPBCD s.c. 25 mg/ml and placebo in means of 15 mm, assuming that the common standard deviation was 22.5 and using a two group t-test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level."||30.8|17.6|< 0.001
90857910|NCT00942448|181580352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.4|31.7|||ANCOVA|||"The sample size calculation was based on a hypothesis of superiority of diclofenac HPBCD s.c. 25mg/ml and 50 mg/ml compared to Placebo with regard to the primary efficacy variable (PID at 1.5 hours following drug administration).~A sample size of 60 in each group had 95% power to detect a difference between diclofenac HPBCD s.c. 25 mg/ml and placebo in means of 15 mm, assuming that the common standard deviation was 22.5 and using a two group t-test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level."||31.7|18.4|<0.001
90857911|NCT01859143|181580381|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Pre-specified equivalence criterion for fever within 7 days of vaccination mentioned that the upper limit of 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) for difference in percentage of participants with fever \>=101 degrees F should be less than 5 percentage points.|Percent difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|2.6|||||A two-sided 95% CI was constructed using the exact method based on the score statistic proposed by Chan and Zhang.|||2.6|-5.3|
90857912|NCT01859143|181580382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|11.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|23.9|||||Any symptom within 7 days of vaccination: Difference in percentage of participants and 95% CI were constructed based on Chan and Zhang's method.|||23.9|-1.9|
90857913|NCT01859143|181580382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|3.3|||||Fever \>100 degrees F within 7 days of vaccination: Difference in percentage of participants and 95% CI were constructed based on Chan and Zhang's method.|||3.3|-4.9|
90857914|NCT01859143|181580382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|1.8|||||Fever \>102 degrees F within 7 days of vaccination: Difference in percentage of participants and 95% CI were constructed based on Chan and Zhang's method.|||1.8|-6.1|
90857915|NCT01859143|181580382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|1.8|||||Fever \>103 degrees F within 7 days of vaccination: Difference in percentage of participants and 95% CI were constructed based on Chan and Zhang's method.|||1.8|-6.1|
90904462|NCT00598481|181675993|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|3.0||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|6.19||P value related to geometric mean ratio at 1 year post gene therapy compared to baseline|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||6.19|1.45|0.003
90857916|NCT01859143|181580382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|8.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|17.7|||||Runny nose within 7 days of vaccination: Difference in percentage of participants and 95% CI were constructed based on Chan and Zhang's method.|||17.7|-2.6|
90857917|NCT01859143|181580382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|6.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|11.6|||||Sore throat within 7 days of vaccination: Difference in percentage of participants and 95% CI were constructed based on Chan and Zhang's method.|||11.6|-2.2|
90857918|NCT01859143|181580382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|4.7|||||Cough within 7 days of vaccination: Difference in percentage of participants and 95% CI were constructed based on Chan and Zhang's method.|||4.7|-9.3|
90857919|NCT01859143|181580382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|1.8|||||Vomiting within 7 days of vaccination: Difference in percentage of participants and 95% CI were constructed based on Chan and Zhang's method.|||1.8|-6.1|
90857920|NCT01859143|181580382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|4.3|||||Muscle aches within 7 days of vaccination: Difference in percentage of participants and 95% CI were constructed based on Chan and Zhang's method.|||4.3|-8.0|
90857921|NCT01859143|181580382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|4.4|||||Chills within 7 days of vaccination: Difference in percentage of participants and 95% CI were constructed based on Chan and Zhang's method.|||4.4|-4.1|
90857922|NCT01859143|181580382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|9.8|||||Decreased activity (tiredness) within 7 days of vaccination: Difference in percentage of participants and 95% CI were constructed based on Chan and Zhang's method.|||9.8|-6.5|
90857923|NCT01859143|181580382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|11.9|||||Headache within 7 days of vaccination: Difference in percentage of participants and 95% CI were constructed based on Chan and Zhang's method.|||11.9|-7.8|
90857924|NCT01859143|181580382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|12.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|24.4|||||Any symptom within 14 days of vaccination: Difference in percentage of participants and 95% CI were constructed based on Chan and Zhang's method.|||24.4|-1.6|
90904463|NCT00598481|181675993|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|5.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.63|11.25||P value related to geometric mean ratio at 2 years post gene therapy compared to baseline|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||11.25|2.63|<0.001
90904464|NCT00598481|181675993|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|6.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.08|13.64||P value related to geometric mean ratio at 3 years post gene therapy compared to baseline|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||13.64|3.08|<0.001
90904465|NCT01406717|181676061|OTHER||ANCOVA|0.0002|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31377|0.31418||||||||0.31418|-0.31377|
90904466|NCT01406717|181676062|OTHER||ANCOVA|5.898|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7565|18.5535||||||||18.5535|-6.7565|
90904467|NCT01406717|181676063|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
90904468|NCT01406717|181676065|OTHER|||||||0.6318|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.6318
91102430|NCT02802865|182091646|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.356|||||||Chi-squared|||This study was not powered to detect significant between-group differences for live birth.||||0.356
91102431|NCT02802865|182091647|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.486|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||This study was not powered to detect significant between-group differences for pregnancy loss.||||0.486
91102432|NCT03931785|182091650|SUPERIORITY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|0.08||||0.7467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.58|||MMRM||MD-7246 minus placebo|||0.58|-0.42|0.7467
90857925|NCT01859143|181580382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|3.9|||||Fever \>100 degrees F within 14 days of vaccination: Difference in percentage of participants and 95% CI were constructed based on Chan and Zhang's method.|||3.9|-4.5|
90857926|NCT01859143|181580382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|3.3|||||Fever \>=101 degrees F within 14 days of vaccination: Difference in percentage of participants and 95% CI were constructed based on Chan and Zhang's method.|||3.3|-4.9|
90857927|NCT01859143|181580382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|1.8|||||Fever \>102 degrees F within 14 days of vaccination: Difference in percentage of participants and 95% CI were constructed based on Chan and Zhang's method.|||1.8|-6.1|
90857928|NCT01859143|181580382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|1.8|||||Fever \>103 degrees F within 14 days of vaccination: Difference in percentage of participants and 95% CI were constructed based on Chan and Zhang's method.|||1.8|-6.1|
90857929|NCT01859143|181580382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|9.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|18.6|||||Runny nose within 14 days of vaccination: Difference in percentage of participants and 95% CI were constructed based on Chan and Zhang's method.|||18.6|-1.8|
90857930|NCT01859143|181580382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|11.2|||||Sore throat within 14 days of vaccination: Difference in percentage of participants and 95% CI were constructed based on Chan and Zhang's method.|||11.2|-5.3|
90857931|NCT01859143|181580382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|5.7|||||Cough within 14 days of vaccination: Difference in percentage of participants and 95% CI were constructed based on Chan and Zhang's method.|||5.7|-8.6|
90857932|NCT01859143|181580382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|2.6|||||Vomiting within 14 days of vaccination: Difference in percentage of participants and 95% CI were constructed based on Chan and Zhang's method.|||2.6|-5.3|
90857933|NCT01859143|181580382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|4.8|||||Muscle aches within 14 days of vaccination: Difference in percentage of participants and 95% CI were constructed based on Chan and Zhang's method.|||4.8|-7.8|
90857934|NCT01859143|181580382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|5.5|||||Chills within 14 days of vaccination: Difference in percentage of participants and 95% CI were constructed based on Chan and Zhang's method.|||5.5|-3.3|
90857935|NCT01859143|181580382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|11.2|||||Decreased activity (tiredness) within 14 days of vaccination: Difference in percentage of participants and 95% CI were constructed based on Chan and Zhang's method.|||11.2|-5.3|
90904469|NCT01406717|181676066|OTHER|||||||0.4887|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.4887
90904470|NCT01406717|181676067|OTHER|||||||0.3813|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.3813
90904471|NCT01406717|181676068|OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.9900
90904472|NCT01406717|181676069|OTHER|||||||0.0017|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0017
90857936|NCT01859143|181580382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|12.0|||||Headache within 14 days of vaccination: Difference in percentage of participants and 95% CI were constructed based on Chan and Zhang's method.|||12.0|-8.7|
90857937|NCT00760214|181580386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.04|-5.78||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons controlled using stepwise testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||-5.78|-11.04|<.001
90857938|NCT00760214|181580386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.66|-6.39||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons controlled using stepwise testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||-6.39|-11.66|<.001
90857939|NCT00760214|181580387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.85|-3.78||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value presented.|ANCOVA|||||-3.78|-6.85|<.001
90857940|NCT00760214|181580387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.21|-4.12||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value presented.|ANCOVA|||||-4.12|-7.21|<.001
90857941|NCT00760214|181580388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.64|-2.01||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value presented.|ANCOVA|||||-2.01|-7.64|<.001
90857942|NCT00760214|181580388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.47||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.27|-1.66||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.66|-7.27|0.002
90857943|NCT00760214|181580389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.77||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.61|-0.94||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.94|-4.61|0.003
90857944|NCT00760214|181580389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.06||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.89|-1.24||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.24|-4.89|0.001
90857945|NCT00760214|181580390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.77||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.87|-0.68||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.68|-6.87|0.017
90904473|NCT01406717|181676070|OTHER|||||||0.6098|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.6098
90904474|NCT01406717|181676071|OTHER|||||||0.7324|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.7324
90904475|NCT01406717|181676072|OTHER|||||||0.2984|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.2984
90904476|NCT02040090|181676073|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|We will reject the null hypothesis at the one-sided 5% significance level, and conclude that Cp \> -0.1, if the lower bound of an exact 90% binomial confidence interval (CI) exceeds0.1. A sample size of 53 in each group provides 80% power to reject the null hypothesis.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.018|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.082|0.031||||||The null hypothesis was that Cp ≤ -0.1.||0.031|-0.082|
90904477|NCT02275533|181676074|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.56||One-sided p-value|Log Rank|||||1.56|0.54|0.38
90857946|NCT00760214|181580390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.43||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|-0.36||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.36|-6.50|0.029
90857947|NCT00760214|181580391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.06||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.15|0.02||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value presented.|ANCOVA|||||0.02|-4.15|0.052
90857948|NCT00760214|181580391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.42||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.49|-0.35||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.35|-4.49|0.022
90857949|NCT00760214|181580392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.53||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.46|-1.59||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.59|-7.46|0.003
90857950|NCT00760214|181580392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.26||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.18|-1.35||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.35|-7.18|0.004
90857951|NCT00760214|181580393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.64||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|-0.68||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.68|-4.60|0.008
90857952|NCT00760214|181580393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.98||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.93|-1.04||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.04|-4.93|0.003
90857953|NCT00760214|181580394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.12|-2.77||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value presented.|ANCOVA|||||-2.77|-9.12|<.001
90857954|NCT00760214|181580394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.96|-2.67||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value presented.|ANCOVA|||||-2.67|-8.96|<.001
90857955|NCT00760214|181580395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.01||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.15|-0.88||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.88|-5.15|0.006
90904478|NCT02275533|181676075|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.51||One-sided p-value|Log Rank|||||1.51|0.40|0.23
90904479|NCT02275533|181676077|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91102433|NCT03931785|182091650|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.43||||0.0941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.93|||MMRM||MD-7246 minus placebo|||0.93|-0.07|0.0941
90857956|NCT00760214|181580395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.89|-1.65||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.65|-5.89|<.001
90857957|NCT00760214|181580396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.15|-5.6||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value presented.|ANCOVA|||||-5.60|-12.15|<.001
90857958|NCT00760214|181580396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.46|-4.95||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value presented.|ANCOVA|||||-4.95|-11.46|<.001
90857959|NCT00760214|181580397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.19|-3.17||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value presented.|ANCOVA|||||-3.17|-8.19|<.001
90857960|NCT00760214|181580397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.81|-2.82||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value presented.|ANCOVA|||||-2.82|-7.81|<.001
90857961|NCT00700570|181580400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1341|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.1341
90857962|NCT00700570|181580402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0010
91102434|NCT03931785|182091650|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.06||||0.8098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.56|||MMRM||MD-7246 minus placebo|||0.56|-0.44|0.8098
90857963|NCT03875768|181580511|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.72||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.5||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Results presented are unadjusted.||The expected effect size is 0.5. The investigators hypothesize that the intervention will lead to an increase in average DASH score of 2 units. The investigators used a standard deviation for 2 units for both intervention and attention control groups since higher variability may be observed with a bigger sample size than the pilot study.||0.50|-0.44|0.89
90857964|NCT03875768|181580512|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.0||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|1.4||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Results presented are unadjusted.||The expected effect size for change in systolic blood pressure (SBP) between intervention and control group is 0.6 based on the pilot study. With a 90% power and a type I error rate (alpha) of .01, the investigators can detect the expected effect size with the proposed sample size of 121 per study arm.||1.4|-5.3|0.26
90904480|NCT00544544|181676114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.001
90904481|NCT00544544|181676115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
90904482|NCT00544544|181676116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.38
90904483|NCT00544544|181676117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91102435|NCT03931785|182091651|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Responder Rate|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|15.0|||||Difference in responder rate (MD-7246 - placebo). 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for differences in responder rates were obtained using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||15.0|-12.9|
91102436|NCT03931785|182091651|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Responder Rate|-11.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.3|2.6|||||Difference in responder rate (MD-7246 - placebo). 95% CIs for differences in responder rates were obtained using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||2.6|-25.3|
91102437|NCT03931785|182091651|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Responder Rate|-7.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.2|6.8|||||Difference in responder rate (MD-7246 - placebo). 95% CIs for differences in responder rates were obtained using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||6.8|-21.2|
90857965|NCT03875768|181580513|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.3||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|1.2||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Results presented are unadjusted.||The expected effect size for change in diastolic blood pressure (DBP) between intervention and control group is 0.75 based on the pilot study. With a 90% power and a type I error rate (alpha) of .01, the investigators can detect the expected effect size with the proposed sample size of 121 per study arm.||1.2|-3.1|0.39
90857966|NCT01925274|181580516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-35.71||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.4|12.0|||Chi-squared|||||12.0|-83.4|0.164
90857967|NCT05896748|181580629|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.948|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.901|0.998|||Mixed effect analysisofcovariance(ANCOVA|||To compare the abdominal SC injection with gluteal IM injection for Ctau within CAB||0.998|0.901|
90857968|NCT05896748|181580629|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.935|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.877|0.995|||Mixed effect analysisofcovariance(ANCOVA|||To compare the abdominal SC injection with gluteal IM injection for Ctau within CAB||0.995|0.877|
90857969|NCT05896748|181580629|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.934|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.872|1.0|||Mixed effect analysisofcovariance(ANCOVA|||To compare the abdominal SC injection with gluteal IM injection for Ctau within CAB||1.000|0.872|
90857970|NCT05896748|181580629|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.999|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.943|1.059|||Mixed effect analysisofcovariance(ANCOVA|||To compare the IM gluteal injections for Ctau within CAB||1.059|0.943|
90904484|NCT03277378|181676131|NON_INFERIORITY|The hypothesis was tested at the 5% significance level.||||||0.0003|||||||Farrington- Manning non-inferioirty test|||"The hypothesis was formally addressed as:~H0: AB - TB ≤ -15% H1: AB - TB \> -15% where AB = permanent system qualification rate of Group 1 (AB) TB = permanent system qualification rate of Group 2 (TB)"||||0.0003
91031789|NCT00445003|181948309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-1.3||adjusted for baseline retinal volume, optical coherence tomography retinal thickness and visual acuity, number of planned panretinal photocoagulation sittings, and correlation between 2 study eyes|ANCOVA||adjusted for multiple comparisons|||-1.3|-2.1|<.001
90857971|NCT05896748|181580630|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.002|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.952|1.056|||Mixed effect analysisofcovariance(ANCOVA|||To compare the abdominal SC injection with gluteal IM injection for Ctau within RPV||1.056|0.952|
90857972|NCT05896748|181580630|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.961|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.921|1.002|||Mixed effect analysisofcovariance(ANCOVA|||To compare the abdominal SC injection with gluteal IM injection for Ctau within RPV||1.002|0.921|
90857973|NCT05896748|181580630|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.928|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.885|0.973|||Mixed effect analysisofcovariance(ANCOVA|||To compare the abdominal SC injection with gluteal IM injection for Ctau within RPV||0.973|0.885|
90857974|NCT05896748|181580630|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.003|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.955|1.053|||Mixed effect analysisofcovariance(ANCOVA|||To compare the IM gluteal injections for Ctau within RPV||1.053|0.955|
90857975|NCT05896748|181580631|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.942|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.897|0.99|||Mixed effect analysisofcovariance(ANCOVA|||To compare the abdominal SC injection with gluteal IM injection for Cmax within CAB||0.990|0.897|
90857976|NCT05896748|181580631|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.911|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.86|0.965|||Mixed effect analysisofcovariance(ANCOVA|||To compare the abdominal SC injection with gluteal IM injection for Cmax within CAB||0.965|0.860|
90857977|NCT05896748|181580631|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.857|0.966|||Mixed effect analysisofcovariance(ANCOVA|||To compare the abdominal SC injection with gluteal IM injection for Cmax within CAB||0.966|0.857|
90857978|NCT05896748|181580631|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.003|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.938|1.074|||Mixed effect analysisofcovariance(ANCOVA|||To compare the IM gluteal injections for Cmax within CAB||1.074|0.938|
90857979|NCT05896748|181580632|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.938|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.895|0.982|||Mixed effect analysisofcovariance(ANCOVA|||To compare the abdominal SC injection with gluteal IM injection for Cmax within RPV||0.982|0.895|
90857980|NCT05896748|181580632|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.918|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.876|0.963|||Mixed effect analysisofcovariance(ANCOVA|||To compare the abdominal SC injection with gluteal IM injection for Cmax within RPV||0.963|0.876|
90857981|NCT05896748|181580632|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.905|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.861|0.952|||Mixed effect analysisofcovariance(ANCOVA|||To compare the abdominal SC injection with gluteal IM injection for Cmax within RPV||0.952|0.861|
90857982|NCT05896748|181580632|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.937|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.891|0.986|||Mixed effect analysisofcovariance(ANCOVA|||To compare the IM gluteal injections for Cmax within RPV||0.986|0.891|
90857983|NCT05896748|181580633|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.944|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.906|0.983|||Mixed effect analysisofcovariance(ANCOVA|||To compare the abdominal SC injection with gluteal IM injection for AUC\[0-tau\] within CAB||0.983|0.906|
90857984|NCT05896748|181580633|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.944|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.895|0.995|||Mixed effect analysisofcovariance(ANCOVA|||To compare the abdominal SC injection with gluteal IM injection for AUC\[0-tau\] within CAB||0.995|0.895|
90857985|NCT05896748|181580633|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.933|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.876|0.994|||Mixed effect analysisofcovariance(ANCOVA|||To compare the abdominal SC injection with gluteal IM injection for AUC\[0-tau\] within CAB||0.994|0.876|
90857986|NCT05896748|181580633|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.979|1.105|||Mixed effect analysisofcovariance(ANCOVA|||To compare the IM gluteal injections for AUC\[0-tau\] within CAB||1.105|0.979|
91031790|NCT00528606|181948313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||p-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test comparing treatment groups, stratified by baseline severity group and joint type.||||<0.001
91102438|NCT03931785|182091651|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.043||||0.8852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.591|1.839|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio for response (MD-7246 : placebo)|||1.839|0.591|0.8852
91102439|NCT03931785|182091651|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.634||||0.1152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.117|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio for response (MD-7246 : placebo)|||1.117|0.360|0.1152
91102440|NCT03931785|182091651|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.749||||0.3157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.425|1.317|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio for response (MD-7246 : placebo)|||1.317|0.425|0.3157
90904485|NCT03277378|181676132|OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Chi-squared|||"The hypothesis was formally addressed as:~H0: P ≤ 60% H1: P \> 60% where P= percentage of physician prefer anatomic placement over targeted placement.~The analysis population included physicians who have performed both placement procedures. The hypothesis was tested at the 5% significance level."||||0.2500
90904486|NCT04145349|181676156|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Hazard Ratio|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|98.0|0.25|1.69|||Bayesian hierarchical model|||The Bayesian analyses below include posterior mean of Hazard ratio, and credible intervals instead of confidence intervals.|The posterior probability treatment difference is 0.864|1.69|0.25|
90904487|NCT05567952|181676163|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) mean difference|-0.705|||=|0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.093|-0.316|||MMRM|||Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) included fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, baseline SARS-CoV-2 RNA level, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction; an unstructured (co) variance structure was used.||-0.316|-1.093|= 0.0004
90904488|NCT05567952|181676164|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.235|||=|0.0697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.983|1.551|||COX proportional hazard ratio|||Analysis was based on Cox proportional hazard (PH) model which included treatment, geographic region, baseline SARS-CoV-2 RNA level (\< 4 log10 copies/mL or \>= 4 log10 copies/mL) and time since the last vaccination (less than or equal to \[\<=6\] months, \> 6 months or unvaccinated) as appropriate.||1.551|0.983|= 0.0697
90904489|NCT05567952|181676165|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.084|||=|0.5202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.848|1.385|||COX proportional hazard ratio|||Analysis was based on Cox proportional hazard (PH) model which included treatment, geographic region, baseline SARS-CoV-2 RNA level (\< 4 log10 copies/mL or \>= 4 log10 copies/mL) and time since the last vaccination (\<=6 months, \> 6 months or unvaccinated) as appropriate.||1.385|0.848|= 0.5202
90904490|NCT03280563|181676169|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Overall Response Rates|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.14|21.14||||||||21.14|-21.14|
90904491|NCT03280563|181676169|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Overall Response Rates|16.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.03|42.88||||||||42.88|-9.03|
90857987|NCT05896748|181580634|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.966|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.932|1.002|||Mixed effect analysisofcovariance(ANCOVA|||To compare the abdominal SC injection with gluteal IM injection for AUC\[0-tau\] within RPV||1.002|0.932|
90857988|NCT05896748|181580634|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.955|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.922|0.989|||Mixed effect analysisofcovariance(ANCOVA|||To compare the abdominal SC injection with gluteal IM injection for AUC\[0-tau\] within RPV||0.989|0.922|
90904492|NCT03280563|181676169|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Overall Response Rates|6.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.76|50.09||||||||50.09|-36.76|
90904493|NCT03280563|181676169|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Overall Response Rates|-3.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.39|20.73||||||||20.73|-27.39|
90904494|NCT03280563|181676169|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Overall Response Rates|16.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.71|39.34||||||||39.34|-6.71|
90904495|NCT03280563|181676170|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.66||||||||1.66|0.50|
90857989|NCT05896748|181580634|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.948|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.907|0.991|||Mixed effect analysisofcovariance(ANCOVA|||To compare the abdominal SC injection with gluteal IM injection for AUC\[0-tau\] within RPV||0.991|0.907|
90857990|NCT05896748|181580634|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.014|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.972|1.058|||Mixed effect analysisofcovariance(ANCOVA|||To compare the IM gluteal injections for AUC\[0-tau\] within RPV||1.058|0.972|
90904496|NCT03280563|181676170|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.2||||||||1.20|0.35|
90904497|NCT03280563|181676170|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|3.48||||||||3.48|0.45|
90904498|NCT03280563|181676170|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|3.23||||||||3.23|0.74|
90857991|NCT06138145|181580679|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
90904499|NCT03280563|181676170|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.88||||||||0.88|0.28|
90904500|NCT03280563|181676172|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.65||||||||1.65|0.36|
90904501|NCT03280563|181676172|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.58||||||||1.58|0.34|
90904502|NCT03280563|181676172|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|9.34||||||||9.34|0.55|
90904503|NCT03280563|181676172|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|2.01||||||||2.01|0.28|
90904504|NCT03280563|181676172|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.46||||||||1.46|0.35|
90904505|NCT03280563|181676173|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|-0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.98|29.48||||||||29.48|-30.98|
90904506|NCT03280563|181676173|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|17.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.84|46.23||||||||46.23|-10.84|
90904507|NCT03280563|181676173|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|11.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.63|50.33||||||||50.33|-26.63|
90904508|NCT03280563|181676173|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|10.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.96|37.95||||||||37.95|-16.96|
90904509|NCT03280563|181676174|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|7.9||||||||7.90|0.15|
90904510|NCT03280563|181676174|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|4.2||||||||4.20|0.15|
90904511|NCT03280563|181676174|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|3.84||||||||3.84|0.15|
90904512|NCT03850444|181676232|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.0|||||Hazard ratio based on Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG PS (0 vs. 1), and histology (squamous vs. non-squamous).|||1.00|0.38|
91031791|NCT01239121|181948555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.6||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|1.5|||Regression, Linear|||||1.5|-0.27|0.175
90857992|NCT06138145|181580679|OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mann-Whitney U test|||||||<0.05
90857993|NCT06138145|181580679|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91102441|NCT00337194|182091711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.06
91102442|NCT00337194|182091712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
91104562|NCT00581100|182095001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value from generalized linear models for correlated data using Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) with treatment and visits as fixed factors. Model for proportion=\[Group visit Group\*visit\].|GEE model|||Week 24||||<0.001
91102443|NCT00159874|182091750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-7.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.1||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.13|5.09|||ANCOVA||Least square mean difference of -7.02 was calculated as ' Sildenafil Medium Dose - Low Dose'|Analyses were performed using analysis of covariance with etiology, weight, day of assessment and baseline peak VO2 as the covariates.||5.09|-19.13|0.253
91102444|NCT00159874|182091750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-9.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.92||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.6|1.93|||ANCOVA||Least square mean difference of -9.84 was calculated as ' Sildenafil High Dose - Low Dose'|Analyses were performed using analysis of covariance with etiology, weight, day of assessment and baseline peak VO2 as the covariates.||1.93|-21.60|0.100
91102445|NCT00159874|182091750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.01||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.75|9.11|||ANCOVA||Least square mean difference of -2.82 was calculated as ' Sildenafil High Dose - Medium Dose'|Analyses were performed using analysis of covariance with etiology, weight, day of assessment and baseline peak VO2 as the covariates.||9.11|-14.75|0.640
90857994|NCT00943124|181580709|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power: If the true geometric mean ratio (GMR MK0524B/Simvastatin + MK0524A) is 1.00 for all the eight primary endpoints, then a sample size of N=220 subjects provides this study with greater than 99.2% probability of observing the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) of all the eight endpoints to be contained within \[0.80, 1.25\], assuming nonnegative associations among the 8 endpoints.|Least-Squares Mean Ratio|1.14||||||90.0|1.09|1.2||||||Least-Squares Mean Ratio (Fixed Dose Combination (FDC)/Co-administration)||1.20|1.09|
91102446|NCT01104870|182091767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|||||Primary comparisons are between Dose Group 1 \& Dose Group 3 and Dose Group 1 \& Dose Group 2. The study is not powered to test for a difference between Dose Group 2 \& Dose Group 3.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Peak total pulmonary resistance index (TPRI) is defined as the TPRI value observed during exercise at the highest matching wattage achieved at both Baseline and Week 12. Where peak wattage cannot be matched, the closest higher wattage will be chosen for comparison.||||0.95
91102447|NCT01104870|182091767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|||||Primary comparisons are between Dose Group 1 \& Dose Group 3 and Dose Group 1 \& Dose Group 2. The study is not powered to test for a difference between Dose Group 2 \& Dose Group 3.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Peak total pulmonary resistance index (TPRI) is defined as the TPRI value observed during exercise at the highest matching wattage achieved at both Baseline and Week 12. Where peak wattage cannot be matched, the closest higher wattage will be chosen for comparison.||||0.27
91102448|NCT02197065|182091800|OTHER||Proportion|0.2|||||ONE_SIDED|||||||||This was a pilot feasibility study and we were only powered to determine the frequency of troponin elevation in the entire study population, not to compare the frequency of a rise in troponin in the two study arms. Thus Aim 1 applies to the entire study cohort.||||
91102449|NCT02197065|182091801|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|13.0||||0.58|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.58
91102450|NCT02197065|182091802|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.00
91102451|NCT00276380|182091816|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.48|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The homogeneity of the Odds Ratio (OR) across centres was assessed by the Breslow Day test.|The association between treatment and response after adjustment for the pooled centres was analysed using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test.||1.48|0.46|0.52
91102452|NCT00276380|182091817|OTHER|Comparison of treatment effect at Day 28|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.57|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The homogeneity of the Odds Ratio (OR) across centres was assessed by the Breslow Day test.|The association between treatment and response after adjustment for the pooled centres was analysed using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test.||1.57|0.47|0.623
90857995|NCT00943124|181580710|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power: If the true geometric mean ratio (GMR MK0524B/Simvastatin + MK0524A) is 1.00 for all the eight primary endpoints, then a sample size of N=220 subjects provides this study with greater than 99.2% probability of observing the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) of all the eight endpoints to be contained within \[0.80, 1.25\], assuming nonnegative associations among the 8 endpoints.|Least-Squares Mean Ratio|1.11||||||90.0|1.05|1.16||||||Least-Squares Mean Ratio (Fixed Dose Combination (FDC)/Co-administration)||1.16|1.05|
90857996|NCT00943124|181580711|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power: If the true geometric mean ratio (GMR MK0524B/Simvastatin + MK0524A) is 1.00 for all the eight primary endpoints, then a sample size of N=220 subjects provides this study with greater than 99.2% probability of observing the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) of all the eight endpoints to be contained within \[0.80, 1.25\], assuming nonnegative associations among the 8 endpoints.|Least-Squares Mean Ratio|0.97||||||90.0|0.93|1.0||||||Least-Squares Mean Ratio (Fixed Dose Combination (FDC)/Co-administration)||1.00|0.93|
90857997|NCT00943124|181580712|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power: If the true geometric mean ratio (GMR MK0524B/Simvastatin + MK0524A) is 1.00 for all the eight primary endpoints, then a sample size of N=220 subjects provides this study with greater than 99.2% probability of observing the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) of all the eight endpoints to be contained within \[0.80, 1.25\], assuming nonnegative associations among the 8 endpoints.|Least-Squares Mean Ratio|0.92||||||90.0|0.87|0.97||||||Least-Squares Mean Ratio (Fixed Dose Combination (FDC)/Co-administration)||0.97|0.87|
90857998|NCT00943124|181580713|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power: If the true geometric mean ratio (GMR MK0524B/Simvastatin + MK0524A) is 1.00 for all the eight primary endpoints, then a sample size of N=220 subjects provides this study with greater than 99.2% probability of observing the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) of all the eight endpoints to be contained within \[0.80, 1.25\], assuming nonnegative associations among the 8 endpoints.|Least-Squares Mean Ratio|1.02||||||90.0|0.99|1.04||||||Least-Squares Mean Ratio (Fixed Dose Combination (FDC)/Co-administration)||1.04|0.99|
90857999|NCT00943124|181580714|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power: If the true geometric mean ratio (GMR MK0524B/Simvastatin + MK0524A) is 1.00 for all the eight primary endpoints, then a sample size of N=220 subjects provides this study with greater than 99.2% probability of observing the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) of all the eight endpoints to be contained within \[0.80, 1.25\], assuming nonnegative associations among the 8 endpoints.|Least-Squares Mean Ratio|1.08||||||90.0|1.02|1.14||||||Least-Squares Mean Ratio (Fixed Dose Combination (FDC)/Co-administration)||1.14|1.02|
90858000|NCT00943124|181580715|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power: If the true geometric mean ratio (GMR MK0524B/Simvastatin + MK0524A) is 1.00 for all the eight primary endpoints, then a sample size of N=220 subjects provides this study with greater than 99.2% probability of observing the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) of all the eight endpoints to be contained within \[0.80, 1.25\], assuming nonnegative associations among the 8 endpoints.|Least-Squares Mean Ratio|0.77||||||90.0|0.72|0.82||||||Least-Squares Mean Ratio (Fixed Dose Combination (FDC)/Co-administration)||0.82|0.72|
90858001|NCT00943124|181580716|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power: If the true geometric mean ratio (GMR MK0524B/Simvastatin + MK0524A) is 1.00 for all the eight primary endpoints, then a sample size of N=220 subjects provides this study with greater than 99.2% probability of observing the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) of all the eight endpoints to be contained within \[0.80, 1.25\], assuming nonnegative associations among the 8 endpoints.|Least-Squares Mean Ratio|0.92||||||90.0|0.89|0.94||||||Least-Squares Mean Ratio (Fixed Dose Combination (FDC)/Co-administration)||0.94|0.89|
91031792|NCT01239121|181948556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|2.1|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.1|.49|0.964
91102453|NCT00276380|182091817|OTHER|Comparison of treatment effect at Day 84|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The homogeneity of the Odds Ratio (OR) across centres was assessed by the Breslow Day test.|The association between treatment and response after adjustment for the pooled centres was analysed using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test.||1.3|0.42|0.3
91102454|NCT00276380|182091819|OTHER|||||||0.207||||||Treatment effect was derived using a parametric analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline and pooled centres as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Comparison of treatment effect at Day 28||||0.207
91102455|NCT00276380|182091819|OTHER|||||||0.59||||||Treatment effect was derived using an ANCOVA analysis with baseline and pooled centres as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Comparison of treatment effect at Day 84||||0.590
91102456|NCT00276380|182091819|OTHER|Treatment effect was derived using an ANCOVA analysis with baseline and pooled centres as covariates.||||||0.814|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison of treatment effect at Day 168||||0.814
91102457|NCT00276380|182091820|OTHER|||||||0.24||||||Treatment effect was derived using an ANCOVA analysis with baseline and pooled centres as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Comparison of treatment effect at Day 28||||0.240
91102458|NCT00276380|182091820|OTHER|||||||0.441||||||Treatment effect was derived using an ANCOVA analysis with baseline and pooled centres as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Comparison of treatment effect at Day 84||||0.441
91102459|NCT00276380|182091820|OTHER|||||||0.645||||||Treatment effect was derived using an ANCOVA analysis with baseline and pooled centres as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Comparison of treatment effect at Day 168||||0.645
91102460|NCT00276380|182091821|OTHER|||||||0.623||||||Treatment effect was derived using an ANCOVA analysis with baseline and pooled centres as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Comparison of treatment effect at Day 28||||0.623
91102461|NCT00276380|182091821|OTHER|||||||0.338||||||Treatment effect was derived using an ANCOVA analysis with baseline and pooled centres as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Comparison of treatment effect at Day 84||||0.338
91102462|NCT00276380|182091821|OTHER|||||||0.828||||||Treatment effect was derived using an ANCOVA analysis with baseline and pooled centres as covariates|ANCOVA|||Comparison of treatment effect at Day 168||||0.828
91102463|NCT01651208|182091824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||We hypothesized that in the MINT group, at least 70% of subjects will reach an MPR of 0.80 while in the DVD group, the proportion will remain at or below 55%. Our sample size estimates showed that, using a conservative 2-sided test at the 5% Alpha level and a 90% power, we will be able to detect a significant 15% difference (70% - 55%) with a sample of 217 in each study group.||||<0.01
90858002|NCT02992132|181580717|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|15.0||||||Mixed-effect model repeated measures (MMRM), with the dependent variable being the change from Baseline in CMAI total score.||15.0|-4.8|
91102464|NCT01651208|182091825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the mean MMAS-4 score is similar in both intervention arms||||<0.01
91102465|NCT04543786|182091854|OTHER|No comparison was made to another intervention or therapy. Comparing values at baseline and Day 2.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni post-hoc tests; p \< 0.05 was considered significant|ANOVA|One-way||||||0.0048
90858003|NCT02992132|181580717|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|10.5||||||Mixed-effect model repeated measures (MMRM), with the dependent variable being the change from Baseline in CMAI total score.||10.5|-8.5|
90858004|NCT04795622|181580723|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3545|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.753|2.4365||||||||2.4365|0.7530|
90858005|NCT04795622|181580724|SUPERIORITY||Point Estimate|-0.0856|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2395|0.0683||||||X-axis||0.0683|-0.2395|
91102466|NCT04543786|182091855|OTHER|No comparison was made to another intervention or therapy. Comparing values at baseline and Day 3.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni post-hoc tests; p \< 0.05 was considered significant|ANOVA|||||||< 0.001
90858006|NCT04795622|181580724|SUPERIORITY||Point Estimate|-0.033|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2268|0.1608||||||Y-axis||0.1608|-0.2268|
90858007|NCT04795622|181580724|SUPERIORITY||Point Estimate|0.1791|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1551|0.5133||||||Z-axis||0.5133|-0.1551|
90858008|NCT02314143|181580731|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.224|4.459|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The odds ratio for dabrafenib followed by combination therapy versus combination therapy has been presented.|||4.459|0.224|1.0000
90858009|NCT02314143|181580731|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.97||||0.4216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.382|10.166|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The odds ratio for trametinib followed by combination therapy versus combination therapy has been presented.|||10.166|0.382|0.4216
90858010|NCT03963401|181580747|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.51||0.1172|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.94|38.52|||Normal approximation, Dunnett's method|||||38.52|3.94|0.1172
90858011|NCT03963401|181580747|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|23.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.58||0.0197|TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.26|37.5|||Normal approximation, Dunnett's Method|||||37.50|9.26|0.0197
90858012|NCT03963401|181580747|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|31.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.29||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|17.65|44.93|||Normal approximation, Dunnett's Method|||||44.93|17.65|0.0006
91102467|NCT04543786|182091856|OTHER|No comparison was made to another intervention or therapy. Comparing values at baseline and Day 4.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni post-hoc tests; p \< 0.05 was considered significant|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91102468|NCT04543786|182091857|OTHER|No comparison was made to another intervention or therapy. Comparing values at baseline and Day 5.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni post-hoc tests; p \< 0.05 was considered significant|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91102469|NCT04543786|182091859|OTHER|No comparison was made to another intervention or therapy. Comparing values at baseline and Day 5.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|26.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||p \< 0.05 was considered significant|t-test, 2 sided|paired||||||<0.001
91102470|NCT04543786|182091860|OTHER|No comparison was made to another intervention or therapy|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|||||p \< 0.05 was considered significant|ANOVA|Repeated measures||||||0.56
91102471|NCT04543786|182091861|OTHER|No comparison was made to another intervention or therapy|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|||||p \< 0.05 was considered significant|ANOVA|Repeated measures||||||0.56
91102472|NCT04543786|182091862|OTHER|No comparison was made to another intervention or therapy|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|||||p \< 0.05 was considered significant|ANOVA|Repeated measures||||||0.56
91102473|NCT04543786|182091863|OTHER|No comparison was made to another intervention or therapy.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|||||p \< 0.05 was considered significant|ANOVA|Repeated measures||||||0.56
91104563|NCT00581100|182095002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Adjusted change calculated from mixed model. Model for change-\[Group visit Group\*visit baseline baseline\*visit\].|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
91104564|NCT00581100|182095002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Adjusted change calculated from mixed model. Model for change-\[Group visit Group\*visit baseline baseline\*visit\].|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
91102474|NCT00407030|182091896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|-5.9||Due to the hierarchical testing no adjustment of type I error was necessary.|ANCOVA|Independent variables in the model were treatment, baseline TWSTRS-Total score, gender, age, pre-treatment of cervical dystonia, and pooled center.||Hierarchical testing: Primary null hypothesis: incobotulinumtoxinA (Xeomin) (240 Units) identical to placebo. Rejection of 1st hypothesis lead to test of 2nd null hypothesis: incobotulinumtoxinA (Xeomin) (120 Units) identical to placebo. Rejection of 2nd hypothesis lead to test of 3rd null hypothesis: incobotulinumtoxinA (Xeomin) (240 Units) identical to incobotulinumtoxinA (Xeomin) (120 Units). 3 separate models were used to test these hypotheses which results in different LS means estimates.||-5.9|-12.0|<0.001
91104565|NCT00581100|182095003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value from generalized linear models for correlated data using Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) with treatment and visits as fixed factors. Model for proportion=\[Group visit Group\*visit\].|GEE model|||||||<0.001
90858013|NCT03963401|181580748|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.09||0.0588|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.72|39.19|||Normal approximation method|||||39.19|2.72|0.0588
90858014|NCT03963401|181580748|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|26.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.87||0.003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|11.72|40.9|||Normal approximation method|||||40.90|11.72|0.0030
90858015|NCT03963401|181580748|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|31.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.68||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|16.93|45.5|||Normal approximation method|||||45.50|16.93|0.0003
90858016|NCT03194503|181580780|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.92|||t-test, 2 sided|||This statistical analysis applies to all three rows in the post-intervention column. ITT analysis: Multivariable analysis for Any TIAEs, Severe TIAEs, and Severe desaturation(\>20%)||0.92|0.47|0.015
90858017|NCT03194503|181580781|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||This statistical analysis applies to all three rows and is a per-protocol analysis: Multivariable analysis for Any TIAEs, Severe TIAEs, and Severe desaturation(\>20%)||1.20|0.50|0.250
90858018|NCT04231318|181580782|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0406|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0406
90858019|NCT04231318|181580782|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0795|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0795
90858020|NCT04231318|181580782|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7601|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.7601
90858021|NCT04231318|181580783|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1942|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.1942
90858022|NCT04231318|181580783|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0957|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0957
90858023|NCT04231318|181580783|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4526|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.4526
90858024|NCT04231318|181580784|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1309|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.1309
90858025|NCT04231318|181580784|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.1700
90858026|NCT04231318|181580784|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7609|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.7609
90858027|NCT04231318|181580785|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.1000
90858028|NCT04231318|181580785|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0423|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0423
90858029|NCT04231318|181580785|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.383|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.3830
90858030|NCT04231318|181580786|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0298|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0298
90858031|NCT04231318|181580786|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0217|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0217
90858032|NCT04231318|181580786|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4451|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.4451
90858033|NCT04231318|181580787|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1197|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.1197
90858034|NCT04231318|181580787|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0008|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0008
90858035|NCT04231318|181580787|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0223|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0223
90858036|NCT04231318|181580788|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1067|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.1067
90858037|NCT04231318|181580789|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1715|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.1715
90858038|NCT04231318|181580789|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0736|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0736
90858039|NCT04231318|181580789|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4098|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.4098
90858040|NCT04231318|181580790|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2718|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.2718
90858041|NCT04231318|181580790|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0182|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0182
90858042|NCT04231318|181580790|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1131|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.1131
90858043|NCT04231318|181580791|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2143|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.2143
90858044|NCT04231318|181580791|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1628|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.1628
90858045|NCT04231318|181580791|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6036|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.6036
90858046|NCT04231318|181580792|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.222|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.2220
90858047|NCT04231318|181580792|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.141|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.1410
90858048|NCT04231318|181580792|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5418|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.5418
90858049|NCT04231318|181580793|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1619|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.1619
90858050|NCT04231318|181580793|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1683|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.1683
90858051|NCT04231318|181580793|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6969|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.6969
90858052|NCT04231318|181580794|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0701|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0701
90858053|NCT04231318|181580794|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0925|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0925
90858054|NCT04231318|181580794|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6981|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.6981
90858055|NCT04231318|181580795|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0275|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0275
90858056|NCT04231318|181580795|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1738|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.1738
90858057|NCT04231318|181580795|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8364|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.8364
90858058|NCT04231318|181580796|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2227|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.2227
90858059|NCT04231318|181580796|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1114|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.1114
90858060|NCT04231318|181580796|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4635|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.4635
90858061|NCT00337350|181580797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.08
90858062|NCT00337350|181580798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.05
90858063|NCT00337350|181580799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.21
90858064|NCT01231230|181580814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||mean difference from baseline relative to placebo||||< 0.001
90858065|NCT01231230|181580814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||mean difference from baseline relative to placebo||||<0.001
90858066|NCT01231230|181580814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||mean difference from baseline relative to placebo||||>0.05
90904513|NCT03850444|181676233|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.95|||||Hazard ratio based on Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG PS (0 vs. 1), PD-L1 expression status (TPS=≥50% vs. TPS=1-49%), and histology (squamous vs. non-squamous).|||0.95|0.41|
90858067|NCT01610271|181580815|SUPERIORITY|ABS was expected to be superior to Control.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|2.05||a priori threshold was 0.05|Regression, Logistic|penalized maximum likelihood (Firth) logistic regression, because infection rate was very low (\<3%), as expected|The dispersion is the SE of the OR. ABS was the numerator group, Control was the denominator.|A sample size of 150 per group provided a power of 80% to detect a statistically significant (α≤0.05) 3% difference in SSI rate based on a historical infection rate of 6% in the facility where operations were performed.||2.05|0.01|0.067
90858068|NCT02038452|181580827|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.16|||Regression, Linear|Multiple imputation for missing data was performed. Linear regression adjusted for baseline score, sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||The main treatment analyses were based on intention to treat approach||-0.16|-0.48|<0.001
90904514|NCT03850444|181676234|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.94|||||Hazard ratio based on Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG PS (0 vs. 1), PD-L1 expression status (TPS=≥50% vs. TPS=1-49%), and histology (squamous vs. non-squamous).|||0.94|0.45|
90904515|NCT03850444|181676235|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.28|||||Hazard ratio based on Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG PS (0 vs. 1), and histology (squamous vs. non-squamous).|||1.28|0.57|
90904516|NCT03850444|181676236|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.39|||||Hazard ratio based on Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG PS (0 vs. 1), PD-L1 expression status (TPS=≥50% vs. TPS=1-49%), and histology (squamous vs. non-squamous).|||1.39|0.70|
90959024|NCT01620255|181798203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.212||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.077|0.347||1-sided p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|PF-00547659 22.5 mg vs placebo, locally read||0.347|0.077|0.0058
91031793|NCT04006171|181948560|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.004
91031794|NCT04006171|181948561|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Roc curve|||||||0.004
91102475|NCT00407030|182091902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|-4.6||Due to the hierarchical testing no adjustment of type I error was necessary.|ANCOVA|Independent variables in the model were treatment, baseline TWSTRS-Total score, gender, age, pre-treatment of cervical dystonia, and pooled center.||Hierarchical testing: Primary null hypothesis: incobotulinumtoxinA (Xeomin) (240 Units) identical to placebo. Rejection of 1st hypothesis lead to test of 2nd null hypothesis: incobotulinumtoxinA (Xeomin) (120 Units) identical to placebo. Rejection of 2nd hypothesis lead to test of 3rd null hypothesis: incobotulinumtoxinA (Xeomin) (240 Units) identical to incobotulinumtoxinA (Xeomin) (120 Units). 3 separate models were used to test these hypotheses which results in different LS means estimates.||-4.6|-10.4|<0.001
91102476|NCT00407030|182091903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|4.6||Due to the hierarchical testing no adjustment of type I error was necessary.|ANCOVA|Independent variables in the model were treatment, baseline TWSTRS-Total score, gender, age, pre-treatment of cervical dystonia, and pooled center.||Hierarchical testing: Primary null hypothesis: incobotulinumtoxinA (Xeomin) (240 Units) identical to placebo. Rejection of 1st hypothesis lead to test of 2nd null hypothesis: incobotulinumtoxinA (Xeomin) (120 Units) identical to placebo. Rejection of 2nd hypothesis lead to test of 3rd null hypothesis: incobotulinumtoxinA (Xeomin) (240 Units) identical to incobotulinumtoxinA (Xeomin) (120 Units). 3 separate models were used to test these hypotheses which results in different LS means estimates.||4.6|-2.1|0.447
91104566|NCT00581100|182095003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value from generalized linear models for correlated data using Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) with treatment and visits as fixed factors. Model for proportion=\[Group visit Group\*visit\].|GEE model|||||||<0.001
91104567|NCT00581100|182095004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value from generalized linear models for correlated data using Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) with treatment and visits as fixed factors. Model for proportion=\[Group visit Group\*visit\].|GEE model|||||||<0.001
90904517|NCT03850444|181676237|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.35|||||Hazard ratio based on Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG PS (0 vs. 1), PD-L1 expression status (TPS=≥50% vs. TPS=1-49%), and histology (squamous vs. non-squamous).|||1.35|0.74|
90904518|NCT03850444|181676238|OTHER||Difference in Percentage (DP)|17.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|31.6|||Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen||DP for pembrolizumab vs. chemotherapy based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by ECOG PS (0 vs. 1) and histology (squamous vs. non-squamous).|||31.6|1.8|
90904519|NCT03850444|181676239|OTHER||Difference in Percentage (DP)|11.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|23.7|||||DP for pembrolizumab vs. chemotherapy based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by ECOG PS (0 vs. 1), PD-L1 expression status (TPS=≥50% vs. TPS=1-49%), and histology (squamous vs. non-squamous).|||23.7|-1.4|
90904520|NCT03850444|181676240|OTHER||Difference in Percentage (DP)|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|18.9|||||DP for pembrolizumab vs. chemotherapy based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by ECOG PS (0 vs. 1), PD-L1 expression status (TPS=≥50% vs. TPS=1-49%), and histology (squamous vs. non-squamous).|||18.9|-3.0|
90904521|NCT01155726|181676263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.4||||||Unmasked minus masked||1.4|-2.2|
90904522|NCT01155726|181676263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.5||||||Unmasked minus masked||2.5|-1.5|
90904523|NCT01155726|181676263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|2.2||||||Unmasked minus masked||2.2|-0.1|
90904524|NCT01155726|181676263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|3.5||||||Unmasked minus masked||3.5|0.2|
90904525|NCT01155726|181676263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|1.2||||||Partial masked minus masked||1.2|-3.3|
91031795|NCT04006171|181948562|OTHER|||||||0.171||||||p value for FSH|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|for FSH||||||0.171
91031796|NCT04006171|181948562|OTHER|||||||0.176||||||p value for LH|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|for LH||||||0.176
91031797|NCT04006171|181948563|OTHER|||||||0.306|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.306
91031798|NCT04006171|181948564|OTHER|||||||0.795|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.795
91031799|NCT04006171|181948565|OTHER|||||||0.852|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.852
91031800|NCT04006171|181948566|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91031801|NCT04006171|181948567|OTHER|||||||0.277|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.277
90904526|NCT01155726|181676263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.1||||||Partial masked minus masked||1.1|-1.9|
90904527|NCT01155726|181676263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|2.7||||||Partial masked minus masked||2.7|-2.9|
91031802|NCT04006171|181948568|OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.006
91031803|NCT04006171|181948569|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91031804|NCT04006171|181948570|OTHER|||||||0.014|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.014
91031805|NCT04006171|181948571|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91031806|NCT04006171|181948572|OTHER|||||||0.947||||||for serum glucose|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|for serum glucose||||||0.947
91102477|NCT01378273|182091928|SUPERIORITY|We assumed no effect of treatment on death, but that Epo will lead to a decrease in the rate of NDI. If we assume a multiplicative reduction in the NDI rate of 0.45 then we expect a treated NDI rate of 12 percent and an overall rate of death+NDI of 30.4% as compared to the control rate of 40.4% corresponding to an overall treatment rate ratio of 0.75. This leads to a sample size of 376 evaluated subjects per arm or a total evaluated sample size of 752 subjects.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|0.05|0.81|1.32||A two-sided type I error of 0.05 with no formal adjustment for multiple comparisons unless otherwise specified (such as with safety outcomes).|GEE Wald test based on logistic regressi|adjustments were made for gestational age at birth and recruitment site as a fixed effect.|The numerator is the Epo group, denominator is the control group|We evaluated the primary outcome of death or neurodevelopmental impairment using generalized estimating equations to account for potential correlation within siblings from the same pregnancy, with adjustment for gestational age at birth and recruitment site as a fixed effect. The primary analysis included infants with complete data and excluded data from infants known to be alive but in whom neurodevelopmental outcomes were not assessed.||1.32|0.81|0.05
91104568|NCT00581100|182095004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value from generalized linear models for correlated data using Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) with treatment and visits as fixed factors. Model for proportion=\[Group visit Group\*visit\].|GEE model|||||||<0.001
91031807|NCT04006171|181948572|OTHER|||||||0.906||||||for total cholesterol|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|for total cholesterol||||||0.906
91031808|NCT04006171|181948572|OTHER|||||||0.428||||||for triglycerides|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|for triglycerides||||||0.428
91031809|NCT04006171|181948573|OTHER|||||||0.114||||||for high density lipoprotein|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.114
91104569|NCT00581100|182095005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Adjusted change calculated from mixed-model. Model for change=\[Group visit Group\*visit baseline baseline\*visit\].|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
90904528|NCT01155726|181676263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.9||||||Partial masked minus masked||1.9|-1.1|
90904529|NCT02054247|181676264|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.442|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.442
90904530|NCT02054247|181676265|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.083|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.083
90904531|NCT02054247|181676266|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.125|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.125
90904532|NCT02054247|181676267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.146|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.146
90904533|NCT02424344|181676268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|-0.125||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.259|0.01|||ANCOVA|Adjusted by baseline and age as covariates, and treatment group, sex and smoking-status as fixed effect factors||||0.010|-0.259|0.069
90904534|NCT04730947|181676271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.027
90904535|NCT04730947|181676272|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.029
90904536|NCT04730947|181676273|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.006
90904537|NCT04730947|181676274|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.12
90904538|NCT04730947|181676275|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.014
90904539|NCT04730947|181676276|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.011
90904540|NCT04730947|181676277|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.088|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.088
90904541|NCT04730947|181676278|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.024
90904542|NCT04730947|181676279|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.136|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.136
91031810|NCT04006171|181948573|OTHER|||||||0.504||||||for low density lipoprotein|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|for low density lipoprotein||||||0.504
91031811|NCT04006171|181948574|OTHER|||||||0.713|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.713
91031812|NCT04006171|181948575|OTHER|||||||0.886|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.886
91031813|NCT00440557|181948588|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assuming a difference in the mean change in Hb from baseline to the average of the last 8 weeks of treatment through Week 22 of -0.3 g/dL between standard-tx group (TIW) and test-tx group (QW), a pooled standard deviation of 1.7 g/dL, and a noninferiority margin of 1 g/dL, a sample size of approximately 250 participants (125 per group) will provide 90% power to demonstrate that the test treatment group is not inferior to the standard-treatment group for an overall 2-sided 0.05 significance level|Difference of Least Squares Means|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.106||||95.0|-0.38|0.037||This comparison between QW and TIW was performed prior to comparing Q2W with TIW in the statistical analysis 2 according to a planned stepdown procedure for controlling multiplicity.||||The null hypothesis is the mean change in Hb concentration from baseline to the average of the last 8 weeks of treatment (tX) through Week 22 in the QW group is not lower than that of the TIW group by more than 1 g/dL.||0.037|-0.380|
91031814|NCT00440557|181948588|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assuming a difference in the mean change in Hb from baseline to the average of the last 8 weeks of treatment through Week 22 of -0.3 g/dL between standard-tx group (TIW) and test-tx group (QW), a pooled standard deviation of 1.7 g/dL, and a noninferiority margin of 1 g/dL, a sample size of approximately 250 participants (125 per group) will provide 90% power to demonstrate that the test treatment group is not inferior to the standard-treatment group for an overall 2-sided 0.05 significance level|Difference of Least Squares Means|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.107||||95.0|-0.641|-0.221||Since the non-inferiority was declared in the statistical analysis 1, this comparison between Q2W and TIW was then performed according to a planned stepdown procedure for controlling multiplicity.||||The null hypothesis is the mean change in Hb concentration from baseline to the average of the last 8 weeks of treatment through Week 22 in the Q2W group is not lower than that of the TIW group by more than 1 g/dL.||-0.221|-0.641|
91031815|NCT00440557|181948589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage of Participants|-7.8||||||95.0|-17.2|1.7||||||||1.7|-17.2|
91102478|NCT01378273|182091929|OTHER|SAEs were defined prospectively. The rate of total SAEs observed through hospital discharge were compared after accounting for potential within-sibship correlation (with multiple gestations) using Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) with robust standard errors. We used a GEE Wald test based on Poisson or logistic regression for total SAE count and individual events respectively. All other non-categorical data were assessed with GEE regression models appropriate for continuous outcomes.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.22||Statistical significance was set at 0.05 for the efficacy analysis and for the final safety analysis comparing the rate of total SAEs between treatment groups, and 0.031 for death and 0.004 for the ten individual SAEs due to sequential monitoring.|Poisson regression|Adjusted for multiple gestation and gestational age|Epo is numerator and Control is denominator|We hypothesized that Epo would be safe, with no excess of SAEs compared to control infants. Sample size was based on the primary outcome, severe neurodevelopmental impairment or death.||1.22|0.83|0.05
91102479|NCT01378273|182091930|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36||||||Statistical significance was evaluated using a Wald's test and declared significant if p \< 0.05.|Generalized estimating equation|Adjusted for gestational age at birth and treatment assignment.||For all statistical comparisons between groups, Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) with robust standard errors and a working independence correlation structure for infants included from a multiple gestation were used. A GEE-based Wald test was used to examine differences in the global brain injury severity score between treatment groups, with adjustment for gestational age (GA) at birth used to stratify treatment randomization (24+0 to 25+6 vs. 26+0 to 27+6 in weeks+days of GA).||||0.36
91102480|NCT01378273|182091931|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance was evaluated using a Wald's test and declared significant if p \< 0.007.|Generalized estimating equation|Adjusted for gestational age at birth and treatment assignment.||For statistical inference, we utilized generalized estimating equations (GEE) with robust standard errors to appropriately account for potential correlation of biomarkers for same-birth siblings. Each respective GEE model adjusted for gestational age at birth and treatment assignment as fixed factors associated with the original study design. Biomarker levels at each follow-up time point were analysed using separate GEE models. Epo levels were log-transformed in all statistical analyses.||||<0.001
91104570|NCT00581100|182095005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Adjusted change calculated from mixed-model. Model for change=\[Group visit Group\*visit baseline baseline\*visit\].|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
91104571|NCT00581100|182095006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Adjusted change calculated from mixed model. Model for change=\[Group visit Group\*visit baseline baseline\*visit\].|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
91104572|NCT00581100|182095006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Adjusted change calculated from mixed model. Model for change=\[Group visit Group\*visit baseline baseline\*visit\].|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
91104573|NCT00581100|182095007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Adjusted change calculated from mixed model. Model for change=\[Group visit Group\*visit baseline baseline\*visit\].|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
91104574|NCT00581100|182095007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||\<Table 8-14\> Change from baseline in Physician and Patient Assessment of Nail Psoriasis Activity Visual Analog Scale (VAS)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
91104575|NCT00581100|182095008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Adjusted change calculated from mixed-model. Model for change=\[Group visit Group\*visit baseline baseline\*visit\].|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
90858069|NCT02038452|181580828|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.17|||Regression, Linear|Multiple imputation for missing data was performed. Linear regression adjusted for baseline score, sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||The main treatment analyses were based on intention to treat approach||-0.17|-0.53|<0.001
90904543|NCT05257837|181676283|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
91104576|NCT00581100|182095008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Adjusted change calculated from mixed-model. Model for change=\[Group visit Group\*visit baseline baseline\*visit\].|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
90904544|NCT05257837|181676284|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
90904545|NCT05257837|181676285|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.012
91104577|NCT00993473|182095033|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Noninferiority would be demonstrated if the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the ratio of the rate of all hypoglycemia in the Lantus group to the rate in the NPH group was \<1.15. Superiority would be demonstrated if the upper bound of the 95% CI was \<1. The margin for noninferiority corresponded to one-half of the 30% difference in hypoglycemia event rate considered as a clinically significant difference by American Diabetes Association 2005 Working Group on Hypoglycemia."|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.44|||Generalized Linear Model|"A stepwise closed testing approach was used for the primary all hypoglycemia outcome analysis to assess noninferiority and superiority sequentially."|Risk ratio between treatment groups (Lantus/NPH) estimated by Generalized Linear Model with fixed effect terms for randomization strata and treatment.|"The sample size was calculated to ensure sufficient power so that the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the Lantus /NPH ratio would not exceed 1.15 based on an expected overall rate of all hypoglycemia of 80 events per patient-year of exposure to NPH insulin and to Lantus. It was planned to randomize at least 45 and up to approximately 60 patients in each of the 2 treatment groups so that at least 70 patients would complete the 24 weeks of treatment."||1.44|0.97|
91104578|NCT00839930|182095054|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) will be performed on the log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax parameters.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|93.39||||||90.0|87.33|99.86|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||99.86|87.33|
91104579|NCT00839930|182095055|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) will be performed on the log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax parameters.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|96.14||||||90.0|91.04|101.52|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||101.52|91.04|
91104580|NCT00839930|182095056|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) will be performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax parameters.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|96.64||||||90.0|92.13|101.37|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||101.37|92.13|
91104581|NCT02500836|182095057|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||One-sided p-value|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that the proportions of treatment group successes are equal.||||<0.0001
91104582|NCT02500836|182095058|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||One-sided p-value|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that the proportions of treatment group successes are equal.||||<0.0001
90858070|NCT02038452|181580829|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.09|||Regression, Linear|Multiple imputation for missing data was performed. Linear regression adjusted for baseline score, sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||The main treatment analyses were based on intention to treat approach||-0.09|-0.43|0.003
90858071|NCT02038452|181580830|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.97||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|-0.3|||Regression, Linear|Multiple imputation for missing data was performed. Linear regression adjusted for baseline score, sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||The main treatment analyses were based on intention to treat approach||-0.30|-1.64|0.005
91031816|NCT00440557|181948589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage of Participants|-15.0||||||95.0|-25.0|-5.0||||||||-5.0|-25.0|
90858072|NCT02038452|181580831|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.44||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.87|||Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation for missing data was performed. Logistic regression adjusted for baseline score, sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||The main treatment analyses were based on intention to treat approach||0.87|0.22|0.018
90858073|NCT02038452|181580834|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.23|||Regression, Linear|Multiple imputation for missing data was performed. Linear regression adjusted for baseline score, sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||The main treatment analyses were based on intention to treat approach||0.23|-0.11|0.500
90858074|NCT02038452|181580835|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.33|||Regression, Linear|Multiple imputation for missing data was performed. Linear regression adjusted for baseline score, sex, age, and duration of symptoms||The main treatment analyses were based on intention to treat approach||0.33|-0.07|0.21
90858075|NCT02038452|181580836|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.005||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.175|0.166|||Regression, Linear|Multiple imputation for missing data was performed. Linear regression adjusted for baseline score, sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||The main treatment analyses were based on intention to treat approach||0.166|-0.175|0.96
90904546|NCT05257837|181676287|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.217|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.217
91031817|NCT00440557|181948590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-0.26||||||95.0|-0.564|0.043|||ANOVA|||||0.043|-0.564|
91031818|NCT00440557|181948590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-0.45||||||95.0|-0.755|-0.147|||ANOVA|||||-0.147|-0.755|
91031819|NCT00440557|181948591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage of Participants|-3.9||||||95.0|-9.5|1.6||||||||1.6|-9.5|
90858076|NCT02038452|181580837|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.79||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|1.59|||Regression, Linear|Multiple imputation for missing data was performed. Linear regression adjusted for baseline score, sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||The main treatment analyses were based on intention to treat approach||1.59|-0.02|0.055
90858077|NCT02038452|181580838|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|2.2|||Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation for missing data was performed. Logistic regression adjusted for baseline score, sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||The main treatment analyses were based on intention to treat approach||2.20|0.55|0.76
90858078|NCT02038452|181580839|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.66||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|3.77|||Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation for missing data was performed. Logistic regression for sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||The main treatment analyses were based on intention to treat approach||3.77|0.73|0.23
90858079|NCT02038452|181580840|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|3.98|||Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation for missing data was performed. Logistic regression adjusted for sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||The main treatment analyses were based on intention to treat approach||3.98|0.41|0.66
90858080|NCT02038452|181580841|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|7.34|||Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation for missing data was performed. Logistic regression adjusted for sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||The main treatment analyses were based on intention to treat approach||7.34|0.28|0.66
90858081|NCT02038452|181580842|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|3.18|||Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation for missing data was performed. Logistic regression adjusted for sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||The main treatment analyses were based on intention to treat approach||3.18|0.63|0.40
90858082|NCT02038452|181580843|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.99||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|5.66|||Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation for missing data was performed. Logistic regression adjusted for sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||The main treatment analyses were based on intention to treat approach||5.66|0.70|0.20
90904547|NCT05257837|181676288|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.745|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.745
91031820|NCT00440557|181948591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage of Participants|-5.5||||||95.0|-11.4|0.3||||||||0.3|-11.4|
90904548|NCT03639675|181676294|OTHER||Mean change|-8.3||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|-4.4|||one-sample t-statistics|||||-4.4|-12.2|0.0004
90904549|NCT05675709|181676296|SUPERIORITY|paired t-test||||||0.05|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.05
90904550|NCT05675709|181676297|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||generalized estimating equation (GEE)|||||||.05
90904551|NCT05675709|181676298|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||generalized estimating equation (GEE)|||||||.05
91031821|NCT00440557|181948592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage of Participants|-2.7||||||95.0|-14.2|8.7||||||||8.7|-14.2|
91031822|NCT00440557|181948592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage of Participants|-9.9||||||95.0|-21.7|1.8||||||||1.8|-21.7|
91031823|NCT00440557|181948593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage of Participants|2.6||||||95.0|-9.6|14.8||||||||14.8|-9.6|
91031824|NCT00440557|181948593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage of Participants|-3.0||||||95.0|-15.0|9.0||||||||9.0|-15.0|
91031825|NCT00440557|181948594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|0.03||||||95.0|-0.21|0.27|||ANOVA|||||0.270|-0.210|
91031826|NCT00440557|181948594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-0.07||||||95.0|-0.315|0.166|||ANOVA|||||0.166|-0.315|
91031827|NCT00440557|181948595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage of Participants|-8.8||||||95.0|-16.0|-1.9||||||||-1.9|-16|
91104583|NCT03253627|182095100|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||baseline||||0.460
91104584|NCT03253627|182095100|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.896|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||3 months||||0.896
91104585|NCT03253627|182095101|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.374|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||baseline||||0.374
90958759|NCT03386110|181797431|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio, log|1.79||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|3.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|Three-way interaction model testing whether baseline use (actor and partner) moderated the effect of condition on illicit drug use at 3-months||"Moderation analysis in 3-month follow-up data.~The hypothesis that baseline frequency may moderate the effects of treatment at 3-months was evaluated using models incorporating participants' baseline report of the outcome (actor) as well as their partners' report (partner) at Level 1. Interactions among actor and partner baseline scores and treatment condition were also included at Level 1. Additionally, the model controlled for the nesting of participants within couples."||3.09|0.49|0.007
91102481|NCT04128228|182091969|OTHER|"Single group: All individuals with alcohol use disorder received the same treatment.~Brain responses were examined at baseline in individuals with alcohol use disorder (AUD) with and without early trauma (AUD/ET, AUD/NT), as well as in moderate drinkers (MD) with and without early trauma (MD/ET, MD/NT)."|F value for the 2 X 2 Group Interaction|5.5|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||A 2 × 2 × 3 Linear Mixed Model was conducted with Early Trauma Group (ET, NT) and Drinking Group (AUD, MD) as between-subjects factors, and Condition (stress, alcohol, neutral) as the within-subjects factor.|Linear Mixed Model|||A regions of interest (ROI) analysis was conducted to evaluate brain activity in the right ventromedial prefrontal cortex (VmPFC, BA10), a region identified a priori. The VmPFC ROI was defined using the Yale-Brodmann atlas in the BioImage Suite application, from which the beta value for the VmPFC ROI was obtained for a Linear Mixed Model analysis.||||<0.05
91102482|NCT04128228|182091970|OTHER|Single group (all individuals with alcohol use disorder received the same treatment). Hormone responses were examined at baseline in individuals with alcohol use disorder (AUD) with and without early trauma (AUD/ET, AUD/NT), as well as in moderate drinkers (MD) with and without early trauma (MD/ET, MD/NT).|F value|4.79|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
90858083|NCT02038452|181580844|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.14||Participants with relevant outcomes reported on at least one follow-up time point were included in the analyses. Adjustment was made for baseline score, age, duration of symptoms, interaction term between treatment and follow-up.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.14|-0.53|0.001
90858084|NCT02038452|181580845|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.24||Participants with relevant outcomes reported on at least one follow-up time point were included in the analyses. Adjustment was made for baseline score, age, duration of symptoms, interaction term between treatment and follow-up.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.24|-0.17|0.74
90858085|NCT02038452|181580846|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.12||Participants with relevant outcomes reported on at least one follow-up time point were included in the analyses. Adjustment was made for baseline score, age, duration of symptoms, interaction term between treatment and follow-up.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.12|-0.30|0.41
90858086|NCT02038452|181580847|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.28||Participants with relevant outcomes reported on at least one follow-up time point were included in the analyses. Adjustment was made for baseline score, age, duration of symptoms, interaction term between treatment and follow-up.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.28|-0.16|0.58
90858087|NCT02038452|181580848|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.98||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|-0.24||Participants with relevant outcomes reported on at least one follow-up time point were included in the analyses. Adjustment was made for baseline score, age, duration of symptoms, interaction term between treatment and follow-up.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.24|-1.72|0.009
90858088|NCT02038452|181580849|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.76||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|1.54||Participants with relevant outcomes reported on at least one follow-up time point were included in the analyses. Adjustment was made for baseline score, age, duration of symptoms, interaction term between treatment and follow-up.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.54|-0.02|0.058
90858089|NCT02038452|181580850|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.85||Participants with relevant outcomes reported on at least one follow-up time point were included in the analyses. Adjustment was made for baseline score, age, duration of symptoms, interaction term between treatment and follow-up.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.85|-0.79|0.95
90858090|NCT02038452|181580851|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|1.26||Participants with relevant outcomes reported on at least one follow-up time point were included in the analyses. Adjustment was made for baseline score, age, duration of symptoms, interaction term between treatment and follow-up.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.26|-0.45|0.35
90858091|NCT02038452|181580852|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.19|||Regression, Linear|Complete case analysis as a sensitivity analysis was performed. Linear regression adjusted for baseline score, sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||||-0.19|-0.54|<0.001
90858092|NCT02038452|181580853|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.21|||Regression, Linear|Complete case analysis as a sensitivity analysis was performed. Linear regression adjusted for baseline score, sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||||-0.21|-0.59|<0.001
91102483|NCT04128228|182091971|OTHER|Single Group|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.95|||Regression, Cox|||||.95|.53|<0.05
90858093|NCT02038452|181580854|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.08|||Regression, Linear|Complete case analysis as a sensitivity analysis was performed. Linear regression adjusted for baseline score, sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||||-0.08|-0.44|0.005
90858094|NCT02038452|181580855|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.05||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|-0.38|||Regression, Linear|Complete case analysis as a sensitivity analysis was performed. Linear regression adjusted for baseline score, sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||||-0.38|-1.72|0.002
91031828|NCT00440557|181948595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage of Participants|-10.0||||||95.0|-18.0|-3.2||||||||-3.2|-18.0|
90858095|NCT02038452|181580856|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.35||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.74|||Regression, Logistic|Complete case analysis as a sensitivity analysis was performed. Logistic regression adjusted for baseline score, sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||||0.74|0.17|0.006
91102484|NCT04128228|182091972|OTHER|Single Group. All individuals with alcohol use disorder received the same treatment.|t value|-3.35|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
91102485|NCT04128228|182091973|OTHER|Single Group (All individuals with alcohol use disorder received the same treatment.)|t value|-2.6|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91104586|NCT03253627|182095101|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.236|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||6 months||||0.236
90904552|NCT01254565|181676311|SUPERIORITY|The primary endpoint was tested at the 0.05 level (1-sided).|LS Mean Difference|-76.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-86.9|-50.0|||ANOVA|A rank analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with treatment and screening PTH (\< 600 pg/mL or ≥ 600 pg/mL) as factors.||The hypothesis for this study (Cohorts 2 and 3) was that intravenous administration of etelcalcetide is superior to placebo for the reduction of PTH after TIW dosing in hemodialysis patients with secondary HPT. This hypothesis was tested in Cohorts 2 and 3 by comparing the mean percent changes from baseline in pre-hemodialysis PTH levels collected during the efficacy phase between the etelcalcetide and placebo groups within each cohort.||-50.0|-86.9|<0.0001
90958760|NCT03386110|181797431|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio, log|-0.36||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|1.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|Three-way interaction model testing whether baseline use (actor and partner) moderated the effect of condition on illicit drug use at 6-months||"Moderation analysis in 6-month follow-up data.~The hypothesis that baseline frequency may moderate the effects of treatment at 6-months was evaluated using models incorporating participants' baseline report of the outcome (actor) as well as their partners' report (partner) at Level 1. Interactions among actor and partner baseline scores and treatment condition were also included at Level 1. Additionally, the model controlled for the nesting of participants within couples."||1.53|-2.26|0.71
90958761|NCT03386110|181797432|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio, log|0.36||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|1.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model testing whether condition predicted CAS events at 3-months||Multi-level models tested whether treatment condition predicted outcome at 3-months, and controlled for the nesting of participants within couples.||1.37|-0.65|0.36
91031829|NCT01939197|181948596|NON_INFERIORITY|The primary efficacy endpoint was the non-inferiority of the percentage of participants in the GT1 Analysis Group in Part 2 achieving SVR12 compared to the historical SVR12 rate for sofosbuvir plus ribavirin (a non-inferiority threshold of the lower bound of the 95% CI of 74%).|||||||||||||||||"The historical SVR rate, as reported in the PHOTON-1 study, for sofosbuvir and RBV in HCV/HIV-1 coinfected adults is 76% (87/114) with a 95% confidence interval of (67%, 84%).~Reference: Sulkowski MS, Naggie S, Lalezari J, et al. Sofosbuvir and ribavirin for hepatitis C in patients with HIV coinfection. JAMA. 2014;312(4):353-61."|||
91102486|NCT01245049|182092026|NON_INFERIORITY|To assess the Non-inferiority of the Boostrix Polio Group compared to the Repevax Group in terms of booster response to diphtheria, standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the groups'difference \[Repevax Group minus Boostrix Polio Group\] was computed. Non-inferiority criterion: Upper limit of the 95% CI of the groups' difference in booster response rate ≤10%.|Percentage difference|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.55|3.14|||Standardized asymptotic|||Non-inferiority in terms of booster response to D||3.14|-3.55|
91104587|NCT03253627|182095102|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||baseline||||0.180
90858096|NCT02038452|181580857|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.24|||Regression, Linear|Complete case analysis as a sensitivity analysis was performed. Linear regression adjusted for baseline score, sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||||0.24|-0.13|0.58
90858097|NCT02038452|181580858|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.35|||Regression, Linear|Complete case analysis as a sensitivity analysis was performed. Linear regression adjusted for baseline score, sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||||0.35|-0.09|0.25
90858098|NCT02038452|181580859|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.18|||Regression, Linear|Complete case analysis as a sensitivity analysis was performed. Linear regression adjusted for baseline score, sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||||0.18|-0.17|0.93
90858099|NCT02038452|181580860|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|1.61|||Regression, Linear|Complete case analysis as a sensitivity analysis was performed. Linear regression adjusted for baseline score, sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||||1.61|-0.01|0.052
90858100|NCT02038452|181580861|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.88|||Regression, Logistic|Complete case analysis as a sensitivity analysis was performed. Logistic regression adjusted for baseline score, sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||||2.88|0.58|0.53
90958762|NCT03386110|181797432|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio, log|-0.18||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|0.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model testing whether condition predicted CAS events at 6-months||Multi-level models tested whether treatment condition predicted outcome at 6-months, and controlled for the nesting of participants within couples.||0.78|-1.15|0.63
90858101|NCT02038452|181580862|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|3.34|||Regression, Logistic|Complete case analysis as a sensitivity analysis was performed. Logistic regression adjusted for sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||||3.34|0.61|0.41
90858102|NCT02038452|181580864|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|3.06|||Regression, Logistic|Complete case analysis as a sensitivity analysis was performed. Logistic regression adjusted for sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||||3.06|0.57|0.52
90858103|NCT02038452|181580865|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.05||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|5.78|||Regression, Logistic|Complete case analysis as a sensitivity analysis was performed. Logistic regression adjusted for sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||||5.78|0.72|0.18
90858104|NCT02038452|181580866|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.18|||Regression, Linear|Per protocol analysis on complete date was performed. Linear regression adjusted for baseline score, sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||||-0.18|-0.55|<0.001
90858105|NCT02038452|181580867|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.19|||Regression, Linear|Per protocol analysis on complete date was performed. Linear regression adjusted for baseline score, sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||||-0.19|-0.59|<0.001
90958763|NCT03386110|181797432|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio, log|-0.54||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|0.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|Three-way interaction model testing whether baseline rates of CAS (actor and partner) moderated the effect of condition on CAS events at 3-months||"Moderation analysis in 3-month follow-up data.~The hypothesis that baseline frequency may moderate the effects of treatment at 3-months was evaluated using models incorporating participants' baseline report of the outcome (actor) as well as their partners' report (partner) at Level 1. Interactions among actor and partner baseline scores and treatment condition were also included at Level 1. Additionally, the model controlled for the nesting of participants within couples."||0.77|-1.85|0.42
91031830|NCT01939197|181948597|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
91104588|NCT03253627|182095102|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.822|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||6 months||||0.822
91104589|NCT03253627|182095103|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.715|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||baseline||||.715
91031831|NCT01939197|181948598|OTHER||||||||||||||||||"The Fisher exact test was performed as prespecified on the SAP but the p-value couldn't be calculated because SVR12 rates in both arms were 100%, hence p-value appeared as not available."|||
90858106|NCT02038452|181580868|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.09|||Regression, Linear|Per protocol analysis on complete date was performed. Linear regression adjusted for baseline score, sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||||-0.09|-0.46|0.003
90858107|NCT02038452|181580869|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.16||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|-0.48|||Regression, Linear|Per protocol analysis on complete date was performed. Linear regression adjusted for baseline score, sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||||-0.48|-1.85|0.001
90858108|NCT02038452|181580870|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.34||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.74|||Regression, Logistic|Per protocol analysis on complete date was performed. Logistic regression adjusted for baseline score, sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||||0.74|0.16|0.007
90858109|NCT02038452|181580871|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.25|||Regression, Linear|Per protocol analysis on complete date was performed. Linear regression adjusted for baseline score, sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||||0.25|-0.15|0.63
91031832|NCT04977336|181948610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3706|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3706
91031833|NCT04977336|181948610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5379|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.5379
90858110|NCT02038452|181580872|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.35|||Regression, Linear|Per protocol analysis on complete date was performed. Linear regression adjusted for baseline score, sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||||0.35|-0.10|0.28
91031834|NCT04977336|181948610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3859|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3859
91031835|NCT04977336|181948610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0251|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0251
91031836|NCT04977336|181948611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2318|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2318
91031837|NCT04977336|181948611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7615|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.7615
91031838|NCT04977336|181948611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.387|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3870
90858111|NCT02038452|181580873|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.2|||Regression, Linear|Per protocol analysis on complete date was performed. Linear regression adjusted for baseline score, sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||||0.20|-0.18|0.900
90858112|NCT02038452|181580874|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.74||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|1.59|||Regression, Linear|Per protocol analysis on complete date was performed. Linear regression adjusted for baseline score, sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||||1.59|-0.11|0.09
90858113|NCT02038452|181580875|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|2.85|||Regression, Logistic|Per protocol analysis on complete date was performed. Logistic regression adjusted for baseline score, sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||||2.85|0.56|0.58
90858114|NCT02038452|181580876|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|3.01|||Regression, Logistic|Per protocol analysis on complete date was performed. Logistic regression adjusted for sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||||3.01|0.57|0.52
90858115|NCT02038452|181580878|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|2.95|||Regression, Logistic|Per protocol analysis on complete date was performed. Logistic regression adjusted for sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||||2.95|0.53|0.61
90858116|NCT02038452|181580879|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.24||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|6.58|||Regression, Logistic|Per protocol analysis on complete date was performed. Logistic regression adjusted for sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||||6.58|0.77|0.14
90858117|NCT02038452|181580880|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|-0.12|||Regression, Linear|Sub group analysis on complete data was performed. Linear regression adjusted for baseline score, sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||||-0.12|-0.93|0.014
90858118|NCT02038452|181580881|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.26|||Regression, Linear|Sub group analysis on complete data was performed. Linear regression adjusted for baseline score, sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||||0.26|-0.50|0.53
90858119|NCT02038452|181580882|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.05|||Regression, Linear|Sub group analysis on complete data was performed. Linear regression adjusted for baseline score, sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||||-0.05|-0.44|0.015
90858120|NCT02038452|181580883|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.23|||Regression, Linear|Sub group analysis on complete data was performed. Linear regression adjusted for baseline score, sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||||-0.23|-0.97|0.002
90858121|NCT02038452|181580884|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.16|||Regression, Linear|Sub group analysis on complete data was performed. Linear regression adjusted for baseline score, sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||||0.16|-0.60|0.25
90858122|NCT02038452|181580885|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-94.57|145.59|||Regression, Linear|Comparison of outcome between treatment groups performed on multiply imputed data||||145.59|-94.57|
90858123|NCT02038452|181580886|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|47.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-104.84|187.31|||Regression, Linear|Comparison of outcome between treatment groups on complete data.||||187.31|-104.84|
90858124|NCT02038452|181580887|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|113.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.09|279.21|||Regression, Linear|Comparison of outcome between treatment groups||||279.21|-37.09|
90904553|NCT01254565|181676311|SUPERIORITY|The primary endpoint was tested at the 0.05 level (1-sided).|LS Mean Difference|-36.7||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.8|-13.6|||ANOVA|ANOVA model with treatment and screening PTH (\< 600 pg/mL or ≥ 600 pg/mL) as factors.||The hypothesis for this study (Cohorts 2 and 3) was that intravenous administration of etelcalcetide is superior to placebo for the reduction of PTH after TIW dosing in hemodialysis patients with secondary HPT. This hypothesis was tested in Cohorts 2 and 3 by comparing the mean percent changes from baseline in pre-hemodialysis PTH levels collected during the efficacy phase between the etelcalcetide and placebo groups within each cohort.||-13.6|-59.8|0.0032
90904554|NCT01254565|181676312|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
91031839|NCT04977336|181948611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0823|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0823
90858125|NCT02038452|181580888|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|71.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-120.84|291.24|||Regression, Linear|Comparison of outcome between treatment groups||||291.24|-120.84|
90858126|NCT02038452|181580889|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.008|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.02|||Regression, Linear|||||0.02|-0.01|
90858127|NCT02038452|181580890|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.003|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.034|0.027|||Regression, Linear|||||0.027|-0.034|
90858128|NCT02038452|181580891|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.022|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.093|0.045|||Regression, Linear|||||0.045|-0.093|
90858129|NCT01842815|181580892|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0077||||||The value looked at for statistical significance is if p\<.05.|t-test, 2 sided|t-tailed, paired t-test||This t-test is to test the statistical significance of the right side of the tattoo clearance vs. the left side of the tattoo clearance. It tests if there is a difference between the tattoo being treated twice per visit (right side) vs. being treated once per visit (left side).||||.0077
90858130|NCT01842815|181580893|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.00012||||||The value looked at for statistical significance is if p\<.05.|t-test, 2 sided|t-tailed, paired t-test||This t-test is to test the statistical significance of the right side of the tattoo clearance vs. the left side of the tattoo clearance. It tests if there is a difference between the tattoo being treated twice per visit (right side) vs. being treated once per visit (left side).||||.00012
90858131|NCT01842815|181580894|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0034||||||The value looked at for statistical significance is if p\<.05.|t-test, 2 sided|t-tailed, paired t-test||This t-test is to test the statistical significance of the right side of the tattoo clearance vs. the left side of the tattoo clearance. It tests if there is a difference between the tattoo being treated twice per visit (right side) vs. being treated once per visit (left side).||||.0034
90858132|NCT01278160|181580899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||||95.0|-0.24|0.22|||ANCOVA|The estimates were from a normal linear regression model with treatment and previous insulin as factors, and baseline value as a covariate.||The null hypothesis is H0: μBIAsp 30 (2:1) - μBIAsp 30 (1:1) = 0 against the alternative hypothesis HA: μBIAsp 30 (2:1) - μBIAsp 30 (1:1) ≠ 0. This trial is an extension to BIAsp-3756 (NCT01123980), hence no particular sample size calculation was made.||0.22|-0.24|
90904555|NCT01254565|181676312|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0968|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0968
90904556|NCT01254565|181676313|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
91031840|NCT04977336|181948612|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9986|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.9986
91102487|NCT01245049|182092026|NON_INFERIORITY|To assess the Non-inferiority of the Boostrix Polio Group compared to the Repevax Group in terms of booster response to tetanus, standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the groups' difference \[Repevax Group minus Boostrix Polio Group\] was computed. Non-inferiority criterion: Upper limit of the 95% CI of the groups' difference in booster response rate ≤10%.|Percentage difference|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.43|4.9||||||Non-inferiority in terms of booster response to T||4.9|-2.43|
91102488|NCT01245049|182092028|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of the corresponding objective: Upper limit (UL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) on the GMT ratio for the groups' (Repevax Group divided by Boostrix-Polio Group) was lower than or equal to (≤) 2.|Difference in adjusted GMT ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.28|||ANCOVA|||Immune response difference to anti-Polio 1 antigen||1.28|0.65|
90858133|NCT01278160|181580900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mixed models analysis|0.2||||0.2569||95.0|-0.15|0.56||P-value for parallelism was overall test for parallel time profiles between treatment groups, i.e. time by treatment group interaction effect.|Mixed Models Analysis||Confidence interval is before breakfast profile|A mixed effect model was fitted to the 9-point SMPG profile data. The model included treatment, time, interaction between treatment and time and previous therapy (BIAsp 30 OD/insulin glargine OD) as factors and subject as random effect. From the model, mean profile by treatment and relevant treatment differences was estimated and explored.||0.56|-0.15|0.2569
90858134|NCT01278160|181580900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mixed models analysis|0.09||||0.812||95.0|-0.63|0.8||P-value for parallelism was overall test for parallel time profiles between treatment groups, i.e. time by treatment group interaction effect.|Mixed Models Analysis||Confidence interval is two hours after breakfast profile|A mixed effect model was fitted to the 9-point SMPG profile data. The model included treatment, time, interaction between treatment and time and previous therapy (BIAsp-30 once daily (OD)/insulin glargine OD) as factors and subject as random effect. From the model, mean profile by treatment and relevant treatment differences was estimated and explored.||0.80|-0.63|0.8120
90858135|NCT01278160|181580900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mixed model analysis|0.35||||0.2843||95.0|-0.29|0.99||P-value for parallelism was overall test for parallel time profiles between treatment groups, i.e. time by treatment group interaction effect.|Mixed Models Analysis||Confidence interval is before lunch profile|A mixed effect model was fitted to the 9-point SMPG profile data. The model included treatment, time, interaction between treatment and time and previous therapy (BIAsp-30 once daily (OD)/insulin glargine OD) as factors and subject as random effect. From the model, mean profile by treatment and relevant treatment differences was estimated and explored.||0.99|-0.29|0.2843
90858136|NCT01278160|181580900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mixed model analysis|0.3||||0.4614||95.0|-0.5|1.11||P-value for parallelism was overall test for parallel time profiles between treatment groups, i.e. time by treatment group interaction effect.|Mixed Models Analysis||Confidence interval is two hours after lunch profile|A mixed effect model was fitted to the 9-point SMPG profile data. The model included treatment, time, interaction between treatment and time and previous therapy (BIAsp-30 once daily (OD)/insulin glargine OD) as factors and subject as random effect. From the model, mean profile by treatment and relevant treatment differences was estimated and explored.||1.11|-0.50|0.4614
90858137|NCT01278160|181580900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mixed model analysis|0.44||||0.1591||95.0|-0.17|1.04||P-value for parallelism was overall test for parallel time profiles between treatment groups, i.e. time by treatment group interaction effect.|Mixed Models Analysis||Confidence interval is before dinner profile|A mixed effect model was fitted to the 9-point SMPG profile data. The model included treatment, time, interaction between treatment and time and previous therapy (BIAsp-30 once daily (OD)/insulin glargine OD) as factors and subject as random effect. From the model, mean profile by treatment and relevant treatment differences was estimated and explored.||1.04|-0.17|0.1591
90858138|NCT01278160|181580900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mixed model analysis|0.03||||0.9327||95.0|-0.63|0.69||P-value for parallelism was overall test for parallel time profiles between treatment groups, i.e. time by treatment group interaction effect.|Mixed Models Analysis||Confidence interval is two hours after dinner profile|A mixed effect model was fitted to the 9-point SMPG profile data. The model included treatment, time, interaction between treatment and time and previous therapy (BIAsp-30 once daily (OD)/insulin glargine OD) as factors and subject as random effect. From the model, mean profile by treatment and relevant treatment differences was estimated and explored.||0.69|-0.63|0.9327
90858139|NCT01278160|181580900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mixed model analysis|-0.25||||0.4063||95.0|-0.84|0.34||P-value for parallelism was overall test for parallel time profiles between treatment groups, i.e. time by treatment group interaction effect.|Mixed Models Analysis||Confidence interval is bedtime profile|A mixed effect model was fitted to the 9-point SMPG profile data. The model included treatment, time, interaction between treatment and time and previous therapy (BIAsp-30 once daily (OD)/insulin glargine OD) as factors and subject as random effect. From the model, mean profile by treatment and relevant treatment differences was estimated and explored.||0.34|-0.84|0.4063
90904557|NCT01254565|181676313|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.073|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0730
91031841|NCT04977336|181948612|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4446|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4446
91031842|NCT04977336|181948612|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5978|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.5978
91031843|NCT04977336|181948612|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0479|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0479
91031844|NCT04977336|181948613|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9895|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.9895
91102489|NCT01245049|182092028|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of the corresponding objective: UL of the 95% CI on the GMT ratio for the groups' (Repevax Group divided by Boostrix-Polio Group) ≤ 2.|Difference in adjusted GMT ratio|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.12|||ANCOVA|||Immune response difference to anti-Polio 2 antigen||1.12|0.54|
91102490|NCT01245049|182092028|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of the corresponding objective: UL of the 95% CI on the GMT ratio for the groups' (Repevax Group divided by Boostrix-Polio Group) ≤ 2.|Difference in adjusted GMT ratio|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.84|||ANCOVA|||Immune response difference to anti-Polio 3 antigen||1.84|0.93|
91104590|NCT03253627|182095103|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.861|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||3 months||||0.861
91104591|NCT03253627|182095103|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||6 months||||.790
91104592|NCT03253627|182095104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.452|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||baseline||||0.452
91104593|NCT03253627|182095104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.253|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||3 months||||0.253
91104594|NCT03253627|182095104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.469|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||6 months||||0.469
91104595|NCT03253627|182095105|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.628|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||baseline||||0.628
90904558|NCT01254565|181676314|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-11.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|-8.4|||ANOVA|A rank ANOVA model with treatment and screening PTH (\< 600 or ≥ 600 pg/mL) as factors.||||-8.4|-16.4|< 0.0001
90904559|NCT01254565|181676314|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.9||||0.0235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|-1.0|||ANOVA|ANOVA model with treatment and screening PTH (\< 600 or ≥ 600 pg/mL) as factors.||||-1.0|-12.8|0.0235
90904560|NCT01254565|181676315|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.2||||0.2255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.6|5.7|||ANOVA|A rank ANOVA model with treatment and screening PTH (\< 600 or ≥ 600 pg/mL) as factors.||||5.7|-18.6|0.2255
90904561|NCT01254565|181676315|SUPERIORITY||LS mean Difference|-21.8||||0.1751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.8|5.9|||ANOVA|A rank ANOVA model with treatment and screening PTH (\< 600 or ≥ 600 pg/mL) as factors.||||5.9|-29.8|0.1751
90904562|NCT01254565|181676316|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-11.2||||0.0112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.8|-4.9|||ANOVA|A rank ANOVA model with treatment and screening PTH (\< 600 or ≥ 600 pg/mL) as factors.||||-4.9|-26.8|0.0112
90904563|NCT01254565|181676316|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-27.7||||0.0554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.3|-1.6|||ANOVA|A rank ANOVA model with treatment and screening PTH (\< 600 or ≥ 600 pg/mL) as factors.||||-1.6|-39.3|0.0554
90904564|NCT03354637|181676346|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.707||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|27.0||All statistical testing was two-sided and performed using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Since this was the first multicenter study evaluating the effect of ATI-50002 Topical Solution in subjects with stable patchy alopecia areata, the sample size was based upon feasibility issues rather than a formal power calculation. Planned data from 120 subjects, utilizing LOCF for missing data, provides 80% power to detect a 24-point difference in percent change from baseline in SALT score between any two treatment groups. This power computation is based upon assumed standard deviation of 38%.||27.00|0.77|0.038
90904565|NCT03354637|181676346|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.784||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|22.55||All statistical testing was two-sided and performed using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Since this was the first multicenter study evaluating the effect of ATI-50002 Topical Solution in subjects with stable patchy alopecia areata, the sample size was based upon feasibility issues rather than a formal power calculation. Planned data from 120 subjects, utilizing LOCF for missing data, provides 80% power to detect a 24-point difference in percent change from baseline in SALT score between any two treatment groups. This power computation is based upon assumed standard deviation of 38%.||22.55|-3.90|0.166
90904566|NCT03354637|181676347|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.511||0.302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.97|19.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||19.17|-5.97|0.302
91031845|NCT04977336|181948613|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2731|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2731
91031846|NCT04977336|181948613|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6492|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.6492
90904567|NCT03354637|181676347|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.584||0.616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.44|15.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||15.90|-9.44|0.616
90904568|NCT03354637|181676348|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.074||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|10.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||10.30|-1.26|0.125
90904569|NCT03354637|181676348|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.107||0.234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|9.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.36|-2.30|0.234
90904570|NCT03354637|181676349|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.131||0.607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.39|7.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.49|-4.39|0.607
90904571|NCT03354637|181676349|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.165||0.981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.06|5.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.92|-6.06|0.981
90904572|NCT03354637|181676350|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|4.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.6|0.4|0.620
90904573|NCT03354637|181676350|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|5.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.8|0.5|0.366
90904574|NCT03354637|181676351|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.1||||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.3|0.0|0.157
90904575|NCT03354637|181676351|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4||||0.353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.8|0.1|0.353
90904576|NCT03354637|181676352|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|5.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.4|0.6|0.333
90904577|NCT03354637|181676352|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|5.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.2|0.5|0.388
90904578|NCT03354637|181676353|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.8|0.3|0.435
90904579|NCT03354637|181676353|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.7|0.2|0.370
90904580|NCT03354637|181676354|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|5.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.4|0.6|0.333
91031847|NCT04977336|181948613|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5119|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.5119
90904581|NCT03354637|181676354|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|5.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.2|0.5|0.388
90904582|NCT03354637|181676355|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.505|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.505
90904583|NCT03354637|181676355|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.359|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.359
90904584|NCT03354637|181676356|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.602|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.602
90904585|NCT03354637|181676356|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.643|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.643
90904586|NCT03354637|181676357|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.992|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.992
90904587|NCT03354637|181676357|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.257|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.257
90904588|NCT03354637|181676359|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.374|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.374
91031848|NCT04977336|181948614|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3158|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3158
91031849|NCT04977336|181948614|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3247|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3247
91031850|NCT04977336|181948614|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8424|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.8424
91031851|NCT04977336|181948614|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2312|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2312
91102491|NCT02151604|182092060|OTHER||Pearson's coefficient|-0.57||||0.041|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation analysis|||Correlation with field of irradiation||||0.041
91104596|NCT03253627|182095105|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.345|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||3 months||||0.345
91104597|NCT03253627|182095105|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.384|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||6 months||||0.384
90858140|NCT01278160|181580900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mixed model analysis|0.3||||0.2198||95.0|-0.18|0.79||P-value for parallelism was overall test for parallel time profiles between treatment groups, i.e. time by treatment group interaction effect.|Mixed Models Analysis||Confidence interval is 2.00 - 4.00 a.m. profile|A mixed effect model was fitted to the 9-point SMPG profile data. The model included treatment, time, interaction between treatment and time and previous therapy (BIAsp-30 once daily (OD)/insulin glargine OD) as factors and subject as random effect. From the model, mean profile by treatment and relevant treatment differences was estimated and explored.||0.79|-0.18|0.2198
90858141|NCT01278160|181580900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mixed model analysis|-0.04||||0.8424||95.0|-0.47|0.38|||Mixed Models Analysis||Confidence interval is before breakfast the following day profile|A mixed effect model was fitted to the 9-point SMPG profile data. The model included treatment, time, interaction between treatment and time and previous therapy (BIAsp-30 once daily (OD)/insulin glargine OD) as factors and subject as random effect. From the model, mean profile by treatment and relevant treatment differences was estimated and explored.||0.38|-0.47|0.8424
90858142|NCT01278160|181580901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.7312||95.0|0.36|2.06|||Regression, Logistic||The odds ratio and 95% confidence interval for the HbA1c below 7% treatment target were included.|Responder analyses were based on logistics regression model using treatment and previous therapy (BIAsp 30 OD or insulin glargine OD) as factors and baseline HbA1c as covariate.||2.06|0.36|0.7312
90858143|NCT01278160|181580902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.27||||0.1257||95.0|0.05|1.44|||Regression, Logistic|The estimates were from a normal linear regression model with treatment and previous insulin as factors, and baseline value as a covariate|The odds ratio and 95% confidence interval for the HbA1c below or equal to 6.5% treatment target were included.|Responder analyses were based on logistics regression model using treatment and previous therapy (BIAsp 30 OD or insulin glargine OD) as factors and baseline HbA1c as covariate.||1.44|0.05|0.1257
90858144|NCT01278160|181580903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.72||||0.1911||95.0|0.43|1.18|||Negative binomial regression model||For all episodes.|The number of hypos was analysed using a negative binomial regression model with a log-link function and the logarithm of the time period in which a hypo is considered emergent as offset. The model included treatment and previous therapy (BIAsp 30 OD/insulin glargine OD) as factors. The rate ratio was estimated and 95% confidence intervals were calculated accordingly.||1.18|0.43|0.1911
90858145|NCT01278160|181580903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|1.61||||0.2949||95.0|0.66|3.92|||Negative binomial regression model||For nocturnal episodes.|The number of hypos was analysed using a negative binomial regression model with a log-link function and the logarithm of the time period in which a hypo is considered emergent as offset. The model included treatment and previous therapy (BIAsp 30 OD/insulin glargine OD) as factors. The rate ratio was estimated and 95% confidence intervals were calculated accordingly.||3.92|0.66|0.2949
90858146|NCT01278160|181580903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.63||||0.077||95.0|0.38|1.05|||Negative binomial regression model||For diurnal episodes.|The number of hypos was analysed using a negative binomial regression model with a log-link function and the logarithm of the time period in which a hypo is considered emergent as offset. The model included treatment and previous therapy (BIAsp 30 OD/insulin glargine OD) as factors. The rate ratio was estimated and 95% confidence intervals were calculated accordingly.||1.05|0.38|0.0770
90858147|NCT01278160|181580903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.56||||0.1687||95.0|0.25|1.27|||Negative binomial regression model||For minor episodes.|The number of hypos was analysed using a negative binomial regression model with a log-link function and the logarithm of the time period in which a hypo is considered emergent as offset. The model included treatment and previous therapy (BIAsp 30 OD/insulin glargine OD) as factors. The rate ratio was estimated and 95% confidence intervals were calculated accordingly.||1.27|0.25|0.1687
90858148|NCT02979197|181580907|NON_INFERIORITY|A two-sample t-test was used to test the one-sided hypothesis that treatment with Amlodipine+Celecoxib (arm 1) was non-inferior to half of the effect achieved with Amlodipine+Placebo (arm 2). The primary efficacy endpoint was considered met if the lower limits of the 97.5% one-side confidence interval (CI) for the difference in SBPday change in arm 1 and 50% of the mean change in arm 2 was less than 0.||||||0.024|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||LOCF method was used. Primary efficacy analysis was based on the difference between the Amlodipine+Celecoxib and Amlodipine+Placebo (arms 1 and 2, respectively) in the mean change in SBPday from Baseline to final (Day 13), where a subject completed the 14-day treatment plan, or to Day 6, where a subject was withdrawn from treatment before the Day 13 dose but after the Day 6 dose, or to baseline, where a subject was withdrawn before the Day 6 dose.||||0.024
90858149|NCT02979197|181580908|OTHER|ANOVA F-test was used to compare the mean changes in body weight from baseline to end of treatment among the three treatment arms. The omni-bus test was to conclude if any differences existed.||||||0.006|||||||ANOVA|||A serial gatekeeping strategy was used for secondary efficacy analyses. If, and only if, statistical significance was achieved for the primary endpoint (SBPday), a secondary hierarchical analysis was to be used to evaluate secondary efficacy endpoints and was only to proceed from one to the next if the alpha was met for the prior; if the alpha was not met, analysis was performed for informational purposes only. Mean change in body weight was the 1st of the four secondary efficacy endpoints.||||0.006
90858150|NCT02979197|181580909|SUPERIORITY|A two-sample t-test for superiority was used to test the one-sided hypothesis that treatment with Amlodipine+Celecoxib lowered SBP24h to a greater degree than Amlodipine+Placebo.||||||0.826|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A serial gatekeeping strategy was used for secondary efficacy analyses. If, and only if, statistical significance was achieved for the primary endpoint (SBPday), a secondary hierarchical analysis was to be used to evaluate secondary efficacy endpoints and was only to proceed from one to the next if the alpha was met for the prior; if the alpha was not met, analysis was performed for informational purposes only. Mean change in SBP24h was the 2nd of the four secondary efficacy endpoints.||||0.826
90904589|NCT03354637|181676359|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.253|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.253
90904590|NCT03354637|181676361|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.102|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.102
90904591|NCT03354637|181676361|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.859|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.859
90904592|NCT03354637|181676362|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.481|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.481
90904593|NCT03354637|181676362|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.357|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.357
90904594|NCT03123263|181676400|OTHER|Repeated measures one sided ANOVA was used to analyze changes in ejection fraction over time.|||||<|0.0005|||||||ANOVA|F (2,98) =13.974||||||<0.0005
90904595|NCT02971891|181676460|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1789|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1789
91102492|NCT02151604|182092062|OTHER||Pearson's coefficient|0.6||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient: 0.60|Pearson's Correlation Analysis|0.60||Correlation of change in ventilation signal with that of alveolar volume (VA)||||0.037
90858151|NCT02979197|181580910|SUPERIORITY|A two-sample t-test for superiority was used to test the one-sided hypothesis that treatment with Amlodipine+Celecoxib lowered DBP24h to a greater degree than Amlodipine+Placebo.||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A serial gatekeeping strategy was used for secondary efficacy analyses. If, and only if, statistical significance was achieved for the primary endpoint (SBPday), a secondary hierarchical analysis was to be used to evaluate secondary efficacy endpoints and was only to proceed from one to the next if the alpha was met for the prior; if the alpha was not met, analysis was performed for informational purposes only. Mean change in DBP24h was the 3rd of the 4 secondary efficacy endpoints.||||0.500
90858152|NCT02979197|181580911|SUPERIORITY|A two-sample t-test for superiority was used to test the one-sided hypothesis that treatment with Amlodipine+Celecoxib improved creatinine clearance to a greater degree than Amlodipine+Placebo.||||||0.668|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A serial gatekeeping strategy was used for secondary efficacy analyses. If, and only if, statistical significance was achieved for the primary endpoint (SBPday), a secondary hierarchical analysis was to be used to evaluate secondary efficacy endpoints and was only to proceed from one to the next if the alpha was met for the prior; if the alpha was not met, analysis was performed for informational purposes only. Mean change in creatinine clearance was the 4th of 4 secondary efficacy endpoints.||||0.668
90858153|NCT02979197|181580912|SUPERIORITY|Differences in the occurrence of TEAEs between treatment arms were evaluated using Chi-square test.||||||0.675|||||||Chi-squared|Computed on the number of subjects who had at least one TEAE.||||||0.675
90858154|NCT02979197|181580912|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.555|||||||Regression, Logistic|TEAE (1=at least one TEAE occurred for the subject; 0=otherwise) as dependent variable and treatment as fixed effect.||||||0.555
90858155|NCT02979197|181580913|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.226|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||For this analysis, all values below the limit of quantification were treated as 0.||||0.226
90858156|NCT02979197|181580914|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.215|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||For this analysis, all values below the limit of quantification (BLQ) were treated as 0.04 ng/mL. Assignment of BLQ values to a nonzero number allowed computation of the log transformation. The selection of 0.04 ng/mL was based on the lower limit of quantification of the validated bioanalytical method (0.05 ng/mL) and selecting the next lowest number at the hundredth decimal place.||||0.215
90858157|NCT02979197|181580915|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted mean = -3.48 μmol/L; 95% confidence interval = -5.4 to -1.6||Renal function was analyzed by evaluating the decreases in serum creatinine from baseline to Day 14 for each treatment arm and between treatment arms by ANCOVA. This analysis was for the Amlodipine+Celecoxib arm from baseline to Day 14.||||0.0005
90858158|NCT02979197|181580915|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.075|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted mean = -1.72 μmol/L; 95% confidence interval = -3.6 to 0.2||Renal function was analyzed by evaluating the decreases in serum creatinine from baseline to Day 14 for each treatment arm and between treatment arms by ANCOVA. This analysis was for the Amlodipine+Placebo arm from baseline to Day 14.||||0.0750
90858159|NCT02979197|181580915|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4184|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted mean = -1.92 μmol/L; 95% confidence interval = -6.6 to 2.8||Renal function was analyzed by evaluating the decreases in serum creatinine from baseline to Day 14 for each treatment arm and between treatment arms by ANCOVA. This analysis was for the Placebo+Placebo arm from baseline to Day 14.||||0.4184
90858160|NCT02979197|181580915|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2022|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted mean = -1.76 μmol/L; 95% confidence interval = -4.5 to 1.0||Renal function was analyzed by evaluating the decreases in serum creatinine from baseline to Day 14 for each treatment arm and between treatment arms by ANCOVA. This analysis was for the comparison between the Amlodipine+Celecoxib and Amlodipine+Placebo arms.||||0.2022
90858161|NCT02979197|181580915|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.541|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted mean = -1.56 μmol/L; 95% confidence interval = -6.6 to 3.5||Renal function was analyzed by evaluating the decreases in serum creatinine from baseline to Day 14 for each treatment arm and between treatment arms by ANCOVA. This analysis was for the comparison between the Amlodipine+Celecoxib and Placebo+Placebo arms.||||0.5410
90858162|NCT02979197|181580915|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9397|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted mean = 0.19 μmol/L; 95% confidence interval = -4.9 to 5.2||Renal function was analyzed by evaluating the decreases in serum creatinine from baseline to Day 14 for each treatment arm and between treatment arms by ANCOVA. This analysis was for the comparison between the Amlodipine+Placebo and Placebo+Placebo arms.||||0.9397
90858163|NCT02435069|181580917|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.069751||||||significance level set at \<0.05 a priori|two-sample pooled variance t-test|Two-tailed||"Inferential statistical analysis was accomplished using a two-tailed, two-sample pooled variance t test with a significance level set at 0.05. and calculated on the data from the last day of the completed NS and USP Glycerin phases of the study.~Power analysis conducted using data from this study with α = 0.5, power of .80, correlation between two means of .598, and effect size of 1.554 estimated a sample size of 11 would be needed to minimize the risk of a Type II error to (20%)."||||0.069751
90858164|NCT02435069|181580918|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.172|||||||two-sample pooled variance t-test|two tailed||Inferential statistical analysis was accomplished using a two-tailed, two-sample pooled variance t test with a significance level set at 0.05. and calculated on the data from the last day of the completed NS and USP Glycerin phases of the study.||||0.172
90905118|NCT02886728|181677440|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-11.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|-8.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-8.0|-13.0|<0.001
91102493|NCT02151604|182092062|OTHER||Pearson's correlation coefficient|0.7||||0.012|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation analysis|Pearson's correlation coefficient: 0.70||Correlation of change in ventilation signal with that of diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide(TLCO)||||0.012
91102494|NCT02151604|182092062|OTHER||Pearson's correlation coefficient|-0.85||||0.032|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation analysis|R = -0.85||Correlation of change in ventilation signal with that of residual volume (RV)||||0.032
91102495|NCT02151604|182092062|OTHER||Pearson's correlation coefficient|-0.95||||0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation analysis|R = -0.95||Correlation of change in ventilation signal with that of functional residual capacity (FRC)||||0.004
91102496|NCT02151604|182092062|OTHER||Pearson's correlation coefficient|-0.88||||0.012|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation analysis|Pearson's correlation coefficient = -0.88||Correlation of change in ventilation signal with that of inspiratory capacity(IC)||||0.012
91102497|NCT00561821|182092073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91102498|NCT00561821|182092073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91102499|NCT00561821|182092073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91102500|NCT00561821|182092074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0146||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.0146
91102501|NCT00561821|182092074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0234||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.0234
91102502|NCT00561821|182092074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0102||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.0102
91102503|NCT00561821|182092075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91102504|NCT00561821|182092075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91102505|NCT00561821|182092075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
90904596|NCT01232556|181676567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.083||||0.708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.44||A one sided 0.025 level testing plan was specified with two interim analyses and final testing level at one-sided 0.023.|Log Rank|From one sided stratified log-rank test.|From stratified Cox proportional hazards model. The stratification factors are are pre-randomization investigator choice, baseline Secondary International Prognostic Index (sIPI), and best response to most recent chemo therapy.|Primary null hypothesis: Equality of survival distributions. Sample size sufficient to have power 0.96 for an experimental/control hazard ratio of 0.6.||1.44|0.82|0.708
91102506|NCT00561821|182092076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.001
91102507|NCT00561821|182092076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0213||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.0213
91102508|NCT00561821|182092076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0135||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.0135
91104598|NCT03253627|182095106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.398|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||baseline||||.398
91104599|NCT03253627|182095106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.811|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||3 months||||0.811
91104600|NCT03253627|182095106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||6 months||||0.027
91104601|NCT03163667|182095182|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64||||0.07905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.2||One-sided p-value comparing the treatment groups was based on a stratified log-rank test with alternative hypothesis of survival functions being not equal.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio comparing treatment groups (experimental over control) is based on a Cox proportional hazards model. A hazard ratio \< 1 favors CB-839+Everolimus (CBE), and a hazard ratio \> 1 favors Placebo+Everolimus (PboE).|Stratified analysis. Stratification factors were Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) Prognostic Risk (favorable versus intermediate/poor risk) and number of prior therapies with a tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI; 1 versus \> 1). Due to stratification cells having \< 10 events, TKI stratification factor was removed for analysis.||1.20|0.34|0.07905
91104602|NCT03163667|182095182|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||0.1184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.28||One-sided p-value comparing the treatment groups was based on an unstratified log-rank test with alternative hypothesis of survival functions being not equal.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio comparing treatment groups (experimental over control) is based on a Cox proportional hazards model. A hazard ratio \< 1 favors CBE, and a hazard ratio \> 1 favors PboE.|Unstratified analysis||1.28|0.37|0.1184
91104603|NCT03163667|182095183|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.4801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.5||P-value comparing the treatment groups is based on a stratified log-rank test with alternative hypothesis of survival functions being not equal.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio based on a Cox proportional hazards model. A hazard ratio \< 1 favors CBE, and a hazard ratio \> 1 favors PboE.|Stratified analysis: Stratification factors are MSKCC Prognostic Risk (favorable vs intermediate/poor risk) and number of prior therapies with a TKI (1 vs \> 1). Due to stratification cells having \< 10 events, TKI stratification factor was removed for analysis.||1.50|0.42|0.4801
91104604|NCT03163667|182095183|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.5603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.56||P-value comparing the treatment groups is based on an unstratified log-rank test with alternative hypothesis of survival functions being not equal.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio comparing treatment groups (experimental over control) is based on a Cox proportional hazards model. A hazard ratio \< 1 favors CBE, and a hazard ratio \> 1 favors PboE.|Unstratified analysis||1.56|0.44|0.5603
91104605|NCT00855166|182095202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3885|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.84|-1.31||Significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided)|ANCOVA|with treatment group and stratum (gender) as effects and baseline value as covariate||H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-1.31|-2.84|<0.0001
91104606|NCT00855166|182095203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6162||0.0143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.74|-0.31||Significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Results of key secondary endpoints are interpreted using Hochberg's method|ANCOVA|with treatment group and stratum (gender) as effects and baseline value as covariate||H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-0.31|-2.74|0.0143
91104607|NCT00855166|182095204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3731||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|-0.74||Significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Results of key secondary endpoints are interpreted using Hochberg's method|ANCOVA|with treatment group and stratum (gender) as effects and baseline value as covariate||H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-0.74|-2.22|0.0001
91104608|NCT00855166|182095205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|26.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.309|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.9|36.7||Significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Results of key secondary endpoints are interpreted using Hochberg's method|Regression, Logistic|Based on methodology of Zhang, Tsiatis \& Davidian and Davidian, Tsiatis, Zhang \& Lu, with adjustment for baseline value and stratum (gender).||H0: proportion(treat) minus proportion(placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: proportion(treat) minus proportion(placebo) =/= 0||36.7|15.9|<0.0001
91104609|NCT00855166|182095206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5652||0.7013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|1.34||Exploratory. Model including fixed categorical effects of treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, gender and rescue medication as well as continuous fixed covariates of baseline measurement and baseline measurement-by-week interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Percent change in BMD from baseline to week 102 evaluated via longitudinal repeated measures analysis using direct likelihood.|Natural logarithms of baseline and week 102 values were used.|H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||1.34|-0.89|0.7013
90904597|NCT01232556|181676568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.924||||0.271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.19||An hierarchical testing strategy was specified for OS, PFS and response. PFS could be tested at the 0.023 level if the OS test result were positive. Response could be tested if both the OS and PFS test results were positive.|Log Rank|From one sided stratified log-rank test.|From stratified Cox proportional hazards model. The stratification factors are are pre-randomization investigator choice, baseline sIPI, and best response to most recent chemo therapy.|Second comparison in hierarchical testing strategy was used for power calculation.||1.19|0.72|0.271
90959025|NCT01620255|181798203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.156||||0.0326|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.022|0.29||1-sided p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|PF-00547659 75 mg vs placebo, locally read||0.290|0.022|0.0326
91102509|NCT00561821|182092077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.0001
91102510|NCT00561821|182092077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.0003
90858165|NCT02435069|181580921|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8028|||||||two-sample pooled variance t-test|two-sided||Inferential statistical analysis was accomplished using a two-tailed, two-sample pooled variance t test with a significance level set at 0.05. and calculated on the data from the difference in calprotectin levels between samples obtained at baseline and samples obtained following the completion of the NS and USP Glycerin flush in the dosing phase of the study.||||0.8028
90858166|NCT02435069|181580922|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.346594|||||||two-sample pooled variance t test|two tailed||Inferential statistical analysis was accomplished using a two-tailed, two-sample pooled variance t test with a significance level set at 0.05. and calculated on the data from the last day of the completed NS and USP Glycerin phases of the study.||||0.346594
90858167|NCT00932737|181580931|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.0156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.1|||Mixed effect model||The adjusted mean difference between Hyoscine butylbromide minus Placebo was calculated.|A model included fixed, categorical effects of treatment group, episode, interval and center, as well as the treatment-by-episode interaction, with the covariate of baseline intensity of Abdominal pain associated with cramping . An unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within-patient errors.||-0.1|-1.3|0.0156
90858168|NCT00932737|181580932|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.0512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.0|||Mixed effect model||The adjusted mean difference between Hyoscine butylbromide minus Placebo was calculated.|A model included fixed, categorical effects of treatment group, episode, interval and center, as well as the treatment-by-episode interaction, with the covariate of baseline intensity of Abdominal pain associated with cramping . An unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within-patient errors.||0.0|-1.2|0.0512
90858169|NCT00932737|181580933|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.0351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.0|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference between Hyoscine butylbromide minus Placebo was calculated.|The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was performed on the change from baseline to the last recorded rating of intensity for each treated episode of Abdominal pain associated with cramping (APC). The statistical model included the main effects of treatment, episode, and center as well as terms for the treatment-by-episode interaction, with baseline intensity of APC for the respective episode as a covariate.||0.0|-1.3|0.0351
90858170|NCT00932737|181580934|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.3557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.4|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference between Hyoscine butylbromide and Placebo was calculated.|The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was performed on the change from baseline to the last recorded rating of intensity for each treated episode of Abdominal pain associated with cramping (APC). The statistical model included the main effects of treatment, episode, and center as well as terms for the treatment-by-episode interaction, with baseline intensity of APC for the respective episode as a covariate.||0.4|-1.0|0.3557
90858171|NCT00932737|181580935|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.071||||0.831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.572|2.004|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression included the main effects of treatment group, episode, and center.||||2.004|0.572|0.831
90858172|NCT00932737|181580936|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.222||||0.557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.626|2.387|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression included the main effects of treatment group, episode, and center.||||2.387|0.626|0.557
90858173|NCT00932737|181580937|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.737||||0.396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.365|1.49|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression included the main effects of treatment group, episode, and center.||||1.490|0.365|0.396
90858174|NCT00932737|181580938|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.336||||0.448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.632|2.827|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression included the main effects of treatment group, episode, and center.||||2.827|0.632|0.448
90858175|NCT00932737|181580939|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.474||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.093|5.604|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression included the main effects of treatment group, episode, and center.||||5.604|1.093|0.030
90858176|NCT00932737|181580940|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.654||||0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|3.378|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression included the main effects of treatment group, episode, and center.||||3.378|0.810|0.167
90858177|NCT00932737|181580941|OTHER|||||||0.256|||||||Log Rank|Log rank test was used for comparison of Hyoscine butylbromide (Buscopan®) 20 mg group versus Placebo group.||||||0.2560
90858178|NCT00932737|181580942|OTHER|||||||0.5179|||||||Log Rank|Log rank test was used for comparison of Hyoscine butylbromide (Buscopan®) 20 mg group versus Placebo group.||||||0.5179
90858179|NCT01532973|181580952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|4.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.77|4.74||||||||4.74|3.77|
90858180|NCT01532973|181580952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|4.41|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.92|4.9||||||||4.90|3.92|
90858181|NCT01532973|181580952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|3.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.08|4.05||||||||4.05|3.08|
90858182|NCT01532973|181580953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.34|1.69||||||||1.69|0.34|
90858183|NCT01532973|181580953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|2.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.39|2.74||||||||2.74|1.39|
90858184|NCT01532973|181580953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|2.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.05|3.39||||||||3.39|2.05|
90858185|NCT01532973|181580954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.68|3.72||||||||3.72|2.68|
91102511|NCT00561821|182092077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91102512|NCT00561821|182092078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91102513|NCT00561821|182092078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
90858186|NCT01532973|181580954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|3.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.44|4.47||||||||4.47|3.44|
90858187|NCT01532973|181580955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|3.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.2|4.58||||||||4.58|3.20|
90858188|NCT01532973|181580955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|4.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.98|5.36||||||||5.36|3.98|
90858189|NCT01532973|181580955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|3.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.92|4.3||||||||4.30|2.92|
90858190|NCT01532973|181580956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.09|1.54||||||||1.54|-0.09|
90858191|NCT01532973|181580956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|2.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.75|3.39||||||||3.39|1.75|
90858192|NCT01532973|181580956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|2.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.02|3.66||||||||3.66|2.02|
90858193|NCT01532973|181580957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|3.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.55|3.8||||||||3.80|2.55|
90858194|NCT01532973|181580957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|3.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.0|4.26||||||||4.26|3.00|
90858195|NCT02452697|181580991|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.40
90858196|NCT00866788|181580999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1601||||||The p-value was based on the van Elteren test (stratified by baseline weight ≥ 80 or \< 80 kg).|van Elteren test|||||||0.1601
90858197|NCT00866788|181580999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003||||||The p-value was based on the van Elteren test (stratified by baseline weight ≥ 80 or \< 80 kg).|van Elteren test|||||||0.0003
90858198|NCT00866788|181580999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0473||||||The p-value was based on the van Elteren test (stratified by baseline weight ≥ 80 or \< 80 kg).|van Elteren test|||||||0.0473
90858199|NCT00866788|181581000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.164||||||The p-value was based on the van Elteren test (stratified by baseline weight ≥ 80 or \< 80 kg).|van Elteren test|||||||0.1640
90858200|NCT00866788|181581000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005||||||The p-value was based on the van Elteren test (stratified by baseline weight ≥ 80 or \< 80 kg).|van Elteren test|||||||0.0005
90858201|NCT00866788|181581000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0558||||||The p-value was based on the van Elteren test (stratified by baseline weight ≥ 80 or \< 80 kg).|van Elteren test|||||||0.0558
90858202|NCT00866788|181581001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1411||||||The p-value was based on the van Elteren test (stratified by baseline weight ≥ 80 or \< 80 kg).|van Elteren test|||||||0.1411
90858203|NCT00866788|181581001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003||||||The p-value was based on the van Elteren test (stratified by baseline weight ≥ 80 or \< 80 kg).|van Elteren test|||||||0.0003
90858204|NCT00866788|181581001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0248||||||The p-value was based on the van Elteren test (stratified by baseline weight ≥ 80 or \< 80 kg).|van Elteren test|||||||0.0248
90858205|NCT00866788|181581002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5507||||||The p-value was based on the van Elteren test (stratified by baseline weight ≥ 80 or \< 80 kg).|van Elteren test|||||||0.5507
90904598|NCT01232556|181676569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.843||||||An hierarchical testing strategy was specified for OS, PFS and response. PFS could be tested at the 0.023 level if the OS test result were positive. Response could be tested if both the OS and PFS test results were positive.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The stratification factors are pre-randomization investigator choice, baseline sIPI, and best response to most recent chemo therapy.||Third comparison in hierarchical testing strategy was used for power calculation.||||0.843
90858206|NCT00866788|181581002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1525||||||The p-value was based on the van Elteren test (stratified by baseline weight ≥ 80 or \< 80 kg).|van Elteren test|||||||0.1525
90858207|NCT00866788|181581002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0449||||||The p-value was based on the van Elteren test (stratified by baseline weight ≥ 80 or \< 80 kg).|van Elteren test|||||||0.0449
90858208|NCT00866788|181581003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7261||||||The p-value was based on the van Elteren test (stratified by baseline weight ≥ 80 or \< 80 kg).|van Elteren test|||||||0.7261
90858209|NCT00866788|181581003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.162||||||The p-value was based on the van Elteren test (stratified by baseline weight ≥ 80 or \< 80 kg).|van Elteren test|||||||0.162
90858210|NCT00866788|181581003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6504||||||The p-value was based on the van Elteren test (stratified by baseline weight ≥ 80 or \< 80 kg).|van Elteren test|||||||0.6504
90858211|NCT02349061|181581013|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.28||||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|7.63|||Regression, Logistic|||||7.63|1.41|0.0057
90858212|NCT02349061|181581014|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-1.36||||0.0929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.94|0.23|||Mixed model repeated measures model|||||0.23|-2.94|0.0929
90858213|NCT02349061|181581015|SUPERIORITY||LS Means Difference|-0.383||||0.3944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.271|0.506|||Mixed model repeated measures model|||||0.506|-1.271|0.3944
90858214|NCT02349061|181581016|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.9939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|2.34|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.34|0.43|0.9939
90858215|NCT02349061|181581017|SUPERIORITY||LS Means Difference|-2.17||||0.1032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.78|0.45|||Mixed model repeated measures model|||||0.45|-4.78|0.1032
90858216|NCT02339285|181581027|OTHER|F-test; Treatment effect|||||>|0.1|||||||ANOVA|F(2, 29)||"Null hypothesis: There is no difference baseline and the 4 week follow up in MADRS score between treatment groups.~Alternative hypothesis: There is a difference between baseline and the 4 week follow up MADRS score between treatment groups."||||>0.10
90858217|NCT02339285|181581027|OTHER|F-test; Session effect|||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|F(1, 31)||"Null hypothesis: There is no difference baseline and the 4 week follow up in MADRS score between treatment groups.~Alternative hypothesis: There is a difference between baseline and the 4 week follow up MADRS score between treatment groups."||||<0.001
90858218|NCT02339285|181581027|OTHER|F-test; Interaction effect (session x treatment)|||||>|0.1|||||||ANOVA|F(2,29)||||||>0.10
90858219|NCT02339285|181581028|OTHER|F-test; Condition effect|||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|F(2,21.595)||"Null hypothesis: There is no difference in changes of alpha frequency power between baseline EEG and EEG on Day 5 of Stimulation between treatment groups.~Alternative hypothesis: There is a difference in changes of alpha frequency power between baseline EEG and EEG on Day 5 of Stimulation between treatment groups."||||<0.05
90858220|NCT02339285|181581028|OTHER|F-test; Region effect (region defined as region of brain - frontal, parietal, occipital temporal)|||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|F(3, 79.358)||"Null hypothesis: There is no difference in changes of alpha frequency power between baseline EEG and EEG on Day 5 of Stimulation between treatment groups.~Alternative hypothesis: There is a difference in changes of alpha frequency power between baseline EEG and EEG on Day 5 of Stimulation between treatment groups."||||<0.001
91102514|NCT00561821|182092078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91102515|NCT00561821|182092079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91102516|NCT00561821|182092079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
90858221|NCT02339285|181581028|OTHER|F-test; Interaction effect (region x condition)|||||>|0.1|||||||ANOVA|F(6, 68.284)||"Null hypothesis: There is no difference in changes of alpha frequency power between baseline EEG and EEG on Day 5 of Stimulation between treatment groups.~Alternative hypothesis: There is a difference in changes of alpha frequency power between baseline EEG and EEG on Day 5 of Stimulation between treatment groups."||||>0.10
90858222|NCT02339285|181581029|OTHER||||||>|0.1|||||||ANOVA|||"Null hypothesis: There is no difference in changes of alpha frequency power between baseline EEG and EEG 4 weeks after completion of the intervention between treatment groups.~Alternative hypothesis: There is a difference in changes of alpha frequency power between baseline EEG and EEG 4 weeks after completion of the intervention between treatment groups."||||>0.10
90858223|NCT02053051|181581034|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.87
90858224|NCT00195273|181581039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6081||||||Calculated for 12 month analysis|ANOVA|Analysis of variance with treatment group and center as factors||||||0.6081
90858225|NCT00195273|181581042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4662|||||||ANOVA|Calculated for 3 month analysis||||||0.4662
90858226|NCT01051466|181581133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.457||95.0||||The significance level was 0.05 for a 2-sided test.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.457
90858227|NCT01051466|181581134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.627||||||The p-value is for change from baseline activation (BOLD response) in the anterior cingulate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.627
90858228|NCT01051466|181581134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.338||||||The p-value is for change from baseline activation (BOLD response) in the left amygdala.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.338
90858229|NCT01051466|181581134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.518||||||The p-value is for change from baseline activation (BOLD response) in the right amygdala.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.518
90858230|NCT01051466|181581135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||||||The p-value is for change from baseline volume in the subgenual anterior cingulate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.030
90858231|NCT01051466|181581135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.208||||||The p-value is for change from baseline volume in the left amygdalae.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.208
90858232|NCT01051466|181581135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031||||||The p-value is for change from baseline volume in the right amygdalae.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.031
90858233|NCT01051466|181581135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35||||||The p-value is for change from baseline volume in the left hippocampus.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.350
90858234|NCT01051466|181581135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.191||||||The p-value is for change from baseline volume in the right hippocampus.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.191
90858235|NCT01051466|181581136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.174||||||The p-value is for Gsα translocation in RBCs at Week 1.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.174
90858236|NCT01051466|181581136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.488||||||The p-value is for Gsα translocation in RBCs at Week 8.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.488
90858237|NCT01051466|181581136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48||||||The p-value is for Gsα translocation in RBCs at Week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.480
90858238|NCT01051466|181581136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.925||||||The p-value is for Gsα translocation in platelets at Week 1.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.925
90858239|NCT01051466|181581136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.697||||||The p-value is for Gsα translocation in platelets at Week 8.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.697
90858240|NCT01051466|181581136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.276||||||The p-value is for Gsα translocation in platelets at Week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.276
90858241|NCT01051466|181581138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.904||||||The p-value is for change from baseline BDNF.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.904
90858242|NCT01051466|181581138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.819||||||The p-value is for change from baseline proBDNF.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.819
90858243|NCT01051466|181581139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.273||||||The p-value is for change from baseline trkB.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.273
90858244|NCT01051466|181581140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.797||||||The p-value is for change from baseline cytokine TNFα.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.797
90858245|NCT01051466|181581140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.269||||||The p-value is for change from baseline cytokine IL-1.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.269
90858246|NCT01051466|181581140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.925||||||The p-value is for change from baseline cytokine IL-6.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.925
90858247|NCT00810108|181581149|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The geometric mean and 90% confidence interval assessed whether the crushed and whole tablet administration AUCs were equivalent.|Ratio of Crushed/Whole Tablet AUC|0.55|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.45|0.69|||t-test, 2 sided|||Lopinavir AUC was compared between whole tablet and crushed tablet administration by using a ratio of crushed/whole AUC.||0.69|0.45|<0.05
90858248|NCT03793556|181581154|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.27||0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.03|2.04|||Unpaired t test|||||2.04|-7.03|0.276
90858249|NCT03793556|181581155|OTHER|||||||0.0157|||||||ANOVA|The ANOVA model examined the entire curve profile.||||||0.0157
91102517|NCT00561821|182092079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91102518|NCT00561821|182092080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91102519|NCT00561821|182092080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91102520|NCT00561821|182092080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91102521|NCT00561821|182092081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91102522|NCT00561821|182092081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91102523|NCT00561821|182092081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91102524|NCT00561821|182092082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91102525|NCT00561821|182092082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91102526|NCT00561821|182092082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
90858250|NCT03793556|181581165|OTHER|||||||0.0496|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0496
90858251|NCT03793556|181581167|OTHER|||||||0.0065|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0065
90858252|NCT01325623|181581181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.375|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero||Baseline to EMU Discharge||||0.375
90858253|NCT01325623|181581181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.156|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero||Baseline to 3 Months||||0.156
90858254|NCT01325623|181581181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero||Baseline to 6 months||||>0.999
90858255|NCT01325623|181581181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.906|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero||Baseline to 12 Months||||0.906
90858256|NCT01325623|181581181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.188|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero||Baseline to 18 Months||||0.188
90858257|NCT01325623|181581181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.906|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero||Baseline to 24 Months||||0.906
90858258|NCT01325623|181581181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero||Baseline to EMU Discharge||||<0.001
90858259|NCT01325623|181581181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.106|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero||Baseline to 3 Months||||0.106
90858260|NCT01325623|181581181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero||Baseline to 6 Months||||0.012
90858261|NCT01325623|181581181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||s|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero||Baseline to 12 Months||||0.008
90858262|NCT01325623|181581181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero||Baseline to 18 Months||||0.009
90858263|NCT01325623|181581181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero||Baseline to 24 Months||||0.029
90858264|NCT01325623|181581181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||s|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero||Baseline to EMU Discharge||||0.500
90858265|NCT01325623|181581181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero||Baseline to 3 Months||||>0.999
91102527|NCT00561821|182092083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6317||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.6317
91102528|NCT00561821|182092083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6355||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.6355
91102529|NCT00561821|182092083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7865||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.7865
91102530|NCT00561821|182092084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4033||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.4033
91102531|NCT00561821|182092084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4153||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.4153
91102532|NCT00561821|182092084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6271||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.6271
91102533|NCT00561821|182092085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91102534|NCT00561821|182092085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91102535|NCT00561821|182092085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91102536|NCT00561821|182092086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0243||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.0243
91102537|NCT00561821|182092086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0242||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.0242
90904599|NCT01232556|181676570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.714||||||An hierarchical testing strategy was specified for OS, PFS and response. PFS could be tested at the 0.023 level if the OS test result were positive. Response could be tested if both the OS and PFS test results were positive.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The stratification factors are pre-randomization investigator choice, baseline sIPI, and best response to most recent chemo therapy.||Third comparison in hierarchical testing strategy was used for power calculation.||||0.714
91102538|NCT00561821|182092086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0007||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.0007
91102539|NCT00561821|182092087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0199||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.0199
91102540|NCT00561821|182092087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0316||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.0316
91102541|NCT00561821|182092087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0014||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.0014
91102542|NCT04359680|182092118|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.029||||0.9434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4696|2.2546|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.2546|0.4696|0.9434
91102543|NCT04359680|182092119|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1162||||0.6805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6623|1.8813|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.8813|0.6623|0.6805
91102544|NCT04359680|182092121|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3459|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3459
91102545|NCT02722330|182092130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||<0.0001
90858266|NCT01325623|181581181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero||Baseline to 6 Months||||0.500
90858267|NCT01325623|181581181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero||Baseline to 12 Months||||0.500
90858268|NCT01325623|181581181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.188|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero||Baseline to 18 Months||||0.188
90858269|NCT01325623|181581181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero||Baseline to 24 Months||||0.500
90858270|NCT01325623|181581181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero||Baseline to EMU Discharge||||0.500
90858271|NCT01325623|181581181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero||Baseline to 3 Months||||>0.999
90858272|NCT01325623|181581181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero||Baseline to 6 Months||||>0.999
90858273|NCT01325623|181581181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.125|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero||Baseline to 12 Months||||0.125
90858274|NCT01325623|181581181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero||Baseline to 18 Months||||0.500
90858275|NCT01325623|181581181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero||Baseline to 24 Months||||0.500
90858276|NCT01325623|181581182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1529|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||SSQ Total Score||||0.1529
90858277|NCT01325623|181581182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0942|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Activity During Seizures Score||||0.0942
91102546|NCT02722330|182092131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||Ease of communication||||<0.0001
91102547|NCT02722330|182092131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed rank Test|||Reverberation||||<0.0001
91102548|NCT02722330|182092131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed rank Test|||Background noise||||<0.0001
91102549|NCT02722330|182092131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004|||||||Wilcoxon Signed rank Test|||Aversiveness||||0.0004
91102550|NCT02722330|182092131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed rank Test|||Global score||||<0.0001
91102551|NCT02722330|182092132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||Speech scale||||<0.0001
91102552|NCT02722330|182092132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||Spatial scale||||<0.0001
91102553|NCT02722330|182092132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||Qualities scale||||<0.0001
91102554|NCT02722330|182092133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||<0.0001
91102555|NCT02722330|182092134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||250 Hz||||<0.0001
91102556|NCT02722330|182092134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||500 Hz||||<0.0001
91102557|NCT02722330|182092134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||750 Hz||||<0.0001
91102558|NCT02722330|182092134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||1000 Hz||||<0.0001
91102559|NCT02722330|182092134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||1500 Hz||||<0.0001
91031852|NCT02480764|181948626|NON_INFERIORITY|A test for noninferiority was done using a margin of 1.5 mm Hg. A test for significant difference was performed at 5% level.|Least Square Mean Difference|-1.932|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4512||0.184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.782|0.918||Change at Week 8: P-value was calculated using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model, with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline trough sitting clinic SBP as a continuous covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.918|-4.782|0.184
91102560|NCT02722330|182092134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||2000 Hz||||<0.0001
91102561|NCT02722330|182092134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||3000 Hz||||<0.0001
91102562|NCT02722330|182092134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||4000 Hz||||<0.0001
91102563|NCT02722330|182092134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||6000 Hz||||<0.0001
91102564|NCT02722330|182092135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||250 Hz||||<0.0001
91102565|NCT02722330|182092135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||500 Hz||||<0.0001
91102566|NCT02722330|182092135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||750 Hz||||<0.0001
91102567|NCT02722330|182092135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||1000 Hz||||<0.0001
91102568|NCT02722330|182092135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||1500 Hz||||<0.0001
90858278|NCT01325623|181581182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2831|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Overall Recovery Score||||0.2831
90858279|NCT01325623|181581182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3639|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Overall Severity Score||||0.3639
90858280|NCT01325623|181581182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.447|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Postictal Emotional Recovery Score||||0.4470
90858281|NCT01325623|181581182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1311|TWO_SIDED||||||s|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Postictal Physical Recovery Score||||0.1311
91031853|NCT02480764|181948626|NON_INFERIORITY|A test for noninferiority was done using a margin of 1.5 mm Hg. A test for significant difference was performed at 5% level.|Least Square Mean Difference|-3.685|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4344||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.502|-0.868||Change at Week 8: P-value was calculated using ANCOVA model, with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline trough sitting clinic SBP as a continuous covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-0.868|-6.502|0.010
91102569|NCT02722330|182092135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||2000 Hz||||<0.0001
91102570|NCT02722330|182092135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||3000 Hz||||<0.0001
91102571|NCT02722330|182092135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||4000 Hz||||<0.0001
91031854|NCT02480764|181948627|OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.459|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9455||0.123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.316|0.397||Change at Week 8: P-value was calculated using ANCOVA model, with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline trough sitting clinic DBP as a continuous covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.397|-3.316|0.123
91102572|NCT02722330|182092135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||6000 Hz||||<0.0001
91102573|NCT02722330|182092136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.002
91102574|NCT02722330|182092137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0024|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.0024
90858282|NCT01325623|181581182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3898|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Postictal Cognitive Recovery Score||||0.3898
90858283|NCT01325623|181581182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0511|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||SSQ Total Score||||0.0511
91102575|NCT02722330|182092138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||Speech Presentation Level 50 dB||||<0.0001
91102576|NCT02722330|182092138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||Speech Presentation Level 65 dB||||<0.0001
91102577|NCT02722330|182092138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||Speech Presentation Level 80 dB||||<0.0001
91102578|NCT02722330|182092139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||All variable had the same p value (\<0.0001).|Wolcoxon Signed rank test|||Speech Presentation Level 50 dB||||<0.0001
91102579|NCT02722330|182092139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||Speech Presentation Level 65 dB||||<0.0001
91102580|NCT02722330|182092139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||Speech Presentation Level 80 dB||||<0.0001
90858284|NCT01325623|181581182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Activity During Seizures Score||||0.0019
90858285|NCT01325623|181581182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1106|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Overall Recovery Score||||0.1106
91102581|NCT02722330|182092140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.036
91102582|NCT02722330|182092141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.065|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.065
91102583|NCT02722330|182092142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||250 Hz||||0.47
91102584|NCT02722330|182092142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||500 Hz||||0.16
91102585|NCT02722330|182092142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||750 Hz||||0.59
91102586|NCT02722330|182092142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||1000 Hz||||0.034
91102587|NCT02722330|182092142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||1500 Hz||||0.25
91102588|NCT02722330|182092142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||2000 Hz||||0.023
91102589|NCT02722330|182092142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||3000 Hz||||0.028
90904600|NCT01232556|181676571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.25|||Log Rank|From one sided stratified log-rank test.|From stratified Cox proportional hazards model. The stratification factors are pre-randomization investigator choice, baseline sIPI, and best response to most recent chemo therapy.|DOR was not part of the formal hypothesis testing strategy.||1.25|0.47|0.142
90904601|NCT01232556|181676572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.2892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures mixed effects model with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline as covariate.||||0.06|-0.02|0.2892
90904602|NCT01232556|181676573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.11||||0.1879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|7.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures mixed effects model with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline as covariate.||||7.74|-1.52|0.1879
90904603|NCT04707391|181676575|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% Confidence Interval(CI) for the difference in percenatge of participants achieving a 4-fold rise in hSBA titers between MenABCWY group and MenACWY group was above -10% for serogroup A.|Difference in percentage of participants|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|0.95|-4.38|3.5||||||To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of the MenABCWY vaccine, compared to MenACWY vaccine given to healthy participants, previously primed with a MenACWY vaccine, as measured by the percentages of participants achieving a 4-fold rise in hSBA titers against N. meningitidis serogroups A at 1 month after the second MenABCWY vaccination (0,6-months) and 1 month after the MenACWY vaccination (single dose).||3.50|-4.38|
91102590|NCT02722330|182092142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0075|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||4000 Hz||||0.0075
91102591|NCT02722330|182092142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0035|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||6000 Hz||||0.0035
90858286|NCT01325623|181581182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1273|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Overall Severity Score||||0.1273
90858287|NCT01325623|181581182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1305|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Postictal Emotional Recovery Score||||0.1305
90858288|NCT01325623|181581182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1123|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Postictal Physical Recovery Score||||0.1123
90858289|NCT01325623|181581182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2309|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Postictal Cognitive Recovery Score||||0.2309
90858290|NCT01325623|181581182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3191|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||SSQ Total Score||||0.3191
90858291|NCT01325623|181581182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0679|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Activity During Seizures Score||||0.0679
90858292|NCT01325623|181581182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2082|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Overall Recovery Score||||0.2082
90858293|NCT01325623|181581182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.179|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Overall Severity Score||||0.1790
90858294|NCT01325623|181581182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6869|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Postictal Emotional Recovery Score||||0.6869
90858295|NCT01325623|181581182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6094|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Postictal Physical Recovery Score||||0.6094
90858296|NCT01325623|181581182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.153|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Postictal Cognitive Recovery Score||||0.1530
90858297|NCT01325623|181581182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3339|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||SSQ Total Score||||0.3339
90858298|NCT01325623|181581182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1473|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Activity During Seizures Score||||0.1473
90858299|NCT01325623|181581182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5035|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Overall Recovery Score||||0.5035
90858300|NCT01325623|181581182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6653|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Overall Severity Score||||0.6653
90858301|NCT01325623|181581182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8622|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Postictal Emotional Recovery Score||||0.8622
90858302|NCT01325623|181581182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4456|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Postictal Physical Recovery Score||||0.4456
90858303|NCT01325623|181581182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6876|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Postictal Cognitive Recovery Score||||0.6876
90858304|NCT01325623|181581182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0328|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||SSQ Total Score||||0.0328
90858305|NCT01325623|181581182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0067|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Activity During Seizures Score||||0.0067
91102592|NCT02722330|182092143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||250 Hz||||0.12
91102593|NCT02722330|182092143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.072|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||500 Hz||||0.072
91102594|NCT02722330|182092143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.56|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||750 Hz||||0.56
91102595|NCT02722330|182092143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||1000 Hz||||0.16
91102596|NCT02722330|182092143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||1500 Hz||||0.39
91102597|NCT02722330|182092143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||2000 Hz||||0.11
91102598|NCT02722330|182092143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||3000 Hz||||0.38
91102599|NCT02722330|182092143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||4000 Hz||||0.014
91102600|NCT02722330|182092143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||6000 Hz||||0.71
91102601|NCT02722330|182092144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.48
91102602|NCT02722330|182092145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.11
91102603|NCT02722330|182092146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||SPL 50 dB||||0.017
91102604|NCT02722330|182092146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.095|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||SPL 65 dB||||0.095
91102605|NCT02722330|182092146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||SPL 80 dB||||0.57
91102606|NCT02722330|182092147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.096|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||SPL 50 dB||||0.096
91102607|NCT02722330|182092147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||SPL 65 dB||||1.00
91102608|NCT02722330|182092147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||SPL 80 dB||||0.41
91102609|NCT01755156|182092153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.34|||cLDA|Based on a cLDA method with a restriction of the same baseline mean.||||-0.34|-0.75|<0.001
91102610|NCT01755156|182092154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in %|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|9.8|||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method. The 95% CI was computed only for those endpoints with at least 4 participants having events in 1 or more treatment groups.|||9.8|-8.8|
91102611|NCT01755156|182092155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in %|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|1.1|||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method. The 95% CI was computed only for those endpoints with at least 4 participants having events in 1 or more treatment groups.|||1.1|-6.6|
91102612|NCT01755156|182092156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in %|4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|12.3||||||||12.3|-3.3|
91102613|NCT01755156|182092157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in %|-14.5||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.6|-3.4|||cLDA|Based on a cLDA method with a restriction of the same baseline mean.||||-3.4|-25.6|0.011
91102614|NCT01755156|182092158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-9.5||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.7|-2.3|||cLDA|Based on a cLDA method with a restriction of the same baseline mean.||||-2.3|-16.7|0.010
90959026|NCT01620255|181798203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.185||||0.0145|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.05|0.32||1-sided p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|PF-00547659 225 mg vs placebo, locally read||0.320|0.050|0.0145
91102615|NCT01755156|182092161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Between-group rate difference (%)|19.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.1|28.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||28.0|10.1|<0.001
91102616|NCT01755156|182092162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Between-group rate difference (%)|4.2||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|10.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||10.5|-1.8|0.164
91102617|NCT01755156|182092165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-27.8||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.8|-10.8|||cLDA|Based on a cLDA method with a restriction of the same baseline mean.||||-10.8|-44.8|0.001
91102618|NCT01755156|182092166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|3.7||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|6.9|||cLDA|Based on a cLDA method with a restriction of the same baseline mean.||||6.9|0.5|0.025
91102619|NCT01755156|182092168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Kaplan-Meier difference %|-1.2||||0.654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|4.7|||Log Rank|||||4.7|-7.0|0.654
91102620|NCT03142451|182092172|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.749||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|3.68|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model includes treatment, baseline inflammatory lesion count, and analysis center.||||3.68|0.75|0.0031
91102621|NCT03142451|182092173|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.21||||0.0273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.022|1.434||The p-value is for the null hypothesis that the combined risk ratio equals 1.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Test Stratified by Analysis Center||||1.434|1.022|0.0273
91102622|NCT03142451|182092174|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.21||||0.0171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.028|1.425||The p-value is for the null hypothesis that the combined risk ratio equals 1.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Test Stratified by Analysis Center||||1.425|1.028|0.0171
91102623|NCT03142451|182092175|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.626||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.46|12.77|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment, Baseline inflammatory lesion count, and analysis center.||||12.77|2.46|0.0039
91102624|NCT03142451|182092176|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.747||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|4.09|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included treatment, Baseline inflammatory lesion count, and analysis center.||Statistical analysis for Week 4||4.09|1.16|0.0004
91102625|NCT03142451|182092176|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.62|4.56|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included treatment, Baseline inflammatory lesion count, and analysis center.||Statistical analysis for Week 8||4.56|1.62|<0.0001
91102626|NCT03142451|182092177|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.685||||0.0201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.085|2.616||P-value is for the null hypothesis that the risk ratio equals 1.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by analysis center.||Statistical analysis for Week 4||2.616|1.085|0.0201
91102627|NCT03142451|182092177|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.191||||0.1278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.951|1.492||P-value is for the null hypothesis that the risk ratio equals 1.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by analysis center.||Statistical analysis for Week 8||1.492|0.951|0.1278
91102628|NCT00871000|182092210|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of Non-inferiority: UL of the standardised asymptotic 95% CI on the group difference \[Tetravac Group minus Boostrix Polio Group\] in the percentage of subjects with anti-polio type 1 antibody titers ≥ 8 was ≤ 10%.|Difference in seroprotection rate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|2.7||||||To demonstrate that GSK Biologicals' Boostrix Polio™ vaccine is non-inferior to Sanofi-Pasteur-MSD's Tetravac™ vaccine, in terms of seroprotection rates against poliovirus type 1, one month after vaccination.||2.7|-2.61|
91102629|NCT00871000|182092210|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of Non-inferiority: UL of the standardised asymptotic 95% CI on the group difference \[Tetravac Group minus Boostrix Polio Group\] in the percentage of subjects with anti-polio type 2 antibody titers ≥ 8 was ≤ 10%.|Difference in seroprotection rate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|2.7||||||To demonstrate that GSK Biologicals' Boostrix Polio™ vaccine is non-inferior to Sanofi-Pasteur-MSD's Tetravac™ vaccine, in terms of seroprotection rates against polio type 2, one month after vaccination.||2.7|-2.61|
90904604|NCT04707391|181676575|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% Confidence Interval(CI) for the difference in percenatge of participants achieving a 4-fold rise in hSBA titers between MenABCWY group and MenACWY group was above -10% for serogroup C.|Difference in percentage of participants|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|0.95|-4.14|3.98||||||To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of the MenABCWY vaccine, compared to MenACWY vaccine given to healthy participants, previously primed with a MenACWY vaccine, as measured by the percentages of participants achieving a 4-fold rise in hSBA titers against N. meningitidis serogroups C at 1 month after the second MenABCWY vaccination (0,6-months) and 1 month after the MenACWY vaccination (single dose).||3.98|-4.14|
90904605|NCT04707391|181676575|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% Confidence Interval(CI) for the difference in percenatge of participants achieving a 4-fold rise in hSBA titers between MenABCWY group and MenACWY group was above -10% for each serogroup W.|Difference in percentage of participants|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|0.95|-2.73|4.89||||||To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of the MenABCWY vaccine, compared to MenACWY vaccine given to healthy participants, previously primed with a MenACWY vaccine, as measured by the percentages of participants achieving a 4-fold rise in hSBA titers against N. meningitidis serogroups W at 1 month after the second MenABCWY vaccination (0,6-months) and 1 month after the MenACWY vaccination (single dose).||4.89|-2.73|
90904606|NCT04707391|181676575|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% Confidence Interval(CI) for the difference in percenatge of participants achieving a 4-fold rise in hSBA titers between MenABCWY group and MenACWY group was above -10% for each serogroup Y.|Difference in percentage of participants|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|0.95|-3.93|3.91||||||To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of the MenABCWY vaccine, compared to MenACWY vaccine given to healthy participants, previously primed with a MenACWY vaccine, as measured by the percentages of participants achieving a 4-fold rise in hSBA titers against N. meningitidis serogroups Y at 1 month after the second MenABCWY vaccination (0,6-months) and 1 month after the MenACWY vaccination (single dose).||3.91|-3.93|
90905119|NCT02886728|181677440|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|-4.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-4.0|-10.0|<0.001
91102630|NCT00871000|182092210|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of Non-inferiority: UL of the standardised asymptotic 95% CI on the group difference \[Tetravac Group minus Boostrix Polio Group\] in the percentage of subjects with anti-polio type 3 antibody titers ≥ 8 was ≤ 10%.|Difference in seroprotection rate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|2.72||||||To demonstrate that GSK Biologicals' Boostrix Polio™ vaccine is non-inferior to Sanofi-Pasteur-MSD's Tetravac™ vaccine, in terms of seroprotection rates against polio type 3, one month after vaccination.||2.72|-2.61|
91102631|NCT00871000|182092211|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of Non-inferiority: Upper limit (UL) of the standardised asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) on the group difference \[Tetravac Group minus Boostrix Polio Group\] in the percentage of subjects with anti-D antibody concentrations ≥ 0.1 IU/mL was lower than or equal to (≤) 10%.|Difference in seroprotection rate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|2.7||||||To demonstrate that GSK Biologicals' Boostrix Polio™ vaccine is non-inferior to Sanofi-Pasteur-MSD's Tetravac™ vaccine, in terms of seroprotection rates against diphtheria, one month after vaccination.||2.7|-2.61|
91102632|NCT00871000|182092211|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of Non-inferiority: UL of the standardised asymptotic 95% CI on the group difference \[Tetravac Group minus Boostrix Polio Group\] in the percentage of subjects with anti-T antibody concentrations ≥ 0.1 IU/mL was ≤ 10%.|Difference in seroprotection rate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|2.7||||||To demonstrate that GSK Biologicals' Boostrix Polio™ vaccine is non-inferior to Sanofi-Pasteur-MSD's Tetravac™ vaccine, in terms of seroprotection rates against tetanus, one month after vaccination.||2.7|-2.61|
91102633|NCT01052428|182092227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4568||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The differences in the rate of progression of the outcome measures were the focus of the comparisons over time between the treatment groups. A significant interaction effect between time and treatment group in the mixed model is the measure of treatment effect. Since some visits did not occur at the scheduled 6 month intervals, the results have been divided into 3-month visit intervals for reporting purposes and the number of Participants for each interval is indicated as (n=x,y)||||0.4568
91102634|NCT01052428|182092228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1967||95.0||||not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|||The differences in the rate of progression of the outcome measures were the focus of the comparisons over time between the treatment groups. A significant interaction effect between time and treatment group in the mixed model is the measure of treatment effect. Since some visits did not occur at the scheduled 6 month intervals, the results have been divided into 3-month visit intervals for reporting purposes and the number of Participants for each interval is indicated as (n=x,y)||||0.1967
91102635|NCT01052428|182092229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55||95.0||||not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|||The differences in the rate of progression of the outcome measures were the focus of the comparisons over time between the treatment groups. A significant interaction effect between time and treatment group in the mixed model is the measure of treatment effect. Since some visits did not occur at the scheduled 6 month intervals, the results have been divided into 3-month visit intervals for reporting purposes and the number of Participants for each interval is indicated as (n=x,y)||||0.55
90858306|NCT01325623|181581182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5928|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Overall Recovery Score||||0.5928
90858307|NCT01325623|181581182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7179|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Overall Severity Score||||0.7179
90858308|NCT01325623|181581182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5014|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Postictal Emotional Recovery Score||||0.5014
91031855|NCT02480764|181948627|OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.822|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9354||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.659|-0.985||Change at 8 Week: P-value was calculated using ANCOVA model, with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline trough sitting clinic DBP as a continuous covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-0.985|-4.659|0.003
91031856|NCT02480764|181948628|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.877|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.192||0.548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.571|1.347||P-value was calculated using logistic regression model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline trough SBP as a continuous covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.347|0.571|0.548
90858309|NCT01325623|181581182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.964|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Postictal Physical Recovery Score||||0.9640
90858310|NCT01325623|181581182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8537|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Postictal Cognitive Recovery Score||||0.8537
90858311|NCT01325623|181581186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2079|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||QOLIE Overall Total||||0.2079
90858312|NCT01325623|181581186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6562|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Energy/Fatigue Final Score||||0.6562
90858313|NCT01325623|181581186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9376|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Emotional well being Final Score||||0.9376
90858314|NCT01325623|181581186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Social Functioning Final Score||||0.0100
90858315|NCT01325623|181581186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8532|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Cognitive functioning Final Score||||0.8532
90858316|NCT01325623|181581186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4954|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Medication Effects Final Score||||0.4954
90858317|NCT01325623|181581186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1877|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Seizure Worry Final Score||||0.1877
90858318|NCT01325623|181581186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4189|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Overall Quality of Life Final Score||||0.4189
90858319|NCT01325623|181581186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2365|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||QOLIE Overall Total Score||||0.2365
90858320|NCT01325623|181581186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4138|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Energy/Fatigue Final Score||||0.4138
90858321|NCT01325623|181581186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8701|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Emotional well being Final Score||||0.8701
90858322|NCT01325623|181581186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0527|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Social Functioning Final Score||||0.0527
90959027|NCT01620255|181798204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.081||||0.0618|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.162||1-sided p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|PF-00547659 7.5 mg vs placebo, centrally read||0.162|0.000|0.0618
90858323|NCT01325623|181581186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1353|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Cognitive functioning Final Score||||0.1353
90858324|NCT01325623|181581186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6927|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Medication Effects Final Score||||0.6927
90858325|NCT01325623|181581186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4964|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Seizure Worry Final Score||||0.4964
90858326|NCT01325623|181581186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0238|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Overall Quality of Life Final Score||||0.0238
90858327|NCT01325623|181581186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0139|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||QOLIE Overall Total Score||||0.0139
90858328|NCT01325623|181581186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2822|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Energy/Fatigue Final Score||||0.2822
90858329|NCT01325623|181581186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1363|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Emotional well being Final Score||||0.1363
91102636|NCT01052428|182092230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21||95.0||||not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|||The differences in the rate of progression of the outcome measures were the focus of the comparisons over time between the treatment groups. A significant interaction effect between time and treatment group in the mixed model is the measure of treatment effect. Since some visits did not occur at the scheduled 6 month intervals, the results have been divided into 3-month visit intervals for reporting purposes and the number of Participants for each interval is indicated as (n=x,y)||||0.21
91102637|NCT01052428|182092231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0||||not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|||The differences in the rate of progression of the outcome measures were the focus of the comparisons over time between the treatment groups. A significant interaction effect between time and treatment group in the mixed model is the measure of treatment effect. Since some visits did not occur at the scheduled 6 month intervals, the results have been divided into 3-month visit intervals for reporting purposes and the number of Participants for each interval is indicated as (n=x,y)||||0.006
90904607|NCT04707391|181676576|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% Confidence Interval(CI) for the difference in percenatge of participants achieving a 4-fold rise in the 4-fold rise in hSBA titers (p\_MenABCWY- p\_MenACWY) is above -10% for serogroup A.|Difference in percentage of participants|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|0.95|-5.59|0.47||||||To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of the MenABCWY vaccine, compared to MenACWY vaccine given to healthy participants, previously primed with a MenACWY vaccine, as measured by the percentages of participants achieving a 4-fold rise in hSBA titers against N. meningitidis serogroups A at 1 month after the first MenABCWY vaccination (0,6-months) and 1 month after the MenACWY vaccination (single dose).||0.47|-5.59|
90904608|NCT04707391|181676576|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% Confidence Interval(CI) for the difference in percenatge of participants achieving a 4-fold rise in hSBA titers (p\_MenABCWY- p\_MenACWY) is above -10% for serogroup C.|Difference in percentage of participants|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|0.95|-2.76|2.94||||||To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of the MenABCWY vaccine, compared to MenACWY vaccine given to healthy participants, previously primed with a MenACWY vaccine, as measured by the percentages of participants achieving a 4-fold rise in hSBA titers against N. meningitidis serogroups C at 1 month after the first MenABCWY vaccination (0,6-months) and 1 month after the MenACWY vaccination (single dose).||2.94|-2.76|
90904609|NCT04707391|181676576|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% Confidence Interval(CI) for the difference in percenatge of participants achieving a 4-fold rise in hSBA titers (p\_MenABCWY- p\_MenACWY) is above -10% for serogroup W.|Difference in percentage of participants|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|0.95|-2.41|3.25||||||To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of the MenABCWY vaccine, compared to MenACWY vaccine given to healthy participants, previously primed with a MenACWY vaccine, as measured by the percentages of participants achieving a 4-fold rise in hSBA titers against N. meningitidis serogroupsW at 1 month after the first MenABCWY vaccination (0,6-months) and 1 month after the MenACWY vaccination (single dose).||3.25|-2.41|
90904610|NCT04707391|181676576|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% Confidence Interval(CI) for the difference in percenatge of participants achieving a 4-fold rise in hSBA titers (p\_MenABCWY- p\_MenACWY) is above -10% for serogroup Y.|Difference in percentage of participants|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|0.95|-3.62|2.09||||||To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of the MenABCWY vaccine, compared to MenACWY vaccine given to healthy participants, previously primed with a MenACWY vaccine, as measured by the percentages of participants achieving a 4-fold rise in hSBA titers against N. meningitidis serogroups Y at 1 month after the first MenABCWY vaccination (0,6-months) and 1 month after the MenACWY vaccination (single dose).||2.09|-3.62|
90959028|NCT01620255|181798204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.187||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.091|0.284||1-sided p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|PF-00547659 22.5 mg vs placebo, centrally read||0.284|0.091|0.0009
91031857|NCT02480764|181948628|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.979|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2136||0.921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.638|1.501||P-value was calculated using logistic regression model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline trough SBP as a continuous covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.501|0.638|0.921
91031858|NCT02480764|181948629|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.033|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2805||0.904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.607|1.759||P-value was calculated using logistic regression model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline trough DBP as a continuous covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.759|0.607|0.904
91031859|NCT02480764|181948629|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.074|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2897||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.633|1.823||P-value was calculated using logistic regression model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline trough DBP as a continuous covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.823|0.633|0.790
91031860|NCT02480764|181948630|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.901|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1916||0.624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.594|1.367||P-value was calculated using logistic regression model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline trough SBP as a continuous covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.367|0.594|0.624
91031861|NCT02480764|181948630|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.103|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.235||0.647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.726|1.674||P-value was calculated using logistic regression model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline trough SBP as a continuous covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.674|0.726|0.647
91031862|NCT02480764|181948631|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.831|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1846||0.404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.537|1.284||Clinic SBP \<140 mm Hg: P-value was calculated using logistic regression model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline trough SBP as a continuous covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.284|0.537|0.404
91031863|NCT02480764|181948631|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.937|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2078||0.768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.606|1.447||Clinic SBP \<140 mm Hg: P-value was calculated using logistic regression model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline trough SBP as a continuous covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.447|0.606|0.768
91031864|NCT02480764|181948631|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.051|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2837||0.852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.784||Clinic DBP \<90 mm Hg: P-value was calculated using logistic regression model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline trough DBP as a continuous covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.784|0.620|0.852
91031865|NCT02480764|181948631|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2788||0.868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.763||Clinic DBP \<90 mm Hg: P-value was calculated using logistic regression model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline trough DBP as a continuous covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.763|0.620|0.868
91031866|NCT02480764|181948631|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2244||0.847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.684|1.59||Clinic SBP\<140 mm Hg and DBP\<90 mm Hg: P-value was calculated using logistic regression model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline trough SBP as a continuous covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.590|0.684|0.847
91102638|NCT01052428|182092232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16||95.0||||not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|||The differences in the rate of progression of the outcome measures were the focus of the comparisons over time between the treatment groups. A significant interaction effect between time and treatment group in the mixed model is the measure of treatment effect. Since some visits did not occur at the scheduled 6 month intervals, the results have been divided into 3-month visit intervals for reporting purposes and the number of Participants for each interval is indicated as (n=x,y)||||0.16
90858330|NCT01325623|181581186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Social Functioning Final Score||||0.0019
90858331|NCT01325623|181581186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1293|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Cognitive functioning Final Score||||0.1293
90858332|NCT01325623|181581186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5252|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Medication Effects Final Score||||0.5252
90858333|NCT01325623|181581186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0642|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Seizure Worry Final Score||||0.0642
90858334|NCT01325623|181581186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Overall Quality of Life Final Score||||0.0025
90858335|NCT01325623|181581186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||QOLIE Overall Total Score||||0.0024
90904611|NCT03785340|181676594|SUPERIORITY|"The endpoints were tested in a fixed sequence, proceeding to the next endpoint until a p-value \>0.05 was found:~1. Change from baseline to 4 weeks (Day 28) in SANDE score~2. Change from baseline to 4 weeks (Day 28) in Lissamine Green conjunctival staining scores~3. Change from baseline to 2 weeks (Day 14) in SANDE score~4. Change from baseline to 2 weeks (Day 14) in Lissamine Green conjunctival staining scores"|Least squares mean difference|-0.844||||0.739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.823|4.134|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Change from baseline to 4 weeks (Day 28) in SANDE score; OCU-310 vs. Placebo|Four endpoints (two primary and two secondary) were to be tested in a fixed sequence, proceeding to the next endpoint until a p-value \>0.05 was found. The analysis of the four outcomes employed a repeated measures mixed model with mean change from baseline score at the stated time point as the response with baseline score as a covariate and treatment, visit, and their interaction as fixed effects. The least squares mean difference (OCU 310 - placebo) at the stated time point was tested.||4.134|-5.823|0.739
90904612|NCT02584855|181676624|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||Log Rank Test adjusting for geographic region and conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (cDMARD) use at the time of double blind randomization.||||<0.001
91031867|NCT02480764|181948631|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.172|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2517||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.769|1.785||Clinic SBP\<140 mm Hg and DBP\<90 mm Hg: P-value was calculated using logistic regression model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline trough SBP as a continuous covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.785|0.769|0.460
91031868|NCT02480764|181948632|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.487|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3333||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.958|2.307||Clinic SBP\<130 mm Hg: P-value was calculated using logistic regression model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline trough SBP as a continuous covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.307|0.958|0.077
91031869|NCT02480764|181948632|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.914|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4229||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.241|2.951||Clinic SBP\<130 mm Hg: P-value was calculated using logistic regression model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline trough SBP as a continuous covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.951|1.241|0.003
90858336|NCT01325623|181581186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4464|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Energy/Fatigue Final Score||||0.4464
90858337|NCT01325623|181581186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0511|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Emotional well being Final Score||||0.0511
90858338|NCT01325623|181581186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Social Functioning Final Score||||0.0002
91102639|NCT01052428|182092233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|||The differences in the rate of progression of the outcome measures were the focus of the comparisons over time between the treatment groups. A significant interaction effect between time and treatment group in the mixed model is the measure of treatment effect. Since some visits did not occur at the scheduled 6 month intervals, the results have been divided into 3-month visit intervals for reporting purposes and the number of Participants for each interval is indicated as (n=x,y)||||0.001
91102640|NCT00382863|182092234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.502|||||||Fisher Exact|One-sided||Null hypothesis = proportion of subjects in treatment group who successfully achieved an improvement of at least 1.0 ml/kg/min at 6 months is less than or equal to the Control group. Subjects who withdrew for cardiac-related reasons were classified as non-responders.||||0.502
91102641|NCT00382863|182092235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.044|||||||Fisher Exact|One-sided||The null hypothesis = the proportion of subjects in the treatment group who successfully achieved an improvement of at least 45 m at 6 months from baseline is less than or equal to that of the Control group. Withdrawals due to cardiac reasons are counted as non-responders.||||0.044
90858339|NCT01325623|181581186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0296|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Cognitive Functioning Final Score||||0.0296
90858340|NCT01325623|181581186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3115|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Medication Effects Final Score||||0.3115
90858341|NCT01325623|181581186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Seizure Worry Final Score||||0.0270
90858342|NCT01325623|181581186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Overall Quality of Life Final Score||||0.0008
90858343|NCT01325623|181581186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0683|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||QOLIE Overall Total Score||||0.0683
90858344|NCT01325623|181581186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2226|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Energy/Fatigue Final Score||||0.2226
90858345|NCT01325623|181581186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0823|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Emotional well being Final Score||||0.0823
90858346|NCT01325623|181581186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1459|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Social Functioning Final Score||||0.1459
90858347|NCT01325623|181581186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.261|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Cognitive Functioning Final Score||||0.2610
90858348|NCT01325623|181581186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9119|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||||||0.9119
90858349|NCT01325623|181581186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0826|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Seizure Worry Final Score||||0.0826
90858350|NCT01325623|181581186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Overall Quality of Life Final Score||||0.0036
90858351|NCT01288027|181581193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.186|TWO_SIDED||||||one sample t-test|||Statistical significance for change from Baseline was measured using one sample t-test||||0.1860
90858352|NCT02556203|181581202|NON_INFERIORITY|1-sided Confidence interval|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2089302|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5||1.7040824||||||"H0: HR(t)\>=1.20 for all time points t\>=0, (i.e. the hazard for the primary efficacy endpoint in the rivaroxaban-based treatment group is more than 20% larger than that in the antiplatelet-based control group)"||1.7040824||
90858353|NCT02556203|181581203|SUPERIORITY|2-sided Log Rank test|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.35|||=|0.04223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.81|||Log Rank|||||1.81|1.01|= 0.04223
91102642|NCT00382863|182092236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.184|||||||Fisher Exact|One-sided||The null hypothesis = the proportion of treatment subjects who successfully achieved an improvement of at least 7 points at 6 months is equal to or less than that of the control group. Withdrawals due to cardiac reasons are counted as non-responders.||||0.184
91102643|NCT00382863|182092237|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Estimated survival for the treatment group was 93%. Estimated survival for the control group was 91.5%. A non-inferiority margin of 7.5%. Final test alpha level of 0.04825.||||||0.012|||||||Exact binomial test|One-sided||The null hypothesis = survival in the treatment group at 12 months is not equivalent to that of the Control group.||||0.012
91102644|NCT00382863|182092238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.052|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Class change from baseline.||||0.052
91102645|NCT00382863|182092239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91102646|NCT00382863|182092240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.032|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Two-sided||||||0.032
90858354|NCT02556203|181581204|OTHER|Descriptive. 2-sided Log Rank test.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.5|||=|0.07745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.37|||Log Rank||Estimates for HRs are based on Cox proportional hazards model. HRs \>1 indicate a higher hazard rate in the rivaroxaban arm compared with the antiplatelet arm.|||2.37|0.95|= 0.07745
90858355|NCT02556203|181581205|SUPERIORITY|2-sided Log Rank test|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.39|||=|0.01156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.8|||Log Rank||Estimates for HRs are based on Cox proportional hazards model. HRs \>1 indicate a higher hazard rate in the rivaroxaban arm compared with the antiplatelet arm.|||1.80|1.08|= 0.01156
90858356|NCT02556203|181581206|SUPERIORITY|2-sided Log Rank test|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.22|||=|0.21595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.69|||Log Rank||Estimates for HRs are based on Cox proportional hazards model. HRs \>1 indicate a higher hazard rate in the rivaroxaban arm compared with the antiplatelet arm.|||1.69|0.89|= 0.21595
91102647|NCT00382863|182092241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54|||||||Fisher Exact|One-sided||Improvement of at least 1.0 ml/kg/min from baseline.||||0.540
90858357|NCT02556203|181581207|OTHER|Descriptive. 2-sided Log Rank test.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.78|||=|0.02216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|2.94|||Log Rank||Estimates for HRs are based on Cox proportional hazards model. HRs \>1 indicate a higher hazard rate in the rivaroxaban arm compared with the antiplatelet arm.|||2.94|1.08|= 0.02216
91102648|NCT00382863|182092242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.067|||||||Fisher Exact|One-sided||Improvement of at least 45 m from baseline.||||0.067
90858358|NCT02556203|181581208|OTHER|Descriptive. 2-sided Log Rank test.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.66|||=|0.02702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|2.62|||Log Rank||Estimates for HRs are based on Cox proportional hazards model. HRs \>1 indicate a higher hazard rate in the rivaroxaban arm compared with the antiplatelet arm.|||2.62|1.05|= 0.02702
90858359|NCT02556203|181581209|OTHER|Descriptive. 2-sided Log Rank test.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.84|||=|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|2.41|||Log Rank||Estimates for HRs are based on Cox proportional hazards model. HRs \>1 indicate a higher hazard rate in the rivaroxaban arm compared with the antiplatelet arm.|||2.41|1.41|= 0.00001
90858360|NCT00739999|181581210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Atorvastatin CL/F based on 70 kg BW|699.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|570.0|881.0|||non-linear mixed-effects model|Measures of parameter estimation uncertainty (95% CI) were determined by non-parametric bootstrap analysis.||Atorvastatin apparent clearance (CL/F) was described as a function of body weight using an allometric equation. The estimated parameter given is an extrapolation of the model for participants who weigh 70 kg.||881|570|
90858361|NCT00369122|181581238|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Based on a report by Laciano, et al. an SAE rate of 5% and AE rate of 35% were considered tolerable and an SAE rate \>=20% and AE rate \>=55% excessive. If there were \>=6 pts with SAES or \>=22 pts with AEs then the treatment would be rejected. This study design provides alpha of 0.05 and power of 90%.|||
90858362|NCT03633617|181581246|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|55.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.58|71.04|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference is dupilumab minus placebo|||71.04|39.58|<0.0001
90858363|NCT03633617|181581246|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|56.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.44|68.54|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference is dupilumab minus placebo|||68.54|43.44|<0.0001
90858364|NCT03633617|181581246|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|53.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.2|65.79|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference is dupilumab minus placebo|||65.79|41.20|<0.0001
90858365|NCT03633617|181581247|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-12.32||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.107|-5.537|||ANCOVA||Dupilumab group vs. Placebo|||-5.537|-19.107|0.0004
90858366|NCT03633617|181581247|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.51||||0.8393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.423|4.406|||ANCOVA||Dupilumab group vs. Placebo|||4.406|-5.423|0.8393
90858367|NCT03633617|181581247|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.92|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.811|-5.022|||ANCOVA||Dupilumab group vs. Placebo|||-5.022|-14.811|<0.0001
90858368|NCT03633617|181581248|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-68.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-86.896|-49.615|||ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg QW vs Placebo|||-49.615|-86.896|<0.0001
90858369|NCT03633617|181581248|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-79.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-103.098|-55.338|||ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg Q2W vs Placebo|||-55.338|-103.098|<0.0001
90858370|NCT03633617|181581248|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-88.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-112.194|-65.046|||ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg QW vs Placebo|||-65.046|-112.194|<0.0001
90858371|NCT03633617|181581249|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-37.48||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.222|-17.745|||ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg QW vs Placebo|||-17.745|-57.222|0.0002
90858372|NCT03633617|181581249|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.35||||0.5243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.734|9.038|||ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg Q2W vs Placebo|||9.038|-17.734|0.5243
90858373|NCT03633617|181581249|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-22.89||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.272|-9.513|||ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg QW vs Placebo|||-9.513|-36.272|0.0008
90904613|NCT02584855|181676625|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-45.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.8|-32.3||||||Logistic regression adjusting for treatment, geographic region, and cDMARD use at the time of double-blind randomization .||-32.3|-58.8|
91102649|NCT00382863|182092243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031|||||||Fisher Exact|One-sided||Improvement of at least 7 points from baseline.||||0.031
91102650|NCT00382863|182092244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.109|||||||Log Rank|||Kaplan-Meier actuarial time-to-first-event analysis||||0.109
91102651|NCT00382863|182092245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Two-sided||||||0.031
91102652|NCT00382863|182092246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.179|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Two-sided||||||0.179
91102653|NCT00382863|182092247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Two-sided||||||0.070
91102654|NCT00382863|182092248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Two-sided||||||0.015
90858374|NCT03633617|181581250|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.759|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9061|-0.6127|||ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg QW vs Placebo|||-0.6127|-0.9061|<0.0001
90858375|NCT03633617|181581250|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.666|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7773|-0.5538|||ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg Q2W vs Placebo|||-0.5538|-0.7773|<0.0001
90858376|NCT03633617|181581250|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.682|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7929|-0.5707|||ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg QW vs Placebo|||-0.5707|-0.7929|<0.0001
90858377|NCT03633617|181581251|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.741|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8842|-0.5978|||ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg QW vs Placebo|||-0.5978|-0.8842|<0.0001
90858378|NCT03633617|181581251|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.661|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7674|-0.554|||ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg Q2W vs Placebo|||-0.5540|-0.7674|<0.0001
90858379|NCT03633617|181581251|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.672|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7778|-0.5655|||ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg QW vs Placebo|||-0.5655|-0.7778|<0.0001
90858380|NCT03633617|181581252|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.91|-1.84|||ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg QW vs Placebo|||-1.84|-3.91|<0.0001
90858381|NCT03633617|181581252|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.86|-3.02|||ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg Q2W vs Placebo|||-3.02|-4.86|<0.0001
91102655|NCT00382863|182092249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.032|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Two-sided||||||0.032
91102656|NCT00382863|182092251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.627|||||||Fisher Exact|Two-sided||||||0.627
91102657|NCT00382863|182092252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.386|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.386
91102658|NCT00382863|182092253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.154|||||||Fisher Exact|Two-sided||||||0.154
91102659|NCT00382863|182092254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|Two-sided||||||1.000
91102660|NCT00382863|182092255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.939|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.939
90858382|NCT03633617|181581252|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.77|-2.93|||ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg QW vs Placebo|||-2.93|-4.77|<0.0001
90858383|NCT03633617|181581253|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|57.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.69|73.33|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference is Dupilumab minus Placebo|||73.33|41.69|<0.0001
90858384|NCT03633617|181581253|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|72.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.05|83.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference is Dupilumab minus Placebo|||83.70|61.05|<0.0001
90858385|NCT03633617|181581253|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|74.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.25|85.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference is Dupilumab minus Placebo|||85.50|64.25|<0.0001
90858386|NCT03633617|181581254|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-2.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.72|-1.73|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Median Difference is Dupilumab minus Placebo|||-1.7300|-2.7200|<0.0001
90858387|NCT03633617|181581254|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-1.84|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.42|-1.11|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Median Difference is Dupilumab minus Placebo|||-1.1100|-2.4200|<0.0001
90858388|NCT03633617|181581254|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-1.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|-1.15|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Median Difference is Dupilumab minus Placebo|||-1.1500|-2.4400|<0.0001
90858389|NCT03633617|181581255|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-1.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|-1.27|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Median Difference is Dupilumab minus Placebo|||-1.2700|-1.7400|<0.0001
90858390|NCT03633617|181581255|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-1.255|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|-1.05|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Median Difference is Dupilumab minus Placebo|||-1.0500|-1.7300|<0.0001
90858391|NCT03633617|181581255|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-1.275|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|-1.07|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Median Difference is Dupilumab minus Placebo|||-1.0700|-1.8200|<0.0001
90858392|NCT03633617|181581256|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|21.9||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.42|34.38|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference is Dupilumab minus Placebo|||34.38|9.42|0.0017
90858393|NCT03633617|181581256|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|27.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.2|38.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference is Dupilumab minus Placebo|||38.09|17.20|<0.0001
90858394|NCT03633617|181581256|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|28.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.36|39.46|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference is Dupilumab minus Placebo|||39.46|18.36|<0.0001
90858395|NCT03633617|181581257|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.368||||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6388|-0.0975|||ANCOVA||Dupilumab group vs Placebo|||-0.0975|-0.6388|0.0077
90858396|NCT03633617|181581257|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.015||||0.8586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1782|0.1485|||ANCOVA||Dupilumab group vs. Placebo|||0.1485|-0.1782|0.8586
90858397|NCT03633617|181581257|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.309||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4703|-0.1471|||ANCOVA||Dupilumab group vs. Placebo|||-0.1471|-0.4703|0.0002
90858398|NCT03633617|181581258|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.0||||0.0467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.87|-0.03|||ANCOVA||Dupilumab group vs. Placebo|||-0.03|-3.87|0.0467
90858399|NCT03633617|181581258|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.5469||95.0|-2.03|1.08|||ANCOVA||Dupilumab group vs. Placebo|||1.08|-2.03|0.5469
90858400|NCT03633617|181581258|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.5||||0.0718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|0.13|||ANCOVA||Dupilumab group vs. Placebo|||0.13|-3.0|0.0718
90858401|NCT03633617|181581259|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.7||||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.93|-0.52|||ANCOVA||Dupilumab group vs. Placebo|||-0.52|-2.93|0.0051
90904614|NCT02584855|181676628|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||Log Rank Test adjusting for geographic region and cDMARD use at the time of double blind randomization.||||<0.001
91102661|NCT00382863|182092256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|||||||Fisher Exact|Two-sided||||||0.012
91102662|NCT00382863|182092257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.001
91102663|NCT00382863|182092258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.772|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Two-sided||||||0.772
90858402|NCT03633617|181581259|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.3152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|0.44|||ANCOVA||Dupilumab group vs. Placebo|||0.44|-1.38|0.3152
90858403|NCT03633617|181581259|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.4||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.45|||ANCOVA||Dupilumab group vs. Placebo|||0.45|-2.30|0.0037
90858404|NCT03633617|181581260|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-12.7||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.21|-2.26|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference is Dupilumab minus Placebo|||-2.26|-23.21|0.0170
90858405|NCT03633617|181581260|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-1.3||||0.5493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.51|2.93|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference is Dupilumab minus Placebo|||2.93|-5.51|0.5493
90858406|NCT03633617|181581260|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|0.0||||0.9887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|5.02|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference is Dupilumab minus Placebo|||5.02|-4.9|0.9887
90858407|NCT00809354|181581293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|-0.57|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on analysis of co-variance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.57|-1.28|<0.001
90858408|NCT00809354|181581293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.33|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.33|-1.06|<0.001
90858409|NCT00809354|181581293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.23|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.23|-0.94|0.001
90858410|NCT00809354|181581293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.09|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.09|-0.81|0.015
90858411|NCT00809354|181581293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.22|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.22|-0.49|0.453
91102664|NCT02837952|182092278|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|72.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.075|95.707|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference and 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) were based on LS Mean from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment, gender, baseline categorical pain severity rating (PSR) as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||95.707|50.075|<0.001
91102665|NCT02837952|182092279|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|26.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.895|33.005|||ANCOVA|||0 to 8 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on least square (LS) mean from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||33.005|19.895|< 0.001
91102666|NCT02837952|182092279|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|7.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.196|10.632|||ANCOVA|||6 to 8 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||10.632|5.196|< 0.001
90858412|NCT00809354|181581293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.11|-0.61|0.177
90858413|NCT00809354|181581293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.02|-0.70|0.062
90858414|NCT00809354|181581293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.13|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.13|-0.59|0.212
90858415|NCT00809354|181581293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|-0.54|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.54|-1.34|<0.001
90858416|NCT00809354|181581293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|-0.35|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.35|-1.15|<0.001
90858417|NCT00809354|181581293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.18|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.18|-0.98|0.004
90858418|NCT00809354|181581293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.15|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.15|-0.95|0.007
90858419|NCT00809354|181581293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.37|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.37|-0.43|0.879
90858420|NCT00809354|181581293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.20|-0.60|0.330
90858421|NCT00809354|181581293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.05|-0.75|0.083
90858422|NCT00809354|181581293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.21|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.21|-0.59|0.360
90858423|NCT00809354|181581294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|-0.53|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.53|-1.23|<0.001
90858424|NCT00809354|181581294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|-0.43|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.43|-1.13|<0.001
90904615|NCT02584855|181676629|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||Log Rank Test adjusting for geographic region and cDMARD use at the time of double blind randomization.||||<0.001
90904616|NCT02584855|181676630|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||Log Rank Test adjusting for geographic region and cDMARD use at the time of double blind randomization.||||<0.001
90904617|NCT02584855|181676631|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||Log Rank Test adjusting for geographic region and cDMARD use at the time of double blind randomization.||||<0.001
90904618|NCT02584855|181676632|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||Log Rank Test adjusting for geographic region and cDMARD use at the time of double blind randomization.||||<0.001
91102667|NCT02837952|182092279|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|51.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.075|66.258|||ANCOVA|||0 to 16 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||66.258|37.075|< 0.001
91102668|NCT02837952|182092279|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|27.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.139|36.508|||ANCOVA|||8 to 16 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||36.508|18.139|< 0.001
90858425|NCT00809354|181581294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.17|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.17|-0.87|0.003
90858426|NCT00809354|181581294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.13|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.13|-0.83|0.007
90858427|NCT00809354|181581294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.31|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.31|-0.39|0.824
90858428|NCT00809354|181581294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.06|-0.64|0.100
90858429|NCT00809354|181581294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.01|-0.70|0.044
90858430|NCT00809354|181581294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.25|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.25|-0.45|0.565
90858431|NCT00809354|181581294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.62|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.62|-1.40|<0.001
90858432|NCT00809354|181581294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.42|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.42|-1.20|<0.001
90858433|NCT00809354|181581294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.24|-1.02|0.002
90858434|NCT00809354|181581294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.24|-1.02|0.002
90858435|NCT00809354|181581294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.40|-0.39|0.980
90858436|NCT00809354|181581294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.22|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.22|-0.56|0.383
90858437|NCT00809354|181581294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.01|-0.77|0.057
90858438|NCT00809354|181581294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.19|-0.59|0.312
90904619|NCT02611830|181676640|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|32.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.7|45.0||P-value was calculated by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by randomization strata according to concomitant use of corticosteroids, clinical remission status at Week 6, and previous TNF-α antagonist failure/concomitant immunomodulator.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||45.0|19.7|<0.001
90904620|NCT02611830|181676641|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|35.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.1|49.3||P-value was calculated by CMH test stratified by randomization strata according to concomitant use of corticosteroids, clinical remission status at Week 6, and previous TNF-α antagonist failure/concomitant immunomodulator.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||49.3|22.1|<0.001
90858439|NCT00809354|181581295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on analysis of co-variance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.05|-0.32|0.008
90858440|NCT00809354|181581295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.06|-0.22|0.251
90858441|NCT00809354|181581295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.06|-0.22|0.251
91102669|NCT02837952|182092279|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|138.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.045|186.261|||ANCOVA|||0 to 48 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||186.261|91.045|< 0.001
91102670|NCT02837952|182092280|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value Method was based on Gehan-Wilcoxon test, stratified by sex and baseline categorical PSR.|Gehan-Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.001
91102671|NCT02837952|182092281|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value Method was based on Gehan-Wilcoxon test, stratified by sex and baseline categorical PSR.|Gehan-Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.001
91102672|NCT01879826|182092282|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|With a power of 0.8 and an acceptable type I error size of 0.05, 38 patients per group was estimated to achieve significance||||||0.044|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.044
90858442|NCT00809354|181581295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.13|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.13|-0.14|0.961
90858443|NCT00809354|181581295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.06|-0.21|0.272
90858444|NCT00809354|181581295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.06|-0.21|0.271
90858445|NCT00809354|181581295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.03|-0.24|0.128
90904621|NCT02611830|181676642|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|36.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.2|50.9||P-value was calculated by CMH test stratified by randomization strata according to concomitant use of corticosteroids, clinical remission status at Week 6, and previous TNF-α antagonist failure/concomitant immunomodulator.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||50.9|21.2|<0.001
90904622|NCT02611830|181676643|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.7||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|25.7||P-value was calculated by Fisher's Exact Test.|Fisher Exact|||||25.7|-6.6|0.076
90904623|NCT02611830|181676644|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.6||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|43.7||P-value was calculated by Fisher's Exact Test.|Fisher Exact|||||43.7|-4.5|0.067
90959029|NCT01620255|181798204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.159||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.068|0.25||1-sided p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|PF-00547659 75 mg vs placebo, centrally read||0.250|0.068|0.0027
90904624|NCT01607411|181676652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|5.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.6|7.58||No adjustment was required for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|The fixed factors for ANOVA were study period and treatment and the subject was random effect|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Tests were 2 sided at 5% significance levels.||7.58|3.60|<0.0001
90958764|NCT03386110|181797432|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio, log|-1.7||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.14|-0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|Three-way interaction model testing whether baseline rates of CAS (actor and partner) moderated the effect of condition on CAS events at 6-months||"Moderation analysis in 6-month follow-up data.~The hypothesis that baseline frequency may moderate the effects of treatment at 6-months was evaluated using models incorporating participants' baseline report of the outcome (actor) as well as their partners' report (partner) at Level 1. Interactions among actor and partner baseline scores and treatment condition were also included at Level 1. Additionally, the model controlled for the nesting of participants within couples."||-0.27|-3.14|0.02
90904625|NCT01607411|181676652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|4.36|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.37|6.35||No adjustment was required for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified|ANOVA|The fixed factors for ANOVA were study period and treatment and the subject was random effect|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Tests were 2 sided at 5% significance levels||6.35|2.37|<0.0001
90904626|NCT01607411|181676652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|3.16||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|5.15||No adjustment was required for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified|ANOVA|The fixed factors for ANOVA were study period and treatment and the subject was random effect|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Tests were 2 sided at 5% significance levels||5.15|1.17|0.0021
90904627|NCT01607411|181676653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.23||||0.2225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|3.22||No adjustment was required for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified|ANOVA|The fixed factors for ANOVA were study period and treatment and the subject was random effect|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Tests were 2 sided at 5% significance levels||3.22|-0.76|0.2225
90904628|NCT01607411|181676653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|2.44||||0.0168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|4.43||No adjustment was required for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified|ANOVA|The fixed factors for ANOVA were study period and treatment and the subject was random effect|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Tests were 2 sided at 5% significance levels.||4.43|0.44|0.0168
90904629|NCT01607411|181676653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.2||||0.2352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|3.19||No adjustment was required for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified|ANOVA|The fixed factors for ANOVA were study period and treatment and the subject was random effect|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Tests were 2 sided at 5% significance levels||3.19|-0.79|0.2352
90904630|NCT01607411|181676654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|34.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.07|39.24||No adjustment was required for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified|ANOVA|The fixed factors for ANOVA were study period and treatment and the subject was random effect|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Tests were 2 sided at 5% significance levels||39.24|30.07|<0.0001
90904631|NCT01607411|181676654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean difference|34.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.28|39.44||No adjustment was required for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified|ANOVA|The fixed factors for ANOVA were study period and treatment and the subject was random effect|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Tests were 2 sided at 5% significance levels||39.44|30.28|<0.0001
90904632|NCT01607411|181676654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|28.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.97|33.13||No adjustment was required for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified|ANOVA|The fixed factors for ANOVA were study period and treatment and the subject was random effect|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Tests were 2 sided at 5% significance levels||33.13|23.97|< 0.0001
90904633|NCT01607411|181676654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.21||||0.9292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.79|4.38||No adjustment was required for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified|ANOVA|The fixed factors for ANOVA were study period and treatment and the subject was random effect|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Tests were 2 sided at 5% significance levels||4.38|-4.79|0.9292
90958765|NCT03386110|181797433|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio, log|0.48||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|1.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model testing whether condition predicted marijuana use at 3-months||Multi-level models tested whether treatment condition predicted outcome at 3-months, and controlled for the nesting of participants within couples.||1.44|-0.18|0.15
91031870|NCT02480764|181948632|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.427|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3414||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.893|2.28||Clinic DBP\<80 mm Hg: P-value was calculated using logistic regression model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline trough DBP as a continuous covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.280|0.893|0.137
90958766|NCT03386110|181797433|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio, log|0.24||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model testing whether condition predicted marijuana use at 6-months||Multi-level models tested whether treatment condition predicted outcome at 6-months, and controlled for the nesting of participants within couples.||0.92|-0.44|0.50
91031871|NCT02480764|181948632|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.017|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4816||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.263|3.22||Clinic DBP \<80 mm Hg: P-value was calculated using logistic regression model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline trough DBP as a continuous covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||3.220|1.263|0.003
91031872|NCT02480764|181948632|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.424|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3407||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.891|2.276||Clinic SBP\<130 mm Hg and DBP\<80 mm Hg: P-value was calculated using logistic regression model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline trough SBP as a continuous covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.276|0.891|0.140
91102673|NCT01879826|182092283|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|With a power of 0.8 and an acceptable type I error size of 0.05, 38 patients per group was estimated to achieve significance.||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04
91102674|NCT00835549|182092284|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model containing factors for sequence of products, subjects within sequence, periods, and products was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|98.6||||||90.0|94.8|102.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||102|94.8|
91102675|NCT00835549|182092285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model containing factors for sequence of products, subjects within sequence, periods, and products was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|102.0||||||90.0|98.5|105.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||105|98.5|
91102676|NCT00835549|182092286|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model containing factors for sequence of products, subjects within sequence, periods, and products was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|102.0||||||90.0|98.7|105.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||105|98.7|
91102677|NCT01837550|182092325|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To ensure a between-group effect of 80% at the 5% significance level it was estimated that 60 participants need to be included in the study. An effect size of Cohen's d=0.80 was expected. The expected standardized mean difference on the HHIE formed the basis for the obtained power.||||||0.685|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.685
91102678|NCT02633527|182092379|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.2||||0.0899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|1.0|||ANOVA|||||1.0|-13.4|0.0899
91102679|NCT02633527|182092379|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.9||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.1|-0.7|||ANOVA|||||-0.7|-15.1|0.0310
91102680|NCT02633527|182092379|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.1||||0.0268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.3|-0.9|||ANOVA|||||-0.9|-15.3|0.0268
91102681|NCT02633527|182092379|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.5||||0.0209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.8|-1.3|||ANOVA|||||-1.3|-15.8|0.0209
90904634|NCT01607411|181676654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|6.1||||0.0094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|10.69||No adjustment was required for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified|ANOVA|The fixed factors for ANOVA were study period and treatment and the subject was random effect|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Tests were 2 sided at 5% significance levels||10.69|1.52|0.0094
90904635|NCT01607411|181676654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|6.31||||0.0073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|10.89||No adjustment was required for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified|ANOVA|The fixed factors for ANOVA were study period and treatment and the subject was random effect|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Tests were 2 sided at 5% significance levels||10.89|1.72|0.0073
91102682|NCT02633527|182092380|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.1305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.1|||ANOVA|||||0.1|-1.0|0.1305
91102683|NCT02633527|182092380|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.1376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.1|||ANOVA|||||0.1|-1.0|0.1376
91102684|NCT02633527|182092380|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.2|||ANOVA|||||-0.2|-1.3|0.0090
91102685|NCT02633527|182092380|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.0546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.0|||ANOVA|||||0.0|-1.1|0.0546
91102686|NCT02633527|182092381|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.0708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-1.3|0.0708
91102687|NCT02633527|182092381|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.0309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||||-0.1|-1.4|0.0309
91102688|NCT02633527|182092381|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.0148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||||-0.2|-1.5|0.0148
91102689|NCT02633527|182092381|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.0136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||||-0.2|-1.6|0.0136
91102690|NCT06091956|182092383|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||McNemar|||||||0.008
91102691|NCT06091956|182092384|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.629|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.629
91102692|NCT06091956|182092387|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.175|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.175
91102693|NCT06091956|182092388|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.014
91102694|NCT00318136|182092394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of patients|3.2||||||90.0|0.3|13.5|||Blyth-Still-Casella|||||13.5|0.3|
91102695|NCT02844075|182092439|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||For sample size calculation, Minimax design to evaluate the null hypothesis that the true pCR rate will be 10% and the alternative hypothesis that the pCR rate≥ 30%, with type I error (α) level of 10% and type II error (β) of 0.10. If 1 or more successes are observed in the first 16 patients, accrual for that stratum will be continued until a total of 25 patients. If, of these 25 patients, 5 or more pCR, an additional investigation is warranted. Allowing for a follow-up loss rate of 10 %, the total sample size is expected as 28. For biomarker evaluation, the categorical groups were investigated to evaluated possible association with response and/or survival. Associations were analyzed by χ2 test or Fisher's exact test for categorical variables. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to analyze survival outcomes (EFS, OS, and DFS). To compare PD-L1 expression between paired pre- and post-neoadjuvant treatment with associated of pCR, the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used.|||
91102696|NCT03163264|182092445|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.45||"Statistical test was 2 sided with p\<0.05 indicating statistical significance. Note: Estimated p-value was calculated at 0.050"|Mixed Models Analysis|This analysis was in our grant and protocol paper but was added late to clinicaltrials.gov.||||3.45|0|0.050
91102697|NCT03163264|182092445|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||"Statistical test was 2 sided with p\<0.05 indicating statistical significance. Note: Estimated p-value was calculated at 0.05"|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|The investigators will also use repeated measures modeling based on mixed models using baseline and follow up data to adjust for characteristics||||||0.05
91102698|NCT03163264|182092446|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.069||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|3.39||Statistical test was 2 sided with p\<0.05 indicating statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|This analysis was in our grant and protocol paper but was added late to clinicaltrials.gov.||||3.39|-0.13|0.069
90904636|NCT01607411|181676655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.98||No adjustment was required for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified|ANOVA|The fixed factors for ANOVA were study period and treatment and the subject was random factor|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Tests were 2 sided at 5% significance levels||0.98|0.58|<0.0001
90904637|NCT01607411|181676655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.99||No adjustment was required for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified|ANOVA|The fixed factors for ANOVA were study period and treatment and the subject was random effect|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Tests were 2 sided at 5% significance levels||0.99|0.58|<0.0001
90904638|NCT01607411|181676655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.69||No adjustment was required for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified|ANOVA|The fixed factors for ANOVA were study period and treatment and the subject was random effect|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Tests were 2 sided at 5% significance levels||0.69|0.29|< 0.0001
90904639|NCT01607411|181676655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.005||||0.9631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.2||No adjustment was required for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified|ANOVA|The fixed factors for ANOVA were study period and treatment and the subject was random effect|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Tests were 2 sided at 5% significance levels||0.20|-0.21|0.9631
90959030|NCT01620255|181798204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.069||||0.0999|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.013|0.151||1-sided p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|PF-00547659 225 mg vs placebo, centrally read||0.151|-0.013|0.0999
91102699|NCT03163264|182092446|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.53||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|3.76||Statistical test was 2 sided with p\<0.05 indicating statistical significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|The investigators will also use repeated measures modeling based on mixed models using baseline and follow up data to adjust for characteristics||||3.76|0.21|0.028
91102700|NCT03163264|182092447|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|11.18||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|21.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||21.45|0.92|0.033
91102701|NCT03163264|182092448|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|11.08||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|23.2||Statistical test was 2 sided with p\<0.05 indicating statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted|||23.2|-1.05|0.073
91102702|NCT03163264|182092450|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.72||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|1.48||Statistical test was 2 sided with p\<0.05 indicating statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.48|-0.05|0.065
90904640|NCT01607411|181676655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.29||||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.49||No adjustment was required for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified|ANOVA|The fixed factors for ANOVA were study period and treatment and the subject was random effect|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Tests were 2 sided at 5% significance levels||0.49|0.09|0.0047
90904641|NCT01607411|181676655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.3||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.5||No adjustment was required for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified|ANOVA|The fixed factors for ANOVA were study period and treatment and the subject was random effect|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Tests were 2 sided at 5% significance levels||0.50|0.10|0.0040
90904642|NCT00738530|181676670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.1|||Log Rank|||||1.10|0.76|0.3360
90904643|NCT00738530|181676672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.88|||Log Rank|||||0.88|0.64|0.0004
90904644|NCT00738530|181676673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.86|||Log Rank|||||0.86|0.62|0.0002
90904645|NCT00738530|181676675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.92|||Log Rank|||||0.92|0.66|0.0023
91102703|NCT03163264|182092451|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.42||||0.378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|1.37||Statistical test was 2 sided with p\<0.05 indicating statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.37|-0.52|0.378
91102704|NCT03163264|182092453|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.35||||0.911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-138.25|154.95||Statistical test was 2 sided with p\<0.05 indicating statistical significance|Mixed Models Analysis|||||154.95|-138.25|0.911
90904646|NCT00738530|181676676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rates|19.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.2|26.6|||Chi-squared|||||26.6|13.2|<.0001
91031873|NCT02480764|181948632|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.769|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4136||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.118|2.797||Clinic SBP\<130 mm Hg and DBP\<80 mm Hg: P-value was calculated using logistic regression model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline trough SBP as a continuous covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.797|1.118|0.015
91102705|NCT03163264|182092454|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.83||||0.648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-108.15|173.81||Statistical test was 2 sided with p\<0.05 indicating statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||173.81|-108.15|0.648
91102706|NCT03163264|182092455|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|10.32||||0.736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.73|70.37||Statistical test was 2 sided with p\<0.05 indicating statistical significance|Mixed Models Analysis|||||70.37|-49.73|0.736
91102707|NCT03163264|182092456|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|19.36||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.09|79.8||Statistical test was 2 sided with p\<0.05 indicating statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||79.8|-41.09|0.53
90904647|NCT01656759|181676679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2
90904648|NCT01656759|181676680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9
90904649|NCT01656759|181676682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9
91102708|NCT04565756|182092475|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Since the primary objective of the study was to evaluate ocular safety and tolerability, no formal hypothesis testing was performed for any continuous or categorical variables. All statistical analyses were descriptive in nature and any statistical inferences were carried out according to the analysis plan and interpreted in view of the exploratory nature of the study.|Since the primary objective of the study was to evaluate ocular safety and tolerability, no formal hypothesis testing was performed for any continuous or categorical variables.|||
91102709|NCT01026038|182092499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.07||||||Serotype 4: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||1.07|0.61|
91102710|NCT01026038|182092499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.52||||||Serotype 4: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.52|0.87|
91102711|NCT01026038|182092499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.96||||||Serotype 4: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.96|1.03|
90904650|NCT04179461|181676685|EQUIVALENCE|The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was employed for pairwise comparison between visits for continuous data. Data for the CASI was captured at clinical visits. 3. A level of statistical significance was established at \< 0.05.||||||0.52||||||Change in CASI score from V1 to V3|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The modified CASI score incorporates key asthma outcomes such as symptoms, healthcare utilization, and medication dose.||||0.52
91102712|NCT01026038|182092499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.84||||||Serotype 6B: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||0.84|0.46|
91102713|NCT01026038|182092499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.2||||||Serotype 6B: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.20|0.66|
91102714|NCT01026038|182092499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|2.04||||||Serotype 6B: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||2.04|1.02|
91102715|NCT01026038|182092499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.32||||||Serotype 9V: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||1.32|0.82|
91102716|NCT01026038|182092499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.39||||||Serotype 9V: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.39|0.86|
91102717|NCT01026038|182092499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.39||||||Serotype 9V: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.39|0.79|
91102718|NCT01026038|182092499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.34||||||Serotype 14: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||1.34|0.77|
91102719|NCT01026038|182092499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.37||||||Serotype 14: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.37|0.79|
91102720|NCT01026038|182092499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.4||||||Serotype 14: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.40|0.74|
91102721|NCT01026038|182092499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.97||||||Serotype 18C: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||0.97|0.57|
91102722|NCT01026038|182092499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.11||||||Serotype 18C: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.11|0.65|
91102723|NCT01026038|182092499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMCratio|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.56||||||Serotype 18C: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.56|0.84|
91102724|NCT01026038|182092499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.94||||||Serotype 19F: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||1.94|0.97|
91102725|NCT01026038|182092499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.55||||||Serotype 19F: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.55|0.78|
91102726|NCT01026038|182092499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.19||||||Serotype 19F: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.19|0.54|
91102727|NCT01026038|182092499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.05||||||Serotype 23F: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||1.05|0.61|
91031874|NCT03117569|181948633|NON_INFERIORITY|A total of 375 participants (2:1 randomisation) were planned for enrolment and evaluation as ITT population. Under the assumption that SVR12 rate would be 96% in both arms, the study had 80% power to show non-inferiority of the simplified monitoring strategy with a lower confidence bound for SVR12 in the simplified monitoring arm greater than 90% or with a lower confidence bound for the difference (simplified arm minus standard arm) in SVR12 greater than -6%.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|-3.2|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|1.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.8|-8.2|<0.05
90858446|NCT00809354|181581295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.03|-0.24|0.133
90858447|NCT00809354|181581295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.08|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.08|-0.35|0.002
90858448|NCT00809354|181581295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|-0.06|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.06|-0.34|0.004
90858449|NCT00809354|181581295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.08|-0.20|0.414
90858450|NCT00809354|181581295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.00|-0.27|0.057
90858451|NCT00809354|181581295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.21|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.21|-0.06|0.277
90858452|NCT00809354|181581295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.07|-0.21|0.328
91031875|NCT01030965|181948642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.159|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.088|0.229|||Repeated Measures Analysis of Covariance|||||0.229|0.088|<0.001
91102728|NCT01026038|182092499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.25||||||Serotype 23F: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.25|0.73|
91102729|NCT01026038|182092499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.64||||||Serotype 23F: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.64|0.87|
90858453|NCT00809354|181581295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.02|-0.30|0.026
90858454|NCT00809354|181581295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.13|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.13|-0.15|0.864
90858455|NCT00809354|181581296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.34|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.34|-0.31|0.927
90858456|NCT00809354|181581296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.01|-0.64|0.057
90858457|NCT00809354|181581296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.28|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.28|-0.37|0.779
90858458|NCT00809354|181581296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.28|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.28|-0.36|0.798
90858459|NCT00809354|181581296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.32|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.32|-0.33|0.980
90858460|NCT00809354|181581296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.05|-0.60|0.098
90858461|NCT00809354|181581296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.38|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.38|-0.26|0.709
90858462|NCT00809354|181581296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.65|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.65|0.01|0.045
90858463|NCT00809354|181581296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.41|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.41|-0.28|0.710
90858464|NCT00809354|181581296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.23|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.23|-0.46|0.504
91031876|NCT01030965|181948642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.168|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.099|0.238|||Repeated Measures Analysis of Covariance|||||0.238|0.099|<0.001
91031877|NCT01030965|181948642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.22|||Repeated Measures Analysis of Covariance|||||0.220|0.080|<0.001
91031878|NCT02863575|181948720|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) means difference|2.68||||0.306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.46|7.82|||ANCOVA|||||7.82|-2.46|0.306
91102730|NCT01026038|182092499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|3.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.76|4.74||||||Serotype 1: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||4.74|2.76|
91102731|NCT01026038|182092499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.68||||||Serotype 1: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||0.68|0.40|
91102732|NCT01026038|182092499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.2||||||Serotype 1: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||0.20|0.10|
90858465|NCT00809354|181581296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.58|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.58|-0.11|0.183
90858466|NCT00809354|181581296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.33|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.33|-0.36|0.919
90858467|NCT00809354|181581296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.59|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.59|-0.09|0.152
90858468|NCT00809354|181581296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.24|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.24|-0.44|0.572
90858469|NCT00809354|181581296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.18|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.18|-0.51|0.337
90904651|NCT04179461|181676686|EQUIVALENCE|The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was employed for pairwise comparison between visits for continuous data. Data for the c-ACT/ACT was captured at clinical visits and from monthly phone calls. Because c-ACT/ACT could vary through time, we calculated the average c-ACT/ACT between V1-V2 and V2-V3. Data analysis was performed in SAS version 9.4 (SAS, Cary, NC). A level of statistical significance was established at \< 0.05.||||||0.45||||||The change in ACT score from V1 to V2 (the period between V1 and V2).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.45
91102733|NCT01026038|182092499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.59||||||Serotype 3: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||1.59|0.80|
91102734|NCT01026038|182092499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.23||||||Serotype 3: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.23|0.62|
91102735|NCT01026038|182092499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.15||||||Serotype 3: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.15|0.52|
90858470|NCT00809354|181581296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.52|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.52|-0.16|0.299
90858471|NCT00809354|181581296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|-0.5|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.50|-1.17|<0.001
90858472|NCT00809354|181581296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|-0.55|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.55|-1.22|<0.001
90858473|NCT00809354|181581296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.34|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.34|-1.01|<0.001
90858474|NCT00809354|181581296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.18|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.18|-0.85|0.003
90858475|NCT00809354|181581296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.17|-0.50|0.341
90858476|NCT00809354|181581296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.03|-0.71|0.031
90904652|NCT04179461|181676686|EQUIVALENCE|The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was employed for pairwise comparison between visits for continuous data. Data for the c-ACT/ACT was captured at clinical visits and from monthly phone calls. Because c-ACT/ACT could vary through time, we calculated the average c-ACT/ACT between V1-V2 and V2-V3. Data analysis was performed in SAS version 9.4 (SAS, Cary, NC). A level of statistical significance was established at \< 0.05.||||||0.01||||||The change in ACT score from V1-V2 to V2-V3.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.01
91031879|NCT02863575|181948721|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.09||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|2.2|||ANCOVA|||SPRID 0-2||2.20|-0.03|0.056
91031880|NCT02863575|181948721|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|11.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.54|12.73|||ANCOVA|||SPRID 0-2||12.73|9.54|< 0.001
91031881|NCT02863575|181948721|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|10.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.45|11.64|||ANCOVA|||SPRID 0-2||11.64|8.45|< 0.001
91031882|NCT02863575|181948721|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.58||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|3.87|||ANCOVA|||SPRID 0-4||3.87|-0.72|0.177
91102736|NCT01026038|182092499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|3.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.68|4.54||||||Serotype 5: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||4.54|2.68|
91102737|NCT01026038|182092499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.68||||||Serotype 5: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||0.68|0.40|
90858477|NCT00809354|181581296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.17|-0.49|0.349
90858478|NCT00809354|181581296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.38|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.38|-0.29|0.780
90858479|NCT00809354|181581296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|-0.58|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.58|-1.31|<0.001
90858480|NCT00809354|181581296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|-0.56|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.56|-1.29|<0.001
90858481|NCT00809354|181581296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.26|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.26|-0.99|<0.001
90858482|NCT00809354|181581296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.15|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.15|-0.88|0.005
90858483|NCT00809354|181581296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.26|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.26|-0.47|0.562
90858484|NCT00809354|181581296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.04|-0.77|0.028
90858485|NCT00809354|181581296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.04|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.04|-0.68|0.084
90858486|NCT00809354|181581296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.34|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.34|-0.38|0.910
90858487|NCT00809354|181581296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.69|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.69|-1.40|<0.001
90858488|NCT00809354|181581296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|-0.56|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.56|-1.27|<0.001
90858489|NCT00809354|181581296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|-0.55|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.55|-1.25|<0.001
90858490|NCT00809354|181581296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.17|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.17|-0.88|0.003
90858491|NCT00809354|181581296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.02|-0.72|0.039
90858492|NCT00809354|181581296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.03|-0.74|0.032
90858493|NCT00809354|181581296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.20|-0.50|0.409
90858494|NCT00809354|181581296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.22|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.22|-0.49|0.461
90858495|NCT00809354|181581296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|-0.84|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.84|-1.59|<0.001
90858496|NCT00809354|181581296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.65|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.65|-1.40|<0.001
90858497|NCT00809354|181581296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|-0.43|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.43|-1.17|<0.001
91102738|NCT01026038|182092499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.2||||||Serotype 5: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||0.20|0.11|
91031883|NCT02863575|181948721|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|24.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.76|27.32|||ANCOVA|||SPRID 0-4||27.32|20.76|< 0.001
91102739|NCT01026038|182092499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|2.23||||||Serotype 6A: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||2.23|1.15|
90858498|NCT00809354|181581296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.22|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.22|-0.97|0.002
90858499|NCT00809354|181581296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.17|-0.58|0.281
90858500|NCT00809354|181581296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.06|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.06|-0.81|0.023
90904653|NCT04179461|181676687|EQUIVALENCE|The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was employed for pairwise comparison between visits for continuous data and the Bowker's test was used to compare categorical FEV1-FVC data. Data analysis was performed in SAS version 9.4 (SAS, Cary, NC). A level of statistical significance was established at \< 0.05.||||||0.27||||||The Change in FEV1/FVC from Visit 1 to Visit 3|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.27
90904654|NCT04179461|181676688|EQUIVALENCE|Intervention adherence and end of study adherence were each calculated based on the 30 days prior to end of intervention and V3, respectively, in order to assess a consistent timeframe. The paired Wilcoxon signed rank test was conducted to compare controller inhaler adherence during baseline, adherence intervention, and end of study.||||||0.17||||||Change between baseline (V1) to end of study (V3)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.17
90904655|NCT02916862|181676705|SUPERIORITY|Power calculations were done for Aim 1, so the main analysis was done only between SCF and placebo. Significance was set at a p value \<0.05.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.92||0.377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|5.53||We adjusted the models for baseline age, sex, Tanner stage (puberty status), percent change in weight, and percent change in height.|ANCOVA|We adjusted the models for baseline age, sex, Tanner stage (puberty status), percent change in weight, and percent change in height.||The main analyses were performed on an intention-to-treat basis. For the primary analysis, percent change from baseline in whole-body BMC after one year of supplement (SCF) vs placebo (AIM 1), we used analysis of covariance, adjusted for baseline age, sex, Tanner stage (puberty status), percent change in weight, and percent change in height. Effects were considered significant at the alpha level of 0.05.||5.53|-2.12|0.377
90904656|NCT02916862|181676705|SUPERIORITY|Significance was set at a p value \<0.05.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.95|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.8||0.245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.366|5.266|||ANCOVA|||The main analyses were performed on an intention-to-treat basis. For the secondary analysis, percent change from baseline in whole-body BMC after one year of supplement (SCF+calcium) vs placebo+calcium (AIM 2), we used analysis of covariance, adjusted for baseline age, sex, Tanner stage (puberty status), percent change in weight, and percent change in height. Effects were considered significant at the alpha level of 0.05.||5.266|-1.366|0.245
90904657|NCT02916862|181676706|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.655||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.765|8.143|||ANCOVA|||The main analyses were performed on an intention-to-treat basis. For the secondary analysis, percent change from baseline in lumbar BMC after one year of supplement (SCF) vs placebo, we used analysis of covariance, adjusted for baseline age, sex, Tanner stage (puberty status), percent change in weight, and percent change in height. Effects were considered significant at the alpha level of 0.05.||8.143|-0.765|0.05
90904658|NCT02916862|181676706|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.035|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.535||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.68|2.435|||ANCOVA|||||2.435|-7.680|0.05
90904659|NCT03259373|181676717|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.07|||fixed-effect meta-analysis|||The null hypothesis was the that proportions of patients with at least one OAC filled at one year were the same between the two groups.||1.07|0.95|0.79
90904660|NCT03259373|181676717|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.12|||fixed-effect meta-analysis|||The null hypothesis was that the proportions of patients with at least one OAC filled at 183 days were the same between the two groups.||1.12|0.96|0.307
90904661|NCT03259373|181676717|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.16|||fixed-effect meta-analysis|||The null hypothesis was that the proportions of patients with at least one OAC filled at 90 days were the same between the two groups.||1.16|0.95|0.375
90904662|NCT03259373|181676717|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.076||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.26|||fixed-effect meta-analysis|||The null hypothesis was that the proportions of patients with at least one OAC filled at 42 days were the same between the two groups.||1.26|0.94|0.265
91102740|NCT01026038|182092499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.72||||||Serotype 6A: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.72|0.89|
90858501|NCT00809354|181581296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.04|-0.79|0.031
90858502|NCT00809354|181581296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.19|-0.56|0.331
90858503|NCT00809354|181581296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|-0.75|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.75|-1.47|<0.001
90858504|NCT00809354|181581296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.6|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.60|-1.33|<0.001
90904663|NCT03259373|181676717|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044||0.237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.15|||fixed-effect meta-analysis|||The null hypothesis was that the proportions of patients with at least one OAC filled among females were the same between the two groups.||1.15|0.97|0.237
90904664|NCT03259373|181676717|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.042||0.487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.05|||fixed-effect meta-analysis|||The null hypothesis was that the proportions of patients with at least one OAC filled among males were the same between the two groups.||1.05|0.89|0.487
90904665|NCT03259373|181676717|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.125||0.952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.27|||fixed-effect meta-analysis|||The null hypothesis was that the proportions of patients with at least one OAC filled among age \<= 64 yrs were the same between the two groups.||1.27|0.78|0.952
90904666|NCT03259373|181676717|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057||0.696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.14|||fixed-effect meta-analysis|||The null hypothesis was that the proportions of the patients with at least one OAC filled among age 65 - 74 yrs were the same between the two groups.||1.14|0.91|0.696
90904667|NCT03259373|181676717|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047||0.584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.13|||fixed-effect meta-analysis|||The null hypothesis was that the proportions of patients with at least one OAC filled among age 75 - 84 yrs were the same between groups.||1.13|0.94|0.584
90904668|NCT03259373|181676717|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.069||0.911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.14|||fixed-effect meta-analysis|||The null hypothesis was that the proportions of patients with at least one OAC filled among age \>= 85 yrs were the same between the two groups.||1.14|0.87|0.911
90904669|NCT03259373|181676717|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057||0.746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.1|||fixed-effect meta-analysis|||The null hypothesis was that the proportions of the patients with at least one OAC filled among those with a CHADS-VASC of 2-3 were the same between the two groups.||1.10|0.88|0.746
90904670|NCT03259373|181676717|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.19|||fixed-effect meta-analysis|||The null hypothesis was that the proportions of patients with at least one OAC filled among those with a CHADS-VASC score of 4-5 were the same between the two groups.||1.19|0.98|0.109
90904671|NCT03259373|181676717|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057||0.244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.05|||fixed-effect meta-analysis|||The null hypothesis was that the proportions of patients with at least one OAC filled among those with a CHADS-VASC score \>=6 were the same between the two groups.||1.05|0.84|0.244
91102741|NCT01026038|182092499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.13||||||Serotype 6A: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.13|0.53|
91102742|NCT01026038|182092499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|2.08||||||Serotype 7F: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||2.08|1.28|
90959031|NCT01620255|181798204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.001||||0.5225|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.111|0.114||1-sided p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|PF-00547659 7.5 mg vs placebo, locally read||0.114|-0.111|0.5225
90858505|NCT00809354|181581296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.31|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.31|-1.03|<0.001
90858506|NCT00809354|181581296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.26|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.26|-0.98|<0.001
90858507|NCT00809354|181581296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.31|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.31|-0.41|0.781
90858508|NCT00809354|181581296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.01|-0.71|0.057
90858509|NCT00809354|181581296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.08|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.08|-0.80|0.016
90858510|NCT00809354|181581296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.22|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.22|-0.50|0.450
90858511|NCT00809354|181581296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|-0.69|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.69|-1.47|<0.001
90858512|NCT00809354|181581296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.42|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.42|-1.20|<0.001
90904672|NCT03259373|181676718|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.079||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.08|||fixed-effect meta-analysis|||There were one or two sites that had no adverse events or just one event in either or both arms, so there was no estimated effect size/variance from the multivariable models at the site level. Therefore, depending on the specific outcome, either one or two sites did not contribute to the fixed-effect meta-analysis as there was no estimated effect size or variance to include in the meta-analysis.||1.08|0.79|0.300
90858513|NCT00809354|181581296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|-0.34|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.34|-1.12|<0.001
90858514|NCT00809354|181581296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|-0.26|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.26|-1.04|0.001
90858515|NCT00809354|181581296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.31|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.31|-0.47|0.699
90858516|NCT00809354|181581296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.22|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.22|-0.55|0.408
90858517|NCT00809354|181581296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.04|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.04|-0.74|0.077
90858518|NCT00809354|181581296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.12|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.12|-0.65|0.182
90858519|NCT00809354|181581297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.28|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.28|-0.36|0.798
90858520|NCT00809354|181581297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.28|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.28|-0.37|0.779
90858521|NCT00809354|181581297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.01|-0.64|0.057
90858522|NCT00809354|181581297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.34|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.34|-0.31|0.927
90858523|NCT00809354|181581297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.32|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.32|-0.33|0.980
90959032|NCT01620255|181798204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.154||||0.0246|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.03|0.278||1-sided p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|PF-00547659 22.5 mg vs placebo, locally read||0.278|0.030|0.0246
90904673|NCT03259373|181676719|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.172||0.122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.83|||fixed-effect meta-analysis|||There were one or two sites that had no adverse events or just one event in either or both arms, so there was no estimated effect size/variance from the multivariable models at the site level. Therefore, depending on the specific outcome, either one or two sites did not contribute to the fixed-effect meta-analysis as there was no estimated effect size or variance to include in the meta-analysis.||1.83|0.93|0.122
90904674|NCT03259373|181676720|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.073||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.13|||fixed-effect meta-analysis|||There were one or two sites that had no adverse events or just one event in either or both arms, so there was no estimated effect size/variance from the multivariable models at the site level. Therefore, depending on the specific outcome, either one or two sites did not contribute to the fixed-effect meta-analysis as there was no estimated effect size or variance to include in the meta-analysis.||1.13|0.85|0.760
90904675|NCT03259373|181676721|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.072||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.14|||fixed-effect meta-analysis|||There were one or two sites that had no adverse events or just one event in either or both arms, so there was no estimated effect size/variance from the multivariable models at the site level. Therefore, depending on the specific outcome, either one or two sites did not contribute to the fixed-effect meta-analysis as there was no estimated effect size or variance to include in the meta-analysis.||1.14|0.86|0.760
90904676|NCT03259373|181676722|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.08|||fixed-effect meta-analysis|||There were one or two sites that had no adverse events or just one event in either or both arms, so there was no estimated effect size/variance from the multivariable models at the site level. Therefore, depending on the specific outcome, either one or two sites did not contribute to the fixed-effect meta-analysis as there was no estimated effect size or variance to include in the meta-analysis.||1.08|0.88|0.616
90904677|NCT03259373|181676723|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.072||0.992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.15|||fixed-effect meta-analysis|||There were one or two sites that had no adverse events or just one event in either or both arms, so there was no estimated effect size/variance from the multivariable models at the site level. Therefore, depending on the specific outcome, either one or two sites did not contribute to the fixed-effect meta-analysis as there was no estimated effect size or variance to include in the meta-analysis.||1.15|0.87|0.992
90904678|NCT03259373|181676724|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029||0.808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.07|||fixed-effect meta-analysis|||||1.07|0.95|0.808
90904679|NCT03259373|181676725|SUPERIORITY||Standardized Mean Difference (%)|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.853|TWO_SIDED||||||fixed-effect meta-analysis|||||||0.853
90904680|NCT03259373|181676726|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.06|||fixed-effect meta-analysis|||||1.06|0.82|0.303
91031884|NCT02863575|181948721|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|22.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.18|25.75|||ANCOVA|||SPRID 0-4||25.75|19.18|< 0.001
91102743|NCT01026038|182092499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.3||||||Serotype 7F: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.30|0.81|
90904681|NCT03259373|181676727|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063||0.649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.16|||fixed-effect meta-analysis|||There were one or two sites that had no adverse events or just one event in either or both arms, so there was no estimated effect size/variance from the multivariable models at the site level. Therefore, depending on the specific outcome, either one or two sites did not contribute to the fixed-effect meta-analysis as there was no estimated effect size or variance to include in the meta-analysis.||1.16|0.91|0.649
91031885|NCT02863575|181948721|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.39||||0.201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|6.06|||ANCOVA|||SPRID 0-6||6.06|-1.28|0.201
90904682|NCT03259373|181676728|SUPERIORITY||Standardized Mean Difference (%)|-0.4998|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.009||0.587|TWO_SIDED||||||fixed-effect meta-analysis|||||||0.587
90904683|NCT03259373|181676728|SUPERIORITY||Standardized Mean Difference (%)|-0.4655|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.009||0.613|TWO_SIDED||||||fixed-effect meta-analysis|||||||0.613
91031886|NCT02863575|181948721|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|34.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.06|39.55|||ANCOVA|||SPRID 0-6||39.55|29.06|< 0.001
91102744|NCT01026038|182092499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.83||||||Serotype 7F: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||0.83|0.47|
91102745|NCT01026038|182092499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|2.63||||||Serotype 19A: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||2.63|1.51|
90904684|NCT03259373|181676728|SUPERIORITY||Standardized Mean Difference (%)|0.598|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.009||0.515|TWO_SIDED||||||fixed-effect meta-analysis|||||||0.515
90904685|NCT03259373|181676728|SUPERIORITY||Standardized Mean Difference (%)|-2.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.009||0.018|TWO_SIDED||||||fixed-effect meta-analysis|||||||0.018
90904686|NCT03259373|181676728|SUPERIORITY||Standardized Mean Difference (%)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.009||0.956|TWO_SIDED||||||fixed-effect meta-analysis|||||||0.956
90904687|NCT03259373|181676729|SUPERIORITY||Standardized Mean Difference (%)|-1.018|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.009||0.279|TWO_SIDED||||||fixed-effect meta-analysis|||||||0.279
90904688|NCT03259373|181676729|SUPERIORITY||Standardized Mean Difference (%)|-1.347|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.009||0.143|TWO_SIDED||||||fixed-effect meta-analysis|||||||0.143
90904689|NCT01706965|181676736|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||ANOVA|||Univariate ANOVA, controlling for baseline PANSS total||||.38
90904690|NCT01706965|181676737|SUPERIORITY|ANOVA, controlled for baseline MATRICS||||||0.99|||||||ANOVA|||||||.99
91031887|NCT02863575|181948721|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|31.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.67|37.16|||ANCOVA|||SPRID 0-6||37.16|26.67|< 0.001
91031888|NCT02863575|181948721|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|40.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.49|48.2|||ANCOVA|||SPRID 0-8||48.20|33.49|< 0.001
91031889|NCT02863575|181948721|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|38.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.81|45.52|||ANCOVA|||SPRID 0-8||45.52|30.81|< 0.001
90858524|NCT00809354|181581297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.05|-0.60|0.098
90858525|NCT00809354|181581297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.38|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.38|-0.26|0.709
90858526|NCT00809354|181581297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.65|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.65|0.01|0.045
90858527|NCT00809354|181581297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.33|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.33|-0.36|0.919
90858528|NCT00809354|181581297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.58|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.58|-0.11|0.183
90858529|NCT00809354|181581297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.23|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.23|-0.46|0.504
90858530|NCT00809354|181581297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.41|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.41|-0.28|0.710
90858531|NCT00809354|181581297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.59|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.59|-0.09|0.152
90858532|NCT00809354|181581297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.24|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.24|-0.44|0.572
90905120|NCT02886728|181677440|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|-3.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-3.0|-10.0|<0.001
90858533|NCT00809354|181581297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.18|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.18|-0.51|0.337
90858534|NCT00809354|181581297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.52|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.52|-0.16|0.299
90858535|NCT00809354|181581297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.14|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.14|-0.82|0.005
90858536|NCT00809354|181581297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.38|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.38|-1.05|<0.001
90858537|NCT00809354|181581297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|-0.57|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.57|-1.25|<0.001
90858538|NCT00809354|181581297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|-0.56|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.56|-1.23|<0.001
90858539|NCT00809354|181581297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.10|-0.57|0.177
90858540|NCT00809354|181581297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.09|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.09|-0.76|0.014
90858541|NCT00809354|181581297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.15|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.15|-0.52|0.286
90858542|NCT00809354|181581297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.35|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.35|-0.33|0.952
90858543|NCT00809354|181581297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.21|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.21|-0.95|0.002
90858544|NCT00809354|181581297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.20|-0.94|0.003
90858545|NCT00809354|181581297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|-0.52|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.52|-1.26|<0.001
91031890|NCT02863575|181948722|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.73||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|1.5|||ANCOVA|||SPID 0-2||1.50|-0.05|0.066
91031891|NCT02863575|181948722|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|7.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.44|8.66|||ANCOVA|||SPID 0-2||8.66|6.44|< 0.001
91102746|NCT01026038|182092499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.37||||||Serotype 19A: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.37|0.79|
91031892|NCT02863575|181948722|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|6.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.71|7.93|||ANCOVA|||SPID 0-2||7.93|5.71|< 0.001
91031893|NCT02863575|181948722|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|1.14||||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|2.74|||ANCOVA|||SPID 0-4||2.74|-0.47|0.165
91031894|NCT02863575|181948722|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|16.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.05|18.64|||ANCOVA|||SPID 0-4||18.64|14.05|< 0.001
91031895|NCT02863575|181948722|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|15.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.91|17.51|||ANCOVA|||SPID 0-4||17.51|12.91|< 0.001
91031896|NCT02863575|181948722|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|1.78||||0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|4.34|||ANCOVA|||SPID 0-6||4.34|-0.78|0.172
91031897|NCT02863575|181948722|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|23.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.71|27.03|||ANCOVA|||SPID 0-6||27.03|19.71|< 0.001
91031898|NCT02863575|181948722|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|21.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.93|25.25|||ANCOVA|||SPID 0-6||25.25|17.93|< 0.001
91102747|NCT01026038|182092499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.72||||||Serotype 19A: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||0.72|0.38|
91102748|NCT01026038|182092500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||Pain (Any): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC.||||>0.990
91102749|NCT01026038|182092500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.429||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Pain (Any): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.429
91102750|NCT01026038|182092500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.314||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Pain (Any): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.314
90858546|NCT00809354|181581297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|-0.55|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.55|-1.29|<0.001
90858547|NCT00809354|181581297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.38|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.38|-0.36|0.972
90858548|NCT00809354|181581297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.06|-0.69|0.096
90858549|NCT00809354|181581297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.03|-0.72|0.069
90858550|NCT00809354|181581297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.35|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.35|-0.39|0.902
91102751|NCT01026038|182092500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Pain (Mild): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC.||||>0.990
91102752|NCT01026038|182092500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.552||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Pain (Mild): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.552
91102753|NCT01026038|182092500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.499||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Pain (Mild): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.499
91102754|NCT01026038|182092500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.376||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Pain (Moderate): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.376
91102755|NCT01026038|182092500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.633||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Pain (Moderate): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.633
91102756|NCT01026038|182092500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.658||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Pain (Moderate): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.658
91102757|NCT01026038|182092500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.544||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Pain (Severe): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.544
91102758|NCT01026038|182092500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Pain (Severe): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||>0.990
91102759|NCT01026038|182092500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Pain (Severe): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||>0.990
91102760|NCT01026038|182092500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.859||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Swelling (Any): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.859
91102761|NCT01026038|182092500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.197||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Swelling (Any): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.197
91102762|NCT01026038|182092500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.198||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Swelling (Any): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.198
91102763|NCT01026038|182092500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.443||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Swelling (Mild): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.443
91102764|NCT01026038|182092500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.261||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Swelling (Mild): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.261
91102765|NCT01026038|182092500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.687||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Swelling (Mild): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.687
90858551|NCT00809354|181581297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|-0.22|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.22|-0.93|0.002
90904691|NCT00556374|181676754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.504|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.65|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Stratification factors are hospital type, prior use of aromatase inhibitor, and baseline lumbar spine BMD.|From the Cox proportional hazard model with treatment as the independent variable and stratified by randomization strata. A hazard ratio \< 1.0 indicates a lower average event rate and a longer fracture-free time for denosumab relative to placebo.|The efficacy clinical hypothesis is that denosumab, when administered subcutaneously at a dose of 60 mg every 6 months, will be considered efficacious in patients with non-metastatic breast cancer receiving AIT if the rate of first clinical fracture in denosumab-treated patients is lower than that in placebo-treated patients. It is anticipated that denosumab will reduce the rate by 30% compared with placebo (ie, the true hazard ratio of denosumab compared with placebo is 0.70).||0.65|0.39|<0.0001
90904692|NCT00556374|181676755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference from Placebo|10.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.04|11.01||The Hochberg procedure was used to control for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Model includes treatment group as the independent variable and adjusted for baseline value and the randomization stratification factors.||||11.01|9.04|<0.0001
90904693|NCT00556374|181676756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference from Placebo|7.92|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.87|8.97||The Hochberg procedure was used to control for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Model includes treatment group as the independent variable and adjusted for baseline value and the randomization stratification factors.||||8.97|6.87|<0.0001
90904694|NCT00556374|181676757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference from Placebo|6.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.62|7.39||The Hochberg procedure was used to control for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Model includes treatment group as the independent variable and adjusted for baseline value and the randomization stratification factors.||||7.39|5.62|<0.0001
90904695|NCT00556374|181676758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.53||||0.0088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.85|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes treatment groups as the independent variable and stratified by the randomization stratification factors.|Values \< 1 for odds ratio favor denosumab.|||0.85|0.33|0.0088
90904696|NCT00556374|181676759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.54||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.84|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes treatment groups as the independent variable and stratified by the randomization stratification factors.|Values \< 1 for odds ratio favor denosumab.|||0.84|0.34|0.0070
90904697|NCT00556374|181676760|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.816||||0.0515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.0|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Stratified by randomization strata (hospital type, use of aromatase inhibitor, baseline lumbar spine BMD).|From the Cox Proportional hazards model with treatment fitted as a covariate and stratified by randomization strata. A hazard ratio \< 1.0 indicates a lower average event rate and a longer disease-free time for denosumab relative to placebo.|||1.00|0.66|0.0515
90904698|NCT00556374|181676761|SUPERIORITY|Analysis of BMFS was conditional on the outcome of DFS due to hierarchical testing strategy, therefore p-value not reported.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.808|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.654|0.997|||||A hazard ratio \< 1.0 indicates a lower average event rate and a longer bone metastases-free time for denosumab relative to placebo.|||0.997|0.654|
90904699|NCT00556374|181676762|SUPERIORITY|Analysis of OS was conditional on the outcome of DFS due to hierarchical testing strategy, therefore p-value not reported.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.802|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.635|1.013|||||A hazard ratio \< 1.0 indicates a lower average event rate and a longer overall survival time for denosumab relative to placebo.|||1.013|0.635|
91031899|NCT02863575|181948722|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|2.1||||0.249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|5.67|||ANCOVA|||SPID 0-8||5.67|-1.47|0.249
90858552|NCT00809354|181581297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.61|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.61|-1.33|<0.001
91102766|NCT01026038|182092500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.671||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Swelling (Moderate): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.671
91102767|NCT01026038|182092500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.253||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Swelling (Moderate): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.253
90858553|NCT00809354|181581297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|-0.66|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.66|-1.38|<0.001
90858554|NCT00809354|181581297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|-0.84|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.84|-1.55|<0.001
90904700|NCT02102464|181676809|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|14.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||14.0|8.0|<0.0001
90904701|NCT02102464|181676810|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|-5.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-5.2|-10.2|<0.0001
90904702|NCT02102464|181676811|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|5.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.4|2.5|<0.0001
90959033|NCT01620255|181798204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.13||||0.0464|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.008|0.253||1-sided p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|PF-00547659 75 mg vs placebo, locally read||0.253|0.008|0.0464
91031900|NCT02863575|181948722|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|27.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.78|32.99|||ANCOVA|||SPID 0-8||32.99|22.78|< 0.001
91102768|NCT01026038|182092500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.074||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Swelling (Moderate): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.074
90858555|NCT00809354|181581297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.04|-0.75|0.028
91102769|NCT01026038|182092500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.323||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Swelling (Severe): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.323
91102770|NCT01026038|182092500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.489||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Swelling (Severe): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.489
91102771|NCT01026038|182092500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.607||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Redness (Any): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.607
91102772|NCT01026038|182092500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.549||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Redness (Any): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.549
91102773|NCT01026038|182092500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.864||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Redness (Any): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.864
91102774|NCT01026038|182092500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.859||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Redness (Mild): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.859
91102775|NCT01026038|182092500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.836||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Redness (Mild): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.836
91102776|NCT01026038|182092500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Redness (Mild): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||>0.990
91102777|NCT01026038|182092500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.297||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Redness (Moderate): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.297
91102778|NCT01026038|182092500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.145||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Redness (Moderate): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.145
91102779|NCT01026038|182092500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.517||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Redness (Moderate): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.517
91102780|NCT01026038|182092500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.323||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Redness (Severe): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.323
91102781|NCT01026038|182092500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.489||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Redness (Severe): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.489
91102782|NCT01026038|182092501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.075|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Fever (\>=38 degree C to \<=39 degree C): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC||||0.075
91102783|NCT01026038|182092501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.345||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Fever (\>=38 degree C to \<=39 degree C): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC||||0.345
91102784|NCT01026038|182092501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.628||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Fever (\>=38 degree C to \<=39 degree C): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC||||0.628
91102785|NCT01026038|182092501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.592||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Fever (\>=39 degree C to \<=40 degree C): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.592
91102786|NCT01026038|182092501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.608||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Fever (\>=39 degree C to \<=40 degree C): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.608
91102787|NCT01026038|182092501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Fever (\>=39 degree C to \<=40 degree C): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||>0.990
91102788|NCT01026038|182092501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Fever (\>40 degree C): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||>0.990
90858556|NCT00809354|181581297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.09|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.09|-0.81|0.013
90858557|NCT00809354|181581297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.13|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.13|-0.58|0.217
90858558|NCT00809354|181581297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.19|-0.53|0.351
91102789|NCT01026038|182092501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.333||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Fever (\>40 degree C): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.333
91102790|NCT01026038|182092501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.215||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Vomiting (Any): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.215
91102791|NCT01026038|182092501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.714||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Vomiting (Any): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.714
91102792|NCT01026038|182092501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.397||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Vomiting (Any): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.397
91102793|NCT01026038|182092501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.215||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Vomiting (Mild): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.215
91031901|NCT02863575|181948722|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|25.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.68|30.89|||ANCOVA|||SPID 0-8||30.89|20.68|< 0.001
91031902|NCT02863575|181948723|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.36||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.71|||ANCOVA|||TOTPAR 0-2||0.71|0.01|0.044
91031903|NCT02863575|181948723|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|3.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.09|4.09|||ANCOVA|||TOTPAR 0-2||4.09|3.09|< 0.001
91102794|NCT01026038|182092501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.714||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Vomiting (Mild): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.714
91102795|NCT01026038|182092501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.397||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Vomiting (Mild): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.397
91102796|NCT01026038|182092501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.161||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Diarrhea (Any): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.161
91102797|NCT01026038|182092501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.226||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Diarrhea (Any): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.226
90858559|NCT00809354|181581297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.28|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.28|-1.05|<0.001
90858560|NCT00809354|181581297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|-0.45|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.45|-1.22|<0.001
90858561|NCT00809354|181581297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|-0.62|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.62|-1.38|<0.001
90858562|NCT00809354|181581297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|-0.8|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.80|-1.57|<0.001
90904703|NCT01053637|181676821|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||Pain at 5 minutes using Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario Pain Scale validated in the younger population. Using a 2-point difference in CHEOPS pain scale as a clinically significant change, 34 patients were required in the younger 2- to 7 group.|Fisher Exact|||Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario Pain Scale, for children 2-7 years. This score ranks 6 categories: Cry, Facial expression, Verbal Response, Torso movement, Touch, and Leg movement. The scale varies by each category from 0-2 or 1-2 or 1-3; such that a minimum score is 4 (no pain) and a maximum score is 13 signifying greatest or worst pain.||||0.05
90904704|NCT01053637|181676822|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||State-Trait Anxiety Inventory for Children pre vs. post procedure for matched pairs. Higher numbers indicated higher state anxiety. State Trait Anxiety Inventory for Children (STAIC) scores pre vs. post procedure for matched pairs. A lower STAIC score indicates less anxiety and a greater score indicates more anxiety based on Likert-type scales and analyzed using nonparametric testing.||||0.05
91031904|NCT02863575|181948723|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|3.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.73|3.73|||ANCOVA|||TOTPAR 0-2||3.73|2.73|< 0.001
91031905|NCT02863575|181948723|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.44||||0.224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|1.15|||ANCOVA|||TOTPAR 0-4||1.15|-0.27|0.224
91031906|NCT02863575|181948723|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|7.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.68|8.71|||ANCOVA|||TOTPAR 0-4||8.71|6.68|< 0.001
91031907|NCT02863575|181948723|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|7.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.23|8.27|||ANCOVA|||TOTPAR 0-4||8.27|6.23|< 0.001
91031908|NCT02863575|181948723|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.61||||0.293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|1.75|||ANCOVA|||TOTPAR 0-6||1.75|-0.53|0.293
91031909|NCT02863575|181948723|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|10.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.3|12.56|||ANCOVA|||TOTPAR 0-6||12.56|9.30|< 0.001
91031910|NCT02863575|181948723|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|10.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.69|11.95|||ANCOVA|||TOTPAR 0-6||11.95|8.69|< 0.001
91031911|NCT02863575|181948723|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.58||||0.476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|2.19|||ANCOVA|||TOTPAR 0-8||2.19|-1.03|0.476
91031912|NCT02863575|181948723|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|12.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.66|15.26|||ANCOVA|||TOTPAR 0-8||15.26|10.66|< 0.001
91031913|NCT02863575|181948723|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|12.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.08|14.68|||ANCOVA|||TOTPAR 0-8||14.68|10.08|< 0.001
91031914|NCT02863575|181948724|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.01||||0.975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.36|||ANCOVA|||PRID at 0.25 hour||0.36|-0.35|0.975
91102798|NCT01026038|182092501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Diarrhea (Any): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||>0.990
91102799|NCT01026038|182092501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.161||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Diarrhea (Mild): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.161
91102800|NCT01026038|182092501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.226||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Diarrhea (Mild): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.226
91102801|NCT01026038|182092501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Diarrhea (Mild): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||>0.990
91102802|NCT01026038|182092501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Diarrhea (Moderate): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC.||||>0.990
91102803|NCT01026038|182092501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Diarrhea (Moderate): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||>0.990
91102804|NCT01026038|182092501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.237||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Fatigue (Any): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.237
91102805|NCT01026038|182092501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.045||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Fatigue (Any): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.045
91102806|NCT01026038|182092501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.285||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Fatigue (Any): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.285
91031915|NCT02863575|181948724|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.12||||0.654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.63|||ANCOVA|||PRID at 0.25 hour||0.63|-0.40|0.654
90858563|NCT00809354|181581297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.22|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.22|-0.55|0.389
90858564|NCT00809354|181581297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.05|-0.72|0.087
90858565|NCT00809354|181581297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.03|-0.74|0.072
90858566|NCT00809354|181581297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.20|-0.57|0.340
90858567|NCT00809354|181581297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.33|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.33|-1.06|<0.001
90858568|NCT00809354|181581297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.39|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.39|-1.11|<0.001
90858569|NCT00809354|181581297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|-0.69|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.69|-1.42|<0.001
90858570|NCT00809354|181581297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|-0.87|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.87|-1.59|<0.001
91102807|NCT01026038|182092501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Fatigue (Mild): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC.||||>0.990
91102808|NCT01026038|182092501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.174||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Fatigue (Mild): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.174
91102809|NCT01026038|182092501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.125||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Fatigue (Mild): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.125
91102810|NCT01026038|182092501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.058||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Fatigue (Moderate): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.058
90904705|NCT02404493|181676824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One-sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||<0.001
90904706|NCT02404493|181676824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||0.023
90904707|NCT02404493|181676824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|422.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|122.905||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|166.435|679.186||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as response, baseline score as covariate and treatment as factor.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||679.186|166.435|0.003
90904708|NCT02404493|181676825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||<0.001
90904709|NCT02404493|181676825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.754||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||0.754
90904710|NCT02404493|181676825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|52.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.21||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.23|92.373||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as response, baseline score as covariate and treatment as factor.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||92.373|12.230|0.013
90904711|NCT02404493|181676826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||<0.001
90904712|NCT02404493|181676826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.271||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||0.271
91102811|NCT01026038|182092501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.092||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Fatigue (Moderate): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.092
91102812|NCT01026038|182092501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Fatigue (Moderate): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||>0.990
91102813|NCT01026038|182092501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Fatigue (Severe): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC.||||>0.990
90958767|NCT03386110|181797433|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio, log|-0.02||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|Three-way interaction model testing whether baseline use moderated the effect of condition on marijuana use at 3-months||"Moderation analysis in 3-month follow-up data.~The hypothesis that baseline frequency may moderate the effects of treatment was evaluated using models incorporating participants' baseline report of the outcome (actor) as well as their partners' report (partner) at Level 1. Interactions among actor and partner baseline scores and treatment condition were also included at Level 1. Additionally, the model controlled for the nesting of participants within couples."||0.31|-0.34|0.910
90958768|NCT03386110|181797433|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio, log|0.34||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Moderation analysis in 6-month follow-up data.~The hypothesis that baseline frequency may moderate the effects of treatment was evaluated using models incorporating participants' baseline report of the outcome (actor) as well as their partners' report (partner) at Level 1. Interactions among actor and partner baseline scores and treatment condition were also included at Level 1. Additionally, the model controlled for the nesting of participants within couples."||0.75|-0.07|0.11
91031916|NCT02863575|181948724|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.11||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.62|||ANCOVA|||PRID at 0.25 hour||0.62|-0.40|0.670
90958769|NCT03426267|181797434|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<.0001
90958770|NCT03426267|181797435|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<.0001
90958771|NCT02697292|181797438|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.5||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|98.9|||t-test, 1 sided|||||98.9|1.1|0.044
90958772|NCT02697292|181797439|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.100
90958773|NCT01043393|181797450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.779|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.055|11.126||||||||11.126|0.055|
91031917|NCT02863575|181948724|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|-0.04||||0.917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.63|||ANCOVA|||PRID at 0.5 hour||0.63|-0.70|0.917
91031918|NCT02863575|181948724|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|2.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|3.2|||ANCOVA|||PRID at 0.5 hour||3.20|1.31|< 0.001
91031919|NCT02863575|181948724|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|2.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|3.24|||ANCOVA|||PRID at 0.5 hour||3.24|1.35|< 0.001
91031920|NCT02863575|181948724|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.73||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|1.42|||ANCOVA|||PRID at 1 hour||1.42|0.04|0.039
91031921|NCT02863575|181948724|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|6.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.12|7.1|||ANCOVA|||PRID at 1 hour||7.10|5.12|< 0.001
91031922|NCT02863575|181948724|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|5.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.39|6.37|||ANCOVA|||PRID at 1 hour||6.37|4.39|< 0.001
91031923|NCT02863575|181948724|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.84||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.52|||ANCOVA|||PRID at 1.5 hour||1.52|0.16|0.015
90858571|NCT00809354|181581297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.31|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.31|-0.42|0.762
90858572|NCT00809354|181581297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.01|-0.72|0.056
90858573|NCT00809354|181581297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.12|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.12|-0.84|0.010
90858574|NCT00809354|181581297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.19|-0.54|0.335
90858575|NCT00809354|181581297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|-0.38|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.38|-1.18|<0.001
90858576|NCT00809354|181581297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|-0.44|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.44|-1.24|<0.001
90858577|NCT00809354|181581297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|-0.46|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.46|-1.25|<0.001
90858578|NCT00809354|181581297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|-0.73|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.73|-1.52|<0.001
90858579|NCT00809354|181581297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.34|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.34|-0.46|0.782
90858580|NCT00809354|181581297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.33|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.33|-0.47|0.719
90858581|NCT00809354|181581297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.11|-0.69|0.158
91102814|NCT01026038|182092501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Fatigue (Severe): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||>0.990
91102815|NCT01026038|182092501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Fatigue (Severe): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||>0.990
91102816|NCT01026038|182092502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.0||||||Serotype 4: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||1.00|0.56|
90858582|NCT00809354|181581297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.13|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.13|-0.67|0.183
90858583|NCT00809354|181581297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.18|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.18|-0.90|0.004
90904713|NCT02404493|181676826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|167.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|48.21||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.046|268.854||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as response, baseline score as covariate and treatment as factor.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||268.854|67.046|0.002
90904714|NCT02404493|181676827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One-sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||0.002
90958774|NCT00705523|181797503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||Regression, Logistic|beta=-0.67, exp(beta)=0.51, chi-squared(1) = 0.2.71||Self-reported drinking results, as gathered by the TLFB, were compared by the generalized estimating equations (GEE) (Diggle et al., 1994), using Poisson models for counts of drinking and heavy drinking days, and logistic regression models for absence/presence binary indicators of drinking. In the GEE model, the pre-treatment of the response was included as a covariate, together with the treatment group indicator, and a linear time effect.||||0.10
91031924|NCT02863575|181948724|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|7.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.39|8.33|||ANCOVA|||PRID at 1.5 hour||8.33|6.39|< 0.001
90858584|NCT00809354|181581297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.33|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.33|-1.05|<0.001
90904715|NCT02404493|181676827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||0.260
90904716|NCT02404493|181676827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|221.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|100.674||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.254|432.68||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as response, baseline score as covariate and treatment as factor.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||432.680|11.254|0.040
90858585|NCT00809354|181581297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.48|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.48|-1.20|<0.001
90858586|NCT00809354|181581297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|-0.76|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.76|-1.48|<0.001
90858587|NCT00809354|181581297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.21|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.21|-0.51|0.408
90858588|NCT00809354|181581297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.06|-0.67|0.097
90904717|NCT02404493|181676828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||<0.001
90904718|NCT02404493|181676828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||0.220
90958775|NCT02673515|181797530|OTHER|||||||0.797|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of changes from baseline to 4 weeks between groups was tested with student´s t-test or Mann Whitney-U-Test||||0.797
90858589|NCT00809354|181581297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.07|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.07|-0.79|0.018
91031925|NCT02863575|181948724|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|6.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.55|7.49|||ANCOVA|||PRID at 1.5 hour||7.49|5.55|< 0.001
91031926|NCT02863575|181948724|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.62||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|1.3|||ANCOVA|||PRID at 2 hour||1.30|-0.05|0.071
91102817|NCT01026038|182092502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.28||||||Serotype 4: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.28|0.73|
91102818|NCT01026038|182092502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.79||||||Serotype 4: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.79|0.92|
91031927|NCT02863575|181948724|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|7.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.65|8.58|||ANCOVA|||PRID at 2 hour||8.58|6.65|< 0.001
90858590|NCT00809354|181581297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.08|-0.64|0.132
90858591|NCT00809354|181581297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.26|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates||-0.26|-1.08|0.001
90858592|NCT00809354|181581297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.25|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates||-0.25|-1.07|0.002
90858593|NCT00809354|181581297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|-0.37|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates||-0.37|-1.19|<0.001
90858594|NCT00809354|181581297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|-0.55|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates||-0.55|-1.37|<0.001
90858595|NCT00809354|181581297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.42|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates||0.42|-0.40|0.959
90858596|NCT00809354|181581297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.31|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates||0.31|-0.51|0.618
90858597|NCT00809354|181581297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates||0.11|-0.71|0.149
90858598|NCT00809354|181581297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.22|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates||0.22|-0.60|0.370
90858599|NCT00809354|181581298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.28|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.28|-0.33|0.887
90858600|NCT00809354|181581298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.01|-0.62|0.046
90858601|NCT00809354|181581298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.35|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.35|-0.26|0.771
90858602|NCT00809354|181581298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.64|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.64|0.03|0.032
90858603|NCT00809354|181581298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.54|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.54|-0.13|0.223
90858604|NCT00809354|181581298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.27|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.27|-0.39|0.718
91031928|NCT02863575|181948724|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|6.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.03|7.96|||ANCOVA|||PRID at 2 hour||7.96|6.03|< 0.001
90858605|NCT00809354|181581298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.22|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.22|-0.45|0.495
90858606|NCT00809354|181581298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.49|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.49|-0.18|0.371
90959034|NCT01620255|181798204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.066||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.053|0.186||1-sided p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|PF-00547659 225 mg vs placebo, locally read||0.186|-0.053|0.2000
90858607|NCT00809354|181581298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.25|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.25|-0.40|0.647
90858608|NCT00809354|181581298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.03|-0.62|0.073
90858609|NCT00809354|181581298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.09|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.09|-0.55|0.161
91031929|NCT02863575|181948724|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.41||||0.243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|1.09|||ANCOVA|||PRID at 3 hour||1.09|-0.28|0.243
91031930|NCT02863575|181948724|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|6.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.85|7.8|||ANCOVA|||PRID at 3 hour||7.80|5.85|< 0.001
91031931|NCT02863575|181948724|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|6.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.44|7.4|||ANCOVA|||PRID at 3 hour||7.40|5.44|< 0.001
91031932|NCT02863575|181948724|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.08||||0.823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.82|||ANCOVA|||PRID at 4 hour||0.82|-0.65|0.823
91031933|NCT02863575|181948724|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|6.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.02|7.14|||ANCOVA|||PRID at 4 hour||7.14|5.02|< 0.001
91102819|NCT01026038|182092502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.0||||||Serotype 6B: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||1.00|0.49|
90904719|NCT02404493|181676828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|194.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|68.461||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.712|337.291||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as response, baseline score as covariate and treatment as factor.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||337.291|50.712|0.011
90858610|NCT00809354|181581298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.32|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.32|-0.33|0.961
90858611|NCT00809354|181581298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.28|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.28|-0.42|0.697
90858612|NCT00809354|181581298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.09|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.09|-0.62|0.139
90858613|NCT00809354|181581298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.07|-0.64|0.120
90858614|NCT00809354|181581298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.27|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.27|-0.44|0.637
90858615|NCT00809354|181581298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.04|-0.72|0.028
90858616|NCT00809354|181581298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.05|-0.74|0.024
90858617|NCT00809354|181581298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.17|-0.51|0.339
90858618|NCT00809354|181581298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.19|-0.50|0.381
90858619|NCT00809354|181581298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.22|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.22|-0.51|0.438
90858620|NCT00809354|181581298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.07|-0.66|0.111
90858621|NCT00809354|181581298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.01|-0.72|0.059
90858622|NCT00809354|181581298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.17|-0.57|0.282
90858623|NCT00809354|181581298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.33|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.33|-0.37|0.927
90858624|NCT00809354|181581298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.05|-0.65|0.094
90904720|NCT02404493|181676829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||0.002
90904721|NCT02404493|181676829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||0.060
90858625|NCT00809354|181581298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.10|-0.80|0.012
90858626|NCT00809354|181581298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.19|-0.51|0.363
91102820|NCT01026038|182092502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.27||||||Serotype 6B: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.27|0.62|
90858627|NCT00809354|181581298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.45|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.45|-0.32|0.742
90858628|NCT00809354|181581298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.23|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.23|-0.53|0.436
90858629|NCT00809354|181581298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.02|-0.79|0.038
90858630|NCT00809354|181581298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.19|-0.57|0.332
90858631|NCT00809354|181581298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.14|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.14|-0.47|0.284
90858632|NCT00809354|181581298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.12|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.12|-0.50|0.224
90858633|NCT00809354|181581298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.17|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.17|-0.79|0.002
90904722|NCT02404493|181676829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|134.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|79.567||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.266|302.063||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as response, baseline score as covariate and treatment as factor.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||302.063|-32.266|0.107
90858634|NCT00809354|181581298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.16|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.16|-0.45|0.355
90858635|NCT00809354|181581298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.10|-0.57|0.172
90858636|NCT00809354|181581298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.31|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.31|-0.36|0.882
90858637|NCT00809354|181581298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.04|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.04|-0.63|0.084
90858638|NCT00809354|181581298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.19|-0.47|0.405
90858639|NCT00809354|181581298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.34|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.34|-0.99|<0.001
90858640|NCT00809354|181581298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.42|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.42|-1.06|<0.001
90858641|NCT00809354|181581298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|-0.64|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.64|-1.29|<0.001
90858642|NCT00809354|181581298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|-0.65|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.65|-1.29|<0.001
90858643|NCT00809354|181581298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.25|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.25|-0.95|<0.001
90858644|NCT00809354|181581298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.32|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.32|-1.02|<0.001
90858645|NCT00809354|181581298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|-0.51|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.51|-1.22|<0.001
90858646|NCT00809354|181581298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|-0.6|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.60|-1.31|<0.001
90904723|NCT02404493|181676830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.692||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||0.692
90858647|NCT00809354|181581298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|-0.18|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.18|-0.86|0.003
90858648|NCT00809354|181581298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|-0.56|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.56|-1.24|<0.001
91102821|NCT01026038|182092502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.94||||||Serotype 6B: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.94|0.84|
91102822|NCT01026038|182092502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.03||||||Serotype 9V: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||1.03|0.58|
91102823|NCT01026038|182092502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.33||||||Serotype 9V: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.33|0.76|
91102824|NCT01026038|182092502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.8||||||Serotype 9V: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.80|0.93|
91102825|NCT01026038|182092502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.58||||||Serotype 14: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||1.58|0.69|
91102826|NCT01026038|182092502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.97||||||Serotype 14: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.97|0.86|
90858649|NCT00809354|181581298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|-0.57|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.57|-1.26|<0.001
90904724|NCT02404493|181676830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.541||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||0.541
91102827|NCT01026038|182092502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.03||||||Serotype 14: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||2.03|0.77|
90858650|NCT00809354|181581298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|-0.73|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.73|-1.41|<0.001
90858651|NCT00809354|181581298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.33|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.33|-1.06|<0.001
90858652|NCT00809354|181581298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|-0.47|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.47|-1.21|<0.001
90904725|NCT02404493|181676830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.502||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as response, baseline score as covariate and treatment as factor.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.502|-0.250|0.492
91031934|NCT02863575|181948724|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|6.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.94|7.05|||ANCOVA|||PRID at 4 hour||7.05|4.94|< 0.001
91102828|NCT01026038|182092502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.78||||||Serotype 18C: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||0.78|0.42|
91102829|NCT01026038|182092502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.23||||||Serotype 18C: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.23|0.67|
91102830|NCT01026038|182092502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|2.25||||||Serotype 18C: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||2.25|1.11|
91102831|NCT01026038|182092502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.68||||||Serotype 19F: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||1.68|0.66|
91102832|NCT01026038|182092502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|2.44||||||Serotype 19F: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||2.44|0.97|
91102833|NCT01026038|182092502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|2.51||||||Serotype 19F: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||2.51|0.85|
91102834|NCT01026038|182092502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.15||||||Serotype 23F: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||1.15|0.56|
91102835|NCT01026038|182092502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.52||||||Serotype 23F: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.52|0.74|
91102836|NCT01026038|182092502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|2.01||||||Serotype 23F: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||2.01|0.87|
90858653|NCT00809354|181581298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|-0.63|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.63|-1.36|<0.001
91031935|NCT02863575|181948724|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.31||||0.438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|1.11|||ANCOVA|||PRID at 5 hour||1.11|-0.48|0.438
91102837|NCT01026038|182092502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|2.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|3.73||||||Serotype 1: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||3.73|1.80|
91102838|NCT01026038|182092502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.79||||||Serotype 1: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.79|0.88|
90858654|NCT00809354|181581298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|-0.83|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.83|-1.56|<0.001
90858655|NCT00809354|181581298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|-0.23|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.23|-0.93|0.001
90858656|NCT00809354|181581298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|-0.53|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.53|-1.24|<0.001
90858657|NCT00809354|181581298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|-0.53|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.53|-1.24|<0.001
90858658|NCT00809354|181581298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.7|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.70|-1.40|<0.001
90858659|NCT00809354|181581298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.40|-1.17|<0.001
90858660|NCT00809354|181581298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.34|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.34|-1.11|<0.001
90858661|NCT00809354|181581298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|-0.56|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.56|-1.32|<0.001
90858662|NCT00809354|181581298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|-0.75|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.75|-1.51|<0.001
90858663|NCT00809354|181581299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.28|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.28|-0.33|0.887
90858664|NCT00809354|181581299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.01|-0.62|0.046
90858665|NCT00809354|181581299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.35|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.35|-0.26|0.771
90858666|NCT00809354|181581299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.64|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.64|0.03|0.032
90858667|NCT00809354|181581299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.54|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.54|-0.13|0.223
90858668|NCT00809354|181581299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.27|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.27|-0.39|0.718
90858669|NCT00809354|181581299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.22|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.22|-0.45|0.495
90858670|NCT00809354|181581299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.18|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.18|-0.47|0.389
91031936|NCT02863575|181948724|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|5.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.33|6.6|||ANCOVA|||PRID at 5 hour||6.60|4.33|< 0.001
91102839|NCT01026038|182092502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.74||||||Serotype 1: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||0.74|0.32|
91102840|NCT01026038|182092502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.87||||||Serotype 3: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||1.87|0.61|
91102841|NCT01026038|182092502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|2.09||||||Serotype 3: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||2.09|0.68|
91102842|NCT01026038|182092502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.15||||||Serotype 3: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||2.15|0.59|
90858671|NCT00809354|181581299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.02|-0.68|0.035
90858672|NCT00809354|181581299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.09|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.09|-0.56|0.155
90858673|NCT00809354|181581299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.30|-0.35|0.876
90858674|NCT00809354|181581299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.39|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.39|-0.33|0.864
90858675|NCT00809354|181581299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.18|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.18|-0.54|0.338
90858676|NCT00809354|181581299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.06|-0.66|0.101
90858677|NCT00809354|181581299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.27|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.27|-0.46|0.605
90858678|NCT00809354|181581299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.09|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.09|-0.78|0.013
91031937|NCT02863575|181948724|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|5.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.01|6.29|||ANCOVA|||PRID at 5 hour||6.29|4.01|< 0.001
90858679|NCT00809354|181581299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.15|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.15|-0.84|0.005
90858680|NCT00809354|181581299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.12|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.12|-0.57|0.199
90858681|NCT00809354|181581299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.18|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.18|-0.50|0.363
90858682|NCT00809354|181581299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.28|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.28|-0.47|0.613
90858683|NCT00809354|181581299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.22|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.22|-0.53|0.416
90858684|NCT00809354|181581299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.09|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.09|-0.66|0.143
90858685|NCT00809354|181581299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.15|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.15|-0.60|0.245
90858686|NCT00809354|181581299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.29|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.29|-0.41|0.745
90858687|NCT00809354|181581299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.02|-0.69|0.062
90858688|NCT00809354|181581299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.09|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.09|-0.80|0.014
90858689|NCT00809354|181581299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.19|-0.52|0.367
90858690|NCT00809354|181581299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.39|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.39|-0.39|0.995
90858691|NCT00809354|181581299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.32|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.32|-0.46|0.735
91031938|NCT02863575|181948724|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.5||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|1.35|||ANCOVA|||PRID at 6 hour||1.35|-0.35|0.250
91102843|NCT01026038|182092502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.52||||||Serotype 5: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||1.52|0.87|
90858692|NCT00809354|181581299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.12|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.12|-0.67|0.169
90858693|NCT00809354|181581299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.18|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.18|-0.60|0.295
90858694|NCT00809354|181581299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.14|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.14|-0.47|0.284
90858695|NCT00809354|181581299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.12|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.12|-0.50|0.224
90858696|NCT00809354|181581299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.17|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.17|-0.79|0.002
90858697|NCT00809354|181581299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.16|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.16|-0.45|0.355
90858698|NCT00809354|181581299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.10|-0.57|0.172
90858699|NCT00809354|181581299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.31|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.31|-0.36|0.882
90858700|NCT00809354|181581299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.04|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.04|-0.63|0.084
90858701|NCT00809354|181581299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.19|-0.47|0.405
90858702|NCT00809354|181581299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.30|-0.94|<0.001
90858703|NCT00809354|181581299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|-0.44|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.44|-1.09|<0.001
90858704|NCT00809354|181581299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.64|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.64|-1.30|<0.001
90858705|NCT00809354|181581299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|-0.67|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.67|-1.32|<0.001
90858706|NCT00809354|181581299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.30|-1.02|<0.001
90858707|NCT00809354|181581299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.27|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.27|-0.99|<0.001
90858708|NCT00809354|181581299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|-0.48|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.48|-1.19|<0.001
90858709|NCT00809354|181581299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|-0.57|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.57|-1.29|<0.001
90858710|NCT00809354|181581299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.20|-0.89|0.002
90858711|NCT00809354|181581299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|-0.63|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.63|-1.32|<0.001
90904726|NCT02404493|181676831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||0.017
91031939|NCT02863575|181948724|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|4.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.58|6.02|||ANCOVA|||PRID at 6 hour||6.02|3.58|< 0.001
90858712|NCT00809354|181581299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|-0.7|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.70|-1.39|<0.001
90858713|NCT00809354|181581299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|-0.86|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.86|-1.55|<0.001
90858714|NCT00809354|181581299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|-0.43|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.43|-1.18|<0.001
90858715|NCT00809354|181581299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|-0.53|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.53|-1.28|<0.001
90858716|NCT00809354|181581299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.58|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.58|-1.33|<0.001
90858717|NCT00809354|181581299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|-0.81|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.81|-1.56|<0.001
90858718|NCT00809354|181581299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.31|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.31|-1.02|<0.001
90858719|NCT00809354|181581299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.37|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.37|-1.08|<0.001
90858720|NCT00809354|181581299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|-0.65|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.65|-1.36|<0.001
90858721|NCT00809354|181581299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|-0.81|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.81|-1.52|<0.001
90858722|NCT00809354|181581299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|-0.51|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.51|-1.29|<0.001
90858723|NCT00809354|181581299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.51|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.51|-1.30|<0.001
90858724|NCT00809354|181581299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|-0.58|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.58|-1.36|<0.001
90858725|NCT00809354|181581299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|-0.79|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.79|-1.57|<0.01
90858726|NCT00809354|181581300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.17|-0.08|0.469
90858727|NCT00809354|181581300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.07|-0.18|0.387
90858728|NCT00809354|181581300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.13|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.13|-0.11|0.887
90858729|NCT00809354|181581300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.23|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.23|-0.01|0.084
90858730|NCT00809354|181581300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.29|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.29|0.03|0.018
90904727|NCT02404493|181676831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.223||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||0.223
90904728|NCT02404493|181676831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.231||0.518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.635|0.331||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as response, baseline score as covariate and treatment as factor.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.331|-0.635|0.518
90904729|NCT02404493|181676832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||0.005
90904730|NCT02404493|181676832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.821||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||0.821
90858731|NCT00809354|181581300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.15|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.15|-0.11|0.783
90904731|NCT02404493|181676832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.351||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.435|0.032||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as response, baseline score as covariate and treatment as factor.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.032|-1.435|0.060
90904732|NCT02404493|181676833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||0.007
90904733|NCT02404493|181676833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.051||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||0.051
90904734|NCT02404493|181676833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.188||0.926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.375||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as response, baseline score as covariate and treatment as factor.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.375|-0.410|0.926
91102844|NCT01026038|182092502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.2||||||Serotype 5: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.20|0.69|
91102845|NCT01026038|182092502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.1||||||Serotype 5: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.10|0.57|
90858732|NCT00809354|181581300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.15|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.15|-0.11|0.762
90858733|NCT00809354|181581300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.29|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.29|0.03|0.017
90858734|NCT00809354|181581300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.04|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.04|-0.20|0.207
90858735|NCT00809354|181581300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.02|-0.27|0.020
90858736|NCT00809354|181581300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.12|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.12|-0.13|0.941
90858737|NCT00809354|181581300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.09|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.09|-0.18|0.494
90858738|NCT00809354|181581300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.02|-0.25|0.089
90858739|NCT00809354|181581300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.08|-0.18|0.467
90858740|NCT00809354|181581300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.15|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.15|-0.11|0.774
90858741|NCT00809354|181581300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.19|-0.06|0.315
90858742|NCT00809354|181581300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.02|-0.25|0.088
90858743|NCT00809354|181581300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.02|-0.25|0.084
90858744|NCT00809354|181581300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.01|-0.25|0.066
90858745|NCT00809354|181581300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.01|-0.25|0.073
90858746|NCT00809354|181581300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.10|-0.16|0.682
90858747|NCT00809354|181581300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.03|-0.30|0.014
90858748|NCT00809354|181581300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.02|-0.28|0.027
90958776|NCT01370590|181797553|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Ezetimibe/atorvastatin 10 mg/20 mg combination tablet was considered equivalent to co-administration of ezetimibe 10 mg and atorvastatin 20 mg, if the two-sided 97.5% expanded confidence intervals of the treatment difference in least squares means for percent change in LDL-C from baseline after 6 weeks of treatment (combination minus co-administration) was contained within -4% and 4% (equivalence margins).|Difference in Least-square Means|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.7|3.3|||ANCOVA|||It was anticipated that 85% of the enrolled participants would be evaluable to achieve 95% power in order to establish equivalence between the Ezetimibe/Atorvastatin Fixed Dose Combination and the co-administration of Ezetimibe and Atorvastatin with respect to percent change from baseline in LDL-C after 6 weeks of treatment using two one-sided tests each at 2.5% α-level, assuming the underlying true treatment difference is ±1.4% and that the standard deviation of the difference is 12.8%.||3.3|-1.7|
91102846|NCT01026038|182092502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|2.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|3.02||||||Serotype 6A: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||3.02|1.52|
91102847|NCT01026038|182092502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|2.3||||||Serotype 6A: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||2.30|1.16|
90904735|NCT02404493|181676834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||0.580
90904736|NCT02404493|181676834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.363||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||0.363
90904737|NCT02404493|181676834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.531|0.286||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as response, baseline score as covariate and treatment as factor.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.286|-0.531|0.539
90904738|NCT02404493|181676835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.055||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||0.055
90904739|NCT02404493|181676835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.076||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||0.076
90904740|NCT02404493|181676835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.672|0.449||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as response, baseline score as covariate and treatment as factor.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.449|-0.672|0.682
90904741|NCT02404493|181676836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||0.004
90904742|NCT02404493|181676836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||0.025
90904743|NCT02404493|181676836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.509|0.514||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as response, baseline score as covariate and treatment as factor.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.514|-0.509|0.991
90904744|NCT02404493|181676837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||<0.001
90904745|NCT02404493|181676837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||<0.001
90904746|NCT02404493|181676837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.214|0.6||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as response, baseline score as covariate and treatment as factor.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.600|-0.214|0.334
90904747|NCT02404493|181676838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.169||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||0.169
90958777|NCT01370590|181797554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-square means|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.8|1.4|||ANCOVA|||||1.4|-0.8|
91102848|NCT01026038|182092502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.14||||||Serotype 6A: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.14|0.51|
91102849|NCT01026038|182092502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|3.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.23|4.33||||||Serotype 7F: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||4.33|2.23|
91102850|NCT01026038|182092502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.17||||||Serotype 7F: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.17|0.61|
91102851|NCT01026038|182092502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.4||||||Serotype 7F: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||0.40|0.19|
91102852|NCT01026038|182092502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratrio|1.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|2.66||||||Serotype 19A: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||2.66|1.25|
91102853|NCT01026038|182092502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.94||||||Serotype 19A: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.94|0.91|
91102854|NCT01026038|182092502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.13||||||Serotype 19A: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.13|0.47|
91102855|NCT01026038|182092503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.76||||||Serotype 4: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||1.76|0.23|
91102856|NCT01026038|182092503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.99||||||Serotype 4: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.99|0.30|
90858749|NCT00809354|181581300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.12|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.12|-0.14|0.871
90858750|NCT00809354|181581300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.06|-0.21|0.301
90858751|NCT00809354|181581300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.04|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.04|-0.23|0.181
90858752|NCT00809354|181581300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.04|-0.30|0.013
90858753|NCT00809354|181581300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.01|-0.28|0.031
90858754|NCT00809354|181581300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.13|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.13|-0.15|0.874
90858755|NCT00809354|181581300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.08|-0.19|0.447
90858756|NCT00809354|181581300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.01|-0.27|0.059
90858757|NCT00809354|181581300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.05|-0.23|0.196
91102857|NCT01026038|182092503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|3.86||||||Serotype 4: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||3.86|0.38|
90958778|NCT01370590|181797555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-squares mean|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.6|2.2|||ANCOVA|||||2.2|-0.6|
90958779|NCT01370590|181797556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.3|1.4|||ANCOVA|||||1.4|-1.3|
90958780|NCT01370590|181797557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.6|1.9|||ANCOVA|||||1.9|-0.6|
90958781|NCT01370590|181797558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.2|6.3|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||Analyses were based on log-transformed data.||6.3|-3.2|
91031940|NCT02863575|181948724|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|4.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.08|5.52|||ANCOVA|||PRID at 6 hour||5.52|3.08|< 0.001
91102858|NCT01026038|182092503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.99||||||Serotype 6B: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||1.99|0.43|
90858758|NCT00809354|181581300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.06|-0.18|0.360
90858759|NCT00809354|181581300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.11|-0.13|0.845
90858760|NCT00809354|181581300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.01|-0.23|0.076
90858761|NCT00809354|181581300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.12|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.12|-0.12|0.957
90858762|NCT00809354|181581300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.08|-0.19|0.404
90858763|NCT00809354|181581300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.23|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.23|-0.03|0.128
91102859|NCT01026038|182092503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|2.22||||||Serotype 6B: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||2.22|0.54|
90858764|NCT00809354|181581300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.09|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.09|-0.17|0.577
90858765|NCT00809354|181581300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.25|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.25|-0.01|0.068
90858766|NCT00809354|181581300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.04|-0.28|0.011
90904748|NCT02404493|181676838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.778|0.278||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as response, baseline score as covariate and treatment as factor.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.278|-0.778|0.317
90904749|NCT02404493|181676839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||<0.001
90904750|NCT02404493|181676839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.182||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||0.182
91031941|NCT02863575|181948724|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.11||||0.818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.01|||ANCOVA|||PRID at 7 hour||1.01|-0.80|0.818
90858767|NCT00809354|181581300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.11|-0.36|<0.001
90904751|NCT02404493|181676839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.931|-0.069||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as response, baseline score as covariate and treatment as factor.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||-0.069|-0.931|0.027
91031942|NCT02863575|181948724|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|3.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.23|4.82|||ANCOVA|||PRID at 7 hour||4.82|2.23|< 0.001
90858768|NCT00809354|181581300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.18|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.18|-0.43|<0.001
90858769|NCT00809354|181581300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.12|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.12|-0.36|<0.001
90858770|NCT00809354|181581300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.00|-0.27|0.043
90858771|NCT00809354|181581300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.05|-0.31|0.007
90904752|NCT02404493|181676840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||<0.001
90904753|NCT02404493|181676840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||0.080
90904754|NCT02404493|181676840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.824|0.574||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as response, baseline score as covariate and treatment as factor.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.574|-0.824|0.699
90958782|NCT00409773|181797567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7|<|0.001||95.0|-16.5|-9.8||Reported p-value is multiplicity-adjusted. Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|ANOVA with terms for treatment and baseline risk stratum||||-9.8|-16.5|<0.001
91031943|NCT02863575|181948724|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|3.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.12|4.71|||ANCOVA|||PRID at 7 hour||4.71|2.12|< 0.001
91031944|NCT02863575|181948724|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.18||||0.698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|1.11|||ANCOVA|||PRID at 8 hour||1.11|-0.74|0.698
91031945|NCT02863575|181948724|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|3.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.69|4.34|||ANCOVA|||PRID at 8 hour||4.34|1.69|< 0.001
91031946|NCT02863575|181948724|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|2.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|4.16|||ANCOVA|||PRID at 8 hour||4.16|1.51|< 0.001
91031947|NCT02863575|181948725|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.04||||0.575|TWO_SIDED|94.0|-0.09|0.16|||ANCOVA|||PRR score at 0.25 hour||0.16|-0.09|0.575
91031948|NCT02863575|181948725|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.07||||0.426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.25|||ANCOVA|||PRR score at 0.25 hour||0.25|-0.11|0.426
91102860|NCT01026038|182092503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.79||||||Serotype 6B: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||2.79|0.50|
91031949|NCT02863575|181948725|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.04||||0.686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.22|||ANCOVA|||PRR score at 0.25 hour||0.22|-0.14|0.686
91031950|NCT02863575|181948725|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.07||||0.543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.29|||ANCOVA|||PRR score at 0.5 hour||0.29|-0.15|0.543
91031951|NCT02863575|181948725|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.12|||ANCOVA|||PRR score at 0.5 hour||1.12|0.49|< 0.001
90858772|NCT00809354|181581300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.12|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.12|-0.38|<0.001
90858773|NCT00809354|181581300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.10|-0.36|<0.001
90858774|NCT00809354|181581300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.01|-0.25|0.074
90858775|NCT00809354|181581300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.10|-0.37|<0.001
90858776|NCT00809354|181581300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.10|-0.37|<0.001
90858777|NCT00809354|181581300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|-0.23|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.23|-0.49|<0.001
90858778|NCT00809354|181581300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.05|-0.21|0.236
90858779|NCT00809354|181581300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.02|-0.24|0.112
90858780|NCT00809354|181581300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.11|-0.38|<0.001
90858781|NCT00809354|181581300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|-0.12|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.12|-0.39|<0.001
90858782|NCT00809354|181581300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.01|-0.26|0.059
91031952|NCT02863575|181948725|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.05|||ANCOVA|||PRR score at 0.5 hour||1.05|0.42|< 0.001
91031953|NCT02863575|181948725|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.24||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.46|||ANCOVA|||PRR score at 1 hour||0.46|0.01|0.038
90904755|NCT02404493|181676841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||<0.001
90904756|NCT02404493|181676841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.058||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||0.058
91031954|NCT02863575|181948725|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|2.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.69|2.33|||ANCOVA|||PRR score at 1 hour||2.33|1.69|< 0.001
91031955|NCT02863575|181948725|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|1.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|2.09|||ANCOVA|||PRR score at 1 hour||2.09|1.46|< 0.001
91031956|NCT02863575|181948725|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.25||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.47|||ANCOVA|||PRR score at 1.5 hour||0.47|0.03|0.024
91031957|NCT02863575|181948725|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|2.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|2.64|||ANCOVA|||PRR score at 1.5 hour||2.64|2.02|< 0.001
91031958|NCT02863575|181948725|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|2.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|2.39|||ANCOVA|||PRR score at 1.5 hour||2.39|1.77|< 0.001
91031959|NCT02863575|181948725|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.18||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.4|||ANCOVA|||PRR score at 2 hour||0.40|-0.04|0.103
91031960|NCT02863575|181948725|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|2.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.09|2.71|||ANCOVA|||PRR score at 2 hour||2.71|2.09|< 0.001
91031961|NCT02863575|181948725|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|2.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.91|2.53|||ANCOVA|||PRR score at 2 hour||2.53|1.91|< 0.001
91031962|NCT02863575|181948725|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.08||||0.448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.29|||ANCOVA|||PRR score at 3 hour||0.29|-0.13|0.448
91031963|NCT02863575|181948725|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|2.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.86|2.47|||ANCOVA|||PRR score at 3 hour||2.47|1.86|< 0.001
91031964|NCT02863575|181948725|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|2.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|2.38|||ANCOVA|||PRR score at 3 hour||2.38|1.78|< 0.001
91031965|NCT02863575|181948725|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.0||||0.997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.23|||ANCOVA|||PRR score at 4 hour||0.23|-0.23|0.997
91102861|NCT01026038|182092503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|2.19||||||Serotype 9V: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||2.19|0.56|
91102862|NCT01026038|182092503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.06||||||Serotype 9V: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||2.06|0.58|
91102863|NCT01026038|182092503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|2.13||||||Serotype 9V: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||2.13|0.46|
90858783|NCT00809354|181581300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|-0.07|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.07|-0.33|0.003
90858784|NCT00809354|181581300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.09|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.09|-0.36|0.001
90858785|NCT00809354|181581300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.24|-0.51|<0.001
90858786|NCT00809354|181581300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.00|-0.27|0.055
90858787|NCT00809354|181581300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.01|-0.28|0.038
90858788|NCT00809354|181581300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.05|-0.33|0.007
90858789|NCT00809354|181581300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.14|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.14|-0.42|<0.001
90858790|NCT00809354|181581301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.17|-0.08|0.469
90858791|NCT00809354|181581301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.07|-0.18|0.387
90858792|NCT00809354|181581301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.13|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.13|-0.11|0.887
90858793|NCT00809354|181581301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.23|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.23|-0.01|0.084
90858794|NCT00809354|181581301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.29|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.29|0.03|0.018
91031966|NCT02863575|181948725|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|1.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.61|2.28|||ANCOVA|||PRR score at 4 hour||2.28|1.61|< 0.001
90858795|NCT00809354|181581301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.15|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.15|-0.11|0.783
90858796|NCT00809354|181581301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.15|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.15|-0.11|0.762
91031967|NCT02863575|181948725|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|1.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.61|2.28|||ANCOVA|||PRR score at 4 hour||2.28|1.61|< 0.001
91102864|NCT01026038|182092503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|2.55||||||Serotype 14: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||2.55|0.38|
91102865|NCT01026038|182092503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.0||||||Serotype 14: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||3.00|0.50|
91102866|NCT01026038|182092503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|3.72||||||Serotype 14: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||3.72|0.42|
91102867|NCT01026038|182092503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.68||||||Serotype 18C: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||1.68|0.29|
91031968|NCT02863575|181948725|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.06||||0.656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.31|||ANCOVA|||PRR score at 5 hour||0.31|-0.19|0.656
90858797|NCT00809354|181581301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.29|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.29|0.03|0.017
90858798|NCT00809354|181581301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.02|-0.23|0.091
90858799|NCT00809354|181581301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.04|-0.29|0.009
90858800|NCT00809354|181581301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.11|-0.13|0.835
90858801|NCT00809354|181581301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.17|-0.08|0.463
90858802|NCT00809354|181581301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.11|-0.16|0.713
90858803|NCT00809354|181581301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.06|-0.21|0.267
90904757|NCT02404493|181676841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.607|0.857||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as response, baseline score as covariate and treatment as factor.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.857|-0.607|0.711
90904758|NCT02404493|181676842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||0.006
91031969|NCT02863575|181948725|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|1.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|2.09|||ANCOVA|||PRR score at 5 hour||2.09|1.36|< 0.001
91031970|NCT02863575|181948725|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|1.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|2.03|||ANCOVA|||PRR score at 5 hour||2.03|1.31|< 0.001
91031971|NCT02863575|181948725|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.11||||0.425|TWO_SIDED|94.0|-0.16|0.38|||ANCOVA|||PRR score at 6 hour||0.38|-0.16|0.425
91031972|NCT02863575|181948725|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|1.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.9|||ANCOVA|||PRR score at 6 hour||1.90|1.12|< 0.001
91031973|NCT02863575|181948725|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|1.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.79|||ANCOVA|||PRR score at 6 hour||1.79|1.01|< 0.001
90904759|NCT02404493|181676842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||0.012
91031974|NCT02863575|181948725|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|-0.03||||0.841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.26|||ANCOVA|||PRR score at 7 hour||0.26|-0.32|0.841
91031975|NCT02863575|181948725|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|1.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.52|||ANCOVA|||PRR score at 7 hour||1.52|0.69|< 0.001
90858804|NCT00809354|181581301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.09|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.09|-0.17|0.552
90858805|NCT00809354|181581301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.14|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.14|-0.12|0.885
90858806|NCT00809354|181581301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.00|-0.26|0.47
90858807|NCT00809354|181581301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.00|-0.26|0.056
90858808|NCT00809354|181581301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.03|-0.24|0.117
90858809|NCT00809354|181581301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.02|-0.24|0.106
90858810|NCT00809354|181581301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.10|-0.16|0.673
91031976|NCT02863575|181948725|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|1.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.55|||ANCOVA|||PRR score at 7 hour||1.55|0.72|< 0.001
91031977|NCT02863575|181948725|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.0||||0.98||95.0|-0.3|0.3|||ANCOVA|||PRR score at 8 hour||0.30|-0.30|0.980
91031978|NCT02863575|181948725|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.36|||ANCOVA|||PRR score at 8 hour||1.36|0.50|< 0.001
91031979|NCT02863575|181948725|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.35|||ANCOVA|||PRR score at 8 hour||1.35|0.50|< 0.001
91031980|NCT02863575|181948726|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|-0.03||||0.808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.21|||ANCOVA|||PID score at 0.25 hour||0.21|-0.27|0.808
90858811|NCT00809354|181581301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.02|-0.25|0.089
90858812|NCT00809354|181581301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.01|-0.26|0.065
90858813|NCT00809354|181581301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.09|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.09|-0.17|0.567
90858814|NCT00809354|181581301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.03|-0.24|0.135
90858815|NCT00809354|181581301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.02|-0.25|0.094
90858816|NCT00809354|181581301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.00|-0.27|0.055
90858817|NCT00809354|181581301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.02|-0.25|0.087
90858818|NCT00809354|181581301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.10|-0.18|0.542
90904760|NCT02404493|181676842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.194||0.932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.391|0.424||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as response, baseline score as covariate and treatment as factor.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.424|-0.391|0.932
90904761|NCT02404493|181676843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||0.003
90958783|NCT00409773|181797567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7|<|0.001||95.0|-13.6|-6.9||Reported p-value is multiplicity-adjusted. Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|ANOVA with terms for treatment and baseline risk stratum||||-6.9|-13.6|<0.001
90858819|NCT00809354|181581301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.11|-0.17|0.643
91031981|NCT02863575|181948726|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.04||||0.804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.39|||ANCOVA|||PID score at 0.25 hour||0.39|-0.30|0.804
91031982|NCT02863575|181948726|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.07||||0.676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.42|||ANCOVA|||PID score at 0.25 hr||0.42|-0.27|0.676
91031983|NCT02863575|181948726|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|-0.1||||0.654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.35|||ANCOVA|||PID score at 0.5 hour||0.35|-0.55|0.654
90858820|NCT00809354|181581301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.07|-0.21|0.301
90858821|NCT00809354|181581301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.05|-0.22|0.237
90858822|NCT00809354|181581301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.06|-0.18|0.360
90858823|NCT00809354|181581301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.11|-0.13|0.854
90858824|NCT00809354|181581301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.01|-0.23|0.076
90858825|NCT00809354|181581301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.12|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.12|-0.12|0.957
90858826|NCT00809354|181581301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.08|-0.19|0.404
90858827|NCT00809354|181581301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.23|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.23|-0.03|0.128
90858828|NCT00809354|181581301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.09|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.09|-0.17|0.577
91102868|NCT01026038|182092503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.1||||||Serotype 18C: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||2.10|0.40|
91102869|NCT01026038|182092503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|3.64||||||Serotype 18C: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||3.64|0.49|
90858829|NCT00809354|181581301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.25|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.25|-0.01|0.068
90858830|NCT00809354|181581301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.03|-0.27|0.016
90858831|NCT00809354|181581301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.13|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.13|-0.38|<0.001
90858832|NCT00809354|181581301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.19|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.19|-0.44|<0.001
90858833|NCT00809354|181581301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|-0.15|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.15|-0.39|<0.001
90858834|NCT00809354|181581301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.01|-0.27|0.037
90904762|NCT02404493|181676843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||<0.001
91031984|NCT02863575|181948726|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|1.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.1|||ANCOVA|||PID score at 0.5 hour||2.10|0.81|< 0.001
90858835|NCT00809354|181581301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.03|-0.30|0.015
90858836|NCT00809354|181581301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||0.07|-0.22||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.08|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.08|-0.35|0.001
90904763|NCT02404493|181676843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.228||0.767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.547||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as response, baseline score as covariate and treatment as factor.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.547|-0.410|0.767
90904764|NCT02404493|181676844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||<0.001
91031985|NCT02863575|181948726|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|1.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|2.2|||ANCOVA|||PID score at 0.5 hour||2.20|0.91|< 0.001
90858837|NCT00809354|181581301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|-0.07|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.07|-0.34|0.002
90858838|NCT00809354|181581301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.00|-0.27|0.042
90858839|NCT00809354|181581301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.14|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.14|-0.40|<0.001
90858840|NCT00809354|181581301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.13|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.13|-0.40|<0.001
90858841|NCT00809354|181581301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.24|-0.50|<0.001
91102870|NCT01026038|182092503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|4.12||||||Serotype 19F: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||4.12|0.70|
91102871|NCT01026038|182092503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.14||||||Serotype 19F: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||3.14|0.60|
91102872|NCT01026038|182092503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.21||||||Serotype 19F: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||2.21|0.30|
91102873|NCT01026038|182092503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.89||||||Serotype 23F: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||1.89|0.43|
91102874|NCT01026038|182092503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.67||||||Serotype 23F: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.67|0.42|
90904765|NCT02404493|181676844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||0.004
90858842|NCT00809354|181581301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.04|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.04|-0.22|0.182
90858843|NCT00809354|181581301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.01|-0.25|0.080
90858844|NCT00809354|181581301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|-0.07|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.07|-0.34|0.002
90858845|NCT00809354|181581301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.11|-0.37|<0.001
90858846|NCT00809354|181581301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.03|-0.30|0.016
90904766|NCT02404493|181676844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.242||0.571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.37||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as response, baseline score as covariate and treatment as factor.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.370|-0.650|0.571
90904767|NCT01778062|181676956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
90858847|NCT00809354|181581301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.13|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.13|-0.40|<0.001
90858848|NCT00809354|181581301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.15|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.15|-0.42|<0.001
90858849|NCT00809354|181581301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.27|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.27|-0.53|<0.001
90904768|NCT00950937|181676964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon test was utilized to compare the three moments: baseline vs. aerobic, baseline vs. resistance and aerobic vs. resistance.||||||<0.05
90904769|NCT00950937|181676964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Friedman Test|Friedman to compare: baseline vs. aerobic, baseline vs. resistance and aerobic vs. resistance. Wilcoxon was applied to locate the differences||||||<0.05
90904770|NCT00950937|181676964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Friedman Test|Friedman to compare: baseline vs. aerobic, baseline vs. resistance and aerobic vs. resistance. Wilcoxon was applied to locate the differences||||||<0.05
90904771|NCT00950937|181676965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon test was utilized to compare the three moments: baseline vs. aerobic, baseline vs. resistance and aerobic vs. resistance.||||||<0.05
90904772|NCT00950937|181676965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Friedman Test|Friedman to compare: baseline vs. aerobic, baseline vs. resistance and aerobic vs. resistance. Wilcoxon was applied to locate the differences||||||<0.05
90904773|NCT00950937|181676965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Friedman Test|Friedman to compare: baseline vs. aerobic, baseline vs. resistance and aerobic vs. resistance. Wilcoxon was applied to locate the differences||||||<0.05
91031986|NCT02863575|181948726|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.49||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.97|||ANCOVA|||PID score at 1 hour||0.97|0.01|0.045
90858850|NCT00809354|181581301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.01|-0.29|0.032
90858851|NCT00809354|181581301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|-0.06|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.06|-0.33|0.006
90858852|NCT00809354|181581301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.05|-0.32|0.009
91102875|NCT01026038|182092503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.16||||||Serotype 23F: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||2.16|0.40|
91102876|NCT01026038|182092503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|7.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.86|19.78||||||Serotype 1: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||19.78|2.86|
91102877|NCT01026038|182092503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.31||||||Serotype 1: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.31|0.22|
91102878|NCT01026038|182092503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.21||||||Serotype 1: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||0.21|0.02|
91102879|NCT01026038|182092503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|2.3||||||Serotype 3: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||2.30|0.53|
91102880|NCT01026038|182092503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.97||||||Serotype 3: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.97|0.50|
90904774|NCT00950937|181676966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon test was utilized to compare the three moments: baseline vs. aerobic, baseline vs. resistance and aerobic vs. resistance.||||||<0.05
90904775|NCT00950937|181676966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Friedman Test|Friedman to compare: baseline vs. aerobic, baseline vs. resistance and aerobic vs. resistance. Wilcoxon was applied to locate the differences||||||<0.05
90904776|NCT00950937|181676966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Friedman Test|Friedman to compare: baseline vs. aerobic, baseline vs. resistance and aerobic vs. resistance. Wilcoxon was applied to locate the differences||||||<0.05
90904777|NCT00950937|181676967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon test was utilized to compare the three moments: baseline vs. aerobic, baseline vs. resistance and aerobic vs. resistance.||||||<0.05
90904778|NCT00950937|181676967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Friedman Test|Friedman to compare: baseline vs. aerobic, baseline vs. resistance and aerobic vs. resistance. Wilcoxon was applied to locate the differences||||||<0.05
90904779|NCT00950937|181676967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Friedman Test|Friedman to compare: baseline vs. aerobic, baseline vs. resistance and aerobic vs. resistance. Wilcoxon was applied to locate the differences||||||<0.05
90904780|NCT00950937|181676968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon test was utilized to compare the three moments: baseline vs. aerobic, baseline vs. resistance and aerobic vs. resistance.||||||<0.05
90904781|NCT00950937|181676968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Friedman Test|Friedman to compare: baseline vs. aerobic, baseline vs. resistance and aerobic vs. resistance. Wilcoxon was applied to locate the differences||||||<0.05
90904782|NCT00950937|181676968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Friedman Test|Friedman to compare: baseline vs. aerobic, baseline vs. resistance and aerobic vs. resistance. Wilcoxon was applied to locate the differences||||||<0.05
90904783|NCT00950937|181676969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon test was utilized to compare the three moments: baseline vs. aerobic, baseline vs. resistance and aerobic vs. resistance.||||||<0.05
90904784|NCT00950937|181676969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Friedman Test|Friedman to compare: baseline vs. aerobic, baseline vs. resistance and aerobic vs. resistance. Wilcoxon was applied to locate the differences||||||<0.05
90904785|NCT00950937|181676969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Friedman Test|Friedman to compare: baseline vs. aerobic, baseline vs. resistance and aerobic vs. resistance. Wilcoxon was applied to locate the differences||||||<0.05
90904786|NCT00950937|181676970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was utilized to compare the two groups (HIV group and Control group)||||||<0.05
90904787|NCT01824472|181676976|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference compared across 3 groups|0.43||||0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis||"Kruskal-Wallis test implemented as PROC NPAR1WAY in Statistical Analysis System (SAS v9.4) for a single groupwise comparison. The mean difference (baseline to follow-up) was determined for each group, and this was compared across all 3 groups."|||||0.8
90904788|NCT01815736|181676977|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Null hypothesis: the E/C/F/TAF group was at least 12% worse than the Stay on Baseline Regimen group; alternative hypothesis: the E/C/F/TAF group was less than 12% worse than the in Stay on Baseline Regimen group.|Difference in percentages|2.7||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.01|-0.3|5.6||The p-value for the superiority test used a 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, stratified by prior treatment regimen.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference in percentages and its 95.01% confidence interval (CI) were calculated based on the Mantel-Haenszel (MH) proportion adjusted by the prior treatment regimen.|NDA Data Cut||5.6|-0.3|0.051
90904789|NCT01815736|181676977|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Null hypothesis: the E/C/F/TAF group was at least 12% worse than the Stay on Baseline Regimen group; alternative hypothesis: the E/C/F/TAF group was less than 12% worse than the in Stay on Baseline Regimen group.|Difference in percentages|4.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|6.7||The p-value for the superiority test used a 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, stratified by prior treatment regimen.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference in percentages and its 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated based on the Mantel-Haenszel (MH) proportion adjusted by the prior treatment regimen.|All Participants||6.7|1.6|<0.001
91102881|NCT01026038|182092503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|2.07||||||Serotype 3: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||2.07|0.39|
91102882|NCT01026038|182092503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.18|8.09||||||Serotype 5: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||8.09|2.18|
91102883|NCT01026038|182092503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.13||||||Serotype 5: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.13|0.33|
91102884|NCT01026038|182092503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.31||||||Serotype 5: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||0.31|0.07|
90904790|NCT01815736|181676978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least square means|2.078|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.697|2.459||P-value was from the analysis of variance (ANOVA) model including study treatment and prior treatment regimen as fixed effects.|ANOVA||Difference in least squares means (LSM) and its 95% CI were from the ANOVA model including treatment and prior treatment regimen as fixed effects.|NDA Data Cut||2.459|1.697|<0.001
91031987|NCT02863575|181948726|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|4.1|||<|0.001||95.0|3.41|4.78|||ANCOVA|||PID score at 1 hour||4.78|3.41|< 0.001
91031988|NCT02863575|181948726|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|3.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.92|4.29|||ANCOVA|||PID score at 1 hour||4.29|2.92|< 0.001
91031989|NCT02863575|181948726|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.59||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|1.06|||ANCOVA|||PID score at 1.5 hour||1.06|0.11|0.015
91102885|NCT01026038|182092503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|3.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|6.4||||||Serotype 6A: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||6.40|1.51|
91102886|NCT01026038|182092503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|3.69||||||Serotype 6A: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||3.69|0.96|
90858853|NCT00809354|181581301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.13|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.13|-0.41|<0.001
90858854|NCT02437383|181581398|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|2.6||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates for site, baseline value, sex, race, treatment, visit, a treatment\*visit interaction, and an unstructured covariance structure.||||2.6|-6.2|0.414
90858855|NCT04010539|181581475|NON_INFERIORITY|The difference in microbiological success rates between treatment groups (Gepotidacin - Ceftriaxone plus azithromycin) was calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen Summary Score Method adjusted for sex and sexual orientation combination. Non-inferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference was above -10.0%.|Adjusted Difference in Percent|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|5.5||||||||5.5|-5.6|
90858856|NCT04010539|181581475|SUPERIORITY|The difference in microbiological success rates between treatment groups (Gepotidacin - Ceftriaxone plus azithromycin) was calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen Summary Score Method adjusted for sex and sexual orientation combination. Superiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference was above 0.0%.|Adjusted Difference in Percent|-0.1||||0.5072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|5.5|||1-sided p-value for Test of Superiority|||||5.5|-5.6|0.5072
90858857|NCT00457366|181581497|OTHER|We used an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline as the covariate to analyze the PANSS-EC at hour 2.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
90858858|NCT01916967|181581498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS means|-1.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|-0.65|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model with terms of visit, visit-by-treatment, visit-by-age strata, visit-by-severity interactions; visit treated as a categorical variable||Difference in least squares (LS) means of Desloratadine 5 mg and Placebo||-0.65|-1.69|<0.001
90858859|NCT01916967|181581498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS means|-1.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|-0.61|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model with terms of visit, visit-by-treatment, visit-by-age strata, visit-by-severity interactions; visit treated as a categorical variable||Difference in LS means of Desloratadine 10 mg and Placebo||-0.61|-1.66|<0.001
90858860|NCT02337738|181581509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.84||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|-0.364|||ANCOVA||Estimated Value was reported for the difference between TVP-1012 1mg and Placebo (TVP-1012 1mg - Placebo).|||-0.364|-1.320|0.0006
90858861|NCT02337738|181581509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.122|||ANCOVA||Estimated Value was reported for the difference between TVP-1012 0.5mg and Placebo (TVP-1012 0.5mg - Placebo).|||-0.122|-1.070|0.0140
90858862|NCT01483807|181581565|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.254|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison of performance (change in articulation accuracy) with SPT-R versus SPT-B items. Based on the existing literature, it was predicted that the mean effect size associated with SPT-R would be greater than that for SPT-B.||||.254
90858863|NCT01483807|181581566|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.25||||0.043|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||On the basis of existing literature. SPT-R was predicted to be associated with greater increase in articulatory accuracy over baseline levels than SPT-B.||||.043
90858864|NCT01483807|181581567|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.396|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison of change in accuracy of articulation of untreated items: SPT-R versus SPT-B items. It was predicted that there would be a greater increase in accuracy for SPT-R items.||||.396
90858865|NCT01483807|181581568|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.212|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison of effect sizes obtained for untreated SPT-R versus untreated SPT-B items. It was predicted that effect sizes would be greater for SPT-R untreated items.||||.212
90858866|NCT03438383|181581569|SUPERIORITY|We computed (post-hoc) the observed power of the performed tests (ANOVA for repeated measures). We confirmed that the specific sample size, as calculated using the Do-it-Yourself (DiY) sample size calculator (online at: https://blog.exmr.net/ sample-size-calculator) by considering a confidence level of 95% and a 10% margin of error, yielded adequate statistical power (\> 80%) for each of the examined variables.||||||0.88||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at \<0.05|ANOVA|||24 h before surgery (pre-operative or baseline values)||||0.88
90858867|NCT03438383|181581569|SUPERIORITY|We computed (post-hoc) the observed power of the performed tests (ANOVA for repeated measures). We confirmed that the specific sample size, as calculated using the Do-it-Yourself (DiY) sample size calculator (online at: https://blog.exmr.net/ sample-size-calculator) by considering a confidence level of 95% and a 10% margin of error, yielded adequate statistical power (\> 80%) for each of the examined variables.||||||0.23||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at \<0.05|ANOVA|||24 h post-operatively||||0.23
90858868|NCT03438383|181581569|SUPERIORITY|We checked for equivalence of the pre-op (baseline) values between the two groups. We computed (post-hoc) the observed power of the performed tests (ANOVA for repeated measures). We confirmed that the specific sample size, as calculated using the Do-it-Yourself (DiY) sample size calculator (online at: https://blog.exmr.net/ sample-size-calculator) by considering a confidence level of 95% and a 10% margin of error, yielded adequate statistical power (\> 80%) for each of the examined variables.||||||0.008||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at \<0.05|ANOVA|||48 hours post-operatively||||0.008
90904791|NCT01815736|181676978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least square means|1.807|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.488|2.126||P-value was from the analysis of variance (ANOVA) model including study treatment and prior treatment regimen as fixed effects.|ANOVA||Difference in least squares means and its 95% CI were from the ANOVA model including treatment and prior treatment regimen as fixed effects.|All Participants||2.126|1.488|<0.001
90904792|NCT01815736|181676979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least square means|1.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.551|2.39||P-value was from the analysis of variance (ANOVA) model including study treatment and prior treatment regimen as fixed effects.|ANOVA||Difference in least squares means (LSM) and its 95% CI were from the ANOVA model including treatment and prior treatment regimen as fixed effects.|NDA Data Cut||2.390|1.551|<0.001
91031990|NCT02863575|181948726|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|5.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.35|5.71|||ANOVA|||PID score at 1.5 hour||5.71|4.35|< 0.001
90858869|NCT03438383|181581569|SUPERIORITY|We checked for equivalence of the pre-op (baseline) values between the two groups. We computed (post-hoc) the observed power of the performed tests (ANOVA for repeated measures). We confirmed that the specific sample size, as calculated using the Do-it-Yourself (DiY) sample size calculator (online at: https://blog.exmr.net/ sample-size-calculator) by considering a confidence level of 95% and a 10% margin of error, yielded adequate statistical power (\> 80%) for each of the examined variables.||||||0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at \<0.05|ANOVA|||72 h post-operatively||||0.001
90904793|NCT01815736|181676979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least square means|2.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.549|2.452||P-value was from the analysis of variance (ANOVA) model including study treatment and prior treatment regimen as fixed effects.|ANOVA||Difference in least squares means (LSM) and its 95% CI were from the ANOVA model including treatment and prior treatment regimen as fixed effects.|All Participants||2.452|1.549|<0.001
90904794|NCT01815736|181676980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least square means|-0.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|-0.03||P-value was from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including study treatment and prior treatment as fixed effects and baseline serum creatinine as a covariate.|ANCOVA||Difference in least squares means (LSM) and its 95% CI were from the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including study treatment and prior treatment regimen as fixed effects and baseline serum creatinine as a covariate.|NDA Data Cut||-0.03|-0.07|<0.001
90904795|NCT01815736|181676980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least square means|-0.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|-0.02||P-value was from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including study treatment and prior treatment as fixed effects and baseline serum creatinine as a covariate.|ANCOVA||Difference in least squares means (LSM) and its 95% CI were from the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including study treatment and prior treatment regimen as fixed effects and baseline serum creatinine as a covariate.|All Participants||-0.02|-0.05|<0.001
90904796|NCT01815736|181676981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||The P-value comparing the 2 treatment groups was from the 2-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||NDA Data Cut||||<0.001
90904797|NCT01815736|181676981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||The P-value comparing the 2 treatment groups was from the 2-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||All Participants||||<0.001
90904798|NCT01815736|181676982|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Null hypothesis: The E/C/F/TAF group was at least 12% worse than the Stay on Baseline Regimen group; alternative hypothesis: the E/C/F/TAF group was less than 12% worse than the in Stay on Baseline Regimen group.|Difference in percentages|3.7||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|7.0||P-value for the superiority test comparing the percentages of virologic success was from the CMH test stratified by the prior treatment regimen (STB, ATR, ATV/boosted+TVD).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference in percentages of virologic success and its 95% CI were calculated based on the MH proportion adjusted by the prior treatment regimen.|||7.0|0.4|0.017
91031991|NCT02863575|181948726|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|4.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.76|5.12|||ANCOVA|||PID score at 1.5 hour||5.12|3.76|< 0.001
91031992|NCT02863575|181948726|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.44||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.91|||ANCOVA|||PID score at 2 hour||0.91|-0.03|0.066
91031993|NCT02863575|181948726|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|5.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.54|5.89|||ANCOVA|||PID score at 2 hour||5.89|4.54|< 0.001
90904799|NCT01815736|181676983|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Null hypothesis: The E/C/F/TAF group was at least 12% worse than the Stay on Baseline Regimen group; alternative hypothesis: the E/C/F/TAF group was less than 12% worse than the in Stay on Baseline Regimen group.|Difference in percentages|1.8||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|5.3||P-value for the superiority test comparing the percentages of virologic success was from the CMH test stratified by the prior treatment regimen (STB, ATR, ATV/boosted+TVD).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in percentages of virologic success and its 95% CI were calculated based on the MH proportion adjusted by the prior treatment regimen.|NDA Data Cut||5.3|-1.7|0.29
90958784|NCT00409773|181797567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7|<|0.001||95.0|-11.3|-4.6||Reported p-value is multiplicity-adjusted. Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|ANOVA with terms for treatment and baseline risk stratum||||-4.6|-11.3|<0.001
91031994|NCT02863575|181948726|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|4.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|5.45|||ANCOVA|||PID score at 2 hour||5.45|4.10|< 0.001
91031995|NCT02863575|181948726|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.32||||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.81|||ANCOVA|||PID score at 3 hour||0.81|-0.16|0.186
91031996|NCT02863575|181948726|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|4.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.98|5.35|||ANCOVA|||PID score at 3 hour||5.35|3.98|< 0.001
91031997|NCT02863575|181948726|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|4.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.65|5.03|||ANCOVA|||PID score at 3 hour||5.03|3.65|< 0.001
91031998|NCT02863575|181948726|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.08||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.6|||ANCOVA|||PID score at 4 hour||0.60|-0.43|0.750
90858870|NCT03438383|181581570|SUPERIORITY|We computed (post-hoc) the observed power of the performed tests (ANOVA for repeated measures). We confirmed that the specific sample size, as calculated using the Do-it-Yourself (DiY) quantitative research sample size calculator (available online at: https://blog.exmr.net/ sample-size-calculator) by considering a confidence level of 95% and a 10% margin of error, yielded adequate statistical power (\> 80%) for each of the examined variables.||||||0.75||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at \<0.05|ANOVA|||24 h before surgery (pre-operative or baseline values)||||0.75
90858871|NCT03438383|181581570|SUPERIORITY|We computed (post-hoc) the observed power of the performed tests (ANOVA for repeated measures). We confirmed that the specific sample size, as calculated using the Do-it-Yourself (DiY) sample size calculator (online at: https://blog.exmr.net/ sample-size-calculator) by considering a confidence level of 95% and a 10% margin of error, yielded adequate statistical power (\> 80%) for each of the examined variables.||||||0.09||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at \<0.05|ANOVA|||24 h post-operatively||||0.09
90858872|NCT03438383|181581570|SUPERIORITY|We computed (post-hoc) the observed power of the performed tests (ANOVA for repeated measures). We confirmed that the specific sample size, as calculated using the Do-it-Yourself (DiY) sample size calculator (online at: https://blog.exmr.net/ sample-size-calculator) by considering a confidence level of 95% and a 10% margin of error, yielded adequate statistical power (\> 80%) for each of the examined variables.||||||0.008||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at \<0.05|ANOVA|||48 h post-operatively||||0.008
90858873|NCT03438383|181581570|SUPERIORITY|We computed (post-hoc) the observed power of the performed tests (ANOVA for repeated measures). We confirmed that the specific sample size, as calculated using the Do-it-Yourself (DiY) sample size calculator (online at: https://blog.exmr.net/ sample-size-calculator) by considering a confidence level of 95% and a 10% margin of error, yielded adequate statistical power (\> 80%) for each of the examined variables.||||||0.013||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at \<0.05|ANOVA|||72 h post-operatively||||0.013
90858874|NCT03438383|181581571|SUPERIORITY|We computed (post-hoc) the observed power of the performed tests (ANOVA for repeated measures). We confirmed that the specific sample size, as calculated using the Do-it-Yourself (DiY) quantitative research sample size calculator (available online at: https://blog.exmr.net/ sample-size-calculator) by considering a confidence level of 95% and a 10% margin of error, yielded adequate statistical power (\> 80%) for each of the examined variables.||||||0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at \<0.05|ANOVA|||24 h before surgery (pre-operative or baseline values)||||0.05
90858875|NCT03438383|181581571|SUPERIORITY|We computed (post-hoc) the observed power of the performed tests (ANOVA for repeated measures). We confirmed that the specific sample size, as calculated using the Do-it-Yourself (DiY) sample size calculator (online at: https://blog.exmr.net/ sample-size-calculator) by considering a confidence level of 95% and a 10% margin of error, yielded adequate statistical power (\> 80%) for each of the examined variables.||||||0.55||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at \<0.05|ANOVA|||24 h post-operatively||||0.55
90904800|NCT01815736|181676983|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Null hypothesis: the E/C/F/TAF group was at least 12% worse than the Stay on Baseline Regimen group; alternative hypothesis: the E/C/F/TAF group was less than 12% worse than the in Stay on Baseline Regimen group.|Difference in percentages|3.2||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|6.3||P-value for the superiority test comparing the percentages of virologic success was from the CMH test stratified by the prior treatment regimen (STB, ATR, ATV/boosted+TVD).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in percentages of virologic success and its 95% CI were calculated based on the MH proportion adjusted by the prior treatment regimen.|All Participants||6.3|0.1|0.031
90904801|NCT01815736|181676984|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Null hypothesis: the E/C/F/TAF group was at least 12% worse than the Stay on Baseline Regimen group; alternative hypothesis: the E/C/F/TAF group was less than 12% worse than the in Stay on Baseline Regimen group.|Difference in percentages|5.3||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|9.0||P-value for the superiority test comparing the percentages of virologic success was from the CMH test stratified by the prior treatment regimen (STB, ATR, ATV/boosted+TVD).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in percentages of virologic success and its 95% CI were calculated based on the MH proportion adjusted by the prior treatment regimen.|||9.0|1.6|0.003
90904802|NCT01815736|181676985|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|6.0||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|26.0||P-values were from the analysis of variance (ANOVA) model including treatment (E/C/F/TAF vs. SBR) and prior treatment regimen (STB, ATR, ATV/boosted+TVD) as fixed effects.|ANOVA||Difference in least squares means (Diff in LSM), and its 95% CI were from the analysis of variance (ANOVA) model including treatment (E/C/F/TAF vs. FTC/TDF+3rd Agent) and prior treatment regimen (STB, ATR, ATV/boosted+TVD) as fixed effects.|NDA Data Cut: Change at Week 48||26|-14|0.56
91031999|NCT02863575|181948726|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|4.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|4.87|||ANCOVA|||PID score at 4 hour||4.87|3.40|< 0.001
90858876|NCT03438383|181581571|SUPERIORITY|We computed (post-hoc) the observed power of the performed tests (ANOVA for repeated measures). We confirmed that the specific sample size, as calculated using the Do-it-Yourself (DiY) sample size calculator (online at: https://blog.exmr.net/ sample-size-calculator) by considering a confidence level of 95% and a 10% margin of error, yielded adequate statistical power (\> 80%) for each of the examined variables.||||||0.13||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at \<0.05|ANOVA|||48h post-operatively||||0.13
90904803|NCT01815736|181676985|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|11.0||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|29.0||P-values were from the analysis of variance (ANOVA) model including treatment (E/C/F/TAF vs. SBR) and prior treatment regimen (STB, ATR, ATV/boosted+TVD) as fixed effects.|ANOVA||Difference in least squares means and its 95% CI were from the analysis of variance (ANOVA) model including treatment (E/C/F/TAF vs.SBR) and prior treatment regimen (STB, ATR, ATV/boosted+TVD) as fixed effects.|All Participants: Change at Week 48||29|-8|0.26
91032000|NCT02863575|181948726|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|4.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.32|4.79|||ANCOVA|||PID score at 4 hour||4.79|3.32|< 0.001
91032001|NCT02863575|181948726|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.26||||0.361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.81|||ANCOVA|||PID score at 5 hour||0.81|-0.30|0.361
90858877|NCT03438383|181581571|SUPERIORITY|We computed (post-hoc) the observed power of the performed tests (ANOVA for repeated measures). We confirmed that the specific sample size, as calculated using the Do-it-Yourself (DiY) sample size calculator (online at: https://blog.exmr.net/ sample-size-calculator) by considering a confidence level of 95% and a 10% margin of error, yielded adequate statistical power (\> 80%) for each of the examined variables.||||||0.011||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at \<0.05|ANOVA|||72 h post-operatively||||0.011
90858878|NCT03438383|181581572|SUPERIORITY|We computed (post-hoc) the observed power of the performed tests (ANOVA for repeated measures). We confirmed that the specific sample size, as calculated using the Do-it-Yourself (DiY) quantitative research sample size calculator (available online at: https://blog.exmr.net/ sample-size-calculator) by considering a confidence level of 95% and a 10% margin of error, yielded adequate statistical power (\> 80%) for each of the examined variables.||||||0.83||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at \<0.05|ANOVA|||24 h before surgery (pre-operative or baseline values)||||0.83
90858879|NCT03438383|181581572|SUPERIORITY|We computed (post-hoc) the observed power of the performed tests (ANOVA for repeated measures). We confirmed that the specific sample size, as calculated using the Do-it-Yourself (DiY) sample size calculator (online at: https://blog.exmr.net/ sample-size-calculator) by considering a confidence level of 95% and a 10% margin of error, yielded adequate statistical power (\> 80%) for each of the examined variables.||||||0.37||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at \<0.05|ANOVA|||24 h post-operatively||||0.37
90858880|NCT03438383|181581572|SUPERIORITY|We computed (post-hoc) the observed power of the performed tests (ANOVA for repeated measures). We confirmed that the specific sample size, as calculated using the Do-it-Yourself (DiY) sample size calculator (online at: https://blog.exmr.net/ sample-size-calculator) by considering a confidence level of 95% and a 10% margin of error, yielded adequate statistical power (\> 80%) for each of the examined variables.||||||0.0035||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at \<0.05|ANOVA|||48 h post-operatively||||0.0035
90858881|NCT03438383|181581572|SUPERIORITY|We computed (post-hoc) the observed power of the performed tests (ANOVA for repeated measures). We confirmed that the specific sample size, as calculated using the Do-it-Yourself (DiY) sample size calculator (online at: https://blog.exmr.net/ sample-size-calculator) by considering a confidence level of 95% and a 10% margin of error, yielded adequate statistical power (\> 80%) for each of the examined variables.||||||1.5e-05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at \<0.05|ANOVA|||72 h post-operatively||||0.000015
90858882|NCT01599832|181581585|OTHER|||||||0.083||||||P-value was from test of significance of log-transformed baseline K\^trans.|Regression, Cox|Multivariate model with adjustment for prior treatment, and clinical prognostic index (good/intermediate/poor) (n=16 had complete data)||||||0.083
90858883|NCT00973349|181581608|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 2-sided CIs were examined against a non-inferiority margin of 0.67|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|1.265|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.998|1.603|||||Pairwise Comparisons of GMTs (95% CI) Between Vaccination Groups at Day 43, on the pooled age groups.|Two-sided 95% CI around the point estimates were to be presented for each endpoint.||1.603|0.998|
90904804|NCT01815736|181676986|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|18.0||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|38.0||P-values were from the analysis of variance (ANOVA) model including treatment (E/C/F/TAF vs. SBR) and prior treatment regimen (STB, ATR, ATV/boosted+TVD) as fixed effects.|ANOVA||Difference in least squares means and its 95% CI were from the analysis of variance (ANOVA) model including treatment (E/C/F/TAF vs. SBR) and prior treatment regimen (STB, ATR, ATV/boosted+TVD) as fixed effects.|||38|-2|0.074
91102887|NCT01026038|182092503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.37||||||Serotype 6A: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.37|0.27|
90904805|NCT00462644|181677046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.007
90858884|NCT00973349|181581608|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 2-sided CIs were examined against a non-inferiority margin of 0.67|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|0.999|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.791|1.262|||||Pairwise Comparisons of GMTs (95% CI) Between Vaccination Groups at Day 43, on the pooled age groups.|Two-sided 95% CI around the point estimates were to be presented for each endpoint.||1.262|0.791|
90858885|NCT00973349|181581608|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 2-sided CIs were examined against a non-inferiority margin of 0.67|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|0.708|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.558|0.897|||||Pairwise Comparisons of GMTs (95% CI) Between Vaccination Groups at Day 43, on the pooled age groups.|Two-sided 95% CI around the point estimates were to be presented for each endpoint.||0.897|0.558|
90858886|NCT00973349|181581608|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 2-sided CIs were examined against a non-inferiority margin of 0.67|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|0.861|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.681|1.089|||||Pairwise Comparisons of GMTs (95% CI) Between Vaccination Groups at Day 43, on the pooled age groups.|Two-sided 95% CI around the point estimates were to be presented for each endpoint||1.089|0.681|
90858887|NCT00973349|181581608|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 2-sided CIs were examined against a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|0.754|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.596|0.956|||||Pairwise Comparisons of GMTs (95% CI) Between Vaccination Groups at Day 43, on the pooled age groups.|Two-sided 95% CI around the point estimates were to be presented for each endpoint||0.956|0.596|
90904806|NCT00462644|181677047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.011
90904807|NCT00462644|181677048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.007
91032002|NCT02863575|181948726|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|3.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.95|4.53|||ANCOVA|||PID score at 5 hour||4.53|2.95|< 0.001
90904808|NCT00462644|181677049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Normality was tested using the Kolmogorow-Smirnov test.||||0.022
90904809|NCT00462644|181677050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
90904810|NCT00462644|181677051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91032003|NCT02863575|181948726|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|3.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.69|4.27|||ANCOVA|||PID score at 5 hour||4.27|2.69|< 0.001
91102888|NCT01026038|182092503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|2.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|5.98||||||Serotype 7F: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||5.98|1.39|
90858888|NCT00973349|181581608|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 2-sided CIs were examined against a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|0.548|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.434|0.693|||||Pairwise Comparisons of GMTs (95% CI) Between Vaccination Groups at Day 43, on the pooled age groups.|Two-sided 95% CI around the point estimates were to be presented for each endpoint.||0.693|0.434|
90858889|NCT00973349|181581608|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 2-sided CIs were examined against a non-inferiority margin of 0.67|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|0.646|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.817|||||Pairwise Comparisons of GMTs (95% CI) Between Vaccination Groups at Day 43, on the pooled age groups.|Two-sided 95% CI around the point estimates were to be presented for each endpoint.||0.817|0.510|
90858890|NCT00973349|181581608|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 2-sided CIs were examined against a non-inferiority margin of 0.67|Geometric mean ratio at 43|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.625|1.0|||||Pairwise Comparisons of GMTs (95% CI) Between Vaccination Groups at Day 43, on the pooled age groups.|Two-sided 95% CI around the point estimates were to be presented for each endpoint.||1.000|0.625|
90858891|NCT00973349|181581608|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 2-sided CIs were examined against a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at 43|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.441|0.71|||||Pairwise Comparisons of GMTs (95% CI) Between Vaccination Groups at Day 43, on the pooled age groups.|Two-sided 95% CI around the point estimates were to be presented for each endpoint.||0.710|0.441|
90858892|NCT00973349|181581608|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 2-sided CIs were examined against a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at 43|0.681|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.538|0.862|||||Pairwise Comparisons of GMTs (95% CI) Between Vaccination Groups at Day 43, on the pooled age groups.|Two-sided 95% CI around the point estimates were to be presented for each endpoint.||0.862|0.538|
90904811|NCT03317379|181677053|SUPERIORITY||estimate of fixed effects|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.22||.05 is the a priori threshold for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.22|-0.17|.80
90904812|NCT03317379|181677053|SUPERIORITY||estimate of fixed effects|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.3||.05 is the a priori threshold for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.30|-0.10|.32
90904813|NCT03317379|181677054|SUPERIORITY||estimate of fixed effects|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.24||.05 is the a priori threshold for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.24|0.03|0.01
91032004|NCT02863575|181948726|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.39||||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.98|||ANCOVA|||PID score at 6 hour||0.98|-0.20|0.195
90858893|NCT00973349|181581608|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 2-sided CIs were examined against a non-inferiority margin of 0.67|Geometric mean ratio at 43|0.597|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.757|||||Pairwise Comparisons of GMTs (95% CI) Between Vaccination Groups at Day 43, on the pooled age groups.|Two-sided 95% CI around the point estimates were to be presented for each endpoint.||0.757|0.470|
90858894|NCT00973349|181581608|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 2-sided CIs were examined against a non-inferiority margin of 0.67|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|0.434|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.342|0.549|||||Pairwise Comparisons of GMTs (95% CI) Between Vaccination Groups at Day 43, on the pooled age groups.|Two-sided 95% CI around the point estimates were to be presented for each endpoint.||0.549|0.342|
90904814|NCT03317379|181677054|SUPERIORITY||estimate of fixed effects|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.23||.05 is the a priori threshold for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.23|-.07|0.28
90904815|NCT03317379|181677055|SUPERIORITY||estimate of fixed effects|0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|1.16||.05 is the a priori threshold for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.16|0.06|0.03
90904816|NCT03317379|181677055|SUPERIORITY||estimate of fixed effects|0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.27|0.09|0.02
90904817|NCT03317379|181677056|SUPERIORITY||estimate of fixed effects|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.42||.05 is the a priori threshold for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.42|-0.02|0.08
90904818|NCT03317379|181677056|SUPERIORITY||estimate of fixed effects|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.41||.05 is the a priori threshold for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.41|-0.04|0.12
90904819|NCT03317379|181677057|SUPERIORITY||estimate of fixed effects|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.74||the a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.74|-0.14|0.18
91032005|NCT02863575|181948726|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|3.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.44|4.13|||ANCOVA|||PID score at 6 hour||4.13|2.44|< 0.001
91032006|NCT02863575|181948726|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|2.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.06|3.74|||ANCOVA|||PID score at 6 hour||3.74|2.06|< 0.001
91032007|NCT02863575|181948726|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.14||||0.669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.76|||ANCOVA|||PID score at 7 hour||0.76|-0.49|0.669
90858895|NCT00973349|181581608|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 2-sided CIs were examined against a non-inferiority margin of 0.67|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|0.511|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.403|0.647|||||Pairwise Comparisons of GMTs (95% CI) Between Vaccination Groups at Day 43, on the pooled age groups.|Two-sided 95% CI around the point estimates were to be presented for each endpoint.||0.647|0.403|
90858896|NCT00973349|181581608|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 2-sided CIs were examined against a non-inferiority margin of 0.67|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|0.708|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.896|||||Pairwise Comparisons of GMTs (95% CI) Between Vaccination Groups at Day 43, on the pooled age groups.|Two-sided 95% CI around the point estimates were to be presented for each endpoint.||0.896|0.560|
90858897|NCT00973349|181581608|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 2-sided CIs were examined against a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|0.862|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.683|1.088|||||Pairwise Comparisons of GMTs (95% CI) Between Vaccination Groups at Day 43, on the pooled age groups.|Two-sided 95% CI around the point estimates were to be presented for each endpoint.||1.088|0.683|
91032008|NCT02863575|181948726|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|2.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|3.31|||ANCOVA|||PID score at 7 hour||3.31|1.53|< 0.001
91032009|NCT02863575|181948726|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|2.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|3.18|||ANCOVA|||PID score at 7 hour||3.18|1.40|< 0.001
91032010|NCT02863575|181948726|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.18||||0.581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.82|||ANCOVA|||PID score at 8 hour||0.82|-0.46|0.581
91032011|NCT02863575|181948726|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|2.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|3.0|||ANCOVA|||PID score at 8 hour||3.00|1.18|< 0.001
90904820|NCT03317379|181677057|SUPERIORITY||estimate of fixed effects|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.62||the a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.62|-0.30|0.50
91032012|NCT02863575|181948726|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|1.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.82|||ANCOVA|||PID score at 8 hour||2.82|1.00|< 0.001
91032013|NCT02863575|181948727|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon test|P-value was calculated using the Gehan-Wilcoxon test, stratified by gender and baseline categorical pain severity terms.||||||0.028
91032014|NCT02863575|181948727|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon test|P-value was calculated using the Gehan-Wilcoxon test, stratified by gender and baseline categorical pain severity terms.||||||<0.001
91032015|NCT02863575|181948727|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon test|P-value was calculated using the Gehan-Wilcoxon test, stratified by gender and baseline categorical pain severity terms.||||||<0.001
91032016|NCT02863575|181948728|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.861|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon test|P-value was calculated using the Gehan-Wilcoxon test, stratified by gender and baseline categorical pain severity terms.||||||0.861
91032017|NCT02863575|181948728|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon test|P-value was calculated using the Gehan-Wilcoxon test, stratified by gender and baseline categorical pain severity terms.||||||<0.001
91032018|NCT02863575|181948728|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon test|P-value was calculated using the Gehan-Wilcoxon test, stratified by gender and baseline categorical pain severity terms.||||||<0.001
91032019|NCT02863575|181948729|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.838|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon test|P-value was calculated using the Gehan-Wilcoxon test, stratified by gender and baseline categorical pain severity terms.||||||0.838
91032020|NCT02863575|181948729|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon test|P-value was calculated using the Gehan-Wilcoxon test, stratified by gender and baseline categorical pain severity terms.||||||<0.001
91032021|NCT02863575|181948729|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon test|P-value was calculated using the Gehan-Wilcoxon test, stratified by gender and baseline categorical pain severity terms.||||||<0.001
91032022|NCT00993187|181948735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.6|||ANCOVA|||||-0.6|-1.0|<0.001
91032023|NCT00993187|181948738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-23.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.0|-16.9|||ANCOVA|||||-16.9|-30.0|<0.001
91032024|NCT00993187|181948739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percent|-14.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.0|-7.0|||ANCOVA|||||-7.0|-23.0|<0.001
91102889|NCT01026038|182092503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.28||||||Serotype 7F: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||2.28|0.58|
90904821|NCT04445155|181677068|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.125|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test|||"Null Hypothesis: The distributions of the scores are the same at baseline and immediately post-intervention.~Alternative Hypothesis: The distributions of the scores are different at baseline and immediately post-intervention."||||0.125
90904822|NCT04445155|181677070|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||Paired t-test|||"Null Hypothesis: The means of the scores are the same at baseline and immediately post-intervention.~Alternative Hypothesis: The means of the scores are different at baseline and immediately post-intervention."||||0.011
91032025|NCT00993187|181948740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-1.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-1.25|||ANCOVA|||||-1.25|-2.20|<0.001
91032026|NCT00993187|181948741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percent|41.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.0|51.0|||ANCOVA|||||51.0|30.0|<0.001
91032027|NCT00549718|181948747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
91032028|NCT00549718|181948748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
91032029|NCT03422653|181948750|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|4.3|||Cui, Hung, Wang|||||4.30|1.72|<0.001
91032030|NCT03422653|181948751|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.5|||ANCOVA|||||-0.5|-2.0|<0.001
90904823|NCT04445155|181677071|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test|||"Null Hypothesis: The distributions of the scores are the same at baseline and immediately post-intervention.~Alternative Hypothesis: The distributions of the scores are different at baseline and immediately post-intervention."||||0.002
91032031|NCT03422653|181948752|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.44|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|-2.3|||ANCOVA|||||-2.3|-8.0|<0.001
91032032|NCT03422653|181948753|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.75|4.76|||Cui, Hung, Wang|||||4.76|1.75|<0.001
91032033|NCT01136382|181948774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|13.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.5|19.7||To address multiplicity, a step-down procedure was used. If the treatment difference for the primary variable, morning PEF, was statistically significant (p\<0.05), then the key secondary variable, FEV1, was tested at the 0.05 level of significance.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline to treatment period average was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with terms for treatment, age group (\<8 years and ≥8 years of age) and country with baseline as a covariate.||19.7|7.5|<0.0001
91032034|NCT01136382|181948775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.11||To address multiplicity, a step-down procedure was used. If the treatment difference for the primary variable, morning PEF, was statistically significant (p\<0.05), then the key secondary variable, FEV1, was tested at the 0.05 level of significance.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline to treatment period average was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with terms for treatment, age group (\<8 years and ≥8 years of age) and country with baseline as a covariate.||0.11|0.02|0.0047
91032035|NCT01136382|181948776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|10.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|16.7|||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline to treatment period average was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age group (\<8 years and ≥8 years of age) and country with baseline as a covariate.||16.7|4.9|0.0004
91102890|NCT01026038|182092503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.92||||||Serotype 7F: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||0.92|0.17|
90904824|NCT04445155|181677071|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test|||"Null Hypothesis: The distributions of the scores are the same at baseline and immediately post-intervention.~Alternative Hypothesis: The distributions of the scores are different at baseline and immediately post-intervention."||||0.008
91032036|NCT01136382|181948777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.0673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline to treatment period average was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age group (\<8 years and ≥8 years of age) and country with baseline as a covariate.||0.08|0.00|0.0673
91032037|NCT01136382|181948778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044||0.0216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline to treatment period average was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age group (\<8 years and ≥8 years of age) and country with baseline as a covariate.||0.19|0.01|0.0216
91032038|NCT01136382|181948779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|-0.09||Analysis for change in daytime asthma symptom score from baseline to treatment period average.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline to treatment period average was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age group (\<8 years and ≥8 years of age) and country with baseline as a covariate.||-0.09|-0.31|0.0004
91032039|NCT01136382|181948779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.13||Analysis for change in total asthma symptom score from baseline to treatment period average.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline to treatment period average was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age group (\<8 years and ≥8 years of age) and country with baseline as a covariate.||-0.13|-0.55|0.0015
91032040|NCT01136382|181948780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.0079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline to treatment period average was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age group (\<8 years and ≥8 years of age) and country with baseline as a covariate.||-0.04|-0.26|0.0079
91032041|NCT01136382|181948781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.78||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|-1.1||Analysis for change in nighttime awakenings from baseline to treatment period average.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline to treatment period average was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age group (\<8 years and ≥8 years of age) and country with baseline as a covariate.||-1.1|-8.2|0.0095
91032042|NCT01136382|181948781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|-1.7||Analysis for change in nighttime awakenings with reliever medication use from baseline to treatment period average.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline to treatment period average was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age group (\<8 years and ≥8 years of age) and country with baseline as a covariate.||-1.7|-6.2|0.0007
91032043|NCT01136382|181948782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.1||Analysis for change in daytime reliever medication use from baseline to treatment period average.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline to treatment period average was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age group (\<8 years and ≥8 years of age) and country with baseline as a covariate.||-0.1|-0.4|0.0001
91032044|NCT01136382|181948782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.2||Analysis for change in total reliever medication use from baseline to treatment period average.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline to treatment period average was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age group (\<8 years and ≥8 years of age) and country with baseline as a covariate.||-0.2|-0.7|<0.0001
91032045|NCT01136382|181948783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline to treatment period average was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age group (\<8 years and ≥8 years of age) and country with baseline as a covariate.||-0.1|-0.3|<0.0001
91032046|NCT01136382|181948784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0004
91032047|NCT00358449|181948794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.55||||0.865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|5.44|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.44|0.04|0.865
91032048|NCT00358449|181948794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.21||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|2.07|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.07|0.01|0.190
91032049|NCT00358449|181948797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.128||||0.551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.303|0.56|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 9-12.|||0.560|-0.303|0.551
91032050|NCT00358449|181948797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.593||95.0|-0.331|0.572|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 9-12.|||0.572|-0.331|0.593
91032051|NCT00358449|181948797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.334||||0.239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.232|0.901|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 21-24.|||0.901|-0.232|0.239
91032052|NCT00358449|181948797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.211||||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.401|0.823|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 21-24.|||0.823|-0.401|0.488
91032053|NCT00358449|181948798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.356||||0.139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.121|0.833|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 9-12.|||0.833|-0.121|0.139
91032054|NCT00358449|181948798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.371||||0.145||95.0|-0.133|0.874|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 9-12.|||0.874|-0.133|0.145
91032055|NCT00358449|181948798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.433||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.946|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 21-24.|||0.946|-0.080|0.095
91032056|NCT00358449|181948798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.343||||0.219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.214|0.899|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 21-24.|||0.899|-0.214|0.219
91032057|NCT00358449|181948799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.59||||0.832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.47|16.65|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 9-12.|||16.65|-13.47|0.832
91032058|NCT00358449|181948799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.92||||0.622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.01|19.84|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 9-12.|||19.84|-12.01|0.622
90904825|NCT04445155|181677072|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test|||"Null Hypothesis: The distributions of the scores are the same at baseline and immediately post-intervention.~Alternative Hypothesis: The distributions of the scores are different at baseline and immediately post-intervention."||||<0.001
91102891|NCT01026038|182092503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|2.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|4.39||||||Serotype 19A: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||4.39|1.50|
91102892|NCT01026038|182092503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.05||||||Serotype 19A: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||2.05|0.75|
91102893|NCT01026038|182092503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.89||||||Serotype 19A: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||0.89|0.26|
91102894|NCT01026038|182092504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.73||||||Serotype 4: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||0.73|0.04|
91102895|NCT01026038|182092504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.64||||||Serotype 4: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||0.64|0.04|
90858898|NCT00973349|181581608|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 2-sided CIs were examined against a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|0.755|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.597|0.954|||||Pairwise Comparisons of GMTs (95% CI) Between Vaccination Groups at Day 43, on the pooled age groups.|Two-sided 95% CI around the point estimates were to be presented for each endpoint||0.954|0.597|
90858899|NCT00973349|181581608|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 2-sided CIs were examined against a non-inferiority margin of 0.67|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|0.549|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.435|0.692|||||Pairwise Comparisons of GMTs (95% CI) Between Vaccination Groups at Day 43, on the pooled age groups.|Two-sided 95% CI around the point estimates were to be presented for each endpoint||0.692|0.435|
90858900|NCT00973349|181581608|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 2-sided CIs were examined against a non-inferiority margin of 0.67|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|0.646|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.511|0.817|||||Pairwise Comparisons of GMTs (95% CI) Between Vaccination Groups at Day 43, on the pooled age groups.|Two-sided 95% CI around the point estimates were to be presented for each endpoint||0.817|0.511|
90858901|NCT00973349|181581608|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 2-sided CIs were examined against a non-inferiority margin of 0.67|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|1.217|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.961|1.541|||||Pairwise Comparisons of GMTs (95% CI) Between Vaccination Groups at Day 43, on the pooled age groups.|Two-sided 95% CI around the point estimates were to be presented for each endpoint||1.541|0.961|
90858902|NCT00973349|181581608|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 2-sided CIs were examined against a non-inferiority margin of 0.67|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|1.066|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.841|1.352|||||Pairwise Comparisons of GMTs (95% CI) Between Vaccination Groups at Day 43, on the pooled age groups.|Two-sided 95% CI around the point estimates were to be presented for each endpoint||1.352|0.841|
91032059|NCT00358449|181948799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.83||||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.86|35.52|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 21-24.|||35.52|-11.86|0.317
90858903|NCT00973349|181581608|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 2-sided CIs were examined against a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|0.775|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.612|0.981|||||Pairwise Comparisons of GMTs (95% CI) Between Vaccination Groups at Day 43, on the pooled age groups.|Two-sided 95% CI around the point estimates were to be presented for each endpoint||0.981|0.612|
90858904|NCT00973349|181581608|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 2-sided CIs were examined against a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|0.912|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.719|1.157|||||Pairwise Comparisons of GMTs (95% CI) Between Vaccination Groups at Day 43, on the pooled age groups.|Two-sided 95% CI around the point estimates were to be presented for each endpoint.||1.157|0.719|
90858905|NCT00973349|181581608|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 2-sided CIs were examined against a non-inferiority margin of 0.67|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|0.876|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.692|1.109|||||Pairwise Comparisons of GMTs (95% CI) Between Vaccination Groups at Day 43, on the pooled age groups.|Two-sided 95% CI around the point estimates were to be presented for each endpoint||1.109|0.692|
91102896|NCT01026038|182092504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|5.46||||||Serotype 4: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||5.46|0.19|
91102897|NCT01026038|182092504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|5.85||||||Serotype 6B: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||5.85|0.17|
91102898|NCT01026038|182092504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|3.72||||||Serotype 6B: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||3.72|0.15|
91102899|NCT01026038|182092504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|5.37||||||Serotype 6B: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||5.37|0.10|
91102900|NCT01026038|182092504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|6.25||||||Serotype 9V: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||6.25|0.23|
91102901|NCT01026038|182092504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|3.92||||||Serotype 9V: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||3.92|0.17|
91102902|NCT01026038|182092504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|4.43||||||Serotype 9V: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||4.43|0.11|
90904826|NCT04445155|181677072|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test|||"Null Hypothesis: The distributions of the scores are the same at baseline and immediately post-intervention.~Alternative Hypothesis: The distributions of the scores are different at baseline and immediately post-intervention."||||0.002
90904827|NCT04445155|181677073|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test|||"Null Hypothesis: The distributions of the scores are the same at baseline and immediately post-intervention.~Alternative Hypothesis: The distributions of the scores are different at baseline and immediately post-intervention."||||<0.001
90904828|NCT04445155|181677073|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.125|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test|||"Null Hypothesis: The distributions of the scores are the same at baseline and immediately post-intervention.~Alternative Hypothesis: The distributions of the scores are different at baseline and immediately post-intervention."||||0.125
91032060|NCT00358449|181948799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.1||||0.246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.91|41.11|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 21-24.|||41.11|-10.91|0.246
91032061|NCT00358449|181948800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.28||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|38.18|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 9-12.|||38.18|0.39|0.046
91032062|NCT00358449|181948800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.21||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.83|34.25|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 9-12.|||34.25|-5.83|0.160
91032063|NCT00358449|181948800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.69||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|37.48|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 21-24.|||37.48|-2.10|0.078
91032064|NCT00358449|181948800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.11||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|42.74|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 21-24.|||42.74|-0.51|0.055
91032065|NCT00358449|181948801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.324||||0.241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.226|0.873|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 9-12.|||0.873|-0.226|0.241
91032066|NCT00358449|181948801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26||||0.371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.839|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 9-12.|||0.839|-0.320|0.371
91032067|NCT00358449|181948801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.353||||0.291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.317|1.023|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 21-24.|||1.023|-0.317|0.291
91032068|NCT00358449|181948801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.176||||0.653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.965|0.614|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 21-24.|||0.614|-0.965|0.653
91032069|NCT00358449|181948802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.06||||0.123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|32.13|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 9-12.|||32.13|-4.00|0.123
90904829|NCT04684914|181677095|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3029|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3029
90904830|NCT04684914|181677095|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4881|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4881
91032070|NCT00358449|181948802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.62||||0.551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.29|24.54|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 9-12.|||24.54|-13.29|0.551
91032071|NCT00358449|181948802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.04||||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.61|37.7|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 21-24.|||37.70|-5.61|0.141
91032072|NCT00358449|181948802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.42||||0.666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.74|19.9|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 21-24.|||19.90|-30.74|0.666
91032073|NCT00358449|181948803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.088||||0.572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.224|0.4|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 9-12.|||0.400|-0.224|0.572
91032074|NCT00358449|181948803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.012||||0.942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.326|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 9-12.|||0.326|-0.350|0.942
91032075|NCT00358449|181948803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.005||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.188|0.197|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 21-24.|||0.197|-0.188|0.960
90904831|NCT04684914|181677096|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3029|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3029
90904832|NCT04684914|181677096|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4881|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4881
90904833|NCT04684914|181677097|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4169|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.4169
90904834|NCT04684914|181677097|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5495|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.5495
90904835|NCT00904150|181677138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.513|||||||Chi-squared|||Statistical analysis is of the distribution of PR PROGINS polymorphism frequencies between groups||||0.513
90904836|NCT00904150|181677139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75|||||||Chi-squared|||Statistical analysis is of the distribution of Estrogen receptor 1 G594a polymorphism frequencies between groups||||0.75
90904837|NCT00904150|181677140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.434||||0.002743||95.0|0.24|0.75|||Chi-squared|||Analysis of distribution of TNF genotype frequencies between groups||0.75|0.24|0.002743
90904838|NCT00904150|181677141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||0.02462||95.0|0.49|0.95|||Chi-squared|||Analysis of distribution of SYNE1 genotype frequencies between groups||0.95|0.49|0.02462
90904839|NCT00904150|181677142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||Chi-squared|||Statistical analysis is of the distribution of Estrogen receptor 1 C325G polymorphism frequencies between groups||||0.18
91032076|NCT00358449|181948803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.105||||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.105|0.315|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 21-24.|||0.315|-0.105|0.317
91032077|NCT00358449|181948804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.13||||0.666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.39|4.12|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 9-12.|||4.12|-6.39|0.666
91032078|NCT00358449|181948804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.16||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.87|3.56|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 9-12.|||3.56|-7.87|0.450
90904840|NCT00904150|181677143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||>0.05
90904841|NCT00904150|181677144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||>0.05
90958785|NCT00409773|181797568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<|0.001||95.0|-9.6|-4.8|||ANOVA|ANOVA with terms for treatment and baseline risk stratum||||-4.8|-9.6|<0.001
90904842|NCT01671748|181677145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.4||||0.565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.4|18.6||ANCOVA was used to analyse differences between the NLFU+SOC and SOC arms of the primary endpoint, percentage change in wound area from baseline (week 5) to final visit (week 13). Patients' baseline (week 5) wound area was used as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||The study was powered to detect a difference in the change in wound area of 20% between the two arms with a two sided significance level and power of 90%. A standard deviation of 17.5% came from published literature. A minimum of 17 patients in each arm was required.||18.6|-33.4|0.565
91032079|NCT00358449|181948804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.6||||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|2.81|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 21-24.|||2.81|-12.00|0.215
91032080|NCT00358449|181948804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51||||0.898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.61|7.58|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 21-24.|||7.58|-8.61|0.898
91032081|NCT00358449|181948805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.038||||0.762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.217|0.294|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 9-12.|||0.294|-0.217|0.762
90858906|NCT00973349|181581608|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 2-sided CIs were examined against a non-inferiority margin of 0.67|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|0.637|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.504|0.804|||||Pairwise Comparisons of GMTs (95% CI) Between Vaccination Groups at Day 43, on the pooled age groups.|Two-sided 95% CI around the point estimates were to be presented for each endpoint.||0.804|0.504|
90858907|NCT00973349|181581608|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 2-sided CIs were examined against a non-inferiority margin of 0.67|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.593|0.949|||||Pairwise Comparisons of GMTs (95% CI) Between Vaccination Groups at Day 43, on the pooled age groups.|Two-sided 95% CI around the point estimates were to be presented for each endpoint.||0.949|0.593|
90858908|NCT00973349|181581608|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 2-sided CIs were examined against a non-inferiority margin of 0.67|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|0.727|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.574|0.919|||||Pairwise Comparisons of GMTs (95% CI) Between Vaccination Groups at Day 43, on the pooled age groups.|Two-sided 95% CI around the point estimates were to be presented for each endpoint||0.919|0.574|
90858909|NCT00973349|181581608|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 2-sided CIs were examined against a non-inferiority margin of 0.67|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|0.856|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.675|1.084|||||Pairwise Comparisons of GMTs (95% CI) Between Vaccination Groups at Day 43, on the pooled age groups.|Two-sided 95% CI around the point estimates were to be presented for each endpoint||1.084|0.675|
90858910|NCT00973349|181581608|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 2-sided CIs were examined against a non-inferiority margin of 0.67|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|1.178|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.931|1.489|||||Pairwise Comparisons of GMTs (95% CI) Between Vaccination Groups at Day 43, on the pooled age groups.|Two-sided 95% CI around the point estimates were to be presented for each endpoint.||1.489|0.931|
90858911|NCT03029702|181581636|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.9
90858912|NCT03029702|181581637|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.8
90858913|NCT03029702|181581638|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.9
90858914|NCT03029702|181581639|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.9
90858915|NCT03029702|181581640|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.8
90858916|NCT03029702|181581641|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.6
90858917|NCT03029702|181581642|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.8
90904843|NCT01671748|181677146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was used for change in HRQoL from week 1 to week 13 (with week 1 HRQoL score as the covariate).||||0.490
91032082|NCT00358449|181948805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.159||||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.426|0.108|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 9-12.|||0.108|-0.426|0.235
90858918|NCT03029702|181581643|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7
90859906|NCT00408629|181583134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||||||Testing of ranked secondary measures was only started if significant group differences existed for both co-primary measures. Significant results for higher-ranked measure was needed to test next lower-ranked measure to control for multiple testing.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification levels for Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel = prior anti-TNF versus anti-TNF-naive.||The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was used to test the null hypothesis of no difference between adalimumab and placebo. Treatment differences were deemed statistically significant at a significance level of 0.05.||||0.007
90859907|NCT00408629|181583135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||||||Testing of ranked secondary measures was only started if significant group differences existed for both co-primary measures. Significant results for higher-ranked measure was needed to test next lower-ranked measure to control for multiple testing.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification levels for Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel = prior anti-TNF versus anti-TNF-naive.||The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was used to test the null hypothesis of no difference between adalimumab and placebo. Treatment differences were deemed statistically significant at a significance level of 0.05.||||0.006
90859908|NCT01461980|181583136|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority criteria margin was 1.5-fold and statistical inference was based on the CIs of the GMC ratios. Non-inferiority was achieved when the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratios after vaccination 1 was greater than 0.67.|GMC Ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.03||||||Diphtheria: CIs for GMC ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (Group 1 - Group 2 for Diphtheria antigens).||1.03|0.86|
90904844|NCT01671748|181677147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.08||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.23|1.06|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was used for change in pain score (VAS) from week 5 to week 13 (covariate was baseline pain score).||1.06|-19.23|0.078
90859909|NCT01461980|181583136|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority criteria margin was 1.5-fold and statistical inference was based on the CIs of the GMC ratios. Non-inferiority was achieved when the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratios after vaccination 1 was greater than 0.67.|GMC Ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|0.99||||||Tetanus: CIs for GMC ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (Group 1 - Group 2 for Tetanus antigens).||0.99|0.85|
90904845|NCT01671748|181677148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.346|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in number of infections were not normally distributed and differences between the arms were tested using the non-parametric Mann-Whitney U test.||||0.346
90858919|NCT01193660|181581699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Wilks' Lambda (group*visit effect)|2.59|||<|0.05||95.0|||||Repeated Measure ANOVA|||In our analysis, the null hypothesis is that the effects of 3 experimental groups are same, and the alternative hypothesis is that the therapeutic effect of combination intervention Group (Umbilical Cord Blood + Erythropoietin + Rehabilitation) is higher than that of either Erythropoietin + Rehabilitation or Rehabilitation Group. This is a pilot study and power calculation was not applicable. The sample size of each group is over 30 and is considered to follow approximately normal distribution.||||<0.05
90904846|NCT01671748|181677150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|2.9|||ANCOVA|Patients' baseline (week 5) wound area was used as the covariate.||||2.9|-4.7|0.618
90904847|NCT04471792|181677152|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38||||||P=0.380 comparing creatine vs. placebo|ANOVA|Two-way ANOVA for pre vs. post values and for the difference between creatine vs. placebo||||||0.38
90904848|NCT04471792|181677153|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.883||||||p=0.883 when comparing effect of creatine to palcebo on rate/change in reperfusion slope|ANOVA|Two-way ANOVA, pre vs. post differences and creatine vs. placebo differences were examined||||||0.883
90858920|NCT01193660|181581700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Wilks' Lambda (group*visit effect)|3.94|||<|0.05||95.0|||||Repeated Measure ANOVA|||The null hypothesis is that in terms of K-BSID-II MENTAL Scale, the effects of 3 groups are same, and the alternative one is that the therapeutic effect of combination intervention Group (Umbilical Cord Blood + Erythropoietin + Rehabilitation) is higher than that of either Erythropoietin + Rehabilitation or Rehabilitation Group. This is a pilot study and power calculation was not applicable. The sample size of each group is over 30 and is considered to follow approximately normal distribution.||||<0.05
90858921|NCT01193660|181581701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Wilks' Lambda (group*visit effect)|2.7|||<|0.05||95.0|||||Repeated Measure ANOVA|||The null hypothesis is that in terms of K-BSID-II MOTOR Scale, the effects of 3 groups are same, and the alternative one is that the therapeutic effect of combination intervention Group (Umbilical Cord Blood + Erythropoietin + Rehabilitation) is higher than that of either Erythropoietin + Rehabilitation or Rehabilitation Group. This is a pilot study and power calculation was not applicable. The sample size of each group is over 30 and is considered to follow approximately normal distribution.||||<0.05
90858922|NCT01193660|181581703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.05||95.0||||The baseline and post-therapy data of each group were compared using paired t-test statistics.|t-test, 2 sided|Voxels with an uncorrected p-value of \<0.05 were considered significant, and an extent threshold Ke of 100 voxels was set by SPM implanted in Matlab.||In our analysis, the null hypothesis is that the effects of three experimental groups are same each other, and the alternative hypothesis is that the therapeutic effect of combination intervention Group (Umbilical Cord Blood + Erythropoietin + Rehabilitation) has much higher than that of either Erythropoietin + Rehabilitation Group or Rehabilitation Group. This study is a pilot study and therefore, power calculation was not applicable in our study. The sample size of each group is more than 30.||||0.05
90858923|NCT01193660|181581705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||interaction of group and visit|0.9|||<|0.05||95.0|||||Repeated Measure ANOVA|||In our analysis, the null hypothesis is that the effects of 3 experimental groups are same, and the alternative hypothesis is that the therapeutic effect of combination intervention Group (Umbilical Cord Blood + Erythropoietin + Rehabilitation) is higher than that of either Erythropoietin + Rehabilitation or Rehabilitation Group. This is a pilot study and power calculation was not applicable. The sample size of each group is over 30 and is considered to follow approximately normal distribution.||||<0.05
90858924|NCT01193660|181581706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Wilks' Lambda (group*visit effect)|1.279|||<|0.05||95.0|||||Repeated Measure ANOVA|||In our analysis, the null hypothesis is that the effects of 3 experimental groups are same, and the alternative hypothesis is that the therapeutic effect of combination intervention Group (Umbilical Cord Blood + Erythropoietin + Rehabilitation) is higher than that of either Erythropoietin + Rehabilitation or Rehabilitation Group. This is a pilot study and power calculation was not applicable. The sample size of each group is over 30 and is considered to follow approximately normal distribution.||||<0.05
90858925|NCT01193660|181581707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Wilks' Lambda (group*visit effect)|0.996|||<|0.05||95.0|||||Repeated Measure ANOVA|||In our analysis, the null hypothesis is that the effects of 3 experimental groups are same, and the alternative hypothesis is that the therapeutic effect of combination intervention Group (Umbilical Cord Blood + Erythropoietin + Rehabilitation) is higher than that of either Erythropoietin + Rehabilitation or Rehabilitation Group. This is a pilot study and power calculation was not applicable. The sample size of each group is over 30 and is considered to follow approximately normal distribution.||||<0.05
90904849|NCT04471792|181677153|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.883|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.883
90904850|NCT04191135|181677163|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.4556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.33||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by response to the induction therapy (CR/PR versus SD), tumor PD-L1 status (CPS ≥1 vs CPS \<1) and BRCA Status (BRCAm versus wild type BRCA gene).|Log Rank||Estimate via stratified Cox model with Efron's handling method with treatment as a covariate stratified by response to the induction therapy (CR/PR versus SD), tumor PD-L1 status (CPS ≥1 vs CPS \<1) and BRCA Status (BRCAm versus wild type BRCA gene).|||1.33|0.72|0.4556
90904851|NCT04191135|181677164|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.3903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.4||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by response to the induction therapy (CR/PR versus SD), tumor PD-L1 status (CPS ≥1 vs CPS \<1) and BRCA Status (BRCAm versus wild type BRCA gene).|Log Rank||Estimate via stratified Cox model with Efron's handling method with treatment as a covariate stratified by response to the induction therapy (CR/PR versus SD), tumor PD-L1 status (CPS ≥1 vs CPS \<1) and BRCA Status (BRCAm versus wild type BRCA gene).|||1.40|0.64|0.3903
91032083|NCT00358449|181948805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.089||||0.607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.259|0.436|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 21-24.|||0.436|-0.259|0.607
91032084|NCT00358449|181948805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.068||||0.716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.308|0.443|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 21-24.|||0.443|-0.308|0.716
91032085|NCT00358449|181948806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.365|0.545|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 9-12.|||0.545|-0.365|0.691
91032086|NCT00358449|181948806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.161||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.639|0.317|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 9-12.|||0.317|-0.639|0.500
90858926|NCT01193660|181581708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Wilks' Lambda (group*visit effect)|0.56|||<|0.05||95.0|||||Repeated Measure ANOVA|||In our analysis, the null hypothesis is that the effects of 3 experimental groups are same, and the alternative hypothesis is that the therapeutic effect of combination intervention Group (Umbilical Cord Blood + Erythropoietin + Rehabilitation) is higher than that of either Erythropoietin + Rehabilitation or Rehabilitation Group. This is a pilot study and power calculation was not applicable. The sample size of each group is over 30 and is considered to follow approximately normal distribution.||||<0.05
90858927|NCT01193660|181581709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|We compared the ratio of participants with a certain adverse event (AE) and without the AE between three groups using Fisher Exact test.||||||<0.05
91032087|NCT00358449|181948806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.187||||0.568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.474|0.849|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 21-24.|||0.849|-0.474|0.568
90858928|NCT01886716|181581710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95|=|0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||F(1,517) = .71|"The analyses used multilevel modeling to capture both the trajectories of symptoms within individuals (i.e., level 1) and the hypothesized between-subject moderators of these trajectories, alcohol and anxiety attention training (i.e., level 2) across all 7 time points.~Note, although all 4 groups are included in this analysis, this analysis specifically compares anxiety vs. control training."||||=.40
90858929|NCT01886716|181581710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95|=|0.78|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||F(1,517) = .08|"The analyses used multilevel modeling to capture both the trajectories of symptoms within individuals (i.e., level 1) and the hypothesized between-subject moderators of these trajectories, alcohol and anxiety attention training (i.e., level 2) across all 7 time points.~Note, although all 4 groups are included in this analysis, this analysis specifically compares alcohol vs. control training."||||=.78
90858930|NCT01886716|181581711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|=|0.67|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||F(1,517) = .18|"The analyses used multilevel modeling to capture both the trajectories of symptoms within individuals (i.e., level 1) and the hypothesized between-subject moderators of these trajectories, alcohol and anxiety attention training (i.e., level 2) across all 7 time points.~Note, although all 4 groups are included in this analysis, this analysis specifically compares alcohol vs. control training"||||=.67
90858931|NCT01886716|181581711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|=|0.32|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||F(1,517) = 1.01|"The analyses used multilevel modeling to capture both the trajectories of symptoms within individuals (i.e., level 1) and the hypothesized between-subject moderators of these trajectories, alcohol and anxiety attention training (i.e., level 2) across all 7 time points.~Note, although all 4 groups are included in this analysis, this analysis specifically compares anxiety vs. control training"||||=.32
90858932|NCT04806503|181581724|OTHER|Mixed-effect Model for Repeated Measures model-based two-sided t-test|Least Squares Mean|0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0258||0.817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.045|0.056|||Mixed-effect Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.056|-0.045|0.817
90858933|NCT04806503|181581724|OTHER|Mixed-effect Model for Repeated Measures model-based two-sided t-test|Least Squares Mean|0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0262||0.946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.053|||Mixed-effect Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.053|-0.050|0.946
90858934|NCT04806503|181581724|OTHER|Mixed-effect Model for Repeated Measures model-based two-sided t-test|Least Squares Mean|-0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.077|0.029|||Mixed-effect Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.029|-0.077|0.380
90858935|NCT04806503|181581724|OTHER|Mixed-effect Model for Repeated Measures model-based two-sided t-test|Least Squares Mean|0.011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0258||0.667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.039|0.062|||Mixed-effect Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.062|-0.039|0.667
90858936|NCT04806503|181581725|OTHER|Mixed-effect Model for Repeated Measures model-based two-sided t-test|Least Squares Mean|0.022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0304||0.474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.038|0.081|||Mixed-effect Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.081|-0.038|0.474
90858937|NCT04806503|181581725|OTHER|Mixed-effect Model for Repeated Measures model-based two-sided t-test|Least Squares Mean|0.025|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0309||0.419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.036|0.086|||Mixed-effect Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.086|-0.036|0.419
90858938|NCT04806503|181581725|OTHER|Mixed-effect Model for Repeated Measures model-based two-sided t-test|Least Squares Mean|0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0322||0.914||95.0|-0.06|0.067|||Mixed-effect Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.067|-0.060|0.914
91032088|NCT00358449|181948806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.076||||0.832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.643|0.794|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 21-24.|||0.794|-0.643|0.832
91032089|NCT00358449|181948807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85||||0.515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.45|1.76|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 9-12.|||1.76|-3.45|0.515
90858939|NCT04806503|181581725|OTHER|Mixed-effect Model for Repeated Measures model-based two-sided t-test|Least Squares Mean|0.034|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0305||0.263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.026|0.094|||Mixed-effect Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.094|-0.026|0.263
90858940|NCT04806503|181581726|OTHER|Mixed-effect Model for Repeated Measures model-based two-sided t-test|Least Squares Mean|0.029|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0273||0.284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.024|0.083|||Mixed-effect Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.083|-0.024|0.284
91032090|NCT00358449|181948807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|3.54|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 9-12.|||3.54|-1.74|0.496
91032091|NCT00358449|181948807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.05||||0.657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.82|3.72|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 21-24.|||3.72|-5.82|0.657
91032092|NCT00358449|181948807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.01||||0.691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.11|4.09|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 21-24.|||4.09|-6.11|0.691
91032093|NCT00358449|181948808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.105|0.704|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 9-12.|||0.704|-0.105|0.142
90858941|NCT04806503|181581726|OTHER|Mixed-effect Model for Repeated Measures model-based two-sided t-test|Least Squares Mean|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0278||0.711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.044|0.065|||Mixed-effect Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.065|-0.044|0.711
90858942|NCT04806503|181581726|OTHER|Mixed-effect Model for Repeated Measures model-based two-sided t-test|Least Squares Mean|0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0284||0.871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.051|0.06|||Mixed-effect Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.060|-0.051|0.871
90858943|NCT04806503|181581726|OTHER|Mixed-effect Model for Repeated Measures model-based two-sided t-test|Least Squares Mean|0.027|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0273||0.329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.027|0.08|||Mixed-effect Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.080|-0.027|0.329
91102903|NCT01026038|182092504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|12.35||||||Serotype 14: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||12.35|0.48|
90858944|NCT04806503|181581727|OTHER|Logistic model-based one-sided t-test|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.083|10.847|||Multiple Imputation, Logistic Regression|||||10.847|0.083|0.516
90858945|NCT04806503|181581727|OTHER|Logistic model-based one-sided t-test|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.45||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.367|16.398|||Multiple Imputation, Logistic Regression|||||16.398|0.367|0.177
90858946|NCT04806503|181581727|OTHER|Logistic model-based one-sided t-test|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.65||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.604|22.094|||Multiple Imputation, Logistic Regression|||||22.094|0.604|0.079
90858947|NCT04806503|181581727|OTHER|Logistic model-based one-sided t-test|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.136|8.381|||Multiple Imputation, Logistic Regression|||||8.381|0.136|0.476
90858948|NCT04806503|181581728|OTHER|Logistic model-based one-sided t-test|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.201|3.726|||Multiple Imputation, Logistic Regression|||||3.726|0.201|0.577
90858949|NCT04806503|181581728|OTHER|Logistic model-based one-sided t-test|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.52||||0.804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.113|2.353|||Multiple Imputation, Logistic Regression|||||2.353|0.113|0.804
90858950|NCT04806503|181581728|OTHER|Logistic model-based one-sided t-test|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.34||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.045|2.602|||Multiple Imputation, Logistic Regression|||||2.602|0.045|0.850
90904852|NCT04191135|181677165|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.43|||||Estimate based on stratified Cox model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by response to the induction therapy (CR or PR versus SD) and BRCA status (BRCAm versus BRCAwt).|||1.43|0.59|
91032094|NCT00358449|181948808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.354||||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.798|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 9-12.|||0.798|-0.090|0.115
91102904|NCT01026038|182092504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|9.05||||||Serotype 14: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||9.05|0.45|
90858951|NCT04806503|181581728|OTHER|Logistic model-based one-sided t-test|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||0.684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.157|3.08|||Multiple Imputation, Logistic Regression|||||3.080|0.157|0.684
90858952|NCT04806503|181581729|OTHER|Logistic model-based one-sided t-test|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.56||||0.728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.089|3.593|||Multiple Imputation, Logistic Regression|||||3.593|0.089|0.728
90858953|NCT04806503|181581729|OTHER|Logistic model-based one-sided t-test|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.242|5.529|||Multiple Imputation, Logistic Regression|||||5.529|0.242|0.428
90858954|NCT04806503|181581729|OTHER|Logistic model-based one-sided t-test|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0||NA when n = 1.||Multiple Imputation, Logistic Regression||||||0.000|0.500
90858955|NCT04806503|181581729|OTHER|Logistic model-based one-sided t-test|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.28||||0.851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.026|3.07|||Multiple Imputation, Logistic Regression|||||3.070|0.026|0.851
90858956|NCT03089320|181581777|SUPERIORITY||posterior mean proportion of abstinence|9.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|31.68|||||The lower and upper limits are credible intervals.|Bayesian analysis was performed, therefore p value is not reported. Bayes factor has been reported instead.||31.68|0.08|
90858957|NCT03089320|181581778|SUPERIORITY||posterior mean proportion of abstinence|5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|18.23|||||The lower and upper limits are credible intervals.|Bayesian analysis was performed, therefore p value is not reported. Bayes factor has been reported instead.||18.23|0.17|
90858958|NCT03089320|181581779|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.84||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.97|1.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||mixed effects model||1.34|-9.97|.05
90858959|NCT01973569|181581801|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0235||||||The hierarchical testing procedure was applied for multiple comparisons of the primary endpoint. First, comparison between AMG 162 60mg Q3M vs placebo is tested. Only if it is rejected, comparison of AMG 162 60mg Q6M vs placebo is formally tested.|van Elteren stratified rank test|van Elteren stratified rank test adjusting for baseline use of glucocorticoid was used.||||||0.0235
90858960|NCT01973569|181581802|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036|||||||van Elteren stratified rank test|van Elteren stratified rank test adjusting for baseline use of glucocorticoid was used.||||||0.0360
90858961|NCT01973569|181581803|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1323|||||||van Elteren stratified rank test|van Elteren stratified rank test adjusting for baseline use of glucocorticoid was used.||||||0.1323
90858962|NCT01973569|181581804|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0448|||||||van Elteren stratified rank test|van Elteren stratified rank test adjusting for baseline use of glucocorticoid was used.||||||0.0448
90858963|NCT01973569|181581805|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0104|||||||van Elteren stratified rank test|van Elteren stratified rank test adjusting for baseline use of glucocorticoid was used.||||||0.0104
90858964|NCT01973569|181581806|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.257|||||||van Elteren stratified rank test|van Elteren stratified rank test adjusting for baseline use of glucocorticoid was used.||||||0.2570
90858965|NCT01973569|181581807|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.41|5.63|||Regression, Cox|ANCOVA model adjusting for treatment, baseline (BL) value, machine type, BL value-by-machine type interaction, and BL use of glucocorticoid was used.||||5.63|4.41|<0.0001
90858966|NCT01539642|181581863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|50.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.25||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.89|80.14|||ANCOVA|||||80.14|19.89|0.001
90858967|NCT00438451|181581877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0201||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0201
90858968|NCT00438451|181581877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1536||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1536
90858969|NCT00438451|181581877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3615||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.3615
90858970|NCT00438451|181581877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0478||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0478
91102905|NCT01026038|182092504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|5.14||||||Serotype 14: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||5.14|0.13|
91102906|NCT01026038|182092504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.8||||||Serotype 18C: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||0.80|0.04|
91102907|NCT01026038|182092504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|2.03||||||Serotype 18C: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||2.03|0.12|
91032095|NCT00358449|181948808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.182||||0.465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.319|0.683|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 21-24.|||0.683|-0.319|0.465
91032096|NCT00358449|181948808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.121||||0.649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.417|0.66|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 21-24.|||0.660|-0.417|0.649
91102908|NCT01026038|182092504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|14.92||||||Serotype 18C: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||14.92|0.48|
91102909|NCT01026038|182092504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|4.36||||||Serotype 19F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||4.36|0.23|
90858971|NCT00438451|181581877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.838||||0.0578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.092|3.093|||Regression, Logistic|adjusted for treatment (p=0.0578), country (p=0.4649), pooled sites (p=0.4420) and number of concurrent diseases (p=0.0192)|"Odds ratio given here is for comparison LEV vs CBZ: OR=1.838 KI=(1.092-3.093) LEV vs LTG: OR=1.169 KI=(0.689-1.984) CBZ vs LTG: OR=0.636 KI=(0.377-1.073) Number of concurrent diseases: OR=0.921 KI=(0.859-0.987)"|||3.093|1.092|0.0578
90858972|NCT00438451|181581878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0596||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.0596
90858973|NCT00438451|181581879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2517||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2517
90858974|NCT00438451|181581880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3303||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.3303
90858975|NCT00438451|181581881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5022||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.5022
90904853|NCT04191135|181677166|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.76|||||Estimate based on stratified Cox model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by response to the induction therapy (CR or PR versus SD) and BRCA status (BRCAm versus BRCAwt).|||1.76|0.53|
91032097|NCT00358449|181948809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.042|0.782|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 9-12.|||0.782|-0.042|0.077
91032098|NCT00358449|181948809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.356||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.097|0.809|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 9-12.|||0.809|-0.097|0.120
91102910|NCT01026038|182092504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|4.84||||||Serotype 19F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||4.84|0.31|
91102911|NCT01026038|182092504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|6.65||||||Serotype 19F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||6.65|0.23|
90858976|NCT02413372|181581889|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.09|-5.26|||||mean difference in adjusted change from baseline vs placebo|Day 57||-5.26|-9.09|
91102912|NCT01026038|182092504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|4.17||||||Serotype 23F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||4.17|0.17|
90858977|NCT02413372|181581889|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.14|-3.25|||||mean difference in adjusted change from baseline vs placebo|Day 57||-3.25|-7.14|
90858978|NCT02413372|181581889|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.43||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.01|-2.84|||t-test, 1 sided||mean difference in adjusted change from baseline vs placebo|Day 112||-2.84|-8.01|0.0004
90858979|NCT02413372|181581889|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.85||||0.0084|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.47|-1.23|||t-test, 1 sided||mean difference in adjusted change from baseline vs placebo|Day 112||-1.23|-6.47|0.0084
90858980|NCT01480089|181581905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.308|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.777||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.83|0.214|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the mean VAS score 2 hours post surgery is equivalent for individuals randomized to Intraperitoneal Ropivacaine(AIR) and those randomized to Atomized Intraperitoneal Saline (AIS).||0.214|-2.830|.098
90858981|NCT01480089|181581906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.065|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.103|0.973|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the mean VAS score 12 hours post surgery is equivalent for individuals randomized to Intraperitoneal Ropivacaine(AIR) and those randomized to Atomized Intraperitoneal Saline (AIS).||0.973|-1.103|.90
90904854|NCT04191135|181677167|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.48|||||Estimate based on stratified Cox model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by response to the induction therapy (CR or PR versus SD) and tumor PD-L1 status (CPS≥1 vs CPS\<1).|||1.48|0.33|
91102913|NCT01026038|182092504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.24||||||Serotype 23F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.24|0.07|
91102914|NCT01026038|182092504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|2.08||||||Serotype 23F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||2.08|0.06|
91102915|NCT01026038|182092504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.97||||||Serotype 1: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||1.97|0.79|
91032099|NCT00358449|181948809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29||||0.345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.326|0.906|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 21-24.|||0.906|-0.326|0.345
91032100|NCT00358449|181948809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.128||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.541|0.798|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 21-24.|||0.798|-0.541|0.700
91102916|NCT01026038|182092504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.88||||||Serotype 1: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||0.88|0.38|
91032101|NCT00358449|181948810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.79||||0.609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.79|5.22|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 9-12.|||5.22|-8.79|0.609
91032102|NCT00358449|181948810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59||||0.882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.55|7.38|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 9-12.|||7.38|-8.55|0.882
90858982|NCT03053271|181581920|OTHER|No statistical test was done as only 4 subjects could be enrolled, none met criteria for randomization, and the study was discontinued by the Sponsor.|||||||||||||||||No statistical test was done as only 4 subjects could be enrolled, none met criteria for randomization, and the study was discontinued by the Sponsor.|||
90858983|NCT00580970|181581925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9138||||||Considering all late rectal toxicities, 38% (20/53) of participants developed physician reported Grade 2 or higher GI toxicity during 2 year follow up. The threshold for significance was p \< 0.05.|t-test, 1 sided|A one sided t-test, with 5% level of significance, and 83% power was used which required 53 subjects.||||||0.9138
90858984|NCT03161093|181581930|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.028|-0.324|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.324|-1.028|0.0002
90858985|NCT03161093|181581931|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.178|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.046|-0.346|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.346|-1.046|<0.0001
90858986|NCT03161093|181581932|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.254||0.7036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.594|0.401|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.401|-0.594|0.7036
90858987|NCT03161093|181581933|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.243||0.4605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.657|0.297|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.297|-0.657|0.4605
90858988|NCT00570765|181581979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Treatment arms compared using 2-sided Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test at 5% significance level. Treatment groups were pairwise compared versus placebo.||Hierarchical testing strategy was proposed to account for multiple comparisons. Statistical significance was evaluated as follows: if statistical significance at alpha=0.05 is shown for the 10 mg OCA versus placebo, then the statistical significance at alpha=0.05 for the 50 mg OCA versus placebo was evaluated. If no statistical significance was shown at alpha=0.05 at the first step, then the subsequent comparison was not considered statistically significant.||||<0.0001
90858989|NCT00570765|181581980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Treatment arms compared using 2-sided Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test at 5% significance level. Treatment groups were pairwise compared versus placebo.||||||<0.0001
90858990|NCT00570765|181581981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Tx arms will be compared using the 2-sided Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test, at 5% significance level. Tx groups will be pairwise compared vs. placebo.||||||<0.01
90858991|NCT02124161|181581996|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion for noninferiority was the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMT ratio was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMT Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.12||||||Serotype 1: Confidence Intervals (CIs) for the ratio were back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC+QIV/placebo - placebo+QIV/13vPnC).||1.12|0.74|
90858992|NCT02124161|181581996|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion for noninferiority was the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMT ratio was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMT Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.98||||||Serotype 3: Confidence Intervals (CIs) for the ratio were back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC+QIV/placebo - placebo+QIV/13vPnC).||0.98|0.70|
90858993|NCT02124161|181581996|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion for noninferiority was the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMT ratio was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMT Ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.91||||||Serotype 4: Confidence Intervals (CIs) for the ratio were back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC+QIV/placebo - placebo+QIV/13vPnC).||0.91|0.55|
90858994|NCT02124161|181581996|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion for noninferiority was the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMT ratio was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMT Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.18||||||Serotype 5: Confidence Intervals (CIs) for the ratio were back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC+QIV/placebo - placebo+QIV/13vPnC).||1.18|0.78|
90858995|NCT02124161|181581996|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion for noninferiority was the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMT ratio was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMT Ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.85||||||Serotype 6A: Confidence Intervals (CIs) for the ratio were back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC+QIV/placebo - placebo+QIV/13vPnC).||0.85|0.53|
90858996|NCT02124161|181581996|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion for noninferiority was the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMT ratio was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMT Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.08||||||Serotype 6B: Confidence Intervals (CIs) for the ratio were back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC+QIV/placebo - placebo+QIV/13vPnC).||1.08|0.64|
90858997|NCT02124161|181581996|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion for noninferiority was the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMT ratio was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMT Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.14||||||Serotype 7F: Confidence Intervals (CIs) for the ratio were back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC+QIV/placebo - placebo+QIV/13vPnC).||1.14|0.83|
90958786|NCT00409773|181797568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<|0.001||95.0|-7.8|-2.9|||ANOVA|ANOVA with terms for treatment and baseline risk stratum||||-2.9|-7.8|<0.001
90958787|NCT00409773|181797568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<|0.001||95.0|-6.8|-2.0|||ANOVA|ANOVA with terms for treatment and baseline risk stratum||||-2.0|-6.8|<0.001
90958788|NCT00409773|181797569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.69||95.0|-5.4|3.3|||Non-parametric ANOVA|ANOVA using normal scores (Tukey method) based on ranks with terms for treatment and baseline risk stratum||||3.3|-5.4|0.690
90958789|NCT00409773|181797569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.8||||0.2||95.0|-1.6|7.1|||Non-parametric ANOVA|ANOVA using normal scores (Tukey method) based on ranks with terms for treatment and baseline risk stratum||||7.1|-1.6|0.200
90958790|NCT00409773|181797569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.48||95.0|-4.7|3.9|||Non-parametric ANOVA|ANOVA using normal scores (Tukey method) based on ranks with terms for treatment and baseline risk stratum||||3.9|-4.7|0.480
90958791|NCT00409773|181797570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.013||95.0|0.7|6.0|||ANOVA|ANOVA with terms for treatment and baseline risk stratum||||6.0|0.7|0.013
90958792|NCT00409773|181797570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.378||95.0|-1.5|3.8|||ANOVA|ANOVA with terms for treatment and baseline risk stratum||||3.8|-1.5|0.378
91032103|NCT00358449|181948810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6||||0.595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.68|4.47|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 21-24.|||4.47|-7.68|0.595
91032104|NCT00358449|181948810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45||||0.895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.34|6.44|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 21-24.|||6.44|-7.34|0.895
91102917|NCT01026038|182092504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.77||||||Serotype 1: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||0.77|0.27|
91102918|NCT01026038|182092504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|4.9||||||Serotype 3: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||4.90|0.85|
90958793|NCT00409773|181797570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.003||95.0|1.3|6.6|||ANOVA|ANOVA with terms for treatment and baseline risk stratum||||6.6|1.3|0.003
91032105|NCT00358449|181948811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.513||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.028|1.055|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 9-12.|||1.055|-0.028|0.062
91032106|NCT00358449|181948811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.241||||0.425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.369|0.852|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 9-12.|||0.852|-0.369|0.425
91032107|NCT00358449|181948811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.71||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.096|1.516|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 21-24.|||1.516|-0.096|0.082
90958794|NCT00409773|181797571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5|<|0.001||95.0|-13.3|-7.3|||ANOVA|ANOVA with terms for treatment and baseline risk stratum||||-7.3|-13.3|<0.001
90958795|NCT00409773|181797571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5|<|0.001||95.0|-10.2|-4.3|||ANOVA|ANOVA with terms for treatment and baseline risk stratum||||-4.3|-10.2|<0.001
90958796|NCT00409773|181797571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5|<|0.001||95.0|-9.9|-3.9|||ANOVA|ANOVA with terms for treatment and baseline risk stratum||||-3.9|-9.9|<0.001
90958797|NCT00409773|181797572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6||0.809||95.0|-5.7|4.5|||ANOVA|ANOVA with terms for treatment and baseline risk stratum||||4.5|-5.7|0.809
90958798|NCT00409773|181797572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6||0.217||95.0|-1.9|8.4|||ANOVA|ANOVA with terms for treatment and baseline risk stratum||||8.4|-1.9|0.217
90958799|NCT00409773|181797572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6||0.796||95.0|-5.8|4.4|||ANOVA|ANOVA with terms for treatment and baseline risk stratum||||4.4|-5.8|0.796
90958800|NCT00409773|181797573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4|<|0.001||95.0|-12.1|-6.6|||ANOVA|ANOVA with terms for treatment and baseline risk stratum||||-6.6|-12.1|<0.001
90958801|NCT00409773|181797573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4|<|0.001||95.0|-8.1|-2.6|||ANOVA|ANOVA with terms for treatment and baseline risk stratum||||-2.6|-8.1|<0.001
90958802|NCT00409773|181797573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4|<|0.001||95.0|-8.0|-2.5|||ANOVA|ANOVA with terms for treatment and baseline risk stratum||||-2.5|-8.0|<0.001
90958803|NCT00409773|181797574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.042||95.0|0.1|4.8|||ANOVA|ANOVA with terms for treatment and baseline risk stratum||||4.8|0.1|0.042
90958804|NCT00409773|181797574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<|0.001||95.0|-0.2|4.5|||ANOVA|ANOVA with terms for treatment and baseline risk stratum||||4.5|-0.2|<0.001
91032108|NCT00358449|181948811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25||||0.564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.631|1.132|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 21-24.|||1.132|-0.631|0.564
91102919|NCT01026038|182092504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|2.48||||||Serotype 3: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||2.48|0.49|
91102920|NCT01026038|182092504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.45||||||Serotype 3: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.45|0.20|
90904855|NCT04191135|181677168|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|2.37|||||Estimate based on stratified Cox model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by response to the induction therapy (CR or PR versus SD) and tumor PD-L1 status (CPS≥1 vs CPS\<1).|||2.37|0.28|
90904856|NCT04191135|181677169|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-3.28||||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.69|1.12|||cLDA|cLDA model with PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors as covariates.||||1.12|-7.69|0.1430
90904857|NCT04191135|181677170|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.16||||0.9454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.89|4.56|||cLDA|cLDA model with PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors as covariates.||||4.56|-4.89|0.9454
90904858|NCT04191135|181677171|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|2.08||||0.4351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.16|7.31|||cLDA|cLDA model with PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors as covariates.||||7.31|-3.16|0.4351
90904859|NCT04191135|181677172|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.93||||0.5588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|4.06|||cLDA|cLDA model with PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors as covariates.||||4.06|-2.20|0.5588
90958805|NCT00409773|181797574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<|0.001||95.0|-7.0|4.0|||ANOVA|ANOVA with terms for treatment and baseline risk stratum||||4.0|-7.0|<0.001
90958806|NCT00409773|181797575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4|<|0.001||95.0|-11.6|-6.0|||ANOVA|ANOVA with terms for treatment and baseline risk stratum||||-6.0|-11.6|<0.001
91032109|NCT00358449|181948812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.45||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.77|26.67|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 9-12.|||26.67|-7.77|0.270
91032110|NCT00358449|181948812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.12||||0.664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.11|23.36|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 21-24.|||23.36|-15.11|0.664
91102921|NCT01026038|182092504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.15||||||Serotype 5: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||1.15|0.87|
90858998|NCT02124161|181581996|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion for noninferiority was the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMT ratio was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMT Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.0||||||Serotype 9V: Confidence Intervals (CIs) for the ratio were back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC+QIV/placebo - placebo+QIV/13vPnC).||1.0|0.69|
91032111|NCT00358449|181948812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.57||||0.381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.81|34.94|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 21-24.|||34.94|-13.81|0.381
90858999|NCT02124161|181581996|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion for noninferiority was the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMT ratio was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMT Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.92||||||Serotype 14: Confidence Intervals (CIs) for the ratio were back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC+QIV/placebo - placebo+QIV/13vPnC).||0.92|0.62|
90859000|NCT02124161|181581996|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion for noninferiority was the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMT ratio was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMT Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.06||||||Serotype 18C: Confidence Intervals (CIs) for the ratio were back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC+QIV/placebo - placebo+QIV/13vPnC).||1.06|0.64|
91032112|NCT00358449|181948812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.49||||0.672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.87|31.86|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 21-24.|||31.86|-20.87|0.672
91032113|NCT00358449|181948813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.400
91032114|NCT00358449|181948813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.111||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.111
90859001|NCT02124161|181581996|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion for noninferiority was the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMT ratio was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMT Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.04||||||Serotype 19A: Confidence Intervals (CIs) for the ratio were back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC+QIV/placebo - placebo+QIV/13vPnC).||1.04|0.72|
90904860|NCT04191135|181677173|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.37||||0.8408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.03|3.28|||cLDA|cLDA model with PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors as covariates.||||3.28|-4.03|0.8408
90904861|NCT04191135|181677174|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.34||||0.795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.63|8.95|||cLDA|cLDA model with PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors as covariates.||||8.95|-11.63|0.7950
90958807|NCT00409773|181797575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4|<|0.001||95.0|-8.2|-2.5|||ANOVA|ANOVA with terms for treatment and baseline risk stratum||||-2.5|-8.2|<0.001
90958808|NCT00409773|181797575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4|<|0.001||95.0|-8.7|-3.1|||ANOVA|ANOVA with terms for treatment and baseline risk stratum||||-3.1|-8.7|<0.001
90958809|NCT00409773|181797576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8|<|0.001||95.0|-17.6|-10.5|||ANOVA|ANOVA with terms for treatment and baseline risk stratum||||-10.5|-17.6|<0.001
91032115|NCT00358449|181948814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.3||||0.421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.1|34.4|||van Elteren test||P-value, 95% CI, and Estimated value are presented for Change from Baseline at Week 12|||34.4|-71.1|0.421
91032116|NCT00358449|181948814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1||||0.633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.6|40.5|||van Elteren test||P-value, 95% CI, and Estimated value are presented for Change from Baseline at Week 12|||40.5|-44.6|0.633
91032117|NCT00358449|181948814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.3||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.3|45.7|||van Elteren test||P-value, 95% CI, and Estimated value are presented for Change from Baseline at Week 24|||45.7|-76.3|0.920
91032118|NCT00358449|181948814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-33.8||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-79.2|11.6|||van Elteren test||P-value, 95% CI, and Estimated value are presented for Change from Baseline at Week 24|||11.6|-79.2|0.105
91032119|NCT00358449|181948815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.63||||0.747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.68|15.41|||van Elteren test||P-value, 95% CI, and Estimated value are presented for change from baseline values at Week 12|||15.41|-20.68|0.747
91032120|NCT00358449|181948815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.7||||0.352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.41|11.01|||van Elteren test||P-value, 95% CI, and Estimated value are presented for change from baseline values at Week 12|||11.01|-24.41|0.352
91032121|NCT00358449|181948815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.25||||0.525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.69|11.2|||van Elteren test||P-value, 95% CI, and Estimated value are presented for change from baseline values at Week 24|||11.20|-29.69|0.525
91032122|NCT00358449|181948815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.79||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.21|-0.38|||Van Elteren test||P-value, 95% CI, and Estimated value are presented for change from baseline at week 24|||-0.38|-35.21|0.071
91032123|NCT02334722|181948826|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.5||||0.7824|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7824
91032124|NCT03988803|181948827|OTHER||Ratio of the geometric means (T/R1)|94.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.14|103.14|||ANOVA||Standard error of the mean is the geometric coefficient of variation|The statistical model used for the analysis of the primary endpoints was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. That was, the PK endpoints were logtransformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. The model used included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: subjects and treatment. The effect 'subjects' was considered as random, whereas the effect 'treatment' was considered as fixed.||103.14|87.14|
91032125|NCT03988803|181948828|OTHER||Ratio of the geometric means (T/R1)|99.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.22|108.18|||ANOVA||Standard error fo the mean is the geometric coefficient of variation|The statistical model used for the analysis of the primary endpoints was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. That was, the PK endpoints were logtransformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. The model used included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: subjects and treatment. The effect 'subjects' was considered as random, whereas the effect 'treatment' was considered as fixed.||108.18|91.22|
91102922|NCT01026038|182092504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.03||||||Serotype 5: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.03|0.79|
90859002|NCT02124161|181581996|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion for noninferiority was the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMT ratio was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMT Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.14||||||Serotype 19F: Confidence Intervals (CIs) for the ratio were back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC+QIV/placebo - placebo+QIV/13vPnC).||1.14|0.71|
90859003|NCT02124161|181581996|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion for noninferiority was the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMT ratio was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMT Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.03||||||Serotype 23F: Confidence Intervals (CIs) for the ratio were back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC+QIV/placebo - placebo+QIV/13vPnC).||1.03|0.56|
90859004|NCT02124161|181581997|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion for noninferiority was the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMT ratio was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMT Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.18||||||Strain A/H1N1: CIs for the ratio were back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC+QIV/placebo - placebo+QIV/13vPnC).||1.18|0.88|
90904862|NCT04191135|181677175|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|4.82||||0.1597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.97|11.62|||cLDA|cLDA model with PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors as covariates.||||11.62|-1.97|0.1597
90904863|NCT04191135|181677176|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|2.52||||0.6138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.45|12.49|||cLDA|cLDA model with PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors as covariates.||||12.49|-7.45|0.6138
90904864|NCT04191135|181677177|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.6||||0.5567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.02|3.83|||cLDA|cLDA model with PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors as covariates.||||3.83|-7.02|0.5567
90904865|NCT04191135|181677178|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|5.56||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|12.32|||cLDA|cLDA model with PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors as covariates.||||12.32|-1.20|0.1050
90904866|NCT04191135|181677179|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.78||||0.00676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|2.71|||Log Rank|Stratified log-rank test|Estimate via stratified Cox model with Efron's handling method with treatment as a covariate stratified by response to the induction therapy (CR/PR versus SD), tumor PD-L1 status (CPS ≥1 vs CPS \<1) and BRCA Status (BRCAm versus wild type BRCA gene).|||2.71|1.16|0.00676
90904867|NCT04191135|181677180|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.96425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.69|||Log Rank|Stratified log-rank test|Estimate via stratified Cox model with Efron's handling method with treatment as a covariate stratified by response to the induction therapy (CR/PR versus SD), tumor PD-L1 status (CPS ≥1 vs CPS \<1) and BRCA Status (BRCAm versus wild type BRCA gene).|||1.69|0.61|0.96425
90904868|NCT04191135|181677181|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.74965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.71|||Log Rank|Stratified log-rank test|Estimate via stratified Cox model with Efron's handling method with treatment as a covariate stratified by response to the induction therapy (CR/PR versus SD), tumor PD-L1 status (CPS ≥1 vs CPS \<1) and BRCA Status (BRCAm versus wild type BRCA gene).|||1.71|0.69|0.74965
90904869|NCT04191135|181677182|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.76||||0.10502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|3.53|||Log Rank|Stratified log-rank test|Estimate via stratified Cox model with Efron's handling method with treatment as a covariate stratified by response to the induction therapy (CR/PR versus SD), tumor PD-L1 status (CPS ≥1 vs CPS \<1) and BRCA Status (BRCAm versus wild type BRCA gene).|||3.53|0.88|0.10502
91032126|NCT03988803|181948829|OTHER||Ratio of the geometric means (T/R2)|103.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.99|107.52|||ANOVA||Standard error fo the mean is the geometric coefficient of variation|The statistical model used for the analysis of the primary endpoints was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. That was, the PK endpoints were logtransformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. The model used included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: subjects and treatment. The effect 'subjects' was considered as random, whereas the effect 'treatment' was considered as fixed.||107.52|99.99|
91077918|NCT02913105|182041137|OTHER|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.91||||0.0219|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|0.97|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||LDL Cholesterol Friedwald: Day 14||0.97|0.84|0.0219
91102923|NCT01026038|182092504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.06||||||Serotype 5: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.06|0.76|
91102924|NCT01026038|182092504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|16.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.56|76.14||||||Serotype 6A: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||76.14|3.56|
90958810|NCT00409773|181797576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8|<|0.001||95.0|-13.2|-6.1|||ANOVA|ANOVA with terms for treatment and baseline risk stratum||||-6.1|-13.2|<0.001
91077919|NCT02913105|182041137|OTHER|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.92||||0.0719|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|0.99|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||LDL Cholesterol Friedwald: Day 28||0.99|0.85|0.0719
91102925|NCT01026038|182092504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|9.06||||||Serotype 6A: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||9.06|0.56|
91102926|NCT01026038|182092504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.78||||||Serotype 6A: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||0.78|0.02|
91102927|NCT01026038|182092504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|7.07||||||Serotype 7F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||7.07|0.22|
91102928|NCT01026038|182092504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.74||||||Serotype 7F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||0.74|0.03|
91102929|NCT01026038|182092504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.84||||||Serotype 7F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||0.84|0.02|
91102930|NCT01026038|182092504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|16.98||||||Serotype 19A: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||16.98|1.35|
91102931|NCT01026038|182092504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|3.23||||||Serotype 19A: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||3.23|0.28|
91102932|NCT01026038|182092504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.85||||||Serotype 19A: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||0.85|0.05|
91102933|NCT01026038|182092505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.38||||||Serotype 4: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||1.38|0.80|
91102934|NCT01026038|182092505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.3||||||Serotype 4: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.30|0.76|
91102935|NCT01026038|182092505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.3||||||Serotype 4: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.30|0.69|
91102936|NCT01026038|182092505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.9||||||Serotype 6B: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||0.90|0.49|
91102937|NCT01026038|182092505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.01||||||Serotype 6B: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.01|0.55|
91102938|NCT01026038|182092505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.59||||||Serotype 6B: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.59|0.79|
90859005|NCT02124161|181581997|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion for noninferiority was the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMT ratio was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMT Ratio|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.32||||||Strain A/H3N2: CIs for the ratio were back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC+QIV/placebo - placebo+QIV/13vPnC).||1.32|1.01|
90859006|NCT02124161|181581997|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion for noninferiority was the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMT ratio was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMT Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.24||||||Strain B/Brisbane: CIs for the ratio were back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC+QIV/placebo - placebo+QIV/13vPnC).||1.24|0.95|
90859007|NCT02124161|181581997|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion for noninferiority was the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMT ratio was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMT Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.21||||||Strain B/Massachusetts: CIs for the ratio were back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC+QIV/placebo - placebo+QIV/13vPnC).||1.21|0.90|
91032127|NCT03988803|181948830|OTHER||Ratio of the geometric means (T/R2)|107.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.66|112.45|||ANOVA||Standard error fo the mean is the geometric coefficient of variation|The statistical model used for the analysis of the primary endpoints was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. That was, the PK endpoints were logtransformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. The model used included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: subjects and treatment. The effect 'subjects' was considered as random, whereas the effect 'treatment' was considered as fixed.||112.45|102.66|
90859008|NCT02124161|181582000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|7.4||||||AE: Exact 2-sided confidence interval (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, 13vPnC+QIV /placebo - placebo+QIV/13vPnC, expressed as a percentage.||7.4|-1.9|
90859009|NCT02124161|181582000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.7||||||SAE: Exact 2-sided confidence interval (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, 13vPnC+QIV /placebo - placebo+QIV/13vPnC, expressed as a percentage.||1.7|-1.8|
90859010|NCT02124161|181582002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|-2.8||||0.333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|2.8|||Chan and Zhang method|||Serotype 1: Exact 2-sided CI and corresponding p-value (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, (13vPnC+QIV/placebo - placebo+QIV/13vPnC), expressed as a percentage.||2.8|-8.3|0.333
90859011|NCT02124161|181582002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|-4.3||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|0.9|||Chan and Zhang method|||Serotype 3: Exact 2-sided CI and corresponding p-value (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, (13vPnC+QIV/placebo - placebo+QIV/13vPnC), expressed as a percentage.||0.9|-9.6|0.105
90859012|NCT02124161|181582002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|-3.5||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|0.6|||Chan and Zhang method|||Serotype 4: Exact 2-sided CI and corresponding p-value (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, (13vPnC+QIV/placebo - placebo+QIV/13vPnC), expressed as a percentage.||0.6|-7.6|0.090
90859013|NCT02124161|181582002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|1.8||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|7.8|||Chan and Zhang method|||Serotype 5: Exact 2-sided CI and corresponding p-value (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, (13vPnC+QIV/placebo - placebo+QIV/13vPnC), expressed as a percentage.||7.8|-4.2|0.590
90904870|NCT04191135|181677183|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.31||||0.5019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|3.0|||Log Rank|Stratified log-rank test|Estimate via stratified Cox model with Efron's handling method with treatment as a covariate stratified by response to the induction therapy (CR/PR versus SD), and tumor PD-L1 status (CPS ≥1 vs CPS \<1).|||3.00|0.57|0.50190
90904871|NCT04191135|181677184|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.47384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|1.97|||Log Rank|Stratified log-rank test|Estimate via stratified Cox model with Efron's handling method with treatment as a covariate stratified by response to the induction therapy (CR/PR versus SD), and tumor PD-L1 status (CPS ≥1 vs CPS \<1).|||1.97|0.24|0.47384
91032128|NCT01171690|181948858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Matched pairs t test|||Matched pairs||||0.01
91032129|NCT02087904|181948878|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.13|2.53||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and Kellgren-Lawrence (K-L) grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||2.53|-3.13|0.834
90859014|NCT02124161|181582002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|-3.7||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|-0.1|||Chan and Zhang method|||Serotype 6A: Exact 2-sided CI and corresponding p-value (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, (13vPnC+QIV/placebo - placebo+QIV/13vPnC), expressed as a percentage.||-0.1|-7.5|0.044
90859015|NCT02124161|181582002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|-1.4||||0.574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|3.4|||Chan and Zhang method|||Serotype 6B: Exact 2-sided CI and corresponding p-value (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, (13vPnC+QIV/placebo - placebo+QIV/13vPnC), expressed as a percentage.||3.4|-6.2|0.574
90859016|NCT02124161|181582002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|-1.2||||0.648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|3.9|||Chan and Zhang method|||Serotype 7F: Exact 2-sided CI and corresponding p-value (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, (13vPnC+QIV/placebo - placebo+QIV/13vPnC), expressed as a percentage.||3.9|-6.3|0.648
90859017|NCT02124161|181582002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|-6.2||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|0.2|||Chan and Zhang method|||Serotype 9V: Exact 2-sided CI and corresponding p-value (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, (13vPnC+QIV/placebo - placebo+QIV/13vPnC), expressed as a percentage.||0.2|-12.5|0.057
90859018|NCT02124161|181582002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|-3.7||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|-0.3|||Chan and Zhang method|||Serotype 14: Exact 2-sided CI and corresponding p-value (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, (13vPnC+QIV/placebo - placebo+QIV/13vPnC), expressed as a percentage.||-0.3|-7.3|0.030
90904872|NCT04191135|181677185|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.81463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|2.38|||Log Rank|Stratified log-rank test|Estimate via stratified Cox model with Efron's handling method with treatment as a covariate stratified by response to the induction therapy (CR/PR versus SD), and tumor PD-L1 status (CPS ≥1 vs CPS \<1).|||2.38|0.33|0.81463
91032130|NCT02087904|181948878|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.9||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.73|0.01||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.01|-5.73|0.05
91032131|NCT02087904|181948878|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2||||0.415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|1.66||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||1.66|-4.00|0.415
91032132|NCT02087904|181948879|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.06||||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.021|0.141||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.141|-0.021|0.145
90859019|NCT02124161|181582002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|-2.5||||0.233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|1.6|||Chan and Zhang method|||Serotype 18C: Exact 2-sided CI and corresponding p-value (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, (13vPnC+QIV/placebo - placebo+QIV/13vPnC), expressed as a percentage.||1.6|-6.6|0.233
90859020|NCT02124161|181582002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|-1.8||||0.152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|0.7|||Chan and Zhang method|||Serotype 19A: Exact 2-sided CI and corresponding p-value (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, (13vPnC+QIV/placebo - placebo+QIV/13vPnC), expressed as a percentage.||0.7|-4.5|0.152
90859021|NCT02124161|181582002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.3||||0.926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|5.8|||Chan and Zhang method|||Serotype 19F: Exact 2-sided CI and corresponding p-value (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, (13vPnC+QIV/placebo - placebo+QIV/13vPnC), expressed as a percentage.||5.8|-5.1|0.926
90859022|NCT02124161|181582002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|-3.9||||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|1.3|||Chan and Zhang method|||Serotype 23F: Exact 2-sided CI and corresponding p-value (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, (13vPnC+QIV/placebo - placebo+QIV/13vPnC), expressed as a percentage.||1.3|-9.1|0.143
90859023|NCT02124161|181582005|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion for noninferiority was the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMT ratio was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Percentage Difference|5.1||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|11.0|||Chan and Zhang method|||Strain A/H1N1: Exact 2-sided CI and corresponding p-value (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, (13vPnC+QIV/placebo - placebo+QIV/13vPnC), expressed as a percentage.||11.0|-0.9|0.094
90859024|NCT02124161|181582005|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion for noninferiority was the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMT ratio was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Percentage Difference|-3.8||||0.232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|2.4|||Chan and Zhang method|||Strain A/H3N2: Exact 2-sided CI and corresponding p-value (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, (13vPnC+QIV/placebo - placebo+QIV/13vPnC), expressed as a percentage.||2.4|-9.9|0.232
90859025|NCT02124161|181582005|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion for noninferiority was the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMT ratio was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Percentage Difference|-1.0||||0.734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|4.5|||Chan and Zhang method|||Strain B/Brisbane: Exact 2-sided CI and corresponding p-value (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, (13vPnC+QIV/placebo - placebo+QIV/13vPnC), expressed as a percentage.||4.5|-6.6|0.734
90859026|NCT02124161|181582005|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion for noninferiority was the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMT ratio was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Percentage Difference|-1.5||||0.627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|4.3|||Chan and Zhang method|||Strain B/Massachusetts: Exact 2-sided CI and corresponding p-value (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, (13vPnC+QIV/placebo - placebo+QIV/13vPnC), expressed as a percentage.||4.3|-7.2|0.627
90859027|NCT02439879|181582009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t test|||All data were analyzed using the SPSS v16 statistical package software. To compare categorical variables, the chi2 test was used, and, for continuous variables,the T-test for independent or paired samples was applied.Data are expressed as percent values with 95% confidence intervals (CI) or mean ± SD or mean ± SEM||||< 0.05
90859028|NCT03789214|181582053|OTHER|One-way ANOVA||||||0.95|||||||ANOVA|||||||.950
90904873|NCT04191135|181677186|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.47||||0.67255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|8.82|||Log Rank|Stratified log-rank test|Estimate via stratified Cox model with Efron's handling method with treatment as a covariate stratified by response to the induction therapy (CR/PR versus SD), and tumor PD-L1 status (CPS ≥1 vs CPS \<1).|||8.82|0.24|0.67255
90859029|NCT03789214|181582054|OTHER|One-way ANOVA||||||0.048|||||||ANOVA|||||||.048
90859030|NCT03789214|181582055|OTHER|One-way ANOVA||||||0.691|||||||ANOVA|||||||.691
90859031|NCT03789214|181582056|OTHER|One-way ANOVA||||||0.62|||||||ANOVA|||||||.620
90859032|NCT03789214|181582057|OTHER|One-way ANOVA||||||0.067|||||||ANOVA|||||||.067
90859033|NCT00406354|181582079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|-1.5||p-value is from comparison of combined atomoxetine fast group plus atomoxetine slow group versus placebo group at Week 9|Mixed Models Analysis||Negative values are in favor of the atomoxetine arms.|||-1.5|-5.0|<.001
90859034|NCT00406354|181582080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|-3.8||p-value is from comparison of combined atomoxetine fast group plus atomoxetine slow group versus placebo group at Week 9.|Mixed Models Analysis||Negative values are in favor of the atomoxetine arms.|||-3.8|-11.0|<.001
90859035|NCT00406354|181582081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|-1.8||p-value is from comparison of combined atomoxetine fast group plus atomoxetine slow group versus placebo group at Week 9.|Mixed Models Analysis||Negative values are in favor of the atomoxetine arms.|||-1.8|-5.3|<.001
90859036|NCT00406354|181582082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|-2.0||p-value is from comparison of combined atomoxetine fast group plus atomoxetine slow group versus placebo group at Week 9.|Mixed Models Analysis||Negative values are in favor of the atomoxetine arms.|||-2.0|-5.8|<.001
90904874|NCT02107274|181677189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||P value of less than 0.05 was considered as significant.|t-test, 1 sided|||"Sputum volume were compared between Visit 6 (Week 12) and Visit 3 (Baseline), Visit 8 (Week 24) and Visit 3 (Baseline), as well for Visit 8 (Week 24) and Visit 6 (Week 12).~Independent t-test was applied for study end points which were numerical variables."||||<0.01
90904875|NCT02107274|181677189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||P value of less than 0.05 was considered significant.|t-test, 1 sided|||"Sputum volume were compared between Visit 6 (Week 12) and Visit 3 (Baseline), Visit 8 (Week 24) and Visit 3 (Baseline), as well for Visit 8 (Week 24) and Visit 6 (Week 12).~Independent t-test was applied for study end points which were numerical variables."||||<0.01
90904876|NCT02107274|181677190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||P value of less than 0.05 was considered as significant.|t-test, 1 sided|||"SGRQ scores were compared between Visit 6 (Week 12) and Visit 3 (Baseline), Visit 8 (Week 24) and Visit 3 (Baseline), as well for Visit 8 (Week 24) and Visit 6 (Week 12).~Independent t-test was applied for study end points which were numerical variables."||||<0.01
90904877|NCT02107274|181677190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||p valu of less than 0.05 was considered significant.|t-test, 1 sided|||"SGRQ scores were compared between Visit 6 (Week 12) and Visit 3 (Baseline), Visit 8 (Week 24) and Visit 3 (Baseline), as well for Visit 8 (Week 24) and Visit 6 (Week 12).~Independent t-test was applied for study end points which were numerical variables"||||<0.01
90904878|NCT02107274|181677191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||P value of less than 0.05 was considered as significant.|t-test, 1 sided|||"FEV1 values were compared between Visit 6 (Week 12) and Visit 3 (Baseline), Visit 8 (Week 24) and Visit 3 (Baseline), as well for Visit 8 (Week 24) and Visit 6 (Week 12).~Independent t-test was applied for study end points which were numerical variables."||||<0.01
90904879|NCT02107274|181677191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||p value of less than 0.05 was considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||"FEV1 values were compared between Visit 6 (Week 12) and Visit 3 (Baseline), Visit 8 (Week 24) and Visit 3 (Baseline), as well for Visit 8 (Week 24) and Visit 6 (Week 12).~Independent t-test was applied for study end points which were numerical variables."||||<0.01
90904880|NCT02107274|181677192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||P value of less than 0.05 was considered as significant.|t-test, 1 sided|||"FVC values were compared between Visit 6 (Week 12) and Visit 3 (Baseline), Visit 8 (Week 24) and Visit 3 (Baseline), as well for Visit 8 (Week 24) and Visit 6 (Week 12).~Independent t-test was applied for study end points which were numerical variables."||||<0.01
90904881|NCT02107274|181677192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||p value of less than 0.05 was considered significant.|t-test, 1 sided|||"FVC values were compared between Visit 6 (Week 12) and Visit 3 (Baseline), Visit 8 (Week 24) and Visit 3 (Baseline), as well for Visit 8 (Week 24) and Visit 6 (Week 12).~Independent t-test was applied for study end points which were numerical variables."||||<0.01
90904882|NCT03251144|181677193|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90904883|NCT05305040|181677194|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049||0.5603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.1||1-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||||0.10|-0.09|0.5603
90904884|NCT01195675|181677199|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Empa vs placebo|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.69|1.87|||ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period, treatment and baseline.|Mean difference = Empa minus placebo|Non-inferiority margin: 10ms||1.87|-0.69|
90958811|NCT00409773|181797576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8|<|0.001||95.0|-12.0|-4.9|||ANOVA|ANOVA with terms for treatment and baseline risk stratum||||-4.9|-12.0|<0.001
91032133|NCT02087904|181948879|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.03||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.056||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.056|-0.11|0.52
90859037|NCT00406354|181582083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.2||p-value is from comparison of combined atomoxetine fast group plus atomoxetine slow group versus placebo group at Week 9.|Mixed Models Analysis||Negative values are in favor of the atomoxetine arms.|||-0.2|-0.6|<.001
90859038|NCT00406354|181582084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.1||p-value is from comparison of combined atomoxetine fast group plus atomoxetine slow group versus placebo group at Week 9.|Mixed Models Analysis||Negative values are in favor of the atomoxetine arms.|||-0.1|-0.4|0.006
90859039|NCT00406354|181582085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|-0.9||p-value is from comparison of combined atomoxetine fast group plus atomoxetine slow group versus placebo group at Week 9.|Mixed Models Analysis||Negative values are in favor of the atomoxetine arms.|||-0.9|-6.2|0.010
90859040|NCT00406354|181582086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-0.4||p-value is from comparison of combined atomoxetine fast group plus atomoxetine slow group versus placebo group at Week 9.|Mixed Models Analysis||Negative values are in favor of the atomoxetine arms.|||-0.4|-3.2|0.010
90859041|NCT00406354|181582087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|2.0||p-value is from comparison of combined atomoxetine fast group plus atomoxetine slow group versus placebo group at Week 9.|ANCOVA||Negative values are in favor of the atomoxetine arms.|||2.0|-4.9|0.406
90859042|NCT00406354|181582088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.4||p-value is from comparison of combined atomoxetine fast group plus atomoxetine slow group versus placebo group at Week 9.|Mixed Models Analysis||Negative values are in favor of the atomoxetine arms.|||-0.4|-1.1|<.001
90904885|NCT01195675|181677200|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Empa vs placebo. Non-confirmatory testing.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.38|1.71|||ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period, treatment and baseline.|Mean difference = Empa minus placebo|Non-inferiority margin: 10ms||1.71|-0.38|
90958812|NCT00409773|181797577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5|<|0.001||95.0|-14.0|-8.0|||ANOVA|ANOVA with terms for treatment and baseline risk stratum||||-8.0|-14.0|<0.001
90958813|NCT00409773|181797577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5|<|0.001||95.0|-9.4|-3.3|||ANOVA|ANOVA with terms for treatment and baseline risk stratum||||-3.3|-9.4|<0.001
90958814|NCT00409773|181797577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5|<|0.001||95.0|-8.7|-2.7|||ANOVA|ANOVA with terms for treatment and baseline risk stratum||||-2.7|-8.7|<0.001
90958815|NCT00409773|181797578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8|<|0.001||95.0|-15.0|-8.1|||ANOVA|ANOVA with terms for treatment and baseline risk stratum||||-8.1|-15.0|<0.001
91032134|NCT02087904|181948879|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.06||||0.159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.023|0.139||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.139|-0.023|0.159
91032135|NCT02087904|181948880|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.22||||0.897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.193|3.642||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||3.642|-3.193|0.897
91032136|NCT02087904|181948880|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.07||||0.542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.515|2.377||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 dose group and Placebo at each post-baseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||2.377|-4.515|0.542
91032137|NCT02087904|181948880|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.52||||0.385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.95|1.916||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 dose group and Placebo at each post-baseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||1.916|-4.95|0.385
91032138|NCT02087904|181948881|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08||||0.384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.249|0.096||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.096|-0.249|0.384
91032139|NCT02087904|181948881|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.15||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.324|0.026||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.026|-0.324|0.095
91032140|NCT02087904|181948881|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.314|0.03||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.03|-0.314|0.106
90859043|NCT00406354|181582089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.4||p-value is from comparison of combined atomoxetine fast group plus atomoxetine slow group versus placebo group at Week 9.|Mixed Models Analysis||Negative values are in favor of the atomoxetine arms.|||-0.4|-1.1|<.001
90859044|NCT00406354|181582090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.4||p-value is from comparison of combined atomoxetine fast group plus atomoxetine slow group versus placebo group at Week 9.|Mixed Models Analysis||Negative values are in favor of the atomoxetine arms.|||-0.4|-1.1|<.001
90859045|NCT00406354|181582091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|9.3||p-value is from comparison of combined atomoxetine fast group plus atomoxetine slow group versus placebo group at Week 9.|ANCOVA||Positive values are in favor of the atomoxetine arms.|||9.3|0.8|0.021
90859046|NCT00406354|181582092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|-1.4||p-value is from comparison of combined atomoxetine fast group plus atomoxetine slow group versus placebo group at Week 9.|ANCOVA||Positive values are in favor of the atomoxetine arms.|||-1.4|-13.8|0.017
90859047|NCT00406354|181582093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|10.9||p-value is from comparison of combined atomoxetine fast group plus atomoxetine slow group versus placebo group at Week 9.|ANCOVA||Positive values are in favor of the atomoxetine arms.|||10.9|-0.0|0.050
90859048|NCT00406354|181582094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|16.4||p-value is from comparison of combined atomoxetine fast group plus atomoxetine slow group versus placebo group at Week 9.|ANCOVA||Positive values are in favor of the atomoxetine arms.|||16.4|4.9|<.001
90859049|NCT00406354|181582095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|14.6||p-value is from comparison of combined atomoxetine fast group plus atomoxetine slow group versus placebo group at Week 9.|ANCOVA||Positive values are in favor of the atomoxetine arms.|||14.6|1.6|0.015
90958816|NCT00409773|181797578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8|<|0.001||95.0|-10.4|-3.6|||ANOVA|ANOVA with terms for treatment and baseline risk stratum||||-3.6|-10.4|<0.001
90958817|NCT00409773|181797578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8|<|0.001||95.0|-11.2|-4.3|||ANOVA|ANOVA with terms for treatment and baseline risk stratum||||-4.3|-11.2|<0.001
90958818|NCT00409773|181797581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.9||||0.42||95.0|-11.0|5.0|||Non-parametric ANOVA|ANOVA using normal scores (Tukey method) based on ranks with terms for treatment and baseline risk stratum||||5.0|-11.0|0.420
90958819|NCT00409773|181797581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.555||95.0|-9.5|7.2|||Non-parametric ANOVA|ANOVA using normal scores (Tukey method) based on ranks with terms for treatment and baseline risk stratum||||7.2|-9.5|0.555
90958820|NCT00409773|181797581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.3||||0.41||95.0|-5.1|9.6|||Non-parametric ANOVA|ANOVA using normal scores (Tukey method) based on ranks with terms for treatment and baseline risk stratum||||9.6|-5.1|0.410
90958821|NCT01440374|181797591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.202||||0.0315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.047|0.868|||Generalized Linear Mixed Models|||||0.868|0.047|0.0315
91032141|NCT02087904|181948882|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.1||||0.818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.22|8.08||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and placebo at each postbaseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||8.08|-10.22|0.818
91032142|NCT02087904|181948882|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.6||||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.83|1.69||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and placebo at each postbaseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||1.69|-16.83|0.109
91032143|NCT02087904|181948882|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.4||||0.465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.58|5.76||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and placebo at each postbaseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||5.76|-12.58|0.465
91032144|NCT02087904|181948883|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.1||||0.666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.76|7.52||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and placebo at each postbaseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||7.52|-11.76|0.666
91032145|NCT02087904|181948883|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.2||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.95|0.56||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and placebo at each postbaseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.56|-18.95|0.065
91102939|NCT01026038|182092505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.63||||||Serotype 9V: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||1.63|0.98|
91102940|NCT01026038|182092505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.27||||||Serotype 9V: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.27|0.76|
91102941|NCT01026038|182092505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.05||||||Serotype 9V: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.05|0.58|
90859050|NCT00406354|181582096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|14.7||p-value is from comparison of combined atomoxetine fast group plus atomoxetine slow group versus placebo group at Week 9.|ANCOVA||Positive results are in favor of the atomoxetine arms.|||14.7|1.4|0.018
91032146|NCT02087904|181948883|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.2||||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.84|2.49||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and placebo at each postbaseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||2.49|-16.84|0.145
91032147|NCT02087904|181948884|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.2||||0.558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.03|7.59||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and placebo at each postbaseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||7.59|-14.03|0.558
91102942|NCT01026038|182092505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.21||||||Serotype 14: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||1.21|0.67|
91102943|NCT01026038|182092505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.25||||||Serotype 14: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.25|0.70|
90859051|NCT00406354|181582097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|11.5||p-value is from comparison of combined atomoxetine fast group plus atomoxetine slow group versus placebo group at Week 9.|ANCOVA||Positive values are in favor of the atomoxetine arms.|||11.5|-1.6|0.138
91032148|NCT02087904|181948884|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.8||||0.295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.77|5.11||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and placebo at each postbaseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||5.11|-16.77|0.295
91032149|NCT02087904|181948884|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.8||||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.63|4.04||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and placebo at each postbaseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||4.04|-17.63|0.218
91032150|NCT02087904|181948885|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.58|2.28||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and placebo at each postbaseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||2.28|-3.58|0.664
91032151|NCT02087904|181948885|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.7||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.67|0.28||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and placebo at each postbaseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.28|-5.67|0.075
91102944|NCT01026038|182092505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.46||||||Serotype 14: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.46|0.73|
91102945|NCT01026038|182092505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.43||||||Serotype 18C: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||1.43|0.83|
91102946|NCT01026038|182092505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.2||||||Serotype 18C: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.20|0.70|
91102947|NCT01026038|182092505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.15||||||Serotype 18C: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.15|0.61|
90859052|NCT00406354|181582098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.193||||0.016||95.0|1.16|4.146||p-value is from comparison of combined atomoxetine fast group plus atomoxetine slow group versus placebo group at Week 9.|Log Rank|||||4.146|1.160|0.016
90859053|NCT00406354|181582099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.102||95.0||||p-value is from comparison of atomoxetine fast group versus atomoxetine slow group for any clinically relevant categories of adverse events during the initial three weeks of study treatment|Fisher Exact|||||||0.102
90859054|NCT00406354|181582100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.101||95.0||||p-value is from comparison of atomoxetine fast group versus atomoxetine slow group for any clinically relevant categories of adverse events during the nine-week study treatment period.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.101
90859055|NCT02080637|181582104|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.5||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Baseline versus 2 hours post-ambrisentan||||0.01
90859056|NCT02080637|181582105|OTHER||Slope|-27.0||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-775.0|723.0|||Regression, Linear|||||723|-775|0.94
90859057|NCT02080637|181582106|OTHER||Slope|1.2||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|6.3|||Regression, Linear|||||6.3|-3.9|0.61
90859058|NCT02130024|181582116|OTHER||Treatment Effect|0.08||||0.236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effects: Baseline GA area, treatment, visit, treatment by visit. Random effect: Subject||||0.21|-0.05|0.236
90859059|NCT02130024|181582117|OTHER||Treatment Effect|0.02||||0.769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effects: Baseline GA area, treatment, visit, treatment by visit. Random effect: Subject||||0.15|-0.11|0.769
90859060|NCT02130024|181582118|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.59|||Regression, Logistic|Includes treatment as factor. Model: log(p/1-p) =Treatment|Odds ratio of 'Newly Developed GA (Yes)' at between the two treatment groups at study visit|Baseline to Month 12 Analysis||1.59|0.44|0.586
90859061|NCT02130024|181582118|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.27||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|6.22|||Regression, Logistic|Includes treatment as factor. Model: log(p/1-p) =Treatment|Odds ratio of 'Newly Developed GA (Yes)' at between the two treatment groups at study visit|Month 12 to Month 24 Analysis||6.22|0.83|0.110
90859062|NCT02130024|181582118|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|2.09|||Regression, Logistic|Includes treatment as factor. Model: log(p/1-p) =Treatment||Baseline to Month 24 Analysis||2.09|0.67|0.554
90859063|NCT02130024|181582119|OTHER||Treatment Effect|0.99||||0.733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.04|||Negative Binomial Regression Model|Log (number of injections) = treatment + log (year of follow-up) (offset)|Treatment effect: Injection frequency (rate) ratio of Ranibizumab vs. Aflibercept|Baseline to \<Month 12 Analysis||1.04|0.95|0.733
90859064|NCT02130024|181582119|OTHER||Treatment Effect|1.01||||0.745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.08|||Negative Binomial Regression Model|Log (number of injections) = treatment + log (year of follow-up) (offset)|Treatment effect: Injection frequency (rate) ratio of Ranibizumab vs. Aflibercept|Baseline to Month 24 Analysis||1.08|0.95|0.745
90859065|NCT02130024|181582120|OTHER||Treatment Effect|2.32||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|4.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effects: Baseline BCVA, treatment, visit, and treatment by visit. Random effect: Subject. Response variable: Change from baseline in BCVA|Treatment Effect: Ranibizumab minus Aflibercept|Baseline to Month 12 Analysis||4.92|-0.27|0.079
90859066|NCT02130024|181582120|OTHER||Treatment Effect|1.95||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|4.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effects: Baseline BCVA, treatment, visit, and treatment by visit. Random effect: Subject. Response variable: Change from baseline in BCVA|Treatment Effect: Ranibizumab minus Aflibercept|Baseline to Month 24 Analysis||4.61|-0.71|0.151
90859067|NCT02130024|181582121|OTHER||Treatment Effect|10.12||||0.294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.82|29.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effects: Baseline CSFT, treatment, visit, and treatment by visit. Random effect: Subject. Response variable: Change from baseline in CSFT|Treatment Effect: Ranibizumab minus Aflibercept|Baseline to Month 12 Analysis||29.06|-8.82|0.294
90859068|NCT02130024|181582121|OTHER||Treatment Effect|11.86||||0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.35|31.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effects: Baseline CSFT, treatment, visit, and treatment by visit. Random effect: Subject. Response variable: Change from baseline in CSFT|Treatment Effect: Ranibizumab minus Aflibercept|Baseline to Month 24 Analysis||31.07|-7.35|0.225
90859069|NCT02130024|181582122|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.35|||Regression, Logistic|Includes treatment as factor. Model: log(p/1-p) =Treatment|Odds ratio of no IRF/SRF present between the two treatment groups at study visit|Month 2 Analysis||1.35|0.51|0.461
90859070|NCT02130024|181582122|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72||||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.21|||Regression, Logistic|Includes treatment as factor. Model: log(p/1-p) =Treatment|Odds ratio of no IRF/SRF present between the two treatment groups at study visit|Month 12 Analysis||1.21|0.44|0.215
90859071|NCT02130024|181582122|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.48|||Regression, Logistic|Includes treatment as factor. Model: log(p/1-p) =Treatment|Odds ratio of no IRF/SRF present between the two treatment groups at study visit|Month 24 Analysis||1.48|0.51|0.616
90859072|NCT02130024|181582123|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|2.08|||Regression, Logistic|Includes treatment as factor and baseline BCVA as covariate. Model: log(p/1-p) =Treatment|Odds ratio of BCVA change from baseline ≥15 letters between the two treatment groups at study visit|Baseline to Month 12 Analysis||2.08|0.53|0.891
90859073|NCT02130024|181582123|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.61||||0.206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|3.35|||Regression, Logistic|Includes treatment as factor and baseline BCVA as covariate. Model: log(p/1-p) =Treatment|Odds ratio of BCVA change from baseline ≥15 letters between the two treatment groups at study visit|Baseline to Month 24 Analysis||3.35|0.77|0.206
91102948|NCT01026038|182092505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.15||||||Serotype 19F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||1.15|0.51|
91102949|NCT01026038|182092505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.03||||||Serotype 19F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.03|0.46|
91102950|NCT01026038|182092505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.44||||||Serotype 19F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.44|0.56|
91102951|NCT01026038|182092505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.37||||||Serotype 23F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||1.37|0.74|
91102952|NCT01026038|182092505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.23||||||Serotype 23F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.23|0.67|
91102953|NCT01026038|182092505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.29||||||Serotype 23F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.29|0.63|
91102954|NCT01026038|182092505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|4.06||||||Serotype 1: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||4.06|2.40|
91102955|NCT01026038|182092505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.66||||||Serotype 1: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||0.66|0.39|
91102956|NCT01026038|182092505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.22||||||Serotype 1: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||0.22|0.12|
91102957|NCT01026038|182092505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|1.78||||||Serotype 3: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||1.78|1.11|
91102958|NCT01026038|182092505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.06||||||Serotype 3: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.06|0.66|
90859074|NCT02130024|181582124|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|5.93|||Regression, Logistic|Includes treatment as factor and baseline BCVA as covariate. Model: log(p/1-p) =Treatment|Odds ratio of BCVA change from baseline ≥ -15 letters between the two treatment groups at study visit|Baseline to Month 12 Analysis||5.93|0.45|0.460
91102959|NCT01026038|182092505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.78||||||Serotype 3: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||0.78|0.45|
91102960|NCT01026038|182092505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.62||||||Serotype 5: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||1.62|0.84|
91102961|NCT01026038|182092505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.87||||||Serotype 5: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||0.87|0.45|
91102962|NCT01026038|182092505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.79||||||Serotype 5: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||0.79|0.36|
91102963|NCT01026038|182092505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.4||||||Serotype 6A: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||1.40|0.71|
91102964|NCT01026038|182092505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.31||||||Serotype 6A: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.31|0.66|
91102965|NCT01026038|182092505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.39||||||Serotype 6A: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.39|0.63|
91102966|NCT01026038|182092505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.7||||||Serotype 7F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||0.70|0.41|
91102967|NCT01026038|182092505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.38||||||Serotype 7F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.38|0.82|
91102968|NCT01026038|182092505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|2.69||||||Serotype 7F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||2.69|1.46|
91102969|NCT01026038|182092505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.28||||||Serotype 19A: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||1.28|0.74|
91102970|NCT01026038|182092505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.02||||||Serotype 19A: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.02|0.59|
91102971|NCT01026038|182092505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.1||||||Serotype 19A: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.10|0.58|
90958822|NCT03057977|181797630|SUPERIORITY|H0: There is no difference between the effect of placebo and the effect of empagliflozin.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.04|0.65|0.86|||Regression, Cox||Comparison vs. Placebo \[T/P\]|"Model with terms for age, baseline eGFR (CKD-EPK)cr, region, baseline diabetes status, sex, baseline LVEF, and treatment.~alpha = 0.0496 (resulting from interim analysis) eGFR (CKP-EPI)cr: Glomerular filtration rate estimated by the chronic kidney disease epidemiology collaboration formula with serum creatinine measurement LVEF: Left ventricular ejection fraction."||0.86|0.65|<0.0001
90958823|NCT03057977|181797631|SUPERIORITY|H0: There is no difference between the effect of placebo and the effect of empagliflozin.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.04|0.58|0.85|||Joint frailty model||HR vs placebo of recurrent HFF|"Model accounts for dependence between recurrent HHF and cardiovascular death, with terms for age, baseline eGFR (CKD-EPK)cr, region, baseline diabetes status, sex, baseline LVEF, and treatment.~eGFR (CKP-EPI)cr: Glomerular filtration rate estimated by the chronic kidney disease epidemiology collaboration formula with serum creatinine measurement LVEF: Left ventricular ejection fraction."||0.85|0.58|0.0003
90958824|NCT03057977|181797632|SUPERIORITY|H0: There is no difference between the effect of placebo and the effect of empagliflozin.|Treatment by time interaction|1.733|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.9|0.669|2.796|||Random intercept random coef. model||Empa vs Placebo slope \[/year\]|"Random coefficient model allowing for random intercept and random slope per patient, with the same factors used for the primary endpoint (age, baseline eGFR (CKD-EPK)cr, region, baseline diabetes status, sex, baseline LVEF, and treatment) and additional factors time, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline eGFR (CKD-EPI)cr-by-time interaction. Only on-treatment data from treated patients were used.~alpha=0.001"||2.796|0.669|<0.0001
90958825|NCT03057977|181797633|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.77|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression model with terms for age, baseline eGFR (CKD-EPK)cr, region, baseline diabetes status, sex, baseline LVEF, and treatment.|Comparison vs. Placebo|||0.77|0.32|0.0019
90859075|NCT02130024|181582124|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.9|||Regression, Logistic|Includes treatment as factor and baseline BCVA as covariate. Model: log(p/1-p) =Treatment|Odds ratio of BCVA change from baseline ≥ -15 letters between the two treatment groups at study visit|Baseline to Month 24 Analysis||2.90|0.30|0.913
90958826|NCT03057977|181797634|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.81|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression model with terms for age, baseline eGFR (CKD-EPK)cr, region, baseline diabetes status, sex, baseline LVEF, and treatment.|Comparison vs Placebo|||0.81|0.59|<0.0001
91032152|NCT02087904|181948885|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.4||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.33|0.52||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and placebo at each postbaseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.52|-5.33|0.107
91032153|NCT02087904|181948886|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.5||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.26|2.08||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and placebo at each postbaseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||2.08|-4.26|0.5
91032154|NCT02087904|181948886|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.2||||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.39|1.05||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and placebo at each postbaseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||1.05|-5.39|0.186
90859076|NCT02130024|181582126|OTHER||Treatment Effect|27.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.44|32.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed: BL Plasma VEGF, treatment, visit, and treatment by visit. Random effect: Subject. Response variable: Change from BL in Plasma VEGF|Treatment Effect: Ranibizumab minus Aflibercept|Baseline to Week 5 Analysis||32.95|21.44|<0.001
90859077|NCT02130024|181582126|OTHER||Treatment Effect|28.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.08|34.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed: BL Plasma VEGF, treatment, visit, and treatment by visit. Random effect: Subject. Response variable: Change from BL in Plasma VEGF|Treatment Effect: Ranibizumab minus Aflibercept|Baseline to Week 9 Analysis||34.68|23.08|<0.001
90859078|NCT05597020|181582130|SUPERIORITY||Least Square mean difference vs placebo|20.9||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|33.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, period, week within period, and interaction of treatment and week were factors; baseline sTST assessment was covariate.||||33.7|8.0|0.002
90859079|NCT05736224|181582132|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||No sunscreen compared to test sunscreen|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
90859080|NCT01015131|181582139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1521|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0932|0.2111|||paired t-test|||||0.2111|0.0932|<0.01
90958827|NCT03057977|181797635|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.4133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.12|||Regression, Cox|Model with terms for age, baseline eGFR (CKD-EPI), region, baseline diabetes status, sex, baseline LVEF and treatment.|Comparison vs. Placebo|||1.12|0.75|0.4133
90958828|NCT03057977|181797636|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.3536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.1|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression model with terms for age, baseline eGFR (CKD-EPI), region, baseline diabetes status, sex, baseline LVEF and treatment.|Comparison vs. placebo|||1.10|0.77|0.3536
90958829|NCT03057977|181797637|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.3576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.19|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression model with terms for age, baseline eGFR (CDK-EPI), region, sex, baseline LVEF and treatment.|Comparison vs. placebo|||1.19|0.62|0.3576
90959035|NCT01620255|181798206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean (LSM) Difference|-0.88||||0.0494|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.623|-0.145|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with model terms: treatment group, baseline, status of anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) therapy experience.||PF-00547659 7.5 mg vs placebo, centrally read change||-0.145|-1.623|0.0494
91102972|NCT01026038|182092508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|6.7||||||Serotype 4: Difference in proportion, expressed as percentage, was calculated by percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC minus the percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||6.7|-3.5|
90904886|NCT01195675|181677201|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Empa vs placebo. Non-confirmatory testing.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.23|0.93|||ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period, treatment and baseline.|Mean difference = Empa minus placebo|Non-inferiority margin: 10ms||0.93|-1.23|
90904887|NCT01195675|181677202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.01|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|10.73|14.11|||ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, period, treatment sequence, baseline and subject within sequence.|Non-confirmatory testing. Mean difference = Moxifloxacin minus placebo.|||14.11|10.73|<0.0001
91032155|NCT02087904|181948886|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.3||||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.46|0.88||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and placebo at each postbaseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.88|-5.46|0.157
91032156|NCT02087904|181948887|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.69||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.69|-0.23|0.319
90904888|NCT01195675|181677203|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Empa vs placebo. Non-confirmatory testing.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.34|4.67|||Repeated measures analysis|Based on repeated measured analysis with terms for subject, baseline, period, treatment, time, baseline by time, period by time and treatment by time.|Mean difference = Empa minus placebo|Non-inferiority margin: 10ms||4.67|-0.34|
90904889|NCT01195675|181677204|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Empa vs placebo. Non-confirmatory testing.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.35|3.53|||Repeated measures analysis|Based on repeated measured analysis with terms for subject, baseline, period, treatment, time, baseline by time, period by time and treatment by time.|Mean difference = Empa minus placebo|Non-inferiority margin: 10ms||3.53|-0.35|
90904890|NCT01195675|181677205|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Empa vs placebo|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.39|0.94|||ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period, treatment and baseline.|Mean difference = Empa minus placebo|Non-inferiority margin: 10ms||0.94|-1.39|
90904891|NCT01033643|181677240|OTHER||Accumulation or Geometric Mean Ratio|2.36|||||||||||||Accumulation ratio or geometric mean ratio (GMR) was calculated as last day of multiple dosing of MK-3614 (Day 10) divided by the first day of multiple dosing of MK-3614 (Day 1).|||||
90904892|NCT01033643|181677241|OTHER||Accumulation or Geometric Mean Ratio|1.62|||||||||||||Accumulation ratio or GMR was calculated as last day of multiple dosing of MK-3614 (Day 13) divided by the first day of multiple dosing of MK-3614 (Day 4).|||||
90904893|NCT01033643|181677243|OTHER||Accumulation or Geometric Mean Ratio|1.9|||||||||||||Accumulation ratio or GMR was calculated as last day of multiple dosing of MK-3614 (Day 10) divided by the first day of multiple dosing of MK-3614 (Day 1).|||||
90904894|NCT01033643|181677243|OTHER||Accumulation or Geometric Mean Ratio|1.63|||||||||||||Accumulation ratio or GMR was calculated as last day of multiple dosing of MK-3614 (Day 10) divided by the first day of multiple dosing of MK-3614 (Day 1).|||||
90904895|NCT01033643|181677244|OTHER||Accumulation or Geometric Mean Ratio|1.91|||||||||||||Accumulation ratio or GMR was calculated as last day of multiple dosing of MK-3614 (Day 10) divided by the first day of multiple dosing of MK-3614 (Day 1).|||||
91102973|NCT01026038|182092508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|6.5||||||Serotype 4: Difference in proportion, expressed as percentage, was calculated by percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC minus the percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||6.5|-3.6|
91102974|NCT01026038|182092508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|6.6||||||Serotype 4: Difference in proportion, expressed as percentage, was calculated by percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC minus the percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||6.6|-6.8|
90904896|NCT01033643|181677245|OTHER||Accumulation or Geometric Mean Ratio|1.38|||||||||||||Accumulation ratio or GMR was calculated as last day of multiple dosing of MK-3614 (Day 13) divided by the first day of multiple dosing of MK-3614 (Day 4).|||||
90904897|NCT01033643|181677252|OTHER|Linear Model|Mean Difference from Placebo|-4.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.53|1.2||||||||1.20|-9.53|
90859081|NCT02791399|181582190|EQUIVALENCE|Our analysis examined the estimated averages for each group at each time point after accounting for covariates.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.12|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.45|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Models controlled for age, gender, depression severity, pain intensity, clinician type, and proportion of clinician panel prescribed opioids.||||0.20|-2.45|<0.05
90859082|NCT02791399|181582191|EQUIVALENCE|Our analysis examined the estimated probabilities for each group at each time point after accounting for covariates.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|Models controlled for age, gender, depression severity, pain intensity, clinician type, and proportion of clinician panel prescribed opioids.||||0.06|-0.15|<0.05
90859083|NCT02791399|181582192|NON_INFERIORITY|Pain intensity and pain-related function were tested in non-inferiority analyses, as we hypothesized that the ISOT intervention would not negatively impact pain or function. One-half SD difference in change was considered the appropriate non-inferiority limit.|Non-inferiority analysis|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90904898|NCT01033643|181677252|OTHER|Linear Model|Mean Difference from Placebo|4.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.41|10.97||||||||10.97|-1.41|
90904899|NCT01033643|181677252|OTHER|Linear Model|Mean Difference from Placebo|-3.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.37|1.42||||||||1.42|-8.37|
90904900|NCT01033643|181677252|OTHER|Linear Model|Mean Difference from Placebo|3.53|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.37|8.42||||||||8.42|-1.37|
90904901|NCT01033643|181677253|OTHER|Linear Model|Mean Difference from Placebo|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.91|7.36||||||||7.36|-6.91|
90904902|NCT01033643|181677253|OTHER|Linear Model|Mean Difference from Placebo|-1.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.79|5.47||||||||5.47|-8.79|
90904903|NCT01033643|181677253|OTHER|Linear Model|Mean Difference from Placebo|2.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.02|9.25||||||||9.25|-5.02|
90904904|NCT01033643|181677253|OTHER|Linear Model|Mean Difference from Placebo|-1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.41|6.94||||||||6.94|-9.41|
91102975|NCT01026038|182092508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|6.3||||||Serotype 6B: Difference in proportion, expressed as percentage, was calculated by percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC minus the percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||6.3|-3.7|
91102976|NCT01026038|182092508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|6.4||||||Serotype 6B: Difference in proportion, expressed as percentage, was calculated by percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC minus the percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||6.4|-3.6|
91102977|NCT01026038|182092508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|6.5||||||Serotype 6B: Difference in proportion, expressed as percentage, was calculated by percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC minus the percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||6.5|-6.4|
91102978|NCT01026038|182092508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|6.6||||||Serotype 9V: Difference in proportion, expressed as percentage, was calculated by percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC minus the percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||6.6|-3.6|
90958830|NCT03057977|181797638|OTHER||Difference of adjusted means|2.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|3.96|||Mixed Model|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)|Comparison vs. placebo|Mixed model with age, baseline eGFR (CKD-EPI) as linear covariate(s) and region, baseline diabetes status, sex, baseline LVEF, week reachable, treatment by visit interaction, baseline KCCQ - Clinical Summary Score by Visit interaction as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance structure has been used.||3.96|0.16|0.0340
91032157|NCT02087904|181948887|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.33||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.33|-0.6|0.564
91102979|NCT01026038|182092508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|6.5||||||Serotype 9V: Difference in proportion, expressed as percentage, was calculated by percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC minus the percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||6.5|-3.6|
90859084|NCT02791399|181582193|EQUIVALENCE|This analysis is comparing estimated averages and probabilities for each group at each time point after accounting for covariates.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.99|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.83|1.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|Models controlled for age, gender, depression severity, pain intensity, clinician type, and proportion of clinician panel prescribed opioids.||||1.85|-5.83|<0.05
90859085|NCT02791399|181582194|EQUIVALENCE|Our analysis examined the estimated averages for each group at each time point after accounting for covariates.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.03|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.73|8.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|Models controlled for age, gender, depression severity, pain intensity, clinician type, and proportion of clinician panel prescribed opioids.||||8.80|-6.73|<0.05
90859086|NCT00704912|181582195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.5||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|6.6|||Log-binomial model|||||6.6|1.0|0.06
90859087|NCT00704912|181582195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.3||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|6.1|||Log-binomial model|||||6.1|0.9|0.08
90859088|NCT00704912|181582195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.1|||Log-binomial model|||||2.1|0.5|0.82
90859089|NCT00704912|181582196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.3||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.7|||Log-binomial model|||||1.7|1.0|0.06
90859090|NCT00704912|181582196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.5||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.9|||Log-binomial model|||||1.9|1.1|0.002
90859091|NCT00704912|181582196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.1|||Log-binomial model|||||1.1|0.7|0.28
90859092|NCT00704912|181582197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Mean Change|-5.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|-3.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||Lifestyle vs. OCP|||-3.8|-6.3|<.0001
90859093|NCT00704912|181582197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Mean Change|-5.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|-3.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||Combined vs. OCP|||-3.7|-6.2|<.0001
90859094|NCT00704912|181582197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Mean Change|-0.1||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Lifestyle vs. Combined|||1.2|-1.3|0.92
91102980|NCT01026038|182092508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|6.5||||||Serotype 9V: Difference in proportion, expressed as percentage, was calculated by percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC minus the percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||6.5|-6.7|
91102981|NCT01026038|182092508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|6.6||||||Serotype 14: Difference in proportion, expressed as percentage, was calculated by percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC minus the percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||6.6|-3.7|
91102982|NCT01026038|182092508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|6.5||||||Serotype 14: Difference in proportion, expressed as percentage, was calculated by percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC minus the percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||6.5|-3.7|
91102983|NCT01026038|182092508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|6.5||||||Serotype 14: Difference in proportion, expressed as percentage, was calculated by percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC minus the percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||6.5|-6.7|
91102984|NCT01026038|182092508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|6.6||||||Serotype 18C: Difference in proportion, expressed as percentage, was calculated by percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC minus the percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||6.6|-3.6|
91102985|NCT01026038|182092508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|6.3||||||Serotype 18C: Difference in proportion, expressed as percentage, was calculated by percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC minus the percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||6.3|-3.7|
91102986|NCT01026038|182092508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|6.4||||||Serotype 18C: Difference in proportion, expressed as percentage, was calculated by percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC minus the percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||6.4|-6.6|
91032158|NCT02087904|181948887|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.47||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.47|-0.45|0.966
90859095|NCT00704912|181582198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.2|||GEE||End of intervention compared to baseline.|Comparing change in prevalence of metabolic syndrome from baseline to the end of intervention.||2.2|0.6|0.60
90859096|NCT00704912|181582198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.5||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|4.3|||GEE||End of intervention compared to baseline|Comparing change in prevalence of metabolic syndrome from baseline to the end of intervention.||4.3|1.4|0.001
90859097|NCT00704912|181582198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.2|||GEE||End of intervention compared to baseline|Comparing change in prevalence of metabolic syndrome from baseline to the end of intervention.||1.2|0.4|0.18
90859098|NCT00704912|181582198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|TWO_SIDED||||||GEE|||||||0.08
90859099|NCT00704912|181582198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||GEE|||||||0.001
90859100|NCT00704912|181582198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|TWO_SIDED||||||GEE|||||||0.22
90859101|NCT02742441|181582199|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||"Treatment groups were compared with respect to the proportions of subjects with treatment success at Day 15 using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by analysis center."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Missing data was imputed as treatment failure.||||||<0.001
90859102|NCT02742441|181582200|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance was achieved for each of the clinical signs of psoriasis.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Missing data was imputed as treatment failure.||Treatment groups were compared with respect to each of the clinical signs of psoriasis (plaque elevation, scaling, and erythema).||||<0.001
91102987|NCT01026038|182092508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|4.5||||||Serotype 19F: Difference in proportion, expressed as percentage, was calculated by percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC minus the percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||4.5|-6.2|
90859103|NCT02742441|181582201|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.012
91102988|NCT01026038|182092508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|7.5||||||Serotype 19F: Difference in proportion, expressed as percentage, was calculated by percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC minus the percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||7.5|-4.8|
91102989|NCT01026038|182092508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|9.5||||||Serotype 19F: Difference in proportion, expressed as percentage, was calculated by percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC minus the percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||9.5|-4.8|
91102990|NCT01026038|182092508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|6.7||||||Serotype 23F: Difference in proportion, expressed as percentage, was calculated by percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC minus the percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||6.7|-3.5|
90859104|NCT02203071|181582206|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.61
90859105|NCT02203071|181582207|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.001
90859106|NCT02203071|181582208|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.11|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.11
90904905|NCT01033643|181677254|OTHER|Linear Model|Mean Difference from Placebo|-0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.29|7.79||||||||7.79|-9.29|
90904906|NCT01033643|181677254|OTHER|Linear Model|Mean Difference from Placebo|-3.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.32|6.86||||||||6.86|-14.32|
90904907|NCT01033643|181677254|OTHER|Linear Model|Mean Difference from Placebo|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.88|9.2||||||||9.20|-7.88|
91032159|NCT02087904|181948888|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.7||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.7|-0.41|0.602
91102991|NCT01026038|182092508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|6.4||||||Serotype 23F: Difference in proportion, expressed as percentage, was calculated by percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC minus the percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||6.4|-3.6|
91102992|NCT01026038|182092508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|6.5||||||Serotype 23F: Difference in proportion, expressed as percentage, was calculated by percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC minus the percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||6.5|-6.7|
90859107|NCT02203071|181582209|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.007|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.007
90859108|NCT02203071|181582210|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90859109|NCT02203071|181582211|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
90859110|NCT02595970|181582229|SUPERIORITY|adjusted for multiplicity using the Hochberg procedure.|Mean Difference (Net)|-22.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.52|20.59|||t-test, 2 sided|||||20.59|-24.52|<0.0001
90859111|NCT02595970|181582239|SUPERIORITY|adjusted|Mean Difference (Net)|-21.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.52|19.58|||t-test, 2 sided|||||19.58|-23.52|<0.0001
90859112|NCT02468232|181582287|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0881||||0.626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6501|1.8212|||Regression, Cox|||For Primary Composite||1.8212|0.6501|0.6260
90859113|NCT02468232|181582287|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1701||||0.6493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5242|2.6122|||Regression, Cox|||For CV Death||2.6122|0.5242|0.6493
90859114|NCT02468232|181582287|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2673||||0.7851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7039|2.2818|||Regression, Cox|||For 1st HF Hospitalization||2.2818|0.7039|0.7851
90859115|NCT02468232|181582288|SUPERIORITY||LSM of ratio|0.8657||||0.0326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7585|0.988||Indicates statistical significance (2-sided) with an alpha level of 0.05|ANCOVA|Repeated measure ANCOVA model||Week 4 analysis||0.9880|0.7585|0.0326
90859116|NCT02468232|181582288|SUPERIORITY||LSM of ratio|0.8538||||0.0161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7509|0.9708||Indicates statistical significance (2-sided) with an alpha level of 0.05|ANCOVA|Repeated measure ANCOVA model||Week 8 analysis||0.9708|0.7509|0.0161
90904908|NCT01033643|181677254|OTHER|Linear Model|Mean Difference from Placebo|-9.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-19.54|-0.3||||||||-0.30|-19.54|
90904909|NCT01033643|181677255|OTHER|Linear Model|Mean Difference from Placebo|-1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.36|7.32||||||||7.32|-9.36|
90904910|NCT01033643|181677255|OTHER|Linear Model|Mean Difference from Placebo|-2.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.47|8.22||||||||8.22|-12.47|
90904911|NCT01033643|181677255|OTHER|Linear Model|Mean Difference from Placebo|-0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.87|7.81||||||||7.81|-8.87|
91102993|NCT01026038|182092508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|6.4||||||Serotype 1: Difference in proportion, expressed as percentage, was calculated by percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC minus the percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||6.4|-3.5|
91102994|NCT01026038|182092508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|6.3||||||Serotype 1: Difference in proportion, expressed as percentage, was calculated by percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC minus the percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||6.3|-3.6|
90859117|NCT02468232|181582288|SUPERIORITY||LSM of ratio|0.8112||||0.0104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6916|0.9514||Indicates statistical significance (2-sided) with an alpha level of 0.05|ANCOVA|Repeated measure of ANCOVA model||Month 6 analysis||0.9514|0.6916|0.0104
90859118|NCT02468232|181582290|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.024||||0.5406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6492|1.6152|||Regression, Cox|||First triple composite endpoint||1.6152|0.6492|0.5406
90859119|NCT02468232|181582290|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1701||||0.6493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5242|2.6122|||Regression, Cox|||CV health||2.6122|0.5242|0.6493
90859120|NCT02468232|181582290|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8546||||0.3448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3952|1.8479|||Regression, Cox|||First worsening of HF in outpatient||1.8479|0.3952|0.3448
90859121|NCT02468232|181582291|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7115|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|based on modified ridit scores||Week 4 analysis||||0.7115
90859122|NCT02468232|181582291|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1752|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|based on modified ridit scores||Week 8 analysis||||0.1752
90859123|NCT02468232|181582291|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2688|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|based on modified ridit scores||Month 6 analysis||||0.2688
90859124|NCT02468232|181582292|SUPERIORITY||LSM of difference|2.5455||||0.1854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2306|6.3216|||ANCOVA|Repeated measure ANCOVA model||Week 8 analysis||6.3216|-1.2306|0.1854
90859125|NCT02468232|181582292|SUPERIORITY||LSM of difference|1.2695||||0.5737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1715|5.7104|||ANCOVA|Repeated measure ANCOVA model||Month 6 analysis||5.7104|-3.1715|0.5737
90958831|NCT03057977|181797639|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.0065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|0.95|||Joint frailty model||Comparison vs. placebo|Joint frailty model with terms for age, baseline eGFR (CDK-EPI), region, sex, baseline diabetes status and baseline LVEF. Model accounts for dependence between recurrent all-cause hospitalizations and all-cause mortality.||0.95|0.75|0.0065
91032160|NCT02087904|181948888|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.58||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.58|-0.55|0.953
91032161|NCT02087904|181948888|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.49||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.49|-0.61|0.83
90859126|NCT02468232|181582293|SUPERIORITY||rate ratio|0.8699||||0.6501||95.0|0.4763|1.5887|||Negative binomial (NB) regression model|adjusted for treatment and stratification of screening NT-proBNP||||1.5887|0.4763|0.6501
90859127|NCT02468232|181582294|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6211|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.6211
90859128|NCT02468232|181582296|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1895||||0.6955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6116|2.3134|||Regression, Cox|||||2.3134|0.6116|0.6955
90859129|NCT02468232|181582298|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|1.0192||||0.9233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6925|1.4999|||Negative binomial (NB) regression model|adjusted for treatment and stratification of screening NT-proBNP||||1.4999|0.6925|0.9233
90859130|NCT02468232|181582299|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|1.0754||||0.9272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2264|5.1067|||Negative binomial (NB) regression model|adjusted for treatment and stratification of screening NT-proBNP||||5.1067|0.2264|0.9272
90859131|NCT02468232|181582301|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.4504||||0.0697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1902|1.0665||Negative binomial (NB) regression model|Negative binomial (NB) regression model|adjusted for treatment and stratification of screening NT-proBNP||||1.0665|0.1902|0.0697
90859132|NCT03423641|181582337|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.2|||Marginal Structural Model||The numerator represents the DAA group while the denominator represents the comparison group for the odds ratio.|||2.20|0.30|.68
90859133|NCT03423641|181582338|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.91|||Marginal Structural Model||The numerator represents the DAA group while the denominator represents the comparison group for the odds ratio.|||0.91|0.56|0.01
90859134|NCT03423641|181582339|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.12|||Marginal Structural Model||The numerator represents the DAA group while the denominator represents the comparison group for the odds ratio.|||1.12|0.75|0.39
90859135|NCT03423641|181582340|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.9|||Marginal Structural Model||The numerator represents the DAA group while the denominator represents the comparison group for the odds ratio.|||0.90|0.49|0.01
90859136|NCT03423641|181582341|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.42|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.59|||Marginal Structural Model||The numerator represents the DAA group while the denominator represents the comparison group for the odds ratio.|||0.59|0.30|<0.01
90859137|NCT03423641|181582342|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.68||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.1|||Marginal Structural Model||The numerator represents the DAA group while the denominator represents the comparison group for the odds ratio.|||1.10|0.42|0.12
90859138|NCT03423641|181582343|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.61||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.7|||Marginal Structural Model||The numerator represents the DAA group while the denominator represents the comparison group for the odds ratio.|||1.70|0.22|0.34
90859139|NCT03423641|181582344|SUPERIORITY||Marginal Structural Model|0.61|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.76|||Marginal Structural Model||The numerator represents the DAA group while the denominator represents the comparison group for the odds ratio.|||0.76|0.49|<0.01
90859140|NCT03423641|181582345|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.71|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.84|||Poisson Regression||The numerator represents the DAA group while the denominator represents the comparison group for the rate ratio.|||0.84|0.60|<0.01
90859141|NCT03423641|181582346|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.82|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.87|||Poisson Regression||The numerator represents the DAA group while the denominator represents the comparison group for the rate ratio.|||0.87|0.77|<0.01
90859142|NCT03423641|181582347|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.47||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.88|||Marginal Structural Model||The numerator represents the DAA group while the denominator represents the comparison group for the odds ratio.|||0.88|0.25|0.02
90958832|NCT01350336|181797640|NON_INFERIORITY|An upper 95% confidence limit of the difference between Year 2 compared to the first 12-month proportion is less than 20% will demonstrate that the proportions are not substantially worse during each of the subsequent evaluation periods.|Difference of proportions|-0.038|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1251|0.0497||||||Comparison of Years 1 and 2||0.0497|-0.1251|
91102995|NCT01026038|182092508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|6.3||||||Serotype 1: Difference in proportion, expressed as percentage, was calculated by percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC minus the percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||6.3|-6.5|
91102996|NCT01026038|182092508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|9.6||||||Serotype 3: Difference in proportion, expressed as percentage, was calculated by percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC minus the percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||9.6|-1.7|
90859143|NCT03423641|181582348|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.62||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.03|||Marginal Structural Model||The numerator represents the DAA group while the denominator represents the comparison group for the odds ratio.|||1.03|0.37|0.07
90859144|NCT03423641|181582349|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.05|||Marginal Structural Model||The numerator represents the DAA group while the denominator represents the comparison group for the odds ratio.|||1.05|0.63|0.11
90904912|NCT01033643|181677255|OTHER|Linear Model|Mean Difference from Placebo|-10.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-19.83|-1.04||||||||-1.04|-19.83|
90904913|NCT01033643|181677256|OTHER|Linear Model|Mean Difference from Placebo|-1.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.5|3.04||||||||3.04|-6.50|
90904914|NCT01033643|181677256|OTHER|Linear Model|Mean Difference from Placebo|-4.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.0|0.54||||||||0.54|-9.00|
91032162|NCT02087904|181948889|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.7||||0.804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.91|6.33||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Intermittent pain||6.33|-4.91|0.804
91102997|NCT01026038|182092508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|6.2||||||Serotype 3: Difference in proportion, expressed as percentage, was calculated by percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC minus the percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||6.2|-3.7|
91102998|NCT01026038|182092508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|4.5||||||Serotype 3: Difference in proportion, expressed as percentage, was calculated by percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC minus the percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||4.5|-9.6|
90859145|NCT04540497|181582351|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.28|||||Inebilizumab versus placebo|||0.28|0.06|
90859146|NCT04540497|181582358|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.26|||||Inebilizumab vs placebo|||0.26|0.05|
90859147|NCT03914326|181582383|SUPERIORITY|Time from randomisation to first EAC-confirmed MACE was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as categorical fixed factor.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.96|||Regression, Cox|||||0.96|0.77|0.0028
91032163|NCT02087904|181948889|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.1||||0.699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|4.63||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Intermittent pain||4.63|-6.9|0.699
90859148|NCT04612790|181582408|OTHER||Difference in percentage of responders|6.7||||0.509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|24.29|||Logistic regression model with Firth adj|||Estimates were from a logistic regression model using the Firth adjustment (adj) that included treatment group, baseline disease severity (moderate, severe) and time of BP diagnosis (participants with newly diagnosed BP, participants with a previous diagnosis of BP who have relapsed) as categorical covariates.||24.29|-10.90|0.509
90904915|NCT01033643|181677256|OTHER|Linear Model|Mean Difference from Placebo|-1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.82|3.72||||||||3.72|-5.82|
90904916|NCT01033643|181677256|OTHER|Linear Model|Mean Difference from Placebo|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.46|7.46||||||||7.46|-3.46|
91102999|NCT01026038|182092508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|11.3||||||Serotype 5: Difference in proportion, expressed as percentage, was calculated by percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC minus the percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||11.3|-2.0|
90904917|NCT01033643|181677257|OTHER|Linear Model|Mean Difference from Placebo|-3.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.37|1.64||||||||1.64|-9.37|
90904918|NCT01033643|181677257|OTHER|Linear Model|Mean Difference from Placebo|-7.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.03|-0.37||||||||-0.37|-14.03|
90904919|NCT01033643|181677257|OTHER|Linear Model|Mean Difference from Placebo|-1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.83|4.18||||||||4.18|-6.83|
90904920|NCT01033643|181677257|OTHER|Linear Model|Mean Difference from Placebo|-2.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.45|3.96||||||||3.96|-8.45|
90904921|NCT01033643|181677258|OTHER|Linear Model|Mean Difference from Placebo|-2.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.92|2.43||||||||2.43|-7.92|
90904922|NCT01033643|181677258|OTHER|Linear Model|Mean Difference from Placebo|-6.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.09|-0.25||||||||-0.25|-13.09|
91103000|NCT01026038|182092508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|5.6||||||Serotype 5: Difference in proportion, expressed as percentage, was calculated by percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC minus the percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||5.6|-4.9|
91103001|NCT01026038|182092508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|3.2||||||Serotype 5: Difference in proportion, expressed as percentage, was calculated by percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC minus the percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||3.2|-12.5|
90904923|NCT01033643|181677258|OTHER|Linear Model|Mean Difference from Placebo|-0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.91|4.44||||||||4.44|-5.91|
91103002|NCT01026038|182092508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|6.5||||||Serotype 6A: Difference in proportion, expressed as percentage, was calculated by percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC minus the percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||6.5|-3.6|
91103003|NCT01026038|182092508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|6.5||||||Serotype 6A: Difference in proportion, expressed as percentage, was calculated by percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC minus the percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||6.5|-3.6|
90859149|NCT00785928|181582414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.059||95.0||||This is p-value for the fitted ACR50 response rate and is based on the dose-response regression model and comes from the joint test of linear and quadratic dose response (response=dose+dose\^2) from the likelihood ratio test.|Linear-quadratic regression model|||||||0.059
90859150|NCT00785928|181582414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ED95|119.0||||0.042||95.0||||This is the p-value for the estimated dose level of the smallest dose, in milligrams (mg), that achieves at least 95% of the maximal efficacy (ED95) and is based on the comparisons that the ED95 yields a higher fitted response rate than placebo.|Linear-quadratic regression model|This is ED95 in mg.||||||0.042
90859151|NCT00785928|181582415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.044||95.0||||This is the p-value for the fitted ACR20 response rate and is based on the dose-response regression model and comes from the joint test of linear and quadratic dose response (response=dose+dose\^2) from the likelihood ratio test.|Linear-quadratic regression model|||||||0.044
90859152|NCT00785928|181582415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ED95|118.5||||0.005||95.0||||This p-value is for estimated dose level of the smallest dose, in milligrams (mg), that achieves at least 95% of the maximal efficacy (ED95) of the ACR20 and is based on the comparisons that the ED95 yields a higher fitted response rate than placebo.|Linear-quadratic regression model|This is the ED95 in mg.||||||0.005
90859153|NCT00785928|181582416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.623||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 1 mg LY2127399 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.623
90859154|NCT00785928|181582416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 3 mg LY2127399 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.160
90904924|NCT01033643|181677258|OTHER|Linear Model|Mean Difference from Placebo|-2.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.64|3.02||||||||3.02|-8.64|
90904925|NCT01033643|181677259|OTHER|Linear Model|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.47|1.87|||||GMR was calculated as MK-3614 Dose divided by Placebo|||1.87|0.47|
90904926|NCT01033643|181677259|OTHER|Linear Model|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.26|0.87|||||GMR was calculated as MK-3614 Dose divided by Placebo|||0.87|0.26|
91032164|NCT02087904|181948889|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.4||||0.636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.37|7.14||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Intermittent pain||7.14|-4.37|0.636
90859155|NCT00785928|181582416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.568||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 10 mg LY2127399 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.568
90859156|NCT00785928|181582416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.633||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 30 mg LY2127399 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.633
91032165|NCT02087904|181948889|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.9||||0.756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.91|6.76||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Constant pain||6.76|-4.91|0.756
91032166|NCT02087904|181948889|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.6||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.55|0.42||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Constant pain||0.42|-11.55|0.068
90859157|NCT00785928|181582416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.754||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 60 mg LY2127399 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.754
90859158|NCT00785928|181582416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.289||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 120 mg LY2127399 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.289
90859159|NCT00785928|181582417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.671||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 1 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.671
90859160|NCT00785928|181582417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.696||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 3 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.696
90859161|NCT00785928|181582417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.367||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 10 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.367
90859162|NCT00785928|181582417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.645||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 30 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.645
90904927|NCT01033643|181677259|OTHER|Linear Model|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.51|1.79|||||GMR was calculated as MK-3614 Dose divided by Placebo|||1.79|0.51|
90904928|NCT03527277|181677263|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|3.5|||ANCOVA|Effect of group on change of outcome with adjustment for BMI, Outcome at baseline and gender||||3.5|-4.0|0.88
90904929|NCT03527277|181677264|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|2.3|||ANCOVA|Effect of group on change of outcome with adjustment for gender and outcome and BMI at baseline.||||2.3|-3.7|0.65
90904930|NCT03527277|181677265|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|3.4|||ANCOVA|Effect of group on change of outcome with adjustment for gender and outcome and BMI at baseline.||||3.4|-3.7|0.92
90904931|NCT03527277|181677266|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|2.6|||ANCOVA|Effect of group on change of outcome with adjustment for gender and BMI and outcome at baseline.||||2.6|-3.3|0.81
90904932|NCT03527277|181677267|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.92|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|-0.49|||ANCOVA|Effect of group with adjustment for gender and BMI and outcome at baseline.||||-0.49|-1.34|<0.0001
90958833|NCT01350336|181797640|NON_INFERIORITY|An upper 95% confidence limit of the difference between Year 3 compared to the first 12-month proportion is less than 20% will demonstrate that the proportions are not substantially worse during each of the subsequent evaluation periods.|Difference of proportions|-0.0325|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1197|0.0565||||||Comparison of Years 1 and 3||0.0565|-0.1197|
91032167|NCT02087904|181948889|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.4||||0.649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.34|4.58||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Constant pain||4.58|-7.34|0.649
91103004|NCT01026038|182092508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|6.6||||||Serotype 6A: Difference in proportion, expressed as percentage, was calculated by percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC minus the percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||6.6|-6.6|
90859163|NCT00785928|181582417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.944||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 60 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.944
90859164|NCT00785928|181582417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.133||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 120 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.133
90859165|NCT00785928|181582418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.457||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (1-sided) of 1 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.457
90859166|NCT00785928|181582418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.874||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (1-sided) of 3 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.874
90859167|NCT00785928|181582418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.278||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (1-sided) of 10 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.278
90904933|NCT03527277|181677268|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|-2.1|||ANCOVA|Effect of group on change of outcome with adjustment for gender and BMI and outcome at baseline.||||-2.1|-4.7|<0.0001
90904934|NCT03527277|181677269|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.21||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.31|||ANCOVA|Effect of group on change of outcome with adjustment for gender and BMI and outcome at baseline.||||0.31|-0.74|0.42
90904935|NCT03527277|181677270|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.27||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.76|||ANCOVA|Effect of group on change of outcome with adjustment for gender and BMI and outcome at baseline.||||0.76|-0.23|0.28
91032168|NCT02087904|181948890|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.14|5.14||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Intermittent pain||5.14|-7.14|0.75
91032169|NCT02087904|181948890|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.6||||0.409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.82|3.6||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Intermittent pain||3.6|-8.82|0.409
91103005|NCT01026038|182092508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|6.4||||||Serotype 7F: Difference in proportion, expressed as percentage, was calculated by percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC minus the percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||6.4|-3.6|
90859168|NCT00785928|181582418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.357||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (1-sided) of 30 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.357
90859169|NCT00785928|181582418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.271||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (1-sided) of 60 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.271
91032170|NCT02087904|181948890|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.0||||0.338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.24|3.18||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Intermittent pain||3.18|-9.24|0.338
90859170|NCT00785928|181582418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (1-sided) of 120 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.048
90904936|NCT03527277|181677271|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.1||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.9|24.7|||ANCOVA|Effect of group on change of outcome with adjustment of gender and BMI and outcome at baseline.||||24.7|-42.9|0.59
90904937|NCT03527277|181677272|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.08|||ANCOVA|Effect of group on change of outcome with adjustment for gender and outcome at baseline.||||0.08|-0.21|0.35
90904938|NCT03527277|181677273|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.59|||ANCOVA|Effect of group on change of outcome with adjustment for gender and outcome and BMI at baseline.||||0.59|-0.61|0.97
90904939|NCT03527277|181677274|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.9||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.4|-5.4|||ANCOVA|Effect of group on change of outcome with adjustment for gender and outcome and BMI at baseline.||Effect of group on change of outcome with adjustment for BMI, outcome at baseline and gender.||-5.4|-22.4|0.002
90958834|NCT01350336|181797640|NON_INFERIORITY|An upper 95% confidence limit of the difference between Year 4 compared to the first 12-month proportion is less than 20% will demonstrate that the proportions are not substantially worse during each of the subsequent evaluation periods.|Difference of proportions|-0.0566|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1444|0.0329||||||Comparison of Years 1 and 4||0.0329|-0.1444|
91032171|NCT02087904|181948890|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.7||||0.817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.59|7.08||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Constant pain||7.08|-5.59|0.817
91103006|NCT01026038|182092508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|6.6||||||Serotype 7F: Difference in proportion, expressed as percentage, was calculated by percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC minus the percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||6.6|-3.5|
90859171|NCT00785928|181582419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.875||95.0||||This p-value is from 2-sided comparison of 1 mg LY2127399 versus placebo using Fisher's exact test for the 3 levels of EULAR response (good, moderate, no).|Fisher Exact|||||||0.875
90859172|NCT00785928|181582419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||This p-value is from 2-sided comparison of 3 mg LY2127399 versus placebo using Fisher's exact test for the 3 levels of EULAR response (good, moderate, no).|Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
90859173|NCT00785928|181582419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||This p-value is from 2-sided comparison of 10 mg LY2127399 versus placebo using Fisher's exact test for the 3 levels of EULAR response (good, moderate, no).|Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
90859174|NCT00785928|181582419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.304||95.0||||This p-value is from a 2-sided comparison of 30 mg LY2127399 versus placebo using a Chi-square test for the 3 levels of EULAR response (good, moderate, no).|Chi-squared|||||||0.304
90859175|NCT00785928|181582419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.489||95.0||||This p-value is from a 2-sided comparison of 60 mg LY2127399 versus placebo using a Chi-square test for the 3 levels of EULAR response (good, moderate, no).|Chi-squared|||||||0.489
90859176|NCT00785928|181582419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.091||95.0||||This p-value is from a 2-sided comparison of 120 mg LY2127399 versus placebo using a Chi-square test for the 3 levels of EULAR response (good, moderate, no).|Chi-squared|||||||0.091
90859177|NCT00785928|181582420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.746||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 1 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.746
90859178|NCT00785928|181582420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.393||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 3 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.393
90859179|NCT00785928|181582420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.549||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 10 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.549
90859180|NCT00785928|181582420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.619||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 30 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.619
90859181|NCT00785928|181582420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.893||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 60 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.893
90859182|NCT00785928|181582420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.066||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 120 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.066
90859183|NCT00785928|181582421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.583||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 1 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.583
90859184|NCT00785928|181582421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.311||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 3 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.311
90859185|NCT00785928|181582421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.752||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 10 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.752
90859186|NCT00785928|181582421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.737||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 30 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.737
90859187|NCT00785928|181582421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.522||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 60 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.522
90859188|NCT00785928|181582421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.073||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 120 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.073
90859189|NCT00785928|181582422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.969||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 1 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.969
90859190|NCT00785928|181582422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.352||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 3 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.352
90859191|NCT00785928|181582422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.406||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 10 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.406
90859192|NCT00785928|181582422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.266||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 30 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.266
91032172|NCT02087904|181948890|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.0||||0.544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.37|4.43||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Constant pain||4.43|-8.37|0.544
91103007|NCT01026038|182092508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|6.7||||||Serotype 7F:Difference in proportion, expressed as percentage, was calculated by percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC minus the percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||6.7|-6.5|
91103008|NCT01026038|182092508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|6.7||||||Serotype 19A: Difference in proportion, expressed as percentage, was calculated by percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC minus the percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||6.7|-3.6|
91103009|NCT01026038|182092508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|6.6||||||Serotype 19A: Difference in proportion, expressed as percentage, was calculated by percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC minus the percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||6.6|-3.6|
90859193|NCT00785928|181582422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.708||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 60 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.708
90859194|NCT00785928|181582422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 120 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.012
90859195|NCT00785928|181582423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 1 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.880
90859196|NCT00785928|181582423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.575||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 3 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.575
90859197|NCT00785928|181582423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.992||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 10 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.992
90859198|NCT00785928|181582423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.646||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 30 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.646
90859199|NCT00785928|181582423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.054||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 60 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.054
90859200|NCT00785928|181582423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.472||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 120 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.472
90859201|NCT00785928|181582424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.952||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 1 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using ranked analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with the standardized rank outcome variable, treatment as the fixed factor, and the standardized rank baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.952
90859202|NCT00785928|181582424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.085||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 3 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using ranked analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with the standardized rank outcome variable, treatment as the fixed factor, and the standardized rank baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.085
90859203|NCT00785928|181582424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.143||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 10 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using ranked analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with the standardized rank outcome variable, treatment as the fixed factor, and the standardized rank baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.143
90859204|NCT00785928|181582424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.242||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 30 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using ranked analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with the standardized rank outcome variable, treatment as the fixed factor, and the standardized rank baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.242
90859205|NCT00785928|181582424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.317||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 60 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using ranked analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with the standardized rank outcome variable, treatment as the fixed factor, and the standardized rank baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.317
90859206|NCT00785928|181582424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.456||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 120 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using ranked analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with the standardized rank outcome variable, treatment as the fixed factor, and the standardized rank baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.456
90859207|NCT00785928|181582425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.833||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 1 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.833
90859208|NCT00785928|181582425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.826||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 3 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.826
91103010|NCT01026038|182092508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|6.6||||||Serotype 19A: Difference in proportion, expressed as percentage, was calculated by percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC minus the percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||6.6|-6.8|
91032173|NCT02087904|181948890|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.5||||0.437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.91|3.86||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Constant pain||3.86|-8.91|0.437
91103011|NCT03782103|182092527|NON_INFERIORITY|Investigational product upper bounds must be less than 0.5.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.2845|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6033|0.0334||||||Groin 30 seconds post product application, Average Treatment Effect, calculated using a linear regression model for each body site, was used for primary analysis. In the model, the response was the post-treatment log10 CFU/cm\^2 bacterial counts and the predictors were the treatment effect as a fixed effect and the pre-treatment log10 CFU/cm\^2 bacterial counts as a covariate.||0.0334|-0.6033|
91103012|NCT03782103|182092527|SUPERIORITY|Investigational product lower bounds must be greater than 1.2.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8535|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5415|3.1655||||||Groin 30 seconds post product application, Average Treatment Effect, calculated using a linear regression model for each body site, was used for primary analysis. In the model, the response was the post-treatment log10 CFU/cm\^2 bacterial counts and predictors were the treatment effect as a fixed effect and the pre-treatment log10 CFU/cm\^2 bacterial counts as a covariate.||3.1655|2.5415|
91103013|NCT03782103|182092528|NON_INFERIORITY|Investigational product average treatment effect upper bounds cannot be more than 0.5.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0577|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1457|0.2611||||||Abdomen 30 seconds post product application, Average Treatment Effect, calculated using a linear regression model for each body site, was used for primary analysis. In the model, the response was the post-treatment log10 CFU/cm\^2 bacterial counts and predictors were the treatment effect as a fixed effect and the pre-treatment log10 CFU/cm\^2 bacterial counts as a covariate.||0.2611|-0.1457|
91103014|NCT03782103|182092528|SUPERIORITY|Investigational product lower bounds must be greater than 1.2.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8208|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6153|2.0264||||||Abdomen 30 seconds post product application, Average Treatment Effect, calculated using a linear regression model for each body site, was used for primary analysis. In the model, the response was the post-treatment log10 CFU/cm\^2 bacterial counts and predictors were the treatment effect as a fixed effect and the pre-treatment log10 CFU/cm\^2 bacterial counts as a covariate.||2.0264|1.6153|
91103015|NCT01712074|182092562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.695|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8697||0.4256|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.424|1.814|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.814|-0.424|0.4256
91103016|NCT01712074|182092563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.194|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7149||0.2027|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.013|4.401|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.401|-0.013|0.2027
91103017|NCT03478787|182092586|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is met if the lower bound of the 96.25% confidence interval (CI) of adjusted treatment difference is above -12%.|Adjusted percentage difference|8.2|||||TWO_SIDED|96.25|-2.2|18.6|||||Across the strata, 96.25% confidence interval (CI) for adjusted difference was calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for the comparison of 2 treatment groups.|||18.6|-2.2|
90859209|NCT00785928|181582425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.091||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 10 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.091
90859210|NCT00785928|181582425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.127||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 30 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.127
91103018|NCT03478787|182092587|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted percentage difference|29.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.8|38.8||Across the strata, p-value was calculated from the from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Across the strata, 95% CI for adjusted difference was calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for the comparison of 2 treatment groups.|||38.8|20.8|< 0.001
91103019|NCT03478787|182092588|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted percentage difference|26.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.9|36.5||Across the strata, p-value was calculated from the from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Across the strata, 95% CI for adjusted difference was calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for the comparison of 2 treatment groups.|||36.5|15.9|< 0.001
91103020|NCT03478787|182092589|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted percentage difference|29.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.9|38.8||Across the strata, p-value was calculated from the from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Across the strata, 95% CI for adjusted difference was calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for the comparison of 2 treatment groups.|||38.8|20.9|< 0.001
91103021|NCT03478787|182092590|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted percentage difference|20.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.7|28.3||Across the strata, p-value was calculated from the from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Across the strata, 95% CI for adjusted difference was calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for the comparison of 2 treatment groups.|||28.3|11.7|< 0.001
91103022|NCT02792257|182092593|SUPERIORITY||Difference in slopes|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.328|-0.152|||Regression, Linear||standard error NOT standard error of the mean|Efficacy is assessed by fitting a longitudinal linear GEE model with the co primary outcomes and with time, treatment arm, and their interaction. Analyses are adjusted for site and for use of antidepressants and antipsychotics at baseline. The treatment by week interaction is the coefficient of interest and represents the difference in change in outcome per week between the two arms.||-0.152|-1.328|.015
91103023|NCT02792257|182092594|SUPERIORITY||Difference in slopes|-1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.73|0.21|||Regression, Linear||standard error not standard error of the mean|Efficacy is assessed by fitting a longitudinal linear GEE model with the co primary outcomes and with time, treatment arm, and their interaction. Analyses are adjusted for site and for use of antidepressants and antipsychotics at baseline. The treatment by week interaction is the coefficient of interest and represents the difference in change in outcome per week between the two arms.||0.21|-2.73|.094
91103024|NCT02792257|182092595|SUPERIORITY||Incident rate ratio|1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.79|||Regression, Logistic|The original analytic plan called for a logistic regression of ever/never SAE as a function of treatment assignment.|not standard error of the mean just standard error.|||1.79|0.73|.57
90859211|NCT00785928|181582425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.243||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 60 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.243
90859212|NCT00785928|181582425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.037||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 120 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.037
90859213|NCT00785928|181582426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.562||95.0||||P-value for physical health component. Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 1 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.562
90859214|NCT00785928|181582426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.539||95.0||||P-value for physical health component. Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 3 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.539
90859215|NCT00785928|181582426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.304||95.0||||P-value for physical health component. Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 10 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.304
90859216|NCT00785928|181582426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.832||95.0||||P-value for physical health component. Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 30 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.832
90859217|NCT00785928|181582426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0||||P-value for physical health component. Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 60 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.010
90859218|NCT00785928|181582426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98||95.0||||P-value for physical health component. Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 120 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.980
90859219|NCT00785928|181582426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.569||95.0||||P-value for mental health component. Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 1 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.569
90859220|NCT00785928|181582426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.953||95.0||||P-value for mental health component. Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 3 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.953
90859221|NCT00785928|181582426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.647||95.0||||P-value for mental health component. Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 10 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.647
90859222|NCT00785928|181582426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.507||95.0||||P-value for mental health component. Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 30 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.507
90859223|NCT00785928|181582426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.821||95.0||||P-value for mental health component. Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 60 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.821
90859224|NCT00785928|181582426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.045||95.0||||P-value for mental health component. Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 120 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.045
90859225|NCT00785928|181582429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.236||95.0||||Pairwise (2-sided) comparisons of 1 mg LY2127399 versus placebo using ranked analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with the standardized rank outcome variable treatment as the fixed factor and the standardized rank baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.236
90859226|NCT00785928|181582429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038||95.0||||Pairwise (2-sided) comparisons of 3 mg LY2127399 versus placebo using ranked analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with the standardized rank outcome variable treatment as the fixed factor and the standardized rank baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.038
90859227|NCT00785928|181582429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025||95.0||||Pairwise (2-sided) comparisons of 10 mg LY2127399 versus placebo using ranked analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with the standardized rank outcome variable treatment as the fixed factor and the standardized rank baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.025
90859228|NCT00785928|181582429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||Pairwise (2-sided) comparisons of 30 mg LY2127399 versus placebo using ranked analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with the standardized rank outcome variable treatment as the fixed factor and the standardized rank baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.005
90859229|NCT00785928|181582429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.734||95.0||||Pairwise (2-sided) comparisons of 60 mg LY2127399 versus placebo using ranked analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with the standardized rank outcome variable treatment as the fixed factor and the standardized rank baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.734
90859230|NCT00785928|181582429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035||95.0||||Pairwise (2-sided) comparisons of 120 mg LY2127399 versus placebo using ranked analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with the standardized rank outcome variable treatment as the fixed factor and the standardized rank baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.035
90859231|NCT00785928|181582430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.901||95.0||||P-value for IgG. Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 1 mg LY2127399 versus placebo using ranked analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with standardized rank outcome variable, treatment as the fixed factor, and standardized rank baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.901
90904940|NCT03527277|181677275|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.9||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6|1.8|||ANCOVA|Effect of group on change of outcome with adjustment for gender and BMI and outcome at baseline.||||1.8|-17.6|0.11
90904941|NCT03527277|181677276|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|23340.0||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8284.0|38396.0|||ANCOVA|Effect of group on change with adjustment for gender and BMI and outcome at baseline.||||38396|8284|0.0032
90904942|NCT03527277|181677277|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5558.0||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2680.0|8437.0|||ANCOVA|Effect of group on change with adjustment for gender and BMI and outcome at baseline.||||8437|2680|0.0003
91103025|NCT01197300|182092710|SUPERIORITY|Difference in least squares mean = LS mean for the Core treatment Zoledronic acid group - LS mean for the Core treatment Placebo group.|Difference in LS mean|3.7||||0.8505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.242|44.642||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was performed with Core treatment, pooled centers, underlying condition treated with GCs and Core baseline lumbar spine BMD Z-score as explanatory variables and pooled centers as random effect.|ANCOVA|||Lumbar Spine BMD Z-score Change at Month 18||44.642|-37.242|0.8505
91103026|NCT01197300|182092710|SUPERIORITY|Difference in least squares mean = LS mean for the Core treatment Zoledronic acid group - LS mean for the Core treatment Placebo group.|Difference in LS mean|21.752||||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.126|57.63||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was performed with Core treatment, pooled centers, underlying condition treated with GCs and Core baseline lumbar spine BMD Z-score as explanatory variables and pooled centers as random effect.|ANCOVA|||Lumbar Spine BMD Z-score Change at Month 24||57.630|-14.126|0.2180
91103027|NCT01197300|182092711|SUPERIORITY|Difference in least squares mean = LS mean for the Core treatment Zoledronic acid group - LS mean for the Core treatment Placebo group.|Difference in LS mean|2.36||||0.3544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.886|7.606||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was performed with Core treatment, pooled centers, underlying condition treated with GCs and Core baseline lumbar spine BMD Z-score as explanatory variables and pooled centers as random effect.|ANCOVA|||Lumbar Spine BMC Change at Month 18||7.606|-2.886|0.3544
91103028|NCT01197300|182092711|SUPERIORITY|Difference in least squares mean = LS mean for the Core treatment Zoledronic acid group - LS mean for the Core treatment Placebo group.|Difference in LS mean|1.179||||0.705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.281|7.639||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was performed with Core treatment, pooled centers, underlying condition treated with GCs and Core baseline lumbar spine BMD Z-score as explanatory variables and pooled centers as random effect.|ANCOVA|||Lumbar Spine BMC Change at Month 24||7.639|-5.281|0.7050
91103029|NCT01197300|182092712|SUPERIORITY|Difference in least squares mean = LS mean for the Core treatment Zoledronic acid group - LS mean for the Core treatment Placebo group.|Difference in LS mean|121.129||||0.531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-291.0|533.258||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was performed with Core treatment, pooled centers, underlying condition treated with GCs and Core baseline lumbar spine BMD Z-score as explanatory variables and pooled centers as random effect.|ANCOVA|||Total body BMC Change at Month 18||533.258|-291.000|0.5310
90904943|NCT03527277|181677278|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3824.0||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1611.0|6036.0|||ANCOVA|Effect of group on change with adjustment for gender and BMI and outcome at baseline||||6036|1611|0.0012
90904944|NCT03527277|181677279|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|19522.0||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7353.0|31691.0|||ANCOVA|Effect of group on change with adjustment for gender and BMI and outcome at baseline.||||31691|7353|0.0023
90904945|NCT03527277|181677280|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|21881.0||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11307.0|32455.0|||ANCOVA|Effect of group on change with adjustment for gender and BMI and outcome at baseline.||||32455|11307|0.0001
90904946|NCT03527277|181677281|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|9666.0||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4808.0|14524.0|||ANCOVA|Effect of group on change with adjustment for gender and BMI and outcome at baseline.||||14524|4808|0.0002
90904947|NCT03527277|181677282|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3413.0||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1456.0|5370.0|||ANCOVA|Effect of group on change with adjustment for gender and BMI and outcome at baseline.||||5370|1456|0.0011
91103030|NCT01197300|182092712|SUPERIORITY|Difference in least squares mean = LS mean for the Core treatment Zoledronic acid group - LS mean for the Core treatment Placebo group.|Difference in LS mean|65.674||||0.7347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-344.067|475.415||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was performed with Core treatment, pooled centers, underlying condition treated with GCs and Core baseline lumbar spine BMD Z-score as explanatory variables and pooled centers as random effect.|ANCOVA|||Total body BMC Change at Month 24||475.415|-344.067|0.7347
91103031|NCT01197300|182092713|OTHER|Difference in least squares mean = LS mean for the Core treatment Zoledronic acid group - LS mean for the Core treatment Placebo group.|Difference in LS mean|-147.68||||0.4143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-394.41|99.049||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was performed on the transformed data with Core treatment, pooled centers, underlying condition treated with glucocorticoids and loge as explanatory variables and pooled centers as random effect.|ANCOVA|The transformed data was calculated by dividing the post-baseline value by the baseline value and then applying the loge transformation||Serum P1NP Change at Month 18||99.049|-394.410|0.4143
91103032|NCT01197300|182092713|OTHER|Difference in least squares mean = LS mean for the Core treatment Zoledronic acid group - LS mean for the Core treatment Placebo group.|Difference in LS mean|-132.437||||0.1266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-286.452|21.579||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was performed on the transformed data with Core treatment, pooled centers, underlying condition treated with glucocorticoids and loge as explanatory variables and pooled centers as random effect.|ANCOVA|The transformed data was calculated by dividing the post-baseline value by the baseline value and then applying the loge transformation||Serum P1NP Change at Month 24||21.579|-286.452|0.1266
91103033|NCT01197300|182092714|OTHER|Difference in least squares mean = LS mean for the Core treatment Zoledronic acid group - LS mean for the Core treatment Placebo group.|Difference in LS mean|-17.691||||0.2123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.925|6.543||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was performed on the transformed data with Core treatment, pooled centers, underlying condition treated with glucocorticoids and loge as explanatory variables and pooled centers as random effect.|ANCOVA|The transformed data was calculated by dividing the post-baseline value by the baseline value and then applying the loge transformation||BSAP Change at Month 18||6.543|-41.925|0.2123
91103034|NCT01197300|182092714|OTHER|Difference in least squares mean = LS mean for the Core treatment Zoledronic acid group - LS mean for the Core treatment Placebo group.|Difference in LS mean|-3.662||||0.4852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.479|14.155||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was performed on the transformed data with Core treatment, pooled centers, underlying condition treated with glucocorticoids and loge as explanatory variables and pooled centers as random effect.|ANCOVA|The transformed data was calculated by dividing the post-baseline value by the baseline value and then applying the loge transformation||BSAP Change at Month 24||14.155|-21.479|0.4852
91103035|NCT01197300|182092715|OTHER|Difference in least squares mean = LS mean for the Core treatment Zoledronic acid group - LS mean for the Core treatment Placebo group.|Difference in LS mean|-4.661||||0.9009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.647|7.325||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was performed on the transformed data with Core treatment, pooled centers, underlying condition treated with glucocorticoids and loge as explanatory variables and pooled centers as random effect.|ANCOVA|The transformed data was calculated by dividing the post-baseline value by the baseline value and then applying the loge transformation||Serum NTX Change at Month 18||7.325|-16.647|0.9009
91103036|NCT01197300|182092715|OTHER|Difference in least squares mean = LS mean for the Core treatment Zoledronic acid group - LS mean for the Core treatment Placebo group.|Difference in LS mean|-2.558||||0.9472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.864|3.747||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was performed on the transformed data with Core treatment, pooled centers, underlying condition treated with glucocorticoids and loge as explanatory variables and pooled centers as random effect.|ANCOVA|The transformed data was calculated by dividing the post-baseline value by the baseline value and then applying the loge transformation||Serum NTX Change at Month 24||3.747|-8.864|0.9472
91103037|NCT01197300|182092716|OTHER|Difference in least squares mean = LS mean for the Core treatment Zoledronic acid group - LS mean for the Core treatment Placebo group.|Difference in LS mean|-1.482||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.805|0.841||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was performed on the transformed data with Core treatment, pooled centers, underlying condition treated with glucocorticoids and loge as explanatory variables and pooled centers as random effect.|ANCOVA|The transformed data was calculated by dividing the post-baseline value by the baseline value and then applying the loge transformation||Serum TRAP-5b Change at Month 18||0.841|-3.805|0.4600
91103038|NCT01197300|182092716|OTHER|Difference in least squares mean = LS mean for the Core treatment Zoledronic acid group - LS mean for the Core treatment Placebo group.|Difference in LS mean|-0.41||||0.9236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.423|1.603||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was performed on the transformed data with Core treatment, pooled centers, underlying condition treated with glucocorticoids and loge as explanatory variables and pooled centers as random effect.|ANCOVA|The transformed data was calculated by dividing the post-baseline value by the baseline value and then applying the loge transformation||Serum TRAP-5b Change at Month 24||1.603|-2.423|0.9236
90859232|NCT00785928|181582430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84||95.0||||P-value for IgG. Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 3 mg LY2127399 versus placebo using ranked analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with standardized rank outcome variable, treatment as the fixed factor, and standardized rank baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.840
90859233|NCT00785928|181582430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.882||95.0||||P-value for IgG. Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 10 mg LY2127399 versus placebo using ranked analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with standardized rank outcome variable, treatment as the fixed factor, and standardized rank baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.882
90859234|NCT00785928|181582430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.225||95.0||||P-value for IgG. Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 30 mg LY2127399 versus placebo using ranked analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with standardized rank outcome variable, treatment as the fixed factor, and standardized rank baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.225
90859235|NCT00785928|181582430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34||95.0||||P-value for IgG. Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 60 mg LY2127399 versus placebo using ranked analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with standardized rank outcome variable, treatment as the fixed factor, and standardized rank baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.340
90859236|NCT00785928|181582430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85||95.0||||P-value for IgG. Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 120 mg LY2127399 versus placebo using ranked analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with standardized rank outcome variable, treatment as fixed factor, and standardized rank baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.850
91103039|NCT01197300|182092717|OTHER|The number and percentage of patients with new vertebral fractures during the 12 month Extension period was presented by Core treatment group. Between-treatment differences were evaluated using Fisher's exact test.||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||New vertebral fractures at Month 12 Extension||||1.0000
91103040|NCT01197300|182092718|OTHER|The number and percentage of patients with new morphometric vertebral fractures during the 12 month extension period was presented by core treatment group. Between-treatment differences will be evaluated using Fisher's exact test.||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||New morphometric vertebral fractures at Month 12 Extension||||1.0000
91103041|NCT01197300|182092719|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.73||||0.3971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|173.07||Presented by treatment group and evaluated using a logistic regression model with Core treatment, pooled centers, underlying condition treated with glucocorticoids and Core baseline pain score as explanatory variables.|Regression, Logistic|||Reduction in Pain at Month 15||173.07|0.13|0.3971
91103042|NCT01197300|182092719|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.01||||0.6046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|999.99||Presented by treatment group and evaluated using a logistic regression model with Core treatment, pooled centers, underlying condition treated with glucocorticoids and Core baseline pain score as explanatory variables.|Regression, Logistic|||Reduction in Pain at Month 18||999.99|0.01|0.6046
90859237|NCT00785928|181582430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.447||95.0||||P-value for IgM. Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 1 mg LY2127399 versus placebo using ranked analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with standardized rank outcome variable, treatment as the fixed factor, and standardized rank baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.447
91103043|NCT01197300|182092719|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.01||||0.6046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|999.99||Presented by treatment group and evaluated using a logistic regression model with Core treatment, pooled centers, underlying condition treated with glucocorticoids and Core baseline pain score as explanatory variables.|Regression, Logistic|||Reduction in Pain at Month 21||999.99|0.01|0.6046
91103044|NCT01197300|182092719|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|38.04||Presented by treatment group and evaluated using a logistic regression model with Core treatment, pooled centers, underlying condition treated with glucocorticoids and Core baseline pain score as explanatory variables.|Regression, Logistic|||Reduction in Pain at Month 24||38.04|0.05|0.8750
91103045|NCT01197300|182092720|OTHER|Difference in least squares mean = LS mean for the Core treatment Zoledronic acid group - LS mean for the Core treatment Placebo group.|Difference in LS mean|-0.01||||0.9231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.17||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was performed with Core treatment, pooled centers, underlying condition treated with GCs and Core baseline bone age as explanatory variables and pooled centers as random effect.|ANCOVA|||2nd metacarpal cortical width chge from BL1 at Month 24||0.17|-0.18|0.9231
91103046|NCT01197300|182092720|OTHER|Difference in least squares mean = LS mean for the Core treatment Zoledronic acid group - LS mean for the Core treatment Placebo group.|Difference in LS mean|-0.11||||0.2694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.1||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was performed with Core treatment, pooled centers, underlying condition treated with GCs and Extension baseline bone age as explanatory variables and pooled centers as random effect.|ANCOVA|||2nd metacarpal cortical width chge from BL2 at Month 24||0.10|-0.32|0.2694
91103047|NCT02255279|182092740|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Hypothesis: Demonstrate non-inferiority (NI) of aTIV to TIV:~H0 : μAi - μBi ≤ -0.176 (Null) H1 : μAi - μBi \>-0.176 (alternative) (i= H1N1, H3N2, B) μA and μB are means of log10-transformed titers 21 days after last vaccination of the aTIV \& TIV vaccine groups respectively. NI is claimed if LL of 95% CI for GMT ratios is \>0.67.~Significance level is α = 2.5% (1-sided), which needs no further adjustment for multiplicity as to reach NI, above hypothesis needs to be rejected for all 3 strains."|Ratio of GMTs|4.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|5.51|||ANCOVA|||Geometric mean titers (GMTs), in H1N1 strain of all the tree strains in Subjects 6 to \< 72 months of Age.||5.51|3.00|
91103048|NCT02255279|182092740|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Hypothesis: Demonstrate non-inferiority (NI) of aTIV to TIV:~H0 : μAi - μBi ≤ -0.176 (Null) H1 : μAi - μBi \>-0.176 (alternative) (i= H1N1, H3N2, B) μA and μB are means of log10-transformed titers 21 days after last vaccination of the aTIV \& TIV vaccine groups respectively. NI is claimed if LL of 95% CI for GMT ratios is \>0.67.~Significance level is α = 2.5% (1-sided), which needs no further adjustment for multiplicity as to reach NI, above hypothesis needs to be rejected for all 3 strains."|Ratio of GMTs|2.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.05|3.25|||ANCOVA|||Geometric mean titers (GMTs), in H3N2 strain of all three homologous virus strains in Subjects 6 to \< 72 months of Age.||3.25|2.05|
90859238|NCT00785928|181582430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.909||95.0||||P-value for IgM. Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 3 mg LY2127399 versus placebo using ranked analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with standardized rank outcome variable, treatment as the fixed factor, and standardized rank baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.909
90859239|NCT00785928|181582430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.152||95.0||||P-value for IgM. Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 10 mg LY2127399 versus placebo using ranked analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with standardized rank outcome variable, treatment as the fixed factor, and standardized rank baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.152
90859240|NCT00785928|181582430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023||95.0||||P-value for IgM. Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 30 mg LY2127399 versus placebo using ranked analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with standardized rank outcome variable, treatment as the fixed factor, and standardized rank baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.023
90859241|NCT00785928|181582430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0||||P-value for IgM. Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 60 mg LY2127399 versus placebo using ranked analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with standardized rank outcome variable, treatment as the fixed factor, and standardized rank baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.004
90904948|NCT03527277|181677283|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|11.5||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.0|55.1|||ANCOVA|Effect of group on change of outcome with adjustment for gender and BMI and outcome at baseline.||||55.1|-32.0|0.59
91032174|NCT02087904|181948891|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.2||||0.545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.31|4.92||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Intermittent pain||4.92|-9.31|0.545
91032175|NCT02087904|181948891|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.65|6.81||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Intermittent pain||6.81|-7.65|0.909
91032176|NCT02087904|181948891|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.0||||0.278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.23|3.25||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Intermittent pain||3.25|-11.23|0.278
90859242|NCT00785928|181582430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017||95.0||||P-value for IgM. Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 120 mg LY2127399 versus placebo using ranked analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with standardized rank outcome variable, treatment as fixed factor, and standardized rank baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.017
90859243|NCT00785928|181582430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.944||95.0||||P-value for IgA. Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 1 mg LY2127399 versus placebo using ranked analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with standardized rank outcome variable, treatment as the fixed factor, and standardized rank baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.944
90859244|NCT00785928|181582430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.677||95.0||||P-value for IgA. Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 3 mg LY2127399 versus placebo using ranked analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with standardized rank outcome variable, treatment as the fixed factor, and standardized rank baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.677
90859245|NCT00785928|181582430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.053||95.0||||P-value for IgA. Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 10 mg LY2127399 versus placebo using ranked analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with standardized rank outcome variable, treatment as the fixed factor, and standardized rank baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.053
90904949|NCT03527277|181677284|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|74.6||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|147.9|||ANCOVA|Effect of group on change with adjustment for gender and BMI and outcome at baseline.||||147.9|1.3|0.046
91032177|NCT02087904|181948891|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2||||0.732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.42|5.92||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Constant pain||5.92|-8.42|0.732
91032178|NCT02087904|181948891|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.6||||0.216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.86|2.69||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Constant pain||2.69|-11.86|0.216
91032179|NCT02087904|181948891|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.2||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.42|-1.88||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Constant pain||-1.88|-16.42|0.014
90859246|NCT00785928|181582430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.061||95.0||||P-value for IgA. Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 30 mg LY2127399 versus placebo using ranked analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with standardized rank outcome variable, treatment as the fixed factor, and standardized rank baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.061
90859247|NCT00785928|181582430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025||95.0||||P-value for IgA. Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 60 mg LY2127399 versus placebo using ranked analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with standardized rank outcome variable, treatment as the fixed factor, and standardized rank baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.025
90859248|NCT00785928|181582430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0||||P-value for IgA. Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 120 mg LY2127399 versus placebo using ranked analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with standardized rank outcome variable, treatment as fixed factor, and standardized rank baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.030
91032180|NCT02087904|181948892|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.66||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||7-day recall period||0.66|-0.56|0.874
91032181|NCT02087904|181948892|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.38||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||7-day recall period||0.38|-0.86|0.451
91032182|NCT02087904|181948892|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.93||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||7-day recall period||0.93|-0.31|0.331
91032183|NCT02087904|181948892|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.67||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Activity pain||0.67|-0.73|0.932
91032184|NCT02087904|181948892|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|0.37||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Activity pain||0.37|-1.07|0.344
91032185|NCT02087904|181948892|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.97||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Activity pain||0.97|-0.47|0.489
91032186|NCT02087904|181948892|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.85||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Performance pain (before)||0.85|-0.42|0.498
91032187|NCT02087904|181948892|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.49||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Performance pain (before)||0.49|-0.8|0.637
91103049|NCT02255279|182092740|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Hypothesis: Demonstrate non-inferiority (NI) of aTIV to TIV:~H0 : μAi - μBi ≤ -0.176 (Null) H1 : μAi - μBi \>-0.176 (alternative) (i= H1N1, H3N2, B) μA and μB are means of log10-transformed titers 21 days after last vaccination of the aTIV \& TIV vaccine groups respectively. NI is claimed if LL of 95% CI for GMT ratios is \>0.67.~Significance level is α = 2.5% (1-sided), which needs no further adjustment for multiplicity as to reach NI, above hypothesis needs to be rejected for all 3 strains."|Ratio of GMTs|4.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.52|6.2|||ANCOVA|||Geometric mean titers (GMTs), in B strain of all three homologous virus strains in Subjects 6 to \< 72 months of Age.||6.20|3.52|
91103050|NCT02255279|182092741|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The following hypotheses should be tested to demonstrate non-inferiority of aTIV to TIV:~H0i: πi1 \> πi2-0.1 vs. H1i: πi1 \> πi2- 0.1 where H0i and H1i represent the null and the alternative hypothesis (respectively) of the non- inferiority objective and πi1 and πi2 represent the seroresponse rates 21 days after last immunization of the aTIV and TIV vaccine groups respectively in the i-th strain (H1N1, H3N2, B). The non-inferiority criterion is -0.1 (i.e., -10%)."|Vaccine Group Differences|17.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.1|26.3|||Loglinear model|Binary data were analyzed using loglinear models with a qualitative factor for vaccine group (αik, i = A, B) and center (δlk, k=1).||Percentage of subjects achieving seroconversion in H1N1 strain after last vaccination with aTIV or TIV in naïve and non-naive subjects.||26.3|8.1|
91103051|NCT02255279|182092741|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The following hypotheses should be tested to demonstrate non-inferiority of aTIV to TIV:~H0i: πi1 \> πi2-0.1 vs. H1i: πi1 \> πi2- 0.1 where H0i and H1i represent the null and the alternative hypothesis (respectively) of the non- inferiority objective and πi1 and πi2 represent the seroresponse rates 21 days after last immunization of the aTIV and TIV vaccine groups respectively in the i-th strain (H1N1, H3N2, B). The non-inferiority criterion is -0.1 (i.e., -10%)."|Vaccine Group Differences|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|21.0|||Loglinear model|Binary data were analyzed using loglinear models with a qualitative factor for vaccine group (αik, i = A, B) and center (δlk, k=1).||Percentage of subjects achieving seroconversion in H3N2 strain after last vaccination with aTIV or TIV in naive and non-naive subjects.||21|-1.8|
91103052|NCT02255279|182092741|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The following hypotheses should be tested to demonstrate non-inferiority of aTIV to TIV:~H0i: πi1 \> πi2-0.1 vs. H1i: πi1 \> πi2- 0.1 where H0i and H1i represent the null and the alternative hypothesis (respectively) of the non- inferiority objective and πi1 and πi2 represent the seroresponse rates 21 days after last immunization of the aTIV and TIV vaccine groups respectively in the i-th strain (H1N1, H3N2, B). The non-inferiority criterion is -0.1 (i.e., -10%)."|Vaccine Group Differences|58.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.5|68.5|||Loglinear model|Binary data were analyzed using loglinear models with a qualitative factor for vaccine group (αik, i = A, B) and center (δlk, k=1).||Percentage of subjects achieving seroconversion in B strains after last vaccination with aTIV or TIV in naïve and non naive subjects.||68.5|47.5|
91103053|NCT03400787|182092757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001||||||p\<0.025 indicates statistical significance.|t-test, 1 sided|||Null hypothesis is that the responder rate for the Latera implant treatment was not superior to the sham treatment. A maximum sample size of 124 evaluable subjects is required for 90% power and preserving a 2.5% (one-sided) type I error rate.||||0.0001
91103054|NCT01959919|182092770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.907||||0|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||Comparison between ease of using clotting factor treatment score at Final visit (Month 8) and baseline visit||||0.000
91103055|NCT01959919|182092771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.572|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.584||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.411|5.733|||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between time for reconstructing the drug at Final visit (Month 8) and baseline visit||5.733|3.411|0.000
91103056|NCT01959919|182092772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-3.789||||0|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||Comparison between burden of clotting factor treatment score at Final Visit Month 8 and baseline visit||||0.000
91103057|NCT01959919|182092773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-3.98||||0|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||Comparison between impact of clotting factor treatment score at Final Visit Month 8 and baseline visit||||0.000
91103058|NCT01959919|182092774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-3.445||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||Comparison between risk associated with clotting factor treatment score at Final Visit Month 8 and baseline visit||||0.001
91103059|NCT02003898|182092799|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority test with an A1C margin of 0.4% and a significance level of 0.025 (one-sided).|Mean Difference (Net)|0.034|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.098||||||||0.098|-0.03|
91103060|NCT01537432|182092803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.565|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.363|0.768|||Fisher Exact|||||0.768|0.363|<0.001
90859910|NCT01461980|181583137|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority criteria margin was 1.5-fold and statistical inference was based on the CIs of the GMC ratios. Non-inferiority was achieved when the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratios after vaccination 1 was greater than 0.67.|GMC Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.02||||||Pertussis toxoid: CIs for GMC ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (Group 1 - Group 2 for Pertussis toxoid).||1.02|0.85|
91032188|NCT02087904|181948892|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.94||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Performance pain (before)||0.94|-0.35|0.367
91103061|NCT01714063|182092939|OTHER|We used a paired T-test for statistical analysis to compare the filter dose. Using the 1% significance level and assuming a between-subject standard deviation of 60 lg (27%) for the difference between coordinated and doses, 32 subjects are sufficient to detect a 45 lg (20%) difference with 95% confidence.uncoordinated filter|||||<|0.001|||||||paired t-test|||||||<0.001
90904950|NCT03527277|181677285|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.3|||ANCOVA|Effect of group on change of outcome with adjustment for gender and outcome and BMI at baseline.||Effect of group on change in outcome with adjustment for BMI, Outcome at baseline and gender.||1.3|-0.7|0.56
90904951|NCT03527277|181677286|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|0.35|||ANCOVA|Effect of group on change of outcome with adjustment for gender and BMI and outcome at baseline.||||0.35|-1.94|0.17
91103062|NCT03721107|182092944|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|7.9||||0.152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|21.9||P-value is from a 1-sided Pearson chi-square test with Yates' correction with null hypothesis that the difference in proportions Blautix - placebo \<=0 versus the difference is \>0. The significance level for rejection of the null hypotheses is 0.10.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||||21.9|-6.0|0.152
91103063|NCT03721107|182092944|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|5.6||||0.216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|18.0||P-value is from a 1-sided Pearson chi-square test with Yates' correction with null hypothesis that the difference in proportions Blautix - placebo \<=0 versus the difference is \>0. The significance level for rejection of the null hypotheses is 0.10.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||||18.0|-6.8|0.216
91103064|NCT00563316|182092967|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|It would be concluded that panitumumab did not have a clinically important effect on the pharmacokinetics of irinotecan if the 90% confidence intervals of the ratio of geometric means for the Cmax and AUC values for irinotecan with and without concomitant panitumumab administration fell within the interval of 70% to 143%.|Least Squares Geometric Mean Ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.894|1.074|||||Ratio of Cycle 2 : Cycle 1|||1.074|0.894|
91103065|NCT00563316|182092968|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|It would be concluded that panitumumab did not have a clinically important effect on the pharmacokinetics of irinotecan if the 90% confidence intervals of the ratio of geometric means for the Cmax and AUC values for irinotecan with and without concomitant panitumumab administration fell within the interval of 70% to 143%.|Least Squares Geometric Mean Ratio|0.898|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.819|0.985|||||Ratio of Cycle 2 : Cycle 1|||0.985|0.819|
91103066|NCT00563316|182092969|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|It would be concluded that panitumumab did not have a clinically important effect on the pharmacokinetics of irinotecan if the 90% confidence intervals of the ratio of geometric means for the Cmax and AUC values for irinotecan with and without concomitant panitumumab administration fell within the interval of 70% to 143%.|Least Squares Geometric Mean Ratio|0.897|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.818|0.983|||||Ratio of Cycle 2 : Cycle 1|||0.983|0.818|
91103067|NCT02991859|182092978|OTHER||3 parameter Emax model|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.39|19.39|||||FF E0 (Response of Placebo participants)|||19.39|9.39|
91103068|NCT02991859|182092978|OTHER||3 parameter Emax model|14.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.21|25.4|||||Emax-Maximum Dose response|||25.40|8.21|
90904952|NCT03527277|181677287|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.54||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|3.0|||ANCOVA|Effect of group on change of outcome with adjustment for gender and BMI and outcome at baseline.||||3.0|-1.9|0.65
91103069|NCT02991859|182092978|OTHER||3 parameter Emax model|48.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.21|129.32|||||ED50-Dose at which 50% of the maximum dose response reached (mcg)|||129.32|18.21|
90859249|NCT05027464|181582433|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.249||||0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.888|1.759||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold was P \< 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Patient demographics were fixed effects, and randomization units with clinics nested within randomization units were random effects.|An odds ratio above one indicates favoring the intervention arm over the usual care arm.|Generalized linear mixed model to account for patient demographics and hierarchical levels for clinics nested within VAHCS. Null hypothesis is that both arms perform equivalently in vaccine uptake after a year. Power was based on recruited VAHCSs and at least 1,000 Veterans per clinic. Using two-sided 0.05 type I error rate, 5-20% outcome rate in UC, we have 90% power to detect between a 9.6% and 14.6% difference with a total sample size of 90,000 to 100,000.||1.759|0.888|0.202
90859250|NCT05027464|181582433|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.228||||0.247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.867|1.738|||Regression, Logistic|||Sensitivity analysis, same null hypothesis and model as primary analysis but different pool of patients: Not constrained to Veterans with at least one primary care visit||1.738|0.867|0.247
90859251|NCT05027464|181582433|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.263||||0.455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.684|2.334|||Regression, Logistic|||Sensitivity analysis; same model and null hypothesis but reassigning small clinics to their parent VAHCS facility, small meaning \< 100 participants. This data set uses the primary analysis data set with the primary visit constraint.||2.334|0.684|0.455
90859252|NCT05027464|181582433|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.765|2.075|||Regression, Logistic|||Sensitivity Analysis: same model and null hypothesis as primary outcome but the source of vaccination records omits Medicare claims data. The primary data source had included Medicare claims data on vaccination records as a supplement to the VA data.||2.075|0.765|0.364
90859253|NCT05027464|181582433|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.268||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.904|1.778|||Regression, Logistic|||"Sensitivity Analysis: same model and null hypothesis as primary analysis model but the source of data is supplemented by state level registries, named IZ Gateway, which was deployed summer of 2023 where Veteran records of vaccination could be updated at the VA from external vaccination facilities if the Veteran entered the VA in the same state as that vaccination facility. The primary analysis data contains Medicare claims data in this analysis, too."||1.778|0.904|0.168
90904953|NCT03527277|181677288|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.6|||ANCOVA|Effect of group on change with adjustment for gender and outcome at baseline.||||0.6|-0.5|0.88
91032189|NCT02087904|181948892|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.79||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Performance pain (after)||0.79|-0.51|0.67
91103070|NCT02991859|182092978|OTHER||3 parameter Emax model|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.39|19.39|||||FP E0-Response of Placebo participants|||19.39|9.39|
91103071|NCT02991859|182092978|OTHER||3 parameter Emax model|14.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.21|25.4|||||FP Emax-Maximum Dose response|||25.40|8.21|
91103072|NCT02991859|182092978|OTHER||3 parameter Emax model|1081.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|448.0|2609.66|||||FP ED50-Dose at which 50% of the maximum dose response reached (mcg)|||2609.66|448.00|
91103073|NCT02991859|182092978|OTHER||3 parameter Emax model|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.39|19.39|||||BUD E0-Response of Placebo participants|||19.39|9.39|
91103074|NCT02991859|182092978|OTHER||3 parameter Emax model|14.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.21|25.4|||||BUD Emax-Maximum Dose response|||25.40|8.21|
91103075|NCT02991859|182092978|OTHER||3 parameter Emax model|1467.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|546.51|3939.84|||||BUD ED50-Dose at which 50% of the maximum dose response reached (mcg)|||3939.84|546.51|
91103076|NCT02991859|182092979|OTHER||Exponential power-law model|176.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|162.87|190.38|||||FF E0-Response of Placebo participants|||190.38|162.87|
90859254|NCT05027464|181582434|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.993||||0.976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.643|1.535||P \< 0.05 and no multiple comparison adjustment|Regression, Logistic|We adjusted for patient demographics as fixed effects and randomization units and associated clinics as a three-level random effect.|An odds ratio above one indicates favoring the intervention arm over the usual care arm.|Power calculation is similar to the calculation for the primary outcome. Null hypothesis is described in the outcome comparison related to this statistical analysis plan.||1.535|0.643|.976
90859255|NCT05027464|181582434|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.978||||0.893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.702|1.361|||Regression, Logistic|GLMM||Sensitivity analysis, same null hypothesis and model as primary analysis but different pool of patients: Not constrained to Veterans with at least one primary care visit||1.361|0.702|0.893
91032190|NCT02087904|181948892|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.57||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Performance pain (after)||0.57|-0.76|0.776
91103077|NCT02991859|182092979|OTHER||exponential power-law model|899.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|698.36|1101.62|||||FF ED50 Dose at which 50% of the maximum dose response reached|||1101.62|698.36|
91103078|NCT02991859|182092979|OTHER||exponential power-law model|176.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|162.87|190.38|||||FP E0-Response of Placebo participants|||190.38|162.87|
91103079|NCT02991859|182092979|OTHER||exponential power-law model|1986.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1574.7|2397.39|||||FP ED50 - Dose at which 50% of the maximum dose response reached (mcg)|||2397.39|1574.70|
91103080|NCT02991859|182092979|OTHER||exponential power-law model|176.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|162.87|190.38|||||BUD E0 - Response of Placebo participants|||190.38|162.87|
91103081|NCT02991859|182092979|OTHER||exponential power-law model|1927.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1698.47|2156.37|||||BUD ED50 - Dose at which 50% of the maximum dose response reached (mcg)|||2156.37|1698.47|
91103082|NCT02991859|182092980|OTHER||Emax Model|289.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|224.82|354.64|||||ED20 Cortisol Suppression 0-24 Hours Weighted Mean|||354.64|224.82|
91103083|NCT02991859|182092980|OTHER||Emax Model|194.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|72.82|517.28|||||ED80 for AMP PC20|||517.28|72.82|
91103084|NCT02991859|182092981|OTHER||Emax Model|639.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|506.94|771.79|||||ED20 for Cortisol Suppression 0-24 Hours Weighted Mean|||771.79|506.94|
91103085|NCT02991859|182092981|OTHER||Emax Model|4325.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1792.02|10438.64|||||ED80 for AMP PC20|||10438.64|1792.02|
91103086|NCT02991859|182092982|OTHER||Emax Model|620.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|546.79|694.2|||||ED20 for Cortisol Suppression 0-24 Hours Weighted Mean|||694.20|546.79|
91103087|NCT02991859|182092982|OTHER||Emax Model|5869.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2186.03|15759.35|||||ED80 for AMP PC20|||15759.35|2186.03|
91103088|NCT00425854|182093043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Maximum Likelihood|0.048|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.238|||||Maximum Likelihood estimates. The clinical benefit rate for Cohort A was calculated by relating the number of patients with CB to all treated patients in Cohort B. The CI is an exact Clopper Pearson CI.|||0.238|0.001|
91103089|NCT00425854|182093048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Clinical benefit rate|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.27|||Maxium Likelihood||Maximum Likelihood estimates. The clinical benefit rate for Cohort A was calculated by relating the number of patients with CB to all treated patients in Cohort A. The confidence interval (CI) is an exact Clopper Pearson CI.|||0.27|0.02|
91103090|NCT01725308|182093059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-2.4||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) using a model where the total MADRS score at baseline is a covariate and the treatment group and bipolar disorder diagnosis (Type I/ II) are fixed effects.||-0.2|-4.7|0.034
91103091|NCT01725308|182093066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-1.7||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||At End of Treatment Period I/Week 8: An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) using a model where the total HAM-D17 score at baseline is a covariate and the treatment group and bipolar disorder diagnosis (Type I/II) are fixed effects.||-0.1|-3.3|0.033
91103092|NCT03378635|182093148|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||The treatment group difference between dasiglucagon and placebo was evaluated inferentially using a pairwise two-sided log rank test. Kaplan-Meier estimate with 95% CI, p-value based on treatment group difference between dasiglucagon and placebo using a two-sided log-rank test stratified by injection site. Treatment groups without censoring utilized a distribution free method to compute the confidence interval for median time.||||<0.001
91103093|NCT03378635|182093149|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value was \<0.001 at all time points (10, 15, 20 and 30 minutes)|Fisher Exact|||Pairwise test of independent binomial proportions with Fisher's Exact test comparing dasiglucagon versus placebo. Testing followed an a priori defined hierarchical inferential test order, proceeding until the first failure to reject the null hypothesis comparing dasiglucagon versus placebo.||||<0.001
91103094|NCT03378635|182093150|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The p-value was \<0.001 at all time points (10, 15, 20 and 30 minutes)|ANCOVA|||Plasma glucose (PG) change from baseline at rescue was carried forward in patients who required rescue intravenous (IV) glucose before reaching PG recovery. Change from baseline was analyzed using an ANCOVA, with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline PG as covariate. Group difference was evaluated inferentially following an a priori defined hierarchical test order, proceeding until the first failure to reject the null hypothesis.||||<0.001
90859256|NCT05027464|181582434|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.961||||0.863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.613|1.507|||Regression, Logistic|GLMM||Sensitivity Analysis: same model and null hypothesis as primary outcome but the source of vaccination records omits Medicare claims data. The primary data source had included Medicare claims data on vaccination records as a supplement to the VA data.||1.507|0.613|0.863
90859257|NCT05027464|181582434|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.011||||0.963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.636|1.607|||Regression, Logistic|GLMM||"Sensitivity Analysis: same model and null hypothesis as primary analysis model but the source of data is supplemented by state level registries, named IZ Gateway, which was deployed summer of 2023 where Veteran records of vaccination could be updated at the VA from external vaccination facilities if the Veteran entered the VA in the same state as that vaccination facility. The primary analysis data contains Medicare claims data in this analysis, too."||1.607|0.636|0.963
90859258|NCT05027464|181582435|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.191||||0.395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.796|1.781||Threshold: P \< 0.05; not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Logistic|Generalized linear mixed modeling adjusted for baseline covariates and hierarchical levels for randomization units and clinics within them.|Odds ratio in favor of intervention arm (MI) has values higher than 1.|No power calculation for this exploratory outcome. Null hypothesis is that both arms will have equal uptake rates of the COVID-19 Booster vaccination during the study period.||1.781|0.796|0.395
90904954|NCT03527277|181677289|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|5.7|||ANCOVA|Effect of group on change with adjustment for gender and BMI and outcome at baseline.||||5.7|-4.4|0.81
90904955|NCT03527277|181677290|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|2.9|||ANCOVA|Effect of group on change with adjustment for gender and BMI and outcome at baseline.||||2.9|-4.4|0.69
90904956|NCT03527277|181677291|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.1|||ANCOVA|Effect of group on change of outcome with adjustment for gender and outcome at baseline.||||0.1|-1.0|0.10
90904957|NCT03527277|181677292|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.2|||ANCOVA|Effect of group on change of Outcome with adjustment for outcome at baseline.||||1.2|-2.1|0.55
90904958|NCT00354029|181677298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
90904959|NCT00826280|181677330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-Value is from the primary analysis using ANCOVA.|ANCOVA|||P-Value applies to 'Double-Blind - Baseline (Day 5 - Day 3)'.||||<0.001
91103095|NCT03378635|182093151|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||The treatment group difference between dasiglucagon and placebo was evaluated using a Kaplan-Meier estimate with 95% confidence interval, p-value based on a pairwise two-sided log-rank test versus placebo.||||<0.001
91103096|NCT03378635|182093152|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.131|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.171|||ANCOVA|||The log-transformed AUC endpoint was analyzed using an analysis of covariance model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline plasma glucose modeled as a covariate. The least squares means treatment group differences were back-transformed (anti-logged) for presentation as a ratio of the treatment group geometric means, with their corresponding 95% confidence interval.||0.171|0.1|<0.001
91103097|NCT03378635|182093153|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.91||||0.144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.801|1.033|||ANCOVA|||Least square mean ratio for GlucaGen: dasiglucagon||1.033|0.801|0.144
91103098|NCT03378635|182093154|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.844||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.749|0.951|||ANCOVA|||Least square mean ratio for GlucaGen: dasiglucagon||0.951|0.749|0.006
91103099|NCT00562861|182093175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||F value|1.88||||0.17|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.17
91103100|NCT00655356|182093178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by combined treatment site.||A 5% level of significance was used as the threshold for determination of statistical significance, and all tests were two-tailed. the effect size and associated 95% confidence interval (CI) are provided for all comparative efficacy outcomes. Primary analysis of the two co-primary efficacy endpoints and the secondary efficacy endpoints were performed on the ITT population.||||<.00001
91103101|NCT00655356|182093179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by combined treatment site.||A 5% level of significance was used as the threshold for determination of statistical significance, and all tests were two-tailed. the effect size and associated 95% confidence interval (CI) are provided for all comparative efficacy outcomes. Primary analysis of the two co-primary efficacy endpoints and the secondary efficacy endpoints were performed on the ITT population.||||.0075
91103102|NCT01623154|182093183|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|While 40 subjects is the min req by the NCCLS guideline on method comparison (EP9-A2), we proposed to enroll a min of 60 evaluable pediatric subjects (max of 80) with at least 20 of them having a UHR value of ≥ 10.0µg/min. The expected # of positive cases is 20-30% of the subjects enrolled, we anticipated that 80 eval subj would give approximately 20 subj with a pos UHR value. The anticipated % pos/neg agreement between the 2 instruments is 95% bases on data from the adult population.|Slope|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.987|0.993||95% confidence interval is used instead of p-value.|Deming Regression|Analyses to determine the comparability between UHR \& DOB values from the 2 instruments included Deming, Passing-Bablok and regular regressions.|95% confidence interval is used instead of p-value.|||0.993|0.987|
91103103|NCT01623154|182093183|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|While 40 subjects is the min req by the NCCLS guideline on method comparison (EP9-A2), we proposed to enroll a min of 60 evaluable pediatric subjects (max of 80) with at least 20 of them having a UHR value of ≥ 10.0µg/min. The expected # of positive cases is 20-30% of the subjects enrolled, we anticipated that 80 eval subj would give approximately 20 subj with a pos UHR value. The anticipated % pos/neg agreement between the 2 instruments is 95% bases on data from the adult population.|Intercept|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.17|||Deming Regression|Analyses to determine the comparability between UHR \& DOB values from the 2 instruments included Deming, Passing-Bablok and regular regressions.|95% confidence interval is used instead of p-value.|||0.17|-0.25|
91103104|NCT01623154|182093183|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|While 40 subjects is the min req by the NCCLS guideline on method comparison (EP9-A2), we proposed to enroll a min of 60 evaluable pediatric subjects (max of 80) with at least 20 of them having a UHR value of ≥ 10.0µg/min. The expected # of positive cases is 20-30% of the subjects enrolled, we anticipated that 80 eval subj would give approximately 20 subj with a pos UHR value. The anticipated % pos/neg agreement between the 2 instruments is 95% bases on data from the adult population.|Slope|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.987|0.993|||Regression, Linear|Analyses to determine the comparability between UHR \& DOB values from the 2 instruments included Deming, Passing-Bablok and regular regressions.|95% confidence interval is used instead of p-value.|||0.993|0.987|
91103105|NCT01623154|182093183|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|While 40 subjects is the min req by the NCCLS guideline on method comparison (EP9-A2), we proposed to enroll a min of 60 evaluable pediatric subjects (max of 80) with at least 20 of them having a UHR value of ≥ 10.0µg/min. The expected # of positive cases is 20-30% of the subjects enrolled, we anticipated that 80 eval subj would give approximately 20 subj with a pos UHR value. The anticipated % pos/neg agreement between the 2 instruments is 95% bases on data from the adult population.|Intercept|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.18|||Regression, Linear|Analyses to determine the comparability between UHR \& DOB values from the 2 instruments included Deming, Passing-Bablok and regular regressions.|95% confidence interval is used instead of p-value.|||0.18|-0.24|
91103106|NCT01623154|182093183|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|While 40 subjects is the min req by the NCCLS guideline on method comparison (EP9-A2), we proposed to enroll a min of 60 evaluable pediatric subjects (max of 80) with at least 20 of them having a UHR value of ≥ 10.0µg/min. The expected # of positive cases is 20-30% of the subjects enrolled, we anticipated that 80 eval subj would give approximately 20 subj with a pos UHR value. The anticipated % pos/neg agreement between the 2 instruments is 95% bases on data from the adult population.|Slope|0.995|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.0|||Passing-Bablock|Analyses to determine the comparability between UHR \& DOB values from the 2 instruments included Deming, Passing-Bablok and regular regressions.|95% confidence interval is used instead of p-value.|||1.000|0.990|
91103107|NCT01623154|182093183|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Analyses to determine the comparability between UHR \& DOB values from the 2 instruments included Deming, Passing-Bablok and regular regressions.|Intercept|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.01|||Passing-Bablok|Analyses to determine the comparability between UHR \& DOB values from the 2 instruments included Deming, Passing-Bablok and regular regressions.|95% confidence interval is used instead of p-value.|While 40 subjects is the min req by the NCCLS guideline on method comparison (EP9-A2), we proposed to enroll a min of 60 evaluable pediatric subjects (max of 80) with at least 20 of them having a UHR value of ≥ 10.0µg/min. The expected # of positive cases is 20-30% of the subjects enrolled, we anticipated that 80 eval subj would give approximately 20 subj with a pos UHR value. The anticipated % pos/neg agreement between the 2 instruments is 95% bases on data from the adult population.||0.01|-0.30|
90859259|NCT05027464|181582436|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.128||||0.119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.311||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the p-value threshold was \< 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Generalized linear mixed model adjusting for baseline covariates and flu vaccine in prior year, with hierarchical random effects for ran. unit/site|Odds ratio in favor of novel intervention arm has values higher than 1|Null hypothesis is that both study arms will have equal rates of flu vaccination uptake during the study period. No power calculation since this outcome is exploratory.||1.311|0.97|0.119
90859260|NCT03323502|181582437|SUPERIORITY||Incidence Rate Ratio (IRR)|0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061||0.3313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.06|||Poisson Regression|||||1.06|0.84|0.3313
90859261|NCT03323502|181582438|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.3327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.09|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.09|0.78|0.3327
90859262|NCT03323502|181582439|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.3946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.49|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.49|0.85|0.3946
90859263|NCT01675427|181582445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three IL28B genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G1||||0.0018
90859264|NCT01675427|181582445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2289|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three IL28B genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G2||||0.2289
90859265|NCT01675427|181582445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1112|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three IL28B genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G3||||0.1112
90904960|NCT00826280|181677330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The unadjusted P-Values for pairwise differences should be used for interpretation only if the treatment effect's P-Value ≤ 0.05.|ANCOVA|||P-Value applies to 'Double-Blind - Baseline (Day 5 - Day 3)'.||||<0.001
91103108|NCT01623154|182093183|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Described previously|Relative Sensitivity, %|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|85.8|100.0|||||95% confidence interval is used instead of p-value.|Comparison of UHR Values obtained by UBit-IR300 and POCone were used to identify participants' H.pylori infection status. Participants with UHR value ≥ 10.0μg/min were considered positive for H.Pylori.||100|85.8|
90859266|NCT01675427|181582445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4681|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three IL28B genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G4||||0.4681
90859267|NCT01675427|181582445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4828|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three IL28B genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||Other genotypes||||0.4828
90859268|NCT01675427|181582445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2702|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three IL28B genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||Total genotypes||||0.2702
90859269|NCT01675427|181582446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4133|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three IL28B genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G1||||0.4133
90859270|NCT01675427|181582446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three IL28B genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G2||||0.4400
90859271|NCT01675427|181582446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8597|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three IL28B genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G3||||0.8597
90859272|NCT01675427|181582446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3975|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three IL28B genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G4||||0.3975
90859273|NCT01675427|181582446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1781|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three IL28B genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||Other genotypes||||0.1781
90859274|NCT01675427|181582446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3159|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three IL28B genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||Total genotypes||||0.3159
90859275|NCT01675427|181582447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0126|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three IL28B genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G1||||0.0126
90859276|NCT01675427|181582447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7174|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three IL28B genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G2||||0.7174
90859277|NCT01675427|181582447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.138|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three IL28B genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G3||||0.1380
90859278|NCT01675427|181582447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6258|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three IL28B genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G4||||0.6258
90859279|NCT01675427|181582447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5751|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three IL28B genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||Other genotypes||||0.5751
90859280|NCT01675427|181582447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1681|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three IL28B genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||Total genotypes||||0.1681
90859281|NCT01675427|181582448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2693|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three IL28B genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G1||||0.2693
90904961|NCT00826280|181677330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The unadjusted P-Values for pairwise differences should be used for interpretation only if the treatment effect's P-Value ≤ 0.05.|ANCOVA|||P-Value applies to 'Double-Blind - Baseline (Day 5 - Day 3)'.||||<0.001
90859282|NCT01675427|181582448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.324|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three IL28B genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G2||||0.3240
90859283|NCT01675427|181582448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7006|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three IL28B genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G3||||0.7006
90859284|NCT01675427|181582448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0403|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three IL28B genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G4||||0.0403
90859285|NCT01675427|181582448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1075|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three IL28B genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||Other genotypes||||0.1075
91032191|NCT02087904|181948892|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.96||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Performance pain (after)||0.96|-0.37|0.387
90859286|NCT01675427|181582448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3295|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three IL28B genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||Total genotypes||||0.3295
90859287|NCT01675427|181582449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9859|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G1||||0.9859
90859288|NCT01675427|181582449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7055|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G2||||0.7055
90859289|NCT01675427|181582449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G3||||0.0920
90859290|NCT01675427|181582449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0781|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G4||||0.0781
90859291|NCT01675427|181582449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4795|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Other genotypes||||0.4795
90859292|NCT01675427|181582449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3069|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Total genotypes||||0.3069
90859293|NCT01675427|181582450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5216|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G1||||0.5216
90859294|NCT01675427|181582450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3419|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G2||||0.3419
90859295|NCT01675427|181582450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7586|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G3||||0.7586
90859296|NCT01675427|181582450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1351|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G4||||0.1351
90859297|NCT01675427|181582450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2386|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Other genotypes||||0.2386
90859298|NCT01675427|181582450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3921|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Total genotypes||||0.3921
90859299|NCT01675427|181582451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8537|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G1||||0.8537
90859300|NCT01675427|181582451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0763|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G2||||0.0763
90859301|NCT01675427|181582451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2432|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G3||||0.2432
90859302|NCT01675427|181582451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4247|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G4||||0.4247
90859303|NCT01675427|181582451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4884|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Other genotypes||||0.4884
90859304|NCT01675427|181582451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6119|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Total genotypes||||0.6119
90859305|NCT01675427|181582452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2416|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G1||||0.2416
90859306|NCT01675427|181582452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2671|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G2||||0.2671
90904962|NCT00826280|181677330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9328||95.0||||The unadjusted P-Values for pairwise differences should be used for interpretation only if the treatment effect's P-Value ≤ 0.05.|ANCOVA|||P-Value applies to 'Double-Blind - Baseline (Day 5 - Day 3)'.||||0.9328
91032192|NCT02087904|181948893|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.54||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||7-day recall period||0.54|-0.86|0.661
91103109|NCT01623154|182093183|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Provided previously|Relative Specificity, %|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.9|100.0|||||95% confidence interval is used instead of p-value.|||100|94.9|
91103110|NCT04349098|182093185|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.79|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.79|0.39|0.6750
91103111|NCT05170061|182093218|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||see above|t-test, 2 sided|paired analysis||Sequential analysis: if the first analysis (paired t-test to determine superiority of nebivolol/valsartan over valsartan ) reached p\< 0.05, the superiority of nebivolol over valsartan was tested (paired-t test); if the second comparison reached p \< 0.05, the superiority of nebivolol/valsartan over nebivolol was tested (paired-t test)||||0.05
91103112|NCT05170061|182093219|SUPERIORITY|see primary dependent variable||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
91103113|NCT05170061|182093220|SUPERIORITY|see primary dependent variable||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||see primary dependent variable||||0.05
91103114|NCT05170061|182093221|SUPERIORITY|see primary dependent variable||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||see primary dependent variable||||0.05
91103115|NCT05170061|182093222|SUPERIORITY|see primary dependent variable||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||see primary dependent variable||||0.05
91103116|NCT05170061|182093223|SUPERIORITY|see primary dependent variable||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||see primary dependent variable||||0.05
91103117|NCT05170061|182093224|SUPERIORITY|see primary dependent variable||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||see primary dependent variable||||0.05
91103118|NCT05170061|182093225|SUPERIORITY|see primary dependent variable||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||see primary dependent variable||||0.05
91103119|NCT05170061|182093226|SUPERIORITY|see primary dependent variable||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||see primary dependent variable||||0.05
91103120|NCT05170061|182093227|SUPERIORITY|see primary dependent variable||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||see primary dependent variable||||0.05
91103121|NCT05170061|182093228|SUPERIORITY|see primary dependent variable||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||see primary dependent variable||||0.05
91103122|NCT05170061|182093229|SUPERIORITY|see primary dependent variable||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||see primary dependent variable||||0.05
91103123|NCT05170061|182093230|SUPERIORITY|see primary dependent variable||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||see primary dependent variable||||0.05
91103124|NCT05170061|182093231|SUPERIORITY|see primary dependent variable||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||see primary dependent variable||||0.05
91103125|NCT05170061|182093232|SUPERIORITY|see primary dependent variable||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||see primary dependent variable||||0.05
90859307|NCT01675427|181582452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4619|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G3||||0.4619
91103126|NCT05170061|182093233|SUPERIORITY|see primary dependent variable||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||see primary dependent variable||||0.05
91103127|NCT05170061|182093234|SUPERIORITY|see primary dependent variable||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||see primary dependent variable||||0.05
91103128|NCT05170061|182093235|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||see primary dependent variable||||0.05
91103129|NCT05170061|182093236|SUPERIORITY|see primary dependent variable||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||see primary dependent variable||||0.05
91103130|NCT05170061|182093237|SUPERIORITY|see primary dependent variable||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||see primary dependent variable||||0.05
91103131|NCT05170061|182093238|SUPERIORITY|see primary dependent variable||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||see primary dependent variable||||0.05
91103132|NCT05170061|182093239|SUPERIORITY|see primary dependent variable||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||see primary dependent variable||||0.05
91103133|NCT03443401|182093247|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|80.0||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|||||level of significance at \<0.05|Spearman's rho|||||||0.004
91103134|NCT03443401|182093248|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|80.0||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|||||Level of significance \<0.05|Spearman's rho|||||||0.027
91103135|NCT00530257|182093258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0||||We used a Bonferroni correct to adjust for up to 5 measures across domains and use a p-value of \<=0.01. With a sample of 30 subjects the analytic model was able to detect a difference of large effect size (Cohen's d= \>0.655)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We evaluated the data for cross over effects. No statistical significant sequence effect were seen for our endpoints and hence we combined the data from both periods of the crossover design There was evidence against the assumption of normality for performance on some of the measures of attention. Thus we used the non-parametric Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test to compare performance on OROS-methylphenidate versus placebo.||||<0.01
91103136|NCT00530257|182093259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0||||Same as described for TEA-Ch Walk, Don't Walk|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Same as described for TEA-Ch Walk, Don't Walk||||<0.01
91103137|NCT00530257|182093260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0||||This p value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We evaluated the data for cross over effects. No statistical significant sequence effect were seen for our endpoints and hence we combined the data from both periods of the crossover design There was evidence against the assumption of normality for performance on some of the measures of attention. Thus we used the non-parametric Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test to compare performance on OROS-methylphenidate versus placebo.||||<0.05
91103138|NCT00530257|182093262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0||||We did not correct for multiple comparisons|t-test, 2 sided|We used a paired t-test||A paired t-test was used to compare the medication versus placebo.||||<0.05
91103139|NCT00530257|182093264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0||||Same as described for TEA-Ch: Walk, Don't Walk.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Same as described for TEA-Ch: Walk, Don't Walk||||<0.01
91103140|NCT00530257|182093265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0||||The p value adjusts for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
91103141|NCT00530257|182093266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0||||Same as described for TEA-Ch: Walk, Don't Walk|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Same as described for TEA-Ch: Walk, Don't Walk||||<0.01
91103142|NCT00530257|182093267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0||||Same as described for TEA-Ch: Walk, Don't Walk|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Same as described for TEA-Ch: Walk, Don't Walk||||<0.01
91103143|NCT00530257|182093268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0||||Same as described for TEA-Ch: Walk, Don't Walk|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Same as described for TEA-Ch: Walk, Don't Walk||||<0.01
91103144|NCT00530257|182093269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0||||Same as described for TEA-Ch: Walk, Don't Walk|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Same as described for TEA-Ch: Walk, Don't Walk||||<0.01
91103145|NCT01866150|182093290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|1.2||||0.8222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|12.0|||Pearson's chi-squared|||A two-sided Pearson's chi-squared test was used to assess the treatment difference in the participants who achieved DAS28 remission.||12.0|-9.5|0.8222
91103146|NCT01866150|182093291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|3.7||||0.4727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|13.6|||Pearson's chi-squared|||Comparison at Month 3. A two-sided Pearson's chi-squared test was used to assess the treatment difference in the participants who achieved DAS28 remission.||13.6|-6.2|0.4727
91103147|NCT01866150|182093291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|2.6||||0.6349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|13.1|||Pearson's chi-squared|||Comparison at last visit. A two-sided Pearson's chi-squared test was used to assess the treatment difference in the participants who achieved DAS28 remission.||13.1|-8.0|0.6349
90904963|NCT00826280|181677331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0011||95.0||||P-Value is from the primary analysis using ANCOVA.|ANCOVA|||P-Value applies to 'Double-Blind - Baseline (Day 5 - Day 3)'.||||0.0011
90904964|NCT00826280|181677331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0034||95.0||||The unadjusted P-Values for pairwise differences should be used for interpretation only if the treatment effect's P-Value ≤ 0.05.|ANCOVA|||P-Value applies to 'Double-Blind - Baseline (Day 5 - Day 3)'.||||0.0034
90904965|NCT00826280|181677331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The unadjusted P-Values for pairwise differences should be used for interpretation only if the treatment effect's P-Value ≤ 0.05.|ANCOVA|||P-Value applies to 'Double-Blind - Baseline (Day 5 - Day 3)'.||||<0.001
91103148|NCT01866150|182093292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.9||||0.8769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|10.4|||Pearson's chi-squared|||Comparison at Month 3. A two-sided Pearson's chi-squared test was used to assess the treatment difference in the participants who achieved LDA.||10.4|-12.1|0.8769
91103149|NCT01866150|182093292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|3.4||||0.5649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|15.0|||Pearson's chi-squared|||Comparison at Month 6. A two-sided Pearson's chi-squared test was used to assess the treatment difference in the participants who achieved LDA.||15.0|-8.2|0.5649
91103150|NCT01866150|182093292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|9.9||||0.0556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|20.2|||Pearson's chi-squared|||Comparison at the last visit. A two-sided Pearson's chi-squared test was used to assess the treatment difference in the participants who achieved LDA.||20.2|-0.3|0.0556
91103151|NCT01866150|182093293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.152||0.5195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison at Month 3. Analysis used a mixed model with month, cohort, baseline DAS28 score; cohort-by-month and cohort-by-baseline DAS28 score as fixed effects. Within-participant repeated measurements were incorporated with an unstructured variance-covariance structure.||0.20|-0.40|0.5195
90904966|NCT00826280|181677331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5902||95.0||||The unadjusted P-Values for pairwise differences should be used for interpretation only if the treatment effect's P-Value ≤ 0.05.|ANCOVA|||P-Value applies to 'Double-Blind - Baseline (Day 5 - Day 3)'.||||0.5902
91103152|NCT01866150|182093293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.149||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison at Month 6. Analysis used a mixed model with month, cohort, baseline DAS28 score; cohort-by-month and cohort-by-baseline DAS28 score as fixed effects. Within-participant repeated measurements were incorporated with an unstructured variance-covariance structure.||0.12|-0.47|0.2420
91103153|NCT01866150|182093293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.154||0.3264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison at the last visit. Analysis used a mixed model with month, cohort, baseline DAS28 score; cohort-by-month and cohort-by-baseline DAS28 score as fixed effects. Within-participant repeated measurements were incorporated with an unstructured variance-covariance structure.||0.15|-0.45|0.3264
91103154|NCT01866150|182093295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.81||||0.0237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.44|-1.18|||General Linear Model|||Analysis was performed using a general linear model with cohort as a factor.||-1.18|-16.44|0.0237
91103155|NCT04392362|182093299|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin or delta was calculated as -0.12(-12%)|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.89||||0.8982|ONE_SIDED|95.0||||0.05 was the level of significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis is that the AHA method is inferior to the SIM method but not lower than a pre calculated noninferiority delta of -0.12 (-12 %) and a 95% one sided confidence interval. Only 33 (instead of 151 for a power of 95%) patients could be enrolled with 25 in the SIM and 8 in the AHA arms, which resulted in an estimated power test of 59.08%.||||0.8982
91103156|NCT02410200|182093300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.0090
91103157|NCT03160573|182093321|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test Flavored Rinse, Placebo Flavored Rinse||||<0.00001
91103158|NCT03160573|182093321|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test Unflavored Rinse, Placebo Unflavored Rinse||||<0.00001
91103159|NCT02336555|182093335|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.452||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.076|0.172||Linear mixed model with a posterior probability evaluation for the treatment effect|Linear mixed model|One-sided p-value and a posterior probability greater than 90% that the treatment effect is less than 0.||||0.172|-1.076|0.075
91103160|NCT02336555|182093336|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.073|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.446|2.58|||||Logistic regression model with factors for treatment \& baseline pain intensity|||2.580|0.446|
91103161|NCT03704922|182093337|OTHER|||||||0.051|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.051
91103162|NCT03093246|182093342|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Generalized Estimated Equations|||||||<0.05
90904967|NCT00826280|181677332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0037||95.0||||P-Value is from the primary analysis using ANCOVA.|ANCOVA|||P-Value applies to 'Double-Blind - Baseline (Day 5 - Day 3)'.||||0.0037
90904968|NCT00826280|181677332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0089||95.0||||The unadjusted P-Values for pairwise differences should be used for interpretation only if the treatment effect's P-Value ≤ 0.05.|ANCOVA|||P-Value applies to 'Double-Blind - Baseline (Day 5 - Day 3)'.||||0.0089
90904969|NCT00826280|181677332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0016||95.0||||The unadjusted P-Values for pairwise differences should be used for interpretation only if the treatment effect's P-Value ≤ 0.05.|ANCOVA|||P-Value applies to 'Double-Blind - Baseline (Day 5 - Day 3)'.||||0.0016
91103163|NCT03093246|182093343|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Generalized Estimated Equations|||||||<0.05
91103164|NCT03093246|182093344|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Generalized Estimated Equations|||||||<0.05
90859308|NCT01675427|181582452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8364|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G4||||0.8364
90859309|NCT01675427|181582452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2386|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Other genotypes||||0.2386
90859310|NCT01675427|181582452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2887|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Total genotypes||||0.2887
90859311|NCT01675427|181582453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three IL28B genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||||||0.0049
90859312|NCT01675427|181582454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5651|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three IL28B genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||||||0.5651
90904970|NCT00826280|181677332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5654||95.0||||The unadjusted P-Values for pairwise differences should be used for interpretation only if the treatment effect's P-Value ≤ 0.05.|ANCOVA|||P-Value applies to 'Double-Blind - Baseline (Day 5 - Day 3)'.||||0.5654
90904971|NCT00826280|181677333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-Value is from the primary analysis using ANCOVA.|ANCOVA|||P-Value applies to 'Double-Blind - Baseline (Day 5 - Day 3)'.||||<0.001
90904972|NCT00826280|181677333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The unadjusted P-Values for pairwise differences should be used for interpretation only if the treatment effect's P-Value ≤ 0.05.|ANCOVA|||P-Value applies to 'Double-Blind - Baseline (Day 5 - Day 3)'.||||<0.001
90958835|NCT01350336|181797640|NON_INFERIORITY|An upper 95% confidence limit of the difference between Year 5 compared to the first 12-month proportion is less than 20% will demonstrate that the proportions are not substantially worse during each of the subsequent evaluation periods.|Difference of proportions|-0.0765|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1661|0.013||||||Comparison of Years 1 and 5||0.0130|-0.1661|
91103165|NCT00830336|182093447|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The pharmacokinetic parameters were evaluated statistically by an analysis of variance (ANOVA) appropriate for the experimental design of this study.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|103.08||||||90.0|95.41|111.37|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||111.37|95.41|
91103166|NCT00830336|182093448|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The pharmacokinetic parameters were evaluated statistically by an analysis of variance (ANOVA) appropriate for the experimental design of this study.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|105.84||||||90.0|99.33|112.77|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||112.77|99.33|
91103167|NCT00830336|182093449|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The pharmacokinetic parameters were evaluated statistically by an analysis of variance (ANOVA) appropriate for the experimental design of this study.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|107.04||||||90.0|99.96|114.62|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||114.62|99.96|
91103168|NCT04526158|182093506|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.6||significance threshold = 0.0167 due to multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model adjusted for baseline values of BPI interference, Pain Self-Efficacy, and design factors|estimates were generated from multiple imputed data|||0.6|0.0|0.031
90859313|NCT01675427|181582455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three IL28B genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||||||0.0420
90859314|NCT01675427|181582456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4545|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three IL28B genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||||||0.4545
90859315|NCT01675427|181582457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Tests for association between the two variables|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.0001
90904973|NCT00826280|181677333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The unadjusted P-Values for pairwise differences should be used for interpretation only if the treatment effect's P-Value ≤ 0.05.|ANCOVA|||P-Value applies to 'Double-Blind - Baseline (Day 5 - Day 3)'.||||<0.001
90904974|NCT00826280|181677333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4246||95.0||||The unadjusted P-Values for pairwise differences should be used for interpretation only if the treatment effect's P-Value ≤ 0.05.|ANCOVA|||P-Value applies to 'Double-Blind - Baseline (Day 5 - Day 3)'.||||.4246
91103169|NCT04526158|182093506|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.2||significance threshold = 0.0167 due to multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model adjusted for baseline values of BPI interference, Pain Self-Efficacy, and design factors|estimates were generated from multiple imputed data|||-0.2|-0.7|0.002
91103170|NCT04526158|182093506|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.4||significance threshold = 0.0167 due to multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model adjusted for baseline values of BPI interference, Pain Self-Efficacy, and design factors|estimates were generated from multiple imputed data|||-0.4|-1.0|<0.001
91103171|NCT04526158|182093507|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model adjusted for baseline values of BPI intensity, Pain Self-Efficacy, and design factors|estimates were generated from multiple imputed data|||0.3|-0.2|0.736
90859316|NCT01675427|181582458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Tests for association between the two variables|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.0001
90859317|NCT01675427|181582459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Tests for association between the two variables|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.0001
90859318|NCT01675427|181582460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Tests for association between the two variables|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.0001
90859319|NCT01675427|181582461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5468|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||||||0.5468
90859320|NCT01675427|181582462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||||||0.0020
90958836|NCT02079610|181797652|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.93|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
90958837|NCT02079610|181797653|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.2||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.03
91103172|NCT04526158|182093507|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model adjusted for baseline values of BPI intensity, Pain Self-Efficacy, and design factors|estimates were generated from multiple imputed data|||-0.2|-0.6|<0.001
90904975|NCT04731714|181677337|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0104|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|See publication for details||||||0.0104
90904976|NCT04731714|181677338|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.079|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|See publication for details||||||0.079
90958838|NCT02079610|181797654|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.5||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.01
90958839|NCT03645057|181797664|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.433|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.433
91103173|NCT04526158|182093507|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model adjusted for baseline values of BPI intensity, Pain Self-Efficacy, and design factors|estimates were generated from multiple imputed data|||-0.2|-0.7|<0.001
91103174|NCT04526158|182093508|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model adjusted for baseline values of PROMIS Physical function, Pain Self-Efficacy, and design factors|estimates were generated from multiple imputed data|||0.4|-0.4|0.829
91103175|NCT04526158|182093508|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model adjusted for baseline values of PROMIS Physical function, Pain Self-Efficacy, and design factors|estimates were generated from multiple imputed data|||0.9|0.2|0.005
90859321|NCT01675427|181582463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1623|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||||||0.1623
90859322|NCT01675427|181582464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0663|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||||||0.0663
90859323|NCT01675427|181582465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2617|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||||||0.2617
90859324|NCT01675427|181582466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0526|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||||||0.0526
90859325|NCT01675427|181582467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7918|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||||||0.7918
90904977|NCT04731714|181677339|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9222|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|See publication for details||||||0.9222
90904978|NCT04731714|181677340|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7995|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|See publication for details||||||0.7995
90904979|NCT04731714|181677341|OTHER|||||||0.314||||||rhythmic days|Friedman Test|See publication for further details||||||0.3140
90904980|NCT04731714|181677341|OTHER|||||||0.239||||||arrhythmic days|Friedman Test|See publication for further details||||||0.239
90958840|NCT03645057|181797665|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.836|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.836
91103176|NCT04526158|182093508|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model adjusted for baseline values of PROMIS Physical function, Pain Self-Efficacy, and design factors|estimates were generated from multiple imputed data|||1.0|0.2|0.004
90859326|NCT01675427|181582468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0842|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||||||0.0842
90859327|NCT01675427|181582469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Tests for association between the two variables|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.0001
90859328|NCT01675427|181582470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Tests for association between the two variables|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.0001
90904981|NCT04731714|181677345|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8844|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|See publication for details||||||0.8844
90904982|NCT04731714|181677347|OTHER|||||||0.73|||||||binomial|One-sided||||||0.73
90904983|NCT02033993|181677372|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.68|1.23||1-sided p-value|Log Rank|||||1.23|0.68|0.31
90904984|NCT02033993|181677373|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7|1.3||1-sided p-value|Log Rank|||||1.30|0.70|0.40
90904985|NCT02033993|181677374|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.59|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.59|0.76|0.28
90904986|NCT02033993|181677375|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.51|||Log Rank|||||1.51|0.46|0.54
90958841|NCT03645057|181797666|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.073|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.073
90958842|NCT03645057|181797667|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.989|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.989
90958843|NCT03645057|181797668|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.565|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.565
90958844|NCT03645057|181797669|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.479|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.479
90958845|NCT03645057|181797670|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.577|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.577
90958846|NCT03645057|181797671|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.439|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.439
90958847|NCT03645057|181797672|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.242|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.242
90958848|NCT01171807|181797693|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91103177|NCT04526158|182093509|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model adjusted for baseline values of PROMIS Anxiety, Pain Self-Efficacy, and design factors|estimates were generated from multiple imputed data|||0.8|0.0|0.079
91103178|NCT04526158|182093509|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model adjusted for baseline values of PROMIS Anxiety, Pain Self-Efficacy, and design factors|estimates were generated from multiple imputed data|||0.2|-0.6|0.296
91103179|NCT04526158|182093509|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model adjusted for baseline values of PROMIS Anxiety, Pain Self-Efficacy, and design factors|estimates were generated from multiple imputed data|||-0.2|-1.0|0.005
90859329|NCT01675427|181582471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Tests for association between the two variables|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.0001
90859330|NCT01675427|181582472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Tests for association between the two variables|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.0001
90859331|NCT01675427|181582473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G1||||< 0.0001
90859332|NCT01675427|181582473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2887|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G2||||0.2887
90859333|NCT01675427|181582473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G3||||< 0.0001
90859334|NCT01675427|181582473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1634|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G4||||0.1634
90859335|NCT01675427|181582473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8956|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Other genotypes||||0.8956
90859336|NCT01675427|181582473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Total genotypes||||< 0.0001
90859337|NCT01675427|181582474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G1||||< 0.0001
90859338|NCT01675427|181582474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0145|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G2||||0.0145
90859339|NCT01675427|181582474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1027|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G3||||0.1027
90859340|NCT01675427|181582474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5998|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G4||||0.5998
90859341|NCT01675427|181582474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2935|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Other genotypes||||0.2935
90859342|NCT01675427|181582474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Total genotypes||||0.0039
90859343|NCT01675427|181582475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1981|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G1||||0.1981
90859344|NCT01675427|181582475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1616|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G2||||0.1616
90859345|NCT01675427|181582475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1192|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G3||||0.1192
90859346|NCT01675427|181582475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4485|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G4||||0.4485
90859347|NCT01675427|181582475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1525|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Other genotypes||||0.1525
90859348|NCT01675427|181582475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7262|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Total genotypes||||0.7262
90859349|NCT01675427|181582476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0911|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G1||||0.0911
90859350|NCT01675427|181582476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4674|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G2||||0.4674
90859351|NCT01675427|181582476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1604|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G3||||0.1604
90859352|NCT01675427|181582476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5937|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G4||||0.5937
90859353|NCT01675427|181582476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.383|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Other genotypes||||0.3830
90859354|NCT01675427|181582476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0507|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Total genotypes||||0.0507
90859355|NCT01675427|181582477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8686|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G1||||0.8686
90859356|NCT01675427|181582477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3135|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G2||||0.3135
90859357|NCT01675427|181582477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0578|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G3||||0.0578
90859358|NCT01675427|181582477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5833|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G4||||0.5833
90859359|NCT01675427|181582477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.161|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Other genotypes||||0.1610
91103180|NCT04526158|182093510|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model adjusted for baseline values of PROMIS fatigue, Pain Self-Efficacy, and design factors|estimates were generated from multiple imputed data|||0.7|-0.3|0.464
91103181|NCT04526158|182093510|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model adjusted for baseline values of PROMIS fatigue, Pain Self-Efficacy, and design factors|estimates were generated from multiple imputed data|||-0.1|-1.1|0.019
91103182|NCT04526158|182093510|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model adjusted for baseline values of PROMIS fatigue, Pain Self-Efficacy, and design factors|estimates were generated from multiple imputed data|||-0.3|-1.3|0.002
91103183|NCT04526158|182093511|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model adjusted for baseline values of PROMIS sleep disturbance, Pain Self-Efficacy, and design factors|estimates were generated from multiple imputed data|||0.4|-0.5|0.889
91103184|NCT04526158|182093511|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model adjusted for baseline values of PROMIS sleep disturbance, Pain Self-Efficacy, and design factors|estimates were generated from multiple imputed data|||-0.2|-1.1|0.004
91103185|NCT04526158|182093511|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model adjusted for baseline values of PROMIS sleep disturbance, Pain Self-Efficacy, and design factors|estimates were generated from multiple imputed data|||-0.2|-1.1|0.006
91103186|NCT04526158|182093512|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model adjusted for baseline values of PROMIS social roles and activities, Pain Self-Efficacy, and design factors|estimates were generated from multiple imputed data|||0.5|-0.4|0.76
90958849|NCT03907410|181797756|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|28.0||||||Multivariate comparison of Experiment phase adherence (Months 1-3) comparing Arm 1 (Full Intervention arm) to Arm 3 (Active control). Arm 3 is used as the reference. This randomized controlled trial was powered for Arm 1 vs. Arm 3 comparisons, hence the Arm 1 vs. Arm 3 outcome data for adherence to the inhaled corticosteroid regime. The study did not have sufficient power for Arm 2 comparisons.||28|2|
91103187|NCT04526158|182093512|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model adjusted for baseline values of PROMIS social roles and activities, Pain Self-Efficacy, and design factors|estimates were generated from multiple imputed data|||1.4|0.6|<0.001
91103188|NCT04526158|182093512|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model adjusted for baseline values of PROMIS social roles and activities, Pain Self-Efficacy, and design factors|estimates were generated from multiple imputed data|||1.3|0.5|<0.001
91103189|NCT04526158|182093513|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model adjusted for baseline values of PHQ8, Pain Self-Efficacy, and design factors|estimates were generated from multiple imputed data|||0.6|-0.7|0.89
91103190|NCT04526158|182093513|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model adjusted for baseline values of PHQ8, Pain Self-Efficacy, and design factors|estimates were generated from multiple imputed data|||-0.3|-1.5|0.003
91103191|NCT04526158|182093513|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model adjusted for baseline values of PHQ8, Pain Self-Efficacy, and design factors|estimates were generated from multiple imputed data|||-0.2|-1.5|0.007
91103192|NCT04526158|182093514|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model adjusted for baseline values of PCL5, Pain Self-Efficacy, and design factors|estimates were generated from multiple imputed data|||1.9|-1.6|0.886
91103193|NCT04526158|182093514|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model adjusted for baseline values of PCL5, Pain Self-Efficacy, and design factors|estimates were generated from multiple imputed data|||-0.4|-3.7|0.017
91103194|NCT04526158|182093514|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|-0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model adjusted for baseline values of PCL5, Pain Self-Efficacy, and design factors|estimates were generated from multiple imputed data|||-0.5|-3.9|0.013
91103195|NCT04526158|182093515|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model adjusted for baseline Pain Self-Efficacy, and design factors|estimates were generated from multiple imputed data|||0.3|-0.1|0.437
91103196|NCT04526158|182093515|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model adjusted for baseline Pain Self-Efficacy, and design factors|estimates were generated from multiple imputed data|||-0.5|-0.9|<0.001
91103197|NCT04526158|182093515|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model adjusted for baseline Pain Self-Efficacy, and design factors|estimates were generated from multiple imputed data|||-0.6|-1.0|<0.001
91103198|NCT04526158|182093516|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|-1.2||Used confidence interval to determine significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Logistic mixed model adjusted for baseline values of BPI interference, Pain Self-Efficacy, and design factors|estimates were generated from multiple imputed data|||-1.2|-13.9|
91103199|NCT04526158|182093516|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.4|17.6||Used confidence interval to determine significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Logistic mixed model adjusted for baseline values of BPI interference, Pain Self-Efficacy, and design factors|estimates were generated from multiple imputed data|||17.6|6.4|
91103200|NCT04526158|182093516|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.6|25.4||Used confidence interval to determine significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Logistic mixed model adjusted for baseline values of BPI interference, Pain Self-Efficacy, and design factors|estimates were generated from multiple imputed data|||25.4|13.6|
91103201|NCT00677040|182093517|EQUIVALENCE|t-test to determine if tissue oxygen measurements are equivalent between treated and nontreated breast|t-test|0.35||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5
90859360|NCT01675427|181582477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2925|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Total genotypes||||0.2925
90859361|NCT01675427|181582478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3709|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G1||||0.3709
90859362|NCT01675427|181582478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2054|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G2||||0.2054
90859363|NCT01675427|181582478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8457|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G3||||0.8457
90859364|NCT01675427|181582478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3492|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G4||||0.3492
90859365|NCT01675427|181582478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2846|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Other genotypes||||0.2846
90859366|NCT01675427|181582478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2646|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Total genotypes||||0.2646
90859367|NCT01675427|181582479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5348|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G1||||0.5348
90859368|NCT01675427|181582479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5469|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G2||||0.5469
90859369|NCT01675427|181582479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0463|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G3||||0.0463
90859370|NCT01675427|181582479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9393|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G4||||0.9393
91103202|NCT00677040|182093517|OTHER||t-test|0.35||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.5
90859371|NCT01675427|181582479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3404|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Other genotypes||||0.3404
91103203|NCT01725282|182093519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted mean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|3.6|||||An analysis of covariance model with the baseline as a covariate and treatment group as a fixed effect.|||3.6|-3.1|
90859372|NCT01675427|181582479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4237|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Total genotypes||||0.4237
90859373|NCT01675427|181582480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.251|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G1||||0.2510
91103204|NCT01725282|182093519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|2.8|||||An analysis of covariance model with the baseline as a covariate and treatment group as a fixed effect.|||2.8|-4.0|
90859374|NCT01675427|181582480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2943|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G2||||0.2943
90859375|NCT01675427|181582480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0478|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G3||||0.0478
90859376|NCT01675427|181582480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5387|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G4||||0.5387
90859377|NCT01675427|181582480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3878|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Other genotypes||||0.3878
90859378|NCT01675427|181582480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0748|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Total genotypes||||0.0748
91103205|NCT01725282|182093519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted mean difference|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|4.6|||||An analysis of covariance model with the baseline as a covariate and treatment group as a fixed effect.|||4.6|-2.1|
91103206|NCT04576481|182093533|SUPERIORITY||F-Statistic|1.18||||0.32|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Analysis of Variance statistical testing.||||0.32
91103207|NCT04576481|182093534|SUPERIORITY||F-Statistic|0.25||||0.78|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.78
91103208|NCT04576481|182093535|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.19
91103209|NCT04576481|182093536|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.46
91103210|NCT04576481|182093537|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.30
91103211|NCT03464461|182093544|OTHER|non-parametric||||||0.9844|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.9844
91103212|NCT03464461|182093545|OTHER|non-parametric||||||0.158|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.1580
91103213|NCT03464461|182093546|OTHER|non-parametric||||||0.873|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.8730
91103214|NCT03464461|182093547|OTHER|non-parametric||||||0.074|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0740
91103215|NCT03464461|182093548|OTHER|non-parametric||||||0.0984|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0984
91103216|NCT05524948|182093549|OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.206|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|-0.9|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product and gender as a factor and Baseline overall breath organoleptic score as a covariate.|Adjusted mean difference was calculated as experimental dentifrice minus reference dentifrice.|||-0.90|-1.71|<0.0001
91103217|NCT05524948|182093550|OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-569.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|97.479|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-763.11|-376.17|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product and gender as a factor and baseline concentration as a covariate.||||-376.17|-763.11|<0.0001
91103218|NCT05524948|182093551|OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-418.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|64.848|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-547.56|-290.15|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product and gender as a factor and baseline concentration as a covariate.|For Hydrogen Sulfide|||-290.15|-547.56|<0.0001
91103219|NCT05524948|182093551|OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-108.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|32.626||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-173.66|-44.15|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product and gender as a factor and baseline concentration as a covariate.|For Methanethiol|||-44.15|-173.66|0.0012
91103220|NCT05524948|182093551|OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-26.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.909||0.2561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.64|19.29|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product and gender as a factor and baseline concentration as a covariate.|For Dimethyl Sulfide|||19.29|-71.64|0.2561
91103221|NCT05524948|182093552|OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-721.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|94.584|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-909.31|-533.86|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product and gender as a factor and baseline concentration as a covariate.||||-533.86|-909.31|<0.0001
91103222|NCT05524948|182093553|OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-567.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|68.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-703.03|-432.75|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product and gender as a factor and baseline concentration as a covariate.|For Hydrogen Sulfide|||-432.75|-703.03|<0.0001
91103223|NCT05524948|182093553|OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-105.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|24.57|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-154.15|-56.62|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product and gender as a factor and baseline concentration as a covariate.|For Methanethiol|||-56.62|-154.15|<0.0001
91103224|NCT05524948|182093553|OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-38.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|26.201||0.1498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-90.04|13.97|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product and gender as a factor and baseline concentration as a covariate.|For Dimethyl Sulfide|||13.97|-90.04|0.1498
91103225|NCT05524948|182093554|OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.204|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.58|-1.77|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product and gender as a factor and Baseline overall breath organoleptic score as a covariate.|Adjusted mean difference was calculated as experimental dentifrice minus reference dentifrice.|||-1.77|-2.58|<0.0001
91103226|NCT05524948|182093555|OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-396.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|95.541|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-586.51|-207.41|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product and gender as a factor and baseline concentration as a covariate.||||-207.41|-586.51|<0.0001
91103227|NCT05524948|182093556|OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-341.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|72.446|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-485.1|-197.64|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product and gender as a factor and baseline concentration as a covariate.|For Hydrogen Sulfide|||-197.64|-485.10|<0.0001
91103228|NCT05524948|182093556|OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-74.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.905||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-115.62|-32.68|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product and gender as a factor and baseline concentration as a covariate.|For Methanethiol|||-32.68|-115.62|0.0006
91103229|NCT05524948|182093556|OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|27.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|25.942||0.2834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.49|79.45|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product and gender as a factor and baseline concentration as a covariate.|For Dimethyl Sulfide|||79.45|-23.49|0.2834
91103230|NCT05524948|182093557|OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.138|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|-1.28|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product and gender as a factor and Baseline overall breath organoleptic score as a covariate.|Adjusted mean difference was calculated as the experimental dentifrice minus the reference dentifrice.|||-1.28|-1.83|<0.0001
91103231|NCT05524948|182093558|OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-322.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|67.778|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-457.27|-188.23|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product and gender as a factor and baseline concentration as a covariate.||||-188.23|-457.27|<0.0001
91103232|NCT05524948|182093559|OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-250.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|42.838|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-335.35|-165.3|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product and gender as a factor and baseline concentration as a covariate.|For Hydrogen Sulfide|||-165.30|-335.35|<0.0001
91103233|NCT05524948|182093559|OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-45.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|23.439||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-92.05|0.99|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product and gender as a factor and baseline concentration as a covariate.|For Methanethiol|||0.99|-92.05|0.0550
91103234|NCT05524948|182093559|OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-32.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|26.036||0.2124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.36|18.99|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product and gender as a factor and baseline concentration as a covariate.|For Dimethyl Sulfide|||18.99|-84.36|0.2124
91103235|NCT05524948|182093560|OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.164|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|-0.87|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product and gender as a factor and Baseline overall breath organoleptic score as a covariate.|Adjusted mean difference was calculated as experimental dentifrice minus reference dentifrice.|||-0.87|-1.52|<0.0001
91103236|NCT02739828|182093587|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||Analysis is under the assumption of completely missing at random (deleted incomplete observations).||||0.0001
91103237|NCT02739828|182093588|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||Analysis is under the assumption of completely missing at random (deleted incomplete observations).||||< 0.0001
91103238|NCT02739828|182093589|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004|||||||paired t-test|||Analysis is under the assumption of completely missing at random (deleted incomplete observations).||||0.0004
91103239|NCT02739828|182093590|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005|||||||paired t-test|||Skin pain at its worst. Analysis is under the assumption of completely missing at random (deleted incomplete observations).||||0.0005
91103240|NCT02739828|182093590|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0006|||||||paired t-test|||Skin pain on average. Analysis is under the assumption of completely missing at random (deleted incomplete observations).||||0.0006
91103241|NCT02739828|182093591|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004|||||||paired t-test|||Skin pain at its worst. Analysis is under the assumption of completely missing at random (deleted incomplete observations).||||0.0004
91103242|NCT02739828|182093591|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0016|||||||paired t-test|||Skin pain on average. Analysis is under the assumption of completely missing at random (deleted incomplete observations).||||0.0016
91103243|NCT02739828|182093592|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||paired t-test|||Skin pain at its worst. Analysis is under the assumption of completely missing at random (deleted incomplete observations).||||0.0003
91032193|NCT02087904|181948893|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|0.15||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||7-day recall period||0.15|-1.26|0.122
91103244|NCT02739828|182093592|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0094|||||||paired t-test|||Skin pain on average. Analysis is under the assumption of completely missing at random (deleted incomplete observations).||||0.0094
91103245|NCT02739828|182093596|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0278|||||||paired t-test|||Analysis is under the assumption of completely missing at random (deleted incomplete observations).||||0.0278
90859379|NCT01675427|181582481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9887|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G1||||0.9887
90859380|NCT01675427|181582481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5507|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G2||||0.5507
90859381|NCT01675427|181582481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0175|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G3||||0.0175
90859382|NCT01675427|181582481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2246|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G4||||0.2246
90859383|NCT01675427|181582481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3519|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Other genotypes||||0.3519
90959036|NCT01620255|181798206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-1.53||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.254|-0.809|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with model terms: treatment group, baseline, status of anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) therapy experience.||PF-00547659 22.5 mg vs placebo, centrally read change||-0.809|-2.254|0.0005
90859384|NCT01675427|181582481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.714|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Total genotypes||||0.7140
90859385|NCT01675427|181582482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8622|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G1||||0.8622
91032194|NCT02087904|181948893|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.47||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||7-day recall period||0.47|-0.94|0.507
91103246|NCT02739828|182093597|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0215|||||||paired t-test|||Analysis is under the assumption of completely missing at random (deleted incomplete observations).||||0.0215
91103247|NCT02739828|182093598|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1652|||||||paired t-test|||Analysis is under the assumption of completely missing at random (deleted incomplete observations).||||0.1652
91103248|NCT02739828|182093602|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Sign test|||Analysis is under the assumption of completely missing at random (deleted incomplete observations).||||1.0000
91103249|NCT02739828|182093603|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Sign test|||Analysis is under the assumption of completely missing at random (deleted incomplete observations).||||1.0000
91103250|NCT02739828|182093604|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Sign test|||Analysis is under the assumption of completely missing at random (deleted incomplete observations).||||0.5000
91103251|NCT02739828|182093605|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1797|||||||Sign test|||Analysis is under the assumption of completely missing at random (deleted incomplete observations).||||0.1797
91103252|NCT02739828|182093606|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4531|||||||Sign test|||Analysis is under the assumption of completely missing at random (deleted incomplete observations).||||0.4531
91103253|NCT02739828|182093607|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0313|||||||Sign test|||Analysis is under the assumption of completely missing at random (deleted incomplete observations).||||0.0313
91103254|NCT02739828|182093608|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3438|||||||Sign test|||Analysis is under the assumption of completely missing at random (deleted incomplete observations).||||0.3438
91103255|NCT02739828|182093609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4531|||||||Sign test|||Analysis is under the assumption of completely missing at random (deleted incomplete observations).||||0.4531
91103256|NCT02739828|182093610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0156|||||||Sign test|||Analysis is under the assumption of completely missing at random (deleted incomplete observations).||||0.0156
91103257|NCT02739828|182093611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0386|||||||Sign test|||Analysis is under the assumption of completely missing at random (deleted incomplete observations).||||0.0386
91103258|NCT02739828|182093612|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3438|||||||Sign test|||Analysis is under the assumption of completely missing at random (deleted incomplete observations).||||0.3438
91103259|NCT02739828|182093613|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.125|||||||Sign test|||Analysis is under the assumption of completely missing at random (deleted incomplete observations).||||0.1250
91103260|NCT02739828|182093614|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0625|||||||Sign test|||Analysis is under the assumption of completely missing at random (deleted incomplete observations).||||0.0625
91103261|NCT02739828|182093615|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0625|||||||Sign test|||Analysis is under the assumption of completely missing at random (deleted incomplete observations).||||0.0625
91103262|NCT02739828|182093616|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.125|||||||Sign test|||Analysis is under the assumption of completely missing at random (deleted incomplete observations).||||0.1250
91103263|NCT04191733|182093626|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority analysis was demonstrated when the 1-sided upper 95% confidence interval (CI) limit was less than 1.25.|||||<|0.0001||||||one-sided p-value|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
91103264|NCT04191733|182093627|NON_INFERIORITY|1-sided test with 5% alpha was used to demonstrate non-inferiority with greater than 99% power. The non-inferiority margin was 3.75 minutes.||||||0.1004|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||A gatekeeping strategy was used to control family-wise type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant with a 1-sided alpha of 0.05.||||0.1004
91103265|NCT02349477|182093646|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.9||||0.028|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|This is the p-value output from the logistic regression model where medication group predicted the discrete variable for no heavy drinking days.||This analysis compares between Gabapentin and Placebo, the number of individuals who reported no heavy drinking days throughout the entire trial, corrected for %dCDT.||||.028
91103266|NCT02349477|182093647|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.9||||0.053|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|This is the p-value output from the logistic regression model where medication group predicted the discrete variable for abstinence.||This analysis compares between Gabapentin and Placebo, the number of individuals who reported no drinking days (abstinence) throughout the entire trial, corrected for %dCDT.||||.053
91103267|NCT02349477|182093648|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||For the High AWS group, a chi squared analysis compares the number of individuals with no heavy drinking days between medication groups.||||.001
90859386|NCT01675427|181582482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1622|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G2||||0.1622
90859387|NCT01675427|181582482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2566|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G3||||0.2566
91103268|NCT02349477|182093648|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||Chi-squared|||For the Low AWS group, a chi squared analysis compares the number of individuals with no heavy drinking days between medication groups.||||.67
91103269|NCT02202577|182093649|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9||||0.38|ONE_SIDED|95.0||1.35||This is the calculated p-value for the intention to treat analysis of primary outcome. A 1-tailed p value of \<0.05 was selected for statistical significance.|Fisher Exact|||"We estimated a cesarean related surgical site infection rate of 7.5% with povidone-iodine and hypothesized chlorhexidine-alcohol treatment to be superior based on existing literature. We considered a 50% reduction to be significant. We performed our power analysis assuming~1-directional effects in favor of chlorhexidine, which best fit our hypothesis. Using a 1-tailed alpha of 0.05 and an 80% power to detect a difference, we estimated that 466 subjects would be required in each group."||1.35||0.38
91103270|NCT02202577|182093649|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.83||||0.26|ONE_SIDED|95.0||1.25||This is the calculated p-value for the per protocol analysis of primary outcome. A 1-tailed p value of \<0.05 was selected for statistical significance.|Fisher Exact|||Per Protocol Analysis||1.25||0.26
90859388|NCT01675427|181582482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1574|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G4||||0.1574
90859389|NCT01675427|181582482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5784|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Other genotypes||||0.5784
90859390|NCT01675427|181582482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6603|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Total genotypes||||0.6603
90859391|NCT01675427|181582483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0605|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G1||||0.0605
91103271|NCT03511209|182093657|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|4.64|||Regression, Logistic|||Compared CBTI plus Taper method A to CBTI plus Taper method B||4.64|0.98|0.056
91103272|NCT03511209|182093658|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.27||0.405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.57|1.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|Interaction contrast of Treatment Group (CBTI plus Taper method A vs. CBTI plus Taper method B) by Time (6 Months vs. Baseline)||||1.44|-3.57|0.405
91103273|NCT02628145|182093659|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.91|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.91
91103274|NCT02628145|182093660|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.88
91103275|NCT02628145|182093661|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.068|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.068
91103276|NCT02628145|182093662|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.48
91103277|NCT02628145|182093663|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.52
91103278|NCT02628145|182093664|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>0.05
91103279|NCT02628145|182093665|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>0.05
91103280|NCT02628145|182093666|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>0.05
91103281|NCT02628145|182093667|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>0.05
91103282|NCT02628145|182093669|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.04
91103283|NCT02757963|182093672|OTHER||Proportion|0.883|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.849|0.912|||||Proportion = Numerator / Denominator. 95% confidence interval on the proportion is calculated by using the exact (Clopper-Pearson) method.|||0.912|0.849|
91103284|NCT02757963|182093673|OTHER||Proportion|0.877|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.846|0.904|||||Proportion = Numerator / Denominator. 95% confidence interval on the proportion is calculated by using the exact (Clopper-Pearson) method.|For Arm IPSS \>=8||0.904|0.846|
91103285|NCT02757963|182093673|OTHER||Proportion|0.889|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.854|0.917|||||Proportion = Numerator / Denominator. 95% confidence interval on the proportion is calculated by using the exact (Clopper-Pearson) method.|For Arm IPSS \>=8 and BPE/BPO \>=3||0.917|0.854|
91103286|NCT02757963|182093673|OTHER||Proportion|0.873|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.843|0.9|||||Proportion = Numerator / Denominator. 95% confidence interval on the proportion is calculated by using the exact (Clopper-Pearson) method.|For Arm IPSS \>=8 or BPE/BPO \>=3||0.900|0.843|
91103287|NCT02757963|182093674|OTHER||Proportion|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|0.926|||||Proportion = Numerator / Denominator. 95% confidence interval on the proportion is calculated by using the exact (Clopper-Pearson) method.|For Arm IPSS \>=8||0.926|0.870|
91103288|NCT02757963|182093674|OTHER||Proportion|0.907|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.873|0.934|||||Proportion = Numerator / Denominator. 95% confidence interval on the proportion is calculated by using the exact (Clopper-Pearson) method.|For Arm BPE/BPO \>=3||0.934|0.873|
91103289|NCT02757963|182093674|OTHER||Proportion|0.907|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.873|0.935|||||Proportion = Numerator / Denominator. 95% confidence interval on the proportion is calculated by using the exact (Clopper-Pearson) method.|For Arm IPSS \>=8 and BPE/BPO \>=3||0.935|0.873|
91103290|NCT02757963|182093674|OTHER||Proportion|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|0.925|||||Proportion = Numerator / Denominator. 95% confidence interval on the proportion is calculated by using the exact (Clopper-Pearson) method.|For Arm PSS \>=8 or BPE/BPO \>=3||0.925|0.870|
91103291|NCT02757963|182093675|OTHER||Proportion|0.362|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.337|0.386|||||Proportion = Numerator / Denominator. 95% confidence interval on the proportion is calculated by using the exact (Clopper-Pearson) method.|For Arm IPSS \>=8||0.386|0.337|
91103292|NCT02757963|182093675|OTHER||Proportion|0.368|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.341|0.395|||||Proportion = Numerator / Denominator. 95% confidence interval on the proportion is calculated by using the exact (Clopper-Pearson) method.|For Arm BPE/BPO \>=3||0.395|0.341|
91103293|NCT02757963|182093675|OTHER||Proportion|0.377|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.349|0.406|||||Proportion = Numerator / Denominator. 95% confidence interval on the proportion is calculated by using the exact (Clopper-Pearson) method.|For Arm IPSS \>=8 and BPE/BPO \>=3||0.406|0.349|
91103294|NCT02757963|182093675|OTHER||Proportion|0.355|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.332|0.379|||||Proportion = Numerator / Denominator. 95% confidence interval on the proportion is calculated by using the exact (Clopper-Pearson) method.|For Arm IPSS \>=8 or BPE/BPO \>=3||0.379|0.332|
91103295|NCT02757963|182093676|OTHER||Kappa statistic|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.58||||||||0.58|0.51|
91103296|NCT01887600|182093691|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|34.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.48|58.93|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Please note Odds Ratio and CI are shown in percentages.|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test was adjusted by region, history of of cardiovascular, cerebrovascular or thromboembolic (CV) disease, baseline Hb and baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). Superiority of roxadustat versus placebo was to be declared if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval of the CMH odds ratio was higher than 1.||58.93|20.48|<0.001
91103297|NCT01887600|182093692|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.692|||<|0.001||95.0|1.52|1.86|||ANCOVA|||The Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) with Multiple Imputations (MI) model, adjusting for covariates was used for the analysis. The model included treatment as fixed factor, region and history of CV disease as class factors and baseline Hb, baseline eGFR as continuous covariates. Superiority of roxadustat versus placebo was considered successful if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval of the difference between treatment arms (roxadustat minus placebo) was higher than 0.||1.86|1.52|<0.001
91103298|NCT01887600|182093693|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.599|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|1.78||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences. Tested using a fixed sequence testing procedure to maintain the overall two-sided type I error rate at 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The model includes treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline eGFR and baseline Hb by visit interaction as continuous covariates.||1.78|1.41|<0.001
91103299|NCT01887600|182093694|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of roxadustat versus placebo was considered successful if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval of the difference between treatment arms (roxadustat minus placebo) is below 0.|Least squares mean difference|-0.701|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.83|-0.57||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences. Tested using a fixed sequence testing procedure to maintain the overall two-sided type I error rate at 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures has been applied up to week 28. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms and overall mean effects during the period (weeks 12 to 28). The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb, baseline eGFR and baseline LDL as continuous variables.||-0.57|-0.83|<0.001
91103300|NCT01887600|182093695|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.238|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.33||Tested using a fixed sequence testing procedure to maintain the overall two-sided type I error rate at 0.05.|Regression, Cox|||Hazard ratio was calculated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazards Regression stratifying on CV history and region and adjusting on Hb and eGFR at baseline as continuous covariates. Superiority is declared if the upper bound of the 95% CI is below 1.0.||0.33|0.17|<0.001
90958850|NCT03907410|181797756|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|7.0||||||Multivariate comparison of Observation phase adherence (Months 4-6) comparing Arm 1 (Full Intervention arm) to Arm 3 (Active control). Arm 3 is used as the reference. This randomized controlled trial was powered for Arm 1 vs. Arm 3 comparisons, hence the Arm 1 vs. Arm 3 outcome data for adherence to the inhaled corticosteroid regime. The study did not have sufficient power for Arm 2 comparisons.||7|-20|
91103301|NCT01887600|182093696|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.127|||=|0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|2.44||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences.Tested using a fixed sequence testing procedure to maintain the overall two-sided type I error rate at 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures has been applied using the visits up to week 28. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms and overall mean effects throughout the evaluation period (weeks 12 to 28). The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline SF-36 VT, baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||2.44|-0.19|=0.093
91103302|NCT01887600|182093697|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.713|||=|0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|1.98||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences. Tested using a fixed sequence testing procedure to maintain the overall two-sided type I error rate at 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures has been applied using the visits up to week 28. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms and overall mean effects throughout the evaluation period (weeks 12 to 28). The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline SF-36 PF, baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||1.98|-0.56|=0.27
91103303|NCT01887600|182093698|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority can be concluded if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI of the difference between roxadustat and placebo (roxadustat minus placebo) is below 2 mmHg.|Least squares mean difference|0.842|||=|0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|2.08||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied using the visits up to week 28. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms with overall mean effects throughout the evaluation period (weeks 20 to 28). The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline MAP, baseline Hb, baseline eGFR as continuous covariates.||2.08|-0.40|=0.182
91103304|NCT01887600|182093699|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is declared if the upper bound of the 95% CI is below 1.3 (hazard ratio).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.29|||=|0.334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.16|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard ratio was calculated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazards Regression stratifying on CV history and region and adjusting on Hb and eGFR at baseline as continuous covariates.||2.16|0.77|=0.334
91103305|NCT01887600|182093700|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.59|||=|0.316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|1.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Annualized eGFR slope over time was estimated by a random slopes and intercepts model using all available eGFR values adjusted on baseline Hb, region, CV history at Baseline and the interaction terms.||1.75|-0.57|=0.316
91103306|NCT01887600|182093701|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.638|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|1.84||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences|Mixed Models Analysis|||Average Level of Hb Over Weeks 28 to 36. A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied using the visits over weeks 28 to 36. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms by visit based on this MMRM model. The model included treatment arm, region, CV History, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||1.84|1.44|<0.001
91103307|NCT01887600|182093702|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.604|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|1.82||LSM difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Average Level of Hb Over Weeks 44 to 52. A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied using the visits over weeks 44 to 52. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms by visit. The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||1.82|1.39|<0.001
91103308|NCT01887600|182093703|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.492|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.85||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Average Level of Hb Over Weeks 96 to 104. A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied using the visits over weeks 96 to 104. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms by visit. The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||1.85|1.14|<0.001
91103309|NCT01887600|182093704|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|19.001|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.98|30.15|||Regression, Cox|||Time to Achieve the First Hb Response. Hazard ratio was calculated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazards Regression stratifying on CV history and region and adjusting on Hb and eGFR at baseline as continuous covariates.||30.15|11.98|<0.001
91103310|NCT01887600|182093705|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.396|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.5||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Hb change from BL to week 1. A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied using the visits up to week 104. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms by visit. The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||0.50|0.29|<0.001
91103311|NCT01887600|182093705|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.938|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.07||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Hb change from BL to week 2. A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied using the visits up to Week 104. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms by visit. The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||1.07|0.81|<0.001
91103312|NCT01887600|182093705|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.471|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|1.64||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Hb change from BL to week 4. A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied using the visits up to Week 104. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms by visit. The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||1.64|1.30|<0.001
91103313|NCT01887600|182093705|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.827|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.64|2.02||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Hb change from BL to week 6. A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied using the visits up to Week 104. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms by visit. The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||2.02|1.64|<0.001
91103314|NCT01887600|182093705|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|2.058|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.87|2.25||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Hb change from BL to week 8. A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied using the visits up to Week 104. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms by visit. The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||2.25|1.87|<0.001
90859392|NCT01675427|181582483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0899|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G2||||0.0899
90859393|NCT01675427|181582483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0634|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G3||||0.0634
90859394|NCT01675427|181582483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6165|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G4||||0.6165
90859395|NCT01675427|181582483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1649|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Other genotypes||||0.1649
91032195|NCT02087904|181948893|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.74||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Activity pain||0.74|-0.85|0.892
91032196|NCT02087904|181948893|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|0.48||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Activity pain||0.48|-1.12|0.433
91032197|NCT02087904|181948893|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.76||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Activity pain||0.76|-0.84|0.92
90859396|NCT01675427|181582483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9159|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Total genotypes||||0.9159
90859397|NCT01675427|181582484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7454|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G1||||0.7454
90859398|NCT01675427|181582484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G2||||0.0016
90859399|NCT01675427|181582484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5261|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G3||||0.5261
90859400|NCT01675427|181582484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3422|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G4||||0.3422
90859401|NCT01675427|181582484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9026|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Total genotypes||||0.9026
90859402|NCT01675427|181582485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G1||||0.0017
90859403|NCT01675427|181582485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8864|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G2||||0.8864
90859404|NCT01675427|181582485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0291|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G3||||0.0291
90859405|NCT01675427|181582485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5472|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G4||||0.5472
90859406|NCT01675427|181582485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Other genotypes||||1.000
90859407|NCT01675427|181582485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1148|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Total genotypes||||0.1148
90859408|NCT01675427|181582486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4207|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G1||||0.4207
90859409|NCT01675427|181582486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0566|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G2||||0.0566
90859410|NCT01675427|181582486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1211|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G3||||0.1211
90859411|NCT01675427|181582486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3772|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G4||||0.3772
90859412|NCT01675427|181582486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4023|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Total genotypes||||0.4023
90859413|NCT01675427|181582487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G1||||< 0.0001
90859414|NCT01675427|181582487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2132|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G2||||0.2132
91032198|NCT02087904|181948893|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.71||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Performance pain (before)||0.71|-0.68|0.957
91032199|NCT02087904|181948893|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|0.26||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Performance pain (before)||0.26|-1.13|0.222
91032200|NCT02087904|181948893|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|0.25||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Performance pain (before)||0.25|-1.15|0.209
91103315|NCT01887600|182093705|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.949|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.75|2.14||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Hb change from BL to week 10. A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied using the visits up to Week 104. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms by visit. The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||2.14|1.75|<0.001
91103316|NCT01887600|182093705|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|2.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|2.28||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Hb change from BL to week 12. A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied using the visits up to Week 104. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms by visit.The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||2.28|1.90|<0.001
91103317|NCT01887600|182093705|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|2.051|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.86|2.24||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Hb change from BL to week 14. A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied using the visits up to Week 104. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms by visit. The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||2.24|1.86|<0.001
91103318|NCT01887600|182093705|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.987|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.79|2.19||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Hb change from BL to week 16. A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms by visit. The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||2.19|1.79|<0.001
91103319|NCT01887600|182093705|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.841|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.64|2.05||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Hb change from BL to week 18. A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms by visit. The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||2.05|1.64|<0.001
91032201|NCT02087904|181948893|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.79||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Performance pain (after)||0.79|-0.62|0.813
91103320|NCT01887600|182093705|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.824|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.61|2.04||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Hb change from BL to week 20. A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms by visit. The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||2.04|1.61|<0.001
91032202|NCT02087904|181948893|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|0.17||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Performance pain (after)||0.17|-1.25|0.135
91032203|NCT02087904|181948893|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.57||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Performance pain (after)||0.57|-0.85|0.679
91032204|NCT02087904|181948894|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.79||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||7-day recall period||0.79|-0.76|0.978
91032205|NCT02087904|181948894|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.82||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||7-day recall period||0.82|-0.75|0.925
91032206|NCT02087904|181948894|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.61||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||7-day recall period||0.61|-0.96|0.659
91032207|NCT02087904|181948894|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.67||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Activity pain||0.67|-1.1|0.633
91032208|NCT02087904|181948894|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|0.56||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Activity pain||0.56|-1.23|0.46
91032209|NCT02087904|181948894|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.7||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Activity pain||0.7|-1.1|0.663
91032210|NCT02087904|181948894|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.59||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Performance pain (before)||0.59|-0.89|0.696
91032211|NCT02087904|181948894|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.34||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Performance pain (before)||0.34|-1.16|0.278
90859415|NCT01675427|181582487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G3||||< 0.0001
91032212|NCT02087904|181948894|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.4||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Performance pain (before)||0.4|-1.1|0.357
91032213|NCT02087904|181948894|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.64||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Performance pain (after)||0.64|-0.87|0.761
91032214|NCT02087904|181948894|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|0.51||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.51|-1.02|0.218
91032215|NCT02087904|181948894|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|0.51||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Performance pain (after)||0.51|-1.02|0.513
91032216|NCT02087904|181948895|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.75||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.75|-0.52|0.728
91032217|NCT02087904|181948895|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|0.24||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.24|-1.06|0.219
91032218|NCT02087904|181948895|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.51||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.51|-0.79|0.673
91032219|NCT02087904|181948896|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.71||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.71|-0.73|0.984
90859416|NCT01675427|181582487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3031|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G4||||0.3031
91032220|NCT02087904|181948896|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|0.19||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.19|-1.26|0.145
91032221|NCT02087904|181948896|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.49||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.49|-0.96|0.527
91032222|NCT02087904|181948897|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.87||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.87|-0.71|0.836
91032223|NCT02087904|181948897|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.66||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.66|-0.94|0.738
91032224|NCT02087904|181948897|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|0.38||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.38|-1.22|0.3
91032225|NCT02087904|181948898|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.5||||0.992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-101.59|102.62||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Global knee||102.62|-101.59|0.992
90859417|NCT01675427|181582487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.955|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Other genotypes||||0.9550
90859418|NCT01675427|181582487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Total genotypes||||< 0.0001
91032226|NCT02087904|181948898|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.6||||0.948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-103.95|111.1||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Global knee||111.10|-103.95|0.948
91032227|NCT02087904|181948898|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-33.1||||0.523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-134.76|68.65||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Global knee||68.65|-134.76|0.523
91032228|NCT02087904|181948898|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.2||||0.799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.47|36.95||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Medial central condyle + plateau||36.95|-28.47|0.799
91103321|NCT01887600|182093705|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.651|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|1.87||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Hb change from BL to week 22. A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms by visit.The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||1.87|1.43|<0.001
91103322|NCT01887600|182093705|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.447|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|1.67||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Hb change from BL to week 24. A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms by visit. The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||1.67|1.23|<0.001
91103323|NCT01887600|182093705|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.561|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|1.78||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Hb change from BL to week 28. A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms by visit. The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||1.78|1.34|<0.001
91103324|NCT01887600|182093705|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.587|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|1.81||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Hb change From BL to week 32. A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms by visit. The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||1.81|1.37|<0.001
91103325|NCT01887600|182093705|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|1.92||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Hb Change from BL to week 36. A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms by visit.The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||1.92|1.46|<0.001
91103326|NCT01887600|182093705|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.645|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|1.88||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Hb change from BL to week 40. A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms by visit. The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||1.88|1.41|<0.001
90859419|NCT01675427|181582488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G1||||< 0.0001
90859420|NCT01675427|181582488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.189|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G2||||0.1890
91032229|NCT02087904|181948898|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|9.0||||0.609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.62|43.64||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Medial central condyle + plateau||43.64|-25.62|0.609
91032230|NCT02087904|181948898|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.6||||0.923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.97|34.19||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Medial central condyle + plateau||34.19|-30.97|0.923
91032231|NCT02087904|181948898|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.1||||0.937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.88|54.08||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Medial condyle + plateau||54.08|-49.88|0.937
91032232|NCT02087904|181948898|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.1||||0.882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.68|58.95||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Medial condyle + plateau||58.95|-50.68|0.882
91032233|NCT02087904|181948898|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|13.8||||0.602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.05|65.55||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Medial condyle + plateau||65.55|-38.05|0.602
91032234|NCT02087904|181948899|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-41.7||||0.554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-180.49|97.04||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Global knee||97.04|-180.49|0.554
91032235|NCT02087904|181948899|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.7||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-140.86|146.31||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Global knee||146.31|-140.86|0.97
91032236|NCT02087904|181948899|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-26.1||||0.713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-165.47|113.32||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Global knee||113.32|-165.47|0.713
90859421|NCT01675427|181582488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5793|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G3||||0.5793
90859422|NCT01675427|181582488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0847|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G4||||0.0847
91103327|NCT01887600|182093705|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.699|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|1.94||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Hb change from BL to week 44. A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms by visit. The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||1.94|1.45|<0.001
91103328|NCT01887600|182093705|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.446|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|1.69||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Hb change From BL to week 48. A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms by visit. The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||1.69|1.20|<0.001
91103329|NCT01887600|182093705|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.641|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|1.89||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Hb change from BL to week 52. A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms by visit.The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||1.89|1.39|<0.001
91103330|NCT01887600|182093705|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|1.91||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Hb change from BL to week 56. A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms by visit.The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||1.91|1.37|<0.001
91103331|NCT01887600|182093705|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.634|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|1.94||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Hb change from BL to week 60. A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms by visit. The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||1.94|1.33|<0.001
91103332|NCT01887600|182093705|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.404|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.73||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Hb change from BL to week 64. A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms by visit. The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||1.73|1.08|<0.001
91103333|NCT01887600|182093705|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.499|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|1.82||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Hb change From BL to week 68. A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms by visit. The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||1.82|1.18|<0.001
91032237|NCT02087904|181948899|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-25.1||||0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.12|19.88||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Medial central condyle + plateau||19.88|-70.12|0.272
91103334|NCT01887600|182093705|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.438|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.78||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Hb change from BL to week 72. A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms by visit. The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||1.78|1.10|<0.001
91103335|NCT01887600|182093705|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.185|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.54||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Hb change from BL to week 76. A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms by visit. The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||1.54|0.83|<0.001
90859423|NCT01675427|181582488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5506|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Other genotypes||||0.5506
90859424|NCT01675427|181582488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Total genotypes||||0.0020
90859425|NCT01675427|181582489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G1||||0.0007
91032238|NCT02087904|181948899|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|11.1||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.63|57.8||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Medial central condyle + plateau||57.8|-35.63|0.64
90859426|NCT01675427|181582489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G2||||0.0061
90859427|NCT01675427|181582489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G3||||< 0.0001
90859428|NCT01675427|181582489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3885|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G4||||0.3885
90859429|NCT01675427|181582489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3597|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Other genotypes||||0.3597
91032239|NCT02087904|181948899|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-11.8||||0.608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.94|33.38||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Medial central condyle + plateau||33.38|-56.94|0.608
91032240|NCT02087904|181948899|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-40.3||||0.319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-119.88|39.3||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Medial condyle + plateau||39.3|-119.88|0.319
91032241|NCT02087904|181948899|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|24.4||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.05|106.91||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Medial condyle + plateau||106.91|-58.05|0.56
91032242|NCT02087904|181948899|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-28.1||||0.489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-107.97|51.82||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Medial condyle + plateau||51.82|-107.97|0.489
91032243|NCT02087904|181948900|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.015|0.015||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Global knee||0.015|-0.015|0.972
91032244|NCT02087904|181948900|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.001||||0.929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.017|0.015||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Global knee||0.015|-0.017|0.929
91032245|NCT02087904|181948900|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.005||||0.543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.01||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Global knee||0.01|-0.02|0.543
91032246|NCT02087904|181948900|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.008||||0.752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.043|0.059||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Medial central condyle + plateau||0.059|-0.043|0.752
90859430|NCT01675427|181582489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Total genotypes||||< 0.0001
90859431|NCT01675427|181582490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G1||||< 0.0001
90859432|NCT01675427|181582490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G2||||0.0005
90859433|NCT01675427|181582490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G3||||0.0110
90859434|NCT01675427|181582490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G4||||0.0980
90859435|NCT01675427|181582490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2264|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Other genotypes||||0.2264
91032247|NCT02087904|181948900|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.011||||0.691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.042|0.064||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Medial central condyle + plateau||0.064|-0.042|0.691
91032248|NCT02087904|181948900|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.01||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.041|0.06||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Medial central condyle + plateau||0.06|-0.041|0.71
91032249|NCT02087904|181948900|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.019|0.02||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Medial condyle + plateau||0.02|-0.019|0.965
90859436|NCT01675427|181582490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Total genotypes||||< 0.0001
90859437|NCT01675427|181582491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0098|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G1||||0.0098
90859438|NCT01675427|181582491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6291|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G2||||0.6291
90859439|NCT01675427|181582491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G3||||0.0013
90859440|NCT01675427|181582491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5588|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G4||||0.5588
90859441|NCT01675427|181582491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9932|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Other genotypes||||0.9932
91103336|NCT01887600|182093705|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.443|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|1.78||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Hb change from BL to week 80. A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms by visit. The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||1.78|1.11|<0.001
91103337|NCT01887600|182093705|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.374|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.75||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Hb change from BL to week 84. A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms by visit. The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||1.75|0.99|<0.001
91103338|NCT01887600|182093705|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.171|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.55||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Hb change from BL to week 88. A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms by visit. The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||1.55|0.79|<0.001
91103339|NCT01887600|182093705|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.382|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.78||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Hb change from BL to week 92. A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms by visit. The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||1.78|0.98|<0.001
91103340|NCT01887600|182093705|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.563|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|1.97||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Hb change from BL to week 96. A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms by visit. The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||1.97|1.15|<0.001
91103341|NCT01887600|182093705|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.448|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.83||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Hb change from BL to week 100. A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms by visit. The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||1.83|1.06|<0.001
91103342|NCT01887600|182093705|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.347|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.79||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Hb change from BL to week 104. A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms by visit. The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||1.79|0.90|<0.001
91103343|NCT01887600|182093706|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.614|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|1.81||LSM difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to average Hb weeks 28-36. A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied using the visits up to week 36. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms overall mean effect during week 28 to 36 period based on this MMRM model. The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||1.81|1.42|<0.001
91103344|NCT01887600|182093707|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.594|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|1.81||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to average Hb weeks 44-52. A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied using the visits up to week 52. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms overall mean effect during week 44 to 52 period based on this MMRM model. The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||1.81|1.38|<0.001
91103345|NCT01887600|182093708|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.452|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.8||LSM difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from BL to average Hb weeks 96-104. A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied using the visits up to week 104. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms overall mean effect during week 96 to 104 period based on this MMRM model. The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||1.80|1.10|<0.001
90859442|NCT01675427|181582491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Total genotypes||||< 0.0001
90859443|NCT01675427|181582492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G1||||0.0007
90859444|NCT01675427|181582492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G2||||0.0020
90859445|NCT01675427|181582492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G3||||0.0013
91103346|NCT01887600|182093712|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.945|||=|0.643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.2|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard ratio was calculated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazards Regression stratifying on CV history and region and adjusting on Hb and eGFR at baseline as continuous covariates.||1.20|0.74|=0.643
91103347|NCT01887600|182093714|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.139|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.23|||Regression, Cox|||Time to start rescue therapy within first 24 weeks. Hazard ratio was calculated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazards Regression stratifying on CV history and region and adjusting on Hb and eGFR at baseline as continuous covariates.||0.23|0.08|<0.001
90859446|NCT01675427|181582492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7166|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G4||||0.7166
90859447|NCT01675427|181582492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3217|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Other genotypes||||0.3217
90859448|NCT01675427|181582492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Total genotypes||||< 0.0001
90859449|NCT01675427|181582493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1894|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G1||||0.1894
90859450|NCT01675427|181582493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G2||||0.0054
90859451|NCT01675427|181582493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G3||||< 0.0001
91103348|NCT01887600|182093715|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.343|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.55|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard ratio was calculated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazards Regression stratifying on CV history and region and adjusting on Hb and eGFR at baseline as continuous covariates.||0.55|0.21|<0.001
91103349|NCT01887600|182093716|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.045|||=|0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.01|||ANCOVA|||The Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model was applied including treatment as fixed factor, region and history of CV disease as class factors and baseline Hb, baseline eGFR as continuous covariates.||0.01|-0.10|=0.128
90859452|NCT01675427|181582493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.536|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G4||||0.5360
90859453|NCT01675427|181582493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2185|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Other genotypes||||0.2185
90859454|NCT01675427|181582493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Total genotypes||||< 0.0001
90859455|NCT01675427|181582494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G1||||0.0002
90859456|NCT01675427|181582494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G2||||0.0003
90859457|NCT01675427|181582494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0106|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G3||||0.0106
90859458|NCT01675427|181582494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7821|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G4||||0.7821
91103350|NCT01887600|182093717|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-10.429|||=|0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.81|4.95|||ANCOVA|||The Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model was applied included treatment arm, region, CV history as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||4.95|-25.81|=0.183
91103351|NCT01887600|182093718|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.101|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.17|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard ratio was calculated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazards Regression stratifying on CV history and region and adjusting on Hb and eGFR at baseline as continuous covariates.||0.17|0.06|<0.001
91103352|NCT01887600|182093719|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.538|||=|0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.99|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard Ratio was calculated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazards Regression stratifying on CV history and region and adjusting on Hb and eGFR at baseline as continuous covariates.||0.99|0.29|=0.045
90859459|NCT01675427|181582494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2372|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Other genotypes||||0.2372
90859460|NCT01675427|181582494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Total genotypes||||< 0.0001
90859461|NCT01675427|181582495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0688|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G1||||0.0688
90859462|NCT01675427|181582495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4367|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G2||||0.4367
90859463|NCT01675427|181582495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G3||||< 0.0001
90859464|NCT01675427|181582495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1951|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G4||||0.1951
90905121|NCT02886728|181677440|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-12.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|-10.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-10.0|-15.0|<0.001
91032250|NCT02087904|181948900|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.002||||0.885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.022|0.019||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Medial condyle + plateau||0.019|-0.022|0.885
91103353|NCT01887600|182093728|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.374|||=|0.475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|1.4||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The Mixed Model of Repeated Measures included treatment, visit (week 8, week 12 and week 28), visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline SF-36 PCS, baseline Hb, baseline eGFR as continuous covariates.||1.40|-0.65|=0.475
90859465|NCT01675427|181582495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2927|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Other genotypes||||0.2927
90859466|NCT01675427|181582495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Total genotypes||||0.0013
90859467|NCT01675427|181582496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0247|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G1||||0.0247
90859468|NCT01675427|181582496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G2||||0.0034
90859469|NCT01675427|181582496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G3||||0.0017
90859470|NCT01675427|181582496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3346|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G4||||0.3346
90859471|NCT01675427|181582496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3215|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Other genotypes||||0.3215
90859472|NCT01675427|181582496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Total genotypes||||0.0003
90859473|NCT01675427|181582497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3609|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G1||||0.3609
90859474|NCT01675427|181582497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G2||||0.0018
90958851|NCT04776148|181797761|OTHER|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by presence of liver metastasis (Yes/No).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.85||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by presence of liver metastasis|Log Rank|||||0.85|0.56|0.0003
90904987|NCT02096081|181677413|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The analysis of response defined as the difference (D) in response rates between two treatment groups at 1 month was as follows: D = response rate in the incobotulinumtoxinA group minus the response rate in the onabotulinumtoxinA group. The hypothesis testing procedure to test the equivalence of the two products is as follows:~Ho (null): D ≤ -∆ OR D ≥ ∆ versus Ha (alternate): -∆ \< D \< ∆, where ∆ is the margin of equivalence = 0.15."|Difference in proportions of response|-3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|0.6|||||If the confidence interval lies within the limits of ±0.15, then Ho is rejected in favor of Ha (i.e., equivalence of incobotulinumtoxinA and onabotulinumtoxinA can be concluded); otherwise, treatment equivalence cannot be concluded.|With assumptions of an alpha of 5%, an equivalence margin of 15% for each side, the real response rate expected as 90% for incobotulinumtoxinA and onabotulinumtoxinA at day 30 and a 1:1 allocation ratio, a total of 225 subjects were needed to achieve a statistical power of 90% in order to make an equivalence conclusion at day 30. Results are based on the Newcombe-Wilson confidence interval. To account for exclusions from the PPS of about 10%, approximately 250 subjects were enrolled.||0.6|-7.5|
90904988|NCT02096081|181677414|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This secondary analysis was performed for exploratory purposes. The analysis of response defined as the difference (D) in response rates between two treatment groups at 2 months was as follows: D = response rate in the incobotulinumtoxinA group minus the response rate in the onabotulinumtoxinA group.|Difference in proportion of responders|-5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|1.5|||||If the confidence interval lies within the limits of ±0.15, then both incobotulinumtoxinA and onabotulinumtoxinA have similar efficacy profiles.|The study was not powered for this secondary endpoint.||1.5|-12.1|
90904989|NCT02096081|181677415|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This secondary analysis was performed for exploratory purposes. The analysis of response defined as the difference (D) in response rates between two treatment groups at 3 months was as follows: D = response rate in the incobotulinumtoxinA group minus the response rate in the onabotulinumtoxinA group.|Difference in proportion of responders|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|9.6|||||If the confidence interval lies within the limits of ±0.15, then both incobotulinumtoxinA and onabotulinumtoxinA have similar efficacy profiles.|The study was not powered for this secondary endpoint.||9.6|-10.6|
90904990|NCT02096081|181677416|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This secondary analysis was performed for exploratory purposes. The analysis of response defined as the difference (D) in response rates between two treatment groups at 4 months was as follows: D = response rate in the incobotulinumtoxinA group minus the response rate in the onabotulinumtoxinA group.|Difference in proportion of responders|-5.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.4|7.1|||||If the confidence interval lies within the limits of ±0.15, then both incobotulinumtoxinA and onabotulinumtoxinA have similar efficacy profiles.|The study was not powered for this secondary endpoint.||7.1|-17.4|
90904991|NCT02096081|181677417|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This secondary analysis was performed for exploratory purposes. The analysis of response defined as the difference (D) in response rates between two treatment groups at 1 month was as follows: D = response rate in the incobotulinumtoxinA group minus the response rate in the onabotulinumtoxinA group.|Difference in proportion of responders|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|3.2|||||If the confidence interval lies within the limits of ±0.15, then both incobotulinumtoxinA and onabotulinumtoxinA have similar efficacy profiles.|The study was not powered for this secondary endpoint.||3.2|-8.5|
90904992|NCT02096081|181677418|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This secondary analysis was performed for exploratory purposes. The analysis of response defined as the difference (D) in response rates between two treatment groups at 2 months was as follows: D = response rate in the incobotulinumtoxinA group minus the response rate in the onabotulinumtoxinA group.|Difference in proportion of responders|-2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|5.3|||||If the confidence interval lies within the limits of ±0.15, then both incobotulinumtoxinA and onabotulinumtoxinA have similar efficacy profiles.|The study was not powered for this secondary endpoint.||5.3|-11.0|
90958852|NCT04776148|181797762|OTHER|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||0.7421|TWO_SIDED|85.0|0.75|1.77||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test.|Log Rank|||||1.77|0.75|0.7421
90958853|NCT04776148|181797763|OTHER||Difference in Percentage vs. SOC|8.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|13.5|||Chi-squared||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by presence of liver metastasis|||13.5|4.7|<0.0001
90958854|NCT04776148|181797764|OTHER||Difference in Percentage vs. SOC|3.3||||0.2456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|14.3|||Chi-squared||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||14.3|-7.7|0.2456
91103354|NCT01887600|182093729|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.704|||=|0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|3.38||LSM difference p-value is for test of differences|Mixed Models Analysis|||A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied using the visits up to week 28. The model includes treatment, visit (week 8, week 12 and week 28), visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline FACT-An Ans, baseline Hb, baseline eGFR as continuous covariates. Baseline FACT-An Ans is defined as the FACT-An Ans value on day 1.||3.38|0.02|=0.047
91103355|NCT01887600|182093730|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|2.086|||=|0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|5.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied using the visits up to week 28. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms overall mean effect during week 12 to 28 period based on this MMRM model.The model includes treatment, visit (week8, week12 and week28), visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline FACT-An Total Score, baseline Hb, baseline eGFR as continuous covariates.||5.46|-1.29|=0.225
90958855|NCT04776148|181797771|OTHER||Difference in least squares means|2.71||||0.1553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|6.46||Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction and stratification factor presence of liver metastasis (Yes/No).|cLDA model|||||6.46|-1.03|0.1553
91032251|NCT02087904|181948900|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.001||||0.887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.018|0.021||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Medial condyle + plateau||0.021|-0.018|0.887
91103356|NCT01887600|182093741|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.995|||=|0.973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.32|||Regression, Cox|||Time to doubling of serum Creatinine. Hazard ratio was calculated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazards Regression stratifying on CV history and region and adjusting on Hb and eGFR at baseline as continuous covariates.||1.32|0.75|=0.973
91103357|NCT01887600|182093742|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.995|||=|0.972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.3|||Regression, Cox|||Time to CKD progression. Hazard ratio was calculated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazards Regression stratifying on CV history and region and adjusting on Hb and eGFR at baseline as continuous covariates.||1.30|0.76|=0.972
91103358|NCT01887600|182093743|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.905|||=|0.439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.16|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard ratio was calculated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazards Regression stratifying on CV history and region and adjusting on Hb and eGFR at baseline as continuous covariates.||1.16|0.70|=0.439
91103359|NCT03688139|182093744|SUPERIORITY||difference in slopes|0.23||||0.08|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.08
91103360|NCT03688139|182093744|OTHER|This analysis tested whether the course of LPP was associated with the course of BADS over the 9-week treatment period in the Engage group.|Slope|0.03||||0.14|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.14
91103361|NCT03688139|182093745|SUPERIORITY||difference in slopes|-0.06||||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.69
91103362|NCT03688139|182093746|SUPERIORITY||difference in slopes|-0.03||||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.69
91103363|NCT03688139|182093747|SUPERIORITY||difference in slopes|-0.45||||0.39|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.39
91103364|NCT03688139|182093748|OTHER|This analysis tested the hypothesis that change in LPP for each assessment interval would predict severity of anhedonia at the next assessment in Engage but not in Supportive Therapy.|difference in slopes|-0.1||||0.58|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.58
91103365|NCT03688139|182093748|OTHER|This analysis tested the hypothesis that change in SHAPS for each assessment interval would predict severity of anhedonia at the next assessment in Engage but not in Supportive Therapy.|difference in slopes|0.0||||0.96|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.96
91103366|NCT00498485|182093755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.04|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null Hypothesis = drug-treated would have a higher global impression of change than placebo treated.||||<0.04
91103367|NCT00452400|182093757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.061|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.0233||95.0|0.008|0.113|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.113|0.008|0.0233
91103368|NCT00452400|182093757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.097|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.0003||95.0|0.044|0.149|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.149|0.044|0.0003
91103369|NCT00452400|182093757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.123|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001||95.0|0.072|0.175|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.175|0.072|<0.0001
90859475|NCT01675427|181582497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0356|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G3||||0.0356
90859476|NCT01675427|181582497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7044|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G4||||0.7044
90859477|NCT01675427|181582497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8578|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Other genotypes||||0.8578
90859478|NCT01675427|181582497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0076|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Total genotypes||||0.0076
91032252|NCT02087904|181948901|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.005||||0.619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.024|0.014||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Global knee||0.014|-0.024|0.619
91103370|NCT00452400|182093757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.132|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027|<|0.0001||95.0|0.08|0.185|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.185|0.080|<0.0001
91103371|NCT00452400|182093758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.088|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0004||95.0|0.039|0.137|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.137|0.039|0.0004
91103372|NCT00452400|182093758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.137|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001||95.0|0.088|0.186|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.186|0.088|<0.0001
91103373|NCT00452400|182093758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.128|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001||95.0|0.08|0.176|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.176|0.080|<0.0001
91103374|NCT00452400|182093758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.169|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001||95.0|0.12|0.218|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.218|0.120|<0.0001
91103375|NCT00452400|182093759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.085|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.0011||95.0|0.034|0.136|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.136|0.034|0.0011
90859479|NCT01675427|181582498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G1||||0.0002
90859480|NCT01675427|181582498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2017|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G2||||0.2017
91032253|NCT02087904|181948901|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.001||||0.952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.019||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Global knee||0.019|-0.02|0.952
91103376|NCT00452400|182093759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.121|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001||95.0|0.07|0.173|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.173|0.070|<0.0001
91103377|NCT00452400|182093759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.125|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001||95.0|0.075|0.175|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.175|0.075|<0.0001
91103378|NCT00452400|182093759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.128|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001||95.0|0.077|0.179|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.179|0.077|<0.0001
90859481|NCT01675427|181582498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5878|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G3||||0.5878
90958856|NCT04776148|181797772|OTHER||Difference in LS means|1.16||||0.4967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.19|4.51||Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction and stratification factor presence of liver metastasis (Yes/No).|cLDA model|||||4.51|-2.19|0.4967
91103379|NCT00452400|182093760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044||0.0127||95.0|0.024|0.197|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.197|0.024|0.0127
91103380|NCT00452400|182093760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.174|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044|<|0.0001||95.0|0.087|0.261|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.261|0.087|<0.0001
90859482|NCT01675427|181582498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4144|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G4||||0.4144
90859483|NCT01675427|181582498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4492|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Other genotypes||||0.4492
90859484|NCT01675427|181582498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Total genotypes||||< 0.0001
90859485|NCT01675427|181582499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0671|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G1||||0.0671
90859486|NCT01675427|181582499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1009|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G2||||0.1009
91103381|NCT00452400|182093760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.0001||95.0|0.084|0.255|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.255|0.084|0.0001
91103382|NCT00452400|182093760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.171|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044||0.0001||95.0|0.084|0.258|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.258|0.084|0.0001
90859487|NCT01675427|181582499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0635|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G3||||0.0635
90859488|NCT01675427|181582499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4162|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G4||||0.4162
90859489|NCT01675427|181582499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9305|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Other genotypes||||0.9305
91103383|NCT00452400|182093761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.0836||95.0|-0.012|0.192|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.192|-0.012|0.0836
91103384|NCT00452400|182093761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.171|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.0011||95.0|0.068|0.274|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.274|0.068|0.0011
90859490|NCT01675427|181582499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Total genotypes||||0.0041
91103385|NCT00452400|182093761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.051||0.0037||95.0|0.049|0.25|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.250|0.049|0.0037
91103386|NCT00452400|182093761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.148|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.0047||95.0|0.046|0.251|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.251|0.046|0.0047
91103387|NCT00452400|182093762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.094|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.051||0.0695||95.0|-0.008|0.195|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.195|-0.008|0.0695
91103388|NCT00452400|182093762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.162|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.0018||95.0|0.061|0.264|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.264|0.061|0.0018
90859491|NCT01675427|181582500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G1||||0.0059
90859492|NCT01675427|181582500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2808|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G2||||0.2808
91103389|NCT00452400|182093762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.172|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.051||0.0008||95.0|0.072|0.272|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.272|0.072|0.0008
91103390|NCT00452400|182093762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.179|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.0006||95.0|0.077|0.281|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.281|0.077|0.0006
91103391|NCT00452400|182093763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.141|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|<|0.0001||95.0|0.078|0.204|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.204|0.078|<0.0001
91103392|NCT00452400|182093763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.162|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|<|0.0001||95.0|0.099|0.225|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.225|0.099|<0.0001
90859493|NCT01675427|181582500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2401|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G3||||0.2401
90859494|NCT01675427|181582500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2993|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G4||||0.2993
90859495|NCT01675427|181582500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5529|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Other genotypes||||0.5529
90859496|NCT01675427|181582500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Total genotypes||||0.0005
90859497|NCT01675427|181582501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G1||||< 0.0001
91032254|NCT02087904|181948901|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.003||||0.765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.022|0.016||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Global knee||0.016|-0.022|0.765
91032255|NCT02087904|181948901|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04||||0.258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.03||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Medial central condyle + plateau||0.03|-0.11|0.258
90859498|NCT01675427|181582501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3572|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G2||||0.3572
90859499|NCT01675427|181582501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2041|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G3||||0.2041
91032256|NCT02087904|181948901|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.023||||0.535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.049|0.094||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Medial central condyle + plateau||0.094|-0.049|0.535
91103393|NCT00452400|182093763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.213|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031|<|0.0001||95.0|0.151|0.275|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.275|0.151|<0.0001
91103394|NCT00452400|182093763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.214|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|<|0.0001||95.0|0.151|0.277|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.277|0.151|<0.0001
91103395|NCT00452400|182093764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.164|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034|<|0.0001||95.0|0.097|0.231|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.231|0.097|<0.0001
91103396|NCT00452400|182093764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.169|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034|<|0.0001||95.0|0.102|0.237|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.237|0.102|<0.0001
91103397|NCT00452400|182093764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.218|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034|<|0.0001||95.0|0.152|0.284|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.284|0.152|<0.0001
91103398|NCT00452400|182093764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.225|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034|<|0.0001||95.0|0.157|0.292|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.292|0.157|<0.0001
91103399|NCT00452400|182093765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.262|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057|<|0.0001||95.0|0.15|0.373|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.373|0.150|<0.0001
91103400|NCT00452400|182093765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.283|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057|<|0.0001||95.0|0.171|0.395|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.395|0.171|<0.0001
91103401|NCT00452400|182093765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.311|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056|<|0.0001||95.0|0.201|0.421|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.421|0.201|<0.0001
91103402|NCT00452400|182093765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.304|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057|<|0.0001||95.0|0.192|0.416|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.416|0.192|<0.0001
91103403|NCT00452400|182093766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.288|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061|<|0.0001||95.0|0.167|0.409|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.409|0.167|<0.0001
91103404|NCT00452400|182093766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062|<|0.0001||95.0|0.159|0.401|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.401|0.159|<0.0001
91103405|NCT00452400|182093766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.297|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061|<|0.0001||95.0|0.178|0.416|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.416|0.178|<0.0001
91103406|NCT00452400|182093766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.286|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062|<|0.0001||95.0|0.164|0.407|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.407|0.164|<0.0001
91103407|NCT00452400|182093767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.133|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.09|0.176|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.176|0.090|<0.0001
90859500|NCT01675427|181582501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0467|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G4||||0.0467
91103408|NCT00452400|182093767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.172|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.128|0.215|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.215|0.128|<0.0001
91103409|NCT00452400|182093767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.204|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.162|0.247|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.247|0.162|<0.0001
91103410|NCT00452400|182093767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.203|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.159|0.246|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.246|0.159|<0.0001
90859501|NCT01675427|181582501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0525|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||Other genotypes||||0.0525
90859502|NCT01675427|181582501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||Total genotypes||||< 0.0001
90859503|NCT01675427|181582502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G1||||< 0.0001
90859504|NCT01675427|181582502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G2||||< 0.0001
90859505|NCT01675427|181582502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5275|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G3||||0.5275
90859506|NCT01675427|181582502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6593|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G4||||0.6593
90859507|NCT01675427|181582502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0372|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||Other genotypes||||0.0372
90859508|NCT01675427|181582502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||Total genotypes||||< 0.0001
91032257|NCT02087904|181948901|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.006||||0.866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.076|0.064||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Medial central condyle + plateau||0.064|-0.076|0.866
91103411|NCT00452400|182093768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.187|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.0001||95.0|0.131|0.243|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.243|0.131|<0.0001
91103412|NCT00452400|182093768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.215|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029|<|0.0001||95.0|0.159|0.271|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.271|0.159|<0.0001
91103413|NCT00452400|182093768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.218|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.0001||95.0|0.163|0.273|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.273|0.163|<0.0001
91103414|NCT00452400|182093768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.247|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029|<|0.0001||95.0|0.191|0.304|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.304|0.191|<0.0001
91103415|NCT00452400|182093769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.159|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001||95.0|0.1|0.219|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.219|0.100|<0.0001
91103416|NCT00452400|182093769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.194|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001||95.0|0.134|0.253|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.253|0.134|<0.0001
91103417|NCT00452400|182093769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.203|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001||95.0|0.144|0.262|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.262|0.144|<0.0001
91103418|NCT00452400|182093769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.204|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001||95.0|0.145|0.264|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.264|0.145|<0.0001
90859509|NCT01675427|181582503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G1||||< 0.0001
90859510|NCT01675427|181582503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3857|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G2||||0.3857
90859511|NCT01675427|181582503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2356|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G3||||0.2356
90859512|NCT01675427|181582503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7993|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G4||||0.7993
91103419|NCT00452400|182093770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.155|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027|<|0.0001||95.0|0.101|0.209|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.209|0.101|<0.0001
91103420|NCT00452400|182093770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.185|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027|<|0.0001||95.0|0.131|0.239|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.239|0.131|<0.0001
90859513|NCT01675427|181582503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2164|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||Other genotypes||||0.2164
90859514|NCT01675427|181582503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||Total genotypes||||< 0.0001
90859515|NCT01675427|181582504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G1||||< 0.0001
90859516|NCT01675427|181582504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G2||||0.0001
90859517|NCT01675427|181582504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.482|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G3||||0.4820
90859518|NCT01675427|181582504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8668|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G4||||0.8668
90859519|NCT01675427|181582504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2032|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||Other genotypes||||0.2032
90859520|NCT01675427|181582504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||Total genotypes||||< 0.0001
90859521|NCT01675427|181582505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0103|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G1||||0.0103
90859522|NCT01675427|181582505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8373|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G2||||0.8373
90859523|NCT01675427|181582505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3672|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G3||||0.3672
90859524|NCT01675427|181582506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0637|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G4||||0.0637
91032258|NCT02087904|181948901|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.012||||0.413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.041|0.017||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Medial condyle + plateau||0.017|-0.041|0.413
91032259|NCT02087904|181948901|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.012||||0.445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.018|0.042||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Medial condyle + plateau||0.042|-0.018|0.445
91103421|NCT00452400|182093770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.231|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027|<|0.0001||95.0|0.178|0.284|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.284|0.178|<0.0001
91103422|NCT00452400|182093770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.231|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.0001||95.0|0.177|0.286|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.286|0.177|<0.0001
91103423|NCT00452400|182093771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.202|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|<|0.0001||95.0|0.14|0.264|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.264|0.140|<0.0001
91103424|NCT00452400|182093771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.231|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|<|0.0001||95.0|0.169|0.294|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.294|0.169|<0.0001
91103425|NCT00452400|182093771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.233|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031|<|0.0001||95.0|0.172|0.295|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.295|0.172|<0.0001
91103426|NCT00452400|182093771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.259|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|<|0.0001||95.0|0.197|0.322|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.322|0.197|<0.0001
91103427|NCT00452400|182093772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.165|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|<|0.0001||95.0|0.101|0.228|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.228|0.101|<0.0001
90904993|NCT02096081|181677419|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This secondary analysis was performed for exploratory purposes. The analysis of response defined as the difference (D) in response rates between two treatment groups at 3 months was as follows: D = response rate in the incobotulinumtoxinA group minus the response rate in the onabotulinumtoxinA group.|Difference in proportion of responders|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|9.5|||||If the confidence interval lies within the limits of ±0.15, then both incobotulinumtoxinA and onabotulinumtoxinA have similar efficacy profiles.|The study was not powered for this secondary endpoint.||9.5|-12.4|
90904994|NCT02096081|181677420|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This secondary analysis was performed for exploratory purposes. The analysis of response defined as the difference (D) in response rates between two treatment groups at 4 months was as follows: D = response rate in the incobotulinumtoxinA group minus the response rate in the onabotulinumtoxinA group.|Difference in proportion of responders|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|10.7|||||If the confidence interval lies within the limits of ±0.15, then both incobotulinumtoxinA and onabotulinumtoxinA have similar efficacy profiles.|The study was not powered for this secondary endpoint.||10.7|-14.4|
90904995|NCT02886728|181677427|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|9.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.6|15.6||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24||15.6|3.6|<0.001
90904996|NCT02886728|181677427|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|8.8||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|16.1||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24||16.1|1.5|0.017
90904997|NCT02886728|181677427|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|6.7||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|14.1||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24||14.1|-0.7|0.058
90904998|NCT02886728|181677428|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|-0.11||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from mixed effects model for repeated measures (MMRM). Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.11|-0.27|<0.001
90904999|NCT02886728|181677428|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|-0.03||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.03|-0.23|0.009
90905000|NCT02886728|181677428|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|-0.01||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.01|-0.20|0.032
90905001|NCT02886728|181677429|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|25.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.3|31.7||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24||31.7|18.3|<0.001
91103428|NCT00452400|182093772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.189|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|<|0.0001||95.0|0.125|0.252|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.252|0.125|<0.0001
91103429|NCT00452400|182093772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.203|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|<|0.0001||95.0|0.14|0.266|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.266|0.140|<0.0001
91103430|NCT00452400|182093772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.201|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033|<|0.0001||95.0|0.137|0.265|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.265|0.137|<0.0001
91103431|NCT00452400|182093773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.2392||95.0|-0.03|0.121|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.121|-0.030|0.2392
91103432|NCT00452400|182093773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.147|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038||0.0001||95.0|0.072|0.222|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.222|0.072|0.0001
91103433|NCT00452400|182093773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.176|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|<|0.0001||95.0|0.099|0.253|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.253|0.099|<0.0001
91103434|NCT00452400|182093773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.152|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.0001||95.0|0.076|0.228|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.228|0.076|0.0001
91103435|NCT00452400|182093774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.085|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.0309||95.0|0.008|0.162|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.162|0.008|0.0309
91103436|NCT00452400|182093774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.174|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|<|0.0001||95.0|0.098|0.25|||ANCOVA||Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.250|0.098|<0.0001
91103437|NCT00452400|182093774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0002||95.0|0.072|0.228|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.228|0.072|0.0002
91103438|NCT00452400|182093774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.137|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.0006||95.0|0.059|0.214|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.214|0.059|0.0006
91103439|NCT00452400|182093775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.053|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.215||95.0|-0.031|0.137|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.137|-0.031|0.2150
91103440|NCT00452400|182093775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.129|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.042||0.0024||95.0|0.046|0.212|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.212|0.046|0.0024
91103441|NCT00452400|182093775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.099|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.023||95.0|0.014|0.184|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.184|0.014|0.0230
90859525|NCT01675427|181582506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0474|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||Other genotypes||||0.0474
90859526|NCT01675427|181582506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||Total genotypes||||< 0.0001
90859527|NCT01675427|181582507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G1||||< 0.0001
90859528|NCT01675427|181582507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G2||||< 0.0001
90859529|NCT01675427|181582507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5522|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G3||||0.5522
90859530|NCT01675427|181582508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5117|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G4||||0.5117
90859531|NCT01675427|181582508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3437|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||Other genotypes||||0.3437
90859532|NCT01675427|181582508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||Total genotypes||||< 0.0001
90859533|NCT01675427|181582509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0381|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G1||||0.0381
90859534|NCT01675427|181582509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6852|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G2||||0.6852
90859535|NCT01675427|181582509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1185|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G3||||0.1185
90859536|NCT01675427|181582510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2611|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G4||||0.2611
90859537|NCT01675427|181582510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6059|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||Other genotypes||||0.6059
90859538|NCT01675427|181582510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||Total genotypes||||0.0001
90859539|NCT01675427|181582511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G1||||< 0.0001
91103442|NCT00452400|182093775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.092|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.0333||95.0|0.007|0.177|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.177|0.007|0.0333
91103443|NCT00452400|182093776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.053|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.2158||95.0|-0.031|0.137|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.137|-0.031|0.2158
91103444|NCT00452400|182093776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.129|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.042||0.0024||95.0|0.046|0.212|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.212|0.046|0.0024
91103445|NCT00452400|182093776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.0013||95.0|0.055|0.225|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.225|0.055|0.0013
91103446|NCT00452400|182093776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.0376||95.0|0.005|0.174|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.174|0.005|0.0376
91103447|NCT00452400|182093777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.705|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.916||0.0211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.07|25.34|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||25.340|2.070|0.0211
91103448|NCT00452400|182093777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.285|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.951||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.581|32.99|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||32.990|9.581|0.0004
91103449|NCT00452400|182093777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|38.077|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.832|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.607|49.546|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||49.546|26.607|<.0001
90859540|NCT01675427|181582511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G2||||0.0048
90859541|NCT01675427|181582511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5127|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G3||||0.5127
91103450|NCT00452400|182093777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.063|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.99||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.282|34.845|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||34.845|11.282|0.0001
91103451|NCT00452400|182093778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.446|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.283||0.0973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.911|22.803|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||22.803|-1.911|0.0973
91103452|NCT00452400|182093778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.333|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.36||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.824|34.842|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||34.842|9.824|0.0005
91103453|NCT00452400|182093778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|38.232|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.192|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.054|50.409|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||50.409|26.054|<.0001
91103454|NCT00452400|182093778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.408|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.403|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.814|38.002|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||38.002|12.814|<.0001
90859542|NCT01675427|181582512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3465|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G4||||0.3465
90859543|NCT01675427|181582512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7358|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||Other genotypes||||0.7358
90859544|NCT01675427|181582512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||Total genotypes||||< 0.0001
90859545|NCT01675427|181582513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Tests for association between the two variables|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.0001
91103455|NCT00452400|182093779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.364||0.1541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.237|0.196|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.196|-1.237|0.1541
91103456|NCT00452400|182093779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.138|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.367||0.7065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.583|0.859|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.859|-0.583|0.7065
90859546|NCT01675427|181582514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Tests for association between the two variables|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.0001
90859547|NCT01675427|181582515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Tests for association between the two variables|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.0001
90859548|NCT01675427|181582516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0066|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Tests for association between the two variables|Chi-squared|||||||0.0066
90859549|NCT01675427|181582517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G1||||0.0018
90859550|NCT01675427|181582517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0425|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G2||||0.0425
91032260|NCT02087904|181948901|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.003||||0.835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.032|0.026||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Medial condyle + plateau||0.026|-0.032|0.835
91032261|NCT02087904|181948902|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|7.0||||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|21.4||P-value for test of difference between each ABT-981 dose group and Placebo was from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using age group and K-L grade as stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.4|-7.3|0.311
91032262|NCT02087904|181948902|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|5.5||||0.435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|19.9||P-value for test of difference between each ABT-981 dose group and Placebo was from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using age group and K-L grade as stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||19.9|-8.9|0.435
91032263|NCT02087904|181948902|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|5.5||||0.435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|19.9||P-value for test of difference between each ABT-981 dose group and Placebo was from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using age group and K-L grade as stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||19.9|-8.9|0.435
91032264|NCT02087904|181948903|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|2.4||||0.744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|16.8||P-value for test of difference between each ABT-981 dose group and Placebo was from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using age group and K-L grade as stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||16.8|-11.9|0.744
91032265|NCT02087904|181948903|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|4.3||||0.581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|18.7||P-value for test of difference between each ABT-981 dose group and Placebo was from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using age group and K-L grade as stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||18.7|-10.1|0.581
91032266|NCT02087904|181948903|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|10.4||||0.146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|24.3||P-value for test of difference between each ABT-981 dose group and Placebo was from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using age group and K-L grade as stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||24.3|-3.5|0.146
91032267|NCT02087904|181948904|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|-1.3||||0.824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|12.4||P-value for test of difference between each ABT-981 dose group and Placebo was from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using age group and K-L grade as stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||12.4|-14.9|0.824
91032268|NCT02087904|181948904|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|0.8||||0.964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|14.5||P-value for test of difference between each ABT-981 dose group and Placebo was from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using age group and K-L grade as stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||14.5|-12.8|0.964
91103457|NCT00452400|182093779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.964|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.359||0.0076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.671|-0.258|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.258|-1.671|0.0076
91103458|NCT00452400|182093779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.414|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.369||0.2626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.138|0.311|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.311|-1.138|0.2626
91103459|NCT02474901|182093801|EQUIVALENCE|Looked for statistically-significant difference in numbers of adverse events between the two groups, used a p-value of 0.05 as the cutoff value for significance.|||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|Groups were compared with Yates-corrected chi-square test or Fisher exact test for binary or categorical variables.||||||<0.05
91103460|NCT01044693|182093809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The main comparisons were between the active treatment groups versus placebo. We hypothesized that if NO-mediated vasodilation contributes to the BP-lowering effect of nebivolol then BP will be lowered by nebivolol and sildenafil, but not by metoprolol in autonomic failure patients.||||0.036
90859551|NCT01675427|181582517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9829|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G3||||0.9829
90859552|NCT01675427|181582517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G4||||0.6700
91032269|NCT02087904|181948904|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|2.1||||0.763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|15.6||P-value for test of difference between each ABT-981 dose group and Placebo was from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using age group and K-L grade as stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||15.6|-11.3|0.763
90859553|NCT01675427|181582517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7672|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||Other genotypes||||0.7672
90859554|NCT01675427|181582517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||Total genotypes||||0.0067
90859555|NCT01675427|181582518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G1||||0.0003
90859556|NCT01675427|181582518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1637|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G2||||0.1637
90859557|NCT01675427|181582518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8579|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G3||||0.8579
90859558|NCT01675427|181582518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6935|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G4||||0.6935
90859559|NCT01675427|181582518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8124|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||Other genotypes||||0.8124
91103461|NCT01044693|182093809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The main comparisons were between the active treatment groups versus placebo. We hypothesized that if NO-mediated vasodilation contributes to the BP-lowering effect of nebivolol then BP will be lowered by nebivolol and sildenafil, but not by metoprolol in autonomic failure patients.||||<0.001
90859560|NCT01675427|181582518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||Total genotypes||||< 0.0001
90859561|NCT01675427|181582519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1834|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G1||||0.1834
90859562|NCT01675427|181582519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8543|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G2||||0.8543
90859563|NCT01675427|181582519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1485|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G3||||0.1485
90859564|NCT01675427|181582519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G4||||0.0260
90859565|NCT01675427|181582519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5317|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||Other genotypes||||0.5317
90859566|NCT01675427|181582519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||Total genotypes||||0.0005
90859567|NCT01675427|181582520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G1||||< 0.0001
90905002|NCT02886728|181677429|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|13.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|21.8||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24||21.8|5.0|<0.001
90859568|NCT01675427|181582520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G2||||< 0.0001
90859569|NCT01675427|181582520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4423|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G3||||0.4423
90859570|NCT01675427|181582520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3824|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G4||||0.3824
90859571|NCT01675427|181582520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5246|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||Other genotypes||||0.5246
90859572|NCT01675427|181582520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||Total genotypes||||< 0.0001
90859573|NCT01675427|181582521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G1||||< 0.0001
90859574|NCT01675427|181582521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1947|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G2||||0.1947
90859575|NCT01675427|181582521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0226|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G3||||0.0226
90859576|NCT01675427|181582522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1158|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G4||||0.1158
90859577|NCT01675427|181582522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3675|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||Other genotypes||||0.3675
90859578|NCT01675427|181582522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0948|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||Total genotypes||||0.0948
90859579|NCT01675427|181582523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1236|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G1||||0.1236
90859580|NCT01675427|181582523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0119|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G2||||0.0119
90905003|NCT02886728|181677429|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|13.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|21.6||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24||21.6|5.0|<0.001
90859581|NCT01675427|181582523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7472|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G3||||0.7472
90859582|NCT01675427|181582524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9734|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G4||||0.9734
90859583|NCT01675427|181582524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8303|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||Other genotypes||||0.8303
90859584|NCT01675427|181582524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||Total genotypes||||0.0006
90859585|NCT01675427|181582525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0065|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G1||||0.0065
90859586|NCT01675427|181582525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9999|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G2||||0.9999
91103462|NCT01044693|182093809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The main comparisons were between the active treatment groups versus placebo. We hypothesized that if NO-mediated vasodilation contributes to the BP-lowering effect of nebivolol then BP will be lowered by nebivolol and sildenafil, but not by metoprolol in autonomic failure patients.||||>0.05
91103463|NCT01044693|182093810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.607|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||The main comparisons were between the active treatment groups versus placebo.||||0.607
91103464|NCT01044693|182093811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.597|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||The main comparisons were between the active treatment groups versus placebo.||||0.597
91103465|NCT01044693|182093812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.996|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The main comparisons were between the negative chronotropic effect of nebivolol and metoprolol at the time when BP-lowering effects were maximal.||||0.996
91103466|NCT01316900|182093813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.039|0.142|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least squares mean difference=UMEC/VI 62.5/25 µg minus VI 25 µg.|||0.142|0.039|<0.001
91103467|NCT01316900|182093813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.039|0.141||nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least squares mean difference=UMEC/VI 62.5/25 µg minus Tio 18 µg.|||0.141|0.039|<0.001
91103468|NCT01316900|182093813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.088|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.036|0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least squares mean difference=UMEC/VI 125/25 µg minus VI 25 µg.|||0.140|0.036|<0.001
91103469|NCT01316900|182093813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.088|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.036|0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least squares mean difference=UMEC/VI 125/25 µg minus TIO 18 µg.|||0.140|0.036|<0.001
91103470|NCT01703221|182093820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in the least squares means|-0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.63|||Constrained longitudinal analysis|Terms for treatment, prior oral antihyperglycemic agent (AHA), time, time by: treatment, prior AHA therapy status, and treatment by prior AHA status.||||-0.63|-0.96|<0.001
91103471|NCT01703221|182093820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in the least squares means|-0.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.61|||Constrained longitudinal analysis|Terms for treatment, prior AHA therapy status (yes/no), time, and time by: treatment, prior AHA therapy status, and treatment by prior AHA status.||||-0.61|-0.94|<0.001
91103472|NCT01703221|182093820|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Omarigliptin will be considered non-inferior to sitagliptin if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval of the between-treatment difference in least squares means for change from baseline in HbA1c at Week 24 (omarigliptin minus sitagliptin) is not more than 0.3% (non-inferiority margin).|Difference in the least squares means|-0.02||||0.792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.12|||Constrained longitudinal analysis|Terms for treatment, prior AHA therapy status (yes/no), time, and time by: treatment, prior AHA therapy status, and treatment by prior AHA status.||||0.12|-0.15|0.792
91103473|NCT01703221|182093825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in the least squares means|-36.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.46|-25.33|||Constrained longitudinal analysis|Terms for treatment, prior AHA therapy status (yes/no), time, and time by: treatment, prior AHA therapy status, and treatment by prior AHA status.||||-25.33|-48.46|<0.001
90958857|NCT04776148|181797773|OTHER||Difference in LS means|3.36||||0.2271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|8.82||Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction and stratification factor presence of liver metastasis (Yes/No).|cLDA model|||||8.82|-2.10|0.2271
91103474|NCT01703221|182093825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in the least squares means|-39.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.28|-28.23|||Constrained longitudinal analysis|Terms for treatment, prior AHA therapy status (yes/no), time, and time by: treatment, prior AHA therapy status, and treatment by prior AHA status.||||-28.23|-51.28|<0.001
91103475|NCT01703221|182093825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in the least squares means|2.86||||0.555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.67|12.39|||Constrained longitudinal analysis|Terms for treatment, prior AHA therapy status (yes/no), time, and time by: treatment, prior AHA therapy status, and treatment by prior AHA status.||||12.39|-6.67|0.555
91103476|NCT01703221|182093826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in the least squares means|-12.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.78|-6.78|||Constrained longitudinal analysis|Terms for treatment, prior AHA therapy status (yes/no), time, and time by: treatment, prior AHA therapy status, and treatment by prior AHA status.||||-6.78|-17.78|<0.001
91103477|NCT01703221|182093826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in the least squares means|-14.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.04|-8.98|||Constrained longitudinal analysis|Terms for treatment, prior AHA therapy status (yes/no), time, and time by: treatment, prior AHA therapy status, and treatment by prior AHA status.||||-8.98|-20.04|<0.001
91103478|NCT01703221|182093826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in the least squares means|2.23||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.27|6.73|||Constrained longitudinal analysis|Terms for treatment, prior AHA therapy status (yes/no), time, and time by: treatment, prior AHA therapy status, and treatment by prior AHA status.||||6.73|-2.27|0.330
91103479|NCT03061214|182093876|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was concluded if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the estimated difference in HbA1c between semaglutide and sitagliptin was less than 0.3%.|Treatment difference|-0.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The post-baseline responses are analysed using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment and region China/Other as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit. Mean estimates are adjusted according to observed baseline distribution.||-0.70|-1.00|<.0001
91103480|NCT03061214|182093876|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was concluded if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the estimated difference in HbA1c between semaglutide and sitagliptin was less than 0.3%.|Treatment difference|-0.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The post-baseline responses are analysed using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment and region China/Other as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit. Mean estimates are adjusted according to observed baseline distribution.||-0.36|-0.66|<.0001
90958858|NCT04776148|181797774|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-5.46||||0.0264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.27|-0.65||Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction and stratification factor presence of liver metastasis (Yes/No).|cLDA model|||||-0.65|-10.27|0.0264
91103481|NCT03061214|182093876|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the estimated difference in HbA1c between semaglutide and sitagliptin was below 0%.|Treatment difference|-0.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The post-baseline responses are analysed using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment and region China/Other as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit. Mean estimates are adjusted according to observed baseline distribution.||-0.70|-1.00|<.0001
91103482|NCT03061214|182093876|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the estimated difference in HbA1c between semaglutide and sitagliptin was below 0%.|Treatment difference|-0.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The post-baseline responses are analysed using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment and region China/Other as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit. Mean estimates are adjusted according to observed baseline distribution.||-0.36|-0.66|<.0001
91103483|NCT06844812|182093955|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||||<0.001
91103484|NCT06844812|182093956|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.021|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||||0.021
91103485|NCT06844812|182093957|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||||0.003
91103486|NCT06844812|182093958|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91103487|NCT06844812|182093959|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
91103488|NCT02006836|182093961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||H0: GI of pomelo for diabetic patients - GI of pomelo for healthy people = 0 H1: GI of pomelo for diabetic patients - GI of pomelo for healthy people \> 0 α=5%||||0.005
91103489|NCT02006836|182093962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||"H0：∆g after breakfast- ∆g before breakfast = 0 H1：∆g after breakfast- ∆g before breakfast \> 0 α=5%~* g of breasfast without pomelo=mean of 3 days of postprandial blood glucose after breakfast - mean of 3 days of blood glucose before this breakfast.~* g of breasfast with pomelo=mean of 3 days of postprandial blood glucose after breakfast - mean of 3 days of blood glucose before this breakfast."||||>0.05
91103490|NCT02006836|182093963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||"H0：∆g after lunch - ∆g before lunch = 0 H1：∆g after lunch - ∆g before lunch \> 0 α=5%~* g of lunch without pomelo=mean of 3 days of postprandial blood glucose after lunch - mean of 3 days of blood glucose before this lunch.~* g of lunch with pomelo=mean of 3 days of postprandial blood glucose after lunch - mean of 3 days of blood glucose before this lunch."||||>0.05
91103491|NCT02006836|182093964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||"H0：∆g after dinner- ∆g before dinner = 0 H1：∆g after dinner- ∆g before dinner \> 0 α=5%~* g of dinner without pomelo=mean of 3 days of postprandial blood glucose after dinner - mean of 3 days of blood glucose before this dinner.~* g of dinner with pomelo=mean of 3 days of postprandial blood glucose after dinner - mean of 3 days of blood glucose before this dinner."||||>0.05
91103492|NCT02006836|182093965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||H0: AUC||||>0.05
91103493|NCT00600704|182093972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.379|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.096|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.189|0.569|||t-test, 2 sided|||Sample size calculation was based on a two-sided alpha error of .05 and 80% power. After applying the protocol in two equal groups of 10 patients, the analysis showed that the study requires 60 patients per group. However, we decided to enroll up to 100 patients per group to allow for patient attrition or missing data, and also in order to look for differences with regards to transfusion between patient subgroups.||0.569|0.189|<0.05
91103494|NCT00600704|182093972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.797|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.168|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.465|1.129|||Regression, Linear||The mean difference between groups B and A is adjusted for age, gender, BMI and preoperative HCT, while BSA, weight, height, postoperative HCT were not included in the final model to avoid collinearity.|Null hypothesis :restrictive fluid protocol does not have any effect concerning the mean number of PRC units transfused.||1.129|0.465|<0.05
91103495|NCT02683954|182093973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Normality of numerical data distribution was examined by the Shapiro-Wilk. Normally distributed numerical variables were presented as mean±SD and inter-group differences were compared using unpaired t test. Skewed numerical variables were presented as median and interquartile range and between-group differences were compared using Mann-Whitney U test. Ordinal data were compared using the chi-squared test for trend. Correlations among numerical variables were tested by Spearman rank correlation.||||0.05
91103496|NCT01500135|182094025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|3.88||Logistic regression model with treatment, type of surgery (Peripheral Arterial Disease, Arterio Venous Graft) and current use of Clopidogrel or other similar anti-platelet drugs (yes/no) as covariates.|Regression, Logistic|||||3.88|0.68|0.276
90859587|NCT01675427|181582525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3472|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G3||||0.3472
90958859|NCT04776148|181797775|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.4338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.14|||Regression, Cox|Two-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by presence of liver metastasis (Yes/No).||||1.14|0.73|0.4338
90958860|NCT04776148|181797776|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.4316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.38||Two-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by presence of liver metastasis (Yes/No).|Regression, Cox|||||1.38|0.87|0.4316
90958861|NCT04776148|181797777|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.5587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.32|||Regression, Cox|Two-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by presence of liver metastasis (Yes/No).||||1.32|0.85|0.5587
90958862|NCT04776148|181797778|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.6794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.23||Two-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by presence of liver metastasis (Yes/No).|Regression, Cox|||||1.23|0.73|0.6794
91103497|NCT01500135|182094026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.82||Logistic regression model with treatment, type of surgery (Peripheral Arterial Disease, Arterio Venous Graft) and current use of Clopidogrel or other similar anti-platelet drugs (yes/no) as covariates.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.82|0.40|0.684
91103498|NCT01500135|182094027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.8||P-value was adjusted using Hochberg's adjustment for multiplicity.|Proportional Hazard Model|||||1.8|0.7|0.684
91103499|NCT01362530|182094040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by age group, use of dexamethasone as an anti-emetic, and receipt of very high risk emetogenic chemotherapy.||||||<0.01
91103500|NCT01362530|182094041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by age group, use of dexamethasone as an anti-emetic, and receipt of very high risk emetogenic chemotherapy.||||||<0.05
91103501|NCT01362530|182094042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by age group, use of dexamethasone as an anti-emetic, and receipt of very high risk emetogenic chemotherapy.||||||<0.01
91103502|NCT01362530|182094043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by age group, use of dexamethasone as an anti-emetic, and receipt of very high risk emetogenic chemotherapy.||||||<0.01
91032270|NCT00891293|181948916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|3.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|29.01||0.9999||95.0|-2.8|9.4|||ANOVA||Difference Between Percent Change from LOV111859/OM5 Baseline to LOV111860/OM5X End-of-Treatment and Percent Change from LOV111859/OM5 Baseline to LOV111821/OM5XX End-of-Treatment|For the MITT analysis, the method of last observation carried forward (LOCF) was applied. The LOCF is the value of a previous non-baseline visit (post-enrollment) carried forward to the subsequent visit, if missing.||9.4|-2.8|0.9999
91103503|NCT01557569|182094045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.413|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Due to skewed data, Kruskal Wallis Test was used.||||<0.05
91103504|NCT02254460|182094046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||[Treatment difference]|1.74||||0.0944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|3.34|||ANOVA||Treatment difference from ANOVA of log transformed data. Back transformed data are presented. This therefore represents the iron absorption ratio of the Micronutrient Fortified Drink (Test) to the Non-Fortified Drink (Control).|||3.34|0.90|0.0944
91103505|NCT01633112|182094052|SUPERIORITY|For each of the 2 FTY720 doses, the null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the ARRs between subjects treated with FTY720 and those treated with GA versus the alternative hypothesis that there was a difference between the 2 treatment arms. In order to preserve the Type I experiment-wise error rate, the null hypothesis was rejected if the observed p-value for the between-treatment comparison was less than the significance level as specified in the multiplicity adjustment procedure.||||||0.0138|||||||negative binomial regression model|adjusted for treatment, geographical region, number of relapses in the previous year, baseline EDSS, and baseline Gd-enhancing T1 lesion count.||H01: µ FTY 0.5 mg = µ GA versus HA1: µ FTY 0.5 mg ≠µ GA H02: µ FTY 0.25 mg = µ GA versus HA2: µ FTY 0.25 mg ≠µ GA||||0.0138
91103506|NCT01633112|182094052|SUPERIORITY|For each of the 2 FTY720 doses, the null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the ARRs between subjects treated with FTY720 and those treated with GA versus the alternative hypothesis that there was a difference between the 2 treatment arms. In order to preserve the Type I experiment-wise error rate, the null hypothesis was rejected if the observed p-value for the between-treatment comparison was less than the significance level as specified in the multiplicity adjustment procedure.||||||0.4153|||||||negative binomial regression model|adjusted for treatment, geographical region, number of relapses in the previous year, baseline EDSS, and baseline Gd-enhancing T1 lesion count.||H01: µ FTY 0.5 mg = µ GA versus HA1: µ FTY 0.5 mg ≠µ GA H02: µ FTY 0.25 mg = µ GA versus HA2: µ FTY 0.25 mg ≠µ GA||||0.4153
90859588|NCT01675427|181582526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2564|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G4||||0.2564
90958863|NCT04776148|181797779|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.0379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.02|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by presence of liver metastasis (Yes/No).|HR=Lenvatinib + pembrolizumab vs. SOC treatment|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by presence of liver metastasis (Yes/No).||1.02|0.68|0.0379
90958864|NCT04776148|181797780|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.3574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.42|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test.|HR=Lenvatinib + pembrolizumab vs. SOC treatment|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.||1.42|0.60|0.3574
90859589|NCT01675427|181582526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7361|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||Other genotypes||||0.7361
90958865|NCT00757588|181797783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.089|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.24||Significance testing based on hierarchical testing. Primary and secondary endpoints are presented in order of testing.|ANCOVA|Adjusted mean difference for saxagliptin groups vs placebo in Week 24 (LOCF). Adjusted for baseline.|ANCOVA model: difference between week t and baseline values = baseline values + treatment + metformin use|||-0.24|-0.59|<0.0001
91032271|NCT01973348|181948939|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A sample size of 12 subjects per group has been shown to be effective for estimating within-group means and variances when little prior data is available.(Julius, 2005) Based on collected data from 34 subjects and effective size difference of 0.1, we reestimate this study as a noninferiority trial with continuous outcome and power calculated as approximately 80%.||||||0.88|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.88
91103507|NCT01633112|182094053|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||negative binomial regression model|Adjusted for treatment, geog. region, age, baseline T2 lesion count, baseline Gd-enhancing T1 lesion count, and the number of previous year relapses.||||||<0.0001
90859590|NCT01675427|181582526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||Total genotypes||||< 0.0001
91103508|NCT01633112|182094053|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||negative binomial regression model|Adjusted for treatment, geog. region, age, baseline T2 lesion count, baseline Gd-enhancing T1 lesion count, and the number of previous year relapses.||||||<0.0001
91103509|NCT01633112|182094055|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|rank ANCOVA with covariates: adjusted for treatment, age, region, number of relapses experienced in the previous year, and baseline T2 lesion volume.||||||<0.0001
91103510|NCT01633112|182094055|OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||ANCOVA|rank ANCOVA with covariates: adjusted for treatment, age, region, number of relapses experienced in the previous year, and baseline T2 lesion volume.||||||0.0060
91103511|NCT01633112|182094056|OTHER|||||||0.0167|||||||negative binomial regression model|adjusted for treatment, age, geog. region, baseline T2 lesion count, baseline Gd-enhancing T1 lesion count, and the number of previous year relapses .||||||0.0167
91103512|NCT01633112|182094056|OTHER|||||||0.0011|||||||negative binomial regression model|adjusted for treatment, age, geog. region, baseline T2 lesion count, baseline Gd-enhancing T1 lesion count, and the number of previous year relapses.||||||0.0011
91103513|NCT01633112|182094057|OTHER|||||||0.0052|||||||ANCOVA|ranked ANCOVA with covariates: treatment, region, age, baseline Gd-enhancing T1 lesion volume, and number ofrelapses experienced in the previous year.||||||0.0052
91103514|NCT01633112|182094057|OTHER|||||||0.0636|||||||ANCOVA|ranked ANCOVA with covariates: treatment, region, age, baseline Gd-enhancing T1 lesion volume, and number ofrelapses experienced in the previous year.||||||0.0636
91103515|NCT01633112|182094058|OTHER|||||||0.0011||||||adjusted for treatment, region, age, proper baseline T1 lesion variable, baseline Gd-enhancing T1 lesion count and number of previous year relapses.|Regression, Logistic|pair-wise comparisons between treatment groups using a logistic regression model.||||||0.0011
91103516|NCT01633112|182094058|OTHER|||||||0.0146||||||adjusted for treatment, region, age, proper baseline T1 lesion variable, baseline Gd-enhancing T1 lesion count and number of previous year relapses.|Regression, Logistic|pair-wise comparisons between treatment groups using a logistic regression model.||||||0.0146
91103517|NCT01633112|182094059|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Global Satisfaction (Month 6): p-values for within treatment comparison from baseline||||||<0.0001
91103518|NCT01633112|182094059|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Global Satisfaction (Month 6): p-values for within treatment comparison from baseline||||||<0.0001
91103519|NCT01633112|182094059|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Global Satisfaction (Month 6): p-values for within treatment comparison from baseline||||||<0.0001
90859591|NCT01675427|181582527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0097|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G1||||0.0097
91103520|NCT01633112|182094059|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Global Satisfaction (Month 12): p-values for within treatment comparison from baseline||||||<0.0001
91103521|NCT01633112|182094059|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Global Satisfaction (Month 12): p-values for within treatment comparison from baseline||||||<0.0001
91103522|NCT01633112|182094059|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Global Satisfaction (Month 12): p-values for within treatment comparison from baseline||||||<0.0001
91103523|NCT01633112|182094059|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Effectiveness (Month 6): p-values for within treatment comparison from baseline||||||<0.0001
91103524|NCT01633112|182094059|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Effectiveness (Month 6): p-values for within treatment comparison from baseline||||||<0.0001
91103525|NCT01633112|182094059|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Effectiveness (Month 6): p-values for within treatment comparison from baseline||||||<0.0001
90859592|NCT01675427|181582527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G2||||< 0.0001
90859593|NCT01675427|181582527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9778|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G3||||0.9778
90859594|NCT01675427|181582528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0151|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G4||||0.0151
90959037|NCT01620255|181798206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-1.12||||0.0117|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.845|-0.39|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with model terms: treatment group, baseline, status of anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) therapy experience.||PF-00547659 75 mg vs placebo, centrally read change||-0.390|-1.845|0.0117
91103526|NCT01633112|182094059|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Effectiveness (Month 12): p-values for within treatment comparison from baseline||||||<0.0001
91103527|NCT01633112|182094059|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Effectiveness (Month 12): p-values for within treatment comparison from baseline||||||<0.0001
91103528|NCT01633112|182094059|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Effectiveness (Month 12): p-values for within treatment comparison from baseline||||||<0.0001
91103529|NCT01633112|182094059|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Side Effects (Month 6): p-values for within treatment comparison from baseline||||||<0.0001
91103530|NCT01633112|182094059|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Side Effects (Month 6): p-values for within treatment comparison from baseline||||||<0.0001
91103531|NCT01633112|182094059|OTHER|||||||0.0005|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Side Effects (Month 6): p-values for within treatment comparison from baseline||||||0.0005
91103532|NCT01633112|182094059|OTHER||||||<|0.0051|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Side Effects (Month 12): p-values for within treatment comparison from baseline||||||<0.0051
91103533|NCT01633112|182094059|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Side Effects (Month 12): p-values for within treatment comparison from baseline||||||<0.0001
91103534|NCT01633112|182094059|OTHER|||||||0.0051|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Side Effects (Month 12): p-values for within treatment comparison from baseline||||||0.0051
91103535|NCT01633112|182094059|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Convenience (Month 6): p-values for within treatment comparison from baseline||||||<0.0001
91103536|NCT01633112|182094059|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Convenience (Month 6): p-values for within treatment comparison from baseline||||||<0.0001
91103537|NCT01633112|182094059|OTHER|||||||0.0068|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Convenience (Month 6): p-values for within treatment comparison from baseline||||||0.0068
91103538|NCT01633112|182094059|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Convenience (Month 12): p-values for within treatment comparison from baseline||||||<0.0001
91103539|NCT01633112|182094059|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Convenience (Month 12): p-values for within treatment comparison from baseline||||||<0.0001
91103540|NCT01633112|182094059|OTHER|||||||0.4595|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Convenience (Month 12): p-values for within treatment comparison from baseline||||||0.4595
91103541|NCT01633112|182094060|OTHER|||||||0.1045|||||||ANCOVA|rank ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, region, age, the number of relapses experienced in the previous year, and baseline normalized brain volume||||||0.1045
91103542|NCT01633112|182094060|OTHER|||||||0.1358|||||||ANCOVA|rank ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, region, age, the number of relapses experienced in the previous year, and baseline normalized brain volume||||||0.1358
90859595|NCT01675427|181582528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1052|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||Other genotypes||||0.1052
90859596|NCT01675427|181582528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||Total genotypes||||0.0007
90859597|NCT01675427|181582529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G1||||< 0.0001
91032272|NCT00669864|181948993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated mean|-1.303|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.414|-1.192||A significant mean HbA1c decrease was to be declared if H0 is rejected at a significance level of 2.5%.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis (H0): HbA1c after 16 weeks - HbA1c at baseline ≥ 0% against the alternative hypothesis (H1): HbA1c after 16 weeks - HbA1c at baseline \< 0%. If H0 rejected at a significance level of 2.5%, declare a significant mean HbA1c decrease||-1.192|-1.414|<0.0001
90859598|NCT01675427|181582529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G2||||0.0012
90859599|NCT01675427|181582529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1717|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G3||||0.1717
90859600|NCT01675427|181582529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0253|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G4||||0.0253
90905004|NCT02886728|181677430|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.161||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.02||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||0.02|-0.61|0.068
91032273|NCT04448678|181949010|OTHER|||||||0.0401|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0401
91103543|NCT04019704|182094082|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.002
90859601|NCT01675427|181582530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G1||||< 0.0001
90859602|NCT01675427|181582530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G2||||0.0330
90859603|NCT01675427|181582530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1595|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G3||||0.1595
91103544|NCT01550965|182094083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.08|18.73|||paired t-test, 2 sided|||Hypothesis testing for the first ranked primary outcome was performed in a hierarchical order using the two-sided paired t-test for mean change equal to zero.||18.73|16.08|<0.001
91103545|NCT01550965|182094084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1383.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1586.36|-1181.26|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Hypothesis testing for the second ranked primary outcome was performed in a hierarchical order using the two-sided paired t-test for mean change equal to zero.||-1181.26|-1586.36|<0.001
91103546|NCT01550965|182094085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1297.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1562.17|-1033.36|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||||-1033.36|-1562.17|<0.001
91103547|NCT01550965|182094086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4308.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4985.13|-3631.51|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||||-3631.51|-4985.13|<0.001
91103548|NCT01550965|182094087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.83|-4.78|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||||-4.78|-9.83|<0.001
91103549|NCT01550965|182094088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.5|27.25|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM) Effectiveness.||27.25|21.50|<0.001
90859604|NCT01675427|181582530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0412|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G4||||0.0412
90859605|NCT01675427|181582531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three IL28B genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G1||||< 0.0001
90859606|NCT01675427|181582531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0421|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three IL28B genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G2||||0.0421
90859607|NCT01675427|181582531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7658|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three IL28B genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G3||||0.7658
90859608|NCT01675427|181582531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.295|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three IL28B genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G4||||0.2950
90859609|NCT01675427|181582532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three IL28B genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G1||||< 0.0001
90859610|NCT01675427|181582532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0827|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three IL28B genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G2||||0.0827
90859611|NCT01675427|181582532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7817|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three IL28B genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G3||||0.7817
91032274|NCT04448678|181949011|OTHER|||||||0.0049|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0049
90958866|NCT00757588|181797784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3829.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1165.99||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6122.4|-1537.1||Significance testing based on hierarchical testing. Primary and secondary endpoints are presented in order of testing.|ANCOVA|Adjusted mean difference for saxagliptin groups vs placebo in Week 24 (LOCF). Adjusted for baseline.|ANCOVA model: difference between week t and baseline values = baseline values + treatment + metformin use|||-1537.1|-6122.4|0.0011
91032275|NCT04448678|181949012|OTHER|||||||0.297|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.297
91032276|NCT04166032|181949013|OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.210
91103550|NCT01550965|182094088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.42|22.48|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM) Side Effects.||22.48|15.42|<0.001
91103551|NCT01550965|182094088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.89|8.5|||Paired t-test, 2 sided)|||Statistical analysis for Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM) Convenience.||8.50|3.89|<0.001
91032277|NCT01523899|181949070|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.145|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Pearson chi squared, Fisher exact, 2 sample t-tests||||||||
91103552|NCT01550965|182094088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.55|25.64|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM) Global Satisfaction.||25.64|19.55|<0.001
90859612|NCT01675427|181582532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1986|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three IL28B genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G4||||0.1986
90859613|NCT01675427|181582533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G1||||< 0.0001
90859614|NCT01675427|181582533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G2||||0.0002
90859615|NCT01675427|181582533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0394|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G3||||0.0394
90859616|NCT01675427|181582533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0493|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G4||||0.0493
90859617|NCT01675427|181582534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G1||||< 0.0001
90859618|NCT01675427|181582534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0196|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G2||||0.0196
90905005|NCT02886728|181677430|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.195||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.1||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||0.10|-0.67|0.14
90859619|NCT01675427|181582534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3268|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G3||||0.3268
90859620|NCT01675427|181582534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1667|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G4||||0.1667
90859621|NCT01675427|181582535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three ITPA genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G1||||0.0021
90958867|NCT00757588|181797785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.24||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.2|-8.7||Significance testing based on hierarchical testing. Primary and secondary endpoints are presented in order of testing.|ANCOVA|Adjusted mean difference for saxagliptin groups vs placebo in Week 24 (LOCF). Adjusted for baseline.|ANCOVA model: difference between week t and baseline values = baseline values + treatment + metformin use|||-8.7|-37.2|0.0016
91032278|NCT01523899|181949071|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
91103553|NCT01550965|182094089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.42|-4.27|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for overall UC-related outpatient utilization.||-4.27|-5.42|<0.001
91103554|NCT01550965|182094089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.09|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for overall UC-related outpatient utilization during emergency department visits.||0.09|-0.11|0.830
91103555|NCT01550965|182094089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|-0.66|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for overall UC-related outpatient utilization during primary care doctor visits.||-0.66|-1.18|<0.001
90859622|NCT01675427|181582535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5319|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three ITPA genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G2||||0.5319
90859623|NCT01675427|181582535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0114|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three ITPA genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G3||||0.0114
90859624|NCT01675427|181582535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2293|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three ITPA genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G4||||0.2293
90859625|NCT01675427|181582535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2857|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three ITPA genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||Other genotypes||||0.2857
90859626|NCT01675427|181582535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three ITPA genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||Total genotypes||||0.0001
90859627|NCT01675427|181582536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three ITPA genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G1||||0.0081
90859628|NCT01675427|181582536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0563|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three ITPA genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G2||||0.0563
90859629|NCT01675427|181582536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3516|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three ITPA genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G3||||0.3516
90859630|NCT01675427|181582536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three ITPA genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G4||||0.0064
91032279|NCT00824265|181949073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.88|||Log Rank|||||0.88|0.51|0.0032
91032280|NCT00824265|181949074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.1427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.09|||Log Rank|||||1.09|0.59|0.1427
91103556|NCT01550965|182094090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||McNemar|||Statistical analysis for percentage of participants with absence of blood in stool from week 0 to week 26.||||<0.001
91103557|NCT01550965|182094091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.21|12.02|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for mean change in SIBDQ: Total Score from week 0 to week 2.||12.02|10.21|<0.001
91103558|NCT01550965|182094091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.2|16.56|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for mean change in SIBDQ: Total Score from week 0 to week 8.||16.56|14.20|<0.001
91103559|NCT01550965|182094091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.57|15.96|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for mean change in SIBDQ: Total Score from week 0 to week 18. Efficacy assessments were not specified at week 18; missing data at week 18 were imputed using last observation carried forward (LOCF).||15.96|13.57|<0.001
91103560|NCT01550965|182094091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.08|18.73|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for mean change in SIBDQ: Total Score from week 0 to week 26.||18.73|16.08|<0.001
90905006|NCT02886728|181677430|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.199||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.16||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.16|-0.94|0.006
90905007|NCT02886728|181677431|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|4.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||4.0|1.8|<0.001
90905008|NCT02886728|181677431|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.9||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||2.9|0.2|0.021
90905009|NCT02886728|181677431|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|2.2||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||2.2|-0.5|0.24
90905010|NCT02886728|181677432|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.6||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||2.6|-0.0|0.056
90958868|NCT00757588|181797786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.732||0.3958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.32|5.28||Significance testing based on hierarchical testing. Primary and secondary endpoints are presented in order of testing.|ANCOVA|Adjusted mean difference for saxagliptin groups vs placebo in Week 24 (LOCF). Adjusted for baseline.|ANCOVA model: difference between week t and baseline values = baseline values + treatment + metformin use|||5.28|-13.32|0.3958
91032281|NCT00824265|181949075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.37|||Log Rank|||||1.37|0.85|0.4490
91032282|NCT00824265|181949076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.0878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.05|||Log Rank|||||1.05|0.56|0.0878
91032283|NCT00824265|181949077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.87|||Log Rank|||||0.87|0.45|0.0036
91032284|NCT00824265|181949078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Participants in the ITT population|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.1143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.08|||Log Rank|||||1.08|0.55|0.1143
91032285|NCT00824265|181949078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Participants who took anti-cancer therapies|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.0109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.94|||Log Rank|||||0.94|0.48|0.0109
91103561|NCT01550965|182094092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.57|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for mean change in PGA from week 0 to week 2.||-0.57|-0.69|<0.001
91103562|NCT01550965|182094092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|-1.0|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for mean change in PGA from week 0 to week 8.||-1.00|-1.16|<0.001
91103563|NCT01550965|182094092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.77|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for mean change in PGA from week 0 to week 18. Efficacy assessments were not specified at week 18; missing data at week 18 were imputed using LOCF.||-0.77|-0.95|<0.001
91103564|NCT01550965|182094092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|-1.06|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for mean change in PGA from week 0 to week 26.||-1.06|-1.23|<0.001
91103565|NCT01550965|182094093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.46|-2.99|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for mean change in total SCCAI from week 0 to week 2.||-2.99|-3.46|<0.001
91032286|NCT00824265|181949081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0003|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0003
91032287|NCT00824265|181949082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0166|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0166
91032288|NCT01402947|181949141|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|If the 90% Confidence Intervals of the geometric mean ratio are wholly contained within the interval (0.80, 1.25), then the hypothesis of a drug interaction will be rejected.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.013|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.933|1.1|||ANOVA|||||1.100|0.933|
91032289|NCT01402947|181949142|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|If the 90% Confidence Intervals of the geometric mean ratio are wholly contained within the interval (0.80, 1.25), then the hypothesis of a drug interaction will be rejected.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.999|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.893|1.117|||ANOVA|||||1.117|0.893|
91032290|NCT02405195|181949163|OTHER|||||||0.638||||||Bonferroni-Holm adjustment for multiple comparisons was used|ANOVA|||Repeated measures ANOVA throughout measurement period (before, during and after CPB).||||0.638
91103566|NCT01550965|182094093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.37|-3.76|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for mean change in total SCCAI from week 0 to week 8.||-3.76|-4.37|<0.001
90859631|NCT01675427|181582536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2707|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three ITPA genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||Other genotypes||||0.2707
90905011|NCT02886728|181677432|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|3.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||3.0|-0.3|0.10
90905012|NCT02886728|181677432|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|2.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||2.0|-1.3|0.67
90905013|NCT02886728|181677433|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.195|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.27||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, campaign groups, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.27|-1.03|<0.001
90905014|NCT02886728|181677433|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.236||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|-0.16||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, campaign groups, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.16|-1.09|0.008
91032291|NCT02405195|181949164|OTHER|||||||0.972||||||Bonferroni-Holm adjustment for multiple comparisons was used|ANOVA|||Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.972
90859632|NCT01675427|181582536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three ITPA genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||Total genotypes||||< 0.0001
90859633|NCT01675427|181582537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0634|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three ITPA genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G1||||0.0634
91032292|NCT02405195|181949165|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Bonferroni-Holm adjustment for multiple comparisons was used|ANOVA|||Repeated measures ANOVA||||<0.001
91032293|NCT01706926|181949168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.193|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.31|||Repeated measures model|||Analysis reported for change from baseline in DAS28 (CRP) at Day 85. An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including terms for treatment group, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.||-0.31|-1.06|<0.001
91032294|NCT01706926|181949168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.58|||Repeated measures model|||Analysis reported for change from baseline in DAS28 (CRP) at Day 85. An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including terms for treatment group, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.||-0.58|-1.33|<0.001
91032295|NCT01706926|181949168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.193|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.84|||Repeated measures model|||Analysis reported for change from baseline in DAS28 (CRP) at Day 85. An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including terms for treatment group, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.||-0.84|-1.60|<0.001
91103567|NCT01550965|182094093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.36|-2.66|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for mean change in total SCCAI from week 0 to week 18. Efficacy assessments were not specified at week 18; missing data at week 18 were imputed using LOCF.||-2.66|-3.36|<0.001
90859634|NCT01675427|181582537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7176|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three ITPA genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G2||||0.7176
90859635|NCT01675427|181582537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3944|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three ITPA genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G3||||0.3944
90859636|NCT01675427|181582537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.861|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three ITPA genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G4||||0.8610
90958869|NCT00757588|181797788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|-1.1||Significance testing based on hierarchical testing. Primary and secondary endpoints are presented in order of testing.|ANCOVA|Adjusted mean difference for saxagliptin groups vs placebo in Week 24 (LOCF). Adjusted for baseline.|ANCOVA model: difference between week t and baseline values = baseline values + treatment + metformin use|||-1.1|-5.6|
90958870|NCT02563522|181797797|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.7||||0.3455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.37|45.81|||Fisher Exact|No imputation was performed for subjects with missing response data||The statistical hypotheses were H0: Pt = Pc versus Ha: Pt ≠ Pc, where Pt and Pc are the proportions of subjects with a confirmed target would closure by the 4-month follow-up for Active (Engensis) and Control (Placebo) groups, respectively. The hypothesis testing was a two-sided alpha of 0.05||45.81|-12.37|0.3455
90958871|NCT01052103|181797798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.732||95.0||||One-sided p-value.|Type 3 Tests|||Changes from baseline to all post-baseline visits were analyzed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based MMRM. Model terms included fixed class effects for visit, investigative site, treatment, SOC type, baseline positive symptom stratum, and treatment-by-visit interaction as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline measurement and baseline-by-visit interaction.||||0.732
90958872|NCT01052103|181797799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.846||95.0||||One-sided p-value.|Type 3 Tests|||Changes from baseline to all post-baseline visits were analyzed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based MMRM. Model terms included fixed class effects for visit, investigative site, treatment, SOC type, baseline positive symptom stratum, and treatment-by-visit interaction as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline measurement and baseline-by-visit interaction.||||0.846
90958873|NCT01052103|181797800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.201||95.0||||One-sided p-value.|Type 3 Tests|||Changes from baseline to all post-baseline visits were analyzed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based MMRM. Model terms included fixed class effects for visit, investigative site, treatment, SOC type, baseline positive symptom stratum, and treatment-by-visit interaction as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline measurement and baseline-by-visit interaction.||||0.201
90958874|NCT01052103|181797801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.136||95.0||||One-sided p-value.|Type 3 Tests|||Changes from baseline to all post-baseline visits were analyzed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based MMRM. Model terms included fixed class effects for visit, investigative site, treatment, SOC type, baseline positive symptom stratum, and treatment-by-visit interaction as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline measurement and baseline-by-visit interaction.||||0.136
91032296|NCT01706926|181949169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|25.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.5|40.3|||Regression, Logistic||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using a test of treatment difference in proportion of responders using logistic regression with treatment as a factor. Differences greater than zero favored mavrilimumab.|||40.3|11.5|<0.001
90859637|NCT01675427|181582537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4543|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three ITPA genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||Other genotypes||||0.4543
90859638|NCT01675427|181582537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0406|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three ITPA genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||Total genotypes||||0.0406
90859639|NCT01675427|181582538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8234|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three ITPA genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G1||||0.8234
90958875|NCT01052103|181797802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.739||95.0||||One-sided p-value.|Type 3 Sums of Squares|||Changes from baseline to all post-baseline visits were analyzed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based MMRM. Model terms included fixed class effects for visit, investigative site, treatment, SOC type, baseline positive symptom stratum, and treatment-by-visit interaction as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline measurement and baseline-by-visit interaction.||||0.739
90958876|NCT01052103|181797803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.19||95.0|||||Type 3 Sums of Squares|||Changes from baseline to all post-baseline visits were analyzed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based MMRM. Model terms included fixed class effects for visit, investigative site, treatment, SOC type, baseline positive symptom stratum, and treatment-by-visit interaction as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline measurement and baseline-by-visit interaction.||||0.190
90958877|NCT01052103|181797804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.702||95.0|||||Type 3 Sums of Squares|||Changes from baseline to all post-baseline visits were analyzed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based MMRM. Model terms included fixed class effects for visit, investigative site, treatment, SOC type, baseline positive symptom stratum, and treatment-by-visit interaction as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline measurement and baseline-by-visit interaction.||||0.702
91103568|NCT01550965|182094093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.43|-3.72|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for mean change in total SCCAI from week 0 to week 26.||-3.72|-4.43|<0.001
90859640|NCT01675427|181582538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2427|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three ITPA genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G2||||0.2427
90859641|NCT01675427|181582538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4805|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three ITPA genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G3||||0.4805
90859642|NCT01675427|181582538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2901|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three ITPA genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G4||||0.2901
90859643|NCT01675427|181582538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3927|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three ITPA genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||Other genotypes||||0.3927
90859644|NCT01675427|181582538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5769|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three ITPA genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||Total genotypes||||0.5769
91103569|NCT01550965|182094094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.11|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for mean change in total EQ-5D-5L total score from week 0 to week 2.||0.11|0.08|<0.001
91032297|NCT01706926|181949169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|36.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.5|50.5|||Regression, Logistic||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using a test of treatment difference in proportion of responders using logistic regression with treatment as a factor. Differences greater than zero favored mavrilimumab.|||50.5|22.5|<0.001
91032298|NCT01706926|181949169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|48.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.2|62.3|||Regression, Logistic||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using a test of treatment difference in proportion of responders using logistic regression with treatment as a factor. Differences greater than zero favored mavrilimumab.|||62.3|35.2|<0.001
91032299|NCT01706926|181949176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|16.0||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|28.2|||Regression, Logistic||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using a test of treatment difference in proportion of responders using logistic regression with treatment as a factor. Differences greater than zero favored mavrilimumab.|||28.2|3.9|0.013
91032300|NCT01706926|181949176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|13.5||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|25.3|||Regression, Logistic||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using a test of treatment difference in proportion of responders using logistic regression with treatment as a factor. Differences greater than zero favored mavrilimumab.|||25.3|1.8|0.030
90859645|NCT05021081|181582548|OTHER|The least-square means (i.e., adjusted means) of photopic contrast sensitivity at 6 cpd was estimated separately under conditions with glare source and without glare source. This endpoint was not statistically tested, and consequentially statistical interferences was not made.|Least-square Mean Difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.114|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.21|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger method was used for denominator degrees of freedom.|Least-square Mean difference was calculated as With glare minus Without glare|The sample size was chosen based on resources in conjunction, subject matter experts, and any available literature. To help ensure the glare source intensity, a small pilot investigation per the ANSI Z80.12-2007 standard was interpreted to be about 20 subjects to complete Phase 1, which should be sufficient to evaluate the mean photopic contrast sensitivity with and without the glare source.||-0.21|-0.70|
90859646|NCT05021081|181582549|OTHER|The least-square means (i.e., adjusted means) of mesopic contrast sensitivity at 6 cpd was estimated separately under conditions with glare source and without glare source. This endpoint was not statistically tested, and consequentially statistical interferences was not made.|Least-square Mean Difference|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.102|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.36|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger method was used for denominator degrees of freedom.|Least-square Mean difference was calculated as With glare minus Without glare|The sample size was chosen based on resources in conjunction, subject matter experts, and any available literature. To help ensure the glare source intensity, a small pilot investigation per the ANSI Z80.12-2007 standard was interpreted to be about 20 subjects to complete Phase 1, which should be sufficient to evaluate the mean mesopic contrast sensitivity with and without the glare source.||-0.36|-0.81|
90905015|NCT02886728|181677433|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.242||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|-0.19||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, campaign groups, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.19|-1.14|0.006
90905016|NCT02886728|181677434|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|25.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.3|31.7||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2||31.7|19.3|<0.001
90905017|NCT02886728|181677434|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|20.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.8|28.5||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2||28.5|12.8|<0.001
91032301|NCT01706926|181949176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|28.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.2|41.1|||Regression, Logistic||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using a test of treatment difference in proportion of responders using logistic regression with treatment as a factor. Differences greater than zero favored mavrilimumab.|||41.1|15.2|<0.001
90905018|NCT02886728|181677434|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|22.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.1|30.8||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2||30.8|15.1|<0.001
91032302|NCT01706926|181949177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|8.6||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|16.9|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the model of logit (response). p-value estimated from fisher's exact test.|||16.9|0.4|0.079
91032303|NCT01706926|181949177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|6.9||||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|14.6|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the model of logit (response). p-value estimated from fisher's exact test.|||14.6|-0.8|0.133
91032304|NCT01706926|181949177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|10.2||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|18.9|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the model of logit (response). p-value estimated from fisher's exact test.|||18.9|1.5|0.026
91032305|NCT01706926|181949178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean difference|15.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.007||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.96|27.61|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|||27.61|3.96|0.009
91032306|NCT01706926|181949178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|16.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.879||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.42|28.56|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|||28.56|5.42|0.004
90905019|NCT02886728|181677434|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|28.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.1|35.6||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4||35.6|22.1|<0.001
90859647|NCT05021081|181582550|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was declared if the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the mean difference was below 0.|Least-square Mean Difference|0.019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.029|0.068|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger method was used for denominator degrees of freedom.|Least-square Mean difference was calculated as Test minus Control|Given no historical data is available, the sample size was not determined based on any empirical sample size calculation. A power analysis was conducted using a paired sample t-test (exact method) with a 2-sided type I error rate 0.05 to estimate statistical power based on different assumptions. The power analysis showed that the statistical power for testing superiority would be approximately 80% or higher with the effect size of -0.05 (mean difference: Test minus Control).||0.068|-0.029|
90859648|NCT01890746|181582573|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Ratio of geometric means (%)|114.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.5|132.7||||||||132.7|99.5|
90905020|NCT02886728|181677434|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|22.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.6|30.7||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4||30.7|13.6|<0.001
90905021|NCT02886728|181677434|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|19.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.5|27.5||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4||27.5|10.5|<0.001
91103570|NCT01550965|182094094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.15|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for mean change in total EQ-5D-5L total score from week 0 to week 8.||0.15|0.11|<0.001
91103571|NCT01550965|182094094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.14|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for mean change in total EQ-5D-5L total score from week 0 to week 18. Efficacy assessments were not specified at week 18; missing data at week 18 were imputed using LOCF.||0.14|0.10|<0.001
91103572|NCT01550965|182094094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.17|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for mean change in total EQ-5D-5L total score from week 0 to week 26.||0.17|0.12|<0.001
90859649|NCT01890746|181582574|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Ratio of geometric means (%)|105.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.1|114.0||||||||114.0|97.1|
90859650|NCT01890746|181582575|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Ratio of geometric means (%)|92.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.8|110.2||||||||110.2|76.8|
90905022|NCT02886728|181677434|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|17.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.8|23.8||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12||23.8|10.8|<0.001
90905023|NCT02886728|181677434|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|12.6||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|20.7||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12||20.7|4.5|0.002
90905024|NCT02886728|181677434|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|12.1||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|20.1||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12||20.1|4.0|0.002
91103573|NCT01550965|182094095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.07|-5.18|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for mean change in WPAI-SHP: percentage of work time missed from week 0 to week 2.||-5.18|-12.07|<0.001
90859651|NCT01890746|181582576|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Ratio of geometric means (%)|101.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.9|111.7||||||||111.7|92.9|
90859652|NCT01890746|181582577|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Ratio of geometric means (%)|121.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.5|142.8||||||||142.8|102.5|
90859653|NCT01890746|181582578|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Ratio of geometric means (%)|106.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.0|119.4||||||||119.4|95.0|
90859654|NCT01890746|181582579|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Ratio of geometric means (%)|91.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.5|110.0||||||||110.0|76.5|
90859655|NCT01890746|181582580|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Ratio of geometric means (%)|101.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.4|111.2||||||||111.2|92.4|
90905025|NCT02886728|181677434|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|7.2||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|13.5||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36||13.5|0.9|0.016
90905026|NCT02886728|181677434|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|5.2||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|13.0||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36||13.0|-2.7|0.18
90905027|NCT02886728|181677434|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|7.9||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|15.6||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36||15.6|0.3|0.030
90859656|NCT01890746|181582581|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Ratio of geometric means (%)|120.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.7|142.6||||||||142.6|100.7|
90859657|NCT01890746|181582582|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Ratio of geometric means (%)|105.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.6|118.3||||||||118.3|93.6|
90859658|NCT01890746|181582583|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Ratio of geometric means (%)|80.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|57.2|113.0||||||||113.0|57.2|
90859659|NCT01890746|181582584|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Ratio of geometric means (%)|106.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.6|129.0||||||||129.0|87.6|
90859660|NCT01890746|181582585|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Ratio of geometric means (%)|127.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.2|191.9||||||||191.9|84.2|
90859661|NCT01890746|181582586|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Ratio of geometric means (%)|110.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.9|145.7||||||||145.7|83.9|
90859662|NCT01890746|181582587|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Ratio of geometric means (%)|286.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.1|910.7||||||||910.7|90.1|
90859663|NCT01890746|181582588|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Ratio of geometric means (%)|202.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|131.3|311.8||||||||311.8|131.3|
90859664|NCT01890746|181582590|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.7461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|2.48|||Log Rank|||||2.48|0.28|0.7461
90859665|NCT01890746|181582591|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.6175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.63|||Log Rank|||||1.63|0.74|0.6175
91032307|NCT01706926|181949178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|27.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.892|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.87|39.07|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|||39.07|15.87|<0.001
91032308|NCT01706926|181949179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.56|8.8|||Proportional odds analysis||Odds ratio, 95% CI and p-value were was calculated using proportional odds analysis of response model including treatment as a factor. Odds ratios greater than (\>) one favored mavrilimumab.|||8.80|2.56|<0.001
91032309|NCT01706926|181949179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.64|8.92|||Proportional odds analysis||Odds ratio, 95% CI and p-value were was calculated using proportional odds analysis of response model including treatment as a factor. Odds ratios \>one favored mavrilimumab.|||8.92|2.64|<0.001
91032310|NCT01706926|181949179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.85|13.4|||Proportional odds analysis||Odds ratio, 95% CI and p-value were was calculated using proportional odds analysis of response model including treatment as a factor. Odds ratios \>one favored mavrilimumab.|Analysis reported for change from baseline in DAS28 (CRP) at Day 85. An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including terms for treatment group, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.||13.40|3.85|<0.001
91032311|NCT01706926|181949180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|16.0||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|26.1|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using a test of treatment difference in proportion of responders using logistic regression with treatment as a factor. Differences greater than zero favored mavrilimumab.|DAS28 (CRP) remission: p-value estimated from fisher's exact test when number of placebo or active responders was less than 5.||26.1|6.0|0.004
91032312|NCT01706926|181949180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|12.7||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|22.1|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using a test of treatment difference in proportion of responders using logistic regression with treatment as a factor. Differences greater than zero favored mavrilimumab.|DAS28 (CRP) remission: p-value estimated from fisher's exact test when number of placebo or active responders was less than 5.||22.1|3.3|0.014
91032313|NCT01706926|181949180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|14.0||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|23.9|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using a test of treatment difference in proportion of responders using logistic regression with treatment as a factor. Differences greater than zero favored mavrilimumab.|DAS28 (CRP) remission: p-value estimated from fisher's exact test when number of placebo or active responders was less than 5.||23.9|4.2|0.007
91032314|NCT01706926|181949180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|24.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.7|36.6|||Regression, Logistic||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using a test of treatment difference in proportion of responders using logistic regression with treatment as a factor. Differences greater than zero favored mavrilimumab.|The analysis reported DAS28 (CRP) low disease activity response.||36.6|12.7|<0.001
91032315|NCT01706926|181949180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|23.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.5|34.8|||Regression, Logistic||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using a test of treatment difference in proportion of responders using logistic regression with treatment as a factor. Differences greater than zero favored mavrilimumab.|The analysis reported DAS28 (CRP) low disease activity response.||34.8|11.5|<0.001
90959207|NCT02700945|181798343|SUPERIORITY|The 12-month Kaplan-Meier estimate will be reported for each arm. The hazard ratio estimate for the treatment effect with its 95% confidence interval will be reported.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|7.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|21.3||A priori threshold is .05|Log Rank||A hazard ratio of \> 1 indicates that continuous monitoring arm is superior to control arm in detecting AF.|H0: h(t) = hT(t) for t ≤ 12 months HA: hC(t) ≠ hT(t) for t ≤ 12 months where hT(t) and hC(t) are the hazard functions of first detected and adjudicated AF at time t for subjects with and without the Reveal LINQ diagnostics for AF, respectively. Hazard functions and survival functions are transformations of each other.||21.3|2.6|<0.001
90959208|NCT04018092|181798356|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.573||||||Only 2 values, thus not necessary to adjust.|Regression, Linear|The independent variable = intervention (active, sham); Covariates=baseline scores, site (Florida, Arizona), age (yrs), sex (m,f), and education (yrs)||linear regression was used to analyze pre-post intervention changes in the active vs sham group. Covariates in regression were baseline cognitive performance, site (University of Florida, University of Arizona), age (yrs), sex (F, M) and education (years)||||0.573
90959209|NCT04018092|181798357|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.043||||||Default Mode Network Analysis: Regression was performed using permutation tests with 5000 iterations for significance and to address multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Covariates: Baseline network segregation values, Age, Sex, Education years, study site Baseline white matter hyperintensity volume. DOF = (1, 135)||||||0.043
90959210|NCT04018092|181798357|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.285||||||Frontoparietal Control Network Analysis: Regression was performed using permutation tests with 5000 iterations for significance and to address multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Covariates: Baseline network segregation values, age, sex, education years, study site and baseline white matter hyperintensity volume. DOF = (1, 135)||||||0.285
90959211|NCT04218084|181798358|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis|Difference in LS mean|-7.73||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.03|-2.42|||Mixed Models for Repeated Measures|||Week 24||-2.42|-13.03|0.0043
90959212|NCT01205152|181798380|OTHER|||||||0.002||||||Two-sided with p-value threshold \<0.05 for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Change is relative to Baseline in Study ENB-002-08 (NCT00744042). The RGI-C score represents evaluation of skeletal X-rays at each post-treatment study timepoint compared with pre-treatment X-rays from Study ENB-002-08 using an ordinal scale. Therefore, an RGI-C score is not applicable for radiographs obtained at Baseline.||||0.0020
90959213|NCT02783768|181798386|OTHER|Testing for difference in the outcome measure according to the exposure (which was not a treatment) in a randomized crossover setting.|Mean Difference (Net)|13.98||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.012|23.94|||Mixed Models Analysis||Measurements were included for participants with at least one valid MRI measurement.|"Within-person effects of e-cigarette exposure on pulmonary microvascular blood flow (PMBF) was assessed via mixed models accounting for order effects.~Null hypothesis: e-cigarette exposure is NOT associated with a change in PMBF.~Alternative hypothesis: e-cigarette exposure IS associated with a change in PMBF.~Power calculation: not applicable since this was a pilot/feasibility study."||23.94|4.012|0.012
90959214|NCT01037244|181798412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square (LS) Means|5.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.36|6.73|||ANCOVA|Baseline Domain Score and pooled sites as covariates.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||6.73|3.36|<0.0001
90959215|NCT01037244|181798412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|7.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.49|8.86|||ANCOVA|Baseline domain score and pooled sites as covariates.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||8.86|5.49|<0.0001
90959216|NCT01037244|181798412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|7.95|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.27|9.63|||ANCOVA|Baseline domain score and pooled sites as covariates.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||9.63|6.27|<0.0001
90959217|NCT01037244|181798413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|18.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.72|25.48|||ANCOVA|"P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with proportion of yes responses during the baseline period and pooled site as covariates."||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||25.48|11.72|<0.0001
90959218|NCT01037244|181798413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|29.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.13|35.9|||ANCOVA|"P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with proportion of yes responses during the baseline period and pooled site as covariates."||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||35.90|22.13|<0.0001
90970886|NCT01877187|181823881|OTHER|||||||0.06||||||Statistical significance defined as p \<= 0.05. Data for 30 day timepoint.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Sample size of 60 achieves 80% power to detect a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.35 with a two-sided significant level of 0.05. Sample size of 30 will allow for detecting a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.49 in each subgroup.||||0.06
90859921|NCT00631696|181583159|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|A non-inferiority margin of 20% was used to test the hypothesis. The null hypothesis is that the difference (PGB - PBO) in the proportion of participants with ≥50% reduction in sperm concentration is ≥20% and the alternative hypothesis is that the difference in proportion of participant with ≥50% reduction in sperm concentration is \<20%.|percentage difference|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|14.3|||Confidence Interval Approach||The confidence interval was based on asymptotic normal distribution.|Study powered to show non-inferiority (NI) of pregabalin (PGB) to placebo (PBO) on the percentage of participants (N) with a ≥50% reduction in MSC from Bsl to end of washout (Week (Wk) 26, or last assessment on or after Wk 12 if Wk 26 not done). NI to be declared if upper bound of 95% CI for difference between PGB and PBO not \>20%. Assuming proportion of N with 50% reduction to be 6% for both groups, sample size N=65 per group would provide \>90% power to show NI of PGB to PBO.||14.30|-2.29|
90859922|NCT00631696|181583160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.12||||0.3462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.385|0.136||p-value from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and center as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean (LS Mean) and 95% CI from ANCOVA with treatment and center as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model. LS Mean Difference calculated as (Pregabalin - Placebo).|||0.136|-0.385|0.3462
90859923|NCT00631696|181583161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.13||||0.3652|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.156||p-value from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and center as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean (LS Mean) and 95% CI from ANCOVA with treatment and center as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model. LS Mean Difference calculated as (Pregabalin - Placebo).|||0.156|-0.420|0.3652
90859924|NCT00631696|181583162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.1204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.464|0.054||p-value from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and center as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean (LS Mean) and 95% CI from ANCOVA with treatment and center as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model. LS Mean Difference calculated as (Pregabalin - Placebo).|||0.054|-0.464|0.1204
90905122|NCT02886728|181677440|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|-2.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-2.0|-10.0|0.001
90959219|NCT01037244|181798413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|31.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.68|38.34|||ANCOVA|"P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with proportion of yes responses during the baseline period and pooled site as covariates."||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||38.34|24.68|<0.0001
91035940|NCT03261167|181958553|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.46|||||Week 4, Wrist flexion. Analysis method was MMRM with Treatment, Visit, Treatment by visit interation, Baseline, and Baseline by visit interaction as fixed effects.|||0.46|-0.25|
90859925|NCT00631696|181583163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|24.65||||0.2875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.999|70.302||p-value from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and center as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean (LS Mean) and 95% CI from ANCOVA with treatment and center as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model. LS Mean Difference calculated as (Pregabalin - Placebo).|||70.302|-20.999|0.2875
90859926|NCT00631696|181583164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|32.93||||0.1699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.292|80.158||p-value from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and center as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean (LS Mean) and 95% CI from ANCOVA with treatment and center as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model. LS Mean Difference calculated as (Pregabalin - Placebo).|||80.158|-14.292|0.1699
90859927|NCT00631696|181583165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-6.12||||0.7958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.804|40.558||p-value from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and center as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean (LS Mean) and 95% CI from ANCOVA with treatment and center as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model. LS Mean Difference calculated as (Pregabalin - Placebo).|||40.558|-52.804|0.7958
90859928|NCT00631696|181583166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.08||||0.4094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.645|1.494||p-value from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and center as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean (LS Mean) and 95% CI from ANCOVA with treatment and center as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model. LS Mean Difference calculated as (Pregabalin - Placebo).|||1.494|-3.645|0.4094
90859929|NCT00631696|181583167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.15||||0.9064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.649|2.352||p-value from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and center as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean (LS Mean) and 95% CI from ANCOVA with treatment and center as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model. LS Mean Difference calculated as (Pregabalin - Placebo).|||2.352|-2.649|0.9064
90859930|NCT00631696|181583168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.86||||0.4666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.207|1.477||p-value from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and center as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean (LS Mean) and 95% CI from ANCOVA with treatment and center as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model. LS Mean Difference calculated as (Pregabalin - Placebo).|||1.477|-3.207|0.4666
90859931|NCT01439568|181583174|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0608||||0.8072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6598|1.7055|||Logrank Test|||||1.7055|0.6598|0.8072
90859932|NCT02607930|181583178|NON_INFERIORITY|A sample of approximately 600 participants randomized 1:1 achieves at least 95% power using a non-inferiority margin of 12% assuming a response rate in both groups of 91% (Reference Genvoya studies) and a one-sided alpha level of 0.025.|Difference in Percentages|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.002|-4.8|3.6|||||Differences in percentages of participants between groups and their 95.002% CIs were calculated based on Mantel-Haenszel (MH) proportions adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL) and region stratum (US vs. Ex-US).|||3.6|-4.8|
90859933|NCT02607930|181583178|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p-value was calculated from CMH test stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL) and region stratum (US vs. Ex-US).||||||0.78
90859934|NCT02607930|181583179|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|3.1|||||Differences in percentages of participants between groups and their 95% CIs were calculated based on Mantel-Haenszel (MH) proportions adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL) and region stratum (US vs. Ex-US).|||3.1|-6.9|
90859935|NCT02607930|181583179|OTHER|||||||0.45|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p-value was calculated from CMH test stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL) and region stratum (US vs. Ex-US).||||||0.45
90859936|NCT02607930|181583180|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|3.4|||||Differences in percentages of participants between groups and their 95% CIs were calculated based on MH proportions adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL) and region stratum (US vs. Ex-US).|||3.4|-8.5|
90905123|NCT02886728|181677440|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|-4.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-4.0|-11.0|<0.001
90905124|NCT02886728|181677440|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-12.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|-9.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-9.0|-15.0|<0.001
91104642|NCT01539525|182095321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.078|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.118|-0.038|||Generalized Estimating Equation|adjusted for stratifying variables- primary substance and pregnancy status|Parameter estimated is the linear effect of time (in months)|Differences in days/month of primary substance use over time between treatment groups were examined using generalized estimating equations (GEE). We specified a negative binomial distribution to account for overdispersion in days/month of primary substance use, a log link function, and a first-order autoregressive working correlation structure. β coefficients were estimated using quasi-likelihood estimation methods and sandwich/empirical standard errors were calculated.||-0.038|-0.118|<0.001
90859937|NCT02607930|181583180|OTHER|||||||0.39|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p-value was calculated from CMH test stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL) and region stratum (US vs. Ex-US).||||||0.39
90859938|NCT02607930|181583181|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|5.6|||||The differences in percentages of participants between treatment groups and their 95% CIs were calculated based on the MH proportions adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL) and region stratum (US vs. Ex-US).|||5.6|-4.8|
90859939|NCT02607930|181583181|OTHER|||||||0.87|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p-value was calculated from CMH test stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL) and region stratum (US vs. Ex-US).||||||0.87
90859940|NCT02607930|181583182|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|4.6|||||The differences in percentages of participants between treatment groups and their 95% CIs were calculated based on the MH proportions adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL) and region stratum (US vs. Ex-US).|||4.6|-6.9|
90859941|NCT02607930|181583182|OTHER|||||||0.69|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p-value was calculated from CMH test stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL) and region stratum (US vs. Ex-US).||||||0.69
90859942|NCT02607930|181583183|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|2.1|||||The differences in percentages of participants between treatment groups and their 95% CIs were calculated based on the MH proportions adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL) and region stratum (US vs. Ex-US).|||2.1|-10.5|
90859943|NCT02607930|181583183|OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p-value was calculated from CMH test stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL) and region stratum (US vs. Ex-US).||||||0.19
90859944|NCT02607930|181583184|OTHER||Difference in LSM|-0.03||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.06|||ANOVA|p-value was adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum and region stratum.|Difference in least-squares mean (LSM), and its 95% confidence interval (CI) were adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum and region stratum.|||0.06|-0.12|0.48
90859945|NCT02607930|181583185|OTHER||Difference in LSM|0.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.09|||ANOVA||Difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum and region stratum.|||0.09|-0.09|0.99
90859946|NCT02607930|181583186|OTHER||Difference in LSM|0.01||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.1|||ANOVA||Difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum and region stratum.|||0.10|-0.08|0.88
90859947|NCT02607930|181583187|OTHER||Difference in LSM|6.0||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.0|36.0|||ANOVA|P-value was adjusted by the baseline HIV-1 RNA and region stratum.|Difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were adjusted by the baseline HIV-1 RNA and region stratum.|||36|-24|0.69
90859948|NCT02607930|181583188|OTHER||Difference in LSM|-1.0||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.0|36.0|||ANOVA|P-value was adjusted by the baseline HIV-1 RNA and region stratum.|Difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were adjusted by the baseline HIV-1 RNA and region stratum.|||36|-39|0.94
90859949|NCT02607930|181583189|OTHER||Difference in LSM|-20.0||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.0|18.0|||ANOVA|p-value was adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum and region stratum.|Difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum and region stratum.|||18|-59|0.30
90859950|NCT02607930|181583190|OTHER||Difference in LSM|0.346||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.057|0.748|||ANOVA|||||0.748|-0.057|0.092
90859951|NCT02607930|181583191|OTHER||Difference in LSM|0.135||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.356|0.625|||ANOVA|||||0.625|-0.356|0.59
90859952|NCT02607930|181583192|OTHER||Difference in LSM|0.271||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.351|0.893|||ANOVA|||||0.893|-0.351|0.39
90859953|NCT02607930|181583193|OTHER||Difference in LSM|-0.221||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.741|0.3|||ANOVA|||||0.300|-0.741|0.41
90859954|NCT02607930|181583194|OTHER||Difference in LSM|-0.485||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.126|0.155|||ANOVA|||||0.155|-1.126|0.14
90859955|NCT02607930|181583195|OTHER||Difference in LSM|-0.406||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.119|0.307|||ANOVA|||||0.307|-1.119|0.26
91104643|NCT01539525|182095321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.003||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0004|0.011|||Generalized Estimating Equation|adjusted for stratifying variables- primary substance and pregnancy status|Parameter estimated is the quadratic effect of time (in months)|Differences in days/month of primary substance use over time between treatment groups were examined using generalized estimating equations (GEE). We specified a negative binomial distribution to account for overdispersion in days/month of primary substance use, a log link function, and a first-order autoregressive working correlation structure. β coefficients were estimated using quasi-likelihood estimation methods and sandwich/empirical standard errors were calculated.||0.011|-0.0004|0.066
90859956|NCT03198078|181583221|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-5.33||||0.0136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.55|-1.1||P-value was analyzed by MMRM method with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline visit interaction as a covariate, and with an unstructured covariance.|MMRM|||||-1.10|-9.55|0.0136
90859957|NCT03198078|181583221|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-6.53||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|-2.21||P-value was analyzed by MMRM method with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline visit interaction as a covariate, and with an unstructured covariance.|MMRM|||||-2.21|-10.8|0.0032
90859958|NCT03198078|181583222|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.44||||0.0205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.65|-0.22||P-value was analyzed by MMRM method with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline visit interaction as a covariate, and with an unstructured covariance.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline to Week 6 in PANSS Positive Sub-scale Score||-0.22|-2.65|0.0205
90859959|NCT03198078|181583222|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.15||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-0.91||P-value was analyzed by MMRM method with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline visit interaction as a covariate, and with an unstructured covariance.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline to Week 6 in PANSS Positive Sub-scale Score||-0.91|-3.40|0.0008
90859960|NCT03198078|181583222|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.88||||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|0.28||P-value was analyzed by MMRM method with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline visit interaction as a covariate, and with an unstructured covariance.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline to Week 6 in PANSS Negative Sub-scale Score||0.28|-2.04|0.1360
90859961|NCT03198078|181583222|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.95||||0.1158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.14|0.24||P-value was analyzed by MMRM method with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline visit interaction as a covariate, and with an unstructured covariance.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline to Week 6 in PANSS Negative Sub-scale Score||0.24|-2.14|0.1158
91035841|NCT02115347|181958259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Test/Reference) of Adjusted Means|95.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|72.4|126.79|||||ANOVA model with hepatic function group as a fixed effect, ratios (and 90% confidence intervals \[CIs\]) were expressed as percentages, Moderate Hepatic Impairment (Test), Normal Hepatic Function (Reference).|||126.79|72.40|
90859962|NCT03198078|181583223|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|1.55||||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|2.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was analyzed by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) general association test controlling for (pooled) centers.||||2.20|1.09|0.0111
90859963|NCT03198078|181583223|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|1.51||||0.0224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.16|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was analyzed by CMH general association test controlling for (pooled) centers.||||2.16|1.06|0.0224
90859964|NCT03198078|181583224|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Remission Rate|1.18||||0.4415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.81|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was analyzed by CMH general association test controlling for (pooled) centers.||||1.81|0.77|0.4415
90859965|NCT03198078|181583224|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Remission Rate|1.48||||0.0472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|2.16|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was analyzed by CMH general association test controlling for (pooled) centers.||||2.16|1.01|0.0472
90859966|NCT03198078|181583225|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.48||||0.0854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|5.31||P-value was analyzed by MMRM method with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline visit interaction as a covariate, and with an unstructured covariance.|MMRM|||||5.31|-0.35|0.0854
90859967|NCT03198078|181583225|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.99||||0.0072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|6.88||P-value was analyzed by MMRM method with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline visit interaction as a covariate, and with an unstructured covariance.|MMRM|||||6.88|1.09|0.0072
90859968|NCT03198078|181583226|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.11||||0.3589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.13||P-value was analyzed by MMRM method with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline visit interaction as a covariate, and with an unstructured covariance.|MMRM|||||0.13|-0.36|0.3589
90859969|NCT03198078|181583226|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2||||0.1118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.05||P-value was analyzed by MMRM method with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline visit interaction as a covariate, and with an unstructured covariance.|MMRM|||||0.05|-0.45|0.1118
90859970|NCT03198078|181583227|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29||||0.0287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.03|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was analyzed by CMH row mean scores differ test controlling for study center.||||-0.03|-0.56|0.0287
90859971|NCT03198078|181583227|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0.0184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was analyzed by CMH row mean scores differ test controlling for study center.||||-0.06|-0.62|0.0184
90859972|NCT03198078|181583238|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.39|||||LS mean difference was analyzed by ANCOVA model, with treatment and study center as main effects and baseline value as covariate.|||0.39|-0.24|
90859973|NCT03198078|181583238|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.51|||||LS mean difference was analyzed by ANCOVA model, with treatment and study center as main effects and baseline value as covariate.|||0.51|-0.14|
90859974|NCT03198078|181583239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.18|||||LS mean difference was analyzed by ANCOVA model, with treatment and study center as main effects and baseline value as covariate.|||0.18|-0.30|
90859975|NCT03198078|181583239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.36|||||LS mean difference was analyzed by ANCOVA model, with treatment and study center as main effects and baseline value as covariate.|||0.36|-0.13|
90859976|NCT03198078|181583240|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.09|||||LS mean difference was analyzed by ANCOVA model, with treatment and study center as main effects and baseline value as covariate.|||0.09|-0.08|
90905125|NCT02886728|181677440|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|-1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.0|-9.0|0.009
90959220|NCT01037244|181798414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Armitage test|||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||||<0.0001
90905126|NCT02886728|181677440|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|-2.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-2.0|-10.0|0.003
90905127|NCT02886728|181677440|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|-6.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-6.0|-13.0|<0.001
90859977|NCT03198078|181583240|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.14|||||LS mean difference was analyzed by ANCOVA model, with treatment and study center as main effects and baseline value as covariate.|||0.14|-0.04|
90859978|NCT01050543|181583251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|9.6|||ANOVA|||To evaluate the efficacy of sugammadex compared to the efficacy of neostigmine, the ratio of the geometric means of time to recovery of the T4/T1 ratio to 0.9 was calculated using a 2-way ANOVA model adjusted for trial site.||9.6|6.8|<0.0001
90859979|NCT00749515|181583307|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
90859980|NCT00749515|181583308|OTHER|||||||0.275|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.275
90859981|NCT00749515|181583309|OTHER|||||||0.178|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.178
90859982|NCT00749515|181583310|OTHER|||||||0.062|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.062
90859983|NCT00749515|181583311|OTHER|||||||0.104|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.104
90859984|NCT01950169|181583328|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||ANCOVA|Covariates used were age, sex, total mass, and baseline BMD. Data were reported using complete-cases analysis and intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis.||||||0.05
90859985|NCT01950169|181583329|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||ANCOVA|Covariates used were age, sex, total mass, and baseline BMD. Data were reported using complete-cases analysis and intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis.||||||0.05
90859986|NCT01950169|181583330|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||ANCOVA|The analyses included exposure measures treatment groups and sex as fixed factors. Age and baseline values for FFMI, FMI were included as covariates.||||||0.05
90859987|NCT00178633|181583368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<.0001
90859988|NCT02907268|181583394|EQUIVALENCE|"Each variable compared with the no change score. The no change score is 0 for wrinkles-related variables."|||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
90859989|NCT02907268|181583395|EQUIVALENCE|"Each variable compared with the no change score. The no change score is 0 for wrinkles-related variables."|||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
90859990|NCT02907268|181583396|EQUIVALENCE|"Each variable compared with the no change score. The no change score is 0 for wrinkles-related variables."|||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
90859991|NCT01484132|181583397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||One sample t-test was used to test whether the mean change from baseline to 6 months was different from 0.||||0.58
90859992|NCT01484132|181583397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.061||||0.406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.206|0.084||P-value is to test the association between composite exposure on all surfaces and change in BPA from baseline to 6 months after adjusting for covariates.|Regression, Linear|Composite exposure on all surfaces was used as the main predictor and baseline BPA, season, household income, and canned food were used as covariates.||To see the association between composite exposure on all surfaces and change in BPA from baseline to 6 months, the linear model was used with the change in BPA outcome. Log-transformed BPA was used for the analysis. Composite exposure on all surfaces was used as the main predictor.||0.084|-0.206|0.406
90859993|NCT01484132|181583397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.017||||0.693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.101|0.067||P-value is to test the longitudinal association between composite exposure on all surfaces and change in BPA after adjusting for covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Composite exposure on all surfaces was used as the main predictor and baseline BPA, season, household income, and canned food were used as covariates.||To see the longitudinal association between composite exposure on all surfaces and change in BPA from baseline, the repeated measure model was used with all available follow-up BPA data. Log-transformed BPA was used for the analysis. Composite exposure on all surfaces was used as the main predictor.||0.067|-0.101|0.693
90859994|NCT01484132|181583397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.123||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.296|0.05||P-value is to test the association between composite exposure on posterior occlusal surfaces and change in BPA from baseline to 6 months after adjusting for covariates.|Regression, Linear|Baseline BPA, season, household income, and canned food were used as covariates.||To see the association between composite exposure on posterior occlusal surfaces and change in BPA from baseline to 6 months, the linear model was used with the change in BPA outcome. Log-transformed BPA was used for the analysis. Composite exposure on posterior occlusal surfaces was used as the main predictor.||0.050|-0.296|0.160
90859995|NCT01484132|181583397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.029||||0.574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.131|0.073||P-value is to test the longitudinal association between composite exposure on posterior occlusal surfaces and change in BPA after adjusting for covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline BPA, season, household income, and canned food were used as covariates.||To see the longitudinal association between composite exposure on posterior occlusal surfaces and change in BPA from baseline, the repeated measure model was used with all available follow-up BPA data. Log-transformed BPA was used for the analysis. Composite exposure on posterior occlusal surfaces was used as the main predictor.||0.073|-0.131|0.574
90859996|NCT01484132|181583398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||One sample t-test was used to test whether the mean change from baseline was different from 0.||||0.11
90859997|NCT01484132|181583398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.299||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.105|0.494||P-value is to test the association between composite exposure on all surfaces and change in BPA from baseline to 1 day after the first treatment after adjusting for covariates.|Regression, Linear|Composite exposure on all surfaces was used as the main predictor and baseline BPA, season, household income, and canned food were used as covariates.||To see the association between composite exposure on all surfaces and change in BPA from baseline to 1 day after the first treatment, the linear model was used with the change in BPA outcome. Log-transformed BPA was used for the analysis. Composite exposure on all surfaces was used as the main predictor.||0.494|0.105|0.003
90859998|NCT01484132|181583398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.365||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.145|0.585||P-value is to test the association between composite exposure on posterior occlusal surfaces and change in BPA from baseline to 1 day after the first treatment after adjusting for covariates.|Regression, Linear|Baseline BPA, season, household income, and canned food were used as covariates.||To see the association between composite exposure on posterior occlusal surfaces and change in BPA from baseline to 1 day after the first treatment, the linear model was used with the change in BPA outcome. Log-transformed BPA was used for the analysis. Composite exposure on posterior occlusal surfaces was used as the main predictor.||0.585|0.145|0.002
90859999|NCT01484132|181583399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||One sample t-test was used to test whether the mean change from baseline was different from 0.||||0.27
90860000|NCT01484132|181583399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.068||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.258|0.123||P-value is to test the association between composite exposure on all surfaces and change in BPA from baseline to 14 days after the first treatment after adjusting for covariates.|Regression, Linear|Baseline BPA, season, household income, and canned food were used as covariates.||To see the association between composite exposure on all surfaces and change in BPA from baseline to 14 days after the first treatment, the linear model was used with the change in BPA outcome. Log-transformed BPA was used for the analysis. Composite exposure on all surfaces was used as the main predictor.||0.123|-0.258|0.480
90905128|NCT02886728|181677440|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||1.0|-7.0|0.11
90905129|NCT02886728|181677440|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|0.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||0.0|-8.0|0.066
90905130|NCT02886728|181677440|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|-4.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-4.0|-11.0|<0.001
90905131|NCT02886728|181677440|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|2.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||2.0|-6.0|0.40
90905132|NCT02886728|181677440|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|2.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||2.0|-6.0|0.24
90905133|NCT02886728|181677440|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|-5.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-5.0|-12.0|<0.001
91104644|NCT01539525|182095321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.078|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.151|-0.004||P-value adjusted for multiple comparisons using Holm's step-down multiple testing procedure. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Generalized Estimating Equation|adjusted for stratifying variables- primary substance and pregnancy status|Estimated parameter is treatment x linear time interaction term coefficient- Motivational Interview- Nurse vs. Treatment as Usual|Differences in days/month of primary substance use over time between treatment groups were examined using generalized estimating equations (GEE). We specified a negative binomial distribution to account for overdispersion in days/month of primary substance use, a log link function, and a first-order autoregressive working correlation structure. β coefficients were estimated using quasi-likelihood estimation methods and sandwich/empirical standard errors were calculated.||-0.004|-0.151|0.038
91104645|NCT01539525|182095321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.157|-0.023||P-value adjusted for multiple comparisons using Holm's step-down multiple testing procedure. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.025|Generalized Estimating Equation|adjusted for stratifying variables- primary substance and pregnancy status|Estimated parameter is treatment x linear time interaction term coefficient- Motivational Interview- Computer vs. Treatment as Usual|Differences in days/month of primary substance use over time between treatment groups were examined using generalized estimating equations (GEE). We specified a negative binomial distribution to account for overdispersion in days/month of primary substance use, a log link function, and a first-order autoregressive working correlation structure. β coefficients were estimated using quasi-likelihood estimation methods and sandwich/empirical standard errors were calculated.||-0.023|-0.157|0.008
91104646|NCT01539525|182095321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.005||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.022||P-value adjusted for multiple comparisons using Holm's step-down multiple testing procedure. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Generalized Estimating Equation|adjusted for stratifying variables- primary substance and pregnancy status|Estimated parameter is treatment x quadratic time interaction term coefficient- Motivational Interview- Nurse vs. Treatment as Usual|Differences in days/month of primary substance use over time between treatment groups were examined using generalized estimating equations (GEE). We specified a negative binomial distribution to account for overdispersion in days/month of primary substance use, a log link function, and a first-order autoregressive working correlation structure. β coefficients were estimated using quasi-likelihood estimation methods and sandwich/empirical standard errors were calculated.||0.022|0.001|0.031
90905134|NCT02886728|181677440|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||1.0|-7.0|0.17
90905135|NCT02886728|181677440|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|-1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.0|-10.0|0.008
91104647|NCT01539525|182095321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0005||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.002|0.021||P-value adjusted for multiple comparisons using Holm's step-down multiple testing procedure. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.025.|Generalized Estimating Equation|adjusted for stratifying variables- primary substance and pregnancy status|Estimated parameter is treatment x quadratic time interaction term coefficient- Motivational Interview- Computer vs. Treatment as Usual|Differences in days/month of primary substance use over time between treatment groups were examined using generalized estimating equations (GEE). We specified a negative binomial distribution to account for overdispersion in days/month of primary substance use, a log link function, and a first-order autoregressive working correlation structure. β coefficients were estimated using quasi-likelihood estimation methods and sandwich/empirical standard errors were calculated.||0.021|0.002|0.010
91104648|NCT01539525|182095322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.931||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.559|1.551|||Regression, Logistic|adjusted for stratifying variables- primary substance and pregnancy status|Estimated odds ratio is for Motivational Interview- Nurse vs. Treatment as Usual|||1.551|0.559|0.810
91104649|NCT01539525|182095322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.968||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.579|1.617|||Regression, Logistic|adjusted for stratifying variables- primary substance and pregnancy status|Estimated odds ratio is for Motivational Interview- Computer vs. Treatment as Usual|||1.617|0.579|0.990
90905136|NCT02886728|181677441|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|-6.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-6.0|-12.0|<0.001
90860001|NCT01484132|181583399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.074||||0.501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.293|0.145||P-value is to test the association between composite exposure on posterior occlusal surfaces and change in BPA from baseline to 14 days after the first treatment after adjusting for covariates.|Regression, Linear|Baseline BPA, season, household income, and canned food were used as covariates.||To see the association between composite exposure on posterior occlusal surfaces and change in BPA from baseline to 14 days after the first treatment, the linear model was used with the change in BPA outcome. Log-transformed BPA was used for the analysis. Composite exposure on posterior occlusal surfaces was used as the main predictor.||0.145|-0.293|0.501
91104650|NCT01539525|182095323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.258||||0.465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.409|3.871|||Regression, Logistic|adjusted for stratifying variables- primary drug and pregnancy status|odds ratio estimate is for Motivational Interview- Nurse vs. Treatment as Usual|||3.871|0.409|0.465
90860002|NCT01484132|181583400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||One sample t-test was used to test whether the mean change from baseline was different from 0.||||0.41
90860003|NCT01484132|181583400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.082||||0.612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.418|0.254||P-value is to test the association between composite exposure on all surfaces and change in BPA from baseline to 1 day after the second treatment after adjusting for covariates.|Regression, Linear|Composite exposure on all surfaces was used as the main predictor and baseline BPA, season, household income, and canned food were used as covariates.||To see the association between composite exposure on all surfaces and change in BPA from baseline to 1 day after the second treatment, the linear model was used with the change in BPA outcome. Log-transformed BPA was used for the analysis. Composite exposure on all surfaces was used as the main predictor.||0.254|-0.418|0.612
90860004|NCT01484132|181583400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.078||||0.696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.339|0.495||P-value is to test the association between composite exposure on posterior occlusal surfaces and change in BPA from baseline to 1 day after the second treatment after adjusting for covariates.|Regression, Linear|Baseline BPA, season, household income, and canned food were used as covariates.||To see the association between composite exposure on posterior occlusal surfaces and change in BPA from baseline to 1 day after the second treatment, the linear model was used with the change in BPA outcome. Log-transformed BPA was used for the analysis. Composite exposure on posterior occlusal surfaces was used as the main predictor.||0.495|-0.339|0.696
90860005|NCT01484132|181583401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||One sample t-test was used to test whether the mean change from baseline was different from 0.||||0.76
90860006|NCT01484132|181583401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.018||||0.968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.061|1.025||P-value is to test the association between composite exposure on all surfaces and change in BPA from baseline to 14 days after the second treatment after adjusting for covariates.|Regression, Linear|Composite exposure on all surfaces was used as the main predictor and baseline BPA, season, household income, and canned food were used as covariates.||To see the association between composite exposure on all surfaces and change in BPA from baseline to 14 days after the second treatment, the linear model was used with the change in BPA outcome. Log-transformed BPA was used for the analysis. Composite exposure on all surfaces was used as the main predictor.||1.025|-1.061|0.968
90860007|NCT01484132|181583401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.083||||0.822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.941|0.775||P-value is to test the association between composite exposure on posterior occlusal surfaces and change in BPA from baseline to 14 days after the second treatment after adjusting for covariates.|Regression, Linear|Baseline BPA, season, household income, and canned food were used as covariates.||To see the association between composite exposure on posterior occlusal surfaces and change in BPA from baseline to 14 days after the second treatment, the linear model was used with the change in BPA outcome. Log-transformed BPA was used for the analysis. Composite exposure on posterior occlusal surfaces was used as the main predictor.||0.775|-0.941|0.822
90905137|NCT02886728|181677441|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|-2.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-2.0|-9.0|<0.001
90905138|NCT02886728|181677441|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|-5.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-5.0|-11.0|<0.001
90970887|NCT01877187|181823881|OTHER|||||||0.017||||||Statistical significance defined as p \<= 0.05. Data for 90 day timepoint.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Sample size of 60 achieves 80% power to detect a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.35 with a two-sided significant level of 0.05. Sample size of 30 will allow for detecting a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.49 in each subgroup.||||0.017
90860008|NCT03950791|181583430|SUPERIORITY||Mann-Whitney U|3864.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|302.0||0.89|TWO_SIDED|||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons, p \< .05 used as threshold for statistical significance|Independent-samples Mann-Whitney U|No adjustments for multiple comparisons|Standardized Test Statistic = .139|Morphine equivalent dosage outcome variables were not normally distributed (skewness values between 4.5 and 4.8, kurtosis values between 25.7 and 30.0), which necessitated non-parametric analysis using independent-samples Mann-Whitney U Test||||.89
90860009|NCT02718300|181583435|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4046|||||||Van Elteren test|stratified by ECOG Performance Status at Screening (0 or 1 versus 2)||||||0.4046
90860010|NCT02718300|181583437|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7802|||||||Van Elteren test|stratified by ECOG Performance Status at Screening (0 or 1 versus 2)||||||0.7802
90860011|NCT02718300|181583439|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6856|||||||Van Elteren test|stratified by ECOG Performance Status at Screening (0 or 1 versus 2)||||||0.6856
90860012|NCT02718300|181583441|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3385|||||||Van Elteren test|stratified by ECOG Performance Status at Screening (0 or 1 versus 2)||||||0.3385
90860013|NCT02718300|181583443|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4005|||||||Van Elteren test|stratified by Easter Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance Status at Screening (0 or 1 versus 2)||||||0.4005
90905139|NCT02886728|181677441|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-11.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|-8.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-8.0|-13.0|<0.001
90905140|NCT02886728|181677441|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|-4.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-4.0|-11.0|<0.001
90905141|NCT02886728|181677441|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|-5.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-5.0|-11.0|<0.001
90905142|NCT02886728|181677441|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|-7.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-7.0|-12.0|<0.001
90905143|NCT02886728|181677441|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|-2.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-2.0|-9.0|<0.001
90905144|NCT02886728|181677441|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|-2.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-2.0|-8.0|0.001
90905145|NCT02886728|181677441|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|-3.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-3.0|-8.0|<0.001
90905146|NCT02886728|181677441|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|-1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.0|-7.0|0.007
90905147|NCT02886728|181677441|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|0.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.0|-6.0|0.046
90970888|NCT01877187|181823881|OTHER|||||||0.08||||||Statistical significance defined as p \<= 0.05. Data for 90 day timepoint.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Sample size of 60 achieves 80% power to detect a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.35 with a two-sided significant level of 0.05. Sample size of 30 will allow for detecting a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.49 in each subgroup.||||0.08
91104651|NCT01539525|182095323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.749||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.205|2.732|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio estimate is for Motivational Interview- Computer vs. Treatment as Usual|||2.732|0.205|0.490
90905148|NCT02886728|181677441|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|-1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.0|-6.0|0.002
90905149|NCT02886728|181677441|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|2.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||2.0|-4.0|0.44
90905150|NCT02886728|181677441|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||1.0|-5.0|0.21
90860014|NCT02718300|181583445|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3138|||||||Van Elteren test|stratified by ECOG Performance Status at Screening (0 or 1 versus 2)||||||0.3138
90860015|NCT02718300|181583451|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3577|||||||ANOVA|||Week 2||||0.3577
90860016|NCT02718300|181583451|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.048|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.791|1.388|||||ANOVA was performed on dose-normalized PK parameters per dose level. The reference group was 5 mg QD.|Week 2||1.388|0.791|
90860017|NCT02718300|181583451|SUPERIORITY||GMR|1.159|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.936|1.435|||||ANOVA was performed on dose-normalized PK parameters per dose level. The reference group was 5 mg QD.|Week 2||1.435|0.936|
90860018|NCT02718300|181583451|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1709|||||||ANOVA|||Week 4||||0.1709
90860019|NCT02718300|181583451|SUPERIORITY||GMR|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.281|||||ANOVA was performed on dose-normalized PK parameters per dose level. The reference group was 5 mg QD.|Week 4||1.281|0.780|
90860020|NCT02718300|181583451|SUPERIORITY||GMR|1.176|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.955|1.448|||||ANOVA was performed on dose-normalized PK parameters per dose level. The reference group was 5 mg QD.|Week 4||1.448|0.955|
90860021|NCT02718300|181583452|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6693|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Week 2||||0.6693
90860022|NCT02718300|181583452|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1521|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Week 4||||0.1521
91035842|NCT02115347|181958260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Test/Reference) of Adjusted Means|95.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|72.46|126.97|||||ANOVA model with hepatic function group as a fixed effect, ratios (and 90% confidence intervals \[CIs\]) were expressed as percentages, Moderate Hepatic Impairment (Test), Normal Hepatic Function (Reference).|||126.97|72.46|
90860023|NCT02718300|181583453|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0809|||||||ANOVA|||Week 2||||0.0809
90860024|NCT02718300|181583453|SUPERIORITY||GMR|0.583|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.342|0.994|||||ANOVA was performed on dose-normalized PK parameters per dose level. The reference group was 5 mg QD.|Week 2||0.994|0.342|
90860025|NCT02718300|181583453|SUPERIORITY||GMR|0.986|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.658|1.477|||||ANOVA was performed on dose-normalized PK parameters per dose level. The reference group was 5 mg QD.|Week 2||1.477|0.658|
90860026|NCT02718300|181583453|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1525|||||||ANOVA|||Week 4||||0.1525
90860027|NCT02718300|181583453|SUPERIORITY||GMR|1.062|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.604|1.867|||||ANOVA was performed on dose-normalized PK parameters per dose level. The reference group was 5 mg QD.|Week 4||1.867|0.604|
90860028|NCT02718300|181583453|SUPERIORITY||GMR|1.504|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.937|2.414|||||ANOVA was performed on dose-normalized PK parameters per dose level. The reference group was 5 mg QD.|Week 4||2.414|0.937|
90860029|NCT02718300|181583454|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2873|||||||ANOVA|||Week 2||||0.2873
90860030|NCT02718300|181583454|SUPERIORITY||GMR|1.016|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.773|1.336|||||ANOVA was performed on dose-normalized PK parameters per dose level. The reference group was 5 mg QD.|Week 2||1.336|0.773|
90860031|NCT02718300|181583454|SUPERIORITY||GMR|1.161|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.943|1.429|||||ANOVA was performed on dose-normalized PK parameters per dose level. The reference group was 5 mg QD.|Week 2||1.429|0.943|
90860032|NCT02718300|181583454|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1601|||||||ANOVA|||Week 4||||0.1601
90860033|NCT02718300|181583454|SUPERIORITY||GMR|0.992|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.773|1.274|||||ANOVA was performed on dose-normalized PK parameters per dose level. The reference group was 5 mg QD.|Week 4||1.274|0.773|
90860034|NCT02718300|181583454|SUPERIORITY||GMR|1.177|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.955|1.452|||||ANOVA was performed on dose-normalized PK parameters per dose level. The reference group was 5 mg QD.|Week 4||1.452|0.955|
90860035|NCT02718300|181583458|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.083|||||||ANOVA|||Day 1||||0.0830
90860036|NCT02718300|181583458|SUPERIORITY||GMR|1.218|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.846|1.753|||||ANOVA was performed on dose-normalized PK parameters per dose level. The reference group was 5 mg QD.|Day 1||1.753|0.846|
90860037|NCT02718300|181583458|SUPERIORITY||GMR|0.957|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.654|1.399|||||ANOVA was performed on dose-normalized PK parameters per dose level. The reference group was 5 mg QD.|Day 1||1.399|0.654|
90860038|NCT02718300|181583458|SUPERIORITY||GMR|0.943|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.656|1.354|||||ANOVA was performed on dose-normalized PK parameters per dose level. The reference group was 5 mg QD.|Day 1||1.354|0.656|
90860039|NCT02718300|181583458|SUPERIORITY||GMR|0.867|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.579|1.298|||||ANOVA was performed on dose-normalized PK parameters per dose level. The reference group was 5 mg QD.|Day 1||1.298|0.579|
90860040|NCT02718300|181583458|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2402|||||||ANOVA|||Week 4||||0.2402
90860041|NCT02718300|181583458|SUPERIORITY||GMR|0.702|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.461|1.069|||||ANOVA was performed on dose-normalized PK parameters per dose level. The reference group was 5 mg QD.|Week 4||1.069|0.461|
90860042|NCT02718300|181583458|SUPERIORITY||GMR|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.456|1.073|||||ANOVA was performed on dose-normalized PK parameters per dose level. The reference group was 5 mg QD.|Week 4||1.073|0.456|
90860043|NCT02718300|181583458|SUPERIORITY||GMR|0.638|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.428|0.951|||||ANOVA was performed on dose-normalized PK parameters per dose level. The reference group was 5 mg QD.|Week 4||0.951|0.428|
90860044|NCT02718300|181583458|SUPERIORITY||GMR|0.627|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.397|0.99|||||ANOVA was performed on dose-normalized PK parameters per dose level. The reference group was 5 mg QD.|Week 4||0.990|0.397|
90860045|NCT02718300|181583459|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0756|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Day 1||||0.0756
90860046|NCT02718300|181583459|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0866|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Week 4||||0.0866
90860047|NCT02718300|181583460|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4287|||||||ANOVA|||Day 1||||0.4287
90860048|NCT02718300|181583460|SUPERIORITY||GMR|1.272|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.329|4.914|||||ANOVA was performed on dose-normalized PK parameters per dose level. The reference group was 5 mg QD.|Day 1||4.914|0.329|
90860049|NCT02718300|181583460|SUPERIORITY||GMR|1.036|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.252|4.251|||||ANOVA was performed on dose-normalized PK parameters per dose level. The reference group was 5 mg QD.|Day 1||4.251|0.252|
90860050|NCT02718300|181583460|SUPERIORITY||GMR|0.702|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|2.731|||||ANOVA was performed on dose-normalized PK parameters per dose level. The reference group was 5 mg QD.|Day 1||2.731|0.180|
90860051|NCT02718300|181583460|SUPERIORITY||GMR|0.525|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.118|2.348|||||ANOVA was performed on dose-normalized PK parameters per dose level. The reference group was 5 mg QD.|Day 1||2.348|0.118|
90860052|NCT02718300|181583460|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9788|||||||ANOVA|||Week 4||||0.9788
90860053|NCT02718300|181583460|SUPERIORITY||GMR|0.879|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.198|3.896|||||ANOVA was performed on dose-normalized PK parameters per dose level. The reference group was 5 mg QD.|Week 4||3.896|0.198|
90860054|NCT02718300|181583460|SUPERIORITY||GMR|1.225|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|5.56|||||ANOVA was performed on dose-normalized PK parameters per dose level. The reference group was 5 mg QD.|Week 4||5.560|0.270|
90860055|NCT02718300|181583460|SUPERIORITY||GMR|0.918|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.221|3.821|||||ANOVA was performed on dose-normalized PK parameters per dose level. The reference group was 5 mg QD.|Week 4||3.821|0.221|
90860056|NCT02718300|181583460|SUPERIORITY||GMR|0.853|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.169|4.299|||||ANOVA was performed on dose-normalized PK parameters per dose level. The reference group was 5 mg QD.|Week 4||4.299|0.169|
90860057|NCT02718300|181583461|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1208|||||||ANOVA|||Day 1||||0.1208
90860058|NCT02718300|181583461|SUPERIORITY||GMR|1.251|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.832|1.879|||||ANOVA was performed on dose-normalized PK parameters per dose level. The reference group was 5 mg QD.|Day 1||1.879|0.832|
90860059|NCT02718300|181583461|SUPERIORITY||GMR|0.992|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.649|1.518|||||ANOVA was performed on dose-normalized PK parameters per dose level. The reference group was 5 mg QD.|Day 1||1.518|0.649|
90860060|NCT02718300|181583461|SUPERIORITY||GMR|0.967|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.645|1.45|||||ANOVA was performed on dose-normalized PK parameters per dose level. The reference group was 5 mg QD.|Day 1||1.450|0.645|
90905151|NCT02886728|181677441|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|-3.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-3.0|-7.0|<0.001
90860061|NCT02718300|181583461|SUPERIORITY||GMR|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.548|1.35|||||ANOVA was performed on dose-normalized PK parameters per dose level. The reference group was 5 mg QD.|Day 1||1.350|0.548|
90905152|NCT02886728|181677441|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|0.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.0|-6.0|0.029
90970889|NCT01877187|181823883|OTHER|||||||0.02||||||Statistical significance defined as p \<= 0.05. Data for 30 day timepoint.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Sample size of 60 achieves 80% power to detect a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.35 with a two-sided significant level of 0.05. Sample size of 30 will allow for detecting a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.49 in each subgroup.||||0.020
90860062|NCT02718300|181583461|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3218|||||||ANOVA|||Week 4||||0.3218
90860063|NCT02718300|181583461|SUPERIORITY||GMR|0.761|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.482|1.2|||||ANOVA was performed on dose-normalized PK parameters per dose level. The reference group was 5 mg QD.|Week 4||1.200|0.482|
90860064|NCT02718300|181583461|SUPERIORITY||GMR|0.803|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.506|1.277|||||ANOVA was performed on dose-normalized PK parameters per dose level. The reference group was 5 mg QD.|Week 4||1.277|0.506|
90860065|NCT02718300|181583461|SUPERIORITY||GMR|0.667|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.432|1.028|||||ANOVA was performed on dose-normalized PK parameters per dose level. The reference group was 5 mg QD.|Week 4||1.028|0.432|
90860066|NCT02718300|181583461|SUPERIORITY||GMR|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.051|||||ANOVA was performed on dose-normalized PK parameters per dose level. The reference group was 5 mg QD.|Week 4||1.051|0.390|
90860067|NCT01896050|181583468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Compare difference in change in body mass index between baseline and 12 months between aromatase inhibitor- and tamoxifen-treated patients||||0.03
90860068|NCT01896050|181583468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||BMI squared|-0.01845|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02308||0.4262|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Examine association between change in body mass index and change in grip strength with aromatase inhibitor therapy. For the primary outcome, linear regression was used for analysis with change of grip strength as response variable. In the original statistical analysis plan only aromatase inhibitor-treated patients were to be included in this analysis. This analysis was not performed on the tamoxifen group because it isn't clinically relevant.||||0.4262
90860069|NCT01896050|181583469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.032|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of change in maximum grip strength between baseline and 12 months for aromatase inhibitor-treated versus tamoxifen-treated patients||||0.032
90860070|NCT01896050|181583470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.04||||||Association between baseline body mass index and discontinuation of aromatase inhibitor therapy. The original statistical analysis plan only called for analyzing the aromatase inhibitor-treated patients, not the tamoxifen-treated patients.||1.04|0.92|
90860071|NCT01926015|181583475|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval of the percentage difference, excluding a difference \>=10%, is \>=-0.10|Difference in percentage|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.99|3.95|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Diphtheria Toxin \>=0.1 IU/mL||3.95|-3.99|<0.001
90860072|NCT01926015|181583475|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval of the percentage difference, excluding a difference \>=10%, is \>=-0.10|Difference in percentage|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.99|3.95|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Tetanus Toxin \>=0.01 IU/mL||3.95|-3.99|<0.001
90860073|NCT01926015|181583475|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval of the percentage difference, excluding a difference \>=10%, is \>=-0.10|Difference in percentage|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.99|3.95|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Pertussis Toxin \>=10 EU/mL||3.95|-3.99|<0.001
90860074|NCT01926015|181583475|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval of the percentage difference, excluding a difference \>=10%, is \>=-0.10|Difference in percentage|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.99|3.95|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Pertussis FHA \>=10 EU/mL||3.95|-3.99|<0.001
90860075|NCT01926015|181583475|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval of the percentage difference, excluding a difference \>=10%, is \>=-0.10|Difference in percentage|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.99|3.95|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Poliovirus Type 1 NA \>=8||3.95|-3.99|<0.001
90905153|NCT02886728|181677441|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|-1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.0|-6.0|0.010
90905154|NCT02886728|181677442|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-12.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|-9.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-9.0|-15.0|<0.001
90905155|NCT02886728|181677442|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|-5.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-5.0|-11.0|<0.001
90905156|NCT02886728|181677442|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|-6.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-6.0|-13.0|<0.001
90905157|NCT02886728|181677442|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-13.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|-10.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-10.0|-16.0|<0.001
90905158|NCT02886728|181677442|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|-4.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-4.0|-11.0|<0.001
90905159|NCT02886728|181677442|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|-6.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-6.0|-13.0|<0.001
90905160|NCT02886728|181677442|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-12.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|-8.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-8.0|-15.0|<0.001
91104652|NCT02691494|182095347|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|28.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.248|67.387||The P value for test of difference is by pooling the results from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline MBL volume as a covariate in each data set from multiple imputation.|Regression, Logistic|||||67.387|12.248|< 0.001
91104653|NCT02691494|182095347|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|28.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.042|61.431||The P value for test of difference is by pooling the results from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline MBL volume as a covariate in each data set from multiple imputation.|Regression, Logistic|||||61.431|13.042|< 0.001
90905161|NCT02886728|181677442|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|-1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.0|-9.0|0.019
90905162|NCT02886728|181677442|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|-2.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-2.0|-10.0|0.007
90905163|NCT02886728|181677442|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|-5.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-5.0|-12.0|<0.001
91104654|NCT02691494|182095348|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-194.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The P value for test of difference between each elagolix treatment group and placebo is by pooling the results from an ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline MBL volume as a covariate in each dataset from multiple imputation.|ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
90905164|NCT02886728|181677442|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||1.0|-7.0|0.13
90860076|NCT01926015|181583475|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval of the percentage difference, excluding a difference \>=10%, is \>=-0.10|Difference in percentage|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.99|3.95|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Poliovirus Type 2 NA \>=8||3.95|-3.99|<0.001
90860077|NCT01926015|181583475|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval of the percentage difference, excluding a difference \>=10%, is \>=-0.10|Difference in percentage|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.99|3.95|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Poliovirus Type 3 NA \>=8||3.95|-3.99|<0.001
90860078|NCT01364649|181583488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|4.02|||Mixed Model Repeated Measurements|The primary analysis was performed by using observed case data only.||||4.02|0.48|0.013
90860079|NCT03615326|181583496|SUPERIORITY|The hazard ratio (HR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI) were estimated using a stratified Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region, PD-L1 status (positive vs. negative) at baseline, and chemotherapy regimen (FP or CAPOX).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.87|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by geographic region, PD-L1 status, and chemotherapy regimen with small strata collapsed.|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region, PD-L1 status, and chemotherapy regimen with small strata collapsed.|PFS in all participants of the Global Pembrolizumab + SOC First Course was compared to PFS in all participants of the Global Standard of Care to address the hypothesis (pembrolizumab in combination with trastuzumab plus chemotherapy is superior to trastuzumab plus chemotherapy alone).||0.87|0.61|0.0002
90860080|NCT03615326|181583497|SUPERIORITY|The hazard ratio (HR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI) were estimated using a stratified Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region, PD-L1 status (positive vs. negative) at baseline, and chemotherapy regimen (FP or CAPOX).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.94|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by geographic region, PD-L1 status, and chemotherapy regimen with small strata collapsed.|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region, PD-L1 status, and chemotherapy regimen with small strata collapsed.|OS in all participants of the Global Pembrolizumab + SOC First Course was compared to PFS in all participants of the Global Standard of Care to address the hypothesis (pembrolizumab in combination with trastuzumab plus chemotherapy is superior to trastuzumab plus chemotherapy alone).||0.94|0.67|0.0040
90860081|NCT03615326|181583498|SUPERIORITY|The difference in percentage and its 95% confidence interval (CI) were estimated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by geographic region, PD-L1 status (positive vs. negative) at baseline, and chemotherapy regimen (FP or CAPOX).|Difference in Percentage|12.6||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.6|19.4||One-sided p-value for testing. H0: difference in % = 0 versus H1: difference in % \> 0.|Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen Method|||ORR in all participants of the Global Pembrolizumab + SOC First Course was compared to PFS in all participants of the Global Standard of Care to address the hypothesis (pembrolizumab in combination with trastuzumab plus chemotherapy is superior to trastuzumab plus chemotherapy alone).||19.4|5.6|0.00020
90905165|NCT02886728|181677442|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|0.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.0|-8.0|0.047
90905166|NCT02886728|181677442|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|-4.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-4.0|-11.0|<0.001
91104655|NCT02691494|182095348|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-164.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.87|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The P value for test of difference between each elagolix treatment group and placebo is by pooling the results from an ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline MBL volume as a covariate in each dataset from multiple imputation.|ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
90860082|NCT02651467|181583536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of Least Square mean|-0.88|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.181|-0.584||From ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline Schiff score as covariate.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|For the Week 8 comparisons of the two Treatments against the Placebo Control, Dunnett's multiplicity adjustment is applied.||-0.584|-1.181|<0.0001
90860083|NCT02651467|181583536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diference of Least Square mean|-1.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.333|-0.738||From ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline Schiff score as covariate.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|For the Week 8 comparisons of the two Treatments against the control, Dunnett's multiplicity adjustment is applied.||-0.738|-1.333|<0.0001
90970890|NCT01877187|181823883|OTHER|||||||0.029||||||Statistical significance defined as p \<= 0.05. Data for 90 day timepoint.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Sample size of 60 achieves 80% power to detect a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.35 with a two-sided significant level of 0.05. Sample size of 30 will allow for detecting a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.49 in each subgroup.||||0.029
90905167|NCT02886728|181677442|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|2.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||2.0|-6.0|0.34
90905168|NCT02886728|181677442|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|3.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||3.0|-6.0|0.46
90905169|NCT02886728|181677442|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|-5.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-5.0|-12.0|<0.001
90905170|NCT02886728|181677442|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|0.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.0|-9.0|0.030
90905171|NCT02886728|181677442|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|-3.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-3.0|-12.0|<0.001
90905172|NCT02886728|181677443|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-10.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.983|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.71|-8.85||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-8.85|-12.71|<0.001
90905173|NCT02886728|181677443|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-8.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.207|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.13|-6.39||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-6.39|-11.13|<0.001
90905174|NCT02886728|181677443|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|-7.29||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-7.29|-12.00|<0.001
90905175|NCT02886728|181677443|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.884|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.65|-8.19||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-8.19|-11.65|<0.001
90905176|NCT02886728|181677443|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-8.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.086|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.47|-6.21||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-6.21|-10.47|<0.001
90905177|NCT02886728|181677443|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.45|-5.21||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-5.21|-9.45|<0.001
90905178|NCT02886728|181677443|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.808|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.56|-4.39||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-4.39|-7.56|<0.001
90959221|NCT01037244|181798414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||||<0.0001
91104656|NCT02691494|182095349|SUPERIORITY||Between-Group Difference (%)|84.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|75.99|92.37||The P value is calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if ≥ 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|chi-square or Fisher's exact test|||||92.37|75.99|< 0.001
90905179|NCT02886728|181677443|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.987|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.14|-2.27||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-2.27|-6.14|<0.001
90905180|NCT02886728|181677443|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.993|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.29|-2.39||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-2.39|-6.29|<0.001
90905181|NCT02886728|181677443|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.003|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.24|-3.31||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-3.31|-7.24|<0.001
90905182|NCT02886728|181677443|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.222||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.68|-0.89||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.89|-5.68|0.007
90905183|NCT02886728|181677443|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.229|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.02|-2.2||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-2.20|-7.02|<0.001
90905184|NCT02886728|181677443|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.974|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.35|-1.53||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.53|-5.35|<0.001
90905185|NCT02886728|181677443|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.72|-1.09||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.09|-5.72|0.004
91104657|NCT02691494|182095349|SUPERIORITY||Between-Group Difference (%)|56.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.77|64.91||The P value is calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if ≥ 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|chi-square or Fisher's exact test|||||64.91|47.77|< 0.001
90959222|NCT01037244|181798414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||||<0.0001
90959223|NCT01037244|181798414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||||<0.0001
91104658|NCT02691494|182095350|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-252.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|24.53|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The P value is from mixed models repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment, month, and an interaction between treatment and month as fixed effect factors, and baseline MBL volume as a covariate comparing each elagolix treatment group with placebo.|mixed model repeated measures|||||||< 0.001
91104659|NCT02691494|182095350|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-226.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The P value is from mixed models repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment, month, and an interaction between treatment and month as fixed effect factors, and baseline MBL volume as a covariate comparing each elagolix treatment group with placebo.|mixed model repeated measures|||||||< 0.001
91104660|NCT02691494|182095351|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-196.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.66|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The P value is from MMRM with treatment, month, and an interaction between treatment and month as fixed effect factors, and baseline MBL volume as a covariate comparing each elagolix treatment group with placebo.|mixed model repeated measures|||||||< 0.001
90860084|NCT02651467|181583537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|0.15||||0.2478||95.0|-0.107|0.413||From ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline Schiff score as covariate.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|||0.413|-0.107|0.2478
90860085|NCT02905149|181583572|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|9.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|14.5||Not adjusted for multiple comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Generalized Hodges-Lehmann median difference is used. These are robust to the possibility that the population distributions in the two groups are different in ways other than location. It may not represent the raw median difference.|||14.5|4|< 0.05
90860086|NCT02633501|181583593|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|-10.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0|||TWO_SIDED|||||Testing procedure stopped|Mixed Models Analysis|||Holm's Step-Down Method||||
90860087|NCT02633501|181583593|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|2.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.42||0.1858|TWO_SIDED|||||Superiority not confirmed|Mixed Models Analysis|||Holm's Step-Down Method||||0.1858
90860088|NCT02633501|181583593|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|8.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.55||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|||||Superiority confirmed|Mixed Models Analysis|||Holm's Step-Down Method||||0.0007
90860089|NCT02633501|181583593|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|14.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.37|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Superiority confirmed|Mixed Models Analysis|||Holm's Step-Down Method||||<0.0001
90860090|NCT02633501|181583593|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|-14.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.55|||TWO_SIDED|||||Testing procedure stopped|Mixed Models Analysis|||Holm's Step-Down Method||||
90860091|NCT02633501|181583593|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|1.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.56||0.3384|TWO_SIDED|||||Superiority not confirmed|Mixed Models Analysis|||Holm's Step-Down Method||||0.3384
90860092|NCT02633501|181583593|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|19.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.94|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Superiority confirmed|Mixed Models Analysis|||Holm's Step-Down Method||||<0.0001
90860093|NCT02633501|181583593|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|38.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.76||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|||||Superiority confirmed|Mixed Models Analysis|||Holm's Step-Down Method||||0.0002
90860094|NCT02633501|181583593|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|-23.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.88|||TWO_SIDED|||||Testing procedure stopped|Mixed Models Analysis|||Holm's Step-Down Method||||
90860095|NCT02633501|181583593|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|2.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4||0.3249|TWO_SIDED|||||Superiority not confirmed|Mixed Models Analysis|||Holm's Step-Down Method||||0.3249
90905186|NCT02886728|181677443|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.44|0.19||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||0.19|-4.44|0.072
90905187|NCT02886728|181677443|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.789|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.34|-3.24||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-3.24|-6.34|<0.001
90860096|NCT02633501|181583593|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|29.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.53|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Superiority confirmed|Mixed Models Analysis|||Holm's Step-Down Method||||<0.0001
90860097|NCT02633501|181583593|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|51.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.68|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Superiority confirmed|Mixed Models Analysis|||Holm's Step-Down Method||||<0.0001
90860098|NCT01104155|181583618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.204|||||||1-sided exact binomial|Based on a one-sided exact binomial test compared to 9%.||||||0.204
90860099|NCT01104155|181583618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.041|||||||1-sided exact binomial|||||||0.041
90860100|NCT02963935|181583721|SUPERIORITY|The treatment policy estimand evaluated the treatment effect (liraglutide 3.0 mg vs placebo) at week 56 for all randomised subjects regardless of premature discontinuation of trial product.|Treatment difference|-3.45||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.31|-1.59|||ANCOVA|Missing observations were imputed from the placebo arm based on a jump to reference (x100) multiple imputation approach.|Liraglutide 3.0 mg - placebo|Treatrment policy estimand. The hypothesis and the alternative are: H: μliraglutide ≥ μplacebo against the alternative HA: μliraglutide \< μplacebo. μliraglutide and μplacebo denote the true mean of % weight change for liraglutide 3.0 mg and placebo group, respectively. Week 56 responses were analysed using an analysis of covariance model with treatment, BMI groups, and sex as factors and baseline body weight as covariate.||-1.59|-5.31|0.0003
90860101|NCT02963935|181583721|OTHER|The hypothetical estimand evaluated the treatment effect (liraglutide 3.0 mg vs placebo) for all randomised subjects assuming that all subjects remained on trial product (on-treatment principle)|Treatment difference|-4.59||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.54|-2.64|||Mixed models repeated measurement (MMRM)||Liraglutide 3.0 mg - placebo|Hypothetical estimand. Analysis of on-drug data before first drug discontinuation date using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment, BMI groups, and sex as factors and baseline body weight as covariate, all nested within visit.||-2.64|-6.54|0.0000
90860102|NCT02963935|181583722|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.51||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|4.14|||Regression, Logistic||Liraglutide 3.0 mg/Placebo|Treatment policy estimand. Week 56 responses were analysed using a logistic regression model with treatment, BMI groups, and sex as factors and baseline body weight as covariate. Analysis of in-trial data with missing observations imputed from the placebo arm based on a jump to reference multiple (x100) imputation approach.||4.14|1.53|0.0003
90860103|NCT02963935|181583722|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.84||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.75|4.61|||Mixed models repeated measurement (MMRM)||Liraglutide 3.0 mg/placebo|Hypothetical estimand. Analysis of on-drug before first drug discontinuation date using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment, BMI groups, and sex as factors and baseline body weight as covariate, all nested within visit. The MMRM was used to classify responders and analysed with a logistic regression with treatment as the only factor.||4.61|1.75|0.0000
91104661|NCT02691494|182095351|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-186.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The P value is from MMRM with treatment, month, and an interaction between treatment and month as fixed effect factors, and baseline MBL volume as a covariate comparing each elagolix treatment group with placebo.|mixed model repeated measures|||||||< 0.001
91104662|NCT02691494|182095352|SUPERIORITY||Between-Group Difference (%)|19.2||||0.146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.99|44.32||The P value is calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if ≥ 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|chi-square or Fisher's exact test|||||44.32|-5.99|0.146
91104663|NCT02691494|182095352|SUPERIORITY||Between-Group Difference (%)|29.2||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.62|50.71||The P value is calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if ≥ 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|chi-square or Fisher's exact test|||||50.71|7.62|0.017
91104664|NCT02691494|182095353|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-194.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.56|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The P value is from MMRM with treatment, month, and an interaction between treatment and month as fixed effect factors, and baseline MBL volume as a covariate comparing each elagolix treatment group with placebo.|mixed model repeated measures|||||||< 0.001
91104665|NCT02691494|182095353|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-125.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.55|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The P value is from MMRM with treatment, month, and an interaction between treatment and month as fixed effect factors, and baseline MBL volume as a covariate comparing each elagolix treatment group with placebo.|mixed model repeated measures|||||||< 0.001
91104666|NCT00787800|182095354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||1.0
91035843|NCT02115347|181958261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Test/Reference) of Adjusted Means|78.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|65.74|94.23|||||ANOVA model with hepatic function group as a fixed effect, ratios (and 90% confidence intervals \[CIs\]) were expressed as percentages, Moderate Hepatic Impairment (Test), Normal Hepatic Function (Reference).|||94.23|65.74|
91104667|NCT00787800|182095356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.050
91104668|NCT00787800|182095358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91104669|NCT01694771|182095380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.117|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.144|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Results are from an MMRM model. Fixed effects include treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline and baseline by visit interaction. Patient is considered random and an unstructured covariance structure was used. Number of patients contributing to models: Tio+Placebo (564), Tio+Olo 5ug (563).||0.144|0.090|<0.0001
91104670|NCT01694771|182095381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.062|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.037|0.088|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Results are from an MMRM model. Fixed effects include treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline and baseline by visit interaction. Patient is considered random and an unstructured covariance structure was used. Number of patients contributing to models: Tio+Placebo (551), Tio+Olo 5ug (548).||0.088|0.037|<0.0001
91104671|NCT01694771|182095382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change from baseline|0.119|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.147|||Mixed model repeated measure|||Results are from an MMRM model. Fixed effects include treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline and baseline by visit interaction. Patient is considered random and an unstructured covariance structure was used. Number of patients contributing to models: Tio+Placebo (564), Tio+Olo 5ug (563).||0.147|0.090|<0.0001
91104672|NCT01694771|182095383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference from Tio + Placebo|0.146|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.192|||Mixed model repeated measure|||Results are from an MMRM model. Fixed effects include treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline and baseline by visit interaction. Patient is considered random and an unstructured covariance structure was used. Number of patients contributing to models: Tio+Placebo (564), Tio+Olo 5ug (563).||0.192|0.100|<0.0001
91104673|NCT01694771|182095384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference from Tio + Placebo|0.063|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.019|0.106|||Mixed model repeated measure|||Results are from an MMRM model. Fixed effects include treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline and baseline by visit interaction. Patient is considered random and an unstructured covariance structure was used. Number of patients contributing to models: Tio+Placebo (551), Tio+Olo 5ug (548).||0.106|0.019|0.0047
91104674|NCT01694771|182095385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference from Tio + Placebo|0.153|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.106|0.201|||Mixed model repeated measure|||Results are from an MMRM model. Fixed effects include treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline and baseline by visit interaction. Patient is considered random and an unstructured covariance structure was used. Number of patients contributing to models: Tio+Placebo (564), Tio+Olo 5ug (563).||0.201|0.106|<0.0001
91104675|NCT01694771|182095386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference from Tio+Placebo Week 12|8.459|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.192||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.159|12.759|||ANCOVA|||"Week 12: Results are from non-MMRM ANCOVA models by week with LOCF up to each week. Fixed effects include treatment and baseline.~Number of patients contributing to models: Tio+Placebo (561), Tio+Olo 5ug (557)."||12.759|4.159|0.0001
91104676|NCT01694771|182095387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference from Tio+Placebo Week 12|-0.478|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.706|-0.25|||ANCOVA|||"Week 12: Results are from non-MMRM ANCOVA models by week with LOCF up to each week. Fixed effects include treatment and baseline.~Number of patients contributing to models: Tio+Placebo (561), Tio+Olo 5ug (557)."||-0.250|-0.706|<.0001
91104677|NCT01694771|182095388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference from Tio+Placebo Week 12|-0.083|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041||0.0442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.164|-0.002|||ANCOVA|||"Results are from non-MMRM ANCOVA models by week with LOCF up to each week. Fixed effects include treatment and baseline.~Number of patients contributing to models: Tio+Placebo (561), Tio+Olo 5ug (557)."||-0.002|-0.164|0.0442
91104678|NCT01694771|182095389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference from Tio+Placebo Week 12|-0.393|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.098|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.586|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||"Results are from non-MMRM ANCOVA models by week with LOCF up to each week. Fixed effects include treatment and baseline.~Number of patients contributing to models: Tio+Placebo (561), Tio+Olo 5ug (557)."||-0.200|-0.586|<.0001
91104679|NCT03759379|182095429|EQUIVALENCE|H0: No difference between vutrisiran and external placebo comparator (APOLLO): difference (vutrisiran - placebo) = 0|LS Mean Difference|-17.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.44|<|1e-07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.78|-12.22||P=3.542E-12|ANCOVA with Multiple Imputation|||Multiple imputation estimates and p-value derived per combining least squares (LS) estimates per Rubin's rules based on 100 datasets where missing Month 9 values were imputed using a regression procedure including select baseline variables. LS estimates derived from analysis of covariance model, controlling for categorical factors (treatment, genotype, age of disease onset) and continuous covariate (baseline value).||-12.22|-21.78|<0.0000001
90905188|NCT02886728|181677443|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.957||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.88|-1.13||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.13|-4.88|0.002
90905189|NCT02886728|181677443|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.957|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.65|-1.89||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.89|-5.65|<0.001
90905190|NCT02886728|181677444|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|19.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.8|26.7||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2||26.7|12.8|<0.001
90905191|NCT02886728|181677444|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|16.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.6|25.0||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2||25.0|7.6|<0.001
90905192|NCT02886728|181677444|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|11.7||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|20.4||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2||20.4|3.0|0.004
90905193|NCT02886728|181677444|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|18.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.7|25.2||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4||25.2|11.7|<0.001
90905194|NCT02886728|181677444|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|7.1||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|15.8||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4||15.8|-1.6|0.083
90905195|NCT02886728|181677444|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|14.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.4|23.1||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4||23.1|6.4|<0.001
90905196|NCT02886728|181677444|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|10.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|16.7||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12||16.7|4.4|<0.001
90905197|NCT02886728|181677444|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|4.7||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|12.6||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12||12.6|-3.1|0.22
90905198|NCT02886728|181677444|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|4.3||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|12.1||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12||12.1|-3.6|0.25
90905199|NCT02886728|181677444|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|2.7||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|8.9||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24||8.9|-3.5|0.35
90905200|NCT02886728|181677444|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|4.6||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|12.1||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24||12.1|-2.9|0.20
90905201|NCT02886728|181677444|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|3.1||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|10.6||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24||10.6|-4.5|0.36
90905202|NCT02886728|181677444|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|6.3||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|12.8||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36||12.8|-0.2|0.043
90905203|NCT02886728|181677444|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|9.4||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|17.2||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36||17.2|1.6|0.015
90905204|NCT02886728|181677444|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|6.5||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|14.4||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36||14.4|-1.5|0.085
90905205|NCT02886728|181677444|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|9.9||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|16.6||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52||16.6|3.2|0.002
90905206|NCT02886728|181677444|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|10.5||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|18.7||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52||18.7|2.3|0.010
90905207|NCT02886728|181677444|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|9.6||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|17.8||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52||17.8|1.4|0.014
90905208|NCT02886728|181677445|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.6||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.6|-0.9|<0.001
90905209|NCT02886728|181677445|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.4||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.4|-0.7|<0.001
90905210|NCT02886728|181677445|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.6||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.6|-0.9|<0.001
90905211|NCT02886728|181677445|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.8||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.8|-1.1|<0.001
90905212|NCT02886728|181677445|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.5||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.5|-0.9|<0.001
90905213|NCT02886728|181677445|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.7||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.7|-1.0|<0.001
90905214|NCT02886728|181677445|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.7||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.7|-1.0|<0.001
90905215|NCT02886728|181677445|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.4||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.4|-0.8|<0.001
90905216|NCT02886728|181677445|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.5||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.5|-0.9|<0.001
90905217|NCT02886728|181677445|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.6||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.6|-0.9|<0.001
90905218|NCT02886728|181677445|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.3||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.3|-0.7|<0.001
90970891|NCT01877187|181823883|OTHER|||||||0.94||||||Statistical significance defined as p \<= 0.05. Data for 180 day timepoint.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Sample size of 60 achieves 80% power to detect a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.35 with a two-sided significant level of 0.05. Sample size of 30 will allow for detecting a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.49 in each subgroup.||||0.94
90905219|NCT02886728|181677445|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.3||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.3|-0.7|<0.001
91104680|NCT03759379|182095430|EQUIVALENCE|H0: No difference between vutrisiran and external placebo comparator (APOLLO): difference (vutrisiran - placebo) = 0|LS Mean Difference|-16.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8|<|1e-07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.7|-10.8||P=5.426E-09|ANCOVA with Multiple Imputation|||Multiple imputation estimates and p-value derived per combining least squares (LS) estimates per Rubin's rules based on 100 datasets where missing Month 9 values were imputed using a regression procedure including select baseline variables. LS estimates derived from analysis of covariance model, controlling for categorical factors (treatment, genotype, age of disease onset baseline NIS) and continuous covariate (baseline value).||-10.8|-21.7|<0.0000001
90905220|NCT02886728|181677445|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.3||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.3|-0.6|<0.001
90905221|NCT02886728|181677445|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.0|-0.4|0.033
90905222|NCT02886728|181677445|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.2||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.2|-0.6|<0.001
90905223|NCT02886728|181677445|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.5||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.5|-0.8|<0.001
90905224|NCT02886728|181677445|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.2||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.2|-0.6|<0.001
90905225|NCT02886728|181677445|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.3||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.3|-0.7|<0.001
90905226|NCT02886728|181677446|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|18.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.1|24.4||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4||24.4|13.1|<0.001
90970892|NCT01877187|181823885|OTHER|||||||0.06||||||Statistical significance defined as p \<= 0.05. Data for 30 day timepoint.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Sample size of 60 achieves 80% power to detect a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.35 with a two-sided significant level of 0.05. Sample size of 30 will allow for detecting a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.49 in each subgroup.||||0.06
90905227|NCT02886728|181677446|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|11.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|18.6||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4||18.6|4.7|<0.001
90905228|NCT02886728|181677446|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|19.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.5|27.3||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4||27.3|12.5|<0.001
90905229|NCT02886728|181677446|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|27.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.5|33.9||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12||33.9|20.5|<0.001
90905230|NCT02886728|181677446|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|21.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.2|30.1||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12||30.1|13.2|<0.001
90905231|NCT02886728|181677446|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|19.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.1|27.9||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12||27.9|11.1|<0.001
91104681|NCT03759379|182095431|EQUIVALENCE|H0: No difference between vutrisiran and external placebo comparator (APOLLO): difference (vutrisiran - placebo) = 0|LS Mean Difference|0.131|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031|<|1e-07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.193||P=3.103E-05|ANCOVA with Multiple Imputation|||Multiple imputation estimates and p-value derived per combining least squares (LS) estimates per Rubin's rules based on 100 datasets where missing Month 9 values were imputed using a regression procedure including select baseline variables. LS estimates derived from analysis of covariance model, controlling for categorical factors (treatment, genotype, age of disease onset, baseline NIS) and continuous covariate (baseline value).||0.193|0.070|<0.0000001
91104682|NCT04924608|182095438|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0112|||||||Fisher Exact|The ORR will be compared at the end of Cycle 16 between selumetinib vs placebo with the 2-sided significance level 0.047.||||||0.0112
91104683|NCT04924608|182095439|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis is based on a MMRM model for repeated measures, Kenward-Roger method is used to estimate the degrees of freedom.||||0.1|-1.6|0.070
91104684|NCT04924608|182095440|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.1||nominal|Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis is based on a MMRM model for repeated measures, Kenward-Roger method is used to estimate the degrees of freedom.||supplementary analysis is not controlled for multiplicity.||-0.1|-1.3|0.024
90860104|NCT02963935|181583723|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.78||||0.0469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|3.14|||Regression, Logistic||Liraglutide 3.0 mg/Placebo|Treatment policy estimand. Week 56 responses were analysed using a logistic regression model with treatment, BMI groups, and sex as factors and baseline body weight as covariate. Analysis of in-trial data with missing observations imputed from the placebo arm based on a jump to reference multiple (x10000) imputation approach.||3.14|1.01|0.0469
91104685|NCT04924608|182095441|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis is based on a MMRM model for repeated measures, Kenward-Roger method is used to estimate the degrees of freedom.||||1.1|-1.2|0.918
91104686|NCT02892344|182095450|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.182|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.148|0.217|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.217|0.148|<0.001
91104687|NCT02892344|182095451|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.218|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.293|-0.143|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.143|-0.293|<0.001
91104688|NCT02892344|182095452|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.132|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.105|0.158|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.158|0.105|<0.001
91104689|NCT02892344|182095453|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.176|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.145|0.207|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.207|0.145|<0.001
90905232|NCT02886728|181677446|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|22.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.8|29.4||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24||29.4|15.8|<0.001
90905233|NCT02886728|181677446|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|16.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.1|25.2||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24||25.2|8.1|<0.001
91104690|NCT02892344|182095454|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.061|0.139|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pre-dose trough FVC||0.139|0.061|<0.001
91104691|NCT02892344|182095454|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.288|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.231|0.345|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pre-dose trough FEF25-75%||0.345|0.231|<0.001
91104692|NCT02892344|182095455|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|27.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.1|32.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mean Morning PEF||32.4|22.1|<0.001
91104693|NCT02892344|182095455|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|26.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.0|31.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mean Evening PEF||31.2|21.0|<0.001
91104694|NCT02892344|182095458|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.204|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.277|-0.131|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.131|-0.277|<0.001
91104695|NCT02892344|182095459|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|-0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Night-time number of puffs of rescue medication||-0.05|-0.16|<0.001
91104696|NCT02892344|182095459|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|-0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Daytime number of puffs of rescue medication||-0.08|-0.22|<0.001
90970893|NCT01877187|181823885|OTHER|||||||0.013||||||Statistical significance defined as p \<= 0.05. Data for 90 day timepoint.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Sample size of 60 achieves 80% power to detect a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.35 with a two-sided significant level of 0.05. Sample size of 30 will allow for detecting a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.49 in each subgroup.||||0.013
91104697|NCT02892344|182095460|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|8.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|11.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.8|4.3|<0.001
91104698|NCT02892344|182095461|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.149|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.064|0.234|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.234|0.064|<0.001
91104699|NCT02892344|182095464|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.59|||Regression, Cox|||||0.59|0.14|<0.001
91104700|NCT03938454|182095470|OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann|45.98||||0.0676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.5|65.36||P-value is from one-sided Wilcoxon Sign Rank Test with at least 25% percent reduction from Baseline (adjusted for 26 weeks) as outcome variable.|Wilcoxon Sign Rank Test|||||65.36|23.50|0.0676
91104701|NCT03938454|182095476|OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann|50.2||||0.0259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.94|67.36||P-value is from one-sided Wilcoxon Sign Rank Test with at least 25% reduction from Baseline (adjusted for 26 weeks) as outcome variable.|Wilcoxon Sign Rank Test|||||67.36|27.94|0.0259
91104702|NCT03727022|182095524|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.19|1.58||||||||1.58|-7.19|
90905234|NCT02886728|181677446|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|13.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|22.4||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24||22.4|5.3|<0.001
91104703|NCT03727022|182095525|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.24|3.24||||||||3.24|-3.24|
91104704|NCT03727022|182095526|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.84|1.65||||||||1.65|-5.84|
91104705|NCT03727022|182095527|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.05|3.54||||||||3.54|-4.05|
91104706|NCT03727022|182095528|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.64|6.23||||||||6.23|-4.64|
90970894|NCT01877187|181823885|OTHER|||||||0.67||||||Statistical significance defined as p \<= 0.05. Data for 180 day timepoint.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Sample size of 60 achieves 80% power to detect a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.35 with a two-sided significant level of 0.05. Sample size of 30 will allow for detecting a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.49 in each subgroup.||||0.67
90970895|NCT05525533|181823896|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|2.24|||Regression, Linear|||||2.24|-1.87|
91104707|NCT03727022|182095529|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.64|2.23||||||||2.23|-8.64|
91104708|NCT03727022|182095530|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.75|4.03||||||||4.03|-8.75|
91104709|NCT03727022|182095531|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-4.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.21|3.11||||||||3.11|-11.21|
91104710|NCT04736199|182095532|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.541|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.413|0.707||One-sided|Log Rank|||Analyzed with log-rank test and Cox regression proportional hazard model, stratified by the same factor as used for randomization visceral disease (present versus absent), prior local therapy (Yes versus No).||0.707|0.413|<0.0001
91104711|NCT04736199|182095533|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.813||||0.1007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.591|1.118||One-sided|Log Rank||significance level of 0.0185 (one-sided)|Analyzed with log-rank test and Cox regression proportional hazard model, stratified by the same factor as used for randomization visceral disease (present versus absent), prior local therapy (Yes versus No).||1.118|0.591|0.1007
91104712|NCT04736199|182095534|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.404|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.321|0.508||||||Analyzed with log-rank test and Cox regression proportional hazard model, stratified by the same factor as used for randomization visceral disease (present versus absent), prior local therapy (Yes versus No).||0.508|0.321|
90905235|NCT02886728|181677446|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|21.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.6|28.2||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52||28.2|14.6|<0.001
90905236|NCT02886728|181677446|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|12.3||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|20.9||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52||20.9|3.7|0.003
90905237|NCT02886728|181677446|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|18.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.7|26.5||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52||26.5|9.7|<0.001
90905238|NCT02886728|181677447|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|6.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|9.1||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2||9.1|3.4|<0.001
90905239|NCT02886728|181677447|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|3.4||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|6.7||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2||6.7|0.1|0.010
90905240|NCT02886728|181677447|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|9.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|13.6||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2||13.6|4.5|<0.001
90905241|NCT02886728|181677447|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|11.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|16.1||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4||16.1|7.4|<0.001
90905242|NCT02886728|181677447|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|10.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|15.8||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4||15.8|4.5|<0.001
90905243|NCT02886728|181677447|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|14.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.6|20.8||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4||20.8|8.6|<0.001
90905244|NCT02886728|181677447|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|22.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.4|28.8||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12||28.8|16.4|<0.001
90905245|NCT02886728|181677447|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|14.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.1|22.5||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12||22.5|7.1|<0.001
90905246|NCT02886728|181677447|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|12.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|20.0||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12||20.0|4.9|<0.001
90905247|NCT02886728|181677447|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|18.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.4|25.1||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36||25.1|11.4|<0.001
90905248|NCT02886728|181677447|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|7.7||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|16.1||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36||16.1|-0.8|0.056
90905249|NCT02886728|181677447|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|9.0||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|17.4||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36||17.4|0.5|0.023
90905250|NCT02886728|181677447|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|21.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.1|28.7||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52||28.7|15.1|<0.001
91104713|NCT04736199|182095535|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.401|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.288|0.558||||||Analyzed with log-rank test and Cox regression proportional hazard model, stratified by the same factor as used for randomization visceral disease (present versus absent), prior local therapy (Yes versus No).||0.558|0.288|
91104714|NCT04736199|182095536|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.306|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.231|0.405||||||Analyzed with log-rank test and Cox regression proportional hazard model, stratified by the same factor as used for randomization visceral disease (present versus absent), prior local therapy (Yes versus No).||0.405|0.231|
91104715|NCT04736199|182095537|OTHER||Rate difference|44.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.4|51.2||||||Analyzed with log-rank test and Cox regression proportional hazard model, stratified by the same factor as used for randomization visceral disease (present versus absent), prior local therapy (Yes versus No).||51.2|37.4|
91104716|NCT04736199|182095538|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.721|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.544|0.957||||||Analyzed with log-rank test and Cox regression proportional hazard model, stratified by the same factor as used for randomization visceral disease (present versus absent), prior local therapy (Yes versus No).||0.957|0.544|
91104717|NCT04770753|182095553|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|40.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.0|49.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The estimated adjusted difference in response rate, 95% CI, and p-value are based on Mantel-Haenszel stratum weighted method adjusting for the randomization stratification factors.||49.8|32.0|<0.0001
91104718|NCT04770753|182095554|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Lean Square (LS) Mean|3.4||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|5.59|||ANCOVA|||The estimates, 95% CIs, and 2-sided p-value are based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model which includes average change from baseline in FACIT-Fatigue subscale score from Week 12 through Week 24 as the dependent variable, treatment group as the independent variable, and baseline and the randomization stratification factors as covariates.||5.59|1.21|0.0026
91104719|NCT04770753|182095555|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|9.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.8|11.46|||ANCOVA|||The estimates, 95% CIs, and 2-sided p-value are based on an ANCOVA model which includes average change from baseline in Hb concentrations from Week 12 through Week 24 as the dependent variable, treatment group as the independent variable, and baseline Hb concentration and the randomization stratification factors as covariates.||11.46|7.80|<0.0001
91104720|NCT05176847|182095585|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.71|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|Intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis was conducted; primary and secondary outcomes were addressed using repeated measure. Models: time, group, group x time.|||Intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis was conducted; primary and secondary outcomes were addressed using repeated measure. Models: time, group, group x time.|0.09|-3.71|0.09
91104721|NCT05888103|182095676|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-47.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.35|-42.65|||ANCOVA|||||-42.65|-52.35|<0.0001
90860105|NCT02963935|181583723|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.14||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|3.69|||Mixed models repeated measurement (MMRM)||Liraglutide 3.0 mg/placebo|Hypothetical estimand. Analysis of on-drug before first drug discontinuation date using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment, BMI groups, and sex as factors and baseline body weight as covariate, all nested within visit. The MMRM was used to classify responders and analysed with a logistic regression with treatment as the only factor.||3.69|1.24|0.0063
90970896|NCT05525533|181823896|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|3.82|||Regression, Linear|||||3.82|-0.73|
91104722|NCT05888103|182095677|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-69.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.6|-62.86|||ANCOVA|||||-62.86|-76.60|<0.0001
91104723|NCT05888103|182095678|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-77.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-85.86|-69.8|||ANCOVA|||||-69.80|-85.86|<0.0001
90970897|NCT05525533|181823898|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.92|18.0|||Regression, Linear|||||18|-2.92|
90970898|NCT05525533|181823898|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|31.0|||Regression, Linear|||||31|0.64|
91104724|NCT05888103|182095679|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-226.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-244.77|-208.45|||ANCOVA|||||-208.45|-244.77|<0.0001
91104725|NCT05888103|182095680|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-31.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.91|-28.07|||ANCOVA|||||-28.07|-34.91|<0.0001
90860106|NCT02963935|181583724|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.26||||0.0311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|4.74|||Regression, Logistic||Liraglutide 3.0 mg/Placebo|Treatment policy estimand. Week 56 responses were analysed using a logistic regression model with treatment, BMI groups, and sex as factors and baseline body weight as covariate. Analysis of in-trial data with missing observations imputed from the placebo arm based on a jump to reference multiple (x100) imputation approach.||4.74|1.08|0.0311
90860107|NCT02963935|181583724|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.74||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|5.62|||Mixed models repeated measurement (MMRM)||Liraglutide 3.0 mg/placebo|Hypothetical estimand. Analysis of on-drug before first drug discontinuation date using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment, BMI groups, and sex as factors and baseline body weight as covariate, all nested within visit. The MMRM was used to classify responders and analysed with a logistic regression with treatment as the only factor.||5.62|1.33|0.0060
90860108|NCT02963935|181583725|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.93|5.72|||Regression, Logistic||Liraglutide 3.0 mg/placebo|"Treatment policy estimand. Week 16 responders were analysed using a logistic regression model with treatment, BMI groups, and sex as factors and baseline body weight as covariate.~Missing values are considered as non-responders."||5.72|1.93|<0.0001
91104726|NCT05888103|182095681|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-71.46|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-79.24|-63.69|||ANCOVA|||||-63.69|-79.24|<0.0001
91104727|NCT05888103|182095682|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.94||||0.3743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.55|9.42|||ANCOVA|||||9.42|-3.55|0.3743
91104728|NCT05888103|182095683|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.07||||0.4228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|3.68|||ANCOVA|||||3.68|-1.54|0.4228
91104729|NCT05888103|182095684|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-40.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.57|-36.57|||ANCOVA|||||-36.57|-44.57|<0.0001
91104730|NCT05888103|182095685|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-72.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-79.56|-65.13|||ANCOVA|||||-65.13|-79.56|<0.0001
91104731|NCT05888103|182095686|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-36.84|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.72|-32.96|||ANCOVA|||||-32.96|-40.72|<0.0001
91104732|NCT05888103|182095687|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-41.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.28|-37.47|||ANCOVA|||||-37.47|-46.28|<0.0001
91104733|NCT05888103|182095688|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.05||||0.3011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|5.93|||ANCOVA|||||5.93|-1.84|0.3011
90905251|NCT02886728|181677447|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|11.5||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|20.0||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52||20.0|3.1|0.004
91104734|NCT05888103|182095689|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.13||||0.2403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|8.35|||ANCOVA|||||8.35|-2.09|0.2403
91104735|NCT05888103|182095690|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-30.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.58|-19.95|||ANCOVA|||||-19.95|-40.58|<0.0001
91104736|NCT05888103|182095691|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.76|||ANCOVA|||||0.76|0.60|<0.0001
91104737|NCT05888103|182095692|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.01||||0.5877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.88|13.91|||ANCOVA|||||13.91|-7.88|0.5877
91104738|NCT05888103|182095693|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.96||||0.5019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.17|15.26|||ANCOVA|||||15.26|-31.17|0.5019
91104739|NCT04987307|182095699|SUPERIORITY||Difference percentage (%)|2.1||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|12.8||P-value was unadjusted and obtained from logistic regression model including stratification factors as covariates (prior experience with ≥1 biologic or targeted small molecule, corticosteroid use at randomization) using nonresponder imputation (NRI).|Logistic regression model|||||12.8|-8.6|0.70
91104740|NCT04987307|182095699|SUPERIORITY||Difference %|2.0||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|12.6||P-value was unadjusted and obtained from logistic regression model including stratification factors as covariates (prior experience with ≥1 biologic or targeted small molecule, corticosteroid use at randomization) using NRI.|Logistic regression model|||||12.6|-8.6|0.72
91104741|NCT04987307|182095699|SUPERIORITY||Difference %|3.1||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|14.2||P-value was unadjusted and obtained from logistic regression model including stratification factors as covariates (prior experience with ≥1 biologic or targeted small molecule, corticosteroid use at randomization) using NRI.|Logistic regression model|||||14.2|-8.0|0.58
91104742|NCT04987307|182095700|SUPERIORITY||Difference %|-1.1||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|14.2||P-value was unadjusted and obtained from logistic regression model including stratification factors as covariates (prior experience with ≥1 biologic or targeted small molecule, corticosteroid use at randomization) using NRI.|Logistic regression model|||||14.2|-16.3|0.89
91104743|NCT04987307|182095700|SUPERIORITY||Difference %|4.7||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|20.6||P-value was unadjusted and obtained from logistic regression model including stratification factors as covariates (prior experience with ≥1 biologic or targeted small molecule, corticosteroid use at randomization) using NRI.|Logistic regression model|||||20.6|-11.1|0.56
91104744|NCT04987307|182095700|SUPERIORITY||Difference %|4.5||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|20.7||P-value was unadjusted and obtained from logistic regression model including stratification factors as covariates (prior experience with ≥1 biologic or targeted small molecule, corticosteroid use at randomization) using NRI.|Logistic regression model|||||20.7|-11.7|0.59
91104745|NCT04987307|182095701|SUPERIORITY||Difference %|4.2||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|17.2||P-value was unadjusted and obtained from logistic regression model including stratification factors as covariates (prior experience with ≥1 biologic or targeted small molecule, corticosteroid use at randomization) using NRI.|Logistic regression model|||||17.2|-8.7|0.52
91104746|NCT04987307|182095701|SUPERIORITY||Difference %|0.2||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|12.2||P-value was unadjusted and obtained from logistic regression model including stratification factors as covariates (prior experience with ≥1 biologic or targeted small molecule, corticosteroid use at randomization) using NRI.|Logistic regression model|||||12.2|-11.8|0.97
91104747|NCT04987307|182095701|SUPERIORITY||Difference %|1.5||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|14.0||P-value was unadjusted and obtained from logistic regression model including stratification factors as covariates (prior experience with ≥1 biologic or targeted small molecule, corticosteroid use at randomization) using NRI.|Logistic regression mode|||||14.0|-11.1|0.82
91104748|NCT04987307|182095702|SUPERIORITY||Difference %|2.6||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|16.7||P-value was unadjusted and obtained from logistic regression model including stratification factors as covariates (prior experience with ≥1 biologic or targeted small molecule, corticosteroid use at randomization) using NRI.|Logistic regression model|||||16.7|-11.6|0.72
91104749|NCT04987307|182095702|SUPERIORITY||Difference %|8.3||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|23.1||P-value was unadjusted and obtained from logistic regression model including stratification factors as covariates (prior experience with ≥1 biologic or targeted small molecule, corticosteroid use at randomization) using NRI.|Logistic regression model|||||23.1|-6.6|0.28
90970899|NCT05525533|181823900|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|47.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|113.0|||Regression, Linear|||||113|-18|
91104750|NCT04987307|182095702|SUPERIORITY||Difference %|8.1||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|23.3||P-value was unadjusted and obtained from logistic regression model including stratification factors as covariates (prior experience with ≥1 biologic or targeted small molecule, corticosteroid use at randomization) using NRI.|Logistic regression model|||||23.3|-7.1|0.30
91104751|NCT04987307|182095703|SUPERIORITY||Difference %|8.46||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|16.9||P-value was unadjusted and obtained from logistic regression model including stratification factors as covariates (prior experience with ≥1 biologic or targeted small molecule, corticosteroid use at randomization) using NRI.|Logistic regression model|||||16.9|0.0|0.11
91104752|NCT04987307|182095703|SUPERIORITY||Difference %|2.18||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|7.7||P-value was unadjusted and obtained from logistic regression model including stratification factors as covariates (prior experience with ≥1 biologic or targeted small molecule, corticosteroid use at randomization) using NRI.|Logistic regression model|||||7.7|-3.4|0.46
91104753|NCT04987307|182095703|SUPERIORITY||Difference %|0.14||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|4.3||P-value was unadjusted and obtained from logistic regression model including stratification factors as covariates (prior experience with ≥1 biologic or targeted small molecule, corticosteroid use at randomization) using NRI.|Logistic regression model|||||4.3|-4.0|0.94
91104754|NCT04987307|182095704|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.2||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.7||P-value was obtained from the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model which includes stratification factors (prior experience with ≥ 1 biologic or targeted small molecule, corticosteroid use at randomization) as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||0.7|-0.3|0.39
91104755|NCT04987307|182095704|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.2||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.7||P-value was obtained from the ANCOVA model which includes stratification factors (prior experience with ≥ 1 biologic or targeted small molecule, corticosteroid use at randomization) as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||0.7|-0.3|0.49
90905252|NCT02886728|181677447|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|14.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|23.1||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52||23.1|6.3|<0.001
90905253|NCT02886728|181677450|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|-4.1||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-4.1|-7.3|<0.001
90905254|NCT02886728|181677450|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.01|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|-2.4||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-2.4|-6.4|<0.001
90905255|NCT02886728|181677450|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.01|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|-3.7||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-3.7|-7.7|<0.001
90905256|NCT02886728|181677450|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|-5.6||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-5.6|-8.9|<0.001
90905257|NCT02886728|181677450|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|-3.3||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-3.3|-7.3|<0.001
90905258|NCT02886728|181677450|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|-3.7||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-3.7|-7.8|<0.001
90905259|NCT02886728|181677450|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|-4.4||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-4.4|-7.3|<0.001
90905260|NCT02886728|181677450|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|-2.7||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-2.7|-6.1|<0.001
90959224|NCT01037244|181798415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.59|||ANCOVA|p-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with baseline PSAE score and pooled site as covariates.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||0.59|0.30|<0.0001
90905261|NCT02886728|181677450|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|-3.4||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-3.4|-6.8|<0.001
90905262|NCT02886728|181677450|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|-2.9||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-2.9|-5.3|<0.001
90970900|NCT05525533|181823900|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|113.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.0|189.0|||Regression, Linear|||||189|38|
90905263|NCT02886728|181677450|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|-1.3||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.3|-4.3|<0.001
90905264|NCT02886728|181677450|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|-1.4||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.4|-4.4|<0.001
90905265|NCT02886728|181677450|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-1.1||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.1|-3.4|<0.001
90905266|NCT02886728|181677450|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.8||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||0.8|-2.0|0.36
90905267|NCT02886728|181677450|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-0.5||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.5|-3.3|0.009
90905268|NCT02886728|181677450|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|-2.2||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-2.2|-4.5|<0.001
90905269|NCT02886728|181677450|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.1||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.1|-2.7|0.042
90905270|NCT02886728|181677450|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|-1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.0|-3.7|<0.001
90905271|NCT02886728|181677451|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|-5.2||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-5.2|-8.5|<0.001
90905272|NCT02886728|181677451|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|-3.3||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-3.3|-7.3|<0.001
90905273|NCT02886728|181677451|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|-4.7||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-4.7|-8.8|<0.001
90970901|NCT05525533|181823901|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|8.63|||Regression, Linear|||||8.63|-1.37|
90970902|NCT05525533|181823901|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|4.5|||Regression, Linear|||||4.50|-1.50|
91104756|NCT04987307|182095704|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.1||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.6||P-value was obtained from the ANCOVA model which includes stratification factors (prior experience with ≥ 1 biologic or targeted small molecule, corticosteroid use at randomization) as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||0.6|-0.5|0.76
91104757|NCT05281510|182095720|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||The comparison was between plasma viral HIV-1 RNA data at set-point and at pre-ART within the same treatment group.||||0.0020
90970903|NCT05525533|181823902|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|7.3|||Regression, Linear|||||7.30|-0.36|
91104758|NCT03031912|182095761|SUPERIORITY||Fold difference|42.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.49|58.43|||ANOVA|||V920 vs. placebo in Cohorts 1 to 5 combined||58.43|31.49|<0.001
91104759|NCT03031912|182095762|SUPERIORITY||Fold difference|208.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|115.57|376.72|||ANOVA|||||376.72|115.57|<0.001
91104760|NCT04097743|182095830|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.36||0.41|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.41
91104761|NCT04097743|182095831|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.41||0.81|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.81
91104762|NCT04097743|182095832|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.39|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.39
91104763|NCT04097743|182095833|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.67|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.67
91104764|NCT04097743|182095834|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.47||0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.99
91104765|NCT04097743|182095835|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.49||0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.49
91104766|NCT04097743|182095836|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36||0.67|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.67
90959225|NCT01037244|181798415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.83|||ANCOVA|p-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with baseline PSAE score and pooled site as covariates.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||0.83|0.54|<0.0001
91104767|NCT04097743|182095837|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.37||0.89|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.89
91104768|NCT04097743|182095838|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.08|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.08
91104769|NCT05926544|182095851|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.16|||||The Standard implementation arm was the reference group.|||1.16|0.18|
91104770|NCT06795204|182095895|NON_INFERIORITY|Upper boundary of 90% CI should not exceed the margin of 10ms|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.1|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.29|6.82|||Mixed Models Analysis||Upper boundary is 6.82ms, does not cross margin of the 10ms|1 min post-dose; worse case for the study drug||6.82|1.29|<0.05
91104771|NCT06795204|182095895|NON_INFERIORITY|Upper boundary of 90% CI should not exceed the margin of 10ms|Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.4|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|10.66|14.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Upper boundary is 14.10ms, cross margin of the 10ms|3 h post-dose; worse case of the positive control||14.10|10.66|<0.05
91104772|NCT06795204|182095895|NON_INFERIORITY|Upper boundary of 90% CI should not exceed the margin of 10ms|Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.8|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|10.07|13.55|||Mixed Models Analysis||Upper boundary is 13.55ms, cross margin of the 10ms|4 h post-dose, second worse case of the positive control||13.55|10.07|<0.05
91104773|NCT04001829|182095909|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.27
91104774|NCT04001829|182095910|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.96
91104775|NCT04001829|182095911|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.004
91104776|NCT04001829|182095912|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91104777|NCT04001829|182095913|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.019
91104778|NCT04001829|182095914|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.47
91104779|NCT04975230|182095952|OTHER||Cohen's D|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.78|-0.37|0.0227
91104780|NCT05818137|182095960|OTHER||Change from baseline estimate|-99.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-129.6|-68.4|||||The change from baseline estimate and associated 95% confidence interval (CI) based on the Hodges-Lehmann method.|||-68.4|-129.6|
91104781|NCT05818137|182095963|OTHER||Change from baseline estimate|41.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.8|55.5|||||The change from baseline estimate and associated 95% confidence interval (CI) based on the Hodges-Lehmann method.|||55.5|27.8|
91104782|NCT05818137|182095965|OTHER||Change from baseline estimate|-48.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.0|-24.8|||||The change from baseline estimate and associated 95% confidence interval (CI) based on the Hodges-Lehmann method.|||-24.8|-77.0|
91104783|NCT05248945|182095966|OTHER||Ratio of test and reference treatment|15.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|13.26|18.9||||||||18.90|13.26|
91104784|NCT05248945|182095967|OTHER||Ratio of test and reference treatment|17.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|13.59|21.33||||||||21.33|13.59|
91104785|NCT05248945|182095990|OTHER||Ratio of test and reference treatment|14.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|12.6|17.82||||||||17.82|12.60|
91104786|NCT05248945|182095993|OTHER||Ratio of test and reference treatment|49.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|44.93|54.9||||||||54.90|44.93|
91104787|NCT05248945|182095994|OTHER||Ratio of test and reference treatment|49.41|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|44.79|54.51||||||||54.51|44.79|
91104788|NCT05248945|182095995|OTHER||Ratio of test and reference treatment|69.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.34|80.4||||||||80.40|60.34|
91104789|NCT05925374|182096016|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91104790|NCT05925374|182096017|OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.007
91104791|NCT05925374|182096018|OTHER|||||||0.136|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.136
91104792|NCT03226392|182096021|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.031||||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.018|||ANCOVA|||||0.018|-0.080|0.214
91104793|NCT03226392|182096022|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|0.035|-0.19|0.01|||ANCOVA|||||0.01|-0.19|0.035
91104794|NCT03226392|182096023|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.093||||0.893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.17|||ANCOVA|||||0.17|-0.20|0.893
91104795|NCT03226392|182096024|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.061||||0.448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.17|||ANCOVA|||||0.17|-0.07|0.448
91104796|NCT05090423|182096031|OTHER|||||||0.018|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.018
91104797|NCT04350866|182096052|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|15.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.99|21.11|||Regression, Logistic|||pre-training to implementation||21.11|8.99|<0.0001
91104798|NCT04350866|182096052|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|3.0|||Regression, Logistic|||pre-implementation to implementation||3.00|0.81|0.18
91104799|NCT04350866|182096052|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.61||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|2.22|||Regression, Logistic|||pre-implementation to implementation||2.22|1.17|0.003
91104800|NCT04350866|182096052|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.76|||Regression, Logistic|||pre-implementation to implementation||1.76|0.77|0.48
90860109|NCT02963935|181583726|SUPERIORITY||treatment difference|-2.72||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.68|-0.77|||ANCOVA||Liraglutide 3.0 mg - placebo|Analysis of in-trial data with missing observations imputed from the placebo arm based on a jump to reference multiple (x100) imputation approach. Week 56 responses were analysed using an analysis of covariance model with treatment, BMI groups, and sex as factors and baseline measurement of endpoint as covariate.||-0.77|-4.68|0.0063
91104801|NCT04350866|182096055|SUPERIORITY||effect size for mixed effects model|0.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
90860110|NCT02963935|181583726|OTHER||Treatment difference|-3.45||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.62|-1.28|||Mixed model repeated measurements (MMRM)||Liraglutide 3.0 mg - placebo|Analysis of on-drug before first drug discontinuation date using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment, BMI groups, and sex as factors and baseline measurement of endpoint as covariate, all nested within visit.||-1.28|-5.62|0.0020
91104802|NCT04350866|182096055|SUPERIORITY||effect size for mixed effects model|0.83|||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Minneapolis VAMC||||<0.0001
90860111|NCT02963935|181583727|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|0.16||||0.8137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|1.52|||ANCOVA||Liraglutide 3.0 mg - placebo|Treatment policy estimand. Analysis of in-trial data with missing observations imputed from the placebo arm based on a jump to reference multiple (x100) imputation approach. Week 56 responses were analysed using an analysis of covariance model with treatment, BMI groups, and sex as factors and baseline measurement of endpoint as covariate.||1.52|-1.19|0.8137
91104803|NCT04350866|182096055|SUPERIORITY||effect size for mixed effects model|0.79|||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Philadelphia VAMC||||<0.0001
91104804|NCT04350866|182096055|SUPERIORITY||effect size for mixed effects model|0.6|||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Durham VAMC||||<0.0001
91104805|NCT04350866|182096055|SUPERIORITY||effect size for mixed effects model|1.01|||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baltimore VAMC||||<0.0001
91104806|NCT04350866|182096056|SUPERIORITY||effect size for mixed effects model|1.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||All Sites||||<0.0001
91104807|NCT04350866|182096056|SUPERIORITY||effect size for mixed effects model|1.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Minneapolis VAMC||||<0.0001
91104808|NCT04350866|182096056|SUPERIORITY||effect size for mixed effects model|0.93|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Philadelphia VAMC||||<0.0001
90905274|NCT02886728|181677451|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-8.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|-6.6||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-6.6|-9.9|<0.001
91104809|NCT04350866|182096056|SUPERIORITY||effect size for mixed effects model|0.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Durham VAMC||||<0.0001
91104810|NCT04350866|182096056|SUPERIORITY||effect size for mixed effects model|1.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baltimore VAMC||||<0.0001
91104811|NCT05206370|182096101|SUPERIORITY|Abstinence from Week 3 to Week 6|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.85||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.475|5.617||Two-sided, calculated by exact computations with clinical site as a stratifier.|Exact computations||Common odds ratio (stratified by site)|||5.617|1.475|0.0008
91104812|NCT05206370|182096101|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.71||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.485|5.094||Two-sided, derived from marginal odds ratio|Exact computations||Marginal (unadjusted) odds ratio|||5.094|1.485|0.0010
91104813|NCT05206370|182096101|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|0.09||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.033|0.134||p-value for difference in proportions|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.134|0.033|0.0006
90860112|NCT02963935|181583727|OTHER||Treatment difference|0.16||||0.8053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|1.43|||Mixed model repeated measurements (MMRM)||Liraglutide 3.0 mg- placebo|Hypothetical estimand. Analysis of on-drug before first drug discontinuation date using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment, BMI groups, and sex as factors and baseline measurement of endpoint as covariate, all nested within visit.||1.43|-1.12|0.8053
90905275|NCT02886728|181677451|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|-4.1||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-4.1|-8.2|<0.001
91104814|NCT05206370|182096102|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.566|7.343||Two-sided, calculated by exact computations with clinical site as a stratifier.|Exact computations||Common odds ratio (stratified by site)|Abstinence from Week 9 to Week 12||7.343|2.566|< 0.0001
91104815|NCT05206370|182096102|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.575|6.885||Two-sided, derived from marginal odds ratio.|Exact computations||Marginal (unadjusted) odds ratio|||6.885|2.575|< 0.0001
91104816|NCT05206370|182096102|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|0.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.141|0.267||p-value for difference in proportions4|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.267|0.141|< 0.0001
91104817|NCT05206370|182096103|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.25||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.851|34.619||Two-sided, calculated by exact computations with clinical site as a stratifier.|Exact computations||Common odds ratio (Stratified by site)|Abstinence from Week 6 to Week 24||34.619|1.851|0.0006
91104818|NCT05206370|182096103|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.42||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.026|27.544||Two-sided, derived from marginal odds ratio.|Exact computations||Marginal (unadjusted) odds ratio|||27.544|2.026|0.0007
91104819|NCT05206370|182096103|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|0.06||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.023|0.075||p-value for difference in proportions|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.075|0.023|0.0007
91104820|NCT05206370|182096104|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.888|12.458||Two-sided, calculated by exact computations with clinical site as a stratifier.|Exact computations||Common odds ratio (stratified by site)|Abstinence from Week 9 to Week 24||12.458|2.888|< 0.0001
91104821|NCT05206370|182096104|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.94|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.091|12.13||Two-sided, derived from marginal odds ratio.|Exact computations||Marginal (unadjusted) odds ratio|||12.130|3.091|< 0.0001
90959226|NCT01037244|181798415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.95|||ANCOVA|p-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with baseline PSAE score and pooled site as covariates.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||0.95|0.66|<0.0001
91104822|NCT05206370|182096104|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|0.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.202||p-value for difference in proportions|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.202|0.110|< 0.0001
91104823|NCT05206370|182096105|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.5538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.652|2.297||Two-sided, calculated by exact computations with clinical site as a stratifier.|Exact computations||Common odds ratio (stratified by site)|Relapse free at Week 24||2.297|0.652|0.5538
91104824|NCT05206370|182096105|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.691|2.231||Two-sided, derived from marginal odds ratio.|Exact computations||Marginal (unadjusted) odds ratio|||2.231|0.691|0.5560
91104825|NCT05206370|182096105|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2822|||||||Zelen's exact test (Pr ≤ P)|||||||0.2822
91104826|NCT05562934|182096165|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5651||||||Single best candidate model is the one with the lowest adjusted p-value of the 5 candidate models|Multiple Comparisons Procedure-MOD|||||||0.5651
91104827|NCT05562934|182096166|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|1.37||||0.6955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.48|8.21|||ANCOVA|||||8.21|-5.48|0.6955
91104828|NCT05562934|182096167|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|1.14||||0.7108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|7.18|||ANCOVA|||||7.18|-4.90|0.7108
91104829|NCT04266301|182096195|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.847||||0.0825|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.671|1.07||P Value is 1-sided|Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factor (Intermediate risk MDS, High risk MDS, Very high risk MDS, CMML-2) as per IRT||||1.070|0.671|0.0825
91104830|NCT04266301|182096196|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.863|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.693|1.076||||||||1.076|0.693|
91104831|NCT04266301|182096197|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.921||||0.2132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.13||P Value is 1-sided|Log Rank|log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factor (Intermediate risk MDS, High risk MDS, Very High risk MDS, CMML-2) as per IRT||||1.130|0.750|0.2132
91104832|NCT04266301|182096198|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4692||||||P Value is 1-sided|negative binomial regression model|negative binomial regression model with log link stratified by randomization stratification factor as per IRT and baseline transfusion status||||||0.4692
91104833|NCT04266301|182096199|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.4865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.4||P Value is 1-sided|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|exact CMH Chi-square statistic, adjusting for randomization stratification factor as per IRT.||||1.4|0.7|0.4865
91104834|NCT04266301|182096200|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.5743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.2||P Value is 1-sided|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|exact CMH Chi-square statistic, adjusting for randomization stratification factor as per IRT.||||2.2|1|0.5743
91104835|NCT04266301|182096201|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.2126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.7||P Value is 1-sided|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|exact CMH Chi-square statistic, adjusting for randomization stratification factor as per IRT.||||1.7|0.8|0.2126
91104836|NCT04266301|182096204|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.576|0.875||||||||0.875|0.576|
91104837|NCT04266301|182096205|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.815|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.038||||||||1.038|0.640|
91104838|NCT03215758|182096220|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0238||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.006|0.088|||ANCOVA|||||0.088|-0.006|0.088
91104839|NCT03215758|182096221|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06||||0.278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.05|||ANCOVA|||||0.05|-0.16|0.278
91104840|NCT03215758|182096222|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08||||0.429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.13|||ANCOVA|||||0.13|-0.30|0.429
91104841|NCT03215758|182096223|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.069||||0.777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.15|||ANCOVA|||||0.15|-0.12|0.777
90970904|NCT05525533|181823902|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|7.3|||Regression, Linear|||||7.30|-0.54|
90970905|NCT05525533|181823903|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.38|3.72|||Regression, Linear|||||3.72|-3.38|
91104842|NCT06415305|182096224|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.008|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank tests|||||||<0.008
91104843|NCT06415305|182096225|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank tests|||||||0.009
91104844|NCT06415305|182096226|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank tests|||||||0.008
91104845|NCT06415305|182096227|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank tests|||||||0.009
91104846|NCT05733286|182096234|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.853||||||Given an SD of approximately 35 min for TST in healthy adults, a sample size of 58 subjects per group will provide 86% power to detect a 20 min difference in TST between treatment groups using a two-sample t-test with a two-sided alpha of 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.853
91104847|NCT05733286|182096235|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34||||||Unadjusted. P \< 0.05 is considered significant. A sample size of 58 patients per group will provide 80% power to detect a 0.95-point difference between treatment groups using a two-sided t-test with an alpha of 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.340
91104848|NCT06547814|182096242|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.35|||||The Standard implementation arm was the reference group.|||1.35|0.79|
91104849|NCT04103346|182096255|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.588|||||||Mixed Effects Model|||||||0.588
91104850|NCT04103346|182096256|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.748|||||||Mixed Effects Model|||||||0.748
91104851|NCT04103346|182096257|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Effects Model|||||||<0.001
91104852|NCT04103346|182096258|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0764|||||||Mixed Effects Model|||||||0.0764
91104853|NCT04103346|182096259|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Effects Model|||||||<0.001
91104854|NCT03997383|182096264|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|14.693||||0.0162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.693|28.692||P-value was determined by the Wilcoxon Rank Sum test,stratified by baseline tafamidis use.Analysis was performed on the 100 multiply-imputed datasets.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test||Median difference estimated by the Hodges-Lehmann method, stratified by baseline tafamidis use. Analysis was performed on the 100 multiply-imputed datasets.|||28.692|0.693|0.0162
91104855|NCT03997383|182096265|SUPERIORITY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|3.709|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.796||0.0397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.176|7.242||P-value was analyzed using mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) as described in the Statistical analysis plan.|MMRM|||||7.242|0.176|0.0397
91104856|NCT03997383|182096266|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Win Ratio|1.27||||0.0574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.61|||Z-test|P-value was analyzed by a z-test using the mean and variance of the log-transformed win ratio estimate.||||1.61|0.99|0.0574
91104857|NCT03997383|182096267|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.997||||0.9888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.602|||Andersen-Gill||HR was derived using an Andersen-Gill model, including the treatment arm, type of ATTR amyloidosis, baseline New York Heart Association (NYHA) class, and age as covariates.|||1.602|0.620|0.9888
91104858|NCT03997383|182096268|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.883||||0.5609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.582|1.341|||Modified Andersen-Gill|P-value was derived using the modified Andersen-Gill model stratified by baseline tafamidis use.|HR was derived using the modified Andersen-Gill model stratified by baseline tafamidis use, including treatment arm, type of ATTR amyloidosis, baseline NYHA class, and age as covariates.|||1.341|0.582|0.5609
91104859|NCT05380180|182096269|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||We implemented an intent-to-treat analysis, including all participants who were randomized in the analysis, regardless of their participation status. To analyze the main effects of the intervention, we conducted linear mixed-effects model. Fixed factors included time of assessment (baseline/Week 4/Week 8) and group (intervention/waitlist control). Participant was included as a random intercept to account for individual variability at baseline.||||<.05
91104860|NCT05380180|182096270|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||We implemented an intent-to-treat analysis, including all participants who were randomized in the analysis, regardless of their participation status. To analyze the main effects of the intervention, we conducted linear mixed-effects model. Fixed factors included time of assessment (baseline/Week 4/Week 8) and group (intervention/waitlist control). Participant was included as a random intercept to account for individual variability at baseline.||||<.05
91104861|NCT05380180|182096271|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||We implemented an intent-to-treat analysis, including all participants who were randomized in the analysis, regardless of their participation status. To analyze the main effects of the intervention, we conducted linear mixed-effects model. Fixed factors included time of assessment (baseline/Week 4/Week 8) and group (intervention/waitlist control). Participant was included as a random intercept to account for individual variability at baseline.||||<.05
91104862|NCT05380180|182096272|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||We implemented an intent-to-treat analysis, including all participants who were randomized in the analysis, regardless of their participation status. To analyze the main effects of the intervention, we conducted linear mixed-effects model. Fixed factors included time of assessment (baseline/Week 4/Week 8) and group (intervention/waitlist control). Participant was included as a random intercept to account for individual variability at baseline.||||<.05
91104863|NCT05380180|182096273|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||We implemented an intent-to-treat analysis, including all participants who were randomized in the analysis, regardless of their participation status. To analyze the main effects of the intervention, we conducted linear mixed-effects model. Fixed factors included time of assessment (baseline/Week 4/Week 8) and group (intervention/waitlist control). Participant was included as a random intercept to account for individual variability at baseline.||||<.05
91104864|NCT02977988|182096308|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Cox|||150 day period was selected for this outcome for a conceptual reason; that being, residential treatment average length of stay||||<0.05
91104865|NCT02977988|182096309|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Negative Binomial Hurdle Model|||||||<0.05
91104866|NCT02977988|182096310|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
91104867|NCT05098015|182096311|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.16||0.95|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.95
91104868|NCT05098015|182096312|SUPERIORITY||Slope|4.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.12||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.16
91104869|NCT05098015|182096313|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<.001
91104870|NCT05098015|182096314|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<.001
91104871|NCT04831216|182096315|OTHER|||||||0.0107||||||The p-value reflects results of analysis of change in HbA1c from baseline to post-intervention.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed effects regression model included time, age, household size, gender, race, education, and employment.||Linear mixed effects regression model for repeated measures used all available participant data. Analyses do not include imputed missing values.||||0.0107
91104872|NCT04831216|182096316|OTHER|||||||0.7927||||||The p-value reflects results of analysis of change in skin carotenoid levels from baseline to post-intervention.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed effects regression model included time, age, household size, gender, race, education, and employment.||Linear mixed effects regression model for repeated measures used all available participant data. Analyses do not include imputed missing values.||||0.7927
91104873|NCT04831216|182096317|OTHER|||||||0.4651||||||The p-value reflects results of analysis of change in HEI score from baseline to post-intervention.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed effects regression model included time, age, household size, gender, race, education, and employment.||Linear mixed effects regression model for repeated measures used all available participant data. Analyses do not include imputed missing values.||||0.4651
91104874|NCT04831216|182096318|OTHER|||||||0.2439||||||The p-value reflects results of analysis of change in BMI from baseline to post-intervention.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed effects regression model included time, age, household size, gender, race, education, and employment.||Linear mixed effects regression model for repeated measures used all available participant data. Analyses do not include imputed missing values.||||0.2439
91104875|NCT04831216|182096320|OTHER|||||||0.6794||||||The p-value reflects results of analysis of change in DMSES scale score from baseline to post-intervention.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed effects regression model included time, age, household size, gender, race, education, and employment.||Linear mixed effects regression model for repeated measures used all available participant data. Analyses do not include imputed missing values.||||0.6794
90860113|NCT02963935|181583728|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was not tested as part of confirmatory testing strategy.|Treatment difference|0.87||||0.6916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.41|5.14|||ANCOVA||Liraglutide 3.0 mg - placebo|Treatment policy estimand. Analysis of in-trial data with missing observations imputed from the placebo arm based on a jump to reference multiple (x100) imputation approach. Week 56 responses were analysed using an analysis of covariance model with treatment, BMI groups, and sex as factors and baseline measurement of endpoint as covariate.||5.14|-3.41|0.6916
90860114|NCT02963935|181583728|OTHER||treatment difference|1.25||||0.5572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.95|5.45|||Mixed models repeated measurements (MMRM||Liraglutide 3.0 mg - placebo|Hypothetical estimand. Analysis of on-drug before first drug discontinuation date using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment, BMI groups, and sex as factors and baseline measurement of endpoint as covariate, all nested within visit.||5.45|-2.95|0.5572
90860115|NCT02963935|181583729|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was not tested as part of confirmatory testing strategy.|Treatment difference|3.12||||0.6986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.68|18.92|||ANCOVA||Liraglutide 3.0 mg - placebo|Treatment policy estimand. Analysis of in-trial data with missing observations imputed from the placebo arm based on a jump to reference multiple (x100) imputation approach. Week 56 responses were analysed using an analysis of covariance model with treatment, BMI groups, and sex as factors and baseline measurement of endpoint as covariate.||18.92|-12.68|0.6986
90860116|NCT02963935|181583729|OTHER||Treatment difference|7.66||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.15|24.48|||Mixed model repeated measurements (MMRM)||Liraglutide 3.0 mg - placebo|Hypothetical estimand. Analysis of on-drug before first drug discontinuation date using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment, BMI groups, and sex as factors and baseline measurement of endpoint as covariate, all nested within visit.||24.48|-9.15|0.3700
90860117|NCT00464269|181583772|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The overall significance level was controlled at 5 %. The 3 doses of Brivaracetam were tested at the 5 % level against Placebo starting from the 50 mg dose then the 20 mg dose and finally the 5 mg dose, only moving to the next test if the previous one is significant at the 5 % level.|% reduction over Placebo|12.8|||=|0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|22.6|||ANCOVA|Baseline and Treatment Period Partial Onset Seizure (POS) frequencies are standardized to a 7-day duration.|The log-transformed (log(x+1)) POS seizure frequency was analyzed using an ANCOVA model, including terms for treatment, stratification factors, and log-transformed Baseline POS seizure frequency per week as a covariate.|The treatment difference between each Brivaracetam (BRV) dose and Placebo (PBO) is reported as a percent reduction over Placebo. The treatment effect was estimated using the 95 % confidence intervals.||22.6|1.7|=0.025
90905276|NCT02886728|181677451|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|-4.5||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-4.5|-8.5|<0.001
91104876|NCT04831216|182096321|OTHER|||||||0.1043||||||The p-value reflects results of analysis of change in oral health behavior from baseline to post-intervention.|Mixed Models Analysis|Cumulative logit mixed effects model included time, age, household size, gender, race, education, and employment.||Cumulative logit mixed effects model (using PROC GLIMMIX) for repeated measures used all available participant data. This model is specifically designed for ordinal outcomes. Analyses do not include imputed missing values.||||0.1043
91104877|NCT04831216|182096322|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value reflects results of analysis of change in PAID-5 scale score from baseline to post-intervention.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed effects regression model included time, age, household size, gender, race, education, and employment.||Linear mixed effects regression model for repeated measures used all available participant data. Analyses do not include imputed missing values.||||<0.0001
91104878|NCT04831216|182096324|OTHER|||||||0.5332||||||The p-value reflects results of analysis of change in number of visits to food pantries in the past 30 days from baseline to post-intervention.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed effects regression model included time, age, household size, gender, race, education, and employment.||Linear mixed effects regression model for repeated measures used all available participant data. Analyses do not include imputed missing values.||||0.5332
91104879|NCT04831216|182096325|OTHER|||||||0.0468||||||The p-value reflects results of analysis of change in ARMS-D scale scores from baseline to post-intervention.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed effects regression model included time, age, household size, gender, race, education, and employment.||Linear mixed effects regression model for repeated measures used all available participant data. Analyses do not include imputed missing values.||||0.0468
91104880|NCT04831216|182096328|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value reflects results of analysis of change in days per week following general healthful diet from baseline to post-intervention.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed effects regression model included time, age, household size, gender, race, education, and employment.||Linear mixed effects regression model for repeated measures used all available participant data. Analyses do not include imputed missing values.||||<0.0001
90860118|NCT00464269|181583772|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The overall significance level was controlled at 5 %. The 3 doses of Brivaracetam were tested at the 5 % level against Placebo starting from the 50 mg dose then the 20 mg dose and finally the 5 mg dose, only moving to the next test if the previous one is significant at the 5 % level.|% reduction over Placebo|4.1|||=|0.492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|15.0|||ANCOVA|Baseline and Treatment Period Partial Onset Seizure (POS) frequencies are standardized to 7-day duration.|The log-transformed (log(x+1)) POS seizure frequency was analyzed using an ANCOVA model, including terms for treatment, stratification factors, and log-transformed Baseline POS seizure frequency per week as a covariate.|The treatment difference between each Brivaracetam dose an Placebo is reported as a percent reduction over Placebo. The treatment effect was estimated using 95 % confidence intervals.||15.0|-8.1|=0.492
90970906|NCT05525533|181823903|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|15.0|||Regression, Linear|||||15|0.42|
90970907|NCT05525533|181823904|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|5.02|||Regression, Linear|||||5.02|-0.11|
91104881|NCT04831216|182096329|OTHER|||||||0.0649||||||The p-value reflects results of analysis of change in days per week following specific diet recommendations from baseline to post-intervention.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed effects regression model included time, age, household size, gender, race, education, and employment.||Linear mixed effects regression model for repeated measures used all available participant data. Analyses do not include imputed missing values.||||0.0649
91104882|NCT04831216|182096330|OTHER|||||||0.0049||||||The p-value reflects results of analysis of change in days per week engaging in exercise from baseline to post-intervention.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed effects regression model included time, age, household size, gender, race, education, and employment.||Linear mixed effects regression model for repeated measures used all available participant data. Analyses do not include imputed missing values.||||0.0049
91104883|NCT04831216|182096331|OTHER|||||||0.0086||||||The p-value reflects results of analysis of change in days per week conducted blood glucose testing from baseline to post-intervention.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed effects regression model included time, age, household size, gender, race, education, and employment.||Linear mixed effects regression model for repeated measures used all available participant data. Analyses do not include imputed missing values.||||0.0086
91104884|NCT04831216|182096332|OTHER|||||||0.0243||||||The p-value reflects results of analysis of change in days per week conducting food checks from baseline to post-intervention.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed effects regression model included time, age, household size, gender, race, education, and employment.||Linear mixed effects regression model for repeated measures used all available participant data. Analyses do not include imputed missing values.||||0.0243
91104885|NCT04831216|182096333|OTHER|||||||0.2861||||||The p-value reflects results of analysis of change in smoking status (yes/no) from baseline to post-intervention.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed effects regression model included time, age, household size, gender, race, education, and employment.||Linear mixed effects regression model for repeated measures used all available participant data. Analyses do not include imputed missing values.||||0.2861
91104886|NCT04831216|182096334|OTHER|||||||0.9933||||||The p-value reflects results of analysis of change in days per week adhering to prescribed medications from baseline to post-intervention.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed effects regression model included time, age, household size, gender, race, education, and employment.||Linear mixed effects regression model for repeated measures used all available participant data. Analyses do not include imputed missing values.||||0.9933
91104887|NCT06038123|182096366|SUPERIORITY||Proportion|100.0||||0.002|ONE_SIDED|97.5|93.94|||A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.025|One-proportion binomial exact test|||Alternative hypothesis: MRI-related event-free rate within 1-month post-MRI \>90%. Null hypothesis will be rejected if the one-sided 97.5% lower confidence bound is \>90%. Assuming type I error rate of 0.025, even-free rate under null hypothesis being 90% and true even-free rate being 99.5%, the minimum required sample size is 54 MRI scanned patients to achieve 90% power. One-proportion binomial exact test along with a one-sided 97.5% lower (Clopper-Pearson) confidence bound was used.|||93.94|0.002
91104888|NCT05630001|182096375|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority and primary objective was considered met if the lower bound of the estimated two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) is greater than -1 g/dL.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
91104889|NCT05630001|182096376|SUPERIORITY|Superiority and the key secondary objective was considered met if the lower bound of the estimated two-sided 95% CI was \> 0 g/dL.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
91104890|NCT05218499|182096385|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.0956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.06|||Regression, Cox||A hazard ratio value below 1 favors brigimadlin.|The primary estimator for the hazard ratio is the median unbiased estimator. The confidence interval (CI) for the hazard ratio is calculated as a repeated CI. The p-value is obtained using a weighted inverse normal method combining one-sided p-values from two stages.||1.06|0.60|0.0956
91104891|NCT05218499|182096386|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|5.67|||||An odds ratio value greater than 1 favors brigimadlin.|The primary estimator and CI for the odds ratio is by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel.||5.67|1.52|
91104892|NCT05218499|182096388|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.82|||||An odds ratio value greater than 1 favors brigimadlin.|Odds ratios are calculated from a logistic regression model with the stratification factor (locally advanced vs. metastatic) included as a covariate.||2.82|0.81|
91104893|NCT05218499|182096388|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|4.84|||||An odds ratio value greater than 1 favors brigimadlin.|Odds ratios are calculated from a logistic regression model with the stratification factor (locally advanced vs. metastatic) included as a covariate. Exact 95% confidence interval (CI) by Clopper and Pearson.||4.84|1.48|
91104894|NCT04063215|182096402|OTHER|||||||0.048|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||For inflammatory cytokines, time course data will be analyzed using a GLMM to test differences across time between pre- and post- treatment. The dependent variables will be the neuroinflammatory biomarkers with time (to model the trajectory) and GOSE (3-4 or 5-8) as covariates and a random subject effect (to account for within subject correlation). Point estimates of pre- and posttreatment differences will be reported along with 95% confidence interval.||||0.048
91104895|NCT04063215|182096403|OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||For inflammatory cytokines, time course data will be analyzed using a GLMM to test differences across time between pre- and post- treatment. The dependent variables will be the neuroinflammatory biomarkers with time (to model the trajectory) and GOSE (3-4 or 5-8) as covariates and a random subject effect (to account for within subject correlation). Point estimates of pre- and posttreatment differences will be reported along with 95% confidence interval.||||0.2
91104896|NCT04063215|182096404|OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||For inflammatory cytokines, time course data will be analyzed using a GLMM to test differences across time between pre- and post- treatment. The dependent variables will be the neuroinflammatory biomarkers with time (to model the trajectory) and GOSE (3-4 or 5-8) as covariates and a random subject effect (to account for within subject correlation). Point estimates of pre- and posttreatment differences will be reported along with 95% confidence interval.||||0.6
90970908|NCT05525533|181823904|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|6.25|||Regression, Linear|||||6.25|0.33|
91104897|NCT04063215|182096405|OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||For inflammatory cytokines, time course data will be analyzed using a GLMM to test differences across time between pre- and post- treatment. The dependent variables will be the neuroinflammatory biomarkers with time (to model the trajectory) and GOSE (3-4 or 5-8) as covariates and a random subject effect (to account for within subject correlation). Point estimates of pre- and posttreatment differences will be reported along with 95% confidence interval.||||0.10
91104898|NCT04063215|182096406|OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||For inflammatory cytokines, time course data will be analyzed using a GLMM to test differences across time between pre- and post- treatment. The dependent variables will be the neuroinflammatory biomarkers with time (to model the trajectory) and GOSE (3-4 or 5-8) as covariates and a random subject effect (to account for within subject correlation). Point estimates of pre- and posttreatment differences will be reported along with 95% confidence interval.||||0.4
91104899|NCT04063215|182096407|OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||For inflammatory cytokines, time course data will be analyzed using a GLMM to test differences across time between pre- and post- treatment. The dependent variables will be the neuroinflammatory biomarkers with time (to model the trajectory) and GOSE (3-4 or 5-8) as covariates and a random subject effect (to account for within subject correlation). Point estimates of pre- and posttreatment differences will be reported along with 95% confidence interval.||||0.6
91104900|NCT04063215|182096408|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||For inflammatory cytokines, time course data will be analyzed using a GLMM to test differences across time between pre- and post- treatment. The dependent variables will be the neuroinflammatory biomarkers with time (to model the trajectory) and GOSE (3-4 or 5-8) as covariates and a random subject effect (to account for within subject correlation). Point estimates of pre- and posttreatment differences will be reported along with 95% confidence interval.||||0.5
91104901|NCT04063215|182096409|OTHER||||||>|0.9|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||For inflammatory cytokines, time course data will be analyzed using a GLMM to test differences across time between pre- and post- treatment. The dependent variables will be the neuroinflammatory biomarkers with time (to model the trajectory) and GOSE (3-4 or 5-8) as covariates and a random subject effect (to account for within subject correlation). Point estimates of pre- and posttreatment differences will be reported along with 95% confidence interval.||||>0.9
91104902|NCT04063215|182096410|OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||For inflammatory cytokines, time course data will be analyzed using a GLMM to test differences across time between pre- and post- treatment. The dependent variables will be the neuroinflammatory biomarkers with time (to model the trajectory) and GOSE (3-4 or 5-8) as covariates and a random subject effect (to account for within subject correlation). Point estimates of pre- and posttreatment differences will be reported along with 95% confidence interval.||||0.8
91104903|NCT04063215|182096411|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||For inflammatory cytokines, time course data will be analyzed using a GLMM to test differences across time between pre- and post- treatment. The dependent variables will be the neuroinflammatory biomarkers with time (to model the trajectory) and GOSE (3-4 or 5-8) as covariates and a random subject effect (to account for within subject correlation). Point estimates of pre- and posttreatment differences will be reported along with 95% confidence interval.||||0.002
91104904|NCT04063215|182096412|OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||For inflammatory cytokines, time course data will be analyzed using a GLMM to test differences across time between pre- and post- treatment. The dependent variables will be the neuroinflammatory biomarkers with time (to model the trajectory) and GOSE (3-4 or 5-8) as covariates and a random subject effect (to account for within subject correlation). Point estimates of pre- and posttreatment differences will be reported along with 95% confidence interval.||||0.8
91104905|NCT04063215|182096413|OTHER|||||||0.069|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||For inflammatory cytokines, time course data will be analyzed using a GLMM to test differences across time between pre- and post- treatment. The dependent variables will be the neuroinflammatory biomarkers with time (to model the trajectory) and GOSE (3-4 or 5-8) as covariates and a random subject effect (to account for within subject correlation). Point estimates of pre- and posttreatment differences will be reported along with 95% confidence interval.||||0.069
90860119|NCT03911154|181583795|OTHER|We used linear mixed effect models (in SAS version 9.4, SAS Institute, Cary, NC) with random subject intercept to account for the clustered nature of the data. The model included factors for stimulus modality (4 levels), sleep restriction night (4 levels), and their interaction.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.329|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.353||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.403|1.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Number of lapses of attention were averaged across assessments within each day and the statistical analysis adjusted for baseline.||1.060|-0.403|0.36
90860120|NCT03911154|181583795|OTHER|Linear mixed effects model with a random subject intercept.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.307|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.441||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.222|0.608|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Number of lapses of attention upon emergent awakening||0.608|-1.222|0.49
90860121|NCT03911154|181583796|OTHER|Linear mixed effects model with a random subject intercept.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.455|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.797||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|6.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.310|-5.400|0.87
90970909|NCT02915523|181823905|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.899|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.581|1.393|||||Stratified HR estimated from a stratified univeriate Cox proportional hazards model. Avelumab + placebo was the reference treatment group.|||1.393|0.581|
90970910|NCT00708500|181823923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|37.4|||<|0.0001||95.0|25.7|49.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in percentage of participants who achieved SVR: experimental minus control.|||49.1|25.7|<0.0001
91104906|NCT04063215|182096414|OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||For inflammatory cytokines, time course data will be analyzed using a GLMM to test differences across time between pre- and post- treatment. The dependent variables will be the neuroinflammatory biomarkers with time (to model the trajectory) and GOSE (3-4 or 5-8) as covariates and a random subject effect (to account for within subject correlation). Point estimates of pre- and posttreatment differences will be reported along with 95% confidence interval.||||0.6
91104907|NCT04063215|182096415|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|4.19||This p-value applies to data regarding 6 months Post-Infusion (Visit 6 - Week 28) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Regression, Logistic|||A proportional odds logistic regression model was used to analyze the data over time. This model is used to predict an ordered categorical outcome over time by assuming the odds ratio between any two outcome categories is constant throughout all time points. Null hypothesis is that time has no effect on the cumulative odds for a patient to be in a higher category after being evaluated on the GOS-E. Odds ratio \>1 indicates higher likelihood of being in higher categories compared to at baseline.|This statistical analysis applies to data regarding 6 months Post-Infusion (Visit 6 - Week 28) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|4.19|0.43|0.63
91104908|NCT04063215|182096415|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|5.45||This p-value applies to data regarding 1 year Post-Infusion (Visit 7 - Week 56) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Regression, Logistic|||A proportional odds logistic regression model was used to analyze the data over time. This model is used to predict an ordered categorical outcome over time by assuming the odds ratio between any two outcome categories is constant throughout all time points. Null hypothesis is that time has no effect on the cumulative odds for a patient to be in a higher category after being evaluated on the GOS-E. Odds ratio \>1 indicates higher likelihood of being in higher categories compared to at baseline.|This statistical analysis applies to data regarding 1 year Post-Infusion (Visit 7 - Week 56) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|5.45|0.55|0.36
91104909|NCT04063215|182096416|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.38||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.01||This p-value applies to data regarding 6 months Post-Infusion (Visit 6 - Week 28) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Mixed Models Analysis|Effect size: 0.19|Effect size: 0.19|Neuropsychological and Functional outcome measures were analyzed using general linear mixed models (GLMMs) to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Models will include time of assessment (baseline and 6 and/or 12 months after treatment) and baseline age as covariates with random intercepts for participants to account for within-participant correlation. Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were determined for all outcomes at 6 and 12 months after treatment.||-0.01|-0.75|0.047
91104910|NCT04063215|182096416|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.749||||0.00023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|-0.379||This p-value applies to data regarding 1 year Post-Infusion (Visit 7 - Week 56) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Mixed Models Analysis|Effect size: 0.19|Effect size: 0.19|Neuropsychological and Functional outcome measures were analyzed using general linear mixed models (GLMMs) to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Models will include time of assessment (baseline and 6 and/or 12 months after treatment) and baseline age as covariates with random intercepts for participants to account for within-participant correlation. Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were determined for all outcomes at 6 and 12 months after treatment.||-0.379|-1.12|0.00023
91104911|NCT04063215|182096417|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.86||||0.00027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.42|7.29||This p-value applies to data regarding 6 months Post-Infusion (Visit 6 - Week 28) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Mixed Models Analysis|Effect size: 0.63|Effect size: 0.63|Neuropsychological and Functional outcome measures were analyzed using general linear mixed models (GLMMs) to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Models will include time of assessment (baseline and 6 and/or 12 months after treatment) and baseline age as covariates with random intercepts for participants to account for within-participant correlation. Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were determined for all outcomes at 6 and 12 months after treatment.||7.29|2.42|0.00027
90860122|NCT03911154|181583797|OTHER|Linear mixed effects model with a random subject intercept.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.112|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.798||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.767|1.543|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Number correct on the DSST was averaged across DSST administrations within each day and was adjusted for baseline performance.||1.543|-1.767|0.89
90860123|NCT03911154|181583798|OTHER|Linear mixed effects model with a random subject intercept.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.121|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.381||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.919|0.678|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Number correct on the DST was averaged across DST administrations within each day and adjusted for baseline.||0.678|-0.919|0.76
90860124|NCT03911154|181583799|OTHER|Linear mixed effects model with a random subject intercept.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.085|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.179||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.286|0.456|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The mean weighted score on the ROBoT was adjusted for baseline.||0.456|-0.286|0.64
90860125|NCT00543543|181583816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine efficacy|96.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|80.9|99.8|||Exact test, 1-sided||Vaccine efficacy = 100 \* \[1 - (incidence rate with V503 / incidence rate with Gardasil)\]. The pre-specified success criterion was a lower bound of the 95% confidence interval of observed efficacy of \>25%.|||99.8|80.9|<0.0001
90860126|NCT00543543|181583817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine efficacy|97.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|85.0|99.9|||Exact test, 1-sided||Vaccine efficacy = 100 \* \[1 - (incidence rate with V503 / incidence rate with Gardasil)\]. The pre-specified success criterion was a lower bound of the 95% confidence interval of observed efficacy of \>25%.|||99.9|85.0|
90860127|NCT00543543|181583818|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority required that the lower bound of the two-sided confidence interval (CI) of the GMT ratio was \>0.67|GMT ratio|1.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.06|||ANOVA||GMT ratio = GMT (V503) / GMT (Gardasil)|Anti-HPV Type 6||1.06|0.99|<0.001
90860128|NCT00543543|181583818|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority required that the lower bound of the two-sided CI of the GMT ratio was \>0.67|GMT ratio|0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.83|||ANOVA||GMT ratio = GMT (V503) / GMT (Gardasil)|Anti-HPV Type 11||0.83|0.77|<0.001
90860129|NCT00543543|181583818|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority required that the lower bound of the two-sided CI of the GMT ratio was \>0.67|GMT ratio|0.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.03|||ANOVA||GMT ratio = GMT (V503) / GMT (Gardasil)|Anti-HPV Type 16||1.03|0.96|<0.001
90860130|NCT00543543|181583818|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority required that the lower bound of the two-sided CI of the GMT ratio was \>0.67|GMT ratio|1.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.23|||ANOVA||GMT ratio = GMT (V503) / GMT (Gardasil)|Anti-HPV Type 18||1.23|1.14|<0.001
90860131|NCT00543543|181583825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine efficacy|96.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.6|97.1|||||Vaccine efficacy = 100 \* \[1 - (incidence rate with V503 / incidence rate with Gardasil)\]. The pre-specified success criterion was a lower bound of the 95% confidence interval of observed efficacy of \>25%.|||97.1|94.6|
91104912|NCT04063215|182096417|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.9||||0.00019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.506|7.294||This p-value applies to data regarding 1 year Post-Infusion (Visit 7 - Week 56) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Mixed Models Analysis|Effect size: 0.63|Effect size: 0.63|Neuropsychological and Functional outcome measures were analyzed using general linear mixed models (GLMMs) to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Models will include time of assessment (baseline and 6 and/or 12 months after treatment) and baseline age as covariates with random intercepts for participants to account for within-participant correlation. Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were determined for all outcomes at 6 and 12 months after treatment.||7.294|2.506|0.00019
91104913|NCT04063215|182096418|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.43||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.07|-1.18||This p-value applies to data regarding 6 months Post-Infusion (Visit 6 - Week 28) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Mixed Models Analysis|Effect size: 0.38|Effect size: 0.38|Neuropsychological and Functional outcome measures were analyzed using general linear mixed models (GLMMs) to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Models will include time of assessment (baseline and 6 and/or 12 months after treatment) and baseline age as covariates with random intercepts for participants to account for within-participant correlation. Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were determined for all outcomes at 6 and 12 months after treatment.||-1.18|-6.07|0.19
91104914|NCT04063215|182096418|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.7||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.26|-0.14||This p-value applies to data regarding 1 year Post-Infusion (Visit 7 - Week 56) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Mixed Models Analysis|Effect size: 0.38|Effect size: 0.38|Neuropsychological and Functional outcome measures were analyzed using general linear mixed models (GLMMs) to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Models will include time of assessment (baseline and 6 and/or 12 months after treatment) and baseline age as covariates with random intercepts for participants to account for within-participant correlation. Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were determined for all outcomes at 6 and 12 months after treatment.||-0.14|-7.26|0.043
91104915|NCT04063215|182096419|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.63||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.55|0.26||This p-value applies to data regarding 6 months Post-Infusion (Visit 6 - Week 28) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Mixed Models Analysis|Effect size: 0.48|Effect size: 0.48|Neuropsychological and Functional outcome measures were analyzed using general linear mixed models (GLMMs) to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Models will include time of assessment (baseline and 6 and/or 12 months after treatment) and baseline age as covariates with random intercepts for participants to account for within-participant correlation. Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were determined for all outcomes at 6 and 12 months after treatment.||0.26|-7.55|0.069
91104916|NCT04063215|182096419|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.15||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.983|-2.317||This p-value applies to data regarding 1 year Post-Infusion (Visit 7 - Week 56) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Mixed Models Analysis|Effect size: 0.48|Effect size: 0.48|Neuropsychological and Functional outcome measures were analyzed using general linear mixed models (GLMMs) to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Models will include time of assessment (baseline and 6 and/or 12 months after treatment) and baseline age as covariates with random intercepts for participants to account for within-participant correlation. Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were determined for all outcomes at 6 and 12 months after treatment.||-2.317|-9.983|0.026
91104917|NCT04063215|182096420|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.43||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.12|-0.79||This p-value applies to data regarding 6 months Post-Infusion (Visit 6 - Week 28) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Mixed Models Analysis|Effect size: 0.53|Effect size: 0.53|Neuropsychological and Functional outcome measures were analyzed using general linear mixed models (GLMMs) to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Models will include time of assessment (baseline and 6 and/or 12 months after treatment) and baseline age as covariates with random intercepts for participants to account for within-participant correlation. Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were determined for all outcomes at 6 and 12 months after treatment.||-0.79|-8.12|0.020
90860132|NCT04502979|181583837|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.73||One-sided p-value for directional hypothesis. The threshold for statistical significance is p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.73|-0.11|0.07
90860133|NCT04502979|181583838|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-121.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|65.73||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-252.73|10.41||One-sided p-value for directional hypothesis. The threshold for statistical significance is p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||10.41|-252.73|0.04
90905277|NCT02886728|181677451|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|-5.1||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-5.1|-8.0|<0.001
90905278|NCT02886728|181677451|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|-3.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-3.0|-6.5|<0.001
90905279|NCT02886728|181677451|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|-3.8||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-3.8|-7.4|<0.001
91104918|NCT04063215|182096420|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.7||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.297|-2.103||This p-value applies to data regarding 1 year Post-Infusion (Visit 7 - Week 56) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Mixed Models Analysis|Effect size: 0.53|Effect size: 0.53|Neuropsychological and Functional outcome measures were analyzed using general linear mixed models (GLMMs) to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Models will include time of assessment (baseline and 6 and/or 12 months after treatment) and baseline age as covariates with random intercepts for participants to account for within-participant correlation. Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were determined for all outcomes at 6 and 12 months after treatment.||-2.103|-9.297|0.0029
91104919|NCT04063215|182096421|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.64||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.33|0.02||This p-value applies to data regarding 6 months Post-Infusion (Visit 6 - Week 28) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Mixed Models Analysis|Effect size: 0.53|Effect size: 0.53|Neuropsychological and Functional outcome measures were analyzed using general linear mixed models (GLMMs) to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Models will include time of assessment (baseline and 6 and/or 12 months after treatment) and baseline age as covariates with random intercepts for participants to account for within-participant correlation. Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were determined for all outcomes at 6 and 12 months after treatment.||0.02|-7.33|0.054
91104920|NCT04063215|182096421|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.85||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.456|-2.244||This p-value applies to data regarding 1 year Post-Infusion (Visit 7 - Week 56) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Mixed Models Analysis|Effect size: 0.53|Effect size: 0.53|Neuropsychological and Functional outcome measures were analyzed using general linear mixed models (GLMMs) to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Models will include time of assessment (baseline and 6 and/or 12 months after treatment) and baseline age as covariates with random intercepts for participants to account for within-participant correlation. Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were determined for all outcomes at 6 and 12 months after treatment.||-2.244|-9.456|0.0023
91104921|NCT04063215|182096422|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.0||||0.0097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|5.22||This p-value applies to data regarding 6 months Post-Infusion (Visit 6 - Week 28) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Mixed Models Analysis|Effect size: 0.51|Effect size: 0.51|Neuropsychological and Functional outcome measures were analyzed using general linear mixed models (GLMMs) to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Models will include time of assessment (baseline and 6 and/or 12 months after treatment) and baseline age as covariates with random intercepts for participants to account for within-participant correlation. Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were determined for all outcomes at 6 and 12 months after treatment.||5.22|0.79|0.0097
91104922|NCT04063215|182096422|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.51||||0.00017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.335|6.685||This p-value applies to data regarding 1 year Post-Infusion (Visit 7 - Week 56) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Mixed Models Analysis|Effect size: 0.51|Effect size: 0.51|Neuropsychological and Functional outcome measures were analyzed using general linear mixed models (GLMMs) to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Models will include time of assessment (baseline and 6 and/or 12 months after treatment) and baseline age as covariates with random intercepts for participants to account for within-participant correlation. Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were determined for all outcomes at 6 and 12 months after treatment.||6.685|2.335|0.00017
91104923|NCT04063215|182096423|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.58||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|5.14||This p-value applies to data regarding 6 months Post-Infusion (Visit 6 - Week 28) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Mixed Models Analysis|Effect size: 0.40|Effect size: 0.40|Neuropsychological and Functional outcome measures were analyzed using general linear mixed models (GLMMs) to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Models will include time of assessment (baseline and 6 and/or 12 months after treatment) and baseline age as covariates with random intercepts for participants to account for within-participant correlation. Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were determined for all outcomes at 6 and 12 months after treatment.||5.14|0.04|0.049
91104924|NCT04063215|182096423|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.555||||0.0069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.054|6.056||This p-value applies to data regarding 1 year Post-Infusion (Visit 7 - Week 56) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Mixed Models Analysis|Effect size: 0.40|Effect size: 0.40|Neuropsychological and Functional outcome measures were analyzed using general linear mixed models (GLMMs) to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Models will include time of assessment (baseline and 6 and/or 12 months after treatment) and baseline age as covariates with random intercepts for participants to account for within-participant correlation. Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were determined for all outcomes at 6 and 12 months after treatment.||6.056|1.054|0.0069
91104925|NCT04063215|182096424|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.03||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|6.82||This p-value applies to data regarding 6 months Post-Infusion (Visit 6 - Week 28) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Mixed Models Analysis|Effect size: 0.57|Effect size: 0.57|Neuropsychological and Functional outcome measures were analyzed using general linear mixed models (GLMMs) to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Models will include time of assessment (baseline and 6 and/or 12 months after treatment) and baseline age as covariates with random intercepts for participants to account for within-participant correlation. Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were determined for all outcomes at 6 and 12 months after treatment.||6.82|1.21|0.0064
90860134|NCT01881373|181583839|SUPERIORITY|Hierarchical logistic model accounting for randomization of communities and clustering of children within communities in strata of jurisdictions weighted for number of children less than age 10 in communities. Chi-square test accounts for degrees of freedom based on number of communities.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.88||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.29|-0.47|||Regression, Logistic|Hierarchical model.|Intervention vs control communities comparing 24 months to baseline|||-0.47|-7.29|0.02
91104926|NCT04063215|182096424|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.005||||0.00076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.251|7.759||This p-value applies to data regarding 1 year Post-Infusion (Visit 7 - Week 56) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Mixed Models Analysis|Effect size: 0.57|Effect size: 0.57|Neuropsychological and Functional outcome measures were analyzed using general linear mixed models (GLMMs) to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Models will include time of assessment (baseline and 6 and/or 12 months after treatment) and baseline age as covariates with random intercepts for participants to account for within-participant correlation. Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were determined for all outcomes at 6 and 12 months after treatment.||7.759|2.251|0.00076
90860135|NCT01881373|181583839|SUPERIORITY|The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.63||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.58|3.32||The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.|Regression, Logistic|The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.||The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.||3.32|-8.58|0.28
90860136|NCT01881373|181583840|SUPERIORITY|Hierarchical model accounting for randomization of communities and clustering of children within communities in strata of jurisdictions weighted for number of children less than age 10 in communities. Chi-square test accounts for degrees of freedom based on number of communities.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.64||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.87|-0.41||Intervention vs control communities comparing 78 months to baseline.|Regression, Linear|Hierarchical model.||The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.||-0.41|-2.87|0.009
90905280|NCT02886728|181677451|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|-3.4||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-3.4|-5.9|<0.001
90905281|NCT02886728|181677451|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|-1.6||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.6|-4.6|<0.001
90905282|NCT02886728|181677451|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|-1.9||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.9|-4.9|<0.001
90905283|NCT02886728|181677451|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|-1.4||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.4|-3.8|<0.001
90905284|NCT02886728|181677451|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.6||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||0.6|-2.4|0.23
90905285|NCT02886728|181677451|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|-0.6||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.6|-3.6|0.005
90905286|NCT02886728|181677451|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|-2.6||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-2.6|-5.0|<0.001
90905287|NCT02886728|181677451|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-0.3||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.3|-3.1|0.021
90905288|NCT02886728|181677451|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|-1.4||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.4|-4.3|<0.001
91104927|NCT04063215|182096425|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.13||||0.0084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|5.38||This p-value applies to data regarding 6 months Post-Infusion (Visit 6 - Week 28) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Mixed Models Analysis|Effect size: 0.23|Effect size: 0.23|Neuropsychological and Functional outcome measures were analyzed using general linear mixed models (GLMMs) to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Models will include time of assessment (baseline and 6 and/or 12 months after treatment) and baseline age as covariates with random intercepts for participants to account for within-participant correlation. Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were determined for all outcomes at 6 and 12 months after treatment.||5.38|0.86|0.0084
90905289|NCT02886728|181677452|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|7.6||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|12.9||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups, and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24 for Change in mTSS \<= 0.5||12.9|2.2|0.006
90905290|NCT02886728|181677452|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|4.9||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|11.6||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups, and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24 for Change in mTSS \<= 0.5||11.6|-1.8|0.16
90905291|NCT02886728|181677452|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|7.6||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|14.1||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups, and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24 for Change in mTSS \<= 0.5||14.1|1.1|0.029
90905292|NCT02886728|181677452|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|8.1||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|14.6||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups, and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24 for Change in mTSS \<= 0||14.6|1.6|0.015
90905293|NCT02886728|181677452|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|4.2||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|12.2||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups, and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24 for Change in mTSS \<= 0||12.2|-3.9|0.33
90905294|NCT02886728|181677452|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|10.2||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|17.9||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups, and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24 for Change in mTSS \<= 0||17.9|2.5|0.013
90905295|NCT02886728|181677452|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|3.6||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|7.6||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups, and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24 for Change in mTSS \<= SDC (1.53)||7.6|-0.3|0.074
90905296|NCT02886728|181677452|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|1.9||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|6.9||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups, and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24 for Change in mTSS \<= SDC (1.53)||6.9|-3.1|0.49
90970911|NCT00708500|181823923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|45.2|||<|0.0001||95.0|33.7|56.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in percentage of participants who achieved SVR: experimental minus control.|||56.8|33.7|<0.0001
90905297|NCT02886728|181677452|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|4.4||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|8.9||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups, and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24 for Change in mTSS \<= SDC (1.53)||8.9|-0.2|0.075
90905298|NCT02886728|181677452|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|10.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|16.2||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups, stratification factors and campaign groups in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52 for Change in mTSS \<= 0.5||16.2|4.3|<0.001
90905299|NCT02886728|181677452|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|7.9||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|15.2||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups, stratification factors and campaign groups in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52 for Change in mTSS \<= 0.5||15.2|0.7|0.045
90905300|NCT02886728|181677452|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|6.5||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|14.0||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups, stratification factors and campaign groups in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52 for Change in mTSS \<= 0.5||14.0|-1.1|0.100
90905301|NCT02886728|181677452|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|10.0||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|16.7||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups, stratification factors and campaign groups in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52 for Change in mTSS \<= 0||16.7|3.2|0.004
90905302|NCT02886728|181677452|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|5.5||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|14.0||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups, stratification factors and campaign groups in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52 for Change in mTSS \<= 0||14.0|-2.9|0.25
90905303|NCT02886728|181677452|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|6.5||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|15.0||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups, stratification factors and campaign groups in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52 for Change in mTSS \<= 0||15.0|-2.0|0.14
90905304|NCT02886728|181677452|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|7.5||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|12.3||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups, stratification factors and campaign groups in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52 for Change in mTSS \<= SDC (1.77)||12.3|2.8|0.002
90905305|NCT02886728|181677452|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|8.2||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|13.6||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups, stratification factors and campaign groups in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52 for Change in mTSS \<= SDC (1.77)||13.6|2.9|0.008
90970912|NCT00708500|181823924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|39.1|||<|0.0001||95.0|27.2|51.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in percentage of participants who achieved SVR: experimental minus control.|||51.0|27.2|<0.0001
90860137|NCT01881373|181583840|SUPERIORITY|Hierarchical logistic model accounting for randomization of communities and clustering of children within communities in strata of jurisdictions weighted for number of children less than age 10 in communities. Chi-square test accounts for degrees of freedom based on number of communities.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.35||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|17.24|||Regression, Linear|The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.||Intervention vs temporal comparing 78 months to baseline.||17.24|-8.5|0.49
90860138|NCT01881373|181583841|SUPERIORITY|Hierarchical logistic model accounting for randomization of communities and clustering of children within communities in strata of jurisdictions weighted for number of children less than age 10 in communities. Chi-square test accounts for degrees of freedom based on number of communities.|Difference in prevalence|-3.6|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|Hierarchical model||Intervention vs control comparing 24 months to baseline.||||<0.01
90860139|NCT01881373|181583842|SUPERIORITY|The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.|change in prevalence between communities|-12.6||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.92|-4.28||The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.|Regression, Logistic|The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.|The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.|Intervention vs. control. The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.||-4.28|-20.92|0.003
90860140|NCT01881373|181583842|SUPERIORITY|The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.43||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.36|3.5||The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.|Regression, Logistic|The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.||Intervention vs. Temporal communities. The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.||3.50|-10.36|0.33
90860141|NCT01881373|181583843|SUPERIORITY|The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|-0.05||The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.|Regression, Linear|The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.|The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.|The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.||-0.05|-1.37|0.02
90860142|NCT01881373|181583843|SUPERIORITY|The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.65||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.79|0.49||The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.|Regression, Linear|The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.||The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.||0.49|-1.79|0.13
91104928|NCT04063215|182096425|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.72||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|4.94||This p-value applies to data regarding 1 year Post-Infusion (Visit 7 - Week 56) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Mixed Models Analysis|Effect size: 0.23|Effect size: 0.23|Neuropsychological and Functional outcome measures were analyzed using general linear mixed models (GLMMs) to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Models will include time of assessment (baseline and 6 and/or 12 months after treatment) and baseline age as covariates with random intercepts for participants to account for within-participant correlation. Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were determined for all outcomes at 6 and 12 months after treatment.||4.94|0.5|0.018
91104929|NCT04063215|182096426|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.22||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|4.13||This p-value applies to data regarding 6 months Post-Infusion (Visit 6 - Week 28) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Mixed Models Analysis|Effect size: 0.36|Effect size: 0.36|Neuropsychological and Functional outcome measures were analyzed using general linear mixed models (GLMMs) to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Models will include time of assessment (baseline and 6 and/or 12 months after treatment) and baseline age as covariates with random intercepts for participants to account for within-participant correlation. Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were determined for all outcomes at 6 and 12 months after treatment.||4.13|0.33|0.024
91104930|NCT04063215|182096426|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.31||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.445|4.175||This p-value applies to data regarding 1 year Post-Infusion (Visit 7 - Week 56) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Mixed Models Analysis|Effect size: 0.36|Effect size: 0.36|Neuropsychological and Functional outcome measures were analyzed using general linear mixed models (GLMMs) to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Models will include time of assessment (baseline and 6 and/or 12 months after treatment) and baseline age as covariates with random intercepts for participants to account for within-participant correlation. Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were determined for all outcomes at 6 and 12 months after treatment.||4.175|0.445|0.017
90905306|NCT02886728|181677452|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|2.5||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|8.9||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups, stratification factors and campaign groups in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52 for Change in mTSS \<= SDC (1.77)||8.9|-3.9|0.47
90905307|NCT02886728|181677454|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|4.1||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||4.1|2.4|<0.001
90905308|NCT02886728|181677454|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.8||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||2.8|0.7|0.001
90905309|NCT02886728|181677454|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|3.4||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||3.4|1.3|<0.001
90905310|NCT02886728|181677454|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|4.8||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||4.8|2.7|<0.001
90905311|NCT02886728|181677454|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||3.0|0.5|0.008
90905312|NCT02886728|181677454|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.8||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||2.8|0.2|0.023
90905313|NCT02886728|181677454|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.9||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||2.9|0.6|0.003
90905314|NCT02886728|181677454|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|2.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||2.0|-0.8|0.38
90959227|NCT01037244|181798416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|16.67|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.23|22.11|||ANOVA|p-values are obtained from ANOVA model with pooled site as a covariate.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||22.11|11.23|<0.0001
90905315|NCT02886728|181677454|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.8||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||1.8|-1.0|0.59
90905316|NCT02886728|181677454|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|4.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||4.0|1.6|<0.001
90905317|NCT02886728|181677454|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|2.7||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||2.7|-0.3|0.11
90905318|NCT02886728|181677454|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|2.9||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||2.9|-0.17|0.071
90860143|NCT01881373|181583844|SUPERIORITY|Hierarchical linear model accounting for randomization of communities and clustering of children within communities in strata of jurisdictions weighted for number of children less than age 10 in communities. Chi-square test accounts for degrees of freedom based on number of communities.The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.86|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Hierarchical model.||Intervention vs control comparing 24 months to baseline.||||0.86
90860144|NCT01881373|181583845|SUPERIORITY|Hierarchical linear model accounting for randomization of communities and clustering of children within communities in strata of jurisdictions weighted for number of children less than age 10 in communities. Chi-square test accounts for degrees of freedom based on number of communities.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.17||||0.68|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Intervention vs control comparing 24 months to baseline.||||0.68
90860145|NCT01881373|181583846|SUPERIORITY|Hierarchical linear model accounting for randomization of communities and clustering of children within communities in strata of jurisdictions weighted for number of children less than age 10 in communities. Chi-square test accounts for degrees of freedom based on number of communities.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.42||||0.55|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Intervention vs control comparing 24 months to baseline.||||0.55
90860146|NCT01881373|181583847|SUPERIORITY|Hierarchical linear model accounting for randomization of communities and clustering of children within communities in strata of jurisdictions weighted for number of children less than age 10 in communities. Chi-square test accounts for degrees of freedom based on number of communities.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Intervention vs control comparing 24 months to baseline.||||0.11
90860147|NCT01881373|181583848|SUPERIORITY|Hierarchical linear model accounting for randomization of communities and clustering of children within communities in strata of jurisdictions weighted for number of children less than age 10 in communities. Chi-square test accounts for degrees of freedom based on number of communities.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.08|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||mixed model adjusting for age and sex and cluster of community and strata of jurisdiction; intervention vs control comparing 24 months to baseline||||0.08
90860148|NCT01881373|181583849|SUPERIORITY|Hierarchical linear model accounting for randomization of communities and clustering of children within communities in strata of jurisdictions weighted for number of children less than age 10 in communities. Chi-square test accounts for degrees of freedom based on number of communities.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.71|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Hierarchical model.||Intervention vs control comparing 24 months to baseline.||||0.71
90860149|NCT01881373|181583850|SUPERIORITY|Hierarchical linear model accounting for randomization of communities and clustering of children within communities in strata of jurisdictions weighted for number of children less than age 10 in communities. Chi-square test accounts for degrees of freedom based on number of communities.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.54|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Hierarchical model.||Intervention vs control comparing 24 months to baseline.||||0.54
90860150|NCT01881373|181583851|SUPERIORITY|Hierarchical linear model accounting for randomization of communities and clustering of children within communities in strata of jurisdictions weighted for number of children less than age 10 in communities. Chi-square test accounts for degrees of freedom based on number of communities.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Intervention vs control comparing 24 months to baseline.||||0.90
90860151|NCT01881373|181583852|SUPERIORITY|Hierarchical linear model accounting for randomization of communities and clustering of children within communities in strata of jurisdictions weighted for number of children less than age 10 in communities. Chi-square test accounts for degrees of freedom based on number of communities.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.71|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Intervention vs control comparing 24 months to baseline.||||0.71
90860152|NCT01881373|181583853|SUPERIORITY|Hierarchical linear model accounting for randomization of communities and clustering of children within communities in strata of jurisdictions weighted for number of children less than age 10 in communities. Chi-square test accounts for degrees of freedom based on number of communities.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|||||intervention vs control communities|Regression, Linear|||Intervention vs control comparing 24 months to baseline.||||0.48
90860153|NCT01881373|181583854|SUPERIORITY|The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.|differences in prevalence|-3.6|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.|Regression, Logistic|Hierarchical model||intervention vs control. The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.||||<0.01
90860154|NCT01881373|181583855|SUPERIORITY|Hierarchical|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|||||The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.|Regression, Linear|The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.||Intervention vs Control. The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.||||0.44
90905319|NCT02886728|181677456|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|3.8||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||3.8|1.6|<0.001
90905320|NCT02886728|181677456|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.9||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||2.9|0.1|0.032
90905321|NCT02886728|181677456|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|3.8||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||3.8|1.0|<0.001
91104931|NCT04063215|182096427|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.48||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|3.31||This p-value applies to data regarding 6 months Post-Infusion (Visit 6 - Week 28) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Mixed Models Analysis|Effect size: 0.24|Effect size: 0.24|Neuropsychological and Functional outcome measures were analyzed using general linear mixed models (GLMMs) to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Models will include time of assessment (baseline and 6 and/or 12 months after treatment) and baseline age as covariates with random intercepts for participants to account for within-participant correlation. Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were determined for all outcomes at 6 and 12 months after treatment.||3.31|-0.35|0.11
91104932|NCT04063215|182096427|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.69||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.893|4.487||This p-value applies to data regarding 1 year Post-Infusion (Visit 7 - Week 56) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Mixed Models Analysis|Effect size: 0.24|Effect size: 0.24|Neuropsychological and Functional outcome measures were analyzed using general linear mixed models (GLMMs) to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Models will include time of assessment (baseline and 6 and/or 12 months after treatment) and baseline age as covariates with random intercepts for participants to account for within-participant correlation. Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were determined for all outcomes at 6 and 12 months after treatment.||4.487|0.893|0.0046
90905322|NCT02886728|181677456|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.6||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||2.6|0.2|0.023
90905323|NCT02886728|181677456|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|2.8||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||2.8|-0.1|0.065
91035844|NCT02115347|181958262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Test/Reference) of Adjusted Means|86.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.49|106.2|||||ANOVA model with hepatic function group as a fixed effect, ratios (and 90% confidence intervals \[CIs\]) were expressed as percentages, Moderate Hepatic Impairment (Test), Normal Hepatic Function (Reference).|||106.20|70.49|
91104933|NCT04063215|182096428|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.69||||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|9.77||This p-value applies to data regarding 6 months Post-Infusion (Visit 6 - Week 28) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Regression, Linear|Effect size: 0.60|Effect size: 0.60|Neurocognitive outcome measures will be analyzed using linear regression models to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were determined for all outcomes at 6 and 12 months after treatment.||9.77|1.58|0.0081
91104934|NCT04063215|182096428|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.505||||0.00017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.42|12.606||This p-value applies to data regarding 1 year Post-Infusion (Visit 7 - Week 56) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Regression, Linear|Effect size: 0.60|Effect size: 0.60|Neurocognitive outcome measures will be analyzed using linear regression models to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were determined for all outcomes at 6 and 12 months after treatment.||12.606|4.42|0.00017
91104935|NCT04063215|182096429|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.846||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.767|4.515||This p-value applies to data regarding 1 year Post-Infusion (Visit 7 - Week 56) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Regression, Linear|Effect size: 0.10|Effect size: 0.10|Neurocognitive outcome measures will be analyzed using linear regression models to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were determined for all outcomes at 6 and 12 months after treatment.||4.515|-2.767|0.64
91104936|NCT04063215|182096430|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.59||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|6.65||This p-value applies to data regarding 6 months Post-Infusion (Visit 6 - Week 28) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Regression, Linear|Effect size: 0.48|Effect size: 0.48|Neurocognitive outcome measures will be analyzed using linear regression models to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were determined for all outcomes at 6 and 12 months after treatment.||6.65|-1.52|0.21
91104937|NCT04063215|182096430|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.318||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.241|8.399||This p-value applies to data regarding 1 year Post-Infusion (Visit 7 - Week 56) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Regression, Linear|Effect size: 0.48|Effect size: 0.48|Neurocognitive outcome measures will be analyzed using linear regression models to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were determined for all outcomes at 6 and 12 months after treatment.||8.399|0.241|0.040
90970913|NCT00708500|181823924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|45.1|||<|0.0001||95.0|33.4|56.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in percentage of participants who achieved SVR: experimental minus control.|||56.8|33.4|<0.0001
90970914|NCT00382993|181823942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.63|||<|0.001||95.0|2.76|11.49|||ANOVA|||||11.49|2.76|<0.001
91035941|NCT03261167|181958553|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.33|||||Week 6, Wrist flexion. Analysis method was MMRM with Treatment, Visit, Treatment by visit interation, Baseline, and Baseline by visit interaction as fixed effects.|||0.33|-0.37|
91104938|NCT04063215|182096431|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.86||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|0.78||This p-value applies to data regarding 6 months Post-Infusion (Visit 6 - Week 28) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Regression, Linear|Effect size: 0.07|Effect size: 0.07|Neurocognitive outcome measures will be analyzed using linear regression models to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were determined for all outcomes at 6 and 12 months after treatment.||0.78|-2.52|0.30
91104939|NCT04063215|182096431|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.789||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|2.409||This p-value applies to data regarding 1 year Post-Infusion (Visit 7 - Week 56) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Regression, Linear|Effect size: 0.07|Effect size: 0.07|Neurocognitive outcome measures will be analyzed using linear regression models to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were determined for all outcomes at 6 and 12 months after treatment.||2.409|-0.83|0.33
90905324|NCT02886728|181677456|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|2.5||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||2.5|-0.4|0.15
90905325|NCT02886728|181677456|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.5||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||1.5|-1.0|0.73
90905326|NCT02886728|181677456|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|2.2||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||2.2|-0.8|0.37
90905327|NCT02886728|181677456|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.4||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||1.4|-1.7|0.83
90905328|NCT02886728|181677456|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|2.5||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||2.5|-0.1|0.073
90905329|NCT02886728|181677456|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|2.9||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||2.9|-0.2|0.090
90905330|NCT02886728|181677456|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.2||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||1.2|-1.9|0.68
90905331|NCT02886728|181677456|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|2.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||2.0|-0.6|0.30
90905332|NCT02886728|181677456|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.9||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||1.9|-1.3|0.69
90905333|NCT02886728|181677456|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.5||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||1.5|-1.7|0.95
90905334|NCT02886728|181677458|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|4.4||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||4.4|2.1|<0.001
91104940|NCT04063215|182096432|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.49|3.66||This p-value applies to data regarding 6 months Post-Infusion (Visit 6 - Week 28) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Regression, Linear|Effect size: 0.31|Effect size: 0.31|Neurocognitive outcome measures will be analyzed using linear regression models to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were determined for all outcomes at 6 and 12 months after treatment.||3.66|-3.49|0.96
91104941|NCT04063215|182096432|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.985||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.588|6.562||This p-value applies to data regarding 1 year Post-Infusion (Visit 7 - Week 56) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Regression, Linear|Effect size: 0.31|Effect size: 0.31|Neurocognitive outcome measures will be analyzed using linear regression models to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were determined for all outcomes at 6 and 12 months after treatment.||6.562|-0.588|0.10
90905335|NCT02886728|181677458|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|3.9||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||3.9|1.1|<0.001
90905336|NCT02886728|181677458|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|4.1||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||4.1|1.3|<0.001
91104942|NCT04063215|182096433|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.34||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|6.53||This p-value applies to data regarding 6 months Post-Infusion (Visit 6 - Week 28) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Regression, Linear|Effect size: 0.21|Effect size: 0.21|Neurocognitive outcome measures will be analyzed using linear regression models to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were determined for all outcomes at 6 and 12 months after treatment.||6.53|0.13|0.043
91104943|NCT04063215|182096433|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.718||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.484|5.917||This p-value applies to data regarding 1 year Post-Infusion (Visit 7 - Week 56) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Regression, Linear|Effect size: 0.21|Effect size: 0.21|Neurocognitive outcome measures will be analyzed using linear regression models to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were determined for all outcomes at 6 and 12 months after treatment.||5.917|-0.484|0.10
91104944|NCT04063215|182096434|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.39||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|6.44||This p-value applies to data regarding 6 months Post-Infusion (Visit 6 - Week 28) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Regression, Linear|Effect size: 0.20|Effect size: 0.20|Neurocognitive outcome measures will be analyzed using linear regression models to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were determined for all outcomes at 6 and 12 months after treatment.||6.44|-1.73|0.24
91104945|NCT04063215|182096434|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.79||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.152|7.72||This p-value applies to data regarding 1 year Post-Infusion (Visit 7 - Week 56) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Regression, Linear|Effect size: 0.20|Effect size: 0.20|Neurocognitive outcome measures will be analyzed using linear regression models to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were determined for all outcomes at 6 and 12 months after treatment.||7.72|-0.152|0.061
91104946|NCT04063215|182096435|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.22||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28|4.71||This p-value applies to data regarding 6 months Post-Infusion (Visit 6 - Week 28) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Regression, Linear|Effect size: 0.43|Effect size: 0.43|Neurocognitive outcome measures will be analyzed using linear regression models to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were determined for all outcomes at 6 and 12 months after treatment.||4.71|-2.28|0.49
91104947|NCT04063215|182096435|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.001||||0.00026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.506|10.494||This p-value applies to data regarding 1 year Post-Infusion (Visit 7 - Week 56) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Regression, Linear|Effect size: 0.43|Effect size: 0.43|Neurocognitive outcome measures will be analyzed using linear regression models to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were determined for all outcomes at 6 and 12 months after treatment.||10.494|3.506|0.00026
91104948|NCT04063215|182096436|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.98||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|8.46||This p-value applies to data regarding 6 months Post-Infusion (Visit 6 - Week 28) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Regression, Linear|Effect size: 0.61|Effect size: 0.61|Neurocognitive outcome measures will be analyzed using linear regression models to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were determined for all outcomes at 6 and 12 months after treatment.||8.46|-0.51|0.083
91104949|NCT04063215|182096436|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.033||||0.00025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.55|13.52||This p-value applies to data regarding 1 year Post-Infusion (Visit 7 - Week 56) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Regression, Linear|Effect size: 0.61|Effect size: 0.61|Neurocognitive outcome measures will be analyzed using linear regression models to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were determined for all outcomes at 6 and 12 months after treatment.||13.52|4.55|0.00025
91104950|NCT04063215|182096437|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.25||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|1.05||This p-value applies to data regarding 6 months Post-Infusion (Visit 6 - Week 28) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Regression, Linear|Effect size: 0.20|Effect size: 0.20|Neurocognitive outcome measures will be analyzed using linear regression models to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were determined for all outcomes at 6 and 12 months after treatment.||1.05|-0.55|0.53
91035845|NCT02849457|181958273|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6565|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9332||0.8681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5567|7.2436|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for age (\<=7 vs \>7 months) at randomization and sex. Unstructured covariance used among 12 and 24 month outcomes.|Parameter represents estimated amount difference in group means. Negative value represents higher mean in placebo group.|||7.2436|-8.5567|0.8681
91104951|NCT04063215|182096437|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.043||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.284|1.805||This p-value applies to data regarding 1 year Post-Infusion (Visit 7 - Week 56) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Regression, Linear|Effect size: 0.20|Effect size: 0.20|Neurocognitive outcome measures will be analyzed using linear regression models to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were determined for all outcomes at 6 and 12 months after treatment.||1.805|0.284|0.10
91104952|NCT04063215|182096438|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.83||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.59||This p-value applies to data regarding 6 months Post-Infusion (Visit 6 - Week 28) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Regression, Linear|Effect size: 0.28|Effect size: 0.28|Neurocognitive outcome measures will be analyzed using linear regression models to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were determined for all outcomes at 6 and 12 months after treatment.||1.59|0.07|0.034
91104953|NCT04063215|182096438|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.043||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.284|1.805||This p-value applies to data regarding 1 year Post-Infusion (Visit 7 - Week 56) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Regression, Linear|Effect size: 0.28|Effect size: 0.28|Neurocognitive outcome measures will be analyzed using linear regression models to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were determined for all outcomes at 6 and 12 months after treatment.||1.805|0.284|0.0090
91104954|NCT04063215|182096439|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.8||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|6.41||This p-value applies to data regarding 6 months Post-Infusion (Visit 6 - Week 28) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Regression, Linear|Effect size: 0.25|Effect size: 0.25|Neurocognitive outcome measures will be analyzed using linear regression models to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were determined for all outcomes at 6 and 12 months after treatment.||6.41|-0.84|0.13
90905337|NCT02886728|181677458|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|3.5||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||3.5|1.0|<0.001
90905338|NCT02886728|181677458|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|2.7||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||2.7|-0.4|0.13
90905339|NCT02886728|181677458|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|3.2||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||3.2|0.1|0.032
90905340|NCT02886728|181677458|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.8||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||2.8|0.2|0.028
90905341|NCT02886728|181677458|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|2.7||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||2.7|-0.4|0.15
90905342|NCT02886728|181677458|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|2.3||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||2.3|-0.9|0.41
90905343|NCT02886728|181677458|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.1||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||3.1|0.3|0.017
91035846|NCT02849457|181958274|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7375|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7375
91035847|NCT02849457|181958275|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.593||||0.1174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.309|1.14|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for age (\<=7 vs \>7 months) at randomization and sex.||||1.140|0.309|0.1174
91035848|NCT02849457|181958276|OTHER|Two-sided test of non-equivalence||||||0.4653|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.4653
90860155|NCT01881373|181583856|SUPERIORITY|The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|||||The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.|Regression, Linear|The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.||Intervention vs. Control. The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.||||0.81
91104955|NCT04063215|182096439|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.486||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.938|8.026||This p-value applies to data regarding 1 year Post-Infusion (Visit 7 - Week 56) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Regression, Linear|Effect size: 0.25|Effect size: 0.25|Neurocognitive outcome measures will be analyzed using linear regression models to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were determined for all outcomes at 6 and 12 months after treatment.||8.026|0.938|0.016
90905344|NCT02886728|181677458|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|2.6||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||2.6|-0.7|0.27
91104956|NCT04063215|182096440|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|0.97||This p-value applies to data regarding 6 months Post-Infusion (Visit 6 - Week 28) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Regression, Linear|Effect size: 0.33|Effect size: 0.33|Neurocognitive outcome measures will be analyzed using linear regression models to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were determined for all outcomes at 6 and 12 months after treatment.||0.97|-1.23|0.84
91104957|NCT04063215|182096440|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.083||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.028|2.162||This p-value applies to data regarding 1 year Post-Infusion (Visit 7 - Week 56) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Regression, Linear|Effect size: 0.33|Effect size: 0.33|Neurocognitive outcome measures will be analyzed using linear regression models to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were determined for all outcomes at 6 and 12 months after treatment.||2.162|-0.028|0.053
91104958|NCT04063215|182096441|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1050.25||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2958.69|858.19||This p-value applies to data regarding 6 months Post-Infusion (Visit 6 - Week 28) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Volumetric MRI measures were analyzed using general linear mixed models (GLMMs) to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Models will include time of assessment (baseline and 6 months after treatment) and baseline age as covariates with random intercepts for participants to account for within-participant correlation. Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were determined for outcomes at 6 months after treatment.||858.19|-2958.69|0.27
91104959|NCT04063215|182096442|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-365.57||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1835.1|1103.97||This p-value applies to data regarding 6 months Post-Infusion (Visit 6 - Week 28) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Volumetric MRI measures were analyzed using general linear mixed models (GLMMs) to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Models will include time of assessment (baseline and 6 months after treatment) and baseline age as covariates with random intercepts for participants to account for within-participant correlation. Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were determined for outcomes at 6 months after treatment.||1103.97|-1835.10|0.61
91104960|NCT04063215|182096443|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.17||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.32|6.98||This p-value applies to data regarding 6 months Post-Infusion (Visit 6 - Week 28) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Volumetric MRI measures were analyzed using general linear mixed models (GLMMs) to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Models will include time of assessment (baseline and 6 months after treatment) and baseline age as covariates with random intercepts for participants to account for within-participant correlation. Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were determined for outcomes at 6 months after treatment.||6.98|-33.32|0.19
91104961|NCT04063215|182096444|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-32.35||||0.0072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.61|-10.09||This p-value applies to data regarding 6 months Post-Infusion (Visit 6 - Week 28) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Volumetric MRI measures were analyzed using general linear mixed models (GLMMs) to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Models will include time of assessment (baseline and 6 months after treatment) and baseline age as covariates with random intercepts for participants to account for within-participant correlation. Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were determined for outcomes at 6 months after treatment.||-10.09|-54.61|0.0072
91104962|NCT04063215|182096445|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-21.88||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.11|-2.65||This p-value applies to data regarding 6 months Post-Infusion (Visit 6 - Week 28) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Volumetric MRI measures were analyzed using general linear mixed models (GLMMs) to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Models will include time of assessment (baseline and 6 months after treatment) and baseline age as covariates with random intercepts for participants to account for within-participant correlation. Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were determined for outcomes at 6 months after treatment.||-2.65|-41.11|0.03
90970915|NCT00794677|181823961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.252|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.112||0.03||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Statistical significance was determined for a standard two-period crossover design using JMP software (Version 5.0, SAS Institute. Cary, NC).||||0.03
90970916|NCT00794677|181823962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.273|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.102||0.01||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.01
91104963|NCT04063215|182096446|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-42.03||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-85.66|1.61||This p-value applies to data regarding 6 months Post-Infusion (Visit 6 - Week 28) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Volumetric MRI measures were analyzed using general linear mixed models (GLMMs) to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Models will include time of assessment (baseline and 6 months after treatment) and baseline age as covariates with random intercepts for participants to account for within-participant correlation. Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were determined for outcomes at 6 months after treatment.||1.61|-85.66|0.061
90905345|NCT02886728|181677458|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|2.9||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||2.9|-0.5|0.15
90905346|NCT02886728|181677461|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|12.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||12.0|6.0|<0.001
90905347|NCT02886728|181677461|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|8.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||8.0|1.0|0.006
90905348|NCT02886728|181677461|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|9.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||9.0|3.0|<0.001
91104964|NCT04063215|182096447|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-39.56||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-98.67|19.56||This p-value applies to data regarding 6 months Post-Infusion (Visit 6 - Week 28) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Volumetric MRI measures were analyzed using general linear mixed models (GLMMs) to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Models will include time of assessment (baseline and 6 months after treatment) and baseline age as covariates with random intercepts for participants to account for within-participant correlation. Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were determined for outcomes at 6 months after treatment.||19.56|-98.67|0.18
91104965|NCT04063215|182096448|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.25||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.01|42.51||This p-value applies to data regarding 6 months Post-Infusion (Visit 6 - Week 28) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Volumetric MRI measures were analyzed using general linear mixed models (GLMMs) to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Models will include time of assessment (baseline and 6 months after treatment) and baseline age as covariates with random intercepts for participants to account for within-participant correlation. Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were determined for outcomes at 6 months after treatment.||42.51|-26.01|0.63
91104966|NCT04063215|182096449|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.47||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.84|17.79||This p-value applies to data regarding 6 months Post-Infusion (Visit 6 - Week 28) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Volumetric MRI measures were analyzed using general linear mixed models (GLMMs) to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Models will include time of assessment (baseline and 6 months after treatment) and baseline age as covariates with random intercepts for participants to account for within-participant correlation. Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were determined for outcomes at 6 months after treatment.||17.79|-14.84|0.85
90905349|NCT02886728|181677461|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|8.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||8.0|2.0|<0.001
90905350|NCT02886728|181677461|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|7.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||7.0|-0.0|0.089
91104967|NCT04063215|182096450|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-35.42||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-95.21|24.36||This p-value applies to data regarding 6 months Post-Infusion (Visit 6 - Week 28) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Volumetric MRI measures were analyzed using general linear mixed models (GLMMs) to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Models will include time of assessment (baseline and 6 months after treatment) and baseline age as covariates with random intercepts for participants to account for within-participant correlation. Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were determined for outcomes at 6 months after treatment.||24.36|-95.21|0.24
90970917|NCT00794677|181823963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.089||0.6||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.60
90970918|NCT00794677|181823964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.209|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.67||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.67
91104968|NCT04063215|182096451|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.58||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.5|6.34||This p-value applies to data regarding 6 months Post-Infusion (Visit 6 - Week 28) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Volumetric MRI measures were analyzed using general linear mixed models (GLMMs) to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Models will include time of assessment (baseline and 6 months after treatment) and baseline age as covariates with random intercepts for participants to account for within-participant correlation. Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were determined for outcomes at 6 months after treatment.||6.34|-19.50|0.31
91104969|NCT04063215|182096452|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-25.77||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.25|-5.29||This p-value applies to data regarding 6 months Post-Infusion (Visit 6 - Week 28) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Volumetric MRI measures were analyzed using general linear mixed models (GLMMs) to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Models will include time of assessment (baseline and 6 months after treatment) and baseline age as covariates with random intercepts for participants to account for within-participant correlation. Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were determined for outcomes at 6 months after treatment.||-5.29|-46.25|0.018
90860156|NCT01881373|181583857|SUPERIORITY|The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|||||The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.|Regression, Linear|The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.|The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.|The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.||||0.68
90860157|NCT01881373|181583858|SUPERIORITY|Hierarchical model. The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|||||The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.|Regression, Linear|The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.||Intervention vs control. The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.||||0.69
90860158|NCT01881373|181583859|SUPERIORITY|Hierarchical model. The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|||||The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.|Regression, Linear||The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.|Intervention vs. control. The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.||||0.11
90860159|NCT01881373|181583860|SUPERIORITY|Hierarchical model. The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|||||The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.|Regression, Linear|||Intervention vs. control. The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.||||0.40
90860160|NCT01881373|181583861|SUPERIORITY|Hierarchical model. The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|||||The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.|Regression, Linear|The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.||Intervention vs control. The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.||||0.37
90905351|NCT02886728|181677461|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|6.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||6.0|-1.0|0.18
90905352|NCT02886728|181677461|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|7.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||7.0|1.0|0.003
90905353|NCT02886728|181677461|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|7.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||7.0|0.0|0.049
90905354|NCT02886728|181677461|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|3.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||3.0|-4.0|0.84
90970919|NCT00794677|181823965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.3||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.30
90970920|NCT00794677|181823966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-15.412|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.569|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
90860161|NCT01881373|181583861|SUPERIORITY|Hierarchical model.The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|||||The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.|Regression, Linear|The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.||Intervention vs temporal.The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.||||0.51
90860162|NCT01366417|181583865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.133|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.95|2.48|||ANOVA|||Hypothesis: ChloraPrep will meet or exceed the 1.0 log reduction in colony forming units/cm\^2 at 30 seconds after application.||2.48|1.95|< 0.05
90860163|NCT01366417|181583865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.25|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.133|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.99|2.51|||ANOVA|||hypothesis: 70% Isopropyl Alcohol will meet or exceed 1.0 log 10 colony forming units / cm\^2 at 30 seconds after treatment||2.51|1.99|<0.05
90860164|NCT01366417|181583866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.65|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.133|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.39|2.91|||ANOVA|||Hypothesis: ChloraPrep One Step will meet or exceed 2.0 log 10 reduction at 10 minutes after treatment.||2.91|2.39|<0.05
90860165|NCT01366417|181583866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.133|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.33|2.86|||ANOVA|||Hypothesis: 70% Isopropyl Alcohol will meet or exceed 2.0 log 10 reduction at 10 minutes after treatment||2.86|2.33|<0.05
90860166|NCT00165984|181583878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.9||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|13.9|||Regression, Cox|||||13.9|1.7|0.003
90860167|NCT01686828|181583902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.164||||||The a prior threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|RM-ANOVA|||||||0.164
90860168|NCT01686828|181583903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||RM-ANOVA|||Time-by-group interaction for fat mass||||0.003
90860169|NCT01686828|181583903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||||||Time-by-group interaction for lean mass|RM-ANOVA|||||||0.03
90860170|NCT01686828|181583904|OTHER||||||>|0.1|||||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis was that short-term testosterone deprivation would not affect lipoprotein lipase expression in adipose tissue. Repeated measures ANOVA was used to determine if a time-by-group effect was apparent for lipoprotein lipase expression.||||>0.1
90860171|NCT04916769|181583972|EQUIVALENCE|The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. The ratio of adjusted geometric means and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|ratio of ajusted geometric means|106.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.76|115.53||||||Natural logarithm-transformed bosutinib AUCinf was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Bosutinib 500 mg capsule contents + applesauce 45 mL \[Test\] - Bosutinib 500 mg intact capsule \[Reference\]) and corresponding 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were obtained from the model.||115.53|97.76|
90860172|NCT04916769|181583972|EQUIVALENCE|The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. The ratio of adjusted geometric means and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|ratio of adjusted geometric means|101.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.97|110.56||||||Natural logarithm-transformed bosutinib AUCinf was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Bosutinib 500 mg capsule contents + yogurt 45 mL \[Test\] - Bosutinib 500 mg intact capsule \[Reference\]) and corresponding 90% CIs were obtained from the model.||110.56|93.97|
90860173|NCT04916769|181583973|EQUIVALENCE|The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. The ratio of adjusted geometric means and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|ratio of adjusted geometric means|96.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.37|108.53||||||Natural logarithm-transformed bosutinib Cmax was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Bosutinib 500 mg capsule contents + applesauce 45 mL \[Test\] - Bosutinib 500 mg intact capsule \[Reference\]) and corresponding 90% CIs were obtained from the model.||108.53|86.37|
90970921|NCT00794677|181823967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-21.846|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.866|<|1e-07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0000001
90970922|NCT00794677|181823968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.397|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.893||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.009
90888113|NCT03521635|181639527|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.8|||REML-based repeated measures approach|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML) - based repeated measures approach was applied.|Mean difference was calculated as Pramipexole Sustained Release minus Pramipexole immediate Release.|Mean changes from baseline of NHQ score by patients were analysed using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML) - based repeated measures approach. Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit in the maintenance period, and treatment-by-visit interaction, and the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline and baseline-by-visit interaction.||0.8|-1.2|0.690
91104970|NCT04063215|182096453|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.6||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.79|0.59||This p-value applies to data regarding 6 months Post-Infusion (Visit 6 - Week 28) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Volumetric MRI measures were analyzed using general linear mixed models (GLMMs) to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Models will include time of assessment (baseline and 6 months after treatment) and baseline age as covariates with random intercepts for participants to account for within-participant correlation. Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were determined for outcomes at 6 months after treatment.||0.59|-19.79|0.067
91104971|NCT04063215|182096454|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.28||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.45|0.88||This p-value applies to data regarding 6 months Post-Infusion (Visit 6 - Week 28) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Volumetric MRI measures were analyzed using general linear mixed models (GLMMs) to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Models will include time of assessment (baseline and 6 months after treatment) and baseline age as covariates with random intercepts for participants to account for within-participant correlation. Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were determined for outcomes at 6 months after treatment.||0.88|-25.45|0.069
91104972|NCT04063215|182096455|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-26.47||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.12|-3.61||This p-value applies to data regarding 6 months Post-Infusion (Visit 6 - Week 28) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Volumetric MRI measures were analyzed using general linear mixed models (GLMMs) to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Models will include time of assessment (baseline and 6 months after treatment) and baseline age as covariates with random intercepts for participants to account for within-participant correlation. Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were determined for outcomes at 6 months after treatment.||-3.61|-49.12|0.027
91104973|NCT04063215|182096456|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-15.66||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.09|10.77||This p-value applies to data regarding 6 months Post-Infusion (Visit 6 - Week 28) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Volumetric MRI measures were analyzed using general linear mixed models (GLMMs) to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Models will include time of assessment (baseline and 6 months after treatment) and baseline age as covariates with random intercepts for participants to account for within-participant correlation. Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were determined for outcomes at 6 months after treatment.||10.77|-42.09|0.24
91104974|NCT04063215|182096457|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-17.91||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.83|2.01||This p-value applies to data regarding 6 months Post-Infusion (Visit 6 - Week 28) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Volumetric MRI measures were analyzed using general linear mixed models (GLMMs) to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Models will include time of assessment (baseline and 6 months after treatment) and baseline age as covariates with random intercepts for participants to account for within-participant correlation. Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were determined for outcomes at 6 months after treatment.||2.01|-37.83|0.079
91104975|NCT04063215|182096458|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-21.65||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.91|19.61||This p-value applies to data regarding 6 months Post-Infusion (Visit 6 - Week 28) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Volumetric MRI measures were analyzed using general linear mixed models (GLMMs) to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Models will include time of assessment (baseline and 6 months after treatment) and baseline age as covariates with random intercepts for participants to account for within-participant correlation. Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were determined for outcomes at 6 months after treatment.||19.61|-62.91|0.29
91104976|NCT04063215|182096459|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.08||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.01|2.84||This p-value applies to data regarding 6 months Post-Infusion (Visit 6 - Week 28) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Volumetric MRI measures were analyzed using general linear mixed models (GLMMs) to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Models will include time of assessment (baseline and 6 months after treatment) and baseline age as covariates with random intercepts for participants to account for within-participant correlation. Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were determined for outcomes at 6 months after treatment.||2.84|-11.01|0.24
91104977|NCT04063215|182096460|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|12.33||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.69|44.36||This p-value applies to data regarding 6 months Post-Infusion (Visit 6 - Week 28) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Volumetric MRI measures were analyzed using general linear mixed models (GLMMs) to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Models will include time of assessment (baseline and 6 months after treatment) and baseline age as covariates with random intercepts for participants to account for within-participant correlation. Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were determined for outcomes at 6 months after treatment.||44.36|-19.69|0.44
91104978|NCT04063215|182096461|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.25||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.67|2.17||This p-value applies to data regarding 6 months Post-Infusion (Visit 6 - Week 28) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Volumetric MRI measures were analyzed using general linear mixed models (GLMMs) to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Models will include time of assessment (baseline and 6 months after treatment) and baseline age as covariates with random intercepts for participants to account for within-participant correlation. Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were determined for outcomes at 6 months after treatment.||2.17|-8.67|0.23
91104979|NCT04063215|182096462|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.73||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.43|18.88||This p-value applies to data regarding 6 months Post-Infusion (Visit 6 - Week 28) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Volumetric MRI measures were analyzed using general linear mixed models (GLMMs) to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Models will include time of assessment (baseline and 6 months after treatment) and baseline age as covariates with random intercepts for participants to account for within-participant correlation. Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were determined for outcomes at 6 months after treatment.||18.88|-9.43|0.5
91104980|NCT04063215|182096463|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.23||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.62|33.16||This p-value applies to data regarding 6 months Post-Infusion (Visit 6 - Week 28) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Volumetric MRI measures were analyzed using general linear mixed models (GLMMs) to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Models will include time of assessment (baseline and 6 months after treatment) and baseline age as covariates with random intercepts for participants to account for within-participant correlation. Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were determined for outcomes at 6 months after treatment.||33.16|-51.62|0.66
91104981|NCT04063215|182096464|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-26.19||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.22|17.84||This p-value applies to data regarding 6 months Post-Infusion (Visit 6 - Week 28) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Volumetric MRI measures were analyzed using general linear mixed models (GLMMs) to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Models will include time of assessment (baseline and 6 months after treatment) and baseline age as covariates with random intercepts for participants to account for within-participant correlation. Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were determined for outcomes at 6 months after treatment.||17.84|-70.22|0.24
91104982|NCT03946670|182096511|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.769|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|stratified by the randomization stratification factor IPSS-R category||||||0.769
91104983|NCT03946670|182096512|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.749||||0.1022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.479|1.173|||Log Rank|stratified by the randomization stratification factor IPSS-R category||||1.173|0.479|0.1022
91104984|NCT03946670|182096513|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.795|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.521|1.212|||||Cox model stratified by IPSS-R score as per IRT|||1.212|0.521|
91104985|NCT03946670|182096514|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.808|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.542|1.205|||||Cox model stratified by IPSS-R score as per Interactive Response Technology (IRT)|||1.205|0.542|
91104986|NCT03946670|182096515|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.589|1.343|||||Cox model stratified by IPSS-R score as per IRT|||1.343|0.589|
91104987|NCT03946670|182096516|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.906|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.44|||||Cox model stratified by IPSS-R score as per IRT|||1.440|0.570|
91104988|NCT03946670|182096518|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.664|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|1.838|||||Cox model stratified by IPSS-R score as per IRT|||1.838|0.240|
91104989|NCT03946670|182096519|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.237|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.588|2.601|||||Cox model stratified by IPSS-R score as per IRT|||2.601|0.588|
91104990|NCT06433908|182096575|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Mean|0.9649|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8695|1.0707||||||||1.0707|0.8695|
91104991|NCT06433908|182096576|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Mean|1.2941|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1795|1.4199||||||||1.4199|1.1795|
91104992|NCT06433908|182096577|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Mean|1.2329|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1171|1.3608||||||||1.3608|1.1171|
91104993|NCT06433908|182096578|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Mean|0.9475|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7746|1.159||||||||1.1590|0.7746|
90905355|NCT02886728|181677461|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|9.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||9.0|2.0|<0.001
91104994|NCT06433908|182096579|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Mean|1.2032|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.162|1.2459||||||||1.2459|1.1620|
91104995|NCT06433908|182096580|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Mean|1.1273|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0229|1.2423||||||||1.2423|1.0229|
91104996|NCT04516967|182096581|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0077|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0077
90905356|NCT02886728|181677461|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|7.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||7.0|-0.0|0.078
91104997|NCT04516967|182096582|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
91104998|NCT04516967|182096583|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91104999|NCT04516967|182096584|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
91105000|NCT04516967|182096585|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91105001|NCT04516967|182096586|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0008|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0008
91105002|NCT04516967|182096587|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7175|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.7175
91105003|NCT04652726|182096652|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-28.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.81|-21.27|||ANCOVA|||||-21.27|-35.81|<.0001
91105004|NCT04652726|182096653|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-29.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.24|-22.36|||MMRM|||||-22.36|-36.24|<.0001
91105005|NCT04652726|182096654|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-49.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.18|-36.81|||ANCOVA|||||-36.81|-63.18|<.0001
91105006|NCT04652726|182096655|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-25.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.68|-19.73|||ANCOVA|||||-19.73|-31.68|<.0001
91105007|NCT04652726|182096656|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-6.18||||0.1419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.48|5.12|||ANCOVA|||||5.12|-17.48|0.1419
91105008|NCT04652726|182096657|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-26.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.63|-19.97|||ANCOVA|||||-19.97|-33.63|<.0001
91105009|NCT04652726|182096658|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-19.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.65|-13.75|||ANCOVA|||||-13.75|-24.65|<.0001
91105010|NCT03470441|182096701|OTHER||||||||||||||descriptive||||As little data exists on the incidence of arrhythmias that occur over an extended period of time following AMI, descriptive analysis of the primary endpoints (Arrhythmias of Interest at 48 hours and 14 days for overall and anterior infarcts) was appropriate in this study due to the absence of an externally validated benchmark which would normally serve as the basis for hypothesis testing of FDY-5301's effect on arrhythmias.|||
91105011|NCT03470441|182096706|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-3.2||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.15|-10.8|3.1|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney Test comparing placebo to FDY-5301 treated subjects (combined low dose, intermediate dose, and high dose).||3.1|-10.8|0.32
91105012|NCT03470441|182096708|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-4.4||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.16|-20.2|12.1|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney Test Comparing placebo to anterior infarcts FDY-5301 treated subjects (low, intermediate, and high) combined into one group.||12.10|-20.2|0.46
91105013|NCT03470441|182096714|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|3.7||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.11|-3.6|10.6|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney Test comparing placebo to FDY-5301 treated subjects (combined low dose, intermediate dose, and high dose).||10.6|-3.6|0.25
91105014|NCT03470441|182096716|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|4.9||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.16|-7.0|16.9|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney Test comparing placebo to anterior infarcts FDY-5301 treated subjects (combined low dose, intermediate dose, and high dose).||16.9|-7|0.31
91105015|NCT03780725|182096720|OTHER||Mean relative change from baseline|17.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|47.7|||||||||||Mean relative change from baseline (Cycle 1) to on treatment (Cycle 2) is reported.|"The mean relative change is calculated as first deriving the relative change from baseline for each selected lesion at each time point (96hours, 144hours):~100 \* (SUVpeak,lesion,timepoint,cycle2 - SUVpeak,lesion,timepoint,cycle1) / SUVpeak,lesion,timepoint,cycle1 Then, we calculate the mean over all evaluable lesions (at each time point) At last, the mean relative change is the lower mean value across time points."||||
91105016|NCT03780725|182096721|OTHER||Mean relative change from baseline|-5.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|28.2|||||||||||Mean relative change from baseline (Cycle 1) to on treatment (Cycle 2) is reported.|"The mean relative change is calculated as first deriving the relative change from baseline for each selected lesion at each time point (96hours, 144hours):~100 \* (SUVpeak,lesion,timepoint,cycle2 - SUVpeak,lesion,timepoint,cycle1) / SUVpeak,lesion,timepoint,cycle1 Then, we calculate the mean over all evaluable lesions (at each time point) At last, the mean relative change is the lower mean value across time points."||||
91105017|NCT03768414|182096747|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.14|||Log Rank|||||1.14|0.72|0.41
91105018|NCT04576949|182096753|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.94|16.25||Two-sided, calculated by exact computations with clinical site as a stratifier.|exact computations||Stratified by site|Abstinence from Week 3 to Week 6||16.25|3.94|< 0.0001
91105019|NCT04576949|182096753|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.92|14.38||Two-sided, derived from marginal odds ratio|Exact computations||Marginal (unadjusted) odds ratio|||14.38|3.92|<0.0001
91105020|NCT04576949|182096753|SUPERIORITY||Marginal Difference in Proportions|0.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.25||p-value for difference in proportions|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.25|0.16|<0.0001
91105021|NCT04576949|182096754|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.69|11.57||Two-sided, calculated by exact computations with clinical site as a stratifier.|exact computations||Stratified by site|Abstinence from Week 9 to Week 12||11.57|3.69|< 0.0001
91105022|NCT04576949|182096754|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.81|11.12||Two-sided, derived from marginal odds ratio.|Exact computations||Marginal (unadjusted) odds ratio|||11.12|3.81|<0.0001
91105023|NCT04576949|182096754|SUPERIORITY||Marginal Difference in Proportions|0.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.3||p-value for difference in proportions|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.30|0.20|<0.0001
91105024|NCT04576949|182096755|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.67||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|10.24||Two-sided, calculated by exact computations with clinical site as a stratifier.|exact computations|||Abstinence from Week 6 to Week 24|Stratified by site|10.24|1.50|0.0016
91105025|NCT04576949|182096755|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.69||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.61|9.36||Two-sided, derived from marginal odds ratio.|Exact computations||Marginal (unadjusted) odds ratio|||9.36|1.61|0.0015
91105026|NCT04576949|182096755|SUPERIORITY||Marginal Difference in Proportions|0.06||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.09||p-value for difference in proportions|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.09|0.03|0.0015
91105027|NCT04576949|182096756|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.81|11.09||Two-sided, calculated by exact computations with clinical site as a stratifier.|exact computations||Stratified by site|Abstinence from Week 12 to Week 24||11.09|2.81|< 0.0001
91105028|NCT04576949|182096756|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.88|10.29||Two-sided, derived from marginal odds ratio.|Exact computations||Marginal (unadjusted) odds ratio|||10.29|2.88|<0.0001
91105029|NCT04576949|182096756|SUPERIORITY||Marginal Difference in Proportions|0.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.2||p-value for difference in proportions|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.20|0.11|<.0001
91105030|NCT04576949|182096757|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.3484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.33||Two-sided, calculated by exact computations with clinical site as a stratifier.|exact computations||Stratified by site|Relapse free from Week 6 to Week 24||2.33|0.75|0.3484
91105031|NCT04576949|182096757|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.3514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.26||Two-sided, derived from marginal odds ratio.|Exact computations||Marginal (unadjusted) odds ratio|||2.26|0.78|0.3514
91105032|NCT04576949|182096757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0317||||||p-value for homogeneity across sites|Zelen's exact test (Pr ≤ P)|||||||0.0317
91105033|NCT05192382|182096818|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|42.806|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.444|455.821|||exact logistic regression model|||Treatment comparison of all participants receiving paltusotine irrespective of dose levels with Placebo has been presented.||455.821|8.444|<0.0001
91105034|NCT05192382|182096819|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|-0.906|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.106|-0.706|||ANCOVA|||||-0.706|-1.106|<0.0001
91105035|NCT05192382|182096820|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|18.319|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.637|79.156|||exact logistic regression model|||Treatment comparison of all participants receiving paltusotine irrespective of dose levels with Placebo has been presented.||79.156|5.637|<0.0001
91105036|NCT05192382|182096821|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.588|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.776|23.483|||exact logistic regression model|||Treatment comparison of all participants receiving paltusotine irrespective of dose levels with Placebo has been presented.||23.483|2.776|<0.0001
91105037|NCT05192382|182096822|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|-5.423||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.07|-1.776|||ANCOVA|||||-1.776|-9.070|0.0039
91105038|NCT02604199|182096848|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.086|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.183|0.011||Mixed effect model repeat measurement (MMRM) includes terms of parameter baseline as continuous covariate, and treatment and visit as fixed factors, interaction of treatment and visit, and interaction of parameter baseline and visit.|MMRM|Within-subject covariance is unstructured.||||0.011|-0.183|0.0810
91105039|NCT02604199|182096848|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.309|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.406|-0.212||MMRM includes terms of parameter baseline as continuous covariate, and treatment and visit as fixed factors, interaction of treatment and visit, and interaction of parameter baseline and visit. Within-subject covariance is unstructured.|MMRM|||||-0.212|-0.406|<.0001
91105040|NCT02604199|182096848|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.223|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.322|-0.124||MMRM includes terms of parameter baseline as continuous covariate, and treatment and visit as fixed factors, interaction of treatment and visit, and interaction of parameter baseline and visit. Within-subject covariance is unstructured.|MMRM|||||-0.124|-0.322|<.0001
91105041|NCT02604199|182096849|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.089|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.046||0.0583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.181|0.003||MMRM includes terms of parameter baseline as continuous covariate, and treatment and visit as fixed factors, interaction of treatment and visit, and interaction of parameter baseline and visit. Within-subject covariance is unstructured.|MMRM|||Day 15||0.003|-0.181|0.0583
91105042|NCT02604199|182096849|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.176|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.267|-0.085||MMRM includes terms of parameter baseline as continuous covariate, and treatment and visit as fixed factors, interaction of treatment and visit, and interaction of parameter baseline and visit. Within-subject covariance is unstructured.|MMRM|||Day 15||-0.085|-0.267|0.003
91105043|NCT02604199|182096849|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.087|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.181|0.006||MMRM includes terms of parameter baseline as continuous covariate, and treatment and visit as fixed factors, interaction of treatment and visit, and interaction of parameter baseline and visit. Within-subject covariance is unstructured.|MMRM|||Day 15||0.006|-0.181|0.0670
90905357|NCT02886728|181677461|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|6.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||6.0|-2.0|0.39
91105044|NCT02604199|182096849|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.151|0.011||MMRM includes terms of parameter baseline as continuous covariate, and treatment and visit as fixed factors, interaction of treatment and visit, and interaction of parameter baseline and visit. Within-subject covariance is unstructured.|MMRM|||Day 29||0.011|-0.151|0.0875
91105045|NCT02604199|182096849|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.179|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.259|-0.1||MMRM includes terms of parameter baseline as continuous covariate, and treatment and visit as fixed factors, interaction of treatment and visit, and interaction of parameter baseline and visit. Within-subject covariance is unstructured.|MMRM|||Day 29||-0.100|-0.259|<.0001
91105046|NCT02604199|182096849|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.109|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041||0.0099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.191|-0.027||MMRM includes terms of parameter baseline as continuous covariate, and treatment and visit as fixed factors, interaction of treatment and visit, and interaction of parameter baseline and visit. Within-subject covariance is unstructured.|MMRM|||Day 29||-0.027|-0.191|0.0099
91105047|NCT02604199|182096849|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.143|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.229|-0.057||MMRM includes terms of parameter baseline as continuous covariate, and treatment and visit as fixed factors, interaction of treatment and visit, and interaction of parameter baseline and visit. Within-subject covariance is unstructured.|MMRM|||Day 43||-0.057|-0.229|0.0017
91105048|NCT02604199|182096849|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.265|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.042|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.349|-0.18||MMRM includes terms of parameter baseline as continuous covariate, and treatment and visit as fixed factors, interaction of treatment and visit, and interaction of parameter baseline and visit. Within-subject covariance is unstructured.|MMRM|||Day 43||-0.180|-0.349|<.0001
91105049|NCT02604199|182096849|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.122|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.0072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.209|-0.035||MMRM includes terms of parameter baseline as continuous covariate, and treatment and visit as fixed factors, interaction of treatment and visit, and interaction of parameter baseline and visit. Within-subject covariance is unstructured.|MMRM|||Day 43||-0.035|-0.209|0.0072
91105050|NCT02604199|182096849|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.197|-0.039||MMRM includes terms of parameter baseline as continuous covariate, and treatment and visit as fixed factors, interaction of treatment and visit, and interaction of parameter baseline and visit. Within-subject covariance is unstructured.|MMRM|||Day 57||-0.039|-0.197|0.0043
91105051|NCT02604199|182096849|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.298|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.376|-0.221||MMRM includes terms of parameter baseline as continuous covariate, and treatment and visit as fixed factors, interaction of treatment and visit, and interaction of parameter baseline and visit. Within-subject covariance is unstructured.|MMRM|||Day 57||-0.221|-0.376|< 0.0001
91105052|NCT02604199|182096849|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.181|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.261|-0.1||MMRM includes terms of parameter baseline as continuous covariate, and treatment and visit as fixed factors, interaction of treatment and visit, and interaction of parameter baseline and visit. Within-subject covariance is unstructured.|MMRM|||Day 57||-0.100|-0.261|<.0001
91105053|NCT02604199|182096849|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.132|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.0084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.228|-0.035||MMRM includes terms of parameter baseline as continuous covariate, and treatment and visit as fixed factors, interaction of treatment and visit, and interaction of parameter baseline and visit. Within-subject covariance is unstructured.|MMRM|||Day 71||-0.035|-0.228|0.0084
91105054|NCT02604199|182096849|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.338|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.433|-0.243||MMRM includes terms of parameter baseline as continuous covariate, and treatment and visit as fixed factors, interaction of treatment and visit, and interaction of parameter baseline and visit. Within-subject covariance is unstructured.|MMRM|||Day 71||-0.243|-0.433|<.0001
91105055|NCT02604199|182096849|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.206|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.304|-0.108||MMRM includes terms of parameter baseline as continuous covariate, and treatment and visit as fixed factors, interaction of treatment and visit, and interaction of parameter baseline and visit. Within-subject covariance is unstructured.|MMRM|||Day 71||-0.108|-0.304|0.0001
91105056|NCT02604199|182096849|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.096|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.0589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.195|0.004||MMRM includes terms of parameter baseline as continuous covariate, and treatment and visit as fixed factors, interaction of treatment and visit, and interaction of parameter baseline and visit. Within-subject covariance is unstructured.|MMRM|||Day 85||0.004|-0.195|0.0589
91105057|NCT02604199|182096849|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.335|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.433|-0.236||MMRM includes terms of parameter baseline as continuous covariate, and treatment and visit as fixed factors, interaction of treatment and visit, and interaction of parameter baseline and visit. Within-subject covariance is unstructured.|MMRM|||Day 85||-0.236|-0.433|<.0001
91105058|NCT02604199|182096849|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.239|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|-0.137||MMRM includes terms of parameter baseline as continuous covariate, and treatment and visit as fixed factors, interaction of treatment and visit, and interaction of parameter baseline and visit. Within-subject covariance is unstructured.|MMRM|||Day 85||-0.137|-0.340|<.0001
91105059|NCT02604199|182096849|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.132|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.0138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.236|-0.028||MMRM includes terms of parameter baseline as continuous covariate, and treatment and visit as fixed factors, interaction of treatment and visit, and interaction of parameter baseline and visit. Within-subject covariance is unstructured.|MMRM|||Day 99||-0.028|-0.236|0.0138
91105060|NCT02604199|182096849|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.355|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.051|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.458|-0.252||MMRM includes terms of parameter baseline as continuous covariate, and treatment and visit as fixed factors, interaction of treatment and visit, and interaction of parameter baseline and visit. Within-subject covariance is unstructured.|MMRM|||Day 99||-0.252|-0.458|<.0001
90860174|NCT04916769|181583973|EQUIVALENCE|The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. The ratio of adjusted geometric means and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|ratio of adjusted geometric means|95.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.34|106.61||||||Natural logarithm-transformed bosutinib Cmax was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Bosutinib 500 mg capsule contents + yogurt 45 mL \[Test\] - Bosutinib 500 mg intact capsule \[Reference\]) and corresponding 90% CIs were obtained from the model.||106.61|85.34|
90860175|NCT04916769|181583974|EQUIVALENCE|The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. The ratio of adjusted geometric means and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|ratio of adjusted geometric means|106.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.54|115.68||||||Natural logarithm-transformed bosutinib AUClast was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Bosutinib 500 mg capsule contents + applesauce 45 mL \[Test\] - Bosutinib 500 mg intact capsule \[Reference\]) and corresponding 90% CIs were obtained from the model.||115.68|97.54|
90905358|NCT02886728|181677461|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|8.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||8.0|2.0|0.004
90905359|NCT02886728|181677461|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|6.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||6.0|-3.0|0.45
91105061|NCT02604199|182096849|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.223|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.329|-0.117||MMRM includes terms of parameter baseline as continuous covariate, and treatment and visit as fixed factors, interaction of treatment and visit, and interaction of parameter baseline and visit. Within-subject covariance is unstructured.|MMRM|||Day 99||-0.117|-0.329|0.0001
91105062|NCT05411367|182096859|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12||||0.315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.38|||ANCOVA|||||0.38|-0.62|0.315
91105063|NCT05411367|182096860|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055||0.487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.11|-0.11|0.487
91105064|NCT02604212|182096861|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.102||0.6815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.243|0.159|||MMRM|||||0.159|-0.243|0.6815
91105065|NCT02604212|182096861|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.438|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.101|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.638|-0.237|||MMRM|||||-0.237|-0.638|<.0001
91105066|NCT02604212|182096861|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.396|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.088|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.569|-0.223|||MMRM|||||-0.223|-0.569|<.0001
91105067|NCT02604212|182096862|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.208|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.083||0.0131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.372|-0.044|||MMRM|||Day 15||-0.044|-0.372|0.0131
91105068|NCT02604212|182096862|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.247|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.084||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.412|-0.082|||MMRM|||Day 15||-0.082|-0.412|0.0036
91105069|NCT02604212|182096862|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.039|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.077||0.6136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.192|0.113|||MMRM|||Day 15||0.113|-0.192|0.6136
91105070|NCT02604212|182096862|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.085|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.083||0.3104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.249|0.08|||MMRM|||Day 29||0.080|-0.249|0.3104
91105071|NCT02604212|182096862|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.174|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.084||0.0401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|-0.008|||MMRM|||Day 29||-0.008|-0.340|0.0401
91105072|NCT02604212|182096862|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.089|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.077||0.2494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.242|0.063|||MMRM|||Day 29||0.063|-0.242|0.2494
91105073|NCT02604212|182096862|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.211|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.085||0.0149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.042|||MMRM|||Day 43||-0.042|-0.380|0.0149
91105074|NCT02604212|182096862|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.319|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.086||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.489|-0.149|||MMRM|||Day 43||-0.149|-0.489|0.0003
90970923|NCT00794677|181823969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-21.353|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.22|<|1e-07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0000001
91105075|NCT02604212|182096862|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.108|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.078||0.1655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.262|0.045|||MMRM|||Day 29||0.045|-0.262|0.1655
91105076|NCT02604212|182096862|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.088||0.0889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.324|0.023|||MMRM|||Day 57||0.023|-0.324|0.0889
91105077|NCT02604212|182096862|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.322|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.088||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.497|-0.147|||MMRM|||Day 57||-0.147|-0.497|0.0004
91105078|NCT02604212|182096862|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.172|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.078||0.0298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.326|-0.017|||MMRM|||Day 57||-0.017|-0.326|0.0298
91105079|NCT02604212|182096862|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.184|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.089||0.0415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.361|-0.007|||MMRM|||Day 71||-0.007|-0.361|0.0415
91105080|NCT02604212|182096862|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.441|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.091|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.261|||MMRM|||Day 71||-0.261|-0.620|<.0001
91105081|NCT02604212|182096862|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.257|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.079||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.413|-0.1|||MMRM|||Day 71||-0.100|-0.413|0.0015
91105082|NCT02604212|182096862|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.086|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.092||0.351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.268|0.096|||MMRM|||Day 85||0.096|-0.268|0.3510
90860176|NCT04916769|181583974|EQUIVALENCE|The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. The ratio of adjusted geometric means and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|ratio of adjusted geometric means|102.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.95|110.91||||||Natural logarithm-transformed bosutinib AUClast was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Bosutinib 500 mg capsule contents + yogurt 45 mL \[Test\] - Bosutinib 500 mg intact capsule \[Reference\]) and corresponding 90% CIs were obtained from the model.||110.91|93.95|
91105083|NCT02604212|182096862|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.404|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.219|||MMRM|||Day 85||-0.219|-0.590|<.0001
91105084|NCT02604212|182096862|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.318|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.082||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.481|-0.156|||MMRM|||Day 85||-0.156|-0.481|0.0002
91105085|NCT02604212|182096862|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.151|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.096||0.1198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.341|0.04|||MMRM|||Day 99||0.040|-0.341|0.1198
91105086|NCT02604212|182096862|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.516|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.097|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.708|-0.325|||MMRM|||Day 99||-0.325|-0.708|<.0001
91105087|NCT02604212|182096862|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.366|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.085|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.535|-0.197|||MMRM|||Day 99||-0.197|-0.535|<.0001
91105088|NCT02604212|182096863|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0867|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0867
91105089|NCT02604212|182096863|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6285|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6285
91105090|NCT02604212|182096863|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7214|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.7214
91105091|NCT02604212|182096864|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0325|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0325
90940213|NCT01340300|181760088|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||One-sided un-adjusted p-values to test if the decrease in treatment arm is greater than the control arm. Holm's method was performed for multiple comparisons to provide an overall significance level of 5%. Only significant p-values were reported.|Mixed Models Analysis|An intention-to-treat analysis, with a mixed model that was adjusted for baseline outcome value, BMI (\< 30 or \> 30), gender, cancer, and study site.||Null hypothesis: decrease of BMI in treatment arm is greater than the control arm.||||<0.0001
91105092|NCT02604212|182096864|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1409|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1409
91105093|NCT02604212|182096864|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
91105094|NCT02604212|182096865|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0824|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0824
91105095|NCT02604212|182096865|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2217|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2217
91105096|NCT02604212|182096865|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1409|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1409
91105097|NCT02604212|182096866|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0625|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0625
90860177|NCT04941456|181583981|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.08||||0.2795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.8|22.63|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||22.63|-74.80|0.2795
90860178|NCT04941456|181583984|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6957||||0.3416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.179|0.7877|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||0.7877|-2.179|0.3416
91105098|NCT02604212|182096866|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0684|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0684
91105099|NCT02604212|182096866|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2105|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2105
91105100|NCT02604212|182096867|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.175|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1750
91105101|NCT02604212|182096867|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0229|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0229
91105102|NCT02604212|182096867|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0294|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0294
91105103|NCT02604212|182096868|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4615|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4615
91105104|NCT02604212|182096868|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0508|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0508
91105105|NCT02604212|182096868|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0769|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0769
91105106|NCT02604212|182096869|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0699|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0699
91105107|NCT02604212|182096869|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0179|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0179
91105108|NCT02604212|182096869|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.043|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0430
91105109|NCT02604212|182096870|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
91105110|NCT02604212|182096870|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0849|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0849
91105111|NCT02604212|182096870|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0849|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0849
91105112|NCT04659863|182096900|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-33.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.17|-7.34||||||||-7.34|-59.17|
91105113|NCT06426927|182096985|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Post-video vs. Baseline||||<0.0001
91105114|NCT06426927|182096985|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Study Day 2: 30 +/- 7 days vs. Baseline||||<0.0001
91105115|NCT06426927|182096986|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Post-video vs. Baseline||||<0.0001
91105116|NCT06426927|182096986|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Study Day 2: 30 +/- 7 days vs. Baseline||||<0.0001
91105117|NCT06426927|182096987|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Post-video vs. Baseline||||<0.0001
91105118|NCT06426927|182096987|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Study Day 2: 30 +/- 7 days vs. Baseline||||<0.0001
91105119|NCT06426927|182096988|SUPERIORITY||Average Causal Mediated Effect (ACME)|0.01||||0.56|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pre-video to post video, without covariates||||0.56
91105120|NCT05010018|182096989|OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||welch's t-test|||||||0.22
91105121|NCT02032823|182097001|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.581||||7.3e-06|TWO_SIDED|99.5|0.409|0.816||A multiple testing procedure is employed across the primary and all key secondary endpoints to strongly control overall type I error at 5% (2 sided) accounting for all analysis timepoints.|Log Rank|Log rank test is stratified by chemotherapy type, hormone receptor status, and prior platinum therapy using a pre-specified pooling strategy.|Estimate of the treatment hazard ratio is based on a stratified Cox's Proportional Hazards Model, \<1 indicates a lower risk with olaparib compared with placebo arm. Stratification factors are the same as those used in the stratified log-rank test.|||0.816|0.409|0.0000073
91105122|NCT02032823|182097002|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.574||||2.57e-05|TWO_SIDED|99.5|0.392|0.831||A multiple testing procedure is employed across the primary and all key secondary endpoints to strongly control overall type I error at 5% (2 sided) accounting for all analysis timepoints.|Log Rank|Log rank test is stratified by chemotherapy type, hormone receptor status, and prior platinum therapy using a pre-specified pooling strategy.|Estimate of the treatment hazard ratio is based on a stratified Cox's Proportional Hazards Model, \<1 indicates a lower risk with olaparib compared with placebo arm. Stratification factors are the same as those used in the stratified log-rank test.|||0.831|0.392|0.0000257
91105123|NCT02032823|182097003|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.678||||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|98.5|0.468|0.973||A multiple testing procedure is employed across the primary and all key secondary endpoints to strongly control overall type I error at 5% (2 sided) accounting for all analysis timepoints.|Log Rank|Log rank test is stratified by chemotherapy type, hormone receptor status, and prior platinum therapy using a pre-specified pooling strategy.|Estimate of the treatment hazard ratio is based on a stratified Cox's Proportional Hazards Model, \<1 indicates a lower risk with olaparib compared with placebo arm. Stratification factors are the same as those used in the stratified log-rank test.|||0.973|0.468|0.0091
91105124|NCT05431387|182097009|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.64||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.062|7.098||Two-sided, calculated by exact computations with whether subjects had smoked \>100 cigarettes in their lifetime (yes, no) as stratification.|Exact computations||Common odds ratio|Abstinence from Week 9 to 12||7.098|1.062|0.0350
91105125|NCT05431387|182097009|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.62||||0.0348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.133|6.491||Derived from marginal odds ratio.|Exact computations||Marginal (unadjusted) odds ratio|||6.491|1.133|0.0348
91105126|NCT05431387|182097009|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|0.17||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.012|0.284||p-value for difference in proportions|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.284|0.012|0.0120
91105127|NCT05431387|182097010|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.81||||0.2205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.766|4.551|||Exact computations||Marginal (unadjusted) odds ratio|Abstinence from Week 3 to 6||4.551|0.766|0.2205
91105128|NCT05431387|182097010|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.058|0.209||||||||0.209|-0.058|
91105129|NCT05431387|182097011|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.18||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.967|5.202|||Exact computations||Marginal (unadjusted) odds ratio|Abstinence from Week 6 to 9||5.202|0.967|0.0850
91105130|NCT05431387|182097011|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.019|0.263||||||||0.263|-0.019|
91105131|NCT05431387|182097012|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.3038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.653|7.309||Two-sided, derived from marginal (unadjusted) odds ratio.|Exact computations|||Week 2||7.309|0.653|0.3038
91105132|NCT05431387|182097012|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|0.06||||0.3038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.058|0.144||Two-sided, derived from marginal odds ratio.|Exact computations|||Week 2||0.144|-0.058|0.3038
91105133|NCT05431387|182097012|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73||||0.1996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.817|3.8||Two-sided, derived from marginal (unadjusted) odds ratio.|Exact computations|||Week 3||3.800|0.817|0.1996
91105134|NCT05431387|182097012|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|0.11||||0.1996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.055|0.251||Two-sided, derived from marginal odds ratio.|Exact computations|||Week 3||0.251|-0.055|0.1996
91105135|NCT05431387|182097012|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.02||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.458|6.414||Two-sided, derived from marginal (unadjusted) odds ratio.|Exact computations|||Week 4||6.414|1.458|0.0035
91105136|NCT05431387|182097012|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|0.25||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.078|0.395||Two-sided, derived from marginal odds ratio.|Exact computations|||Week 4||0.395|0.078|0.0035
91105137|NCT05431387|182097012|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.84||||0.1183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.905|3.809||Two-sided, derived from marginal (unadjusted) odds ratio.|Exact computations|||Week 5||3.809|0.905|0.1183
91105138|NCT05431387|182097012|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|0.14||||0.1183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.035|0.29||Two-sided, derived from marginal odds ratio.|Exact computations|||Week 5||0.290|-0.035|0.1183
91105139|NCT05431387|182097012|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.15||||0.0532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.035|4.585||Two-sided, derived from marginal (unadjusted) odds ratio.|Exact computations|||Week 6||4.585|1.035|0.0532
91105140|NCT05431387|182097012|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|0.17||||0.0532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.311||Two-sided, derived from marginal odds ratio.|Exact computations|||Week 6||0.311|-0.004|0.0532
91105141|NCT05431387|182097012|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.23||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.539|6.989||Two-sided, derived from marginal (unadjusted) odds ratio.|Exact computations|||Week 7||6.989|1.539|0.0019
91105142|NCT05431387|182097012|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|0.26||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.089|0.4||Two-sided, derived from marginal odds ratio.|Exact computations|||Week 7||0.400|0.089|0.0019
91105143|NCT05431387|182097012|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.32||||0.0246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.119|4.944||Two-sided, derived from marginal (unadjusted) odds ratio.|Exact computations|||Week 8||4.944|1.119|0.0246
91105144|NCT05431387|182097012|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|0.18||||0.0246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.014|0.33||Two-sided, derived from marginal odds ratio.|Exact computations|||Week 8||0.330|0.014|0.0246
91105145|NCT05431387|182097012|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.23||||0.0362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.076|4.762||Two-sided, derived from marginal (unadjusted) odds ratio.|Exact computations|||Week 9||4.762|1.076|0.0362
90860179|NCT04191187|181584016|SUPERIORITY||PFS at 18 Months|70.8||||0.002|ONE_SIDED|90.0|59.2|||One sided log rank test|Log Rank||||||59.2|0.002
90860180|NCT02719327|181584022|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.18||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.36|0.99||ASL values at 18 months were regressed on treatment group (IPE vs placebo) statistically controlling for age at baseline visit and ASL measured at baseline visit.|Regression, Linear|||The proposed study aims to investigate the effects of 18 months of IPE vs. placebo on regional cerebral blood flow in the bilateral posterior cingulate gyrus as measured by arterial spin-labeling MRI . IPE was hypothesized to improve regional cerebral blood flow over placebo after 18 months.||0.99|-5.36|0.17
90860181|NCT02719327|181584023|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.11||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.25|||Regression, Linear|18 month Beta-amyloid(1-42) was regressed on group (IPE vs placebo) and covariates age at baseline visit and Beta-amyloid(1-42) at baseline visit.|Placebo group is the reference group.|Beta-amyloid(1-42) concentration in CSF was log-transformed prior to analysis to approximate a normal distribution.||0.25|-0.04|.12
90860182|NCT02719327|181584023|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.045||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|0.061|||Regression, Linear|log-transformed 18 month pTau181 was regressed on group (IPE vs placebo) and covariates age at baseline and log-transformed ptau181at baseline visit.|Placebo group is the reference group.|Phosphorylated tau (pTau181) measured in CSF was log-transformed prior to analysis to approximate a normal distribution.||0.061|0.004|0.05
90860183|NCT02719327|181584023|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.046||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0008|0.106||18 months total Tau was regressed on Group (IPE vs placebo) and covariates age at baseline and total Tau at baseline.|Regression, Linear||Placebo group was the reference group.|Total tau was log-transformed prior to analysis to better approximate a normal distribution.||0.106|-0.0008|.07
90959228|NCT01037244|181798416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|22.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.11|28.03|||ANOVA|p-values are obtained from ANOVA model with pooled site as a covariate.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||28.03|17.11|<0.0001
91105146|NCT05431387|182097012|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|0.18||||0.0362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.005|0.321||Two-sided, derived from marginal odds ratio.|Exact computations|||Week 9||0.321|0.005|0.0362
91105147|NCT05431387|182097012|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77||||0.1215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.871|3.668||Two-sided, derived from marginal (unadjusted) odds ratio.|Exact computations|||Week 10||3.668|0.871|0.1215
91105148|NCT05431387|182097012|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|0.13||||0.1215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.044|0.281||Two-sided, derived from marginal odds ratio.|Exact computations|||Week 10||0.281|-0.044|0.1215
91105149|NCT05431387|182097012|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.84||||0.1123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.882|3.935||Two-sided, derived from marginal (unadjusted) odds ratio.|Exact computations|||Week 11||3.935|0.882|0.1123
91105150|NCT05431387|182097012|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|0.13||||0.1123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.274||Two-sided, derived from marginal odds ratio.|Exact computations|||Week 11||0.274|-0.040|0.1123
91105151|NCT05431387|182097012|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.12||||0.0516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.006|4.626||Two-sided, derived from marginal (unadjusted) odds ratio.|Exact computations|||Week 12||4.626|1.006|0.0516
91105152|NCT05431387|182097012|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|0.16||||0.0516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.011|0.298||Two-sided, derived from marginal odds ratio.|Exact computations|||Week 12||0.298|-0.011|0.0516
91105153|NCT05431387|182097013|SUPERIORITY||Least squares (LS) means difference|-32.506|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|32.6646||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-155.1192|90.1072||A compound symmetry covariance matrix was used. Bonferroni adjusted p-values are reported.|Compound symmetry covariance matrix|||Change at Week 2||90.1072|-155.1192|1.0000
91105154|NCT05431387|182097013|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|-72.832|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|32.6388||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-195.3491|49.6842||A compound symmetry covariance matrix was used. Bonferroni adjusted p-values are reported.|Compound symmetry covariance matrix|||Change at Week 3||49.6842|-195.3491|1.0000
91105155|NCT05431387|182097013|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|-74.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|32.8018||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-197.2184|49.0381||A compound symmetry covariance matrix was used. Bonferroni adjusted p-values are reported.|Compound symmetry covariance matrix|||Change at Week 4||49.0381|-197.2184|1.0000
91105156|NCT05431387|182097013|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|-83.364|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|32.7865||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-206.4354|39.7066||A compound symmetry covariance matrix was used. Bonferroni adjusted p-values are reported.|Compound symmetry covariance matrix|||Change at Week 5||39.7066|-206.4354|1.0000
91105157|NCT05431387|182097013|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|-79.952|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|32.9139||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-203.5009|43.5976||A compound symmetry covariance matrix was used. Bonferroni adjusted p-values are reported.|Compound symmetry covariance matrix|||Change at Week 6||43.5976|-203.5009|1.0000
91105158|NCT05431387|182097013|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|-49.309|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|33.2714||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-174.2006|75.5817||A compound symmetry covariance matrix was used. Bonferroni adjusted p-values are reported.|Compound symmetry covariance matrix|||Change at Week 7||75.5817|-174.2006|1.0000
91105159|NCT05431387|182097013|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|-78.107|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|33.2237||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-202.8196|46.6046||A compound symmetry covariance matrix was used. Bonferroni adjusted p-values are reported.|Compound symmetry covariance matrix|||Change at Week 8||46.6046|-202.8196|1.0000
91105160|NCT05431387|182097013|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|-86.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|33.5025||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-211.7643|39.7529||A compound symmetry covariance matrix was used. Bonferroni adjusted p-values are reported.|Compound symmetry covariance matrix|||Change at Week 9||39.7529|-211.7643|1.0000
91105161|NCT05431387|182097013|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|-62.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|33.151||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-187.1187|61.7592||A compound symmetry covariance matrix was used. Bonferroni adjusted p-values are reported.|Compound symmetry covariance matrix|||Change at Week 10||61.7592|-187.1187|1.0000
91105162|NCT05431387|182097013|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|-63.262|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|33.2292||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-187.9952|61.4704||A compound symmetry covariance matrix was used. Bonferroni adjusted p-values are reported.|Compound symmetry covariance matrix|||Change at Week 11||61.4704|-187.9952|1.0000
91105163|NCT05431387|182097013|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|-57.329|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|33.2475||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-182.1302|67.4727||A compound symmetry covariance matrix was used. Bonferroni adjusted p-values are reported.|Compound symmetry covariance matrix|||Change at Week 12||67.4727|-182.1302|1.0000
91105164|NCT05431387|182097014|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|5.319||Two-sided, derived from marginal odds ratio.|Exact computations|||Abstinence from Week 9 to 16||5.319|0.820|0.1470
91105165|NCT05431387|182097014|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|0.1||||0.147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.044|0.211||Two-sided, derived from marginal odds ratio.|Exact computations|||||0.211|-0.044|0.1470
91105166|NCT05358717|182097024|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-15.97|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.59|-8.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.34|-23.59|< 0.0001
91105167|NCT05358717|182097024|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-27.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.45|-20.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-20.10|-34.45|< 0.0001
91105168|NCT02411448|182097029|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.591|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.461|0.76|||Log Rank|||||0.760|0.461|<0.0001
91105169|NCT02411448|182097031|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.832||||0.4209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.532|1.303|||Log Rank|||||1.303|0.532|0.4209
91105170|NCT02411448|182097032|OTHER|||||||0.7413|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.7413
91105171|NCT02411448|182097033|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||1.0000
91105172|NCT02411448|182097034|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.619||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.477|0.805|||Log Rank|||||0.805|0.477|0.0003
91105173|NCT01302834|182097041|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin was set at 1.45 (hazard ratio scale; IMRT + Cetuximab / IMRT + Cisplatin). If the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval was \<1.45, non-inferiority would be concluded. Design was based on a group sequential design with 3 interim analyses, one-sided 0.05, and 80% power.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.45|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||1.94|||||Reference level = IMRT + Cisplatin|||1.94||
90860184|NCT02719327|181584024|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.006||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.009|0.023|||Linear Mixed Effects model|Covariates included education level, gender, and age at baseline visit.|Placebo group was the reference group.|Four cognitive tests were standardized (baseline mean and standard deviation) prior to averaging to create the ADCS Preclinical Alzheimer Cognitive Composite (ADCS-PACC) score. The final composite score was standardized again using baseline mean and standard deviation (range -3.15 to 3.10). Higher scores indicate better cognitive performance. A linear mixed effects model was used to determine if change in ADCS-PACC composite scores was modified by treatment group.||0.023|-0.009|.48
91105174|NCT01302834|182097042|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.72||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|2.29|||Log Rank|Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Reference level = IMRT + Cisplatin|||2.29|1.29|0.0002
90860185|NCT04823650|181584038|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.95|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.95|-0.16|
91105175|NCT01302834|182097043|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.05||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|3.1|||Log Rank|Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Reference level = IMRT + Cisplatin|||3.10|1.35|0.0005
91105176|NCT01302834|182097044|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.49||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|2.36||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Log Rank||Reference level = IMRT + Cisplatin|||2.36|0.94|0.09
91105177|NCT01302834|182097045|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.58||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Log Rank||Reference level = IMRT + Cisplatin|||1.58|0.61|0.95
91105178|NCT01302834|182097047|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
91105179|NCT01302834|182097055|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79||||||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Fisher Exact|||||||0.79
91105180|NCT01302834|182097058|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5438||||||One-sided significance level = 0.05|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.5438
91105181|NCT01302834|182097062|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7108||||||One-sided significance level = 0.05|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.7108
91105182|NCT01302834|182097077|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.87||||0.2571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.34||One-sided significance level = 0.025.|Regression, Cox|Stratified by treatment arm.|Reference level = non-variant|||1.34|0.56|0.2571
91105183|NCT01302834|182097078|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.94||||0.3704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.38||One-sided significance level = 0.05.|Regression, Cox|Stratified by treatment arm.|Reference level = non-variant|||1.38|0.64|0.3704
91105184|NCT01302834|182097079|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|2.46|||||Reference level = IMRT + Cisplatin|Variant||2.46|0.49|
91105185|NCT01302834|182097079|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.1||||||95.0|0.79|1.53|||||Reference level = IMRT + Cisplatin|Non-variant||1.53|0.79|
90860186|NCT04823650|181584038|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.606|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.91|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.91|-0.10|
91105186|NCT01302834|182097079|OTHER|||||||0.989||||||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Regression, Cox|||Testing Cox proportional hazards model interaction term for KRAS variant status and treatment arm.||||0.9890
91105187|NCT01302834|182097080|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.01||||||95.0|0.5|2.04|||||Reference level = IMRT + Cisplatin|Variant||2.04|0.50|
91105188|NCT01302834|182097080|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.73|||||Reference level = IMRT + Cisplatin|Non-variant||1.73|0.94|
91105189|NCT01302834|182097080|OTHER|||||||0.5556||||||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Regression, Cox|||Testing Cox proportional hazards model interaction term for KRAS variant status and treatment arm.||||0.5556
91105190|NCT05642442|182097093|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.895|=|0.2363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.83|0.7|||Mixed-effect model with repeat measures|Includes baseline TETRAS score, treatment grp, week, treatment grp and baseline by week, randomization strata, and week repeated for each patient.||||0.70|-2.83|=0.2363
91105191|NCT05642442|182097094|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference (%)|14.6|||=|0.0715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|30.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Adjusted difference of proportions is the weighted average of differences across strata with the CMH weights. Stratification is based on baseline TETRAS Composite Outcome Score.|||30.5|-1.3|=0.0715
91105192|NCT05642442|182097095|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.084|=|0.1232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.82|0.46|||Mixed-effect model with repeat measures|Includes baseline TETRAS-ADL score, treatment grp, week, treatment grp and baseline by week, randomization strata, and week repeated for each patient.||||0.46|-3.82|=0.1232
91105193|NCT05642442|182097096|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference (%)|10.5|||=|0.1906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|26.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Adjusted difference of proportions is the weighted average of differences across strata with the CMH weights. Stratification is based on baseline TETRAS Composite Outcome Score.|||26.2|-5.2|=0.1906
91105194|NCT05642442|182097097|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference (%)|15.6|||=|0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|26.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Adjusted difference of proportions is the weighted average of differences across strata with the CMH weights. Stratification is based on baseline TETRAS Composite Outcome Score.|||26.6|4.7|=0.0052
91105195|NCT05642442|182097098|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference (%)|7.6|||=|0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|17.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Adjusted difference of proportions is the weighted average of differences across strata with the CMH weights. Stratification is based on baseline TETRAS Composite Outcome Score.|||17.7|-2.6|=0.1450
91105196|NCT05642442|182097099|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.37|||=|0.1429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|3.2|||Mixed-effect Model With Repeat Measure|Includes baseline TETRAS-PS score, treatment grp, week, treatment grp and baseline by week, randomization strata, and week repeated for each patient.||||3.20|-0.47|=0.1429
91105197|NCT05642442|182097100|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.666|=|0.9739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.35|3.24|||Mixed-effect model with repeat measures|Includes baseline TETRAS score, treatment grp, week, treatment grp and baseline by week, randomization strata, and week repeated for each patient.||||3.24|-3.35|=0.9739
91105198|NCT05642442|182097101|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.694|=|0.3029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|0.65|||Mixed-effect model with repeat measures|Includes baseline MDS-UPDR score, treatment grp, week, treatment grp and baseline by week, randomization strata, and week repeated for each patient.||||0.65|-2.09|=0.3029
91105199|NCT05528510|182097102|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|21.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.5|27.6|||Mantel Haenszel|Stratification was by Androgen Deprivation Therapy for Intermediate-Risk status (Yes/No) and Mayo endoscopy subscore at baseline(moderate or severe).||||27.6|14.5|<0.001
91105200|NCT05528510|182097103|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|30.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.6|39.2|||Mantel Haenszel|Stratification was by Androgen Deprivation Therapy for Intermediate-Risk status (Yes/No) and Mayo endoscopy subscore at baseline(moderate or severe).||||39.2|21.6|<0.001
90905360|NCT02886728|181677461|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|5.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||5.0|-4.0|0.85
91035849|NCT02849457|181958277|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.4392|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1889||0.1697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8346|1.9562|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for age at randomization (\<=7 vs \>7 months) and sex. Unstructured covariance used among 12, 24, and 36 month outcomes.|Pertains to the estimated difference in mean score between groups at study visit corresponding to 24 months of age.|||1.9562|-10.8346|0.1697
90905361|NCT01676220|181677477|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Stepwise closed testing approach was used to assess non-inferiority and superiority sequentially:~1. Non-inferiority of HOE901-U300 vs Lantus: Upper bound of two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of difference between HOE901-U300 and Lantus on mITT population is \<0.4%.~2. Superiority (only if non-inferiority has been demonstrated): Upper bound of two-sided 95% CI for difference in mean change in HbA1c from baseline to endpoint between HOE901-U300 and Lantus on mITT population is \<0."|Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.174||||||Analysis was performed using mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM) with treatment groups, strata of screening HbA1c (\<8.0, \>=8.0%), geographical region (Non-Japan; Japan), visit and visit-by-treatment groups interaction as fixed categorical effects; baseline HbA1c and baseline HbA1c-by-visit interaction as continuous fixed covariates.||0.174|-0.090|
90905362|NCT01676220|181677478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.89||||0.4536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A one-sided test (at alpha=0.025) for superiority of HOE901-U300 over Lantus was to be performed in case the non-inferiority of HOE901-U300 vs Lantus for the primary endpoint was demonstrated. Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method stratified by randomization strata of screening HbA1c (\<8.0, \>=8.0%), randomization strata of geographical region (Non-Japan; Japan).||1.20|0.66|0.4536
90905363|NCT01676220|181677479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.224|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.275|0.605||||||Change in pre-injection SMPG was analyzed using MMRM model with treatment groups, strata of screening HbA1c (\<8.0, \>=8.0%), geographical region (Non-Japan; Japan), visit and visit-by-treatment groups interaction as fixed categorical effects; baseline preinjection SMPG value and baseline preinjection SMPG value-by-visit interaction as continuous fixed covariates.||0.605|-0.275|
90905364|NCT01152554|181677591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.5|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||1.50|0.54|0.697
91105201|NCT05528510|182097104|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|24.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.6|31.9|||Mantel Haenszel|Stratification was by Androgen Deprivation Therapy for Intermediate-Risk status (Yes/No) and Mayo endoscopy subscore at baseline(moderate or severe).||||31.9|16.6|<0.001
91105202|NCT05528510|182097105|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|31.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.6|40.5|||Mantel Haenszel|Stratification was by Androgen Deprivation Therapy for Intermediate-Risk status (Yes/No) and Mayo endoscopy subscore at baseline(moderate or severe).||||40.5|21.6|<0.001
91105203|NCT05528510|182097106|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|19.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.4|26.9|||Mantel Haenszel|Stratification was by Androgen Deprivation Therapy for Intermediate-Risk status (Yes/No) and Mayo endoscopy subscore at baseline(moderate or severe).||||26.9|12.4|<0.001
91105204|NCT05528510|182097107|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|25.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.7|35.1|||Mantel Haenszel|Stratification was by Androgen Deprivation Therapy for Intermediate-Risk status (Yes/No) and Mayo endoscopy subscore at baseline(moderate or severe).||||35.1|16.7|<0.001
91105205|NCT05528510|182097107|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|27.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.9|36.2|||Mantel Haenszel|Stratification was by Androgen Deprivation Therapy for Intermediate-Risk status (Yes/No) and Mayo endoscopy subscore at baseline(moderate or severe).||||36.2|17.9|<0.001
91105206|NCT05528510|182097108|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|29.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.5|40.5|||Mantel Haenszel|Stratification was by Androgen Deprivation Therapy for Intermediate-Risk status (Yes/No) and Mayo endoscopy subscore at baseline(moderate or severe).||||40.5|18.5|<0.001
90905365|NCT01152554|181677592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.57|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||1.57|0.45|0.582
90905366|NCT03486899|181677607|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.65||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|8.52|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||8.52|0.88|0.055
90905367|NCT03486899|181677607|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.89||||0.245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|6.27|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||6.27|0.61|0.245
91035850|NCT01068821|181958287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Sample size calculations (yielding 25 patients per group): two-sided 5% significance level and a power of 80% for detection of a 2 cm (SD 2.5 cm) difference. Continuous variables analyzed by Student's T-test and One way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) with statistical significance: p value ≤ 0.05 or 95% Confidence Interval excluding one. Confirmation by Wilcoxon Rank-Sum/Mann-Whitney and Kruskal-Wallis tests. Categorical variables by Chi Square Test, confirmed by Fisher's Exact test.||||0.1
91105207|NCT05528510|182097108|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|24.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.3|35.3|||Mantel Haenszel|Stratification was by Androgen Deprivation Therapy for Intermediate-Risk status (Yes/No) and Mayo endoscopy subscore at baseline(moderate or severe).||||35.3|14.3|<0.001
91105208|NCT05528510|182097109|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|28.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.5|37.6|||Mantel Haenszel|Stratification was by Androgen Deprivation Therapy for Intermediate-Risk status (Yes/No) and Mayo endoscopy subscore at baseline(moderate or severe).||||37.6|18.5|<0.001
91105209|NCT05528510|182097109|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|32.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.1|42.3|||Mantel Haenszel|Stratification was by Androgen Deprivation Therapy for Intermediate-Risk status (Yes/No) and Mayo endoscopy subscore at baseline(moderate or severe).||||42.3|23.1|<0.001
91105210|NCT05528510|182097110|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|32.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.3|43.4|||Mantel Haenszel|Stratification was by Androgen Deprivation Therapy for Intermediate-Risk status (Yes/No) and Mayo endoscopy subscore at baseline(moderate or severe).||||43.4|21.3|<0.001
91105211|NCT05528510|182097110|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|30.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.0|41.0|||Mantel Haenszel|Stratification was by Androgen Deprivation Therapy for Intermediate-Risk status (Yes/No) and Mayo endoscopy subscore at baseline(moderate or severe).||||41.0|20.0|<0.001
91105212|NCT02616562|182097157|OTHER||Estimated Treatment difference|-3.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.57|-1.76||||||The primary analysis tested the estimated treatment difference in HV after 26 weeks of treatment between once-weekly somapacitan 0.04 mg/kg and daily dosing of norditropin 0.034 mg/kg. It was analysed using a mixed model for repeated measurements, with treatment, age group, sex, region and sex by age group interaction as factors and height at baseline as a covariate, all nested within week as a factor.||-1.76|-5.57|
91105213|NCT02616562|182097157|OTHER||Estimated treatment difference|-0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|1.32||||||The primary analysis tested the estimated treatment difference in HV after 26 weeks of treatment between once-weekly somapacitan 0.08 mg/kg and daily dosing of norditropin 0.034 mg/kg. It was analysed using a mixed model for repeated measurements, with treatment, age group, sex, region and sex by age group interaction as factors and height at baseline as a covariate, all nested within week as a factor.||1.32|-2.41|
90905368|NCT03486899|181677607|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.17||||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|7.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||7.10|0.71|0.129
90905369|NCT03486899|181677608|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2||||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|10.64|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.64|0.53|0.214
90905370|NCT03486899|181677608|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.83||||0.381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|9.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||9.10|0.43|0.381
90905371|NCT03486899|181677608|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.88||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|13.48|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||13.48|0.75|0.079
91105214|NCT02616562|182097157|OTHER||Estimated treatment difference|1.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|3.56||||||The primary analysis tested the estimated treatment difference in HV after 26 weeks of treatment between once-weekly somapacitan 0.16 mg/kg and daily dosing of norditropin 0.034 mg/kg. It was analysed using a mixed model for repeated measurements, with treatment, age group, sex, region and sex by age group interaction as factors and height at baseline as a covariate, all nested within week as a factor.||3.56|-0.22|
91105215|NCT05741372|182097182|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|127.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.4|189.6|||||Ratio \[%\]=(adjusted geometric mean Group 2/adjusted geometric mean Group 1)\*100. Total gCV = 23.6%.|The adjusted geometric means ratio based on ANOVA was calculated by using least square means, the 90% CI by using residual error from quantiles from t-distribution. These quantities were back-transformed to original scale.||189.6|85.4|
91105216|NCT05741372|182097182|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|745.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|464.9|1196.0|||||Ratio \[%\]=(adjusted geometric mean Group 3/adjusted geometric mean Group 1)\*100. Total gCV = 28.1%.|The adjusted geometric means ratio based on ANOVA was calculated by using least square means, the 90% CI by using residual error from quantiles from t-distribution. These quantities were back-transformed to original scale.||1196|464.9|
91105217|NCT05741372|182097183|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|183.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|117.3|287.5|||||Ratio \[%\]=(adjusted geometric mean Group 2/adjusted geometric mean Group 1)\*100. Total gCV = 26.6%.|The adjusted geometric means ratio based on ANOVA was calculated by using least square means, the 90% CI by using residual error from quantiles from t-distribution. These quantities were back-transformed to original scale.||287.5|117.3|
90905372|NCT03486899|181677609|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.07||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|7.47|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||7.47|0.63|0.180
90905373|NCT03486899|181677609|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|5.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.20|0.38|0.612
90905374|NCT03486899|181677609|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.59||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|9.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||9.10|0.81|0.079
90905375|NCT03486899|181677610|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.39||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.03|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.03|0.15|0.038
90905376|NCT03486899|181677610|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.57|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.57|0.22|0.256
91035851|NCT01068821|181958288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Fischer's exact test, significance defined as p\<0.05||||0.5
90905377|NCT03486899|181677610|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65||||0.296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.73|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.73|0.25|0.296
90905378|NCT03486899|181677611|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|9.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||9.80|0.22|0.718
90905379|NCT03486899|181677611|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.64||||0.632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|5.87|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.87|0.05|0.632
91105218|NCT05741372|182097183|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|1712.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1006.7|2912.2|||||Ratio \[%\]=(adjusted geometric mean Group 3/adjusted geometric mean Group 1)\*100. Total gCV = 31.7%.|The adjusted geometric means ratio based on ANOVA was calculated by using least square means, the 90% CI by using residual error from quantiles from t-distribution. These quantities were back-transformed to original scale.||2912.2|1006.7|
91105219|NCT05741372|182097184|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|96.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.0|115.3|||||Ratio \[%\]=(adjusted geometric mean Group 2/adjusted geometric mean Group 1)\*100. Total gCV = 10.3%.|The adjusted geometric means ratio based on ANOVA was calculated by using least square means, the 90% CI by using residual error from quantiles from t-distribution. These quantities were back-transformed to original scale.||115.3|81.0|
91105220|NCT05741372|182097184|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|93.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.9|115.3|||||Ratio \[%\]=(adjusted geometric mean Group 3/adjusted geometric mean Group 1)\*100. Total gCV = 12.2%.|The adjusted geometric means ratio based on ANOVA was calculated by using least square means, the 90% CI by using residual error from quantiles from t-distribution. These quantities were back-transformed to original scale.||115.3|75.9|
91105221|NCT05741372|182097185|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|78.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|63.8|97.5|||||Ratio \[%\]=(adjusted geometric mean Group 2/adjusted geometric mean Group 1)\*100. Total gCV = 12.5%.|The adjusted geometric means ratio based on ANOVA was calculated by using least square means, the 90% CI by using residual error from quantiles from t-distribution. These quantities were back-transformed to original scale.||97.5|63.8|
91105222|NCT05741372|182097185|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|83.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|65.0|107.5|||||Ratio \[%\]=(adjusted geometric mean Group 3/adjusted geometric mean Group 1)\*100. Total gCV = 14.8%.|The adjusted geometric means ratio based on ANOVA was calculated by using least square means, the 90% CI by using residual error from quantiles from t-distribution. These quantities were back-transformed to original scale.||107.5|65.0|
91105223|NCT05741372|182097186|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|97.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.2|114.0|||||Ratio \[%\]=(adjusted geometric mean Group 2/adjusted geometric mean Group 1)\*100. Total gCV = 9.2%.|The adjusted geometric means ratio based on ANOVA was calculated by using least square means, the 90% CI by using residual error from quantiles from t-distribution. These quantities were back-transformed to original scale.||114|83.2|
90905380|NCT03486899|181677611|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.32||||0.293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|4.19|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.19|0.01|0.293
90905381|NCT03486899|181677612|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|9.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||9.80|0.22|0.718
90905382|NCT03486899|181677612|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.64||||0.632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|5.87|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.87|0.05|0.632
90905383|NCT03486899|181677612|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.32||||0.293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|4.19|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.19|0.01|0.293
90905384|NCT03486899|181677613|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.55||||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|10.12|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.12|0.73|0.101
91105224|NCT05741372|182097186|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|94.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.2|113.5|||||Ratio \[%\]=(adjusted geometric mean Group 3/adjusted geometric mean Group 1)\*100. Total gCV = 10.9%.|The adjusted geometric means ratio based on ANOVA was calculated by using least square means, the 90% CI by using residual error from quantiles from t-distribution. These quantities were back-transformed to original scale.||113.5|78.2|
91105225|NCT05741372|182097187|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|87.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.0|102.9|||||Ratio \[%\]=(adjusted geometric mean Group 2/adjusted geometric mean Group 1)\*100. Total gCV = 9.7%.|The adjusted geometric means ratio based on ANOVA was calculated by using least square means, the 90% CI by using residual error from quantiles from t-distribution. These quantities were back-transformed to original scale.||102.9|74.0|
90905385|NCT03486899|181677613|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|6.17|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||6.17|0.36|0.587
90905386|NCT03486899|181677613|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72||||0.371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|7.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||7.20|0.45|0.371
90905387|NCT03486899|181677614|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2||||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|10.64|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.64|0.53|0.214
90905388|NCT03486899|181677614|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.83||||0.381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|9.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||9.10|0.43|0.381
90905389|NCT03486899|181677614|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2||||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|10.64|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.64|0.53|0.214
90905390|NCT03486899|181677615|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.85||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|11.21|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||11.21|0.83|0.060
90905391|NCT03486899|181677615|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.93||||0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|7.92|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||7.92|0.53|0.276
90905392|NCT03486899|181677615|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72||||0.371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|7.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||7.20|0.45|0.371
90905393|NCT03486899|181677616|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72||||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|4.87|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.87|0.62|0.242
90905394|NCT03486899|181677616|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|3.26|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.26|0.37|0.803
90905395|NCT03486899|181677616|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|4.46|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.46|0.56|0.350
90905396|NCT01439711|181677617|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90905397|NCT01439711|181677618|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90959229|NCT01037244|181798416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|28.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.98|33.79|||ANOVA|p-values are obtained from ANOVA model with pooled site as a covariate.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||33.79|22.98|<0.0001
91035852|NCT02558491|181958300|OTHER|||||||0.045||||||No a priori sample size was determined due to the feasibility/pilot nature of the trial. Significance level was set at P-value \<0.05.|ANOVA|||Primary statistical analysis was performed using the repeated measure ANOVA, with the treatment mode as within subject factor, and type of insulin treatment (pump vs. MDI) as between subject factor. Based on achieved recruitment, a moderate effect size (0.3) is detectable with 80% power, or a large effect size (0.4) with 95% power (G-Power 3.1.9.2). Outcome measurement was for overall.||||0.045
91105226|NCT05741372|182097187|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|83.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|68.8|101.7|||||Ratio \[%\]=(adjusted geometric mean Group 3/adjusted geometric mean Group 1)\*100. Total gCV = 11.5%.|The adjusted geometric means ratio based on ANOVA was calculated by using least square means, the 90% CI by using residual error from quantiles from t-distribution. These quantities were back-transformed to original scale.||101.7|68.8|
91105227|NCT05741372|182097188|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|88.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|71.6|108.8|||||Ratio \[%\]=(adjusted geometric mean Group 2/adjusted geometric mean Group 1)\*100. Total gCV = 12.2%.|The adjusted geometric means ratio based on ANOVA was calculated by using least square means, the 90% CI by using residual error from quantiles from t-distribution. These quantities were back-transformed to original scale.||108.8|71.6|
91105228|NCT05741372|182097188|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|115.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.2|148.0|||||Ratio \[%\]=(adjusted geometric mean Group 3/adjusted geometric mean Group 1)\*100. Total gCV = 14.5%.|The adjusted geometric means ratio based on ANOVA was calculated by using least square means, the 90% CI by using residual error from quantiles from t-distribution. These quantities were back-transformed to original scale.||148.0|90.2|
91105229|NCT05741372|182097189|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|76.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|61.1|96.6|||||Ratio \[%\]=(adjusted geometric mean Group 2/adjusted geometric mean Group 1)\*100. Total gCV = 13.4%.|The adjusted geometric means ratio based on ANOVA was calculated by using least square means, the 90% CI by using residual error from quantiles from t-distribution. These quantities were back-transformed to original scale.||96.6|61.1|
91105230|NCT05741372|182097189|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|96.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|73.4|126.1|||||Ratio \[%\]=(adjusted geometric mean Group 3/adjusted geometric mean Group 1)\*100. Total gCV = 15.9%.|The adjusted geometric means ratio based on ANOVA was calculated by using least square means, the 90% CI by using residual error from quantiles from t-distribution. These quantities were back-transformed to original scale.||126.1|73.4|
91105231|NCT04837040|182097190|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|126.526|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.733|999.999|||exact logistic regression model|||Treatment comparison of all participants receiving paltusotine versus placebo has been presented.||999.999|13.733|<0.0001
91105232|NCT04837040|182097191|SUPERIORITY||least squares means difference|-0.791|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.057|-0.525|||ANCOVA|||||-0.525|-1.057|<0.0001
91105233|NCT04837040|182097192|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.609||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.864|181.355|||exact logistic regression model|||Treatment comparison of all participants receiving paltusotine versus placebo has been presented.||181.355|2.864|0.0003
91105234|NCT04837040|182097193|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|-5.164||||0.0216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.536|-0.792|||ANCOVA|||||-0.792|-9.536|0.0216
91105235|NCT02961218|182097199|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.57||0.55|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.03|0.85||probability reduction of average pain score in ACZ885 \> Placebo|Bayesian model for repeated measures||Lower limit and upper limit represents the credibility interval from the Bayesian analysis.|||0.85|-1.03|0.55
90970924|NCT05284760|181823970|EQUIVALENCE|The two treatments were deemed equivalent if the 90% CIs for the GMRs for all of the parameters were each within 80.00% and 125.00%.|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|97.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.66|107.96||||||||107.96|87.66|
91035942|NCT03261167|181958553|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.38|||||Week 12, Wrist flexion. Analysis method was MMRM with Treatment, Visit, Treatment by visit interation, Baseline, and Baseline by visit interaction as fixed effects.|||0.38|-0.19|
91105236|NCT02961218|182097201|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.408||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.253|0.658|||Mixed-effect Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.658|0.253|0.002
91105237|NCT02961218|182097202|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.752|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.657|0.862|||Mixed-effect Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.862|0.657|<.001
91105238|NCT02961218|182097203|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.682||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.547|0.849|||Mixed-effect Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.849|0.547|0.004
91105239|NCT02961218|182097204|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.718||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.556|0.925|||Mixed-effect Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.925|0.556|0.032
91105240|NCT02961218|182097211|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.455|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.58|3.4|||Generalized Linear Model (GLM)|||||3.40|0.58|0.455
91105241|NCT01856478|182097214|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.76||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|5.18||Null hypothesis: Afatinib and methotrexate have an equal response rate.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||"Linear regression stratified by baseline ECOG performance score and use of prior EGFR-targeted antibody in the R/M setting was used to calculate the OR of response and its confidence interval.~Data presented as Afatinib versus Methotrexate."|Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel was used to test the effect of afatinib compared with methotrexate. The stratification was done on the baseline ECOG performance score (0 or 1) and use of prior EGFR-targeted antibody in the R/M setting (Yes or No).||5.18|1.47|0.0016
91105242|NCT01856478|182097215|SUPERIORITY|Stratified log-rank test was used to test the effect of afatinib on PFS compared with methotrexate. The stratification was done on the baseline ECOG performance score (0 or 1) and use of prior EGFR-targeted antibody in the R/M setting (Yes or No).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.627||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.478|0.823||Null hypothesis: Afatinib and methotrexate are equally effective in terms of PFS.|Log Rank||"Cox proportional hazards model stratified by baseline ECOG performance score and use of prior EGFR-targeted antibody in the R/M setting was used to calculate HR and its confidence interval.~Data presented as Afatinib versus Methotrexate."|||0.823|0.478|0.0005
91105243|NCT01856478|182097216|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.881||||0.3162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.687|1.129|||Log Rank||"Cox proportional hazards model stratified by baseline ECOG performance score and use of prior EGFR-targeted antibody in the R/M setting was used to calculate HR and its confidence interval.~Data presented as Afatinib versus Methotrexate."|Stratified log-rank test was used to test the effect of afatinib compared with methotrexate. The stratification was done on the baseline ECOG performance score (0 or 1) and use of prior EGFR-targeted antibody in the R/M setting (Yes or No).||1.129|0.687|0.3162
91105244|NCT01856478|182097217|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.2121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.15|||Log Rank||"Cox proportional hazards model stratified by baseline ECOG performance score and use of prior EGFR-targeted antibody in the R/M setting was used to calculate HR and its confidence interval.~Data presented as Afatinib versus Methotrexate."|Stratified log-rank test was used to test the effect of afatinib compared with methotrexate. The stratification was done on the baseline ECOG performance score (0 or 1) and use of prior EGFR-targeted antibody in the R/M setting (Yes or No).||1.15|0.54|0.2121
91105245|NCT01856478|182097218|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.9888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.49|||Log Rank||"Cox proportional hazards model stratified by baseline ECOG performance score and use of prior EGFR-targeted antibody in the R/M setting was used to calculate HR and its confidence interval.~Data presented as Afatinib versus Methotrexate."|Stratified log-rank test was used to test the effect of afatinib compared with methotrexate. The stratification was done on the baseline ECOG performance score (0 or 1) and use of prior EGFR-targeted antibody in the R/M setting (Yes or No).||1.49|0.67|0.9888
91105246|NCT01856478|182097219|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.34|||Log Rank||"Cox proportional hazards model stratified by baseline ECOG performance score and use of prior EGFR-targeted antibody in the R/M setting was used to calculate HR and its confidence interval.~Data presented as Afatinib versus Methotrexate."|Stratified log-rank test was used to test the effect of afatinib compared with methotrexate. The stratification was done on the baseline ECOG performance score (0 or 1) and use of prior EGFR-targeted antibody in the R/M setting (Yes or No).||1.34|0.62|0.6260
90860187|NCT04823650|181584038|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.637|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.92|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.92|-0.05|
91105247|NCT01856478|182097220|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|7.9||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.45|12.36|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as \[Afatinib\]-\[Methotrexate\]|||12.36|3.45|0.0005
91105248|NCT01856478|182097221|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-3.8||||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.39|0.84|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as \[Afatinib\]-\[Methotrexate\]|||0.84|-8.39|0.1090
91105249|NCT01856478|182097222|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-3.9||||0.1819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.73|1.85|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as \[Afatinib\]-\[Methotrexate\]|||1.85|-9.73|0.1819
91105250|NCT01856478|182097223|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46||||0.222|||||||Regression, Logistic||Afatinib versus Methotrexate|Stratified logistic regression model stratified by baseline ECOG performance score (0 or 1) and use of prior EGFR-targeted antibody in the R/M setting (Yes or No) was used to compare the number of patients that of improved vs. not improved (i.e. stable and worsened) between the two treatment groups.||||0.222
91105251|NCT01856478|182097224|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.37||||0.012|||||||Regression, Logistic||Afatinib versus Methotrexate|Stratified logistic regression model stratified by baseline ECOG performance score (0 or 1) and use of prior EGFR-targeted antibody in the R/M setting (Yes or No) was used to compare the number of patients that of improved vs. not improved (i.e. stable and worsened) between the two treatment groups.||||0.012
90905398|NCT02397460|181677631|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment effects on Emax following capsaicin challenge were modeled for dose dependence and were estimated on the basis of disease status for participants who were healthy or had chronic cough and received gefapixant 50 mg, gefapixant 300 mg, or placebo.||||< 0.0001
90905399|NCT02397460|181677632|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment effects following capsaicin challenge were modeled for dose. dependence and were estimated on the basis of disease status for participants who had chronic cough and received gefapixant 50 mg, gefapixant 300 mg, or placebo.||||< 0.0001
90860188|NCT04823650|181584038|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.741|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.91|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.91|0.33|
90905400|NCT01767129|181677659|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-83.4||||0.1907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-215.02|48.23|||ANOVA|The standard analysis of variance (ANOVA) model for a 2-period crossover trial was used. Factors in the model were participant, treatment, and period.|The least squares (LS) mean difference was calculated as the AVP-923-45 LS mean minus the placebo LS mean.|||48.23|-215.02|0.1907
90970925|NCT05284760|181823970|EQUIVALENCE|The two treatments were deemed equivalent if the 90% CIs for the GMRs for all of the parameters were each within 80.00% and 125.00%.|GMR|81.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|73.06|89.89||||||||89.89|73.06|
91105252|NCT01856478|182097225|OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Stratified logistic regression model stratified by baseline ECOG performance score (0 or 1) and use of prior EGFR-targeted antibody in the R/M setting (Yes or No) was used to compare the number of patients that of improved vs. not improved (i.e. stable and worsened) between the two treatment groups.||||0.008
91105253|NCT01856478|182097226|OTHER|||||||0.091|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Stratified logistic regression model stratified by baseline ECOG performance score (0 or 1) and use of prior EGFR-targeted antibody in the R/M setting (Yes or No) was used to compare the number of patients that of improved vs. not improved (i.e. stable and worsened) between the two treatment groups.||||0.091
91105254|NCT05032820|182097227|SUPERIORITY||Proportion of Patients Achieving CR/sCR|65.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|51.2|78.4||p-value is calculated using Fisher's exact test and is a one-sided test with a 5% significance level that tests whether the proportion of successes is greater than 10%.|Fisher Exact|One-sided test with a 5% significance level that tests whether the proportion of successes is greater than 10%.||||78.4|51.2|<0.0001
91105255|NCT02486718|182097249|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.848||||0.0683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.013|||Log Rank|||||1.013|0.710|0.0683
91105256|NCT02486718|182097250|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.691|0.998||||||||0.998|0.691|
91105257|NCT02486718|182097251|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.704|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.545|0.91||||||||0.910|0.545|
91105258|NCT02486718|182097253|SUPERIORITY||Difference in event-free rates|5.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|12.23||||||||12.23|-0.28|
91105259|NCT02486718|182097254|SUPERIORITY||Difference in event-free rates|6.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|13.36||||||||13.36|-0.06|
91105260|NCT02486718|182097255|SUPERIORITY||Difference in event-free rates|10.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|19.79||||||||19.79|1.56|
90860189|NCT04823650|181584038|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.96|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.96|0.65|
91105261|NCT02486718|182097256|SUPERIORITY||Difference in event-free rates|5.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|11.9||||||||11.90|-0.94|
91105262|NCT02486718|182097257|SUPERIORITY||Difference in event-free rates|4.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|11.7||||||||11.70|-1.94|
91105263|NCT02486718|182097258|SUPERIORITY||Difference in event-free rates|10.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|19.76||||||||19.76|1.16|
91105264|NCT02486718|182097259|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.503|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.332|0.761||||||||0.761|0.332|
90860190|NCT04823650|181584038|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.892|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.98|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.98|-0.16|
90860191|NCT04823650|181584038|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.93|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.93|0.36|
90860192|NCT04823650|181584038|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.715|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.94|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.94|-0.08|
91105265|NCT04108208|182097264|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.233|||=|0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.077|0.705|||Log Rank|||||0.705|0.077|=0.0052
90860193|NCT04823650|181584038|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.767|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.96|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.96|-0.04|
90860194|NCT04823650|181584038|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.428|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.84|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.84|-0.17|
90970926|NCT05284760|181823970|OTHER||GMR|37.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|31.1|45.17||||||||45.17|31.10|
91105266|NCT04770272|182097290|SUPERIORITY|The primary analysis uses Bayesian statistics for proportions, and is based on non-informative uniform (beta) priors for the pCR rates pA and pB in arms A (experimental) and B (control) respectively. Similar to a proof-of-concept trial, a dual criterion to simultaneously test for significant and relevant superiority at different levels of certainty was used, by requiring posterior probabilities, conditional on observed response counts xA, xB respectively in the two arms.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.0327|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1307|0.0663||||||This was a randomized, open-label, adaptive, two arm, multicenter phase II trial that enrolled female and male patients with primary TNBC (defined as ER/PR \< 10% and HER2-negative) with tumor stages cT1c - cT4d (cN0 and cN+). Patients were randomized to Arm A and B, stratified by PD-L1 expression on immune cells (IC-status) and anatomic tumor stage (Anatomic Stage Groups I, II and III). PD-L1 status was determined by central pathology using the VENTANA PD-L1 (SP142) assay.||0.0663|-0.1307|
91105267|NCT04770272|182097292|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.0411|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1497|0.0689||||||||0.0689|-0.1497|
91105268|NCT04770272|182097293|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0323|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1957|0.2524||||||||0.2524|-0.1957|
91105269|NCT04770272|182097294|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.051|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.153|0.051||||||||0.051|-0.153|
91105270|NCT04770272|182097295|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.041|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.127|0.044||||||||0.044|-0.127|
91105271|NCT04770272|182097296|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.064|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.166|0.034||||||||0.034|-0.166|
91105272|NCT04770272|182097297|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.233|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.326|-0.14|||||CI given as High posterior density interval (Bayesian confidence interval based on posterior distribution of effect/parameter of interest).|||-0.14|-0.326|
91105273|NCT04770272|182097298|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.039|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.078|0.15|||||CI given as High posterior density interval (Bayesian confidence interval based on posterior distribution of effect/parameter of interest).|||0.15|-0.078|
91105274|NCT04770272|182097299|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.245|-0.054|||||CI given as High posterior density interval (Bayesian confidence interval based on posterior distribution of effect/parameter of interest).|||-0.054|-0.245|
91105275|NCT04770272|182097300|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.052|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.157|0.055|||||CI given as High posterior density interval (Bayesian confidence interval based on posterior distribution of effect/parameter of interest).|||0.055|-0.157|
91105276|NCT04770272|182097301|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.001|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.022|0.018|||||CI given as High posterior density interval (Bayesian confidence interval based on posterior distribution of effect/parameter of interest).|||0.018|-0.022|
91105277|NCT04770272|182097302|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.007|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.017|0.034|||||CI given as High posterior density interval (Bayesian confidence interval based on posterior distribution of effect/parameter of interest).|||0.034|-0.017|
91105278|NCT04770272|182097303|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.229|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|-0.148|||||||CI given as High posterior density interval (Bayesian confidence interval based on posterior distribution of effect/parameter of interest).|-0.148|-0.31|
91105279|NCT04770272|182097304|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.056|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.052|0.163|||||CI given as High posterior density interval (Bayesian confidence interval based on posterior distribution of effect/parameter of interest).|||0.163|-0.052|
90905401|NCT01767129|181677660|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-18.9||||0.388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.28|27.42|||ANOVA|The standard ANOVA model for a 2-period crossover trial was used. Factors in the model were participant, treatment, and period.|The LS mean difference was calculated as the AVP-923-45 LS mean minus the placebo LS mean.|||27.42|-65.28|0.3880
91105280|NCT04770272|182097305|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.343|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.447|-0.238|||||||CI given as High posterior density interval (Bayesian confidence interval based on posterior distribution of effect/parameter of interest).|-0.238|-0.447|
91105281|NCT04770272|182097306|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.035|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.076|0.146|||||CI given as High posterior density interval (Bayesian confidence interval based on posterior distribution of effect/parameter of interest).|||0.146|-0.076|
91105282|NCT04770272|182097307|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.54||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|3.43|||Regression, Cox|||||3.43|0.69|0.290
91105283|NCT04770272|182097308|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.65||||0.495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|6.89|||Regression, Cox|||||6.89|0.39|0.495
91105284|NCT04770272|182097309|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.23||||0.529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|2.38|||Regression, Cox|Univariable Cox Regression.||||2.38|0.64|0.529
91105285|NCT00602667|182097317|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|21.23||||||The historical control included 10 medulloblastoma patients treated during 1998-2006 who would have been classified as intermediate risk according to SJYC07 criteria (section 13.1.3 of protocol).||21.23|1.17|
91105286|NCT00602667|182097317|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.84||||||The historical control included 14 medulloblastoma patients treated during 1998-2006 who would have been classified as high risk according to SJYC07 criteria (section 13.1.3 of protocol).||1.84|0.40|
91105287|NCT00602667|182097318|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|8.22||||||The historical control included 10 medulloblastoma patients treated during 1998-2006 who would have been classified as intermediate risk according to SJYC07 criteria (section 13.1.3 of protocol).||8.22|0.42|
91105288|NCT00602667|182097318|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.79||||||The historical control included 14 medulloblastoma patients treated during 1998-2006 who would have been classified as high risk according to SJYC07 criteria (section 13.1.3 of protocol).||1.79|0.31|
91105289|NCT02739412|182097392|SUPERIORITY|Power calculations were not performed in this study.|||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||This is an open label feasibility study to assess the efficacy and safety of a 4 week course of daily subcutaneous IL-2 injections to increase peripheral blood CD4 Tregs. Results are expressed as median, IQR and comparison were performed using one way or two-way ANOVA, followed by Tukey's multiple comparison test. For all comparisons, a p\< 0.05 was considered significant.||||< 0.01
91105290|NCT02363946|182097400|OTHER||alpha estimate|9.557|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Estimation of model: Parameter = alpha \* Dose\^beta. Determined from linear regression model: Log(Parameter) = log(Dose)|Dose-Proportionality of Pharmacokinetic Parameter Cmax for Analyte AD00370||||
91105291|NCT02363946|182097400|OTHER||beta estimate|1.173|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.128|1.218|||||Estimation of model: Parameter = alpha \* Dose\^beta. Determined from linear regression model: Log(Parameter) = log(Dose)|Dose-Proportionality of Pharmacokinetic Parameter Cmax for Analyte AD00370|R-square (r\^2)=0.98|1.218|1.128|
90970927|NCT05284760|181823970|OTHER||GMR|89.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.24|107.79||||||||107.79|74.24|
91105292|NCT02363946|182097400|OTHER||alpha estimate|9.824|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Estimation of model: Parameter = alpha \* Dose\^beta. Determined from linear regression model: Log(Parameter) = log(Dose)|Dose-Proportionality of Pharmacokinetic Parameter Cmax for Analyte ARC-MLP||||
91105293|NCT02363946|182097400|OTHER||beta estimate|1.103|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.054|1.153|||||Estimation of model: Parameter = alpha \* Dose\^beta. Determined from linear regression model: Log(Parameter) = log(Dose)|Dose-Proportionality of Pharmacokinetic Parameter Cmax for Analyte ARC-MLP|R-square (r\^2)=0.98|1.153|1.054|
91105294|NCT02363946|182097402|OTHER||alpha estimate|11.274|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Estimation of model: Parameter = alpha \* Dose\^beta. Determined from linear regression model: Log(Parameter) = log(Dose)|Dose-Proportionality of Pharmacokinetic Parameter AUC0-24 for Analyte AD00370||||
91105295|NCT02363946|182097402|OTHER||beta estimate|1.181|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.112|1.249|||||Estimation of model: Parameter = alpha \* Dose\^beta. Determined from linear regression model: Log(Parameter) = log(Dose)|Dose-Proportionality of Pharmacokinetic Parameter AUC0-24 for Analyte AD00370|R-square (r\^2)=0.96|1.249|1.112|
91105296|NCT02363946|182097402|OTHER||alpha estimate|12.133|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Estimation of model: Parameter = alpha \* Dose\^beta. Determined from linear regression model: Log(Parameter) = log(Dose)|Dose-Proportionality of Pharmacokinetic Parameter AUC0-24 for Analyte ARC-MLP||||
91105297|NCT02363946|182097402|OTHER||beta estimate|1.147|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.215|||||Estimation of model: Parameter = alpha \* Dose\^beta. Determined from linear regression model: Log(Parameter) = log(Dose)|Dose-Proportionality of Pharmacokinetic Parameter AUC0-24 for Analyte ARC-MLP|R-square (r\^2)=0.96|1.215|1.080|
91105298|NCT02363946|182097403|OTHER||alpha estimate|11.286|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.058|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Estimation of model: Parameter = alpha \* Dose\^beta. Determined from linear regression model: Log(Parameter) = log(Dose)|Dose-Proportionality of Pharmacokinetic Parameter AUCinf for Analyte AD00370||||
91105299|NCT02363946|182097403|OTHER||beta estimate|1.179|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|1.249|||||Estimation of model: Parameter = alpha \* Dose\^beta. Determined from linear regression model: Log(Parameter) = log(Dose)|Dose-Proportionality of Pharmacokinetic Parameter AUCinf for Analyte AD00370|R-square (r\^2)=0.96|1.249|1.110|
91105300|NCT02363946|182097403|OTHER||alpha estimate|12.347|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Estimation of model: Parameter = alpha \* Dose\^beta. Determined from linear regression model: Log(Parameter) = log(Dose)|Dose-Proportionality of Pharmacokinetic Parameter AUCinf for Analyte ARC-MLP||||
91105301|NCT02363946|182097403|OTHER||beta estimate|1.163|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.081|1.245|||||Estimation of model: Parameter = alpha \* Dose\^beta. Determined from linear regression model: Log(Parameter) = log(Dose)|Dose-Proportionality of Pharmacokinetic Parameter AUCinf for Analyte ARC-MLP|R-square (r\^2)=0.95|1.245|1.081|
90860195|NCT04823650|181584038|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.335|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.77|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.77|-0.16|
90860196|NCT04823650|181584038|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.273|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.74|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.74|-0.07|
90905402|NCT01767129|181677661|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|171.9||||0.7574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1022.79|1366.64|||ANOVA|The standard ANOVA model for a 2-period crossover trial was used. Factors in the model were participant, treatment, and period.|The LS mean difference was calculated as the AVP-923-45 LS mean minus the placebo LS mean.|||1366.64|-1022.79|0.7574
90905403|NCT01767129|181677662|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|48.8||||0.4203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.63|178.3|||ANOVA|The standard ANOVA model for a 2-period crossover trial was used. Factors in the model were participant, treatment, and period.|The LS mean difference was calculated as the AVP-923-45 LS mean minus the placebo LS mean.|||178.30|-80.63|0.4203
90905404|NCT01767129|181677663|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.1067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|0.27|||ANOVA|Change from Day 1 values were compared using ANOVA for a 2-period crossover trial. Factors in the model were participant, treatment, and period.|The LS mean difference was calculated as the AVP-923-45 LS mean minus the placebo LS mean.|Part I||0.27|-2.41|0.1067
90905405|NCT01767129|181677663|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.64|3.09|||ANOVA|Change from Day 1 values were compared using ANOVA for a 2-period crossover trial. Factors in the model were participant, treatment, and period.|The LS mean difference was calculated as the AVP-923-45 LS mean minus the placebo LS mean.|Part II||3.09|-2.64|0.8650
90905406|NCT01767129|181677663|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3||||0.0745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.94|0.27|||ANOVA|Change from Day 1 values were compared using ANOVA for a 2-period crossover trial. Factors in the model were participant, treatment, and period.|The LS mean difference was calculated as the AVP-923-45 LS mean minus the placebo LS mean.|Part IV||0.27|-4.94|0.0745
90905407|NCT01767129|181677664|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.9||||0.0625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|0.24|||ANOVA|Change from Day 1 values were compared using ANOVA for a 2-period crossover trial. Factors in the model were participant, treatment, and period.|The LS mean difference was calculated as the AVP-923-45 LS mean minus the placebo LS mean.|Part 1||0.24|-8.10|0.0625
90905408|NCT01767129|181677664|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.2474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.74|1.07|||ANOVA|Change from Day 1 values were compared using ANOVA for a 2-period crossover trial. Factors in the model were participant, treatment, and period.|The LS mean difference was calculated as the AVP-923-45 LS mean minus the placebo LS mean.|Part 2||1.07|-3.74|0.2474
90905409|NCT01767129|181677665|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.9764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|3.01|||ANOVA|Change from Day 1 values were compared using ANOVA for a 2-period crossover trial. Factors in the model were participant, treatment, and period.|The LS mean difference was calculated as the AVP-923-45 LS mean minus the placebo LS mean.|||3.01|-3.10|0.9764
90905410|NCT01767129|181677666|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.6359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.94|6.36|||ANOVA|Change from Baseline values were compared using ANOVA for a 2-period crossover trial. Factors in the model were participant, treatment, and period.|The LS mean difference was calculated as the AVP-923-45 LS mean minus the placebo LS mean.|Mobility||6.36|-9.94|0.6359
90905411|NCT01767129|181677666|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.5||||0.0167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|-1.87|||ANOVA|Change from Baseline values were compared using ANOVA for a 2-period crossover trial. Factors in the model were participant, treatment, and period.|The LS mean difference was calculated as the AVP-923-45 LS mean minus the placebo LS mean.|Activities of Daily Living||-1.87|-15.20|0.0167
90905412|NCT01767129|181677666|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.5||||0.0959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.54|1.56|||ANOVA|Change from Baseline values were compared using ANOVA for a 2-period crossover trial. Factors in the model were participant, treatment, and period|The LS mean difference was calculated as the AVP-923-45 LS mean minus the placebo LS mean.|Emotional Well Being||1.56|-16.54|0.0959
90905413|NCT01767129|181677666|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.9||||0.5108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.72|8.83|||ANOVA|Change from Baseline values were compared using ANOVA for a 2-period crossover trial. Factors in the model were participant, treatment, and period|The LS mean difference was calculated as the AVP-923-45 LS mean minus the placebo LS mean.|Stigma||8.83|-16.72|0.5108
90905414|NCT01767129|181677666|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.8||||0.0806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.06|1.42|||ANOVA|Change from Baseline values were compared using ANOVA for a 2-period crossover trial. Factors in the model were participant, treatment, and period.|The LS mean difference was calculated as the AVP-923-45 LS mean minus the placebo LS mean.|Social support||1.42|-21.06|0.0806
90905415|NCT01767129|181677666|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.3||||0.4205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.66|7.03|||ANOVA|Change from Baseline values were compared using ANOVA for a 2-period crossover trial. Factors in the model were participant, treatment, and period.|The LS mean difference was calculated as the AVP-923-45 LS mean minus the placebo LS mean.|Cognitive impairment (Cognitions)||7.03|-15.66|0.4205
90905416|NCT01767129|181677666|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.1||||0.1065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.63|1.53|||ANOVA|Change from Baseline values were compared using ANOVA for a 2-period crossover trial. Factors in the model were participant, treatment, and period.|The LS mean difference was calculated as the AVP-923-45 LS mean minus the placebo LS mean.|Communication||1.53|-13.63|0.1065
90905417|NCT01767129|181677666|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.2||||0.4456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.51|9.19|||ANOVA|Change from Baseline values were compared using ANOVA for a 2-period crossover trial. Factors in the model were participant, treatment, and period.|The LS mean difference was calculated as the AVP-923-45 LS mean minus the placebo LS mean.|Bodily discomfort||9.19|-19.51|0.4456
90860197|NCT04823650|181584038|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.854|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.95|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.95|0.58|
90860198|NCT04823650|181584038|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.537|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.85|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.85|-0.13|
90860199|NCT04823650|181584038|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.536|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.89|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.89|-0.15|
90860200|NCT04823650|181584038|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.527|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.87|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.87|-0.10|
90905418|NCT01767129|181677667|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.4||||0.0233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.72|-1.07|||ANOVA|Change from Baseline values were compared using ANOVA for a 2-period crossover trial. Factors in the model were participant, treatment, and period.|The LS mean difference was calculated as the AVP-923-45 LS mean minus the placebo LS mean.|||-1.07|-11.72|0.0233
90905419|NCT01767129|181677668|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|0.31|||ANOVA|Change from Screening values were compared using ANOVA for a 2-period crossover trial. Factors in the model were participant, treatment, and period.|The LS mean difference was calculated as the AVP-923-45 LS mean minus the placebo LS mean.|||0.31|-1.39|0.1930
91105302|NCT04088331|182097487|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Exact binomial test|||"Hypotheses:~H0: p ≤ 0.65 H1: p \> 0.65 where p = the proportion of subjects who are a treatment success.~Hypotheses evaluated using a one-sided exact binomial test.~Power calculation assumed a treatment success rate of 80%. With a one-sided type I error of 0.025 and a type II error of 0.10 (90% power), a sample size of 96 subjects needed to demonstrate the proportion of subjects who are a treatment success exceeds 65%."||||< 0.001
91105303|NCT03500172|182097507|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.455||||||Threshold for significance: 0.05|Two sample test of proportions|||||||0.455
90860201|NCT04823650|181584038|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.574|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.88|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.88|-0.10|
90905420|NCT01767129|181677669|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.0511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.17|0.01|||ANOVA|Change were compared using ANOVA for a 2-period crossover trial. Factors in the model were participant, treatment, and period.|The LS mean difference was calculated as the AVP-923-45 LS mean minus the placebo LS mean.|Dyskinesia||0.01|-2.17|0.0511
90905421|NCT01767129|181677669|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.7745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.91|||ANOVA|Change were compared using ANOVA for a 2-period crossover trial. Factors in the model were participant, treatment, and period.|The LS mean difference was calculated as the AVP-923-45 LS mean minus the placebo LS mean.|Other symptoms||0.91|-0.70|0.7745
90905422|NCT01473420|181677678|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|An equivalence margin of +/- 0.5 was considered relevant to demonstrate the equivalence of the two products.|LS Mean Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.104|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.24||||||Least square (LS) mean and 95 percent confidence interval (CI) derived from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with fixed effect of treatment.||0.24|-0.17|
90905423|NCT01473420|181677679|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|An equivalence margin of +/- 0.5 was considered relevant to demonstrate the equivalence of the two products.|LS Mean Difference|-2.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.175|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.51|9.82||||||LS mean and 95 percent CI derived from an ANCOVA model with fixed effect of treatment.||9.82|-14.51|
90905424|NCT01473420|181677680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8338|||||||Two-sample t-test|||||||0.8338
90905425|NCT01473420|181677681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6895|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|P-value was calculated from a Wilcoxon Rank Sum test and t-approximation was used.||||||0.6895
90905426|NCT01473420|181677682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9177|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|P-value was calculated from a Wilcoxon Rank Sum test and t-approximation was used.||||||0.9177
90905427|NCT04213846|181677746|SUPERIORITY|Generalized linear mixed model was estimated using a sample of N=408 with a Condition × 1-Month Follow-Up interaction. Assessment-only control was the reference category for Condition, and Baseline was the reference category for 1-Month Follow-Up.|Count/Rate Ratio|0.94||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.07|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models controlled for sex, age, and college type (2-year vs. 4-year) and used a Poisson error distribution.||Changes from Baseline to 1-Month Follow-Up for intervention versus assessment-only control reported in this section.||1.07|0.81|0.34
90860202|NCT04823650|181584038|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.454|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.85|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.85|-0.05|
90860203|NCT04823650|181584038|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.834|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.95|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.95|0.54|
90860204|NCT04823650|181584038|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.317|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.72|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.72|-0.27|
91105304|NCT03500172|182097508|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.962||||||Statistical significance threshold: 0.05|Two sample test of proportions|||||||0.962
91105305|NCT03500172|182097509|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.99||Threshold for statistical significance: 0.05|Regression, Cox|||Statistical test for risk of LTFU for steady partner, living together vs. single.||0.99|0.61|<0.05
91105306|NCT03500172|182097509|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.6|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|2.51||Threshold for statistical significance: 0.05|Regression, Cox|||Statistical test for risk of LTFU for 5-9 new clients in the past month vs. 0 clients in the past month.||2.51|1.02|<0.05
91105307|NCT03500172|182097509|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.31|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.57||Threshold for statistical significance: 0.05|Regression, Cox|||Statistical test for risk of LTFU for use of marijuana in the past 30 days vs. no marijuana use in the past 30 days||1.57|1.09|<0.05
91105308|NCT03500172|182097509|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.24|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.52||Threshold for statistical significance: 0.05|Regression, Cox|||Statistical test for risk of LTFU among those experiencing physical violence in the past 6 months vs. no experience of physical violence in the past 6 months.||1.52|1.01|<0.05
91105309|NCT03500172|182097509|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.62|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|2.0||Threshold for statistical significance: 0.05|Regression, Cox|||Statistical test for risk of LTFU among those who have experienced sexual violence in the past 6 months vs. those who have not||2.00|1.31|<0.05
91105310|NCT03500172|182097509|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.33|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|3.29||Threshold for statistical significance: 0.05|Regression, Cox|||Statistical test for risk of LTFU among those with viral loads from 50-1000 copies/mL at baseline vs. \<50 copies/mL.||3.29|1.65|<0.05
91105311|NCT03500172|182097509|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.47|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.82|3.36||Threshold for significance: 0.05|Regression, Cox|||Statistical test for risk of LTFU among those with viral load greater than 1000 copies/mL vs. those with viral load less than 50 copies/mL.||3.36|1.82|<0.05
91105312|NCT03500172|182097510|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.756||||||Threshold of significance: 0.05|Two sample test of proportions|||||||0.756
90905428|NCT04213846|181677746|SUPERIORITY|Generalized linear mixed model was estimated using a sample of N=408 with a Condition × 6-Month Follow-Up interaction. Assessment-only control was the reference category for Condition, and Baseline was the reference category for 6-Month Follow-Up.|Count/Rate Ratio|1.09||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.3|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models controlled for sex, age, and college type (2-year vs. 4-year) and used a Poisson error distribution.||Changes from Baseline to 6-Month Follow-Up for intervention versus assessment-only control reported in this section.||1.30|0.91|0.37
91105313|NCT03500172|182097511|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.295||||||Threshold of statistical significance: 0.05|Two sample test of proportions|||||||0.295
91105314|NCT03500172|182097512|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.149||||||Threshold for statistical significance: 0.05|Two sample test of proportions|||||||0.149
91105315|NCT03500172|182097513|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.301||||||Threshold of significance: 0.05|Two sample test of proportions|||||||0.301
91105316|NCT03500172|182097516|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.212||||||Threshold of statistical significance: 0.05|Chi-squared|||||||0.212
91105317|NCT05213624|182097555|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|118.14|||||BI 764198 (comparator) vs. Placebo (reference)|Logistic regression utilizing corticosteroid use at randomization and baseline 24-hr UPCR as covariates.||118.14|1.59|
91105318|NCT05213624|182097555|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|19.48|||||BI 764198 (comparator) vs. Placebo (reference)|Logistic regression utilizing corticosteroid use at randomization and baseline 24-hr UPCR as covariates.||19.48|0.16|
90905429|NCT04213846|181677746|SUPERIORITY|Generalized linear mixed model was estimated using a sample of N=408 with a Condition × 12-Month Follow-Up interaction. Assessment-only control was the reference category for Condition, and Baseline was the reference category for 12-Month Follow-Up.|Count/Rate Ratio|1.02||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.23|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models controlled for sex, age, and college type (2-year vs. 4-year) and used a Poisson error distribution.||Changes from Baseline to 12-Month Follow-Up for intervention versus assessment-only control reported in this section.||1.23|0.85|0.80
91105319|NCT05213624|182097555|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|73.57|||||BI 764198 (comparator) vs. Placebo (reference)|Logistic regression utilizing corticosteroid use at randomization and baseline 24-hr UPCR as covariates.||73.57|0.86|
91105320|NCT05213624|182097556|OTHER||Relative difference|-39.82||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.17|-17.36||Nominal and unadjusted|ANCOVA||"Comparison vs Placebo~Calculated as (exp(difference of least square means) - 1) \* 100."|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used to estimate the change in UPCR from baseline to Week 12 with corticosteroid use at randomization and baseline 24-hr UPCR as covariates.||-17.36|-56.17|0.0024
91105321|NCT05213624|182097556|OTHER||Relative difference|-4.57||||0.7906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.92|35.77||Nominal and unadjusted|ANCOVA||"Comparison vs Placebo~Calculated as (exp(difference of least square means) - 1) \* 100."|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used to estimate the change in UPCR from baseline to Week 12 with corticosteroid use at randomization and baseline 24-hr UPCR as covariates.||35.77|-32.92|0.7906
91105322|NCT05213624|182097556|OTHER||Relative difference|-23.27||||0.1325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.83|8.7||Nominal and unadjusted|ANCOVA||"Comparison vs Placebo~Calculated as (exp(difference of least square means) - 1) \* 100."|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used to estimate the change in UPCR from baseline to Week 12 with corticosteroid use at randomization and baseline 24-hr UPCR as covariates.||8.70|-45.83|0.1325
91105323|NCT04770779|182097561|SUPERIORITY||Common Risk Difference on Response Rate|17.6||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|27.2|||Mantel Haenszel|||The p-value is based on the Mantel-Haenszel stratum weighted method adjusting for randomization stratification factors.||27.2|8.0|0.0003
91105324|NCT04770779|182097562|SUPERIORITY||Common Risk Difference on Response Rate|11.1||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.1|17.0|||Mantel Haenszel|||The p-value is based on the Mantel-Haenszel stratum weighted method adjusting for randomization stratification factors.||17.0|5.1|0.0003
91105325|NCT04770779|182097563|SUPERIORITY||Common Risk Difference on Response Rate|13.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|19.1|||Mantel Haenszel|||The p-value is based on the Mantel-Haenszel stratum weighted method adjusting for randomization stratification factors.||19.1|7.7|<0.0001
91105326|NCT04770779|182097564|SUPERIORITY||Common Risk Difference on Response Rate|6.4||||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|10.9|||Mantel Haenszel|||The p-value is based on the Mantel-Haenszel stratum weighted method adjusting for randomization stratification factors.||10.9|1.9|0.0056
91105327|NCT03692052|182097581|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Clopper-Pearson Method|Significance of p-value associated with the test of H0:Hb response rate =0.3 vs H1:Hb response rate \> 0.3.||||||<.0001
91105328|NCT04647526|182097635|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.0088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.92|||Log Rank|||||0.92|0.55|0.0088
90959230|NCT01037244|181798417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.89|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|2.61|||ANCOVA|P-values were obtained from ANCOVA model with Baseline domain score and pooled site as covariates.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||2.61|1.17|<0.0001
90959231|NCT01037244|181798417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|2.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|2.99|||ANCOVA|P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with Baseline domain score and pooled site as covariates.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||2.99|1.54|<0.0001
90959232|NCT01037244|181798417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|3.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|3.73|||ANCOVA|P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with Baseline domain score and pooled site as covariates.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||3.73|2.30|<0.0001
90959233|NCT01037244|181798418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.03|||ANCOVA|P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with Baseline domain score and pooled site as covariates.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||2.03|0.81|<0.0001
90959234|NCT01037244|181798418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|2.26|||ANCOVA|P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with Baseline domain score and pooled site as covariates.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||2.26|1.04|<0.0001
90959235|NCT01037244|181798418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|2.59|||ANCOVA|P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with baseline domain score and pooled site as covariates.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||2.59|1.37|<0.0001
90959236|NCT01037244|181798419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.57||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.93|||ANCOVA|P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with Baseline domain score and pooled site as covariates.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||0.93|0.21|0.0019
90959237|NCT01037244|181798419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.1|||ANCOVA|P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with Baseline domain score and pooled site as covariates.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||1.10|0.38|<0.0001
90959238|NCT01037244|181798419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.21|||ANCOVA|P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with Baseline domain score and pooled site as covariates.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||1.21|0.49|<0.0001
91105329|NCT03298451|182097641|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0035||||||The adjusted alpha levels (0.0398) for the two-sided superiority test were derived based upon the exact number of OS events for each comparison using the Lan and DeMets approach that approximates the O'Brien Fleming spending function.|Log Rank|||The analysis was performed using stratified log-rank test adjusting for treatment, etiology of liver disease (HBV versus HCV versus others), ECOG (0 versus 1), and macro-vascular invasion (yes versus no). The values of the stratification factors were obtained from IVRS.||||0.0035
90970928|NCT05284760|181823971|EQUIVALENCE|The two treatments were deemed equivalent if the 90% CIs for the GMRs for all of the parameters were each within 80.00% and 125.00%.|GMR|97.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.17|103.17||||||||103.17|92.17|
90970929|NCT05284760|181823971|EQUIVALENCE|The two treatments were deemed equivalent if the 90% CIs for the GMRs for all of the parameters were each within 80.00% and 125.00%.|GMR|86.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.14|91.89||||||||91.89|82.14|
90860205|NCT04823650|181584038|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.789|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.96|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.96|-0.18|
90860206|NCT04823650|181584038|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.737|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.92|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.92|0.09|
90860207|NCT04823650|181584038|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.69|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.69|-0.19|
90860208|NCT04823650|181584038|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.936|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|0.98|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.98|0.81|
90860209|NCT04823650|181584038|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.95|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.95|0.42|
90905430|NCT04213846|181677747|SUPERIORITY|Generalized linear mixed model was estimated using a sample of N=408 with a Condition × 1-Month Follow-Up interaction. Assessment-only control was the reference category for Condition, and Baseline was the reference category for 1-Month Follow-Up.|Count/Rate Ratio|1.02||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.2|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models controlled for sex, age, college type and used a Poisson error distribution. Peak eBAC multiplied by 100 and rounded up to the nearest integer.||Changes from Baseline to 1-Month Follow-Up for intervention versus assessment-only control reported in this section.||1.20|0.88|0.75
91105330|NCT03298451|182097641|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.92|||Regression, Cox|||The analysis was performed using a Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for treatment, etiology of liver disease (HBV versus HCV versus others), ECOG (0 versus 1), and macro-vascular invasion (yes versus no). Values of the variables used for adjustment were obtained from IVRS.||0.92|0.66|
91105331|NCT03298451|182097642|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-interiority for the comparison of arm Durva 1500 mg vs Sora 400 mg is declared if the upper limit of the two-sided alpha adjusted CI for HR is less than the NI margin of 1.08.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.67|0.73|1.03|||Regression, Cox||The 95.67% confidence interval were derived based upon the exact number of OS events for each comparison using the Lan and DeMets approach that approximates the O'Brien Fleming spending function.|The analysis was performed using a Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for treatment, etiology of liver disease (HBV versus HCV versus others), ECOG (0 versus 1), and macro-vascular invasion (yes versus no). Values of the variables used for adjustment were obtained from IVRS.||1.03|0.73|
91105332|NCT03298451|182097642|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was tested sequentially per protocol as non-inferiority was satisfied.||||||0.0674||||||The adjusted alpha levels (0.0433) for the two-sided superiority test were derived based upon the exact number of OS events for each comparison using the Lan and DeMets approach that approximates the O'Brien Fleming spending function.|Log Rank|||The analysis was performed using stratified log-rank test adjusting for treatment, etiology of liver disease (HBV versus HCV versus others), ECOG (0 versus 1), and macro-vascular invasion (yes versus no). The values of the stratification factors were obtained from IVRS.||||0.0674
91105333|NCT01602380|182097675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.797||||0.0486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.637|0.999||2-sided p-value|Log Rank|Stratified log-rank test with factors for prior chemotherapy for locally advanced or metastatic disease and measurable disease at baseline.|A hazard ratio \< 1 favours fulvestrant.|If the true PFS HR for comparison of fulvestrant vs. anastrozole was 0.69 (likely to correspond to a 45% prolongation of PFS) the study had 90% power to demonstrate a statistically significant difference for PFS with a one-sided type 1 error of 2.5% (two-sided 5%).||0.999|0.637|0.0486
90860210|NCT04823650|181584038|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.521|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.79|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.79|0.19|
90860211|NCT04823650|181584038|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.871|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.98|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.98|-0.09|
90860212|NCT04823650|181584039|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.548|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.84|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.84|0.02|
90860213|NCT04823650|181584039|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.731|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.91|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.91|0.35|
90860214|NCT04823650|181584039|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.623|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.87|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.87|0.14|
90860215|NCT04823650|181584039|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.491|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.82|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.82|-0.11|
90860216|NCT04823650|181584039|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.136|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.52|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.52|-0.01|
90860217|NCT04823650|181584039|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.157|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.59|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.59|-0.04|
91105334|NCT01602380|182097676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.966||||0.7579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.773|1.206||2-sided p-value|Log Rank|Stratified log-rank test with factors for prior chemotherapy for locally advanced or metastatic disease and measurable disease at baseline.|A HR of \<1 favours fulvestrant.|65% OS maturity||1.206|0.773|0.7579
91105335|NCT01602380|182097677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.074||||0.729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.716|1.614||2-sided p-value|Regression, Logistic|||||1.614|0.716|0.7290
91105336|NCT01602380|182097679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rato of EDoR|1.52||||0.0367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.26||2-sided p-value|Method of Ellis et al|||||2.26|1.03|0.0367
91105337|NCT01602380|182097680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.253||||0.3045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.815|1.932||2-sided p-value|Regression, Logistic|||||1.932|0.815|0.3045
91105338|NCT01602380|182097682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of EDoCB|1.26||||0.0561||95.0|0.99|1.59||2-sided p-value|Method of Ellis et al|||||1.59|0.99|0.0561
91105339|NCT01602380|182097683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.2846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.11||2-sided p-value|Log Rank|Stratified log-rank test with factors for prior chemotherapy for locally advanced/metastatic disease and measurable/non-measurable disease at baseline|A hazard ratio \< 1 favours fulvestrant.|Comparative statistical analysis for time to deterioration of TOI score is presented (fulvestrant versus anastrozole).||1.11|0.70|0.2846
91105340|NCT01602380|182097683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.0844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.03||2-sided p-value|Log Rank|Stratified log-rank test with factors for prior chemotherapy for locally advanced/metastatic disease and measurable/non-measurable disease at baseline|A hazard ratio \< 1 favours fulvestrant.|Comparative statistical analysis for time to deterioration of FACT-B total score is presented (fulvestrant versus anastrozole).||1.03|0.66|0.0844
91105341|NCT03824158|182097693|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0014|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0014
91105342|NCT03824158|182097694|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.76
91105343|NCT03824158|182097695|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.13
91105344|NCT03824158|182097696|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.008
91105345|NCT03824158|182097697|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Chi-squared|||Advance directive or living will||||0.002
91105346|NCT03824158|182097697|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Fisher Exact|||POLST||||0.02
91105347|NCT03824158|182097697|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Chi-squared|||Code Status||||0.78
91105348|NCT03824158|182097697|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||Chi-squared|||Goals of Care discussion||||0.61
91105349|NCT03824158|182097698|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.17
91105350|NCT03824158|182097699|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.11
90860218|NCT04823650|181584039|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.649|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.88|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.88|0.17|
91105351|NCT03824158|182097700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.01
91105352|NCT03824158|182097701|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.83
91105353|NCT03824158|182097702|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32||||||Total Score p-value|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.32
91105354|NCT03824158|182097703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||IES-R Total Score p-value||||0.01
91105355|NCT03824158|182097704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.50
91105356|NCT03824158|182097705|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.84
91105357|NCT03824158|182097706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.07
91105358|NCT03824158|182097707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.4
91105359|NCT03824158|182097708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.19
91105360|NCT03824158|182097709|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.38
91105361|NCT03824158|182097710|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.09
91105362|NCT03824158|182097711|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.20
91105363|NCT03824158|182097712|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.28
91105364|NCT05169567|182097714|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.95|||Log Rank|||||0.95|0.57|0.02
91105365|NCT04865770|182097728|OTHER||Treatment ratio|0.98||||0.1333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.01|||ANCOVA|||Bilateral cortex: Responses are analysed using an ANCOVA with actual treatment, region and the stratification factors as categorical effects and the baseline value as a covariate, on log scale.||1.01|0.96|0.1333
91105366|NCT04865770|182097728|OTHER||Treatment ratio|0.99||||0.2487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.01|||ANCOVA|||Right cortex: Responses are analysed using an ANCOVA with actual treatment, region and the stratification factors as categorical effects and the baseline value as a covariate, on log scale.||1.01|0.96|0.2487
91105367|NCT04865770|182097728|OTHER||Treatment ratio|0.97||||0.0907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.0|||ANCOVA|||Left cortex: Responses are analysed using an ANCOVA with actual treatment, region and the stratification factors as categorical effects and the baseline value as a covariate, on log scale.||1.00|0.94|0.0907
91105368|NCT04865770|182097729|OTHER||Treatment ratio|0.99||||0.5619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.03|||ANCOVA|||Bilateral medulla: The responses are analysed using an ANCOVA with actual treatment, region and the stratification factors as categorical effects and the baseline value as a covariate.||1.03|0.94|0.5619
91105369|NCT04865770|182097729|OTHER||Treatment ratio|0.97||||0.2774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.02|||ANCOVA|||Right medulla: The responses are analysed using an ANCOVA with actual treatment, region and the stratification factors as categorical effects and the baseline value as a covariate.||1.02|0.93|0.2774
90970930|NCT05284760|181823971|OTHER||GMR|87.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.92|101.15||||||||101.15|75.92|
91105370|NCT04865770|182097729|OTHER||Treatment ratio|0.99||||0.7924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.04|||ANCOVA|||Left medulla: The responses are analysed using an ANCOVA with actual treatment, region and the stratification factors as categorical effects and the baseline value as a covariate.||1.04|0.94|0.7924
91105371|NCT04865770|182097730|OTHER||Treatment ratio|1.1||||0.0958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.24|||ANCOVA|||Bilateral kidney: Responses are analysed using an ANCOVA with actual treatment, region and the stratification factors as categorical effects and the baseline value as a covariate.||1.24|0.98|0.0958
91105372|NCT04865770|182097730|OTHER||Treatment ratio|1.17||||0.0145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.33|||ANCOVA|||Right kidney: Responses are analysed using an ANCOVA with actual treatment, region and the stratification factors as categorical effects and the baseline value as a covariate.||1.33|1.03|0.0145
91105373|NCT04865770|182097730|OTHER||Treatment ratio|1.06||||0.3311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.21|||ANCOVA|||Left kidney: Responses are analysed using an ANCOVA with actual treatment, region and the stratification factors as categorical effects and the baseline value as a covariate.||1.21|0.94|0.3311
91105374|NCT04865770|182097731|OTHER||Treatment ratio|1.0||||0.8651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.02|||ANCOVA|||Bilateral cortex: Responses are analysed using an ANCOVA with actual treatment, region and the stratification factors as categorical effects and the baseline value as a covariate.||1.02|0.98|0.8651
91105375|NCT04865770|182097731|OTHER||Treatment ratio|1.0||||0.724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.02|||ANCOVA|||Right cortex: Responses are analysed using an ANCOVA with actual treatment, region and the stratification factors as categorical effects and the baseline value as a covariate.||1.02|0.98|0.7240
91105376|NCT04865770|182097731|OTHER||Treatment ratio|1.0||||0.7195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.02|||ANCOVA|||Left cortex: Responses are analysed using an ANCOVA with actual treatment, region and the stratification factors as categorical effects and the baseline value as a covariate.||1.02|0.98|0.7195
91105377|NCT04865770|182097732|OTHER||Treatment ratio|1.0||||0.9335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.02|||ANCOVA|||Bilateral medulla: Responses are analysed using an ANCOVA with actual treatment, region and the stratification factors as categorical effects and the baseline value as a covariate.||1.02|0.98|0.9335
91105378|NCT04865770|182097732|OTHER||Treatment ratio|1.0||||0.6517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.01|||ANCOVA|||Right medulla: Responses are analysed using an ANCOVA with actual treatment, region and the stratification factors as categorical effects and the baseline value as a covariate.||1.01|0.98|0.6517
91105379|NCT04865770|182097732|OTHER||Treatment ratio|1.0||||0.9017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.02|||ANCOVA|||Left medulla: Responses are analysed using an ANCOVA with actual treatment, region and the stratification factors as categorical effects and the baseline value as a covariate.||1.02|0.98|0.9017
90860219|NCT04823650|181584039|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.259|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.71|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.71|-0.04|
90860220|NCT04823650|181584039|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.242|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.7|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.70|-0.04|
90970931|NCT05284760|181823971|OTHER||GMR|95.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.73|110.22||||||||110.22|82.73|
91105380|NCT05497284|182097742|OTHER|Probability (LTP001 is better than placebo)|Slope|-2.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.07|||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.9|1.3||Probability that LTP001 is better than placebo is 10.3%|Baysesian random slope model|Bayesian random slope model to assess the difference in reduction rate (slope) in years between the treatment group and placebo group.||||1.3|-6.9|
91105381|NCT03816891|182097762|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-21.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.73||0.0347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.82|-1.6||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||||-1.60|-40.82|0.0347
91105382|NCT03816891|182097762|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-41.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.73|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.9|-28.5||Estimated from ANCOVA model with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-28.5|-54.9|<0.0001
91105383|NCT03816891|182097762|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-36.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.7|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.6|23.3||Estimated from ANCOVA model with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||23.3|-49.6|<0.0001
91105384|NCT03816891|182097762|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-18.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.72||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.6|-5.3||Estimated from ANCOVA model with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-5.3|-31.6|0.0061
91105385|NCT03816891|182097763|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.76||||0.1093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|9.44||Calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with sex and atopy as stratification factors and placebo as reference within corresponding cohort.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||9.44|0.81|0.1093
91105386|NCT03816891|182097764|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-21.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.86||0.0325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.62|-1.9||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||||-1.90|-41.62|0.0325
91105387|NCT03816891|182097766|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-11.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.85||0.0657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.85|0.75||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||0.75|-22.85|0.0657
91105388|NCT03816891|182097766|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-13.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.96||0.0595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.48|0.56||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||0.56|-27.48|0.0595
91105389|NCT03816891|182097766|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-15.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.5||0.0455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.55|-0.33||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 3||-0.33|-30.55|0.0455
90860221|NCT04823650|181584039|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.66|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.66|-0.18|
90860222|NCT04823650|181584039|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.481|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.83|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.83|-0.21|
90860223|NCT04823650|181584039|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.72|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.72|-0.19|
90860224|NCT04823650|181584039|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.096|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.46|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.46|-0.07|
90860225|NCT04823650|181584039|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.44|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.44|-0.01|
90860226|NCT04823650|181584039|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.058|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.35|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.35|-0.02|
90860227|NCT04823650|181584039|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.206|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.59|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.59|-0.08|
90905431|NCT04213846|181677747|SUPERIORITY|Generalized linear mixed model was estimated using a sample of N=408 with a Condition × 6-Month Follow-Up interaction. Assessment-only control was the reference category for Condition, and Baseline was the reference category for 6-Month Follow-Up.|Count/Rate Ratio|1.04||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.25|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models controlled for sex, age, college type and used a Poisson error distribution. Peak eBAC multiplied by 100 and rounded up to the nearest integer.||Changes from Baseline to 6-Month Follow-Up for intervention versus assessment-only control reported in this section.||1.25|0.86|0.72
90970932|NCT05284760|181823972|EQUIVALENCE|The two treatments were deemed equivalent if the 90% CIs for the GMRs for all of the parameters were each within 80.00% and 125.00%.|GMR|99.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.84|106.1||||||||106.10|92.84|
91105390|NCT03816891|182097766|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-19.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.73||0.0305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.11|-1.93||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||-1.93|-37.11|0.0305
90860228|NCT04823650|181584039|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.247|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.7|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.70|-0.05|
90860229|NCT04823650|181584039|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.127|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.53|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.53|-0.03|
90860230|NCT04823650|181584039|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|-0.031|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.34|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.34|-0.25|
90860231|NCT04823650|181584039|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.004|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.27|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.27|-0.13|
90860232|NCT04823650|181584039|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|-0.085|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.21|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.21|-0.21|
91105391|NCT03816891|182097766|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-18.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.01||0.0456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.69|-0.38||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 5||-0.38|-36.69|0.0456
91105392|NCT03816891|182097766|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-20.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.73||0.0236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.06|-2.88||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||-2.88|-38.06|0.0236
90860233|NCT04823650|181584039|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|-0.077|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.44|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.44|-0.50|
90860234|NCT04823650|181584039|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.063|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.5|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.50|-0.31|
90860235|NCT04823650|181584039|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|-0.248|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.29|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.29|-0.62|
90860236|NCT04823650|181584039|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.331|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.69|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.69|-0.02|
91105393|NCT03816891|182097766|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-20.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.75||0.0385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.45|-1.15||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 7||-1.15|-40.45|0.0385
90860237|NCT04823650|181584039|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.217|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.59|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.59|-0.08|
90860238|NCT04823650|181584039|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.169|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.52|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.52|-0.07|
90860239|NCT04823650|181584040|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.93|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.93|0.45|
90860240|NCT04823650|181584040|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.876|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.96|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.96|0.66|
90860241|NCT04823650|181584040|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.783|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.94|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.94|0.17|
90905432|NCT04213846|181677747|SUPERIORITY|Generalized linear mixed model was estimated using a sample of N=408 with a Condition × 12-Month Follow-Up interaction. Assessment-only control was the reference category for Condition, and Baseline was the reference category for 12-Month Follow-Up.|Count/Rate Ratio|1.01||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.21|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models controlled for sex, age, college type and used a Poisson error distribution. Peak eBAC multiplied by 100 and rounded up to the nearest integer.||Changes from Baseline to 12-Month Follow-Up for intervention versus assessment-only control reported in this section.||1.21|0.85|0.91
91105394|NCT03816891|182097766|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-21.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.73||0.0347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.82|-1.6||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||-1.60|-40.82|0.0347
90860242|NCT04823650|181584040|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.849|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.97|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.97|-0.13|
90970933|NCT05284760|181823972|EQUIVALENCE|The two treatments were deemed equivalent if the 90% CIs for the GMRs for all of the parameters were each within 80.00% and 125.00%.|GMR|86.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.33|93.03||||||||93.03|81.33|
90970934|NCT05284760|181823972|OTHER||GMR|89.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.92|100.99||||||||100.99|78.92|
90860243|NCT04823650|181584040|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.658|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.93|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.93|-0.06|
90860244|NCT04823650|181584040|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.398|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.82|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.82|-0.05|
90860245|NCT04823650|181584040|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.776|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.95|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.95|-0.02|
90860246|NCT04823650|181584040|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.681|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.93|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.93|-0.06|
90860247|NCT04823650|181584040|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.83|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.83|-0.05|
90860248|NCT04823650|181584040|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.044|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.56|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.56|-0.48|
90970935|NCT05284760|181823972|OTHER||GMR|92.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.77|105.25||||||||105.25|81.77|
91105395|NCT03816891|182097766|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-17.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.3||0.0694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.06|1.44||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 9||1.44|-36.06|0.0694
91105396|NCT03816891|182097766|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-17.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.93||0.0621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.08|0.9||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 10||0.90|-35.08|0.0621
90860249|NCT04823650|181584040|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.938|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|0.98|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.98|0.82|
91105397|NCT03816891|182097766|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-10.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.52||0.2619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.0|8.37||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 11||8.37|-30.0|0.2619
90860250|NCT04823650|181584040|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.861|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.96|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.96|0.58|
90905433|NCT04213846|181677748|SUPERIORITY|Generalized linear mixed model was estimated using a sample of N=408 with a Condition × 1-Month Follow-Up interaction. Assessment-only control was the reference category for Condition, and Baseline was the reference category for 1-Month Follow-Up.|Count/Rate Ratio|0.83||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.99|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models controlled for sex, age, and college type (2-year vs. 4-year) and used a Poisson error distribution.||Changes from Baseline to 1-Month Follow-Up for intervention versus assessment-only control reported in this section.||0.99|0.69|0.04
90970936|NCT00440947|181824013|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority would be established between the two arms if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the difference in the percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \<50 c/mL at Week 84 was -12% or greater.|Risk Difference (RD)|5.4||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|12.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p-value was obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA (\<100000/\>=100000)||||12.5|-1.8|0.140
91105398|NCT03816891|182097766|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-14.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.17||0.1344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.48|4.5||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||4.50|-32.48|0.1344
91105399|NCT03816891|182097766|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-18.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.17||0.0533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.71|0.27||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 13||0.27|-36.71|0.0533
91105400|NCT03816891|182097766|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-21.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.7||0.0335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.82|-1.74||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 14||-1.74|-40.82|0.0335
91105401|NCT03816891|182097766|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-19.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.65||0.0536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.58|0.31||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 15||0.31|-38.58|0.0536
91105402|NCT03816891|182097766|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-19.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.95||0.0388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.11|-1.03||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||-1.03|-37.11|0.0388
91105403|NCT03816891|182097766|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-10.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.92||0.5181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.94|22.95||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 17||22.95|-43.94|0.5181
91105404|NCT03816891|182097766|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-12.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.3||0.4142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.08|19.47||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 18||19.47|-45.08|0.4142
91105405|NCT03816891|182097766|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-11.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.85||0.445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.94|19.72||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 19||19.72|-42.94|0.4450
90860251|NCT04823650|181584040|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.392|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.83|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.83|-0.14|
90860252|NCT04823650|181584040|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.568|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.9|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.90|-0.05|
91105406|NCT03816891|182097766|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.2||0.6897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.23|25.89||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||25.89|-38.23|0.6897
91105407|NCT03816891|182097766|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.66||0.5636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.25|23.81||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 21||23.81|-42.25|0.5636
91105408|NCT03816891|182097766|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-12.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.85||0.419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.64|19.04||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 22||19.04|-43.64|0.4190
91105409|NCT03816891|182097766|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-14.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.88||0.3818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.76|19.24||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 23||19.24|-47.76|0.3818
91105410|NCT03816891|182097766|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-17.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.61||0.2957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.97|17.13||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||17.13|-52.97|0.2957
91105411|NCT03816891|182097768|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.64||0.7379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.98|12.83||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||12.83|-17.98|0.7379
91105412|NCT03816891|182097768|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.45||0.3022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.9|9.17||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||9.17|-28.90|0.3022
91105413|NCT03816891|182097768|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-17.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.15||0.0606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.07|0.82||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 3||0.82|-36.07|0.0606
91105414|NCT03816891|182097768|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-15.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.65||0.1448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.28|5.66||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||5.66|-37.28|0.1448
91105415|NCT03816891|182097768|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-19.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.65||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.06|-0.18||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 5||-0.18|-39.06|0.0480
91105416|NCT03816891|182097768|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-18.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.95||0.1032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.3|3.85||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||3.85|-40.30|0.1032
91105417|NCT03816891|182097768|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-20.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.39||0.0523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.66|0.22||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 7||0.22|-41.66|0.0523
91105418|NCT03816891|182097768|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-21.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.86||0.0325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.62|-1.9||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||-1.90|-41.62|0.0325
91105419|NCT03816891|182097768|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.13||0.7274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.83|32.12||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 9||32.12|-22.83|0.7274
91105420|NCT03816891|182097768|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-14.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.63||0.1523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.47|5.39||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 10||5.39|-33.47|0.1523
91105421|NCT03816891|182097768|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.61||0.9649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.93|31.24||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 11||31.24|-29.93|0.9649
91105422|NCT03816891|182097768|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-13.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.61||0.1351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.48|4.25||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||4.25|-30.48|0.1351
91105423|NCT03816891|182097768|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.01||0.7258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.75|26.07||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 13||26.07|-36.75|0.7258
91105424|NCT03816891|182097768|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.14||0.6646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.81|23.36||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 14||23.36|-35.81|0.6646
91105425|NCT03816891|182097768|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.71||0.9151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.2|32.38||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 15||32.38|-29.20|0.9151
90970937|NCT00513500|181824104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|5.32||||||95.0|2.19|8.94||||||||8.94|2.19|
91105426|NCT03816891|182097768|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-20.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.32||0.0304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.66|-2.07||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||-2.07|-39.66|0.0304
91105427|NCT03816891|182097768|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-10.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.62||0.5209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.96|24.17||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 18||24.17|-45.96|0.5209
91105428|NCT03816891|182097768|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-11.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.93||0.5254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.46|26.2||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||26.20|-49.46|0.5254
91105429|NCT03816891|182097768|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-13.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.7||0.4458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.16|23.53||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||23.53|-51.16|0.4458
91105430|NCT03816891|182097770|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-13.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.33||0.0149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.22|-2.76||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||-2.76|-24.22|0.0149
91105431|NCT03816891|182097770|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-10.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.73||0.1399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.67|3.44||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||3.44|-23.67|0.1399
91105432|NCT03816891|182097770|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-10.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.47||0.1078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.68|2.42||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||2.42|-23.68|0.1078
91105433|NCT03816891|182097770|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-12.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.02||0.0798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.72|1.56||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||1.56|-26.72|0.0798
91105434|NCT03816891|182097770|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.49||0.1405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.83|3.34||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 10||3.34|-22.83|0.1405
91105435|NCT03816891|182097770|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-8.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.77||0.2026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.43|4.9||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||4.90|-22.43|0.2026
90860253|NCT04823650|181584040|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.284|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.74|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.74|-0.03|
90860254|NCT04823650|181584040|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.199|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.56|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.56|-0.07|
90860255|NCT04823650|181584040|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.657|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.93|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.93|-0.04|
90860256|NCT04823650|181584040|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.409|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.83|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.83|-0.04|
90860257|NCT04823650|181584040|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.733|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.94|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.94|-0.18|
90905434|NCT04213846|181677748|SUPERIORITY|Generalized linear mixed model was estimated using a sample of N=408 with a Condition × 6-Month Follow-Up interaction. Assessment-only control was the reference category for Condition, and Baseline was the reference category for 6-Month Follow-Up.|Count/Rate Ratio|0.98||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.23|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models controlled for sex, age, and college type (2-year vs. 4-year) and used a Poisson error distribution.||Changes from Baseline to 6-Month Follow-Up for intervention versus assessment-only control reported in this section.||1.23|0.77|0.84
90905435|NCT04213846|181677748|SUPERIORITY|Generalized linear mixed model was estimated using a sample of N=408 with a Condition × 12-Month Follow-Up interaction. Assessment-only control was the reference category for Condition, and Baseline was the reference category for 12-Month Follow-Up.|Count/Rate Ratio|0.9||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.22|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models controlled for sex, age, and college type (2-year vs. 4-year) and used a Poisson error distribution.||Changes from Baseline to 12-Month Follow-Up for intervention versus assessment-only control reported in this section.||1.22|0.73|0.34
90905436|NCT04213846|181677749|SUPERIORITY|Generalized linear mixed model was estimated using a sample of N=408 with a Condition × 1-Month Follow-Up interaction. Assessment-only control was the reference category for Condition, and Baseline was the reference category for 1-Month Follow-Up.|Count/Rate Ratio|0.98||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.16|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models controlled for sex, age, and college type (2-year vs. 4-year) and used a Poisson error distribution.||Changes from Baseline to 1-Month Follow-Up for intervention versus assessment-only control reported in this section.||1.16|0.82|0.78
90905437|NCT04213846|181677749|SUPERIORITY|Generalized linear mixed model was estimated using a sample of N=408 with a Condition × 6-Month Follow-Up interaction. Assessment-only control was the reference category for Condition, and Baseline was the reference category for 6-Month Follow-Up.|Count/Rate Ratio|0.9||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.08|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models controlled for sex, age, and college type (2-year vs. 4-year) and used a Poisson error distribution.||Changes from Baseline to 6-Month Follow-Up for intervention versus assessment-only control reported in this section.||1.08|0.75|0.27
91105436|NCT03816891|182097770|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.77||0.3646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.52|11.37||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 14||11.37|-29.52|0.3646
91105437|NCT03816891|182097770|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-10.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.45||0.1106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.52|2.5||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||2.50|-23.52|0.1106
91105438|NCT03816891|182097770|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-12.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.74||0.2623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.11|10.2||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 18||10.20|-35.11|0.2623
91105439|NCT03816891|182097770|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-14.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.21||0.2095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.27|9.03||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||9.03|-38.27|0.2095
91105440|NCT03816891|182097770|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-16.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.43||0.2127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.3|10.13||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||10.13|-42.30|0.2127
91105441|NCT03816891|182097771|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.96||||0.2474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|20.56||Calculated from CMH test with sex and atopy as stratification factors and placebo as reference within corresponding cohort.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1||20.56|0.43|0.2474
91105442|NCT03816891|182097771|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.49||||0.0687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|24.27||Calculated from CMH test with sex and atopy as stratification factors and placebo as reference within corresponding cohort.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||24.27|0.83|0.0687
91105443|NCT03816891|182097771|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.89||||0.0145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|34.48||Calculated from CMH test with sex and atopy as stratification factors and placebo as reference within corresponding cohort.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 3||34.48|1.38|0.0145
91105444|NCT03816891|182097771|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.85||||0.0235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|18.89||Calculated from CMH test with sex and atopy as stratification factors and placebo as reference within corresponding cohort.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||18.89|1.24|0.0235
91105445|NCT03816891|182097771|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.81||||0.0334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|13.26||Calculated from CMH test with sex and atopy as stratification factors and placebo as reference within corresponding cohort.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 5||13.26|1.09|0.0334
91105446|NCT03816891|182097771|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.27||||0.0618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|11.32||Calculated from CMH test with sex and atopy as stratification factors and placebo as reference within corresponding cohort.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6||11.32|0.95|0.0618
91105447|NCT03816891|182097771|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.38||||0.1748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|8.15||Calculated from CMH test with sex and atopy as stratification factors and placebo as reference within corresponding cohort.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 7||8.15|0.70|0.1748
91105448|NCT03816891|182097771|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.76||||0.1093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|9.44||Calculated from CMH test with sex and atopy as stratification factors and placebo as reference within corresponding cohort.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||9.44|0.81|0.1093
90905438|NCT04213846|181677749|SUPERIORITY|Generalized linear mixed model was estimated using a sample of N=408 with a Condition × 12-Month Follow-Up interaction. Assessment-only control was the reference category for Condition, and Baseline was the reference category for 12-Month Follow-Up.|Count/Rate Ratio|1.01||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.2|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models controlled for sex, age, and college type (2-year vs. 4-year) and used a Poisson error distribution.||Changes from Baseline to 12-Month Follow-Up for intervention versus assessment-only control reported in this section.||1.20|0.84|0.95
90905439|NCT04213846|181677750|SUPERIORITY|Generalized linear model was estimated using a sample of N=346.|Count/Rate Ratio|0.98||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.08|||Generalized linear mixed model|Model controlled for sex, age, and college type (2-year vs. 4-year) and used a negative binomial error distribution.||Changes from Baseline to 12-Month Follow-Up for intervention versus assessment-only control reported in this section.||1.08|0.89|0.69
91105449|NCT03816891|182097771|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.76||||0.1093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|9.44||Calculated from CMH test with sex and atopy as stratification factors and placebo as reference within corresponding cohort.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 9||9.44|0.81|0.1093
91105450|NCT03816891|182097771|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.01||||0.261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|6.8||Calculated from CMH test with sex and atopy as stratification factors and placebo as reference within corresponding cohort.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 10||6.80|0.60|0.2610
91105451|NCT03816891|182097771|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.84||||0.2867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|5.71||Calculated from CMH test with sex and atopy as stratification factors and placebo as reference within corresponding cohort.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 11||5.71|0.59|0.2867
91105452|NCT03816891|182097771|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.88||||0.2874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|6.01||Calculated from CMH test with sex and atopy as stratification factors and placebo as reference within corresponding cohort.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||6.01|0.59|0.2874
91105453|NCT03816891|182097771|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.07||||0.0527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|10.05||Calculated from CMH test with sex and atopy as stratification factors and placebo as reference within corresponding cohort.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 13||10.05|0.94|0.0527
91105454|NCT03816891|182097771|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.67||||0.0936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|8.73||Calculated from CMH test with sex and atopy as stratification factors and placebo as reference within corresponding cohort.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 14||8.73|0.82|0.0936
90905440|NCT05516342|181677764|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
90970938|NCT00513500|181824105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.23||||||95.0|0.14|0.38||||||||0.38|0.14|
91105455|NCT03816891|182097771|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.92||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|10.21||Calculated from CMH test with sex and atopy as stratification factors and placebo as reference within corresponding cohort.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 15||10.21|0.84|0.0830
91105456|NCT03816891|182097771|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68||||0.3786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|5.33||Calculated from CMH test with sex and atopy as stratification factors and placebo as reference within corresponding cohort.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||5.33|0.53|0.3786
91105457|NCT03816891|182097771|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.6949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|3.99||Calculated from CMH test with sex and atopy as stratification factors and placebo as reference within corresponding cohort.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 17||3.99|0.12|0.6949
91105458|NCT03816891|182097771|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.81||||0.5288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|10.66||Calculated from CMH test with sex and atopy as stratification factors and placebo as reference within corresponding cohort.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 18||10.66|0.31|0.5288
91105459|NCT03816891|182097771|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.18||||0.2613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|23.37||Calculated from CMH test with sex and atopy as stratification factors and placebo as reference within corresponding cohort.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 19||23.37|0.43|0.2613
91105460|NCT03816891|182097771|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.23||||0.4208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|14.81||Calculated from CMH test with sex and atopy as stratification factors and placebo as reference within corresponding cohort.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||14.81|0.34|0.4208
90905441|NCT05516342|181677765|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
90905442|NCT05516342|181677766|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
90905443|NCT05516342|181677767|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
90905444|NCT05516342|181677768|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
90905445|NCT05516342|181677769|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.89
90905446|NCT05516342|181677770|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.27
90905447|NCT05516342|181677771|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.19
90905448|NCT05516342|181677772|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.10
90905449|NCT01866475|181677773|NON_INFERIORITY|This study is designed to test the hypothesis that the IO device has no greater than a 4 percent infection rate. Equivalently, we define success as having at least a 96 percent infection free 48-hour placement.|||||||||||||||||The historical data for the device suggests an infection rate of 0.6 percent per 48 hours or a success rate of 99.4 percent. The formal objective in the design is to reject the one-sided null hypothesis that the success rate is no higher than 96 percent. The analysis will use the exact binomial test and will tolerate a Type I Error rate of 0.05 or less. If we assume a 99.4 percent success rate, the study will have 84 percent power with a sample size of 117 to reject the null hypothesis. If the null hypothesis is rejected, we conclude that the infection rate is less than 4 percent.|||
90905450|NCT05310084|181677832|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (coadministration group to separate-administration group) was greater than 0.67.|GMR|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.89|||||GMRs and 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating LSmeans difference of logarithms of concentrations (coadmin group-separate admin group), corresponding CIs based on analysis of log transformed assay results using a linear regression model.|||0.89|0.77|
91105461|NCT03816891|182097771|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.7884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|8.76||Calculated from CMH test with sex and atopy as stratification factors and placebo as reference within corresponding cohort.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 21||8.76|0.20|0.7884
91105462|NCT03816891|182097771|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.68||||0.2982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|16.04||Calculated from CMH test with sex and atopy as stratification factors and placebo as reference within corresponding cohort.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 22||16.04|0.45|0.2982
91105463|NCT03816891|182097771|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.18||||0.2613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|23.37||Calculated from CMH test with sex and atopy as stratification factors and placebo as reference within corresponding cohort.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 23||23.37|0.43|0.2613
90905451|NCT05310084|181677833|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared for an influenza strain if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (coadministration group to separate administration group) was greater than 0.67|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.04|||||GMRs and 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating LSmeans difference of logarithms of titers (coadministration group-separate administration group), corresponding CIs based on analysis of log transformed assay results using a linear regression model|B/Austria||1.04|0.77|
90905452|NCT05310084|181677833|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared for an influenza strain if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (coadministration group to separate administration group) was greater than 0.67.|GMR|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.13|||||GMRs and 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating LSmeans difference of logarithms of titers (coadministration group-separate administration group), corresponding CIs based on analysis of log transformed assay results using a linear regression model|B/Phuket||1.13|0.89|
90905453|NCT05310084|181677833|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared for an influenza strain if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (coadministration group to separate administration group) was greater than 0.67.|GMR|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.09|||||GMRs and 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating LSmeans difference of logarithms of titers (coadministration group-separate administration group), corresponding CIs based on analysis of log transformed assay results using a linear regression model|H1N1 A/Victoria||1.09|0.83|
90905454|NCT05310084|181677833|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared for an influenza strain if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (coadministration group to separate administration group) was greater than 0.67.|GMR|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.09|||||GMRs and 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating LSmeans difference of logarithms of titers (coadministration group-separate administration group), corresponding CIs based on analysis of log transformed assay results using a linear regression model|H3N2 A/Darwin||1.09|0.85|
90970939|NCT00513500|181824106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.44||||||95.0|0.21|0.93||||||||0.93|0.21|
90970940|NCT00606086|181824115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test|||||||1.000
90970941|NCT02079987|181824124|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||difference-in-difference analysis|A propensity weighted difference-in-difference approach was taken to account for imbalances in assignment and loss to follow-up.||||||0.49
90860258|NCT04823650|181584040|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.594|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.89|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.89|-0.21|
90860259|NCT04823650|181584040|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.392|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.79|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.79|-0.21|
90860260|NCT04823650|181584040|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.903|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.97|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.97|0.71|
90905455|NCT03531905|181677922|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Squares (LS) means|-39.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.8|-33.4|||ANCOVA|||||-33.4|-45.8|<0.001
90905456|NCT03531905|181677922|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS means|-19.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.11|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.7|-13.4|||ANCOVA|||||-13.4|-25.7|<0.001
90905457|NCT03531905|181677922|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS means|-20.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.2|-14.0|||ANCOVA|||||-14.0|-26.2|<0.001
90860261|NCT04823650|181584040|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.862|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.95|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.95|0.62|
90860262|NCT04823650|181584040|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.694|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.9|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.90|0.26|
90860263|NCT04823650|181584040|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.786|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.95|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.95|-0.07|
90860264|NCT04823650|181584040|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.694|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.91|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.91|0.02|
90860265|NCT04823650|181584040|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.505|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.83|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.83|-0.06|
90905458|NCT03531905|181677923|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS means|-20.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.2|-14.0|||ANCOVA|||||-14.0|-26.2|<0.001
90905459|NCT03531905|181677924|SUPERIORITY||Location shift|-36.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.77|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.97|-17.67|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||-17.67|-55.97|<0.001
90905460|NCT03531905|181677924|SUPERIORITY||Location shift|-29.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.03||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.92|-9.62|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||-9.62|-48.92|0.005
90905461|NCT03531905|181677924|SUPERIORITY||Location shift|-7.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.29||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.51|13.76|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||13.76|-30.51|0.480
90860266|NCT04823650|181584041|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.902|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.97|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.97|0.71|
90860267|NCT04823650|181584041|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.969|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|0.99|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.99|0.90|
90860268|NCT04823650|181584041|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.963|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|0.99|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.99|0.88|
90860269|NCT04823650|181584041|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.892|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.97|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.97|0.58|
90860270|NCT04823650|181584041|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.731|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.95|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.95|-0.02|
90860271|NCT04823650|181584041|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.637|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.92|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.92|-0.04|
90860272|NCT04823650|181584041|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.93|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.93|0.36|
90860273|NCT04823650|181584041|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.715|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.94|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.94|-0.08|
90905462|NCT03531905|181677925|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS means|-33.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.81|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.6|-27.5|||ANCOVA|||||-27.5|-38.6|<0.001
90905463|NCT03531905|181677925|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS means|-15.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.8|-9.7|||ANCOVA|||||-9.7|-20.8|<0.001
90905464|NCT03531905|181677925|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS means|-17.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.76|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.3|-12.4|||ANCOVA|||||-12.4|-23.3|<0.001
90905465|NCT03531905|181677926|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS means|-27.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.25|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.7|-22.8|||ANCOVA|||||-22.8|-31.7|<0.001
90860274|NCT04823650|181584041|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.767|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.96|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.96|0.04|
90860275|NCT04823650|181584041|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.66|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.66|-0.18|
90860276|NCT04823650|181584041|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.83|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.83|-0.21|
90905466|NCT03531905|181677926|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS means|-13.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|-9.0|||ANCOVA|||||-9.0|-17.8|<0.001
90905467|NCT03531905|181677926|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS means|-13.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.21|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.2|-9.5|||ANCOVA|||||-9.5|-18.2|<0.001
90905468|NCT03531905|181677927|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS means|-27.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.73|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.6|-21.8|||ANCOVA|||||-21.8|-32.6|<0.001
90860277|NCT04823650|181584041|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.72|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.72|-0.19|
90860278|NCT04823650|181584041|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.096|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.46|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.46|-0.07|
90860279|NCT04823650|181584041|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.44|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.44|-0.01|
90860280|NCT04823650|181584041|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.058|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.35|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.35|-0.02|
90860281|NCT04823650|181584041|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.206|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.59|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.59|-0.08|
90905469|NCT03531905|181677927|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS means|-12.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.71|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.1|-7.4|||ANCOVA|||||-7.4|-18.1|<0.001
90905470|NCT03531905|181677927|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS means|-14.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.68|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|-9.1|||ANCOVA|||||-9.1|-19.7|<0.001
91105464|NCT03816891|182097771|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.23||||0.4208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|14.81||Calculated from CMH test with sex and atopy as stratification factors and placebo as reference within corresponding cohort.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||14.81|0.34|0.4208
90860282|NCT04823650|181584041|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.247|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.7|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.70|-0.05|
91105465|NCT03816891|182097773|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-8.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.65||0.5172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.42|18.6||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||18.60|-36.42|0.5172
91105466|NCT03816891|182097773|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-23.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.77||0.1228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.02|6.53||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||6.53|-53.02|0.1228
91105467|NCT03816891|182097773|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-27.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|26.99||0.3129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-81.95|26.84||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 3||26.84|-81.95|0.3129
90860283|NCT04823650|181584041|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.127|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.53|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.53|-0.03|
90860284|NCT04823650|181584041|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.377|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.75|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.75|-0.15|
90860285|NCT04823650|181584041|OTHER||Intra-class correlation coefficient|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.81|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.81|-0.21|
90860286|NCT04823650|181584041|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.5|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.50|-0.23|
90860287|NCT04823650|181584041|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.398|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.76|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.76|-0.12|
90860288|NCT04823650|181584041|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.651|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.89|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.89|0.04|
90905471|NCT03531905|181677928|SUPERIORITY||Location shift|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.44||0.457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.55|6.79|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||6.79|-14.55|0.457
91105468|NCT03816891|182097773|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-19.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.36||0.1277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.11|5.72||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||5.72|-44.11|0.1277
91105469|NCT03816891|182097773|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-25.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.36||0.0424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.76|-0.92||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 5||-0.92|-50.76|0.0424
91105470|NCT03816891|182097773|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-32.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.06||0.1465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.08|11.85||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||11.85|-77.08|0.1465
90860289|NCT04823650|181584041|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.59|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.59|-0.34|
90860290|NCT04823650|181584041|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.639|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.87|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.87|0.25|
90860291|NCT04823650|181584041|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.666|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.9|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.90|0.01|
90860292|NCT04823650|181584041|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.346|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.69|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.69|0.00|
90860293|NCT04823650|181584042|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.827|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.94|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.94|0.53|
90860294|NCT04823650|181584042|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.877|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.96|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.96|0.66|
90905472|NCT03531905|181677928|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS means|4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.25||0.351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.93|15.63|||ANCOVA|||||15.63|-4.93|0.351
90905473|NCT03531905|181677928|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS means|-9.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.75||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.92|0.68|||ANCOVA|||||0.68|-17.92|0.068
90905474|NCT03531905|181677929|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS means|-5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.14||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|-1.7|||ANCOVA|||||-1.7|-10.1|0.007
90860295|NCT04823650|181584042|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.783|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.94|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.94|0.17|
90860296|NCT04823650|181584042|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.833|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.97|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.97|-0.14|
90860297|NCT04823650|181584042|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.644|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.92|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.92|-0.05|
91105471|NCT03816891|182097773|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-28.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.68||0.0316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.71|-2.59||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 7||-2.59|-53.71|0.0316
90905475|NCT03531905|181677929|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS means|-7.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|-3.1|||ANCOVA|||||-3.1|-11.5|<0.001
90905476|NCT03531905|181677929|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS means|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.11||0.517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|5.5|||ANCOVA|||||5.5|-2.8|0.517
91105472|NCT03816891|182097773|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-26.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.59||0.0169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.63|-4.95||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||-4.95|-47.63|0.0169
91105473|NCT03816891|182097773|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.1||0.6641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.8|26.59||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 9||26.59|-40.80|0.6641
91105474|NCT03816891|182097773|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-27.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.26||0.0199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.94|-4.53||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 10||-4.53|-49.94|0.0199
91105475|NCT03816891|182097773|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.96||0.698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.67|30.51||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 11||30.51|-44.67|0.6980
91105476|NCT03816891|182097773|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-14.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.7||0.1838|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.05|7.13||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||7.13|-36.05|0.1838
91105477|NCT03816891|182097773|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-24.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.99||0.2078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.5|14.98||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 13||14.98|-64.50|0.2078
91105478|NCT03816891|182097773|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-15.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.95||0.409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.72|22.41||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 14||22.41|-52.72|0.4090
91105479|NCT03816891|182097773|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-12.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.54||0.558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.92|32.23||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 15||32.23|-57.92|0.5580
91105480|NCT03816891|182097773|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-25.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.43||0.0486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.3|-0.16||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||-0.16|-50.30|0.0486
91105481|NCT03816891|182097773|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-16.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.73||0.3613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.06|20.78||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 18||20.78|-54.06|0.3613
91105482|NCT03816891|182097773|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-8.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.93||0.7042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.24|36.08||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||36.08|-52.24|0.7042
91105483|NCT03816891|182097773|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-25.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|27.27||0.3602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.17|31.89||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||31.89|-83.17|0.3602
90860298|NCT04823650|181584042|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.383|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.81|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.81|-0.06|
90860299|NCT04823650|181584042|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.785|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.95|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.95|-0.02|
90860300|NCT04823650|181584042|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.679|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.93|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.93|-0.06|
90860301|NCT04823650|181584042|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.405|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.83|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.83|-0.05|
90905477|NCT03531905|181677930|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
90905478|NCT03531905|181677930|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.118|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.118
90905479|NCT03531905|181677930|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
90905480|NCT03531905|181677931|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
90905481|NCT03531905|181677931|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
90905482|NCT03531905|181677933|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS means|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.83||0.877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|3.3|||ANCOVA|||||3.3|-3.9|0.877
90860302|NCT04823650|181584042|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.257|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.69|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.69|-0.32|
90860303|NCT04823650|181584042|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.892|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.96|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.96|0.69|
90860304|NCT04823650|181584042|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.837|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.95|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.95|0.47|
90905483|NCT03531905|181677933|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS means|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.83||0.669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|4.4|||ANCOVA|||||4.4|-2.8|0.669
90860305|NCT04823650|181584042|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.341|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.8|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.80|-0.13|
91105484|NCT03816891|182097775|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.97||0.5896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.83|10.26||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||10.26|-17.83|0.5896
91105485|NCT03816891|182097775|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.75||0.8292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.29|13.93||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||13.93|-17.29|0.8292
90905484|NCT03531905|181677933|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS means|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.81||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|2.5|||ANCOVA|||||2.5|-4.6|0.556
91105486|NCT03816891|182097775|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.23||0.4852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.39|10.8||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 3||10.80|-22.39|0.4852
90905485|NCT03531905|181677934|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS means|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.64||0.589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|11.7|||ANCOVA|||||11.7|-6.7|0.589
90905486|NCT03531905|181677934|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS means|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.64||0.904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|9.7|||ANCOVA|||||9.7|-8.6|0.904
91105487|NCT03816891|182097775|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-8.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.34||0.3731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.24|10.42||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||10.42|-27.24|0.3731
90959239|NCT01037244|181798420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|2.19|||ANCOVA|P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with Baseline domain score and pooled site as covariates.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||2.19|1.13|<0.0001
91105488|NCT03816891|182097775|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.15||0.436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.44|12.48||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 5||12.48|-28.44|0.4360
91105489|NCT03816891|182097775|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.54||0.5655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.36|15.15||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||15.15|-27.36|0.5655
91105490|NCT03816891|182097775|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.77||0.6302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.93|16.49||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 7||16.49|-26.93|0.6302
91105491|NCT03816891|182097775|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.89||0.5671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.23|15.67||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||15.67|-28.23|0.5671
91105492|NCT03816891|182097775|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.86||0.935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.93|29.83||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 9||29.83|-22.93|0.935
91105493|NCT03816891|182097775|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.08||0.9982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.3|20.34||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 10||20.34|-20.30|0.9982
91105494|NCT03816891|182097775|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.42||0.8102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.48|23.51||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 11||23.51|-18.48|0.8102
91105495|NCT03816891|182097775|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.34||0.9334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.7|19.97||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||19.97|-21.70|0.9334
91105496|NCT03816891|182097775|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.73||0.5873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.92|14.29||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 13||14.29|-24.92|0.5873
91105497|NCT03816891|182097775|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-8.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.82||0.3737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.61|10.96||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 14||10.96|-28.61|0.3737
91105498|NCT03816891|182097775|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.78||0.3631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.7|10.72||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 15||10.72|-28.70|0.3631
91105499|NCT03816891|182097775|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.06||0.5585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.2|14.34||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||14.34|-26.20|0.5585
91105500|NCT03816891|182097775|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.65||0.8889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.58|34.58||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 17||34.58|-39.58|0.8889
91105501|NCT03816891|182097775|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.15||0.7099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.67|29.7||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 18||29.70|-42.67|0.7099
91105502|NCT03816891|182097775|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.2||0.727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.4|30.19||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 19||30.19|-42.40|0.7270
91105503|NCT03816891|182097775|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.45||0.8366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.47|33.16||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||33.16|-40.47|0.8366
91105504|NCT03816891|182097775|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.17||0.8013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.99|33.69||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 21||33.69|-42.99|0.8013
91105505|NCT03816891|182097775|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.23||0.681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.56|29.15||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 22||29.15|-43.56|0.6810
91105506|NCT03816891|182097775|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.69||0.8347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.08|33.58||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 23||33.58|-41.08|0.8347
91105507|NCT03816891|182097775|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.42||0.9358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.18|35.33||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||35.33|-38.18|0.9358
91105508|NCT03816891|182097777|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.08||0.8948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|17.35||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week. Program:|ANCOVA|||Week 1||17.35|-15.20|0.8948
91105509|NCT03816891|182097777|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.55||0.8581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.58|13.86||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||13.86|-16.58|0.8581
91105510|NCT03816891|182097777|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-8.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.02||0.2797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.93|7.38||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 3||7.38|-24.93|0.2797
91105511|NCT03816891|182097777|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.5||0.4333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.67|11.64||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||11.64|-26.67|0.4333
91105512|NCT03816891|182097777|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-10.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.77||0.2774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.44|8.95||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 5||8.95|-30.44|0.2774
91105513|NCT03816891|182097777|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-11.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.77||0.2308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.55|7.82||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||7.82|-31.55|0.2308
91105514|NCT03816891|182097777|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-14.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.99||0.1617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.34|5.91||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 7||5.91|-34.34|0.1617
91105515|NCT03816891|182097777|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-12.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.16||0.222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.05|7.89||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||7.89|-33.05|0.2220
91105516|NCT03816891|182097777|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.15||0.6195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.54|15.38||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 9||15.38|-25.54|0.6195
91105517|NCT03816891|182097777|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.96||0.4984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.86|13.27||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 10||13.27|-26.86|0.4984
91105518|NCT03816891|182097777|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.11||0.8147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.75|17.99||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 11||17.99|-22.75|0.8147
91105519|NCT03816891|182097777|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.94||0.6917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.01|16.07||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||16.07|-24.01|0.6917
91105520|NCT03816891|182097777|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.34||0.7437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.24|17.43||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 13||17.43|-24.24|0.7437
91105521|NCT03816891|182097777|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.34||0.7663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.26|19.47||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 14||19.47|-26.26|0.7663
91105522|NCT03816891|182097777|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.71||0.5157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.61|14.75||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 15||14.75|-28.61|0.5157
91105523|NCT03816891|182097777|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.41||0.5115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.86|14.09||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||14.09|-27.86|0.5115
90905487|NCT03531905|181677934|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS means|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.66||0.676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|11.2|||ANCOVA|||||11.2|-7.3|0.676
91105524|NCT03816891|182097777|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.3||0.8795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.68|39.0||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 17||39.00|-33.68|0.8795
91105525|NCT03816891|182097777|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.11||0.9254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.73|34.48||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 18||34.48|-37.73|0.9254
91105526|NCT03816891|182097777|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.34||0.7718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.68|31.47||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 19||31.47|-41.68|0.7718
91105527|NCT03816891|182097777|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.38||0.9855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.34|36.98||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||36.98|-36.34|0.9855
91105528|NCT03816891|182097777|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.21||0.7508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.29|32.54||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 21||32.54|-44.29|0.7508
91105529|NCT03816891|182097777|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.26||0.826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.26|32.55||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 22||32.55|-40.26|0.8260
91105530|NCT03816891|182097777|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.23||0.7259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.95|31.96||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 23||31.96|-44.95|0.7259
91105531|NCT03816891|182097777|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.66||0.6826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.61|29.92||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||29.92|-44.61|0.6826
90860306|NCT04823650|181584042|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.536|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.88|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.88|-0.05|
90860307|NCT04823650|181584042|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.264|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.71|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.71|-0.03|
90970942|NCT02079987|181824125|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||difference-in-difference analysis|A propensity weighted difference-in-difference approach was taken to account for imbalances in assignment and loss to follow-up.||||||0.23
90970943|NCT02079987|181824126|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25||||||A propensity weighted difference-in-difference approach was taken to account for imbalances in assignment and loss to follow-up.|difference-in-difference analysis|||||||0.25
91105532|NCT03816891|182097779|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-28.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.43||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.96|-10.97||from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||-10.97|-44.96|0.0018
91105533|NCT03816891|182097779|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-21.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.2||0.0127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.83|-4.77||from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||-4.77|-37.83|0.0127
90860308|NCT04823650|181584042|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.275|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.66|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.66|-0.08|
90860309|NCT04823650|181584042|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.631|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.92|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.92|-0.05|
90860310|NCT04823650|181584042|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.379|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.81|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.81|-0.03|
90860311|NCT04823650|181584042|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.606|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.86|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.86|0.11|
90860312|NCT04823650|181584042|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.714|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.9|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.90|0.29|
90860313|NCT04823650|181584042|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.78|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.78|-0.20|
90860314|NCT04823650|181584042|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.703|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.9|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.90|0.23|
90860315|NCT04823650|181584042|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.555|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.84|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.84|0.00|
90860316|NCT04823650|181584042|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.563|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.84|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.84|0.03|
90905488|NCT03531905|181677936|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS means|-15.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.95||0.258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.4|11.7|||ANCOVA|||||11.7|-43.4|0.258
90905489|NCT03531905|181677936|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS means|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.79||0.972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.8|27.7|||ANCOVA|||||27.7|-26.8|0.972
90905490|NCT03531905|181677936|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS means|-16.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.68||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.3|10.7|||ANCOVA|||||10.7|-43.3|0.235
90905491|NCT05153174|181677947|EQUIVALENCE|p \< 0.05 to reject null hypothesis of equivalence||||||0.931|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.931
90905492|NCT05153174|181677948|EQUIVALENCE|p \< 0.05 to reject null hypothesis of equivalence||||||0.224|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.224
90905493|NCT02459587|181677967|SUPERIORITY|Survival analysis using start/stop counting method to identify time until event, structured to allow for multiple events per person. VCL contacts with and without suicide ideation were combined, due to low counts.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.222||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.92||2-tailed P-value above was calculated from type III test.|Regression, Cox|Model was structured to allow multiple events per person. No covariates.|Model was structured to allow multiple events per person. No covariates. HR based on parameter estimate = -0.218 (SEM=0.222)|||1.92|0.80|0.33
90905494|NCT02459587|181677968|SUPERIORITY|Survival analysis using start/stop counting method to identify time until event, structured to allow for multiple events per person.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.153|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.7||All tests of significance were 2-tailed. P-value above is type III. No covariates.|Regression, Cox||Cox Proportional Hazards Model was structured to allow multiple events per person. No covariates. HR based on parameter estimate = -0.660 (SEM=0.153)|||0.70|0.38|<0.0001
90905495|NCT02459587|181677969|SUPERIORITY|Two binary variables were derived from Treatment Services Review responses to identify any general mental health service utilization, one binary variable for Baseline and another for any outpatient mental health service utilization at any time point in the 1 year follow-up period. The Baseline variable was included as a main-effects covariate.|Odds Ratio, log|1.146||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.604|2.176|||Regression, Logistic|Bivariate logistic, adjusted for (1) if any general outpatient mental heath visits at baseline (0) otherwise||||2.176|0.604|0.66
90905496|NCT02028884|181677973|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.38||||0.0184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.88|||Log Rank|||Stratified by Baseline annualized relapse rate (ARR: 1, \> 1) and geographic region (Asia, EU/Other).||0.88|0.16|0.0184
90905497|NCT02028884|181677974|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.376|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.344||0.0602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|13.033|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: treatment group as fixed effect and baseline measurements, prior therapy, most recent attack (first attack/relapse) as covariates.||||13.033|-0.280|0.0602
90905498|NCT02028884|181677975|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.089|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.338||0.1224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.752|0.574|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: treatment group as fixed effect and baseline measurements, prior therapy, most recent attack (first attack/relapse) as covariates.||||0.574|-4.752|0.1224
90959240|NCT01037244|181798420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|2.29|||ANCOVA|P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with Baseline domain score and pooled site as covariates.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||2.29|1.23|<0.0001
90959241|NCT01037244|181798420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|2.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.03|3.09|||ANCOVA|P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with Baseline domain score and pooled site as covariates.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||3.09|2.03|<0.0001
90959242|NCT01037244|181798421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|12.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.29|17.4|||ANCOVA|"P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with proportion of yes responses during the baseline period and pooled site as covariates."||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||17.40|7.29|<0.0001
90959243|NCT01037244|181798421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|19.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.23|24.36|||ANCOVA|"P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with proportion of yes responses during the baseline period and pooled site as covariates."||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||24.36|14.23|<0.0001
91105534|NCT03816891|182097779|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-12.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.53||0.1547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.54|4.84||from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||4.84|-29.54|0.1547
91105535|NCT03816891|182097779|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-12.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.62||0.2048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.78|7.01||from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||7.01|-31.78|0.2048
90970944|NCT02079987|181824127|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.03
90970945|NCT02079987|181824128|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.57
90905499|NCT05176353|181678004|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||Z-score test for person-time rates|||||||0.86
90905500|NCT05176353|181678005|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Z-score test for person-time rates|||||||0.05
90970946|NCT02079987|181824129|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.87
90970947|NCT02076997|181824132|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
90905501|NCT05176353|181678006|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.59
90905502|NCT05176353|181678007|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Z-score test for person-time rates|||||||<0.01
90905503|NCT05176353|181678008|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Z-score test for person-time rates|||||||0.20
90905504|NCT05176353|181678009|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Z-score test for person-time rates|||||||0.03
90970948|NCT02076997|181824138|OTHER|||||||||||||||||There was no statistical analysis performed for this aim as it was descriptive|There was no statistical analysis performed for this aim as it was descriptive|||
91105536|NCT03816891|182097779|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.58||0.9508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.28|27.58||from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||27.58|-29.28|0.9508
90905505|NCT05176353|181678010|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Z-score test for person-time rates|||||||<0.01
90905506|NCT05176353|181678011|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.05
90905507|NCT02037061|181678025|OTHER|||||||0.83|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.83
90970949|NCT02076997|181824139|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
90970950|NCT02533063|181824140|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.217|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.217
91105537|NCT03816891|182097779|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.74||0.614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.07|13.19||from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||13.19|-22.07|0.6140
91105538|NCT03816891|182097779|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-8.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.12||0.6207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.94|27.66||from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||27.66|-44.94|0.6207
91105539|NCT03816891|182097781|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.52||0.0079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.89|-2.71||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||-2.71|-16.89|0.0079
91105540|NCT03816891|182097781|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-13.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.12||0.0122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.69|-3.06||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||-3.06|-23.69|0.0122
91105541|NCT03816891|182097781|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-11.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4||0.0328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.8|-1.02||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||-1.02|-22.80|0.0328
91105542|NCT03816891|182097781|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-13.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.76||0.0212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.36|-2.15||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||-2.15|-25.36|0.0212
90860317|NCT04823650|181584042|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.687|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.9|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.90|0.20|
90860318|NCT04823650|181584042|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.603|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.87|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.87|0.04|
90860319|NCT04823650|181584042|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.459|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.79|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.79|-0.02|
90860320|NCT04823650|181584043|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.569|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.87|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.87|-0.19|
90860321|NCT04823650|181584043|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.612|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.91|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.91|-0.11|
90860322|NCT04823650|181584043|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.444|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.85|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.85|-0.06|
90860323|NCT04823650|181584043|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.254|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.7|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.70|-0.35|
90860324|NCT04823650|181584043|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.875|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.96|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.96|0.66|
90860325|NCT04823650|181584043|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.793|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.95|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.95|0.02|
90860326|NCT04823650|181584043|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.467|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.78|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.78|0.08|
90860327|NCT04823650|181584043|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.705|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.94|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.94|-0.08|
90860328|NCT04823650|181584043|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.585|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.9|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.90|-0.05|
90860329|NCT04823650|181584043|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.558|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.9|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.90|-0.15|
90970951|NCT02533063|181824141|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.501|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.501
90970952|NCT02533063|181824142|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.151|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.151
90970953|NCT02533063|181824143|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.450
90970954|NCT02533063|181824144|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.678|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.678
91105543|NCT03816891|182097781|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-8.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.28||0.3112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.95|8.72||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||8.72|-25.95|0.3112
91105544|NCT03816891|182097781|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-15.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.74||0.0113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.75|-3.61||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||-3.61|-26.75|0.0113
91105545|NCT03816891|182097781|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.11||0.454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.2|13.68||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||13.68|-29.20|0.4540
91105546|NCT03816891|182097785|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.8436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|9.64||Calculated from CMH test with sex and atopy as stratification factors and placebo as reference within corresponding cohort.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||9.64|0.16|0.8436
91105547|NCT03816891|182097785|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.99||||0.4922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|13.75||Calculated from CMH test with sex and atopy as stratification factors and placebo as reference within corresponding cohort.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||13.75|0.29|0.4922
91105548|NCT03816891|182097785|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.7||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.61|36.91||Calculated from CMH test with sex and atopy as stratification factors and placebo as reference within corresponding cohort.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6||36.91|1.61|0.0064
91105549|NCT03816891|182097785|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.14||||0.0201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|20.91||Calculated from CMH test with sex and atopy as stratification factors and placebo as reference within corresponding cohort.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||20.91|1.26|0.0201
91105550|NCT03816891|182097785|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.95||||0.0841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|10.55||Calculated from CMH test with sex and atopy as stratification factors and placebo as reference within corresponding cohort.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 10||10.55|0.82|0.0841
91105551|NCT03816891|182097785|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.14||||0.0292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|15.22||Calculated from CMH test with sex and atopy as stratification factors and placebo as reference within corresponding cohort.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||15.22|1.12|0.0292
90860330|NCT04823650|181584043|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.486|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.87|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.87|-0.15|
91105552|NCT03816891|182097785|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.76||||0.2259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|15.0||Calculated from CMH test with sex and atopy as stratification factors and placebo as reference within corresponding cohort.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 14||15.00|0.51|0.2259
90860331|NCT04823650|181584043|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.222|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.68|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.68|-0.04|
90905508|NCT00519779|181678028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0033|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for baseline value, visit, gender, SAD||||0.18|-0.18|0.97
90905509|NCT00519779|181678029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.011|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.011|-0.44|0.04
90860332|NCT04823650|181584043|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.729|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.91|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.91|0.31|
90860333|NCT04823650|181584043|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.727|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.91|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.91|0.20|
90905510|NCT00519779|181678030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.076|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.002|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.002|-0.15|0.06
90905511|NCT00519779|181678031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.072||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.009|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.009|-0.30|0.04
90970955|NCT02533063|181824145|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.060
91105553|NCT03816891|182097785|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.44||||0.0104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|20.95||Calculated from CMH test with sex and atopy as stratification factors and placebo as reference within corresponding cohort.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||20.95|1.41|0.0104
91105554|NCT03816891|182097785|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.8||||0.0434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|214.44||Calculated from CMH test with sex and atopy as stratification factors and placebo as reference within corresponding cohort.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 18||214.44|0.89|0.0434
91105555|NCT03816891|182097785|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0093||||||Calculated from CMH test with sex and atopy as stratification factors and placebo as reference within corresponding cohort.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||||0.0093
91105556|NCT03816891|182097785|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.4||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|189.25||Calculated from CMH test with sex and atopy as stratification factors and placebo as reference within corresponding cohort.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||189.25|1.10|0.0290
91105557|NCT03816891|182097786|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|71.24|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.35|948.31||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||948.31|5.35|<0.0001
91105558|NCT03816891|182097786|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.62||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.62|83.47||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||83.47|1.62|0.0019
91105559|NCT03816891|182097786|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.84||||0.0117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|68.26||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||68.26|1.14|0.0117
91105560|NCT03816891|182097787|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.34|22.14||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||22.14|3.34|<0.0001
91105561|NCT03816891|182097787|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.91|19.79||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||19.79|2.91|<0.0001
91105562|NCT03816891|182097787|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.14||||0.1252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|5.75||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.75|0.80|0.1252
91105563|NCT03816891|182097788|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.65||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.83|17.47||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||17.47|1.83|0.0017
90860334|NCT04823650|181584043|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.592|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.91|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.91|-0.19|
90860335|NCT04823650|181584043|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.624|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.9|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.90|-0.10|
90860336|NCT04823650|181584043|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.669|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.92|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.92|-0.10|
90860337|NCT04823650|181584043|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.376|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.81|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.81|-0.04|
90860338|NCT04823650|181584043|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.755|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.92|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.92|0.26|
90860339|NCT04823650|181584043|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.614|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.87|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.87|0.05|
90860340|NCT04823650|181584043|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.424|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.83|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.83|-0.18|
90860341|NCT04823650|181584043|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.648|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.89|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.89|0.06|
90860342|NCT04823650|181584043|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.586|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.86|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.86|-0.07|
90860343|NCT04823650|181584043|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.759|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.92|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.92|0.38|
90860344|NCT04823650|181584043|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.692|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.91|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.91|0.01|
90860345|NCT04823650|181584043|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.614|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.89|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.89|-0.08|
90860346|NCT04823650|181584043|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.605|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.9|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.90|-0.11|
90860347|NCT04823650|181584044|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.985|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.0|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||1.00|0.94|
90860348|NCT04823650|181584044|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.976|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.99|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.99|0.72|
90860349|NCT04823650|181584044|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.973|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|1.0|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||1.00|-0.01|
90970956|NCT02533063|181824148|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.483|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.483
91105564|NCT03816891|182097788|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.61||||0.0196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|10.99||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.99|1.19|0.0196
91105565|NCT03816891|182097788|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.6213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|4.69||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.69|0.40|0.6213
91105566|NCT03816891|182097789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.7||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||-0.7|-1.8|<0.0001
90905512|NCT00519779|181678032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.086||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.018|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.018|-0.33|0.08
90905513|NCT00519779|181678033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.29|-0.26|0.93
90905514|NCT04320615|181678047|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.0|||Van Elteren Test|||||0.0|-2.5|0.3600
90905515|NCT04320615|181678048|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.448||||0.0443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|2.08|||Log Rank|||||2.08|1.01|0.0443
90905516|NCT04320615|181678049|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.263||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.64|||Log Rank|||||1.64|0.97|0.0820
90905517|NCT04320615|181678050|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.35||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.79|||Log Rank|||||1.79|1.02|0.0370
91105567|NCT03816891|182097789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.0287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||-0.1|-1.2|0.0287
90905518|NCT04320615|181678051|OTHER||Weighted % difference|-6.2||||0.0996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|1.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.4|-13.8|0.0996
90905519|NCT04320615|181678051|OTHER||Weighted % difference|-8.9||||0.1355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.7|3.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.0|-20.7|0.1355
90905520|NCT04320615|181678052|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|5.5||||0.3202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|13.0|||Van Elteren test|||||13.0|-2.8|0.3202
90905521|NCT04320615|181678053|OTHER||Weighted % difference|-5.7||||0.1514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|2.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.2|-13.7|0.1514
90905522|NCT04320615|181678053|OTHER||Weighted % difference|-14.8||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.6|-1.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-1.0|-28.6|0.0290
90905523|NCT04320615|181678054|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-5.8||||0.0454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|2.9|||Van Elteren test|||||2.9|-15.0|0.0454
90905524|NCT04320615|181678055|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.0548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.5|||Van Elteren test|||||0.5|-2.0|0.0548
90905525|NCT04320615|181678056|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.1627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.1|||Log Rank|||||1.10|0.57|0.1627
90905526|NCT04320615|181678057|OTHER||Weighted % difference|0.3||||0.941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|8.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||8.2|-7.6|0.9410
90905527|NCT04320615|181678058|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.307||||0.0528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.72|||Log Rank|||||1.72|1.00|0.0528
90905528|NCT04320615|181678059|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.0477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|0.5|||Van Elteren test|||||0.5|-9.0|0.0477
90905529|NCT03990363|181678060|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0648|||||||Repeated Measures Mixed Model|||||||0.0648
90905530|NCT03990363|181678060|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6296|||||||Repeated Measures Mixed Model|||||||0.6296
90905531|NCT03990363|181678060|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0263|||||||Repeated Measures Mixed Model|||||||0.0263
91105568|NCT03816891|182097789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.1123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||0.1|-1.0|0.1123
90905532|NCT01563978|181678084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean treatment difference|2.93||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|5.45|||ANCOVA|Inc. baseline (covariate); treatment, region, prior failure to biologic disease modifying antirheumatic drug \& baseline antihypertensive use (factors)||||5.45|0.40|0.023
90905533|NCT01563978|181678085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean treatment difference|3.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.04|5.03|||ANCOVA|Inc. baseline (covariate); treatment, region, prior failure to biologic disease modifying antirheumatic drug \& baseline antihypertensive use (factors)||||5.03|2.04|<0.001
90905534|NCT01563978|181678086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square means treatment difference|3.3||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|6.08|||ANCOVA|Inc. baseline (covariate); treatment, region, prior failure to biologic disease modifying antirheumatic drug \& baseline antihypertensive use (factors)||Change from baseline in mean daytime SBP (Day 28)||6.08|0.53|0.020
90905535|NCT01563978|181678086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square means treatment difference|3.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.08|5.42|||ANCOVA|Inc. baseline (covariate); treatment, region, prior failure to biologic disease modifying antirheumatic drug \& baseline antihypertensive use (factors)||Change from baseline in mean daytime DBP (Day 28)||5.42|2.08|<0.001
90905536|NCT01563978|181678086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square means treatment difference|2.07||||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|5.11|||ANCOVA|Inc. baseline (covariate); treatment, region, prior failure to biologic disease modifying antirheumatic drug \& baseline antihypertensive use (factors)||Change from baseline in mean night-time SBP (Day 28)||5.11|-0.96|0.179
90905537|NCT01563978|181678086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square means treatment difference|3.14||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|5.14|||ANCOVA|Inc. baseline (covariate); treatment, region, prior failure to biologic disease modifying antirheumatic drug \& baseline antihypertensive use (factors)||Change from baseline in mean night-time DBP (Day 28)||5.14|1.13|0.002
90905538|NCT01563978|181678087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square means treatment difference|3.11||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|5.81|||ANCOVA|Inc. baseline (covariate); treatment, region, prior failure to biologic disease modifying antirheumatic drug \& baseline antihypertensive use (factors)||Change from baseline in mean awake SBP (Day 28)||5.81|0.41|0.024
90970957|NCT00652366|181824150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.26||||0.2026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.8|||Log Rank|||||1.80|0.88|0.2026
91105569|NCT03816891|182097789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-1.3||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||-1.3|-3.0|<0.0001
91105570|NCT03816891|182097789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.4||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||-0.4|-2.0|0.0044
90905539|NCT01563978|181678087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square means treatment difference|3.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|5.22|||ANCOVA|Inc. baseline (covariate); treatment, region, prior failure to biologic disease modifying antirheumatic drug \& baseline antihypertensive use (factors)||Change from baseline in mean awake DBP (Day 28)||5.22|2.10|<0.001
90905540|NCT01563978|181678088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean treatment difference|1.99||||0.223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|5.2|||ANCOVA|Inc. baseline (covariate); treatment, region, prior failure to biologic disease modifying antirheumatic drug \& baseline antihypertensive use (factors)||Change from baseline in mean sleeping SBP||5.20|-1.22|0.223
90905541|NCT01563978|181678088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square means treatment difference|2.87||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|4.93|||ANCOVA|Inc. baseline (covariate); treatment, region, prior failure to biologic disease modifying antirheumatic drug \& baseline antihypertensive use (factors)||Change from baseline in mean sleeping DBP||4.93|0.81|0.007
90905542|NCT01563978|181678089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square means treatment difference|2.24||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|5.69|||ANCOVA|Inc. baseline (covariate); treatment, region, prior failure to biologic disease modifying antirheumatic drug \& baseline antihypertensive use (factors)||Change from baseline in clinic SBP (Day 29)||5.69|-1.20|0.200
90905543|NCT01563978|181678089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square means treatment difference|2.36||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|4.68|||ANCOVA|Inc. baseline (covariate); treatment, region, prior failure to biologic disease modifying antirheumatic drug \& baseline antihypertensive use (factors)||Change from baseline in clinic DBP (Day 29)||4.68|0.05|0.046
90905544|NCT01563978|181678090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square means treatment difference|6.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.6|9.03|||ANCOVA|Inc. baseline (covariate); treatment, region, prior failure to biologic disease modifying antirheumatic drug \& baseline antihypertensive use (factors)||Change from baseline in weekly average pre-dose home SBP (Week 4)||9.03|3.60|<0.001
90905545|NCT01563978|181678090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square means treatment difference|4.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.91|6.25|||ANCOVA|Inc. baseline (covariate); treatment, region, prior failure to biologic disease modifying antirheumatic drug \& baseline antihypertensive use (factors)||Change from baseline in weekly average pre-dose home DBP (Week 4)||6.25|2.91|<0.001
90905546|NCT01563978|181678091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square means treatment difference|7.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.29|10.16|||ANCOVA|Inc. baseline (covariate); treatment, region, prior failure to biologic disease modifying antirheumatic drug \& baseline antihypertensive use (factors)||Change from baseline in weekly average post-dose home SBP (Week 4)||10.16|4.29|<0.001
90905547|NCT01563978|181678091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square means treatment difference|4.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|6.59|||ANCOVA|Inc. baseline (covariate); treatment, region, prior failure to biologic disease modifying antirheumatic drug \& baseline antihypertensive use (factors)||Change from baseline in weekly average post-dose home DBP (Week 4)||6.59|2.90|<0.001
90905548|NCT01563978|181678093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square means treatment difference|0.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.08||Inc. baseline (covariate); treatment, region, prior failure to biologic disease modifying antirheumatic drug \& baseline antihypertensive use (factors)|ANCOVA|||Improvement from baseline at Day 29. Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any dose of background disease modifying antirheumatic drug increased or any other RA treatment initiated including DMARDs, anti-TNFs or other biologics, or receiving any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||1.08|0.40|<0.001
90905549|NCT01875861|181678208|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.38||||||Because of data discontinuity, assumptions for time series analysis did not hold. Repeated measures regression models were developed to compare overall weight monitoring rates at baseline across the implementation phases.||1.38|1.02|
90905550|NCT01875861|181678209|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.39||||||See comments about time series analysis for primary outcome measure. Repeated measures regression analysis of the likelihood of monitoring for each time period was conducted.||1.39|1.03|
90905551|NCT02325713|181678215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least square (LS) mean ratio|96.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.7|110.6||||||||110.6|83.7|
91105571|NCT03816891|182097789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.4||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||-0.4|-2.0|0.0046
90905552|NCT02325713|181678215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS mean ration|18.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|15.3|22.0||||||||22.0|15.3|
90905553|NCT02325713|181678215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS mean ration|222.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|186.8|265.6||||||||265.6|186.8|
91105572|NCT03816891|182097789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|-1.8||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 3||-1.8|-3.6|<0.0001
90905554|NCT02325713|181678215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS mean ration|238.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|198.7|285.3||||||||285.3|198.7|
90970958|NCT00652366|181824152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.6298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.54|||Log Rank|||||1.54|0.77|0.6298
91105573|NCT03816891|182097789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 3||-0.6|-2.3|0.0011
90905555|NCT02325713|181678215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS mean ration|82.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|68.5|98.3||||||||98.3|68.5|
90905556|NCT03824535|181678273|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||The threshold for statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis applies to the row 'Specificity' in the Outcome Measure data table.||||0.02
90905557|NCT03824535|181678274|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||The threshold for statistical significance was predefined as p \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.004
90905558|NCT03824535|181678274|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||The threshold for statistical significance was predefined as p ≤ 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
90905559|NCT03824535|181678274|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06||||||The threshold for statistical significance was predefined as p \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.06
90905560|NCT06403605|181678286|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78||||||Adjusted p value in the mITT analysis population.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.78
90905561|NCT06403605|181678286|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48||||||Adjusted p value in the PP analysis population.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.48
90905562|NCT06403605|181678287|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.049||||||Adjusted p-value in the mITT population.|Log Rank|||||||0.049
90905563|NCT06403605|181678287|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.084||||||Adjusted p value in the PP population.|Log Rank|||||||0.084
90905564|NCT06403605|181678290|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.007
90905565|NCT07083843|181678291|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.115|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.8||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.87|5.36|||paired sample T-test.|Degree of freedom = 25||Data was analyzed using SPSS v22.0., Descriptive statistics will summarize baseline variables. Paired t-test will assess pre- vs. post - intervention scores within groups, and between-group differences will be compared, the null hypothesis states there is no difference between intervention and control groups. A two-tailed P\< 0.05 will be considered statistically significant.||5.36|2.87|0.05
90905566|NCT07083843|181678292|SUPERIORITY|A superiority analysis was performed to compare depression and anxiety scores between the intervention and control groups.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.192|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.8||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.986|3.238|||paired sample T-test.|degree of freedom= 25||data were processed and analyzed using the SPSS software, version 22.0. The descriptive statistics were calculated, including frequencies and percentages for categorical data, and means and standard deviations for numerical variables. A paired t-test was used to assess the change in the psychological level before and after the intervention program. All hypothesis testing was done at the 5% level of significance||3.238|0.986|0.05
90905567|NCT02401529|181678322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.033
90905568|NCT02401529|181678323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.026
90905569|NCT02401529|181678324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.016
90905570|NCT02401529|181678325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.019
90905571|NCT02401529|181678326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.012
90905572|NCT02401529|181678327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.024
90905573|NCT02401529|181678328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.02
90905574|NCT02401529|181678329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.017
90905575|NCT02401529|181678330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.026
90905576|NCT02401529|181678331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.019
90905577|NCT00839982|181678377|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||Hypothesis: achieving CR provides an overall longer survival.|Chi-squared|||||||0.03
90905578|NCT03566680|181678386|EQUIVALENCE||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90905579|NCT03566680|181678387|EQUIVALENCE||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90905580|NCT03566680|181678388|EQUIVALENCE||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90905581|NCT03566680|181678389|EQUIVALENCE|||||||0.73|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.73
90905582|NCT03566680|181678390|EQUIVALENCE|||||||0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.08
90905583|NCT03566680|181678391|EQUIVALENCE|||||||0.72|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.72
90905584|NCT02724020|181678393|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.33|||=|0.388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.36|||Stratified Log-rank Test||HR obtained by stratified Cox proportion hazard model adjusted for prior lines of therapy and the international metastatic renal cell carcinoma database consortium risk category. A hazard ratio \< 1 indicated an advantage compared to Everolimus.|||2.36|0.75|=0.388
90905585|NCT02724020|181678393|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.37||||0.667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.52|||Stratified Log-rank Test||HR obtained by stratified Cox proportion hazard model adjusted for prior lines of therapy and the international metastatic renal cell carcinoma database consortium risk category. A hazard ratio \< 1 indicated an advantage compared to Everolimus.|||2.52|0.75|0.667
90905586|NCT02724020|181678395|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.76||||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|3.49|||Stratified Log-rank Test||HR obtained by stratified Cox proportion hazard model adjusted for prior lines of therapy and the international metastatic renal cell carcinoma database consortium risk category. A hazard ratio \< 1 indicated an advantage compared to Everolimus.|||3.49|0.89|0.212
90905587|NCT02724020|181678395|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.51||||0.546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.98|||Stratified Log-rank Test||HR obtained by stratified Cox proportion hazard model adjusted for prior lines of therapy and the international metastatic renal cell carcinoma database consortium risk category. A hazard ratio \< 1 indicated an advantage compared to Everolimus.|||2.98|0.77|0.546
90905588|NCT02724020|181678396|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.57|||=|0.156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|3.05|||Log Rank||HR obtained by stratified Cox proportion hazard model adjusted for prior lines of therapy and the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium risk category. A hazard ratio \< 1 indicates an advantage compared to Everolimus.|||3.05|0.81|=0.156
90905589|NCT02724020|181678396|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.42||||0.667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.79|||Log Rank||HR obtained by stratified Cox proportion hazard model adjusted for prior lines of therapy and the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium risk category. A hazard ratio \< 1 indicates an advantage compared to Everolimus.|||2.79|0.72|0.667
90970959|NCT00652366|181824153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Response Rates|-6.1||||0.2543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.2|5.0|||Chi-squared||Approximate 95% CI for the difference of two rates was determined using the Hauck-Anderson method.|||5.0|-17.2|0.2543
90905590|NCT02724020|181678397|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|2.22|||||Odds ratio and 95% CI were obtained using a stratified CMH model with prior lines of therapy and the international metastatic renal cell carcinoma database consortium risk category.|As prespecified in the protocol, the statistical analysis was performed between arms - Arm A: Single-agent Everolimus 10 mg QD and Arm C: Combination of MLN0128 4 mg QD + MLN1117 200 mg QD only.|As prespecified in protocol, the statistical analysis was performed between arms - Arm A: Single-agent Everolimus 10 mg QD and Arm C: Combination of MLN0128 4 mg QD + MLN1117 200 mg QD only for this outcome measure.|2.22|0.08|
90905591|NCT02724020|181678398|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|1.69|||||Odds ratio and 95% CI was obtained using a stratified CMH model with prior lines of therapy and the international metastatic renal cell carcinoma database consortium risk category.|||1.69|0.24|
90905592|NCT02724020|181678398|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|2.21|||||Odds ratio and 95% CI was obtained using a stratified CMH model with prior lines of therapy and the international metastatic renal cell carcinoma database consortium risk category.|||2.21|0.28|
90905593|NCT02724020|181678399|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.38|||||Odds ratio and 95% CI was obtained using a stratified CMH model with prior lines of therapy and the international metastatic renal cell carcinoma database consortium risk category.|||1.38|0.16|
90905594|NCT02724020|181678399|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.8|||||Odds ratio and 95% CI was obtained using a stratified CMH model with prior lines of therapy and the international metastatic renal cell carcinoma database consortium risk category.|||1.80|0.20|
90905595|NCT02954575|181678427|OTHER||Poisson test estimate|2.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.64|2.76||versus mean TABR \>29|Poisson test estimate|||A confirmative one-sided, one-sample Poisson test was used to test whether the mean annualized bleeding rate (ABR) in patients treated prophylactically with Wilate was below the threshold of 29 BEs per patient year (alpha = 2.5%). This threshold corresponds to 50% of the TABR reported in the GENA-01 study (NCT00989196), which observed 58.1 BEs per patient per year. A corresponding two-sided 95% CI for the TABR was also analyzed.||2.76|1.64|<0.0001
90905596|NCT02954575|181678428|OTHER||Poisson test estimate|1.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|2.08||versus mean SABR \>19.1|Poisson test estimate|||A confirmative one-sided, one-sample Poisson test was used to test whether the mean SABR in patients treated prophylactically with Wilate was below the threshold of 19.1 BEs per patient year (alpha = 2.5%). This threshold corresponds to 50% of the SABR in the GENA-01 study (NCT00989196), which observed 38.2 spontaneous BEs per patient per year. A corresponding two-sided 95% CI for the SABR was also analyzed.||2.08|1.13|<0.0001
90905597|NCT02954575|181678429|OTHER||Generalized estimation equation|84.21||||0.0096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|72.13|92.52|||Confirmatory data analysis|||"Confirmatory statistical testing tested the null hypotheses that the percentage of success is ≤70% (alternative hypothesis: percentage \>70%); the test procedure based on the generalized estimation equation took into account several BEs in one patient as correlated repeated measurements (alpha = 2.5%). Thus, π denotes the proportion of success and the following pair of hypotheses was tested:~H0: π ≤ 0.7 vs. H1: π \> 0.7"||92.52|72.13|0.0096
90905598|NCT02954575|181678435|OTHER|||||||0.0346|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0346
90905599|NCT02954575|181678436|OTHER|||||||0.4244|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.4244
90905600|NCT02954575|181678438|OTHER||Pearson-Copper|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|16.11||||||||16.11|0|
90905601|NCT04227340|181678442|OTHER|The count, percentage and confidence interval will be calculated for allogeneic HCT patients who receive PBM and develop Grade 3 mucositis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.091|0.356|||||Odds of grade 3 in Allogeneic group compared to historical rates. The study efficacy of mucositis reduction by 20% with an estimation of 51% developing grade 3 mucositis.|The count, percentage and confidence interval were calculated for allogeneic HCT participants who receive PBM and developed Grade 3 mucositis. Whether the percentage of the prospective sample is significantly different from the estimated rate of 71% was accessed.||0.356|0.091|
90905602|NCT04227340|181678443|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcox Rank Sum|||||||0.03
90905603|NCT04227340|181678445|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.32
90905604|NCT04227340|181678447|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
90905605|NCT04227340|181678449|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1
90905606|NCT04227340|181678451|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.009
90905607|NCT04003974|181678502|OTHER|Mean DUX4 activity was derived for each participant at each time point (Baseline and post-Baseline) based on normalized gene expression values for the 6-gene panel. Changes from Baseline to post-Baseline were analyzed using an ANCOVA model.|Least square mean difference|0.4284||||0.5621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0376|1.8945|||ANCOVA||Results are expressed as difference in Least-Squares (LS) means of the changes from Baseline to post-Baseline in DUX4 activity for each group, losmapimod and placebo.|||1.8945|-1.0376|0.5621
90905608|NCT02400307|181678521|EQUIVALENCE|For the power and sample size analysis, it was assumed that a one-sided t-test was performed at an alpha level of 0.05 and the inter-subject standard deviations for the three natural log scale PK parameters are 0.466 or smaller (based on another Gilead study) and the expected difference was 0.|Geometric Least-Square Mean (GLSM) Ratio|72.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|48.8|108.1||||||A sample size of 8 evaluable participants in each group will provide at least 88% power to reject the null hypothesis that participants with severe impairment have at least 100% increase in bictegravir AUCinf, AUClast, or Cmax compared to participants with normal renal function.||108.10|48.80|
90970960|NCT00652366|181824153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.56||||||||1.56|0.19|
90970961|NCT00652366|181824155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Disease Control Rates|-15.52||||0.0603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.4|1.3|||Chi-squared||Approximate 95% CI for the difference of two rates was determined using the Hauck-Anderson method.|||1.3|-32.4|0.0603
91105574|NCT03816891|182097789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.0171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 3||-0.2|-1.9|0.0171
91105575|NCT03816891|182097789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-2.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||-2.1|-4.0|<0.0001
90860350|NCT04823650|181584044|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.984|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|0.99|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.99|0.95|
90860351|NCT04823650|181584044|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.963|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|0.99|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.99|0.75|
90860352|NCT04823650|181584044|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.945|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.99|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.99|-0.16|
90860353|NCT04823650|181584044|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.985|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|0.99|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.99|0.96|
90860354|NCT04823650|181584044|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.974|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|0.99|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.99|0.91|
90860355|NCT04823650|181584044|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.968|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.99|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.99|0.47|
90860356|NCT04823650|181584044|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|-0.019|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.45|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.45|-0.39|
90860357|NCT04823650|181584044|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.977|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|1.0|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||1.00|-0.07|
90860358|NCT04823650|181584044|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.886|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.98|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.98|-0.21|
90860359|NCT04823650|181584044|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.781|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.93|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.93|0.42|
90860360|NCT04823650|181584044|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.962|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.99|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.99|0.48|
90860361|NCT04823650|181584044|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.902|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.98|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.98|-0.20|
90860362|NCT04823650|181584044|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.58|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.58|-0.07|
90860363|NCT04823650|181584044|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.978|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.99|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.99|0.80|
90959244|NCT01037244|181798421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|19.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.14|24.18|||ANCOVA|"P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with proportion of yes responses during the baseline period and pooled sites as covariates."||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||24.18|14.14|<0.0001
90860364|NCT04823650|181584044|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.98|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.98|0.12|
90860365|NCT04823650|181584044|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.855|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.95|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.95|0.58|
90860366|NCT04823650|181584044|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.886|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.97|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.97|0.52|
90860367|NCT04823650|181584044|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|0.99|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.99|0.94|
91105576|NCT03816891|182097789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-0.8||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||-0.8|-2.6|0.0002
91105577|NCT03816891|182097789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.1146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||0.2|-1.6|0.1146
90860368|NCT04823650|181584044|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.801|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.94|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.94|0.42|
90860369|NCT04823650|181584044|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.878|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.96|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.96|0.53|
90860370|NCT04823650|181584044|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.983|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|0.99|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.99|0.94|
90860371|NCT04823650|181584044|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.891|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.96|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.96|0.73|
90860372|NCT04823650|181584044|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.923|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.98|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.98|0.77|
90860373|NCT04823650|181584044|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.987|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.0|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||1.00|0.97|
90860374|NCT04823650|181584045|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.976|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.99|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.99|0.74|
90860375|NCT04823650|181584045|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.972|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|0.99|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.99|0.92|
90860376|NCT04823650|181584045|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.899|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.97|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.97|0.66|
90860377|NCT04823650|181584045|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.975|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|0.99|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.99|0.92|
90860378|NCT04823650|181584045|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.974|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.99|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.99|0.80|
90860379|NCT04823650|181584045|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.952|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.99|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.99|-0.19|
90860380|NCT04823650|181584045|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.969|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|0.99|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.99|0.89|
90860381|NCT04823650|181584045|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.968|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|0.99|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.99|0.91|
90860382|NCT04823650|181584045|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.893|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.97|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.97|0.50|
90860383|NCT04823650|181584045|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|-0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.42|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.42|-0.64|
90970962|NCT00652366|181824157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.2678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.15|||Log Rank|||||1.15|0.60|0.2678
90970963|NCT00652366|181824157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.8449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.43|||Log Rank|||||1.43|0.74|0.8449
90970964|NCT00652366|181824159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||0.0217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.95|||Log Rank|||||0.95|0.51|0.0217
91105578|NCT03816891|182097789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|-2.3||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 5||-2.3|-4.2|<0.0001
91105579|NCT03816891|182097789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-1.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 5||-1.2|-3.0|<0.0001
91105580|NCT03816891|182097789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.0087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.3||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 5||-0.3|-2.1|0.0087
91105581|NCT03816891|182097789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|-2.4||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||-2.4|-4.3|<0.0001
91105582|NCT03816891|182097789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-1.4||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||-1.4|-3.3|<0.0001
91105583|NCT03816891|182097789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-0.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||-0.6|-2.5|0.0013
91105584|NCT03816891|182097789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|-2.4||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 7||-2.4|-4.4|<0.0001
91105585|NCT03816891|182097789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|-1.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 7||-1.6|-3.6|<0.0001
90860384|NCT04823650|181584045|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.891|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.97|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.97|0.64|
90860385|NCT04823650|181584045|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.561|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.85|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.85|0.00|
91105586|NCT03816891|182097789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.4||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 7||-0.4|-2.4|0.0048
91105587|NCT03816891|182097789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|-2.4||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||-2.4|-4.5|<0.0001
90860386|NCT04823650|181584045|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.94|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.94|0.49|
90860387|NCT04823650|181584045|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.967|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.99|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.99|0.68|
90860388|NCT04823650|181584045|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.885|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.98|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.98|-0.11|
90970965|NCT00652366|181824159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.1596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.1|||Log Rank|||||1.10|0.57|0.1596
91105588|NCT03816891|182097789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|-1.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||-1.6|-3.6|<0.0001
91105589|NCT03816891|182097789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.0124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.3||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||-0.3|-2.3|0.0124
91105590|NCT03816891|182097789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|-2.5||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 9||-2.5|-4.5|<0.0001
91105591|NCT03816891|182097789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|-1.7||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 9||-1.7|-3.8|<0.0001
90860389|NCT04823650|181584045|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.134|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.53|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.53|-0.17|
90860390|NCT04823650|181584045|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.896|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.97|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.97|0.65|
90860391|NCT04823650|181584045|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.598|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.87|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.87|0.04|
90860392|NCT04823650|181584045|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.849|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.97|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.97|-0.09|
90860393|NCT04823650|181584045|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.907|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.98|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.98|0.34|
90860394|NCT04823650|181584045|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|0.99|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.99|0.92|
90860395|NCT04823650|181584045|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.922|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.98|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.98|0.63|
90860396|NCT04823650|181584045|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.939|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.98|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.98|0.76|
90860397|NCT04823650|181584045|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.988|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.0|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||1.00|0.96|
90860398|NCT04823650|181584045|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.911|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.98|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.98|0.61|
90860399|NCT04823650|181584045|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.942|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.98|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.98|0.79|
90860400|NCT04823650|181584045|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.987|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.0|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||1.00|0.96|
90860401|NCT04823650|181584046|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.985|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.0|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||1.00|0.95|
90860402|NCT04823650|181584046|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.995|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.0|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||1.00|0.09|
90905609|NCT02400307|181678522|EQUIVALENCE|For the power and sample size analysis, it was assumed that a one-sided t-test was performed at an alpha level of 0.05 and the inter-subject standard deviations for the three natural log scale PK parameters are 0.466 or smaller (based on another Gilead study) and the expected difference was 0.|GLSM Ratio|99.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.49|124.04||||||A sample size of 8 evaluable participants in each group will provide at least 88% power to reject the null hypothesis that participants with severe impairment have at least 100% increase in bictegravir AUCinf, AUClast, or Cmax compared to participants with normal renal function.||124.04|79.49|
90860403|NCT04823650|181584046|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.989|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.0|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||1.00|0.96|
90860404|NCT04823650|181584046|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.983|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|0.99|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.99|0.95|
90860405|NCT04823650|181584046|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.989|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.0|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||1.00|0.90|
90860406|NCT04823650|181584046|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.982|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.0|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||1.00|0.28|
90860407|NCT04823650|181584046|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.984|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|0.99|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.99|0.96|
90959245|NCT01037244|181798422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|18.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.7|25.43|||ANCOVA|"P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with proportion of yes responses during the baseline period and pooled site as covariates."||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||25.43|10.70|<0.0001
90959246|NCT01037244|181798422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|23.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.12|30.94|||ANCOVA|"P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with proportion of yes responses during the baseline period and pooled site as covariates."||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||30.94|16.12|<0.0001
90860408|NCT04823650|181584046|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.992|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.0|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||1.00|0.97|
90860409|NCT04823650|181584046|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.987|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.0|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||1.00|0.94|
90860410|NCT04823650|181584046|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|-0.092|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.39|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.39|-0.44|
90860411|NCT04823650|181584046|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.971|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.99|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.99|0.53|
90860412|NCT04823650|181584046|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.972|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|1.0|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||1.00|-0.06|
90860413|NCT04823650|181584046|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.725|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.91|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.91|0.30|
90860414|NCT04823650|181584046|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.946|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.99|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.99|0.44|
90860415|NCT04823650|181584046|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.939|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.99|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.99|-0.12|
91035943|NCT03261167|181958553|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.43|||||Week 2, Finger flexion. Analysis method was MMRM with Treatment, Visit, Treatment by visit interation, Baseline, and Baseline by visit interaction as fixed effects.|||0.43|-0.23|
90860416|NCT04823650|181584046|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.152|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.52|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.52|-0.11|
90860417|NCT04823650|181584046|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.967|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|0.99|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.99|0.84|
90860418|NCT04823650|181584046|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.965|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.99|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.99|-0.04|
90860419|NCT04823650|181584046|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.709|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.9|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.90|0.26|
90860420|NCT04823650|181584046|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.8|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.80|-0.07|
90860421|NCT04823650|181584046|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.655|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.88|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.88|0.15|
90860422|NCT04823650|181584046|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.692|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.9|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.90|0.18|
90860423|NCT04823650|181584046|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.494|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.81|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.81|-0.05|
91105592|NCT03816891|182097789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 9||-0.6|-2.7|0.0021
90905610|NCT02400307|181678523|EQUIVALENCE|For the power and sample size analysis, it was assumed that a one-sided t-test was performed at an alpha level of 0.05 and the inter-subject standard deviations for the three natural log scale PK parameters are 0.466 or smaller (based on another Gilead study) and the expected difference was 0.|GLSM Ratio|72.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|48.54|108.07||||||A sample size of 8 evaluable participants in each group will provide at least 88% power to reject the null hypothesis that participants with severe impairment have at least 100% increase in bictegravir AUCinf, AUClast, or Cmax compared to participants with normal renal function.||108.07|48.54|
90860424|NCT04823650|181584046|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.648|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.88|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.88|0.16|
90860425|NCT04823650|181584046|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.94|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.94|0.57|
90905611|NCT02400307|181678524|EQUIVALENCE|For the power and sample size analysis, it was assumed that a one-sided t-test was performed at an alpha level of 0.05 and the inter-subject standard deviations for the three natural log scale PK parameters are 0.466 or smaller (based on another Gilead study) and the expected difference was 0.|GLSM Ratio|99.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.24|123.74||||||A sample size of 8 evaluable participants in each group will provide at least 88% power to reject the null hypothesis that participants with severe impairment have at least 100% increase in bictegravir AUCinf, AUClast, or Cmax compared to participants with normal renal function.||123.74|79.24|
90905612|NCT02400307|181678525|EQUIVALENCE|For the power and sample size analysis, it was assumed that a one-sided t-test was performed at an alpha level of 0.05 and the inter-subject standard deviations for the three natural log scale PK parameters are 0.466 or smaller (based on another Gilead study) and the expected difference was 0.|GLSM Ratio|80.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|59.56|108.3||||||A sample size of 8 evaluable participants in each group will provide at least 88% power to reject the null hypothesis that participants with severe impairment have at least 100% increase in bictegravir AUCinf, AUClast, or Cmax compared to participants with normal renal function.||108.30|59.56|
90905613|NCT02400307|181678526|EQUIVALENCE|For the power and sample size analysis, it was assumed that a one-sided t-test was performed at an alpha level of 0.05 and the inter-subject standard deviations for the three natural log scale PK parameters are 0.466 or smaller (based on another Gilead study) and the expected difference was 0.|GLSM Ratio|109.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.46|137.85||||||A sample size of 8 evaluable participants in each group will provide at least 88% power to reject the null hypothesis that participants with severe impairment have at least 100% increase in bictegravir AUCinf, AUClast, or Cmax compared to participants with normal renal function.||137.85|87.46|
90905614|NCT03248440|181678529|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.579|||||||2-sided Pearson's chi-square|||||||0.579
91105593|NCT03816891|182097789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|-2.4||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 10||-2.4|-4.6|<0.0001
90860426|NCT04823650|181584046|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.689|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.89|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.89|0.30|
90860427|NCT04823650|181584046|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.93|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.93|0.53|
90860428|NCT04823650|181584047|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.4|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 1: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.40|-0.20|
90860429|NCT04823650|181584047|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.096|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.5|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 1: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.50|-0.22|
90860430|NCT04823650|181584047|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.188|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.64|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 1: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.64|-0.05|
90905615|NCT03248440|181678530|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.082|||||||2-sided Pearson's chi-square|||||||0.082
90905616|NCT04081298|181678560|EQUIVALENCE|feasibility assessment|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.8||0.24|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05. (feasibility assessment)|Paired sample t-test|||||||0.24
90905617|NCT04081298|181678561|EQUIVALENCE|feasibility assessment|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.78||0.43|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.5 (feasibility assessment)|paired t-test|||||||0.43
91105594|NCT03816891|182097789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-1.9||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 10||-1.9|-4.0|<0.0001
91105595|NCT03816891|182097789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-0.9||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 10||-0.9|-3.0|0.0005
90971357|NCT02684981|181825445|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|15.884|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.388|<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis||The primary analysis of PACT-Q2 scores was based on the random intercept model, where the matched group is considered as a random effect, the treatment as a fixed effect and the score as the response variable.|Mean change in satisfaction PACT-Q2 scores between VKA and Pradaxa therapy at initiation stage (V2)||||< 0.001
91105596|NCT03816891|182097789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|-2.4||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 11||-2.4|-4.6|<0.0001
90860431|NCT04823650|181584047|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.026|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.39|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 2: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.39|-0.18|
90860432|NCT04823650|181584047|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.049|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.3|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 2: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.30|-0.07|
90860433|NCT04823650|181584047|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.144|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.57|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 2: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.57|-0.04|
90860434|NCT04823650|181584048|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.123|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.51|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 1: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.51|-0.16|
90860435|NCT04823650|181584048|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.473|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.86|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 1: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.86|-0.04|
90860436|NCT04823650|181584048|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.293|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.74|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 1: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.74|-0.03|
90860437|NCT04823650|181584048|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.277|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.73|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 2: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.73|-0.15|
90860438|NCT04823650|181584048|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.377|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.8|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 2: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.80|-0.04|
90860439|NCT04823650|181584048|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.279|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.73|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 2: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.73|-0.03|
90860440|NCT04823650|181584049|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.252|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.69|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 1: Actigraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.69|-0.31|
90860441|NCT04823650|181584049|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.704|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.89|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 1: Actigraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.89|0.30|
90860442|NCT04823650|181584049|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.631|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.92|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 1: Actigraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.92|-0.09|
90860443|NCT04823650|181584049|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.292|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.69|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 2: Actigraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.69|-0.18|
90860444|NCT04823650|181584049|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.516|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.82|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 2: Actigraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.82|-0.07|
90860445|NCT04823650|181584049|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.566|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.9|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 2: Actigraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.90|-0.04|
90860446|NCT04823650|181584050|OTHER||Intra-class correlation coefficient|0.132|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.52|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 1: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.52|-0.16|
90860447|NCT04823650|181584050|OTHER||Intra-class correlation coefficient|0.522|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.88|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 1: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.88|-0.06|
90860448|NCT04823650|181584050|OTHER||Intra-class correlation coefficient|0.363|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.8|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 1: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.80|-0.06|
91105597|NCT03816891|182097789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|-1.8||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 11||-1.8|-4.1|<0.0001
91035944|NCT03261167|181958553|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.52|||||Week 4, Finger flexion. Analysis method was MMRM with Treatment, Visit, Treatment by visit interation, Baseline, and Baseline by visit interaction as fixed effects.|||0.52|-0.17|
91105598|NCT03816891|182097789|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.5||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 11||-0.5|-2.7|0.0044
91105599|NCT03816891|182097789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|-2.4||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||-2.4|-4.7|<0.0001
90860449|NCT04823650|181584050|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.456|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.84|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 2: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.84|-0.21|
90860450|NCT04823650|181584050|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.461|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.85|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 2: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.85|-0.02|
90860451|NCT04823650|181584050|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.292|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.75|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 2: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.75|-0.06|
90860452|NCT04823650|181584051|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|-0.043|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.31|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 1: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.31|-0.24|
90860453|NCT04823650|181584051|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.284|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.68|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 1: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.68|-0.19|
90860454|NCT04823650|181584051|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.332|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.72|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 1: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.72|-0.17|
90860455|NCT04823650|181584051|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.041|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.44|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 2: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.44|-0.22|
90860456|NCT04823650|181584051|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.289|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.68|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 2: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.68|-0.18|
90860457|NCT04823650|181584051|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.306|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.7|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 2: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.70|-0.18|
90860458|NCT04823650|181584052|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.596|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.86|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 1: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.86|0.08|
90860459|NCT04823650|181584052|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.902|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.97|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 1: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.97|0.72|
90860460|NCT04823650|181584052|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.944|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.99|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 1: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.99|-0.15|
90905618|NCT04081298|181678562|EQUIVALENCE|McNemar's test evaluates equivalence between nominal groups. Power not calculated as this is a feasibility study with small sample size.||||||0.1|||||||McNemar|||Single arm pre-post comparison at baseline and 3-month follow-up (feasibility study)||||0.10
90905619|NCT04081298|181678563|EQUIVALENCE|feasibility assessment|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.65||0.2|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.5 (feasibility assessment)|paired-sample t-test|||||||0.20
90905620|NCT04081298|181678564|EQUIVALENCE|paired sample t-test (feasibility assessment)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.73||0.71|TWO_SIDED||||||paired sample t-test|||||||0.71
90905621|NCT04081298|181678565|EQUIVALENCE|The analysis is an equivalence analysis of change (H1) in mean value from baseline to 3 month follow-up. Power was not calculated for this analysis because this is a feasibility study. The sample size is not large enough to approach appropriate power.||||||0.94|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Single arm pre-post comparison at baseline and 3-month follow-up (feasibility study)||||0.94
91105600|NCT03816891|182097789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|-1.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||-1.6|-3.8|<0.0001
90860461|NCT04823650|181584052|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.614|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.87|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 2: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.87|0.10|
91105601|NCT03816891|182097789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.0231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||-0.2|-2.4|0.0231
90860462|NCT04823650|181584052|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.882|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.96|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 2: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.96|0.67|
90860463|NCT04823650|181584052|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.939|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.99|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 2: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.99|-0.05|
90860464|NCT04823650|181584053|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.487|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.81|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 1: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.81|-0.06|
90860465|NCT04823650|181584053|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.805|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.94|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 1: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.94|0.37|
90860466|NCT04823650|181584053|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.953|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.99|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 1: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.99|0.73|
90860467|NCT04823650|181584053|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.584|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.85|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 2: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.85|0.06|
90860468|NCT04823650|181584053|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.785|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.93|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 2: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.93|0.45|
90860469|NCT04823650|181584053|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.964|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.99|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 2: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.99|0.63|
90860470|NCT04823650|181584054|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|-0.023|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.26|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 1: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.26|-0.16|
90860471|NCT04823650|181584054|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.094|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.49|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 1: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.49|-0.21|
90860472|NCT04823650|181584054|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.8|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 1: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.80|-0.14|
90860473|NCT04823650|181584054|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|-0.014|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.35|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 2: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.35|-0.22|
90860474|NCT04823650|181584054|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|-0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.26|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 2: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.26|-0.35|
90860475|NCT04823650|181584054|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.284|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.71|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 2: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.71|-0.32|
90860476|NCT04823650|181584055|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.135|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.53|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 1: ActiGraph Wrist vs APDM||0.53|-0.16|
90860477|NCT04823650|181584055|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.197|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.114|0.64|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 1: ActiGraph Wrist vs APDM||0.64|-0.114|
90860478|NCT04823650|181584055|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.341|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.73|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 1: ActiGraph Wrist vs APDM||0.73|-0.17|
90860479|NCT04823650|181584055|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.76|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 1: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.76|-0.23|
91035945|NCT03261167|181958553|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.48|||||Week 6, Finger flexion. Analysis method was MMRM with Treatment, Visit, Treatment by visit interaction, Baseline, and Baseline by visit interaction as fixed effects.|||0.48|-0.20|
90959247|NCT01037244|181798422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|36.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.92|43.59|||ANCOVA|"P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with proportion of yes responses during the baseline period and pooled site as covariates."||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||43.59|28.92|<0.0001
90959248|NCT01037244|181798423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|18.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.79|25.6|||ANCOVA|"P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with proportion of yes responses during the baseline period and pooled site as covariates."||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||25.60|10.79|<0.0001
90959249|NCT01037244|181798423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|25.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.82|32.69|||ANCOVA|"P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with proportion of yes responses during the baseline period and pooled site as covariates."||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||32.69|17.82|<0.0001
90959250|NCT01037244|181798423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|36.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.63|44.36|||ANCOVA|"P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with proportion of yes responses during the baseline period and pooled site as covariates."||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||44.36|29.63|<0.0001
91105602|NCT03816891|182097789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|-2.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 13||-2.2|-4.5|<0.0001
90860480|NCT04823650|181584055|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.371|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.74|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 1: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.74|-0.12|
90860481|NCT04823650|181584055|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.364|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.74|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 1: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.74|-0.15|
90860482|NCT04823650|181584055|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.234|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.65|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 1: ActiGraph Wrist vs ActiGraph Lumbar||0.65|-0.18|
90860483|NCT04823650|181584055|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.493|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.87|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 1: ActiGraph Wrist vs ActiGraph Lumbar||0.87|-0.17|
90860484|NCT04823650|181584055|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.333|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.75|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 1: ActiGraph Wrist vs ActiGraph Lumbar||0.75|-0.20|
90860485|NCT04823650|181584055|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.228|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.59|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 1: ActiGraph Wrist vs ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.59|-0.06|
90860486|NCT04823650|181584055|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.335|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.74|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 1: ActiGraph Wrist vs ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.74|-0.10|
90860487|NCT04823650|181584055|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.343|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.7|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 1: ActiGraph Wrist vs ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.70|-0.03|
90860488|NCT04823650|181584055|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.376|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.77|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 2: ActiGraph Wrist vs APDM||0.77|-0.20|
90860489|NCT04823650|181584055|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.56|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 2: ActiGraph Wrist vs APDM||0.56|-0.12|
90860490|NCT04823650|181584055|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.315|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.71|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 2: ActiGraph Wrist vs APDM||0.71|-0.18|
90905622|NCT04081298|181678566|EQUIVALENCE|The analysis is an equivalence analysis of change (H1) in mean value from baseline to 3 month follow-up using a paired-sample t-test. Power was not calculated for this analysis because this is a feasibility study. The sample size is not large enough to approach appropriate power.||||||0.03|||||||paired-sample t-test|||||||0.03
90905623|NCT04081298|181678567|EQUIVALENCE|The analysis is an equivalence analysis of change (H1) in mean value from baseline to 3 month follow-up using a paired-sample t-test. Power was not calculated for this analysis because this is a feasibility study. The sample size is not large enough to approach appropriate power.||||||0.36|||||||paired-sample t-test|||||||0.36
90905624|NCT02059161|181678568|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion for declaring non-inferiority was for the upper bound of the 95% CI to lie below 0.4%.|Difference in the Least Squares Means|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.19|||||Longitudinal data analysis model included terms for treatment, time, prior insulin status (intermediate-acting, or long-acting insulin), and the interaction of time by treatment, and time by prior insulin status.|||0.19|-0.11|
90905625|NCT02059161|181678569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Percentages|-3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|4.0|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen|||4.0|-11.8|
90905626|NCT02059161|181678570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.1|10.1|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen|||10.1|-16.1|
90905627|NCT02059161|181678573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.14|||||Longitudinal data analysis including terms for treatment, time, prior insulin status (intermediate-acting, or long-acting insulin), and the interaction of time by treatment, and time by prior insulin status.|||0.14|-0.18|
90905628|NCT02059161|181678574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-1.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.69|1.16|||||Longitudinal data analysis including terms for treatment, time, prior insulin status (intermediate-acting, or long-acting insulin), and the interaction of time by treatment, and time by prior insulin status.|||1.16|-4.69|
90905629|NCT02059161|181678575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.01|||||Longitudinal data analysis including terms for treatment, time, prior insulin status (intermediate-acting, or long-acting insulin), and the interaction of time by treatment, and time by prior insulin status.|||0.01|-0.06|
90905630|NCT02059161|181678576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|9.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|22.2|||||Longitudinal data analysis including terms for treatment, time, prior insulin status (intermediate-acting, or long-acting insulin), and the interaction of time by treatment, and time by prior insulin status.|||22.2|-3.0|
90905631|NCT02059161|181678577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Differences in Percentages|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|5.5|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen|||5.5|-9.8|
90905632|NCT02059161|181678578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|14.3|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen|||14.3|-12.8|
90905633|NCT02059161|181678580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-1.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.92|1.39|||||Longitudinal data analysis model included terms for treatment, time, prior insulin status (intermediate-acting, or long-acting insulin), and the interaction of time by treatment, and time by prior insulin status.|||1.39|-4.92|
90905634|NCT02059161|181678581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.02|||||Longitudinal data analysis model included terms for treatment, time, prior insulin status (intermediate-acting, or long-acting insulin), and the interaction of time by treatment, and time by prior insulin status.|||0.02|-0.05|
90905635|NCT02059161|181678582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|8.9|||||Longitudinal data analysis including terms for treatment, time, prior insulin status (intermediate-acting, or long-acting insulin), and the interaction of time by treatment, and time by prior insulin status.|||8.9|-19.7|
90905636|NCT02059161|181678584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|8.2|||||Longitudinal data analysis model including terms for treatment, time, prior insulin status (intermediate-acting, or long-acting insulin), and the interaction of time by treatment, and time by prior insulin status.|||8.2|-8.9|
90905637|NCT02059161|181678585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.6|2.4|||||Longitudinal data analysis including terms for treatment, time, prior insulin status (intermediate-acting, or long-acting insulin), and the interaction of time by treatment, and time by prior insulin status.|||2.4|-18.6|
90905638|NCT02059161|181678586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference in %s (A1C < 7.0%)|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|8.1|||||Miettinen and Nurminen, stratified by prior insulin status.|||8.1|-9.7|
90905639|NCT02059161|181678586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference in %s (A1C <6.5%)|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|6.5|||||Miettinen and Nurminen, stratified by prior insulin status.|||6.5|-8.6|
90905640|NCT02059161|181678587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference (A1C < 7.0%)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|9.1|||||Miettinen and Nurminen|||9.1|-8.7|
90905641|NCT02059161|181678587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference (A1C < 6.5%)|-4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|2.8|||||Miettinen and Nurminen|||2.8|-11.5|
90905642|NCT02059161|181678588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Means Squares|-0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|1.48|||||Longitudinal data analysis model included terms for treatment, time, prior insulin status (intermediate-acting, or long-acting insulin), and the interaction of time by treatment, and time by prior insulin status.|||1.48|-2.33|
90905643|NCT02059161|181678589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Means Squares|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.02|||||Longitudinal data analysis model included terms for treatment, time, prior insulin status (intermediate-acting, or long-acting insulin), and the interaction of time by treatment, and time by prior insulin status.|||0.02|-0.02|
91105603|NCT03816891|182097789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-1.7||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 13||-1.7|-4.0|<0.0001
90905644|NCT02059161|181678590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.69|0.69|||||Longitudinal data analysis model included terms for treatment, time, prior insulin status (intermediate-acting, or long-acting insulin), and the interaction of time by treatment, and time by prior insulin status.|||0.69|-3.69|
90905645|NCT02059161|181678591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.02||||||95.0|-0.04|0.01|||||Longitudinal data analysis model included terms for treatment, time, prior insulin status (intermediate-acting, or long-acting insulin), and the interaction of time by treatment, and time by prior insulin status.|||0.01|-0.04|
91105604|NCT03816891|182097789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.0074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.4||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 13||-0.4|-2.7|0.0074
90860491|NCT04823650|181584055|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.449|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.8|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 2: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.80|-0.14|
90860492|NCT04823650|181584055|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.241|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.65|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 2: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.65|-0.22|
90860493|NCT04823650|181584055|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.399|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.77|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 2: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.77|-0.14|
90860494|NCT04823650|181584055|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.507|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.86|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 2: ActiGraph Wrist vs ActiGraph Lumbar||0.86|-0.22|
90860495|NCT04823650|181584055|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.299|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.72|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 2: ActiGraph Wrist vs ActiGraph Lumbar||0.72|-0.18|
90860496|NCT04823650|181584055|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.74|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 2: ActiGraph Wrist vs ActiGraph Lumbar||0.74|-0.17|
90860497|NCT04823650|181584055|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.444|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.78|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 2: ActiGraph Wrist vs ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.78|-0.02|
90860498|NCT04823650|181584055|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.217|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.59|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 2: ActiGraph Wrist vs Actigraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.59|-0.08|
90860499|NCT04823650|181584055|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.321|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.7|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 2: ActiGraph Wrist vs ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.70|-0.07|
90860500|NCT04823650|181584056|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.323|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.73|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 1: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.73|-0.28|
90860501|NCT04823650|181584056|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.822|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.95|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 1: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.95|0.23|
90860502|NCT04823650|181584056|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.973|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|0.99|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 1: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.99|0.91|
90860503|NCT04823650|181584056|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.644|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.88|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 2: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.88|0.16|
90860504|NCT04823650|181584056|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.829|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.94|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 2: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.94|0.55|
90860505|NCT04823650|181584056|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|0.99|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 2: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.99|0.93|
90860506|NCT06350474|181584103|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is -3.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.346|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.1||One-sided test for non-inferiority.|ANOVA|Adjusted for four dichotomous randomization strata.|Direction of difference is Discontinue - Continue.|The non-inferiority test was a priori designed to be conducted on the per-protocol (PP) population.||1.1|-0.5|<0.0001
90860507|NCT06350474|181584104|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11||||0.414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2|||ANOVA|Adjusted for four dichotomous randomization strata.|Direction of difference is Discontinue - Continue.|||0.2|-0.4|0.414
90860508|NCT06350474|181584105|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.95||||0.241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.9|||ANOVA|Adjusted for four dichotomous randomization strata.|Direction of difference is Discontinue - Continue.|||2.9|-1.0|0.241
90860509|NCT06350474|181584106|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.92||||0.233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.6|||ANOVA|Adjusted for four dichotomous randomization strata.|Direction of difference is Discontinue - Continue.|||0.6|-2.5|0.233
90860510|NCT06350474|181584107|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.97|||t-test, 2 sided||Direction of difference is Discontinue - Continue.|||0.97|-0.4|0.42
90860511|NCT06350474|181584108|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.61|||t-test, 2 sided||Direction of difference is Discontinue - Continue.|||0.61|-0.92|0.69
90905646|NCT02059161|181678592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|1.04|||||Longitudinal data analysis model included terms for treatment, time, prior insulin status (intermediate-acting, or long-acting insulin), and the interaction of time by treatment, and time by prior insulin status.|||1.04|-2.52|
90905647|NCT02059161|181678593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.01|||||Longitudinal data analysis model included terms for treatment, time, prior insulin status (intermediate-acting, or long-acting insulin), and the interaction of time by treatment, and time by prior insulin status.|||0.01|-0.03|
90905648|NCT02059161|181678594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.34|0.83|||||Longitudinal data analysis model included terms for treatment, time, prior insulin status (intermediate-acting, or long-acting insulin), and the interaction of time by treatment, and time by prior insulin status.|||0.83|-3.34|
90905649|NCT02059161|181678595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.01|||||Longitudinal data analysis model included terms for treatment, time, prior insulin status (intermediate-acting, or long-acting insulin), and the interaction of time by treatment, and time by prior insulin status.|||0.01|-0.04|
90905650|NCT03389893|181678596|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.033|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.008|0.131|||ANCOVA||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is numerator and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is denominator.|||0.131|0.008|<0.001
91105605|NCT03816891|182097789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|-2.5||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 14||-2.5|-4.8|<0.0001
90905651|NCT03389893|181678597|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.28||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is numerator and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is denominator|Day 3||0.80|0.09|0.019
90905652|NCT03389893|181678597|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.37||||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.51|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is numerator and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is denominator|Day 7||1.51|0.09|0.165
90905653|NCT03389893|181678597|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is numerator and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is denominator|Day 14||0.27|0.02|<0.001
90905654|NCT03389893|181678597|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is numerator and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is denominator|Day 21||0.25|0.02|<0.001
90905655|NCT03389893|181678597|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.16||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.55|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is numerator and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is denominator|Day 42||0.55|0.05|0.004
90905656|NCT03389893|181678597|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.38||||0.216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|1.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is numerator and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is denominator|Day 77||1.80|0.08|0.216
90905657|NCT03389893|181678597|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.24||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|1.13|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is numerator and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is denominator|Day 112||1.13|0.05|0.071
90905658|NCT03389893|181678597|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.34||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.85|||Mixed Models Analysis||Day 77 is numerator and Day 42 is denominator|Day 77 / Day 42||0.85|0.13|0.022
90905659|NCT03389893|181678597|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.25||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.76|||Mixed Models Analysis||Day 112 is numerator and Day 42 is denominator|Day 112 / Day 42||0.76|0.08|0.015
90905660|NCT03389893|181678597|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis||Day 77 is numerator and Day 42 is denominator|Day 77 / Day 42||0.41|0.04|<0.001
90905661|NCT03389893|181678597|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.16||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.58|||Mixed Models Analysis||Day 112 is numerator and Day 42 is denominator|Day 112 / Day 42||0.58|0.04|0.006
90905662|NCT03389893|181678598|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.8||||0.724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|2.82|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is numerator and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is denominator|Day 3||2.82|0.23|0.724
90905663|NCT03389893|181678598|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.27||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.89|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is numerator and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is denominator|Day 7||0.89|0.08|0.033
91035946|NCT03261167|181958553|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.34|||||Week 12, Finger flexion. Analysis method was MMRM with Treatment, Visit, Treatment by visit interaction, Baseline, and Baseline by visit interaction as fixed effects.|||0.34|-0.25|
90905664|NCT03389893|181678598|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.36||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is numerator and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is denominator|Day 14||1.10|0.12|0.073
90905665|NCT03389893|181678598|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.73||||0.579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|2.29|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is numerator and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is denominator|Day 21||2.29|0.23|0.579
90905666|NCT03389893|181678598|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.17||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.53|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is numerator and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is denominator|Day 28||0.53|0.05|0.003
90905667|NCT03389893|181678598|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.52||||0.297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.81|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is numerator and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is denominator|Day 42||1.81|0.15|0.297
90905668|NCT03389893|181678598|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.48||||0.326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|2.12|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is numerator and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is denominator|Day 77||2.12|0.11|0.326
90860512|NCT06350474|181584109|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % Participants|2.5||||0.275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|6.5|||Fisher Exact||Confidence interval calculated using the Newcombe-Wilson method without continuity correction. Direction of difference is Discontinue - Continue.|||6.5|-1.5|0.275
90860513|NCT06350474|181584111|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % Participants|0.8||||0.686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|3.4|||Fisher Exact||Confidence interval calculated using the Newcombe-Wilson method without continuity correction. Direction of difference is Discontinue - Continue.|||3.4|-1.6|0.686
90860514|NCT06350474|181584112|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % Participants|13.9||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.6|21.8|||Fisher Exact||Confidence interval calculated using the Newcombe-Wilson method without continuity correction. Direction of difference is Discontinue - Continue.|Null hypothesis: proportion of participants with at least one AE is the same in Discontinue and Continue arms.||21.8|5.6|0.0010
90860515|NCT06350474|181584113|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|1.95|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|2.53|||Poisson Regression|||Rate ratio, confidence interval, and p-value calculated using Poisson Regression with an offset for the log of follow-up time in weeks. The total number of follow-up weeks in the DA-discontinue and DA-continue arms are 1486.3 and 1471.4 weeks, respectively. Ratio is Discontinue / Continue.||2.53|1.51|<0.0001
90860516|NCT06350474|181584114|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % Participants|2.03||||0.1758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|5.0|||Fisher Exact||Confidence interval calculated using the Newcombe-Wilson method without continuity correction. Direction of difference is Discontinue - Continue.|Null hypothesis: proportion of participants changing assigned regimen is the same in Discontinue and Continue arms.||5.0|-0.6|0.1758
90860517|NCT04063384|181584115|OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis||||Group (bipolar, healthy)-by-condition (alcohol, placebo)-by-time of subjective response interactions on subjective response to alcohol were modeled, covarying beverage condition order, biological sex, and age, with SEAS and DEQ subscale scores as the dependent variables. Time of subjective response (pre- and post-scan) and beverage condition (alcohol, placebo) were within-subject factors and group was an independent between-subject factor.|||<0.05
90860518|NCT04063384|181584116|OTHER||||||<|0.004||||||Results of primary models were considered significant at p ≤ 0.004 (Bonferroni correction for twelve ROI-to-ROI connections).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Power analysis suggests this sample size (n = 23 with bipolar disorder, n = 24 healthy comparison participants), at an alpha = 0.05, provides \> 80% statistical power to detect a within subject effect size (ES) d ≥ 0.6 in both subgroups and a between group ES d ≥ 0.8 in this fMRI analysis.|We used a mixed model to examine group by condition by hemisphere (left, right) interactions on ROI-to-ROI FC response to emotional stimuli (contrast: emotional stimuli - squares). Group was an independent between-subject factor, condition and hemisphere were within-subject factors, and ROI-to-ROI FC was the dependent variable.|||<0.004
90860519|NCT03894046|181584121|NON_INFERIORITY|"Non-inferiority was concluded if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was less than +20%.~Superiority was concluded if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was less than 0."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.0|3.5||||||The non-inferiority assessment was based on the 2-sided 95% CIs computed using a continuity-corrected Z-statistic for the difference (\[sulbactam-durlobactam + imipenem/cilastatin\] - \[colistin + imipenem/cilastatin\]) in 28-day all-cause mortality rates between the treatment groups.||3.5|-30|
90860520|NCT03894046|181584122|OTHER|||||||0.0002||||||p-value was obtained based on a Chi-Square test for treatment group differences.|Chi-squared|||Analysis of patients with nephrotoxicity as measured by RIFLE criteria at any post-baseline visit based on the Investigator's opinion for the Safety Population for Part A, excluding patients with chronic hemodialysis at baseline baseline.||||0.0002
90860521|NCT03270644|181584129|OTHER||Difference of LSMeans|-5.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.27|-3.64||||||Mean hourly HR was evaluated in a linear mixed-effects model with a fixed effect for treatment and a random effect for subject.||-3.64|-7.27|
90860522|NCT03270644|181584130|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LSMeans|0.884|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.832|0.939||||||Log-transformed PK parameters were evaluated in a linear mixed-effects model with a fixed effect for treatment and a random effect for subject.||0.939|0.832|
90905669|NCT03389893|181678598|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.52||||0.401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|2.42|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is numerator and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is denominator|Day 112||2.42|0.11|0.401
90905670|NCT03389893|181678598|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.81||||0.705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|2.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||Day 77 is numerator and Day 42 is denominator|Day 77 / Day 42||2.40|0.28|0.705
90905671|NCT03389893|181678598|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.72||||0.538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|2.08|||Mixed Models Analysis||Day 112 is numerator and Day 42 is denominator|Day 112 / Day 42||2.08|0.25|0.538
90860523|NCT03270644|181584131|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LSMeans|0.958|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.917|1.0||||||Ratio of geometric LSMeans of Cmax used a mixed-effects repeated measures model adjusted for fixed effects for treatment, time point, time point by treatment, and random effect for subjects.||1.00|0.917|
90860524|NCT03270644|181584132|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LSMeans|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.967|1.04||||||Log-transformed PK parameters were evaluated in a linear mixed-effects model with a fixed effect for treatment and a random effect for subject.||1.04|0.967|
90860525|NCT03270644|181584133|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LSMeans|0.999|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.967|1.03||||||Log-transformed PK parameters were evaluated in a linear mixed-effects model with a fixed effect for treatment and a random effect for subject.||1.03|0.967|
90860526|NCT03270644|181584134|OTHER||Difference of LSMeans|-3.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.39|-0.64||||||PR interval was evaluated in a linear mixed-effects model with a fixed effect for treatment and a random effect for subject.||-0.64|-6.39|
90905672|NCT03389893|181678598|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.92||||0.892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|3.34|||Mixed Models Analysis||Day 77 is numerator and Day 42 is denominator|Day 77 / Day 42||3.34|0.25|0.892
90905673|NCT03389893|181678598|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.74||||0.624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|2.56|||Mixed Models Analysis||Day 112 is numerator and Day 42 is denominator|Day 112 / Day 42||2.56|0.21|0.624
90905674|NCT03389893|181678599|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.53||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.44|-1.63|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is minuend and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference.)|Day 3, Lesional||-1.63|-17.44|0.019
90959251|NCT01037244|181798424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|19.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.69|27.26|||ANCOVA|"P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with proportion of yes responses during the baseline period and pooled site as covariates."||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||27.26|12.69|<0.0001
90959252|NCT01037244|181798424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|27.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.29|34.88|||ANCOVA|"P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with proportion of yes responses during the baseline period and pooled site as covariates."||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||34.88|20.29|<0.0001
90959253|NCT01037244|181798424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|37.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.57|45.03|||ANCOVA|"P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with proportion of yes responses during the baseline period and pooled site as covariates."||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||45.03|30.57|<0.0001
90860527|NCT03270644|181584135|OTHER||Difference of LSMeans|5.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.57|7.57||||||Systolic blood pressure was evaluated in a linear mixed-effects model with a fixed effect for treatment and a random effect for subject.||7.57|3.57|
90860528|NCT03270644|181584136|OTHER||Difference of LSMeans|3.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.99|4.95||||||Diastolic blood pressure was evaluated in a linear mixed-effects model with a fixed effect for treatment and a random effect for subject.||4.95|1.99|
90860529|NCT00191906|181584139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.504||95.0||||P-value for Overall. No adjustments for multiple comparisons - not applicable. All statistical tests were performed using a 0.05 significance level.|Repeated Measures|Repeated measures model including terms for baseline, study arm, treatment sequence, visit, treatment, and treatment-by-study-arm interaction.||Least Squares Mean (LSMean) values were calculated from the measurements taken at baseline and at the end of each 4 week therapy period.||||0.504
90860530|NCT00191906|181584140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97||95.0||||There were no adjustments for multiple comparisons - not applicable. All statistical tests were performed using a 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with baseline value, study arm as covariates for ADHD-C versus Normal controls.||||0.970
90860531|NCT00191906|181584141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.579||95.0||||There were no adjustments for multiple comparisons - not applicable. All statistical tests were performed using a 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with baseline value, study arm as covariates for ADHD-C+RD versus RD controls.||||0.579
90860532|NCT00191906|181584141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.144||95.0||||There were no adjustments for multiple comparisons - not applicable. All statistical tests are performed using a 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with baseline value, study arm as covariates for RD versus RD controls.||||0.144
90860533|NCT00191906|181584142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||P-value for Overall. There were no adjustments for multiple comparisons - not applicable. All statistical tests were performed using a 0.05 significance level.|Repeated Measures|Repeated measures model including terms for baseline, study arm, treatment sequence, visit, treatment, and treatment by study-arm-interaction.||Least Squares Mean (LSMean) values were calculated from the measurements taken at baseline and at the end of each 4 week therapy period.||||0.005
90860534|NCT00191906|181584143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.097||95.0||||P-value for Overall. There were no adjustments for multiple comparisons - not applicable. All statistical tests were performed using a 0.05 significance level.|Repeated Measures|Repeated measures model including terms for baseline, study arm, treatment sequence, visit, treatment, and treatment-by-study-arm interaction.||Least Squares Mean (LSMean) values were calculated from the measurements taken at baseline and at the end of each 4 week therapy period.||||0.097
90860535|NCT00191906|181584144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||P-value for Overall. There were no adjustments for multiple comparisons - not applicable. All statistical tests were performed using a 0.05 significance level.|Repeated Measures|Repeated measures model including terms for study arm, treatment sequence, treatment, and treatment-by-study-arm interaction.||Least Squares Mean (LSMean) values were calculated from the measurements taken at baseline and at the end of each 4 week therapy period.||||0.003
90860536|NCT00191906|181584145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Overall. There were no adjustments for multiple comparisons - not applicable. All statistical tests were performed using a 0.05 significance level.|Repeated Measures|Repeated measures model including terms for baseline, study arm, treatment sequence, visit, treatment, and treatment-by-study-arm interaction.||Least Squares Mean (LSMean) values were calculated from the measurements taken at baseline and at the end of each 4 week therapy period.||||<0.001
90860537|NCT00191906|181584146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Overall. There were no adjustments for multiple comparisons - not applicable. All statistical tests were performed using a 0.05 significance level.|Repeated Measures|Repeated measures model including terms for baseline, study arm, treatment sequence, visit, treatment, and treatment-by-study-arm interaction.||Least Squares Mean (LSMean) values were calculated from the measurements taken at baseline and at the end of each 4 week therapy period.||||<0.001
90860538|NCT00191906|181584147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Overall. There were no adjustments for multiple comparisons - not applicable. All statistical tests were performed using a 0.05 significance level.|Repeated Measures|Repeated measures model including terms for baseline, study arm, treatment sequence, visit, treatment, and treatment-by-study-arm interaction.||Least Squares Mean (LSMean) values were calculated from the measurements taken at baseline and at the end of each 4 week therapy period.||||<0.001
90860539|NCT00191906|181584148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Overall. There were no adjustments for multiple comparisons - not applicable. All statistical tests were performed using a 0.05 significance level.|Repeated Measures|Repeated measures model including terms for baseline, study arm, treatment sequence, visit, treatment, and treatment-by-study-arm interaction.||Least Squares Mean (LSMean) values were calculated from the measurements taken at baseline and at the end of each 4 week therapy period.||||<0.001
90860540|NCT00191906|181584149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.094||95.0||||P-value for Overall. There were no adjustments for multiple comparisons - not applicable. All statistical tests were performed using a 0.05 significance level.|Repeated Measures|Repeated measures model including terms for study arm, treatment sequence, visit, treatment, and treatment-by-study-arm interaction.||||||0.094
90860541|NCT00191906|181584150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.312||95.0||||P-value for Overall. There were no adjustments for multiple comparisons - not applicable. All statistical tests were performed using a 0.05 significance level.|Repeated Measures|Repeated measures model including terms for baseline, study arm, treatment sequence, visit, treatment, and treatment-by-study-arm interaction||||||0.312
90860542|NCT00191906|181584151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.508||95.0||||There were no adjustments for multiple comparisons - not applicable. All statistical tests were performed using a 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with baseline value, study arm as covariates for ADHD-C versus normal controls.||||0.508
90860543|NCT00191906|181584152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.769||95.0||||There were no adjustments for multiple comparisons - not applicable. All statistical tests were performed using a 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with baseline value, study arm as covariate for ADHD-C versus normal controls||||0.769
90860544|NCT00191906|181584153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.302||95.0||||There were no adjustments for multiple comparisons - not applicable. All statistical tests were performed using a 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with baseline value, study arm as covariates for ADHD-C+RD versus RD controls.||||0.302
90860545|NCT00191906|181584153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.663||95.0||||There were no adjustments for multiple comparisons - not applicable. All statistical tests were performed using a 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with baseline value, study arm as covariate for RD versus RD controls.||||0.663
90860546|NCT00191906|181584154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07||95.0||||There were no adjustments for multiple comparisons - not applicable. All statistical tests were performed using a 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with baseline value, study arm as covariate for ADHD-C+RD versus RD controls.||||0.070
90860547|NCT00191906|181584154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.179||95.0||||There were no adjustments for multiple comparisons - not applicable. All statistical tests were performed using a 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with baseline value, study arm as covariate for RD versus RD controls.||||0.179
90860548|NCT00333801|181584157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
90860549|NCT00333801|181584158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
90860550|NCT00333801|181584159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cohen's d|0.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90905675|NCT03389893|181678599|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.08||||0.837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.47|9.32|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is minuend and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 7, Lesional||9.32|-11.47|0.837
91105606|NCT03816891|182097789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|-2.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 14||-2.1|-4.3|<0.0001
90860551|NCT02476201|181584164|SUPERIORITY|Using a one-sided, one sample Exact Binomial Test and a significance level of 2.5%, the study required 74 patients to reach a power of 90%. With the MPP feature activated at baseline, it was assumed that the proportion of responders at 6 months was 75%. The MPP responder rate was compared to 57%, which is the responder rate obtained from literature for patients without the MPP feature activated.|Percentage|67.1||||0.0435|ONE_SIDED|97.5|55.6||||Exact binomial||||||55.6|0.0435
90860552|NCT00777205|181584169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.22|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|2.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.01|-1.57|<0.05
90860553|NCT00777205|181584170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.39|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.03|1.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.24|-2.03|<0.05
90860554|NCT00777205|181584171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.81|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|2.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.55|-0.93|<0.05
90860555|NCT00777205|181584172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.039|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.66|1.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.89|-2.66|<0.05
90860556|NCT00777205|181584173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.31|3.16||||||||3.16|-3.31|
90860557|NCT05055453|181584191|OTHER|A Shapiro Wilks test was used to test for normal distribution of the data.|||||<|0.001||||||"Result for comparison between automatic only and preferred app settings."|Durbin-Conover Pairwise Comparison|||||||<0.001
90860558|NCT05055453|181584191|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||"Result of comparison between preferred app setting and extreme app setting"|Durbin-Conover Pairwise Comparison|||A Shapiro Wilks test was used to test for normal distribution of the data.||||< 0.001
90905676|NCT03389893|181678599|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.98|7.92|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is minuend and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 14, Lesional||7.92|-6.98|0.900
90860559|NCT05055453|181584191|OTHER|"Result of comparison between automatic only and extreme app setting."||||||0.002|||||||Durbin-Conover Pairwise Comparison|||A Shapiro Wilks test was used to test for normal distribution of the data.||||0.002
90860560|NCT05055453|181584192|OTHER|Analysis of first home trial|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90860561|NCT05055453|181584192|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of second home trial||||<.001
90860562|NCT01209923|181584202|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Independent t-test||Children BIA was compared to hydrostatic weighing; adults were compared to DEXA.||||0.001
90860563|NCT03467048|181584213|NON_INFERIORITY|Null hypothesis: McGrath Video Laryngoscopy is non-inferior to Macintosh direct laryngoscopy.|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.65|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.22|9.75|||t-test, 1 sided|||||9.75|2.22|<0.01
91105607|NCT03816891|182097789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-0.7||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 14||-0.7|-3.0|0.0013
90905677|NCT03389893|181678599|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.97||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.76|1.82|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is minuend and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 21, Lesional||1.82|-13.76|0.130
90905678|NCT03389893|181678599|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.1||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.76|0.56|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is minuend and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 28, Lesional||0.56|-14.76|0.069
91105608|NCT03816891|182097789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|-2.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 15||-2.6|-4.8|<0.0001
90905679|NCT03389893|181678599|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.99||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.25|-0.73|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is minuend and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 42, Lesional||-0.73|-15.25|0.032
90905680|NCT03389893|181678599|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.05||||0.803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.37|7.28|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is minuend and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 77, Lesional||7.28|-9.37|0.803
90905681|NCT03389893|181678599|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16||||0.972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.02|9.34|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is minuend and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 112, Lesional||9.34|-9.02|0.972
90905682|NCT03389893|181678599|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27||||0.933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.66|6.12|||Mixed Models Analysis||Day 77 is minuend and Day 42 is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 77 / Day 42, Lesional||6.12|-6.66|0.933
91105609|NCT03816891|182097789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|-2.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 15||-2.1|-4.3|<0.0001
90905683|NCT03389893|181678599|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.82||||0.563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|4.45|||Mixed Models Analysis||Day 112 is minuend and Day 42 is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 112 / Day 42, Lesional||4.45|-8.10|0.563
90905684|NCT03389893|181678599|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.08||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.88|0.73|||Mixed Models Analysis||Day 77 is minuend and Day 42 is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 77 / Day 42, Lesional||0.73|-14.88|0.075
90905685|NCT03389893|181678599|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.84||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.19|-2.48|||Mixed Models Analysis||Day 112 is minuend and Day 42 is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 112 / Day 42, Lesional||-2.48|-17.19|0.010
90905686|NCT03389893|181678599|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.69||||0.805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.86|6.23|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is minuend and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 3, Non-lesional||6.23|-4.86|0.805
90905687|NCT03389893|181678599|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.36||||0.329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|7.15|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is minuend and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 7, Non-lesional||7.15|-2.44|0.329
90905688|NCT03389893|181678599|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.39|5.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is minuend and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 14, Non-lesional||5.60|-5.39|0.970
90905689|NCT03389893|181678599|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.31||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.18|1.56|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is minuend and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 21, Non-lesional||1.56|-8.18|0.180
90905690|NCT03389893|181678599|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.76||||0.342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.45|1.94|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is minuend and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 28, Non-lesional||1.94|-5.45|0.342
90905691|NCT03389893|181678599|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.17||||0.234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.81|1.47|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is minuend and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 42, Non-lesional||1.47|-5.81|0.234
90905692|NCT03389893|181678599|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1||||0.316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.27|2.07|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is minuend and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 77, Non-lesional||2.07|-6.27|0.316
90959254|NCT00690820|181798425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The parameter was analyzed using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) including treatment, sequence and period as fixed effect and subject within sequence as a random effect.||||<0.001
91105610|NCT03816891|182097789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-0.8||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 15||-0.8|-3.0|0.0010
90860564|NCT03467048|181584214|NON_INFERIORITY|Null hypothesis: McGrath videolaryngoscopy is non-inferior to Direct laryngoscopy|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.3||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|0.975|0.04|2.28|||t-test, 1 sided|||||2.28|0.04|0.08
90860565|NCT03467048|181584215|NON_INFERIORITY|Null hypothesis: McGrath videolaryngoscopy is non-inferior to Direct laryngoscopy|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.1|7.77|||t-test, 1 sided|||||7.77|0.1|0.41
90860566|NCT04308304|181584229|OTHER|MK-1942 + Donepezil PK / MK-1942 Alone PK|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.55|0.86||||||'MK-1942 Alone PK' are unpublished data from MK-1942-004||0.86|0.55|
90860567|NCT04308304|181584229|OTHER|MK-1942 + Donepezil PK / MK-1942 Alone PK|GMR|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.82||||||'MK-1942 Alone PK' are unpublished data from MK-1942-004||0.82|0.53|
90860568|NCT04308304|181584229|OTHER|MK-1942 + Donepezil PK / MK-1942 Alone PK|GMR|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.0||||||'MK-1942 Alone PK' are unpublished data from MK-1942-004||1.00|0.55|
90860569|NCT04308304|181584229|OTHER|MK-1942 + Donepezil PK / MK-1942 PK Alone|GMR|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.05||||||'MK-1942 Alone PK' are unpublished data from MK-1942-004||1.05|0.56|
90860570|NCT04308304|181584230|OTHER|MK-1942 + Donepezil PK / MK-1942 Alone PK|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.55|0.86||||||'MK-1942 Alone PK' are unpublished data from MK-1942-004||0.86|0.55|
90860571|NCT04308304|181584230|OTHER|MK-1942 + Donepezil PK / MK-1942 Alone PK|GMR|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.82||||||'MK-1942 Alone PK' are unpublished data from MK-1942-004||0.82|0.53|
90860572|NCT04308304|181584230|OTHER|MK-1942 + Donepezil PK / MK-1942 Alone PK|GMR|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.0||||||'MK-1942 Alone PK' are unpublished data from MK-1942-004||1.00|0.55|
91105611|NCT03816891|182097789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|-2.5||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||-2.5|-4.8|<0.0001
91105612|NCT03816891|182097789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|-2.0||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||-2.0|-4.2|<0.0001
90860573|NCT04308304|181584230|OTHER|MK-1942 + Donepezil PK / MK-1942 PK Alone|GMR|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.05||||||'MK-1942 Alone PK' are unpublished data from MK-1942-004||1.05|0.56|
90905693|NCT03389893|181678599|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.89||||0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.37|1.59|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is minuend and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 112, Non-lesional||1.59|-5.37|0.276
90905694|NCT03389893|181678599|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.56||||0.237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.19|1.06|||Mixed Models Analysis||Day 77 is minuend and Day 42 is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 77 / Day 42, Non-lesional||1.06|-4.19|0.237
90860574|NCT04308304|181584231|OTHER|MK-1942 + Donepezil PK / MK-1942 Alone PK|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.52|0.87||||||'MK-1942 Alone PK' are unpublished data from MK-1942-004||0.87|0.52|
90860575|NCT04308304|181584231|OTHER|MK-1942 + Donepezil PK / MK-1942 Alone PK|GMR|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.87||||||'MK-1942 Alone PK' are unpublished data from MK-1942-004||0.87|0.52|
90860576|NCT04308304|181584231|OTHER|MK-1942 + Donepezil PK / MK-1942 Alone PK|GMR|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.06||||||'MK-1942 Alone PK' are unpublished data from MK-1942-004||1.06|0.59|
90860577|NCT04308304|181584231|OTHER|MK-1942 + Donepezil PK / MK-1942 PK Alone|GMR|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.08||||||'MK-1942 Alone PK' are unpublished data from MK-1942-004||1.08|0.51|
90860578|NCT04308304|181584232|OTHER|MK-1942 + Donepezil PK / MK-1942 Alone PK|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.48|0.8||||||'MK-1942 Alone PK' are unpublished data from MK-1942-004||0.80|0.48|
90860579|NCT04308304|181584232|OTHER|MK-1942 + Donepezil PK / MK-1942 Alone PK|GMR|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.81||||||'MK-1942 Alone PK' are unpublished data from MK-1942-004||0.81|0.55|
90860580|NCT04308304|181584232|OTHER|MK-1942 + Donepezil PK / MK-1942 Alone PK|GMR|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.93||||||'MK-1942 Alone PK' are unpublished data from MK-1942-004||0.93|0.49|
90905695|NCT03389893|181678599|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.03||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|-0.77|||Mixed Models Analysis||Day 112 is minuend and Day 42 is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 112 / Day 42, Non-lesional||-0.77|-5.30|0.010
90905696|NCT03389893|181678599|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.57|2.65|||Mixed Models Analysis||Day 77 is minuend and Day 42 is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 77 / Day 42, Non-lesional||2.65|-3.57|0.770
90860581|NCT04308304|181584232|OTHER|MK-1942 + Donepezil PK / MK-1942 PK Alone|GMR|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.98||||||'MK-1942 Alone PK' are unpublished data from MK-1942-004||0.98|0.54|
90860582|NCT04308304|181584237|OTHER|Donepezil Accumulation Ratio (Day 28/Day -1)|Geometric mean|1.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|52.4||||||||||||||||
90860583|NCT04308304|181584238|OTHER|Donepezil Accumulation Ratio (Day 28/Day -1)|Geometric mean|1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|52.4||||||||||||||||
90860584|NCT04308304|181584239|OTHER|Donepezil Accumulation Ratio (Day 28/Day -1)|Geometric mean|1.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|60.8||||||||||||||||
90860585|NCT03924869|181584425|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.2932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.24||1-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by Disease Stage, ECOG Performance Status, Geographic Region of Enrollment Site, and Reason For Not Receiving Surgery.|Log Rank|||"Hazard ratio and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate, stratified by Disease Stage (Stage I versus Stage II), ECOG Performance Status (0 or 1 versus 2), Geographic Region of Enrollment Site (East Asia versus non-East Asia), and Reason For Not Receiving Surgery (medically inoperable versus refused surgery)."||1.24|0.69|0.29320
90905697|NCT03389893|181678599|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.14||||0.117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.84|0.56|||Mixed Models Analysis||Day 112 is minuend and Day 42 is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 112 / Day 42, Non-lesional||0.56|-4.84|0.117
91105613|NCT03816891|182097789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-0.5||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||-0.5|-2.8|0.0040
90860586|NCT03924869|181584426|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.33||||0.93971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.9||1-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by Disease Stage, ECOG Performance Status, Geographic Region of Enrollment Site, and Reason For Not Receiving Surgery.|Log Rank|Per protocol, since the EFS null hypothesis was not rejected, the OS hypothesis was not formally tested and the p-value should be considered nominal.||"Hazard ratio and 95% CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate, stratified by Disease Stage (Stage I versus Stage II), ECOG Performance Status (0 or 1 versus 2), Geographic Region of Enrollment Site (East Asia versus non-East Asia), and Reason for Not Receiving Surgery (medically inoperable versus refused surgery)."||1.90|0.93|0.93971
90860587|NCT03924869|181584427|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.42||Per protocol, there was no hypothesis pre-specified for TDDM to be formally tested.||||"Hazard ratio and 95% CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate, stratified by Disease Stage (Stage I versus Stage II), ECOG Performance Status (0 or 1 versus 2), Geographic Region of Enrollment Site (East Asia versus non-East Asia), and Reason for Not Receiving Surgery (medically inoperable versus refused surgery)."||1.42|0.74|
90860588|NCT03924869|181584430|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.21||||0.5187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|2.48|||cLDA model|||"Stats:~LS Mean change and 95% CIs were based on a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model with the EORTC QLQ-C30 scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by Disease Stage (Stage I versus Stage II), ECOG Performance Status (0 or 1 versus 2), Geographic Region of Enrollment Site (East Asia versus non-East Asia), and Reason For Not Receiving Surgery (medically inoperable versus refused surgery)."||2.48|-4.90|0.5187
90860589|NCT03924869|181584431|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.34||||0.0906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.38|0.69|||cLDA model|||LS Mean change and 95% CIs were based on a cLDA model with the EORTC QLQ-LC13 scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by Disease Stage (Stage I versus Stage II), ECOG Performance Status (0 or 1 versus 2), Geographic Region of Enrollment Site (East Asia versus non-East Asia), and Reason For Not Receiving Surgery (medically inoperable versus refused surgery).||0.69|-9.38|0.0906
90860590|NCT03924869|181584432|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.24||||0.5482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.83|5.31|||cLDA model|||LS Mean change and 95% CIs were based on a cLDA model with the EORTC QLQ-LC13 scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by Disease Stage (Stage I versus Stage II), ECOG Performance Status (0 or 1 versus 2), Geographic Region of Enrollment Site (East Asia versus non-East Asia), and Reason For Not Receiving Surgery (medically inoperable versus refused surgery).||5.31|-2.83|0.5482
90860591|NCT03924869|181584433|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.99||||0.7253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|4.53|||cLDA model|||LS Mean change and 95% CIs were based on a cLDA model with the EORTC QLQ-C30 scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by Disease Stage (Stage I versus Stage II), ECOG Performance Status (0 or 1 versus 2), Geographic Region of Enrollment Site (East Asia versus non-East Asia), and Reason For Not Receiving Surgery (medically inoperable versus refused surgery).||4.53|-6.50|0.7253
90860592|NCT03924869|181584434|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21||||0.9055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|3.28|||cLDA model|||LS Mean change and 95% CIs were based on a cLDA model with the EORTC QLQ-C30 scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by Disease Stage (Stage I versus Stage II), ECOG Performance Status (0 or 1 versus 2), Geographic Region of Enrollment Site (East Asia versus non-East Asia), and Reason For Not Receiving Surgery (medically inoperable versus refused surgery).||3.28|-3.70|0.9055
90860593|NCT01470859|181584435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|||||"p\<0.05 is indicating the threshold for statistical significance for this comparison"|t-test, 2 sided|independent sample t-test The statistical analysis was performed on the changes of PDRP Z score between levodopa and pramipexole groups.||||||0.84
90860594|NCT01470859|181584435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|||||"p\<0.05 is indicating the threshold for statistical significance for this comparison"|t-test, 2 sided|independent sample t-test The statistical analysis was performed to compare the PDRP Z scores between levodopa and pramipexole groups at V1||||||0.93
90860595|NCT01470859|181584435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|||||"p\<0.05 is indicating the threshold for statistical significance for this comparison"|t-test, 2 sided|independent sample t-test The statistical analysis was performed to compare the PDRP Z scores between levodopa and pramipexole groups at V5||||||0.31
90860596|NCT01470859|181584436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.691|TWO_SIDED|||||"p\<0.05 is indicating the threshold for statistical significance for this comparison"|independent U test|independent U test The statistical analysis was performed to compare the UPDRS II scores at V1 scores between the levodopa and pramipexole groups||||||0.691
90860597|NCT01470859|181584436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.706|TWO_SIDED|||||"p\<0.05 is indicating the threshold for statistical significance for this comparison"|independent U test|independent U test The statistical analysis was performed to compare the UPDRS II scores at V2 scores between the levodopa and pramipexole groups||||||0.706
90860598|NCT01470859|181584436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.635|TWO_SIDED|||||"p\<0.05 is indicating the threshold for statistical significance for this comparison"|independent U test|independent U test The statistical analysis was performed to compare the UPDRS II scores at V5 scores between the levodopa and pramipexole groups||||||0.635
90860599|NCT01470859|181584436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.341|TWO_SIDED|||||"p\<0.05 is indicating the threshold for statistical significance for this comparison"|independent U test|independent U test The statistical analysis was performed to compare the UPDRS III scores at V1 scores between the levodopa and pramipexole groups||||||0.341
90860600|NCT01470859|181584436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|||||"p\<0.05 is indicating the threshold for statistical significance for this comparison"|independent U test|independent U test The statistical analysis was performed to compare the UPDRS III scores at V2 scores between the levodopa and pramipexole groups||||||0.049
90959255|NCT00690820|181798426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The parameter was analyzed using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) including treatment, sequence and period as fixed effect and subject within sequence as a random effect.||||<0.001
90905698|NCT03389893|181678600|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|85.05||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.02|182.12|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is minuend and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 7||182.12|-12.02|0.085
90905699|NCT03389893|181678600|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.91||||0.733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-149.13|105.32|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is minuend and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 14||105.32|-149.13|0.733
90905700|NCT03389893|181678600|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-82.5||||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-189.6|24.61|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is minuend and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 21||24.61|-189.60|0.129
90905701|NCT03389893|181678600|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-92.11||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-187.11|2.89|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is minuend and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 28||2.89|-187.11|0.057
90905702|NCT03389893|181678600|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-48.76||||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-131.52|34.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is minuend and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 42||34.00|-131.52|0.242
90905703|NCT03389893|181678600|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-54.37||||0.262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-150.24|41.49|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is minuend and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 77, Lesional||41.49|-150.24|0.262
90905704|NCT03389893|181678600|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.97||||0.546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-99.79|53.86|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is minuend and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 112||53.86|-99.79|0.546
91105614|NCT03816891|182097789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|-1.9||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 17||-1.9|-4.2|<0.0001
91105615|NCT03816891|182097789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|-1.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 17||-1.6|-3.9|<0.0001
91105616|NCT03816891|182097789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.0087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.4||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 17||-0.4|-2.7|0.0087
90905705|NCT03389893|181678600|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.8||||0.503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-86.34|42.75|||Mixed Models Analysis||Day 77 is minuend and Day 42 is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 77 / Day 42||42.75|-86.34|0.503
90905706|NCT03389893|181678600|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-64.0||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-123.01|-4.98|||Mixed Models Analysis||Day 112 is minuend and Day 42 is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 112 / Day 42||-4.98|-123.01|0.034
90905707|NCT03389893|181678600|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.29||||0.789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-86.63|66.04|||Mixed Models Analysis||Day 77 is minuend and Day 42 is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 77 / Day 42||66.04|-86.63|0.789
90905708|NCT03389893|181678600|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-83.9||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-149.82|-17.98|||Mixed Models Analysis||Day 112 is minuend and Day 42 is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 112 / Day 42||-17.98|-149.82|0.014
90905709|NCT03389893|181678601|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.07||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.77|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is minuend and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 7||0.77|-0.92|0.860
90905710|NCT03389893|181678601|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.22||||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is minuend and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 14||0.41|-0.85|0.488
90905711|NCT03389893|181678601|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.55||||0.144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is minuend and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 21||0.20|-1.30|0.144
90905712|NCT03389893|181678601|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.35||||0.279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is minuend and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 28||0.30|-1.00|0.279
90905713|NCT03389893|181678601|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.29||||0.461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is minuend and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 42||0.50|-1.09|0.461
90905714|NCT03389893|181678601|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.27||||0.345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is minuend and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 77, Lesional||0.30|-0.84|0.345
90905715|NCT03389893|181678601|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.27||||0.275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is minuend and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 112||0.23|-0.77|0.275
90905716|NCT00958009|181678626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mean positive response|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.93|||||Confidence Interval calculated from normal approximation to the binomial. The primary objective was met if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval is \>0.50.|||0.93|0.80|
91105617|NCT03816891|182097789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|-1.4||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 18||-1.4|-3.8|<0.0001
90905717|NCT01438229|181678675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90905718|NCT04770220|181678726|OTHER|"For the primary efficacy outcome of ADAS-Cog 13, this study has \>90% power to detect a 3.0-point difference between the active ALZ-801 treatment and the placebo in the CBL to Week 78. An increase in ADAS-Cog scores denotes cognitive worsening.~The primary analysis population was the full analysis set (FAS). The FAS included all study subjects who received at least one dose of the study drug and had at least one baseline assessment and any post baseline efficacy assessment."|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98||0.6058|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was two-sided at the α=0.05 significance level. Between-treatment group comparison (effect in ALZ-801 minus effect in placebo): LSM difference and p-value.|MMRM||ALZ-801 minus placebo|"The null hypothesis was change from baseline (CBL) of ADAS-Cog13 in the ALZ-801 arm was not different from the placebo arm. The alternative hypothesis was that the CBL of ADAS-Cog13 in ALZ-801 arm was different.~A Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure (MMRM) model was used with fixed terms for treatment, gender, age group, disease severity based on baseline MMSE (≤ 26 vs. \> 26), concomitant AD medications, visit, and treatment by visit interaction and baseline ADAS-Cog 13 values as covariates."||||0.6058
90905719|NCT04770220|181678728|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.84||0.9966|TWO_SIDED|||||Nominal p-value|MMRM|Nominal (descriptive only)|ALZ-801 minus placebo|"The A-IADL-W is one of 2 key secondary endpoints. The key secondary efficacy endpoints were to be compared only after the comparison of the primary endpoint has reached statistical significance. Because the primary endpoint did not reach statistical significance, the comparisons for the key secondary endpoints are descriptive only.~The same MMRM method applied to the primary efficacy endpoint was used to evaluate the between-treatment difference for the key secondary endpoints."||||0.9966
90905720|NCT04770220|181678729|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.309|TWO_SIDED|||||Nominal p-value|MMRM||ALZ-801 minus placebo|"The CDR-SB is one of 2 key secondary endpoints. The key secondary efficacy endpoints were to be compared only after the comparison of the primary endpoint has reached statistical significance. Because the primary endpoint did not reach statistical significance, the comparisons for the key secondary endpoints are descriptive only.~The same MMRM method applied to the primary efficacy endpoint was used to evaluate the between-treatment difference for the key secondary endpoints."||||0.3090
90860601|NCT01470859|181584436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.874|TWO_SIDED|||||"p\<0.05 is indicating the threshold for statistical significance for this comparison"|independent U test|independent U test The statistical analysis was performed to compare the UPDRS III scores at V5 scores between the levodopa and pramipexole groups||||||0.874
90860602|NCT01470859|181584437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|||||"p\<0.05 is indicating the threshold for statistical significance for this comparison"|independent U test|independent U test The statistical analysis was performed to compare the PDQ39 scores between levodopa and pramipexole group at V1||||||0.720
90860603|NCT01470859|181584437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.867|TWO_SIDED|||||"p\<0.05 is indicating the threshold for statistical significance for this comparison"|independent U test|independent U test The statistical analysis was performed to compare the PDQ39 scores between levodopa and pramipexole group at V5||||||0.867
90860604|NCT01470859|181584438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.793|TWO_SIDED|||||"p\<0.05 is indicating the threshold for statistical significance for this comparison"|indenpendent U test|independent U test The statistical analysis was performed to compare the H\&Y stages between levodopa and pramipexole group at V1||||||0.793
90860605|NCT01470859|181584438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|||||"p\<0.05 is indicating the threshold for statistical significance for this comparison"|independent U test|independent U test The statistical analysis was performed to compare the H\&Y stages between levodopa and pramipexole groups at V5||||||0.430
90860606|NCT01470859|181584439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.345|TWO_SIDED|||||"p\<0.05 is indicating the threshold for statistical significance for this comparison"|Chi-squared|The statistical analysis was performed to compare the clinical improvement between levodopa and pramipexole groups at V2||||||0.345
90860607|NCT01470859|181584439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|||||"p\<0.05 is indicating the threshold for statistical significance for this comparison"|Chi-squared|The statistical analysis was performed to compare the clinical improvement between levodopa and pramipexole groups at V5||||||0.410
91105618|NCT03816891|182097789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-1.0||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 18||-1.0|-3.4|0.0003
91105619|NCT03816891|182097789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 18||-0.1|-2.4|0.359
90860608|NCT03708770|181584458|OTHER|No power calculation was performed for this study.||||||||||||||||"This was not a hypothesis-driven study. Therefore, there were no primary effectiveness or safety endpoints.~The Secondary Patency endpoint was calculated using a Kaplan-Meier analysis."|The Secondary Patency rate was determined via Kaplan-Meier methods.|||
90860609|NCT03708770|181584459|OTHER|No power calculation was performed for this study.||||||||||||||||"This was not a hypothesis-driven study. Therefore, there were no primary effectiveness or safety endpoints.~The Primary Patency endpoint was calculated using a Kaplan-Meier analysis."|The primary patency rate was determined via Kaplan-Meier methods.|||
90860610|NCT05268055|181584463|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.525|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Group comparison of all participants.||||0.525
90860611|NCT05268055|181584463|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.045|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Group comparison of participants less than age 33.||||0.045
90860612|NCT05268055|181584463|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Group comparison of participants age 33 and greater.||||0.046
90860613|NCT05268055|181584464|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Group comparison of all participants.||||0.200
90860614|NCT05268055|181584464|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.075|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Group comparison of participants less than age 33.||||0.075
90860615|NCT05268055|181584464|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Group comparison of participants age 33 and greater.||||0.015
90860616|NCT05268055|181584465|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.246|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Group comparison of all participants.||||0.246
90860617|NCT05268055|181584465|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.151|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Group comparison of participants less than age 33.||||0.151
91105620|NCT03816891|182097789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-0.9||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 19||-0.9|-3.3|0.0005
91105621|NCT03816891|182097789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-0.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 19||-0.6|-3.1|0.0027
91105622|NCT03816891|182097789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.0657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 19||0.1|-2.3|0.0657
91105623|NCT03816891|182097789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-0.7||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||-0.7|-3.1|0.0021
91105624|NCT03816891|182097789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.0172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.3||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||-0.3|-2.7|0.0172
91105625|NCT03816891|182097789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.1344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.3||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||-0.3|-2.1|0.1344
91105626|NCT03816891|182097789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.0134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.3||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 21||-0.3|-2.7|0.0134
91105627|NCT03816891|182097789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-0.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 21||-0.2|-2.6|0.0260
91105628|NCT03816891|182097789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.4||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 21||0.4|-1.9|0.2150
91105629|NCT03816891|182097789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.0271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-0.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 22||-0.2|-2.6|0.0271
90860618|NCT05268055|181584465|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.033|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Group comparison of participants age 33 and greater.||||0.033
90860619|NCT05268055|181584466|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.212|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Group comparison of all participants.||||0.212
90860620|NCT05268055|181584466|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.893|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Group comparison of participants less than age 33.||||0.893
90860621|NCT05268055|181584466|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Group comparison of participants age 33 and greater.||||0.160
90860622|NCT05268055|181584467|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.752|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Group comparison of self-rating scores on the Healthcare Provider Cultural Competence measure.||||0.752
90860623|NCT05268055|181584467|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.493|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Group comparison of self-rating scores on the Ask, Understand, Remember Assessment.||||0.493
90860624|NCT05268055|181584467|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.085|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Group comparison of self-rating scores on the Wake Forest Physician Trust Scale.||||0.085
90860625|NCT03507400|181584468|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.63
91105630|NCT03816891|182097789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.0502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.0||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 22||0.0|-2.5|0.0502
91105631|NCT03816891|182097789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.4138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.7||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 22||0.7|-1.7|0.4138
91105632|NCT03816891|182097789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.0738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 23||0.1|-2.4|0.0738
91105633|NCT03816891|182097789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.1247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.3||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 23||0.3|-2.2|0.1247
91105634|NCT03816891|182097789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.4572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.8||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 23||0.8|-1.7|0.4572
90905721|NCT04770220|181678730|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.2763|TWO_SIDED|||||Nominal p-value|MMRM|Nominal (descriptive only)|ALZ-801 minus placebo|The same MMRM method applied to the primary efficacy endpoint was used to evaluate the between-treatment difference for the additional secondary endpoints. The hypothesis testing was done without control for type I errors due to multiple comparisons, and the p-value was considered nominal.||||0.2763
90905722|NCT04770220|181678731|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.4484|TWO_SIDED|||||Nominal p-value|MMRM|Nominal (descriptive only)|ALZ-801 minus placebo|The same MMRM method applied to the primary efficacy endpoint was used to evaluate the between-treatment difference for the additional secondary endpoints. The hypothesis testing was done without control for type I errors due to multiple comparisons, and the p-value was considered nominal.||||0.4484
90905723|NCT04770220|181678732|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|73.505|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|30.711||0.0174|TWO_SIDED|||||Nominal p-value|MMRM||ALZ-801 minus placebo.|Analysis of the volumetric MRI outcomes were performed using the same MMRM approach described for analysis of the primary clinical endpoint. The MMRM model included treatment, the use of concomitant AD medications (AChEI or none), age group (50 through 65 years or \> 65 years), gender, disease severity based on baseline MMSE, baseline volumetric MRI value, visit, and treatment by visit interaction. The MRI magnet strength (1.5 or 3 Tesla) was also included as a covariate in the model.||||0.0174
90905724|NCT04770220|181678733|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.004||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||Nominal p-value|MMRM||ALZ-801 minus placebo|Analysis of the volumetric MRI outcomes were performed using the same MMRM approach described for analysis of the primary clinical endpoint. The MMRM model included treatment, the use of concomitant AD medications (AChEI or none), age group (50 through 65 years or \> 65 years), gender, disease severity based on baseline MMSE, baseline volumetric MRI value, visit, and treatment by visit interaction. The MRI magnet strength (1.5 or 3 Tesla) was also included as a covariate in the model.||||0.0020
90905725|NCT04770220|181678734|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.007||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Nominal p-value|MMRM||ALZ-801 minus placebo|Analysis of the volumetric MRI outcomes were performed using the same MMRM approach described for analysis of the primary clinical endpoint. The MMRM model included treatment, the use of concomitant AD medications (AChEI or none), age group (50 through 65 years or \> 65 years), gender, disease severity based on baseline MMSE, baseline volumetric MRI value, visit, and treatment by visit interaction. The MRI magnet strength (1.5 or 3 Tesla) was also included as a covariate in the model.||||0.0040
91105635|NCT03816891|182097789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.0617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||0.1|-2.4|0.0617
90905726|NCT04770220|181678735|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2821.027|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1366.533||0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||Nominal p-value|MMRM||ALZ-801 minus placebo|Analysis of the volumetric MRI outcomes were performed using the same MMRM approach described for analysis of the primary clinical endpoint. The MMRM model included treatment, the use of concomitant AD medications (AChEI or none), age group (50 through 65 years or \> 65 years), gender, disease severity based on baseline MMSE, baseline volumetric MRI value, visit, and treatment by visit interaction. The MRI magnet strength (1.5 or 3 Tesla) was also included as a covariate in the model.||||0.0400
90905727|NCT04770220|181678736|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1157.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|367.0||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|||||Nominal p-value|MMRM|||||||0.0018
90905728|NCT04770220|181678737|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.0000214|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00000111||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0000432|0.00000037||Nominal p-value|MMRM||ALZ-801 minus placebo|Analysis of the DTI-MRI outcomes were performed using the same MMRM approach described for analysis of the primary clinical endpoint. The MMRM model included treatment, the use of concomitant AD medications (AChEI or none), age group (50 through 65 years or \> 65 years), gender, disease severity based on baseline MMSE, baseline DTI-MRI value, visit, and treatment by visit interaction. The MRI magnet strength (1.5 or 3 Tesla) was also included as a covariate in the model.||0.00000037|-0.0000432|0.054
90905729|NCT04770220|181678738|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.0000228|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00000829||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0000391|-0.0000065||Nominal p-value|MMRM|||||-0.0000065|-0.0000391|0.0064
90905730|NCT04770220|181678739|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.009455|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00472||0.0465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0001469|0.01876||Nominal p-value|MMRM|||||0.01876|0.0001469|0.0465
90905731|NCT04770220|181678740|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.0416|TWO_SIDED|||||Nominal p-value|MMRM|||||||0.0416
90959256|NCT00690820|181798427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The parameter was analyzed using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) including treatment, sequence and period as fixed effect and subject within sequence as a random effect.||||<0.001
90959257|NCT00690820|181798428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The parameter was analyzed using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) including treatment, sequence and period as fixed effect and subject within sequence as a random effect.||||<0.001
90905732|NCT04770220|181678741|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02||0.3945|TWO_SIDED|||||Nominal p-value|MMRM|||||||0.3945
90905733|NCT04770220|181678742|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.07||0.2682|TWO_SIDED|||||Nominal p-value|MMRM|||||||0.2682
90905734|NCT04770220|181678743|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.96||0.2178|TWO_SIDED|||||Nominal p-value|MMRM|||||||0.2178
90905735|NCT04770220|181678744|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.646|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.333||0.0533|TWO_SIDED|||||Nominal p-value|MMRM|||||||0.0533
90905736|NCT04770220|181678745|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.127|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.314||0.6854|TWO_SIDED|||||Nominal p-value|MMRM|||||||0.6854
90905737|NCT04770220|181678746|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.52||0.0161|TWO_SIDED|||||Nominal p-value|MMRM|||||||0.0161
90959258|NCT00690820|181798429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The parameter was analyzed using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) including treatment, sequence and period as fixed effect and subject within sequence as a random effect.||||<0.001
91105636|NCT03816891|182097789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||0.1|-2.4|0.677
90860626|NCT03507400|181584468|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon paired test||pooled comparison of the participants of the non-waiting list and the waiting list before and after Introvision||||0.003
90860627|NCT03507400|181584470|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.004
91105637|NCT03816891|182097789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.4688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.8||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||0.8|-1.7|0.4688
90860628|NCT03507400|181584471|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon paired test||||||0.003
90860629|NCT03507400|181584472|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon paired test||||||0.001
90860630|NCT03507400|181584473|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon paired test||||||0.001
90860631|NCT03507400|181584477|SUPERIORITY|Wilcoxon paired test||||||0.04|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.04
90860632|NCT03507400|181584477|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.25
90860633|NCT03507400|181584477|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.02
90860634|NCT01555983|181584478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cochran-Armitage trend tes|0.0001|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The number needed to treat (NNT) to achieve 30% pain reduction during the 8-hour period was 4 (95% CI: 2.1-25.3) for the lower dose vs. placebo, and 3 (95% CI: 1.6-4.2) for the higher dose versus placebo.||||<.05
90860635|NCT04026711|181584479|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum|||||||0.81
90860636|NCT00717093|181584510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|3.58||p-values obtained from logistic regression model including main effects of treatment and center|Regression, Logistic|Missing salivary cotinine values imputed as negative|Odds ratio obtained from logistic regression model including main effects of treatment and center|||3.58|1.59|<0.0001
90860637|NCT00717093|181584511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.0118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|2.58||p-value obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment and center|Regression, Logistic|Missing salivary cotinine values were imputed as negative|Odds Ratio obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment and center|Week 26||2.58|1.12|0.0118
90860638|NCT00717093|181584512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|2.67|||Regression, Logistic|Missing salivary cotinine values were imputed as negative.||||2.67|1.17|0.0063
91105638|NCT03816891|182097789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.1093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 25||0.2|-2.2|0.1093
91105639|NCT03816891|182097789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.1196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.3||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 25||0.3|-2.2|0.1196
91105640|NCT03816891|182097789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.5763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.9||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 25||0.9|-1.5|0.5763
90860639|NCT00717093|181584513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|3.41||p-value obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment and center|Regression, Logistic|Missing salivary cotinine was imputed as negative|Odds ratio obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment and center|Week 12||3.41|1.52|<0.0001
90860640|NCT00717093|181584513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.0919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|2.13||p-value obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment and center|Regression, Logistic|Missing salivary cotinine was imputed as negative|Odds ratio obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment and center|Week 26||2.13|0.94|0.0919
90860641|NCT02903355|181584514|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4385|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.4385
90860642|NCT02903355|181584515|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5562|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.5562
90860643|NCT02903355|181584516|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5441|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.5441
90860644|NCT02903355|181584517|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3666|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.3666
90860645|NCT02903355|181584518|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4446|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.4446
90860646|NCT02903355|181584519|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5431|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.5431
90860647|NCT02903355|181584520|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7409|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.7409
90860648|NCT02903355|181584521|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1597|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.1597
90860649|NCT02903355|181584522|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2784|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||.2784
90860650|NCT02903355|181584523|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2303|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.2303
90860651|NCT00546104|181584536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.0||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.0|9.0||The p-value is from a paired t-test to test the null hypothesis the mean relative change in Src from baseline to 4 weeks is equal to zero.|t-test, 2 sided|||The median change in SRC from baseline to 4 weeks was estimated.||9|-30|0.3
90860652|NCT00546104|181584537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1|||t-test, 1 sided|||||.10|-.30|0.3
90860653|NCT02699697|181584551|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.869||||0.8325|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.8325
90860654|NCT02699697|181584552|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5593|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Continuous pain scale p-value at 3 months||||0.5593
90860655|NCT02699697|181584552|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8133|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Continuous pain scale p-value at 6 months||||0.8133
90860656|NCT02699697|181584553|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3058|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Narcotic use at 3 months||||0.3058
90860657|NCT02699697|181584553|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5337|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Narcotic use at 6 months||||0.5337
90860658|NCT02699697|181584554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4182|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Physical Functioning p-value at 3 months||||0.4182
90860659|NCT02699697|181584554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Emotional functioning p-value at 3 months||||0.8700
91105641|NCT03816891|182097789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.0661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 26||0.1|-2.4|0.0661
90905738|NCT04770220|181678747|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.51||0.8387|TWO_SIDED|||||Nominal p-value|MMRM|||||||0.8387
91105642|NCT03816891|182097789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.0622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 26||0.1|-2.4|0.0622
90860660|NCT02699697|181584554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7008|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Symptom Scales - Dyspnea at 3 months||||0.7008
90860661|NCT02699697|181584554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9562|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Symptom Scale Pain at 3 months||||0.9562
90860662|NCT02699697|181584554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4951|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Symptom Scale Insomnia at 3 months||||0.4951
90860663|NCT02699697|181584554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7868|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Symptom Scale Fatigue at 3 months||||0.7868
90860664|NCT02699697|181584554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Symptom Scale Appetite loss at 3 months||||0.2200
90860665|NCT02699697|181584554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7998|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Symptom Scale Nausea/vomiting at 3 months||||0.7998
90860666|NCT02699697|181584554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7998|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Symptom Scale Constipation at 3 months||||0.7998
90860667|NCT02699697|181584554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7409|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Symptom Scale Quality of Life at 3 months||||0.7409
90860668|NCT02699697|181584554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0128|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Physical Functioning at 6 months||||0.0128
90905739|NCT04770220|181678748|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.0795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.103|1.845||Nominal p-value|MMRM|||||1.845|-0.103|0.0795
91105643|NCT03816891|182097789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.4677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.8||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 26||0.8|-1.6|0.4677
90959259|NCT00690820|181798430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.671||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The parameter was analyzed using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) including treatment, sequence and period as fixed effect and subject within sequence as a random effect.||||0.671
90860669|NCT02699697|181584554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5861|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Emotional Functioning at 6 months||||0.5861
90860670|NCT02699697|181584554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3561|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Symptom Scales - Dyspnea at 6 months||||0.3561
90860671|NCT02699697|181584554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1647|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Symptom Scales - Pain at 6 months||||0.1647
90860672|NCT02699697|181584554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3571|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Symptom Scales - Insomnia at 6 months||||0.3571
90860673|NCT02699697|181584554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1494|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Symptom Scales - Fatigue at 6 months||||0.1494
90860674|NCT02699697|181584554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8424|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Symptom Scales - Appetite loss at 6 months||||0.8424
90860675|NCT02699697|181584554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3287|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Symptom Scales - Nausea/vomiting at 6 months||||0.3287
90860676|NCT02699697|181584554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0961|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Symptom Scales - Constipation at 6 months||||0.0961
90860677|NCT02699697|181584556|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8444|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||At 3 months, total score for PSCC-18||||0.8444
90860678|NCT02699697|181584556|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8946|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||At 6 months, total score for PSCC-18||||0.8946
90860679|NCT02699697|181584557|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Perceived helplessness total at 3 months||||0.6700
90860680|NCT02699697|181584557|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.435|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Perceived self-efficacy total at 3 months||||0.4350
90860681|NCT02699697|181584557|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6131|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Total PSS-10 score at 3 months||||0.6131
90860682|NCT02699697|181584557|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2518|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Perceived helplessness total at 6 months||||0.2518
90860683|NCT02699697|181584557|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5529|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Perceived self-efficacy total||||0.5529
90860684|NCT02699697|181584557|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2833|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Total PSS-10 score at 6 months||||0.2833
90860685|NCT02699697|181584558|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3784|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Appraisal Support subscale total at 3 months||||0.3784
90860686|NCT02699697|181584558|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.664|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Belonging Support subscale total at 3 months||||0.6640
90860687|NCT02699697|181584558|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1745|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Tangible Support subscale total at 3 months||||0.1745
90860688|NCT02699697|181584558|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5792|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Total ISEL score at 3 months||||0.5792
90860689|NCT02699697|181584558|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6814|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Appraisal Support subscale total at 6 months||||0.6814
90860690|NCT02699697|181584558|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5219|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Belonging Support subscale total at 6 months||||0.5219
90860691|NCT02699697|181584558|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5516|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Tangible Support subscale total||||0.5516
90860692|NCT02699697|181584558|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4329|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Total ISEL score at 6 months||||0.4329
90860693|NCT01426438|181584589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|TWO_SIDED||||||Sign test|Stratified exact Wilcoxon signed rank test. Stratified by screening HDL-C level and statin use within 90 days prior to study entry.||||||0.28
90905740|NCT04770220|181678749|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.8169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|0.845||Nominal p-value|MMRM|||||0.845|-1.070|0.8169
90905741|NCT04770220|181678750|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|108.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|37.46||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|||||Nominal p-value|MMRM|||||||0.0042
90959260|NCT00690820|181798431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The parameter was analyzed using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) including treatment, sequence and period as fixed effect and subject within sequence as a random effect.||||0.003
91105644|NCT03816891|182097789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.0854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 27||0.1|-2.2|0.0854
90905742|NCT04770220|181678751|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|51.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|32.42||0.1145|TWO_SIDED|||||Nominal p-value|MMRM|||||||0.1145
90905743|NCT04770220|181678752|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.005|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Nominal p-value|MMRM|||||||< 0.0001
90905744|NCT04770220|181678753|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.004||0.0985|TWO_SIDED|||||Nominal p-value|MMRM|||||||0.0985
90905745|NCT04770220|181678754|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.033|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.009||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|||||Nominal p-value|MMRM|||||||0.0002
90905746|NCT04770220|181678755|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.014|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.008||0.0699|TWO_SIDED|||||Nominal p-value|MMRM|||||||0.0699
90905747|NCT04770220|181678756|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|3843.824|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1726.729||0.0267|TWO_SIDED|||||Nominal p-value|MMRM|||||||0.0267
90905748|NCT04770220|181678757|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2164.299|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1457.282||0.1386|TWO_SIDED|||||Nominal p-value|MMRM|||||||0.1386
90905749|NCT04770220|181678758|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1312.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|437.0||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|||||Nominal p-value|MMRM|||||||0.0029
91105645|NCT03816891|182097789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.0768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 27||0.1|-2.3|0.0768
91105646|NCT03816891|182097789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.5||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 27||0.5|-1.9|0.2560
90905750|NCT04770220|181678759|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1057.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|386.0||0.0065|TWO_SIDED|||||Nominal p-value|MMRM|||||||0.0065
90905751|NCT04770220|181678760|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|149.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|89.801||0.0966|TWO_SIDED|||||Nominal p-value|MMRM|||Analysis of the volumetric MRI outcomes were performed using the same MMRM approach described for analysis of the primary clinical endpoint. The MMRM model included treatment, the use of concomitant AD medications (AChEI or none), age group (50 through 65 years or \> 65 years), gender, disease severity based on baseline MMSE, baseline volumetric MRI value, visit, and treatment by visit interaction. The MRI magnet strength (1.5 or 3 Tesla) was also included as a covariate in the model.||||0.0966
90905752|NCT04770220|181678761|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|137.943|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|112.257||0.22|TWO_SIDED|||||Nominal p-value|MMRM|||||||0.2200
90905753|NCT04770220|181678762|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|157.414|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|95.523||0.1005|TWO_SIDED|||||Nominal p-value|MMRM|||||||0.1005
90905754|NCT04894903|181678769|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.68||This is the calculated p-value. We used an alpha level of 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline number of gaps||||0.68|0.30|<0.001
90905755|NCT04894903|181678771|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.57||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.62|0.20|0.29
90905756|NCT04894903|181678772|OTHER||beta coefficient|-0.04||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.17|-0.24|0.74
90905757|NCT04894903|181678773|OTHER||beta coefficient|-0.04||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.51|-0.60|0.88
90905758|NCT04894903|181678774|OTHER||beta coefficient|-1.24||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.19|0.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.71|-3.19|0.21
90905759|NCT04894903|181678777|OTHER||beta coefficient|0.47||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|1.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.22|-0.27|0.21
90905760|NCT01923428|181678779|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|27.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90905761|NCT02941146|181678839|OTHER||sucess proportion|64.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.1|87.2||||||||87.2|35.1|
90905762|NCT02331940|181678852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88||||||p\<0.05 was considered statistically significant|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.88
90905763|NCT01450943|181678856|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.712595||||0.0517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9141|8.4839|||Fisher Exact|||||8.4839|0.9141|0.0517
90905764|NCT01450943|181678857|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.812339||||0.7974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2543|2.5224|||Fisher Exact|||||2.5224|0.2543|0.7974
90905765|NCT01345292|181678859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.556|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.37|14.5||If Sensodyne is better than Crest Regular (p\<0.05), testing would proceed to comparison of Wk 2 Mean Tactile Sensitivity Scores between Sensodyne and Crest Regular. Family-wise error was controlled at 0.05.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean tactile sensitivity (Yeaple probe) score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||14.50|8.37|<0.001
90905766|NCT01345292|181678859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.566|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.24|11.42||If Potassium Oxalate Mouth Rinse is better than Crest Regular (p\<0.05), testing would proceed to comparison of Wk 2 Mean Tactile Sensitivity Scores between Potassium Oxalate Mouth Rinse and Crest Regular. Family-wise error was controlled at 0.05.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean tactile sensitivity (Yeaple probe) score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||11.42|5.24|<0.001
90905767|NCT01345292|181678860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.812|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|4.65||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided). Family-wise error was controlled at 0.05.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean tactile sensitivity (Yeaple probe) score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||4.65|1.45|<0.001
90959261|NCT00690820|181798432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The parameter was analyzed using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) including treatment, sequence and period as fixed effect and subject within sequence as a random effect.||||0.023
90905768|NCT01345292|181678860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.818||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|4.02||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided). Family-wise error was controlled at 0.05.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean tactile sensitivity (Yeaple probe) score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||4.02|0.80|0.004
90905769|NCT01345292|181678861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.091||0.324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.19|2.06||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean tactile sensitivity VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||2.06|-6.19|0.324
90905770|NCT01345292|181678861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.093||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.56|-0.31||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean tactile sensitivity VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-0.31|-8.56|0.035
90905771|NCT01345292|181678862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.551|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|-3.52||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean tactile sensitivity VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-3.52|-13.6|<0.001
90905772|NCT01345292|181678862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.553|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|-5.13||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean tactile sensitivity VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-5.13|-15.2|<0.001
90905773|NCT01345292|181678863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.271||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.38|-0.43||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean cold air stimulus VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-0.43|-9.38|0.032
90905774|NCT01345292|181678863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.288||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.93|1.09||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean cold air stimulus VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||1.09|-7.93|0.136
90905775|NCT01345292|181678864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.508|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.1|-6.23||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean cold air stimulus VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-6.23|-16.1|<0.001
90905776|NCT01345292|181678864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.527|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|-5.25||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean cold air stimulus VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-5.25|-15.2|<0.001
90905777|NCT01345292|181678865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.012||0.533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.22|2.71||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean global subjective VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||2.71|-5.22|0.533
90905778|NCT01345292|181678865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.023||0.522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.29|2.69||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean global subjective VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||2.69|-5.29|0.522
91105647|NCT03816891|182097789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.0337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-0.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 28||-0.1|-2.5|0.0337
90905779|NCT01345292|181678866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.331|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|-3.94||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean global subjective VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-3.94|-13.1|<0.001
90905780|NCT01345292|181678866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.344||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|-1.51||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean global subjective VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-1.51|-10.8|0.010
91105648|NCT03816891|182097789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.0778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 28||0.1|-2.3|0.0778
90905781|NCT01207908|181678874|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.5||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.1|20.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||20.1|-37.1|0.53
90905782|NCT01207908|181678875|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.78|-1.55|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-1.55|-3.78|<0.0001
90905783|NCT01207908|181678876|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.56||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|2.38|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.38|-1.26|0.53
90905784|NCT00951561|181678910|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size calculation is performed in nQuery version 5.0 with the following stipulations: alpha is 0.05; response for both ibuprofen and Vipon is 85%; delta is 10%; no difference in response rates is expected between the two treatment arms, and power is 80%. This calculation is performed for an equivalence/non-inferiority primary analysis.|Difference in % of Uses from Mixed Model|-1.6|||<|0.05||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
90905785|NCT02092987|181678911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||interaction term|||||0.7|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hypothesis testing in changes in mean from baseline to follow-up were were conducted primarily with mixed models. Sensitivity analyses were conducted using ANOVA.||||0.70
90905786|NCT02092987|181678912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.77||||||comparison of arms using mixed models|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.77
90905787|NCT02092987|181678913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.51|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.51
90905788|NCT02092987|181678914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.51|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.51
90905789|NCT02092987|181678915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.76|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.76
90905790|NCT02092987|181678916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.79|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.79
90905791|NCT02092987|181678917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.62|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.62
90905792|NCT02967016|181678926|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Cumulative Steps 6 h||||0.002
90905793|NCT02967016|181678926|OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Cumulative steps 12 h||||.0002
90905794|NCT02967016|181678926|OTHER|||||||0.0006|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Cumulative steps 24 h||||.0006
90905795|NCT02967016|181678926|OTHER|||||||0.0006|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Cumulative steps 36 h||||0.0006
90905796|NCT02967016|181678926|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Cumulative steps 48 h||||0.03
90905797|NCT02967016|181678927|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Pain at rest 6 h||||0.06
90905798|NCT02967016|181678927|OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Pain at rest 12 h||||.30
90905799|NCT02967016|181678927|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Pain at rest 24 h||||.002
90905800|NCT02967016|181678927|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Pain at rest 36 h||||0.003
90905801|NCT02967016|181678927|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Pain at rest at 48 h||||.02
90905802|NCT02967016|181678928|OTHER|||||||0.43|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Satisfaction with pain control 6 h||||.43
90905803|NCT02967016|181678928|OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Satisfaction with pain control 12 h||||.24
90905804|NCT02967016|181678928|OTHER|||||||0.012|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Satisfaction with pain control 24 h||||.012
90905805|NCT02967016|181678928|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Satisfaction with pain control 36 h||||<0.0001
90905806|NCT02967016|181678928|OTHER|||||||0.0005|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Satisfaction with pain control 48 h||||.0005
90905807|NCT02403674|181678929|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 95% CI of the mean treatment difference was greater than -10.|Difference in percentages|3.537|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.951|9.026|||||The 95% CIs for difference in percentages were calculated using stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method for each stratum (HIV-1 RNA ≤100,000 or \>100,000 copies/mL).|||9.026|-1.951|
90905808|NCT02403674|181678930|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was declared when the 1-sided p-value comparing treatment difference was \<0.02497.|Difference in percentages|-28.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.0|-22.5||2-sided P-value|t-test, 2 sided||95% CIs were calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Dizziness difference||-22.5|-34.0|<0.001
90905809|NCT02403674|181678930|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was declared when the 1-sided p-value comparing treatment difference was \<0.02497.|Difference in percentages|-13.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.1|-7.9||2-sided P-value|t-test, 2 sided||95% CIs were calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Sleep disorders and disturbances difference||-7.9|-19.1|<0.001
90905810|NCT02403674|181678930|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was declared when the 1-sided p-value comparing treatment difference was \<0.02497.|Difference in percentages|-3.8||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|-0.3||2-sided P-value|t-test, 2 sided||95% CIs were calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Altered sensorium difference||-0.3|-7.6|0.033
90905811|NCT02403674|181678931|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 95% CI of the mean treatment difference was greater than -10|Difference in percentages|3.815|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.412|10.042|||||The 95% CIs for difference in percentages were calculated using stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method for each stratum (HIV-1 RNA ≤100,000 or \>100,000 copies/mL).|||10.042|-2.412|
90905812|NCT02403674|181678932|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 95% CI of the mean treatment difference was greater than -10.|Difference in percentages|4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|9.7|||||The 95% CIs for difference in percentages were calculated using stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method for each stratum (HIV-1 RNA ≤100,000 or \>100,000 copies/mL).|||9.7|-1.5|
90905813|NCT02403674|181678933|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 95% CI of the mean treatment difference was greater than -10|Difference in percentages|3.268|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.057|9.593|||||The 95% CIs for difference in percentages were calculated using stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method for each stratum (HIV-1 RNA ≤100,000 or \>100,000 copies/mL).|||9.593|-3.057|
90905814|NCT02403674|181678934|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was declared when group difference (MK-1439A-ATRIPLA®) was a positive value.|Difference in mean %change from baseline|10.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.1|36.3|||||95% CIs were calculated based on t-distribution.|||36.3|-16.1|
90905815|NCT02403674|181678935|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was declared when group difference (MK-1439A-ATRIPLA) was a positive value|Diff in mean % change from baseline|14.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.7|48.2|||||The 95% CI for mean difference in CD4 change was based on t-distribution.|||48.2|-18.7|
90905816|NCT02403674|181678936|OTHER|Difference in percentage of participants with ≥1 AE(s)|Difference in percentages|-8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|-3.1|||||95% CIs were calculated with the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||-3.1|-13.0|
90905817|NCT02403674|181678937|OTHER|Difference in percentage of participants with ≥1 AE(s)|Difference in percentages|-3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|-0.5|||||95% CIs were calculated with the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||-0.5|-6.9|
90905818|NCT02403674|181678938|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was declared when the 1-sided p-value comparing treatment difference was \<0.02497.|Difference in percentages|-2.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|0.8||2-sided P-value|t-test, 2 sided||95% CIs were calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Depression and suicide/self-injury difference||0.8|-5.9|<0.001
90905819|NCT02403674|181678938|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was declared when the 1-sided p-value comparing treatment difference was \<0.02497.|Difference in percentages|-0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.5||2-sided P-value|t-test, 2 sided||95% CIs were calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Psychosis and psychotic disorders difference||0.5|-2.5|<0.001
90905820|NCT02403674|181678939|SUPERIORITY||Difference in mean %change from baseline|-10.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.53|-6.49|||ANCOVA||95% CIs and 2-sided p-values for treatment difference were calculated from an ANCOVA model with terms for baseline lipid level and treatment.|||-6.49|-13.53|<0.0001
90905821|NCT02403674|181678940|SUPERIORITY||Difference in mean %change from baseline|-17.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.89|-13.16|||ANCOVA||95% CIs and 2-sided p-values for treatment difference were calculated from an ANCOVA model with terms for baseline lipid level and treatment.|||-13.16|-20.89|<0.0001
90905822|NCT02403674|181678941|SUPERIORITY||Difference in mean %change from baseline|-23.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.57|-19.32|||||95% CIs for treatment difference were calculated from an ANCOVA model with terms for baseline lipid level and treatment.|||-19.32|-27.57|
90905823|NCT02403674|181678942|SUPERIORITY||Difference in mean %change from baseline|-35.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.1|-24.82|||||95% CIs for treatment difference were calculated from an ANCOVA model with terms for baseline lipid level and treatment.|||-24.82|-47.10|
90905824|NCT02403674|181678943|SUPERIORITY||Difference in mean %change from baseline|-6.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.97|-4.96|||||95% CIs for treatment difference were calculated from an ANCOVA model with terms for baseline lipid level and treatment.|||-4.96|-7.97|
90905825|NCT04365413|181679003|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.069|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||||||<0.0001
90905826|NCT04365413|181679004|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.042|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||||||<0.0001
90959262|NCT01249274|181798448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.19||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.36|||Generalized Estimating Equation|Negative binomial distribution, log link, and first-order autoregressive covariance structure|Estimated value is the risk ratio estimate for the treatment x time interaction term. Time was treated as a continuous variable and progesterone was the reference group for the treatment variable.|||1.36|1.04|0.010
91035947|NCT03261167|181958553|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.63|||||Week 2, Thumb flexion. Analysis method was MMRM with Treatment, Visit, Treatment by visit interation, Baseline, and Baseline by visit interaction as fixed effects.|||0.63|-0.08|
90905827|NCT03019458|181679006|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.084||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons but rather it is the priori threshold for statistical significance at p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|We adjusted for baseline Eating Assessment Tool-10 (EAT-10), MGH-Swallowing Screening Test (MGH-SST), and the Burkes-Fahn-Marsden Dysonia Scale (BFM).||||||0.084
90905828|NCT01207934|181679052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0||||ANOVA for reapeated measures was used to compare the three groups.|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis was that there would be no change in glucose disposal between the three groups (placebo, low dose leptin, and high dose leptin). Power calculations were done showing that 6 subjects in each arm was enough to detect a 35% between group difference in glucose disposal at the 0.05 level with 80% power.||||>0.05
90905829|NCT01207934|181679053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0||||a priori threshold for significance was set at p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|T-tests compared pre and post-treatment values.||The null hypothesis is that treatment would not effect plasma leptin levels.||||<0.01
90905830|NCT01207934|181679053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0||||a priori threshold for significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||null hypothesis was that plasma leptin levels would be equal after treatment in the placebo and high-dose leptin groups.||||<0.01
90905831|NCT04004208|181679056|NON_INFERIORITY|Non inferiority margin is 5%. Confidence interval actually refers to a credible interval based on the Bayesian analysis.|Difference in proportions|0.034|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.08|0.162||||||Bayesian analysis with non-informative prior distributions. Calculation of two-sided 90% credible interval for the treatment difference (aflibercept - laser photocoagulation).||0.162|-0.08|
90905832|NCT04004208|181679057|OTHER|Confidence interval actually refers to a credible interval based on the Bayesian analysis.|Difference in proportions|-0.023|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.11|0.046||||||Bayesian analysis with non-informative prior distributions. Calculation of two-sided 90% credible interval for the treatment difference (aflibercept - laser photocoagulation).||0.046|-0.11|
90905833|NCT04004208|181679058|OTHER|Confidence interval actually refers to a credible interval based on the Bayesian analysis.|Difference in proportions|0.096|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.019|0.175||||||Bayesian analysis with non-informative prior distributions. Calculation of two-sided 90% credible interval for the treatment difference (aflibercept - laser photocoagulation).||0.175|0.019|
90905834|NCT00087490|181679072|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Linezolid was claimed non-inferior to vancomycin if the lower limit of 95% CI for the difference in cure rate is greater than the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) suggested boundary of delta= -0.10.|Percent Difference|4.2||||0.249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|11.5|||Chi-squared|||The percent difference was calculated by percentage of participants cured in linezolid arm minus the percentage of participants cured in vancomycin arm along with 2-sided 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI).||11.5|-3.0|0.249
90905835|NCT00087490|181679073|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Linezolid was claimed non-inferior to vancomycin if the lower limit of 95% CI for the difference in cure rate is greater than the FDA suggested boundary of delta= -0.10.|Percent Difference|3.9||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|9.5|||Chi-squared|||The percent difference was calculated by percentage of participants cured in linezolid arm minus the percentage of participants cured in vancomycin arm along with 2-sided 95% CI.||9.5|-1.7|0.168
90970966|NCT00677014|181824171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.66||95.0|||||ANOVA|As LVESV values were non normal by Q-Q analysis and Shapiro-Wilk test (p\<.05), a square root transform was used. model adjusted for baseline LVESV.||Gate keeping strategy utilized for Type 1 error control described in design paper - negative results observed for initial comparisons - (each at alpha = .05) between fixed and algorithm optimized AV delay and fixed and Echo optimzied AV. Results from both of these comparisons were non-significant.||||.66
90860694|NCT01426438|181584589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19|TWO_SIDED||||||Sign test|Stratified exact Wilcoxon signed rank test. Stratified by screening HDL-C level and statin use within 90 days prior to study entry.||||||0.19
90860695|NCT01788046|181584603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|30.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.18|52.17|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by screening PTH category (\< 600, ≥ 600 to ≤ 1000, and \> 1000 pg/mL), recent cinacalcet use within 8 weeks before randomization (yes and no), and region (North America and non-North America) was used to compare the primary endpoint of percentage of participants with \> 30% reduction from baseline in PTH during the EAP between etelcalcetide and placebo.||52.17|18.18|< 0.001
90860696|NCT01788046|181584604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|33.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.35|70.37|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by screening PTH category, prior cinacalcet use within 8 weeks prior to randomization, and region.||||70.37|16.35|< 0.001
90860697|NCT01788046|181584605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|-71.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.53|-65.14|||Repeated Measures Mixed Effects Model|Repeated measures mixed-effects model included treatment, stratification factors, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as covariates.|Etelcalcetide - Placebo|||-65.14|-77.53|< 0.001
90860698|NCT01788046|181584606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|-7.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.38|-6.03|||Repeated Measures Mixed Effects Model|Repeated measures mixed-effects model included treatment, stratification factors, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as covariates.|Etelcalcetide - Placebo|||-6.03|-8.38|< 0.001
90860699|NCT01788046|181584607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|-14.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.65|-10.51|||Repeated Measures Mixed Effects Model|Repeated measures mixed-effects model included treatment, stratification factors, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as covariates.|Etelcalcetide - Placebo|||-10.51|-18.65|< 0.001
90860700|NCT01788046|181584608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|-8.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.15|-3.92|||Repeated Measures Mixed Effects Model|Repeated measures mixed-effects model included treatment, stratification factors, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as covariates.|Etelcalcetide - Placebo|||-3.92|-12.15|< 0.001
90860701|NCT01188421|181584609|SUPERIORITY||F-value for main effect of Group|1.31||||0.275|TWO_SIDED|||||Main effect of Group (e.g., Buprenorphine, Tramadol, Clonidine) on COWS Total Score Ratings|ANOVA|||A power analysis determined 40 participants in each group would detect a moderate effect size, assuming an alpha of 0.05 and 80% power. Due to the expiration of buprenorphine tablets, recruitment was terminated after enrolling 103 participants. This study utilized an Intent-to-Treat (ITT) analysis. The ITT analysis includes all volunteers who signed informed consent, were randomized into the study's treatment conditions, and took at least 1 dose of study medication.||||.275
90860702|NCT01188421|181584609|SUPERIORITY||F-value for main effect of Phase|3.57||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|||||Main effect for Phase (e.g., Stabilization, Taper, Post-Taper) on COWS total score.|ANOVA|||||||0.03
90860703|NCT01188421|181584609|SUPERIORITY||F-value for the main effect of Group x P|2.03||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|||||Main effect for Group x Phase interaction on COWS Total Score|ANOVA|||||||0.092
90860704|NCT01604408|181584616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.426|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.192|0.66|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||0.660|0.192|<0.001
90860705|NCT01604408|181584617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.461||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.883|-0.039|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||-0.039|-0.883|0.073
90860706|NCT01604408|181584618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.062||||0.191|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.4|0.276|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||0.276|-2.400|0.191
90860707|NCT01604408|181584619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.017||||0.478|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.023|0.057|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||0.057|-0.023|0.478
90860708|NCT02664610|181584664|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.60
90860709|NCT02664610|181584665|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.79
90860710|NCT04102098|181584675|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.93|||Log Rank|||Stratification factors include geographic region (Asia Pacific excluding Japan vs. rest of world) and High risk features/curative procedure (Ablation vs. Resection with 1 high risk feature vs. Resection with 2 or more high risk features).||0.93|0.56|0.0120
90860711|NCT03150173|181584690|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.94
90860712|NCT03150173|181584691|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.148|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.148
90860713|NCT03150173|181584692|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.445||||0.6132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.347|6.018|||Regression, Logistic|Adjustment for baseline self-report of injection-related HIV risk behaviors in the past 30 days||||6.018|0.347|0.6132
90860714|NCT03150173|181584693|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.051|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.051
90860715|NCT03150173|181584694|SUPERIORITY||probability of cost effectiveness|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||||Data generated from the bootstrapping process were used to construct cost-effectiveness acceptability curves (CEACs), which effectively measure the uncertainty around the ICER point estimate.|||
90860716|NCT03150173|181584695|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1||||||This is an actual calculated value not a threshold value|non-parametric bootstrapping|Non-parametric bootstrapping of adjusted mean values with 1000 iterations||||||0.10
90860717|NCT03150173|181584696|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||This is an actual calculated value not a threshold value.|non-parametric bootstrapping|Non-parametric bootstrapping of adjusted mean values with 1000 iterations||||||< 0.01
90860718|NCT03150173|181584697|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.011
90860719|NCT03150173|181584698|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.098|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.098
90860720|NCT03150173|181584699|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.256|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.256
90860721|NCT03755791|181584702|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.44|0.91|||Log Rank|||||0.91|0.44|0.0012
90860722|NCT03755791|181584703|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.9056|TWO_SIDED|96.0|0.78|1.24|||Log Rank|||||1.24|0.78|0.9056
90860723|NCT02083081|181584723|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||||||0.38
90860724|NCT02083081|181584724|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||||||0.45
90860725|NCT02083081|181584725|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||||||0.96
90860726|NCT03109847|181584735|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.52||||0.404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|2.29|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.29|-1.26|0.404
90860727|NCT02955797|181584752|NON_INFERIORITY|95% confidence interval (CI) was stratified on the priming status (meningococcal vaccine naïve or primed monovalent MenC vaccination during infancy) and calculated using the Wald method (normal approximation). Weighted average of the difference over strata was calculated using the Minimal Risk weights with the null variance method. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between the 2 percentages was greater than (\>) -10%.|Percentage difference|-2.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.84|1.78||||||Serogroup A||1.78|-5.84|
90860728|NCT02955797|181584752|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI was stratified on the priming status (meningococcal vaccine naïve or primed monovalent MenC vaccination during infancy) and calculated using the Wald method (normal approximation). Weighted average of the difference over strata was calculated using the Minimal Risk weights with the null variance method. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between the 2 percentages was \> -10%.|Percentage difference|12.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.16|16.1||||||Serogroup C||16.1|8.16|
90860729|NCT02955797|181584752|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI was stratified on the priming status (meningococcal vaccine naïve or primed monovalent MenC vaccination during infancy) and calculated using the Wald method (normal approximation). Weighted average of the difference over strata was calculated using the Minimal Risk weights with the null variance method. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between the 2 percentages was \> -10%.|Percentage difference|2.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|6.19||||||Serogroup Y||6.19|-1.34|
90860730|NCT02955797|181584752|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI was stratified on the priming status (meningococcal vaccine naïve or primed monovalent MenC vaccination during infancy) and calculated using the Wald method (normal approximation). Weighted average of the difference over strata was calculated using the Minimal Risk weights with the null variance method. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between the 2 percentages was \> -10%.|Percentage difference|0.458|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.37|5.28||||||Serogroup W||5.28|-4.37|
90860731|NCT02955797|181584753|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI of the difference in percentages was computed using the Wilson Score method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between the 2 percentages was \> -10%.|Percentage difference|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|6.2||||||Serogroup A||6.2|-3.6|
90860732|NCT02955797|181584753|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI of the difference in percentages was computed using the Wilson Score method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between the 2 percentages was \> -10%.|Percentage difference|18.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.6|22.8||||||Serogroup C||22.8|13.6|
90860733|NCT02955797|181584753|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI of the difference in percentages was computed using the Wilson Score method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between the 2 percentages was \> -10%.|Percentage difference|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.76|6.03||||||Serogroup Y||6.03|-2.76|
90860734|NCT02955797|181584753|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI of the difference in percentages was computed using the Wilson Score method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between the 2 percentages was \> -10%.|Percentage difference|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.85|6.18||||||Serogroup W||6.18|-5.85|
90860735|NCT02955797|181584754|OTHER|95% CI of the ratio of post-vaccination GMTs was stratified on the priming vaccination status (meningococcal vaccine naïve or primed monovalent MenC vaccination) and calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model of log10-transformed titers.|GMT Ratio|0.819|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.697|0.963||||||Serogroup A||0.963|0.697|
90860736|NCT02955797|181584754|OTHER|95% CI of the ratio of post-vaccination GMTs was stratified on the priming vaccination status (meningococcal vaccine naïve or primed monovalent MenC vaccination) and calculated using an ANOVA model of log10-transformed titers.|GMT Ratio|7.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.05|9.52||||||Serogroup C||9.52|6.05|
90860737|NCT02955797|181584754|OTHER|95% CI of the ratio of post-vaccination GMTs was stratified on the priming vaccination status (meningococcal vaccine naïve or primed monovalent MenC vaccination) and calculated using an ANOVA model of log10-transformed titers.|GMT Ratio|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.51||||||Serogroup Y||1.51|1.09|
90860738|NCT02955797|181584754|OTHER|95% CI of the ratio of post-vaccination GMTs was stratified on the priming vaccination status (meningococcal vaccine naïve or primed monovalent MenC vaccination) and calculated using an ANOVA model of log10-transformed titers.|GMT Ratio|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.56||||||Serogroup W||1.56|1.12|
90860739|NCT02955797|181584755|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.24||||||Serogroup A||1.24|0.85|
90860740|NCT02955797|181584755|OTHER||GMT Ratio|16.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.4|20.4||||||Serogroup C||20.4|13.4|
90860741|NCT02955797|181584755|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.44||||||Serogroup Y||1.44|0.97|
90860742|NCT02955797|181584755|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.63||||||Serogroup W||1.63|1.1|
90860743|NCT02955797|181584756|OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.496|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.367|0.672||||||Serogroup A||0.672|0.367|
90860744|NCT02955797|181584756|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.814|2.19||||||Serogroup C||2.19|0.814|
90860745|NCT02955797|181584756|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|2.04||||||Serogroup Y||2.04|1.15|
90860746|NCT02955797|181584756|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.944|1.75||||||Serogroup W||1.75|0.944|
90860747|NCT01739361|181584807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.353|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.353
90860748|NCT05535972|181584810|OTHER||Least Square Mean|-6.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.241|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.28|-6.33|||||CFB in CAT score was analyzed using Mixed Model Repeated Measures(MMRM) model with covariates of smoking status, CAT score at Baseline, visit, interaction of CAT score at Baseline\*visit. Estimates derived from inverse probability weighted MMRM model.|||-6.33|-7.28|
90860749|NCT04590963|181584827|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.537|||Log Rank|P-value was calculated using stratified log-rank test, adjusted for WHO/ECOG PS (0/1) and number of prior lines of therapy in R/M setting.|HR and CIs were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusted for WHO/ECOG PS, and number of lines of prior therapy in R/M setting.|||1.537|0.660|0.989
90905836|NCT00087490|181679074|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Linezolid was claimed non-inferior to vancomycin if the lower limit of 95% CI for the difference in cure rate is greater than the FDA suggested boundary of delta= -0.10.|Percent Difference|7.1||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|14.2|||Chi-squared|||The percent difference was calculated by percentage of participants cured in linezolid arm minus the percentage of participants cured in vancomycin arm along with 2-sided 95% CI.||14.2|0.1|0.048
90905837|NCT00087490|181679075|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Linezolid was claimed non-inferior to vancomycin if the lower limit of 95% CI for the difference in cure rate is greater than the FDA suggested boundary of delta= -0.10.|Percent Difference|4.8||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|10.3|||Chi-squared|||The percent difference was calculated by percentage of participants cured in linezolid arm minus the percentage of participants cured in vancomycin arm along with 2-sided 95% CI.||10.3|-0.7|0.090
90905838|NCT00087490|181679076|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Linezolid was claimed non-inferior to vancomycin if the lower limit of 95% CI for the difference in cure rate is greater than the FDA suggested boundary of delta= -0.10.|Percent Difference|6.6||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|15.0|||Chi-squared|||The percent difference was calculated by percentage of participants cured in linezolid arm minus the percentage of participants cured in vancomycin arm along with 2-sided 95% CI.||15.0|-1.9|0.127
90905839|NCT00087490|181679077|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Linezolid was claimed non-inferior to vancomycin if the lower limit of 95% CI for the difference in cure rate is greater than the FDA suggested boundary of delta= -0.10.|Percent Difference|16.6||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.0|24.2|||Chi-squared|||The percent difference was calculated by percentage of participants cured in linezolid arm minus the percentage of participants cured in vancomycin arm along with 2-sided 95% CI.||24.2|9.0|0.000
91033104|NCT00048581|181951977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. Weighted. Diff: Day 169 ACR 20|30.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.6|41.1||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 5%. ACR 20 RR at 6 mos for PLA was expected to be \~25%. A sample of 256 in the ABA arm and 128 in PLA arm will yield a 96% power to detect a difference of 20% in ACR 20 at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|All statistical tests and CI were 2-sided. Percentage of participants with response compared by estimate of weighted difference (Est of Weighted Diff)|Differences in ACR response between the two treatment groups represent the weighted average of the individual stratum differences.|The first coprimary endpoint efficacy analysis tested for differences in ACR 20 response rate (RR) between the treatment arm receiving ABA plus background DMARDs and the treatment arm receiving placebo plus background DMARDs on Day 169. A 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) Chi-square test was used to compare these two treatment groups at the .05 level of significance, with stratification based on baseline history of anti-TNF status (current or prior use).||41.1|20.6|<0.001
91035948|NCT03261167|181958553|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.51|||||Week 4, Thumb flexion. Analysis method was MMRM with Treatment, Visit, Treatment by visit interation, Baseline, and Baseline by visit interaction as fixed effects.|||0.51|-0.23|
90905840|NCT00087490|181679078|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Linezolid was claimed non-inferior to vancomycin if the lower limit of 95% CI for the difference in cure rate is greater than the FDA suggested boundary of delta= -0.10.|Percent Difference|7.7||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|15.4|||Chi-squared|||The percent difference was calculated by percentage of participants cured in linezolid arm minus the percentage of participants cured in vancomycin arm along with 2-sided 95% CI.||15.4|-0.0|0.051
90905841|NCT00087490|181679079|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Linezolid was claimed non-inferior to vancomycin if the lower limit of 95% CI for the difference in cure rate is greater than the FDA suggested boundary of delta= -0.10.|Percent Difference|15.0||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.2|21.8|||Chi-squared|||The percent difference was calculated by percentage of participants cured in linezolid arm minus the percentage of participants cured in vancomycin arm along with 2-sided 95% CI.||21.8|8.2|0.000
90905842|NCT00087490|181679082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha = 0.05 was the level of significance if the null hypothesis was rejected.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the length of hospital stay between the treatment groups.||||0.022
90905843|NCT00087490|181679083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha = 0.05 was the level of significance if the null hypothesis was rejected.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the length of hospital stay between the treatment groups.||||0.016
90905844|NCT00087490|181679084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.000
90905845|NCT00087490|181679085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.000
90905846|NCT01925170|181679087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of the two groups for all densities, significant difference p ≤ 0.05.||||<0.001
91105649|NCT03816891|182097789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.3218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 28||0.6|-1.8|0.3218
90905847|NCT01925170|181679087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of two groups for all densities; significant difference p ≤ 0.05.||||0.004
90905848|NCT01925170|181679088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||McNemar|||Significant difference p ≤ 0.05||||<0.001
90905849|NCT01925170|181679088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||McNemar|||Significant difference p ≤ 0.05||||<0.0001
90905850|NCT01925170|181679089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||McNemar|||Significant difference p ≤ 0.05||||< 0.001
91105650|NCT03816891|182097789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.0549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.0||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 29||0.0|-2.3|0.0549
91105651|NCT03816891|182097789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.0543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.0||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 29||0.0|-2.4|0.0543
90905851|NCT01925170|181679089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||McNemar|||Significant difference p ≤ 0.05||||0.004
90860750|NCT04590963|181584828|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.704|1.528|||Log Rank|P-value was calculated using stratified log-rank test, adjusted for HPV status, WHO/ECOG PS (0/1) and number of prior lines of therapy in R/M setting.|HR and CIs were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusted for HPV status, WHO/ECOG PS, and number of lines of prior therapy in R/M setting.|||1.528|0.704|0.891
90860751|NCT04590963|181584829|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.568|||Log Rank|P-value was calculated using stratified log-rank test, adjusted for WHO/ECOG PS (0/1) and number of prior lines of therapy in R/M setting.|HR and CIs were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusted for WHO/ECOG PS, and number of lines of prior therapy in R/M setting.|||1.568|0.790|0.574
90860752|NCT04590963|181584830|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.818|1.512|||Log Rank|P-value was calculated using stratified log-rank test, adjusted for HPV status, WHO/ECOG PS (0/1) and number of prior lines of therapy in R/M setting.|HR and CIs were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusted for HPV status, WHO/ECOG PS, and number of lines of prior therapy in R/M setting.|||1.512|0.818|0.530
90860753|NCT04590963|181584831|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.56||||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.274|1.154|||Regression, Logistic|P-value is based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from the addition of a treatment factor to the model.|The analysis was performed using a logistic regression model, with treatment as a covariate and adjusting for WHO/ECOG PS, and number of lines of prior therapy in the R/M setting with 95% CI calculated by profile likelihood.|||1.154|0.274|0.115
90860754|NCT04590963|181584832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.297|1.231|||Regression, Logistic|P-value is based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from the addition of a treatment factor to the model.|The analysis was performed using a logistic regression model, with treatment as a covariate and adjusting for HPV Status, WHO/ECOG PS, and number of lines of prior therapy in the R/M setting with 95% CI calculated by profile likelihood.|||1.231|0.297|0.162
90860755|NCT03319173|181584906|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.79|8.7|||Regression, Linear|||||8.7|7.79|<0.0001
90860756|NCT03319173|181584907|OTHER||Estimate|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.39|||Regression, Linear|||||0.39|0.31|<0.0001
90860757|NCT03319173|181584908|OTHER||Estimate|0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.52|||Regression, Linear|||||0.52|0.41|<0.0001
90860758|NCT03319173|181584909|OTHER||Estimate|0.514|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.56|||Regression, Linear|||||0.56|0.47|<0.0001
90860759|NCT03319173|181584910|OTHER||Estimate|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.49|||Regression, Linear|||||0.49|0.40|<0.0001
90905852|NCT01925170|181679090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||McNemar|||Significant difference p ≤ 0.05||||< 0.001
90905853|NCT01925170|181679090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||McNemar|||Significant difference p ≤ 0.05||||<0.001
90905854|NCT01925170|181679091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||McNemar|||Significant difference p ≤ 0.05||||<0.001
91105652|NCT03816891|182097789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.3759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 29||0.6|-1.7|0.3759
90860760|NCT03319173|181584911|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.49|||Estimate|||||0.49|0.40|<0.0001
90860761|NCT03319173|181584912|OTHER||Estimate|0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.78|||Regression, Linear|||||0.78|0.72|<0.0001
90860762|NCT03319173|181584913|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.37|||Estimate|||||0.37|0.30|<0.0001
90860763|NCT03319173|181584914|OTHER||Estimate|0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|0.88|||Regression, Linear|||||0.88|0.85|<0.0001
90860764|NCT03319173|181584915|OTHER||Estimate|0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|0.88|||Regression, Linear|||||0.88|0.85|<0.0001
90860765|NCT03319173|181584916|OTHER||Estimate|0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.8|||Regression, Linear|||||0.80|0.71|<0.0001
90860766|NCT03319173|181584917|OTHER||Estimate|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.56|||Regression, Linear|||||0.56|0.47|<0.0001
90860767|NCT03319173|181584918|OTHER||Estimate|1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.104|1.156|||Regression, Linear|||||1.156|1.104|<0.0001
90860768|NCT03319173|181584919|OTHER||Estimate|1.037|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.025|1.049|||Regression, Linear|||||1.049|1.025|<0.0001
90860769|NCT03319173|181584920|OTHER||Estimate|0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.008|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|0.94|||Regression, Linear|||||0.94|0.91|<0.0001
90860770|NCT03319173|181584921|OTHER||Estimate|1.122|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.096|1.149|||Regression, Linear|||||1.149|1.096|<0.0001
90860771|NCT00418015|181584962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54||95.0|||||Log Rank|||Log rank test||||0.54
90860772|NCT00418015|181584963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.15
90860773|NCT00418015|181584964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0|||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.06
90860774|NCT00418015|181584965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.02
90860775|NCT00418015|181584966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.23
90905855|NCT01925170|181679091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||McNemar|||Significant difference p ≤ 0.05||||<0.001
90905856|NCT00848211|181679101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.008
90905857|NCT00848211|181679103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.045||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.045
90970967|NCT03152019|181824181|SUPERIORITY||percentages|0.77|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
90970968|NCT00350142|181824199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||proportion|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91105653|NCT03816891|182097789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.0286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-0.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 30||-0.1|-2.5|0.0286
90940214|NCT01340300|181760088|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||One-sided un-adjusted p-values to test if the decrease in treatment arm is greater than the control arm. Holm's method was performed for multiple comparisons to provide an overall significance level of 5%. Only significant p-values were reported.|Mixed Models Analysis|An intention-to-treat analysis, with a mixed model that was adjusted for baseline outcome value, BMI (\< 30 or \> 30), gender, cancer, and study site.||Null hypothesis: decrease of BMI in treatment arm is greater than the control arm.||||0.02
91035949|NCT03261167|181958553|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.38|||||Week 6, Thumb flexion. Analysis method was MMRM with Treatment, Visit, Treatment by visit interation, Baseline, and Baseline by visit interaction as fixed effects.|||0.38|-0.33|
91105654|NCT03816891|182097789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.0477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.0||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 30||0.0|-2.4|0.0477
91105655|NCT03816891|182097789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.2699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.5||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 30||0.5|-1.8|0.2699
90860776|NCT00418015|181584966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.84
90860777|NCT01314703|181584985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.089|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.66|3.02|||ANOVA||ChloraPrep 10 minute abdomen|Hypothesis: ChloraPrep will exceed 3 log 10 reduction for the groin at 10 minutes and 2 log 10 reduction for the abdomen at 10 minutes. The 70% Isopropyl Alcohol was used as a positive control. All calculations were performed after taking the base-10 logarithm of the original values. The model was a mixed model Analysis of Variance (ANOVA).||3.02|2.66|
90860778|NCT01314703|181584985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.038|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.149|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.74|4.33|||ANOVA||ChloraPrep 10 minute groin|Hypothesis: ChloraPrep will exceed 3 log 10 reduction for the groin at 10 minutes and 2 log 10 reduction for the abdomen at 10 minutes. The 70% Isopropyl Alcohol was used as a positive control. All calculations were performed after taking the base-10 logarithm of the original values. The model was a mixed model Analysis of Variance (ANOVA).||4.33|3.74|
90860779|NCT01314703|181584985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.089|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.36|2.7|||ANOVA||70%Isopropyl Alcohol 10 minute abdomen|Hypothesis: ChloraPrep will exceed 3 log 10 reduction for the groin at 10 minutes and 2 log 10 reduction for the abdomen at 10 minutes. The 70% Isopropyl Alcohol was used as a positive control. All calculations were performed after taking the base-10 logarithm of the original values. The model was a mixed model Analysis of Variance (ANOVA).||2.70|2.36|
90860780|NCT01314703|181584985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.149|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.24|3.82|||ANOVA||70% Isopropyl Alcohol 10 minute groin|Hypothesis: ChloraPrep will exceed 3 log 10 reduction for the groin at 10 minutes and 2 log 10 reduction for the abdomen at 10 minutes. The 70% Isopropyl Alcohol was used as a positive control. All calculations were performed after taking the base-10 logarithm of the original values. The model was a mixed model Analysis of Variance (ANOVA).||3.82|3.24|
90860781|NCT04195906|181585009|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.328||0.877|TWO_SIDED|96.0|-2.46|3.0||The MMRM model includes fixed effect terms for randomized treatment, visit, baseline sodium thiosulfate use, baseline BWAT-CUA score and visit by randomized treatment interaction.|MMRM|MMRM=Mixed model for repeated measures Participant is fitted as random effect and an unstructured variance-covariance matrix is used.||||3.00|-2.46|0.877
90860782|NCT04195906|181585010|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|11.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.93||0.146|TWO_SIDED|96.0|-4.8|27.78||The MMRM model includes fixed effect terms for randomized treatment, visit, baseline sodium thiosulfate use, baseline Pain VAS and visit by randomized treatment interaction.|MMRM|MMRM: mixed model repeated measures. Participant is fitted as random effect and an unstructured variance-covariance matrix is used.||||27.78|-4.80|0.146
90860783|NCT04195906|181585011|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.237||0.706|TWO_SIDED|96.0|-0.38|0.56||The MMRM model includes fixed effect terms for randomized treatment, visit, baseline sodium thiosulfate use, baseline Pain VAS and visit by randomized treatment interaction.|MMRM|MMRM: mixed model repeated measures. Participant is fitted as random effect and an unstructured variance-covariance matrix is used.||||0.56|-0.38|0.706
90860784|NCT04195906|181585012|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.63||0.995|TWO_SIDED|96.0|-5.27|5.24||The MMRM model includes fixed effect terms for randomized treatment, visit, baseline sodium thiosulfate use, baseline Pain VAS and visit by randomized treatment interaction.|MMRM|MMRM: mixed model repeated measures. Participant is fitted as random effect and an unstructured variance-covariance matrix is used.||||5.24|-5.27|0.995
90860785|NCT04195906|181585013|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|1.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.498||0.384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|4.09||This model includes the stratification factor sodium thiosulfate use at baseline and the treatment as covariates|Regression, Logistic|As there is only a measure post-baseline, a logistic regression model was run instead of a generalized estimating equations model.|The odds ratio displayed is the odds ratio of having an improved result of SNF472 versus Placebo. The results 'Worsened', 'Equal', and 'Missing' are combined in one category and it is the reference for the odds ratio calculation.|||4.09|0.58|0.384
90860786|NCT04195906|181585014|SUPERIORITY||Difference in slopes between arms|0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|1.93||MMRM model includes fixed effect terms for randomized treatment, continuous variables maintenance opioid dose, Week (1 to 12) and Week by randomized treatment interaction. The random coefficients are the intercept and Week as a continuous variable.|MMRM|MMRM: mixed model repeated measures. An unstructured variance-covariance matrix is used||||1.93|-0.79|0.406
90860787|NCT02024529|181585015|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97||||||Adjusted for baseline WOMAC score|ANCOVA|||||||0.97
90860788|NCT02024529|181585016|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75||||||Adjusted for baseline WOMAC score|ANCOVA|||||||0.75
90860789|NCT02024529|181585017|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline WOMAC Score.||||||0.18
90860790|NCT02024529|181585018|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline WOMAC Score.||||||0.81
90860791|NCT02642029|181585023|EQUIVALENCE|Tested the null hypothesis of no difference between iTBS and sham TBS on IDT accuracy.|Beta coefficient for timexiTBS interact|-0.099|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.051||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1989|0.0002||Significance threshold of p \< 0.05, two-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model included time (pre, post), condition (iTBS vs. sham, cTBS vs. sham), and the interaction of time x condition (time x iTBS, time x cTBS).||Conducted a mixed effects analysis, with IDT accuracy as the dependent variable and time (pre, post), condition (iTBS vs. sham, cTBS vs. sham), and the interaction of time x condition (time x iTBS, time x cTBS) as the independent variables. P-value here is for the iTBS (vs. sham) x time interaction.||.0002|-.1989|0.51
90860792|NCT02642029|181585023|EQUIVALENCE|Tested the null hypothesis of no difference between iTBS and sham TBS on IDT accuracy.|Beta coefficient for timexcTBS interact|-0.0757|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.177|0.0256||Significance threshold of p \< 0.05, two-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model included time (pre, post), condition (iTBS vs. sham, cTBS vs. sham), and the interaction of time x condition (time x iTBS, time x cTBS).||Conducted a mixed effects analysis, with IDT accuracy as the dependent variable and time (pre, post), condition (iTBS vs. sham, cTBS vs. sham), and the interaction of time x condition (time x iTBS, time x cTBS) as the independent variables. P-value here is for the cTBS (vs. sham) x time interaction.||.0256|-.1770|0.143
90860793|NCT02642029|181585024|EQUIVALENCE|Tested the null hypothesis of no difference between iTBS and sham TBS on N-back accuracy.|Beta coefficient for timexiTBS interact|-0.0446||||0.626|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance threshold was p \< 0.05, two-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Conducted a generalized linear mixed model fit by maximum likelihood (Laplace Approximation) \['glmerMod' in R\] with binomial (logit) distribution.~N-back accuracy was the dependent variable. Time (pre vs. post), condition (iTBS vs. sham, cTBS vs. sham), and the interaction of time x condition (time x iTBS, time x cTBS) were the independent variables. P-value here is for the iTBS (vs. sham) x time interaction."||||.626
90860794|NCT02642029|181585024|EQUIVALENCE|Tested the null hypothesis of no difference between cTBS and sham TBS on N-back accuracy.|Beta coefficient for timexcTBS interact|-0.0903||||0.322|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance threshold was p \< 0.05, two-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Conducted a generalized linear mixed model fit by maximum likelihood (Laplace Approximation) \['glmerMod' in R\] with binomial (logit) distribution.~N-back accuracy was the dependent variable. Time (pre vs. post), condition (iTBS vs. sham, cTBS vs. sham), and the interaction of time x condition (time x iTBS, time x cTBS) were the independent variables. P-value here is for the cTBS (vs. sham) x time interaction."||||0.322
90860795|NCT02642029|181585025|EQUIVALENCE|Tested the null hypothesis of no difference between iTBS and sham TBS on N-back accuracy.|Beta coefficient for timexiTBS interact|-9.797||||0.1118|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance threshold of p \< 0.05, two-sided|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Conducted a generalized linear mixed model fit by maximum likelihood (Laplace Approximation) \['glmerMod' in R\] with gamma distribution.~N-back reaction time (RT) was the dependent variable. Time (pre vs. post), condition (iTBS vs. sham, cTBS vs. sham), and the interaction of time x condition (time x iTBS, time x cTBS) were the independent variables. P-value here is for the iTBS (vs. sham) x time interaction."||||0.1118
90860796|NCT02642029|181585025|EQUIVALENCE|Tested the null hypothesis of no difference between cTBS and sham TBS on N-back accuracy.|Beta coefficient for timexcTBS interact|-47.764||||9e-08|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance threshold was p \< 0.05, two-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Conducted a generalized linear mixed model fit by maximum likelihood (Laplace Approximation) \['glmerMod' in R\] with gamma distribution.~N-back reaction time (RT) was the dependent variable. Time (pre vs. post), condition (iTBS vs. sham, cTBS vs. sham), and the interaction of time x condition (time x iTBS, time x cTBS) were the independent variables. P-value here is for the cTBS (vs. sham) x time interaction."||||0.00000009
90860797|NCT02642029|181585026|EQUIVALENCE|Tested the null hypothesis that there is no effect of condition (iTBS, cTBS, sham) on pre-post change in VAS scores.||||||0.91||||||Given the exploratory nature of this pilot study, we set the significance threshold at p \< 0.05, two-sided, without correcting for eight comparisons.|Friedman test|Non-parametric repeated measures ANOVA.||||||0.910
90860798|NCT02642029|181585026|OTHER|Given the exploratory nature of this pilot study, we set the significance threshold at p \<0.05, two-sided, without correcting for eight comparisons.|beta coefficient for depressed mood|0.00071||||0.243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00048|0.0019|||Mixed Models Analysis|||We explored the association between interval discrimination task (IDT) performance (accuracy) and each symptom self-rating (here, depressed mood). We conducted a mixed effects regression analysis to test the null hypothesis of no association. Model included time (pre, post) and condition (iTBS vs. sham, cTBS vs. sham) in addition to symptom rating as independent variables, and IDT performance accuracy as the dependent variable.||0.00190|-0.00048|0.243
90860799|NCT02642029|181585027|EQUIVALENCE|Tested the null hypothesis that there is no effect of condition (iTBS, cTBS, sham) on pre-post change in VAS scores.||||||0.83||||||Given the exploratory nature of this pilot study, we set the significance threshold at p \< 0.05, two-sided, without correcting for eight comparisons.|Friedman test|Non-parametric repeated measures ANOVA.||||||0.830
90860800|NCT02642029|181585027|OTHER||beta coefficient for anxiety|-0.00063||||0.284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00179|0.00052||Given the exploratory nature of this pilot study, we set the significance threshold at p \<0.05, two-sided, without correcting for eight comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We explored the association between interval discrimination task (IDT) performance (accuracy) and each symptom self-rating (here, anxiety). We conducted a mixed effects regression analysis to test the null hypothesis of no association. Model included time (pre, post) and condition (iTBS vs. sham, cTBS vs. sham) in addition to symptom rating as independent variables, and IDT performance accuracy as the dependent variable.||0.00052|-0.00179|0.284
90905858|NCT02550873|181679154|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1|3.5||a priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.10|Mixed Models Analysis|Random intercept; dependent variable=raw values at each time point; explanatory variables=stratum, treatment, time and treatment by time interaction||"The sample size calculation was based on the following assumptions:~Normal distribution Homogeneity of variance the same in both arms, and for both types of patients Randomization ratio PRM-151:placebo = 2:1 Expected value for patients on pirfenidone or nintedanib = -1.5 Expected value for patients on no other treatment = -3 Expected value for patients on PRM-151 ≥ 0.75 Standard deviation = 5 75% of patients on a stable dose of pirfenidone or nintedanib α=0.10 two-sided Power = 80%"||3.5|1.1|0.0014
91035950|NCT03261167|181958553|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.47|||||Week 12, Thumb flexion. Analysis method was MMRM with Treatment, Visit, Treatment by visit interation, Baseline, and Baseline by visit interaction as fixed effects.|||0.47|-0.31|
91105656|NCT03816891|182097789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.0294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-0.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 31||-0.1|-2.5|0.0294
90905859|NCT02550873|181679155|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|31.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.42||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|17.4|45.1||This study was not powered to test hypothesis beyond the primary endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random intercept; dependent variable=raw values at each time point; explanatory variables=stratum, treatment, time and treatment by time interaction.||||45.1|17.4|0.0002
90905860|NCT02550873|181679156|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|93.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|72.98||0.2032|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.7|214.7||This study was not powered to test hypothesis beyond the primary endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random intercept and slope; dependent variable=raw values; explanatory variables=stratum, treatment, time and treatment by time interaction.||||214.7|-27.7|0.2032
90905861|NCT02550873|181679157|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|31.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|46.33||0.4927|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-45.0|108.8||This study was not powered to test hypotheses beyond the primary endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random intercept; dependent variable=raw values at each time point; explanatory variables=stratum, treatment, time and treatment by time interaction||||108.8|-45.0|0.4927
90905862|NCT02550873|181679158|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.96||0.5835|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.2|4.3||This study was not powered to test hypotheses beyond the primary endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random intercept; dependent variable=raw values at each time point; explanatory variables=stratum, treatment, time and treatment by time interaction||||4.3|-2.2|0.5835
90905863|NCT02550873|181679159|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|43.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|102.28||0.6707|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-126.3|213.5||This study was not powered to test hypotheses beyond the primary endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random intercept; dependent variable=raw values at each time point; explanatory variables=stratum, treatment, time and treatment by time interaction||||213.5|-126.3|0.6707
90905864|NCT02550873|181679160|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91||0.52|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.4|1.9||This study was not powered to test hypotheses beyond the primary endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random intercept; dependent variable=raw values at each time point; explanatory variables=stratum, treatment, time and treatment by time interaction||||1.9|-4.4|0.52
90905865|NCT02550873|181679161|OTHER|Correlation analysis||||||0.0001||||||This study was not powered to test hypotheses beyond the primary endpoint.|Pearson's correlation|||||||0.0001
90905866|NCT02550873|181679161|OTHER|Correlation analysis||||||0.0069|||||||Pearson's correlation|||This study was not powered to test hypotheses beyond the primary endpoint.||||0.0069
90905867|NCT02550873|181679162|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4179||||||P-Value for decline in % Predicted FVC ≥ 5%. This study was not powered to test hypotheses beyond the primary endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random intercept; dependent variable=raw values at each time point; explanatory variables=stratum, treatment, time and treatment by time interaction||||||0.4179
90905868|NCT02550873|181679162|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2184||||||P-Value for decline in % predicted FVC ≥ 10%. This study was not powered to test hypotheses beyond the primary endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random intercept; dependent variable=raw values at each time point; explanatory variables=stratum, treatment, time and treatment by time interaction||||||0.2184
90905869|NCT02550873|181679163|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7773||||||P-Value for decline in FVC ≥ 100 mL. This study was not powered to test hypotheses beyond the primary endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random intercept; dependent variable=raw values at each time point; explanatory variables=stratum, treatment, time and treatment by time interaction||||||0.7773
90905870|NCT02550873|181679163|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5976||||||P-Value for decline in FVC ≥ 200 mL. This study was not powered to test hypotheses beyond the primary endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random intercept; dependent variable=raw values at each time point; explanatory variables=stratum, treatment, time and treatment by time interaction||||||0.5976
90959263|NCT01249274|181798449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|30.39||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.18|290.04|||Generalized Estimating Equation|Negative binomial distribution, log link, and first-order autoregressive covariance structure|Estimated value is RR for treatment\*time interaction for placebo at 3-mo post-trial follow-up. Time treated as a 3-level categorical variable; week 0 (ref), week 12 \& 3-month post-trial follow-up. Treatment variable reference group was progesterone.|We calculated that a sample size of 50 women would have 80% power to detect a significant (p\<0.05) difference between groups if the effect size for the primary outcome was large.||290.04|3.18|0.003
90905871|NCT02550873|181679164|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29||||||P-Value for increase in % predicted FVC ≥ 5%. P-Value for an increase in % predicted FVC ≥ 10% not reported. This study was not powered to test hypotheses beyond the primary endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random intercept; dependent variable=raw values at each time point; explanatory variables=stratum, treatment, time and treatment by time interaction||||||0.29
90905872|NCT02550873|181679165|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0508||||||P-Value for increase in FVC ≥ 100 mL. P-Value for increase in FVC ≥ 200 mL not reported. This study was not powered to test hypotheses beyond the primary endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random intercept; dependent variable=raw values at each time point; explanatory variables=stratum, treatment, time and treatment by time interaction||||||0.0508
90905873|NCT02550873|181679166|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6308||||||This study was not powered to test hypotheses beyond the primary endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random intercept; dependent variable=raw values at each time point; explanatory variables=stratum, treatment, time and treatment by time interaction||||||0.6308
90905874|NCT02550873|181679167|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1846||||||This study was not powered to test hypothesis beyond the primary endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random intercept; dependent variable=raw values at each time point; explanatory variables=stratum, treatment, time and treatment by time interaction||||||0.1846
90971358|NCT02684981|181825445|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|19.011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.408|<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis||The primary analysis of PACT-Q2 scores was based on the random intercept model, where the matched group is considered as a random effect, the treatment as a fixed effect and the score as the response variable.|Mean change in satisfaction PACT-Q2 scores between VKA and Pradaxa therapy at continuation stage (V3)||||< 0.001
90905875|NCT02550873|181679168|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.31||0.7424|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.6|1.7||This study was not powered to test hypothesis beyond the primary endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random intercept; dependent variable=raw values at each time point; explanatory variables=stratum, treatment, time and treatment by time interaction.||||1.7|-2.6|0.7424
90905876|NCT02550873|181679178|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|114.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|56.1||0.0416|TWO_SIDED|90.0|22.2|207.1||This study was not powered to test hypothesis beyond the primary endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random intercept and slope; dependent variable=raw values; explanatory variables=stratum, treatment, time and treatment by time interaction.||||207.1|22.2|0.0416
90905877|NCT02107443|181679195|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
90905878|NCT02107443|181679196|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.09||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.041
90905879|NCT02107443|181679198|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.05||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|1.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|The above p-values is for 4-6 weeks.|The above values are for 4-6 weeks.|||1.98|0.12|0.03
90905880|NCT02107443|181679198|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.83||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|1.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|The above p-value is for is for 3 months.|The above values are for 3 months|||1.77|-0.11|.08
90905881|NCT02107443|181679198|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.62||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|1.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|The above p-value is for 6 months|The above values are for 6 months.|||1.59|-0.36|0.20
90905882|NCT00519636|181679202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001||95.0|-1.3|-0.3|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Mean Change in FFNS - Mean Change in Placebo.|FFNS combined across treatment arms 1 (FFNS/FPNS) \& 2 (Placebo FF/FP) compared with Placebo FFNS combined across treatment arms 1 (FFNS/FPNS) \& 2 (Placebo FF/FP).||-0.3|-1.3|<0.001
90905883|NCT00519636|181679202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.014||95.0|-1.1|-0.1|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Mean Change in FPNS - Mean Change in Placebo.|FPNS combined across treatment arms 1 (FPNS/FFNS) \& 2 (Placebo FP/FF) compared with Placebo FPNS combined across treatment arms 1 (FPNS/FFNS)\& 2 (Placebo FP/FF).||-0.1|-1.1|0.014
90905884|NCT00519636|181679203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel(CMH): stratified approximate to Prescotts test; variation of chi-square test for treatment sequence/subjects no preference.||||||<0.001
91105657|NCT03816891|182097789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.0702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 31||0.1|-2.3|0.0702
90905885|NCT03077620|181679271|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.119|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.064||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.017|0.256||Poor sleepers compared to good sleepers with Compound Symmetry covariance structure. Mean difference is poor sleepers minus good sleepers.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.256|-0.017|0.05
90905886|NCT03077620|181679272|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.078|0.087||After corrected for multiple comparisons with Bonferroni test, treatment groups 1 and 2 compared to placebo with Compound Symmetry covariance structure. Mean difference is placebo minus treatment group.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.087|-0.078|0.05
90905887|NCT03077620|181679272|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.033|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.051|0.117||After corrected for multiple comparisons with Bonferroni test, treatment groups 1 and 2 compared to placebo with Compound Symmetry covariance structure. Mean difference is placebo minus treatment group.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.117|-0.051|0.05
90905888|NCT00550173|181679282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||||||If global test across 3 arms is significant at a 2-sided 0.2 level, then conduct 2-sided pairwise tests between combination and each single agent under the global model. Significance is claimed only if both the global and pairwise tests p\<0.05.|Regression, Cox|Model is adjusted to covariates ECOG PS (0/1 vs.2), histological subtype (adeno vs. non-adeno), race (East Asian and non-East Asian) and gender.||Overall; Global null hypothesis was rejected at 2-sided 0.2 significance level.||||0.003
90905889|NCT00550173|181679282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.81||If global test across 3 arms is significant at a 2-sided 0.2 level, then conduct 2-sided pairwise tests between combination and each single agent under the global model. Significance is claimed only if both the global and pairwise tests p\<0.05.|Regression, Cox|Model is adjusted to covariates ECOG PS (0/1 vs.2), histological subtype (adeno vs. non-adeno), race (East Asian and non-East Asian) and gender.||Primary Analysis; Global null hypothesis was rejected at 2-sided 0.2 significance level.||0.81|0.40|0.002
90905890|NCT00550173|181679282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.85||If global test across 3 arms is significant at a 2-sided 0.2 level, then conduct 2-sided pairwise tests between combination and each single agent under the global model. Significance is claimed only if both the global and pairwise tests p\<0.05.|Regression, Cox|Model is adjusted to covariates ECOG PS (0/1 vs.2), histological subtype (adeno vs. non-adeno), race (East Asian and non-East Asian) and gender.||Primary Analysis; Global null hypothesis was rejected at 2-sided 0.2 significance level.||0.85|0.39|0.005
90905891|NCT00550173|181679282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio, log|0.99||||0.959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.4||If global test across 3 arms is significant at a 2-sided 0.2 level, then conduct 2-sided pairwise tests between combination and each single agent under the global model. Significance is claimed only if both the global and pairwise tests p\<0.05.|Regression, Cox|Model is adjusted to covariates ECOG PS (0/1 vs.2), histological subtype (adeno vs. non-adeno), race (East Asian and non-East Asian) and gender.||Secondary Analysis; Global null hypothesis was rejected at 2-sided 0.2 significance level.||1.40|0.70|0.959
91105658|NCT03816891|182097789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.3636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 31||0.6|-1.7|0.3636
91105659|NCT03816891|182097789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.0273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-0.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 32||-0.1|-2.5|0.0273
90860801|NCT02642029|181585028|EQUIVALENCE|Tested the null hypothesis that there is no effect of condition (iTBS, cTBS, sham) on pre-post change in VAS scores.||||||0.755||||||Given the exploratory nature of this pilot study, we set the significance threshold at p \< 0.05, two-sided, without correcting for eight comparisons.|Friedman test|Non-parametric repeated measures ANOVA.||||||0.755
90860802|NCT02642029|181585028|OTHER||beta coefficient for elated mood|-0.0007||||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00208|0.00067||Given the exploratory nature of this pilot study, we set the significance threshold at p \<0.05, two-sided, without correcting for eight comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We explored the association between interval discrimination task (IDT) performance (accuracy) and each symptom self-rating (here, elated mood). We conducted a mixed effects regression analysis to test the null hypothesis of no association. Model included time (pre, post) and condition (iTBS vs. sham, cTBS vs. sham) in addition to symptom rating as independent variables, and IDT performance accuracy as the dependent variable.||0.00067|-0.00208|0.317
90860803|NCT02642029|181585029|EQUIVALENCE|Tested the null hypothesis that there is no effect of condition (iTBS, cTBS, sham) on pre-post change in VAS scores.||||||0.035||||||Given the exploratory nature of this pilot study, we set the significance threshold at p \< 0.05, two-sided, without correcting for eight comparisons.|Friedman test|Non-parametric repeated measures ANOVA.||||||.035
90860804|NCT02642029|181585029|OTHER||beta coefficient for auditory hallucinat|0.00195||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.00021|0.00369||Given the exploratory nature of this pilot study, we set the significance threshold at p \<0.05, two-sided, without correcting for eight comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We explored the association between interval discrimination task (IDT) performance (accuracy) and each symptom self-rating (here, auditory hallucinations). We conducted a mixed effects regression analysis to test the null hypothesis of no association. Model included time (pre, post) and condition (iTBS vs. sham, cTBS vs. sham) in addition to symptom rating as independent variables, and IDT performance accuracy as the dependent variable.||0.00369|0.00021|0.028
90860805|NCT02642029|181585030|EQUIVALENCE|Tested the null hypothesis that there is no effect of condition (iTBS, cTBS, sham) on pre-post change in VAS scores.||||||0.748||||||Given the exploratory nature of this pilot study, we set the significance threshold at p \< 0.05, two-sided, without correcting for eight comparisons.|Friedman test|Non-parametric repeated measures ANOVA.||||||.748
90860806|NCT02642029|181585030|OTHER||beta coefficient for visual hallucinatio|-0.00039||||0.685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0023|0.00151||Given the exploratory nature of this pilot study, we set the significance threshold at p \<0.05, two-sided, without correcting for eight comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We explored the association between interval discrimination task (IDT) performance (accuracy) and each symptom self-rating (here, visual hallucinations). We conducted a mixed effects regression analysis to test the null hypothesis of no association. Model included time (pre, post) and condition (iTBS vs. sham, cTBS vs. sham) in addition to symptom rating as independent variables, and IDT performance accuracy as the dependent variable.||0.00151|-0.00230|0.685
90860807|NCT02642029|181585031|EQUIVALENCE|Tested the null hypothesis that there is no effect of condition (iTBS, cTBS, sham) on pre-post change in VAS scores.||||||0.02||||||Given the exploratory nature of this pilot study, we set the significance threshold at p \< 0.05, two-sided, without correcting for eight comparisons.|Friedman test|Non-parametric repeated measures ANOVA.||||||.020
90860808|NCT02642029|181585031|OTHER||beta coefficient for paranoid ideation|0.0004||||0.597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00108|0.00188||Given the exploratory nature of this pilot study, we set the significance threshold at p \<0.05, two-sided, without correcting for eight comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We explored the association between interval discrimination task (IDT) performance (accuracy) and each symptom self-rating (here, paranoid ideation). We conducted a mixed effects regression analysis to test the null hypothesis of no association. Model included time (pre, post) and condition (iTBS vs. sham, cTBS vs. sham) in addition to symptom rating as independent variables, and IDT performance accuracy as the dependent variable.||0.00188|-0.00108|0.597
90860809|NCT02642029|181585032|EQUIVALENCE|Tested the null hypothesis that there is no effect of condition (iTBS, cTBS, sham) on pre-post change in VAS scores.||||||0.237||||||Given the exploratory nature of this pilot study, we set the significance threshold at p \< 0.05, two-sided, without correcting for eight comparisons.|Friedman test|Non-parametric repeated measures ANOVA.||||||.237
90860810|NCT02642029|181585032|OTHER||beta coefficient for ideas/del of refere|-0.00142||||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0035|0.00065||Given the exploratory nature of this pilot study, we set the significance threshold at p \<0.05, two-sided, without correcting for eight comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We explored the association between interval discrimination task (IDT) performance (accuracy) and each symptom self-rating (here, ideas/delusions of reference). We conducted a mixed effects regression analysis to test the null hypothesis of no association. Model included time (pre, post) and condition (iTBS vs. sham, cTBS vs. sham) in addition to symptom rating as independent variables, and IDT performance accuracy as the dependent variable.||0.00065|-0.00350|0.178
90860811|NCT02642029|181585033|EQUIVALENCE|Tested the null hypothesis that there is no effect of condition (iTBS, cTBS, sham) on pre-post change in VAS scores.||||||0.33||||||Given the exploratory nature of this pilot study, we set the significance threshold at p \< 0.05, two-sided, without correcting for eight comparisons.|Friedman test|Non-parametric repeated measures ANOVA.||||||.330
90860812|NCT02642029|181585033|OTHER||beta coefficient for delusions of contro|-0.00038||||0.777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00305|0.00228||Given the exploratory nature of this pilot study, we set the significance threshold at p \<0.05, two-sided, without correcting for eight comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We explored the association between interval discrimination task (IDT) performance (accuracy) and each symptom self-rating (here, delusions of control). We conducted a mixed effects regression analysis to test the null hypothesis of no association. Model included time (pre, post) and condition (iTBS vs. sham, cTBS vs. sham) in addition to symptom rating as independent variables, and IDT performance accuracy as the dependent variable.||0.00228|-0.00305|0.777
90860813|NCT02038881|181585088|OTHER||GMT Ratio (Group 1 / Group 2) at Week 4|0.851|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.258|2.8||||||||2.800|0.258|
90905892|NCT00550173|181679283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|Model is adjusted to covariates ECOG PS (0/1 vs.2), histological subtype (adeno vs. non-adeno), race (East Asian and non-East Asian) and gender.||||||<0.001
90905893|NCT00550173|181679283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.09||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|4.09|||Regression, Logistic|Model is adjusted to covariates ECOG PS (0/1 vs.2), histological subtype (adeno vs. non-adeno), race (East Asian and non-East Asian) and gender.||||4.09|1.07|0.031
90905894|NCT00550173|181679283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.19|18.48|||Regression, Logistic|Model is adjusted to covariates ECOG PS (0/1 vs.2), histological subtype (adeno vs. non-adeno), race (East Asian and non-East Asian) and gender.||||18.48|3.19|<0.001
90905895|NCT00550173|181679283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|0.27||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.66|||Regression, Logistic|Model is adjusted to covariates ECOG PS (0/1 vs.2), histological subtype (adeno vs. non-adeno), race (East Asian and non-East Asian) and gender.||||0.66|0.11|0.004
90905896|NCT00550173|181679284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.194|||||||Regression, Cox|Model is adjusted to covariates ECOG PS (0/1 vs.2), histological subtype (adeno vs. non-adeno), race (East Asian and non-East Asian) and gender.||||||0.194
90905897|NCT00550173|181679284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.67|||Regression, Cox|Model is adjusted to covariates ECOG PS (0/1 vs.2), histological subtype (adeno vs. non-adeno), race (East Asian and non-East Asian) and gender.||||1.67|0.69|0.747
90905898|NCT00550173|181679284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.13|||Regression, Cox|Model is adjusted to covariates ECOG PS (0/1 vs.2), histological subtype (adeno vs. non-adeno), race (East Asian and non-East Asian) and gender.||||1.13|0.49|0.168
90905899|NCT00550173|181679284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.44||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|2.21|||Regression, Cox|Model is adjusted to covariates ECOG PS (0/1 vs.2), histological subtype (adeno vs. non-adeno), race (East Asian and non-East Asian) and gender.||||2.21|0.94|0.094
90905900|NCT00550173|181679286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.306|||||||Regression, Logistic|Model is adjusted to covariates ECOG PS (0/1 vs.2), histological subtype (adeno vs. non-adeno), race (East Asian and non-East Asian) and gender.||||||0.306
90905901|NCT00550173|181679286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.66||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|3.18|||Regression, Logistic|Model is adjusted to covariates ECOG PS (0/1 vs.2), histological subtype (adeno vs. non-adeno), race (East Asian and non-East Asian) and gender.||||3.18|0.87|0.127
90905902|NCT00550173|181679286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.71|||Regression, Logistic|Model is adjusted to covariates ECOG PS (0/1 vs.2), histological subtype (adeno vs. non-adeno), race (East Asian and non-East Asian) and gender.||||2.71|0.72|0.318
90905903|NCT00550173|181679286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.22|||Regression, Logistic|Model is adjusted to covariates ECOG PS (0/1 vs.2), histological subtype (adeno vs. non-adeno), race (East Asian and non-East Asian) and gender.||||2.22|0.63|0.599
90905904|NCT00550173|181679287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013||95.0|||||Regression, Cox|Model is adjusted to covariates ECOG PS (0/1 vs.2), histological subtype (adeno vs. non-adeno), race (East Asian and non-East Asian) and gender.||||||0.013
90905905|NCT00550173|181679287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.87||Model is adjusted to covariates ECOG PS (0/1 vs.2), histological subtype (adeno vs. non-adeno), race (East Asian and non-East Asian) and gender.|Regression, Cox|Model is adjusted to covariates ECOG PS (0/1 vs.2), histological subtype (adeno vs. non-adeno), race (East Asian and non-East Asian) and gender.||||0.87|0.41|0.007
90905906|NCT00550173|181679287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.38|||Regression, Cox|Model is adjusted to covariates ECOG PS (0/1 vs.2), histological subtype (adeno vs. non-adeno), race (East Asian and non-East Asian) and gender.||||1.38|0.62|0.700
90905907|NCT00550173|181679287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.94|||Regression, Cox|Model is adjusted to covariates ECOG PS (0/1 vs.2), histological subtype (adeno vs. non-adeno), race (East Asian and non-East Asian) and gender.||||0.94|0.44|0.023
90905908|NCT00550173|181679288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.040
90905909|NCT00550173|181679288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.38|||Regression, Cox|||||1.38|0.27|0.241
90905910|NCT00550173|181679288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.32||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.78|||Regression, Cox|||||0.78|0.14|0.011
90905911|NCT00550173|181679288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.9||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|4.36|||Regression, Cox|||||4.36|0.83|0.128
90905912|NCT01161160|181679302|NON_INFERIORITY|Equivalence criteria were fulfilled if the 2-sided 95% confidence limits on the geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio was within the interval 0.5 to 2.0.|Adjusted GMT ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.26||||||To demonstrate the immunological equivalence of HA antigen adjuvanted with AS03B manufactured in Quebec (Arepanrix™) and HA antigen adjuvanted with AS03B manufactured in Dresden (Pandemrix™), 21 days after vaccination.||1.26|0.73|
90905913|NCT01561079|181679346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||||||The p values were not adjusted for multiplicity The a priori threshold = .05|Hierarchical Linear Modeling|The p-value was calculated||||||0.001
90905914|NCT01561079|181679347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.002|||||||Hierarchical Linear Modeling|||||||<.002
90905915|NCT01561079|181679348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Hierarchical Linear Modeling|||||||0.0001
90905916|NCT01561079|181679349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||Hierarchical Linear Modeling|The reported p-value was calculated||||||.008
90905917|NCT01561079|181679350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Hierarchical Linear Modeling|||||||.002
90905919|NCT01323660|181679388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|25.0||||0.456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.0|91.0||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least square mean change difference=UMEC 62.5 µg minus Placebo.|||91.0|-41.0|0.456
90905920|NCT01323660|181679388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|74.7||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|143.4||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least square mean change difference=UMEC 125 µg minus Placebo.|||143.4|6.0|0.033
91105660|NCT03816891|182097789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.0785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 32||0.1|-2.2|0.0785
90860814|NCT02038881|181585088|OTHER||GMT Ratio (Group 1 / Group 2) at Week 6|0.653|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.319|1.333||||||||1.333|0.319|
90860815|NCT02038881|181585088|OTHER||GMT Ratio (Group 1 / Group 2) at Week 30|1.126|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.291|4.352||||||||4.352|0.291|
90860816|NCT02038881|181585088|OTHER||GMT Ratio (Group 1 / Group 2) at Week 56|0.916|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|3.819||||||||3.819|0.220|
90860817|NCT02038881|181585088|OTHER||GMT Ratio (Group 3 / Group 1) at Week 4|1.045|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.292|3.741||||||||3.741|0.292|
90860818|NCT02038881|181585088|OTHER||GMT Ratio (Group 3 / Group 1) at Week 6|1.315|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.598|2.892||||||||2.892|0.598|
90860819|NCT02038881|181585089|OTHER||GMT Ratio (Group 1+3 [pooled] / Group 2)|0.762|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.385|1.507||||||||1.507|0.385|
90860820|NCT02038881|181585090|OTHER||GMT Ratio (Group 1 [W6]/ Group 3 [W14)|0.347|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.603||||||||0.603|0.200|
90860821|NCT02038881|181585090|OTHER||GMT ratio (Group 2 [W6]/ Group 3 [W14])|0.532|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.285|0.992||||||||0.992|0.285|
90860822|NCT02038881|181585091|OTHER||GMT Ratio (Group 3 [W38]/ Group 1 [W30])|4.138|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.241|13.793||||||||13.793|1.241|
90860823|NCT02038881|181585091|OTHER||GMT Ratio (Group 3 [W64]/ Group 1 [W56])|4.608|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.365|15.558||||||||15.558|1.365|
90860824|NCT02038881|181585091|OTHER||GMT Ratio (Group 2 [W30]/ Group 3 [W38])|0.215|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.066|0.699||||||||0.699|0.066|
90971359|NCT02684981|181825453|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed rank test has been used for this analysis||Median convenience and satisfaction PACT-Q2 scores at last assessment compared to second assessment||||< 0.001
90860825|NCT02038881|181585091|OTHER||GMT Ratio (Group 2 [W56]/ Group 3 [W64])|0.237|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.072|0.782||||||||0.782|0.072|
90860826|NCT02038881|181585092|OTHER||GMT Ratio (Group 1 / Group 2) at Week 4|0.823|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.333|2.038||||||||2.038|0.333|
90860827|NCT02038881|181585092|OTHER||GMT Ratio (Group 1 / Group 2) at Week 6|0.787|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.508||||||||1.508|0.410|
90860828|NCT02038881|181585092|OTHER||GMT Ratio (Group 1 / Group 2) at Week 30|0.535|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.187|1.536||||||||1.536|0.187|
90860829|NCT02038881|181585092|OTHER||GMT Ratio (Group 1 / Group 2) at Week 56|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.203|1.716||||||||1.716|0.203|
90860830|NCT02038881|181585092|OTHER||GMT Ratio (Group 3 / Group 1) at Week 4|2.557|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.972|6.731||||||||6.731|0.972|
90860831|NCT02038881|181585092|OTHER||GMT Ratio (Group 3 / Group 1) at Week 6|1.215|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.612|2.412||||||||2.412|0.612|
90860832|NCT02038881|181585093|OTHER||GMT Ratio (Group 1+3 [pooled] / Group 2)|0.878|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.606||||||||1.606|0.480|
90860833|NCT02038881|181585094|OTHER||GMT ratio (Group 1 [W6]/ Group 3 [W14)|0.281|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.146|0.542||||||||0.542|0.146|
90860834|NCT02038881|181585094|OTHER||GMT ratio (Group 2 [W6]/ Group 3 [W14])|0.357|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.178|0.718||||||||0.718|0.178|
90860835|NCT02038881|181585095|OTHER||GMT Ratio (Group 3 [W38]/ Group 1 [W30])|6.727|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.493|18.15||||||||18.150|2.493|
90860836|NCT02038881|181585095|OTHER||GMT Ratio (Group 3 [W64]/ Group 1 [W56])|7.275|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.693|19.649||||||||19.649|2.693|
90860837|NCT02038881|181585095|OTHER||GMT Ratio (Group 2 [W30]/ Group 3 [W38])|0.278|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.115|0.672||||||||0.672|0.115|
90860838|NCT02038881|181585095|OTHER||GMT Ratio (Group 2 [W56]/ Group 3 [W64])|0.233|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.541||||||||0.541|0.100|
90860839|NCT02038881|181585096|OTHER||Diff in SC rate (Gr 1 - Gr 2) at Week 4|-7.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.1|17.9||||||||17.9|-34.1|
90860840|NCT02038881|181585096|OTHER||Diff in SC rate (Gr 1 - Gr 2) at Week 6|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.8|16.3||||||||16.3|-16.8|
90860841|NCT02038881|181585096|OTHER||Diff in SC rate (Gr 1 - Gr 2) at Week 30|5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.5|32.6||||||||32.6|-24.5|
90860842|NCT02038881|181585096|OTHER||Diff in SC rate (Gr 1 - Gr 2) at Week 56|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.5|29.2||||||||29.2|-31.5|
90860843|NCT02038881|181585096|OTHER||Diff in SC rate (Gr 3 - Gr 1) at Week 4|-5.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.8|22.2||||||||22.2|-32.8|
90860844|NCT02038881|181585096|OTHER||Diff in SC rate (Gr 3 - Gr 1) at Week 6|-7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.1|10.1||||||||10.1|-25.1|
90860845|NCT02038881|181585097|OTHER||Difference in seroconversion rates (%)|-4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|11.6||||||||11.6|-15.2|
90860846|NCT02038881|181585098|OTHER||Diff in SC rate (Gr 1 [W6] - Gr 3 [W14])|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|13.4||||||||13.4|-17.1|
90860847|NCT02038881|181585098|OTHER||Diff in SC rate (Gr 2 [W6] - Gr 3 [W14])|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|13.4||||||||13.4|-16.2|
90860848|NCT02038881|181585099|OTHER||Diff in SC rate (Gr3 [W38] - Gr1 [W30])|5.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.6|33.0||||||||33.0|-19.6|
90860849|NCT02038881|181585099|OTHER||Diff in SC rate (Gr3 [W64] - Gr1 [W56])|16.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|44.4||||||||44.4|-11.0|
90860850|NCT02038881|181585099|OTHER||Diff in SC rate (Gr2 [W30] - Gr3 [W38])|-10.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.6|14.3||||||||14.3|-35.6|
90860851|NCT02038881|181585099|OTHER||Diff in SC rate (Gr2 [W56] - Gr3 [W64])|-15.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.5|10.5||||||||10.5|-40.5|
90860852|NCT02038881|181585100|OTHER||Diff in SC rate (Gr 1 - Gr 2) at Week 4|-9.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.4|20.3||||||||20.3|-38.4|
90860853|NCT02038881|181585100|OTHER||Diff in SC rate (Gr 1 - Gr 2) at Week 6|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.8|16.3||||||||16.3|-16.8|
90860854|NCT02038881|181585100|OTHER||Diff in SC rate (Gr 1 - Gr 2) at Week 30|-9.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.4|17.6||||||||17.6|-38.4|
90860855|NCT02038881|181585100|OTHER||Diff in SC rate (Gr 1 - Gr 2) at Week 56|-6.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.6|23.7||||||||23.7|-35.6|
90860856|NCT02038881|181585100|OTHER||Diff in SC rate (Gr 3 - Gr 1) at Week 4|20.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|47.8||||||||47.8|-7.7|
90860857|NCT02038881|181585100|OTHER||Diff in SC rate (Gr 3 - Gr 1) at Week 6|-3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.5|13.4||||||||13.4|-20.5|
90860858|NCT02038881|181585101|OTHER||Difference in seroconversion rates (%)|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|13.2||||||||13.2|-12.0|
90860859|NCT02038881|181585102|OTHER||Diff in SC rate (Gr 1 [W6] - Gr 3 [W14])|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|13.4||||||||13.4|-17.1|
90860860|NCT02038881|181585102|OTHER||Diff in SC rate (Gr 2 [W6] - Gr 3 [W14])|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|13.4||||||||13.4|-16.2|
91105661|NCT03816891|182097789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.4111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.7||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 32||0.7|-1.6|0.4111
91105662|NCT03816891|182097789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.0471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.0||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 33||0.0|-2.4|0.0471
91105663|NCT03816891|182097789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.0891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 33||0.2|-2.2|0.0891
90860861|NCT02038881|181585103|OTHER||Diff in SC rate (Gr3 [W38] - Gr1 [W30])|19.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|45.8||||||||45.8|-4.5|
90860862|NCT02038881|181585103|OTHER||Diff in SC rate (Gr3 [W64] - Gr1 [W56])|29.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.8|55.4||||||||55.4|5.8|
90860863|NCT02038881|181585103|OTHER||Diff in SC rate (Gr2 [W30] - Gr3 [W38])|-9.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.0|11.7||||||||11.7|-33.0|
90860864|NCT02038881|181585103|OTHER||Diff in SC rate (Gr2 [W56] - Gr3 [W64])|-23.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.7|-1.0||||||||-1.0|-46.7|
90860865|NCT01453725|181585117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent vs Placebo|31.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.5|43.6||Stratification factors: Baseline evidence of sacroiliitis on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and Screening C-reactive protein (CRP) level|Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen Method|||||43.6|17.5|<0.0001
90860866|NCT01453725|181585118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent vs Placebo|33.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.4|46.1||Stratification factors: Baseline evidence of sacroiliitis on MRI and Screening CRP level|Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen Method|||||46.1|20.4|<0.0001
90860867|NCT01453725|181585119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent vs Placebo|28.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.4|40.6||Stratification factors: Baseline evidence of sacroiliitis on MRI and Screening CRP level|Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen Method|||||40.6|14.4|<0.0001
90905921|NCT01323660|181679388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|30.6||||0.295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.8|88.0||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least square mean change difference=VI 25 µg minus Placebo.|||88.0|-26.8|0.295
90905922|NCT01323660|181679388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|44.4||||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.8|110.6||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least square mean change difference=UMEC/VI 62.5/25 µg minus UMEC 62.5 µg.|||110.6|-21.8|0.188
91105664|NCT03816891|182097789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.7||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 33||0.7|-1.6|0.4820
91105665|NCT03816891|182097789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.0222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-0.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 34||-0.2|-2.6|0.0222
90860868|NCT01453725|181585120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent vs Placebo|15.2||||0.0136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|27.1||Stratification factors: Baseline evidence of sacroiliitis on MRI and Screening CRP level|Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen Method|||||27.1|3.2|0.0136
90860869|NCT01453725|181585121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mann-Whitney Test|||||||<0.0001
90860870|NCT01254292|181585159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||single proportion|82.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|77.1|86.5|||||Clopper Pearson Confidence Interval|||86.5|77.1|
90905923|NCT01323660|181679388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|38.8||||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9|96.5||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least square mean change difference=UMEC/VI 62.5/25 µg minus VI 25 µg.|||96.5|-18.9|0.187
90860871|NCT01254292|181585159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||single proportion|81.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|76.7|86.4|||||Clopper Pearson Confidence Interval|||86.4|76.7|
90860872|NCT02927262|181585205|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.738||||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.407|1.336|||Log Rank||HR \& 95% CI are based on CHM. Assuming proportional hazards, HR \< 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of gilteritinib arm. Stratification factors:age, geographic region, presence of MRD at screening, use of FLT3 inhibiting agents per IRT.|||1.336|0.407|0.163
90860873|NCT02927262|181585206|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.627||95.0|0.54|2.364|||Log Rank||HR \& 95%CI are based on CHM. Assuming proportional hazards, HR \< 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of gilteritinib arm. Stratification factors: age, geographic region, presence of MRD at screening, use of FLT3 inhibiting agents per IRT.|||2.364|0.540|0.627
90860874|NCT02927262|181585207|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.862||||0.296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.455|||Log Rank||HR \& 95%CI are based on CHM. Assuming proportional hazards, HR \< 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of gilteritinib arm. Stratification factors: age, geographic region, presence of MRD at screening, use of FLT3 inhibiting agents per IRT.|||1.455|0.510|0.296
90860875|NCT02927262|181585208|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97||||||2-sided P-value from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including treatment, age group, geographic region and use of FLT3-inhibiting agents per IRT as fixed factors and baseline score as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 3||||0.970
90860876|NCT02927262|181585208|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.415||||||2-sided P-value from ANCOVA including treatment, age group, geographic region and use of FLT3-inhibiting agents per IRT as fixed factors and baseline score as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 6||||0.415
90860877|NCT02927262|181585208|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.271||||||2-sided P-value from ANCOVA including treatment, age group, geographic region and use of FLT3-inhibiting agents per IRT as fixed factors and baseline score as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 12||||0.271
90860878|NCT02927262|181585208|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.179||||||2-sided P-value from ANCOVA including treatment, age group, geographic region and use of FLT3-inhibiting agents per IRT as fixed factors and baseline score as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 24/EoT||||0.179
90905924|NCT01323660|181679388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-8.9||||0.801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.8|60.1||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least square mean change difference=UMEC/VI 125/25 µg minus UMEC 125 µg|||60.1|-77.8|0.801
90860879|NCT02913612|181585211|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|2.65||||0.0205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|6.26|||Fisher Exact|||||6.26|1.12|0.0205
90860880|NCT02913612|181585211|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|2.16||||0.0619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|5.14|||Fisher Exact|||||5.14|0.91|0.0619
90860881|NCT02913612|181585211|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|1.23||||0.6281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|2.82|||Fisher Exact|||||2.82|0.53|0.6281
90860882|NCT04402060|181585229|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.63|1.51|||Log Rank|||P-value was from a 2-sided stratified Log-rank test by the randomization stratification factors (need of mechanical ventilation \[yes vs no\] and age \[\<65 years vs ≥65 years\]) at 0.1 significant level for evaluation of treatment difference. Hazard ratio was obtained from a Cox regression model with treatment and the randomization stratification factors as fixed factors and 90% confidence interval (CI) was based on the Wald method.||1.51|0.63|0.82
90860883|NCT04402060|181585230|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.62||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.77|3.4|||Log Rank|||P-value was from a 2-sided stratified Log-rank test by the randomization stratification factors (need of mechanical ventilation \[yes vs no\] and age \[\<65 years vs ≥65 years\]) at 0.1 significant level for evaluation of treatment difference. Hazard ratio was obtained from a Cox regression model with treatment and the randomization stratification factors as fixed factors and 90% CI was based on the Wald method.||3.40|0.77|0.36
90860884|NCT04402060|181585232|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.09||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.01|0.51|||Log Rank|||P-value was from a 2-sided stratified Log-rank test by the randomization stratification factors (need of mechanical ventilation \[yes vs no\] and age \[\<65 years vs ≥65 years\]) at 0.1 significant level for evaluation of treatment difference. Hazard ratio was obtained from a Cox regression model with treatment and the randomization stratification factors as fixed factors and 90% CI was based on the Wald method.||0.51|0.01|0.03
90860885|NCT04402060|181585233|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|1.72|||Log Rank|||P-value was from a 2-sided stratified Log-rank test by the randomization stratification factors (need of mechanical ventilation \[yes vs no\] and age \[\<65 years vs ≥65 years\]) at 0.1 significant level for evaluation of treatment difference. Hazard ratio was obtained from a Cox regression model with treatment and the randomization stratification factors as fixed factors and 90% CI was based on the Wald method.||1.72|0.69|0.93
90905925|NCT01323660|181679388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|35.2||||0.233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.7|93.1||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least square mean change difference=UMEC/VI 125/25 µg minus VI 25 µg.|||93.1|-22.7|0.233
90905926|NCT01323660|181679388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|69.4||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.5|114.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least square mean change difference=UMEC/VI 62.5/25 µg minus Placebo.|||114.4|24.5|0.003
90905927|NCT01323660|181679388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|65.8||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.3|111.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least square mean change difference=UMEC/VI 125/25 µg minus Placebo.|||111.3|20.3|0.005
90959264|NCT01249274|181798449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|16.65||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|235.52|||Generalized Estimating Equation||Estimated value is RR for treatment\*time interaction term for placebo at week 12. Time was treated as a 3-level categorical variable; week 0 (ref), week 12 and 3-month post-trial follow-up. Treatment variable reference group was progesterone.|Negative binomial distribution, log link, and first-order autoregressive covariance structure||235.52|1.18|0.038
91105666|NCT03816891|182097789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.0682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 34||0.1|-2.3|0.0682
90905928|NCT01323660|181679389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.144|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.086|0.203|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least square mean change difference=UMEC 62.5 µg minus Placebo.|||0.203|0.086|<0.001
90860886|NCT01898208|181585269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||For Vancomycin, all patients||||0.92
90860887|NCT01898208|181585269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.032|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||For vancomycin, organisms not requiring vancomycin.||||0.032
91105667|NCT03816891|182097789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.4112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.7||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 34||0.7|-1.7|0.4112
90860888|NCT01898208|181585269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.037|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||For vancomycin-susceptible enterococci||||0.037
90860889|NCT01898208|181585269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||For vancomycin, methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus.||||0.2
90860890|NCT01898208|181585269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||For nafcillin, oxacillin, or cefazolin.||||0.035
90860891|NCT01898208|181585269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||For piperacillin-tazobactam.||||0.012
90860892|NCT01898208|181585269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.56|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||For cefepime.||||0.56
90860893|NCT01898208|181585270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||This analysis compares the 3 groups.||||0.55
90971360|NCT00452699|181825477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.11|||<|0.001||95.0|0.07|0.15|||ANCOVA|||||0.15|0.07|<0.001
90860894|NCT01898208|181585271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||For time to first appropriate de-escalation comparing the 3 groups.||||<0.0001
90860895|NCT01898208|181585271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||For time to first appropriate escalation comparing the 3 groups.||||0.04
90860896|NCT01898208|181585272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis compares the 3 groups.||||0.015
90860897|NCT01898208|181585273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||This analysis compares the FilmArray test to control arm.||||<0.0001
90905929|NCT01323660|181679389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.255|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.193|0.318|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least square mean change difference=UMEC 125 µg minus Placebo.|||0.318|0.193|<0.001
90905930|NCT01323660|181679389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.112|||<|0.001||95.0|0.061|0.163|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least square mean change difference=VI 25 µg minus Placebo.|||0.163|0.061|<0.001
90905931|NCT01323660|181679389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.099|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.041|0.157|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least square mean change difference=UMEC/VI 62.5/25 µg minus UMEC 62.5 µg.|||0.157|0.041|<0.001
90905932|NCT01323660|181679389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.132|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.081|0.183|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least square mean change difference=UMEC/VI 62.5/25 µg minus VI 25 µg.|||0.183|0.081|<0.001
90905933|NCT01323660|181679389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.006||||0.849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.055|0.067|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least square mean change difference=UMEC/VI 125/25 µg minus UMEC 125 µg.|||0.067|-0.055|0.849
90905934|NCT01323660|181679389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.098|0.201|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least square mean change difference=UMEC/VI 125/25 µg minus VI 25 µg.|||0.201|0.098|<0.001
90905935|NCT01323660|181679389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.243|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.202|0.284|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least square mean change difference=UMEC/VI 62.5/25 µg minus Placebo.|||0.284|0.202|<0.001
91105668|NCT03816891|182097789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.0307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-0.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 35||-0.1|-2.5|0.0307
90905936|NCT01323660|181679389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.261|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.303|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least square mean change difference=UMEC/VI 125/25 µg minus Placebo.|||0.303|0.220|<0.001
90905937|NCT01276535|181679414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison is made of the combined application of the Erchonia MLS and the Erchonia THL. Results are analyzed at 6 weeks relative to Baseline.||||<0.01
90905938|NCT01276535|181679415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison is made of the combined application of the Erchonia MLS and the Erchonia THL. Results are analyzed at 6 weeks relative to Baseline.||||<0.01
90905939|NCT00180674|181679416|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.043|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks test|||||||0.043
90905940|NCT01106976|181679433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0012||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired t-test. Hypothesis of significant cholinergic interval changes over the study interval period.||||0.0009
90905941|NCT05677867|181679441|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|97.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.92|102.08|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|Natural log transformed AUCinf was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within the sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% Confidence Intervals (CIs) for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CI for the ratios. Formulation A was the Reference treatment while Formulation B was the Test treatment.||102.08|92.92|
90905942|NCT05677867|181679442|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Adjusted Means|97.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.77|102.17|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|Natural log transformed AUClast was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within the sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CI for the ratios. Formulation A was the Reference treatment while Formulation B was the Test treatment.||102.17|92.77|
90905943|NCT05677867|181679443|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|94.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.4|110.18|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|Natural log transformed Cmax was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within the sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CI for the ratios. Formulation A was the Reference treatment while Formulation B was the Test treatment.||110.18|81.40|
90905944|NCT02851511|181679457|SUPERIORITY|tDCS vs. sham superiority with cognitive training will be tested based on the 320 participants who are assigned to the two cognitive training arms. The effects of tDCS on changes in NIH Toolbox Fluid Cognition Composite Score (NIHTB FCC) from baseline to 3-month follow-up are estimated by linear regression models, with missing outcomes predicted by regression models that include demographic and baseline characteristics.|Slope|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|1.56||Formal statistical inference of the tDCS effect was based on the inverse-normal combination of two p-values, one from the Phase I data (N=42) and the other from the Phase II data (N=292).|Regression, Linear|||"Null hypothesis: The combination of cognitive training (12 weeks) and active stimulation (over the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex) will not lead to beneficial changes on the NIH Toolbox Cognition Battery.~The study is designed to have at least 90% power to detect a difference of effect size 0.42 between cognitive training+tDCS and cognitive training+sham, using a normal inverse combination test at one-sided 0.025 level."||1.56|-0.91|<0.05
90905945|NCT02118714|181679499|OTHER||Percentage of Participants|23.5|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|10.7|41.6||||||||41.6|10.7|
90971361|NCT01602692|181825481|OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||ANOVA|||End of PACU Mean Pain Level p-value between arms||||0.24
90971362|NCT01602692|181825481|OTHER|||||||0.76|||||||ANOVA|||First 24 hrs Post-op Mean Current Pain p-value between arms||||0.76
91105669|NCT03816891|182097789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.1538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.3||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 35||0.3|-2.0|0.1538
91105670|NCT03816891|182097789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.4047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.7||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 35||0.7|-1.7|0.4047
91105671|NCT03816891|182097789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-0.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 36||-0.2|-2.5|0.0260
90860898|NCT01898208|181585273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||This analysis compares FilmArray plus antimicrobial stewardship to the control arm.||||<0.0001
90860899|NCT01898208|181585274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||This analysis is to compare the three groups.||||0.79
90860900|NCT01898208|181585275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.90
90860901|NCT01898208|181585276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis is a comparison of the 3 groups.||||0.62
90860902|NCT01898208|181585277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||This analysis compares the three groups.||||0.60
90860903|NCT01898208|181585278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of the 3 groups for all-cause mortality.||||0.74
90860904|NCT01898208|181585278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of the 3 groups for attributable mortality.||||0.42
90860905|NCT01898208|181585279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||This analysis is a comparison across all three groups.||||0.82
90860906|NCT01898208|181585281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7789|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison between the 3 arms for total hospitalization costs.||||0.7789
90860907|NCT01898208|181585281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison between the 3 arms for laboratory test cost.||||0.0006
90860908|NCT01898208|181585281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.654|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison between the 3 arms for antimicrobials costs.||||0.6540
90905946|NCT02118714|181679499|OTHER||Percentage of Participants|23.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|49.9||||||||49.9|6.8|
90860909|NCT02155881|181585282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02||||0.9716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|1.01|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model adjusted for treatment, site and the baseline score was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.||1.01|-0.98|0.9716
90860910|NCT02155881|181585283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.08||||0.8713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|1.02|||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, site and the baseline score was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.||1.02|-0.87|0.8713
90860911|NCT02155881|181585284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.7789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.81|||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, site and the baseline score was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.||0.81|-0.61|0.7789
90860912|NCT02155881|181585285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.15||||0.663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.86|||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, site and the baseline score was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.||0.86|-0.55|0.6630
90860913|NCT02155881|181585286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08||||0.5593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Nasal congestion: An ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, site and the baseline score was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.||0.19|-0.35|0.5593
90860914|NCT02155881|181585286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.7085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.33|||ANCOVA|||Runny nose: An ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, site and the baseline score was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.||0.33|-0.22|0.7085
90860915|NCT02155881|181585286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.7309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.31|||ANCOVA|||Itching: An ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, site and the baseline score was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.||0.31|-0.22|0.7309
90860916|NCT02155881|181585286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.9584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Sneezing: An ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, site and the baseline score was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.||0.30|-0.29|0.9584
90860917|NCT02155881|181585287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17||||0.2266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.46|||ANCOVA|||Itching/Burning Eyes: An ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, site and the baseline score was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.||0.46|-0.11|0.2266
90905947|NCT02118714|181679500|OTHER||Percentage of Participants|11.8|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|3.2|28.4||||||||28.4|3.2|
90905948|NCT02118714|181679500|OTHER||Percentage of Participants|11.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|36.4||||||||36.4|1.5|
90905949|NCT02013687|181679528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Significance of IgG values at study day 196 as compared to day 0 (pre-immune).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90905950|NCT02013687|181679528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Significance of IgG values at study day 196 as compared to day 0 (pre-immune).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90905951|NCT02013687|181679529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8
90905952|NCT02013687|181679529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6
90905953|NCT02013687|181679530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5
90905954|NCT02013687|181679530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3
90905955|NCT01782326|181679531|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Study was designed to have \>95% power to rule out a 1.15-fold increase in the rate exacerbations for QVA149 vs. salmeterol/fluticasone.|Rate Ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|0.96|||Generalized linear model||If the upper limit of the confidence interval was \<1.15 then non-inferiority of QVA149 compared to SFC could be claimed|||0.96|0.83|
90905956|NCT01782326|181679531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.89||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|0.96|||Generalized linear method||If non-inferiority was demonstrated, superiority of QVA149A compared to SFC in reducing exacerbation rate could be claimed if the upper limit of the same CI was less than 1.|||0.96|0.83|0.003
91105672|NCT03816891|182097789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.1223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.3||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 36||0.3|-2.1|0.1223
91105673|NCT03816891|182097789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.3641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 36||0.6|-1.7|0.3641
91105674|NCT03816891|182097789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.0284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-0.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 37||-0.1|-2.6|0.0284
91105675|NCT03816891|182097789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.1534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.3||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 37||0.3|-2.1|0.1534
91105676|NCT03816891|182097789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.3914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.7||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 37||0.7|-1.7|0.3914
90905957|NCT01782326|181679532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|0.91|||Regression, Cox|||||0.91|0.78|<0.001
91105677|NCT03816891|182097789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.0265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-0.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 38||-0.2|-2.6|0.0265
90905958|NCT01782326|181679533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|0.91|||Generalized linear model|||||0.91|0.75|<0.001
90905959|NCT01782326|181679534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.86|||Regression, Cox|||||0.86|0.70|<0.001
91105678|NCT03816891|182097789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.1682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.4||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 38||0.4|-2.0|0.1682
90905960|NCT01782326|181679539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.08|||Regression, Cox|||||1.08|0.74|0.256
90905961|NCT01782326|181679540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.95|||Regression, Cox|||||0.95|0.69|0.008
90905962|NCT01782326|181679541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.0|||Regression, Cox|||||1.00|0.66|0.046
91105679|NCT03816891|182097789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.4699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.7||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 38||0.7|-1.6|0.4699
90905963|NCT01782326|181679542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|2.1|||Regression, Cox|||||2.10|0.38|0.790
90905964|NCT03862482|181679574|EQUIVALENCE|Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC, two-way mixed-effect model) assessed inter- and intra-examiner reliability of bone level measurement on 20 radiographs. Dahlberg measurement error. Two-way, mixed effect model|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|-0.49||Bonferroni correction was applied for pairwise comparisons|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA. Dahlberg measurement error||Total 35 Brånemark® implants analyzed for all Configurations. Size difference expected 0.95 bone level change between B/SW/SC. Sample size 16 participants ensured 80% power to reject null hypothesis (two-sided Bonferroni-adjusted α level 0.017, pairwise comparisons between implant groups). Repeated measures ANOVA. Mixed models, repeated measures within subject. Implant type/site/configuration independent variables (length covariate). (B/SW/SC lengths compared with Kruskal-Wallis test)||-0.49|-1.22|<0.05
90959265|NCT01249274|181798450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.15|||Generalized Estimating Equation||Estimated value is the risk ratio for the treatment x time interaction term. Time was treated as a continuous variable and progesterone was the reference group for treatment.|We calculated that a sample size of 50 women would have 80% power to detect a significant (p\<0.05) difference between groups if the effect size for the primary outcome was large.||1.15|0.87|0.99
90971363|NCT01602692|181825481|OTHER|||||||0.78|||||||ANOVA|||First 24 hrs Post-op Mean Worst Pain p-value between arms||||0.78
90971364|NCT01602692|181825481|OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||ANOVA|||First 24 hrs Post-op Mean Least Pain p-value between arms||||0.41
90971365|NCT01602692|181825482|OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||ANOVA|||PACU IV hydromorphone p-value between arms||||0.10
91105680|NCT03816891|182097789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.0241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-0.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 39||-0.2|-2.5|0.0241
91105681|NCT03816891|182097789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1064||0.1064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 39||0.2|-2.1|0.1064
91105682|NCT03816891|182097789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.2948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.5||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 39||0.5|-1.7|0.2948
91105683|NCT03816891|182097789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.0282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-0.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||-0.1|-2.5|0.0282
91105684|NCT03816891|182097789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.1074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||0.2|-2.1|0.1074
91105685|NCT03816891|182097789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.3061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.5||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||0.5|-1.7|0.3061
90860918|NCT02155881|181585287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09||||0.4888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Redness: An ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, site and the baseline score was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.||0.17|-0.35|0.4888
90860919|NCT02155881|181585287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03||||0.8316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.27|||ANCOVA|||Tearing/Watering Eyes: An ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, site and the baseline score was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.||0.27|-0.22|0.8316
90860920|NCT02155881|181585288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.28||||0.2968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.25|||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, site and the baseline score was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.||0.25|-0.80|0.2968
90860921|NCT02155881|181585289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.27||||0.3533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.31|||ANCOVA|||Activities: An ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, site and the baseline score was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.||0.31|-0.85|0.3533
90860922|NCT02155881|181585289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.26||||0.3712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.32|||ANCOVA|||Sleep: An ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, site and the baseline score was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.||0.32|-0.84|0.3712
90860923|NCT02155881|181585289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.4098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.29|||ANCOVA|||Non-nose/Eye symptoms: An ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, site and the baseline score was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.||0.29|-0.69|0.4098
90860924|NCT02155881|181585289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.36||||0.2683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.28|||ANCOVA|||Practical Problems: An ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, site and the baseline score was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.||0.28|-1.00|0.2683
90860925|NCT02155881|181585289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.22||||0.4643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.38|||ANCOVA|||Nasal Symptoms: An ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, site and the baseline score was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.||0.38|-0.82|0.4643
90905965|NCT03862482|181679574|EQUIVALENCE|Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC, two-way mixed-effect model) assessed inter- and intra-examiner reliability of bone level measurement on 20 radiographs. Dahlberg measurement error. Two-way, mixed effect model|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|-0.64||Bonferroni correction was applied for pairwise comparisons|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA. Dahlberg measurement error||Total 36 Swede-Vent® implants analyzed for all Configurations. Size difference expected 0.95 bone level change between B/SW/SC. Sample size 16 participants ensured 80% power to reject null hypothesis (two-sided Bonferroni-adjusted α level 0.017, pairwise comparisons between implant groups). Repeated measures ANOVA. Mixed models, repeated measures within subject. Implant type/site/configuration independent variables (length covariate). (B/SW/SC lengths compared with Kruskal-Wallis test)||-0.64|-1.35|<0.05
91105686|NCT03816891|182097789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.0705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 41||0.1|-2.2|0.0705
91105687|NCT03816891|182097789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.2405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.5||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 41||0.5|-1.9|0.2405
90860926|NCT02155881|181585289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.4502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.33|||ANCOVA|||Eye symptoms: An ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, site and the baseline score was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.||0.33|-0.74|0.4502
90860927|NCT02155881|181585289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.39||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.18|||ANCOVA|||Emotional: An ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, site and the baseline score was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.||0.18|-0.95|0.1770
90860928|NCT01033851|181585337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0366||95.0|||||ANOVA|||A repeated measure ANOVA, with time as the repeated measure, treatment arm as between-subjects factor and CGI-S score as the dependent variable, found a main effect of time (F(1,84)=62.19, p\<0.001) and a significant treatment arm X time interaction (F(1,84)=4.51, p=0.0366).||||0.0366
90905966|NCT03862482|181679574|EQUIVALENCE|Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC, two-way mixed-effect model) assessed inter- and intra-examiner reliability of bone level measurement on 20 radiographs. Dahlberg measurement error. Two-way, mixed effect model|Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|-1.41||Bonferroni correction was applied for pairwise comparisons|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA. Dahlberg measurement error||Total 36 Screw-Vent® implants analyzed for all Configurations. Size difference expected 0.95 bone level change between B/SW/SC. Sample size 16 participants ensured 80% power to reject null hypothesis (two-sided Bonferroni-adjusted α level 0.017, pairwise comparisons between implant groups). Repeated measures ANOVA. Mixed models, repeated measures within subject. Implant type/site/configuration independent variables (length covariate). (B/SW/SC lengths compared with Kruskal-Wallis test)||-1.41|-2.13|<0.05
90905967|NCT02300311|181679581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.849|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.306|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.454|-1.244||The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, country, time and treatment-by-time interaction and the continuous covariate of baseline PI.|REML based repeated measures approach|restricted maximum likelihood (REML) based repeated measures approach|Differences between the treatment group effects (Finalgon® cream - placebo).|"PID8 utilised a restricted maximum likelihood (REML) based repeated measures approach, using all available longitudinal pain intensity observations at each post-baseline time up to 8 hours.~The statistical model was applied to the analysis of change from baseline in pain intensity at 0.5, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 8 hours."||-1.244|-2.454|<0.0001
90905968|NCT02300311|181679582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.341|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.248|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.832|-0.851||The statistical model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, country, time and treatment-by-time interaction and the continuous covariate of baseline PI.|REML based repeated measures approach|restricted maximum likelihood (REML) based repeated measures approach|Differences between the treatment group effects (Finalgon® cream - placebo)|"PID4 utilised a restricted maximum likelihood (REML) based repeated measures approach, using all available longitudinal pain intensity observations at each post-baseline time up to 4 hours.~The statistical model was applied to the analysis of change from baseline in pain intensity at 0.5, 1, 2, 3, and 4 hours."||-0.851|-1.832|<0.0001
90905969|NCT02300311|181679583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.958|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.381|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.712|-2.205|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA using the fixed, categorical effects of treatment and country as well as the continuous covariate of baseline PI.|Differences between the treatment group effects (Finalgon® cream - placebo)|The difference of average pain intensity from pre-dose baseline on the last individual treatment day was analysed using ANCOVA.||-2.205|-3.712|<0.0001
90905970|NCT02300311|181679584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.342|24.199|||Regression, Logistic|Ordinal logistic regression models adjusting for the continuous covariate 'baseline PI' and the categorical variable 'country' was performed.|Odds ratio of (Finalgon® cream / placebo)|"For the analysis of the repeated multinomial efficacy endpoint 'patient assessment of efficacy' on the last individual treatment day, ordinal logistic regression models is used.~Only non-missing data is analysed in the statistical model."||24.199|5.342|<0.0001
90905971|NCT02303574|181679622|OTHER|Dose proportionality was analyzed by power model. Slope parameter was obtained via linear least squares.|Slope|1.287|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05085|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.183|1.391||||||||1.391|1.183|
90905972|NCT02303574|181679622|OTHER|Effect of food analysis by linear mixed effects ANOVA model with fixed effect of fasting status.|Ratio (%)|90.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.72|98.31||||||||98.31|83.72|
90905973|NCT02303574|181679623|OTHER|Time dependency was assessed via linear mixed effects ANOVA model with fixed effects of dose level, day and dose-level-by-day interaction.|Ratio (%)|159.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|140.61|180.7||||||||180.70|140.61|
90905974|NCT02303574|181679623|OTHER|Time dependency was assessed via linear mixed effects ANOVA model with fixed effects of dose level, day and dose-level-by-day interaction.|Ratio (%)|151.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|138.23|166.74||||||||166.74|138.23|
90905975|NCT02303574|181679623|OTHER|Time dependency was assessed via linear mixed effects ANOVA model with fixed effects of dose level, day and dose-level-by-day interaction.|Ratio (%)|158.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|146.67|171.67||||||||171.67|146.67|
90905976|NCT02303574|181679624|OTHER|Dose proportionality was analyzed by power model. Slope parameter was obtained via linear least squares.|Slope|1.228|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1329|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9513|1.504||||||||1.504|0.9513|
90905977|NCT02303574|181679624|OTHER|ime dependency was assessed via linear mixed effects ANOVA model with fixed effects of dose level, day and dose-level-by-day interaction.|Ratio (%)|159.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|140.61|180.7||||||||180.70|140.61|
90905978|NCT02303574|181679624|OTHER|ime dependency was assessed via linear mixed effects ANOVA model with fixed effects of dose level, day and dose-level-by-day interaction.|Ratio (%)|151.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|138.23|166.74||||||||166.74|138.23|
90905979|NCT02303574|181679624|OTHER|ime dependency was assessed via linear mixed effects ANOVA model with fixed effects of dose level, day and dose-level-by-day interaction.|Ratio (%)|158.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|146.67|171.67||||||||171.67|146.67|
90905980|NCT02303574|181679625|OTHER||Slope|1.302|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05056|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.198|1.406||||||Dose proportionality was analyzed by power model. Slope parameter was obtained via linear least squares.||1.406|1.198|
90905981|NCT02303574|181679625|OTHER|Effect of food analysis by linear mixed effects ANOVA model with fixed effect of fasting status.|Ratio (%)|64.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|55.07|74.7||||||||74.70|55.07|
90905982|NCT02303574|181679626|OTHER|Dose proportionality was analyzed by power model. Slope parameter was obtained via linear least squares.|Slope|1.157|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1098|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9285|1.385||||||||1.385|0.9285|
90905983|NCT00994279|181679668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.53|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Null hypothesis is that the two arms will not differ in retention at 14 weeks.||||.53
90905984|NCT00994279|181679669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.98|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis is that the two groups would not differ in fatigue at 10 weeks.||||.98
90905985|NCT01606189|181679670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.58||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.18|||ANOVA|||Box Scale-11 pain scores were compared between treatment groups using an analysis of variance (ANOVA). The model included factors for patient, treatment and period. The significance of the overall treatment effect was assessed using the F-test from the ANOVA. The model used was as follows: Box Scale-11 Pain Score = Patient + Treatment + Period||-0.18|-0.98|0.005
90971366|NCT01602692|181825482|OTHER|||||||0.71|||||||ANOVA|||First 24 hr Post-op oxycodone p-value between arms||||0.71
91105688|NCT03816891|182097789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.3726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 41||0.6|-1.7|0.3726
91105689|NCT03816891|182097789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.0554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.0||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 42||0.0|-2.3|0.0554
90905986|NCT01606189|181679670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.64||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.24|||ANOVA|||Box Scale-11 pain scores were compared between treatment groups using an ANOVA. The model included factors for patient, treatment and period. The significance of the overall treatment effect was assessed using the F-test from the ANOVA. The model used was as follows: Box Scale-11 Pain Score = Patient + Treatment + Period||-0.24|-1.03|0.002
90905987|NCT01606189|181679671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.2||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.04|||ANOVA|||Sleep disturbance scores were compared between treatment groups using ANOVA. The model included factors for patient, treatment and period. The significance of the overall treatment effect was assessed using the F-test from the ANOVA. The model used was as follows: Sleep disturbance Score = Patient + Treatment + Period||-0.04|-0.37|0.017
90905988|NCT01606189|181679671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|-0.16|||ANOVA|||Sleep disturbance scores were compared between treatment groups using ANOVA. The model included factors for patient, treatment and period. The significance of the overall treatment effect was assessed using the F-test from the ANOVA. The model used was as follows: Sleep disturbance Score = Patient + Treatment + Period||-0.16|-0.49|<0.001
91105690|NCT03816891|182097789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.2386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.5||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 42||0.5|-1.8|0.2386
91105691|NCT03816891|182097789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.5147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.8||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 42||0.8|-1.5|0.5147
90860929|NCT03841448|181585354|SUPERIORITY||Placebo-adjusted GM Percent Change|-37.367||||0.1032|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-60.951|0.46|||MMRM||Placebo-adjusted GM percent change, 90% CIs were calculated by exponentially back-transforming the model based LS mean difference (cemdisiran - placebo) and the corresponding 90% CI then subtracting by 1.|||0.460|-60.951|0.1032
90860930|NCT03841448|181585355|SUPERIORITY||Placebo-adjusted GM Percent Change|-36.167||||0.1432|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-61.552|5.978|||MMRM||Placebo-adjusted GM percent change, 90% CIs were calculated by exponentially back-transforming the model based LS mean difference (cemdisiran - placebo) and the corresponding 90% CI then subtracting by 1.|||5.978|-61.552|0.1432
90860931|NCT03841448|181585356|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.01||||0.1177|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.43|21.27|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline 24-hour UP (≥1.0 g and \<2 g/day versus ≥2.0 g/day).|Odds ratio was estimated with logit method using a correction of 0.5 in every cell of the 2x2 table that contains a zero.|||21.27|0.43|0.1177
90860932|NCT03841448|181585356|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportions|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.13|0.42|||||Difference in proportions (cemdisiran - placebo) (90% CI) was based on the Wilson score method with continuity correction.|||0.42|-0.13|
90860933|NCT03841448|181585357|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.02||||0.1533|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.45|20.34|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline 24-hour UP (≥1.0 g and \<2 g/day versus ≥2.0 g/day).|Odds ratio was estimated with logit method using a correction of 0.5 in every cell of the 2x2 table that contains a zero.|||20.34|0.45|0.1533
90860934|NCT03841448|181585357|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportions|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.13|0.42|||||Difference in proportions (cemdisiran - placebo) (90% CI) was based on the Wilson score method with continuity correction.|||0.42|-0.13|
90905989|NCT01606189|181679672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|0.55||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.01|||ANOVA|||Sleep quality scores were compared between treatment groups using ANOVA. The model included factors for patient, treatment and period. The significance of the overall treatment effect was assessed using the F-test from the ANOVA. The model used was as follows: Sleep Quality Score = Patient + Treatment + Period||1.01|0.09|0.019
90905990|NCT01606189|181679672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|0.79||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.24|||ANOVA|||Sleep quality scores were compared between treatment groups using ANOVA. The model included factors for patient, treatment and period. The significance of the overall treatment effect was assessed using the F-test from the ANOVA. The model used was as follows: Sleep Quality Score = Patient + Treatment + Period||1.24|0.33|0.001
91105692|NCT03816891|182097789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.1116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 43||0.2|-2.1|0.1116
91105693|NCT03816891|182097789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.1266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.3||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 43||0.3|-2.0|0.1266
90860935|NCT03841448|181585358|SUPERIORITY||Placebo-adjusted GM Percent Change|-45.771||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-60.093|-26.309|||MMRM||Placebo-adjusted GM percent change, 90% CIs were calculated by exponentially back-transforming the model based LS means difference (cemdisiran - placebo) and the corresponding 90% CI then subtracting by 1.|||-26.309|-60.093|0.0021
90860936|NCT04068610|181585365|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.3173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|5.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value for comparison of treatment arms obtained from stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by the location of the primary tumor.||||5.6|0.6|0.3173
90860937|NCT02586064|181585390|OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline||||0.28
91105694|NCT03816891|182097789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.3822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 43||0.6|-1.6|0.3822
91105695|NCT03816891|182097789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 44||0.1|-2.2|0.0720
91105696|NCT03816891|182097789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.3434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 44||0.6|-1.7|0.3434
91105697|NCT03816891|182097789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.5061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.8||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 44||0.8|-1.5|0.5061
91105698|NCT03816891|182097789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.0366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 45||-0.1|-2.3|0.0366
91105699|NCT03816891|182097789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.1181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 45||0.2|-2.0|0.1181
91105700|NCT03816891|182097789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.7078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.9||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 45||0.9|-1.3|0.7078
91105701|NCT03816891|182097789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.0868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 46||0.1|-2.1|0.0868
91105702|NCT03816891|182097789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.1683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.3||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 46||0.3|-1.9|0.1683
90860938|NCT02586064|181585390|EQUIVALENCE|Confidence interval 95%, equivalence margin \[-7,7\].|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90860939|NCT02586064|181585390|OTHER|||||||0.87|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||End of Treatment||||0.87
90860940|NCT02586064|181585390|EQUIVALENCE|Confidence interval 95%, equivalence margin \[-7,7\].|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.57|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90905991|NCT01606189|181679673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-1.55||||0.146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.64|0.55|||ANOVA|||Total pain intensity scores were compared between treatment groups using ANOVA. The model included factors for patient, treatment and period. The significance of the overall treatment effect was assessed using the F-test from the ANOVA. The model used was as follows: Total Pain Intensity Score = Patient + Treatment + Period||0.55|-3.64|0.146
91105703|NCT03816891|182097789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.8909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 46||1.1|-1.2|0.8909
90860941|NCT02586064|181585390|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence hypothesis was assessed using the confidence intervals for the mean differences compared to margins of equivalence (-7,7). The equivalence hypothesis was examined based on the difference between the amount of change from the baseline to the end of treatment on the CAPS between the two conditions. Confidence interval is -7.0 to 1.9.||||||0.26|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change||||0.26
90860942|NCT02586064|181585390|EQUIVALENCE|Confidence interval 95%, equivalence margin \[-7,7\].|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.25|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91105704|NCT03816891|182097789|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.0671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 47||0.1|-2.3|0.0671
91105705|NCT03816891|182097789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.3325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 47||0.6|-1.7|0.3325
90860943|NCT02586064|181585390|OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||3 Month Post Treatment||||0.68
90860944|NCT02586064|181585390|EQUIVALENCE|Confidence interval 95%, equivalence margin \[-7,7\].|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.16|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90860945|NCT02586064|181585390|OTHER|||||||0.84|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||6 Month Follow Up||||0.84
90860946|NCT02586064|181585390|EQUIVALENCE|Confidence interval 95%, equivalence margin \[-7,7\].|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.05|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90860947|NCT02586064|181585391|OTHER|||||||0.36|||||||t-test, 1 sided|One sided 97.5% confidence interval, superiority margin was 0.5||Baseline||||0.36
91105706|NCT03816891|182097789|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.8912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 47||1.1|-1.2|0.8912
91105707|NCT03816891|182097789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.0612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||0.1|-2.2|0.0612
90860948|NCT02586064|181585391|OTHER|||||||0.34|||||||t-test, 1 sided|One sided 97.5% confidence interval, superiority margin was 0.5||4-Week||||0.34
90860949|NCT02586064|181585391|OTHER|||||||0.43|||||||t-test, 1 sided|One sided 97.5% confidence interval, superiority margin was 0.5||8-Week||||0.43
90860950|NCT02586064|181585391|OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 1 sided|One sided 97.5% confidence interval, superiority margin was 0.5||6 Month Post Treatment||||0.09
90860951|NCT02586064|181585391|OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||t-test, 1 sided|One sided 97.5% confidence interval, superiority margin was 0.5||End of Treatment||||0.41
90860952|NCT02586064|181585391|SUPERIORITY|Superiority hypotheses were assessed using the confidence interval for the mean differences (-0.33 to 0.20) compared to margin of superiority (-.05).||||||0.64|||||||t-test, 1 sided|One sided 97.5% confidence interval, superiority margin was 0.5||Change||||0.64
90860953|NCT02586064|181585391|OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||t-test, 1 sided|One sided 97.5% confidence interval, superiority margin was 0.5||3 Month Post Treatment||||0.22
90860954|NCT02586064|181585392|OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline||||0.40
90860955|NCT02586064|181585392|OTHER|||||||0.65|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||End of Treatment||||0.65
90860956|NCT02586064|181585392|OTHER|||||||0.64|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Change||||0.64
90860957|NCT02586064|181585392|OTHER|||||||0.64|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||3 Month Post Treatment||||0.64
90860958|NCT02586064|181585392|OTHER|||||||0.76|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||6 Month Post Treatment||||0.76
90860959|NCT02586064|181585393|OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline||||0.11
90905992|NCT01606189|181679673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-2.2||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.29|-0.1|||ANOVA|||Total pain intensity scores were compared between treatment groups using ANOVA. The model included factors for patient, treatment and period. The significance of the overall treatment effect was assessed using the F-test from the ANOVA. The model used was as follows: Total Pain Intensity Score = Patient + Treatment + Period||-0.10|-4.29|0.040
90905993|NCT01606189|181679674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-7.28||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.78|1.21|||ANOVA|||Intensity of Pain scores were compared between treatment groups using ANOVA. The model included factors for patient, treatment and period. The significance of the overall treatment effect was assessed using the F-test from the ANOVA. The model used was as follows: Intensity of Pain Score = Patient + Treatment + Period||1.21|-15.78|0.092
90905994|NCT01606189|181679674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-8.99||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.41|-0.57|||ANOVA|||Intensity of Pain scores were compared between treatment groups using ANOVA. The model included factors for patient, treatment and period. The significance of the overall treatment effect was assessed using the F-test from the ANOVA. The model used was as follows: Intensity of Pain Score = Patient + Treatment + Period||-0.57|-17.41|0.037
90905995|NCT01606189|181679675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mann-Whitney U statistic|1222.0||||0.328||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Pain at present was analysed using the Mann-Whitney test with a correction for ties. Results were presented in terms of the sums of the ranks for the two groups, the Mann-Whitney U statistic and the associated p-value.||||0.328
90905996|NCT01606189|181679675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mann-Whitney U statistic|1200.5||||0.56||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Pain at present was analysed using the Mann-Whitney test with a correction for ties. Results were presented in terms of the sums of the ranks for the two groups, the Mann-Whitney U statistic and the associated p-value.||||0.560
91105708|NCT03816891|182097789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.1879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.4||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||0.4|-1.9|0.1879
90860960|NCT02586064|181585393|OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||4-Week||||0.48
90860961|NCT02586064|181585393|OTHER|||||||0.74|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||8-Week||||0.74
90860962|NCT02586064|181585393|OTHER|||||||0.34|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||End of Treatment||||0.34
90860963|NCT02586064|181585393|OTHER|||||||0.65|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Change||||0.65
90860964|NCT02586064|181585393|OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||3 Month Post Treatment||||0.14
90860965|NCT02586064|181585393|OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||6 Month Post Treatment||||0.18
90860966|NCT02586064|181585394|OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline||||0.08
90860967|NCT02586064|181585394|OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||End of Treatment||||0.07
90860968|NCT02586064|181585394|OTHER|||||||0.86|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Change||||0.86
90860969|NCT02586064|181585394|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||3 Month Post Treatment||||0.003
90860970|NCT02586064|181585394|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||6 Month Post Treatment||||0.03
90860971|NCT02586064|181585395|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline||||0.05
90860972|NCT02586064|181585395|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||End of Treatment||||0.04
90860973|NCT02586064|181585395|OTHER|||||||0.86|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Change||||0.86
90860974|NCT02586064|181585395|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||3 Month Post Treatment||||<0.001
90860975|NCT02586064|181585395|OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||6 Month Post Treatment||||0.16
90860976|NCT02586064|181585396|OTHER|||||||0.45|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline||||0.45
90860977|NCT02586064|181585396|OTHER|||||||0.71|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||End of Treatment||||0.71
90860978|NCT02586064|181585396|OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Change||||0.60
90860979|NCT02586064|181585396|OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||3 Month Post Treatment||||0.13
90860980|NCT02586064|181585396|OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||6 Month Post Treatment||||0.80
90860981|NCT02586064|181585397|OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline||||0.35
90860982|NCT02586064|181585397|OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||End of Treatment||||0.11
90860983|NCT02586064|181585397|OTHER|||||||0.74|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Change||||0.74
90860984|NCT02586064|181585397|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||3 Month Post Treatment||||0.03
90860985|NCT02586064|181585397|OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||6 Month Post Treatment||||0.22
91105709|NCT03816891|182097789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.7696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.0||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||1.0|-1.3|0.7696
91105710|NCT03816891|182097789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.1211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 49||0.2|-2.1|0.1211
91105711|NCT03816891|182097789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.3908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.7||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 49||0.7|-1.7|0.3908
91105712|NCT03816891|182097789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.8036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.4||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 49||1.4|-1.1|0.8036
91105713|NCT03816891|182097789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.0928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 50||0.2|-2.3|0.0928
91105714|NCT03816891|182097789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.4439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.8||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 50||0.8|-1.7|0.4439
91105715|NCT03816891|182097789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.7769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 50||1.1|-1.4|0.7769
90860986|NCT02586064|181585398|OTHER|||||||0.39|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline||||0.39
90860987|NCT02586064|181585398|OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||End of Treatment||||0.15
90860988|NCT02586064|181585398|OTHER|||||||0.72|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Change||||0.72
91105716|NCT03816891|182097789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.0742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 51||0.1|-2.3|0.0742
91105717|NCT03816891|182097789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.1496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.3||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 51||0.3|-2.2|0.1496
90860989|NCT02586064|181585398|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||3 Month Post Treatment||||0.04
90860990|NCT02586064|181585398|OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||6 Month Post Treatment||||0.19
90860991|NCT02586064|181585399|OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline||||0.33
90905997|NCT01606189|181679676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-1.75||||0.181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.32|0.83|||ANOVA|||Pain Disability Index scores were compared between treatment groups using ANOVA. The model included factors for patient, treatment and period. The significance of the overall treatment effect was assessed using the F-test from the ANOVA. The model used was as follows: Pain Disability Index Score = Patient + Treatment + Period||0.83|-4.32|0.181
90905998|NCT01606189|181679676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|0.43||||0.739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|2.98|||ANOVA|||Pain Disability Index scores were compared between treatment groups using ANOVA. The model included factors for patient, treatment and period. The significance of the overall treatment effect was assessed using the F-test from the ANOVA. The model used was as follows: Pain Disability Index Score = Patient + Treatment + Period||2.98|-2.12|0.739
90905999|NCT01606189|181679677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-2.23||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.01|-0.45|||ANOVA|||12-Item General Health Questionnaire scores were compared between treatment groups using ANOVA. The model included factors for patient, treatment and period. The significance of the overall treatment effect was assessed using the F-test from the ANOVA. The model used was as follows: 12-Item General Health Questionnaire Score = Patient + Treatment + Period||-0.45|-4.01|0.015
91105718|NCT03816891|182097789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.4901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.8||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 51||0.8|-1.6|0.4901
90860992|NCT02586064|181585399|OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||End of Treatment||||0.11
90860993|NCT02586064|181585399|OTHER|||||||0.88|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Change||||0.88
90860994|NCT02586064|181585399|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||3 Month Post Treatment||||0.06
90860995|NCT02586064|181585399|OTHER|||||||0.56|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||6 Month Post Treatment||||0.56
90860996|NCT02586064|181585400|OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline||||0.16
90860997|NCT02586064|181585400|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||End of Treatment||||0.06
90860998|NCT02586064|181585400|OTHER|||||||0.46|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Change||||0.46
90860999|NCT02586064|181585400|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||3 Month Post Treatment||||0.001
90861000|NCT02586064|181585400|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||6 Month Post Treatment||||0.002
90861001|NCT02586064|181585401|OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline||||0.24
90861002|NCT02586064|181585401|OTHER|||||||0.81|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||End of Treatment||||0.81
90861003|NCT02586064|181585401|OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Change||||0.24
90861004|NCT02586064|181585402|OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline||||0.41
90861005|NCT02586064|181585402|OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||End of Treatment||||0.21
90861006|NCT02586064|181585402|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Change||||0.50
90906000|NCT01606189|181679677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-1.21||||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.97|0.56|||ANOVA|||12-Item General Health Questionnaire scores were compared between treatment groups using ANOVA. The model included factors for patient, treatment and period. The significance of the overall treatment effect was assessed using the F-test from the ANOVA. The model used was as follows: 12-Item General Health Questionnaire Score = Patient + Treatment + Period||0.56|-2.97|0.178
90906001|NCT04640571|181679698|EQUIVALENCE|Simple one-way t-test to assess if pravastatin AUC value is larger after metformin than after placebo.||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.02
90906002|NCT04640571|181679699|EQUIVALENCE|Simple one-way t-test to assess if pravastatin Cmax value is larger after metformin than after placebo|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.05
90906003|NCT04640571|181679700|EQUIVALENCE|Simple one-way t-test to assess if CDCA AUC value is reduced after metformin than after placebo.|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.05
90959266|NCT01249274|181798451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.34||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|7.88|||Generalized Estimating Equation||Estimated value is RR for treatment\*time interaction for placebo at 3-mo post-trial follow-up. Time treated as a 3-level categorical variable; week 0 (ref), week 12 \& 3-month post-trial follow-up. Treatment variable reference group was progesterone.|We calculated that a sample size of 50 women would have 80% power to detect a significant (p\<0.05) difference between groups if the effect size for the primary outcome was large.||7.88|0.23|0.75
90861007|NCT02586064|181585403|OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline||||0.70
90861008|NCT02586064|181585403|OTHER|||||||0.96|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Week 4||||0.96
90861009|NCT02586064|181585403|OTHER|||||||0.59|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Week 8||||0.59
90861010|NCT02586064|181585403|OTHER|||||||0.61|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||End of Treatment||||0.61
90861011|NCT02586064|181585403|OTHER|||||||0.84|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Change||||0.84
90861012|NCT02586064|181585403|OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||3 Month Follow Up||||0.30
90861013|NCT02586064|181585403|OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||6 Month Post Treatment||||0.16
90861014|NCT02728596|181585425|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.44||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|1.57|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for age group, comorbidity, race, and Hispanic ethnicity.||PP-CSF use in the high risk FN group was compared between the usual care (UC) group (Arm 2) and the intervention group (Arm 3 and 4 combined).||1.57|0.12|0.21
90861015|NCT02728596|181585425|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|3.2|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for age, sex, and cancer type.||PP-CSF use in the low risk FN group was compared between the usual care (UC) group (Arm 2) and the intervention group (Arm 3 and 4 combined).||3.20|0.44|0.74
90861016|NCT02728596|181585425|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.23||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|7.08|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for age, sex, and cancer type.||PP-CSF use in the intermediate risk FN group was compared between the usual care (UC) group (Arm 2) and the SOE for PP-CSF intervention group (Arm 3).||7.08|0.70|0.17
90861017|NCT02728596|181585425|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.36||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|1.19|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for age, sex, and cancer type.||PP-CSF use in the intermediate risk FN group was compared between the usual care (UC) group (Arm 2) and the alert against PP-CSF intervention group (Arm 4).||1.19|0.11|0.094
90906004|NCT04640571|181679701|EQUIVALENCE|Simple one-way t-test to assess if CDCA Cmax value is reduced after metformin than after placebo.|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.05
90906005|NCT04640571|181679702|EQUIVALENCE|Simple one-way t-test to assess if acyclovir AUC value is reduced after polysorbate 80 than after placebo|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.05
90906006|NCT04640571|181679703|EQUIVALENCE|Simple one-way t-test to assess if acyclovir Cmax value is reduced after polysorbate 80 than after placebo.|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.05
90959267|NCT01249274|181798451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.18||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|5.84|||Generalized Estimating Equation|Negative binomial distribution, log link, and first-order autoregressive covariance structure|Estimated value is RR for treatment\*time interaction for placebo at week 12. Time was treated as a 3-level categorical variable; week 0 (ref), week 12 \& 3-month post-trial follow-up. Treatment variable reference group was progesterone.|||5.84|0.24|0.84
90861018|NCT02728596|181585426|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.95|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for age.||FN incidence rate in the high risk FN group was compared between the usual care (UC) group (Arm 2) and the intervention group (Arm 3 and 4 combined).||2.95|0.75|0.26
90906007|NCT04640571|181679704|EQUIVALENCE|Simple one-way t-test to assess if CDCA AUC value is reduced after polysorbate 80 than after placebo.|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.05
90906008|NCT04640571|181679705|EQUIVALENCE|Simple one-way t-test to assess if CDCA Cmax value is reduced after polysorbate 80 than after placebo.|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.05
90861019|NCT02728596|181585426|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|18.8|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for cancer type.||FN incidence rate in the low risk FN group was compared between the usual care (UC) group (Arm 2) and the intervention group (Arm 3 and 4 combined).||18.80|0.23|0.51
90861020|NCT02728596|181585426|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|2.88|||Regression, Logistic|||FN incidence rate in the intermediate risk FN group was compared between the usual care (UC) group (Arm 2) and the SOE for PP-CSF intervention group (Arm 3).||2.88|0.41|0.87
90861021|NCT02728596|181585426|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|3.57|||Regression, Logistic|||FN incidence rate in the intermediate risk FN group was compared between the usual care (UC) group (Arm 2) and the alert against PP-CSF intervention group (Arm 4).||3.57|0.44|0.68
90861022|NCT02728596|181585427|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.95|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for cancer type.||||1.95|0.39|0.74
90861023|NCT02728596|181585427|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|2.88|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for cancer type.||||2.88|0.41|0.87
90906009|NCT04640571|181679706|EQUIVALENCE|Simple one-way t-test to assess if enalaprilat AUC value is increased after polysorbate 80 than after placebo.|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.05
90906010|NCT04640571|181679707|EQUIVALENCE|Simple one-way t-test to assess if enalaprilat Cmax value is increased after polysorbate 80 than after placebo.|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.05
90906011|NCT04640571|181679708|EQUIVALENCE|For each of 15 endogenous bile acid, simple one-way t-test to assess if endogenous bile acid AUC value is larger after polysorbate 80 than after placebo.|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.05
91105719|NCT03816891|182097789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.0895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||0.2|-2.3|0.0895
91105720|NCT03816891|182097789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.4572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.8||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||0.8|-1.8|0.4572
91105721|NCT03816891|182097789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.8157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.4||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||1.4|-1.1|0.8157
90861024|NCT02728596|181585427|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|3.57|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for cancer type.||This is comparing the FN incidence rate in the arm randomized to alert against PP-CSF vs usual care in intermediate risk participants.||3.57|0.44|0.68
90861025|NCT00309985|181585449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||The study was designed to detect a 33.3% improvement in median survival time across treatments with one-sided type I error of 0.025 and 80% power.||||0.0003
90861026|NCT00309985|181585450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
90861027|NCT00309985|181585451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
90861028|NCT00309985|181585452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
90861029|NCT00309985|181585453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
90861030|NCT00309985|181585454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0009
90861031|NCT00309985|181585454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.40
90861032|NCT04102189|181585457|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-16.75|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.27|-13.23|||ANCOVA|||Responses were analyzed using an analysis of covariance model with randomized treatment, stratification groups (sex and Tanner stage at baseline) and the interaction between stratification groups as factors and baseline BMI as covariate.||-13.23|-20.27|<.0001
90861033|NCT00316719|181585495|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This is a Non-inferiority Analysis with the margin of -1.0.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.309|<|0.001||95.0|-0.94|0.28|||ANCOVA|||||0.28|-0.94|<0.001
90906012|NCT04640571|181679709|EQUIVALENCE|For each of 15 endogenous bile acid, simple one-way t-test to assess if endogenous bile acid Cmax value is reduced after metformin than after placebo.|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.05
90906013|NCT04640571|181679710|EQUIVALENCE|For each of 15 endogenous bile acid, simple one-way t-test to assess if endogenous bile acid AUC value is reduced after metformin than after placebo.|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.05
90906014|NCT04640571|181679711|EQUIVALENCE|For each of 15 endogenous bile acid, simple one-way t-test to assess if endogenous bile acid Cmax value is larger after polysorbate 80 than after placebo.|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.05
90940215|NCT01340300|181760089|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||One-sided un-adjusted p-values to test if the decrease in treatment arm is greater than the control arm. Holm's method was performed for multiple comparisons to provide an overall significance level of 5%. Only significant p-values were reported.|Mixed Models Analysis|An intention-to-treat analysis, with a mixed model that was adjusted for baseline outcome value, BMI (\< 30 or \> 30), gender, cancer, and study site.||Null hypothesis: decrease of Waist to Hip Ratio in treatment arm is greater than the control arm.||||0.01
91105722|NCT03816891|182097790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-14.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.57|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.6|-7.5||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||-7.5|-21.6|<0.0001
91105723|NCT03816891|182097790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.56||0.0368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|-0.5||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||-0.5|-14.5|0.0368
90959268|NCT01249274|181798452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.103|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1030
90861034|NCT02495831|181585508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||point estimate (ratio of geometric means|90.0||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.0|125.0||If the upper limit of the 90% confidence interval is \< 125.00%, no effect of safinamide on diclofenamic acid bioavailability is present (no interaction present).|ANOVA|||The PK parameters AUC0-t and Cmax were analysed using analysis of variance (ANOVA). Before analysis, the data were transformed using a neperian logarithmic transformation. ANOVA was performed taking into account treatment, period, sequence and subject (sequence) as fixed effects with a variance components structure of the covariance matrix.||125|80|0.1
90861035|NCT02495831|181585509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean ratio|104.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.4|114.02||||||||114.02|96.40|
90861036|NCT02281773|181585522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.1256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.76|0.34||Due to the exploratory nature of this trial, no multiplicity adjustment was made. All statistical testing was performed using a two-sided, α=0.05 level of significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Unstructured covariance structure has been used to fit the mixed model. Kenward-Roger was used to model degrees of freedom.|Mean Difference (Final Values) is actually the Adjusted mean difference calculated as BI 409306 10 mg minus Placebo.|The restricted maximum likelihood (REML) based mixed effects model with repeated measurements (MMRM) was used with baseline value as fixed covariate and planned treatment, analysis visit, first test done, geographic region grouping 1, planned treatment by analysis visit and baseline value by analysis visit as fixed effects.||0.34|-2.76|0.1256
90959269|NCT01249274|181798453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Score Statistic For Type 3 GEE Analysis|0.01||||0.9116|TWO_SIDED||||||Generalized Estimating Equation|Gamma distribution, logit link, 1st-order autoregressive covariance structure; p-value is for chi-sq (df=1) for type 3 GEE analysis score statistic|Estimated value is chi-sq (df=1) for type 3 GEE analysis score statistic for week\*treatment interaction term.|||||0.9116
90959270|NCT01249274|181798456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|4.71||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|20.5|||Regression, Cox||Ratio presented is for placebo versus progesterone|||20.50|1.09|0.048
91105724|NCT03816891|182097790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.58||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|2.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||2.1|-12.0|0.1700
90861037|NCT02281773|181585522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.7337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.84||Due to the exploratory nature of this trial, no multiplicity adjustment was made. All statistical testing was performed using a two-sided, α=0.05 level of significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Unstructured covariance structure has been used to fit the mixed model. Kenward-Roger was used to model degrees of freedom.|Mean Difference (Final Values) is actually the Adjusted mean difference calculated as BI 409306 25 mg minus Placebo.|The restricted maximum likelihood (REML) based mixed effects model with repeated measurements (MMRM) was used with baseline value as fixed covariate and planned treatment, analysis visit, first test done, geographic region grouping 1, planned treatment by analysis visit and baseline value by analysis visit as fixed effects.||1.84|-1.30|0.7337
90861038|NCT02281773|181585522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.6994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|1.95||Due to the exploratory nature of this trial, no multiplicity adjustment was made. All statistical testing was performed using a two-sided, α=0.05 level of significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Unstructured covariance structure has been used to fit the mixed model. Kenward-Roger was used to model degrees of freedom.|Mean Difference (Final Values) is actually the Adjusted mean difference calculated as BI 409306 50 mg minus Placebo.|The restricted maximum likelihood (REML) based mixed effects model with repeated measurements (MMRM) was used with baseline value as fixed covariate and planned treatment, analysis visit, first test done, geographic region grouping 1, planned treatment by analysis visit and baseline value by analysis visit as fixed effects.||1.95|-1.31|0.6994
90861039|NCT02281773|181585522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.19|0.93||Due to the exploratory nature of this trial, no multiplicity adjustment was made. All statistical testing was performed using a two-sided, α=0.05 level of significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Unstructured covariance structure has been used to fit the mixed model. Kenward-Roger was used to model degrees of freedom.|Mean Difference (Final Values) is actually the Adjusted mean difference calculated as BI 409306 100 mg minus Placebo.|The restricted maximum likelihood (REML) based mixed effects model with repeated measurements (MMRM) was used with baseline value as fixed covariate and planned treatment, analysis visit, first test done, geographic region grouping 1, planned treatment by analysis visit and baseline value by analysis visit as fixed effects.||0.93|-2.19|0.4270
90861040|NCT02281773|181585527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.5972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.6||Due to the exploratory nature of this trial, no multiplicity adjustment was made. All statistical testing was performed using a two-sided, α=0.05 level of significance.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference (Final Values) is actually the Adjusted mean difference calculated as BI 409306 10 mg minus Placebo.|Analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) were used to assess between-group differences (BI 409306 group minus placebo group) in the modelled changes from baseline to Week 12. The dependent variable was the change from the baseline score at Week 12 during the treatment period adjusted for fixed categorical covariates of treatment as well as fixed continuous covariates of baseline score.||1.6|-0.9|0.5972
90861041|NCT02281773|181585527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.3817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.7||Due to the exploratory nature of this trial, no multiplicity adjustment was made. All statistical testing was performed using a two-sided, α=0.05 level of significance.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference (Final Values) is actually the Adjusted mean difference calculated as BI 409306 25 mg minus Placebo.|Analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) were used to assess between-group differences (BI 409306 group minus placebo group) in the modelled changes from baseline to Week 12. The dependent variable was the change from the baseline score at Week 12 during the treatment period adjusted for fixed categorical covariates of treatment as well as fixed continuous covariates of baseline score.||0.7|-1.9|0.3817
90861042|NCT02281773|181585527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.8||Due to the exploratory nature of this trial, no multiplicity adjustment was made. All statistical testing was performed using a two-sided, α=0.05 level of significance.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference (Final Values) is actually the Adjusted mean difference calculated as BI 409306 50 mg minus Placebo.|Analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) were used to assess between-group differences (BI 409306 group minus placebo group) in the modelled changes from baseline to Week 12. The dependent variable was the change from the baseline score at Week 12 during the treatment period adjusted for fixed categorical covariates of treatment as well as fixed continuous covariates of baseline score.||1.8|-0.9|0.4800
90861043|NCT02281773|181585527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.7507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.5||Due to the exploratory nature of this trial, no multiplicity adjustment was made. All statistical testing was performed using a two-sided, α=0.05 level of significance.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference (Final Values) is actually the Adjusted mean difference calculated as BI 409306 100 mg minus Placebo.|Analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) were used to assess between-group differences (BI 409306 group minus placebo group) in the modelled changes from baseline to Week 12. The dependent variable was the change from the baseline score at Week 12 during the treatment period adjusted for fixed categorical covariates of treatment as well as fixed continuous covariates of baseline score.||1.5|-1.1|0.7507
90940216|NCT01951261|181760090|NON_INFERIORITY|sample size calculation was made, considering it appropriate to set a limit of non-inferiority with respect to the main variable of 1.2 months (36 days), the study being lower if it will have exacerbation before this period of time, with a follow-up of 6 months, It was required to include a sample of 58 patients per group for a potency of 80% and a significance level of 5%.|||||<|0.05||||||The reported p-value was calculated.Statistical analysis of the main variable was performed using the Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank test|Log Rank|||||||<0.05
90940217|NCT04098497|181760113|OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t = 1.74, df = 28||baseline to day 42 comparison||||0.09
90906015|NCT04060680|181679728|SUPERIORITY|The pre-specified Objective Performance Criterion (OPC) for the major complication free rate at 6 months is 0.79. If the lower confidence bound of two-sided 95% confidence interval for the freedom from the first major EV ICD System/procedure-related complication through 182 days post implant exceeds 0.79, the primary safety objective will be met. The freedom from the first major EV ICD System/procedure-related complication was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method.|Major complication-free rate|92.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.0|95.0||A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.025|Kaplan-Meier method|||The primary safety objective is to demonstrate the freedom from major complications related to the EV ICD System and/or procedure at 6 months post-implant exceeds an OPC of 79%. H0: p ≤ 0.79 HA: p \> 0.79, where p denotes the 6-month (182 days) freedom from major EV ICD System/procedure-related complications rate.||95.0|89.0|<0.0001
90906016|NCT04060680|181679729|SUPERIORITY|The pre-specified OPC for the EV ICD defibrillation testing success at implant is 0.88. If the lower confidence bound of two-sided 95% confidence interval for the proportion of EV ICD patients achieving defibrillation testing success at implant exceeds 0.88, the primary efficacy objective will be met. The primary efficacy objective will be evaluated using a one-proportion binomial exact test along with a two-sided 95% Clopper-Pearson confidence bound.|Proportion|98.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.6|99.6||A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.025|One-proportion binomial exact test|||The primary efficacy is to demonstrate the EV ICD defibrillation testing success rate at implant is greater than an OPC of 88%. H0: p ≤ 0.88 HA: p \> 0.88, where p denotes the probability of EV ICD defibrillation success at implant.||99.6|96.6|<0.0001
90906017|NCT00495469|181679744|OTHER|Tukey's trend test for dose response||||||0.003||||||Tukey's trend test adjusts for multiplicity with statistical significance based on p-value \<0.05|ANCOVA|Change=Baseline+Treatment||||||0.003
90906018|NCT00495469|181679744|OTHER|Tukey's trend test for dose response||||||0.047||||||Tukey's trend test adjusts for multiplicity with statistical significance based on p-value \<0.05.|ANCOVA|Change=Baseline+Treatment||||||0.047
90906019|NCT00495469|181679744|OTHER|Tukey's trend test for dose response||||||0.006||||||Tukey's trend test adjusts for multiplicity with statistical significance based on p-value \<0.05.|ANCOVA|Change=Baseline+Treatment||||||0.006
90906020|NCT00495469|181679744|OTHER|Tukey's trend test for dose response||||||0.085||||||Tukey's trend test adjusts for multiplicity with statistical significance based on p-value \<0.05.|ANCOVA|Change=Baseline+Treatment||||||0.085
90906021|NCT00495469|181679744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.34||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.05||Pairwise comparison included for informational purposes and not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change=Baseline+Treatment||||0.05|-0.73|0.085
90906022|NCT00495469|181679744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.56||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.16||Pairwise comparison included for informational purposes and not controlled for multiplicity|ANCOVA|Change=Baseline+Treatment||||-0.16|-0.95|0.006
90906023|NCT00495469|181679744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.34||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.05||Pairwise comparison included for informational purposes and not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change=Baseline+Treatment||||0.05|-0.73|0.084
91105725|NCT03816891|182097790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-25.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.1|-15.3||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||-15.3|-35.1|<0.0001
91105726|NCT03816891|182097790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-13.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.96||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.7|-4.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||-4.1|-23.7|0.0056
91105727|NCT03816891|182097790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-13.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.99||0.0076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.3|-3.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||-3.6|-23.3|0.0076
90906024|NCT00495469|181679744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.66||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.28||Pairwise comparison included for informational purposes and not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change=Baseline+Treatment||||-0.28|-1.05|0.001
90906025|NCT00495469|181679744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.59||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.2||Pairwise comparison included for informational purposes and not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change=Baseline+Treatment||||-0.20|-0.97|0.003
90906026|NCT00495469|181679744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.19||||0.337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.2||Pairwise comparison included for informational purposes and not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change=Baseline+Treatment||||0.20|-0.58|0.337
90906027|NCT00495469|181679746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.85||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|-0.04||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change=Baseline+Treatment||||-0.04|-1.67|0.039
90906028|NCT00495469|181679746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.06||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|-0.23||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change=Baseline+Treatment||||-0.23|-1.89|0.013
90906029|NCT00495469|181679746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.64||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|0.19||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change=Baseline+Treatment||||0.19|-1.46|0.131
90906030|NCT00495469|181679746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.95||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|-0.13||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change=Baseline+Treatment||||-0.13|-1.77|0.023
90906031|NCT00495469|181679746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.13||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|-0.32||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change=Baseline+Treatment||||-0.32|-1.95|0.007
90906032|NCT00495469|181679746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.51||||0.223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|0.32||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change=Baseline+Treatment||||0.32|-1.34|0.223
90906033|NCT00495469|181679747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-24.1||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.9|-7.4||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change=Baseline+Treatment||||-7.4|-40.9|0.005
90906034|NCT00495469|181679747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-35.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.5|-17.4||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change=Baseline+Treatment||||-17.4|-52.5|<0.001
90906035|NCT00495469|181679747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-29.8||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.9|-12.7||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change=Baseline+Treatment||||-12.7|-46.9|0.001
90906036|NCT00495469|181679747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-36.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.6|-19.5||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change=Baseline+Treatment||||-19.5|-53.6|<0.001
90906037|NCT00495469|181679747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-29.5||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.3|-12.7||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change=Baseline+Treatment||||-12.7|-46.3|0.001
90906038|NCT00495469|181679747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.8||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.0|3.4||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change=Baseline+Treatment||||3.4|-31.0|0.114
90906039|NCT00495469|181679748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28||||0.757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|6.06||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GSK189075 100 mg QD: Responders (\<=6.5%)||6.06|0.27|0.757
90906040|NCT00495469|181679748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.58||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|8.01||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GSK189075 250 mg QD: Responders (\<=6.5%)||8.01|0.31|0.580
90906041|NCT00495469|181679748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|5.73||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GSK189075 500 mg QD: Responders (\<=6.5%)||5.73|0.22|0.881
90906042|NCT00495469|181679748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.95||||0.382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|8.75||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GSK189075 1000 mg QD: Responders (\<=6.5%)||8.75|0.44|0.382
90906043|NCT00495469|181679748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|8.68||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GSK189075 250 mg BID: Responders (\<=6.5%)||8.68|0.42|0.409
90906044|NCT00495469|181679748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|6.29||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs Pioglitazone 30 mg QD: Responders (\<=6.5%)||6.29|0.24|0.795
90906045|NCT00495469|181679748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|3.95||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GSK189075 100 mg QD: Responders (\<7%)||3.95|0.36|0.765
91105728|NCT03816891|182097790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-32.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.33|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.5|-21.5||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 3||-21.5|-42.5|<0.0001
91105729|NCT03816891|182097790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-17.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.32||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.7|-6.7||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 3||-6.7|-27.7|0.0014
91105730|NCT03816891|182097790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-11.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.35||0.0296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.3|-1.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 3||-1.2|-22.3|0.0296
90906046|NCT00495469|181679748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.74||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|9.09||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GSK189075 250 mg QD: Responders (\<7%)||9.09|0.82|0.100
90906047|NCT00495469|181679748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28||||0.687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|4.3||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GSK189075 500 mg QD: Responders (\<7%)||4.30|0.38|0.687
90906048|NCT00495469|181679748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.66||||0.409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|5.52||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GSK189075 1000 mg QD: Responders (\<7%)||5.52|0.50|0.409
90906049|NCT00495469|181679748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.81||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|9.15||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GSK189075 250 mg BID: Responders (\<7%)||9.15|0.86|0.086
90906050|NCT00495469|181679748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.75||||0.369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|5.88||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs Pioglitazone 30 mg QD: Responders (\<7%)||5.88|0.52|0.369
90906051|NCT00495469|181679748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.17||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|6.4||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GSK189075 100 mg QD: Responders (reduction\>=0.7%)||6.40|0.74|0.160
90906052|NCT00495469|181679748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.87||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|11.42||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GSK189075 250 mg QD: Responders (reduction\>=0.7%)||11.42|1.31|0.014
90906053|NCT00495469|181679748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.17||||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|6.44||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GSK189075 250 mg QD: Responders (reduction\>=0.7%)||6.44|0.73|0.162
90906054|NCT00495469|181679748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.09||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|12.17||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GSK189075 1000 mg QD: Responders (reduction\>=0.7%)||12.17|1.38|0.011
90906055|NCT00495469|181679748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.31||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.79|15.73||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GSK189075 250 mg BID: Responders (reduction\>=0.7%)||15.73|1.79|0.003
90906056|NCT00495469|181679748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.86||||0.264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|5.49||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs Pioglitazone 30 mg QD: Responders (reduction\>=0.7%)||5.49|0.63|0.264
90906057|NCT00495469|181679749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|5.28||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GSK189075 100 mg QD: Responders (\<7 mmol/L)||5.28|0.46|0.480
90940218|NCT04098497|181760114|OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t = 1.75, df = 28||baseline to day 42||||0.09
90906058|NCT00495469|181679749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.87||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|16.46||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GSK189075 250 mg QD: Responders (\<7 mmol/L)||16.46|1.44|0.011
90906059|NCT00495469|181679749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.92||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|9.96||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GSK189075 500 mg QD: Responders (\<7 mmol/L)||9.96|0.85|0.087
90906060|NCT00495469|181679749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.92||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|9.78||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GSK189075 1000 mg QD: Responders (\<7 mmol/L)||9.78|0.87|0.082
90906061|NCT00495469|181679749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.0||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|13.27||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GSK189075 250 mg BID: Responders (\<7 mmol/L)||13.27|1.20|0.024
90906062|NCT00495469|181679749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.85||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|16.66||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs Pioglitazone 30 mg QD: Responders (\<7 mmol/L)||16.66|1.41|0.012
91105731|NCT03816891|182097790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-35.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.54|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.9|-25.0||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||-25.0|-46.9|<0.0001
90906063|NCT00495469|181679749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.85||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|5.54||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GSK189075 100 mg QD: Responders (\<7.8 mmol/L)||5.54|0.62|0.270
91105732|NCT03816891|182097790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-20.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.5||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.4|-9.7||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||-9.7|-31.4|0.0002
91105733|NCT03816891|182097790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.53||0.1652|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.6|3.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||3.2|-18.6|0.1652
90906064|NCT00495469|181679749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.18||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|9.72||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GSK189075 250 mg QD: Responders (\<7.8 mmol/L)||9.72|1.04|0.043
90906065|NCT00495469|181679749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.17||||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|6.53||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GSK189075 500 mg QD: Responders (\<7.8 mmol/L)||6.53|0.72|0.169
90906066|NCT00495469|181679749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.12||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|9.36||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GSK189075 1000 mg QD: Responders (\<7.8 mmol/L)||9.36|1.04|0.042
90906067|NCT00495469|181679749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.69||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|11.06||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GSK189075 250 mg BID: Responders (\<7.8 mmol/L)||11.06|1.23|0.020
90906068|NCT00495469|181679749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.04||||0.211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|6.24||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs Pioglitazone 30 mg QD: Responders (\<7.8 mmol/L)||6.24|0.67|0.211
91105734|NCT03816891|182097790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-38.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.52|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.1|-27.3||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 5||-27.3|-49.1|<0.0001
91105735|NCT03816891|182097790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-24.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.47|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.3|-13.7||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 5||-13.7|-35.3|<0.0001
90906069|NCT00495469|181679749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.9||||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|13.75||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GSK189075 100 mg QD: Responders (reduction \>=1.7 mmol/L)||13.75|0.61|0.179
90906070|NCT00495469|181679749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.93||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|20.87||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GSK189075 250 mg QD: Responders (reduction \>=1.7 mmol/L)||20.87|1.17|0.030
90906071|NCT00495469|181679749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.99||||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|12.86||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GSK189075 500 mg QD: Responders (reduction \>=1.7 mmol/L)||12.86|0.69|0.142
90906072|NCT00495469|181679749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.21||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.49|25.83||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GSK189075 1000 mg QD: Responders (reduction \>=1.7 mmol/L)||25.83|1.49|0.012
90906073|NCT00495469|181679749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.14|54.0||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GSK189075 250 mg BID: Responders (reduction \>=1.7 mmol/L)||54.00|3.14|<0.001
90906074|NCT00495469|181679749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.6||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|27.99||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs Pioglitazone 30 mg QD: Responders (reduction \>=1.7 mmol/L)||27.99|1.56|0.010
90906075|NCT00495469|181679750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.59||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||0.59|-0.19|0.318
90906076|NCT00495469|181679750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.32||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.1||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||0.10|-0.73|0.131
90906077|NCT00495469|181679750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15||||0.452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.24||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||0.24|-0.54|0.452
90906078|NCT00495469|181679750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04||||0.845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.36||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||0.36|-0.44|0.845
90906079|NCT00495469|181679750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.18||||0.393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.23||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||0.23|-0.58|0.393
90906080|NCT00495469|181679750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.36||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.03||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||0.03|-0.76|0.072
90906081|NCT00495469|181679751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05||||0.767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.3||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||0.30|-0.40|0.767
90906082|NCT00495469|181679751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.27||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||0.27|-0.46|0.604
90906083|NCT00495469|181679751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.13||||0.483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.48||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||0.48|-0.23|0.483
91105736|NCT03816891|182097790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-13.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.51||0.0146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.5|-2.7||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 5||-2.7|-24.5|0.0146
90906084|NCT00495469|181679751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.37||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||0.37|-0.35|0.956
90906085|NCT00495469|181679751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.24||||0.185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.6||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||0.60|-0.12|0.185
90906086|NCT00495469|181679751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03||||0.863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.39||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||0.39|-0.32|0.863
90906087|NCT00495469|181679752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15||||0.348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.16||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||0.16|-0.46|0.348
90906088|NCT00495469|181679752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.31||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||0.31|-0.33|0.952
90906089|NCT00495469|181679752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.42||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||0.42|-0.21|0.523
90906090|NCT00495469|181679752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.29||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||0.29|-0.34|0.889
90906091|NCT00495469|181679752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.25||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.56||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||0.56|-0.07|0.124
90906092|NCT00495469|181679752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.09||||0.581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.4||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||0.40|-0.22|0.581
90906093|NCT00495469|181679753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02||||0.518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.1||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||0.10|-0.05|0.518
90906094|NCT00495469|181679753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04||||0.352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.11||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||0.11|-0.04|0.352
90906095|NCT00495469|181679753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.08||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.16||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||0.16|0.01|0.026
90906096|NCT00495469|181679753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.14||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||0.14|-0.01|0.069
90906097|NCT00495469|181679753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.06||||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.13||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||0.13|-0.02|0.154
90906098|NCT00495469|181679753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.11||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.18||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||0.18|0.03|0.005
90906099|NCT00495469|181679754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.25||||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.08||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||0.08|-0.58|0.143
90906100|NCT00495469|181679754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12||||0.495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.22||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||0.22|-0.46|0.495
90906101|NCT00495469|181679754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.19||||0.261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.14||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||0.14|-0.52|0.261
90906102|NCT00495469|181679754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13||||0.446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.2||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||0.20|-0.46|0.446
90906103|NCT00495469|181679754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.38||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||0.38|-0.29|0.783
90906104|NCT00495469|181679754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13||||0.454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.21||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||0.21|-0.46|0.454
90906105|NCT00495469|181679755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.19||||0.363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.22||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||0.22|-0.59|0.363
90906106|NCT00495469|181679755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.34||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.08||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||0.08|-0.76|0.111
90906107|NCT00495469|181679755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.36||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.04||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||0.04|-0.77|0.080
90906108|NCT00495469|181679755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.23||||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.18||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||0.18|-0.64|0.267
90906109|NCT00495469|181679755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13||||0.549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.29||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||0.29|-0.54|0.549
91105737|NCT03816891|182097790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-39.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.66|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.2|-27.8||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||-27.8|-50.2|<0.0001
90906110|NCT00495469|181679755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.01||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||0.01|-0.81|0.056
90906111|NCT00495469|181679756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|0.66||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||0.66|-1.65|0.396
90906112|NCT00495469|181679756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.51||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.33||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||-0.33|-2.70|0.013
90906113|NCT00495469|181679756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.44||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|-0.26||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||-0.26|-2.61|0.017
90906114|NCT00495469|181679756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.45||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|-0.28||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||-0.28|-2.61|0.015
90906115|NCT00495469|181679756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.09||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|0.08||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||0.08|-2.26|0.069
90906116|NCT00495469|181679756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.03||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|2.2||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||2.20|-0.15|0.086
90906117|NCT00372567|181679795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.484|2.235|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Model stratified by previous imatinib treatment status (less than 6 months of treatment with imatinib and greater than or equal to 6 months).||No hypothesis tested.||2.235|0.484|
90906118|NCT00372567|181679796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.818|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|12.41|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Model stratified by previous imatinib treatment status (less than 6 months of treatment with imatinib and greater than or equal to 6 months).||||12.41|0.640|
91105738|NCT03816891|182097790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-27.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.59|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.8|-16.7||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||-16.7|-38.8|<0.0001
90906119|NCT00372567|181679798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.027|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.505|2.088|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Model stratified by previous imatinib treatment status (less than 6 months of treatment with imatinib and greater than or equal to 6 months).||||2.088|0.505|
90906120|NCT00372567|181679799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.308|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|13.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by previous imatinib treatment status (less than 6 months of treatment with imatinib and greater than or equal to 6 months).||||13.0|0.4|
90906121|NCT00372567|181679802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.434|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.057|11.15|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Model stratified by previous imatinib treatment status (less than 6 months of treatment with imatinib and greater than or equal to 6 months).||||11.15|1.057|
90906122|NCT00372567|181679803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.379|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified for previous imatinib treatment status (less than 6 months of treatment with imatinib and greater than or equal to 6 months).||||2.3|0.1|
91105739|NCT03816891|182097790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-17.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.62||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.5|-6.4||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||-6.4|-28.5|0.0022
91105740|NCT03816891|182097790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-39.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.92|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.8|-27.4||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 7||-27.4|-50.8|<0.0001
90906123|NCT00372567|181679804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.318|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified for previous imatinib treatment status (less than 6 months of treatment with imatinib and greater than or equal to 6 months).||||3.8|0.5|
90906124|NCT01341080|181679821|OTHER||Cohen's d|0.15||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.01|4.61|||Repeated measures analysis or variance|||Efficacy was measured as a change on the Berg Balance Scale (BBS) from baseline to the end of study after 8 weeks on drug. The BBS has a scale range of 0-56, with 56 indicating normal balance. To evaluate efficacy, repeated measures analysis of variance was run on BBS scores. The scale score was the dependent measure, time point (baseline or end of study) was the repeat measure, and treatment group (varenicline or sugar pill) was the independent measure. Significance was defined as alpha \<0.05.||4.61|-4.01|0.05
90906125|NCT01341080|181679822|OTHER||Cohen's d|0.16||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|1.53|||Repeated measures analysis or variance|||Change in cognitive functioning was measured in part with the Frontal Assessment Battery (FAB) from Baseline to 8 weeks on drug. Repeated analysis of variance was run on the FAB scores. Scale cores was the dependent measure, time point (Baseline or end of study) was the repeated measure, and treatment group (varenicline or sugar pill) was the independent measure. Significant was defined as \<0.05.||1.53|-1.39|0.05
90906126|NCT01341080|181679823|OTHER||Cohen's d|0.81||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.4|||Repeated measures analysis or variance|||Change in cognitive functioning was measured in part with the Mini Mental State Exam (MMSE) from Baseline to 8 weeks on drug. Repeated analysis of variance was run on the MMSE scores. Scale score was the dependent measure, time point (Baseline or end of study) was the repeated measure, and treatment group (varenicline or sugar pill) was the independent measure. Significant was defined as \<0.05.||1.40|-0.40|0.05
90861044|NCT02281773|181585528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.9399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1||Due to the exploratory nature of this trial, no multiplicity adjustment was made. All statistical testing was performed using a two-sided, α=0.05 level of significance.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference (Final Values) is actually the Adjusted mean difference calculated as BI 409306 10 mg minus Placebo.|Analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) were used to assess between-group differences (BI 409306 group minus placebo group) in the modelled changes from baseline to Week 12. The dependent variable was the change from the baseline score at Week 12 during the treatment period adjusted for fixed categorical covariates of treatment as well as fixed continuous covariates of baseline score.||0.1|-0.1|0.9399
90861045|NCT02281773|181585528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.9919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1||Due to the exploratory nature of this trial, no multiplicity adjustment was made. All statistical testing was performed using a two-sided, α=0.05 level of significance.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference (Final Values) is actually the Adjusted mean difference calculated as BI 409306 25 mg minus Placebo.|Analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) were used to assess between-group differences (BI 409306 group minus placebo group) in the modelled changes from baseline to Week 12. The dependent variable was the change from the baseline score at Week 12 during the treatment period adjusted for fixed categorical covariates of treatment as well as fixed continuous covariates of baseline score.||0.1|-0.1|0.9919
90861046|NCT02281773|181585528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.3027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2||Due to the exploratory nature of this trial, no multiplicity adjustment was made. All statistical testing was performed using a two-sided, α=0.05 level of significance.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference (Final Values) is actually the Adjusted mean difference calculated as BI 409306 50 mg minus Placebo.|Analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) were used to assess between-group differences (BI 409306 group minus placebo group) in the modelled changes from baseline to Week 12. The dependent variable was the change from the baseline score at Week 12 during the treatment period adjusted for fixed categorical covariates of treatment as well as fixed continuous covariates of baseline score.||0.2|-0.1|0.3027
90861047|NCT02281773|181585528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.3901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2||Due to the exploratory nature of this trial, no multiplicity adjustment was made. All statistical testing was performed using a two-sided, α=0.05 level of significance.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference (Final Values) is actually the Adjusted mean difference calculated as BI 409306 100 mg minus Placebo.|Analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) were used to assess between-group differences (BI 409306 group minus placebo group) in the modelled changes from baseline to Week 12. The dependent variable was the change from the baseline score at Week 12 during the treatment period adjusted for fixed categorical covariates of treatment as well as fixed continuous covariates of baseline score.||0.2|-0.1|0.3901
90861048|NCT00573183|181585571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.3404|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4134|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2019|9.2842||95% confidence interval|Mixed Models Analysis|A covariate adjustment was used: average number of days of stimulant use within a 30-day window of assessment from 90 days pre-baseline to baseline.|The STAGE-12 group represented the numerator and TAU represented the reference group/denominator|Mixture model with a logistic part for assessing zero-inflation and a negative binomial part for the over-dispersed count data, with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of the odds ratios for logistic part and incidence rate ratios for negative binomial part.||9.2842|1.2019|<0.05
90861049|NCT00573183|181585571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.4373|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4134|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0131|5.8637|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.8637|1.0131|<0.01
90861050|NCT00573183|181585572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||Statistical Model - zero-inflated negative binomial random-effects regression|Zero-inflated negative binomial random-e|Statistical Model - zero-inflated negative binomial random-effects regression adjusted for average number of days of pre-baseline attendance||Outcome measure: Number of days of self-reported Self-Help meeting attendance by the Substance Use Calendar (SUC) within a 30-day window of assessment at mid-treatment, end-of-treatment, first, second, third and last follow-ups||||<0.05
90861051|NCT00676338|181585607|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority Null Hypotheses: H1: The effect of exenatide is inferior to that of metformin. H2: The effect of exenatide is inferior to that of sitagliptin. H3: The effect of exenatide is inferior to that of pioglitazone. Then, the 3 superiority null hypotheses were tested. Change in HbA1c was analyzed using an MMRM analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment, baseline HbA1c, country, week of visit, and treatment-by week interaction as fixed effects; and patient and error as random effects.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.62|TWO_SIDED|98.3|-0.26|0.17||Noninferiority was tested by Bonferroni (margin 0.3%, adjusted significance of 0.0167). Superiority was tested by Hommel (nominal significance level was between 0.0167 and 0.05 depended on the number of noninferiority hypotheses rejected).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Power calculation: A sample of 740 (222 exenatide once weekly, 222 metformin, 148 pioglitazone, and 148 sitagliptin) would provide approximately 90% power to detect a true differences between exenatide once weekly and the 3 comparators: metformin, pioglitazone, and sitagliptin of 0.4%, 0.5%, and 0.5%, respectively in change in HbA1c from baseline to Week 26 with a 2-sided t test at a significance level of 0.05, assuming a common standard deviation of 1.2%.||0.17|-0.26|0.620
90861052|NCT00676338|181585607|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority Null Hypotheses: H1: The effect of exenatide is inferior to that of metformin. H2: The effect of exenatide is inferior to that of sitagliptin. H3: The effect of exenatide is inferior to that of pioglitazone. Then, the 3 superiority null hypotheses were tested. Change in HbA1c was analyzed using an MMRM analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment, baseline HbA1c, country, week of visit, and treatment-by week interaction as fixed effects; and patient and error as random effects.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.328|TWO_SIDED|98.3|-0.15|0.35||Noninferiority was tested by Bonferroni (margin 0.3%, adjusted significance of 0.0167). Superiority was tested by Hommel (nominal significance level was between 0.0167 and 0.05 depended on the number of noninferiority hypotheses rejected).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Power calculation: A sample of 740 (222 exenatide once weekly, 222 metformin, 148 pioglitazone, and 148 sitagliptin) would provide approximately 90% power to detect a true differences between exenatide once weekly and the 3 comparators: metformin, pioglitazone, and sitagliptin of 0.4%, 0.5%, and 0.5%, respectively in change in HbA1c from baseline to Week 26 with a 2-sided t test at a significance level of 0.05, assuming a common standard deviation of 1.2%.||0.35|-0.15|0.328
90906127|NCT03890120|181679836|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|-1.4||||0.4186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|12.3|||Mantel Haenszel||The difference of cilofexor and placebo,95% confidence interval(CI),and P value(1-sided)were obtained by the stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel (MH) method,with baseline ursodeoxycholic acid(UDCA)use and Ludwig fibrosis stage as stratification factors.|||12.3|-15.2|0.4186
90861053|NCT00676338|181585607|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority Null Hypotheses: H1: The effect of exenatide is inferior to that of metformin. H2: The effect of exenatide is inferior to that of sitagliptin. H3: The effect of exenatide is inferior to that of pioglitazone. Then, the 3 superiority null hypotheses were tested. Change in HbA1c was analyzed using an MMRM analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment, baseline HbA1c, country, week of visit, and treatment-by week interaction as fixed effects; and patient and error as random effects.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|98.3|-0.62|-0.13||Noninferiority was tested by Bonferroni (margin 0.3%, adjusted significance of 0.0167). Superiority was tested by Hommel (nominal significance level was between 0.0167 and 0.05 depended on the number of noninferiority hypotheses rejected).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Power calculation: A sample of 740 (222 exenatide once weekly, 222 metformin, 148 pioglitazone, and 148 sitagliptin) would provide approximately 90% power to detect a true differences between exenatide once weekly and the 3 comparators: metformin, pioglitazone, and sitagliptin of 0.4%, 0.5%, and 0.5%, respectively in change in HbA1c from baseline to Week 26 with a 2-sided t test at a significance level of 0.05, assuming a common standard deviation of 1.2%.||-0.13|-0.62|<.001
90861054|NCT00676338|181585608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|||||No multiple adjustment were done.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.151
90861055|NCT00676338|181585608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.913|TWO_SIDED|||||No multiple adjustment were done.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.913
90861056|NCT00676338|181585608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||No multiple adjustment were done.|Fisher Exact|||||||<.001
90861057|NCT00676338|181585609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.1||No multiple adjustment were done.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in FSG from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an MMRM ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline FSG, country, week of visit, and treatment-by week interaction as fixed effects; and patient and error as random effects.||0.10|-0.66|0.155
90861058|NCT00676338|181585609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.75||No multiple adjustment were done.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in FSG from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an MMRM ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline FSG, country, week of visit, and treatment-by week interaction as fixed effects; and patient and error as random effects.||0.75|-0.12|0.153
90861059|NCT00676338|181585609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|-0.68||No multiple adjustment were done.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in FSG from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an MMRM ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline FSG, country, week of visit, and treatment-by week interaction as fixed effects; and patient and error as random effects.||-0.68|-1.56|<.001
90861060|NCT00676338|181585610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.53||No multiple adjustment were done.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in Body Weight from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an MMRM ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline body weight, country, week of visit, and treatment-by week interaction as fixed effects; and patient and error as random effects.||0.53|-0.61|0.892
90861061|NCT00676338|181585610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.21|-2.9||No multiple adjustment were done.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in Body Weight from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an MMRM ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline body weight, country, week of visit, and treatment-by week interaction as fixed effects; and patient and error as random effects.||-2.90|-4.21|<.001
90861062|NCT00676338|181585610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.92|-0.63||No multiple adjustment were done.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in Body Weight from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an MMRM ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline body weight, country, week of visit, and treatment-by week interaction as fixed effects; and patient and error as random effects.||-0.63|-1.92|<.001
90906128|NCT03890120|181679841|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean (LSM)|-4.0||||0.3884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.0|21.0|||ANCOVA||The LSM,95% CI and P-value(1-sided) were obtained by an analysis of covariance(ANCOVA)model with change at Week 96 as dependent variable,baseline value of outcome measure,baseline UDCA use, and baseline Ludwig fibrosis stage as independent variables.|||21|-28|0.3884
90959271|NCT01249274|181798457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|3.5||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|13.3|||Regression, Cox||Ratio presented is for placebo versus progesterone|||13.30|0.92|0.06
90861063|NCT00676338|181585611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.15||No multiple adjustment were done.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in Fasting TC from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an MMRM ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline TC, country, week of visit, and treatment-by week interaction as fixed effects; and patient and error as random effects.||0.15|-0.18|0.873
90906129|NCT03890120|181679842|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-9.0||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|1.0|||ANCOVA||The LSM, 95% CI and P-value (1-sided) were obtained by ANCOVA model to evaluate change at Week 96 as the dependent variable, baseline value of the outcome measure, baseline UDCA use, and baseline Ludwig fibrosis stage as independent variables.|||1|-20|0.0390
90906130|NCT03890120|181679843|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-2.6||||0.2845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|6.4|||ANCOVA||The LSM, 95% CI and P-value (1-sided) were obtained by ANCOVA model to evaluate change at Week 96 as the dependent variable, baseline value of the outcome measure, baseline UDCA use, and baseline Ludwig fibrosis stage as independent variables.|||6.4|-11.6|0.2845
90906131|NCT03890120|181679844|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|4.1||||0.1978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|13.5|||Mantel Haenszel||The difference between cilofexor and Placebo, 95% CI, and the p-value (1-sided) were obtained by the stratum-adjusted MH method, with baseline UDCA use and Ludwig fibrosis stage as stratification factors.|||13.5|-5.3|0.1978
90959272|NCT01498653|181798458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|28.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.1|36.9|||ANCOVA|||||36.9|20.1|<0.001
90959273|NCT03421431|181798474|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) mean difference|12.46||||0.0495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.029|24.891|||ANCOVA|||||24.891|0.029|0.0495
90906132|NCT03890120|181679845|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|8.9||||0.0797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|21.2|||Mantel Haenszel||The difference between cilofexor and Placebo, 95% CI, and the p-value (1-sided) were obtained by the stratum-adjusted MH method, with baseline UDCA use and Ludwig fibrosis stage as stratification factors.|||21.2|-3.5|0.0797
90906133|NCT03890120|181679846|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|1.0||||0.7275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|3.0|||ANCOVA||The LSM, 95% CI and P-value (1-sided) were obtained by ANCOVA model to evaluate change at Week 96 as the dependent variable, baseline value of the outcome measure, baseline UDCA use, and baseline Ludwig fibrosis stage as independent variables.|||3|-1|0.7275
90906134|NCT03890120|181679847|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-0.03||||0.3636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.14|||ANCOVA||The LSM, 95% CI and P-value (1-sided) were obtained by ANCOVA model to evaluate change at Week 96 as the dependent variable, baseline value of the outcome measure, baseline UDCA use, and baseline Ludwig fibrosis stage as independent variables.|||0.14|-0.20|0.3636
90906135|NCT03890120|181679848|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-0.3||||0.3595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.5|||ANCOVA||The LSM, 95% CI and P-value (1-sided) were obtained by ANCOVA model to evaluate change at Week 96 as the dependent variable, baseline value of the outcome measure, baseline UDCA use, and baseline Ludwig fibrosis stage as independent variables.|||1.5|-2.2|0.3595
90906136|NCT01052662|181679849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.00935|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00356|=|0.00874|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Z = -2.62209|We modeled the mean proportion of weekly opioid use using a mixed-effect linear regression approach to assess the treatment effect, the time effect and the interaction of time x treatment effect while adjusting for the baseline mean proportion of weekly opioid use with baseline COWS, Addiction Severity Index (ASI) psychiatric and legal composite scores as covariates.||||=0.00874
90906137|NCT01052662|181679850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio, log|0.87||||0.64|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.64
90906138|NCT01052662|181679851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|2.4||||1.2|TWO_SIDED|||||These results are using survival curve estimates to first positive urine toxicology for any opioid. The last observation carried forward (LOCF) was used to perform our survival event analyses.|Log Rank|||||||1.2
90906139|NCT02478359|181679860|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.28|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.28|0.92|0.33
91105741|NCT03816891|182097790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-30.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.84|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.8|-18.8||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 7||-18.8|-41.8|<0.0001
90906140|NCT02478359|181679861|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.36|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.36|0.77|0.88
90906141|NCT02478359|181679862|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.24|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.24|0.89|0.53
90906142|NCT02478359|181679863|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.20|0.88|0.73
90906143|NCT02478359|181679864|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.37|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.37|0.93|0.21
90906144|NCT02478359|181679865|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.31|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.31|0.93|0.26
90906145|NCT02478359|181679866|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.41
90906146|NCT02478359|181679867|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.55
90906147|NCT02478359|181679868|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34||||||adjusted p values|Regression, Logistic|||Covariates included in the adjusted multivariate models were age, FEV1% predicted, Charlson comorbidity index, oxygen use, hospitalization for COPD in previous 12 months, outpatient treated COPD exacerbation in previous 12 months, length of time since acute care utilization to randomization, use of LABA or ICS, PA level and study site||||0.34
90906148|NCT02478359|181679869|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.60
90906149|NCT02478359|181679870|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.32
90906150|NCT02478359|181679871|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.47
90906151|NCT02478359|181679872|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.33
90906152|NCT02478359|181679873|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87||||||Adjusted P value|Regression, Linear|||Covariates included in the adjusted multivariate models were age, FEV1% predicted, Charlson comorbidity index, oxygen use, hospitalization for COPD in previous 12 months, outpatient treated COPD exacerbation in previous 12 months, length of time since acute care utilization to randomization, use of LABA or ICS, PA level and study site||||0.87
90906153|NCT02478359|181679874|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7||||||Adjusted P value|Regression, Linear|||Covariates included in the adjusted multivariate models were age, FEV1% predicted, Charlson comorbidity index, oxygen use, hospitalization for COPD in previous 12 months, outpatient treated COPD exacerbation in previous 12 months, length of time since acute care utilization to randomization, use of LABA or ICS, PA level and study site||||0.70
90906154|NCT02478359|181679875|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted P Values||Covariates included in the adjusted multivariate models were age, FEV1% predicted, Charlson comorbidity index, oxygen use, hospitalization for COPD in previous 12 months, outpatient treated COPD exacerbation in previous 12 months, length of time since acute care utilization to randomization, use of LABA or ICS, PA level and study site||||0.35
90906155|NCT02478359|181679876|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09||||||Adjusted P Values|Regression, Linear|||Covariates included in the adjusted multivariate models were age, FEV1% predicted, Charlson comorbidity index, oxygen use, hospitalization for COPD in previous 12 months, outpatient treated COPD exacerbation in previous 12 months, length of time since acute care utilization to randomization, use of LABA or ICS, PA level and study site||||0.09
91105742|NCT03816891|182097790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-16.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.87||0.0069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.7|-4.5||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 7||-4.5|-27.7|0.0069
90906156|NCT02478359|181679877|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82||||||Adjusted P Values|Regression, Linear|||Covariates included in the adjusted multivariate models were age, FEV1% predicted, Charlson comorbidity index, oxygen use, hospitalization for COPD in previous 12 months, outpatient treated COPD exacerbation in previous 12 months, length of time since acute care utilization to randomization, use of LABA or ICS, PA level and study site||||0.82
91105743|NCT03816891|182097790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-40.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.1|-28.0||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||-28.0|-52.1|<0.0001
90906157|NCT02478359|181679878|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16||||||Adjusted P values|Regression, Linear|||Covariates included in the adjusted multivariate models were age, FEV1% predicted, Charlson comorbidity index, oxygen use, hospitalization for COPD in previous 12 months, outpatient treated COPD exacerbation in previous 12 months, length of time since acute care utilization to randomization, use of LABA or ICS, PA level and study site||||0.16
90906158|NCT02478359|181679879|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86||||||Adjusted P values|Regression, Linear|||Covariates included in the adjusted multivariate models were age, FEV1% predicted, Charlson comorbidity index, oxygen use, hospitalization for COPD in previous 12 months, outpatient treated COPD exacerbation in previous 12 months, length of time since acute care utilization to randomization, use of LABA or ICS, PA level and study site||||0.86
90906159|NCT02478359|181679880|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.57
90906160|NCT02478359|181679881|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.35|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.35|0.82|0.69
90906161|NCT02478359|181679882|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.62||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.11|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.11|0.35|0.11
90906162|NCT02478359|181679883|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.1|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.10|0.65|0.21
90906163|NCT02478359|181679884|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.36|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.36|0.84|0.60
91105744|NCT03816891|182097790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-30.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.01|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.3|-18.5||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||-18.5|-42.3|<0.0001
90906164|NCT02478359|181679885|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.28|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.28|0.66|0.63
91105745|NCT03816891|182097790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-14.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.05||0.0194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.2|-2.3||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||-2.3|-26.2|0.0194
91105746|NCT03816891|182097790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-40.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.35|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.2|-28.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 9||-28.1|-53.2|<0.0001
90906165|NCT02478359|181679886|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.35|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.35|0.68|0.80
90906166|NCT02478359|181679887|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06||||||Adjusted P value|Regression, Linear|||Covariates included in the as-treated adjusted linear regression analyses were age, FEV1%predicted, Charlson comorbidity index, oxygen use, hospitalization for COPD in previous 12 months, outpatient treated COPD exacerbation in previous 12 months, length of time since acute care utilization to randomization, use of LABA or ICS, PA level, and study site||||0.06
90906167|NCT02478359|181679888|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07||||||Adjusted P value|Regression, Linear|||Covariates included in the as-treated adjusted linear regression analyses were age, FEV1%predicted, Charlson comorbidity index, oxygen use, hospitalization for COPD in previous 12 months, outpatient treated COPD exacerbation in previous 12 months, length of time since acute care utilization to randomization, use of LABA or ICS, PA level, and study site||||0.07
90906168|NCT02478359|181679889|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67||||||Adjusted P value|Regression, Linear|||Covariates included in the as-treated adjusted linear regression analyses were FEV1%predicted, Charlson comorbidity index, oxygen use, hospitalization for COPD in previous 12 months, outpatient treated COPD exacerbation in previous 12 months, length of time since acute care utilization to randomization, use of LABA or ICS, PA level, and study site||||0.67
90906169|NCT02478359|181679890|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13||||||Adjusted P value|Regression, Linear|||Covariates included in the as-treated adjusted linear regression analyses were age, FEV1%predicted, Charlson comorbidity index, oxygen use, hospitalization for COPD in previous 12 months, outpatient treated COPD exacerbation in previous 12 months, length of time since acute care utilization to randomization, use of LABA or ICS, PA level, and study site||||0.13
90906170|NCT02478359|181679891|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34||||||Adjusted P value|Regression, Linear|||Covariates included in the as-treated adjusted linear regression analyses were age, FEV1%predicted, Charlson comorbidity index, oxygen use, hospitalization for COPD in previous 12 months, outpatient treated COPD exacerbation in previous 12 months, length of time since acute care utilization to randomization, use of LABA or ICS, PA level, and study site||||0.34
90906171|NCT02478359|181679892|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11||||||Adjusted P value|Regression, Linear|||Covariates included in the as-treated adjusted linear regression analyses were age, FEV1%predicted, Charlson comorbidity index, oxygen use, hospitalization for COPD in previous 12 months, outpatient treated COPD exacerbation in previous 12 months, length of time since acute care utilization to randomization, use of LABA or ICS, PA level, and study site||||0.11
90906172|NCT02478359|181679893|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83||||||Adjusted P value|Regression, Linear|||Covariated included in the as-treated adjusted linear regression analyses were age, FEV1%predicted, Charlson comorbidity index, oxygen use, hospitalization for COPD in previous 12 months, outpatient treated COPD exacerbation in previous 12 months, length of time since acute care utilization to randomization, use of LABA or ICS, PA level, and study site||||0.83
90906173|NCT01818700|181679904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.65|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.96|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|10.0|||t-test, 2 sided|"The primary endpoint will be the actual reduction rate of pain intensity (0 -10) score at 8 weeks.~It will be analyzed by using paired t-test."||||10|-10|<0.05
90906174|NCT01852955|181679910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.01
90906175|NCT01852955|181679911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.04
90906176|NCT01852955|181679912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.36
91105747|NCT03816891|182097790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-32.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.27|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.9|-20.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 9||-20.1|-44.9|<0.0001
90861064|NCT00676338|181585611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.14||No multiple adjustment were done.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in Fasting TC from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an MMRM ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline TC, country, week of visit, and treatment-by week interaction as fixed effects; and patient and error as random effects.||-0.14|-0.52|<.001
90861065|NCT00676338|181585611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.03||No multiple adjustment were done.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in Fasting TC from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an MMRM ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline TC, country, week of visit, and treatment-by week interaction as fixed effects; and patient and error as random effects.||-0.03|-0.41|0.022
90861066|NCT00676338|181585612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|-0.02||No multiple adjustment were done.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in Fasting HDL from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an MMRM ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline HDL, country, week of visit, and treatment-by week interaction as fixed effects; and patient and error as random effects.||-0.02|-0.09|0.004
90861067|NCT00676338|181585612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|-0.11||No multiple adjustment were done.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in Fasting HDL from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an MMRM ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline HDL, country, week of visit, and treatment-by week interaction as fixed effects; and patient and error as random effects.||-0.11|-0.19|<.001
90861068|NCT00676338|181585612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.01||No multiple adjustment were done.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in Fasting HDL from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an MMRM ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline HDL, country, week of visit, and treatment-by week interaction as fixed effects; and patient and error as random effects.||0.01|-0.07|0.142
90861069|NCT00676338|181585613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.1||No multiple adjustment were done.|ANCOVA|||Fasting triglycerides data were logarithm-transformed and the change at Week 26 to baseline, expressed as the ratio, was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment and country as factors and baseline triglycerides as a covariate.||1.10|0.94|0.657
90861070|NCT00676338|181585613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.27||No multiple adjustment were done.|ANCOVA|||Fasting triglycerides data were logarithm-transformed and the change at Week 26 to baseline, expressed as the ratio, was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment and country as factors and baseline triglycerides as a covariate.||1.27|1.06|0.002
90861071|NCT00676338|181585613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.14||No multiple adjustment were done.|ANCOVA|||Fasting triglycerides data were logarithm-transformed and the change at Week 26 to baseline, expressed as the ratio, was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment and country as factors and baseline triglycerides as a covariate.||1.14|0.95|0.398
90861072|NCT00676338|181585616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09||0.201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.52|0.74||No multiple adjustment were done.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in Systolic Blood Pressure from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an MMRM ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline systolic blood pressure, country, week of visit, and treatment-by week interaction as fixed effects; and patient and error as random effects.||0.74|-3.52|0.201
90861073|NCT00676338|181585616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.24||0.693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|2.93||No multiple adjustment were done.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in Systolic Blood Pressure from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an MMRM ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline systolic blood pressure, country, week of visit, and treatment-by week interaction as fixed effects; and patient and error as random effects.||2.93|-1.94|0.693
90861074|NCT00676338|181585616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.22||0.646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|2.96||No multiple adjustment were done.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in Systolic Blood Pressure from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an MMRM ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline systolic blood pressure, country, week of visit, and treatment-by week interaction as fixed effects; and patient and error as random effects.||2.96|-1.84|0.646
90861075|NCT00676338|181585617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|1.73||No multiple adjustment were done.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in Diastolic Blood Pressure from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an MMRM ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline diastolic blood pressure, country, week of visit, and treatment-by week interaction as fixed effects; and patient and error as random effects.||1.73|-1.02|0.610
90861076|NCT00676338|181585617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|3.58||No multiple adjustment were done.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in Diastolic Blood Pressure from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an MMRM ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline diastolic blood pressure, country, week of visit, and treatment-by week interaction as fixed effects; and patient and error as random effects.||3.58|0.43|0.013
90861077|NCT00676338|181585617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.49||No multiple adjustment were done.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in Diastolic Blood Pressure from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an MMRM ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline diastolic blood pressure, country, week of visit, and treatment-by week interaction as fixed effects; and patient and error as random effects.||1.49|-1.60|0.946
90861078|NCT02122458|181585618|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.448||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.66|9.56||Given the preliminary nature of this treatment study and the small number of participants the p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|An Adjusted Rank Transform was applied to the data prior to applying the mixed model analyses.||The null hypothesis evaluated by the HHIA was that self-perceived hearing handicap would not reduce from baseline to 6-months post-fitting.||9.56|-8.66|.05
90861079|NCT02122458|181585619|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||Given the small sample size and the preliminary nature of this study, the p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||.05
90861080|NCT02833350|181585624|SUPERIORITY||Weighted difference|8.0||||0.2503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.64|21.64|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.64|-5.64|0.2503
90861081|NCT02833350|181585624|SUPERIORITY||Weighted difference|12.93||||0.0164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.37|23.48|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||23.48|2.37|0.0164
90861082|NCT02833350|181585624|SUPERIORITY||Weighted difference|20.0||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.21|30.79|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||30.79|9.21|0.0003
90861083|NCT02833350|181585626|SUPERIORITY||Weighted difference|-8.58||||0.1694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.82|3.66|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.66|-20.82|0.1694
90861084|NCT02833350|181585626|SUPERIORITY||Weighted difference|-1.5||||0.8132||95.0|-13.96|10.95|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.95|-13.96|0.8132
90861085|NCT02833350|181585627|SUPERIORITY||Weighted difference|13.7||||0.0717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|28.61|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||28.61|-1.21|0.0717
90861086|NCT02833350|181585631|SUPERIORITY||adjusted difference|-0.11||||0.8504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.23|||ANCOVA|||Week 1, Day 7||0.23|-0.45|0.8504
90861087|NCT02833350|181585631|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.04||||0.9884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.21|||ANCOVA|||At week 1, Day 7||0.21|-0.28|0.9884
90861088|NCT02833350|181585631|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.06||||0.923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.18|||ANCOVA|||Week 1 Day 7||0.18|-0.31|0.9230
90861089|NCT02833350|181585631|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.06||||0.9853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.31|||ANCOVA|||Week 2, Day 14||0.31|-0.43|0.9853
90861090|NCT02833350|181585631|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.12||||0.6826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.15|||ANCOVA|||Week 2, Day 14||0.15|-0.38|0.6826
90861091|NCT02833350|181585631|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.18||||0.2634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Week 2, Day 14||0.08|-0.45|0.2634
90861092|NCT02833350|181585631|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.29||||0.2885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.14|||ANCOVA|||Week 4, Day 28||0.14|-0.72|0.2885
90861093|NCT02833350|181585631|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.3||||0.0598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Week 4, Day 28||0.01|-0.61|0.0598
90861094|NCT02833350|181585631|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.31||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||Week 4, Day 28||-0.01|-0.62|0.0440
90861095|NCT02833350|181585631|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.28||||0.4271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Week 8, Day 56||0.20|-0.76|0.4271
90861096|NCT02833350|181585631|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.31||||0.0969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.04|||ANCOVA|||Week 8, Day 56||0.04|-0.66|0.0969
90906177|NCT01272011|181679919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Two-way RMANOVA Student-Newman-Keuls|||Daily acute and cumulative Pre vs Post comparisons||||<0.001
90861097|NCT02833350|181585631|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.33||||0.0612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Week 8, Day 56||0.01|-0.68|0.0612
90861098|NCT02833350|181585631|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.36||||0.2079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.12|||ANCOVA|||Week 12, Day 84||0.12|-0.84|0.2079
90861099|NCT02833350|181585631|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.57||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|-0.22|||ANCOVA|||Week 12, Day 84||-0.22|-0.92|0.0003
90861100|NCT02833350|181585631|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.57||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|-0.22|||ANCOVA|||Week 12, Day 84||-0.22|-0.92|0.0003
90861101|NCT02833350|181585631|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.82|||ANCOVA|||Week 1, Day 7||0.82|0.34|<.0001
90861102|NCT02833350|181585631|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Week 1, Day 7||0.80|0.31|<0.0001
90861103|NCT02833350|181585631|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.74|||ANCOVA|||Week 2, Day 14||0.74|0.20|<.0001
90861104|NCT02833350|181585631|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.4||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.66|||ANCOVA|||Week 2, Day 14||0.66|0.13|0.0009
90861105|NCT02833350|181585631|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.87|||ANCOVA|||Week 4, Day 28||0.87|0.25|<.0001
90861106|NCT02833350|181585631|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.85|||ANCOVA|||Week 4, Day 28||0.85|0.24|<.0001
90861107|NCT02833350|181585631|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.42||||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.76|||ANCOVA|||Week 8, Day 56||0.76|0.08|0.0095
90861108|NCT02833350|181585631|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.4||||0.0153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.74|||ANCOVA|||Week 8, Day 56||0.74|0.06|0.0153
90861109|NCT02833350|181585631|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.19||||0.4839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.54|||ANCOVA|||Week 12, Day 84||0.54|-0.16|0.4839
90861110|NCT02833350|181585631|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.19||||0.5035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.53|||ANCOVA|||Week 12, Day 84||0.53|-0.16|0.5035
90861111|NCT02833350|181585631|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.11||||0.4286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.16|||ANCOVA|||Week 1, Day 7||0.16|-0.38|0.4286
90861112|NCT02833350|181585631|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.2||||0.1831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Week 2, Day 14||0.10|-0.50|0.1831
90861113|NCT02833350|181585631|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.31||||0.0667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Week 4, Day 28||0.02|-0.65|0.0667
90861114|NCT02833350|181585631|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.77|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.42|||ANCOVA|||Week 8, Day 56||-0.42|-1.11|<0.0001
90861115|NCT02833350|181585631|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.76||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|-0.38|||ANCOVA|||Week 12, Day 84||-0.38|-1.15|0.0002
90861116|NCT02833350|181585632|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.18||||0.5807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Week 1, Day 7||0.19|-0.55|0.5807
90861117|NCT02833350|181585632|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.12||||0.627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.14|||ANCOVA|||Week 1, Day 7||0.14|-0.39|0.6270
90861118|NCT02833350|181585632|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.15||||0.4475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.12|||ANCOVA|||Week 1, Day 7||0.12|-0.42|0.4475
90861119|NCT02833350|181585632|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.06||||0.9891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.35|||ANCOVA|||Week 2, Day 14||0.35|-0.47|0.9891
90906178|NCT01272011|181679920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||RMANOVA and Student-Neuman-Keuls|||Compared outcomes from Baseline versus Post-Day 10 IH for mean slope of AF vs. Resistance||||<0.05
90906179|NCT01272011|181679920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||RMANOVA and Student-Neuman-Keuls|||Compared outcomes from Baseline versus Post-Day 10 IH for mean slope of of Pressure vs. Resistance||||<0.05
90906180|NCT02240680|181679926|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures(MMRM) included treatment, week and interaction as fixed effects, baseline HbA1c, daily basal insulin dose as covariates|Adjusted mean of all differences between HbA1c at baseline and after 24 weeks. It is based on all patients in the model (not only patients with a baseline and week 24 measurement).||MMRM including fixed effects treatment , week and treatment by week interaction linear covariates baseline HbA1c , baseline daily basal insulin and baseline HbA1c by week interaction and random effect for patient. Within-patient errors are modelled by unstructured covariance matrix. Adjusted mean is based on all patients in the model (not only patients with a baseline and week 24 measurement).|-0.46|-0.81|< 0.0001
90906181|NCT02240680|181679927|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.464|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.397||0.1594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.861|2.491|||Regression, Logistic|A logistic regression model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline HbA1c and baseline daily basal insulin dose as linear covariates was applied.|The dispersion value standard error of the mean is actually standard error for odds ratio.|For any hypoglycemia event accompanied by prespecified glucose value||2.491|0.861|0.1594
90906182|NCT02240680|181679927|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.149|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.377||0.672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.604|2.188|||Regression, Logistic|A logistic regression model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline HbA1c and baseline daily basal insulin dose as linear covariates was applied.|The dispersion value standard error of the mean is actually standard error for odds ratio.|For glucose value \< 54mg/dL according American Diabetes Association definition of clinically significant hypoglycaemia||2.188|0.604|0.6720
90906183|NCT02240680|181679928|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.018|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.818|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.468|10.206|||Regression, Logistic|A logistic regression model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline HbA1c and baseline daily basal insulin dose as linear covariates was applied.|The dispersion value standard error of the mean is actually standard error of odds ratio|||10.206|2.468|< 0.0001
90906184|NCT02240680|181679929|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.689|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.519|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.485|8.848|||Regression, Logistic|A logistic regression model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline HbA1c and baseline daily basal insulin dose as linear covariates was applied.|The dispersion value standard error of the mean is actually standard error of odds ratio|||8.848|2.485|< 0.0001
90906185|NCT02240680|181679930|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.731|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.92|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.302|6.048|||Regression, Logistic|A logistic regression model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline HbA1c and baseline daily basal insulin dose as linear covariates was applied.|The dispersion value standard error of the mean is actually standard error of odds ratio|||6.048|2.302|< 0.0001
90906186|NCT02240680|181679931|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.8||0.0178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|-2.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures(MMRM) included treatment, week and interaction as fixed effects, baseline HbA1c, FPG, daily insulin dose as covariates|Adjusted mean of all differences between HbA1c at baseline and after 24 weeks. It is based on all patients in the model (not only patients with a baseline and week 24 measurement).||MMRM including fixed effects treatment, week and treatment by week interaction, linear covariates baseline HbA1c, baseline daily basal insulin, baseline FPG and baseline FPG by week interaction and random effect for patient. Within-patient errors are modelled by unstructured covariance matrix. Adjusted mean is based on all patients in the model (not only patients with a baseline and week 24 measurement).|-2.0|-21.0|0.0178
90906187|NCT01657032|181679932|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The differences between the study groups were considered significant when the P value was \<0.05.||||||0.43|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.43
90906188|NCT03633903|181679943|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.04|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||"The reported p-value was calculated and is not indicating a threshold for significance.~This applies to the change from row 1 to row 3 (e.g., baseline pre TSST-C versus follow-up timepoint pre TSST-C)"|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.05
90906189|NCT03633903|181679943|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.77|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||"The reported p-value was calculated and is not indicating a threshold for significance.~This is for the difference from row 1 to row 2 (baseline pre versus baseline post TSST-C)"|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.05
90959274|NCT03421431|181798474|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|6.257||||0.3039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.754|18.268|||ANCOVA|||||18.268|-5.754|0.3039
90959275|NCT03421431|181798474|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|6.203||||0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.615|16.021|||ANCOVA|||||16.021|-3.615|0.2130
90906190|NCT03633903|181679943|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|||||"The reported p-value was calculated and is not indicating a threshold for significance.~Comparing row 1 and row 4 (baseline pre TSST-C versus follow-up post TSST-C)."|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.40
90906191|NCT03633903|181679944|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35||||0.39|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparing group differences (CRP biomarker) in mindfulness versus control at baseline versus follow-up timepoints.||||.39
90906192|NCT03633903|181679944|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.95|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparing group differences (IL-6 biomarker) in mindfulness versus control at baseline versus follow-up timepoints.||||.95
90906193|NCT03633903|181679945|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|||||the calculated p value.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparing group differences (symptoms of anxiety/depression) in mindfulness versus control at baseline versus follow-up timepoints.||||.08
90906194|NCT02987829|181679946|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Determination of the maximum tolerated dose.|One dose limiting toxicity occurred at 320 mg daily of grade 3 QTc prolongation therefore the 280 mg dose was determined to be the maximum tolerated dose and selected as the phase 2 dose.|||
90906195|NCT00483262|181679957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||>= grade 3 adverse event proportion|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.72|0.98|||||Estimated proportion of patients with a adverse event of grade 3 or higher.|Single Arm Study||.98|.72|
90906196|NCT00483262|181679957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||toxicity grade >=3 proportion|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.66|0.89|||||No comparison. Estimate the proportion of patients with grade 3 or higher toxicity.|Phase II toxicity||.89|.66|
90906197|NCT00483262|181679958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||response rate of PR or better|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.02|0.28|||||Response of PR or better|Phase I part of this phase I/II study||.28|.02|
90906198|NCT00483262|181679958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||response rate of PR or better|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.21|0.47|||||Response of PR or better|Phase II part of this phase I/II study.||0.47|0.21|
90861120|NCT02833350|181585632|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.21||||0.2244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Week 2, Day 14||0.08|-0.51|0.2244
90861121|NCT02833350|181585632|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.28||||0.0586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Week 2, Day 14||0.01|-0.58|0.0586
90861122|NCT02833350|181585632|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.39||||0.1338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Week 4, Day 28||0.08|-0.85|0.1338
90861123|NCT02833350|181585632|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.4||||0.0119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.07|||ANCOVA|||Week 4, Day 28||-0.07|-0.74|0.0119
90861124|NCT02833350|181585632|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.44||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||Week 4, Day 28||-0.11|-0.77|0.0046
90861125|NCT02833350|181585632|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.31||||0.3943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Week 8, Day 56||0.20|-0.82|0.3943
90861126|NCT02833350|181585632|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.37||||0.0526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Week 8, Day 56||0.00|-0.74|0.0526
90861127|NCT02833350|181585632|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.39||||0.0365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||Week 8, Day 56||-0.02|-0.76|0.0365
90861128|NCT02833350|181585632|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.41||||0.1696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Week 12, Day 84||0.11|-0.93|0.1696
90906199|NCT00783718|181680015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|21.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.6|31.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The primary comparison of the Induction Phase was tested using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi-square test at a 5% significance level, with stratification according to the stratification factors (concomitant use of oral corticosteroids and previous exposure to tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNFα) antagonists or concomitant immunomodulator \[6-mercaptopurine or azathioprine\] use).||31.7|11.6|< 0.0001
90940219|NCT04098497|181760115|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Regression, Linear|β = 0.14, z = 1.51||Mean difference between receiving the intervention and not receiving the intervention at each time point.||||0.13
90861129|NCT02833350|181585632|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.63||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.25|||ANCOVA|||Week 12, Day 84||-0.25|-1.01|0.0002
90861130|NCT02833350|181585632|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.62||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||Week 12, Day 84||-0.24|-1.00|0.0003
90861131|NCT02833350|181585632|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.9|||ANCOVA|||Week 1, Day 7||0.90|0.37|<0.0001
90861132|NCT02833350|181585632|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.88|||ANCOVA|||Week 1, Day 7||0.88|0.34|<0.0001
90861133|NCT02833350|181585632|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.5||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.79|||ANCOVA|||Week 2, Day 14||0.79|0.21|0.0001
90861134|NCT02833350|181585632|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.43||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.72|||ANCOVA|||Week 2, Day 14||0.72|0.14|0.0012
90861135|NCT02833350|181585632|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.91|||ANCOVA|||Week 4, Day 28||0.91|0.25|<0.0001
90861136|NCT02833350|181585632|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.54||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.87|||ANCOVA|||Week 4, Day 28||0.87|0.21|0.0002
90861137|NCT02833350|181585632|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.46||||0.0084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.82|||ANCOVA|||Week 8, Day 56||0.82|0.09|0.0084
90861138|NCT02833350|181585632|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.44||||0.0124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Week 8, Day 56||0.80|0.07|0.0124
90861139|NCT02833350|181585632|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.15||||0.7565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.52|||ANCOVA|||Week 12, Day 84||0.52|-0.23|0.7565
90861140|NCT02833350|181585632|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.16||||0.7158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.53|||ANCOVA|||Week 12, Day 84||0.53|-0.22|0.7158
90861141|NCT02833350|181585632|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.22||||0.1368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Week 1, Day 7||0.07|-0.52|0.1368
90861142|NCT02833350|181585632|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.28||||0.0974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Week 2, Day 14||0.05|-0.62|0.0974
90861143|NCT02833350|181585632|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.38||||0.0479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Week 4, Day 28||-0.00|-0.76|0.0479
90861144|NCT02833350|181585632|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.84|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|-0.46|||ANCOVA|||Week 8, Day 56||-0.46|-1.22|<0.0001
90861145|NCT02833350|181585632|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.83||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|-0.42|||ANCOVA|||Week 12, Day 84||-0.42|-1.24|0.0001
90861146|NCT02833350|181585633|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.09||||0.9193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.24|||ANCOVA|||Week 1, Day 7||0.24|-0.41|0.9193
90861147|NCT02833350|181585633|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.1||||0.7062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.14|||ANCOVA|||Week 1, Day 7||0.14|-0.33|0.7062
90861148|NCT02833350|181585633|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.08||||0.8542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.16|||ANCOVA|||Week 1, Day 7||0.16|-0.31|0.8542
90861149|NCT02833350|181585633|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.13||||0.8095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.24|||ANCOVA|||Week 2, Day 14||0.24|-0.51|0.8095
90861150|NCT02833350|181585633|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.17||||0.3862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Week 2, Day 14||0.11|-0.44|0.3862
90861151|NCT02833350|181585633|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.16||||0.4328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.12|||ANCOVA|||Week 2, Day 14||0.12|-0.43|0.4328
90861152|NCT02833350|181585633|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.24||||0.4915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Week 4, Day 28||0.20|-0.68|0.4915
90861153|NCT02833350|181585633|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.26||||0.1441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Week 4, Day 28||0.06|-0.58|0.1441
90861154|NCT02833350|181585633|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.24||||0.189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Week 4, Day 28||0.07|-0.56|0.1890
90861155|NCT02833350|181585633|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.25||||0.5566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||Week 8, Day 56||-0.24|-0.74|0.5566
90861156|NCT02833350|181585633|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.32||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.04|||ANCOVA|||Week 8, Day 56||0.04|-0.68|0.0920
90861157|NCT02833350|181585633|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.29||||0.1391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Week 8, Day 56||0.06|-0.65|0.1391
90861158|NCT02833350|181585633|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.35||||0.2873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Week 12, Day 84||0.17|-0.86|0.2873
90940220|NCT04098497|181760116|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Regression, Linear|β = 0.38, z = 2.71||Mean difference between receiving the intervention and not receiving the intervention at each time point.||||0.007
90959276|NCT03421431|181798475|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|4.717||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.98|7.455|||ANCOVA|||||7.455|1.980|0.0009
90959277|NCT03421431|181798475|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.934||||0.4946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.766|3.635|||ANCOVA|||||3.635|-1.766|0.4946
90959278|NCT03421431|181798475|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.783||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.708|5.858|||ANCOVA|||||5.858|1.708|0.0005
90959279|NCT03421431|181798476|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.076||||0.2756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.062|0.214|||ANCOVA|||||0.214|-0.062|0.2756
90959280|NCT03421431|181798476|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.003||||0.9686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.136|0.131|||ANCOVA|||||0.131|-0.136|0.9686
91105748|NCT03816891|182097790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-17.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.3||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.2|-5.3||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 9||-5.3|-30.2|0.0054
91105749|NCT03816891|182097790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-40.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.46|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.4|-27.9||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 10||-27.9|-53.4|<0.0001
91105750|NCT03816891|182097790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-35.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.41|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.8|-22.5||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 10||-22.5|-47.8|<0.0001
91105751|NCT03816891|182097790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-21.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.42||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.4|-9.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 10||-9.1|-34.4|0.0009
91105752|NCT03816891|182097790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-40.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.66|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.1|-27.8||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 11||-27.8|-54.1|<0.0001
91105753|NCT03816891|182097790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-35.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.64|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.3|-22.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 11||-22.1|-48.3|<0.0001
91105754|NCT03816891|182097790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-18.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.61||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.2|-5.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 11||-5.1|-31.2|0.0067
91105755|NCT03816891|182097790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-41.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.64|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.5|-28.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||-28.2|-54.5|<0.0001
91105756|NCT03816891|182097790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-32.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.63|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.3|-19.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||-19.1|-45.3|<0.0001
90959281|NCT03421431|181798476|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.079||||0.1406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.026|0.184|||ANCOVA|||||0.184|-0.026|0.1406
90959282|NCT03421431|181798477|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.125||||0.613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.613|0.363|||ANCOVA|||||0.363|-0.613|0.6130
91105757|NCT03816891|182097790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-14.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.6||0.0279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.6|-1.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||-1.6|-27.6|0.0279
90861159|NCT02833350|181585633|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.54||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.16|||ANCOVA|||Week 12, Day 84||-0.16|-0.91|0.0020
90861160|NCT02833350|181585633|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.54||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|-0.17|||ANCOVA|||Week 12, Day 84||-0.17|-0.92|0.0016
90861161|NCT02833350|181585633|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.31||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.55|||ANCOVA|||Week 1, Day 7||0.55|0.07|0.0050
90861162|NCT02833350|181585633|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.33||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.57|||ANCOVA|||Week 1, Day 7||0.57|0.10|0.0020
90861163|NCT02833350|181585633|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.35||||0.0082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.62|||ANCOVA|||Week 2, Day 14||0.62|0.07|0.0082
90861164|NCT02833350|181585633|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.35||||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.63|||ANCOVA|||Week 2, Day 14||0.63|0.08|0.0056
90861165|NCT02833350|181585633|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.5||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.82|||ANCOVA|||Week 4, Day 28||0.82|0.19|0.0004
90861166|NCT02833350|181585633|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.52||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.84|||ANCOVA|||Week 4, Day 28||0.84|0.21|0.0002
90861167|NCT02833350|181585633|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.34||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.69|||ANCOVA|||Week 8, Day 56||0.69|-0.01|0.0650
90861168|NCT02833350|181585633|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.37||||0.0365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.72|||ANCOVA|||Week 8, Day 56||0.72|0.02|0.0365
90861169|NCT02833350|181585633|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.09||||0.9338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.47|||ANCOVA|||Week 12, Day 84||0.47|-0.28|0.9338
90861170|NCT02833350|181585633|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.09||||0.952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.46|||ANCOVA|||Week 12, Day 84||0.46|-0.29|0.9520
90861171|NCT02833350|181585633|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.19||||0.1496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Week 1, Day 7||0.07|-0.45|0.1496
90861172|NCT02833350|181585633|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.13||||0.3936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Week 2, Day 14||0.17|-0.43|0.3936
90861173|NCT02833350|181585633|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.35||||0.0346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||Week 4, Day 28||-0.03|-0.68|0.0346
91105758|NCT03816891|182097790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-38.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.7|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.9|-25.4||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 13||-25.4|-51.9|<0.0001
90861174|NCT02833350|181585633|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.68||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|-0.31|||ANCOVA|||Week 8, Day 56||-0.31|-1.04|0.0004
90861175|NCT02833350|181585633|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.73||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.34|||ANCOVA|||Week 12, Day 84||-0.34|-1.11|0.0003
90861176|NCT02833350|181585634|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.17||||0.6083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Week 1, Day 7||0.19|-0.53|0.6083
90861177|NCT02833350|181585634|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.18||||0.2672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Week 1, Day 7||0.08|-0.44|0.2672
90861178|NCT02833350|181585634|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.17||||0.3158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.09|||ANCOVA|||Week 1, Day 7||0.09|-0.43|0.3158
90861179|NCT02833350|181585634|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.14||||0.8495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.28|||ANCOVA|||Week 2, Day 14||0.28|-0.55|0.8495
90861180|NCT02833350|181585634|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.28||||0.0856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Week 2, Day 14||0.03|-0.58|0.0856
90861181|NCT02833350|181585634|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.27||||0.1021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.04|||ANCOVA|||Week 2, Day 14||0.04|-0.57|0.1021
90861182|NCT02833350|181585634|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.33||||0.2762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.15|||ANCOVA|||Week 4, Day 28||0.15|-0.82|0.2762
90861183|NCT02833350|181585634|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.38||||0.0286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||Week 4, Day 28||-0.03|-0.73|0.0286
90861184|NCT02833350|181585634|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.38||||0.0274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||Week 4, Day 28||-0.03|-0.73|0.0274
90861185|NCT02833350|181585634|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.28||||0.4981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.24|||ANCOVA|||Week 8, Day 56||0.24|-0.81|0.4981
90861186|NCT02833350|181585634|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.39||||0.0472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Week 8, Day 56||-0.00|-0.78|0.0472
90861187|NCT02833350|181585634|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.36||||0.0753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Week 8, Day 56||0.03|-0.75|0.0753
90861188|NCT02833350|181585634|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.43||||0.1853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.13|||ANCOVA|||Week 12, Day 84||0.13|-0.99|0.1853
90861189|NCT02833350|181585634|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.62||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.21|||ANCOVA|||Week 12, Day 84||-0.21|-1.03|0.0009
90861190|NCT02833350|181585634|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.62||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.21|||ANCOVA|||Week 12, Day 84||-0.21|-1.03|0.0008
90861191|NCT02833350|181585634|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.41||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.67|||ANCOVA|||Week 1, Day 7||0.67|0.15|0.0005
90861192|NCT02833350|181585634|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.42||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.68|||ANCOVA|||Week 1, Day 7||0.68|0.16|0.0003
90861193|NCT02833350|181585634|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.39||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.69|||ANCOVA|||Week 2, Day 14||0.69|0.09|0.0060
90861194|NCT02833350|181585634|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.4||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Week 2, Day 14||0.70|0.10|0.0039
90861195|NCT02833350|181585634|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.53||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.88|||ANCOVA|||Week 4, Day 28||0.88|0.18|0.0007
90861196|NCT02833350|181585634|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.53||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.88|||ANCOVA|||Week 4, Day 28||0.88|0.19|0.0007
90861197|NCT02833350|181585634|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.39||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.77|||ANCOVA|||Week 8, Day 56||0.77|0.01|0.0450
90861198|NCT02833350|181585634|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.42||||0.0259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Week 8, Day 56||0.80|0.04|0.0259
90861199|NCT02833350|181585634|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.06||||0.9881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.46|||ANCOVA|||Week 12, Day 84||0.46|-0.34|0.9881
90861200|NCT02833350|181585634|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.06||||0.9891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.46|||ANCOVA|||Week 12, Day 84||0.46|-0.34|0.9891
90861201|NCT02833350|181585634|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.29||||0.0463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Week 1, Day 7||-0.00|-0.57|0.0463
90861202|NCT02833350|181585634|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.23||||0.1867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Week 2, Day 14||0.11|-0.56|0.1867
90861203|NCT02833350|181585634|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.44||||0.0213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.07|||ANCOVA|||Week 4, Day 28||-0.07|-0.81|0.0213
90861204|NCT02833350|181585634|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.78||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|-0.37|||ANCOVA|||Week 8. Day 56||-0.37|-1.19|0.0003
90861205|NCT02833350|181585634|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.82||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||Week 12, Day 84||-0.40|-1.24|0.0002
90861206|NCT02833350|181585635|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.06|6.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1, Day 7||6.06|-6.06|1.0000
90861207|NCT02833350|181585635|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.91||||0.5976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|4.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1, Day 7||4.30|-2.48|0.5976
90861208|NCT02833350|181585635|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|1.82||||0.3482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|5.62|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1, Day 7||5.62|-1.98|0.3482
90861209|NCT02833350|181585635|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.4||||0.8979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.51|5.71|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2, Day 14||5.71|-6.51|0.8979
90861210|NCT02833350|181585635|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.91||||0.5976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|2.48|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2, Day 14||2.48|-4.30|0.5976
90861211|NCT02833350|181585635|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.91||||0.6546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.07|4.89|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2, Day 14||4.89|-3.07|0.6546
90861212|NCT02833350|181585635|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.8||||0.7988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.95|5.35|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4 Day 28||5.35|-6.95|0.7988
90861213|NCT02833350|181585635|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.01||||0.9975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.35|4.36|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4 Day 28||4.36|-4.35|0.9975
90861214|NCT02833350|181585635|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|4.55||||0.1185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|10.25|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4, Day 28||10.25|-1.16|0.1185
90861215|NCT02833350|181585635|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-2.4||||0.4765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.01|4.21|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8, Day 56||4.21|-9.01|0.4765
90959283|NCT03421431|181798477|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.049||||0.8366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.521|0.423|||ANCOVA|||||0.423|-0.521|0.8366
90959284|NCT03421431|181798477|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.076||||0.7015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.466|0.315|||ANCOVA|||||0.315|-0.466|0.7015
90959285|NCT03421431|181798478|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.186||||0.3875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.613|0.24|||ANCOVA|||||0.240|-0.613|0.3875
90959286|NCT03421431|181798478|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.248||||0.2331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.657|0.162|||ANCOVA|||||0.162|-0.657|0.2331
90959287|NCT03421431|181798478|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.061||||0.7164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.272|0.395|||ANCOVA|||||0.395|-0.272|0.7164
90959288|NCT03421431|181798479|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.311|||ANCOVA|||||0.311|0.110|<0.0001
90959289|NCT03421431|181798479|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.046||||0.348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.051|0.143|||ANCOVA|||||0.143|-0.051|0.3480
90959290|NCT03421431|181798479|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.164|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.085|0.243|||ANCOVA|||||0.243|0.085|<0.0001
91105759|NCT03816891|182097790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-33.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.69|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.7|-20.5||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 13||-20.5|-46.7|<0.0001
90861216|NCT02833350|181585635|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|4.61||||0.1655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|11.12|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8, Day 56||11.12|-1.90|0.1655
90861217|NCT02833350|181585635|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|8.18||||0.0234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|15.26|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8, Day 56||15.26|1.11|0.0234
90861218|NCT02833350|181585635|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|3.2||||0.549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.27|13.67|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12, Day 84||13.67|-7.27|0.5490
90861219|NCT02833350|181585635|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|15.62||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.22|24.03|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12, Day 84||24.03|7.22|0.0003
90861220|NCT02833350|181585635|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|10.91||||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.39|18.43|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12, Day 84||18.43|3.39|0.0044
90861221|NCT02833350|181585635|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|2.05||||0.6588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.07|11.18|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1, Day 7||11.18|-7.07|0.6588
90861222|NCT02833350|181585635|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.68||||0.8853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.62|9.99|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2, Day 14||9.99|-8.62|0.8853
90861223|NCT02833350|181585635|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|2.05||||0.6564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|11.11|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4, Day 28||11.11|-7.00|0.6564
90861224|NCT02833350|181585635|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.68||||0.8853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.62|9.99|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8, Day 56||9.99|-8.62|0.8853
90861225|NCT02833350|181585635|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|11.64||||0.0584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|23.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12, Day 84||23.70|-0.41|0.0584
90861226|NCT02833350|181585636|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.06|6.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1, Day 7||6.06|-6.06|1.0000
90861227|NCT02833350|181585636|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.92|2.92|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1, Day 7||2.92|-2.92|1.0000
90861228|NCT02833350|181585636|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.91|2.91|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1, Day 7||2.91|-2.91|1.0000
90861229|NCT02833350|181585636|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.06|6.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2, Day 14||6.06|-6.06|1.0000
90861230|NCT02833350|181585636|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.92|2.92|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2, Day 14||2.92|-2.92|1.0000
90861231|NCT02833350|181585636|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.91||||0.5976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.47|4.28|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2, Day 14||4.28|-2.47|0.5976
90861232|NCT02833350|181585636|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.4||||0.8979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.51|5.71|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4, Day 28||5.71|-6.51|0.8979
90861233|NCT02833350|181585636|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.91||||0.5976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|2.48|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4 Day 28||2.48|-4.30|0.5976
90861234|NCT02833350|181585636|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.91||||0.6669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.23|5.05|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4, Day 28||5.05|-3.23|0.6669
90861235|NCT02833350|181585636|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-1.6||||0.6309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.13|4.93|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8, Day 56||4.93|-8.13|0.6309
90861236|NCT02833350|181585636|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|1.83||||0.4473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|6.56|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8, Day 56||6.56|-2.90|0.4473
90861237|NCT02833350|181585636|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|2.73||||0.3021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.45|7.91|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8, Day 56||7.91|-2.45|0.3021
90861238|NCT02833350|181585636|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-1.6||||0.7134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.14|6.94|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12, Day 84||6.94|-10.14|0.7134
90861239|NCT02833350|181585636|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|3.7||||0.2635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.79|10.19|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12, Day 84||10.19|-2.79|0.2635
90861240|NCT02833350|181585636|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|4.55||||0.1749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|11.11|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12, Day 84||11.11|-2.02|0.1749
90861241|NCT02833350|181585636|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|2.05||||0.6588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.07|11.18|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1, Day 7||11.18|-7.07|0.6588
90861242|NCT02833350|181585636|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.31|8.31|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2 Day 14||8.31|-8.31|1.0000
90861243|NCT02833350|181585636|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.31|8.31|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4, Day 28||8.31|-8.31|1.0000
90861244|NCT02833350|181585636|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.31|8.31|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8, Day 56||8.31|-8.31|1.0000
90861245|NCT02833350|181585636|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|1.37||||0.7848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.46|11.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12, Day 84||11.20|-8.46|0.7848
90861246|NCT02833350|181585637|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.28|6.28|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1, Day 7||6.28|-6.28|1.0000
90861247|NCT02833350|181585637|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.93||||0.5941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|4.37|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1, Day 7||4.37|-2.50|0.5941
90861248|NCT02833350|181585637|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.93|2.93|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1, Day 7||2.93|-2.93|1.0000
90906200|NCT00783718|181680016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|26.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.9|37.2||P-value is based on the CMH chi-square test, with 3 stratification factors: concomitant use of oral corticosteroids; previous exposure to TNFα antagonists or concomitant immunomodulator use; enrollment in Cohort 1 or 2 in the Induction Phase.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The Hochberg method was applied to control the overall Type I error rate at a 5% significance level. If both P-values were ≤ 0.05, both dose regimens were to be declared significant. If 1 of the P-values for the 2 dose comparisons was \> 0.05, the other P-value was to be tested at the 0.025 level and declared significant only if the P-value was ≤ 0.025. If neither dose was declared significant for the primary endpoint, no further testing was to be conducted.||37.2|14.9|< 0.0001
90906201|NCT00783718|181680016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|29.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.9|40.4||P-value is based on the CMH chi-square test, with 3 stratification factors: concomitant use of oral corticosteroids; previous exposure to TNFα antagonists or concomitant immunomodulator use; enrollment in Cohort 1 or 2 in the Induction Phase.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The Hochberg method was applied to control the overall Type I error rate at a 5% significance level. If both P-values were ≤ 0.05, both dose regimens were to be declared significant. If 1 of the P-values for the 2 dose comparisons was \> 0.05, the other P-value was to be tested at the 0.025 level and declared significant only if the P-value was ≤ 0.025. If neither dose was declared significant for the primary endpoint, no further testing was to be conducted.||40.4|17.9|< 0.0001
90940221|NCT04098497|181760117|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||Regression, Linear|β = 0.03, z = 0.58||Mean difference between receiving the intervention and not receiving the intervention at each time point.||||0.57
91105760|NCT03816891|182097790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-17.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.65||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.8|-4.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 13||-4.6|-30.8|0.0085
91105761|NCT03816891|182097790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-41.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.85|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.4|-28.4||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 14||-28.4|-55.4|<0.0001
91105762|NCT03816891|182097790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-37.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.84|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.1|-24.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 14||-24.1|-51.1|<0.0001
90861249|NCT02833350|181585637|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.17|6.17|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2, Day 14||6.17|-6.17|1.0000
90861250|NCT02833350|181585637|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.95|2.95|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2, Day 14||2.95|-2.95|1.0000
90861251|NCT02833350|181585637|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.92|2.92|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2, Day 14||2.92|-2.92|1.0000
90861252|NCT02833350|181585637|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.43||||0.8929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.62|5.77|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4, Day 28||5.77|-6.62|0.8929
90861253|NCT02833350|181585637|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.13||||0.9424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.78|3.51|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4, Day 28||3.51|-3.78|0.9424
90861254|NCT02833350|181585637|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.94||||0.5927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|2.51|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4, Day 28||2.51|-4.40|0.5927
90861255|NCT02833350|181585637|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.46||||0.8788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.31|5.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8, Day 56||5.40|-6.31|0.8788
90861256|NCT02833350|181585637|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.87||||0.6876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.36|5.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8 Day 56||5.09|-3.36|0.6876
90861257|NCT02833350|181585637|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.97||||0.6656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.42|5.35|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8, Day 56||5.35|-3.42|0.6656
90861258|NCT02833350|181585637|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.46||||0.8787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.34|5.42|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12 Day 84||5.42|-6.34|0.8787
90861259|NCT02833350|181585637|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.74||||0.7101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.17|4.66|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12, Day 84||4.66|-3.17|0.7101
90861260|NCT02833350|181585637|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|3.2||||0.2425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|8.55|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12, Day 84||8.55|-2.16|0.2425
90861261|NCT02833350|181585637|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.68|8.68|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1, Day 7||8.68|-8.68|1.0000
90861262|NCT02833350|181585637|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.39|8.39|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2 Day 14||8.39|-8.39|1.0000
90861263|NCT02833350|181585637|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|2.03||||0.6658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.17|11.22|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4, Day 28||11.22|-7.17|0.6658
90861264|NCT02833350|181585637|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.77|8.77|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8, Day 56||8.77|-8.77|1.0000
90861265|NCT02833350|181585637|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|6.57||||0.2457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.52|17.66|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12, Day 84||17.66|-4.52|0.2457
90861266|NCT02833350|181585638|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-2.36||||0.496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.73|2.02|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1, Day 7||2.02|-6.73|0.4960
90861267|NCT02833350|181585638|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-2.18||||0.2736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.34|0.98|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1, Day 7||0.98|-5.34|0.2736
90861268|NCT02833350|181585638|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-3.08||||0.0608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.26|0.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1, Day 7||0.10|-6.26|0.0608
90861269|NCT02833350|181585638|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-1.25||||0.9237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.02|3.52|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2, Day 14||3.52|-6.02|0.9237
90861270|NCT02833350|181585638|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-3.14||||0.0893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|0.33|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2, Day 14||0.33|-6.60|0.0893
90861271|NCT02833350|181585638|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-4.07||||0.0138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.51|-0.63|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2, Day 14||-0.63|-7.51|0.0138
90861272|NCT02833350|181585638|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-3.22||||0.3358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.24|1.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4, Day 28||1.80|-8.24|0.3358
90906202|NCT00783718|181680017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|11.5||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|18.3||P-value is based on the CMH chi-square test, with stratification according to: 1) concomitant use of oral corticosteroids (yes/no); and 2) previous exposure to TNFα antagonists or concomitant immunomodulator use (yes/no).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||To maintain the overall Type I error rate at 5%, the key secondary assessments were performed sequentially (closed sequential method). The first secondary endpoint was to be tested only if the primary comparison was significant and the second key secondary endpoint was to be tested only if the first secondary endpoint was significant for vedolizumab.||18.3|4.7|0.0009
90906203|NCT00783718|181680018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|16.1||||0.0012||95.0|6.4|25.9||P-value is based on the CMH chi-square test, with stratification according to: 1) concomitant use of oral corticosteroids (yes/no); and 2) previous exposure to TNFα antagonists or concomitant immunomodulator use (yes/no).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||To maintain the overall Type I error rate at 5%, the key secondary assessments were performed sequentially (closed sequential method). The first secondary endpoint was to be tested only if the primary comparison was significant and the second key secondary endpoint was to be tested only if the first secondary endpoint was significant for vedolizumab.||25.9|6.4|0.0012
90906204|NCT00783718|181680019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|32.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.8|44.7||P-value is based on the CMH chi-square test, with 3 stratification factors: concomitant use of oral corticosteroids; previous exposure to TNFα antagonists or concomitant immunomodulator use; enrollment in Cohort 1 or 2 in the Induction Phase.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||To maintain the overall Type I error rate at 5% for the 2 dose regimen comparisons for each key secondary endpoint, the Hochberg method was used as described for the primary outcome measure. To further maintain the overall Type I error rate at 5%, the key secondary endpoints were also performed sequentially. The first was tested only if 1 or both of the primary comparisons were significant and the next endpoint was tested only if the previous endpoint was significant for at least 1 dose.||44.7|20.8|< 0.0001
90906205|NCT00783718|181680019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|28.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.7|40.3||P-value is based on the CMH chi-square test, with 3 stratification factors: concomitant use of oral corticosteroids; previous exposure to TNFα antagonists or concomitant immunomodulator use; enrollment in Cohort 1 or 2 in the Induction Phase.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||To maintain the overall Type I error rate at 5% for the 2 dose regimen comparisons for each key secondary endpoint, the Hochberg method was used as described for the primary outcome measure. To further maintain the overall Type I error rate at 5%, the key secondary endpoints were also performed sequentially. The first was tested only if 1 or both of the primary comparisons were significant and the next endpoint was tested only if the previous endpoint was significant for at least 1 dose.||40.3|16.7|< 0.0001
90906206|NCT00783718|181680020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|32.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.3|43.8||P-value is based on the CMH chi-square test, with 3 stratification factors: concomitant use of oral corticosteroids; previous exposure to TNFα antagonists or concomitant immunomodulator use; enrollment in Cohort 1 or 2 in the Induction Phase.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||To maintain the overall Type I error rate at 5% for the 2 dose regimen comparisons for each key secondary endpoint, the Hochberg method was used as described for the primary outcome measure. To further maintain the overall Type I error rate at 5%, the key secondary endpoints were also performed sequentially. The first was tested only if 1 or both of the primary comparisons were significant and the next endpoint was tested only if the previous endpoint was significant for at least 1 dose.||43.8|20.3|< 0.0001
91105763|NCT03816891|182097790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-21.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.8||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.8|-8.0||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 14||-8.0|-34.8|0.0020
91105764|NCT03816891|182097790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-42.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.72|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.9|-29.4||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 15||-29.4|-55.9|<0.0001
91105765|NCT03816891|182097790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-37.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.7|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.4|-24.0||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 15||-24.0|-50.4|< 0.0001
90906207|NCT00783718|181680020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|36.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.4|48.3||P-value is based on the CMH chi-square test, with 3 stratification factors: concomitant use of oral corticosteroids; previous exposure to TNFα antagonists or concomitant immunomodulator use; enrollment in Cohort 1 or 2 in the Induction Phase.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||To maintain the overall Type I error rate at 5% for the 2 dose regimen comparisons for each key secondary endpoint, the Hochberg method was used as described for the primary outcome measure. To further maintain the overall Type I error rate at 5%, the key secondary endpoints were also performed sequentially. The first was tested only if 1 or both of the primary comparisons were significant and the next endpoint was tested only if the previous endpoint was significant for at least 1 dose.||48.3|24.4|< 0.0001
90906208|NCT00783718|181680021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|11.8||||0.0079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|20.5||P-value is based on the CMH chi-square test, with 3 stratification factors: concomitant use of oral corticosteroids; previous exposure to TNFα antagonists or concomitant immunomodulator use; enrollment in Cohort 1 or 2 in the Induction Phase.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||To maintain the overall Type I error rate at 5% for the 2 dose regimen comparisons for each key secondary endpoint, the Hochberg method was used as described for the primary outcome measure. To further maintain the overall Type I error rate at 5%, the key secondary endpoints were also performed sequentially. The first was tested only if 1 or both of the primary comparisons were significant and the next endpoint was tested only if the previous endpoint was significant for at least 1 dose.||20.5|3.1|0.0079
90940222|NCT04098497|181760118|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Regression, Linear|β = 0.06, z = 1.15||Mean difference between receiving the intervention and not receiving the intervention at each time point.||||0.25
90940223|NCT03455218|181760119|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.55
90940224|NCT03455218|181760121|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.30
90940225|NCT03455218|181760122|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.11
90940226|NCT03455218|181760123|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.002
90861273|NCT02833350|181585638|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-4.57||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|-0.94|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4, Day 28||-0.94|-8.20|0.0078
90906209|NCT00783718|181680021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|15.3||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.2|24.4||P-value is based on the CMH chi-square test, with 3 stratification factors: concomitant use of oral corticosteroids; previous exposure to TNFα antagonists or concomitant immunomodulator use; enrollment in Cohort 1 or 2 in the Induction Phase.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||To maintain the overall Type I error rate at 5% for the 2 dose regimen comparisons for each key secondary endpoint, the Hochberg method was used as described for the primary outcome measure. To further maintain the overall Type I error rate at 5%, the key secondary endpoints were also performed sequentially. The first was tested only if 1 or both of the primary comparisons were significant and the next endpoint was tested only if the previous endpoint was significant for at least 1 dose.||24.4|6.2|0.0009
90906210|NCT00783718|181680022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|17.6||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|31.3||P-value based on the CMH chi-square test, with 3 stratification factors: concomitant use of oral corticosteroids; previous exposure to TNFα antagonists or concomitant immunomodulator use; enrollment in Cohort 1 or 2 in the Induction Phase.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||To maintain the overall Type I error rate at 5% for the 2 dose regimen comparisons for each key secondary endpoint, the Hochberg method was used as described for the primary outcome measure. To further maintain the overall Type I error rate at 5%, the key secondary endpoints were also performed sequentially. The first was tested only if 1 or both of the primary comparisons were significant and the next endpoint was tested only if the previous endpoint was significant for at least 1 dose.||31.3|3.9|0.0120
90906211|NCT00783718|181680022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|31.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.6|46.2||P-value is based on the CMH chi-square test, with 3 stratification factors: concomitant use of oral corticosteroids; previous exposure to TNFα antagonists or concomitant immunomodulator use; enrollment in Cohort 1 or 2 in the Induction Phase.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||To maintain the overall Type I error rate at 5% for the 2 dose regimen comparisons for each key secondary endpoint, the Hochberg method was used as described for the primary outcome measure. To further maintain the overall Type I error rate at 5%, the key secondary endpoints were also performed sequentially. The first was tested only if 1 or both of the primary comparisons were significant and the next endpoint was tested only if the previous endpoint was significant for at least 1 dose.||46.2|16.6|< 0.0001
90906212|NCT01027871|181680044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|0.17||||0.433|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.18|0.52||The statistical significance level is 0.10.|Mixed Models Analysis||The Least Squares Mean Difference = LY Combined - Insulin Glargine; and 90% confidence interval (CI) = 90% CI of the least squares mean difference.|||0.52|-0.18|0.433
90906213|NCT01027871|181680045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.2||||0.388|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.59|0.19||The statistical significance level is 0.10.|Mixed Models Analysis||The Least Squares Mean Difference = LY Combined - Insulin Glargine; and 90% confidence interval (CI) = 90% CI of the least squares mean difference.|||0.19|-0.59|0.388
90906214|NCT01027871|181680046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.09||||0.197|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.21|0.03||The statistical significance level is 0.10.|Mixed Models Analysis||The Least Squares Mean Difference = LY Combined - Insulin Glargine; and 90% confidence interval (CI) = 90% CI of the least squares mean difference.|||0.03|-0.21|0.197
90861274|NCT02833350|181585638|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-4.68||||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|-1.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4, Day 28||-1.06|-8.30|0.0059
90861275|NCT02833350|181585638|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-2.29||||0.6503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.39|2.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8, Day 56||2.80|-7.39|0.6503
90861276|NCT02833350|181585638|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-3.12||||0.1282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.84|0.59|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8, Day 56||0.59|-6.84|0.1282
90906215|NCT01027871|181680047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.609||95.0||||"The statistical significance level is 0.10.~P-value is for HbA1c \<7.0%"|Fisher Exact|||||||0.609
90906216|NCT01027871|181680047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.314||95.0||||"The statistical significance level is 0.10.~P-value is for HbA1c ≤6.5%"|Fisher Exact|||||||0.314
90906217|NCT01027871|181680048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.375||95.0||||"The statistical significance level is 0.10.~P-value is for HbA1c \<7.0%."|Fisher Exact|||||||0.375
90861277|NCT02833350|181585638|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-2.94||||0.1675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.65|0.78|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8, Day 56||0.78|-6.65|0.1675
90861278|NCT02833350|181585638|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-2.94||||0.422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.96|2.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12, Day 84||2.09|-7.96|0.4220
90861279|NCT02833350|181585638|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-5.1||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.77|-1.42|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12, Day 84||-1.42|-8.77|0.0027
90861280|NCT02833350|181585638|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-5.47||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.15|-1.78|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12, Day 84||-1.78|-9.15|0.0011
90861281|NCT02833350|181585638|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|3.21||||0.0455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|6.37|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1, Day 7||6.37|0.05|0.0455
90861282|NCT02833350|181585638|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|2.31||||0.2309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|5.48|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1, Day 7||5.48|-0.87|0.2309
90861283|NCT02833350|181585638|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|3.27||||0.0698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|6.72|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2, Day 14||6.72|-0.18|0.0698
90861284|NCT02833350|181585638|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|2.33||||0.2851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|5.76|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2, Day 14||5.76|-1.09|0.2851
90906218|NCT01027871|181680048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.811||95.0||||"The statistical significance level is 0.10.~P- value is for HbA1c ≤6.5%"|Fisher Exact|||||||0.811
90906219|NCT01027871|181680049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.43||||0.144|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.92|0.05||"The statistical significance level is 0.10.~P- value is for morning 2-hr postprandial BG"|Mixed Models Analysis||The Least Squares Mean Difference = LY Combined - Insulin Glargine; and 90% confidence interval (CI) = 90% CI of the least squares mean difference.|||0.05|-0.92|0.144
90906220|NCT01027871|181680049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.25||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|0.2||"The statistical significance level is 0.10.~P-value is for midday pre-meal BG."|Mixed Models Analysis||The Least Squares Mean Difference = LY Combined - Insulin Glargine; and 90% confidence interval (CI) = 90% CI of the least squares mean difference.|||0.20|-0.70|0.360
90940227|NCT03455218|181760124|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
90906221|NCT01027871|181680049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.26||||0.342|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.72|0.19||"The statistical significance level is 0.10.~P-value is for midday 2-hr postprandial BG."|Mixed Models Analysis||The Least Squares Mean Difference = LY Combined - Insulin Glargine; and 90% confidence interval (CI) = 90% CI of the least squares mean difference.|||0.19|-0.72|0.342
90906222|NCT01027871|181680049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.12||||0.654|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.56|0.32||"The statistical significance level is 0.10.~P-value is for evening pre-meal BG"|Mixed Models Analysis||The Least Squares Mean Difference = LY Combined - Insulin Glargine; and 90% confidence interval (CI) = 90% CI of the least squares mean difference.|||0.32|-0.56|0.654
90906223|NCT01027871|181680049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.25||||0.387|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.73|0.23||"The statistical significance level is 0.10.~P-value is for evening 2-hr postprandial BG."|Mixed Models Analysis||The Least Squares Mean Difference = LY Combined - Insulin Glargine; and 90% confidence interval (CI) = 90% CI of the least squares mean difference.|||0.23|-0.73|0.387
90906224|NCT01027871|181680049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.29||||0.339|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.79|0.21||"The statistical significance level is 0.10.~P-value is for bed time BG."|Mixed Models Analysis||The Least Squares Mean Difference = LY Combined - Insulin Glargine; and 90% confidence interval (CI) = 90% CI of the least squares mean difference.|||0.21|-0.79|0.339
90906225|NCT01027871|181680049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|0.1||||0.676|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|0.5||"The statistical significance level is 0.10.~P-value is for 0300 hours BG."|Mixed Models Analysis||The Least Squares Mean Difference = LY Combined - Insulin Glargine; and 90% confidence interval (CI) = 90% CI of the least squares mean difference.|||0.50|-0.30|0.676
90906226|NCT01027871|181680051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.162||95.0||||The statistical significance level is 0.10.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.162
90906227|NCT01027871|181680052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.804||95.0||||The statistical significance level is 0.10.|Negative Binomial Model|||||||0.804
90906228|NCT01027871|181680054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.01||||0.937||90.0|-0.16|0.14||"The statistical significance level is 0.10.~P-value is for baseline."|ANOVA||The Least Squares Mean Difference = LY Combined - Insulin Glargine; and 90% confidence interval (CI) = 90% CI of the least squares mean difference.|||0.14|-0.16|0.937
90906229|NCT01027871|181680054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.03||||0.687|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.16|0.1||"The statistical significance level is 0.10.~P-value is for Week 12."|Mixed Models Analysis||The Least Squares Mean Difference = LY Combined - Insulin Glargine; and 90% confidence interval (CI) = 90% CI of the least squares mean difference.|||0.10|-0.16|0.687
90906230|NCT01027871|181680056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.4||||0.159|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.87|0.07||The statistical significance level is 0.10 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis||The Least Squares Mean Difference = LY2605541 Algorithm 1 - Insulin Glargine; and 90% confidence interval (CI) = 90% CI of the least squares mean difference.|||0.07|-0.87|0.159
90906231|NCT01027871|181680056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.17||||0.542|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.62|0.29||The statistical significance level is 0.10 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis||The Least Squares Mean Difference = LY2605541 Algorithm 2 - Insulin Glargine; and 90% confidence interval (CI) = 90% CI of the least squares mean difference.|||0.29|-0.62|0.542
90906232|NCT01027871|181680057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.01||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.16|0.13||The statistical significance level is 0.10 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis||The Least Squares Mean Difference = LY2605541 Algorithm 1 - Insulin Glargine; and 90% confidence interval (CI) = 90% CI of the least squares mean difference.|||0.13|-0.16|0.880
90906233|NCT01027871|181680057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.17||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.32|-0.03||The statistical significance level is 0.10 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis||The Least Squares Mean Difference = LY2605541 Algorithm 2 - Insulin Glargine; and 90% confidence interval (CI) = 90% CI of the least squares mean difference.|||-0.03|-0.32|0.045
90906234|NCT01027871|181680058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.273||95.0||||"The statistical significance level is 0.10 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.~P-value is for HbA1c \<7.0%."|Fisher Exact|||||||0.273
90906235|NCT01027871|181680058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.287||95.0||||"The statistical significance level is 0.10 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.~P-value is for HbA1c ≤6.5%."|Fisher Exact|||||||0.287
90906236|NCT01027871|181680058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.879||95.0||||"The statistical significance level is 0.10 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.~P-value is for HbA1c \<7.0%."|Fisher Exact|||||||0.879
90906237|NCT01027871|181680058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.722||95.0||||"The statistical significance level is 0.10 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.~P-value is for HbA1c ≤6.5%."|Fisher Exact|||||||0.722
90906238|NCT01027871|181680059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.139||95.0||||"The statistical significance level is 0.10 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.~P-value is for HbA1c \<7.0%."|Fisher Exact|||||||0.139
90906239|NCT01027871|181680059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.569||95.0||||"The statistical significance level is 0.10 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.~P-value is for HbA1c ≤6.5%."|Fisher Exact|||||||0.569
90906240|NCT01027871|181680059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.515||95.0||||"The statistical significance level is 0.10 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.~P-value is for HbA1c \<7.0%."|Fisher Exact|||||||0.515
90906241|NCT01027871|181680059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||"The statistical significance level is 0.10 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.~P-value is for HbA1c ≤6.5%."|Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
90906242|NCT01027871|181680060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|0.26||||0.305|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.16|0.67||"The statistical significance level is 0.10 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.~P-value is for morning pre-meal BG."|Mixed Models Analysis||The Least Squares Mean Difference = LY2605541 Algorithm 1 - Insulin Glargine; and 90% confidence interval (CI) = 90% CI of the least squares mean difference.|||0.67|-0.16|0.305
90940228|NCT03455218|181760125|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.27
90940229|NCT03455218|181760126|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.57
90940230|NCT03455218|181760128|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.48
90861285|NCT02833350|181585638|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|4.29||||0.0131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|7.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4, Day 28||7.90|0.69|0.0131
90861286|NCT02833350|181585638|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|4.18||||0.0161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|7.78|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4, Day 28||7.78|0.59|0.0161
90861287|NCT02833350|181585638|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|3.85||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|7.51|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8, Day 56||7.51|0.18|0.0360
90861288|NCT02833350|181585638|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|4.04||||0.0252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|7.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8, Day 56||7.70|0.37|0.0252
90861289|NCT02833350|181585638|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|1.03||||0.9032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.59|4.66|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12, Day 84||4.66|-2.59|0.9032
90861290|NCT02833350|181585638|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.66||||0.9791|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.97|4.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12, Day 84||4.30|-2.97|0.9791
90861291|NCT02833350|181585638|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-3.22||||0.0927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.98|0.54|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1, Day 7||0.54|-6.98|0.0927
90861292|NCT02833350|181585638|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-2.12||||0.3202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.33|2.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2, Day 14||2.09|-6.33|0.3202
90861293|NCT02833350|181585638|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-4.2||||0.0476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.36|-0.04|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4, Day 28||-0.04|-8.36|0.0476
90861294|NCT02833350|181585638|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-9.93|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.31|-5.55|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8, Day 54||-5.55|-14.31|<0.0001
90861295|NCT02833350|181585638|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-8.23||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.56|-3.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12, Day 84||-3.90|-12.56|0.0003
90906243|NCT01027871|181680060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.14||||0.571|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.54|0.26||"The statistical significance level is 0.10 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.~P-value is for morning pre-meal BG."|Mixed Models Analysis||The Least Squares Mean Difference = LY2605541 Algorithm 2 - Insulin Glargine; and 90% confidence interval (CI) = 90% CI of the least squares mean difference.|||0.26|-0.54|0.571
90861296|NCT02833350|181585639|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.06|6.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1, Day 7||6.06|-6.06|1.0000
90861297|NCT02833350|181585639|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.91||||0.5976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|4.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1, Day 7||4.30|-2.48|0.5976
90861298|NCT02833350|181585639|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.91||||0.5976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.47|4.28|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1, Day 7||4.28|-2.47|0.5976
90861299|NCT02833350|181585639|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.06|6.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2, Day 14||6.06|-6.06|1.0000
90861300|NCT02833350|181585639|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.92|2.92|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2, Day 14||2.92|-2.92|1.0000
90861301|NCT02833350|181585639|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.91|2.91|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2, Day 14||2.91|-2.91|1.0000
90861302|NCT02833350|181585639|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.06|6.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4, Day 28||6.06|-6.06|1.0000
90861303|NCT02833350|181585639|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.91||||0.5726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|4.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4, Day 28||4.09|-2.26|0.5726
90861304|NCT02833350|181585639|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.91||||0.5976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.47|4.28|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4, Day 28||4.28|-2.47|0.5976
90861305|NCT02833350|181585639|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.06|6.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8, Day 56||6.06|-6.06|1.0000
90861306|NCT02833350|181585639|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|2.74||||0.1446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|6.42|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8, Day 56||6.42|-0.94|0.1446
90861307|NCT02833350|181585639|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|5.45||||0.0286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|10.34|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8, Day 56||10.34|0.57|0.0286
90861308|NCT02833350|181585639|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.4||||0.8979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.51|5.71|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12, Day 84||5.71|-6.51|0.8979
90861309|NCT02833350|181585639|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|4.57||||0.0708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|9.52|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12, Day 84||9.52|-0.39|0.0708
90861310|NCT02833350|181585639|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|5.45||||0.0478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|10.86|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12, Day 84||10.86|0.05|0.0478
90861311|NCT02833350|181585639|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.31|8.31|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1, Day 7||8.31|-8.31|1.0000
90861312|NCT02833350|181585639|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.31|8.31|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2, Day 14||8.31|-8.31|1.0000
90861313|NCT02833350|181585639|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|2.05||||0.6564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|11.11|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4, Day 28||11.11|-7.00|0.6564
90861314|NCT02833350|181585639|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|4.11||||0.3838|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.14|13.36|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8, Day 56||13.36|-5.14|0.3838
90861315|NCT02833350|181585639|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.68||||0.9009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|11.47|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12, Day 84||11.47|-10.10|0.9009
90861316|NCT02833350|181585640|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-2.36||||0.5455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|2.27|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1, Day 7||2.27|-7.00|0.5455
90861317|NCT02833350|181585640|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-1.97||||0.4114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|1.36|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1, Day 7||1.36|-5.30|0.4114
90861318|NCT02833350|181585640|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-2.62||||0.1739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.97|0.72|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1, Day 7||0.72|-5.97|0.1739
90861319|NCT02833350|181585640|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.94||||0.9761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.93|4.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2, Week 14||4.06|-5.93|0.9761
90861320|NCT02833350|181585640|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-3.18||||0.0998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.78|0.41|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2, Week 14||0.41|-6.78|0.0998
90861321|NCT02833350|181585640|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-3.97||||0.0239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.54|-0.39|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2, Week 14||-0.39|-7.54|0.0239
90861322|NCT02833350|181585640|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-3.98||||0.2018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.25|1.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4, Day 28||1.30|-9.25|0.2018
90861323|NCT02833350|181585640|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-5.67||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.48|-1.87|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4, Day 28||-1.87|-9.48|0.0011
91105766|NCT03816891|182097790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-21.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.67||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.5|-8.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 15||-8.2|-34.5|0.0016
91105767|NCT03816891|182097790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-41.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.77|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.0|-28.3||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||-28.3|-55.0|<0.0001
91105768|NCT03816891|182097790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-36.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.75|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.7|-23.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||-23.1|-49.7|<0.0001
91105769|NCT03816891|182097790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-18.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.72||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.7|-5.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||-5.2|-31.7|0.0067
91105770|NCT03816891|182097790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-35.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.0|-21.4||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 17||-21.4|-49.0|<0.0001
90861324|NCT02833350|181585640|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-5.27||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.06|-1.48|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4, Day 28||-1.48|-9.06|0.0026
90861325|NCT02833350|181585640|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-2.47||||0.6336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.84|2.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8, Day 56||2.90|-7.84|0.6336
90861326|NCT02833350|181585640|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-3.49||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.38|0.41|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8, Day 56||0.41|-7.38|0.0950
90861327|NCT02833350|181585640|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-3.18||||0.1451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.06|0.71|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8, Day 56||0.71|-7.06|0.1451
90861328|NCT02833350|181585640|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-3.28||||0.3434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.43|1.87|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12, Day 84||1.87|-8.43|0.3434
90861329|NCT02833350|181585640|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-5.45||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.23|-1.68|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12, Day 84||-1.68|-9.23|0.0016
90861330|NCT02833350|181585640|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-5.88||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.65|-2.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12, Day 84||-2.10|-9.65|0.0006
90906244|NCT01027871|181680060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.26||||0.454||90.0|-0.85|0.32||"The statistical significance level is 0.10 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.~P-value is for morning 2-hr postprandial BG."|Mixed Models Analysis||The Least Squares Mean Difference = LY2605541 Algorithm 1 - Insulin Glargine; and 90% confidence interval (CI) = 90% CI of the least squares mean difference.|||0.32|-0.85|0.454
91105771|NCT03816891|182097790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-32.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.0|-18.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 17||-18.1|-46.0|<0.0001
90861331|NCT02833350|181585640|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|4.64||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|7.96|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1, Day 7||7.96|1.31|0.0025
90861332|NCT02833350|181585640|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|3.98||||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|7.32|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1, Day 7||7.32|0.64|0.0129
90861333|NCT02833350|181585640|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|4.04||||0.0206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|7.62|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2, Day 14||7.62|0.46|0.0206
90861334|NCT02833350|181585640|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|3.26||||0.0841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|6.82|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2, Day 14||6.82|-0.30|0.0841
90861335|NCT02833350|181585640|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|4.67||||0.0088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|8.42|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4, Day 28||8.42|0.91|0.0088
90861336|NCT02833350|181585640|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|5.07||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|8.81|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4, Day 28||8.81|1.34|0.0034
90861337|NCT02833350|181585640|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|4.55||||0.0138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|8.39|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8, Day 56||8.39|0.71|0.0138
90861338|NCT02833350|181585640|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|4.85||||0.0073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|8.69|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8, Day 56||8.69|1.02|0.0073
90861339|NCT02833350|181585640|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|1.29||||0.8284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.46|5.03|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12, Day 84||5.03|-2.46|0.8284
90861340|NCT02833350|181585640|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.86||||0.9525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.88|4.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12, Day 84||4.60|-2.88|0.9525
90861341|NCT02833350|181585640|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-3.22||||0.0856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.91|0.46|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1, Day 7||0.46|-6.91|0.0856
90940231|NCT03455218|181760129|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.96
91105772|NCT03816891|182097790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-17.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.98||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.7|-4.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 17||-4.1|-31.7|0.0111
91105773|NCT03816891|182097790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-29.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.02|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.8|-16.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 18||-16.1|-43.8|<0.0001
90861342|NCT02833350|181585640|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-2.08||||0.3374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.36|2.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2, Day 14||2.20|-6.36|0.3374
90861343|NCT02833350|181585640|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-4.24||||0.0534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.53|0.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4, Day 28||0.06|-8.53|0.0534
91105774|NCT03816891|182097790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-26.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.12||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.6|-12.5||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 18||-12.5|-40.6|0.0003
91105775|NCT03816891|182097790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-14.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.96||0.0445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.8|-0.4||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 18||-0.4|-27.8|0.0445
90861344|NCT02833350|181585640|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-10.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.33|-6.32|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8, Day 56||-6.32|-15.33|<0.0001
90861345|NCT02833350|181585640|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-9.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.63|-4.81|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12, Day 84||-4.81|-13.63|<0.0001
90861346|NCT02833350|181585641|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.06|6.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1, Day 7||6.06|-6.06|1.0000
90861347|NCT02833350|181585641|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.91||||0.5976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|4.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1, Day 7||4.30|-2.48|0.5976
90861348|NCT02833350|181585641|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.91|2.91|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1, Day 7||2.91|-2.91|1.0000
90861349|NCT02833350|181585641|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.06|6.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2, Day 14||6.06|-6.06|1.0000
90861350|NCT02833350|181585641|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.92|2.92|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2, Day 14||2.92|-2.92|1.0000
90861351|NCT02833350|181585641|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.91|2.91|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2, Day 14||2.91|-2.91|1.0000
90861352|NCT02833350|181585641|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.06|6.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4, Day 28||6.06|-6.06|1.0000
90861353|NCT02833350|181585641|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.91||||0.5726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|4.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4, Day 28||4.09|-2.26|0.5726
90861354|NCT02833350|181585641|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.91||||0.5976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.47|4.28|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4, Day 28||4.28|-2.47|0.5976
90861355|NCT02833350|181585641|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.06|6.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8, Day 56||6.06|-6.06|1.0000
90861356|NCT02833350|181585641|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|2.74||||0.1446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|6.42|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8, Day 56||6.42|-0.94|0.1446
90906245|NCT01027871|181680060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.83||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.4|-0.26||"The statistical significance level is 0.10 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.~P-value is for morning 2-hr postprandial BG."|Mixed Models Analysis||The Least Squares Mean Difference = LY2605541 Algorithm 2 - Insulin Glargine; and 90% confidence interval (CI) = 90% CI of the least squares mean difference.|||-0.26|-1.40|0.016
91105776|NCT03816891|182097790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-24.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.06||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.1|-10.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 19||-10.2|-38.1|0.0008
90861357|NCT02833350|181585641|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|3.64||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|8.03|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8, Day 56||8.03|-0.76|0.1050
90861358|NCT02833350|181585641|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.4||||0.8979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.51|5.71|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12, Day 84||5.71|-6.51|0.8979
90861359|NCT02833350|181585641|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|3.65||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|8.35|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12, Day 84||8.35|-1.04|0.1270
90861360|NCT02833350|181585641|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|5.45||||0.0501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|10.91|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12, Day 84||10.91|-0.00|0.0501
90861361|NCT02833350|181585641|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.31|8.31|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1, Day 7||8.31|-8.31|1.0000
90861362|NCT02833350|181585641|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.31|8.31|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2, Day 14||8.31|-8.31|1.0000
90861363|NCT02833350|181585641|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|2.05||||0.6564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|11.11|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4, Day 28||11.11|-7.00|0.6564
90861364|NCT02833350|181585641|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.31|8.31|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8, Day 56||8.31|-8.31|1.0000
90861365|NCT02833350|181585641|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.68||||0.9051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.58|11.95|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12, Day 84||11.95|-10.58|0.9051
90861366|NCT00075218|181585654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.329|||<|0.001||95.0|0.233|0.466||The nominal levels of significance for the interim and final analyses were determined at the time of the analyses using the Lan-DeMets procedure with an O'Brien-Fleming stopping rule.|Log Rank|two-sided unstratified log-rank test||The study was designed to test the null hypothesis that the median TTP from placebo treatment is 4 months versus the alternative hypothesis that the median TTP from sunitinib treatment is at least 6 months with an overall 2-sided significance level of 0.05 and power of 90%.||0.466|0.233|<0.001
90861367|NCT00075218|181585655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.347|||<|0.001||95.0|0.253|0.475||No p-value adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|||||0.475|0.253|<0.001
90861368|NCT00075218|181585657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.876||||0.306||95.0|0.679|1.129||No p-value adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|||||1.129|0.679|0.306
90861369|NCT00075218|181585658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.505||||0.306||95.0|0.262|1.134||No p-value adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Rank Preserving Structural Failure Time||95% CI for Hazard Ratio is from 2.5% and 97.5% Empirical Percentiles of 100,000 Bootstraps.|||1.134|0.262|0.306
90861370|NCT00075218|181585660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||rate (percentage)|6.6||||||95.0|3.8|10.5|||||Used exact method based on binomial distribution.|||10.5|3.8|
90861371|NCT00075218|181585660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (%)|6.58||||0.004||95.0|3.47|9.7||No p-value adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Pearson chi-square test|||||9.70|3.47|0.004
91105777|NCT03816891|182097790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-21.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.17||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.0|-7.7||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 19||-7.7|-36.0|0.0027
91105778|NCT03816891|182097790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-12.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.05||0.0724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.7|1.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 19||1.2|-26.7|0.0724
91105779|NCT03816891|182097790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-21.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.11||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.7|-7.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||-7.6|-35.7|0.0028
91105780|NCT03816891|182097790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-17.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.22||0.0158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.9|-3.3||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||-3.3|-31.9|0.0158
91105781|NCT03816891|182097790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-10.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.06||0.1468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.2|3.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||3.6|-24.2|0.1468
91105782|NCT03816891|182097790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-17.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.21||0.0167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.7|-3.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 21||-3.2|-31.7|0.0167
91105783|NCT03816891|182097790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-16.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.29||0.0242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.0|-2.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 21||-2.2|-31.0|0.0242
90861372|NCT00075218|181585663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.339|||<|0.001||95.0|0.244|0.472||two-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||||0.472|0.244|<0.001
90861373|NCT00075218|181585663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.327|||<|0.001||95.0|0.232|0.46|||Log Rank|log-rank test of treatment stratified by prior imatinib mesylate response and McGill Pain Questionnaire's Present Pain Intensity score||Stratified log-rank test||0.460|0.232|<0.001
90861374|NCT00075218|181585664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.972||||0.9322||95.0|0.508|1.86|||Log Rank|2-sided, unstratified log-rank test||||1.860|0.508|0.9322
90861375|NCT00075218|181585665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (percent)|17.3||||0.0046||95.0|6.7|28.0|||Pearson chi-square||95% CI of Difference based on normal distribution. Percent = (number of subjects with response per total subjects per treatment in defined analysis population)\*100.|||28.0|6.7|0.0046
90861376|NCT00131508|181585685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We tested for a significant difference in the median change in REE ratio between the placebo and glutamine groups. The study was designed to provide 80% power at an alpha level of 0.05 for this objective. Due to slow accrual, the sample size of 46 participants required to obtain the designed power of the study was not realized.||||0.17
90906246|NCT01027871|181680060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.07||||0.838||90.0|-0.61|0.48||"The statistical significance level is 0.10 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.~P-value is for midday pre-meal BG."|Mixed Models Analysis||The Least Squares Mean Difference = LY2605541 Algorithm 1 - Insulin Glargine; and 90% confidence interval (CI) = 90% CI of the least squares mean difference.|||0.48|-0.61|0.838
91105784|NCT03816891|182097790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-8.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.08||0.224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.6|5.3||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 21||5.3|-22.6|0.2240
91105785|NCT03816891|182097790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-15.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.3||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.3|-1.5||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 22||-1.5|-30.3|0.0310
91105786|NCT03816891|182097790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-14.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.33||0.0437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.4|-0.4||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 22||-0.4|-29.4|0.0437
91105787|NCT03816891|182097790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.12||0.4123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.9|8.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 22||8.2|-19.9|0.4123
90861377|NCT00131508|181585686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We tested for a significant difference in the median change of body mass index between the placebo and glutamine groups.||||0.53
90861378|NCT00131508|181585687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We tested for a significant difference in the median change in red blood cell glutamine between the placebo and glutamine groups.||||0.24
90861379|NCT00131508|181585688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We tested for a significant difference in the median change between baseline parent reported physical function in the placebo and glutamine groups.||||0.62
90861380|NCT00131508|181585688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We tested for a significant difference in the median change between baseline parent reported emotional function in the placebo and glutamine groups.||||0.14
90861381|NCT00131508|181585688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We tested for a significant difference in the median change between baseline parent reported social function in the placebo and glutamine groups.||||0.20
90940232|NCT03455218|181760130|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.71
90959291|NCT03421431|181798480|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.299||||0.0897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.645|0.047|||ANCOVA|||||0.047|-0.645|0.0897
90959292|NCT03421431|181798480|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.251||||0.1411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.586|0.085|||ANCOVA|||||0.085|-0.586|0.1411
91105788|NCT03816891|182097790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-13.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.46||0.0808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.8|1.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 23||1.6|-27.8|0.0808
90861382|NCT00131508|181585688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We tested for a significant difference in the median change between baseline parent reported school function in the placebo and glutamine groups.||||0.62
90861383|NCT00131508|181585688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We tested for a significant difference in the median change between 12 month parent reported physical function in the placebo and glutamine groups.||||0.61
90861384|NCT00131508|181585688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We tested for a significant difference in the median change between 12 month parent reported emotional function in the placebo and glutamine groups.||||0.65
90861385|NCT00131508|181585688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We tested for a significant difference in the median change between 12 month parent reported social function in the placebo and glutamine groups.||||0.55
90861386|NCT00131508|181585688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We tested for a significant difference in the median change between 12 month parent reported school function in the placebo and glutamine groups.||||0.69
90861387|NCT00131508|181585688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We tested for a significant difference in the median change between baseline patient reported physical function in the placebo and glutamine groups.||||0.82
90861388|NCT00131508|181585688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We tested for a significant difference in the median change between baseline patient reported emotional function in the placebo and glutamine groups.||||0.99
90861389|NCT00131508|181585688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We tested for a significant difference in the median change between baseline patient reported social function in the placebo and glutamine groups.||||0.30
90861390|NCT00131508|181585688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We tested for a significant difference in the median change between baseline patient reported school function in the placebo and glutamine groups.||||0.24
90861391|NCT00131508|181585688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We tested for a significant difference in the median change between 12 month patient reported physical function in the placebo and glutamine groups.||||0.50
90861392|NCT00131508|181585688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We tested for a significant difference in the median change between 12 month patient reported emotional function in the placebo and glutamine groups.||||0.45
90861393|NCT00131508|181585688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We tested for a significant difference in the median change between 12 month patient reported social function in the placebo and glutamine groups.||||0.46
90861394|NCT00131508|181585688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We tested for a significant difference in the median change between 12 month patient reported school function in the placebo and glutamine groups.||||0.84
90861395|NCT00131508|181585689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||We tested the null hypothesis that the median difference in height Z-Score betweeen baseline and 12 months is equal to zero versus the alternative hypothesis that the difference is not zero.||||0.20
90861396|NCT00131508|181585689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||We tested the null hypothesis that the median difference in height Z-Score betweeen baseline and 12 months is equal to zero versus the alternative hypothesis that the difference is not zero.||||0.81
90861397|NCT00131508|181585689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We tested the null hypothesis that the median difference in height Z-Score betweeen baseline and 12 months differs between the Glutamine and Placebo groups.||||0.70
90861398|NCT00131508|181585690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||We tested the null hypothesis that the median difference in height percentile between baseline and 12 months is equal to zero versus the alternative hypothesis that the difference is not zero.||||0.69
90861399|NCT00131508|181585690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||We tested the null hypothesis that the median difference in height percentile between baseline and 12 months is equal to zero versus the alternative hypothesis that the difference is not zero.||||0.75
90861400|NCT00131508|181585690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We test the null hypothesis that the median difference in height percentile between baseline and 12 months differs between the Glutamine and Placebo groups.||||0.93
90861401|NCT00131508|181585691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.56||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||We tested the null hypothesis that the median difference in weight percentile between baseline and 12 months is equal to zero versus the alternative hypothesis that the difference is not zero.||||0.56
90861402|NCT00131508|181585691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||We tested the null hypothesis that the median difference in weight percentile between baseline and 12 months is equal to zero versus the alternative hypothesis that the difference is not zero.||||1.0
90861403|NCT00131508|181585691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We test the null hypothesis that the median difference in weight percentile between baseline and 12 months differs between the Glutamine and Placebo groups.||||0.61
90861404|NCT00131508|181585692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We tested for a significant difference in the median change in pulse rate between the placebo and glutamine groups.||||0.83
90940233|NCT03455218|181760131|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.97
90940234|NCT03455218|181760132|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.53
90940235|NCT03455218|181760133|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.0
90940236|NCT03455218|181760134|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.46
90861405|NCT00131508|181585693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We tested for a significant difference in the median change in hand grip between the placebo and glutamine groups.||||0.40
90861406|NCT00694707|181585705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-7.5||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|-3.3|||ANCOVA|The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) included treatment group and study center as factors and the Baseline PANSS total score as the covariate.||||-3.3|-11.8|0.0005
90861407|NCT00694707|181585705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-8.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|-4.6|||ANCOVA|The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) included treatment group and study center as factors and the Baseline PANSS total score as the covariate.||||-4.6|-13.1|<0.0001
90861408|NCT00694707|181585705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-10.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|-6.2|||ANCOVA|The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) included treatment group and study center as factors and the Baseline PANSS total score as the covariate.||||-6.2|-14.6|<0.0001
90861409|NCT00694707|181585705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-15.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|-10.8|||ANCOVA|The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) included treatment group and study center as factors and the Baseline PANSS total score as the covariate.||||-10.8|-19.4|<0.0001
90861410|NCT00694707|181585706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.4||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.1|||ANCOVA|The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) included treatment group and study center as factors and the Baseline CGI-S score as the covariate.||||-0.1|-0.6|0.0040
90861411|NCT00694707|181585706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.5||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.2|||ANCOVA|The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) included treatment group and study center as factors and the Baseline CGI-S score as the covariate.||||-0.2|-0.7|0.0003
90861412|NCT00694707|181585706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.4|||ANCOVA|The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) included treatment group and study center as factors and the Baseline CGI-S score as the covariate.||||-0.4|-0.9|<0.0001
90861413|NCT00694707|181585706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.6|||ANCOVA|The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) included treatment group and study center as factors and the Baseline CGI-S score as the covariate.||||-0.6|-1.1|<0.0001
90861414|NCT01904058|181585722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-2.28||||0.6603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.59|8.03||p-value (LUM001 LS Mean = Placebo LS Mean).|ANCOVA|||The difference between treatment groups in change from Baseline to Week 13/ET in ItchRO weekly sum score evaluated by analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) using generalized linear model (GLM). The model included terms for treatment group, alkaline phosphatase (ALP) level (strata), treatment group by ALP level interaction and Baseline ItchRO weekly sum score as a covariate. Least squares mean change from Baseline to Week 13/ET, along with 95 percentage (%) confidence interval for mean were presented.||8.03|-12.59|0.6603
90861415|NCT01904058|181585722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-3.99||||0.438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.2|6.23||p-value (LUM001 LS Mean = Placebo LS Mean).|ANCOVA|||The difference between treatment groups in change from Baseline to Week 13/ET in ItchRO weekly sum score was evaluated by ANCOVA using a GLM. The model included terms for treatment group, ALP level (strata), treatment group by ALP level interaction, and Baseline ItchRO weekly sum score as a covariate. Least squares mean change from Baseline to Week 13/ET, along with 95% confidence interval for the mean, were presented.||6.23|-14.20|0.4380
90861416|NCT04041375|181585741|SUPERIORITY|Treatment effect was modeled via multilevel linear regression with random intercepts for participants. Outcome was regressed on dummy coded categorical indicators of study arm (usual care reference), time point (baseline reference), and arm x time point interaction. Test of the arm x time interaction terms were used to assess treatment effects at months 3 and 6. Models conditioned on race, education, and income as specified a priori.|Interaction Term|-0.09||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Total Score - Treatment Effect - Month 3||||0.42
90861417|NCT04041375|181585741|SUPERIORITY|Treatment effect was modeled via multilevel linear regression with random intercepts for participants. Outcome was regressed on dummy coded categorical indicators of study arm (usual care reference), time point (baseline reference), and arm x time point interaction. Test of the arm x time interaction terms were used to assess treatment effects at months 3 and 6. Models conditioned on race, education, and income as specified a priori.|Interaction Term|-0.13||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Emotional Burden Subscale - Treatment Effect - Month 3||||0.32
90861418|NCT04041375|181585741|SUPERIORITY|Treatment effect was modeled via multilevel linear regression with random intercepts for participants. Outcome was regressed on dummy coded categorical indicators of study arm (usual care reference), time point (baseline reference), and arm x time point interaction. Test of the arm x time interaction terms were used to assess treatment effects at months 3 and 6. Models conditioned on race, education, and income as specified a priori.|Interaction Term|-0.13||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Physician-Related Distress Subscale - Treatment Effect - Month 3||||0.36
90861419|NCT04041375|181585741|SUPERIORITY|Treatment effect was modeled via multilevel linear regression with random intercepts for participants. Outcome was regressed on dummy coded categorical indicators of study arm (usual care reference), time point (baseline reference), and arm x time point interaction. Test of the arm x time interaction terms were used to assess treatment effects at months 3 and 6. Models conditioned on race, education, and income as specified a priori.|Interaction Term|-0.17||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Regimen-Related Distress Subscale - Treatment Effect - Month 3||||0.23
90906247|NCT01027871|181680060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.69||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.22|-0.16||"The statistical significance level is 0.10 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.~P-value is for midday pre-meal BG."|Mixed Models Analysis||The Least Squares Mean Difference = LY2605541 Algorithm 2 - Insulin Glargine; and 90% confidence interval (CI) = 90% CI of the least squares mean difference.|||-0.16|-1.22|0.033
90906248|NCT01027871|181680060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.4||||0.229|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.95|0.15||"The statistical significance level is 0.10 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.~P-value is for midday 2-hr postprandial BG."|Mixed Models Analysis||The Least Squares Mean Difference = LY2605541 Algorithm 1 - Insulin Glargine; and 90% confidence interval (CI) = 90% CI of the least squares mean difference.|||0.15|-0.95|0.229
90959293|NCT03421431|181798480|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.048||||0.733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.326|0.23|||ANCOVA|||||0.230|-0.326|0.7330
90959294|NCT03421431|181798481|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|51.873||||0.9143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-901.574|1005.32|||ANCOVA|||||1005.320|-901.574|0.9143
90861420|NCT04041375|181585741|SUPERIORITY|Treatment effect was modeled via multilevel linear regression model with random intercepts for participants. Outcome was regressed on dummy coded categorical indicators of study arm (usual care reference), time point (baseline reference), and arm x time point interaction. Test of the arm x time interaction terms were used to assess treatment effects at months 3 and 6. Models conditioned on race, education, and income as specified a priori.|Interaction Term|0.18||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Interpersonal Distress Subscale - Treatment Effect - Month 3||||0.26
90861421|NCT04041375|181585741|SUPERIORITY|Treatment effect was modeled via multilevel linear regression with random intercepts for participants. Outcome was regressed on dummy coded categorical indicators of study arm (usual care reference), time point (baseline reference), and arm x time point interaction. Test of the arm x time interaction terms were used to assess treatment effects at months 3 and 6. Models conditioned on race, education, and income as specified a priori.|Treatment Effect|0.007||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Total Score - Treatment Effect - Month 6||||0.95
90959295|NCT03421431|181798481|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|404.168||||0.3718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-489.519|1297.854|||ANCOVA|||||1297.854|-489.519|0.3718
90861422|NCT04041375|181585741|SUPERIORITY|Treatment effect was modeled via multilevel linear regression with random intercepts for participants. Outcome was regressed on dummy coded categorical indicators of study arm (usual care reference), time point (baseline reference), and arm x time point interaction. Test of the arm x time interaction terms were used to assess treatment effects at months 3 and 6. Models conditioned on race, education, and income as specified a priori.|Interaction Term|-0.01||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Emotional Burden Subscale - Treatment Effect - Month 6||||0.92
90861423|NCT04041375|181585741|SUPERIORITY|Treatment effect was modeled via multilevel linear regression with random intercepts for participants. Outcome was regressed on dummy coded categorical indicators of study arm (usual care reference), time point (baseline reference), and arm x time point interaction. Test of the arm x time interaction terms were used to assess treatment effects at months 3 and 6. Models conditioned on race, education, and income as specified a priori.|Interaction Term|-0.07||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Physician-Related Distress Subscale - Treatment Effect - Month 6||||0.59
90861424|NCT04041375|181585741|SUPERIORITY|Treatment effect was modeled via multilevel linear regression with random intercepts for participants. Outcome was regressed on dummy coded categorical indicators of study arm (usual care reference), time point (baseline reference), and arm x time point interaction. Test of the arm x time interaction terms were used to assess treatment effects at months 3 and 6. Models conditioned on race, education, and income as specified a priori.|Interaction Term|-0.08||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha = 0.05|Interaction Term|||Regimen-Related Distress Subscale - Treatment Effect - Month 6||||0.54
90861425|NCT04041375|181585741|SUPERIORITY|Treatment effect was modeled via multilevel linear regression with random intercepts for participants. Outcome was regressed on dummy coded categorical indicators of study arm (usual care reference), time point (baseline reference), and arm x time point interaction. Test of the arm x time interaction terms were used to assess treatment effects at months 3 and 6. Models conditioned on race, education, and income as specified a priori.|Interaction Term|0.3||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Interpersonal Distress Subscale - Treatment Effect - Month 6||||0.05
90861426|NCT04041375|181585742|SUPERIORITY|Treatment effect was modeled via multilevel linear regression with random intercepts for participants. Outcome was regressed on dummy coded categorical indicators of study arm (usual care reference), time point (baseline reference), and arm x time point interaction. Test of the arm x time interaction terms were used to assess treatment effects at months 3 and 6. Models conditioned on race, education, and income as specified a priori.|Interaction Term|0.58||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||General Diet - Treatment Effect - Month 3||||0.03
90861427|NCT04041375|181585742|SUPERIORITY|Treatment effect was modeled via multilevel linear regression with random intercepts for participants. Outcome was regressed on dummy coded categorical indicators of study arm (usual care reference), time point (baseline reference), and arm x time point interaction. Test of the arm x time interaction terms were used to assess treatment effects at months 3 and 6. Models conditioned on race, education, and income as specified a priori.|Interaction Term|0.07||||0.83|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Specific Diet (Fruits and Vegetables) - Treatment Effect - Month 3||||0.83
90861428|NCT04041375|181585742|SUPERIORITY|Treatment effect was modeled via multilevel linear regression with random intercepts for participants. Outcome was regressed on dummy coded categorical indicators of study arm (usual care reference), time point (baseline reference), and arm x time point interaction. Test of the arm x time interaction terms were used to assess treatment effects at months 3 and 6. Models conditioned on race, education, and income as specified a priori.|Interaction Term|-0.44||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Specific Diet (Fat) - Treatment Effect - Month 3||||0.12
90959296|NCT03421431|181798481|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-352.295||||0.3466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1091.308|386.719|||ANCOVA|||||386.719|-1091.308|0.3466
90959297|NCT03421431|181798482|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.173||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.081|0.264|||ANCOVA|||||0.264|0.081|0.0003
90959298|NCT03421431|181798482|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.025||||0.5685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.062|0.113|||ANCOVA|||||0.113|-0.062|0.5685
90959299|NCT03421431|181798482|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.147|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.075|0.219|||ANCOVA|||||0.219|0.075|<0.0001
90959300|NCT03421431|181798483|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.133||||0.0282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.252|-0.015|||ANCOVA|||||-0.015|-0.252|0.0282
90959301|NCT03421431|181798483|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.068||||0.2412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.182|0.046|||ANCOVA|||||0.046|-0.182|0.2412
90959302|NCT03421431|181798483|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.066||||0.1649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.158|0.027|||ANCOVA|||||0.027|-0.158|0.1649
90959303|NCT03421431|181798484|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.009||||0.4357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.014|0.032|||ANCOVA|||||0.032|-0.014|0.4357
90959304|NCT03421431|181798484|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.001||||0.8989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.021|0.023|||ANCOVA|||||0.023|-0.021|0.8989
90959305|NCT03421431|181798484|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.008||||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.011|0.026|||ANCOVA|||||0.026|-0.011|0.4120
90959306|NCT03421431|181798485|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.731||||0.0134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.095|-0.368|||ANCOVA|||||-0.368|-3.095|0.0134
90959307|NCT03421431|181798485|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.327||||0.6263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.656|1.001|||ANCOVA|||||1.001|-1.656|0.6263
90959308|NCT03421431|181798485|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.404||||0.0115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.487|-0.322|||ANCOVA|||||-0.322|-2.487|0.0115
91105789|NCT03816891|182097790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-12.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.45||0.1064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.8|2.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 23||2.6|-26.8|0.1064
90861429|NCT04041375|181585742|SUPERIORITY|Treatment effect was modeled via multilevel linear regression with random intercepts for participants. Outcome was regressed on dummy coded categorical indicators of study arm (usual care reference), time point (baseline reference), and arm x time point interaction. Test of the arm x time interaction terms were used to assess treatment effects at months 3 and 6. Models conditioned on race, education, and income as specified a priori.|Interaction Term|0.39||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Physical Activity - Treatment Effect - Month 3||||0.17
90861430|NCT04041375|181585742|SUPERIORITY|Treatment effect was modeled via multilevel linear regression with random intercepts for participants. Outcome was regressed on dummy coded categorical indicators of study arm (usual care reference), time point (baseline reference), and arm x time point interaction. Test of the arm x time interaction terms were used to assess treatment effects at months 3 and 6. Models conditioned on race, education, and income as specified a priori.|Interaction Term|0.06||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Blood Glucose Testing - Treatment Effect - Month 3||||0.85
90861431|NCT04041375|181585742|SUPERIORITY|Treatment effect was modeled via multilevel linear regression with random intercepts for participants. Outcome was regressed on dummy coded categorical indicators of study arm (usual care reference), time point (baseline reference), and arm x time point interaction. Test of the arm x time interaction terms were used to assess treatment effects at months 3 and 6. Models conditioned on race, education, and income as specified a priori.|Interaction Term|0.02||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Foot Care - Treatment Effect - Month 3||||0.94
90861432|NCT04041375|181585742|SUPERIORITY|Treatment effect was modeled via multilevel linear regression with random intercepts for participants. Outcome was regressed on dummy coded categorical indicators of study arm (usual care reference), time point (baseline reference), and arm x time point interaction. Test of the arm x time interaction terms were used to assess treatment effects at months 3 and 6. Models conditioned on race, education, and income as specified a priori.|Interaction Term|0.19||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||General Diet - Treatment Effect - Month 6||||0.47
90861433|NCT04041375|181585742|SUPERIORITY|Treatment effect was modeled via multilevel linear regression with random intercepts for participants. Outcome was regressed on dummy coded categorical indicators of study arm (usual care reference), time point (baseline reference), and arm x time point interaction. Test of the arm x time interaction terms were used to assess treatment effects at months 3 and 6. Models conditioned on race, education, and income as specified a priori.|Interaction Term|0.08||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Specific Diet (Fruits and Vegetables) - Treatment Effect - Month 6||||0.82
90861434|NCT04041375|181585742|SUPERIORITY|Treatment effect was modeled via multilevel linear regression with random intercepts for participants. Outcome was regressed on dummy coded categorical indicators of study arm (usual care reference), time point (baseline reference), and arm x time point interaction. Test of the arm x time interaction terms were used to assess treatment effects at months 3 and 6. Models conditioned on race, education, and income as specified a priori.|Interaction Term|-0.13||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Specific Diet (Fat) - Treatment Effect - Month 6||||0.66
90861435|NCT04041375|181585742|SUPERIORITY|Treatment effect was modeled via multilevel linear regression with random intercepts for participants. Outcome was regressed on dummy coded categorical indicators of study arm (usual care reference), time point (baseline reference), and arm x time point interaction. Test of the arm x time interaction terms were used to assess treatment effects at months 3 and 6. Models conditioned on race, education, and income as specified a priori.|Interaction Term|0.25||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Physical Activity - Treatment Effect - Month 6||||0.38
90906249|NCT01027871|181680060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.27||||0.412|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8|0.27||"The statistical significance level is 0.10 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.~P-value is for midday 2-hr postprandial BG."|Mixed Models Analysis||The Least Squares Mean Difference = LY2605541 Algorithm 2 - Insulin Glargine; and 90% confidence interval (CI) = 90% CI of the least squares mean difference.|||0.27|-0.80|0.412
90906250|NCT01027871|181680060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.15||||0.642|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.68|0.38||"The statistical significance level is 0.10 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.~P-value is for evening pre-meal BG."|Mixed Models Analysis||The Least Squares Mean Difference = LY2605541 Algorithm 1 - Insulin Glargine; and 90% confidence interval (CI) = 90% CI of the least squares mean difference.|||0.38|-0.68|0.642
90959309|NCT03421431|181798486|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.723||||0.4608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|6.253|||ANCOVA|||||6.253|-13.700|0.4608
90861436|NCT04041375|181585742|SUPERIORITY|Treatment effect was modeled via multilevel linear regression with random intercepts for participants. Outcome was regressed on dummy coded categorical indicators of study arm (usual care reference), time point (baseline reference), and arm x time point interaction. Test of the arm x time interaction terms were used to assess treatment effects at months 3 and 6. Models conditioned on race, education, and income as specified a priori.|Interaction Term|-0.12||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Blood Glucose Testing - Treatment Effect - Month 6||||0.68
90861437|NCT04041375|181585742|SUPERIORITY|Treatment effect was modeled via multilevel linear regression with random intercepts for participants. Outcome was regressed on dummy coded categorical indicators of study arm (usual care reference), time point (baseline reference), and arm x time point interaction. Test of the arm x time interaction terms were used to assess treatment effects at months 3 and 6. Models conditioned on race, education, and income as specified a priori.|Interaction Term|0.26||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Foot Care - Treatment Effect - Month 6||||0.40
90861438|NCT04041375|181585744|SUPERIORITY|Treatment effect was modeled via multilevel linear regression with random intercepts for participants. Outcome was regressed on dummy coded categorical indicators of study arm (usual care reference), time point (baseline reference), and arm x time point interaction. Test of the arm x time interaction terms were used to assess treatment effects at months 3 and 6. Models conditioned on race, education, and income as specified a priori.|Interaction Term|0.06||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment Effect - Month 3||||0.93
90861439|NCT04041375|181585744|SUPERIORITY|Treatment effect was modeled via multilevel linear regression with random intercepts for participants. Outcome was regressed on dummy coded categorical indicators of study arm (usual care reference), time point (baseline reference), and arm x time point interaction. Test of the arm x time interaction terms were used to assess treatment effects at months 3 and 6. Models conditioned on race, education, and income as specified a priori.|Interaction Term|0.63||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment Effect - Month 6||||0.38
90861440|NCT04041375|181585745|SUPERIORITY|Treatment effect was modeled via multilevel linear regression with random intercepts for participants. Outcome was regressed on dummy coded categorical indicators of study arm (usual care reference), time point (baseline reference), and arm x time point interaction. Test of the arm x time interaction terms were used to assess treatment effects at months 3 and 6. Models conditioned on race, education, and income as specified a priori.|Interaction Term|0.32||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment Effect - Month 3||||0.66
90861441|NCT04041375|181585745|SUPERIORITY|Treatment effect was modeled via multilevel linear regression with random intercepts for participants. Outcome was regressed on dummy coded categorical indicators of study arm (usual care reference), time point (baseline reference), and arm x time point interaction. Test of the arm x time interaction terms were used to assess treatment effects at months 3 and 6. Models conditioned on race, education, and income as specified a priori.|Interaction Term|0.99||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment Effect - Month 6||||0.18
90861442|NCT04041375|181585748|SUPERIORITY|Treatment effect was modeled via multilevel linear regression with random intercepts for participants. Outcome was regressed on dummy coded categorical indicators of study arm (usual care reference), time point (baseline reference), and arm x time point interaction. Test of the arm x time interaction terms were used to assess treatment effects at months 3 and 6. Models conditioned on race, education, and income as specified a priori.|Interaction Term|1.45||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment Effect - Month 3||||0.38
90861443|NCT04041375|181585748|SUPERIORITY|Treatment effect was modeled via multilevel linear regression with random intercepts for participants. Outcome was regressed on dummy coded categorical indicators of study arm (usual care reference), time point (baseline reference), and arm x time point interaction. Test of the arm x time interaction terms were used to assess treatment effects at months 3 and 6. Models conditioned on race, education, and income as specified a priori.|Interaction Term|1.64||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment Effect - Month 6||||0.68
90861444|NCT04041375|181585749|SUPERIORITY|Treatment effect was modeled via multilevel linear regression with random intercepts for participants. Outcome was regressed on dummy coded categorical indicators of study arm (usual care reference), time point (baseline reference), and arm x time point interaction. Test of the arm x time interaction terms were used to assess treatment effects at months 3 and 6. Models conditioned on race, education, and income as specified a priori.|Interaction Term|0.19||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment Effect - Month 3||||0.74
90861445|NCT04041375|181585749|SUPERIORITY|Treatment effect was modeled via multilevel linear regression with random intercepts for participants. Outcome was regressed on dummy coded categorical indicators of study arm (usual care reference), time point (baseline reference), and arm x time point interaction. Test of the arm x time interaction terms were used to assess treatment effects at months 3 and 6. Models conditioned on race, education, and income as specified a priori.|Interaction Term|0.29||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment Effect - Month 6||||0.62
90861446|NCT04041375|181585750|SUPERIORITY|Treatment effect was modeled via multilevel linear regression with random intercepts for participants. Outcome was regressed on dummy coded categorical indicators of study arm (usual care reference), time point (baseline reference), and arm x time point interaction. Test of the arm x time interaction terms were used to assess treatment effects at months 3 and 6. Models conditioned on race, education, and income as specified a priori.|Interaction Term|0.16||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment Effect - Month 3||||0.72
90861447|NCT04041375|181585750|SUPERIORITY|Treatment effect was modeled via multilevel linear regression with random intercepts for participants. Outcome was regressed on dummy coded categorical indicators of study arm (usual care reference), time point (baseline reference), and arm x time point interaction. Test of the arm x time interaction terms were used to assess treatment effects at months 3 and 6. Models conditioned on race, education, and income as specified a priori.|Interaction Term|-0.24||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment Effect - Month 6||||0.58
90861448|NCT04041375|181585751|SUPERIORITY|Treatment effect was modeled via multilevel linear regression with random intercepts for participants. Outcome was regressed on dummy coded categorical indicators of study arm (usual care reference), time point (baseline reference), and arm x time point interaction. Test of the arm x time interaction terms were used to assess treatment effects at months 3 and 6. Models conditioned on race, education, and income as specified a priori.|Interaction Term|0.36||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment Effect - Month 3||||0.50
90861449|NCT04041375|181585751|SUPERIORITY|Treatment effect was modeled via multilevel linear regression with random intercepts for participants. Outcome was regressed on dummy coded categorical indicators of study arm (usual care reference), time point (baseline reference), and arm x time point interaction. Test of the arm x time interaction terms were used to assess treatment effects at months 3 and 6. Models conditioned on race, education, and income as specified a priori.|Interaction Term|0.72||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment Effect - Month 6||||0.18
90861450|NCT01967342|181585754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.268|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|-0.193||0.165|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A piecewise linear growth model examined changes in BPI-Intensity within Usual Care between pre-treatment and 10-week post-treatment.||||.165
90861451|NCT01967342|181585754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.245|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.198||0.216|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A piecewise linear growth model examined changes in BPI-Intensity within Usual Care between post-treatment and 6-month follow-up.||||.216
90861452|NCT01967342|181585754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.052|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.189|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A piecewise linear growth model examined changes in BPI-Intensity within CBT group between the pre-treatment and 10-week post-treatment.||||< .001
90959310|NCT03421431|181798486|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.377||||0.6238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.962|7.207|||ANCOVA|||||7.207|-11.962|0.6238
90959311|NCT03421431|181798486|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.346||||0.7367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.268|6.576|||ANCOVA|||||6.576|-9.268|0.7367
90861453|NCT01967342|181585754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.361|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.199||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A piecewise linear growth model examined changes in BPI-Intensity within CBT group between the post-treatment and 6-month follow-up.||||.070
90861454|NCT01967342|181585754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.823|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.191|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A piecewise linear growth model examined changes in BPI-Intensity within Pain Ed group between the pre-treatment and 10-week post-treatment.||||< .001
90861455|NCT01967342|181585754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.131|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.203||0.519|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A piecewise linear growth model examined changes in BPI-Intensity within Pain Ed group between the post-treatment and 6-month follow-up.||||.519
90861456|NCT01967342|181585755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.247||0.196|TWO_SIDED|||||To control for multiple comparisons in secondary outcomes, a corrected alpha level was calculated using the Benjamini-Hochberg correction method. Smallest p-value compared to .025; Largest p-value compared to .050.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A piecewise linear growth model examined changes in BPI-Interference within Usual Care group between the pre-treatment and 10-week post-treatment.||||.196
90861457|NCT01967342|181585755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.182|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.239||0.447|TWO_SIDED|||||To control for multiple comparisons in secondary outcomes, a corrected alpha level was calculated using the Benjamini-Hochberg correction method. Smallest p-value compared to .025; Largest p-value compared to .050.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A piecewise linear growth model examined changes in BPI-Interference within Usual Care group between the post-treatment and 6-month follow-up.||||.447
90861458|NCT01967342|181585755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.643|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.241|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||To control for multiple comparisons in secondary outcomes, a corrected alpha level was calculated using the Benjamini-Hochberg correction method. Smallest p-value compared to .025; Largest p-value compared to .050.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A piecewise linear growth model examined changes in BPI-Interference within CBT for Pain group between the pre-treatment and 10-week post-treatment.||||<.001
90861459|NCT01967342|181585755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.548|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.237||0.021|TWO_SIDED|||||To control for multiple comparisons in secondary outcomes, a corrected alpha level was calculated using the Benjamini-Hochberg correction method. Smallest p-value compared to .025; Largest p-value compared to .050.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A piecewise linear growth model examined changes in BPI-Interference within CBT for Pain group between the post-treatment and 6-month follow-up.||||.021
90861460|NCT01967342|181585755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.999|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.244|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||To control for multiple comparisons in secondary outcomes, a corrected alpha level was calculated using the Benjamini-Hochberg correction method. Smallest p-value compared to .025; Largest p-value compared to .050.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A piecewise linear growth model examined changes in BPI-Interference within Pain Ed group between the pre-treatment and 10-week post-treatment.||||< .001
90861461|NCT01967342|181585755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.243||0.305|TWO_SIDED|||||To control for multiple comparisons in secondary outcomes, a corrected alpha level was calculated using the Benjamini-Hochberg correction method. Smallest p-value compared to .025; Largest p-value compared to .050.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A piecewise linear growth model examined changes in BPI-Interference within Pain Ed group between the post-treatment and 6-month follow-up.||||.305
90861462|NCT01967342|181585756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.086|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.623||0.082|TWO_SIDED|||||To control for multiple comparisons in secondary outcomes, a corrected alpha level was calculated using the Benjamini-Hochberg correction method. Smallest p-value compared to .025; Largest p-value compared to .050.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A piecewise linear growth model examined changes in PHQ-9 within Usual Care group between the pre-treatment and 10-week post-treatment.||||.082
90861463|NCT01967342|181585756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.532||0.652|TWO_SIDED|||||To control for multiple comparisons in secondary outcomes, a corrected alpha level was calculated using the Benjamini-Hochberg correction method. Smallest p-value compared to .025; Largest p-value compared to .050.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A piecewise linear growth model examined changes in PHQ-9 within Usual Care group between the post-treatment and 6-month follow-up.||||.652
90861464|NCT01967342|181585756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.416|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.612|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||To control for multiple comparisons in secondary outcomes, a corrected alpha level was calculated using the Benjamini-Hochberg correction method. Smallest p-value compared to .025; Largest p-value compared to .050.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A piecewise linear growth model examined changes in PHQ-9 within CBT for Pain group between the pre-treatment and 10-week post-treatment.||||< .001
90861465|NCT01967342|181585756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.619|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.528||0.241|TWO_SIDED|||||To control for multiple comparisons in secondary outcomes, a corrected alpha level was calculated using the Benjamini-Hochberg correction method. Smallest p-value compared to .025; Largest p-value compared to .050.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A piecewise linear growth model examined changes in PHQ-9 within CBT for Pain group between the post-treatment and 6-month follow-up.||||.241
91105790|NCT03816891|182097790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.24||0.4366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.9|8.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 23||8.6|-19.9|0.4366
90861466|NCT01967342|181585756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.251|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.617|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||To control for multiple comparisons in secondary outcomes, a corrected alpha level was calculated using the Benjamini-Hochberg correction method. Smallest p-value compared to .025; Largest p-value compared to .050.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A piecewise linear growth model examined changes in PHQ-9 within Pain Ed group between the pre-treatment and 10-week post-treatment.||||< .001
90959312|NCT03421431|181798487|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.407||||0.8302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.287|3.474|||ANCOVA|||||3.474|-4.287|0.8302
91105791|NCT03816891|182097790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-13.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.39||0.0644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.3|0.8||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||0.8|-28.3|0.0644
90906251|NCT01027871|181680060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.16||||0.614|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.67|0.36||"The statistical significance level is 0.10 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.~P-value is for evening pre-meal BG."|Mixed Models Analysis||The Least Squares Mean Difference = LY2605541 Algorithm 2 - Insulin Glargine; and 90% confidence interval (CI) = 90% CI of the least squares mean difference.|||0.36|-0.67|0.614
90906252|NCT01027871|181680060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.5||||0.147|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.07|0.07||"The statistical significance level is 0.10 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.~P-value is for evening 2-hr postprandial BG."|Mixed Models Analysis||The Least Squares Mean Difference = LY2605541 Algorithm 1 - Insulin Glargine; and 90% confidence interval (CI) = 90% CI of the least squares mean difference.|||0.07|-1.07|0.147
90906253|NCT01027871|181680060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.42||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.98|0.13||"The statistical significance level is 0.10 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.~P-value is for evening 2-hr postprandial BG."|Mixed Models Analysis||The Least Squares Mean Difference = LY2605541 Algorithm 2 - Insulin Glargine; and 90% confidence interval (CI) = 90% CI of the least squares mean difference.|||0.13|-0.98|0.210
90861467|NCT01967342|181585756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.434|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.541||0.422|TWO_SIDED|||||To control for multiple comparisons in secondary outcomes, a corrected alpha level was calculated using the Benjamini-Hochberg correction method. Smallest p-value compared to .025; Largest p-value compared to .050.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A piecewise linear growth model examined changes in PHQ-9 within Pain Ed group between the post-treatment and 6-month follow-up.||||.422
90861468|NCT01967342|181585757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||CBT vs. TAU|Odds ratios were computed to describe the likelihood of participants in each treatment condition reporting clinically meaningful improvement on the PGIC-pain intensity relative to the other groups at post-treatment (6-months).||||<.001
90861469|NCT01967342|181585757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.53||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||EDU vs. TAU|Odds ratios were computed to describe the likelihood of participants in each treatment condition reporting clinically meaningful improvement on the PGIC-pain intensity relative to the other groups at post-treatment (10-weeks).||||.001
90861470|NCT01967342|181585757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53||||0.217|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||CBT vs. EDU|Odds ratios were computed to describe the likelihood of participants in each treatment condition reporting clinically meaningful improvement on the PGIC-pain intensity relative to the other groups at pre-treatment (10-weeks).||||.217
90861471|NCT01967342|181585757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.81||||0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||CBT vs. TAU|Odds ratios were computed to describe the likelihood of participants in each treatment condition reporting clinically meaningful improvement on the PGIC-pain intensity relative to the other groups at follow-up (6-months).||||.009
90861472|NCT01967342|181585757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.32||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||EDU vs. TAU|Odds ratios were computed to describe the likelihood of participants in each treatment condition reporting clinically meaningful improvement on the PGIC-pain intensity relative to the other groups at follow-up (6-months).||||.001
90861473|NCT01967342|181585757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72||||0.389|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||CBT vs. EDU|Odds ratios were computed to describe the likelihood of participants in each treatment condition reporting clinically meaningful improvement on the PGIC-pain intensity relative to the other groups at follow-up (6-months).||||.389
90861474|NCT00395733|181585776|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Estimates for investigators only. A non-inferiority margin of 15% was assumed. Based on 60 pairs of observations in a crossover design (15 participants with 10 vessels segments, 15 participants with 6 vessels segments and 30 participants with 17 vessels segments to be visualized and assessed) and non-inferiority testing based the lower limit of Fieller's one-sided 95% confidence interval for the ratio Gadavist / Magnevist of the means, the power was at least 80% under realistic assumptions.|Ratio of means|0.9736||||||90.0|0.9315|1.0168|||Fieller-type confidence interval||For the estimation, only vessel segments with vascular assessments available for both periods were considered. The lower limit of the 95% one-sided Fieller-type confidence interval was compared with the non-inferiority margin 0.85.|Non-inferiority analysis: The aim was to show that Gadavist is not inferior (i.e. similar or better) to Magnevist in visualizing different vascular regions of the body with diagnostic quality in contrast enhanced MRA. Gadavist was to be considered to be non-inferior to Magnevist if the mean number of vessel segments visualized with diagnostic quality of Gadavist enhanced-MRA images was higher than 85% of that of Magnevist enhanced-MRA images in a cross-over design.||1.0168|0.9315|
90861475|NCT00395733|181585776|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Estimates for blinded reader 1 only. A non-inferiority margin of 15% was assumed. Based on 60 pairs of observations in a crossover design (15 participants with 10 vessels segments, 15 participants with 6 vessels segments and 30 participants with 17 vessels segments to be visualized and assessed) and non-inferiority testing based the lower limit of Fieller's one-sided 95% confidence interval for the ratio Gadavist / Magnevist of the means, the power was at least 80% under realistic assumptions.|Ratio of means|0.954||||||90.0|0.9122|0.9965|||Fieller-type confidence interval||For the estimation, only vessel segments with vascular assessments available for both periods were considered. The lower limit of the 95% one-sided Fieller-type confidence interval was compared with the non-inferiority margin 0.85.|Non-inferiority analysis: The aim was to show that Gadavist is not inferior (i.e. similar or better) to Magnevist in visualizing different vascular regions of the body with diagnostic quality in contrast enhanced MRA. Gadavist was to be considered to be non-inferior to Magnevist if the mean number of vessel segments visualized with diagnostic quality of Gadavist enhanced-MRA images was higher than 85% of that of Magnevist enhanced-MRA images in a cross-over design.||0.9965|0.9122|
90888114|NCT03521635|181639527|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91||0.376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|1.1|||REML-based repeated measures approach|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML) - based repeated measures approach was applied.|Mean difference was calculated as Pramipexole Sustained Release minus Pramipexole immediate Release.|Mean changes from baseline of NHQ score by caregivers were analysed using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML) - based repeated measures approach. Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit in the maintenance period, and treatment-by-visit interaction, and the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline and baseline-by-visit interaction.||1.1|-2.7|0.376
90959313|NCT03421431|181798487|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.28||||0.5053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.192|2.632|||ANCOVA|||||2.632|-5.192|0.5053
90906254|NCT01027871|181680060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.28||||0.438|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.86|0.31||"The statistical significance level is 0.10 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.~P-value is for bed time BG."|Mixed Models Analysis||The Least Squares Mean Difference = LY2605541 Algorithm 1 - Insulin Glargine; and 90% confidence interval (CI) = 90% CI of the least squares mean difference.|||0.31|-0.86|0.438
90906255|NCT01027871|181680060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.7||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.28|-0.13||"The statistical significance level is 0.10 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.~P-value is for bed time BG."|Mixed Models Analysis||The Least Squares Mean Difference = LY2605541 Algorithm 2 - Insulin Glargine; and 90% confidence interval (CI) = 90% CI of the least squares mean difference.|||-0.13|-1.28|0.043
90906256|NCT01027871|181680060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|0.24||||0.403|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.23|0.72||"The statistical significance level is 0.10 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.~P-value is for 0300 hours BG."|Mixed Models Analysis||The Least Squares Mean Difference = LY2605541 Algorithm 1 - Insulin Glargine; and 90% confidence interval (CI) = 90% CI of the least squares mean difference.|||0.72|-0.23|0.403
90906257|NCT01027871|181680060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.29||||0.314|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.75|0.18||"The statistical significance level is 0.10 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.~P-value is for 0300 hours BG."|Mixed Models Analysis||The Least Squares Mean Difference = LY2605541 Algorithm 2 - Insulin Glargine; and 90% confidence interval (CI) = 90% CI of the least squares mean difference.|||0.18|-0.75|0.314
90906258|NCT01027871|181680062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.046||95.0||||The statistical significance level is 0.10 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.046
90906259|NCT01027871|181680062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.224||95.0||||The statistical significance level is 0.10 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.224
90906260|NCT01027871|181680063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.561||95.0||||The statistical significance level is 0.10 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Negative Binomial Model|||||||0.561
90906261|NCT01027871|181680063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.518||95.0||||The statistical significance level is 0.10 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Negative Binomial Model|||||||0.518
90906262|NCT01027871|181680064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.01||||0.938|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|0.18||"The statistical significance level is 0.10 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.~P-value is for baseline."|ANOVA||The Least Squares Mean Difference = LY2605541 Algorithm 1 - Insulin Glargine; and 90% confidence interval (CI) = 90% CI of the least squares mean difference.|||0.18|-0.20|0.938
90906263|NCT01027871|181680064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|0.0||||0.972|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.18|0.19||"The statistical significance level is 0.10 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.~P-value is for baseline."|ANOVA||The Least Squares Mean Difference = LY2605541 Algorithm 2 - Insulin Glargine; and 90% confidence interval (CI) = 90% CI of the least squares mean difference.|||0.19|-0.18|0.972
90906264|NCT01027871|181680064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.01||||0.927|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.16|0.15||"The statistical significance level is 0.10 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.~P-value is for Week 12."|Mixed Models Analysis||The Least Squares Mean Difference = LY2605541 Algorithm 1 - Insulin Glargine; and 90% confidence interval (CI) = 90% CI of the least squares mean difference.|||0.15|-0.16|0.927
90906265|NCT01027871|181680064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.1||||0.293|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.25|0.05||"The statistical significance level is 0.10 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.~P-value is for Week 12."|Mixed Models Analysis||The Least Squares Mean Difference = LY2605541 Algorithm 2 - Insulin Glargine; and 90% confidence interval (CI) = 90% CI of the least squares mean difference.|||0.05|-0.25|0.293
90906266|NCT05489224|181680079|EQUIVALENCE|Predefined margin: -0.6 to 0.5|Treatment difference and 90% CI|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|0.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with multiple imputation||||0.10|-0.30|
90906267|NCT02820051|181680125|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.281||||||threshold for statistical significance: \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The sample was calculated with alpha 0.05, beta 0.20, standard deviation of 7.3,8 minimum PtcCO2 difference to detect of 5 mmHg, loss to follow-up estimated 0.20, and two-tails. According to the above, the sample size was 42 patients per group.|We tested normal distribution with the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. Data are shown as means and standard deviations for variables with normal distribution and as medians and interquartile ranges for non-normal variables. We used the t-test, the Mann-Whitney U-test, ANOVA, or chi-square as indicated. We defined a statistically significant difference as a P value \< 0.05. The analysis was performed using SPSS version 18.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL).|||0.281
90906268|NCT02820051|181680126|SUPERIORITY|We used the t-test, the Mann-Whitney U-test, ANOVA, or chi-square as indicated. We defined a statistically significant difference as a P value \< 0.05.|||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
90906269|NCT02820051|181680127|SUPERIORITY|T test|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
90906270|NCT01670500|181680161|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.39|1.2|||||The risk ratio is comparing cisplatin to doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide (AC)|||1.2|0.39|
90906271|NCT01670500|181680162|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|1.1|||||The risk ratio is comparing cisplatin to doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide (AC)|||1.1|.5|
90906272|NCT04955626|181680166|OTHER||Adjusted Surveillance Time|95.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.5|98.3||||||2-Sided CI for Relative vaccine efficacy (RVE) is derived based on the Clopper and Pearson method adjusted for surveillance time.||98.3|89.5|
90906273|NCT04955626|181680167|OTHER||Adjusted Surveillance Time|94.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|88.5|97.9||||||2-Sided CI for RVE is derived based on the Clopper and Pearson method adjusted for surveillance time.||97.9|88.5|
90906274|NCT04955626|181680168|OTHER||Adjusted Surveillance Time|63.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.1|73.5||||||2-Sided CI for Relative Vaccine Efficacy (RVE) is derived based on the Clopper and Pearson method adjusted for surveillance time.||73.5|51.1|
90906275|NCT04955626|181680169|OTHER||Adjusted Surveillance Time|62.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.5|72.2||||||2-Sided CI for RVE is derived based on the Clopper and Pearson method adjusted for surveillance time.||72.2|49.5|
90906276|NCT04955626|181680207|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ration (GMR)|1.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|2.22||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference of the logarithms of the titers (BNT162b2 OMI \[30 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 μg\]) and the corresponding CI (based on the student t distribution).||2.22|1.39|
90959314|NCT03421431|181798487|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.873||||0.476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|3.366|||ANCOVA|||||3.366|-1.620|0.4760
90861476|NCT00395733|181585776|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Estimates for blinded reader 2 only. A non-inferiority margin of 15% was assumed. Based on 60 pairs of observations in a crossover design (15 participants with 10 vessels segments, 15 participants with 6 vessels segments and 30 participants with 17 vessels segments to be visualized and assessed) and non-inferiority testing based the lower limit of Fieller's one-sided 95% confidence interval for the ratio Gadavist / Magnevist of the means, the power was at least 80% under realistic assumptions.|Ratio of means|0.9458||||||90.0|0.8776|1.024|||Fieller-type confidence interval||For the estimation, only vessel segments with vascular assessments available for both periods were considered. The lower limit of the 95% one-sided Fieller-type confidence interval was compared with the non-inferiority margin 0.85.|Non-inferiority analysis: The aim was to show that Gadavist is not inferior (i.e. similar or better) to Magnevist in visualizing different vascular regions of the body with diagnostic quality in contrast enhanced MRA. Gadavist was to be considered to be non-inferior to Magnevist if the mean number of vessel segments visualized with diagnostic quality of Gadavist enhanced-MRA images was higher than 85% of that of Magnevist enhanced-MRA images in a cross-over design.||1.0240|0.8776|
90861477|NCT00395733|181585776|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Estimates for blinded reader 3 only. A non-inferiority margin of 15% was assumed. Based on 60 pairs of observations in a crossover design (15 participants with 10 vessels segments, 15 participants with 6 vessels segments and 30 participants with 17 vessels segments to be visualized and assessed) and non-inferiority testing based the lower limit of Fieller's one-sided 95% confidence interval for the ratio Gadavist / Magnevist of the means, the power was at least 80% under realistic assumptions.|Ratio of means|0.8698||||||90.0|0.78|0.9657|||Fieller-type confidence interval||For the estimation, only vessel segments with vascular assessments available for both periods were considered. The lower limit of the 95% one-sided Fieller-type confidence interval was compared with the non-inferiority margin 0.85.|Non-inferiority analysis: The aim was to show that Gadavist is not inferior (i.e. similar or better) to Magnevist in visualizing different vascular regions of the body with diagnostic quality in contrast enhanced MRA. Gadavist was to be considered to be non-inferior to Magnevist if the mean number of vessel segments visualized with diagnostic quality of Gadavist enhanced-MRA images was higher than 85% of that of Magnevist enhanced-MRA images in a cross-over design.||0.9657|0.7800|
90861478|NCT04981392|181585785|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0066|TWO_SIDED||||||Difference in adjusted % vaccinated|||||||0.0066
90861479|NCT04981392|181585786|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.0058|TWO_SIDED||||||Difference in adjusted % vaccinated|||||||0.0058
90861480|NCT04856891|181585787|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference from Placebo|78.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.2|89.1|||Fisher Exact|||||89.1|62.2|<0.0001
90861481|NCT04856891|181585788|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference from Placebo|0.3||||0.8822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|4.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.7|-4.0|0.8822
90861482|NCT04856891|181585789|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference from Placebo|-74.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-85.2|-64.7|||ANCOVA|||||-64.7|-85.2|<0.0001
90861483|NCT04856891|181585790|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference from Placebo|80.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.8|90.6|||Fisher Exact|||||90.6|64.8|<0.0001
90861484|NCT04856891|181585791|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference from Placebo|43.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.5|59.9|||Fisher Exact|||||59.9|23.5|<0.0001
90861485|NCT04856891|181585792|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference from Placebo|-1.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.2|18.0|||Fisher Exact|||||18.0|-22.2|1.0000
90861486|NCT04856891|181585793|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference from Placebo|6.9||||0.4502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|26.3|||Fisher Exact|||||26.3|-13.8|0.4502
90861487|NCT04856891|181585794|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference from Placebo|-3.1||||0.6805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.1|11.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Weeks 24 Percent Change from Baseline||11.8|-18.1|0.6805
90861488|NCT01697358|181585803|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036|||||||Z-test using unpooled standard deviation|||||||0.036
90861489|NCT01697358|181585804|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|Variables included in the linear regression model are: baseline NPRS, treatment group, and virtual center.||||||< 0.001
90861490|NCT01697358|181585805|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|Variables included in the linear regression model are: baseline NPRS, treatment group, and virtual center.||||||< 0.001
90861491|NCT01697358|181585806|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|Variables included in the linear regression model are: baseline ODI, treatment group, and virtual center.||||||< 0.001
90861492|NCT01697358|181585807|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|Variables included in the linear regression model are: baseline PCS, treatment group, and virtual center.||||||< 0.001
90861493|NCT01697358|181585808|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Z-test using unpooled standard deviation|||||||< 0.001
90861494|NCT02387710|181585809|OTHER||||||>|0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.5
90861495|NCT02572609|181585813|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence in the Cmax will be concluded if the 90% confidence interval for the test/reference ratio of the least squares means is fully contained within the acceptance range, 80.00% - 125.00%.|T/R Ratio|113.56|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.24||0.0082|TWO_SIDED|90.0|106.48|121.1|||Anderson-Hauck procedure||Standard Deviation is actually the Coefficient of variation intra subject (CVintra).|||121.10|106.48|0.0082
90861496|NCT02572609|181585814|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence in the AUC0-t will be concluded if the 90% confidence interval for the test/reference ratio of the least squares means is fully contained within the acceptance range, 80.00% - 125.00%.|T/R Ratio|119.61|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.65||0.0438|TWO_SIDED|90.0|114.65|124.79|||Anderson-Hauck procedure||Standard Deviation is actually the Coefficient of variation intra subject (CVintra).|||124.79|114.65|0.0438
90861497|NCT02345226|181585815|NON_INFERIORITY|A sample size of 400 HIV-1 infected participants per treatment group would provide 95% power to detect a non-inferiority margin of 8% in the Week 48 response rate difference between the FTC/RPV/TAF group and EFV/FTC/TDF group. For sample size and power computation, it is assumed that both treatment groups will have a response rate of 89% (based on Gilead Study GS-US-292-0109), that a noninferiority margin is 8%, and that the significance level of the test is at a one-sided alpha level of 0.025.|Difference in Percentages|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.001|-5.9|1.8|||||The difference in percentages and its 95.001% confidence interval (CI) were calculated based on an unconditional exact method using 2 inverted 1-sided tests.|The null hypothesis was that the percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL at Week 48 in the FTC/RPV/TAF group was at least 8% lower than the rate in the EFV/FTC/TDF group; the alternative hypothesis was that the percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL in the FTC/RPV/TAF group was less than 8% lower than that in the EFV/FTC/TDF group.||1.8|-5.9|
90906277|NCT04955626|181680208|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|23.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.1|34.3||||||Difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage (BNT162b2 OMI \[30 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]). 2-Sided CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage.||34.3|11.1|
90906278|NCT04955626|181680209|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ration (GMR)|2.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.18|3.78||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference of the logarithms of the titers (BNT162b2 OMI \[30 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 μg\]) and the corresponding CI (based on the student t distribution).||3.78|2.18|
90906279|NCT04955626|181680210|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|2.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.06|3.38||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference of the logarithms of the titers (BNT162b2 OMI \[30 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 μg\]) and the corresponding CI (based on the student t distribution).||3.38|2.06|
90906280|NCT04955626|181680211|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|29.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.2|40.3||||||Difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage (BNT162b2 OMI \[30 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]). 2-Sided CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage.||40.3|17.2|
90906281|NCT04955626|181680212|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|21.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.3|33.2||||||Difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage (BNT162b2 OMI \[30 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]). 2-Sided CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage.||33.2|8.3|
90906282|NCT04955626|181680213|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ration (GMR)|9.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.9|12.53||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference of the logarithms of the titers (BNT162b2 OMI \[30 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 μg\]) and the corresponding CI (based on the student t distribution).||12.53|7.90|
90906283|NCT04955626|181680214|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|13.8||||||Difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage (BNT162b2 OMI \[30 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]). 2-Sided CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage.||13.8|-3.0|
90906284|NCT04955626|181680221|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|2.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|3.0||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference of the logarithms of the titers (BNT162b2 OMI \[30 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on the student t distribution.||3.00|1.65|
90906285|NCT04955626|181680221|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|3.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.38|4.16||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference of the logarithms of the titers (BNT162b2 OMI \[60 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on the student t distribution.||4.16|2.38|
90906286|NCT04955626|181680221|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|2.08||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference of the logarithms of the titers (BNT162b2 \[15 mcg\] + BNT162b2 OMI \[15 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on the student t distribution.||2.08|1.17|
90906287|NCT04955626|181680221|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|2.68||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference of the logarithms of the titers (BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\] + BNT162b2 OMI \[30 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on the student t distribution.||2.68|1.45|
90906288|NCT04955626|181680222|OTHER||Difference in percentages|19.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.3|29.7||||||Difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage (BNT162b2 OMI \[30 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 μg\]). 2-Sided CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage.||29.7|9.3|
90906289|NCT04955626|181680222|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|29.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.4|38.5||||||Difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage (BNT162b2 OMI \[60 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 μg\]). 2-Sided CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage.||38.5|19.4|
90906290|NCT04955626|181680222|OTHER||Difference in percentages|14.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|24.9||||||Difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage (BNT162b2 \[15 mcg\] + BNT162b2 OMI \[15 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 μg\]). 2-Sided CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage.||24.9|4.0|
90906291|NCT04955626|181680222|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|10.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|21.4||||||Difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage (BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\] + BNT162b2 OMI \[30 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 μg\]). 2-Sided CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage.||21.4|0.1|
90906292|NCT04955626|181680230|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.56||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 \[60 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||1.56|0.40|
90906293|NCT04955626|181680230|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|3.43||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 OMI \[30 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||3.43|0.93|
90906294|NCT04955626|181680230|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|2.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|4.55||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 OMI \[60 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||4.55|1.22|
90906295|NCT04955626|181680230|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.89||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 \[15 mcg\] + BNT162b2 OMI \[15 mcg\]- BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||2.89|0.76|
90906296|NCT04955626|181680230|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|2.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|4.53||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\] + BNT162b2 OMI \[30 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||4.53|1.20|
90959315|NCT03421431|181798488|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-5.91||||0.0639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.171|0.351|||ANCOVA|||||0.351|-12.171|0.0639
91105792|NCT03816891|182097790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-13.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.41||0.0633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.5|0.8||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||0.8|-28.5|0.0633
91105793|NCT03816891|182097790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.23||0.4775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|9.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||9.1|-19.4|0.4775
91105794|NCT03816891|182097790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-11.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.33||0.1106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.2|2.7||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 25||2.7|-26.2|0.1106
91105795|NCT03816891|182097790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-12.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.32||0.1043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.4|2.5||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 25||2.5|-26.4|0.1043
91105796|NCT03816891|182097790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.19||0.563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.4|10.0||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 25||10.0|-18.4|0.5630
91105797|NCT03816891|182097790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-13.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.26||0.0629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.9|0.7||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 26||0.7|-27.9|0.0629
90861498|NCT02345226|181585815|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.35
90861499|NCT01163266|181585843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.151||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.45|0.08||Pre-specified sequential statistical testing procedure indicates that when p-value \>0.025, hierarchical testing stops and for subsequent endpoints in the sequence a nominal p-value is provided.|Mixed model for repeated measurements|MMRM ANCOVA with treatment, center, week, treatment-by-week interaction, baseline MADRS total score-by-week as fixed effects.||All statistical tests were 2-sided with the estimated P-values at the 5% level of significance. To control for multiplicity, a pre-specified sequential testing procedure was applied to compare 10 mg and 20 mg vortioxetine to placebo. Efficacy endpoints were tested for each dose in sequential order at significance level 0.025; as soon as an endpoint was non-significant at 0.025, the testing procedure stopped for all subsequent endpoints.||0.08|-4.45|0.058
90861500|NCT01163266|181585843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.161||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.92|-1.35||Pre-specified sequential statistical testing procedure indicates that when p-value \<0.025, hierarchical testing continues.|Mixed model for repeated measurements|MMRM ANCOVA with treatment, center, week, treatment-by-week interaction, baseline MADRS total score-by-week as fixed effects.||||-1.35|-5.92|0.002
90861501|NCT01163266|181585844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.796|2.093|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with explanatory variables for treatment and Baseline MADRS score.||||2.093|0.796|0.301
90861502|NCT01163266|181585844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.639||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.013|2.652||Pre-specified sequential statistical testing procedure indicates that when p-value \>0.025, hierarchical testing stops and for subsequent endpoints in the sequence a nominal p-value is provided.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with explanatory variables for treatment and Baseline MADRS score.||||2.652|1.013|0.044
90861503|NCT01163266|181585845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129||0.119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.05|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|MMRM ANCOVA with treatment, center, week, treatment-by-week interaction, baseline CGI-S score-by-week as fixed effects.||||0.05|-0.45|0.119
90861504|NCT01163266|181585845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.04|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|MMRM ANCOVA with treatment, center, week, treatment-by-week interaction, baseline CGI-S score-by-week as fixed effects.||||-0.04|-0.55|0.024
90861505|NCT01163266|181585846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.891||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.03|-0.56|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|MMRM ANCOVA with treatment, center, week, treatment-by-week interaction, baseline MADRS Total score-by-week as fixed effects.||||-0.56|-8.03|0.025
90861506|NCT01163266|181585846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.852|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.92|-3.6|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|MMRM ANCOVA with treatment, center, week, treatment-by-week interaction, baseline MADRS total score-by-week as fixed effects.||||-3.60|-10.92|<0.001
90861507|NCT01163266|181585847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.665||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.918|3.018|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with explanatory variables for treatment and Baseline MADRS score.||||3.018|0.918|0.093
90861508|NCT01163266|181585847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.779||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.979|3.233|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with explanatory variables for treatment and Baseline MADRS score.||||3.233|0.979|0.059
90861509|NCT01163266|181585848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.042||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.44|0.66|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|MMRM ANCOVA with treatment, center, week, treatment-by-week interaction, baseline SDS total score-by-week as fixed effects.||||0.66|-3.44|0.183
90861510|NCT01163266|181585848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.066||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|-0.3|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|MMRM ANCOVA with treatment, center, week, treatment-by-week interaction, baseline SDS total score-by-week as fixed effects.||||-0.30|-4.50|0.025
90861511|NCT03181893|181585856|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.183|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.26|-9.37|||LANCOVA-P model|||||-9.37|-20.26|<0.0001
90906297|NCT04955626|181680231|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.42||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 \[60 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||1.42|0.40|
90906298|NCT04955626|181680231|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.58||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 OMI \[30 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||1.58|0.47|
90906299|NCT04955626|181680231|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.95||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 OMI \[60 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||1.95|0.57|
90906300|NCT04955626|181680231|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|2.09||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means BNT162b2 \[15 mcg\] + BNT162b2 OMI \[15 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||2.09|0.61|
90906301|NCT04955626|181680231|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.5||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\] + BNT162b2 OMI \[30 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||2.50|0.73|
90906302|NCT04955626|181680232|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.56||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 \[60 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||1.56|0.58|
90906303|NCT04955626|181680232|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.93||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 OMI \[30 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||1.93|0.77|
90906304|NCT04955626|181680232|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.8||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 OMI \[60 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||1.80|0.71|
90906305|NCT04955626|181680232|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.84||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 \[15 mcg\] + BNT162b2 OMI \[15 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||1.84|0.73|
91105798|NCT03816891|182097790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-14.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.34||0.0523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.8|0.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 26||0.1|-28.8|0.0523
91105799|NCT03816891|182097790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.15||0.442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.6|8.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 26||8.6|-19.6|0.4420
90906306|NCT04955626|181680232|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|2.37||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\] + BNT162b2 OMI \[30 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||2.37|0.94|
90906307|NCT04955626|181680233|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|1.03||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 \[60 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||1.03|0.24|
90906308|NCT04955626|181680233|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|3.76||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 OMI \[30 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||3.76|0.90|
90906309|NCT04955626|181680233|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|3.5||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 OMI \[60 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||3.50|0.84|
90906310|NCT04955626|181680233|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|3.59||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 \[15 mcg\] + BNT162b2 OMI \[15 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||3.59|0.85|
90906311|NCT04955626|181680233|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|3.2||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\] + BNT162b2 OMI \[30 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||3.20|0.76|
90959316|NCT03421431|181798488|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.064||||0.4884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.971|3.843|||ANCOVA|||||3.843|-7.971|0.4884
90861512|NCT03181893|181585873|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|10.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.274||0.1537|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.1|28.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference of the active treatment from Placebo at Week 4||28.77|-7.10|0.1537
90906312|NCT04955626|181680234|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.95||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 \[60 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||0.95|0.26|
90906313|NCT04955626|181680234|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.43||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 OMI \[30 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||1.43|0.41|
90861513|NCT03181893|181585873|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|12.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.761||0.1312|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.29|31.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference of the active treatment from Placebo at Week 8||31.29|-6.29|0.1312
90861514|NCT03181893|181585873|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|19.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.161||0.0647|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.79|40.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference of the active treatment from Placebo at Week 12||40.68|-1.79|0.0647
90861515|NCT03401489|181585906|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|2.72||Significance threshold was α=0.05, two-sided. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed models were also run for sensitivity analyses, adjusting for baseline SBP, site, and race.|Difference defined as Control minus PACESETTER at 12 months (SBP \<130 mmHg); odds ratio \<1 favors the PACESETTER arm.|Comparison between PACESETTER and control arms at 12 months for proportion of participants with SBP \<130 mmHg using a generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) with logit link. Model included baseline SBP, site, and race as covariates.||2.72|.36|0.822
90861516|NCT03401489|181585907|OTHER|Longitudinal mixed-effects repeated-measures modeling (MMRM) was used to compare systolic BP over time, adjusting for baseline BP, site, and race.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4||||0.623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|12.1||Two-sided α=0.05; no adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis||Positive values favor the control arm.|||12.1|-7.3|0.623
90861517|NCT03401489|181585908|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9||||0.614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|6.0||Two-sided α=0.05; no adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis||Negative values favor the PACESETTER arm.|Longitudinal mixed-effects repeated-measures modeling (MMRM) was used to compare diastolic BP over time, adjusting for baseline BP, site, and race.||6.0|-7.8|0.614
90861518|NCT01950390|181585921|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.383|ONE_SIDED|90.0||1.23||One-sided|Log Rank|Stratification factors of BRAF mutation status (wild type/mutation) and prior therapy (yes/no) were used in the stratified analysis|One-sided 90% Repeated Confidence Interval for Hazard Ratio with Arm A as Reference|||1.23||0.383
90861519|NCT01950390|181585922|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.2||Two-sided|Log Rank|Stratified Log rank test||||1.20|0.61|0.358
90861520|NCT01950390|181585923|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.482||||||Two-sided|Chi-squared|||||||0.482
90861521|NCT01950390|181585925|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.937||||||Two-sided|Chi-squared|||||||0.937
91105800|NCT03816891|182097790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-12.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.19||0.0908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.4|2.0||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 27||2.0|-26.4|0.0908
90861522|NCT05938920|181585927|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-0.6098|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.78193|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1026|2.8831||||||||2.8831|-4.1026|
90861523|NCT05938920|181585927|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|0.6721|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91075|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0738|4.4179||||||||4.4179|-3.0738|
90861524|NCT05938920|181585927|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|2.8232|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.30479|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.697|7.3433||||||||7.3433|-1.6970|
90861525|NCT05938920|181585927|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-0.2933|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.15954|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5273|3.9408||||||||3.9408|-4.5273|
90861526|NCT05938920|181585928|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-0.0242|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04121|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.105|0.0566||||||||0.0566|-0.1050|
90861527|NCT05938920|181585928|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|0.0194|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04492|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0687|0.1074||||||||0.1074|-0.0687|
90861528|NCT05938920|181585928|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|0.0892|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04994|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0087|0.1872||||||||0.1872|-0.0087|
90861529|NCT05938920|181585928|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-0.0082|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04585|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0981|0.0817||||||||0.0817|-0.0981|
90861530|NCT05938920|181585929|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-0.6043|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.19916|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9549|1.7462||||||||1.7462|-2.9549|
90861531|NCT05938920|181585929|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|0.651|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.33193|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9603|3.2624||||||||3.2624|-1.9603|
90861532|NCT05938920|181585929|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|2.4975|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.43617|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3187|5.3136||||||||5.3136|-0.3187|
90861533|NCT05938920|181585929|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-0.0209|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4247|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8142|2.7724||||||||2.7724|-2.8142|
90861534|NCT05938920|181585930|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-0.5762|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.74854|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0035|2.8511||||||||2.8511|-4.0035|
90861535|NCT05938920|181585930|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|0.5884|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.90433|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1449|4.3216||||||||4.3216|-3.1449|
90861536|NCT05938920|181585930|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|2.6554|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2965|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8486|7.1593||||||||7.1593|-1.8486|
90959317|NCT03421431|181798488|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.846||||0.1532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.156|1.464|||ANCOVA|||||1.464|-9.156|0.1532
90959318|NCT03421431|181798489|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.46||||0.0811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.978|0.058|||ANCOVA|||||0.058|-0.978|0.0811
90861537|NCT05938920|181585930|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-0.0625|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.17274|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3227|4.1977||||||||4.1977|-4.3227|
90861538|NCT01251861|181585931|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28||||||one-sided|Fisher Exact|||||||0.28
90861539|NCT01251861|181585940|OTHER|The association between PSA response (responder vs non-responder) and Gleason score (\<7, 7 vs. \>7) was evaluated by logistic regression with adjustment for treatment assignment.||||||0.5||||||p-value based on logistic regression with adjustment for treatment assignment|Regression, Logistic|||The association between PSA response (responder vs non-responder) and Gleason score (\<7, 7 vs. \>7) was evaluated by logistic regression with adjustment for treatment assignment.||||0.50
90959319|NCT03421431|181798489|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.117||||0.6312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.367|0.601|||ANCOVA|||||0.601|-0.367|0.6312
90959320|NCT03421431|181798489|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.577||||0.0099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.011|-0.143|||ANCOVA|||||-0.143|-1.011|0.0099
90959321|NCT03421431|181798502|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.356||||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.322|3.034|||ANCOVA|||||3.034|-0.322|0.1120
90861540|NCT01251861|181585941|OTHER|The association between PSA response (responder vs non-responder) and prior hormonal therapy (yes vs. no) was evaluated by logistic regression with adjustment for treatment assignment.||||||0.28||||||p-value based on logistic regression with adjustment for treatment assignment|Regression, Logistic|||The association between PSA response (responder vs non-responder) and prior hormonal therapy (yes vs. no) was evaluated by logistic regression with adjustment for treatment assignment.||||0.28
90861541|NCT02975336|181585954|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.5462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|2.64|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.64|0.91|0.5462
90861542|NCT02975336|181585954|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.5462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.18|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.18|0.76|0.5462
90861543|NCT02975336|181585954|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.5462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.93|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.93|0.67|0.5462
90861544|NCT02975336|181585955|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.5462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|3.24|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.24|0.69|0.5462
90861545|NCT02975336|181585955|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.5462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|2.97|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.97|0.68|0.5462
90861546|NCT02975336|181585955|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.5462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.75|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.75|0.59|0.5462
90906314|NCT04955626|181680234|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.84||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 OMI \[60 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||1.84|0.52|
90906315|NCT04955626|181680234|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.8||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 \[15 mcg\] + BNT162b2 OMI \[15 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||1.80|0.51|
90959322|NCT03421431|181798502|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.647||||0.4229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.947|2.24|||ANCOVA|||||2.240|-0.947|0.4229
90959323|NCT03421431|181798502|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.71||||0.2764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.577|1.996|||ANCOVA|||||1.996|-0.577|0.2764
90959324|NCT03421431|181798503|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.008||||0.5606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.037|||ANCOVA|||||0.037|-0.020|0.5606
90959325|NCT03421431|181798503|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.023||||0.1002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.05|||ANCOVA|||||0.050|-0.004|0.1002
90959326|NCT03421431|181798503|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.014||||0.2002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.036|0.008|||ANCOVA|||||0.008|-0.036|0.2002
90959327|NCT03421431|181798504|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-178.787||||0.7014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1098.454|740.88|||ANCOVA|||||740.880|-1098.454|0.7014
90959328|NCT03421431|181798504|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|52.307||||0.907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-830.934|935.547|||ANCOVA|||||935.547|-830.934|0.9070
90959329|NCT03421431|181798504|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-231.094||||0.536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-967.273|505.086|||ANCOVA|||||505.086|-967.273|0.5360
90861547|NCT02975336|181585983|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.7034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|2.4|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||2.40|0.57|0.7034
90959330|NCT03421431|181798505|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-753.153||||0.2985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2183.92|677.614|||ANCOVA|||||677.614|-2183.920|0.2985
90959331|NCT03421431|181798505|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|139.107||||0.8413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1236.689|1514.902|||ANCOVA|||||1514.902|-1236.689|0.8413
90959332|NCT03421431|181798505|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-892.26||||0.1168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2011.705|227.186|||ANCOVA|||||227.186|-2011.705|0.1168
90959333|NCT03421431|181798506|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|33.491|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.984|48.998|||ANCOVA|||||48.998|17.984|<0.0001
90861548|NCT02975336|181585983|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||0.5462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.52|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||1.52|0.31|0.5462
90861549|NCT02975336|181585983|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.5462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.97|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||1.97|0.42|0.5462
90861550|NCT02975336|181585984|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.52||||0.5462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|3.15|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.15|0.74|0.5462
90861551|NCT02975336|181585984|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.5462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|2.13|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.13|0.49|0.5462
90861552|NCT02975336|181585984|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.5462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|2.81|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.81|0.65|0.5462
90861553|NCT02975336|181585985|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6||||0.2434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|3.54|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.54|0.73|0.2434
90861554|NCT02975336|181585985|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.62||||0.2389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|3.63|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.63|0.73|0.2389
90861555|NCT02975336|181585985|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.1952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|3.85|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.85|0.76|0.1952
90861556|NCT02975336|181585986|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.59||||0.0987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|2.89|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||2.89|0.87|0.0987
90861557|NCT02975336|181585986|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.9201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.85|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||1.85|0.51|0.9201
90861558|NCT02975336|181585986|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||0.5645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.2|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||2.20|0.60|0.5645
90861559|NCT02975336|181585987|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77||||0.3743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.37|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.37|0.44|0.3743
90861560|NCT02975336|181585987|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.6445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.54|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.54|0.50|0.6445
90861561|NCT02975336|181585987|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72||||0.2634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.28|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.28|0.41|0.2634
90861562|NCT02975336|181585988|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|1.59||||0.2989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|3.81||Nominal p-value|Negative binomial regression|||||3.81|0.66|0.2989
90861563|NCT02975336|181585988|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.85||||0.7325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|2.19||Nominal p-value|Negative binomial regression|||||2.19|0.33|0.7325
90906316|NCT04955626|181680234|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.34||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\] + BNT162b2 OMI \[30 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||1.34|0.38|
90959334|NCT03421431|181798506|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|30.814|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.802|45.825|||ANCOVA|||||45.825|15.802|<0.0001
90861564|NCT02975336|181585988|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|1.29||||0.591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|3.22||Nominal p-value|Negative binomial regression|||||3.22|0.51|0.5910
90861565|NCT02975336|181585989|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.3635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.47|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.47|0.72|0.3635
90861566|NCT02975336|181585989|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.94||||0.0329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|3.56|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.56|1.06|0.0329
90861567|NCT02975336|181585989|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.7619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.07|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.07|0.59|0.7619
90861568|NCT02975336|181585990|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.2642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.35|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.35|0.79|0.2642
90861569|NCT02975336|181585990|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.1489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|2.57|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.57|0.87|0.1489
90861570|NCT02975336|181585990|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.9285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.7|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.70|0.56|0.9285
90861571|NCT02975336|181585993|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.9061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.88|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.88|0.49|0.9061
90861572|NCT02975336|181585993|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.6053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|2.31|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.31|0.61|0.6053
90861573|NCT02975336|181585993|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.59|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.59|0.40|0.5200
90861574|NCT02975336|181586002|SUPERIORITY||Rate difference|5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|21.2||||||||21.2|-9.7|
90861575|NCT02975336|181586002|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|15.6||||||||15.6|-14.5|
90861576|NCT02975336|181586002|SUPERIORITY||Rate difference|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|16.6||||||||16.6|-13.5|
90861577|NCT02975336|181586006|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.7728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|2.82|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.82|0.46|0.7728
90861578|NCT02975336|181586006|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.66||||0.3314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.54|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.54|0.28|0.3314
90861579|NCT02975336|181586006|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.7205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|2.04|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.04|0.36|0.7205
90959335|NCT03421431|181798506|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.677||||0.6757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.946|15.3|||ANCOVA|||||15.300|-9.946|0.6757
90861580|NCT02975336|181586007|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.8364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|3.71|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.71|0.35|0.8364
90861581|NCT02975336|181586007|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.8287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|3.45|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.45|0.37|0.8287
90861582|NCT02975336|181586007|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.7621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|4.16|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.16|0.35|0.7621
90861583|NCT02975336|181586008|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.8464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|3.31|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.31|0.23|0.8464
90861584|NCT02975336|181586008|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59||||0.417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|2.12|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.12|0.16|0.4170
90861585|NCT02975336|181586008|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.9988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|3.74|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.74|0.27|0.9988
90861586|NCT02975336|181586009|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.04|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.04|0.62|0.6970
90861587|NCT02975336|181586009|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.3234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.42|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.42|0.75|0.3234
90861588|NCT02975336|181586009|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.9846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.82|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.82|0.54|0.9846
90861589|NCT03019575|181586010|OTHER|Linear Mixed Model|Geometric Mean Ratio|9.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.44|11.97||||||||11.97|7.44|
90861590|NCT03792191|181586027|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.00007||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00005|1.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1|-0.00005|0.62
90861591|NCT03792191|181586028|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.58
90861592|NCT03792191|181586029|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.036||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.079|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||0.079|-0.15|0.6
90861593|NCT03792191|181586030|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.021||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.125|0.082|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||0.082|-0.125|0.77
90861594|NCT03792191|181586031|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|8.0||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|20.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||20|-1|0.077
90861595|NCT03792191|181586032|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.00003||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00001|0.00003|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.00003|-0.00001|0.1
90861596|NCT03792191|181586033|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||>0.99
90861597|NCT03792191|181586034|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||>0.99
90861598|NCT03792191|181586036|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.99
90861599|NCT03355365|181586037|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
90861600|NCT03355365|181586038|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.28
90861601|NCT03355365|181586039|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4
90861602|NCT03355365|181586040|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.88
90861603|NCT03355365|181586041|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.43
90861604|NCT03355365|181586042|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.77
90861605|NCT03355365|181586043|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.16
90861606|NCT03355365|181586044|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.71
90861607|NCT03355365|181586045|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.16
90861608|NCT01147640|181586059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-12.4|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90861609|NCT01147640|181586060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
90861610|NCT01856907|181586061|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035|||||||McNemar|||Study change from dysglycemia to normal glucose state||||.035
90861611|NCT01856907|181586062|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.044|||||||ANOVA|||Subjects (SS)/ Treatment Group x repeated measures (visit) design||||0.044
90906317|NCT04955626|181680235|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.37||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 \[60 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||1.37|0.38|
90906318|NCT04955626|181680235|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|2.21||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 OMI \[30 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||2.21|0.65|
90906319|NCT04955626|181680235|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|3.02||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 OMI \[60 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||3.02|0.88|
90906320|NCT04955626|181680235|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|2.39||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 \[15 mcg\] + BNT162b2 OMI \[15 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||2.39|0.68|
90906321|NCT04955626|181680235|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.67||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\] + BNT162b2 OMI \[30 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||2.67|0.76|
90906322|NCT04955626|181680236|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.25||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 \[60 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||1.25|0.21|
91105801|NCT03816891|182097790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-13.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.32||0.0688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.9|1.0||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 27||1.0|-27.9|0.0688
90906323|NCT04955626|181680236|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|2.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|4.88||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 OMI \[30 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||4.88|0.88|
90906324|NCT04955626|181680236|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|2.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|7.06||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 OMI \[60 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||7.06|1.24|
90906325|NCT04955626|181680236|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|3.62||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 \[15 mcg\] + BNT162b2 OMI \[15 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||3.62|0.64|
90906326|NCT04955626|181680236|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|3.67||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\] + BNT162b2 OMI \[30 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||3.67|0.64|
90906327|NCT04955626|181680237|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.09||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 \[60 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||1.09|0.25|
90906328|NCT04955626|181680237|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|2.04||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 OMI \[30 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||2.04|0.49|
90906329|NCT04955626|181680237|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.68||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 OMI \[60 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||2.68|0.63|
90906330|NCT04955626|181680237|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.59||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 \[15 mcg\] + BNT162b2 OMI \[15 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||1.59|0.38|
90906331|NCT04955626|181680237|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.36||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\] + BNT162b2 OMI \[30 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||1.36|0.32|
90959336|NCT03421431|181798507|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|21.3||||0.0134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.533|38.067|||ANCOVA|||||38.067|4.533|0.0134
91105802|NCT03816891|182097790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.17||0.2802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.9|6.4||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 27||6.4|-21.9|0.2802
90861612|NCT01856907|181586063|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.034|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA with Bonferroni contrast test||||0.034
90861613|NCT01856907|181586064|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.047|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA with Bonferroni contrast test||||.047
90861614|NCT01856907|181586065|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA with Bonferroni contrast test||||0.017
90861615|NCT01856907|181586066|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA with Bonferroni contrast test||||0.014
90861616|NCT01856907|181586067|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.042|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA with Bonferroni contrast test||||0.042
90861617|NCT01856907|181586068|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA with Bonferroni contrast test||||0.002
90861618|NCT01856907|181586069|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA with Bonferroni contrast test||||0.004
90861619|NCT01856907|181586070|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA with Bonferroni contrast test||||0.004
90861620|NCT01856907|181586071|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.9
90861621|NCT00091442|181586077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.5988||95.0|0.86|1.3||Not adjusted for multiple comparison.|Log Rank|||Null Hypothesis: Designed to detect an improvement in median survival from 15 months to 19.5 months with 80% power.||1.3|0.86|0.5988
90861622|NCT00091442|181586078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0085||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparison|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis - no difference in response rate between the two treatment groups.||||0.0085
90906332|NCT04955626|181680238|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.76||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 \[60 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||1.76|0.32|
90906333|NCT04955626|181680238|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|3.85||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 OMI \[30 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||3.85|0.74|
90861623|NCT00091442|181586079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.55|0.77|||Log Rank|||"Null hypothersis - no difference in Time to Progression (TTP) between the two treatment groups.~Designed to detect an improvement in median TTP from 6 months to 7.8 months with 80% power, assuming exponential survival distribution."||0.77|0.55|<0.0001
90861624|NCT00986830|181586081|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Paired t-tests were used to calculate the p-values and evaluate whether the change in outcomes from baseline to follow-up were statistically different from zero. A p value of \<0.05 was considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided||||A reduction in SNOT-20 score of 0.8 or more is considered clinically meaningful.|||<0.0001
90861625|NCT00986830|181586082|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Paired t-tests were used to calculate the p-values and evaluate whether the change in outcomes from baseline to follow-up were statistically different from zero. A p value \<0.05 is considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90861626|NCT00986830|181586083|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Paired t-tests were used to calculate the p-values and evaluate whether the change in outcomes from baseline to follow-up were statistically different from zero. A p value \<0.05 is considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90861627|NCT00986830|181586084|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Paired t-tests were used to calculate the p-values and evaluate whether the change in outcomes from baseline to follow-up were statistically different from zero. A p value \<0.05 is considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90861628|NCT00986830|181586085|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Paired t-tests were used to calculate the p-values and evaluate whether the change in outcomes from baseline to follow-up were statistically different from zero. A p value \<0.05 is considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90861629|NCT00986830|181586086|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009||||||Paired t-tests were used to calculate the p-values and evaluate whether the change in outcomes from baseline to follow-up were statistically different from zero. A p value \<0.05 indicates statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.009
90861630|NCT00986830|181586087|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.292||||||Paired t-tests were used to calculate the p-values and evaluate whether the change in outcomes from baseline to follow-up were statistically different from zero. A p value \<0.05 indicates statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.292
90861631|NCT00986830|181586088|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Paired t-tests were used to calculate the p-values and evaluate whether the change in outcomes from baseline to follow-up were statistically different from zero. A p value \<0.05 indicates statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90861632|NCT01436396|181586092|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% Confidence Interval (CI) was greater than -10. The difference in percentage of seroconversion rates between group 1 and 2 was based on the Wilson score (without continuity adjustment) 95% two-sided CI.|Difference in percentage|0.334|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.976|1.87||||||Non-inferiority of YF seroconversion rate was assessed 28 days post-Stamaril®/CYD dengue vaccine (CYD Dengue Vaccine Group) or post-Stamaril®/placebo (Placebo Group).||1.87|-0.976|
90861633|NCT01436396|181586093|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI is greater than -10. The difference in percentage of seroconversion rates between group 1 and 2 was based on the Wilson score (without continuity adjustment) 95% two-sided CI.|Difference in percentage|-1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.81|0.383||||||Non-inferiority of YF seroconversion rate was assessed 28 days post-Stamaril®/CYD dengue vaccine (CYD Dengue Vaccine Group) or post-Stamaril®/placebo (Placebo Group).||0.383|-2.81|
90861634|NCT00216476|181586106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||threshold for significance: 0.05 (2-sided)|Log Rank|||Null hypothesis was that there is no difference in treatment effect between risperidone LAI and quetiapine by mean relapse free period; given a estimated relapse rate of 30% for risperidone LAI and 42% for quetiapine, with 80% power and 5% 2-tailed significance level, 251 subjects were needed per treatment arm. To adjust for an estimated 20% discontinuations for reasons other than relapse, 628 subjects in total were needed. Actual relapse rates were 17% (risperidone LAI) and 31% (quetiapine).||||<0.0001
90959337|NCT03421431|181798507|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|5.847||||0.4686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.116|21.811|||ANCOVA|||||21.811|-10.116|0.4686
90861635|NCT00216476|181586108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The statistical test was interpreted at the 5% significance level.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Between-group comparison of the change from baseline to endpoint in total PANSS score. The endpoint of the study was based on the Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF) principle, i.e., it was defined as the last available visit during the study with non-missing data for a parameter (excluding the baseline value).||||<0.0001
90861636|NCT00216476|181586108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The statistical test was interpreted at the 5% significance level.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Within-group comparison of the change from baseline to endpoint in total PANSS score. The endpoint of the study was based on the LOCF principle.||||<0.0001
90861637|NCT00216476|181586108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1026|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The statistical test was interpreted at the 5% significance level.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Within-group comparison of the change from baseline to endpoint in total PANSS score. The endpoint of the study was based on the LOCF principle.||||0.1026
90861638|NCT00216476|181586109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The statistical test was interpreted at the 5% significance level.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Between-group comparison of the change from baseline to endpoint in CGI-S score. The endpoint of the study was based on the LOCF principle.||||<0.0001
90861639|NCT00216476|181586109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The statistical test was interpreted at the 5% significance level.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Within-group comparison of the change from baseline to endpoint in CGI-S score. The endpoint of the study was based on the LOCF principle.||||<0.0001
90861640|NCT00216476|181586109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0446|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The statistical test was interpreted at the 5% significance level.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Within-group comparison of the change from baseline to endpoint in CGI-S score. The endpoint of the study was based on the LOCF principle.||||0.0446
90861641|NCT00216476|181586110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0941|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The statistical test was interpreted at the 5% significance level.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Between-group comparison of the change from baseline to endpoint in PCS score. The endpoint of the study was based on the LOCF principle.||||0.0941
90861642|NCT00216476|181586110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The statistical test was interpreted at the 5% significance level.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Within-group comparison of the change from baseline to endpoint in PCS score. The endpoint of the study was based on the LOCF principle.||||<0.0001
90861643|NCT00216476|181586110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1146|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The statistical test was interpreted at the 5% significance level.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Within-group comparison of the change from baseline to endpoint in PCS score. The endpoint of the study was based on the LOCF principle.||||0.1146
90861644|NCT00216476|181586110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5589|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The statistical test was interpreted at the 5% significance level.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Between-group comparison of the change from baseline to endpoint in MCS score. The endpoint of the study was based on the LOCF principle.||||0.5589
90861645|NCT00216476|181586110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The statistical test was interpreted at the 5% significance level.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Within-group comparison of the change from baseline to endpoint in MCS score. The endpoint of the study was based on the LOCF principle.||||<0.0001
90861646|NCT00216476|181586110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The statistical test was interpreted at the 5% significance level.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Within-group comparison of the change from baseline to endpoint in MCS score. The endpoint of the study was based on the LOCF principle.||||<0.0001
90861647|NCT02390908|181586216|SUPERIORITY||Beta|0.22||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.72||A latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The intercept quoted here represents the difference between Site 1 and the No-Treatment Group at the 3-month follow-up.|Latent Growth Curve|Analysis adjusted for gender and pre-baseline value of the outcome.|The main effect of receiving the PLUS intervention at Site 1 on log-transformed Viral Load was estimated against the No-Treatment Control EMR Group.|||0.72|-0.28|0.39
90861648|NCT02390908|181586216|SUPERIORITY||Beta|-0.03||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.79||A latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The intercept quoted here represents the difference between Site 2 and the No-Treatment Group at the 3-month follow-up.|Latent Growth Curve|Analysis adjusted for gender and pre-baseline value of the outcome.|The main effect of receiving the PLUS intervention at Site 2 on log-transformed Viral Load was estimated against the No-Treatment Control EMR Group.|||0.79|-0.84|0.94
90861649|NCT02390908|181586216|SUPERIORITY||Beta|0.02||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.74||A latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The intercept quoted here represents the difference between Site 3's Immediate Delivery Group and the No-Treatment Group at the 3-month follow-up.|Latent Growth Curve|Analysis adjusted for gender and pre-baseline value of the outcome.|The main effect of receiving the PLUS intervention at Site 3 on log-transformed Viral Load was estimated against the No-Treatment Control EMR Group.|||0.74|-0.69|0.95
90861650|NCT02390908|181586216|SUPERIORITY||Beta|-0.32||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.05||A latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The intercept quoted here represents the difference between Site 3 (the Waitlist condition) and the No-Treatment Group at the 3-month follow-up.|Latent Growth Curve|Analysis adjusted for gender and pre-baseline value of the outcome.|The main effect of being in the Waitlist condition (i.e., not receiving the PLUS intervention at Site 3) on log-transformed Viral Load was estimated against the No-Treatment Control EMR Group.|||0.05|-0.69|0.09
90959338|NCT03421431|181798507|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|15.453||||0.0181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.699|28.206|||ANCOVA|||||28.206|2.699|0.0181
90861651|NCT02390908|181586216|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.03||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.18||Piecemeal latent growth curves (LGC) were specified with intercepts and linear slopes. Slope 1 estimated here represents linear change in log VL across the 3-,6-,9- and 12-month follow-ups for Site 1 relative to the No-Treatment EMR Control Group.|Latent Growth Curve|Analysis adjusted for gender and pre-baseline value of the outcome.||||0.18|-0.24|0.79
90861652|NCT02390908|181586216|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.12||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.36||Piecemeal latent growth curves (LGC) were specified with intercepts and linear slopes. Slope 1 estimated here represents linear change in log VL across the 3-,6-,9- and 12-month follow-ups for Site 2 relative to the No-Treatment EMR Control Group.|Latent Growth Curve|Analysis adjusted for gender and pre-baseline value of the outcome.||||0.36|-0.53|0.57
90959339|NCT03421431|181798508|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|4.324||||0.0557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.108|8.756|||ANCOVA|||||8.756|-0.108|0.0557
90906334|NCT04955626|181680238|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|2.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|4.91||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 OMI \[60 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||4.91|0.92|
90906335|NCT04955626|181680238|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|2.33||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 \[15 mcg\] + BNT162b2 OMI \[15 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||2.33|0.43|
90906336|NCT04955626|181680238|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|2.04||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\] + BNT162b2 OMI \[30 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||2.04|0.39|
90906337|NCT04955626|181680239|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|3.12||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 \[60 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||3.12|0.31|
90906338|NCT04955626|181680239|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|4.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.49|14.07||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 OMI \[30 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||14.07|1.49|
90906339|NCT04955626|181680239|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|7.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.34|22.76||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 OMI \[60 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||22.76|2.34|
90906340|NCT04955626|181680239|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|2.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|7.1||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 \[15 mcg\] + BNT162b2 OMI \[15 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||7.10|0.72|
90959340|NCT03421431|181798508|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.305||||0.2867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.955|6.566|||ANCOVA|||||6.566|-1.955|0.2867
90959341|NCT03421431|181798508|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.019||||0.2437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|5.429|||ANCOVA|||||5.429|-1.390|0.2437
90906341|NCT04955626|181680239|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|4.03||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\] + BNT162b2 OMI \[30 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||4.03|0.41|
90906342|NCT04955626|181680240|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|2.7||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 \[60 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||2.70|0.38|
90959342|NCT03421431|181798509|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.019||||0.9913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.491|3.53|||ANCOVA|||||3.530|-3.491|0.9913
90906343|NCT04955626|181680240|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|5.2||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 OMI \[30 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||5.20|0.76|
90906344|NCT04955626|181680240|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|2.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|7.94||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 OMI \[60 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||7.94|1.13|
90906345|NCT04955626|181680240|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|4.75||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 \[15 mcg\] + BNT162b2 OMI \[15 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||4.75|0.68|
90906346|NCT04955626|181680240|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|2.24||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\] + BNT162b2 OMI \[30 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||2.24|0.32|
90906347|NCT04955626|181680241|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|5.12||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 \[60 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||5.12|0.44|
90959343|NCT03421431|181798509|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.995||||0.553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.323|4.314|||ANCOVA|||||4.314|-2.323|0.5530
90959344|NCT03421431|181798509|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.976||||0.4729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.665|1.713|||ANCOVA|||||1.713|-3.665|0.4729
90959345|NCT04147650|181798529|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.18||||0.1352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|7.62|||Regression, Logistic|||0.05 % VOS versus vehicle||7.62|0.62|0.1352
90959346|NCT04147650|181798529|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.78||||0.2823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|6.45|||Regression, Logistic|||0.10% VOS versus vehicle||6.45|0.49|0.2823
90959347|NCT04147650|181798529|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.41||||0.0889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|8.3|||Regression, Logistic|||0.20% VOS versus vehicle||8.30|0.70|0.0889
90906348|NCT04955626|181680241|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|3.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|10.46||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 OMI \[30 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||10.46|0.99|
90906349|NCT04955626|181680241|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|6.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.96|21.27||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 OMI \[60 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||21.27|1.96|
90906350|NCT04955626|181680241|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|2.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|6.89||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 \[15 mcg\] + BNT162b2 OMI \[15 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||6.89|0.63|
90906351|NCT04955626|181680241|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|3.17||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\] + BNT162b2 OMI \[30 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||3.17|0.28|
90906352|NCT04955626|181680266|OTHER||Adjusted Surveillance Time|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-358.6|100.0||||||||100.0|-358.6|
90906353|NCT04955626|181680267|OTHER||Adjusted Surveillance Time|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-355.5|100.0||||||2-Sided CI for RVE is derived based on the Clopper and Pearson method adjusted for surveillance time.||100.0|-355.5|
90906354|NCT04955626|181680276|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.2||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference of the logarithms of the titers (BNT162b2 \[15 mcg\] + BNT162b2 OMI \[15 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on the student t distribution.||1.20|0.82|
90861653|NCT02390908|181586216|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.01||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.36||Piecemeal latent growth curves (LGC) were specified with intercepts and linear slopes. Slope 1 here represents linear change in log VL across the 3-,6-,9- and 12-month follow-ups for Site 3 (Immediate) relative to the No-Treatment EMR Control.|Latent Growth Curve|Analysis adjusted for gender and pre-baseline value of the outcome.||||0.36|-0.35|0.97
90861654|NCT02390908|181586216|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.07||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.24||Piecemeal latent growth curves (LGC) were specified with intercepts and linear slopes. Slope 1 estimated here represents linear change in log VL across the 3-,6-,9- and 12-month follow-ups for Waitlist relative to the No-Treatment EMR Control Group.|Latent Growth Curve|Analysis adjusted for gender and pre-baseline value of the outcome.||||0.24|-0.10|0.41
90906355|NCT04955626|181680276|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.58||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference of the logarithms of the titers (BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\] + BNT162b2 OMI \[30 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on the student t distribution.||1.58|1.07|
90861655|NCT02390908|181586216|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.06||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.52||Piecemeal latent growth curves (LGC) were specified with intercepts and linear slopes. Slope 2 estimated here represents linear change in log VL across the 12-,15-, and 18-month follow-ups for Site 1 relative to the No-Treatment EMR Control Group.|Latent Growth Curve|Analysis adjusted for gender and pre-baseline value of the outcome.||||0.52|-0.41|0.82
90906356|NCT04951479|181680293|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.00041|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test of KOOS Pain score pre and 6 months post embolization||||0.00041
90906357|NCT04951479|181680294|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.008
90906358|NCT04951479|181680295|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
90861656|NCT02390908|181586216|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.14||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.53||Piecemeal latent growth curves (LGC) were specified with intercepts and linear slopes. Slope 2 estimated here represents linear change in log VL across the 12-,15-, and 18-month follow-ups for Site 2 relative to the No-Treatment EMR Control Group.|Latent Growth Curve|Analysis adjusted for gender and pre-baseline value of the outcome.||||0.53|-0.26|0.49
90861657|NCT02390908|181586216|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.33||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.15||Piecemeal latent growth curves (LGC) were specified with intercepts and linear slopes. Slope 2 estimated here represents linear change in log VL across the 12-,15-, and 18-month follow-ups for Site 3 relative to the No-Treatment EMR Control Group.|Latent Growth Curve|Analysis adjusted for gender and pre-baseline value of the outcome.||||0.15|-0.80|0.18
90861658|NCT02390908|181586216|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.02||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.32||Piecemeal latent growth curves (LGC) were specified with intercepts and linear slopes. Slope 2 estimated here represents linear change in log VL across the 12-,15-, and 18-month follow-ups for Waitlist relative to the No-Treatment EMR Control Group.|Latent Growth Curve|Analysis adjusted for gender and pre-baseline value of the outcome.||||0.32|-0.28|0.89
90861659|NCT02390908|181586217|SUPERIORITY||Beta|1.92||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.68|58.53||A latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The intercept quoted here represents the difference between Site 1 and the No-Treatment Group at the 3-month follow-up.|Latent Growth Curve|Analysis adjusted for gender and pre-baseline value of the outcome.|The main effect of receiving the PLUS intervention at Site 1 on CD4 Count was estimated against the No-Treatment Control EMR Group.|||58.53|-54.68|0.95
90906359|NCT04951479|181680296|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.00797|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||||0.00797
90906360|NCT03706690|181680300|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.578|0.986|||Log Rank|Analysis performed using stratified log-rank test, adjusting for the level of PD-L1 expression and prior therapy (cCRT vs sCRT).||The hazard ratio and confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for the level of programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression (PD-L1 \<1% versus \[vs\] PD-L1 \>=1%) and prior therapy (concurrent \[c\]CRT vs sequential \[s\]CRT), with treatment as the only covariate and ties handled by Efron approach.||0.986|0.578|0.038
90959348|NCT04147650|181798530|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-2.6||||0.3604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|4.3|||ANCOVA|||0.05% VOS versus vehicle||4.3|-9.6|0.3604
90959349|NCT04147650|181798530|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-2.6||||0.3737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|4.4|||ANCOVA|||0.10% VOS versus vehicle||4.4|-9.6|0.3737
90906361|NCT03706690|181680301|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.656|1.166|||Log Rank|Analysis performed using stratified log-rank test, adjusting for level of PD-L1 expression and prior therapy (cCRT vs. sCRT).||For mITT set. The hazard ratio and CIs were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for the level of PD-L1 expression (PD-L1 \<1% vs PD-L1 \>=1%) and prior therapy (cCRT vs sCRT), with treatment as the only covariate and ties handled by Efron approach.||1.166|0.656|0.346
90906362|NCT03706690|181680301|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.663|1.162|||Log Rank|Analysis performed using stratified log-rank test, adjusting for level of PD-L1 expression and prior therapy (cCRT vs. sCRT).||For ITT set. The hazard ratio and CIs were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for the level of PD-L1 expression (PD-L1 \<1% vs PD-L1 \>=1%) and prior therapy (cCRT vs sCRT), with treatment as the only covariate and ties handled by Efron approach.||1.162|0.663|0.346
90906363|NCT03706690|181680302|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.575|0.966|||Log Rank|Analysis performed using stratified log-rank test, adjusting for the level of PD-L1 expression and prior therapy (cCRT vs sCRT).||The hazard ratio and CIs were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for the level of PD-L1 expression (PD-L1 \<1% vs PD-L1\>=1%) and prior therapy (cCRT vs sCRT), with treatment as the only covariate and ties handled by Efron approach.||0.966|0.575|0.026
90906364|NCT03706690|181680304|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.891|2.607|||Regression, Logistic|||For mITT set. The comparison was performed using a logistic regression model, with treatment as a covariate and adjusting for the level of PD-L1 expression (PD-L1 \<1% vs. PD-L1 \>=1%) and prior therapy (cCRT vs. sCRT), with 95% CI calculated by profile likelihood.||2.607|0.891|0.128
90906365|NCT03706690|181680304|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.54||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.915|2.638|||Regression, Logistic|||For ITT set. The comparison was performed using a logistic regression model, with treatment as a covariate and adjusting for the level of PD-L1 expression (PD-L1 \<1% vs. PD-L1 \>=1%) and prior therapy (cCRT vs. sCRT), with 95% CI calculated by profile likelihood.||2.638|0.915|0.105
90906366|NCT03706690|181680307|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.648|1.138|||Log Rank|The analysis was performed using the stratified log-rank test, adjusting for the level of PD-L1 expression and prior therapy (cCRT vs. sCRT).||For mITT set. The hazard ratio and CIs were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for the level of PD-L1 expression (PD-L1 \<1% vs. PD-L1 \>=1%) and prior therapy (cCRT vs. sCRT), with treatment as the only covariate and ties handled by Efron approach.||1.138|0.648|0.275
90906367|NCT03706690|181680307|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.648|1.122|||Log Rank|The analysis was performed using the stratified log-rank test, adjusting for the level of PD-L1 expression and prior therapy (cCRT vs. sCRT).||For ITT set. The hazard ratio and CIs were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for the level of PD-L1 expression (PD-L1 \<1% vs. PD-L1 \>=1%) and prior therapy (cCRT vs. sCRT), with treatment as the only covariate and ties handled by Efron approach.||1.122|0.648|0.241
90906368|NCT03706690|181680308|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.726|1.578|||Log Rank|The analysis was performed using the stratified log-rank test, adjusting for the level of PD-L1 expression and prior therapy (cCRT vs. sCRT).||For mITT set. The hazard ratio and CIs were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for the level of PD-L1 expression (PD-L1 \<1% vs. PD-L1 \>=1%) and prior therapy (cCRT vs. sCRT), with treatment as the only covariate and ties handled by Efron approach.||1.578|0.726|0.769
90906369|NCT03706690|181680308|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.726|1.539|||Log Rank|The analysis was performed using the stratified log-rank test, adjusting for the level of PD-L1 expression and prior therapy (cCRT vs. sCRT).||For ITT set. The hazard ratio and CIs were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for the level of PD-L1 expression (PD-L1 \<1% vs. PD-L1 \>=1%) and prior therapy (cCRT vs. sCRT), with treatment as the only covariate and ties handled by Efron approach.||1.539|0.726|0.812
90906370|NCT02711826|181680317|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.425|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.425
90906371|NCT02711826|181680318|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.700
90906372|NCT02711826|181680319|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.201|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.201
90906373|NCT00729690|181680341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4742||95.0|||||ANOVA|||For 1st 24 hours NRS AUC Pain scores||||0.4742
90906374|NCT00729690|181680342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7596||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.7596
90906375|NCT00729690|181680343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4321||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.4321
90906376|NCT00729690|181680344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9361||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.9361
90906377|NCT02507219|181680363|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.000055||||0.512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00011|0.00022|||Mixed Models Analysis||Slope is percent signal change per milligram of ibuprofen.|A linear mixed effects model was run for the left amygdala with contrast and percent signal change between faces and shapes as the dependent variable and ibuprofen dose as a continuous predictor. Each subject had up to 3 visits and each visit contained 3 contrasts (happy - shape, angry - shape, fearful - shape) so subject and drug were used as random effects. Drug was nested inside of subject.||0.00022|-0.00011|0.512
90906378|NCT02507219|181680363|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.00012||||0.221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0003|0.000067|||Mixed Models Analysis||Slope is the percent signal change per mg of ibuprofen.|A linear mixed effects model was run for the right amygdala with contrast and percent signal change between faces and shapes as the dependent variable and ibuprofen dose as a continuous predictor. Each subject had up to 3 visits and each visit contained 3 contrasts (happy - shape, angry - shape, fearful - shape) so subject and drug were used as random effects. Drug was nested inside of subject.||0.000067|-0.00030|0.221
90906379|NCT02320721|181680379|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of HOE901-U300 vs Lantus was demonstrated if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference between groups was \<0.3%.|LS Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.092|0.129||||||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model including the fixed categorical effects of treatment group, randomization strata, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline value and following multiple imputation procedure for missing data.||0.129|-0.092|
90959350|NCT04147650|181798530|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|1.8||||0.5307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|8.6|||ANCOVA|||0.20% VOS versus vehicle||8.6|-5.1|0.5307
90959351|NCT00968227|181798617|SUPERIORITY|Paired t-test||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
90906380|NCT02320721|181680380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only if previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.|Relative risk|1.01||||0.8415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.153||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis was done by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method with randomization strata (screening HbA1c \[\<8.0%; ≥8.0%\], previous use of insulin \[naive, pre-treated\], use of sulfonylurea or meglitinides at screening \[yes, no\]), following multiple imputation procedure for missing data.||1.153|0.890|0.8415
90906381|NCT03173248|181680391|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.33||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.69||P-value is calculated from the one-sided log-rank test stratified by the randomization stratification factors (AML status and geographic region).|Log Rank||Hazard ratio is estimated using a Cox's proportional hazards model stratified by the randomization stratification factors (AML status and geographic region) with placebo + azacitidine as the denominator.|||0.69|0.16|0.0011
90906382|NCT00929305|181680457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
90906383|NCT00929305|181680460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90906384|NCT00231179|181680479|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample sizes were established when the trial was first developed. For all power calculations, we set alpha = .05 and beta = .20 and specified 2-tailed tests.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.81|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.0||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|2.13||Bonferroni corrections were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||We compared scores for verbal, performance, and full scale Intelligence Quotient (IQ).||2.13|0.31|0.59
90906385|NCT00231179|181680480|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Please see earlier power calculation.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|10.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.72
90906386|NCT00231179|181680481|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|See previous.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|10.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.01
90906387|NCT00231179|181680482|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|See previous.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
90906388|NCT00231179|181680483|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|See previous.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.64
90906389|NCT04672460|181680494|OTHER||Ratio (Test/Reference) of Adjusted Means|105.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.0|111.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment A were reference; treatment B were test.||111.70|99.00|
91105803|NCT03816891|182097790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-15.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.24||0.0337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.8|-1.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 28||-1.2|-29.8|0.0337
90906390|NCT04672460|181680495|OTHER||Ratio (Test/Reference) of Adjusted Means|136.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|125.05|149.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment A were reference; treatment B were test.||149.27|125.05|
90906391|NCT04672460|181680496|OTHER||Ratio (Test/Reference) of Adjusted Means|87.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.82|94.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment B were reference; treatment C were test.||94.58|81.82|
90906392|NCT04672460|181680497|OTHER||Ratio (Test/Reference) of Adjusted Means|58.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|51.55|65.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment B were reference; treatment C were test.||65.84|51.55|
90906393|NCT03575962|181680505|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.1169|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.99|1.27||||||||1.27|0.99|
90906394|NCT03575962|181680506|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.1556|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.99|1.35||||||||1.35|0.99|
90906395|NCT02949271|181680554|OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.17
90906396|NCT02949271|181680555|OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.18
90906397|NCT02949271|181680557|OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.27
90906398|NCT02949271|181680558|OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.28
90906399|NCT02949271|181680559|OTHER|||||||0.85|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.85
90906400|NCT02949271|181680560|OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.53
90906401|NCT02949271|181680561|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
90906402|NCT02949271|181680562|OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.21
90906403|NCT02949271|181680564|OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.08
90906404|NCT05458102|181680565|OTHER||Geometric Least-squares Mean Ratio|560.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|414.0|757.0|||||Parametric (normal theory) mixed-effects ANOVA model was fitted to the natural log-transformed values of the PK parameter under evaluation.|||757|414|
90906405|NCT05458102|181680565|OTHER||Geometric Least-squares Mean Ratio|137.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.5|189.0|||||Parametric (normal theory) mixed-effects ANOVA model was fitted to the natural log-transformed values of the PK parameter under evaluation.|||189|99.5|
90906406|NCT05458102|181680566|OTHER||Geometric Least-squares Mean Ratio|433.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|347.0|540.0|||||Parametric (normal theory) mixed-effects ANOVA model was fitted to the natural log-transformed values of the PK parameter under evaluation.|||540|347|
90906407|NCT05458102|181680566|OTHER||Geometric Least-squares Mean Ratio|118.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.5|150.0|||||Parametric (normal theory) mixed-effects ANOVA model was fitted to the natural log-transformed values of the PK parameter under evaluation.|||150|93.5|
90906408|NCT05458102|181680567|OTHER||Geometric Least-squares Mean Ratio|752.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|525.0|1080.0|||||Parametric (normal theory) mixed-effects ANOVA model was fitted to the natural log-transformed values of the PK parameter under evaluation.|||1080|525|
90906409|NCT05458102|181680567|OTHER||Geometric Least-squares Mean Ratio|118.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.3|172.0|||||Parametric (normal theory) mixed-effects ANOVA model was fitted to the natural log-transformed values of the PK parameter under evaluation.|||172|80.3|
90906410|NCT05458102|181680569|OTHER||Geometric Least-squares Mean Ratio|68.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|45.5|103.0|||||Parametric (normal theory) mixed-effects ANOVA model was fitted to the natural log-transformed values of the PK parameter under evaluation.|||103|45.5|
90906411|NCT05458102|181680569|OTHER||Geometric Least-squares Mean Ratio|65.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|42.5|101.0|||||Parametric (normal theory) mixed-effects ANOVA model was fitted to the natural log-transformed values of the PK parameter under evaluation.|||101|42.5|
90906412|NCT05458102|181680573|OTHER||Geometric Least-squares Mean Ratio|120.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|104.0|138.0|||||Parametric (normal theory) mixed-effects ANOVA model was fitted to the natural log-transformed values of the PK parameter under evaluation.|||138|104|
90861660|NCT02390908|181586217|SUPERIORITY||Beta|23.99||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.54|115.51||A latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The intercept quoted here represents the difference between Site 2 and the No-Treatment Group at the 3-month follow-up.|Latent Growth Curve|Analysis adjusted for gender and pre-baseline value of the outcome.|The main effect of receiving the PLUS intervention at Site 2 on CD4 Count was estimated against the No-Treatment Control EMR Group.|||115.51|-67.54|0.61
91105804|NCT03816891|182097790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-13.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.28||0.0673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.8|1.0||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 28||1.0|-27.8|0.0673
91105805|NCT03816891|182097790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.27||0.3564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.1|7.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 28||7.6|-21.1|0.3564
91105806|NCT03816891|182097790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-13.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.08||0.0558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.6|0.3||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 29||0.3|-27.6|0.0558
91105807|NCT03816891|182097790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-14.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.16||0.0471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.5|-0.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 29||-0.2|-28.5|0.0471
91105808|NCT03816891|182097790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.03||0.4101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|8.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 29||8.1|-19.7|0.4101
91105809|NCT03816891|182097790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-15.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.16||0.0287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.9|-1.7||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 30||-1.7|-29.9|0.0287
91105810|NCT03816891|182097790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-14.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.24||0.0427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.1|-0.5||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 30||-0.5|-29.1|0.0427
91105811|NCT03816891|182097790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.1||0.2828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.7|6.4||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 30||6.4|-21.7|0.2828
91105812|NCT03816891|182097790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-15.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.12||0.0294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.7|-1.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 31||-1.6|-29.7|0.0294
91105813|NCT03816891|182097790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-13.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.15||0.0636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.5|0.8||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 31||0.8|-27.5|0.0636
91105814|NCT03816891|182097790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.02||0.3812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|7.7||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 31||7.7|-20.0|0.3812
90906413|NCT05458102|181680573|OTHER||Geometric Least-squares Mean Ratio|111.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.4|128.0|||||Parametric (normal theory) mixed-effects ANOVA model was fitted to the natural log-transformed values of the PK parameter under evaluation.|||128|95.4|
90906414|NCT05642000|181680578|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.187|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.079|0.454|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.454|-0.079|
91105815|NCT03816891|182097790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-15.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.06||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.7|-1.8||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 32||-1.8|-29.7|0.0270
91105816|NCT03816891|182097790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-12.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.04||0.0679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.9|1.0||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 32||1.0|-26.9|0.0679
91105817|NCT03816891|182097790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.0||0.4452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.2|8.5||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 32||8.5|-19.2|0.4452
90906415|NCT02373813|181680586|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.7||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.6|33.9||The risk difference and its p-value were estimated from the chi-squared test with continuity correction.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||||33.9|7.6|0.004
90906416|NCT02373813|181680587|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|24.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.3||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.9|40.5||The risk difference and its p-value were estimated from the chi-squared test with continuity correction.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||||40.5|7.9|0.006
91105818|NCT03816891|182097790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-14.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.08||0.0467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.2|-0.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 33||-0.2|-28.2|0.0467
90906417|NCT02373813|181680588|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.27|||two sample t-test|||Baseline||0.27|-0.48|0.58
90906418|NCT02373813|181680588|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.31|||two sample t-test|||Baseline||0.31|-0.37|0.85
90906419|NCT02373813|181680588|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-2.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.66||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.89|0.67|||two sample t-test|||Week 12||0.67|-5.89|0.12
90906420|NCT02373813|181680588|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-2.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.12|-0.16|||two sample t-test|||Week 12||-0.16|-5.12|0.037
90906421|NCT02373813|181680588|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-2.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.46||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|0.13|||two sample t-test|||Week 24||0.13|-4.80|0.063
90906422|NCT02373813|181680588|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.34||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.27|2.01|||two sample t-test|||Week 24||2.01|-3.27|0.64
90906423|NCT02373813|181680588|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-1.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|-0.15|||two sample t-test|||Week 36||-0.15|-3.09|0.031
90906424|NCT02373813|181680588|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-1.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-0.35|||two sample t-test|||Week 36||-0.35|-3.20|0.015
90906425|NCT02373813|181680588|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.55|1.45|||two sample t-test|||Week 48||1.45|-2.55|0.58
90906426|NCT02373813|181680588|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|-0.17|||two sample t-test|||Week 48||-0.17|-1.99|0.020
90906427|NCT02373813|181680589|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-2.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.68|0.77|||two sample t-test|||Change at Week 12||0.77|-5.68|0.13
90906428|NCT02373813|181680589|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-2.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.99|-0.06|||two sample t-test|||Change at Week 12||-0.06|-4.99|0.045
91035951|NCT03261167|181958554|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.0|||||Week 2. Analysis method was MMRM with Treatment, Visit, Treatment by visit interaction, Baseline, and Baseline by visit interaction as fixed effects.|||0.00|-0.48|
90906429|NCT02373813|181680589|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-2.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.75|0.2|||two sample t-test|||Change at Week 24||0.20|-4.75|0.071
90906430|NCT02373813|181680589|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.34||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.28|2.0|||two sample t-test|||Change at Week 24||2.00|-3.28|0.63
90906431|NCT02373813|181680589|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.11|-0.1|||two sample t-test|||Change at Week 36||-0.10|-3.11|0.037
90906432|NCT02373813|181680589|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-1.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-0.39|||two sample t-test|||Change at Week 36||-0.39|-3.30|0.013
90906433|NCT02373813|181680589|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|1.53|||two sample t-test|||Change at Week 48||1.53|-2.54|0.62
90906434|NCT02373813|181680589|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|-0.22|||two sample t-test|||Change at Week 48||-0.22|-2.02|0.015
90906435|NCT02373813|181680590|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.26|||two sample t-test|||Baseline||0.26|-0.19|0.75
90906436|NCT02373813|181680590|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.27|||two sample t-test|||Baseline||0.27|-0.11|0.43
90906437|NCT02373813|181680590|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.0|||two sample t-test|||Week 12||0.00|-0.91|0.049
90906438|NCT02373813|181680590|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.04|||two sample t-test|||Week 12||-0.04|-0.77|0.032
90906439|NCT02373813|181680590|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.11|||two sample t-test|||Week 24||0.11|-0.58|0.18
90906440|NCT02373813|181680590|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.51|||two sample t-test|||Week 24||0.51|-0.24|0.48
90906441|NCT02373813|181680590|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.18|||two sample t-test|||Week 36||0.18|-0.51|0.35
90906442|NCT02373813|181680590|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.12|||two sample t-test|||Week 36||0.12|-0.41|0.28
90906443|NCT02373813|181680590|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.21|||two sample t-test|||Week 48||0.21|-0.44|0.48
90906444|NCT02373813|181680590|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.24|||two sample t-test|||Week 48||0.24|-0.26|0.92
90906445|NCT02373813|181680591|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.04|||two sample t-test|||Change at Week 12||-0.04|-0.91|0.032
90906446|NCT02373813|181680591|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.15|||two sample t-test|||Change at Week 12||-0.15|-0.78|0.005
90906447|NCT02373813|181680591|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.01|||two sample t-test|||Change at Week 24||0.01|-0.63|0.058
90906448|NCT02373813|181680591|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.38|||two sample t-test|||Change at Week 24||0.38|-0.29|0.78
90906449|NCT02373813|181680591|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.14|||two sample t-test|||Change at Week 36||0.14|-0.49|0.27
90906450|NCT02373813|181680591|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.03|||two sample t-test|||Change at Week 36||0.03|-0.47|0.078
90906451|NCT02373813|181680591|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.2|||two sample t-test|||Week 48||0.20|-0.43|0.47
90906452|NCT02373813|181680591|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.13|||two sample t-test|||Change at Week 48||0.13|-0.33|0.39
90906453|NCT02373813|181680592|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.15|||two sample t-test|||Baseline||0.15|-0.09|0.60
90906454|NCT02373813|181680592|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||two sample t-test|||Baseline||0.10|-0.10|0.97
90906455|NCT02373813|181680592|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.01|||two sample t-test|||Week 12||-0.01|-0.82|0.044
90906456|NCT02373813|181680592|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.14|||two sample t-test|||Week 12||-0.14|-0.76|0.004
90906457|NCT02373813|181680592|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.1|||two sample t-test|||Week 24||-0.10|-0.66|0.009
90906458|NCT02373813|181680592|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.16|||two sample t-test|||Week 24||0.16|-0.46|0.34
90906459|NCT02373813|181680592|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.0|||two sample t-test|||Week 36||0.00|-0.47|0.046
90906460|NCT02373813|181680592|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|-0.08|||two sample t-test|||Week 36||-0.08|-0.49|0.006
91105819|NCT03816891|182097790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-12.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.01||0.0829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.1|1.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 33||1.6|-26.1|0.0829
91105820|NCT03816891|182097790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.89||0.5263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|9.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 33||9.2|-18.0|0.5263
91105821|NCT03816891|182097790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-16.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.19||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.0|-2.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 34||-2.6|-31.0|0.0210
90906461|NCT02373813|181680592|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.1|||two sample t-test|||Week 48||-0.10|-0.40|0.25
90906462|NCT02373813|181680592|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.03|||two sample t-test|||Week 48||-0.03|-0.37|0.021
90906463|NCT02373813|181680593|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.04|||two sample t-test|||Change at Week 12||-0.04|-0.82|0.030
90906464|NCT02373813|181680593|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.13|||two sample t-test|||Change at Week 12||-0.13|-0.72|0.005
90906465|NCT02373813|181680593|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.15|||two sample t-test|||Change at Week 24||-0.15|-0.69|0.002
90906466|NCT02373813|181680593|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.16|||two sample t-test|||Change at Week 24||0.16|-0.46|0.34
90906467|NCT02373813|181680593|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.06|||two sample t-test|||Change at Week 36||-0.06|-0.52|0.014
90906468|NCT02373813|181680593|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.1|||two sample t-test|||Change at Week 36||-0.10|-0.51|0.004
90906469|NCT02373813|181680593|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.05|||two sample t-test|||Change at Week 48||0.05|-0.43|0.12
90906470|NCT02373813|181680593|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.05|||two sample t-test|||Change at Week 48||-0.05|-0.37|0.010
90906471|NCT02373813|181680594|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.02|||two sample t-test|||Baseline||0.02|-0.62|0.067
90906472|NCT02373813|181680594|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.23|||two sample t-test|||Baseline||0.23|-0.41|0.59
90906473|NCT02373813|181680594|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-2.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.62||0.13||95.0|-5.66|0.74|||two sample t-test|||Week 12||0.74|-5.66|0.13
90906474|NCT02373813|181680594|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-2.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.23||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.76|0.09|||two sample t-test|||Week 12||0.09|-4.76|0.059
90906475|NCT02373813|181680594|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-2.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.95|-0.5|||two sample t-test|||Week 24||-0.50|-4.95|0.017
90906476|NCT02373813|181680594|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.04|2.15|||two sample t-test|||Week 24||2.15|-3.04|0.74
90906477|NCT02373813|181680594|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-1.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.03|-0.08|||two sample t-test|||Week 36||-0.08|-3.03|0.039
90906478|NCT02373813|181680594|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-1.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-0.23|||two sample t-test|||Week 36||-0.23|-3.10|0.023
90906479|NCT02373813|181680594|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.43|1.52|||two sample t-test|||Week 48||1.52|-2.43|0.65
90906480|NCT02373813|181680594|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|-0.19|||two sample t-test|||Week 48||-0.19|-1.94|0.017
90906481|NCT02373813|181680595|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-2.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.59||0.18||95.0|-5.29|1.0|||two sample t-test|||Change at Week 12||1.00|-5.29|0.18
90906482|NCT02373813|181680595|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-2.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.63|0.16|||two sample t-test|||Change at Week 12||0.16|-4.63|0.067
90906483|NCT02373813|181680595|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.37||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.62|-0.17|||two sample t-test|||Change at Week 24||-0.17|-4.62|0.035
90906484|NCT02373813|181680595|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.91|2.23|||two sample t-test|||Change at Week 24||2.23|-2.91|0.79
90906485|NCT02373813|181680595|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.75|0.2|||two sample t-test|||Change at Week 36||0.20|-2.75|0.090
90906486|NCT02373813|181680595|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.06|-0.17|||two sample t-test|||Change at Week 36||-0.17|-3.06|0.029
90906487|NCT02373813|181680595|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|1.81|||two sample t-test|||Change at Week 48||1.81|-2.15|0.86
90906488|NCT02373813|181680595|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|-0.16|||two sample t-test|||Change at Week 48||-0.16|-1.88|0.021
90906489|NCT02373813|181680596|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|6.6||The risk difference and its p-value were estimated from the Chi-squared test with continuity correction.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||Baseline||6.6|-6.5|1.00
90906490|NCT02373813|181680596|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|2.6||The risk difference and its p-value were estimated from the Chi-squared test with continuity correction.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||Baseline||2.6|-10.4|0.38
90906491|NCT02373813|181680596|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|24.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.9||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.0|40.0|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Week 12||40.0|9.0|0.007
90906492|NCT02373813|181680596|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.9||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|27.6||The risk difference and its p-value were estimated from the Chi-squared test with continuity correction.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||Week 12||27.6|0.4|0.063
90906493|NCT02373813|181680596|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|23.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.7|39.8|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Week 24||39.8|6.7|0.012
91105822|NCT03816891|182097790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-13.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.17||0.0623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.6|0.7||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 34||0.7|-27.6|0.0623
91105823|NCT03816891|182097790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.08||0.4899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9|9.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 34||9.1|-18.9|0.4899
90861661|NCT02390908|181586217|SUPERIORITY||Beta|-23.71||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-88.82|41.4||A latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The intercept quoted here represents the difference between Site 3's Immediate Delivery Group and the No-Treatment Group at the 3-month follow-up.|Latent Growth Curve|Analysis adjusted for gender and pre-baseline value of the outcome.|The main effect of receiving the PLUS intervention at Site 3 on CD4 Count was estimated against the No-Treatment Control EMR Group.|||41.40|-88.82|0.48
90906494|NCT02373813|181680596|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.0||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|31.5||The risk difference and its p-value were estimated from the Chi-squared test with continuity correction.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||Week 24||31.5|4.1|0.018
90906495|NCT02373813|181680596|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|19.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.6||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|35.9|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Week 36||35.9|2.1|0.044
90906496|NCT02373813|181680596|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|19.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.0||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.8|33.2|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Week 36||33.2|5.8|0.010
90906497|NCT02373813|181680596|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|25.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.6||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.9|42.5||The risk difference and its p-value were estimated from the Chi-squared test with continuity correction.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||Week 48||42.5|8.9|0.005
91105824|NCT03816891|182097790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-15.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.14||0.0281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.9|-1.7||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 35||-1.7|-29.9|0.0281
90861662|NCT02390908|181586217|SUPERIORITY||Beta|4.19||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.76|58.14||A latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The intercept quoted here represents the difference between Site 3 (the Waitlist condition) and the No-Treatment Group at the 3-month follow-up.|Latent Growth Curve|Analysis adjusted for gender and pre-baseline value of the outcome.|The main effect of being in the Waitlist condition (i.e., not receiving the PLUS intervention at Site 3) on log-transformed Viral Load was estimated against the No-Treatment Control EMR Group.|||58.14|-49.76|0.88
90861663|NCT02390908|181586217|SUPERIORITY||Slope|7.67||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.88|35.21||Piecemeal latent growth curves (LGC) were specified with intercepts and linear slopes. Slope 1 estimated here represents linear change in CD4 count across the 3-,6-,9- and 12-month follow-ups for Site 1 relative to the No-Treatment EMR Control Group.|Latent Growth Curve|Analysis adjusted for gender and pre-baseline value of the outcome.||||35.21|-19.88|0.59
90861664|NCT02390908|181586217|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-24.95||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.78|16.88||Piecemeal latent growth curves (LGC) were specified with intercepts and linear slopes. Slope 1 estimated here represents linear change in CD4 count across the 3-,6-,9- and 12-month follow-ups for Site 2 relative to the No-Treatment EMR Control Group.|Latent Growth Curve|Analysis adjusted for gender and pre-baseline value of the outcome.||||16.88|-66.78|0.24
90906498|NCT02373813|181680596|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.0||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.9|35.2||The risk difference and its p-value were estimated from the Chi-squared test with continuity correction.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||Week 48||35.2|7.9|0.004
90906499|NCT02373813|181680597|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|27.6||The risk difference and its p-value were estimated from the Chi-squared test with continuity correction.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||Baseline||27.6|-5.4|0.25
90906500|NCT02373813|181680597|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.7||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|13.8||The risk difference and its p-value were estimated from the Chi-squared test with continuity correction.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||Baseline||13.8|-12.5|1.00
90861665|NCT02390908|181586217|SUPERIORITY||Slope|18.32||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.63|43.27||Piecemeal latent growth curves (LGC) were specified with intercepts and linear slopes. Slope 1 estimated here represents linear change in CD4 count across the 3-,6-,9- and 12-month follow-ups for Site 3 relative to the No-Treatment EMR Control Group.|Latent Growth Curve|Analysis adjusted for gender and pre-baseline value of the outcome.||||43.27|-6.63|0.15
91105825|NCT03816891|182097790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-10.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.08||0.1318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.7|3.3||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 35||3.3|-24.7|0.1318
91105826|NCT03816891|182097790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.99||0.4458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.1|8.5||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 35||8.5|-19.1|0.4458
91105827|NCT03816891|182097790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-16.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.11||0.0229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.4|-2.3||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 36||-2.3|-30.4|0.0229
91105828|NCT03816891|182097790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-11.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.11||0.0978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.9|2.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 36||2.2|-25.9|0.0978
91105829|NCT03816891|182097790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.93||0.3792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.8|7.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 36||7.6|-19.8|0.3792
91105830|NCT03816891|182097790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-15.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.22||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.2|-1.7||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 37||-1.7|-30.2|0.0290
91105831|NCT03816891|182097790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-10.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.15||0.1306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.0|3.3||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 37||3.3|-25.0|0.1306
91105832|NCT03816891|182097790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.99||0.3923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.8|7.8||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 37||7.8|-19.8|0.3923
91105833|NCT03816891|182097790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-16.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.19||0.0265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.3|-1.9||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 38||-1.9|-30.3|0.0265
91105834|NCT03816891|182097790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-10.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.12||0.1456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.5|3.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 38||3.6|-24.5|0.1456
90861666|NCT02390908|181586217|SUPERIORITY||Slope|10.27||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|30.74||Piecemeal latent growth curves (LGC) were specified with intercepts and linear slopes. Slope 1 estimated here represents linear change in CD4 count across the 3-,6-,9- and 12-month follow-ups for Waitlist relative to No-Treatment EMR Control Group.|Latent Growth Curve|Analysis adjusted for gender and pre-baseline value of the outcome.||||30.74|-10.20|0.33
90906501|NCT02373813|181680597|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.8||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|14.9||The risk difference and its p-value were estimated from the Chi-squared test with continuity correction.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||Week 12||14.9|-11.6|0.98
90906502|NCT02373813|181680597|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|16.2||The risk difference and its p-value were estimated from the Chi-squared test with continuity correction.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||Week 12||16.2|-6.2|0.48
91105835|NCT03816891|182097790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.96||0.5138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.3|9.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 38||9.2|-18.3|0.5138
91105836|NCT03816891|182097790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-15.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.08||0.0265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.8|-1.9||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 39||-1.9|-29.8|0.0265
91105837|NCT03816891|182097790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-11.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.05||0.0986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.7|2.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 39||2.2|-25.7|0.0986
91105838|NCT03816891|182097790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.91||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|7.3||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 39||7.3|-20.0|0.3600
90906503|NCT02373813|181680597|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.3||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|25.7||The risk difference and its p-value were estimated from the Chi-squared test with continuity correction.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||Week 24||25.7|-3.1|0.16
90906504|NCT02373813|181680597|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.3||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|11.9||The risk difference and its p-value were estimated from the Chi-squared test with continuity correction.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||Week 24||11.9|-9.0|0.94
90906505|NCT02373813|181680597|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.4||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|27.0||The risk difference and its p-value were estimated from the Chi-squared test with continuity correction.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||Week 36||27.0|-2.1|0.12
90906506|NCT02373813|181680597|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.6||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|16.8||The risk difference and its p-value were estimated from the Chi-squared test with continuity correction.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||Week 36||16.8|-5.2|0.40
91105839|NCT03816891|182097790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-15.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.09||0.0303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.5|-1.5||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||-1.5|-29.5|0.0303
90906507|NCT02373813|181680597|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.7||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|20.4||The risk difference and its p-value were estimated from the Chi-squared test with continuity correction.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||Week 48||20.4|-9.8|0.63
90906508|NCT02373813|181680597|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|4.2||The risk difference and its p-value were estimated from the Chi-squared test with continuity correction.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||Week 48||4.2|-18.0|0.31
90906509|NCT02373813|181680599|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was based on the Log-rank test for overall difference on disease-worsening event between two groups.|Log Rank|||||||< 0.001
91105840|NCT03816891|182097790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-11.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.07||0.0979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.7|2.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||2.2|-25.7|0.0979
90906510|NCT02373813|181680599|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was based on the Log-rank test for overall difference on disease-worsening event between two groups.|Log Rank|||||||< 0.001
90906511|NCT02373813|181680600|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31||||||P-value was based on the Log-rank test for overall difference on disease-worsening event between two groups.|Log Rank|||||||0.31
90906512|NCT02373813|181680600|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51||||||P-value was based on the Log-rank test for overall difference on disease-worsening event between two groups.|Log Rank|||||||0.51
91105841|NCT03816891|182097790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.92||0.3664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.9|7.4||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||7.4|-19.9|0.3664
90906513|NCT02373813|181680601|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.1||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|40.2|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||40.2|-15.2|0.58
90906514|NCT01764386|181680621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.88|-7.15|||ANCOVA|||||-7.15|-9.88|<0.0001
90906515|NCT01764386|181680622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|44.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.6|116.3|||Regression, Logistic|||||116.3|16.6|<0.0001
90906516|NCT01764386|181680623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|21.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|76.7|||Regression, Logistic|||||76.7|6.0|<0.0001
90906517|NCT01764386|181680625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.07|-7.24|||ANCOVA|||||-7.24|-10.07|<0.0001
90906518|NCT01764386|181680626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.14|-3.5|||ANCOVA|||||-3.50|-7.14|<0.0001
90906519|NCT01764386|181680627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.4||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.5|-3.3|||ANCOVA|||||-3.3|-29.5|0.0019
91105842|NCT03816891|182097790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-12.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.04||0.0806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.3|1.5||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 41||1.5|-26.3|0.0806
90906520|NCT01764386|181680628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.9686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.96|5.73|||ANCOVA|||||5.73|-5.96|0.9686
90906521|NCT01764386|181680629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.0||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.99|6.06|||ANCOVA|||||6.06|1.99|0.0001
90906522|NCT01764386|181680630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.0||||0.1706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|0.9|||ANCOVA|||||0.9|-4.9|0.1706
90906523|NCT01764386|181680631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|1.8|||ANCOVA|||||1.8|-2.6|0.7160
90906524|NCT01764386|181680632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.0||||0.0913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|4.3|||ANCOVA|||||4.3|-0.3|0.0913
90906525|NCT01764386|181680633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.5||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|-1.7|||ANCOVA|||||-1.7|-7.2|0.0016
90906526|NCT01764386|181680634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.1||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|-2.0|||ANCOVA|||||-2.0|-6.2|0.0004
90906527|NCT01764386|181680635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.7|||ANCOVA|||||-0.7|-1.7|0.0003
90906528|NCT01764386|181680636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|-6.0|||ANCOVA|||||-6.0|-9.8|<0.0001
90906529|NCT01764386|181680637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-1.1|||ANCOVA|||||-1.1|-3.1|<0.0001
90906530|NCT01764386|181680638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|17.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.45|21.36|||ANCOVA|||||21.36|13.45|<0.0001
90906531|NCT00755755|181680755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|72.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.1|83.2||As comparison involved two doses of PGL4001 vs Placebo, Bonferroni correction used with p-values doubled (threshold was 0.05) and confidence intervals adjusted|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjustment for randomization strata|Confidence intervals with the use of Newcombe-Wilson score method (uncorrected)|||83.2|55.1|<0.001
90906532|NCT00755755|181680755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|73.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.2|84.0||As comparison involved two doses of PGL4001 vs Placebo, Bonferroni correction used with p values doubled (threshold was 0.05) and confidence intervals adjusted|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjustment for randomization strata|Confidence intervals with the use of Newcombe-Wilson score method (uncorrected)|||84.0|56.2|<0.001
90861667|NCT02390908|181586217|SUPERIORITY||Slope|6.42||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.24|57.09||Piecemeal latent growth curves (LGC) were specified with intercepts and linear slopes. Slope 2 estimated here represents linear change in CD4 count across the 12-,15-, and 18-month follow-ups for Site 1 relative to the No-Treatment EMR Control Group.|Latent Growth Curve|Analysis adjusted for gender and pre-baseline value of the outcome.||||57.09|-44.24|0.80
90861668|NCT02390908|181586217|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-5.43||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-85.47|74.61||Piecemeal latent growth curves (LGC) were specified with intercepts and linear slopes. Slope 2 estimated here represents linear change in CD4 count across the 12-,15-, and 18-month follow-ups for Site 2 relative to the No-Treatment EMR Control Group.|Latent Growth Curve|Analysis adjusted for gender and pre-baseline value of the outcome.||||74.61|-85.47|0.89
90861669|NCT02390908|181586217|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.16||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.61|62.94||Piecemeal latent growth curves (LGC) were specified with intercepts and linear slopes. Slope 2 estimated here represents linear change in log VL across the 12-,15-, and 18-month follow-ups for Site 3 relative to the No-Treatment EMR Control Group.|Latent Growth Curve|Analysis adjusted for gender and pre-baseline value of the outcome.||||62.94|-60.61|0.97
90861670|NCT02390908|181586217|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-38.4||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-79.51|2.72||Piecemeal latent growth curves (LGC) were specified with intercepts and linear slopes. Slope 2 estimated here represents linear change in log VL across the 12-,15-, and 18-month follow-ups for Waitlist relative to the No-Treatment EMR Control Group.|Latent Growth Curve|Analysis adjusted for gender and pre-baseline value of the outcome.||||2.72|-79.51|0.07
90861671|NCT02390908|181586218|SUPERIORITY||Beta|-7.87||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.52|4.78||A latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The intercept quoted here represents the difference between Site 1 and the Waitlist Group at the 3-month follow-up.|Latent Growth Curve|Analysis adjusted for gender and pre-baseline value of the outcome.|The main effect of receiving the PLUS intervention at Site 1 on ART Medication Adherence was estimated against Site 3's Waitlist Control Group.|||4.78|-20.52|0.22
90861672|NCT02390908|181586218|SUPERIORITY||Beta|10.29||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.25|26.82||A latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The intercept quoted here represents the difference between Site 2 and the Waitlist Group at the 3-month follow-up.|Latent Growth Curve|Analysis adjusted for gender and pre-baseline value of the outcome.|The main effect of receiving the PLUS intervention at Site 2 on ART Medication Adherence was estimated against Site 3's Waitlist Control Group.|||26.82|-6.25|0.22
90861673|NCT02390908|181586218|SUPERIORITY||Beta|-0.27||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.63|11.08||A latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The intercept quoted here represents the difference between Site 3's Immediate Delivery Group and the Waitlist Group at the 3-month follow-up.|Latent Growth Curve|Analysis adjusted for gender and baseline value of the outcome.|The main effect of receiving the PLUS intervention immediately at Site 3 on ART Medication Adherence was estimated against Site 3's Waitlist Control Group.|||11.08|-11.63|0.96
90861674|NCT02390908|181586218|SUPERIORITY||Slope|6.34||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|11.97||A latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The slope estimated here represents linear change in Medication Adherence across the 3-, 6-, 9- and 12-month follow-ups for Site 1 relative to Waitlist Control Group.|Latent Growth Curve|Analysis adjusted for gender and baseline value of the outcome.||||11.97|0.72|0.03
90861675|NCT02390908|181586218|SUPERIORITY||Slope|3.35||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.78|11.47||A latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The slope estimated here represents linear change in Medication Adherence across the 3-, 6-, 9- and 12-month follow-ups for Site 2 relative to Waitlist Control Group.|Latent Growth Curve|Analysis adjusted for gender and baseline value of the outcome.||||11.47|-4.78|0.42
90906533|NCT00755755|181680756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-22.6||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.1|-8.2||As comparison involved two doses of PGL4001 vs Placebo, Bonferroni correction used with p-values doubled (threshold was 0.05) and confidence intervals adjusted.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Use of the Van Elteren extension to the Wilcoxon rank-sum test with adjustment for randomization strata|Hodges-Lehmann point estimator with corresponding Moses confidence interval.|||-8.2|-36.1|0.002
90906534|NCT00755755|181680756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-18.2||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.0|-5.2||As comparison involved two doses of PGL4001 vs Placebo, Bonferroni correction used with p values doubled (threshold was 0.05) and confidence intervals adjusted.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Use of the Van Elteren extension to the Wilcoxon rank-sum test with adjustment for randomization strata|Hodges-Lehmann point estimator with corresponding Moses confidence interval.|||-5.2|-33.0|0.006
91035952|NCT03261167|181958554|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.09|||||Week 4. Analysis method was MMRM with Treatment, Visit, Treatment by visit interation, Baseline, and Baseline by visit interaction as fixed effects.|||0.09|-0.42|
91105843|NCT03816891|182097790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-8.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.01||0.226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.4|5.3||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 41||5.3|-22.4|0.2260
91105844|NCT03816891|182097790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.92||0.3835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|7.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 41||7.6|-19.7|0.3835
90861676|NCT02390908|181586218|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.34||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.85|6.54||A latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The slope estimated here represents linear change in Medication Adherence across 3-,6-,9- and 12-month follow-ups for Site 3 (Immediate) relative to Waitlist Control Group.|Latent Growth Curve|Analysis adjusted for gender and baseline value of the outcome.||||6.54|-5.85|0.91
90861677|NCT02390908|181586219|SUPERIORITY||Beta|3.19||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|5.78||A latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The intercept quoted here represents the difference between Site 1 and the Waitlist Group at the 3-month follow-up.|Latent Growth Curve|Analysis adjusted for gender and baseline value of the outcome.|The main effect of receiving the PLUS intervention at Site 1 on Alcohol Use severity (AUDIT) was estimated against Site 3's Waitlist Control Group.|||5.78|0.61|0.02
90861678|NCT02390908|181586219|SUPERIORITY||Beta|-0.86||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.33|2.61||A latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The intercept quoted here represents the difference between Site 2 and the Waitlist Group at the 3-month follow-up.|Latent Growth Curve|Analysis adjusted for gender and baseline value of the outcome.|The main effect of receiving the PLUS intervention at Site 2 on Alcohol Use severity (AUDIT) was estimated against Site 3's Waitlist Control Group.|||2.61|-4.33|0.63
90861679|NCT02390908|181586219|SUPERIORITY||Beta|4.17||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|7.54||A latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The intercept quoted here represents the difference between Site 3's Immediate Delivery Group and the Waitlist Group at the 3-month follow-up.|Latent Growth Curve|Analysis adjusted for gender and baseline value of the outcome.|The main effect of receiving the PLUS intervention immediately at Site 3 on Alcohol Use severity (AUDIT) was estimated against Site 3's Waitlist Control Group.|||7.54|0.80|0.02
90861680|NCT02390908|181586219|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.4||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|0.67||A latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The slope estimated here represents linear change in AUDIT across the 3-, 6-, 9- and 12-month follow-ups for Site 1 relative to that for the Waitlist Control Group.|Latent Growth Curve|Analysis adjusted for gender and baseline value of the outcome.||||0.67|-1.47|0.46
90861681|NCT02390908|181586219|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.29||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|0.55||A latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The slope estimated here represents linear change in AUDIT across the 3-, 6-, 9- and 12-month follow-ups for Site 2 relative to that for the Waitlist Control Group.|Latent Growth Curve|Analysis adjusted for gender and baseline value of the outcome.||||0.55|-1.12|0.50
90861682|NCT02390908|181586219|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.35||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|0.52||A latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The slope estimated here represents linear change in AUDIT across the 3-, 6-, 9- and 12-month follow-ups for Site 3 (Immediate) relative to Waitlist Control Group.|Latent Growth Curve|Analysis adjusted for gender and baseline value of the outcome.||||0.52|-1.23|0.43
90861683|NCT01479127|181586225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.058|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||"TRS I OFF state"||||0.058
90861684|NCT01479127|181586225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||"TRS I Dyskinesia state"||||1.000
90861685|NCT01479127|181586225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.153|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||"TRS II Normal state"||||0.153
90861686|NCT01479127|181586225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||"TRS II OFF state"||||0.140
90861687|NCT01479127|181586225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.374|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||"TRS II Dyskinesia state"||||0.374
90861688|NCT01479127|181586226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.574|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.574
90861689|NCT01479127|181586226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.661|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||ON time w/o D + time with NTD||||0.661
90861690|NCT01479127|181586226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.574|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||ON time w/o D + time with NTD + time w/ TD||||0.574
90906535|NCT02531438|181680765|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 10% was used for the analysis.|treatment difference|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|3.8|||||The 95% confidence interval was constructed based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification. Treatment difference for a response of clinical success was calculated as omadacycline minus moxifloxacin.|||3.8|-7.1|
90861691|NCT01479127|181586227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon one-sample test|||Rapid alternating movement of hands||||0.500
90861692|NCT01479127|181586227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon one-sample test|||Arising from chair||||1.000
90861693|NCT01479127|181586227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon one-sample test|||Postural stability||||0.250
90861694|NCT01479127|181586227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon one-sample test|||Body bradykinesia and hypokinesia||||0.500
90861695|NCT01479127|181586227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon one-sample test|||Dyskinesia||||0.250
90861696|NCT01479127|181586228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Total score||||0.870
90861697|NCT01479127|181586228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.374|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Part I||||0.374
90861698|NCT01479127|181586228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.799|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Part II||||0.799
90861699|NCT01479127|181586228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.493|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Part II (Off-time)||||0.493
90861700|NCT01479127|181586228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Part III||||0.530
90861701|NCT01479127|181586228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.108|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Part IV sub-score of dyskinesia||||0.108
90861702|NCT01479127|181586229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.636|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Total score||||0.636
90861703|NCT01479127|181586229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.329|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Domain: Mobility||||0.329
90861704|NCT01479127|181586229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.902|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Domain: Activities of daily living||||0.902
90861705|NCT01479127|181586229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Domain: Emotional well-being||||0.220
90861706|NCT01479127|181586229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.799|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Domain: Stigma||||0.799
90861707|NCT01479127|181586229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.178|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Domain: Social support||||0.178
90861708|NCT01479127|181586229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.456|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Domain: Cognition||||0.456
90861709|NCT01479127|181586229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.866|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Domain: Communication||||0.866
90906536|NCT02531438|181680766|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 10% was used for the analysis.|treatment difference|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|7.4|||||The 95% confidence interval was constructed based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification. Treatment difference for a response of clinical success was calculated as omadacycline minus moxifloxacin.|||7.4|-2.4|
91105845|NCT03816891|182097790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-13.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.9||0.0594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.7|0.5||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 42||0.5|-26.7|0.0594
91105846|NCT03816891|182097790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-8.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.91||0.2189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.2|5.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 42||5.1|-22.2|0.2189
90861710|NCT01479127|181586229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.576|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Domain: Bodily discomfort||||0.576
90861711|NCT01479127|181586230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon one-sample test|||"On state staging"||||1.000
90861712|NCT01479127|181586230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon one-sample test|||"Off state staging"||||1.000
90861713|NCT01479127|181586231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.125|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon one-sample test|||||||0.125
90861714|NCT01479127|181586236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.074|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.074
90861715|NCT03469934|181586265|OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.058||||0.5703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.265|0.15|||Mixed-model repeated measures|||Mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis with fixed terms for treatment, time point of measurement, and treatment by time point interaction, baseline eosinophil count as a covariate, and a repeated time point effect within a participant.||0.150|-0.265|0.5703
90861716|NCT03469934|181586269|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.05||||0.5901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.239|0.139|||Mixed-model repeated measures|||MMRM analysis with fixed terms for treatment, time point of measurement, and treatment by time point interaction, baseline eosinophil count as a covariate, and a repeated time point effect within a participant.||0.139|-0.239|0.5901
90861717|NCT03469934|181586270|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.164||0.596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.43|||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline for FEV1 was compared between etokimab and placebo using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as fixed effect and baseline result as covariate and participant as a random effect||0.43|-0.25|0.5960
90861718|NCT03469934|181586271|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.823||0.7993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.9|22.96|||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline for FeNO was compared between etokimab and placebo using an ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline result as covariate and participant as a random effect||22.96|-17.90|0.7993
90861719|NCT05280782|181586285|EQUIVALENCE|A McNemar test was performed between baseline and post-injection Systolic Blood Pressure values. The values were categorized as Normal or Abnormal.|||||||||||||||||The McNemar test requires at least one participant for each outcome (Normal or Abnormal). Thus, no p-value was computed because all of the Systolic Blood Pressure values were normal.|||
90861720|NCT05280782|181586285|EQUIVALENCE|A McNemar test was performed between baseline and post-injection Diastolic Blood Pressure values. The values were categorized as Normal or Abnormal.|||||||||||||||||The McNemar test requires at least one participant for each outcome (Normal or Abnormal). Thus, no p-value was computed because all of the Diastolic Blood Pressure values were normal.|||
90861721|NCT05280782|181586286|EQUIVALENCE|A McNemar test was performed between baseline and post-injection Heart Rate values. The values were categorized as Normal or Abnormal.|||||||||||||||||The McNemar test requires at least one participant for each outcome (Normal or Abnormal). Thus, no p-value was computed because all of the Heart Rate values were normal.|||
90861722|NCT05280782|181586287|EQUIVALENCE|A McNemar test was performed between baseline and post-injection Respiratory Rate values. The values were categorized as Normal or Abnormal.||||||0.016||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|McNemar|||||||0.016
90861723|NCT05280782|181586288|EQUIVALENCE|A McNemar test was performed between baseline and post-injection Temperature values. The values were categorized as Normal or Abnormal.|||||||||||||||||The McNemar test requires at least one participant for each outcome (Normal or Abnormal). Thus, no p-value was computed because all of the Temperature values were normal.|||
90861724|NCT05280782|181586289|EQUIVALENCE|A McNemar test was performed between baseline and post-injection EKG. The outcomes were categorized as Normal or Abnormal.|||||||||||||||||The McNemar test requires at least one participant for each outcome (Normal or Abnormal). Thus, no p-value was computed because all of the EKGs were normal.|||
90861725|NCT05280782|181586290|EQUIVALENCE|A McNemar test was performed between baseline and post-injection EKG. The outcomes were categorized as Normal or Abnormal.|||||||||||||||||The McNemar test requires at least one participant for each outcome (Normal or Abnormal). Thus, no p-value was computed because all of the EKGs were normal.|||
90861726|NCT05280782|181586291|EQUIVALENCE|A McNemar test was performed between baseline and post-injection Sodium values. The values were categorized as Normal or Abnormal.|||||||||||||||||The McNemar test requires at least one participant for each outcome (Normal or Abnormal). Thus, no p-value was computed because all of the Sodium values were normal.|||
90861727|NCT05280782|181586291|EQUIVALENCE|A McNemar test was performed between baseline and post-injection Potassium values. The values were categorized as Normal or Abnormal.|||||||||||||||||The McNemar test requires at least one participant for each outcome (Normal or Abnormal). Thus, no p-value was computed because all of the Potassium values were normal.|||
90861728|NCT05280782|181586291|EQUIVALENCE|A McNemar test was performed between baseline and post-injection Chloride values. The values were categorized as Normal or Abnormal.|||||||||||||||||The McNemar test requires at least one participant for each outcome (Normal or Abnormal). Thus, no p-value was computed because all of the Chloride values were normal.|||
90861729|NCT05280782|181586291|EQUIVALENCE|A McNemar test was performed between baseline and post-injection CO2 values. The values were categorized as Normal or Abnormal.||||||0.219||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|McNemar|||||||0.219
90906537|NCT02531438|181680767|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 10% was used for the analysis.|treatment difference|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|6.8|||||The 95% confidence interval was constructed based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification. Treatment difference for a response of clinical success was calculated as omadacycline minus moxifloxacin.|||6.8|-1.7|
90906538|NCT01813422|181680771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-1.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.187|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.375|-0.64|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for the treatment group, the geographic region stratification factor, and baseline PAV.|Treatment difference uses placebo as the reference.|||-0.640|-1.375|< 0.0001
90906539|NCT01813422|181680772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-4.889|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.201|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.247|-2.531|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for the treatment group, the geographic region stratification factor, and baseline TAV.|Treatment difference uses placebo as the reference.|||-2.531|-7.247|< 0.0001
90906540|NCT01813422|181680773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|17.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.3|23.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on CMH test stratified by geographic region.|Treatment difference uses placebo as the reference.|||23.5|10.3|< 0.0001
90906541|NCT01813422|181680774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|12.5||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.8|19.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on CMH test stratified by geographic region.|Treatment difference uses placebo as the reference.|||19.1|5.8|0.0002
90906542|NCT00811187|181680789|SUPERIORITY|\[Not Specified\]|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Treatment pain difference= Lidocaine (0.97) - Placebo (3.00).|A sample size calculation and power analysis was conducted using PS Power and Sample Size Calculations 2.1.30 (Vanderbilt University, Department of Biostatistics, Nashville, TN) to determine necessary sample size.||||<.001
90906543|NCT00083174|181680876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.35||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.7|||Log Rank|||The null hypothesis was no difference between two groups. The sample size estimate was based on an assumption of annual invasive breast cancer rate of 0.60% in the placebo group and 0.21% in exemestane group, a relative reduction of 65% with exemestane. To detect this with a two-sided 5% level and 90% power, a total of 38 cases of invasive breast cancer were required, projected to occur when 4560 women were randomly assigned in a 3-year period and then followed for an additional 1.2 years.||0.70|0.18|0.002
90861730|NCT05280782|181586292|EQUIVALENCE|A McNemar test was performed between baseline and post-injection Glucose values. The values were categorized as Normal or Abnormal.||||||0.375||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|McNemar|||||||0.375
90861731|NCT05280782|181586292|EQUIVALENCE|A McNemar test was performed between baseline and post-injection Calcium values. The values were categorized as Normal or Abnormal.||||||0.375||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|McNemar|||||||0.375
90861732|NCT05280782|181586292|EQUIVALENCE|A McNemar test was performed between baseline and post-injection Creatinine values. The values were categorized as Normal or Abnormal.||||||0.453||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|McNemar|||||||0.453
90861733|NCT05280782|181586292|EQUIVALENCE|A McNemar test was performed between baseline and post-injection BUN values. The values were categorized as Normal or Abnormal.||||||0.125||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|McNemar|||||||0.125
90861734|NCT05280782|181586292|EQUIVALENCE|A McNemar test was performed between baseline and post-injection Total Bilirubin values. The values were categorized as Normal or Abnormal.||||||0.219||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|McNemar|||||||0.219
90861735|NCT05280782|181586293|EQUIVALENCE|A McNemar test was performed between baseline and post-injection Total Protein values. The values were categorized as Normal or Abnormal.|||||||||||||||||The McNemar test requires at least one participant for each outcome (Normal or Abnormal). Thus, no p-value was computed because all of the Total Protein values were normal.|||
90861736|NCT05280782|181586293|EQUIVALENCE|A McNemar test was performed between baseline and post-injection Albumin values. The values were categorized as Normal or Abnormal.||||||0.219||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|McNemar|||||||0.219
90906544|NCT00083174|181680877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.47||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.79|||Log Rank|||||0.79|0.27|0.004
90906545|NCT00083174|181680878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.36||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|1.12|||Log Rank|||||1.12|0.11|0.07
90906546|NCT02444143|181680883|OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.29
90906547|NCT02444143|181680884|OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.90
90861737|NCT05280782|181586294|EQUIVALENCE|A McNemar test was performed between baseline and post-injection Alkaline Phosphatase values. The values were categorized as Normal or Abnormal.|||||||||||||||||The McNemar test requires at least one participant for each outcome (Normal or Abnormal). Thus, no p-value was computed because all of the Alkaline Phosphatase values were normal.|||
90906548|NCT03582137|181680885|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.8049||||0.3785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8839|2.2741|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.2741|-5.8839|0.3785
90906549|NCT03582137|181680889|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.4254||||0.2712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4018|3.551|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.5510|-12.4018|0.2712
90906550|NCT03582137|181680890|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3133||||0.8974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5414|5.168|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.1680|-4.5414|0.8974
91035953|NCT03261167|181958554|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.08|||||Week 6. Analysis method was MMRM with Treatment, Visit, Treatment by visit interation, Baseline, and Baseline by visit interaction as fixed effects.|||0.08|-0.37|
90861738|NCT05280782|181586294|EQUIVALENCE|A McNemar test was performed between baseline and post-injection ALT values. The values were categorized as Normal or Abnormal.||||||0.219||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|McNemar|||||||0.219
90906551|NCT03582137|181680891|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1505||||0.4643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2882|0.5892|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.5892|-0.2882|0.4643
90906552|NCT03582137|181680892|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1188||||0.6245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6019|0.3644|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.3644|-0.6019|0.6245
90906553|NCT03582137|181680898|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3341||||0.5921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5749|0.9068|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.9068|-1.5749|0.5921
90906554|NCT03582137|181680899|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.9352||||0.1016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4372|4.3076|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.3076|-0.4372|0.1016
90906555|NCT03582137|181680900|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|19.686||||0.0661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3733|40.7452|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||40.7452|-1.3733|0.0661
90906556|NCT03582137|181680901|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.2214||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9381|0.4953|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.4953|-6.9381|0.0880
90906557|NCT03582137|181680902|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.9836||||0.2827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.2093|4.2421|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.2421|-14.2093|0.2827
90861739|NCT05280782|181586294|EQUIVALENCE|A McNemar test was performed between baseline and post-injection AST values. The values were categorized as Normal or Abnormal.|||||||||||||||||The McNemar test requires at least one participant for each outcome (Normal or Abnormal). Thus, no p-value was computed because all of the AST values were normal.|||
90861740|NCT05280782|181586295|EQUIVALENCE|A McNemar test was performed between baseline and post-injection WBC values. The values were categorized as Normal or Abnormal.||||||0.687||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|McNemar|||||||0.687
90861741|NCT05280782|181586296|EQUIVALENCE|A McNemar test was performed between baseline and post-injection Hemoglobin values. The values were categorized as Normal or Abnormal.||||||0.375||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|McNemar|||||||0.375
90861742|NCT05280782|181586297|EQUIVALENCE|A McNemar test was performed between baseline and post-injection Hematocrit values. The values were categorized as Normal or Abnormal.||||||1||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|McNemar|||||||1.000
90861743|NCT05280782|181586298|EQUIVALENCE|A McNemar test was performed between baseline and post-injection Platelets values. The values were categorized as Normal or Abnormal.|||||||||||||||||The McNemar test requires at least one participant for each outcome (Normal or Abnormal). Thus, no p-value was computed because all of the Platelets values were normal.|||
90861744|NCT05280782|181586299|EQUIVALENCE|A McNemar test was performed between baseline and post-injection RBC values. The values were categorized as Normal or Abnormal.||||||0.375||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|McNemar|||||||0.375
90861745|NCT05280782|181586300|EQUIVALENCE|A McNemar test was performed between baseline and post-injection MCV values. The values were categorized as Normal or Abnormal.|||||||||||||||||The McNemar test requires at least one participant for each outcome (Normal or Abnormal). Thus, no p-value was computed because all of the MCV values were normal.|||
90861746|NCT02761733|181586317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.3652||||0.0679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9559|0.2255||a priori test|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Mean Difference Test using LSMEANS pdiff test in SAS PROC MIXED 9.4|Satterthwaite adjusted df = 173|||.2255|-6.9559|.0679
90861747|NCT02761733|181586317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.882||||0.0999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2957|0.5317||a priori test|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Mean Difference Test using LSMEANS pdiff test in SAS PROC MIXED 9.4|Satterthwaite adjusted df = 165|||0.5317|-6.2957|.0999
90861748|NCT02761733|181586317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0139||||0.5588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4957|2.3779||a priori test|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Mean Difference Test using LSMEANS pdiff test in SAS PROC MIXED 9.4|Satterthwaite adjusted df = 148|||2.3779|-4.4957|.5588
90861749|NCT02761733|181586317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2798||||0.8532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6771|3.2367||a priori test|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Mean Difference Test using LSMEANS pdiff test in SAS PROC MIXED 9.4|Satterthwaite adjusted df = 136|||3.2367|-2.6771|.8532
90861750|NCT02761733|181586318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.4524||||0.0988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5302|0.6254||a priori test|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Mean Difference Test using LSMEANS pdiff test in SAS PROC MIXED 9.4|Satterthwaite adjusted df = 180|||0.6254|-7.5302|.0988
90861751|NCT02761733|181586318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3087||||0.876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1799|3.5625||a priori test|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Mean Difference Test using LSMEANS pdiff test in SAS PROC MIXED 9.4|Satterthwaite adjusted df = 166|||3.5625|-4.1799|.8760
90861752|NCT02761733|181586318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.541||||0.1878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2234|6.3054||a priori test|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Mean Difference Test using LSMEANS pdiff test in SAS PROC MIXED 9.4|Satterthwaite adjusted df = 153|||6.3054|-1.2234|.1878
90861753|NCT02761733|181586318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.6237||||0.333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|1.6526||a priori test|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Mean Difference Test using LSMEANS pdiff test in SAS PROC MIXED 9.4|Satterthwaite adjusted df = 143|||1.6526|-4.9000|.3330
91105847|NCT03816891|182097790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.79||0.5238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|9.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 42||9.1|-17.8|0.5238
90861754|NCT02761733|181586319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.9284||||0.6588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4728|6.616||a priori test|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Mean Difference Test using LSMEANS pdiff test in SAS PROC MIXED 9.4|Satterthwaite adjusted df = 175|||6.6160|-10.4728|.6588
90861755|NCT02761733|181586319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.3959||||0.2633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2237|11.0155||Least Squares Mean Difference Test using LSMEANS pdiff test in SAS PROC MIXED 9.4|Mixed Models Analysis|Satterthwaite adjusted df = 169||a priori test||11.0155|-2.2237|.2633
90861756|NCT02761733|181586319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.9703||||0.0343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.2107|-0.7299||Least Squares Mean Difference Test using LSMEANS pdiff test in SAS PROC MIXED 9.4|Mixed Models Analysis|Satterthwaite adjusted df = 166|Satterthwaite adjusted df = 166|a priori test||-0.7299|-17.2107|.0343
90861757|NCT02761733|181586319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.7297||||0.3126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4864|10.9458||Least Squares Mean Difference Test using LSMEANS pdiff test in SAS PROC MIXED 9.4|Mixed Models Analysis||Satterthwaite adjusted df = 163|a priori test||10.9458|-3.4864|.3126
91035954|NCT03261167|181958554|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.04|||||Week 12. Analysis method was MMRM with Treatment, Visit, Treatment by visit interation, Baseline, and Baseline by visit interaction as fixed effects.|||-0.04|-0.52|
90861758|NCT02761733|181586320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1241||||0.584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5675|0.3193||a priori test|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Mean Difference Test using LSMEANS pdiff test in SAS PROC MIXED 9.4|Satterthwaite adjusted df = 142|||.3193|-.5675|.5840
90861759|NCT02761733|181586320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2642||||0.2404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1754|0.7038||a priori test|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Mean Difference Test using LSMEANS pdiff test in SAS PROC MIXED 9.4|Satterthwaite adjusted df = 184|||.7038|-.1754|.2404
90861760|NCT02761733|181586320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3192||||0.1074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0667|0.7051||a priori test|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Mean Difference Test using LSMEANS pdiff test in SAS PROC MIXED 9.4|Satterthwaite adjusted df = 129|||.7051|-.0667|.1074
90861761|NCT02761733|181586320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0576||||0.7677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3238|0.439||a priori test|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Mean Difference Test using LSMEANS pdiff test in SAS PROC MIXED 9.4|Satterthwaite adjusted df = 131|||.4390|-.3238|.7677
90861762|NCT02761733|181586321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.026||||0.9046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4507|0.3987||a priori test|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Mean Difference Test using LSMEANS pdiff test in SAS PROC MIXED 9.4|Satterthwaite adjusted df = 182|||.3987|-.4507|.9046
90861763|NCT02761733|181586321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2258||||0.2518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1591|0.6107||a priori test|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Mean Difference Test using LSMEANS pdiff test in SAS PROC MIXED 9.4|Satterthwaite adjusted df = 173|||.6107|-.1591|.2518
90861764|NCT02761733|181586321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.437||||0.0338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.837|-0.037||a priori test|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Mean Difference Test using LSMEANS pdiff test in SAS PROC MIXED 9.4|Satterthwaite adjusted df = 165|||-.0370|-.8370|.0338
90861765|NCT02761733|181586321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2564||||0.1555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6086|0.0958||a priori test|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Mean Difference Test using LSMEANS pdiff test in SAS PROC MIXED 9.4|Satterthwaite adjusted df = 157|||.0958|-.6086|.1555
90861766|NCT02761733|181586322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2967||||0.0283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5599|-0.0335||a priori test|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Mean Difference Test using LSMEANS pdiff test in SAS PROC MIXED 9.4|Satterthwaite adjusted df = 213|||-.0335|-.5599|.0283
90861767|NCT02761733|181586322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0401||||0.7407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1969|0.2771||a priori test|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Mean Difference Test using LSMEANS pdiff test in SAS PROC MIXED 9.4|Satterthwaite adjusted df = 194|||.2771|-.1969|.7407
90861768|NCT02761733|181586322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2338||||0.0619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4778|0.0102||a priori test|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Mean Difference Test using LSMEANS pdiff test in SAS PROC MIXED 9.4|Satterthwaite adjusted df = 186|||.0102|-.4778|.0619
90861769|NCT02761733|181586322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3793||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.599|-0.1596||a priori test|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Mean Difference Test using LSMEANS pdiff test in SAS PROC MIXED 9.4|Satterthwaite adjusted df = 172|||-.1596|-.5990|.0009
90861770|NCT00810693|181586329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Prespecified significance level for all significance tests was 5%. Primary analysis due to result of Shapiro-Wilk test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Test was stratified by region and therapy naive/add-on therapy||Missing values for participants who withdrew/died before 12 weeks were imputed with worst value of 0m in case of death or clinical worsening without termination visit and with last observed value otherwise. Comparison was done using ANCOVA, with baseline 6MWD as a covariate and treatment group, region and treatment naive/add-on therapy as main effects. The primary statistical method was the stratified Wilcoxon test if the Shapiro-Wilk test for normality of residuals was statistically significant||||<0.0001
90861771|NCT00810693|181586329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|35.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.06|51.51||Additional analysis due to result of Shapiro-Wilk test.|ANCOVA|||||51.51|20.06|<0.0001
90861772|NCT00810693|181586329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0001|||||||Shapiro-Wilk|||Shapiro-Wilk test for normality of ANCOVA residuals.||||0.0001
90861773|NCT00810693|181586330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Hierarchical testing for secondary efficacy parameters in the order: PVR, NT-proBNP, WHO functional class, TTCW, Borg scale, EQ5D, LPH. Primary analysis due to result of Shapiro-Wilk test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Test was stratified by region and therapy naive/add-on therapy||Missing values at week 12 were imputed using the last available post-baseline observation. Same analysis method as for primary efficacy parameter.||||<0.0001
90861774|NCT00810693|181586330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-225.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-281.37|-170.08||Additional analysis due to result of Shapiro-Wilk test.|ANCOVA|||||-170.08|-281.37|<0.0001
90861775|NCT00810693|181586330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0001|||||||Shapiro-Wilk|||Shapiro-Wilk test for normality of ANCOVA residuals.||||0.0001
90861776|NCT00810693|181586331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||"Hierarchical testing for secondary efficacy parameters in the order: PVR, NT-proBNP, WHO functional class, Time to clinical worsening, Borg scale, EQ5D, LPH.~Primary analysis due to result of Shapiro-Wilk test."|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Test was stratified by region and therapy naive/add-on therapy||Missing values at week 12 were imputed using the last available post-baseline observation. Same analysis method as for primary efficacy parameter.||||<0.0001
90861777|NCT00810693|181586331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-431.81||||0.0157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-781.52|-82.1||Additional analysis due to result of Shapiro-Wilk test.|ANCOVA|||||-82.10|-781.52|0.0157
90861778|NCT00810693|181586331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0001|||||||Shapiro-Wilk|||Shapiro-Wilk test for normality of ANCOVA residuals.||||0.0001
90861779|NCT00810693|181586332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0033||||||Hierarchical testing for secondary efficacy parameters in the order: PVR, NT-proBNP, WHO functional class, Time to clinical worsening, Borg scale, EQ5D, LPH.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Test was stratified by region and therapy naive/add-on therapy||Missing values for participants who withdrew or died before 12 weeks were imputed with a worst value of IV in case of clinical worsening without termination visit or measurement at that termination visit and with a worst value of V in case of death and with the last observed value otherwise.||||0.0033
90861780|NCT00810693|181586333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.2||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.85|-0.55||Hierarchical testing for secondary efficacy parameters in the order: PVR, NT-proBNP, WHO functional class, Time to clinical worsening, Borg scale, EQ5D, LPH.|Log Rank|Test was stratified by region and therapy naive/add-on therapy|Based on Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by region and therapy naive/add-on therapy.|"The test is for difference of occurence of Any event."||-0.55|-9.85|0.0046
90861781|NCT00810693|181586334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0022||||||Hierarchical testing for secondary efficacy parameters in the order: PVR, NT-proBNP, WHO functional class, Time to clinical worsening, Borg scale, EQ5D, LPH.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Test was stratified by region and therapy naive/add-on therapy||Missing values for participants who withdrew or died before 12 weeks were imputed with a worst value of 10 in case of death or clinical worsening without termination visit and with the last observed value otherwise.||||0.0022
90906558|NCT03582137|181680903|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.576||||0.7703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3697|4.5216|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.5216|-3.3697|0.7703
90906559|NCT03582137|181680904|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8834||||0.1874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2172|0.4504|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.4504|-2.2172|0.1874
90906560|NCT03582137|181680907|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.2993||||0.1646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5533|3.1519|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.1519|-0.5533|0.1646
90906561|NCT03582137|181680908|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.7519||||0.1093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9082|0.4045|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.4045|-3.9082|0.1093
90906562|NCT03582137|181680909|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.3532||||0.1819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6511|3.3576|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.3576|-0.6511|0.1819
90906563|NCT03582137|181680910|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9667||||0.2282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6287|2.5621|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.5621|-0.6287|0.2282
90906564|NCT03582137|181680911|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2614||||0.6167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3002|0.7775|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.7775|-1.3002|0.6167
90906565|NCT03582137|181680912|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3067||||0.8378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6765|3.2899|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.2899|-2.6765|0.8378
90906566|NCT03582137|181680914|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3237||||0.2103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.188|0.8353|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.8353|-0.1880|0.2103
90906567|NCT03582137|181680915|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.504||||0.7197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3015|2.2934|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.2934|-3.3015|0.7197
91105848|NCT03816891|182097790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-10.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.92||0.1204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.5|2.9||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 43||2.9|-24.5|0.1204
91105849|NCT03816891|182097790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-10.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.84||0.1129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.4|2.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 43||2.6|-24.4|0.1129
90906568|NCT03582137|181680916|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.6158||||0.0686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2058|5.4373|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.4373|-0.2058|0.0686
90906569|NCT03582137|181680917|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.7891||||0.2339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8523|7.4304|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.4304|-1.8523|0.2339
90906570|NCT03582137|181680918|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9536||||0.7557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1655|7.0727|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.0727|-5.1655|0.7557
90906571|NCT03582137|181680920|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05126||||0.915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9086|1.0111|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.0111|-0.9086|0.9150
90906572|NCT03582137|181680921|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6699||||0.6164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3316|1.9918|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.9918|-3.3316|0.6164
90906573|NCT03582137|181680922|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1358||||0.755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0028|0.7312|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.7312|-1.0028|0.7550
90906574|NCT03582137|181680923|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09605||||0.9016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6449|1.4528|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.4528|-1.6449|0.9016
90906575|NCT03582137|181680924|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3217||||0.9219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8584|6.2151|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.2151|-6.8584|0.9219
90906576|NCT03582137|181680925|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02897||||0.3178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02857|0.08651|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.08651|-0.02857|0.3178
90906577|NCT03582137|181680930|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2288||||0.7693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.325|1.7825|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.7825|-1.3250|0.7693
90906578|NCT03582137|181680931|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8121||||0.5285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3743|1.7501|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.7501|-3.3743|0.5285
90906579|NCT03582137|181680932|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02525||||0.9463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7717|0.7212|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.7212|-0.7717|0.9463
90906580|NCT03582137|181680933|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3042||||0.4362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0817|0.4732|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.4732|-1.0817|0.4362
90906581|NCT03582137|181680934|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06489||||0.9327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5957|1.4659|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.4659|-1.5957|0.9327
90906582|NCT03582137|181680937|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2763||||0.4401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.988|0.4354|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.4354|-0.9880|0.4401
90906583|NCT03582137|181680938|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8319||||0.8085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6835|6.0197|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.0197|-7.6835|0.8085
90906584|NCT03582137|181680940|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02673||||0.9674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2757|1.3292|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.3292|-1.2757|0.9674
90906585|NCT03582137|181680942|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-46.92||||0.1128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-105.51|11.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.68|-105.51|0.1128
90906586|NCT00558753|181680946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.63||||0.003||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
90906587|NCT00558753|181680947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Independence: Chi-squared|10.3||||0.0013||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||For 3 month followup on incidence of neuropathic pain.||||0.0013
90906588|NCT00558753|181680947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Independence: Chi-squared|6.05||||0.0139|||||||Chi-squared|||For 6 month followup on incidence of neuropathic pain.||||0.0139
90906589|NCT00558753|181680948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-4.2||||0.0133||95.0||||Test of condition(Placebo v Pregabalin) main effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model with main effects and time by condition interaction.||Mixed model test of condition (Placebo v Pregabalin) main effect.||||0.0133
90906590|NCT00558753|181680948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Interaction Slice F-value|1.04||||0.3097||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model test of Condition Effect (Placebo v Pregabalin) at the 1-day post surgery time point (Slice)||Test of Condition Effect (Placebo v Pregabalin) at the 1-day post surgery time point (Slice)||||0.3097
90906591|NCT00558753|181680948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Interaction Slice F-value|5.1||||0.0247||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of Condition Effect (Placebo v Pregabalin) at the 2-day post surgery time point (Slice)||||0.0247
90906592|NCT00558753|181680948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Interaction Slice F-value|3.11||||0.0786||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of Condition Effect (Placebo v Pregabalin) at the 3-day post surgery time point (Slice)||||0.0786
90906593|NCT00558753|181680948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Interaction Slice F-value|5.04||||0.0254||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of Condition Effect (Placebo v Pregabalin) at the 30-day post surgery time point (Slice)||||0.0254
90906594|NCT00162942|181680961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.858|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.858
90861782|NCT00810693|181586335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0663||||||Hierarchical testing for secondary efficacy parameters in the order: PVR, NT-proBNP, WHO functional class, Time to clinical worsening, Borg scale, EQ5D, LPH. Primary analysis due to result of Shapiro-Wilk test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Test was stratified by region and therapy naive/add-on therapy.||Missing values at baseline were imputed using last available observation prior to start of study treatment. Missing values for participants who withdrew or died before 12 weeks were imputed with a worst value of -0.594 in case of death or clinical worsening without termination visit and with the last observed value otherwise.||||0.0663
90861783|NCT00810693|181586335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.0197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.11||Additional analysis due to result of Shapiro-Wilk test.|ANCOVA|||||0.11|0.01|0.0197
90861784|NCT00810693|181586335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0001|||||||Shapiro-Wilk|||Shapiro-Wilk test for normality of ANCOVA residuals.||||0.0001
90861785|NCT00810693|181586336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0019||||||"Hierarchical testing for secondary efficacy parameters in the order: PVR, NT-proBNP, WHO FC, TTCW, Borg scale, EQ5D, LPH.~Primary analysis due to result of Shapiro-Wilk test. Nominally significant only due to hierarchical testing."|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Test was stratified by region and therapy naive/add-on therapy.||Missing values at baseline were imputed using last available observation prior to start of study treatment. Missing values for participants who withdrew or died before 12 weeks were imputed with a worst value of 105 in case of death or clinical worsening without termination visit and with the last observed value otherwise.||||0.0019
90861786|NCT00810693|181586336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.17||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.79|-2.54||Additional analysis due to result of Shapiro-Wilk test.|ANCOVA|||||-2.54|-9.79|0.0009
90861787|NCT00810693|181586336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0001|||||||Shapiro-Wilk|||Shapiro-Wilk test for normality of ANCOVA residuals.||||0.0001
90861788|NCT01848704|181586375|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.71||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.35|0.07|0.03
90861789|NCT01848704|181586376|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|-0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.05|-1.13|0.03
90861790|NCT01848704|181586377|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.19|-0.95|0.18
90861791|NCT01848704|181586378|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.77||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|1.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.47|0.08|0.029
90861792|NCT01848704|181586379|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.64||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|1.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.31|-0.03|0.061
90906595|NCT00162942|181680963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.813||95.0|||||Student's t-test|||||||0.813
90861793|NCT01498978|181586392|OTHER|Exact binomial test (two-sided).||||||0.754|||||||Exact Binomial Test|||Exact binomial test (two-sided). Null hypothesis: the proportion is equal to 0.5||||0.754
90861794|NCT01498978|181586393|OTHER|Test of association (contingency) between the two kinds of classification.||||||0.19|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.190
90861795|NCT01498978|181586396|OTHER|Test of association (contingency) between the two kinds of classification.||||||0.5|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.500
90861796|NCT01498978|181586397|OTHER|Test of association (contingency) between the two kinds of classification.||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
90861797|NCT01498978|181586398|OTHER|Test of association (contingency) between the two kinds of classification.||||||0.524|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.524
90861798|NCT03488355|181586405|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.15||||0.45|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.45
90861799|NCT01361568|181586413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.64|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.14|-0.78|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.78|-15.14|<0.05
90861800|NCT01361568|181586414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-420.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|139.16|<|0.01||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
90861801|NCT01361568|181586414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-230.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|92.26|<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
90861802|NCT01361568|181586414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-260.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|141.99||0.068||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.068
90861803|NCT01361568|181586415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.63|<|0.05||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
90861804|NCT01361568|181586415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.74||0.059||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.059
90861805|NCT01361568|181586416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.82|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.82|0.22|<0.05
90861806|NCT01361568|181586416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|1.17|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.17|0.11|<0.05
90861807|NCT01361568|181586417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom (df = 1)||||||0.001
90861808|NCT01361568|181586418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
90861809|NCT01361568|181586419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
90861810|NCT01999868|181586428|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41||||||Two-sided test.|Regression, Logistic|Randomization stratum (PASI score at week 0: 12-20 or \>20) and duration of disease prior to screening, centered about the median, are covariates.||Week 12 to 88. This interval corresponds to the time from randomization until the end of the study. This analysis is the primary analysis of the primary endpoint.||||0.41
90906596|NCT00162942|181680964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
90906597|NCT00162942|181680965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67||95.0|||||Student's t-test|||||||0.670
90906598|NCT00162942|181680966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.977||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.977
90906599|NCT00162942|181680967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.670
90906600|NCT00162942|181680968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.170
90906601|NCT00162942|181680969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0773||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0773
90906602|NCT00162942|181680970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.261||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.261
90861811|NCT01999868|181586428|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013||||||Two-sided test.|Regression, Logistic|Randomization stratum (PASI score at week 0: 12-20 or \>20) and duration of disease prior to screening, centered about the median, are covariates.||Week 12 to 40. This interval corresponds to the time from randomization until the end of the blinded treatment phase.||||0.013
90861812|NCT01999868|181586428|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5||||||Two-sided test.|Regression, Logistic|Randomization stratum (PASI score at week 0: 12-20 or \>20) and duration of disease prior to screening, centered about the median, are covariates.||Week 28 to 88. This interval corresponds to the time from the last scheduled dose of ustekinumab or ustekinumab placebo until the end of the study.||||0.50
90861813|NCT01999868|181586428|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67||||||Two-sided test.|Regression, Logistic|Randomization stratum (PASI score at week 0: 12-20 or \>20) and duration of disease prior to screening, centered about the median, are covariates.||Week 40 to 88. This interval corresponds to the time from the beginning of the blinded observation phase until the end of the study.||||0.67
90861814|NCT01999868|181586429|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019||||||Two-sided test.|Regression, Logistic|Randomization stratum (PASI score at week 0: 12-20 or \>20) and duration of disease prior to screening, centered about the median, are covariates.||Week 12 to 88. This interval corresponds to the time from randomization until the end of the study.||||0.019
90861815|NCT01999868|181586429|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||Two-sided test.|Regression, Logistic|Randomization stratum (PASI score at week 0: 12-20 or \>20) and duration of disease prior to screening, centered about the median, are covariates.||Week 12 to 40. This interval corresponds to the time from randomization until the end of the blinded treatment phase.||||0.001
90861816|NCT01999868|181586429|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018||||||Two-sided test.|Regression, Logistic|Randomization stratum (PASI score at week 0: 12-20 or \>20) and duration of disease prior to screening, centered about the median, are covariates.||Week 28 to 88. This interval corresponds to the time from the last scheduled dose of ustekinumab or ustekinumab placebo until the end of the study.||||0.018
90861817|NCT01999868|181586429|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07||||||Two-sided test.|Regression, Logistic|Randomization stratum (PASI score at week 0: 12-20 or \>20) and duration of disease prior to screening, centered about the median, are covariates.||Week 40 to 88. This interval corresponds to the time from the beginning of the blinded observation phase until the end of the study.||||0.07
90861818|NCT01999868|181586430|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16||||||Two-sided test.|Regression, Logistic|Randomization stratum (PASI score at week 0: 12-20 or \>20) and duration of disease prior to screening, centered about the median, are covariates.||Week 12 to 88. This interval corresponds to the time from randomization until the end of the study.||||0.16
90861819|NCT01999868|181586430|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||Two-sided test.|Regression, Logistic|Randomization stratum (PASI score at week 0: 12-20 or \>20) and duration of disease prior to screening, centered about the median, are covariates.||Week 12 to 40. This interval corresponds to the time from randomization until the end of the blinded treatment phase.||||0.002
90861820|NCT01999868|181586430|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23||||||Two-sided test.|Regression, Logistic|Randomization stratum (PASI score at week 0: 12-20 or \>20) and duration of disease prior to screening, centered about the median, are covariates.||Week 28 to 88. This interval corresponds to the time from the last scheduled dose of ustekinumab or ustekinumab placebo until the end of the study.||||0.23
90861821|NCT01999868|181586430|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43||||||Two-sided test.|Regression, Logistic|Randomization stratum (PASI score at week 0: 12-20 or \>20) and duration of disease prior to screening, centered about the median, are covariates.||Week 40 to 88. This interval corresponds to the time from the beginning of the blinded observation phase until the end of the study.||||0.43
90861822|NCT01999868|181586431|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06||||||Two-sided test.|Grouped survival analysis|Randomization stratum (PASI score at week 0: 12-20 or \>20) and duration of disease prior to screening, centered about the median, are covariates.||Week 12 to 88. This interval corresponds to the time from randomization until the end of the study.||||0.06
90861823|NCT01999868|181586431|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008||||||Two-sided test.|Grouped survival analysis|Randomization stratum (PASI score at week 0: 12-20 or \>20) and duration of disease prior to screening, centered about the median, are covariates.||Week 12 to 40. This interval corresponds to the time from randomization until the end of the blinded treatment phase.||||0.008
90861824|NCT01999868|181586432|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||Two-sided test.|Grouped survival analysis|Randomization stratum (PASI score at week 0: 12-20 or \>20) and duration of disease prior to screening, centered about the median, are covariates.||Week 12 to 88. This interval corresponds to the time from randomization until the end of the study.||||0.005
90861825|NCT01999868|181586432|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||Two-sided test.|Grouped survival analysis|Randomization stratum (PASI score at week 0: 12-20 or \>20) and duration of disease prior to screening, centered about the median, are covariates.||Week 12 to 40. This interval corresponds to the time from randomization until the end of the blinded treatment phase.||||0.001
90861826|NCT01999868|181586433|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013||||||Two-sided test.|Regression, Logistic|Randomization stratum (PASI score at week 0: 12-20 or \>20) and duration of disease prior to screening, centered about the median, are covariates.||Week 40||||0.013
90861827|NCT01999868|181586433|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Regression, Logistic|Randomization stratum (PASI score at week 0: 12-20 or \>20) and duration of disease prior to screening, centered about the median, are covariates.||Week 88||||0.95
90861828|NCT01999868|181586434|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18||||||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Randomization stratum (PASI score at week 0: 12-20 or \>20), baseline DLQI, and pre-screening disease duration, centered on the median, are covariates.||Week 12 to 40||||0.18
90861829|NCT01999868|181586434|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.045||||||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Randomization (PASI score week 0:12-20 or \>20), DLQI score at baseline, duration of disease prior to screening, centered about median, are covariates||Week 12 to 88||||0.045
90861830|NCT00761631|181586442|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|1.8||||||Serotype 4: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC Group 4 - 13vPnC Group 3).||1.80|1.24|
90906603|NCT00162942|181680971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.379||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.379
90906604|NCT00162942|181680972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.441||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.441
91105850|NCT03816891|182097790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.81||0.3911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.3|7.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 43||7.6|-19.3|0.3911
91105851|NCT03816891|182097790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-12.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.93||0.0784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.0|1.4||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 44||1.4|-26.0|0.0784
91105852|NCT03816891|182097790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.9||0.3046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.7|6.5||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 44||6.5|-20.7|0.3046
91105853|NCT03816891|182097790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.82||0.5205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.9|9.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 44||9.1|-17.9|0.5205
91105854|NCT03816891|182097790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-14.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.74||0.0388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.3|-0.7||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 45||-0.7|-27.3|0.0388
91105855|NCT03816891|182097790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-10.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.75||0.1105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.2|2.5||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 45||2.5|-24.2|0.1105
90861831|NCT00761631|181586442|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.15||||||Serotype 6B: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC Group 4 - 13vPnC Group 3).||1.15|0.78|
90861832|NCT00761631|181586442|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.12||||||Serotype 9V: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC Group 4 - 13vPnC Group 3).||1.12|0.80|
91105856|NCT03816891|182097790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.68||0.7039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.7|10.7||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 45||10.7|-15.7|0.7039
91105857|NCT03816891|182097790|SUPERIORITY||ls|-11.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.82||0.0885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.2|1.8||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 46||1.8|-25.2|0.0885
90861833|NCT00761631|181586442|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|1.76||||||Serotype 14: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC Group 4 - 13vPnC Group 3).||1.76|1.19|
90861834|NCT00761631|181586442|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.86||||||Serotype 18C: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC Group 4 - 13vPnC Group 3).||0.86|0.59|
90906605|NCT00162942|181680973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.759||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.759
90906606|NCT00162942|181680974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.222||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.222
90906607|NCT00162942|181680975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.256||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.256
91105858|NCT03816891|182097790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.79||0.1535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.1|3.7||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 46||3.7|-23.1|0.1535
91105859|NCT03816891|182097790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.76||0.8975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.2|12.5||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 46||12.5|-14.2|0.8975
91105860|NCT03816891|182097790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-12.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.96||0.0674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.6|0.9||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 47||0.9|-26.6|0.0674
91105861|NCT03816891|182097790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3025||0.3025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.8|6.5||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 47||6.5|-20.8|0.3025
90906608|NCT00162942|181680976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.870
90906609|NCT00162942|181680977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.350
90906610|NCT00162942|181680978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0632||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0632
90906611|NCT00162942|181680978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0504||95.0|||||Fisher Exact (Mid-P-Value)|||||||0.0504
90906612|NCT00162942|181680979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8265||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.8265
90906613|NCT00162942|181680980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0676||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0676
90906614|NCT00162942|181680980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0506||95.0|||||Fisher Exact (Mid-P-Value)|||||||0.0506
90906615|NCT00162942|181680981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8721||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.8721
90906616|NCT00162942|181680982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0289||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0289
90906617|NCT00162942|181680983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8618||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.8618
90906618|NCT01167023|181680986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-11.26||||0.304||95.0||||Pain rate was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model, with baseline pain intensity, treatment group, and stratification variable sickle-cell genotype as explanatory variables.|ANCOVA||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference is for 5 mg prasugrel minus placebo.|||||0.304
90906619|NCT01167023|181680988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-24.051|||<|0.001||95.0||||A mixed-effects model repeated measures analysis with baseline measurement, stratification variable sickle cell genotype, treatment, time, and time\*treatment interaction as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect in the model was used.|Mixed Models Analysis||Least Squares Mean Difference is for 5 mg prasugrel minus placebo.|||||<0.001
90906620|NCT01167023|181680989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.56||||0.244||95.0||||Average pain intensity was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model, with baseline intensity, treatment group and stratification variable sickle-cell genotype as explanatory variables.|ANCOVA||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference is for 5 mg prasugrel minus placebo.|||||0.244
90906621|NCT01167023|181680990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-128.3|||<|0.001||95.0||||A mixed-effects model repeated measures analysis with baseline measurement, stratification variable sickle cell genotype, treatment, time and time\*treatment interaction as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect in the model.|Mixed Models Analysis||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference is for 5 mg prasugrel minus placebo.|||||<0.001
91105862|NCT03816891|182097790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.9||0.8964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|12.7||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 47||12.7|-14.5|0.8964
90906622|NCT00410384|181680991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.54||||0.0167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|2.19||For the primary analysis of the primary efficacy endpoint, a step-down sequential testing procedure was used to control the type 1 error.|Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline stratification factors (SELENA SLEDAI Score: ≤9 vs ≥10; proteinuria: \<2g vs ≥2g per 24hr; Race: African/indig-American vs Other)||||2.19|1.08|0.0167
91105863|NCT03816891|182097790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-12.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.79||0.0633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.1|0.7||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||0.7|-26.1|0.0633
90906623|NCT00410384|181680991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.0889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.94||After superiority of 10 mg/kg vs placebo was established, the 1 mg/kg group was tested vs placebo (2-sided alpha=0.05)|Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline stratification factors.||||1.94|0.95|0.0889
90906624|NCT00410384|181680992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.1323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.87|||Regression, Logistic|Analysis was adjusted for baseline stratification factors.||||1.87|0.92|0.1323
90906625|NCT00410384|181680992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.91|||Regression, Logistic||Analysis was adjusted for baseline stratification factors.|||1.91|0.94|0.1050
90906626|NCT00410384|181680993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|2.32|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline stratification factors.||||2.32|1.15|0.0063
90906627|NCT00410384|181680993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.96|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline stratification factors.||||1.96|0.97|0.0740
90906628|NCT00410384|181680994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7962|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline PGA and baseline stratification factors.||||||0.7962
91105864|NCT03816891|182097790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.81||0.1665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.9|4.0||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||4.0|-22.9|0.1665
91105865|NCT03816891|182097790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.78||0.7748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.3|11.4||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||11.4|-15.3|0.7748
90906629|NCT00410384|181680994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9703|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline PGA and baseline stratification factors.||||||0.9703
90906630|NCT00410384|181680995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6583|||||||ANCOVA|Analysis adjusted for baseline PCS and baseline stratification factors.||||||0.6583
90906631|NCT00410384|181680995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3762|||||||ANCOVA|Analysis adjusted for baseline PCS and baseline stratification factors.||||||0.3762
90906632|NCT00410384|181680996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.4253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|2.74|||Regression, Logistic|Analysis was adjusted for baseline prednisone dose and baseline stratification factors.||||2.74|0.65|0.4253
90906633|NCT00410384|181680996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.2081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|3.13|||Regression, Logistic|Analysis was adjusted for baseline prednisone dose and baseline stratification factors.||||3.13|0.78|0.2081
90906634|NCT01253980|181681020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative risk|0.6|||>|0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|3.37|||Fisher Exact|||||3.37|0.11|>0.50
90906635|NCT04883346|181681044|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test, 32 degrees of freedom (one participant did not have baseline DEXA data so could not be included.||||||<0.001
90906636|NCT04883346|181681045|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test, 33 degrees of freedom.||||||<0.001
90906637|NCT04883346|181681046|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test, 33 degrees of freedom||||||<0.001
90906638|NCT04883346|181681047|SUPERIORITY|Paired t-test.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test, 33 degrees of freedom||||||<0.001
91105866|NCT03816891|182097790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-10.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.04||0.1239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.8|3.0||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 49||3.0|-24.8|0.1239
91105867|NCT03816891|182097790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.17||0.3647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.7|7.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 49||7.6|-20.7|0.3647
91105868|NCT03816891|182097790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.2||0.8056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|16.0||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 49||16.0|-12.5|0.8056
91105869|NCT03816891|182097790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-11.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.35||0.1079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.4|2.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 50||2.6|-26.4|0.1079
91105870|NCT03816891|182097790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.37||0.4174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.6|8.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 50||8.6|-20.6|0.4174
90861835|NCT00761631|181586442|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|1.86||||||Serotype 19F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC Group 4 - 13vPnC Group 3).||1.86|1.15|
90861836|NCT00761631|181586442|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.42||||||Serotype 23F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC Group 4 - 13vPnC Group 3).||1.42|0.97|
90861837|NCT00761631|181586442|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|2.13||||||Serotype 1: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC Group 4 - 13vPnC Group 3).||2.13|1.36|
90861838|NCT00761631|181586442|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.67||||||Serotype 3: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC Group 4 - 13vPnC Group 3).||0.67|0.48|
90861839|NCT00761631|181586442|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.89||||||Serotype 5: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC Group 4 - 13vPnC Group 3).||0.89|0.53|
90861840|NCT00761631|181586442|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.67||||||Serotype 6A: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC Group 4 - 13vPnC Group 3).||1.67|1.05|
90861841|NCT00761631|181586442|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.76||||||Serotype 7F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC Group 4 - 13vPnC Group 3).||0.76|0.53|
90861842|NCT00761631|181586442|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.28||||||Serotype 19A: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC Group 4 - 13vPnC Group 3).||1.28|0.91|
90861843|NCT00531934|181586480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.175|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.175
90861844|NCT00531934|181586483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Erlotinib + doxycycline vs Erlotinib: Grade 3 intensity skin rash (folliculitis)||||<0.001
90861845|NCT00531934|181586489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.763||||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.525|1.109|||Log Rank|||||1.109|0.525|0.143
90861846|NCT00531934|181586492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.769||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.529|1.116|||Log Rank|||||1.116|0.529|0.153
90861847|NCT00531934|181586498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Erlotinib + doxycycline vs Erlotinib: Grade 3||||0.003
90861848|NCT05203289|181586624|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means (%)|101.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.31|111.23|||||"The estimated parameter was the adjusted geometric mean ratios (%) of BI 695501: (40 mg/0.4 mL (T))/(40 mg/0.8 mL (R)).~Geometric standard error= 105.455."|The statistical model used for the analysis of the primary endpoints was an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. The PK endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANCOVA model. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'treatment', 'location of trial medication injection' and 'baseline body weight' (continuous).||111.23|93.31|
90861849|NCT05203289|181586625|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means (%)|105.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.06|116.81|||||"The estimated parameter was the adjusted geometric mean ratios (%) of BI 695501: (40 mg/0.4 mL (T))/(40 mg/0.8 mL (R)).~Geometric standard error= 106.431."|The statistical model used for the analysis of the primary endpoints was an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. The PK endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANCOVA model. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'treatment', 'location of trial medication injection' and 'baseline body weight' (continuous).||116.81|95.06|
91105871|NCT03816891|182097790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.39||0.7815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.7|12.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 50||12.6|-16.7|0.7815
91105872|NCT03816891|182097790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-12.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.22||0.0802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.0|1.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 51||1.6|-27.0|0.0802
91105873|NCT03816891|182097790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-11.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.48||0.1386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.9|3.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 51||3.6|-25.9|0.1386
91105874|NCT03816891|182097790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.26||0.5101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.2|9.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 51||9.6|-19.2|0.5101
91105875|NCT03816891|182097790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-12.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.25||0.0972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.5|2.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||2.2|-26.5|0.0972
90861850|NCT05203289|181586626|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means (%)|91.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.38|98.76|||||"The estimated parameter was the adjusted geometric mean ratios (%) of BI 695501: (40 mg/0.4 mL (T))/(40 mg/0.8 mL (R)).~Geometric standard error= 104.874."|The statistical model used for the analysis of the primary endpoints was an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. The PK endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANCOVA model. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'treatment', 'location of trial medication injection' and 'baseline body weight' (continuous).||98.76|84.38|
90906639|NCT03714022|181681055|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence is concluded if the 90% CIs for the ratios of geometric means are contained within 0.8 to 1.25|Ratio of Geometric Means|0.998|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.941|1.058|||||Cohort A vs Cohort B|||1.058|0.941|
91105876|NCT03816891|182097790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.61||0.4454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.9|9.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||9.2|-20.9|0.4454
91105877|NCT03816891|182097790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.28||0.7638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|16.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||16.6|-12.2|0.7638
91105878|NCT03816891|182097791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.95||||0.5673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|20.86||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1||20.86|0.18|0.5673
91105879|NCT03816891|182097791|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3173||||||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1||||0.3173
91105880|NCT03816891|182097791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.57||||0.7668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|29.41||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1||29.41|0.08|0.7668
90906640|NCT03714022|181681056|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence is concluded if the 90% CIs for the ratios of geometric means are contained within 0.8 to 1.25|Ratio of Geometric Means|0.929|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.884|0.976|||||Cohort A vs Cohort B|||0.976|0.884|
90906641|NCT03714022|181681058|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence is concluded if the 90% CIs for the ratios of geometric means are contained within 0.8 to 1.25|Ratio of Geometric Means|0.936|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.891|0.983|||||Cohort A vs Cohort B|||0.983|0.891|
90971367|NCT04175626|181825490|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Exact, binomial|||The primary endpoint was evaluated by performing an exact, binomial test comparing the rate of TLF for the Orsiro stent at 1 year to a performance goal of 6.9%, with Type I error (alpha) of 0.025 and power of 80%. The null hypothesis (Ho) was stated as: The TLF rate of the Orsiro stent at 1 year is greater than or equal to 6.9%. The alternative hypothesis (Ha) was stated as: The TLF rate of the Orsiro stent at 1 year is less than 6.9%.||||<0.0001
91105881|NCT03816891|182097791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.26||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|51.82||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||51.82|0.76|0.0520
90861851|NCT00333177|181586666|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.03||||||P value is for CT-HBT X RLAI-Oral Ris interaction|ANCOVA|Covaried baseline value of dependent variable||A priori hypothesis was that CT would be superior to HBT and that RLAI would enhance this effect.||||<0.03
90906642|NCT03714022|181681059|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence is concluded if the 90% CIs for the ratios of geometric means are contained within 0.8 to 1.25|Ratio of Geometric Means|0.957|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.915|1.001|||||Cohort A vs Cohort B|||1.001|0.915|
91105882|NCT03816891|182097791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2||||0.5457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|28.14||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||28.14|0.17|0.5457
91105883|NCT03816891|182097791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.77||||0.1053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|79.79||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||79.79|0.57|0.1053
91105884|NCT03816891|182097791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.3||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|88.33||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 3||88.33|1.45|0.0043
91105885|NCT03816891|182097791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|18.08||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 3||18.08|0.06|1.0000
91105886|NCT03816891|182097791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.81||||0.1006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|79.12||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 3||79.12|0.59|0.1006
91105887|NCT03816891|182097791|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||||<0.0001
91105888|NCT03816891|182097791|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0193||||||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||||0.0193
91105889|NCT03816891|182097791|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0463||||||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||||0.0463
91105890|NCT03816891|182097791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|15.95||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.26|112.81||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 5||112.81|2.26|0.0002
91105891|NCT03816891|182097791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.82||||0.0917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|54.99||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 5||54.99|0.62|0.0917
91105892|NCT03816891|182097791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.81||||0.1006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|79.12||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 5||79.12|0.59|0.1006
91105893|NCT03816891|182097791|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001||||||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6||||0.0001
91105894|NCT03816891|182097791|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0035||||||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6||||0.0035
91105895|NCT03816891|182097791|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0269||||||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6||||0.0269
91105896|NCT03816891|182097791|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 7||||<0.0001
91105897|NCT03816891|182097791|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0009||||||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 7||||0.0009
91105898|NCT03816891|182097791|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0098||||||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 7||||0.0098
90971368|NCT01709149|181825507|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.366||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.14|||Repeated-measures mixed model||Least squares mean difference: tirasemtiv minus placebo|||0.14|-1.30|0.1140
91105899|NCT03816891|182097791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|28.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.21|258.26||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||258.26|3.21|<0.0001
90971369|NCT01709149|181825508|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.963||0.8083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.38|4.34|||Repeated-measures mixed model||Least squares mean difference: tirasemtiv minus placebo|||4.34|-3.38|0.8083
91105900|NCT03816891|182097791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.16||||0.0074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|79.08||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||79.08|1.31|0.0074
91105901|NCT03816891|182097791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.09||||0.2466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|26.06||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||26.06|0.37|0.2466
91105902|NCT03816891|182097791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.56||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.37|56.49||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 9||56.49|2.37|0.0005
91105903|NCT03816891|182097791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.06||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|29.37||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 9||29.37|1.25|0.0140
91105904|NCT03816891|182097791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.7||||0.0823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|18.07||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 9||18.07|0.76|0.0823
91105905|NCT03816891|182097791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.38||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.51|35.02||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 10||35.02|2.51|0.0002
90861852|NCT00333177|181586667|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.02||||||P-value is for each main effect. A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05 for each main effect.|ANCOVA|Baseline value of dependent variable was covaried.||2 X 2 ANOVA was calculated. A priori hypotheses were that LAI would be superior to oral risperidone and that CT would be superior to health behavior training (HBT) based on main effects.||||<.02
90861853|NCT00333177|181586668|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.84||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||A priori hypothesis was that RLAI would lead to less medication non-adherence than Oral Ris.||1.10|.57|.001
90861854|NCT00333177|181586669|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||P-value is for CT vs. HBT main effect.|ANCOVA|Baseline value of dependent variable was covaried.||2 X 2 ANOVA was calculated. A priori hypotheses were that CT would be superior to HBT and that RLAI would be superior to Oral Ris.||||<.05
90861855|NCT00333177|181586670|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.55
90861856|NCT00333177|181586671|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.02||||||A priori hypotheses were that CT would be superior to HBT and that RLAI would be superior to Oral Ris.|ANOVA|2 X 2 ANOVA was computed.||||||<0.02
90861857|NCT00333177|181586672|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Chi-squared|df = 1||Chi-square of frequencies of relapse vs. non-relapse were calculated, with a priori hypothesis that RLAI would be superior to Oral Ris.||||<0.01
90861858|NCT00333177|181586673|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||2 X 2 ANOVA calculated. P-value is for main effect of RLAI vs. Oral Ris.|ANOVA|||||||<.05
90861859|NCT00333177|181586674|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.02||||||2 X 2 ANOVA computed. P-value is for main effect of CT vs. HBT.|ANOVA|||||||<.02
90861860|NCT00333177|181586675|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.053||||||2 X 2 ANOVA computed. P-value is for RLAI vs. Oral Ris main effect.|ANOVA|||||||=.053
90861861|NCT03917459|181586694|OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.94||0.3432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.29|9.01|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||9.01|-3.29|0.3432
90971370|NCT01709149|181825509|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.627||0.0372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|-0.2|||Repeated-measures mixed model||Least squares mean difference: tirasemtiv minus placebo|||-0.20|-6.60|0.0372
90861862|NCT01601132|181586722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5663||||||Significant difference defined a priori as p \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5663
90861863|NCT01601132|181586723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (%) (Test/Reference)|105.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.77|110.12|||ANOVA||Ratio (theophylline+colchicine/theophylline) of LSMs calculated using the exponentiation of the difference between treatment LSM from the log-transformed Cmax, expressed as a percentage relative to the reference treatment.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on the log-transformed Cmax to calculate least squares mean (LSM) for each treatment. The ANOVA model included sequence, treatment, and treatment within a sequence as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect. The criterion for demonstrating a lack of a clinically significant interaction is a 90% CI for the ratio for AUC0-t, (AUC0-∞), and Cmax to be within the 0.80 to 1.25 interval, representing a maximum of 20% difference between treatments.||110.12|101.77|
90861864|NCT01601132|181586724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (%) (Test/Reference)|105.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.81|109.59|||ANOVA||Ratio (theophylline+colchicine/theophylline) of LSMs calculated using the exponentiation of the difference between treatment LSM from the log-transformed AUC(0-t)\], expressed as a percentage relative to the reference treatment.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on the log-transformed AUC(0-t) to calculate least squares mean (LSM) for each treatment. The ANOVA model included sequence, treatment, and treatment within a sequence as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect. The criterion for demonstrating a lack of a clinically significant interaction is a 90% CI for the ratio for AUC0-t, AUC0-∞, and Cmax to be within the 0.80 to 1.25 interval, representing a maximum of 20% difference between treatments.||109.59|101.81|
90861865|NCT01601132|181586725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (%) (Test/Reference)|106.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.1|112.04|||ANOVA||Ratio (theophylline+colchicine/theophylline) of LSMs calculated using the exponentiation of the difference between treatment LSM from the log-transformed AUC(0-∞) , expressed as a percentage relative to the reference treatment.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on the log-transformed AUC(0-∞) to calculate least squares mean (LSM) for each treatment. The ANOVA model included sequence, treatment, and treatment within a sequence as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect. The criterion for demonstrating a lack of a clinically significant interaction is a 90% CI for the ratio for AUC0-t, AUC0-∞, and Cmax to be within the 0.80 to 1.25 interval, representing a maximum of 20% difference between treatments.||112.04|101.10|
90861866|NCT01601132|181586726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (%) (Test/Reference)|93.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.25|98.92|||ANOVA||Ratio (theophylline+colchicine/theophylline) of LSMs calculated using the exponentiation of the difference between treatment LSM from the log-transformed CL/F, expressed as a percentage relative to the reference treatment.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on the log-transformed CL/F to calculate least squares mean (LSM) for each treatment. The ANOVA model included sequence, treatment, and treatment within a sequence as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect. The criterion for demonstrating a lack of a clinically significant interaction is a 90% CI for the ratio for AUC0-t, AUC0-∞, and Cmax to be within the 0.80 to 1.25 interval, representing a maximum of 20% difference between treatments.||98.92|89.25|
90861867|NCT01601132|181586727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (%) (Test/Reference)|98.59|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.97|106.85|||ANOVA||Ratio (theophylline+colchicine/theophylline) of LSMs calculated using the exponentiation of the difference between treatment LSM from the log-transformed Vd/F, expressed as a percentage relative to the reference treatment.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on the log-transformed Vd/F to calculate least squares mean (LSM) for each treatment. The ANOVA model included sequence, treatment, and treatment within a sequence as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect. The criterion for demonstrating a lack of a clinically significant interaction is a 90% CI for the ratio for AUC0-t, AUC0-∞, and Cmax to be within the 0.80 to 1.25 interval, representing a maximum of 20% difference between treatments.||106.85|90.97|
90861868|NCT00850070|181586740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0|||<|0.35|||||||Chi-squared||Estimated value comparison was active treatment minus placebo.|Chi-square analyses were used to assess CGI-I scores. There were no transformations.||||<.35
90861869|NCT00850070|181586741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0|||<|0.06|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.06
90861870|NCT00850070|181586747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.05
91105906|NCT03816891|182097791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.65||||0.0197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|18.1||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 10||18.10|1.20|0.0197
91105907|NCT03816891|182097791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.94||||0.0392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|15.69||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 10||15.69|0.99|0.0392
90861871|NCT05224141|181586759|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.26||||0.9762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.59|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG performance status, LDH, liver metastasis, and brain metastasis.|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 vs. 1), LDH (≤ULN vs. \>ULN), liver metastasis (Yes or No), and brain metastasis (Yes or No).|Statistical analyses stratified by ECOG performance status (0 vs. 1), LDH (≤ULN vs. \>ULN), liver metastasis (Yes or No), and brain metastasis (Yes or No).||1.59|1.00|0.9762
90861872|NCT05224141|181586760|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.5316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.23|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG performance status, LDH, liver metastasis, and brain metastasis.|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 vs. 1), LDH (≤ULN vs. \>ULN), liver metastasis (Yes or No), and brain metastasis (Yes or No).|Statistical analyses stratified by ECOG performance status (0 vs. 1), LDH (≤ULN vs. \>ULN), liver metastasis (Yes or No), and brain metastasis (Yes or No).||1.23|0.82|0.5316
90861873|NCT05224141|181586761|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|-3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|4.9|||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by ECOG performance status (0 vs. 1), LDH (≤ULN vs. \>ULN), liver metastasis (Yes or No), and brain metastasis (Yes or No).|Statistical analyses stratified by ECOG performance status (0 vs. 1), LDH (≤ULN vs. \>ULN), liver metastasis (Yes or No), and brain metastasis (Yes or No).||4.9|-11.1|
90861874|NCT03725852|181586849|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) mean difference|42.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|61.483||0.495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-81.84|166.49||P-value was based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model at each time point including treatment, sex, stratum (nintedanib, pirfenidone or neither), age, height, and baseline value as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 26||166.49|-81.84|0.495
90861875|NCT03725852|181586850|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|24.5|||||95% CI for difference calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|TEAEs||24.5|-17.3|
90861876|NCT03725852|181586850|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|15.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|30.7|||||95% CI for difference calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|Serious TEAEs||30.7|-3.0|
90861877|NCT03725852|181586850|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|31.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.2|49.4|||||95% CI for difference calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|TEAEs related to study drug||49.4|8.2|
90906643|NCT02487446|181681090|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit (LL) of the 97.5% one -sided confidence interval (CI) \> -20 mL.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0115|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00778||0.139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0269|0.0038||p-value unadjusted|Linear Mixed Model|||Ho: QVA149 27.5/12.5 μg b.i.d. is inferior to umeclidinium/vilanterol 62.5/25 μg q.d; Ha: QVA149 27.5/12.5 μg b.i.d. is non-inferior to umeclidinium/vilanterol 62.5/25 μg q.d.||0.0038|-0.0269|0.139
90906644|NCT02487446|181681091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0115|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00778|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0269|0.0038||||||Ho: QVA149 27.5/12.5 μg b.i.d. is inferior to umeclidinium/vilanterol 62.5/25 μg q.d; Ha: QVA149 27.5/12.5 μg b.i.d. is non-inferior to umeclidinium/vilanterol 62.5/25 μg q.d.||0.0038|-0.0269|
90861878|NCT03725852|181586850|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|22.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.7|36.4|||||95% CI for difference calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|TEAEs leading to study drug discontinuation||36.4|6.7|
90861879|NCT03725852|181586851|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.397|||||||Log Rank|||All-cause deaths||||0.397
90861880|NCT03725852|181586851|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.397|||||||Log Rank|||Respiratory-related deaths||||0.397
90861881|NCT03725852|181586851|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.131|||||||Log Rank|||All-cause hospitalizations||||0.131
90861882|NCT03725852|181586851|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.762|||||||Log Rank|||Respiratory-related hospitalizations||||0.762
90861883|NCT03725852|181586852|SUPERIORITY||Weighted LS mean difference|-9.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.713||0.565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.87|22.64||P-value was based on an ANCOVA model at Week 26 including treatment, stratum (nintedanib, pirfenidone or neither) and baseline 6MWT distance as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 26||22.64|-40.87|0.565
90861884|NCT03725852|181586853|SUPERIORITY||Weighted LS mean difference.|-1.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.71||0.673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.06|5.91||P-value was based on an ANCOVA model at Week 26 including treatment, stratum (nintedanib, pirfenidone or neither) and baseline SGRQ value as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 26||5.91|-9.06|0.673
90861885|NCT03725852|181586854|SUPERIORITY||Weighted LS mean difference|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.591||0.875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.98|8.53||P-value was based on an ANCOVA model at Week 26 including treatment, stratum (nintedanib, pirfenidone or neither) and baseline SGRQ value as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 26: Symptoms score||8.53|-9.98|0.875
90861886|NCT03725852|181586854|SUPERIORITY||Weighted LS mean difference|-4.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.038||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.29|6.02||P-value was based on an ANCOVA model at Week 26 including treatment, stratum (nintedanib, pirfenidone or neither) and baseline SGRQ value as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 26: Activity score||6.02|-14.29|0.416
90861887|NCT03725852|181586854|SUPERIORITY||Weighted LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.029||0.961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.32|7.92||P-value was based on an ANCOVA model at Week 26 including treatment, stratum (nintedanib, pirfenidone or neither) and baseline SGRQ value as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 26: Impacts score||7.92|-8.32|0.961
90861888|NCT03725852|181586855|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
90861889|NCT03452228|181586905|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-43.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-89.4|1238.9||||||||1238.9|-89.4|
91105908|NCT03816891|182097791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.93|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.18|61.09||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 11||61.09|3.18|<0.0001
91105909|NCT03816891|182097791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.54||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|42.37||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 11||42.37|1.72|0.0036
90861890|NCT03452228|181586905|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-75.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-82.2|121.2||||||||121.2|-82.2|
90861891|NCT02256072|181586919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|2.12|||ANCOVA|||H1: Compared to participants in the attention control group and controlling for baseline assessments, participants receiving the PLAN YOUR LIFESPAN tool will show increased planning with regard to planning behavior score (measured via the Planning Assessment tool) one (efficacy) month after intervention.||2.12|0.37|0.0054
90861892|NCT02256072|181586920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.244|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.123||0.0471|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value controlled for significant baseline covariates (sex, importance of religion, stroke, and self efficacy score) and individual participant effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|The p-value is based on the slope estimation provided below.||Secondary analyses will compare baseline variables (current utilization of services, physical function assessment, co-morbidities, social support, health literacy, self-efficacy, and sociodemographics) with outcome (one-at-a-time). Those found to have a significant association with outcome will be included in a linear mixed model, with random effect for intercept. A backward stepwise model building process will be used to determine an overall parsimonious model for outcome.||||0.0471
90861893|NCT02256072|181586921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.075|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094||0.423|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value controlled for significant baseline covariates (confidence in using the internet, self efficacy score, support score, and race/ethnicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|The p-value is based on the slope estimation provided below.|The score is the equally-weighted sum of responses to the five questions in the CAHS instrument. Each question has a scale of 1-5, with a total possible range of 5-25. No subscores are calculated.|H2: Compared to participants in the attention control group and controlling for baseline assessments, participants receiving the PLAN YOUR LIFESPAN tool will show increased confidence in accessing home services (measured via the Confidence in Accessing Home Services tool) one (efficacy) and three (effect retention) months after intervention.||||0.423
90861894|NCT02256072|181586922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value controlled for significant baseline covariates (sex, income, health literacy, education level, high blood pressure, and kidney disease) and individual participant effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|The p-value is based on the slope estimation provided below.||Compared to participants in the attention control group, participants receiving PLAN YOUR LIFESPAN will show increased UHS 1 (efficacy) and 3 (effect retention) months post-intervention. Secondary analyses will compare baseline variables with outcome (one-at-a-time). Those with a significant association with outcome will be included in a LMM for UHS, with random effect for intercept. A backward stepwise model building process will be used to determine an overall parsimonious model for UHS.||||<0.0001
90861895|NCT03439657|181586968|NON_INFERIORITY|Upper limit (UL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the anti-gE antibodies Geometric Mean Concentration (GMC) ratio between the Control group and the Co-Ad group should be \<1.5.|GMC ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.16|||ANCOVA|The 95% CI of the group GMCs ratio was computed using an Analysis Of Covariance (ANCOVA) model on the log10 transformation of the concentrations.||Anti-gE GMCs (non-inferiority): Non-inferiority comparison between Control Group and Co-Ad Group in terms of geometric mean concentrations (GMCs) for anti-gE antibodies, one month after the administration of last vaccine dose.||1.16|0.99|
90861896|NCT03439657|181586969|NON_INFERIORITY|Upper limit (UL) of 95% CI for each individual pneumococcal conjugate serotype Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) ratio of the Control group over the Co-Ad group should be \<2.|GMT ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.33|||ANCOVA|The 95% CI of the group MOPA GMT ratios was computed using an Analysis Of Covariance (ANCOVA) model on the log10 transformation of the concentrations.||Anti-pneumococcal antibody titers (non-inferiority): Non-inferiority comparison between Control Group and Co-Ad Group in terms of geometric mean titers (GMTs) for anti-pneumococcal antibody (MOPA-1), one month after the administration of Prevnar 13 vaccine dose.||1.33|0.82|
90861897|NCT03439657|181586969|NON_INFERIORITY|Upper limit (UL) of 95% CI for each individual pneumococcal conjugate serotype Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) ratio of the Control group over the Co-Ad group should be \<2.|GMT ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.22|||ANCOVA|The 95% CI of the group MOPA GMT ratios was computed using an Analysis Of Covariance (ANCOVA) model on the log10 transformation of the concentrations.||Anti-pneumococcal antibody titers (non-inferiority): Non-inferiority comparison between Control Group and Co-Ad Group in terms of geometric mean titers (GMTs) for anti-pneumococcal antibody (MOPA-3), one month after the administration of Prevnar 13 vaccine dose.||1.22|0.86|
90861898|NCT03439657|181586969|NON_INFERIORITY|Upper limit (UL) of 95% CI for each individual pneumococcal conjugate serotype Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) ratio of the Control group over the Co-Ad group should be \<2.|GMT ratio|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.52|||ANCOVA|The 95% CI of the group MOPA GMT ratios was computed using an Analysis Of Covariance (ANCOVA) model on the log10 transformation of the concentrations.||Anti-pneumococcal antibody titers (non-inferiority): Non-inferiority comparison between Control Group and Co-Ad Group in terms of geometric mean titers (GMTs) for anti-pneumococcal antibody (MOPA-4), one month after the administration of Prevnar 13 vaccine dose.||1.52|1.02|
90906645|NCT02487446|181681092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0153|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01062|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0361|0.0056||||||||0.0056|-0.0361|
90906646|NCT02487446|181681093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0051|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00806|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0108|0.0209||||||||0.0209|-0.0108|
90906647|NCT02624778|181681124|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.071|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.07|-0.21|0.309
90906648|NCT02624778|181681124|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.133|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.01|-0.27|0.061
90906649|NCT02624778|181681124|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.205|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.00|-0.41|0.053
91105910|NCT03816891|182097791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.43||||0.0638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|24.23||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 11||24.23|0.81|0.0638
90861899|NCT03439657|181586969|NON_INFERIORITY|Upper limit (UL) of 95% CI for each individual pneumococcal conjugate serotype Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) ratio of the Control group over the Co-Ad group should be \<2.|GMT ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.32|||ANCOVA|The 95% CI of the group MOPA GMT ratios was computed using an Analysis Of Covariance (ANCOVA) model on the log10 transformation of the concentrations.||Anti-pneumococcal antibody titers (non-inferiority): Non-inferiority comparison between Control Group and Co-Ad Group in terms of geometric mean titers (GMTs) for anti-pneumococcal antibody (MOPA-5), one month after the administration of Prevnar 13 vaccine dose.||1.32|0.81|
90861900|NCT03439657|181586969|NON_INFERIORITY|Upper limit (UL) of 95% CI for each individual pneumococcal conjugate serotype Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) ratio of the Control group over the Co-Ad group should be \<2.|GMT ratio|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.56|||ANCOVA|The 95% CI of the group MOPA GMT ratios was computed using an Analysis Of Covariance (ANCOVA) model on the log10 transformation of the concentrations.||Anti-pneumococcal antibody titers (non-inferiority): Non-inferiority comparison between Control Group and Co-Ad Group in terms of geometric mean titers (GMTs) for anti-pneumococcal antibody (MOPA-6A), one month after the administration of Prevnar 13 vaccine dose.||1.56|1.02|
90861901|NCT03439657|181586969|NON_INFERIORITY|Upper limit (UL) of 95% CI for each individual pneumococcal conjugate serotype Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) ratio of the Control group over the Co-Ad group should be \<2.|GMT ratio|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.73|||ANCOVA|The 95% CI of the group MOPA GMT ratios was computed using an Analysis Of Covariance (ANCOVA) model on the log10 transformation of the concentrations.||Anti-pneumococcal antibody titers (non-inferiority): Non-inferiority comparison between Control Group and Co-Ad Group in terms of geometric mean titers (GMTs) for anti-pneumococcal antibody (MOPA-6B), one month after the administration of Prevnar 13 vaccine dose.||1.73|1.07|
90861902|NCT03439657|181586969|NON_INFERIORITY|Upper limit (UL) of 95% CI for each individual pneumococcal conjugate serotype Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) ratio of the Control group over the Co-Ad group should be \<2.|GMT ratio|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.44|||ANCOVA|The 95% CI of the group MOPA GMT ratios was computed using an Analysis Of Covariance (ANCOVA) model on the log10 transformation of the concentrations.||Anti-pneumococcal antibody titers (non-inferiority): Non-inferiority comparison between Control Group and Co-Ad Group in terms of geometric mean titers (GMTs) for anti-pneumococcal antibody (MOPA-7F), one month after the administration of Prevnar 13 vaccine dose.||1.44|1.01|
90861903|NCT03439657|181586969|NON_INFERIORITY|Upper limit (UL) of 95% CI for each individual pneumococcal conjugate serotype Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) ratio of the Control group over the Co-Ad group should be \<2.|GMT ratio|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.39|||ANCOVA|The 95% CI of the group MOPA GMT ratios was computed using an Analysis Of Covariance (ANCOVA) model on the log10 transformation of the concentrations.||Anti-pneumococcal antibody titers (non-inferiority): Non-inferiority comparison between Control Group and Co-Ad Group in terms of geometric mean titers (GMTs) for anti-pneumococcal antibody (MOPA-9V), one month after the administration of Prevnar 13 vaccine dose.||1.39|0.97|
90861904|NCT03439657|181586969|NON_INFERIORITY|Upper limit (UL) of 95% CI for each individual pneumococcal conjugate serotype Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) ratio of the Control group over the Co-Ad group should be \<2.|GMT ratio|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.42|||ANCOVA|The 95% CI of the group MOPA GMT ratios was computed using an Analysis Of Covariance (ANCOVA) model on the log10 transformation of the concentrations.||Anti-pneumococcal antibody titers (non-inferiority): Non-inferiority comparison between Control Group and Co-Ad Group in terms of geometric mean titers (GMTs) for anti-pneumococcal antibody (MOPA-14), one month after the administration of Prevnar 13 vaccine dose.||1.42|0.94|
90861905|NCT03439657|181586969|NON_INFERIORITY|Upper limit (UL) of 95% CI for each individual pneumococcal conjugate serotype Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) ratio of the Control group over the Co-Ad group should be \<2.|GMT ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.34|||ANCOVA|The 95% CI of the group MOPA GMT ratios was computed using an Analysis Of Covariance (ANCOVA) model on the log10 transformation of the concentrations.||Anti-pneumococcal antibody titers (non-inferiority): Non-inferiority comparison between Control Group and Co-Ad Group in terms of geometric mean titers (GMTs) for anti-pneumococcal antibody (MOPA-18C), one month after the administration of Prevnar 13 vaccine dose.||1.34|0.92|
90861906|NCT03439657|181586969|NON_INFERIORITY|Upper limit (UL) of 95% CI for each individual pneumococcal conjugate serotype Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) ratio of the Control group over the Co-Ad group should be \<2.|GMT ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.22|||ANCOVA|The 95% CI of the group MOPA GMT ratios was computed using an Analysis Of Covariance (ANCOVA) model on the log10 transformation of the concentrations.||Anti-pneumococcal antibody titers (non-inferiority): Non-inferiority comparison between Control Group and Co-Ad Group in terms of geometric mean titers (GMTs) for anti-pneumococcal antibody (MOPA-19A), one month after the administration of Prevnar 13 vaccine dose.||1.22|0.87|
90861907|NCT03439657|181586969|NON_INFERIORITY|Upper limit (UL) of 95% CI for each individual pneumococcal conjugate serotype Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) ratio of the Control group over the Co-Ad group should be \<2.|GMT ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.32|||ANCOVA|The 95% CI of the group MOPA GMT ratios was computed using an Analysis Of Covariance (ANCOVA) model on the log10 transformation of the concentrations.||Anti-pneumococcal antibody titers (non-inferiority): Non-inferiority comparison between Control Group and Co-Ad Group in terms of geometric mean titers (GMTs) for anti-pneumococcal antibody (MOPA-19F), one month after the administration of Prevnar 13 vaccine dose.||1.32|0.90|
90906650|NCT02624778|181681124|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.255|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.13|-0.38|<0.001
90906651|NCT02624778|181681124|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.369|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.23|-0.51|<0.001
90906652|NCT02624778|181681124|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.329|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.20|-0.46|<0.001
91105911|NCT03816891|182097791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.56||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.28|32.07||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||32.07|2.28|0.0005
90861908|NCT03439657|181586969|NON_INFERIORITY|Upper limit (UL) of 95% CI for each individual pneumococcal conjugate serotype Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) ratio of the Control group over the Co-Ad group should be \<2.|GMT ratio|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.5|||ANCOVA|The 95% CI of the group MOPA GMT ratios was computed using an Analysis Of Covariance (ANCOVA) model on the log10 transformation of the concentrations.||Anti-pneumococcal antibody titers (non-inferiority): Non-inferiority comparison between Control Group and Co-Ad Group in terms of geometric mean titers (GMTs) for anti-pneumococcal antibody (MOPA-23F), one month after the administration of Prevnar 13 vaccine dose.||1.50|0.96|
91105912|NCT03816891|182097791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.09||||0.0379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|16.19||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||16.19|1.03|0.0379
91105913|NCT03816891|182097791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.01||||0.3367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|8.78||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||8.78|0.46|0.3367
91105914|NCT03816891|182097791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.73||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.46|38.51||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 13||38.51|2.46|0.0003
91105915|NCT03816891|182097791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.72||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.82|24.75||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 13||24.75|1.82|0.0017
91105916|NCT03816891|182097791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.93||||0.0831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|10.83||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 13||10.83|0.79|0.0831
91105917|NCT03816891|182097791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.51||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.58|28.06||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 14||28.06|2.58|0.0001
91105918|NCT03816891|182097791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.74||||0.0087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|15.94||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 14||15.94|1.41|0.0087
91105919|NCT03816891|182097791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.61||||0.1361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|9.37||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 14||9.37|0.73|0.1361
91105920|NCT03816891|182097791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.08|44.56||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 15||44.56|3.08|<0.0001
91105921|NCT03816891|182097791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.74||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|21.75||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 15||21.75|1.51|0.0058
90861909|NCT00370071|181586980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||one-sided p-value (one-sided test level 2.5%)|Wilcoxon-Signed-Rank test|||In this single arm study, the number of newly active lesions per 3 months during treatment was compared to the number of newly active lesions during 3-month pre-treatment (Alternative hypothesis: Number of lesions is reduced during treatment with Interferon beta-1b). The sample size was calculated for the use of the one-sided Wilcoxon-Signed-Rank test at level 2.5% (Power of 90% - anticipating P(X\&lt;Y)=0.15 and allowing for 25% exclusion from Per Protocol Set).||||<0.0001
90861910|NCT00370071|181586981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||one-sided p-value (one-sided test level 2.5%)|Wilcoxon-Signed-Rank test|||||||<0.0001
90971371|NCT01709149|181825510|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|4.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.23|6.28|||Repeated-measures mixed model||Least squares mean difference: tirasemtiv minus placebo|||6.28|2.23|<0.0001
91105922|NCT03816891|182097791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.16||||0.1036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|13.03||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 15||13.03|0.77|0.1036
90861911|NCT00370071|181586982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0017||95.0||||one-sided p-value (one-sided test level 2.5%)|Wilcoxon-Signed-Rank test|||||||0.0017
91105923|NCT03816891|182097791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|71.24|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.35|948.31||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||948.31|5.35|<0.0001
91105924|NCT03816891|182097791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.62||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.62|83.47||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||83.47|1.62|0.0019
91105925|NCT03816891|182097791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.48||||0.0117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|68.26||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||68.26|1.14|0.0117
91105926|NCT03816891|182097791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.97|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.46|19.76||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 17||19.76|2.46|<0.0001
91105927|NCT03816891|182097791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.64||||0.0173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|10.74||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 17||10.74|1.23|0.0173
91105928|NCT03816891|182097791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.93||||0.2598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|6.0||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 17||6.00|0.63|0.2598
91035955|NCT02825680|181958575|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis compares reach within the pre-intervention timeframe versus the post-intervention timeframe for each LEAP (intervention) and control case. Intention to treat analysis was used; all participating facilities randomized to the LEAP (intervention) arm were included whether or not they completed the intervention.||||.011
90861912|NCT00370071|181586983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon-Signed-Rank test|One-sided p-value from Wilcoxon-Signed-Rank-Test for comparing the baseline visit to treatment visits||Lesion volume at Week 12. 38 subjects were evaluated.||||<0.0001
90861913|NCT00370071|181586983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.0019|||||||Wilcoxon-Signed-Rank test|||Lesion volume at Week 24. 37 subjects were evaluated.||||=0.0019
90861914|NCT00502944|181587021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Difference (%)|30.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.0|32.0|||Chi-squared|||HIV test completed among patients randomized||32|27|<0.001
90861915|NCT00502944|181587022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Difference (%)|44.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.0|47.0|||Chi-squared|||HIV test offered||47|42|<0.001
90861916|NCT00502944|181587023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Difference (%)|-4.0||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|-1.0|||Chi-squared|||HIV test accepted among patients offered||-1|-8|0.02
90861917|NCT00310401|181587025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98||95.0|||||Paired T Test|||Paired T Test was used to compare the change in PaO2/FiO2 ratio from enrollment to procurement between albuterol and saline treated donors||||0.98
90861918|NCT00319501|181587030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.55||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.88||p-value is adjusted. All statistical tests were 2-sided and employed a level of significance of alpha=0.05.|Cox Proportional Hazard||Age adjusted|Null hypothesis||0.88|0.34|0.012
90861919|NCT00319501|181587032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value is unadjusted. All statistical tests were 2-sided and employed a level of significance of alpha=0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.066
90861920|NCT00319501|181587033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.443|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.443
91105929|NCT03816891|182097791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.09||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.98|13.11||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 18||13.11|1.98|0.0003
90861921|NCT00319501|181587034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.245|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value is unadjusted. All statistical tests were 2-sided and employed a level of significance of alpha=0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.245
90861922|NCT00319501|181587035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least square means|0.75||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|1.61||p-Value is unadjusted. All statistical tests were 2-sided and employed a level of significance of alpha = 0.05.|ANOVA|ANOVA=analysis of variance.|Model included treatment and age category.|||1.61|-0.11|0.086
90861923|NCT00319501|181587036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least square means|0.79||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|1.56||p-value is unadjusted. All statistical tests were 2-sided and employed a level of significance of alpha=0.05.|ANOVA||Model included treatment and age category.|||1.56|0.02|0.045
90861924|NCT00667875|181587043|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49||||||The p value represents variation of the total 16 week trial over all three groups.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analyzed as a mixed model, Group by time (4 time blocks) with an unstructured variance/covariance matrix. Baseline drinks per day was used as a covariate.||||0.49
90861925|NCT00667875|181587044|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||The p value represents variation of the total 16 week trial over all three groups.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analyzed as a mixed model (SPSS linear mixed) with an unstructured variance/covariance and baseline percent heavy drinking days as a covariate||||0.03
90861926|NCT00667875|181587045|SUPERIORITY|Anova across all three treatment groups|||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|Naltrexone or naltrexone placebo pills taken F=3.9 df 2 Aripiprazole or aripiprazole placebo pills taken F=4.6 df 2||||||<.05
90861927|NCT00667875|181587046|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|f 3.2 df 2||Anova across three groups||||<.05
90861928|NCT01892865|181587058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|23.6||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.15|44.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis was that there would be no difference in predictive imprecision for the end of the operative day between the two arms||44|3.15|0.024
90861929|NCT01892865|181587058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.16||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.34|||Poisson regression|||Null hypothesis: There would be no difference in throughput between the two arms||1.34|1.01|0.04
90861930|NCT01892865|181587059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.16||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.34|||Poisson Regression|||Null hypothesis was that there was no difference in throughput between the two scheduling methods||1.34|1.01|0.04
90861931|NCT01892865|181587060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: There would be no difference in personnel satisfaction between the groups||||0.04
90861932|NCT01892865|181587061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44|||||||Chi-squared|||Null hypothesis was that there would be no difference in the adverse event rates between the two scheduling methodologies||||0.44
90861933|NCT02612129|181587062|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-1.4||||0.0456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.76|-0.03|||GLMM for Repeated Measures|||A general linear mixed model (GLMM) for repeated measurements was used for the analysis of NPC disease severity assessed based on the 5-domain NPCCSS scores at Month 12. The general linear mixed model analysis for repeated measures was fitted with treatment, miglustat level and visit as fixed effects including treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline score as a covariate.||-0.03|-2.76|0.0456
90861934|NCT02612129|181587063|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared Test|||||||1.0000
90861935|NCT02612129|181587064|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5456|||||||Chi-squared Test|||||||0.5456
90861936|NCT02612129|181587065|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8021|||||||Log-Rank Test|||Log-rank test had been stratified by miglustat use.||||0.8021
90906653|NCT05541497|181681131|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|3.37||||||||3.37|0.68|
90906654|NCT05541497|181681132|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|3.13||||||||3.13|0.59|
90906655|NCT04091672|181681133|NON_INFERIORITY|"The one-sided 97.5% confidence interval (97.5% CI) was calculated for the difference (Control-RECELL) in percentages of subjects with confirmed treatment area closure.~The calculation used the normal approximation taking correlation into account. In order for the null hypothesis to be rejected and the non-inferiority of RECELL to be established, the upper limit of the 97.5% CI had to be less than 10%."||||||0.005|||||||1-sided z-test of proportions|alpha=0.025||||||.005
90861937|NCT02612129|181587066|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3662|||||||Fisher's Exact Test|||Percentage of participants worsening at Month 6||||0.3662
90861938|NCT02612129|181587066|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher's Exact Test|||Percentage of participants worsening at Month 12||||1.0000
90861939|NCT02612129|181587067|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.69||||0.1546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.04|0.66|||ANCOVA|||Change From Baseline in 17-Domain NPCCSS Apart from Hearing Domains (i.e. Hearing and Auditory Brainstem Response) at Month 6 was analyzed using the Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model. ANCOVA model was fitted with treatment, baseline full-scale NPCCSS apart from hearing domains score, and use of miglustat as covariates.||0.66|-4.04|0.1546
90861940|NCT02612129|181587067|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.61||||0.2199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.24|1.01|||ANCOVA|||Change From Baseline in 17-Domain NPCCSS Apart from Hearing Domains (i.e. Hearing and Auditory Brainstem Response) at Month 12 was analyzed using the ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model is fitted with treatment, baseline full-scale NPCCSS apart from hearing domains score, and use of miglustat as covariates.||1.01|-4.24|0.2199
90861941|NCT02612129|181587068|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-1.11||||0.0188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.03|-0.19|||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model was fitted with treatment, baseline 5-domain NPCCSS score, and use of miglustat as covariates.||-0.19|-2.03|0.0188
90861942|NCT02612129|181587070|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.09||||0.0536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.26|0.08|||ANCOVA|||"Change from baseline in the NPC-CDB score (modified Stampfer Score) at Month 6 was analyzed using the ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model was fitted with treatment, baseline NPC-CDB total score and use of miglustat as covariates."||0.08|-10.26|0.0536
90861943|NCT02612129|181587070|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.03||||0.3785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|3.85|||ANCOVA|||"Change from baseline in the NPC-CDB score (modified Stampfer Score) at Month 12 was analyzed using the ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model was fitted with treatment, baseline NPC-CDB total score and use of miglustat as covariates."||3.85|-9.90|0.3785
90861944|NCT02612129|181587071|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6951|||||||Chi-squared Test|||Percentage of participants with change from baseline at Month 6 in Quality of Life (EQ-5D-Y) being 'Better'||||0.6951
90861945|NCT02612129|181587071|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7542|||||||Chi-squared Test|||Percentage of participants with change from baseline at Month 6 in Quality of Life (EQ-5D-Y) being 'Worse'||||0.7542
90861946|NCT02612129|181587071|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.488|||||||Chi-squared Test|||Percentage of participants with change from baseline at Month 12 in Quality of Life (EQ-5D-Y) being 'Better'||||0.4880
90861947|NCT02612129|181587071|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1804|||||||Chi-squared Test|||Percentage of participants with change from baseline at Month 12 in Quality of Life (EQ-5D-Y) being 'Worse'||||0.1804
90861948|NCT02612129|181587072|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.74||||0.371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|2.4|||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline in the SARA score at Month 6 was measured using an ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model was fitted with treatment, baseline SARA score, and use of miglustat as covariates.||2.40|-0.92|0.3710
90861949|NCT02612129|181587072|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.28||||0.7899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|2.37|||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline in the SARA score at Month 12 was measured using an ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model was fitted with treatment, baseline SARA score and use of miglustat as covariates.||2.37|-1.82|0.7899
90861950|NCT02612129|181587073|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-10.34||||0.6195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.01|32.33|||ANCOVA|||Dominant Hand: Change From Baseline in the Nine-Hole Peg Test (9HPT) at Month 6 was measured using an ANCOVA model: ANCOVA models were fitted with treatment, baseline dominant/non-dominant hand 9HPT time (secs), and use of miglustat as covariates||32.33|-53.01|0.6195
90861951|NCT02612129|181587073|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-15.87||||0.4693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.73|29.0|||ANCOVA|||Non-dominant Hand: Change From Baseline in the Nine-Hole Peg Test (9HPT) at Month 6 was measured using an ANCOVA model: ANCOVA models were fitted with treatment, baseline dominant/non-dominant hand 9HPT time (secs), and use of miglustat as covariates||29.00|-60.73|0.4693
90861952|NCT02612129|181587073|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.2||||0.7283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.71|22.12|||ANCOVA|||Dominant Hand: Change From Baseline in the Nine-Hole Peg Test (9HPT) at Month 12 was measured using an ANCOVA model: ANCOVA models were fitted with treatment, baseline dominant/non-dominant hand 9HPT time (secs), and use of miglustat as covariates||22.12|-15.71|0.7283
90861953|NCT02612129|181587073|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.91||||0.7708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.54|35.72|||ANCOVA|||Non-dominant Hand: Change From Baseline in the Nine-Hole Peg Test (9HPT) at Month 12 was measured using an ANCOVA model: ANCOVA models were fitted with treatment, baseline dominant/non-dominant hand 9HPT time (secs), and use of miglustat as covariates||35.72|-47.54|0.7708
90861954|NCT04092582|181587152|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.6835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.47|||Regression, Cox|||||1.47|0.55|0.6835
90861955|NCT04092582|181587153|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|1.0989||||0.7648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5925|2.0381|||Poisson regression|||||2.0381|0.5925|0.7648
90861956|NCT04092582|181587154|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.5248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.54|||Regression, Cox|||||1.54|0.43|0.5248
90861957|NCT04092582|181587155|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.125|||||||Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)|||||||0.1250
90861958|NCT04092582|181587156|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2249|||||||Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)|||||||0.2249
90861959|NCT04092582|181587157|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9693|||||||Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)|||||||0.9693
90861960|NCT04092582|181587158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9855|||||||Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)|||||||0.9855
90861961|NCT03019185|181587175|SUPERIORITY|A formal test of mean change from baseline in eGFR ≠ 0 was conducted at Week 12.|LS Mean change from baseline|13.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4111|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.48|16.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|Available data from analysis visits Week 1 to Week 12 were included. Missing data were not imputed.||||16.27|10.48|<0.0001
90861962|NCT03019185|181587176|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Net)|9.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.813|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|5.38|13.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|Available data from analysis visits Week 1 to Week 48 were included. Missing data were not imputed.|Difference is bardoxolone methyl - placebo|||13.60|5.38|<0.0001
90861963|NCT03019185|181587177|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Net)|7.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.144||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.41|11.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|Available data from analysis visits Week 1 to Week 100 (excluding Week 52) were included. Missing data were not imputed.|Difference is bardoxolone methyl - placebo|||11.89|3.41|0.0005
90906656|NCT04091672|181681134|SUPERIORITY|A geometric mean ratio (GMR of ratios) 95% CI with a lower bound exceeding 1 would indicate superiority of RECELL over Control with respect to this endpoint.||||||0.001|||||||GMR of ratios|||||||0.001
90861964|NCT03019185|181587178|SUPERIORITY|A formal test of mean change from baseline in eGFR ≠ 0 was conducted at Week 48.|LS Mean change from baseline|7.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9451||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|11.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|Available data from analysis visits Week 1 to Week 48 were included. Missing data were not imputed.||||11.39|3.40|0.0008
90861965|NCT03019185|181587179|SUPERIORITY|A formal test of mean change from baseline in eGFR ≠ 0 was conducted at Week 100.|LS Mean change from baseline|4.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7484||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|7.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|Available data from analysis visits Week 1 to Week 100 (excluding Week 52) were included. Missing data were not imputed.||||7.72|0.84|0.0150
90861966|NCT03019185|181587180|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Net)|5.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.656||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.37|8.8|||ANCOVA|Missing eGFR data were imputed using multiple imputation based on the treatment group to which the patient was assigned.|Difference is bardoxolone methyl - placebo|||8.80|1.37|0.0021
90861967|NCT03019185|181587181|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Net)|4.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.876||0.0232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|7.94|||ANCOVA|Missing eGFR data were imputed using multiple imputation based on the treatment group to which the patient was assigned.|Difference is bardoxolone methyl - placebo|||7.94|0.58|0.0232
90861968|NCT00398918|181587205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4|<|0.05||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Results presented are for post-hoc comparisons of least squares means with Tukey-Kramer adjucted p values.|The estimated value is for the difference between the means obtained for the second hour of the self-administration sessions for the placebo and zonisamide conditions.|The analysis involved a within subjects comparison. The null hypothesis was that there would be no difference in the amount of ethanol consumed in either the first or second hour of self-administration sessions. Results presented here are for the second hour of the self-administration sessions.||||<0.05
90861969|NCT00398918|181587206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7||0.61||95.0||||P value shown is for a post-hoc comparison of least squares means generated by the mixed model used.|Mixed Models Analysis||Analysis for difference between DSMT scores at 40 minutes post alcohol ingestion for zonisamide and placebo involved post-hoc comparisons of least squares means.|Null hypothesis: No difference in DSMT scores for zonisamide and placebo treatments 40 minutes after ingestion of ethanol.||||0.61
90861970|NCT00491764|181587207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|22.9||||0.005||95.0|8.9|36.8|||Fisher Exact||Difference is in the proportion for Yes responders. Confidence Interval is around the difference in proportions.|||36.8|8.9|0.005
90861971|NCT00491764|181587207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|54.1|||<|0.001||95.0|38.0|70.1|||Fisher Exact||Difference is in the proportion for Yes responders. Confidence Interval is around the difference in proportions.|||70.1|38.0|<0.001
90861972|NCT00491764|181587207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|45.5|||<|0.001||95.0|28.5|62.4|||Fisher Exact||Difference is in the proportion for Yes responders. Confidence Interval is around the difference in proportions.|||62.4|28.5|<0.001
90861973|NCT00491764|181587207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|20.0||||0.012||95.0|6.7|33.3|||Fisher Exact||Difference is in the proportion for Yes responders. Confidence Interval is around the difference in proportions.|||33.3|6.7|0.012
90861974|NCT00491764|181587207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|37.1|||<|0.001||95.0|21.1|53.2|||Fisher Exact||Difference is in the proportion for Yes responders. Confidence Interval is around the difference in proportions.|||53.2|21.1|<0.001
90861975|NCT00491764|181587208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|25.7||||0.002||95.0|11.2|40.2|||Fisher Exact||Difference is in the proportion for Yes responders. Confidence Interval is around the difference in proportions.|||40.2|11.2|0.002
90861976|NCT00491764|181587208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|64.9|||<|0.001||95.0|49.5|80.2|||Fisher Exact||Difference is in the proportion for Yes responders. Confidence Interval is around the difference in proportions.|||80.2|49.5|<0.001
90861977|NCT00491764|181587208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|48.5|||<|0.001||95.0|31.4|65.5|||Fisher Exact||Difference is in the proportion for Yes responders. Confidence Interval is around the difference in proportions.|||65.5|31.4|<0.001
90861978|NCT00491764|181587208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|31.4|||<|0.001||95.0|16.0|46.8|||Fisher Exact||Difference is in the proportion for Yes responders. Confidence Interval is around the difference in proportions.|||46.8|16.0|<0.001
90861979|NCT00491764|181587208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|54.3|||<|0.001||95.0|37.8|70.8|||Fisher Exact||Difference is in the proportion for Yes responders. Confidence Interval is around the difference in proportions.|||70.8|37.8|<0.001
90861980|NCT00491764|181587209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|31.4|||<|0.001||95.0|16.0|46.8|||Fisher Exact||Difference is in the proportion for Yes responders. Confidence Interval is around the difference in proportions.|||46.8|16.0|<0.001
90861981|NCT00491764|181587209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|64.9|||<|0.001||95.0|49.5|80.2|||Fisher Exact||Difference is in the proportion for Yes responders. Confidence Interval is around the difference in proportions.|||80.2|49.5|<0.001
90861982|NCT00491764|181587209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|66.7|||<|0.001||95.0|50.6|82.8|||Fisher Exact||Difference is in the proportion for Yes responders. Confidence Interval is around the difference in proportions.|||82.8|50.6|<0.001
90861983|NCT00491764|181587209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|31.4|||<|0.001||95.0|16.0|46.8|||Fisher Exact||Difference is in the proportion for Yes responders. Confidence Interval is around the difference in proportions.|||46.8|16.0|<0.001
90906657|NCT01796665|181681140|EQUIVALENCE|provides 85% power of success|Equivalence ratio|96.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.5|105.2|||Fieller's method|||||105.2|92.5|
90906658|NCT01796665|181681141|EQUIVALENCE|provides 85% power of success|Equivalence ratio|99.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.9|110.5|||Fieller's method|||||110.5|92.9|
90906659|NCT01796665|181681142|EQUIVALENCE|provides 85% power of success|Equivalence ratio|-1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.23|-1.13|||Fieller's method|||||-1.13|-13.23|
90906660|NCT01955382|181681143|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
90906661|NCT03929302|181681181|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.05
90906662|NCT03929302|181681181|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.57||||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.20
90906663|NCT03929302|181681181|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.642|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.642
90861984|NCT00491764|181587209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|57.1|||<|0.001||95.0|40.7|73.5|||Fisher Exact||Difference is in the proportion for Yes responders. Confidence Interval is around the difference in proportions.|||73.5|40.7|<0.001
90861985|NCT02110238|181587210|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|A VAS (0-100 mm) WOMAC Pain subscale score CFB; an equal n t-test for non-inferiority of means; a non-inferiority margin of -8 mm; change standard deviation of 26 mm; two-sided alpha=0.05; 80% power; an expected mean difference of 0, and a drop-out plus important deviation percentage of approximately 20% were used to establish study sample size.|Least square mean difference|-3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.77|0.17|||||"A MERM regression model was fit to the change from baseline at weeks 3, 6, and 12. The over weeks 3, 6, and 12 single point estimate least square mean change was calculated for both arms, the difference and its 95% confidence interval calculated."|||0.17|-6.77|
90861986|NCT03228433|181587221|EQUIVALENCE|A linear mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed parameters was performed with a fixed effect for regimen and random effect for participant. The least squares(LS) means and difference of least squares (LS) means for the log-transformed parameters were exponentiated to obtain the point estimates (Geometric LS means) of the food effect and 90% confidence intervals (CIs).|Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|0.951|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.823|1.099||||||||1.099|0.823|
90861987|NCT03228433|181587221|EQUIVALENCE|A linear regression model (power model), log (ln) (parameter) equal to (=) intercept plus (+) slope\*ln (dose), was fit to describe the relationship between each parameter and the corresponding dose levels. Dose Proportionality was declared if the 90% CI of the slope lied entirely within the critical region as defined by 1 - ln(0.8) per (/)l n(r) to 1 + ln(1.25)/ln(r), where r was the ratio of the highest and lowest dose in the study.|Slope|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.04|1.25||||||||1.25|1.04|
90861988|NCT03228433|181587222|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence interval of 627.51 to 659.59|LS Mean Difference|0.951|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.825|1.097||||||||1.097|0.825|
90861989|NCT03228433|181587222|EQUIVALENCE|A linear regression model (power model), ln (parameter) = intercept + slope\*ln (dose), was fit to describe the relationship between each parameter and the corresponding dose levels. Dose Proportionality was declared if the 90% CI of the slope lied entirely within the critical region as defined by 1 - ln (0.8)/l n(r) to 1 + ln (1.25)/ln(r), where r was the ratio of the highest and lowest dose in the study.|Slope|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.22||||||||1.22|1.00|
90861990|NCT03228433|181587223|EQUIVALENCE|A linear mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed parameters was performed with a fixed effect for regimen and random effect for participant. The LS means and difference of LS means for the log-transformed parameters were exponentiated to obtain the point estimates (Geometric LS means) of the food effect and 90% confidence intervals CIs.|LS Mean Difference|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.431|0.781||||||||0.781|0.431|
90861991|NCT03228433|181587223|EQUIVALENCE|A linear regression model (power model), ln (parameter) = intercept + slope\*ln (dose), was fit to describe the relationship between each parameter and the corresponding dose levels. Dose Proportionality was declared if the 90% CI of the slope lied entirely within the critical region as defined by 1 - ln (0.8)/l n(r) to 1 + ln (1.25)/ln(r), where r was the ratio of the highest and lowest dose in the study.|Slope|1.06||||||90.0|0.96|1.17||||||||1.17|0.96|
90861992|NCT03055156|181587225|OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.60
90970969|NCT01187953|181824222|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|It was assumed that both treatment groups in this study would have a 15% 12-month treatment failure rate, the study will require 270 patients per group to have 90% power to reject the null hypothesis that the investigational drug, LCP-tacro, is inferior to the reference drug, Prograf, based on a 2-sided 95% CI for the difference and a 0.10 non-inferiority margin.|||||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|||||Endpoint: Death|Fisher Exact|||No overall p value was calculated, only individual p values for each endpoint category. One statistical analysis table is reported for each individual p value.||||>0.999
90861993|NCT03055156|181587226|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
90861994|NCT03055156|181587227|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
90861995|NCT03055156|181587228|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
90861996|NCT03055156|181587229|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of Wake values||||0.02
90861997|NCT03055156|181587229|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of REM values||||0.06
90861998|NCT03055156|181587229|OTHER|||||||0.83|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of Non REM stage 1 values||||0.83
90861999|NCT03055156|181587229|OTHER|||||||0.87|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of Non REM stage 2 values||||0.87
90862000|NCT03055156|181587229|OTHER|||||||0.97|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of Non REM stage 3 values||||0.97
90862001|NCT03055156|181587230|OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.38
90862002|NCT03055156|181587231|OTHER|||||||0.96|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.96
90862003|NCT03055156|181587233|OTHER|||||||0.55|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.55
90862004|NCT03055156|181587234|OTHER|||||||0.86|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||analysis of 0-90 minutes||||0.86
90862005|NCT03055156|181587234|OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||analysis of 90-180 minutes||||0.29
90862006|NCT03055156|181587234|OTHER|||||||0.58|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||analysis of 180-270 minutes||||0.58
90862007|NCT03055156|181587234|OTHER|||||||0.62|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||analysis of 270-360 min||||0.62
90862008|NCT03055156|181587235|OTHER|||||||0.389|||||||ANOVA|||Implemented two-way mixed ANOVA with time as within-subject variable and topper type as between-subject variable. This is to compare the difference in core body temperature trend over time between the two study arms. Interaction between time and topper type on CBT was calculated.||||0.389
90862009|NCT03055156|181587235|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Implemented two-way mixed ANOVA with time as within-subject variable and topper type as between-subject variable. This is to see the effect over time from both study arms on CBT. Main effect of time on CBT.||||0.01
90862010|NCT03055156|181587235|OTHER|||||||0.642|||||||ANOVA|||Implemented two-way mixed ANOVA with time as within-subject variable and topper type as between-subject variable. This is to see the effect of the intervention on CBT including all time points. Main effect of topper type on CBT.||||0.642
90862011|NCT03055156|181587236|OTHER|||||||0.61|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.61
90862012|NCT03055156|181587237|OTHER|||||||0.71|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.71
90862013|NCT03055156|181587238|OTHER|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||1.00
90862014|NCT01419626|181587243|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.461|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.581|-0.341|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 4||-0.341|-0.581|<0.001
90862015|NCT01419626|181587243|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.669|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.789|-0.549|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 4||-0.549|-0.789|<0.001
91105930|NCT03816891|182097791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.9||||0.0402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|8.02||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 18||8.02|1.05|0.0402
90862016|NCT01419626|181587243|SUPERIORITY|Statistical analysis at Week 4|Difference in LS mean|-0.208|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.326|-0.09|||ANCOVA|||||-0.090|-0.326|<0.001
90862017|NCT01419626|181587244|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.494|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.625|-0.363|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 4||-0.363|-0.625|<0.001
90862018|NCT01419626|181587244|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.697|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.828|-0.567|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 4||-0.567|-0.828|<0.001
90862019|NCT01419626|181587244|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.203||||0.002||95.0|-0.333|-0.074|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 4||-0.074|-0.333|0.002
90862020|NCT01419626|181587245|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.059|-0.021|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 2||-0.021|-0.059|<0.001
90862021|NCT01419626|181587245|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.044|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.064|-0.025|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 2||-0.025|-0.064|<0.001
90862022|NCT01419626|181587245|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.004||||0.671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.023|0.015|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 2||0.015|-0.023|0.671
90862023|NCT01419626|181587245|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.091|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.121|-0.061|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 4||-0.061|-0.121|<0.001
90862024|NCT01419626|181587245|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.144|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.175|-0.114|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 4||-0.114|-0.175|<0.001
90862025|NCT01419626|181587245|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.053|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.083|-0.023|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 4||-0.023|-0.083|<0.001
90862026|NCT01419626|181587246|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.115|-0.065|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 2||-0.065|-0.115|<0.001
90862027|NCT01419626|181587246|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.164|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.189|-0.138|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 2||-0.138|-0.189|<0.001
90862028|NCT01419626|181587246|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.073|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.099|-0.048|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 2||-0.048|-0.099|<0.001
90862029|NCT01419626|181587246|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|-0.12|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 4||-0.120|-0.180|<0.001
90862030|NCT01419626|181587246|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.257|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.287|-0.226|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 4||-0.226|-0.287|<0.001
90862031|NCT01419626|181587246|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.107|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.137|-0.077|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 4||-0.077|-0.137|<0.001
90862032|NCT01419626|181587247|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.362|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.465|-0.259|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 2||-0.259|-0.465|<0.001
90862033|NCT01419626|181587247|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.534|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.637|-0.431|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 2||-0.431|-0.637|<0.001
90862034|NCT01419626|181587247|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.171||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.273|-0.069|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 2||-0.069|-0.273|0.001
91105931|NCT03816891|182097791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.97||||0.2003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|5.51||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 18||5.51|0.70|0.2003
90862035|NCT01419626|181587248|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.401|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.292|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 2||-0.292|-0.510|<0.001
90862036|NCT01419626|181587248|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.558|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.667|-0.449|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 2||-0.449|-0.667|<0.001
90862037|NCT01419626|181587248|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.157|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.265|-0.049|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 2||-0.049|-0.265|<0.001
90862038|NCT01419626|181587249|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.046|-0.014|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 2||-0.014|-0.046|<0.001
90862039|NCT01419626|181587249|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.039|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.055|-0.023|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 2||-0.023|-0.055|<0.001
90862040|NCT01419626|181587249|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.009||||0.294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.025|0.007|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 2||0.007|-0.025|0.294
90862041|NCT01419626|181587249|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.019||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.035|-0.003|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 4||-0.003|-0.035|0.020
90862042|NCT01419626|181587249|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.034|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|-0.018|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 4||-0.018|-0.050|<0.001
90862043|NCT01419626|181587249|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.015||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.031|0.001|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 4||0.001|-0.031|0.071
90862044|NCT01419626|181587250|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.067|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.083|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 2||-0.050|-0.083|<0.001
90862045|NCT01419626|181587250|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.083|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.099|-0.066|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 2||-0.066|-0.099|<0.001
90862046|NCT01419626|181587250|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.016||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.032|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 2||0.000|-0.032|0.057
90862047|NCT01419626|181587250|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.077|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.095|-0.059|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 4||-0.059|-0.095|<0.001
90862048|NCT01419626|181587250|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.101|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|-0.083|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 4||-0.083|-0.120|<0.001
90862049|NCT01419626|181587250|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.024||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.042|-0.006|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 4||-0.006|-0.042|0.009
90862050|NCT03569033|181587253|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.32||||0.748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|1.66|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||1.66|-2.29|0.748
90862051|NCT03569033|181587254|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.99||||0.754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.33|7.3|||ANCOVA|||||7.30|-5.33|0.754
90862052|NCT03569033|181587255|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.8||||0.627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|4.1|||ANCOVA|||||4.10|-2.50|0.627
90906664|NCT03815916|181681182|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3865||||0.1077|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The primary efficacy endpoint is the mean change in the average NAD+/NADH brain ratio from baseline to Week 12 using a partial volume coil 31P-MRS data on the Per Protocol Treatment Population. A paired t-test will be used to analyze the mean change from baseline.||||0.1077
90906665|NCT02688621|181681266|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The study was designed to detect a 2.2-kg group weight loss difference between groups with a standard deviation of 5.8 kg,4,5 a 5% Type I error rate, and 80% power. To adjust for possible clustering effects in this nested design, the adjusted variance estimate was increased to 7.67, calculated using a conservative intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.05.||||<.01
90906666|NCT01996644|181681279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.043|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.043
90906667|NCT05349864|181681288|EQUIVALENCE|Using data from Treatment A and Treatment B, natural log transformed AUClast was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were obtained from the model, and were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CI for the ratios.|ratio of adjusted geometric means|120.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|109.76|131.75||||||||131.75|109.76|
90906668|NCT05349864|181681289|EQUIVALENCE|Using data from Treatment A and Treatment B, natural log transformed AUCinf was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% CIs were obtained from the model, and were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CI for the ratios.|ratio of adjusted geometric means|116.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.91|137.95||||||||137.95|97.91|
90906669|NCT05349864|181681290|EQUIVALENCE|Using data from Treatment A and Treatment B, natural log transformed Cmax was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% CIs were obtained from the model, and were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CI for the ratios.|ratio of adjusted geometric means|206.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|171.14|250.15||||||||250.15|171.14|
90906670|NCT05349864|181681291|EQUIVALENCE|Using data from Treatment A and Treatment C, natural log transformed AUClast was analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment and sequence as a fixed effect and participant within sequence as a random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% CIs were obtained from the model, and were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CI for the ratios.|ratio of adjusted geometric means|135.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|114.36|161.19||||||||161.19|114.36|
90906671|NCT05349864|181681292|EQUIVALENCE|Using data from Treatment A and Treatment C, natural log transformed AUCinf was analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment and sequence as a fixed effect and participant within sequence as a random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% CIs were obtained from the model, and were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CI for the ratios.|ratio of adjusted geometric means|138.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|106.11|180.41||||||||180.41|106.11|
90906672|NCT05349864|181681293|EQUIVALENCE|Using data from Treatment A and Treatment C, natural log transformed Cmax was analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment and sequence as a fixed effect and participant within sequence as a random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% CIs were obtained from the model, and were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CI for the ratios.|ratio of adjusted geometric means|236.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|190.12|294.38||||||||294.38|190.12|
90959352|NCT01691768|181798629|NON_INFERIORITY|We estimated that we would need to enrol 700 women after taking into account the anticipated loss-to follow-up in order to provide 90% power to demonstrate whether gel use in women attending family planning (intervention) services is similar to, but no more than 20% lower than, gel use among women attending CAPRISA research clinics (control).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.21||||Univariate Linear Mixed Models were used to analyze primary outcome.|The least square mean from the intervention arm was the minuend and the least square mean from the control arm was the subtrahend.|Intent to treat population (all participants who were randomized, met pre-randomization eligibility criteria and who have post-enrollment follow-up data) was used for this analyses.|The primary endpoint was compared using univariate linear mixed model with compound symmetry structure.|0.21|-1.16|
91105932|NCT03816891|182097791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.84||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|9.67||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 19||9.67|1.52|0.0034
91105933|NCT03816891|182097791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.31||||0.0749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|5.8||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 19||5.80|0.92|0.0749
90862053|NCT03569033|181587256|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.09||||0.631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.45|||ANCOVA|||||0.45|-0.28|0.631
90862054|NCT01011738|181587313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.349||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.542|7.271||Multiple logistic regression were run in stepwise procedure with significance level of 0.05 to stay, considering all pre and on-treatment factors identified by univariate logistic regression to be associated with HBsAg clearance 3 yrs post-treatment.|Wald-Chi-Square test|||In HBeAg positive participants, Log10-drop HBsAg at Week 24 was analyzed as the predictor factor of HBsAg clearance at 3 years post-treatment in analysis A.||7.271|1.542|0.0022
90862055|NCT01011738|181587313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.595||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.603|8.063||Multiple logistic regression were run in stepwise procedure with significance level of 0.05 to stay, considering all pre and on-treatment factors identified by univariate logistic regression to be associated with HBsAg clearance 3 yrs post-treatment.|Wald-Chi-Square test|||In HBeAg positive participants, Log10-drop HBsAg at Week 24 was analyzed as the predictor factor of HBsAg clearance at 3 years post-treatment in analysis B.||8.063|1.603|0.0019
91105934|NCT03816891|182097791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.02||||0.1248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|5.02||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 19||5.02|0.82|0.1248
91105935|NCT03816891|182097791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.56||||0.0278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|6.03||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||6.03|1.09|0.0278
90862056|NCT01011738|181587313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.851||||0.0369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.732|0.99||Multiple logistic regression were run in stepwise procedure with significance level of 0.05 to stay, considering all pre and on-treatment factors identified by univariate logistic regression to be associated with HBsAg clearance 3 yrs post-treatment.|Wald-Chi-Square test|||In HBeAg positive participants, Weight in kg was analyzed as independent predictor factor of HBsAg clearance at 3 years post-treatment in analysis A.||0.990|0.732|0.0369
90862057|NCT01011738|181587317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.155||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.045|0.539||Multiple logistic regression were run in stepwise procedure with significance level of 0.05 to stay, considering all pre and on-treatment factors identified by univariate logistic regression to be associated with HBsAg clearance 3 yrs post-treatment.|Wald-Chi-Square test|||In HBeAg negative participants, HBsAg in log10 IU/mL at Week 24 was analyzed as the predictor factor of HBsAg clearance at 3 years post-treatment in analysis A.||0.539|0.045|0.0033
90862058|NCT01011738|181587317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.191||||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.062|0.594|||Wald-Chi-Square test|||In HBeAg negative participants, HBsAg in log10 IU/mL at Week 24 was analyzed as the predictor factor of HBsAg clearance at 3 years post-treatment in analysis B.||0.594|0.062|0.0042
90862059|NCT01011738|181587317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.528||||0.0149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.086|2.15||Multiple logistic regression were run in stepwise procedure with significance level of 0.05 to stay, considering all pre and on-treatment factors identified by univariate logistic regression to be associated with HBsAg clearance 3 yrs post-treatment.|Wald-Chi-Square test|||In HBeAg negative participants, ALT ratio was analysed as the predictor factor of HBsAg clearance at 3 years post-treatment in analysis A.||2.150|1.086|0.0149
90862060|NCT01346969|181587340|OTHER|LS Mean, SE, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were derived from MMRM model that includes fixed factors for treatment, pooled site, scheduled visit, an interaction for treatment by scheduled visit, and a covariate for Fitzpatrick category.|LS Mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Overall Opinion: Intraparticipant analysis||0.8|-0.8|1.000
90862061|NCT01346969|181587340|OTHER|LS Mean, SE, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were derived from MMRM model that includes fixed factors for treatment, pooled site, scheduled visit, an interaction for treatment by scheduled visit, and a covariate for Fitzpatrick category.|LS Mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Vascularity: Intraparticipant analysis||0.7|-0.7|1.000
90862062|NCT01346969|181587340|OTHER|LS Mean, SE, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were derived from MMRM model that includes fixed factors for treatment, pooled site, scheduled visit, an interaction for treatment by scheduled visit, and a covariate for Fitzpatrick category.|LS Mean|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pigmentation: Intraparticipant analysis||0.4|-1.0|0.391
90862063|NCT01346969|181587340|OTHER|LS Mean, SE, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were derived from MMRM model that includes fixed factors for treatment, pooled site, scheduled visit, an interaction for treatment by scheduled visit, and a covariate for Fitzpatrick category.|LS Mean|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Thickness: Intraparticipant analysis||0.9|-0.6|0.696
90862064|NCT01346969|181587340|OTHER|LS Mean, SE, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were derived from MMRM model that includes fixed factors for treatment, pooled site, scheduled visit, an interaction for treatment by scheduled visit, and a covariate for Fitzpatrick category.|LS Mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Relief: Intraparticipant analysis||0.8|-0.7|0.921
90862065|NCT01346969|181587340|OTHER|LS Mean, SE, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were derived from MMRM model that includes fixed factors for treatment, pooled site, scheduled visit, an interaction for treatment by scheduled visit, and a covariate for Fitzpatrick category.|LS Mean|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pliability: Intraparticipant analysis||0.9|-0.6|0.693
90862066|NCT01346969|181587340|OTHER|LS Mean, SE, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were derived from MMRM model that includes fixed factors for treatment, pooled site, scheduled visit, an interaction for treatment by scheduled visit, and a covariate for Fitzpatrick category.|LS Mean|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Surface Area: Intraparticipant analysis||0.9|-0.7|0.770
90862067|NCT01346969|181587340|OTHER|LS Mean, SE, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were derived from MMRM model that includes fixed factors for treatment, pooled site, scheduled visit, an interaction for treatment by scheduled visit, and a covariate for Fitzpatrick category.|LS Mean|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.98||0.938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|4.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Composite Score: Intraparticipant analysis||4.0|-3.7|0.938
90862068|NCT01346969|181587340|OTHER|LS Mean, SE, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were derived from MMRM model that includes fixed factors for treatment, pooled site, scheduled visit, an interaction for treatment by scheduled visit, and a covariate for Fitzpatrick category.|LS Mean|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Overall Opinion: Intraparticipant analysis||0.5|-1.5|0.340
90862069|NCT01346969|181587340|OTHER|LS Mean, SE, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were derived from MMRM model that includes fixed factors for treatment, pooled site, scheduled visit, an interaction for treatment by scheduled visit, and a covariate for Fitzpatrick category.|LS Mean|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Vascularity: Intraparticipant analysis||0.4|-1.6|0.258
90906673|NCT00984282|181681302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||stratified by age group (\< 60 years, \>= 60 years) and region (Europe, North-America, Asia)|Log Rank|||The two treatment groups were compared using a stratified one-sided log rank test with an overall alpha of 0.01 stratified by age group and region. The null hypothesis that both treatment arms have the same PFS distribution will be tested against the alternative hypothesis that the distribution of PFS times in the sorafenib arm is different from the control arm according to the Lehmann alternative, which is equivalent to the assumption of proportional hazards of the treatment arms.||||<0.0001
90906674|NCT00984282|181681302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.587|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.454|0.758|||Regression, Cox|stratified by age group and region||||0.758|0.454|
91105936|NCT03816891|182097791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.7001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|2.97||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||2.97|0.48|0.7001
90862070|NCT01346969|181587340|OTHER|LS Mean, SE, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were derived from MMRM model that includes fixed factors for treatment, pooled site, scheduled visit, an interaction for treatment by scheduled visit, and a covariate for Fitzpatrick category.|LS Mean|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pigmentation: Intraparticipant analysis||0.5|-1.4|0.381
90862071|NCT01346969|181587340|OTHER|LS Mean, SE, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were derived from MMRM model that includes fixed factors for treatment, pooled site, scheduled visit, an interaction for treatment by scheduled visit, and a covariate for Fitzpatrick category.|LS Mean|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Thickness: Intraparticipant analysis||0.5|-1.6|0.287
90862072|NCT01346969|181587340|OTHER|LS Mean, SE, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were derived from MMRM model that includes fixed factors for treatment, pooled site, scheduled visit, an interaction for treatment by scheduled visit, and a covariate for Fitzpatrick category.|LS Mean|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Relief: Intraparticipant analysis||0.6|-1.5|0.420
90862073|NCT01346969|181587340|OTHER|LS Mean, SE, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were derived from MMRM model that includes fixed factors for treatment, pooled site, scheduled visit, an interaction for treatment by scheduled visit, and a covariate for Fitzpatrick category.|LS Mean|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pliability: Intraparticipant analysis||0.4|-1.7|0.227
90862074|NCT01346969|181587340|OTHER|LS Mean, SE, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were derived from MMRM model that includes fixed factors for treatment, pooled site, scheduled visit, an interaction for treatment by scheduled visit, and a covariate for Fitzpatrick category.|LS Mean|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Surface Area: Intraparticipant analysis||0.6|-1.5|0.427
90862075|NCT01346969|181587340|OTHER|LS Mean, SE, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were derived from MMRM model that includes fixed factors for treatment, pooled site, scheduled visit, an interaction for treatment by scheduled visit, and a covariate for Fitzpatrick category.|LS Mean|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|2.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Composite Score: Intraparticipant analysis||2.2|-8.4|0.256
90862076|NCT01346969|181587340|OTHER|LS Mean, SE, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were derived from MMRM model that includes fixed factors for treatment, pooled site, scheduled visit, an interaction for treatment by scheduled visit, and a covariate for Fitzpatrick category.|LS Mean|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|2.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Overall Opinion: Intraparticipant analysis||2.0|-0.4|0.198
90862077|NCT01346969|181587340|OTHER|LS Mean, SE, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were derived from MMRM model that includes fixed factors for treatment, pooled site, scheduled visit, an interaction for treatment by scheduled visit, and a covariate for Fitzpatrick category.|LS Mean|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|2.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Vascularity: Intraparticipant analysis||2.1|-0.3|0.132
90862078|NCT01346969|181587340|OTHER|LS Mean, SE, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were derived from MMRM model that includes fixed factors for treatment, pooled site, scheduled visit, an interaction for treatment by scheduled visit, and a covariate for Fitzpatrick category.|LS Mean|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pigmentation: Intraparticipant analysis||1.8|-0.4|0.227
90862079|NCT01346969|181587340|OTHER|LS Mean, SE, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were derived from MMRM model that includes fixed factors for treatment, pooled site, scheduled visit, an interaction for treatment by scheduled visit, and a covariate for Fitzpatrick category.|LS Mean|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|2.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Thickness: Intraparticipant analysis||2.0|-0.4|0.208
90862080|NCT01346969|181587340|OTHER|LS Mean, SE, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were derived from MMRM model that includes fixed factors for treatment, pooled site, scheduled visit, an interaction for treatment by scheduled visit, and a covariate for Fitzpatrick category.|LS Mean|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Relief: Intraparticipant analysis||1.9|-0.5|0.265
90862081|NCT01346969|181587340|OTHER|LS Mean, SE, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were derived from MMRM model that includes fixed factors for treatment, pooled site, scheduled visit, an interaction for treatment by scheduled visit, and a covariate for Fitzpatrick category.|LS Mean|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pliability: Intraparticipant analysis||1.8|-0.6|0.340
90862082|NCT01346969|181587340|OTHER|LS Mean, SE, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were derived from MMRM model that includes fixed factors for treatment, pooled site, scheduled visit, an interaction for treatment by scheduled visit, and a covariate for Fitzpatrick category.|LS Mean|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Surface Area: Intraparticipant analysis||1.9|-0.7|0.347
90862083|NCT01346969|181587340|OTHER|LS Mean, SE, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were derived from MMRM model that includes fixed factors for treatment, pooled site, scheduled visit, an interaction for treatment by scheduled visit, and a covariate for Fitzpatrick category.|LS Mean|4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.19||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|10.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Composite Score: Intraparticipant analysis||10.6|-2.0|0.179
90862084|NCT01346969|181587340|OTHER|LS Mean, SE, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were derived from MMRM model that includes fixed factors for treatment, pooled site, scheduled visit, an interaction for treatment by scheduled visit, and a covariate for Fitzpatrick category.|Least Square (LS) Mean|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Overall Opinion: Intraparticipant analysis||0.8|-1.4|0.556
90906675|NCT00984282|181681303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2892|||||||Log Rank|stratified by age group and region||||||0.2892
91105937|NCT03816891|182097791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.7844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|2.84||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||2.84|0.46|0.7844
90906676|NCT00984282|181681303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.928|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.713|1.208|||Regression, Cox|stratified by age group and region||||1.208|0.713|
90906677|NCT00984282|181681304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|stratified by age group and region||||||<0.0001
90906678|NCT00984282|181681304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.557|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.429|0.724|||Regression, Cox|stratified by age group and region||||0.724|0.429|
90906679|NCT00984282|181681305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of response rates|11.7||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|19.4||stratified by age group and region|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference of disease control rates sorafenib minus placebo. Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel confidence interval stratified by age group and region|||19.4|3.9|0.0015
90906680|NCT00984282|181681306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rate|11.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|16.5||stratified by age group and region|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference of response rates sorafenib minus placebo. Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel confidence interval stratified by age group and region|||16.5|7.0|<0.0001
90906681|NCT04541186|181681347|SUPERIORITY||Median Percent Change Difference|-43.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.08|-30.31||Significant level = 0.05|van Elteren test|Nonparametric analysis stratified by baseline TG level and background lipid therapy to test the treatment difference using pooled data.|The location shift and Hodges-Lehmann 95% confidence interval were based on Hodges-Lehman estimation. Placebo group is the reference group, and the comparison was performed in pooled pegozafermin treatment group vs. placebo pooled.|||-30.31|-57.08|<0.001
90906682|NCT04541186|181681348|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Significant level = 0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline TG level and lipid modifying therapy use.||||||<0.001
90906683|NCT04541186|181681349|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means Difference|-17.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.425||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.67|-5.07||Significant level = 0.05|MMRM|||MMRM analysis of non-HDL-C comparison between pegozafermin pooled versus placebo pooled group.||-5.07|-30.67|0.007
90906684|NCT04541186|181681349|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means Difference|-11.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.888||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.48|-2.01||Significant level of 0.05|MMRM|||MMRM analysis of ApoB comparison between pegozafermin pooled versus placebo pooled group.||-2.01|-21.48|0.019
90906685|NCT04541186|181681349|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means Difference|1.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.519||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.21|22.68||Significant level = 0.05|MMRM|||MMRM analysis of LDL-C comparison between pegozafermin pooled versus placebo pooled group.||22.68|-19.21|0.870
90906686|NCT04541186|181681349|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means Difference|15.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.182||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|31.7||Significant level = 0.05|MMRM|||MMRM analysis of HDL-C comparison between pegozafermin pooled versus placebo pooled group.||31.70|-0.89|0.064
90906687|NCT04541186|181681350|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006||||||Significant level = 0.05|van Elteren Test|||Nonparametric analysis of VLDL-C comparison between pegozafermin pooled versus placebo pooled group.||||0.006
91105938|NCT03816891|182097791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.68||||0.0249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|6.44||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 21||6.44|1.12|0.0249
90906688|NCT04541186|181681350|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||Significant level of 0.05|van Elteren test|||Nonparametric analysis of VLDL-TG comparison between pegozafermin pooled versus placebo pooled group.||||0.002
90906689|NCT04541186|181681351|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.809||||||Significant level = 0.05|MMRM|||MMRM analysis of fasting plasma glucose comparison between pegozafermin pooled versus placebo pooled group.||||0.809
90906690|NCT04541186|181681351|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Significant level = 0.05|MMRM|||MMRM analysis of adiponectin comparison between pegozafermin pooled versus placebo pooled group.||||<0.001
90906691|NCT04541186|181681351|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.973||||||Significant level = 0.05|MMRM|||MMRM analysis of body weight comparison between pegozafermin pooled versus placebo pooled group.||||0.973
91105939|NCT03816891|182097791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.67||||0.0303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|6.54||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 21||6.54|1.09|0.0303
90906692|NCT04541186|181681352|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012||||||Significant level = 0.05|ANCOVA|||||||0.012
90906693|NCT00058058|181681380|OTHER|Estimation of diagnostic yield|Binomial proportion|0.031|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.006|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.042||||||Diagnostic Yield is defined as the likelihood that a test or procedure will provide the information needed to establish a diagnosis. For this analysis, a Positive Test is defined as a score of BI-RADS 0, 4 or 5 based on Final BI-RADS||0.042|0.020|
90906694|NCT00058058|181681380|OTHER||Binomial Proportion|0.031|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.006|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.021|0.044||||||Diagnostic Yield is defined as the likelihood that a test or procedure will provide the information needed to establish a diagnosis. For this analysis, a Positive Test is defined as a score of BI-RADS 4 or 5 based on initial MRI and subsequent work-up||0.044|0.021|
90906695|NCT00058058|181681380|OTHER||Binomial Proportion|0.031|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.006|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.042||||||Diagnostic Yield is defined as the likelihood that a test or procedure will provide the information needed to establish a diagnosis. For this analysis, a Positive Test is defined as a score of BI-RADS 4 or 5 based on initial MRI and subsequent work-up and a completed biopsy procedure||0.042|0.020|
90906696|NCT00058058|181681380|OTHER||Binomial proportion|0.031|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.006|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.042||||||Diagnostic Yield is defined as the likelihood that a test or procedure will provide the information needed to establish a diagnosis. For this analysis, a Positive Test is defined as a score of BI-RADS 0, 4 or 5 on the initial MRI scan||0.042|0.020|
90906697|NCT00058058|181681380|OTHER||Binomial Proportion|0.032|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.006|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.021|0.043||||||Diagnostic Yield is defined as the likelihood that a test or procedure will provide the information needed to establish a diagnosis. For this analysis, a Positive Test is defined as a score of BI-RADS 0, 3, 4 or 5 on the initial MRI scan||0.043|0.021|
90906698|NCT00058058|181681380|OTHER||Binomial Proportion|0.032|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.006|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.021|0.043||||||Diagnostic Yield is defined as the likelihood that a test or procedure will provide the information needed to establish a diagnosis. For this analysis, a Positive Test is defined as a score of BI-RADS 0, 3, 4 or 5 based on initial MRI and subsequent work-up||0.043|0.021|
91105940|NCT03816891|182097791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68||||0.2601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|4.12||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 21||4.12|0.69|0.2601
91105941|NCT03816891|182097791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.26||||0.0691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|5.46||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 22||5.46|0.94|0.0691
90862085|NCT01346969|181587340|OTHER|LS Mean, SE, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were derived from MMRM model that includes fixed factors for treatment, pooled site, scheduled visit, an interaction for treatment by scheduled visit, and a covariate for Fitzpatrick category.|LS Mean|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Vascularity: Intraparticipant analysis||0.9|-1.2|0.760
90862086|NCT01346969|181587340|OTHER|LS Mean, SE, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were derived from MMRM model that includes fixed factors for treatment, pooled site, scheduled visit, an interaction for treatment by scheduled visit, and a covariate for Fitzpatrick category.|LS Mean|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pigmentation: Intraparticipant analysis||0.8|-1.3|0.636
90862087|NCT01346969|181587340|OTHER|LS Mean, SE, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were derived from MMRM model that includes fixed factors for treatment, pooled site, scheduled visit, an interaction for treatment by scheduled visit, and a covariate for Fitzpatrick category.|LS Mean|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Thickness: Intraparticipant analysis||1.0|-1.3|0.774
90862088|NCT01346969|181587340|OTHER|LS Mean, SE, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were derived from MMRM model that includes fixed factors for treatment, pooled site, scheduled visit, an interaction for treatment by scheduled visit, and a covariate for Fitzpatrick category.|LS Mean|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Relief: Intraparticipant analysis||1.0|-1.3|0.771
90862089|NCT01346969|181587340|OTHER|LS Mean, SE, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were derived from MMRM model that includes fixed factors for treatment, pooled site, scheduled visit, an interaction for treatment by scheduled visit, and a covariate for Fitzpatrick category.|LS Mean|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pliability: Intraparticipant analysis||0.7|-1.5|0.468
90862090|NCT01346969|181587340|OTHER|LS Mean, SE, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were derived from MMRM model that includes fixed factors for treatment, pooled site, scheduled visit, an interaction for treatment by scheduled visit, and a covariate for Fitzpatrick category.|LS Mean|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Surface Area: Intraparticipant analysis||1.1|-1.2|0.886
90862091|NCT01346969|181587340|OTHER|LS Mean, SE, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were derived from MMRM model that includes fixed factors for treatment, pooled site, scheduled visit, an interaction for treatment by scheduled visit, and a covariate for Fitzpatrick category.|LS Mean|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.91||0.668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|4.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Composite Score: Intraparticipant analysis||4.5|-7.0|0.668
90906699|NCT00058058|181681381|OTHER||Binomial Proportion|0.9091|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05004|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7567|0.9809||||||"Sensitivity estimate - estimates the P(T+\|D+) where the MRI within 90 days of a negative mammogram is the test (T) and cancer in the contralateral breast is the Disease status(D)"||0.9809|0.7567|
91105942|NCT03816891|182097791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.32||||0.0538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|5.52||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 22||5.52|0.98|0.0538
90862092|NCT01967173|181587346|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of the null hypothesis that the superiority of Advair 100/50 compared to Fluticasone 250 is equal to the inferiority of Advair 100/50 compared to Fluticasone 250||||0.003
90862093|NCT01967173|181587346|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of the null hypothesis that the superiority of Advair 100/50 compared to Fluticasone 250 is equal to the inferiority of Advair 100/50 compared to Fluticasone 250||||0.9
90862094|NCT01967173|181587346|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of the null hypothesis that the superiority of Advair 100/50 compared to Fluticasone 500 is equal to the inferiority of Advair 100/50 compared to Fluticasone 500||||<0.001
90862095|NCT01967173|181587346|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of the null hypothesis that the superiority of Advair 100/50 compared to Advair 250/50 is equal to the inferiority of Advair 100/50 compared to Advair 250/50||||0.42
90862096|NCT01967173|181587346|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of the null hypothesis that the superiority of Advair 100/50 compared to Advair 250/50 is equal to the inferiority of Advair 100/50 compared to Advair 250/50||||0.84
90862097|NCT01967173|181587346|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of the null hypothesis that the superiority of Advair 250/50 compared to Fluticasone 500 is equal to the inferiority of Advair 250/50 compared to Fluticasone 500||||0.015
90862098|NCT01967173|181587346|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.085|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of the null hypothesis that the superiority of Advair 250/50 compared to Fluticasone 250 is equal to the inferiority of Advair 250/50 compared to Fluticasone 250||||0.085
90862099|NCT01967173|181587346|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of the null hypothesis that the superiority of Advair 250/50 compared to Fluticasone 250 is equal to the inferiority of Advair 250/50 compared to Fluticasone 250||||0.62
90862100|NCT01967173|181587346|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of the null hypothesis that the superiority of Fluticasone 500 compared to Fluticasone 250 is equal to the inferiority of Fluticasone 500 compared to Fluticasone 250||||0.48
90906700|NCT00058058|181681381|OTHER||Binomial Proportion|0.8782|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0107|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8555|0.8985||||||"Specificity - estimates the P(T-\|D-) of MRI where the MRI within 90 days of a negative mammogram is the test (T) and cancer in the contralateral breast is the Disease status(D)"||0.8985|0.8555|
91105943|NCT03816891|182097791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.6258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|2.94||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 22||2.94|0.52|0.6258
90862101|NCT01967173|181587346|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of the null hypothesis that the superiority of Advair 100/50 compared to Fluticasone 100 is equal to the inferiority of Advair 100/50 compared to Fluticasone 100||||0.14
90862102|NCT01967173|181587346|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.096|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of the null hypothesis that the superiority of Fluticasone 250 compared to Fluticasone 100 is equal to the inferiority of Fluticasone 250 compared to Fluticasone 100||||0.096
90862103|NCT02128932|181587434|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was concluded if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the estimated treatment difference between semaglutide 1.0 mg and insulin glargine was below the pre-specified non-inferiority margin (0.3 %).|Treatment difference|-0.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The post baseline responses were analysed using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment , country and stratum as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||-0.67|-0.96|<0.0001
90862104|NCT02128932|181587434|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was concluded if the upper limit of the two-sided 95 % confidence interval for the estimated treatment difference between semaglutide 0.5 mg and insulin glargine was below the pre-specified non-inferiority margin (0.3%).|Treatment difference|-0.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The post baseline responses were analysed using a mixed model for repeated meausrements with treatment, country and stratum value as covariate, all nested within visit.||-0.24|-0.52|<0.0001
90862105|NCT03685123|181587443|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.256|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.256
90862106|NCT03685123|181587444|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.089|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.089
90862107|NCT03685123|181587445|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.244|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.244
90862108|NCT03685123|181587446|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.064|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.064
90862109|NCT03685123|181587447|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.983|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||LDL levels||||0.983
90862110|NCT03685123|181587447|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||HDL levels||||0.56
90862111|NCT03685123|181587447|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Total Cholesterol||||0.71
90862112|NCT03685123|181587447|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.313|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Triglycerides||||0.313
90862113|NCT03685123|181587448|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||systolic Blood pressure||||0.72
90862114|NCT03685123|181587448|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Diastolic Blood pressure||||0.61
90862115|NCT03685123|181587448|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1609|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in aortic blood pressure between the PA-REC and the WM-REC Groups.||||0.1609
90862116|NCT03685123|181587448|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.446|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in aortic diastolic blood pressure between the PA-REC and WM-REC Groups||||0.446
90862117|NCT03685123|181587449|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.965|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.965
90906701|NCT00058058|181681381|OTHER||Binomial Proportion|0.2083|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0338|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1452|0.2839||||||"PPV estimate - estimates the P(D+\|T+), where the MRI within 90 days of a negative mammogram is the test (T) and cancer in the contralateral breast is the Disease status(D)."||0.2839|0.1452|
90862118|NCT03685123|181587450|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.857|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.857
90862119|NCT03685123|181587451|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.825|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.825
90862120|NCT03685123|181587452|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.061|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.061
90862121|NCT03685123|181587454|SUPERIORITY|Change in particle size between the PA-REC and WM-REC groups||||||0.105|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in HDL particle size||||0.105
90862122|NCT03685123|181587454|SUPERIORITY|Change in particle size between the PA-REC and the WM-REC groups||||||0.849|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in LDL particles||||0.849
90862123|NCT03685123|181587456|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.278|||||||ANOVA|||Change in steps per day from week 10 to week 28||||0.278
90862124|NCT03685123|181587457|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.238|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in SF-36 General Health (GH)||||0.238
90862125|NCT03685123|181587457|SUPERIORITY|Between groups analysis between the change in PA-REC Group vs. the WM-REC Group||||||0.124|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in SF-36 Physical health (PH)||||0.124
90862126|NCT03685123|181587457|SUPERIORITY|Between groups analysis between the change in PA-REC Group vs. the WM-REC Group||||||0.769|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in SF-36 role physical||||0.769
90862127|NCT03685123|181587457|SUPERIORITY|Between groups analysis between the change in PA-REC Group vs. the WM-REC Group||||||0.352|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in SF-36 Bodily Pain||||0.352
90862128|NCT03685123|181587457|SUPERIORITY|Between groups analysis between the change in PA-REC Group vs. the WM-REC Group||||||0.898|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in SF-36 Vitality||||0.898
90862129|NCT03685123|181587457|SUPERIORITY|Between groups analysis between the change in PA-REC Group vs. the WM-REC Group||||||0.444|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in SF-36 social function||||0.444
90862130|NCT03685123|181587457|SUPERIORITY|Change between the PA-REC group and the WM-REC group||||||0.537|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in SF-36 Mental Health||||0.537
90862131|NCT03685123|181587457|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.448|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in SF-36 Role Emotional||||0.448
90862132|NCT03685123|181587457|SUPERIORITY|Change between the PA-REC group and the WM-REC group||||||0.537|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in SF-36 Mental Health (Sum)||||0.537
90862133|NCT03685123|181587457|SUPERIORITY|Change between the PA-REC group and the WM-REC group||||||0.482|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in SF-36 Physical Health (sum)||||0.482
90862134|NCT03685123|181587459|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
90862135|NCT03685123|181587460|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.37
90862136|NCT03685123|181587461|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in body fat||||<0.001
90862137|NCT03685123|181587462|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
90862138|NCT03685123|181587463|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||LDL||||0.004
90862139|NCT03685123|181587463|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in HDL||||0.04
90862140|NCT03685123|181587463|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in Total Cholesterol||||<0.001
90862141|NCT03685123|181587463|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Triglycerides||||<0.001
90862142|NCT03685123|181587464|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||Systolic blood pressure|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.01
90906702|NCT00058058|181681381|OTHER||Binomial Proportion|0.9964|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0021|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9894|0.9993||||||"B. NPV Analysis for ALL Cases in Analysis Set NPV estimate - estimates the P(D-\|T-), where the MRI within 90 days of a negative mammogram is the test (T) and cancer in the contralateral breast is the Disease status(D)"||0.9993|0.9894|
90906703|NCT00058058|181681381|OTHER||Binomial Proportion|0.031|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00556|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.021|0.044||||||B. Diagnostic Yield for ALL Cases in Analysis Set Diagnostic Yield - estimates the likelihood that the MRI within 90 days of a negative mammogram will provide the information needed to establish a diagnosis||0.044|0.021|
90906704|NCT00058058|181681382|OTHER||ROC analysis|0.9355|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8956|0.9753|||||exact CI|ROC analysis - estimates the accuracy of MRI within 90 days of a negative mammogram to detect cancer in the contralateral breast||0.9753|0.8956|
91105944|NCT03816891|182097791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.7407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.63||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 23||2.63|0.50|0.7407
91105945|NCT03816891|182097791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.5218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|3.06||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 23||3.06|0.57|0.5218
90862143|NCT03685123|181587464|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Diastolic blood pressure||||0.001
90862144|NCT03685123|181587464|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Aortic blood pressure (mmHg)||||<0.001
90862145|NCT03685123|181587464|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in aortic diastolic pressure||||<0.001
90862146|NCT03685123|181587465|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
90862147|NCT03685123|181587466|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
90862148|NCT03685123|181587467|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.366|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.366
90862149|NCT03685123|181587468|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
90862150|NCT03685123|181587470|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.004
90862151|NCT03685123|181587471|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
90862152|NCT03685123|181587472|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||General Health|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
90862153|NCT03685123|181587472|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Physical Health||||<0.001
90906705|NCT00790062|181681395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.59|||ANCOVA|||||1.59|0.63|0.670
90971372|NCT01709149|181825511|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.956||0.4328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|2.63|||Repeated-measures mixed model||Least squares mean difference: tirasemtiv minus placebo|||2.63|-1.13|0.4328
90862154|NCT03685123|181587472|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.023|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Role physical||||0.023
90862155|NCT03685123|181587472|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Bodily Pain|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
90862156|NCT03685123|181587472|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Vitality||||<0.001
90862157|NCT03685123|181587472|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Social Functioning||||<0.001
90862158|NCT03685123|181587472|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0105|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mental Health||||0.0105
90862159|NCT03685123|181587472|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Role Emotional||||<0.001
90862160|NCT03685123|181587472|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||SF-36 mental health Components (sum)||||0.01
90862161|NCT03685123|181587472|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Physical Health Components Sum||||<0.001
90862162|NCT03685123|181587473|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in kilocalories consumed from baseline to week 10||||<0.001
90862163|NCT03685123|181587474|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.658|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in LDL Particle Size||||0.658
90862164|NCT03685123|181587474|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||HDL participle size||||0.07
90862165|NCT01254630|181587475|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine Efficacy|0.636|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.364|0.791|||||Point estimate and 97.5% CI of vaccine efficacy (primary endpoint) were obtained from a Cox proportional hazards regression model, adjusting for age (\<50 versus ≥50 years of age).|Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 minus the hazard ratio of HZ in the V212 group versus the placebo group. The success criterion for vaccine efficacy required that the lower bound of the 97.5% Confidence Interval (CI) be \>0.25.||0.791|0.364|
90862166|NCT01254630|181587476|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|4.5||||||||4.5|-1.8|
90862167|NCT01254630|181587477|OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|0.771|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.899|||||Point estimate and 95% CI of vaccine efficacy were obtained from a Cox proportional hazards regression model, adjusting for age (\<50 versus ≥50 years of age).|Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 minus the hazard ratio of HZ in the V212 group versus the placebo group. The success criterion for vaccine efficacy required that the lower bound of the 95% CI be \>0.25.||0.899|0.480|
90862168|NCT01254630|181587478|OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|0.874|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|0.984|||||Point estimate and 95% CI of vaccine efficacy were obtained from a Cox proportional hazards regression model, adjusting for age (\<50 versus ≥50 years of age).|Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 minus the hazard ratio of HZ in the V212 group versus the placebo group. The success criterion for vaccine efficacy required that the lower bound of the 95% CI be \>0.25.||0.984|-0.005|
90862169|NCT01254630|181587479|OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|0.746|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.275|0.972|||||Point estimate and 95% CI of vaccine efficacy were obtained from a Cox proportional hazards regression model, adjusting for age (\<50 versus ≥50 years of age).|Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 minus the hazard ratio of HZ in the V212 group versus the placebo group. The success criterion for vaccine efficacy required that the lower bound of the 95% CI be \>0.25.||0.972|-1.275|
90862170|NCT01254630|181587480|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.6||||||||1.6|-0.6|
90862171|NCT02959983|181587481|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0022|||||||Chi-squared|||Overall Weeks 1-12||||0.0022
90862172|NCT02959983|181587482|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0119|||||||Chi-squared|||Overall Weeks 1 to 12||||0.0119
90862173|NCT02959983|181587482|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0048|||||||Chi-squared|||Weeks 1 to 4||||0.0048
90862174|NCT02959983|181587482|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0207|||||||Chi-squared|||Weeks 5 to 8||||0.0207
90862175|NCT02959983|181587482|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||Chi-squared|||Weeks 9 to 12||||0.3700
90862176|NCT02959983|181587483|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0174|||||||Chi-squared|||Overall Weeks 1 to 12||||0.0174
90862177|NCT02959983|181587483|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3832|||||||Chi-squared|||Weeks 1 to 4||||0.3832
90862178|NCT02959983|181587483|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0052|||||||Chi-squared|||Weeks 5 to 8||||0.0052
90862179|NCT02959983|181587483|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0619|||||||Chi-squared|||Weeks 9 to 12||||0.0619
90862180|NCT02959983|181587484|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.033|||||||Chi-squared|||Weeks 1-4||||0.0330
90862181|NCT02959983|181587484|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0063|||||||Chi-squared|||Weeks 5 to 8||||0.0063
90862182|NCT02959983|181587484|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0018|||||||Chi-squared|||Weeks 9 to 12||||0.0018
90862183|NCT03221270|181587485|SUPERIORITY|alternative hypothesis: true difference in means is greater than 0|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.43||||0.66|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-2.25||||t-test, 1 sided||||||-2.25|0.66
90862184|NCT02925117|181587507|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-51.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.65|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.5|-36.3|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with stratum (geographic region), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||||-36.3|-66.5|< 0.001
90862185|NCT02925117|181587507|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-38.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.61|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.7|-23.6|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with stratum (geographic region), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||||-23.6|-53.7|<0.001
90862186|NCT02925117|181587507|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-16.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.61||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.4|-1.4|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with stratum (geographic region), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||||-1.4|-31.4|0.032
90862187|NCT02925117|181587508|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|58.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.5|74.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||||74.8|42.5|< 0.001
90862188|NCT02925117|181587508|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|42.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.5|59.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||||59.6|25.5|<0.001
90862189|NCT02925117|181587508|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|18.7||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|34.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||||34.7|2.7|0.022
90862190|NCT02925117|181587509|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|46.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.1|62.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||||62.7|31.1|<0.001
90862191|NCT02925117|181587509|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|28.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.8|43.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||||43.4|13.8|<0.001
90862192|NCT02925117|181587509|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|11.9||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|23.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||||23.5|0.3|0.044
90862193|NCT02925117|181587510|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-59.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.58|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.3|-46.3|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with stratum (geographic region), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||Analysis of Percent Change from Baseline in Pruritus NRS at Week 2||-46.3|-72.3|<0.001
90862194|NCT02925117|181587510|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-47.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.78|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.1|-34.3|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with stratum (geographic region), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||Analysis of Percent Change from Baseline in Pruritus NRS at Week 2||-34.3|-61.1|<0.001
90862195|NCT02925117|181587510|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-31.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.3|-17.8|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with stratum (geographic region), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||Analysis of Percent Change from Baseline in Pruritus NRS at Week 2||-17.8|-44.3|<0.001
90862196|NCT02925117|181587510|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-66.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.85|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.9|-48.9|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with stratum (geographic region), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||Analysis of Percent Change from Baseline in Pruritus NRS at Week 8||-48.9|-83.9|<0.001
90862197|NCT02925117|181587510|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-38.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.13|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.4|-20.4|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with stratum (geographic region), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||Analysis of Percent Change from Baseline in Pruritus NRS at Week 8||-20.4|-56.4|<0.001
90862198|NCT02925117|181587510|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-28.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.96||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.6|-11.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with stratum (geographic region), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||Analysis of Percent Change from Baseline in Pruritus NRS at Week 8||-11.2|-46.6|0.002
90862199|NCT02925117|181587510|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-59.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.78|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.6|-39.9|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with stratum (geographic region), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||Analysis of Percent Change from Baseline in Pruritus NRS at Week 16||-39.9|-78.6|<0.001
90862200|NCT02925117|181587510|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-38.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.3|-18.4|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with stratum (geographic region), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||Analysis of Percent Change from Baseline in Pruritus NRS at Week 16||-18.4|-58.3|<0.001
90862201|NCT02925117|181587510|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-29.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.9||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.4|-10.3|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with stratum (geographic region), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||Analysis of Percent Change from Baseline in Pruritus NRS at Week 16||-10.3|-49.4|0.003
90862202|NCT02925117|181587511|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-65.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.46|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.0|-50.5|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with stratum (geographic region), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||||-50.5|-80.0|<0.001
90862203|NCT02925117|181587511|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-47.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.42|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.6|-33.3|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with stratum (geographic region), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||||-33.3|-62.6|<0.001
90862204|NCT02925117|181587511|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-26.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.42|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.8|-11.5|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with stratum (geographic region), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||||-11.5|-40.8|<0.001
90862205|NCT02925117|181587512|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-58.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.78|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.7|-44.9|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with stratum (geographic region), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||Analysis of Percent Change from Baseline in SCORAD at Week 8||-44.9|-71.7|<0.001
91105946|NCT03816891|182097791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.9855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|2.34||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 23||2.34|0.43|0.9855
91105947|NCT03816891|182097791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.7407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.68||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||2.68|0.50|0.7407
91105948|NCT03816891|182097791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.78||||0.1843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|4.17||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||4.17|0.76|0.1843
90862206|NCT02925117|181587512|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-37.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.94|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.8|-23.4|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with stratum (geographic region), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||Analysis of Percent Change from Baseline in SCORAD at Week 8||-23.4|-50.8|<0.001
90862207|NCT02925117|181587512|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-28.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.81|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.9|-15.0|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with stratum (geographic region), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||Analysis of Percent Change from Baseline in SCORAD at Week 8||-15.0|-41.9|<0.001
90862208|NCT02925117|181587512|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-48.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.93|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.7|-34.3|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with stratum (geographic region), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||Analysis of Percent Change from Baseline in SCORAD at Week 16||-34.3|-61.7|<0.001
90862209|NCT02925117|181587512|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-34.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.5|-20.5|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with stratum (geographic region), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||Analysis of Percent Change from Baseline in SCORAD at Week 16||-20.5|-48.5|<0.001
90862210|NCT02925117|181587512|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-20.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.96||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.9|-6.4|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with stratum (geographic region), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||Analysis of Percent Change from Baseline in SCORAD at Week 16||-6.4|-33.9|0.004
90862211|NCT02925117|181587513|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|72.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.3|87.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||||87.1|58.3|<0.001
90862212|NCT02925117|181587513|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|44.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.9|61.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||||61.9|27.9|<0.001
90862213|NCT02925117|181587513|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|23.4||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.5|39.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||||39.4|7.5|0.004
90862214|NCT02925117|181587514|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|70.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.2|85.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||Analysis of EASI 50 Response at Week 8||85.2|56.2|<0.001
90862215|NCT02925117|181587514|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|49.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.8|67.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||Analysis of EASI 50 Response at Week 8||67.3|30.8|<0.001
90862216|NCT02925117|181587514|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|32.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.4|52.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||Analysis of EASI 50 Response at Week 8||52.2|13.4|<0.001
90862217|NCT02925117|181587514|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|60.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.3|75.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||Analysis of EASI 50 Response at Week 16||75.9|45.3|<0.001
90862218|NCT02925117|181587514|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|48.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.3|65.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||Analysis of EASI 50 Response at Week 16||65.9|31.3|<0.001
90862219|NCT02925117|181587514|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|28.2||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.8|46.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||Analysis of EASI 50 Response at Week 16||46.6|9.8|0.003
90862220|NCT02925117|181587515|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|43.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.1|58.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||Analysis of EASI 90 Response at Week 8||58.5|29.1|<0.001
91105949|NCT03816891|182097791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.6364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|2.77||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||2.77|0.54|0.6364
90862221|NCT02925117|181587515|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|26.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.6|39.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||Analysis of EASI 90 Response at Week 8||39.6|12.6|<0.001
90862222|NCT02925117|181587515|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|9.4||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|18.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||Analysis of EASI 90 Response at Week 8||18.8|-0.0|0.051
90862223|NCT02925117|181587515|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|46.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.3|62.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||Analysis of EASI 90 Response at Week 16||62.4|31.3|<0.001
90862224|NCT02925117|181587515|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|23.8||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.6|38.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||Analysis of EASI 90 Response at Week 16||38.1|9.6|0.001
90862225|NCT02925117|181587515|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|11.8||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|23.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||Analysis of EASI 90 Response at Week 16||23.6|0.1|0.049
90862226|NCT02925117|181587516|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|68.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.0|82.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||Analysis of SCORAD 50 Response at Week 8||82.8|54.0|<0.001
91105950|NCT03816891|182097791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.9206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.4||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 25||2.40|0.45|0.9206
90906706|NCT02680756|181681396|NON_INFERIORITY|A 2-sided CI for difference in the proportions of Hb responders (risk difference for ferric maltol - IV iron) between the two treatment groups, and comparing the LCL of this CI to the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 20%. The CI was calculated using the Delta Method approach based on a logistic regression model, adjusted for treatment group, baseline Hb (below the observed median or at least the observed median), and IBD subgroup (UC or CD).|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.17||||0.298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|-0.06|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.06|-0.28|0.298
90906707|NCT02680756|181681397|NON_INFERIORITY|A 2-sided CI for difference in the proportions of Hb responders (risk difference for ferric maltol - IV iron) between the two treatment groups, and comparing the LCL of this CI to the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 20%. The CI was calculated using the Delta Method approach based on a logistic regression model, adjusted for treatment group, baseline Hb (below the observed median or at least the observed median), and IBD subgroup (UC or CD).|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.17||||0.341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.05|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.05|-0.30|0.341
90906708|NCT02374957|181681418|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Null hypothesis: six-week change in EQ5D sum score is the same between the two arms.~Alternate hypothesis: one arm experiences more change in EQ5D than the other over initial six weeks (two-sided test)."||||0.26
90906709|NCT02374957|181681419|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Null hypothesis: three-month change in EQ5D sum score is the same between the two arms.~Alternate hypothesis: one arm experiences more change in EQ5D than the other over three months (two-sided test)."||||0.17
90906710|NCT02374957|181681420|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Null hypothesis: six-week change in EQ5D visual analog score is the same between the two arms.~Alternate hypothesis: one arm experiences more change in EQ5D visual analog score than the other over initial six weeks (two-sided test)."||||0.027
90906711|NCT02374957|181681421|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Null hypothesis: three-month change in EQ5D visual analog score is the same between the two arms.~Alternate hypothesis: one arm experiences more change in EQ5D visual analog score than the other over three months (two-sided test)."||||0.014
90906712|NCT02374957|181681422|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Null hypothesis: six-week change in EACH Q sum score is the same between the two arms.~Alternate hypothesis: one arm experiences more change in EACH Q sum score than the other over initial six weeks (two-sided test)."||||0.82
90906713|NCT02374957|181681423|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Null hypothesis: three-month change in EACH Q sum score is the same between the two arms.~Alternate hypothesis: one arm experiences more change in EACH Q sum score than the other over three months (two-sided test)."||||0.61
90906714|NCT02374957|181681424|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Log Rank|||"Null hypothesis: time to patency-failure (graft occlusion) is the same between treatment arms.~Alternate hypothesis: one arm differs from the other in durability of graft patency (two-sided test)."||||0.26
90906715|NCT00562965|181681441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.19||||0.0358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|1.02|||Cox proportional hazard regression model|A 2-sided 5% significance level on a stratified Cox proportional hazard regression model was used.|In this regression model, treatment arm was the covariate and the strata (number of prior regimens, investigator's choice of therapy and geographical region) over which participants were stratified prior to randomization were the variables.|To detect a hazard ratio of 0.77 with 85% power using a 2-sided log-rank test at the 5% significance level, it was planned that approximately 978 participants were needed to be randomized but due to premature termination only 29 participants were randomized.||1.02|0.04|0.0358
90906716|NCT00562965|181681442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0801|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0801
90906717|NCT00562965|181681443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.3||||0.1727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|1.81|||Cox proportional hazard regression model|Stratified Cox proportional hazard regression model was utilized.|In this regression model, treatment arm was the covariate and the strata (number of prior regimens, investigator's choice of therapy and geographical region) over which participants were stratified prior to randomization were the variables.|||1.81|0.05|0.1727
90906718|NCT01253200|181681476|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The Primary Safety Endpoint was evaluated using a one-sided, non-inferiority test for two binomial proportions at an alpha-level of 0.05. A 95% confidence interval based upon a score test of the difference of proportion of subjects in the Investigational and Control Groups free from a procedure-related complication seven days post-procedure was constructed. The upper bound of the confidence interval was compared to 10%.|Risk Difference (RD)|4.6|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||9.78||||||Note that analysis of the primary outcome was conducted for Randomized subjects only as prespecified in the study protocol. This is consistent analysis publicly available in the Summary of Safety and Effectiveness Data (SSED).||9.78||
90906719|NCT02049437|181681480|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|4.43||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|21.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||21.83|0.90|0.07
90906720|NCT02049437|181681481|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2036.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3490.32|-900.62|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||-900.62|-3490.32|<0.001
90906721|NCT02049437|181681482|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.65|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.65|-0.79|0.77
90906722|NCT01163149|181681486|SUPERIORITY|If p-values were less than 0.05 and the Hodges-Lehman-Sen estimate favored asfotase alfa (eg, it had a negative sign indicating the between-group differences in change from Baseline favored treated patients), then superiority over control was claimed.|Hodges-Lehman-Sen|-302.05||||0.0285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-626.4|-59.2||Two-sided with p-value threshold \<0.05 for statistical significance|Wilcoxon rank-sum|||PLP Change from Baseline to Week 24||-59.20|-626.40|0.0285
90906723|NCT01163149|181681487|SUPERIORITY|If p-values were less than 0.05 and the Hodges-Lehman-Sen estimate favored asfotase alfa (eg, it had a negative sign indicating the between-group differences in change from Baseline favored treated patients), then superiority over control was claimed.|Hodges-Lehman-Sen|-1.825||||0.0715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.21|0.23||Two-sided with p-value threshold \<0.05 for statistical significance|Wilcoxon rank-sum||Estimate and exact confidence interval are from Hodges-Lehmann-Sen method for location shift in distribution between the treatment group and the control group.|PPi Change from Baseline to Week 24||0.230|-3.210|0.0715
90906724|NCT01163149|181681489|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann-Sen|-0.91||||0.3301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.32|1.78||Two-sided with p-value threshold \<0.05 for statistical significance|Wilcoxon rank-sum|||Hip Total BMC Change from Baseline to Week 24||1.780|-3.320|0.3301
91105951|NCT03816891|182097791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.6473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|2.87||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 25||2.87|0.52|0.6473
91105952|NCT03816891|182097791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.8733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.15||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 25||2.15|0.40|0.8733
90862227|NCT02925117|181587516|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|35.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.5|52.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||Analysis of SCORAD 50 Response at Week 8||52.2|18.5|<0.001
90862228|NCT02925117|181587516|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|25.7||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.6|41.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||Analysis of SCORAD 50 Response at Week 8||41.7|9.6|0.002
90862229|NCT02925117|181587516|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|54.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.0|69.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||Analysis of SCORAD 50 Response at Week 16||69.9|39.0|<0.001
90862230|NCT02925117|181587516|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|35.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.1|52.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||Analysis of SCORAD 50 Response at Week 16||52.5|19.1|<0.001
90906725|NCT01163149|181681489|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann-Sen|1.33||||0.3827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|3.12||Two-sided with p-value threshold \<0.05 for statistical significance|Wilcoxon rank-sum|||Lumbar Spine BMC Change from Baseline to Week 24||3.120|-1.360|0.3827
90906726|NCT01163149|181681489|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann-Sen|-77.1||||0.0485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-917.44|-1.74||Two-sided with p-value threshold \<0.05 for statistical significance|Wilcoxon rank-sum|||Whole Body BMC Change from Baseline to Week 24||-1.740|-917.440|0.0485
90862231|NCT02925117|181587516|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|21.2||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|36.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||Analysis of SCORAD 50 Response at Week 16||36.8|5.7|0.008
90862232|NCT02925117|181587517|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|30.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.2|44.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||Analysis of SCORAD 75 Response at Week 8||44.6|16.2|<0.001
90862233|NCT02925117|181587517|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|9.4||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|18.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||Analysis of SCORAD 75 Response at Week 8||18.9|-0.1|0.052
90862234|NCT02925117|181587517|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|9.3||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|18.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||Analysis of SCORAD 75 Response at Week 8||18.5|0.1|0.048
90862235|NCT02925117|181587517|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|37.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.2|53.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||Analysis of SCORAD 75 Response at Week 16||53.3|22.2|<0.001
90862236|NCT02925117|181587517|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|19.0||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.6|32.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||Analysis of SCORAD 75 Response at Week 16||32.5|5.6|0.006
90862237|NCT02925117|181587517|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|2.4||||0.581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|10.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||Analysis of SCORAD 75 Response at Week 16||10.8|-6.0|0.581
90862238|NCT02925117|181587518|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|14.2||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|25.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||Analysis of SCORAD 90 Response at Week 8||25.2|3.2|0.012
90862239|NCT02925117|181587518|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|2.3||||0.428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|8.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||Analysis of SCORAD 90 Response at Week 8||8.0|-3.4|0.428
90862240|NCT02925117|181587518|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|4.6||||0.206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|11.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||Analysis of SCORAD 90 Response at Week 8||11.8|-2.5|0.206
90906727|NCT01163149|181681490|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann-Sen|-0.0125||||0.7357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.039||Two-sided with p-value threshold \<0.05 for statistical significance|Wilcoxon rank-sum|||Hip Total Change from Baseline to Week 24||0.0390|-0.0400|0.7357
90906728|NCT01163149|181681490|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann-Sen|0.0255||||0.2439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.009|0.041||Two-sided with p-value threshold \<0.05 for statistical significance|Wilcoxon rank-sum|||Lumbar Spine BMD Change from Baseline to Week 24||0.0410|-0.0090|0.2439
91105953|NCT03816891|182097791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.68||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 26||2.68|0.50|0.7380
91105954|NCT03816891|182097791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.3768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|3.43||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 26||3.43|0.63|0.3768
90862241|NCT02925117|181587518|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|23.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.4|36.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||Analysis of SCORAD 90 Response at Week 16||36.2|10.4|<0.001
90862242|NCT02925117|181587518|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|9.4||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|18.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||Analysis of SCORAD 90 Response at Week 16||18.8|0.1|0.048
90862243|NCT02925117|181587518|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|2.4||||0.426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|8.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||Analysis of SCORAD 90 Response at Week 16||8.1|-3.4|0.426
90862244|NCT02925117|181587524|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-26.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.25|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.9|-18.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with stratum (geographic region), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||||-18.1|-34.9|<0.001
90862245|NCT02925117|181587524|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-23.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.4|-14.6|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with stratum (geographic region), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||||-14.6|-31.4|<0.001
91105955|NCT03816891|182097791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.9363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.41||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 26||2.41|0.45|0.9363
91105956|NCT03816891|182097791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.4558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.18||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 27||3.18|0.60|0.4558
91105957|NCT03816891|182097791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.4883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|3.24||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 27||3.24|0.57|0.4883
91105958|NCT03816891|182097791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.96||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 27||1.96|0.36|0.6970
90862246|NCT02925117|181587524|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.25||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|0.8|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with stratum (geographic region), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||||0.8|-16.0|0.075
90862247|NCT02925117|181587525|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|47.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.6|65.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||||65.2|29.6|<0.001
90862248|NCT02925117|181587525|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|53.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.5|71.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||||71.3|35.5|<0.001
90862249|NCT02925117|181587525|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|18.6||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|34.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||||34.3|2.8|0.021
90862250|NCT02663908|181587528|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.283||||0.5294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.589|2.794|||Log Rank|The p-value of the log-rank test is based on comparison of the treatment groups stratified for age group and region.|Baseline hazards for the Cox regression were stratified over variables: age group and region.|||2.794|0.589|0.5294
90906729|NCT01163149|181681490|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann-Sen|-0.0315||||0.1222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.059|0.012||Two-sided with p-value threshold \<0.05 for statistical significance|Wilcoxon rank-sum|||Whole Body BMD Change from Baseline to Week 24||0.0120|-0.0590|0.1222
90906730|NCT01163149|181681491|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann-Sen|44.0||||0.1303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.0|114.0||Two-sided with p-value threshold \<0.05 for statistical significance|Wilcoxon rank-sum||Estimate and exact confidence interval are from Hodges-Lehmann-Sen method for location shift in distribution between the treatment group and the control group|Week 24 Change from Baseline||114.0|-73.0|0.1303
90862251|NCT02663908|181587529|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.204||||0.7126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.448|3.234|||Log Rank|The p-value of the log-rank test is based on comparison of the treatment groups stratified for age group and region.|Baseline hazards for the Cox regression were stratified over variables: age group and region.|||3.234|0.448|0.7126
90862252|NCT02663908|181587530|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.186||||0.0853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.022|1.595|||Log Rank|The p-value of the log-rank test is based on comparison of the treatment groups stratified for age group and region.|Baseline hazards for the Cox regression were stratified over variables: age group and region.|||1.595|0.022|0.0853
90862253|NCT02663908|181587531|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.594||||0.5196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.381|6.673|||Log Rank|The p-value of the log-rank test is based on comparison of the treatment groups stratified for age group and region.|Baseline hazards for the Cox regression were stratified over variables: age group and region.|||6.673|0.381|0.5196
90862254|NCT02663908|181587532|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.899||||0.8966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.181|4.457|||Log Rank|The p-value of the log-rank test is based on comparison of the treatment groups stratified for age group and region.|Baseline hazards for the Cox regression were stratified over variables: age group and region.|||4.457|0.181|0.8966
90862255|NCT02663908|181587533|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.48||||0.3857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.088|2.62|||Log Rank|The p-value of the log-rank test is based on comparison of the treatment groups stratified for age group and region.|Baseline hazards for the Cox regression were stratified over variables: age group and region.|||2.620|0.088|0.3857
90862256|NCT02663908|181587534|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.839||||0.718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.324|2.176|||Log Rank|The p-value of the log-rank test is based on comparison of the treatment groups stratified for age group and region.|Baseline hazards for the Cox regression were stratified over variables: age group and region.|||2.176|0.324|0.7180
90862257|NCT02663908|181587536|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.887||||0.6701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.512|1.539|||Log Rank|The p-value of the log-rank test is based on comparison of the treatment groups stratified for age group and region.|Baseline hazards for the Cox regression were stratified over variables: age group and region.|||1.539|0.512|0.6701
90906731|NCT01700530|181681495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
90906732|NCT00916006|181681524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.001
90906733|NCT00916006|181681525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.001
90906734|NCT04736056|181681531|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.66||||||0 to 12 weeks||1.66|0.73|
90862258|NCT02663908|181587537|OTHER||Treatment Difference|-0.907||||0.1193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.048|0.235|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with the baseline score as a covariate, and treatment group, age group, region, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as factors.||IPSS Total at Day 168||0.235|-2.048|0.1193
90862259|NCT02663908|181587537|OTHER||Treatment Difference|-0.213||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.473|0.047|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with the baseline score as a covariate, and treatment group, age group, region, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as factors.||IPSS, QoL at Day 168||0.047|-0.473|0.1080
90906735|NCT04736056|181681531|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.51||||||0 to 16 weeks||1.51|0.61|
90906736|NCT04736056|181681532|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.71||||||0 to 12 weeks||0.71|-0.02|
90906737|NCT04736056|181681532|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.61||||||0 to 16 weeks||0.61|-0.12|
91105959|NCT03816891|182097791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.4601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.16||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 28||3.16|0.60|0.4601
91033105|NCT00048581|181951978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. of Weighted Diff: Day 169 HAQ|24.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.8|34.2||If the ACR20 analysis was not significant (5% level), then the comparison for HAQ response was not undertaken. If ACR20 comparison was significant (5% level), then CMH Chi-square test compared HAQ response between groups (5% level).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|All statistical tests and CI were 2-sided. Percentage of participants with response compared by estimate of weighted difference (Est of Weighted Diff)|All comparisons of changes from baseline and construction of confidence intervals for continuous measures were based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as the main factor and baseline value as covariate.|The two primary efficacy analyses tested first for differences in ACR 20 followed by testing HAQ response rates between the treatment arm receiving ABA plus background DMARDs and the treatment arm receiving PLA plus background DMARDs on Day 169. A 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) Chi-square test was used to compare these two treatment groups at the .05 level of significance, with stratification based on baseline history of anti-TNF status (current or prior use).||34.2|13.8|<0.001
90862260|NCT02663908|181587537|OTHER||Treatment Difference|-0.916||||0.1256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.089|0.257|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with the baseline score as a covariate, and treatment group, age group, region, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as factors.||IPSS Total at Day 336||0.257|-2.089|0.1256
91105960|NCT03816891|182097791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.3758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|3.51||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 28||3.51|0.63|0.3758
91105961|NCT03816891|182097791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.7248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|2.02||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 28||2.02|0.36|0.7248
91105962|NCT03816891|182097791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.11||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 29||3.11|0.60|0.4550
91105963|NCT03816891|182097791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46||||0.3672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|3.35||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 29||3.35|0.64|0.3672
90862261|NCT02663908|181587537|OTHER||Treatment Difference|-0.047||||0.7261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.312|0.218|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with the baseline score as a covariate, and treatment group, age group, region, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as factors.||IPSS, QoL at Day 336||0.218|-0.312|0.7261
90862262|NCT02663908|181587541|OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.002||||0.911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.036|0.032|||ANCOVA|Compared using an ANCOVA model, where the QALY is the dependent variable and adjusted for treatment group, age group and region, respectively.||||0.032|-0.036|0.9110
90862263|NCT02663908|181587542|OTHER||Treatment Difference|-1.57||||0.0936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.41|0.27|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with the baseline score as a covariate, and treatment group, age group, region, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as factors.||DASI at Day 168||0.27|-3.41|0.0936
90906738|NCT04736056|181681533|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.18||||||0 to 12 weeks||1.18|0.38|
90906739|NCT04736056|181681533|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.87||||||0 to 16 weeks||0.87|0.11|
90862264|NCT02663908|181587542|OTHER||Treatment Difference|0.84||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|2.78|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with the baseline score as a covariate, and treatment group, age group, region, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as factors.||DASI at Day 336||2.78|-1.11|0.4000
90862265|NCT02663908|181587543|OTHER||Treatment Difference|0.045||||0.2535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.032|0.122|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with the baseline score as a covariate, and treatment group, age group, region, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as factors.||CAQ Global Score at Day 168||0.122|-0.032|0.2535
90862266|NCT02663908|181587543|OTHER||Treatment Difference|0.036||||0.437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.055|0.127|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with the baseline score as a covariate, and treatment group, age group, region, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as factors.||CAQ domain score for Attention at Day 168||0.127|-0.055|0.4370
90906740|NCT04736056|181681534|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.58||||||0 to 12 weeks||0.58|-0.13|
90906741|NCT04736056|181681534|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.68||||||0 to 16 weeks||0.68|-0.05|
91105964|NCT03816891|182097791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|2.35||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 29||2.35|0.47|0.9120
91105965|NCT03816891|182097791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.3506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|3.35||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 30||3.35|0.65|0.3506
90906742|NCT04736056|181681535|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.68||||||0 to 12 weeks||0.68|-0.04|
91105966|NCT03816891|182097791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.4969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|3.16||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 30||3.16|0.58|0.4969
90862267|NCT02663908|181587543|OTHER||Treatment Difference|0.116||||0.0852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.016|0.248|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with the baseline score as a covariate, and treatment group, age group, region, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as factors.||CAQ domain score for Avoidance at Day 168||0.248|-0.016|0.0852
90862268|NCT02663908|181587543|OTHER||Treatment Difference|0.012||||0.8156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.087|0.111|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with the baseline score as a covariate, and treatment group, age group, region, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as factors.||CAQ domain score for Fear at Day 168||0.111|-0.087|0.8156
90862269|NCT02663908|181587543|OTHER||Treatment Difference|0.051||||0.2299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.033|0.135|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with the baseline score as a covariate, and treatment group, age group, region, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as factors.||CAQ Global Score at Day 336||0.135|-0.033|0.2299
90906743|NCT04736056|181681535|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.0||||||0 to 16 weeks||1.00|0.22|
90906744|NCT04736056|181681536|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.74||||||0 to 12 weeks||0.74|0.01|
90906745|NCT04736056|181681536|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.85||||||0 to 16 weeks||0.85|0.09|
90906746|NCT04736056|181681537|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.65||||||0 to 12 weeks||0.65|-0.07|
90862270|NCT02663908|181587543|OTHER||Treatment Difference|0.038||||0.444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.136|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with the baseline score as a covariate, and treatment group, age group, region, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as factors.||CAQ domain score for Attention at Day 336||0.136|-0.060|0.4440
90862271|NCT02663908|181587543|OTHER||Treatment Difference|0.007||||0.9172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.131|0.146|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with the baseline score as a covariate, and treatment group, age group, region, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as factors.||CAQ domain score for Avoidance at Day 336||0.146|-0.131|0.9172
90862272|NCT02663908|181587543|OTHER||Treatment Difference|0.093||||0.1028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.019|0.204|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with the baseline score as a covariate, and treatment group, age group, region, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as factors.||CAQ domain score for Fear at Day 336||0.204|-0.019|0.1028
90862273|NCT03572972|181587557|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.618|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.541|0.707||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of hazard ratio (HR) at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||0.707|0.541|
90906747|NCT04736056|181681537|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.99||||||||0.99|0.21|
90906748|NCT04736056|181681538|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.91||||||0 to 12 weeks||0.91|0.16|
91105967|NCT03816891|182097791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.9265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|2.19||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 30||2.19|0.42|0.9265
90906749|NCT04736056|181681538|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.89||||||0 to 16 weeks||0.89|0.12|
90971373|NCT01709149|181825512|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.399||0.9546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|8.9|||Repeated-measures mixed model||Least squares mean difference: tirasemtiv minus placebo|||8.90|-8.40|0.9546
90862274|NCT03572972|181587557|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.604|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.687||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||0.687|0.530|
90862275|NCT03572972|181587557|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.705|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.563|0.884|||||HR evaluated using extended Cox model.|Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||0.884|0.563|
90862276|NCT03572972|181587558|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.993|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.134||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||1.134|0.870|
90862277|NCT03572972|181587558|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.949|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.839|1.073||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||1.073|0.839|
90906750|NCT04736056|181681539|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.3||||||0 to 12 weeks||1.30|0.47|
90906751|NCT04736056|181681539|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.05||||||0 to 16 weeks||1.05|0.26|
90906752|NCT04736056|181681540|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.03||||||0 to 12 weeks||-0.03|-0.76|
90906753|NCT04736056|181681540|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|-0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.03||||||0 to 16 weeks||0.03|-0.71|
90906754|NCT04736056|181681541|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.35||||||0 to 12 weeks||0.35|-0.35|
91105968|NCT03816891|182097791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.65||||0.244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|3.79||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 31||3.79|0.72|0.2440
91105969|NCT03816891|182097791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.4829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|3.15||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 31||3.15|0.59|0.4829
90906755|NCT04736056|181681541|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|-0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.09||||||0 to 16 weeks||0.09|-0.64|
90906756|NCT04736056|181681542|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.26||||||||0.26|-0.45|
90906757|NCT04736056|181681542|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.45||||||0 to 16 weeks||0.45|-0.27|
90971374|NCT01709149|181825513|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.207||0.6166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|7.91|||Repeated-measures mixed model||Least squares mean difference: tirasemtiv minus placebo|||7.91|-4.70|0.6166
91105970|NCT03816891|182097791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.7382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|2.61||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 31||2.61|0.51|0.7382
91105971|NCT03816891|182097791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.8833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|2.41||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 32||2.41|0.47|0.8833
91105972|NCT03816891|182097791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.9385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|2.41||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 32||2.41|0.44|0.9385
90862278|NCT03572972|181587558|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.961|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.854|1.082||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||1.082|0.854|
90862279|NCT03572972|181587559|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.583|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.512|0.664||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||0.664|0.512|
90862280|NCT03572972|181587559|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.754|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.597|0.953|||||HR evaluated using extended Cox model.|Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||0.953|0.597|
90862281|NCT03572972|181587559|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.844|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.685|1.04|||||HR evaluated using extended Cox model.|Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||1.040|0.685|
90862282|NCT03572972|181587560|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.866|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.761|0.985||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||0.985|0.761|
90862283|NCT03572972|181587560|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.768|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.684|0.862||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||0.862|0.684|
90862284|NCT03572972|181587560|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.875|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.786|0.975||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||0.975|0.786|
90862285|NCT03572972|181587561|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.673|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.964||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||0.964|0.470|
91105973|NCT03816891|182097791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.5975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.82||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 32||1.82|0.35|0.5975
90862286|NCT03572972|181587561|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.491|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.337|0.715||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||0.715|0.337|
90862287|NCT03572972|181587561|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.747|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.548|1.018||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||1.018|0.548|
90862288|NCT03572972|181587562|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.463|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.998|2.145||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||2.145|0.998|
90906758|NCT04736056|181681543|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|-0.035|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.01||||||0 to 12 weeks||0.01|-0.71|
90906759|NCT04736056|181681543|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|-0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.08||||||0 to 16 weeks||0.08|-0.65|
90906760|NCT04736056|181681544|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|-0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.03||||||0 to 12 weeks||0.03|-0.70|
91105974|NCT03816891|182097791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.4491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|3.13||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 33||3.13|0.61|0.4491
91105975|NCT03816891|182097791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.2348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|4.05||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 33||4.05|0.72|0.2348
91105976|NCT03816891|182097791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.9087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|2.38||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 33||2.38|0.46|0.9087
91105977|NCT03816891|182097791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.3349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|3.42||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 34||3.42|0.66|0.3349
91105978|NCT03816891|182097791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.4806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|3.17||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 34||3.17|0.58|0.4806
91105979|NCT03816891|182097791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.8998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|2.15||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 34||2.15|0.42|0.8998
91105980|NCT03816891|182097791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.4618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.12||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 35||3.12|0.60|0.4618
91105981|NCT03816891|182097791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.6154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|2.93||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 35||2.93|0.53|0.6154
91105982|NCT03816891|182097791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.9442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.34||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 35||2.34|0.45|0.9442
91105983|NCT03816891|182097791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.08||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 36||3.08|0.60|0.4580
91105984|NCT03816891|182097791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.6275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|2.95||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 36||2.95|0.52|0.6275
91105985|NCT03816891|182097791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.3558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|3.36||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 36||3.36|0.65|0.3558
91105986|NCT03816891|182097791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.4749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.04||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 37||3.04|0.60|0.4749
90906761|NCT04736056|181681544|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|-0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.09||||||0 to 16 weeks||-0.09|-0.85|
91105987|NCT03816891|182097791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.3672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|3.46||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 37||3.46|0.64|0.3672
91105988|NCT03816891|182097791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.3462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|3.37||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 37||3.37|0.65|0.3462
91105989|NCT03816891|182097791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.5856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|2.82||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 38||2.82|0.56|0.5856
90906762|NCT04529538|181681553|OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.252|1.838|||||GMT ratios (nOPV/mOPV) were estimated via a linear model of the log₂ neutralizing antibody titer as a function of group with a fixed parameter for site and a covariate for the baseline log₂ neutralizing antibody titer level.|Comparison of Type 1 neutralizing antibody GMT at Day 29||1.838|0.252|
91105990|NCT03816891|182097791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.3563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|3.58||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 38||3.58|0.64|0.3563
91105991|NCT03816891|182097791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.6165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|2.82||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 38||2.82|0.54|0.6165
91105992|NCT03816891|182097791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.4532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.1||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 39||3.10|0.60|0.4532
91105993|NCT03816891|182097791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.4691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|3.27||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 39||3.27|0.58|0.4691
91105994|NCT03816891|182097791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46||||0.3703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|3.32||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 39||3.32|0.64|0.3703
91105995|NCT03816891|182097791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.9319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|2.15||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40||2.15|0.43|0.9319
90906763|NCT04529538|181681554|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.232|6.833|||||GMT ratios (nOPV/mOPV) were estimated via a linear model of the log₂ neutralizing antibody titer as a function of group with a fixed parameter for site and a covariate for the baseline log₂ neutralizing antibody titer level.|Comparison of type 1 neutralizing antibody GMT at Day 29||6.833|0.232|
90906764|NCT04529538|181681554|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.603|6.528|||||GMT ratios (nOPV/mOPV) were estimated via a linear model of the log₂ neutralizing antibody titer as a function of group with a fixed parameter for site and a covariate for the baseline log₂ neutralizing antibody titer level.|Comparison of type 1 neutralizing antibody GMT at Day 57||6.528|0.603|
90906765|NCT04529538|181681555|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.639|3.828|||||GMT ratios (nOPV/mOPV) were estimated via a linear model of the log₂ neutralizing antibody titer as a function of group with a fixed parameter for site and a covariate for the baseline log₂ neutralizing antibody titer level.|Comparison of type 3 neutralizing antibody GMT at Day 29||3.828|0.639|
90906766|NCT04529538|181681556|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.772|4.163|||||GMT ratios (nOPV/mOPV) were estimated via a linear model of the log₂ neutralizing antibody titer as a function of group with a fixed parameter for site and a covariate for the baseline log₂ neutralizing antibody titer level.|Comparison of type 3 neutralizing antibody GMT at Day 29||4.163|0.772|
90906767|NCT04529538|181681556|OTHER||GMT Ratio|2.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.994|6.34|||||GMT ratios (nOPV/mOPV) were estimated via a linear model of the log₂ neutralizing antibody titer as a function of group with a fixed parameter for site and a covariate for the baseline log₂ neutralizing antibody titer level.|Comparison of type 3 neutralizing antibody GMT at Day 57||6.340|0.994|
90959353|NCT01691768|181798629|NON_INFERIORITY|We estimated that we would need to enrol 700 women after taking into account the anticipated loss-to follow-up in order to provide 90% power to demonstrate whether gel use in women attending family planning (intervention) services is similar to, but no more than 20% lower than, gel use among women attending CAPRISA research clinics (control)|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.48||||Univariable Linear Mixed Models was used for the analyses|We calculated the difference in means between the two arms. The mean from the intervention arm was the minuend and the mean from the control arm was the subtrahend.|This is the analyses from the per protocol population (excluding all subsequent data collected from participants who were not dispensed product for more than 120 days).||0.48|-0.98|
90959354|NCT01691768|181798630|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate ratio|0.96||||0.928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.35|||z-test|We used z-test to compare incidence rates between the arms. We did not use log-rank test because we did not present survival curves.|We calculated incidence rate ratio, where the HIV incidence rate for the intervention arm represents the numerator and the HIV incidence rate for the control arm represents the denominator.|The power was not calculated for all the secondary outcomes.||2.35|0.40|0.928
90959355|NCT01691768|181798631|SUPERIORITY||incidence rate ratio|0.96||||0.895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.04|||z-test|We used z-test to compare pregnancy incidence rates between the arms. We did not use log-rank test because we did not present survival curves.|We calculated incidence rate ratio, where the pregnancy incidence rate for the intervention arm represents the numerator and the pregnancy incidence rate for the control arm represents the denominator.|Power was not calculated for all the secondary outcomes.||2.04|0.45|0.895
90959356|NCT01691768|181798632|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.08||||0.304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.24|||Regression, Log-binomial|||Power was not calculated for all secondary outcomes.||1.24|0.94|0.304
90959357|NCT01691768|181798633|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.455|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.455
90959358|NCT01691768|181798635|SUPERIORITY||incidence rate ratio|0.33||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|1.32|||z-test||We calculated incidence rate ratio, where the HPV incidence rate for the intervention arm represents the numerator and the HPV incidence rate for the control arm represents the denominator.|||1.32|0.06|0.097
90959359|NCT01691768|181798636|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.91||||0.462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.18|||Regression, Log-binomial|||||1.18|0.70|0.462
90959360|NCT02481947|181798662|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin = 12.6% (pre-specified)||||||0.016||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.016
91105996|NCT03816891|182097791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.6374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|2.94||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40||2.94|0.52|0.6374
91105997|NCT03816891|182097791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.3457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|3.42||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40||3.42|0.65|0.3457
91105998|NCT03816891|182097791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.8906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|2.37||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 41||2.37|0.47|0.8906
91105999|NCT03816891|182097791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.7882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|2.68||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 41||2.68|0.47|0.7882
90906768|NCT04529538|181681557|OTHER||Rate Difference|-4.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.67|22.72|||Fisher Exact||Rate Difference = nOPV - mOPV|Between-Group Seroconversion Rate (4-fold rise) in Neutralizing Antibody Titers||22.72|-27.67|>0.999
90906769|NCT04529538|181681558|OTHER||Rate Difference|-2.8|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.47|20.86|||Fisher Exact||Rate Difference = nOPV - mOPV|Between-group seroconversion rate (4-fold rise) in neutralizing antibody titers 28 days after first dose.||20.86|-20.47|>0.999
90959361|NCT02751320|181798675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.09||||0.7603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.11|5.94||From ANCOVA: Participant (random), treatment \& period (fixed), subject-level baseline SMH, period-level baseline SMH, subject-level pre-treatment acid challenge SMH and period-level pre-treatment acid challenge SMH (covariates).|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that positive difference favors the first named treatment.|||5.94|-8.11|0.7603
91106000|NCT03816891|182097791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.7898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|2.59||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 41||2.59|0.49|0.7898
90862289|NCT03572972|181587562|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.647|1.225||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||1.225|0.647|
90862290|NCT03572972|181587562|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.447|0.888||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||0.888|0.447|
90862291|NCT03572972|181587563|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.556|0.738||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||0.738|0.556|
90862292|NCT03572972|181587563|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.624|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.544|0.715||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||0.715|0.544|
90862293|NCT03572972|181587563|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.749|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.588|0.954|||||HR evaluated using extended Cox model.|Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||0.954|0.588|
90862294|NCT03572972|181587564|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.977|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.122||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||1.122|0.850|
90862295|NCT03572972|181587564|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.966|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.848|1.1||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||1.100|0.848|
90862296|NCT03572972|181587564|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.993|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.877|1.125||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||1.125|0.877|
90862297|NCT03572972|181587565|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.119|0.523||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||0.523|0.119|
90906770|NCT04529538|181681558|OTHER||Rate Difference|8.3||||0.263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.71|30.57|||Fisher Exact||Rate Difference = nOPV - mOPV|Between-group comparison of seroconversion rate (4-fold rise) in neutralizing antibody titers 28 days after 2nd dose.||30.57|-5.71|0.263
90906771|NCT04529538|181681559|OTHER||Rate Difference|14.3||||0.224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|40.45|||Fisher Exact||Rate Difference = nOPV - mOPV|Between-group seroconversion rate (4-fold rise) in neutralizing antibody titers 28 days after vaccination||40.45|-8.30|0.224
90862298|NCT03572972|181587565|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.203|0.711||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||0.711|0.203|
90862299|NCT03572972|181587565|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.422|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.247|0.722||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||0.722|0.247|
90862300|NCT03572972|181587566|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.745|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.343|1.615||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||1.615|0.343|
90862301|NCT03572972|181587566|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.692|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.342|1.402||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||1.402|0.342|
90862302|NCT03572972|181587566|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.932|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.498|1.747||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||1.747|0.498|
90862303|NCT03572972|181587567|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.492|0.731||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||0.731|0.492|
90862304|NCT03572972|181587567|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.046|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.719|1.522|||||HR evaluated using extended Cox model.|Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||1.522|0.719|
90862305|NCT03572972|181587567|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.295|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.824|||||HR evaluated using extended Cox model.|Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||1.824|0.920|
90862306|NCT03572972|181587568|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.751|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.91||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||0.91|0.62|
90906772|NCT04529538|181681560|OTHER||Rate Difference|9.8||||0.275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.29|35.19|||Fisher Exact||Rate Difference = nOPV - mOPV|Between-group comparison of seroconversion rate (4-fold rise) in neutralizing antibody titers 28 days after first dose.||35.19|-7.29|0.275
90906773|NCT04529538|181681560|OTHER||Rate Difference|17.9||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|44.93|||Fisher Exact||Rate Difference = nOPV - mOPV|Between-group comparison of seroconversion rate (4-fold rise) in neutralizing antibody titers 28 days after 2nd dose.||44.93|-1.27|0.100
90906774|NCT05302791|181681591|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.609|||||||ANOVA|time x condition ANOVA||||||.609
90862307|NCT03572972|181587568|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.697|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.586|0.83||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||0.830|0.586|
90862308|NCT03572972|181587568|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.936|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.801|1.094||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||1.094|0.801|
90906775|NCT05302791|181681592|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.858|||||||ANOVA|time x condition anova||||||.858
90906776|NCT05302791|181681593|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.633|||||||ANOVA|||||||.633
90906777|NCT05302791|181681594|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.076|||||||ANOVA|||||||.076
90906778|NCT05302791|181681595|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.151|||||||ANOVA|||||||.151
90862309|NCT03572972|181587569|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.373|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.212|0.658|||||HR evaluated using extended Cox model.|Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||0.658|0.212|
90906779|NCT05302791|181681596|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.385|||||||ANOVA|||||||.385
90906780|NCT05302791|181681597|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.665|||||||ANOVA|||||||.665
90906781|NCT05302791|181681598|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.078|||||||ANOVA|||||||.078
90906782|NCT05302791|181681599|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.773|||||||ANOVA|||||||.773
90906783|NCT05302791|181681600|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.118|||||||ANOVA|||||||.118
90906784|NCT05302791|181681601|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|Time x condition ANOVA||||||<0.001
90906785|NCT05302791|181681602|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|time x condition anova||||||<0.001
90906786|NCT03552978|181681603|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|df - 63||||||<.001
90906787|NCT03552978|181681604|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 59||||||<.001
90862310|NCT03572972|181587569|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.538|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.392|0.737||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||0.737|0.392|
90862311|NCT03572972|181587569|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.664|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.507|0.87||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||0.870|0.507|
90862312|NCT03572972|181587570|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.204|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.871|1.666||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||1.666|0.871|
90862313|NCT03572972|181587570|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.918|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.691|1.218||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||1.218|0.691|
90862314|NCT03572972|181587570|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.771|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.578|1.027||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||1.027|0.578|
90906788|NCT03552978|181681608|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|90.28||||0.39|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|df = 3, 152.11||We examined total Cigarettes smoked in the past 30 days using linear mixed models to account for non-independence (longitudinal data) and missing data. The null hypothesis was that the time by treatment group interaction would equal zero, indicating no difference in the change in cigarette use over time by treatment group.||||.39
90906789|NCT03552978|181681609|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.49||||0.91|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|df = 3, 140.87||We examined days of e-cigarette use in the previous 30 days using linear mixed models to account for non-independence (longitudinal data) and missing data. The null hypothesis was that the time by treatment group interaction would equal zero, indicating no difference in the change in e-cigarette use over time by treatment group.||||.91
90906790|NCT03552978|181681610|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.66|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|df = 3,199||We examined days of chewing tobacco use in the previous 30 days using linear mixed models to account for non-independence (longitudinal data) and missing data. The null hypothesis was that the time by treatment group interaction would equal zero, indicating no difference in the change in chewing tobacco use over time by treatment group.||||.66
90906791|NCT03552978|181681611|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33||||0.76|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|df = 3, 102.04||We examined nicotine dependence using linear mixed models to account for non-independence (longitudinal data) and missing data. The null hypothesis was that the time by treatment group interaction would equal zero, indicating no difference in the change in nicotine dependence over time by treatment group.||||.76
90906792|NCT03552978|181681612|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.99||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|||||Week 12|Chi-squared|df = 1||||||.28
90959362|NCT02751320|181798675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.3||||0.3555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.34|3.74||From ANCOVA: Participant (random), treatment \& period (fixed), subject-level baseline SMH, period-level baseline SMH, subject-level pre-treatment acid challenge SMH and period-level pre-treatment acid challenge SMH (covariates).|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that positive difference favors the first named treatment.|||3.74|-10.34|0.3555
90862315|NCT03572972|181587571|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.581|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.481|0.701||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||0.701|0.481|
90862316|NCT03572972|181587571|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.534|0.766||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||0.766|0.534|
90862317|NCT03572972|181587571|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.838|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.622|1.13|||||HR evaluated using extended Cox model.|Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||1.130|0.622|
90906793|NCT03552978|181681612|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|||||Week 24|Chi-squared|df = 1||||||.19
90906794|NCT03552978|181681613|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68||||0.42|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|df = 1||Week 12||||.42
90862318|NCT03572972|181587572|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.881|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.732|1.061||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||1.061|0.732|
90862319|NCT03572972|181587572|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.802|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.678|0.947||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||0.947|0.678|
90862320|NCT03572972|181587572|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.882|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.754|1.032||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||1.032|0.754|
90862321|NCT00594659|181587616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||accelerated bootstrapping|||Pairwise comparison; non-parametric tests performed because of non-normal distribution||||<0.05
90862322|NCT00594659|181587616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||accelerated bootstrapping|||pairwise comparison; non-parametric analysis||||< .05
90862323|NCT00594659|181587616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||accelerated bootstrapping|||nonparametric pairwise comparison; non-normal distribution||||> 0.05
90862324|NCT00594659|181587617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|3.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||piecewise mixed model with logit link an|Performed across all assessments.|Slope and p-value above are for group 1: baseline to ETX. Group 3 vs. Group 1 baseline to ETX slope, p \< 0.05. All other pairwise comparisons p \> 0.05.|pairwise comparisons among groups across 4 follow-up timepoints||||< 0.05
90906795|NCT03552978|181681613|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.52||||0.17|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|df = 1||Week 24||||.17
90862325|NCT03320057|181587683|OTHER|We conducted multivariable logistic regression analyses using Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) models to assess whether study implementation was associated with pharmacists' overall medication abortion knowledge. Multivariable GEE analyses included time period (baseline and endline) as the primary independent variable, adjusted for gender and years of experience, and accounted for clustering by pharmacy site and individual pharmacist.|Beta Coefficient|0.14|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.17|||Regression, Linear||Coefficients in adjusted analyses examining overall medication abortion knowledge represent the difference in mean knowledge scores between baseline and endline.|Medication abortion knowledge scores were based on a set of 15 items. We first assessed the internal consistency reliability of the 15 knowledge items and considered a Cronbach's alpha coefficient above .70 to be acceptable to examine the items as a combined score.||0.17|0.11|<0.05
90862326|NCT06956170|181587684|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.78|||||Hazard ratio was estimated using an unstratified Cox Proportional Hazard model with treatment arm as an explanatory variable.|||2.78|0.10|
90862327|NCT02280304|181587744|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||A priori threshold = voxel p\<.001, cluster p\<.05, FDR whole brain correction. There is no correction for multiple seeds given small sample sizes and pre-post design. To report NS p-values and associated z-scores, uncorrected cluster ps were queried.|t-test, 1 sided|||Z-scores represent Fisher transformed correlation coefficients representing the correlations between hypothesized regions. Positive values represents positive connectivity between regions. Negative values represent anticorrelations, or negative relations, between hypothesized regions.||||>0.05
90862328|NCT02280304|181587745|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90862329|NCT02280304|181587745|OTHER||Cohen's d|0.35|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Cohen's d reflects Extent of Participation subscale of the CRIS, Post - Pre|||||
90862330|NCT02280304|181587745|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90906796|NCT03552978|181681614|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.66||||0.58|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|df = 3, 100.51||We examined days of changes in PTSD symptoms using linear mixed models to account for non-independence (longitudinal data) and missing data. The null hypothesis was that the time by treatment group interaction would equal zero, indicating no difference in the change in PTSD symptoms over time by treatment group.||||.58
90906797|NCT04956692|181681618|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin with respect to the geometric means ratio (GMR) was 0.8|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|96.0|0.98|1.1||The one-sided p-value non-inferiority boundary is 0.02|t-test, 1 sided|Welch's unequal variances t-test. The null hypothesis was that GMR≤0.8.|Numerator Arm A/Denominator Arm B|||1.10|0.98|<0.0001
90862331|NCT02280304|181587745|OTHER||Cohen's d|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Cohen's d reflects Extent of Participation Scale of the Cris pre- post|||||
90862332|NCT02280304|181587745|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90862333|NCT02280304|181587745|OTHER||Cohen's d|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Cohens d reflects the Cris pre post Perceived Limitations scale|||||
90862334|NCT02280304|181587745|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90862335|NCT02280304|181587745|OTHER||Cohens d|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90862336|NCT02280304|181587745|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90862337|NCT02280304|181587745|OTHER||Cohens d|0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90862338|NCT02280304|181587745|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90862339|NCT02280304|181587745|OTHER||Cohens d|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90862340|NCT02280304|181587746|OTHER||Cohens d|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Cohen's d effect size (Cohen's d=.20 small, Cohen's d=.50 medium, Cohen's d=.80 large)|Cohen's d effect sizes are reported for changes over time (0 weeks vs. 12 weeks) in each group separately.||||
90862341|NCT02280304|181587746|OTHER||Cohens d|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Cohen's d effect size (Cohen's d=.20 small, Cohen's d=.50 medium, Cohen's d=.80 large)|Cohen's d effect sizes are reported for changes over time (0 weeks vs. 12 weeks) in each group separately.||||
91106001|NCT03816891|182097791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.9521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|2.18||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 42||2.18|0.44|0.9521
91106002|NCT03816891|182097791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.6001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|3.05||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 42||3.05|0.53|0.6001
90862342|NCT02280304|181587747|OTHER||Cohens d|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Cohen's d effect size change (Cohen's d =0.20 is a small effect; Cohen's d=0.50 is a medium effect; Cohen's d=0.80 is a large effect.)|Cohen's d effect sizes are reported for changes over time (0 weeks vs. 12 weeks) in each group separately.||||
90862343|NCT02280304|181587747|OTHER||Cohens d|0.27|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Cohen's d effect size (Cohen's d =0.20 is a small effect; Cohen's d=0.50 is a medium effect; Cohen's d=0.80 is a large effect.)|Cohen's d effect sizes are reported for changes over time (0 weeks vs. 12 weeks) in each group separately.||||
90862344|NCT02280304|181587748|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0099||||||The p-value obtained for the L PHG seed/L IPL cluster is 0.0099. The critical p-value after Bonferroni correction for multiple seeds is p=.008.|t-test, 2 sided|Significance is determined when clusters reach voxel threshold p\<.001, cluster p\<.05 FDR corrected for multiple comparisons across the whole brain.||||||<.0099
91106003|NCT03816891|182097791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.6054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|2.8||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 42||2.80|0.55|0.6054
91106004|NCT03816891|182097791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.6042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.81||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 43||1.81|0.36|0.6042
91106005|NCT03816891|182097791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.54||||0.3465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|3.73||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 43||3.73|0.64|0.3465
91106006|NCT03816891|182097791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.7427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.64||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 43||2.64|0.50|0.7427
91106007|NCT03816891|182097791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.9218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|2.3||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 44||2.30|0.47|0.9218
91106008|NCT03816891|182097791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.4909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|3.3||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 44||3.30|0.57|0.4909
91106009|NCT03816891|182097791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46||||0.3616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|3.31||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 44||3.31|0.65|0.3616
90906798|NCT04956692|181681619|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin with respect to the geometric means ratio (GMR) was 0.8|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|94.0|1.69|2.03||The one-sided p-value non-inferiority boundary is 0.03|t-test, 1 sided|Welch's unequal variances t-test. The null hypothesis was that GMR≤0.8.|Numerator Arm A/Denominator Arm B|||2.03|1.69|<0.0001
91106010|NCT03816891|182097791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.7578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|2.55||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 45||2.55|0.51|0.7578
91106011|NCT03816891|182097791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73||||0.2369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|4.24||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 45||4.24|0.71|0.2369
90862345|NCT02280304|181587748|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.02||||||The p-value obtained for the L anterior PGH seed/left VMPC cluster is 0.02. The critical p-value after Bonferroni correction for six seeds is p=.008.|t-test, 2 sided|Significance is determined when clusters reach voxel threshold p\<.001, cluster p\<.05 FDR corrected for multiple comparisons across the whole brain.||||||<0.02
90862346|NCT02280304|181587749|OTHER||Slope|0.02|||<|3.8e-05|TWO_SIDED|||||Cluster in MPFC p\<0.000038 FDR corrected for multiple comparisons across whole brain. Bonferroni correction for multiple seeds p=0.008.|Regression, Linear|Significance is determined when voxel (height) threshold p=.001, cluster threshold p=.05, FDR corrected for multiple tests across the whole brain.||The extent of community participation prior to therapy was correlated with the functional connectivity of the right hippocampus seed after therapy (post-pre).||||<.000038
90862347|NCT02280304|181587749|OTHER||Slope|0.02|||<|0.000149|TWO_SIDED|||||Cluster in the right cerebellum (crus 2) p\<0.000149 FDR corrected for multiple comparisons across the whole brain. Bonferroni for multiple seeds p=0.008.|Regression, Linear|Significance is determined when voxel (height) threshold p=.001, cluster threshold p=.05, FDR corrected for multiple tests across the whole brain.||The extent of community participation prior to therapy was correlated with the functional connectivity of the right hippocampus seed after therapy (post-pre).||||<0.000149
91106012|NCT03816891|182097791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.8774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|2.12||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 45||2.12|0.41|0.8774
91106013|NCT03816891|182097791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.7578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|2.55||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 46||2.55|0.51|0.7578
91106014|NCT03816891|182097791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.4691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|3.33||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 46||3.33|0.58|0.4691
91106015|NCT03816891|182097791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.7272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.95||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 46||1.95|0.38|0.7272
90862348|NCT01935791|181587760|OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05.|ANOVA|plus Tukey test||||||<0.01
90906799|NCT03437668|181681640|SUPERIORITY|To test for a differential treatment effect, we fit a linear mixed with group, time, and a group by time interaction as the predictors and random intercepts to account for the correlations induced by the repeated measurements within subjects. Given the form of the trajectories and the small sample size, we chose to treat time as continuous to minimize the number of degrees of freedom and the risk of overfitting.|Slope|-0.22||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value is for the interaction of time and treatment group in the mixed model|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.31
90906800|NCT03635112|181681699|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.76||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.62|39.11|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||||39.11|-40.62|0.970
91106016|NCT03816891|182097791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|2.35||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 47||2.35|0.47|0.9080
91106017|NCT03816891|182097791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.6001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|3.05||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 47||3.05|0.53|0.6001
91106018|NCT03816891|182097791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.5599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.76||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 47||1.76|0.35|0.5599
91106019|NCT03816891|182097791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.9274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|2.17||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48||2.17|0.43|0.9274
91106020|NCT03816891|182097791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.9333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|2.47||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48||2.47|0.44|0.9333
91106021|NCT03816891|182097791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.7796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.5||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48||2.50|0.50|0.7796
91106022|NCT03816891|182097791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.46||||0.8861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|2.44||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 49||2.44|0.46|0.8861
91106023|NCT03816891|182097791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.7331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|2.03||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 49||2.03|0.36|0.7331
91106024|NCT03816891|182097791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.5686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.78||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 49||1.78|0.35|0.5686
91106025|NCT03816891|182097791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|2.84||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 50||2.84|0.55|0.6010
91106026|NCT03816891|182097791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.9732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|2.4||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 50||2.40|0.43|0.9732
91106027|NCT03816891|182097791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.9378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|2.32||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 50||2.32|0.46|0.9378
91106028|NCT03816891|182097791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.5799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|2.92||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 51||2.92|0.55|0.5799
91106029|NCT03816891|182097791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|2.44||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 51||2.44|0.42|0.9790
91106030|NCT03816891|182097791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.7299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|2.64||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 51||2.64|0.51|0.7299
91106031|NCT03816891|182097791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.7357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|2.64||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52||2.64|0.51|0.7357
91106032|NCT03816891|182097791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65||||0.3243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.51||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52||1.51|0.28|0.3243
91106033|NCT03816891|182097791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72||||0.4364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.63||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52||1.63|0.32|0.4364
91106034|NCT03816891|182097792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.18||||0.0957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|44.6||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1||44.60|0.60|0.0957
90862349|NCT01935791|181587761|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|plus Tukey test||||||<0.001
90906801|NCT03635112|181681699|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-13.13||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.46|26.19|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||||26.19|-52.46|0.510
90906802|NCT03635112|181681700|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion|-0.07||||0.5102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.277|0.135|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Chi-square Test|||||0.135|-0.277|0.5102
90906803|NCT03635112|181681700|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion|0.02||||0.8591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.181|0.218|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Chi-square Test|||||0.218|-0.181|0.8591
90862350|NCT05047770|181587798|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was to be concluded if the upper limit (UL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the adjusted GMC ratio between HZ/suSeq group and HZ/suCoAd group for anti-gE antibody concentration was below (\<) 1.5.|GMC Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.13|||ANCOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of humoral immunogenicity of 2 doses of HZ/su vaccine when the first dose of HZ/su vaccine was co-administered with the mRNA-1273 booster dose compared to HZ/su vaccine administered alone, in terms of anti-gE GMCs, at 1 month post-dose 2 of HZ/su vaccine administration (Week 14 for HZ/suSeq group and Week 12 for HZ/suCoAd group).||1.13|0.89|
90862351|NCT05047770|181587799|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was to be concluded if the UL of the 95% CI of the adjusted GMC ratio between HZ/suSeq group and HZ/suCoAd group for anti-S protein antibody concentration was \<1.5.|GMC Ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.32|||ANCOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of humoral immunogenicity of 1 dose of mRNA-1273 booster when the first dose of HZ/su vaccine was co-administered with the mRNA-1273 booster dose compared to mRNA-1273 booster dose administered alone, in terms of anti-S protein GMCs, at 1 month post-mRNA-1273 booster dose administration (at Week 4 for both HZ/suSeq and HZ/suCoAd groups).||1.32|0.90|
90862352|NCT05047770|181587800|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was to be concluded if the UL of the 95% CI of the adjusted GMT ratio between FluD-QIVSeq group and FluD-QIVCoAd group for anti-HI antibody titer was \<1.5 for the A/H1N1 influenza strain.|GMT Ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.18|||ANCOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of humoral immunogenicity of 1 dose of Flu D-QIV vaccine when co-administered with mRNA-1273 booster dose compared to Flu D-QIV vaccine administered alone, in terms of anti-HI GMTs against the A/H1N1 influenza strain included in the Flu D-QIV vaccine, at 1 month post-Flu D-QIV vaccine dose administration (Week 6 for FluD-QIVSeq group and Week 4 for FluD-QIVCoAd group).||1.18|0.89|
90862353|NCT05047770|181587800|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was to be concluded if the UL of the 95% CI of the adjusted GMT ratio between FluD-QIVSeq group and FluD-QIVCoAd group for anti-HI antibody titer was \<1.5 for the A/H3N2 influenza strain.|GMT Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.05|||ANCOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of humoral immunogenicity of 1 dose of Flu D-QIV vaccine when co-administered with mRNA-1273 booster dose compared to Flu D-QIV vaccine administered alone, in terms of anti-HI GMTs against the A/H3N2 influenza strain included in the Flu D-QIV vaccine, at 1 month post-Flu D-QIV vaccine dose administration (Week 6 for FluD-QIVSeq group and Week 4 for FluD-QIVCoAd group).||1.05|0.82|
90862354|NCT05047770|181587800|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was to be concluded if the UL of the 95% CI of the adjusted GMT ratio between FluD-QIVSeq group and FluD-QIVCoAd group for anti-HI antibody titer was \<1.5 for the B/Victoria lineage influenza strain.|GMT Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.14|||ANCOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of humoral immunogenicity of 1 dose of Flu D-QIV vaccine when co-administered with mRNA-1273 booster dose compared to Flu D-QIV vaccine administered alone, in terms of anti-HI GMTs against the B/Victoria lineage influenza strain included in the Flu D-QIV vaccine, at 1 month post-Flu D-QIV vaccine dose administration (Week 6 for FluD-QIVSeq group and Week 4 for FluD-QIVCoAd group).||1.14|0.89|
90862355|NCT05047770|181587800|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was to be concluded if the UL of the 95% CI of the adjusted GMT ratio between FluD-QIVSeq group and FluD-QIVCoAd group for anti-HI antibody titer was \<1.5 for the B/Yamagata lineage influenza strain.|GMT Ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.17|||ANCOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of humoral immunogenicity of 1 dose of Flu D-QIV vaccine when co-administered with mRNA-1273 booster dose compared to Flu D-QIV vaccine administered alone, in terms of anti-HI GMTs against the B/Yamagata lineage influenza strain included in the Flu D-QIV vaccine, at 1 month post-Flu D-QIV vaccine dose administration (Week 6 for FluD-QIVSeq group and Week 4 for FluD-QIVCoAd group).||1.17|0.93|
90862356|NCT05047770|181587801|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was to be concluded if the UL of the 95% CI of the adjusted GMC ratio between FluD-QIVSeq group and FluD-QIVCoAd group for anti-S antibody concentration was \<1.5.|GMC Ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.13|||ANCOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of humoral immunogenicity of 1 dose of mRNA-1273 booster when co-administered with Flu D-QIV vaccine compared to mRNA-1273 booster dose administered alone in terms of anti-S protein GMCs, at 1 month post-mRNA-1273 booster dose administration (at Week 4 for both FluD-QIVSeq and FluD-QIVCoAd groups).||1.13|0.84|
90862357|NCT05047770|181587802|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was to be concluded if the UL of the 95% CI of the difference in percentage of participants seroconverted for anti-HI antibodies against the A/H1N1 influenza strain between FluD-QIVSeq group and FluD-QIVCoAd group was \< 10%.|Difference in percentage|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|6.4|||ANCOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of humoral immunogenicity of 1 dose of Flu D-QIV vaccine when co-administered with mRNA-1273 booster dose compared to Flu D-QIV vaccine administered alone, in terms of percentage of participants seroconverted for anti-HI antibodies against the A/H1N1 influenza strain included in the Flu D-QIV vaccine, at 1 month post-Flu D-QIV vaccine dose administration (Week 6 for FluD-QIVSeq group and Week 4 for FluD-QIVCoAd group).||6.4|-5.1|
90862358|NCT05047770|181587802|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was to be concluded if the UL of the 95% CI of the difference in percentage of participants seroconverted for anti-HI antibodies against the A/H3N2 influenza strain between FluD-QIVSeq group and FluD-QIVCoAd group was \< 10%.|Difference in percentage|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|5.2|||ANCOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of humoral immunogenicity of 1 dose of Flu D-QIV vaccine when co-administered with mRNA-1273 booster dose compared to Flu D-QIV vaccine administered alone, in terms of percentage of participants seroconverted for anti-HI antibodies against the A/H3N2 influenza strain included in the Flu D-QIV vaccine, at 1 month post-Flu D-QIV vaccine dose administration (Week 6 for FluD-QIVSeq group and Week 4 for FluD-QIVCoAd group).||5.2|-7.8|
90862359|NCT05047770|181587802|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was to be concluded if the UL of the 95% CI of the difference in percentage of participants seroconverted for anti-HI antibodies against the B/Victoria lineage influenza strain between FluD-QIVSeq group and FluD-QIVCoAd group was \< 10%.|Difference in percentage|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|5.9|||ANCOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of humoral immunogenicity of 1 dose of Flu D-QIV vaccine when co-administered with mRNA-1273 booster dose compared to Flu D-QIV vaccine administered alone, in terms of percentage of participants seroconverted for anti-HI antibodies against the B/Victoria lineage influenza strain included in the Flu D-QIV vaccine, at 1 month post-Flu D-QIV vaccine dose administration (Week 6 for FluD-QIVSeq group and Week 4 for FluD-QIVCoAd group).||5.9|-5.8|
90906804|NCT03635112|181681701|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion|-0.13||||0.1805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.322|0.061|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Chi-square Test|||||0.061|-0.322|0.1805
90906805|NCT03635112|181681701|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion|-0.01||||0.9215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.204|0.184|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Chi-square Test|||||0.184|-0.204|0.9215
90862360|NCT05047770|181587802|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was to be concluded if the UL of the 95% CI of the difference in percentage of participants seroconverted for anti-HI antibodies against the B/Yamagata influenza strain between FluD-QIVSeq group and FluD-QIVCoAd group was \< 10%.|Difference in percentage|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|3.9|||ANCOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of humoral immunogenicity of 1 dose of Flu D-QIV vaccine when co-administered with mRNA-1273 booster dose compared to Flu D-QIV vaccine administered alone, in terms of percentage of participants seroconverted for anti-HI antibodies against the B/Yamagata influenza strain included in the Flu D-QIV vaccine, at 1 month post-Flu D-QIV vaccine dose administration (Week 6 for FluD-QIVSeq group and Week 4 for FluD-QIVCoAd group).||3.9|-7.0|
90862361|NCT01952145|181587859|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of IDegLira versus IGlar was considered as confirmed, if the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the mean treatment difference was entirely below 0.30%.|Treatment contrast|-0.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.45|||ANCOVA|||This primary endpoint was analysed on the FAS using an ANCOVA model with treatment and region as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c value as covariate.||-0.45|-0.74|< 0.001
90862362|NCT02130570|181587874|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate ratio|0.52||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.91||This is the P-value for the adjusted IRR.|Regression poissant|"Please see the Other Statistical Analysis field for adjustments."|||Adjusted for study month, Elixhauser comorbidity score, patient age, sex, language, race/ethnicity, cognitive status, health literacy, functional status one month prior to admission, caregiver status, median income by zip code, ED visits in the previous 6 months, HOSPITAL readmission risk score, inpatient unit, and primary care practice. IRR: incidence rate ratio|0.91|0.30|0.02
90862363|NCT02130570|181587875|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate ratio|0.78||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.95||This is the p-value for the adjusted rate|Regression poissant|"For adjustments, please see the Other Statistical Analysis field below."|||Adjusted for study month, Elixhauser comorbidity score, patient age, sex, language, race/ethnicity, cognitive status, health literacy, functional status one month prior to admission, caregiver status, median income by zip code, ED visits in the previous 6 months, HOSPITAL readmission risk score, inpatient unit, and primary care practice. IRR: incidence rate ratio|0.95|0.64|0.01
90862364|NCT02130570|181587876|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.85||This is the P-value for the adjusted Odds Ratio|Regression, Logistic|"For adjustments, please see the Other Statistical Analysis field below."|||Adjusted for study month, Elixhauser comorbidity score, patient age, sex, language, race/ethnicity, cognitive status, health literacy, functional status one month prior to admission, caregiver status, median income by zip code, ED visits in the previous 6 months, HOSPITAL readmission risk score; clustered by inpatient unit; primary care practice as a random effect . OR: odds ratio|1.85|0.64|0.77
90862365|NCT02130570|181587877|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|||||This is the P-value for the adjusted difference.|Regression, Linear|"Please see the Other Statistical Analysis field for adjustments."|||Adjusted for study month, Elixhauser comorbidity score, patient age, sex, language, race/ethnicity, cognitive status, health literacy, functional status one month prior to admission, caregiver status, median income by zip code, ED visits in the previous 6 months, HOSPITAL readmission risk score; clustered by inpatient unit; primary care practice as a random effect.|||0.91
90862366|NCT02130570|181587878|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.85||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.51||"Please see the Other Statistical Analysis field for adjustments and the P-value computed for each survey question."|Regression, Logistic||"Please see the Other Statistical Analysis field for a list of the estimated value and 95% CI for each survey question."||"Please see the Other Statistical Analysis field for adjustments."|1.51|0.47|0.57
90862367|NCT05981391|181587884|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
90862368|NCT03072732|181587900|NON_INFERIORITY|The µ-Cor System will be considered non-inferior with respect to clinical performance (i.e., trends in fluid change) of the ZOE device if the lower 95% confidence interval of the differences (Primary Measurement) is greater than the non-inferiority margin of -0.05.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.75|||||"Because the distribution was skewed, the average was calculated by 1) Fisher Transformation of values, 2) averaging the transformed values, 3) back calculating the mean.~The Taylor Series expansion and Delta method was used to determine variance."|"The null hypothesis was that the correlation coefficient of the ZOE device would be greater than the correlation coefficient of the uCor device by at least 0.05.~For each subject, a correlation coefficient was calculated between study arm 1 uCor readings and UFV, as well as ZOE readings and UFV.~The difference between uCor correlation coefficient and ZOE correlation coefficient for each subject was used as the Primary Measurement."||0.75|0.57|
90862369|NCT03072732|181587900|NON_INFERIORITY|The µ-Cor System will be considered non-inferior with respect to clinical performance (i.e., trends in fluid change) of the ZOE device if the lower 95% confidence interval of the differences (Primary Measurement) is greater than the non-inferiority margin of -0.05.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.35|||||"Because the distribution was skewed, the average was calculated by 1) Fisher Transformation of values, 2) averaging the transformed values, 3) back calculating the mean.~The Taylor Series expansion and Delta method was used to determine variance."|"The null hypothesis was that the correlation coefficient of the ZOE device would be greater than the correlation coefficient of the uCor device by at least 0.05.~For each subject, a correlation coefficient was calculated between study arm 2 uCor readings and UFV, as well as ZOE readings and UFV.~The difference between uCor correlation coefficient and ZOE correlation coefficient for each subject was used as the Primary Measurement."||0.35|0.12|
90906806|NCT03635112|181681702|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|1.6||||0.316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|4.8|||ANCOVA|||||4.8|-1.6|0.316
91106035|NCT03816891|182097792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2||||0.5457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|28.14||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1||28.14|0.17|0.5457
90862370|NCT04889222|181587905|EQUIVALENCE|A TOST procedure using the Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test was used to test the hypothesis that the median biases of the INVSENSOR00050 sensor from two pigmentation subgroups (Light and Dark) were equivalent within ± 1 %SpO2. The TOST procedure provides a p-value indicating whether the two measures are equivalent if the p-value is less than 0.05.||||||0.00097||||||The a priori threshold for p-value was 0.05.|Two One Sided Tests (TOST)|||||||0.00097
90862371|NCT04889222|181587906|EQUIVALENCE|A TOST procedure using the Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test was used to test the hypothesis that the median biases of the RD SET SpO2 sensor from two pigmentation subgroups (Light and Dark) were equivalent within ± 1 %SpO2. The TOST procedure provides a p-value indicating whether the two measures are equivalent if the p-value is less than 0.05.||||||0||||||The a priori threshold for p-value was 0.05.|Two One-Sided Tests (TOST)|||||||0.00000
90862372|NCT01044706|181587913|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference produts. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|ratio of T/R geometric mean x 100|108.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0321|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.79|114.44||Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|ANOVA|degrees of freedom 55|Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean for AUCO-144 and Cmax between the test and reference product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|Using GLM procedures in SAS, ANOVA was performed on ln-transformed AUC0-144 at the alpha level of 0.05. Factors incorporated in the model will include: Group, Treatment and Treatment\*Group. Intra-subject coefficient of variation (CV%) will be estimated. The ratio of means (T/R) and 90% geometric confidence interval for the ratio of means, based on least-squares means from the ANOVA of the ln-transformed data, will be calculated for AUC0-144 hour.||114.44|102.79|<0.05
90862373|NCT01044706|181587914|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference produts. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|ratio of T/R geometric mean x 100|110.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0281|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|105.43|115.82||Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|ANOVA|degrees of freedom 56|Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean for AUCO-144 and Cmax between the test and reference product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|Using GLM procedures in SAS, ANOVA was performed on ln-transformed Cmax at the alpha level of 0.05. Factors incorporated in the model will include: Group, Treatment and Treatment\*Group. Intra-subject coefficient of variation (CV%) will be estimated. The ratio of means (T/R) and 90% geometric confidence interval for the ratio of means, based on least-squares means from the ANOVA of the ln-transformed data, will be calculated for Cmax.||115.82|105.43|<0.05
90862374|NCT02478372|181587961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.332|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance was set at \<0.01|Chi-squared|||||||0.332
91106036|NCT03816891|182097792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.14||||0.3797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|41.51||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1||41.51|0.24|0.3797
91106037|NCT03816891|182097792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.97||||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.64|38.75||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||38.75|1.64|0.0042
91106038|NCT03816891|182097792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.08||||0.0383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|26.09||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||26.09|0.99|0.0383
91106039|NCT03816891|182097792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.42||||0.0357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|28.92||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||28.92|1.02|0.0357
91106040|NCT03816891|182097792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|17.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.86|77.91||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 3||77.91|3.86|<0.0001
90906807|NCT03635112|181681702|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.0||||0.988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|3.2|||ANCOVA|||||3.2|-3.2|0.988
91106041|NCT03816891|182097792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.04||||0.0408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|26.01||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 3||26.01|0.97|0.0408
91106042|NCT03816891|182097792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.42||||0.0357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|28.92||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 3||28.92|1.02|0.0357
91106043|NCT03816891|182097792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.51|62.54||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||62.54|4.51|<0.0001
91106044|NCT03816891|182097792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.95||||0.0116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|18.78||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||18.78|1.31|0.0116
91106045|NCT03816891|182097792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.95||||0.3738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|8.82||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||8.82|0.43|0.3738
91106046|NCT03816891|182097792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|44.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.06|320.77||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 5||320.77|6.06|<0.0001
91106047|NCT03816891|182097792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|27.11||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.73|268.93||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 5||268.93|2.73|0.0002
91106048|NCT03816891|182097792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|17.02||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.74|166.84||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 5||166.84|1.74|0.0029
91106049|NCT03816891|182097792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|17.84|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|67.78||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6||67.78|4.70|<0.0001
91106050|NCT03816891|182097792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.86||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|37.44||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6||37.44|2.60|0.0002
91106051|NCT03816891|182097792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.87||||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|22.53||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6||22.53|1.53|0.0055
91106052|NCT03816891|182097792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.37|45.75||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 7||45.75|4.37|<0.0001
91106053|NCT03816891|182097792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.85||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.11|22.25||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 7||22.25|2.11|0.0005
90862375|NCT00116428|181587970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Log Rank|||The study null hypothesis is that the chronic success rates for the THERMOCOOL and AAD groups are equal.||||<0.001
90862376|NCT01032174|181587975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The logistic regression model contained terms for treatment, gender and age.|Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.0001
90862377|NCT01032174|181587976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of Least Square Mean|1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.0568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|2.15||The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model contained terms for treatment, gender, age and Body Mass Index (BMI).|ANCOVA|Least square mean was adjusted for gender, age and BMI.||||2.15|-0.03|0.0568
90862378|NCT01032174|181587977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0682|TWO_SIDED|||||The logistic regression model contained terms for treatment, gender and age.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.0682
90862379|NCT00113087|181587978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.28
90862380|NCT00113087|181587979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.42||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.42
90862381|NCT00113087|181587980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.64||||0.008||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.008
91106054|NCT03816891|182097792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.24||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|14.41||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 7||14.41|1.25|0.0160
91106055|NCT03816891|182097792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.37|45.75||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||45.75|4.37|<0.0001
91106056|NCT03816891|182097792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.26||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.93|20.33||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||20.33|1.93|0.0009
91106057|NCT03816891|182097792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.19||||0.0151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|14.04||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||14.04|1.25|0.0151
91106058|NCT03816891|182097792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|19.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.35|69.06||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 9||69.06|5.35|<0.0001
90862382|NCT00113087|181587981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
90862383|NCT00113087|181587982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.71
90862384|NCT00113087|181587983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.74
90862385|NCT00113087|181587984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.22
90862386|NCT00113087|181587985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.86
90862387|NCT00113087|181587986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.60
90862388|NCT00113087|181587987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.60
90862389|NCT00113087|181587988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
90862390|NCT00113087|181587989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.008
90862391|NCT00113087|181587990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004
90862392|NCT00113087|181587991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.31
90862393|NCT00113087|181587992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.36
90862394|NCT00113087|181587993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.37
90862395|NCT00113087|181587994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.08
90862396|NCT00113087|181587995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.07
91106059|NCT03816891|182097792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.48|38.09||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 9||38.09|3.48|<0.0001
91106060|NCT03816891|182097792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.12||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.86|20.2||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 9||20.20|1.86|0.0013
91106061|NCT03816891|182097792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.89|43.82||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 10||43.82|4.89|<0.0001
91106062|NCT03816891|182097792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.44|26.76||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 10||26.76|3.44|<0.0001
91106063|NCT03816891|182097792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.2||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|11.9||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 10||11.90|1.48|0.0049
91106064|NCT03816891|182097792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.17|21.77||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 11||21.77|3.17|<0.0001
91106065|NCT03816891|182097792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|13.92||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 11||13.92|2.20|<0.0001
91106066|NCT03816891|182097792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.23||||0.0939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|5.86||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 11||5.86|0.85|0.0939
91106067|NCT03816891|182097792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.91|20.31||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||20.31|2.91|<0.0001
91106068|NCT03816891|182097792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.51|16.93||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||16.93|2.51|<0.0001
91106069|NCT03816891|182097792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.02||||0.1425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|5.28||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||5.28|0.77|0.1425
91106070|NCT03816891|182097792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.61|27.64||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 13||27.64|3.61|<0.0001
90862397|NCT00113087|181587996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
91106071|NCT03816891|182097792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.08|22.43||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 13||22.43|3.08|<0.0001
91106072|NCT03816891|182097792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.17||||0.0194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|8.6||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 13||8.60|1.17|0.0194
91106073|NCT03816891|182097792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|23.77||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 14||23.77|3.50|<0.0001
90862398|NCT00113087|181587997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.11
90862399|NCT00113087|181587998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.49
91106074|NCT03816891|182097792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.11|20.7||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 14||20.70|3.11|<0.0001
90862400|NCT00113087|181587999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.35
90862401|NCT00113087|181588000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.62
90862402|NCT00113087|181588001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.43
90862403|NCT00113087|181588002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
90862404|NCT00113087|181588003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.34
90862405|NCT00113087|181588004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.81
90862406|NCT00113087|181588005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.08
90906808|NCT03635112|181681703|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion|-0.11||||0.1828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.059|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Chi-square Test|||||0.059|-0.270|0.1828
90906809|NCT03635112|181681703|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion|0.06||||0.5785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.133|0.244|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Chi-square Test|||||0.244|-0.133|0.5785
91106075|NCT03816891|182097792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.96||||0.0266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|7.87||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 14||7.87|1.12|0.0266
91106076|NCT03816891|182097792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.85|28.0||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 15||28.00|3.85|<0.0001
91106077|NCT03816891|182097792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.04|21.86||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 15||21.86|3.04|<0.0001
91106078|NCT03816891|182097792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.36||||0.0172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|9.29||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 15||9.29|1.22|0.0172
91106079|NCT03816891|182097792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.34|22.14||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||22.14|3.34|<0.0001
91106080|NCT03816891|182097792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.91|19.79||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||19.79|2.91|<0.0001
91106081|NCT03816891|182097792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.14||||0.1252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|5.75||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||5.75|0.80|0.1252
91106082|NCT03816891|182097792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.09|20.75||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 17||20.75|3.09|<0.0001
91106083|NCT03816891|182097792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|22.4||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 17||22.40|3.30|<0.0001
90862407|NCT00113087|181588006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.06
90862408|NCT02713204|181588015|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was performed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline measurement as a covariate and treatment group as fixed factors.|Least square mean difference|0.02||||0.9894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.99|3.03||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||3.03|-2.99|0.9894
90862409|NCT02713204|181588015|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.25||||0.8346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|2.59|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline measurement as a covariate and treatment group as fixed factors.||2.59|-2.09|0.8346
90862410|NCT02713204|181588016|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-1.2||||0.4611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.41|2.0||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as a covariate, and treatment group and BCVA stratification variable as fixed factors.||2.00|-4.41|0.4611
91106084|NCT03816891|182097792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.39||||0.0074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|8.34||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 17||8.34|1.38|0.0074
91106085|NCT03816891|182097792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.94||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|9.33||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 18||9.33|1.66|0.0015
91106086|NCT03816891|182097792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.03||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.04|12.4||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 18||12.40|2.04|0.0003
91106087|NCT03816891|182097792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.82||||0.1667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|4.23||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 18||4.23|0.78|0.1667
91106088|NCT03816891|182097792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.12||||0.0087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|7.41||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 19||7.41|1.31|0.0087
90906810|NCT03635112|181681704|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion|-0.07||||0.3776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.225|0.095|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Chi-square Test|||||0.095|-0.225|0.3776
91106089|NCT03816891|182097792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.26||||0.0079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|7.87||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 19||7.87|1.35|0.0079
90906811|NCT03635112|181681704|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion|-0.04||||0.6063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.189|0.111|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Chi-square Test|||||0.111|-0.189|0.6063
90906812|NCT01950260|181681706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.23
90906813|NCT01950260|181681707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.41
90906814|NCT01950260|181681708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.33
90862411|NCT02713204|181588016|SUPERIORITY|Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Least square mean difference|-2.0||||0.2225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.22|1.22|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as a covariate, and treatment group and BCVA stratification variable as fixed factors.||1.22|-5.22|0.2225
91106090|NCT03816891|182097792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6||||0.2631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|3.63||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 19||3.63|0.71|0.2631
90862412|NCT02713204|181588016|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.82||||0.6063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.97|2.32||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as a covariate, and treatment group and BCVA stratification variable as fixed factors.||2.32|-3.97|0.6063
90862413|NCT02713204|181588016|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-3.25||||0.0426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.39|-0.11||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as a covariate, and treatment group and BCVA stratification variable as fixed factors.||-0.11|-6.39|0.0426
90862414|NCT02713204|181588016|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-4.39||||0.0073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.58|-1.19||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as a covariate, and treatment group and BCVA stratification variable as fixed factors.||-1.19|-7.58|0.0073
90862415|NCT02713204|181588016|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|1.17||||0.469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.01|4.36||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as a covariate, and treatment group and BCVA stratification variable as fixed factors.||4.36|-2.01|0.4690
91033106|NCT00048581|181951979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. of Diff: Day 15 ACR 20|12.3||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.6|20.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|All statistical tests and CI were 2-sided. Percentage of participants with response compared by estimate of difference (Est of Diff)||Differences in ACR 20 between the treatment arm receiving ABA plus background DMARDs and the treatment arm receiving PLA plus background DMARDs were compared using a 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) Chi-square test (.05 level of significance), with stratification based on baseline history of anti-TNF status (current or prior use).||20.0|4.6|0.001
91106091|NCT03816891|182097792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.59||||0.0263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|6.05||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||6.05|1.11|0.0263
90862416|NCT02713204|181588016|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|2.42||||0.1267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|5.54||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as a covariate, and treatment group and BCVA stratification variable as fixed factors.||5.54|-0.69|0.1267
90862417|NCT02713204|181588017|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-11.57||||0.413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.5|16.2||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline measurement as a covariate and treatment group as fixed factors.||16.20|-39.5|0.4130
90862418|NCT02713204|181588017|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-4.88||||0.6587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.2|16.85|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline measurement as a covariate and treatment group as fixed factors.||16.85|-26.2|0.6587
90862419|NCT02713204|181588018|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|17.04||||0.3833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.35|55.43||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as a covariate, and treatment group and BCVA stratification variable as fixed factors.||55.43|-21.35|0.3833
90862420|NCT02713204|181588018|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|12.85||||0.5141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.84|51.53||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as a covariate, and treatment group and BCVA stratification variable as fixed factors.||51.53|-25.84|0.5141
90862421|NCT02713204|181588018|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|33.89||||0.0785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.89|71.67|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as a covariate, and treatment group and BCVA stratification variable as fixed factors.||71.67|-3.89|0.0785
90862422|NCT02713204|181588018|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|42.27||||0.0281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.56|79.98||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as a covariate, and treatment group and BCVA stratification variable as fixed factors.||79.98|4.56|0.0281
90862423|NCT02713204|181588018|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|16.65||||0.3934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.67|54.96||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||54.96|-21.67|0.3934
90862424|NCT02713204|181588018|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|21.05||||0.279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.13|59.22||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as a covariate, and treatment group and BCVA stratification variable as fixed factors.||59.22|-17.13|0.2790
90862425|NCT02713204|181588018|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-8.38||||0.6586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.64|28.88||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as a covariate, and treatment group and BCVA stratification variable as fixed factors.||28.88|-45.64|0.6586
90862426|NCT02713204|181588019|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.55||||0.4889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|2.1||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||2.10|-1.01|0.4889
90862427|NCT02713204|181588019|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.24||||0.7027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|1.46||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||1.46|-0.99|0.7027
90862428|NCT02713204|181588020|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.6||||0.4927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|1.13||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||1.13|-2.34|0.4927
90862429|NCT02713204|181588020|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.38||||0.6645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|2.13||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||2.13|-1.36|0.6645
90862430|NCT02713204|181588020|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.89||||0.3091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|0.83||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||0.83|-2.61|0.3091
90862431|NCT02713204|181588020|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.6||||0.4898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|1.1||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||1.10|-2.29|0.4898
90862432|NCT02713204|181588020|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.8||||0.3504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.89||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||0.89|-2.50|0.3504
90862433|NCT02713204|181588020|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.98||||0.2632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|0.74||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||0.74|-2.70|0.2632
90862434|NCT02713204|181588020|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.21||||0.8056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|1.88||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||1.88|-1.46|0.8056
90862435|NCT02713204|181588021|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.57||||0.5065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|2.25||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||2.25|-1.11|0.5065
91106092|NCT03816891|182097792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.29||||0.0643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|5.46||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||5.46|0.96|0.0643
91106093|NCT03816891|182097792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.3954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|3.27||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||3.27|0.63|0.3954
91106094|NCT03816891|182097792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.99||||0.1083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|4.61||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 21||4.61|0.86|0.1083
90862436|NCT02713204|181588021|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.22||||0.7418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|1.1||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||1.10|-1.55|0.7418
90862437|NCT02713204|181588022|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.19||||0.8383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|1.62||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||1.62|-1.99|0.8383
90862438|NCT02713204|181588022|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.1||||0.918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|1.72||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||1.72|-1.91|0.9180
90862439|NCT02713204|181588022|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-1.41||||0.1238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|0.39||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||0.39|-3.20|0.1238
90862440|NCT02713204|181588022|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.97||||0.2819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.73|0.8||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||0.80|-2.73|0.2819
90862441|NCT02713204|181588022|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-1.02||||0.2581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|0.75||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||0.75|-2.78|0.2581
90862442|NCT02713204|181588022|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.87||||0.339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.66|0.92||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||0.92|-2.66|0.3390
90862443|NCT02713204|181588022|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.05||||0.9558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|1.79||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||1.79|-1.69|0.9558
90862444|NCT02635776|181588064|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|63.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.0|73.3|||Farrington-Manning test|||Treatment difference at 600 mg||73.3|53|<0.0001
90862445|NCT02635776|181588065|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|47.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.0|57.7|||Farrington-Manning test|||Treatment difference at 1000 mg||57.7|38|<0.0001
90862446|NCT02635776|181588066|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|68.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.6|78.5|||Farrington-Manning test|||Treatment difference at 300 mg||78.5|58.6|<0.0001
90906815|NCT03283553|181681711|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.264||||||P-value represents interaction for differential changes between time point (9 months compared to baseline) and group assignment.|Regression, Logistic|Adjusts for baseline patient education, care partner gender, and patient disease stage.||Complete illness understanding at 9 months was compared to baseline using logistic regression models estimated with generalized estimating equations (GEE) and an exchangeable correlation specification. Each model included group assignment, time (9 months versus baseline), their interaction, and covariates.||||0.264
90906816|NCT03283553|181681712|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.555||||||P-value represents the significance of the term for group assignment.|Regression, Linear|Adjusts for baseline patient education, care partner gender, and patient disease stage.||Satisfaction with cancer care at 9 months was compared to baseline using linear regression models with the difference in the score as the outcome and a term for group assignment as the main independent variable.||||0.555
91106095|NCT03816891|182097792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.34||||0.0613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|5.69||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 21||5.69|0.96|0.0613
90862447|NCT02635776|181588067|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (using equally spaced scores), stratified by region (North America, Europe)||Treatment difference in maximum severity||||<0.0001
90862448|NCT00660673|181588080|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||One-sample t-test|||"Change from initial LCIG infusion to end of study in off time was assessed for significance using a 1-sample paired t test"||||<0.001
90862449|NCT00660673|181588080|OTHER|||||||0.433|||||||One-sample t-test|||"Change from Baseline to end of study in off time was assessed for significance using a 1-sample paired t-test."||||0.433
90862450|NCT00660673|181588081|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||One-sample t-test|||"Change from initial LCIG infusion to end of study in on time without troublesome dyskinesia was assessed for significance using a 1-sample paired t-test."||||<0.001
90862451|NCT00660673|181588081|OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||One-sample t-test|||"Change from Baseline to end of study in on time without troublesome dyskinesia was assessed for significance using a 1-sample paired t test"||||0.150
91106096|NCT03816891|182097792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.92||||0.1354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|4.47||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 21||4.47|0.82|0.1354
91106097|NCT03816891|182097792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.66||||0.2362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|3.82||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 22||3.82|0.72|0.2362
91106098|NCT03816891|182097792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.13||||0.0949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|5.17||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 22||5.17|0.88|0.0949
91106099|NCT03816891|182097792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.5013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|3.04||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 22||3.04|0.58|0.5013
91106100|NCT03816891|182097792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.4386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|3.16||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 23||3.16|0.61|0.4386
91106101|NCT03816891|182097792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.49||||0.0504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|6.24||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 23||6.24|0.99|0.0504
91106102|NCT03816891|182097792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.3781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|3.32||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 23||3.32|0.64|0.3781
91106103|NCT03816891|182097792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.83||||0.1535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|4.21||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||4.21|0.79|0.1535
91106104|NCT03816891|182097792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.09||||0.0925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|4.99||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||4.99|0.87|0.0925
91106105|NCT03816891|182097792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.75||||0.1948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|4.07||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||4.07|0.75|0.1948
91106106|NCT03816891|182097792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.4304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|3.17||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 25||3.17|0.61|0.4304
91106107|NCT03816891|182097792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.17||||0.0873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|5.31||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 25||5.31|0.89|0.0873
91106108|NCT03816891|182097792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.3683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|3.38||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 25||3.38|0.64|0.3683
91106109|NCT03816891|182097792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.52||||0.3203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|3.48||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 26||3.48|0.66|0.3203
91106110|NCT03816891|182097792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.02||||0.1284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|4.98||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 26||4.98|0.82|0.1284
91106111|NCT03816891|182097792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77||||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|4.11||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 26||4.11|0.76|0.1790
91106112|NCT03816891|182097792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28||||0.547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|2.91||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 27||2.91|0.56|0.5470
91106113|NCT03816891|182097792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.69||||0.2612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|4.16||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 27||4.16|0.68|0.2612
91106114|NCT03816891|182097792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.5071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|3.11||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 27||3.11|0.57|0.5071
91106115|NCT03816891|182097792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.4175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|3.19||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 28||3.19|0.61|0.4175
91106116|NCT03816891|182097792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72||||0.284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|4.32||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 28||4.32|0.68|0.284
91106117|NCT03816891|182097792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.9281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|2.33||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 28||2.33|0.46|0.9281
91106118|NCT03816891|182097792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.6987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|2.69||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 29||2.69|0.51|0.6987
91106119|NCT03816891|182097792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.4794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|3.41||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 29||3.41|0.56|0.4794
91106120|NCT03816891|182097792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.8164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|2.52||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 29||2.52|0.48|0.8164
91106121|NCT03816891|182097792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28||||0.5484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|2.93||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 30||2.93|0.56|0.5484
91106122|NCT03816891|182097792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53||||0.3596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|3.76||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 30||3.76|0.62|0.3596
91106123|NCT03816891|182097792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.6414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|2.78||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 30||2.78|0.53|0.6414
91106124|NCT03816891|182097792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.4233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.2||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 31||3.20|0.60|0.4233
91106125|NCT03816891|182097792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.3632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|3.7||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 31||3.70|0.62|0.3632
91106126|NCT03816891|182097792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.8018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|2.49||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 31||2.49|0.49|0.8018
91106127|NCT03816891|182097792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.5465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|3.02||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 32||3.02|0.55|0.5465
91106128|NCT03816891|182097792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|4.14||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 32||4.14|0.68|0.2560
90906817|NCT03283553|181681713|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.619||||||P-value represents interaction for differential changes between time point (9 months vs baseline) and group assignment.|Regression, Logistic|Adjusts for baseline patient education, care partner gender, and patient disease stage.||Symptoms of anxiety at 9 months were compared to baseline using logistic regression models estimated with generalized estimating equations (GEE) and an exchangeable correlation specification. Each model included group assignment, time (9 months versus baseline), their interaction, and covariates.||||0.619
90906818|NCT03283553|181681714|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.532||||||P-value represents interaction for differential changes between time point (9 months compared to baseline) and group assignment.|Regression, Logistic|Adjusts for baseline patient education, care partner gender, and patient disease stage.||Complete illness understanding at 9 months was compared to baseline using logistic regression models estimated with generalized estimating equations (GEE) and an exchangeable correlation specification. Each model included group assignment, time (9 months versus baseline), their interaction, and covariates.||||0.532
90959363|NCT02751320|181798675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.21||||0.5335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.81|9.23||ANCOVA: Participant (random), treatment \& period (fixed), Participant-level baseline SMH, period-level baseline SMH, Participant-level pre-treatment acid challenge SMH and period-level pre-treatment acid challenge SMH (covariates)|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that positive difference favors the first named treatment.|||9.23|-4.81|0.5335
91106129|NCT03816891|182097792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|2.1||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 32||2.10|0.42|0.8810
91106130|NCT03816891|182097792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.9701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|2.24||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 33||2.24|0.43|0.9701
90862452|NCT00660673|181588082|OTHER|||||||0.725|||||||One-sample t-test|||"Change from initial LCIG infusion to end of study in on time with troublesome dyskinesia was assessed for significance using a 1-sample paired t test"||||0.725
90862453|NCT00660673|181588082|OTHER|||||||0.019|||||||One-sample t-test|||"Change from Baseline to end of study in on time with troublesome dyskinesia was assessed for significance using a 1-sample paired t test"||||0.019
90862454|NCT00579098|181588090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75||95.0||||A p-value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Log Rank|||||||0.75
90959364|NCT02751320|181798675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|22.96|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.02|29.9||From ANCOVA: Participant (random), treatment \& period (fixed), Participant -level baseline SMH, period-level baseline SMH, Participant -level pre-treatment acidchallenge SMH and period-level pre-treatment acid challenge SMH (covariates) .|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Treatment comparison corresponding to qualifying criteria for the analysis||29.90|16.02|<.0001
90959365|NCT01809002|181798688|NON_INFERIORITY|The primary endpoint tested non-inferiority as compared to collagen nerve cuff and superior to no treatment. Non-inferiority is defined as the lower limit of the 95% CI about the difference of \> -2 and the upper limit of the 95% CI for s2PD for Avance of \< 13 in ITT table.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.087|1.574|||ANCOVA|||The analysis was performed using a pre-defined standard statistical analysis with a non-response/failure assigned a worst-case scenario value of 16mm.||1.574|-1.087|
90959366|NCT01809002|181798689|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.035
91106131|NCT03816891|182097792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.3331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|3.96||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 33||3.96|0.62|0.3331
91106132|NCT03816891|182097792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.8386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.11||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 33||2.11|0.40|0.8386
91106133|NCT03816891|182097792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.4091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|3.28||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 34||3.28|0.61|0.4091
91106134|NCT03816891|182097792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.3746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|3.57||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 34||3.57|0.61|0.3746
91106135|NCT03816891|182097792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.8018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|2.49||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 34||2.49|0.49|0.8018
91106136|NCT03816891|182097792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.6717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|2.79||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 35||2.79|0.51|0.6717
91106137|NCT03816891|182097792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|2.41||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 35||2.41|0.41|0.9850
90862455|NCT00579098|181588091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37||95.0||||A p-value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Log Rank|||||||0.37
90862456|NCT00579098|181588092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11||95.0||||A p-value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.11
91106138|NCT03816891|182097792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.9983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|2.31||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 35||2.31|0.43|0.9983
91106139|NCT03816891|182097792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.5311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|3.02||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 36||3.02|0.56|0.5311
91106140|NCT03816891|182097792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.6628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.99||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 36||2.99|0.50|0.6628
90862457|NCT00579098|181588093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53||95.0||||Comparison between treatment groups. A p-value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.53
90862458|NCT00579098|181588094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||A p-value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||The change in total cholesterol was compared between treatment groups.||||<0.001
90862459|NCT00579098|181588094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||A p-value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||The change in LDL cholesterol was compared between treatment groups.||||<0.001
90862460|NCT00579098|181588094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92||95.0||||A p-value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||The change in HDL cholesterol was compared between treatment groups.||||0.92
90862461|NCT01903031|181588126|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. Statistical significance was declared if p\<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference in concentrations of Etonogestrel on day 21 between the control arm (NuvaRing and no ART) and NuvaRing with EFV plus ≥2 NRTIs.||||<0.001
90862462|NCT01903031|181588126|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. Statistical significance was declared if p\<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference in concentrations of Etonogestrel on day 21 between the control arm (NuvaRing and no ART) and NuvaRing with ATV/r plus TDF and ≥1 NRTIs.||||<0.001
90862463|NCT01903031|181588127|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. Statistical significance was declared if p\<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference in concentrations of Ethinyl Estradiol on day 21 between the control arm (NuvaRing and no ART) and NuvaRing with EFV plus ≥2 NRTIs.||||<0.001
90959367|NCT01809002|181798689|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.365|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.365
90959368|NCT01809002|181798690|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.915||||||The number and percentage of all treated subjects who recovered s2PD in the target repair at Month 12 (i.e., s2PD of 2 - 15 mm) were summarized by repair type. Differences between the repair types were assessed using a logistic regression analysis.|Regression, Logistic|||Responders were defined as subjects achieving s2PD of 2-15 mm on the target nerve repair.||||0.915
90959369|NCT01809002|181798691|SUPERIORITY||LS Means difference|-2.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6316|5.9541||Pre-injury baseline was defined as s2PD in the contralateral digit associated with the target digit.|ANCOVA|This analysis was assessed in the ITT population, at Month 12 using the LS Mean differences from a repeated measures ANCOVA model.||||5.9541|-11.6316|
91106141|NCT03816891|182097792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.5208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|3.09||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 36||3.09|0.56|0.5208
91106142|NCT03816891|182097792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.8483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|2.55||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 37||2.55|0.46|0.8483
91106143|NCT03816891|182097792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.6232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.2||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 37||3.20|0.50|0.6232
90862464|NCT01903031|181588127|OTHER|||||||0.004||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. Statistical significance was declared if p\<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference in concentrations of Ethinyl Estradiol on day 21 between the control arm (NuvaRing and no ART) and NuvaRing with ATV/r plus TDF and ≥1 NRTIs.||||0.004
90862465|NCT02298023|181588269|OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the three groups. Statistical power: 0.80||||0.35
90862466|NCT02298023|181588270|EQUIVALENCE|To test whether there were differences in the rate of change among groups||||||0.662|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.662
90862467|NCT02298023|181588271|EQUIVALENCE|To test whether there were differences in the rate of change among groups||||||0.882|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.882
90862468|NCT02298023|181588272|EQUIVALENCE|To test whether there were differences in the rate of change among groups||||||0.835|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.835
90862469|NCT02298023|181588273|EQUIVALENCE|To test whether there were differences in the rate of change among groups||||||0.977|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.977
90862470|NCT02298023|181588274|EQUIVALENCE|To test whether there were differences in the rate of change among groups||||||0.867|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.867
90862471|NCT02298023|181588275|EQUIVALENCE|To test whether there were differences in the change of tear size among groups||||||0.916|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.916
90862472|NCT02298023|181588276|EQUIVALENCE|To test whether there were differences in the change of tear size among groups||||||0.892|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.892
90862473|NCT04010695|181588283|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||K-sample test|The p-value was calculated using a nonparametric k-sample test on the equality of medians.||Comparison of SD Biosensor POC G6PD test results for capillary and venous samples||||<0.001
90862474|NCT02002832|181588284|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|LS mean for the treatment difference(lurasidone-risperidone) at week 6 and its 95% confidence interval was presented based on the MMRM. Non-inferiority for lurasidone relative to risperidone was evaluated by comparing the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval to the non-inferiority margin of 7.0. Plots of estimates for change from baseline in PANSS total score based on MMRM over time (Week 1 to Week 6) with 95% confidence intervals was provided for each treatment group.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.37|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|6.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.3|1.0|
90862475|NCT03329508|181588286|SUPERIORITY||Differences of Least Square Means|-2.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.33|-1.0|||MMRM|||||-1.0|-4.33|0.0018
90862476|NCT03329508|181588286|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.96|-1.63|||MMRM|||||-1.63|-4.96|0.0001
90862477|NCT03329508|181588287|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-1.81|||MMRM|||||-1.81|-3.50|<0.0001
90862478|NCT03329508|181588287|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-1.81|||MMRM|||||-1.81|-3.50|<0.05
90862479|NCT03329508|181588288|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67||0.0231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.84|-0.21|||MMRM|||||-0.21|-2.84|0.0231
90862480|NCT03329508|181588288|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67||0.0092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.06|-0.43|||MMRM|||||-0.43|-3.06|0.0092
91106144|NCT03816891|182097792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.8312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|2.61||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 37||2.61|0.46|0.8312
90862481|NCT03329508|181588289|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|-0.57|||MMRM|||||-0.57|-1.77|0.0001
90862482|NCT03329508|181588289|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|-0.92|||MMRM|||||-0.92|-2.13|<0.0001
90862483|NCT03329508|181588290|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.54||0.1589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.21|0.85|||MMRM|||||0.85|-5.21|0.1589
90862484|NCT00492531|181588294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.0||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.0|38.0|||ANCOVA|6 minute walk was based on ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and 6 minute walk distance, TRV stratum and study site as covariate.||||38|-56|0.70
90862485|NCT01313858|181588343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0007|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in FFbH at Month 3 (Month 3 minus BL)||||0.0007
90862486|NCT01313858|181588343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0007|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in FFbH at Month 6 (Month 6 minus BL)||||0.0007
91106145|NCT03816891|182097792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.5083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|3.3||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 38||3.30|0.55|0.5083
91106146|NCT03816891|182097792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.8111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|2.86||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 38||2.86|0.44|0.8111
91106147|NCT03816891|182097792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.8089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|2.68||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 38||2.68|0.46|0.8089
90862487|NCT01313858|181588343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0011|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in FFbH at Month 9 (Month 9 minus BL)||||0.0011
91106148|NCT03816891|182097792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.9723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|2.37||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 39||2.37|0.41|0.9723
91106149|NCT03816891|182097792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.9883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|2.58||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 39||2.58|0.39|0.9883
91106150|NCT03816891|182097792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.6781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.98||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 39||1.98|0.35|0.6781
90862488|NCT01313858|181588343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0015|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in FFbH at Month 12 (Month 12 minus BL)||||0.0015
90862489|NCT01313858|181588343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0029|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in FFbH at Month 15 (Month 15 minus BL)||||0.0029
90862490|NCT01313858|181588343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in FFbH at Month 18 (Month 18 minus BL)||||0.0004
90862491|NCT01313858|181588343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0059|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in FFbH at Month 21 (Month 21 minus BL)||||0.0059
91106151|NCT03816891|182097792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.6924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.86||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40||2.86|0.50|0.6924
91106152|NCT03816891|182097792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.9883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.47||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40||2.47|0.40|0.9883
91106153|NCT03816891|182097792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.8581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|2.18||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40||2.18|0.39|0.8581
90862492|NCT01313858|181588343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in FFbH at Month 24 (Month 24 minus BL)||||0.0002
90862493|NCT01313858|181588343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in FFbH at Month 3 (Month 3 minus BL)||||0.0002
90862494|NCT01313858|181588343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in FFbH at Month 6 (Month 6 minus BL)||||<0.0001
90862495|NCT01313858|181588343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in FFbH at Month 9 (Month 9 minus BL)||||<0.0001
90862496|NCT01313858|181588343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in FFbH at Month 12 (Month 12 minus BL)||||<0.0001
90862497|NCT01313858|181588343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in FFbH at Month 15 (Month 15 minus BL)||||0.0002
90862498|NCT01313858|181588343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in FFbH at Month 18 (Month 18 minus BL)||||<0.0001
90862499|NCT01313858|181588343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in FFbH at Month 21 (Month 21 minus BL)||||<0.0001
90862500|NCT01313858|181588343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in FFbH at Month 24 (Month 24 minus BL)||||<0.0001
90862501|NCT01313858|181588343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in FFbH at Month 3 (Month 3 minus BL)||||<0.0001
90862502|NCT01313858|181588343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in FFbH at Month 6 (Month 6 minus BL)||||<0.0001
91106154|NCT03816891|182097792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.9723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|2.37||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 41||2.37|0.41|0.9723
91106155|NCT03816891|182097792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.9937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|2.63||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 41||2.63|0.38|0.9937
91106156|NCT03816891|182097792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.6781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.98||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 41||1.98|0.35|0.6781
90862503|NCT01313858|181588343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in FFbH at Month 9 (Month 9 minus BL)||||<0.0001
90862504|NCT01313858|181588343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in FFbH at Month 12 (Month 12 minus BL)||||<0.0001
90906819|NCT03283553|181681715|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.108||||||P-value represents the significance of the term for group assignment.|Regression, Linear|Adjusts for baseline patient education, care partner gender, and patient disease stage.||Satisfaction with cancer care at 9 months was compared to baseline using linear regression models with the difference in the score as the outcome and a term for group assignment as the main independent variable.||||0.108
90906820|NCT03283553|181681716|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.405||||||P-value represents interaction for differential changes between time point (9 months vs baseline) and group assignment.|Regression, Logistic|Adjusts for baseline patient education, care partner gender, and patient disease stage.||Symptoms of anxiety at 9 months were compared to baseline using logistic regression models estimated with generalized estimating equations (GEE) and an exchangeable correlation specification. Each model included group assignment, time (9 months versus baseline), their interaction, and covariates.||||0.405
90906821|NCT03283553|181681717|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.412||||||P-value represents the significance of the term for group assignment.|Regression, Linear|Adjusts for baseline patient education, care partner gender, and patient disease stage.||Quality of communication at 9 months was compared to baseline using linear regression models with the difference in the score as the outcome and a term for group assignment as the main independent variable.||||0.412
90906822|NCT03283553|181681718|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.872||||||P-value represents the significance of the term for group assignment.|Regression, Linear|Adjusts for baseline patient education, care partner gender, and patient disease stage.||Quality of communication at 9 months was compared to baseline using linear regression models with the difference in the score as the outcome and a term for group assignment as the main independent variable.||||0.872
90906823|NCT03283553|181681719|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|P-value assess between-group differences in proportion of participants who were registered during the 9-month follow up period.||||||<0.001
90906824|NCT03283553|181681720|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Fisher Exact|P-value assess between-group differences in proportion of participants who used a patient portal feature at least once during 9-month follow up.||||||0.003
90906825|NCT03283553|181681721|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|P-value assess between-group differences in proportion of participants who used a patient portal feature at least once during 9-month follow up.||||||<0.001
90906826|NCT03283553|181681722|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.128||||||P-value assess between-group differences in proportion of participants who used a patient portal feature at least once during 9-month follow up.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.128
90959370|NCT01809002|181798692|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.792|||||||Kaplan-Meier median and 95% CI|Differences between the repair types were assessed with a KM log-rank test that was appropriate for the handing of interval-censored data.||||||0.792
91106157|NCT03816891|182097792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.9723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|2.37||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 42||2.37|0.41|0.9723
90906827|NCT03283553|181681723|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.247||||||P-value assess between-group differences in proportion of participants who used a patient portal feature at least once during 9-month follow up.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.247
90862505|NCT01313858|181588343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in FFbH at Month 15 (Month 15 minus BL)||||<0.0001
90862506|NCT01313858|181588343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in FFbH at Month 18 (Month 18 minus BL)||||<0.0001
90862507|NCT01313858|181588343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in FFbH at Month 21 (Month 21 minus BL)||||<0.0001
90862508|NCT01313858|181588343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in FFbH at Month 24 (Month 24 minus BL)||||<0.0001
90906828|NCT03686683|181681724|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.4586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.74|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.74|0.78|0.4586
90906829|NCT01770860|181681726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-values presented were for each of the bandage groups compared to no treatment group.|Mixed Models Analysis|P-value is from mixed model with Treatment (trt) as fix effect, and subject as random effect.||||||<0.0001
90906830|NCT01770860|181681727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-values presented were for each of the bandage groups compared to no treatment group.|Mixed Models Analysis|P-value is from mixed model with treatment (trt) as fix effect, and subject as random effect.||||||<0.0001
90906831|NCT01770860|181681728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-values presented were for each of the bandage groups compared to no treatment group.|Mixed Models Analysis|P-value is from mixed model with treatment (trt) as fix effect, and subject as random effect.||||||<0.0001
90906832|NCT01770860|181681729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-values presented were for each of the bandage groups compared to no treatment group.|Mixed Models Analysis|P-value is from mixed model with treatment (trt) as fix effect, and subject as random effect.||||||<0.0001
90906833|NCT01770860|181681730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0476|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|P-value is from mixed model with treatment (trt) as fix effect, and subject as random effect||||||0.0476
90906834|NCT00714233|181681735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test to analyze BMI at baseline and 24 weeks||||<0.05
90906835|NCT03432533|181681740|NON_INFERIORITY|Conclusions for the primary efficacy hypothesis of efficacy of self-administration of romosozumab by AI/Pen compared with HCP-administered romosozumab by PFS at lumbar spine BMD at Month 6 was made using a 1-sided test with type 1 error rate of 0.025 and noninferiority margin of -2.0%.|LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.0|||ANCOVA|||||1.0|-1.3|0.84
90906836|NCT01648283|181681745|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
90906837|NCT02408965|181681753|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5
90959371|NCT01809002|181798693|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.526|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|This analysis was completed to detect a distribution shift of the MRCC score between repairs with PNA and repairs with nerve cuff at Month 12.||||||0.526
90862509|NCT01313858|181588344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in FACIT-F at Month 3 (Month 3 minus BL)||||0.0003
90862510|NCT01313858|181588344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in FACIT-F at Month 6 (Month 6 minus BL)||||<0.0001
90862511|NCT01313858|181588344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in FACIT-F at Month 12 (Month 12 minus BL)||||<0.0001
90862512|NCT01313858|181588344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in FACIT-F at Month 18 (Month 18 minus BL)||||<0.0001
90862513|NCT01313858|181588344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in FACIT-F at Month 24 (Month 24 minus BL)||||<0.0001
90862514|NCT01313858|181588344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in FACIT-F at Month 3 (Month 3 minus BL)||||<0.0001
90862515|NCT01313858|181588344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in FACIT-F at Month 6 (Month 6 minus BL)||||<0.0001
90862516|NCT01313858|181588344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in FACIT-F at Month 12 (Month 12 minus BL)||||<0.0001
90862517|NCT01313858|181588344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in FACIT-F at Month 18 (Month 18 minus BL)||||<0.0001
90862518|NCT01313858|181588344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in FACIT-F at Month 24 (Month 24 minus BL)||||<0.0001
90862519|NCT01313858|181588344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in FACIT-F at Month 3 (Month 3 minus BL)||||<0.0001
90906838|NCT02408965|181681754|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
90862520|NCT01313858|181588344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in FACIT-F at Month 6 (Month 6 minus BL)||||<0.0001
90862521|NCT01313858|181588344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in FACIT-F at Month 12 (Month 12 minus BL)||||<0.0001
90862522|NCT01313858|181588344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in FACIT-F at Month 18 (Month 18 minus BL)||||<0.0001
90862523|NCT01313858|181588344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in FACIT-F at Month 24 (Month 24 minus BL)||||<0.0001
90862524|NCT01313858|181588345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in EQ-5D-3L at Month 6 (Month 6 minus BL)||||<0.0001
90862525|NCT01313858|181588345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in EQ-5D-3L at Month 12 (Month 12 minus BL)||||<0.0001
90862526|NCT01313858|181588345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in EQ-5D-3L at Month 18 (Month 18 minus BL)||||<0.0001
90862527|NCT01313858|181588345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in EQ-5D-3L at Month 24 (Month 24 minus BL)||||<0.0001
90862528|NCT01313858|181588345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in EQ-5D-3L at Month 6 (Month 6 minus BL)||||<0.0001
90862529|NCT01313858|181588345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in EQ-5D-3L at Month 12 (Month 12 minus BL)||||<0.0001
90862530|NCT01313858|181588345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in EQ-5D-3L at Month 18 (Month 18 minus BL)||||<0.0001
90862531|NCT01313858|181588345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in EQ-5D-3L at Month 24 (Month 24 minus BL)||||<0.0001
90862532|NCT01313858|181588345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in EQ-5D-3L at Month 6 (Month 6 minus BL)||||<0.0001
90862533|NCT01313858|181588345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in EQ-5D-3L at Month 12 (Month 12 minus BL)||||<0.0001
90862534|NCT01313858|181588345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in EQ-5D-3L at Month 18 (Month 18 minus BL)||||<0.0001
90862535|NCT01313858|181588345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in EQ-5D-3L at Month 24 (Month 24 minus BL)||||<0.0001
90862536|NCT03689530|181588356|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7436|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Outcomes were analyzed using multilevel models adapted for partially clustered data. Analyses was done in SAS v9.4||||0.7436
90862537|NCT03689530|181588357|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1212|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Outcomes were analyzed using multilevel models adapted for partially clustered data. Analyses was done in SAS v9.4||||0.1212
90862538|NCT03689530|181588358|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8839|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Outcomes were analyzed using multilevel models adapted for partially clustered data. Analyses was done in SAS v9.4||||0.8839
90862539|NCT03689530|181588359|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1137|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Outcomes were analyzed using multilevel models adapted for partially clustered data. Analyses was done in SAS v9.4||||0.1137
90862540|NCT03689530|181588360|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0162|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Outcomes were analyzed using multilevel models adapted for partially clustered data. Analyses was done in SAS v9.4||||0.0162
90862541|NCT03689530|181588362|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2117|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Outcomes were analyzed using multilevel models adapted for partially clustered data. Analyses was done in SAS v9.4||||0.2117
90862542|NCT03689530|181588363|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4169|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.4169
90906839|NCT02408965|181681755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.04
90906840|NCT02408965|181681756|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.06
90906841|NCT02408965|181681757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.06
90906842|NCT02408965|181681758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.07
90906843|NCT02408965|181681759|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
90906844|NCT02408965|181681760|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.03
91106158|NCT03816891|182097792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.9937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|2.63||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 42||2.63|0.38|0.9937
91106159|NCT03816891|182097792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.6781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.98||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 42||1.98|0.35|0.6781
90862543|NCT03689530|181588364|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8785|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Outcomes were analyzed using multilevel models adapted for partially clustered data. Analyses was done in SAS v9.4||||0.8785
90862544|NCT03689530|181588365|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1006|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Outcomes were analyzed using multilevel models adapted for partially clustered data. Analyses was done in SAS v9.4||||0.1006
90862545|NCT03689530|181588366|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7168|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7168
90862546|NCT03689530|181588367|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Outcomes were analyzed using multilevel models adapted for partially clustered data. Analyses was done in SAS v9.4||||0.0001
90862547|NCT03689530|181588368|OTHER|Single group analysis for peer support group only|Mean|3.799|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.885|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90862548|NCT03689530|181588369|OTHER|Single group analysis for peer support group only|Mean|3.732|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.985|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90862549|NCT03689530|181588370|OTHER|Single group analysis for peer support group only|Mean|6.222|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.083|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90862550|NCT03689530|181588371|OTHER|Single group analysis for peer support group only|Mean|6.179|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.141|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90862551|NCT03689530|181588372|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9126|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.9126
90862552|NCT03689530|181588373|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7405|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7405
90906845|NCT02408965|181681761|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.02
90862553|NCT03689530|181588374|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5956|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.5956
90862554|NCT03689530|181588375|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3341|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.3341
90862555|NCT03689530|181588376|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2049|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2049
90862556|NCT03689530|181588377|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0335|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0335
90862557|NCT03689530|181588378|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3219|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.3219
90862558|NCT03689530|181588379|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5223|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.5223
90862559|NCT01392443|181588380|OTHER|||||||0.0007|||||||single-sample biniminal test|||||||0.0007
90862560|NCT01895062|181588385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.022
90862561|NCT01977794|181588389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P value in both groups (Amlodipine failed and Bisoprolol failed) for comparison of SBP after 18 weeks versus baseline|Paired t test|||For each group (Amlodipine failed and Bisoprolol failed) SBP after 18 weeks compared to baseline (under monotherapy). Superiority was assessed between FDC and monotherapies.||||<0.001
90862562|NCT00533897|181588394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||estimate of difference|9.59||||0.119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|18.34||There was no adjustment made for multiple comparisons.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||A continuity corrected Chi-square test was used to compare percentage of positive antibody responses of SC placebo vs. SC abatacept (Period II treatment groups) on Day 169. P-value was evaluated at 0.05 significance level (2-sided). 95% confidence interval (CI) for difference (SC PLA - SC ABA) between ABA and PLA in the immunogenicity rates was also calculated. Point estimates of the immunogenicity rates within the two Period II treatment group and the corresponding 95% CIs were also provided.||18.34|0.83|0.119
90862563|NCT00533897|181588395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimate of Difference|4.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|14.25||||||Immunogenicity rates of the Period II treatment groups on Day 253 were analyzed similarly as on Day 169. However, no statistical test was carried out and no p-value was provided. Provided were: point estimates of the immunogenicity rates within the Period II treatment groups and corresponding 95% CIs, and point estimate for the difference in immunogenicity rates between these groups and corresponding 95% CI. There was no adjustment made for multiple comparisons.||14.25|-4.50|
90862564|NCT00533897|181588399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimate of Difference|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.21|8.43||||||Immunogenicity rates of the Period II treatment groups on Day 253 were analyzed similarly as on Day 169. However, no statistical test was carried out and no p-value was provided. Provided were: point estimates of the immunogenicity rates within the Period II treatment groups and corresponding 95% CIs, and point estimate for the difference in immunogenicity rates between these groups and corresponding 95% CI. There was no adjustment made for multiple comparisons.||8.43|-8.21|
90862565|NCT01065597|181588528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|This was a paired t-test.||||||0.001
90862566|NCT01065597|181588529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|This was a paired t-test.||||||>0.05
90862567|NCT01065597|181588531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
90862568|NCT01781975|181588532|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA|0.0616|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0364||0.048|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.00176|0.121|||ANCOVA|||||0.121|0.00176|0.048
90862569|NCT02653872|181588563|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Geometric mean ratio of Cmax for AZD7986 administered with verapamil over Cmax for AZD7986 administered alone. Presented as a percentage.|% Geometric Mean Ratio|153.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|136.16|172.83|||ANOVA|||The study was designed based on a test for bioequivalence. Using an estimated standard deviation for Cmax of AZD7986 of less than or equal to 0.202, 12 evaluable subjects were deemed needed to achieve a power of 90%, at an assumed ratio of 0.95, to show that a two-sided 90% confidence interval for the ratio of Cmax between 2 treatments (AZD7986 and AZD7986+ Verapamil/Itraconazole) would be contained within the (0.8;1.25) equivalence limit. 3 extra subjects were added to compensate for dropout.||172.83|136.16|
90906846|NCT03419780|181681767|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90906847|NCT03419780|181681768|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.79
90906848|NCT03419780|181681769|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.89
90906849|NCT03419780|181681770|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.34
90906850|NCT03419780|181681771|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.13
90906851|NCT03419780|181681772|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.55
90959372|NCT01809002|181798694|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.09|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"This analysis compares the change in 12 Month Pain VAS scores from Baseline. Missing or incomplete data was extrapolated using a pre-defined repeated measures modeling approach for calculations in this analysis.~This analysis assesses each treatment group for clinically meaningful improvement in VAS from Baseline assuming a Meaningful Clinically Important Difference delta of 20 points (mm)."||||
90959373|NCT01809002|181798696|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.012
90959374|NCT01809002|181798697|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.037|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|This analysis was completed utilizing a one-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum test.||||||0.037
90959375|NCT01809002|181798698|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.021|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|One-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum test was utilized for this analysis.||||||0.021
90959376|NCT01886378|181798721|SUPERIORITY||Least squares (LS) mean|423.594||||0.1518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-155.66|1002.85||The GEE model included the change from Baseline for each parameter as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable, and adjusted for Baseline measurement with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE model||LS Mean, 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-values are based on the GEE model.|||1002.85|-155.66|0.1518
90959377|NCT01886378|181798722|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|-0.011||||0.3964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.01||The GEE model included the change from Baseline for each parameter as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable, and adjusted for Baseline measurement with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE model||LS Mean, 95% CI, and p-values are based on the GEE model.|||0.01|-0.04|0.3964
90959378|NCT01886378|181798723|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|4.671||||0.0777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|9.86||The GEE model included the change from Baseline for each parameter as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable, and adjusted for Baseline measurement with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE model||LS Mean, 95% CI, and p-values are based on the GEE model.|||9.86|-0.52|0.0777
90959379|NCT01886378|181798724|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|181.37||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.7|386.45||The GEE model included the change from Baseline for each parameter as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable, and adjusted for Baseline measurement with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE model||LS Mean, 95% CI, and p-values are based on the GEE model.|||386.45|-23.70|0.0830
91106160|NCT03816891|182097792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.8892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|2.57||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 43||2.57|0.44|0.8892
90862570|NCT02653872|181588563|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Geometric mean ratio of Cmax for AZD7986 administered with itraconazole over Cmax for AZD7986 administered alone. Presented as a percentage.|% Geometric Mean Ratio|60.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|53.84|68.34|||ANOVA|||The study was designed based on a test for bioequivalence. Using an estimated standard deviation for Cmax of AZD7986 of less than or equal to 0.202, 12 evaluable subjects were deemed needed to achieve a power of 90%, at an assumed ratio of 0.95, to show that a two-sided 90% confidence interval for the ratio of Cmax between 2 treatments (AZD7986 and AZD7986+ Verapamil/Itraconazole) would be contained within the (0.8;1.25) equivalence limit. 3 extra subjects were added to compensate for dropout.||68.34|53.84|
90862571|NCT02653872|181588564|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Geometric mean ratio of AUC for AZD7986 administered with verapamil over AUC for AZD7986 administered alone. Presented as a percentage.|% Geometric Mean Ratio|132.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|121.78|143.64|||ANOVA|||The study was sized for Cmax primarily and not AUC. A two-sided 90% confidence interval for the ratio of AUC between the two treatments groups was used to determine equivalence.||143.64|121.78|
90959380|NCT01886378|181798725|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|-0.185||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.02||The GEE model included the change from Baseline for each parameter as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable, and adjusted for Baseline measurement with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE model||LS Mean, 95% CI, and p-values are based on the GEE model.|||-0.02|-0.35|0.0320
90959381|NCT01886378|181798726|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|12.44||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|26.6||The GEE model included the change from Baseline for each parameter as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable, and adjusted for Baseline measurement with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE model||LS Mean, 95% CI, and p-values are based on the GEE model.|||26.60|-1.72|0.0850
90959382|NCT01886378|181798727|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|2.16||||0.3754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.62|6.94||The LS Mean, standard error (SE), 95% CI, and 2-sided p-value are from the GEE model.|GEE model|||||6.94|-2.62|0.3754
90959383|NCT01886378|181798728|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|0.816||||0.7564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.34|5.97||The LS Mean, SE, 95% CI, and 2-sided p-value are from the GEE model.|GEE model|||||5.97|-4.34|0.7564
90959384|NCT01886378|181798729|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|8.88|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.67|12.08||The GEE model included the change from Baseline for each parameter as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable, and adjusted for Baseline measurement with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE model|||||12.08|5.67|<0.0001
90959385|NCT01886378|181798730|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|9.7||||0.0152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.87|17.54||The GEE model included the change from Baseline for each parameter as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable, and adjusted for Baseline measurement with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE model||LS Mean, 95% CI, and p-values are based on the GEE model.|||17.54|1.87|0.0152
90959386|NCT02411357|181798782|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Armitage Chi-square trend test|||||||<.001
90959387|NCT02858349|181798827|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.13||||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.21|0.05|0.0042
91106161|NCT03816891|182097792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.6296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.21||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 43||3.21|0.50|0.6296
91106162|NCT03816891|182097792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.7271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|2.02||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 43||2.02|0.36|0.7271
90862572|NCT02653872|181588564|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Geometric mean ratio of AUC for AZD7986 administered with itraconazole over AUC for AZD7986 administered alone. Presented as a percentage.|% Geometric Mean Ratio|113.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|104.69|123.49|||ANOVA|||The study was sized for Cmax primarily and not AUC. A two-sided 90% confidence interval for the ratio of AUC between the two treatments groups was used to determine equivalence.||123.49|104.69|
90862573|NCT02653872|181588565|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Geometric mean ratio of AUC (0-t) for AZD7986 administered with verapamil over AUC (0-t) for AZD7986 administered alone. Presented as a percentage.|% Geometric Mean Ratio|133.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|122.7|145.29|||ANOVA|||The study was sized for Cmax primarily and not AUC (0-t). A two-sided 90% confidence interval for the ratio of AUC (0-t) between the two treatments groups was used to determine equivalence.||145.29|122.70|
90862574|NCT02653872|181588565|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Geometric mean ratio of AUC (0-t) for AZD7986 administered with itraconazole over AUC (0-t) for AZD7986 administered alone. Presented as a percentage.|% Geometric Mean Ratio|112.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.34|122.37|||ANOVA|||The study was sized for Cmax primarily and not AUC (0-t). A two-sided 90% confidence interval for the ratio of AUC (0-t) between the two treatments groups was used to determine equivalence.||122.37|103.34|
90862575|NCT04545060|181588578|SUPERIORITY||adjusted relative risk ratio|0.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.5||two-sided, alpha=0.05|poisson regression model|||||0.50|0.09|<0.001
90862576|NCT04545060|181588596|SUPERIORITY||relative risk ratio|0.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.63||two-sided, alpha=0.05|poisson regression model|||||0.63|0.19|<0.001
90862577|NCT04545060|181588597|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-1.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|-0.76||two-sided, alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||||-0.76|-1.38|<0.001
90862578|NCT04545060|181588599|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.232||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.399|-0.065||two-sided, alpha=0.05|Mixed model repeated measures|||||-0.065|-0.399|0.007
90862579|NCT04545060|181588603|SUPERIORITY||relative risk ratio|0.26||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.59||two-sided, alpha=0.05|poisson regression model|||||0.59|0.12|0.002
90862580|NCT04873700|181588614|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0701|||||||Chi-squared|p-value was obtained from Chi-square/Fisher's exact test.||Location of disease||||=0.0701
90862581|NCT04873700|181588614|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1383|||||||Chi-squared|p-value was obtained from Chi-square/Fisher's exact test.||Disease behavior||||=0.1383
90862582|NCT04873700|181588614|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0478|||||||Chi-squared|p-value was obtained from Chi-square/Fisher's exact test.||Perianal disease||||=0.0478
90862583|NCT04873700|181588614|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1454|||||||Chi-squared|p-value was obtained from Chi-square/Fisher's exact test.||Ileal disease||||=0.1454
90862584|NCT04873700|181588614|SUPERIORITY||||||=|1|||||||Chi-squared|p-value was obtained from Chi-square/Fisher's exact test.||Extraintestinal manifestations: Peripheral arthritis||||=1.0000
90862585|NCT04873700|181588614|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.4992|||||||Chi-squared|p-value was obtained from Chi-square/Fisher's exact test.||Extraintestinal manifestations: Aphthous ulcers||||=0.4992
90862586|NCT04873700|181588614|SUPERIORITY||||||=|1|||||||Chi-squared|p-value was obtained from Chi-square/Fisher's exact test.||Extraintestinal manifestations: Episcleritis||||=1.0000
90862587|NCT04873700|181588614|SUPERIORITY||||||=|1|||||||Chi-squared|p-value was obtained from Chi-square/Fisher's exact test.||Extraintestinal manifestations: Uveitis||||=1.0000
90862588|NCT04873700|181588614|SUPERIORITY||||||=|1|||||||Chi-squared|p-value was obtained from Chi-square/Fisher's exact test.||Extraintestinal manifestations: Osteoporosis||||=1.0000
90862589|NCT04873700|181588614|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2022|||||||Chi-squared|p-value was obtained from Chi-square/Fisher's exact test.||Extraintestinal manifestations: Anemia||||=0.2022
90862590|NCT04873700|181588614|SUPERIORITY||||||=|1|||||||Chi-squared|p-value was obtained from Chi-square/Fisher's exact test.||Extraintestinal manifestations: Hematological alteration||||=1.0000
90862591|NCT04873700|181588614|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0|||||||Chi-squared|p-value was obtained from Chi-square/Fisher's exact test.||Extraintestinal manifestations: Other||||=0.0000
90862592|NCT04873700|181588615|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2896|||||||Chi-squared|p-value was obtained from Chi-square/Fisher's exact test.||Location of disease||||=0.2896
90862593|NCT04873700|181588615|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0006|||||||Chi-squared|p-value was obtained from Chi-square/Fisher's exact test.||Disease behavior||||=0.0006
90862594|NCT04873700|181588615|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.089|||||||Chi-squared|p-value was obtained from Chi-square/Fisher's exact test.||Extraintestinal manifestations: Peripheral arthritis||||=0.0890
90862595|NCT04873700|181588615|SUPERIORITY||||||=|1|||||||Chi-squared|p-value was obtained from Chi-square/Fisher's exact test.||Extraintestinal manifestations: Pyoderma gangrenosum||||=1.0000
90862596|NCT04873700|181588615|SUPERIORITY||||||=|1|||||||Chi-squared|p-value was obtained from Chi-square/Fisher's exact test.||Extraintestinal manifestations: Aphthous ulcers||||=1.0000
90862597|NCT04873700|181588615|SUPERIORITY||||||=|1|||||||Chi-squared|p-value was obtained from Chi-square/Fisher's exact test.||Extraintestinal manifestations: Primary sclerosing cholangitis||||=1.0000
90862598|NCT04873700|181588615|SUPERIORITY||||||=|1|||||||Chi-squared|p-value was obtained from Chi-square/Fisher's exact test.||Extraintestinal manifestations: Osteoporosis||||=1.0000
90862599|NCT04873700|181588615|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0752|||||||Chi-squared|p-value was obtained from Chi-square/Fisher's exact test.||Extraintestinal manifestations: Anemia||||=0.0752
90862600|NCT04873700|181588615|SUPERIORITY||||||=|1|||||||Chi-squared|p-value was obtained from Chi-square/Fisher's exact test.||Extraintestinal manifestations: Hematological alteration||||=1.0000
90862601|NCT04873700|181588615|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1032|||||||Chi-squared|p-value was obtained from Chi-square/Fisher's exact test.||Extraintestinal manifestations: Other||||=0.1032
90862602|NCT00788073|181588648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.05
90862603|NCT00788073|181588649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.008||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.008
90906852|NCT03419780|181681773|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.00
90906853|NCT01072929|181681781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.8||||0.0097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.58|-0.92||All statistical tests were 2-tailed at the 0.05 level of significance.|mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM)|Treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, concurrent mood-stabilizing medication, and region of the world used as fixed factors.||||-0.92|-6.58|0.0097
91106163|NCT03816891|182097792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.9636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.42||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 44||2.42|0.40|0.9636
91106164|NCT03816891|182097792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.6355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|2.0||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 44||2.00|0.32|0.6355
91106165|NCT03816891|182097792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.68||||0.3901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.64||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 44||1.64|0.28|0.3901
91106166|NCT03816891|182097792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.5177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|3.36||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 45||3.36|0.54|0.5177
91106167|NCT03816891|182097792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.49||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 45||2.49|0.40|0.9910
91106168|NCT03816891|182097792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.7064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|2.01||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 45||2.01|0.35|0.7064
91106169|NCT03816891|182097792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.8373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|2.77||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 46||2.77|0.44|0.8373
91106170|NCT03816891|182097792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.7614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|3.11||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 46||3.11|0.44|0.7614
91106171|NCT03816891|182097792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.5301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.83||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 46||1.83|0.31|0.5301
91106172|NCT03816891|182097792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.8248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|2.8||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 47||2.80|0.44|0.8248
91106173|NCT03816891|182097792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.8374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|2.32||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 47||2.32|0.35|0.8374
91106174|NCT03816891|182097792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||0.4088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.67||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 47||1.67|0.29|0.4088
91106175|NCT03816891|182097792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.9745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|2.5||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48||2.50|0.39|0.9745
90862604|NCT00910273|181588652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.72||||0.608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.14|8.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Null Hypothesis: No difference in Change in FMD at 12 weeks for Etanercept and placebo.~Alternative Hypothesis: Difference in Change in FMD at 12 weeks for Etanercept and placebo.~Sample size of 36 subjects per treatment arm was planned based on an expected difference of 0.9 in FMD (Standard Deviation \[SD\] 1.5), with 80% power and 5% significance level."||8.58|-5.14|0.608
91106176|NCT03816891|182097792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72||||0.4916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.84||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48||1.84|0.28|0.4916
90862605|NCT00910273|181588653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.82||||0.476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.35|7.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Analyses available for Week 4 only, due to limited number of participants for Week 24 to Week 52.|Week 4||7.00|-3.35|0.476
90862606|NCT00910273|181588654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.13|||ANCOVA|||Week 12; Common Carotid Artery; Due to limited number of participants with visits after Week 12 analysis limited to Week 12||0.13|-0.08|0.650
91106177|NCT03816891|182097792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.55||||0.1854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.35||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48||1.35|0.23|0.1854
91106178|NCT03816891|182097792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.8373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|2.77||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 49||2.77|0.44|0.8373
91106179|NCT03816891|182097792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73||||0.5051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.83||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 49||1.83|0.29|0.5051
91106180|NCT03816891|182097792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.52||||0.1375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.24||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 49||1.24|0.21|0.1375
91106181|NCT03816891|182097792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|2.82||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 50||2.82|0.49|0.7180
91106182|NCT03816891|182097792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.7838|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|2.13||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 50||2.13|0.37|0.7838
91106183|NCT03816891|182097792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.5795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.83||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 50||1.83|0.34|0.5795
91106184|NCT03816891|182097792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.5517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|3.14||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 51||3.14|0.54|0.5517
91106185|NCT03816891|182097792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.89||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 51||1.89|0.34|0.6060
91106186|NCT03816891|182097792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.7491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|2.02||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 51||2.02|0.38|0.7491
90906854|NCT01072929|181681781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.9||||0.0385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.71|-0.16||All statistical tests were 2-tailed at the 0.05 level of significance.|mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM)|Treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, concurrent mood-stabilizing medication, and region of the world used as fixed factors.||||-0.16|-5.71|0.0385
90906855|NCT04833855|181681804|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|4.4||Nominal p-value|Repeated measure model|Model parameters: stratification factor (prior anti-IgE status), baseline UAS7, treatment, study week, interaction between treatment and study week.|Tezepelumab 210 mg SC Q4W - Placebo|||4.4|-4.3|0.99
90959388|NCT00704405|181798846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted difference in percentage|53.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.5|69.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen method||Adjusted difference subtracts the percentage of PBO-treated participants (i.e., 19.0%) that achieved SVR24 and stratifies by prior treatment response.|||69.1|34.5|<0.001
90959389|NCT00704405|181798846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted difference in percentage|64.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.2|78.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen method||Adjusted difference subtracts the percentage of PBO-treated participants (i.e., 19.0%) that achieved SVR24 and stratifies by prior treatment response.|||78.3|45.2|<0.001
90959390|NCT00704405|181798846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted difference in percentage|59.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.2|73.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Adjusted difference subtracts the percentage of PBO-treated participants (i.e., 19.0%) that achieved SVR24 and stratifies by prior treatment response.|||73.4|40.2|<0.001
90959391|NCT00704405|181798849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted difference in percentage|47.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.2|63.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Adjusted difference subtracts the percentage of PBO-treated participants (i.e., 19.0%) that achieved SVR24 and stratifies by prior treatment response.|||63.2|29.2|<0.001
90959392|NCT00704405|181798850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted difference in percentage|82.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|69.5|90.2|||||Adjusted difference subtracts the percentage of PBO-treated participants (i.e., 9.5%) that achieved cEVR and stratifies by prior treatment response.|||90.2|69.5|
90959393|NCT00704405|181798850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted difference in percentage|76.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.1|86.7|||||Adjusted difference subtracts the percentage of PBO-treated participants (i.e., 9.5%) that achieved cEVR and stratifies by prior treatment response.|||86.7|60.1|
91106187|NCT03816891|182097792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.8593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.63||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52||2.63|0.45|0.8593
90959394|NCT00704405|181798851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted difference in percentage|35.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.5|53.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen method||Adjusted difference subtracts the percentage of PBO patients (36.6%) with undetectable HCV RNA at Week 48 and stratifies by prior treatment response.|||53.4|15.5|
90959395|NCT02641496|181798868|OTHER|ANOVA||||||0.027||||||Significance threshold p\<0.05; one-tailed|ANOVA|||Treatment 1 to Treatment 4 (approximately first 30 days of treatment)||||0.027
90959396|NCT02641496|181798868|OTHER|ANOVA||||||0.919||||||Significance threshold p\<0.05; one-tailed|ANOVA|||Last 30 Days of 1 Year Study||||0.919
91106188|NCT03816891|182097792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.55||||0.1868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.32||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52||1.32|0.23|0.1868
90959397|NCT02641496|181798869|OTHER|||||||0.696||||||Significance threshold p\<0.05; one-tailed|ANOVA|||||||0.696
90959398|NCT02641496|181798870|OTHER|||||||0.593||||||Significance threshold p\<0.05; two-tailed|ANOVA|||||||0.593
90959399|NCT02641496|181798871|OTHER|||||||0.925||||||Significance threshold p\<0.05; one-tailed|ANOVA|||||||0.925
90959400|NCT01912456|181798872|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.001
90959401|NCT01912456|181798872|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.001
90959402|NCT01912456|181798872|OTHER||||||=|0.114|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||= 0.114
90959403|NCT01912456|181798873|OTHER||difference in percentages of responder|13.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|29.7||||||||29.7|-2.8|
90959404|NCT01912456|181798874|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.001
90959405|NCT01912456|181798874|OTHER||||||=|0.018|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||= 0.018
90959406|NCT01912456|181798874|OTHER||||||=|0.31|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||= 0.31
91106189|NCT03816891|182097792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.61||||0.2436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.41||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52||1.41|0.26|0.2436
91106190|NCT03816891|182097793|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0841||||||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||||0.0841
91106191|NCT03816891|182097793|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3442||||||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||||0.3442
90906856|NCT04833855|181681804|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|3.1||Nominal p-value|Repeated measure model|Model parameters: stratification factor (prior anti-IgE status), baseline UAS7, treatment, study week, interaction between treatment and study week.|Tezepelumab 420 mg SC Q2W - Placebo|||3.1|-5.4|0.60
90906857|NCT02806336|181681829|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||change in combined groups||||0.03
90959407|NCT01340196|181798879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|121.89|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|111.714|132.999|||ANOVA|No formal testing. Investigation of relative bioavailability.|The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV).|||132.999|111.714|
91033107|NCT00048581|181951979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. of Diff: Day 15 ACR 50|2.3||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|5.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|All statistical tests and CI were 2-sided. Percentage of participants with response compared by estimate of difference (Est of Diff)||If ACR20 comparison was significant (5% level), then CMH Chi-square test compared ACR 50 response between groups (5% level). If the ACR20 analysis was not significant (5% level), then the comparison for ACR 50 response was not undertaken. A 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) Chi-square test was used to compare these two treatment groups at the .05 level of significance, with stratification based on baseline history of anti-TNF status (current or prior use).||5.5|-0.8|0.001
91033108|NCT00048581|181951979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. of Diff: Day 15 ACR 70|0.8||||0.784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|2.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|All statistical tests and CI were 2-sided. Percentage of participants with response compared by estimate of difference (Est of Diff)||If ACR20 comparison was significant (5% level), then CMH Chi-square test compared ACR 70 response between groups (5% level). If the ACR20 analysis was not significant (5% level), then the comparison for ACR 70 response was not undertaken. A 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) Chi-square test was used to compare these two treatment groups at the .05 level of significance, with stratification based on baseline history of anti-TNF status (current or prior use).||2.9|-1.3|0.784
91033109|NCT00048581|181951979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. of Diff: Day 29 ACR 20|14.0||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|24.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|All statistical tests and CI were 2-sided. Percentage of participants with response compared by estimate of difference (Est of Diff)||Differences in ACR 20 between the treatment arm receiving ABA plus background DMARDs and the treatment arm receiving PLA plus background DMARDs were compared using a 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) Chi-square test (.05 level of significance), with stratification based on baseline history of anti-TNF status (current or prior use).||24.0|4.0|0.005
91033110|NCT00048581|181951979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. of Diff: Day 29 ACR 50|5.6||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|11.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|All statistical tests and CI were 2-sided. Percentage of participants with response compared by estimate of difference (Est of Diff)||If ACR20 comparison was significant (5% level), then CMH Chi-square test compared ACR 50 response between groups (5% level). If the ACR20 analysis was not significant (5% level), then the comparison for ACR 50 response was not undertaken. A 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) Chi-square test was used to compare these two treatment groups at the .05 level of significance, with stratification based on baseline history of anti-TNF status (current or prior use).||11.4|-0.2|0.06
91033111|NCT00048581|181951979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. of Diff: Day 29 ACR 70|1.6||||0.473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|4.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|All statistical tests and CI were 2-sided. Percentage of participants with response compared by estimate of difference (Est of Diff)||If ACR20 comparison was significant (5% level), then CMH Chi-square test compared ACR 70 response between groups (5% level). If the ACR20 analysis was not significant (5% level), then the comparison for ACR 70 response was not undertaken. A 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) Chi-square test was used to compare these two treatment groups at the .05 level of significance, with stratification based on baseline history of anti-TNF status (current or prior use).||4.9|-1.8|0.473
91033112|NCT00048581|181951979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. of Diff: Day 57 ACR 20|22.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.3|32.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|All statistical tests and CI were 2-sided. Percentage of participants with response compared by estimate of difference (Est of Diff)||Differences in ACR 20 between the treatment arm receiving ABA plus background DMARDs and the treatment arm receiving PLA plus background DMARDs were compared using a 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) Chi-square test (.05 level of significance), with stratification based on baseline history of anti-TNF status (current or prior use).||32.8|11.3|<0.001
91033113|NCT00048581|181951979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. of Diff: Day 57 ACR 50|6.5||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|13.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|All statistical tests and CI were 2-sided. Percentage of participants with response compared by estimate of difference (Est of Diff)||If ACR20 comparison was significant (5% level), then CMH Chi-square test compared ACR 50 response between groups (5% level). If the ACR20 analysis was not significant (5% level), then the comparison for ACR 50 response was not undertaken. A 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) Chi-square test was used to compare these two treatment groups at the .05 level of significance, with stratification based on baseline history of anti-TNF status (current or prior use).||13.7|-0.6|0.076
91106192|NCT03816891|182097793|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.22||||0.3083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|33.01||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||33.01|0.31|0.3083
91035853|NCT02558491|181958300|OTHER|||||||0.07||||||No a priori sample size was determined due to the feasibility/pilot nature of the trial. Significance level was set at P-value \<0.05.|ANOVA|||Primary statistical analysis was performed using the repeated measure ANOVA, with the treatment mode as within subject factor, and type of insulin treatment (pump vs. MDI) as between subject factor. Based on achieved recruitment, a moderate effect size (0.3) is detectable with 80% power, or a large effect size (0.4) with 95% power (G-Power 3.1.9.2). Outcome measurement was for mealtime.||||0.07
91106193|NCT03816891|182097793|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2||||0.4905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|22.64||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||22.64|0.21|0.4905
91106194|NCT03816891|182097793|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.81||||0.6379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|21.08||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||21.08|0.15|0.6379
90906858|NCT02806336|181681830|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.34
90906859|NCT02806336|181681831|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.78
90959408|NCT01340196|181798880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|94.72|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.215|105.29|||ANOVA|No formal testing. Investigation of relative bioavailability.|The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|||105.290|85.215|
91106195|NCT03816891|182097793|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.37||||0.0073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|36.68||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||36.68|1.48|0.0073
91106196|NCT03816891|182097793|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.68||||0.2453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|14.66||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||14.66|0.49|0.2453
90906860|NCT02806336|181681832|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||change in functional gait analysis (FGA) in combined groups compared to baseline|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
90906861|NCT02806336|181681833|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.14
91106197|NCT03816891|182097793|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.43||||0.4853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|4.9||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||4.90|0.04|0.4853
91106198|NCT03816891|182097793|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.51||||0.0205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|10.68||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||10.68|1.15|0.0205
91106199|NCT03816891|182097793|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.05||||0.0548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|9.78||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||9.78|0.95|0.0548
90862607|NCT00910273|181588654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Week 12; Common Bulb; Due to limited number of participants with visits after Week 12 analysis limited to Week 12||0.07|-0.13|0.513
90862608|NCT00910273|181588654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Week 12; Internal Carotid Artery; Due to limited number of participants with visits after Week 12 analysis limited to Week 12||0.08|-0.14|0.592
90862609|NCT00910273|181588659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.77||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.05|-0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted mean difference (Etanercept-Placebo)|Week 4||-0.50|-3.05|0.008
90862610|NCT00910273|181588659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.02||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|-0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted mean difference (Etanercept-Placebo)|Week 12||-0.33|-3.70|0.021
90862611|NCT00910273|181588667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.07||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted mean difference (Etanercept-Placebo)|Week 4||-0.40|-1.74|0.003
90862612|NCT00910273|181588667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.91||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted mean difference (Etanercept-Placebo)|Week 12||-0.10|-1.72|0.029
90862613|NCT00910273|181588673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.09||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|-0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted mean difference (Etanercept-Placebo)|Week 4||-0.05|-2.13|0.041
90862614|NCT00910273|181588673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.28||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.55|-0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted mean difference (Etanercept-Placebo)|Week 12||-0.01|-2.55|0.048
90862615|NCT00910273|181588674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34||||0.575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|1.57|||Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted mean difference (Etanercept-Placebo)|Week 4||1.57|-0.89|0.575
90862616|NCT00910273|181588674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.89||||0.204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted mean difference (Etanercept-Placebo)|Week 12||2.30|-0.52|0.204
90862617|NCT03540030|181588675|OTHER|||||||0.297|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.297
90862618|NCT03540030|181588676|OTHER|||||||0.005||||||At the 6 hour time point|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.005
90862619|NCT03540030|181588676|OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||At the 12 hour time point||||0.005
90862620|NCT03540030|181588677|OTHER|||||||0.0801|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0801
90862621|NCT03540030|181588678|OTHER|||||||0.0154|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0154
90862622|NCT03540030|181588679|OTHER|||||||0.2139|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2139
90862623|NCT03540030|181588681|OTHER||||||>|0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>.99
90862624|NCT03540030|181588682|OTHER|||||||0.9669|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.9669
90862625|NCT03540030|181588683|OTHER|||||||0.9208|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.9208
90862626|NCT03540030|181588684|OTHER|||||||0.6481|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For PCS only||||0.6481
90862627|NCT03540030|181588684|OTHER|||||||0.3911|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For MCS only||||0.3911
90862628|NCT03540030|181588685|OTHER||||||>|0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>.99
90862629|NCT03540030|181588686|OTHER|||||||0.3177|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.3177
90862630|NCT03540030|181588687|OTHER||||||>|0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>.99
90862631|NCT03540030|181588688|OTHER|||||||0.2349|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2349
90862632|NCT03540030|181588689|OTHER|||||||0.7892|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7892
90862633|NCT03540030|181588690|OTHER|||||||0.2023|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For PCS only||||0.2023
90862634|NCT03540030|181588690|OTHER|||||||0.2486|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For MCS only||||0.2486
90906862|NCT02806336|181681834|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.17
90906863|NCT02806336|181681834|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.14
90906864|NCT02806336|181681835|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.23
90906865|NCT03682536|181681836|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|4.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.8|2.0|<.0001
90906866|NCT03682536|181681837|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|3.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.7|1.4|0.0003
90906867|NCT03682536|181681839|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|4.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.5|1.8|<.0001
90906868|NCT03682536|181681841|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|4.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.0|1.6|<.0001
91106200|NCT03816891|182097793|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.6853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|2.96||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||2.96|0.19|0.6853
91106201|NCT03816891|182097793|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.65||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.83|17.47||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||17.47|1.83|0.0017
91106202|NCT03816891|182097793|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.61||||0.0196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|10.99||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||10.99|1.19|0.0196
91106203|NCT03816891|182097793|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.6213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|4.69||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||4.69|0.40|0.6213
90862635|NCT00569270|181588691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027||95.0||||a priori threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mean difference of Peak FEV1 of tiotropium minus placebo. 29 patients needed to achieve a power of 80% at a significant alpha level of 5% using projected sample inspiratory capacity of 2.23+/- 0.5L post tiotropium compared to baseline inspiratory capacity 2.0+/-0.5L||||0.027
90862636|NCT00569270|181588692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman rho|0.19||||0.96||95.0||||A priori threshold for statistical significance: p=0.05|Spearman rho|||Correlation between improved lung function after tiotropium and extent of lung CT scored emphysema with respect to ratio functional residual capacity divided by total lung capacity. Specifically, correlation of tiotropium induced bronchodilation and extent of lung ct scored emphysema; measure includes change in FEV1 post tiotropium||||0.96
90862637|NCT00569270|181588693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.318||95.0||||A priori threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mean difference of Peak FRC in tiotropium minus placebo. 29 patients needed to achieve a power of 80% at a significant alpha level of 5% using projected sample inspiratory capacity of 2.23+/- 0.5L post tiotropium compared to baseline inspiratory capacity 2.0+/-0.5L||||0.318
90862638|NCT00569270|181588694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.078||95.0||||Statistical significance was p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mean difference of Peak FVC of tiotropium minus placebo.29 patients needed to achieve a power of 80% at a significant alpha level of 5% using projected sample inspiratory capacity of 2.23+/- 0.5L post tiotropium compared to baseline inspiratory capacity 2.0+/-0.5L||||0.078
90862639|NCT00569270|181588695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman rho|-0.26||||0.4||95.0|||||Spearman rho|||Correlation between improved lung function after tiotropium and extent of lung CT scored emphysema with respect to ratio functional residual capacity divided by total lung capacity. Specifically, correlation of tiotropium induced bronchodilation and extent of lung ct scored emphysema (19 patients); measures include change in IC at trough tiotropium.||||0.4
90862640|NCT00569270|181588696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.067||95.0||||A priori threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mean difference of Peak IC of tiotropium minus placebo.29 patients needed to achieve a power of 80% at a significant alpha level of 5% using projected sample inspiratory capacity of 2.23+/- 0.5L post tiotropium compared to baseline inspiratory capacity 2.0+/-0.5L||||0.067
90862641|NCT00569270|181588697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.615||95.0||||A priori threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|Regression, Logistic|||Mean difference of Peak FRC/TLC of tiotropium minus placebo. 29 patients needed to achieve a power of 80% at a significant alpha level of 5% using projected sample inspiratory capacity of 2.23+/- 0.5L post tiotropium compared to baseline inspiratory capacity 2.0+/-0.5L||||0.615
90906869|NCT03682536|181681842|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.534||||0.0096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.864|||Log Rank||Calculated by Cox proportional hazard model|||0.864|0.330|0.0096
90906870|NCT03682536|181681846|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|3.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.8|1.4|0.0007
91106204|NCT03816891|182097793|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.44||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.33|23.73||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 18||23.73|2.33|0.0003
91106205|NCT03816891|182097793|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.84||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|15.58||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 18||15.58|1.50|0.0060
90862642|NCT00569270|181588698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.325||95.0||||Statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||29 patients needed to achieve a power of 80% at a significant alpha level of 5% using projected sample inspiratory capacity of 2.23+/- 0.5L post tiotropium compared to baseline inspiratory capacity 2.0+/-0.5L||||0.325
90862643|NCT00569270|181588699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.345||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||29 patients needed to achieve a power of 80% at a significant alpha level of 5% using projected sample inspiratory capacity of 2.23+/- 0.5L post tiotropium compared to baseline inspiratory capacity 2.0+/-0.5L||||0.345
90862644|NCT00569270|181588700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.068||95.0||||A priori threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mean difference of Trough FRC(L) in tiotropium minus placebo. 29 patients needed to achieve a power of 80% at a significant alpha level of 5% using projected sample inspiratory capacity of 2.23+/- 0.5L post tiotropium compared to baseline inspiratory capacity 2.0+/-0.5L||||0.068
90862645|NCT00569270|181588701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.589||95.0||||A priori threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mean difference of trough FVC in tiotropium minus placebo. 29 patients needed to achieve a power of 80% at a significant alpha level of 5% using projected sample inspiratory capacity of 2.23+/- 0.5L post tiotropium compared to baseline inspiratory capacity 2.0+/-0.5L||||0.589
90906871|NCT03682536|181681847|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|4.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.3|1.6|<.0001
90906872|NCT04824131|181681858|OTHER||Exact CI for Proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|6.7|||||||Exact 95% Confidence Interval for Proportion for Participants who Discontinued Early due to Intolerability of Injection or Burden of Study Procedures|6.7|0|
90906873|NCT04824131|181681859|OTHER||Exact CI for Proportions|61.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.0|74.7|||||||Exact 95% confidence interval for proportion for Participants who received at least one injection and preferred injectable PrEP at end of step 2.|74.7|47.0|
91106206|NCT03816891|182097793|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.3432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|6.07||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 18||6.07|0.54|0.3432
91106207|NCT03816891|182097793|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.96||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.84|13.37||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||13.37|1.84|0.0012
91106208|NCT03816891|182097793|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.21||||0.0121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|8.11||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||8.11|1.27|0.0121
91106209|NCT03816891|182097793|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.8315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|3.08||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||3.08|0.41|0.8315
91106210|NCT03816891|182097793|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.4161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|3.35||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 32||3.35|0.61|0.4161
91106211|NCT03816891|182097793|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.6277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|2.82||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 32||2.82|0.54|0.6277
91106212|NCT03816891|182097793|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||0.4128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.64||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 32||1.64|0.29|0.4128
91106213|NCT03816891|182097793|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.9726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|2.3||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48||2.30|0.42|0.9726
91106214|NCT03816891|182097793|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|2.39||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48||2.39|0.46|0.9070
91106215|NCT03816891|182097793|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.49||||0.0944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.14||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48||1.14|0.21|0.0944
91106216|NCT03816891|182097793|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.6513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.88||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52||1.88|0.37|0.6513
91106217|NCT03816891|182097793|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.5924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.82||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52||1.82|0.35|0.5924
90862646|NCT00569270|181588702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.922||95.0||||A priori threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mean difference of Trough IC of tiotropium minus placebo. 29 patients needed to achieve a power of 80% at a significant alpha level of 5% using projected sample inspiratory capacity of 2.23+/- 0.5L post tiotropium compared to baseline inspiratory capacity 2.0+/-0.5L||||0.922
90906874|NCT04824131|181681862|OTHER||Exact CI for Proportions|94.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|84.3|98.8|||||||The Exact 95% Confidence Interval for Proportion for Number of Participants with Grade 2 or above AEs during Injection Phase|98.8|84.3|
91106218|NCT03816891|182097793|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.2313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.38||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52||1.38|0.27|0.2313
91106219|NCT03816891|182097794|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.19||||0.3137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|33.17||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||33.17|0.31|0.3137
91106220|NCT03816891|182097794|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.5982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|25.75||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||25.75|0.16|0.5982
91106221|NCT03816891|182097794|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.8||||0.3244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|25.38||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||25.38|0.31|0.3244
91106222|NCT03816891|182097794|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.58||||0.0266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|59.86||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||59.86|0.96|0.0266
91106223|NCT03816891|182097794|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.2||||0.0892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|42.8||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||42.80|0.63|0.0892
90862647|NCT00569270|181588703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||-0.02||95.0||||A priori threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mean difference of Trough FRC/TLC of tiotropium minus placebo. 29 patients needed to achieve a power of 80% at a significant alpha level of 5% using projected sample inspiratory capacity of 2.23+/- 0.5L post tiotropium compared to baseline inspiratory capacity 2.0+/-0.5L||||-0.02
90862648|NCT00569270|181588704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||-0.13||95.0||||A priori threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mean difference of Trough TLC (L) of tiotropium minus placebo. 29 patients needed to achieve a power of 80% at a significant alpha level of 5% using projected sample inspiratory capacity of 2.23+/- 0.5L post tiotropium compared to baseline inspiratory capacity 2.0+/-0.5L||||-0.13
90906875|NCT04824131|181681863|OTHER||Exact CI for Proportions|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.3|100.0|||||||Exact 95% Confidence Interval for Proportion for Participants who received at least one Injection who Completed All Scheduled Injections|100|93.3|
91106224|NCT03816891|182097794|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.06||||0.1864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|37.67||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||37.67|0.44|0.1864
91106225|NCT03816891|182097794|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.27||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.89|45.55||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||45.55|1.89|0.0020
91106226|NCT03816891|182097794|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.42||||0.0141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|32.22||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||32.22|1.28|0.0141
90862649|NCT00569270|181588705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0||||A priori threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in IC before and after dynamic hyperinflation. 29 patients needed to achieve a power of 80% at a significant alpha level of 5% using projected sample inspiratory capacity of 2.23+/- 0.5L post tiotropium compared to baseline inspiratory capacity 2.0+/-0.5L||||0.0001
90862650|NCT00569270|181588706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0||||Total lung capacity was similar in all groups and was not significant|Mixed Models Analysis|||29 patients needed to achieve a power of 80% at a significant alpha level of 5% using projected sample inspiratory capacity of 2.23+/- 0.5L post tiotropium compared to baseline inspiratory capacity 2.0+/-0.5L||||>0.05
91106227|NCT03816891|182097794|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.93||||0.4485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|10.89||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||10.89|0.34|0.4485
90862651|NCT00569270|181588707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36||95.0||||A priori threshold for statistical significance: p= 0.05|Spearman rho|Spearman rho = -0.26||Correlation between improved lung function after tiotropium and extent of lung CT scored emphysema with respect to ratio functional residual capacity divided by total lung capacity. Specifically, correlation of tiotropium induced bronchodilation and extent of lung ct scored emphysema||||0.36
90862652|NCT00657358|181588711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R^2 (adj)|0.477|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|DF=2 DFDEN=371.8, F-ratio=10.66||||||<0.001
90862653|NCT04729621|181588717|EQUIVALENCE|Biosimilarity will be demonstrated if the 95% CI for the difference falls entirely within the equivalence margin of (-1.45, +1.45).|Mean Difference (Net)|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|1.15||||||LS means, differences and confidence intervals (CI) from the ANCOVA model with percent change from baseline to Week 52 in LS-BMD as the outcome, treatment group, region and previous use of bisphosphates as fixed effects, baseline LS-BMD and baseline weight as covariates. Missing outcomes imputed using multiple imputation methods under the MAR assumption.||1.15|-0.73|
90862654|NCT04729621|181588718|EQUIVALENCE|Biosimilarity will be demonstrated if the 95% CI for the difference falls entirely within the equivalence margin of (-20, +20).|Mean Difference (Net)|9.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|18.29||||||LS means, differences and confidence intervals (CI) from the ANCOVA model with percent change from baseline to Week 26 in sCTX-1 as the outcome, treatment group, region and previous use of bisphosphates as fixed effects, baseline sCTX-1 and baseline weight as covariates. Missing outcomes are not imputed. Results below the limit of quantification (BLQ) are imputed as the low limit of quantification (LLOQ = 0.033 ng/mL).||18.29|-0.14|
91106228|NCT03816891|182097794|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.3||||0.0235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|9.55||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||9.55|1.14|0.0235
91106229|NCT03816891|182097794|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.29||||0.0252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|9.59||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||9.59|1.13|0.0252
91106230|NCT03816891|182097794|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.9062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|3.14||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||3.14|0.27|0.9062
90862655|NCT00134030|181588770|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.12|||Log Rank|||||1.12|0.61|0.214
90862656|NCT00134030|181588770|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.23|||Log Rank|||||1.23|0.78|0.86
90940237|NCT01287416|181760155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p\<.05. Effect size determined by partial eta-squared to be 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model was adjusted for differences in educational attainment at baseline.||The null hypothesis was that the groups would not differ in terms of SIRI scores across the three time points. We used linear mixed models to determine whether scores were different between the two groups over time.||||0.61
91106231|NCT03816891|182097794|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.55||||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|13.19||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||13.19|1.57|0.0041
91106232|NCT03816891|182097794|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.72||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|13.39||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||13.39|1.66|0.0025
90862657|NCT00134030|181588770|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|4.9|||Difference in RMST|||Secondary RMST analysis performed in poor response group, due to evidence of non-proportional hazards.||4.9|-3.3|0.69
90862658|NCT00134030|181588771|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.33|||Log Rank|||||1.33|0.69|0.804
90862659|NCT00134030|181588771|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.39|||Log Rank|||||1.39|0.81|0.674
90862660|NCT02187744|181588773|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis to be tested in this study is the percentage of participants with steady state (Cycle 5) Ctrough \>20 μg/mL of PF-05280014 is non-inferior to trastuzumab-EU using a margin of -12.5%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.02|6.49|||||Stratified analysis was based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution, adjusting for the randomization strata of primary tumor size, estrogen receptor status and by progesterone receptor status.|||6.49|-8.02|
91106233|NCT03816891|182097794|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.22||||0.1632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|6.76||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||6.76|0.73|0.1632
90862661|NCT02187744|181588773|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis to be tested in this study is the percentage of participants with steady state (Cycle 5) Ctrough \>20 μg/mL of PF-05280014 is non-inferior to trastuzumab-EU using a margin of -12.5%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.78|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.59|6.23|||||Unstratified analysis.|||6.23|-8.59|
90862662|NCT02187744|181588775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.58|10.96|||||Stratified analysis was based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution, adjusting for the randomization strata of primary tumor size, estrogen receptor status and by progesterone receptor status.|||10.96|-16.58|
90862663|NCT02187744|181588775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.35|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.4|11.4|||||Unstratified analysis.|||11.40|-17.40|
91106234|NCT03816891|182097794|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.09||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|10.65||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 18||10.65|1.57|0.0030
91106235|NCT03816891|182097794|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.01||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|13.91||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 18||13.91|1.80|0.0014
91106236|NCT03816891|182097794|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73||||0.3017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|4.82||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 18||4.82|0.62|0.3017
91106237|NCT03816891|182097794|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.18||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.67|10.48||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||10.48|1.67|0.0018
91106238|NCT03816891|182097794|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.31||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.69|10.99||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||10.99|1.69|0.0017
91106239|NCT03816891|182097794|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.5365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|3.55||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||3.55|0.52|0.5365
90862664|NCT02187744|181588776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.09|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.01|15.94|||||Stratified analysis was based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution, adjusting for the randomization strata of primary tumor size, estrogen receptor status and by progesterone receptor status.|||15.94|-4.01|
91106240|NCT03816891|182097794|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.8774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|2.46||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 32||2.46|0.46|0.8774
90862665|NCT02187744|181588776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.19|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.08|16.27|||||Unstratified analysis.|||16.27|-4.08|
90862666|NCT01972568|181588796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.1208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|2.72|||Logistic regression model|||||2.72|0.89|0.1208
91106241|NCT03816891|182097794|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.7261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.7||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 32||2.70|0.50|0.7261
90862667|NCT01972568|181588804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.31||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|7.61|||Logistic regression model|||||7.61|1.44|0.0048
90862668|NCT01972568|181588805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.96||||0.0202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|3.46|||Logistic regression model|||||3.46|1.11|0.0202
90862669|NCT02012283|181588847|OTHER|paired t-test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|78.4||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||p\<0.05 is defined as significant|t-test, 2 sided|||Difference between plain and spiced broccoli intake was compared.||||0.001
90862670|NCT02012283|181588848|OTHER|paired t-test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|101.3||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.05 is defined as significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison was made to the broccoli intake with and without spices among low restraint eaters vs. the change among high restraint eaters.||||0.031
90862671|NCT00621959|181588860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.546||95.0|-0.59|0.31||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean T5SS is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA including treatment and center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis for the primary endpoint is expressed as follows: 'The mean 24-hr reflective T5SS over the total treatment period is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||0.31|-0.59|0.546
91106242|NCT03816891|182097794|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71||||0.4195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.63||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 32||1.63|0.31|0.4195
91106243|NCT03816891|182097794|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.9759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|2.31||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48||2.31|0.42|0.9759
91106244|NCT03816891|182097794|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.6857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|2.81||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48||2.81|0.51|0.6857
91106245|NCT03816891|182097794|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.44||||0.0633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.04||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48||1.04|0.19|0.0633
90862672|NCT00621959|181588861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.442||95.0|-0.27|0.12||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in overall RQLQ score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the change from baseline in overall RQLQ score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in overall RQLQ score at endpoint visit is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||0.12|-0.27|0.442
91106246|NCT03816891|182097794|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.6466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.88||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52||1.88|0.36|0.6466
90862673|NCT00144391|181588862|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.08
90862674|NCT02569671|181588893|NON_INFERIORITY|"is less than the non-inferiority margin (indicating non-inferior bone gain).~The hypotheses associated with the primary analysis are defined as:~H0: µc - µs ≥ δ H1: µc - µs \< δ where µc is the mean change in crestal bone levels from implant loading to 12 months post-implant loading for the treatment group, µs is the mean change for the control group, and δ is the 0.5 mm non-inferiority margin. The hypotheses will be tested using a one-sided t-test with a 5% significance level."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.5||0.95|ONE_SIDED|95.0||||SD for both test and control group is 0.5 mm, A difference between groups of ≥ 0.5 mm is considered clinically significant, The difference between the treatment groups is expected to be 0 mm, Statistical test will be one-sided 5% significance level.|t-test, 1 sided|The hypotheses will be tested using a one-sided t-test with a 5% significance level.|The hypotheses will be tested using a one-sided t-test with a 5% significance level.|The null hypothesis for the primary analysis is that the difference between the mean change in crestal bone levels for the treatment and control groups is at least the non-inferiority margin (indicating inferior bone gain). Rejection of the null hypothesis indicates the observed data supports the alternative hypothesis that the difference between the mean change in crestal bone levels for the treatment and control groups|The change in mean bone level from implant loading to 12-month follow-up was calculated. Change in crestal bone levels was calculated as the crestal bone level at 12-months post implant loading minus crestal bone level at implant loading.|||.950
90862675|NCT02569671|181588895|NON_INFERIORITY|Smaller bone dimensional thickness of the buccal plate measurements indicates less bone loss and better healing.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.3||0.022|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|The hypotheses will be tested using a one-sided t-test with a 5% significance level.||All secondary effectiveness endpoints were planned to be summarized descriptively, and no hypothesis tests was planned.||||0.022
90862676|NCT01757535|181588902|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.86||The p-value is 2-sided from a log-rank test stratified by age, cytogenetic risk category, and received consolidation therapy or not.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio is from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by age, cytogenetic risk category, and received consolidation therapy or not.||The confidence interval (CI) for the difference was derived using Kosorok's method.|0.86|0.55|0.0009
90862677|NCT01757535|181588903|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.8||The p-value is 2-sided from a log-rank test stratified by age, cytogenetic risk category, and received consolidation therapy or not.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio is from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by age, cytogenetic risk category, and received consolidation therapy or not.|||0.80|0.52|< 0.0001
90862678|NCT01757535|181588909|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9345||||0.7522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6136|1.4231||Stratification factors: • Age (at induction therapy): 55 to 64 years and ≥ 65 years • Prior history of MDS: yes/no • Cytogenetic risk (at induction therapy): intermediate-risk/poor-risk • Received consolidation therapy following induction: yes/no|Regression, Cox|||||1.4231|0.6136|0.7522
90862679|NCT00617851|181588955|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The GMTs and 95% CIs and median, min and max values were calculated for each vaccine group and for each strain by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means of the log transformed (base 10) titers and their 95% CIs obtained from a two-way ANOVA with factors for vaccine group. The overall power is 80.56%, and thus each single test (# of comparisons=9) is performed with a power of 97.62% assuming independency. To account for dropouts, \>= 428 subjects per lot was recruited.|Ratio of GMTs (A/H1N1 Strain)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.29|||ANOVA||"The control vaccine arm (Comparator, n=216) is included primarily to provide a comparative assessment for safety rather than for immunogenicity.~Sample size calculations were done by means of Nquery Advisor 5.0."|H01 LotA ≠ LotB versus H1 LotA = LotB H0 refers to the null hypothesis of non-equivalence (inconsistency) in that the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio is outside the equivalence range (0.67 to 1.5). H1 refers to the alternative hypothesis of equivalence (consistency) in that the two-sided 95% CI on the GMT ratio is within the equivalence range (0.67 to 1.5).||1.29|0.92|
90862680|NCT00617851|181588955|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The GMTs and 95% CIs and median, min and max values were calculated for each vaccine group and for each strain by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means of the log transformed (base 10) titers and their 95% CIs obtained from a two-way ANOVA with factors for vaccine group. The overall power is 80.56%, and thus each single test (# of comparisons=9) is performed with a power of 97.62% assuming independency. To account for dropouts, \>= 428 subjects per lot was recruited.|Ratio of GMTs (A/H1N1 Strain)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.31|||ANOVA||"The control vaccine arm (Comparator, n=216) is included primarily to provide a comparative assessment for safety rather than for immunogenicity.~Sample size calculations were done by means of Nquery Advisor 5.0."|H02 LotA ≠ LotC versus H12 LotA = Lotc H0 refers to the null hypothesis of non-equivalence (inconsistency) in that the two-sided 95% CI on the GMT ratio is outside the equivalence range (0.67 to 1.5). H1 refers to the alternative hypothesis of equivalence (consistency) in that the two-sided 95% CI on the GMT ratio is within the equivalence range (0.67 to 1.5).||1.31|0.93|
90940238|NCT01287416|181760156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p\<.05. Effect size determined by partial eta-squared to be 0.02.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model was adjusted for differences in educational attainment at baseline.||The null hypothesis was that the groups would not differ in terms of level of knowledge across the three time points.||||0.95
91106247|NCT03816891|182097794|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.9298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|2.23||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52||2.23|0.41|0.9298
90862681|NCT00617851|181588955|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The GMTs and 95% CIs and median, min and max values were calculated for each vaccine group and for each strain by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means of the log transformed (base 10) titers and their 95% CIs obtained from a two-way ANOVA with factors for vaccine group. The overall power is 80.56%, and thus each single test (# of comparisons=9) is performed with a power of 97.62% assuming independency. To account for dropouts, \>= 428 subjects per lot was recruited.|Ratio of GMTs (A/H1N1 Strain)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.2|||ANOVA||"The control vaccine arm (Comparator, n=216) is included primarily to provide a comparative assessment for safety rather than for immunogenicity.~Sample size calculations were done by means of Nquery Advisor 5.0."|H03 LotB ≠ LotC versus H13 LotB = LotC H0 refers to the null hypothesis of non-equivalence (inconsistency) in that the two-sided 95% CI on the GMT ratio is outside the equivalence range (0.67 to 1.5). H1 refers to the alternative hypothesis of equivalence (consistency) in that the two-sided 95% CI on the GMT ratio is within the equivalence range (0.67 to 1.5).||1.2|0.85|
90862682|NCT00617851|181588955|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The GMTs and 95% CIs and median, min and max values were calculated for each vaccine group and for each strain by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means of the log transformed (base 10) titers and their 95% CIs obtained from a two-way ANOVA with factors for vaccine group. The overall power is 80.56%, and thus each single test (# of comparisons=9) is performed with a power of 97.62% assuming independency. To account for dropouts, \>= 428 subjects per lot was recruited.|Ratio of GMTs (A/H3N2 Strain)|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.3|||ANOVA||"The control vaccine arm (Comparator, n=216) is included primarily to provide a comparative assessment for safety rather than for immunogenicity.~Sample size calculations were done by means of Nquery Advisor 5.0."|H03 LotA ≠ LotB versus H13 LotA = LotB H0 refers to the null hypothesis of non-equivalence (inconsistency) in that the two-sided 95% CI on the GMT ratio is outside the equivalence range (0.67 to 1.5). H1 refers to the alternative hypothesis of equivalence (consistency) in that the two-sided 95% CI on the GMT ratio is within the equivalence range (0.67 to 1.5).||1.3|0.97|
90862683|NCT00617851|181588955|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The GMTs and 95% CIs and median, min and max values were calculated for each vaccine group and for each strain by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means of the log transformed (base 10) titers and their 95% CIs obtained from a two-way ANOVA with factors for vaccine group. The overall power is 80.56%, and thus each single test (# of comparisons=9) is performed with a power of 97.62% assuming independency. To account for dropouts, \>= 428 subjects per lot was recruited.|Ratio of GMTs (A/H3N2 strain)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.13|||ANOVA||"The control vaccine arm (Comparator, n=216) is included primarily to provide a comparative assessment for safety rather than for immunogenicity.~Sample size calculations were done by means of Nquery Advisor 5.0."|H03 LotA ≠ LotC versus H13 LotA = LotC H0 refers to the null hypothesis of non-equivalence (inconsistency) in that the two-sided 95% CI on the GMT ratio is outside the equivalence range (0.67 to 1.5). H1 refers to the alternative hypothesis of equivalence (consistency) in that the two-sided 95% CI on the GMT ratio is within the equivalence range (0.67 to 1.5).||1.13|0.85|
90862684|NCT00617851|181588955|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The GMTs and 95% CIs and median, min and max values were calculated for each vaccine group and for each strain by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means of the log transformed (base 10) titers and their 95% CIs obtained from a two-way ANOVA with factors for vaccine group. The overall power is 80.56%, and thus each single test (# of comparisons=9) is performed with a power of 97.62% assuming independency. To account for dropouts, \>= 428 subjects per lot was recruited.|Ratio of GMTs (A/H3N2 strain)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.01|||ANOVA||"The control vaccine arm (Comparator, n=216) is included primarily to provide a comparative assessment for safety rather than for immunogenicity.~Sample size calculations were done by means of Nquery Advisor 5.0."|H03 LotB ≠ LotC versus H13 LotB = LotC H0 refers to the null hypothesis of non-equivalence (inconsistency) in that the two-sided 95% CI on the GMT ratio is outside the equivalence range (0.67 to 1.5). H1 refers to the alternative hypothesis of equivalence (consistency) in that the two-sided 95% CI on the GMT ratio is within the equivalence range (0.67 to 1.5).||1.01|0.76|
90862685|NCT00617851|181588955|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The GMTs and 95% CIs and median, min and max values were calculated for each vaccine group and for each strain by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means of the log transformed (base 10) titers and their 95% CIs obtained from a two-way ANOVA with factors for vaccine group. The overall power is 80.56%, and thus each single test (# of comparisons=9) is performed with a power of 97.62% assuming independency. To account for dropouts, \>= 428 subjects per lot was recruited.|Ratio of GMTs (B strain)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.23|||ANOVA||"The control vaccine arm (Comparator, n=216) is included primarily to provide a comparative assessment for safety rather than for immunogenicity.~Sample size calculations were done by means of Nquery Advisor 5.0."|H03 LotA ≠ LotB versus H13 LotA = LotB H0 refers to the null hypothesis of non-equivalence (inconsistency) in that the two-sided 95% CI on the GMT ratio is outside the equivalence range (0.67 to 1.5). H1 refers to the alternative hypothesis of equivalence (consistency) in that the two-sided 95% CI on the GMT ratio is within the equivalence range (0.67 to 1.5).||1.23|0.91|
90940239|NCT01287416|181760157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p\<.05. Effect size determined by partial eta-squared to be 0.02.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model was adjusted for differences in educational attainment at baseline.||The null hypothesis was that the two groups would not differ in terms of self-reported skill level across the three time points.||||0.33
91106248|NCT03816891|182097794|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65||||0.3143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.49||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52||1.49|0.29|0.3143
90940240|NCT01287416|181760158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p\<.05. Effect size determined by partial eta-squared to be 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for differences in educational attainment at baseline.||The null hypothesis was that the groups would not differ in terms of level of knowledge across the three time points.||||0.03
91106249|NCT03816891|182097795|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1656||||||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||||0.1656
91106250|NCT03816891|182097795|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3026||||||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||||0.3026
90862686|NCT00617851|181588955|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The GMTs and 95% CIs and median, min and max values were calculated for each vaccine group and for each strain by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means of the log transformed (base 10) titers and their 95% CIs obtained from a two-way ANOVA with factors for vaccine group. The overall power is 80.56%, and thus each single test (# of comparisons=9) is performed with a power of 97.62% assuming independency. To account for dropouts, \>= 428 subjects per lot was recruited.|Ratio of GMTs (B strain)|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.33|||ANOVA||"The control vaccine arm (Comparator, n=216) is included primarily to provide a comparative assessment for safety rather than for immunogenicity.~Sample size calculations were done by means of Nquery Advisor 5.0."|H03 LotA ≠ LotC versus H13 LotA = LotC H0 refers to the null hypothesis of non-equivalence (inconsistency) in that the two-sided 95% CI on the GMT ratio is outside the equivalence range (0.67 to 1.5). H1 refers to the alternative hypothesis of equivalence (consistency) in that the two-sided 95% CI on the GMT ratio is within the equivalence range (0.67 to 1.5).||1.33|0.99|
90862687|NCT00617851|181588955|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The GMTs and 95% CIs and median, min and max values were calculated for each vaccine group and for each strain by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means of the log transformed (base 10) titers and their 95% CIs obtained from a two-way ANOVA with factors for vaccine group. The overall power is 80.56%, and thus each single test (# of comparisons=9) is performed with a power of 97.62% assuming independency. To account for dropouts, \>= 428 subjects per lot was recruited.|Ratio of GMTs (B strain)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.26|||ANOVA||"The control vaccine arm (n=216) is included primarily to provide a comparative assessment for safety rather than for immunogenicity.~Sample size calculations were done by means of Nquery Advisor 5.0."|H03 LotB ≠ LotC versus H13 LotB = LotC H0 refers to the null hypothesis of non-equivalence (inconsistency) in that the two-sided 95% CI on the GMT ratio is outside the equivalence range (0.67 to 1.5). H1 refers to the alternative hypothesis of equivalence (consistency) in that the two-sided 95% CI on the GMT ratio is within the equivalence range (0.67 to 1.5).||1.26|0.94|
90862688|NCT00944671|181588980|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Given a 3-period crossover design, assuming a true within subject variance for natural log AUC of 0.029, 24 subjects completing the study, and alpha = 0.05, there is a 0.995 probability that the 90% confidence interval for the true geometric mean ratio of AUC for (famotidine antacid combination EZ Chew tablet without water/ famotidine antacid combination tablet with water) will be contained in (0.80, 1.25), given that the true ratio is one.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.05||||||90.0|0.98|1.13||||||||1.13|0.98|
90862689|NCT00944671|181588981|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assuming a true within subject variance for natural log Cmax of 0.017, there is a 0.999 probability that the 90% confidence interval for the true geometric mean ratio of Cmax for (famotidine antacid combination EZ Chew tablet without water/ famotidine antacid combination tablet with water) will be contained in (0.80, 1.25), given that the true ratio is one.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.03||||||90.0|0.93|1.13||||||||1.13|0.93|
90862690|NCT00944671|181588982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.05||||||90.0|0.98|1.13||||||||1.13|0.98|
90862691|NCT00944671|181588983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.03||||||90.0|0.93|1.14||||||||1.14|0.93|
90862692|NCT01479478|181589012|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.87
90862693|NCT00142935|181589035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Outcome: engage in treatment post release, yes or no||||<0.001
90862694|NCT00142935|181589036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||.02
90862695|NCT00142935|181589037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09||95.0|||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||.09
90862696|NCT00142935|181589038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||.09
90862697|NCT00142935|181589040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.8
90862698|NCT00705289|181589058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson Product Moment Correlation|0.1402||||0.0003|||||||Test for non-zero correlation|||Relationship between baseline DAS28 and age (prior to infliximab therapy)||||0.0003
90862699|NCT00705289|181589059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson Product Moment Correlation|-0.01||||0.7991||95.0|||||Test for non-zero correlation|||Relationship between baseline DAS28 and time since diagnosis (prior to infliximab therapy)||||0.7991
90862700|NCT00705289|181589060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7152||95.0|||||ANOVA|The association between Baseline DAS28 and gender is based on a one-way Anova.||Relationship between baseline DAS28 and gender (prior to infliximab therapy)||||0.7152
90862701|NCT00705289|181589061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|Relationship between DAS28 and Country of Residence was based on a 1-way ANOVA calculated as P-value.||Relationship between baseline DAS28 and country of residence (prior to infliximab therapy)||||<0.0001
90862702|NCT00705289|181589062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Baseline DAS28 Raw Score|5.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.15||||95.0|5.1|5.3||||||Relationship between Baseline DAS28 and previous anti-TNF therapy (all subjects, prior to infliximab therapy)||5.3|5.1|
90862703|NCT00705289|181589062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Baseline DAS28 Raw Score|5.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.16||||95.0|5.0|5.5||||||Relationship between Baseline DAS28 and previous anti-TNF therapy (subjects with early RA, not treated with anti-TNF; prior to infliximab therapy)||5.5|5.0|
90862704|NCT00705289|181589062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Baseline DAS28 Raw Score|5.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.14||||95.0|5.1|5.3||||||Relationship between Baseline DAS28 and previous anti-TNF therapy (subjects with established RA not treated with anti-TNF; prior to infliximab therapy)||5.3|5.1|
90862705|NCT00705289|181589062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Baseline DAS28 Raw Score|5.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.16||||95.0|5.1|5.5||||||Relationship between Baseline DAS28 and previous anti-TNF therapy (subjects with established RA who failed or did not tolerate another anti-TNF; prior to infliximab therapy)||5.5|5.1|
90862706|NCT00304746|181589064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71||95.0||||For a complete presentation of the above analysis, please see the published paper presenting the full results of this study.|mixed effects linear regression analysis|||Our primary analysis of efficacy was a mixed effects linear regression analysis comparing the rate of change of score on the HAM-D during the blinded treatment phase between groups. Our model for the mean of the outcome variable included terms for treatment, time (modeled as a continuous variable), and treatment-by-time. The measure of effect was the treatment-by-time interaction, which can be interpreted as the difference in slope with respect to time, of the outcome measure.||||0.71
90862707|NCT01431989|181589065|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence analysis. This is a bioequivalence study performed to support the register of Clamoxyl 500 mg/5 mL, according to the requirements of Brazilian Regulatory Agency - National Agency of Sanitary Surveillance (ANVISA).|Ratio Geometric mean T/R formulation|90.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.53||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.99|93.17|||ANOVA|ANOVA model: 1) Fixed effects: Sequence, Period, and Formulation; 2) Random effects: Volunteer (Sequence) and Residual|The ratio between the geometric means of the test (T) and reference (R) formulations was calculated. Standard deviation intra subject was obtained.|||93.17|86.99|0.0000
90862708|NCT01431989|181589066|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence analysis. This is a bioequivalence study performed to support the register of Clamoxyl 500 mg/5 mL, according to the requirements of Brazilian Regulatory Agency - National Agency of Sanitary Surveillance (ANVISA).|Ratio Geometric mean T/R formulation|87.93|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.83||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.55|93.65|||ANOVA|ANOVA model: 1) Fixed effects: Sequence, Period, and Formulation; 2) Random effects: Volunteer (Sequence) and Residual|The ratio between the geometric means of the test (T) and reference (R) formulations was calculated. Standard deviation intra subject was obtained.|||93.65|82.55|0.0018
90862709|NCT01431989|181589067|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence analysis. This is a bioequivalence study performed to support the register of Clamoxyl 500 mg/5 mL, according to the requirements of Brazilian Regulatory Agency - National Agency of Sanitary Surveillance (ANVISA).|Ratio Geometric means T/R formulation|90.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.51||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.96|93.12|||ANOVA|ANOVA model: 1) Fixed effects: Sequence, Period, and Formulation; 2) Random effects: Volunteer (Sequence) and Residual|The ratio between the geometric means of the test (T) and reference (R) formulations was calculated. Standard deviation intra subject was obtained.|||93.12|86.96|0.0000
90862710|NCT01431989|181589068|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence analysis. This is a bioequivalence study performed to support the register of Clamoxyl 500 mg/5 mL, according to the requirements of Brazilian Regulatory Agency - National Agency of Sanitary Surveillance (ANVISA).|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.125||||0.339|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.125|0.375|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|The non-parametric method included the following factors: Sequence, Formulation, Period, Formulation and Residual||||0.375|-0.125|0.3390
90862711|NCT03345914|181589072|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|18.1|||=|0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.28|27.97||The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted by randomization strata (baseline weight group (\< 30 kilograms (kg) or ≥ 30 kg) and region (North America or Europe) was used for the analysis of percentage of participants with IGA 0 or 1 at Week 16.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||27.97|8.28|= 0.0004
90862712|NCT03345914|181589072|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|21.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.36|31.45||The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted by randomization strata (baseline weight group (\< 30 kg or ≥ 30 kg) and region (North America or Europe) was used for the analysis of percentage of participants with IGA 0 or 1 at Week 16.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||31.45|11.36|< 0.0001
90862713|NCT03345914|181589073|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|40.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.95|51.82||The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted by randomization strata (baseline weight group (\< 30 kg or ≥ 30 kg) and region (North America or Europe) was used for the analysis of percentage of participants with EASI-75 at Week 16.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||51.82|28.95|< 0.0001
90862714|NCT03345914|181589073|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|42.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.54|54.15||The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted by randomization strata (baseline weight group (\< 30 kg or ≥ 30 kg) and region (North America or Europe) was used for the analysis of percentage of participants with EASI-75 at Week 16.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||54.15|31.54|< 0.0001
90862715|NCT03345914|181589074|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-29.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.33|-23.24||The confidence interval (CI) with p-value was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs placebo) of the LS mean percent change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, randomization strata as fixed factors.|ANCOVA|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||-23.24|-36.33|< 0.0001
90862716|NCT03345914|181589074|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-33.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.06|-26.82||The confidence interval (CI) with p-value was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs placebo) of the LS mean percent change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, randomization strata as fixed factors.|ANCOVA|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||-26.82|-40.06|< 0.0001
90940241|NCT01287416|181760159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p\<.05. Effect size determined by partial eta-squared to be 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model was adjusted for differences in educational attainment at baseline.||The null hypothesis was that the two groups would not differ on level of self-reported preparedness to help a suicidal person.||||0.63
90940242|NCT01287416|181760160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21||95.0||||A priori threshold for significance set to p\<.05.|ANCOVA|Model adjusted for differences in educational attainment at baseline.||The null hypothesis was that the groups would not differ on their level of distress across the two time points.||||0.21
90862717|NCT03345914|181589075|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-31.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.76|-23.26||The confidence interval (CI) with p-value was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs placebo) of the LS mean percent change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, randomization strata as fixed factors.|ANCOVA|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||-23.26|-38.76|< 0.0001
90906876|NCT04824131|181681864|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2728|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1704||0.1093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.06||"GEE for Change in Sexual Behavior - Number of Sexual Partners - Visit as Continuous Variable.~Difference from baselines in the number of sex partners (vaginal or anal sex) reported in the past month"|poisson model||"GEE for Change in Sexual Behavior - Number of Sexual Partners - Visit as Continuous Variable.~Difference from baselines in the number of sex partners (vaginal or anal sex) reported in the past month"|Generalized estimating equations (GEE) with robust variance to model change in self-reported sexual behavior from enrollment (W0) to follow up visits (W4, W5, W9, W17, W25, W33, W+12, W+24, W+36, W+48), with an indicator variable for all on-study visits (i.e. enrollment visit = 0) to measure change in the outcome behavior. We will model count outcomes (number of sexual partners) using a poisson model.||0.06|-0.61|0.1093
91106251|NCT03816891|182097795|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3442||||||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||||0.3442
91106252|NCT03816891|182097795|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.6||||0.1641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|45.07||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||45.07|0.47|0.1641
91106253|NCT03816891|182097795|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.24||||0.5103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|25.61||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||25.61|0.20|0.5103
91106254|NCT03816891|182097795|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.03||||0.5457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|22.02||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||22.02|0.19|0.5457
91106255|NCT03816891|182097795|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.24||||0.0722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|22.44||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||22.44|0.80|0.0722
90906877|NCT04824131|181681865|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5859|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2253||0.0093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.14||GEE for Change in Sexual Behavior - Number of Episodes of Vaginal Sex without a Condom - Visit as Continuous Variable. Difference from baselines in the number of vaginal sex without a condom reported in the past month|poisson model||GEE for Change in Sexual Behavior - Number of Episodes of Vaginal Sex without a Condom - Visit as Continuous Variable. Difference from baselines in the number of vaginal sex without a condom reported in the past month.|Generalized estimating equations (GEE) with robust variance to model change in self-reported sexual behavior from enrollment (W0) to follow up visits (W4, W5, W9, W17, W25, W33, W+12, W+24, W+36, W+48), with an indicator variable for all on-study visits (i.e. enrollment visit = 0) to measure change in the outcome behavior. We will model count outcomes (number of episodes of vaginal sex without a condom) using a poisson model.||-0.14|-1.03|0.0093
90906878|NCT04824131|181681865|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3087|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4036||0.8259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.06|2.44||GEE for Change in Sexual Behavior - Number of Episodes of Anal Sex without a Condom - Visit as Continuous Variable. Difference from baselines in the number of anal sex without a condom reported in the past month|Regression, Logistic||GEE for Change in Sexual Behavior - Number of Episodes of Anal Sex without a Condom - Visit as Continuous Variable. Difference from baselines in the number of anal sex without a condom reported in the past month|Generalized estimating equations (GEE) with robust variance to model change in self-reported sexual behavior from enrollment (W0) to follow up visits (W4, W5, W9, W17, W25, W33, W+12, W+24, W+36, W+48), with an indicator variable for all on-study visits (i.e. enrollment visit = 0) to measure change in the outcome behavior. We will model binary outcomes (any episodes of anal sex without a condom) using a logistic model.||2.44|-3.06|0.8259
90906879|NCT04824131|181681866|OTHER||CI for Incidence rate, exact Poisson|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|10.8|||||Person-years: 34.0||Incidence rate is calculated HIV infections per 100 person years. CI for Incidence rate is calculated using exact Poisson method|10.8|0.0|
90906880|NCT03643965|181681867|OTHER|Ratio of UPCR at 9 months compared to baseline for Nefecon compared to Placebo|Ratio of geometric LS means|0.73||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|96.0|0.61|0.88|||MMRM model|||||0.88|0.61|0.0003
90906881|NCT03643965|181681868|OTHER|Time-weighted average of eGFR, Nefecon compared to Placebo|Ratio of geometric LS means|1.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.15|||robust regression|||||1.15|1.06|<0.0001
90906882|NCT03643965|181681869|OTHER|Ratio of eGFR at 9 months comparison of Nefecon to Placebo|Ratio of geometric LS means|1.07||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.13|||robust regression|||||1.13|1.03|0.0014
90906883|NCT03643965|181681870|OTHER|Ratio of eGFR at 12 months comparison of Nefecon to Placebo|Ratio of geometric LS means|1.07||||0.0106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.13|||robust regression|||||1.13|1.01|0.0106
90906884|NCT03643965|181681871|OTHER|Ratio of UACR at 9 months comparison of Nefecon to Placebo|Ratio of geometric LS means|0.69||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.86|||MMRM model|||||0.86|0.55|0.0005
90906885|NCT03643965|181681872|OTHER|Time to 30% reduction in eGFR comparison Nefecon to Placebo|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.45||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.75|||Cox proportional hazards model|Cox proportional hazards model with individual patient censoring weighting.||||0.75|0.26|0.0028
90906886|NCT03643965|181681873|OTHER|Time to receiving rescue medication comparison Nefecon to Placebo|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.2647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.33|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||1.33|0.34|0.2647
90906887|NCT03643965|181681874|OTHER|Ratio of UPCR compared to baseline averaged over time points between 12 and 24 months, comparison Nefecon vs Placebo|Ratio of geometric LS means|0.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.68|||MMRM model|||||0.68|0.51|<0.0001
90906888|NCT03643965|181681875|OTHER|Ratio of UACR compared to baseline averaged over time points between 12 and 24 months, Nefecon vs Placebo|Ratio of geometric LS means|0.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.63|||MMRM model|||||0.63|0.45|<0.0001
91106256|NCT03816891|182097795|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.85||||0.2215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|16.01||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||16.01|0.51|0.2215
91106257|NCT03816891|182097795|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.42||||0.4872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|5.06||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||5.06|0.03|0.4872
91106258|NCT03816891|182097795|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.03||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|9.68||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||9.68|0.95|0.0550
91106259|NCT03816891|182097795|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.79||||0.3519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|6.1||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||6.10|0.52|0.3519
91106260|NCT03816891|182097795|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.8266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|3.34||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||3.34|0.22|0.8266
91106261|NCT03816891|182097795|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.99||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.11|30.3||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||30.30|2.11|0.0009
91106262|NCT03816891|182097795|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.93||||0.0116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|18.39||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||18.39|1.32|0.0116
91106263|NCT03816891|182097795|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.5||||0.2127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|10.6||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||10.60|0.59|0.2127
91106264|NCT03816891|182097795|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.0||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.17|22.61||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 18||22.61|2.17|0.0006
91106265|NCT03816891|182097795|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.61||||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|14.43||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 18||14.43|1.47|0.0061
90862718|NCT03345914|181589075|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-28.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.47|-20.82||The confidence interval (CI) with p-value was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs placebo) of the LS mean percent change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, randomization strata as fixed factors.|ANCOVA|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||-20.82|-36.47|< 0.0001
91106266|NCT03816891|182097795|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.08||||0.2317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|6.9||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 18||6.90|0.62|0.2317
91106267|NCT03816891|182097795|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.65||||0.0093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|9.81||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||9.81|1.36|0.0093
91106268|NCT03816891|182097795|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.26||||0.0183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|8.8||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||8.80|1.21|0.0183
91106269|NCT03816891|182097795|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.7648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.45||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||3.45|0.40|0.7648
91106270|NCT03816891|182097795|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.54||||0.337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|3.68||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 32||3.68|0.65|0.3370
91106271|NCT03816891|182097795|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.5054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|3.16||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 32||3.16|0.57|0.5054
91106272|NCT03816891|182097795|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.49||||0.1341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.24||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 32||1.24|0.19|0.1341
90906889|NCT03643965|181681876|OTHER|Ratio of eGFR compared to baseline averaged over time points between 12 and 24 months, comparison Nefecon vs Placebo|Ratio of geometric LS means|1.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.16|||robust regression|||||1.16|1.06|<0.0001
90906890|NCT03643965|181681877|OTHER|Proportion of patients without microhematuria, comparison Nefecon vs Placebo|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.5||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|4.1|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.1|1.6|0.0001
91106273|NCT03816891|182097795|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.9628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|2.25||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48||2.25|0.43|0.9628
91106274|NCT03816891|182097795|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.9185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|2.39||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48||2.39|0.46|0.9185
91106275|NCT03816891|182097795|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.42||||0.0496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.0||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48||1.00|0.18|0.0496
91106276|NCT03816891|182097795|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.7785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|2.04||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52||2.04|0.38|0.7785
91106277|NCT03816891|182097795|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.8857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|2.13||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52||2.13|0.42|0.8857
91106278|NCT03816891|182097795|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71||||0.4174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.62||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52||1.62|0.31|0.4174
91106279|NCT03816891|182097796|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.02||||0.5673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|22.87||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||22.87|0.18|0.5673
91106280|NCT03816891|182097796|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.17||||0.3139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|32.21||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||32.21|0.31|0.3139
91106281|NCT03816891|182097796|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.88||||0.6197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|22.83||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||22.83|0.16|0.6197
90906891|NCT01222247|181681969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.8||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.97|||Chi-squared|||Analysis for Primary Outcome composite||0.97|0.66|0.02
91106282|NCT03816891|182097796|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.95||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|60.25||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||60.25|0.80|0.0480
90906892|NCT01222247|181681969|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.77||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.95|||Chi-squared|||Analysis for CPAP or high-flow nasal cannula||0.95|0.63|0.01
90906893|NCT01222247|181681969|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.77||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.12|||Chi-squared|||Analysis for Fraction of inspired oxygen||1.12|0.53|0.17
90906894|NCT01222247|181681969|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.78||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.21|||Chi-squared|||Analysis for mechanical ventilation||1.21|0.50|0.26
90906895|NCT01222247|181681970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.84|||Chi-squared|||||0.84|0.53|<0.001
90906896|NCT01222247|181681971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.78||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.92|||Chi-squared|||||0.92|0.66|0.003
90906897|NCT01222247|181681972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.87||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.17|||Chi-squared|||||1.17|0.65|0.36
90906898|NCT01222247|181681973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.68||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.87|||Chi-squared|||||0.87|0.53|0.002
90906899|NCT01222247|181681974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.88||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.39|||Chi-squared|||||1.39|0.55|0.57
90906900|NCT01222247|181681975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.22||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.92|||Chi-squared|||||0.92|0.02|0.04
90906901|NCT01222247|181681976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.45||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.19|||Chi-squared|||||1.19|0.17|0.10
90906902|NCT01222247|181681977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.59||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.96|||Chi-squared|||||0.96|0.37|0.03
90906903|NCT01222247|181681978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.78||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.93|||Chi-squared|||||0.93|0.66|0.004
90906904|NCT01222247|181681979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.82||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|2.68|||Chi-squared|||||2.68|0.25|0.74
90906905|NCT01222247|181681980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.50
90906906|NCT01222247|181681981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.32|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.32
90906907|NCT01222247|181681982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.14||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.34|||Chi-squared|||||1.34|0.96|0.13
90906908|NCT01222247|181681983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.10
90906909|NCT01222247|181681985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.8||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.93|||Chi-squared|||||1.93|0.33|0.62
90906910|NCT01222247|181681987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.88||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.18|||Chi-squared|||||1.18|0.66|0.40
91106283|NCT03816891|182097796|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.44||||0.0945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|48.12||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||48.12|0.62|0.0945
91106284|NCT03816891|182097796|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.29||||0.1745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|40.6||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||40.60|0.45|0.1745
91106285|NCT03816891|182097796|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.49||||0.0233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|27.25||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||27.25|1.10|0.0233
91106286|NCT03816891|182097796|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.21||||0.1422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|16.53||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||16.53|0.63|0.1422
91106287|NCT03816891|182097796|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.92||||0.481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|11.77||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||11.77|0.31|0.4810
91106288|NCT03816891|182097796|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.83||||0.0628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|8.6||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||8.60|0.93|0.0628
91106289|NCT03816891|182097796|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.34||||0.1149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|6.87||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||6.87|0.80|0.1149
91106290|NCT03816891|182097796|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.9726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.48||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||3.48|0.30|0.9726
90862719|NCT03345914|181589076|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|46.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.3|57.42||P-values were derived by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by region \[North America vs Europe\] and baseline weight group \[\< 30 kg vs ≥ 30 kg\].|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||57.42|35.3|< 0.0001
90862720|NCT03345914|181589076|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|39.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.88|50.51||P-values were derived by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by region \[North America vs Europe\] and baseline weight group \[\< 30 kg vs ≥ 30 kg\].|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||50.51|27.88|< 0.0001
90862721|NCT03345914|181589077|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|46.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.47|56.61||P-values were derived by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by region \[North America vs Europe\] and baseline weight group \[\< 30 kg vs ≥ 30 kg\].|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||56.61|35.47|< 0.0001
91106291|NCT03816891|182097796|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.76||||0.0134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|11.0||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||11.00|1.28|0.0134
91106292|NCT03816891|182097796|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.31||||0.0148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|9.06||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||9.06|1.21|0.0148
91106293|NCT03816891|182097796|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.21||||0.1611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|6.71||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||6.71|0.73|0.1611
90906911|NCT01222247|181681988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|1.87|||Chi-squared|||||1.87|1.37|<0.001
91106294|NCT03816891|182097796|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.72||||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|9.6||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 18||9.60|1.44|0.0061
91106295|NCT03816891|182097796|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.84||||0.0228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|7.18||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 18||7.18|1.13|0.0228
91106296|NCT03816891|182097796|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.3331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|4.37||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 18||4.37|0.61|0.3331
90862722|NCT03345914|181589077|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|38.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.86|49.21||P-values were derived by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by region \[North America vs Europe\] and baseline weight group \[\< 30 kg vs ≥ 30 kg\].|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||49.21|27.86|< 0.0001
90906912|NCT01222247|181681989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.004
90906913|NCT01222247|181681990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.93||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.1|||Chi-squared|||||1.10|0.78|0.40
90906914|NCT01222247|181681991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.17||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.4|||Chi-squared|||||1.40|0.95|0.15
90906915|NCT01222247|181681992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.16||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.47|||Chi-squared|||||1.47|0.91|0.24
91106297|NCT03816891|182097796|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.84||||0.1718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|4.38||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||4.38|0.78|0.1718
90862723|NCT03345914|181589078|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|39.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.68|50.72||P-values were derived by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by region \[North America vs Europe\] and baseline weight group \[\< 30 kg vs ≥ 30 kg\].|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||50.72|28.68|< 0.0001
90862724|NCT03345914|181589078|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|47.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.77|58.01||P-values were derived by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by region \[North America vs Europe\] and baseline weight group \[\< 30 kg vs ≥ 30 kg\].|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||58.01|37.77|< 0.0001
90862725|NCT03345914|181589079|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|23.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.65|32.38||P-values were derived by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by region \[North America vs Europe\] and baseline weight group \[\< 30 kg vs ≥ 30 kg\].|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||32.38|13.65|< 0.0001
90862726|NCT03345914|181589079|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|34.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.6|44.37||P-values were derived by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by region \[North America vs Europe\] and baseline weight group \[\< 30 kg vs ≥ 30 kg\].|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||44.37|24.6|< 0.0001
90862727|NCT03345914|181589080|SUPERIORITY||Hazard ratios|3.114|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.097|4.624||P-values were derived by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by region \[North America vs Europe\] and baseline weight group \[\< 30 kg vs ≥ 30 kg\].|Cox model|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||4.624|2.097|< 0.0001
90862728|NCT03345914|181589080|SUPERIORITY||Hazard ratios|2.921|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.957|4.36||P-values were derived by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by region \[North America vs Europe\] and baseline weight group \[\< 30 kg vs ≥ 30 kg\].|Cox model|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||4.36|1.957|< 0.0001
90862729|NCT03345914|181589081|SUPERIORITY||Hazard ratios|2.278|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.631|3.182||P-values were derived by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by region \[North America vs Europe\] and baseline weight group \[\< 30 kg vs ≥ 30 kg\].|Cox model|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||3.182|1.631|< 0.0001
90862730|NCT03345914|181589081|SUPERIORITY||Hazard ratios|2.075|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.481|2.908||P-values were derived by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by region \[North America vs Europe\] and baseline weight group \[\< 30 kg vs ≥ 30 kg\].|Cox model|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||2.908|1.481|< 0.0001
90906916|NCT01222247|181681993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.93||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.01|||Chi-squared|||Analysis for NICU stay of any duration||1.01|0.85|0.09
90906917|NCT01222247|181681993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.89||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.98|||Chi-squared|||Analysis for duration greater than or equal to 3 days||0.98|0.80|0.03
90906918|NCT01222247|181681994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.20
90906919|NCT01222247|181681995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.61||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.07|||Chi-squared|||Statistical analysis for chorioamnionitis||1.07|0.35|0.08
90906920|NCT01222247|181681995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.95|||Chi-squared|||Analysis for Postpartum Endometritis||1.95|0.49|0.96
91106298|NCT03816891|182097796|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.97||||0.1219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|4.66||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||4.66|0.83|0.1219
90906921|NCT01222247|181681995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.15|||Chi-squared|||Statistical analysis for cesarean delivery||1.15|0.93|0.56
90906922|NCT01222247|181681996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.57|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis for interval from randomization to delivery||||0.57
90906923|NCT01222247|181681997|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.11
90940243|NCT01287416|181760161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46||95.0||||A priori threshold for significance set at p\<.05.|ANCOVA|Model was adjusted for differences in educational attainment at baseline.||Null hypothesis was that the groups would not differ in terms of alcohol use across the two time points.||||0.46
91106299|NCT03816891|182097796|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.9755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.45||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||2.45|0.40|0.9755
91106300|NCT03816891|182097796|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.7579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|2.02||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 32||2.02|0.38|0.7579
90862731|NCT03345914|181589082|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-17.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.272|-13.161||The confidence interval (CI) with p-value was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs placebo) of the LS mean percent change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, randomization strata as fixed factors.|ANCOVA|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||-13.161|-22.272|< 0.0001
90862732|NCT03345914|181589082|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-18.88|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.479|-14.289||The confidence interval (CI) with p-value was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs placebo) of the LS mean percent change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, randomization strata as fixed factors.|ANCOVA|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||-14.289|-23.479|< 0.0001
90862733|NCT03345914|181589083|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-30.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.3|-24.48||The confidence interval (CI) with p-value was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs placebo) of the LS mean percent change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, randomization strata as fixed factors.|ANCOVA|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||-24.48|-36.3|< 0.0001
90862734|NCT03345914|181589083|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-32.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.57|-26.59||The confidence interval (CI) with p-value was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs placebo) of the LS mean percent change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, randomization strata as fixed factors.|ANCOVA|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||-26.59|-38.57|< 0.0001
90862735|NCT03345914|181589084|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-4.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.62|-2.99||The confidence interval (CI) with p-value was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs placebo) of the LS mean percent change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, randomization strata as fixed factors.|ANCOVA|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||-2.99|-5.62|< 0.0001
90862736|NCT03345914|181589084|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-4.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.57|-2.89||The confidence interval (CI) with p-value was based on treatment difference (dupilumab group vs placebo) of the LS mean percent change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, randomization strata as fixed factors.|ANCOVA|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||-2.89|-5.57|< 0.0001
91106301|NCT03816891|182097796|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.9213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|2.19||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 32||2.19|0.42|0.9213
90862737|NCT03345914|181589085|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-8.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.96|-6.31||The confidence interval (CI) with p-value was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs placebo) of the LS mean percent change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, randomization strata as fixed factors.|ANCOVA|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||-6.31|-9.96|< 0.0001
90862738|NCT03345914|181589085|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-8.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.13|-6.43||The confidence interval (CI) with p-value was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs placebo) of the LS mean percent change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, randomization strata as fixed factors.|ANCOVA|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||-6.43|-10.13|< 0.0001
90862739|NCT03345914|181589086|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.984|-1.831||The confidence interval (CI) with p-value was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs placebo) of the LS mean percent change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, randomization strata as fixed factors.|ANCOVA|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||-1.831|-2.984|< 0.0001
90940244|NCT01287416|181760162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p\<.05.|ANCOVA|Model is adjusted for differences in educational attainment at baseline.||The null hypothesis was that the two groups would not differ in resiliency scores across the follow-up period.||||0.28
90940245|NCT01287416|181760163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33||95.0||||A priori threshold for significance set at p\<.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.33
91106302|NCT03816891|182097796|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.49||||0.1001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.14||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 32||1.14|0.21|0.1001
91106303|NCT03816891|182097796|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.7945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|2.05||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48||2.05|0.39|0.7945
90862740|NCT03345914|181589086|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.754|-1.599||The confidence interval (CI) with p-value was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs placebo) of the LS mean percent change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, randomization strata as fixed factors.|ANCOVA|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||-1.599|-2.754|< 0.0001
90862741|NCT03345914|181589087|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-4.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.434|-2.796||The confidence interval (CI) with p-value was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs placebo) of the LS mean percent change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, randomization strata as fixed factors.|ANCOVA|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||-2.796|-5.434|< 0.0001
90862742|NCT03345914|181589087|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.298|-2.657||The confidence interval (CI) with p-value was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs placebo) of the LS mean percent change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, randomization strata as fixed factors.|ANCOVA|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||-2.657|-5.298|< 0.0001
90862743|NCT03345914|181589088|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.37|||=|0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.779|-0.962||The confidence interval (CI) with p-value was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs placebo) of the LS mean percent change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, randomization strata as fixed factors.|ANCOVA|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||-0.962|-5.779|= 0.0061
90862744|NCT03345914|181589088|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.02|||=|0.0133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.414|-0.629||The confidence interval (CI) with p-value was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs placebo) of the LS mean percent change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, randomization strata as fixed factors.|ANCOVA|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||-0.629|-5.414|= 0.0133
90862745|NCT03345914|181589089|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-4.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.734|-2.272||The confidence interval (CI) with p-value was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs placebo) of the LS mean percent change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, randomization strata as fixed factors.|ANCOVA|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||-2.272|-6.734|< 0.0001
90862746|NCT03345914|181589089|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-5.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.641|-3.207||The confidence interval (CI) with p-value was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs placebo) of the LS mean percent change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, randomization strata as fixed factors.|ANCOVA|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||-3.207|-7.641|< 0.0001
91035854|NCT02558491|181958300|OTHER|||||||0.177||||||No a priori sample size was determined due to the feasibility/pilot nature of the trial. Significance level was set at P-value \<0.05.|ANOVA|||Primary statistical analysis was performed using the repeated measure ANOVA, with the treatment mode as within subject factor, and type of insulin treatment (pump vs. MDI) as between subject factor. Based on achieved recruitment, a moderate effect size (0.3) is detectable with 80% power, or a large effect size (0.4) with 95% power (G-Power 3.1.9.2). Outcome measurement was for overnight.||||0.177
90862747|NCT03345914|181589090|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Differenece|-4.8|||=|0.222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.49|2.87||P-values were derived by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by region \[North America vs Europe\] and baseline weight group \[\< 30 kg vs ≥ 30 kg\].|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||2.87|-12.49|= 0.222
91106304|NCT03816891|182097796|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.7214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|2.69||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48||2.69|0.51|0.7214
91106305|NCT03816891|182097796|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.46||||0.0727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.07||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48||1.07|0.20|0.0727
91106306|NCT03816891|182097796|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.4871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.72||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52||1.72|0.32|0.4871
90959409|NCT01340196|181798881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|147.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.6||||90.0|134.482|160.943|||ANOVA|No formal testing. Investigation of relative bioavailability.|The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|||160.943|134.482|
90959410|NCT01340196|181798882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|77.88|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|71.24|85.15|||ANOVA|No formal testing. Investigation of relative bioavailability.|The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|||85.15|71.24|
90959411|NCT01340196|181798883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|81.73|STANDARD_DEVIATION|20.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|71.56|93.34|||ANOVA|No formal testing. Investigation of relative bioavailability.|The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|||93.34|71.56|
91106307|NCT03816891|182097796|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.6037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.85||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52||1.85|0.35|0.6037
90862748|NCT03345914|181589090|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Differenece|-7.3|||=|0.0508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.51|-0.03||P-values were derived by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by region \[North America vs Europe\] and baseline weight group \[\< 30 kg vs ≥ 30 kg\].|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||-0.03|-14.51|= 0.0508
90862749|NCT03345914|181589093|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-5.7|||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.49|-1.96||The confidence interval (CI) with p-value was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs placebo) of the LS mean percent change using ANOVA model with the treatment, randomization strata as fixed factors.|ANOVA|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level||-1.96|-9.49|= 0.003
90862750|NCT03345914|181589093|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level|Least Square Mean Difference|-5.1|||=|0.0082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|-1.31||The confidence interval (CI) with p-value was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs placebo) of the LS mean percent change using ANOVA model with the treatment, randomization strata as fixed factors.|ANOVA|||||-1.31|-8.8|= 0.0082
90862751|NCT02218320|181589119|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.0
90862752|NCT00885846|181589128|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Regression analysis performed for equal variance at baseline.||||||0.664||95.0|||||Repeated ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 2||Power analysis suggested 27 participants, 9 in each group.||||0.664
90862753|NCT00074984|181589129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.574||||0.1449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.269|1.222|||Log Rank|Comparison is based on a 2-sided log-rank test.||||1.222|0.269|0.1449
90862754|NCT00074984|181589129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.465||||0.0577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.211|1.025|||Wald Test|||Time to First Primary Endpoint Adjusting for Baseline Proteinuria using Cox Proportional Hazards Model||1.025|0.211|0.0577
90862755|NCT00074984|181589130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.732||||0.5261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.278|1.927|||Log Rank|2-sided log-rank test||Analysis of Time to First Renal Event for ITT population.||1.927|0.278|0.5261
90862756|NCT03758443|181589134|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.27||||0.5809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|0.69|||ANCOVA|||Least square estimates, 95% CI, and p-values were obtained by fitting an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, steroid use at baseline (yes, no) and prior biologic failure (yes, no), and baseline total Mayo score as covariate.||0.69|-1.22|0.5809
90862757|NCT03758443|181589134|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.37||||0.4501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|0.59|||ANCOVA|||Least square estimates, 95% CI, and p-values were obtained by fitting an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, steroid use at baseline (yes, no) and prior biologic failure (yes, no), and baseline total Mayo score as covariate.||0.59|-1.33|0.4501
90862758|NCT03758443|181589134|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.65||||0.1809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Least square estimates, 95% CI, and p-values were obtained by fitting an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, steroid use at baseline (yes, no) and prior biologic failure (yes, no), and baseline total Mayo score as covariate.||0.30|-1.60|0.1809
90862759|NCT03758443|181589135|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3762|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.3762
90862760|NCT03758443|181589135|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
90862761|NCT03758443|181589135|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
90959412|NCT01340196|181798884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|75.27|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|68.71|82.45|||ANOVA|No formal testing. Investigation of relative bioavailability.|The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|||82.45|68.71|
91106308|NCT03816891|182097796|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.53||||0.1323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.22||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52||1.22|0.23|0.1323
91106309|NCT03816891|182097797|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|-1.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||-1.6|-3.8|<0.0001
91106310|NCT03816891|182097797|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-1.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||-1.2|-3.3|<0.0001
91079160|NCT05153148|182043951|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.9|||=|0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|29.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||MH risk difference was summarized along with the 2-sided 95% CI using MH stratum weights and the Sato variance estimator.||Comparisons of PASI-75 responder rates at Week 12 were made independently between each dose group and the placebo group using two-sided MH tests stratified on randomization stratification factors: prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region.|29.4|-5.7|=0.186
90862762|NCT03758443|181589136|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion|0.0||||0.9542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.104|0.11||P-value is shown for Cochran-Mantel Haenszel tests stratified by prior biologic failure and steroid use at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in proportion estimates used Mantel-Haenszel stratum weights.|||0.110|-0.104|0.9542
90862763|NCT03758443|181589136|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion|-0.03||||0.5863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.126|0.071||P-value is shown for Cochran-Mantel Haenszel tests stratified by prior biologic failure and steroid use at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in proportion estimates used Mantel-Haenszel stratum weights.|||0.071|-0.126|0.5863
90862764|NCT03758443|181589136|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion|-0.03||||0.5408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.131|0.069||P-value is shown for Conhran-Mantel Haenszel tests stratified by prior biologic failure and steroid use at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in proportion estimates used Mantel-Haenszel stratum weights.|||0.069|-0.131|0.5408
90862765|NCT03758443|181589137|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6656|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6656
90862766|NCT03758443|181589137|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6424|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6424
90862767|NCT03758443|181589137|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6199|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6199
90862768|NCT03758443|181589138|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2643|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2643
90862769|NCT03758443|181589138|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
90862770|NCT03758443|181589138|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
90862771|NCT03758443|181589139|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
90862772|NCT03758443|181589139|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
90862773|NCT03758443|181589139|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
90862774|NCT03080454|181589140|EQUIVALENCE|Statistical analysis for mean percent change from baseline in area under the curve for the resistance torque measure across 2 conditions (anodal vs. sham Doublestim) and at 2 timepoints (final session at day 5 and 1 week FU). Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in mean percent change in area under the curve between anodal and sham Doublestim conditions. A significance level of 0.05 was used (two-sided).||||||0.004||||||A 2x2 repeated measures ANOVA was performed with condition (mean percent change in anodal vs. sham condition) and time (final session at day 5 and 1 week FU in each condition) as factors. A significance level of 0.05 was used (two-sided).|ANOVA|||||||0.004
90862775|NCT03080454|181589141|EQUIVALENCE|Statistical analysis for mean Tardieu Scale Score summed across 11 joints of the upper extremity in 2 conditions (anodal vs. sham Doublestim) and at 2 timepoints (final session at day 5 and 1 week FU). Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in mean change between anodal and sham Doubleestim conditions. A significance level of 0.05 was used (two-sided).||||||0.003||||||A 2x2 repeated measures ANOVA was performed with condition (mean score in anodal vs. sham condition) and time (final session at day 5 and 1 week FU in each condition) as factors. A significance level of 0.05 was used (two-sided).|ANOVA|||||||0.003
90862776|NCT00762385|181589144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03164|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1247||||98.3|-0.2346|0.03164|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference is galyfilcon A minus comfilcon A.|Results is overall lens effect with time as a covariate.||0.03164|-0.2346|
90862777|NCT00762385|181589145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.00556|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02287||||98.3|-0.04297|0.00556|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference is galyfilcon A minus comfilcon A.|Results is overall lens effect with time as a covariate.||0.005560|-0.04297|
90862778|NCT00762385|181589146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2726|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1064||||98.3|0.04553|0.2726|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference is galyfilcon A minus comfilcon A.|Results is overall lens effect with time as a covariate.||0.2726|0.04553|
90862779|NCT04424888|181589154|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21875|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.21875
90862780|NCT04424888|181589155|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.90625|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.90625
90862781|NCT04424888|181589156|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired t-test for the species Akkermansia Munciphilae.||||0.020
90862782|NCT04424888|181589156|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.078|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired t-test for the species Bifidobacterium infantis.||||0.078
91079161|NCT05153148|182043951|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.6|||=|0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|32.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||MH risk difference was summarized along with the 2-sided 95% CI using MH stratum weights and the Sato variance estimator.||Comparisons of PASI-75 responder rates at Week 12 were made independently between each dose group and the placebo group using two-sided MH tests stratified on randomization stratification factors: prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region.|32.1|-2.8|=0.101
91079162|NCT05153148|182043951|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|29.0|||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.5|47.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||MH risk difference was summarized along with the 2-sided 95% CI using MH stratum weights and the Sato variance estimator.||Comparisons of PASI-75 responder rates at Week 12 were made independently between each dose group and the placebo group using two-sided MH tests stratified on randomization stratification factors: prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region.|47.6|10.5|=0.002
91079163|NCT05153148|182043952|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.5|||=|0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|19.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||MH risk difference was summarized along with the 2-sided 95% CI using MH stratum weights and the Sato variance estimator.||Comparisons of PhGA-PSO responder rates at Week 12 were made independently between each dose group and the placebo group using two-sided MH tests stratified on randomization stratification factors: prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region.|19.0|-10.0|=0.540
91079164|NCT05153148|182043952|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.2|||=|0.466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|19.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||MH risk difference was summarized along with the 2-sided 95% CI using MH stratum weights and the Sato variance estimator.||Comparisons of PhGA-PSO responder rates at Week 12 were made independently between each dose group and the placebo group using two-sided MH tests stratified on randomization stratification factors: prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region.|19.3|-8.8|=0.466
91106311|NCT03816891|182097797|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.0125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-0.3||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||-0.3|-2.5|0.0125
91106312|NCT03816891|182097797|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|-2.0||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||-2.0|-3.8|<0.0001
91106313|NCT03816891|182097797|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-1.0||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||-1.0|-2.9|<0.0001
91106314|NCT03816891|182097797|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.0198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||-0.2|-2.1|0.0198
91106315|NCT03816891|182097797|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-1.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||-1.2|-3.4|<0.0001
91106316|NCT03816891|182097797|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-0.9||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||-0.9|-3.2|0.0004
91106317|NCT03816891|182097797|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.0969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||0.2|-2.1|0.0969
91106318|NCT03816891|182097797|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|-1.3||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||-1.3|-3.7|<0.0001
91106319|NCT03816891|182097797|SUPERIORITY||ls|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-0.8||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||-0.8|-3.2|0.0012
91106320|NCT03816891|182097797|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.3212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||0.6|-1.9|0.3212
90906924|NCT02084082|181682018|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (FDC/free combination) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted Geometric Means ratio|100.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.023|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.562|104.326|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|Ratio of (FDC 1000\_fasted/ L+M 1000 fasted)|||104.326|96.562|<0.0001
90906925|NCT02084082|181682018|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (FDC/free combination) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Geometric mean ratio (net)|94.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.037||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.712|101.089|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|Ratio of (FDC 1000 Fed/ L+M 1000 Fed)|||101.089|88.712|0.0004
91106321|NCT03816891|182097797|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-0.8||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||-0.8|-3.2|0.0011
91106322|NCT03816891|182097797|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-0.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||-0.6|-3.0|0.0044
90940246|NCT01287416|181760164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62||95.0||||A priori threshold for significance set at p\<.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.62
91106323|NCT03816891|182097797|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.3635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.7||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||0.7|-1.8|0.3635
91106324|NCT03816891|182097797|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.0172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.3||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 18||-0.3|-2.7|0.0172
91106325|NCT03816891|182097797|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.0401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-0.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 18||-0.1|-2.6|0.0401
91106326|NCT03816891|182097797|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.7627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 18||1.1|-1.4|0.7627
90862783|NCT04424888|181589156|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||Paired t-test for the species Clostridium beijerinckii.|No statistical test was conducted since Clostridium beijerinckii was not detected in any sample.|||
90862784|NCT04424888|181589156|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired t-test for the species Clostridium butyricum.||||0.20
90862785|NCT04424888|181589156|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired t-test for the species Anaerobutyricum hallii.||||0.12
90862786|NCT04424888|181589157|OTHER||||||||||||||||||All participants had the same number of sensors (3) throughout the study, so no statistical analysis is conducted.|||
90862787|NCT04424888|181589158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||We test whether the average number of daily photos is greater in period 1 than in period 2.||||0.41
90862788|NCT04424888|181589159|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||We test whether the average time between consecutive scans is smaller in period 1 than in period 2.||||0.13
90862789|NCT03863197|181589161|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The α-level was adjusted to p ≤ 0.01 since multiple parameters were evaluated for most research questions, with a maximum of 5 parameters (functional strength)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.01
91077922|NCT02913105|182041137|OTHER|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.94||||0.3419|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|1.05|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||LDL Cholesterol Friedwald: Day 84||1.05|0.85|0.3419
90862790|NCT03863197|181589162|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The α-level was adjusted to p ≤ 0.01 since multiple parameters were evaluated for most research questions, with a maximum of 5 parameters (functional strength)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.01
90862791|NCT03863197|181589163|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The α-level was adjusted to p ≤ 0.01 since multiple parameters were evaluated for most research questions, with a maximum of 5 parameters (functional strength)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.01
90862792|NCT03863197|181589164|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||The α-level was adjusted to p ≤ 0.01 since multiple parameters were evaluated for most research questions, with a maximum of 5 parameters (functional strength)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.01
90862793|NCT03863197|181589165|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The α-level was adjusted to p ≤ 0.01 since multiple parameters were evaluated for most research questions, with a maximum of 5 parameters (functional strength)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.01
90862794|NCT03863197|181589166|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||The α-level was adjusted to p ≤ 0.01 since multiple parameters were evaluated for most research questions, with a maximum of 5 parameters (functional strength)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.01
90862795|NCT03863197|181589170|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The α-level was adjusted to p ≤ 0.01 since multiple parameters were evaluated for most research questions, with a maximum of 5 parameters (functional strength)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.01
90862796|NCT03863197|181589171|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The α-level was adjusted to p ≤ 0.01 since multiple parameters were evaluated for most research questions, with a maximum of 5 parameters (functional strength)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.01
90862797|NCT03779711|181589172|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8095|||||||ANCOVA|adjusted for baseline FAC||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), adjusted for baseline FAC, is used to assess change in FAC from baseline to 3-months post-surgery.||||0.8095
90862798|NCT03779711|181589173|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3029|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline circumferential strain||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), adjusted for baseline circumferential strain, is used to assess change in circumferential strain from baseline to 3-months post-surgery.||||0.3029
90862799|NCT03779711|181589174|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0323|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline longitudinal strain||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), adjusted for baseline longitudinal strain, is used to assess change in longitudinal strain from baseline to 3-months post-surgery.||||0.0323
90862800|NCT03779711|181589175|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6765|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline FAC.||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), adjusted for baseline FAC, is used to assess change in FAC from baseline to 12-months post-surgery.||||0.6765
90862801|NCT03779711|181589176|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3456|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline FAC||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), adjusted for baseline FAC, is used to assess change in FAC from baseline to discharge.||||0.3456
90862802|NCT03779711|181589177|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.776|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test comparing number of days in hospital post stage-II surgery.||||0.7760
90862803|NCT03779711|181589178|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9563|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test for change in weight from baseline to 3-months post-surgery.||||0.9563
90862804|NCT03779711|181589179|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9095|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test for change in heart rate from baseline to 3-months post-surgery.||||0.9095
90862805|NCT03779711|181589180|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6391|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test for change in oxygen saturation from baseline to 3-months post-surgery.||||0.6391
90862806|NCT03779711|181589187|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8782|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test comparing number of days in hospital post stage-II surgery||||0.8782
90862807|NCT03881670|181589200|OTHER|Friedman test||||||0.0023|||||||Friedman Test|||Change in ratings over time||||0.0023
90862808|NCT03881670|181589200|OTHER|Friedman test||||||0.4679|||||||Friedman Test|||change in ratings over time||||0.4679
90862809|NCT00973674|181589202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.99|||||||Barnard's unconditional Exact Test|||||||0.99
90862810|NCT00973674|181589203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.67||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|3.77|||Log Rank|||||3.77|0.74|.033
90862811|NCT00973674|181589204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.35|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.35
90862812|NCT03113916|181589275|SUPERIORITY||Slope|2.63|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|4.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.20|1.05|=.001
90862813|NCT03113916|181589276|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.49||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.31|-1.29|.23
90862814|NCT03113916|181589277|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.000000676||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00000002|0.00000137|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||.00000137|-.00000002|.06
90862815|NCT03113916|181589278|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-5.64||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|4.73|||Mixed Models Analysis||Values given need to be multiplied by 10 to the power of -10 (i.e., x 10\^-10).|||4.73|-16|.29
90862816|NCT03113916|181589279|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.351||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.277|0.978|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||.978|-.277|.27
90906926|NCT02084082|181682019|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (FDC/free combination) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted Geometric Mean ratio|108.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.054||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.022|117.989|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|Ratio of (FDC 1000\_fasted/ L+M 1000 fasted)|||117.989|99.022|0.0038
90906927|NCT02084082|181682019|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (FDC/free combination) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted Geometric Means ratio|98.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.024|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.067|102.597|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|Ratio of (FDC 1000\_fed / L+M 1000 fed)|||102.597|94.067|<0.0001
91106327|NCT03816891|182097797|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.0827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||0.1|-2.0|0.0827
91106328|NCT03816891|182097797|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.1315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.3||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||0.3|-1.9|0.1315
90906928|NCT02084082|181682020|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (FDC/free combination) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted Geometric Mean ratio|99.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.03|107.47|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|Ratio of (FDC 1000\_fasted/ L+M 1000 fasted)|||107.47|93.03|<0.0001
90906929|NCT02084082|181682020|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (FDC/free combination) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted Geometric Means ratio|96.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.24|101.89|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|Ratio of (FDC 1000\_fed / L+M 1000 fed)|||101.89|92.24|<0.0001
91106329|NCT03816891|182097797|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.6133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.4||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||1.4|-0.8|0.6133
91106330|NCT03816891|182097797|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.3136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.5||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 32||0.5|-1.6|0.3136
90906930|NCT02084082|181682021|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (FDC/free combination) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted Geometric Means ratio|99.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.046|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.464|107.645|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|Ratio of (FDC 1000\_fasted/ L+M 1000 fasted)|||107.645|92.464|<0.0001
90906931|NCT02084082|181682021|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (FDC/free combination) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted Geometric Means ratio|98.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.023|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.95|103.16|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|Ratio of (FDC 1000\_fed / L+M 1000 fed)|||103.160|94.950|<0.0001
90906932|NCT02084082|181682022|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (FDC/free combination) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted Geometric Means ratio|99.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.028|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.163|104.493|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|Ratio of (FDC 1000\_fasted/ L+M 1000 fasted)|||104.493|95.163|<0.0001
90906933|NCT02084082|181682022|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (FDC/free combination) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted Geometric Means ratio|97.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.132||0.0778|TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.082|122.963|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|Ratio of (FDC 1000\_fed / L+M 1000 fed)|||122.963|77.082|0.0778
90906934|NCT02084082|181682023|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (FDC/free combination) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted Geometric Means ratio|99.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.37|106.35|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|Ratio of (FDC 1000\_fasted/ L+M 1000 fasted)|||106.35|92.37|<0.0001
91106331|NCT03816891|182097797|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.3218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.5||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 32||0.5|-1.6|0.3218
90940247|NCT01287416|181760165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||A priori threshold for significance set to p\<.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
90940248|NCT01287416|181760166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||A priori threshold for significance set to p\<.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
90940249|NCT01287416|181760167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.064||95.0||||A priori threshold for significance set to p\<.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.064
91106332|NCT03816891|182097797|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.6576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.3||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 32||1.3|-0.8|0.6576
91106333|NCT03816891|182097797|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.1565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.3||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||0.3|-1.9|0.1565
91106334|NCT03816891|182097797|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.4||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||0.4|-1.7|0.2280
91106335|NCT03816891|182097797|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||1.1|-1.0|0.9400
91106336|NCT03816891|182097797|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.5||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||0.5|-1.8|0.2760
91106337|NCT03816891|182097797|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.4096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.7||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||0.7|-1.6|0.4096
90862817|NCT03113916|181589280|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.015||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.032|0.003|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||.003|-.032|.10
91106338|NCT03816891|182097797|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.8177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.3||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||1.3|-1.0|0.8177
90862818|NCT03113916|181589281|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-11.2||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.0|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.7|-23.0|.07
90862819|NCT03113916|181589282|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.63||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.16|-1.41|.12
90906935|NCT02084082|181682023|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (FDC/free combination) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted Geometric Means ratio|98.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.34|103.27|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|Ratio of (FDC 1000\_fed / L+M 1000 fed)|||103.27|93.34|<0.0001
90906936|NCT01449721|181682052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.064|||||||2-sample z-test|z-test for differences in proportions||Null hypothesis: In patients with moderate severity sepsis, there is no change in the incidence of organ dysfunction within 72 hours associated with the use of an empiric fluid resuscitation algorithm.||||0.064
91106339|NCT03816891|182097798|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-145.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|36.24||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-216.6|-73.3||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||-73.3|-216.6|0.0001
91106340|NCT03816891|182097798|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-106.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|35.82||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-177.2|-35.5||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||-35.5|-177.2|0.0035
91106341|NCT03816891|182097798|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-109.9||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-182.2|-37.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||-37.6|-182.2|0.0031
90862820|NCT03113916|181589283|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.174||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.302|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||.302|.050|.008
90862821|NCT03113916|181589284|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.015||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.029|0.059|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||.059|-.029|.50
90862822|NCT03113916|181589285|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.00003||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.013|0.013|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||.013|-.013|.99
90862823|NCT01758523|181589290|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.002
90862824|NCT01758523|181589291|OTHER|||||||0.028|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.028
90862825|NCT01758523|181589292|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.49||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|6.45|||Chi-squared|||||6.45|0.96|0.057
90862826|NCT01758523|181589293|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.5||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|20.7|||Fisher Exact|||||20.7|1.5|0.007
90862827|NCT01758523|181589294|OTHER|||||||0.87||||||significance for drug x AKR1C3\*2 G-carrier genotype|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.87
90862828|NCT01758523|181589295|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.030
90940250|NCT01287416|181760169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14||95.0||||a priori threshold for significance set a p\<.05.|Fisher Exact|unadjusted model||Null hypothesis was that the groups would not differ in terms of their gatekeeper behaviours||||0.14
91106342|NCT03816891|182097798|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-75.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.9|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-105.2|-46.4||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||-46.4|-105.2|<0.0001
90906937|NCT04447820|181682073|NON_INFERIORITY|Approximately 90 participants were planned. Assuming an effect size delta = 0, pooled SD = 21.38, an alpha = 0.05 (1-sided), and a non-inferiority limit of 15%, a sample size of 26 patients per treatment group provided a power of 0.80. In the case that the actual effect size delta was 10%, the power was then 0.2. If the real effect was different, the result less likely showed non-inferiority. To account for any potential drop off, 30 participants in each treatment group, were planned.||||||0.3084|||||||Mixed Model for repeated measures (MMRM)|||||||0.3084
91106343|NCT03816891|182097798|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-55.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.14||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-85.3|-25.5||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||-25.5|-85.3|0.0003
91106344|NCT03816891|182097798|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-43.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0053||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.5|-13.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||-13.1|-73.5|0.0053
91106345|NCT03816891|182097798|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-42.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.28||0.0472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.6|-0.5||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||-0.5|-84.6|0.0472
91106346|NCT03816891|182097798|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-54.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.11||0.0115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-95.7|-12.3||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||-12.3|-95.7|0.0115
91106347|NCT03816891|182097798|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-31.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.28||0.1453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.2|10.9||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||10.9|-73.2|0.1453
91106348|NCT03816891|182097798|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-88.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|27.58||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-142.5|-33.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||-33.6|-142.5|0.0017
91106349|NCT03816891|182097798|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-71.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|27.87||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-126.8|-16.7||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||-16.7|-126.8|0.0110
91106350|NCT03816891|182097798|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-52.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|28.46||0.0681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-108.5|3.9||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||3.9|-108.5|0.0681
90862829|NCT01893203|181589296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.375|||||||McNemar|||||||0.375
91106351|NCT03816891|182097798|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-45.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.79||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.3|-17.8||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||-17.8|-72.3|0.0013
90862830|NCT00347360|181589330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.1||95.0|||||Hung AVE test, see comments|Hung AVE Test Statistic: -0.41499. Tests an average of the minimum gains (in response) for the 9 combination cells over corresponding monotherapies.||This is an omnibus test to investigate the existence of at least one combination dose that outperforms its components.||||>0.1
90862831|NCT00347360|181589331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.1||95.0|||||Hung AVE test, see comments|Hung AVE Test Statistic: -0.00485. Tests an average of the minimum gains (in response) for the 9 combination cells over corresponding monotherapies.||This is an omnibus test to investigate the existence of at least one combination dose that outperforms its components.||||>0.1
90940251|NCT01287416|181760170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41||95.0||||A priori threshold for significance set at p\<.05.|Chi-squared|Unadjusted model||Null hypothesis was that the groups would not differ on gatekeeper behaviours.||||0.41
91106352|NCT03816891|182097798|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-34.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.96||0.0161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.5|-6.4||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||-6.4|-61.5|0.0161
91106353|NCT03816891|182097798|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-16.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.02||0.2466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.0|11.4||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||11.4|-44.0|0.2466
91106354|NCT03816891|182097798|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-32.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.17||0.0451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.6|-0.7||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 18||-0.7|-64.6|0.0451
91106355|NCT03816891|182097798|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-22.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.43||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.8|10.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 18||10.2|-54.8|0.1770
91106356|NCT03816891|182097798|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.54||0.6893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.3|26.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 18||26.1|-39.3|0.6893
91106357|NCT03816891|182097798|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-37.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.02||0.0087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.0|-9.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||-9.6|-65.0|0.0087
91106358|NCT03816891|182097798|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-29.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.4||0.0439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.7|-0.8||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||-0.8|-57.7|0.0439
91106359|NCT03816891|182097798|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.33||0.511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.8|18.9||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||18.9|-37.8|0.5110
91106360|NCT03816891|182097798|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-28.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.76||0.0592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.2|1.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 32||1.1|-57.2|0.0592
91106361|NCT03816891|182097798|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-18.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.21||0.2327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.3|11.8||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 32||11.8|-48.3|0.2327
91106362|NCT03816891|182097798|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.16||0.8173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.5|26.4||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 32||26.4|-33.5|0.8173
91106363|NCT03816891|182097798|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-27.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.06||0.0725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.1|2.5||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||2.5|-57.1|0.0725
91106364|NCT03816891|182097798|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-23.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.25||0.1285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.5|6.8||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||6.8|-53.5|0.1285
91106365|NCT03816891|182097798|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.82||0.6911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.2|23.4||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||23.4|-35.2|0.6911
91106366|NCT03816891|182097798|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-18.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.24||0.2283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.6|11.7||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||11.7|-48.6|0.2283
91106367|NCT03816891|182097798|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-16.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.6||0.3049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.9|14.8||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||14.8|-46.9|0.3049
90906938|NCT04447820|181682073|NON_INFERIORITY|Approximately 90 participants were planned. Assuming an effect size delta = 0, pooled SD = 21.38, an alpha = 0.05 (1-sided), and a non-inferiority limit of 15%, a sample size of 26 patients per treatment group provided a power of 0.80. In the case that the actual effect size delta was 10%, the power was then 0.2. If the real effect was different, the result less likely showed non-inferiority. To account for any potential drop off, 30 participants in each treatment group, were planned.||||||0.593|||||||Mixed Model for repeated measures (MMRM)|||||||0.5930
91106368|NCT03816891|182097798|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.62||0.7172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.6|25.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||25.2|-36.6|0.7172
91106369|NCT03816891|182097799|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-18.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.1|-12.0||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||-12.0|-24.1|<0.0001
91106370|NCT03816891|182097799|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-11.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.08||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|-5.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||-5.6|-17.8|0.0002
91106371|NCT03816891|182097799|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.08||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.9|-3.8||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||-3.8|-15.9|0.0017
91106372|NCT03816891|182097799|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-21.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.56|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.0|-13.9||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||-13.9|-28.0|<0.0001
91106373|NCT03816891|182097799|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-12.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.52||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.3|-5.4||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||-5.4|-19.3|0.0006
91106374|NCT03816891|182097799|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.53||0.0497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|0.0||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||0.0|-13.9|0.0497
91033114|NCT00048581|181951979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. of Diff: Day 57 ACR 70|5.1||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|9.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|All statistical tests and CI were 2-sided. Percentage of participants with response compared by estimate of difference (Est of Diff)||If ACR20 comparison was significant (5% level), then CMH Chi-square test compared ACR 70 response between groups (5% level). If the ACR20 analysis was not significant (5% level), then the comparison for ACR 70 response was not undertaken. A 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) Chi-square test was used to compare these two treatment groups at the .05 level of significance, with stratification based on baseline history of anti-TNF status (current or prior use).||9.4|0.7|0.019
91106375|NCT03816891|182097799|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-20.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.9|-12.3||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||-12.3|-28.9|<0.0001
90862832|NCT00945893|181589342|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The currently proposed study provided at least 99.9% power to rule out a rate increase of 10 percentage points assuming the true difference between the treatment groups is zero and the true fever rate is ≤ 3%. Power is also high if the true difference is slightly greater than zero and the true fever rate is ≤ 3%.|Rate difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|1.9|||Score|||The upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI was evaluated against the prespecified equivalence criterion of 10% which corresponded to the following hypotheses: H0 (null): Rate Difference ≥ 10%, HA (alternative): Rate Difference \< 10%||1.9|-6.0|
91106376|NCT03816891|182097799|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-16.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.21||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.6|-8.0||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||-8.0|-24.6|0.0002
90862833|NCT00945893|181589343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||rate difference|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|7.7|||score|||The number of participants who experienced a post-dose seroresponse was compared based on the upper limit of the limit of the two-sided 95% exact CI for the rate difference (Vaccine minus Placebo).||7.7|-8.8|
90862834|NCT00945893|181589344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||rate difference|6.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|12.6|||score|||The number of participants who experienced a post-dose seroresponse was compared based on the upper limit of the two-sided 95% exact CIs for the rate difference (Vaccine minus Placebo).||12.6|-5.6|
90862835|NCT00945893|181589345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||rate difference|9.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|16.3|||score|||The number of participants who experienced a post-dose seroresponse was compared based on the upper limit of the limit of the two-sided 95% exact CI for the rate difference (Vaccine minus Placebo).||16.3|-0.8|
90862836|NCT00945893|181589346|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Rates of solicited symptoms following each dose (Days 1 to 8 and Days 1 to 15) between the two treatment groups were compared following each dose. Exact two-sided 95% CIs (Chan and Zhang, 1999) on the rate difference (monovalent vaccine minus placebo) were constructed. There were no prespecified equivalence criteria for the secondary analyses.|Rate difference|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|22.8|||Score|||||22.8|-4.1|
90906939|NCT04447820|181682074|NON_INFERIORITY|Approximately 90 participants were planned. Assuming an effect size delta = 0, pooled SD = 21.38, an alpha = 0.05 (1-sided), and a non-inferiority limit of 15%, a sample size of 26 patients per treatment group provided a power of 0.80. In the case that the actual effect size delta was 10%, the power was then 0.2. If the real effect was different, the result less likely showed non-inferiority. To account for any potential drop off, 30 participants in each treatment group, were planned.||||||0.9788|||||||MMRM|||||||0.9788
90906940|NCT04447820|181682074|NON_INFERIORITY|Approximately 90 participants were planned. Assuming an effect size delta = 0, pooled SD = 21.38, an alpha = 0.05 (1-sided), and a non-inferiority limit of 15%, a sample size of 26 patients per treatment group provided a power of 0.80. In the case that the actual effect size delta was 10%, the power was then 0.2. If the real effect was different, the result less likely showed non-inferiority. To account for any potential drop off, 30 participants in each treatment group, were planned.||||||0.1314|||||||MMRM|||||||0.1314
90906941|NCT04447820|181682075|NON_INFERIORITY|Approximately 90 participants were planned. Assuming an effect size delta = 0, pooled SD = 21.38, an alpha = 0.05 (1-sided), and a non-inferiority limit of 15%, a sample size of 26 patients per treatment group provided a power of 0.80. In the case that the actual effect size delta was 10%, the power was then 0.2. If the real effect was different, the result less likely showed non-inferiority. To account for any potential drop off, 30 participants in each treatment group, were planned.||||||0.884|||||||MMRM analysis|||||||0.8840
90906942|NCT04447820|181682075|NON_INFERIORITY|Approximately 90 participants were planned. Assuming an effect size delta = 0, pooled SD = 21.38, an alpha = 0.05 (1-sided), and a non-inferiority limit of 15%, a sample size of 26 patients per treatment group provided a power of 0.80. In the case that the actual effect size delta was 10%, the power was then 0.2. If the real effect was different, the result less likely showed non-inferiority. To account for any potential drop off, 30 participants in each treatment group, were planned.||||||0.1202|||||||MMRM analysis|||||||0.1202
91106377|NCT03816891|182097799|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.29||0.0362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|-0.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||-0.6|-17.5|0.0362
90862837|NCT00945893|181589349|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Rates of solicited symptoms following each dose (Days 1 to 8 and Days 1 to 15) between the two treatment groups were compared following each dose. Exact two-sided 95% CIs (Chan and Zhang, 1999) on the rate difference (monovalent vaccine minus placebo) were constructed. There were no prespecified equivalence criteria for the secondary analyses.|Rate difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|14.5|||Score|||||14.5|-13.9|
90862838|NCT00945893|181589352|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Rates of solicited symptoms following each dose (Days 1 to 8 and Days 1 to 15) between the two treatment groups were compared following each dose. Exact two-sided 95% CIs (Chan and Zhang, 1999) on the rate difference (monovalent vaccine minus placebo) were constructed. There were no prespecified equivalence criteria for the secondary analyses.|Rate difference|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|11.8|||Score|||||11.8|-14.7|
91106378|NCT03816891|182097799|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-21.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.96|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.8|-13.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||-13.2|-28.8|<0.0001
90862839|NCT00945893|181589355|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Rates of solicited symptoms following each dose (Days 1 to 8 and Days 1 to 15) between the two treatment groups were compared following each dose. Exact two-sided 95% CIs (Chan and Zhang, 1999) on the rate difference (monovalent vaccine minus placebo) were constructed. There were no prespecified equivalence criteria for the secondary analyses.|Rate difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|14.9|||Score|||||14.9|-12.6|
90862840|NCT00945893|181589364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||rate difference|5.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|13.8|||score|||The number of participants who achieved a post Dose 1 HAI titer greater than or equal to 32 against the H1N1 strain was compared based on the upper limit of the two-sided 95% exact CI for the rate difference (Vaccine minus Placebo).||13.8|-7.7|
90862841|NCT00945893|181589365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||rate difference|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.5|5.3|||score|||The number of participants who achieved a post Dose 1 HAI titer greater than or equal to 32 against the H1N1 strain was compared based on the upper limit of the two-sided 95% exact CI for the rate difference (Vaccine minus Placebo).||5.3|-23.5|
90862842|NCT00945893|181589366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||rate difference|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|10.8|||score|||The number of participants who achieved a post Dose 2 HAI titer greater than or equal to 32 against the H1N1 strain was compared based on the upper limit of the two-sided 95% exact CI for the rate difference (Vaccine minus Placebo).||10.8|-9.3|
90862843|NCT01682954|181589402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
90862844|NCT01682954|181589403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
90906943|NCT04447820|181682076|NON_INFERIORITY|Approximately 90 participants were planned. Assuming an effect size delta = 0, pooled SD = 21.38, an alpha = 0.05 (1-sided), and a non-inferiority limit of 15%, a sample size of 26 patients per treatment group provided a power of 0.80. In the case that the actual effect size delta was 10%, the power was then 0.2. If the real effect was different, the result less likely showed non-inferiority. To account for any potential drop off, 30 participants in each treatment group, were planned.||||||0.9353|||||||MMRM|||||||0.9353
90906944|NCT04447820|181682076|NON_INFERIORITY|Approximately 90 participants were planned. Assuming an effect size delta = 0, pooled SD = 21.38, an alpha = 0.05 (1-sided), and a non-inferiority limit of 15%, a sample size of 26 patients per treatment group provided a power of 0.80. In the case that the actual effect size delta was 10%, the power was then 0.2. If the real effect was different, the result less likely showed non-inferiority. To account for any potential drop off, 30 participants in each treatment group, were planned.||||||0.3099|||||||MMRM|||||||0.3099
91106379|NCT03816891|182097799|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-15.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.98||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.5|-7.7||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||-7.7|-23.5|0.0001
91106380|NCT03816891|182097799|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-10.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.3|-2.5||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||-2.5|-18.3|0.0100
91106381|NCT03816891|182097799|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-12.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.27||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.1|-4.3||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 18||-4.3|-21.1|0.0035
91106382|NCT03816891|182097799|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.33||0.0255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.3|-1.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 18||-1.2|-18.3|0.0255
91106383|NCT03816891|182097799|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.31||0.2869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|3.9||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 18||3.9|-13.1|0.2869
91106384|NCT03816891|182097799|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.09||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|0.8||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||0.8|-15.4|0.0760
91106385|NCT03816891|182097799|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.15||0.2673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|3.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||3.6|-12.8|0.2673
91106386|NCT03816891|182097799|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.14||0.732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|6.8||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||6.8|-9.6|0.7320
91106387|NCT03816891|182097799|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.34||0.0726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|0.7||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 32||0.7|-16.4|0.0726
91106388|NCT03816891|182097799|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.41||0.4475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|5.4||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 32||5.4|-12.1|0.4475
91106389|NCT03816891|182097799|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.41||0.6854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|6.9||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 32||6.9|-10.5|0.6854
91106390|NCT03816891|182097799|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5||0.3287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|4.5||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||4.5|-13.3|0.3287
91106391|NCT03816891|182097799|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.49||0.9752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|8.7||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||8.7|-9.0|0.9752
90906945|NCT04447820|181682077|NON_INFERIORITY|Approximately 90 participants were planned. Assuming an effect size delta = 0, pooled SD = 21.38, an alpha = 0.05 (1-sided), and a non-inferiority limit of 15%, a sample size of 26 patients per treatment group provided a power of 0.80. In the case that the actual effect size delta was 10%, the power was then 0.2. If the real effect was different, the result less likely showed non-inferiority. To account for any potential drop off, 30 participants in each treatment group, were planned.||||||0.2098|||||||MMRM|||||||0.2098
90906946|NCT04447820|181682077|NON_INFERIORITY|Approximately 90 participants were planned. Assuming an effect size delta = 0, pooled SD = 21.38, an alpha = 0.05 (1-sided), and a non-inferiority limit of 15%, a sample size of 26 patients per treatment group provided a power of 0.80. In the case that the actual effect size delta was 10%, the power was then 0.2. If the real effect was different, the result less likely showed non-inferiority. To account for any potential drop off, 30 participants in each treatment group, were planned.||||||0.3688|||||||MMRM|||||||0.3688
91106392|NCT03816891|182097799|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.4||0.5761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|11.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||11.2|-6.2|0.5761
91106393|NCT03816891|182097799|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.54||0.2817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|4.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||4.1|-13.9|0.2817
91106394|NCT03816891|182097799|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.56||0.3554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|4.8||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||4.8|-13.3|0.3554
91106395|NCT03816891|182097799|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.57||0.7713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|7.7||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||7.7|-10.4|0.7713
91106396|NCT03816891|182097800|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-24.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.01|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.8|-16.9||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||-16.9|-32.8|<0.0001
91106397|NCT03816891|182097800|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-16.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.6|-8.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||-8.6|-24.6|<0.0001
91106398|NCT03816891|182097800|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-13.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.05||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.2|-5.3||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||-5.3|-21.2|0.0013
91106399|NCT03816891|182097800|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-27.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.5|-19.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||-19.1|-36.5|<0.0001
91106400|NCT03816891|182097800|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-16.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.35||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.4|-8.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||-8.2|-25.4|0.0002
91106401|NCT03816891|182097800|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-8.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.36||0.0511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.2|0.0||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||0.0|-17.2|0.0511
91106402|NCT03816891|182097800|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-27.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.26|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.8|-17.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||-17.1|-37.8|<0.0001
91106403|NCT03816891|182097800|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-21.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.26|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.3|-11.5||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||-11.5|-32.3|<0.0001
91106404|NCT03816891|182097800|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-11.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.37||0.0386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.8|-0.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||-0.6|-21.8|0.0386
91106405|NCT03816891|182097800|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-28.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.9|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.8|-18.4||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||-18.4|-37.8|<0.0001
91106406|NCT03816891|182097800|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-21.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.93|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.0|-11.5||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||-11.5|-31.0|<0.0001
91106407|NCT03816891|182097800|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-12.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.95||0.0108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.5|-3.0||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||-3.0|-22.5|0.0108
91106408|NCT03816891|182097800|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-19.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.39||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.6|-8.4||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 18||-8.4|-29.6|0.0006
91106409|NCT03816891|182097800|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-14.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.45||0.0084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.3|-3.8||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 18||-3.8|-25.3|0.0084
91106410|NCT03816891|182097800|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.43||0.2422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|4.4||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 18||4.4|-17.1|0.2422
91106411|NCT03816891|182097800|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-11.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.17||0.0249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.9|-1.5||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||-1.5|-21.9|0.0249
91106412|NCT03816891|182097800|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.24||0.1497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.9|2.8||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||2.8|-17.9|0.1497
91106413|NCT03816891|182097800|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.23||0.691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|8.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||8.2|-12.4|0.6910
91106414|NCT03816891|182097800|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-12.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.68||0.0331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.4|-1.0||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 32||-1.0|-23.4|0.0331
91106415|NCT03816891|182097800|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.77||0.3709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|6.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 32||6.2|-16.6|0.3709
91106416|NCT03816891|182097800|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.77||0.6924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|9.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 32||9.1|-13.7|0.6924
91106417|NCT03816891|182097800|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-8.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.78||0.1583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.6|3.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||3.2|-19.6|0.1583
91106418|NCT03816891|182097800|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.77||0.7193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|9.3||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||9.3|-13.5|0.7193
91106419|NCT03816891|182097800|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.64||0.7589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|12.9||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||12.9|-9.4|0.7589
91106420|NCT03816891|182097800|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-8.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.91||0.1642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|3.4||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||3.4|-20.0|0.1642
91106421|NCT03816891|182097800|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.94||0.2611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.4|5.0||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||5.0|-18.4|0.2611
91106422|NCT03816891|182097800|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.94||0.8076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|10.3||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||10.3|-13.2|0.8076
91106423|NCT04576455|182097814|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.1757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.1|||Log Rank|Stratified analysis (strata are: site of disease, prior CDK4/6i treatment, and prior fulvestrant treatment).|Giredestrant vs. PCET|||1.10|0.60|0.1757
91106424|NCT04576455|182097815|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||0.3446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.6|||Log Rank|Stratified analysis (strata are: site of disease, prior CDK4/6i treatment, and prior fulvestrant treatment).|Giredestrant vs. PCET|||1.60|0.85|0.3446
91106425|NCT04576455|182097816|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.87||||0.1126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|4.07|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Giredestrant vs. PCET|||4.07|0.86|0.1126
91106426|NCT04576455|182097816|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Objective Response Rates|5.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.97|12.78|||||Giredestrant vs. PCET|||12.78|-1.97|
91106427|NCT04576455|182097818|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.79||||0.0289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|3.04|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Giredestrant vs. PCET|||3.04|1.06|0.0289
91106428|NCT04576455|182097818|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Clinical Benefit Rates|10.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|20.86|||||Giredestrant vs. PCET|||20.86|0.33|
91106429|NCT04576455|182097819|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.03|||Log Rank|Stratified analysis (strata are: site of disease, prior CDK4/6i treatment, and prior fulvestrant treatment).|Giredestrant vs. PCET|This statistical analysis is done for PFS by ESR1 mutation detected at baseline||1.03|0.35|0.0610
91106430|NCT04576455|182097819|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.5947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.42|||Log Rank|Stratified analysis (strata are: site of disease, prior CDK4/6i treatment, and prior fulvestrant treatment).|Giredestrant vs. PCET|This statistical analysis is done for PFS by ESR1 Mutation not detected at baseline||1.42|0.54|0.5947
91106431|NCT04576455|182097820|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.4|||||Giredestrant vs. PCET|||1.40|0.58|
91106432|NCT04576455|182097821|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.12|||||Giredestrant vs. PCET|||1.12|0.49|
91106433|NCT04576455|182097822|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.35|||||Giredestrant vs. PCET|||1.35|0.53|
91106434|NCT04576455|182097823|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.69|||||Giredestrant vs. PCET|||1.69|0.72|
91106435|NCT04576455|182097824|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.18|||||Giredestrant vs. PCET|||1.18|0.47|
91106436|NCT04449055|182097830|SUPERIORITY||chi-square|1.8311||||0.176|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Log-rank test||||0.1760
91106437|NCT04449055|182097831|SUPERIORITY||chi-square|0.8||||0.3711|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank||Median and mean survival times were not estimable due to the small number of dropouts. Thus, we reported the proportion remaining in treatment at 18 days as the descriptive summary measure.|The null hypothesis is that time to discontinuation of psychosocial treatment is not different between groups.||||0.3711
91106438|NCT04449055|182097831|SUPERIORITY||chi-square|0.8||||0.3711|||||||Log Rank|||This test compared time to discontinuation of psychosocial treatment between groups||||0.3711
90959413|NCT00231153|181798904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Net percentage difference|2.25||||0.082||95.0|-0.3|4.81||The primary null hypothesis was tested using the CMH chi-square test stratified region: North America or Europe. Alpha for this test will be 0.05, tow-tailed. No adjustment for multiplicity was performed.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Adequate power was provided to test the null hypothesis that there would be no difference between treatment groups for LCSI. Overall LCSI rate was assumed to be approx. 7.5%, with reduction of LCSI by 40% with omiganan. LCSI rates in placebo and omiganan groups would be 9.375% and 5.625%. Sample size of 1548 in MITT set would provide 80% power to detect this difference between treatments. Sample size was also increased by 19% to account for deaths, for total of 1850 planned patients.||4.81|-0.30|0.082
91106439|NCT04449055|182097832|SUPERIORITY|Exact Wilcoxon rank-sum test comparing changes in temporal correlations between intervention groups.|Difference in median change|-0.711789||||0.1333|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated value reported as difference in median change from baseline to 4 weeks for the MPFC first group minus the median change from baseline to 4-weeks for the DPFC first group.|||||0.1333
91106440|NCT04449055|182097833|SUPERIORITY||Difference in median change|0.2729394||||0.1333|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Exact Wilcoxon rank-sum test of comparing changes in correlations between intervention groups.|Reported as difference in median change from baseline to 4 weeks for the MPFC first group minus median change for from baseline to 4-weeks for the DPFC first group.|||||0.1333
90959414|NCT00231153|181798905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Net percentage difference|3.67||||0.002||95.0|1.4|5.93|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.93|1.40|0.002
91106441|NCT04449055|182097834|SUPERIORITY||Difference in median change|0.2676718||||0.2667|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Exact Wilcoxon rank-sum test comparing changes in functional connectivity from baseline to 4 weeks between intervention groups.|Reported as difference in median change from baseline to 4 weeks for the MPFC first minus the median change from baseline to 4 weeks for the DPFC first group.|||||0.2667
91106442|NCT04449055|182097835|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.0972||0.6829|TWO_SIDED|||||Group by time interaction, with time as second measure date|Mixed Models Analysis||This is the adjusted difference in mean for mPFC first relative to DPFC first.|||||0.6829
91106443|NCT04449055|182097836|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3599|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1018||0.7654|TWO_SIDED|||||Group by time interaction p-value, with time as second (last) measure date|Mixed Models Analysis||This is the adjusted difference in mean for MPFC first relative to DPFC first.|||||0.7654
91106444|NCT04449055|182097837|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.007388|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06256||0.907|TWO_SIDED|||||Group by continuous time interaction|Mixed Models Analysis||Difference in slope for MPFC first versus DPFC first|||||0.9070
91106445|NCT04449055|182097838|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.1095|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0747||0.1427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0369|0.2559||Based on group x continuous time interaction in generalized estimating equation logistic regression model clustered on subject. This is like a mixed model but uses empirical standard error estimates that are independent of covariance structure.|GEE logistic regression clustered on ID||Difference in change in log odds of positive UA for stimulant for MPFC first versus DPFC first. Estimated change in log odds per day in the study.|||0.2559|-0.0369|0.1427
91106446|NCT04449055|182097839|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.02569|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02964||0.3917|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||This is the difference in slope for MPFC first relative to DPFC first.|||||0.3917
91106447|NCT04449055|182097840|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.01759|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01948||0.3829|TWO_SIDED|||||Group by continuous time interaction|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated difference in slope of change per day for MPFC first vs. DLPFC first|||||0.3829
91106448|NCT04449055|182097841|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.01691|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054||0.7595|TWO_SIDED|||||Group by continuous time interaction|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated difference in slope of change per day for MPFC first vs. DLPFC first|||||0.7595
91106449|NCT04449055|182097842|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.04356|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04804||0.3839|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated difference in slope of change per day for MPFC first vs. DLPFC first|||||0.3839
91106450|NCT04449055|182097843|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.005445|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01642||0.7455|TWO_SIDED|||||Group by continuous time interaction|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated difference in slope of change per day for MPFC first vs. DLPFC first|||||0.7455
91106451|NCT04449055|182097844|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.2125|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1159||0.0823|TWO_SIDED|||||Group by continuous time interaction|Mixed Models Analysis||Difference in estimated change per day for MPFC first versus DPFC first|||||0.0823
91106452|NCT04449055|182097845|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.04735|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07382||0.5289|TWO_SIDED|||||Group by continuous time interaction|Mixed Models Analysis||Difference in estimated change per day for MPFC first versus DPFC first|||||0.5289
90862845|NCT02484690|181589425|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|1.57||||0.5244|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.6|4.74||The threshold for statistical significance was an unadjusted 2-sided p-value \<0.2. There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Categorical covariates(cov): RAP/PCV at baseline(BL), treatment group, visit, \& visit by treatment group; Continuous cov: BCVA at BL; Unstructured cov|The mean difference was calculated as Arm B minus Arm A.|The null hypothesis (Ho) was that there was no difference in means between the treatment group (Arm B) and the control group (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha) was that Arm B mean was different from Arm A mean.||4.74|-1.60|0.5244
90862846|NCT02484690|181589425|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.59||||0.5308|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.86|1.67||The threshold for statistical significance was an unadjusted 2-sided p-value \<0.2. There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Categorical covariates(cov): RAP/PCV at baseline(BL), treatment group, visit, \& visit by treatment group; Continuous cov: BCVA at BL; Unstructured cov|The mean difference was calculated as Arm C minus Arm A.|The null hypothesis (Ho) was that there was no difference in means between the treatment group (Arm C) and the control group (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha) was that Arm C mean was different from Arm A mean.||1.67|-4.86|0.5308
90862847|NCT02484690|181589425|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.51||||0.5309|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.62|1.59||The threshold for statistical significance was an unadjusted 2-sided p-value \<0.2. There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Categorical covariates(cov): RAP/PCV at baseline(BL), treatment group, visit, \& visit by treatment group; Continuous cov: BCVA at BL; Unstructured cov|The mean difference was calculated as Arm D minus Arm A.|The null hypothesis (Ho) was that there was no difference in means between the treatment group (Arm D) and the control group (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha) was that Arm D mean was different from Arm A mean.||1.59|-4.62|0.5309
90862848|NCT02484690|181589426|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.68||||0.3034|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.77|0.42||The threshold for statistical significance was an unadjusted 2-sided p-value \<0.2. There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Categorical covariates(cov): RAP/PCV at baseline(BL), treatment group, visit, \& visit by treatment group; Continuous cov: BCVA at BL; Unstructured cov|The mean difference was calculated as Arm E minus Arm A.|The null hypothesis (Ho) was that there was no difference in means between the treatment group (Arm E) and the control group (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha) was that the Arm E mean was different from Arm A mean.||0.42|-3.77|0.3034
91033115|NCT00048581|181951979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. of Diff: Day 85 ACR 20|28.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.4|38.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|All statistical tests and CI were 2-sided. Percentage of participants with response compared by estimate of difference (Est of Diff)||Differences in ACR 20 between the treatment arm receiving ABA plus background DMARDs and the treatment arm receiving PLA plus background DMARDs were compared using a 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) Chi-square test (.05 level of significance), with stratification based on baseline history of anti-TNF status (current or prior use).||38.7|17.4|<0.001
90862849|NCT02484690|181589427|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|5.63||||0.5527|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.52|17.77||The threshold for statistical significance was an unadjusted 2-sided p-value \<0.2. There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons.|Generalized Estimating Equations Model|Categorical covariates: treatment group, visit, and visit by treatment group interaction. An AR(1) covariance structure was also used.|The mean difference was calculated as Arm B minus Arm A.|The null hypothesis (Ho) was that there was no difference in means between the treatment group (Arm B) and the control group (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha) was that Arm B mean was different from Arm A mean.||17.77|-6.52|0.5527
90862850|NCT02484690|181589427|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-3.09||||0.7382|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-14.95|8.76||The threshold for statistical significance was an unadjusted 2-sided p-value \<0.2. There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons.|Generalized Estimating Equations Model|Categorical covariates: treatment group, visit, and visit by treatment group interaction. An AR(1) covariance structure was also used.|The mean difference was calculated as Arm C minus Arm A.|The null hypothesis (Ho) was that there was no difference in means between the treatment group (Arm C) and the control group (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha) was that Arm C mean was different from Arm A mean.||8.76|-14.95|0.7382
90906947|NCT04447820|181682078|NON_INFERIORITY|Approximately 90 participants were planned. Assuming an effect size delta = 0, pooled SD = 21.38, an alpha = 0.05 (1-sided), and a non-inferiority limit of 15%, a sample size of 26 patients per treatment group provided a power of 0.80. In the case that the actual effect size delta was 10%, the power was then 0.2. If the real effect was different, the result less likely showed non-inferiority. To account for any potential drop off, 30 participants in each treatment group, were planned.||||||0.5647|||||||MMRM|||||||0.5647
90959415|NCT00231153|181798906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Net percentage difference|11.4|||<|0.001||95.0|6.7|16.11|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||16.11|6.70|<0.001
91106453|NCT04449055|182097846|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.00231|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06359||0.9714|TWO_SIDED|||||Group by time interaction|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated difference in change per day for MPFC first versus DPFC first|||||0.9714
91106454|NCT04449055|182097847|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.1268|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1153||0.2914|TWO_SIDED|||||Group by continuous time interaction|Mixed Models Analysis||Difference in estimated change per day for MPFC first versus DLPFC first|||||0.2914
91106455|NCT04449055|182097848|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.1609|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.0573|TWO_SIDED|||||Group by continuous time interaction|Mixed Models Analysis||Difference in estimated change per day for MPFC first versus DPFC first|||||0.0573
91106456|NCT04449055|182097849|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.008267|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08675||0.925|TWO_SIDED|||||Group by continuous time interaction|Mixed Models Analysis||Difference in estimated change per day for MPFC first versus DPFC first|||||0.9250
91106457|NCT04449055|182097850|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.000766|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02679||0.9775|TWO_SIDED|||||Group by continuous time interaction|Mixed Models Analysis||Difference in estimated change per day for MPFC first versus DPFC first|||||0.9775
91106458|NCT04449055|182097851|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.002498|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02518||0.9211|TWO_SIDED|||||Group by continuous time interaction|Mixed Models Analysis||Difference in estimated change per day for MPFC first versus DPFC first|||||0.9211
91106459|NCT04449055|182097852|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.2995|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4196||0.5269|TWO_SIDED|||||Group by continuous time interaction|Mixed Models Analysis||Difference in estimated change per day for MPFC first versus DPFC first|||||0.5269
91106460|NCT00124306|182097873|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-0.5||||||IC Symptom Index - change from baseline to 12 weeks||-0.5|-2.5|
91106461|NCT00124306|182097873|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.2||||||IC Problem Index - change from baseline to 12 weeks||-0.2|-2.3|
91106462|NCT00124306|182097873|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|-1.3||||||Wisconsin Symptom Survey - change from baseline to 12 weeks||-1.3|-6.3|
90906948|NCT04447820|181682078|NON_INFERIORITY|Approximately 90 participants were planned. Assuming an effect size delta = 0, pooled SD = 21.38, an alpha = 0.05 (1-sided), and a non-inferiority limit of 15%, a sample size of 26 patients per treatment group provided a power of 0.80. In the case that the actual effect size delta was 10%, the power was then 0.2. If the real effect was different, the result less likely showed non-inferiority. To account for any potential drop off, 30 participants in each treatment group, were planned.||||||0.217|||||||MMRM|||||||0.2170
91106463|NCT06596005|182097884|OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-6.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.871|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.09|-4.64||The LSM, SE, and difference from placebo with 95% CI and nominal P-value are estimated using MMRM, with baseline MDS-UPDRS Part III scores and L-Dopa use as covariates, and treatment group, visit, and group-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|MMRM|||||-4.64|-8.09|<0.0001
91106464|NCT06596005|182097884|OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.886|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.45|-4.95||The LSM, SE, and difference from placebo with 95% CI and nominal P-value are estimated using MMRM, with baseline MDS-UPDRS Part III scores and L-Dopa use as covariates, and treatment group, visit, and group-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|MMRM|||||-4.95|-8.45|<0.0001
91106465|NCT03369704|182097903|OTHER||Least Square Mean|-1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.209|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|-0.62||"H0: Omalizumab is not different to placebo with respect to mean nasal symptom score over the severe symptom period.~H1: Omalizumab is different to placebo with respect to mean nasal symptom score over the severe symptom period."|ANCOVA||nasal symptom score|||-0.62|-1.44|<0.001
91106466|NCT03369704|182097904|OTHER||ANCOVA|-1.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.331|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.55|-1.24|||||Nasal Ocular Symptom|||-1.24|-2.55|
91106467|NCT03369704|182097904|OTHER||ANCOVA|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.159|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|-0.55|||||Ocular symptom|||-0.55|-1.18|
91106468|NCT03369704|182097905|OTHER||ANCOVA|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.229|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|-0.64|||||nasal symptom medication score|||-0.64|-1.55|
91106469|NCT03369704|182097905|OTHER||ANCOVA|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.189|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|-0.58|||||ocular symptom medication score|||-0.58|-1.32|
91106470|NCT03369704|182097905|OTHER||ANCOVA|-2.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.375|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|-1.31|||||nasal ocular symptom medication score|||-1.31|-2.78|
91106471|NCT03369704|182097906|OTHER||ANCOVA|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.073|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.26|||||sneezing score|||-0.26|-0.54|
91106472|NCT03369704|182097906|OTHER||ANCOVA|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.088|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.16|||||rhinorrhea score|||-0.16|-0.51|
91106473|NCT03369704|182097906|OTHER||ANCOVA|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.081|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.13|||||nasal congestion score|||-0.13|-0.45|
91106474|NCT03369704|182097907|OTHER||ANCOVA|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.084|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.3|||||itchy eye score|||-0.30|-0.63|
91106475|NCT03369704|182097907|OTHER||ANCOVA|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.087|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.23|||||watery eye score|||-0.23|-0.57|
91106476|NCT03369704|182097908|OTHER||ANCOVA|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.072|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.2|||||score for impairment of daily activities|||-0.20|-0.48|
91106477|NCT03369704|182097909|OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann Estimate|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|5.0|||van Elteren test||Nasal symptom free days|||5.0|1.0|0.005
91106478|NCT03369704|182097909|OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann Estimate|4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|6.5|||van Elteren test||Ocular symptom free days|||6.5|2.0|<0.001
91106479|NCT03369704|182097910|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.43||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|9.75|||logistic regression||Completely nasal symptom free patients|||9.75|1.21|0.005
91106480|NCT03369704|182097911|OTHER||ANCOVA|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|-0.01|||||Nasal rescue mediation score|||-0.01|-0.14|
91106481|NCT03369704|182097911|OTHER||ANCOVA|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.0|||||Ocular rescue medication score|||0.00|-0.16|
91106482|NCT03369704|182097911|OTHER||ANCOVA|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|-0.04|||||Nasal ocular rescue medication score|||-0.04|-0.28|
91106483|NCT03369704|182097912|OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann Estimate|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.5|||van Elteren test||Nasal rescue mediation free days|||3.5|0.0|0.011
91106484|NCT03369704|182097912|OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann Estimate|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|4.8|||van Elteren test||Ocular rescue medication free days|||4.8|0.0|0.074
91106485|NCT03369704|182097912|OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann Estimate|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|4.0|||van Elteren test||Nasal ocular rescue medication free days|||4.0|0.0|0.098
91106486|NCT03369704|182097913|OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann Estimate|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|0.0|||van Elteren test||Nasal rescue mediation used|||0.0|-4.5|0.006
91106487|NCT03369704|182097913|OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann Estimate|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.81||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|-1.0|||van Elteren test||Ocular rescue medication used|||-1.0|-12.0|0.012
91106488|NCT03369704|182097914|OTHER||ANCOVA|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.086|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.33|||||JRQLQ I|||-0.33|-0.66|
91106489|NCT03369704|182097914|OTHER||ANCOVA|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.093|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.33|||||JRQLQ II|||-0.33|-0.69|
91106490|NCT03369704|182097914|OTHER||ANCOVA|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.4|||||JRQLQ III|||-0.4|-0.8|
91106491|NCT06401551|182097918|NON_INFERIORITY|Study success will be concluded if the upper bound of the one-sided 95.1% confidence interval does not exceed the noninferiority margin of 0.1 logMAR.|Difference in Means|-0.026|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0123|||ONE_SIDED|95.1||-0.0055||The upper boundary of the confidence interval is reported instead of a p-value.|t-test, 1 sided|The upper bound of the one-sided 95.1% confidence limit will be compared to the margin, 0.10 logMAR.|Difference in Means = CPO Pro IOL minus CPO|||-0.0055||
91106492|NCT02445391|182097919|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis for testing non-inferiority of platinum was defined as that the hazard ratio (HR) for platinum/capecitabine ≥ 1.154 (ie, HR of 1.154 was used as the non-inferiority margin). The alternative hypothesis was HR=0.754 for platinum/ capecitabine. The 4-year IDFS rate was expected to be 67% on capecitabine arm.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.81|||||The 95% confidence interval provided above was the Jennison and Turnbull repeated confidence interval.|||1.81|0.62|
91106493|NCT03246529|182097935|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test (by response status and baseline platelet count),||||||<0.0001
91106494|NCT03246529|182097936|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91106495|NCT03246529|182097937|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91106496|NCT06987201|182097974|OTHER|Test for Difference Between Groups|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.398|-1.902|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-1.902|-3.398|<0.001
91106497|NCT04763824|182097975|OTHER|Fisher Exact tests|||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|Also used Fisher exact tests.||Differences in cancer survivorship performance indicators and surveillance rates by tumor types before and after intervention were assessed using Fisher Exact tests.||||<0.05
91106498|NCT04763824|182097977|OTHER|Fisher exact tests|||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||Differences in cancer survivorship performance indicators and surveillance rates by tumor types before and after intervention were assessed using Fisher Exact tests.||||<0.05
91106499|NCT04763824|182097979|OTHER|Fisher exact tests|||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||Differences in cancer survivorship performance indicators and surveillance rates by tumor types before and after intervention were assessed using Fisher Exact tests.||||<0.05
91106500|NCT04763824|182097981|OTHER|Fisher exact test|||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||Differences in cancer survivorship performance indicators and surveillance rates by tumor types before and after intervention were assessed using Fisher Exact tests.||||<0.05
91106501|NCT04763824|182097983|OTHER|Fisher exact test|||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||Differences in cancer survivorship performance indicators and surveillance rates by tumor types before and after intervention were assessed using Fisher Exact tests.||||<0.05
91106502|NCT04763824|182097985|OTHER|Fisher exact test|||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||Differences in cancer survivorship performance indicators and surveillance rates by tumor types before and after intervention were assessed using Fisher Exact tests.||||<0.05
91106503|NCT05135000|182098027|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.7||||0.6843|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.2|2.8|||Log Rank|||||2.8|0.2|0.6843
91106504|NCT04153149|182098123|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.718|||=|0.0118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.555|0.929|||Modified Andersen-Gill Model|||Analysis done using a modified Andersen-Gill model with a robust variance. The model included treatment group, ATTR amyloidosis disease type, New York Heart Association (NYHA) class, age group, and log-transformed baseline N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) as covariates.||0.929|0.555|=0.0118
91106505|NCT04153149|182098124|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.672|||=|0.0162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.487|0.929|||Modified Andersen-Gill Model|||Analysis done using a modified Andersen-Gill model with a robust variance. The model included treatment group, ATTR amyloidosis disease type, NYHA class, age group, and log-transformed baseline NT-proBNP as covariates.||0.929|0.487|=0.0162
91106506|NCT04153149|182098125|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|26.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.66|=|7.97e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.38|39.55|||MMRM|||Analysis done using MMRM with baseline 6-MWT as a covariate and fixed effect terms including treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline tafamidis use, treatment-by-baseline tafamidis use interaction, type of ATTR amyloidosis, and age group. Missing change values due to amyloidosis disease progression and death were imputed using sampling with replacement from the worst 10% of observed values, as specified in the SAP.||39.55|13.38|=0.0000797
91106507|NCT04153149|182098126|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|32.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.19|=|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.03|50.15|||MMRM|||Analysis done using MMRM with baseline 6-MWT as a covariate and fixed effect terms including treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, type of ATTR amyloidosis, and age group. Missing change values due to amyloidosis disease progression and death were imputed using sampling with replacement from the worst 10% of observed values, as specified in the SAP.||50.15|14.03|=0.0005
91106508|NCT04153149|182098127|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.73|=|0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|9.2|||MMRM|||Analysis done using MMRM with baseline KCCQ-OS as a covariate and fixed effect terms including treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline tafamidis use, treatment-by-baseline tafamidis use interaction, type of ATTR amyloidosis, and age group. Missing change values due to death were imputed using sampling with replacement from the worst 10% of observed values, as specified in the SAP.||9.20|2.40|=0.0008
91106509|NCT04153149|182098128|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|8.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4|=|0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.98|13.4|||MMRM|||Analysis done using MMRM with baseline KCCQ-OS as a covariate and fixed effect terms including treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, type of ATTR amyloidosis, and age group. Missing change values due to death were imputed using sampling with replacement from the worst 10% of observed values, as specified in the SAP.||13.40|3.98|=0.0003
91106510|NCT04153149|182098130|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|8.7|||=|0.0217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|16.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Missing change value in NYHA Class due to death were imputed as worsened. All other missing were imputed using multiple imputation approach.|Adjusted difference in percentage of stable or improved (vutrisiran - placebo) participants was estimated. Adjusted difference, 95% CI, and p-value were derived from multiple imputation procedure by combining estimates per Rubin's rules.|||16.1|1.3|=0.0217
91106511|NCT04153149|182098131|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|12.5|||=|0.0121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|22.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Missing change value in NYHA Class due to death were imputed as worsened. All other missing were imputed using multiple imputation approach.|Adjusted difference in percentage of stable or improved (vutrisiran - placebo) participants was estimated. Adjusted difference, 95% CI, and p-value were derived from multiple imputation procedure by combining estimates per Rubin's rules.|||22.2|2.7|=0.0121
91106512|NCT06837116|182098157|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|followed by Dunn's multiple comparisons test||Kruskal-Wallis test followed by Dunn's multiple comparisons test||||< 0.01
91106513|NCT05579249|182098193|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.12|4.78|||Regression, Linear|||Week 52 responses were analysed using a binary regression model with randomized treatment as factor and baseline body weight as covariate.||4.78|2.12|<0.0001
90862851|NCT02484690|181589427|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-7.32||||0.3932|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-18.32|3.67||The threshold for statistical significance was an unadjusted 2-sided p-value \<0.2. There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons.|Generalized Estimating Equations Model|Categorical covariates: treatment group, visit, and visit by treatment group interaction. An AR(1) covariance structure was also used.|The mean difference was calculated as Arm D minus Arm A.|The null hypothesis (Ho) was that there was no difference in means between the treatment group (Arm D) and the control group (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha) was that Arm D mean was different from Arm A mean.||3.67|-18.32|0.3932
91106514|NCT03516942|182098211|EQUIVALENCE|No margin of equivalence|Slope|0.0||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2||P value: For the categorical variable with more than 2 levels, this is the p value from the overall test of the null hypothesis that all estimates are equal against the alternative that at least one is different.|Regression, Linear|||"Age covariate effect on change in COST The linear (non-longitudinal) model of \[change in COST from baseline to 12-month follow-up\] included covariates for: age, Baseline COST score, cancer stage, cancer type, chemotherapy, comorbidities, education, FACT-G7, gender, income, marital status, insurance status, race, safety-net hospital, self-efficacy, NDI.~Null: All estimates are equal"||0.2|-0.1|0.74
91106515|NCT03516942|182098211|EQUIVALENCE|No margin of equivalence|Slope|-0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.3||P value: For the categorical variable with more than 2 levels, this is the p value from the overall test of the null hypothesis that all estimates are equal against the alternative that at least one is different.|Regression, Linear|||"Baseline COST effect on change in COST The linear (non-longitudinal) model of \[change in COST from baseline to 12-month follow-up\] included covariates for: age, Baseline COST score, cancer stage, cancer type, chemotherapy, comorbidities, education, FACT-G7, gender, income, marital status, insurance status, race, safety-net hospital, self-efficacy, NDI.~Null: All estimates are equal"||-0.3|-0.6|<0.001
91106516|NCT03516942|182098211|EQUIVALENCE|No margin of equivalence||||||0.002||||||This is the p value of the null hypothesis that COST estimates for all cancer types (Colon cancer, Rectal cancer and Rectosigmoid) are equal against the alternative that at least one is different.|Regression, Linear|||"Cancer type (Colon cancer, Rectal cancer and Rectosigmoid) effect on change in COST The linear (non-longitudinal) model of \[change in COST from baseline to 12-month follow-up\] included covariates for: age, Baseline COST score, cancer stage, cancer type, chemotherapy, comorbidities, education, FACT-G7, gender, income, marital status, insurance status, race, safety-net hospital, self-efficacy, NDI.~Null: All estimates are equal"||||0.002
91106517|NCT03516942|182098211|EQUIVALENCE|No margin of equivalence|Slope|0.3||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.6|||Regression, Linear|||"FACT-G7 effect on change in COST The linear (non-longitudinal) model of \[change in COST from baseline to 12-month follow-up\] included covariates for: age, Baseline COST score, cancer stage, cancer type, chemotherapy, comorbidities, education, FACT-G7, gender, income, marital status, insurance status, race, safety-net hospital, self-efficacy, NDI.~Null: All estimates are equal"||0.6|0.0|0.03
91106518|NCT03516942|182098211|EQUIVALENCE|No margin of equivalence|Slope|1.6||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|3.7|||Regression, Linear|||"Gender effect on change in COST The linear (non-longitudinal) model of \[change in COST from baseline to 12-month follow-up\] included covariates for: age, Baseline COST score, cancer stage, cancer type, chemotherapy, comorbidities, education, FACT-G7, gender, income, marital status, insurance status, race, safety-net hospital, self-efficacy, NDI.~Null: All estimates are equal"||3.7|-0.5|0.13
90906949|NCT04447820|181682079|NON_INFERIORITY|Approximately 90 participants were planned. Assuming an effect size delta = 0, pooled SD = 21.38, an alpha = 0.05 (1-sided), and a non-inferiority limit of 15%, a sample size of 26 patients per treatment group provided a power of 0.80. In the case that the actual effect size delta was 10%, the power was then 0.2. If the real effect was different, the result less likely showed non-inferiority. To account for any potential drop off, 30 participants in each treatment group, were planned.||||||0.2562|||||||MMRM|||||||0.2562
91106519|NCT03516942|182098211|EQUIVALENCE|No margin of equivalence||||||0.91||||||This is the p value of the null hypothesis that COST estimates for all RACES (White, Black, other) are equal against the alternative that at least one is different.|Regression, Linear|||"RACE (White. Black Other) effect on change in COST The linear (non-longitudinal) model of \[change in COST from baseline to 12-month follow-up\] included covariates for: age, Baseline COST score, cancer stage, cancer type, chemotherapy, comorbidities, education, FACT-G7, gender, income, marital status, insurance status, race, safety-net hospital, self-efficacy, NDI.~Null: All estimates are equal"||||0.91
91106520|NCT03516942|182098211|EQUIVALENCE|No margin of equivalence|Slope|0.0|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3|||Regression, Linear|||"Neighborhood Deprivation (NDI) effect on change in COST The linear (non-longitudinal) model of \[change in COST from baseline to 12-month follow-up\] included covariates for: age, Baseline COST score, cancer stage, cancer type, chemotherapy, comorbidities, education, FACT-G7, gender, income, marital status, insurance status, race, safety-net hospital, self-efficacy, NDI.~Higher NDI = greater neighborhood deprivation"||0.3|-0.3|>0.99
91106521|NCT03516942|182098213|EQUIVALENCE|no margin||||||0.4142||||||alpha=0.05|McNemar|||Work Time Missed from Baseline to 6 Months||||0.4142
91106522|NCT03516942|182098213|EQUIVALENCE|no margin||||||0.1797|||||||McNemar|||Impairment of Activities at Work from Baseline to 6 Months||||0.1797
91106523|NCT03516942|182098213|EQUIVALENCE|no margin||||||0.8415|||||||McNemar|||Overall Work Impairment from Baseline to 6 Months||||0.8415
91106524|NCT03516942|182098213|EQUIVALENCE|no margin||||||0.6831|||||||McNemar|||Impairment of Activities Outside of Work from Baseline to 6 Months||||0.6831
90906950|NCT04447820|181682079|NON_INFERIORITY|Approximately 90 participants were planned. Assuming an effect size delta = 0, pooled SD = 21.38, an alpha = 0.05 (1-sided), and a non-inferiority limit of 15%, a sample size of 26 patients per treatment group provided a power of 0.80. In the case that the actual effect size delta was 10%, the power was then 0.2. If the real effect was different, the result less likely showed non-inferiority. To account for any potential drop off, 30 participants in each treatment group, were planned.||||||0.4268|||||||MMRM|||||||0.4268
91106525|NCT03516942|182098213|EQUIVALENCE|no margin|||||<|0.0001|||||||McNemar|||Work Time Missed from Baseline to 12 Months||||<.0001
91106526|NCT03516942|182098213|EQUIVALENCE|no margin||||||0.0455|||||||McNemar|||Impairment of Activities at Work from Baseline to 12 Months||||0.0455
91106527|NCT03516942|182098213|EQUIVALENCE|no margin|||||<|0.0001|||||||McNemar|||Overall Work Impairment from Baseline to 12 Months||||<.0001
91106528|NCT03516942|182098213|EQUIVALENCE|no margin||||||0.0164|||||||McNemar|||3 Impairment of Activities Outside of Work from Baseline to 12 Months||||0.0164
91106529|NCT03516942|182098213|EQUIVALENCE|nomargin||||||0.0027|||||||McNemar|||Work Time Missed from Baseline to 24 Months||||0.0027
91106530|NCT03516942|182098213|EQUIVALENCE|no margin||||||0.0124|||||||McNemar|||Impairment of Activities at Work from Baseline to 24 Months||||0.0124
91106531|NCT03516942|182098213|EQUIVALENCE|no margin|||||<|0.0001|||||||McNemar|||Overall Work Impairment from Baseline to 24 Months||||<.0001
91106532|NCT03516942|182098213|EQUIVALENCE|no margin||||||0.0011|||||||McNemar|||Impairment of Activities Outside of Work from Baseline to 24 Months||||0.0011
91106533|NCT03516942|182098219|EQUIVALENCE|no equivalence margin was assumed||||||0.017|||||||McNemar|||the McNemar test was used to compare the results assuming a null of no difference.||||0.017
91106534|NCT05028517|182098220|SUPERIORITY||ANOVA Omnibus F test|0.511||||0.602|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Mean comparisons of 3 separate groups using repeated measures ANOVA, including baseline and 12 week data. Participants with missing data were excluded. All participants were retained in their originally assigned group regardless of app usage.||||.602
91106535|NCT05028517|182098220|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|-0.22||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.23||False discovery rate (FDR) correction for multiple comparisons, p=.334.|Regression, Linear|||The FMF Connect + Coaching and FMF Connect groups were aggregated for analyses. Analyses were intent-to-treat, including all participants assigned to condition. Full information maximum likelihood (FMIL) was used for missing data in MPlus. Baseline and FMF Connect group status were entered into the regression model simultaneously. The dependent variable entered was the measure at the 12-week follow-up to determine treatment effects.||0.23|-0.69|.33
91106536|NCT05028517|182098221|SUPERIORITY||ANOVA Omnibus F test|1.245||||0.294|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Mean comparisons of 3 separate groups using repeated measures ANOVA, including baseline, 6 week, and 12 week data. Participants with missing data were excluded. All participants were retained in their originally assigned group regardless of app usage.||||.294
91106537|NCT05028517|182098221|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.524||||||False discovery rate (FDR) correction for multiple comparisons, p=.602|Mixed Models Analysis|F(2) = .652||The FMF Connect + Coaching and FMF Connect groups were aggregated for analyses. Analyses were intent-to-treat, including all participants assigned to condition. Multiple imputation was used for missing data in SPSS. Analyses utilized linear mixed modeling for variables collected at the three timepoints.||||.524
91106538|NCT05028517|182098222|SUPERIORITY||Anova Omnibus F test|2.585||||0.039|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Mean comparisons of 3 separate groups using repeated measures ANOVA, including baseline, 6 week, and 12 week data. Participants with missing data were excluded. All participants were retained in their originally assigned group regardless of app usage.||||.039
91106539|NCT05028517|182098222|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.548||||||False discovery rate (FDR) correction for multiple comparisons, p=.893|Mixed Models Analysis|F(2) = .606||The FMF Connect + Coaching and FMF Connect groups were aggregated for analyses. Analyses were intent-to-treat, including all participants assigned to condition. Multiple imputation was used for missing data. Analyses utilized linear mixed modeling for variables collected at the three timepoints.||||.548
91106540|NCT05028517|182098223|SUPERIORITY||Anova Omnibus F test|2.723||||0.032|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Mean comparisons of 3 separate groups using repeated measures ANOVA, including baseline, 6 week, and 12 week data. Participants with missing data were excluded. All participants were retained in their originally assigned group regardless of app usage.||||0.032
91106541|NCT05028517|182098223|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013||||||False discovery rate (FDR) correction for multiple comparisons, p=.143|Mixed Models Analysis|F(2) = 4.595||The FMF Connect + Coaching and FMF Connect groups were aggregated for analyses. Analyses were intent-to-treat, including all participants assigned to condition. Multiple imputation was used for missing data. Analyses utilized linear mixed modeling for variables collected at the three timepoints.||||.013
91106542|NCT05028517|182098224|SUPERIORITY||Anova Omnibus F test|0.588||||0.672|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Mean comparisons of 3 separate groups using repeated measures ANOVA, including baseline, 6 week, and 12 week data. Participants with missing data were excluded. All participants were retained in their originally assigned group regardless of app usage.||||0.672
91106543|NCT05028517|182098224|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.463||||||False discovery rate (FDR) correction for multiple comparisons, p=.893|Mixed Models Analysis|F(2) = .776||The FMF Connect + Coaching and FMF Connect groups were aggregated for analyses. Analyses were intent-to-treat, including all participants assigned to condition. Multiple imputation was used for missing data. Analyses utilized linear mixed modeling for variables collected at the three timepoints.||||.463
91106544|NCT05028517|182098225|SUPERIORITY||Anova Omnibus F test|2.612||||0.038|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Mean comparisons of 3 separate groups using repeated measures ANOVA, including baseline, 6 week, and 12 week data. Participants with missing data were excluded. All participants were retained in their originally assigned group regardless of app usage.||||0.038
91106545|NCT05028517|182098225|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.084||||||False discovery rate (FDR) correction for multiple comparisons, p=.462|Mixed Models Analysis|F(2) = 2.544||The FMF Connect + Coaching and FMF Connect groups were aggregated for analyses. Analyses were intent-to-treat, including all participants assigned to condition. Multiple imputation was used for missing data. Analyses utilized linear mixed modeling for variables collected at the three timepoints.||||.084
91106546|NCT05028517|182098226|SUPERIORITY||Anova Omnibus F test|0.196||||0.94|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Mean comparisons of 3 separate groups using repeated measures ANOVA, including baseline, 6 week, and 12 week data. Participants with missing data were excluded. All participants were retained in their originally assigned group regardless of app usage.||||.940
90862852|NCT02484690|181589428|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Participants|-5.71||||0.2328|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-10.74|-0.69||The threshold for statistical significance was an unadjusted 2-sided p-value \<0.2. There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact||The difference was calculated as Arm E minus Arm A.|The null hypothesis (Ho) was that there was no difference between the treatment group (Arm E) and the control group (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha) was that Arm E was different from Arm A.||-0.69|-10.74|0.2328
90906951|NCT01822821|181682086|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was tested using a noninferiority margin of 1.15.|ratio of geometric means|0.89||||0.08|ONE_SIDED|90.0||1.06|||Regression, Linear||Ratio of geometric means (CI) for IV acetaminophen versus placebo was estimated as the exponentiated treatment effect parameter from a multivariable linear regression model on log opioid consumption adjusting for age and diabetes.|||1.06||0.08
90906952|NCT01822821|181682086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric means|0.89||||0.28|ONE_SIDED|95.0||1.1|||Regression, Linear||Ratio of geometric means (CI) for IV acetaminophen versus placebo was estimated as the exponentiated treatment effect parameter from a multivariable linear regression model on log opioid consumption adjusting for age and diabetes.|||1.10||0.28
90906953|NCT01822821|181682087|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|We assessed whether IV acetaminophen is noninferior to placebo using a noninferiority margin of 1.0.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|90.0||-0.5|||Regression, Linear||Difference in overall postoperative pain score means based on a repeated measures linear regression model with an autoregressive correlation structure, adjusting for age, time, and diabetes.|||-0.5||< 0.001
90906954|NCT01822821|181682087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||-0.42|||Regression, Linear||Difference in overall postoperative pain score means based on a repeated measures linear regression model with an autoregressive correlation structure, adjusting for age, time, and diabetes.|||-0.42||< 0.001
90862853|NCT02484690|181589429|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.52||||0.9581|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-13.26|12.22||The threshold for statistical significance was an unadjusted 2-sided p-value \<0.2. There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons.|Generalized Estimating Equations Model|Categorical covariates: treatment group, visit, and visit by treatment group interaction. An AR(1) covariance structure was also used.|The mean difference was calculated as Arm B minus Arm A.|The null hypothesis (Ho) was that there was no difference in means between the treatment group (Arm B) and the control group (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha) was that Arm B mean was different from Arm A mean.||12.22|-13.26|0.9581
91106547|NCT05028517|182098226|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.961||||||False discovery rate (FDR) correction for multiple comparisons, p=.961|Mixed Models Analysis|F(2) = .040||The FMF Connect + Coaching and FMF Connect groups were aggregated for analyses. Analyses were intent-to-treat, including all participants assigned to condition. Multiple imputation was used for missing data. Analyses utilized linear mixed modeling for variables collected at the three timepoints.||||.961
91106548|NCT05028517|182098227|SUPERIORITY||Anova Omnibus F test|0.59||||0.671|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Mean comparisons of 3 separate groups using repeated measures ANOVA, including baseline, 6 week, and 12 week data. Participants with missing data were excluded. All participants were retained in their originally assigned group regardless of app usage.||||.671
91106549|NCT05028517|182098227|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19||||||False discovery rate (FDR) correction for multiple comparisons, p=.523|Mixed Models Analysis|F(2)=1.696||The FMF Connect + Coaching and FMF Connect groups were aggregated for analyses. Analyses were intent-to-treat, including all participants assigned to condition. Multiple imputation was used for missing data. Analyses utilized linear mixed modeling for variables collected at the three timepoints.||||.190
91106550|NCT05028517|182098228|SUPERIORITY||Anova Omnibus F test|0.896||||0.468|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Mean comparisons of 3 separate groups using repeated measures ANOVA, including baseline, 6 week, and 12 week data. Participants with missing data were excluded. All participants were retained in their originally assigned group regardless of app usage.||||.468
91106551|NCT05028517|182098228|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.683||||||False discovery rate (FDR) correction for multiple comparisons, p=.817|Mixed Models Analysis|F(2) = .384||The FMF Connect + Coaching and FMF Connect groups were aggregated for analyses. Analyses were intent-to-treat, including all participants assigned to condition. Multiple imputation was used for missing data. Analyses utilized linear mixed modeling for variables collected at the three timepoints.||||.683
91106552|NCT05028517|182098229|SUPERIORITY||Anova Omnibus F test|3.42||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Mean comparisons of 3 separate groups using repeated measures ANOVA, including baseline, 6 week, and 12 week data. Participants with missing data were excluded. All participants were retained in their originally assigned group regardless of app usage.||||0.01
91106553|NCT05028517|182098229|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.131||||||False discovery rate (FDR) correction for multiple comparisons, p=.480|Mixed Models Analysis|F(2)=2.081||The FMF Connect + Coaching and FMF Connect groups were aggregated for analyses. Analyses were intent-to-treat, including all participants assigned to condition. Multiple imputation was used for missing data. Analyses utilized linear mixed modeling for variables collected at the three timepoints.||||.131
90906955|NCT01822821|181682088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.76||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|99.4|0.34|1.7|||Regression, Logistic||Relative risk of PONV in IV acetaminophen versus placebo patients estimated from a multivariable logistic regression model using the log link and adjusting for age and diabetes.|||1.7|0.34|0.35
90959416|NCT00320541|181798907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.117||95.0||||Statistical significance at 0.05 level was required.|Fisher Exact|||Assuming the response rate for the PB arm is 34% and the addition of gemcitabine will improve it to 54%, then a sample size of 170 evaluable participants (85 per arm) will give an 80% statistical power to detect the difference, using a 1-sided test at the significance level of 0.05. Confidence levels are exact binomial 95% Confidence Intervals.||||0.117
90959417|NCT00320541|181798908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.247||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.247
90959418|NCT00320541|181798909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.475||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.475
91106554|NCT05028517|182098230|SUPERIORITY||Anova Omnibus F test|1.384||||0.257|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Mean comparisons of 3 separate groups using repeated measures ANOVA, including baseline and 12 week data. Participants with missing data were excluded. All participants were retained in their originally assigned group regardless of app usage.||||.257
91106555|NCT05028517|182098230|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|0.49||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.94||False discovery rate (FDR) correction for multiple comparisons, p=.055|Regression, Linear|||The FMF Connect + Coaching and FMF Connect groups were aggregated for analyses. Analyses were intent-to-treat, including all participants assigned to condition. Full information maximum likelihood (FMIL) was used for missing data in MPlus. Baseline and FMF Connect group status were entered into the regression model simultaneously. The dependent variable entered was the measure at the 12-week follow-up to determine treatment effects.||0.94|-0.02|.039
91106556|NCT05028517|182098231|SUPERIORITY||Anova Omnibus F test|1.686||||0.192|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Mean comparisons of 3 separate groups using repeated measures ANOVA, including baseline and 12 week data. Participants with missing data were excluded. All participants were retained in their originally assigned group regardless of app usage.||||.192
91106557|NCT05028517|182098231|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|0.47||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.93||False discovery rate (FDR) correction for multiple comparisons, p=.055|Regression, Linear|||The FMF Connect + Coaching and FMF Connect groups were aggregated for analyses. Analyses were intent-to-treat, including all participants assigned to condition. Full information maximum likelihood (FMIL) was used for missing data in MPlus. Baseline and FMF Connect group status were entered into the regression model simultaneously. The dependent variable entered was the measure at the 12-week follow-up to determine treatment effects.||0.93|0.02|.039
90906956|NCT01822821|181682089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|99.8|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Difference in medians of IV acetaminophen versus placebo patients based on Wilcoxon rank sum test and Hodges-Lehmann estimation of location shift.|Analysis at 8 hours after surgery.||0|0|0.13
90959419|NCT00320541|181798910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included treatment arm and baseline assessment.||||||0.010
90959420|NCT00320541|181798911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.119||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included treatment arm and baseline assessment.||||||0.119
90959421|NCT00320541|181798912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included treatment arm and baseline assessment.||||||0.023
90959422|NCT00320541|181798913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included treatment arm and baseline assessment.||||||0.002
90959423|NCT00320541|181798914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included treatment arm and baseline assessment.||||||0.004
90959424|NCT00320541|181798915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.067||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included treatment arm and baseline assessment.||||||0.067
90959425|NCT00320541|181798916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included treatment arm and baseline assessment.||||||0.036
90959426|NCT01097785|181798917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||||||<0.05
90959427|NCT01097785|181798918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||||||<0.05
90959428|NCT00440999|181798925|NON_INFERIORITY|The primary efficacy analysis tested the non-inferiority of the PA group compared to the comparator group with regard to the crude cure rate on Day 14 using the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) (Newcombe-Wilson score method without continuity correction) and a 10% non-inferiority margin. Non-inferiority was claimed if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in cure rates on Day 14 was \>10%.|Difference in cure rate|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|1.4|||||Conclusion: non-inferiority between PA \& chloroquine.|"Null hypothesis: The cure rate on Day 14 for the PA group is inferior to the cure rate on Day 14 for the chloroquine group by more than 10%.~Was tested against the alternative:~Alternative hypothesis: The cure rate on Day 14 for the PA group was not inferior to the cure rate on Day 14 for the chloroquine group by more than 10%."||1.4|-2.6|
91106558|NCT05028517|182098232|SUPERIORITY||Anova Omnibus F test|0.651||||0.524|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Mean comparisons of 3 separate groups using ANOVA for 12 week data. Participants with missing data were excluded. All participants were retained in their originally assigned group regardless of app usage.||||.524
90959429|NCT01122862|181798934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.21||||0.0915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.03||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for treatment, period and subject (random) with baseline as a covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments being compared.||0.03|-0.45|0.0915
90959430|NCT01122862|181798935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|1.9||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for treatment, period and subject (random) with baseline as a covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference in treatments being compared.||1.90|1.42|<0.0001
90959431|NCT01122862|181798936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.04||||0.6682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.21|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for treatment, period and subject (random) with baseline as a covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments being compared.||0.21|-0.14|0.6682
91106559|NCT05028517|182098232|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|0.46||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.91||False discovery rate (FDR) correction for multiple comparisons, p=.066|Regression, Linear|||The FMF Connect + Coaching and FMF Connect groups were aggregated for analyses. Analyses were intent-to-treat, including all participants assigned to condition. Full information maximum likelihood (FMIL) was used for missing data in MPlus. The dependent variable entered was the measure at the 12-week follow-up to determine treatment effects.||0.91|0.00|.048
90959432|NCT01122862|181798936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean DIfference|0.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.92||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for treatment, period and subject (random) with baseline as a covariate|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments being compared.||0.92|0.57|<0.0001
90959433|NCT01122862|181798937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.05||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for treatment, period and subject (random) with baseline as a covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments being compared.||0.05|-0.44|0.1100
90959434|NCT01122862|181798937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|1.93||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for treatment, period and subject (random) with baseline as a covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments being compared.||1.93|1.44|<0.0001
90959435|NCT01122862|181798938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.03||||0.728||95.0|-0.16|0.23||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for treatment, period and subject (random) with baseline as a covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments being compared.||0.23|-0.16|0.7280
90959436|NCT01122862|181798938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.88|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.08||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for treatment, period and subject (random) with baseline as a covariate|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments being compared.||1.08|0.68|<0.0001
90959437|NCT01178671|181798970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.17
90959438|NCT01178671|181798971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.82
91106560|NCT05028517|182098233|SUPERIORITY||Anova Omnibus F test|1.32||||0.255|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.255
91106561|NCT05089656|182098234|SUPERIORITY||LS-Means difference|1.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.0074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|3.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at End of Follow-up Period 1||3.25|0.51|0.0074
90862854|NCT02484690|181589429|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-10.08||||0.3166|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-22.99|2.82||The threshold for statistical significance was an unadjusted 2-sided p-value \<0.2. There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons.|Generalized Estimating Equations Model|Categorical covariates: treatment group, visit, and visit by treatment group interaction. An AR(1) covariance structure was also used.|The mean difference was calculated as Arm C minus Arm A.|The null hypothesis (Ho) was that there was no difference in means between the treatment group (Arm C) and the control group (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha) was that Arm C mean was different from Arm A mean.||2.82|-22.99|0.3166
90862855|NCT02484690|181589429|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-7.68||||0.4244|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-20.01|4.64||The threshold for statistical significance was an unadjusted 2-sided p-value \<0.2. There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons.|Generalized Estimating Equations Model|Categorical covariates: treatment group, visit, and visit by treatment group interaction. An AR(1) covariance structure was also used.|The mean difference was calculated as Arm D minus Arm A.|The null hypothesis (Ho) was that there was no difference in means between the treatment group (Arm D) and the control group (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha) was that Arm D mean was different from Arm A mean.||4.64|-20.01|0.4244
90862856|NCT02484690|181589430|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Participants|-6.64||||0.5586|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-18.6|5.32||The threshold for statistical significance was an unadjusted 2-sided p-value \<0.2. There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact||The difference was calculated as Arm E minus Arm A.|The null hypothesis (Ho) was that there was no difference between the treatment group (Arm E) and the control group (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha) was that Arm E was different from Arm A.||5.32|-18.60|0.5586
90862857|NCT02484690|181589431|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|1.0||||0.8536|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.93|7.93||The threshold for statistical significance was an unadjusted 2-sided p-value \<0.2. There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons.|Generalized Estimating Equations Model|Categorical covariates: treatment group, visit, and visit by treatment group interaction. An AR(1) covariance structure was also used.|The mean difference was calculated as Arm B minus Arm A.|The null hypothesis (Ho) was that there was no difference in means between the treatment group (Arm B) and the control group (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha) was that Arm B mean was different from Arm A mean.||7.93|-5.93|0.8536
90862858|NCT02484690|181589431|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|8.14||||0.2303|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.56|16.83||The threshold for statistical significance was an unadjusted 2-sided p-value \<0.2. There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons.|Generalized Estimating Equations Model|Categorical covariates: treatment group, visit, and visit by treatment group interaction. An AR(1) covariance structure was also used.|The mean difference was calculated as Arm C minus Arm A.|The null hypothesis (Ho) was that there was no difference in means between the treatment group (Arm C) and the control group (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha) was that Arm C mean was different from Arm A mean.||16.83|-0.56|0.2303
90862859|NCT02484690|181589431|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|1.08||||0.8406|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.79|7.95||The threshold for statistical significance was an unadjusted 2-sided p-value \<0.2. There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons.|Generalized Estimating Equations Model|Categorical covariates: treatment group, visit, and visit by treatment group interaction. An AR(1) covariance structure was also used.|The mean difference was calculated as Arm D minus Arm A.|The null hypothesis (Ho) was that there was no difference in means between the treatment group (Arm D) and the control group (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha) was that Arm D mean was different from Arm A mean.||7.95|-5.79|0.8406
90862860|NCT02484690|181589432|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Participants|-0.77||||1|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-11.23|9.68||The threshold for statistical significance was an unadjusted 2-sided p-value \<0.2. There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact||The difference was calculated as Arm E minus Arm A.|The null hypothesis (Ho) was that there was no difference between the treatment group (Arm E) and the control group (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha) was that Arm E was different from Arm A.||9.68|-11.23|1.0000
90959439|NCT01178671|181798972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.14
90862861|NCT02484690|181589433|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|12.65||||0.3798|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.81|31.11||The threshold for statistical significance was an unadjusted 2-sided p-value \<0.2. There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Categorical covariates(cov): RAP/PCV at baseline(BL), treatment group, visit, \& visit by treatment group; Continuous cov: FCPT at BL; Unstructured cov|The mean difference was calculated as Arm B minus Arm A.|The null hypothesis (Ho) was that there was no difference in means between the treatment group (Arm B) and the control group (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha) was that Arm B mean was different from Arm A mean.||31.11|-5.81|0.3798
90862862|NCT02484690|181589433|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.88||||0.9529|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-18.3|20.03||The threshold for statistical significance was an unadjusted 2-sided p-value \<0.2. There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Categorical covariates(cov): RAP/PCV at baseline(BL), treatment group, visit, \& visit by treatment group; Continuous cov: FCPT at BL; Unstructured cov|The mean difference was calculated as Arm C minus Arm A.|The null hypothesis (Ho) was that there was no difference in means between the treatment group (Arm C) and the control group (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha) was that Arm C mean was different from Arm A mean.||20.03|-18.3|0.9529
90906957|NCT01822821|181682089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|99.8|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Difference in medians of IV acetaminophen versus placebo patients based on Wilcoxon rank sum test and Hodges-Lehmann estimation of location shift.|Analysis at 16 hours after surgery.||0|0|0.44
90906958|NCT01822821|181682089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|99.8|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Difference in medians of IV acetaminophen versus placebo patients based on Wilcoxon rank sum test and Hodges-Lehmann estimation of location shift.|Analysis at 24 hours after surgery||0|0|0.38
90959440|NCT01178671|181798973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.50
90959441|NCT01178671|181798974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.023
90862863|NCT02484690|181589433|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|32.81||||0.0208|TWO_SIDED|80.0|14.65|50.96||The threshold for statistical significance was an unadjusted 2-sided p-value \<0.2. There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Categorical covariates(cov): RAP/PCV at baseline(BL), treatment group, visit, \& visit by treatment group; Continuous cov: FCPT at BL; Unstructured cov|The mean difference was calculated as Arm D minus Arm A.|The null hypothesis (Ho) was that there was no difference in means between the treatment group (Arm D) and the control group (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha) was that Arm D mean was different from Arm A mean.||50.96|14.65|0.0208
90862864|NCT02484690|181589434|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-6.35||||0.5185|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-19.0|6.27||The threshold for statistical significance was an unadjusted 2-sided p-value \<0.2. There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Categorical covariates(cov): RAP/PCV at baseline(BL), treatment group, visit, \& visit by treatment group; Continuous cov: FCPT at BL; Unstructured cov|The mean difference was calculated as Arm E minus Arm A.|The null hypothesis (Ho) was that there was no difference between the treatment group (Arm E) and the control group (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha) was that Arm E was different from Arm A.||6.27|-19.0|0.5185
90862865|NCT02484690|181589435|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|19.45||||0.1624|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.61|37.29||The threshold for statistical significance was an unadjusted 2-sided p-value \<0.2. There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Categorical covariates(cov): RAP/PCV at baseline(BL), treatment group, visit, \& visit by treatment group; Continuous cov: CST at BL; Unstructured cov|The mean difference was calculated as Arm B minus Arm A.|The null hypothesis (Ho) was that there was no difference in means between the treatment group (Arm B) and the control group (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha) was that Arm B mean was different from Arm A mean.||37.29|1.61|0.1624
90862866|NCT02484690|181589435|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|2.79||||0.8475|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-15.8|21.37||The threshold for statistical significance was an unadjusted 2-sided p-value \<0.2. There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Categorical covariates(cov): RAP/PCV at baseline(BL), treatment group, visit, \& visit by treatment group; Continuous cov: CST at BL; Unstructured cov|The mean difference was calculated as Arm C minus Arm A.|The null hypothesis (Ho) was that there was no difference in means between the treatment group (Arm C) and the control group (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha) was that Arm C mean was different from Arm A mean.||21.37|-15.8|0.8475
90862867|NCT02484690|181589435|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|28.52||||0.0381|TWO_SIDED|80.0|10.93|46.11||The threshold for statistical significance was an unadjusted 2-sided p-value \<0.2. There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Categorical covariates(cov): RAP/PCV at baseline(BL), treatment group, visit, \& visit by treatment group; Continuous cov: CST at BL; Unstructured cov|The mean difference was calculated as Arm D minus Arm A.|The null hypothesis (Ho) was that there was no difference in means between the treatment group (Arm D) and the control group (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha) was that Arm D mean was different from Arm A mean.||46.11|10.93|0.0381
90862868|NCT02484690|181589436|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-14.4||||0.2089|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-29.1|0.29||The threshold for statistical significance was an unadjusted 2-sided p-value \<0.2. There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Categorical covariates(cov): RAP/PCV at baseline(BL), treatment group, visit, \& visit by treatment group; Continuous cov: CST at BL; Unstructured cov|The mean difference was calculated as Arm E minus Arm A.|The null hypothesis (Ho) was that there was no difference between the treatment group (Arm E) and the control group (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha) was that Arm E was different from Arm A.||0.29|-29.1|0.2089
90862869|NCT02484690|181589439|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.4||||0.6717|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.61|0.81||The threshold for statistical significance was an unadjusted 2-sided p-value \<0.2. There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Categorical covariates(cov): RAP/PCV at baseline(BL), treatment group, visit, \& visit by treatment group; Continuous cov: CNV at BL; Unstructured cov|The mean difference was calculated as Arm B minus Arm A.|The null hypothesis (Ho) was that there was no difference in means between the treatment group (Arm B) and the control group (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha) was that Arm B mean was different from Arm A mean.||0.81|-1.61|0.6717
90959442|NCT01178671|181798975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.31|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.31
90959443|NCT01178671|181798976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.7||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|19.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||19.9|1.1|0.042
90862870|NCT02484690|181589439|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.23||||0.8131|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.01|1.47||The threshold for statistical significance was an unadjusted 2-sided p-value \<0.2. There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Categorical covariates(cov): RAP/PCV at baseline(BL), treatment group, visit, \& visit by treatment group; Continuous cov: CNV at BL; Unstructured cov|The mean difference was calculated as Arm C minus Arm A.|The null hypothesis (Ho) was that there was no difference in means between the treatment group (Arm C) and the control group (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha) was that Arm C mean was different from Arm A mean.||1.47|-1.01|0.8131
90862871|NCT02484690|181589439|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.11||||0.9069|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.07|1.29||The threshold for statistical significance was an unadjusted 2-sided p-value \<0.2. There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Categorical covariates(cov): RAP/PCV at baseline(BL), treatment group, visit, \& visit by treatment group; Continuous cov: CNV at BL; Unstructured cov|The mean difference was calculated as Arm D minus Arm A.|The null hypothesis (Ho) was that there was no difference in means between each of the treatment groups (Arms B, C, or D) and the control group (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha) was that Arms B, C, or D means were different from Arm A mean.||1.29|-1.07|0.9069
90959444|NCT01178671|181798977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.14
90959445|NCT01178671|181798978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.21
90959446|NCT01178671|181798979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.65
91106562|NCT05089656|182098235|SUPERIORITY||LS-Means - difference|1.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.889||0.1097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|3.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at End of Follow-up Period 1||3.22|-0.33|0.1097
90906959|NCT01822821|181682090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric means|1.3||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|99.4|0.52|3.2|||Regression, Linear||Outcome log-transformed to meet model assumptions. The treatment effect on duration of mechanical ventilation was assessed by use of the ratio of geometric means from a multivariable logistic regression models adjusting for age and diabetes.|||3.20|0.52|0.46
91106563|NCT05089656|182098236|SUPERIORITY||LS-Means difference|1.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.599||0.0122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|2.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at End of Follow-up Period 1||2.71|0.34|0.0122
91106564|NCT05089656|182098237|SUPERIORITY||LS-Means difference|1.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.836||0.0873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|3.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at End of Follow-up Period 1||3.12|-0.22|0.0873
91106565|NCT05089656|182098238|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.03||||0.0879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|4.57|||Regression, Logistic|||End of Followup Period 1 (Week 52)||4.57|0.90|0.0879
91106566|NCT05089656|182098239|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.6448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|3.56|||Regression, Logistic|||End of Followup Period 1 (Week 52)||3.56|0.46|0.6448
90906960|NCT01822821|181682091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric means|0.93||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|99.4|0.74|1.2|||Regression, Linear||Outcome log-transformed to meet model assumptions. The treatment effect on duration of ICU stay was assessed by use of the ratio of geometric means from a multivariable logistic regression models adjusting for age and diabetes.|||1.20|0.74|0.38
90959447|NCT01078675|181798983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-42.88|STANDARD_DEVIATION|18.222|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|-42.88|-45.44|-40.32||P-value\<0.001 at Month 24. No adjustment for multiple comparisons is made for individual age group.|ANCOVA|P-value is two-sided and based on ANCOVA using age group as the fixed factor, and study centre and the baseline value as covariates.||||-40.32|-45.44|<0.001
90862872|NCT02484690|181589441|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.96||||0.3189|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.2|0.28||The threshold for statistical significance was an unadjusted 2-sided p-value \<0.2. There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Categorical covariates(cov): RAP/PCV at baseline(BL), treatment group, visit, \& visit by treatment group; Continuous cov: CNV at BL; Unstructured cov|The mean difference was calculated as Arm B minus Arm A.|The null hypothesis (Ho) was that there was no difference in means between the treatment group (Arm B) and the control group (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha) was that Arm B mean was different from Arm A mean.||0.28|-2.20|0.3189
90959448|NCT02513303|181798996|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2942|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.2942
90959449|NCT00679627|181798997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90959450|NCT00679627|181798998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.89|||Regression, Cox|||||0.89|0.37|0.011
90959451|NCT00679627|181798999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90959452|NCT00679627|181799000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.002
90906961|NCT01822821|181682092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric means|1.1||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|99.4|0.94|1.2|||Regression, Linear||Outcome log-transformed to meet model assumptions. The treatment effect on duration of mechanical ventilation was assessed by use of the ratio of geometric means from a multivariable logistic regression models adjusting for age and diabetes.|||1.20|0.94|0.12
90906962|NCT01822821|181682093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric means|1.1||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|99.4|0.9|1.2|||Regression, Linear||Outcome log-transformed to meet model assumptions. The treatment effect on ALT was assessed by use of the ratio of geometric means from a repeated measures multivariable logistic regression models adjusting for age and diabetes.|||1.2|0.9|0.31
90906963|NCT01822821|181682094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric means|1.0||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|99.4|0.8|1.2|||Regression, Linear||Outcome log-transformed to meet model assumptions. The treatment effect on AST was assessed by use of the ratio of geometric means from a repeated measures multivariable logistic regression models adjusting for age and diabetes.|||1.2|0.8|0.98
90862873|NCT02484690|181589441|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|1.22||||0.2256|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.07|2.52||The threshold for statistical significance was an unadjusted 2-sided p-value \<0.2. There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Categorical covariates(cov): RAP/PCV at baseline(BL), treatment group, visit, \& visit by treatment group; Continuous cov: CNV at BL; Unstructured cov|The mean difference was calculated as Arm C minus Arm A.|The null hypothesis (Ho) was that there was no difference in means between the treatment group (Arm C) and the control group (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha) was that Arm C mean was different from Arm A mean.||2.52|-0.07|0.2256
90862874|NCT02484690|181589441|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.35||||0.7086|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.86|1.57||The threshold for statistical significance was an unadjusted 2-sided p-value \<0.2. There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Categorical covariates(cov): RAP/PCV at baseline(BL), treatment group, visit, \& visit by treatment group; Continuous cov: CNV at BL; Unstructured cov|The mean difference was calculated as Arm D minus Arm A.|The null hypothesis (Ho) was that there was no difference in means between the treatment group (Arm D) and the control group (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha) was that Arm D mean was different from Arm A mean.||1.57|-0.86|0.7086
90862875|NCT02484690|181589443|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.78||||0.4353|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.07|0.51||The threshold for statistical significance was an unadjusted 2-sided p-value \<0.2. There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Categorical covariates(cov): RAP/PCV at baseline(BL), treatment group, visit, \& visit by treatment group; Continuous cov: leak at BL; Unstructured cov|The mean difference was calculated as Arm B minus Arm A.|The null hypothesis (Ho) was that there was no difference in means between the treatment group (Arm B) and the control group (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha) was that Arm B mean was different from Arm A mean.||0.51|-2.07|0.4353
90959453|NCT00679627|181799003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.269||||||Baseline|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.269
90959454|NCT00679627|181799003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.835||||||Month 24|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.835
90959455|NCT00679627|181799004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.194||||||Orientation subscale|ANCOVA|||||||0.194
90959456|NCT00679627|181799004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.353||||||Registration subscale|ANCOVA|||||||0.353
90862876|NCT02484690|181589443|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|1.45||||0.1652|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.11|2.78||The threshold for statistical significance was an unadjusted 2-sided p-value \<0.2. There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Categorical covariates(cov): RAP/PCV at baseline(BL), treatment group, visit, \& visit by treatment group; Continuous cov: leak at BL; Unstructured cov|The mean difference was calculated as Arm C minus Arm A.|The null hypothesis (Ho) was that there was no difference in means between the treatment group (Arm C) and the control group (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha) was that Arm C mean was different from Arm A mean.||2.78|0.11|0.1652
90862877|NCT02484690|181589443|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.5||||0.61111|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.76|1.75||The threshold for statistical significance was an unadjusted 2-sided p-value \<0.2. There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Categorical covariates(cov): RAP/PCV at baseline(BL), treatment group, visit, \& visit by treatment group; Continuous cov: leak at BL; Unstructured cov|The mean difference was calculated as Arm D minus Arm A.|The null hypothesis (Ho) was that there was no difference in means between the treatment group (Arm D) and the control group (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha) was that Arm D mean was different from Arm A mean.||1.75|-0.76|0.61111
90862878|NCT04508335|181589474|EQUIVALENCE|We use 2, one-sided t-tests, each with alpha set at 0.05 to test the composite null hypothesis that the mean difference score (μReia-μCurrent) between the Reia pessary and baseline (current pessary) on the PFDI-20, is greater than 18.3 (H01), the upper equivalence limit, or lower than -18.3 (H02), the lower equivalence limit.||||||0.0021|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||H01: μReia-μCurrent \> 18.3 and H02: μReia-μCurrent \< -18.3. The alternative hypothesis is thus: HA: -18.3 ≤ μReia-μCurrent ≤ 18.3.||||.0021
90862879|NCT04508335|181589476|OTHER|Mean difference of PFIQ scores. A negative difference (Reia pessary - current pessary) indicates that the PFIQ-7 score improved with the Reia pessary.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.9||||0.0192|TWO_SIDED|||||p value adjusted for multiple variables|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PFIQ scores at baseline with subjects using current pessary then after treatment with Reia pessary||||0.0192
90862880|NCT02555683|181589563|SUPERIORITY||rate ratio|1.04||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.41||adjusted p-value|negative binomial regression model|Adjusted p-values obtained from the closed testing procedure||||1.41|0.77|0.800
90862881|NCT02555683|181589563|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.83||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.14||adjusted p-value|negative binomial regression model|Adjusted p-values are based on the closed testing procedure||||1.14|0.61|0.510
90862882|NCT02555683|181589564|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.095||0.819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.26||adjusted p-value|ANCOVA|Adjusted p-values obtained from the closed testing procedure||||0.26|-0.11|0.819
90862883|NCT02555683|181589564|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.095||0.591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.32||adjusted p-vale|ANCOVA|Adjusted p-values obtained from the closed testing procedure||||0.32|-0.05|0.591
90862884|NCT02555683|181589565|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.098||0.819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.07||adjusted p-value|ANCOVA|Adjusted p-values obtained from the closed testing procedure||||0.07|-0.31|0.819
90862885|NCT02555683|181589565|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.098||0.591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.02||adjusted p-value|ANCOVA|Adjusted p-values obtained from the closed testing procedure||||0.02|-0.37|0.591
90862886|NCT02555683|181589566|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.067|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0365||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|0.139||adjusted p-value|ANCOVA|Adjusted p-values obtained from the closed testing procedure||||0.139|-0.005|0.800
90862887|NCT02555683|181589566|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0363||0.523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.021|0.121||adjusted p-value|ANCOVA|Adjusted p-values obtained from the closed testing procedure||||0.121|-0.021|0.523
90862888|NCT02555683|181589567|SUPERIORITY||rate ratio|0.96||||0.819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.22||adjusted p-value|negative binomial regression model|Adjusted p-values obtained from the closed testing procedure||||1.22|0.75|0.819
90862889|NCT02555683|181589567|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.78||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.01||adjusted p-value|negative binomial regression model|Adjusted p-values are based on the closed testing procedure||||1.01|0.61|0.510
90906964|NCT01822821|181682095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric means|1.1||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|99.4|0.87|1.3|||Regression, Linear||Outcome log-transformed to meet model assumptions. The treatment effect on bilirubin was assessed by use of the ratio of geometric means from a repeated measures multivariable logistic regression models adjusting for age and diabetes.|||1.3|0.87|0.40
90862890|NCT02555683|181589568|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.076||0.819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.23||adjusted p-value|ANCOVA|Adjusted p-values obtained from the closed testing procedure||||0.23|-0.07|0.819
90862891|NCT02555683|181589568|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.076||0.591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.27||adjusted p-vale|ANCOVA|Adjusted p-values obtained from the closed testing procedure||||0.27|-0.03|0.591
90862892|NCT02555683|181589569|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.079||0.819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.04||adjusted p-value|ANCOVA|Adjusted p-values obtained from the closed testing procedure||||0.04|-0.27|0.819
90862893|NCT02555683|181589569|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.079||0.591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.04||adjusted p-value|ANCOVA|Adjusted p-values obtained from the closed testing procedure||||-0.04|-0.35|0.591
90862894|NCT02555683|181589570|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.076|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0292||0.819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.019|0.134||adjusted p-value|ANCOVA|Adjusted p-values obtained from the closed testing procedure||||0.134|0.019|0.819
90862895|NCT02555683|181589570|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0292||0.591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.017|0.097||adjusted p-value|ANCOVA|Adjusted p-values obtained from the closed testing procedure||||0.097|-0.017|0.591
90862896|NCT01397890|181589590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.044||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.019|1.069|||ANCOVA|multiplicative ANCOVA model with treatment and country as fixed factors and baseline value as a (log-transformed) covariate||||1.069|1.019|0.0004
90862897|NCT01397890|181589591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.079|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.057|1.102|||ANCOVA|Multiplicative ANCOVA model with treatment and country as fixed factors and week 0 pre-dose value as a (log-transformed) covariate.||||1.102|1.057|<0.0001
90906965|NCT03298815|181682131|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.375|||||||McNemar|||||||0.375
90906966|NCT03298815|181682132|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.391|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.391
90906967|NCT03298815|181682133|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.267|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.267
90862898|NCT01397890|181589592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.086|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.062|1.111|||ANCOVA|Multiplicative ANCOVA model with treatment and country as fixed factors and week 0 pre-dose value as a (log-transformed) covariate.||||1.111|1.062|<0.0001
90862899|NCT01397890|181589593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.018||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.999|1.037|||ANCOVA|Multiplicative ANCOVA model with treatment and country as fixed factors and week 0 pre-dose value as a (log-transformed) covariate.||||1.037|0.999|0.0570
90862900|NCT01397890|181589594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.033|1.067|||ANCOVA|Multiplicative ANCOVA model with treatment and country as fixed factors and week 0 pre-dose value as a (log-transformed) covariate.||||1.067|1.033|<0.0001
90862901|NCT01397890|181589595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.054|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.036|1.073|||ANCOVA|Multiplicative ANCOVA model with treatment and country as fixed factors and week 0 pre-dose value as a (log-transformed) covariate.||||1.073|1.036|<0.0001
90862902|NCT01397890|181589596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.02||||0.1956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.05|||ANCOVA|Multiplicative ANCOVA model with treatment and country as fixed factors and week 0 pre-dose value as a (log-transformed) covariate.||||1.050|0.990|0.1956
90862903|NCT01397890|181589597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.062|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.035|1.091|||ANCOVA|Multiplicative ANCOVA model with treatment and country as fixed factors and week 0 pre-dose value as a (log-transformed) covariate.||||1.091|1.035|<0.0001
90862904|NCT01397890|181589598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|20.303||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.904|30.702|||ANCOVA|Additive ANCOVA model with treatment and centre as fixed factors and the run-in mean of pre-dose morning PEF as a covariate||||30.702|9.904|0.0001
90862905|NCT01397890|181589599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|13.587|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.407|19.766|||ANCOVA|Additive ANCOVA model with treatment and centre as fixed factors and the run-in mean of pre-dose morning PEF as a covariate||||19.766|7.407|<0.0001
90862906|NCT01397890|181589600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|17.469|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.147|24.791|||ANCOVA|Additive ANCOVA model with treatment and centre as fixed factors and the run-in mean of pre-dose morning PEF as a covariate||||24.791|10.147|<0.0001
90862907|NCT01397890|181589601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|26.428||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.463|39.393|||ANCOVA|Additive ANCOVA model with treatment and centre as fixed factors and the run-in mean of pre-dose morning PEF as a covariate||||39.393|13.463|0.0001
90862908|NCT01397890|181589602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|17.192||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.491|26.894|||ANCOVA|Additive ANCOVA model with treatment and centre as fixed factors and the run-in mean of pre-dose morning PEF as a covariate||||26.894|7.491|0.0006
90862909|NCT01397890|181589603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|18.472|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.347|26.596|||ANCOVA|Additive ANCOVA model with treatment and centre as fixed factors and the run-in mean of pre-dose morning PEF as a covariate||||26.596|10.347|<0.0001
90862910|NCT01397890|181589604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.668|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.437|||ANCOVA|Additive ANCOVA model with treatment and centre as fixed factors and the run-in mean of pre-dose morning PEF as a covariate||||-0.437|-0.900|<0.0001
90862911|NCT01397890|181589605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.375|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.552|-0.198|||ANCOVA|Additive ANCOVA model with treatment and centre as fixed factors and the run-in mean of pre-dose morning PEF as a covariate||||-0.198|-0.552|<0.0001
90862912|NCT01397890|181589606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.551|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.741|-0.361|||ANCOVA|Additive ANCOVA model with treatment and centre as fixed factors and the run-in mean of pre-dose morning PEF as a covariate||||-0.361|-0.741|<0.0001
90959457|NCT00679627|181799004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||||||Attention and Calculation subscale|ANCOVA|||||||0.009
90862913|NCT01397890|181589607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.236||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.391|-0.082|||ANCOVA|Additive ANCOVA model with treatment and centre as fixed factors and the run-in mean of pre-dose morning PEF as a covariate||||-0.082|-0.391|0.0028
90959458|NCT00679627|181799004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.158||||||Recall subscale|ANCOVA|||||||0.158
90906968|NCT03298815|181682134|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.445|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.445
90906969|NCT03298815|181682135|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.250
90906970|NCT03298815|181682136|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<1.00
90906971|NCT03298815|181682137|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.500
90906972|NCT03298815|181682138|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.563|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.563
90906973|NCT03298815|181682139|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.008
90906974|NCT03298815|181682140|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.156|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.156
90906975|NCT03298815|181682141|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.208|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.208
90906976|NCT03298815|181682142|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.594||||||30 day visit|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.594
90906977|NCT03298815|181682142|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.469||||||60 day visit|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.469
90959459|NCT00679627|181799004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.088||||||Language subscale|ANCOVA|||||||0.088
90906978|NCT03298815|181682142|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75||||||100 day visit|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.750
90906979|NCT03298815|181682143|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.063||||||30 day visit|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.063
90906980|NCT03298815|181682143|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1||||||60 day visit|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<1.000
90906981|NCT03298815|181682143|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25||||||100 day visit|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.250
90906982|NCT04996069|181682144|SUPERIORITY|No power calculation performed.||||||0.45||||||p value threshold is .05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.45
90906983|NCT00935792|181682148|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Estimated maximum tolerated dose was 2.5mg of oral everolimus thrice weekly for 9 weeks and alemtuzumab subcutaneously thrice weekly for 8 weeks.|||
90906984|NCT02322775|181682154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of Least Square Means|0.08||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.15||Hypothesis testing were reported using 2-sided 5% level tests with nominal p-values (i.e., not adjusted for multiplicity).|Mixed Models Analysis|||The null hypothesis was: H0: Change from baseline in pre-bronchodilator FEV1 (L) at Week 12 (benralizumab vs placebo)=0.||0.15|0|0.040
90906985|NCT02322775|181682155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of Least Square Means|8.84||||0.233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.74|23.42||Hypothesis testing were reported using 2-sided 5% level tests with nominal p-values (i.e., not adjusted for multiplicity).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||23.42|-5.74|0.233
90906986|NCT02322775|181682156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of Least Square Means|5.29||||0.456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.67|19.25||Hypothesis testing were reported using 2-sided 5% level tests with nominal p-values (i.e., not adjusted for multiplicity).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||19.25|-8.67|0.456
90906987|NCT02322775|181682157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of Least Square Means|-0.13||||0.266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.1||Hypothesis testing were reported using 2-sided 5% level tests with nominal p-values (i.e., not adjusted for multiplicity).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.10|-0.35|0.266
90906988|NCT02322775|181682158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of Least Square Means|-0.36||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.19||Hypothesis testing were reported using 2-sided 5% level tests with nominal p-values (i.e., not adjusted for multiplicity).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.19|-0.91|0.200
90906989|NCT02322775|181682159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of Least Square Means|-0.03||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.03||Hypothesis testing were reported using 2-sided 5% level tests with nominal p-values (i.e., not adjusted for multiplicity).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.03|-0.08|0.380
90906990|NCT02322775|181682160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of Least Square Means|-0.17||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.04||Hypothesis testing were reported using 2-sided 5% level tests with nominal p-values (i.e., not adjusted for multiplicity).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.04|-0.39|0.114
90906991|NCT02322775|181682162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of Least Square Means|0.21||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.42||Hypothesis testing were reported using 2-sided 5% level tests with nominal p-values (i.e., not adjusted for multiplicity).|ANCOVA|||Parameter: Total score||0.42|0|0.055
90906992|NCT02322775|181682162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of Least Square Means|0.23||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.47||Hypothesis testing were reported using 2-sided 5% level tests with nominal p-values (i.e., not adjusted for multiplicity).|ANCOVA|||Parameter: Symptoms score||0.47|-0.01|0.063
90906993|NCT02322775|181682162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of Least Square Means|0.2||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.41||Hypothesis testing were reported using 2-sided 5% level tests with nominal p-values (i.e., not adjusted for multiplicity).|ANCOVA|||Parameter: Activity limitation score||0.41|-0.01|0.061
90906994|NCT02322775|181682162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of Least Square Means|0.19||||0.156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.45||Hypothesis testing were reported using 2-sided 5% level tests with nominal p-values (i.e., not adjusted for multiplicity).|ANCOVA|||Parameter: Emotional function score||0.45|-0.07|0.156
90906995|NCT02322775|181682162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of Least Square Means|0.19||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.44||Hypothesis testing were reported using 2-sided 5% level tests with nominal p-values (i.e., not adjusted for multiplicity).|ANCOVA|||Parameter: Environmental stimuli score||0.44|-0.06|0.135
90906996|NCT04739423|181682165|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|5.4822||||0.0479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0575|10.9069|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Between treatment analysis for Accuracy for happiness - change from baseline to Day 14.||10.9069|0.0575|0.0479
90959460|NCT00679627|181799005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||||||Initiation subscale|ANCOVA|||||||0.010
90959461|NCT00679627|181799005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.043||||||Planning and Organization subscale|ANCOVA|||||||0.043
90862914|NCT01397890|181589608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.124||||0.0372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|-0.007|||ANCOVA|Additive ANCOVA model with treatment and centre as fixed factors and the run-in mean of pre-dose morning PEF as a covariate||||-0.007|-0.240|0.0372
90862915|NCT01397890|181589609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.231||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.113|||ANCOVA|Additive ANCOVA model with treatment and centre as fixed factors and the run-in mean of pre-dose morning PEF as a covariate||||-0.113|-0.350|0.0001
90862916|NCT01397890|181589610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.262|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.364|-0.159|||ANCOVA|Additive ANCOVA model with treatment and centre as fixed factors and the run-in mean of pre-dose morning PEF as a covariate||||-0.159|-0.364|<0.0001
90862917|NCT01397890|181589611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.143||||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.246|-0.04|||ANCOVA|Additive ANCOVA model with treatment and centre as fixed factors and the run-in mean of pre-dose morning PEF as a covariate||||-0.040|-0.246|0.0067
90862918|NCT01397890|181589612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.122||||0.0171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.222|-0.022|||ANCOVA|Additive ANCOVA model with treatment and centre as fixed factors and the run-in mean of pre-dose morning PEF as a covariate||||-0.022|-0.222|0.0171
90862919|NCT01397890|181589613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.593||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.419|0.839|||Poisson regression|Poisson regression model with treatment as a factor and the duration time in study as an offset variable morning PEF as a covariate||||0.839|0.419|0.0032
90862920|NCT01397890|181589613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.614||||0.0167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.412|0.916|||Regression, Cox|Time to the first COPD exacerbation||||0.916|0.412|0.0167
90862921|NCT01397890|181589613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0196|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0196
90862922|NCT04622306|181589614|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin for the difference in total clinical failure rates (clinical breakage plus clinical slippage) between the test and control condom is specified in ISO 23409:2011 as 2.5%.|Upper 97.5% CL for difference|2.5||||0.025|ONE_SIDED|97.5||2.5||The p-value was adjusted to 0.025 since two comparisons are being made on the data set.|GEE|||Null Hypothesis: Expected test condom total clinical failure rate - expected control natural rubber latex male condom total clinical failure rate ≥ δ, where δ = 2.5%; Power calculations were conducted according to ISO 29943-1:2017. Target sample sizes were chosen to provide a power of at least 90%.||2.5||0.025
90862923|NCT04622306|181589614|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin for the difference in total failure rates (clinical breakage plus clinical slippage) between the test and control condom is specified on ISO 23409:2011 as 2.5%|Upper 97.5% CLof difference|2.5||||0.025|ONE_SIDED|97.5||2.5||The p-value was adjusted to 0.025 since two comparisons are being made on the data set.|GEE|||Null Hypothesis: Test condom total clinical failure rate - control natural rubber latex male condom total clinical failure rate ≥ δ, where δ = 2.5%; Power calculations were conducted according to ISO 29943-1:2017. Target sample sizes were chosen to provide a power of at least 90%.||2.5||0.025
90862924|NCT04622306|181589614|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin for the difference in total failure rates (clinical breakage plus clinical slippage) between the test and control condom is specified on ISO 23409:2011 as 2.5%|Upper 97.5% CL for difference|2.37||||0.025|ONE_SIDED|97.5||2.5||The p-value was adjusted to 0.025 since two comparisons are being made on the data set|GEE|||The non-inferiority analysis was repeated after removing couples where the male partner had a penis length greater than 170 mm. The polyurethane condom B has a specified nominal length of 170 mm and is not recommended for men with penises longer than the length of the condom.||2.5||0.025
90862925|NCT04269707|181589642|NON_INFERIORITY|Change in hemoglobin from baseline to day 35 was assessed using paired t-tests (two-sided test, alpha = 0.05).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.1711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.80|-0.40|0.1711
90862926|NCT02100514|181589643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-49.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.0|-45.8|||MMRM|||Least square (LS) mean difference and associated 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value were derived from an mixed effect model repeat measurement (MMRM) model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-45.8|-54.0|<0.001
90862927|NCT02100514|181589644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-33.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.48|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.1|-30.2|||MMRM|||Week 12: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI and p-value were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-30.2|-36.1|<0.001
90862928|NCT02100514|181589644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-29.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.66|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.8|-26.3||||||Week 24: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-26.3|-32.8|
90959462|NCT00679627|181799005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018||||||Effective Performance subscale|ANCOVA|||||||0.018
90862929|NCT02100514|181589644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-23.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.65|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.0|-20.5||||||Week 52: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-20.5|-27.0|
90906997|NCT04739423|181682165|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|4.7954||||0.0161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9843|8.6064|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Between treatment analysis for Accuracy for sadness - Change from baseline to Day 14||8.6064|0.9843|0.0161
90906998|NCT04739423|181682165|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|167.29||||0.0237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.36|309.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Between treatment analysis of Reaction time for anger - change from baseline to Day 7||309.23|25.36|0.0237
90862930|NCT02100514|181589645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-45.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.7|-41.7|||MMRM|||Week 12: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI, and p-value were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-41.7|-49.7|<0.001
90906999|NCT04739423|181682165|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-1.2761||||0.7188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2424|6.6902|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Between treatment analysis for Accuracy for happiness - change from baseline to Day 14||6.6902|-9.2424|0.7188
90907000|NCT04739423|181682165|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|1.8955||||0.5478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9026|8.6935|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Between treatment analysis for Accuracy for sadness - Change from baseline to Day 14||8.6935|-4.9026|0.5478
90959463|NCT00679627|181799005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||||||Basic subscale|ANCOVA|||||||0.005
90907001|NCT04739423|181682165|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-7.52||||0.951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-291.21|276.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Between treatment analysis of Reaction time for anger - change from baseline to Day 7||276.17|-291.21|0.9510
90907002|NCT04739423|181682167|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|0.68||||0.0737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.066|1.432|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Between treatment analysis for Immediate Word Recall: number of words - Change from Baseline to Day 1, 4 hours post-dose||1.432|-0.066|0.0737
90907003|NCT04739423|181682167|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|1.12||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.382|1.868|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Between treatment analysis for Immediate Word Recall: number of words - Change from Baseline to Day 14, 4 hours post-dose||1.868|0.382|0.0033
90907004|NCT04739423|181682167|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|1.72||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Between treatment comparison for Delayed Word Recall: number of words - Change from Baseline to Day 1, 4 hours post-dose||2.840|0.600|0.0029
90907005|NCT04739423|181682167|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|1.29||||0.0247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.168|2.418|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Between treatment analysis for Delayed Word Recall: number of words - Change from Baseline to Day 7, 4 hours post-dose||2.418|0.168|0.0247
90907006|NCT04739423|181682167|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|1.69||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.653|2.732|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Between treatment analysis for Delayed Word Recognition: number of words - Change from Baseline to Day 7, 4 hours post-dose||2.732|0.653|0.0016
90907007|NCT04739423|181682167|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-0.06||||0.9126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.127|1.009|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Between treatment analysis for Immediate Word recall: number of words - Change from Baseline to Day 1, 4 hours post-dose||1.009|-1.127|0.9126
90959464|NCT00679627|181799005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.054||||||Instrumental subscale|ANCOVA|||||||0.054
90959465|NCT00679627|181799005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.137||||||Leisure subscale|ANCOVA|||||||0.137
90959466|NCT03513588|181799015|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-24.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-31.28|-16.7|||ANCOVA|||||-16.70|-31.28|<0.001
90959467|NCT03513588|181799015|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-33.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-39.78|-27.47|||ANCOVA|||||-27.47|-39.78|<0.001
90862931|NCT02100514|181589645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-40.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.3|-36.5||||||Week 24: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI, were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-36.5|-45.3|
90862932|NCT02100514|181589645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-32.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.17|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.7|-28.2||||||Week 52: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI, were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-28.2|-36.7|
90862933|NCT02100514|181589646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-45.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.99|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.9|-41.1|||MMRM|||Week 12: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI and p-value were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-41.1|-48.9|<0.001
90862934|NCT02100514|181589646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-40.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.21|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.8|-36.1||||||Week 24: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-36.1|-44.8|
90862935|NCT02100514|181589646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-32.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.0|-28.4||||||Week 52: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-28.4|-37.0|
90862936|NCT02100514|181589647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-51.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.59|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.7|-46.6|||MMRM|||Week 12: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI and p-value were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-46.6|-56.7|<0.001
90862937|NCT02100514|181589647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-46.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.94|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.2|-40.6||||||Week 24: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-40.6|-52.2|
90862938|NCT02100514|181589647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-37.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.3|-31.4||||||Week 52: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-31.4|-43.3|
90862939|NCT02100514|181589648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-46.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.59|<|0.001||95.0|-53.7|-39.5|||MMRM|||Week 12: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI and p-value were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-39.5|-53.7|<0.001
90959468|NCT01275131|181799026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|13.95||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.37|20.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, day, and interaction of treatment with day was performed using a compound symmetric covariance matrix.||Comparison at Stage 1, Day 2/6||20.54|7.37|0.0009
90862940|NCT02100514|181589648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-39.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.12||||95.0|-47.9|-31.6||||||Week 24: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-31.6|-47.9|
90907008|NCT04739423|181682167|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-0.24||||0.657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.317|0.837|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Between treatment analysis for Immediate Word Recall: number of words - Change from Baseline to Day 14, 4 hours post-dose||0.837|-1.317|0.6570
90907009|NCT04739423|181682167|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-0.06||||0.9458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.787|1.669|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Between treatment comparison for Delayed Word Recall: number of words - Change from Baseline to Day 1, 4 hours post-dose||1.669|-1.787|0.9458
90907010|NCT04739423|181682167|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|0.97||||0.2327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.642|2.579|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Between treatment analysis for Delayed Word Recall: number of words - Change from Baseline to Day 7, 4 hours post-dose||2.579|-0.642|0.2327
90907011|NCT04739423|181682167|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|0.84||||0.4154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.208|2.879|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Between treatment analysis for Delayed Word Recognition: number of words - Change from Baseline to day 7, 4 hours post-dose||2.879|-1.208|0.4154
90907012|NCT04739423|181682168|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|5.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.956|6.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Between treatment analysis (active - placebo) for Sleeping Heart Rate change from baseline across periods||6.160|3.956|<0.0001
90907013|NCT04739423|181682169|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|1.0||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.432|1.565|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Between treatment analysis (active - placebo) for sleeping HRV change from baseline across periods.||1.565|0.432|0.0017
90907014|NCT04739423|181682170|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-10.22||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.867|-3.567|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Between treatment analysis (active - placebo) for sleeping HRV root mean square of successive differences change from baseline across periods||-3.567|-16.867|0.0049
90907015|NCT04019561|181682193|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.41||||0.439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.02|2.2|||ANCOVA|||||2.20|-5.02|0.439
90907016|NCT04019561|181682193|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.01||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.54|-1.48|||ANCOVA|||||-1.48|-8.54|0.006
90907017|NCT04019561|181682194|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.508||||0.695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.191|6.174|||ANCOVA|||||6.174|-9.191|0.695
90907018|NCT04019561|181682194|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.291||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.76|-1.822|||ANCOVA|||||-1.822|-16.760|0.016
90907019|NCT04019561|181682195|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.74||||0.468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.174|18.695|||ANCOVA|||||18.695|-40.174|0.468
90907020|NCT04019561|181682195|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-37.395||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.38|-8.409|||ANCOVA|||||-8.409|-66.380|0.012
90907021|NCT04019561|181682196|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.26||||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.698|15.218|||ANCOVA|||||15.218|-2.698|0.166
90862941|NCT02100514|181589648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-33.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.02||||95.0|-41.3|-25.5||||||Week 52: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-25.5|-41.3|
90862942|NCT02100514|181589649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-30.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.14|<|0.001||95.0|-36.9|-24.6|||MMRM|||Week 12: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI and p-value were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-24.6|-36.9|<0.001
90862943|NCT02100514|181589649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-27.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.23||||95.0|-33.9|-21.2||||||Week 24: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-21.2|-33.9|
90862944|NCT02100514|181589649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-49.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.27|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-85.2|-13.5||||||Week 52: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-13.5|-85.2|
90862945|NCT02100514|181589650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|5.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|7.6|||MMRM|||Week 12: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI and p-value were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||7.6|3.4|<0.001
90862946|NCT02100514|181589650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|5.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14||||95.0|3.2|7.6||||||Week 24: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||7.6|3.2|
90862947|NCT02100514|181589650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||||95.0|3.6|8.3||||||Week 52: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||8.3|3.6|
90907022|NCT04019561|181682196|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.749||||0.856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.537|9.035|||ANCOVA|||||9.035|-7.537|0.856
90907023|NCT04019561|181682197|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.283||||0.302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.641|3.076|||ANCOVA|||||3.076|-9.641|0.302
90907024|NCT04019561|181682197|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.821||||0.304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.316|2.675|||ANCOVA|||||2.675|-8.316|0.304
90907025|NCT04019561|181682198|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.038||||0.808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.493|9.569|||ANCOVA|||||9.569|-7.493|0.808
90907026|NCT04019561|181682198|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.106||||0.786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.043|9.255|||ANCOVA|||||9.255|-7.043|0.786
90907027|NCT04019561|181682199|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.448||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.524|7.421|||ANCOVA|||||7.421|-0.524|0.087
90907028|NCT04019561|181682199|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.387||||0.834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.085|3.312|||ANCOVA|||||3.312|-4.085|0.834
90907029|NCT04019561|181682200|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.386||||0.735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.681|1.908|||ANCOVA|||||1.908|-2.681|0.735
90959469|NCT01275131|181799026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|18.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|11.55|24.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, day, and interaction of treatment with day was performed using a compound symmetric covariance matrix.||Comparison at Stage 1, Day 4/8||24.72|11.55|<0.0001
90959470|NCT01275131|181799028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|16.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|11.86|20.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, day, and interaction of treatment with day. A compound symmetric covariance matrix was assumed.||Comparison at Stage 3, Day 2/7||20.97|11.86|<0.0001
90959471|NCT01275131|181799028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|14.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.55|18.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, day, and interaction of treatment with day. A compound symmetric covariance matrix was assumed.||Comparison at Stage 3, Day 3/8||18.65|9.55|<0.0001
90959472|NCT01275131|181799028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|5.32||||0.0552|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.77|9.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, day, and interaction of treatment with day. A compound symmetric covariance matrix was assumed.||Comparison at Stage 3, Day 5/10||9.88|0.77|0.0552
90959473|NCT00903682|181799062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||The hypothesis is that the proportion of patients with at least 1 treatment-emergent Grade 1-4 neuropsychiatric adverse event, observed between Baseline through Week 12 and judged to be at least possibly drug-related, is significantly lower in the ETR arm than in the EFV arm. Assuming a significance level of 5%, a sample size of 75 subjects per arm would provide over 90% power to detect a 29% difference in treatment-emergent, drug-related Grade 1-4 neuropsychiatric adverse events.||||<0.001
90959474|NCT00903682|181799063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion of response|1.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|15.23|||||Difference in proportion of response ETR minus EFV|||15.23|-12.00|
90959475|NCT03110185|181799077|OTHER|Correlation||||||0.0761||||||Delirium Incidence. There were no multiple comparisons, but includes age as a regressor. a priori threshold was p \< 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Generalized logistic regression for delirium incidence and total DMN fc with age as a regressor.||||||0.0761
90959476|NCT00600886|181799078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.942||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|3.168|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel adjusting for randomization stratification factor||Overall - All patients||3.168|1.190|0.007
90959477|NCT00600886|181799078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.337|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|4.79||||||Post surgery - patients with prior surgery but no previous medical treatment for acromegaly||4.790|1.140|
90959478|NCT00600886|181799078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.654|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.846|3.234||||||De novo - patients with de novo disease who refused pituitary surgery or for whom pituitary surgery was contraindicated.||3.234|0.846|
90907030|NCT04019561|181682200|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.091||||0.308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.226|1.044|||ANCOVA|||||1.044|-3.226|0.308
90907031|NCT04019561|181682201|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.277||||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.704|10.15|||ANCOVA|||||10.150|-48.704|0.195
90907032|NCT04019561|181682201|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.328||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.674|5.019|||ANCOVA|||||5.019|-53.674|0.103
90907033|NCT04019561|181682202|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.39||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.802|29.022|||ANCOVA|||||29.022|-49.802|0.600
90907034|NCT04019561|181682202|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.086||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.163|46.336|||ANCOVA|||||46.336|-32.163|0.720
90907035|NCT04019561|181682203|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.14||||0.485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.134|16.854|||ANCOVA|||||16.854|-35.134|0.485
90907036|NCT04019561|181682203|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.645||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.288|5.999|||ANCOVA|||||5.999|-45.288|0.131
90959479|NCT03075410|181799147|OTHER||Ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|1.34|||||Mixed Effect Model has been used to assess Food Effect for the log transformed parameter AUC(0-t). Treatment in the fed/fasted state is fitted as Fixed Effect. Participant is fitted as Random Effect. Variance Components covariance structure is used.|||1.34|0.87|
90907037|NCT04019561|181682204|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.719||||0.564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.191|1.754|||ANCOVA|||||1.754|-3.191|0.564
90959480|NCT03075410|181799148|OTHER||Ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.71|1.26|||||Mixed Effect Model has been used to assess Food Effect for the log transformed parameter AUC(0-inf). Treatment in the fed/fasted state is fitted as Fixed Effect. Participant is fitted as Random Effect. Variance Components covariance structure is use|||1.26|0.71|
90862948|NCT02100514|181589651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-44.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.39||||95.0|-48.8|-39.5||||||Week 24: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-39.5|-48.8|
90959481|NCT03075410|181799149|OTHER||Ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.76|1.23|||||Mixed Effect Model has been used to assess Food Effect for the log transformed parameter Cmax. Treatment in the fed/fasted state is fitted as Fixed Effect. Participant is fitted as Random Effect. Variance Components covariance structure is used.|||1.23|0.76|
90862949|NCT02100514|181589651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-36.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.42|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.9|-31.4||||||Week 52: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-31.4|-40.9|
90862950|NCT02100514|181589652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-10.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.55||||95.0|-15.1|-5.1||||||Week 12: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-5.1|-15.1|
90862951|NCT02100514|181589652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5||||95.0|-17.9|-0.2||||||Week 24: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-0.2|-17.9|
90862952|NCT02100514|181589652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-8.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.04||||95.0|-14.1|-2.2||||||Week 52: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-2.2|-14.1|
90959482|NCT03075410|181799150|OTHER||Ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.64|1.23|||||Fixed Effect Model has been used to assess Food Effect for the log transformed parameter t1/2 Treatment in the fed/fasted state is fitted as Fixed Effect.|||1.23|0.64|
90959483|NCT03075410|181799151|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|2.5|||||Hodges-Lehmann estimation is used to calculate the 90% confidence interval.|||2.50|-0.50|
90862953|NCT02100514|181589653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||||95.0|2.5|5.8||||||Week 12: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||5.8|2.5|
90862954|NCT02100514|181589653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86||||95.0|2.2|5.5||||||Week 24: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||5.5|2.2|
90862955|NCT02100514|181589653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||||95.0|2.4|6.2||||||Week 52: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||6.2|2.4|
90862956|NCT02100514|181589654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||||95.0|-0.7|2.8||||||Week 12: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||2.8|-0.7|
90862957|NCT02100514|181589654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||||95.0|-1.1|3.0||||||Week 24: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||3.0|-1.1|
90862958|NCT02100514|181589654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||||95.0|-1.0|2.7||||||Week 52: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||2.7|-1.0|
90862959|NCT02100514|181589655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-10.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.55||||95.0|-15.1|-5.1||||||Week 12: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-5.1|-15.1|
90862960|NCT02100514|181589655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5||||95.0|-17.9|-0.2||||||Week 24: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-0.2|-17.9|
90907038|NCT04019561|181682204|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.366||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.854|0.122|||ANCOVA|||||0.122|-4.854|0.062
90907039|NCT04019561|181682205|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.084||||0.856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.007|0.838|||ANCOVA|||||0.838|-1.007|0.856
90907040|NCT04019561|181682205|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.777||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.147|||ANCOVA|||||0.147|-1.700|0.098
90907041|NCT03005288|181682250|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-8.48|-6.14|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||||-6.14|-8.48|<0.001
90907042|NCT03005288|181682251|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.01|-4.37|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||||-4.37|-6.01|<0.001
90907043|NCT03005288|181682252|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.42|-0.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|||week 24||-0.83|-1.42|<0.001
90907044|NCT03005288|181682252|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.2|-0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||week 48||-0.41|-1.20|0.005
90907045|NCT03005288|181682256|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.71|-0.95|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||week 24||-0.95|-1.71|<0.001
90907046|NCT03005288|181682256|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.48|-1.34|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||week 48||-1.34|-2.48|<0.001
90907047|NCT03005288|181682257|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.54|-2.31|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||week 24||-2.31|-4.54|<0.001
90907048|NCT03005288|181682257|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.74|-3.47|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||week 48||-3.47|-6.74|<0.001
90907049|NCT03005288|181682258|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.49||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.82|2.06|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||week 24||2.06|0.82|0.003
90907050|NCT03005288|181682258|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.36|2.93|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||week 48||2.93|1.36|<0.001
90907051|NCT03005288|181682259|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.26|-2.92|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||week 24||-2.92|-5.26|<0.001
90907052|NCT03005288|181682259|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-11.3|-7.64|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||week 52||-7.64|-11.3|<0.001
90862961|NCT02100514|181589655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-8.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.04||||95.0|-14.1|-2.2||||||Week 52: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-2.2|-14.1|
90862962|NCT02100514|181589656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-66.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.18||||95.0|-73.0|-60.5||||||LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-60.5|-73.0|
90862963|NCT02100514|181589657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-66.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4||||95.0|-76.7|-55.4||||||LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-55.4|-76.7|
90862964|NCT02100514|181589658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-66.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.77||||95.0|-72.0|-61.1||||||LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-61.1|-72.0|
90862965|NCT02100514|181589659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-69.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.08||||95.0|-75.2|-63.1||||||LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-63.1|-75.2|
90862966|NCT02100514|181589660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-71.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.14||||95.0|-77.5|-65.1||||||LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-65.1|-77.5|
90862967|NCT02100514|181589661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-47.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.12||||95.0|-51.9|-43.6||||||LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-43.6|-51.9|
90862968|NCT02100514|181589662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-10.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06||||95.0|-12.5|-8.3||||||LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-8.3|-12.5|
90862969|NCT02100514|181589663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||||95.0|1.6|3.6||||||LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||3.6|1.6|
90862970|NCT02100514|181589664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||||95.0|-1.8|-1.5||||||Week 12: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-1.5|-1.8|
90862971|NCT02100514|181589664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||||95.0|-1.6|-1.3||||||Week 24: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-1.3|-1.6|
90862972|NCT02100514|181589664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||||95.0|-1.6|-1.2||||||Week 52: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-1.2|-1.6|
90862973|NCT02100514|181589665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||||95.0|-0.4|-0.3||||||Week 12: LS mean difference and associated 95% confidence interval CI were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-0.3|-0.4|
90907053|NCT03005288|181682260|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.03|0.0|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||week 24||-0.00|-0.03|0.062
90907054|NCT03005288|181682260|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.08|-0.04|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||week 52||-0.04|-0.08|<0.001
90907055|NCT03005288|181682261|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.65||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.03|-0.28|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||week 12||-0.28|-1.03|0.028
90907056|NCT03005288|181682261|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.66||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.14|-0.18|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||week 36||-0.18|-1.14|0.081
90862974|NCT02100514|181589665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||||95.0|-0.3|-0.3||||||Week 24: LS mean difference and associated 95% confidence interval CI were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-0.3|-0.3|
90862975|NCT02100514|181589665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||||95.0|-0.4|-0.2||||||Week 52: LS mean difference and associated 95% confidence interval CI were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-0.2|-0.4|
90862976|NCT02100514|181589666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|53.9||||||95.0|32.08|90.59||||||Week 12: Odds ratio, associated 95% CI were derived from a logistic regression model with fixed effects for treatment group, baseline value, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup.||90.59|32.08|
90862977|NCT02100514|181589666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|17.0||||||95.0|11.15|26.07||||||Week 24: Odds ratio, associated 95% CI were derived from a logistic regression model with fixed effects for treatment group, baseline value, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup.||26.07|11.15|
90862978|NCT02100514|181589666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.1||||||95.0|6.18|13.48||||||Week 52: Odds ratio, associated 95% CI were derived from a logistic regression model with fixed effects for treatment group, baseline value, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup.||13.48|6.18|
90862979|NCT02100514|181589667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|156.4||||||95.0|48.84|501.11||||||Week 12: Odds ratio, associated 95% CI were derived from a logistic regression model with fixed effects for treatment group, baseline value, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup.||501.11|48.84|
90862980|NCT02100514|181589667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|110.8||||||95.0|39.77|308.46||||||Week 24: Odds ratio, associated 95% CI were derived from a logistic regression model with fixed effects for treatment group, baseline value, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup.||308.46|39.77|
90862981|NCT02100514|181589667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|43.3||||||95.0|19.52|96.13||||||Week 52: Odds ratio, associated 95% CI were derived from a logistic regression model with fixed effects for treatment group, baseline value, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup.||96.13|19.52|
90862982|NCT01145625|181589674|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was claimed if the lower limit of the 95% Confidence Interval (CI) was greater than -6.565.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|5.4|||ANCOVA|P-Value and confidence interval are from ANCOVA model with treatment and center as factors and Baseline hair count as a covariate.||Statistical analysis is for the change from baseline to week 24 data.||5.4|-6.0|0.9170
90862983|NCT01145625|181589675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4|||<|0.4158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|8.2|||ANCOVA|P-Value and confidence interval are from ANCOVA model with treatment and center as factors and Baseline hair count as a covariate.||Statistical analysis is for the change from baseline to week 12 data.||8.2|-3.4|<0.4158
90862984|NCT01145625|181589676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|4.1|||ANCOVA|P-value and confidence interval are from ANCOVA model with treatment and center as factors and Baseline hair count as a covariate.||Statistical analysis is for the change from baseline to week 52 data.||4.1|-7.1|0.5980
90862985|NCT01751178|181589704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.061|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.081|-0.041||From ANCOVA with factors for treatment group, site, smoking status, number of bleeding sites strata and the baseline GSI as a covariate.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis stated that there was no difference between the two groups.||-0.041|-0.081|<0.0001
90862986|NCT01751178|181589704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|-0.05||From ANCOVA with factors for treatment group, site, smoking status, number of bleeding sites strata and the baseline GSI as a covariate.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis stated that there was no difference between the two treatment groups.||-0.050|-0.090|<0.0001
90862987|NCT01751178|181589705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|-0.05||From ANCOVA with factors for treatment group, site, smoking status, number of bleeding sites strata and the baseline GI as a covariate.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis that there was no difference between the two treatment groups.||-0.05|-0.10|<0.0001
90862988|NCT01751178|181589705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|-0.06||From ANCOVA with factors for treatment group, site, smoking status, number of bleeding sites strata and the baseline GI as a covariate.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis stated that there was no difference between the two treatment groups.||-0.06|-0.11|<0.0001
90862989|NCT01751178|181589706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.62||From ANCOVA with factors for treatment group, site, smoking status, number of bleeding sites strata and the baseline Plaque as a covariate|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis stated that there was no difference between the two treatment groups in Overall Plaque scores.||-0.62|-0.98|<0.0001
90862990|NCT01751178|181589706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adusted Mean Difference|-0.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|-0.68||From ANCOVA with factors for treatment group, site, smoking status, number of bleeding sites strata and the baseline Plaque as a covariate|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis stated that there was no difference between the two treatment groups in Overall Plaque Scores.||-0.68|-1.04|<0.0001
90907057|NCT04011033|181682263|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.63|||Log Rank|||||0.63|0.16|<0.001
90862991|NCT01751178|181589707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.88|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.69||From ANCOVA with factors for treatment group, site, smoking status, number of bleeding sites strata and the baseline Plaque as a covariate|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypotheses stated that there was no difference between the two treatments.||-0.69|-1.07|<0.0001
90862992|NCT01751178|181589707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.97|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|-0.78||From ANCOVA with factors for treatment group, site, smoking status, number of bleeding sites strata and the baseline Plaque as a covariate|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypotheses stated that there was no difference between the two groups.||-0.78|-1.16|<0.0001
90862993|NCT04289623|181589708|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.35||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05.|Regression, Logistic|||We conducted a logistic regression among the previously enrolled group with the standard email as the reference group.||1.35|1.05|.007
90862994|NCT04289623|181589708|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.19||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05.|Regression, Logistic|||We conducted a logistic regression among the never enrolled group with the standard email as the reference group.||1.19|0.56|.287
90862995|NCT04289623|181589708|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.27||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05.|Regression, Logistic|||We conducted a logistic regression among the previously enrolled group with the rank-and-file email as the reference group.||1.27|0.87|.590
90862996|NCT04289623|181589708|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.86||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|3.32||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05.|Regression, Logistic|||We conducted a logistic regression among the never enrolled group with the rank-and-file email as the reference group.||3.32|1.05|.035
90862997|NCT04289623|181589709|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.37||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05.|Regression, Logistic|||We conducted a logistic regression among the previously enrolled group with the standard email as the reference group.||1.37|0.98|.085
90862998|NCT04289623|181589709|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.33||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05.|Regression, Logistic|||We conducted a logistic regression among the never enrolled group with the standard email as the reference group.||1.33|0.60|.569
90862999|NCT04289623|181589709|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.17||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05.|Regression, Logistic|||We conducted a logistic regression among the previously enrolled group with the rank-and-file email as the reference group.||1.17|0.54|.240
90863000|NCT04289623|181589709|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.95||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05.|Regression, Logistic|||We conducted a logistic regression among the never enrolled group with the rank-and-file email as the reference group.||1.95|0.45|.871
90863001|NCT03719612|181589710|SUPERIORITY|Difference between Echo Enhanced and Echo Unenhanced|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.947||0.358|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.358
90863002|NCT03719612|181589710|SUPERIORITY|Difference between Echo Enhanced and Echo Unenhanced|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.699||0.804|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.804
90863003|NCT03719612|181589710|SUPERIORITY|Difference between Echo Enhanced and Echo Unenhanced|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.412||0.371|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.371
90863004|NCT03719612|181589711|SUPERIORITY|Difference between Echo Enhanced and Echo Unenhanced|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.28|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.952||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.030
90863005|NCT03719612|181589711|SUPERIORITY|Difference between Echo Enhanced and Echo Unenhanced|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.466||0.312|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.312
90863006|NCT03719612|181589711|SUPERIORITY|Difference between Echo Enhanced and Echo Unenhanced|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.65|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.725||0.347|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.347
90863007|NCT03719612|181589712|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.984|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.977|0.988||||||Inter-Reader Variability Echo Enhanced||0.988|0.977|
90863008|NCT03719612|181589712|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.953|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.936|0.966||||||Inter-Reader Variability Echo Unenhanced||0.966|0.936|
90863009|NCT03719612|181589712|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.958|0.978||||||Inter-Reader Variability Echo Enhanced||0.978|0.958|
90863010|NCT03719612|181589712|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.944|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.923|0.959||||||Inter-Reader Variability Echo Unenhanced||0.959|0.923|
90863011|NCT03719612|181589712|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.961|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.947|0.972||||||Inter-Reader Variability Echo Enhanced||0.972|0.947|
90863012|NCT03719612|181589712|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.942|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|0.958||||||Inter-Reader Variability Echo Unenhanced||0.958|0.920|
90863013|NCT03719612|181589713|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.984|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.978|0.988||||||Inter-Reader Variability End Diastolic Echo Enhanced||0.988|0.978|
90863014|NCT03719612|181589713|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.976|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.967|0.983||||||Inter-Reader Variability End Diastolic Echo Unenhanced||0.983|0.967|
90863015|NCT03719612|181589713|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.973|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.963|0.981||||||Inter-Reader Variability End Diastolic Echo Enhanced||0.981|0.963|
90863016|NCT03719612|181589713|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.935|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|0.952||||||Inter-Reader Variability End Diastolic Echo Unenhanced||0.952|0.910|
90907058|NCT04011033|181682265|OTHER||||||=|0.003|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||=0.003
90907059|NCT04011033|181682266|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
90907060|NCT04011033|181682268|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.37|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.71|||Log Rank|||||0.71|0.19|=0.001
90907061|NCT01823341|181682269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90907062|NCT01823341|181682270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
90907063|NCT01823341|181682270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04
90907064|NCT01823341|181682271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90907065|NCT01823341|181682271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.005
90907066|NCT01823341|181682272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90863017|NCT03719612|181589713|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.973|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.962|0.98||||||Inter-Reader Variability End Diastolic Echo Enhanced||0.980|0.962|
90863018|NCT03719612|181589713|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.924|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.896|0.945||||||Inter-Reader Variability End Diastolic Echo Unenhanced||0.945|0.896|
90863019|NCT03719612|181589713|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.989|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.984|0.992||||||Inter-Reader Variability End Systolic Echo Enhanced||0.992|0.984|
90863020|NCT03719612|181589713|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.983|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.977|0.988||||||Inter-Reader Variability End Systolic Echo Unenhanced||0.988|0.977|
90863021|NCT03719612|181589713|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.984|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.978|0.989||||||Inter-Reader Variability End Systolic Echo Enhanced||0.989|0.978|
90863022|NCT03719612|181589713|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.948|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.928|0.962||||||Inter-Reader Variability End Systolic Echo Unenhanced||0.962|0.928|
90863023|NCT03719612|181589713|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.978|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.969|0.984||||||Inter-Reader Variability End Systolic Echo Enhanced||0.984|0.969|
90863024|NCT03719612|181589713|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.942|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|0.958||||||Inter-Reader Variability End Systolic Echo Unenhanced||0.958|0.920|
90863025|NCT03719612|181589714|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.975|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.956|0.986||||||Inter-Reader Variability Echo Enhanced Sub-Optimal Echocardiograms||0.986|0.956|
90863026|NCT03719612|181589714|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.936|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.888|0.963||||||Inter-Reader Variability Echo Unenhanced Sub-Optimal Echocardiograms||0.963|0.888|
90863027|NCT03719612|181589714|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.961|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.931|0.978||||||Inter-Reader Variability Echo Enhanced Sub-Optimal Echocardiograms||0.978|0.931|
90863028|NCT03719612|181589714|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.921|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.864|0.955||||||Inter-Reader Variability Echo Unenhanced Sub-Optimal Echocardiograms||0.955|0.864|
90863029|NCT03719612|181589714|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.947|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.907|0.97||||||Inter-Reader Variability Echo Enhanced Sub-Optimal Echocardiograms||0.970|0.907|
90863030|NCT03719612|181589714|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.903|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.834|0.945||||||Inter-Reader Variability Echo Unenhanced Sub-Optimal Echocardiograms||0.945|0.834|
90863031|NCT03719612|181589715|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.984|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.971|0.991||||||Inter-Reader Variability End Diastolic Echo Enhanced Sub-Optimal Echocardiograms||0.991|0.971|
90863032|NCT03719612|181589715|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.975|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.956|0.986||||||Inter-Reader Variability End Diastolic Echo Unenhanced Sub-Optimal Echocardiograms||0.986|0.956|
90863033|NCT03719612|181589715|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.977|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.959|0.987||||||Inter-Reader Variability End Diastolic Echo Enhanced Sub-Optimal Echocardiograms||0.987|0.959|
90863034|NCT03719612|181589715|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.896|0.966||||||Inter-Reader Variability End Diastolic Echo Unenhanced Sub-Optimal Echocardiograms||0.966|0.896|
90863035|NCT03719612|181589715|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.977|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.959|0.987||||||Inter-Reader Variability End Diastolic Echo Enhanced Sub-Optimal Echocardiograms||0.987|0.959|
90863036|NCT03719612|181589715|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.923|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.866|0.956||||||Inter-Reader Variability End Diastolic Echo Unenhanced Sub-Optimal Echocardiograms||0.956|0.866|
90863037|NCT03719612|181589715|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.982|0.994||||||Inter-Reader Variability End Systolic Echo Enhanced Sub-Optimal Echocardiograms||0.994|0.982|
90863038|NCT03719612|181589715|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.976|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.957|0.986||||||Inter-Reader Variability End Systolic Echo Unenhanced Sub-Optimal Echocardiograms||0.986|0.957|
90907067|NCT01823341|181682272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004
90907068|NCT01823341|181682273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.10
90907069|NCT01823341|181682273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.50
90907070|NCT01823341|181682274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.18
90907071|NCT01823341|181682274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.77
90907072|NCT01823341|181682275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90907073|NCT01823341|181682275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.11
90907074|NCT01823341|181682276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.57
90863039|NCT03719612|181589715|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.985|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.973|0.991||||||Inter-Reader Variability End Systolic Echo Enhanced Sub-Optimal Echocardiograms||0.991|0.973|
90863040|NCT03719612|181589715|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.929|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.876|0.959||||||Inter-Reader Variability End Systolic Echo Unenhanced Sub-Optimal Echocardiograms||0.959|0.876|
90863041|NCT03719612|181589715|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.981|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.966|0.989||||||Inter-Reader Variability End Systolic Echo Enhanced Sub-Optimal Echocardiograms||0.989|0.966|
90907075|NCT01823341|181682276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.18
90907076|NCT01823341|181682277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.16
90907077|NCT01823341|181682277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.39
90907078|NCT01823341|181682278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.53
90907079|NCT01823341|181682278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.28
90907080|NCT01125774|181682296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percent incidence|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|2.1|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Telcagepant percent incidence versus Placebo percent incidence|||2.1|-4.4|
90863042|NCT03719612|181589715|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.916|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.855|0.952||||||Inter-Reader Variability End Systolic Echo Unenhanced Sub-Optimal Echocardiograms||0.952|0.855|
90863043|NCT01496248|181589717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
90863044|NCT01496248|181589718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
90863045|NCT01496248|181589719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
90863046|NCT01496248|181589720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
90863047|NCT01496248|181589721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
90863048|NCT01496248|181589722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
90863049|NCT01496248|181589723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
90863050|NCT01496248|181589724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
90863051|NCT04138810|181589726|NON_INFERIORITY|We defined the non-inferiority margin to be 5 points which with a sample of size of 25 women per arm would mean we would have a type I error rate of 0.05 and a power of 0.80.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|1.03||||||||1.03|-1.95|
90863052|NCT00696800|181589727|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Treatment groups were formally compared with a generalized linear model for the ongoing pregnancy rate which included factors for treatment group, age at randomization, and region. A pre-defined non-inferiority margin of 8% was applied.|Risk Difference (RD)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|5.9||||||||5.9|-3.8|
90863053|NCT00696800|181589728|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Equivalence margins of -3 and +5 were applied for the difference in number of oocytes. If the 95% confidence interval of the difference exceeded -3 or +5 oocytes, then Corifollitropin Alfa treatment was not considered equivalent to the reference treatment (recFSH).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.9||Treatment groups were formally compared including covariates treatment group, age and center.|ANOVA|||||1.9|0.5|0.001
90863054|NCT00914485|181589791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Increase in mean, post-intervention versus baseline, across 18 providers and 369 patients.||||.03
90863055|NCT02068027|181589816|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4503||||||MMRM imputing for missing data|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.4503
90863056|NCT02068027|181589817|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.735||||||MMRM imputing for missing data|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7350
90863057|NCT00494299|181589818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Log Rank|0.2520462|||||||||||||The comparison between the 2 groups is done using the log rank test stratified by the response of TACE (Responder group A versus Responder group B), ECOG performance status (PS) (0 versus 1) and the number of prior TACE (1 versus 2).|||||
90863058|NCT00494299|181589818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8735||||||95.0|0.6972|1.0942|||||Hazard Ratio: Sorafenib/Placebo.|||1.0942|0.6972|
90863059|NCT03576495|181589825|SUPERIORITY|"We conducted a superiority statistical test to assess if residents' knowledge improved after exposure to the PACTS curriculum. For purposes of measuring an effect of the PACTS curriculum on resident knowledge, resident knowledge was compared at time Period 2 between the Early Intervention (intervention) and Delayed Intervention (control) groups."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.6||||0.2422|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value compares the average scores (in percent) of the residents' knowledge assessment at time period 2 between the Early Intervention and Delayed Intervention groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2422
90863060|NCT03576495|181589826|SUPERIORITY||Difference between percentage|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||"We conducted a superiority statistical test to assess if residents' preparation for caring for culturally diverse patients improved after exposure to the PACTS curriculum. For purposes of measuring an effect of the PACTS curriculum on resident preparedness assessed by the Cross-Cultural Care Survey, resident preparedness was compared at time Period 2 between the Early Intervention (intervention) and Delayed Intervention (control) groups."||||1.000
90863061|NCT03576495|181589827|SUPERIORITY||Percent difference|0.9||||0.6295|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||"We conducted a superiority statistical test to assess if residents' self-assessed skills improved after exposure to the PACTS curriculum. For purposes of measuring an effect of the PACTS curriculum on resident skills, resident skills were compared at time Period 2 between the Early Intervention (intervention) and Delayed Intervention (control) groups."||||0.6295
90863062|NCT03576495|181589828|SUPERIORITY||Difference between percentage|2.5||||0.0199|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"We conducted a superiority statistical test to assess if residents' beliefs improved after exposure to the PACTS curriculum. For purposes of measuring an effect of the PACTS curriculum on resident beliefs, beliefs were compared at time Period 2 between the Early Intervention (intervention) and Delayed Intervention (control) groups."||||0.0199
90863063|NCT03576495|181589829|SUPERIORITY||difference in the percentage|2.2||||0.2665|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||"We conducted a superiority statistical test to assess if residents' OSCE performance improved after exposure to the PACTS curriculum. OSCE performance was compared at time Period 2 between the Early Intervention (intervention) and Delayed Intervention (control) groups. We compared the difference in the percentage of residents designated mostly and a great deal on Limited English Proficiency and Informed Consent OSCE."||||0.2665
90907081|NCT01125774|181682297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percent incidence|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.8|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Telcagepant percent incidence versus Placebo percent incidence|||0.8|-1.4|
90907082|NCT01125774|181682298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percent incidence|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Telcagepant percent incidence versus Placebo percent incidence|||1.6|-0.5|
90863064|NCT03576495|181589829|SUPERIORITY||difference in the percentage|6.2||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||"We conducted a superiority statistical test to assess if residents' OSCE performance improved after exposure to the PACTS curriculum. OSCE performance was compared at time Period 2 between the Early Intervention (intervention) and Delayed Intervention (control) groups. We compared the difference in the percentage of residents designated mostly and a great deal on Trust and Pain."||||0.0001
90863065|NCT03576495|181589830|SUPERIORITY||absolute difference between percentage|3.19||||0.5079|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||"We conducted a superiority statistical test to assess if patient satisfaction improved after resident exposure to the PACTS curriculum. For purposes of measuring an effect of the PACTS curriculum, patient satisfaction was compared at time Period 2 between the Early Intervention (intervention) and Delayed Intervention (control) groups. We compared the difference in proportion of patients who reported agree and strongly agree for satisfaction as it relates to trust at time period 2."||||0.5079
90863066|NCT03576495|181589830|SUPERIORITY||absolute difference between percentage|1.92||||0.1571|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||"We conducted a superiority statistical test to assess if patient satisfaction improved after resident exposure to the PACTS curriculum. For purposes of measuring an effect of the curriculum, patient satisfaction was compared at Period 2 between the Early Intervention (intervention) and Delayed Intervention (control) groups. We compared the difference in proportion of patients who reported agree and strongly agree for satisfaction as it relates to limited English proficiency at period 2."||||0.1571
90907083|NCT01125774|181682300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.1||α=0.0499|Longitudinal data analysis (LDA)||Difference is Telcagepant 140 mg versus Placebo|This measure tests the primary hypothesis, that telcagepant 140 mg is superior to placebo as measured by mean monthly headache days in participants with MRM or PMM||0.1|-1.1|0.130
90907084|NCT01125774|181682301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.4||To control Type I error, formal significance of the test for treatment difference for this measure could only be achieved if the comparison corresponding to the primary hypothesis was significant at α=0.0499|LDA||Difference is Telcagepant 140 mg versus Placebo|||0.4|-1.0|0.369
90863067|NCT03576495|181589830|SUPERIORITY||absolute difference between percentage|4.76||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||"We conducted a superiority statistical test to assess if patient satisfaction improved after resident exposure to the PACTS curriculum. For purposes of measuring an effect of the PACTS curriculum, patient satisfaction was compared at time Period 2 between the Early Intervention (intervention) and Delayed Intervention (control) groups. We compared the difference in proportion of patients who reported agree and strongly agree for satisfaction as it relates to consent at time period 2."||||0.0001
90863068|NCT03576495|181589830|SUPERIORITY||absolute difference between percentage|0.19||||0.2956|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||"We conducted a superiority statistical test to assess if patient satisfaction improved after resident exposure to the PACTS curriculum. For purposes of measuring an effect of the PACTS curriculum, patient satisfaction was compared at time Period 2 between the Early Intervention (intervention) and Delayed Intervention (control) groups. We compared the difference in proportion of patients who reported agree and strongly agree for satisfaction as it relates to pain at time period 2."||||0.2956
90907085|NCT01125774|181682302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.2||To control Type I error, formal significance of the test for treatment difference for this measure could only be achieved if the comparison corresponding to the primary hypothesis was significant at α=0.0499|LDA||Difference is Telcagepant 140 mg versus Placebo|||-0.2|-0.5|<0.001
90907086|NCT01125774|181682303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.2||To control Type I error, formal significance of the test for treatment difference for this measure could only be achieved if the comparison corresponding to the primary hypothesis was significant at α=0.0499|LDA||Difference is Telcagepant 140 mg versus Placebo|||-0.2|-0.5|<0.001
90907087|NCT01125774|181682304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2||To control Type I error, formal significance of the test for treatment difference for this measure could only be achieved if the comparison corresponding to the primary hypothesis was significant at α=0.0499|LDA||Difference is Telcagepant 140 mg versus Placebo|||0.2|-0.4|0.393
90907088|NCT00665561|181682328|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.67||||||Poisson regressions were fit to the categorical events with only treatment in the model to obtain the crude risk ratio (RR) and CI.||0.67|0.42|
90907089|NCT00665561|181682329|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|5.88||||||Poisson regressions were fit to the categorical events with only treatment in the model to obtain the crude RR and CI.||5.88|0.12|
90907090|NCT00665561|181682330|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.33||||||All Malignancies: Poisson regressions were fit to the categorical events with only treatment in the model to obtain the crude RR and CI.||1.33|0.66|
90907091|NCT00665561|181682330|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.31||||||AIDS defining Malignancies: Poisson regressions were fit to the categorical events with only treatment in the model to obtain the crude RR and CI.||1.31|0.29|
90907092|NCT00665561|181682330|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.58||||||Non-AIDS defining Malignancies: Poisson regressions were fit to the categorical events with only treatment in the model to obtain the crude RR and CI.||1.58|0.71|
90907093|NCT00665561|181682331|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|2.18||||||Poisson regressions were fit to the categorical events with only treatment in the model to obtain the crude RR and CI.||2.18|0.44|
90907094|NCT00665561|181682332|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.59||||||Poisson regressions were fit to the categorical events with only treatment in the model to obtain the crude RR and CI.||1.59|0.51|
90907095|NCT00665561|181682333|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.76||||||Poisson regressions were fit to the categorical events with only treatment in the model to obtain the crude RR and CI.||1.76|0.70|
90907096|NCT00665561|181682334|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|4.93||||||Poisson regressions were fit to the categorical events with only treatment in the model to obtain the crude RR and CI.||4.93|0.25|
90907097|NCT00665561|181682335|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|2.47||||||Poisson regressions were fit to the categorical events with only treatment in the model to obtain the crude RR and CI.||2.47|0.18|
90863069|NCT03576495|181589831|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|5.31||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||We used Cox Proportional Hazard to assess time to discharge, with 5.31 days as the estimated value for the difference between the two groups.|"We conducted a superiority statistical test to assess if patients length of stay improved after resident exposure to the PACTS curriculum. Patient length of stay was compared at time Period 2 between the Early Intervention (intervention) and Delayed Intervention (control) groups to measure an effect of the PACTS intervention."||||0.0028
90863070|NCT00516074|181589835|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Approximately 25 subjects were intended to be randomized to both the exenatide and placebo arms. Assuming an approximate 24% dropout rate, 19 patients per treatment arm would complete the study. A sample of 19 patients per treatment group would provide 90% power to detect a 10 bpm difference between treatment groups in change in daily mean heart rate from baseline.||||||0.1585||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1585
90863071|NCT00516074|181589836|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation for the primary endpoint is described as part of the primary endpoint information above.||||||0.1624||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1624
90863072|NCT00516074|181589837|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation for the primary endpoint is described as part of the primary endpoint information above.||||||0.5077||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.5077
90863073|NCT00516074|181589838|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation for the primary endpoint is described as part of the primary endpoint information above.||||||0.9034||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.9034
90863074|NCT00516074|181589839|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation for the primary endpoint is described as part of the primary endpoint information above.||||||0.427||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.4270
90863075|NCT00516074|181589840|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation for the primary endpoint is described as part of the primary endpoint information above.||||||0.26||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2600
90863076|NCT02197273|181589901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.764|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.764
90863077|NCT02197273|181589902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.206|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.206
90863078|NCT02197273|181589903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Fisher exact|0.486||||0.656|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.656
90863079|NCT04154930|181589904|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|69.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.54|86.89|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||86.89|52.54|<0.001
90863080|NCT04154930|181589905|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|72.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.67|84.28|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Responder Rate Based on the Blinded Evaluator's live assessment of the GIHS at 6 Months After Baseline||84.28|60.67|<0.001
90863081|NCT04154930|181589905|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|66.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.97|77.92|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Responder Rate Based on the Blinded Evaluator's live assessment of the GIHS at 9 Months After Baseline||77.92|54.97|<0.001
90863082|NCT04154930|181589905|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|52.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.57|64.26|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Responder Rate Based on the Blinded Evaluator's live assessment of the GIHS at 12 Months After Baseline||64.26|40.57|<0.001
90863083|NCT01611155|181589919|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.87
90863084|NCT01611155|181589920|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Motor subscale||||0.53
90863085|NCT01611155|181589920|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||autonomic subscale||||0.89
90863086|NCT01435603|181589921|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.273||||0.017|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.017
90863087|NCT01681472|181589930|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0323|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6R\]-5,10-methylene-THF concentration in tumor tissue was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0323
90863088|NCT01681472|181589930|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1336|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6R\]-5,10-methylene-THF concentration in tumor tissue was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.1336
90863089|NCT01681472|181589930|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8622|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6R\]-5,10-methylene-THF concentration in tumor tissue was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.8622
90863090|NCT01681472|181589930|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0024|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6R\]-5,10-methylene-THF concentration in tumor tissue was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0024
90863091|NCT01681472|181589930|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0074|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6R\]-5,10-methylene-THF concentration in tumor tissue was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0074
90863092|NCT01681472|181589930|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1752|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6R\]-5,10-methylene-THF concentration in tumor tissue was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.1752
90863093|NCT01681472|181589931|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.148|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6R\]-5,10-methylene-THF concentration in mucosa adjacent to the tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.1480
90863094|NCT01681472|181589931|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0034|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6R\]-5,10-methylene-THF concentration in mucosa adjacent to the tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0034
90863095|NCT01681472|181589931|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0177|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6R\]-5,10-methylene-THF concentration in mucosa adjacent to the tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0177
90863096|NCT01681472|181589931|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6R\]-5,10-methylene-THF concentration in mucosa adjacent to the tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||<0.0001
90863097|NCT01681472|181589931|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0019|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6R\]-5,10-methylene-THF concentration in mucosa adjacent to the tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0019
90863098|NCT01681472|181589931|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0118|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6R\]-5,10-methylene-THF concentration in mucosa adjacent to the tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0118
90863099|NCT01681472|181589932|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1182|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6S\]-5-THF concentration in tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.1182
90863100|NCT01681472|181589932|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0538|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6S\]-5-THF concentration in tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0538
90863101|NCT01681472|181589932|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5244|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6S\]-5-THF concentration in tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.5244
90863102|NCT01681472|181589932|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0081|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6S\]-5-THF concentration in tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0081
90863103|NCT01681472|181589932|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0313|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6S\]-5-THF concentration in tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0313
90863104|NCT01681472|181589932|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4777|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6S\]-5-THF concentration in tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.4777
90863105|NCT01681472|181589933|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2716|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6S\]-5-THF concentration in mucosa adjacent to the tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.2716
90863106|NCT01681472|181589933|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0124|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6S\]-5-THF concentration in mucosa adjacent to the tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0124
90863107|NCT01681472|181589933|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0728|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6S\]-5-THF concentration in mucosa adjacent to the tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0728
90863108|NCT01681472|181589933|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6S\]-5-THF concentration in mucosa adjacent to the tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||<0.0001
90863109|NCT01681472|181589933|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0039|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6S\]-5-THF concentration in mucosa adjacent to the tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0039
90863110|NCT01681472|181589933|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0454|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6S\]-5-THF concentration in mucosa adjacent to the tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0454
90863111|NCT01681472|181589934|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0092|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6S\]-5-methyl-THF concentration in tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0092
90863112|NCT01681472|181589934|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8303|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6S\]-5-methyl-THF concentration in tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.8303
90959484|NCT03075410|181799155|OTHER||Slope|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.09|1.1|||||Mixed Effect Model has been used to assess Steady State. Day is fitted as a Fixed Effect. Participant is fitted as Random Effect Variance Components covariance structure is used.|Repeat GSK3036656 5mg Day 1-14||1.10|1.09|
90863113|NCT01681472|181589934|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1182|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6S\]-5-methyl-THF concentration in tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.1182
90863114|NCT01681472|181589934|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0081|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6S\]-5-methyl-THF concentration in tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0081
90863115|NCT01681472|181589934|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3184|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6S\]-5-methyl-THF concentration in tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.3184
90959485|NCT03075410|181799155|OTHER||Slope|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.07|1.08|||||Mixed Effect Model has been used to assess Steady State. Day is fitted as a Fixed Effect. Participant is fitted as Random Effect Variance Components covariance structure is used.|Repeat GSK3036656 15mg Day 1-14||1.08|1.07|
90863116|NCT01681472|181589934|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1752|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6S\]-5-methyl-THF concentration in tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.1752
90863117|NCT01681472|181589935|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0728|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6S\]-5-methyl-THF concentration in mucosa adjacent to the tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0728
90863118|NCT01681472|181589935|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2246|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6S\]-5-methyl-THF concentration in mucosa adjacent to the tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.2246
90863119|NCT01681472|181589935|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0428|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6S\]-5-methyl-THF concentration in mucosa adjacent to the tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0428
90863120|NCT01681472|181589935|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6S\]-5-methyl-THF concentration in mucosa adjacent to the tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0003
90863121|NCT01681472|181589935|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4309|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6S\]-5-methyl-THF concentration in mucosa adjacent to the tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.4309
90863122|NCT01681472|181589935|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0055|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6S\]-5-methyl-THF concentration in mucosa adjacent to the tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0055
90863123|NCT01681472|181589936|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0728|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6S\]-5-formyl-THF concentration in tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0728
90863124|NCT01681472|181589936|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0034|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6S\]-5-formyl-THF concentration in tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0034
90863125|NCT01681472|181589936|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0015|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6S\]-5-formyl-THF concentration in tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0015
90863126|NCT01681472|181589936|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0024|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6S\]-5-formyl-THF concentration in tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0024
90863127|NCT01681472|181589936|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0009|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6S\]-5-formyl-THF concentration in tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0009
90863128|NCT01681472|181589936|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0055|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6S\]-5-formyl-THF concentration in tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0055
90863129|NCT01681472|181589937|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6S\]-5-formyl-THF concentration in mucosa adjacent to the tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0240
90863130|NCT01681472|181589937|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0058|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6S\]-5-formyl-THF concentration in mucosa adjacent to the tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0058
90863131|NCT01681472|181589937|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0015|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6S\]-5-formyl-THF concentration in mucosa adjacent to the tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0015
90907098|NCT00665561|181682336|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.08||||||Poisson regressions were fit to the categorical events with only treatment in the model to obtain the crude RR and CI.||1.08|0.57|
90907099|NCT00665561|181682337|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.99||||||Poisson regressions were fit to the categorical events with treatment as the main effect, PS quartile and imputed FS as covariates in the model to obtain the adjusted RR and CI.||0.99|0.61|
90907100|NCT00665561|181682338|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.33||||||All malignancies: Poisson regressions were fit to the categorical events with treatment as the main effect, PS quartile and imputed FS as covariates in the model to obtain the adjusted RR and CI.||1.33|0.64|
90907101|NCT00665561|181682338|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.52||||||AIDS defining malignancies: Poisson regressions were fit to the categorical events with treatment as the main effect, PS quartile and imputed FS as covariates in the model to obtain the adjusted RR and CI.||1.52|0.32|
90907102|NCT00665561|181682338|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.52||||||Non-AIDS defining malignancies: Poisson regressions were fit to the categorical events with treatment as the main effect, PS quartile and imputed FS as covariates in the model to obtain the adjusted RR and CI.||1.52|0.66|
90907103|NCT00665561|181682339|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.1||||||Poisson regressions were fit to the categorical events with treatment as the main effect, PS quartile and imputed FS as covariates in the model to obtain the adjusted RR and CI.||1.10|0.35|
90863132|NCT01681472|181589937|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6S\]-5-formyl-THF concentration in mucosa adjacent to the tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||<0.0001
90863133|NCT01681472|181589937|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0014|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6S\]-5-formyl-THF concentration in mucosa adjacent to the tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0014
90863134|NCT01681472|181589937|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0338|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6S\]-5-formyl-THF concentration in mucosa adjacent to the tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0338
90863135|NCT01681472|181589938|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(0-2h) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
90863136|NCT01681472|181589938|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(0-2h) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
90863137|NCT01681472|181589938|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(0-2h) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
90863138|NCT01681472|181589938|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(0-2h) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
90863139|NCT01681472|181589938|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0015|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(0-2h) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0015
90863140|NCT01681472|181589938|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(0-2h) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
90863141|NCT01681472|181589939|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0015|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(0-2h) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0015
90863142|NCT01681472|181589939|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(0-2h) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
90863143|NCT01681472|181589939|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0015|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(0-2h) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0015
90863144|NCT01681472|181589939|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(0-2h) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
90863145|NCT01681472|181589939|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0009|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(0-2h) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0009
90863146|NCT01681472|181589939|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(0-2h) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
90863147|NCT01681472|181589940|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0728|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(0-2h) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0728
90863148|NCT01681472|181589940|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2246|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(0-2h) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.2246
90863149|NCT01681472|181589940|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0166|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(0-2h) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0166
90863150|NCT01681472|181589940|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1752|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(0-2h) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.1752
90863151|NCT01681472|181589940|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9581|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(0-2h) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.9581
90863152|NCT01681472|181589940|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0118|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(0-2h) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0118
90863153|NCT01681472|181589941|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(0-2h) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
90863154|NCT01681472|181589941|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(0-2h) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
90863155|NCT01681472|181589941|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(0-2h) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
90863156|NCT01681472|181589941|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(0-2h) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
90863157|NCT01681472|181589941|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(0-2h) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
90863158|NCT01681472|181589941|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0024|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(0-2h) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0024
90863159|NCT01681472|181589942|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0015|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0015
90863160|NCT01681472|181589942|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
90863161|NCT01681472|181589942|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0022|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0022
90863162|NCT01681472|181589942|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
90863163|NCT01681472|181589942|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0015|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0015
90863164|NCT01681472|181589942|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
90863165|NCT01681472|181589943|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0015|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0015
90863166|NCT01681472|181589943|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
90863167|NCT01681472|181589943|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0015|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0015
90907104|NCT00665561|181682340|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.52||||||Poisson regressions were fit to the categorical events with treatment as the main effect, PS quartile and imputed FS as covariates in the model to obtain the adjusted RR and CI.||1.52|0.59|
90907105|NCT00665561|181682341|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.28||||||Poisson regressions were fit to the categorical events with treatment as the main effect, PS quartile and imputed FS as covariates in the model to obtain the adjusted RR and CI.||1.28|0.66|
90907106|NCT00665561|181682342|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.6225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.28|||Regression, Cox|||||1.28|0.66|0.6225
90907107|NCT03253653|181682343|OTHER||z score|1.578||||0.115|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||||We used the Wilcoxon signed-rank test (two-tailed alpha level p \< 0.05), appropriate for within-subjects tests, to determine whether the pre-to-post change in biomarker levels for the Charcoal-heated tobacco smoking session (n=50) significantly different from the pre-to-post change in biomarker levels for the Electric Head-heated tobacco smoking session (using the same 50 participants after a weeklong washout period).|||0.115
90863168|NCT01681472|181589943|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
90863169|NCT01681472|181589943|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0009|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0009
90863170|NCT01681472|181589943|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
90863171|NCT01681472|181589944|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0240
90907108|NCT03253653|181682344|OTHER||z|0.497||||0.619|TWO_SIDED||||||z||||We used the Wilcoxon signed-rank test (two-tailed alpha level p \< 0.05), appropriate for within-subjects tests, to determine whether the pre-to-post change in biomarker levels for the Charcoal-heated tobacco smoking session (n=50) significantly different from the pre-to-post change in biomarker levels for the Electric Head-heated tobacco smoking session (using the same 50 participants after a weeklong washout period).|||0.619
90907109|NCT03253653|181682345|OTHER||z|1.72||||0.085|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcox and signed rank test||||We used the Wilcoxon signed-rank test (two-tailed alpha level p \< 0.05), appropriate for within-subjects tests, to determine whether the pre-to-post change in biomarker levels for the Charcoal-heated tobacco smoking session (n=50) significantly different from the pre-to-post change in biomarker levels for the Electric Head-heated tobacco smoking session (using the same 50 participants after a weeklong washout period).|||0.085
90907110|NCT03253653|181682346|OTHER||z|6.154|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test||||We used the Wilcoxon signed-rank test (two-tailed alpha level p \< 0.05), appropriate for within-subjects tests, to determine whether the pre-to-post change in biomarker levels for the Charcoal-heated tobacco smoking session (n=50) significantly different from the pre-to-post change in biomarker levels for the Electric Head-heated tobacco smoking session (using the same 50 participants after a weeklong washout period).|||<0.001
90907111|NCT03253653|181682347|OTHER||z|-1.144||||0.253|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test||||We used the Wilcoxon signed-rank test (two-tailed alpha level p \< 0.05), appropriate for within-subjects tests, to determine whether the pre-to-post change in systolic blood pressure for the Charcoal-heated tobacco smoking session (n=50) significantly different from the pre-to-post change in biomarker levels for the Electric Head-heated tobacco smoking session (using the same 50 participants after a weeklong washout period).|||0.253
90907112|NCT03253653|181682348|OTHER||z|-1.004||||0.315|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test||||We used the Wilcoxon signed-rank test (two-tailed alpha level p \< 0.05), appropriate for within-subjects tests, to determine whether the pre-to-post change in diastolic blood pressure for the Charcoal-heated tobacco smoking session (n=50) significantly different from the pre-to-post change in diastolic blood pressure for the Electric Head-heated tobacco smoking session (using the same 50 participants after a weeklong washout period).|||0.315
90907113|NCT03253653|181682349|OTHER||z|3.089||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcox and signed rank test||||We used the Wilcoxon signed-rank test (two-tailed alpha level p \< 0.05), appropriate for within-subjects tests, to determine whether the pre-to-post change in heart rate for the Charcoal-heated tobacco smoking session (n=50) was significantly different from the pre-to-post change in heart rate for the Electric Head-heated tobacco smoking session (using the same 50 participants after a weeklong washout period).|||0.002
90907114|NCT03253653|181682350|OTHER||z|-7.024|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mann-Whitney U rank sum test||||We used the Mann-Whitney U rank sum test (two-tailed alpha level p \< 0.05), appropriate for between-subjects analyses, to determine whether level of the cotinine metabolite after a tobacco smoking session for n=50 smokers differed from the level for n=25 non-smokers.|||<0.001
90907115|NCT03253653|181682351|OTHER||z|-4.541|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mann-Whitney U rank sum test||||We used the Mann-Whitney U rank sum test (two-tailed alpha level p \< 0.05), appropriate for between-subjects analyses, to determine whether level of the SPMA metabolite after a tobacco smoking session for n=50 smokers differed from the level for n=25 non-smokers.|||<0.001
90907116|NCT03253653|181682352|OTHER||z|-2.569||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mann-Whitney U rank sum test||||We used the Mann-Whitney U rank sum test (two-tailed alpha level p \< 0.05), appropriate for between-subjects analyses, to determine whether level of the 1-HOP metabolite after a tobacco smoking session for n=50 smokers differed from the level for n=25 non-smokers.|||.010
90907117|NCT03253653|181682353|OTHER||z|-7.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mann-Whitney U rank sum test||||We used the Mann-Whitney U rank sum test (two-tailed alpha level p \< 0.05), appropriate for between-subjects analyses, to determine whether level of the exhaled carbon monoxide after a tobacco smoking session for n=50 smokers differed from the level for n=25 non-smokers.|||<0.001
90907118|NCT03253653|181682354|OTHER||z|-1.304||||0.192|TWO_SIDED||||||Mann-Whitney U test||||We used the Mann-Whitney U rank sum test (two-tailed alpha level p \< 0.05), appropriate for between-subjects analyses, to determine whether level of the cotinine metabolite after a tobacco smoking session for n=50 smokers differed from the level for n=25 non-smokers.|||0.192
90907119|NCT03253653|181682355|OTHER||z|-2.136||||0.033|TWO_SIDED||||||Mann-Whitney U rank sum test||||We used the Mann-Whitney U rank sum test (two-tailed alpha level p \< 0.05), appropriate for between-subjects analyses, to determine whether level diastolic blood pressure after a tobacco smoking session for n=50 smokers differed from the level for n=25 non-smokers.|||0.033
90907120|NCT03253653|181682356|OTHER||z|-1.22||||0.223|TWO_SIDED||||||Mann-Whitney U rank sum test||||We used the Mann-Whitney U rank sum test (two-tailed alpha level p \< 0.05), appropriate for between-subjects analyses, to determine whether level of the heart rate after a tobacco smoking session for n=50 smokers differed from the level for n=25 non-smokers.|||0.223
90907121|NCT03253653|181682357|OTHER||z|-7.024|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mann Whitney U rank sum test||||We used the Mann-Whitney U rank sum test (two-tailed alpha level p \< 0.05), appropriate for between-subjects analyses, to determine whether level of the cotinine metabolite after a tobacco smoking session for n=50 smokers differed from the level for n=25 non-smokers.|||<0.001
90907122|NCT03253653|181682358|OTHER||z|-1.248||||0.212|TWO_SIDED||||||Mann-Whitney U rank sum test||||We used the Mann-Whitney U rank sum test (two-tailed alpha level p \< 0.05), appropriate for between-subjects analyses, to determine whether level of the SPMA metabolite after a tobacco smoking session for n=50 smokers differed from the level for n=25 non-smokers.|||0.212
90907123|NCT03253653|181682359|OTHER||z|-2.721||||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||Mann-Whitney U rank sum test||||We used the Mann-Whitney U rank sum test (two-tailed alpha level p \< 0.05), appropriate for between-subjects analyses, to determine whether level of the cotinine metabolite after a tobacco smoking session for n=50 smokers differed from the level for n=25 non-smokers.|||0.007
90907124|NCT03253653|181682360|OTHER||z|2.778||||0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||Mann-Whitney U rank sum test||||We used the Mann-Whitney U rank sum test (two-tailed alpha level p \< 0.05), appropriate for between-subjects analyses, to determine whether level of exhaled carbon monoxide after a tobacco smoking session for n=50 smokers differed from the level for n=25 non-smokers.|||0.006
90863172|NCT01681472|181589944|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1336|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.1336
90907125|NCT03253653|181682361|OTHER||z|-0.832||||0.406|TWO_SIDED||||||Mann-Whitney U rank sum test||||We used the Mann-Whitney U rank sum test (two-tailed alpha level p \< 0.05), appropriate for between-subjects analyses, to determine whether level of systolic blood pressure after a tobacco smoking session for n=50 smokers differed from the level for n=25 non-smokers.|||0.406
90907126|NCT03253653|181682362|OTHER||z|-1.467||||0.142|TWO_SIDED||||||Mann-Whitney U ranksum test||||We used the Mann-Whitney U rank sum test (two-tailed alpha level p \< 0.05), appropriate for between-subjects analyses, to determine whether level of diastolic blood pressure after a tobacco smoking session for n=50 smokers differed from the level for n=25 non-smokers.|||0.142
90907127|NCT03253653|181682363|OTHER||z|-0.596||||0.551|TWO_SIDED||||||Mann-Whitney U rank sum test||||We used the Mann-Whitney U rank sum test (two-tailed alpha level p \< 0.05), appropriate for between-subjects analyses, to determine whether level of the heart rate after a tobacco smoking session for n=50 smokers differed from the level for n=25 non-smokers.|||0.551
90907128|NCT03253653|181682364|OTHER||z|-0.787||||0.431|TWO_SIDED||||||Mann-Whitney U rank sum test||||We used the Mann-Whitney U rank sum test (two-tailed alpha level p \< 0.05), appropriate for between-subjects analyses, to determine whether level of the furan metabolite post a tobacco smoking session for n=50 smokers differed from the level for n=25 non-smokers.|||0.431
90863173|NCT01681472|181589944|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0015|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0015
90863174|NCT01681472|181589944|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2725|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.2725
90863175|NCT01681472|181589944|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1893|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.1893
90863176|NCT01681472|181589944|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0024|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0024
90863177|NCT01681472|181589945|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
90863178|NCT01681472|181589945|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
90863179|NCT01681472|181589945|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
90907129|NCT03253653|181682365|OTHER||z|-0.652||||0.515|TWO_SIDED||||||Mann-Whitney U rank sum test||||We used the Mann-Whitney U rank sum test (two-tailed alpha level p \< 0.05), appropriate for between-subjects analyses, to determine whether level of the furan metabolite post a tobacco smoking session for n=50 smokers differed from the level for n=25 non-smokers.|||0.515
90863180|NCT01681472|181589945|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0142|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0142
90863181|NCT01681472|181589945|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0085|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0085
90863182|NCT01681472|181589945|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0024|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0024
90863183|NCT01681472|181589946|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0014|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of Cmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0014
90863184|NCT01681472|181589946|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of Cmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
90863185|NCT01681472|181589946|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0021|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of Cmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0021
90863186|NCT01681472|181589946|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of Cmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
90863187|NCT01681472|181589946|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0014|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of Cmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0014
90863188|NCT01681472|181589946|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of Cmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
90863189|NCT01681472|181589947|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0015|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of Cmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0015
90907130|NCT03253653|181682366|OTHER||z|-2.394||||0.017|TWO_SIDED||||||Mann-Whitney U rank sum test||||We used the Mann-Whitney U rank sum test (two-tailed alpha level p \< 0.05), appropriate for between-subjects analyses, to determine whether level of the furan metabolite post a tobacco smoking session for n=50 smokers differed from the level for n=25 non-smokers.|||0. 017
90907131|NCT03253653|181682367|OTHER||z|-1.286||||0.199|TWO_SIDED||||||Mann-Whitney U rank sum test||||We used the Mann-Whitney U rank sum test (two-tailed alpha level p \< 0.05), appropriate for between-subjects analyses, to determine whether level of the furan metabolite post a tobacco smoking session for n=50 smokers differed from the level for n=25 non-smokers.|||0.199
90907132|NCT03253653|181682368|OTHER||z|-3.091||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Mann-Whitney U rank sum test||||We used the Mann-Whitney U rank sum test (two-tailed alpha level p \< 0.05), appropriate for between-subjects analyses, to determine whether level of the furan metabolite post a tobacco smoking session for n=50 smokers differed from the level for n=25 non-smokers.|||0.002
90863190|NCT01681472|181589947|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of Cmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
90863191|NCT01681472|181589947|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0015|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of Cmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0015
90863192|NCT01681472|181589947|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of Cmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
90863193|NCT01681472|181589947|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0009|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of Cmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0009
90863194|NCT01681472|181589947|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of Cmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
90863195|NCT01681472|181589948|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of Cmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0240
90863196|NCT01681472|181589948|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1336|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of Cmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.1336
90863197|NCT01681472|181589948|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0015|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of Cmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0015
90863198|NCT01681472|181589948|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1551|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of Cmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.1551
90863199|NCT01681472|181589948|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1563|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of Cmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.1563
90907133|NCT03253653|181682369|OTHER||z|0.13||||0.896|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test||||We used the Wilcoxon signed rank test (two-tailed alpha level p \< 0.05), appropriate for within-subjects analyses, to determine whether level of the furan metabolite post a tobacco smoking session for n=50 smokers differed from the level pre the tobacco smoking session.|||0.896
90907134|NCT03253653|181682370|OTHER||z|-0.362||||0.717|TWO_SIDED||||||The Wilcoxon signed rank test||||We used the Wilcoxon signed rank test (two-tailed alpha level p \< 0.05), appropriate for within-subjects analyses, to determine whether level of the furan metabolite post a tobacco smoking session for n=50 smokers differed from the level pre the tobacco smoking session.|||0.717
90907135|NCT03253653|181682371|OTHER||z|2.233||||0.026|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test||||We used the Wilcoxon signed rank test (two-tailed alpha level p \< 0.05), appropriate for within-subjects analyses, to determine whether level of the furan metabolite post a tobacco smoking session for n=50 smokers differed from the level pre the tobacco smoking session.|||0.026
90907136|NCT03253653|181682372|OTHER||z|0.383||||0.702|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test||||We used the Wilcoxon signed rank test (two-tailed alpha level p \< 0.05), appropriate for within-subjects analyses, to determine whether level of the furan metabolite post a tobacco smoking session for n=50 smokers differed from the level pre the tobacco smoking session.|||0.702
90907137|NCT03253653|181682373|OTHER||z|2.244||||0.025|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test||||We used the Wilcoxon signed rank test (two-tailed alpha level p \< 0.05), appropriate for within-subjects analyses, to determine whether level of the furan metabolite post a tobacco smoking session for n=50 smokers differed from the level pre the tobacco smoking session.|||0.025
90907138|NCT01251614|181682415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-25.5||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.2|-3.7|||Chi-squared|||"The a priori defined order of the statistical hypotheses was as follows:~1. Superiority of adalimumab 0.8 mg/kg versus MTX for the percentage of participants achieving a ≥ PASI 75 response at Week 16.~2. Superiority of adalimumab 0.8 mg/kg versus MTX, for the percentage of participants achieving a PGA cleared or minimal at Week 16.~This order was adhered to for confirmatory testing, all statistical tests were at a level of significance of 5% and the overall type I error was preserved."||-3.7|-47.2|0.027
90907139|NCT01251614|181682416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-20.0||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.2|2.2|||Chi-squared|||"The a priori defined order of the statistical hypotheses was as follows:~1. Superiority of adalimumab 0.8 mg/kg versus MTX for the percentage of participants achieving a ≥ PASI 75 response at Week 16.~2. Superiority of adalimumab 0.8 mg/kg versus MTX, for the percentage of participants achieving a PGA cleared or minimal at Week 16.~This order was adhered to for confirmatory testing, all statistical tests were at a level of significance of 5% and the overall type I error was preserved."||2.2|-42.2|0.083
90907140|NCT01251614|181682417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-7.3||||0.466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.9|12.3|||Chi-squared|||Statistical comparisons for the ranked secondary endpoints were carried out in hierarchical order. All statistical tests were 2-sided with the significance level of 5%. Statistically significant results (p-value ≤ 0.05) must have been achieved for a comparison in the higher rank in order to initiate the next comparison in the lower rank.||12.3|-26.9|0.466
90907141|NCT01251614|181682418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-15.7||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.1|-2.3|||Fisher Exact|||Statistical comparisons for the ranked secondary endpoints were carried out in hierarchical order. All statistical tests were 2-sided with the significance level of 5%. Statistically significant results (p-value ≤ 0.05) must have been achieved for a comparison in the higher rank in order to initiate the next comparison in the lower rank.||-2.3|-29.1|0.056
90907142|NCT01251614|181682419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|1.61||||0.304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|4.7|||ANOVA|||Statistical comparisons for the ranked secondary endpoints were carried out in hierarchical order. All statistical tests were 2-sided with the significance level of 5%. Statistically significant results (p-value ≤ 0.05) must have been achieved for a comparison in the higher rank in order to initiate the next comparison in the lower rank.||4.70|-1.48|0.304
90907143|NCT01251614|181682420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-8.88||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.94|-2.82|||ANOVA|||Statistical comparisons for the ranked secondary endpoints were carried out in hierarchical order. All statistical tests were 2-sided with the significance level of 5%. Statistically significant results (p-value ≤ 0.05) must have been achieved for a comparison in the higher rank in order to initiate the next comparison in the lower rank.||-2.82|-14.94|0.005
90907144|NCT01251614|181682421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-28.3||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.6|4.0|||Chi-squared|||"The difference between the combined adalimumab 0.8 mg/kg + MTX groups versus the adalimumab 0.4 mg/kg group.~Statistical comparisons for the ranked secondary endpoints were carried out in hierarchical order. All statistical tests were to be 2-sided with the significance level of 5%. Statistically significant results (P value ≤ 0.05) must have been achieved for a comparison in the higher rank in order to initiate the next comparison in the lower rank."||4.0|-60.6|0.113
90907145|NCT01251614|181682422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.45||||0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|3.17|||Log Rank|||Statistical comparisons for the ranked secondary endpoints were carried out in hierarchical order. All statistical tests were 2-sided with the significance level of 5%. Statistically significant results (P value ≤ 0.05) must have been achieved for a comparison in the higher rank in order to initiate the next comparison in the lower rank.||3.17|0.66|0.343
90959486|NCT03075410|181799156|OTHER||Slope|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.82|1.1|||||A slope of 1 indicates the pharmacokinetics are dose proportional. A slope greater than 1 indicates the increase in PK is greater than proportional to dose.||Power Model has been used to assess Dose Proportionality. Log-e(dose) is fitted as Fixed Effect and Participant is fitted as Random Effect. An Unstructured covariance structure is used.|1.10|0.82|
90863200|NCT01681472|181589948|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0024|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of Cmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0024
90863201|NCT01681472|181589949|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of Cmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
90863202|NCT01681472|181589949|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of Cmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
90907146|NCT01251614|181682422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.51||||0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|3.21|||Log Rank|||Statistical comparisons for the ranked secondary endpoints were carried out in hierarchical order. All statistical tests were 2-sided with the significance level of 5%. Statistically significant results (P value ≤ 0.05) must have been achieved for a comparison in the higher rank in order to initiate the next comparison in the lower rank.||3.21|0.71|0.276
90907147|NCT02857283|181682454|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||ANOVA|paired||||||0.46
90907148|NCT02857283|181682455|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0481|||||||ANOVA|Paired||||||0.0481
90863203|NCT01681472|181589949|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of Cmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
90863204|NCT01681472|181589949|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0142|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of Cmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0142
90863205|NCT01681472|181589949|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0085|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of Cmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0085
90907149|NCT02857283|181682456|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0179|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0179
90907150|NCT02857283|181682457|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||ANOVA|paired||||||0.10
90907151|NCT02857283|181682458|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||ANOVA|paired||||||0.69
90907152|NCT02857283|181682459|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||ANOVA|paired||||||0.27
90907153|NCT02857283|181682460|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||ANOVA|paired||||||0.50
90907154|NCT02857283|181682461|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.54
90863206|NCT01681472|181589949|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0024|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of Cmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0024
90863207|NCT01681472|181589950|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of tmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||1.0000
90863208|NCT01681472|181589950|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of tmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
90863209|NCT01681472|181589950|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of tmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0010
90863210|NCT01681472|181589950|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of tmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
90863211|NCT01681472|181589950|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of tmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0005
90863212|NCT01681472|181589950|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of tmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
90863213|NCT01681472|181589951|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0056|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of tmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0056
90907155|NCT02857283|181682462|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||ANOVA|paired||||||0.90
90863214|NCT01681472|181589951|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of tmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
90907156|NCT02857283|181682464|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.64
90863215|NCT01681472|181589951|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of tmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0010
90863216|NCT01681472|181589951|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of tmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
90863217|NCT01681472|181589951|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0014|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of tmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0014
90863218|NCT01681472|181589951|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of tmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
90863219|NCT01681472|181589952|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1796|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of tmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.1796
90863220|NCT01681472|181589952|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3243|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of tmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.3243
90863221|NCT01681472|181589952|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0263|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of tmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0263
90863222|NCT01681472|181589952|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0268|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of tmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0268
90863223|NCT01681472|181589952|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2041|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of tmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.2041
90863224|NCT01681472|181589952|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0061|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0061
90863225|NCT01681472|181589953|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of tmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
90907157|NCT02857283|181682465|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.79
90907158|NCT02857283|181682466|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.094|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.094
90907159|NCT00961805|181682476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Differences in the behavior of the groups over time.|ANOVA|||"Sample size was calculated by visual analogue scale for pain (alpha error of 5%, beta error of 20% and standard deviation of 2). The sample was determined to contain 30 patients in each group. Ten additional patients were added to compensate possible losses.~Analysis was intention to treat using the LOCF technique."||||<0.001
90863226|NCT01681472|181589953|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of tmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
90863227|NCT01681472|181589953|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of tmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
90863228|NCT01681472|181589953|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of tmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
90863229|NCT01681472|181589953|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of tmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
90863230|NCT01681472|181589953|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of tmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
90863231|NCT01681472|181589954|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0268|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t1/2 was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0268
90863232|NCT01681472|181589954|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t1/2 was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
90863233|NCT01681472|181589954|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0227|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t1/2 was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0227
90907160|NCT00961805|181682477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Differences in the behavior of the groups over time.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90863234|NCT01681472|181589954|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t1/2 was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
90863235|NCT01681472|181589954|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0933|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t1/2 was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0933
90863236|NCT01681472|181589954|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t1/2 was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
90863237|NCT01681472|181589955|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0177|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t1/2 was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0177
90863238|NCT01681472|181589955|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t1/2 was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
90863239|NCT01681472|181589955|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0058|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t1/2 was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0058
90863240|NCT01681472|181589955|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t1/2 was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
90863241|NCT01681472|181589955|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0043|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t1/2 was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0043
90863242|NCT01681472|181589955|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t1/2 was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
90863243|NCT01681472|181589956|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t1/2 was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
90863244|NCT01681472|181589956|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t1/2 was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
90907161|NCT00961805|181682478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.003||95.0||||Differences in the behavior of the groups over time.|ANOVA|||||||<0.003
90907162|NCT00961805|181682479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.146||95.0||||Differences in the behavior of the groups over time.|ANOVA|||||||0.146
90907163|NCT00961805|181682480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.131||95.0||||Differences in the behavior of the groups over time.|ANOVA|||||||0.131
90907164|NCT00961805|181682481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Differences in the behavior of the groups over time.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90907165|NCT00961805|181682482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58||95.0||||Differences in the behavior of the groups over time.|ANOVA|||||||0.580
90907166|NCT00961805|181682483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.082||95.0||||Differences in the behavior of the groups over time.|ANOVA|||||||0.082
90907167|NCT00961805|181682484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.055||95.0||||Differences in the behavior of the groups over time.|ANOVA|||||||0.055
90907168|NCT00961805|181682485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||Differences in the behavior of the groups over time.|ANOVA|||||||0.003
90907169|NCT00961805|181682486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021||95.0||||Differences in the behavior of the groups over time.|ANOVA|||||||0.021
90907170|NCT00961805|181682487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.136||95.0||||Differences in the behavior of the groups over time.|ANOVA|||||||0.136
90907171|NCT00961805|181682488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0||||Differences in the behavior of the groups over time.|ANOVA|||||||0.009
90907172|NCT00762463|181682490|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|LS mean difference calculated as LS mean change for Celecoxib 200 mg once daily minus LS mean change for Diclofenac SR 75 mg once daily. Non-inferiority was declared if the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval was \<10 mm.|LS Mean Difference|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.79||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|8.8|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA); factors: treatment group and study center; covariate: baseline Patient's Assessment of Global Pain Intensity score.||"Null hypothesis: Least Squares (LS) mean difference between Celecoxib 200 mg once daily versus Diclofenac SR 75 mg once daily on change in Global Pain Intensity from baseline to Week 6 was at least 10 mm. Corresponding alternative hypothesis: This difference was \<10 mm.~For the non-inferiority test, power was 80% and significance level was 0.025 (1-sided)."||8.8|-2.2|0.0085
90907173|NCT00762463|181682492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.7849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|4.2|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline analyzed using ANCOVA with treatment group and investigational centers as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||Change from baseline to Week 2. The p-value is for the null hypothesis test H0: u1=u2 vs. H1: u1 is not equal to u2.||4.2|-5.6|0.7849
90907174|NCT00762463|181682492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.62||0.3223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|7.8|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with treatment group and investigational centers as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||Change from baseline to Week 4. The p-value is for the null hypothesis test H0: u1=u2 vs. H1: u1 is not equal to u2.||7.8|-2.6|0.3223
90907175|NCT00762463|181682494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.8938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.17|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with treatment group and investigational centers as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||Change from baseline to Week 2. The p-value is for the null hypothesis test H0: u1=u2 vs. H1: u1 is not equal to u2.||0.17|-0.15|0.8938
90907176|NCT00762463|181682494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.0426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.31|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with treatment group and investigational centers as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||Change from baseline to Week 4. The p-value is for the null hypothesis test H0: u1=u2 vs. H1: u1 is not equal to u2.||0.31|0.01|0.0426
90907177|NCT00762463|181682494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.1502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.29|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with treatment group and investigational centers as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||Change from baseline to Week 6. The p-value is for the null hypothesis test H0: u1=u2 vs. H1: u1 is not equal to u2.||0.29|-0.05|0.1502
90907178|NCT00762463|181682496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.5945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with treatment group and investigational centers as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||Change from baseline to Week 2. The p-value is for the null hypothesis test H0: u1=u2 vs. H1: u1 is not equal to u2.||0.1|-0.2|0.5945
90959487|NCT03075410|181799157|OTHER||Slope|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.24|1.39|||||Power Model has been used to assess Dose Proportionality. Log-e(dose) is fitted as Fixed Effect and Participant is fitted as Random Effect. An Unstructured covariance structure is used.|||1.39|1.24|
90907179|NCT00762463|181682496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.3427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with treatment group and investigational centers as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||Change from baseline to Week 4. The p-value is for the null hypothesis test H0: u1=u2 vs. H1: u1 is not equal to u2.||0.2|-0.1|0.3427
90959488|NCT03075410|181799158|OTHER||Slope|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|1.11|||||Power Model has been used to assess Dose Proportionality. Log-e(dose) is fitted as Fixed Effect and Participant is fitted as Random Effect. An Unstructured covariance structure is used.|||1.11|0.81|
90907180|NCT00762463|181682496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.6522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with treatment group and investigational centers as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||Change from baseline to Week 6. The p-value is for the null hypothesis test H0: u1=u2 vs. H1: u1 is not equal to u2.||0.2|-0.1|0.6522
90907181|NCT00762463|181682498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.9358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.4|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with treatment group and investigational centers as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||Change from baseline to Week 2. The p-value is for the null hypothesis test H0: u1=u2 vs. H1: u1 is not equal to u2.||0.4|-0.3|0.9358
90907182|NCT00762463|181682498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.5916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.5|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with treatment group and investigational centers as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||Change from baseline to Week 4. The p-value is for the null hypothesis test H0: u1=u2 vs. H1: u1 is not equal to u2.||0.5|-0.3|0.5916
90907183|NCT00762463|181682498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.7|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with treatment group and investigational centers as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||Change from baseline to Week 6. The p-value is for the null hypothesis test H0: u1=u2 vs. H1: u1 is not equal to u2.||0.7|-0.1|0.1790
90907184|NCT00762463|181682500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.6335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.5|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with treatment group and investigational centers as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||Change from baseline to Week 2. The p-value is for the null hypothesis test H0: u1=u2 vs. H1: u1 is not equal to u2.||0.5|-0.3|0.6335
90907185|NCT00762463|181682500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.2729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.6|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with treatment group and investigational centers as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||Change from baseline to Week 4. The p-value is for the null hypothesis test H0: u1=u2 vs. H1: u1 is not equal to u2.||0.6|-0.2|0.2729
90907186|NCT00762463|181682500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.1559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.8|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with treatment group and investigational centers as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||Change from baseline to Week 6. The p-value is for the null hypothesis test H0: u1=u2 vs. H1: u1 is not equal to u2.||0.8|-0.1|0.1559
90907187|NCT00762463|181682503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.67||0.1111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|9.5|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with treatment group and investigational centers as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||Change from baseline to Week 2. The p-value is for the null hypothesis test H0: u1=u2 vs. H1: u1 is not equal to u2.||9.5|-1.0|0.1111
90907188|NCT00762463|181682503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.74||0.3574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|7.9|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with treatment group and investigational centers as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||Change from baseline to Week 4. The p-value is for the null hypothesis test H0: u1=u2 vs. H1: u1 is not equal to u2.||7.9|-2.9|0.3574
90907189|NCT00762463|181682503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.76||0.1464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|9.5|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with treatment group and investigational centers as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||Change from baseline to Week 6. The p-value is for the null hypothesis test H0: u1=u2 vs. H1: u1 is not equal to u2.||9.5|-1.4|0.1464
90907190|NCT00762463|181682505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.9641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.8|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with treatment group and investigational centers as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||Change from baseline to Week 2. The p-value is for the null hypothesis test H0: u1=u2 vs. H1: u1 is not equal to u2.||1.8|-1.7|0.9641
90907191|NCT00762463|181682505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98||0.7749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.2|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with treatment group and investigational centers as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||Change from baseline to Week 4. The p-value is for the null hypothesis test H0: u1=u2 vs. H1: u1 is not equal to u2.||2.2|-1.6|0.7749
90907192|NCT00762463|181682505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.7529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.2|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with treatment group and investigational centers as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||Change from baseline to Week 6. The p-value is for the null hypothesis test H0: u1=u2 vs. H1: u1 is not equal to u2.||2.2|-1.6|0.7529
90907193|NCT00762463|181682507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with treatment group and investigational centers as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||Change from baseline to Week 2. The p-value is for the null hypothesis test H0: u1=u2 vs. H1: u1 is not equal to u2.||0.2|-0.2|0.8780
90907194|NCT00762463|181682507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.2202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.4|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with treatment group and investigational centers as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||Change from baseline to Week 4. The p-value is for the null hypothesis test H0: u1=u2 vs. H1: u1 is not equal to u2.||0.4|-0.1|0.2202
90959489|NCT03075410|181799159|OTHER||Slope|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.15|1.33|||||Day 1.Power Model has been used to assess Dose Proportionality. Log-e(dose) is fitted as Fixed Effect.|||1.33|1.15|
90959490|NCT03075410|181799159|OTHER||Slope|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.22|||||Day 14. Power Model has been used to assess Dose Proportionality. Log-e(dose) is fitted as Fixed Effect.|||1.22|0.90|
90959491|NCT03075410|181799160|OTHER||Slope|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.46|||||Day 1. Power Model has been used to assess Dose Proportionality. Log-e(dose) is fitted as Fixed Effect.|||1.46|0.92|
90959492|NCT03075410|181799160|OTHER||Slope|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.89|1.22|||||Day 14. Power Model has been used to assess Dose Proportionality. Log-e(dose) is fitted as Fixed Effect.|||1.22|0.89|
90959493|NCT04546789|181799205|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares mean|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.86|1.82||||||Mild Hepatic Impairment vs Normal Hepatic Function||1.82|0.86|
90959494|NCT04546789|181799205|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.6|2.38||||||Moderate hepatic impairment vs Normal hepatic impairment||2.38|1.60|
90959495|NCT04546789|181799206|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.77|1.99||||||Mild Hepatic Impairment vs Normal Hepatic Function||1.99|0.77|
90959496|NCT04546789|181799206|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.51|2.26||||||Moderate Hepatic Impairment vs Normal Hepatic Function||2.26|1.51|
90959497|NCT04546789|181799233|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.55|1.17||||||Mild Hepatic Impairment vs Normal Hepatic Function||1.17|0.55|
90863245|NCT01681472|181589956|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t1/2 was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
90863246|NCT01681472|181589956|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t1/2 was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
90863247|NCT01681472|181589956|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t1/2 was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
90863248|NCT01681472|181589956|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t1/2 was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
90863249|NCT01681472|181589957|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t1/2 was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
90863250|NCT01681472|181589957|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t1/2 was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
90863251|NCT01681472|181589957|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t1/2 was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
90863252|NCT01681472|181589957|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0668|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t1/2 was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0668
90863253|NCT01681472|181589957|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0502|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t1/2 was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0502
90863254|NCT01681472|181589957|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0081|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t1/2 was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0081
90863255|NCT01681472|181589958|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0011|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0011
90863256|NCT01681472|181589958|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
90863257|NCT01681472|181589958|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0015|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0015
90863258|NCT01681472|181589958|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
90863259|NCT01681472|181589958|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6691|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.6691
90863260|NCT01681472|181589958|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
90863261|NCT01681472|181589959|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0015|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0015
90863262|NCT01681472|181589959|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
90863263|NCT01681472|181589959|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.064|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0640
90863264|NCT01681472|181589959|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
90863265|NCT01681472|181589959|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1213|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.1213
90907195|NCT00762463|181682507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.4|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with treatment group and investigational centers as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||Change from baseline to Week 6. The p-value is for the null hypothesis test H0: u1=u2 vs. H1: u1 is not equal to u2.||0.4|-0.2|0.5340
90907196|NCT00762463|181682509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.81||0.7003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|2.9|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline analyzed using ANCOVA with treatment group and investigational centers as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||The p-value is for the null hypothesis test H0: u1=u2 vs. H1: u1 is not equal to u2.||2.9|-4.3|0.7003
90863266|NCT01681472|181589959|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
90863267|NCT01681472|181589960|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1791|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.1791
90863268|NCT01681472|181589960|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4945|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.4945
90863269|NCT01681472|181589960|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0014|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0014
90863270|NCT01681472|181589960|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.599|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.5990
90863271|NCT01681472|181589960|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0303|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0303
90863272|NCT01681472|181589960|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0107|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0107
90863273|NCT01681472|181589961|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
90863274|NCT01681472|181589961|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
90863275|NCT01681472|181589961|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
90863276|NCT01681472|181589961|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0125|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0125
90863277|NCT01681472|181589961|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0017|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0017
90863278|NCT01681472|181589961|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5286|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.5286
90863279|NCT01681472|181589962|OTHER||Correlation factor|-0.21666||||0.6063|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||AUC(0-2h) vs. concentration in tumor||||0.6063
90863280|NCT01681472|181589962|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.54039||||0.2105|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||AUC(0-2h) vs. concentration in tumor||||0.2105
90863281|NCT01681472|181589962|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.27618||||0.5079|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||AUC(0-2h) vs. concentration in adjacent mucosa||||0.5079
90863282|NCT01681472|181589962|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.68223||||0.0913|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||AUC(0-2h) vs. concentration in adjacent mucosa||||0.0913
90863283|NCT01681472|181589963|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.38298||||0.3964|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||AUC(0-2h) vs. concentration in tumor||||0.3964
90863284|NCT01681472|181589963|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.27018||||0.5175|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||AUC(0-2h) vs. concentration in tumor||||0.5175
90863285|NCT01681472|181589963|OTHER||Correlation factor|-0.02188||||0.959|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||AUC(0-2h) vs. concentration in tumor||||0.9590
90863286|NCT01681472|181589963|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.45404||||0.3061|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||AUC(0-2h) vs. concentration in adjacent mucosa||||0.3061
90959498|NCT04546789|181799233|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.42|0.63||||||Moderate Hepatic Impairment vs Normal Hepatic Function||0.63|0.42|
90959499|NCT04546789|181799236|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|2.25||||||Mild Hepatic Impairment vs Normal Hepatic Function||2.25|0.93|
90863287|NCT01681472|181589963|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.34905||||0.3967|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||AUC(0-2h) vs. concentration in adjacent mucosa||||0.3967
90863288|NCT01681472|181589963|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.07937||||0.8518|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||AUC(0-2h) vs. concentration in adjacent mucosa||||0.8518
90863289|NCT01681472|181589964|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.73743||||0.0586|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||AUC(0-2h) vs. conc in tumor||||0.0586
90863290|NCT01681472|181589964|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.44757||||0.2661|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||AUC(0-2h) vs. conc in tumor||||0.2661
90863291|NCT01681472|181589964|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.03292||||0.9506|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||AUC(0-2h) vs. conc in tumor||||0.9506
90863292|NCT01681472|181589964|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.09033||||0.8315|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||AUC(0-2h) vs. conc in tumor||||0.8315
90863293|NCT01681472|181589964|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.76502||||0.0451|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||AUC(0-2h) vs. conc in adjacent mucosa||||0.0451
90863294|NCT01681472|181589964|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.34496||||0.4027|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||AUC(0-2h) vs. concentration in adjacent mucosa||||0.4027
90863295|NCT01681472|181589964|OTHER||Correlation factor|-0.66295||||0.1513|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||AUC(0-2h) vs. concentration in adjacent mucosa||||0.1513
90863296|NCT01681472|181589964|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.36854||||0.369|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||AUC(0-2h) vs. concentration in adjacent mucosa||||0.3690
90863297|NCT01681472|181589965|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.23512||||0.5751|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||AUC(0-2h) vs. concentration in adjacent mucosa||||0.5751
90863298|NCT01681472|181589965|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.02576||||0.9672|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||AUC(0-2h) vs. concentration in adjacent mucosa||||0.9672
90863299|NCT01681472|181589965|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.68778||||0.0594|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||AUC(0-2h) vs. conc in tumor||||0.0594
90863300|NCT01681472|181589965|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.11512||||0.8281|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||AUC(0-2h) vs. conc in tumor||||0.8281
90863301|NCT01681472|181589966|OTHER|||||||0.0451|||||||pearson|||||||0.0451
90863302|NCT01681472|181589967|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.42972||||0.3359|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for AMT gene expression||||0.3359
90863303|NCT01681472|181589967|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.75404||||0.0307|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for AMT gene expression||||0.0307
90863304|NCT01681472|181589967|OTHER||Correlation factor|-0.7073||||0.116|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for AMT gene expression||||0.1160
90863305|NCT01681472|181589967|OTHER||Correlation factor|-0.47193||||0.2377|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for AMT gene expression||||0.2377
90863306|NCT01681472|181589967|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.88128||||0.0087|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for PCFT gene expression||||0.0087
90863307|NCT01681472|181589967|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.58502||||0.1277|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for PCFT gene expression||||0.1277
90863308|NCT01681472|181589967|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.89976||||0.0146|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for PCFT gene expression||||0.0146
90863309|NCT01681472|181589967|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.11497||||0.7863|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for PCFT gene expression||||0.7863
90863310|NCT01681472|181589967|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.97624||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for FPGS gene expression||||0.0002
90863311|NCT01681472|181589967|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.88682||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for FPGS gene expression||||0.0033
90863312|NCT01681472|181589967|OTHER||Correlation factor|-0.64743||||0.1645|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for FPGS gene expression||||0.1645
90863313|NCT01681472|181589967|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.17664||||0.6756|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for FPGS gene expression||||0.6756
90959500|NCT04546789|181799236|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|2.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.98|3.29||||||Moderate Hepatic Impairment vs Normal Hepatic Function||3.29|1.98|
90863314|NCT01681472|181589967|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.94364||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for MTHFS gene expression||||0.0014
90863315|NCT01681472|181589967|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.43194||||0.2852|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for MTHFS gene expression||||0.2852
90863316|NCT01681472|181589967|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.58419||||0.2234|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for MTHFS gene expression||||0.2234
90863317|NCT01681472|181589967|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.9584||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for MTHFS gene expression||||0.0002
90863318|NCT01681472|181589967|OTHER||Correlation factor|-0.38987||||0.3873|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for ABCC3 gene expression||||0.3873
90863319|NCT01681472|181589967|OTHER||Correlation factor|-0.25891||||0.5358|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for ABCC3 gene expression||||0.5358
90863320|NCT01681472|181589967|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.777||||0.0691|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for ABCC3 gene expression||||0.0691
90863321|NCT01681472|181589967|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.00322||||0.994|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for ABCC3 gene expression||||0.9940
90863322|NCT01681472|181589967|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.93711||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for GGH gene expression||||0.0018
90863323|NCT01681472|181589967|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.46883||||0.2413|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for GGH gene expression||||0.2413
90863324|NCT01681472|181589967|OTHER||Correlation factor|-0.09737||||0.8544|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for GGH gene expression||||0.8544
90863325|NCT01681472|181589967|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.78928||||0.0199|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for GGH gene expression||||0.0199
90863326|NCT01681472|181589967|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.82963||||0.0209|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for ABCC1 gene expression||||0.0209
90863327|NCT01681472|181589967|OTHER||Correlation factor|-0.16724||||0.6922|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for ABCC1 gene expression||||0.6922
90863328|NCT01681472|181589967|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.14436||||0.785|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for ABCC1 gene expression||||0.7850
90863329|NCT01681472|181589967|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.74757||||0.033|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for ABCC1 gene expression||||0.0330
90863330|NCT01681472|181589967|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.32113||||0.4825|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for MTHFD1L gene expression||||0.4825
90863331|NCT01681472|181589967|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.3716||||0.3647|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for MTHFD1L gene expression||||0.3647
90863332|NCT01681472|181589967|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.20955||||0.6903|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for MTHFD1L gene expression||||0.6903
90863333|NCT01681472|181589967|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.74459||||0.0341|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for MTHFD1L gene expression||||0.0341
90863334|NCT01681472|181589967|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.50966||||0.2426|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for SHMT1 gene expression||||0.2426
90863335|NCT01681472|181589967|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.67853||||0.0643|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for SHMT1 gene expression||||0.0643
90863336|NCT01681472|181589967|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.05531||||0.9171|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for SHMT1 gene expression||||0.9171
90863337|NCT01681472|181589967|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.59183||||0.1222|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for SHMT1 gene expression||||0.1222
90863338|NCT01681472|181589967|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.8104||||0.0271|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for SHMT2 gene expression||||0.0271
90863339|NCT01681472|181589967|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.86266||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for SHMT2 gene expression||||0.0058
90863340|NCT01681472|181589967|OTHER||Correlation factor|-0.71666||||0.109|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for SHMT2 gene expression||||0.1090
90863341|NCT01681472|181589967|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.55508||||0.1533|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for SHMT2 gene expression||||0.1533
90863342|NCT01681472|181589967|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.318||||0.487|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for RFC-1 gene expression||||0.4870
90863343|NCT01681472|181589967|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.23312||||0.5785|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for RFC-1 gene expression||||0.5785
90863344|NCT01681472|181589967|OTHER||Correlation factor|-0.0245||||0.9632|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for RFC-1 gene expression||||0.9632
90863345|NCT01681472|181589967|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.64565||||0.0838|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for RFC-1 gene expression||||0.0838
90959501|NCT04546789|181799237|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.86|2.39||||||Mild Hepatic Impairment vs Normal Hepatic Function||2.39|0.86|
90959502|NCT04546789|181799237|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|2.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.87|3.14||||||Moderate Hepatic Impairment vs Normal Hepatic Function||3.14|1.87|
90959503|NCT04546789|181799238|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.45|1.08||||||Mild Hepatic Impairment vs Normal Hepatic Function||1.08|0.45|
90959504|NCT04546789|181799238|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.3|0.5||||||Moderate Hepatic Impairment vs Normal Hepatic Function||0.50|0.30|
90863346|NCT00795145|181589979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.47||||||90.0|-0.7|3.64||||||Inferential analysis at 0.5 hour post-dose||3.64|-0.7|
90863347|NCT00795145|181589979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.96||||||90.0|-5.13|-0.79||||||Inferential analysis at 1 hour post-dose||-0.79|-5.13|
90863348|NCT00795145|181589979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.53||||||90.0|-7.7|-3.36||||||Inferential analysis at 2 hour post-dose||-3.36|-7.70|
90863349|NCT00795145|181589979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||||90.0|-1.77|2.57||||||Inferential analysis at 4 hour post-dose||2.57|-1.77|
90863350|NCT00795145|181589979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.37||||||90.0|-3.54|0.8||||||Inferential analysis at 8 hour post-dose||0.80|-3.54|
90863351|NCT00795145|181589979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.01||||||90.0|-1.16|3.18||||||Inferential analysis at 12 hour post-dose||3.18|-1.16|
90863352|NCT00795145|181589979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.64||||||90.0|-2.81|1.53||||||Inferential analysis at 24 hour post-dose||1.53|-2.81|
90863353|NCT00795145|181589979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.49||||||90.0|0.32|4.66||||||Inferential analysis at 0.5 hour post-dose||4.66|0.32|
90863354|NCT00795145|181589979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.78||||||90.0|-3.95|0.39||||||Inferential analysis at 1 hour post-dose||0.39|-3.95|
90959505|NCT03430206|181799239|OTHER|||||||0.206|||||||Regression, Negative Binomial|||||||0.206
90959506|NCT03430206|181799240|OTHER|||||||0.101|||||||Regression, Negative Binomial|||||||0.101
90959507|NCT03430206|181799241|OTHER|||||||0.371|||||||Regression, Negative Binomial|||||||0.371
90959508|NCT03430206|181799243|OTHER|||||||0.601|||||||Regression, Negative Binomial|||||||0.601
90863355|NCT00795145|181589979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.51||||||90.0|-9.68|-5.34||||||Inferential analysis at 2 hour post-dose||-5.34|-9.68|
90863356|NCT00795145|181589979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.47||||||90.0|1.3|5.64||||||Inferential analysis at 4 hour post-dose||5.64|1.30|
90863357|NCT00795145|181589979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.13||||||90.0|-1.04|3.3||||||Inferential analysis at 8 hour post-dose||3.30|-1.04|
90863358|NCT00795145|181589979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.47||||||90.0|-0.7|3.64||||||Inferential analysis at 12 hour post-dose||3.64|-0.70|
90863359|NCT00795145|181589979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8||||||90.0|-0.37|3.97||||||Inferential analysis at 24 hour post-dose||3.97|-0.37|
90863360|NCT00795145|181589980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.27||||||90.0|1.1|5.44||||||Inferential analysis at 0.5 hour post-dose||5.44|1.10|
90863361|NCT00795145|181589980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.83||||||90.0|4.66|9.0||||||Inferential analysis at 1 hour post-dose||9.00|4.66|
90863362|NCT00795145|181589980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.27||||||90.0|8.1|12.44||||||Inferential analysis at 2 hour post-dose||12.44|8.10|
90863363|NCT00795145|181589980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.84||||||90.0|7.67|12.01||||||Inferential analysis at 4 hour post-dose||12.01|7.67|
90959509|NCT03430206|181799244|OTHER|||||||0.738|||||||Regression, Negative Binomial|||||||0.738
90959510|NCT04016558|181799292|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28||||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||.007
90959511|NCT04016558|181799293|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.42||||0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||.006
90863364|NCT00795145|181589980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.4||||||90.0|7.23|11.58||||||Inferential analysis at 8 hour post-dose||11.58|7.23|
90863365|NCT00795145|181589980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.05||||||90.0|4.87|9.22||||||Inferential analysis at 12 hour post-dose||9.22|4.87|
90863366|NCT00795145|181589980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.52||||||90.0|4.35|8.69||||||Inferential analysis at 24 hour post-dose||8.69|4.35|
90863367|NCT00795145|181589981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.49||||||90.0|-5.54|2.57||||||Inferential analysis at 0.5 hour post-dose||2.57|-5.54|
90907197|NCT00762463|181682511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.221||0.5183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.82|2.94|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline analyzed using ANCOVA with treatment group and investigational centers as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||The p-value is for the null hypothesis test H0: u1=u2 vs. H1: u1 is not equal to u2.||2.94|-5.82|0.5183
90907198|NCT00531479|181682516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.74||||0.0434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.99|1.51||P-value based on a 1-sided test and tested against a 1-sided alpha of 0.025 to determine statistical significance.|Z test for difference in proportions||The 95% CI was based on using Greenwood's formula for the variance of the KM estimator.|All-cause mortality calculated using the Kaplan-Meier (KM) product limit estimator on Day 42 (Week 6) within each stratum and weighted by the harmonic mean of the sample sizes in the strata. Treatment difference (stratified) based on a weighted difference in proportions. Stratification variables were site of infection and host factors.||1.51|-18.99|0.0434
90907199|NCT00531479|181682517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.6|1.15||P-value for global response was to be reported only if Week 6 mortality was significant.|||95% confidence interval based on the difference in success rates using the normal approximation to the binoial distribution.|Treatment difference (stratified) based on a weighted difference in proportions. Stratification variables: site of infection and host factors.||1.15|-21.6|
90907200|NCT00531479|181682518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.6||||0.2611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.77|5.56||P-Value based on a 1-sided test and tested against a 1-sided alpha of 0.025 to determine statistical significance.|Z test for difference in proportions||95% confidence interval based on using Greenwood's formula for the variance of the Kaplan Meier estimator.|Treatment difference (stratified) based on a weighted difference in proportions. Stratification variables: site of infection and host factors.||5.56|-10.77|0.2611
90907201|NCT00531479|181682519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.18||||0.0383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.44|1.09||P-Value based on a 1-sided test and tested against a 1-sided alpha of 0.025 to determine statistical significance.|Z test for difference in proportions||95% confidence intervalbased on using Greenwood's formula for the variance of the Kaplan Meier estimator.|Treatment difference (stratified) based on a weighted difference in proportions. Stratification variables: site of infection and host factors.||1.09|-21.44|0.0383
90863368|NCT00795145|181589981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.45||||||90.0|-11.51|-3.4||||||Inferential analysis at 1 hour post-dose||-3.40|-11.51|
90863369|NCT00795145|181589981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.75||||||90.0|-9.81|-1.7||||||Inferential analysis at 2 hour post-dose||-1.70|-9.81|
90863370|NCT00795145|181589981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.92||||||90.0|-4.97|3.13||||||Inferential analysis at 4 hour post-dose||3.13|-4.97|
90863371|NCT00795145|181589981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.64||||||90.0|-9.69|-1.58||||||Inferential analysis at 8 hour post-dose||-1.58|-9.69|
90863372|NCT00795145|181589981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.29||||||90.0|-6.34|1.77||||||Inferential analysis at 12 hour post-dose||1.77|-6.34|
90863373|NCT00795145|181589981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59||||||90.0|-4.64|3.47||||||Inferential analysis at 24 hour post-dose||3.47|-4.64|
90863374|NCT00795145|181589981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.49||||||90.0|-7.54|0.57||||||Inferential analysis at 0.5 hour post-dose||0.57|-7.54|
90863375|NCT00795145|181589981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.19||||||90.0|-16.24|-8.13||||||Inferential analysis at 1 hour post-dose||-8.13|-16.24|
90863376|NCT00795145|181589981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.39||||||90.0|-18.44|-10.33||||||Inferential analysis at 2 hour post-dose||-10.33|-18.44|
90863377|NCT00795145|181589981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.19||||||90.0|-6.24|1.87||||||Inferential analysis at 4 hour post-dose||1.87|-6.24|
90863378|NCT00795145|181589981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||||90.0|-2.95|5.15||||||Inferential analysis at 8 hour post-dose||5.15|-2.95|
90863379|NCT00795145|181589981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||||90.0|-3.94|4.17||||||Inferential analysis at 12 hour post-dose||4.17|-3.94|
90863380|NCT00795145|181589981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.68||||||90.0|-1.37|6.73||||||Inferential analysis at 24 hour post-dose||6.73|-1.37|
90863381|NCT01696071|181589992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018||||95.0|-0.038|0.034|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline|Tio R5 QD - Tio R2.5 BID|No p-values are presented as no formal statistical hypothesis was tested.||0.034|-0.038|
90907202|NCT00531479|181682520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.24||||0.1029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.9|3.42||P-Value based on a one-sided test and tested against a 1-sided alpha of 0.025 to determine statistical significance.|Z test for difference in proportions||95% confidence interval based on Greenwood's formula for the variance of the Kaplan Meier estimator.|Treatment difference (stratified) based on a weighted difference in proportions. Stratification variables: site of infection and host factors.||3.42|-15.9|0.1029
90907203|NCT00531479|181682521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.696||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.04|||Cox proportional hazards model|||Hazard Ratio: hazard of death in the Voriconazole/Anidulafungin arm relative to the Voriconazole/Placebo arm, adjusted for host factor status and site of infection. Participants who died beyond Day 84 were censored.||1.04|0.46|0.083
90959512|NCT04016558|181799294|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.82|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.82
90959513|NCT04016558|181799295|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.15||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||.01
90863382|NCT01696071|181589993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021||||95.0|-0.032|0.052|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline|Tio R5 qd - Tio R2.5 bid|No p-values are presented as no formal statistical hypothesis was tested.||0.052|-0.032|
90863383|NCT01696071|181589994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.014|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018||||95.0|-0.05|0.022|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline|Tio R5 qd - Tio R2.5 bid|No p-values are presented as no formal statistical hypothesis was tested||0.022|-0.050|
90863384|NCT01696071|181589995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.014|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018||||95.0|-0.051|0.023|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline|Tio R5 qd - Tio R2.5 bid|No p-values are presented as no formal statistical hypothesis was tested.||0.023|-0.051|
90863385|NCT01696071|181589996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032||||95.0|-0.06|0.068|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline|Tio R5 qd - Tio R2.5 bid|No p-values are presented as no formal statistical hypothesis was tested.||0.068|-0.060|
90863386|NCT01696071|181589997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||||95.0|-0.044|0.035|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline|Tio R5 qd - Tio R2.5 bid|No p-values are presented as no formal statistical hypothesis was tested.||0.035|-0.044|
90863387|NCT01696071|181589998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023||||95.0|-0.048|0.042|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline|Tio R5 qd - Tio R2.5 bid|No p-values are presented as no formal statistical hypothesis was tested||0.042|-0.048|
90863388|NCT01696071|181589999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||||95.0|-0.047|0.034|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline|Tio R5 qd - Tio R2.5 bid|No p-values are presented as no formal statistical hypothesis was tested||0.034|-0.047|
90863389|NCT01696071|181590000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||||95.0|-0.07|0.032|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline|Tio R5 qd - Tio R2.5 bid|No p-values are presented as no formal statistical hypothesis was tested||0.032|-0.070|
90863390|NCT01696071|181590001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.041|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035||||95.0|-0.03|0.111|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline|Tio R5 qd - Tio R2.5 bid|No p-values are presented as no formal statistical hypothesis was tested||0.111|-0.030|
90863391|NCT01696071|181590002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.389|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.658||||95.0|-8.651|5.873|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline|Tio R5 qd - Tio R2.5 bid|No p-values are presented as no formal statistical hypothesis was tested||5.873|-8.651|
90863392|NCT00739674|181590038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.118||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.118
90907204|NCT00531479|181682522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.687||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.16|||Cox proportional hazards model||95% confidence interval based on Greenwood's formula.|Analysis based on Cox proportional hazards model. Participants who died beyond day 84 were censored.||1.16|0.40|0.164
90907205|NCT01743729|181682530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Effect|0.03||||0.6186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.17|||ANCOVA|||||0.17|-0.10|0.6186
90907206|NCT01743729|181682531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Effect|12.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.51|16.7|||ANCOVA|||||16.70|8.51|<0.0001
90863393|NCT00739674|181590039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.092||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.092
90863394|NCT00739674|181590040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.122||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.122
90863395|NCT00739674|181590041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.434||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.434
90863396|NCT00739674|181590042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.507||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for study medication, age, gender, race, cardiovascular risk, baseline weight, and baseline waist circumference.||||||0.507
90863397|NCT00739674|181590043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.058||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for study medication, age, gender, race, cardiovascular risk, baseline weight, and baseline waist circumference.||||||0.058
90907207|NCT05074498|181682572|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.35||||0.0838|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.741|0.047|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.047|-0.741|0.0838
90907208|NCT01306331|181682607|NON_INFERIORITY|If the upper bound for the confidence interval of the difference was \< 5.5, then the null hypothesis would be rejected.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|3.2||||||The primary hypothesis test was performed using 95% confidence interval for the difference in cumulative pregnancy rates between the treatment arms. If the upper bound for the confidence interval of the difference was \< 5.5, then the null hypothesis would be rejected.||3.2|-2.2|
90959514|NCT04016558|181799296|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||.40
90863398|NCT00739674|181590044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.158||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for study medication, age, gender, race, cardiovascular risk, baseline weight, and baseline waist circumference.||||||0.158
90863399|NCT00739674|181590045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.064||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for study medication, age, gender, race, cardiovascular risk, baseline weight, and baseline waist circumference.||||||0.064
90863400|NCT00739674|181590046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.262||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for study medication, age, gender, race, cardiovascular risk, baseline weight, and baseline waist circumference.||||||0.262
90863401|NCT00739674|181590047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.026||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for study medication, age, gender, race, cardiovascular risk, baseline weight, and baseline waist circumference.||||||0.026
90863402|NCT00739674|181590048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.212||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.212
90863403|NCT02195583|181590058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|Calculated from Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model using treatment and study period as fixed factors and participant as random effect.||Linear contrasts were fitted in order to establish whether there was a dose-response relationship. Linear contrasts were for experimental dentifrice: non-zinc treatments.||||<0.0001
90959515|NCT04016558|181799298|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.65||||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||.12
90959516|NCT04016558|181799299|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22||||0.39|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||.39
90959517|NCT04016558|181799300|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<.01
90863404|NCT02195583|181590058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2274||95.0|||||ANOVA|Calculated from ANOVA model using treatment and study period as fixed factors and participant as random effect.||Quadratic contrasts were fitted in order to establish whether there was a dose-response relationship. Quadratic contrasts are for experimental dentifrice: non-zinc treatments.||||0.2274
90863405|NCT02195583|181590058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.68||||0.595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|3.2|||ANOVA|Calculated from ANOVA model using treatment and study period as fixed factors and participant as random effect.|Difference was calculated as Sodium fluoride (1426 ppm) minus Sodium fluoride (1150 ppm) such that a positive difference favors Sodium fluoride (1426 ppm).|||3.20|-1.84|0.5950
90863406|NCT02195583|181590058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.93||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.38|7.48|||ANOVA|Calculated from ANOVA model using treatment and study period as fixed factors and participant as random effect.|Difference was calculated as Sodium fluoride (1426 ppm) minus Sodium fluoride (250 ppm) such that a positive difference favors Sodium fluoride (1426 ppm).|||7.48|2.38|0.0002
90863407|NCT02195583|181590058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.25||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.68|6.82|||ANOVA|Calculated from ANOVA model using treatment and study period as fixed factors and participant as random effect.|Difference was calculated as Sodium fluoride (1150 ppm) minus Sodium fluoride (250 ppm) such that a positive difference favors Sodium fluoride (1150 ppm).|||6.82|1.68|0.0013
90863408|NCT02195583|181590058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.2|10.21|||ANOVA|Calculated from ANOVA model using treatment and study period as fixed factors and participant as random effect.|Difference was calculated as Sodium fluoride (1426 ppm) minus Sodium fluoride (0 ppm) such that a positive difference favors Sodium fluoride (1426 ppm).|||10.21|5.20|<0.0001
90863409|NCT02195583|181590058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.51|9.55|||ANOVA|Calculated from ANOVA model using treatment and study period as fixed factors and participant as random effect.|Difference was calculated as Sodium fluoride (1150 ppm) minus Sodium fluoride (0 ppm) such that a positive difference favors Sodium fluoride (1150 ppm).|||9.55|4.51|<0.0001
90863410|NCT02195583|181590058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.78||||0.0325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|5.32|||ANOVA|Calculated from ANOVA model using treatment and study period as fixed factors and participant as random effect.|Difference was calculated as Sodium fluoride (250 ppm) minus Sodium fluoride (0 ppm) such that a positive difference favors Sodium fluoride (250 ppm).|||5.32|0.23|0.0325
90863411|NCT02195583|181590058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.16||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.67|0.35|||ANOVA|Calculated from ANOVA model using treatment and study period as fixed factors and participant as random effect.|Difference was calculated as 'Sodium fluoride (1426 ppm) + zinc base A' minus Sodium fluoride (0 ppm) such that a positive difference favors 'Sodium fluoride (1426 ppm) + zinc base A'.|||0.35|-4.67|0.0920
90863412|NCT02195583|181590058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.56||||0.2185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.04|0.93|||ANOVA|Calculated from ANOVA model using treatment and study period as fixed factors and participant as random effect.|Difference was calculated as 'Sodium fluoride (1426 ppm) + zinc base B' minus Sodium fluoride (0 ppm) such that a positive difference favors 'Sodium fluoride (1426 ppm) + zinc base B'.|||0.93|-4.04|0.2185
90863413|NCT02195583|181590058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.36|12.37|||ANOVA|Calculated from ANOVA model using treatment and study period as fixed factors and participant as random effect.|Difference was calculated as Sodium fluoride (1426 ppm) minus 'Sodium fluoride (1426 ppm) + zinc base A' such that a positive difference favors Sodium fluoride (1426 ppm).|||12.37|7.36|<0.0001
90863414|NCT02195583|181590058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.77|11.75|||ANOVA|Calculated from ANOVA model using treatment and study period as fixed factors and participant as random effect.|Difference was calculated as Sodium fluoride (1426 ppm) minus 'Sodium fluoride (1426ppm) + zinc base B' such that a positive difference favors Sodium fluoride (1426 ppm).|||11.75|6.77|<0.0001
90863415|NCT00094172|181590087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.929|||||||Log Rank|||This is the primary analysis of the primary endpoint||||0.929
90863416|NCT00094172|181590087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.823|||||||Fisher Exact|||This is the secondary analysis of the primary endpoint||||0.823
90863417|NCT00094172|181590088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.208|||||||Log Rank|||||||.208
90863418|NCT00094172|181590089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.526||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.526
90863419|NCT01519271|181590110|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90863420|NCT01803204|181590160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GEE|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|99.0|||||GEE|||||||1.00
90863421|NCT01803204|181590161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|99.0|||||Mist Effects Model|||||||<0.01
90863422|NCT01803204|181590162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|99.0|||||Mist Effect Model|||||||0.81
90959518|NCT04118374|181799317|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.8|||ANOVA|||||1.8|-0.5|<0.01
90863423|NCT03285984|181590178|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|-0.15||From ANCOVA model with factors for treatment group, period and subject (random effect), and subject-level baseline and period-level baseline|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second-named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment|||-0.15|-0.27|<.0001
90863424|NCT00413244|181590180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||log mean|||"Statistician used all the time points post-baseline together (Overall). The result gives the estimates and 95% CI of the treatment effect from longitudinal analyses (generalized estimating equation method) which basically pools data from all visits post-baseline."||||0.03
90863425|NCT02319837|181590196|OTHER|Two-sided P-value was based on a stratified log-rank test by screening PSA, PSA doubling time, and prior hormonal therapy. Hazard ratio was based on a Cox regression model stratified by factors defined above and was relative to placebo + leuprolide with \< 1 favoring enzalutamide + leuprolide.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.424|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.296|0.607||Statistical significance can be declared if p-value \<0.05.|Log Rank|||||0.607|0.296|<0.0001
90863426|NCT02319837|181590197|OTHER|Two-sided P-value was based on a stratified log-rank test by screening PSA, PSA doubling time, and prior hormonal therapy. Hazard ratio was based on a Cox regression model stratified by factors defined above and was relative to placebo + leuprolide with \< 1 favoring enzalutamide monotherapy.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.631||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.456|0.871||Statistical significance can be declared if p-value \<0.03.|Log Rank|||||0.871|0.456|0.0049
90863427|NCT02319837|181590198|OTHER|Two-sided P-value was based on a stratified log-rank test by screening PSA, PSA doubling time, and prior hormonal therapy. Hazard ratio was based on a Cox regression model stratified by factors defined above and was relative to placebo + leuprolide with \< 1 favoring enzalutamide + leuprolide.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.068|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.033|0.141||Statistical significance can be declared if p-value \<0.02.|Log Rank|||||0.141|0.033|<0.0001
90863428|NCT02319837|181590198|OTHER|Two-sided P-value was based on a stratified log-rank test by screening PSA, PSA doubling time, and prior hormonal therapy. Hazard ratio was based on a Cox regression model stratified by factors defined above and was relative to placebo + leuprolide with \< 1 favoring enzalutamide monotherapy.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.331|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.226|0.486||Statistical significance can be declared if p-value \<0.03.|Log Rank|||||0.486|0.226|<0.0001
90863429|NCT02319837|181590199|OTHER|Two-sided P-value was based on a stratified log-rank test by screening PSA, PSA doubling time, and prior hormonal therapy. Hazard ratio was based on a Cox regression model stratified by factors defined above and was relative to placebo + leuprolide with \< 1 favoring enzalutamide + leuprolide.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.358|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.263|0.488||Statistical significance can be declared if p-value \<0.02.|Log Rank|||||0.488|0.263|<0.0001
90863430|NCT02319837|181590199|OTHER|Two-sided P-value was based on a stratified log-rank test by screening PSA, PSA doubling time, and prior hormonal therapy. Hazard ratio was based on a Cox regression model stratified by factors defined above and was relative to placebo + leuprolide with \< 1 favoring enzalutamide monotherapy.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.411|0.709||Statistical significance can be declared if p-value \<0.03.|Log Rank|||||0.709|0.411|<0.0001
90863431|NCT02319837|181590201|OTHER|Two-sided P-value was based on a stratified log-rank test by screening PSA, PSA doubling time, and prior hormonal therapy. Hazard ratio was based on a Cox regression model stratified by factors defined above and was relative to placebo + leuprolide with \< 1 favoring enzalutamide + leuprolide.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.443||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.284|0.69|||Log Rank|||||0.690|0.284|0.0002
90863432|NCT02319837|181590201|OTHER|Two-sided P-value was based on a stratified log-rank test by screening PSA, PSA doubling time, and prior hormonal therapy. Hazard ratio was based on a Cox regression model stratified by factors defined above and was relative to placebo + leuprolide with \< 1 favoring enzalutamide monotherapy.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.614||||0.0171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.409|0.92|||Log Rank|||||0.920|0.409|0.0171
90863433|NCT02319837|181590202|OTHER||difference of percentage of participants|25.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.7|31.0||P-value was based on a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by screening PSA, PSA doubling time, and prior hormonal therapy.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||31.0|20.7|<0.0001
90907209|NCT03371108|181682610|EQUIVALENCE|The determination of equivalence was defined by the US-FDA as a confidence interval that was contained within the equivalence limits of +/- 10.7.|Risk Difference (RD)|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.39|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.6|3.5|||||The asymptotic standard error was planned and is reported above.|This is a two-arm study.||3.5|-7.6|
90863434|NCT02319837|181590202|OTHER||difference of percentage of participants|18.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.0|24.6||P-value was based on a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by screening PSA, PSA doubling time, and prior hormonal therapy.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||24.6|13.0|<0.0001
90863435|NCT02319837|181590203|OTHER||difference of percentage of participants|7.5||||0.0439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|15.2||P-value was based on a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by screening PSA, PSA doubling time, and prior hormonal therapy.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||15.2|-0.2|0.0439
90863436|NCT02319837|181590203|OTHER||difference of percentage of participants|-12.9||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.8|-6.1||P-value was based on a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by screening PSA, PSA doubling time, and prior hormonal therapy.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-6.1|-19.8|0.0004
90863437|NCT02319837|181590204|OTHER||difference of percentage of participants|7.2||||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|12.8||P-value was based on a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by screening PSA, PSA doubling time, and prior hormonal therapy.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||12.8|1.7|0.0089
90907210|NCT01677936|181682622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.0|||=|0.024||||||Compared to snacks, raisins reduced percent post-prandial glucose levels by 23%, which met the a priori threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.024
90907211|NCT01677936|181682623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.7|||=|0.035||||||Compared with snacks, the 8.8 mmHg reduction with raisins met the a priori threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.035
90907212|NCT02790606|181682629|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0021|||||||Exact binomial test|||"The primary safety endpoint is evaluated against a PG of 88%, which was derived from safety event rates of PTA in published literature.~Hypothesis: The safety rate in subjects treated with the COVERA™ Vascular Covered Stent (following PTA) at 30 days post-index procedure is greater than that of the PG of 88%. 109 treated subjects \[104 evaluable\] will give 99% power with one-sided type I error = 0.05."||||0.0021
90907213|NCT02790606|181682630|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value is compared to the PG (40%) and computed using the exact binomial test.|Exact binomial test|||"The primary effectiveness endpoint is evaluated against a PG of 40%, which was derived from clinical literature as well as other pivotal and post-market studies of stent grafts at the graft-vein anastomosis of AV access patients dialyzing with an AV graft. 89% estimated power for primary endpoint.~Hypothesis: The proportion of subjects treated with the COVERA™ Vascular Covered Stent (following PTA) with respect to TLPP through 6 months post-index procedure is greater than that of the PG of 40%."||||<0.0001
90907214|NCT02390557|181682713|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.7||||0.074|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||we had a prior hypothesis that the survey intervention would be associated with a larger increase in perceived quality of health care compared with control from Wave 1 to Wave 2||||0.074
90907215|NCT02390557|181682713|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.4||||0.069|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||We compared change in perception of quality of health care between Control v YES Health, wave 1 v Wave 2||||.069
90907216|NCT00335153|181682744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90907217|NCT00335153|181682745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.023
90907218|NCT00335153|181682746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90907219|NCT00335153|181682747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90907220|NCT00335153|181682748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.974|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.974
90907221|NCT00335153|181682749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90907222|NCT00335153|181682750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90907223|NCT00335153|181682751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90907224|NCT00335153|181682752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90907225|NCT00335153|181682753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90907226|NCT00335153|181682754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90907227|NCT00335153|181682755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90907228|NCT00335153|181682756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90907229|NCT00335153|181682757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90907230|NCT00335153|181682758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.757|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.757
90907231|NCT00335153|181682759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90907232|NCT00335153|181682760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90907233|NCT00335153|181682761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90907234|NCT00335153|181682762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90907235|NCT00335153|181682763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90907236|NCT00335153|181682764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.824|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.824
90907237|NCT00797225|181682771|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.0464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.01|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 4. The change from baseline in monthly mean values of the NRS for overall endometriosis-associated pelvic pain was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.01|-0.98|0.0464
90907238|NCT00797225|181682771|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|-0.17|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 4. The change from baseline in monthly mean values of the NRS for overall endometriosis-associated pelvic pain was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.17|-1.13|0.0080
90907239|NCT00797225|181682771|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.11|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 4. The change from baseline in monthly mean values of the NRS for overall endometriosis-associated pelvic pain was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.11|-1.08|0.0159
90907240|NCT00797225|181682771|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.2563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.24|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 8. The change from baseline in monthly mean values of the NRS for overall endometriosis-associated pelvic pain was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||0.24|-0.89|0.2563
90907241|NCT00797225|181682771|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.0239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|-0.09|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 8. The change from baseline in monthly mean values of the NRS for overall endometriosis-associated pelvic pain was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.09|-1.21|0.0239
90907242|NCT00797225|181682771|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|-0.07|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 8. The change from baseline in monthly mean values of the NRS for overall endometriosis-associated pelvic pain was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.07|-1.19|0.0280
90907243|NCT00797225|181682771|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.6904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.46|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 12. The change from baseline in monthly mean values of the NRS for overall endometriosis-associated pelvic pain was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||0.46|-0.70|0.6904
90907244|NCT00797225|181682771|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.4022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.33|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 12. The change from baseline in monthly mean values of the NRS for overall endometriosis-associated pelvic pain was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||0.33|-0.83|0.4022
90907245|NCT00797225|181682771|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.0451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|-0.01|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 12. The change from baseline in monthly mean values of the NRS for overall endometriosis-associated pelvic pain was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.01|-1.17|0.0451
90907246|NCT00797225|181682772|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.56|-0.69|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 4. The change from baseline in monthly peak value of the NRS for overall endometriosis-associated pelvic pain was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.69|-2.56|0.0007
90907247|NCT00797225|181682772|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.56|-0.7|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 4. The change from baseline in monthly peak value of the NRS for overall endometriosis-associated pelvic pain was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.70|-2.56|0.0006
90907248|NCT00797225|181682772|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.0073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|-0.35|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 4. The change from baseline in monthly peak value of the NRS for overall endometriosis-associated pelvic pain was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.35|-2.21|0.0073
90907249|NCT00797225|181682772|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28|-0.4|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 8. The change from baseline in monthly peak value of the NRS for overall endometriosis-associated pelvic pain was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.40|-2.28|0.0054
90907250|NCT00797225|181682772|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.01|-1.12|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 8. The change from baseline in monthly peak value of the NRS for overall endometriosis-associated pelvic pain was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||-1.12|-3.01|< 0.0001
90907251|NCT00797225|181682772|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.67|-1.79|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 8. The change from baseline in monthly peak value of the NRS for overall endometriosis-associated pelvic pain was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||-1.79|-3.67|< 0.0001
90907252|NCT00797225|181682772|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.0509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|0.0|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 12. The change from baseline in monthly peak value of the NRS for overall endometriosis-associated pelvic pain was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||0.00|-1.89|0.0509
90907253|NCT00797225|181682772|SUPERIORITY||LS mean Difference|-1.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|-0.43|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 12. The change from baseline in monthly peak value of the NRS for overall endometriosis-associated pelvic pain was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.43|-2.33|0.0046
90907254|NCT00797225|181682772|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.26|-1.38|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 12. The change from baseline in monthly peak value of the NRS for overall endometriosis-associated pelvic pain was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||-1.38|-3.26|< 0.0001
90907255|NCT00797225|181682773|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.0453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.0|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 4. The change from baseline in monthly mean non-menstrual pelvic pain scores was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||0.00|-0.33|0.0453
90959519|NCT00557947|181799318|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence is demonstrated if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (when subtracting the percentage of DERMABOND PROTAPE successful subjects from the percentage of INTRADERMAL SUTURE successful subjects) does not exceed 12%.|difference proportions of successes (%)|4.8||||0.2188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|10.9|||McNemar||The level of significance for statistical testing was 0.05 for this study.|||10.9|-0.0|0.2188
90959520|NCT00557947|181799319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||0.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90863438|NCT02319837|181590204|OTHER||difference of percentage of participants|-5.0||||0.0326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|-0.6||P-value was based on a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by screening PSA, PSA doubling time, and prior hormonal therapy.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-0.6|-9.4|0.0326
90863439|NCT02319837|181590205|OTHER|Two-sided P-value was based on a stratified log-rank test by screening PSA, PSA doubling time, and prior hormonal therapy. Hazard ratio was based on a Cox regression model stratified by factors defined above and was relative to placebo + leuprolide with \< 1 favoring enzalutamide + leuprolide.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.693|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.577|0.834|||Log Rank|||||0.834|0.577|<0.0001
90863440|NCT02319837|181590205|OTHER|Two-sided P-value was based on a stratified log-rank test by screening PSA, PSA doubling time, and prior hormonal therapy. Hazard ratio was based on a Cox regression model stratified by factors defined above and was relative to placebo + leuprolide with \< 1 favoring enzalutamide monotherapy.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.655|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.381|1.984|||Log Rank|||||1.984|1.381|<0.0001
90863441|NCT02319837|181590206|OTHER|Two-sided P-value was based on a stratified log-rank test by screening PSA, PSA doubling time, and prior hormonal therapy. Hazard ratio was based on a Cox regression model stratified by factors defined above and was relative to placebo + leuprolide with \< 1 favoring enzalutamide + leuprolide.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.09|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.051|0.157|||Log Rank|||||0.157|0.051|<0.0001
90863442|NCT02319837|181590207|OTHER|Two-sided P-value was based on a stratified log-rank test by screening PSA, PSA doubling time, and prior hormonal therapy. Hazard ratio was based on a Cox regression model stratified by factors defined above and was relative to placebo + leuprolide with \< 1 favoring enzalutamide + leuprolide.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.546|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.427|0.699|||Log Rank|||||0.699|0.427|<0.0001
90863443|NCT02319837|181590207|OTHER|Two-sided P-value was based on a stratified log-rank test by screening PSA, PSA doubling time, and prior hormonal therapy. Hazard ratio was based on a Cox regression model stratified by factors defined above and was relative to placebo + leuprolide with \< 1 favoring enzalutamide monotherapy.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.619|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.488|0.785|||Log Rank|||||0.785|0.488|<0.0001
90863444|NCT02319837|181590208|OTHER|Two-sided P-value was based on a stratified log-rank test by screening PSA, PSA doubling time, and prior hormonal therapy. Hazard ratio was based on a Cox regression model stratified by factors defined above and was relative to placebo + leuprolide with \< 1 favoring enzalutamide + leuprolide.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.261||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.125|0.548|||Log Rank|||||0.548|0.125|0.0001
90863445|NCT02319837|181590208|OTHER|Two-sided P-value was based on a stratified log-rank test by screening PSA, PSA doubling time, and prior hormonal therapy. Hazard ratio was based on a Cox regression model stratified by factors defined above and was relative to placebo + leuprolide with \< 1 favoring enzalutamide monotherapy.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.423||||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.226|0.794|||Log Rank|||||0.794|0.226|0.0057
90863446|NCT02319837|181590209|OTHER|Two-sided P-value was based on a stratified log-rank test by screening PSA, PSA doubling time, and prior hormonal therapy. Hazard ratio was based on a Cox regression model stratified by factors defined above and was relative to placebo + leuprolide with \< 1 favoring enzalutamide + leuprolide.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.078||||0.4321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.894|1.301|||Log Rank|||||1.301|0.894|0.4321
90863447|NCT02319837|181590209|OTHER|Two-sided P-value was based on a stratified log-rank test by screening PSA, PSA doubling time, and prior hormonal therapy. Hazard ratio was based on a Cox regression model stratified by factors defined above and was relative to placebo + leuprolide with \< 1 favoring enzalutamide monotherapy.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.3702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.904|1.314|||Log Rank|||||1.314|0.904|0.3702
90863448|NCT02319837|181590210|OTHER|Two-sided P-value was based on a stratified log-rank test by screening PSA, PSA doubling time, and prior hormonal therapy. Hazard ratio was based on a Cox regression model stratified by factors defined above and was relative to placebo + leuprolide with \< 1 favoring enzalutamide + leuprolide.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.138||||0.1567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.954|1.357|||Log Rank|||||1.357|0.954|0.1567
90863449|NCT02319837|181590210|OTHER|Two-sided P-value was based on a stratified log-rank test by screening PSA, PSA doubling time, and prior hormonal therapy. Hazard ratio was based on a Cox regression model stratified by factors defined above and was relative to placebo + leuprolide with \< 1 favoring enzalutamide monotherapy.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.168||||0.0855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.981|1.391|||Log Rank|||||1.391|0.981|0.0855
90863450|NCT01961362|181590298|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.87||0.6|TWO_SIDED|||||P\<0.05 considered to represent statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6
90863451|NCT01961362|181590298|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
90863452|NCT01961362|181590299|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
90863453|NCT01761175|181590343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.01
90863454|NCT01761175|181590344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.01
90863455|NCT01761175|181590345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.01
90863456|NCT01761175|181590346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.01
90863457|NCT01761175|181590347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.02
90863458|NCT01761175|181590348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
90863459|NCT01761175|181590349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.34
90863460|NCT00467857|181590402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.655||95.0|||||Wilcoxon-Rank Sum Test|||The sample size determination was selected to achieve 80% power to detect an absolute 10% difference between the two treatment groups in proportion of qualitative reduction in representative skin flora, at a significance level (alpha) of 0.05 using a two-sided z-test with continuity correction.||||0.655
90863461|NCT00467857|181590403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.276||95.0|||||Wilcoxon-Rank Sum Test|||||||0.276
90863462|NCT00467857|181590404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.375||95.0|||||Wilcoxon-Rank Sum Test|||||||0.375
90863463|NCT00467857|181590405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.039||95.0|||||Wilcoxon-Rank Sum Test|||||||0.039
90863464|NCT00467857|181590406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.057||95.0|||||Wilcoxon-Rank Sum Test|||||||0.057
90863465|NCT00467857|181590407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.646||95.0|||||Wilcoxon-Rank Sum Test|||||||0.646
90863466|NCT00467857|181590408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.788||95.0|||||Wilcoxon-Rank Sum Test|||||||0.788
90863467|NCT00467857|181590409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96||95.0|||||Wilcoxon-Rank Sum Test|||||||0.960
90863468|NCT00467857|181590410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.359||95.0|||||Wilcoxon-Rank Sum Test|||The sample size determination was selected to achieve 80% power to detect an absolute 10% difference between the two treatment groups in proportion of qualitative reduction in representative skin flora, at a significance level (alpha) of 0.05 using a two-sided z-test with continuity correction.||||0.359
90863469|NCT00467857|181590411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73||95.0|||||Wilcoxon-Rank Sum Test|||||||0.730
90863470|NCT00467857|181590412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.348||95.0|||||Wilcoxon-Rank Sum Test|||||||0.348
90863471|NCT00467857|181590413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.512||95.0|||||Wilcoxon-Rank Sum Test|||||||0.512
90863472|NCT00467857|181590414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.285||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.285
90863473|NCT00467857|181590415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.024
90863474|NCT01589978|181590426|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Given the performance goal of 3.2%, with expected rate for PROMUS Element Plus of 2.2% and a one-sided 5% significance level, approximately 1,706 PLATINUM-like patients will provide at least 80% power to reject the null hypothesis if it is false.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||One-sided, single binomial test will be performed to compare observed rate against performance goal, the normal approximation of the test statistic will be used. The performance goal is met if the one-sided upper 95% confidence bound for the observed binary rate is less than performance goal.||||<.0001
90863475|NCT01589978|181590446|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size is calculated for one-sample chi-square test for a single proportion using nQuery AdvisorVersion 5.0. The expected annual increase in ST rate is estimated to be 0.4% based on the current data available from the pooled TAXUS Express and pooled TAXUS Liberté data and the PG is 1.0% using a delta of 0.6%. Given a one-sided 5% significance level, a minimum of 1,660 PLATINUM-like patients at 5-yrs will be required to provide 90% power to reject the null hypothesis if it is false.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||The expected annual increase of stent thrombosis rate is assumed to be 0.4%, based on the observed increase in incidence rate of stent thrombosis of approximately 0.4% annually for PLATINUM-like patients in the pooled TAXUS SR Express and pooled TAXUS Liberté data. Using a delta of 0.6%, the performance goal is set to 1.0% (expected rate + delta = 0.4% + 0.6% = 1.0%).||||<.0001
90863476|NCT02628938|181590458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.299|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test was performed to examine the significance of change in Organoleptic scores after 15 minutes of the first use of Miswak extract mouth wash||||0.299
90863477|NCT02628938|181590458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test was performed to examine the significance of change in Organoleptic scores after 7 days of using Miswak extract mouth wash||||0.007
90863478|NCT02628938|181590458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test was performed to examine the significance of change in Organoleptic scores after 15 minutes of the first use of Miswak sticks||||0.019
90863479|NCT02628938|181590458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test was performed to examine the significance of change in Organoleptic scores after 7 days of using Miswak sticks||||0.000
90863480|NCT02628938|181590458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test was performed to examine the significance of change in Organoleptic scores after 15 minutes of the first use of Chlorohexidine gluconate mouth wash||||0.000
90863481|NCT02628938|181590458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test was performed to examine the significance of change in Organoleptic scores after 7 days of using Chlorohexidine gluconate mouth wash||||0.001
90863482|NCT02628938|181590459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.496|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test was performed to examine the significance of change in Volatile sulfur compound scores after 15 minutes of the first use of Miswak extract mouth wash||||0.496
90863483|NCT02628938|181590459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.244|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test was performed to examine the significance of change in Volatile sulfur compound scores after 7 days of using Miswak extract mouth wash||||0.244
90863484|NCT02628938|181590459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test was performed to examine the significance of change in Volatile sulfur compound scores after 15 minutes of the first use of Miswak sticks||||0.19
90863485|NCT02628938|181590459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.829|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test was performed to examine the significance of change in Volatile sulfur compound scores after 7 days of of using Miswak sticks||||0.829
90863486|NCT02628938|181590459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.341|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test was performed to examine the significance of change in Volatile sulfur compound scores after 15 minutes of the first use of Chlorohexidine gluconate mouth wash||||0.341
90907256|NCT00797225|181682773|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.0609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.01|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 4. The change from baseline in monthly mean non-menstrual pelvic pain scores was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||0.01|-0.31|0.0609
90959521|NCT00557947|181799320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3877||0.0|||||McNemar|||||||0.3877
90863487|NCT02628938|181590459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test was performed to examine the significance of change in Volatile sulfur compound scores after 7 days of using Chlorohexidine gluconate mouth wash||||0.82
90863488|NCT02628938|181590460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test was performed to examine the significance of change in Self-assessment scores after 7 days of using Miswak extract mouth wash||||0.008
90863489|NCT02628938|181590460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test was performed to examine the significance of change in Self-assessment scores after 7 days of using Miswak sticks||||0.001
90863490|NCT02628938|181590460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test was performed to examine the significance of change in Self-assessment scores after 7 days of using Chlorohexidine gluconate mouth wash||||0.02
90863491|NCT03855228|181590473|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||0.36
90863492|NCT03855228|181590473|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||<0.01
90959522|NCT00557947|181799321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7539||0.0|||||McNemar|||||||0.7539
90959523|NCT00557947|181799322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||0.0|||||McNemar|||||||1.0000
90863493|NCT03855228|181590473|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||<0.01
90863494|NCT03855228|181590473|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||<0.01
90863495|NCT03855228|181590473|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||<0.01
90863496|NCT03855228|181590473|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||0.02
90863497|NCT03855228|181590474|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||0.35
90863498|NCT03855228|181590474|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||<0.01
90863499|NCT03855228|181590474|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||<0.01
90863500|NCT03855228|181590474|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||0.03
90863501|NCT03855228|181590474|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||<0.01
90863502|NCT03855228|181590474|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||0.02
90863503|NCT03855228|181590475|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||0.77
90863504|NCT03855228|181590475|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||<0.01
90863505|NCT03855228|181590475|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||<0.01
90863506|NCT03855228|181590475|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||<0.01
90863507|NCT03855228|181590475|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||<0.01
91079165|NCT05153148|182043952|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.3|||=|0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|31.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||MH risk difference was summarized along with the 2-sided 95% CI using MH stratum weights and the Sato variance estimator.||Comparisons of PhGA-PSO responder rates at Week 12 were made independently between each dose group and the placebo group using two-sided MH tests stratified on randomization stratification factors: prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region.|31.3|1.2|=0.034
90863508|NCT03855228|181590475|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||0.45
91079166|NCT00474786|182043959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.87||||0.1933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.07||Stratified for nephrectomy status, duration of response to sunitinib therapy, tumor histology, and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) prognostic group.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio less than (\<) 1 means temsirolimus (TEMSR) is at lower risk.|||1.07|0.71|0.1933
90863509|NCT03855228|181590476|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||0.99
90863510|NCT03855228|181590476|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||<0.01
90863511|NCT03855228|181590476|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||<0.01
90863512|NCT03855228|181590476|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||<0.01
90863513|NCT03855228|181590476|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||<0.01
90863514|NCT03855228|181590476|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||0.08
90863515|NCT03855228|181590477|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||0.85
90863516|NCT03855228|181590477|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||<0.01
90863517|NCT03855228|181590477|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||<0.01
90863518|NCT03855228|181590477|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||<0.01
90863519|NCT03855228|181590477|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||<0.01
90863520|NCT03855228|181590477|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||0.17
90863521|NCT03855228|181590478|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||0.88
90863522|NCT03855228|181590478|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||<0.01
90863523|NCT03855228|181590478|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||<0.01
90863524|NCT03855228|181590478|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||<0.01
90863525|NCT03855228|181590478|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||<0.01
90863526|NCT03855228|181590478|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||0.22
90863527|NCT03855228|181590479|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||0.65
90863528|NCT03855228|181590479|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||<0.01
90863529|NCT03855228|181590479|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||<0.01
90863530|NCT03855228|181590479|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||<0.01
90863531|NCT03855228|181590479|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||<0.01
90863532|NCT03855228|181590479|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||0.92
91079167|NCT00474786|182043960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.87||||0.1888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.07||Stratified for nephrectomy status, duration of response to sunitinib therapy, tumor histology, and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) prognostic group.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio less than (\<) 1 means temsirolimus (TEMSR) is at lower risk.|||1.07|0.70|0.1888
91079168|NCT00474786|182043962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.31||||0.0144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.63||Stratified for nephrectomy status, duration of response to sunitinib therapy, tumor histology, and MSKCC prognostic group.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio \<1 means temsirolimus (TEMSR) is at lower risk.|||1.63|1.05|0.0144
91079169|NCT02892513|182043966|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.97
90863533|NCT03855228|181590480|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||0.95
90863534|NCT03855228|181590480|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||0.01
90863535|NCT03855228|181590480|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||<0.01
90863536|NCT03855228|181590480|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||0.01
90863537|NCT03855228|181590480|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||<0.01
90863538|NCT03855228|181590480|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||0.58
90863539|NCT03855228|181590481|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.29
90863540|NCT03855228|181590481|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
90863541|NCT03855228|181590481|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
90863542|NCT03855228|181590481|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
90863543|NCT03855228|181590481|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
90863544|NCT03855228|181590481|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.80
90863545|NCT03855228|181590482|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.41
90863546|NCT03855228|181590482|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
90863547|NCT03855228|181590482|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
90863548|NCT03855228|181590482|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
90863549|NCT03855228|181590482|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
90863550|NCT03855228|181590482|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.08
90863551|NCT05263895|181590513|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric means|90.54|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.85|102.65||||||Test: Nirmatrelvir (slower dissolution tablets)/ritonavir 300/100 mg Reference: Nirmatrelvir (commercial tablets)/ritonavir 300/100 mg||102.65|79.85|
90863552|NCT05263895|181590513|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|102.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.65|116.53||||||Test: Nirmatrelvir (large particle size tablets)/ritonavir 300/100 mg Reference: Nirmatrelvir (commercial tablets)/ritonavir 300/100 mg||116.53|90.65|
90863553|NCT05263895|181590513|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|138.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|118.03|161.69||||||Test: Nirmatrelvir (SDD suspension)/ritonavir 300/100 mg Reference: Nirmatrelvir (commercial tablets)/ritonavir 300/100 mg||161.69|118.03|
90863554|NCT05263895|181590513|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|30.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|25.7|35.2||||||Test: Nirmatrelvir (SDD suspension) 300 mg Reference: Nirmatrelvir (commercial tablets)/ritonavir 300/100 mg||35.20|25.70|
90863555|NCT05263895|181590514|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|91.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.46|103.51||||||Test: Nirmatrelvir (slower dissolution tablets)/ritonavir 300/100 mg Reference: Nirmatrelvir (commercial tablets)/ritonavir 300/100 mg||103.51|80.46|
90863556|NCT05263895|181590514|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|102.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.36|116.26||||||Test: Nirmatrelvir (large particle size tablets)/ritonavir 300/100 mg Reference: Nirmatrelvir (commercial tablets)/ritonavir 300/100 mg||116.26|90.36|
90863557|NCT05263895|181590514|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|136.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|117.09|160.27||||||Test: Nirmatrelvir (SDD suspension)/ritonavir 300/100 mg Reference: Nirmatrelvir (commercial tablets)/ritonavir 300/100 mg||160.27|117.09|
90863558|NCT05263895|181590514|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|29.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|25.45|34.83||||||Test: Nirmatrelvir (SDD suspension) 300 mg Reference: Nirmatrelvir (commercial tablets)/ritonavir 300/100 mg||34.83|25.45|
90863559|NCT05263895|181590515|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|94.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.77|110.05||||||Test: Nirmatrelvir (slower dissolution tablets)/ritonavir 300/100 mg Reference: Nirmatrelvir (commercial tablets)/ritonavir 300/100 mg||110.05|80.77|
90863560|NCT05263895|181590515|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|108.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.04|126.76||||||Test: Nirmatrelvir (large particle size tablets)/ritonavir 300/100 mg Reference: Nirmatrelvir (commercial tablets)/ritonavir 300/100 mg||126.76|93.04|
90863561|NCT05263895|181590515|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|264.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|232.32|300.27||||||Test: Nirmatrelvir (SDD suspension)/ritonavir 300/100 mg Reference: Nirmatrelvir (commercial tablets)/ritonavir 300/100 mg||300.27|232.32|
90863562|NCT05263895|181590515|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|145.53|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|128.01|165.45||||||Test: Nirmatrelvir (SDD suspension) 300 mg Reference: Nirmatrelvir (commercial tablets)/ritonavir 300/100 mg||165.45|128.01|
90863563|NCT05764408|181590521|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.35||||||||1.35|0.49|
90863564|NCT05764408|181590522|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.86||||||||1.86|0.39|
90863565|NCT05764408|181590523|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.47
90863566|NCT05764408|181590525|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.81
90863567|NCT05764408|181590526|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|16.12||||||||16.12|0.07|
90863568|NCT00967668|181590533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|Linear mixed-effects model with baseline, 3- and 12-month outcome values modeled as dependent variables||All participants were included in outcomes analyses using intention-to-treat principles. A linear mixed-effects model with baseline, 3- and 12-month outcome values modeled as dependent variables was used.This statistical approach allows the use of data from all participants as long as the dependent variable is available for at least one time point. Each subject was included as a random intercept to adjust for within-person correlations.||||<0.05
90863569|NCT02400333|181590539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|84.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.77|93.78||||||Statistical assessment of ticagrelor relative bioavailability following ticagrelor OD tablets administered with water compared to ticagrelor IR tablets.||93.78|76.77|
90863570|NCT02400333|181590539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|96.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|88.22|105.79||||||Statistical assessment of ticagrelor relative bioavailability following ticagrelor OD tablets administered without water compared to ticagrelor IR tablets.||105.79|88.22|
90863571|NCT02400333|181590539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|92.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|85.59|99.25||||||Statistical assessment of ticagrelor relative bioavailability following ticagrelor OD tablets suspended in water and administered through NG tube compared to ticagrelor IR tablets.||99.25|85.59|
90863572|NCT02400333|181590539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|89.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|82.03|98.39||||||Statistical assessment of metabolite AR-C124910XX relative bioavailability following ticagrelor OD tablets administered with water compared to ticagrelor IR tablets.||98.39|82.03|
90863573|NCT02400333|181590539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|97.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|90.53|104.9||||||Statistical assessment of metabolite AR-C124910XX relative bioavailability following ticagrelor OD tablets administered without water compared to ticagrelor IR tablets.||104.90|90.53|
90863574|NCT02400333|181590539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|97.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|90.83|103.74||||||Statistical assessment of metabolite AR-C124910XX relative bioavailability following ticagrelor OD tablets suspended in water and administered through NG tube compared to ticagrelor IR tablets.||103.74|90.83|
90863575|NCT02400333|181590540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|95.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|90.33|99.99||||||Statistical assessment of ticagrelor relative bioavailability following ticagrelor OD tablets administered with water compared to ticagrelor IR tablets.||99.99|90.33|
90863576|NCT02400333|181590540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|95.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.94|101.21||||||Statistical assessment of ticagrelor relative bioavailability following ticagrelor OD tablets administered without water compared to ticagrelor IR tablets.||101.21|89.94|
90863577|NCT02400333|181590540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|94.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|90.53|98.98||||||Statistical assessment of ticagrelor relative bioavailability following ticagrelor OD tablets suspended in water and administered through NG tube compared to ticagrelor IR tablets.||98.98|90.53|
90863578|NCT02400333|181590540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|94.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|90.94|98.56||||||Statistical assessment of metabolite AR-C124910XX relative bioavailability following ticagrelor OD tablets administered with water compared to ticagrelor IR tablets.||98.56|90.94|
90863579|NCT02400333|181590540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|96.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.87|100.33||||||Statistical assessment of metabolite AR-C124910XX relative bioavailability following ticagrelor OD tablets administered without water compared to ticagrelor IR tablets.||100.33|91.87|
90863580|NCT02400333|181590540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|96.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.08|100.17||||||Statistical assessment of metabolite AR-C124910XX relative bioavailability following ticagrelor OD tablets suspended in water and administered through NG tube compared to ticagrelor IR tablets.||100.17|93.08|
90863581|NCT02400333|181590541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|94.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|90.27|99.89||||||Statistical assessment of ticagrelor relative bioavailability following ticagrelor OD tablets administered with water compared to ticagrelor IR tablets.||99.89|90.27|
90863582|NCT02400333|181590541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|95.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.81|100.99||||||Statistical assessment of ticagrelor relative bioavailability following ticagrelor OD tablets administered without water compared to ticagrelor IR tablets.||100.99|89.81|
90863583|NCT02400333|181590541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|94.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|90.26|98.73||||||Statistical assessment of ticagrelor relative bioavailability following ticagrelor OD tablets suspended in water and administered through NG tube compared to ticagrelor IR tablets.||98.73|90.26|
90863584|NCT02400333|181590541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|94.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.36|98.42||||||Statistical assessment of metabolite AR-C124910XX relative bioavailability following ticagrelor OD tablets administered with water compared to ticagrelor IR tablets.||98.42|91.36|
90907257|NCT00797225|181682773|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.0069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.06|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 4. The change from baseline in monthly mean non-menstrual pelvic pain scores was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.06|-0.38|0.0069
90959524|NCT04737187|181799324|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.77||Stratified log-rank test, with a target p-value \< 0.025 for level of significance.|Stratified log-rank test||Hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval was estimated with stratified Cox proportional hazard model.|Overall Survival Median analysis: The primary estimand was defined to assess the effect of the randomized treatments on the survival duration in all participants regardless of whether or not intercurrent events had occurred (treatment policy strategy).||0.77|0.49|< 0.001
90863585|NCT02400333|181590541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|95.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.78|99.82||||||Statistical assessment of metabolite AR-C124910XX relative bioavailability following ticagrelor OD tablets administered without water compared to ticagrelor IR tablets.||99.82|91.78|
90863586|NCT02400333|181590541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|96.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.26|99.87||||||Statistical assessment of metabolite AR-C124910XX relative bioavailability following ticagrelor OD tablets suspended in water and administered through NG tube compared to ticagrelor IR tablets.||99.87|93.26|
90863587|NCT02468674|181590552|OTHER|||||||0.759|||||||t-test, 1 sided|One-sided test at the 0.025 significance level.||Population I: SPPB total score at Week 49||||0.759
90863588|NCT02468674|181590552|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 1 sided|One-sided test at the 0.025 significance level.||Population I: SPPB total score at Week 49||||0.500
90907258|NCT00797225|181682773|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.0556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.0|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model]|||Analysis at Week 8. The change from baseline in monthly mean non-menstrual pelvic pain scores was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||0.00|-0.32|0.0556
90863589|NCT02468674|181590552|OTHER|||||||0.144|||||||t-test, 1 sided|One-sided test at the 0.025 significance||Population I: SPPB total score at Week 49||||0.144
90863590|NCT02468674|181590552|OTHER|||||||0.648|||||||t-test, 1 sided|One-sided test at the 0.025 significance level.||Population I: SPPB total score at Week 49||||0.648
90863591|NCT02468674|181590552|OTHER|||||||0.929|||||||t-test, 1 sided|One-sided test at the 0.025 significance||Population I: SPPB total score at Week 49||||0.929
90863592|NCT02468674|181590552|OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||t-test, 1 sided|One-sided test at the 0.025 significance||Population I: SPPB total score at Week 49||||0.530
90863593|NCT02468674|181590553|OTHER|||||||0.839|||||||ANCOVA|Difference in the least square means (SE)||Population II: SPPB total score at Week 49||||0.839
90863594|NCT02468674|181590554|OTHER|||||||0.669|||||||t-test, 1 sided|One-sided test at the 0.025 significance level.||Population I: 6MWT at Week 49||||0.669
90863595|NCT02468674|181590554|OTHER|||||||0.773|||||||t-test, 1 sided|One-sided test at the 0.025 significance level.||Population I: 6MWT at Week 49||||0.773
90863596|NCT02468674|181590554|OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||t-test, 1 sided|One-sided test at the 0.025 significance level.||Population I: 6MWT at Week 49||||0.290
90863597|NCT02468674|181590554|OTHER|||||||0.766|||||||t-test, 1 sided|One-sided test at the 0.025 significance level.||Population I: 6MWT at Week 49||||0.766
90863598|NCT02468674|181590554|OTHER|||||||0.885|||||||t-test, 1 sided|One-sided test at the 0.025 significance level.||Population I: 6MWT at Week 49||||0.885
90863599|NCT02468674|181590554|OTHER|||||||0.84|||||||t-test, 1 sided|One-sided test at the 0.025 significance level.||Population I: 6MWT at Week 49||||0.840
90863600|NCT02468674|181590555|OTHER|||||||0.367|||||||ANCOVA|Difference in the least square means (SE)||Population II: 6MWT at Week 49||||0.367
90863601|NCT02468674|181590556|OTHER|||||||0.875|||||||t-test, 1 sided|One-sided test at the 0.025 significance||Population I: Gait speed at Week 49||||0.875
90863602|NCT02468674|181590556|OTHER|||||||0.909|||||||t-test, 1 sided|One-sided test at the 0.025 significance||Population I: Gait speed at Week 49||||0.909
90863603|NCT02468674|181590556|OTHER|||||||0.168|||||||t-test, 1 sided|One-sided test at the 0.025 significance||Population I: Gait speed at Week 49||||0.168
90863604|NCT02468674|181590556|OTHER|||||||0.632|||||||t-test, 1 sided|One-sided test at the 0.025 significance||Population I: Gait speed at Week 49||||0.632
90863605|NCT02468674|181590556|OTHER|||||||0.31|||||||t-test, 1 sided|One-sided test at the 0.025 significance||Population I: Gait speed at Week 49||||0.310
90863606|NCT02468674|181590556|OTHER|||||||0.321|||||||t-test, 1 sided|One-sided test at the 0.025 significance||Population I: Gait speed at Week 49||||0.321
90863607|NCT02468674|181590557|OTHER|||||||0.395|||||||ANCOVA|Difference in the least square means (SE)||Population II: Gait speed at Week 49||||0.395
90863608|NCT02468674|181590558|OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||t-test, 1 sided|One-sided test at the 0.025 significance level.||Population I: ASMI at Week 49||||0.120
90863609|NCT02468674|181590558|OTHER|||||||0.297|||||||t-test, 1 sided|One-sided test at the 0.025 significance level.||Population I: ASMI at Week 49||||0.297
90863610|NCT02468674|181590558|OTHER|||||||0.074|||||||t-test, 1 sided|One-sided test at the 0.025 significance level.||Population I: ASMI at Week 49||||0.074
90863611|NCT02468674|181590558|OTHER|||||||0.022|||||||t-test, 1 sided|One-sided test at the 0.025 significance level.||Population I: ASMI at Week 49||||0.022
90863612|NCT02468674|181590558|OTHER|||||||0.106|||||||t-test, 1 sided|One-sided test at the 0.025 significance level.||Population I: ASMI at Week 49||||0.106
90863613|NCT02468674|181590558|OTHER|||||||0.211|||||||t-test, 1 sided|One-sided test at the 0.025 significance level.||Population I: ASMI at Week 49||||0.211
90863614|NCT02468674|181590559|OTHER|||||||1|||||||ANCOVA|Difference in the least square geometric means||Population II: ASMI at Week 49||||1.000
90863615|NCT02468674|181590560|OTHER|||||||0.084|||||||t-test, 1 sided|One-sided test at the 0.025 significance level.||Population I: LBM at Week 49||||0.084
90863616|NCT02468674|181590560|OTHER|||||||0.283|||||||t-test, 1 sided|One-sided test at the 0.025 significance level.||Population I: LBM at Week 49||||0.283
90863617|NCT02468674|181590560|OTHER|||||||0.323|||||||t-test, 1 sided|One-sided test at the 0.025 significance level.||Population I: LBM at Week 49||||0.323
90863618|NCT02468674|181590560|OTHER|||||||0.018|||||||t-test, 1 sided|One-sided test at the 0.025 significance level.||Population I: LBM at Week 49||||0.018
90863619|NCT02468674|181590560|OTHER|||||||0.179|||||||t-test, 1 sided|One-sided test at the 0.025 significance level.||Population I: LBM at Week 49||||0.179
90863620|NCT02468674|181590560|OTHER|||||||0.227|||||||t-test, 1 sided|One-sided test at the 0.025 significance level.||Population I: LBM at Week 49||||0.227
90863621|NCT02468674|181590561|OTHER|||||||1|||||||ANCOVA|Difference in the least square geometric means||Population II: LBM at Week 49||||1.000
90863622|NCT01332500|181590574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Triptan tablets|paired t-test 2-sided|||||||<0.001
90863623|NCT01332500|181590574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug tablets|paired t-test 2-sided|||||||<0.001
90863624|NCT01332500|181590574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||Opioid tablets|paired t-test 2-sided|||||||0.005
90863625|NCT01332500|181590574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.336||95.0||||Ergot tablets|paired t-test 2-sided|||||||0.336
90863626|NCT01332500|181590574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.162||95.0||||Other tablets|paired t-test 2-sided|||||||0.162
90863627|NCT01332500|181590575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Triptan health plan costs|paired t-test 2-sided|||||||<0.001
90863628|NCT01332500|181590575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.349||95.0||||Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug health plan costs|paired t-test 2-sided|||||||0.349
90863629|NCT01332500|181590575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.208||95.0||||Opioid health plan costs|paired t-test 2-sided|||||||0.208
90863630|NCT01332500|181590575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.239||95.0||||Ergot health plan costs|paired t-test 2-sided|||||||0.239
90863631|NCT01332500|181590575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.583||95.0||||Other health plan costs|paired t-test 2-sided|||||||0.583
90863632|NCT01332500|181590575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Total heath plan costs|paired t-test 2-sided|||||||<0.001
90863633|NCT01332500|181590576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Triptan health plus copay costs|paired t-test 2-sided|||||||<0.001
90863634|NCT01332500|181590576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.177||95.0||||Non-steroidal, anti-inflammatory drug health plus copay costs|paired t-test 2-sided|||||||0.177
90863635|NCT01332500|181590576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.173||95.0||||Opioid health plus copay costs|paired t-test 2-sided|||||||0.173
90863636|NCT01332500|181590576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.191||95.0||||Ergot health plus copay costs|paired t-test 2-sided|||||||0.191
90863637|NCT01332500|181590576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.254||95.0||||Other health plus copay costs|paired t-test 2-sided|||||||0.254
90863638|NCT01332500|181590576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Total health plus copay costs|paired t-test 2-sided|||||||<0.001
90863639|NCT01332500|181590577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.866||95.0||||Triptan tablets|paired t-test 2-sided|||||||0.866
90863640|NCT01332500|181590577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.094||95.0||||Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug tablets|paired t-test 2-sided|||||||0.094
90863641|NCT01332500|181590577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.832||95.0||||Opioid tablets|paired t-test 2-sided|||||||0.832
90863642|NCT01332500|181590577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.392||95.0||||Ergot tablets|paired t-test 2-sided|||||||0.392
90863643|NCT01332500|181590577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.752||95.0||||Other tablets|paired t-test 2-sided|||||||0.752
90863644|NCT01332500|181590578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Triptan health plan costs|paired t-test 2-sided|||||||<0.001
90863645|NCT01332500|181590578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.054||95.0||||Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug health plan costs|paired t-test 2-sided|||||||0.054
90863646|NCT01332500|181590578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59||95.0||||Opioid health plan costs|paired t-test 2-sided|||||||0.590
90863647|NCT01332500|181590578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.382||95.0||||Ergot health plan costs|paired t-test 2-sided|||||||0.382
90863648|NCT01332500|181590578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.343||95.0||||Other health plan costs|paired t-test 2-sided|||||||0.343
90863649|NCT01332500|181590578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Total health plan costs|paired t-test 2-sided|||||||<0.001
90863650|NCT01332500|181590579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Triptan health plus copay costs|paired t-test 2-sided|||||||<0.001
90863651|NCT01332500|181590579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.146||95.0||||Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug health plus copay costs|paired t-test 2-sided|||||||0.146
90863652|NCT01332500|181590579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.826||95.0||||Opioid health plus copay costs|paired t-test 2-sided|||||||0.826
90863653|NCT01332500|181590579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.354||95.0||||Ergot health plus copay costs|paired t-test 2-sided|||||||0.354
90863654|NCT01332500|181590579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.514||95.0||||Other health plus copay costs|paired t-test 2-sided|||||||0.514
90863655|NCT01332500|181590579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||Total health plus copay costs|paired t-test 2-sided|||||||0.001
90863656|NCT03281577|181590580|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Differences|-25.81||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.757|-9.858||Dunnett's test was used to compare each treatment arm to placebo. Multiplicity Adjusted p-value and 95% confidence interval (CI) are presented.|ANCOVA||Linear mixed effects model used for analyses using gastroparesis type \[diabetic or idiopathic\], age, gender, BMI, baseline as covariate.|||-9.858|-41.757|0.0012
90863657|NCT03281577|181590580|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Differences|-27.52||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.224|-9.813||Dunnett's test was used to compare each treatment arm to placebo. Multiplicity Adjusted p-value and 95% CI are presented.|ANCOVA||Linear mixed effects model used for analyses using gastroparesis type \[diabetic or idiopathic\], age, gender, BMI, baseline as a covariate.|||-9.813|-45.224|0.0018
90863658|NCT03281577|181590580|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Differences|-41.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.616|-23.902||Dunnett's test was used to compare each treatment arm to placebo. Multiplicity Adjusted p-value and 95% CI are presented.|ANCOVA||Linear mixed effects model used for analyses using gastroparesis type \[diabetic or idiopathic\], age, gender, BMI, baseline as a covariate.|||-23.902|-59.616|<.0001
90863659|NCT03281577|181590581|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Differences|0.72||||0.259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.364|1.795||Dunnett's test was used to compare each treatment arm to placebo. Multiplicity Adjusted p-value and 95% CI are presented.|ANCOVA||Linear mixed effects model used for analyses using gastroparesis type \[diabetic or idiopathic\], age, gender, BMI, baseline as a covariate.|Colonic Transit at 4 Hours, Day 2||1.795|-0.364|0.2590
90863660|NCT03281577|181590581|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Differences|1.27||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.119|2.418||Dunnett's test was used to compare each treatment arm to placebo. Multiplicity Adjusted p-value and 95% CI are presented.|ANCOVA||Linear mixed effects model used for analyses using gastroparesis type \[diabetic or idiopathic\], age, gender, BMI, baseline as a covariate.|Colonic Transit at 4 Hours, Day 2||2.418|0.119|0.0280
90863661|NCT03281577|181590581|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Differences|0.45||||0.6882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.757|1.66||Dunnett's test was used to compare each treatment arm to placebo. Multiplicity Adjusted p-value and 95% CI are presented.|ANCOVA||Linear mixed effects model used for analyses using gastroparesis type \[diabetic or idiopathic\], age, gender, BMI, baseline as a covariate.|Colonic Transit at 4 Hours, Day 2||1.660|-0.757|0.6882
90959525|NCT04737187|181799328|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.54||Stratified log-rank test, with a target p-value \< 0.025 for level of significance.|Stratified log-rank test||Hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval was estimated with stratified Cox proportional hazard model.|PFS Median analysis: A hierarchical testing method was used to control type I error and handle key secondary endpoint analysis. When the primary outcome measure significant testing was then performed sequentially on the key secondary outcome measure. statistically significant at 0.05 level.||0.54|0.36|< 0.001
90959526|NCT05227703|181799337|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3||0.2925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|2.1||Emraclidine 15 mg versus Placebo|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 15 mg - Placebo|||2.1|-7.0|0.2925
90959527|NCT05227703|181799337|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.27||0.3914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|6.4|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 30 mg - Placebo|Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||6.4|-2.5|0.3914
90959528|NCT05227703|181799338|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.135||0.1165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.05|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 15 mg - Placebo|Emraclidine 15 mg versus Placebo||0.05|-0.48|0.1165
90863662|NCT03281577|181590581|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Differences|1.87||||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.493|3.25||Dunnett's test was used to compare each treatment arm to placebo. Multiplicity Adjusted p-value and 95% CI are presented.|ANCOVA||Linear mixed effects model used for analyses using gastroparesis type \[diabetic or idiopathic\], age, gender, BMI, baseline as a covariate.|Colonic Transit at 24 Hours, Day 2||3.250|0.493|0.0062
90959529|NCT05227703|181799338|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.134||0.8265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.29|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 30 mg - Placebo|Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||0.29|-0.23|0.8265
90959530|NCT05227703|181799339|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14||0.1167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|0.5|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 15 mg - Placebo|Week 1-- Emraclidine 15 mg versus Placebo||0.5|-4.0|0.1167
90959531|NCT05227703|181799339|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14||0.9254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.3|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 30 mg - Placebo|Week 1-- Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||2.3|-2.1|0.9254
90863663|NCT03281577|181590581|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Differences|1.19||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.327|2.717||Dunnett's test was used to compare each treatment arm to placebo. Multiplicity Adjusted p-value and 95% CI are presented.|ANCOVA||Linear mixed effects model used for analyses using gastroparesis type \[diabetic or idiopathic\], age, gender, BMI, baseline as a covariate.|Colonic Transit at 24 Hours, Day 2||2.717|-0.327|0.1490
90863664|NCT03281577|181590581|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Differences|0.63||||0.6285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.931|2.2||Dunnett's test was used to compare each treatment arm to placebo. Multiplicity Adjusted p-value and 95% CI are presented.|ANCOVA||Linear mixed effects model used for analyses using gastroparesis type \[diabetic or idiopathic\], age, gender, BMI, baseline as a covariate.|Colonic Transit at 24 Hours, Day 2||2.200|-0.931|0.6285
90863665|NCT03281577|181590581|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Differences|1.29||||0.0358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.073|2.501||Dunnett's test was used to compare each treatment arm to placebo. Multiplicity Adjusted p-value and 95% CI are presented.|ANCOVA||Linear mixed effects model used for analyses using gastroparesis type \[diabetic or idiopathic\], age, gender, BMI, baseline as a covariate.|Colonic Transit at 48 Hours, Day 2||2.501|0.073|0.0358
90863666|NCT03281577|181590581|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Differences|1.33||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.035|2.621||Dunnett's test was used to compare each treatment arm to placebo. Multiplicity Adjusted p-value and 95% CI are presented.|ANCOVA||Linear mixed effects model used for analyses using gastroparesis type \[diabetic or idiopathic\], age, gender, BMI, baseline as a covariate.|Colonic Transit at 48 Hours, Day 2||2.621|0.035|0.0430
90863667|NCT03281577|181590581|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Differences|0.25||||0.9419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.107|1.611||Dunnett's test was used to compare each treatment arm to placebo. Multiplicity Adjusted p-value and 95% CI are presented.|ANCOVA||Linear mixed effects model used for analyses using gastroparesis type \[diabetic or idiopathic\], age, gender, BMI, baseline as a covariate.|Colonic Transit at 48 Hours, Day 2||1.611|-1.107|0.9419
90863668|NCT03281577|181590582|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Differences|33.12||||0.0436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.799|65.439||Dunnett's test was used to compare each treatment arm to placebo. Multiplicity Adjusted p-value and 95% CI are presented.|ANCOVA||Linear mixed effects model used for analyses using gastroparesis type \[diabetic or idiopathic\], age, gender, BMI, baseline as a covariate.|||65.439|0.799|0.0436
90863669|NCT03281577|181590582|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Differences|57.98||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.555|92.396||Dunnett's test was used to compare each treatment arm to placebo. Multiplicity Adjusted p-value and 95% CI are presented.|ANCOVA||Linear mixed effects model used for analyses using gastroparesis type \[diabetic or idiopathic\], age, gender, BMI, baseline as a covariate.|||92.396|23.555|0.0007
90863670|NCT03281577|181590582|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Differences|44.44||||0.0134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.249|80.629||Dunnett's test was used to compare each treatment arm to placebo. Multiplicity Adjusted p-value and 95% CI are presented.|ANCOVA||Linear mixed effects model used for analyses using gastroparesis type \[diabetic or idiopathic\], age, gender, BMI, baseline as a covariate.|||80.629|8.249|0.0134
90863671|NCT03281577|181590583|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Differences|-10.27||||0.0789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.507|0.96||Dunnett's test was used to compare each treatment arm to placebo. Multiplicity Adjusted p-value and 95% CI are presented.|ANCOVA||Linear mixed effects model used for analyses using gastroparesis type \[diabetic or idiopathic\], age, gender, BMI, baseline as a covariate.|||0.960|-21.507|0.0789
90863672|NCT03281577|181590583|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Differences|-13.28||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.242|-1.314||Dunnett's test was used to compare each treatment arm to placebo. Multiplicity Adjusted p-value and 95% CI are presented.|ANCOVA||Linear mixed effects model used for analyses using gastroparesis type \[diabetic or idiopathic\], age, gender, BMI, baseline as a covariate.|||-1.314|-25.242|0.0270
90863673|NCT03281577|181590583|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Differences|-11.63||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.206|0.952||Dunnett's test was used to compare each treatment arm to placebo. Multiplicity Adjusted p-value and 95% CI are presented.|ANCOVA||Linear mixed effects model used for analyses using gastroparesis type \[diabetic or idiopathic\], age, gender, BMI, baseline as a covariate.|||0.952|-24.206|0.0750
90863674|NCT01650844|181590587|OTHER|We estimated the power to detect the smallest clinically significant difference in mean SFDs post intervention between the groups, accounting for repeated measures. A sample of 400 obtains greater than 90% power to detect a difference of 0.8 SFD per 2 weeks or greater. Analyses were multivariable modified intention to treat, including all participants with post intervention data. Generalized estimating equation (GEE) models were fitted with repeated asthma outcomes.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.8|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Analyses were multivariable modified intention to treat, including all participants with post intervention data. Generalized estimating equation (GEE) models were fitted with repeated asthma outcomes.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
90863675|NCT01687998|181590591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.006||||0.9054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.911|1.111|||Regression, Cox|||Primary Endpoint: Time to First Occurrence of the Composite Primary Endpoint of Cardiovascular (CV) Death, Myocardial Infarction (MI), Stroke, Coronary Revascularization, or Hospitalization for Unstable Angina (UA)||1.111|0.911|0.9054
90863676|NCT01687998|181590592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-37.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.15|-36.08|||ANOVA|||LDL-C||-36.08|-38.15|<0.0001
90863677|NCT01687998|181590592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|131.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|130.01|133.09|||ANOVA|||HDL-C||133.09|130.01|<0.0001
90863678|NCT01687998|181590593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.991||||0.8463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.901|1.089|||Regression, Cox|||Time to First Occurrence of the Composite Endpoint of All-Cause Mortality, MI, Stroke, Coronary Revascularization, or Hospitalization for UA||1.089|0.901|0.8463
90863679|NCT01687998|181590594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.001||||0.9874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.901|1.112|||Regression, Cox|||Time to First Occurrence of the Composite Endpoint of CV Death, MI, or Coronary Revascularization||1.112|0.901|0.9874
90863680|NCT01687998|181590595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.003||||0.9574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.893|1.127|||Regression, Cox|||Time to First Occurrence of the Composite Endpoint of CV Death, MI, Stroke, or Hospitalization for UA||1.127|0.893|0.9574
90863681|NCT01687998|181590596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.965||||0.5917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.846|1.1|||Regression, Cox|||Time to First Occurrence of Triple Composite Endpoint of CV Death, MI, or Stroke||1.100|0.846|0.5917
90863682|NCT01663532|181590600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.9||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|-1.7||Kenward-Rodger degree of freedom was used to test the treatment effects and p-value was not adjusted as this is a primary efficacy endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis with treatment, pooled centers, Week and treatment-by-Week, and Baseline-by-Week interaction as an unstructured covariate was performed.|Difference in Least Square (LS) mean of change and 95% Confidence interval were derived from pair-wise comparison within MMRM at Week 1.|Null hypothesis of change from Baseline in PANSS total score of aripiprazole IM depot 400/300mg group is same as that of placebo group was tested. The sample size estimated a 1:1 randomization ratio (aripiprazole IM depot 400/300mg: placebo) to achieve 90% power and to preserve a nominal alpha level of 0.05 given a treatment difference of -7.5 points in change from Baseline with standard deviation of 20 points between aripiprazole and placebo using a two-sided z-test.||-1.7|-6.1|0.0005
90888115|NCT03521635|181639528|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.7|||REML-based repeated measures approach|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML) - based repeated measures approach was applied.|Mean difference was calculated as Pramipexole Sustained Release minus Pramipexole immediate Release.|Mean changes from baseline of SCOPA-Sleep night-time sleep score were analysed using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML) - based repeated measures approach. Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit in the maintenance period, and treatment-by-visit interaction, and the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline and baseline-by-visit interaction.||0.7|-1.9|0.333
90907259|NCT00797225|181682773|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.0387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|-0.01|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 8. The change from baseline in monthly mean non-menstrual pelvic pain scores was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.01|-0.33|0.0387
90907260|NCT00797225|181682773|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.12|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 8. The change from baseline in monthly mean non-menstrual pelvic pain scores was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.12|-0.44|0.0008
90907261|NCT00797225|181682773|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.5879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.12|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 12. The change from baseline in monthly mean non-menstrual pelvic pain scores was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||0.12|-0.21|0.5879
90907262|NCT00797225|181682773|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.6122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.12|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 12. The change from baseline in monthly mean non-menstrual pelvic pain scores was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||0.12|-0.20|0.6122
90907263|NCT00797225|181682773|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.09|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 12. The change from baseline in monthly mean non-menstrual pelvic pain scores was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.09|-0.41|0.0023
90907264|NCT00797225|181682774|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.24|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 4. The change from baseline in monthly mean dysmenorrhea scores was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.24|-0.69|< 0.0001
90907265|NCT00797225|181682774|SUPERIORITY||LS mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.27|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 4. The change from baseline in monthly mean dysmenorrhea scores was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.27|-0.73|< 0.0001
90907266|NCT00797225|181682774|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.25|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 4. The change from baseline in monthly mean dysmenorrhea scores was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.25|-0.71|< 0.0001
90907267|NCT00797225|181682774|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.23|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 8. The change from baseline in monthly mean dysmenorrhea scores was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.23|-0.69|< 0.0001
90907268|NCT00797225|181682774|SUPERIORITY||LS mean Difference|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.4|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 8. The change from baseline in monthly mean dysmenorrhea scores was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.40|-0.87|< 0.0001
90907269|NCT00797225|181682774|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|-0.59|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 8. The change from baseline in monthly mean dysmenorrhea scores was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.59|-1.04|< 0.0001
90863683|NCT01663532|181590600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|-4.0||Kenward-Rodger degree of freedom was used to test the treatment effects and p-value was not adjusted as this is a primary efficacy endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis with treatment, pooled centers, Week and treatment-by-Week, and Baseline-by-Week interaction as an unstructured covariate was performed.|Difference in Least Square (LS) mean of change and 95% Confidence interval were derived from pair-wise comparison within MMRM at Week 2.|Null hypothesis of change from Baseline in PANSS total score of aripiprazole IM depot 400/300mg group is same as that of placebo group was tested. The sample size estimated a 1:1 randomization ratio (aripiprazole IM depot 400/300mg: placebo) to achieve 90% power and to preserve a nominal alpha level of 0.05 given a treatment difference of -7.5 points in change from Baseline with standard deviation of 20 points between aripiprazole and placebo using a two-sided z-test.||-4.0|-10.0|<.0001
90863684|NCT01663532|181590600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|-5.6||Kenward-Rodger degree of freedom was used to test the treatment effects and p-value was not adjusted as this is a primary efficacy endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis with treatment, pooled centers, Week and treatment-by-Week, and Baseline-by-Week interaction as an unstructured covariate was performed.|Difference in Least Square (LS) mean of change and 95% Confidence interval were derived from pair-wise comparison within MMRM at week 4.|Null hypothesis of change from Baseline in PANSS total score of aripiprazole IM depot 400/300mg group is same as that of placebo group was tested. The sample size estimated a 1:1 randomization ratio (aripiprazole IM depot 400/300mg: placebo) to achieve 90% power and to preserve a nominal alpha level of 0.05 given a treatment difference of -7.5 points in change from Baseline with standard deviation of 20 points between aripiprazole and placebo using a two-sided z-test.||-5.6|-12.8|<.0001
90863685|NCT01663532|181590600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|-7.3||Kenward-Rodger degree of freedom was used to test the treatment effects and p-value was not adjusted as this is a primary efficacy endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis with treatment, pooled centers, Week and treatment-by-Week, and Baseline-by-Week interaction as an unstructured covariate was performed.|Difference in Least Square (LS) mean of change and 95% Confidence interval were derived from pair-wise comparison within MMRM at Week 6.|Null hypothesis of change from Baseline in PANSS total score of aripiprazole IM depot 400/300mg group is same as that of placebo group was tested. The sample size estimated a 1:1 randomization ratio (aripiprazole IM depot 400/300mg: placebo) to achieve 90% power and to preserve a nominal alpha level of 0.05 given a treatment difference of -7.5 points in change from Baseline with standard deviation of 20 points between aripiprazole and placebo using a two-sided z-test.||-7.3|-15.0|<.0001
90863686|NCT01663532|181590600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.4|-9.6||Kenward-Rodger degree of freedom was used to test the treatment effects and p-value was not adjusted as this is a primary efficacy endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis with treatment, pooled centers, Week and treatment-by-Week, and Baseline-by-Week interaction as an unstructured covariate was performed.|Difference in Least Square (LS) mean of change and 95% Confidence interval were derived from pair-wise comparison within MMRM at Week 8.|Null hypothesis of change from Baseline in PANSS total score of aripiprazole IM depot 400/300mg group is same as that of placebo group was tested. The sample size estimated a 1:1 randomization ratio (aripiprazole IM depot 400/300mg: placebo) to achieve 90% power and to preserve a nominal alpha level of 0.05 given a treatment difference of -7.5 points in change from Baseline with standard deviation of 20 points between aripiprazole and placebo using a two-sided z-test.||-9.6|-18.4|<.0001
90959532|NCT05227703|181799339|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.55||0.8792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|2.8|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 15 mg - Placebo|Week 2-- Emraclidine 15 mg versus Placebo||2.8|-3.3|0.8792
90959533|NCT05227703|181799339|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52||0.5094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|4.0|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 30 mg - Placebo|Week 2-- Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||4.0|-2.0|0.5094
90959534|NCT05227703|181799339|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.76||0.4487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|2.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 15 mg - Placebo|Week 3-- Emraclidine 15 mg versus Placebo||2.1|-4.8|0.4487
90959535|NCT05227703|181799339|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.72||0.4852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|4.6|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 30 mg - Placebo|Week 3-- Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||4.6|-2.2|0.4852
90863687|NCT01663532|181590600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|-10.8||Kenward-Rodger degree of freedom was used to test the treatment effects and p-value was not adjusted as this is a primary efficacy endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis with treatment, pooled centers, Week and treatment-by-Week, and Baseline-by-Week interaction as an unstructured covariate was performed.|Difference in Least Square (LS) mean of change and 95% Confidence interval were derived from pair-wise comparison within MMRM at Week 10.|Null hypothesis of change from Baseline in PANSS total score of aripiprazole IM depot 400/300mg group is same as that of placebo group was tested. The sample size estimated a 1:1 randomization ratio (aripiprazole IM depot 400/300mg: placebo) to achieve 90% power and to preserve a nominal alpha level of 0.05 given a treatment difference of -7.5 points in change from Baseline with standard deviation of 20 points between aripiprazole and placebo using a two-sided z-test.||-10.8|-19.4|<.0001
90907270|NCT00797225|181682774|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.18|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 12. The change from baseline in monthly mean dysmenorrhea scores was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.18|-0.65|0.0005
90907271|NCT00797225|181682774|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.29|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 12. The change from baseline in monthly mean dysmenorrhea scores was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.29|-0.76|< 0.0001
90907272|NCT00797225|181682774|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.56|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 12. The change from baseline in monthly mean dysmenorrhea scores was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.56|-1.02|< 0.0001
90907273|NCT00797225|181682775|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.13|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 4. The change from baseline in monthly mean sum of dysmenorrhea and non-menstrual pelvic pain scores was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.13|-0.51|0.0011
90907274|NCT00797225|181682775|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.13|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 4. The change from baseline in monthly mean sum of dysmenorrhea and non-menstrual pelvic pain scores was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.13|-0.51|0.0010
90959536|NCT05227703|181799339|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86||0.7593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|3.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 15 mg - Placebo|Week 4-- Emraclidine 15 mg versus Placebo||3.1|-4.2|0.7593
90863688|NCT01663532|181590601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.1||After the comparison for primary efficacy endpoint was statistically significant, the comparison of change from Baseline in CGI severity score was conducted at same alpha level 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis with treatment, pooled centers, Week and treatment-by-Week, and Baseline-by-Week interaction as an unstructured covariate was performed.|Difference in Least Square (LS) mean of change and 95% Confidence interval were derived from pair-wise comparison within MMRM at Week 1.|Null hypothesis of change from Baseline in PANSS total score of aripiprazole IM depot 400/300mg group is same as that of placebo group was tested.||-0.1|-0.4|0.0001
90907275|NCT00797225|181682775|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.19|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 4. The change from baseline in monthly mean sum of dysmenorrhea and non-menstrual pelvic pain scores was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.19|-0.57|< 0.0001
90907276|NCT00797225|181682775|SUPERIORITY||-0.33|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.14|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 8. The change from baseline in monthly mean sum of dysmenorrhea and non-menstrual pelvic pain scores was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.14|-0.52|0.0007
90863689|NCT01663532|181590601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.2||After the comparison for primary efficacy endpoint was statistically significant, the comparison of change from Baseline in CGI severity score was conducted at same alpha level 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis with treatment, pooled centers, Week and treatment-by-Week, and Baseline-by-Week interaction as an unstructured covariate was performed.|Difference in Least Square (LS) mean of change and 95% Confidence interval were derived from pair-wise comparison within MMRM at Week 2.|Null hypothesis of change from Baseline in PANSS total score of aripiprazole IM depot 400/300mg group is same as that of placebo group was tested.||-0.2|-0.6|<.0001
90863690|NCT01663532|181590601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.4||After the comparison for primary efficacy endpoint was statistically significant, the comparison of change from Baseline in CGI severity score was conducted at same alpha level 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis with treatment, pooled centers, Week and treatment-by-Week, and Baseline-by-Week interaction as an unstructured covariate was performed.|Difference in Least Square (LS) mean of change and 95% Confidence interval were derived from pair-wise comparison within MMRM at Week 4.|Null hypothesis of change from Baseline in PANSS total score of aripiprazole IM depot 400/300mg group is same as that of placebo group was tested.||-0.4|-0.7|<.0001
90863691|NCT01663532|181590601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.5||After the comparison for primary efficacy endpoint was statistically significant, the comparison of change from Baseline in CGI severity score was conducted at same alpha level 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis with treatment, pooled centers, Week and treatment-by-Week, and Baseline-by-Week interaction as an unstructured covariate was performed.|Difference in Least Square (LS) mean of change and 95% Confidence interval were derived from pair-wise comparison within MMRM at Week 6.|Null hypothesis of change from Baseline in PANSS total score of aripiprazole IM depot 400/300mg group is same as that of placebo group was tested.||-0.5|-0.9|<.0001
90863692|NCT01663532|181590601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.5||After the comparison for primary efficacy endpoint was statistically significant, the comparison of change from Baseline in CGI severity score was conducted at same alpha level 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis with treatment, pooled centers, Week and treatment-by-Week, and Baseline-by-Week interaction as an unstructured covariate was performed.|Difference in Least Square (LS) mean of change and 95% Confidence interval were derived from pair-wise comparison within MMRM at Week 8.|Null hypothesis of change from Baseline in PANSS total score of aripiprazole IM depot 400/300mg group is same as that of placebo group was tested.||-0.5|-0.9|<.0001
90863693|NCT01663532|181590601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.6||After the comparison for primary efficacy endpoint was statistically significant, the comparison of change from Baseline in CGI severity score was conducted at same alpha level 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis with treatment, pooled centers, Week and treatment-by-Week, and Baseline-by-Week interaction as an unstructured covariate was performed.|Difference in Least Square (LS) mean of change and 95% Confidence interval were derived from pair-wise comparison within MMRM at Week 10.|Null hypothesis of change from Baseline in PANSS total score of aripiprazole IM depot 400/300mg group is same as that of placebo group was tested.||-0.6|-1.1|<.0001
90863694|NCT01663532|181590602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis with treatment, pooled centers, Week and treatment-by-Week, and Baseline-by-Week interaction as an unstructured covariate was performed.|Difference in Least Square (LS) mean of change and 95% Confidence interval were derived from pair-wise comparison within MMRM at Week 1.|Null hypothesis of change from Baseline in PANSS total score of aripiprazole IM depot 400/300mg group is same as that of placebo group was tested.||-0.6|-2.1|0.0006
90863695|NCT01663532|181590602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis with treatment, pooled centers, Week and treatment-by-Week, and Baseline-by-Week interaction as an unstructured covariate was performed.|Difference in Least Square (LS) mean of change and 95% Confidence interval were derived from pair-wise comparison within MMRM at Week 2.|Null hypothesis of change from Baseline in PANSS total score of aripiprazole IM depot 400/300mg group is same as that of placebo group was tested.||-1.3|-3.3|<.0001
90863696|NCT01663532|181590602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|-2.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis with treatment, pooled centers, Week and treatment-by-Week, and Baseline-by-Week interaction as an unstructured covariate was performed.|Difference in Least Square (LS) mean of change and 95% Confidence interval were derived from pair-wise comparison within MMRM at Week 4.|Null hypothesis of change from Baseline in PANSS total score of aripiprazole IM depot 400/300mg group is same as that of placebo group was tested.||-2.0|-4.3|<.0001
90907277|NCT00797225|181682775|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.24|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 8. The change from baseline in monthly mean sum of dysmenorrhea and non-menstrual pelvic pain scores was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.24|-0.62|< 0.0001
90907278|NCT00797225|181682775|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.35|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 8. The change from baseline in monthly mean sum of dysmenorrhea and non-menstrual pelvic pain scores was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.35|-0.73|< 0.0001
90907279|NCT00797225|181682775|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.1319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.04|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 12. The change from baseline in monthly mean sum of dysmenorrhea and non-menstrual pelvic pain scores was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||0.04|-0.34|0.1319
90907280|NCT00797225|181682775|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.03|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 12. The change from baseline in monthly mean sum of dysmenorrhea and non-menstrual pelvic pain scores was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.03|-0.42|0.0222
90907281|NCT00797225|181682775|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.28|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 12. The change from baseline in monthly mean sum of dysmenorrhea and non-menstrual pelvic pain scores was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.28|-0.66|< 0.0001
90907282|NCT03824236|181682815|OTHER|Vaccine efficacy rate was calculated as 100\*(1-RR) with RR=relative risk of developing the disease for vaccinated people (P-Fx Group) compared to unvaccinated people (Infectivity Control Group).|Vaccine efficacy rate|52.0||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.0|68.0|||Fisher Exact|||Efficacy analysis aimed at comparing P. falciparum parasitemia incidence after sporozoite challenge between P-Fx group and the Infectivity Control group.||68|28|0.003
90907283|NCT03824236|181682815|OTHER|Vaccine efficacy rate was calculated as 100\*(1-RR) with RR=relative risk of developing the disease for vaccinated people (NP-Fx Group) compared to unvaccinated people (Infectivity Control Group).|Vaccine efficacy rate|54.0||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.0|70.0|||Fisher Exact|||Efficacy analysis aimed at comparing P. falciparum parasitemia incidence after sporozoite challenge between NP-Fx group and the Infectivity Control group.||70|29|0.002
90907284|NCT01641861|181682826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|7.3||||||||7.3|0.1|
90863697|NCT01663532|181590602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|-2.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis with treatment, pooled centers, Week and treatment-by-Week, and Baseline-by-Week interaction as an unstructured covariate was performed.|Difference in Least Square (LS) mean of change and 95% Confidence interval were derived from pair-wise comparison within MMRM at Week 6.|Null hypothesis of change from Baseline in PANSS total score of aripiprazole IM depot 400/300mg group is same as that of placebo group was tested.||-2.6|-5.1|<.0001
90863698|NCT01663532|181590602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|-3.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis with treatment, pooled centers, Week and treatment-by-Week, and Baseline-by-Week interaction as an unstructured covariate was performed.|Difference in Least Square (LS) mean of change and 95% Confidence interval were derived from pair-wise comparison within MMRM at Week 8.|Null hypothesis of change from Baseline in PANSS total score of aripiprazole IM depot 400/300mg group is same as that of placebo group was tested.||-3.4|-6.2|<.0001
90907285|NCT01641861|181682827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|12.8||||||||12.8|0.9|
90907286|NCT01641861|181682829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
90907287|NCT01641861|181682830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
90907288|NCT04949399|181682832|SUPERIORITY||Difference (%)|30.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.5|37.2||P-value derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model stratified by investigator site and baseline C-APPS.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||37.2|23.5|<.0001
90907289|NCT04949399|181682833|SUPERIORITY||Difference (%)|39.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.0|47.7||P-value derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model stratified by investigator site and baseline C-APPS.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||47.7|32.0|<0.0001
90907290|NCT04949399|181682834|SUPERIORITY||Difference (%)|41.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.7|49.6||P-value derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model stratified by investigator site and baseline C-APPS.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||49.6|33.7|<0.0001
90907291|NCT04949399|181682837|SUPERIORITY||Difference (%)|54.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.8|62.8||P-value derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model stratified by investigator site and baseline C-APPS.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||62.8|46.8|<.0001
90907292|NCT04949399|181682838|SUPERIORITY||Difference (%)|39.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.5|47.8||P-value derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model stratified by investigator site and baseline C-APPS.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||47.8|30.5|<.0001
90907293|NCT04949399|181682839|SUPERIORITY||Difference (%)|44.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.8|52.5||P-value derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model stratified by investigator site and baseline C-APPS.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||52.5|36.8|<.0001
91079170|NCT02607306|182043992|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of IDegLira vs. IDeg was confirmed if the 95% confidence interval for the mean treatment difference lies entirely below 0.3%.|Treatment contrast|-0.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.52||p-value for non-inferiority of IDegLira vs IDeg is presented|ANCOVA|||The change from baseline in response after 52 weeks are analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pre-trial OAD as fixed factors and baseline HbA1c value as covariate.||-0.52|-0.75|<0.0001
90907294|NCT04949399|181682840|SUPERIORITY||Difference (SE)|-5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|-4.7||P-value derived from ANCOVA model stratified by investigator site and baseline C-APPS with baseline value as a factor.|ANCOVA|||||-4.7|-6.7|<.0001
90907295|NCT04949399|181682843|SUPERIORITY||Difference (%)|46.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|96.0|38.1|54.2||P-value derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model stratified by investigator site and baseline C-APPS.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||54.2|38.1|<0.0001
91079171|NCT02607306|182043992|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of IDegLira vs. Lira was confirmed if the 95% confidence interval for the mean treatment difference for change from baseline in HbA1c lies entirely below 0.0%.|Treatment contrast|-0.48|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.37||p-value for superiority of IDegLira vs Lira is presented|ANCOVA|||The change from baseline in response after 52 weeks are analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pre-trial OAD as fixed factors and baseline HbA1c value as covariate.||-0.37|-0.60|<0.0001
90907296|NCT04949399|181682844|SUPERIORITY||Difference (%)|51.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.3|60.5||P-value derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model stratified by investigator site and baseline C-APPS.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||60.5|43.3|<0.0001
90907297|NCT04949399|181682845|SUPERIORITY||Difference (%)|40.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.3|49.0||P-value derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model stratified by investigator site and baseline C-APPS.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||49.0|31.3|<0.0001
90907298|NCT04949399|181682846|SUPERIORITY||Difference (%)|45.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.1|53.2||P-value derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model stratified by investigator site and baseline C-APPS.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||53.2|37.1|<0.0001
90907299|NCT04949399|181682847|SUPERIORITY||Difference (SE)|-5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|-4.6||P-value derived from ANCOVA model stratified by investigator site and baseline C-APPS with baseline value as a factor.|ANCOVA|||||-4.6|-6.8|<0.0001
90907300|NCT04949399|181682848|SUPERIORITY||Difference (SE)|-5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|-4.5||P-value derived from ANCOVA model stratified by investigator site and baseline C-APPS with baseline value as a factor.|ANCOVA|||Day 30||-4.5|-6.7|<0.0001
90907301|NCT04949399|181682848|SUPERIORITY||Difference (SE)|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|-3.9||P-value derived from ANCOVA model stratified by investigator site and baseline C-APPS with baseline value as a factor.|ANCOVA|||Day 60||-3.9|-6.0|<0.0001
90907302|NCT04949399|181682848|SUPERIORITY||Difference (SE)|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|-2.8||P-value derived from ANCOVA model stratified by investigator site and baseline C-APPS with baseline value as a factor.|ANCOVA|||Day 90||-2.8|-4.9|<0.0001
90863699|NCT01663532|181590602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|-3.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis with treatment, pooled centers, Week and treatment-by-Week, and Baseline-by-Week interaction as an unstructured covariate was performed.|Difference in Least Square (LS) mean of change and 95% Confidence interval were derived from pair-wise comparison within MMRM at Week 10.|Null hypothesis of change from Baseline in PANSS total score of aripiprazole IM depot 400/300mg group is same as that of placebo group was tested.||-3.7|-6.4|<.0001
90863700|NCT01663532|181590603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis with treatment, pooled centers, Week and treatment-by-Week, and Baseline-by-Week interaction as an unstructured covariate was performed.|Difference in Least Square (LS) mean of change and 95% Confidence interval were derived from pair-wise comparison within MMRM at Week 1.|Null hypothesis of change from Baseline in PANSS total score of aripiprazole IM depot 400/300mg group is same as that of placebo group was tested.||-0.3|-1.6|0.0023
90863701|NCT01663532|181590603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis with treatment, pooled centers, Week and treatment-by-Week, and Baseline-by-Week interaction as an unstructured covariate was performed.|Difference in Least Square (LS) mean of change and 95% Confidence interval were derived from pair-wise comparison within MMRM at Week 2.|Null hypothesis of change from Baseline in PANSS total score of aripiprazole IM depot 400/300mg group is same as that of placebo group was tested.||-0.4|-2.0|0.0032
90863702|NCT01663532|181590603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis with treatment, pooled centers, Week and treatment-by-Week, and Baseline-by-Week interaction as an unstructured covariate was performed.|Difference in Least Square (LS) mean of change and 95% Confidence interval were derived from pair-wise comparison within MMRM at Week 4.|Null hypothesis of change from Baseline in PANSS total score of aripiprazole IM depot 400/300mg group is same as that of placebo group was tested.||-0.8|-2.7|0.0003
90863703|NCT01663532|181590603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis with treatment, pooled centers, Week and treatment-by-Week, and Baseline-by-Week interaction as an unstructured covariate was performed.|Difference in Least Square (LS) mean of change and 95% Confidence interval were derived from pair-wise comparison within MMRM at Week 6.|Null hypothesis of change from Baseline in PANSS total score of aripiprazole IM depot 400/300mg group is same as that of placebo group was tested.||-1.3|-3.2|<.0001
90863704|NCT01663532|181590603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|-1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis with treatment, pooled centers, Week and treatment-by-Week, and Baseline-by-Week interaction as an unstructured covariate was performed.|Difference in Least Square (LS) mean of change and 95% Confidence interval were derived from pair-wise comparison within MMRM at Week 8.|Null hypothesis of change from Baseline in PANSS total score of aripiprazole IM depot 400/300mg group is same as that of placebo group was tested.||-1.4|-3.7|<.0001
90863705|NCT01663532|181590603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|-1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis with treatment, pooled centers, Week and treatment-by-Week, and Baseline-by-Week interaction as an unstructured covariate was performed.|Difference in Least Square (LS) mean of change and 95% Confidence interval were derived from pair-wise comparison within MMRM at Week 10.|Null hypothesis of change from Baseline in PANSS total score of aripiprazole IM depot 400/300mg group is same as that of placebo group was tested.||-1.6|-4.1|<.0001
90940252|NCT03840148|181760176|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference in response is greater than or equal to the non-inferiority margin of -15%, non-inferiority will be concluded. Further, if non-inferiority is concluded, superiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference in response is greater than or equal to zero.|Miettinen and Nurminen|12.6||||0.0088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|22.2||P-value for superiority since the lower confidence interval is greater than 0 for the primary endpoint analysis.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||22.2|3.1|0.0088
90863706|NCT01663532|181590604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|10.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled centers as factors and Baseline value as covariate for the comparison at other visits.|Difference in least square mean of change were derived from ANCOVA model.|Statistical analysis for Week 10.||10.1|4.1|<.0001
90863707|NCT01663532|181590605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH raw mean scores differ test (Van Elteren test) controlling for pooled centers.||Statistical analysis for Week 10. LOCF method were used in imputation of missing data.||||<.0001
90863708|NCT01663532|181590606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.9|32.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test controlling by region (pooled sites).||Statistical analysis for Week 10. LOCF method were used in imputation of missing data.||32.4|12.9|<.0001
90863709|NCT02785432|181590607|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55||||||Between group comparison at 8 weeks|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.55
90863710|NCT02785432|181590608|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66||||||Between group comparison at 8 weeks|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.66
90863711|NCT02785432|181590609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51||||||Between group comparison at 8 weeks|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.51
90863712|NCT02785432|181590610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96||||||Between group comparison at 8 weeks|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.96
90863713|NCT00283400|181590659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.05|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|14.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Post-hoc comparison of outcomes in dosage tier 1 vs dosage tier 2.||||14.1|0.65|<0.05
90863714|NCT00934089|181590684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.07||||0.533|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.82|3.95|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 8 AM: Analysis was based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) using statistical analysis system (SAS) mixed procedure with covariates of baseline IOP, sequence, study period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as random effect.||3.95|-1.82|0.5330
90863715|NCT00934089|181590684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.9532|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.13|3.85|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 10 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA using SAS mixed procedure with covariates of baseline IOP, sequence, study period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as random effect.||3.85|-4.13|0.9532
90863716|NCT00934089|181590684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.53||||0.2493|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.11|6.18|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 12 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA using SAS mixed procedure with covariates of baseline IOP, sequence, study period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as random effect.||6.18|-1.11|0.2493
90863717|NCT00934089|181590684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.99||||0.2801|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.59|1.6|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 2 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA using SAS mixed procedure with covariates of baseline IOP, sequence, study period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as random effect.||1.60|-7.59|0.2801
90863718|NCT00934089|181590684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.9288|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.77|3.39|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 4 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA using SAS mixed procedure with covariates of baseline IOP, sequence, study period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as random effect.||3.39|-3.77|0.9288
90863719|NCT00934089|181590684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.98||||0.6459|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.62|4.58|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 6 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA using SAS mixed procedure with covariates of baseline IOP, sequence, study period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as random effect.||4.58|-2.62|0.6459
90863720|NCT00934089|181590684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.06||||0.0527|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.63|7.48|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 8 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA using SAS mixed procedure with covariates of baseline IOP, sequence, study period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as random effect.||7.48|0.63|0.0527
90863721|NCT00934089|181590684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.29||||0.1998|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.95|7.52|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 10 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA using SAS mixed procedure with covariates of baseline IOP, sequence, study period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as random effect.||7.52|-0.95|0.1998
90863722|NCT00934089|181590684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85||||0.6765|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.22|2.53|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 15 12 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA using SAS mixed procedure with covariates of baseline IOP, sequence, study period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as random effect.||2.53|-4.22|0.6765
90863723|NCT00934089|181590684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.99||||0.6221|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.35|4.33|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 15 4 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA using SAS mixed procedure with covariates of baseline IOP, sequence, study period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as random effect.||4.33|-2.35|0.6221
90863724|NCT00934089|181590684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.81||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.11|4.74|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 15 6 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA using SAS mixed procedure with covariates of baseline IOP, sequence, study period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as random effect.||4.74|-1.11|0.3000
90863725|NCT00934089|181590684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.9103|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.85|3.37|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 15 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA using SAS mixed procedure with covariates of baseline IOP, sequence, study period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as random effect.||3.37|-3.85|0.9103
90863726|NCT00934089|181590686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|59.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.69|79.7|||Fisher Exact|||Photophobia: p-value was calculated using fisher exact test.||79.70|38.69|<0.001
90863727|NCT00934089|181590686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|-3.56||||0.612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|7.68|||Fisher Exact|||Iritis: p-value was calculated using fisher exact test.||7.68|-14.80|0.612
90940253|NCT03840148|181760177|OTHER||Miettinen and Nurminen|11.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|21.0||||||||21.0|2.9|
90940254|NCT03840148|181760178|OTHER||Miettinen and Nurminen|4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|12.6||||||||12.6|-2.6|
90940255|NCT03840148|181760179|OTHER||Miettinen and Nurminen|12.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|21.8||||||||21.8|3.0|
90940256|NCT03840148|181760180|OTHER||Miettinen and Nurminen|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|10.4||||||||10.4|-3.2|
90863728|NCT00934089|181590688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-52.42||||0.245|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-127.05|22.22|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 13 8 AM study eye: Analysis was based on ANCOVA using SAS mixed procedure with covariates of baseline IOP, sequence, study period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as random effect.||22.22|-127.05|0.2450
90863729|NCT00934089|181590688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|34.51||||0.3068|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.89|90.91|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 13 8 AM fellow eye: Analysis was based on ANCOVA using SAS mixed procedure with covariates of baseline IOP, sequence, study period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as random effect.||90.91|-21.89|0.3068
90863730|NCT00934089|181590688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|40.99||||0.2632|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-19.69|101.67|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 35 8 AM study eye: Analysis was based on ANCOVA using SAS mixed procedure with covariates of baseline IOP, sequence, study period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as random effect.||101.67|-19.69|0.2632
90863731|NCT00934089|181590688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.6||||0.8373|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-60.84|47.64|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 35 8 AM fellow eye: Analysis was based on ANCOVA using SAS mixed procedure with covariates of baseline IOP, sequence, study period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as random effect.||47.64|-60.84|0.8373
90863732|NCT00680017|181590693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"P values were based on 2 sided tests. Tests resulting in P values less than or equal to 0.050 (when rounded) were reported as statistically significant. No adjustments made for multiple comparisons since only 1 primary efficacy endpoint comparison."|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||The null hypothesis was that percent change in triglycerides (TG) from baseline to Week 8 in the ABT-335 45 mg plus rosuvastatin 5 mg treatment group is equal to percent change in TG from baseline to Week 8 in the rosuvastatin 5 mg plus placebo treatment group. A sample size of 140 participants per treatment group was used to provide 98% power to detect a difference between the combination therapy arm and the rosuvastatin monotherapy arm in the percent change from Baseline to Week 8 in TG.||||<0.001
90863733|NCT00680017|181590694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"P values were based on 2 sided tests. Tests resulting in P values less than or equal to 0.050 (when rounded) were reported as statistically significant. No adjustments made for multiple comparisons since only 1 secondary endpoint comparison."|ANCOVA|P-value obtained from an ANCOVA with corresponding baseline value as the covariate and an effect for treatment group.||The null hypothesis was that percent change in HDL-C from baseline to Week 8 in the ABT-335 45 mg plus rosuvastatin 5 mg treatment group is equal to percent change in HDL-C from baseline to Week 8 in the rosuvastatin 5 mg plus placebo treatment group. A sample size of 140 participants per treatment group was used to provide 82% power to detect a difference between the combination therapy arm and the rosuvastatin monotherapy arm in the percent change from Baseline to Week 8 in HDL-C.||||<0.001
90863734|NCT01948947|181590742|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Change from Baseline to 1-Week Post-Treatment||||<0.0001
90863735|NCT01948947|181590742|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Change from Baseline to 1-Month Post-Treatment||||<0.001
90907303|NCT01449929|181682853|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of DTG 50 mg and DRV+RTV at Week 48 can be concluded if the lower bound of a two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in percentages (DTG - DRV+RTV) is greater than -12%. If non-inferiority is established, superiority can be tested at the nominal 5% level based on a pre-specified testing procedure.|Difference in percentage|7.1||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|13.2||P-value is for test of superiority.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified analysis|Analysis was adjusted for the Baseline (BL) stratification factors: Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (\<=100,000 c/mL vs \>100,000 c/mL) and Baseline background dual NRTI therapy (ABC/3TC vs TDF/FTC).|||13.2|0.9|0.025
90940257|NCT03840148|181760181|OTHER||Miettinen and Nurminen|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|4.1||||||||4.1|-3.5|
90940258|NCT03840148|181760182|OTHER||Miettinen and Nurminen|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|8.5||||||||8.5|-4.1|
90863736|NCT01948947|181590743|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Change from Baseline to 1-Week post-treatment|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90863737|NCT01948947|181590743|OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||Change from Baseline to 1-Month post-treatment|ANOVA|||||||<0.01
90863738|NCT01948947|181590744|OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.009
90863739|NCT01948947|181590744|OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||Change in Baseline to 1-month post-treatment|ANOVA|||||||<0.01
90863740|NCT01948947|181590745|OTHER||||||=|0.033|||||||ANOVA|||||||=0.033
90863741|NCT03535844|181590747|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||t-test, 2 sided|independent t-test of change values||||||0.49
90863742|NCT03535844|181590747|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5672|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Paired t-test (Week 0 and Week 16)||||||0.5672
90863743|NCT03535844|181590747|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.788|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test of change values||||||0.788
90863744|NCT03535844|181590748|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||t-test, 2 sided|independent t-test of change values||||||0.67
90863745|NCT03535844|181590748|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8203|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test of change values||||||0.8203
90863746|NCT03535844|181590748|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3882|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test of change values||||||0.3882
90940259|NCT03840148|181760183|OTHER||Miettinen and Nurminen|12.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|21.9||||||||21.9|2.2|
90940260|NCT03840148|181760184|OTHER||Miettinen and Nurminen|7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|17.3||||||||17.3|-1.6|
90940261|NCT03840148|181760185|OTHER||Miettinen and Nurminen|9.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|18.8||||||||18.8|1.5|
90940262|NCT03840148|181760186|OTHER||Miettinen and Nurminen|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|9.6||||||||9.6|-2.4|
90940263|NCT03840148|181760196|OTHER||Miettinen and Nurminen|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|10.5||||||||10.5|-2.3|
90863747|NCT03535844|181590749|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|independent t-test of change values||||||0.08
90959537|NCT05227703|181799339|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.82||0.6792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|4.3|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 30 mg - Placebo|Week 4-- Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||4.3|-2.8|0.6792
90863748|NCT03535844|181590750|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7162|||||||t-test, 2 sided|independent t-test of change values||||||0.7162
90863749|NCT03535844|181590750|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test of Week 0 and Week 16 nitric oxide values||||||0.07
90863750|NCT03535844|181590750|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test of Week 0 and Week 16 nitric oxide values||||||<0.05
90907304|NCT00901485|181682869|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|To test for non-inferiority, a sample size of 36 (18 patients completing both arms of the crossover) was calculated to provide 80% power to detect a 2.5% drop in the primary outcome, mean overnight oxygen saturation (SpO2), with a SD of 3% at a significance level of 0.05|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.0||a priori threshold for significance p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"We tested the hypothesis that iVAPS can ventilate a patient naive to NIV at least as effectively as standard PS.~Sleep and breathing parameters at the end of each treatment period were compared using Wilcoxon Signed Rank test. The median difference between treatments with 95% confidence intervals was then compared by related-samples Hodges-Lehman test"||1.0|-0.2|0.13
90907305|NCT00901485|181682870|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|PtcCO2 is compared as a secondary outcome resulting in CO2 elimination similar to that of standard PS ventilation (median difference (95% CI) of -0.04(- 0.03 to 0.4)kPa in mean overnight PtcCO2).|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.4|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Hypothesis: that we tested the hypothesis that iVAPS, with automated selection of ventilator settings, was non-inferior to standard pressure support (PS) ventilation, with settings determined by an experienced healthcare professional, for controlling nocturnal hypoventilation in patients naïve to NIV.||0.4|-0.3|0.54
90907306|NCT00901485|181682871|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|This is a secondary outcome|Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.5|-0.5|0.94
90907307|NCT00901485|181682872|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|This is a secondary outcome|Median Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1|-2|0.42
90907308|NCT00901485|181682873|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|This is a secondary outcome|Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.82||95.0|-8.0|4.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||4|-8|0.82
90863751|NCT03535844|181590751|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Independent t-test of change values||||||<0.05
90863752|NCT03535844|181590752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4855|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Independent t-test of change triglyceride values||||||0.4855
90863753|NCT03535844|181590752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1393|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Independent t-test of change total cholesterol values||||||0.1393
90863754|NCT03535844|181590752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2221|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Independent t-test of change LDL cholesterol values||||||0.2221
90863755|NCT03535844|181590752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.078|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Independent t-test of change HDL cholesterol values||||||0.078
90863756|NCT03535844|181590752|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test of Week 0 and Week 16 HDL cholesterol values||||||<0.05
90863757|NCT03535844|181590752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7261|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test of Week 0 and Week 16 HDL cholesterol values||||||0.7261
90863758|NCT03535844|181590753|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1951|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Independent t-test of systolic blood pressure change values||||||0.1951
90863759|NCT03535844|181590753|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.916|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Independent t-test of diastolic blood pressure change values||||||0.916
90863760|NCT03535844|181590754|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9882|||||||t-test, 2 sided|independent t-test of malondialdehyde change values||||||0.9882
90863761|NCT03535844|181590755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4408|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Independent t-test of body fat % change values||||||0.4408
90863762|NCT03535844|181590756|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1487|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Independent t-test of change values||||||0.1487
90863763|NCT03535844|181590757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9135|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Independent t-test of change values||||||0.9135
90863764|NCT03535844|181590758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5859|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Independent t-test of change values||||||0.5859
90863765|NCT03535844|181590759|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9379|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Independent t-test of change values||||||0.9379
90907309|NCT00901485|181682874|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|This is a secondary outcome|Median Difference (Net)|1.04||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.44|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.44|0.27|0.0004
90907310|NCT00901485|181682875|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|This is a secondary outcome|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.5|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.5|-1.2|0.5
90907311|NCT00901485|181682876|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|This is a secondary outcome|Median Difference (Net)|-2.2||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|0.3|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.3|-4.5|0.001
90863766|NCT03535844|181590760|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9717|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test of change values||||||0.9717
90907312|NCT00901485|181682877|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|This is a secondary outcome|Median Difference (Net)|-10.0||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.0|23.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||23|-54|0.47
90863767|NCT03535844|181590763|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7052|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Independent t-test of change values||||||0.7052
90863768|NCT03535844|181590763|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test between Week 0 and Week 16 endothelin-1 concentrations||||||0.07
90907313|NCT00901485|181682878|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|This is a secondary outcome|Median Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|2.2|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||2.2|-0.7|0.41
90907314|NCT00901485|181682879|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|This is a secondary outcome|Median Difference (Net)|4.0||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|12.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||12|-5|0.36
90907315|NCT00901485|181682880|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|This is a secondary outcome|Median Difference (Net)|2.0||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|14.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||14|-5|0.59
90907316|NCT00901485|181682881|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|This is a secondary outcome|Median Difference (Net)|2.0||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|14.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||14|-5|0.59
90907317|NCT00901485|181682882|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|This is a secondary outcome|Median Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|5.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||5|-9|0.72
90940264|NCT03840148|181760197|OTHER||Miettinen and Nurminen|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|1.7||||||||1.7|-3.1|
90863769|NCT03535844|181590763|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||Paired t-test between Week 0 and Week 16 endothelin-1 concentrations|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.005
90863770|NCT03535844|181590764|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9426||||||Independent t-test of change values|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9426
90863771|NCT05096221|181590805|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean change difference|0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.2441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|1.74|||Mixed model of repeated measures|||||1.74|-0.45|0.2441
90863772|NCT05096221|181590806|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Re-randomization test|||||||< 0.0001
90863773|NCT05096221|181590807|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean change difference|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.23|||Mixed model of repeated measures|||||-0.23|-1.06|0.0025
90863774|NCT05096221|181590808|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean change difference|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.13|||Mixed model of repeated measures|||||-0.13|-0.71|0.0048
90863775|NCT05096221|181590809|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean change difference|-3.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.52||0.1942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.28|1.7|||Mixed model of repeated measures|||||1.70|-8.28|0.1942
90863776|NCT05096221|181590810|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean change difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.01|||Mixed model of repeated measures|||||-0.01|-0.71|0.0412
90863777|NCT05096221|181590811|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean change difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.0402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.19|||Mixed model of repeated measures|||||0.19|0.00|0.0402
90863778|NCT05096221|181590812|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean change difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.4272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.19|||Mixed model of repeated measures|||||0.19|-0.08|0.4272
90863779|NCT05096221|181590813|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean change difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.7324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.17|||Mixed model of repeated measures|||||0.17|-0.24|0.7324
90863780|NCT05096221|181590814|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean change difference|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.6554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|1.06|||Mixed model of repeated measures|||||1.06|-0.67|0.6554
90863781|NCT02478632|181590823|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.29||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|2.31|||ANCOVA|||||2.31|0.27|0.014
90863782|NCT02478632|181590824|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.32||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|2.57|||ANCOVA|||||2.57|0.07|0.039
90907318|NCT01871285|181682887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.182||||0.7942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.24|-1.60|.7942
90907319|NCT01871285|181682887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.683||||0.6155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.89|13.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||13.25|-11.89|.6155
90907320|NCT01871285|181682888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.182||||0.7942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.24|-1.60|.7942
90907321|NCT01871285|181682888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.683||||0.6155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.89|13.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||13.25|-11.89|.6155
90907322|NCT05397470|181682889|OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.003||||0.7501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.014|0.02|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||0.020|-0.014|0.7501
90907323|NCT00587288|181682912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.194||0.0541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.01||The p-value for the treatment comparison is based on the ANCOVA with adjustment for stratification factor and for variable at baseline.|ANCOVA|||||0.01|-0.76|0.0541
90907324|NCT00587288|181682913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.01||||0.0848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|4.46||The p-value for the treatment comparison was based on logistic regression with adjustment for stratification factor.|Regression, Logistic|||||4.46|0.91|0.0848
90940265|NCT03840148|181760198|OTHER||Miettinen and Nurminen|14.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|24.9||||||||24.9|5.0|
90863783|NCT02478632|181590827|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.16||p value for the difference in adjusted change from Baseline at Week 48 in total hip T-scores between the DTG+RPV and CAR groups|ANCOVA||The analysis estimated the difference between DTG+RPV and CAR in total hip T-scores|||0.16|0.02|0.016
90863784|NCT02478632|181590827|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.15||p value for the difference in adjusted change from Baseline at Week 48 in total hip Z-scores between the DTG+RPV and CAR groups|ANCOVA||The analysis estimated difference between DTG+RPV and CAR in total hip Z-score.|||0.15|0.01|0.026
90863785|NCT02478632|181590827|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.23||p value for the difference in adjusted change from Baseline at Week 48 in lumbar spine T-scores between the DTG+RPV and CAR groups|ANCOVA||The analysis estimated difference between DTG+RPV and CAR for lumbar spine T-score.|||0.23|0.00|0.049
90863786|NCT02478632|181590827|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.27||p value for the difference in adjusted change from Baseline at Week 48 in lumbar spine Z-scores between the DTG+RPV and CAR groups|ANCOVA||The analysis estimated difference between DTG+RPV and CAR in lumbar spine Z-score.|||0.27|0.03|0.013
90863787|NCT02478632|181590830|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.51|4.81|||||The analysis refers to INSTI and total hip.|||4.81|-3.51|
90863788|NCT02478632|181590830|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|2.81|||||The analysis refers to NNRTI and total hip.|||2.81|0.39|
90863789|NCT02478632|181590830|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|3.38|||||this analysis refers to PI and total hip|||3.38|-1.39|
90863790|NCT02478632|181590830|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|7.03|||||this analysis refers to INSTI and lumbar spine.|||7.03|0.67|
90863791|NCT02478632|181590830|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|2.76|||||this analysis refers to NNRTI and lumbar spine|||2.76|-0.26|
90863792|NCT02478632|181590830|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|3.77|||||this analysis refers to PI and lumbar spine|||3.77|-3.00|
90863793|NCT02478632|181590831|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.3|||||The analysis estimated comparison of change from baseline to Week 48 between the DTG+RPV and CAR groups in total hip T-scores by baseline third agent INSTI.|||0.30|-0.26|
90863794|NCT02478632|181590831|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.19|||||The analysis estimated comparison of change from baseline to Week 48 between the DTG+RPV and CAR groups in total hip T-scores by baseline third agent NNRTI.|||0.19|0.03|
90863795|NCT02478632|181590831|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.24|||||The analysis estimated comparison of change from baseline to Week 48 between the DTG+RPV and CAR groups in total hip T-scores by baseline third agent PI.|||0.24|-0.09|
90863796|NCT02478632|181590831|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.37|||||The analysis estimated comparison of change from baseline to Week 48 between the DTG+RPV and CAR groups in total hip Z-scores by baseline third agent INSTI.|||0.37|-0.25|
90863797|NCT02478632|181590831|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.18|||||The analysis estimated comparison of change from baseline to Week 48 between the DTG+RPV and CAR groups in total hip Z-scores by baseline third agent NNRTI.|||0.18|0.02|
90863798|NCT02478632|181590831|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.21|||||The analysis estimated comparison of change from baseline to Week 48 between the DTG+RPV and CAR groups in total hip Z-scores by baseline third agent PI.|||0.21|-0.14|
90863799|NCT02478632|181590831|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.71|||||The analysis estimated comparison of change from baseline to Week 48 between the DTG+RPV and CAR groups in lumbar spine T-scores by baseline third agent INSTI.|||0.71|0.01|
90907325|NCT00587288|181682914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.077||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.088|0.392||The p-value for the treatment comparison was based on the ANCOVA with adjustment for stratification factor and for variable at baseline.|ANCOVA|||||0.392|0.088|0.0023
90907326|NCT00587288|181682915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|7.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.36||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|12.65||The p-value for the treatment comparison was based on the ANCOVA with adjustment for stratification factor and for variable at baseline.|ANCOVA|||||12.65|3.30|0.0010
90863800|NCT02478632|181590831|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.25|||||The analysis estimated comparison of change from baseline to Week 48 between the DTG+RPV and CAR groups in lumbar spine T-scores by baseline third agent NNRTI.|||0.25|-0.03|
90863801|NCT02478632|181590831|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.33|||||The analysis estimated comparison of change from baseline to Week 48 between the DTG+RPV and CAR groups in lumbar spine T-scores by baseline third agent PI.|||0.33|-0.30|
90863802|NCT02478632|181590831|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.74|||||The analysis estimated comparison of change from baseline to Week 48 between the DTG+RPV and CAR groups in lumbar spine Z-scores by baseline third agent INSTI.|||0.74|0.03|
90863803|NCT02478632|181590831|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.26|||||The analysis estimated comparison of change from baseline to Week 48 between the DTG+RPV and CAR groups in lumbar spine Z-scores by baseline third agent NNRTI.|||0.26|-0.02|
90863804|NCT02478632|181590831|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.34|||||The analysis estimated comparison of change from baseline to Week 48 between the DTG+RPV and CAR groups in lumbar spine Z-scores by baseline third agent PI.|||0.34|-0.26|
90907327|NCT00587288|181682916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-125.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|44.885||0.0068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-214.81|-35.77||The p-value for the treatment comparison was based on the ANCOVA with adjustment for stratification factor and for variable at baseline. The difference between reslizumab 3.0 mg/kg and placebo groups was from comparison of the least square means.|ANCOVA|||||-35.77|-214.81|0.0068
90907328|NCT00587288|181682917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.33||||0.0833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.15||The p-value for the treatment comparison was based on logistic regression with adjustment for stratification factor.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.15|0.10|0.0833
90863805|NCT01867424|181590838|OTHER||Median of Differences|0.43||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|||||Median of difference in CER: All cases.|Wilcoxon Test||The relative difference between groups is based on the change from baseline values to the values collected at each of the three time points.|Null Hypothesis: There is no significant difference in contrast enhancement ratio (CER) in prostate cancers upon injection of Eovist. Subgroup analysis of CER in (i) Advanced Disease and (ii) Localized Disease||||0.0008
90863806|NCT01867424|181590838|OTHER||Median of Differences|0.42||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|||||Median of difference in CER: Advanced Disease Cases.|Wilcoxon Test|||||||0.0039
90863807|NCT01867424|181590838|OTHER||Median of Differences|0.475||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|||||Median of difference in CER: Local Disease Cases.|Wilcoxon Test|||||||0.084
90863808|NCT01867424|181590838|OTHER||Median Difference CER|0.17||||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Test|||Analysis of CER from baseline to 40 minutes after Eovist injection.||||0.25
90863809|NCT01867424|181590838|OTHER||Median Difference CER|0.27||||0.1602|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Test|||Analysis of CER from baseline to 60 minutes after Eovist injection.||||0.1602
90863810|NCT01867424|181590838|OTHER||Median Difference CER|0.29||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Test|||Analysis of CER from baseline to 40 minutes after Eovist injection.||||0.0078
90863811|NCT01867424|181590838|OTHER||Median Difference CER|0.34||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Test|||Analysis of CER from baseline to 60 minutes after Eovist injection.||||0.0039
90863812|NCT01867424|181590838|OTHER||Median Difference CER|0.27||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Test|||Analysis of CER from baseline to 40 minutes after Eovist injection; Total cases.||||0.0046
90863813|NCT01867424|181590838|OTHER||Median Difference CER|0.33||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Test|||Analysis of CER from baseline to 60 minutes after Eovist injection; Total cases.||||0.0017
90863814|NCT01867424|181590840|OTHER||Spearman r|-0.137||||0.5761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5665|0.3511|||Nonparametric Spearman correlation|The calculation of Spearman correlation is between baseline PSA and CER at 20 minutes post Eovist injection.||Null Hypothesis: There is no significant difference in contrast enhancement ratio (CER) with Eovist injection based on baseline Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels at 20-minute timepoint.||0.3511|-0.5665|0.5761
90863815|NCT01867424|181590840|OTHER||Spearman r|-0.257||||0.3033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6549|0.2526|||nonparametric Spearman correlation|||Analyses include calculation of Spearman correlation between baseline Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and CER at 40 minutes post Eovist injection.||0.2526|-0.6549|0.3033
90863816|NCT01867424|181590840|OTHER||Spearman r|-0.2861||||0.2351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6634|0.2071|||nonparametric Spearman correlation|||Analyses include calculation of Spearman correlation between baseline Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and CER at 60 minutes post Eovist injection.||0.2071|-0.6634|0.2351
90863817|NCT01867424|181590840|OTHER||Median Difference (actual)|-0.47||||0.111|TWO_SIDED||||||Mann Whitney|||Analyses include analysis of CER at 20 minutes after Eovist injection based on baseline Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) stratifying by PSA \< or \>/= 20ng/ml.||||0.111
90863818|NCT01867424|181590840|OTHER||Median Difference (actual)|-0.775||||0.7738|TWO_SIDED||||||Mann Whitney|||Analyses include analysis of CER at 20 minutes after Eovist injection based on baseline Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) stratifying by PSA \< or \>/= 20ng/ml.||||0.7738
90863819|NCT04645953|181590842|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7024|||||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is there was no difference between groups treated with AZ-010 (1 mg or 3 mg) and the placebo group in the mean number of vomiting/retching events in the 2 hours following. treatment. Baseline, body weight, height, body mass index, age as covariates, and the treatment group and study site as factors. All statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance value of ≤ 0.05.||||0.7024
90863820|NCT04645953|181590842|SUPERIORITY|Null hypothesis is there was no difference between groups treated with AZ-010 (1 mg or 3 mg) and the placebo group in the mean number of vomiting/retching events in the 2 hours following. treatment. Baseline, body weight, height, body mass index, age as covariates, and the treatment group and study site as factors. Patients summarized by actual treatment received. Formal statistical tests (ANOVA, when performed) were 2-sided t-tests with a significance value of 0.05.||||||0.2051|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.2051
90863821|NCT04645953|181590843|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0504|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Participants were asked to rate their anxiety/panic on scale of 0-100 at each time point. The higher the number, the more intense the symptom.||||0.0504
90863822|NCT04645953|181590843|SUPERIORITY|Participants were asked to rate their anxiety/panic on scale of 0-100 at each time point. The higher the number, the more intense the symptom.||||||0.8246|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8246
90863823|NCT04645953|181590844|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8299||||||Prior Episode Duration 1mg AZ-010|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8299
90863824|NCT04645953|181590844|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2346||||||Prior Episode Duration 3 mg AZ-010|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2346
90863825|NCT04645953|181590844|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3997||||||Prior Episode intensity 1mg AZ-010|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.3997
90863826|NCT04645953|181590844|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3997||||||Prior Episode intensity 3mg AZ-010|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.3997
90863827|NCT04645953|181590845|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3847|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.3847
90863828|NCT04645953|181590845|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1785|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.1785
90863829|NCT04645953|181590846|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9732|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.9732
90863830|NCT04645953|181590846|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1471|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.1471
90863831|NCT04645953|181590847|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1337|||||||ANOVA|||The RINVR is an 8-part questionnaire with each item scored from 0-4, for a total scoring range of 0-32. A lower score indicates less distress related to nausea, vomiting, and retching. The data shown is collected within the first 24 hours after the first at-home dose.||||0.1337
90863832|NCT04645953|181590847|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7224|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.7224
90863833|NCT04645953|181590848|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0504|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Participants were asked to rate their abdominal pain, nausea, and anxiety/panic on scale of 0-100 at each time point. The higher the number, the more intense the symptom.||||0.0504
90863834|NCT04645953|181590848|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8246|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8246
90863835|NCT04645953|181590849|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9664|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.9664
90863836|NCT04645953|181590849|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7919|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7919
90863837|NCT04613375|181590850|OTHER||Adjusted VE|16.91||||0.3685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.43|44.52|||Wald Test||Adjusted for the covariates age group, weekly exposure to children less than 5 years, calendar time, and CAP with respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) infection.|||44.52|-24.43|0.3685
90863838|NCT04613375|181590851|OTHER||Adjusted VE|49.27||||0.0817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|76.37|||Wald Test||Adjusted for the covariates age group, weekly exposure to children less than 5 years, calendar time, and CAP with RSV infection.|\<2 years||76.37|-8.9|0.0817
90863839|NCT04613375|181590851|OTHER||Adjusted VE|4.72||||0.8367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.96|39.87|||Wald Test||Adjusted for the covariates age group, weekly exposure to children less than 5 years, calendar time, and CAP with RSV infection.|2 years to \<5 years||39.87|-50.96|0.8367
90863840|NCT04613375|181590851|OTHER||Adjusted VE|12.02||||0.7469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-91.53|59.59|||Wald Test||Adjusted for the covariates age group, weekly exposure to children less than 5 years, calendar time, and CAP with RSV infection.|\>=5 years||59.59|-91.53|0.7469
90863841|NCT04613375|181590857|OTHER||Adjusted VE|25.96||||0.1827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.21|52.42|||Wald Test||Adjusted for the covariates age group, weekly exposure to children less than 5 years, calendar time, and CAP with RSV infection.|||52.42|-15.21|0.1827
90863842|NCT04613375|181590858|OTHER||Adjusted VE|68.86||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.86|89.0|||Wald Test||Adjusted for the covariates age group, weekly exposure to children less than 5 years, calendar time, and CAP with RSV infection.|\<2 years||89|11.86|0.028
90863843|NCT04613375|181590858|OTHER||Adjusted VE|7.97||||0.738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.73|43.43|||Wald Test||Adjusted for the covariates age group, weekly exposure to children less than 5 years, calendar time, and CAP with RSV infection.|2 years to \<5 years||43.43|-49.73|0.738
90863844|NCT04613375|181590858|OTHER||Adjusted VE|30.06||||0.4327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.86|71.37|||Wald Test||Adjusted for the covariates age group, weekly exposure to children less than 5 years, calendar time, and CAP with RSV infection.|\>=5 years||71.37|-70.86|0.4327
90863845|NCT00434954|181590859|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The planned sample size of 366 patients treated with metformin only (assuming 25% dropouts) gave a power of 85% to detect non-inferiority of exenatide BID for change in HbA1c (non-inferiority margin 0.4%; assumed common standard deviation of 1.1%).|Mean Difference (Net)|0.14||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.003|0.291||Non-inferiority: upper limit of 95% Confidence Interval (CI) to be \< 0.4%.|Mixed effect model repeat measures(MMRM)|95% CI of treatment group difference derived from MMRM (treatment, week, baseline HbA1c and interactions as fixed effects); p-value: superiority test||The hypothesis was tested hierarchically that 1) exenatide BID is non-inferior to insulin aspart 70/30 BID for glycemic control (change in HbA1c, outcome measure 1), and 2) superior regarding the incidence of hypoglycemia (outcome measure 2). This is the first part of the hierarchical test.||0.291|-0.003|0.055
90863846|NCT00434954|181590860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.554||95.0|||||Chi square test (Pearson)|||||||0.554
90907329|NCT00587288|181682917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0809|||||||Log Rank|The p value for the treatment comparison was based on log rank test adjusting for stratification factor (ie, ACQ score ≤2 and \>2).||"Kaplan-Meier estimate of time to first CAE. (First quartile, median and third quartile survival times with 95% confidence intervals (ie, time to first CAE) could not be estimated since the proportion of patients experiencing CAE was too low. Therefore, the only number presented in regard to the Kaplan-Meier analysis is the p-value of the log-rank test, below. )"||||0.0809
90863847|NCT00434954|181590861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.159||95.0|||||Chi square test (Pearson)|||||||0.159
90863848|NCT00434954|181590866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0||||Non overlapping 95% CI's: statistically significant difference p\<0.05.|Kaplan-Meier analysis|For each treatment group, the incidence of hypoglycemia at Week 26 and 95% CIs were derived from Kaplan-Meier analysis.||The hypothesis was tested hierarchically that 1) exenatide BID is non-inferior to insulin aspart BID for glycemic control (outcome measure 1), and 2) superior regarding the incidence of hypoglycemia (outcome measure 2).The planned sample size of 366 patients treated with metformin only (assumed dropout rate 25%) gave 96% power to detect superiority of exenatide BID for the risk of hypoglycemia, assuming incidences of 3.6% for exenatide BID and 17.5% for insulin aspart BID (alpha=0.05).||||<0.05
90863849|NCT00434954|181590867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||The MMRM model adjusted for baseline HbA1c stratum (HbA1c at baseline \>= 6.5% and \<= 8.0% vs. \> 8.0% and \<=10%).|Mixed effects model repeated measures|95% CI of treatment group difference derived from MMRM (treatment, week, baseline HbA1c and interactions as fixed effects)||||||<0.0001
90863850|NCT00434954|181590868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||The MMRM model adjusted for baseline HbA1c stratum (HbA1c at Visit 1 \>= 6.5% and \<= 8.0% vs. \> 8.0% and \<=10%).|Mixed effects model repeated measures|95% CI of treatment group difference derived from MMRM (treatment, week, baseline HbA1c and interactions as fixed effects)||||||<0.0001
90940266|NCT03840148|181760199|OTHER||Miettinen and Nurminen|12.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|22.3||||||||22.3|3.7|
90907330|NCT01257503|181682943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|generalized estimating equations used to account for multiple doses in same participant||change in runny nose||||.86
90863851|NCT00002651|181590871|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The overall type I error rate used is 0.05. The type II error rate is 0.10 (power = 0.9). The trial planned for a one-sided test of the hypothesis that the hazard ratio of intermittent CAD to continuous CAD is 1.2. A hazard ratio of 1.0 was used as the specific alternative in the trial size computations. Thus, rejection of the hypothesis will be evidence against the possibility that the intermittent CAD hazard ratio is larger than the continuous CAD hazard ratio by 20% or more.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.99|1.23|||Regression, Cox|||||1.23|0.99|0.15
90863852|NCT00002651|181590872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.83||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|3.97||The type I error rate used was 0.005 in an attempt to adjust for multiple primary scores being tested.The type II error rate used was 0.10 (power = 0.9).|t-test, 2 sided|||||3.97|-0.31|0.09
90863853|NCT00002651|181590873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.88||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|4.76||The type I error rate used was 0.005 in an attempt to adjust for multiple primary scores being tested.The type II error rate used was 0.10 (power = 0.9).|t-test, 2 sided|||||4.76|1.00|0.003
90863854|NCT00002651|181590874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|-5.0||The type I error rate used was 0.005 in an attempt to adjust for multiple primary scores being tested.The type II error rate used was 0.10 (power = 0.9).|t-test, 2 sided|||||-5|-14|<0.001
90863855|NCT00002651|181590875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|18.0||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|36.0||The type I error rate used was 0.005 in an attempt to adjust for multiple primary scores being tested.The type II error rate used was 0.10 (power = 0.9).|t-test, 2 sided|||||36|1|0.04
90907331|NCT01257503|181682943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|generalized estimating equations used to account for multiple doses in single participant||change in sneeze||||.89
90907332|NCT01257503|181682943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|generalized estimating equations used to account for multiple doses in single participant||change in cough||||.45
90907333|NCT01257503|181682943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|generalized estimating equations used to account for multiple doses in single participant||change in congestion||||.82
90907334|NCT01257503|181682944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Generalized estimating equations used to account for multiple doses in single participant.||change in irritability||||.61
90907335|NCT01257503|181682944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Generalized estimating equations used to account for multiple doses in single participant.||change in lethargy||||.97
90907336|NCT01257503|181682944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Generalized estimating equations used to account for multiple doses in single participant.||change in fussiness||||.79
90907337|NCT01257503|181682944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Generalized estimating equations used to account for multiple doses in single participant.||change in appetite||||.81
90863856|NCT00002651|181590876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.32||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|3.46||The type I error rate used was 0.005 in an attempt to adjust for multiple primary scores being tested.The type II error rate used was 0.10 (power = 0.9).|t-test, 2 sided|||||3.46|-0.83|0.23
90863857|NCT02096731|181590889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.37|||||"HR adjusted for 10 year age groups, sex, calendar year of cohort entry, the decile of propensity score, ipratropium use prior to cohort entry and time since entry into base cohort.~Ratio calculated as combination therapy divided by monotherapy."|||1.37|0.92|
90863858|NCT02096731|181590890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.1|||||"HR adjusted for 10 year age groups, sex, calendar year of cohort entry, the decile of propensity score, ipratropium use prior to cohort entry and time since entry into base cohort.~Ratio calculated as combination therapy divided by monotherapy."|||1.10|0.69|
90863859|NCT02096731|181590891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.3|||||"HR adjusted for 10 year age groups, sex, calendar year of cohort entry, the decile of propensity score, ipratropium use prior to cohort entry and time since entry into base cohort.~Ratio calculated as combination therapy divided by monotherapy."|||1.30|1.03|
90907338|NCT01257503|181682945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||functional status day 1||||.16
90907339|NCT01257503|181682945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||functional status day 2||||.70
90907340|NCT01257503|181682945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||functional status day 3||||.77
90907341|NCT01257503|181682945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||functional status at 7-10 day follow-up||||.41
90907342|NCT01257503|181682946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||health status day 1||||.10
90907343|NCT01257503|181682946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||health status day 2||||.28
90907344|NCT01257503|181682946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||health status day 3||||.26
90907345|NCT01257503|181682946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||health status at follow-up||||.88
90863860|NCT02096731|181590892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.36|||||"HR adjusted for 10 year age groups, sex, calendar year of cohort entry, the decile of propensity score, ipratropium use prior to cohort entry and time since entry into base cohort.~Ratio calculated as combination therapy divided by monotherapy."|||1.36|0.81|
90863861|NCT02096731|181590893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|1.5|||||"HR adjusted for 10 year age groups, sex, calendar year of cohort entry, the decile of propensity score, ipratropium use prior to cohort entry and time since entry into base cohort.~Ratio calculated as combination therapy divided by monotherapy."|||1.50|1.23|
90907346|NCT01257503|181682947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||cold score day 1 assessment 1||||.02
90907347|NCT01257503|181682947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||cold score day 1 assessment 2||||.01
90907348|NCT01257503|181682947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||day 2 assessment 1||||.25
90907349|NCT01257503|181682947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||cold score day 2 assessment 2||||.15
90907350|NCT01257503|181682947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||cold score day 3 assessment 1||||.88
90907351|NCT01257503|181682947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||cold score day 3 assessment 2||||.35
90907352|NCT01257503|181682947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||cold score at 7-10 day follow-up||||.36
90907353|NCT02359435|181682958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.016|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
90907354|NCT01492309|181682964|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Fisher Exact|||This analysis is based on a mixed model that can handle missing data.||||0.003
90863862|NCT00005044|181590914|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.39|||Log Rank||Reference level = TAS x 8 weeks|Assuming 40% of deaths in the 8-wk arm from prostate cancer (PC) and that 8-yr DSS would be 79%, 270 PC deaths were required to detect a 33% hazard reduction in the 28-wk arm with 90% power using the log-rank test with a 2-sided significance level of 0.05. Under assumed failure rates, 1,540 patients accrued over 4 years and observed for an additional 6 years were expected to provide the requisite events. This sample accounted for a 10% ineligible/lack-of-data rate and 3 interim analyses.||1.39|0.48|0.45
90863863|NCT00005044|181590915|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.15|||Log Rank|2-sided significance level of 0.05|Reference level = TAS x 8 weeks|With 1540 patients accrued over 4 years and observed for an additional 6 years, determined for the primary endpoint, there would be 90% power to detect a 22% reduction in the hazard of all cause deaths in the 28-week arm, with 2-sided significance level of 0.05. This sample accounted for a 10% ineligible/lack-of-data rate.||1.15|0.79|0.62
90863864|NCT00005044|181590916|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.08|||Log Rank|Significance level = 0.05|Reference level = TAS x 8 weeks|||1.08|0.85|0.47
90863865|NCT00005044|181590917|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.05|||Gray's test|2-sided significance level = 0.05|Reference level = TAS x 8 weeks|Locoregional progression||1.05|0.40|0.07
90863866|NCT00005044|181590917|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.66|||Gray's test|2-sided significance level = 0.05|Reference level = TAS x 8 weeks|Distant metastasis||1.66|0.68|0.80
90907355|NCT01492309|181682965|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.425|||||||Regression, Logistic|||This analysis is based on a mixed model that can handle missing data.||||0.425
90907356|NCT02022462|181682968|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.073|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 6 months between-group comparisons of the mean change of z-scores.||||.073
90907357|NCT02022462|181682968|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.19|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.91||0.066|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group mean z-score change from 6 months to 12-months (post-intervention) for the immediate treatment group only.||||.066
90907358|NCT02022462|181682969|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.022||||0.983|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 6 months between-group comparisons of the mean change.||||.983
90907359|NCT02022462|181682969|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.95||0.533|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group mean change from 6 months to 12-months (post-intervention) for the immediate treatment group only.||||.533
90907360|NCT02022462|181682970|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.731|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 6 months between-group comparisons of the mean change.||||.731
90907361|NCT02022462|181682970|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.67||0.211|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group mean change from 6 months to 12-months (post-intervention) for the immediate treatment group only.||||.211
90907362|NCT02022462|181682971|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04||||0.244|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 6 months between-group comparisons of the mean change.||||.244
90907363|NCT02022462|181682971|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.35||0.016|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.016
90907364|NCT02022462|181682972|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4||||0.019|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 6 months between-group comparisons of the mean change.||||.019
90907365|NCT02022462|181682972|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.66||0.609|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.609
90863867|NCT00005044|181590918|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.17|||Gray's test|2-sided significance level = 0.05|Reference level = TAS x 8 weeks|Protocol definition||1.17|0.89|0.74
90863868|NCT00005044|181590918|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.19|||Gray's test|2-sided significance level = 0.05|Reference level = TAS x 8 weeks|Phoenix definition||1.19|0.79|0.77
90863869|NCT00005044|181590919|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.3|||Log Rank|2-sided significance level = 0.05|Reference level = TAS x 8 weeks|||1.30|0.64|0.62
90907366|NCT02022462|181682973|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.203|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 6 months between-group comparisons of the mean change.||||.203
90907367|NCT02022462|181682973|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.59||0.48|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.480
90907368|NCT02022462|181682974|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.897|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.897
90863870|NCT00843856|181590921|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.7
90863871|NCT03104543|181590923|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.45|||Generalized estimating equation|||||1.45|0.67|.05
90863872|NCT03104543|181590926|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.28|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.28|-0.47|.05
90863873|NCT02993757|181590929|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.982|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.664|1.45||||||Antigen HPV-6||1.45|0.664|
90863874|NCT02993757|181590929|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.804|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.626|1.03||||||Antigen HPV-11||1.03|0.626|
90863875|NCT02993757|181590929|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.815|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.608|1.09||||||Antigen HPV-16||1.09|0.608|
90863876|NCT02993757|181590929|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.795|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.603|1.05||||||Antigen HPV-18||1.05|0.603|
90863877|NCT02993757|181590930|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.987|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.574|1.7||||||Serotype 1||1.70|0.574|
90863878|NCT02993757|181590930|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.783|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.22||||||Serotype 2||1.22|0.500|
90907369|NCT02022462|181682974|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.48||0.903|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.903
90940267|NCT03840148|181760200|OTHER||Miettinen and Nurminen|14.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|24.3||||||||24.3|3.8|
90940268|NCT03840148|181760201|OTHER||Miettinen and Nurminen|7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|17.7||||||||17.7|-1.9|
90940269|NCT03840148|181760206|OTHER||Miettinen and Nurminen|14.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|24.3||||||||24.3|3.8|
90940270|NCT03840148|181760208|OTHER||Miettinen and Nurminen|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|7.3||||||||7.3|-3.1|
90940271|NCT03840148|181760209|OTHER||Miettinen and Nurminen|4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|11.5||||||||11.5|-1.1|
90940272|NCT03840148|181760210|OTHER||Miettinen and Nurminen|8.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|15.7||||||||15.7|1.2|
90940273|NCT04839289|181760246|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||When p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons, the level of statistical significance must be \</= to .01666667 (.05/3)|t-test, 2 sided|||"Null hypothesis: Subjective ratings of sound quality would not be different between any of the three study hearing aids when measured with a validated sound quality questionnaire.~Analysis was done after all three home trials completed so all three sets of study devices could be compared."||||>0.05
90940274|NCT04839289|181760246|OTHER||||||<|0.0167||||||When p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons, the level of statistical significance must be \</= to .01666667 (.05/3)|t-test, 2 sided|||"Null hypothesis: Subjective ratings of sound quality would not be different between any of the three study hearing aids when measured with a validated sound quality questionnaire.~Analysis was done after all three home trials completed so all three sets of study devices could be compared."||||<.0167
90863879|NCT02993757|181590930|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.836|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.568|1.23||||||Serotype 3||1.23|0.568|
90863880|NCT02993757|181590930|OTHER||GMT ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.813|1.4||||||Serotype 4||1.40|0.813|
90863881|NCT00087607|181590948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.36|||t-test, 2 sided|||Mean treatment difference was tested using a two-sided t-test.||0.36|-0.35|0.978
90863882|NCT00087607|181590949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.27||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.58|||t-test, 2 sided|||At Week 4: Mean treatment difference was tested using a two-sided t-test.||0.58|-0.03|0.080
90863883|NCT00087607|181590949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07||||0.688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.41|||t-test, 2 sided|||At Week 8: Mean treatment difference was tested using a two-sided t-test.||0.41|-0.27|0.688
90863884|NCT00087607|181590953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.304|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||The treatment groups were compared using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) with treatment as the only factor in the model.||||0.304
90863885|NCT00087607|181590955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion of participants|-3.1||||0.2814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|2.5|||Chi-squared|||Week 1: Treatment groups were compared using the Chi-Square Test.||2.5|-8.6|0.2814
90863886|NCT00087607|181590955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion of participants|-10.3||||0.0214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9|-1.6|||Chi-squared|||Week 2: Treatment groups were compared using the Chi-Square Test.||-1.6|-18.9|0.0214
90863887|NCT00087607|181590955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion of participants|-10.7||||0.0315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.3|-1.0|||Chi-squared|||Week 3: Treatment groups were compared using the Chi-Square Test.||-1.0|-20.3|0.0315
90863888|NCT00087607|181590955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion of participants|-7.4||||0.1467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.4|2.6|||Chi-squared|||Week 4: Treatment groups were compared using the Chi-Square Test.||2.6|-17.4|0.1467
90863889|NCT00087607|181590955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion of participants|-6.8||||0.1823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.9|3.2|||Chi-squared|||Week 5: Treatment groups were compared using the Chi-Square Test.||3.2|-16.9|0.1823
90863890|NCT00087607|181590955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion of participants|-2.1||||0.6871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|8.0|||Chi-squared|||Week 6: Treatment groups were compared using the Chi-Square Test.||8.0|-12.1|0.6871
90863891|NCT00087607|181590955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion of participants|-0.4||||0.9295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|9.5|||Chi-squared|||Week 7: Treatment groups were compared using the Chi-Square Test.||9.5|-10.4|0.9295
90863892|NCT00087607|181590955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion of participants|2.2||||0.6593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|12.1|||Chi-squared|||Week 8: Treatment groups were compared using the Chi-Square Test.||12.1|-7.6|0.6593
90863893|NCT00087607|181590955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion of participants|2.2||||0.6637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|12.1|||Chi-squared|||Week 9: Treatment groups were compared using the Chi-Square Test.||12.1|-7.7|0.6637
90863894|NCT00087607|181590955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion of participants|5.4||||0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|15.1|||Chi-squared|||Week 10: Treatment groups were compared using the Chi-Square Test.||15.1|-4.3|0.2760
90863895|NCT00087607|181590955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion of participants|5.4||||0.2779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|15.1|||Chi-squared|||Week 11: Treatment groups were compared using the Chi-Square Test.||15.1|-4.3|0.2779
90863896|NCT00087607|181590955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion of participants|2.8||||0.5697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|12.4|||Chi-squared|||Week 12: Treatment groups were compared using the Chi-Square Test.||12.4|-6.8|0.5697
90863897|NCT00087607|181590956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion of participants|0.0||||0.994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.5|||Chi-squared|||Week 1: Treatment groups were compared using the Chi-Square Test.||1.5|-1.4|0.9940
90863898|NCT00087607|181590956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion of participants|-0.5||||0.7133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|2.2|||Chi-squared|||Week 2: Treatment groups were compared using the Chi-Square Test.||2.2|-3.2|0.7133
90863899|NCT00087607|181590956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion of participants|-3.6||||0.0864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|0.5|||Chi-squared|||Week 3: Treatment groups were compared using the Chi-Square Test.||0.5|-7.8|0.0864
90863900|NCT00087607|181590956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion of participants|-4.1||||0.1713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|1.8|||Chi-squared|||Week 4: Treatment groups were compared using the Chi-Square Test.||1.8|-10.0|0.1713
90863901|NCT00087607|181590956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion of participants|-4.6||||0.1888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|2.2|||Chi-squared|||Week 5: Treatment groups were compared using the Chi-Square Test.||2.2|-11.4|0.1888
90907370|NCT02022462|181682975|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.787||||0.433|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 6 months between-group comparisons of the mean change.||||.433
90907371|NCT02022462|181682975|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.52||0.936|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.936
90863902|NCT00087607|181590956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion of participants|-6.6||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|1.4|||Chi-squared|||Week 6: Treatment groups were compared using the Chi-Square Test.||1.4|-14.7|0.1080
90863903|NCT00087607|181590956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion of participants|-4.5||||0.3099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|4.2|||Chi-squared|||Week 7: Treatment groups were compared using the Chi-Square Test.||4.2|-13.1|0.3099
90863904|NCT00087607|181590956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion of participants|-3.4||||0.4595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|5.6|||Chi-squared|||Week 8: Treatment groups were compared using the Chi-Square Test.||5.6|-12.4|0.4595
90863905|NCT00087607|181590956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion of participants|-6.0||||0.2144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|3.4|||Chi-squared|||Week 9: Treatment groups were compared using the Chi-Square Test.||3.4|-15.4|0.2144
90863906|NCT00087607|181590956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion of participants|-5.4||||0.2779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.1|4.3|||Chi-squared|||Week 10: Treatment groups were compared using the Chi-Square Test.||4.3|-15.1|0.2779
90863907|NCT00087607|181590956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion of participants|-2.7||||0.5876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|7.1|||Chi-squared|||Week 11: Treatment groups were compared using the Chi-Square Test.||7.1|-12.6|0.5876
90863908|NCT00087607|181590956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion of participants|-4.8||||0.3399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|5.1|||Chi-squared|||Week 12: Treatment groups were compared using the Chi-Square Test.||5.1|-14.7|0.3399
90863909|NCT00087607|181590961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024|TWO_SIDED||||||Repeated measures analysis|The P-value is determined from a repeated measures analysis with terms for treatment group, baseline, week, and the week-by-treatment interaction.||Week 1: The treatment groups were compared using repeated measures analysis||||0.024
90907372|NCT02022462|181682976|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.228|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 6 months between-group comparisons of the mean change in z-scores of diet.||||.228
90907373|NCT02022462|181682976|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.03||0.617|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.617
90907374|NCT02022462|181682977|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.894|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.894
90907375|NCT02022462|181682977|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.46||0.93|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.930
90907376|NCT02022462|181682978|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.15||||0.53|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.530
90907377|NCT02022462|181682978|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.27||0.458|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.458
90907378|NCT02022462|181682979|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.31||||0.036|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.036
90907379|NCT02022462|181682979|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.0||0.892|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.892
90907380|NCT02022462|181682980|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.41||||0.931|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.931
90907381|NCT02022462|181682980|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.43|STANDARD_DEVIATION|24.34||0.058|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.058
90907382|NCT02022462|181682981|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4||||0.576|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.576
90907383|NCT02022462|181682981|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|33.89||0.829|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.829
90863910|NCT00087607|181590961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Week 8: The treatment groups were compared using Repeated measures analysis||||<0.001
90863911|NCT02015754|181590973|OTHER|||||||0.004||||||Differences of p-value \< 0.05 considered statistically significant.|Regression, Cox|||Multivariate Cox-regression analysis to identify independent prognostic factors for overall survival from baseline characteristics. Relative risk with 95% confidence intervals calculated as measure of association.||||0.004
90863912|NCT02015754|181590980|OTHER|VEGF immediately post treatment||||||0.6257|||||||one-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.6257
90863913|NCT02015754|181590980|OTHER|VEGF at 24 hours post treatment.||||||0.4143|||||||one-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.4143
90863914|NCT02015754|181590980|OTHER|VEGFR1 immediately post treatment.||||||0.583|||||||one-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.583
90863915|NCT02015754|181590980|OTHER|VEGFR1 at 24 hours post treatment.||||||0.0012|||||||one-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||.0012
90863916|NCT02015754|181590980|OTHER|VEGFR2 immediately post treatment.||||||0.1353|||||||one-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.1353
90907384|NCT02022462|181682982|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.792|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 6 months between-group comparisons of the mean change.||||.792
90907385|NCT02022462|181682982|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.55||0.622|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.622
90907386|NCT02022462|181682983|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.986||||0.049|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 6 months between-group comparisons of the mean change.||||.049
90907387|NCT02022462|181682983|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.29|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.67||0.211|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.211
90907388|NCT03613129|181683006|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparing 28-day pre-treatment mean TDSS and 28-day post-treatment mean TDSS||||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.011
90907389|NCT03613129|181683006|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparing 28-day pre-treatment mean TDSS and 28-day post-treatment mean TDSS||||||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.136
90907390|NCT03613129|181683006|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparing 28-day pre-treatment mean TDSS and 28-day post-treatment mean TDSS||||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.009
90907391|NCT03613129|181683006|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparing 28-day pre-treatment mean TDSS and 28-day post-treatment mean TDSS||||||0.451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.451
90907392|NCT03613129|181683006|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparing 28-day pre-treatment mean TDSS and 28-day post-treatment mean TDSS||||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.240
90907393|NCT03613129|181683007|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparing pre-treatment PCS (at Visit 3) and post-treatment PCS (at Visit 6)||||||0.039|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.039
90907394|NCT03613129|181683007|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparing pre-treatment PCS (at Visit 3) and post-treatment PCS (at Visit 6)||||||0.191|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.191
90907395|NCT03613129|181683007|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparing pre-treatment PCS (at Visit 3) and post-treatment PCS (at Visit 6)||||||0.016|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.016
90863917|NCT02015754|181590980|OTHER|VEGFR2 at 24 hours post treatment.||||||0.2163|||||||one-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.2163
90907396|NCT03613129|181683007|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparing pre-treatment PCS (at Visit 3) and post-treatment PCS (at Visit 6)||||||0.053|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.053
90907397|NCT03613129|181683007|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparing pre-treatment PCS (at Visit 3) and post-treatment PCS (at Visit 6)||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.060
90907398|NCT03613129|181683008|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparing pre-treatment MCS (at Visit 3) and post-treatment MCS (at Visit 6)||||||0.587|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.587
90863918|NCT02229383|181590981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.101|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, region, baseline HbA1c (\< or ≥ 9.0%), baseline SU-use, week, treatment by week interaction as fixed factors; baseline value as covariate.||||-0.54|-0.94|<0.001
90863919|NCT02229383|181590982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.341|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.19|-0.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, region, baseline HbA1c (\< or ≥ 9.0%), baseline SU-use, week, treatment by week interaction as fixed factors; baseline value as covariate.||||-0.85|-2.19|<0.001
90863920|NCT02229383|181590983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.754|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.07|-16.45|||ANCOVA|Treatment, region, baseline HbA1c (\< or ≥ 9.0%), baseline SU-use (yes vs. no) as fixed factors; baseline value as covariate.||||-16.45|-39.07|<0.001
90863921|NCT02229383|181590984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|25.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline HbA1c (\<9.0% or ≥9.0%) and baseline SU-use (yes vs. no).||||||<0.001
90907399|NCT03613129|181683008|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparing pre-treatment MCS (at Visit 3) and post-treatment MCS (at Visit 6)||||||0.618|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.618
90907400|NCT03613129|181683008|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparing pre-treatment MCS (at Visit 3) and post-treatment MCS (at Visit 6)||||||0.634|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.634
90907401|NCT03613129|181683008|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparing pre-treatment MCS (at Visit 3) and post-treatment MCS (at Visit 6)||||||0.355|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.355
90863922|NCT02229383|181590985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, region, baseline HbA1c (\< or ≥ 9.0%), baseline SU-use, week, treatment by week interaction as fixed factors; baseline value as covariate.||||0.2|-4.1|0.074
90907402|NCT03613129|181683008|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparing pre-treatment MCS (at Visit 3) and post-treatment MCS (at Visit 6)||||||0.417|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.417
90907403|NCT02334306|181683009|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.262|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.6|0.7|||ANCOVA||Adjusted mean difference for MEDI5872 210 mg:Placebo was calculated with associated 90% confidence interval and p-value.|||0.7|-3.6|0.262
90907404|NCT02334306|181683010|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.82|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.52|1.64|||ANCOVA||Adjusted Geometric mean ratio for MEDI5872 210 mg:Placebo was calculated with associated 90% confidence interval, SE (log), and p-value.|For plasma cell levels||1.64|0.52|0.820
90907405|NCT02334306|181683010|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.291|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.33|1.28|||ANCOVA||Adjusted Geometric mean ratio for MEDI5872 210 mg:Placebo was calculated with associated 90% confidence interval, SE (log), and p-value.|For TFH cells||1.28|0.33|0.291
90907406|NCT02334306|181683011|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.44|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.65|1.18|||ANCOVA||Adjusted Geometric mean ratio for MEDI5872 210 mg:Placebo was calculated with associated 90% confidence interval, SE (log), and p-value.|For total plasma cells||1.18|0.65|0.440
90907407|NCT02334306|181683011|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.008|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.26|0.7|||ANCOVA||Adjusted Geometric mean ratio for MEDI5872 210 mg:Placebo was calculated with associated 90% confidence interval, SE (log), and p-value.|For CD4/ICOS TFH cells||0.70|0.26|0.008
90907408|NCT02334306|181683011|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.972|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.64|1.59|||ANCOVA||Adjusted Geometric mean ratio for MEDI5872 210 mg:Placebo was calculated with associated 90% confidence interval, SE (log), and p-value.|For PD-1/ICOS TFH cells||1.59|0.64|0.972
90907409|NCT02334306|181683013|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.574|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8|1.6|||ANCOVA||Adjusted mean difference for MEDI5872 210 mg:Placebo was calculated with associated 90% confidence interval and p-value.|||1.6|-0.8|0.574
90907410|NCT02334306|181683014|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|25.0||||0.252|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.1|50.9|||Fisher Exact|||ESSDAI \[3\]||50.9|-3.1|0.252
90907411|NCT02334306|181683014|SUPERIORITY||Difference in precentages|25.0||||0.252|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.1|50.9|||Fisher Exact|||ESSDAI\[4\]||50.9|-3.1|0.252
90907412|NCT02534896|181683023|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018|||||||Hochberg and Gatekeeping|||||||0.018
90959538|NCT05227703|181799339|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.3983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|2.4|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 5-- Emraclidine 15 mg versus Placebo||2.4|-5.9|0.3983
90907413|NCT02534896|181683023|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Hochberg and Gatekeeping|||||||0.007
90959539|NCT05227703|181799339|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.07||0.3859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|5.9|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 5-- Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||5.9|-2.3|0.3859
90907414|NCT02534896|181683024|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028|||||||Hochberg and Gatekeeping|||||||0.028
90907415|NCT02534896|181683024|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Hochberg and Gatekeeping|||||||0.003
90907416|NCT02534896|181683025|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||Hochberg and Gatekeeping|||||||0.960
90907417|NCT02534896|181683025|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.339|||||||Hochberg and Gatekeeping|||||||0.339
90907418|NCT02534896|181683026|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.573|||||||Hochberg and Gatekeeping|||||||0.573
90907419|NCT02534896|181683026|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.374|||||||Hochberg and Gatekeeping|||||||0.374
90907420|NCT00711646|181683027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.517||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.029|-0.004|||ANCOVA|||The change in mean 11-point Numerical Rating Scale spasticity score was compared between treatment groups using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). The model included treatment and centre as factors and baseline 11-point Numerical Rating Scale spasticity score as a covariate.||-0.004|-1.029|0.048
90907421|NCT00711646|181683028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.11||||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.07|||ANCOVA|||The change in mean Ashworth Scale score was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment and centre as factors and baseline Ashworth Scale score as a covariate.||0.07|-0.29|0.218
90907422|NCT00711646|181683029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.17||||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.06|||ANCOVA|||The change in mean spasm frequency score was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment and centre as factors and baseline spasm frequency score as a covariate.||0.06|-0.39|0.141
90907423|NCT00711646|181683030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|1.3||||0.766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.47|10.07|||ANCOVA|||The change in mean Motricity Index score was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment and centre as factors and baseline Motricity Index score as a covariate.||10.07|-7.47|0.766
90907424|NCT00711646|181683031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|8.46||||0.349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.74|23.66|||Fisher Exact|||The proportion of subjects who considered their condition 'Very Much Improved', 'Much Improved' or 'Minimally Improved' was compared between treatment groups using Fisher's Exact Test.||23.66|-6.74|0.349
90907425|NCT00711646|181683033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|3.86||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|7.78|||ANCOVA|||The change in mean Motricity Index score was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment and centre as factors and baseline Motricity Index score as a covariate.||7.78|-0.06|0.054
90907426|NCT01360840|181683047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.39||||||||1.39|0.57|
90959540|NCT05227703|181799339|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3||0.2925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|2.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 15 mg - Placebo|Week 6-- Emraclidine 15 mg versus Placebo||2.1|-7.0|0.2925
90959541|NCT05227703|181799339|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.27||0.3914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|6.4|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 6-- Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||6.4|-2.5|0.3914
90959542|NCT05227703|181799340|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.073||0.0865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.02|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 15 mg - Placebo|Week 1-- Emraclidine 15 mg versus Placebo||0.02|-0.27|0.0865
90959543|NCT05227703|181799340|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.072||0.9921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.14|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 30 mg - Placebo|Week 1-- Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||0.14|-0.14|0.9921
90959544|NCT05227703|181799340|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.091||0.972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.18|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 15 mg - Placebo|Week 2-- Emraclidine 15 mg versus Placebo||0.18|-0.18|0.9720
90863923|NCT02229383|181590986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|20.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline HbA1c (\<9.0% or ≥9.0%) and baseline SU-use (yes vs. no).||||||<0.001
90863924|NCT02229383|181590987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.13||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, region, baseline HbA1c (\< or ≥ 9.0%), baseline SU-use, week, treatment by week interaction as fixed factors; baseline value as covariate.||||0.4|-4.0|0.110
90863925|NCT03128411|181591005|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||z-test, 1-sided|||With a sample size of 60 participants, study was powered at \>82% to test null hypothesis: true MMR rate at 12 months (48 weeks) is 25% versus alternative hypothesis: true MMR rate is 40% with one-sided alpha of 5%.||||<0.0001
90863926|NCT01960400|181591057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.065||||||"The statistical signifiance level : p\<0.05. After treatment (T1) Pain severity p=0.065~Sub-scale:~* Present pain p=0.046\*~* Average pain p=0.381~* Most intense pain p=0.064~* Least intense pain p=0.142"|ANOVA|To assess the effectiveness of interventions (inter-group differences), a mixed-model ANOVA (time X group interaction) was used.||For the severity of pain, the calculations have revealed that only this pain now had an acceptable statistical power, of 77.1% after treatment (T1).||||0.065
90863927|NCT01960400|181591058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049||||||interaction group X time|ANOVA|||||||0.049
90863928|NCT01960400|181591059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035||||||interaction group X time|ANOVA|||||||0.035
90863929|NCT01960400|181591060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.046||||||interaction group X time|ANOVA|||||||0.046
90863930|NCT05544734|181591061|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|1.25|||t-test, 2 sided||Direction = Hydrocodone group mean change (i.e., change = baseline to postoperative day 2) minus Non-Hydrocodone group mean change (i.e., change = baseline to postoperative day 2).|||1.25|-1.85|0.69
90863931|NCT05544734|181591062|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.3||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.25|11.85|||t-test, 2 sided||Direction = Hydrocodone group mean change (i.e., change = postoperative day 3 to postoperative day 6) minus Non-Hydrocodone group mean change (i.e., change = postoperative day 3 to postoperative day 6).|||11.85|-7.25|0.62
90863932|NCT03298867|181591063|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference in percentages|73.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.43|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.89|88.01||Two-sided p-value calculated assuming the test statistic was distributed as a standard normal random variable.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Stratified difference (teprotumumab - placebo) is a weighted average of the difference within each stratum. Estimates from the 2 strata (tobacco user, tobacco non-user) were combined with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights.|||88.01|58.89|<0.001
90863933|NCT03298867|181591064|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference in percentages|70.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.62|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.89|85.75||Two-sided p-value calculated assuming the test statistic was distributed as a standard normal random variable.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Stratified difference (teprotumumab - placebo) is a weighted average of the difference within each stratum. Estimates from the 2 strata (tobacco user, tobacco non-user) were combined with CMH weights.|||85.75|55.89|<0.001
90863934|NCT03298867|181591065|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference in percentages|36.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.51|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.39|54.67||Two-sided p-value calculated assuming the test statistic was distributed as a standard normal random variable.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Stratified difference (teprotumumab - placebo) is a weighted average of the difference within each stratum. Estimates from the 2 strata (tobacco user, tobacco non-user) were combined with CMH weights.|||54.67|17.39|<0.001
90863935|NCT03298867|181591066|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.244|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.77|-1.8||Results obtained from an MMRM with an unstructured covariance matrix including the following terms: Baseline value, tobacco use status, treatment group, visit, visit-by-treatment interaction and visit-by-Baseline-value interaction.|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)|||||-1.80|-2.77|<0.001
90863936|NCT03298867|181591067|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference in percentages|39.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.11||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.55|63.02||Two-sided p-value calculated assuming the test statistic was distributed as a standard normal random variable.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Stratified difference is a weighted average of the difference within each stratum. Estimates from the 2 strata (tobacco user, tobacco non-user) were combined with CMH weights.|||63.02|15.55|0.001
90863937|NCT03298867|181591068|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|9.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.651|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.08|14.64||Results obtained from an MMRM with an unstructured covariance matrix including the following terms: Baseline value, tobacco use status, treatment group, visit, visit-by-treatment interaction and visit-by-Baseline-value interaction.|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)|||||14.64|4.08|<0.001
90863938|NCT06934993|181591073|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance was defined as cases where the p-value was below 0.05.|Chi-squared|||In LIMA-LAD cases, when the post hoc power analysis results for the relationship between graft patency and flow rate were examined, the effect size was found to be 0.836, with an alpha error level set at 0.05. The statistical power of the study was determined to be 99.99%.||||<0.001
90907427|NCT01360840|181683047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.26||||||||1.26|0.52|
90907428|NCT01360840|181683048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|2.31||||||||2.31|0.52|
90907429|NCT01360840|181683048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|2.15||||||||2.15|0.47|
90907430|NCT01360840|181683049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.44||||||||1.44|0.58|
90907431|NCT01360840|181683049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.27||||||||1.27|0.52|
90907432|NCT02002819|181683063|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.32|||ANOVA|||||0.32|-0.18|0.55
90907433|NCT02002819|181683064|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.9||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|6.8|||ANOVA|||||6.8|-1.0|0.14
90907434|NCT02002819|181683065|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|1.5|||ANOVA|||||1.5|-3.4|.43
90907435|NCT02002819|181683066|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.4|||ANOVA|||||0.4|-0.2|0.63
90907436|NCT02002819|181683067|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.3|||ANOVA|||||1.3|-1.1|0.90
90907437|NCT02002819|181683068|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3|||ANOVA|||||0.3|-0.3|0.80
90907438|NCT02002819|181683069|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|1.7|||ANOVA|||||1.7|-3.6|0.46
90907439|NCT02002819|181683070|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.1|||ANOVA|||||1.1|-0.9|0.40
90907440|NCT02002819|181683071|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|7.4||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|14.7|||ANOVA|||||14.7|0.2|0.046
90907441|NCT02002819|181683072|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.5||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|2.7|||ANOVA|||||2.7|-7.8|.30
90907442|NCT02002819|181683073|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.8||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|16.0|||Cohen f|||||16.0|-8.5|0.52
90907443|NCT02002819|181683074|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.7||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.4|||ANOVA|||||2.4|-1.0|0.40
90907444|NCT02002819|181683075|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.7|||ANOVA|||||0.7|-1.1|0.63
90907445|NCT02002819|181683077|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.8|||ANOVA|||||1.8|-0.3|.15
90907446|NCT00920686|181683081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6407|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.6407
90940275|NCT04839289|181760249|OTHER||||||<|0.01666667||||||When p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons, the value must be \</= to .01666667 (.05/3).|t-test, 2 sided|||"Null hypothesis: Satisfaction with hearing aid performance and features would not be different between any of the three study hearing aids when measured with subjective hearing aid satisfaction questionnaire.~Analysis was done after all three home trials completed so all three sets of study devices could be compared."||||<.01666667
90940276|NCT04839289|181760249|OTHER||||||<|0.01666667||||||When adjusted for multiple comparisons, the p-value must be \</= to .01666667 (.05/3).|t-test, 2 sided|||"Null hypothesis: Satisfaction with hearing aid performance and features would not be different between any of the three study hearing aids when measured with subjective hearing aid satisfaction questionnaire.~Analysis was done after all three home trials completed so all three sets of study devices could be compared."||||<.01666667
90940277|NCT00580047|181760267|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The intervention groups were compared for compliance to either having annual IV zoledronic acid, taking weekly oral alendronate, and taking calcium/vitamin D supplementation.|||
90940278|NCT01878383|181760327|OTHER|Sensitivity is the percent of non-pregnant women positive for shedding HSV by culture method in which GeneXpert test results is positive. Units equals percent non-pregnant women positive.|Sensitivity|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|90.8|100.0|||||95% Clopper-Pearson Exact Confidence Interval|||100|90.8|
90907447|NCT03006341|181683090|OTHER||C-Statistic|0.81|||||||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with bleeding history or predisposition as dependent and treatment groups and claims based variables as the independent variables|The C-statistic can be between 0.5 and 1 and a value of 0.5 indicates that the model is no better than chance at making a prediction and a value of 1.0 indicates that the model perfectly identifies those within a group and those not.|"The concordance statistic is equal to the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. The C-statistic (sometimes called the concordance statistic or C-index) is a measure of goodness of fit for binary outcomes in a logistic regression model."||||
90907448|NCT03006341|181683092|OTHER||Adjusted R squared statistic|0.02|||||||||||Regression, Linear|Logistic regression model with serum creatinine as the dependent variable and treatment groups and claims based variables as the independent variables|The adjusted R² statistic, or coefficient of determination, is the proportion of the variance in the (EMR) outcome that is predictable from the independent (claims) variables, adjusted for the number of predictors in the model.|R-squared is a statistical measure of how close the data are to the fitted regression line. 0% indicates that the model explains none of the variability of the response data around its mean. 100% indicates that the model explains all the variability of the response data around its mean.||||
90907449|NCT03006341|181683094|OTHER||Adjusted R squared statistic|0.04|||||||||||Regression, Linear|Linear regression model with duration of atrial fibrillation as dependent and treatment groups and claims based variables as independent variables|The adjusted R² statistic, or coefficient of determination, is the proportion of the variance in the (EMR) outcome that is predictable from the independent (claims) variables, adjusted for the number of predictors in the model.|R-squared is a statistical measure of how close the data are to the fitted regression line. 0% indicates that the model explains none of the variability of the response data around its mean. 100% indicates that the model explains all the variability of the response data around its mean.||||
90907450|NCT03006341|181683100|OTHER||C-Statistic|0.88|||||||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with diabetes as the dependent variable and treatment groups and claims based variables as the independent variables.|The C-statistic can be between 0.5 and 1 and a value of 0.5 indicates that the model is no better than chance at making a prediction and a value of 1.0 indicates that the model perfectly identifies those within a group and those not.|"The concordance statistic is equal to the area under a ROC curve. The C-statistic (sometimes called the concordance statistic or C-index) is a measure of goodness of fit for binary outcomes in a logistic regression model."||||
90940279|NCT01878383|181760328|OTHER|Positive percent agreement is the percent of pregnant women with positive routine PCR results in which GeneXpert test results is positive. Units equal percent of pregnant women positive.|Positive percent agreement|80.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|73.7|86.3|||||95% large sample confidence interval|||86.3|73.7|
90940280|NCT01878383|181760329|OTHER|Negative percent agreement is the percent of pregnant women with negative routine PCR results in which GeneXpert test results is negative. Units equal percent of pregnant women negative.|Negative percent agreement|99.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.0|99.5|||||95% large sample confidence interval|||99.5|99|
90940281|NCT00835510|181760338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0127||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|two-sided||||||0.0127
90940282|NCT00835510|181760338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|two-sided||||||<0.0001
90940283|NCT00835510|181760343|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criteria for equivalence is that the 90% confidence interval for the difference in cure rate had to be between -20% to +20%.|Cure rate difference|-19.78||||||90.0|-30.27|-9.29||||||||-9.29|-30.27|
90940284|NCT01960348|181760350|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-33.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.974|<|1e-07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.86|-28.13||P=9.262E-24|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures|||In the mixed-effect model repeated measures (MMRM) model, the outcome variable is change from baseline in mNIS+7. The model includes baseline mNIS+7 score as covariate and fixed effect terms including treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, genotype, age at hATTR symptom onset, previous tetramer stabilizer use and region.||-28.13|-39.86|<0.0000001
90940285|NCT01960348|181760351|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-21.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1|<|1e-07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.2|-15.0||P=1.103E-10|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures|||In the mixed-effect model repeated measures (MMRM) model, the outcome variable is change from baseline in Norfolk QOL-DN total score. The model includes baseline Norfolk QOL-DN score as covariate and fixed effect terms including treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline NIS, genotype, age at hATTR symptom onset, previous tetramer stabilizer use and region.||-15.0|-27.2|<0.0000001
90907451|NCT03006341|181683101|OTHER||C-Statistic|0.69|||||||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with hyperlipidemia as the dependent variable and treatment groups and claims based variables as the independent variables.|The C-statistic can be between 0.5 and 1 and a value of 0.5 indicates that the model is no better than chance at making a prediction and a value of 1.0 indicates that the model perfectly identifies those within a group and those not.|"The concordance statistic is equal to the area under a ROC curve. The C-statistic (sometimes called the concordance statistic or C-index) is a measure of goodness of fit for binary outcomes in a logistic regression model."||||
90907452|NCT03006341|181683102|OTHER||Adjusted R squared statistic|0.34|||||||||||Regression, Linear|Linear regression model with HAS-BLED score as the dependent variable and treatment groups and claims based variables as the independent variables.|The adjusted R² statistic, or coefficient of determination, is the proportion of the variance in the (EMR) outcome that is predictable from the independent (claims) variables, adjusted for the number of predictors in the model.|R-squared is a statistical measure of how close the data are to the fitted regression line. 0% indicates that the model explains none of the variability of the response data around its mean. 100% indicates that the model explains all the variability of the response data around its mean.||||
90907453|NCT01579578|181683114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.23||0.688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.81|20.81||two sided p value|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including covariates for baseline tumour size, for the time from the baseline scan to randomisation and with a term for HER2 status.|the difference in LS means is estimated|60 patients had been considered to detect a -20% difference in the estimated average percentage change in tumour size at 8 weeks for AZD8931 plus paclitaxel compared to paclitaxel alone at a one-sided significance level of 10% with 90% power. This is based on a standard deviation of 30% for tumour data (on an absolute scale)||20.81|-30.81|0.688
90907454|NCT02341534|181683142|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.1|||Log Rank|||||1.10|0.64|0.21
90907455|NCT01112735|181683200|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5621|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5621
90959545|NCT05227703|181799340|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.089||0.6621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.21|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 30 mg - Placebo|Week 2-- Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||0.21|-0.14|0.6621
90959546|NCT05227703|181799340|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.101||0.3617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.11|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 15 mg - Placebo|Week 3-- Emraclidine 15 mg versus Placebo||0.11|-0.29|0.3617
90863939|NCT06934993|181591074|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||Statistical significance was defined as cases where the p-value was below 0.05.|Chi-squared|||In all cases, when the post hoc power analysis results for the relationship between graft patency and flow rate were examined, the effect size was found to be 0.836, with an alpha error level set at 0.05. The statistical power of the study was determined to be 99.99%.||||0.001
90863940|NCT06934993|181591074|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.096||||||Statistical significance was defined as cases where the p-value was below 0.05.|Chi-squared|||In LIMA-LAD cases, when the post hoc power analysis results for the relationship between graft patency and flow rate were examined, the effect size was found to be 0.836, with an alpha error level set at 0.05. The statistical power of the study was determined to be 99.99%.||||0.096
90907456|NCT01112735|181683201|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3595|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3595
90907457|NCT01112735|181683202|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9417|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 3||||0.9417
90907458|NCT01112735|181683202|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5488|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 7||||0.5488
90907459|NCT01112735|181683202|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7107|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 14||||0.7107
90907460|NCT01112735|181683202|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8809|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 28||||0.8809
90907461|NCT01112735|181683202|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4598|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 60||||0.4598
90907462|NCT01112735|181683202|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3837|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 90||||0.3837
90907463|NCT01112735|181683203|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9699|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 3||||0.9699
90907464|NCT01112735|181683203|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4709|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 7||||0.4709
90907465|NCT01112735|181683203|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1406|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 14||||0.1406
90959547|NCT05227703|181799340|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.098||0.5456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.25|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 30 mg - Placebo|Week 3-- Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||0.25|-0.13|0.5456
90907466|NCT01112735|181683203|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4291|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 28||||0.4291
90907467|NCT01112735|181683203|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2704|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 60||||0.2704
90907468|NCT01112735|181683203|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7564|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 90||||0.7564
90907469|NCT05780047|181683239|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.05
90907470|NCT05780047|181683240|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||paired samples t-test|||Paired samples t-tests were run to compare whether EHL knowledge, attitudes and behavior changed after the intervention. EHL scores were expected to increase between pre and post testing.||||<0.05
90907471|NCT00615433|181683254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Improvements in PANSS ratings are estimated from 2 prior studies of lurasidone. Assuming lurasidone differs from placebo in change from baseline in PANSS by 6.8 and 10.0 for 40 and 120 mg, respectively, and assuming a standard deviation of 19.1, then n=120 subjects per group provides approximately 97% power (at α=0.05, two-sided) to reject the null hypothesis of no difference from placebo for at least 1 dose. This calculation uses Bonferroni's procedure for controlling pairwise differences.||||<0.05
90907472|NCT00615433|181683255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
90907473|NCT03194776|181683257|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.74|||=|0.2612|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-38.03|2.55||P-value of \<= 0.2 was considered significant.|two-sided test|||Statistical analysis was done by mixed effect model repeat measurement (MMRM) model analysis.||2.55|-38.03|= 0.2612
90907474|NCT00764868|181683267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test of LDX at baseline and 52 weeks||||||<0.001
90907475|NCT00764868|181683269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test of LDX at baseline and 52 weeks||||||<0.001
90907476|NCT00783692|181683270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|7.8||||0.0206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|14.3||P-value is based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi-square test, with stratification according to: 1) concomitant use of oral corticosteroids (yes/no); 2) previous exposure to TNFα antagonists and/or concomitant immunomodulator use (yes/no).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk Difference = adjusted (for stratification factors) percent vedolizumab - adjusted percent placebo|The Hochberg method was applied to control the overall Type I error rate at a 5% significance level for the multiple comparisons of the primary endpoints. If both p-values were ≤ 0.05, both primary endpoints were to be declared significant. If 1 of the p-values for the primary endpoints was \> 0.05, the other p-value was to be tested at the 0.025 level and declared significant only if the p-value was ≤ 0.025. If neither primary was declared significant, no further testing was to be conducted.||14.3|1.2|0.0206
90907477|NCT00783692|181683271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.7||||0.2322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|15.0||P-value is based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi-square test, with stratification according to: 1) concomitant use of oral corticosteroids (yes/no); 2) previous exposure to TNFα antagonists and/or concomitant immunomodulator use (yes/no).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk Difference = adjusted (for stratification factors) percent vedolizumab - adjusted percent placebo|The Hochberg method was applied to control the overall Type I error rate at a 5% significance level for the multiple comparisons of the primary endpoints. If both p-values were ≤ 0.05, both primary endpoints were to be declared significant. If 1 of the p-values for the primary endpoints was \> 0.05, the other p-value was to be tested at the 0.025 level and declared significant only if the p-value was ≤ 0.025. If neither primary was declared significant, no further testing was to be conducted.||15.0|-3.6|0.2322
90940286|NCT01960348|181760352|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-17.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.254|<|1e-07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.32|-13.43||P=1.404E-13|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures|||In the mixed-effect model repeated measures (MMRM) model, the outcome variable is change from baseline in NIS-W. The model includes baseline NIS-W score as covariate and fixed effect terms including treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, genotype, age at hATTR symptom onset, previous tetramer stabilizer use and region.||-13.43|-22.32|<0.0000001
90959548|NCT05227703|181799340|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.8459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.19|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 15 mg - Placebo|Week 4-- Emraclidine 15 mg versus Placebo||0.19|-0.24|0.8459
90863941|NCT06934993|181591074|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance was defined as cases where the p-value was below 0.05.|Chi-squared|||In LIMA-LAD cases, when the post hoc power analysis results for the relationship between graft patency and flow rate were examined, the effect size was found to be 0.836, with an alpha error level set at 0.05. The statistical power of the study was determined to be 99.99%.||||<0.001
90863942|NCT06934993|181591075|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||Statistical significance was defined as cases where the p-value was below 0.05.|Chi-squared|||In LIMA-LAD cases, when the post hoc power analysis results for the relationship between graft patency and flow rate were examined, the effect size was found to be 0.836, with an alpha error level set at 0.05. The statistical power of the study was determined to be 99.99%.||||0.001
90863943|NCT06934993|181591075|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.096||||||Statistical significance was defined as cases where the p-value was below 0.05.|Chi-squared|||In LIMA-LAD cases, when the post hoc power analysis results for the relationship between graft patency and flow rate were examined, the effect size was found to be 0.836, with an alpha error level set at 0.05. The statistical power of the study was determined to be 99.99%.||||0.096
90863944|NCT06934993|181591076|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||Statistical significance was defined as cases where the p-value was below 0.05.|Chi-squared|||In LIMA-LAD cases, when the post hoc power analysis results for the relationship between graft patency and flow rate were examined, the effect size was found to be 0.836, with an alpha error level set at 0.05. The statistical power of the study was determined to be 99.99%.||||0.04
90863945|NCT06934993|181591076|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.679||||||Statistical significance was defined as cases where the p-value was below 0.05.|Chi-squared|||In LIMA-LAD cases, when the post hoc power analysis results for the relationship between graft patency and flow rate were examined, the effect size was found to be 0.836, with an alpha error level set at 0.05. The statistical power of the study was determined to be 99.99%.||||0.679
90863946|NCT06934993|181591076|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011||||||Statistical significance was defined as cases where the p-value was below 0.05.|Chi-squared|||In LIMA-LAD cases, when the post hoc power analysis results for the relationship between graft patency and flow rate were examined, the effect size was found to be 0.836, with an alpha error level set at 0.05. The statistical power of the study was determined to be 99.99%.||||0.011
90863947|NCT01218113|181591077|NON_INFERIORITY|Crierion for non-inferiority evaluation: The upper limit (UL) of the two-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in change between the two arms (3D\_HIV Group - Control Group) is below 0.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.801|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.553|1.162|||Repeated-measures mixed model|||To show the difference in change from baseline of HIV-1 VL at week 48 between persons who received 3 doses of the HIV vaccine 732462 and persons who received placebo alone.||1.162|0.553|
90863948|NCT01218113|181591077|NON_INFERIORITY|Crierion for non-inferiority evaluation: The upper limit (UL) of the two-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in change between the two arms (2D\_HIV Group - Control Group) is below 0.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.184|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.816|1.717|||Repeated-measures mixed model|||To show the difference in change from baseline of HIV-1 VL at week 48 between persons who received 2 doses of the HIV Vaccine 732462 and persons who received placebo alone.||1.717|0.816|
90863949|NCT01218113|181591078|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for non-inferiority evaluation: The upper limit (UL) of the two-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in change between the two arms (3D\_HIV Group - Control Group) is below 0.|Mean Difference|-0.096|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.257|0.065|||Repeated-measures mixed model|||To show the difference in change from baseline of HIV-1 VL (log10-transformed values) at week 48 between persons who received 3 doses of the HIV Vaccine 732462 and persons who received placebo alone.||0.065|-0.257|
90863950|NCT01218113|181591078|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for non-inferiority evaluation: The upper limit (UL) of the two-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in change between the two arms (2D\_HIV Group - Control Group) is below 0.|Mean Difference|0.073|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.088|0.235|||Repeated-measures mixed model|||To show the difference in change from baseline of HIV-1 VL (log10-transformed values) at week 48 between persons who received 2 doses of the HIV Vaccine 732462 and persons who received placebo alone.||0.235|-0.088|
91033116|NCT00048581|181951979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. of Diff: Day 85 ACR 50|12.0||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|19.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|All statistical tests and CI were 2-sided. Percentage of participants with response compared by estimate of difference (Est of Diff)||If ACR20 comparison was significant (5% level), then CMH Chi-square test compared ACR 50 response between groups (5% level). If the ACR20 analysis was not significant (5% level), then the comparison for ACR 50 response was not undertaken. A 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) Chi-square test was used to compare these two treatment groups at the .05 level of significance, with stratification based on baseline history of anti-TNF status (current or prior use).||19.8|4.1|0.002
90863951|NCT01594281|181591144|OTHER|The focus of this PoC study was not on hypothesis testing but on a rough estimation of differences between treatments. The usual p-values are provided as a descriptive tool.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.8||||0.0344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||||-0.2|-5.4|0.0344
90863952|NCT01594281|181591144|OTHER|The focus of this PoC study was not on hypothesis testing but on a rough estimation of differences between treatments. The usual p-values are provided as a descriptive tool.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.2||||0.3809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|1.5|||ANCOVA|||||1.5|-3.8|0.3809
90863953|NCT01594281|181591144|OTHER|The focus of this PoC study was not on hypothesis testing but on a rough estimation of differences between treatments. The usual p-values are provided as a descriptive tool.|Least Squares Mean Difference|1.7||||0.2113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|4.3|||ANCOVA|||||4.3|-1.0|0.2113
90863954|NCT01594281|181591145|OTHER|The focus of this PoC study was not on hypothesis testing but on a rough estimation of differences between treatments. The usual p-values are provided as a descriptive tool.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.4||||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|-0.6|||ANCOVA|||||-0.6|-4.2|0.0081
90863955|NCT01594281|181591145|OTHER|The focus of this PoC study was not on hypothesis testing but on a rough estimation of differences between treatments. The usual p-values are provided as a descriptive tool.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.7494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.5|||ANCOVA|||||1.5|-2.0|0.7494
90863956|NCT01594281|181591145|OTHER|The focus of this PoC study was not on hypothesis testing but on a rough estimation of differences between treatments. The usual p-values are provided as a descriptive tool.|Least Squares Mean Difference|2.1||||0.0175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.9|||ANCOVA|||||3.9|0.4|0.0175
90959549|NCT05227703|181799340|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.108||0.3922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.3|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 30 mg - Placebo|Week 4-- Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||0.30|-0.12|0.3922
90959550|NCT05227703|181799340|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.122||0.2915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.11|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 15 mg - Placebo|Week 5-- Emraclidine 15 mg versus Placebo||0.11|-0.37|0.2915
90959551|NCT05227703|181799340|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.4425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.33|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 30 mg - Placebo|Week 5-- Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||0.33|-0.14|0.4425
90959552|NCT05227703|181799340|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.135||0.1165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.05|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 15 mg - Placebo|Week 6-- Emraclidine 15 mg versus Placebo||0.05|-0.48|0.1165
90863957|NCT01594281|181591146|OTHER|The focus of this PoC study was not on hypothesis testing but on a rough estimation of differences between treatments. The usual p-values are provided as a descriptive tool.|Least Squares Mean Difference|5.5||||0.0495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|11.0|||ANCOVA|||||11.0|0.0|0.0495
90863958|NCT01594281|181591146|OTHER|The focus of this PoC study was not on hypothesis testing but on a rough estimation of differences between treatments. The usual p-values are provided as a descriptive tool.|Least Squares Mean Difference|3.0||||0.2767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|8.5|||ANCOVA|||||8.5|-2.5|0.2767
90959553|NCT05227703|181799340|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.134||0.8265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.29|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 30 mg - Placebo|Week 6-- Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||0.29|-0.23|0.8265
90863959|NCT01594281|181591146|OTHER|The focus of this PoC study was not on hypothesis testing but on a rough estimation of differences between treatments. The usual p-values are provided as a descriptive tool.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.5||||0.3641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|2.9|||ANCOVA|||||2.9|-7.9|0.3641
90863960|NCT01594281|181591147|OTHER|The focus of this PoC study was not on hypothesis testing but on a rough estimation of differences between treatments. The usual p-values are provided as a descriptive tool.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.47||||0.4019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|2.749|||Regression, Logistic|||≥10 letters gain||2.749|0.080|0.4019
90863961|NCT01594281|181591147|OTHER|The focus of this PoC study was not on hypothesis testing but on a rough estimation of differences between treatments. The usual p-values are provided as a descriptive tool.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.833||||0.2772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.614|5.471|||Regression, Logistic|||≥5 letters gain||5.471|0.614|0.2772
90863962|NCT01594281|181591147|OTHER|The focus of this PoC study was not on hypothesis testing but on a rough estimation of differences between treatments. The usual p-values are provided as a descriptive tool.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.412||||0.4731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|3.622|||Regression, Logistic|||No clinically relevant change||3.622|0.55|0.4731
90863963|NCT01594281|181591147|OTHER|The focus of this PoC study was not on hypothesis testing but on a rough estimation of differences between treatments. The usual p-values are provided as a descriptive tool.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.35||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.155|1.068|||Regression, Logistic|||≥5 letters loss||1.068|0.155|0.065
90863964|NCT01594281|181591147|OTHER|The focus of this PoC study was not on hypothesis testing but on a rough estimation of differences between treatments. The usual p-values are provided as a descriptive tool.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.229|4.361|||Regression, Logistic|||≥10 letters loss||4.361|0.229|1.000
90863965|NCT01594281|181591147|OTHER|The focus of this PoC study was not on hypothesis testing but on a rough estimation of differences between treatments. The usual p-values are provided as a descriptive tool.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.314||||0.3261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.031|3.173|||Regression, Logistic|||≥15 letters loss||3.173|0.031|0.3261
90907478|NCT00783692|181683272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|17.4||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.3|27.5||CMH chi-square test, stratified by: 1) concomitant use of oral corticosteroids (yes/no); 2) previous exposure to TNFα antagonists and/or concomitant immunomodulator use (yes/no); 3) enrollment in Cohort 1 or Cohort 2 in the Induction Phase.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk Difference = adjusted (for stratification factors) percent vedolizumab - adjusted percent placebo|The Hochberg method was applied to control the overall Type I error rate at a 5% significance level. If both p-values were ≤ 0.05, both dose regimens were to be declared significant. If 1 of the p-values for the 2 dose comparisons was \> 0.05, the other p-value was to be tested at the 0.025 level and declared significant only if the p-value was ≤ 0.025. If neither dose was declared significant for the primary endpoint, no further testing was to be conducted.||27.5|7.3|0.0007
90907479|NCT00783692|181683272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|14.7||||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.6|24.7||CMH chi-square test, stratified by: 1) concomitant use of oral corticosteroids (yes/no); 2) previous exposure to TNFα antagonists and/or concomitant immunomodulator use (yes/no); 3) enrollment in Cohort 1 or Cohort 2 in the Induction Phase.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk Difference = adjusted (for stratification factors) percent vedolizumab - adjusted percent placebo|The Hochberg method was applied to control the overall Type I error rate at a 5% significance level. If both p-values were ≤ 0.05, both dose regimens were to be declared significant. If 1 of the p-values for the 2 dose comparisons was \> 0.05, the other p-value was to be tested at the 0.025 level and declared significant only if the p-value was ≤ 0.025. If neither dose was declared significant for the primary endpoint, no further testing was to be conducted.||24.7|4.6|0.0042
90863966|NCT01594281|181591147|OTHER|The focus of this PoC study was not on hypothesis testing but on a rough estimation of differences between treatments. The usual p-values are provided as a descriptive tool.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.667||||0.668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.104|4.253|||Regression, Logistic|||≥10 letters gain||4.253|0.104|0.6680
90863967|NCT01594281|181591147|OTHER|The focus of this PoC study was not on hypothesis testing but on a rough estimation of differences between treatments. The usual p-values are provided as a descriptive tool.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.842||||0.0838|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|9.283|||Regression, Logistic|||≥5 letters gain||9.283|0.870|0.0838
90863968|NCT01594281|181591147|OTHER|The focus of this PoC study was not on hypothesis testing but on a rough estimation of differences between treatments. The usual p-values are provided as a descriptive tool.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.674||||0.4116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.263|1.729|||Regression, Logistic|||No clinically relevant change||1.729|0.263|0.4116
90863969|NCT01594281|181591147|OTHER|The focus of this PoC study was not on hypothesis testing but on a rough estimation of differences between treatments. The usual p-values are provided as a descriptive tool.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.621||||0.4197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.195|1.977|||Regression, Logistic|||≥5 letters loss||1.977|0.195|0.4197
90863970|NCT01594281|181591147|OTHER|The focus of this PoC study was not on hypothesis testing but on a rough estimation of differences between treatments. The usual p-values are provided as a descriptive tool.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.419||||0.6632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.294|6.856|||Regression, Logistic|||≥10 letters loss||6.856|0.294|0.6632
90863971|NCT01594281|181591147|OTHER|The focus of this PoC study was not on hypothesis testing but on a rough estimation of differences between treatments. The usual p-values are provided as a descriptive tool.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.029||||0.9839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.062|17.127|||Regression, Logistic|||≥15 letters loss||17.127|0.062|0.9839
90863972|NCT01594281|181591147|OTHER|The focus of this PoC study was not on hypothesis testing but on a rough estimation of differences between treatments. The usual p-values are provided as a descriptive tool.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.419||||0.663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.294|6.858|||Regression, Logistic|||≥10 letters gain||6.858|0.294|0.6630
90907480|NCT00783692|181683273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9288||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum test on the CRP change from baseline values (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||If at least 1 of the primary endpoints was significant, the sequential Hochberg procedure was to be used to test the secondary endpoint for significance at the 0.05% level.||||0.9288
90907481|NCT00783692|181683274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|13.4||||0.0132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|24.0||CMH chi-square test, stratified by: 1) concomitant use of oral corticosteroids (yes/no); 2) previous exposure to TNFα antagonists and/or concomitant immunomodulator use (yes/no); 3) enrollment in Cohort 1 or Cohort 2 in the Induction Phase.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk Difference = adjusted (for stratification factors) percent vedolizumab - adjusted percent placebo|To maintain the overall Type I error rate at 5% in the multiple-dose comparisons in each key secondary endpoint, the Hochberg method was used. To further maintain the overall Type I error rate at 5%, the key secondary assessments were performed sequentially. The first key secondary endpoint was tested only if 1 or both of the primary comparisons were significant and the next key secondary endpoint was to be tested only if the previous key secondary endpoint was significant for at least 1 dose.||24.0|2.8|0.0132
90907482|NCT00783692|181683274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|15.3||||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.6|26.0||CMH chi-square test, stratified by: 1) concomitant use of oral corticosteroids (yes/no); 2) previous exposure to TNFα antagonists and/or concomitant immunomodulator use (yes/no); 3) enrollment in Cohort 1 or Cohort 2 in the Induction Phase.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk Difference = adjusted (for stratification factors) percent vedolizumab - adjusted percent placebo|To maintain the overall Type I error rate at 5% in the multiple-dose comparisons in each key secondary endpoint, the Hochberg method was used. To further maintain the overall Type I error rate at 5%, the key secondary assessments were performed sequentially. The first key secondary endpoint was tested only if 1 or both of the primary comparisons were significant and the next key secondary endpoint was to be tested only if the previous key secondary endpoint was significant for at least 1 dose.||26.0|4.6|0.0053
90907483|NCT00783692|181683275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|15.9||||0.0154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|28.7||P-value is based on the CMH chi-square test, with stratification according to: 1) previous exposure to TNFα antagonists and/or concomitant immunomodulator use (yes/no); 2) enrollment in Cohort 1 or Cohort 2 in the Induction Phase.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk Difference = adjusted (for stratification factors) percent vedolizumab - adjusted percent placebo|To maintain the overall Type I error rate at 5% in the multiple-dose comparisons in each key secondary endpoint, the Hochberg method was used. To further maintain the overall Type I error rate at 5%, the key secondary assessments were performed sequentially. The first key secondary endpoint was tested only if 1 or both of the primary comparisons were significant and the next key secondary endpoint was to be tested only if the previous key secondary endpoint was significant for at least 1 dose.||28.7|3.0|0.0154
90959554|NCT05227703|181799341|SUPERIORITY|Odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were from a logistic regression with treatment group, geographic region and baseline value as a covariate.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.4597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|2.33|||Regression, Logistic|||Emraclidine 15 mg versus Placebo||2.33|0.68|0.4597
90863973|NCT01594281|181591147|OTHER|The focus of this PoC study was not on hypothesis testing but on a rough estimation of differences between treatments. The usual p-values are provided as a descriptive tool.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.4941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.441|5.444||P-value was calculated as a point estimate.|Regression, Logistic|||≥5 letters gain||5.444|0.441|0.4941
90863974|NCT01594281|181591147|OTHER|The focus of this PoC study was not on hypothesis testing but on a rough estimation of differences between treatments. The usual p-values are provided as a descriptive tool.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.477||||0.1259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.185|1.231|||Regression, Logistic|||No clinically relevant change||1.231|0.185|0.1259
90863975|NCT01594281|181591147|OTHER|The focus of this PoC study was not on hypothesis testing but on a rough estimation of differences between treatments. The usual p-values are provided as a descriptive tool.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.773||||0.271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|4.913|||Regression, Logistic|||≥5 letters loss||4.913|0.640|0.2710
90863976|NCT01594281|181591147|OTHER|The focus of this PoC study was not on hypothesis testing but on a rough estimation of differences between treatments. The usual p-values are provided as a descriptive tool.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.419||||0.6632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.294|6.856|||Regression, Logistic|||≥10 letters loss||6.856|0.294|0.6632
91033117|NCT00048581|181951979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. of Diff: Day 85 ACR 70|5.1||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|9.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|All statistical tests and CI were 2-sided. Percentage of participants with response compared by estimate of difference (Est of Diff)||If ACR20 comparison was significant (5% level), then CMH Chi-square test compared ACR 70 response between groups (5% level). If the ACR20 analysis was not significant (5% level), then the comparison for ACR 70 response was not undertaken. A 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) Chi-square test was used to compare these two treatment groups at the .05 level of significance, with stratification based on baseline history of anti-TNF status (current or prior use).||9.8|0.4|0.033
90863977|NCT01594281|181591147|OTHER|The focus of this PoC study was not on hypothesis testing but on a rough estimation of differences between treatments. The usual p-values are provided as a descriptive tool.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.282||||0.314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.325|33.171|||Regression, Logistic|||≥15 letters loss||33.171|0.325|0.3140
90863978|NCT01594281|181591148|OTHER|The focus of this PoC study was not on hypothesis testing but on a rough estimation of differences between treatments. The usual p-values are provided as a descriptive tool.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.994||||0.9918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.327|3.026|||Regression, Logistic|||≥ 1 class improvement from Baseline at EOCS||3.026|0.327|0.9918
90863979|NCT01594281|181591148|OTHER|The focus of this PoC study was not on hypothesis testing but on a rough estimation of differences between treatments. The usual p-values are provided as a descriptive tool.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.607||||0.3595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.209|1.765|||Regression, Logistic|||≥ 1 class improvement from Baseline at EOCS||1.765|0.209|0.3595
90863980|NCT01594281|181591148|OTHER|The focus of this PoC study was not on hypothesis testing but on a rough estimation of differences between treatments. The usual p-values are provided as a descriptive tool.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.611||||0.3787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.204|1.83|||Regression, Logistic|||≥ 1 class improvement from Baseline at EOCS||1.830|0.204|0.3787
90863981|NCT01594281|181591148|OTHER|The focus of this PoC study was not on hypothesis testing but on a rough estimation of differences between treatments. The usual p-values are provided as a descriptive tool.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.889||||0.9097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.116|6.806|||Regression, Logistic|||≥ 2 class improvement from Baseline at EOCS||6.806|0.116|0.9097
90863982|NCT01594281|181591148|OTHER|The focus of this PoC study was not on hypothesis testing but on a rough estimation of differences between treatments. The usual p-values are provided as a descriptive tool.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.341||||0.223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|1.925|||Regression, Logistic|||≥ 2 class improvement from Baseline at EOCS||1.925|0.060|0.2230
90863983|NCT01594281|181591148|OTHER|The focus of this PoC study was not on hypothesis testing but on a rough estimation of differences between treatments. The usual p-values are provided as a descriptive tool.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.383||||0.2792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.068|2.177|||Regression, Logistic|||≥ 2 class improvement from Baseline at EOCS||2.177|0.068|0.2792
90863984|NCT01594281|181591149|OTHER|The focus of this PoC study was not on hypothesis testing but on a rough estimation of differences between treatments. The usual p-values are provided as a descriptive tool.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-40.7||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.1|-19.3|||ANCOVA|||||-19.3|-62.1|0.0003
90863985|NCT01594281|181591149|OTHER|The focus of this PoC study was not on hypothesis testing but on a rough estimation of differences between treatments. The usual p-values are provided as a descriptive tool.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-22.9||||0.0357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.2|-1.6|||ANCOVA|||||-1.6|-44.2|0.0357
90863986|NCT01594281|181591149|OTHER|The focus of this PoC study was not on hypothesis testing but on a rough estimation of differences between treatments. The usual p-values are provided as a descriptive tool.|Least Squares Mean Difference|17.8||||0.1034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|39.3|||ANCOVA|||||39.3|-3.7|0.1034
90863987|NCT01594281|181591150|OTHER|The focus of this PoC study was not on hypothesis testing but on a rough estimation of differences between treatments. The usual p-values are provided as a descriptive tool.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-51.7||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-81.1|-22.3|||ANCOVA|||||-22.3|-81.1|0.0007
90863988|NCT01594281|181591150|OTHER|The focus of this PoC study was not on hypothesis testing but on a rough estimation of differences between treatments. The usual p-values are provided as a descriptive tool.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-28.9||||0.0542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.4|0.5|||ANCOVA|||||0.5|-58.4|0.0542
90863989|NCT01594281|181591150|OTHER|The focus of this PoC study was not on hypothesis testing but on a rough estimation of differences between treatments. The usual p-values are provided as a descriptive tool.|Least Squares Mean Difference|22.8||||0.1288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|52.3|||ANCOVA|||||52.3|-6.7|0.1288
90863990|NCT01890473|181591199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean|0.908|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.815|1.01||||||The PK comparability of the two devices was assessed via a linear model for each key PK parameter in log scale (using log (Cmax) without a formal test.||1.01|0.815|
90863991|NCT01890473|181591200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean|0.941|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.843|1.05||||||The PK comparability of the two devices was assessed via a linear model for each key PK parameter in log scale, using log (AUC (0-T) without a formal test.||1.05|0.843|
90863992|NCT01890473|181591201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean|0.976|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.888|1.07||||||The PK comparability of the two devices was assessed via a linear model for each key PK parameter in log scale, using log AUC(INF) without a formal test.||1.07|0.888|
90863993|NCT03166735|181591210|OTHER||Predicted mean daily dose in mg|3.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|||||||||non-linear regression||The model fit used power of mean variance estimates (POM) to account for heterogeneity.|D10: Estimated dose reaching \<=10% activity the first time.||||
90863994|NCT03166735|181591212|OTHER|The MMRM included fixed effects for 'base', 'treatment', 'time', 'base\*time' interaction, and 'treatment\*time' interaction. Estimates were used to test dose-response relationship using MCPMod.||||||0.0212||||||p\<0.05 is a significant test result (rejecting the null hypothesis of a flat dose-response curve) with alpha 0.05, one-sided.|MCPMod Sigmoidal Emax model fit.|30% of the maximum effect is achieved at 3 mg and 90% of the maximum effect is achieved at 7 mg of BI 1467335||||||0.0212
90863995|NCT03166735|181591213|OTHER|The MMRM included fixed effects for 'base', 'treatment', 'time', 'base\*time' interaction, and 'treatment\*time' interaction. Estimates were used to test dose-response relationship using MCPMod.||||||0.127||||||p\<0.05 is a significant test result (rejecting the null hypothesis of a flat dose-response curve) with alpha 0.05, one-sided.|MCPMod Sigmoidal Emax model fit.|30% of the maximum effect is achieved at 3 mg and 90% of the maximum effect is achieved at 7 mg of BI 1467335||||||0.1270
90863996|NCT03166735|181591214|OTHER|The MMRM included fixed effects for 'base', 'treatment', 'time', 'base\*time' interaction, and 'treatment\*time' interaction. Estimates were used to test dose-response relationship using MCPMod.||||||0.3324||||||p\<0.05 is a significant test result (rejecting the null hypothesis of a flat dose-response curve) with alpha 0.05, one-sided.|MCPMod exponential model fit.|90% of the maximum effect is achieved at 7 mg of BI 1467335||||||0.3324
90863997|NCT03166735|181591215|OTHER|The MMRM included fixed effects for 'base', 'treatment', 'time', 'base\*time' interaction, and 'treatment\*time' interaction. Estimates were used to test dose-response relationship using MCPMod.||||||0.129||||||p\<0.05 is a significant test result (rejecting the null hypothesis of a flat dose-response curve) with alpha 0.05, one-sided.|MCPMod exponential model fit.|90% of the maximum effect is achieved at 7 mg of BI 1467335||||||0.1290
90863998|NCT03166735|181591216|OTHER|The MMRM included fixed effects for 'base', 'treatment', 'time', 'base\*time' interaction, and 'treatment\*time' interaction. Estimates were used to test dose-response relationship using MCPMod.||||||0.0042||||||p\<0.05 is a significant test result (rejecting the null hypothesis of a flat dose-response curve) with alpha 0.05, one-sided.|MCPMod Sigmoidal Emax model fit.|30% of the maximum effect is achieved at 3 mg and 90% of the maximum effect is achieved at 7 mg of BI 1467335||||||0.0042
90863999|NCT03166735|181591217|OTHER|The MMRM included fixed effects for 'base', 'treatment', 'time', 'base\*time' interaction, and 'treatment\*time' interaction. Estimates were used to test dose-response relationship using MCPMod.||||||0.0728||||||p\<0.05 is a significant test result (rejecting the null hypothesis of a flat dose-response curve) with alpha 0.05, one-sided.|MCPMod exponential model fit.|90% of the maximum effect is achieved at 7 mg of BI 1467335||||||0.0728
90864000|NCT01543958|181591218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87||||||not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Sign test|no other adjustment||||||0.87
90864001|NCT01543958|181591219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Sign test|no other adjustment||||||0.62
90864002|NCT01945281|181591268|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by stratum (Weight category based on weight at study entry) with Cochran Mantel-Haenszel's weights.|Difference in Percentage|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.3|27.7|||||Caspofungin minus Amphotericin|||27.7|-24.3|
90864003|NCT01945281|181591269|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by stratum (Weight category based on weight at study entry) with Cochran Mantel-Haenszel's weights.|Difference in Percentage|-6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.2|22.6|||||Caspofungin minus Amphotericin|||22.6|-30.2|
90864004|NCT00926328|181591271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
90864005|NCT00926328|181591272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
90864006|NCT05673889|181591500|OTHER|Mixed Model|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|192.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|166.56|221.79|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|Dabigatran etexilate administered alone as Reference, ARV-471 coadministered with dabigatran etexilate as Test. Natural log transformed Cmax was analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% CIs were obtained from the model and were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||221.79|166.56|
90864007|NCT05673889|181591501|OTHER|Mixed Model|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|197.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|177.32|220.66|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|Dabigatran etexilate administered alone as Reference, ARV-471 coadministered with dabigatran etexilate as Test. Natural log transformed Cmax was analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% CIs were obtained from the model and were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||220.66|177.32|
90864008|NCT01776840|181591531|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.96|||Log Rank|||||0.96|0.59|0.011
90864009|NCT03068455|181591547|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.04|||||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model. Hazard Ratio is Nivolumab + Ipilimumab over Nivolumab|||1.04|0.78|
90959555|NCT05227703|181799341|SUPERIORITY|Odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were from a logistic regression with treatment group, geographic region and baseline value as a covariate.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.57||||0.1205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.16|||Regression, Logistic|||Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||1.16|0.28|0.1205
90940287|NCT01960348|181760353|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.01|<|1e-07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|10.9||P=4.066E-16|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures|||In the mixed-effect model repeated measures (MMRM) model, the outcome variable is change from baseline in R-ODS value. The model includes baseline R-ODS score as covariate and fixed effect terms including treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline NIS, genotype, age at hATTR symptom onset, previous tetramer stabilizer use and region.||10.9|7.0|<0.0000001
90864010|NCT03068455|181591548|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.14|||||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model. Hazard Ratio is Nivolumab + Ipilimumab over Nivolumab|||1.14|0.75|
90864011|NCT03068455|181591549|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.32|||||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model. Hazard Ratio is Nivolumab + Ipilimumab over Nivolumab.|||1.32|0.80|
90864012|NCT03068455|181591550|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.73|||||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model. Hazard Ratio is Nivolumab + Ipilimumab over Nivolumab.|||1.73|0.85|
90864013|NCT03068455|181591551|SUPERIORITY|\< 1% Tumor PD-L1 Expression|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.14|||||Unstratisfied HR, Nivolumab over Ipilimumab|||1.14|0.73|
90864014|NCT03068455|181591551|SUPERIORITY|\>= 1% Tumor PD-L1 Expression|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.18|||||Unstratisfied HR, Nivolumab over ipilimumab|||1.18|0.76|
90864015|NCT03068455|181591551|SUPERIORITY|\>= 5% Tumor PD-L1 Expression|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.34|||||Unstratisfied HR, Nivolumab over ipilimumab|||1.34|0.71|
90864016|NCT03068455|181591551|SUPERIORITY|\< 5% Tumor PD-L1 Expression|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.1|||||Unstratisfied HR, Nivolumab over ipilimumab|||1.10|0.77|
90864017|NCT03068455|181591551|SUPERIORITY|Non-quantifiable Tumor PD-L1 Expression|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.51|||||Unstratisfied HR, Nivolumab over ipilimumab|||1.51|0.38|
90864018|NCT05338216|181591564|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.63||||0.021||95.0|4.37|36.24||Threshold for significance: p \< 0.05. No correction for multiple comparisons performed due to only two tests conducted and exploratory nature of this pilot study.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Hypothesis: Compliance would be significantly higher for micro-interaction based versus traditional EMA. Null hypothesis: No difference between conditions.||36.24|4.37|0.021
90864019|NCT05338216|181591565|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.34||||0.027||95.0|0.78|32.77||Threshold for significance: p \< 0.05. No correction for multiple comparisons performed due to only two tests conducted and exploratory nature of this pilot study.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Hypothesis: Completion would be significantly higher for micro-interaction based versus traditional EMA. Null hypothesis: No difference between conditions.||32.77|0.78|0.027
90864020|NCT04457336|181591571|OTHER|Assessment of dose response for change from baseline in log 17-OHP after 12 weeks on double-blind, placebo-controlled treatment (Week 18). Results were obtained by using a repeated measures random coefficient mixed-effects model and are reported as the -2loglikelihood results for both the full (including interaction terms) and reduced (excluding interaction terms) models.||||||0.8051||||||Dose response p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|The result for the -2loglikelihood full model was -580.2550766 log(ng/dL) and -583.2846546 log(ng/dL) for the reduced model.||||||0.8051
90864021|NCT01350492|181591670|SUPERIORITY||Wilks' Lambda|0.939||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Multivariate regression|A Generalized Linear Model was employed with repeated measurements of pain ratings as the multivariate dependent variables and group as covariate.||General multivariate regression models were used to estimate the time averaged difference in pain ratings and other symptom scores (continuous measurements) between the treatment and the control group. In order to achieve 90% power, at alpha equal to .05, with an effect size of .6 (minimum effect size of clinical importance) and with a correlation of .6 between measurements from each individual, we estimated the necessary sample size at 34 subjects per group.||||0.680
90864022|NCT01350492|181591671|SUPERIORITY||Wilks' Lambda|0.96||||0.854|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Mulitvariate regression|A Generalized Linear Model was employed with repeated measurements of pain ratings as the multivariate dependent variables and group as covariate.||General multivariate regression models were used to estimate the time averaged difference in pain ratings and other symptom scores (continuous measurements) between the treatment and the control group. In order to achieve 90% power, at alpha equal to .05, with an effect size of .6 (minimum effect size of clinical importance) and with a correlation of .6 between measurements from each individual, we estimated the necessary sample size at 34 subjects per group.||||0.854
90907484|NCT00783692|181683275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|12.9||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|25.5||P-value is based on the CMH chi-square test, with stratification according to: 1) previous exposure to TNFα antagonists and/or concomitant immunomodulator use (yes/no); 2) enrollment in Cohort 1 or Cohort 2 in the Induction Phase.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk Difference = adjusted (for stratification factors) percent vedolizumab - adjusted percent placebo|To maintain the overall Type I error rate at 5% in the multiple-dose comparisons in each key secondary endpoint, the Hochberg method was used. To further maintain the overall Type I error rate at 5%, the key secondary assessments were performed sequentially. The first key secondary endpoint was tested only if 1 or both of the primary comparisons were significant and the next key secondary endpoint was to be tested only if the previous key secondary endpoint was significant for at least 1 dose.||25.5|0.3|0.0450
90907485|NCT00783692|181683276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|7.2||||0.1036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|16.0||CMH chi-square test, stratified by: 1) concomitant use of oral corticosteroids (yes/no); 2) previous exposure to TNFα antagonists and/or concomitant immunomodulator use (yes/no); 3) enrollment in Cohort 1 or Cohort 2 in the Induction Phase.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk Difference = adjusted (for stratification factors) percent vedolizumab - adjusted percent placebo|To maintain the overall Type I error rate at 5% in the multiple-dose comparisons in each key secondary endpoint, the Hochberg method was used. To further maintain the overall Type I error rate at 5%, the key secondary assessments were performed sequentially. The first key secondary endpoint was tested only if 1 or both of the primary comparisons were significant and the next key secondary endpoint was to be tested only if the previous key secondary endpoint was significant for at least 1 dose.||16.0|-1.5|0.1036
90864023|NCT01350492|181591672|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Multivariate regression|A Generalized Linear Model was employed with repeated measurements of pain ratings as the multivariate dependent variables and group as covariate.||General multivariate regression models were used to estimate the time averaged difference in pain ratings and other symptom scores (continuous measurements) between the treatment and the control group. In order to achieve 90% power, at alpha equal to .05, with an effect size of .6 (minimum effect size of clinical importance) and with a correlation of .6 between measurements from each individual, we estimated the necessary sample size at 34 subjects per group.||||0.0002
90864024|NCT01350492|181591673|SUPERIORITY||Wilks' Lambda|0.857||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Multivariate regression|A Generalized Linear Model was employed with repeated measurements of pain ratings as the multivariate dependent variables and group as covariate.||General multivariate regression models were used to estimate the time averaged difference in pain ratings and other symptom scores (continuous measurements) between the treatment and the control group. In order to achieve 90% power, at alpha equal to .05, with an effect size of .6 (minimum effect size of clinical importance) and with a correlation of .6 between measurements from each individual, we estimated the necessary sample size at 34 subjects per group.||||0.41
90864025|NCT01350492|181591674|SUPERIORITY||Wilks' Lambda|0.828||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Multivariate regression|A Generalized Linear Model was employed with repeated measurements of pain ratings as the multivariate dependent variables and group as covariate.||General multivariate regression models were used to estimate the time averaged difference in pain ratings and other symptom scores (continuous measurements) between the treatment and the control group. In order to achieve 90% power, at alpha equal to .05, with an effect size of .6 (minimum effect size of clinical importance) and with a correlation of .6 between measurements from each individual, we estimated the necessary sample size at 34 subjects per group.||||0.16
90864026|NCT01350492|181591675|SUPERIORITY||Wilks' Lambda|0.919||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Multivariate regression|A Generalized Linear Model was employed with repeated measurements of pain ratings as the multivariate dependent variables and group as covariate.||General multivariate regression models were used to estimate the time averaged difference in pain ratings and other symptom scores (continuous measurements) between the treatment and the control group. In order to achieve 90% power, at alpha equal to .05, with an effect size of .6 (minimum effect size of clinical importance) and with a correlation of .6 between measurements from each individual, we estimated the necessary sample size at 34 subjects per group.||||0.66
90864027|NCT03800173|181591694|OTHER||Slope|0.982|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.868|1.096||||||A model with In-transformed dose (dose continuous) as a fixed effect \& subject as a random effect was applied to In-transformed Cmax. Dose proportionality was assessed by restricted max likelihood using SAS PROC MIXED. The mean slope was estimated from the power model \& the corresponding 90% CI calculated. Although there was no formal statistical hypothesis tested for this secondary objective, there was evidence for dose proportionality if the 90% CI of the fixed slope for In-dose contained 1.||1.096|0.868|
90864028|NCT03800173|181591695|OTHER||Slope|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.872|1.128||||||A model with In-transformed dose (dose continuous) as a fixed effect \& subject as a random effect was applied to In-transformed AUC0-inf Dose proportionality was assessed by restricted max likelihood using SAS PROC MIXED. The mean slope was estimated from the power model \& the corresponding 90% CI calculated. Although there was no formal statistical hypothesis tested for this secondary objective, there was evidence for dose proportionality if the 90% CI of the fixed slope for In-dose contained 1||1.128|0.872|
90864029|NCT03800173|181591695|OTHER||Slope|1.086|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.952|1.219||||||A model with In-transformed dose (dose continuous) as a fixed effect \& subject as a random effect was applied to In-transformed AUC0-t. Dose proportionality was assessed by restricted max likelihood using SAS PROC MIXED. The mean slope was estimated from the power model \& the corresponding 90% CI calculated. Although there was no formal statistical hypothesis tested for this secondary objective, there was evidence for dose proportionality if the 90% CI of the fixed slope for In-dose contained 1.||1.219|0.952|
90864030|NCT02149719|181591697|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
90864031|NCT01235689|181591740|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by Screening smoking status (yes or no) and weight (\< 70 kg or ≥ 70 kg).||||||0.010
90864032|NCT01235689|181591741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by screening smoking status (yes or no) and weight (\< 70 kg, ≥ 70 kg).||||||0.014
90864033|NCT01235689|181591742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by screening smoking status (yes or no) and weight (\< 70 kg, ≥ 70 kg).||||||0.006
90864034|NCT01235689|181591743|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by screening smoking status (yes or no) and weight (\< 70 kg, ≥ 70 kg).||||||0.010
90907486|NCT00783692|181683276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.0||||0.6413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|10.2||CMH chi-square test, stratified by: 1) concomitant use of oral corticosteroids (yes/no); 2) previous exposure to TNFα antagonists and/or concomitant immunomodulator use (yes/no); 3) enrollment in Cohort 1 or Cohort 2 in the Induction Phase.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk Difference = adjusted (for stratification factors) percent vedolizumab - adjusted percent placebo|To maintain the overall Type I error rate at 5% in the multiple-dose comparisons in each key secondary endpoint, the Hochberg method was used. To further maintain the overall Type I error rate at 5%, the key secondary assessments were performed sequentially. The first key secondary endpoint was tested only if 1 or both of the primary comparisons were significant and the next key secondary endpoint was to be tested only if the previous key secondary endpoint was significant for at least 1 dose.||10.2|-6.3|0.6413
90907487|NCT04438785|181683296|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Evaluate if the Apnea Hypopnea Index from Baseline and after three months in the Intervention Group showed statistical significant difference p\<0.05 .||||<0.001
90907488|NCT04438785|181683297|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.971||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Evaluate if the O2 desaturation index (ODI) from Baseline and after three months in the Intervention Group showed statistical significant difference p\<0.05 .||||0.003
90864035|NCT01235689|181591744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.299|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by screening smoking status (yes or no) and weight (\< 70 kg, ≥ 70 kg).||||||0.299
90864036|NCT01235689|181591745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.728|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by screening smoking status (yes or no) and weight (\< 70 kg, ≥ 70 kg).||||||0.728
90864037|NCT01235689|181591746|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.067|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by screening smoking status (yes or no) and weight (\< 70 kg, ≥ 70 kg).||||||0.067
90864038|NCT01235689|181591747|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.4||||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|0.4|||ANCOVA|Model included factors for treatment group, screening smoking status (yes or no), and weight (\< 70 kg, ≥ 70 kg), and Baseline values as covariate.||||0.4|-3.2|0.116
90907489|NCT04438785|181683298|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.364||||0.001|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Evaluate if the IOPI tongue score from baseline and after three months in the Intervention Group showed statistical significant difference p\<0.05 .||||0.001
90907490|NCT04438785|181683299|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.131||||0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Evaluate if the IOPI lip score from the baseline and after three months in the Intervention Group showed statistical significant difference p\<0.05 .||||0.001
90864039|NCT01235689|181591749|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.442||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.8|||Regression, Cox|||||0.8|0.2|0.012
90864040|NCT01235689|181591750|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.45||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.9|||Regression, Cox|||||1.9|1.1|0.008
90864041|NCT01235689|181591751|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.337||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.8|||Regression, Cox|||||1.8|1.0|0.052
90864042|NCT01235689|181591754|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.823||||0.501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.5|||Regression, Cox|||||1.5|0.5|0.501
90864043|NCT01235689|181591755|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.785||||0.459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.5|||Regression, Cox|||||1.5|0.4|0.459
90864044|NCT01235689|181591762|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.423||||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.6|||Regression, Cox|||||1.6|0.1|0.212
90864045|NCT03407625|181591811|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.05|||log binomial regression||||We used generalized estimating equations for the log binomial regression with cluster entered as a random effect.|1.05|0.95|0.86
90864046|NCT00806351|181591835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference|-27.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.9|40.3||||||The 95 percent confidence interval (95% CI) was calculated using the method of exact unconditional confidence limits for the difference. Global response (rates of success) by using a 2-sided 95% CI for the true difference in efficacy (Anidulafungin minus Caspofungin) was calculated. Statistical testing was done at 2.5% alpha.||40.3|-80.9|
90864047|NCT00806351|181591836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference|-27.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.9|40.3||||||The 95% CI was calculated using the method of exact unconditional confidence limits for the difference. Global response (rates of success) by using a 2-sided 95% CI for the true difference in efficacy (Anidulafungin minus Caspofungin) was calculated. Statistical testing was done at 2.5% alpha.||40.3|-80.9|
90864048|NCT00806351|181591837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference|-40.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-97.5|63.9||||||The 95% CI was calculated using the method of exact unconditional confidence limits for the difference. Global response (rates of success) by using a 2-sided 95% CI for the true difference in efficacy (Anidulafungin minus Caspofungin) was calculated. Statistical testing was done at 2.5% alpha.||63.9|-97.5|
90864049|NCT00806351|181591838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference|-50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-97.5|55.0||||||The 95% CI was calculated using the method of exact unconditional confidence limits for the difference. Global response (rates of success) by using a 2-sided 95% CI for the true difference in efficacy (Anidulafungin minus Caspofungin) was calculated. Statistical testing was done at 2.5% alpha.||55.0|-97.5|
90864050|NCT00806351|181591843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference|-36.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-90.6|31.9||||||The 95% CI was calculated using the method of exact unconditional confidence limits for the difference. Global response (rates of success) by using a 2-sided 95% CI for the true difference in efficacy (Anidulafungin minus Caspofungin) was calculated. Statistical testing was done at 2.5% alpha.||31.9|-90.6|
90864051|NCT00289783|181591880|EQUIVALENCE|Criteria for lot-to-lot consistency (1 month after primary vaccination): For each pair of lots and for the immune response to anti-PRP measured by Enzyme Linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA) the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the geometric mean concentrations (GMCs) ratio between lots is within the \[0.5; 2.0\] interval.|GMC ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.42||||||To demonstrate the lot-to-lot consistency of 3 manufacturing lots of Hib-MenCY-TT vaccine co-administered with DTPa-HBV-IPV vaccine following 3 primary doses in terms of immunogenicity for polyribosylribitol phosphate (PRP) as measured by ELISA.||1.42|0.89|
90864052|NCT00289783|181591880|EQUIVALENCE|Criteria for lot-to-lot consistency (1 month after primary vaccination): For each pair of lots and for the immune response to anti-PRP measured by ELISA the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the geometric mean concentrations (GMCs) ratio between lots is within the \[0.5; 2.0\] interval.|GMC ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.42||||||To demonstrate the lot-to-lot consistency of 3 manufacturing lots of Hib-MenCY-TT vaccine co-administered with DTPa-HBV-IPV vaccine following 3 primary doses in terms of immunogenicity for polyribosylribitol phosphate (PRP) as measured by ELISA.||1.42|0.89|
90864053|NCT00289783|181591880|EQUIVALENCE|Criteria for lot-to-lot consistency (1 month after primary vaccination): For each pair of lots and for the immune response to anti-PRP measured by ELISA the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the geometric mean concentrations (GMCs) ratio between lots is within the \[0.5; 2.0\] interval.|GMC ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.26||||||To demonstrate the lot-to-lot consistency of 3 manufacturing lots of Hib-MenCY-TT vaccine co-administered with DTPa-HBV-IPV vaccine following 3 primary doses in terms of immunogenicity for polyribosylribitol phosphate (PRP) as measured by ELISA.||1.26|0.8|
90907491|NCT04438785|181683300|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.98||||0.92|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Evaluate if the neck circumference from Baseline and after three months in the Intervention Group showed statistical significant difference p\<0.05 .||||0.92
90864054|NCT00289783|181591881|EQUIVALENCE|For each pair of lots and for the immune response to hSBA-MenC, the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the geometric mean titers (GMTs) ratio between lots is within the \[0.5; 2.0\] interval.|GMT ratio|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.62||||||To demonstrate the lot-to-lot consistency of 3 manufacturing lots of Hib-MenCY-TT vaccine co-administered with DTPa-HBV-IPV vaccine following 3 primary doses in terms of immunogenicity for N. meningitidis serogroup C (MenC) as measured by a serum bactericidal assay using human complement (hSBA).||1.62|0.93|
90864055|NCT00289783|181591881|EQUIVALENCE|For each pair of lots and for the immune response to hSBA-MenC, the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the geometric mean titers (GMTs) ratio between lots is within the \[0.5; 2.0\] interval.|GMT ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.29||||||To demonstrate the lot-to-lot consistency of 3 manufacturing lots of Hib-MenCY-TT vaccine co-administered with DTPa-HBV-IPV vaccine following 3 primary doses in terms of immunogenicity for N. meningitidis serogroup C (MenC) as measured by a serum bactericidal assay using human complement (hSBA).||1.29|0.74|
90864056|NCT00289783|181591881|EQUIVALENCE|For each pair of lots and for the immune response to hSBA-MenC, the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the geometric mean titers (GMTs) ratio between lots is within the \[0.5; 2.0\] interval.|GMT ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.04||||||To demonstrate the lot-to-lot consistency of 3 manufacturing lots of Hib-MenCY-TT vaccine co-administered with DTPa-HBV-IPV vaccine following 3 primary doses in terms of immunogenicity for N. meningitidis serogroup C (MenC) as measured by a serum bactericidal assay using human complement (hSBA).||1.04|0.6|
90864057|NCT00289783|181591882|EQUIVALENCE|For each pair of lots and for the immune response to hSBA-MenY, the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the geometric mean titers (GMTs) ratio between lots is within the \[0.5; 2.0\] interval.|GMT ratio|1.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|2.27||||||To demonstrate the lot-to-lot consistency of 3 manufacturing lots of Hib-MenCY-TT vaccine co-administered with DTPa-HBV-IPV vaccine following 3 primary doses in terms of immunogenicity for N. meningitidis serogroup Y (MenY) as measured by a serum bactericidal assay using human complement (hSBA).||2.27|1.14|
90864058|NCT00289783|181591882|EQUIVALENCE|For each pair of lots and for the immune response to hSBA-MenY, the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the geometric mean titers (GMTs) ratio between lots is within the \[0.5; 2.0\] interval.|GMT ratio|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.97||||||To demonstrate the lot-to-lot consistency of 3 manufacturing lots of Hib-MenCY-TT vaccine co-administered with DTPa-HBV-IPV vaccine following 3 primary doses in terms of immunogenicity for N. meningitidis serogroup Y (MenY) as measured by a serum bactericidal assay using human complement (hSBA).||1.97|0.99|
90864059|NCT00289783|181591882|EQUIVALENCE|For each pair of lots and for the immune response to hSBA-MenY, the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the geometric mean titers (GMTs) ratio between lots is within the \[0.5; 2.0\] interval.|GMT ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.21||||||To demonstrate the lot-to-lot consistency of 3 manufacturing lots of Hib-MenCY-TT vaccine co-administered with DTPa-HBV-IPV vaccine following 3 primary doses in terms of immunogenicity for N. meningitidis serogroup Y (MenY) as measured by a serum bactericidal assay using human complement (hSBA).||1.21|0.62|
90864060|NCT00289783|181591883|NON_INFERIORITY|Criteria for immunogenicity of MenC (42 days after the fourth dose): Lower limit of the asymptotic 95% CI for the geometric mean of individual ratio of post-dose 4/pre-dose 4 is ≥ 2.|GMT ratio|12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.4|13.8||||||To evaluate the specific effect of a fourth dose of Menhibrix vaccine co-administered with M-M-R II and Varivax vaccines at 12 to 15 months of age in terms of a fourth dose vaccine response as measured by hSBA-MenC.||13.8|10.4|
90864061|NCT00289783|181591883|NON_INFERIORITY|Point estimate = Lower limit (LL) = Upper limit (UL) as LL and UL values were not available due to the departure from lognormal distribution (large number of imputed values)|GMT ratio|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|1.4||||||To evaluate the specific effect of a fourth dose of Menhibrix vaccine co-administered with M-M-R II and Varivax vaccines at 12 to 15 months of age in terms of a fourth dose vaccine response as measured by hSBA-MenC.||1.4|1.4|
90864062|NCT00289783|181591884|NON_INFERIORITY|Criteria for immunogenicity of MenY (42 days after the fourth dose): Lower limit of the asymptotic 95% CI for the geometric mean of individual ratio of post-dose 4/pre-dose 4 is ≥ 2.|GMT ratio|11.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.2|13.8||||||To evaluate the specific effect of a fourth dose of Menhibrix vaccine co-administered with M-M-R II and Varivax vaccines at 12 to 15 months of age in terms of a fourth dose vaccine response as measured by hSBA-MenY.||13.8|10.2|
90864063|NCT00289783|181591884|NON_INFERIORITY|Point estimate = Lower limit (LL) = Upper limit (UL) as LL and UL values were not available due to the departure from lognormal distribution (large number of imputed values).|GMT ratio|21.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.1|21.1||||||To evaluate the specific effect of a fourth dose of Menhibrix vaccine co-administered with M-M-R II and Varivax vaccines at 12 to 15 months of age in terms of a fourth dose vaccine response as measured by hSBA-MenY.||21.1|21.1|
90907492|NCT04438785|181683301|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.98||||0.92|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Evaluate if the waist circumference from baseline and after three months in the Intervention Group showed statistical significant difference p\<0.05 .||||0.92
90907493|NCT04438785|181683302|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.97||||0.98|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Evaluate if the BMI from Baseline and after three months in the Intervention Group showed statistical significant difference p\<0.05 .||||0.98
90907494|NCT04438785|181683303|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.23||||0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Evaluate if the Epworth Sleepiness Scale from Baseline and after three months in the Intervention Group showed statistical significant difference p\<0.05 .||||0.001
90907495|NCT04438785|181683304|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.98||||0.22|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Evaluate if the Pittsburgh sleep quality index from Baseline and after three months in the Intervention Group showed statistical significant difference p\<0.05 .||||0.22
90940288|NCT01960348|181760354|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.311|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0415|<|1e-07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.393||P=1.875E-12|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures|||In the mixed-effect model repeated measures (MMRM) model, the outcome variable is change from baseline in 10-meter walk test result. The model includes baseline 10-meter walk test result as covariate and fixed effect terms including treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline NIS, genotype, age at hATTR symptom onset, previous tetramer stabilizer use and region.||0.393|0.230|<0.0000001
90907496|NCT00689104|181683315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.41||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.09||The response variable for the stratified rank ANCOVA was standardized ranks on change from baseline to Final Visit value with baseline standardized ranks and gender as covariates and geographic region as a stratum.|Stratified rank ANCOVA|LS mean difference was derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, gender, and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.||Since there were 2 coprimary efficacy endpoints and 3 key secondary efficacy endpoints, the multiplicity among the endpoints was controlled at a type I error rate at the alpha = 0.05 level using a stepwise parallel gatekeeping procedure (5 stages). In addition, since two mirabegron treatment groups were compared with placebo per endpoint, the Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity. A stratified rank ANCOVA model was utilized for hypothesis testing.||-0.09|-0.72|0.003
90907497|NCT00689104|181683315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.29||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.03||The response variable for the stratified rank ANCOVA was standardized ranks on change from baseline to Final Visit value with baseline standardized ranks and gender as covariates and geographic region as a stratum.|Stratified rank ANCOVA|LS mean difference was derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, gender, and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.||Since there were 2 coprimary efficacy endpoints and 3 key secondary efficacy endpoints, the multiplicity among the endpoints was controlled at a type I error rate at the alpha = 0.05 level using a stepwise parallel gatekeeping procedure (5 stages). In addition, since two mirabegron treatment groups were compared with placebo per endpoint, the Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity. A stratified rank ANCOVA model was utilized for hypothesis testing.||0.03|-0.61|0.010
90907498|NCT00689104|181683315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.21||The response variable for the stratified rank ANCOVA was standardized ranks on change from baseline to Final Visit value with baseline standardized ranks and gender as covariates and geographic region as a stratum.|Stratified rank ANCOVA|LS mean difference was derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, gender, and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate||Since the comparison between tolterodine and placebo was a secondary analysis, no adjustment for multiplicity was necessary.||0.21|-0.42|0.11
90907499|NCT00689104|181683316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.29||LS mean difference and p-value were derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, gender, and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Since there were 2 coprimary efficacy endpoints and 3 key secondary efficacy endpoints, the multiplicity among the endpoints was controlled at a type I error rate at the alpha = 0.05 level using a stepwise parallel gatekeeping procedure (5 stages). In addition, since two mirabegron treatment groups were compared with placebo per endpoint, the Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity. An ANCOVA model was used for hypothesis testing.||-0.29|-0.90|<0.001
90940289|NCT01960348|181760355|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|115.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.91|<|1e-07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|82.4|149.0||P=8.832E-11|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures|||In the mixed-effect model repeated measures (MMRM) model, the outcome variable is change from baseline in mBMI. The model includes baseline mBMI as covariate and fixed effect terms including treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline NIS, genotype, age at hATTR symptom onset, previous tetramer stabilizer use and region.||149.0|82.4|<0.0000001
90940290|NCT01960348|181760356|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.213||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.89|-3.16|||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures|||In the mixed-effect model repeated measures (MMRM) model, the outcome variable is change from baseline in COMPASS-31 total score. The model includes baseline COMPASS-31 score as covariate and fixed effect terms including treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline NIS, genotype, age at hATTR symptom onset, previous tetramer stabilizer use and region.||-3.16|-11.89|0.0008
90940291|NCT01644188|181760377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-29.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.4|-25.3||Threshold for significance ≤0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. ezetimibe|Alirocumab group was compared to ezetimibe group using an appropriate contrast statement.||-25.3|-34.4|<0.0001
90940292|NCT01644188|181760378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-30.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.9|-26.2||Threshold for significance ≤0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. ezetimibe|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||-26.2|-34.9|<0.0001
90940293|NCT01644188|181760379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-29.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.7|-25.1||Threshold for significance ≤0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. ezetimibe|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-25.1|-33.7|<0.0001
90907500|NCT00689104|181683316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.44||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.13||LS mean difference and p-value were derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, gender, and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Since there were 2 coprimary efficacy endpoints and 3 key secondary efficacy endpoints, the multiplicity among the endpoints was controlled at a type I error rate at the alpha = 0.05 level using a stepwise parallel gatekeeping procedure (5 stages). In addition, since two mirabegron treatment groups were compared with placebo per endpoint, the Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity. An ANCOVA model was used for hypothesis testing.||-0.13|-0.74|0.005
90907501|NCT00689104|181683316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.25||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.06||LS mean difference and p-value were derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, gender, and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Since the comparison between tolterodine and placebo was a secondary analysis, no adjustment for multiplicity was necessary.||0.06|-0.55|0.11
90907502|NCT00689104|181683317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|11.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|17.4||LS mean difference and p-value were derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, gender, and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Since there were 2 coprimary efficacy endpoints and 3 key secondary efficacy endpoints, the multiplicity among the endpoints was controlled at a type I error rate at the alpha = 0.05 level using a stepwise parallel gatekeeping procedure (5 stages). In addition, since two mirabegron treatment groups were compared with placebo per endpoint, the Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity. An ANCOVA model was used for hypothesis testing.||17.4|6.3|<0.001
90864064|NCT00289783|181591888|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit of the standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the difference (Menhibrix vaccine fourth dose group minus ActHIB fourth dose group) in the percentage of subjects with seroconversion ≥ 150 mIU/mL, in initially seronegative subjects (\<150 mIU/mL), for anti-measles antibody is ≥-5% (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Difference in percentage|-0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.56|3.06||||||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of M-M-R II vaccine when co-administered with a fourth dose of Menhibrix vaccine compared to M-M-R II vaccine co-administered with a fourth dose of PedvaxHIB vaccine, each co-administered with Varivax vaccine.||3.06|-2.56|
90864065|NCT00289783|181591889|NON_INFERIORITY|Criteria for non-inferiority (42 days after the fourth dose): Lower limit of the two-sided standardized asymptotic 95% CI on the difference (Menhibrix vaccine fourth dose group minus ActHIB fourth dose group) in the percentage of subjects with anti-PRP concentration ≥ 1.0 µg/mL is ≥ -10% (clinical limit for non-inferiority)|Difference in percentage|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|3.57||||||To demonstrate that, following a fourth dose, the immune response to Hib polysaccharide (PRP) in the group that received 3 primary vaccine doses of Menhibrix vaccine and a fourth dose of Menhibrix vaccine coadministered with M-M-R II and Varivax vaccines was non-inferior to the corresponding immune response in the group that received 3 primary vaccine doses of ActHIB vaccine and a fourth dose of PedvaxHIB vaccine co-administered with M-M-R II and Varivax vaccines.||3.57|-1.78|
90907503|NCT00689104|181683317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|13.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|18.7||LS mean difference and p-value were derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, gender, and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate|ANCOVA|||Since there were 2 coprimary efficacy endpoints and 3 key secondary efficacy endpoints, the multiplicity among the endpoints was controlled at a type I error rate at the alpha = 0.05 level using a stepwise parallel gatekeeping procedure (5 stages). In addition, since two mirabegron treatment groups were compared with placebo per endpoint, the Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity. An ANCOVA model was used for hypothesis testing.||18.7|7.7|<0.001
90907504|NCT00689104|181683317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|12.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.1|18.2||LS mean difference and p-value were derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, gender, and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Since the comparison between tolterodine and placebo was a secondary analysis, no adjustment for multiplicity was necessary.||18.2|7.1|<0.001
90907505|NCT00689104|181683318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.39||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.06||The response variable for the stratified rank ANCOVA was standardized ranks on change from baseline to Final Visit value with baseline standardized ranks and gender as covariates and geographic region as a stratum.|Stratified rank ANCOVA|LS mean difference was derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, gender, and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.||Since there were 2 coprimary efficacy endpoints and 3 key secondary efficacy endpoints, the multiplicity among the endpoints was controlled at a type I error rate at the alpha = 0.05 level using a stepwise parallel gatekeeping procedure (5 stages). In addition, since two mirabegron treatment groups were compared with placebo per endpoint, the Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity. A stratified rank ANCOVA model was utilized for hypothesis testing.||-0.06|-0.71|0.002
90864066|NCT00289783|181591890|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for non-inferiority (42 days after fourth dose vaccination): Lower limit of the standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the difference (Menhibrix vaccine fourth dose group minus ActHIB fourth dose group) in the percentage of subjects with a seroconversion ≥28 ED50, in subjects with initial anti-mumps antibody \< 28 ED50, for anti-mumps antibody is ≥ -5% (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Difference in percentage|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|0.98||||||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of M-M-R II vaccine when co-administered with a fourth dose of Menhibrix vaccine compared to M--M-R II vaccine co-administered with a fourth dose of PedvaxHIB vaccine, each co-administered with Varivax vaccine.||0.98|-2.16|
90864067|NCT00289783|181591891|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for non-inferiority (42 days after fourth dose vaccination): Lower limit of the standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the difference (Menhibrix vaccine fourth dose group minus ActHIB fourth dose group) in the percentage of subjects with seroresponse ≥10 IU/ml, in initially seronegative subjects (\< 4 IU/ml), for anti-rubella antibody is ≥ -5% (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Difference in percentage|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|1.73||||||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of M-M-R II vaccine when co-administered with a fourth dose of Menhibrix vaccine compared to M-M-R II vaccine co-administered with a fourth dose of PedvaxHIB vaccine, each co-administered with Varivax vaccine.||1.73|-0.57|
90864068|NCT00289783|181591892|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for non-inferiority (42 days after the fourth dose vaccination): Lower limit of the standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the difference (Menhibrix vaccine fourth dose group minus ActHIB fourth dose group) in the percentage of subjects with seroconversion ≥ 1:5 dilution, in initially seronegative subjects (\< 1:5), for anti-varicella antibody is ≥ -10% (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Difference in percentage|-0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|1.56||||||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of Varivax vaccine co-administered with a fourth dose of Menhibrix vaccine compared to Varivax vaccine co-administered with a fourth dose of PedvaxHIB vaccine, each co-administered with M-M-R II vaccine in terms of immunogenicity to varicella as measured by fluorescent antibody to membrane antigen (FAMA).||1.56|-0.78|
90864069|NCT05248867|181591954|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|59.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.7|63.9||P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by investigator site, toxin use history (for aesthetic purposes), and baseline Facial Wrinkle Scale score at maximum frown after using multiple imputation for missing data.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference: AGN-151586 - Placebo|AGN-151586 vs Placebo||63.9|54.7|<0.0001
90864070|NCT05248867|181591955|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|60.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.9|65.4||P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by investigator site, toxin use history (for aesthetic purposes), and baseline Facial Wrinkle Scale score at maximum frown after using multiple imputation for missing data.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference: AGN-151586 - Placebo|AGN-151586 vs Placebo||65.4|54.9|<0.0001
90864071|NCT05248867|181591956|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|71.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|66.5|76.2||P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by investigator site, toxin use history (for aesthetic purposes), and baseline Facial Wrinkle Scale score at maximum frown after using multiple imputation for missing data.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference: AGN-151586 - Placebo|AGN-151586 vs Placebo||76.2|66.5|<0.0001
90907506|NCT00689104|181683318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.38||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.05||The response variable for the stratified rank ANCOVA was standardized ranks on change from baseline to Final Visit value with baseline standardized ranks and gender as covariates and geographic region as a stratum.|Stratified rank ANCOVA|LS mean difference was derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, gender, and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.||Since there were 2 coprimary efficacy endpoints and 3 key secondary efficacy endpoints, the multiplicity among the endpoints was controlled at a type I error rate at the alpha = 0.05 level using a stepwise parallel gatekeeping procedure (5 stages). In addition, since two mirabegron treatment groups were compared with placebo per endpoint, the Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity. A stratified rank ANCOVA model was utilized for hypothesis testing.||-0.05|-0.71|0.002
90907507|NCT00689104|181683318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean Difference|-0.35||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.03||The response variable for the stratified rank ANCOVA was standardized ranks on change from baseline to Final Visit value with baseline standardized ranks and gender as covariates and geographic region as a stratum.|Stratified rank ANCOVA|LS mean difference was derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, gender, and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.||Since the comparison between tolterodine and placebo was a secondary analysis, no adjustment for multiplicity was necessary.||-0.03|-0.68|0.019
90907508|NCT00689104|181683319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean Difference|-0.4||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.13||LS mean difference and p-value were derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, gender, and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Since there were 2 coprimary efficacy endpoints and 3 key secondary efficacy endpoints, the multiplicity among the endpoints was controlled at a type I error rate at the alpha = 0.05 level using a stepwise parallel gatekeeping procedure (5 stages). In addition, since two mirabegron treatment groups were compared with placebo per endpoint, the Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity. An ANCOVA model was used for hypothesis testing.||-0.13|-0.66|0.004
90940294|NCT01644188|181760380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-29.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.8|-25.6||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. ezetimibe|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-25.6|-33.8|<0.0001
90940295|NCT01644188|181760381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-22.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.0|-18.8||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. ezetimibe|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-18.8|-26|<0.0001
90940296|NCT01644188|181760382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-23.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.5|-19.6||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. ezetimibe|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-19.6|-26.5|<0.0001
90959556|NCT05227703|181799348|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.2|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 15 mg - Placebo|Week 3-- Emraclidine 15 mg versus Placebo||0.2|0.0|0.0493
90959557|NCT05227703|181799348|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.2|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 30 mg - Placebo|Week 3-- Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||0.2|0.0|0.0226
90907509|NCT00689104|181683319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.26||LS mean difference and p-value were derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, gender, and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Since there were 2 coprimary efficacy endpoints and 3 key secondary efficacy endpoints, the multiplicity among the endpoints was controlled at a type I error rate at the alpha = 0.05 level using a stepwise parallel gatekeeping procedure (5 stages). In addition, since two mirabegron treatment groups were compared with placebo per endpoint, the Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity. An ANCOVA model was used for hypothesis testing.||-0.26|-0.79|<0.001
90907510|NCT00689104|181683319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.33||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.06||LS mean difference and p-value were derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, gender, and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Since the comparison between tolterodine and placebo was a secondary analysis, no adjustment for multiplicity was necessary.||-0.06|-0.60|0.016
90907511|NCT04873817|181683355|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||< 0.0001
90907512|NCT00216320|181683357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<.001
90907513|NCT02081365|181683368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|3.55|||ANCOVA|||Comparison of two groups at 1 month follow up with baseline value as the covariate||3.55|.74|<0.05
90907514|NCT02081365|181683369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.98|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.57|||ANCOVA|||Comparison of two groups at 1 month follow up with baseline value as the covariate||1.57|.39|<0.05
90907515|NCT02081365|181683370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.23|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.85|||ANCOVA|||Comparison of two groups at 1 month follow up with baseline value as the covariate||1.85|.61|<0.05
90959558|NCT05227703|181799348|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.6845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 15 mg - Placebo|Week 6-- Emraclidine 15 mg versus Placebo||0.1|-0.1|0.6845
90959559|NCT05227703|181799348|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 30 mg - Placebo|Week 6-- Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||0.1|-0.1|0.8950
90907516|NCT02081365|181683371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.82|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|1.64|||ANCOVA|||Comparison of two groups at 1 month follow up with baseline value as the covariate||1.64|.01|<0.05
90907517|NCT01394991|181683372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.018||||0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.051|0.016|||Chi-squared|||The primary hypothesis was that the group of participants receiving epoetin alfa QW and the group of participants receiving epoetin alfa TIW would have similar incidence rate of participants with at least 1 clinically relevant and objectively confirmed TVE from randomization through Week 16.||0.016|-0.051|0.248
90907518|NCT01394991|181683372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.53||||0.254||95.0|0.18|1.58|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.58|0.18|0.254
90907519|NCT01394991|181683373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.029||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.065|0.007|||Chi-squared|||||0.007|-0.065|0.08
90907520|NCT01394991|181683374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.4||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|1.13|||Log Rank|The stratified log-rank test accounting for ECOG performance status (0 or 1 versus 2) was used to compare the difference between treatment groups.|The Cox regression model with covariates for treatment group and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (0 or 1 versus 2) was used for estimates of hazard ratio and its 95% confidence interval.|||1.13|0.14|0.073
90907521|NCT01394991|181683375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.039||||0.059||95.0|-0.083|0.005|||Chi-squared|||||0.005|-0.083|0.059
90907522|NCT01394991|181683376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.47||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.03|||Log Rank|The stratified log-rank test accounting for ECOG score status (0 or 1 versus 2) was used to compare the difference between treatment groups.|The Cox regression model including covariates for treatment group and the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) score status (0 or 1 versus 2) was used for estimates of a hazard ratio and its 95% confidence interval.|||1.03|0.21|0.054
90907523|NCT01394991|181683377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0041||||0.88||95.0|-0.0526|0.0608|||Chi-squared|||||0.0608|-0.0526|0.88
90907524|NCT01394991|181683378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.026||||0.514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.056|0.108|||Chi-squared|||||0.108|-0.056|0.514
90907525|NCT01394991|181683379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.003||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.071|0.065|||Chi-squared|||||0.065|-0.071|0.920
90907526|NCT02337361|181683380|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Generalized estimating equations (GEE)(Diggle et al. 2002) tested e-SBI efficacy, controlling for demographic differences between study condition and study sites. GEE models estimate population average or marginal models and account for within-subject nonindependence (clustering) of observations across multiple waves of data collection and use all available data in model estimation.|||
90907527|NCT02337361|181683380|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Generalized estimating equations tested e-SBI efficacy, controlling for demographic differences between study condition and study sites. GEE models estimate population average or marginal models and account for within-subject nonindependence (clustering) of observations across multiple waves of data collection and use all available data in model estimation|||
90907528|NCT02337361|181683381|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||the e-SBI group was at reduced odds relative to the control group to report weekly or more frequent drinking at 6 month follow-up||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) tested e-SBI efficacy, controlling for demographic differences between study condition and study sites. GEE models estimate population average or marginal models and account for within-subject nonindependence (clustering) of observations across multiple waves of data collection and use all available data in model estimation.|||<.01
90907529|NCT02337361|181683382|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||the e-SBI group was at reduced odds relative to the control group to report drinking a maximum quantity of 5 or more drinks in a day at 6 month follow-up|||||<.05
90907530|NCT02337361|181683383|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||the e-SBI group was at reduced odds relative to the control group to report any tobacco use at 6 month follow-up||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) tested e-SBI efficacy, controlling for demographic differences between study condition and study sites. GEE models estimate population average or marginal models and account for within-subject nonindependence (clustering) of observations across multiple waves of data collection and use all available data in model estimation.|||<.10
90907531|NCT02337361|181683384|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||the e-SBI group was at reduced odds relative to the control group to report significant depression at 6 month follow-up|||||<.01
90907532|NCT02337361|181683385|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) tested DrinkWise's effects on changes in depression over time controlling for demographic differences between study condition and study sites.|||
90907533|NCT02427646|181683405|OTHER|"A linear mixed effects (LME) model via the maximized likelihood estimation was implemented using open-source statistical software, R (version 3.3.3). The effects of each clinical and kinematic outcome measures were examined for each participant group (ET and PD arms were separately analyzed thus no interaction effects were investigated) in separate LME models (lme4 package using lmer function)."|||||<|0.05|||||||Linear mixed effects model|||||||<0.05
90907534|NCT02427646|181683406|OTHER|"A linear mixed effects (LME) model via the maximized likelihood estimation was implemented using open-source statistical software, R (version 3.3.3). The effects of each clinical and kinematic outcome measures were examined for each participant group (ET and PD arms were separately analyzed thus no interaction effects were investigated) in separate LME models (lme4 package using lmer function)."|||||<|0.05|||||||Linear mixed effects model|a log-transformation ofthe RMS datasets was applied for statistical analysis||||||<0.05
90907535|NCT03230006|181683441|SUPERIORITY||Partial eta squared|0.152||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA||A two-way mixed ANOVA was conducted to investigate treatment group differences in change in mean number of drinks consumed from baseline to post-treatment, as indicated by the Time by Treatment Condition interaction effect.|||||0.002
90907536|NCT03230006|181683441|SUPERIORITY||Partial eta squared|0.342|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The threshold for significance is p \<.05.|ANOVA||This is the partial eta squared for the main effect of time.|||||<.001
90907537|NCT03230006|181683441|SUPERIORITY||Partial eta squared|0.018||||0.309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA||This is the partial eta squared for the main effect of treatment condition.|||||.309
90907538|NCT03230006|181683441|OTHER||F|38.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The threshold for significance is p \<.05.|ANOVA|||After conducting the initial two-way mixed ANOVA, follow-up testing was conducted to determine the simple main effects of time (pre to post) on mean number of drinks per week within each treatment condition, which was examined using one-way repeated measures ANOVAs.||||<.001
90907539|NCT03230006|181683441|OTHER||F|5.43||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||After conducting the initial two-way mixed ANOVA, follow-up testing was conducted to determine the simple main effects of time (pre to post) on mean number of drinks per week within each treatment condition, which was examined using one-way repeated measures ANOVAs.||||.030
90907540|NCT03230006|181683441|OTHER||F|1.15||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA||This is the simple main effect of treatment condition on mean number of drinks consumed per week at baseline. For the UP, n=51; for the TC, n=24.|After conducting the initial two-way mixed ANOVA, the simple main effects for treatment condition on mean number of drinks consumed per week at each timepoint (pre and post) were examined using one-way ANOVAs.||||.016
90940297|NCT01644188|181760383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-22.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.9|-18.9||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. ezetimibe|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-18.9|-26.9|<0.0001
90907541|NCT03230006|181683441|OTHER||F|7.78||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA||This is the simple main effect of treatment condition on mean number of drinks consumed per week at post-treatment. For the UP, n=38; for the TC, n=21.|After conducting the initial two-way mixed ANOVA, the simple main effects for treatment condition on mean number of drinks consumed per week at each timepoint (pre and post) were examined using one-way ANOVAs.||||.007
90907542|NCT01474538|181683612|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) was below 0.4%, lispro was declared non-inferior to aspart.|LS Mean difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.002|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.210|-0.002|
90907543|NCT01474538|181683613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.92|2.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.35|-2.92|
90907544|NCT01474538|181683614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Ratio|0.94||||0.522|||||||Negative binomial|||||||0.522
90907545|NCT01474538|181683615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.58||||0.216|||||||Grizzle Model|||||||0.216
90907546|NCT01474538|181683616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.471|||||||Prescott test|||||||0.471
90907547|NCT00367237|181683617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages of respondents|19.61||||0.021||95.0|3.27|35.95||Comparison of treatments (IFX + MTX versus MTX)|Chi-squared||Difference in percentages of respondents is (percentage of respondents in IFX+MTX group minus percentage of respondents in MTX group)|||35.95|3.27|0.0210
90907548|NCT00367237|181683617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion of Responders|0.863||||||95.0||||||||||||
90907549|NCT00367237|181683617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion of Responders|0.667||||||95.0||||||||||||
90907550|NCT02501629|181683621|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.702|2.157||Significance at 0.05.|proportional odds model|factors for treatment group and randomization strata (age and OCS dose); baseline OCS dose and duration of OCS use prior to study were covariates.||The proportional odds ratio (reslizumab/placebo) was estimated from this model, representing the ratio of the odds of a patient outcome being in a higher OCS dose reduction category for reslizumab compared to placebo.||2.157|0.702|0.468
90907551|NCT02501629|181683622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.786|2.683||significance at 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|logistic regression model adjusted for treatment, stratification factors (age group and OCS dose group), duration of OCS use, and baseline value.||As the analysis of the primary efficacy endpoint did not meet criteria for statistical significance (p≤0.05), the secondary efficacy endpoints were not interpreted inferentially according to the pre-defined hierarchy. P-values are nominal, meaning they were obtained from the analysis without adjustments to protect family-wise errors and should be interpreted with caution. Nominal p-values do not indicate treatment differences.||2.683|0.786|0.234
90907552|NCT02501629|181683623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.631|2.229||significance at 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|logistic regression model adjusted for treatment, stratification factors (age group and OCS dose group), duration of OCS use, and baseline value.||As the analysis of the primary efficacy endpoint did not meet criteria for statistical significance (p≤0.05), the secondary efficacy endpoints were not interpreted inferentially according to the pre-defined hierarchy. P-values are nominal, meaning they were obtained from the analysis without adjustments to protect family-wise errors and should be interpreted with caution. Nominal p-values do not indicate treatment differences.||2.229|0.631|0.596
90907553|NCT02501629|181683624|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.759||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.986|3.494|||mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)||Reslizumab - Placebo|Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, age group, and OCS dose group, duration of OCS use and baseline value as covariates, and patient as a random effect. Unstructured covariance was assumed for the repeated measures.||3.494|-38.986|0.101
90907554|NCT02501629|181683625|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.722|2.562||significance at 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|logistic regression model adjusted for treatment, stratification factors (age group and OCS dose group), duration of OCS use, and baseline value.||As the analysis of the primary efficacy endpoint did not meet criteria for statistical significance (p≤0.05), the secondary efficacy endpoints were not interpreted inferentially according to the pre-defined hierarchy. P-values are nominal, meaning they were obtained from the analysis without adjustments to protect family-wise errors and should be interpreted with caution. Nominal p-values do not indicate treatment differences.||2.562|0.722|0.341
90907555|NCT02501629|181683626|SUPERIORITY||CAE rate ratio|0.82||||0.407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.504|1.321|||Negative binomial regression model|Negative binomial regression model adjusted for stratification factors (OCS dose group), age, number of prior exacerbations, and an offset variable.|reslizumab vs placebo|||1.321|0.504|0.407
90907556|NCT02501629|181683627|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.371|1.818||significance at 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|logistic regression model adjusted for treatment, stratification factors (age group and OCS dose group), duration of OCS use, and baseline value.||As the analysis of the primary efficacy endpoint did not meet criteria for statistical significance (p≤0.05), the secondary efficacy endpoints were not interpreted inferentially according to the pre-defined hierarchy. P-values are nominal, meaning they were obtained from the analysis without adjustments to protect family-wise errors and should be interpreted with caution. Nominal p-values do not indicate treatment differences.||1.818|0.371|0.628
90907557|NCT00886613|181683657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||kappa coefficient of agreement|0.85||||0.564|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.72|0.99|||McNemar||The significance of the difference between the proportion of subjects with a positive skin test at 48 hours and the proportion of subjects with a positive skin test at 72 hours|||0.99|0.72|0.564
90907558|NCT00886613|181683659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.06||||0.343|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.17|0.28|||Chi-squared||Statistical analysis for dose 2|||0.28|-0.17|0.343
90907559|NCT01124162|181683661|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level.|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|108.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.43|120.03|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||120.03|97.43|
90907560|NCT01124162|181683662|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level.|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|101.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.57|104.93|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||104.93|98.57|
90907561|NCT01124162|181683663|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level.|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|101.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.41|104.68|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||104.68|98.41|
90907562|NCT01124162|181683664|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level.|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|102.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.24|106.06|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||106.06|98.24|
90907563|NCT01124162|181683665|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level.|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|100.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.84|102.84|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||102.84|97.84|
90907564|NCT01124162|181683666|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level.|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|100.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.87|102.69|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||102.69|97.87|
90907565|NCT05349084|181683696|EQUIVALENCE|A Fisher's exact test was performed to determine the association between coronary artery stenosis and PET myocardial blood flow (MBF) values during stress. The following myocardial segments were analyzed: left anterior descending (LAD), left circumflex (LCx), and right coronary artery (RCA). Coronary arteries were categorized as coronary arteries with a diameter stenosis ≥50% or \<50%. The MBF values during stress were categorized as normal or abnormal. Normal MBF is defined as \>1.8 mL/g/min.||||||0.2522||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.2522
90907566|NCT05349084|181683697|OTHER|A Pearson's Correlation test was performed between PET MFR during stress and CT-FFR by territory.||||||0.028||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Pearson's correlation test|A Pearson's Correlation test was performed between PET MFR during stress and CT-FFR by territory.||||||0.028
90907567|NCT03688542|181683731|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.4|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|1.0|||Regression, Linear|Dependant variable = follow-up value; adjusted for baseline value, canton, avg number of residents, mission||||1.0|-3.8|<0.05
90907568|NCT03688542|181683732|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.18|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.03|||Regression, Linear|Dependant variable = number of PIM DDD at follow-up, adjusted for baseline value, canton, avg number of residents, mission||||0.03|-0.39|<0.05
90907569|NCT03688542|181683733|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.035|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.095|0.025|||Regression, Linear|Dependant variable = number of PIM DDD at follow-up, adjusted for baseline value, canton, avg number of residents, mission||||0.025|-0.095|<0.05
90907570|NCT03688542|181683734|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.237|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.435|-0.04|||Regression, Linear|Dependant variable = number of PIM DDD at follow-up, adjusted for baseline value, canton, avg number of residents, mission||||-0.040|-0.435|<0.05
90907571|NCT03688542|181683735|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.55|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.164|2.938|||Regression, Linear|Dependent variable = follow-up value, adjusted for baseline value, canton, avg number of residents, interaction between mission and group.||||2.938|0.164|<0.05
90907572|NCT03688542|181683736|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-12.7|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.5|-4.0|||Regression, Linear|Dependent variable = follow-up value, adjusted for baseline value, canton, avg number of residents, interaction between mission and group.||||-4.0|-21.5|<0.05
90907573|NCT03688542|181683737|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.165|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.754|0.424|||Regression, Linear|Dependent variable = follow-up value, adjusted for baseline value, canton, avg number of residents||||0.424|-0.754|<0.05
90907574|NCT03688542|181683738|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-4.2|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|7.6|||Regression, Linear|Dependent variable = follow-up value, adjusted for baseline value, canton, avg number of residents||||7.6|-16.0|<0.05
90907575|NCT02775435|181683769|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.7||Treatment comparison stratified by programmed cell death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) status (Tumor Proportion Score \[TPS\] ≥1% vs. \<1%), taxane chemotherapy (paclitaxel vs. nab-paclitaxel) \& geographic region (East Asia vs. non-East Asia)|Regression, Cox|||||0.70|0.45|<0.0001
90907576|NCT02775435|181683770|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.85||Treatment comparison stratified by programmed cell death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) status (Tumor Proportion Score \[TPS\] ≥1% vs. \<1%), taxane chemotherapy (paclitaxel vs. nab-paclitaxel) \& geographic region (East Asia vs. non-East Asia)|Regression, Cox|||||0.85|0.49|0.0008
90907577|NCT00320489|181683775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.612||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.612
90907578|NCT00320489|181683776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.649||95.0||||P-Value is for change from baseline at Week 104.|ANCOVA|Model: Change = Therapy, Investigator, Visit, Therapy\*Visit Baseline.||||||0.649
90907579|NCT00320489|181683777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.744||95.0||||P-value for change at Week 104 in Mental Score Detail.|ANCOVA|Change = Therapy, Investigator, Visit, Therapy\*Visit, Baseline.||||||0.744
90907580|NCT00320489|181683777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.653||95.0||||P-value for change at Week 104 in Physical Score Detail.|ANCOVA|Change = Therapy, Investigator, Visit, Therapy\*Visit, Baseline.||||||0.653
90907581|NCT00320489|181683777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64||95.0||||P-value for change at Week 104 in Physical Functioning.|ANCOVA|Change = Therapy, Investigator, Visit, Therapy\*Visit, Baseline.||||||0.640
90907582|NCT00320489|181683777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.454||95.0||||P-value for change at Week 104 in Role-Physical.|ANCOVA|Change = Therapy, Investigator, Visit, Therapy\*Visit, Baseline.||||||0.454
90907583|NCT00320489|181683777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.135||95.0||||P-value for change at Week 104 in Bodily Pain.|ANCOVA|Change = Therapy, Investigator, Visit, Therapy\*Visit, Baseline.||||||0.135
90907584|NCT00320489|181683777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.229||95.0||||P-value for change at Week 104 in General Health.|ANCOVA|Change = Therapy, Investigator, Visit, Therapy\*Visit, Baseline.||||||0.229
90907585|NCT00320489|181683777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.594||95.0||||P-value for change at Week 104 in Vitality.|ANCOVA|Change = Therapy, Investigator, Visit, Therapy\*Visit, Baseline.||||||0.594
90907586|NCT00320489|181683777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.256||95.0||||P-value for change at Week 104 in Social Functioning.|ANCOVA|Change = Therapy, Investigator, Visit, Therapy\*Visit, Baseline.||||||0.256
90907587|NCT00320489|181683777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.775||95.0||||P-value for change at Week 104 in Role-Emotional.|ANCOVA|Change = Therapy, Investigator, Visit, Therapy\*Visit, Baseline.||||||0.775
90907588|NCT00320489|181683777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.781||95.0||||P-value for change at Week 104 in Mental Health.|ANCOVA|Change = Therapy, Investigator, Visit, Therapy\*Visit, Baseline.||||||0.781
90907589|NCT00320489|181683778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.465||95.0||||P-value is for change from baseline to Week 104.|ANCOVA|Change = Therapy, Investigator, Visit, Therapy\*Visit, Baseline.||||||0.465
90907590|NCT00320489|181683779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.581||95.0||||P-value is for change from baseline to Week 104.|ANCOVA|Change = Therapy, Investigator, Visit, Therapy\*Visit, Baseline.||||||0.581
90907591|NCT00320489|181683782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||ANOVA|P-value is type III p-value of ANOVA model: Total number of hospitalization days = Therapy.||||||0.020
90907592|NCT00320489|181683783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.583||95.0||||P-value is for Total Score (Items 1-5) change to Week 104.|ANCOVA|Model: change = investigator, treatment, and baseline.||||||0.583
90907593|NCT00320489|181683783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.747||95.0||||P-value is for Total Score (Items 1-4) change to Week 104.|ANCOVA|Model: change = investigator, treatment, and baseline.||||||0.747
90907594|NCT00320489|181683784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.371||95.0||||P-value is for change from baseline to Week 104.|ANCOVA|Model: change = investigator, treatment, and baseline.||||||0.371
90907595|NCT00320489|181683785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.681||95.0||||P-value is fro change from baseline to Week 104.|ANCOVA|Model: Change = Therapy, Investigator, Visit, Therapy\*Visit, Baseline.||||||0.681
90907596|NCT00320489|181683786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6||95.0||||P-value is for overall satisfaction with current medication.|ANCOVA|Model: Actual Result = Therapy, Investigator, Visit, Therapy\*Visit.||||||0.60
90907597|NCT00320489|181683786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.258||95.0||||P-value is for preference current/previous medication.|ANCOVA|Model: Actual Result = Therapy, Investigator, Visit, Therapy\*Visit||||||.258
90907598|NCT00320489|181683786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.492||95.0||||P-value is for side effects - current vs previous medication.|ANCOVA|Model: Actual Result = Therapy, Investigator, Visit, Therapy\*Visit.||||||0.492
90907599|NCT00320489|181683787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.854||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Model: Actual Result = Therapy, Investigator, Visit, Therapy\*Visit.||||||0.854
90907600|NCT00320489|181683788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.600
90907601|NCT00320489|181683789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.282||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Model: Change = Therapy, Investigator, Visit, Therapy\*Visit Baseline.||||||0.282
90907602|NCT00320489|181683790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.834||95.0||||P-value is for PANSS Total Score.|ANCOVA|Model: Change = Therapy, Investigator, Visit, Therapy\*Visit Baseline.||||||0.834
90907603|NCT00320489|181683790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.871||95.0||||P-value is for PANSS Positive Score.|ANCOVA|Model: Change = Therapy, Investigator, Visit, Therapy\*Visit Baseline.||||||0.871
90907604|NCT00320489|181683790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.692||95.0||||P-value is for PANSS Negative Score.|ANCOVA|Model: Change = Therapy, Investigator, Visit, Therapy\*Visit, Baseline.||||||0.692
90907605|NCT00320489|181683790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.893||95.0||||P-value is for PANSS General Psychopathology Score.|ANCOVA|Model: Change = Therapy, Investigator, Visit, Therapy\*Visit, Baseline.||||||0.893
90907606|NCT00320489|181683791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.585||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.585
90907607|NCT00320489|181683792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.659||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.659
90907608|NCT00320489|181683793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.952||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Model: Change = Therapy, Investigator, Visit, Therapy\*Visit Baseline.||||||0.952
90907609|NCT00320489|181683795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.777||95.0||||P-value is for change from baseline to Week 104.|ANCOVA|Model: change = baseline, treatment, and investigator.||||||0.777
90907610|NCT00320489|181683796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.530
90907611|NCT00320489|181683797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.258||95.0||||P-value for fasting glucose.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.258
90907612|NCT00320489|181683797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.688||95.0||||P-value is for fasting total cholesterol.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.688
90907613|NCT00320489|181683797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.908||95.0||||P-value is for fasting triglycerides.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.908
90907614|NCT00320489|181683798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.835||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.835
90907615|NCT00320489|181683799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.834||95.0||||P-value is for ALT.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.834
90907616|NCT00320489|181683799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.723||95.0||||P-value is for AST.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.723
90907617|NCT00320489|181683799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.247||95.0||||P-value is for total bilirubin.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.247
90907618|NCT00320489|181683800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.885||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.885
90907619|NCT01872611|181683807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.3|||Regression, Logistic||Parameter dispersion is the standard error for the odds ratio.|This endpoint was considered primary for United States (US) registration and secondary for European Union (EU) registration.||1.3|0.7|0.671
90907620|NCT01872611|181683808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.7|||Regression, Logistic||Parameter dispersion is the standard error for the odds ratio.|This endpoint was considered primary for EU registration and secondary for US registration.||0.7|0.2|0.001
90907621|NCT02783950|181683863|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.27
90907622|NCT02783950|181683864|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Test p-value|||||||0.70
90907623|NCT02696785|181683878|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.73||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|5.52|||Regression, Logistic|||Overall Work Impairment Score||5.52|1.35|0.005
90907624|NCT02696785|181683878|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|9.03|||Regression, Logistic|||Overall Work Impairment Score.||9.03|2.20|<0.001
90907625|NCT02696785|181683878|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.52|10.28|||Regression, Logistic|||Overall Work Impairment Score.||10.28|2.52|<0.001
90907626|NCT02696785|181683878|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.16|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|-0.7|||ANCOVA|||Percentage of Activity Impairment||-0.7|-13.2|<0.001
90907627|NCT02696785|181683878|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-9.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5|-3.0|||ANCOVA|||Percentage of Activity Impairment||-3.0|-15.5|<0.001
90907628|NCT02696785|181683878|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-8.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.22|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|-2.5|||ANCOVA|||Percentage of Activity Impairment||-2.5|-15.2|<0.001
90907629|NCT02696785|181683879|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|4.23|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.23|1.25|0.007
90907630|NCT02696785|181683879|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.78||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|5.24|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.24|1.48|0.001
90907631|NCT02696785|181683879|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.79|6.41|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.41|1.79|<0.001
90907632|NCT02696785|181683880|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.57|-1.11|<0.001
90907633|NCT02696785|181683880|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|-0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.70|-1.25|<0.001
90907634|NCT02696785|181683880|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|-0.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.63|-1.18|<0.001
90907635|NCT02696785|181683881|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.53||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|5.21|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.21|1.23|0.012
90907636|NCT02696785|181683881|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.82|7.7|||Regression, Logistic|||||7.70|1.82|<0.001
90907637|NCT02696785|181683881|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.91|7.98|||Regression, Logistic|||||7.98|1.91|<0.001
90907638|NCT02696785|181683882|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.299||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|-0.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.39|-1.56|0.001
90907639|NCT02696785|181683882|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.307|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|-0.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.62|-1.83|<0.001
90907640|NCT02696785|181683882|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.304|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|-0.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.67|-1.86|<0.001
90907641|NCT02696785|181683883|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|7.62||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.67|34.68|||Regression, Logistic|||||34.68|1.67|0.009
90907642|NCT02696785|181683883|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.03||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.75|36.83|||Regression, Logistic|||||36.83|1.75|0.007
90907643|NCT02696785|181683883|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.13||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|24.49|||Regression, Logistic|||||24.49|1.07|0.041
90907644|NCT02696785|181683884|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.447|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|-1.9|||ANCOVA|||||-1.9|-3.7|<0.001
90907645|NCT02696785|181683884|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-1.7|||ANCOVA|||||-1.7|-3.5|<0.001
90907646|NCT02696785|181683884|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.452|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-1.5|||ANCOVA|||||-1.5|-3.3|<0.001
90907647|NCT02696785|181683885|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|3.2574|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0437||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2041|5.3106|||Mixed Models Analysis|||PCS||5.3106|1.2041|0.002
90907648|NCT02696785|181683885|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|4.052|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.072|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9432|6.1608|||Mixed Models Analysis|||PCS||6.1608|1.9432|<0.001
90907649|NCT02696785|181683885|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|4.3254|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0641|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2321|6.4186|||Mixed Models Analysis|||PCS||6.4186|2.2321|<0.001
90907650|NCT02696785|181683885|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.4321|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1718||0.713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8732|2.7373|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MCS||2.7373|-1.8732|0.713
90907651|NCT02696785|181683885|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.6273|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2028||0.602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7387|2.9934|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MCS||2.9934|-1.7387|0.602
90907652|NCT02696785|181683885|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.4467|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1978||0.709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9097|2.803|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MCS||2.8030|-1.9097|0.709
90907653|NCT02696785|181683886|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.416||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|-0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.23|-1.87|0.012
90907654|NCT02696785|181683886|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.428||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|-0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.27|-1.95|0.010
90907655|NCT02696785|181683886|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.423|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.32|-0.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.66|-2.32|<0.001
90907656|NCT02696785|181683887|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-8.628|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6724||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.885|-3.371|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.371|-13.885|0.001
90907657|NCT02696785|181683887|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-6.635|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7438||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.033|-1.238|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.238|-12.033|0.016
90907658|NCT02696785|181683887|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-7.991|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7248||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.351|-2.631|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.631|-13.351|0.004
90907659|NCT02696785|181683888|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.367|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1143||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.592|-0.142|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.142|-0.592|0.001
90907660|NCT02696785|181683888|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.422|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1184|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.655|-0.189|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.189|-0.655|<0.001
90907661|NCT02696785|181683888|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.329|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1167||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.558|-0.099|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.099|-0.558|0.005
90907662|NCT02696785|181683889|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.211||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.05|0.22|0.003
90907663|NCT02696785|181683889|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.219||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.86|-0.00|0.051
90907664|NCT02696785|181683889|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.215||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.03|0.18|0.005
90907665|NCT02696785|181683890|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.321||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.03|-1.30|0.039
90907666|NCT02696785|181683890|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.02|-1.28|0.057
90907667|NCT02696785|181683890|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.327||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|-0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.03|-1.31|0.042
90907668|NCT02696785|181683891|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-5.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.806|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|-3.5|||ANCOVA|||||-3.5|-6.7|<0.001
90907669|NCT02696785|181683891|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-4.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.812|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|-3.3|||ANCOVA|||||-3.3|-6.5|<0.001
90907670|NCT02696785|181683891|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-5.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.816|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|-3.6|||ANCOVA|||||-3.6|-6.8|<0.001
90907671|NCT02696785|181683892|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.5|-1.4|0.317
90907672|NCT02696785|181683892|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.8|-1.1|0.683
90907673|NCT02696785|181683892|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.6|-1.3|0.500
90907674|NCT02696785|181683893|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.3|-1.9|0.154
90907675|NCT02696785|181683893|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.255|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||-0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.5|-1.8|-0.6
90907676|NCT02696785|181683893|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.7|-1.6|0.398
90907677|NCT02696785|181683894|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.3|-1.7|0.783
90907678|NCT02696785|181683894|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.1|-2.0|0.550
90907679|NCT02696785|181683894|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.2|-2.8|0.091
90907680|NCT02696785|181683896|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.1|-1.3|0.027
90907681|NCT02696785|181683896|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.4|-1.7|0.002
90907682|NCT02696785|181683896|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.0|-1.3|0.035
90907683|NCT02696785|181683897|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.0|-2.3|0.041
90907684|NCT02696785|181683897|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.3|-2.1|0.125
90907685|NCT02696785|181683897|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.3|-2.6|0.013
90907686|NCT02696785|181683898|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.082||0.989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.03|6.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.12|-6.03|0.989
90907687|NCT02696785|181683898|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.146||0.429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.71|8.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.70|-3.71|0.429
90907688|NCT02696785|181683898|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-5.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.27||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.92|0.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.98|-11.92|0.096
90907689|NCT02696785|181683902|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.4|-2.6|0.166
90907690|NCT02696785|181683902|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.4|-3.4|0.011
90864072|NCT05248867|181591961|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|72.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.4|77.6||P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by investigator site, toxin use history (for aesthetic purposes), and baseline Facial Wrinkle Scale score at maximum frown after using multiple imputation for missing data.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference: AGN-151586 - Placebo|AGN-151586 vs Placebo||77.6|67.4|<0.0001
90864073|NCT05248867|181591962|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|41.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.5|49.3||P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by investigator site, toxin use history (for aesthetic purposes), and baseline Facial Wrinkle Scale score at maximum frown after using multiple imputation for missing data.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference: AGN-151586 - Placebo|AGN-151586 vs Placebo||49.3|34.5|<0.0001
90864074|NCT05248867|181591963|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|69.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.7|75.3||P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by investigator site, toxin use history (for aesthetic purposes), and baseline Facial Wrinkle Scale score at maximum frown after using multiple imputation for missing data.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference: AGN-151586 - Placebo|AGN-151586 vs Placebo||75.3|63.7|<0.0001
90864075|NCT05248867|181591964|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|58.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.3|65.0||P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by investigator site, toxin use history (for aesthetic purposes), and baseline Facial Wrinkle Scale score at maximum frown after using multiple imputation for missing data.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference: AGN-151586 - Placebo|AGN-151586 vs Placebo||65.0|51.3|<0.0001
90864076|NCT05248867|181591965|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|30.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.2|35.1||P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by investigator site, toxin use history (for aesthetic purposes), and baseline Facial Wrinkle Scale score at maximum frown after using multiple imputation for missing data.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference: AGN-151586 - Placebo|AGN-151586 vs Placebo||35.1|25.2|<0.0001
90864077|NCT05248867|181591966|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|35.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.5|40.9||P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by investigator site, toxin use history (for aesthetic purposes), and baseline Facial Wrinkle Scale score at maximum frown after using multiple imputation for missing data.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference: AGN-151586 - Placebo|AGN-151586 vs Placebo||40.9|30.5|<0.0001
90864078|NCT05248867|181591967|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|52.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.2|60.0||P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by investigator site, toxin use history (for aesthetic purposes), and baseline Facial Wrinkle Scale score at maximum frown after using multiple imputation for missing data.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference: AGN-151586 - Placebo|AGN-151586 vs Placebo||60.0|45.2|<0.0001
90864079|NCT05248867|181591968|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|58.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.1|66.1||P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by investigator site, toxin use history (for aesthetic purposes), and baseline Facial Wrinkle Scale score at maximum frown after using multiple imputation for missing data.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference: AGN-151586 - Placebo|AGN-151586 vs Placebo||66.1|51.1|<0.0001
90864080|NCT05248867|181591969|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|42.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.4|50.6||P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by investigator site, toxin use history (for aesthetic purposes), and baseline Facial Wrinkle Scale score at maximum frown after using multiple imputation for missing data.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference: AGN-151586 - Placebo|AGN-151586 vs Placebo||50.6|34.4|<0.0001
90864081|NCT05248867|181591970|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|70.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.7|76.3||P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by investigator site, toxin use history (for aesthetic purposes), and baseline Facial Wrinkle Scale score at maximum frown after using multiple imputation for missing data.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference: AGN-151586 - Placebo|AGN-151586 vs Placebo||76.3|63.7|<0.0001
90864082|NCT05248867|181591978|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|48.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.2|55.4||P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by investigator site, toxin use history (for aesthetic purposes), and baseline Facial Wrinkle Scale score at maximum frown after using multiple imputation for missing data.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference: AGN-151586 - Placebo|AGN-151586 vs Placebo||55.4|42.2|<0.0001
90864083|NCT05248867|181591979|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|44.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.0|50.4||P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by investigator site, toxin use history (for aesthetic purposes), and baseline Facial Wrinkle Scale score at maximum frown after using multiple imputation for missing data.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference: AGN-151586 - Placebo|AGN-151586 vs Placebo||50.4|38.0|<0.0001
90864084|NCT00345839|181591996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.112||||||p-value\<0.044 considered significant|Log Rank|Stratified by history of diabetes and country. 2-sided test.||||||0.112
90864085|NCT00345839|181591996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.02|||Regression, Cox|Stratified by history of diabetes and country.|HR is cinacalcet vs placebo.|||1.02|0.85|
90864086|NCT00345839|181591997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.249||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made for the components of the primary composite endpoint since the purpose of these analyses is to show how each component contributes to the results of the composite.|Log Rank|Stratified by history of diabetes and country. 2-sided test.||||||0.249
90864087|NCT00345839|181591997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.04|||Regression, Cox|Stratified by history of diabetes and country.|HR is cinacalcet vs placebo.|||1.04|0.85|
90864088|NCT00345839|181591998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made for the components of the primary composite endpoint since the purpose of these analyses is to show how each component contributes to the results of the composite.|Log Rank|Stratified by history of diabetes and country. 2-sided test.||||||0.800
90864089|NCT00345839|181591998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.19|||Regression, Cox|Stratified by history of diabetes and country.|HR is cinacalcet vs placebo.|||1.19|0.79|
90864090|NCT00345839|181591999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.283||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made for the components of the primary composite endpoint since the purpose of these analyses is to show how each component contributes to the results of the composite.|Log Rank|Stratified by history of diabetes and country. 2-sided test.||||||0.283
90864091|NCT00345839|181591999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.18|||Regression, Cox|Stratified by history of diabetes and country.|HR is cinacalcet vs placebo.|||1.18|0.58|
90864092|NCT00345839|181592000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.034||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made for the components of the primary composite endpoint since the purpose of these analyses is to show how each component contributes to the results of the composite.|Log Rank|Stratified by history of diabetes and country. 2-sided test.||||||0.034
90864093|NCT00345839|181592000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.99|||Regression, Cox|Stratified by history of diabetes and country.|HR is cinacalcet vs placebo.|||0.99|0.68|
90864094|NCT00345839|181592001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.19||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made for the components of the primary composite endpoint since the purpose of these analyses is to show how each component contributes to the results of the composite.|Log Rank|Stratified by history of diabetes and country. 2-sided test.||||||0.190
90864095|NCT00345839|181592001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.07|||Regression, Cox|Stratified by history of diabetes and country.|HR is cinacalcet vs placebo.|||1.07|0.72|
90864096|NCT00345839|181592002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.277||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made for this endpoint.|Log Rank|Stratified by history of diabetes and country. 2-sided test.||||||0.277
90864097|NCT00345839|181592002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.07|||Regression, Cox|Stratified by history of diabetes and country.|HR is cinacalcet vs placebo.|||1.07|0.80|
90864098|NCT00345839|181592003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.607||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made for this endpoint.|Log Rank|Stratified by history of diabetes and country. 2-sided test.||||||0.607
90864099|NCT00345839|181592003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.4|||Regression, Cox|Stratified by history of diabetes and country.|HR is cinacalcet vs placebo.|||1.40|0.82|
90864100|NCT00345839|181592004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.218||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made for this endpoint.|Log Rank|Stratified by history of diabetes and country. 2-sided test.||||||0.218
90864101|NCT00345839|181592004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.07|||Regression, Cox|Stratified by history of diabetes and country.|HR is cinacalcet vs placebo.|||1.07|0.75|
90864102|NCT00345839|181592005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made for this endpoint.|Log Rank|Stratified by history of diabetes and country. 2-sided test.||||||<0.001
90864103|NCT00345839|181592005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.54|||Regression, Cox|Stratified by history of diabetes and country.|HR is cinacalcet vs placebo.|||0.54|0.36|
90907691|NCT02696785|181683902|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.5|-2.6|0.182
90907692|NCT02696785|181683903|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-10.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.588|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|-6.9|||ANCOVA|||||-6.9|-13.2|<0.001
90907693|NCT02696785|181683903|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-9.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.591|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|-6.4|||ANCOVA|||||-6.4|-12.6|<0.001
90907694|NCT02696785|181683903|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-8.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.603|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|-4.9|||ANCOVA|||||-4.9|-11.2|<0.001
90907695|NCT01016353|181683907|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.06
90864104|NCT04547712|181592006|SUPERIORITY||Proportion expressed as a percentage|78.9|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|59.4||||||The confidence interval lower limit was above the performance goal of 50%, the primary objective was met.|"Null Hypothesis: The proportion of subjects with On time without troublesome dyskinesia during aDBS single threshold mode Evaluation Period exceeding threshold \<= 50%; Alternative Hypothesis: The proportion of subjects with On time without troublesome dyskinesia during aDBS single threshold mode Evaluation Period exceeding threshold \> 50%"|||59.4|
90864105|NCT04547712|181592006|SUPERIORITY||Proportion expressed as a percentage|91.0|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|75.6||||||The confidence interval lower limit was above the performance goal of 50%, the primary objective was met.|"Null Hypothesis: The proportion of subjects with On time without troublesome dyskinesia during aDBS dual threshold mode Evaluation Period exceeding threshold \<= 50%; Alternative Hypothesis: The proportion of subjects with On time without troublesome dyskinesia during aDBS dual threshold mode Evaluation Period exceeding threshold \> 50%"|||75.6|
90864106|NCT04547712|181592007|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012||||||Nominal p-value is provided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Null Hypothesis: Mean Difference between aDBS single threshold (Evaluation Phase) minus cDBS (Baseline Phase) for TEED \>= 0; Alternative Hypothesis: Mean Difference between aDBS single threshold (Evaluation Phase) minus cDBS (Baseline Phase) for TEED \< 0||||0.0120
90864107|NCT04547712|181592007|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0491||||||Nominal p-value is provided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Null Hypothesis: Mean Difference between aDBS dual threshold (Evaluation Phase) minus cDBS (Baseline Phase) for TEED \>= 0; Alternative Hypothesis: Mean Difference between aDBS dual threshold (Evaluation Phase) minus cDBS (Baseline Phase) for TEED \< 0||||0.0491
90864108|NCT01258582|181592018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in the acceptance rates|-0.022||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.067|0.023|||Chi-squared|The difference in the acceptance rates was estimated along with 95% confidence intervals and tested using the chi-square test.||Sample size was chosen to detect a 10% difference in acceptance rates between two testing modality arms (90% power, 0.05 level of significance).||0.023|-0.067|0.34
90864109|NCT01673867|181592042|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.92|0.59|0.89|||Log Rank||HR = Nivolumab over docetaxel|||0.89|0.59|0.0015
90864110|NCT01709513|181592057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-30.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.6|-24.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Alirocumab group was compared to the corresponding active control group using an appropriate contrast statement.||-24.2|-36.6|<0.0001
90864111|NCT01709513|181592058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-35.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.7|-29.5||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 5% level.||-29.5|-40.7|<0.0001
90864112|NCT01709513|181592059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-31.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.9|-26.1||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant).||-26.1|-36.9|<0.0001
90864113|NCT01709513|181592060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-33.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.0|-28.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant).||-28.2|-38.0|<0.0001
90864114|NCT01709513|181592061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-25.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.8|-20.4||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant).||-20.4|-29.8|<0.0001
90864115|NCT01709513|181592062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-28.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.1|-24.4||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant).||-24.4|-32.1|<0.0001
90864116|NCT01709513|181592063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-25.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.4|-20.8||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant).||-20.8|-30.4|<0.0001
90864117|NCT01709513|181592064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-29.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.9|-25.8||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant).||-25.8|-33.9|<0.0001
90907696|NCT04863898|181683908|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|-5.2|||||LME regression, random intercepts by individual and fixed effects of participant characteristics. Difference = endline - baseline.|Using the PASS software program, we estimated the power for comparisons of scores from pre- to post-intervention, assuming a p-value of 0.05 (two-sided) and a final sample size of 131 with both measurements. We would have 85% power to detect a small-to-medium sized effect based on standardized mean difference (d=0.32).||-5.2|-7|
90907697|NCT04863898|181683912|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.09|||||Calculated using a linear mixed effect regression model with random intercepts by individual Difference = endline - baseline.|Using the PASS software program, we estimated the power for comparisons of scores from pre- to post-intervention, assuming a p-value of 0.05 (two-sided) and a final sample size of 131 with both measurements. We would have 85% power to detect a small-to-medium sized effect based on standardized mean difference (d=0.32).||1.09|0.86|
90907698|NCT04863898|181683913|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|-3.6|||||LME regression, random intercepts by individual and fixed effects of participant characteristics. Difference = endline - baseline.|Using the PASS software program, we estimated the power for comparisons of scores from pre- to post-intervention, assuming a p-value of 0.05 (two-sided) and a final sample size of 131 with both measurements. We would have 85% power to detect a small-to-medium sized effect based on standardized mean difference (d=0.32).||-3.6|-4.7|
90907699|NCT00614744|181683914|SUPERIORITY|This trial estimated the probability that the intervention has no effect on the outcome (or conversely, the probability that it does), given the data obtained in the trial and any prior evidence.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.29|||Bayesian log binomial models|Bayesian log binomial models were used to analyze the primary outcome of death or moderate/severe disability.|In log binomial models used Normal (0, sd=0.35) neutral prior in the log RR scale. Estimation used Normal weakly informative priors. Reported posterior medians \& 95% credible intervals for the RR above instead of confidence intervals.|Whole-body Hypothermia vs. Normothermia (Normothermia is the comparison group)|"We fitted all Bayesian models via Markov chain Monte Carlo methods (MCMC) using JAGS (version 3.4) and OpenBUGS (3.2.3) in R (version 3.2.5). For each analysis we ran 3 MCMC chains with starting values randomly drawn from the estimated parameters from a frequentist log binomial model. A burn-in of 1,000 iterations was used, with sampling from a further 10,000 iterations for each chain. To monitor convergence, trace plots and the Gelman-Rubin convergence diagnostic (Rhat) were used for all parameters.~For all analyses, the trace plots show good mixing of the 3 chains with Rhat \< 1.01 for all parameters, indicating convergence."|1.29|0.59|
90907700|NCT00819234|181683979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.863||0.0135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.93|-1.54|||t-test, 2 sided|||Treatment comparisons between each active treatment and placebo. Statistical tests performed two-sided at a significance level of α = 0.05. The null hypothesis tested was that there is no difference between each active treatment and the placebo treatment. The primary analysis did not incorporate any adjustment for multiple comparisons.||-1.54|-12.93|0.0135
90907701|NCT00819234|181683979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean|-6.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.681||0.0168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.89|-1.21|||t-test, 2 sided|||Treatment comparisons between each active treatment and placebo. Statistical tests performed two-sided at a significance level of α = 0.05. The null hypothesis tested was that there is no difference between each active treatment and the placebo treatment. The primary analysis did not incorporate any adjustment for multiple comparisons||-1.21|-11.89|0.0168
90907702|NCT00819234|181683979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean|-5.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.887||0.0595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.27|0.23|||t-test, 2 sided|||Treatment comparisons between each active treatment and placebo. Statistical tests performed two-sided at a significance level of α = 0.05. The null hypothesis tested was that there is no difference between each active treatment and the placebo treatment. The primary analysis did not incorporate any adjustment for multiple comparisons||0.23|-11.27|0.0595
90907703|NCT00924560|181684013|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|91-day levonorgestrel OC was declared to be non-inferior to the untreated control group if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was greater than -3%.|LS Mean Difference|-0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.2|||||Difference = OC group minus the untreated control|The primary efficacy endpoint (percent change from baseline to 12 months in lumbar spine BMD) was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect and chronological age, body weight, and Baseline value as covariates.||0.20|-0.67|
90907704|NCT00924560|181684013|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|28-day levonorgestrel OC was declared to be non-inferior to the untreated control group if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was greater than -3%.|LS Mean Difference|-1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|-0.61|||||Difference = OC group minus the untreated control|The primary efficacy endpoint (percent change from baseline to 12 months in lumbar spine BMD) was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect and chronological age, body weight, and Baseline value as covariates.||-0.61|-1.49|
90959560|NCT05227703|181799349|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.5073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 15 mg - Placebo|Week 3-- Emraclidine 15 mg versus Placebo||0.1|-0.1|0.5073
90907705|NCT00924560|181684014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.01||||||Comparison of Change from Baseline to Month 6. ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and chronological age, body weight, and Baseline value as covariates.||0.01|-0.00|
90907706|NCT00924560|181684014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.0||||||Comparison of Change from Baseline to Month 6. ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and chronological age, body weight, and Baseline value as covariates.||-0.00|-0.01|
90907707|NCT00924560|181684014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.0||||||Comparison of Change from Baseline to Month 12. ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and chronological age, body weight, and Baseline value as covariates.||0.00|-0.01|
90907708|NCT00924560|181684014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|-0.01||||||Comparison of Change from Baseline to Month 12. ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and chronological age, body weight, and Baseline value as covariates.||-0.01|-0.02|
90907709|NCT00924560|181684015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.42||||||Comparison of Change from Baseline to Month 6. ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and chronological age, body weight, and Baseline value as covariates.||0.42|-0.08|
90907710|NCT00924560|181684015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean Difference|-0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.18||||||Comparison of Change from Baseline to Month 6. ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and chronological age, body weight, and Baseline value as covariates.||-0.18|-0.68|
90907711|NCT00924560|181684015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.24||||||Comparison of Change from Baseline to Month 12. ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and chronological age, body weight, and Baseline value as covariates.||0.24|-0.39|
90907712|NCT00924560|181684015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.42||||||Comparison of Change from Baseline to Month 12. ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and chronological age, body weight, and Baseline value as covariates.||-0.42|-1.05|
90907713|NCT00924560|181684016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.01||||||Comparison of Change from Baseline to Month 6. ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and chronological age, body weight, and Baseline value as covariates.||0.01|0.00|
90907714|NCT00924560|181684016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.0||||||Comparison of Change from Baseline to Month 6. ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and chronological age, body weight, and Baseline value as covariates.||0.00|-0.01|
90959561|NCT05227703|181799349|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 30 mg - Placebo|Week 3-- Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||0.1|-0.1|0.4650
90907715|NCT00924560|181684016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.01||||||Comparison of Change from Baseline to Month 12. ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and chronological age, body weight, and Baseline value as covariates.||0.01|0.00|
90907716|NCT00924560|181684016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|0.95|-0.01|0.0||||||Comparison of Change from Baseline to Month 12. ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and chronological age, body weight, and Baseline value as covariates.||0.00|-0.01|
90907717|NCT00924560|181684017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean Difference|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.28||||||Comparison of Change from Baseline to Month 6. ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and chronological age, body weight, and Baseline value as covariates.||0.28|-0.03|
90907718|NCT00924560|181684017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.11||||||Comparison of Change from Baseline to Month 6. ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and chronological age, body weight, and Baseline value as covariates.||0.11|-0.20|
90907719|NCT00924560|181684017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.34||||||Comparison of Change from Baseline to Month 12. ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and chronological age, body weight, and Baseline value as covariates.||0.34|-0.01|
90907720|NCT00924560|181684017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.03||||||Comparison of Change from Baseline to Month 12. ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and chronological age, body weight, and Baseline value as covariates.||0.03|-0.32|
90907721|NCT00924560|181684018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.0||||||Comparison of Change from Baseline to Month 6. ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and chronological age, body weight, and Baseline value as covariates.||0.00|-0.01|
90907722|NCT00924560|181684018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.0||||||Comparison of Change from Baseline to Month 6. ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and chronological age, body weight, and Baseline value as covariates.||0.00|-0.01|
90907723|NCT00924560|181684018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.0||||||Comparison of Change from Baseline to Month 12. ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and chronological age, body weight, and Baseline value as covariates.||-0.00|-0.01|
90907724|NCT00924560|181684018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.0||||||Comparison of Change from Baseline to Month 12. ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and chronological age, body weight, and Baseline value as covariates.||-0.00|-0.01|
90959562|NCT05227703|181799349|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.0|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 15 mg - Placebo|Week 6-- Emraclidine 15 mg versus Placebo||0.0|-0.1|0.0672
90959563|NCT05227703|181799349|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 30 mg - Placebo|Week 6-- Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||0.1|-0.1|0.8030
90959564|NCT05227703|181799350|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.8259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 15 mg - Placebo|Week 3-- Emraclidine 15 mg versus Placebo||0.1|-0.1|0.8259
90907725|NCT00924560|181684019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.57|12.61||||||Comparison of Change from Baseline to Month 6. ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and chronological age, body weight, and Baseline value as covariates.||12.61|-23.57|
90907726|NCT00924560|181684019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.65|10.55||||||Comparison of Change from Baseline to Month 6. ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and chronological age, body weight, and Baseline value as covariates.||10.55|-25.65|
90907727|NCT00924560|181684019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-12.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.99|10.81||||||Comparison of Change from Baseline to Month 12. ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and chronological age, body weight, and Baseline value as covariates.||10.81|-34.99|
90907728|NCT00924560|181684019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-21.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.08|1.74||||||Comparison of Change from Baseline to Month 12. ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and chronological age, body weight, and Baseline value as covariates.||1.74|-44.08|
90907729|NCT01290094|181684048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value for percent change from baseline was from a paired samples t-test.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.0005
90907730|NCT01290094|181684049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value for percent change from baseline was from a paired samples t-test.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.0005
90907731|NCT01290094|181684050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value for percent change from baseline was from a paired samples t-test.|Paired t-test|||||||0.001
90907732|NCT01290094|181684051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value for percent change from baseline was from a paired samples t-test.|Paired t-test|||||||0.056
90907733|NCT01290094|181684052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|||||Month 12: P-value for percent change from baseline was from a Wilcoxon signed rank test.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.0005
90907734|NCT01290094|181684052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|||||Month 24: P-value for percent change from baseline was from a Wilcoxon signed rank test.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.0005
90907735|NCT01290094|181684053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|||||Month 12: P-value for percent change from baseline was from a paired samples t-test.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.0005
90907736|NCT01290094|181684053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|||||Month 24: P-value for percent change from baseline was from a paired samples t-test.|Paired t-test|||||||0.027
90907737|NCT02162446|181684081|OTHER|||||||0.016|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Comparison of malignant lesions in total tissues between previous somatostatin receptor scan (ITT population pre-dose) and the 68Ga-OPS202 visit 1 receptor scan (ITT population Day 0) at 1 hour time point.||||0.016
90907738|NCT02162446|181684081|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Comparison of malignant lesions in total tissues between previous somatostatin receptor scan (ITT population pre-dose) and the 68Ga-OPS202 visit 2 receptor scan (ITT population Day 21) at 1 hour time point.||||0.004
90907739|NCT02162446|181684081|OTHER|||||||0.012|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Comparison of malignant lesions in liver between previous somatostatin receptor scan (ITT population pre-dose) and the 68Ga-OPS202 visit 1 receptor scan (ITT population Day 0) at 1 hour time point.||||0.012
90907740|NCT02162446|181684081|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Comparison of malignant lesions in liver between previous somatostatin receptor scan (ITT population pre-dose) and the 68Ga-OPS202 visit 2 receptor scan (ITT population Day 21) at 1 hour time point.||||0.004
90907741|NCT02162446|181684081|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Comparison of malignant lesions in lymph node between previous somatostatin receptor scan (ITT population pre-dose) and the 68Ga-OPS202 visit 1 receptor scan (ITT population Day 0) at 1 hour time point.||||0.500
90907742|NCT02162446|181684081|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Comparison of malignant lesions in lymph node between previous somatostatin receptor scan (ITT population pre-dose) and the 68Ga-OPS202 visit 2 receptor scan (ITT population Day 21) at 1 hour time point.||||1.000
90907743|NCT02162446|181684083|OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Comparison of SUVmax of malignant lesions in liver between previous somatostatin receptor scan (ITT population pre-dose) and the 68Ga-OPS202 visit 1 receptor scan (ITT population Day 0) at 1 hour time point.||||0.250
90907744|NCT02162446|181684083|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Comparison of SUVmax of malignant lesions in liver between previous somatostatin receptor scan (ITT population pre-dose) and the 68Ga-OPS202 visit 2 receptor scan (ITT population Day 21) at 1 hour time point.||||0.004
90907745|NCT02162446|181684083|OTHER|||||||0.688|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Comparison of SUVmax of malignant lesions in lymph node between previous somatostatin receptor scan (ITT population pre-dose) and the 68Ga-OPS202 visit 1 receptor scan (ITT population Day 0) at 1 hour time point.||||0.688
90907746|NCT02162446|181684083|OTHER|||||||0.578|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Comparison of SUVmax of malignant lesions in lymph node between previous somatostatin receptor scan (ITT population pre-dose) and the 68Ga-OPS202 visit 2 receptor scan (ITT population Day 21) at 1 hour time point.||||0.578
90907747|NCT02162446|181684084|OTHER|||||||0.027|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Comparison of SUVmax of malignant lesions in liver between 68Ga-OPS202 visit 1 receptor scan (ITT population Day 0) and the 68Ga-OPS202 visit 2 receptor scan (ITT population Day 21) at 1 hour time point.||||0.027
90907748|NCT02162446|181684084|OTHER|||||||0.219|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Comparison of SUVmax of malignant lesions in lymph node between 68Ga-OPS202 visit 1 receptor scan (ITT population Day 0) and the 68Ga-OPS202 visit 2 receptor scan (ITT population Day 21) at 1 hour time point.||||0.219
90907749|NCT02162446|181684085|OTHER|||||||0.064|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Comparison of SUVmax of RT in muscle between previous somatostatin receptor scan (ITT population pre-dose) and the 68Ga-OPS202 visit 1 receptor scan (ITT population Day 0) at 1 hour time point.||||0.064
90907750|NCT02162446|181684085|OTHER|||||||0.339|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Comparison of SUVmax of RT in muscle between previous somatostatin receptor scan (ITT population pre-dose) and the 68Ga-OPS202 visit 2 receptor scan (ITT population Day 21) at 1 hour time point.||||0.339
90907751|NCT02162446|181684085|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Comparison of SUVmax of RT in liver between previous somatostatin receptor scan (ITT population pre-dose) and the 68Ga-OPS202 visit 1 receptor scan (ITT population Day 0) at 1 hour time point.||||0.001
90907752|NCT02162446|181684085|OTHER|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Comparison of SUVmax of RT in liver between previous somatostatin receptor scan (ITT population pre-dose) and the 68Ga-OPS202 visit 2 receptor scan (ITT population Day 21) at 1 hour time point.||||0.000
90907753|NCT02162446|181684085|OTHER|||||||0.297|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Comparison of SUVmax of RT in lymph node between previous somatostatin receptor scan (ITT population pre-dose) and the 68Ga-OPS202 visit 1 receptor scan (ITT population Day 0) at 1 hour time point.||||0.297
90907754|NCT02162446|181684085|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Comparison of SUVmax of RT in lymph node between previous somatostatin receptor scan (ITT population pre-dose) and the 68Ga-OPS202 visit 2 receptor scan (ITT population Day 21) at 1 hour time point.||||1.000
90907755|NCT02162446|181684086|OTHER|||||||0.47|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Comparison of SUVmax of RT in muscle between 68Ga-OPS202 visit 1 receptor scan (ITT population Day 0) and the 68Ga-OPS202 visit 2 receptor scan (ITT population Day 21) at 1 hour time point.||||0.470
90864118|NCT01709513|181592065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-20.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.7|-17.0||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant).||-17.0|-24.7|<0.0001
90959565|NCT05227703|181799350|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.5936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.0|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 30 mg - Placebo|Week 3-- Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||0.0|-0.1|0.5936
90864119|NCT01709513|181592066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-24.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.7|-20.4||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant).||-20.4|-28.7|<0.0001
90864120|NCT01709513|181592067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-25.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.9|-21.5||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant).||-21.5|-29.9|<0.0001
90864121|NCT01709513|181592068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-21.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.5|-17.7||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant).||-17.7|-24.5|<0.0001
90864122|NCT01709513|181592069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|19.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|55.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant). Statistical analysis used a multiple imputation approach followed by a Logistic regression model.||55.2|6.9|<0.0001
90864123|NCT01709513|181592070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|24.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.6|71.9||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant). Statistical analysis used a multiple imputation approach followed by a Logistic regression model.||71.9|8.6|<0.0001
90864124|NCT01709513|181592071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|71.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.1|3022.1||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Exact Conditional Logistic|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant). Statistical analysis used a last observation carried forward (LOCF) approach followed by Exact conditional logistic regression model.||3022.1|11.1|<0.0001
90864125|NCT01709513|181592072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|109.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.5|4759.3||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Exact Conditional Logistic|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant). Statistical analysis used a LOCF approach followed by Exact conditional logistic regression model.||4759.3|16.5|<0.0001
90864126|NCT01709513|181592073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-18.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.5|-11.8||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Robust|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant). Statistical analysis used a multiple imputation approach followed by a robust regression model.||-11.8|-25.5|<0.0001
90864127|NCT01709513|181592074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.9|||=|0.6997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|5.6||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant).||5.6|-3.8|=0.6997
90864128|NCT01513343|181592094|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Logistic|Multinomial logistic regression examined program effects on child BMI categories, controlling for child sex, age (months), \& BMI z-score at pretest.||||||<0.05
90864129|NCT01513343|181592095|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||To control for type I errors, the critical P values for each assessment were determined with the unweighted Bonferroni method, dividing the critical value of P \< 0.05 by the number of comparisons conducted for a given assessment.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
90864130|NCT02165215|181592129|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in response rates|7.7||||0.1942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|19.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||19.2|-4.2|0.1942
90864131|NCT02165215|181592130|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in remission rates|14.6||||0.1524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.55|33.15||p-value has not been adjusted for multiplicity|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||33.15|-5.55|0.1524
90864132|NCT02165215|181592131|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in remission rates|8.7||||0.1466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.26|20.21||p-value has not been adjusted for multiplicity|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||20.21|-3.26|0.1466
90959566|NCT05227703|181799350|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 15 mg - Placebo|Week 6-- Emraclidine 15 mg versus Placebo||0.1|0.0|0.0253
90864133|NCT02165215|181592132|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in remission rates|10.9||||0.3083||95.0|-9.72|30.49||p-value has not been adjusted for multiplicity|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||30.49|-9.72|0.3083
90864134|NCT02165215|181592133|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in response rates|14.4||||0.0235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.84|26.28||p-value has not been adjusted for multiplicity|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||26.28|1.84|0.0235
90864135|NCT02165215|181592134|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in remission rates|12.8||||0.0293||95.0|1.13|23.89||p-value has not been adjusted for multiplicity|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||23.89|1.13|0.0293
90959567|NCT05227703|181799350|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 30 mg - Placebo|Week 6-- Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||0.1|0.0|0.2710
90959568|NCT03373201|181799366|SUPERIORITY||Difference between LS means|60.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.0|76.7|||ANOVA|||||76.7|44.0|<.0001
90959569|NCT03373201|181799367|SUPERIORITY||Difference between LS Means.|85.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.3|106.6|||ANOVA|||||106.6|64.3|<.0001
90959570|NCT03373201|181799368|SUPERIORITY||Difference between LS means|-15.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.2|-4.0|||ANOVA|||||-4.0|-26.2|<.0001
90864136|NCT02165215|181592135|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in remission rates|19.8||||0.0075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.16|33.11||p-value has not been adjusted for multiplicity|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||33.11|5.16|0.0075
90864137|NCT02165215|181592136|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in remission rates|9.9||||0.1415||95.0|-4.47|23.13||p-value has not been adjusted for multiplicity|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||23.13|-4.47|0.1415
90864138|NCT02165215|181592137|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in remission rates|9.9||||0.1415||95.0|-4.47|23.13||p-value has not been adjusted for multiplicity|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||23.13|-4.47|0.1415
90864139|NCT02165215|181592138|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-2.8||||0.0266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|-0.4||p-value has not been adjusted for multiplicity|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-0.4|-5.3|0.0266
90959571|NCT03373201|181799369|SUPERIORITY||Difference between LS means|-74.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-94.8|-54.3|||ANOVA|||||-54.3|-94.8|<.0001
90959572|NCT03373201|181799370|SUPERIORITY||Difference between LS Means.|-0.5||||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.1|||ANOVA|||||-0.1|-0.9|0.0083
90959573|NCT03373201|181799371|SUPERIORITY||Difference between LS Means.|6.6||||0.0099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|11.6|||ANOVA|||||11.6|1.6|0.0099
90959574|NCT03464097|181799372|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.59||||0.0539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|2.55|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.55|0.99|0.0539
90959575|NCT03464097|181799373|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.1503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|2.65|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.65|0.86|0.1503
90959576|NCT03464097|181799374|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.1121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.29|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.29|0.92|0.1121
90864140|NCT02165215|181592139|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-1.2||||0.0175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.2||p-value has not been adjusted for multiplicity|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-0.2|-2.2|0.0175
90959577|NCT03464097|181799375|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46||||0.1163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|2.35|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.35|0.91|0.1163
90959578|NCT03464097|181799376|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.78||||0.0561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|3.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.20|0.98|0.0561
90959579|NCT03464097|181799377|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.5061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.86|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.86|0.60|0.5061
90959580|NCT03464097|181799378|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.11||||0.1179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|5.44|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.44|0.82|0.1179
90959581|NCT03464097|181799379|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.78||||0.0769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|3.39|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.39|0.94|0.0769
90959582|NCT03464097|181799380|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.71||||0.0623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|7.98|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||7.98|0.92|0.0623
90959583|NCT03464097|181799381|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.1162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|3.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.00|0.89|0.1162
90959584|NCT03464097|181799382|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.2143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|2.11|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.11|0.85|0.2143
90959585|NCT03464097|181799383|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.58||||0.0663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|2.57|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.57|0.97|0.0663
90959586|NCT03464097|181799384|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.81||||0.0774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|18.64|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||18.64|0.78|0.0774
90959587|NCT03464097|181799386|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.88||||0.0308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|3.33|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.33|1.06|0.0308
90959588|NCT03464097|181799387|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.8745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.95|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.95|0.57|0.8745
90959589|NCT03464097|181799388|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.98||||0.0361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|3.78|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.78|1.04|0.0361
90959590|NCT03035201|181799389|OTHER|two-tailed test of the null hypothesis of no differences between groups.|Mean from linear contrast|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.08||Not adjusted|Mixed Models Analysis||Marginal effect of cocoa flavonal versus cocoa placebo based on the mean difference between linear contrasts.|Marginal comparisons from a repeated measures model using a linear contrast to estimate the mean differences between baseline versus average values across follow-up.|Wald test of a linear contrast from the mixed effects analysis....see protocol.|0.08|-0.02|<0.05
90959591|NCT03035201|181799390|EQUIVALENCE|two-tailed test of the null hypothesis of no differences between groups.|Mean difference of linear contrasts|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.12||Not adjusted|Wald test||Marginal effects of multivitamin versus multivitamin placebo|Marginal comparisons from a repeated measures model using a linear contrast to estimate the mean differences between baseline versus average values across follow-up.|Wald test of a linear contrast from the mixed effects analysis....see protocol|0.12|0.02|<0.05
90959592|NCT03035201|181799391|EQUIVALENCE|Proportional hazards regression -- unadjusted two-sided test|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.11||Not adjusted|Regression, Cox||Comparison group is placebo|||1.11|0.52|0.15
90959593|NCT03035201|181799392|EQUIVALENCE|Unadjusted 2-sided test|Cox Proportional Hazard|0.91||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.32||Unadjusted|Regression, Cox||Comparison group is placebo.|||1.32|0.63|0.62
90959594|NCT03035201|181799393|EQUIVALENCE|Cocoa Flavonal minus Placebo|Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.08||Unadjusted|Mixed Models Analysis|Wald test comparing linear contrasts|Cocoa Flavonal minus placebo|||0.08|-0.02|0.24
90907756|NCT02162446|181684086|OTHER|||||||0.233|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Comparison of SUVmax of RT in liver between 68Ga-OPS202 visit 1 receptor scan (ITT population Day 0) and the 68Ga-OPS202 visit 2 receptor scan (ITT population Day 21) at 1 hour time point.||||0.233
90907757|NCT02162446|181684086|OTHER|||||||0.375|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Comparison of SUVmax of RT in lymph node between 68Ga-OPS202 visit 1 receptor scan (ITT population Day 0) and the 68Ga-OPS202 visit 2 receptor scan (ITT population Day 21) at 1 hour time point.||||0.375
90907758|NCT02162446|181684087|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Comparison of 3D-SUV-R of malignant lesions in liver with RT as liver between previous somatostatin receptor scan (ITT population pre-dose) and the 68Ga-OPS202 visit 1 receptor scan (ITT population Day 0) at 1 hour time point.||||0.004
90907759|NCT02162446|181684087|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Comparison of 3D-SUV-R of malignant lesions in liver with RT as liver between previous somatostatin receptor scan (ITT population pre-dose) and the 68Ga-OPS202 visit 2 receptor scan (ITT population Day 21) at 1 hour time point.||||0.004
90907760|NCT02162446|181684087|OTHER|||||||0.426|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Comparison of 3D-SUV-R of malignant lesions in liver with RT as muscle between previous somatostatin receptor scan (ITT population pre-dose) and the 68Ga-OPS202 visit 1 receptor scan (ITT population Day 0) at 1 hour time point.||||0.426
90907761|NCT02162446|181684087|OTHER|||||||0.098|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Comparison of 3D-SUV-R of malignant lesions in liver with RT as muscle between previous somatostatin receptor scan (ITT population pre-dose) and the 68Ga-OPS202 visit 2 receptor scan (ITT population Day 21) at 1 hour time point.||||0.098
90907762|NCT02162446|181684087|OTHER|||||||0.813|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Comparison of 3D-SUV-R of malignant lesions in lymph node with RT as lymph node between previous somatostatin receptor scan (ITT population pre-dose) and the 68Ga-OPS202 visit 1 receptor scan (ITT population Day 0) at 1 hour time point.||||0.813
90959595|NCT03035201|181799394|EQUIVALENCE|two-sided|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.09||Unadjusted|Mixed Models Analysis|Comparison of linear contrasts: cocoa flavonal minus placebo|Cocoa flavonal minus placebo|Unadjusted 2-tailed test||0.09|-0.04|0.41
90959596|NCT03035201|181799395|EQUIVALENCE|2 sided test, multivitamin minus placebo|Mean Difference (Net)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.11||Unadjusted|Mixed Models Analysis|Comparison of linear contrasts|Multivitamin minus placebo|2-sided test, unadjusted||0.11|0.01|0.02
90907763|NCT02162446|181684087|OTHER|||||||0.813|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Comparison of 3D-SUV-R of malignant lesions in lymph node with RT as lymph node between previous somatostatin receptor scan (ITT population pre-dose) and the 68Ga-OPS202 visit 2 receptor scan (ITT population Day 21) at 1 hour time point.||||0.813
90959597|NCT03035201|181799396|EQUIVALENCE|2-sided, unadjusted|Mean Difference (Net)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.002|0.126||Unadjusted|Mixed Models Analysis|Comparison of linear contrasts|Multivitamin minus placebo|Multivitamin minus placebo||0.126|0.002|0.04
90959598|NCT02390050|181799397|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.34||P-value from Type III F-test|ANCOVA|Study center, treatment, visit and a treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects; prior anti-diabetic treatment and baseline HbA1c as covariates||||-0.34|-0.76|< 0.0001
90864141|NCT02165215|181592140|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|2.1||||0.6331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|10.8||p-value has not been adjusted for multiplicity|ANCOVA|||||10.8|-6.6|0.6331
90864142|NCT00592384|181592155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.025||||||Bonferroni corrected for two primary comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|see above||Primary analyses included observations at baseline, 1, 3, 6, 8, 10, and 12 weeks. Random effects were included for participants' intercepts. Fixed effects were time (linear), treatment (VFN vs. PBO), interaction of time with treatment, stratification factors and potential confounders and variables to improve sensitivity. The primary indicator of treatment effect was the interaction of time by treatment.||||<.025
90864143|NCT00592384|181592168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.025||||||Bonferroni corrected for two primary outcomes|Mixed Models Analysis|||Primary analyses included observations at baseline, 1, 3, 6, 8, 10, and 12 weeks. Random effects were included for participants' intercepts. Fixed effects were time (linear), treatment (VFN vs. PBO), interaction of time with treatment, stratification factors and potential confounders and variables to improve sensitivity. The primary indicator of treatment effect was the interaction of time by treatment.||||<.025
90864144|NCT01144286|181592171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||response rate (%)|80.0||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Significance level was set to α of 0.05 if the primary endpoint was significant, hierarchical testing was to be performed on the primary endpoint (each active dose X placebo). No other adjustment was made for testing multiple secondary outcomes.|Regression, Logistic|||"Primary analysis is the dose response at TOC based on the global therapeutic cure. Dose response will be tested using a logistic regression using linear coefficient for the treatment effect(Wald chi-square).~Assuming that the response rate is 80% for 600 mg, 75% for the 300 mg, 65% for 150 mg and 50% for the placebo group, a sample size of 45 subjects in each group will have 90% power to detect a linear dose response using a 0.05 two-sided test of trend based on the logistic model."||||0.0630
90864145|NCT01153347|181592173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.07||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.96|1.24||The adjusted p-value protects the overall family-wise error rate by taking into account the multiple comparisons between the TC-5214 doses for both the primary efficacy variable (MADRS) and the key secondary efficacy variable (SDS).|MMRM|||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||1.24|-2.96|1.000
90864146|NCT01153347|181592173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.67|1.57|||MMRM|||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||1.57|-2.67|1.000
90959599|NCT02390050|181799397|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.47||P-value from Type III F-test|ANCOVA|Study center, treatment, visit and a treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects; prior anti-diabetic treatment and baseline HbA1c as covariates||||-0.47|-0.89|< 0.0001
90959600|NCT02390050|181799397|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.59||P-value from Type III F-test|ANCOVA|Study center, treatment, visit and a treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects; prior anti-diabetic treatment and baseline HbA1c as covariates||||-0.59|-1.01|< 0.0001
90959601|NCT02390050|181799398|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1||||0.1308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|5.3|||Regression, Logistic|Treatment, country, baseline HbA1c and prior anti-diabetic treatment status as predictor variables and a dependable variable of 1 (\<7%) or 0 (\>7%).||Odds ratio of having at least 1 post-baseline HbA1c value \<7% in the 5 mg bexagliflozin group was compared to placebo group.||5.3|0.8|0.1308
90864147|NCT01153347|181592173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|2.04|||MMRM|||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||2.04|-2.26|1.000
90864148|NCT01153347|181592174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.6|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||1.60|0.64|0.967
90864149|NCT01153347|181592174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.43|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||1.43|0.57|0.670
90907764|NCT02162446|181684087|OTHER|||||||0.297|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Comparison of 3D-SUV-R of malignant lesions in lymph node with RT as muscle between previous somatostatin receptor scan (ITT population pre-dose) and the 68Ga-OPS202 visit 1 receptor scan (ITT population Day 0) at 1 hour time point.||||0.297
90907765|NCT02162446|181684087|OTHER|||||||0.469|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Comparison of 3D-SUV-R of malignant lesions in lymph node with RT as muscle between previous somatostatin receptor scan (ITT population pre-dose) and the 68Ga-OPS202 visit 2 receptor scan (ITT population Day 21) at 1 hour time point.||||0.469
90907766|NCT02162446|181684088|OTHER|||||||0.91|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Comparison of 3D-SUV-R of malignant lesions in liver with RT as liver between 68Ga-OPS202 visit 1 receptor scan (ITT population Day 0) and 68Ga-OPS202 visit 2 receptor scan (ITT population Day 21) at 1 hour time point.||||0.910
90907767|NCT02162446|181684088|OTHER|||||||0.039|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Comparison of 3D-SUV-R of malignant lesions in liver with RT as muscle between 68Ga-OPS202 visit 1 receptor scan (ITT population Day 0) and 68Ga-OPS202 visit 2 receptor scan (ITT population Day 21) at 1 hour time point.||||0.039
90907768|NCT02162446|181684088|OTHER|||||||0.375|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Comparison of 3D-SUV-R of malignant lesions in lymph node with RT as lymph node between 68Ga-OPS202 visit 1 receptor scan (ITT population Day 0) and 68Ga-OPS202 visit 2 receptor scan (ITT population Day 21) at 1 hour time point.||||0.375
90907769|NCT02162446|181684088|OTHER|||||||0.219|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Comparison of 3D-SUV-R of malignant lesions in lymph node with RT as muscle between 68Ga-OPS202 visit 1 receptor scan (ITT population Day 0) and 68Ga-OPS202 visit 2 receptor scan (ITT population Day 21) at 1 hour time point.||||0.219
90907770|NCT04358549|181684103|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|14.0||||0.0415|TWO_SIDED|90.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.0415
90907771|NCT04358549|181684104|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.653|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.19|2.24||||||||2.240|0.190|
90907772|NCT04358549|181684105|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|3.0||||0.9879|TWO_SIDED|90.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.9879
90907773|NCT00646451|181684114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.162|||||||ANOVA|||"Outcome on study completers was assessed via ANOVA models using a 2 × 2 Latin-square crossover design including sequence, period, and treatment effects. A significant carryover effect was excluded. Analyses were performed using Stata IC version 10.0 for Windows.~Unfortunately the small sample size of our study limits the possibility of a meaningful post-hoc analysis targeted to these variables."|The Quest rates patient perception of health status as influenced by tremor across 5 domains, physical, psychosocial, communication, hobbies/leisure, and work/finance. HAM-A rates severity of anxiety symptomatology across 14 parameters. Scores of 14-17 correspond to mild anxiety, scores of 18-24 is moderate anxiety and 25-30 severe anxiety. HD-16 rates insomnia-related QoL across 5 domains: physical symptoms, energy \& motivation, concentration, interpersonal relations and psychological symptoms. These scales were scored per published guidelines.|||0.162
90907774|NCT02004613|181684150|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.91||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|97.8|0.72|1.15|||Regression, Logistic|||Hypothesis: dexmedetomidine would reduce the incidence of postoperative atrial arrhythmias.||1.15|0.72|0.34
90907775|NCT02004613|181684151|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.48||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|97.8|0.99|2.23|||Regression, Logistic|||hypothesis: Dexmedetomidine may reduce the incidence of postoperative delirium.||2.23|0.99|0.026
90907776|NCT02004613|181684152|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.4||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.84|2.34|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.34|0.84|0.14
90907777|NCT02004613|181684153|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.87||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.65|1.16|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.16|0.65|0.29
90907778|NCT02584790|181684155|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Chi-squared|||2x2 table of: Row: 1. NBI suspicious pattern 2. NBI non-suspicious pattern Category: 1. with residual disease 2. without residual disease||||0.004
90907779|NCT00672256|181684161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.039|||<|0.05||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||Within group repeated measures design. Null hypothesis is that there will be no difference in percent signal change during active task relative to baseline.||||<0.05
90864150|NCT01153347|181592174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.38|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||1.38|0.54|0.544
90864151|NCT01153347|181592175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.53|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||1.53|0.55|0.730
90864152|NCT01153347|181592175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.5|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||1.50|0.53|0.671
90864153|NCT01153347|181592175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.29|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||1.29|0.45|0.308
90864154|NCT01153347|181592176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|2.15|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||2.15|0.42|0.905
90864155|NCT01153347|181592176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|2.14|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||2.14|0.41|0.864
90959602|NCT02390050|181799398|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.1294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|5.1|||Regression, Logistic|Treatment, country, baseline HbA1c and prior anti-diabetic treatment status as predictor variables and a dependable variable of 1 (\<7%) or 0 (\>7%).||Odds ratio of having at least 1 post-baseline HbA1c value \<7% in the 10 mg bexagliflozin group was compared to placebo group.||5.1|0.8|0.1294
90864156|NCT01153347|181592176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|2.25|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||2.25|0.43|0.958
90864157|NCT01153347|181592177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.73|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||1.73|0.48|0.778
90864158|NCT01153347|181592177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.24|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||2.24|0.66|0.532
90864159|NCT01153347|181592177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.64|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||1.64|0.44|0.633
90864160|NCT01153347|181592178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|2.31|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||2.31|0.46|0.949
90864161|NCT01153347|181592178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|3.4|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||3.40|0.72|0.253
90864162|NCT01153347|181592178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|2.08|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||2.08|0.37|0.763
90864163|NCT01153347|181592179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|0.55|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with randomization HAMD-17 total score as covariate, treatment as a fixed effect and pooled center as a random effect.||0.55|-2.51|0.207
90864164|NCT01153347|181592179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|0.91|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with randomization HAMD-17 total score as covariate, treatment as a fixed effect and pooled center as a random effect.||0.91|-2.16|0.427
90864165|NCT01153347|181592179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|1.12|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with randomization HAMD-17 total score as covariate, treatment as a fixed effect and pooled center as a random effect.||1.12|-1.96|0.591
90864166|NCT01153347|181592180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.551||95.0|-0.34|0.18|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization CGI-S total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.18|-0.34|0.551
90864167|NCT01153347|181592180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.17|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization CGI-S total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.17|-0.36|0.487
90864168|NCT01153347|181592180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.31|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization CGI-S total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.31|-0.23|0.780
90864169|NCT01153347|181592181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.53|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization Clinical Global Impression Severity (CGI-S) as a covariate.||1.53|0.62|0.908
90907780|NCT00672256|181684162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.104|||<|0.05||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||Within group repeated measures design. Null hypothesis is that there will be no difference in percent signal change during active task relative to baseline.||||<0.05
90907781|NCT00672256|181684163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.173|||<|0.05||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||Within group repeated measures design. Null hypothesis is that there will be no difference in percent signal change during active task relative to baseline.||||<0.05
90907782|NCT00672256|181684164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.169|||<|0.05||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||Within group repeated measures design. Null hypothesis is that there will be no difference in percent signal change during active task relative to baseline.||||<0.05
90907783|NCT02072226|181684184|OTHER|Confidence Interval|Adjusted Risk Difference|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.44|7.25||||||||7.25|-9.44|
90907784|NCT02072226|181684185|OTHER|Confidence Interval|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.527|1.244||||||||1.244|0.527|
90864170|NCT01153347|181592181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.67|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization Clinical Global Impression Severity (CGI-S) as a covariate.||1.67|0.67|0.803
90864171|NCT01153347|181592181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.03|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization Clinical Global Impression Severity (CGI-S) as a covariate.||1.03|0.41|0.066
90864172|NCT01153347|181592182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.645||0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.091|0.442|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with randomization HAM-A total score as covariate, treatment as a fixed effect and pooled center as a random effect.||0.442|-2.091|0.202
90864173|NCT01153347|181592182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.647||0.738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.487|1.055|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with randomization HAM-A total score as covariate, treatment as a fixed effect and pooled center as a random effect.||1.055|-1.487|0.738
90864174|NCT01153347|181592182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.787|0.767|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with randomization HAM-A total score as covariate, treatment as a fixed effect and pooled center as a random effect.||0.767|-1.787|0.433
90864175|NCT01153347|181592183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|2.22|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||2.22|-0.18|0.097
90907785|NCT02072226|181684186|OTHER|Confidence Interval|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.858|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.529|1.393||||||||1.393|0.529|
90907786|NCT02072226|181684187|OTHER|Confidence Interval|difference in percentages|3.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|7.38||||||||7.38|0.75|
90907787|NCT02072226|181684188|OTHER|Confidence Interval|difference in percentages|4.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|10.07||||||Any ICH within 36 hours reported by site||10.07|-0.34|
90907788|NCT02072226|181684188|OTHER|Confidence Interval|difference in percentages|3.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|9.49||||||Any ICH within 36 hours reported by central reader||9.49|-1.23|
90907789|NCT00810303|181684204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Paired Wilcoxon-test between free ezetimibe alone and free ezetimibe with single dose treatment of efavirenz.||||<0.05
90907790|NCT00810303|181684205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Paired Wilcoxon-test between free ezetimibe alone and free ezetimibe with single dose treatment of efavirenz.||||<0.05
90907791|NCT00810303|181684207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Paired Wilcoxon-test between steady state pharmakokinetic of efavirenz with chronic treatment of ezetimibe and the single dose pharmakokinetic of efavirenz without chronic treatment of ezetimibe.||||<0.05
90864176|NCT01153347|181592183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|1.11|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||1.11|-1.29|0.882
90864177|NCT01153347|181592183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|2.23|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||2.23|-0.19|0.100
90864178|NCT01153347|181592184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|2.22|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||2.22|-0.69|0.303
90864179|NCT01153347|181592184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|1.65|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||1.65|-1.26|0.793
90864180|NCT01153347|181592184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.25|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||1.25|-1.70|0.762
90864181|NCT01153347|181592185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91||0.339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.65|0.92|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.92|-2.65|0.339
90864182|NCT01153347|181592185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91||0.321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|0.89|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.89|-2.70|0.321
90864183|NCT01153347|181592185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.92||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.43|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||1.43|-2.20|0.680
90864184|NCT01153347|181592186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||0.737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|1.58|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects the model; pooled center is a random effect.||1.58|-2.23|0.737
90864185|NCT01153347|181592186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98||0.547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|1.33|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||1.33|-2.52|0.547
90864186|NCT01153347|181592186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99||0.953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|2.01|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||2.01|-1.89|0.953
90864187|NCT01153347|181592187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.746||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.069|0.864||The adjusted p-value protects the overall family-wise error rate by taking into account the multiple comparisons between the TC-5214 doses for both the primary efficacy variable (MADRS) and the key secondary efficacy variable (SDS).|MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization SDS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.864|-2.069|1.000
90864188|NCT01153347|181592187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.755||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.004|0.96||The adjusted p-value protects the overall family-wise error rate by taking into account the multiple comparisons between the TC-5214 doses for both the primary efficacy variable (MADRS) and the key secondary efficacy variable (SDS).|MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization SDS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.960|-2.004|1.000
90864189|NCT01153347|181592187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.761||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.095|1.896||The adjusted p-value protects the overall family-wise error rate by taking into account the multiple comparisons between the TC-5214 doses for both the primary efficacy variable (MADRS) and the key secondary efficacy variable (SDS).|MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization SDS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||1.896|-1.095|1.000
90907792|NCT00810303|181684208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Paired Wilcoxon-test between steady state pharmakokinetic of efavirenz with chronic treatment of ezetimibe and the single dose pharmakokinetic of efavirenz with chronic treatment of ezetimibe.||||<0.05
90959603|NCT02390050|181799398|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.2||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|10.3|||Regression, Logistic|Treatment, country, baseline HbA1c and prior anti-diabetic treatment status as predictor variables and a dependable variable of 1 (\<7%) or 0 (\>7%).||Odds ratio of having at least 1 post-baseline HbA1c value \<7% in the 20 mg bexagliflozin group was compared to placebo group.||10.3|1.7|0.0015
90864190|NCT01153347|181592188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.59|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization SDS work/school domain score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.59|-0.56|0.953
90907793|NCT00810303|181684209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Paired Wilcoxon-test between steady state pharmakokinetic of efavirenz with chronic treatment of ezetimibe and the single dose pharmakokinetic of efavirenz without chronic treatment of ezetimibe.||||<0.05
90907794|NCT00810303|181684209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Paired Wilcoxon-test between steady state pharmakokinetic of efavirenz with chronic treatment of ezetimibe and the single dose pharmakokinetic of efavirenz with chronic treatment of ezetimibe.||||<0.05
90907795|NCT00810303|181684210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Paired Wilcoxon-test between steady state pharmakokinetic of efavirenz with chronic treatment of ezetimibe and the single dose pharmakokinetic of efavirenz without chronic treatment of ezetimibe.||||<0.05
90907796|NCT00810303|181684211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Paired Wilcoxon-test between steady state pharmakokinetic of efavirenz with chronic treatment of ezetimibe and the single dose pharmakokinetics of efavirenz with chronic treatment of ezetimibe.||||<0.05
90864191|NCT01153347|181592188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.54|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization SDS work/school domain score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.54|-0.64|0.868
90864192|NCT01153347|181592188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.66|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization SDS work/school domain score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.66|-0.50|0.792
90864193|NCT01153347|181592189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.48|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization SDS social life domain score. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.48|-0.54|0.915
90864194|NCT01153347|181592189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.53|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization SDS social life domain score. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.53|-0.51|0.972
90864195|NCT01153347|181592189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.84|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization SDS social life domain score. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.84|-0.21|0.237
90864196|NCT01153347|181592190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.19|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization SDS family life/home responsibilities domain score. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.19|-0.87|0.213
90907797|NCT00810303|181684212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Paired Wilcoxon-test between steady state pharmakokinetic of efavirenz with chronic treatment of ezetimibe and the single dose pharmakokinetic of efavirenz without chronic treatment of ezetimibe.||||<0.05
90907798|NCT00810303|181684212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Paired Wilcoxon-test between steady state pharmakokinetic of efavirenz with chronic treatment of ezetimibe and the single dose pharmakokinetics of efavirenz with chronic treatment of ezetimibe.||||<0.05
90907799|NCT00810303|181684213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Paired Wilcoxon-test between free ezetimibe alone and free ezetimibe with single dose treatment of efavirenz.||||<0.05
90959604|NCT02390050|181799399|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|-0.36||||||Week 2: Difference in LS mean change in body weight from baseline to week 2 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 5 mg group and Placebo group||-0.36|-1.13|
90959605|NCT02390050|181799399|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|-0.38||||||Week 2: Difference in LS mean change in body weight from baseline to week 2 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 10 mg group and Placebo group||-0.38|-1.15|
90864197|NCT01153347|181592190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.28|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization SDS family life/home responsibilities domain score. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.28|-0.80|0.343
90864198|NCT01153347|181592190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.53|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization SDS family life/home responsibilities domain score. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.53|-0.55|0.971
90864199|NCT01153347|181592191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.694||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.224|5.431|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA with randomization Q-LES-Q-SF % maximum total score as covariate, treatment as a fixed effect and pooled center as a random effect.||5.431|-1.224|0.215
90907800|NCT00810303|181684213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Paired Wilcoxon-test between free ezetimibe with chronic treatment of efavirenz and free ezetimibe alone.||||<0.05
90907801|NCT00810303|181684214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Paired Wilcoxon-test between free ezetimibe alone and free ezetimibe with single dose treatment of efavirenz.||||<0.05
90907802|NCT00810303|181684214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Paired Wilcoxon-test between free ezetimibe with chronic treatment of efavirenz and free ezetimibe with single dose treatment of efavirenz.||||<0.05
90907803|NCT00810303|181684215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Paired Wilcoxon-test between free ezetimibe with chronic treatment of efavirenz and free ezetimibe alone.||||<0.05
90907804|NCT00810303|181684215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Paired Wilcoxon-test between free ezetimibe with chronic treatment of efavirenz and free ezetimibe with single dose treatment of efavirenz.||||<0.05
90907805|NCT00810303|181684216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Paired Wilcoxon-test between free ezetimibe with chronic treatment of efavirenz and free ezetimibe alone.||||<0.05
90907806|NCT00810303|181684217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Paired Wilcoxon-test between free ezetimibe with chronic treatment of efavirenz and free ezetimibe with single dose treatment of efavirenz.||||<0.05
90959606|NCT02390050|181799399|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|-0.61||||||Week 2: Difference in LS mean change in body weight from baseline to week 2 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 20 mg group and Placebo group||-0.61|-1.38|
90907807|NCT00810303|181684218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Paired Wilcoxon-test between free ezetimibe with chronic treatment of efavirenz and free ezetimibe alone.||||<0.05
90907808|NCT00810303|181684218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Paired Wilcoxon-test between free ezetimibe with chronic treatment of efavirenz and free ezetimibe with single dose treatment of efavirenz.||||<0.05
90907809|NCT01720043|181684219|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.181|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Collagen.5.g.ml, 24 hrs||||0.181
90907810|NCT01720043|181684219|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.164|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Collagen.2.g.ml||||.164
90907811|NCT01720043|181684219|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.132|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||ADP.10.M, 24 hrs||||.132
90907812|NCT01720043|181684219|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.066|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||ADP.5.M||||.066
90907813|NCT01720043|181684219|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.268|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||ADP.3.M, 24 hrs||||0.268
90907814|NCT01720043|181684219|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.106|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Arach.Acid.0.5.mg.ml||||0.106
90907815|NCT01720043|181684219|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.625|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Ristocetin.1.5.mg.ml||||0.625
90907816|NCT01720043|181684219|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.381|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Ristocetin.0.5.mg.ml||||0.381
90907817|NCT01720043|181684219|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.549|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Collagen.5.g.ml, 48 hrs||||0.549
90907818|NCT01720043|181684219|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.838|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Collagen.2.g.ml, 48 hrs||||.838
90907819|NCT01720043|181684219|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.245|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||ADP.10.M||||0.245
90907820|NCT01720043|181684219|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.417|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||ADP.5.M||||0.417
90907821|NCT01720043|181684219|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||ADP.3.M, 48 hrs||||0.770
90907822|NCT01720043|181684219|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.614|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Arach.Acid.0.5.mg.ml, 48 hrs||||0.614
90907823|NCT01720043|181684219|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.969|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Ristochetin.1.5.mg.ml||||0.969
90907824|NCT01720043|181684219|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.238|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Ristocetin.0.5.mg.ml, 48 hrs||||0.238
90907825|NCT03710564|181684234|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.4537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.9|||Pairwise ANOVA|||||0.9|-2.1|0.4537
90907826|NCT00293462|181684286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.09||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|Two by two table was used. One cell had expected frequency test less than five, so Fisher's exact two-tailed test was used.||Fisher's exact two tailed test||||0.09
90907827|NCT00293462|181684287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mantel Haenszel|Log rank, Breslow, Tarone-Ware test, but used mantel cox log rank for this analysis||Kaplan-Meier estimate of the survival curves used information from subjects who develop mucositis to the healing of the mucositis in three groups, Group GG, SS, and SG. In order to compare the three curves that were created, the Mantel-Haenszel log-rank statistic was used||||0.92
90907828|NCT00293462|181684288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.28||95.0||||0.28 (quadratic)|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted Maximum Likelihood Methods with random intercepts was the only model used for the three groups and seven measurement time points.||Multilevel regression was used.||||0.28
90907829|NCT00293462|181684289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.78||95.0||||0.78 (quadratic)|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted Maximum Likelihood Methods with random intercepts was the only model used for the three groups and seven measurement time points.||||||0.78
90907830|NCT00293462|181684290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.22||95.0||||0.22 (quadratic)|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted Maximum Likelihood Methods with random intercepts was the only model used for the three groups and seven measurement time points.||||||0.22
90907831|NCT00372060|181684291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001||95.0|-1.0|-0.6|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, prior oral anti-hyperglycemic medication (except for pioglitazone), and baseline HbA1c.||||-0.6|-1.0|<0.001
90907832|NCT00372060|181684292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-squares Mean Difference|-16.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.39|<|0.001||95.0|-23.4|-10.0|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, prior oral anti-hyperglycemic medication (except for pioglitazone), and baseline fasting plasma glucose.||||-10.0|-23.4|<0.001
90907833|NCT00372060|181684293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-squares Mean Difference|-49.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.7|<|0.001||95.0|-64.5|-33.9|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, prior oral anti-hyperglycemic medication (except for pioglitazone), and baseline 2-hour postprandial glucose.||||-33.9|-64.5|<0.001
90907834|NCT00647348|181684295|OTHER|intention-to-treat analysis||||||0.003|||||||BBSI=brain boundary shift integral|||||||0.003
90864200|NCT01153347|181592191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.702||0.673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.624|4.062|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA with randomization Q-LES-Q-SF % maximum total score as covariate, treatment as a fixed effect and pooled center as a random effect.||4.062|-2.624|0.673
90864201|NCT01153347|181592191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-1.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.716||0.275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.248|1.494|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA with randomization Q-LES-Q-SF % maximum total score as covariate, treatment as a fixed effect and pooled center as a random effect.||1.494|-5.248|0.275
90864202|NCT01153347|181592192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.11|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with randomization Q-LES-Q-SF item 15 score as covariate, treatment as a fixed effect and pooled center as a random effect.||0.11|-0.28|0.412
90864203|NCT01153347|181592192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.21|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with randomization Q-LES-Q-SF item 15 score as covariate, treatment as a fixed effect and pooled center as a random effect.||0.21|-0.19|0.928
90907835|NCT00647348|181684296|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||EDSS,mean score at 24 months was compared between treatment groups using an ANCOVA model adjusting for baseline score and minimisation variables.|ANCOVA|EDSS,mean score at 24 months was compared between treatment groups using an ANCOVA model adjusting for baseline score and minimisation variables.||||||0.05
90907836|NCT01119703|181684325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Coefficient of Determination %|-9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|-0.7|||||Crossvalidated; negative values mean that the fitted model performs worse than chance on the test set.|Null hypothesis for Predicted versus Measured Titers states that Coefficient of Determination % (CD%) \<= 20%; whereas the alternative hypothesis is \> 20%. CD% was obtained by fitting a random forest model to the measured titers, which included all baseline biomarkers as predictors.||-0.7|-13.8|
90907837|NCT01119703|181684326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Coefficient of Determination %|17.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.6|20.9|||||Crossvalidated; negative values mean that the fitted model performs worse than chance on the test set.|Null hypothesis for Predicted versus Measured Titers states that Coefficient of Determination % (CD%) \<= 20%; whereas the alternative hypothesis is \> 20%. CD% was obtained by fitting a random forest model to the measured titers, which included all baseline biomarkers as predictors.||20.9|10.6|
90907838|NCT01119703|181684327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Coefficient of Determination %|27.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.6|32.4|||||Crossvalidated; negative values mean that the fitted model performs worse than chance on the test set.|Null hypothesis for Predicted versus Measured Titers states that Coefficient of Determination % (CD%) \<= 20%; whereas the alternative hypothesis is \> 20%. CD% was obtained by fitting a random forest model to the measured titers, which included all baseline biomarkers as predictors.||32.4|19.6|
90907839|NCT01119703|181684328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Coefficient of Determination %|3.3||||||95.0|-2.8|8.5|||||Crossvalidated; negative values mean that the fitted model performs worse than chance on the test set.|Null hypothesis for Predicted versus Measured Titers states that Coefficient of Determination % (CD%) \<= 20%; whereas the alternative hypothesis is \> 20%. CD% was obtained by fitting a random forest model to the measured titers, which included all baseline biomarkers as predictors.||8.5|-2.8|
90907840|NCT01119703|181684329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman's Correlation Coefficient|-0.04||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.13|||Fisher's Z-transformation||Within-participant rank correlation|Diphtheria versus Hepatitis B||0.13|-0.2|0.66
90907841|NCT01119703|181684329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman's Correlation Coefficient|0.1||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.25|||Fisher's Z-transformation||Within-participant rank correlation|Diphtheria versus Cholera||0.25|-0.07|0.26
90907842|NCT01119703|181684329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman's Correlation Coefficient|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.53|||Fisher's Z-transformation||Within-participant rank correlation|Diphtheria versus Tetanus||0.53|0.26|<0.001
90907843|NCT01119703|181684329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman's Correlation Coefficient|-0.17||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|-0.01|||Fisher's Z-transformation||Within-participant rank correlation|Hepatitis B versus Cholera||-0.01|-0.32|0.04
90907844|NCT01119703|181684329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman's Correlation Coefficient|-0.09||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.08|||Fisher's Z-transformation||Within-participant rank correlation|Hepatitis B versus Tetanus||0.08|-0.25|0.30
90907845|NCT01119703|181684329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman's Correlation Coefficient|0.08||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.24|||Fisher's Z-transformation||Within-participant rank correlation|Cholera versus Tetanus||0.24|-0.09|0.36
90907846|NCT01119703|181684330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Coefficient of Determination %|-9.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|-2.7|||||Crossvalidated; negative values mean that the fitted model performs worse than chance on the test set.|Null hypothesis for Predicted versus Measured Titers states that Coefficient of Determination % (CD%) \<= 20%; whereas the alternative hypothesis is \> 20%. CD% was obtained by fitting a random forest model to the measured titers, which included all Day 7 biomarkers as predictors.||-2.7|-16.6|
90907847|NCT01119703|181684331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Coefficient of Determination %|23.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.0|29.7|||||Crossvalidated; negative values mean that the fitted model performs worse than chance on the test set.|Null hypothesis for Predicted versus Measured Titers states that Coefficient of Determination % (CD%) \<= 20%; whereas the alternative hypothesis is \> 20%. CD% was obtained by fitting a random forest model to the measured titers, which included all Day 7 biomarkers as predictors.||29.7|14.0|
90907848|NCT01119703|181684332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Coefficient of Determination %|36.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.7|41.5|||||Crossvalidated;negative values mean that the fitted model performs worse than chance on the test set.|Null hypothesis for Predicted versus Measured Titers states that Coefficient of Determination % (CD%) \<= 20%; whereas the alternative hypothesis is \> 20%. CD% was obtained by fitting a random forest model to the measured titers, which included all Day 7 biomarkers as predictors.||41.5|28.7|
90907849|NCT01119703|181684333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Coefficient of Determination %|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|4.4|||||Crossvalidated; negative values mean that the fitted model performs worse than chance on the test set.|Null hypothesis for Predicted versus Measured Titers states that Coefficient of Determination % (CD%) \<= 20%; whereas the alternative hypothesis is \> 20%. CD% was obtained by fitting a random forest model to the measured titers, which included all Day 7 biomarkers as predictors.||4.4|-7.8|
90940298|NCT01644188|181760384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-23.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.2|-19.7||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. ezetimibe|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-19.7|-27.2|<0.0001
90940299|NCT01644188|181760385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-14.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|-11.7||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. ezetimibe|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-11.7|-17.7|<0.0001
90864204|NCT01153347|181592192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with randomization Q-LES-Q-SF item 15 score as covariate, treatment as a fixed effect and pooled center as a random effect.||-0.02|-0.42|0.033
90864205|NCT01153347|181592193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.28|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with randomization Q-LES-Q-SF item 16 as a fixed effect and pooled center as a random effect.||0.28|-0.10|0.353
90864206|NCT01153347|181592193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.23|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with randomization Q-LES-Q-SF item 16 as a fixed effect and pooled center as a random effect.||0.23|-0.16|0.721
90864207|NCT01153347|181592193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.15|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with randomization Q-LES-Q-SF item 16 as a fixed effect and pooled center as a random effect.||0.15|-0.24|0.666
90864208|NCT01153347|181592194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0201||0.747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0459|0.0329||Analysis for change in EQ-5D index score from randomization (Week 8) to end of treatment (Week 16)|MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization EQ-5D total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.0329|-0.0459|0.747
90864209|NCT01153347|181592194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.013|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0203||0.524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0529|0.027||Analysis for change in EQ-5D index score from randomization (Week 8) to end of treatment (Week 16)|MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization EQ-5D total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.0270|-0.0529|0.524
90864210|NCT01153347|181592194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.014|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0206||0.502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0543|0.0267||Analysis for change in EQ-5D index score from randomization (Week 8) to end of treatment (Week 16)|MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization EQ-5D total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.0267|-0.0543|0.502
90864211|NCT01153347|181592194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.06||0.345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|6.0||Analysis of change in EQ-5D VAS score from randomization (Week 8) to end of treatment (Week 16)|MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization EQ-5D VAS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||6.00|-2.10|0.345
90864212|NCT01153347|181592194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.09||0.486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.65|5.56||Analysis of change in EQ-5D VAS score from randomization (Week 8) to end of treatment (Week 16)|MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization EQ-5D VAS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||5.56|-2.65|0.486
90864213|NCT01153347|181592194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.12||0.564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.39|2.94||Analysis of change in EQ-5D VAS score from randomization (Week 8) to end of treatment (Week 16)|MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization EQ-5D VAS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||2.94|-5.39|0.564
90864214|NCT01153347|181592195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.55||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.48|1.59|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization SIS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||1.59|-4.48|0.350
90864215|NCT01153347|181592195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.56||0.393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.41|1.73|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization SIS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||1.73|-4.41|0.393
90864216|NCT01153347|181592195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.58||0.745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.59|3.62|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization SIS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||3.62|-2.59|0.745
90864217|NCT04678661|181592210|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.207||||||Propensity score matching was used to form pairs of intervention and control participants. Specifically, a greedy matching procedure with a matching caliper of 0.2 of the standard deviation of the logit of the propensity score was used.|Regression, Linear|Model adjusted for covariates of age, race, baseline BMI, and baseline hemoglobin A1c.||||||.207
90864218|NCT04678661|181592211|OTHER|||||||0.011|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Independent t-test||||.011
90864219|NCT04678661|181592212|OTHER|||||||0.024|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.024
90864220|NCT04678661|181592213|OTHER|||||||0.579|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.579
90864221|NCT04678661|181592214|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Reported p-value was calculated.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
91077923|NCT02913105|182041137|OTHER|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.98||||0.7281|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.09|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||LDL Cholesterol Friedwald: Day 112 (EOS)||1.09|0.88|0.7281
90864222|NCT04678661|181592215|OTHER|||||||0.269|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.269
90864223|NCT04678661|181592218|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Reported p-value was calculated.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
90864224|NCT04678661|181592219|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Reported p-value was calculated.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
90864225|NCT04678661|181592220|OTHER|||||||0.647|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.647
90864226|NCT01773733|181592265|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
90864227|NCT02527161|181592276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90864228|NCT02527161|181592277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Change from preoperative to 6 weeks KOOS Pain||||<0.0001
91077924|NCT02913105|182041137|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.04||||0.318|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.12|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||LDL Cholesterol Friedwald: Day 7||1.12|0.97|0.3180
91077925|NCT02913105|182041137|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.02||||0.6576|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|1.1|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||LDL Cholesterol Friedwald: Day 14||1.10|0.95|0.6576
91077926|NCT02913105|182041137|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.97||||0.6035|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.06|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||LDL Cholesterol Friedwald: Day 28||1.06|0.90|0.6035
91077927|NCT02913105|182041137|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.06||||0.3261|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.17|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||LDL Cholesterol Friedwald: Day 42||1.17|0.96|0.3261
91077928|NCT02913105|182041137|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.04||||0.5246|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|1.15|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||LDL Cholesterol Friedwald: Day 56||1.15|0.94|0.5246
91077929|NCT02913105|182041137|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.02||||0.7519|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.14|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||LDL Cholesterol Friedwald: Day 84||1.14|0.92|0.7519
91077930|NCT02913105|182041137|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.0||||0.9577|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.89|1.12|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||LDL Cholesterol Friedwald: Day 112 (EOS)||1.12|0.89|0.9577
91077931|NCT02913105|182041137|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.1||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.03|1.18|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||LDL Cholesterol Friedwald: Day 7||1.18|1.03|0.0160
91077932|NCT02913105|182041137|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.13||||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.05|1.21|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||LDL Cholesterol Friedwald: Day 14||1.21|1.05|0.0052
90864229|NCT02527161|181592277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0013|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 6 weeks to 3 months KOOS Pain||||0.0013
90864230|NCT02527161|181592277|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3316|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 3 months to 6 months KOOS Pain||||0.3316
90864231|NCT02527161|181592277|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3366|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 6 months to 1 year KOOS Pain||||0.3366
90864232|NCT02527161|181592277|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9826|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 1 year to 2 year KOOS Pain||||0.9826
90907850|NCT04668144|181684348|NON_INFERIORITY|Under the assumption of 0 difference in mean PRU between groups and a common standard deviation of 50 PRU, a sample size of 22 patients per group would allow for the 95%CI to stay within ± 45 PRU with a 90% power and alpha=0.05. In line with previously reported investigations, 45 PRU was chosen for the noninferiority margin for the upper 95%CI limit of the difference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|130.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|85.0|176.0||p-value was not calculated for noninferiority analysis|ANCOVA|||The primary hypothesis of our study was that in patients receiving concomitant administration of cangrelor and prasugrel (experimental arm), platelet inhibition as assessed by PRU would be noninferior to patients receiving prasugrel only (active control)||176|85|
90907851|NCT03441984|181684351|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.6946|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.569|1.8373|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric TRIUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablets) and adult TRIUMEQ (DTG 50 mg/ABC 600 mg/3TC 300 mg tablet) is presented|||1.8373|1.5690|
90907852|NCT03441984|181684351|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.3512|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.2465|1.4647|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric TRUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) and adult TRIUMEQ (DTG 50 mg/ABC 600 mg/3TC 300 mg tablet) is presented.|||1.4647|1.2465|
90907853|NCT03441984|181684351|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.2541|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1569|1.3595|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric TRIUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablets) and pediatric TRUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) is presented|||1.3595|1.1569|
90907854|NCT03441984|181684352|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.7001|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.5685|1.8428|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric TRIUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablets) and adult TRIUMEQ (DTG 50 mg/ABC 600 mg/3TC 300 mg tablet) is presented.|||1.8428|1.5685|
90907855|NCT03441984|181684352|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.3519|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.2475|1.465|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric TRUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) and adult TRIUMEQ (DTG 50 mg/ABC 600 mg/3TC 300 mg tablet) is presented.|||1.4650|1.2475|
90907856|NCT03441984|181684352|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.2576|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1605|1.3629|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric TRIUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablets) and pediatric TRUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) is presented.|||1.3629|1.1605|
90907857|NCT03441984|181684353|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.7382|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.5983|1.8904|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric TRIUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablets) and adult TRIUMEQ (DTG 50 mg/ABC 600 mg/3TC 300 mg tablet) is presented.|||1.8904|1.5983|
90907858|NCT03441984|181684353|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.3614|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.2525|1.4798|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric TRUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) and adult TRIUMEQ (DTG 50 mg/ABC 600 mg/3TC 300 mg tablet) is presented.|||1.4798|1.2525|
90907859|NCT03441984|181684353|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.2768|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1746|1.3878|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric TRIUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablets) and pediatric TRUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) is presented.|||1.3878|1.1746|
90907860|NCT03441984|181684354|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.0407|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0118|1.0704|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric TRIUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablets) and adult TRIUMEQ (DTG 50 mg/ABC 600 mg/3TC 300 mg tablet) is presented.|||1.0704|1.0118|
90907861|NCT03441984|181684354|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.0228|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9944|1.052|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric TRUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) and adult TRIUMEQ (DTG 50 mg/ABC 600 mg/3TC 300 mg tablet) is presented.|||1.0520|0.9944|
90907862|NCT03441984|181684354|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.0175|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9893|1.0465|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric TRIUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablets) and pediatric TRUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) is presented.|||1.0465|0.9893|
90907863|NCT03441984|181684355|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.041|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0121|1.0708|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric TRIUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablets) and adult TRIUMEQ (DTG 50 mg/ABC 600 mg/3TC 300 mg tablet) is presented.|||1.0708|1.0121|
90907864|NCT03441984|181684355|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.0232|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9948|1.0524|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric TRUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) and adult TRIUMEQ (DTG 50 mg/ABC 600 mg/3TC 300 mg tablet) is presented.|||1.0524|0.9948|
90907865|NCT03441984|181684355|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.0174|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9892|1.0465|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric TRIUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablets) and pediatric TRUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) is presented.|||1.0465|0.9892|
90907866|NCT03441984|181684356|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.0533|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9885|1.1223|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric TRIUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablets) and adult TRIUMEQ (DTG 50 mg/ABC 600 mg/3TC 300 mg tablet) is presented.|||1.1223|0.9885|
90907867|NCT03441984|181684356|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|0.9766|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9167|1.0405|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric TRUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) and adult TRIUMEQ (DTG 50 mg/ABC 600 mg/3TC 300 mg tablet) is presented.|||1.0405|0.9167|
90864233|NCT02527161|181592277|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9276|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 2 year to 5 year KOOS Pain||||0.9276
90864234|NCT02527161|181592278|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Change from preoperative to 6 weeks KOOS Symptoms||||<0.0001
90907868|NCT03441984|181684356|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.0785|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0123|1.149|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric TRIUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablets) and pediatric TRUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) is presented.|||1.1490|1.0123|
90907869|NCT03441984|181684357|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9536|1.0486|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric TRIUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablets) and adult TRIUMEQ (DTG 50 mg/ABC 600 mg/3TC 300 mg tablet) is presented.|||1.0486|0.9536|
90864235|NCT02527161|181592278|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0736|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 6 weeks to 3 months KOOS Symptoms||||0.0736
90864236|NCT02527161|181592278|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4675|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 3 months to 6 months KOOS Symptoms||||0.4675
90864237|NCT02527161|181592278|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0229|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 6 months to 1 year KOOS Symptoms||||0.0229
90864238|NCT02527161|181592278|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9968|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 1 year to 2 year KOOS Symptoms||||0.9968
90864239|NCT02527161|181592278|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7761|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 2 year to 5 year KOOS Symptoms||||0.7761
90864240|NCT02527161|181592279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Change from preoperative to 6 weeks KOOS ADL||||<0.0001
90864241|NCT02527161|181592279|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0212|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 6 weeks to 3 months KOOS ADL||||0.0212
90864242|NCT02527161|181592279|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7173|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 3 months to 6 months KOOS ADL||||0.7173
90864243|NCT02527161|181592279|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1834|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 6 months to 1 year KOOS ADL||||0.1834
90864244|NCT02527161|181592279|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9957|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 1 year to 2 year KOOS ADL||||0.9957
90864245|NCT02527161|181592279|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9999|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 6 months to 1 year KOOS ADL||||0.9999
90864246|NCT02527161|181592280|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Change from preoperative to 6 weeks KOOS S\&R||||<0.0001
90864247|NCT02527161|181592280|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0522|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 6 weeks to 3 months KOOS S\&R||||0.0522
90864248|NCT02527161|181592280|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1696|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 3 months to 6 months KOOS S\&R||||0.1696
90864249|NCT02527161|181592280|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6942|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 6 months to 1 year KOOS S\&R||||0.6942
90907870|NCT03441984|181684357|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|0.9478|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9039|0.9939|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric TRUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) and adult TRIUMEQ (DTG 50 mg/ABC 600 mg/3TC 300 mg tablet) is presented.|||0.9939|0.9039|
90907871|NCT03441984|181684357|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.055|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0061|1.1063|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric TRIUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablets) and pediatric TRUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) is presented.|||1.1063|1.0061|
90907872|NCT03441984|181684358|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|0.9994|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9525|1.0486|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric TRIUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablets) and adult TRIUMEQ (DTG 50 mg/ABC 600 mg/3TC 300 mg tablet) is presented.|||1.0486|0.9525|
90907873|NCT03441984|181684358|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|0.9432|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.899|0.9896|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric TRUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) and adult TRIUMEQ (DTG 50 mg/ABC 600 mg/3TC 300 mg tablet) is presented.|||0.9896|0.8990|
90907874|NCT03441984|181684358|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.0596|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0099|1.1117|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric TRIUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablets) and pediatric TRUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) is presented.|||1.1117|1.0099|
90907875|NCT03441984|181684359|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|0.9362|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8677|1.0101|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric TRIUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablets) and adult TRIUMEQ (DTG 50 mg/ABC 600 mg/3TC 300 mg tablet) is presented.|||1.0101|0.8677|
90907876|NCT03441984|181684359|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|0.9079|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8416|0.9795|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric TRUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) and adult TRIUMEQ (DTG 50 mg/ABC 600 mg/3TC 300 mg tablet) is presented.|||0.9795|0.8416|
90907877|NCT03441984|181684359|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.0312|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9558|1.1124|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric TRIUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablets) and pediatric TRUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) is presented.|||1.1124|0.9558|
90907878|NCT03441984|181684360|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.6439|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.4649|1.8449|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablet) and adult DTG/3TC (DTG 50 mg/3TC 300 mg tablet) is presented.|||1.8449|1.4649|
90907879|NCT03441984|181684360|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.2698|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1315|1.425|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) and pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablet) is presented.|||1.4250|1.1315|
90907880|NCT03441984|181684360|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.2946|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1536|1.4529|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) and pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) is presented.|||1.4529|1.1536|
90907881|NCT03441984|181684361|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.6578|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.4709|1.8685|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablet) and adult DTG/3TC (DTG 50 mg/3TC 300 mg tablet) is presented.|||1.8685|1.4709|
90864250|NCT02527161|181592280|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 1 year to 2 year KOOS S\&R||||>0.9999
90864251|NCT02527161|181592280|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 2 year to 5 year KOOS S\&R||||>0.9999
90864252|NCT02527161|181592281|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Change from preoperative to 6 weeks KOOS QoL||||<0.0001
90864253|NCT02527161|181592281|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0135|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 6 weeks to 3 months KOOS QoL||||0.0135
90864254|NCT02527161|181592281|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0829|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 3 months to 6 months KOOS QoL||||0.0829
90864255|NCT02527161|181592281|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1729|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 6 months to 1 year KOOS QoL||||0.1729
90864256|NCT02527161|181592281|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9687|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 1 year to 2 year KOOS QoL||||0.9687
90864257|NCT02527161|181592281|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 2 year to 5 year KOOS QoL||||>0.9999
90864258|NCT02527161|181592282|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Change from preoperative to 6 weeks SF-12 PCS||||<0.0001
90864259|NCT02527161|181592282|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 6 weeks to 3 months SF-12 PCS||||<0.0001
90864260|NCT02527161|181592282|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8189|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 3 months to 6 months SF-12 PCS||||0.8189
90864261|NCT02527161|181592282|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9845|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 6 months to 1 year SF-12 PCS||||0.9845
90864262|NCT02527161|181592282|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 1 year to 2 year SF-12 PCS||||0.7500
90864263|NCT02527161|181592282|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1376|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 2 year to 5 year SF-12 PCS||||0.1376
90864264|NCT02527161|181592283|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Change from preoperative to 6 week VAS Rest||||<0.0001
90907882|NCT03441984|181684361|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.2755|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1317|1.4375|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) and pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablet) is presented.|||1.4375|1.1317|
90907883|NCT03441984|181684361|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.2998|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1533|1.465|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) and pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) is presented.|||1.4650|1.1533|
90907884|NCT03441984|181684362|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.9758|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.7585|2.2201|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablet) and adult DTG/3TC (DTG 50 mg/3TC 300 mg tablet) is presented.|||2.2201|1.7585|
90907885|NCT03441984|181684362|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.2873|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1457|1.4465|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) and pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablet) is presented.|||1.4465|1.1457|
90959607|NCT02390050|181799399|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|-0.52||||||Week 6: Difference in LS mean change in body weight from baseline to week 6 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 5 mg group and Placebo group||-0.52|-1.53|
90864265|NCT02527161|181592283|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0031|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 6 weeks to 3 months VAS Rest||||0.0031
90864266|NCT02527161|181592283|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.299|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 3 months to 6 months VAS Rest||||0.2990
90864267|NCT02527161|181592283|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9832|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 6 months to 1 year VAS Rest||||0.9832
90864268|NCT02527161|181592283|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9991|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 1 year to 2 year VAS Rest||||0.9991
90864269|NCT02527161|181592283|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 2 year to 5 year VAS Rest||||>0.9999
90864270|NCT02527161|181592284|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Change from preoperative to 6 weeks VAS Mob||||<0.0001
90864271|NCT02527161|181592284|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0062|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 6 weeks to 3 months VAS Mob||||0.0062
90864272|NCT02527161|181592284|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.373|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 3 months to 6 months VAS Mob||||0.3730
90864273|NCT02527161|181592284|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8499|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 6 months to 1 year VAS Mob||||0.8499
90864274|NCT02527161|181592284|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 1 year to 2 year VAS Mob||||>0.9999
90864275|NCT02527161|181592284|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9958|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 2 year to 5 year VAS Mob||||0.9958
90864276|NCT02527161|181592285|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3493|||||||ANOVA|||Change from preoperative to 6 weeks SF-12 MCS||||0.3493
90864277|NCT02527161|181592285|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 6 weeks to 3 months SF-12 MCS||||0.4800
90864278|NCT02527161|181592285|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 3 months to 6 months SF-12 MCS||||>0.9999
90864279|NCT02527161|181592285|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 6 months to 1 year SF-12 MCS||||>0.9999
90864280|NCT02527161|181592285|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 1 year to 2 year SF-12 MCS||||>0.9999
90864281|NCT02527161|181592285|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 2 year to 5 year SF-12 MCS||||>0.9999
90864282|NCT02527161|181592286|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Change from preoperative to 6 weeks KSS Pain||||<0.0001
90864283|NCT02527161|181592286|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9465|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 3 months to 6 months KSS Pain||||0.9465
90864284|NCT02527161|181592286|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1215|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 6 months to 1 year KSS Pain||||0.1215
90864285|NCT02527161|181592286|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9912|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 1 year to 2 years KSS Pain||||0.9912
90864286|NCT02527161|181592286|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8952|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 2 year to 5 year KSS Pain||||0.8952
90864287|NCT02527161|181592287|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Change from preoperative to 3 months KSS Function||||<0.0001
90864288|NCT02527161|181592287|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0266|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 3 months to 6 months KSS Function||||0.0266
90864289|NCT02527161|181592287|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.988|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 6 months to 1 year KSS Function||||0.9880
90864290|NCT02527161|181592287|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9699|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 1 year to 2 years KSS Function||||0.9699
90864291|NCT02527161|181592287|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8575|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 2 year to 5 years KSS Function||||0.8575
90864292|NCT02527161|181592288|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8581|||||||ANOVA|||Change from preoperative to 3 months KSS Range of Motion||||0.8581
90864293|NCT02527161|181592288|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7664|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 3 months to 6 months KSS Range of Motion||||0.7664
90864294|NCT02527161|181592288|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7022|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 6 months to 1 year KSS Range of Motion||||0.7022
90864295|NCT02527161|181592288|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 1 year to 2 year KSS Range of Motion||||>0.9999
90864296|NCT02527161|181592288|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2943|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 2 year to 5 year KSS Range of Motion||||0.2943
90864297|NCT02527161|181592289|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0161|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 1 year to 2 year Forgotten Joint Score||||0.0161
90864298|NCT02527161|181592289|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 2 year to 5 year Forgotten Joint Score||||<0.0001
90864299|NCT03416946|181592290|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79||||||Post-op HKA angle|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.790
90864300|NCT02609828|181592304|SUPERIORITY||Differences in least square (LS) mean|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.0381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model for imputed datasets included treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site and baseline opioid dose as covariates.||-0.04|-1.52|0.0381
90864301|NCT02609828|181592305|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1: ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site and baseline opioid dose as covariates.||-0.00|-0.72|0.0497
90864302|NCT02609828|181592305|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.0092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|-0.17|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site and baseline opioid dose as covariates.||-0.17|-1.16|0.0092
90864303|NCT02609828|181592305|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.0218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site and baseline opioid dose as covariates.||-0.11|-1.37|0.0218
90864304|NCT02609828|181592305|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.0154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|-0.17|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6: ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site and baseline opioid dose as covariates.||-0.17|-1.58|0.0154
90864305|NCT02609828|181592305|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.1289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site and baseline opioid dose as covariates.||0.17|-1.36|0.1289
90864306|NCT02609828|181592305|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|0.32|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site and baseline opioid dose as covariates.||0.32|-1.43|0.2110
90864307|NCT02609828|181592305|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.2049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|0.32|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site and baseline opioid dose as covariates.||0.32|-1.49|0.2049
90864308|NCT02609828|181592306|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.1103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1: ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site and baseline opioid dose as covariates.||0.07|-0.73|0.1103
90959608|NCT02390050|181799399|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|-0.94||||||Week 6: Difference in LS mean change in body weight from baseline to week 6 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 10 mg group and Placebo group||-0.94|-1.95|
90864309|NCT02609828|181592306|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.0084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|-0.19|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site and baseline opioid dose as covariates.||-0.19|-1.26|0.0084
90864310|NCT02609828|181592306|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.0236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4:ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site and baseline opioid dose as covariates.||-0.10|-1.39|0.0236
90864311|NCT02609828|181592306|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.0155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|-0.17|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6: ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site and baseline opioid dose as covariates.||-0.17|-1.59|0.0155
90864312|NCT02609828|181592306|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.0505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site and baseline opioid dose as covariates.||0.00|-1.52|0.0505
90864313|NCT02609828|181592306|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.0761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site and baseline opioid dose as covariates.||0.08|-1.52|0.0761
90864314|NCT02609828|181592306|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.1263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.21|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site and baseline opioid dose as covariates.||0.21|-1.70|0.1263
90864315|NCT02609828|181592306|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.1051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site and baseline opioid dose as covariates.||0.17|-1.76|0.1051
90864316|NCT02609828|181592307|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.3003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|0.47|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1: ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site and baseline opioid dose as covariates.||0.47|-1.47|0.3003
90864317|NCT02609828|181592307|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.1603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.03|0.35|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site and baseline opioid dose as covariates.||0.35|-2.03|0.1603
90864318|NCT02609828|181592307|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.2298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|0.53|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site and baseline opioid dose as covariates.||0.53|-2.13|0.2298
90907886|NCT03441984|181684362|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.5348|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.366|1.7245|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) and pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) is presented.|||1.7245|1.3660|
90907887|NCT03441984|181684363|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|0.9798|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9241|1.0389|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablet) and adult DTG/3TC (DTG 50 mg/3TC 300 mg tablet) is presented.|||1.0389|0.9241|
90907888|NCT03441984|181684363|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|0.9605|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9059|1.0185|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) and pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablet) is presented.|||1.0185|0.9059|
90907889|NCT03441984|181684363|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.0201|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9633|1.0802|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) and pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) is presented.|||1.0802|0.9633|
90907890|NCT03441984|181684364|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|0.9831|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9243|1.0457|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablet) and adult DTG/3TC (DTG 50 mg/3TC 300 mg tablet) is presented.|||1.0457|0.9243|
90907891|NCT03441984|181684364|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|0.9702|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9121|1.032|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) and pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablet) is presented.|||1.0320|0.9121|
90907892|NCT03441984|181684364|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.0134|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9527|1.0779|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) and pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) is presented.|||1.0779|0.9527|
90959609|NCT02390050|181799399|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-1.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.01|-1.01||||||Week 6: Difference in LS mean change in body weight from baseline to week 6 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 20 mg group and Placebo group||-1.01|-2.01|
90864319|NCT02609828|181592307|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.5054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|0.97|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6: ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site and baseline opioid dose as covariates.||0.97|-1.93|0.5054
90907893|NCT03441984|181684365|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8196|1.0102|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablet) and adult DTG/3TC (DTG 50 mg/3TC 300 mg tablet) is presented.|||1.0102|0.8196|
91033118|NCT00048581|181951979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. of Diff: Day 113 ACR 20|25.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.1|36.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|All statistical tests and CI were 2-sided. Percentage of participants with response compared by estimate of weighted difference (Est of Weighted Diff)||Differences in ACR 20 between the treatment arm receiving ABA plus background DMARDs and the treatment arm receiving PLA plus background DMARDs were compared using a 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) Chi-square test (.05 level of significance), with stratification based on baseline history of anti-TNF status (current or prior use).||36.8|15.1|<0.001
91033119|NCT00048581|181951979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. of Diff: Day 113 ACR 50|14.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.6|21.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|All statistical tests and CI were 2-sided. Percentage of participants with response compared by estimate of weighted difference (Est of Weighted Diff)||If ACR20 comparison was significant (5% level), then CMH Chi-square test compared ACR 50 response between groups (5% level). If the ACR20 analysis was not significant (5% level), then the comparison for ACR 50 response was not undertaken. A 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) Chi-square test was used to compare these two treatment groups at the .05 level of significance, with stratification based on baseline history of anti-TNF status (current or prior use).||21.9|6.6|<0.001
91033120|NCT00048581|181951979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. of Diff: Day 113 ACR 70|7.8||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|13.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|All statistical tests and CI were 2-sided. Percentage of participants with response compared by estimate of weighted difference (Est of Weighted Diff)|Differences in ACR response between the two treatment groups represent the weighted average of the individual stratum differences.|If ACR20 comparison was significant (5% level), then CMH Chi-square test compared ACR 70 response between groups (5% level). If the ACR20 analysis was not significant (5% level), then the comparison for ACR 70 response was not undertaken. A 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) Chi-square test was used to compare these two treatment groups at the .05 level of significance, with stratification based on baseline history of anti-TNF status (current or prior use).||13.0|2.6|0.002
91033121|NCT00048581|181951979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. of Diff: Day 141 ACR 20|35.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.6|46.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|All statistical tests and CI were 2-sided. Percentage of participants with response compared by estimate of difference (Est of Diff)|Differences in ACR response between the two treatment groups represent the weighted average of the individual stratum differences.|Differences in ACR 20 between the treatment arm receiving ABA plus background DMARDs and the treatment arm receiving PLA plus background DMARDs were compared using a 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) Chi-square test (.05 level of significance), with stratification based on baseline history of anti-TNF status (current or prior use).||46.5|24.6|<0.001
91077933|NCT02913105|182041137|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.06||||0.1822|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.99|1.15|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||LDL Cholesterol Friedwald: Day 28||1.15|0.99|0.1822
91077934|NCT02913105|182041137|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.14||||0.0159|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.04|1.24|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||LDL Cholesterol Friedwald: Day 42||1.24|1.04|0.0159
90864320|NCT02609828|181592307|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|-0.77||0.4793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.01|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site and baseline opioid dose as covariates.||1.01|-2.10|0.4793
90864321|NCT02609828|181592307|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.4496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|0.83|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site and baseline opioid dose as covariates.||0.83|-1.83|0.4496
90959610|NCT02390050|181799399|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-1.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|-0.76||P-value from Type III F-test|ANCOVA|Study center, treatment, visit and a treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects; prior anti-diabetic treatment and baseline weight as covariates||Week 12: Difference in LS mean change in body weight from baseline to week 12 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 5 mg group and Placebo group||-0.76|-2.12|< 0.0001
91077935|NCT02913105|182041137|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.08||||0.1524|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.99|1.19|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||LDL Cholesterol Friedwald: Day 56||1.19|0.99|0.1524
91077936|NCT02913105|182041137|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.08||||0.1749|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|1.2|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||LDL Cholesterol Friedwald: Day 84||1.20|0.98|0.1749
90864322|NCT02609828|181592307|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square LS mean|-1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.1263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.77|0.36|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site and baseline opioid dose as covariates.||0.36|-2.77|0.1263
90959611|NCT02390050|181799399|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-1.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|-0.91||P-value from Type III F-test|ANCOVA|Study center, treatment, visit and a treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects; prior anti-diabetic treatment and baseline weight as covariates||Week 12: Difference in LS mean change in body weight from baseline to week 12 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 10 mg group and Placebo group||-0.91|-2.26|< 0.0001
90959612|NCT02390050|181799399|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-1.75|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.43|-1.08||P-value from Type III F-test|ANCOVA|Study center, treatment, visit and a treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects; prior anti-diabetic treatment and baseline weight as covariates||Week 12: Difference in LS mean change in body weight from baseline to week 12 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 20 mg group and Placebo group||-1.08|-2.43|< 0.0001
90959613|NCT02390050|181799400|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.06||||||Week 2: Difference in LS mean change in FPG from baseline to week 2 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 5 mg group and Placebo group||-0.06|-0.90|
90959614|NCT02390050|181799400|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|-0.48||||||Week 2: Difference in LS mean change in FPG from baseline to week 2 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 10 mg group and Placebo group||-0.48|-1.31|
90959615|NCT02390050|181799400|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|-0.62||||||Week 2: Difference in LS mean change in FPG from baseline to week 2 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 20 mg group and Placebo group||-0.62|-1.45|
90959616|NCT02390050|181799400|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|-0.48||||||Week 6: Difference in LS mean change in FPG from baseline to week 6 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 5 mg group and Placebo group||-0.48|-1.39|
90959617|NCT02390050|181799400|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|-0.72||||||Week 6: Difference in LS mean change in FPG from baseline to week 6 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 10 mg group and Placebo group||-0.72|-1.62|
90959618|NCT02390050|181799400|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|-0.65||||||Week 6: Difference in LS mean change in FPG from baseline to week 6 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 20 mg group and Placebo group||-0.65|-1.55|
90959619|NCT02390050|181799400|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.85||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|-0.41||P-value from Type III F-test|ANCOVA|Study center, treatment, visit and a treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects; prior anti-diabetic treatment and baseline FPG as covariates||Week 12: Difference in LS mean change in FPG from baseline to week 12 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 5 mg group and Placebo group||-0.41|-1.29|0.0002
90959620|NCT02390050|181799400|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-1.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|-0.6||P-value from Type III F-test|ANCOVA|Study center, treatment, visit and a treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects; prior anti-diabetic treatment and baseline FPG as covariates||Week 12: Difference in LS mean change in FPG from baseline to week 12 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 10 mg group and Placebo group||-0.60|-1.49|< 0.0001
90959621|NCT02390050|181799400|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-1.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|-0.63||P-value from Type III F-test|ANCOVA|Study center, treatment, visit and a treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects; prior anti-diabetic treatment and baseline FPG as covariates||Week 12: Difference in LS mean change in FPG from baseline to week 12 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 20 mg group and Placebo group||-0.63|-1.52|< 0.0001
90959622|NCT02390050|181799401|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|3.51||||||Week 2: Difference in LS mean change in SBP from baseline to week 2 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 5 mg group and Placebo group||3.51|-3.90|
90959623|NCT02390050|181799401|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-2.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.09|1.28||||||Week 2: Difference in LS mean change in SBP from baseline to week 2 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 10 mg group and Placebo group||1.28|-6.09|
90959624|NCT02390050|181799401|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-4.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.93|-0.58||||||Week 2: Difference in LS mean change in SBP from baseline to week 2 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 20 mg group and Placebo group||-0.58|-7.93|
90959625|NCT02390050|181799401|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|2.13||||||Week 2: Difference in LS mean change in DBP from baseline to week 2 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 5 mg group and Placebo group||2.13|-2.50|
90959626|NCT02390050|181799401|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-1.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.03|0.56||||||Week 2: Difference in LS mean change in DBP from baseline to week 2 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 10 mg group and Placebo group||0.56|-4.03|
90959627|NCT02390050|181799401|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-2.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.45|0.14||||||Week 2: Difference in LS mean change in DBP from baseline to week 2 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 20 mg group and Placebo group||0.14|-4.45|
90959628|NCT02390050|181799401|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.57|2.9||||||Week 6: Difference in LS mean change in SBP from baseline to week 6 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 5 mg group and Placebo group||2.90|-4.57|
90959629|NCT02390050|181799401|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-3.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.12|0.34||||||Week 6: Difference in LS mean change in SBP from baseline to week 6 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 10 mg group and Placebo group||0.34|-7.12|
90959630|NCT02390050|181799401|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-2.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.21|1.2||||||Week 6: Difference in LS mean change in SBP from baseline to week 6 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 20 mg group and Placebo group||1.20|-6.21|
90959631|NCT02390050|181799401|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|2.66||||||Week 6: Difference in LS mean change in DBP from baseline to week 6 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 5 mg group and Placebo group||2.66|-2.15|
90864323|NCT02609828|181592307|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|0.44|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site and baseline opioid dose as covariates.||0.44|-2.54|0.1620
90864324|NCT02609828|181592308|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.0575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.17|0.04|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1: ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the non-index cancer pain sites and baseline opioid dose as covariates.||0.04|-2.17|0.0575
90864325|NCT02609828|181592308|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-1.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.22|-0.7|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the non-index cancer pain sites and baseline opioid dose as covariates.||-0.70|-3.22|0.0031
90864326|NCT02609828|181592308|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-1.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.82|-0.06|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the non-index cancer pain sites and baseline opioid dose as covariates.||-0.06|-2.82|0.0410
90864327|NCT02609828|181592308|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.2598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|0.68|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6: ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the non-index cancer pain sites and baseline opioid dose as covariates.||0.68|-2.44|0.2598
90864328|NCT02609828|181592308|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.3426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.38|0.85|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the non-index cancer pain sites and baseline opioid dose as covariates.||0.85|-2.38|0.3426
90959632|NCT02390050|181799401|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.42|1.38||||||Week 6: Difference in LS mean change in DBP from baseline to week 6 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 10 mg group and Placebo group||1.38|-3.42|
90959633|NCT02390050|181799401|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.22|1.54||||||Week 6: Difference in LS mean change in DBP from baseline to week 6 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 20 mg group and Placebo group||1.54|-3.22|
90959634|NCT02390050|181799401|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-2.16||||0.3001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.26|1.94||P-value from Type III F-test|ANCOVA|Study center, treatment, visit and a treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects; prior anti-diabetic treatment and baseline SBP as covariates||Week 12: Difference in LS mean change in SBP from baseline to week 12 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 5 mg group and Placebo group||1.94|-6.26|0.3001
90959635|NCT02390050|181799401|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-4.41||||0.0343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.49|-0.33||P-value from Type III F-test|ANCOVA|Study center, treatment, visit and a treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects; prior anti-diabetic treatment and baseline SBP as covariates||Week 12: Difference in LS mean change in SBP from baseline to week 12 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 10 mg group and Placebo group||-0.33|-8.49|0.0343
90864329|NCT02609828|181592308|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.1034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.65|0.26|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the non-index cancer pain sites and baseline opioid dose as covariates.||0.26|-2.65|0.1034
90864330|NCT02609828|181592308|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-1.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|-0.21|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the non-index cancer pain sites and baseline opioid dose as covariates.||-0.21|-3.60|0.0290
90864331|NCT02609828|181592308|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-1.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.31|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the non-index cancer pain sites and baseline opioid dose as covariates.||0.07|-3.31|0.0600
90864332|NCT02609828|181592311|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.8054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|3.18|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 1 Reduction \>=30%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||3.18|0.41|0.8054
90864333|NCT02609828|181592311|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.9292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|3.98|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 1 Reduction \>=50%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||3.98|0.22|0.9292
90864334|NCT02609828|181592311|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9565|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Week 1 Reduction \>=70%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||||0.9565
90864335|NCT02609828|181592311|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.88||||0.1429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|4.36|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2 Reduction \>=30%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||4.36|0.81|0.1429
90864336|NCT02609828|181592311|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.19||||0.014||95.0|1.4|19.31|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2 Reduction \>=50%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||19.31|1.40|0.0140
90864337|NCT02609828|181592311|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.945|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2 Reduction \>=70%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||||0.9450
90864338|NCT02609828|181592311|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9489|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2 Reduction \>=90%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||||0.9489
90864339|NCT02609828|181592311|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.1932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|3.39|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4 Reduction \>=30%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||3.39|0.78|0.1932
90864340|NCT02609828|181592311|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.17||||0.0254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|8.74|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4 Reduction \>=50%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||8.74|1.15|0.0254
90907894|NCT03441984|181684365|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|0.9198|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8285|1.0212|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) and pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablet) is presented.|||1.0212|0.8285|
90959636|NCT02390050|181799401|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-3.83||||0.0679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.95|0.28|||ANCOVA|Study center, treatment, visit and a treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects; prior anti-diabetic treatment and baseline SBP as covariates||Week 12: Difference in LS mean change in SBP from baseline to week 12 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 20 mg group and Placebo group||0.28|-7.95|0.0679
90959637|NCT02390050|181799401|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-2.24||||0.0776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.73|0.25||P-value from Type III F-test|ANCOVA|Study center, treatment, visit and a treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects; prior anti-diabetic treatment and baseline SBP as covariates||Week 12: Difference in LS mean change in DBP from baseline to week 12 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 5 mg group and Placebo group||0.25|-4.73|0.0776
90959638|NCT02390050|181799401|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-1.47||||0.2415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.95|1.0||P-value from Type III F-test|ANCOVA|Study center, treatment, visit and a treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects; prior anti-diabetic treatment and baseline SBP as covariates||Week 12: Difference in LS mean change in DBP from baseline to week 12 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 10 mg group and Placebo group||1.00|-3.95|0.2415
90959639|NCT02390050|181799401|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-2.04||||0.1086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.54|0.46||P-value from Type III F-test|ANCOVA|Study center, treatment, visit and a treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects; prior anti-diabetic treatment and baseline SBP as covariates||Week 12: Difference in LS mean change in DBP from baseline to week 12 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 20 mg group and Placebo group||0.46|-4.54|0.1086
90959640|NCT02390050|181799402|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.03||||||Week 2: Difference in LS Mean change in HbA1c (%) from baseline to Week 2 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 5 mg group and Placebo group||0.03|-0.20|
90959641|NCT02390050|181799402|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|-0.02||||||Week 2: Difference in LS Mean change in HbA1c (%) from baseline to Week 2 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 10 mg group and Placebo group||-0.02|-0.24|
90959642|NCT02390050|181799402|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|-0.02||||||Week 2: Difference in LS Mean change in HbA1c (%) from baseline to Week 2 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 20 mg group and Placebo group||-0.02|-0.24|
90864341|NCT02609828|181592311|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.0||||0.0455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|24.16|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4 Reduction \>=70%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||24.16|1.03|0.0455
90864342|NCT02609828|181592311|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9464|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4 Reduction \>=90%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||||0.9464
90864343|NCT02609828|181592311|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.83||||0.0969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|3.72|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 6 Reduction \>=30%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||3.72|0.90|0.0969
90864344|NCT02609828|181592311|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.31||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|11.74|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 6 Reduction \>=50%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||11.74|1.58|0.0043
90864345|NCT02609828|181592311|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.49||||0.0352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|26.75|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 6 Reduction \>=70%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||26.75|1.13|0.0352
90864346|NCT02609828|181592311|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9464|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Week 6 Reduction \>=90%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||||0.9464
90864347|NCT02609828|181592311|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.1471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|3.52|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8 Reduction \>=30%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||3.52|0.83|0.1471
90864348|NCT02609828|181592311|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.55||||0.0405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|6.22|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8 Reduction \>=50%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||6.22|1.04|0.0405
90864349|NCT02609828|181592311|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.21||||0.0993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|12.83|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8 Reduction \>=70%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||12.83|0.80|0.0993
90864350|NCT02609828|181592311|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.71||||0.1726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|43.64|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8 Reduction \>=90%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||43.64|0.51|0.1726
90959643|NCT02390050|181799402|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.28||||||Week 6: Difference in LS Mean change in HbA1c (%) from baseline to Week 6 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 5 mg group and Placebo group||-0.28|-0.62|
90959644|NCT02390050|181799402|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.32||||||Week 6: Difference in LS Mean change in HbA1c (%) from baseline to Week 6 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 10 mg group and Placebo group||-0.32|-0.66|
90864351|NCT02609828|181592311|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.84||||0.0918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|3.74|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12 Reduction \>=30%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||3.74|0.91|0.0918
90864352|NCT02609828|181592311|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.13||||0.0704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|4.82|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12 Reduction \>=50%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||4.82|0.94|0.0704
90864353|NCT02609828|181592311|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67||||0.3569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|5.01|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12 Reduction \>=70%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||5.01|0.56|0.3569
90864354|NCT02609828|181592311|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.46||||0.3062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|13.79|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12 Reduction \>=90%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||13.79|0.44|0.3062
90864355|NCT02609828|181592311|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.84||||0.1058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|3.85|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16 Reduction \>=30%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||3.85|0.88|0.1058
90864356|NCT02609828|181592311|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.81||||0.1571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|4.14|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16 Reduction \>=50%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||4.14|0.79|0.1571
90864357|NCT02609828|181592311|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.85||||0.2454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|5.24|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16 Reduction \>=70%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||5.24|0.65|0.2454
90864358|NCT02609828|181592311|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.8867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|3.46|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16 Reduction \>=90%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||3.46|0.24|0.8867
90864359|NCT02609828|181592311|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.0689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|4.21|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24 Reduction \>=30%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||4.21|0.95|0.0689
90864360|NCT02609828|181592311|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3||||0.0568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|5.44|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24 Reduction \>=50%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||5.44|0.98|0.0568
90864361|NCT02609828|181592311|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.41||||0.1268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|7.46|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24 Reduction \>=70%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||7.46|0.78|0.1268
90907895|NCT03441984|181684365|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|0.9893|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8911|1.0983|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) and pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) is presented.|||1.0983|0.8911|
90959645|NCT02390050|181799402|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.36||||||Week 6: Difference in LS Mean change in HbA1c (%) from baseline to Week 6 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 20 mg group and Placebo group||-0.36|-0.70|
90864362|NCT02609828|181592311|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.7971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|6.0|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24 Reduction \>=90%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||6.00|0.25|0.7971
90864363|NCT02609828|181592312|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.6658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|3.7|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 1 Reduction \>=30%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||3.70|0.43|0.6658
90864364|NCT02609828|181592312|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.07||||0.3443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|31.35|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 1 Reduction \>=50%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||31.35|0.30|0.3443
90864365|NCT02609828|181592312|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9527|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Week 1 Reduction \>=70%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||||0.9527
90907896|NCT03441984|181684371|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.6503|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.5131|1.8|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric TRIUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablets) and adult TRIUMEQ (DTG 50 mg/ABC 600 mg/3TC 300 mg tablet) is presented.|||1.8000|1.5131|
90959646|NCT02390050|181799402|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.34||P-value from Type III F-test|ANCOVA|Study center, treatment, visit and a treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects; prior anti-diabetic treatment and baseline HbA1c as covariates||Week 12: Difference in LS Mean change in HbA1c (%) from baseline to Week 12 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 5 mg group and Placebo group||-0.34|-0.76|< 0.0001
90959647|NCT02390050|181799402|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.47||P-value from Type III F-test|ANCOVA|Study center, treatment, visit and a treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects; prior anti-diabetic treatment and baseline HbA1c as covariates||Week 12: Difference in LS Mean change in HbA1c (%) from baseline to Week 12 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 10 mg group and Placebo group||-0.47|-0.89|< 0.0001
90959648|NCT02390050|181799402|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.59||P-value from Type III F-test|ANCOVA|Study center, treatment, visit and a treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects; prior anti-diabetic treatment and baseline HbA1c as covariates||Week 12: Difference in LS Mean change in HbA1c (%) from baseline to Week 12 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 20 mg group and Placebo group||-0.59|-1.01|< 0.0001
90907897|NCT03441984|181684371|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.3501|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.2381|1.4722|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric TRUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) and adult TRIUMEQ (DTG 50 mg/ABC 600 mg/3TC 300 mg tablet) is presented.|||1.4722|1.2381|
90959649|NCT03727438|181799418|EQUIVALENCE|alpha = .05|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.7|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|-2.4||alpha=.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Model parameters included a common intercept (baseline means constrained to be equal), stratification variables, timepoint, and arm by timepoint.||"Analyses were conducted according to the intention-to-treat principle. All available data, including observations from participants who dropped out of the study, were used for primary and secondary analyses. Our modeling estimation approach was conducted with full-likelihood methods, providing unbiased treatment effect estimates under a missing-data framework known as missing at random (MAR)."||-2.4|-5.0|<0.01
90959650|NCT03727438|181799419|EQUIVALENCE|alpha= .05|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.6|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.7|-12.5||alpha = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-12.5|-26.7|<0.01
90959651|NCT03727438|181799420|EQUIVALENCE|alpha = .05|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.6|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.1|-12.0||alpha = .05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-12.0|-29.1|<0.01
90959652|NCT03727438|181799421|EQUIVALENCE|alpha = .05|Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.0|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|14.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|alpha = 0.05||||14.3|7.7|<0.01
90907898|NCT03441984|181684371|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.2224|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.121|1.333|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric TRIUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablets) and pediatric TRUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) is presented.|||1.3330|1.1210|
90907899|NCT03441984|181684380|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.0251|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.848|1.2392|||||Treatment comparison between Pediatric TRIUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30 mg, 10 dispersible tablets) and Adult TRIUMEQ (DTG 50 mg/ABC 600 mg/3TC 300 mg, 1 conventional tablet) is presented|||1.2392|0.8480|
90907900|NCT03441984|181684380|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|0.9181|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7592|1.1103|||||Treatment comparison between Pediatric TRIUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30 mg, 10 dispersible tablets) and Adult TRIUMEQ (DTG 50 mg/ABC 600 mg/3TC 300 mg, 1 conventional tablet) is presented|||1.1103|0.7592|
90907901|NCT03441984|181684380|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.1165|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9376|1.3295|||||Treatment comparison between Pediatric TRIUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30 mg, 10 dispersible tablets) and Pediatric TRIUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30 mg, 10 dispersible tablets) is presented|||1.3295|0.9376|
90959653|NCT03727438|181799422|EQUIVALENCE|Alpha = .05|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.2|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|0.1||Alpha = .05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.1|-12.5|> 0.05
90959654|NCT03727438|181799423|EQUIVALENCE|alpha = .05|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.5||alpha =.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||.5|-.4|>0.05
90864366|NCT02609828|181592312|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.25||||0.0757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|5.5|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2 Reduction \>=30%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||5.50|0.92|0.0757
90959655|NCT03727438|181799424|EQUIVALENCE|alpha = .05|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.9||alpha = .05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.9|0.2|<0.05
90959656|NCT06729606|181799425|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.55||Proportional odds model stratified by disease severity (high flow nasal canula \[HFNC\]/non-invasive ventilation \[NIV\] or invasive mechanical ventiliation \[IMV\]/ECMO) at study entry to determine the odds of being in a better category at day 90.|Proportional odds model||Summary odds ratio for being in a better category, active/placebo (95% confidence interval); pvalue|||1.55|0.80|0.54
90959657|NCT06729606|181799426|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.41|||Cox proportional hazards model||Hazard ratio for active/placebo (95% confidence interval); pvalue|||1.41|0.77|0.78
90959658|NCT06729606|181799427|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|2.08|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio for active/placebo (95% confidence interval); pvalue|||2.08|0.94|0.10
90959659|NCT06729606|181799428|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.44|||Cox proportional hazards model||Hazard ratio for active/placebo (95% confidence interval); pvalue|||1.44|0.95|0.15
90959660|NCT06729606|181799429|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.42|||Cox proportional hazards model||Hazard ratio for active/placebo (95% confidence interval); pvalue|||1.42|0.79|0.71
90959661|NCT02491632|181799499|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change between Baseline and Day 8||||<.001
90959662|NCT02491632|181799499|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change between Baseline and Day 29||||<.001
90959663|NCT02491632|181799499|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change between Baseline and Day 8||||<.001
90959664|NCT02491632|181799499|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change between Baseline and Day 29||||<.001
90959665|NCT02491632|181799500|OTHER||||||=|0.003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change between Baseline and Day 8||||=.003
90907902|NCT03441984|181684388|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.0844|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9904|1.1873|||||Treatment comparison between Pediatric TRIUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30 mg, 10 dispersible tablets) and Adult TRIUMEQ (DTG 50 mg/ABC 600 mg/3TC 300 mg, 1 conventional tablet) is presented|||1.1873|0.9904|
91033122|NCT00048581|181951979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. of Diff: Day 141 ACR 50|20.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.2|29.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|All statistical tests and CI were 2-sided. Percentage of participants with response compared by estimate of weighted difference (Est of Weighted Diff)|Differences in ACR response between the two treatment groups represent the weighted average of the individual stratum differences.|If ACR20 comparison was significant (5% level), then CMH Chi-square test compared ACR 50 response between groups (5% level). If the ACR20 analysis was not significant (5% level), then the comparison for ACR 50 response was not undertaken. A 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) Chi-square test was used to compare these two treatment groups at the .05 level of significance, with stratification based on baseline history of anti-TNF status (current or prior use).||29.5|12.2|<0.001
91033123|NCT00048581|181951979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. of Diff: Day 141 ACR 70|10.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|16.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|All statistical tests and CI were 2-sided. Percentage of participants with response compared by estimate of weighted difference (Est of Weighted Diff)|Differences in ACR response between the two treatment groups represent the weighted average of the individual stratum differences.|If ACR20 comparison was significant (5% level), then CMH Chi-square test compared ACR 70 response between groups (5% level). If the ACR20 analysis was not significant (5% level), then the comparison for ACR 70 response was not undertaken. A 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) Chi-square test was used to compare these two treatment groups at the .05 level of significance, with stratification based on baseline history of anti-TNF status (current or prior use).||16.0|4.4|<0.001
91033124|NCT00048581|181951979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. of Diff: Day 169 ACR 20|30.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.0|41.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|All statistical tests and CI were 2-sided. Percentage of participants with response compared by estimate of difference (Est of Diff)|Differences in ACR response between the two treatment groups represent the weighted average of the individual stratum differences.|Differences in ACR 20 between the treatment arm receiving ABA plus background DMARDs and the treatment arm receiving PLA plus background DMARDs were compared using a 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) Chi-square test (.05 level of significance), with stratification based on baseline history of anti-TNF status (current or prior use).||41.7|20.0|<0.001
91033125|NCT00048581|181951979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. of Diff: Day 169 ACR 50|16.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.6|24.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|All statistical tests and CI were 2-sided. Percentage of participants with response compared by estimate of weighted difference (Est of Weighted Diff)|Differences in ACR response between the two treatment groups represent the weighted average of the individual stratum differences.|If ACR20 comparison was significant (5% level), then CMH Chi-square test compared ACR 50 response between groups (5% level). If the ACR20 analysis was not significant (5% level), then the comparison for ACR 50 response was not undertaken. A 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) Chi-square test was used to compare these two treatment groups at the .05 level of significance, with stratification based on baseline history of anti-TNF status (current or prior use).||24.5|8.6|<0.001
91033126|NCT00048581|181951979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. of Diff: Day 169 ACR 70|8.7||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|14.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|All statistical tests and CI were 2-sided. Percentage of participants with response compared by estimate of difference (Est of Weighted Diff)|Differences in ACR response between the two treatment groups represent the weighted average of the individual stratum differences.|If ACR20 comparison was significant (5% level), then CMH Chi-square test compared ACR 70 response between groups (5% level). If the ACR20 analysis was not significant (5% level), then the comparison for ACR 70 response was not undertaken. A 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) Chi-square test was used to compare these two treatment groups at the .05 level of significance, with stratification based on baseline history of anti-TNF status (current or prior use).||14.6|2.7|0.003
91033127|NCT00048581|181952000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adj Diff: Day 85 PCS|3.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.89|5.38|||ANCOVA|||Differences in mean changes from baseline between the 2 treatment groups (ABA and PLA) in PCS, MCS, and the 8 subscale scores at Day 85 were compared using ANCOVA models. Adjusted difference (Adj Diff) from PLA group with 95% CIs and p-values were calculated, and adjustment was based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as factor and baseline value as covariate.||5.38|1.89|<0.001
91033128|NCT00048581|181952000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adj Diff: Day 85 MCS|2.57||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|4.67|||ANCOVA|||Differences in mean changes from baseline between the 2 treatment groups (ABA and PLA) in PCS, MCS, and the 8 subscale scores at Day 85 were compared using ANCOVA models. Adjusted difference (Adj Diff) from PLA group with 95% CIs and p-values were calculated, and adjustment was based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as factor and baseline value as covariate.||4.67|0.47|0.017
90907903|NCT03441984|181684388|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.1311|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0334|1.2379|||||Treatment comparison between Pediatric TRIUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30 mg, 10 dispersible tablets) and Adult TRIUMEQ (DTG 50 mg/ABC 600 mg/3TC 300 mg, 1 conventional tablet) is presented|||1.2379|1.0334|
90959666|NCT02491632|181799500|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change between Baseline and Day 29||||<.001
90959667|NCT02491632|181799500|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change between Baseline and Day 8||||<.001
90864367|NCT02609828|181592312|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.51||||0.0659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|22.42|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2 Reduction \>=50%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||22.42|0.91|0.0659
90959668|NCT02491632|181799500|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change between Baseline and Day 29||||<.001
90959669|NCT02491632|181799501|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change between Baseline and Day 8||||<.001
90959670|NCT02491632|181799501|OTHER||||||<|0.065|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change between Baseline and Day 29||||<.065
90959671|NCT02491632|181799501|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change between Baseline and Day 8||||<.001
90864368|NCT02609828|181592312|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.938|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2 Reduction \>=70%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||||0.9380
90864369|NCT02609828|181592312|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9493|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2 Reduction \>=90%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||||0.9493
90864370|NCT02609828|181592312|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.02||||0.0914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|4.59|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4 Reduction \>=30%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||4.59|0.89|0.0914
90959672|NCT02491632|181799501|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change between Baseline and Day 29||||<.001
90959673|NCT02491632|181799502|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change between Baseline and Day 8||||<.001
90959674|NCT02491632|181799502|OTHER||||||=|0.3|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change between Baseline and Day 29||||=.30
90959675|NCT02491632|181799502|OTHER||||||=|0.19|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change between Baseline and Day 8||||=.19
90864371|NCT02609828|181592312|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.22||||0.0359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|9.61|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4 Reduction \>=50%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||9.61|1.08|0.0359
90864372|NCT02609828|181592312|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9538|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4 Reduction \>=70%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||||0.9538
90864373|NCT02609828|181592312|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9493|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4 Reduction \>=90%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||||0.9493
90907904|NCT03441984|181684388|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|0.9587|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.876|1.0493|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric TRIUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablets) and pediatric TRUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) is presented.|||1.0493|0.8760|
90907905|NCT03441984|181684396|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.5619|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.3678|1.7835|||||Treatment comparison between Pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg, 10 dispersible tablets) and Adult DTG (50 mg, 1 conventional tablet) and adult 3TC (300 mg, 1 conventional tablet) is presented|||1.7835|1.3678|
90907906|NCT03441984|181684396|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.253|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0973|1.4307|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) and pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablet) is presented.|||1.4307|1.0973|
90864374|NCT02609828|181592312|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.66||||0.0143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|5.8|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 6 Reduction \>=30%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||5.80|1.22|0.0143
90907907|NCT03441984|181684396|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.2466|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0917|1.4234|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) and pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) is presented.|||1.4234|1.0917|
90907908|NCT03441984|181684405|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.0745|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9997|1.1549|||||Treatment comparison between Pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg, 10 dispersible tablets) and Adult DTG (50 mg, 1 conventional tablet) and adult 3TC (300 mg, 1 conventional tablet) is presented|||1.1549|0.9997|
90907909|NCT03441984|181684405|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.0706|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9961|1.1507|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) and pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablet) is presented.|||1.1507|0.9961|
90959676|NCT02491632|181799502|OTHER||||||=|0.27|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change between Baseline and Day 29||||=.27
90959677|NCT00604279|181799521|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The predetermined margin for non-inferiority of paliperidone palmitate was 5.5 points|Least Square Mean Difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.48||||95.0|-5.2|0.63|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a factor, and baseline value as a covariate was used.||||0.63|-5.20|
90959678|NCT00604279|181799522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.34||||95.0|-2.14|3.12|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a factor, and baseline value as a covariate was used.||||3.12|-2.14|
90959679|NCT00604279|181799523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||||95.0|-0.33|0.1|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a factor, and baseline value as a covariate was used.||||0.10|-0.33|
90864375|NCT02609828|181592312|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.2||||0.0176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|13.74|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 6 Reduction \>=50%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||13.74|1.28|0.0176
90864376|NCT02609828|181592312|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.53||||0.1298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|18.06|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 6 Reduction \>=70%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||18.06|0.69|0.1298
90864377|NCT02609828|181592312|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9493|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Week 6 Reduction \>=90%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||||0.9493
90864378|NCT02609828|181592312|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.15||||0.0527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|4.67|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8 Reduction \>=30%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||4.67|0.99|0.0527
90864379|NCT02609828|181592312|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.69||||0.0457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|7.12|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8 Reduction \>=50%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||7.12|1.02|0.0457
90864380|NCT02609828|181592312|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.91||||0.0994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|19.76|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8 Reduction \>=70%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||19.76|0.77|0.0994
90907910|NCT03441984|181684405|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.0036|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9338|1.0787|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) and pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) is presented.|||1.0787|0.9338|
90907911|NCT00770211|181684481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference response rate|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.56|||Fisher Exact|||The efficacy of the treatment was confirmed, if H0 was rejected at a given alpha of 5%, that means if the two sided p-value is ≤ 0.05. Power of 90%||0.56|0.40|<0.0001
90907912|NCT00318656|181684486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.49||0.064||95.0|-0.32|10.36|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA)|Mean Difference =(Rosiglitazone + Met) - (Glimepiride+Met)|Statistical analysis was based off of week 12 results.||10.36|-0.32|0.064
90864381|NCT02609828|181592312|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65||||0.6977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|5.86|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8 Reduction \>=90%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||5.86|0.07|0.6977
90864382|NCT02609828|181592312|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76||||0.146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|3.75|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12 Reduction \>=30%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||3.75|0.82|0.1460
90864383|NCT02609828|181592312|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.35||||0.0742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|6.01|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12 Reduction \>=50%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||6.01|0.92|0.0742
90864384|NCT02609828|181592312|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.5565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|4.91|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12 Reduction \>=70%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||4.91|0.42|0.5565
90907913|NCT00318656|181684487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45||0.923||95.0|-3.37|2.85||P value von elteren (adjusted on sex)|ANCOVA||Mean Difference =(Rosiglitazone + Met) - (Glimepiride+Met)|Statistical analysis was based off of week 12 results.||2.85|-3.37|0.923
90907914|NCT01446003|181684504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.52|4.56|||Linear mixed effect models|The model contained period and treatment as fixed effect, Day -1 baseline as a fixed continuous covariate, and participant as random effect.||If the upper limit of the 90% confidence interval lies below the bound 5 mmHg, the hypothesis that change from baseline in ambulatory 24-hour mean SBP in participants with mild to moderate hypertension following 10 days of multiple dosing of MK-8457 is similar to placebo will be supported.||4.56|-0.52|
90907915|NCT01446003|181684505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.19|2.96|||Linear mixed effects model|The model contained period and treatment as fixed effect, Day -1 baseline as a fixed continuous covariate, and participant as random effect.||||2.96|0.19|
90864385|NCT02609828|181592312|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.5623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|10.35|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12 Reduction \>=90%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||10.35|0.28|0.5623
90864386|NCT02609828|181592312|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.86||||0.0116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|6.47|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16 Reduction \>=30%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||6.47|1.27|0.0116
91033129|NCT00048581|181952000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adj Diff: Day 85 Physical Function|1.7||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|3.41|||ANCOVA|||Differences in mean changes from baseline between the 2 treatment groups (ABA and PLA) in PCS, MCS, and the 8 subscale scores at Day 85 were compared using ANCOVA models. Adjusted difference (Adj Diff) from PLA group with 95% CIs and p-values were calculated, and adjustment was based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as factor and baseline value as covariate.||3.41|-0.01|0.052
90907916|NCT01446003|181684506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.44|13.35|||Linear mixed effects model|The model contained period and treatment as fixed effect, Day -1 baseline as a fixed continuous covariate, and participant as random effect.||Treatment comparison of maxMAΔ in SBP from baseline to Day 10 after AM dosing||13.35|2.44|
90907917|NCT01446003|181684506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.68|3.81|||Linear mixed effects model|The model contained period and treatment as fixed effect, Day -1 baseline as a fixed continuous covariate, and participant as random effect.||Treatment comparison of maxMAΔ in SBP from baseline to Day 10 after PM dosing||3.81|-5.68|
90864387|NCT02609828|181592312|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.34||||0.0615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|5.7|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16 Reduction \>=50%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||5.70|0.96|0.0615
90864388|NCT02609828|181592312|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68||||0.3316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|4.8|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16 Reduction \>=70%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||4.80|0.59|0.3316
90864389|NCT02609828|181592312|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.9946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|5.33|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16 Reduction \>=90%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||5.33|0.19|0.9946
90907918|NCT01446003|181684506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|9.71|||Linear mixed effects model|The model contained period and treatment as fixed effect, Day -1 baseline as a fixed continuous covariate, and participant as random effect.||Treatment comparison of maxMAΔ in DBP from baseline to Day 10 after AM dosing||9.71|0.81|
90907919|NCT01446003|181684506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.55|1.17|||Linear mixed effects model|The model contained period and treatment as fixed effect, Day -1 baseline as a fixed continuous covariate, and participant as random effect.||Treatment comparison of maxMAΔ in DBP from baseline to Day 10 after PM dosing||1.17|-4.55|
90907920|NCT03568162|181684542|SUPERIORITY|The analysis was conducted using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) model for percent change from baseline in EASI with the corresponding baseline value as covariate, and treatment group, region, disease severity, visit as fixed effect factors, and interactions of treatment-by-visit, baseline-by-visit|LS Mean Difference|-20.192|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.4781|=|0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.944|5.439|||Mixed Models Analysis||A linear contrast was used to estimate the treatment difference|||5.439|-34.944|= 0.008
90940300|NCT01644188|181760386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-22.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.7|-19.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. ezetimibe|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-19.2|-25.7|<0.0001
90940301|NCT01644188|181760387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-22.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.6|-18.3||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. ezetimibe|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-18.3|-25.6|<0.0001
90940302|NCT01644188|181760388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-14.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|-11.6||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. ezetimibe|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-11.6|-17.1|<0.0001
90864390|NCT02609828|181592312|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.99||||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|6.76|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24 Reduction \>=30%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||6.76|1.33|0.0083
90864391|NCT02609828|181592312|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.42||||0.0513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|5.88|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24 Reduction \>=50%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||5.88|1.00|0.0513
90864392|NCT02609828|181592312|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.48||||0.1528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|8.58|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24 Reduction \>=70%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||8.58|0.71|0.1528
90940303|NCT01644188|181760389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-31.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.3|-26.1||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. ezetimibe|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-26.1|-36.3|<0.0001
90940304|NCT01644188|181760390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|7.9||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation approach followed by Logistic regression model.|Alirocumab vs. ezetimibe|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||7.9|3.7|<0.0001
90940305|NCT01644188|181760391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|8.8||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model|Alirocumab vs. ezetimibe|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||8.8|3.9|<0.0001
90940306|NCT01644188|181760392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-21.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.4|-17.0||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Robust|Multiple imputation approach followed by robust regression model.|Alirocumab vs. ezetimibe|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-17|-26.4|<0.0001
90940307|NCT01644188|181760393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|8.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.4|10.7||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. ezetimibe|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||10.7|5.4|<0.0001
90940308|NCT01644188|181760394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.9117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|4.6||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Robust|Multiple imputation approach followed by robust regression.|Alirocumab vs. ezetimibe|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||4.6|-5.1|0.9117
90940309|NCT04333732|181760409|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.3||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.1|||Regression, Logistic|||The primary endpoint was analysed using a Bayesian logistic regression, including as covariates the treatment arm, age (\<50 vs. ≥50), and a random effect for site||1.1|-0.5|0.52
90940310|NCT04333732|181760410|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.04||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.3|||Regression, Logistic|difference, 0·04%, 95% CI, -1·4% to 1·3%, p=0·95).||The endpoint was analysed using a Bayesian logistic regression, including as covariates the treatment arm, age (\<50 vs. ≥50), and a random effect for site||1.3|-1.4|0.95
90940311|NCT01699698|181760425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90940312|NCT00526097|181760438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|<|0.0001||95.0|2.6|4.0||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||4.0|2.6|<0.0001
90940313|NCT00526097|181760439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|<|0.0001||95.0|3.5|5.2||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs)|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||5.2|3.5|<0.0001
90940314|NCT00526097|181760440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|<|0.0001||95.0|2.7|4.3||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||4.3|2.7|<0.0001
90864393|NCT02609828|181592312|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.7251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|9.65|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24 Reduction \>=90%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||9.65|0.21|0.7251
90864394|NCT02609828|181592313|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.7045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and baseline global assessment score, baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, and baseline opioid dose as covariates.||0.19|-0.28|0.7045
90959680|NCT00604279|181799524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.08||||95.0|-0.67|7.5|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a factor, and baseline value as a covariate was used.||Statistical Analysis for Quality of sleep||7.50|-0.67|
90959681|NCT00604279|181799524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.02||||95.0|-5.04|2.9|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a factor, and baseline value as a covariate was used.||Statistical Analysis for Daytime drowsiness||2.90|-5.04|
90864395|NCT02609828|181592313|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and baseline global assessment score, baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, and baseline opioid dose as covariates.||-0.01|-0.59|0.0402
90864396|NCT02609828|181592313|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and baseline global assessment score, baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, and baseline opioid dose as covariates.||0.02|-0.67|0.0637
90864397|NCT02609828|181592313|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.3804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and baseline global assessment score, baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, and baseline opioid dose as covariates.||0.20|-0.53|0.3804
90864398|NCT02609828|181592313|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.5894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.27|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and baseline global assessment score, baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, and baseline opioid dose as covariates.||0.27|-0.47|0.5894
90864399|NCT02609828|181592314|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.38||||0.2033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.69|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2: Logistic regression model included baseline PGA-CP, baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||1.69|0.09|0.2033
90864400|NCT02609828|181592314|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.7627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|3.41|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4: Logistic regression model included baseline PGA-CP, baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||3.41|0.41|0.7627
90864401|NCT02609828|181592314|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.6894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|3.43|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8: Logistic regression model included baseline PGA-CP, baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||3.43|0.44|0.6894
90864402|NCT02609828|181592314|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.5905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|3.83|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16: Logistic regression model included baseline PGA-CP, baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||3.83|0.47|0.5905
90907921|NCT03568162|181684542|SUPERIORITY|The analysis was conducted using a MMRM model for percent change from baseline in EASI with the corresponding baseline value as covariate, and treatment group, region, disease severity, visit as fixed effect factors, and interactions of treatment-by-visit, baseline-by-visit.|LS Mean Difference|-14.439|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.6622|=|0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.552|0.674|||Mixed Models Analysis||A linear contrast was used to estimate the treatment difference|||0.674|-29.552|= 0.061
90907922|NCT03568162|181684542|SUPERIORITY|The analysis was conducted using a mixed MMRM model for percent change from baseline in EASI with the corresponding baseline value as covariate, and treatment group, region, disease severity, visit as fixed effect factors, and interactions of treatment-by-visit, baseline-by-visit.|LS Mean Difference|3.144|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.8864|=|0.691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.41|18.698|||Mixed Models Analysis||A linear contrast was used to estimate the treatment difference.|||18.698|-12.410|= 0.691
90959682|NCT00604279|181799525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate of relative risk|0.9||||||95.0|0.81|1.01|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.01|0.81|
90959683|NCT03938545|181799526|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.4|||=|0.1993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|54.1||p-values were obtained from a Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by smoking status at baseline comparing RVT-1401 680 mg/Week group to placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The risk difference was obtained from a weighted average of the difference within each stratum using Cochran Mantel-Haenszel weights.|||54.1|-11.3|=0.1993
90907923|NCT03568162|181684542|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-17.199|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.409|=|0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.895|-4.503|||Mixed Models Analysis||A linear contrast was used to estimate the treatment difference.|The analysis was conducted using a MMRM model for percent change from baseline in EASI with the corresponding baseline value as covariate, and treatment group, region, disease severity, visit as fixed effect factors, and interactions of treatment-by-visit, baseline-by-visit.||-4.503|-29.895|= 0.008
90907924|NCT00938340|181684564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.012||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.012
90907925|NCT00938340|181684564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.52||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.0083 is considered significant (6 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.52
90907926|NCT00938340|181684564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.011||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.0083 is considered significant (6 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.011
90907927|NCT00938340|181684564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.29||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.0083 is considered significant (6 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.29
90907928|NCT00938340|181684564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.0083 is considered significant (6 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.002
90907929|NCT00938340|181684564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.093||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.0083 is considered significant (6 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.093
90907930|NCT00938340|181684564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.12||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.0083 is considered significant (6 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.12
90907931|NCT00938340|181684565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.01
90907932|NCT00938340|181684565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.15||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.0083 is considered significant (6 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.15
90907933|NCT00938340|181684565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.35||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.0083 is considered significant (6 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.35
90959684|NCT03938545|181799526|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|24.2|||=|0.1016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|53.2||p-values were obtained from a Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by smoking status at baseline comparing RVT-1401 340 mg/Week group to placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The risk difference was obtained from a weighted average of the difference within each stratum using Cochran Mantel-Haenszel weights.|||53.2|-4.8|=0.1016
90907934|NCT00938340|181684565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.011||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.0083 is considered significant (6 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.011
90907935|NCT00938340|181684565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.62||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.0083 is considered significant (6 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.62
90907936|NCT00938340|181684565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0002||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.0083 is considered significant (6 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0002
90907937|NCT00938340|181684565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0013||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.0083 is considered significant (6 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0013
90907938|NCT00938340|181684566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.15||||||Main effect of treatment by timepoint|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.15
90907939|NCT00938340|181684567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.79|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.79
90907940|NCT00938340|181684568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.010
90907941|NCT00938340|181684568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.98||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.0083 is considered significant (6 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.98
90907942|NCT00938340|181684568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.0083 is considered significant (6 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.004
90907943|NCT00938340|181684568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.11||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.0083 is considered significant (6 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.11
90907944|NCT00938340|181684568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.0083 is considered significant (6 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.004
90907945|NCT00938340|181684568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.11||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.0083 is considered significant (6 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.11
90907946|NCT00938340|181684568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.16||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.0083 is considered significant (6 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.16
90907947|NCT00938340|181684569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.007|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.007
90907948|NCT00938340|181684569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.0083 is considered significant (6 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.004
90907949|NCT00938340|181684569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.62||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.0083 is considered significant (6 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.62
90907950|NCT00938340|181684569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.14||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.0083 is considered significant (6 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.14
90907951|NCT00938340|181684569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.0083 is considered significant (6 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.002
90907952|NCT00938340|181684569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.22||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.0083 is considered significant (6 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.22
90907953|NCT00938340|181684569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.074||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.0083 is considered significant (6 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.074
90907954|NCT00938340|181684570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.53|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.53
90907955|NCT00938340|181684571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>0.05
90907956|NCT00938340|181684572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>0.05
90907957|NCT00938340|181684573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>0.05
90907958|NCT00938340|181684574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>0.05
90907959|NCT00938340|181684575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.44|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.44
90907960|NCT00938340|181684576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.62|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.62
90907961|NCT00938340|181684577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.011|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.011
90907962|NCT00938340|181684577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.007||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.0083 is considered significant (6 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.007
90907963|NCT00938340|181684577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.99||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.0083 is considered significant (6 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.99
90907964|NCT00938340|181684577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.037||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.0083 is considered significant (6 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.037
90907965|NCT00938340|181684577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0087||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.0083 is considered significant (6 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0087
90907966|NCT00938340|181684577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.64||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.0083 is considered significant (6 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.64
90907967|NCT00938340|181684577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.043||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.0083 is considered significant (6 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.043
90907968|NCT00938340|181684578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
90907969|NCT00938340|181684578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.91||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.001667 is considered significant (30 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.91
90907970|NCT00938340|181684578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.21||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.001667 is considered significant (30 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.21
90907971|NCT00938340|181684578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0011||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.001667 is considered significant (30 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0011
90907972|NCT00938340|181684578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0004||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.001667 is considered significant (30 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0004
90907973|NCT00938340|181684578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.11||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.001667 is considered significant (30 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.11
90907974|NCT00938340|181684578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.53||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.001667 is considered significant (30 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.53
90907975|NCT00938340|181684578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.59||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.001667 is considered significant (30 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.59
90907976|NCT00938340|181684578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.31||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.001667 is considered significant (30 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.31
90907977|NCT00938340|181684578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.98||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.001667 is considered significant (30 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.98
90907978|NCT00938340|181684578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.001667 is considered significant (30 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.30
90907979|NCT00938340|181684578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.91||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.001667 is considered significant (30 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.91
91033130|NCT00048581|181952000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adj Diff: Day 85 Role-Physical|3.01||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|5.19|||ANCOVA|||Differences in mean changes from baseline between the 2 treatment groups (ABA and PLA) in PCS, MCS, and the 8 subscale scores at Day 85 were compared using ANCOVA models. Adjusted difference (Adj Diff) from PLA group with 95% CIs and p-values were calculated, and adjustment was based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as factor and baseline value as covariate.||5.19|0.83|0.007
90864403|NCT02609828|181592314|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.8354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|3.35|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24: Logistic regression model included baseline PGA-CP, baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||3.35|0.38|0.8354
90864404|NCT02609828|181592317|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.8069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2 Frequency Composite Score: Mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM) model includes time (study week), treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and treatment\*time interaction, baseline OR-SDS frequency scores, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site as covariates.||0.38|-0.49|0.8069
90864405|NCT02609828|181592317|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.7127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4 Frequency Composite Score: MMRM model includes time (study week), treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and treatment\*time interaction, baseline OR-SDS frequency scores, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site as covariates.||0.41|-0.28|0.7127
90864406|NCT02609828|181592317|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.3933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8 Frequency Composite Score: MMRM model includes time (study week), treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and treatment\*time interaction, baseline OR-SDS frequency scores, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site as covariates.||0.23|-0.57|0.3933
90864407|NCT02609828|181592317|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.5869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16 Frequency Composite Score: MMRM model includes time (study week), treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and treatment\*time interaction, baseline OR-SDS frequency scores, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site as covariates.||0.41|-0.71|0.5869
90864408|NCT02609828|181592317|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.1814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24 Frequency Composite Score: MMRM model includes time (study week), treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and treatment\*time interaction, baseline OR-SDS frequency scores, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site as covariates.||0.21|-1.05|0.1814
90864409|NCT02609828|181592317|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.2822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2 Severity Composite Score: MMRM model includes time (study week), treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and treatment\*time interaction, baseline OR-SDS severity scores, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site as covariates.||0.46|-0.14|0.2822
90864410|NCT02609828|181592317|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.5795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4 Severity Composite Score: MMRM model includes time (study week), treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and treatment\*time interaction, baseline OR-SDS severity scores, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site as covariates.||0.41|-0.23|0.5795
90907980|NCT00938340|181684578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.12||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.001667 is considered significant (30 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.12
90907981|NCT00938340|181684578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.007||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.001667 is considered significant (30 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.007
90907982|NCT00938340|181684578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0089||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.001667 is considered significant (30 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0089
90864411|NCT02609828|181592317|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.5486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8 Severity Composite Score: MMRM model includes time (study week), treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and treatment\*time interaction, baseline OR-SDS severity scores, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site as covariates.||0.22|-0.42|0.5486
90864412|NCT02609828|181592317|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.3692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16 Severity Composite Score: MMRM model includes time (study week), treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and treatment\*time interaction, baseline OR-SDS severity scores, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site as covariates.||0.63|-0.24|0.3692
90864413|NCT02609828|181592317|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.4724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24 Severity Composite Score: MMRM model includes time (study week), treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and treatment\*time interaction, baseline OR-SDS severity scores, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site as covariates.||0.63|-0.30|0.4724
90864414|NCT02609828|181592317|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2 Distress Composite Score: MMRM model includes time (study week), treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and treatment\*time interaction, baseline OR-SDS distress scores, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site as covariates.||0.64|-0.30|0.4770
90864415|NCT02609828|181592317|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.9791|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4 Distress Composite Score: MMRM model includes time (study week), treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and treatment\*time interaction, baseline OR-SDS distress scores, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site as covariates.||0.37|-0.38|0.9791
90864416|NCT02609828|181592317|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.3574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8 Distress Composite Score: MMRM model includes time (study week), treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and treatment\*time interaction, baseline OR-SDS distress scores, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site as covariates.||0.74|-0.27|0.3574
90864417|NCT02609828|181592317|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.5607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16 Distress Composite Score: MMRM model includes time (study week), treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and treatment\*time interaction, baseline OR-SDS distress scores, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site as covariates.||0.42|-0.77|0.5607
90864418|NCT02609828|181592317|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.7143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24 Distress Composite Score: MMRM model includes time (study week), treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and treatment\*time interaction, baseline OR-SDS distress scores, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site as covariates.||0.47|-0.68|0.7143
90864419|NCT02609828|181592317|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.6381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2 MDA Composite Score: MMRM model includes time (study week), treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and treatment\*time interaction, baseline OR-SDS MDA scores, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site as covariates.||0.45|-0.28|0.6381
90864420|NCT02609828|181592317|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.7181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4 MDA Composite Score: MMRM model includes time (study week), treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and treatment\*time interaction, baseline OR-SDS MDA scores, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site as covariates.||0.37|-0.25|0.7181
90907983|NCT00938340|181684578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.28||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.001667 is considered significant (30 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.28
90907984|NCT00938340|181684578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.62||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.001667 is considered significant (30 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.62
90907985|NCT00938340|181684578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.48||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.001667 is considered significant (30 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.48
90907986|NCT00938340|181684578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.001667 is considered significant (30 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
90907987|NCT00938340|181684578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0003||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.001667 is considered significant (30 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0003
90907988|NCT00938340|181684578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.57||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.001667 is considered significant (30 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.57
90907989|NCT00938340|181684578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.99||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.001667 is considered significant (30 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.99
90907990|NCT00938340|181684578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.71||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.001667 is considered significant (30 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.71
90907991|NCT00938340|181684578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.62||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.001667 is considered significant (30 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.62
90907992|NCT00938340|181684578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.33||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.001667 is considered significant (30 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.33
90907993|NCT00938340|181684578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.65||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.001667 is considered significant (30 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.65
90907994|NCT00938340|181684578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.66||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.001667 is considered significant (30 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.66
90907995|NCT00938340|181684578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.001667 is considered significant (30 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.30
90959685|NCT03938545|181799526|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.3|||=|0.2963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.0|7.3||p-values were obtained from a Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by smoking status at baseline comparing RVT-1401 255 mg/Week group to placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The risk difference was obtained from a weighted average of the difference within each stratum using Cochran Mantel-Haenszel weights.|||7.3|-24.0|=0.2963
90907996|NCT00938340|181684578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0005||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.001667 is considered significant (30 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0005
90907997|NCT00938340|181684578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0085||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.001667 is considered significant (30 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0085
90907998|NCT00938340|181684578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.92||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.001667 is considered significant (30 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.92
90907999|NCT05174065|181684581|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference in Proportion|32.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.7|46.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for the stratification factors of rounded PPPASI total score range (≤ 20/21 to 30/≥ 31) and focal infection status (yes/no) at baseline.|Based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method adjusting for the stratification factors. The adjusted difference in proportion was the weighted average of the treatment differences across strata.|||46.5|18.7|<0.0001
90908000|NCT05174065|181684582|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-6.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.57|-3.69|||MMRM|With treatment group, visit time, treatment-by-time interaction, and stratification factors as fixed effect, and the baseline value as a covariate.|Apremilast - Placebo|||-3.69|-8.57|<0.0001
90908001|NCT05174065|181684583|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-1.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.9|||MMRM|With treatment group, visit time, treatment-by-time interaction, and stratification factors as fixed effect, and baseline value as covariate.|Apremilast - Placebo|||-0.9|-2.2|<0.0001
90908002|NCT05174065|181684584|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-7.8||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|-0.6|||MMRM|With treatment group, visit time, treatment-by-time interaction, and stratification factors as fixed effect, and the baseline value as a covariate.|Apremilast - Placebo|||-0.6|-14.9|0.0330
90908003|NCT05174065|181684585|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-10.8||||0.0076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.6|-2.9|||MMRM|With treatment group, visit time, treatment-by-time interaction, and stratification factors as fixed effect, and the baseline value as a covariate.|Apremilast - Placebo|||-2.9|-18.6|0.0076
90908004|NCT05174065|181684586|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-1.4||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.5|||MMRM|With treatment group, visit time, treatment-by-time interaction, and stratification factors as fixed effect, and the baseline value as a covariate.|Apremilast - Placebo|||-0.5|-2.4|0.0036
90864421|NCT02609828|181592317|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square (LS) mean|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.8378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8 MDA Composite Score: MMRM model includes time (study week), treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and treatment\*time interaction, baseline OR-SDS MDA scores, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site as covariates.||0.31|-0.38|0.8378
90864422|NCT02609828|181592317|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16 MDA Composite Score: MMRM model includes time (study week), treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and treatment\*time interaction, baseline OR-SDS MDA scores, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site as covariates.||0.40|-0.52|0.7950
90864423|NCT02609828|181592317|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.6719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24 MDA Composite Score: MMRM model includes time (study week), treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and treatment\*time interaction, baseline OR-SDS MDA scores, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site as covariates.||0.40|-0.62|0.6719
90864424|NCT01081678|181592330|OTHER|||||||0.1983|||||||F-test|The p-value is based on F-test of multi-linear contrasts at Week 6 through Week 20.||The primary analysis was based on a test for linear trend in dose response at weeks 6, 12, 16, and 20. To account for multiple comparisons over time points, the primary analysis used a size α = 0.05 F-test with 4 degrees of freedom for the contrasts at Weeks 6, 12, 16, and 20.||||0.1983
90864425|NCT01619423|181592342|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78||||0.31|ONE_SIDED|10.0||1.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.5||0.31
90864426|NCT01619423|181592342|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.55||||0.15|ONE_SIDED|10.0||1.16|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.16||0.15
90864427|NCT01619423|181592342|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.62||||0.16|ONE_SIDED|10.0||1.14|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.14||0.16
90864428|NCT03733470|181592375|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
90864429|NCT01517711|181592376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.286||||||P value is for overall post-randomization CAPS score|ANOVA|||Women were excluded from analysis because of the small sample size and unequal distribution across groups.||||0.286
90864430|NCT01517711|181592377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.1|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.10
90864431|NCT01517711|181592378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.03|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis is for sleep only (men)||||=0.03
90864432|NCT02983825|181592380|SUPERIORITY|Wilcoxon signed-rank test for nonparametric matched-pairs||||||0.02|||||||Sign test|||"Within subject repeat analysis; V/Q mismatch (measured as degree of right shift in kPa) baseline vs best CPAP"||||0.02
90864433|NCT01786668|181592382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|15.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|30.3|||Emax Model|||Emax model - 95% Confidence Interval represents 95% Credible Interval||30.3|5.0|
90864434|NCT01786668|181592382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|22.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.4|37.7|||Emax Model|||Emax model - 95% Confidence Interval represents 95% Credible Interval||37.7|8.4|
90864435|NCT01786668|181592382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|27.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.7|43.4|||Emax Model|||Emax model - 95% Confidence Interval represents 95% Credible Interval||43.4|10.7|
90864436|NCT01786668|181592383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|10.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.77||0.271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.41|29.9|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||||29.90|-8.41|0.271
90864437|NCT01786668|181592383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|39.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.35|56.83|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||||56.83|22.35|<0.001
90864438|NCT01786668|181592383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|14.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.74||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|33.69|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||||33.69|-4.50|0.134
90864439|NCT01786668|181592384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|12.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.24||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.17|31.04|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 2||31.04|-5.17|0.162
90864440|NCT01786668|181592384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.02||0.561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.44|22.92|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 2||22.92|-12.44|0.561
90864441|NCT01786668|181592384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|7.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.09||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.65|24.97|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 2||24.97|-10.65|0.430
90864442|NCT01786668|181592384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|14.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.57||0.123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.01|33.5|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 4||33.50|-4.01|0.123
90864443|NCT01786668|181592384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|22.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.54||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.74|41.13|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 4||41.13|3.74|0.019
90864444|NCT01786668|181592384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|14.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.57||0.123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.01|33.5|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 4||33.50|-4.01|0.123
90864445|NCT01786668|181592384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|14.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.75||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.55|33.66|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 8||33.66|-4.55|0.135
90864446|NCT01786668|181592384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|28.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.36||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.68|46.36|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 8||46.36|9.68|0.003
90864447|NCT01786668|181592384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|10.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.79||0.274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.48|29.9|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 8||29.90|-8.48|0.274
90864448|NCT01786668|181592385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.123||0.427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.11|1.32|||ANCOVA|||||1.32|-3.11|0.427
90864449|NCT01786668|181592385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.13||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.58|-0.12|||ANCOVA|||||-0.12|-4.58|0.039
90908005|NCT02753530|181684776|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-0.99||||0.1146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|0.24||Primary Estimand (Treatment Policy)|Mixed Models Analysis|||The baseline observation was the last observation recorded prior to the first dose of study medication. The change from baseline in IBMFRS total score was analyzed using a Mixed Models for Repeated Measures (MMRM) with treatment interacting with visit and trial site as factors. Baseline IBMFRS total score interacting with visit was further included as covariate. An unstructured covariance matrix was assumed.||0.24|-2.23|0.1146
90864450|NCT01786668|181592385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.131||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.97|-0.51|||ANCOVA|||||-0.51|-4.97|0.016
90864451|NCT01786668|181592386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.517||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.99|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||-0.00|-5.99|0.050
90864452|NCT01786668|181592386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.42|-2.42|||ANCOVA|||||-2.42|-8.42|<0.001
90864453|NCT01786668|181592386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.525|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.48|-3.46|||ANCOVA|||||-3.46|-9.48|<0.001
90864454|NCT01786668|181592387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|0.39|||ANCOVA|||||0.39|-1.66|0.221
90864455|NCT01786668|181592387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.83|-0.78|||ANCOVA|||||-0.78|-2.83|<0.001
90864456|NCT01786668|181592387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.523||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.75|-0.68|||ANCOVA|||||-0.68|-2.75|0.001
90864457|NCT01786668|181592388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.95||0.749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.85|11.4|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 2||11.40|-15.85|0.749
90864458|NCT01786668|181592388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.95||0.749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.85|11.4|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 2||11.40|-15.85|0.749
90864459|NCT01786668|181592388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|1.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.31||0.824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.71|15.95|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 2||15.95|-12.71|0.824
90864460|NCT01786668|181592388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|13.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.09||0.104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.69|29.01|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 4||29.01|-2.69|0.104
90864461|NCT01786668|181592388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|17.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.26||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|33.2|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 4||33.20|0.81|0.040
90864462|NCT01786668|181592388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.62||0.473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.46|20.4|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 4||20.40|-9.46|0.473
90864463|NCT01786668|181592388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.86||0.875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.97|18.76|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 8||18.76|-15.97|0.875
90864464|NCT01786668|181592388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|7.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.09||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.65|24.97|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 8||24.97|-10.65|0.430
90864465|NCT01786668|181592388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|9.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.15||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.84|27.01|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 8||27.01|-8.84|0.320
90864466|NCT01786668|181592388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|22.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.82||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.41|39.99|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 12||39.99|5.41|0.010
90864467|NCT01786668|181592388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|26.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.87||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.16|43.93|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 12||43.93|9.16|0.003
90864468|NCT01786668|181592388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|18.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.74||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|35.99|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 12||35.99|1.72|0.031
90864469|NCT01786668|181592389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|15.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.95||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.61|28.86|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 2||28.86|1.61|0.028
90864470|NCT01786668|181592389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.05||0.353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.23|17.47|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 2||17.47|-6.23|0.353
90864471|NCT01786668|181592389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|13.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.8||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|26.64|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 2||26.64|-0.02|0.050
90864472|NCT01786668|181592389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|11.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.64||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|24.39|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 4||24.39|-1.62|0.086
90864473|NCT01786668|181592389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|22.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.43||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.37|37.48|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 4||37.48|8.37|0.002
90864474|NCT01786668|181592389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|21.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.32||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.65|35.36|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 4||35.36|6.65|0.004
90864475|NCT01786668|181592389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|11.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.03||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.43|25.13|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 8||25.13|-2.43|0.106
90864476|NCT01786668|181592389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|32.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.02|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.79|48.22|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 8||48.22|16.79|<0.001
90864477|NCT01786668|181592389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|19.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.54||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.27|33.81|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 8||33.81|4.27|0.012
90864478|NCT01786668|181592389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|3.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.47||0.635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|18.19|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 12||18.19|-11.10|0.635
90864479|NCT01786668|181592389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|34.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.45|51.18|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 12||51.18|17.45|<0.001
90864480|NCT01786668|181592389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|22.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.45||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.21|39.34|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 12||39.34|6.21|0.007
90959686|NCT03938545|181799528|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-60.085|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-88.857|-31.313|||ANCOVA|The model included baseline value of the corresponding parameter, smoking stratum, and treatment group as covariates.||||-31.313|-88.857|<0.001
90908006|NCT02909101|181684792|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.039|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVAs were 2 (Arm) by 2 (Time). Covariates were age, WTAR standard score, and number of games improved (as a proxy of intervention engagement).||Estimated marginal means, adjusted for covariates in the model, are reported. The p-value reported is for the Arm by Time interaction effect.||||0.039
90908007|NCT02909101|181684793|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.054|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVAs were 2 (Arm) by 2 (Time). Covariates were age, WTAR standard score, and number of games improved (as a proxy of intervention engagement).||Estimated marginal means, adjusted for covariates in the model, are reported. The p-value reported is for the Arm by Time interaction effect.||||0.054
90908008|NCT02909101|181684794|OTHER|||||||0.744|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To determine acceptability, we examined whether mean ratings for both arms were above 3.5, and we also examined whether there was any difference between arms.||||0.744
90908009|NCT02909101|181684795|OTHER|||||||0.719|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To determine acceptability in terms of helpfulness, we examined whether mean ratings for both arms were above 3.5, and we also examined whether there was any difference between arms.||||0.719
90908010|NCT02909101|181684796|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.337|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVAs were 2 (Arm) by 2 (Time). Covariates were age, WTAR standard score, and number of games improved (as a proxy of intervention engagement).||Estimated marginal means, adjusted for covariates in the model, are reported. The p-value reported is for the Arm by Time interaction effect.||||0.337
90908011|NCT02909101|181684797|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.025|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVAs were 2 (Arm) by 2 (Time). Covariates were age, WTAR standard score, and number of games improved (as a proxy of intervention engagement).||Estimated marginal means, adjusted for covariates in the model, are reported. The p-value reported is for the Arm by Time interaction effect.||||0.025
90908012|NCT02909101|181684798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.133|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVAs were 2 (Arm) by 2 (Time). Covariates were age, WTAR standard score, and number of games improved (as a proxy of intervention engagement).||Estimated marginal means, adjusted for covariates in the model, are reported. The p-value reported is for the Arm by Time interaction effect.||||0.133
90908013|NCT00157014|181684858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4725||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were performed.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4725
90908014|NCT00157014|181684869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8373||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were performed.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8373
90908015|NCT01362491|181684872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Square (LS) mean difference|6.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.49|7.73||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms.|ANOVA|||Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium-placebo) and 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI): based on LS means from analysis of variance (ANOVA). Type I error was controlled at 0.05 significance level (2-sided) by declaring pair wise comparisons significant only if overall treatment effect among 3 treatment groups was significant and testing in a sequential order Ibuprofen sodium versus (vs.) placebo for SPRID 0-3 then Ibuprofen sodium vs. Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) for time to meaningful relief.||7.73|4.49|<0.001
90908016|NCT01362491|181684873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.65||p-value was calculated using the PH model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms.|Proportional hazards model|||Hazard Ratio (HR) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the proportional hazards (PH) model. Type I error was controlled at 0.05 significance level (2-sided) by declaring pair wise comparisons significant only if overall treatment effect among 3 treatment groups was significant and testing in a sequential order Ibuprofen sodium vs. placebo for SPRID 0-3 then Ibuprofen sodium vs. Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) for time to meaningful relief.||1.65|0.88|0.253
90908017|NCT01362491|181684874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.69|7.14||p-value was calculated using the PH model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Proportional hazards model|||HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model.||7.14|2.69|<0.001
90959687|NCT03938545|181799528|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-65.143|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-91.927|-38.358|||ANCOVA|The model included baseline value of the corresponding parameter, smoking stratum, and treatment group as covariates.||||-38.358|-91.927|<0.001
90959688|NCT03938545|181799528|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-37.323|||=|0.0284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.455|-4.19|||ANCOVA|The model included baseline value of the corresponding parameter, smoking stratum, and treatment group as covariates.||||-4.190|-70.455|=0.0284
90959689|NCT03938545|181799529|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-73.003|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-82.309|-63.697|||ANCOVA|The model included baseline value of the corresponding parameter, smoking stratum, and treatment group as covariates.||Week 13||-63.697|-82.309|<0.001
90908018|NCT01362491|181684874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.23|5.94||p-value was calculated using the PH model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Proportional hazards model|||HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model.||5.94|2.23|<0.001
90908019|NCT01362491|181684875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.87|7.64||p-value was calculated using the PH model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Proportional hazards model|||HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model.||7.64|2.87|<0.001
90959690|NCT03938545|181799529|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-59.005|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.821|-50.19|||ANCOVA|The model included baseline value of the corresponding parameter, smoking stratum, and treatment group as covariates.||Week 13||-50.190|-67.821|<0.001
90959691|NCT03938545|181799529|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-51.836|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.66|-41.012|||ANCOVA|The model included baseline value of the corresponding parameter, smoking stratum, and treatment group as covariates.||Week 13||-41.012|-62.660|<0.001
90959692|NCT03938545|181799530|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-81.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-93.203|-69.777|||ANCOVA|The model included baseline value of the corresponding parameter, smoking stratum, and treatment group as covariates.||IgG1||-69.777|-93.203|<0.001
90908020|NCT01362491|181684875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.38|6.34||p-value was calculated using the PH model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Proportional hazards model|||HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model.||6.34|2.38|<0.001
90908021|NCT01362491|181684875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.21||||0.247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.66||p-value was calculated using the PH model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Proportional hazards model|||HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model.||1.66|0.88|0.247
90908022|NCT01362491|181684876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|1.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.59||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.59|0.92|<0.001
90908023|NCT01362491|181684876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|1.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.61||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.61|0.93|< 0.001
90908024|NCT01362491|181684876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|-0.01||||0.943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.27||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.27|-0.29|0.943
90959693|NCT03938545|181799530|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-67.591|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.562|-56.62|||ANCOVA|The model included baseline value of the corresponding parameter, smoking stratum, and treatment group as covariates.||IgG1||-56.620|-78.562|<0.001
90864481|NCT01786668|181592390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 2||0.08|-0.46|0.175
90864482|NCT01786668|181592390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 2||-0.24|-0.77|<0.001
90864483|NCT01786668|181592390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 2||-0.20|-0.74|<0.001
90959694|NCT03938545|181799530|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-67.233|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-81.073|-53.394|||ANCOVA|The model included baseline value of the corresponding parameter, smoking stratum, and treatment group as covariates.||IgG1||-53.394|-81.073|<0.001
90864484|NCT01786668|181592390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 4||-0.15|-0.70|0.003
90864485|NCT01786668|181592390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 4||-0.34|-0.90|<0.001
90864486|NCT01786668|181592390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|-0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 4||-0.31|-0.86|<0.001
90864487|NCT01786668|181592390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.158||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 8||-0.04|-0.66|0.026
90864488|NCT01786668|181592390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.157|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 8||-0.32|-0.94|<0.001
90864489|NCT01786668|181592390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.159|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 8||-0.27|-0.90|<0.001
90864490|NCT01786668|181592390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.171||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 12||-0.21|-0.89|0.002
90959695|NCT03938545|181799530|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-74.865|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-86.898|-62.832|||ANCOVA|The model included baseline value of the corresponding parameter, smoking stratum, and treatment group as covariates.||IgG2||-62.832|-86.898|<0.001
90864491|NCT01786668|181592390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.171|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 12||-0.39|-1.07|<0.001
90864492|NCT01786668|181592390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.172|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 12||-0.35|-1.03|<0.001
90908025|NCT01362491|181684876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|1.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.62||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.62|0.89|<0.001
90908026|NCT01362491|181684876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|1.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.59||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||2 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.59|0.85|<0.001
90908027|NCT01362491|181684876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|0.03||||0.847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.33||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||2 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.33|-0.27|0.847
90908028|NCT01362491|181684876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|1.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|2.05||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||2.05|1.14|<0.001
90908029|NCT01362491|181684876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|1.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|2.13||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||3 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||2.13|1.22|<0.001
90959696|NCT03938545|181799530|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-53.198|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.799|-41.596|||ANCOVA|The model included baseline value of the corresponding parameter, smoking stratum, and treatment group as covariates.||IgG2||-41.596|-64.799|<0.001
90959697|NCT03938545|181799530|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-53.398|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.552|-39.245|||ANCOVA|The model included baseline value of the corresponding parameter, smoking stratum, and treatment group as covariates.||IgG2||-39.245|-67.552|<0.001
90959698|NCT03938545|181799530|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-88.764|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-103.039|-74.489|||ANCOVA|The model included baseline value of the corresponding parameter, smoking stratum, and treatment group as covariates.||IgG3||-74.489|-103.039|<0.001
90959699|NCT03938545|181799530|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-65.714|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.742|-52.686|||ANCOVA|The model included baseline value of the corresponding parameter, smoking stratum, and treatment group as covariates.||IgG3||-52.686|-78.742|<0.001
90864493|NCT01786668|181592391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|11.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.99||0.159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.41|26.89|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 2||26.89|-4.41|0.159
90864494|NCT01786668|181592391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|32.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.54|49.24|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 2||49.24|15.54|<0.001
90864495|NCT01786668|181592391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|24.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.5||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.04|41.36|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 2||41.36|8.04|0.004
90864496|NCT01786668|181592391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|22.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.82||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.41|39.99|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 4||39.99|5.41|0.010
90864497|NCT01786668|181592391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|38.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.82|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.79|55.38|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 4||55.38|20.79|<0.001
90864498|NCT01786668|181592391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|32.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.88|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.9|49.73|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 4||49.73|14.90|<0.001
90864499|NCT01786668|181592391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|14.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.39||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.58|33.22|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 8||33.22|-3.58|0.114
90864500|NCT01786668|181592391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|30.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.33||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.92|48.49|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 8||48.49|11.92|0.001
90864501|NCT01786668|181592391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|30.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.33||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.92|48.49|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 8||48.49|11.92|0.001
90864502|NCT01786668|181592391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|24.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.33||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.18|42.76|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 12||42.76|6.18|0.009
90864503|NCT01786668|181592391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|36.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.09|53.94|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 12||53.94|18.09|<0.001
90864504|NCT01786668|181592391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|28.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.3||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.09|46.55|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 12||46.55|10.09|0.002
90864505|NCT01786668|181592392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.17||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.45|13.91|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 2||13.91|-2.45|0.170
90864506|NCT01786668|181592392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.17||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.45|13.91|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 2||13.91|-2.45|0.170
90864507|NCT01786668|181592392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.17||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.45|13.91|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 2||13.91|-2.45|0.170
90864508|NCT01786668|181592392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.52||0.306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.17|16.48|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 4||16.48|-5.17|0.306
90864509|NCT01786668|181592392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.52||0.306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.17|16.48|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 4||16.48|-5.17|0.306
90864510|NCT01786668|181592392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|9.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.99||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.24|21.24|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 4||21.24|-2.24|0.113
90864511|NCT01786668|181592392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|1.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.08||0.775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.18|13.65|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 8||13.65|-10.18|0.775
90864512|NCT01786668|181592392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|17.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.43||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.56|31.68|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 8||31.68|2.56|0.021
90864513|NCT01786668|181592392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|13.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.17||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|27.34|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 8||27.34|-0.79|0.064
90864514|NCT01786668|181592392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|7.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.09||0.292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.42|21.36|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 12||21.36|-6.42|0.292
90864515|NCT01786668|181592392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|11.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.38||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.16|25.78|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 12||25.78|-3.16|0.125
90864516|NCT01786668|181592392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|13.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.51||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|27.96|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 12||27.96|-1.49|0.078
90864517|NCT01786668|181592393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|1.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|5.66|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 2||5.66|-1.81|0.313
90864518|NCT01786668|181592393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|1.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|5.66|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 2||5.66|-1.81|0.313
90864519|NCT01786668|181592393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|1.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|5.66|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 2||5.66|-1.81|0.313
90864520|NCT01786668|181592393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.72||0.989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.37|5.29|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 4||5.29|-5.37|0.989
90864521|NCT01786668|181592393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|3.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.77||0.313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.58|11.2|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 4||11.20|-3.58|0.313
90864522|NCT01786668|181592393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.17||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.45|13.91|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 4||13.91|-2.45|0.170
90864523|NCT01786668|181592393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|3.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.77||0.313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.58|11.2|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 8||11.20|-3.58|0.313
90864524|NCT01786668|181592393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.72||0.989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.37|5.29|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 8||5.29|-5.37|0.989
90864525|NCT01786668|181592393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|7.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.53||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|16.52|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 8||16.52|-1.22|0.091
90864526|NCT01786668|181592393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.05||0.353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.23|17.47|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 12||17.47|-6.23|0.353
90864527|NCT01786668|181592393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.05||0.353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.23|17.47|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 12||17.47|-6.23|0.353
90864528|NCT01786668|181592393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|7.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.26||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.73|19.81|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 12||19.81|-4.73|0.228
90864529|NCT01786668|181592394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 2||0.58|-0.64|0.926
90864530|NCT01786668|181592394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.308||0.718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 2||0.50|-0.72|0.718
90864531|NCT01786668|181592394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 2||0.79|-0.43|0.570
90864532|NCT01786668|181592394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.343||0.384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|0.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 4||0.38|-0.97|0.384
90908030|NCT01362491|181684876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|-0.08||||0.663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.29||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||3 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - (Ibuprofen IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.29|-0.46|0.663
90908031|NCT01362491|181684877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|0.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.72||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.72|0.37|<0.001
90908032|NCT01362491|181684877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|0.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.69||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.69|0.33|<0.001
90908033|NCT01362491|181684877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|0.03||||0.651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.18||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.18|-0.11|0.651
90908034|NCT01362491|181684877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|0.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.81||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.81|0.42|<0.001
90908035|NCT01362491|181684877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|0.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.85||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||2 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.85|0.46|<0.001
90908036|NCT01362491|181684877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|-0.03||||0.669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.13||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||2 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.13|-0.19|0.669
90908037|NCT01362491|181684877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|0.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.11||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.11|0.57|<0.001
90959700|NCT03938545|181799530|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-66.685|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.157|-50.214|||ANCOVA|The model included baseline value of the corresponding parameter, smoking stratum, and treatment group as covariates.||IgG3||-50.214|-83.157|<0.001
90959701|NCT03938545|181799530|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-68.722|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.877|-56.568|||ANCOVA|The model included baseline value of the corresponding parameter, smoking stratum, and treatment group as covariates.||IgG4||-56.568|-80.877|<0.001
90908038|NCT01362491|181684877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|0.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.21||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||3 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.21|0.67|<0.001
90959702|NCT03938545|181799530|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-55.554|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.182|-43.926|||ANCOVA|The model included baseline value of the corresponding parameter, smoking stratum, and treatment group as covariates.||IgG4||-43.926|-67.182|<0.001
90959703|NCT03938545|181799530|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-53.079|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.948|-38.21|||ANCOVA|The model included baseline value of the corresponding parameter, smoking stratum, and treatment group as covariates.||IgG4||-38.210|-67.948|<0.001
90959704|NCT01060540|181799545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for family history (low/unknown vs. high/moderate) and BMI\>=35 (yes vs no) stratification variables||||0.7|-0.3|0.44
90959705|NCT01060540|181799546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.3||adjusted for baseline BMI class and family history level stratification variables|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.3|-0.1|0.19
90908039|NCT01362491|181684877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|-0.1||||0.396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.13||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||3 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.13|-0.32|0.396
90908040|NCT01362491|181684878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|1.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.3||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||2.30|1.30|<0.001
90908041|NCT01362491|181684878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|1.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|2.28||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||2.28|1.28|<0.001
90908042|NCT01362491|181684878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|0.02||||0.911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.43||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.43|-0.39|0.911
90864533|NCT01786668|181592394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.341||0.334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 4||0.34|-1.00|0.334
90864534|NCT01786668|181592394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.343||0.474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 4||0.43|-0.92|0.474
90908043|NCT01362491|181684878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|1.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|2.41||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||2.41|1.33|<0.001
90864535|NCT01786668|181592394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.381||0.445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|0.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 8||0.46|-1.04|0.445
90864536|NCT01786668|181592394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 8||0.23|-1.27|0.174
90864537|NCT01786668|181592394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.383||0.217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 8||0.28|-1.23|0.217
90864538|NCT01786668|181592394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.396||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|-0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 12||-0.12|-1.69|0.024
90908044|NCT01362491|181684878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|1.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|2.42||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||2 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||2.42|1.34|<0.001
90908045|NCT01362491|181684878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|0.0||||0.982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.44||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||2 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.44|-0.45|0.982
90908046|NCT01362491|181684878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|2.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|3.15||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||3.15|1.72|<0.001
90908047|NCT01362491|181684878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|2.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|3.33||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||3 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||3.33|1.90|<0.001
90908048|NCT01362491|181684878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|-0.18||||0.547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.41||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||3 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.41|-0.77|0.547
90908049|NCT01362491|181684879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|1.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.5||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPID 0-2: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.50|0.83|<0.001
91033131|NCT00048581|181952000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adj Diff: Day 85 Bodily Pain|5.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.77|7.47|||ANCOVA|||Differences in mean changes from baseline between the 2 treatment groups (ABA and PLA) in PCS, MCS, and the 8 subscale scores at Day 85 were compared using ANCOVA models. Adjusted difference (Adj Diff) from PLA group with 95% CIs and p-values were calculated, and adjustment was based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as factor and baseline value as covariate.||7.47|3.77|<0.001
90908050|NCT01362491|181684879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|1.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.5||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPID 0-2: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.50|0.83|<0.001
90908051|NCT01362491|181684879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|0.0||||0.992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.27||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPID 0-2: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen Sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.27|-0.28|0.992
90908052|NCT01362491|181684879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|2.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|2.58||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPID 0-3: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||2.58|1.43|<0.001
90908053|NCT01362491|181684879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|2.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|2.68||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPID 0-3: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||2.68|1.53|<0.001
90908054|NCT01362491|181684879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|-0.1||||0.684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.38||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPID 0-3: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen Sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.38|-0.57|0.684
90908055|NCT01362491|181684880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|2.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.85|3.17||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 0-2: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen Sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||3.17|1.85|<0.001
90908056|NCT01362491|181684880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|2.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.83|3.15||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 0-2: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - Placebo\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||3.15|1.83|<0.001
90908057|NCT01362491|181684880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|0.02||||0.943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.56||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 0-2: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen Sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.56|-0.52|0.943
90908058|NCT01362491|181684880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|4.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.03|5.18||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 0-3: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen Sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||5.18|3.03|<0.001
90908059|NCT01362491|181684880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|4.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.09|5.24||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 0-3: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - Placebo\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||5.24|3.09|<0.001
90908060|NCT01362491|181684880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|-0.06||||0.888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.82||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 0-3: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen Sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.82|-0.95|0.888
90908061|NCT01362491|181684881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|3.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.71|4.64||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPRID 0-2: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen Sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||4.64|2.71|<0.001
90908062|NCT01362491|181684881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|3.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.68|4.63||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPRID 0-2: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||4.63|2.68|<0.001
90908063|NCT01362491|181684881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|0.02||||0.964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.82||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPRID 0-2: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen Sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.82|-0.78|0.964
90908064|NCT01362491|181684881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|6.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.65|7.89||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPRID 0-3: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||7.89|4.65|<0.001
90908065|NCT01362491|181684881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|-0.16||||0.812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|1.17||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPRID 0-3: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen Sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.17|-1.49|0.812
90908066|NCT01362491|181684882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|12.02||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.27|18.77||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||18.77|5.27|0.015
90908067|NCT01362491|181684882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|4.5||||0.146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|8.88||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||8.88|0.13|0.146
90908068|NCT01362491|181684882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|7.62||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|15.63||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen Sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||15.63|-0.38|0.064
90908069|NCT01362491|181684882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|58.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.96|72.21||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||72.21|44.96|<0.001
90908070|NCT01362491|181684882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|52.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.2|66.41||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||66.41|38.20|<0.001
90908071|NCT01362491|181684882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|6.4||||0.357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.27|20.07||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen Sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||20.07|-7.27|0.357
90908072|NCT01362491|181684882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|46.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.43|62.93||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||62.93|30.43|<0.001
90959706|NCT01060540|181799547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1||adjusted for stratification variables baseline BMI and family history|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.1|-0.4|0.38
90959707|NCT01060540|181799548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.0||adjusted for baseline family history and BMI|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.0|-0.2|0.05
90959708|NCT01060540|181799549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||incident rate ratio|0.9||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.2||adjusted for baseline family history and BMI|generalized linear model for count data|||||1.2|0.7|0.68
90959709|NCT00596427|181799570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||mixed-effects regression models|||Change from baseline between groups were compared.||||<0.01
90959710|NCT00596427|181799571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||mixed-effects regression models|||Change from baseline between groups was compared.||||<0.001
90959711|NCT00596427|181799572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.1||95.0|||||mixed-effects regression models|This model had fixed effects of treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction and a random subject effect.||Comparison of change from baseline between groups (treatment effect)||||<0.1
90908073|NCT01362491|181684882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|47.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.35|63.83||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||63.83|31.35|<0.001
90908074|NCT01362491|181684882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-0.72||||0.889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.89|9.45||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen Sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||9.45|-10.89|0.889
90908075|NCT01362491|181684882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|40.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.85|56.68||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||56.68|23.85|<0.001
90908076|NCT01362491|181684882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|41.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.78|57.59||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||57.59|24.78|<0.001
90908077|NCT01362491|181684882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-0.72||||0.889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.89|9.45||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen Sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||9.45|-10.89|0.889
90908078|NCT01362491|181684883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|18.58||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.43|26.73||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||26.73|10.43|0.002
90908079|NCT01362491|181684883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|7.8||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.14|13.46||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||13.46|2.14|0.055
90908080|NCT01362491|181684883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|10.91||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|20.83||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen Sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||20.83|0.98|0.033
90908081|NCT01362491|181684883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|62.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.65|75.41||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||75.41|48.65|<0.001
90908082|NCT01362491|181684883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|59.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.69|73.19||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||73.19|45.69|<0.001
90908083|NCT01362491|181684883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|2.96||||0.642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.52|15.44||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen Sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||15.44|-9.52|0.642
90908084|NCT01362491|181684883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|40.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.85|56.68||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||56.68|23.85|<0.001
90908085|NCT01362491|181684883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|41.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.78|57.59||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||57.59|24.78|<0.001
90908086|NCT01362491|181684883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-0.72||||0.889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.89|9.45||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen Sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||9.45|-10.89|0.889
90908087|NCT01362491|181684883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|40.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.85|56.68||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||56.68|23.85|<0.001
90959712|NCT00596427|181799573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||mixed-effects regression models|||||||<0.01
90908088|NCT01362491|181684883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|41.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.78|57.59||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||57.59|24.78|<0.001
90908089|NCT01362491|181684883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-0.72||||0.889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.89|9.45||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen Sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||9.45|-10.89|0.889
90908090|NCT01362491|181684886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|3.21||||0.389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.12|9.55||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen Sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||9.55|-3.12|0.389
90908091|NCT01362491|181684886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|2.35||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.69|8.39||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||8.39|-3.69|0.490
90908092|NCT01362491|181684886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|0.98||||0.764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.45|7.41||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen Sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||7.41|-5.45|0.764
90908093|NCT01362491|181684886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|28.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.72|41.7||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen Sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||41.70|15.72|<0.001
90908094|NCT01362491|181684886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|29.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.19|42.56||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||42.56|16.19|<0.001
90908095|NCT01362491|181684886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-0.93||||0.898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.22|13.36||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen Sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||13.36|-15.22|0.898
90908096|NCT01289119|181684904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.37|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||The analysis was conducted at the 2-sided 5% significance level without a multiplicity adjustment.||-0.37|-0.78|<0.001
90908097|NCT01289119|181684904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.51||ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline HbA1c with baseline metformin dose as covariates.|ANCOVA|||The analysis was conducted at the 2-sided 5% significance level without a multiplicity adjustment.||-0.51|-0.87|<0.001
90908098|NCT01289119|181684904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.28|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline HbA1c with baseline metformin therapy status and baseline pioglitazone dose as covariates.||The analysis was conducted at the 2-sided 5% significance level without a multiplicity adjustment.||-0.28|-0.75|<0.001
90908099|NCT01704846|181684916|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assessment of bioequivalence between two different formulations of faldaprevir soft gelatine capsules in healthy male volunteers. The acceptance range for the geometric mean ratio was 80 to 125%.|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|100.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.9|105.25|||||Ratio calculated as Test product divided by reference product|||105.25|95.90|
90908100|NCT01704846|181684917|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assessment of bioequivalence between two different formulations of faldaprevir soft gelatine capsules in healthy male volunteers. The acceptance range for the geometric mean ratio was 80 to 125%.|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|102.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.57|110.98|||||Ratio calculated as Test product divided by reference product|||110.98|95.57|
90959713|NCT00596427|181799574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||mixed-effects regression models|||||||<0.05
90959714|NCT00596427|181799575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.1||95.0|||||mixed-effects regression models|||Change from baseline between groups were compared (treatment effect)||||<0.1
90959715|NCT00596427|181799576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||mixed-effects regression models|||||||0.05
90959716|NCT00596427|181799577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6||95.0|||||mixed-effects regression models|||||||0.6
90959717|NCT00596427|181799578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3||95.0|||||mixed-effects regression models|||Treatment effect of change from baseline||||0.3
90959718|NCT00596427|181799579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||mixed-effects regression models|||Treatment effect of change from baseline||||<0.0001
90908101|NCT01704846|181684918|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assessment of bioequivalence between two different formulations of faldaprevir soft gelatine capsules in healthy male volunteers. The acceptance range for the geometric mean ratio was 80 to 125%.|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|100.54|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.1|105.18|||||Ratio calculated as Test product divided by reference product|||105.18|96.10|
90908102|NCT01704846|181684919|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assessment of bioequivalence between two different formulations of faldaprevir soft gelatine capsules in healthy male volunteers. The acceptance range for the adjusted mean ratio was 80 to 125%.|Adjusted Mean Ratio (%)|97.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.54|103.78|||||Ratio calculated as Test product divided by reference product|||103.78|91.54|
90908103|NCT01704846|181684920|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assessment of bioequivalence between two different formulations of faldaprevir soft gelatine capsules in healthy male volunteers. The acceptance range for the geometric mean ratio was 80 to 125%.|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|100.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.51|102.2|||||Ratio calculated as Test product divided by reference product|||102.20|98.51|
90908104|NCT01704846|181684921|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assessment of bioequivalence between two different formulations of faldaprevir soft gelatine capsules in healthy male volunteers. The acceptance range for the geometric mean ratio was 80 to 125%.|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|99.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.85|101.51|||||Ratio calculated as Test product divided by reference product|||101.51|97.85|
90908105|NCT01704846|181684922|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assessment of bioequivalence between two different formulations of faldaprevir soft gelatine capsules in healthy male volunteers. The acceptance range for the geometric mean ratio was 80 to 125%.|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|100.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.1|102.34|||||Ratio calculated as Test product divided by reference product|||102.34|98.10|
90908106|NCT00530335|181684939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value comparing difference in Total ADHD Symptoms Score (endpoint - baseline).|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90908107|NCT00530335|181684939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value comparing difference in Inattentive Subscale scores (endpoint - baseline).|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90908108|NCT00530335|181684939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value comparing difference in Hyperactivity/Impulsive Subscale scores (endpoint - baseline).|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90908109|NCT00530335|181684939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value comparing difference in ADHD Index Subscale scores (endpoint - baseline).|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90908110|NCT00530335|181684940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value comparing difference in Total ADHD Symptoms Score (endpoint - baseline).|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90908111|NCT00530335|181684940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value comparing difference in Inattentive Subscale scores (endpoint - baseline).|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90959719|NCT00596427|181799580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||mixed-effects regression models|||Treatment effect of change from baseline||||<0.01
90959720|NCT00596427|181799581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.1||95.0|||||mixed-effects regression models|||||||<0.1
90959721|NCT02401867|181799582|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|We selected our initial sample size of 150 participants to detect a clinically meaningful % discordance between the two sampling approaches and achieve 90% power at the 0.05 alpha-level using McNemar's test adjusted for analysis of clustered matched-pair data.||||||0.29||||||Statistical significance was determined at an a priori threshold of p \<0.05|McNemar|Degrees of freedom = 1||Comparing the concordance of the HPV DNA-positive results to the cervical provider swab HPV DNA test results (reference) using the McNemar's test, a two-sample test for binomial proportions for matched-pair data. Null hypothesis: The sensitivities between swab 1 (self-vaginal) and swab 2 (provider-cervical) are equal \[ H0 : p1 = p2 \]||||.29
90959722|NCT02401867|181799582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Kappa|0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.92||A priori threshold: p\<0.05|Kappa||Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.|Concordance of HPV DNA detection between self-swab and provider swab assessed via an unweighted Kappa (K) statistic to determine the percentage agreement beyond that expected by chance.||0.92|0.58|<0.001
91033132|NCT00048581|181952000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adj Diff: General Health|2.51||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|4.02|||ANCOVA|||Differences in mean changes from baseline between the 2 treatment groups (ABA and PLA) in PCS, MCS, and the 8 subscale scores at Day 85 were compared using ANCOVA models. Adjusted difference (Adj Diff) from PLA group with 95% CIs and p-values were calculated, and adjustment was based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as factor and baseline value as covariate.||4.02|0.99|0.001
90908112|NCT00530335|181684940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value comparing difference in Hyperactive/Impulsive Subscale scores (endpoint - baseline).|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90908113|NCT00530335|181684940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value comparing difference in ADHD Index Subscale scores (endpoint - baseline).|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90908114|NCT00530335|181684941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90908115|NCT00530335|181684942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.749||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.749
90908116|NCT00530335|181684943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.886||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.886
90908117|NCT00530335|181684945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||P-value for comparing differences in Word Test number of correct responses (endpoint - baseline).|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.005
90908118|NCT00530335|181684945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for comparing differences in Color Test number of correct responses (endpoint - baseline).|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90908119|NCT00530335|181684945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||P-value for comparing differences in Color-Word Test number of correct responses (endpoint - baseline).|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
90908120|NCT02796092|181685058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||Assuming that both methods were equally effective, we did not use this primary outcome to calculate sample size. It was determined using our own retrospective data of patients from the year 2013, comparing the means of the procedure total time with both methods (41.20±4.66 vs 34.99±4.43 minutes). Ten patients in each group were considered enough to detect the above-mentioned differences with a α-error of 0.05 and 80% power, using a two-sided test.||||>0.999
90908121|NCT02796092|181685059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.3
90908122|NCT02796092|181685060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
90908123|NCT02796092|181685061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
90908124|NCT02796092|181685062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.061|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.061
90908125|NCT02796092|181685063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90864539|NCT01786668|181592394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.396||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|-0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 12||-0.24|-1.81|0.010
90864540|NCT01786668|181592394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.399||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|-0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 12||-0.04|-1.62|0.038
90864541|NCT01786668|181592395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.75||0.539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.38|9.08|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 2||9.08|-17.38|0.539
90864542|NCT01786668|181592395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.62||0.473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.46|20.4|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 2||20.40|-9.46|0.473
90864543|NCT01786668|181592395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.95||0.749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.85|11.4|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 2||11.40|-15.85|0.749
90864544|NCT01786668|181592395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|7.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.52||0.393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.43|23.98|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 4||23.98|-9.43|0.393
90864545|NCT01786668|181592395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|1.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.2||0.854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.57|17.59|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 4||17.59|-14.57|0.854
90864546|NCT01786668|181592395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|7.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.52||0.393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.43|23.98|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 4||23.98|-9.43|0.393
90864547|NCT01786668|181592395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|7.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.09||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.65|24.97|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 8||24.97|-10.65|0.430
90864548|NCT01786668|181592395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.02||0.561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.44|22.92|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 8||22.92|-12.44|0.561
90959723|NCT02401867|181799582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Sensitivity|71.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.82|88.72|||||Used exact confidence intervals.|Assessed sensitivity of vaginal self-swab HPV DNA with respect to provider cervical HPV DNA (reference test).||88.72|47.82|
90959724|NCT02401867|181799582|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assessed specificity of vaginal self-swab HPV DNA with respect to provider cervical HPV DNA (reference test).|Specificity|98.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.59|99.78|||||Used exact confidence intervals.|||99.78|93.59|
90959725|NCT02401867|181799582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Positive Predictive Value|88.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.56|98.54|||||Used exact confidence intervals.|Assessed positive predictive value of vaginal self-swab HPV DNA with respect to provider cervical HPV DNA (reference test).||98.54|63.56|
90864549|NCT01786668|181592395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|12.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.24||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.17|31.04|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 8||31.04|-5.17|0.162
90864550|NCT01786668|181592395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|22.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.11||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.76|40.49|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 12||40.49|4.76|0.013
90864551|NCT01786668|181592395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|18.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.07||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|36.55|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 12||36.55|1.01|0.038
90864552|NCT01786668|181592395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|18.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.07||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|36.55|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 12||36.55|1.01|0.038
90864553|NCT01786668|181592396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.272||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 2||0.16|-0.92|0.164
90864554|NCT01786668|181592396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.271||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 2||0.12|-0.95|0.129
90864555|NCT01786668|181592396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.272||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 2||0.42|-0.66|0.660
90864556|NCT01786668|181592396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.297||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 4||0.25|-0.92|0.256
90864557|NCT01786668|181592396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.296||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 4||-0.00|-1.17|0.048
90864558|NCT01786668|181592396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.297||0.318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 4||0.29|-0.88|0.318
90864559|NCT01786668|181592396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 8||0.47|-0.92|0.522
90864560|NCT01786668|181592396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 8||0.00|-1.38|0.050
90864561|NCT01786668|181592396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.352||0.337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|0.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 8||0.36|-1.03|0.337
90864562|NCT01786668|181592396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.373||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 12||0.27|-1.20|0.214
90864563|NCT01786668|181592396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.372||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|-0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 12||-0.22|-1.69|0.011
90864564|NCT01786668|181592396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.375||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|-0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 12||-0.08|-1.55|0.031
90864565|NCT01786668|181592397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.106||0.982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 2||0.21|-0.21|0.982
90864566|NCT01786668|181592397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.106||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 2||0.06|-0.36|0.151
90864567|NCT01786668|181592397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.106||0.205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 2||0.07|-0.34|0.205
90908126|NCT02796092|181685064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90908127|NCT02796092|181685065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90908128|NCT02796092|181685066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90908129|NCT02796092|181685067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90908130|NCT02796092|181685068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90908131|NCT02796092|181685069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0499|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0499
90908132|NCT02796092|181685071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.095|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.095
90908133|NCT01451814|181685076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.91||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|5.48|||Chi-squared|||||5.48|0.67|.22
90908134|NCT01451814|181685077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.3||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|22.1|||Chi-squared|||||22.1|0.84|.06
90908135|NCT01451814|181685078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.0||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|16.11|||Chi-squared|||||16.11|0.56|.18
90908136|NCT02467491|181685089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB) score at baseline was compared with the SPPB scored after 4 weeks of physical activity intervention with a paired t-test||||0.04
90908137|NCT02467491|181685090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB) score after 4 weeks of physical activity intervention was compared with the SPPB score after 2 to 3 months from the completion of the physical activity intervention with a paired t-test||||0.02
90908138|NCT03101592|181685091|NON_INFERIORITY|We estimated that approximately 5% of subjects would fail to be retained in care in the standard of care arm, and a retention rate \<7·5% to be non-inferior in the three-month or six-month study arms, with a 2·5% non-inferiority margin. Assuming an alpha of 0.05, power of 90%, and an intracluster correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0·004, we estimated a sample size of 271 subjects per cluster for a total of 2,710 subjects per arm and 8,130 total individuals.|Risk Difference (RD)|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|12.3|||||RD is for retention 3MD vs. SOC.|Our sample size was estimated for a cluster-randomized non-inferiority trial. We had 30 clusters available for randomization and assumed a fixed number of clusters (k), an equal number of clusters per arm, and an equal number of subjects per cluster.||12.3|-4.3|
90940315|NCT00526097|181760441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39|<|0.0001||95.0|2.0|3.6||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||3.6|2.0|<0.0001
90864568|NCT01786668|181592397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.118||0.898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 4||0.22|-0.25|0.898
90864569|NCT01786668|181592397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.118||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 4||0.13|-0.34|0.370
90864570|NCT01786668|181592397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.119||0.288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 4||0.11|-0.36|0.288
90864571|NCT01786668|181592397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.135||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 8||0.11|-0.42|0.242
90940316|NCT00526097|181760442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|<|0.0001||95.0|1.8|3.4||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||3.4|1.8|<0.0001
90940317|NCT00526097|181760443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|<|0.0001||95.0|4.1|5.8||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||5.8|4.1|<0.0001
90940318|NCT00526097|181760444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49|<|0.0001||95.0|5.8|7.7||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||7.7|5.8|<0.0001
90940319|NCT00526097|181760445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46|<|0.0001||95.0|3.8|5.6||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||5.6|3.8|<0.0001
90940320|NCT00526097|181760446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45|<|0.0001||95.0|2.9|4.7||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||4.7|2.9|<0.0001
90959726|NCT02401867|181799582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Negative predictive value|94.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|88.9|98.04|||||Used exact confidence intervals|Assessed negative predictive value of vaginal self-swab HPV DNA with respect to provider cervical HPV DNA (reference test).||98.04|88.90|
90864572|NCT01786668|181592397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.135||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 8||0.06|-0.48|0.120
90864573|NCT01786668|181592397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 8||-0.03|-0.56|0.031
90864574|NCT01786668|181592397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.157||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 12||0.14|-0.48|0.280
90864575|NCT01786668|181592397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.157||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 12||0.05|-0.57|0.099
90864576|NCT01786668|181592397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.158||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 12||-0.08|-0.70|0.014
90864577|NCT01786668|181592398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.387||0.895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 4||0.71|-0.81|0.895
90864578|NCT01786668|181592398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.386||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|-0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 4||-0.07|-1.59|0.033
90864579|NCT01786668|181592398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.388||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 4||-0.02|-1.55|0.044
90864580|NCT01786668|181592398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.411||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|0.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 8||0.55|-1.07|0.530
90864581|NCT01786668|181592398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.411||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 8||0.16|-1.46|0.114
90864582|NCT01786668|181592398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.415||0.297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|0.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 8||0.38|-1.25|0.297
90864583|NCT01786668|181592398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 12||0.40|-1.06|0.377
90959727|NCT03435497|181799586|SUPERIORITY|Using an intent-to-treat approach, intervention efficacy was tested with a hierarchical linear repeated-measures regressions in which the response may have come from either follow-up, and the predictors were an indicator for study arm, the baseline value of the outcome, the follow-up time-point, and covariates. Standard errors were adjusted for clustering at the individual level (ultimate clustering methods). Covariates were socio-demographics associated with the outcome at p\>.05.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.017|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.017
90864584|NCT01786668|181592398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|-0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 12||-0.31|-1.77|0.006
90864585|NCT01786668|181592398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.373||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|-0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 12||-0.17|-1.64|0.017
90864586|NCT01786668|181592400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.414||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 2||0.71|-0.92|0.800
90864587|NCT01786668|181592400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.413||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|1.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 2||1.47|-0.16|0.113
90864588|NCT01786668|181592400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.414||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 2||0.05|-1.59|0.064
90864589|NCT01786668|181592400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.368||0.972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4||0.71|-0.74|0.972
90959728|NCT03435497|181799587|SUPERIORITY|Using an intent-to-treat approach, intervention efficacy was tested with a hierarchical logistic repeated-measures regressions in which the response may have come from either follow-up, and the predictors were an indicator for study arm, the baseline value of the outcome, the follow-up time-point, and covariates. Standard errors were adjusted for clustering at the individual level (ultimate clustering methods). Covariates were socio-demographics associated with the outcome at p\>.05.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.5||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.6|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.6|0.2|.05
90959729|NCT03435497|181799588|SUPERIORITY|Using an intent-to-treat approach, intervention efficacy was tested with a hierarchical linear repeated-measures regressions in which the response may have come from either follow-up, and the predictors were an indicator for study arm, the baseline value of the outcome, the follow-up time-point, and covariates. Standard errors were adjusted for clustering at the individual level (ultimate clustering methods). Covariates were socio-demographics associated with the outcome at p\>.05.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.48|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.48
90959730|NCT03435497|181799589|SUPERIORITY|Using an intent-to-treat approach, intervention efficacy was tested with a hierarchical linear repeated-measures regressions in which the response may have come from either follow-up, and the predictors were an indicator for study arm, the baseline value of the outcome, the follow-up time-point, and covariates. Standard errors were adjusted for clustering at the individual level (ultimate clustering methods). Covariates were socio-demographics associated with the outcome at p\>.05.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.012|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.012
90864590|NCT01786668|181592400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.368||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|1.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 4||1.01|-0.44|0.440
90864591|NCT01786668|181592400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.369||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 4||0.35|-1.10|0.311
90864592|NCT01786668|181592400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.629||0.501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|0.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 8||0.82|-1.66|0.501
90864593|NCT01786668|181592400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.629||0.543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|0.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 8||0.86|-1.63|0.543
90864594|NCT01786668|181592400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.636||0.287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|0.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 8||0.57|-1.93|0.287
90864595|NCT01786668|181592400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.519||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|1.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 12||1.14|-0.91|0.820
90864596|NCT01786668|181592400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|1.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 12||1.22|-0.83|0.711
90864597|NCT01786668|181592400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.524||0.424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|0.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 12||0.61|-1.45|0.424
90864598|NCT01786668|181592401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.203||0.785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 2||0.46|-0.34|0.785
90908139|NCT03101592|181685091|NON_INFERIORITY|We estimated that approximately 5% of subjects would fail to be retained in care in the standard of care arm, and a retention rate \<7·5% to be non-inferior in the three-month or six-month study arms, with a 2·5% non-inferiority margin. Assuming an alpha of 0.05, power of 90%, and an intracluster correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0·004, we estimated a sample size of 271 subjects per cluster for a total of 2,710 subjects per arm and 8,130 total individuals.|Risk Difference (RD)|9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|17.2|||||RD is for retention 6MD vs. SOC.|Our sample size was estimated for a cluster-randomized non-inferiority trial. We had 30 clusters available for randomization and assumed a fixed number of clusters (k), an equal number of clusters per arm, and an equal number of subjects per cluster.||17.2|0.9|
90908140|NCT03101592|181685091|NON_INFERIORITY|We estimated that approximately 5% of subjects would fail to be retained in care in the standard of care arm, and a retention rate \<7·5% to be non-inferior in the three-month or six-month study arms, with a 2·5% non-inferiority margin. Assuming an alpha of 0.05, power of 90%, and an intracluster correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0·004, we estimated a sample size of 271 subjects per cluster for a total of 2,710 subjects per arm and 8,130 total individuals.|Risk Difference (RD)|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|9.1|||||RD is for retention 6MD vs. 3MD.|Our sample size was estimated for a cluster-randomized non-inferiority trial. We had 30 clusters available for randomization and assumed a fixed number of clusters (k), an equal number of clusters per arm, and an equal number of subjects per cluster.||9.1|1|
90908141|NCT03101592|181685091|NON_INFERIORITY|We estimated that approximately 5% of subjects would fail to be retained in care in the standard of care arm, and a retention rate \<7·5% to be non-inferior in the three-month or six-month study arms, with a 2·5% non-inferiority margin. Assuming an alpha of 0.05, power of 90%, and an intracluster correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0·004, we estimated a sample size of 271 subjects per cluster for a total of 2,710 subjects per arm and 8,130 total individuals.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.6|||||RD is for transfer 3MD vs. SOC.|Our sample size was estimated for a cluster-randomized non-inferiority trial. We had 30 clusters available for randomization and assumed a fixed number of clusters (k), an equal number of clusters per arm, and an equal number of subjects per cluster.||1.6|-0.8|
90908142|NCT03101592|181685091|NON_INFERIORITY|We estimated that approximately 5% of subjects would fail to be retained in care in the standard of care arm, and a retention rate \<7·5% to be non-inferior in the three-month or six-month study arms, with a 2·5% non-inferiority margin. Assuming an alpha of 0.05, power of 90%, and an intracluster correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0·004, we estimated a sample size of 271 subjects per cluster for a total of 2,710 subjects per arm and 8,130 total individuals.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.8|||||RD is for transfer 6MD vs. SOC.|Our sample size was estimated for a cluster-randomized non-inferiority trial. We had 30 clusters available for randomization and assumed a fixed number of clusters (k), an equal number of clusters per arm, and an equal number of subjects per cluster.||0.8|-0.9|
90908143|NCT03101592|181685091|NON_INFERIORITY|We estimated that approximately 5% of subjects would fail to be retained in care in the standard of care arm, and a retention rate \<7·5% to be non-inferior in the three-month or six-month study arms, with a 2·5% non-inferiority margin. Assuming an alpha of 0.05, power of 90%, and an intracluster correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0·004, we estimated a sample size of 271 subjects per cluster for a total of 2,710 subjects per arm and 8,130 total individuals.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.7|||||RD is for transfer 6MD vs. 3MD.|Our sample size was estimated for a cluster-randomized non-inferiority trial. We had 30 clusters available for randomization and assumed a fixed number of clusters (k), an equal number of clusters per arm, and an equal number of subjects per cluster.||0.7|-1.7|
90908144|NCT03101592|181685091|NON_INFERIORITY|We estimated that approximately 5% of subjects would fail to be retained in care in the standard of care arm, and a retention rate \<7·5% to be non-inferior in the three-month or six-month study arms, with a 2·5% non-inferiority margin. Assuming an alpha of 0.05, power of 90%, and an intracluster correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0·004, we estimated a sample size of 271 subjects per cluster for a total of 2,710 subjects per arm and 8,130 total individuals.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2|||||RD is for death 3MD vs. SOC.|Our sample size was estimated for a cluster-randomized non-inferiority trial. We had 30 clusters available for randomization and assumed a fixed number of clusters (k), an equal number of clusters per arm, and an equal number of subjects per cluster.||0.2|-0.4|
90908145|NCT03101592|181685091|NON_INFERIORITY|We estimated that approximately 5% of subjects would fail to be retained in care in the standard of care arm, and a retention rate \<7·5% to be non-inferior in the three-month or six-month study arms, with a 2·5% non-inferiority margin. Assuming an alpha of 0.05, power of 90%, and an intracluster correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0·004, we estimated a sample size of 271 subjects per cluster for a total of 2,710 subjects per arm and 8,130 total individuals.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.8|||||RD is for death 6MD vs. SOC.|Our sample size was estimated for a cluster-randomized non-inferiority trial. We had 30 clusters available for randomization and assumed a fixed number of clusters (k), an equal number of clusters per arm, and an equal number of subjects per cluster.||0.8|-0.9|
90864599|NCT01786668|181592401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.203||0.605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 2||0.51|-0.30|0.605
90864600|NCT01786668|181592401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.204||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 2||0.12|-0.68|0.175
90864601|NCT01786668|181592401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.232||0.482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 4||0.62|-0.29|0.482
90864602|NCT01786668|181592401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.231||0.288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 4||0.21|-0.70|0.288
90940321|NCT00526097|181760447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|<|0.0001||95.0|2.9|4.6||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||4.6|2.9|<0.0001
90864603|NCT01786668|181592401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.233||0.278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 4||0.21|-0.71|0.278
90940322|NCT00526097|181760448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||The log-rank test was used to calculate the p-value and to test for differences between the treatment groups.||||<0.0001
90940323|NCT00526097|181760449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.04|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.62|2.57|||Fisher Exact||OR: Bisacodyl / Placebo; The exact 95% confidence interval (CI) by Clopper and Pearson is presented|||2.57|1.62|<0.0001
90864604|NCT01786668|181592401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.254||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 8||0.88|-0.12|0.134
90864605|NCT01786668|181592401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.254||0.397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 8||0.72|-0.29|0.397
90908146|NCT03101592|181685091|NON_INFERIORITY|We estimated that approximately 5% of subjects would fail to be retained in care in the standard of care arm, and a retention rate \<7·5% to be non-inferior in the three-month or six-month study arms, with a 2·5% non-inferiority margin. Assuming an alpha of 0.05, power of 90%, and an intracluster correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0·004, we estimated a sample size of 271 subjects per cluster for a total of 2,710 subjects per arm and 8,130 total individuals.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3|||||RD is for death 6MD vs. 3MD.|Our sample size was estimated for a cluster-randomized non-inferiority trial. We had 30 clusters available for randomization and assumed a fixed number of clusters (k), an equal number of clusters per arm, and an equal number of subjects per cluster.||0.3|-0.3|
90908147|NCT01970943|181685095|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6078||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
90908148|NCT01970943|181685097|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.037786||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.05
90908149|NCT02219490|181685108|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log-rank test|||Comparisons between participants in studies M14-222 and M14-423 who achieved SVR12 and those who did not were performed using a log-rank test.||||<0.001
90908150|NCT02219490|181685108|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard Ratio|0.126|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.044|0.358|||Cox proportional hazards model||The estimated value represents the hazard ratio for developing the event in the group of participants in studies M14-222 and M14-423 who achieved SVR12 compared to the group of participants in studies M14-222 and M14-423 who didn't achieve SVR12.|A Cox proportional hazards (PH) model was constructed. The covariates for the model included baseline age, BMI, HCV genotype 1 subtype (1b, non-1b), IL28B genotype (CC, non-CC), prior treatment history (naive, experienced), baseline HCV RNA levels, baseline fibrosis stage (F0-1, F2, F3, F4), baseline albumin, baseline creatinine clearance, baseline platelet count, history of diabetes (yes, no), APRI, race (white, other), and alcohol use status (current, former, non-drinker).||0.358|0.044|<0.001
90908151|NCT02219490|181685109|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log-rank test|||Comparisons between participants in studies M14-222 and M14-423 who achieved SVR12 and those who did not were performed using a log-rank test.||||<0.001
90908152|NCT02219490|181685109|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard Ratio|0.031||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.003|0.38|||Cox proportional hazards model||The estimated value represents the hazard ratio for developing the event in the group of participants in studies M14-222 and M14-423 who achieved SVR12 compared to the group of participants in studies M14-222 and M14-423 who didn't achieve SVR12.|A Cox proportional hazards (PH) model was constructed. The covariates for the model included baseline age, BMI, HCV genotype 1 subtype (1b, non-1b), IL28B genotype (CC, non-CC), prior treatment history (naive, experienced), baseline HCV RNA levels, baseline fibrosis stage (F0-1, F2, F3, F4), baseline albumin, baseline creatinine clearance, baseline platelet count, history of diabetes (yes, no), APRI, race (white, other), and alcohol use status (current, former, non-drinker).||0.380|0.003|0.007
91033133|NCT00048581|181952000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adj Diff: Day 85 Vitality|3.17||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|5.1|||ANCOVA|||Differences in mean changes from baseline between the 2 treatment groups (ABA and PLA) in PCS, MCS, and the 8 subscale scores at Day 85 were compared using ANCOVA models. Adjusted difference (Adj Diff) from PLA group with 95% CIs and p-values were calculated, and adjustment was based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as factor and baseline value as covariate.||5.10|1.24|0.001
90908153|NCT02219490|181685110|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log-rank test|||Comparisons between participants in studies M14-222 and M14-423 who achieved SVR12 and those who did not were performed using a log-rank test.||||<0.001
90908154|NCT02219490|181685110|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard Ratio|0.038|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.009|0.156|||Cox proportional hazards model||The estimated value represents the hazard ratio for developing the event in the group of participants in studies M14-222 and M14-423 who achieved SVR12 compared to the group of participants in studies M14-222 and M14-423 who didn't achieve SVR12.|A Cox proportional hazards (PH) model was constructed. The covariates for the model included baseline age, BMI, HCV genotype 1 subtype (1b, non-1b), IL28B genotype (CC, non-CC), prior treatment history (naive, experienced), baseline HCV RNA levels, baseline fibrosis stage (F0-1, F2, F3, F4), baseline albumin, baseline creatinine clearance, baseline platelet count, history of diabetes (yes, no), APRI, race (white, other), and alcohol use status (current, former, non-drinker).||0.156|0.009|<0.001
90908155|NCT02219490|181685111|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||Log-rank test|||Comparisons between participants in studies M14-222 and M14-423 who achieved SVR12 and those who did not were performed using a log-rank test.||||0.860
90908156|NCT02219490|181685111|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.997||||||The Hazard Ratio for experiencing the event in the group of participants in studies M14-222 and M14-423 who achieved SVR12 compared to those who did not achieve SVR12 is infinite and the CI is not bounded due to zero events in one of the groups.|Cox proportional hazards model|||A Cox proportional hazards (PH) model was constructed. The covariates for the model included baseline age, BMI, HCV genotype 1 subtype (1b, non-1b), IL28B genotype (CC, non-CC), prior treatment history (naive, experienced), baseline HCV RNA levels, baseline fibrosis stage (F0-1, F2, F3, F4), baseline albumin, baseline creatinine clearance, baseline platelet count, history of diabetes (yes, no), APRI, race (white, other), and alcohol use status (current, former, non-drinker).||||0.997
90908157|NCT02219490|181685112|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.608|||||||Log-rank test|||Comparisons between participants in studies M14-222 and M14-423 who achieved SVR12 and those who did not were performed using a log-rank test.||||0.608
90908158|NCT02219490|181685112|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.992||||||The Hazard Ratio for experiencing the event in the group of participants in studies M14-222 and M14-423 who achieved SVR12 compared to those who did not achieve SVR12 is infinite and the CI is not bounded due to zero events in one of the groups.|Cox proportional hazards model|||A Cox proportional hazards (PH) model was constructed. The covariates for the model included baseline age, BMI, HCV genotype 1 subtype (1b, non-1b), IL28B genotype (CC, non-CC), prior treatment history (naive, experienced), baseline HCV RNA levels, baseline fibrosis stage (F0-1, F2, F3, F4), baseline albumin, baseline creatinine clearance, baseline platelet count, history of diabetes (yes, no), APRI, race (white, other), and alcohol use status (current, former, non-drinker).||||0.992
90908159|NCT02219490|181685113|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log-rank test|||Comparisons between participants in studies M14-222 and M14-423 who achieved SVR12 and those who did not were performed using a log-rank test.||||<0.001
90908160|NCT02219490|181685113|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard Ratio|0.133|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.057|0.313|||Cox proportional hazards model||The estimated value represents the hazard ratio for developing the event in the group of participants in studies M14-222 and M14-423 who achieved SVR12 compared to the group of participants in studies M14-222 and M14-423 who didn't achieve SVR12.|A Cox proportional hazards (PH) model was constructed. The covariates for the model included baseline age, BMI, HCV genotype 1 subtype (1b, non-1b), IL28B genotype (CC, non-CC), prior treatment history (naive, experienced), baseline HCV RNA levels, baseline fibrosis stage (F0-1, F2, F3, F4), baseline albumin, baseline creatinine clearance, baseline platelet count, history of diabetes (yes, no), APRI, race (white, other), and alcohol use status (current, former, non-drinker).||0.313|0.057|<0.001
90908161|NCT02219490|181685114|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|2.37|||ANCOVA||Difference = with SVR12 minus without SVR12|"Final Treatment Visit~The effect of sustained virologic response on change from baseline in FibroScan score was evaluated by comparing mean change from baseline between subjects who achieved SVR12 and those who did not using ANCOVA analyses. SVR12 status was included as a factor and baseline FibroScan score was included as a covariate in the ANCOVA model."||2.37|-0.37|0.151
90864606|NCT01786668|181592401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.257||0.964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 8||0.52|-0.50|0.964
90864607|NCT01786668|181592401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.269||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 12||0.91|-0.15|0.155
90864608|NCT01786668|181592401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.269||0.491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 12||0.72|-0.34|0.491
90864609|NCT01786668|181592401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.271||0.515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 12||0.36|-0.71|0.515
90864610|NCT01786668|181592402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.312||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|6.24|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes fixed effects for treatment group and baseline value as a covariate.||Physical Health Score||6.24|1.06|0.006
90864611|NCT01786668|181592402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.305||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|6.37|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes fixed effects for treatment group and baseline value as a covariate.||Physical Health Score||6.37|1.23|0.004
90864612|NCT01786668|181592402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.328||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.74|6.98|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes fixed effects for treatment group and baseline value as a covariate.||Physical Health Score||6.98|1.74|0.001
90864613|NCT01786668|181592402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.857||0.857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|3.33|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes fixed effects for treatment group and baseline value as a covariate.||Mental Health Score||3.33|-4.00|0.857
90864614|NCT01786668|181592402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.848||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|5.37|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes fixed effects for treatment group and baseline value as a covariate.||Mental Health Score||5.37|-1.91|0.350
90864615|NCT01786668|181592402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.876||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|5.0|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes fixed effects for treatment group and baseline value as a covariate.||Mental Health Score||5.00|-2.40|0.490
90864616|NCT01786668|181592403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.17|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes fixed effects for treatment group and baseline value as a covariate.||||0.17|-0.02|0.125
90864617|NCT01786668|181592403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.16|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes fixed effects for treatment group and baseline value as a covariate.||||0.16|-0.03|0.207
90864618|NCT01786668|181592403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.22|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes fixed effects for treatment group and baseline value as a covariate.||||0.22|0.03|0.013
90864619|NCT01786668|181592404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.232||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|4.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 2||4.15|-0.71|0.163
90864620|NCT01786668|181592404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.232||0.955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.36|2.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 2||2.50|-2.36|0.955
90864621|NCT01786668|181592404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.237||0.826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.17|2.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 2||2.71|-2.17|0.826
90864622|NCT01786668|181592404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.322||0.246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|4.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 4||4.14|-1.07|0.246
90864623|NCT01786668|181592404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.318||0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|3.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 4||3.56|-1.64|0.467
90864624|NCT01786668|181592404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.328||0.948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.53|2.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 4||2.70|-2.53|0.948
90940324|NCT00526097|181760450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.75|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.44|2.13|||Fisher Exact||OR: Bisacodyl / Placebo; The exact 95% confidence interval (CI) by Clopper and Pearson is presented|||2.13|1.44|<0.0001
90864625|NCT01786668|181592404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.479||0.255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|4.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 8||4.61|-1.23|0.255
90864626|NCT01786668|181592404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.479||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|4.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 8||4.87|-0.96|0.187
90908162|NCT02219490|181685114|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|1.4|||ANCOVA||Difference = with SVR12 minus without SVR12|"Post-Treatment Week 12~The effect of sustained virologic response on change from baseline in FibroScan score was evaluated by comparing mean change from baseline between subjects who achieved SVR12 and those who did not using ANCOVA analyses. SVR12 status was included as a factor and baseline FibroScan score was included as a covariate in the ANCOVA model."||1.4|-1.64|0.878
90908163|NCT02219490|181685114|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72|=|0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|0.48|||ANCOVA||Difference = with SVR12 minus without SVR12|"Post-Treatment Week 24~The effect of sustained virologic response on change from baseline in FibroScan score was evaluated by comparing mean change from baseline between subjects who achieved SVR12 and those who did not using ANCOVA analyses. SVR12 status was included as a factor and baseline FibroScan score was included as a covariate in the ANCOVA model."||0.48|-2.33|=0.199
90908164|NCT02219490|181685114|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-0.33|||ANCOVA||Difference = with SVR12 minus without SVR12|"Post-Treatment Week 52~The effect of sustained virologic response on change from baseline in FibroScan score was evaluated by comparing mean change from baseline between subjects who achieved SVR12 and those who did not using ANCOVA analyses. SVR12 status was included as a factor and baseline FibroScan score was included as a covariate in the ANCOVA model."||-0.33|-4|0.021
90908165|NCT02219490|181685114|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.22|-0.71|||ANCOVA||Difference = with SVR12 minus without SVR12|"Post-Treatment Week 104~The effect of sustained virologic response on change from baseline in FibroScan score was evaluated by comparing mean change from baseline between subjects who achieved SVR12 and those who did not using ANCOVA analyses. SVR12 status was included as a factor and baseline FibroScan score was included as a covariate in the ANCOVA model."||-0.71|-4.22|0.006
90908166|NCT02219490|181685114|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.92||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.38|-0.79|||ANCOVA||Difference = with SVR12 minus without SVR12|"Post-Treatment Week 156~The effect of sustained virologic response on change from baseline in FibroScan score was evaluated by comparing mean change from baseline between subjects who achieved SVR12 and those who did not using ANCOVA analyses. SVR12 status was included as a factor and baseline FibroScan score was included as a covariate in the ANCOVA model."||-0.79|-4.38|0.005
90908167|NCT02219490|181685114|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.32|0.59|||ANCOVA||Difference = with SVR12 minus without SVR12|"Post-Treatment Week 208~The effect of sustained virologic response on change from baseline in FibroScan score was evaluated by comparing mean change from baseline between subjects who achieved SVR12 and those who did not using ANCOVA analyses. SVR12 status was included as a factor and baseline FibroScan score was included as a covariate in the ANCOVA model."||0.59|-3.32|0.172
90908168|NCT02219490|181685114|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14||0.322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.35|1.1|||ANCOVA||Difference = with SVR12 minus without SVR12|"Post-Treatment Week 260~The effect of sustained virologic response on change from baseline in FibroScan score was evaluated by comparing mean change from baseline between subjects who achieved SVR12 and those who did not using ANCOVA analyses. SVR12 status was included as a factor and baseline FibroScan score was included as a covariate in the ANCOVA model."||1.1|-3.35|0.322
90908169|NCT01454362|181685116|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.17
90908170|NCT01454362|181685117|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.43
90959731|NCT03435497|181799590|SUPERIORITY|Using an intent-to-treat approach, intervention efficacy was tested with a hierarchical logistic repeated-measures regressions in which the response may have come from either follow-up, and the predictors were an indicator for study arm, the baseline value of the outcome, the follow-up time-point, and covariates. Standard errors were adjusted for clustering at the individual level (ultimate clustering methods). Covariates were socio-demographics associated with the outcome at p\>.05.|Odds Ratio (OR)|10.0||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|67.7|||Regression, Logistic|||||67.7|1.5|0.022
90959732|NCT03719170|181799591|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.0000684|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0003|0.000413||||||"Power Calculation:~Assuming approximately the same number of eligible subjects in each VISN (with an average of 10,563 candidates per VISN) and an Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0.12, randomizing 17 VISNs will give more than 80% power to detect % days on PPI of 75% vs. 50%, 85% vs. 60%, 80% vs. 55%, or 70% vs. 45%, but to detect a difference between 70% vs. 50%, power is only 61% using 0.05 level 2-sided test."||0.000413|-0.0003|
90959733|NCT04281004|181799592|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
90959734|NCT04281004|181799593|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.869|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model analysis is used to account for correlation between eyes in the same participant.||||||0.869
90908171|NCT01454362|181685118|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90908172|NCT01454362|181685119|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
90908173|NCT01454362|181685120|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
90908174|NCT01928940|181685143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|83.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.9|99.6|||Exact binomial test||For Investigator Assessed ORR|||99.6|35.9|<0.0001
90908175|NCT01928940|181685143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|83.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.9|99.6|||Exact binomial test||BICR Assessed ORR|||99.6|35.9|<0.0001
90959735|NCT04281004|181799594|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007||||||Significance of treatment effect at month 1.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model analysis is used to account for correlation between eyes in the same participant.||||||0.007
90864627|NCT01786668|181592404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.497||0.373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|4.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 8||4.29|-1.62|0.373
90864628|NCT01786668|181592404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.643||0.313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|4.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 12||4.90|-1.58|0.313
90864629|NCT01786668|181592404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.642||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|7.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 12||7.19|0.71|0.017
90864630|NCT01786668|181592404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.66||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|7.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 12||7.78|1.23|0.007
90864631|NCT00692341|181592410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|88.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|49.2|159.56||||||For mild hepatic impairment, analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare natural log transformed Cmax of axitinib (AG-013736) between the control group (normal hepatic function) and mild hepatic impairment. The point estimates and confidence intervals (CIs) on the log-scale were back transformed to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (mild hepatic impairment/normal hepatic function) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||159.56|49.20|
90864632|NCT00692341|181592410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|127.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.9|229.91||||||For moderate hepatic impairment, ANOVA was used to compare natural log transformed Cmax of axitinib (AG-013736) between the control group (normal hepatic function) and moderate hepatic impairment. The point estimates and CIs on the log-scale were back transformed to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (moderate hepatic impairment/normal hepatic function) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||229.91|70.90|
90864633|NCT00692341|181592411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|78.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|39.92|153.75||||||For mild hepatic impairment, ANOVA was used to compare natural log transformed AUC (0 - ∞) of axitinib (AG-013736) between the control group (normal hepatic function) and mild hepatic impairment. The point estimates and CIs on the log-scale were back transformed to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (mild hepatic impairment/normal hepatic function) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||153.75|39.92|
90864634|NCT00692341|181592411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|195.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.49|383.18||||||For moderate hepatic impairment, ANOVA was used to compare natural log transformed AUC (0 - ∞) of axitinib (AG-013736) between the control group (normal hepatic function) and moderate hepatic impairment. The point estimates and CIs on the log-scale were back transformed to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (moderate hepatic impairment/normal hepatic function) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||383.18|99.49|
90864635|NCT00692341|181592412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|78.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|38.68|157.82||||||For mild hepatic impairment, ANOVA was used to compare natural log transformed AUClast of axitinib (AG-013736) between the control group (normal hepatic function) and mild hepatic impairment. The point estimates and CIs on the log-scale were back transformed to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (mild hepatic impairment/normal hepatic function) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||157.82|38.68|
90864636|NCT00692341|181592412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|198.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.47|401.74||||||For moderate hepatic impairment, ANOVA was used to compare natural log transformed AUClast of axitinib (AG-013736) between the control group (normal hepatic function) and moderate hepatic impairment. The point estimates and CIs on the log-scale were back transformed to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (moderate hepatic impairment/normal hepatic function) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||401.74|98.47|
90864637|NCT00692341|181592417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|73.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|37.4|145.56||||||For mild hepatic impairment, ANOVA was used to compare natural log transformed fu of axitinib (AG-013736) between the control group (normal hepatic function) and mild hepatic impairment. The point estimates and CIs on the log-scale were back transformed to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (mild hepatic impairment/normal hepatic function) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||145.56|37.40|
90908176|NCT01928940|181685148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|83.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.9|99.6|||Exact binomial test||For Investigator Assessed ORR|||99.6|35.9|<0.0001
90908177|NCT01928940|181685148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|50.0||||0.0158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.8|82.2|||Exact binomial test||BICR Assessed ORR|||82.2|11.8|0.0158
90908178|NCT01928940|181685149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|83.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.9|99.6|||Exact binomial test||For Investigator Assessed ORR|||99.6|35.9|<0.0001
90908179|NCT01928940|181685149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|50.0||||0.0158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.8|88.2|||Exact binomial test||BICR Assessed ORR|||88.2|11.8|0.0158
90908180|NCT01928940|181685152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|83.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.9|99.6|||Exact binomial test||For Investigator Assessed ORR|||99.6|35.9|<0.0001
90908181|NCT01928940|181685152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|83.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.9|99.6|||Exact binomial test||BICR Assessed ORR|||99.6|35.9|<0.0001
90908182|NCT01363479|181685167|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The null hypothesis was rejected (and non inferiority of oral palonosetron 0.50 mg versus I.V. palonosetron 0.25 mg demonstrated), if the lower limit of the 2 sided 99% CI for the difference in proportion of patients with CR (risk difference) was greater (i.e., closer to zero) than 15%.Study had 90% power.|Risk Difference (RD)|3.21|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|-2.74|9.17|||||The risk difference and the 99% CI calculation were performed using a 2 sided stratum adjusted Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test including gender and region as strata.|||9.17|-2.74|
90908183|NCT01352507|181685170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilson Score method|||Null hypothesis (H0): The proportion of participants who chose tadalafil over sildenafil is equal to 0.5 (p = 0.5), versus alternative hypothesis (H1): p is not equal to 0.5 (2-sided test).||||<0.001
90908184|NCT01352507|181685172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) mean difference|0.02||||0.793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.15||P-Value and LS mean difference were from a crossover mixed effect model that included treatment, period, sequence, and site as fixed effects, baseline value of efficacy measure as covariate, and participant within sequence as random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.15|-0.11|0.793
90908185|NCT01352507|181685173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.01||||0.988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|1.37||P-Value and LS mean difference were from a crossover mixed effect model that included treatment, period, sequence, and site as fixed effects, baseline value of efficacy measure as covariate, and participant within sequence as random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.37|-1.35|0.988
90908186|NCT01352507|181685174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.03||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.08||P-Value and LS mean difference were from a crossover mixed effect model that included treatment, period, sequence, and site as fixed effects, baseline value of efficacy measure as covariate, and participant within sequence as random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.08|-0.01|0.102
90959736|NCT04281004|181799594|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.953||||||Significance of treatment effect at month 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model analysis is used to account for correlation between eyes in the same participant.||||||0.953
90908187|NCT01352507|181685176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.01||||0.861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.19||P-Value and LS mean difference were from a crossover mixed effect model that included treatment, period, sequence, and site as fixed effects, baseline value of efficacy measure as covariate, and participant within sequence as random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.19|-0.22|0.861
90908188|NCT01352507|181685177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.05||||0.495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.09||P-Value and LS mean difference were from a crossover mixed effect model that included treatment, period, sequence, and site as fixed effects, baseline value of efficacy measure as covariate, and participant within sequence as random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.09|-0.19|0.495
90908189|NCT01352507|181685178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.01||||0.917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.16||P-Value and LS mean difference were from a crossover mixed effect model that included treatment, period, sequence, and site as fixed effects, baseline value of efficacy measure as covariate, and participant within sequence as random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.16|-0.18|0.917
90908190|NCT01352507|181685179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.23||||0.391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|4.04||P-Value and LS mean difference were from a crossover mixed effect model that included treatment, period, sequence, and site as fixed effects, baseline value of efficacy measure as covariate, and participant within sequence as random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.04|-1.58|0.391
90908191|NCT01352507|181685180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.18||P-Value and LS mean difference were from a crossover mixed effect model that included treatment, period, sequence, and site as fixed effects, baseline value of efficacy measure as covariate, and participant within sequence as random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.18|0.09|<0.001
90908192|NCT01352507|181685181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|-0.09||P-Value and LS mean difference were from a crossover mixed effect model that included treatment, period, sequence, and site as fixed effects, baseline value of efficacy measure as covariate, and participant within sequence as random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.09|-0.19|<0.001
90959737|NCT04281004|181799594|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.841||||||Significance of treatment effect at month 6.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model analysis is used to account for correlation between eyes in the same participant.||||||0.841
90959738|NCT04281004|181799594|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.137||||||Significance of treatment effect at month 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model analysis is used to account for correlation between eyes in the same participant.||||||0.137
90959739|NCT04281004|181799595|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.614|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.614
90959740|NCT04281004|181799596|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.594|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.594
90959741|NCT04281004|181799597|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.663||||||Significance of treatment effect at month 1.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Clustered version of the Wilcoxon test||||||0.663
90959742|NCT04281004|181799597|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.416||||||Significance of treatment effect at month 3.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Clustered version of the Wilcoxon test||||||0.416
90959743|NCT04281004|181799597|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89||||||Significance of treatment effect at month 6.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Clustered version of the Wilcoxon test||||||0.890
90864638|NCT00692341|181592417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|100.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|55.58|183.02||||||For moderate hepatic impairment, ANOVA was used to compare natural log transformed fu of axitinib (AG-013736) between the control group (normal hepatic function) and moderate hepatic impairment. The point estimates and CIs on the log-scale were back transformed to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (moderate hepatic impairment/normal hepatic function) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||183.02|55.58|
90864639|NCT00692341|181592418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|91.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|44.75|186.79||||||For mild hepatic impairment, ANOVA was used to compare natural log transformed CLu/F of axitinib (AG-013736) between the control group (normal hepatic function) and mild hepatic impairment. The point estimates and CIs on the log-scale were back transformed to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (mild hepatic impairment/normal hepatic function) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||186.79|44.75|
90864640|NCT00692341|181592418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|50.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|27.14|95.03||||||For moderate hepatic impairment, ANOVA was used to compare natural log transformed CLu/F of axitinib (AG-013736) between the control group (normal hepatic function) and moderate hepatic impairment. The point estimates and CIs on the log-scale were back transformed to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (moderate hepatic impairment/normal hepatic function) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||95.03|27.14|
90864641|NCT00692341|181592419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|103.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|51.53|206.22||||||For mild hepatic impairment, ANOVA was used to compare natural log transformed Vzu/F of axitinib (AG-013736) between the control group (normal hepatic function) and mild hepatic impairment. The point estimates and CIs on the log-scale were back transformed to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (mild hepatic impairment/normal hepatic function) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||206.22|51.53|
90864642|NCT00692341|181592419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|76.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|41.41|139.73||||||For moderate hepatic impairment, ANOVA was used to compare natural log transformed Vzu/F of axitinib (AG-013736) between the control group (normal hepatic function) and moderate hepatic impairment. The point estimates and CIs on the log-scale were back transformed to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (moderate hepatic impairment/normal hepatic function) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||139.73|41.41|
90864643|NCT00692341|181592420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|109.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|53.54|223.47||||||For mild hepatic impairment, ANOVA was used to compare natural log transformed AUC (0 - ∞)u of axitinib (AG-013736) between the control group (normal hepatic function) and mild hepatic impairment. The point estimates and CIs on the log-scale were back transformed to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (mild hepatic impairment/normal hepatic function) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||223.47|53.54|
90864644|NCT00692341|181592420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|196.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|105.23|368.49||||||For moderate hepatic impairment, ANOVA was used to compare natural log transformed AUC (0 - ∞)u of axitinib (AG-013736) between the control group (normal hepatic function) and moderate hepatic impairment. The point estimates and CIs on the log-scale were back transformed to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (moderate hepatic impairment/normal hepatic function) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||368.49|105.23|
90864645|NCT00692341|181592421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted ratio of geometric means|111.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|54.35|229.37||||||For mild hepatic impairment, ANOVA was used to compare natural log transformed AUClastu of axitinib (AG-013736) between the control group (normal hepatic function) and mild hepatic impairment. The point estimates and CIs on the log-scale were back transformed to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (mild hepatic impairment/normal hepatic function) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||229.37|54.35|
90864646|NCT00692341|181592421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|200.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|106.68|377.2||||||For moderate hepatic impairment, ANOVA was used to compare natural log transformed AUClastu of axitinib (AG-013736) between the control group (normal hepatic function) and moderate hepatic impairment. The point estimates and CIs on the log-scale were back transformed to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (moderate hepatic impairment/normal hepatic function) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||377.20|106.68|
90864647|NCT00692341|181592422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|106.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|58.22|195.99||||||For mild hepatic impairment, ANOVA was used to compare natural log transformed Cmaxu of axitinib (AG-013736) between the control group (normal hepatic function) and mild hepatic impairment. The point estimates and CIs on the log-scale were back transformed to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (mild hepatic impairment/normal hepatic function) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||195.99|58.22|
90864648|NCT00692341|181592422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|128.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.62|219.25||||||For moderate hepatic impairment, ANOVA was used to compare natural log transformed Cmaxu of axitinib (AG-013736) between the control group (normal hepatic function) and moderate hepatic impairment. The point estimates and CIs on the log-scale were back transformed to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (moderate hepatic impairment/normal hepatic function) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||219.25|75.62|
90864649|NCT00702689|181592431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.011|||||||Paired t-test|||||||.011
90864650|NCT00702689|181592433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.47|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.47
90864651|NCT00702689|181592434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.29|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.29
90864652|NCT03993132|181592469|OTHER|A Cox regression with selected variables based on previous literature, covariate data availability, examination of exposure group differences in the distribution of each covariate, and the association of covariates with the outcomes of interest was applied. The hazard ratio compare Empagliflozin versus Liraglutide (reference).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.11|||||Hazard ratio compares empagliflozin versus liraglutide (reference).|||1.11|0.91|
90864653|NCT03993132|181592470|OTHER|A Cox regression with selected variables based on previous literature, covariate data availability, examination of exposure group differences in the distribution of each covariate, and the association of covariates with the outcomes of interest was applied. The hazard ratio compare Empagliflozin versus Liraglutide (reference).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.13|||||Hazard ratio compares empagliflozin versus liraglutide (reference).|||1.13|1.01|
90940325|NCT00526097|181760451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.08|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.62|2.66|||Fisher Exact||OR: Bisacodyl / Placebo; The exact 95% confidence interval (CI) by Clopper and Pearson is presented|||2.66|1.62|<0.0001
90908193|NCT01352507|181685182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.18||||0.364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.55||P-Value and LS mean difference were from a crossover mixed effect model that included treatment, period, sequence, and site as fixed effects, baseline value of efficacy measure as covariate, and participant within sequence as random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.55|-0.20|0.364
90908194|NCT01018511|181685201|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Overall power was 90% power for non-inferiority vs placebo for total IPSS. Only the FDC(s) that succeeded in stage 1 were evaluated in stage 2 for total IPSS. If both FDCs succeeded in stage 1, then both FDCs proceeded to stage 2 and the Hochberg procedure was implemented at one-sided alpha = 0.025. If one FDC succeeded in stage 1, then only this FDC proceeded to stage 2 and the FDC vs. TOCAS alone for non-inferiority was assessed at one-sided alpha = 0.025/2 = 0.0125.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.73|0.11||The primary analysis was adjusted for multiplicity for IPSS using the Hochberg procedure involving 2 stages: Stage 1, superiority to placebo and Stage 2: non-inferiority to tamsulosin alone, with a switch to superiority where applicable.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||The non-inferiority of FDC vs TOCAS on the change from baseline to end of treatment in total IPSS. A FDC was regarded successful if it showed superiority vs. placebo for total IPSS, noninferiority vs. TOCAS alone for total IPSS along with superiority vs. TOCAS alone for TUS.||0.11|-1.73|0.001
90940326|NCT00526097|181760452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.37|2.11|||Fisher Exact||OR: Bisacodyl / Placebo; The exact 95% confidence interval (CI) by Clopper and Pearson is presented|||2.11|1.37|<0.0001
91033134|NCT00048581|181952000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adj Diff: Day 85 Social Functioning|4.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.59|6.79|||ANCOVA|||Differences in mean changes from baseline between the 2 treatment groups (ABA and PLA) in PCS, MCS, and the 8 subscale scores at Day 85 were compared using ANCOVA models. Adjusted difference (Adj Diff) from PLA group with 95% CIs and p-values were calculated, and adjustment was based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as factor and baseline value as covariate.||6.79|2.59|<0.001
91033135|NCT00048581|181952000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adj Diff: Day 85 Role Emotional|0.97||||0.494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|3.77|||ANCOVA|||Differences in mean changes from baseline between the 2 treatment groups (ABA and PLA) in PCS, MCS, and the 8 subscale scores at Day 85 were compared using ANCOVA models. Adjusted difference (Adj Diff) from PLA group with 95% CIs and p-values were calculated, and adjustment was based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as factor and baseline value as covariate.||3.77|-1.82|0.494
90940327|NCT00526097|181760453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.52|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.24|1.88|||Fisher Exact||OR: Bisacodyl / Placebo; The exact 95% confidence interval (CI) by Clopper and Pearson is presented|||1.88|1.24|<0.0001
90864654|NCT03993132|181592471|OTHER|A Cox regression with selected variables based on previous literature, covariate data availability, examination of exposure group differences in the distribution of each covariate, and the association of covariates with the outcomes of interest was applied. The hazard ratio compare Empagliflozin versus Liraglutide (reference).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.08|||||Hazard ratio compares empagliflozin versus liraglutide (reference).|||1.08|0.84|
90864655|NCT03993132|181592472|OTHER|A Cox regression with selected variables based on previous literature, covariate data availability, examination of exposure group differences in the distribution of each covariate, and the association of covariates with the outcomes of interest was applied. The hazard ratio compare Empagliflozin versus Liraglutide (reference).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.11|||||Hazard ratio compares empagliflozin versus liraglutide (reference).|||1.11|0.96|
90864656|NCT03993132|181592473|OTHER|A Cox regression with selected variables based on previous literature, covariate data availability, examination of exposure group differences in the distribution of each covariate, and the association of covariates with the outcomes of interest was applied. The hazard ratio compare Empagliflozin versus Liraglutide (reference).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.83|||||Hazard ratio compares empagliflozin versus liraglutide (reference).|||0.83|0.61|
90864657|NCT03993132|181592474|OTHER|A Cox regression with selected variables based on previous literature, covariate data availability, examination of exposure group differences in the distribution of each covariate, and the association of covariates with the outcomes of interest was applied. The hazard ratio compare Empagliflozin versus Liraglutide (reference).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.91|||||Hazard ratio compares empagliflozin versus liraglutide (reference).|||0.91|0.76|
90908195|NCT01018511|181685201|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Only the FDC(s) that succeeded in stage 1 were evaluated in stage 2 for total IPSS. If both FDCs succeeded in stage 1, then both FDCs proceeded to stage 2 and the Hochberg procedure was implemented at one-sided alpha = 0.025. If one FDC succeeded in stage 1, then only this FDC proceeded to stage 2 and the FDC vs. TOCAS alone for non-inferiority was assessed at one-sided alpha = 0.025/2 = 0.0125.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.028|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.22|0.64||The primary analysis was adjusted for multiplicity for IPSS using the Hochberg procedure involving 2 stages: Stage 1, superiority to placebo and Stage 2: non-inferiority to tamsulosin alone, with a switch to superiority where applicable.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||The non-inferiority of FDC vs. TOCAS on the change from baseline to end of treatment in total IPSS. A FDC was regarded successful if it showed superiority vs. placebo for total IPSS, noninferiority vs. TOCAS alone for total IPSS along with superiority vs. TOCAS alone for TUS.||0.64|-1.22|0.028
90940328|NCT00526097|181760454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|17.13|||<|0.0001||95.0|4.28|68.66|||Fisher Exact||OR: Bisacodyl / Placebo; The exact 95% confidence interval (CI) by Clopper and Pearson is presented|||68.66|4.28|<0.0001
90908196|NCT01018511|181685201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|||||The primary analysis was adjusted for multiplicity for IPSS using the Hochberg procedure involving 2 stages: Stage 1, superiority to placebo and Stage 2: non-inferiority to tamsulosin alone, with a switch to superiority where applicable.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||The superiority of FDC vs. TOCAS on the change from baseline to end of treatment in total IPSS.||||0.048
90908197|NCT01018511|181685201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.483|TWO_SIDED|||||The primary analysis was adjusted for multiplicity for IPSS using the Hochberg procedure involving 2 stages: Stage 1, superiority to placebo and Stage 2: non-inferiority to tamsulosin alone, with a switch to superiority where applicable.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||The superiority of FDC vs. TOCAS on the change from baseline to end of treatment in total IPSS.||||0.483
90864658|NCT03993132|181592475|OTHER|A Cox regression with selected variables based on previous literature, covariate data availability, examination of exposure group differences in the distribution of each covariate, and the association of covariates with the outcomes of interest was applied. The hazard ratio compare Empagliflozin versus Liraglutide (reference).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|0.96|||||Hazard ratio compares empagliflozin versus liraglutide (reference).|||0.96|0.88|
90864659|NCT03993132|181592476|OTHER|A Cox regression with selected variables based on previous literature, covariate data availability, examination of exposure group differences in the distribution of each covariate, and the association of covariates with the outcomes of interest was applied. The hazard ratio compare Empagliflozin versus Liraglutide (reference).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|0.96|||||Hazard ratio compares empagliflozin versus liraglutide (reference).|||0.96|0.91|
90864660|NCT03993132|181592477|OTHER|A Cox regression with selected variables based on previous literature, covariate data availability, examination of exposure group differences in the distribution of each covariate, and the association of covariates with the outcomes of interest was applied. The hazard ratio compare Empagliflozin versus Liraglutide (reference).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|0.96|||||Hazard ratio compares empagliflozin versus liraglutide (reference).|||0.96|0.88|
90864661|NCT03993132|181592478|OTHER|A Cox regression with selected variables based on previous literature, covariate data availability, examination of exposure group differences in the distribution of each covariate, and the association of covariates with the outcomes of interest was applied. The hazard ratio compare Empagliflozin versus Liraglutide (reference).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|0.96|||||Hazard ratio compares empagliflozin versus liraglutide (reference).|||0.96|0.91|
90864662|NCT03993132|181592479|OTHER|A Cox regression with selected variables based on previous literature, covariate data availability, examination of exposure group differences in the distribution of each covariate, and the association of covariates with the outcomes of interest was applied. The hazard ratio compare Empagliflozin versus Liraglutide (reference).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.18|||||Hazard ratio compares empagliflozin versus liraglutide (reference).|||1.18|0.83|
90864663|NCT03993132|181592480|OTHER|A Cox regression with selected variables based on previous literature, covariate data availability, examination of exposure group differences in the distribution of each covariate, and the association of covariates with the outcomes of interest was applied. The hazard ratio compare Empagliflozin versus Liraglutide (reference).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.16|||||Hazard ratio compares empagliflozin versus liraglutide (reference).|||1.16|0.97|
90864664|NCT03993132|181592481|OTHER|A Cox regression with selected variables based on previous literature, covariate data availability, examination of exposure group differences in the distribution of each covariate, and the association of covariates with the outcomes of interest was applied. The hazard ratio compare Empagliflozin versus Liraglutide (reference).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.06|||||Hazard ratio compares empagliflozin versus liraglutide (reference).|||1.06|0.72|
90864665|NCT03993132|181592482|OTHER|A Cox regression with selected variables based on previous literature, covariate data availability, examination of exposure group differences in the distribution of each covariate, and the association of covariates with the outcomes of interest was applied. The hazard ratio compare Empagliflozin versus Liraglutide (reference).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.1|||||Hazard ratio compares empagliflozin versus liraglutide (reference).|||1.10|0.88|
90864666|NCT00939640|181592485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.17|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon matched-pairs|||||||.17
90864667|NCT00939640|181592486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Wilcoxon matched-pairs tests|||||||.02
90864668|NCT00939640|181592491|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.006
90864669|NCT00939640|181592492|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.02
90864670|NCT01064310|181592518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|49.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|37.0|61.5||The p value indicates the difference in preference for pazopanib versus sunitinib treatment|Prescotts test||The estimated value indicates the difference in the percentage of participants who preferred pazopanib versus sunitinib. This difference is adjusted for sequence.|||61.5|37.0|<0.001
90940329|NCT00526097|181760455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.46|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.81|3.35|||Fisher Exact||OR: Bisacodyl / Placebo; The exact 95% confidence interval (CI) by Clopper and Pearson is presented|||3.35|1.81|<0.0001
90940330|NCT00526097|181760456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.5||||0.0025||95.0|1.32|4.74|||Fisher Exact||OR: Bisacodyl / Placebo; The exact 95% confidence interval (CI) by Clopper and Pearson is presented|||4.74|1.32|0.0025
90864671|NCT05147428|181592548|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.99||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.04|||Log Rank|||For the primary analysis, we combined all three targeted medication classes (antipsychotics, sedative/hypnotics, or strong anticholinergics). We calculated Kaplan-Meier curves and performed log-rank testing, and estimated hazard ratios using Cox proportional hazards modeling, censoring at death or disenrollment from the health plan, or at the end of the 6-month study observation period, whichever came first. The index date for the survival analysis was the end of the 3-month blackout period.||1.04|0.94|0.76
90864672|NCT05147428|181592549|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||Chi-squared|||Secondary outcomes were analyzed only for those patients who were not censored due to health plan disenrollment or death over the 6-month study observation period (n = 10 424). For analyses of secondary outcomes, we compared the 3 arms using chi-square testing for dichotomous outcomes.||||0.33
90864673|NCT05147428|181592550|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||Chi-squared|||Secondary outcomes were analyzed only for those patients who were not censored due to health plan disenrollment or death over the 6-month study observation period (n = 10 424). For analyses of secondary outcomes, we compared the 3 arms using chi-square testing for dichotomous outcomes.||||0.55
90864674|NCT05147428|181592551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||Chi-squared|||Secondary outcomes were analyzed only for those patients who were not censored due to health plan disenrollment or death over the 6-month study observation period (n = 10 424). For analyses of secondary outcomes, we compared the 3 arms using chi-square testing for dichotomous outcomes.||||0.47
90864675|NCT05147428|181592552|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.66
90908198|NCT01018511|181685201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.9||The primary analysis was adjusted for multiplicity for IPSS using the Hochberg procedure involving 2 stages: Stage 1, superiority to placebo and Stage 2: non-inferiority to tamsulosin alone, with a switch to superiority where applicable.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||The superiority of the FDC vs placebo on the change from baseline to end of treatment in total IPSS. A FDC was regarded successful if it showed superiority vs. placebo for total IPSS, noninferiority vs. TOCAS alone for total IPSS along with superiority vs. TOCAS alone for TUS.||-0.9|-2.4|<0.001
90940331|NCT00526097|181760457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.08||||0.0105||95.0|1.26|13.24|||Fisher Exact||OR: Bisacodyl / Placebo; The exact 95% confidence interval (CI) by Clopper and Pearson is presented|||13.24|1.26|0.0105
90864676|NCT05147428|181592554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Chi-squared|||Secondary outcomes were analyzed only for those patients who were not censored due to health plan disenrollment or death over the 6-month study observation period (n = 10 424). For analyses of secondary outcomes, we compared the 3 arms using chi-square testing for dichotomous outcomes.||||0.19
90864677|NCT05147428|181592555|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||Chi-squared|||Secondary outcomes were analyzed only for those patients who were not censored due to health plan disenrollment or death over the 6-month study observation period (n = 10 424). For analyses of secondary outcomes, we compared the 3 arms using chi-square testing for dichotomous outcomes.||||0.46
90940332|NCT00526097|181760458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.84||||0.4002||95.0|0.52|6.47|||Fisher Exact||OR: Bisacodyl / Placebo; The exact 95% confidence interval (CI) by Clopper and Pearson is presented|||6.47|0.52|0.4002
90959744|NCT04281004|181799597|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.192||||||Significance of treatment effect at month 12.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Clustered version of the Wilcoxon test||||||0.192
90864678|NCT05147428|181592556|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||Chi-squared|||Secondary outcomes were analyzed only for those patients who were not censored due to health plan disenrollment or death over the 6-month study observation period (n = 10 424). For analyses of secondary outcomes, we compared the 3 arms using chi-square testing for dichotomous outcomes.||||0.79
90864679|NCT03187197|181592586|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Within group comparison of Baseline convenience with that of Visit 2.||||0.0001
90864680|NCT03187197|181592586|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Within group comparison of Baseline convenience with that of Visit 3.||||0.0001
90864681|NCT03187197|181592586|OTHER|||||||0.0031|||||||Paired t-test|||Within group comparison of Baseline satisfaction with that of Visit 2.||||0.0031
90864682|NCT03187197|181592586|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Within group comparison of Baseline satisfaction with that of Visit 3.||||0.0001
90908199|NCT01018511|181685201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.3||The primary analysis was adjusted for multiplicity for IPSS using the Hochberg procedure involving 2 stages: Stage 1, superiority to placebo and Stage 2: non-inferiority to tamsulosin alone, with a switch to superiority where applicable.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||The superiority of the FDC vs. placebo on the change from baseline to end of treatment in total IPSS. A FDC was regarded successful if it showed superiority vs. placebo for total IPSS, noninferiority vs. TOCAS alone for total IPSS along with superiority vs. TOCAS alone for TUS.||-0.3|-1.9|0.006
90908200|NCT01018511|181685201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.0||No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||The superiority of TOCAS vs. placebo on the change from baseline to end of treatment in total IPSS. With a sample size of 274 participants per arm, the overall power to meet this outcome measure was 97% power for superiority vs placebo for total IPSS.||-0.0|-1.6|0.039
90908201|NCT01018511|181685202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.9|0.0||The primary analysis was adjusted for multiplicity for TUS using the Hochberg procedure.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||The superiority of FDC 0.4 mg/6 mg vs. TOCAS in the change from baseline to end of treatment in TUS. A FDC was regarded successful if it showed superiority vs. placebo for total IPSS, noninferiority vs. TOCAS alone for total IPSS along with superiority vs. TOCAS alone for TUS.||0.0|-2.9|0.025
90908202|NCT01018511|181685202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.162|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.3|0.5||The primary analysis was adjusted for multiplicity for TUS using the Hochberg procedure.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||The superiority of FDC 0.4 mg/6 mg vs. TOCAS in the change from baseline to end of treatment in TUS. A FDC was regarded successful if it showed superiority vs. placebo for total IPSS, noninferiority vs. TOCAS alone for total IPSS along with superiority vs. TOCAS alone for TUS.||0.5|-2.3|0.162
90908203|NCT01018511|181685202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|-2.5||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||The superiority of FDC 0.4 mg/6 mg vs. placebo on the change from baseline to end of treatment in TUS.||-2.5|-4.9|<0.001
90908204|NCT01018511|181685202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|-1.9||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||The superiority of FDC 0.4 mg/9 mg vs. placebo on the change from baseline to end of treatment in TUS.||-1.9|-4.4|<0.001
90908205|NCT01018511|181685202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-1.0||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||The superiority of TOCAS vs. placebo on the change from baseline to end of treatment in TUS.||-1.0|-3.5|<0.001
90908206|NCT01018511|181685203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.3||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs TOCAS.||-0.3|-1.0|<0.001
90864683|NCT03187197|181592587|OTHER|||||||0.7879|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Between group comparison of Visit 2 treatment convenience before PSM.||||0.7879
90864684|NCT03187197|181592587|OTHER|||||||0.611|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Between group comparison of Visit 3 treatment convenience before PSM.||||0.6110
90908207|NCT01018511|181685203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.1||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs TOCAS.||0.1|-0.6|0.223
90864685|NCT03187197|181592587|OTHER|||||||0.0832|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Between group comparison of Visit 2 treatment satisfaction before PSM.||||0.0832
90864686|NCT03187197|181592587|OTHER|||||||0.6488|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Between group comparison of Visit 3 treatment satisfaction before PSM.||||0.6488
90864687|NCT03187197|181592587|OTHER|||||||0.1301|||||||Two sample T test|||Between group comparison of Visit 2 treatment convenience after PSM.||||0.1301
90864688|NCT03187197|181592587|OTHER|||||||0.1257|||||||Two sample T test|||Between group comparison of Visit 2 treatment satisfaction after PSM.||||0.1257
90864689|NCT01637935|181592595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.1||||||95.0|0.92|1.31||||||Fully adjusted refers to inclusion of all potential confounders in the statistical model from the 5-year interim report plus year of cohort entry: age, sex, race/ethnicity, other diabetes medications, smoking, other bladder conditions, median household income, congestive heart failure, cancer other than bladder cancer, renal insufficiency, HbA1c and the interaction with new diagnosis of diabetes, duration of diabetes, and year of cohort entry.||1.31|0.92|
90864690|NCT01637935|181592595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.06||||||95.0|0.89|1.26||||||Fully adjusted adding the proteinuria testing variable.||1.26|0.89|
90864691|NCT01637935|181592596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||||95.0|0.71|1.12||||||Time since starting pioglitazone \<4.5 years vs unexposed group. Fully adjusted including all potential confounders in statistical model from 5-year interim report plus year of cohort entry: age, sex, race/ethnicity, other diabetes medications, smoking, other bladder conditions, median household income, congestive heart failure, cancer other than bladder, renal insufficiency, HbA1c and interaction with new diagnosis of diabetes, duration of diabetes, year of cohort entry and proteinuria.||1.12|0.71|
90864692|NCT01637935|181592596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.21||||||95.0|0.93|1.59||||||Time since starting pioglitazone 4.5-8 years vs unexposed group. Fully adjusted including all potential confounders in statistical model from 5-year interim report plus year of cohort entry: age, sex, race/ethnicity, other diabetes medications, smoking, other bladder conditions, median household income, congestive heart failure, cancer other than bladder, renal insufficiency, HbA1c and interaction with new diagnosis of diabetes, duration of diabetes, year of cohort entry and proteinuria.||1.59|0.93|
90864693|NCT01637935|181592596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||||95.0|0.83|1.75||||||Time since starting pioglitazone \>8 years vs unexposed group. Fully adjusted including all potential confounders in statistical model from 5-year interim report plus year of cohort entry: age, sex, race/ethnicity, other diabetes medications, smoking, other bladder conditions, median household income, congestive heart failure, cancer other than bladder, renal insufficiency, HbA1c and interaction with new diagnosis of diabetes, duration of diabetes, year of cohort entry and proteinuria.||1.75|0.83|
90864694|NCT01637935|181592597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||||95.0|0.68|1.16||||||Duration of therapy \<1.5 years. Fully adjusted including all potential confounders in statistical model from 5-year interim report plus year of cohort entry: age, sex, race/ethnicity, other diabetes medications, smoking, other bladder conditions, median household income, congestive heart failure, cancer other than bladder, renal insufficiency, HbA1c and interaction with new diagnosis of diabetes, duration of diabetes, year of cohort entry and proteinuria.||1.16|0.68|
90864695|NCT01637935|181592597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||||95.0|0.8|1.33||||||Duration of therapy 1.5-4 years. Fully adjusted including all potential confounders in statistical model from 5-year interim report plus year of cohort entry: age, sex, race/ethnicity, other diabetes medications, smoking, other bladder conditions, median household income, congestive heart failure, cancer other than bladder, renal insufficiency, HbA1c and interaction with new diagnosis of diabetes, duration of diabetes, year of cohort entry and proteinuria.||1.33|0.80|
90864696|NCT01637935|181592597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||||95.0|0.87|1.54||||||Duration of therapy \>4 years. Fully adjusted including all potential confounders in statistical model from 5-year interim report plus year of cohort entry: age, sex, race/ethnicity, other diabetes medications, smoking, other bladder conditions, median household income, congestive heart failure, cancer other than bladder, renal insufficiency, HbA1c and interaction with new diagnosis of diabetes, duration of diabetes, year of cohort entry and proteinuria.||1.54|0.87|
90864697|NCT01637935|181592598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||||95.0|0.69|1.16||||||Cumulative dose 1-14000 mg. Fully adjusted including all potential confounders in statistical model from 5-year interim report plus year of cohort entry: age, sex, race/ethnicity, other diabetes medications, smoking, other bladder conditions, median household income, congestive heart failure, cancer other than bladder, renal insufficiency, HbA1c and interaction with new diagnosis of diabetes, duration of diabetes, year of cohort entry and proteinuria.||1.16|0.69|
90908208|NCT01018511|181685203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.8||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||-0.8|-1.5|< 0.001
90908209|NCT01018511|181685203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.4||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate||Mean change vs placebo.||-0.4|-1.1|< 0.001
90940333|NCT00526097|181760459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||1||95.0|0.37|3.77|||Fisher Exact||OR: Bisacodyl / Placebo; The exact 95% confidence interval (CI) by Clopper and Pearson is presented|||3.77|0.37|1.0000
90864698|NCT01637935|181592598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||||95.0|0.85|1.42||||||Cumulative dose 14001-40000 mg. Fully adjusted including all potential confounders in statistical model from 5-year interim report plus year of cohort entry: age, sex, race/ethnicity, other diabetes medications, smoking, other bladder conditions, median household income, congestive heart failure, cancer other than bladder, renal insufficiency, HbA1c and interaction with new diagnosis of diabetes, duration of diabetes, year of cohort entry and proteinuria.||1.42|0.85|
90864699|NCT01637935|181592598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||||95.0|0.79|1.44||||||Cumulative dose \>40000 mg. Fully adjusted including all potential confounders in statistical model from 5-year interim report plus year of cohort entry: age, sex, race/ethnicity, other diabetes medications, smoking, other bladder conditions, median household income, congestive heart failure, cancer other than bladder, renal insufficiency, HbA1c and interaction with new diagnosis of diabetes, duration of diabetes, year of cohort entry and proteinuria.||1.44|0.79|
90864700|NCT02200211|181592603|NON_INFERIORITY|Our sample size was computed to have 90% power with a type I error of 5% for a non-inferiority limit of 0.05 logMAR (0.5 lines), assuming a standard deviation of change of 0.15 logMAR (1.5 lines) based on prior Pediatric Eye Disease Investigator Group (PEDIG) studies, and no more than 10% loss to follow-up.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.53|||||A 1-sided upper 95% confidence interval was computed on the adjusted group difference (patching - binocular treatment) evaluating change in amblyopic-eye visual acuity from baseline to the 16-week visit. Positive values favor the patching group.|The primary outcome measure was change in amblyopic-eye VA from baseline to 16 weeks (14 to \<20 week window). The upper limit of a 1-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was computed on the treatment group difference, using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model, adjusted for baseline age and VA, including only participants completing the 16-week outcome in a modified intent-to-treat analysis. There was no imputation for missing data.||0.53||
90864701|NCT02200211|181592603|NON_INFERIORITY|Our sample size was computed to have 90% power with a type I error of 5% for a non-inferiority limit of 0.05 logMAR (0.5 lines), assuming a standard deviation of change of 0.15 logMAR (1.5 lines) based on prior PEDIG studies, and no more than 10% loss to follow-up.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.53|||||A 1-sided upper 95% confidence interval was computed on the adjusted group difference (patching - binocular treatment) evaluating change in amblyopic-eye visual acuity from baseline to the 16-week visit. Positive values favor the patching group.|The primary analysis was repeated for the treatment group comparison of change in amblyopic-eye VA from baseline to 16 weeks, adjusting for baseline covariates of age and visual acuity. For this sensitivity analysis, the primary analysis repeated but excluded data from participants (n=35) who completed the 16-week visit outside of the pre-defined protocol window (16 +/- 1 week).||0.53||
90864702|NCT02200211|181592603|NON_INFERIORITY|Our sample size was computed to have 90% power with a type I error of 5% for a non-inferiority limit of 0.05 logMAR (0.5 lines), assuming a standard deviation of change of 0.15 logMAR (1.5 lines) based on prior PEDIG studies, and no more than 10% loss to follow-up.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.54|||||A 1-sided 95% confidence interval was computed on the adjusted group difference (patching - binocular treatment) evaluating change in amblyopic-eye visual acuity from baseline to the 16-week visit. Positive values favor the patching group.|The primary analysis was repeated for the treatment group comparison of change in amblyopic-eye from baseline to 16 weeks, adjusting for baseline covariates of age and visual acuity. For this sensitivity analysis, multiple imputation was used to impute 16-week visual acuity scores for participants who missed the exam (n=15) or completed the 16-week exam outside of the pre-specified analysis window (n=7).||0.54||
90864703|NCT02200211|181592603|NON_INFERIORITY|Our sample size was computed to have 90% power with a type I error of 5% for a non-inferiority limit of 0.05 logMAR (0.5 lines), assuming a standard deviation of change of 0.15 logMAR (1.5 lines) based on prior PEDIG studies, and no more than 10% loss to follow-up.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.56|||||A 1-sided upper 95% confidence interval was computed on the adjusted group difference (patching - binocular treatment) evaluating change in amblyopic-eye visual acuity from baseline to the 16-week visit. Positive values favor the patching group.|The primary analysis was repeated for the treatment group comparison of change in amblyopic-eye VA from baseline to 16 weeks, adjusting for baseline covariates for age and visual acuity. For this post hoc sensitivity analysis, all participants with 16-week exams were included in the analysis regardless of whether or not the exam was completed within the pre-specified analysis window (14 to \<20 weeks after randomization).||0.56||
90888116|NCT03521635|181639528|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.3|||REML-based repeated measures approach|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML) - based repeated measures approach was applied.|Mean difference was calculated as Pramipexole Sustained Release minus Pramipexole immediate Release.|Mean changes from baseline of SCOPA-Sleep overall night sleep score were analysed using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML) - based repeated measures approach. Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit in the maintenance period, and treatment-by-visit interaction, and the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline and baseline-by-visit interaction.||0.3|-0.8|0.374
90940334|NCT00526097|181760460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0951|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0951
90888117|NCT03521635|181639528|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.5|||REML-based repeated measures approach|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML) - based repeated measures approach was applied.|Mean difference was calculated as Pramipexole Sustained Release minus Pramipexole immediate Release.|Mean changes from baseline of SCOPA-Sleep daytime sleepiness score were analysed using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML) - based repeated measures approach. Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit in the maintenance period, and treatment-by-visit interaction, and the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline and baseline-by-visit interaction.||0.5|-1.4|0.352
90959745|NCT04281004|181799598|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.057||||||Significance of treatment effect at month 1.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model analysis is used to account for correlation between eyes in the same participant.||||||0.057
90959746|NCT04281004|181799598|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.528||||||Significance of treatment effect at month 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model analysis is used to account for correlation between eyes in the same participant.||||||0.528
90959747|NCT04281004|181799598|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21||||||Significance of treatment effect at month 6.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model analysis is used to account for correlation between eyes in the same participant.||||||0.210
91033136|NCT00048581|181952000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adj Diff: Day 85 Mental Health|2.59||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|4.54|||ANCOVA|||Differences in mean changes from baseline between the 2 treatment groups (ABA and PLA) in PCS, MCS, and the 8 subscale scores at Day 85 were compared using ANCOVA models. Adjusted difference (Adj Diff) from PLA group with 95% CIs and p-values were calculated, and adjustment was based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as factor and baseline value as covariate.||4.54|0.65|0.009
90908210|NCT01018511|181685203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||least squares mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.2||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||-0.2|-0.9|0.002
90864704|NCT02200211|181592603|NON_INFERIORITY|Our sample size was computed to have 90% power with a type I error of 5% for a non-inferiority limit of 0.05 logMAR (0.5 lines), assuming a standard deviation of change of 0.15 logMAR (1.5 lines) based on prior PEDIG studies, and no more than 10% loss to follow-up.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.53|||||A 1-sided upper 95% confidence interval was computed on the adjusted group difference (patching - binocular treatment) evaluating change in amblyopic-eye visual acuity from baseline to the 16-week visit. Positive values favor the patching group.|The primary analysis was repeated for the treatment group comparison of change in amblyopic-eye VA from baseline to 16-weeks, adjusting for baseline covariates of age and visual acuity. For this sensitivity analysis, we excluded 16-week outcomes from enrolled participants who were subsequently found to be ineligible for the study (n=7).||0.53||
91033137|NCT00048581|181952002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adj Diff: Day 169 PCS|5.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.64|7.29|||ANCOVA|||Differences in mean changes from baseline between the 2 treatment groups (ABA and PLA) in PCS, MCS, and the 8 subscale scores at Day 85 were compared using ANCOVA models. Adjusted difference (Adj Diff) from PLA group with 95% CIs and p-values were calculated, and adjustment was based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as factor and baseline value as covariate.||7.29|3.64|<0.001
90888118|NCT03521635|181639529|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.2|||REML-based repeated measures approach|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML) - based repeated measures approach was applied.|Mean difference was calculated as Pramipexole Sustained Release minus Pramipexole immediate Release.|Mean changes from baseline of EMO sore were analysed using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML) - based repeated measures approach. Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit in the maintenance period, and treatment-by-visit interaction, and the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline and baseline-by-visit interaction.||0.2|-0.8|0.259
90908211|NCT01018511|181685204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|23.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.33|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.6|29.6||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs TOCAS.||29.6|16.6|< 0.001
90864705|NCT02200211|181592603|NON_INFERIORITY|Our sample size was computed to have 90% power with a type I error of 5% for a non-inferiority limit of 0.05 logMAR (0.5 lines), assuming a standard deviation of change of 0.15 logMAR (1.5 lines) based on prior PEDIG studies, and no more than 10% loss to follow-up.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.55|||||A 1-sided 95% confidence interval was computed on the adjusted group difference (patching - binocular treatment) evaluating change in amblyopic-eye visual acuity from baseline to the 16-week visit. Positive values favor the patching group.|The primary analysis was repeated for the treatment group comparison of change in amblyopic-eye visual acuity from baseline to 16 week, adjusting for baseline covariates of age and visual acuity. For this sensitivity analysis, we excluded 16-week outcomes from participants who received alternative treatment for at least 1 week during study follow-up (n=4).||0.55||
90864706|NCT02200211|181592603|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.58|||||A 2-sided 95% confidence interval was computed on the adjusted treatment group difference evaluating change in amblyopic-eye visual acuity from baseline to the 16-week visit. Positive estimate values favor the patching treatment group.|Analysis of covariance included baseline age and visual acuity as adjustment covariates. The primary outcome measure was change in amblyopic-eye VA from baseline to 16 weeks (14 to \<20 week window). For this post hoc analysis, a 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was computed on the treatment group difference, using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model, adjusted for baseline age and VA, including only participants completing the 16-week outcome in a modified intent-to-treat analysis.||0.58|0.04|
90864707|NCT02200211|181592605|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|0.3||a priori threshold for statistical significance: 2-sided type I error rate of 5%|ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline amblyopic-eye visual acuity.|A 2-sided 95% confidence interval was computed on the adjusted treatment group difference (binocular treatment - patching) evaluating change in amblyopic-eye visual acuity from baseline to the 16-week visit.|A modified intent-to-treat analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model to compare the effectiveness of two treatments (2-sided hypothesis test), adjusting for baseline visual acuity. The primary outcome measure was change in amblyopic-eye VA from baseline to 16 weeks (14 to \<20 week window). A 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was computed on the adjusted treatment group difference at 16 weeks. There was no imputation for missing data.||0.3|-5.7|0.082
90864708|NCT02200211|181592605|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|0.5|||||A 2-sided 95% confidence interval was computed on the adjusted treatment group difference (binocular treatment - patching) evaluating change in amblyopic-eye visual acuity from baseline to the 16-week visit.|A modified intent-to-treat analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model to compare the change in amblyopic-eye visual acuity from baseline to 16 weeks for two treatments (2-sided hypothesis test), adjusting for baseline visual acuity. For this sensitivity analyses, the primary analysis was repeated but excluded data from participants who completed the 16-week visit outside of the pre-specified 16 +/- 1 week protocol window (n=10 participants).||0.5|-5.9|
90864709|NCT02200211|181592605|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|0.3|||||A 2-sided 95% confidence interval was computed on the adjusted treatment group difference (binocular treatment - patching) evaluating change in amblyopic-eye visual acuity from baseline to the 16-week visit.|A modified intent-to-treat analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model to compare the change in amblyopic-eye visual acuity from baseline to 16 weeks (14 to \<20 week window) for two treatments (2-sided hypothesis test), adjusting for baseline visual acuity. For this sensitivity analyses, the primary analysis was repeated but excluded data from participants later found to be ineligible for the study (n=2).||0.3|-5.9|
90864710|NCT02200211|181592605|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|1.2|||||A 2-sided 95% confidence interval was computed on the adjusted treatment group difference (binocular treatment - patching) evaluating change in amblyopic-eye visual acuity from baseline to the 16-week visit.|The primary analysis was repeated for the treatment group comparison of change in amblyopic-eye from baseline to 16 weeks, adjusting for baseline visual acuity. For this sensitivity analysis, multiple imputation was used to impute 16-week visual acuity scores for participants who missed the exam (n=3) or completed the 16-week exam outside of the pre-specified analysis window (n=2).||1.2|-5.0|
90908212|NCT01018511|181685204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|23.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.36|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.6|29.8||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs TOCAS.||29.8|16.6|< 0.001
90908213|NCT01018511|181685204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|27.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.0|33.9||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||33.9|21.0|< 0.001
90908214|NCT01018511|181685204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|27.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.1|34.1||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||34.1|21.1|< 0.001
90940335|NCT00526097|181760461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.19|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.09|0.41|||Fisher Exact||OR: Bisacodyl / Placebo; The exact 95% confidence interval (CI) by Clopper and Pearson is presented|||0.41|0.09|<0.0001
90864711|NCT02200211|181592605|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|0.5|||||A 2-sided 95% confidence interval was computed on the adjusted treatment group difference (binocular treatment - patching) evaluating change in amblyopic-eye visual acuity from baseline to the 16-week visit.|An ANCOVA model was fit to compare the change in amblyopic-eye visual acuity from baseline to 16 weeks (14 to \<20 week window) for two treatments (2-sided hypothesis test), adjusting for baseline visual acuity. For this post hoc sensitivity analyses, the primary analysis was repeated but included data from participants who completed the 16-week visit outside the analysis window (n=2, range:14 to 28 weeks post randomization).||0.5|-5.5|
90864712|NCT02200211|181592605|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|0.4|||||A 2-sided 95% confidence interval was computed on the adjusted treatment group difference (binocular treatment - patching) evaluating change in amblyopic-eye visual acuity from baseline to the 16-week visit.|An ANCOVA model was fit to compare the change in amblyopic-eye visual acuity from baseline to 16 weeks (14 to \<20 week window) for two treatments (2-sided hypothesis test), adjusting for baseline visual acuity. For this sensitivity analyses, the primary analysis was repeated but included prior amblyopia treatment as an adjustment covariate (in addition to baseline visual acuity) in the model.||0.4|-5.7|
90864713|NCT02200211|181592609|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|13.0|||||Binomial regression was used to compare the group proportions (patching - binocular treatment) of participants classified as improving 2 or more logMAR lines from baseline at the 16-week visit.|Binomial regression was used for the treatment group comparison of the proportion of participants classified as improving 2 or more logMAR lines (10 or more letters if E-ETDRS) from baseline at the 16-week visit, adjusting for baseline age group (5 to \<7, 7 to \<13 years) and baseline visual acuity (treated as a continuous covariate).||13|-4|
90864714|NCT02200211|181592609|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.0|2.0|||||Binomial regression was used to compare the group proportions (binocular treatment - patching) of participants classified as improving 2 or more logMAR lines (≥ 10 letters) from baseline at the 16-week visit.|Binomial regression was used for the treatment group comparison of the proportion of participants classified as improving 2 or more logMAR lines (10 or more letters if E-ETDRS) from baseline at the 16-week visit, adjusting for baseline visual acuity.||2|-31|
90864715|NCT02200211|181592610|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|5.0|||||Binomial regression was used to compare the group proportions (patching - binocular treatment) of participants classified as having amblyopia resolution at the 16-week visit.|Binomial regression was used for the treatment group comparison of the proportion of participants classified as improving 2 or more logMAR lines (10 or more letters if E-ETDRS) from baseline at the 16-week visit, adjusting for baseline age group (5 to \<7, 7 to \<13 years) and baseline visual acuity (20/40, 20/50 or worse).||5|-1|
90864716|NCT02200211|181592611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83||||||For testing the interaction term, the a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Previously described above in the Statistical Analysis Overview section.||A linear mixed model was used to compare the rate of amblyopic-eye visual acuity improvement between the treatment groups. The ANCOVA model included an interaction term with treatment group and time to compare the change in visual acuity over follow-up by treatment group, adjusting for the main effects of the interaction term and baseline covariates of age and visual acuity. If the interaction term was not statistically significant (p\>0.05), no further comparisons would be performed.||||0.83
90864717|NCT02200211|181592612|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance of the interaction term (gender and treatment group) was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Previously described in the Statistical Analysis Overview.||Exploratory subgroup analyses were conducted to assess the treatment effect according to subgroups of baseline factors. An analysis of covariance was used to test the interaction between treatment group and gender, adjusting for the main effects of the interaction term and baseline covariates of age and visual acuity.||||0.83
90908215|NCT01018511|181685204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.32||0.189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|10.9||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate||Mean change vs placebo.||10.9|-2.2|0.189
90908216|NCT01018511|181685205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|14.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.51||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|29.3||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs TOCAS.||29.3|-0.2|0.053
90908217|NCT01018511|181685205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|14.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.59||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|29.6||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs TOCAS.||29.6|-0.2|0.053
90940336|NCT00526097|181760462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.24||||0.2524||95.0|0.02|2.67|||Fisher Exact||OR: Bisacodyl / Placebo; The exact 95% confidence interval (CI) by Clopper and Pearson is presented|||2.67|0.02|0.2524
90864718|NCT02200211|181592612|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance of the interaction term (race/ethnicity status and treatment group) was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Four participants (1 binocular treatment group, 3 patching group) were excluded from the analysis due to unknown/not reported race/ethnicity status.||Exploratory subgroup analyses were conducted to assess the treatment effect according to subgroups of baseline factors. An analysis of covariance was used to test the interaction between treatment group and race/ethnicity status (White/non-Hispanic, Non-White or Hispanic), adjusting for the main effects of the interaction term and baseline covariates of age and visual acuity.||||0.54
90864719|NCT02200211|181592612|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance of the interaction term (age and treatment group) was 0.05.|ANCOVA|||Exploratory subgroup analyses were conducted to assess the treatment effect according to subgroups of baseline factors. An analysis of covariance was used to test the interaction between treatment group and age at baseline (treated as a continuous factor in the model), adjusting for the main effects of the interaction term and baseline visual acuity.||||0.80
90864720|NCT02200211|181592612|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance of the interaction term (baseline amblyopic-eye visual acuity and treatment group) was 0.05.|ANCOVA|||Exploratory subgroup analyses were conducted to assess the treatment effect according to subgroups of baseline factors. An analysis of covariance was used to test the interaction between treatment group and baseline amblyopic-eye visual acuity (treated as a continuous factor in the model), adjusting for the main effects of the interaction term and baseline age.||||0.99
90864721|NCT02200211|181592612|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance of the interaction term (prior amblyopia treatment and treatment group) was 0.05|ANCOVA|||Exploratory subgroup analyses were conducted to assess the treatment effect according to subgroups of baseline factors. An analysis of covariance was used to test the interaction between treatment group and prior amblyopia treatment (Yes/No), adjusting for the main effects of the interaction term and baseline covariates of age and visual acuity.||||0.87
90864722|NCT02200211|181592612|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance of the interaction term (baseline stereoacuity and treatment group) was 0.05.|ANCOVA|||Exploratory subgroup analyses were conducted to assess the treatment effect according to subgroups of baseline factors. An analysis of covariance was used to test the interaction between treatment group and baseline stereoacuity (nil, better than nil), adjusting for the main effects of the interaction term and baseline covariates of age and visual acuity.||||0.33
90864723|NCT02200211|181592612|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance of the interaction term (presence of a near heterotropia at baseline and treatment group) was 0.05.|ANCOVA|||Exploratory subgroup analyses were conducted to assess the treatment effect according to subgroups of baseline factors. An analysis of covariance was used to test the interaction between treatment group and presence of a near heterotropia (measured by SPCT) at baseline (Yes/No), adjusting for the main effects of the interaction term and baseline covariates of age and visual acuity.||||0.23
90864724|NCT02200211|181592617|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to compare the distribution of change in stereoacuity levels from baseline to 16 weeks by treatment group.||||0.66
90864725|NCT02200211|181592617|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to compare the distribution of change in stereoacuity levels from baseline to 16 weeks by treatment group.||||0.83
90864726|NCT02200211|181592618|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to compare the distribution of change in stereoacuity levels from baseline to 16 weeks by treatment group.||||0.19
90864727|NCT02200211|181592618|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to compare the distribution of change in stereoacuity levels from baseline to 16 weeks by treatment group.||||0.69
90864728|NCT02200211|181592624|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.3|||||A 95% confidence interval was computed on the adjusted treatment group difference (binocular treatment - patching) in mean change in fellow-eye visual acuity from baseline to 16 weeks. Positive values favor the binocular treatment group.|The treatment group difference in the change in fellow-eye visual acuity from baseline to 16 weeks (logMAR lines) was evaluated in an analysis of covariance model, adjusted for baseline fellow-eye visual acuity.||0.30|0.02|
90864729|NCT02200211|181592625|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.3|||||A 95% confidence interval was computed on the treatment group difference (binocular treatment - patching) of the adjusted mean change in fellow-eye visual acuity from baseline to 16 weeks.|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used to compute the treatment group difference in the mean change in fellow-eye visual acuity (letters) from baseline to 16 weeks, adjusting for baseline visual acuity. A 2-sided 95% confidence interval was computed on the adjusted treatment group difference.||1.3|-1.1|
90864730|NCT02200211|181592626|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to perform the treatment group comparison of the proportion of participants who developed a new ocular deviation and/or worsening of a pre-existing ocular deviation by 10 prism diopters at the 16-week visit.||||0.32
90864731|NCT02200211|181592626|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to perform the treatment group comparison of the proportion of participants who developed a new ocular deviation and/or worsening of a pre-existing ocular deviation by 10 prism diopters at the 16-week visit.||||0.68
90864732|NCT02200211|181592627|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Fisher Exact|||The Fisher exact test was used to compare the percentage of parents who reported that their child had experienced diplopia (yes/no) at the 16-week visit by treatment group.||||0.17
90908218|NCT01018511|181685205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|18.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.37||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|33.0||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||33.0|4.1|0.012
90908219|NCT01018511|181685205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|18.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.45||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|33.4||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||33.4|4.1|0.012
90908220|NCT01018511|181685205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.49||0.591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|18.7||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||18.7|-10.7|0.591
90908221|NCT01018511|181685206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.4||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs TOCAS.||0.4|-0.6|0.616
90908222|NCT01018511|181685206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.2||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs TOCAS.||0.2|-0.7|0.319
90908223|NCT01018511|181685206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.6||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||-0.6|-1.5|< 0.001
90959748|NCT04281004|181799598|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.853||||||Significance of treatment effect at month 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model analysis is used to account for correlation between eyes in the same participant.||||||0.853
90959749|NCT02245672|181799608|SUPERIORITY|In order for the bioequivalence results to be valid, assay sensitivity had to be established. For assay sensitivity, the following comparisons were performed using the Full Analysis Set for each co-primary endpoint: MGR001 versus placebo, and Advair Diskus versus placebo. Assay sensitivity was demonstrated if the p-values for active treatment versus placebo were less than 0.05|||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||MGR001 (Test) vs Placebo||||<0.0001
90959750|NCT02245672|181799608|SUPERIORITY|In order for the bioequivalence results to be valid, assay sensitivity had to be established.For assay sensitivity, the following comparisons were performed using the Full Analysis Set for each co-primary endpoint: MGR001 versus placebo, and Advair Diskus versus placebo. Assay sensitivity was demonstrated if the p-values for active treatment versus placebo were less than 0.05|||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||Advair Diskus (Reference) vs Placebo||||<0.0001
90970970|NCT01187953|181824222|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|It was assumed that both treatment groups in this study would have a 15% 12-month treatment failure rate, the study will require 270 patients per group to have 90% power to reject the null hypothesis that the investigational drug, LCP-tacro, is inferior to the reference drug, Prograf, based on a 2-sided 95% CI for the difference and a 0.10 non-inferiority margin.||||||0.821|TWO_SIDED|||||Endpoint: Graft Failure|Fisher Exact|||No overall p value was calculated, only individual p values for each endpoint category. One statistical analysis table is reported for each individual p value.||||0.821
90864733|NCT02200211|181592627|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Cochran-Armitage trend test|||The frequency of diplopia, across categories of diplopia, was compared between the treatment groups using the Cochran-Armitage trend test.||||0.48
90864734|NCT02200211|181592627|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||The Fisher exact test was used to compare the percentage of parents who reported that their child had experienced diplopia (yes/no) at the 16-week visit by treatment group.||||>0.99
90864735|NCT02200211|181592627|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Cochran-Armitage trend test|||The frequency of diplopia, across categories of diplopia, was compared between the treatment groups using the Cochran-Armitage trend test.||||>0.99
90908224|NCT01018511|181685206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.7||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||-0.7|-1.7|< 0.001
90908225|NCT01018511|181685206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.4||No adjustments to multiplicity were made|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||-0.4|-1.4|< 0.001
90908226|NCT01018511|181685207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.5||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs TOCAS.||0.5|-0.3|0.591
90908227|NCT01018511|181685207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.8||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs TOCAS.||0.8|-0.1|0.102
90908228|NCT01018511|181685207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.1||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||0.1|-0.6|0.204
90908229|NCT01018511|181685207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||0.4|-0.4|0.936
90940337|NCT00526097|181760463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.2||||0.0035||95.0|0.06|0.63|||Fisher Exact||OR: Bisacodyl / Placebo; The exact 95% confidence interval (CI) by Clopper and Pearson is presented|||0.63|0.06|0.0035
90940338|NCT00526097|181760464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.06||||0.0004||95.0|0.01|0.46|||Fisher Exact||OR: Bisacodyl / Placebo; The exact 95% confidence interval (CI) by Clopper and Pearson is presented|||0.46|0.01|0.0004
90908230|NCT01018511|181685207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.0||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||0.0|-0.8|0.081
90908231|NCT01018511|181685208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.6||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs TOCAS.||0.6|-0.3|0.511
90908232|NCT01018511|181685208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.8||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs TOCAS.||0.8|-0.2|0.182
90908233|NCT01018511|181685208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.3||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||0.3|-0.6|0.552
90908234|NCT01018511|181685208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.5||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo||0.5|-0.4|0.891
90908235|NCT01018511|181685208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.2||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||0.2|-0.8|0.215
90908236|NCT01018511|181685209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate||Mean change vs TOCAS.||0.1|-0.2|0.383
90908237|NCT01018511|181685209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs TOCAS.||0.2|-0.1|0.402
90908238|NCT01018511|181685209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.0||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||-0.0|-0.3|0.021
90908239|NCT01018511|181685209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||0.1|-0.2|0.584
90908240|NCT01018511|181685209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.0||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||0.0|-0.3|0.166
90940339|NCT00526097|181760465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.27||||0.0086||95.0|0.1|0.69|||Fisher Exact||OR: Bisacodyl / Placebo; The exact 95% confidence interval (CI) by Clopper and Pearson is presented|||0.69|0.10|0.0086
90908241|NCT01018511|181685210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.2||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs TOCAS.||0.2|-1.0|0.187
90908242|NCT01018511|181685210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.2||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs TOCAS.||0.2|-1.0|0.203
90908243|NCT01018511|181685210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.1||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||0.1|-1.1|0.090
90908244|NCT01018511|181685210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.1||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||0.1|-1.1|0.098
90908245|NCT01018511|181685210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.5||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||0.5|-0.7|0.772
90959751|NCT02245672|181799609|EQUIVALENCE|A linear analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was fitted for the endpoint and least-squares (LS) means were derived for each treatment. To assess equivalence, LS means (one for Test and one for Reference) from the ANCOVA models were used to generate Test/Reference ratios and 90% CIs were calculated by using Fieller's theorem. To demonstrate equivalence, the 90% CIs were each required to be wholly contained within the interval 0.80-1.25 (i.e., 80%-125%).|Ratio (MGR001/Advair Diskus)|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.016|1.237|||||Bioequivalence was established between active treatments (MGR001 and Advair Diskus) for the FEV1 AUEC0-12 clinical endpoint|Equivalence of MGR001 and Advair Diskus is established if the ratio of the LS means and 90% confidence interval are wholly contained within the interval 0.80-1.25 (i.e., 80%-125%).||1.237|1.016|
90959752|NCT02245672|181799610|SUPERIORITY|In order for the bioequivalence results to be valid, assay sensitivity had to be established. For assay sensitivity, the following comparisons were performed using the Full Analysis Set for each co-primary endpoint: MGR001 versus placebo, and Advair Diskus versus placebo. Assay sensitivity was demonstrated if the p-values for active treatment versus placebo were less than 0.05|||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||MGR001 (Test) vs Placebo||||<0.0001
90908246|NCT01018511|181685211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.2||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs TOCAS.||0.2|-0.9|0.210
90908247|NCT01018511|181685211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.6||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs TOCAS.||0.6|-0.5|0.775
90908248|NCT01018511|181685211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.2||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||-0.2|-1.2|0.010
90864736|NCT02200211|181592628|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||The Fisher exact test was used to compare the percentage of participants who reported diplopia (yes/no) at the 16-week visit by treatment group.||||0.05
90864737|NCT02200211|181592628|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Cochran-Armitage trend test|||The frequency of diplopia, across categories of diplopia, was compared between the treatment groups using the Cochran-Armitage trend test.||||0.02
90864738|NCT02200211|181592628|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||The Fisher exact test was used to compare the percentage of participants who reported diplopia (yes/no) at the 16-week visit by treatment group.||||>0.99
90864739|NCT02200211|181592628|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Cochran-Armitage trend test|||The frequency of diplopia, across categories of diplopia, was compared between the treatment groups using the Cochran-Armitage trend test.||||>0.99
90864740|NCT00381485|181592631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90864741|NCT00381485|181592631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90864742|NCT00745823|181592636|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 800 mg q.d. dosage was considered non-inferior to 400 mg b.i.d. if the lower bound of the 2-sided exact 95% CI for difference in response rate remained above -10%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.7||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|-0.83|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||-0.83|-10.7|0.044
90864743|NCT00745823|181592637|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 800 mg q.d. dosage was considered non-inferior to 400 mg b.i.d. if the lower bound of the 2-sided exact 95% CI for difference in response rate remained above -10%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.1||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.29|-1.06|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||-1.06|-9.29|0.011
90959753|NCT02245672|181799610|SUPERIORITY|In order for the bioequivalence results to be valid, assay sensitivity had to be established. For assay sensitivity, the following comparisons were performed using the Full Analysis Set for each co-primary endpoint: MGR001 versus placebo, and Advair Diskus versus placebo. Assay sensitivity was demonstrated if the p-values for active treatment versus placebo were less than 0.05|||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||Advair Diskus (Reference) vs Placebo||||<0.0001
90970971|NCT01187953|181824222|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|It was assumed that both treatment groups in this study would have a 15% 12-month treatment failure rate, the study will require 270 patients per group to have 90% power to reject the null hypothesis that the investigational drug, LCP-tacro, is inferior to the reference drug, Prograf, based on a 2-sided 95% CI for the difference and a 0.10 non-inferiority margin.||||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|||||Endpoint: BPAR|Fisher Exact|||No overall p value was calculated, only individual p values for each endpoint category. One statistical analysis table is reported for each individual p value.||||0.900
90864744|NCT00745823|181592638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|4.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||4.6|-5.0|
90864745|NCT00745823|181592639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|2.0||||||||2.0|-1.3|
90864746|NCT00745823|181592640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|13.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.29|34.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||||34.40|-7.29|
90864747|NCT01206660|181592651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90864748|NCT01206660|181592652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90864749|NCT01206660|181592653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90864750|NCT01633853|181592654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.117|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The blood levels of calcium at the 24th month of following up were compared to the levels of the baseline both in group Vitamin D2.||||0.117
90864751|NCT01633853|181592654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.309|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The blood levels of calcium at the 24th month of following up were compared to the levels of the baseline in group 1,25(OH)2 Vitamin D3.||||0.309
90864752|NCT01633853|181592654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.554|TWO_SIDED|||||t=-0.593|t-test, 2 sided|||The levels of blood calcium at the 24th month of following up were compared between two groups.||||0.554
90864753|NCT01633853|181592655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The levels of blood 25(OH)Vitamin D were compared between the 24th month and the baseline in group Vitamin D2.||||<0.001
90864754|NCT01633853|181592655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The levels of blood 25(OH)Vitamin D were compared between the 24th month and the baseline in group 1,25(OH)2 Vitamin D3.||||<0.001
90864755|NCT01633853|181592655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P\<0.001, t=-14.982.|t-test, 2 sided|||The levels of blood 25(OH) Vitamin D at the 24th month of following up were compared between two groups.||||<0.001
90864756|NCT01633853|181592656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.753|TWO_SIDED|||||Chi-square value=0.099|Chi-squared|||||||0.753
90864757|NCT01633853|181592657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The levels of blood phosphorus were compared between the 24th month of following up and the baseline in group Vitamin D2.||||<0.001
90864758|NCT01633853|181592657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The levels of blood phosphorus were compared between the 24th month of following up and the baseline in group 1,25(OH)2 Vitamin D3, respectively.||||<0.001
90864759|NCT01633853|181592657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.694|TWO_SIDED|||||t=0.394|t-test, 2 sided|||The levels of blood phosphorus at the 24th month of following up were compared between two groups.||||0.694
90864760|NCT01633853|181592658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.179|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The levels of blood iPTH were compared between the 24th month and the baseline in group Vitamin D2.||||0.179
90864761|NCT01633853|181592658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.106|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The levels of blood iPTH were compared between the 24th month and the baseline group 1,25(OH)2 Vitamin D3, respectively.||||0.106
90864762|NCT01633853|181592658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.463|TWO_SIDED|||||t=-0.736|t-test, 2 sided|||The levels of blood iPTH at the 24th month of following up were compared between two groups.||||0.463
90864763|NCT01034631|181592715|OTHER|||||||0.6625|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.6625
90864764|NCT01292746|181592731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|2 sided t-test for correlated samples.||||||<0.05
90864765|NCT01227434|181592739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Exact binomial distribution|0.1||||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Exact binomial distribution|||Compared to historical estimates of PFS-6 months. With 30 patients, there would be 90% power to detect an improvement in the PFS-6 months rate from 10% (historical estimate) to 30% based on a one-sided exact test with alpha=0.1.||||0.10
90864766|NCT03486223|181592744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used for the within-subject comparison of GSK2256294 versus placebo.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A sample size of 16 per group was estimated to have 86% power to detect a within-subject difference of 3.76 (80% of the above difference) or larger (with an SD for the within-subject difference of 4.6) in insulin sensitivity.||||0.71
90908249|NCT01018511|181685211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.3||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||0.3|-0.8|0.317
90908250|NCT01018511|181685211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.2||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||0.2|-0.9|0.196
90908251|NCT01018511|181685212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.1||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs TOCAS.||-0.1|-0.9|0.009
90908252|NCT01018511|181685212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.0||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs TOCAS.||-0.0|-0.8|0.045
90908253|NCT01018511|181685212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.7||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||-0.7|-1.4|< 0.001
90908254|NCT01018511|181685212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.1||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||-0.1|-0.9|0.011
90908255|NCT01018511|181685212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares men difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.5||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||-0.5|-1.3|< 0.001
90970972|NCT01187953|181824222|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|It was assumed that both treatment groups in this study would have a 15% 12-month treatment failure rate, the study will require 270 patients per group to have 90% power to reject the null hypothesis that the investigational drug, LCP-tacro, is inferior to the reference drug, Prograf, based on a 2-sided 95% CI for the difference and a 0.10 non-inferiority margin.|||||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|||||Endpoint: Lost to follow up|Fisher Exact|||No overall p value was calculated, only individual p values for each endpoint category. One statistical analysis table is reported for each individual p value.||||>0.999
90864767|NCT02417831|181592759|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Ratio|105.76|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.18|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.81|112.08|||||The standard deviation in the statistical analysis is actually the intra-individual coefficient of variation. Ratio calculated as test divided by reference.|||112.08|99.81|
90908256|NCT01018511|181685213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||least squares mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.1||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs TOCAS.||-0.1|-0.5|0.008
90908257|NCT01018511|181685213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.0||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs TOCAS.||-0.0|-0.4|0.021
90908258|NCT01018511|181685213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.2||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||-0.2|-0.6|< 0.001
90959754|NCT02245672|181799611|EQUIVALENCE|A linear analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was fitted for the endpoint and least-squares (LS) means were derived for each treatment. To assess equivalence, LS means (one for Test and one for Reference) from the ANCOVA models were used to generate Test/Reference ratios and 90% CIs were calculated by using Fieller's theorem. To demonstrate equivalence, the 90% CIs were each required to be wholly contained within the interval 0.80-1.25 (i.e., 80%-125%).|Ratio (MGR001/Advair Diskus)|1.069|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.938|1.22|||||Bioequivalence was established between active treatments (MGR001 and Advair Diskus) for change from baseline in trough FEV1 endpoint on Day 29|Equivalence of MGR001 and Advair Diskus is established if the ratio of the LS means and 90% confidence interval are wholly contained within the interval 0.80-1.25 (i.e., 80%-125%).||1.220|0.938|
90959755|NCT04363801|181799618|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.42||||0.9676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|2.05|||Log Rank|||||2.05|0.98|0.9676
90959756|NCT04363801|181799635|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.4||||0.3799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|16.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||16.9|-12.2|0.3799
90959757|NCT04363801|181799638|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8679|||||||Log Rank|Stratified Log-rank Test||||||0.8679
90908259|NCT01018511|181685213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.2||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||-0.2|-0.6|< 0.001
90908260|NCT01018511|181685213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.0||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||0.0|-0.3|0.139
90908261|NCT01018511|181685215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|0.2||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs TOCAS.||0.2|-4.3|0.068
90908262|NCT01018511|181685215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-2.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.15||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|-0.4||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs TOCAS.||-0.4|-4.9|0.020
90959758|NCT04363801|181799638|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9676|||||||Log Rank|Stratified Log-rank Test||||||0.9676
90959759|NCT04363801|181799638|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|3.05||||||||3.05|0.74|
90959760|NCT04363801|181799638|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|2.05||||||||2.05|0.98|
90959761|NCT04363801|181799639|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.4||||0.2649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.4|33.6|||Mantel Haenszel||Common Risk Difference and 95% CI: estimated by stratified Newcombe method, weighted by minimum risk|||33.6|-18.4|0.2649
90959762|NCT04363801|181799639|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.4||||0.379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|16.9|||Mantel Haenszel|||||16.9|-12.2|0.379
90959763|NCT02901041|181799648|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|1.45|||t-test, 2 sided|t=0.03, df=79.00||A t-test was used to compare means between conditions at baseline (pre-treatment). The null hypothesis was that the difference in group means is zero.||1.45|-1.41|.98
90908263|NCT01018511|181685215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|-2.5||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||-2.5|-6.9|< 0.001
90908264|NCT01018511|181685215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.13|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|-3.1||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate||Mean change vs placebo.||-3.1|-7.5|< 0.001
90908265|NCT01018511|181685215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|0.4||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||0.4|-4.8|0.022
90908266|NCT01018511|181685216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|5.2||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate||Mean change vs TOCAS.||5.2|0.7|0.011
90959764|NCT02901041|181799649|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.83||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.92|0.26|||t-test, 2 sided|t=-1.52, df=56.00||A t-test was used to compare means between conditions at baseline post-treatment. The null hypothesis was that the difference in group means is zero.||0.26|-1.92|.13
90959765|NCT02901041|181799650|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.03||Equality of variance was not assumed.|t-test, 2 sided|t=-1.33, df=72.65||A t-test was used to compare means between conditions at baseline (pre-treatment). The null hypothesis was that the difference in group means is zero.||0.03|-0.17|.19
90959766|NCT02901041|181799651|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.0|||t-test, 2 sided|t=-1.99, df=56.00||||0.00|-0.34|.05
90908267|NCT01018511|181685216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|4.8||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs TOCAS.||4.8|0.2|0.035
90908268|NCT01018511|181685216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|7.3||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||7.3|2.8|< 0.001
90908269|NCT01018511|181685216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|6.8||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||6.8|2.3|< 0.001
90908270|NCT01018511|181685216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|4.4||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||4.4|-0.2|0.068
90908271|NCT01018511|181685217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.07||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|4.7||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs TOCAS.||4.7|0.5|0.013
90959767|NCT02901041|181799652|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.17|||t-test, 2 sided|t=0.37,df=79.00||A t-test was used to compare means between conditions at baseline (pre-treatment). The null hypothesis was that the difference in group means is zero.||0.17|-0.11|.71
90959768|NCT02901041|181799653|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.03|||t-test, 2 sided|t=-1.59,df=56.00||A t-test was used to compare means between conditions at baseline post-treatment. The null hypothesis was that the difference in group means is zero.||0.03|-0.26|.12
90908272|NCT01018511|181685217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|4.3||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs TOCAS.||4.3|0.1|0.043
90959769|NCT02901041|181799654|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.14||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.89|10.18|||t-test, 2 sided|t=0.03, df=79.00||||10.18|-9.89|.98
90908273|NCT01018511|181685217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|6.5||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||6.5|2.4|< 0.001
90908274|NCT01018511|181685217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|6.1||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||6.1|1.9|< 0.001
90908275|NCT01018511|181685217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|3.9||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||3.9|-0.3|0.092
90959770|NCT02901041|181799655|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.8||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.43|1.83|||t-test, 2 sided|t=-1.52, df=56.00||||1.83|-13.43|.13
90959771|NCT02901041|181799656|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|27.07||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-144.06|198.2|||t-test, 2 sided|t=0.32,df=61.00||||198.20|-144.06|.75
91033138|NCT00048581|181952002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adj Diff: Day 169 MCS|3.04||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|5.17|||ANCOVA|||Differences in mean changes from baseline between the 2 treatment groups (ABA and PLA) in PCS, MCS, and the 8 subscale scores at Day 85 were compared using ANCOVA models. Adjusted difference (Adj Diff) from PLA group with 95% CIs and p-values were calculated, and adjustment was based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as factor and baseline value as covariate.||5.17|0.91|0.005
90959772|NCT02901041|181799657|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|99.05||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-111.11|309.21|||t-test, 2 sided|t=0.95, df=46.00||||309.21|-111.11|.35
90959773|NCT02901041|181799658|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.85||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|3.4|||t-test, 2 sided|t=0.67, df=58.00||A t-test was used to compare means between conditions at baseline (pre-treatment). The null hypothesis was that the difference in group means is zero.||3.40|-1.69|.51
90959774|NCT02901041|181799659|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.42||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|0.98|||t-test, 2 sided|t=-0.61,df=36||A t-test was used to compare means between conditions at baseline post-treatment. The null hypothesis was that the difference in group means is zero.||0.98|-1.82|.55
90959775|NCT02901041|181799660|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.15||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.15|4.45|||t-test, 2 sided|t=0.07,df=58.00||A t-test was used to compare means between conditions at baseline (pre-treatment). The null hypothesis was that the difference in group means is zero.||4.45|-4.15|.95
90959776|NCT02901041|181799661|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.34||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.93|11.62|||t-test, 2 sided|t=0.82, df=38.00||A t-test was used to compare means between conditions at baseline post-treatment. The null hypothesis was that the difference in group means is zero.||11.62|-4.93|.42
90959777|NCT02901041|181799662|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.32||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.8||Equal variance was not assumed.|t-test, 2 sided|t=1.39, df=36.37||A t-test was used to compare means between conditions at baseline (pre-treatment). The null hypothesis was that the difference in group means is zero.||0.80|-0.15|.17
90959778|NCT02901041|181799663|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.41||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.97||Equal variances were not assumed when conducting the t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|t=1.53, df=24.05||A t-test was used to compare means between conditions at baseline post-treatment. The null hypothesis was that the difference in group means is zero.||0.97|-0.14|0.14
90908276|NCT01018511|181685218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|5.5||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs TOCAS.||5.5|0.7|0.011
90908277|NCT01018511|181685218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.23||0.314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|3.6||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs TOCAS.||3.6|-1.2|0.314
90959779|NCT02901041|181799664|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.07||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|7.16||Equal variances were not assumed when conducting the t-tests.|t-test, 2 sided|t=1.51,df=39.34||A t-test was used to compare means between conditions at baseline (pre-treatment). The null hypothesis was that the difference in group means is zero.||7.16|-1.03|.14
90908278|NCT01018511|181685218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.19||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|5.9||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||5.9|1.2|0.003
90908279|NCT01018511|181685218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|4.1||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||4.1|-0.7|0.161
90908280|NCT01018511|181685218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21||0.708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|2.8||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||2.8|-1.9|0.708
90908281|NCT01018511|181685219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|3.3||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs TOCAS.||3.3|0.1|0.043
90908282|NCT01018511|181685219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|3.0||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs TOCAS.||3.0|-0.3|0.120
90908283|NCT01018511|181685219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|4.0||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||4.0|0.8|0.003
90908284|NCT01018511|181685219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.7||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate||Mean change vs placebo.||3.7|0.4|0.014
90908285|NCT01018511|181685219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|2.4||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||2.4|-0.9|0.384
90959780|NCT02901041|181799665|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.18||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.39|10.75||Equality of variance was not assumed.|t-test, 2 sided|t=0.85, df=39.00||A t-test was used to compare means between conditions at baseline post-treatment. The null hypothesis was that the difference in group means is zero.||10.75|-4.39|.40
90959781|NCT02901041|181799666|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.81||Equal variances were not assumed when conducting the t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|t=1.97, df=38.37||A t-test was used to compare means between conditions at baseline (pre-treatment). The null hypothesis was that the difference in group means is zero.||0.81|-0.01|.06
90959782|NCT02901041|181799667|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.05|||t-test, 2 sided|t=.06, df=39.00||A t-test was used to compare means between conditions at baseline post-treatment. The null hypothesis was that the difference in group means is zero.||1.05|-1.00|.96
90959783|NCT02901041|181799668|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.03||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.58|9.64|||t-test, 2 sided|t=0.53,df=57.00||A t-test was used to compare means between conditions at baseline (pre-treatment). The null hypothesis was that the difference in group means is zero.||9.64|-5.58|.60
90908286|NCT01018511|181685220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.92||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|4.4||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs TOCAS.||4.4|0.8|0.004
90908287|NCT01018511|181685220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|3.8||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs TOCAS.||3.8|0.1|0.035
90959784|NCT02901041|181799669|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.03|||t-test, 2 sided|t=-1.27, df=39.00||A t-test was used to compare means between conditions at baseline post-treatment. The null hypothesis was that the difference in group means is zero.||0.03|-0.15|.21
90959785|NCT02901041|181799670|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.28||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.04|||t-test, 2 sided|t=-1.74,df=57.00||A t-test was used to compare means between conditions at baseline (pre-treatment). The null hypothesis was that the difference in group means is zero.||0.04|-0.60|.09
90908288|NCT01018511|181685220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|5.8||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||5.8|2.2|< 0.001
90908289|NCT01018511|181685220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.92|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|5.1||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||5.1|1.5|< 0.001
90908290|NCT01018511|181685220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.92||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|3.2||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||3.2|-0.5|0.142
90959786|NCT02901041|181799671|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.35||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.07|||t-test, 2 sided|t=-1.69, df=39.00||A t-test was used to compare means between conditions at baseline post-treatment. The null hypothesis was that the difference in group means is zero.||0.07|-0.78|.10
90959787|NCT02901041|181799672|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.19|||t-test, 2 sided|t=0.25,df=57.00||A t-test was used to compare means between conditions at baseline (pre-treatment). The null hypothesis was that the difference in group means is zero.||0.19|-0.15|0.80
90959788|NCT02901041|181799673|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.61||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.56|3.34|||t-test, 2 sided|t=-0.84,df=39.00||A t-test was used to compare means between conditions at baseline post-treatment. The null hypothesis was that the difference in group means is zero.||3.34|-14.56|.41
90959789|NCT03818204|181799683|OTHER||||||>=|0.46|||||||Regression, Linear|||The effect of angular position was modeled using linear mixed-effects (multiple regression) models. The five angles were randomly mapped for the dependent variable interpalpebral fissure. Because there were repeated measurements on each eye and each participant might respond differently to each angular position, participant and angular position within participant-eye were included as random effects.||||>=0.46
90959790|NCT05754333|181799690|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|1.9|||paired t Test||Mean Difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between WL scores and NIR-F scores at 30-min timepoint.|||1.9|1.2|<0.001
90908291|NCT01018511|181685221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.874|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|Chi-squared|||Difference vs TOCAS (superiority test).||||0.874
90908292|NCT01018511|181685221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|Chi-squared|||Difference vs TOCAS (superiority test).||||0.240
90959791|NCT05754333|181799691|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|1.8|||Sign test||Mean Difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between NIR-F scores at each time point and the 30-min WL score of the index ureter (left or right) for each participant.|||1.8|1.2|<0.001
90959792|NCT05754333|181799692|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.7|||paired t test||Mean Difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between WL score at 30-min time point and the NIR-F score at the end of surgery across all participants.|||1.7|1.0|<0.001
90908293|NCT01018511|181685221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.324|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|Chi-squared|||Difference vs placebo (superiority test).||||0.324
90908294|NCT01018511|181685221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|Chi-squared|||Difference vs placebo (superiority test).||||0.043
90908295|NCT01018511|181685221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.407|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|Chi-squared|||Difference vs placebo (superiority test).||||0.407
90908296|NCT01018511|181685228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|Chi-squared|||Difference vs TOCAS.||||<.001
90959793|NCT05754333|181799694|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|||||||||||Mean difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between WL scores and NIR-F scores at 30-min timepoint.|||||
90908297|NCT01018511|181685228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|Chi-squared|||Difference vs TOCAS.||||<.001
90908298|NCT01018511|181685228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|Chi-squared|||Difference vs placebo.||||<.001
90908299|NCT01018511|181685228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|Chi-squared|||Difference vs placebo.||||<.001
90908300|NCT01018511|181685228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|Chi-squared|||Difference vs placebo.||||0.058
90908301|NCT01018511|181685229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|Chi-squared|||Difference vs TOCAS.||||0.053
90959794|NCT05754333|181799695|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|||||||||||Mean Difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between NIR-F scores at each time point and the 30-min WL score of the ureter of interest (left; right) for each participant.|||||
90959795|NCT05754333|181799696|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|||||||||||Mean Difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between WL score at 30-min time point and the NIR-F score at the end of surgery across all participants.|||||
90959796|NCT05754333|181799697|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|||||||||||Mean difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between WL scores and NIR-F scores at 30-min timepoint.|||||
90959797|NCT05754333|181799698|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|||||||||||Mean Difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between NIR-F scores at each time point and the 30-min WL score of the ureter of interest (left; right) for each participant.|||||
90908302|NCT01018511|181685229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|Chi-squared|||Difference vs TOCAS.||||0.031
90908303|NCT01018511|181685229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|Chi-squared|||Difference vs placebo.||||<.001
90908304|NCT01018511|181685229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|Chi-squared|||Difference vs placebo.||||<.001
90908305|NCT01018511|181685229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|Chi-squared|||Difference vs placebo.||||0.018
90908306|NCT01018511|181685230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|Chi-squared|||Difference vs TOCAS.||||0.110
90908307|NCT01018511|181685230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|Chi-squared|||Difference vs TOCAS.||||0.071
90908308|NCT01018511|181685230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|Chi-squared|||Difference vs placebo.||||<.001
90908309|NCT01018511|181685230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|Chi-squared|||Difference vs placebo.||||<.001
90908310|NCT01018511|181685230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|Chi-squared|||Difference vs placebo.||||0.019
90908311|NCT01324882|181685289|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
90908312|NCT00430677|181685304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.1||||0.746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.03||The median time to confirmed CRR was not estimable due to the low number of events. However, the time to confirmed CRR was compared between the abatacept and placebo treatment regimens using a score test.|Regression, Cox||Point estimate, 95% CI and P-value (based on Score Test) for the hazard ratio is determined by a Cox proportional hazards model including treatment as a covariate and stratified by prior treatment status.|||2.03|0.60|0.746
90959798|NCT05754333|181799699|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|||||||||||Mean Difference is calculated by averaging over the differences between WL score at 30-min time point and the NIR-F score at the end of surgery across all participants.|||||
90864768|NCT02417831|181592760|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Ratio|101.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.05|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.71|105.23|||||The standard deviation in the statistical analysis is actually the intra-individual coefficient of variation. Ratio calculated as test divided by reference.|||105.23|97.71|
90940340|NCT00526097|181760466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.2|-0.9||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||-0.9|-1.2|<0.0001
90864769|NCT02417831|181592761|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Ratio|101.42|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.85|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.81|105.17|||||The standard deviation in the statistical analysis is actually the intra-individual coefficient of variation. Ratio calculated as test divided by reference.|||105.17|97.81|
90864770|NCT00590720|181592776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||Two-sample t-test|||||||0.40
90864771|NCT00590720|181592777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Two-sample t-test|||||||<0.01
90959799|NCT05754333|181799700|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|||||||||||Mean difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between WL scores and NIR-F scores at 30-min timepoint.|||||
90908313|NCT00430677|181685304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.6||||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|2.83||The median time to confirmed CRR was not estimable due to the low number of events. However, the time to confirmed CRR was compared between the abatacept and placebo treatment regimens using a score test.|Regression, Cox||Point estimate, 95% CI and P-value (based on Score Test) for the hazard ratio is determined by a Cox proportional hazards model including treatment as a covariate and stratified by prior treatment status.|||2.83|0.89|0.118
90908314|NCT00430677|181685307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.78|||||Point Estimate, 95% CI for the hazard ratio was determined by a Cox proportional hazards model including treatment as a covariate and stratified by prior treatment status.|||1.78|0.91|
90908315|NCT00430677|181685307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.77|||||Point Estimate, 95% CI for the hazard ratio was determined by a Cox proportional hazards model including treatment as a covariate and stratified by prior treatment status.|||1.77|0.91|
90908316|NCT00430677|181685313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|21.3||||||||21.3|0.68|
90908317|NCT00430677|181685313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.59||||||||1.59|0.49|
90908318|NCT00430677|181685315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.19|||ANCOVA||Adjustment based on ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and randomization strata (prior treatment status) and baseline measurements as covariates.|||0.19|-0.13|
90908319|NCT00430677|181685315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.14|||ANCOVA||Adjustment based on ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and randomization strata (prior treatment status) and baseline measurements as covariates.|||0.14|-0.18|
90908320|NCT00299702|181685428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.684||||||Hochberg procedure was used for adjusting multiple endpoint comparisons|Log Rank|Insufficient number of subjects who had an event for median estimation.||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in time to relapse||||0.684
90908321|NCT00299702|181685429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.646||||||Hochberg procedure was used for adjusting multiple endpoint comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in time in remission between the two treatment groups||||0.646
90908322|NCT01866917|181685437|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.574|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.574
90908323|NCT01866917|181685438|SUPERIORITY|Statistical analysis performed using SPSS software, version 15 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL). Data for quantitative variables reported as a median and interquartile range. The Mann Whitney and chi-square tests were used for the analysis of continuous and categorical variables.|Interquartile range (IQR)|3.0||||0.825|TWO_SIDED|||||Effect size was calculated for the numeric pain rating scale at the immediate post-operative period, 4-hour, 8-hour , 12-hour, and 24-hour time periods as a means to assess post-operative pain control.|Chi-squared|||TAP has been demonstrated to have a potential role in reducing pain, post-operative opioid requirement, and time to hospital discharge after abdominal hysterectomies and cesarean sections.||||.825
90908324|NCT04807517|181685496|OTHER|Within-group test for 16-week change|||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|Repeated measures linear regression||||||<0.001
90908325|NCT04939428|181685522|SUPERIORITY||Confidence Interval|-2.0|||=|0.0848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|0.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Adjusted differences and the corresponding confidence intervals are based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by age and household size.||0.9|-5|= 0.0848
90908326|NCT04939428|181685523|OTHER|Estimated differences and confidence intervals are provided.|Confidence Interval|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|2.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||95% CIs (Tier 2 endpoints) was provided for between treatment differences in the percentage of participants with events; these analyses was performed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||2.0|-4.8|
90908327|NCT04939428|181685524|OTHER|Estimated differences and confidence intervals are provided|Confidence Interval|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen method.|||95% CIs (Tier 2 endpoints) was provided for between treatment differences in the percentage of participants with events; these analyses was performed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||1.0|-0.4|
90908328|NCT04939428|181685525|SUPERIORITY||Confidence Interval|-3.2|||=|0.0205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|-0.1|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Adjusted differences and the corresponding confidence intervals are based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by age and household size.||-0.1|-6.3|= 0.0205
90908329|NCT04939428|181685526|OTHER|Adjusted differences and the corresponding confidence intervals.|Confidence Interval|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|1.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Adjusted differences and the corresponding confidence intervals are based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by age and household size.||1.0|-5.4|
90908330|NCT04939428|181685527|OTHER|Adjusted differences and the corresponding confidence intervals|Confidence Interval|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|0.8||||||Adjusted differences and the corresponding confidence intervals are based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by age and household size.||0.8|-6.9|
90908331|NCT04939428|181685528|OTHER|Adjusted differences and the corresponding confidence intervals.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.7|2.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Adjusted differences and the corresponding confidence intervals are based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by age and household size.||2.0|-22.7|
90908332|NCT05096117|181685529|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.178||||0.784|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.784
90908333|NCT04319094|181685543|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.77|-2.62||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom: 501|Score difference = Post-intervention - Baseline|Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the mean Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) scores from baseline to post-intervention for all study participants.|A series of generalized linear mixed-effect models were implemented to predict the outcome measurements. The primary fixed effect predictors were group (control vs. PEERS), time (categorical), and group \* time. Random terms in all models were: study participants and their interaction with time. The covariance of dependent variable values across time was modeled as a first-order auto-regression decaying function (AR1). Higher order fixed and random terms were pretested and removed from the model if nonsignificant.|-2.62|-4.77|<0.0001
90908334|NCT04319094|181685543|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.81|-1.25||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom: 501|Score difference = 3-month - Baseline|Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the mean Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) scores from baseline to 3-month for all study participants.|A series of generalized linear mixed-effect models were implemented to predict the outcome measurements. The primary fixed effect predictors were group (control vs. PEERS), time (categorical), and group \* time. Random terms in all models were: study participants and their interaction with time. The covariance of dependent variable values across time was modeled as a first-order auto-regression decaying function (AR1). Higher order fixed and random terms were pretested and removed from the model if nonsignificant.|-1.25|-3.81|0.0001
90908335|NCT04319094|181685543|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-2.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.13|-1.53||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom: 501|Score difference = 6-month - baseline|Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the mean Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) scores from baseline to 6-month for all study participants.|A series of generalized linear mixed-effect models were implemented to predict the outcome measurements. The primary fixed effect predictors were group (control vs. PEERS), time (categorical), and group \* time. Random terms in all models were: study participants and their interaction with time. The covariance of dependent variable values across time was modeled as a first-order auto-regression decaying function (AR1). Higher order fixed and random terms were pretested and removed from the model if nonsignificant.|-1.53|-4.13|<0.0001
90940341|NCT00526097|181760467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.2|-0.8||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||-0.8|-1.2|<0.0001
90959800|NCT05754333|181799701|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|||||||||||Mean Difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between NIR-F scores at each time point and the 30-min WL score of the ureter of interest (left; right) for each participant.|||||
91033139|NCT00048581|181952002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adj Diff: Day 169 Physical Function|4.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.08|5.98|||ANCOVA|||Differences in mean changes from baseline between the 2 treatment groups (ABA and PLA) in PCS, MCS, and the 8 subscale scores at Day 85 were compared using ANCOVA models. Adjusted difference (Adj Diff) from PLA group with 95% CIs and p-values were calculated, and adjustment was based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as factor and baseline value as covariate.||5.98|2.08|<0.001
91033140|NCT00048581|181952002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adj Diff: Day 169 Role-Physical|5.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|7.35|||ANCOVA|||||7.35|3.10|<0.001
90940342|NCT00526097|181760468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.1|-0.8||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||-0.8|-1.1|<0.0001
91033141|NCT00048581|181952002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adj Diff: Day 169 Bodily Pain|6.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.37|8.11|||ANCOVA|||||8.11|4.37|<0.001
90959801|NCT05754333|181799702|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|||||||||||Mean Difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between WL score at 30-min time point and the NIR-F score at the end of surgery across all participants.|||||
90959802|NCT05754333|181799703|SUPERIORITY||POP with at least 1 Point Higher|67.01|||||||||||||Difference in average index ureter conspicuity scores between NIR-F \& WL across all timepoints was calculated for each participant. These were categorized based on if NIR-F score was at least 1 point higher. POP meeting this criterion was estimated.|||||
90959803|NCT05754333|181799703|SUPERIORITY||POP with at least 2 point higher|40.4|||||||||||||Difference in average index ureter conspicuity scores between NIR-F \& WL across all timepoints was calculated for each participant. These were categorized based on if NIR-F score was at least 2 points higher. POP meeting this criterion was estimated.|||||
90959804|NCT05754333|181799703|SUPERIORITY||POP with at least 3 point higher|20.2|||||||||||||Difference in average index ureter conspicuity scores between NIR-F \& WL across all timepoints was calculated for each participant. These were categorized based on if NIR-F score was at least 3 points higher. POP meeting this criterion was estimated.|||||
90959805|NCT05754333|181799703|SUPERIORITY||POP with at least 4 point higher|2.1|||||||||||||Difference in average index ureter conspicuity scores between NIR-F \& WL across all timepoints was calculated for each participant. These were categorized based on if NIR-F score was at least 4 points higher. POP meeting this criterion was estimated|||||
90864772|NCT00590720|181592778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||Two-sample t-test|||||||0.53
90864773|NCT00590720|181592779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||Two-sample t-test|||||||0.22
90864774|NCT00590720|181592780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||Two-sample t-test|||||||0.16
90864775|NCT00590720|181592781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||Two-sample t-test|||||||0.52
90864776|NCT01001377|181592792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Stratified Cox proportional hazard ratio|0.966|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.839|1.113|||||Hazard ratio is presented as panitumumab : cetuximab. A value \< 1.0 indicates a lower average event rate and longer time to event for panitumumab relative to cetuximab.|Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region (North America, western Europe and Australia vs rest of world) and ECOG performance status (0 or 1 vs 2).||1.113|0.839|
90864777|NCT01001377|181592792|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The overall survival non-inferiority hypothesis based on an asymptotic normal score was tested at a 1-sided 2.5% significance level. A value \< -1.96 indicates non-inferiority at a significance level of 1-sided 0.025.|Normal score|-3.19||||0.0007||||||A synthesis approach with an asymptotic standard normal test statistic|Asymptotic standard normal test|||A synthesis approach with an asymptotic standard normal test statistic based on the logarithm of the hazard ratio was used to test the hypothesis that panitumumab is non-inferior to cetuximab for overall survival (ie, that panitumumab retains at least 50% of the overall survival benefit of cetuximab relative to best supportive care).||||0.0007
90864778|NCT01001377|181592794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.58|||||Common treatment odds ratio stratified by geographic region (North America, western Europe and Australia vs rest of world) and ECOG performance status (0 or 1 vs 2).|||1.58|0.83|
90864779|NCT01001377|181592798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0126|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0353|0.0605|||||A positive difference between the treatment groups favors the panitumumab group.|Repeated measures mixed model includes treatment, geographic region, ECOG score, assessment week, and treatment by assessment week interaction as fixed effects, and subjects a random effect. An unstructured covariance matrix is used in the mixed model.||0.0605|-0.0353|
90864780|NCT01001377|181592799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.6745|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9331|1.5841|||||A positive difference between the treatment groups favors the panitumumab group.|Repeated measures mixed model includes treatment, geographic region, ECOG score, assessment week, and treatment by assessment week interaction as fixed effects, and subjects a random effect. An unstructured covariance matrix is used in the mixed model.||1.5841|-4.9331|
90864781|NCT01001377|181592800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.0372|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3267|4.401|||||A positive difference between the treatment groups favors the panitumumab group.|Repeated measures mixed model includes treatment, geographic region, ECOG score, assessment week, and treatment by assessment week interaction as fixed effects, and subjects a random effect. An unstructured covariance matrix is used in the mixed model.||4.4010|-2.3267|
90864782|NCT01001377|181592801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.5836|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0269|4.1941|||||A positive difference between the treatment groups favors the panitumumab group.|Repeated measures mixed model includes treatment, geographic region, ECOG score, assessment week, and treatment by assessment week interaction as fixed effects, and subjects a random effect. An unstructured covariance matrix is used in the mixed model.||4.1941|-3.0269|
90864783|NCT01001377|181592802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1998|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0093|5.6098|||||A positive difference between the treatment groups favors the panitumumab group.|Repeated measures mixed model includes treatment, geographic region, ECOG score, assessment week, and treatment by assessment week interaction as fixed effects, and subjects a random effect. An unstructured covariance matrix is used in the mixed model.||5.6098|-6.0093|
90888119|NCT03521635|181639530|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.9373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|2.54|||Regression, Logistic||The odds ratio (OR) between Pramipexole Sustained Release and Pramipexole Immediate Release groups.|Logistic regression analyses for responder rate at week 18 of PDSS-2 score \<18 were performed with treatment and baseline as the independent variables.||2.54|0.36|0.9373
90864784|NCT02805972|181592814|SUPERIORITY|"The null hypothesis is that there would be no difference across the Naloxone and placebo conditions.~The alternative hypothesis is that the cortisol value would be higher in the Naloxone condition than in the placebo condition."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.26||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.61||If the Winsorized value is excluded from analyses altogether, the P value is .012|t-test, 2 sided|Cortisol was log transformed for the statistical test, and the reported mean difference was exponentiated back to the original units of nmol/L below.||We compared cortisol values at 55 minutes, within person, across conditions. We Winsorized one participant's values for the placebo visit where values were between 2-4x above the 99th percentile value in the data and then log-transformed the data.||1.61|0.98|.067
90864785|NCT00389597|181592822|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 95% one-sided confidence bound for testing non-inferiority using two proportion test with 10% non-inferiority margin.||||||0.0021|||||||Farrington Manning|||1 Level: Ho: pm-pc \<=-0.1 (inferiority) Alternative hypothesis: Ha: pm - pc \> -0.1 Where pm = the proportion of success in the Mobi-C group and the Pc = the proportion of success in the ACDF group.||||0.0021
90864786|NCT00389597|181592822|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 95% one-sided confidence bound for testing non-inferiority using two proportioned test with a 10% non-inferiority margin.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Farrington-Manning|||"2 Level: Ho: pm-pc \<=-0.1 (inferiority) Alternative hypothesis: Ha: pm - pc \> -0.1 Where pm = the proportion of success in the Mobi-C group and the Pc = the proportion of success in the ACDF group.~2 Level: Ho: pm-pc \<= 0 (not superior) Alternative hypothesis: Ha: pm-pc \>0 Where pm = the proportion of success in the Mobi-C group and the Pc = the proportion of success in the ACDF group."||||<0.0001
90864787|NCT00306189|181592827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.0|||<|0.0001||95.0|5.76|8.24|||t-test, 2 sided|||||8.24|5.76|<0.0001
90864788|NCT00306189|181592827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.25|||<|0.0001||95.0|4.1|6.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||||6.4|4.1|<0.0001
90864789|NCT00306189|181592827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.27|||<|0.0001||95.0|5.06|7.49|||t-test, 2 sided|||||7.49|5.06|<0.0001
90864790|NCT00282984|181592841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.05|||<|0.0001||95.0|4.13|8.86||To preserve type I family-wise error rate of 0.05, used step-down procedure to analyze primary \& 2 key secondary endpoints. Hierarchy of comparisons: 1) 4-week CQR for Weeks 9 thru 12, 2) CA at Week 52, 3) the Long Term Quit Rate (LTQR) thru Week 52.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model fitted to primary endpoint \& key secondary endpoints; included main effects of trtmt group and center as independent var.||Estimates for expected \& clinically meaningful var \& pbo 4-week CQR for Week 9 - 12 of trtmt based on response rates \& corresponding 95% OR confidence interval (CI) from A30510285 \& A30510366 study results. Total n=700 randomized var or pbo 1:1 should have provided at least 99% power to detect difference in primary endpoint (endpt) between (b/w) var \& pbo, assuming true 4-week CQR of 0.18 for pbo \& 0.40 for var (OR of at least 3.04), and 84% power for 2 key secondary endpts.||8.86|4.13|<0.0001
90864791|NCT00282984|181592842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.19|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.97|5.18||To preserve type I family-wise error rate of 0.05, a step-down procedure was used for the analysis of primary \& 2 key secondary endpts. Hierarchy of comparisons: 1) 4-week CQR for Weeks 9 through 12, 2) CA at Week 52, 3) LTQR through Week 52.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model fitted to primary endpoint \& key secondary endpoints; included main effects of treatment group \& center as independent var.||Estimates for expected and clinically meaningful var \& pbo 4-week CQR for Weeks 9 - 12 of trtmt were based on response rates \& corresponding 95% odds ratio CI from A30510285 and A30510366 study results. Total n=700 randomized var or pbo 1:1 should have provided at least 99% power to detect difference in primary endpt b/w var \& pbo, assuming true 4-week CQR of 0.18 for pbo \& 0.40 for var (odds ratio of at least 3.04) \& a power of 84% for the 2 key secondary endpts.||5.18|1.97|<0.0001
90959806|NCT05754333|181799704|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|2.2|||paired t test||Mean Difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between WL scores and NIR-F scores at 30-min timepoint.|For reader 2||2.2|1.6|<0.001
90959807|NCT05754333|181799704|OTHER|It quantifies the degree of concordance between two measurements|correlation coefficient|0.221|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.011|0.431||||||CCC between BICR and investigator (95% CI), Reader 2||0.431|-0.011|
90864792|NCT00282984|181592843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.82|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.82|4.38||To preserve type I family-wise error rate of 0.05, a step-down procedure was used for the analysis of primary \& 2 key secondary endpoints. Hierarchy of comparisons: 1) 4-week CQR for Weeks 9 through 12, 2) CA at Week 52, 3) the LTQR through Week 52.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model fitted to primary endpoint \& key secondary endpoints; included main effects of trtmt group and center as independent var.||Estimates for expected and clinically meaningful varenicline (var) \& pbo 4-week CQR for Weeks 9 - 12 of treatment were based on response rates \& corresponding 95% odds ratio CI from A30510285 and A30510366 study results. Total n=700 randomized var or pbo 1:1 should have provided at least 99% power to detect difference in primary endpt b/w varenicline \& pbo, assuming true 4-week CQR of 0.18 for pbo \& 0.40 for var (odds ratio of at least 3.04), and a power of 84% for the 2 key secondary endpts.||4.38|1.82|<0.0001
90864793|NCT00282984|181592844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.97|||<|0.0001||95.0|4.17|8.56|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12 analysis||8.56|4.17|<0.0001
90864794|NCT00282984|181592845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.93|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.03|4.23|||Regression, Logistic|||24 Week analysis||4.23|2.03|<0.0001
90864795|NCT00282984|181592846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.93||||0.0003||95.0|1.34|2.77|||Regression, Logistic|||52 Week analysis||2.77|1.34|0.0003
90864796|NCT00282984|181592847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.05||||0.0001||95.0|1.41|2.97|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.97|1.41|0.0001
90864797|NCT00282984|181592848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.86|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.51|5.93|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.93|2.51|<0.0001
90959808|NCT05754333|181799704|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.5|||paired t test||Mean Difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between WL scores and NIR-F scores at 30-min timepoint.|For reader 3||1.5|0.8|<0.001
90959809|NCT05754333|181799704|OTHER|It quantifies the degree of concordance between two measurements|correlation coefficient|0.053|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.181|0.282||||||CCC between BICR and investigator (95% CI), Reader 3||0.282|-0.181|
90908336|NCT04319094|181685543|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.03|-1.49||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom: 501|Score difference = 9-month - baseline|Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the mean Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) scores from baseline to 9-month for all study participants.|A series of generalized linear mixed-effect models were implemented to predict the outcome measurements. The primary fixed effect predictors were group (control vs. PEERS), time (categorical), and group \* time. Random terms in all models were: study participants and their interaction with time. The covariance of dependent variable values across time was modeled as a first-order auto-regression decaying function (AR1). Higher order fixed and random terms were pretested and removed from the model if nonsignificant.|-1.49|-4.03|<0.0001
90908337|NCT04319094|181685543|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.95|-1.17||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom: 501|Score difference =12-month - baseline|Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the mean Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) scores from baseline to 12-month for all study participants.|A series of generalized linear mixed-effect models were implemented to predict the outcome measurements. The primary fixed effect predictors were group (control vs. PEERS), time (categorical), and group \* time. Random terms in all models were: study participants and their interaction with time. The covariance of dependent variable values across time was modeled as a first-order auto-regression decaying function (AR1). Higher order fixed and random terms were pretested and removed from the model if nonsignificant.|-1.17|-3.95|0.0003
90908338|NCT04319094|181685543|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4375|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference in the change of PHQ-9 over time between the control and PEERS participants.||||0.4375
90908339|NCT04319094|181685544|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.42||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.15|6.37||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom: 364||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the mean SF36 - Physical Functioning scores from baseline to post-intervention for all study participants.|A series of generalized linear mixed-effect models were implemented to predict the outcome measurements. The primary fixed effect predictors were group (control vs. PEERS), time (categorical), and group \* time. Random terms in all models were: study participants and their interaction with time. The covariance of dependent variable values across time was modeled as a first-order auto-regression decaying function (AR1). Higher order fixed and random terms were pretested and removed from the model if nonsignificant.|6.37|-3.15|0.51
90908340|NCT04319094|181685544|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.57||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.08|11.21||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom: 364||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the mean SF36-physical function scores from baseline to 3-month for all study participants.|A series of generalized linear mixed-effect models were implemented to predict the outcome measurements. The primary fixed effect predictors were group (control vs. PEERS), time (categorical), and group \* time. Random terms in all models were: study participants and their interaction with time. The covariance of dependent variable values across time was modeled as a first-order auto-regression decaying function (AR1). Higher order fixed and random terms were pretested and removed from the model if nonsignificant.|11.21|-2.08|0.18
90908341|NCT04319094|181685544|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.29||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.89|8.04||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom: 364||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the mean SF36-physical function scores from baseline to 6-month for all study participants.|A series of generalized linear mixed-effect models were implemented to predict the outcome measurements. The primary fixed effect predictors were group (control vs. PEERS), time (categorical), and group \* time. Random terms in all models were: study participants and their interaction with time. The covariance of dependent variable values across time was modeled as a first-order auto-regression decaying function (AR1). Higher order fixed and random terms were pretested and removed from the model if nonsignificant.|8.04|-4.89|0.63
90908342|NCT04319094|181685544|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.01||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.94|4.91||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom: 364||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the mean SF36-physical function scores from baseline to 9-month for all study participants.|A series of generalized linear mixed-effect models were implemented to predict the outcome measurements. The primary fixed effect predictors were group (control vs. PEERS), time (categorical), and group \* time. Random terms in all models were: study participants and their interaction with time. The covariance of dependent variable values across time was modeled as a first-order auto-regression decaying function (AR1). Higher order fixed and random terms were pretested and removed from the model if nonsignificant.|4.91|-6.94|0.74
90908343|NCT04319094|181685544|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.83||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.82|8.23||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom: 364||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the mean SF36-physical function scores from baseline to 12-month for all study participants.|A series of generalized linear mixed-effect models were implemented to predict the outcome measurements. The primary fixed effect predictors were group (control vs. PEERS), time (categorical), and group \* time. Random terms in all models were: study participants and their interaction with time. The covariance of dependent variable values across time was modeled as a first-order auto-regression decaying function (AR1). Higher order fixed and random terms were pretested and removed from the model if nonsignificant.|8.23|-6.82|0.85
90908344|NCT04319094|181685544|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3988|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference in the change of physical functioning over time between the control and PEERS participants.||||0.3988
90908345|NCT04319094|181685545|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.41||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|11.79||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom: 360||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the mean SF36-social function scores from baseline to post-intervention for all study participants.|A series of generalized linear mixed-effect models were implemented to predict the outcome measurements. The primary fixed effect predictors were group (control vs. PEERS), time (categorical), and group \* time. Random terms in all models were: study participants and their interaction with time. The covariance of dependent variable values across time was modeled as a first-order auto-regression decaying function (AR1). Higher order fixed and random terms were pretested and removed from the model if nonsignificant.|11.79|-1.63|0.14
90908346|NCT04319094|181685545|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|10.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.45|18.19||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom: 360||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the mean SF36-social function scores from baseline to 3-month for all study participants.|A series of generalized linear mixed-effect models were implemented to predict the outcome measurements. The primary fixed effect predictors were group (control vs. PEERS), time (categorical), and group \* time. Random terms in all models were: study participants and their interaction with time. The covariance of dependent variable values across time was modeled as a first-order auto-regression decaying function (AR1). Higher order fixed and random terms were pretested and removed from the model if nonsignificant.|18.19|2.45|0.01
90908347|NCT04319094|181685545|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|10.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.19||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.01|18.5||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom: 360||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the mean SF36-social function scores from baseline to 6-month for all study participants.|A series of generalized linear mixed-effect models were implemented to predict the outcome measurements. The primary fixed effect predictors were group (control vs. PEERS), time (categorical), and group \* time. Random terms in all models were: study participants and their interaction with time. The covariance of dependent variable values across time was modeled as a first-order auto-regression decaying function (AR1). Higher order fixed and random terms were pretested and removed from the model if nonsignificant.|18.5|2.01|0.015
90908348|NCT04319094|181685545|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|11.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.07||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|19.73||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|degrees of freedom: 360||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the mean SF36-social function scores from baseline to 9-month for all study participants.|A series of generalized linear mixed-effect models were implemented to predict the outcome measurements. The primary fixed effect predictors were group (control vs. PEERS), time (categorical), and group \* time. Random terms in all models were: study participants and their interaction with time. The covariance of dependent variable values across time was modeled as a first-order auto-regression decaying function (AR1). Higher order fixed and random terms were pretested and removed from the model if nonsignificant.|19.73|3.7|0.004
90940343|NCT00526097|181760469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.9|-0.5||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||-0.5|-0.9|<0.0001
90959810|NCT05754333|181799704|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|2.6|||paired t test||Mean Difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between WL scores and NIR-F scores at 30-min timepoint.|For reader 4||2.6|1.9|<0.001
90959811|NCT05754333|181799704|OTHER|It quantifies the degree of concordance between two measurements|correlation coefficient|0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.464||||||CCC between BICR and investigator (95% CI), Reader 4||0.464|0.030|
90959812|NCT05754333|181799705|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|2.0|||Sign test||Mean Difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between NIR-F scores at each time point and the 30-min WL score of the index ureter (left or right) for each participant.|For reader 2||2.0|1.4|<0.001
90864798|NCT00282984|181592850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.85|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.58|5.75|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.75|2.58|<0.0001
90864799|NCT00457301|181592870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Sample size was calculated based on the EQ-5D index score. To compare two independent means for a parallel trial design, 100 patients in each group were needed to detect a clinically important difference (CID) in EQ-5D index score (CID = 0.10, SD = 0.25) with a 5% probability of Type I error and 80% power.||||0.05
90864800|NCT00457301|181592871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.34||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA adjuusting for baseline HADS anxiety scores||||0.34
90864801|NCT00457301|181592871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.55||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA adjusting for baseline HADS depression scores.||||0.55
90864802|NCT00457301|181592872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.001
90864803|NCT00457301|181592873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.46||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Sample size was calculated based on the EQ-5D index score. To compare two independent means for a parallel trial design, 100 patients in each group were needed to detect a clinically important difference (CID) in EQ-5D index score (CID = 0.10, SD = 0.25) with a 5% probability of Type I error and 80% power.||||0.46
90864804|NCT04665856|181592927|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||0.0348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.97||This study is a bridging study without formal testing, the p value here is descriptive.|Log Rank|||||0.97|0.43|0.0348
90864805|NCT04665856|181592928|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.6105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.4||This study is a bridging study without formal testing, the p value here is descriptive.|Log Rank|||||1.40|0.56|0.6105
90864806|NCT04665856|181592929|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.1044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.07|||Log Rank|||||1.07|0.49|0.1044
90864807|NCT04665856|181592930|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.9363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.52|||Log Rank|||||1.52|0.64|0.9363
90864808|NCT04665856|181592931|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Overall Response Rates|22.55||||0.0136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.12|39.03|||Chi-square with Schouten Correction|||||39.03|4.12|0.0136
90940344|NCT00526097|181760470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001||95.0|2.4|2.9||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||2.9|2.4|<0.0001
91033142|NCT00048581|181952002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adj Diff: Day 169 General Health|3.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.64|4.9|||ANCOVA|||Differences in mean changes from baseline between the 2 treatment groups (ABA and PLA) in PCS, MCS, and the 8 subscale scores at Day 85 were compared using ANCOVA models. Adjusted difference (Adj Diff) from PLA group with 95% CIs and p-values were calculated, and adjustment was based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as factor and baseline value as covariate.||4.90|1.64|<0.001
90864809|NCT04665856|181592932|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Overall Response Rates|17.37||||0.0493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|33.6|||Chi-square with Schouten Correction|||||33.60|-0.22|0.0493
90864810|NCT04665856|181592935|SUPERIORITY||Difference in EFR at Month 6|8.09||||0.3968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.62|26.81|||Z-test|||6 Months||26.81|-10.62|0.3968
90864811|NCT04665856|181592935|SUPERIORITY||Difference in EFR at Month 12|17.45||||0.0205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.69|32.21|||Z-test|||12 Months||32.21|2.69|0.0205
90864812|NCT04665856|181592936|SUPERIORITY||Difference in EFR at Month 6|8.18||||0.3633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.46|25.82|||Z-test|||6 Months||25.82|-9.46|0.3633
90864813|NCT04665856|181592936|SUPERIORITY||Difference in EFR at Month12|13.36||||0.0642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|27.51|||Z-test|||12 Months||27.51|-0.79|0.0642
90864814|NCT04665856|181592937|SUPERIORITY||Difference in EFR|20.47||||0.0261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.43|38.5|||Z-test|||12 Months||38.50|2.43|0.0261
90864815|NCT04665856|181592937|SUPERIORITY||Difference in EFR|-0.5||||0.9572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.79|17.79|||Z-test|||24 Months||17.79|-18.79|0.9572
90864816|NCT04665856|181592938|SUPERIORITY||Difference in EFR|13.88||||0.1145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.36|31.12|||Z-test|||12 Months||31.12|-3.36|0.1145
90864817|NCT04665856|181592938|SUPERIORITY||Difference in EFR|-2.54||||0.7734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.83|14.75|||Z-test|||24 Months||14.75|-19.83|0.7734
90864818|NCT03386448|181592947|SUPERIORITY|Student test was performed|Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.0||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
90864819|NCT00114530|181592953|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013||||||A Data and Safety Monitoring Board reviewed 4 pre-specified futility analyses that included an ability to stop for efficacy with p\<0.0001, leaving alpha equal to 0.0496 for the primary ITT analysis of the GRCS at 54 months post-randomization.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.013
90864820|NCT00114530|181592954|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.004
90864821|NCT00114530|181592955|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.008
90864822|NCT00114530|181592956|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.003
90864823|NCT00114530|181592957|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.059|||||||Fisher Exact|||Treatment arm comparisons of EFS at Month 54.||||0.059
90864824|NCT00114530|181592957|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Log Rank|||Treatment arm comparisons of Kaplan-Meier curves for EFS through Month 72||||0.06
90864825|NCT00114530|181592958|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.021|||||||Fisher Exact|||Treatment arm comparisons of EFS at Month 54.||||0.021
90864826|NCT00114530|181592958|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Log Rank|||Treatment arm comparisons of Kaplan-Meier curves for EFS through Month 72||||0.03
90864827|NCT00114530|181592959|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.059|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.059
90864828|NCT00114530|181592960|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.021|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.021
90864829|NCT00114530|181592961|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.48
90959813|NCT05754333|181799705|OTHER|It quantifies the degree of concordance between two measurements|correlation coefficient|0.219|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.013|0.429||||||CCC between BICR and investigator (95% CI), Reader 2||0.429|-0.013|
90959814|NCT05754333|181799705|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.4|||Sign test||Mean Difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between NIR-F scores at each time point and the 30-min WL score of the index ureter(left or right) for eachparticipant.|For reader 3||1.4|0.8|<0.001
90864830|NCT00114530|181592962|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.49
90864831|NCT00114530|181592963|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.48
90864832|NCT00114530|181592964|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.49
90864833|NCT00114530|181592965|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Fisher Exact|||Treatment arm comparisons of overall survival at Month 54.||||0.28
90864834|NCT00114530|181592965|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Log Rank|||Treatment arm comparisons of Kaplan-Meier curves for overall survival through Month 72.||||0.05
90864835|NCT00114530|181592966|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Fisher Exact|||Treatment arm comparisons of overall survival at Month 54.||||0.19
90864836|NCT00114530|181592966|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Log Rank|||Treatment arm comparisons of Kaplan-Meier curves for overall survival through Month 72.||||0.02
90864837|NCT00114530|181592967|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.28
90864838|NCT00114530|181592968|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.19
90864839|NCT00114530|181592969|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|Computed as Mantel Haenszel Chi Square using modified ridit scores.||This analysis is not stratified. EFS survivors and failures are pooled within each treatment arm.||||<0.001
90864840|NCT00114530|181592969|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Van Elteren extension of the Wilcoxon Rank Sum||This analysis is stratified by EFS status.||||0.01
90864841|NCT00114530|181592970|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|Computed as Mantel Haenszel Chi Square using modified ridit scores.||This analysis is not stratified. EFS survivors and failures are pooled within each treatment arm.||||<0.001
90864842|NCT00114530|181592970|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Van Elteren extension of the Wilcoxon Rank Sum||This analysis is stratified by EFS status.||||0.002
90864843|NCT00114530|181592971|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|Computed as Mantel Haenszel Chi Square using modified ridit scores.||Physical Component Score. This analysis is not stratified. EFS survivors and failures are pooled within each treatment arm.||||0.001
90864844|NCT00114530|181592971|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Van Elteren extension of the Wilcoxon Rank Sum||Physical Component Score. This analysis is stratified by EFS status.||||0.02
90864845|NCT00114530|181592971|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|Computed as Mantel Haenszel Chi Square using modified ridit scores.||Mental Component Score. This analysis is not stratified. EFS survivors and failures are pooled within each treatment arm.||||0.05
90864846|NCT00114530|181592971|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Van Elteren extension of the Wilcoxon Rank Sum||Mental Component Score. This analysis is stratified by EFS status.||||0.1
90864847|NCT00114530|181592972|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|Computed as Mantel Haenszel Chi Square using modified ridit scores.||Physical Component Score. This analysis is not stratified. EFS survivors and failures are pooled within each treatment arm.||||<0.001
90864848|NCT00114530|181592972|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Van Elteren extension of the Wilcoxon Rank Sum||Physical Component Score. This analysis is stratified by EFS status.||||0.003
90864849|NCT00114530|181592972|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|Computed as Mantel Haenszel Chi Square using modified ridit scores.||Mental Component Score. This analysis is not stratified. EFS survivors and failures are pooled within each treatment arm.||||0.02
90864850|NCT00114530|181592972|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Van Elteren extension of the Wilcoxon Rank Sum||Mental Component Score. This analysis is stratified by EFS status.||||0.07
90864851|NCT00114530|181592973|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|Computed as Mantel Haenszel Chi Square using modified ridit scores.||This analysis is not stratified. EFS survivors and failures are pooled within each treatment arm.||||0.08
90864852|NCT00114530|181592973|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Van Elteren extension of the Wilcoxon Rank Sum||This analysis is stratified by EFS status.||||0.9
90864853|NCT00114530|181592974|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|Computed as Mantel Haenszel Chi Square using modified ridit scores.||This analysis is not stratified. EFS survivors and failures are pooled within each treatment arm.||||0.1
90864854|NCT00114530|181592974|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Van Elteren extension of the Wilcoxon Rank Sum||This analysis is stratified by EFS status.||||0.6
90864855|NCT00114530|181592975|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|Computed as Mantel Haenszel Chi Square using modified ridit scores.||This analysis is not stratified. EFS survivors and failures are pooled within each treatment arm.||||0.02
90864856|NCT00114530|181592975|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Van Elteren extension of the Wilcoxon Rank Sum||This analysis is stratified by EFS status.||||0.3
90864857|NCT00114530|181592976|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|Computed as Mantel Haenszel Chi Square using modified ridit scores.||This analysis is not stratified. EFS survivors and failures are pooled within each treatment arm.||||0.03
90864858|NCT00114530|181592976|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Van Elteren extension of the Wilcoxon Rank Sum||This analysis is stratified by EFS status.||||0.5
90864859|NCT00114530|181592977|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|Computed as Mantel Haenszel Chi Square using modified ridit scores.||This analysis is not stratified. EFS survivors and failures are pooled within each treatment arm.||||0.002
90864860|NCT00114530|181592977|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Van Elteren extension of the Wilcoxon Rank Sum||This analysis is stratified by EFS status.||||0.05
90864861|NCT00114530|181592978|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|Computed as Mantel Haenszel Chi Square using modified ridit scores.||This analysis is not stratified. EFS survivors and failures are pooled within each treatment arm.||||<0.001
90864862|NCT00114530|181592978|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Van Elteren extension of the Wilcoxon Rank Sum||This analysis is stratified by EFS status.||||0.01
90864863|NCT00114530|181592979|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||Chi-squared|||Development of new or worsening arrhythmias||||0.42
90959815|NCT05754333|181799705|OTHER|It quantifies the degree of concordance between two measurements|correlation coefficient|0.043|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.191|0.272||||||CCC between BICR and investigator (95% CI), Reader 3||0.272|-0.191|
90959816|NCT05754333|181799705|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|2.5|||Sign test||Mean Difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between NIR-F scores at each time point and the 30-min WL score of the index ureter(left or right) for eachparticipant.|For reader 4||2.5|1.8|<0.001
90959817|NCT05754333|181799705|OTHER|It quantifies the degree of concordance between two measurements|correlation coefficient|0.245|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.014|0.451||||||CCC between BICR and investigator (95% CI), Reader 4||0.451|0.014|
90864864|NCT00114530|181592979|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.048|||||||Chi-squared|||CHF requiring clinical treatment||||0.048
90864865|NCT00114530|181592979|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||Chi-squared|||Clinically significant pericardial effusion||||0.51
90864866|NCT00114530|181592980|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||Chi-squared|||Development of new or worsening arrhythmias||||0.46
90864867|NCT00114530|181592980|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.042|||||||Chi-squared|||CHF requiring clinical treatment||||0.042
90864868|NCT00114530|181592980|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Chi-squared|||Clinically significant pericardial effusion||||0.15
90864869|NCT00114530|181592981|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.026|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.026
90864870|NCT00114530|181592982|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.022
90864871|NCT00114530|181592983|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.71
90864872|NCT00114530|181592984|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.32
90864873|NCT00114530|181592985|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.30
90864874|NCT00114530|181592986|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.31
90864875|NCT00114530|181592987|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.002
90864876|NCT00114530|181592988|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.001
90864877|NCT00114530|181592989|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|P-value comes from a Poisson regression comparing the person-year adjusted event rates between the two treatment groups.||||||<0.001
90864878|NCT00114530|181592989|SUPERIORITY||Person-Time (Years)|174.4|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||The Person-Time (P-T) rates (events/P-T) are as follows: Possibly related = 0.61, Probably related = 0.57, Definitely related = 0.52|||||
90864879|NCT00114530|181592989|SUPERIORITY||Person-Time (Years)|141.3|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||The Person-Time (P-T) rates (events/P-T) are as follows: Possibly related = 0.17, Probably related = 0.09, Definitely related = 0.04|||||
90864880|NCT00114530|181592991|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Regression, Linear|P-value comes from a Poisson regression comparing the person-year adjusted event rates between the two treatment groups.||||||0.7
90864881|NCT00114530|181592991|SUPERIORITY||Person-Time (Years)|174.4|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||The Person-Time (P-T) rate (events/P-T) is 0.76|||||
90864882|NCT00114530|181592991|SUPERIORITY||Person-Time (Years)|141.3|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||The Person-Time (P-T) rate (events/P-T) is 0.80|||||
90864883|NCT01466153|181593004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4475|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4475
90864884|NCT01466153|181593008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3206|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3206
90864885|NCT01466153|181593009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.313|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3130
90864886|NCT01466153|181593011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9527|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.9527
90864887|NCT01703039|181593027|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.06
90864888|NCT01703039|181593028|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.31
90864889|NCT01703039|181593029|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.34
90864890|NCT01703039|181593030|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.27
90864891|NCT01703039|181593031|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.04
90864892|NCT00147446|181593040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Wilcoxon two smaple test statistics|2.09||||0.04||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||It was hypothesized that treatment with stress management produced a significant reduction in cumulative Gd+ lesions compared to the control condition during the treatment period||||0.04
90864893|NCT00147446|181593040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.77||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|6.55|||Logistic Regression|||It was hypothesized that significantly greater numbers of participants receiving stress management remained free of Gd+ lesions during the treatment, compared to those receiving the control condition.||6.55|1.17|0.02
90864894|NCT00147446|181593041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Wilcoxon two sample test statistics|2.84||||0.005||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||It was hypothesized that participants receiving SMT-MS showed a significant reduction in cumulative new T2 lesions, compared to those receiving the control condition during the treatment period.||||0.005
90864895|NCT00147446|181593041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.07||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|6.81|||Logistic Regression|||It was hypothesized that significantly greater numbers of participants receiving SMT-MS remained free of new T2 lesions during the treatment, compared to control condition participants.||6.81|1.38|0.006
90864896|NCT02302807|181593042|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.4134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.21|||Log Rank|||||1.21|0.63|0.4134
90864897|NCT02302807|181593042|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.05||||||||1.05|0.71|
90864898|NCT02302807|181593042|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.99||||||||0.99|0.73|
90864899|NCT01980940|181593060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment ratio|5.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.03|6.42|||ANOVA|||The geometric least squares mean ratio (GLSMR) and 90% confidence interval was calculated for Cmax after log transformation for the formulation comparison (ETOR 75 DMSO/ETOR 75 PG) using a linear mixed effect model with fixed effects terms for treatment and period and random effect for participants. Cmax with value 0 included in calculation of GLSMs with a value of 0.5\*LLOQ (=0.5 h\*ng/ml).||6.42|4.03|
90864900|NCT01980940|181593060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment ratio|7.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.05|8.81|||ANOVA|||The GLSMR and 90% confidence interval was calculated for Cmax after log transformation for the formulation comparison (ETOR 150 DMSO/ETOR 150 PG) using a linear mixed effect model with fixed effects terms for treatment and period and random effect for participants. Cmax with value 0 included in calculation of GLSMs with a value of 0.5\*LLOQ (=0.5 h\*ng/ml).||8.81|6.05|
90908349|NCT04319094|181685545|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.49||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|14.55||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom: 360||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the mean SF36-social function scores from baseline to 12-month for all study participants.|A series of generalized linear mixed-effect models were implemented to predict the outcome measurements. The primary fixed effect predictors were group (control vs. PEERS), time (categorical), and group \* time. Random terms in all models were: study participants and their interaction with time. The covariance of dependent variable values across time was modeled as a first-order auto-regression decaying function (AR1). Higher order fixed and random terms were pretested and removed from the model if nonsignificant.|14.55|-3.09|0.2
90908350|NCT04319094|181685545|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8037|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference in the change of social functioning over time between the control and PEERS participants.||||0.8037
90908351|NCT04319094|181685546|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|12.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.01||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.67|22.37||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom: 366||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the mean SF36-emotional functioning scores from baseline to post-intervention for all study participants.|A series of generalized linear mixed-effect models were implemented to predict the outcome measurements. The primary fixed effect predictors were group (control vs. PEERS), time (categorical), and group \* time. Random terms in all models were: study participants and their interaction with time. The covariance of dependent variable values across time was modeled as a first-order auto-regression decaying function (AR1). Higher order fixed and random terms were pretested and removed from the model if nonsignificant.|22.37|2.67|0.0129
90908352|NCT04319094|181685546|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|19.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.86||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.32|31.36||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom: 366||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the mean SF36-emotional functioning scores from baseline to 3-month for all study participants.|A series of generalized linear mixed-effect models were implemented to predict the outcome measurements. The primary fixed effect predictors were group (control vs. PEERS), time (categorical), and group \* time. Random terms in all models were: study participants and their interaction with time. The covariance of dependent variable values across time was modeled as a first-order auto-regression decaying function (AR1). Higher order fixed and random terms were pretested and removed from the model if nonsignificant.|31.36|8.32|0.0008
90908353|NCT04319094|181685546|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|17.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.14||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.92|30.06||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom: 366||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the mean SF36-emotional functioning scores from baseline to 6-month for all study participants.|A series of generalized linear mixed-effect models were implemented to predict the outcome measurements. The primary fixed effect predictors were group (control vs. PEERS), time (categorical), and group \* time. Random terms in all models were: study participants and their interaction with time. The covariance of dependent variable values across time was modeled as a first-order auto-regression decaying function (AR1). Higher order fixed and random terms were pretested and removed from the model if nonsignificant.|30.06|5.92|0.0036
90908354|NCT04319094|181685546|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|16.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.98||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.47|28.01||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom: 366||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the mean SF36-emotional functioning scores from baseline to 9-month for all study participants.|A series of generalized linear mixed-effect models were implemented to predict the outcome measurements. The primary fixed effect predictors were group (control vs. PEERS), time (categorical), and group \* time. Random terms in all models were: study participants and their interaction with time. The covariance of dependent variable values across time was modeled as a first-order auto-regression decaying function (AR1). Higher order fixed and random terms were pretested and removed from the model if nonsignificant.|28.01|4.47|0.007
90908355|NCT04319094|181685546|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|12.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.58||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|25.19||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom: 366||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the mean SF36-emotional functioning scores from baseline to 12-month for all study participants.|A series of generalized linear mixed-effect models were implemented to predict the outcome measurements. The primary fixed effect predictors were group (control vs. PEERS), time (categorical), and group \* time. Random terms in all models were: study participants and their interaction with time. The covariance of dependent variable values across time was modeled as a first-order auto-regression decaying function (AR1). Higher order fixed and random terms were pretested and removed from the model if nonsignificant.|25.19|-0.68|0.065
90908356|NCT04319094|181685546|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.881|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference in the change of emotional functioning over time between the control and PEERS participants.||||0.8810
90940345|NCT00526097|181760471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001||95.0|2.1|2.7||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||2.7|2.1|<0.0001
90908357|NCT04319094|181685547|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.031||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|F-test for overall significance|Degrees of freedom: 370||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the change in probability of ER use from baseline to post-intervention between PEERS and control participants.|A series of generalized linear mixed-effect models were implemented to predict the outcome measurements. The primary fixed effect predictors were group (control vs. PEERS), time (categorical), and group \* time. Random terms in all models were: study participants and their interaction with time. The covariance of dependent variable values across time was modeled as a first-order auto-regression decaying function (AR1). Higher order fixed and random terms were pretested and removed from the model if nonsignificant.|||0.031
90908358|NCT04319094|181685552|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.42||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.78|-2.18||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom: 414|Score difference: post-intervention - baseline|Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the mean UCLA Loneliness scores from baseline to post-intervention for all study participants.|A series of generalized linear mixed-effect models were implemented to predict the outcome measurements. The primary fixed effect predictors were group (control vs. PEERS), time (categorical), and group \* time. Random terms in all models were: study participants and their interaction with time. The covariance of dependent variable values across time was modeled as a first-order auto-regression decaying function (AR1). Higher order fixed and random terms were pretested and removed from the model if nonsignificant.|-2.18|-7.78|0.0005
90908359|NCT04319094|181685552|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.88|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.08|-3.69||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom: 414|Score difference: 3-month - baseline|Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the mean UCLA Loneliness scores from baseline to 3-month for all study participants.|A series of generalized linear mixed-effect models were implemented to predict the outcome measurements. The primary fixed effect predictors were group (control vs. PEERS), time (categorical), and group \* time. Random terms in all models were: study participants and their interaction with time. The covariance of dependent variable values across time was modeled as a first-order auto-regression decaying function (AR1). Higher order fixed and random terms were pretested and removed from the model if nonsignificant.|-3.69|-11.08|<0.0001
90908360|NCT04319094|181685552|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.87|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|-3.95||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom: 414|Score difference: 6-month - baseline|Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the mean UCLA Loneliness scores from baseline to 6-month for all study participants.|A series of generalized linear mixed-effect models were implemented to predict the outcome measurements. The primary fixed effect predictors were group (control vs. PEERS), time (categorical), and group \* time. Random terms in all models were: study participants and their interaction with time. The covariance of dependent variable values across time was modeled as a first-order auto-regression decaying function (AR1). Higher order fixed and random terms were pretested and removed from the model if nonsignificant.|-3.95|-11.3|<0.0001
90959818|NCT05754333|181799706|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.8|||paired t test||Mean Difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between WL score at 30-min time point and the NIR-F score at the end of surgery across all participants.|For reader 2||1.8|1.1|<0.001
90959819|NCT05754333|181799706|OTHER|It quantifies the degree of concordance between two measurements|correlation coefficient|0.339|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.116|0.529||||||CCC between BICR and investigator (95% CI), Reader 2||0.529|0.116|
90959820|NCT05754333|181799706|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.3|||paired t test||Mean Difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between WL score at 30-min time point and the NIR-F score at the end of surgery across all participants.|For reader 3||1.3|0.6|<0.001
90959821|NCT05754333|181799706|OTHER|It quantifies the degree of concordance between two measurements|correlation coefficient|0.186|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.048|0.4||||||CCC between BICR and investigator (95% CI), Reader 3||0.400|-0.048|
90959822|NCT05754333|181799706|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|2.3|||paired t test||Mean Difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between WL score at 30-min time point and the NIR-F score at the end of surgery across all participants.|For reader 4||2.3|1.6|<0.001
90959823|NCT05754333|181799706|OTHER|It quantifies the degree of concordance between two measurements|correlation coefficient|0.297|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.495||||||CCC between BICR and investigator (95% CI), Reader 4||0.495|0.070|
90959824|NCT05754333|181799707|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|||||||||||Mean difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between WL scores and NIR-F scores at 30-min timepoint.|For reader 2||||
91033143|NCT00048581|181952002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adj Diff: Day 169 Vitality|4.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.76|6.79|||ANCOVA|||Differences in mean changes from baseline between the 2 treatment groups (ABA and PLA) in PCS, MCS, and the 8 subscale scores at Day 85 were compared using ANCOVA models. Adjusted difference (Adj Diff) from PLA group with 95% CIs and p-values were calculated, and adjustment was based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as factor and baseline value as covariate.||6.79|2.76|<0.001
91033144|NCT00048581|181952002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adj Diff: Day 169 Social Functioning|4.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.71|7.12|||ANCOVA|||Differences in mean changes from baseline between the 2 treatment groups (ABA and PLA) in PCS, MCS, and the 8 subscale scores at Day 85 were compared using ANCOVA models. Adjusted difference (Adj Diff) from PLA group with 95% CIs and p-values were calculated, and adjustment was based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as factor and baseline value as covariate.||7.12|2.71|<0.001
90908361|NCT04319094|181685552|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.74|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.53|-4.7||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom: 414|Score difference: 9-month - baseline|Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the mean UCLA Loneliness scores from baseline to 9-month for all study participants.|A series of generalized linear mixed-effect models were implemented to predict the outcome measurements. The primary fixed effect predictors were group (control vs. PEERS), time (categorical), and group \* time. Random terms in all models were: study participants and their interaction with time. The covariance of dependent variable values across time was modeled as a first-order auto-regression decaying function (AR1). Higher order fixed and random terms were pretested and removed from the model if nonsignificant.|-4.7|-11.53|<0.0001
90908362|NCT04319094|181685552|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.37|-4.14||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom: 414|Score difference: 12-month - baseline|Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the mean UCLA Loneliness scores from baseline to 12-month for all study participants.|A series of generalized linear mixed-effect models were implemented to predict the outcome measurements. The primary fixed effect predictors were group (control vs. PEERS), time (categorical), and group \* time. Random terms in all models were: study participants and their interaction with time. The covariance of dependent variable values across time was modeled as a first-order auto-regression decaying function (AR1). Higher order fixed and random terms were pretested and removed from the model if nonsignificant.|-4.14|-12.37|<0.0001
90908363|NCT04319094|181685552|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6857|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis: there is no statistical difference in the change of UCLA Loneliness score over time between control and PEERS participants||||0.6857
90908364|NCT04319094|181685553|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom: 421|Score difference: post-intervention - baseline|Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the mean GSES scores from baseline to post-intervention for all study participants.|A series of generalized linear mixed-effect models were implemented to predict the outcome measurements. The primary fixed effect predictors were group (control vs. PEERS), time (categorical), and group \* time. Random terms in all models were: study participants and their interaction with time. The covariance of dependent variable values across time was modeled as a first-order auto-regression decaying function (AR1). Higher order fixed and random terms were pretested and removed from the model if nonsignificant.|2.86|0.72|0.001
90908365|NCT04319094|181685553|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|2.25||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom: 421|Score difference: 3-month - baseline|Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the mean GSES scores from baseline to 3-month for all study participants.|A series of generalized linear mixed-effect models were implemented to predict the outcome measurements. The primary fixed effect predictors were group (control vs. PEERS), time (categorical), and group \* time. Random terms in all models were: study participants and their interaction with time. The covariance of dependent variable values across time was modeled as a first-order auto-regression decaying function (AR1). Higher order fixed and random terms were pretested and removed from the model if nonsignificant.|2.25|-0.39|0.18
90908366|NCT04319094|181685553|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|2.45||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom: 421|Score difference: 6-month - baseline|Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the mean GSES scores from baseline to 6-month for all study participants.|A series of generalized linear mixed-effect models were implemented to predict the outcome measurements. The primary fixed effect predictors were group (control vs. PEERS), time (categorical), and group \* time. Random terms in all models were: study participants and their interaction with time. The covariance of dependent variable values across time was modeled as a first-order auto-regression decaying function (AR1). Higher order fixed and random terms were pretested and removed from the model if nonsignificant.|2.45|-0.24|0.11
90908367|NCT04319094|181685553|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|3.54||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom: 421|Score difference: 9-month - baseline|Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the mean GSES scores from baseline to 9-month for all study participants.|A series of generalized linear mixed-effect models were implemented to predict the outcome measurements. The primary fixed effect predictors were group (control vs. PEERS), time (categorical), and group \* time. Random terms in all models were: study participants and their interaction with time. The covariance of dependent variable values across time was modeled as a first-order auto-regression decaying function (AR1). Higher order fixed and random terms were pretested and removed from the model if nonsignificant.|3.54|0.98|0.0006
90908368|NCT04319094|181685553|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|3.95||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom: 421|Score difference: 12-month - baseline|Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the mean GSES scores from baseline to 12-month for all study participants.|A series of generalized linear mixed-effect models were implemented to predict the outcome measurements. The primary fixed effect predictors were group (control vs. PEERS), time (categorical), and group \* time. Random terms in all models were: study participants and their interaction with time. The covariance of dependent variable values across time was modeled as a first-order auto-regression decaying function (AR1). Higher order fixed and random terms were pretested and removed from the model if nonsignificant.|3.95|1.01|0.001
90959825|NCT05754333|181799707|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|||||||||||Mean difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between WL scores and NIR-F scores at 30-min timepoint.|For reader 3||||
90959826|NCT05754333|181799707|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|||||||||||Mean difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between WL scores and NIR-F scores at 30-min timepoint.|For reader 4||||
90959827|NCT05754333|181799708|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|||||||||||Mean Difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between NIR-F scores at each time point and the 30-min WL score of the ureter of interest (left; right) for each participant.|Difference from WL in Means, Reader 2||||
90959828|NCT05754333|181799708|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|||||||||||Mean Difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between NIR-F scores at each time point and the 30-min WL score of the ureter of interest (left; right) for each participant.|Difference from WL in Means, Reader 3||||
90959829|NCT05754333|181799708|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|||||||||||Mean Difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between NIR-F scores at each time point and the 30-min WL score of the ureter of interest (left; right) for each participant.|Difference from WL in Means, Reader 4||||
90959830|NCT05754333|181799709|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|||||||||||Mean Difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between WL score at 30-min time point and the NIR-F score at the end of surgery across all participants.|For reader 2||||
90959831|NCT05754333|181799709|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|||||||||||Mean Difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between WL score at 30-min time point and the NIR-F score at the end of surgery across all participants.|For reader 3||||
90959832|NCT05754333|181799709|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|||||||||||Mean Difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between WL score at 30-min time point and the NIR-F score at the end of surgery across all participants.|For reader 4||||
91033145|NCT00048581|181952002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adj Diff: Day 169 Role Emotional|3.54||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|6.33|||ANCOVA|||Differences in mean changes from baseline between the 2 treatment groups (ABA and PLA) in PCS, MCS, and the 8 subscale scores at Day 85 were compared using ANCOVA models. Adjusted difference (Adj Diff) from PLA group with 95% CIs and p-values were calculated, and adjustment was based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as factor and baseline value as covariate.||6.33|0.74|0.013
90959833|NCT05754333|181799710|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|||||||||||Mean difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between WL scores and NIR-F scores at 30-min timepoint.|For reader 2||||
90959834|NCT05754333|181799710|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|||||||||||Mean difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between WL scores and NIR-F scores at 30-min timepoint.|For reader 3||||
91033146|NCT00048581|181952002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adj Diff: Mental Health|2.7||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|4.6|||ANCOVA|||Differences in mean changes from baseline between the 2 treatment groups (ABA and PLA) in PCS, MCS, and the 8 subscale scores at Day 85 were compared using ANCOVA models. Adjusted difference (Adj Diff) from PLA group with 95% CIs and p-values were calculated, and adjustment was based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as factor and baseline value as covariate.||4.60|0.79|0.006
90959835|NCT05754333|181799710|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|||||||||||Mean difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between WL scores and NIR-F scores at 30-min timepoint.|For reader 4||||
90959836|NCT05754333|181799711|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|||||||||||Mean Difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between NIR-F scores at each time point and the 30-m in WL score of the ureter of interest (left; right) for each participant.|For reader 2||||
90959837|NCT05754333|181799711|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|||||||||||Mean Difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between NIR-F scores at each time point and the 30-min WL score of the ureter of interest (left; right) for each participant.|For reader 3||||
90908369|NCT04319094|181685553|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1195|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference in the change of GSES scores over time between the control and PEERS participants.||||0.1195
90908370|NCT04319094|181685554|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.71|4.73||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom: 361|Score difference: post-intervention - baseline|Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the mean Brief-COPE Adaptive Coping scores from baseline to post-intervention for all study participants.|A series of generalized linear mixed-effect models were implemented to predict the outcome measurements. The primary fixed effect predictors were group (control vs. PEERS), time (categorical), and group \* time. Random terms in all models were: study participants and their interaction with time. The covariance of dependent variable values across time was modeled as a first-order auto-regression decaying function (AR1). Higher order fixed and random terms were pretested and removed from the model if nonsignificant.|4.73|1.71|<0.0001
90908371|NCT04319094|181685554|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.0123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|4.62||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom: 361|Score difference: 3-month - baseline|Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the mean Brief-COPE Adaptive Coping scores from baseline to 3-month for all study participants.|A series of generalized linear mixed-effect models were implemented to predict the outcome measurements. The primary fixed effect predictors were group (control vs. PEERS), time (categorical), and group \* time. Random terms in all models were: study participants and their interaction with time. The covariance of dependent variable values across time was modeled as a first-order auto-regression decaying function (AR1). Higher order fixed and random terms were pretested and removed from the model if nonsignificant.|4.62|0.57|0.0123
90908372|NCT04319094|181685554|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|4.63||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom: 361|Score difference: 6-month - baseline|Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the mean Brief-COPE Adaptive Coping scores from baseline to 6-month for all study participants.|A series of generalized linear mixed-effect models were implemented to predict the outcome measurements. The primary fixed effect predictors were group (control vs. PEERS), time (categorical), and group \* time. Random terms in all models were: study participants and their interaction with time. The covariance of dependent variable values across time was modeled as a first-order auto-regression decaying function (AR1). Higher order fixed and random terms were pretested and removed from the model if nonsignificant.|4.63|0.63|0.01
90908373|NCT04319094|181685554|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.32|6.04||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom: 361|Score difference: 9-month - baseline|Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the mean Brief-COPE Adaptive Coping scores from baseline to 9-month for all study participants.|A series of generalized linear mixed-effect models were implemented to predict the outcome measurements. The primary fixed effect predictors were group (control vs. PEERS), time (categorical), and group \* time. Random terms in all models were: study participants and their interaction with time. The covariance of dependent variable values across time was modeled as a first-order auto-regression decaying function (AR1). Higher order fixed and random terms were pretested and removed from the model if nonsignificant.|6.04|2.32|<0.0001
90908374|NCT04319094|181685554|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|5.44||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom: 361|Score difference: 12-month - baseline|Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the mean Brief-COPE Adaptive Coping scores from baseline to 12-month for all study participants.|A series of generalized linear mixed-effect models were implemented to predict the outcome measurements. The primary fixed effect predictors were group (control vs. PEERS), time (categorical), and group \* time. Random terms in all models were: study participants and their interaction with time. The covariance of dependent variable values across time was modeled as a first-order auto-regression decaying function (AR1). Higher order fixed and random terms were pretested and removed from the model if nonsignificant.|5.44|0.83|0.0078
90908375|NCT04319094|181685554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1408|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis: there is no statistical difference in the change in adaptive coping over time between control and PEERS participants.||||0.1408
90908376|NCT02042443|181685585|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.02||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|4.03|||Log Rank|||||4.03|1.01|0.05
90908377|NCT01649427|181685589|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority||||||0.0003|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0003
90908378|NCT02735187|181685595|SUPERIORITY|A paired t-test was applied to test the primary hypothesis. In case the requirements for normality were not met, a non-parametric analysis (Wilcoxon signed rank test) was performed.||||||0.6469||||||A probability (P-Value) above 0.05 is considered not to be statistical significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6469
90908379|NCT02138916|181685606|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.96||||0.649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.15|||Negative binomial|Model includes treatment group, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, number of exacerbations in the previous year.||||1.15|0.8|0.6490
90908380|NCT02138916|181685606|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.83||||0.0525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.0|||Negative binomial|Model includes treatment group, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, number of exacerbations in the previous year.||||1.00|0.69|0.0525
90908381|NCT02138916|181685607|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.07||||0.5236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.34|||Negative binomial|Model includes treatment group, region, number of exacerbations in the previous year.||||1.34|0.86|0.5236
90908382|NCT02138916|181685607|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.02||||0.8812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.27|||Negative binomial|Model includes treatment group, EOS cohort, region, number of exacerbations in the previous year.||||1.27|0.82|0.8812
90908383|NCT02138916|181685608|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.007||||0.755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.035|0.048|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment group, baseline FEV1 value, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||0.048|-0.035|0.7550
90908384|NCT02138916|181685608|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.021||||0.3285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.021|0.062|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment group, baseline FEV1 value, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||0.062|-0.021|0.3285
90908385|NCT02138916|181685609|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.011||||0.2906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.887|0.865|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment group, baseline SGRQ score, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||0.865|-2.887|0.2906
90864901|NCT01980940|181593060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment ratio|0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.38|0.55|||ANOVA|||The GLSMR and 90% confidence interval was calculated for Cmax after log transformation for the dose comparison (ETOR 75 DMSO/ETOR 150 DMSO) using a linear mixed effect model with fixed effects terms for treatment and period and random effect for participants. Cmax with value 0 included in calculation of GLSMs with a value of 0.5\*LLOQ (=0.5 h\*ng/ml).||0.55|0.38|
90908386|NCT02138916|181685609|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.136||||0.0264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.02|-0.251|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment group, baseline SGRQ score, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||-0.251|-4.020|0.0264
90908387|NCT02138916|181685610|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.6782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment group, baseline CAT total score, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||0.70|-1.08|0.6782
90908388|NCT02138916|181685610|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.81||||0.0753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment group, baseline CAT total score, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||0.08|-1.70|0.0753
90864902|NCT01980940|181593060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment ratio|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.51|0.83|||ANOVA|||The GLSMR and 90% confidence interval was calculated for Cmax after log transformation for the dose comparison (ETOR 75 PG/ETOR 150 PG) using a linear mixed effect model with fixed effects terms for treatment and period and random effect for participants. Cmax with value 0 included in calculation of GLSMs with a value of 0.5\*LLOQ (=0.5 h\*ng/ml).||0.83|0.51|
90908389|NCT02138916|181685611|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.585||||0.0889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|0.089|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment group, baseline total score, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||0.089|-1.260|0.0889
90908390|NCT02138916|181685611|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.703||||0.0413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.378|-0.028|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment group, baseline total score, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||-0.028|-1.378|0.0413
90908391|NCT02138916|181685612|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.348||||0.0728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.728|0.032|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment group, baseline rescue med. use, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||0.032|-0.728|0.0728
91033147|NCT00048581|181952004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adj M Chg from BL: HAQ-DI|-0.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.23|||ANCOVA|||Mean changes from baseline in HAQ disability index were compared between treatment groups using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models and 95% confidence intervals were calculated. This analysis was based on the LOCF data set. Similar analyses were also conducted for each of the 8 individual categories: 1) dressing and grooming; 2) arising; 3) eating; 4) walking; 5) hygiene; 6) reach; 7) grip; and 8) common daily activities. Adjusted Mean Change From Baseline = Adj M Chg From BL||-0.23|-0.44|<0.001
91033148|NCT00048581|181952004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adj M Chg from BL: Dressing and Grooming|-0.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|-0.14|||ANCOVA|||Mean changes from baseline in HAQ disability index were compared between treatment groups using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models and 95% confidence intervals were calculated. This analysis was based on the LOCF data set. Similar analyses were also conducted for each of the 8 individual categories: 1) dressing and grooming; 2) arising; 3) eating; 4) walking; 5) hygiene; 6) reach; 7) grip; and 8) common daily activities. Adjusted Mean Change From Baseline= Adj M Chg From BL||-0.14|-0.49|<0.001
91033149|NCT00048581|181952004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adj M Chg from BL: Arising|-0.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.16|||ANCOVA|||Mean changes from baseline in HAQ disability index were compared between treatment groups using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models and 95% confidence intervals were calculated. This analysis was based on the LOCF data set. Similar analyses were also conducted for each of the 8 individual categories: 1) dressing and grooming; 2) arising; 3) eating; 4) walking; 5) hygiene; 6) reach; 7) grip; and 8) common daily activities. Adjusted Mean Change From Baseline= Adj M Chg From BL||-0.16|-0.47|<0.001
91033150|NCT00048581|181952004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adj M Chg from BL: Eating|-0.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||Mean changes from baseline in HAQ disability index were compared between treatment groups using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models and 95% confidence intervals were calculated. This analysis was based on the LOCF data set. Similar analyses were also conducted for each of the 8 individual categories: 1) dressing and grooming; 2) arising; 3) eating; 4) walking; 5) hygiene; 6) reach; 7) grip; and 8) common daily activities. Adjusted Mean Change From Baseline = Adj M Chg From BL||-0.30|-0.65|<0.001
90908392|NCT02138916|181685612|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.487||||0.0121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.868|-0.107|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment group, baseline rescue med. use, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||-0.107|-0.868|0.0121
90908393|NCT02138916|181685613|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.041||||0.0235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.077|-0.006|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment group, baseline prop. of nights awakens., EOS cohort, region, background therapy, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||-0.006|-0.077|0.0235
90864903|NCT01980940|181593062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment ratio|9.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.77|18.18|||ANOVA|||The GLSMR and 90% confidence interval was calculated for AUC0-last after log transformation for the formulation comparison (ETOR 75 DMSO/ETOR 75 PG) using a linear mixed effect model with fixed effects terms for treatment and period and random effect for participants. AUC with value 0 included in calculation of GLSMs with a value of 0.5\*LLOQ (=0.5 h\*ng/ml).||18.18|4.77|
90864904|NCT01980940|181593062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment ratio|8.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.39|10.32|||ANOVA|||The GLSMR and 90% confidence interval was calculated for AUC0-last after log transformation for the formulation comparison (ETOR 150 DMSO/ETOR 150 PG) using a linear mixed effect model with fixed effects terms for treatment and period and random effect for participants. AUC with value 0 included in calculation of GLSMs with a value of 0.5\*LLOQ (=0.5 h\*ng/ml).||10.32|6.39|
90864905|NCT01980940|181593062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment ratio|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.39|0.57|||ANOVA|||The GLSMR and 90% confidence interval was calculated for AUC0-last after log transformation for the dose comparison (ETOR 75 DMSO/ETOR 150 DMSO) using a linear mixed effect model with fixed effects terms for treatment and period and random effect for participants. AUC with value 0 included in calculation of GLSMs with a value of 0.5\*LLOQ (=0.5 h\*ng/ml).||0.57|0.39|
90864906|NCT01980940|181593062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment ratio|0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.21|0.79|||ANOVA|||The GLSMR and 90% confidence interval was calculated for AUC0-last after log transformation for the dose comparison (ETOR 75 PG/ETOR 150 PG) using a linear mixed effect model with fixed effects terms for treatment and period and random effect for participants. AUC with value 0 included in calculation of GLSMs with a value of 0.5\*LLOQ (=0.5 h\*ng/ml).||0.79|0.21|
90864907|NCT01980940|181593063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.57||0.2113|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-63.6|8.9|||constrained longitudinal data analysis|||Treatment difference in mean time-weighted average change from baseline to Day 2 in the WOMAC VA 3.1 pain subscale score (ETOR 50 DMSO - Placebo \[Pt 2\]) was evaluated using a constrained longitudinal data analysis model that included baseline measurements and time-weighted average at Day 2 in the response variable. The model included terms of visit, visit-by-treatment, and treatment.||8.9|-63.6|0.2113
90864908|NCT01980940|181593063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.66||0.2548|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-55.7|10.3|||constrained longitudinal data analysis|||Treatment difference in mean time-weighted average change from baseline to Day 4 in the WOMAC VA 3.1 pain subscale score (ETOR 50 DMSO - Placebo \[Pt 2\]) was evaluated using a constrained longitudinal data analysis model that included baseline measurements and time-weighted average at Day 4 in the response variable. The model included terms of visit, visit-by-treatment, and treatment.||10.3|-55.7|0.2548
90864909|NCT01980940|181593063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.94||0.288|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-54.9|12.0|||constrained longitudinal data analysis|||Treatment difference in mean time-weighted average change from baseline to Day 7 in the WOMAC VA 3.1 pain subscale score (ETOR 50 DMSO - Placebo \[Pt 2\]) was evaluated using a constrained longitudinal data analysis model that included baseline measurements and time-weighted average at Day 7 in the response variable. The model included terms of visit, visit-by-treatment, and treatment.||12.0|-54.9|0.2880
90908394|NCT02138916|181685613|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.044||||0.0158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|-0.008|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment group, baseline prop. of nights awakens., EOS cohort, region, background therapy, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||-0.008|-0.080|0.0158
90959838|NCT05754333|181799711|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|||||||||||Mean Difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between NIR-F scores at each time point and the 30-min WL score of the ureter of interest (left; right) for each participant.|For reader 4||||
90908395|NCT02138916|181685617|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|1.09||||0.408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.34|||Negative binomial|Model includes treatment group, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, number of exacerbations in the previous year.||||1.34|0.89|0.4080
90908396|NCT02138916|181685617|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.98||||0.8688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.21|||Negative binomial|Model includes treatment group, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, number of exacerbations in the previous year.||||1.21|0.80|0.8688
90959839|NCT05754333|181799712|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|||||||||||Mean Difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between WL score at 30-min time point and the NIR-F score at the end of surgery across all participants.|For reader 2||||
90959840|NCT05754333|181799712|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|||||||||||Mean Difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between WL score at 30-min time point and the NIR-F score at the end of surgery across all participants.|For reader 3||||
90908397|NCT02138916|181685618|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.22|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test controlling for EOS cohort, region, and background therapy.||Proportion of participants with \>=1 COPD exacerbation.||1.22|0.66|0.4850
90908398|NCT02138916|181685618|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.4489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.21|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test controlling for EOS cohort, region, and background therapy.||Proportion of participants with \>=1 COPD exacerbation.||1.21|0.65|0.4489
90908399|NCT02138916|181685620|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|1.06||||0.7733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.53|||Negative binomial|Model includes treatment group, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, previous year exacerbations associated with hospitalization (Y/N).||||1.53|0.73|0.7733
90908400|NCT02138916|181685620|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.58||||0.0114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.89|||Nagative binomial|Model includes treatment group, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, previous year exacerbations associated with hospitalization (Y/N).||||0.89|0.39|0.0114
90908401|NCT05750745|181685637|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.096||0.0871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.02|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measure (MMRM)||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test minus negative control.|||0.02|-0.36|0.0871
90908402|NCT05750745|181685638|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|6.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.548||0.0972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|13.2|||van Elteren Test|P-value was from the van Elteren test adjusted for Baseline Schiff sensitivity stratification factor.|Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test minus negative control.|||13.20|-0.78|0.0972
90908403|NCT05750745|181685639|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-5.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.16||0.0671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.04|0.41|||MMRM||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test minus negative control.|||0.41|-12.04|0.0671
90908404|NCT05750745|181685640|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.0673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.01|||MMRM||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test minus negative control.|||0.01|-0.27|0.0673
90908405|NCT05750745|181685641|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|2.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.446||0.405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|7.2|||van Elteren Test|P-value was from the van Elteren test adjusted for Baseline Schiff sensitivity stratification factor.|Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test minus negative control.|||7.20|-2.44|0.4050
90908406|NCT05750745|181685642|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-5.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.656||0.0346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.88|-0.41|||MMRM||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test minus negative control.|||-0.41|-10.88|0.0346
90959841|NCT05754333|181799712|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|||||||||||Mean Difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between WL score at 30-min time point and the NIR-F score at the end of surgery across all participants.|For reader 4||||
90959842|NCT05754333|181799713|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|||||||||||Mean difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between WL scores and NIR-F scores at 30-min timepoint.|For reader 2||||
90959843|NCT05754333|181799713|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|||||||||||Mean difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between WL scores and NIR-F scores at 30-min timepoint.|For reader 3||||
90959844|NCT05754333|181799713|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|||||||||||Mean difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between WL scores and NIR-F scores at 30-min timepoint.|For reader 4||||
90959845|NCT05754333|181799714|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|||||||||||Mean Difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between NIR-F scores at each time point and the 30-min WL score of the ureter of interest (left; right) for each participant.|For reader 2||||
90959846|NCT05754333|181799714|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|||||||||||Mean Difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between NIR-F scores at each time point and the 30-min WL score of the ureter of interest (left; right) for each participant.|For reader 3||||
90908407|NCT05750745|181685643|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.085||0.8256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.19|||MMRM||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as positive control minus negative control.|Change from Baseline at Week 6||0.19|-0.15|0.8256
90908408|NCT05750745|181685643|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.117||0.5314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.3|||MMRM||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as positive control minus negative control.|Change from Baseline at Week 12||0.30|-0.16|0.5314
90908409|NCT05750745|181685644|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.99||0.5575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.48|3.3|||van Elteren Test|P-value was from the Van Elteren test adjusted for Baseline Schiff sensitivity stratification factor.|Adjusted mean difference was calculated as positive control minus negative control.|Change from Baseline at Week 6||3.30|-8.48|0.5575
90908410|NCT05750745|181685644|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.308||0.7717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|7.37|||van Elteren Test|P-value was from the van Elteren test adjusted for Baseline Schiff sensitivity stratification factor.|Adjusted mean difference was calculated as positive control minus negative control.|Change from Baseline at Week 12||7.37|-9.60|0.7717
90959847|NCT05754333|181799714|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|||||||||||Mean Difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between NIR-F scores at each time point and the 30-min WL score of the ureter of interest (left; right) for each participant.|For reader 4||||
90959848|NCT05754333|181799715|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|||||||||||Mean Difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between WL score at 30-min time point and the NIR-F score at the end of surgery across all participants.|For reader 2||||
90959849|NCT05754333|181799715|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|||||||||||Mean Difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between WL score at 30-min time point and the NIR-F score at the end of surgery across all participants.|For reader 3||||
90908411|NCT05750745|181685645|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.235||0.818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.63|7.12|||MMRM||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as positive control minus negative control.|Change from Baseline at Week 6||7.12|-5.63|0.8180
90908412|NCT05750745|181685645|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|3.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.834||0.3322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.83|11.28|||MMRM||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as positive control minus negative control.|Change from Baseline at Week 12||11.28|-3.83|0.3322
90864910|NCT01980940|181593063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-17.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.52||0.3709|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-50.4|15.1|||constrained longitudinal data analysis|||Treatment difference in mean time-weighted average change from baseline to Day 11 in the WOMAC VA 3.1 pain subscale score (ETOR 50 DMSO - Placebo \[Pt 2\]) was evaluated using a constrained longitudinal data analysis model that included baseline measurements and time-weighted average at Day 11 in the response variable. The model included terms of visit, visit-by-treatment, and treatment.||15.1|-50.4|0.3709
90864911|NCT01980940|181593063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.81||0.3883|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-50.5|16.0|||constrained longitudinal data analysis|||Treatment difference in mean time-weighted average change from baseline to Day 14 in the WOMAC VA 3.1 pain subscale score (ETOR 50 DMSO - Placebo \[Pt 2\]) was evaluated using a constrained longitudinal data analysis model that included baseline measurements and time-weighted average at Day 14 in the response variable. The model included terms of visit, visit-by-treatment, and treatment.||16.0|-50.5|0.3883
90864912|NCT01980940|181593064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.32||0.1383|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-29.7|1.6|||constrained longitudinal data analysis|||Treatment difference in mean time-weighted average change from baseline to Day 2 in the WOMAC VA 3.1 stiffness subscale score (ETOR 50 DMSO - Placebo \[Pt 2\]) was evaluated using a constrained longitudinal data analysis model that included baseline measurements and time-weighted average at Day 2 in the response variable. The model included terms of visit, visit-by-treatment, and treatment.||1.6|-29.7|0.1383
90864913|NCT01980940|181593064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.66||0.238|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-24.9|4.2|||constrained longitudinal data analysis|||Treatment difference in mean time-weighted average change from baseline to Day 4 in the WOMAC VA 3.1 stiffness subscale score (ETOR 50 DMSO - Placebo \[Pt 2\]) was evaluated using a constrained longitudinal data analysis model that included baseline measurements and time-weighted average at Day 4 in the response variable. The model included terms of visit, visit-by-treatment, and treatment.||4.2|-24.9|0.2380
90864914|NCT01980940|181593064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.53||0.2691|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.9|4.8|||constrained longitudinal data analysis|||Treatment difference in mean time-weighted average change from baseline to Day 7 in the WOMAC VA 3.1 stiffness subscale score (ETOR 50 DMSO - Placebo \[Pt 2\]) was evaluated using a constrained longitudinal data analysis model that included baseline measurements and time-weighted average at Day 7 in the response variable. The model included terms of visit, visit-by-treatment, and treatment.||4.8|-23.9|0.2691
90888120|NCT03521635|181639531|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.24||||0.1611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|7.49|||Regression, Logistic||The odds ratio (OR) between Pramipexole Sustained Release and Pramipexole Immediate Release groups.|Logistic regression analyses for responder rate at week 18 of EMO score were performed with treatment and baseline as the independent variables.||7.49|0.73|0.1611
90888121|NCT03521635|181639532|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.2|||REML-based repeated measures approach|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML) - based repeated measures approach was applied.|Mean difference was calculated as Pramipexole Sustained Release minus Pramipexole immediate Release.|Mean changes from baseline of PDQ-8 score were analysed using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML) - based repeated measures approach. Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit in the maintenance period, and treatment-by-visit interaction, and the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline and baseline-by-visit interaction.||1.2|-2.3|0.517
90959850|NCT05754333|181799715|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|||||||||||Mean Difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between WL score at 30-min time point and the NIR-F score at the end of surgery across all participants.|For reader 4||||
90970973|NCT01187953|181824223|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|It was assumed that both treatment groups in this study would have a 15% 12-month treatment failure rate, the study will require 270 patients per group to have 90% power to reject the null hypothesis that the investigational drug, LCP-tacro, is inferior to the reference drug, Prograf, based on a 2-sided 95% CI for the difference and a 0.10 non-inferiority margin.||||||0.835|TWO_SIDED|||||Endpoint: Death|Fisher Exact|||No overall p value was calculated, only individual p values for each endpoint category. One statistical analysis table is reported for each individual p value.||||0.835
90864915|NCT01980940|181593064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.15||0.3246|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.8|5.6|||constrained longitudinal data analysis|||Treatment difference in mean time-weighted average change from baseline to Day 11 in the WOMAC VA 3.1 stiffness subscale score (ETOR 50 DMSO - Placebo \[Pt 2\]) was evaluated using a constrained longitudinal data analysis model that included baseline measurements and time-weighted average at Day 11 in the response variable. The model included terms of visit, visit-by-treatment, and treatment.||5.6|-21.8|0.3246
90864916|NCT01980940|181593064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.19||0.3881|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.9|6.6|||constrained longitudinal data analysis|||Treatment difference in mean time-weighted average change from baseline to Day 14 in the WOMAC VA 3.1 stiffness subscale score (ETOR 50 DMSO - Placebo \[Pt 2\]) was evaluated using a constrained longitudinal data analysis model that included baseline measurements and time-weighted average at Day 14 in the response variable. The model included terms of visit, visit-by-treatment, and treatment.||6.6|-20.9|0.3881
90864917|NCT01980940|181593065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-52.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|68.25||0.4477|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-166.8|62.3|||constrained longitudinal data analysis|||Treatment difference in mean time-weighted average change from baseline to Day 2 in the WOMAC VA 3.1 physical function subscale score (ETOR 50 DMSO - Placebo \[Pt 2\]) was evaluated using a constrained longitudinal data analysis model that included baseline measurements and time-weighted average at Day 2 in the response variable. The model included terms of visit, visit-by-treatment, and treatment.||62.3|-166.8|0.4477
90864918|NCT01980940|181593065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-33.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|65.42||0.6084|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-143.6|76.1|||constrained longitudinal data analysis|||Treatment difference in mean time-weighted average change from baseline to Day 4 in the WOMAC VA 3.1 physical function subscale score (ETOR 50 DMSO - Placebo \[Pt 2\]) was evaluated using a constrained longitudinal data analysis model that included baseline measurements and time-weighted average at Day 4 in the response variable. The model included terms of visit, visit-by-treatment, and treatment.||76.1|-143.6|0.6084
90864919|NCT01980940|181593065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-35.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|65.25||0.5926|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-144.7|74.4|||constrained longitudinal data analysis|||Treatment difference in mean time-weighted average change from baseline to Day 7 in the WOMAC VA 3.1 physical function subscale score (ETOR 50 DMSO - Placebo \[Pt 2\]) was evaluated using a constrained longitudinal data analysis model that included baseline measurements and time-weighted average at Day 7 in the response variable. The model included terms of visit, visit-by-treatment, and treatment.||74.4|-144.7|0.5926
90864920|NCT01980940|181593065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-42.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|62.49||0.5022|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-147.2|62.6|||constrained longitudinal data analysis|||Treatment difference in mean time-weighted average change from baseline to Day 11 in the WOMAC VA 3.1 physical function subscale score (ETOR 50 DMSO - Placebo \[Pt 2\]) was evaluated using a constrained longitudinal data analysis model that included baseline measurements and time-weighted average at Day 11 in the response variable. The model included terms of visit, visit-by-treatment, and treatment.||62.6|-147.2|0.5022
90864921|NCT01980940|181593065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-42.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|63.7||0.5125|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-149.0|64.9|||constrained longitudinal data analysis|||Treatment difference in mean time-weighted average change from baseline to Day 14 in the WOMAC VA 3.1 physical function subscale score (ETOR 50 DMSO - Placebo \[Pt 2\]) was evaluated using a constrained longitudinal data analysis model that included baseline measurements and time-weighted average at Day 14 in the response variable. The model included terms of visit, visit-by-treatment, and treatment.||64.9|-149.0|0.5125
91033151|NCT00048581|181952004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adj M Chg from BL: Walking|-0.26||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.09|||ANCOVA|||Mean changes from baseline in HAQ disability index were compared between treatment groups using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models and 95% confidence intervals were calculated. This analysis was based on the LOCF data set. Similar analyses were also conducted for each of the 8 individual categories: 1) dressing and grooming; 2) arising; 3) eating; 4) walking; 5) hygiene; 6) reach; 7) grip; and 8) common daily activities. Adjusted Mean Change From Baseline= Adj M Chg from BL||-0.09|-0.44|0.003
91033152|NCT00048581|181952004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adj M Chg from BL: Hygiene|-0.22||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||Mean changes from baseline in HAQ disability index were compared between treatment groups using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models and 95% confidence intervals were calculated. This analysis was based on the LOCF data set. Similar analyses were also conducted for each of the 8 individual categories: 1) dressing and grooming; 2) arising; 3) eating; 4) walking; 5) hygiene; 6) reach; 7) grip; and 8) common daily activities. Adjusted Mean Change From Baseline= Adj M Chg from BL||-0.05|-0.39|0.010
90908413|NCT04888585|181685667|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|21.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.5|31.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the stratification factors.|Response Rate Difference = ABBV-154 40mg EOW - Placebo|||31.0|11.5|<0.001
90908414|NCT04888585|181685667|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|26.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.5|36.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the stratification factors.|Response Rate Difference = ABBV-154 150mg EOW - Placebo|||36.7|16.5|<0.001
90864922|NCT01980940|181593066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2632|||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra test|||Treatment comparison of Day 2 PGART frequencies (ETOR 50 DMSO vs Placebo \[Pt 2\]) was performed using a two-sided Jonckheere-Terpstra test.||||0.2632
90864923|NCT01980940|181593066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4703|||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra test|||Treatment comparison of Day 4 PGART frequencies (ETOR 50 DMSO vs Placebo \[Pt 2\]) was performed using a two-sided Jonckheere-Terpstra test.||||0.4703
90864924|NCT01980940|181593066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5507|||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra test|||Treatment comparison of Day 7 PGART frequencies (ETOR 50 DMSO vs Placebo \[Pt 2\]) was performed using a two-sided Jonckheere-Terpstra test.||||0.5507
90864925|NCT01980940|181593066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3992|||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra test|||Treatment comparison of Day 11 PGART frequencies (ETOR 50 DMSO vs Placebo \[Pt 2\]) was performed using a two-sided Jonckheere-Terpstra test.||||0.3992
90864926|NCT01980940|181593066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6626|||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra test|||Treatment comparison of Day 14 PGART frequencies (ETOR 50 DMSO vs Placebo \[Pt 2\]) was performed using a two-sided Jonckheere-Terpstra test.||||0.6626
90864927|NCT01980940|181593066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.315|||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra test|||Treatment comparison of post-trial PGART frequencies (ETOR 50 DMSO vs Placebo \[Pt 2\]) was performed using a two-sided Jonckheere-Terpstra test.||||0.3150
90864928|NCT02342327|181593069|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.22||||||Hazard ratio for time to lapse to smoking in the group switched to non-menthol cigarettes relative to the group continuing to smoke menthol cigarettes||1.22|0.55|
90864929|NCT02342327|181593070|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.06||||||Hazard ratio for time to relapse to smoking in the group switched to non-menthol cigarettes relative to the group continuing to smoke menthol cigarettes||1.06|0.42|
90864930|NCT00674700|181593103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0066||||||main effects = treatment and pools of study centers, Covariates = age, gender, asthma status, sensitization status and baseline ARTSS|ANCOVA|||||||0.0066
90864931|NCT00674700|181593103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015||||||main effects= treatment and pools of study centers, Covariates = age, gender, asthma status, sensitization status and baseline ARTSS|ANCOVA|||||||0.015
90864932|NCT00674700|181593104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0086|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0086
90864933|NCT00674700|181593104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0095|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0095
90864934|NCT00621985|181593111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-19.0||||0.09||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||"A t-test was performed comparing the mean long transformed area under the curve of 17-hydroxyprogesterone between the dexamethasone and hydrocortisone arms. The percent difference in mean log AUC was calculated as:~(Mean log AUC on dexamethasone - Mean log AUC on hydrocortisone)/Mean log AUC on hydrocortisone"||||0.09
90864935|NCT00964860|181593124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05|ANCOVA||All treatment comparisons were 1-sided with the significance level set at 5%. Units on the MGI Scale.|||||0.001
90864936|NCT00964860|181593125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.004|ONE_SIDED|95.0||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05|ANCOVA||All treatment comparisons were 1-sided with the significance level set at 5%|||||0.004
90864937|NCT01056653|181593135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.03|||||||ANCOVA|F(2,107)=3.48, partial n2=0.061, observed power=0.639||ANCOVA - Group Comparison of Parent Total Score on PCITS at 8 months, controlling for scores at baseline (4 months). Group entered as as fixed factor, outcome scores as dependent variable, and baseline scores as covariate.||||=0.03
90864938|NCT01056653|181593135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||||||Bonferroni adjustments for multiple comparisons used|ANOVA|||Pairwise Group Comparison based on estimated marginal means - Parent Total Scores||||0.03
90864939|NCT01056653|181593135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.534||||||Bonferroni adjustment for multiple comparisons used|ANCOVA|||Pairwise Group Comparison based on estimated marginal means - Parent Total Scores||||0.534
90908415|NCT04888585|181685667|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|37.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.4|48.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the stratification factors.|Response Rate Difference = ABBV-154 340mg EOW - Placebo|||48.1|27.4|<0.001
90908416|NCT04888585|181685667|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|23.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.8|32.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the stratification factors.|Response Rate Difference = ABBV-154 340mg E4W - Placebo|||32.6|13.8|<0.001
90908417|NCT04888585|181685668|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.51||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM includes treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, stratification factors, and the baseline measurement as covariates.|Response Rate Difference = ABBV-154 40mg - Placebo|||-0.14|-0.87|0.007
90959851|NCT03401229|181799722|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.852|-0.289||To account for multiplicity, a pre-specified testing strategy was followed to control the overall type I error rate. Both of the co-primary endpoints were tested at 0.01 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|ANCOVA following hybrid WP/WOCF and MI (assuming MAR), adjusting for treatment, baseline score, region (US/Non-US) and baseline comorbid asthma status||The primary analysis compared the changes from baseline of benralizumab with placebo. H0: The change from baseline in total NPS and/or the change from baseline in NBS are similar between benralizumab and placebo. H1: Both of the change from baseline in total NPS and the change from baseline in NBS are different between benralizumab and placebo.||-0.289|-0.852|<0.0001
90908418|NCT04888585|181685668|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-1.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|-0.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM model includes treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, stratification factors, and the baseline measurement as covariates.|Response Rate Difference = ABBV-154 150mg EOW - Placebo|||-0.64|-1.38|<0.001
90908419|NCT04888585|181685668|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-1.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-1.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM model includes treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, stratification factors, and the baseline measurement as covariates.|Response Rate Difference = ABBV-154 340mg EOW - Placebo|||-1.05|-1.80|<0.001
90959852|NCT03401229|181799723|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.27||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.458|-0.083||To account for multiplicity, a pre-specified testing strategy was followed to control the overall type I error rate. Both of the co-primary endpoints were tested at 0.01 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|ANCOVA following hybrid WP/WOCF and MI (assuming MAR), adjusting for treatment, baseline score, region (US/Non-US) and baseline comorbid asthma status||The primary analysis compared the changes from baseline of benralizumab with placebo. H0: The change from baseline in total NPS and/or the change from baseline in NBS are similar between benralizumab and placebo. H1: Both of the change from baseline in total NPS and the change from baseline in NBS are different between benralizumab and placebo.||-0.083|-0.458|0.0048
90959853|NCT03401229|181799724|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.212||||0.0821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.087|0.664||Since both primary endpoints were significant at significant level of 0.01 level, this endpoint was tested at significant level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA following hybrid WP/WOCF and MI (assuming MAR), adjusting for treatment, baseline score, region (US/Non-US) and baseline comorbid asthma status||This endpoint compared the changes from baseline of benralizumab with placebo. H0: The change from baseline in SNOT-22 total score is similar between benralizumab and placebo. H1: The change from baseline in SNOT-22 total score is different between benralizumab and placebo.||0.664|-11.087|0.0821
90959854|NCT03401229|181799725|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.02||Based on pre-specified testing strategy, this endpoint was not tested for statistical significance and the p-value was considered nominal because test for change from baseline in SNOT-22 at week 40 was not statistically significant.|Regression, Cox|A Cox proportional hazards model including covariates treatment group, region (US/Non-US) and baseline comorbid asthma status.||This endpoint compared the rate of incidence of first NP surgery and/or SCS use for NP between benralizumab and placebo. H0: The rate is similar between benralizumab and placebo. H1: the rate is different between benralizumab and placebo. Hazard ratio is benralizumab vs placebo and HR less than 1 indicates longer time to event||1.02|0.55|0.0660
90959855|NCT03401229|181799726|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.5008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.36||Based on pre-specified testing strategy, this endpoint was not tested for statistical significance and the p-value was considered nominal.|Regression, Cox|A Cox proportional hazards model including covariates treatment group, region (US/Non-US) and baseline comorbid asthma status.||The endpoint compared the rate of incidence of first NP surgery between benralizumab and placebo. H0: The rate is similar between benralizumab and placebo. H1: the rate is different between benralizumab and placebo. Hazard ratio (HR) is benralizumab vs placebo and HR less than 1 indicates longer time to event||1.36|0.53|0.5008
90959856|NCT03401229|181799727|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.218||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.361|-0.074||Based on pre-specified testing strategy, this endpoint was not tested for statistical significance and the p-value was considered nominal.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA following hybrid WP/WOCF and MI (assuming MAR), adjusting for treatment, baseline score, region (US/Non-US) and baseline comorbid asthma status||This endpoint compared the changes from baseline DSS score of benralizumab with placebo. H0: The change from baseline in DSS score is similar between benralizumab and placebo. H1: The change from baseline in DSS score is different between benralizumab and placebo.||-0.074|-0.361|0.0029
90959857|NCT03401229|181799728|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.475||||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.141||Based on pre-specified testing strategy, this endpoint was not tested for statistical significance and the p-value was considered nominal.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA following hybrid WP/WOCF and MI (assuming MAR), adjusting for treatment, baseline score, region (US/Non-US) and baseline comorbid asthma status||This endpoint compared the changes from baseline of benralizumab with placebo. H0: The change from baseline in NPS is similar between benralizumab and placebo. H1: The change from baseline in NPS is different between benralizumab and placebo.||-0.141|-0.810|0.0054
91079217|NCT03240406|182044076|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-16.0||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.0|-1.5||Linear mixed-effects model adjusted for adjusted for arm, year, weekday, season, EMA cognition, baseline age, sex, education yrs, # of sessions (cubic spline), and time of day (cubic spline)|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for arm, year, weekday, season, EMA cognition, baseline age, sex, education yrs, # of sessions (cubic spline), and time of day (cubic spline)|Difference in the slopes of processing speed over years between MHD Arm and Comparison Arm.|||-1.5|-31|0.031
90908420|NCT04888585|181685668|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM model includes treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, stratification factors, and the baseline measurement as covariates.|Response Rate Difference = ABBV-154 340 E4W - Placebo|||-0.26|-0.99|<0.001
90908421|NCT04888585|181685669|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-4.56||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.21|-0.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM model includes treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, stratification factors, and the baseline measurement as covariates.|Response Rate Difference = ABBV-154 40mg EOW - Placebo|||-0.92|-8.21|0.014
90959858|NCT03401229|181799729|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.287||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.477|-0.096||Based on pre-specified testing strategy, this endpoint was not tested for statistical significance and the p-value was considered nominal.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA following hybrid WP/WOCF and MI (assuming MAR), adjusting for treatment, baseline score, region (US/Non-US) and baseline comorbid asthma status||This endpoint compared the changes from baseline of benralizumab with placebo. H0: The change from baseline in NBS is similar between benralizumab and placebo. H1: The change from baseline in NBS is different between benralizumab and placebo.||-0.096|-0.477|0.0032
91079218|NCT03240406|182044077|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.12||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.51||Linear mixed-effects model adjusted for arm, year, weekday, season, EMA cognition, baseline age, sex, education yrs, # of sessions (cubic spline), and time of day (cubic spline)|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for arm, year, weekday, season, EMA cognition, baseline age, sex, education yrs, # of sessions (cubic spline), and time of day (cubic spline)|Difference in the slopes of error distance over years between MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|||0.51|-0.27|0.55
90864940|NCT01056653|181593135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047|||||||ANCOVA|F(2,107)=3.145, partial n2=0.056, observed power=0.593.||ANCOVA - Group Comparison of Cognitive Growth Fostering Subscale scores at 8 months, controlling for scores at baseline (4 months). Group entered as fixed factor, outcome scores as dependent variable, and baseline scores as covariate.||||0.047
90864941|NCT01056653|181593135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.056||||||Bonferroni adjustments for multiple comparisons used|ANCOVA|||Pairwise Group Comparison based on estimated marginal means - Cognitive Growth Fostering Subscale||||0.056
90864942|NCT01056653|181593135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.267||||||Bonferroni adjustments for multiple comparisons used|ANCOVA|||Pairwise Group Comparison based on estimated marginal means - Cognitive Growth Fostering Subscale||||0.267
90864943|NCT01056653|181593135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036|||||||ANCOVA|F(2,107)=3.440, partial n2=0.060, observed power=0.634||ANCOVA - Group Comparison of Socio-Emotional Growth Subscale scores at 8 months, controlling for scores at baseline (4 months). Group entered as fixed factor, outcome scores as dependent variable, and baseline scores as covariate.||||0.036
90864944|NCT01056653|181593135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036||||||Bonferroni adjustments for multiple comparisons used|ANCOVA|||Pairwise Group Comparison based on estimated marginal means - Socio-Emotional Growth Fostering Subscale||||0.036
90864945|NCT01056653|181593135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||Bonferroni adjustments for multiple comparisons used|ANCOVA|||Pairwise Group Comparison based on estimated marginal means - Socio-Emotional Growth Fostering Subscale||||1.00
90864946|NCT01056653|181593135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.665|||||||ANCOVA|F(2,107)=0.409||ANCOVA - Group Comparison of Sensitivity to Cues Subscale scores at 8 months, controlling for scores at baseline (4 months). Group entered as fixed factor, outcome scores as dependent variable, and baseline scores as covariate.||||0.665
90864947|NCT01056653|181593135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.732|||||||ANCOVA|F(2,107)=0.313||ANCOVA - Group Comparison of Response to Distress Subscale scores at 8 months, controlling for scores at baseline (4 months). Group entered as fixed factor, outcome scores as dependent variable, and baseline scores as covariate.||||0.732
90864948|NCT01056653|181593136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61|||||||ANCOVA|F(2,107)=0.49||ANCOVA - Group Comparison of Parent Domain scores at 8 months, controlling for scores at baseline (4 months). Group entered as fixed factor, outcome scores as dependent variable, and baseline scores as covariate.||||0.61
90864949|NCT01056653|181593136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||ANCOVA|F(2,107)=0.96||ANCOVA - Group Comparison of Child Domain scores at 8 months, controlling for scores at baseline (4 months). Group entered as fixed factor, outcome scores as dependent variable, and baseline scores as covariate.||||0.38
90864950|NCT01056653|181593137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||ANCOVA|F(2,106)=2.24.||ANCOVA - Group Comparison of WPL-R scores - Evaluation Subscale scores at 8 months, controlling for scores at baseline (4 months). Group entered as fixed factor, outcome scores as dependent variable, and baseline scores as covariate.||||0.11
90864951|NCT01056653|181593137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.686|||||||ANCOVA|F(2,106)=0.379||ANCOVA - Group Comparison of WPL-R scores - Centrality Subscale scores at 8 months, controlling for scores at baseline (4 months). Group entered as fixed factor, outcome scores as dependent variable, and baseline scores as covariate.||||0.686
90864952|NCT01056653|181593137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.121|||||||ANCOVA|F(2,106)=2.158||ANCOVA - Group Comparison of WPL-R scores - Life Change Subscale scores at 8 months, controlling for scores at baseline (4 months). Group entered as fixed factor, outcome scores as dependent variable, and baseline scores as covariate.||||0.121
90864953|NCT05275400|181593138|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority margin (NIM) was 0.4%|LS Mean Difference|-0.089|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.191|0.013||||||||0.013|-0.191|
90864954|NCT05275400|181593139|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.089||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.191|0.013|||ANCOVA|||||0.013|-0.191|0.088
90864955|NCT05275400|181593140|SUPERIORITY||Relative rate|1.03||||0.897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.74|||Negative binomial model|||||1.74|0.62|0.897
90864956|NCT05275400|181593141|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.42||||0.722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|2.72|||ANCOVA|||||2.72|-1.88|0.722
90864957|NCT05275400|181593142|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.84||||0.605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.01|2.33|||ANCOVA|||||2.33|-4.01|0.605
90864958|NCT05275400|181593143|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-30.0||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.1|-9.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-9.97|-50.10|0.003
90864959|NCT05275400|181593144|SUPERIORITY||Relative rate|1.14||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.56|||Negative binomial model|||||1.56|0.83|0.430
90864960|NCT05275400|181593145|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.071||||0.756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.52|-0.38|0.756
90864961|NCT05275400|181593146|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.14||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.27|||ANCOVA|||||0.27|0.02|0.021
90864962|NCT05275400|181593147|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.99||||0.417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.37|1.4|||ANCOVA|||||1.40|-3.37|0.417
90864963|NCT05275400|181593148|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.71|4.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 26||4.59|1.71|<0.001
90959859|NCT03401229|181799730|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.492||||0.0188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.741|-1.243||Based on pre-specified testing strategy, this endpoint was not tested for statistical significance and the p-value was considered nominal.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA following hybrid WP/WOCF and MI (assuming MAR), adjusting for treatment, baseline score, region (US/Non-US) and baseline comorbid asthma status||This endpoint compared the changes from baseline of benralizumab with placebo. H0: The change from baseline in SNOT-22 total score is similar between benralizumab and placebo. H1: The change from baseline in SNOT-22 total score is different between benralizumab and placebo.||-1.243|-13.741|0.0188
90959860|NCT03401229|181799731|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.237||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.389|-0.084||Based on pre-specified testing strategy, this endpoint was not tested for statistical significance and the p-value was considered nominal.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA following hybrid WP/WOCF and MI (assuming MAR), adjusting for treatment, baseline score, region (US/Non-US) and baseline comorbid asthma status||This endpoint compared the changes from baseline DSS score of benralizumab with placebo. H0: The change from baseline in DSS score is similar between benralizumab and placebo. H1: The change from baseline in DSS score is different between benralizumab and placebo.||-0.084|-0.389|0.0023
90970974|NCT01187953|181824223|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|It was assumed that both treatment groups in this study would have a 15% 12-month treatment failure rate, the study will require 270 patients per group to have 90% power to reject the null hypothesis that the investigational drug, LCP-tacro, is inferior to the reference drug, Prograf, based on a 2-sided 95% CI for the difference and a 0.10 non-inferiority margin.||||||0.548|TWO_SIDED|||||Endpoint: Graft Failure|Fisher Exact|||No overall p value was calculated, only individual p values for each endpoint category. One statistical analysis table is reported for each individual p value.||||0.548
90864964|NCT05275400|181593148|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.05|5.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52||5.07|2.05|<0.001
90864965|NCT05275400|181593148|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.75|4.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 78||4.94|1.75|<0.001
90864966|NCT02585960|181593152|SUPERIORITY||Gaussian Statistic estimate|1.96||||0.0545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.038|3.958|||Chi-squared||Approximately Gaussian Statistic is obtained by taking the square root of the Chi-squared test with continuity adjustment.|The proportion of participants with an ABR of 0 during the second 6-month period on BAX 855 prophylaxis, was compared between the 2 prophylaxis arms using a chi-square test with continuity correction at a 2-sided 5% level of significance.||3.958|-0.038|0.0545
90864967|NCT03727230|181593180|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||In this study, a single-arm clinical trial was conducted. The summarized alloanti-D rate (203/720, 28.2%; 95% CI, 19%-32%) in truly RhD-negative patients with similar mixed diseases after RhD+ RBC transfusion reported in the meta-analysis (Ji YL, et al. Vox Sang 2022; 117: 633-40) was used as the control for comparison with alloanti-D rate identified in Asian-type DEL patients after RhD+ RBC transfusion in the clinical trial.||||< 0.001
90864968|NCT00724932|181593189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (Final Values)|3.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|4.1||Testing was performed using a two-sided test at the 0.05 significance level. There was only one primary comparison, therefore no adjustment for multiplicity was required.|ANOVA||Sugammadex is the numerator and neostigmine the denominator. The estimated value for the geometric mean ratio presents how many times the geometric mean time to recovery of the T4/T1 ratio to 0.9 was faster with sugammadex compared to neostigmine.|To evaluate the efficacy of sugammadex compared to neostigmine, the ratio of the geometric means of time to recovery of the T4/T1 ratio to 0.9 was calculated using a two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) model adjusted for treatment group and trial site.||4.1|2.8|<0.0001
90864969|NCT00724932|181593190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (Final Values)|2.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|2.8||The p-value is not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANOVA||Sugammadex is the numerator and neostigmine the denominator. The estimated value for the geometric mean ratio presents how many times the geometric mean time to recovery of the T4/T1 ratio to 0.7 was faster with sugammadex compared to neostigmine.|To evaluate the efficacy of sugammadex compared to neostigmine, the ratio of the geometric means of time to recovery of the T4/T1 ratio to 0.7 was calculated using a two-way ANOVA model adjusted for treatment group and trial site.||2.8|2.1|<0.0001
90864970|NCT00724932|181593198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (Final Values)|2.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|3.4||The p-value is not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANOVA||Sugammadex is the numerator and neostigmine the denominator. The estimated value for the geometric mean ratio presents how many times the geometric mean time to recovery of the T4/T1 ratio to 0.8 was faster with sugammadex compared to neostigmine.|To evaluate the efficacy of sugammadex compared to neostigmine, the ratio of the geometric means of time to recovery of the T4/T1 ratio to 0.8 was calculated using a two-way ANOVA model adjusted for treatment group and trial site.||3.4|2.5|<0.0001
90864971|NCT02849678|181593224|NON_INFERIORITY|A total sample size of 64 subjects (32 patients in each arm) is required to detect a difference of 0.5 SD, using an alpha error of 0.05 and a power of 0.8. After enrollment of 47 patients, we decided to complete the present interim analysis, and the study was then interrupted due to equivalence in results between the two groups.||||||0.148|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.148
90864972|NCT02849678|181593226|NON_INFERIORITY|A total sample size of 64 subjects (32 patients in each arm) is required to detect a difference of 0.5 SD, using an alpha error of 0.05 and a power of 0.8. After enrollment of 47 patients, we decided to complete the present interim analysis, and the study was then interrupted due to equivalence in results between the two groups.||||||0.636|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||.636
90864973|NCT02849678|181593228|NON_INFERIORITY|A total sample size of 64 subjects (32 patients in each arm) is required to detect a difference of 0.5 SD, using an alpha error of 0.05 and a power of 0.8. After enrollment of 47 patients, we decided to complete the present interim analysis, and the study was then interrupted due to equivalence in results between the two groups.||||||0.193||||||Hydromorphone consumption (mg) in Post-Anesthesia Care Unit (PACU)|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.193
90864974|NCT02849678|181593228|NON_INFERIORITY|A total sample size of 64 subjects (32 patients in each arm) is required to detect a difference of 0.5 SD, using an alpha error of 0.05 and a power of 0.8. After enrollment of 47 patients, we decided to complete the present interim analysis, and the study was then interrupted due to equivalence in results between the two groups.||||||0.635||||||Hydromorphone consumption (mg) in PACU versus at 24 hours versus 48 hours|ANOVA|||||||0.635
90864975|NCT02849678|181593229|NON_INFERIORITY|A total sample size of 64 subjects (32 patients in each arm) is required to detect a difference of 0.5 SD, using an alpha error of 0.05 and a power of 0.8. After enrollment of 47 patients, we decided to complete the present interim analysis, and the study was then interrupted due to equivalence in results between the two groups.||||||0.063|||||||ANOVA|Local Anesthetic Consumption through para-vertebral catheters in PACU vs. at 24 hours vs. 48 hours||||||0.063
90864976|NCT00289991|181593238|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assuming a true success rate of 50% in voriconazole (Vori) treatment (Tx) group and 45% in itraconazole (Itra) Tx group, sample size of 232 subjects per group=90% power to demonstrate non-inferiority of Vori to Itra using pre-specified non-inferiority margin of -10%. Sample has at least 80% power to demonstrate superiority of Vori over Itra if true success rates for Vori and Itra are 57% and 44% respectively. Based on this, up to 500 subjects were to be enrolled to obtain 464 eligible subjects.|percent difference adjusted proportions|16.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|25.1|||Difference in adjusted responder rates|Difference in adjusted responder rates using Fleiss method|Overall treatment difference in adjusted proportions (expressed as percentages) calculated using Fleiss method.|"Non-inferiority inferred if lower limit of the 2-sided 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) for the difference between the voriconazole and itraconazole treatment groups in the adjusted proportion of subjects classified as Success at Day 180 after transplant is above -10%. Superiority achieved if 2-sided 95% CI for difference between these treatment groups in the adjusted proportion of subjects classified as Success at Day 180 after transplant does not include zero and is positive."||25.1|7.7|
90864977|NCT00289991|181593239|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Non-inferiority inferred if lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference between the voriconazole and itraconazole treatment groups in the adjusted proportion of subjects classified as Success at Day 100 after transplant is above -10%. Superiority achieved if 2-sided 95% CI for difference between these treatment groups in the adjusted proportion of subjects classified as Success at Day 100 after transplant does not include zero and is positive."|percent difference adjusted proportions|15.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.6|24.2|||Difference in adjusted responder rates|Difference in adjusted responder rates using the Fleiss method.|Overall treatment difference in adjusted proportions (expressed as percentages) calculated using Fleiss method.|||24.2|6.6|
90864978|NCT00289991|181593241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions: percent|-0.4||||0.7114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.5|||Difference in proportions|Difference in proportions (approximate result)|Approximate 2-sided 95 percent (%) confidence interval for the difference in proportions.|Day 100; difference in proportions (expressed as percentages), voriconazole relative to itraconazole.||1.5|-2.2|0.7114
90864979|NCT00289991|181593241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportion: percent|-0.3||||0.7759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.9|||Difference in proportions|Difference in proportions (approximate result).|Approximate 2-sided 95 percent (%) confidence interval for the difference in proportions.|Day 180; difference in proportions (expressed as percentages), voriconazole relative to itraconazole.||1.9|-2.5|0.7759
90864980|NCT00289991|181593242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions: percent|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|6.9|||Difference in proportions|Difference in proportions (approximate result)|Approximate 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in proportions.|Day 180; difference in proportions (expressed as a percentage), voriconazole relative to itraconazole.||6.9|-6.3|
90864981|NCT00289991|181593243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0026||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2-sided Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Mann-Whitney test used to investigate the null hypothesis that the times to discontinuation of study medication in each treatment group come from the same distribution.||||0.0026
90864982|NCT00289991|181593244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions: percent|-4.8||||0.2487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|3.4|||Difference in proportions|Difference in proportions (approximate result)|Approximate 2-sided 95 percent % confidence interval for the difference in proportions.|Day 365; difference in proportions (expressed as a percentage), voriconazole relative to itraconazole.||3.4|-13.0|0.2487
90864983|NCT00289991|181593246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions: percent|-8.8||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|0.3|||Difference in proportions|Difference in proportions (approximate result)|Approximate 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in proportions.|Difference in proportions (expressed as a percentage), voriconazole relative to itraconazole.||0.3|-17.8|0.0570
90908422|NCT04888585|181685669|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-8.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|-4.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM model includes treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, stratification factors, and the baseline measurement as covariates.|Response Rate Difference = ABBV-154 150mg EOW - Placebo|||-4.31|-11.70|<0.001
90908423|NCT04888585|181685669|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-11.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.1|-7.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM model includes treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, stratification factors, and the baseline measurement as covariates.|Response Rate Difference = ABBV-154 340mg EOW - Placebo|||-7.73|-15.10|<0.001
90908424|NCT04888585|181685669|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-5.29||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.89|-1.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM model includes treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, stratification factors, and the baseline measurement as covariates.|Response Rate Difference = ABBV-154 340mg E4W - Placebo|||-1.69|-8.89|0.004
90908425|NCT04888585|181685670|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|24.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.1|37.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the stratification factors.|Response Rate Difference = ABBV-154 40mg EOW - Placebo|||37.3|12.1|<0.001
90908426|NCT04888585|181685670|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|30.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.4|42.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the stratification factors.|Response Rate Difference = ABBV-154 150mg EOW - Placebo|||42.9|17.4|<0.001
90908427|NCT04888585|181685670|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|45.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.5|57.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the stratification factors.|Response Rate Difference = ABBV-154 340mg EOW - Placebo|||57.4|33.5|<0.001
90864984|NCT02498132|181593249|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model assuming a normal distribution, identity link function, and exchangeable correlation matrix was used to examine the interaction between time and treatment condition on BDI-II depressive symptoms adjusting for the main effects of baseline depressive symptoms, time, and treatment condition.|||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<.05
90864985|NCT00730405|181593262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90864986|NCT00730405|181593262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90908428|NCT04888585|181685670|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|24.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.9|37.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the stratification factors|Response Rate Difference = ABBV-154 340mg E4W - Placebo|||37.3|11.9|<0.001
90908429|NCT04888585|181685671|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|6.5||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|12.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the stratification factors.|Response Rate Difference = ABBV-154 40mg EOW - Placebo|||12.4|0.6|0.031
90908430|NCT04888585|181685671|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|9.8||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|17.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the stratification factors.|Response Rate Difference = ABBV-154 150mg EOW - Placebo|||17.0|2.7|0.007
90908431|NCT04888585|181685671|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|10.9||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.6|18.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the stratification factors.|Response Rate Difference = ABBV-154 340mg EOW - Placebo|||18.2|3.6|0.004
90908432|NCT04888585|181685671|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|0.9||||0.709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|5.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the stratification factors.|Response Rate Difference = ABBV-154 340mg E4W - Placebo|||5.9|-4.0|0.709
90864987|NCT00730405|181593262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90864988|NCT00730405|181593262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90864989|NCT00730405|181593263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90864990|NCT00730405|181593263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90864991|NCT00730405|181593263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90864992|NCT00730405|181593263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90864993|NCT00730405|181593264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90864994|NCT00730405|181593264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90864995|NCT00730405|181593264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90864996|NCT00730405|181593264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90864997|NCT00730405|181593265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90864998|NCT00730405|181593265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90864999|NCT00730405|181593265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90865000|NCT00730405|181593265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90865001|NCT00730405|181593266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57|<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90865002|NCT00730405|181593266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57|<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90865003|NCT00730405|181593266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57|<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90865004|NCT00730405|181593266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58|<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90865005|NCT00730405|181593267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90865006|NCT00730405|181593267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90865007|NCT00730405|181593267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90865008|NCT00730405|181593267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90865009|NCT01172522|181593293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Other|0.0|||=|1|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared||P values above 0.05 is considered statistically insignificant in this study.|||||=1
90908433|NCT04888585|181685672|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|16.9||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|28.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the stratification factors.|Response Rate Difference = ABBV-154 40mg EOW - Placebo|||28.9|4.9|0.006
90908434|NCT04888585|181685672|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|25.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.5|38.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the stratification factors.|Response Rate Difference = ABBV-154 150mg EOW - Placebo|||38.1|13.5|<0.001
90908435|NCT04888585|181685672|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|31.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.9|44.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the stratification factors.|Response Rate Difference = ABBV-154 340mg EOW - Placebo|||44.2|18.9|<0.001
90908436|NCT04888585|181685672|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|23.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|35.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the stratification factors.|Response Rate Difference = ABBV-154 340mg E4W - Placebo|||35.4|11.0|<0.001
90908437|NCT04888585|181685673|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|14.1||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|26.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the stratification factors.|Response Rate Difference = ABBV-154 40mg EOW - Placebo|||26.2|2.0|0.022
90959861|NCT03401229|181799732|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.856||||0.2375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.281|0.57||Based on pre-specified testing strategy, this endpoint was not tested for statistical significance and the p-value was considered nominal.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA following WP (WP for NP surgery), adjusting for treatment, baseline score, region (US/Non-US) and baseline comorbid asthma status.||This endpoint compared the changes from baseline LMS score of benralizumab with placebo. H0: The change from baseline in LMS score is similar between benralizumab and placebo. H1: The change from baseline in LMS score is different between benralizumab and placebo.||0.570|-2.281|0.2375
90959862|NCT03401229|181799733|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.5419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.43||This endpoint was not a part of the pre-specified testing strategy and was not tested for statistical significance. The p-value was considered nominal.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The odds ratio estimate was obtained from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test controlling for region (US/non-US) and baseline comorbid asthma status.||This endpoint compared the proportion of subjects with NP surgery between benralizumab and placebo. H0: The proportion is similar between benralizumab and placebo. H1: The proportion is different between benralizumab and placebo.||1.43|0.51|0.5419
90865010|NCT04203498|181593299|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.914|=|0.4263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|1.08|||Linear mixed model repeated measures|||Week 9 to 12 (primary outcome statistics)||1.08|-2.54|=0.4263
90865011|NCT02762578|181593347|NON_INFERIORITY|"Stepwise hierarchical testing procedure was applied for confirmatory endpoints:~Step 1: Primary analysis: Non-inferiority with respect to change from baseline in HbA1c (%) to week 26 for IDegAsp vs. BIAsp 30.~Non-inferiority was considered confirmed if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval was below or equal to 0.4%."|Treatment contrast|-0.08||||0.243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.05||Two-sided p-value for testing difference|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline in HbA1c after 26 weeks of treatments was analysed using an ANCOVA method with treatment, anti-diabetic therapy at screening and sex as fixed factors, and age and baseline HbA1c as covariates.||0.05|-0.20|0.2430
90865012|NCT02762578|181593347|SUPERIORITY|"If non-inferiority was confirmed, the superiority of the IDegAsp group over the BIAsp 30 group was to be investigated.~Superiority was considered confirmed if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval, which was calculated using the FAS, was below 0%."|Treatment contrast|-0.08||||0.243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.05||Two-sided p-value for testing difference|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline in HbA1c after 26 weeks of treatments was analysed using an ANCOVA method with treatment, anti-diabetic therapy at screening and sex as fixed factors, and age and baseline HbA1c as covariates.||0.05|-0.20|0.2430
90865013|NCT02762578|181593348|SUPERIORITY|"Stepwise hierarchical testing procedure was applied for confirmatory endpoints:~Step 2: Superiority with respect to change from baseline in FPG to week 26 for IDegAsp vs. BIAsp 30 (Provided that non-inferiority was confirmed for the primary endpoint)~Superiority was considered confirmed if the 95% CI for the treatment difference (IDegAsp group-BIAsp 30 group) was entirely below zero."|Treatment Contrast|-1.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|-1.1||Two-sided p-value for testing difference|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline in FPG after 26 weeks of treatment was analysed using an ANCOVA method with treatment, anti-diabetic therapy at screening and sex as fixed factors, and age and baseline FPG as covariates.||-1.10|-1.74|<0.0001
90865014|NCT02762578|181593349|SUPERIORITY|"Stepwise hierarchical testing procedure was applied for confirmatory endpoints:~Step 3: Superiority with respect to nocturnal confirmed hypoglycaemic episodes for IDegAsp vs. BIAsp 30 (provided that superiority with respect to change from baseline in FPG to week 26 was confirmed for IDegAsp vs. BIAsp 30).~Superiority was considered confirmed if the 95% CI for the rate ratio (IDegAsp group/BIAsp 30 group) was entirely below one."|Treatment Ratio|0.53||||0.0112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.87|||Negative binomial regression model|||The number of events was analysed using a Negative Binomial Model with a log-link function and the logarithm of the exposure time (100 years) for which a hypoglycaemic episode is considered treatment emergent as offset. The model included treatment, anti-diabetic therapy at screening and sex as fixed factors, and age as covariate.||0.87|0.33|0.0112
90865015|NCT02762578|181593350|SUPERIORITY|"Stepwise hierarchical testing procedure was applied for confirmatory endpoints:~Step 4: Superiority with respect to confirmed hypoglycaemic episodes for IDegAsp vs. BIAsp 30 (provided that superiority with respect to nocturnal confirmed hypoglycaemic episodes for IDegAsp vs. BIAsp 30 was confirmed).~Superiority was considered confirmed if the 95% CI for the rate ratio (IDegAsp group/BIAsp 30 group) was entirely below one."|Treatment Ratio|0.57||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.77|||Negative binomial regression model|||The number of events was analysed using a Negative Binomial Model with a log-link function and the logarithm of the exposure time (100 years) for which a hypoglycaemic episode is considered treatment emergent as offset. The model included treatment, anti-diabetic therapy at screening and sex as fixed factors, and age as covariate||0.77|0.42|0.0002
90865016|NCT02762578|181593351|SUPERIORITY|"Stepwise hierarchical testing procedure was applied for confirmatory endpoints:~Step 5: Superiority with respect to change from baseline in body weight for IDegAsp vs. BIAsp 30 (provided that Superiority with respect to confirmed hypoglycaemic episodes for IDegAsp vs. BIAsp 30 was confirmed).~Superiority was considered confirmed if the 95% CI for the treatment difference (IDegAsp group-BIAsp 30 group) was entirely below zero"|Treatment contrast|0.61||||0.0092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.08|||ANCOVA|Two-sided p-value for testing difference||The response and change from baseline in response after 26 weeks were analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment, anti-diabetic therapy at screening and sex as fixed factors, age and baseline response as covariate.||1.08|0.15|0.0092
90865017|NCT02762578|181593352|SUPERIORITY|"Stepwise hierarchical testing procedure was applied for confirmatory endpoints:~Step 6: Superiority with respect to subjects achieving HbA1c \< 7% at end of trial without confirmed hypoglycaemia for IDegAsp vs. BIAsp 30 (provided that superiority with respect to change from baseline in body weight was confirmed).~Superiority was considered confirmed if the 95% CI for the odds ratio (IDegAsp group/BIAsp 30 group) was entirely above one."|Treatment Ratio|2.22||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|3.35||Two-sided p-value for testing difference|Regression, Logistic|||The endpoint was analysed in a logistic regression model using a logit link, including treatment, sex and anti-diabetic treatment at screening as fixed effects, and age and HbA1c as covariates.||3.35|1.47|0.0002
90908438|NCT04888585|181685673|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|22.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|35.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the stratification factors.|Response Rate Difference = ABBV-154 150mg EOW - Placebo|||35.5|10.0|<0.001
90908439|NCT04888585|181685673|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|24.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.6|37.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the stratification factors.|Response Rate Difference = ABBV-154 340mg EOW - Placebo|||37.0|11.6|<0.001
90908440|NCT04888585|181685673|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|12.6||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|24.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the stratification factors.|Response Rate Difference = ABBV-154 340mg E4W - Placebo|||24.7|0.5|0.042
90908441|NCT04888585|181685674|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|5.1||||0.296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|14.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the stratification factors.|Response Rate Difference = ABBV-154 40mg EOW - Placebo|||14.6|-4.4|0.296
90908442|NCT04888585|181685674|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|19.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.7|30.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the stratification factors.|Response Rate Difference = ABBV-154 150mg EOW - Placebo|||30.2|8.7|<0.001
90908443|NCT04888585|181685674|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|25.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.3|36.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the stratification factors.|Response Rate Difference = ABBV-154 340mg EOW - Placebo|||36.7|14.3|<0.001
90908444|NCT04888585|181685674|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|14.1||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|24.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the stratification factors.|Response Rate Difference = ABBV-154 340mg E4W - Placebo|||24.5|3.8|0.007
90959863|NCT03401229|181799734|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||0.0913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.06||This endpoint was not a part of the pre-specified testing strategy and was not tested for statistical significance. The p-value was considered nominal.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The odds ratio estimate was obtained from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test controlling for region (US/non-US) and baseline comorbid asthma status.||This endpoint compared the proportion of subjects with SCS\_NP between benralizumab and placebo. H0: The proportion is similar between benralizumab and placebo. H1: The proportion is different between benralizumab and placebo.||1.06|0.44|0.0913
90959864|NCT03401229|181799735|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65||||0.0362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.97||This endpoint was not a part of the pre-specified testing strategy and was not tested for statistical significance. The p-value was considered nominal.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The odds ratio estimate was obtained from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test controlling for region (US/non-US) and baseline comorbid asthma status.||This endpoint compared the proportion of subjects with NP surgery or SCS\_NP between benralizumab and placebo. H0: The proportion is similar between benralizumab and placebo. H1: The proportion is different between benralizumab and placebo.||0.97|0.44|0.0362
90908445|NCT04888585|181685675|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|7.1||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|13.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the stratification factors.|Response Rate Difference = ABBV-154 40mg EOW - Placebo|||13.0|1.3|0.017
90908446|NCT04888585|181685675|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|2.0||||0.424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|6.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the stratification factors.|Response Rate Difference = ABBV-154 150mg EOW - Placebo|||6.8|-2.8|0.424
90959865|NCT03401229|181799736|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.1505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.1||This endpoint was not a part of the pre-specified testing strategy and was not tested for statistical significance. The p-value was considered nominal.|Regression, Cox|A Cox proportional hazards model including covariates treatment group, region (US/Non-US) and baseline comorbid asthma status.||The endpoint compared the rate of incidence of SCS\_NP use between benralizumab and placebo. H0: The rate is similar between benralizumab and placebo. H1: the rate is different between benralizumab and placebo. Hazard ratio (HR) is benralizumab vs placebo and HR less than 1 indicates longer time to event||1.10|0.53|0.1505
90908447|NCT04888585|181685675|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|2.6||||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|7.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the stratification factors.|Response Rate Difference = ABBV-154 340mg EOW - Placebo|||7.5|-2.3|0.303
90908448|NCT04888585|181685675|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|1.3||||0.551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|5.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the stratification factors.|Response Rate Difference = ABBV-154 340 E4W - Placebo|||5.4|-2.9|0.551
90908449|NCT04888585|181685676|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.18||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|-0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM model includes treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, stratification factors, and the baseline measurement as covariates.|ABBV-154 40mg EOW - Placebo|||-0.03|-0.33|0.022
90908450|NCT04888585|181685676|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.25||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM model includes treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, stratification factors, and the baseline measurement as covariates.|Response Rate Difference = ABBV-154 150mg EOW - Placebo|||-0.10|-0.41|0.001
90908451|NCT04888585|181685676|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM model includes treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, stratification factors, and the baseline measurement as covariates.|Response Rate Difference = ABBV-154 340mg EOW - Placebo|||-0.17|-0.48|<0.001
90959866|NCT03401229|181799740|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.79||||0.2189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.15||This endpoint was not a part of the pre-specified testing strategy and was not tested for statistical significance. The p-value was considered nominal.|Negative Bionomial Model|Model included treatment, US/non-US and prior use of SCS\_NP with total number of courses of SCS\_NP as outcome and log of follow-up time as an offset||The endpoint compared the rate of SCS\_NP use between benralizumab and placebo. H0: The rate is similar between benralizumab and placebo. H1: the rate is different between benralizumab and placebo. Rate ratio is benralizumab vs placebo and Rate ratio less than 1 indicates less likely of SCS\_NP use.||1.15|0.54|0.2189
90959867|NCT03401229|181799741|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-1.854||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.101|-0.608||This endpoint was not a part of the pre-specified testing strategy and was not tested for statistical significance. The p-value was considered nominal.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA following hybrid WP/WOCF and MI (assuming MAR), adjusting for treatment, baseline score, region (US/Non-US) and baseline comorbid asthma status||This endpoint compared the changes from baseline score between benralizumab and placebo. H0: The change from baseline score is similar between benralizumab and placebo. H1: The change from baseline score is different between benralizumab and placebo.||-0.608|-3.101|0.0036
90908452|NCT04888585|181685676|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.21||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM model includes treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, stratification factors, and the baseline measurement as covariates.|Response Rate Difference = ABBV-154 340mg E4W - Placebo|||-0.06|-0.36|0.007
90908453|NCT04927975|181685677|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis was conducted using a mixed model including observed measurements at all visits. The model included categorical fixed effects of treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction, and stratification factors (age \[≤ 50 and \> 50\], Baseline disease severity \[T-VASI \< 15 and ≥ 15\], active vitiligo \[Yes/No\]) derived from actual values, and the continuous fixed covariate of Baseline measurement. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.|LS Mean Difference|-7.6||||0.304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.18|6.97|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||Upa 6 mg Period 1 versus Placebo Period 1||6.97|-22.18|0.304
90908454|NCT04927975|181685677|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis was conducted using a mixed model including observed measurements at all visits. The model included categorical fixed effects of treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction, and stratification factors (age \[≤ 50 and \> 50\], Baseline disease severity \[T-VASI \< 15 and ≥ 15\], active vitiligo \[Yes/No\]) derived from actual values, and the continuous fixed covariate of Baseline measurement. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.|LS Mean Difference|-21.27||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.02|-6.52|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||Upa 11 mg Period 1 versus Placebo Period 1||-6.52|-36.02|0.005
90908455|NCT04927975|181685677|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis was conducted using a mixed model including observed measurements at all visits. The model included categorical fixed effects of treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction, and stratification factors (age \[≤ 50 and \> 50\], Baseline disease severity \[T-VASI \< 15 and ≥ 15\], active vitiligo \[Yes/No\]) derived from actual values, and the continuous fixed covariate of Baseline measurement. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.|LS Mean Difference|-19.6||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.04|-4.16|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||Upa 22 mg Period 1 versus Placebo Period 1||-4.16|-35.04|0.013
90908456|NCT04927975|181685678|SUPERIORITY|P-value calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (age group \[≤ 50 and \> 50\], baseline disease severity \[T-VASI \< 15 and ≥ 15\], and status of active vitiligo \[Yes/No\])) for the comparison of two treatment groups. The calculations at each visit were based on non-responder imputation incorporating multiple imputation to handle missing data due to COVID-19 or non-responder imputation only if there were no missing data due to COVID-19.|Response Rate Difference|6.9||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|15.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Upa 6 mg Period 1 versus Placebo Period 1||15.2|-1.3|0.100
90959868|NCT03401229|181799742|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.166||||0.0941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.028||This endpoint was not a part of the pre-specified testing strategy and was not tested for statistical significance. The p-value was considered nominal.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA following hybrid WP/WOCF and MI (assuming MAR), adjusting for treatment, baseline score, region (US/Non-US) and baseline comorbid asthma status||This endpoint compared the changes from baseline score between benralizumab and placebo. H0: The change from baseline score is similar between benralizumab and placebo. H1: The change from baseline score is different between benralizumab and placebo.||0.028|-0.360|0.0941
90959869|NCT03401229|181799743|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.213||||0.0246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.399|-0.027||This endpoint was not a part of the pre-specified testing strategy and was not tested for statistical significance. The p-value was considered nominal.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA following hybrid WP/WOCF and MI (assuming MAR), adjusting for treatment, baseline score, region (US/Non-US) and baseline comorbid asthma status||This endpoint compared the changes from baseline score between benralizumab and placebo. H0: The change from baseline score is similar between benralizumab and placebo. H1: The change from baseline score is different between benralizumab and placebo.||-0.027|-0.399|0.0246
90908457|NCT04927975|181685678|SUPERIORITY|P-value calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (age group \[≤ 50 and \> 50\], baseline disease severity \[T-VASI \< 15 and ≥ 15\], and status of active vitiligo \[Yes/No\])) for the comparison of two treatment groups. The calculations at each visit were based on non-responder imputation incorporating multiple imputation to handle missing data due to COVID-19 or non-responder imputation only if there were no missing data due to COVID-19.|Response Rate Difference|17.8||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|29.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Upa 11 mg Period 1 versus Placebo Period 1||29.0|6.5|0.002
90908458|NCT04927975|181685678|SUPERIORITY|P-value calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (age group \[≤ 50 and \> 50\], baseline disease severity \[T-VASI \< 15 and ≥ 15\], and status of active vitiligo \[Yes/No\])) for the comparison of two treatment groups. The calculations at each visit were based on non-responder imputation incorporating multiple imputation to handle missing data due to COVID-19 or non-responder imputation only if there were no missing data due to COVID-19.|Response Rate Difference|11.7||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|21.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Upa 22 mg Period 1 versus Placebo Period 1||21.9|1.4|0.026
90908459|NCT04927975|181685679|SUPERIORITY|P-value calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (age group \[≤ 50 and \> 50\], baseline disease severity \[T-VASI \< 15 and ≥ 15\], and status of active vitiligo \[Yes/No\])) for the comparison of two treatment groups. The calculations at each visit were based on non-responder imputation incorporating multiple imputation to handle missing data due to COVID-19 or non-responder imputation only if there were no missing data due to COVID-19.|Response Rate Difference|6.6||||0.327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|19.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Upa 6 mg Period 1 versus Placebo Period 1||19.7|-6.6|0.327
90908460|NCT04927975|181685679|SUPERIORITY|P-value calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (age group \[≤ 50 and \> 50\], baseline disease severity \[T-VASI \< 15 and ≥ 15\], and status of active vitiligo \[Yes/No\])) for the comparison of two treatment groups. The calculations at each visit were based on non-responder imputation incorporating multiple imputation to handle missing data due to COVID-19 or non-responder imputation only if there were no missing data due to COVID-19.|Response Rate Difference|29.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.8|44.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Upa 11 mg Period 1 versus Placebo Period 1||44.9|13.8|<0.001
90908461|NCT04927975|181685679|SUPERIORITY|P-value calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (age group \[≤ 50 and \> 50\], baseline disease severity \[T-VASI \< 15 and ≥ 15\], and status of active vitiligo \[Yes/No\])) for the comparison of two treatment groups. The calculations at each visit were based on non-responder imputation incorporating multiple imputation to handle missing data due to COVID-19 or non-responder imputation only if there were no missing data due to COVID-19.|Response Rate Difference|28.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.6|44.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Upa 22 mg Period 1 versus Placebo Period 1||44.7|12.6|<0.001
90908462|NCT04927975|181685680|SUPERIORITY|P-value calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (age group \[≤ 50 and \> 50\], baseline disease severity \[T-VASI \< 15 and ≥ 15\], and status of active vitiligo \[Yes/No\])) for the comparison of two treatment groups. The calculations at each visit were based on non-responder imputation incorporating multiple imputation to handle missing data due to COVID-19 or non-responder imputation only if there were no missing data due to COVID-19.|Response Rate Difference|3.7||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|11.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Upa 6 mg Period 1 versus Placebo Period 1||11.2|-3.9|0.340
90908463|NCT04927975|181685680|SUPERIORITY|P-value calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (age group \[≤ 50 and \> 50\], baseline disease severity \[T-VASI \< 15 and ≥ 15\], and status of active vitiligo \[Yes/No\])) for the comparison of two treatment groups. The calculations at each visit were based on non-responder imputation incorporating multiple imputation to handle missing data due to COVID-19 or non-responder imputation only if there were no missing data due to COVID-19.|Response Rate Difference|3.8||||0.358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|11.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Upa 11 mg Period 1 versus Placebo Period 1||11.8|-4.3|0.358
90908464|NCT04927975|181685680|SUPERIORITY|P-value calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (age group \[≤ 50 and \> 50\], baseline disease severity \[T-VASI \< 15 and ≥ 15\], and status of active vitiligo \[Yes/No\])) for the comparison of two treatment groups. The calculations at each visit were based on non-responder imputation incorporating multiple imputation to handle missing data due to COVID-19 or non-responder imputation only if there were no missing data due to COVID-19.|Response Rate Difference|9.1||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|17.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Upa 22 mg Period 1 versus Placebo Period 1||17.2|1.0|0.027
90908465|NCT04927975|181685681|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis was conducted using a mixed model including observed measurements at all visits. The model included categorical fixed effects of treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction, and stratification factors (age \[≤ 50 and \> 50\], Baseline disease severity \[T-VASI \< 15 and ≥ 15\], active vitiligo \[Yes/No\]) derived from actual values, and the continuous fixed covariate of Baseline measurement. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.|LS Mean Difference|-7.45||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.86|1.96|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||Upa 6 mg Period 1 versus Placebo Period 1||1.96|-16.86|0.120
90959870|NCT03401229|181799744|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.672||||0.5833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|3.074||This endpoint was not a part of the pre-specified testing strategy and was not tested for statistical significance. The p-value was considered nominal.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA following hybrid WP/WOCF and MI (assuming MAR), adjusting for treatment, baseline score, region (US/Non-US) and baseline comorbid asthma status||This endpoint compared the changes from baseline score between benralizumab and placebo. H0: The change from baseline score is similar between benralizumab and placebo. H1: The change from baseline score is different between benralizumab and placebo.||3.074|-1.730|0.5833
90908466|NCT04927975|181685681|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis was conducted using a mixed model including observed measurements at all visits. The model included categorical fixed effects of treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction, and stratification factors (age \[≤ 50 and \> 50\], Baseline disease severity \[T-VASI \< 15 and ≥ 15\], active vitiligo \[Yes/No\]) derived from actual values, and the continuous fixed covariate of Baseline measurement. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.|LS Mean Difference|-10.84||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.37|-1.32|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||Upa 11 mg Period 1 versus Placebo Period 1||-1.32|-20.37|0.026
90908467|NCT04927975|181685681|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis was conducted using a mixed model including observed measurements at all visits. The model included categorical fixed effects of treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction, and stratification factors (age \[≤ 50 and \> 50\], Baseline disease severity \[T-VASI \< 15 and ≥ 15\], active vitiligo \[Yes/No\]) derived from actual values, and the continuous fixed covariate of Baseline measurement. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.|LS Mean Difference|-14.27||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.24|-4.3|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||Upa 22 mg Period 1 versus Placebo Period 1||-4.30|-24.24|0.005
90908468|NCT04927975|181685682|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis was conducted using a mixed model including observed measurements at all visits. The model included categorical fixed effects of treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction, and stratification factors (age \[≤ 50 and \> 50\], Baseline disease severity \[T-VASI \< 15 and ≥ 15\], active vitiligo \[Yes/No\]) derived from actual values, and the continuous fixed covariate of Baseline measurement. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.|LS Mean Difference|-1.9||||0.545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|4.4|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||Upa 6 mg Period 1 versus Placebo Period 1||4.4|-8.3|0.545
90908469|NCT04927975|181685682|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis was conducted using a mixed model including observed measurements at all visits. The model included categorical fixed effects of treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction, and stratification factors (age \[≤ 50 and \> 50\], Baseline disease severity \[T-VASI \< 15 and ≥ 15\], active vitiligo \[Yes/No\]) derived from actual values, and the continuous fixed covariate of Baseline measurement. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.|LS Mean Difference|1.9||||0.565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|8.3|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||Upa 11 mg Period 1 versus Placebo Period 1||8.3|-4.5|0.565
90940346|NCT00526097|181760472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.0001||95.0|2.0|2.5||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||2.5|2.0|<0.0001
90940347|NCT00526097|181760473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001||95.0|1.7|2.3||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||2.3|1.7|<0.0001
90940348|NCT00526097|181760474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.0002||95.0|-0.3|-0.1||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||-0.1|-0.3|0.0002
90908470|NCT04927975|181685682|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis was conducted using a mixed model including observed measurements at all visits. The model included categorical fixed effects of treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction, and stratification factors (age \[≤ 50 and \> 50\], Baseline disease severity \[T-VASI \< 15 and ≥ 15\], active vitiligo \[Yes/No\]) derived from actual values, and the continuous fixed covariate of Baseline measurement. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.|LS Mean Difference|-1.1||||0.754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|5.6|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||Upa 22 mg Period 1 versus Placebo Period 1||5.6|-7.8|0.754
90908471|NCT05550337|181685722|EQUIVALENCE|The 90% CI for the Test-to-Reference ratio of LS mean percent reduction from Baseline to Week 12/Day 84, in the inflammatory lesion counts to be contained within (0.80, 1.25).|Mean Difference (Net)|0.998|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.927|1.076||||||||1.076|0.927|
90908472|NCT05550337|181685723|EQUIVALENCE|The 90% CI for the Test-to-Reference ratio of LS mean percent reduction from Baseline to Week 12/Day 84, in the non-inflammatory lesion counts to be contained within (0.80, 1.25).|Mean Difference (Net)|1.116|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.017|1.228||||||||1.228|1.017|
90959871|NCT03401229|181799745|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|2.684||||0.0619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.134|5.502||This endpoint was not a part of the pre-specified testing strategy and was not tested for statistical significance. The p-value was considered nominal.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA following hybrid WP/WOCF and MI (assuming MAR), adjusting for treatment, baseline score, region (US/Non-US) and baseline comorbid asthma status||This endpoint compared the changes from baseline score between benralizumab and placebo. H0: The change from baseline score is similar between benralizumab and placebo. H1: The change from baseline score is different between benralizumab and placebo.||5.502|-0.134|0.0619
90865018|NCT01090492|181593395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.11||||0.6513|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.21|0.44|||ANCOVA|||PRP: Adjusted mean difference analysis was based on Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect, utilizing the baseline scores as covariate.||0.44|-0.21|0.6513
90865019|NCT01090492|181593395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.69||||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.99|-0.38|||ANCOVA|||PRP: Adjusted mean difference analysis was based on ANCOVA model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect, utilizing the baseline scores as covariate.||-0.38|-0.99|0.0057
90865020|NCT01090492|181593395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.44||||0.1157|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.8|-0.08|||ANCOVA|||SRP: Adjusted mean difference analysis was based on ANCOVA model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect, utilizing the baseline scores as covariate.||-0.08|-0.80|0.1157
90865021|NCT01090492|181593395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.15||||0.6286|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.56|0.25|||ANCOVA|||SRP: Adjusted mean difference analysis was based on ANCOVA model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect, utilizing the baseline scores as covariate.||0.25|-0.56|0.6286
90865022|NCT01090492|181593396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.12||||0.9504|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.43|2.68|||ANCOVA|||At Week 4 - PRP: Adjusted mean difference analysis was based on ANCOVA model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect, utilizing the baseline scores as covariate.||2.68|-2.43|0.9504
90865023|NCT01090492|181593396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.35||||0.4651|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.74|1.03|||ANCOVA|||At Week 4 - PRP: Adjusted mean difference analysis was based on ANCOVA model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect, utilizing the baseline scores as covariate.||1.03|-3.74|0.4651
90865024|NCT01090492|181593396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.59||||0.7423|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.92|1.73|||ANCOVA|||At Week 4 - SRP: Adjusted mean difference analysis was based on ANCOVA model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect, utilizing the baseline scores as covariate.||1.73|-2.92|0.7423
90865025|NCT01090492|181593396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.91||||0.3524|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.55|0.73|||ANCOVA|||At Week 4 - SRP: Adjusted mean difference analysis was based on ANCOVA model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect, utilizing the baseline scores as covariate.||0.73|-4.55|0.3524
90865026|NCT01090492|181593397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.21||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.61|7.03|||ANCOVA|||PRP: Adjusted mean difference analysis was based on ANCOVA model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect, utilizing the baseline scores as covariate.||7.03|-4.61|0.7900
90908473|NCT02266329|181685733|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|-0.8||The significance of the study visit by treatment interaction with study visit coded as baseline, 4 weeks, 8 weeks, and 12 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline in headache (HA) frequency (1. Primary Outcome Measure) is based on linear mixed effects regression of outcome on study visit by treatment interaction with study participant as a random effect.||-0.8|-6.9|0.034
90908474|NCT02926937|181685755|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares (LS) Mean|-0.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.975|-0.415|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 is analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.0, \>8.0%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||-0.415|-0.975|<0.0001
90908475|NCT02926937|181685756|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.565||||0.0141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0166|-0.114|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 is analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.0, \>8.0%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, country, treatment-by-country as fixed effects, and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||-0.1140|-1.0166|0.0141
90908476|NCT02926937|181685757|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.346||||0.2081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8853|0.1928|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 is analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups under Amendment 1 randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.0, \>8.0%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, country, treatment-by-country as fixed effects, and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||0.1928|-0.8853|0.2081
90908477|NCT02926937|181685758|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-1.556|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1876|-0.9234|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 is analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.0, \>8.0%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥ 130mmHg) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and baseline fasting plasma glucose as a covariate.||-0.9234|-2.1876|<0.0001
90908478|NCT02926937|181685759|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-3.5||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.478|1.476|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 12 is analyzed using analysis ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.0, \>8.0%) at screening and country as fixed effects, and baseline SBP as a covariate.||1.476|-8.478|0.1680
90908479|NCT02926937|181685760|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.78||||0.5467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.311|1.753|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 12 is analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.0, \>8.0%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and baseline SBP as a covariate.||1.753|-3.311|0.5467
90908480|NCT02926937|181685761|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-3.19||||0.0193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.869|-0.518|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 12 is analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.0, \>8.0%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and baseline SBP as a covariate.||-0.518|-5.869|0.0193
90908481|NCT02926937|181685762|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-1.54||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.404|-0.676|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 is analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.0, \>8.0%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and baseline weight as a covariate.||-0.676|-2.404|0.0005
90908482|NCT02926937|181685763|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-1.17||||0.0406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.281|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 is analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.0, \>8.0%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130mmHg) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and baseline weight as a covariate.||-0.050|-2.281|0.0406
90908483|NCT02926937|181685764|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|12.6||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.18|21.02|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage difference between treatment groups from each stratum (randomization strata of HbA1c (\<=8.0, \>8.0%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, \>=130 mmHg) at screening) using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.||21.02|4.18|0.0037
90908484|NCT02926937|181685765|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|19.2||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.39|30.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage difference between treatment groups from each stratum (randomization strata of HbA1c (\<=8.0, \>8.0%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, \>=130 mmHg) at screening) using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.||30.00|8.39|0.0007
90908485|NCT02926937|181685766|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.67|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.989|-0.354|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 is analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.0, \>8.0%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||-0.354|-0.989|<0.0001
90908486|NCT00126113|181685786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Analysis for main effect of group||||||>0.05
91033153|NCT00048581|181952004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adj M Chg from BL: Reaching|-0.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.25|||ANCOVA|||Mean changes from baseline in HAQ disability index were compared between treatment groups using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models and 95% confidence intervals were calculated. This analysis was based on the LOCF data set. Similar analyses were also conducted for each of the 8 individual categories: 1) dressing and grooming; 2) arising; 3) eating; 4) walking; 5) hygiene; 6) reach; 7) grip; and 8) common daily activities. Adjusted Mean Change From Baseline= Adj M Chg from BL||-0.25|-0.61|<0.001
90908487|NCT00126113|181685787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Analysis for main effect of group|ANOVA|||||||>0.05
90908488|NCT00126113|181685788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Analysis for main effect of group||||||>0.05
90908489|NCT00126113|181685789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Analysis for main effect of group||||||>0.05
90908490|NCT03499600|181685791|SUPERIORITY|Due to condition differences all analyses controlled for length of intake assessment (in minutes), site, caregiver race/ethnicity, daily stress, and language of assessment delivery.||||||0.03|||||||Regression, Linear|||A power analysis assuming an alpha level = 0.05, beta = 0.2, and power = 0.8, identified a sample ≥82 participants was needed to identify small-to-medium effects (i.e., OR\~2.5).Intent-to-treat analyses were employed. This linear regressions tested condition effects on caregiver perceptions of the extent to which the provider understood the caregivers' values or what is important to them.||||.03
90865027|NCT01090492|181593397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-6.17||||0.1463|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-11.61|-0.73|||ANCOVA|||PRP: Adjusted mean difference analysis was based on ANCOVA model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect, utilizing the baseline scores as covariate.||-0.73|-11.61|0.1463
90865028|NCT01090492|181593397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.37||||0.1446|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.44|-0.29|||ANCOVA|||SRP: Adjusted mean difference analysis was based on ANCOVA model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect, utilizing the baseline scores as covariate.||-0.29|-4.44|0.1446
90959872|NCT03401229|181799746|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-5.057||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.129|1.015||This endpoint was not a part of the pre-specified testing strategy and was not tested for statistical significance. The p-value was considered nominal.|ANCOVA|Following WP (WP for NP surgery rescued subjects), model included treatment, baseline score, region (US/Non-US) and baseline comorbid asthma status||This endpoint compared the changes from baseline score between benralizumab and placebo. H0: The change from baseline score is similar between benralizumab and placebo. H1: The change from baseline score is different between benralizumab and placebo.||1.015|-11.129|0.1020
90865029|NCT01090492|181593397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.09||||0.5497|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.45|1.26|||ANCOVA|||SRP: Adjusted mean difference analysis was based on ANCOVA model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect, utilizing the baseline scores as covariate.||1.26|-3.45|0.5497
90865030|NCT01090492|181593398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.15||||0.5909|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.21|0.52|||ANCOVA|||Week 4 (PRP): Adjusted mean difference analysis was based on ANCOVA model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect, utilizing the baseline scores as covariate.||0.52|-0.21|0.5909
90865031|NCT01090492|181593398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.77||||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.12|-0.43|||ANCOVA|||Week 4 (PRP): Adjusted mean difference analysis was based on ANCOVA model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect, utilizing the baseline scores as covariate.||-0.43|-1.12|0.0053
90865032|NCT01090492|181593398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.28||||0.3462|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.67|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Week 4 (SRP): Adjusted mean difference analysis was based on ANCOVA model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect, utilizing the baseline scores as covariate.||0.10|-0.67|0.3462
90865033|NCT01090492|181593398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.44||||0.194|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.88|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||Week 4 (SRP): Adjusted mean difference analysis was based on ANCOVA model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect, utilizing the baseline scores as covariate.||-0.01|-0.88|0.1940
90865034|NCT03583697|181593449|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference (Net)|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.53||||||"Z-Scores were derived using age-sex specific reference data (means and SDs) for average stature children per the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.~Participants aged \< 24 months, body length takes precedence over standing height. Participants aged \< 24 months at baseline and \>= 24 months at Week 52, body length takes precedence.~Difference in least squares (LS) means were obtained from an analysis of covariance model."||0.53|-0.02|
90888122|NCT03521635|181639533|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.44||||0.2374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|36.85|||Regression, Logistic||The odds ratio (OR) between Pramipexole Sustained Release and Pramipexole Immediate Release groups.|Logistic regression analyses for responder rate at week 18 of CGI-I were performed with treatment as the independent variable.||36.85|0.57|0.2374
90888123|NCT03521635|181639534|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.44||||0.2374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|36.85|||Regression, Logistic||The odds ratio (OR) between Pramipexole Sustained Release and Pramipexole Immediate Release groups.|Logistic regression analyses for responder rate at week 18 of PGI-I were performed with treatment as the independent variable.||36.85|0.57|0.2374
90888124|NCT03521635|181639535|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.7|||REML-based repeated measures approach|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML) - based repeated measures approach was applied.|Mean difference was calculated as Pramipexole Sustained Release minus Pramipexole immediate Release.|Mean changes from baseline of ESS score were analysed using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML) - based repeated measures approach. Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit in the maintenance period, and treatment-by-visit interaction, and the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline and baseline-by-visit interaction.||1.7|-1.4|0.820
90888125|NCT00492349|181639544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||Mixed model ANCOVA in which baseline served as the covariate and Smoking status and measurement occasions were between and within-groups factors, respectively.||||<0.05
90888126|NCT00492349|181639545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05||||||All treatment main and interaction effect p-values were \> 0.05.|ANCOVA|||Mixed model ANCOVA in which baseline CPT Detectability served as the covariate and Smoking status and measurement occasions were between and within-groups factors, respectively.||||>0.05
90888127|NCT00492349|181639546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||Mixed model ANCOVA in which baseline Antisaccade Errors served as the covariate and Smoking status and measurement occasions were between and within-groups factors, respectively.||||<0.05
90888128|NCT00626522|181639548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.206|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.131|0.28|||ANCOVA|||||0.280|0.131|<0.0001
90865035|NCT03583697|181593449|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.54||||||"Z-Scores were derived using age-sex specific reference data (means and SDs) for average stature children per the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.~Participants aged \< 24 months, body length takes precedence over standing height. Participants aged \< 24 months at baseline and \>= 24 months at Week 52, body length takes precedence.~Difference in LS means were obtained from an analysis of covariance model."||0.54|0.07|
90865036|NCT03583697|181593450|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference (Net)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|1.56||||||Difference in LS means were obtained from an analysis of covariance model.||1.56|-0.02|
90865037|NCT03583697|181593450|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference (Net)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.66||||||Difference in LS means were obtained from an analysis of covariance model.||1.66|0.26|
90865038|NCT03583697|181593451|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference (Net)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|1.54||||||||1.54|0.02|
90865039|NCT03583697|181593451|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference (Net)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|1.59||||||Difference in LS means were obtained from an analysis of covariance model.||1.59|0.24|
90865040|NCT03583697|181593452|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.04||||||Difference in LS means were obtained from an analysis of covariance model.||0.04|-0.17|
90865041|NCT03583697|181593452|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.03||||||Difference in LS means were obtained from an analysis of covariance model.||0.03|-0.15|
90865042|NCT00365508|181593503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0||||a priori threshold for statistical significance|Chi-squared|||Chi-square was used to examine the relationship between treatment arm and 24-hour point prevalence abstinence at 6-months.||||.05
90865043|NCT00679432|181593515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions|5.8||||0.1393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|13.4|||Chi-squared||The difference in proportions was determined by subtracting the proportion of patients who reached the endpoint in the placebo group from that proportion in the active group (active minus placebo).|All p-values were based on the Chi-square test; comparisons of budesonide MMX and placebo were conducted at the α = 0.025 level of significance and the comparison of Asacol and placebo were conducted at the α = 0.05 level of significance. The study was not powered to show statistical significance for Asacol versus budesonide MMX.||13.4|-1.8|0.1393
90865044|NCT00679432|181593515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions|10.4||||0.0143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|18.7|||Chi-squared||See comments from the budesonide 6 mg versus placebo comparison (statistical analysis 1).|See comments from the budesonide 6 mg versus placebo comparison (statistical analysis 1).||18.7|2.2|0.0143
90865045|NCT00679432|181593515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions|4.7||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|12.1|||Chi-squared||See comments from the budesonide 6 mg versus placebo comparison (statistical analysis 1).|See comments from the budesonide 6 mg versus placebo comparison (statistical analysis 1).||12.1|-2.7|0.2200
90865046|NCT00679432|181593516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions|5.8||||0.3146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|17.0|||Chi-squared||The difference in proportions was determined by subtracting the proportion of patients who reached the endpoint in the placebo group from that proportion in the active group (active minus placebo).|Clinical improvement and endoscopic improvement were analyzed hierarchically. If at least one primary endpoint comparison was statistically significant, clinical improvement was to be compared between each budesonide MMX group and placebo at the α = 0.025 level of significance. If at least one comparison of clinical improvement was statistically significant, endoscopic improvement was to be compared between each budesonide MMX dose group and placebo at the α = 0.025 level of significance.||17.0|-5.5|0.3146
90865047|NCT00679432|181593516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions|8.5||||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|19.9|||Chi-squared||See comments from the budesonide 6 mg versus placebo comparison (statistical analysis 1).|See comments from the budesonide 6 mg versus placebo comparison (statistical analysis 1).||19.9|-2.8|0.1420
90888129|NCT00626522|181639548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.254|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.329|||ANCOVA|||||0.329|0.180|<0.0001
90888130|NCT00626522|181639548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.265|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.191|0.34|||ANCOVA|||||0.340|0.191|<0.0001
90888131|NCT01928719|181639553|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.95|5.58|||Regression, Cox||The direction of comparison is reduced nicotine content vs. same nicotine content cigarettes.|||5.58|1.95|<0.0001
90908491|NCT03499600|181685791|SUPERIORITY|Due to condition differences all analyses controlled for length of intake assessment (in minutes), site, caregiver race/ethnicity, daily stress, and language of assessment delivery.||||||0.68|||||||Regression, Linear|||A power analysis assuming an alpha level = 0.05, beta = 0.2, and power = 0.8, identified a sample ≥82 participants was needed to identify small-to-medium effects (i.e., OR\~2.5).Intent-to-treat analyses were employed.This linear regressions tested condition effects on caregiver satisfaction with the intake.||||.68
90908492|NCT03499600|181685791|SUPERIORITY|Due to condition differences all analyses controlled for length of intake assessment (in minutes), site, caregiver race/ethnicity, daily stress, and language of assessment delivery.||||||0.03|||||||Regression, Linear|||A power analysis assuming an alpha level = 0.05, beta = 0.2, and power = 0.8, identified a sample ≥82 participants was needed to identify small-to-medium effects (i.e., OR\~2.5).Intent-to-treat analyses were employed.This linear regressions tested condition effects on provider perceptions of the extent to which the provider understood the caregivers' values or what is important to them.||||.03
90908493|NCT03499600|181685791|SUPERIORITY|Due to condition differences all analyses controlled for length of intake assessment (in minutes), site, caregiver race/ethnicity, daily stress, and language of assessment delivery.|||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||A power analysis assuming an alpha level = 0.05, beta = 0.2, and power = 0.8, identified a sample ≥82 participants was needed to identify small-to-medium effects (i.e., OR\~2.5).Intent-to-treat analyses were employed. This linear regressions tested condition effects on provider satisfaction with the intake.||||<.05
90940349|NCT00526097|181760475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.0003||95.0|-0.3|-0.1||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||-0.1|-0.3|0.0003
90908494|NCT03499600|181685793|SUPERIORITY|Due to condition differences all analyses controlled for length of intake assessment (in minutes), site, caregiver race/ethnicity, daily stress, and language of assessment delivery.||||||0.93|||||||Regression, Linear|||Power analysis assuming an alpha level = 0.05, beta = 0.2, and power = 0.8, identified a sample ≥82 participants was needed to identify small-to-medium effects (i.e., OR\~2.5).Intent-to-treat analyses were employed. Linear regressions tested condition effects on therapeutic alliance.||||.93
90908495|NCT03499600|181685793|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Regression, Linear|||Tested the moderation effects of language of service reception and condition on therapeutic alliance.||||.90
90908496|NCT03499600|181685794|SUPERIORITY|Due to condition differences all analyses controlled for length of intake assessment (in minutes), site, caregiver race/ethnicity, daily stress, and language of assessment delivery. Baseline ECBI score was included as a covariate for the treatment response analyses.||||||0.171|||||||Regression, Logistic|||A power analysis assuming an alpha level = 0.05, beta = 0.2, and power = 0.8, identified a sample ≥82 participants was needed to identify small-to-medium effects (i.e., OR\~2.5).Intent-to-treat analyses were employed. A logistic regression tested condition effects on treatment response.||||.171
90908497|NCT03499600|181685794|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Testes the effects of the moderation of language of service delivery and condition on treatment response.||||<.05
90908498|NCT03499600|181685795|SUPERIORITY|Due to condition differences all analyses controlled for length of intake assessment (in minutes), site, caregiver race/ethnicity, daily stress, and language of assessment delivery.||||||0.38|||||||Regression, Linear|||A power analysis assuming an alpha level = 0.05, beta = 0.2, and power = 0.8, identified a sample ≥82 participants was needed to identify small-to-medium effects (i.e., OR\~2.5).Intent-to-treat analyses were employed. Linear regressions tested condition effects on session attendance.||||.38
90908499|NCT03499600|181685795|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Regression, Linear|||Analyses tested the moderation of language of service delivery and condition on session attendance.||||.01
90908500|NCT03499600|181685795|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||Regression, Linear|||Power analysis assuming an alpha level = 0.05, beta = 0.2, and power = 0.8, identified a sample ≥82 participants was needed to identify small-to-medium effects (i.e., OR\~2.5).Intent-to-treat analyses were employed. linear regressions tested condition effects on homework completion. Due to condition differences all analyses controlled for length of intake assessment (in minutes), site, caregiver race/ethnicity, daily stress, and language of assessment delivery.||||.56
90908501|NCT03499600|181685795|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Regression, Linear|||Analyses tested the moderation effect of language of service delivery and condition on homework completion.||||<.01
90908502|NCT03499600|181685795|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Power analysis assuming an alpha level = 0.05, beta = 0.2, and power = 0.8, identified a sample ≥82 participants was needed to identify small-to-medium effects (i.e., OR\~2.5).Intent-to-treat analyses were employed. Logistic regressions tested condition effects on initial session attendance. Due to condition differences all analyses controlled for length of intake assessment (in minutes), site, caregiver race/ethnicity, daily stress, and language of assessment delivery.||||.40
90908503|NCT03499600|181685795|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Analyses tested the moderation of language of service delivery and condition on initial session attendance.||||.01
90908504|NCT03499600|181685795|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Regression, Logistic|||power analysis assuming an alpha level = 0.05, beta = 0.2, and power = 0.8, identified a sample ≥82 participants was needed to identify small-to-medium effects (i.e., OR\~2.5).Intent-to-treat analyses were employed. A Logistic regression tested condition effects on completion of first treatment module. Due to condition differences all analyses controlled for length of intake assessment (in minutes), site, caregiver race/ethnicity, daily stress, and language of assessment delivery.||||.03
90908505|NCT03499600|181685795|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Analyses tested the moderation of language of service delivery and condition on completion of first treatment module.||||.03
90908506|NCT03499600|181685796|SUPERIORITY|Due to condition differences all analyses controlled for length of intake assessment (in minutes), site, caregiver race/ethnicity, daily stress, and language of assessment delivery.||||||0.854|||||||Regression, Linear|||A power analysis assuming an alpha level = 0.05, beta = 0.2, and power = 0.8, identified a sample ≥82 participants was needed to identify small-to-medium effects (i.e., OR\~2.5).Intent-to-treat analyses were employed. linear regressions tested condition effects on treatment satisfaction.||||.854
90908507|NCT03499600|181685797|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.319|||||||Regression, Linear|||A power analysis assuming an alpha level = 0.05, beta = 0.2, and power = 0.8, identified a sample ≥82 participants was needed to identify small-to-medium effects (i.e., OR\~2.5).Intent-to-treat analyses were employed. linear regressions tested change in ECBI score from baseline to post treatment.||||.319
90908508|NCT00561574|181685804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Two-sided significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90908509|NCT00561574|181685804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Two-sided significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90908510|NCT00561574|181685805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Two-sided significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90908511|NCT00561574|181685805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Two-sided significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90908512|NCT00561574|181685806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Two-sided significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90908513|NCT00561574|181685806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Two-sided significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90908514|NCT00561574|181685807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3129||||||Two-sided significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3129
90908515|NCT00561574|181685807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3154||||||Two-sided significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3154
90908516|NCT00561574|181685808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Two-sided significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90908517|NCT00561574|181685808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Two-sided significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90908518|NCT00561574|181685809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Two-sided significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90908519|NCT00561574|181685809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Two-sided significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90908520|NCT00561574|181685810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Two-sided significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90908521|NCT00561574|181685810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0001||||||Two-sided significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0001
90908522|NCT00561574|181685811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0116||||||Two-sided significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0116
90908523|NCT00561574|181685811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0004||||||Two-sided significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0004
90908524|NCT03860077|181685828|SUPERIORITY|Average cigarettes per day was positively skewed, with a non-normal residual distribution in a mixed model analysis specifying a normal (Gaussian) outcome distribution. Therefore, this outcome was recoded to integers and modeled as a count with a negative binomial distribution and log link. The focal test is the difference in change from Baseline to Week 4 (i.e., Time) in the VLNC vs. NNC condition (i.e., Group), which is a cross-level interactive effect of Time and Group.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.19|||Mixed Models Analysis||The reported value is the standard error of the mean for the non-exponentiated estimate = 0.35.|These are results of a 2-group (VLNC \& NNC) x 2 repeated measures (Baseline \& Week 4) mixed effects model to test the effect of the randomization group (VLNC vs. NNC) on change in cigarette use and alternative tobacco product (ATP) use from Baseline to Week 4. Group (VLNC vs. NNC) is a fixed, between-subjects focal predictor. Timepoint (Baseline vs. Week 4) is a fixed, within-subjects repeated measure. Subject is a random effect, accounting for variability in Baseline cigarette and ATP use.||2.19|0.92|.111
90908525|NCT03860077|181685829|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93||0.721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|4.75|||Mixed Models Analysis||The reported value is the standard error of the mean for the non-exponentiated estimate = - 0.34.|This outcome was recoded as a dichotomous outcome with a binary distribution and log link. The focal test is the difference in change from Baseline to Week 4 (i.e., Time) in the VLNC vs. NNC condition (i.e., Group), which is a cross-level interactive effect of Time and Group.||4.75|.11|.721
90908526|NCT03860077|181685830|SUPERIORITY|Frequencies of non-combustible alternative product use (ATP) were bimodal with peaks at 0 (no use) and 7 (daily use). Therefore, this outcome was recoded as a dichotomous outcome with a binary distribution and log link. The focal test is the difference in change from Baseline to Week 4 (i.e., Time) in the VLNC vs. NNC condition (i.e., Group), which is a cross-level interactive effect of Time and Group.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96||0.564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|3.99|||Mixed Models Analysis||The reported value is the standard error of the mean for the non-exponentiated estimate = - 0.56.|||3.99|.08|.564
90908527|NCT03860077|181685831|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.56||0.876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.92|3.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The study cigarette outcome is modeled with a normal, Gaussian distribution. The focal test is the difference in change from Baseline to Week 4 (i.e., Time) in the VLNC vs. NNC condition (i.e., Group), which is a cross-level interactive effect of Time and Group. Baseline in this analysis is average number of usual brand cigarettes at baseline, prior to randomization.||3.42|-2.92|.876
90908528|NCT03860077|181685832|SUPERIORITY|The focal test is the difference in change from Baseline to Week 4 (i.e., Time) in the VLNC vs. NNC condition (i.e., Group), which is a cross-level interactive effect of Time and Group.|Slope|-2166.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1753.48||0.226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5743.04|1409.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1409.47|-5743.04|.226
90908529|NCT02931396|181685900|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.3||||0.768|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.768
90908530|NCT02931396|181685901|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|25.5||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1
90908531|NCT02931396|181685902|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.7||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
90908532|NCT01140347|181685925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.866||||0.1391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.717|1.046|||Log Rank||HR with 95% confidence interval (CI) was estimated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model using the Interactive Web Response System (IWRS) stratification factors (geographical regions and etiology of liver disease).|||1.046|0.717|0.1391
90908533|NCT01140347|181685926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.625|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.522|0.75|||Log Rank||HR with 95% CI was estimated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model using the IWRS stratification factors (geographical regions and etiology of liver disease).|||0.750|0.522|<0.0001
90908534|NCT01140347|181685927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) adjusted for geographic region and etiology liver disease||||||<0.0001
90908535|NCT01140347|181685928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.593|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.487|0.722|||Log Rank||HR with 95% CI was estimated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model using the IWRS stratification factors (geographical regions and etiology of liver disease).|||0.722|0.487|<0.0001
90908536|NCT00662909|181685958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.34||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.03||The response variable for the stratified rank ANCOVA was standardized ranks on change from baseline to Final Visit value with baseline standardized ranks and gender as covariates and geographic region as a stratum.|Stratified rank ANCOVA|LS mean difference was derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, gender, and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.||Since there were 2 coprimary efficacy endpoints and 3 key secondary efficacy endpoints, the multiplicity among the endpoints was controlled at a type I error rate at the alpha = 0.05 level using a stepwise parallel gatekeeping procedure (5 stages). In addition, since two mirabegron treatment groups were compared with placebo per endpoint, the Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity. A stratified rank ANCOVA model was utilized for hypothesis testing.||-0.03|-0.66|0.026
90908537|NCT00662909|181685958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.18||The response variable for the stratified rank ANCOVA was standardized ranks on change from baseline to Final Visit value with baseline standardized ranks and gender as covariates and geographic region as a stratum.|Stratified rank ANCOVA|LS mean difference was derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, gender, and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.||Since there were 2 coprimary efficacy endpoints and 3 key secondary efficacy endpoints, the multiplicity among the endpoints was controlled at a type I error rate at the alpha = 0.05 level using a stepwise parallel gatekeeping procedure (5 stages). In addition, since two mirabegron treatment groups were compared with placebo per endpoint, the Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity. A stratified rank ANCOVA model was utilized for hypothesis testing.||-0.18|-0.82|<0.001
90908538|NCT00662909|181685959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.61||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.24||LS mean difference and p-value were derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, gender, and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Since there were 2 coprimary efficacy endpoints and 3 key secondary efficacy endpoints, the multiplicity among the endpoints was controlled at a type I error rate at the alpha = 0.05 level using a stepwise parallel gatekeeping procedure (5 stages). In addition, since two mirabegron treatment groups were compared with placebo per endpoint, the Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity. An ANCOVA model was used for hypothesis testing.||-0.24|-0.98|0.001
90908539|NCT00662909|181685959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.33||LS mean difference and p-value were derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, gender, and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Since there were 2 coprimary efficacy endpoints and 3 key secondary efficacy endpoints, the multiplicity among the endpoints was controlled at a type I error rate at the alpha = 0.05 level using a stepwise parallel gatekeeping procedure (5 stages). In addition, since two mirabegron treatment groups were compared with placebo per endpoint, the Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity. An ANCOVA model was used for hypothesis testing.||-0.33|-1.07|<0.001
90908540|NCT00662909|181685960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|11.1||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|17.9||LS mean difference and p-value were derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, gender, and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Since there were 2 coprimary efficacy endpoints and 3 key secondary efficacy endpoints, the multiplicity among the endpoints was controlled at a type I error rate at the alpha = 0.05 level using a stepwise parallel gatekeeping procedure (5 stages). In addition, since two mirabegron treatment groups were compared with placebo per endpoint, the Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity. An ANCOVA model was used for hypothesis testing.||17.9|4.4|0.001
90908541|NCT00662909|181685960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|11.0||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|17.7||LS mean difference and p-value were derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, gender, and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Since there were 2 coprimary efficacy endpoints and 3 key secondary efficacy endpoints, the multiplicity among the endpoints was controlled at a type I error rate at the alpha = 0.05 level using a stepwise parallel gatekeeping procedure (5 stages). In addition, since two mirabegron treatment groups were compared with placebo per endpoint, the Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity. An ANCOVA model was used for hypothesis testing.||17.7|4.2|0.002
90940350|NCT00526097|181760476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.0127||95.0|-0.2|0.0||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||-0.0|-0.2|0.0127
90940351|NCT00526097|181760477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.0064||95.0|-0.3|0.0||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||-0.0|-0.3|0.0064
90908542|NCT00662909|181685961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.48||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.15||The response variable for the stratified rank ANCOVA was standardized ranks on change from baseline to Final Visit value with baseline standardized ranks and gender as covariates and geographic region as a stratum.|Stratified rank ANCOVA|LS mean difference was derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, gender, and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.||Since there were 2 coprimary efficacy endpoints and 3 key secondary efficacy endpoints, the multiplicity among the endpoints was controlled at a type I error rate at the alpha = 0.05 level using a stepwise parallel gatekeeping procedure (5 stages). In addition, since two mirabegron treatment groups were compared with placebo per endpoint, the Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity. A stratified rank ANCOVA model was utilized for hypothesis testing.||-0.15|-0.80|0.003
90908543|NCT00662909|181685961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.13||The response variable for the stratified rank ANCOVA was standardized ranks on change from baseline to Final Visit value with baseline standardized ranks and gender as covariates and geographic region as a stratum.|Stratified rank ANCOVA|LS mean difference was derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, gender, and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.||Since there were 2 coprimary efficacy endpoints and 3 key secondary efficacy endpoints, the multiplicity among the endpoints was controlled at a type I error rate at the alpha = 0.05 level using a stepwise parallel gatekeeping procedure (5 stages). In addition, since two mirabegron treatment groups were compared with placebo per endpoint, the Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity. A stratified rank ANCOVA model was utilized for hypothesis testing.||-0.13|-0.79|<0.001
90908544|NCT00662909|181685962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.42||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.06||LS mean difference and p-value were derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, gender, and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Since there were 2 coprimary efficacy endpoints and 3 key secondary efficacy endpoints, the multiplicity among the endpoints was controlled at a type I error rate at the alpha = 0.05 level using a stepwise parallel gatekeeping procedure (5 stages). In addition, since two mirabegron treatment groups were compared with placebo per endpoint, the Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity. An ANCOVA model was used for hypothesis testing.||-0.06|-0.77|0.022
90908545|NCT00662909|181685962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.24||LS mean difference and p-value were derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, gender, and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Since there were 2 coprimary efficacy endpoints and 3 key secondary efficacy endpoints, the multiplicity among the endpoints was controlled at a type I error rate at the alpha = 0.05 level using a stepwise parallel gatekeeping procedure (5 stages). In addition, since two mirabegron treatment groups were compared with placebo per endpoint, the Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity. An ANCOVA model was used for hypothesis testing.||-0.24|-0.96|0.001
90908546|NCT03107611|181686036|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0817|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0817
90908547|NCT03107611|181686036|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2874|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2874
90908548|NCT03107611|181686037|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin: -0.20, +0.20|Difference in proportions|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.12|0.06||||||||0.06|-0.12|
90908549|NCT01720446|181686054|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of semaglutide versus placebo was considered to be confirmed if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the HR was below 1.8 or equivalent if the p-value for the one-sided test of: H0: HR ≥ 1.8 against Ha: HR \<1.8 was less than 2.5% (or equivalent to 5% for a two-sided test).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.95||The 'p-value' is for the two-sided Wald test of non-inferiority with limit 1.8.|Regression, Cox||Semaglutide/Placebo|The primary endpoint was analysed using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model with treatment group (semaglutide, placebo) as fixed factor. Assuming the same population MACE risk for the semaglutide and placebo groups (i.e., the population hazards ratio \[HR\] equals 1), a total minimum of 122 events were needed in order to have at least 90% power to ascertain that the upper two-sided 95% confidence limit for the HR was less than 1.8.||0.95|0.58|<0.0001
90908550|NCT01720446|181686054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.0167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.95||The 'p-value' is for the two-sided Wald test of no difference.|Regression, Cox||Semaglutide/Placebo|A post hoc analysis of superiority of semaglutide versus placebo was performed based on the pre-specified Cox proportional hazard analysis using the two-sided Wald test of no difference, with treatment (semaglutide, placebo) as fixed factor and stratified by all possible combinations of the three stratification factors used in the randomisation procedure (in total 9 levels).||0.95|0.58|0.0167
90908551|NCT01720446|181686055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.89|||Regression, Cox||Semaglutide/Placebo|Analysis was done by Cox proportional hazards model with treatment (semaglutide; placebo) as a fixed factor and stratified by all possible combinations of the three stratification factors used in the randomisation procedure (in total 9 levels).||0.89|0.62|0.0016
90908552|NCT01720446|181686056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.9181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.48|||Regression, Cox||Semaglutide/Placebo|Analysis for CV death was done by Cox proportional hazards model with treatment (semaglutide; placebo) as a fixed factor and stratified by all possible combinations of the three stratification factors used in the randomisation procedure (in total 9 levels).||1.48|0.65|0.9181
90959873|NCT01776424|181799783|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||4e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.86||Independent DSMB recommended to stop rivaroxaban/aspirin arms on 06FEB2017. At first interim analysis(\~50% events) the log-rank test statistic for one primary comparison had crossed the modified Haybittle-Peto boundary(z=4) consistently over 3 months|Log Rank|Log-rank test (stratified by pantoprazole randomization)|Stratified Cox proportional hazards model|||0.86|0.66|0.00004
90959874|NCT01776424|181799783|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.1149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.03|||Log Rank|Log-rank test (stratified by pantoprazole randomization)|Stratified Cox proportional hazards model|||1.03|0.79|0.11490
90959875|NCT01776424|181799784|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.7|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|2.05|||Log Rank|Log-rank test (stratified by pantoprazole randomization)|Stratified Cox proportional hazards model|||2.05|1.40|<0.00001
90959876|NCT01776424|181799784|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.51||||3e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|1.84|||Log Rank|Log-rank test (stratified by pantoprazole randomization)|Stratified Cox proportional hazards model|||1.84|1.25|0.00003
90908553|NCT01720446|181686056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.1194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.08|||Regression, Cox||Semaglutide/Placebo|Analysis for non-fatal myocardial infarction was done by Cox proportional hazards model with treatment (semaglutide; placebo) as a fixed factor and stratified by all possible combinations of the three stratification factors used in the randomisation procedure (in total 9 levels).||1.08|0.51|0.1194
90908554|NCT01720446|181686056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61||||0.0438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.99|||Regression, Cox||Semaglutide/Placebo|Analysis for non-fatal stroke was done by Cox proportional hazards model with treatment (semaglutide; placebo) as a fixed factor and stratified by all possible combinations of the three stratification factors used in the randomisation procedure (in total 9 levels).||0.99|0.38|0.0438
90908555|NCT01720446|181686056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.86|||Regression, Cox||Semaglutide/Placebo|Analysis for revascularisation was done by Cox proportional hazards model with treatment (semaglutide; placebo) as a fixed factor and stratified by all possible combinations of the three stratification factors used in the randomisation procedure (in total 9 levels).||0.86|0.50|0.0027
90908556|NCT01720446|181686056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.4914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.44|||Regression, Cox||Semaglutide/Placebo|Analysis for 'unstable angina requiring hospitalisation' was done by Cox proportional hazards model with treatment (semaglutide; placebo) as a fixed factor and stratified by all possible combinations of the three stratification factors used in the randomisation procedure (in total 9 levels).||1.44|0.47|0.4914
90908557|NCT01720446|181686056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.5735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.61|||Regression, Cox||Semaglutide/Placcbo|Analysis for hospitalisation for heart failure was done by Cox proportional hazards model with treatment (semaglutide; placebo) as a fixed factor and stratified by all possible combinations of the three stratification factors used in the randomisation procedure (in total 9 levels).||1.61|0.77|0.5735
90908558|NCT01720446|181686057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.0292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.97|||Regression, Cox||Semaglutide/Placebo|Analysis for all-cause death, non-fatal MI or non-fatal stroke was done by Cox proportional hazards model with treatment (semaglutide; placebo) as a fixed factor and stratified by all possible combinations of the three stratification factors used in the randomisation procedure (in total 9 levels).||0.97|0.61|0.0292
90959877|NCT01776424|181799785|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.83||Nominal p-value|Log Rank|Log-rank test (stratified by pantoprazole randomization)|Stratified Cox proportional hazards model|||0.83|0.63|0.00001
90959878|NCT01776424|181799785|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.06437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.01||Nominal p-value|Log Rank|Log-rank test (stratified by pantoprazole randomization)|Stratified Cox proportional hazards model|||1.01|0.77|0.06437
90908559|NCT01720446|181686058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.52|||Mixed Models Analysis||Sema 0.5 mg - Placebo 0.5 mg|Analysis was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||-0.52|-0.80|<0.0001
90908560|NCT01720446|181686058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-1.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|-0.91|||Mixed Models Analysis||Sema 1.0 mg - Placebo 1.0 mg|Analysis was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||-0.91|-1.19|<0.0001
90908561|NCT01720446|181686059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.38|||Mixed Models Analysis||Sema 0.5 mg - Placebo 0.5 mg|Analysis was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||-0.38|-1.06|<0.0001
90908562|NCT01720446|181686059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-1.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|-0.88|||Mixed Models Analysis||Sema 1.0 mg - Placebo 1.0 mg|Analysis was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||-0.88|-1.56|<0.0001
90959879|NCT01776424|181799786|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.85||Nominal p-value|Log Rank|Log-rank test (stratified by pantoprazole randomization)|Stratified Cox proportional hazards model|||0.85|0.65|0.00001
90959880|NCT01776424|181799786|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.03995||95.0|0.77|0.99||Nominal p-value|Log Rank|Log-rank test (stratified by pantoprazole randomization)|Stratified Cox proportional hazards model|||0.99|0.77|0.03995
90959881|NCT01776424|181799787|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.01062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.96||Nominal p-value|Log Rank|Log-rank test (stratified by pantoprazole randomization)|Stratified Cox proportional hazards model|||0.96|0.71|0.01062
90959882|NCT01776424|181799787|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.66418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.12||Nominal p-value|Log Rank|Log-rank test (stratified by pantoprazole randomization)|Stratified Cox proportional hazards model|||1.12|0.84|0.66418
90908563|NCT01720446|181686060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-2.95|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.47|-2.44|||Mixed Models Analysis||Sema 0.5 mg - Placebo|Analysis was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||-2.44|-3.47|<0.0001
90908564|NCT01720446|181686060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-4.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.78|-3.75|||Mixed Models Analysis||Semaglutide 1.0 mg - Placebo|Analysis was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||-3.75|-4.78|<0.0001
90959883|NCT00819390|181799795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.428||||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance used for the two-sided test was 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|No other adjustments||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms/groups with respect to change in percent CD8 HLA-DR+/CD38+ from baseline to week 12.||||0.428
90959884|NCT00819390|181799795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.247||||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance used for the two-sided test was 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|No other adjustments.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms/groups with respect to change in percent CD8 HLA-DR+/CD38+ from baseline to week 12.||||0.247
90908565|NCT01720446|181686061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment ratio|0.97||||0.0149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Semaglutide 0.5 mg/Placebo 0.5 mg|Analysis for total cholesterol was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit. The response and its baseline value were log-transformed before analysis.||1.00|0.95|0.0149
90908566|NCT01720446|181686061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment ratio|0.99||||0.258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.01|||Mixed Models Analysis||Semaglutide 1.0 mg/Placebo 1.0 mg|Analysis for total cholesterol was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit. The response and its baseline value were log-transformed before analysis.||1.01|0.97|0.2580
90908567|NCT01720446|181686061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment ratio|1.0||||0.8106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.02|||Mixed Models Analysis||Semaglutide 0.5 mg/Placebo 0.5 mg|Analysis for HDL-cholesterol was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||1.02|0.99|0.8106
90908568|NCT01720446|181686061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment ratio|1.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.06|||Mixed Models Analysis||Semaglutide 1.0 mg/Placebo 1.0 mg|Analysis for HDL-cholesterol was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||1.06|1.02|<0.0001
90908569|NCT01720446|181686061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment ratio|0.96||||0.0185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|0.99|||Mixed Models Analysis||Semaglutide 0.5 mg/Placebo 0.5 mg|Analysis for LDL-cholesterol was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||0.99|0.93|0.0185
90908570|NCT01720446|181686061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment ratio|0.99||||0.5996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.03|||Mixed Models Analysis||Semaglutide 1.0 mg/Placebo 1.0 mg|Analysis for LDL-cholesterol was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||1.03|0.96|0.5996
90908571|NCT01720446|181686061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment ratio|0.97||||0.1833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.01|||Mixed Models Analysis||Semaglutide 0.5 mg/Placebo 0.5 mg|Analysis for triglycerides was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||1.01|0.93|0.1833
90908572|NCT01720446|181686061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment ratio|0.93||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|0.97|||Mixed Models Analysis||Semaglutide 1.0 mg/Placebo 1.0 mg|Analysis for triglycerides was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||0.97|0.89|0.0009
90908573|NCT01720446|181686062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment ratio|0.78||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.89|||Mixed Models Analysis||Sema 0.5 mg / Placebo 0.5 mg|Analysis for urinary albumin to creatinine ration was donne using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit. The response and its baseline value were log-transformed before analysis.||0.89|0.68|0.0003
90908574|NCT01720446|181686062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment ratio|0.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.81|||Mixed Models Analysis||Sema 1.0 mg / Placebo 1.0 mg|Analysis for urinary albumin to creatinine ration was donne using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||0.81|0.62|<0.0001
90908575|NCT01720446|181686063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.04||||0.9205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.92|||Mixed Models Analysis||Semaglutide 0.5 mg - Placebo 0.5 mg|Analysis for diastolic blood pressure was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||0.92|-0.83|0.9205
90908576|NCT01720446|181686063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.14||||0.7477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|1.03|||Mixed Models Analysis||Semaglutide 1.0 mg - Placebo 1.0 mg|Analysis for diastolic blood pressure was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||1.03|-0.74|0.7477
90908577|NCT01720446|181686063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-1.27||||0.0976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.77|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis||Semaglutide 0.5 mg - Placebo 0.5 mg|Analysis for systolic blood pressure was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||0.23|-2.77|0.0976
90908578|NCT01720446|181686063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-2.59||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.09|-1.08|||Mixed Models Analysis||Semaglutide 1.0 mg - Placebo 1.0 mg|Analysis for systolic blood pressure was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||-1.08|-4.09|0.0008
90959885|NCT02294227|181799824|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.07||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|5.66|||Chi-squared|||||5.66|1.66|0.0002
90959886|NCT02294227|181799824|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.24||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.76|5.97|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||5.97|1.76|0.0003
91033154|NCT00048581|181952004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adj M Chg from BL: Gripping|-0.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|-0.15|||ANCOVA|||Mean changes from baseline in HAQ disability index were compared between treatment groups using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models and 95% confidence intervals were calculated. This analysis was based on the LOCF data set. Similar analyses were also conducted for each of the 8 individual categories: 1) dressing and grooming; 2) arising; 3) eating; 4) walking; 5) hygiene; 6) reach; 7) grip; and 8) common daily activities. Adjusted Mean Change From Baseline= Adj M Chg from BL||-0.15|-0.49|<0.001
90908579|NCT01720446|181686067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.5||||0.3171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|1.47|||Mixed Models Analysis||Semaglutide 0.5 mg - Placebo 0.5 mg|Analysis for bodily pain was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||1.47|-0.48|0.3171
90908580|NCT01720446|181686067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|1.47||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.45|||Mixed Models Analysis||Semaglutide 1.0 mg - Placebo 1.0 mg|Analysis for bodily pain was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||2.45|0.50|0.0031
90908581|NCT01720446|181686067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.87||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|1.69|||Mixed Models Analysis||Semaglutide 0.5 mg - Placebo 0.5 mg|Analysis for general health was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||1.69|0.06|0.0350
90908582|NCT01720446|181686067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|1.42||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.24|||Mixed Models Analysis||Semaglutide 1.0 mg - Placebo 1.0 mg|Analysis for general health was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||2.24|0.60|0.0007
90908583|NCT01720446|181686067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.17||||0.7277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|1.13|||Mixed Models Analysis||Semaglutide 0.5 mg - Placebo 0.5 mg|Analysis for mental component summary was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||1.13|-0.79|0.7277
90908584|NCT01720446|181686067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.97||||0.0489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.94|||Mixed Models Analysis||Semaglutide 1.0 mg - Placebo 1.0 mg|Analysis for mental component summary was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||1.94|0.00|0.0489
90908585|NCT01720446|181686067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|0.61||||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.53|||Mixed Models Analysis||Semaglutide 0.5 mg - Placebo 0.5 mg|Analysis for mental health was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||1.53|-0.30|0.1860
90908586|NCT01720446|181686067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|1.39||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|2.31|||Mixed Models Analysis||Semaglutide 1.0 mg - Placebo 1.0 mg|Analysis for mental health was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||2.31|0.48|0.0029
90908587|NCT01720446|181686067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.68||||0.0833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|1.45|||Mixed Models Analysis||Semaglutide 0.5 mg - Placebo 0.5 mg|Analysis for physical component summary was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||1.45|-0.09|0.0833
90908588|NCT01720446|181686067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|1.4||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.17|||Mixed Models Analysis||Semaglutide 1.0 mg - Placebo 1.0 mg|Analysis for physical component summary was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||2.17|0.62|0.0004
90908589|NCT01720446|181686067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.8||||0.0799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.69|||Mixed Models Analysis||Semaglutide 0.5 mg - Placebo 0.5 mg|Analysis for physical functioning was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||1.69|-0.10|0.0799
90908590|NCT01720446|181686067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|1.5||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||Semaglutide 1.0 mg - Placebo 1.0 mg|Analysis for physical functioning was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||2.40|0.60|0.0011
90908591|NCT01720446|181686067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.53||||0.3717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|1.68|||Mixed Models Analysis||Semaglutide 0.5 mg - Placebo 0.5 mg|Analysis for role emotional was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||1.68|-0.63|0.3717
90908592|NCT01720446|181686067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.94||||0.1136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|2.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Semaglutide 1.0 mg - Placebo 1.0 mg|Analysis for role emotional was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||2.10|-0.22|0.1136
90959887|NCT00887432|181799830|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.24||||0.431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.84||Significance level of 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test, df=86||Evaluated the change in PSA under the vitamin D and placebo conditions using the combined data (n=87).||0.84|-0.36|0.431
90959888|NCT00887432|181799831|SUPERIORITY|Comparing the mean PSA slopes between conditions (on vitamin D versus on placebo).|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.00019||||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00042|0.000045||Significance level of 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.000045|-0.00042|0.112
90908593|NCT01720446|181686067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.72||||0.1431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|1.67|||Mixed Models Analysis||Semaglutide 0.5 mg - Placebo 0.5 mg|Analysis for role physical was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||1.67|-0.24|0.1431
90908594|NCT01720446|181686067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|1.14||||0.0197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|2.11|||Mixed Models Analysis||Semaglutide 1.0 mg - Placebo 1.0 mg|Analysis for role physical was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||2.11|0.18|0.0197
90908595|NCT01720446|181686067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.05||||0.9223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|0.93|||Mixed Models Analysis||Semaglutide 0.5 mg - Placebo 0.5 mg|Analysis for social functioning was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||0.93|-1.03|0.9223
90908596|NCT01720446|181686067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|1.14||||0.0237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|2.13|||Mixed Models Analysis||Semaglutide 1.0 mg - Placebo 1.0 mg|Analysis for social functioning was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||2.13|0.15|0.0237
90908597|NCT01720446|181686067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.33||||0.4523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|1.19|||Mixed Models Analysis||Semaglutide 0.5 mg - Placebo 0.5 mg|Analysis for vitality was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||1.19|-0.53|0.4523
90908598|NCT01720446|181686067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|1.2||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|2.07|||Mixed Models Analysis||Semaglutide 1.0 mg - Placebo 1.0 mg|Analysis for vitality was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||2.07|0.34|0.0064
90908599|NCT01720446|181686068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment ratio|0.99||||0.7796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.04|||Mixed Models Analysis||Semaglutide 0.5 mg/Placebo 0.5 mg|Analysis for free fatty acids was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||1.04|0.95|0.7796
90908600|NCT01720446|181686068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment ratio|0.92||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|0.96|||Mixed Models Analysis||Semaglutide 1.0 mg/Placebo 1.0 mg|Analysis for free fatty acids was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||0.96|0.88|0.0003
90908601|NCT01720446|181686069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|2.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|2.98|||Mixed Models Analysis||Semaglutide 0.5 mg - Placebo 0.5 mg|Analysis for pulse rate was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||2.98|1.07|<0.0001
90908602|NCT01720446|181686069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|2.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|3.43|||Mixed Models Analysis||Semaglutide 1.0 mg - Placebo 1.0 mg|Analysis for pulse rate was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||3.43|1.52|<0.0001
90908603|NCT01020838|181686070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Sensitivity|0.774|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.654|0.894|||||Point estimate of sensitivity was calculated by the method of Rao and Scott. Variance for sensitivity is based on subjects that contribute at least one brain region, which is amyloid positive according to the SoT|"For the primary analysis, point estimates together with normal-approximated, two sided 95% confidence intervals, were given for sensitivity in beta-amyloid detection based on the majority read.~The following hypothesis was formulated for sensitivity:~H0,sens: sensitivity ≤ 0.6 vs. H1, sens: sensitivity \> 0.6 H0,sens was to be rejected if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI is larger than 0.6"||0.894|0.654|
90908604|NCT01020838|181686070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Specificity|0.942|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.886|0.998|||||Point estimate of specificity was calculated using the method of Rao and Scott. Variance for specificity is based on subjects that contribute at least one brain region, which is amyloid negative according to the SoT|"For the primary analysis, point estimates together with normal-approximated, two sided 95% confidence intervals, were given for specificity in amyloid detection based on the majority read.~The following hypothesis was formulated for specificity:~H0,spec: specificity ≤ 0.8 vs. H1, spec: specificity \> 0.8 H0,spec was to be rejected if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI is larger than 0.8"||0.998|0.886|
90908605|NCT02145182|181686080|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.3983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.33|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression results for the DGF composite, the effect of treatment adjusted for preservation type, donor type, and Irish score.|Calculated using the logistic regression model.|Analysis of DGF composite||1.33|0.49|0.3983
90908606|NCT01466881|181686115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2316|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Two-sided alpha level of 0.05||The null hypothesis is that there is no significant difference in Aurora kinase A expression between responders and non-responders.||||0.2316
90908607|NCT00742274|181686116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
90908608|NCT01101165|181686117|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A mixed-model analysis of variance was used to compare (test vs reference) and the 90% confidence intervals were estimated for the ratios (test/reference).|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|96.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.8|100.56|||ANOVA||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80%-125%.|||100.56|92.80|
90959889|NCT00899548|181799833|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.76||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|2.52|||Gehan|Distributions compared between using the Gehan test, which gives more weight to early differences.||||2.52|1.23|.0002
90908609|NCT01101165|181686118|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A mixed-model analysis of variance was used to compare (test vs reference) and the 90% confidence intervals were estimated for the ratios (test/reference)|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|94.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.42|97.24|||ANOVA||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80%-125%.|||97.24|92.42|
90908610|NCT01101165|181686119|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A mixed-model analysis of variance was used to compare (test vs reference) and the 90% confidence intervals were estimated for the ratios (test/reference)|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|95.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.93|98.18|||ANOVA||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80%-125%.|||98.18|92.93|
90908611|NCT03124108|181686132|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-52.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.5|-41.5|||ANCOVA|||||-41.5|-62.5|<0.001
90908612|NCT03124108|181686132|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-43.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.7|-32.1|||ANCOVA|||||-32.1|-55.7|<0.001
90908613|NCT01219855|181686175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Z-test cmpared 2 independ. proportions|||||||<0.0001
90959890|NCT00899548|181799834|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.19||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.32|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard ratio||1.32|1.07|0.001
90959891|NCT00899548|181799837|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.7||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|2.45|||Gehan|Distributions compared between using the Gehan test, which gives more weight to early differences.||||2.45|1.18|.001
90959892|NCT01209780|181799847|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The investigational TIV was to be considered non-inferior to the control TIV if for all three strains the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI on the difference between the seroconversion rates (Seroconversion control - Seroconversion investigational) at 21 days after last vaccination does not exceed 10 percentage points.|Vaccine group difference (%)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|2.0||||||Non-inferiority of investigational TIV to control TIV against A/H1N1 influenza strain||2|-4|
90959893|NCT01209780|181799847|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The investigational TIV was to be considered non-inferior to the control TIV if, for all three strains, the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI on the difference between the seroconversion rates (Seroconversion control - Seroconversion investigational), at 21 days after last vaccination, does not exceed 10 percentage points|Vaccine group difference (%)|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|14.0||||||Non-inferiority of investigational TIV to control TIV against A/H3N2 influenza strain||14|6|
90959894|NCT01209780|181799847|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The investigational TIV was to be considered non-inferior to the control TIV if, for all three strains, the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI on the difference between the seroconversion rates (Seroconversion control - Seroconversion investigational), at 21 days after last vaccination, does not exceed 10 percentage points|Vaccine group difference (%)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|3.0||||||Non-inferiority of investigational TIV to the control TIV against B influenza strain||3|-5|
90959895|NCT01209780|181799849|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The investigational TIV was to be considered non-inferior to the control TIV, if for all three strains, the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of the GMTs (GMTcontrol/GMTinvestigational) at 21 days after last vaccination does not exceed 1.5|Ratio of GMTs|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|1.56||||||Non-inferiority of investigational TIV to licensed control TIV against A/H1N1 influenza strain||1.56|1.11|
90959896|NCT01209780|181799849|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The investigational TIV was to be considered non-inferior to the control TIV, if for all three strains, the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of the GMTs (GMTcontrol/GMTinvestigational) at 21 days after last vaccination does not exceed 1.5|Ratio of GMTs|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|1.64||||||Non-inferiority of investigational TIV to licensed control TIV against A/H3N2 influenza strain||1.64|1.34|
90908614|NCT01219855|181686176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Mixed effect model|||||||<0.01
90959897|NCT01209780|181799849|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The investigational TIV was to be considered non-inferior to the control TIV, if for all three strains, the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of the GMTs (GMTcontrol/GMTinvestigational) at 21 days after last vaccination does not exceed 1.5|Ratio of GMTs|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.07||||||Non-inferiority of investigational TIV to licensed control TIV against B influenza strain||1.07|0.85|
90908615|NCT01219855|181686177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed effect model|||||||<0.0001
90908616|NCT01219855|181686177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Mixed effect model|||||||<0.01
90908617|NCT01219855|181686178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed effect model|||||||<0.0001
90908618|NCT01219855|181686179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Z-test compared 2 independ. proportions|||||||<0.05
90908619|NCT01219855|181686180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Z-test compared 2 independ. proportions|||The proportion of subjects achieving a ≥20% decrease in plasma iPTH at EOT was greater in the CTAP101 Capsules 60 and 90 μg groups compared to the corresponding placebo group.||||<0.001
90908620|NCT03582956|181686232|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.525|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.525
90908621|NCT03582956|181686233|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.607|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.607
90908622|NCT03582956|181686234|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.466|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.466
90908623|NCT03582956|181686235|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.414|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.414
90908624|NCT00517933|181686250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.39
90908625|NCT00517933|181686252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.7||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|37.3|||Regression, Linear|||||37.3|-3.9|0.11
90908626|NCT00517933|181686253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.41
90959898|NCT05007808|181799862|SUPERIORITY|ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline to Week 4/EOT as the outcome (dependent) variable, treatment as the independent variable, and baseline score as covariate. The p-value was derived from the t-test for the comparison of adjusted LS means between the treatment groups.|LS Mean Difference|-0.19||||0.6742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.081|0.701|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.701|-1.081|0.6742
90959899|NCT02318797|181799885|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment by time interaction test||||<0.0001
90959900|NCT02318797|181799885|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0019|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test for gender by treatment by time interaction||||0.0019
90959901|NCT02318797|181799886|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4103|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment by time interaction test||||0.4103
90959902|NCT02318797|181799886|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test for change over time from baseline (only conducted if treatment by time interaction test non-significant)||||<0.0001
90959903|NCT02318797|181799886|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4068|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test for gender by treatment by time interaction||||0.4068
90959904|NCT02318797|181799886|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2656|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test for gender by treatment interaction (only calculated if gender by treatment by time non-significant)||||0.2656
90959905|NCT02318797|181799887|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4582|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment by time interaction test||||0.4582
90908627|NCT00517933|181686254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-6.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.25|-1.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.92|-11.25|0.006
90908628|NCT00517933|181686256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.07|-0.05|0.70
90959906|NCT02318797|181799887|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test for change over time from baseline (only conducted if treatment by time interaction test non-significant)||||<0.0001
90959907|NCT02318797|181799887|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test for gender by treatment by time interaction||||0.05
90908629|NCT00517933|181686258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|3.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.0|0.1|0.04
90908630|NCT00517933|181686260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.14|||Regression, Linear|||||0.14|-0.81|0.16
90959908|NCT02318797|181799887|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1792|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test for gender by treatment interaction (only calculated if gender by treatment by time non-significant)||||0.1792
90908631|NCT00517933|181686262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.1||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|-0.9|||Regression, Linear|||||-0.9|-7.3|0.01
90959909|NCT02318797|181799888|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2179|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment by time interaction test||||0.2179
90908632|NCT00517933|181686264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.7||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|-0.9|||Regression, Linear|||||-0.9|-10.6|0.02
90908633|NCT00517933|181686266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.6||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|-0.1|||Regression, Linear|||||-0.1|-7.2|0.04
90959910|NCT02318797|181799888|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test for change over time from baseline (only conducted if treatment by time interaction test non-significant)||||<0.0001
90959911|NCT02318797|181799888|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4797|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test for gender by treatment by time interaction||||0.4797
90959912|NCT02318797|181799888|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0014|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test for gender by treatment interaction (only calculated if gender by treatment by time non-significant)||||0.0014
90959913|NCT02318797|181799889|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0058|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment by time interaction test||||0.0058
90959914|NCT02318797|181799890|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0014|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment by time interaction test||||0.0014
90959915|NCT02318797|181799891|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test for treatment by time interaction||||0.0001
90959916|NCT02318797|181799892|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5566|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment by time interaction test||||0.5566
90959917|NCT02318797|181799892|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test for change over time (only calculated if treatment by time interaction non-significant)||||<0.0001
90959918|NCT02318797|181799893|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test for treatment by time interaction||||0.002
90959919|NCT02318797|181799894|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0029|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test for treatment by time interaction||||0.0029
90959920|NCT02318797|181799895|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0021|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test for treatment by time interaction||||0.0021
90959921|NCT02318797|181799896|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1183|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test for treatment by time interaction||||0.1183
90959922|NCT02318797|181799896|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0569|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test for change over time (only calculated if treatment by time interaction non-significant)||||0.0569
90959923|NCT02318797|181799897|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0745|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test for treatment by time interaction||||0.0745
90959924|NCT02318797|181799897|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test for change over time (only calculated if treatment by time interaction non-significant)||||<0.0001
90959925|NCT02318797|181799898|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1653|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test for treatment by time interaction||||0.1653
90959926|NCT02318797|181799898|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1772|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test for change over time (only calculated if treatment by time interaction non-significant)||||0.1772
90908634|NCT00517933|181686268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.7||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|0.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.4|-7.8|0.07
90908635|NCT00517933|181686270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.06|||Regression, Linear|||||0.06|-0.01|0.18
90908636|NCT00517933|181686272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|7.3|||Regression, Linear|||||7.3|-2.8|0.37
90959927|NCT02318797|181799899|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test for treatment by time interaction||||<0.0001
90959928|NCT02318797|181799900|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0202|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test for treatment by time interaction||||0.0202
90959929|NCT02318797|181799901|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4715|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test for treatment by time interaction||||0.4715
90959930|NCT02318797|181799901|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9209|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test for change over time (only calculated if treatment by time interaction non-significant)||||0.9209
90959931|NCT00953745|181800001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029||||||paired t-test thresholded at cluster level significance of p=0.001; family-wise error multiple comparisons corrected|t-test, 1 sided|||A region of increased relative Fluorodopa (FDOPA) uptake in the right medial caudate was anticipated for the aripiprazole augmentation responders over the 6 weeks of augmentation treatment (Weeks 10-16).||||0.029
90959932|NCT00953745|181800002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90959933|NCT00953745|181800002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.366|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.366
90908637|NCT00517933|181686276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.9||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|5.0|||Regression, Linear|||||5.0|0.8|0.008
90959934|NCT03756129|181800007|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-8.25||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-11.67|-4.83|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison of adjusted arithmetic mean: Mean Difference: Pooled MIJ821 0.16 mg/kg minus placebo. The MIJ821 treatment arms vs placebo are primary."||-4.83|-11.67|0.0013
90959935|NCT03756129|181800007|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.71||||0.0196|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-9.22|-2.2|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison of adjusted arithmetic mean: Mean Difference: Pooled MIJ821 0.32 mg/kg minus placebo. The MIJ821 treatment arms vs placebo are primary."||-2.20|-9.22|0.0196
90908638|NCT00517933|181686278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.7|||Regression, Linear|||||1.7|-2.1|0.86
90908639|NCT00235495|181686280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.1||The generalized linear model with log link function is tested at the one-sided alpha level of 0.025.|Regression, Logistic|Adjustment is made for baseline NIHSS and Thrombolysis stratum.|Adjusted risk ratio greater than 1 indicates greater risk of good outcome in the Albumin treatment group, while adjusted risk ratio less than 1 indicates greater risk of good outcome in the Saline treatment group.|Test of null hypothesis (equal proportions of subjects with NIHSS 0-1 or mRS 0-1 or both at 90 days post-randomization in Albumin and Saline treatment arms) versus alternative hypothesis (greater proportion of subjects with NIHSS 0-1 or mRS 0-1 or both at 90 days post-randomization in Albumin treatment arm).||1.10|0.84|
90908640|NCT00235495|181686281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.8|1.09|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.09|0.80|
90908641|NCT00235495|181686282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.66|1.49|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.49|0.66|
90908642|NCT00235495|181686283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.71|1.1|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.10|0.71|
90908643|NCT00235495|181686284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.82|1.28|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.28|0.82|
90908644|NCT00235495|181686285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.85|1.13|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.13|0.85|
90959936|NCT03756129|181800008|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.06||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-11.06|-3.06|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison of adjusted arithmetic mean: Mean Difference: Pooled MIJ821 0.16 mg/kg minus placebo."||-3.06|-11.06|0.0130
90959937|NCT03756129|181800008|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-7.37||||0.0133|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-11.57|-3.18|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison of adjusted arithmetic mean: Mean Difference: Pooled MIJ821 0.32 mg/kg minus placebo."||-3.18|-11.57|0.0133
90959938|NCT03756129|181800009|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.09||||0.1082|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-10.37|0.19|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison of adjusted arithmetic mean: Mean Difference: MIJ821 0.16 mg/kg weekly minus placebo."||0.19|-10.37|0.1082
90959939|NCT03756129|181800009|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.42||||0.0993|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-10.83|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison of adjusted arithmetic mean: Mean Difference: MIJ821 0.32 mg/kg weekly minus placebo."||-0.02|-10.83|0.0993
90959940|NCT03756129|181800009|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.46||||0.0598|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-11.78|-1.15|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison of adjusted arithmetic mean: Mean Difference: MIJ821 0.16 mg/kg biweekly minus placebo."||-1.15|-11.78|0.0598
90959941|NCT03756129|181800009|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.06||||0.2491|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-8.86|2.74|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison of adjusted arithmetic mean: Mean Difference: MIJ821 0.32 mg/kg biweekly minus placebo."||2.74|-8.86|0.2491
90959942|NCT02647320|181800029|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.157||0.755|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.211|0.309|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 12||0.309|-0.211|.755
90959943|NCT02647320|181800029|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.161||0.512|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.16|0.371|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 12||0.371|-0.160|.512
90959944|NCT02647320|181800029|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.566|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.312|0.151|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 12||0.151|-0.312|.566
90959945|NCT02647320|181800029|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.139||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.655|-0.197|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 12||-0.197|-0.655|.002
90908645|NCT00235495|181686286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.87|1.11|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.11|0.87|
90908646|NCT00235495|181686287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.83|1.1|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.10|0.83|
90908647|NCT00235495|181686288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.84|1.17|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.17|0.84|
90908648|NCT00235495|181686289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.84|1.02|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.02|0.84|
90908649|NCT00235495|181686290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rank Sum|73098.0||||0.913||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank sum test, normal approx|||||||0.913
90908650|NCT00235495|181686291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rank Sum|44853.5||||0.923||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank sum test, normal approx|||||||0.923
90908651|NCT00235495|181686292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.76|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.76|0.79|
90908652|NCT00235495|181686293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|2.15|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.15|0.47|
90908653|NCT00235495|181686294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|3.41|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.41|0.39|
90959946|NCT02647320|181800030|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.13||0.144|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.76|0.58|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 12||0.58|-9.76|.144
90908654|NCT00235495|181686295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|2.94|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.94|0.98|
90959947|NCT02647320|181800030|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.16||0.773|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.14|4.31|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 12||4.31|-6.14|.773
90959948|NCT02647320|181800030|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.79||0.963|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.73|4.48|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 12||4.48|-4.73|.963
90908655|NCT00235495|181686296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.37|26.72|||Regression, Logistic|||||26.72|4.37|
90908656|NCT00235495|181686297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|6.12|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.12|1.09|
90908657|NCT00235495|181686298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|5.78|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.78|1.02|
90908658|NCT00235495|181686299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|2.01|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.01|0.68|
90908659|NCT00235495|181686300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.61|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.61|0.68|
90908660|NCT00235495|181686301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.63|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.63|0.74|
90908661|NCT01639443|181686306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"We counted days containing at least one Fast-tracked participant as a Fast-tracked day for the sake of analysis at the clinic level. Our null hypothesis is that these days will not differ in terms of percentage of clinic capacity filled. We are powered to detect a 0.5 Standard Deviation (SD) difference in clinic capacity (Type I error rate = 5%; Power = 81%), with a equal ratio of Experimental and Control days."||||<0.0001
90908662|NCT01639443|181686307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We calculated this measure on the patient level. Our null hypothesis is that the lag time between scheduling and appointment, measured in days, will not differ between groups. We are powered to detect a 0.3 SD difference in lag time (Type I error rate = 5%; Power = 84%), accounting for the large sampling ratio (approximately 14:1).||||0.29
90908663|NCT01639443|181686308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49||||||We would have only expected 2 patients to be bumped in the Experimental Group, and observed 0.|Fisher Exact|||We did not explicitly power this study to detect differences in the number of service bumps, but we can compare them using Fisher's Exact Test||||0.49
90908664|NCT01639443|181686309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We calculated this measure on the patient level, but were hampered by a large sampling ratio (more than 50:1). Our null hypothesis is that the number of polyps detected will not differ between groups. We are powered to detect a 0.25 SD difference in polyp count per patient (Type I error rate = 5%; Power = 80%).||||0.05
90908665|NCT01639443|181686310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"We counted days containing at least one Fast-tracked participant as a Fast-tracked day for the sake of analysis at the clinic level. Our null hypothesis is that these days will not differ in terms of length of workday. We are powered to detect approximately 0.5 SD difference in workday length in hours (Type I error rate = 5%; Power = 81%), with a equal ratio of Experimental and Control days."||||0.024
90908666|NCT01639443|181686311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"We counted days containing at least one Fast-tracked participant as a Fast-tracked day for the sake of analysis at the clinic level. Our null hypothesis is that these days will not differ in terms of cost per day. We are powered to detect a 0.5 SD difference in clinic capacity (Type I error rate = 5%; Power = 81%), with a equal ratio of Experimental and Control days."||||0.11
90908667|NCT02806895|181686327|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0062|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0062
90908668|NCT02806895|181686328|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0432|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0432
90908669|NCT02806895|181686329|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0414|||||||McNemar|||||||0.0414
90908670|NCT02806895|181686330|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0963|||||||McNemar|||||||0.0963
90959949|NCT02647320|181800030|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.74||0.258|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.64|1.42|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 12||1.42|-7.64|.258
90959950|NCT02647320|181800031|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.5||0.228|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.74|2.43|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 12||2.43|-15.74|.228
90865048|NCT00679432|181593516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions|9.1||||0.1189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|20.4|||Chi-squared||See comments from the budesonide 6 mg versus placebo comparison (statistical analysis 1).|See comments from the budesonide 6 mg versus placebo comparison (statistical analysis 1).||20.4|-2.3|0.1189
90865049|NCT00679432|181593517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions|0.0||||0.9991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|11.8|||Chi-squared||The difference in proportions was determined by subtracting the proportion of patients who reached the endpoint in the placebo group from that proportion in the active group (active minus placebo).|As per the hierarchical testing procedure for secondary endpoints, because clinical improvement was not statistically significant in the ITT population, formal statistical comparisons for endoscopic improvement between the 2 budesonide MMX groups and placebo were not conducted. The statistical comparison between the Asacol and placebo groups is shown here.||11.8|-11.8|0.9991
90865050|NCT00824720|181593518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least square mean difference|-0.22|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.3||0.9737|||||||ANCOVA||Mean difference was calculated as high dose minus placebo.|The alternative hypothesis was that the high dose was different from the placebo.||||0.9737
90908671|NCT02806895|181686331|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1435|||||||McNemar|||||||0.1435
90908672|NCT02806895|181686332|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1796|||||||McNemar|||||||0.1796
90865051|NCT00824720|181593518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least square mean difference|-1.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.5||0.4711|||||||ANCOVA||The mean difference was calculated as low dose minus placebo.|The alternative hypothesis is that the low dose was different from placebo.||||0.4711
90908673|NCT02806895|181686333|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1094|||||||McNemar|||||||0.1094
90908674|NCT02806895|181686334|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4531|||||||McNemar|||||||0.4531
90908675|NCT02806895|181686335|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3593|||||||McNemar|||||||0.3593
90908676|NCT02806895|181686336|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6072|||||||McNemar|||||||0.6072
90908677|NCT02806895|181686337|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7905|||||||McNemar|||||||0.7905
90908678|NCT02806895|181686338|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||||||1.0000
90908679|NCT02806895|181686339|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||||||1.0000
90908680|NCT02806895|181686340|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||||||1.0000
90908681|NCT02806895|181686341|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4116|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.4116
90908682|NCT02806895|181686342|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1991|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.1991
90908683|NCT02806895|181686343|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0806|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0806
90908684|NCT02806895|181686344|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9391|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.9391
90908685|NCT02806895|181686345|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2116|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.2116
90908686|NCT02806895|181686346|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1604|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.1604
90908687|NCT02806895|181686347|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2144|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.2144
90908688|NCT02806895|181686348|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0387|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0387
90908689|NCT02806895|181686349|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3426|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.3426
90908690|NCT02806895|181686350|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1531|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.1531
90908691|NCT02806895|181686351|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5603|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.5603
90908692|NCT02806895|181686352|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4851|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.4851
90908693|NCT02806895|181686353|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0241|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0241
90908694|NCT00601965|181686354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|Log rank test = 32.67, df = 3||||||<.001
90865052|NCT01558271|181593535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.79|-1.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Approximately 490 participants were to be randomized in a 4:1:2 ratio to LY2189265, placebo, or Liraglutide, respectively. This sample size would provide greater than 99% power to demonstrate superiority of LY2189265 to placebo. This computation assumed a true mean difference in HbA1c change from baseline between LY2189265 and placebo being 0.8%, a common standard deviation of 1.1%, a 1-sided significance level of 0.025, and a 9% drop-out rate between randomization and Week 26.||-1.35|-1.79|<0.001
90908695|NCT00601965|181686355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Beta = -0.48, 95% CI = -0.84 to -0.11||||||0.01
90908696|NCT02387749|181686370|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.005
90908697|NCT02929069|181686386|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.88||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.25|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.25|.52|0.52
90908698|NCT00813488|181686536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.2|||Mixed effects ANOVA crossover model|||The statistical hypothesis to be tested was: HO: µFBT = µOXY versus Ha: µFBT ≠ µoxy where µFBT and µOXY denote the mean PID15 for double-blind episodes for which patients use FBT and OXY, respectively. The primary variable was analyzed using a mixed effects ANOVA crossover model, with treatment as randomized (FBT or OXY), period, and treatment sequence (as randomized) as fixed factors and patient as a random factor, using compound symmetry for the variance-covariance matrix.||0.20|0.06|0.0004
90908699|NCT00813488|181686537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.2242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.05||LS mean, SE of LS mean and p-value for treatment comparison are from ANOVA based on individual episodes with treatment as randomized, phase, and sequence as fixed factors and patient as random factor, using compound symmetry.|ANOVA|||The statistical hypothesis to be tested was: HO: µFBT = µOXY versus Ha: µFBT ≠ µoxy where µFBT and µOXY denote the mean PID5 for double-blind episodes for which patients use FBT and OXY, respectively. The primary variable was analyzed using a mixed effects ANOVA crossover model, with treatment as randomized (FBT or OXY), period, and treatment sequence (as randomized) as fixed factors and patient as a random factor, using compound symmetry for the variance-covariance matrix.||.05|-0.01|0.2242
90940352|NCT00526097|181760478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.9|-0.6||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||-0.6|-0.9|<0.0001
90940353|NCT00526097|181760479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.0|-0.6||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||-0.6|-1.0|<0.0001
90908700|NCT00813488|181686538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.0106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.11||LS mean, SE of LS mean and p-value for treatment comparison are from ANOVA based on individual episodes with treatment as randomized, phase, and sequence as fixed factors and patient as random factor, using compound symmetry.|ANOVA|||The statistical hypothesis to be tested was: HO: µFBT = µOXY versus Ha: µFBT ≠ µoxy where µFBT and µOXY denote the mean PID10 for double-blind episodes for which patients use FBT and OXY, respectively. The primary variable was analyzed using a mixed effects ANOVA crossover model, with treatment as randomized (FBT or OXY), period, and treatment sequence (as randomized) as fixed factors and patient as a random factor, using compound symmetry for the variance-covariance matrix.||.11|0.01|0.0106
90908701|NCT00813488|181686539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.4||LS mean, SE of LS mean and p-value for treatment comparison are from ANOVA based on individual episodes with treatment as randomized, phase, and sequence as fixed factors and patient as random factor, using compound symmetry.|ANOVA|||The statistical hypothesis to be tested was: HO: µFBT = µOXY versus Ha: µFBT ≠ µoxy where µFBT and µOXY denote the mean PID30 for double-blind episodes for which patients use FBT and OXY, respectively. The primary variable was analyzed using a mixed effects ANOVA crossover model, with treatment as randomized (FBT or OXY), period, and treatment sequence (as randomized) as fixed factors and patient as a random factor, using compound symmetry for the variance-covariance matrix.||.40|.21|<0.0001
90908702|NCT00813488|181686540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.37||LS mean, SE of LS mean and p-value for treatment comparison are from ANOVA based on individual episodes with treatment as randomized, phase, and sequence as fixed factors and patient as random factor, using compound symmetry.|ANOVA|||The statistical hypothesis to be tested was: HO: µFBT = µOXY versus Ha: µFBT ≠ µoxy where µFBT and µOXY denote the mean PID45 for double-blind episodes for which patients use FBT and OXY, respectively. The primary variable was analyzed using a mixed effects ANOVA crossover model, with treatment as randomized (FBT or OXY), period, and treatment sequence (as randomized) as fixed factors and patient as a random factor, using compound symmetry for the variance-covariance matrix.||.37|0.18|<0.0001
90908703|NCT00813488|181686541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.27||LS mean, SE of LS mean and p-value for treatment comparison are from ANOVA based on individual episodes with treatment as randomized, phase, and sequence as fixed factors and patient as random factor, using compound symmetry.|ANOVA|||The statistical hypothesis to be tested was: HO: µFBT = µOXY versus Ha: µFBT ≠ µoxy where µFBT and µOXY denote the mean PID60 for double-blind episodes for which patients use FBT and OXY, respectively. The primary variable was analyzed using a mixed effects ANOVA crossover model, with treatment as randomized (FBT or OXY), period, and treatment sequence (as randomized) as fixed factors and patient as a random factor, using compound symmetry for the variance-covariance matrix.||0.27|0.08|0.0002
90908704|NCT00813488|181686548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.5|||ANOVA|||||0.50|0.25|<0.0001
90908705|NCT00813488|181686549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.1|||ANOVA|||||1.10|.55|<0.0001
90908706|NCT00813488|181686550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5575|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-value for the treatment comparison is from a one-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test.||||||0.5575
90908707|NCT00813488|181686551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0981|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-value for the treatment comparison is from a one-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test.||||||0.0981
90908708|NCT00813488|181686552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0443|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-value for the treatment comparison is from a one-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test.||||||0.0443
90959951|NCT02647320|181800031|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.51||0.894|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.36|9.84|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 12||9.84|-8.36|.894
90908709|NCT00813488|181686553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-value for the treatment comparison is from a one-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test.||||||0.0004
90959952|NCT02647320|181800031|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.86||0.846|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.97|7.08|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 12||7.08|-8.97|.846
90908710|NCT00813488|181686554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-value for the treatment comparison is from a one-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test.||||||0.0001
90908711|NCT00813488|181686555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0018|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-value for the treatment comparison is from a one-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test.||||||0.0018
90908712|NCT00813488|181686556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001||95.0|0.58|0.9||LS mean, SE of LS mean and p-value for treatment comparison are from ANOVA based on individual episodes with treatment as randomized, phase, and sequence as fixed factors and patient as random factor, using compound symmetry.|ANOVA|||||0.90|0.58|<0.0001
90908713|NCT00813488|181686558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1464||||0.7012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.3|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||Analysis is based on a generalized estimating equation model with treatment as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect. A logit link function and compound symmetry working correlation were applied in this model.||2.3|0.6|0.7012
90908714|NCT00813488|181686559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0704||||0.6545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.4|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||Analysis is based on a generalized estimating equation model with treatment as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect. A logit link function and compound symmetry working correlation were applied in this model.||1.4|0.8|0.6545
90959953|NCT02647320|181800031|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.77||0.409|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.82|3.93|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 12||3.93|-11.82|.409
90959954|NCT02647320|181800032|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.59||0.576|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.83|5.73|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 12||5.73|-2.83|.576
90959955|NCT02647320|181800032|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.62||0.646|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.53|3.12|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 12||3.12|-5.53|.646
90865053|NCT01558271|181593535|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper limit of the 95% Confidence Interval (CI) was \<0.4%, then LY2189265 was declared non-inferior to Liraglutide. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was \<0.0%, then LY2189265 was declared superior to liraglutide.|LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Approximately 490 participants were to be randomized in a 4:1:2 ratio to LY2189265, placebo, or Liraglutide, respectively. This sample size would provide \>90% power to confirm non-inferiority of LY2189265 to liraglutide by a margin of 0.4%. This computation assumed a true mean difference in HbA1c change from baseline between LY2189265 and Liraglutide being 0%, a common standard deviation of 1.1%, a 1-sided significance level of 0.025, and a 9% drop-out rate between randomization and Week 26.||0.07|-0.27|0.248
90908715|NCT00813488|181686560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2544||||0.0407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.6|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||Analysis is based on a generalized estimating equation model with treatment as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect. A logit link function and compound symmetry working correlation were applied in this model.||1.6|1.0|0.0407
90908716|NCT00813488|181686561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5745||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.0|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||Analysis is based on a generalized estimating equation model with treatment as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect. A logit link function and compound symmetry working correlation were applied in this model.||2.0|1.2|0.0007
90908717|NCT00813488|181686562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5828||||0.0372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.4|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||Analysis is based on a generalized estimating equation model with treatment as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect. A logit link function and compound symmetry working correlation were applied in this model.||2.4|1.0|0.0372
90908718|NCT00813488|181686563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3722||||0.3099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.5|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||Analysis is based on a generalized estimating equation model with treatment as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect. A logit link function and compound symmetry working correlation were applied in this model.||2.5|0.7|0.3099
90908719|NCT00813488|181686564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8434||||0.5777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.5|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||Analysis is based on a generalized estimating equation model with treatment as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect. A logit link function and compound symmetry working correlation were applied in this model.||1.5|.5|0.5777
90959956|NCT02647320|181800032|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3||0.902|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.52|4.08|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 12||4.08|-3.52|.902
90959957|NCT02647320|181800032|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.27||0.478|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.35|2.13|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 12||2.13|-5.35|.478
90959958|NCT02647320|181800033|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.22||0.072|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.57|-0.64|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 12||-0.64|-14.57|.072
90959959|NCT02647320|181800033|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.26||0.794|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.15|5.92|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 12||5.92|-8.15|.794
90959960|NCT02647320|181800033|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.75||0.946|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.45|5.94|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 12||5.94|-6.45|.946
90959961|NCT02647320|181800033|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.68||0.431|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.99|3.18|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 12||3.18|-8.99|.431
90959962|NCT02647320|181800034|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-10.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.54||0.228|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-24.43|3.78|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 12||3.78|-24.43|.228
90865054|NCT01558271|181593536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|-0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.01|-0.39|0.040
90959963|NCT02647320|181800034|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.62||0.951|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.7|14.77|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 12||14.77|-13.70|.951
90959964|NCT02647320|181800034|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.59||0.852|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.96|11.13|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 12||11.13|-13.96|.852
90959965|NCT02647320|181800034|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.45||0.608|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.13|8.48|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 12||8.48|-16.13|.608
90959966|NCT02647320|181800035|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.289||0.728|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-19.932|30.566|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 4||30.566|-19.932|.728
90959967|NCT02647320|181800035|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.853||0.837|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-29.446|22.914|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 4||22.914|-29.446|.837
90959968|NCT02647320|181800035|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.747||0.791|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-26.352|19.051|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 4||19.051|-26.352|.791
90959969|NCT02647320|181800035|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-40.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.472||0.003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-62.283|-17.787|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 4||-17.787|-62.283|.003
90959970|NCT02647320|181800036|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.396||0.83|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-29.312|38.087|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 12||38.087|-29.312|.830
90908720|NCT00813488|181686565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.986||||0.9567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.6|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||Analysis is based on a generalized estimating equation model with treatment as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect. A logit link function and compound symmetry working correlation were applied in this model.||1.6|0.6|0.9567
90908721|NCT00813488|181686566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1366||||0.4253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.6|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||Analysis is based on a generalized estimating equation model with treatment as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect. A logit link function and compound symmetry working correlation were applied in this model.||1.6|0.8|0.4253
90959971|NCT02647320|181800036|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|24.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.335||0.235|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.354|57.848|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 12||57.848|-9.354|.235
90908722|NCT00813488|181686567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4269||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.8|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||Analysis is based on a generalized estimating equation model with treatment as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect. A logit link function and compound symmetry working correlation were applied in this model.||1.8|1.1|0.0038
90908723|NCT00813488|181686568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5118||||0.0012||95.0|1.2|1.9|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||Analysis is based on a generalized estimating equation model with treatment as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect. A logit link function and compound symmetry working correlation were applied in this model.||1.9|1.2|0.0012
90908724|NCT00813488|181686569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5826||||0.0074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.2|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||Analysis is based on a generalized estimating equation model with treatment as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect. A logit link function and compound symmetry working correlation were applied in this model.||2.2|1.1|0.0074
90908725|NCT00813488|181686570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.059||||0.8444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.9|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||Analysis is based on a generalized estimating equation model with treatment as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect. A logit link function and compound symmetry working correlation were applied in this model.||1.9|0.6|0.8444
90908726|NCT00813488|181686571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6033|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|1.8|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||Analysis is based on a generalized estimating equation model with treatment as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect. A cumulative logit link function and independent working correlation were applied in this model. Treatment differences for each time point were measured across all categories of responses.||1.8|1.4|<0.0001
90908727|NCT00813488|181686572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3334|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|1.5|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||Analysis is based on a generalized estimating equation model with treatment as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect. A cumulative logit link function and independent working correlation were applied in this model. Treatment differences for each time point were measured across all categories of responses.||1.5|1.2|<0.0001
90908728|NCT01779375|181686582|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||All analyses were conducted with values on a log scale and re-exponentiated for presentation.|Regression, Linear|Measures of ß-cell response were modeled simultaneously with insulin sensitivity (M/I) using 2-df seemingly unrelated regression models.||Seemingly unrelated regression was used to compare treatment arms on the combination of insulin sensitivity (M/I as calculated from the hyperglycemic clamp) and insulin secretion (steady-state C-peptide and ACPRmax as co-primary; ACPRg as major secondary,). See statistical analysis plan for further details and R code.||||>0.05
90908729|NCT01779375|181686583|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||Analyses were completed on a log scale and re-exponentiated for presentation.||||>0.05
90908730|NCT01779375|181686585|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||Analyses were completed on a log scale and re-exponentiated for display.||||>0.05
90908731|NCT00836810|181686590|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||A priory test for statistical significance was P\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90959972|NCT02647320|181800036|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|17.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.72||0.331|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.03|46.529|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 12||46.529|-12.030|.331
90959973|NCT02647320|181800036|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-29.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.393||0.091|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-58.254|-0.775|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 12||-0.775|-58.254|.091
90908732|NCT00836810|181686590|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||A priori statistical significance set at P\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90908733|NCT00836810|181686590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.01||||||A priori statistical significance set as P\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
90908734|NCT00836810|181686591|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|A priori statistical significance set at P\<0.05||||||<0.001
90908735|NCT00836810|181686591|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||A priori statistical significance set at P\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
90908736|NCT00836810|181686591|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||A priori statistical significance set at P\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
90908737|NCT00836810|181686592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.023||||||A priori statistical significance set at P\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.023
90908738|NCT00836810|181686592|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0906||||||A priori statistical significance set at P\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0906
90908739|NCT00836810|181686592|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.044||||||A priori statistical significance set at P\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.044
90908740|NCT00836810|181686593|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007||||||A priori statistical significance set at P\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.007
90908741|NCT00836810|181686593|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||A priori statistical significance set at P\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.002
90908742|NCT00836810|181686593|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57||||||A priori statistical significance set at P\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.57
90959974|NCT02647320|181800037|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.28||0.873|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.835|16.815|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 4||16.815|-13.835|.873
90959975|NCT02647320|181800037|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-8.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.505||0.395|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.79|7.604|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 4||7.604|-23.790|.395
90865055|NCT01558271|181593537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Treatment comparison for HbA1c \<7% at 26 weeks between LY2189265 and placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Pairwise comparison was adjusted for prestudy therapy (OAM yes/no), baseline BMI group (\<25 / \>=25 kg/m\^2), and baseline HbA1c group.||||||<0.001
90865056|NCT01558271|181593537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.608|TWO_SIDED|||||Treatment comparison for HbA1c \<7% at 26 weeks between LY2189265 and Liraglutide.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Pairwise comparison was adjusted for prestudy therapy (OAM yes/no), baseline BMI group (\<25 / \>=25 kg/m\^2), and baseline HbA1c group.||||||0.608
90865057|NCT01558271|181593537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Treatment comparison for HbA1c \<=6.5% at 26 weeks between LY2189265 and placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Pairwise comparison was adjusted for prestudy therapy (OAM yes/no), baseline BMI group (\<25 / \>=25 kg/m\^2), and baseline HbA1c group.||||||<0.001
90865058|NCT01558271|181593537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.844|TWO_SIDED|||||Treatment comparison for HbA1c \<=6.5% at 26 weeks between LY2189265 and Liraglutide.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Pairwise comparison was adjusted for prestudy therapy (OAM yes/no), baseline BMI group (\<25 / \>=25 kg/m\^2), and baseline HbA1c group.||||||0.844
90865059|NCT01558271|181593537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.112|TWO_SIDED|||||Treatment comparison for HbA1c \<7% at 52 weeks between LY2189265 and Liraglutide.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Pairwise comparison was adjusted for prestudy therapy (OAM yes/no), baseline BMI group (\<25 / \>=25 kg/m\^2), and baseline HbA1c group.||||||0.112
90865060|NCT01558271|181593537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|||||Treatment comparison for HbA1c \<=6.5% at 52 weeks between LY2189265 and Liraglutide.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Pairwise comparison was adjusted for prestudy therapy (OAM yes/no), baseline BMI group (\<25 / \>=25 kg/m\^2), and baseline HbA1c group.||||||0.103
90865061|NCT01558271|181593538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-40.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.31|-33.11||Treatment comparison for FBG at 26 weeks between LY2189265 and placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-33.11|-47.31|<0.001
90865062|NCT01558271|181593538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.57||||0.835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.82|5.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment comparison for FBG at 26 weeks between LY2189265 and Liraglutide.||||5.96|-4.82|0.835
90865063|NCT01558271|181593538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.77||||0.553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.65|4.1||Treatment comparison for FBG at 52 weeks between LY2189265 and Liraglutide.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.10|-7.65|0.553
90865064|NCT01558271|181593540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.61||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|1.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment comparison for body weight at 26 weeks between LY2189265 and placebo.||||1.23|-0.02|0.057
90865065|NCT01558271|181593540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.34||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.82||Treatment comparison for body weight at 26 weeks between LY2189265 and Liraglutide.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.82|-0.14|0.168
90865066|NCT01558271|181593540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.03||||0.911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.57||Treatment comparison for body weight at 52 weeks between LY2189265 and Liraglutide.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.57|-0.64|0.911
90865067|NCT01558271|181593541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.86||||0.723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|8.48||Treatment comparison for HOMA2-%S based on fasting insulin at 26 weeks between LY2189265 and placebo.|ANCOVA|||||8.48|-12.20|0.723
90908743|NCT00836810|181686594|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022||||||A priori statistical significance set at P\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.022
90865068|NCT01558271|181593541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.01||||0.998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.92|7.91||Treatment comparison for HOMA2-%S based on fasting insulin at 26 weeks between LY2189265 and Liraglutide.|ANCOVA|||||7.91|-7.92|0.998
90865069|NCT01558271|181593541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.83||||0.848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.72|9.38||Treatment comparison for HOMA2-%S based on fasting C-peptide at 26 weeks between LY2189265 and placebo.|ANCOVA|||||9.38|-7.72|0.848
90865070|NCT01558271|181593541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.03||||0.357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.48|3.42||Treatment comparison for HOMA2-%S based on fasting C-peptide at 26 weeks between LY2189265 and Liraglutide.|ANCOVA|||||3.42|-9.48|0.357
90865071|NCT01558271|181593541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.49||||0.533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.35|5.36||Treatment comparison for HOMA2-%S based on fasting insulin at 52 weeks between LY2189265 and Liraglutide.|ANCOVA|||||5.36|-10.35|0.533
90865072|NCT01558271|181593541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.03||||0.747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.32|5.25||Treatment comparison for HOMA2-%S based on fasting C-peptide at 52 weeks between LY2189265 and Liraglutide.|ANCOVA|||||5.25|-7.32|0.747
90865073|NCT01558271|181593542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|28.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.63|35.07||Treatment comparison for HOMA2-%B based on fasting insulin at 26 weeks between LY2189265 and placebo.|ANCOVA|||||35.07|21.63|<0.001
90865074|NCT01558271|181593542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.08||||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|8.24||Treatment comparison for HOMA2-%B based on fasting insulin at 26 weeks between LY2189265 and Liraglutide.|ANCOVA|||||8.24|-2.09|0.242
90865075|NCT01558271|181593542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|24.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.25|30.4||Treatment comparison for HOMA2-%B based on fasting C-peptide at 26 weeks between LY2189265 and placebo.|ANCOVA|||||30.40|19.25|<0.001
90865076|NCT01558271|181593542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.91||||0.376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.32|6.13||Treatment comparison for HOMA2-%B based on fasting C-peptide at 26 weeks between LY2189265 and Liraglutide.|ANCOVA|||||6.13|-2.32|0.376
90865077|NCT01558271|181593542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.91||||0.417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.72|6.54||Treatment comparison for HOMA2-%B based on fasting insulin at 52 weeks between LY2189265 and Liraglutide.|ANCOVA|||||6.54|-2.72|0.417
90865078|NCT01558271|181593542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.73||||0.753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.83|5.29||Treatment comparison for HOMA2-%B based on fasting C-peptide at 52 weeks between LY2189265 and Liraglutide.|ANCOVA|||||5.29|-3.83|0.753
90865079|NCT01558271|181593543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|||||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks between LY2189265 and placebo.|Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
90865080|NCT01558271|181593543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|||||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks between LY2189265 and Liraglutide.|Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
90908744|NCT00836810|181686594|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||A priori statistical significance set at P\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.002
90865081|NCT01558271|181593543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|||||Treatment comparison at 52 weeks between LY2189265 and Liraglutide.|Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
90908745|NCT00836810|181686594|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51||||||A priori statistical significance set at P\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.51
90908746|NCT00836810|181686595|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||A priori statistical significance set at P\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.003
90908747|NCT00836810|181686595|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||A priori statistical significance set at P\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.001
90908748|NCT00836810|181686595|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88||||||A priori statistical significance set at P\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.88
90908749|NCT00389519|181686615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.044||95.0||||two-sided test|ANCOVA|test from contrast statement from full model||"Planned interim efficacy analysis: 80 placebo and 80 high-dose ramipril subjects provided 93% power, alpha=0.032, to detect 5 mmHg difference in primary outcome. SD of 8.5 mmHg assumed. Alpha of 0.032 required for the planned interim efficacy analysis.~If study continued: 450 total subjects would provide 90% power, alpha=0.027, to detect 3 mmHg difference between placebo and combined ramipril dose groups. Alpha of 0.027 required for the final analysis."||||0.044
90908750|NCT00389519|181686616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0||||two-sided, unadjusted|ANCOVA|test from contrast statement from full model||||||0.006
90908751|NCT03425539|181686635|OTHER|An ANCOVA was applied to the change from baseline to Month 6 including the baseline value, the two stratification factors (sex and enzyme replacement therapy (ERT) treatment status), and the treatment group.|LS Mean difference vs. placebo|0.42||||0.3189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.23|||ANCOVA|||||1.23|-0.4|0.3189
90865082|NCT02610725|181593554|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.81||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.73|-0.46|||t-test, 2 sided|51 degrees of freedom.|Means were analyzed in (pre-post) format. A negative mean here indicates an increase in positive affect.|Paired-samples t-tests were used to analyze change in affect after participating in the yoga class. Analyses were conducted to measure changes in both positive affect and negative affect. This entry describes positive affect analysis.||-0.46|-3.73|0.013
90865083|NCT02610725|181593554|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|8.02|||t-test, 2 sided|51 degrees of freedom|Means were analyzed in a (pre-post) format. A positive mean indicates a decrease in negative affect.|Paired-samples t-tests were used to analyze change in affect after participating in the yoga class. Analyses were conducted to measure changes in both positive affect and negative affect. This entry describes negative affect analysis.||8.02|4.10|<0.001
90865084|NCT00743483|181593561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2179|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2179
90865085|NCT00873912|181593573|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Based on similar fever rate with 300 evaluable subjects (240 vaccine and 60 placebo recipients), the study would provide at least 98% power to rule out a rate increase of 5 percentage points assuming the true difference between the treatment groups is zero and the true fever rate is ≤ 1.0%. Power would be lower if the true difference was different from zero.|rate difference|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|1.3|||score statistic|||The percentage of subjects with fever was compared between the two treatment groups based on the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CIs for rate difference (monovalent vaccine minus placebo). The upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI was evaluated against the pre-specified equivalence criterion of 5 percentage points which corresponded to the following hypotheses: - H0 (null): rate difference ≥ 5 percentage points, - HA (alternative): rate difference \< 5 percentage points.||1.3|-7.9|
90865086|NCT03311724|181593694|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.4|-2.5|<0.001
90865087|NCT03311724|181593694|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.7|-2.8|<0.001
90865088|NCT03311724|181593694|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.4|-2.5|<0.001
90908752|NCT03425539|181686636|OTHER|An ANCOVA was applied to the change from baseline to Month 6 including the baseline value, the two stratification factors (sex and ERT treatment status), and the treatment group.|LS Mean difference vs. placebo|-873.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1097.53|-649.53|||ANCOVA|||||-649.53|-1097.53|<0.0001
90908753|NCT03425539|181686637|OTHER|An ANCOVA was applied to the change from baseline to Month 6 including the terms value, the two stratification factors (sex and ERT treatment status), and the treatment group.|LS Mean difference vs. placebo|0.31||||0.4676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|1.16|||ANCOVA|||||1.16|-0.53|0.4676
90908754|NCT03425539|181686638|OTHER||Win ratio|1.0||||0.8986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.89|||ANCOVA|||The p-value was derived from a rank ANCOVA adjusted for the baseline value and stratified by sex and ERT treatment status.||1.89|0.57|0.8986
90865089|NCT03311724|181593695|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|56.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.43|338.97|||Regression, Logistic|||||338.97|9.43|<0.001
90908755|NCT00946192|181686653|OTHER|Least square means||||||0.039|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.039
90908756|NCT00946192|181686654|OTHER|||||||0.018|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.018
90908757|NCT02014558|181686694|OTHER||Slope|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.788|1.19||||||Dose Proportionality (Single Dose / Day -2) was evaluated using the power model.||1.19|0.788|
90908758|NCT02014558|181686694|OTHER||Slope|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.43||||||Dose Proportionality (Multiple Dose / Cycle 1 Day 15) was evaluated using the power model.||1.43|1.00|
90908759|NCT02014558|181686695|OTHER||Slope|0.808|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.629|0.988||||||Dose Proportionality (Single Dose / Day -2) was evaluated using the power model.||0.988|0.629|
90908760|NCT02014558|181686695|OTHER||Slope|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.02|1.41||||||Dose Proportionality (Multiple Dose / Cycle 1 Day 15) was evaluated using the power model.||1.41|1.02|
90908761|NCT02014558|181686733|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|109.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|49.82|240.48||||||Statistical Comparison of Midazolam Exposure after Administration of Midazolam Alone or Coadministered with Gilteritinib: The difference of least squares (LS) means of log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters between midazolam alone and midazolam + gilteritinib and its 90% CI are backtransformed to the raw scale and are expressed as percent.||240.48|49.82|
90959976|NCT02647320|181800037|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.306||0.761|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.247|11.185|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 4||11.185|-16.247|.761
90865090|NCT03311724|181593695|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|183.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.0|999.0|||Regression, Logistic||"Maximum confidential interval is \>999"|||999|22.0|<0.001
90908762|NCT02014558|181686734|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|149.9||||||90.0|74.88|300.06||||||Statistical Comparison of Midazolam Exposure after Administration of Midazolam Alone or Coadministered with Gilteritinib: The difference of LS means of log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters between 1-hydroxymidazolam alone and 1-hydroxymidazolam + gilteritinib and its 90% CI are backtransformed to the raw scale and are expressed as percent.||300.06|74.88|
90908763|NCT02014558|181686735|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|111.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|69.54|179.25||||||Statistical Comparison of Midazolam Exposure after Administration of Midazolam Alone or Coadministered with Gilteritinib: The difference of LS means of log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters between midazolam alone and midazolam + gilteritinib and its 90% CI are backtransformed to the raw scale and are expressed as percent.||179.25|69.54|
90865091|NCT03311724|181593695|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|157.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.63|999.0|||Regression, Logistic||"Maximum confidential interval is \>999"|||999|21.63|<0.001
90865092|NCT03311724|181593696|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-48.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.6|-26.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-26.3|-70.6|<0.001
90865093|NCT03311724|181593696|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-58.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.7|-35.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-35.2|-80.7|<0.001
90865094|NCT03311724|181593696|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-61.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.6|-39.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-39.2|-84.6|<0.001
90908764|NCT02014558|181686736|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|123.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|72.41|210.52||||||Statistical Comparison of Midazolam Exposure after Administration of Midazolam Alone or Coadministered with Gilteritinib: The difference of LS means of log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters between 1-hydroxymidazolam/midazolam alone and 1-hydroxymidazolam/midazolam + gilteritinib and its 90% CI are backtransformed to the raw scale and are expressed as percent.||210.52|72.41|
90908765|NCT02014558|181686741|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|93.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.29|117.26||||||Statistical Assessment of the Effect of Gilteritinib on Cephalexin Pharmacokinetics after Administration of Cephalexin Alone or Coadministered with Gilteritinib: The difference of LS means of log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters between cephalexin alone and cephalexin + gilteritinib and its 90% CI are backtransformed to the raw scale and are expressed as percent.||117.26|75.29|
90908766|NCT02014558|181686742|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|91.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.6|112.12||||||Statistical Assessment of the Effect of Gilteritinib on Cephalexin Pharmacokinetics after Administration of Cephalexin Alone or Coadministered with Gilteritinib: The difference of LS means of log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters between cephalexin alone and cephalexin + gilteritinib and its 90% CI are backtransformed to the raw scale and are expressed as percent.||112.12|74.60|
90908767|NCT02014558|181686743|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|97.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.19|128.7||||||Statistical Assessment of the Effect of Gilteritinib on Cephalexin Pharmacokinetics after Administration of Cephalexin Alone or Coadministered with Gilteritinib: The difference of LS means of log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters between cephalexin alone and cephalexin + gilteritinib and its 90% CI are backtransformed to the raw scale and are expressed as percent.||128.70|74.19|
90908768|NCT02014558|181686746|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|106.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.28|132.81||||||Statistical Assessment of the Effect of Gilteritinib on Cephalexin Pharmacokinetics after Administration of Cephalexin Alone or Coadministered with Gilteritinib: The difference of LS means of log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters between cephalexin alone and cephalexin + gilteritinib and its 90% CI are backtransformed to the raw scale and are expressed as percent.||132.81|85.28|
90959977|NCT02647320|181800037|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-27.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-41.22|-14.236|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 4||-14.236|-41.220|<0.001
90865095|NCT03311724|181593697|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|-2.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.6|-7.1|<0.001
90865096|NCT03311724|181593697|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|-2.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.7|-7.2|<0.001
90865097|NCT03311724|181593697|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|-2.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.9|-7.5|<0.001
90865098|NCT03311724|181593698|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.2|-4.7|0.075
90865099|NCT03311724|181593698|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.1|-4.9|0.065
90865100|NCT03311724|181593698|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.2|-4.9|0.065
90865101|NCT02955602|181593751|OTHER||||||=|0.2242|||||||ANCOVA|||The analyses will assess the change from baseline in each treatment group and will assess the hypothesis that there are no differences in the percent change in ALP serum level between seladelpar 2 mg and 5 mg treatment groups after 8 weeks of treatment.||||= 0.2242
90865102|NCT02955602|181593751|OTHER||||||=|0.0021|||||||ANCOVA|||The analyses will assess the change from baseline in each treatment group and will assess the hypothesis that there are no differences in the percent change in ALP serum level between seladelpar 2 mg and 10 mg treatment groups after 8 weeks of treatment||||= 0.0021
90865103|NCT02955602|181593751|OTHER||||||=|0.0024|||||||ANCOVA|||The analyses will assess the change from baseline in each treatment group and will assess the hypothesis that there are no differences in the percent change in ALP serum level between seladelpar 5 mg and 10 mg treatment groups after 8 weeks of treatment||||= 0.0024
90865104|NCT03000439|181593776|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.633|||=|0.1171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.296|1.354||1-sided p-value is provided.|Unstratified log-rank test||Hazard ratio and 95% CI was based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment group as covariate. Hazard ratio \< 1 indicates a reduction in hazard ratio in favor of Tofacitinib 5 mg BID to Placebo.|||1.354|0.296|= 0.1171
90865105|NCT03000439|181593777|OTHER||Difference in percentage|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|13.6|||||The 95% CIs for the differences between the treatment groups were generated using Greenwood's formula.|DB Week 4||13.6|-12.2|
90865106|NCT03000439|181593777|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-8.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.9|11.3|||||The 95% CIs for the differences between the treatment groups were generated using Greenwood's formula.|DB Week 8||11.3|-27.9|
90959978|NCT02647320|181800038|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.001||0.527|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.441|12.221|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 12||12.221|-27.441|.527
90959979|NCT02647320|181800038|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.532||0.532|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-26.927|12.138|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 12||12.138|-26.927|.532
90865107|NCT03000439|181593777|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.2|11.6|||||The 95% CIs for the differences between the treatment groups were generated using Greenwood's formula.|DB Week 12||11.6|-33.2|
90908769|NCT02014558|181686748|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|83.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|46.53|151.39||||||Statistical Assessment of the Effect of Gilteritinib on Cephalexin Pharmacokinetics after Administration of Cephalexin Alone or Coadministered with Gilteritinib: The difference of LS means of log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters between cephalexin alone and cephalexin + gilteritinib and its 90% CI are backtransformed to the raw scale and are expressed as percent.||151.39|46.53|
90908770|NCT02014558|181686750|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|82.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|40.25|170.48||||||Statistical Assessment of the Effect of Gilteritinib on Cephalexin Pharmacokinetics after Administration of Cephalexin Alone or Coadministered with Gilteritinib: The difference of LS means of log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters between cephalexin alone and cephalexin + gilteritinib and its 90% CI are backtransformed to the raw scale and are expressed as percent.||170.48|40.25|
90908771|NCT05460663|181686759|EQUIVALENCE|Paired Wilcoxon signed ranks tests were used to compare changes at 12-week, 18-week, or 24-week follow-ups from the baseline scores for all measurements in each training modality separately and combined. Comparisons were made with participants who had data at both baseline and the follow-up. Difference-in-difference comparison of changes between two training modalities at each follow-up from the baseline were made to assess differences between CBT and in-person training.||||||0.083||||||The reported P-value is for differences between groups at 24-weeks post-intervention.The Benjamini \& Hochberg adjustment was applied to control for the false-discovery rate among all pairwise pre-post comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.083
90908772|NCT02263508|181686835|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.04|||Stratified log-rank test|Stratified by randomization factors (disease stage, prior BRAF inhibitor therapy) and baseline PD-L1 status.|Cox proportional hazards model stratified by randomization factors (disease stage, prior BRAF inhibitor therapy) and baseline PD-L1 status.|||1.04|0.71|0.13
90865108|NCT03000439|181593777|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-13.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.2|9.8|||||The 95% CIs for the differences between the treatment groups were generated using Greenwood's formula.|DB Week 16||9.8|-37.2|
90908773|NCT02263508|181686836|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.21|||Stratified log-rank test|Stratified by randomization factors (disease stage, prior BRAF inhibitor therapy) and baseline PD-L1 status.|Cox proportional hazards model stratified by randomization factors (disease stage, prior BRAF inhibitor therapy) and baseline PD-L1 status.|||1.21|0.77|0.77
90908774|NCT02263508|181686844|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.88||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|3.07|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression stratified by randomization stratification factors (disease stage and prior BRAF inhibitor therapy) and the baseline PD-L1 status.|Adjusted odds ratio estimated using logistic regression with randomization stratification factors and baseline PD-L1 status.|||3.07|1.15|0.012
90908775|NCT02263508|181686845|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.34|||Stratified log-rank test|Stratified by randomization factors (disease stage, prior BRAF inhibitor therapy) and baseline PD-L1 status.|Cox proportional hazards model stratified by randomization factors (disease stage, prior BRAF inhibitor therapy) and baseline PD-L1 status.|||1.34|0.82|0.14
90908776|NCT02263508|181686846|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.24|||Stratified log-rank test|Stratified by randomization factors (disease stage, prior BRAF inhibitor therapy) and baseline PD-L1 status.|Cox proportional hazards model stratified by randomization factors (disease stage, prior BRAF inhibitor therapy) and baseline PD-L1 status.|||1.24|0.63|0.47
90865109|NCT03000439|181593777|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-13.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.9|11.5|||||The 95% CIs for the differences between the treatment groups were generated using Greenwood's formula.|DB Week 20||11.5|-37.9|
90959980|NCT02647320|181800038|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.421||0.672|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.635|12.807|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 12||12.807|-21.635|.672
90959981|NCT02647320|181800038|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-31.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.229||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-48.482|-14.676|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 12||-14.676|-48.482|.002
90865110|NCT03000439|181593777|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-13.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.9|11.5|||||The 95% CIs for the differences between the treatment groups were generated using Greenwood's formula.|DB Week 24||11.5|-37.9|
90865111|NCT03000439|181593777|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-9.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.5|15.6|||||The 95% CIs for the differences between the treatment groups were generated using Greenwood's formula.|DB Week 28||15.6|-34.5|
90865112|NCT03000439|181593777|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-14.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.5|11.5|||||The 95% CIs for the differences between the treatment groups were generated using Greenwood's formula.|DB Week 32||11.5|-39.5|
90865113|NCT03000439|181593777|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-9.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.5|16.7|||||The 95% CIs for the differences between the treatment groups were generated using Greenwood's formula.|DB Week 36||16.7|-35.5|
90865114|NCT03000439|181593777|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-9.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.5|16.7|||||The 95% CIs for the differences between the treatment groups were generated using Greenwood's formula.|DB Week 40||16.7|-35.5|
90865115|NCT03000439|181593777|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.8|11.8|||||The 95% CIs for the differences between the treatment groups were generated using Greenwood's formula.|DB Week 44||11.8|-41.8|
90865116|NCT03000439|181593777|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.8|11.8|||||The 95% CIs for the differences between the treatment groups were generated using Greenwood's formula.|DB Week 48||11.8|-41.8|
90865117|NCT03000439|181593777|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.8|11.8|||||The 95% CIs for the differences between the treatment groups were generated using Greenwood's formula.|DB Week 52||11.8|-41.8|
90865118|NCT03000439|181593780|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-11.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.02|5.21|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR30 at DB Week 4||5.21|-28.02|
90865119|NCT03000439|181593780|OTHER||Difference in percentage|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.37|21.36|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR30 at DB Week 8||21.36|-18.37|
90865120|NCT03000439|181593780|OTHER||Difference in percentage|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.68|23.6|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR30 at DB Week 12||23.60|-22.68|
90865121|NCT03000439|181593780|OTHER||Difference in percentage|10.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.82|34.1|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR30 at DB Week 16||34.10|-13.82|
90908777|NCT02263508|181686847|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.79|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression stratified by randomization stratification factors (disease stage and prior BRAF inhibitor therapy) and the baseline PD-L1 status.|Adjusted odds ratio estimated using logistic regression with randomization stratification factors and baseline PD-L1 status.|||1.79|0.97|0.081
90908778|NCT02263508|181686849|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.9|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression stratified by randomization stratification factors (disease stage and prior BRAF inhibitor therapy) and the baseline PD-L1 status.|Adjusted odds ratio estimated using logistic regression with randomization stratification factors and baseline PD-L1 status.|||1.90|1.02|0.039
90865122|NCT03000439|181593780|OTHER||Difference in percentage|16.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.43|40.92|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR30 at DB Week 20||40.92|-8.43|
90865123|NCT03000439|181593780|OTHER||Difference in percentage|9.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.49|34.39|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR30 at DB Week 24||34.39|-15.49|
90865124|NCT03000439|181593780|OTHER||Difference in percentage|9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.13|34.33|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR30 at DB Week 28||34.33|-16.13|
90865125|NCT03000439|181593780|OTHER||Difference in percentage|9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.13|34.33|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR30 at DB Week 32||34.33|-16.13|
90865126|NCT03000439|181593780|OTHER||Difference in percentage|9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.13|34.33|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR30 at DB Week 36||34.33|-16.13|
90865127|NCT03000439|181593780|OTHER||Difference in percentage|9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.13|34.33|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR30 at DB Week 40||34.33|-16.13|
90865128|NCT03000439|181593780|OTHER||Difference in percentage|9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.13|34.33|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR30 at DB Week 44||34.33|-16.13|
90865129|NCT03000439|181593780|OTHER||Difference in percentage|12.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.91|37.56|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR30 at DB Week 48||37.56|-12.91|
90865130|NCT03000439|181593780|OTHER||Difference in percentage|12.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.91|37.56|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR30 at DB Week 52||37.56|-12.91|
90865131|NCT03000439|181593780|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-11.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.02|5.21|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR50 at DB Week 4||5.21|-28.02|
90865132|NCT03000439|181593780|OTHER||Difference in percentage|4.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.72|25.17|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR50 at DB Week 8||25.17|-15.72|
90865133|NCT03000439|181593780|OTHER||Difference in percentage|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.68|23.6|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR50 at DB Week 12||23.60|-22.68|
90865134|NCT03000439|181593780|OTHER||Difference in percentage|13.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.76|37.48|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR50 at DB Week 16||37.48|-10.76|
90865135|NCT03000439|181593780|OTHER||Difference in percentage|19.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|44.14|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR50 at DB Week 20||44.14|-5.20|
90908779|NCT02263508|181686851|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.75|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression stratified by randomization stratification factors (disease stage and prior BRAF inhibitor therapy) and the baseline PD-L1 status.|Adjusted odds ratio estimated using logistic regression with randomization stratification factors and baseline PD-L1 status.|||1.75|0.94|0.11
90865136|NCT03000439|181593780|OTHER||Difference in percentage|9.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.49|34.39|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR50 at DB Week 24||34.39|-15.49|
90865137|NCT03000439|181593780|OTHER||Difference in percentage|9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.13|34.33|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR50 at DB Week 28||34.33|-16.13|
91033155|NCT00048581|181952004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adj M Chg from BL: Activities|-0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|-0.22|||ANCOVA|||Mean changes from baseline in HAQ disability index were compared between treatment groups using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models and 95% confidence intervals were calculated. This analysis was based on the LOCF data set. Similar analyses were also conducted for each of the 8 individual categories: 1) dressing and grooming; 2) arising; 3) eating; 4) walking; 5) hygiene; 6) reach; 7) grip; and 8) common daily activities. Adjusted Mean Change From Baseline= Adj M Chg from BL||-0.22|-0.58|<0.001
90908780|NCT02263508|181686852|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.96|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression stratified by randomization stratification factors (disease stage and prior BRAF inhibitor therapy) and the baseline PD-L1 status.|Adjusted odds ratio estimated using logistic regression with randomization stratification factors and baseline PD-L1 status.|||1.96|1.06|0.020
90908781|NCT02263508|181686854|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.59||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|2.17|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression stratified by randomization stratification factors (disease stage and prior BRAF inhibitor therapy) and the baseline PD-L1 status.|Adjusted odds ratio estimated using logistic regression with randomization stratification factors and baseline PD-L1 status.|||2.17|1.16|0.004
90908782|NCT02263508|181686856|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.85|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression stratified by randomization stratification factors (disease stage and prior BRAF inhibitor therapy) and the baseline PD-L1 status.|Adjusted odds ratio estimated using logistic regression with randomization stratification factors and baseline PD-L1 status.|||1.85|0.99|0.058
90865138|NCT03000439|181593780|OTHER||Difference in percentage|9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.13|34.33|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR50 at DB Week 32||34.33|-16.13|
90865139|NCT03000439|181593780|OTHER||Difference in percentage|9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.13|34.33|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR50 at DB Week 36||34.33|-16.13|
90865140|NCT03000439|181593780|OTHER||Difference in percentage|9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.13|34.33|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR50 at DB Week 40||34.33|-16.13|
90908783|NCT02263508|181686857|OTHER||Difference|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|2.05|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures include the fixed and categorical effects of treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction, the fixed and continuous covariates of baseline HRQL score, randomization stratification factors (stage of disease and prior BRAF inhibitor therapy per IVRS) and baseline PD-L1 status (positive and not positive). Random subject effect was modeled using within subject-error correlation structure.||2.05|-1.67|0.84
90908784|NCT01149681|181686867|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2364|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||||||0.2364
90908785|NCT01803646|181686875|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.17|-0.51|0.32
90908786|NCT01803646|181686876|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.79||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|2.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.4|-4|0.63
90908787|NCT01803646|181686877|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.821|||||||Fisher Exact|||Analysis for air conduction||||0.821
90908788|NCT01803646|181686877|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Analysis for bone conduction||||1.0
90865141|NCT03000439|181593780|OTHER||Difference in percentage|12.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.91|37.56|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR50 at DB Week 44||37.56|-12.91|
90908789|NCT01167426|181686878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean ranks|79.6|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank||Difference in mean ranks between Week 2 and Week 6|Comparison of Week 2 (20 mg/1.0 mL utilizing autoject 2 for glass syringe) to Week 6 (20 mg/0.5 mL utilizing the autoject 2 20 mg/0.5 mL).||||<0.0001
90908790|NCT01167426|181686879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Goodness-of-fit p-value comparing overall preference to expected frequencies of 33.3% in each category. That is, no preference across the full sample of patients in the study.|Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
90908791|NCT02020018|181686945|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.55
90908792|NCT04044664|181686948|OTHER|||||||0.1728|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||CAPS-5 Total Score||||0.1728
90908793|NCT04044664|181686948|OTHER|||||||0.0962|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Cognition and Mood sub-score||||0.0962
90908794|NCT04044664|181686948|OTHER|||||||0.0191|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Arousal and Reactivity sub-score||||0.0191
90908795|NCT04044664|181686954|OTHER|||||||0.0452|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0452
90865142|NCT03000439|181593780|OTHER||Difference in percentage|12.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.91|37.56|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR50 at DB Week 48||37.56|-12.91|
90865143|NCT03000439|181593780|OTHER||Difference in percentage|12.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.91|37.56|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR50 at DB Week 52||37.56|-12.91|
90865144|NCT03000439|181593780|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-13.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.14|10.49|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR70 at DB Week 4||10.49|-38.14|
90865145|NCT03000439|181593780|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-9.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.28|13.15|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR70 at DB Week 8||13.15|-32.28|
90865146|NCT03000439|181593780|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.7|24.24|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR70 at DB Week 12||24.24|-24.70|
90865147|NCT03000439|181593780|OTHER||Difference in percentage|5.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.31|31.06|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR70 at DB Week 16||31.06|-19.31|
90908796|NCT04044664|181686954|OTHER|||||||0.0614|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0614
90908797|NCT04044664|181686955|OTHER|||||||0.0182|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||greater than or equal to 30% decrease from baseline||||0.0182
90908798|NCT04044664|181686955|OTHER|||||||0.0705|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||greater than or equal to 50% decrease from baseline||||0.0705
91033156|NCT03897088|181952073|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||||<0.00001
90959982|NCT02647320|181800039|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.9||0.298|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.9|3.6|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 2||3.60|-15.90|.298
90865148|NCT03000439|181593780|OTHER||Difference in percentage|19.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.81|44.06|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR70 at DB Week 20||44.06|-5.81|
90865149|NCT03000439|181593780|OTHER||Difference in percentage|1.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.55|27.47|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR70 at DB Week 24||27.47|-23.55|
90865150|NCT03000439|181593780|OTHER|The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|Difference in percentage|15.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.05|40.46|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR70 at DB Week 28||40.46|-10.05|
90865151|NCT03000439|181593780|OTHER||Difference in percentage|12.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.91|37.56|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR70 at DB Week 32||37.56|-12.91|
90865152|NCT03000439|181593780|OTHER||Difference in percentage|9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.13|34.33|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR70 at DB Week 36||34.33|-16.13|
90865153|NCT03000439|181593780|OTHER||Difference in percentage|12.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.91|37.56|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR70 at DB Week 40||37.56|-12.91|
90865154|NCT03000439|181593780|OTHER||Difference in percentage|12.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.91|37.56|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR70 at DB Week 44||37.56|-12.91|
90959983|NCT02647320|181800039|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-16.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.09||0.008|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-26.37|-6.27|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 2||-6.27|-26.37|.008
90865155|NCT03000439|181593780|OTHER||Difference in percentage|12.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.91|37.56|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR70 at DB Week 48||37.56|-12.91|
90865156|NCT03000439|181593780|OTHER||Difference in percentage|12.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.91|37.56|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR70 at DB Week 52||37.56|-12.91|
90865157|NCT03000439|181593780|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-19.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.09|4.46|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR90 at DB Week 4||4.46|-44.09|
90865158|NCT03000439|181593780|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-17.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.19|5.63|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR90 at DB Week 8||5.63|-40.19|
90865159|NCT03000439|181593780|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-7.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.66|14.45|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR90 at DB Week 20||14.45|-29.66|
90865160|NCT03000439|181593780|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-13.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.19|9.77|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR90 at DB Week 12||9.77|-37.19|
90865161|NCT03000439|181593780|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-4.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.67|18.61|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR90 at DB Week 16||18.61|-26.67|
90865162|NCT03000439|181593780|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-14.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.32|5.83|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR90 at DB Week 32||5.83|-35.32|
90865163|NCT03000439|181593780|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-4.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.02|17.26|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR90 at DB Week 24||17.26|-26.02|
90959984|NCT02647320|181800039|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-9.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.32||0.074|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.31|-0.75|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 2||-0.75|-18.31|.074
90959985|NCT02647320|181800039|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-27.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.32|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-35.96|-18.38|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 2||-18.38|-35.96|<0.001
90865164|NCT03000439|181593780|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-7.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.89|12.99|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR90 at DB Week 28||12.99|-28.89|
90865165|NCT03000439|181593780|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-6.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.65|16.83|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR90 at DB Week 36||16.83|-30.65|
90865166|NCT03000439|181593780|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-3.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.16|19.78|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR90 at DB Week 40||19.78|-27.16|
90865167|NCT03000439|181593780|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.6|22.68|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR90 at DB Week 44||22.68|-23.60|
90865168|NCT03000439|181593780|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.6|22.68|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR90 at DB Week 48||22.68|-23.60|
90865169|NCT03000439|181593780|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.6|22.68|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR90 at DB Week 52||22.68|-23.60|
90865170|NCT03000439|181593780|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-21.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.45|0.05|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR100 at DB Week 4||0.05|-42.45|
90865171|NCT03000439|181593780|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-18.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.98|1.34|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR100 at DB Week 8||1.34|-37.98|
90959986|NCT02647320|181800040|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.96||0.84|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.04|8.63|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 4||8.63|-11.04|.840
90959987|NCT02647320|181800040|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-11.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.06||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.94|-1.91|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 4||-1.91|-21.94|.050
90959988|NCT02647320|181800040|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.31||0.227|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.21|2.33|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 4||2.33|-15.21|.227
90959989|NCT02647320|181800040|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-13.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.27||0.13|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.83|-4.43|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 4||-4.43|-21.83|0.13
90959990|NCT02647320|181800041|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.55||0.642|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.77|13.88|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 8||13.88|-7.77|.642
90959991|NCT02647320|181800041|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.72||0.512|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.52|6.68|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 8||6.68|-15.52|.512
90959992|NCT02647320|181800041|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.81||0.486|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.66|5.54|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 8||5.54|-13.66|.486
90959993|NCT02647320|181800041|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-16.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.8||0.004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-26.31|-7.16|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 8||-7.16|-26.31|.004
90959994|NCT02647320|181800042|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-8.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.11||0.285|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.09|4.7|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 12||4.70|-22.09|.285
90959995|NCT02647320|181800042|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-18.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.94||0.02|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-31.73|-5.49|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 12||-5.49|-31.73|.020
90959996|NCT02647320|181800042|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-13.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.03||0.067|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-24.6|-1.35|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 12||-1.35|-24.60|.067
90959997|NCT02647320|181800042|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-17.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.88||0.012|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-28.76|-6.03|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 12||-6.03|-28.76|.012
90959998|NCT00081770|181800044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.567||95.0|0.79|1.14||Holm's method for multiplicity adjustment was to be used to control the overall Type I error rate at α = 0.05. However, since there was no significant difference in the overall SVR rates between the three groups, no Type-1 error adjustment was made.|Regression, Logistic|The p-value is based on the logistic regression model that includes treatment and baseline stratification factors (viral load and race).|The odds ratio is based on the logistic regression model that includes treatment and baseline stratification factors: viral load (≤600,000 IU/mL vs \>600,000 IU/mL) and race (Black vs non-Black).|||1.14|0.79|0.567
90959999|NCT00081770|181800044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.195||95.0|0.9|1.3||Holm's method for multiplicity adjustment was to be used to control the overall Type I error rate at α = 0.05. However, since there was no significant difference in the overall SVR rates between the three groups, no Type-1 error adjustment was made.|Regression, Logistic|The p-value is based on the logistic regression model that includes treatment and baseline stratification factors (viral load and race).|The odds ratio is based on the logistic regression model that includes treatment and baseline stratification factors: viral load (≤600,000 IU/mL vs \>600,000 IU/mL) and race (Black vs non-Black).|||1.30|0.90|0.195
90960000|NCT00081770|181800046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|39.9||||||95.0|36.9|42.9|||||Percentage of participants with undetectable HCV-RNA at Treatment Week 12|||42.9|36.9|
90960001|NCT00081770|181800046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|36.0||||||95.0|33.1|39.0|||||Percentage of participants with undetectable HCV-RNA at Treatment Week 12|||39.0|33.1|
90960002|NCT00081770|181800046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|45.0||||||95.0|42.0|48.1|||||Percentage of participants with undetectable HCV-RNA at Treatment Week 12|||48.1|42.0|
90960003|NCT01072877|181800048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.49|||=|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.72|-1.27|||ANCOVA|||||-1.27|-3.72|=0.0001
90960004|NCT01072877|181800048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|-2.29|||ANCOVA|||||-2.29|-4.80|<0.0001
90960005|NCT01072877|181800048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.98|-1.48|||ANCOVA|||||-1.48|-3.98|<0.0001
90960006|NCT01072877|181800048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.84|-2.46|||ANCOVA|||||-2.46|-4.84|<0.0001
90960007|NCT01072877|181800049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.78|||=|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||||-0.40|-1.17|=0.0001
90960008|NCT01072877|181800049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|-0.86|||ANCOVA|||||-0.86|-1.65|<0.0001
90960009|NCT01072877|181800049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|-1.06|||ANCOVA|||||-1.06|-1.85|<0.0001
90960010|NCT01072877|181800049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|-1.23|||ANCOVA|||||-1.23|-1.98|<0.0001
90960011|NCT01072877|181800050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45|||=|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.23|||ANCOVA|||||-0.23|-0.66|=0.0001
90960012|NCT01072877|181800050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.53|||ANCOVA|||||-0.53|-0.98|<0.0001
90960013|NCT01072877|181800050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.75|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.53|||ANCOVA|||||-0.53|-0.97|<0.0001
90960014|NCT01072877|181800050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.68|||ANCOVA|||||-0.68|-1.11|<0.0001
90960015|NCT00601419|181800053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.556|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Age. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between \<65 years and \>=65 years in the frequency of treatment related adverse events."||||=0.556
91033157|NCT03897088|181952082|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||||<0.00001
90960016|NCT00601419|181800054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.845|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Gender. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between Male and Female in the frequency of treatment related adverse events."||||=0.845
90960017|NCT00601419|181800055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.038|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between With TSH deficiency and Without TSH deficiency in the frequency of treatment related adverse events."||||=0.038
90960018|NCT00601419|181800056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.013|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Past history. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between With past history and Without past history in the frequency of treatment related adverse events."||||=0.013
90865172|NCT03000439|181593780|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-11.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.65|8.61|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR100 at DB Week 12||8.61|-31.65|
90960019|NCT00601419|181800057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.037|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Initial Dose. The null hypothesis is that there is no association between Initial Dose and the frequency of treatment related adverse events."||||=0.037
90960020|NCT00601419|181800057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.063|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Armitage Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Initial Dose. The null hypothesis is that there is no linear trend in the frequency of treatment related adverse events across increasing levels of initial dose."||||=0.063
90960021|NCT00601419|181800059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.019|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Age. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between \<65 years of age and \>=65 years of age in the efficacy of somatropin."||||=0.019
90960022|NCT00601419|181800060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Gender. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between male and female in the efficacy of somatropin."||||=1.000
90960023|NCT00601419|181800061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.037|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was ACTH deficiency. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between With ACTH deficiency and Without ACTH deficiency in the efficacy of somatropin."||||=0.037
90960024|NCT00362453|181800066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-118.8||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-183.66|-53.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-53.94|-183.66|0.0005
90960025|NCT00362453|181800067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-324.6||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-513.98|-135.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||12 Week||-135.22|-513.98|0.001
90865173|NCT03000439|181593780|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-7.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.89|12.99|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR100 at DB Week 16||12.99|-28.89|
90865174|NCT03000439|181593780|OTHER||Difference in percentage|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.15|18.91|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR100 at DB Week 20||18.91|-16.15|
90865175|NCT03000439|181593780|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.36|18.37|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR100 at DB Week 24||18.37|-21.36|
90865176|NCT03000439|181593780|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-8.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.91|11.32|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR100 at DB Week 28||11.32|-27.91|
90865177|NCT03000439|181593780|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-15.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.29|4.1|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR100 at DB Week 32||4.10|-34.29|
90865178|NCT03000439|181593780|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-11.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.65|8.61|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR100 at DB Week 36||8.61|-31.65|
90865179|NCT03000439|181593780|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-7.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.66|14.45|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR100 at DB Week 40||14.45|-29.66|
90865180|NCT03000439|181593780|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-4.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.02|17.26|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR100 at DB Week 44||17.26|-26.02|
90865181|NCT03000439|181593780|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.04|21.43|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR100 at DB Week 48||21.43|-23.04|
90865182|NCT03000439|181593780|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.04|21.43|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR100 at DB Week 52||21.43|-23.04|
90865183|NCT03000439|181593788|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-7.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.42|7.75|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 4||7.75|-23.42|
90865184|NCT03000439|181593788|OTHER||Difference in percentage|5.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.94|24.08|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 8||24.08|-13.94|
90960026|NCT00362453|181800067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-183.2||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-372.58|6.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||24 Week||6.18|-372.58|0.06
90960027|NCT00362453|181800067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-105.3||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-294.68|84.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||48 week||84.08|-294.68|0.3
90960028|NCT00362453|181800068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.9||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.04|7.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||12 week||7.24|-53.04|0.1
90960029|NCT00362453|181800068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.8||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.94|15.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||24 week||15.34|-44.94|0.3
90960030|NCT00362453|181800068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.65||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.79|26.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||48 Week||26.49|-33.79|0.8
90960031|NCT00362453|181800069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-66.95||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-131.81|-2.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||24 Week||-2.09|-131.81|0.05
90960032|NCT00362453|181800069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-46.15||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-111.01|18.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||48 Week||18.71|-111.01|0.2
90960033|NCT00362453|181800070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.15||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.82|-0.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||12 Week||-0.49|-3.82|0.01
90960034|NCT00362453|181800070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.65||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.31|1.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||24 Week||1.02|-2.31|0.4
90960035|NCT00362453|181800070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||48 weeks||1.70|-1.62|1.0
90960036|NCT00362453|181800071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.71||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.75|-0.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||12 Week||-0.66|-2.75|0.002
91033158|NCT03897088|181952083|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16||||<0.00001
90960037|NCT00362453|181800071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|0.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||24 Week||0.51|-1.58|0.3
90960038|NCT00362453|181800071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.03||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||48 Week||0.02|-2.09|0.06
90960039|NCT00362453|181800072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.88||||5e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.91|-5.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||12 Week||-5.84|-15.91|0.00005
90960040|NCT00362453|181800072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.12||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.15|-0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||24 Week||-0.08|-10.15|0.05
90960041|NCT00362453|181800072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.98||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.06|-0.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||48 Week||-0.91|-11.06|0.02
90960042|NCT00362453|181800073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|50.08||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.34|110.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||12 Week||110.50|-10.34|0.1
90960043|NCT00362453|181800073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|43.71||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.07|102.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||24 Week||102.50|-15.07|0.1
90960044|NCT00362453|181800073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.61||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.36|78.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||48 Weeks||78.59|-49.36|0.7
90960045|NCT00362453|181800074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||12 Weeks||0.34|-0.54|0.7
90960046|NCT00362453|181800074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||24 Weeks||0.52|-0.37|0.7
90960047|NCT00362453|181800074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||48 weeks||0.34|-0.55|0.6
90960048|NCT00362453|181800075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.7||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.63|-1.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||12 Week||-1.77|-11.63|0.009
90960049|NCT00362453|181800075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.3||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.23|-0.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||24 Weeks||-0.37|-10.23|0.04
90960050|NCT00362453|181800075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.9||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.83|-3.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||48 Week||-3.97|-13.83|0.0006
90960051|NCT00362453|181800076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.71||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|1.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||12 Weeks||1.39|0.03|0.04
90960052|NCT00362453|181800076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.85||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||24 Weeks||1.53|0.17|0.02
90960053|NCT00362453|181800076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.96||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||48 Weeks||1.64|0.28|0.007
90960054|NCT00362453|181800077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.43||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|12.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||12 Weeks||12.36|2.50|0.004
90960055|NCT00362453|181800077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.51||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|9.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||24 Weeks||9.45|-0.42|0.08
90960056|NCT00362453|181800077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.32||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|11.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||48 Weeks||11.25|1.38|0.01
90960057|NCT00362453|181800078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.15|6.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||12 Weeks||6.57|-6.15|0.9
90960058|NCT00362453|181800078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.47|6.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||24 Weeks||6.25|-6.47|1.0
90960059|NCT00362453|181800078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.77||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|11.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||48 Weeks||11.13|-1.59|0.10
90960060|NCT02382016|181800168|SUPERIORITY||ratio of geometric means|0.65||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.72|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted by treatment, background PAH-specific therapy at baseline and region as factors \& log-transformed PVR at baseline as a covariate||The null hypothesis (change of PVR at Week 12 as a ratio of baseline PVR in subjects treated with placebo or macitentan is the same) is tested on the primary endpoint by means of an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the log(e) transformed ratio of PVR at Week 12 to baseline PVR.||0.72|0.59|0.0001
91033159|NCT03897088|181952084|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||||<0.00001
90865185|NCT03000439|181593788|OTHER||Difference in percentage|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.43|23.04|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 12||23.04|-21.43|
90865186|NCT03000439|181593788|OTHER||Difference in percentage|10.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.82|34.1|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 16||34.10|-13.82|
90865187|NCT03000439|181593788|OTHER||Difference in percentage|16.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.43|40.92|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 20||40.92|-8.43|
90865188|NCT03000439|181593788|OTHER||Difference in percentage|9.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.49|34.39|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 24||34.39|-15.49|
90865189|NCT03000439|181593788|OTHER||Difference in percentage|9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.13|34.33|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 28||34.33|-16.13|
90865190|NCT03000439|181593788|OTHER||Difference in percentage|9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.13|34.33|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 32||34.33|-16.13|
90908799|NCT00478556|181686962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|62.0|||<|0.001|||||||Binomial test of proportion|tested if values were different from 50%||All individuals tasted both preparations and indicated preference. A binomial test of proportion was done to see if these values differed from 50%.||||<0.001
90908800|NCT00478556|181686963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum test was used to assess differences in bowel opacification score between the two groups.||||0.270
90908801|NCT03736785|181686966|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin is zero.|||||<|0.001||||||P-value reported is within group comparison between Week 32 and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
90908802|NCT03736785|181686966|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin is zero.|||||<|0.001||||||P-value reported is within group comparison between Week 32 and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
90908803|NCT03736785|181686966|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin is zero.|||||<|0.001||||||P-value reported is within group comparison between Week 32 and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
90908804|NCT03736785|181686967|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin is 0.4%|LSMean Difference|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.11|0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.28|-0.11|
90908805|NCT03736785|181686967|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin is 0.4%|LSMean Difference|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.29|-0.10|
90908806|NCT02974010|181686974|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||BDM LS difference overall|Mixed Models Analysis|BDM LS difference overall||||||.03
90908807|NCT01664104|181687019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated between baseline versus change at Month 3.|Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.0001
90908808|NCT01664104|181687019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated between baseline versus change at Month 6.|Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.0001
90865191|NCT03000439|181593788|OTHER||Difference in percentage|9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.13|34.33|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 36||34.33|-16.13|
90865192|NCT03000439|181593788|OTHER||Difference in percentage|9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.13|34.33|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 40||34.33|-16.13|
90908809|NCT01664104|181687020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was calculated between baseline versus change at Month 3.|Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.0001
90908810|NCT01664104|181687020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon test|P-value was calculated between baseline versus change at Month 6.||||||<0.0001
90908811|NCT01664104|181687021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon test|P-value was calculated between baseline versus change at Month 3.||||||<0.0001
90908812|NCT01664104|181687021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon test|P-value was calculated between baseline versus change at Month 6.||||||<0.0001
91033160|NCT03897088|181952085|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||||<0.00001
91033161|NCT03897088|181952086|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16||||<0.00001
90865193|NCT03000439|181593788|OTHER||Difference in percentage|9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.13|34.33|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 44||34.33|-16.13|
90865194|NCT03000439|181593788|OTHER||Difference in percentage|12.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.91|37.56|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 48||37.56|-12.91|
90865195|NCT03000439|181593788|OTHER||Difference in percentage|12.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.91|37.56|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 52||37.56|-12.91|
90865196|NCT03000439|181593794|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|2.38||||||DB Week 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||2.38|-2.40|
90865197|NCT03000439|181593794|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|4.12||||||DB Week 8: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||4.12|-2.25|
90865198|NCT03000439|181593794|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.54|4.06||||||DB Week 12: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||4.06|-4.54|
90865199|NCT03000439|181593794|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.99|2.28||||||DB Week 16: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||2.28|-3.99|
90865200|NCT03000439|181593794|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.12|0.94||||||DB Week 20: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.94|-3.12|
90908813|NCT01664104|181687041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated between baseline versus change at Month 3.|Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.0001
90908814|NCT01664104|181687041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was calculated between baseline versus change at Month 6.|Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.0001
90908815|NCT01664104|181687042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was calculated between baseline versus change at Month 3.|Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.0001
90908816|NCT01664104|181687042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was calculated between baseline versus change at Month 6.|Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.0001
90908817|NCT01664104|181687043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6904|||||||t-test|P-value signifies CRP at the start of TCZ treatment by remission status using DAS28-CRP (remission versus no remission).||||||0.6904
90908818|NCT01664104|181687043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6032|||||||t-test|P-value signifies the CRP at the start of TCZ treatment by remission status using SDAI (remission versus no remission).||||||0.6032
90908819|NCT01664104|181687043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6146|||||||t-test|P-value signifies the CRP at the start of TCZ treatment by remission status using CDAI (remission versus no remission).||||||0.6146
90908820|NCT01664104|181687044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0018|||||||t-test|P-value signifies the BMI at the start of TCZ treatment by remission status using DAS28-CRP (remission versus no remission).||||||0.0018
90908821|NCT01664104|181687044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1617|||||||t-test|P-value signifies the BMI at the start of TCZ treatment by remission status using SDAI (remission versus no remission).||||||0.1617
90908822|NCT01664104|181687044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1296|||||||t-test|P-value signifies the BMI at the start of TCZ treatment by remission status using CDAI (remission versus no remission).||||||0.1296
90908823|NCT01664104|181687047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5332|||||||t-test|P-value signifies the CRP at the start of TCZ treatment using the morning stiffness ( ≤ 30 minutes versus \> 30 minutes).||||||0.5332
90908824|NCT01664104|181687048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6159|||||||t-test|P-value signifies the BMI at the start of TCZ treatment using the morning stiffness ( ≤ 30 minutes versus \> 30 minutes).||||||0.6159
90908825|NCT01664104|181687049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.237|||||||Pearson correlation|P-value was calculated from Pearson correlation coefficient between CRP at the start of TCZ treatment versus HAQ-DI (0-3) at Month 6.||||||0.2370
90908826|NCT01664104|181687049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8033|||||||Spearman Correlation|P-value was calculated from Spearman correlation coefficient between CRP at the start of TCZ treatment versus HAQ-D1 (0-3) at Month 6.||||||0.8033
90908827|NCT01664104|181687050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0306|||||||Pearson correlation|P-value was calculated from Pearson correlation coefficient for change from baseline in CRP versus change from baseline in HAQ-DI (0-3) at Month 6.||||||0.0306
90908828|NCT01664104|181687050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0749|||||||Spearman Correlation|P-value was calculated from Spearman correlation coefficient for change from baseline in CRP versus change from baseline in HAQ-DI (0-3) at Month 6.||||||0.0749
90908829|NCT01664104|181687051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4854|||||||Pearson correlation|P-value was calculated from Pearson correlation coefficient between CRP at the start of TCZ treatment versus VAS fatigue at Month 6.||||||0.4854
90908830|NCT01664104|181687051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.325|||||||S|P-value was calculated from Spearman correlation coefficient between CRP at the start of TCZ treatment versus VAS fatigue at Month 6.||||||0.3250
90908831|NCT01664104|181687052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0011|||||||Pearson correlation|P-value was calculated from Pearson correlation coefficient between change from baseline in CRP versus change from baseline in VAS fatigue at Month 6.||||||0.0011
90908832|NCT01664104|181687052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0013|||||||Spearman Correlation|P-value calculated from Spearman correlation coefficient between change from baseline in CRP versus change from baseline in VAS fatigue at Month 6.||||||0.0013
90908833|NCT01664104|181687053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5655|||||||Pearson correlation|P-value was calculated from Pearson correlation coefficient between BMI at the start of TCZ treatment versus HAQ-DI (0-3) at Month 6.||||||0.5655
90908834|NCT01664104|181687053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3977|||||||Spearman Correlation|P-value was calculated from Spearman correlation coefficient between BMI at the start of TCZ treatment versus HAQ-DI (0-3) at Month 6.||||||0.3977
90908835|NCT01664104|181687054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0123|||||||Pearson correlation|P-value obtained from Pearson correlation coefficient between change from baseline in CRP versus change from baseline in morning stiffness at Month 6.||||||0.0123
90908836|NCT01664104|181687054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0151|||||||Spearman Correlation|P-value obtained from Spearman correlation coefficient between change from baseline in CRP versus change from baseline in morning stiffness at Month 6||||||0.0151
90908837|NCT01664104|181687055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9909|||||||Pearson correlation|P-value was calculated from Pearson correlation coefficient between BMI at the start of TCZ treatment versus VAS fatigue at Month 6.||||||0.9909
90908838|NCT01664104|181687055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6482|||||||Spearman Correlation|P-value was calculated from Spearman correlation coefficient between BMI at the start of TCZ treatment versus VAS fatigue at Month 6.||||||0.6482
90908839|NCT01335932|181687120|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.0001
90908840|NCT01335932|181687121|OTHER|||||||0.31|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.31
90908841|NCT01335932|181687127|OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.006
90908842|NCT01335932|181687128|OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.14
90908843|NCT01335932|181687129|OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.10
90908844|NCT01335932|181687130|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.002
90908845|NCT01335932|181687131|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
91033162|NCT03897088|181952087|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05||||||Log Rank Test p-Value|Kaplan-Meier Estimates|||||||<0.00001
90908846|NCT01335932|181687132|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90908847|NCT01335932|181687133|OTHER|||||||0.73|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.73
90908848|NCT01335932|181687134|OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.33
90908849|NCT01335932|181687135|OTHER|||||||0.31|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.31
90908850|NCT01335932|181687136|OTHER|||||||0.96|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.96
90908851|NCT01335932|181687137|OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.63
90908852|NCT01335932|181687138|OTHER|||||||0.51|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.51
90908853|NCT01335932|181687139|OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.12
90908854|NCT01335932|181687140|OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.13
90908855|NCT01335932|181687141|OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.008
90908856|NCT01335932|181687142|OTHER|||||||0.64|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.64
90908857|NCT01335932|181687143|OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.24
90908858|NCT01335932|181687144|OTHER|||||||0.76|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.76
90908859|NCT01335932|181687145|OTHER|||||||0.45|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.45
90908860|NCT01335932|181687146|OTHER|||||||0.92|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.92
90908861|NCT01335932|181687147|OTHER|||||||0.94|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.94
90908862|NCT01335932|181687148|OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.37
90908863|NCT01335932|181687149|OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.80
90908864|NCT01335932|181687150|OTHER|||||||0.93|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.93
90908865|NCT01335932|181687151|OTHER|||||||0.93|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.93
90908866|NCT01335932|181687152|OTHER|||||||0.45|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.45
90908867|NCT00952718|181687186|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||p-value for MIP was adjusted by linear regression model.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.005
90908868|NCT00952718|181687186|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038||||||adjusted p for MEP by linear regression|Regression, Linear|||||||0.038
90908869|NCT00952718|181687187|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.063|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.063
90908870|NCT00952718|181687188|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.269|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.269
90908871|NCT03852433|181687189|OTHER||Difference in percentages|34.0||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.6|50.4|||Fisher Exact|||||50.4|14.6|0.0003
90908872|NCT03852433|181687189|OTHER||Difference in percentages|15.3||||0.2631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|34.2|||Fisher Exact|||||34.2|-8.2|0.2631
90908873|NCT03852433|181687189|OTHER||Difference in percentages|29.3||||0.0197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|48.2|||Fisher Exact|||||48.2|1.8|0.0197
90908874|NCT03852433|181687189|OTHER||Difference in percentages|-4.7||||0.7186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.3|11.8|||Fisher Exact|||||11.8|-26.3|0.7186
90908875|NCT03852433|181687189|OTHER||Difference in percentages|14.0||||0.2184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|32.7|||Fisher Exact|||||32.7|-5.5|0.2184
90908876|NCT03852433|181687189|OTHER||Difference in percentages|-20.0||||0.0283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.1|-3.5|||Fisher Exact|||||-3.5|-36.1|0.0283
90908877|NCT03852433|181687192|OTHER||Difference in percentages|26.0||||0.0134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|44.0|||Fisher Exact|||||44.0|6.0|0.0134
90908878|NCT03852433|181687193|OTHER||Difference in percentages|28.0||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.2|45.1|||Fisher Exact|||||45.1|8.2|0.0049
91033163|NCT03897088|181952088|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05||||||Log Rank Test p-Value|Kaplan-Meier Estimates|||||||<0.00001
90865201|NCT03000439|181593794|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|2.06||||||DB Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||2.06|-1.46|
90865202|NCT03000439|181593794|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.85|5.29||||||DB Week 28: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||5.29|-7.85|
90908879|NCT03852433|181687194|OTHER||Difference in percentages|34.0||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.6|50.4|||Fisher Exact|||||50.4|14.6|0.0003
90908880|NCT03852433|181687194|OTHER||Difference in percentages|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.8|21.4|||Fisher Exact|||||21.4|-22.8|1.0000
90960061|NCT02382016|181800169|SUPERIORITY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|9.73||||0.4264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|33.95||No adjustment was made for multiplicity for secondary endpoints, therefore all corresponding p-values provided are of an exploratory nature.|mixed-effect model repeated measure||The estimated value refers to a between-treatment analysis of change from baseline to Week 12 in 6MWD (LS mean difference macitentan 10 mg - placebo).|The main analysis on 6MWD was performed using a mixed-effect model repeated measure (MMRM) adjusted for treatment, visit, region, PAH-specific therapy at baseline, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and baseline 6MWD and WHO functional class (FC) as covariates.||33.95|-14.50|0.4264
90960062|NCT02382016|181800170|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.253||||0.1278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.714|298.376||No adjustment was made for multiplicity for secondary endpoints, therefore all corresponding p-values provided are of an exploratory nature.|Regression, Logistic|||A logistic regression model (exact) adjusted for treatment, PAH-specific therapy at baseline, and region as covariates was used to analyze worsening in WHO FC.||298.376|0.714|0.1278
90960063|NCT02382016|181800171|SUPERIORITY||ratio of geometric means|0.874||||0.3951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.639|1.196||No adjustment was made for multiplicity for secondary endpoints, therefore all corresponding p-values provided are of an exploratory nature.|ANCOVA|||||1.196|0.639|0.3951
91033164|NCT03897088|181952089|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.00001
90908881|NCT03852433|181687194|OTHER||Difference in percentages|21.0||||0.1265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|42.2|||Fisher Exact|||||42.2|-5.3|0.1265
90908882|NCT03852433|181687194|OTHER||Difference in percentages|-13.0||||0.1863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.3|5.4|||Fisher Exact|||||5.4|-35.3|0.1863
90908883|NCT03852433|181687194|OTHER||Difference in percentages|20.0||||0.0601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|38.2|||Fisher Exact|||||38.2|1.0|0.0601
91033165|NCT03897088|181952090|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||PASI-75||||<0.00001
91033166|NCT03897088|181952090|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||PASI-90||||<0.00001
90865203|NCT03000439|181593794|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|2.93||||||DB Week 32: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||2.93|-1.98|
90908884|NCT03852433|181687194|OTHER||Difference in percentages|-14.0||||0.1247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.9|1.7|||Fisher Exact|||||1.7|-29.9|0.1247
90908885|NCT03852433|181687195|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|1.56||||0.0717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|3.26|||MMRM|||||3.26|-0.14|0.0717
90908886|NCT03852433|181687195|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-1.84||||0.1563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.39|0.71|||MMRM|||||0.71|-4.39|0.1563
90908887|NCT03852433|181687195|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-1.8||||0.1626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.33|0.73|||MMRM|||||0.73|-4.33|0.1626
90908888|NCT03852433|181687195|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-3.34||||0.0099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.87|-0.82|||MMRM|||||-0.82|-5.87|0.0099
90908889|NCT03852433|181687195|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.07||||0.9384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|1.81|||MMRM|||||1.81|-1.67|0.9384
90908890|NCT03852433|181687195|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-1.49||||0.0875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|0.22|||MMRM|||||0.22|-3.20|0.0875
90908891|NCT03852433|181687196|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.15||||0.8645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|1.83|||MMRM|||||1.83|-1.54|0.8645
90908892|NCT03852433|181687196|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.33||||0.7033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|1.39|||MMRM|||||1.39|-2.06|0.7033
90908893|NCT03852433|181687196|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.48||||0.5806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|1.23|||MMRM|||||1.23|-2.18|0.5806
90908894|NCT03852433|181687197|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-1.68||||0.1103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.75|0.39|||MMRM|||||0.39|-3.75|0.1103
90908895|NCT03852433|181687197|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-2.05||||0.1533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.88|0.77|||MMRM|||||0.77|-4.88|0.1533
90908896|NCT03852433|181687197|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-2.22||||0.1129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.98|0.53|||MMRM|||||0.53|-4.98|0.1129
90908897|NCT03852433|181687197|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.58||||0.6753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.34|2.17|||MMRM|||||2.17|-3.34|0.6753
90908898|NCT03852433|181687197|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.12||||0.9124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28|2.04|||MMRM|||||2.04|-2.28|0.9124
90908899|NCT03852433|181687197|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|1.56||||0.1526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|3.7|||MMRM|||||3.70|-0.59|0.1526
90908900|NCT01078246|181687198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio|2.282||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.344|3.875|||Poisson Regression|The analysis included adjustments for raltegravir exposure, propensity score, and treatment regimen (1st, 2nd, 3rd+).||AIDS-defining malignancies||3.875|1.344|0.002
90908901|NCT01078246|181687198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.84|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.621|4.977|||Cox Proportional Hazard Regression|The analysis included adjustments for raltegravir exposure, propensity score, and treatment regimen (1st, 2nd, 3rd+).||AIDS-defining malignancies||4.977|1.621|<0.05
90960064|NCT02382016|181800172|SUPERIORITY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|1.67||||0.0637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|3.44||No adjustment was made for multiplicity for secondary endpoints, therefore all corresponding p-values provided are of an exploratory nature.|ANCOVA||The estimated value refers to a between-treatment analysis of change from baseline to Week 12 in mRAP (LS mean difference macitentan 10 mg - placebo).|||3.44|-0.10|0.0637
90865204|NCT03000439|181593794|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|1.35||||||DB Week 36: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||1.35|-1.86|
90865205|NCT03000439|181593794|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|3.63||||||DB Week 40: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||3.63|-2.18|
90865206|NCT03000439|181593794|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.22|1.56||||||DB Week 44: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||1.56|-3.22|
90865207|NCT03000439|181593794|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|1.3||||||DB Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||1.30|-1.76|
90865208|NCT03000439|181593794|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.43|1.93||||||DB Week 52: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||1.93|-3.43|
90865209|NCT03000439|181593795|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|3.61||||||DB Week 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||3.61|-1.80|
90865210|NCT03000439|181593795|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|2.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|4.86||||||DB Week 8: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||4.86|-0.64|
90908902|NCT01078246|181687198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio|1.871||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.207|2.899|||Poisson Regression|The analysis included adjustments for raltegravir exposure, propensity score, and treatment regimen (1st, 2nd, 3rd+).||AIDS-defining malignancies||2.899|1.207|0.005
90908903|NCT01078246|181687198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.879||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.227|2.879|||Cox Proportional Hazard Regression|The analysis included adjustments for raltegravir exposure, propensity score, and treatment regimen (1st, 2nd, 3rd+).||AIDS-defining malignancies||2.879|1.227|0.004
91033167|NCT03897088|181952090|SUPERIORITY|||||||4e-05|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||PASI-100||||0.00004
90865211|NCT03000439|181593795|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.25|4.21||||||DB Week 12: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||4.21|-4.25|
90865212|NCT03000439|181593795|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.32|2.09||||||DB Week 16: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||2.09|-4.32|
90865213|NCT03000439|181593795|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.04|1.98||||||DB Week 20: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||1.98|-3.04|
90865214|NCT03000439|181593795|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|1.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|4.97||||||DB Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||4.97|-1.29|
90865215|NCT03000439|181593795|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.89|5.72||||||DB Week 28: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||5.72|-5.89|
90865216|NCT03000439|181593795|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.79|2.41||||||DB Week 32: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||2.41|-3.79|
90865217|NCT03000439|181593795|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|1.19||||||DB Week 36: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||1.19|-1.89|
90865218|NCT03000439|181593795|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.63|3.58||||||DB Week 40: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||3.58|-3.63|
90865219|NCT03000439|181593795|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-2.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.67|0.49||||||DB Week 44: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.49|-5.67|
90865220|NCT03000439|181593795|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.82|1.19||||||DB Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||1.19|-2.82|
90865221|NCT03000439|181593795|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.27|2.36||||||DB Week 52: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||2.36|-3.27|
90908904|NCT01078246|181687198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio|1.943||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.191|3.168|||Poisson Regression|The analysis included adjustments for raltegravir exposure, propensity score, and treatment regimen (1st, 2nd, 3rd+).||Non-AIDS-defining malignancies||3.168|1.191|0.008
90908905|NCT01078246|181687198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.459||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.454|4.159|||Cox Proportional Hazard Regression|The analysis included adjustments for raltegravir exposure, propensity score, and treatment regimen (1st, 2nd, 3rd+).||Non-AIDS-defining malignancies||4.159|1.454|0.001
90908906|NCT01078246|181687198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio|1.776||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.199|2.631|||Poisson Regression|The analysis included adjustments for raltegravir exposure, propensity score, and treatment regimen (1st, 2nd, 3rd+).||Non-AIDS-defining malignancies||2.631|1.199|0.004
90960065|NCT02382016|181800173|SUPERIORITY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-5.99||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|-3.57||No adjustment was made for multiplicity for secondary endpoints, therefore all corresponding p-values provided are of an exploratory nature.|ANCOVA||The estimated value refers to a between-treatment analysis of change from baseline to Week 12 in mPAP (LS mean difference macitentan 10 mg - placebo).|||-3.57|-8.40|0.0001
90865222|NCT03000439|181593808|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|1.79||||||DB week 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open-Label baseline value, and Open-Label baseline value by visit interaction.||1.79|-0.08|
90865223|NCT03000439|181593808|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|2.4||||||DB week 8: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open-Label baseline value, and Open-Label baseline value by visit interaction.||2.40|0.25|
90865224|NCT03000439|181593808|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|3.66||||||DB week 12: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open-Label baseline value, and Open-Label baseline value by visit interaction.||3.66|-0.79|
90865225|NCT03000439|181593808|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.74||||||DB week 16: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open-Label baseline value, and Open-Label baseline value by visit interaction.||0.74|-0.70|
90865226|NCT03000439|181593808|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.64||||||DB week 20: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open-Label baseline value, and Open-Label baseline value by visit interaction.||0.64|-0.43|
90865227|NCT03000439|181593808|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.81||||||DB week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open-Label baseline value, and Open-Label baseline value by visit interaction.||0.81|0.06|
90908907|NCT01078246|181687198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.86||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.274|2.717|||Cox Proportional Hazard Regression|The analysis included adjustments for raltegravir exposure, propensity score, and treatment regimen (1st, 2nd, 3rd+).||Non-AIDS-defining malignancies||2.717|1.274|0.001
90908908|NCT01078246|181687199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio|0.807||||0.255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.557|1.168|||Poisson regression|The analysis included adjustments for raltegravir exposure, propensity score, treatment regimen (1st, 2nd, 3rd+), and Hepatitis B/C status.||||1.168|0.557|0.255
90960066|NCT02382016|181800174|SUPERIORITY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|0.52||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.81||No adjustment was made for multiplicity for secondary endpoints, therefore all corresponding p-values provided are of an exploratory nature.|ANCOVA||The estimated value refers to a between-treatment analysis of change from baseline to Week 12 in cardiac index (LS mean difference macitentan 10 mg - placebo).|||0.81|0.22|0.0009
90865228|NCT03000439|181593808|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|2.06||||||DB week 28: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open-Label baseline value, and Open-Label baseline value by visit interaction.||2.06|-1.64|
90865229|NCT03000439|181593808|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|1.03||||||DB week 32: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open-Label baseline value, and Open-Label baseline value by visit interaction.||1.03|-0.04|
90865230|NCT03000439|181593808|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.79||||||DB week 36: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open-Label baseline value, and Open-Label baseline value by visit interaction.||0.79|-0.09|
90865231|NCT03000439|181593808|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|1.28||||||DB week 40: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open-Label baseline value, and Open-Label baseline value by visit interaction.||1.28|-0.23|
90865232|NCT03000439|181593808|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.83||||||DB week 44: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open-Label baseline value, and Open-Label baseline value by visit interaction.||0.83|-1.20|
90865233|NCT03000439|181593808|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.91||||||DB week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open-Label baseline value, and Open-Label baseline value by visit interaction.||0.91|-0.49|
90865234|NCT03000439|181593808|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.92||||||DB week 52: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open-Label baseline value, and Open-Label baseline value by visit interaction.||0.92|-0.80|
90865235|NCT03000439|181593809|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|1.0||||||DB Week 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||1.00|-0.43|
90865236|NCT03000439|181593809|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|2.08||||||DB Week 8: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||2.08|-0.06|
90865237|NCT03000439|181593809|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|3.64||||||DB Week 12: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||3.64|-1.13|
90908909|NCT01078246|181687199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.907||||0.646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.597|1.376|||Cox Proportional Hazard Regression|The analysis included adjustments for raltegravir exposure, propensity score, treatment regimen (1st, 2nd, 3rd+), and Hepatitis B/C status.||||1.376|0.597|0.646
90960067|NCT02382016|181800175|SUPERIORITY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-171.48||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-223.67|-119.3||No adjustment was made for multiplicity for secondary endpoints, therefore all corresponding p-values provided are of an exploratory nature.|ANCOVA||The estimated value refers to a between-treatment analysis of change from baseline to Week 12 in TPR (LS mean difference macitentan 10 mg - placebo).|||-119.30|-223.67|0.0001
90960068|NCT02382016|181800176|SUPERIORITY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|0.03||||0.9844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.85|2.91||No adjustment was made for multiplicity for secondary endpoints, therefore all corresponding p-values provided are of an exploratory nature.|ANCOVA||The estimated value refers to a between-treatment analysis of change from baseline to Week 12 in SVO2 (LS mean difference macitentan 10 mg - placebo).|||2.91|-2.85|0.9844
90960069|NCT01535014|181800177|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.04
90960070|NCT01535014|181800177|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.004
90865238|NCT03000439|181593809|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.88||||||DB Week 16: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.88|-0.68|
90865239|NCT03000439|181593809|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.33||||||DB Week 20: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.33|-0.58|
90865240|NCT03000439|181593809|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.68||||||DB Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.68|-0.03|
90865241|NCT03000439|181593809|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.42|2.08||||||DB Week 28: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||2.08|-2.42|
90865242|NCT03000439|181593809|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.97||||||DB Week 32: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.97|-0.14|
90865243|NCT03000439|181593809|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.79||||||DB Week 36: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.79|-0.15|
90960071|NCT01535014|181800177|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0007|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0007
90865244|NCT03000439|181593809|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|1.49||||||DB Week 40: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||1.49|-0.14|
90865245|NCT03000439|181593809|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|0.96||||||DB Week 44: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.96|-1.28|
90865246|NCT03000439|181593809|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|1.16||||||DB Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||1.16|-0.43|
90865247|NCT03000439|181593809|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|1.3||||||DB Week 52: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||1.30|-0.82|
90865248|NCT03000439|181593810|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.5||||||DB week 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, open-label baseline value, and open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||0.50|-0.07|
90865249|NCT03000439|181593810|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.32||||||DB week 8: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, open-label baseline value, and open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||0.32|-0.15|
90865250|NCT03000439|181593810|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.28||||||DB week 12: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, open-label baseline value, and open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||0.28|-0.17|
90865251|NCT03000439|181593810|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.36||||||DB week 16: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, open-label baseline value, and open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||0.36|-0.16|
90865252|NCT03000439|181593810|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.38||||||DB week 20: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, open-label baseline value, and open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||0.38|-0.01|
90865253|NCT03000439|181593810|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.35||||||DB week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, open-label baseline value, and open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||0.35|-0.12|
90960072|NCT01535014|181800178|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
90960073|NCT01535014|181800178|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.07
90960074|NCT01535014|181800179|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
90960075|NCT01535014|181800179|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.07
90960076|NCT01535014|181800180|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||For week 12, 16, 20, 24|Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
90960077|NCT01535014|181800180|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||For week 16, 20, 24|Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
90960078|NCT01535014|181800181|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.019
90960079|NCT01535014|181800181|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.043|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.043
90960080|NCT01535014|181800182|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.20
90960081|NCT01535014|181800182|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.75
90865254|NCT03000439|181593810|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.31||||||DB week 28: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, open-label baseline value, and open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||0.31|-0.18|
90865255|NCT03000439|181593810|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.37||||||DB week 32: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, open-label baseline value, and open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||0.37|-0.06|
90865256|NCT03000439|181593810|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.36||||||DB week 36: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, open-label baseline value, and open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||0.36|-0.14|
90865257|NCT03000439|181593810|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.38||||||DB week 40: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, open-label baseline value, and open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||0.38|-0.06|
90865258|NCT03000439|181593810|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.3||||||DB week 44: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, open-label baseline value, and open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||0.30|-0.22|
90865259|NCT03000439|181593810|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.38||||||DB week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, open-label baseline value, and open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||0.38|-0.20|
90908910|NCT01078246|181687199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio|1.268||||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.895|1.795|||Poisson Regression|The analysis included adjustments for raltegravir exposure, propensity score, treatment regimen (1st, 2nd, 3rd+), and Hepatitis B/C status.||||1.795|0.895|0.182
90908911|NCT01078246|181687199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.257||||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.894|1.768|||Cox Proportional Hazard Regression|The analysis included adjustments for raltegravir exposure, propensity score, treatment regimen (1st, 2nd, 3rd+), and Hepatitis B/C status.||||1.768|0.894|0.188
90908912|NCT01078246|181687200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio|1.016||||0.897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.796|1.297|||Poisson Regression|The analysis included adjustments for raltegravir exposure, propensity score, and treatment regimen (1st, 2nd, 3rd+).||||1.297|0.796|0.897
90908913|NCT01078246|181687200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.287||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.69|||Cox Proportional Hazard Regression|The analysis included adjustments for raltegravir exposure, propensity score, and treatment regimen (1st, 2nd, 3rd+).||||1.690|0.980|0.070
90908914|NCT01078246|181687200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio|1.067||||0.575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.339|||Poisson Regression|The analysis included adjustments for raltegravir exposure, propensity score, and treatment regimen (1st, 2nd, 3rd+).||||1.339|0.850|0.575
90908915|NCT01078246|181687200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.057||||0.626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.847|1.319|||Cox Proportional Hazard Regression|The analysis included adjustments for raltegravir exposure, propensity score, and treatment regimen (1st, 2nd, 3rd+).||||1.319|0.847|0.626
90908916|NCT01078246|181687202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio|0.389|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.274|0.551|||Poisson Regression|The analysis included adjustments for raltegravir exposure, propensity score, and treatment regimen (1st, 2nd, 3rd+).||||0.551|0.274|<0.0001
90908917|NCT01078246|181687202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.471|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.314|0.707|||Cox Proportional Hazard Regression|The analysis included adjustments for raltegravir exposure, propensity score, and treatment regimen (1st, 2nd, 3rd+).||||0.707|0.314|<0.05
90908918|NCT01078246|181687202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio|1.65||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.102|2.47|||Poisson Regression|The analysis included adjustments for raltegravir exposure, propensity score, and treatment regimen (1st, 2nd, 3rd+).||||2.470|1.102|0.015
90908919|NCT01078246|181687202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.622||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.085|2.425|||Cox Proportional Hazard Regression|The analysis included adjustments for raltegravir exposure, propensity score, and treatment regimen (1st, 2nd, 3rd+).||||2.425|1.085|0.018
90908920|NCT01078246|181687203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio|0.75||||0.423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.517|||Poisson Regression|The analysis included adjustments for raltegravir exposure, propensity score, and treatment regimen (1st, 2nd, 3rd+).||||1.517|0.370|0.423
90908921|NCT01078246|181687203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.208||||0.631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.559|2.612|||Cox Proportional Hazard Regression|The analysis included adjustments for raltegravir exposure, propensity score, and treatment regimen (1st, 2nd, 3rd+).||||2.612|0.559|0.631
90908922|NCT01078246|181687203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio|0.845||||0.592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.458|1.561|||Poisson Regression|The analysis included adjustments for raltegravir exposure, propensity score, and treatment regimen (1st, 2nd, 3rd+).||||1.561|0.458|0.592
90908923|NCT01078246|181687203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.022||||0.943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.565|1.85|||Cox Proportional Hazard Regression|The analysis included adjustments for raltegravir exposure, propensity score, and treatment regimen (1st, 2nd, 3rd+).||||1.850|0.565|0.943
90908924|NCT01078246|181687204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio|0.708||||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.464|1.08|||Poisson Regression|The analysis included adjustments for raltegravir exposure, propensity score, and treatment regimen (1st, 2nd, 3rd+).||||1.080|0.464|0.109
90908925|NCT01078246|181687204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.794||||0.356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.486|1.296|||Cox Proportional Hazard Regression|The analysis included adjustments for raltegravir exposure, propensity score, and treatment regimen (1st, 2nd, 3rd+).||||1.296|0.486|0.356
90908926|NCT01078246|181687204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio|1.556||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.022|2.37|||Poisson Regression|The analysis included adjustments for raltegravir exposure, propensity score, and treatment regimen (1st, 2nd, 3rd+).||||2.370|1.022|0.039
90908927|NCT01078246|181687204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.564||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.036|2.361|||Cox Proportional Hazard Regression|The analysis included adjustments for raltegravir exposure, propensity score, and treatment regimen (1st, 2nd, 3rd+).||||2.361|1.036|0.033
90960082|NCT01535014|181800183|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||ANCOVA|||SF-36 Mental Health Domain||||0.02
90960083|NCT01535014|181800183|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||ANCOVA|||SF-36 Mental Health Domain||||0.63
90960084|NCT01535014|181800183|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||ANCOVA|||SF-36 Physical Health Domain||||0.60
90908928|NCT01078246|181687204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.72||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.861|3.437|||Cox Proportional Hazard Regression|The analysis included adjustments for raltegravir exposure, and propensity score, and was stratified by the 1st treatment regimen.||||3.437|0.861|0.125
90908929|NCT01078246|181687204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.056||||0.881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.517|2.155|||Cox Proportional Hazard Regression|The analysis included adjustments for raltegravir exposure, and propensity score, and was stratified by the 2nd treatment regimen.||||2.155|0.517|0.881
90908930|NCT01078246|181687204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.077||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.854|5.05|||Cox Proportional Hazard Regression|The analysis included adjustments for raltegravir exposure, and propensity score, and was stratified by the 3rd+ treatment regimen.||||5.05|0.854|0.107
90960085|NCT01535014|181800183|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||ANCOVA|||SF-36 Physical Health Domain||||0.98
90960086|NCT00719563|181800220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0737|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||||0.0737
90960087|NCT02047643|181800233|OTHER|||||||0.45|||||||Fisher Exact|Two-sided Fisher Exact test||||||.45
90960088|NCT02047643|181800234|OTHER|||||||0.66|||||||Fisher Exact|Two-sided Fisher Exact test||||||.66
90960089|NCT04256603|181800235|OTHER|||||||0.67|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||wilcox two sample test||||0.67
90960090|NCT00120406|181800250|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin is 10%.|||||<|0.01||95.0||||P-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.|z-test, one-sided|||||||<0.01
90960091|NCT00120406|181800251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0||||P-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.|Generalized estimating equation (GEE)|||||||<0.01
90865260|NCT03000439|181593810|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.42||||||DB week 52: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, open-label baseline value, and open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||0.42|-0.24|
90865261|NCT03000439|181593811|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.24||||||DB Week 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.24|-0.10|
90865262|NCT03000439|181593811|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.15||||||DB Week 8: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.15|-0.19|
90865263|NCT03000439|181593811|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.16||||||DB Week 12: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.16|-0.19|
90865264|NCT03000439|181593811|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.23||||||DB Week 16: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.23|-0.20|
90865265|NCT03000439|181593811|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.32||||||DB Week 20: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.32|-0.02|
90865266|NCT03000439|181593811|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.4||||||DB Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.40|-0.09|
90865267|NCT03000439|181593811|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.34||||||DB Week 28: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.34|-0.16|
90865268|NCT03000439|181593811|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.36||||||DB Week 32: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.36|-0.05|
90865269|NCT03000439|181593811|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.43||||||DB Week 36: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.43|-0.10|
90865270|NCT03000439|181593811|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.39||||||DB Week 40: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.39|-0.06|
90865271|NCT03000439|181593811|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.3||||||DB Week 44: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.30|-0.22|
90865272|NCT03000439|181593811|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.49||||||DB Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.49|-0.18|
90865273|NCT03000439|181593811|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.55||||||DB Week 52: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.55|-0.23|
90865274|NCT03000439|181593812|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|1.4||||||DB week 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open label baseline value, and Open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||1.40|-0.97|
90960092|NCT06336603|181800253|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||< .001
90960093|NCT06336603|181800254|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||< .001
90960094|NCT06336603|181800255|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||< .001
90960095|NCT02113241|181800271|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||<0.001
90960096|NCT02113241|181800271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.089||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.089
90865275|NCT03000439|181593812|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|1.84||||||DB week 8: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open label baseline value, and Open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||1.84|-0.68|
90865276|NCT03000439|181593812|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|3.16||||||DB week 12: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open label baseline value, and Open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||3.16|-0.77|
90908931|NCT04930822|181687205|SUPERIORITY||Predicted least squares mean difference|-5.107||||0.1779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|2.385||Fisher's LSD utilized; no correction for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|||Alpha set at 0.05||2.385|-12.60|0.1779
90908932|NCT04930822|181687205|SUPERIORITY||Predicted least squares mean difference|-8.809||||0.0219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|-1.317||Fisher's LSD utilized; no corrections for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|||Alpha set at 0.05||-1.317|-16.30|0.0219
91033168|NCT03897088|181952091|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||||<0.00001
90960097|NCT02113241|181800272|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.003
91033169|NCT03897088|181952092|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16||||<0.00001
90908933|NCT04930822|181687205|SUPERIORITY||Predicted least squares mean difference|-4.063||||0.0139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.24|-0.8849||Fisher's LSD utilized; no corrections for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|||Alpha set at 0.05||-0.8849|-7.240|0.0139
90908934|NCT04930822|181687205|SUPERIORITY||Predicted least squares mean difference|-7.765|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.85|-4.682||Fisher's LSD utilized; no corrections for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|||Alpha set at 0.05||-4.682|-10.85|<0.0001
90908935|NCT04930822|181687206|SUPERIORITY||Predicted least squares mean difference|-7.883||||0.493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.59|14.83||Fisher's LSD utilized; no correction for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|||Alpha set at 0.05||14.83|-30.59|0.4930
91033170|NCT03897088|181952093|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||||<0.00001
91033171|NCT03897088|181952094|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05||||||Week 16|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.00001
91033172|NCT03897088|181952095|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||||<0.00001
91033173|NCT03897088|181952096|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||||<0.00001
91033174|NCT04320849|181952116|OTHER||Slope|0.0675|||||ONE_SIDED|90.0||0.106||||||"The following set of hypotheses were used to evaluate the relationship between lead stiffness and curvature in the extravenous region:~H0: a ≥ 0 Ha: a \< 0 where a represents the coefficient for stiffness in the following model: log (curvature) = a\*stiffness + b + normally distributed error."||0.106||
91033175|NCT04320849|181952117|OTHER||Slope|0.199|||||ONE_SIDED|90.0||0.397||||||"The following set of hypotheses will be used to evaluate the relationship between lead stiffness and curvature in the intracardiac region:~H0: a ≥ 0 Ha: a \< 0 where a represents the coefficient for stiffness in the following model: log (curvature) = a\*stiffness + b + normally distributed error."||0.397||
90908936|NCT04930822|181687206|SUPERIORITY||Predicted least squares mean difference|-13.97||||0.2255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.68|8.744||Fisher's LSD utilized; no correction for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|||Alpha set at 0.05||8.744|-36.68|0.2255
91033176|NCT04320849|181952118|OTHER||Slope|-0.015|||||ONE_SIDED|90.0||0.0123||||||"The following set of hypotheses were used to evaluate the relationship between lead stiffness and curvature in the connector region:~H0: a ≥ 0 Ha: a \< 0 where a represents the coefficient for stiffness in the following model: log (curvature) = a\*stiffness + b + normally distributed error."||0.0123||
91033177|NCT02801877|181952135|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Log Rank|Chi square= 4.1 on 3 degrees of freedom||Log-rank test of adherence, defined as time to last engagement with mobile application suite.||||0.3
91033178|NCT02801877|181952136|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|F(3, 835)=0.19||Interactive effect of time and group, adjusting for baseline PHQ-9, randomization strata, main and interactive effects of time, coach, coach\*time, hub, and hub\*time.||||0.90
91033179|NCT02801877|181952137|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|F(3, 835)=0.73||Interactive effect of time and group, adjusting for baseline GAD-7, randomization strata, main and interactive effects of time, coach, coach\*time, hub, and hub\*time.||||0.53
90865277|NCT03000439|181593812|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.18||||||DB week 16: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open label baseline value, and Open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||1.18|-1.30|
90865278|NCT03000439|181593812|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.82||||||DB week 20: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open label baseline value, and Open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||0.82|-0.29|
90865279|NCT03000439|181593812|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.64||||||DB week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open label baseline value, and Open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||0.64|-0.46|
90908937|NCT04930822|181687206|SUPERIORITY||Predicted least squares mean difference|-49.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.18|-35.46||Fisher's LSD utilized; no correction for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|||Alpha set at 0.05||-35.46|-63.18|<0.0001
90908938|NCT04930822|181687206|SUPERIORITY||Predicted least squares mean difference|-55.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.66|-43.16||Fisher's LSD utilized; no correction for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|||Alpha set at 0.05||-43.16|-67.66|<0.0001
91033180|NCT04934722|181952152|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|2.34|||||HR and associated 95% Confidence Interval (CI) were calculated using Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|||2.34|0.24|
91033181|NCT04934722|181952153|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|6.01|||||HR and associated 95% Confidence Interval (CI) were calculated using Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|||6.01|0.30|
91033182|NCT04934722|181952154|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.63|||||HR and associated 95% Confidence Interval (CI) were calculated using Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|||3.63|0.50|
91033183|NCT04934722|181952156|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|30.29|||||HR and associated 95% Confidence Interval (CI) were calculated using Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|||30.29|0.33|
90960098|NCT02113241|181800272|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.248||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.248
90960099|NCT02113241|181800273|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.161||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.161
90865280|NCT03000439|181593812|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|1.13||||||DB week 28: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open label baseline value, and Open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||1.13|-2.05|
90865281|NCT03000439|181593812|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.88||||||DB week 32: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open label baseline value, and Open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||0.88|-0.18|
90908939|NCT04930822|181687207|SUPERIORITY||Predicted least squares mean difference|-2.611||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.13|4.909||Fisher's LSD utilized; no correction for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|||Alpha is set at 0.05||4.909|-10.13|0.49
90908940|NCT04930822|181687207|SUPERIORITY||Predicted least squares mean difference|-4.634||||0.2246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.15|2.886||Fisher's LSD utlilized; no correction for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|||Alpha set at 0.05||2.886|-12.15|0.2246
90960100|NCT02113241|181800273|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.079||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.079
90960101|NCT02113241|181800274|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.067||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.067
90960102|NCT02113241|181800274|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.918||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.918
90908941|NCT04930822|181687207|SUPERIORITY||Predicted least squares mean difference|-16.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.91|-11.74||Fisher's LSD; no correction for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|||Alpha set at 0.05||-11.74|-20.91|<0.0001
90960103|NCT02113241|181800275|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.128||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.128
90960104|NCT02113241|181800275|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.454||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.454
90960105|NCT02113241|181800276|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.433|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.433
91033184|NCT04934722|181952157|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|4.07|||||HR and associated 95% Confidence Interval (CI) were calculated using Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|||4.07|0.11|
90865282|NCT03000439|181593812|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.88||||||DB week 36: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open label baseline value, and Open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||0.88|-0.26|
90865283|NCT03000439|181593812|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.99||||||DB week 40: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open label baseline value, and Open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||0.99|-0.43|
90865284|NCT03000439|181593812|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|1.03||||||DB week 44: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open label baseline value, and Open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||1.03|-0.45|
90908942|NCT04930822|181687207|SUPERIORITY||Predicted least squares mean difference|-18.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.4|-14.29||Fisher's LSD utilized; no correction for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|||Alpha set at 0.05||-14.29|-22.40|<0.0001
90960106|NCT02113241|181800276|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.407||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.407
90960107|NCT02113241|181800277|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||<0.001
90960108|NCT02113241|181800277|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.826||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.826
90865285|NCT03000439|181593812|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|1.08||||||DB week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open label baseline value, and Open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||1.08|-0.63|
90865286|NCT03000439|181593812|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|1.57||||||DB week 52: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open label baseline value, and Open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||1.57|-0.66|
90865287|NCT03000439|181593813|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.47||||||DB week 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.47|-0.73|
90865288|NCT03000439|181593813|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|1.59||||||DB week 8: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||1.59|-0.81|
90865289|NCT03000439|181593813|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|1.95||||||DB week 12: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||1.95|-0.54|
90865290|NCT03000439|181593813|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.1||||||DB week 16: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.10|-0.90|
90865291|NCT03000439|181593813|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.13||||||DB week 20: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.13|-0.46|
90908943|NCT05273801|181687221|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||How frequently clinician ask about RPE/HR during session||||0.73
90865292|NCT03000439|181593813|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.01||||||DB week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||-0.01|-0.63|
90865293|NCT03000439|181593813|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|0.15||||||DB week 28: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.15|-2.34|
90908944|NCT05273801|181687221|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||How frequently education provided regarding HR/RPE during session||||0.05
90865294|NCT03000439|181593813|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.4||||||DB week 32: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.40|-0.26|
90865295|NCT03000439|181593813|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.26||||||DB week 36: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.26|-0.30|
90865296|NCT03000439|181593813|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.43||||||DB week 40: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.43|-0.53|
90865297|NCT03000439|181593813|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.46||||||DB week 44: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.46|-0.56|
90865298|NCT03000439|181593813|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.69||||||DB week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.69|-0.74|
90865299|NCT03000439|181593813|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|1.32||||||DB week 52: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||1.32|-0.91|
90865300|NCT03000439|181593814|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.92||||||DB week 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open-label baseline value, and Open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||1.92|0.09|
90865301|NCT03000439|181593814|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|1.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.22||||||DB week 8: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open-label baseline value, and Open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||2.22|0.40|
90865302|NCT03000439|181593814|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|1.53||||||DB week 12: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open-label baseline value, and Open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||1.53|-0.47|
90865303|NCT03000439|181593814|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|1.16||||||DB week 16: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open-label baseline value, and Open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||1.16|-0.63|
90865304|NCT03000439|181593814|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.97||||||DB week 20: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open-label baseline value, and Open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||0.97|-0.33|
90865305|NCT03000439|181593814|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.2||||||DB week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open-label baseline value, and Open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||1.20|-0.10|
90865306|NCT03000439|181593814|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|1.33||||||DB week 28: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open-label baseline value, and Open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||1.33|-0.93|
90908945|NCT05273801|181687221|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||How frequently HR/RPE target is mentioned in session||||0.007
90865307|NCT03000439|181593814|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|1.42||||||DB week 32: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open-label baseline value, and Open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||1.42|-0.17|
90908946|NCT05273801|181687221|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||How frequently clinician modifies session/task to reach HR/RPE target||||0.005
90865308|NCT03000439|181593814|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.98||||||DB week 36: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open-label baseline value, and Open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||0.98|-0.02|
90865309|NCT03000439|181593814|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.58||||||DB week 40: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open-label baseline value, and Open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||1.58|-0.30|
90865310|NCT03000439|181593814|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.85||||||DB week 44: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open-label baseline value, and Open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||0.85|-0.40|
90865311|NCT03000439|181593814|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.88||||||DB week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open-label baseline value, and Open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||0.88|-0.36|
90865312|NCT03000439|181593814|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|1.09||||||DB week 52: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open-label baseline value, and Open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||1.09|-0.87|
90865313|NCT03000439|181593815|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.67||||||DB week 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.67|-0.77|
90865314|NCT03000439|181593815|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|1.53||||||DB week 8: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||1.53|-0.37|
90865315|NCT03000439|181593815|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|1.3||||||DB week 12: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||1.30|-1.06|
90865316|NCT03000439|181593815|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|0.74||||||DB week 16: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.74|-1.27|
90865317|NCT03000439|181593815|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.52||||||DB week 20: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.52|-0.83|
90865318|NCT03000439|181593815|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.71||||||DB week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.71|-0.61|
90865319|NCT03000439|181593815|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|1.25||||||DB week 28: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||1.25|-1.45|
90865320|NCT03000439|181593815|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|1.23||||||DB week 32: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||1.23|-0.61|
90865321|NCT03000439|181593815|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.71||||||DB week 36: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.71|-0.34|
90908947|NCT05273801|181687221|SUPERIORITY|||||||1e-05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||How frequently clinicians monitor HR/RPE during session||||0.00001
90908948|NCT04159506|181687223|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.63|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||This pilot study was designed mostly to determine feasibility and acceptability of TEE, AC, and study methods. Nonetheless, Paired Difference Signed Rank Tests were used to compare conditions given small sample and non-normal distribution of data.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|No adjustments were made given this was a pilot study focused on feasibility and acceptability.||||||<0.05
90908949|NCT04159506|181687224|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.31|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|No adjustments were made given this was a pilot study focused on feasibility and acceptability.||This pilot study was designed mostly to determine feasibility and acceptability of TEE, AC, and study methods. Nonetheless, Paired Difference Signed Rank Tests were used to compare conditions given small sample and non-normal distribution of data.||||<0.05
90908950|NCT04159506|181687225|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.67|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|No adjustments were made given this was a pilot study focused on feasibility and acceptability.||This pilot study was designed mostly to determine feasibility and acceptability of TEE, AC, and study methods. Nonetheless, Paired Difference Signed Rank Tests were used to compare conditions given small sample and non-normal distribution of data.||||<0.05
90908951|NCT02449044|181687231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||This was the p-value for analysis at Day 1.|Student's t-test|||||||<0.0001
90908952|NCT02449044|181687231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||This was the p-value for analysis at Day 14.|Student's t-test|||||||<0.0001
90908953|NCT02449044|181687231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||This was the p-value for analysis at Day 31.|Student's t-test|||||||<0.0001
90908954|NCT02449044|181687231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||This was the p-value for analysis at Week 10.|Student's t-test|||||||<0.0001
90908955|NCT02449044|181687231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||This was the p-value for analysis at Week 18.|Student's t-test|||||||<0.0001
90908956|NCT02449044|181687231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||This was the p-value for analysis at Week 26.|Student's t-test|||||||<0.0001
90908957|NCT02449044|181687231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||This was the p-value for analysis at Week 34.|Student's t-test|||||||<0.0001
90908958|NCT02449044|181687231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||This was the p-value for analysis at Week 42.|Student's t-test|||||||<0.0001
90908959|NCT02449044|181687231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||This was the p-value for analysis at Week 50.|Student's t-test|||||||<0.0001
90908960|NCT02449044|181687231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||This was the p-value for analysis at Week 58.|Student's t-test|||||||<0.0001
90908961|NCT02449044|181687231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||This was the p-value for analysis at Week 70.|Student's t-test|||||||<0.0001
90908962|NCT02449044|181687231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||This was the p-value for analysis at Week 82.|Student's t-test|||||||<0.0001
90960109|NCT02113241|181800278|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.791||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.791
90960110|NCT02113241|181800278|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.413||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.413
90960111|NCT02113241|181800279|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.075||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.075
90908963|NCT02449044|181687231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||This was the p-value for analysis at Week 94.|Student's t-test|||||||<0.0001
90908964|NCT02449044|181687231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||This was the p-value for analysis at Week 106.|Student's t-test|||||||<0.0001
90908965|NCT02449044|181687231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||This was the p-value for analysis at Week 118.|Student's t-test|||||||<0.0001
90908966|NCT02449044|181687231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||This was the p-value for analysis at Week 130.|Student's t-test|||||||<0.0001
90908967|NCT02449044|181687231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||This was the p-value for analysis at Week 142.|Student's t-test|||||||<0.0001
90908968|NCT02449044|181687231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||This was the p-value for analysis at Week 154.|Student's t-test|||||||<0.0001
90908969|NCT02449044|181687231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||This was the p-value for analysis at Week 166.|Student's t-test|||||||<0.0001
90908970|NCT02449044|181687231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||This was the p-value for analysis at Week 178.|Student's t-test|||||||<0.0001
90908971|NCT02449044|181687231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||This was the p-value for analysis at Week 190.|Student's t-test|||||||<0.0001
90908972|NCT02449044|181687231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||This was the p-value for analysis at Week 202.|Student's t-test|||||||<0.0001
90908973|NCT02449044|181687231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||This was the p-value for analysis at Week 214.|Student's t-test|||||||<0.0001
90908974|NCT02449044|181687238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4922|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Day 31||||0.4922
90908975|NCT02449044|181687238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1054|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 10||||0.1054
90908976|NCT02449044|181687238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7656|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 18||||0.7656
91033185|NCT04934722|181952158|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.9|||||HR and associated 95% Confidence Interval (CI) were calculated using Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|||2.90|0.73|
90908977|NCT02449044|181687238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7084|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 26||||0.7084
90908978|NCT02449044|181687238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5138|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 34||||0.5138
90908979|NCT02449044|181687238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7175|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 42||||0.7175
90908980|NCT02449044|181687238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.354|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 50||||0.3540
90908981|NCT02449044|181687238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0852|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 58||||0.0852
90908982|NCT02449044|181687238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1923|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 70||||0.1923
90908983|NCT02449044|181687238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2335|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 82||||0.2335
90908984|NCT02449044|181687238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1346|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 94||||0.1346
90908985|NCT02449044|181687238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5237|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 106||||0.5237
90960112|NCT02113241|181800279|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.432||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.432
90908986|NCT02449044|181687238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3476|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 118||||0.3476
90960113|NCT02113241|181800280|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||<0.001
91033186|NCT04934722|181952159|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|7.34|||||HR and associated 95% Confidence Interval (CI) were calculated using Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|||7.34|0.42|
91033187|NCT04934722|181952160|OTHER||Percent Difference|-5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|0.0|||||Percent difference and associated 95% CI were calculated using Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||0.0|-12.6|
90865322|NCT03000439|181593815|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|1.46||||||DB week 40: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||1.46|-0.74|
90865323|NCT03000439|181593815|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.56||||||DB week 44: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.56|-0.75|
90865324|NCT03000439|181593815|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.81||||||DB week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.81|-0.68|
90865325|NCT03000439|181593815|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.94||||||DB week 52: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.94|-1.10|
90865326|NCT03000439|181593816|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-1.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.59|11.66||||||DB week 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open label baseline value, and Open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||11.66|-14.59|
90865327|NCT03000439|181593816|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-7.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.62|5.17||||||DB week 8: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open label baseline value, and Open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||5.17|-19.62|
90865328|NCT03000439|181593816|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-6.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.36|6.14||||||DB week 12: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open label baseline value, and Open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||6.14|-19.36|
90865329|NCT03000439|181593816|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-8.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.28|3.27||||||DB week 16: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open label baseline value, and Open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||3.27|-20.28|
90908987|NCT02449044|181687238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2488|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 130||||0.2488
90908988|NCT02449044|181687238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1598|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 142||||0.1598
90908989|NCT02449044|181687238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.282|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 154||||0.2820
90908990|NCT02449044|181687238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3743|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 166||||0.3743
90865330|NCT03000439|181593816|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-3.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.53|2.62||||||DB week 20: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open label baseline value, and Open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||2.62|-10.53|
90960114|NCT02113241|181800280|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.835||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.835
90960115|NCT02113241|181800281|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||<0.001
90960116|NCT02113241|181800281|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.778||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.778
90960117|NCT02113241|181800282|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.338||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.338
90960118|NCT02113241|181800282|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.309||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.309
90960119|NCT02113241|181800283|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.049||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.049
90865331|NCT03000439|181593816|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-1.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.09|5.21||||||DB week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open label baseline value, and Open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||5.21|-8.09|
90865332|NCT03000439|181593816|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-4.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.67|8.03||||||DB week 28: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open label baseline value, and Open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||8.03|-16.67|
90865333|NCT03000439|181593816|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-2.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.97|8.25||||||DB week 32: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open label baseline value, and Open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||8.25|-13.97|
90865334|NCT03000439|181593816|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-10.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.63|2.73||||||DB week 36: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open label baseline value, and Open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||2.73|-24.63|
90865335|NCT03000439|181593816|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-4.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.74|8.18||||||DB week 40: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open label baseline value, and Open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||8.18|-16.74|
90865336|NCT03000439|181593816|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-8.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|-1.43||||||DB week 44: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open label baseline value, and Open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||-1.43|-15.20|
90865337|NCT03000439|181593816|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-4.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|2.92||||||DB week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open label baseline value, and Open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||2.92|-12.60|
90865338|NCT03000439|181593816|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.16|2.48||||||DB week 52: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open label baseline value, and Open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||2.48|-5.16|
90865339|NCT03000439|181593817|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-6.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|4.19||||||DB week 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||4.19|-16.30|
90865340|NCT03000439|181593817|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-10.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.68|0.77||||||DB week 8: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.77|-21.68|
90865341|NCT03000439|181593817|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-10.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.75|2.03||||||DB week 12: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||2.03|-23.75|
90865342|NCT03000439|181593817|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-13.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.83|-0.46||||||DB week 16: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||-0.46|-25.83|
90865343|NCT03000439|181593817|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-7.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.56|-0.47||||||DB week 20: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||-0.47|-13.56|
90865344|NCT03000439|181593817|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-4.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|1.95||||||DB week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||1.95|-11.00|
90865345|NCT03000439|181593817|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-9.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.24|3.54||||||DB week 28: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||3.54|-22.24|
90865346|NCT03000439|181593817|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-6.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.34|4.83||||||DB week 32: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||4.83|-18.34|
90908991|NCT02449044|181687238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 178||||0.3600
90908992|NCT02449044|181687238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3101|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 190||||0.3101
90908993|NCT02449044|181687238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0269|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 202||||0.0269
90865347|NCT03000439|181593817|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-15.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.36|-0.63||||||DB week 36: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||-0.63|-30.36|
91033188|NCT04934722|181952161|OTHER||Percent difference|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|13.7|||||Percent difference and associated 95% CI were calculated using Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||13.7|-15.0|
90865348|NCT03000439|181593817|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-7.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|5.03||||||DB week 40: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||5.03|-21.00|
90865349|NCT03000439|181593817|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-10.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.67|-3.31||||||DB week 44: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||-3.31|-17.67|
90865350|NCT03000439|181593817|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-5.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.53|1.67||||||DB week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||1.67|-13.53|
90865351|NCT03000439|181593817|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-2.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.37|1.24||||||DB week 52: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||1.24|-6.37|
90865352|NCT03000439|181593818|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.22||||||DB week 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open-Label baseline value, and Open-Label baseline value by visit interaction.||2.22|0.20|
90908994|NCT02449044|181687238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0944|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 214||||0.0944
90908995|NCT02449044|181687239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1739|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student t-test|||Statistical analysis at Day 14||||0.1739
90908996|NCT02449044|181687239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6095|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Day 31||||0.6095
90908997|NCT02449044|181687239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6902|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 10||||0.6902
90908998|NCT02449044|181687239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.634|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 18||||0.6340
90908999|NCT02449044|181687239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.321|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 26||||0.3210
90909000|NCT02449044|181687239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7787|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 34||||0.7787
90909001|NCT02449044|181687239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2198|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 42||||0.2198
90909002|NCT02449044|181687239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1926|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 50||||0.1926
90909003|NCT02449044|181687239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3109|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 58||||0.3109
90909004|NCT02449044|181687239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2269|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 70||||0.2269
90909005|NCT02449044|181687239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2749|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 82||||0.2749
90909006|NCT02449044|181687239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0702|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 94||||0.0702
90909007|NCT02449044|181687239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0412|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 106||||0.0412
90909008|NCT02449044|181687239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4448|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 142||||0.4448
90909009|NCT02449044|181687239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6233|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 166||||0.6233
90909010|NCT02449044|181687239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1001|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 178||||0.1001
90909011|NCT02449044|181687239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3739|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 190||||0.3739
90909012|NCT02449044|181687239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3334|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 214||||0.3334
90909013|NCT02449044|181687240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2575|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student t-test|||Statistical analysis at Day 14||||0.2575
90909014|NCT02449044|181687240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2715|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Day 31||||0.2715
90909015|NCT02449044|181687240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.686|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 10||||0.6860
90909016|NCT02449044|181687240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0224|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 18||||0.0224
90909017|NCT02449044|181687240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1871|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 26||||0.1871
90909018|NCT02449044|181687240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 34||||0.0039
90865353|NCT03000439|181593818|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.85||||||DB week 8: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open-Label baseline value, and Open-Label baseline value by visit interaction.||1.85|-0.20|
90865354|NCT03000439|181593818|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|1.27||||||DB week 12: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open-Label baseline value, and Open-Label baseline value by visit interaction.||1.27|-0.65|
90909019|NCT02449044|181687240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0325|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 42||||0.0325
90909020|NCT02449044|181687240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0631|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 50||||0.0631
90909021|NCT02449044|181687240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0277|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 58||||0.0277
90909022|NCT02449044|181687240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0128|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 70||||0.0128
90865355|NCT03000439|181593818|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|1.41||||||DB week 16: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open-Label baseline value, and Open-Label baseline value by visit interaction.||1.41|-0.26|
90865356|NCT03000439|181593818|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|1.1||||||DB week 20: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open-Label baseline value, and Open-Label baseline value by visit interaction.||1.10|-0.78|
90865357|NCT03000439|181593818|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|1.49||||||DB week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open-Label baseline value, and Open-Label baseline value by visit interaction.||1.49|-0.18|
90865358|NCT03000439|181593818|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|1.27||||||DB week 28: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open-Label baseline value, and Open-Label baseline value by visit interaction.||1.27|-1.43|
90909023|NCT02449044|181687240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0164|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 82||||0.0164
90909024|NCT02449044|181687240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0119|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 94||||0.0119
90909025|NCT02449044|181687240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 106||||0.0013
90909026|NCT02449044|181687240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6691|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 142||||0.6691
90909027|NCT02449044|181687240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6923|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 166||||0.6923
90909028|NCT02449044|181687240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9292|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 178||||0.9292
90909029|NCT02449044|181687240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4401|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 190||||0.4401
90909030|NCT02449044|181687240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3609|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 214||||0.3609
90909031|NCT01875250|181687318|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum tests|||||||0.74
90909032|NCT03068468|181687357|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-0.2||||0.8483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.6|||Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)|||28-item:Adjusted mean for each treatment group, difference with Placebo,95% confidence interval and p-value at each time point were based on a mixed model for repeated measures model (MMRM), with change from baseline in 28-item PSPRS total score as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time(categorical), treatment group-by-time interaction, baseline 28-item PSPRS, baseline 28-item PSPRS by time interaction, baseline Color Trails 2 test (\<=170 or \>170 seconds) and region.||1.6|-2.0|0.8483
90909033|NCT03068468|181687357|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-0.28||||0.6503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.94|||MMRM|||15-items:Adjusted mean for each treatment group, difference with Placebo,95% confidence interval and p-value at each time point were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in 15-item PSPRS total score as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time(categorical), treatment groupby-time interaction, baseline 15-item PSPRS, baseline 15-item PSPRS by time interaction, baseline Color Trails 2 test(\<=170 or \>170 seconds) and region.||0.94|-1.50|0.6503
90909034|NCT03068468|181687359|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.4||||0.6031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.7|||MMRM|||Adjusted mean for each treatment group, difference with Placebo, 95% confidence interval and p-value at each time point were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MDS-UPDRS as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time (categorical), treatment group-by-time interaction, baseline MDS-UPDRS, baseline MDS-UPDRS by time interaction, baseline Color Trails 2 test (\<=170 or \>170 seconds) and region.||1.7|-1.0|0.6031
90909035|NCT03068468|181687360|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.0||||0.7743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||MMRM|||Adjusted mean for each treatment group, difference with Placebo, 95% confidence interval and p-value at each time point were based on an MMRM model, with CGI-C as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time (categorical), treatment group-by-time interaction, baseline CGI-S, baseline CGI-S by time interaction, baseline Color Trails 2 test (\<=170 or \>170 seconds) and region.||0.1|-0.2|0.7743
90940354|NCT00526097|181760480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.9|-0.5||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||-0.5|-0.9|<0.0001
90960120|NCT02113241|181800283|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.563||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.563
90960121|NCT02113241|181800284|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.850
90865359|NCT03000439|181593818|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.5||||||DB week 32: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open-Label baseline value, and Open-Label baseline value by visit interaction.||0.50|-0.65|
90909036|NCT03068468|181687361|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.038||||0.318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.036|0.112|||MMRM|||Adjusted mean for each treatment group, difference with Placebo, 95% confidence interval and p-value at each time point were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in PSP-cognitive composite battery as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time (categorical), treatment group-by-time interaction, baseline PSP-cognitive composite battery, baseline PSP-cognitive composite battery by time interaction, baseline Color Trails 2 test (\<=170 or \>170 seconds) and region.||0.112|-0.036|0.3180
90909037|NCT03068468|181687362|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-0.2||||0.827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.4|||MMRM|||Adjusted mean for each treatment group, difference with Placebo, 95% confidence interval and p-value at each time point were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in RBANS as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time (categorical), treatment group-by-time interaction, baseline RBANS , baseline RBANS by time interaction, baseline Color Trails 2 test (\<=170 or \>170 seconds and region.||1.4|-1.8|0.8270
90909038|NCT03068468|181687363|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-0.2||||0.9304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|3.3|||MMRM|||Physical scale score: Adjusted mean for each treatment group, difference with Placebo, 95% confidence interval and p-value at each time point were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in PSP-QoL as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time (categorical), treatment group-by-time interaction, baseline for PSP-QoL, baseline PSP-QoL by time interaction, baseline Color Trails 2 test (\<=170 or \>170 seconds) and region.||3.3|-3.6|0.9304
90909039|NCT03068468|181687363|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.5||||0.7859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|3.7|||MMRM|||Mental scale score: Adjusted mean for each treatment group, difference with Placebo, 95% confidence interval and p-value at each time point were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in PSPQoL as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time (categorical), treatment group-bytime interaction, baseline for PSP-QoL, baseline PSP-QoL by time interaction, baseline Color Trails 2 test (\<=170 or \>170 seconds) and region.||3.7|-2.8|0.7859
90909040|NCT03068468|181687363|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-1.7||||0.4297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|2.5|||MMRM|||Satisfaction With Your Life Today: Adjusted mean for each treatment group, difference with Placebo, 95% confidence interval and p-value at each time point were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in PSPQoL as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time (categorical), treatment group-bytime interaction, baseline for PSP-QoL, baseline PSP-QoL by time interaction, baseline Color Trails 2 test (\<=170 or \>170 seconds) and region.||2.5|-5.8|0.4297
90909041|NCT03068468|181687364|SUPERIORITY||Difference|2.0||||0.2084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|5.2|||MMRM|||Adjusted mean for each treatment group, difference with Placebo, 95% confidence interval and p-value at each time point were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in SEADL as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time (categorical), treatment group-by-time interaction, baseline for SEADL , baseline SEADL by time interaction, baseline Color Trails 2 test (\<=170 or \>170 seconds) and region.||5.2|-1.1|0.2084
90865360|NCT03000439|181593818|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.63||||||DB week 36: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open-Label baseline value, and Open-Label baseline value by visit interaction.||0.63|-0.51|
90865361|NCT03000439|181593818|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.47||||||DB week 40: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open-Label baseline value, and Open-Label baseline value by visit interaction.||0.47|-0.55|
90865362|NCT03000439|181593818|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.5||||||DB week 44: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open-Label baseline value, and Open-Label baseline value by visit interaction.||0.50|-0.82|
90865363|NCT03000439|181593818|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|1.22||||||DB week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open-Label baseline value, and Open-Label baseline value by visit interaction.||1.22|-1.51|
90865364|NCT03000439|181593818|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|0.88||||||DB week 52: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open-Label baseline value, and Open-Label baseline value by visit interaction.||0.88|-1.05|
90865365|NCT03000439|181593819|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|1.3||||||DB at Week 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||1.30|-0.32|
90865366|NCT03000439|181593819|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|1.61||||||DB at Week 8: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||1.61|-0.64|
90865367|NCT03000439|181593819|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|1.07||||||DB at Week 12: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||1.07|-1.02|
90865368|NCT03000439|181593819|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|1.14||||||DB at Week 16: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||1.14|-0.69|
90960122|NCT02113241|181800284|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.206||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.206
90960123|NCT02113241|181800285|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.006
90865369|NCT03000439|181593819|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|1.22||||||DB at Week 20: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||1.22|-1.05|
90865370|NCT03000439|181593819|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.16||||||DB at Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||1.16|-0.60|
90865371|NCT03000439|181593819|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.64||||||DB at Week 28: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||1.64|-1.60|
90865372|NCT03000439|181593819|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.64||||||DB at Week 32: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||1.64|-1.60|
90865373|NCT03000439|181593819|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.73||||||DB at Week 36: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.73|-0.58|
90865374|NCT03000439|181593819|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.65||||||DB at Week 40: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.65|-0.53|
90865375|NCT03000439|181593819|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.64||||||DB at Week 44: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.64|-0.87|
90865376|NCT03000439|181593819|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|1.54||||||DB at Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||1.54|-1.13|
90865377|NCT03000439|181593819|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.11||||||DB at Week 52: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||1.11|-1.00|
90865378|NCT03000439|181593822|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.35|20.36||||||CHQ01-Global Health Subscale Standardized Score; DB Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||20.36|-8.35|
90865379|NCT03000439|181593822|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|2.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.43|18.14||||||CHQ01-Global Health Subscale Standardized Score; DB Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||18.14|-12.43|
90865380|NCT03000439|181593822|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-4.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.78|7.4||||||CHQ01-Physical Functioning Subscale Standardized Score; DB Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||7.40|-15.78|
90865381|NCT03000439|181593822|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|2.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.06|41.68||||||CHQ01-Physical Functioning Subscale Standardized Score; DB Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||41.68|-37.06|
90865382|NCT03000439|181593822|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-5.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.37|6.43||||||CHQ01-Social Limitations: Emotional Subscale Standardized Score; DB Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||6.43|-17.37|
90865383|NCT03000439|181593822|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|6.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.92|34.57||||||CHQ01-Social Limitations: Emotional Subscale Standardized Score; DB Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||34.57|-20.92|
90865384|NCT03000439|181593822|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-6.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.95|6.5||||||CHQ01-Social Limitations: Physical Subscale Standardized Score; DB Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||6.50|-18.95|
90865385|NCT03000439|181593822|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|11.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.24|68.42||||||CHQ01-Social Limitations: Physical Subscale Standardized Score; DB Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||68.42|-46.24|
90865386|NCT03000439|181593822|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.97|11.06||||||CHQ01-Bodily Pain Subscale Standardized Score: DB Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||11.06|-13.97|
90960124|NCT02113241|181800285|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.950
90960125|NCT02113241|181800286|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.011
90909042|NCT03068468|181687365|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.0||||0.5701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||MMRM|||Adjusted mean for each treatment group, difference with Placebo, 95% confidence interval and p-value at each time point were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in CGI-S as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time (categorical), treatment group-by-time interaction, baseline for CGI-S, baseline CGI-S by time interaction, baseline Color Trails 2 test (\<=170 or \>170 seconds) and region.||0.1|-0.2|0.5701
91033189|NCT04934722|181952162|OTHER||Percent difference|7.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|27.1|||||Percent difference and associated 95% CI were calculated using Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||27.1|-12.5|
90865387|NCT03000439|181593822|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|17.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.01|62.41||||||CHQ01-Bodily Pain Subscale Standardized Score: DB Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||62.41|-28.01|
90865388|NCT03000439|181593822|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-5.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.24|2.93||||||CHQ01-Behavior Subscale Standardized Score; DB Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||2.93|-13.24|
90865389|NCT03000439|181593822|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-15.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.12|3.06||||||CHQ01-Behavior Subscale Standardized Score; DB Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||3.06|-33.12|
90865390|NCT03000439|181593822|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-5.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.92|6.29||||||CHQ01-Global Behavior Subscale Standardized Score; DB Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||6.29|-16.92|
90865391|NCT03000439|181593822|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-7.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.35|5.87||||||CHQ01-Global Behavior Subscale Standardized Score; DB Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||5.87|-20.35|
90865392|NCT03000439|181593822|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|4.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.18|15.07||||||CHQ01-Mental Health Subscale Standardized Score; DB Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||15.07|-6.18|
90865393|NCT03000439|181593822|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-7.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.37|9.45||||||CHQ01-Mental Health Subscale Standardized Score; DB Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||9.45|-24.37|
90865394|NCT03000439|181593822|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.14|9.13||||||CHQ01-Self Esteem Subscale Standardized Score; DB Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||9.13|-9.14|
90865395|NCT03000439|181593822|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-7.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.87|18.7||||||CHQ01-Self Esteem Subscale Standardized Score; DB Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||18.70|-33.87|
90865396|NCT03000439|181593822|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|4.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.81|14.77||||||CHQ01-General Health Subscale Standardized Score; DB Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||14.77|-4.81|
90909043|NCT03068468|181687366|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.9||||0.0517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.8|||MMRM|||Adjusted mean for each treatment group, difference with Placebo, 95% confidence interval and p-value at each time point were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in Phonemic Fluency Test as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time (categorical), treatment group-by-time interaction, baseline Phonemic Fluency Test, baseline Phonemic Fluency Test by time interaction, baseline Color Trails 2 test (\<=170 or \>170 seconds) and region.||1.8|-0.0|0.0517
90940355|NCT00526097|181760481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.8|-0.5||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||-0.5|-0.8|<0.0001
90940356|NCT00526097|181760482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.2|-0.1||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||-0.1|-0.2|<0.0001
90960126|NCT02113241|181800286|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.454||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.454
90960127|NCT02113241|181800287|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.652||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.652
90909044|NCT03068468|181687367|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.9||||0.0387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.7|||MMRM|||Adjusted mean for each treatment group, difference with Placebo, 95% confidence interval and p-value at each time point were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in Letter Number Sequence as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time (categorical), treatment group-by-time interaction, baseline Letter Number Sequence, baseline Letter Number Sequence by time interaction, baseline Color Trails 2 test (\<=170 or \>170 seconds) and region.||1.7|0.0|0.0387
90909045|NCT03068468|181687368|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.1||||0.9815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|8.3|||MMRM|||Color Trails Test 1: Adjusted mean for each treatment group, difference with Placebo, 95% confidence interval and p-value at each time point were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in Color trails Test 1 as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time (categorical), treatment group-by-time interaction, baseline for Color Trails Test 1, baseline Color Trails Test 1 by time interaction, baseline Color Trails 2 test (\<=170 or \>170 seconds) and region.||8.3|-8.1|0.9815
90909046|NCT03068468|181687368|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.0||||0.9869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|5.6|||MMRM|||Color Trails Test 2: Adjusted mean for each treatment group, difference with Placebo, 95% confidence interval and p-value at each time point were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in Color Trails Test 2 as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time (categorical), treatment group-by-time interaction, baseline for Color Trails Test 2, baseline Color Trails Test 2 by time interaction, and region.||5.6|-5.7|0.9869
90909047|NCT03068468|181687369|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.5||||0.1763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.2|||MMRM|||Adjusted mean for each treatment group, difference with Placebo, 95% confidence interval and p-value at each time point were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MoCA as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time (categorical), treatment group-by-time interaction, baseline for MoCA, baseline MoCA by time interaction,baseline Color Trails 2 test (\<=170 or \>170 seconds) and region.||1.2|-0.2|0.1763
90909048|NCT03068468|181687371|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-0.021||||0.9527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.726|0.684|||MMRM|||Ventricles Volume: Adjusted mean for each treatment group, difference with Placebo, 95% confidence interval and p-value at each time point were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MRI region as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time (categorical), treatment group-by-time interaction, baseline for MRI region, baseline MRI region by time interaction, baseline Color Trails 2 test (\<=170 or \>170 seconds) and region.||0.684|-0.726|0.9527
90909049|NCT03068468|181687371|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-0.514||||0.7357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.506|2.478|||MMRM|||Whole Brain Volume: Adjusted mean for each treatment group, difference with Placebo, 95% confidence interval and p-value at each time point were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MRI region as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time (categorical), treatment group-by-time interaction, baseline for MRI region, baseline MRI region by time interaction, baseline Color Trails 2 test (\<=170 or \>170 seconds) and region.||2.478|-3.506|0.7357
90909050|NCT03068468|181687371|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-0.004||||0.6439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.023|0.014|||MMRM|||Midbrain Volume: Adjusted mean for each treatment group, difference with Placebo, 95% confidence interval and p-value at each time point were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MRI region as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time (categorical), treatment group-by-time interaction, baseline for MRI region, baseline MRI region by time interaction, baseline Color Trails 2 test (\<=170 or \>170 seconds) and region.||0.014|-0.023|0.6439
90909051|NCT03068468|181687371|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.0||||0.9864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.039|0.04|||MMRM|||Pons Volume: Adjusted mean for each treatment group, difference with Placebo, 95% confidence interval and p-value at each time point were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MRI region as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time (categorical), treatment group-by-time interaction, baseline for MRI region, baseline MRI region by time interaction, baseline Color Trails 2 test (\<=170 or \>170 seconds) and region.||0.040|-0.039|0.9864
90909052|NCT03068468|181687371|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.001||||0.7529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.006|||MMRM|||Cerebellar Peduncle Volume: Adjusted mean for each treatment group, difference with Placebo, 95% confidence interval and p-value at each time point were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MRI region as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time (categorical), treatment group-by-time interaction, baseline for MRI region, baseline MRI region by time interaction, baseline Color Trails 2 test (\<=170 or \>170 seconds) and region.||0.006|-0.004|0.7529
90960128|NCT02113241|181800287|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.055||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.055
90960129|NCT02113241|181800288|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.254||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.254
90960130|NCT02113241|181800288|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.787||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.787
90960131|NCT02113241|181800289|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.129||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.129
90960132|NCT02113241|181800289|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.365||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.365
90960133|NCT02113241|181800290|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||<0.001
90909053|NCT03068468|181687371|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.006||||0.685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.025|0.038|||MMRM|||Third Ventricle Volume: Adjusted mean for each treatment group, difference with Placebo, 95% confidence interval and p-value at each time point were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MRI region as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time (categorical), treatment group-by-time interaction, baseline for MRI region, baseline MRI region by time interaction, baseline Color Trails 2 test (\<=170 or \>170 seconds) and region.||0.038|-0.025|0.6850
90909054|NCT03068468|181687371|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-0.041||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.598|||MMRM|||Frontal Lobe Volume: Adjusted mean for each treatment group, difference with Placebo, 95% confidence interval and p-value at each time point were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MRI region as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time (categorical), treatment group-by-time interaction, baseline for MRI region, baseline MRI region by time interaction, baseline Color Trails 2 test (\<=170 or \>170 seconds) and region.||0.598|-0.680|0.9000
90909055|NCT02085356|181687383|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90909056|NCT02085356|181687384|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90909057|NCT02085356|181687385|OTHER|||||||0.605|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.605
90909058|NCT02085356|181687386|OTHER|||||||0.902|||||||Chi-squared|||Attendance records could not be retrieved for most participants. However, this analysis was still conducted among those participants who had data.||||0.902
90909059|NCT02085356|181687387|OTHER|||||||0.869|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.869
90909060|NCT02085356|181687387|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.32||||0.982|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.982
90909061|NCT00739102|181687434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion - 12-month patency rate|0.665|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032||0.437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.725||The observed rate of primary patency at 12 month was 66.5% (143/215) with a lower 95% confidence interval of 60.0%.|Agresti-Coull method||The 95% confidence intervals and the standard error were calculated using the Agresti-Coull method|The null hypothesis to be tested was Ho: P = 0.66 against Ha: P \> 0.66, where 0.66 was the Objective Performance Criteria (OPC). A sample size of 212 subjects was required to achieve 90% power to reject the 66% 12-months patency rate at a one-sided 2.5% significance level when the unknown true patency is at 76%.||0.725|0.6|0.437
90960134|NCT02113241|181800290|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.175||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.175
90960135|NCT02113241|181800291|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.392||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.392
90909062|NCT00739102|181687436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Death Rate (%)|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|4.9||||||||4.9|0.7|
90960136|NCT02113241|181800291|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.123|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.123
90960137|NCT02113241|181800292|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.176||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.176
90960138|NCT02113241|181800292|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.268||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.268
90960139|NCT02113241|181800293|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.064||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.064
90909063|NCT00739102|181687437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Index Limb Amputation Rate (%)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.5||||||||1.5|0.0|
90909064|NCT00739102|181687438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Clinically Driven TVR Rate (%)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.5||||||||1.5|0.0|
90909065|NCT00739102|181687439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Clinically Driven TVR Rate (%)|13.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.5|18.6||||||||18.6|9.5|
90909066|NCT00739102|181687440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Stent Fracture Rate (%)|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|4.4||||||||4.4|0.3|
90909067|NCT00739102|181687441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Index Limb Ischemia Rate (%)|5.6||||||95.0||||||||||||
90909068|NCT00739102|181687442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Primary safety endpoint rate (%)|100.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.2|100.0|||Agresti-Coull method|||The null hypothesis to be tested was Ho: P = 0.88 against Ha: P \> 0.88, where 0.88 was the Objective Performance Criteria (OPC).||100|98.2|<0.001
90909069|NCT00739102|181687443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Index Limb Ischemia Rate (%)|8.4||||||95.0||||||||||||
90909070|NCT00739102|181687446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Major adverse event rate (%)|14.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.2|19.5||||||||19.5|10.2|
90909071|NCT01606124|181687456|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5631|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5631
90909072|NCT01606124|181687457|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1439|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1439
90909073|NCT01268891|181687499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.3257|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.93|0.23||The threshold for statistical significance in showing a trend for this study is 0.10.|ANCOVA|||The power for this study, which is designed to show a trend, that is, to show a clinical difference in the primary outcome measure, is 72%.||0.23|-0.93|0.3257
90909074|NCT01268891|181687500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.05|||ANCOVA|||||0.05|-0.65|0.0946
90909075|NCT01268891|181687501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.2258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|0.44|||ANCOVA|||||0.44|-1.84|0.2258
90909076|NCT01268891|181687502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.29|0.59|||ANCOVA|||||0.59|-3.29|0.1700
90909077|NCT00991276|181687503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-27.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.38|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.78|-18.42||This analysis was step 1 in a step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) used to control the Type I error rate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The least squares (LS) means and standard errors (SE) were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-18.42|-35.78|<0.0001
90960140|NCT02113241|181800293|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.462||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.462
90960141|NCT02113241|181800294|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.346||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.346
90960142|NCT02113241|181800294|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.002
90865397|NCT03000439|181593822|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.31|18.28||||||CHQ01-General Health Subscale Standardized Score; DB Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||18.28|-20.31|
90865398|NCT03000439|181593822|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.33||||||CHQ01-Change in Health Subscale Score; DB Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.33|-0.40|
90865399|NCT03000439|181593822|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|1.65||||||CHQ01-Change in Health Subscale Score; DB Week48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||1.65|-0.68|
90865400|NCT03000439|181593822|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|2.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.59|15.1||||||CHQ01-Emotional Impact on Parent Subscale Standardized Score; DB Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||15.10|-10.59|
90865401|NCT03000439|181593822|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-25.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.96|10.82||||||CHQ01-Emotional Impact on Parent Subscale Standardized Score; DB Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||10.82|-60.96|
90865402|NCT03000439|181593822|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|1.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.55|17.29||||||CHQ01-Time Impact on Parent Subscale Standardized Score; DB Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||17.29|-13.55|
90865403|NCT03000439|181593822|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-9.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.91|30.53||||||CHQ01-Time Impact on Parent Subscale Standardized Score; DB Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||30.53|-48.91|
90865404|NCT03000439|181593822|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-3.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.84|4.9||||||CHQ01-Family Activities Subscale Standardized Score; DB Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||4.90|-12.84|
90865405|NCT03000439|181593822|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-9.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.35|13.75||||||CHQ01-Family Activities Subscale Standardized Score; DB Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||13.75|-32.35|
90865406|NCT03000439|181593822|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-3.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.84|7.81||||||CHQ01-Family Cohesion Subscale Standardized Score; DB Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||7.81|-14.84|
90865407|NCT03000439|181593822|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-20.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-79.03|38.18||||||CHQ01-Family Cohesion Subscale Standardized Score; DB Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||38.18|-79.03|
90865408|NCT03000439|181593825|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|0.54||||||CHAQ-Discomfort Index at Week 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.54|-1.02|
90865409|NCT03000439|181593825|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|1.57||||||CHAQ-Discomfort Index at Week 8: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||1.57|-0.49|
90865410|NCT03000439|181593825|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|0.9||||||CHAQ-Discomfort Index at Week 12: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.90|-1.01|
90865411|NCT03000439|181593825|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|1.58||||||CHAQ-Discomfort Index at Week 16: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||1.58|-0.49|
90865412|NCT03000439|181593825|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|1.45||||||CHAQ-Discomfort Index at Week 20: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||1.45|-0.98|
90865413|NCT03000439|181593825|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|1.14||||||CHAQ-Discomfort Index at Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||1.14|-0.51|
90865414|NCT03000439|181593825|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|1.03||||||CHAQ-Discomfort Index at Week 28: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||1.03|-1.87|
90960143|NCT00388453|181800295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.05
90960144|NCT03249714|181800306|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.064|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.018|0.232|||negative binominal regression model|||||0.232|0.018|<0.001
90960145|NCT03249714|181800307|SUPERIORITY||rate ratio|0.136||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.036|0.513||Statistical significance (2-sided) at the 0.05 level|negative binomial regression|||||0.513|0.036|0.003
90960146|NCT03249714|181800307|SUPERIORITY||rate ratio|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||negative binominal regression|Indicates statistical significance (2-sided) at the 0.05 level.||||0.000|0.000|< 0.001
90909078|NCT00991276|181687503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-26.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.35|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.54|-18.32||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-18.32|-35.54|<0.0001
90909079|NCT00991276|181687503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.32||0.9684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.72|8.38||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||8.38|-8.72|0.9684
90909080|NCT00991276|181687504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-3.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.44|-1.92||This analysis was step 2 in a step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) used to control the Type I error rate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-1.92|-5.44|<0.0001
90909081|NCT00991276|181687504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88||0.1541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|3.01||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||3.01|-0.48|0.1541
90909082|NCT00991276|181687504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-4.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.68|-3.21||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-3.21|-6.68|<0.0001
90909083|NCT00991276|181687505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|30.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.42|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.14|45.49||This analysis was step 3 in a step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) used to control the Type I error rate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||45.49|16.14|<0.0001
90909084|NCT00991276|181687505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|26.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.34||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.26|41.32||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||41.32|12.26|0.0004
90909085|NCT00991276|181687505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|4.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.27||0.5807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.36|18.41||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||18.41|-10.36|0.5807
90909086|NCT00991276|181687506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-5.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.09||0.0076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|-1.54||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Stage N1 sleep: P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-1.54|-9.80|0.0076
90909087|NCT00991276|181687506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-10.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.43|-6.21||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Stage N1 sleep: P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-6.21|-14.43|<0.0001
90960147|NCT03249714|181800308|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.284||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.62|||negative binominal regression|||||0.620|0.130|0.002
90960148|NCT03249714|181800309|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.42||||0.119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.141|1.25|||negative binominal regression|||||1.250|0.141|0.119
90865415|NCT03000439|181593825|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|0.88||||||CHAQ-Discomfort Index at Week 32: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.88|-1.53|
90960149|NCT01996813|181800318|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.115||||0.0553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.002|1.034||The exact p-value was estimated|Regression, Logistic|The method was exact logistic regression||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the odds of a cerebral desaturation event between patients wearing versus not wearing thigh-high compression stockings during shoulder arthroscopy in the beach chair position||1.034|0.002|.0553
90960150|NCT01996813|181800319|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|40.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.22|60.39|||t-test, 2 sided|A Satterthwaite correction was used to adjust the degrees of freedom||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the average length of surgery between patients wearing versus not wearing thigh-high compression stockings during shoulder arthroscopy in the beach chair position||60.39|20.22|<.001
90960151|NCT00879762|181800323|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is 2.5. Non-inferiority of Group B is concluded if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval for the hazard ratio is less than 2.5.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.587|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.398|0.868|||||A survival analysis for interval censored data was performed to estimate the hazard ratio. The 95% CI for the hazard ratio was estimated using bootstrap.|Null hypothesis: Median time to seroconversion among participants receiving one standard dose in Group B is 2.5-fold higher compared to participants receiving one high dose in Group A (hazard ratio = 2.5).||0.868|0.398|
90960152|NCT00879762|181800324|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is 2.5. Non-inferiority of Group B is concluded if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval for the hazard ratio is less than 2.5.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.583|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.384|0.853|||||A survival analysis for interval censored data was performed to estimate the hazard ratio. The 95% CI for the hazard ratio was estimated using bootstrap.|Null hypothesis: Median time to seroconversion among participants receiving one standard dose in Group B is 2.5-fold higher compared to participants receiving one high dose in Group A (hazard ratio = 2.5).||0.853|0.384|
90960153|NCT00879762|181800330|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is 1. Non-inferiority of Group B is concluded if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval for the mean difference in the log2.5 transformed peak titers between groups is less than 1.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.97|||||Estimate and corresponding 95% confidence interval are calculated on the log2.5 scale.|Null hypothesis: The mean difference in log2.5 transformed peak titers between Group A and Group B \>= 1.||0.97|-0.20|
90865416|NCT03000439|181593825|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|0.74||||||CHAQ-Discomfort Index at Week 36: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.74|-1.36|
90865417|NCT03000439|181593825|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.69||||||CHAQ-Discomfort Index at Week 40: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.69|-0.55|
90865418|NCT03000439|181593825|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|0.39||||||CHAQ-Discomfort Index at Week 44: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.39|-1.01|
90865419|NCT03000439|181593825|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|1.92||||||CHAQ-Discomfort Index at Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||1.92|-1.45|
90865420|NCT03000439|181593825|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.69||||||CHAQ-Discomfort Index at Week 52: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.69|-0.87|
90865421|NCT03000439|181593834|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-30.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.43|-6.94|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 4||-6.94|-53.43|
90865422|NCT03000439|181593834|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-23.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.19|0.42|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 8||0.42|-47.19|
90865423|NCT03000439|181593834|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.99|23.76|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 12||23.76|-23.99|
90865424|NCT03000439|181593834|OTHER||Difference in percentage|6.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.2|30.56|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 16||30.56|-17.20|
90865425|NCT03000439|181593834|OTHER||Difference in percentage|13.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.92|36.19|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 20||36.19|-9.92|
90865426|NCT03000439|181593834|OTHER||Difference in percentage|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.24|24.7|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 24||24.70|-24.24|
90865427|NCT03000439|181593834|OTHER||Difference in percentage|3.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.75|27.66|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 28||27.66|-20.75|
90960154|NCT00879762|181800331|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is 1. Non-inferiority of Group B is concluded if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval for the mean difference in the log2.5 transformed peak titers between groups is less than 1.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|1.0|||||Estimate and corresponding 95% confidence interval are calculated on the log2.5 scale.|Null hypothesis: The mean difference in log2.5 transformed peak titers between Group A and Group B \>= 1.||1.00|-0.17|
90909088|NCT00991276|181687506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|4.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.06||0.0257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|8.73||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Stage N1 sleep: P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||8.73|0.58|0.0257
90909089|NCT00991276|181687506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|22.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.05||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.74|34.67||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Stage N2 sleep: P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||34.67|10.74|0.0003
90909090|NCT00991276|181687506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-14.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.0||0.0174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.35|-2.59||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Stage N2 sleep: P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-2.59|-26.35|0.0174
90960155|NCT01211197|181800406|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability.|Geometric mean ratio|100.59|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.75|105.67|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment|Standard deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV).|Ratio calculated as FDC fasted divided by individual tablets fasted.||105.67|95.75|
90960156|NCT01211197|181800406|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability.|Geometric mean ratio|94.94|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.85|100.33|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment|Standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|Ratio calculated as FDC fed divided by FDC fasted||100.33|89.85|
90865428|NCT03000439|181593834|OTHER||Difference in percentage|5.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.29|28.28|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 32||28.28|-16.29|
90865429|NCT03000439|181593834|OTHER||Difference in percentage|3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.92|28.52|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 36||28.52|-20.92|
90865430|NCT03000439|181593834|OTHER||Difference in percentage|10.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.88|34.39|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 40||34.39|-13.88|
90865431|NCT03000439|181593834|OTHER||Difference in percentage|20.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.43|44.67|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 44||44.67|-3.43|
90865432|NCT03000439|181593834|OTHER||Difference in percentage|20.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.43|44.67|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 48||44.67|-3.43|
90865433|NCT03000439|181593834|OTHER||Difference in percentage|17.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.03|41.82|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 52||41.82|-7.03|
90865434|NCT03000439|181593835|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-26.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.42|-2.81|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 4||-2.81|-50.42|
90865435|NCT03000439|181593835|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-20.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.91|3.59|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 8||3.59|-43.91|
90865436|NCT03000439|181593835|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-9.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.31|14.72|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 12||14.72|-34.31|
90865437|NCT03000439|181593835|OTHER||Difference in percentage|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.24|24.7|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 16||24.70|-24.24|
90865438|NCT03000439|181593835|OTHER||Difference in percentage|10.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.88|34.39|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 20||34.39|-13.88|
90865439|NCT03000439|181593835|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.67|21.68|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 24||21.68|-27.67|
90865440|NCT03000439|181593835|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.67|21.68|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 28||21.68|-27.67|
90865441|NCT03000439|181593835|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-6.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.65|16.83|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 32||16.83|-30.65|
90865442|NCT03000439|181593835|OTHER||Difference in percentage|3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.92|28.52|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 36||28.52|-20.92|
90865443|NCT03000439|181593835|OTHER||Difference in percentage|7.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.43|31.48|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 40||31.48|-17.43|
90865444|NCT03000439|181593835|OTHER||Difference in percentage|17.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.03|42.52|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 44||42.52|-7.03|
90865445|NCT03000439|181593835|OTHER||Difference in percentage|14.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.52|39.55|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 48||39.55|-10.52|
90865446|NCT03000439|181593835|OTHER||Difference in percentage|17.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.03|42.52|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 52||42.52|-7.03|
90865447|NCT03000439|181593836|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-15.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.29|4.1|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 4||4.10|-34.29|
90865448|NCT03000439|181593836|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-12.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.08|4.65|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 8||4.65|-29.08|
90865449|NCT03000439|181593836|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-8.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.07|7.1|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 12||7.10|-25.07|
90865450|NCT03000439|181593836|OTHER||Difference in percentage|4.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.01|21.23|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 16||21.23|-12.01|
90865451|NCT03000439|181593836|OTHER||Difference in percentage|4.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.01|21.23|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 20||21.23|-12.01|
90865452|NCT03000439|181593836|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-8.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.07|7.1|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 24||7.10|-25.07|
90865453|NCT03000439|181593836|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-11.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.52|6.79|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 28||6.79|-30.52|
90865454|NCT03000439|181593836|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-5.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.08|13.94|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 32||13.94|-24.08|
90865455|NCT03000439|181593836|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-5.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.7|11.87|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 36||11.87|-22.70|
90865456|NCT03000439|181593836|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-11.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.65|8.61|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 40||8.61|-31.65|
90909091|NCT00991276|181687506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|37.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.96|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.38|48.96||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Stage N2 sleep: P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||48.96|25.38|<0.0001
90940357|NCT00526097|181760483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.3|-0.1||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||-0.1|-0.3|<0.0001
90865457|NCT03000439|181593836|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-1.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.16|16.48|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 44||16.48|-20.16|
90865458|NCT03000439|181593836|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-8.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.66|9.38|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 48||9.38|-26.66|
90865459|NCT03000439|181593836|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-5.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.08|13.94|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 52||13.94|-24.08|
90865460|NCT03000439|181593837|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-12.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.08|4.65|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 4||4.65|-29.08|
90865461|NCT03000439|181593837|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-14.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.32|5.83|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 8||5.83|-35.32|
90865462|NCT03000439|181593837|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-8.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.91|11.32|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 12||11.32|-27.91|
90865463|NCT03000439|181593837|OTHER||Difference in percentage|1.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.48|20.93|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 16||20.93|-17.48|
90865464|NCT03000439|181593837|OTHER||Difference in percentage|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.15|18.91|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 20||18.91|-16.15|
90865465|NCT03000439|181593837|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-5.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.7|11.87|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 24||11.87|-22.70|
90865466|NCT03000439|181593837|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-11.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.52|6.79|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 28||6.79|-30.52|
90909092|NCT00991276|181687506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|20.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.61|29.25||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Stage N3 sleep/SWS: P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||29.25|12.61|<0.0001
90960157|NCT01211197|181800407|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability.|Geometric mean ratio|99.31|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.76|107.49|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment|Standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|Ratio calculated as FDC fasted divided by individual tablets fasted||107.49|91.76|
90960158|NCT01211197|181800407|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability.|Geometric mean ratio|64.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|20.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|55.97|73.87|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment|Standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|Ratio calculated as FDC fed divided by FDC fasted||73.87|55.97|
90865467|NCT03000439|181593837|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-5.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.08|13.94|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 32||13.94|-24.08|
90865468|NCT03000439|181593837|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-8.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.66|9.38|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 36||9.38|-26.66|
90865469|NCT03000439|181593837|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-11.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.65|8.61|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 40||8.61|-31.65|
90865470|NCT03000439|181593837|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-8.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.91|11.32|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 44||11.32|-27.91|
90865471|NCT03000439|181593837|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-8.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.91|11.32|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 48||11.32|-27.91|
90865472|NCT03000439|181593837|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-5.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.08|13.94|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 52||13.94|-24.08|
90865473|NCT03000439|181593840|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-8.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.07|7.1|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 4||7.10|-25.07|
90865474|NCT03000439|181593840|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-19.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.25|-2.76|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 8||-2.76|-35.25|
90865475|NCT03000439|181593840|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-15.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.98|2.1|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 12||2.10|-32.98|
90865476|NCT03000439|181593840|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-12.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.22|2.1|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 16||2.10|-27.22|
90865477|NCT03000439|181593840|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-8.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.07|7.1|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 20||7.10|-25.07|
90865478|NCT03000439|181593840|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-12.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.08|4.65|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 24||4.65|-29.08|
90865479|NCT03000439|181593840|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-8.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.66|9.38|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 28||9.38|-26.66|
90865480|NCT03000439|181593840|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-8.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.66|9.38|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 32||9.38|-26.66|
90865481|NCT03000439|181593840|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-1.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.16|16.48|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 36||16.48|-20.16|
90865482|NCT03000439|181593840|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-4.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.17|15.72|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 40||15.72|-25.17|
90865483|NCT03000439|181593840|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-8.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.91|11.32|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 44||11.32|-27.91|
90865484|NCT03000439|181593840|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-4.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.17|15.72|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 48||15.72|-25.17|
90865485|NCT03000439|181593840|OTHER||Difference in percentage|2.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.53|22.68|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 52||22.68|-18.53|
90865486|NCT00980057|181593841|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin was 12%.||||||0.0002|||||||Farrington-Manning test of two ind. prop|||||||0.0002
90865487|NCT00980057|181593842|SUPERIORITY|The pre-specified minimum objective performance criteria was 0.82|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
90865488|NCT00980057|181593844|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90865489|NCT00980057|181593845|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is 15|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
91033190|NCT06358820|181952166|SUPERIORITY|\>0.15 g/dL change in albumin from baseline to month 6 was anticipated.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.77|||<|0.0125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.15|4.39||A 2-sided P value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant. However, the significance level (α) was adjusted to 0.0125 to account for multiple testing.|ANOVA||The main analysis was based on LOCF for missing value.|Outcome Measure were assessed at baseline and every month during the 6-month study.||4.39|3.15|<0.0125
90865490|NCT00980057|181593846|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is 2.5||||||0.0009|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0009
90865491|NCT00980057|181593847|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is 0.3|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
90865492|NCT00980057|181593848|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is 30||||||0.0002|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0002
90865493|NCT00980057|181593849|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is 5.1||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.002
90865494|NCT01847274|181593861|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.173|0.41||Two-sided P-value. PFS was independently evaluated in gBRCAmut cohort and non-gBRCAmut cohort.|Log Rank|Strata: tm to progression after penultimate platinum tx; use of bevacizumab w/penultimate or last platinum tx; best response during last platinum tx.|Niraparib:Placebo, based on the stratified Cox Proportional Hazards Model using randomization stratification factors.|||0.410|0.173|<0.0001
90865495|NCT01847274|181593862|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.243|0.586||Two-sided P-value. PFS was independently evaluated in gBRCAmut cohort and non-gBRCAmut cohort. Hierarchical testing: HRD+ subset tested first. If HRD+ subset demonstrated statistical significance, overall non-gBRCA cohort was then tested|Log Rank|Strata: tm to progression after penultimate platinum tx; use of bevacizumab w/penultimate or last platinum tx; best response during last platinum tx.|Niraparib:Placebo, based on the stratified Cox Proportional Hazards Model using randomization stratification factors.|||0.586|0.243|<0.0001
90865496|NCT01847274|181593863|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.338|0.607||Two-sided P-value. PFS was independently evaluated in gBRCAmut cohort and non-gBRCAmut cohort. Hierarchical testing: HRD+ subset tested first. If HRD+ subset demonstrated statistical significance, overall non-gBRCA cohort was then tested.|Log Rank|Strata: tm to progression after penultimate platinum tx; use of bevacizumab w/penultimate or last platinum tx; best response during last platinum tx.|Niraparib:Placebo, based on the stratified Cox Proportional Hazards Model using randomization stratification factors.|||0.607|0.338|<0.0001
90865497|NCT01847274|181593864|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.412|0.783||Two-sided p-value|Log Rank|||||0.783|0.412|0.0005
90865498|NCT01847274|181593865|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.454|0.74||Two-sided P-value.|Log Rank|||||0.740|0.454|<0.0001
90865499|NCT01847274|181593866|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.268|0.561||Two-sided P-value.|Log Rank|||||0.561|0.268|<0.0001
90865500|NCT01847274|181593867|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.428|0.727||Two-sided P-value.|Log Rank|||||0.727|0.428|<0.0001
90865501|NCT01847274|181593868|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.0302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.968||Two-sided P-value.|Log Rank|||||0.968|0.500|0.0302
90865502|NCT01847274|181593869|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.0748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.627|1.022||Two-sided P-value.|Log Rank|||||1.022|0.627|0.0748
90865503|NCT01847274|181593870|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.606|1.198||Two-sided P-value.|Log Rank|||||1.198|0.606|0.3580
90865504|NCT01847274|181593871|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.6868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.813|1.369||Two-sided P-value.|Log Rank|||||1.369|0.813|0.6868
90865505|NCT01847274|181593872|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63||||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.451|0.878||Two-sided P-value.|Log Rank|||||0.878|0.451|0.0061
90865506|NCT01847274|181593873|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.1674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.654|1.077||Two-sided P-value.|Log Rank|||||1.077|0.654|0.1674
90865507|NCT01847274|181593890|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7969|||||||Pearson's Chi-squared test|Analysis for gBRCA Niraparib vs gBRCA Placebo-Feet||||||0.7969
90865508|NCT01847274|181593890|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8794|||||||Pearson's Chi-squared test|Analysis for gBRCA Niraparib vs gBRCA Placebo-Hands||||||0.8794
90865509|NCT01847274|181593891|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2399|||||||Pearson's Chi-squared test|Analysis for gBRCA Niraparib vs gBRCA Placebo-Feet||||||0.2399
90865510|NCT01847274|181593891|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4584|||||||Pearson's Chi-squared test|Analysis for gBRCA Niraparib vs gBRCA Placebo-Hands||||||0.4584
90865511|NCT01847274|181593892|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8566|||||||Pearson's Chi-squared test|Analysis for gBRCA Niraparib vs gBRCA Placebo-Feet||||||0.8566
90865512|NCT01847274|181593892|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4705|||||||Pearson's Chi-squared test|Analysis for gBRCA Niraparib vs gBRCA Placebo-Hands||||||0.4705
90865513|NCT01847274|181593893|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8521|||||||Pearson's Chi-squared test|Analysis for gBRCA Niraparib vs gBRCA Placebo-Feet||||||0.8521
90865514|NCT01847274|181593893|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9923|||||||Pearson's Chi-squared test|Analysis for gBRCA Niraparib vs gBRCA Placebo-Hands||||||0.9923
90865515|NCT01847274|181593894|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9997|||||||Pearson's Chi-squared test|Analysis for gBRCA Niraparib vs gBRCA Placebo-Feet||||||0.9997
90865516|NCT01847274|181593894|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3518|||||||Pearson's Chi-squared test|Analysis for gBRCA Niraparib vs gBRCA Placebo-Hands||||||0.3518
90865517|NCT01847274|181593895|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9367|||||||Pearson's Chi-squared test|Analysis for gBRCA Niraparib vs gBRCA Placebo-Hands||||||0.9367
90865518|NCT01847274|181593895|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2502|||||||Pearson's Chi-squared test|Analysis for gBRCA Niraparib vs gBRCA Placebo-Hands||||||0.2502
90865519|NCT01847274|181593896|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5037|||||||Pearson's Chi-squared test|Analysis for gBRCA Niraparib vs gBRCA Placebo-Feet||||||0.5037
90865520|NCT01847274|181593896|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.164|||||||Pearson's Chi-squared test|Analysis for gBRCA Niraparib vs gBRCA Placebo-Hands||||||0.1640
90865521|NCT01847274|181593897|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9599|||||||Pearson's Chi-squared test|Analysis for gBRCA Niraparib vs gBRCA Placebo-Feet||||||0.9599
90865522|NCT01847274|181593897|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.247|||||||Pearson's Chi-squared test|Analysis for gBRCA Niraparib vs gBRCA Placebo-Hands||||||0.2470
90865523|NCT01847274|181593898|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5921|||||||Pearson's Chi-squared test|Analysis for gBRCA Niraparib vs gBRCA Placebo-Feet||||||0.5921
90865524|NCT01847274|181593898|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7459|||||||Pearson's Chi-squared test|Analysis for gBRCA Niraparib vs gBRCA Placebo-Hands||||||0.7459
90960159|NCT01211197|181800408|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability.|Geometric mean ratio|100.94|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.03|106.11|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment|Standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|Ratio calculated as FDC fasted divided by individual tablets fasted||106.11|96.03|
90865525|NCT01847274|181593899|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0259|||||||Pearson's Chi-squared test|||||||0.0259
90865526|NCT01847274|181593899|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2798|||||||Pearson's Chi-squared test|Analysis for gBRCA Niraparib vs gBRCA Placebo-Hands||||||0.2798
90865527|NCT01847274|181593906|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Least square mean|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.997|1.216||||||||1.216|0.997|
90865528|NCT01847274|181593907|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Least square mean|1.068|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.978|1.166||||||||1.166|0.978|
90865529|NCT01847274|181593908|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Least square mean|0.785|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.695|0.886||||||||0.886|0.695|
90865530|NCT02340975|181593981|OTHER|Comparison|Mean Difference (Net)|11.1||||0.2376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|23.0|||Fisher Exact|||||23.0|-0.7|0.2376
90865531|NCT02340975|181593981|OTHER|Comparison|Median Difference (Net)|2.8||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.8|22.4|||Fisher Exact|||||22.4|-16.8|1.0000
90865532|NCT03948581|181594010|EQUIVALENCE|Geometric least-squares means (LSMs) were calculated by exponentiating the LSMs derived from analysis of variance (ANCOVA) with group, treatment, and injection site as fixed effects and weight as a continuous covariate. Confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using treatment standard errors from the ANCOVA model and t-statistic for error degrees of freedom.|Ratio of Geometric LSMs|0.9807|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9011|1.0675||||||||1.0675|0.9011|
90865533|NCT03948581|181594011|EQUIVALENCE|Geometric LSMs were calculated by exponentiating the LSMs derived from ANCOVA with group, treatment, and injection site as fixed effects and weight as a continuous covariate. CIs were calculated using treatment standard errors from the ANCOVA model and t-statistic for error degrees of freedom.|Ratio of Geometric LSMs|0.9981|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9223|1.0801||||||||1.0801|0.9223|
90865534|NCT03948581|181594012|EQUIVALENCE|Geometric LSMs were calculated by exponentiating the LSMs derived from ANCOVA with group, treatment, and injection site as fixed effects and weight as a continuous covariate. CIs were calculated using treatment standard errors from the ANCOVA model and t-statistic for error degrees of freedom.|Ratio of Geometric LSMs|1.0038|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9401|1.0719||||||||1.0719|0.9401|
90865535|NCT00963937|181594028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-7.49||||0.345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.02|8.04||Multiplicity was not considered because the primary analysis included a single statistical comparison.|Chi-squared||Percent difference = sumatriptan pooled group minus the placebo group|||8.04|-23.02|0.345
90865536|NCT00181155|181594062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.007||95.0||||vs. baseline|Two-sided paired t tests|||||||<0.007
90865537|NCT00181155|181594063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.02||95.0||||vs. baseline|Two-sided paired t tests|||||||<0.02
90865538|NCT02572401|181594064|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.84|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.21|||Poisson regression|Adjusted for baseline of the criterion and time of follow-up assessment (6 vs. 12 months).|The numerator is the treatment.|The primary analysis tested the efficacy of the HIV risk reduction intervention by comparing the HIV Risk Reduction Only and HIV Risk Reduction and Text Messaging Arms to the Text Messaging Only and No-Intervention No Text Message Control Arms. This is a test of the main effect of the HIV risk reduction intervention.||1.21|.59|<.05
90865539|NCT02572401|181594064|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.42|||Poisson regression|Adjusted for baseline of the criterion and time of follow-up assessment (6 vs. 12 months).|The numerator is the treatment.|This analysis tested the efficacy of the text messaging intervention by comparing the HIV Risk Reduction and Text Messaging and Text Messaging Only Arms to the HIV Risk Reduction Only and No-Intervention No Text Message Control Arms. This is a test of the text messaging main effect.||1.42|0.69|<.05
90865540|NCT02572401|181594064|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.72|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.49|||Poisson regression|Adjusted for baseline of the criterion, time of follow-up assessment (6 vs. 12 months), and the HIV x Time and Text Messaging x Time interactions.|The numerator is the treatment.|The analysis tested whether text messaging enhanced the effects of the HIV risk reduction intervention by comparing the HIV Risk Reduction and Text Messaging and No-Intervention No Text Message Arms to the Text Messaging Only and HIV Risk Reduction Only Arms. This is a test of the interaction between the two types of interventions.||1.49|.35|<.05
90865541|NCT02572401|181594065|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.04|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.18|||Poisson regression|Adjusted for baseline of the criterion and time of follow-up assessment (6 vs. 12 months).|The numerator is the treatment.|The primary analysis tested the efficacy of the HIV risk reduction intervention by comparing the HIV Risk Reduction Only and HIV Risk Reduction and Text Messaging Arms to the Text Messaging Only and No-Intervention No Text Message Control Arms. This is a test of the main effect of the HIV risk reduction intervention.||1.18|0.92|<.05
90865542|NCT02572401|181594065|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.02|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.16|||Poisson regression|Adjusted for baseline of the criterion.|The numerator is the treatment.|This analysis tested the efficacy of the text messaging intervention by comparing the HIV Risk Reduction and Text Messaging and Text Messaging Only Arms to the HIV Risk Reduction Only and No-Intervention No Text Message Control Arms. This is a test of the text messaging main effect.||1.16|0.90|<.05
90888132|NCT01928719|181639554|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.99|5.81||Testing the effect of treatment group in a Multivariable Cox Regression Model.|Regression, Cox|Adjusting for Age Group, Working Status, and BMI.|The direction of comparison is reduced nicotine content vs. same nicotine content cigarettes.|The reference group is Same Nicotine Content Group.||5.81|1.99|<0.0001
90888133|NCT01928719|181639554|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.03||Testing the effect of age group (ages 30-39) in a Multivariable Cox Regression Model.|Regression, Cox|Adjusting for Treatment Group, Working Status, and BMI.|The direction of comparison is Age group 30-39 to the Age group 18-29.|The reference group is Age equals 18-29.||1.03|0.26|0.06
90888134|NCT01928719|181639554|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.33|||<|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.66||Testing the effect of age group (ages 40-49) in a Multivariable Cox Regression Model.|Regression, Cox|Adjusting for Treatment Group, Working Status, and BMI.|The direction of comparison is Age group 40-49 to the Age group 18-29.|The reference group is Age equals 18-29.||0.66|0.17|<0.002
90865543|NCT02572401|181594065|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.42|||Poisson regression|Adjusted for baseline of the criterion, time of follow-up assessment (6 vs. 12 months), and the HIV x Time and Text Messaging x Time interactions.|The numerator is the treatment.|The analysis tested whether text messaging enhanced the effects of the HIV risk reduction intervention by comparing the HIV Risk Reduction and Text Messaging and No-Intervention No Text Message Arms to the Text Messaging Only and HIV Risk Reduction Only Arms. This is a test of the interaction between the two types of interventions.||1.42|0.86|<.05
90960160|NCT01211197|181800408|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability.|Geometric mean ratio|94.39|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.22|99.87|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment|Standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|Ratio calculated as FDC fed divided by FDC fasted||99.87|89.22|
90865544|NCT02572401|181594066|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.05|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.24|||Poisson regression|Adjusted for baseline of the criterion.|The numerator is the treatment.|The primary analysis tested the efficacy of the HIV risk reduction intervention by comparing the HIV Risk Reduction Only and HIV Risk Reduction and Text Messaging Arms to the Text Messaging Only and No-Intervention No Text Message Control Arms. This is a test of the main effect of the HIV risk reduction intervention.||1.24|0.89|<.05
90865545|NCT02572401|181594066|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.3|||Poisson regression|Adjusted for baseline of the criterion and time of follow-up assessment (6 vs. 12 months).||This analysis tested the efficacy of the text messaging intervention by comparing the HIV Risk Reduction and Text Messaging and Text Messaging Only Arms to the HIV Risk Reduction Only and No-Intervention No Text Message Control Arms. This is a test of the text messaging main effect.|The numerator is the treatment.|1.30|0.94|<.05
90865546|NCT02572401|181594066|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.05|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.47|||Poisson regression|Adjusted for baseline of the criterion, time of follow-up assessment (6 vs. 12 months), and the HIV x Time and Text Messaging x Time interactions.|The numerator is the treatment.|The analysis tested whether text messaging enhanced the effects of the HIV risk reduction intervention by comparing the HIV Risk Reduction and Text Messaging and No-Intervention No Text Message Arms to the Text Messaging Only and HIV Risk Reduction Only Arms. This is a test of the interaction between the two types of interventions.||1.47|0.76|<.05
90865547|NCT02572401|181594067|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.04|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.48|||Poisson regression|Adjusted for baseline of the criterion and time of follow-up assessment (6 vs. 12 months).|The numerator is the treatment.|The primary analysis tested the efficacy of the HIV risk reduction intervention by comparing the HIV Risk Reduction Only and HIV Risk Reduction and Text Messaging Arms to the Text Messaging Only and No-Intervention No Text Message Control Arms. This is a test of the main effect of the HIV risk reduction intervention.||1.48|0.73|<.05
90865548|NCT02572401|181594067|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.45|||Poisson regression|Adjusted for baseline of the criterion and time of follow-up assessment (6 vs. 12 months).|The numerator is the treatment.|This analysis tested the efficacy of the text messaging intervention by comparing the HIV Risk Reduction and Text Messaging and Text Messaging Only Arms to the HIV Risk Reduction Only and No-Intervention No Text Message Control Arms. This is a test of the text messaging main effect.||1.45|0.71|<.05
90865549|NCT02572401|181594067|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.02|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.08|||Poisson regression|Adjusted for baseline of the criterion, time of follow-up assessment (6 vs. 12 months), and the HIV x Time and Text Messaging x Time interactions.|The numerator is the treatment.|The analysis tested whether text messaging enhanced the effects of the HIV risk reduction intervention by comparing the HIV Risk Reduction and Text Messaging and No-Intervention No Text Message Arms to the Text Messaging Only and HIV Risk Reduction Only Arms. This is a test of the interaction between the two types of interventions.||2.08|.50|<.05
90888135|NCT01928719|181639554|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.33|||<|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.65||Testing the effect of age group (Ages 50-59) in a Multivariable Cox Regression Model.|Regression, Cox|Adjusting for Treatment Group, Working Status, and BMI.|The direction of comparison is Age group 50-59 to Age group 18-29.|The reference group is Age equals 18-29.||0.65|0.16|<0.002
90888136|NCT01928719|181639554|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.39||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.18||Testing the effect of age group (Ages 60-65) in a Multivariable Cox Regression Model.|Regression, Cox|Adjusting for Treatment Group, Working Status, and BMI.|The direction of comparison is Age group 60-65 to the Age group 18-29.|The reference group is Age equals 18-29.||1.18|0.13|0.1
90888137|NCT01928719|181639554|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.6||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.66||Testing the effect of working status in a Multivariable Cox Regression Model.|Regression, Cox|Adjusting for Treatment Group, Age, and BMI.||The reference group is not currently working.|The direction of comparison is currently working to not currently working.|2.66|0.92|0.1
90888138|NCT01928719|181639554|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.25||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.67||Testing the effect of BMI Normal Weight group (\>=18.5 \& \<25) in a Multivariable Cox Regression Model.|Regression, Cox|Adjusting for Treatment Group, Working Status, and Age.|The direction of comparison is Normal Weight (\>=18.5 \& \<25) to Underweight (\<18.5) group.|The reference group is BMI Underweight (\<18.5)||0.67|0.1|0.006
90888139|NCT01928719|181639554|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.35||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.92||Testing the effect of BMI Overweight group (\>=25 \& \< 30) in a Multivariable Cox Regression Model.|Regression, Cox|Adjusting for Treatment Group, Working Status, and Age.|The direction of comparison is Overweight (\>=25 \& \< 30) to Underweight (\<18.5) group.|The reference group is BMI Underweight group (\<18.5)||0.92|0.13|0.034
90960161|NCT01211197|181800409|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability.|Geometric mean ratio|103.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.59|111.25|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment|Standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|Ratio calculated as FDC fasted divided by individual tablets fasted||111.25|95.59|
90909093|NCT00991276|181687506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|32.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.18|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.83|40.36||This analysis was step 4 in a step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) used to control the Type I error rate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Stage N3 sleep/SWS: P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||40.36|23.83|<0.0001
90909094|NCT00991276|181687506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-11.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.14||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.37|-2.97||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Stage N3 sleep/SWS: P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-2.97|-19.37|0.0080
90909095|NCT00991276|181687506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-4.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.85||0.0834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.61|0.67||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Stage R sleep: P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||0.67|-10.61|0.0834
90909096|NCT00991276|181687506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|18.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.83|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.99|24.19||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Stage R sleep: P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||24.19|12.99|<0.0001
90909097|NCT00991276|181687506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-23.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.81|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.12|-18.01||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Stage R sleep: P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-18.01|-29.12|<0.0001
90909098|NCT00991276|181687507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-2.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.63|-0.72||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-0.72|-4.63|0.0077
90909099|NCT00991276|181687507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-7.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.81|-5.93||This analysis was step 5 in a step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) used to control the Type I error rate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-5.93|-9.81|<0.0001
90960162|NCT01211197|181800409|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability.|Geometric mean ratio|96.96|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.23|107.78|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment|Standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|Ratio calculated as FDC fed divided by FDC fasted||107.78|87.23|
90960163|NCT01211197|181800410|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability.|Geometric mean ratio|102.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.87|111.15|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment|Standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|Ratio calculated as FDC fasted divided by individual tablets fasted||111.15|93.87|
90960164|NCT01211197|181800410|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability.|Geometric mean ratio|100.67|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.7|110.51|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment|Standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|Ratio calculated as FDC fed divided by FDC fasted||110.51|91.70|
90960165|NCT01211197|181800411|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability.|Geometric mean ratio|103.49|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.3|112.39|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment|Standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|Ratio calculated as FDC fasted divided by individual tablets fasted||112.39|95.30|
90960166|NCT01211197|181800411|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability.|Geometric mean ratio|75.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|24.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|63.68|88.64|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment|Standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|Ratio calculated as FDC fed divided by FDC fasted||88.64|63.68|
90960167|NCT03581825|181800434|SUPERIORITY|Statistically superiority was concluded if the lower limit of the confidence intervals of the Test lens are greater than 40 points.|Least-Square Mean|56.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.55|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.2|61.4|||Linear Mixed Model|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.||||61.4|51.2|
90909100|NCT00991276|181687507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.27|7.12||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||7.12|3.27|<0.0001
90865550|NCT02572401|181594068|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.001|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.078|0.08|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline of the criterion and time of follow-up assessment (6 vs. 12 months).||The primary analysis tested the efficacy of the HIV risk reduction intervention by comparing the HIV Risk Reduction Only and HIV Risk Reduction and Text Messaging Arms to the Text Messaging Only and No-Intervention No Text Message Control Arms. This is a test of the main effect of the HIV risk reduction intervention.||0.080|-0.078|<.05
90865551|NCT02572401|181594068|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.003|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.082|0.076|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline of the criterion and time of follow-up assessment (6 vs. 12 months).||This analysis tested the efficacy of the text messaging intervention by comparing the HIV Risk Reduction and Text Messaging and Text Messaging Only Arms to the HIV Risk Reduction Only and No-Intervention No Text Message Control Arms. This is a test of the text messaging main effect.||0.076|-0.082|<.05
90865552|NCT02572401|181594068|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.009|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.167|0.149|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline of the criterion, time of follow-up assessment (6 vs. 12 months), and the HIV x Time and Text Messaging x Time interactions.||The analysis tested whether text messaging enhanced the effects of the HIV risk reduction intervention by comparing the HIV Risk Reduction and Text Messaging and No-Intervention No Text Message Arms to the Text Messaging Only and HIV Risk Reduction Only Arms. This is a test of the interaction between the two types of interventions.||0.149|-0.167|<.05
90865553|NCT01323959|181594069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of subjects seroprotected|96.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.0|99.6|||||The pre-specified lower limit (LL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the percentage of seroprotected (Anti-D concentrations ≥ 0.1 IU/mL by ELISA or ≥ 0.01 IU/mL by VERO-cell when subjects with ELISA result \<0.1 IU/mL) subjects was above 80%.|"The objective of the analysis was to demonstrate that a booster dose of Boostrix™ Polio vaccine, administered to adults 10 years after a dose of Boostrix™ Polio vaccine or co-administered Boostrix™ + Poliorix™ vaccines, elicited seroprotective antibody concentrations, 1 month after the booster dose, in at least 80% of the subjects against diphtheria.~Samples were analysed both with ELISA (enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay), and VERO-cell (African green monkey kidney cell) neutralisation testing."||99.6|89|
90909101|NCT00991276|181687508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-5.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.57||0.0396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.44|-0.26||This analysis was step 6 in a step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) used to control the Type I error rate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-0.26|-10.44|0.0396
90909102|NCT00991276|181687508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.55||0.0568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.95|0.14||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||0.14|-9.95|0.0568
90960168|NCT03581825|181800435|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority of the Test lens relative to the Control was concluded if the lower confidence limit of LSM difference was above the non-inferiority margin -5.|Least-Square Mean Difference|3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|7.4|||Linear Mixed Model|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean Difference was calculated as Test minus Control|||7.4|-0.5|
90970975|NCT01187953|181824223|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|It was assumed that both treatment groups in this study would have a 15% 12-month treatment failure rate, the study will require 270 patients per group to have 90% power to reject the null hypothesis that the investigational drug, LCP-tacro, is inferior to the reference drug, Prograf, based on a 2-sided 95% CI for the difference and a 0.10 non-inferiority margin.||||||0.822|TWO_SIDED|||||Endpoint: BPAR|Fisher Exact|||No overall p value was calculated, only individual p values for each endpoint category. One statistical analysis table is reported for each individual p value.||||0.822
90909103|NCT00991276|181687508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.52||0.8589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.44|4.54||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||4.54|-5.44|0.8589
91033191|NCT06358820|181952167|SUPERIORITY|\>60 mg/L change in prealbumin from baseline to month 6.|Mean Difference (Net)|39.77||||0.0125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.66|56.87||A 2-sided P value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant. However, the significance level (α) was adjusted to 0.0125 to account for multiple testing.|ANOVA||The main analysis was based on LOCF for missing value.|||56.87|26.66|0.0125
91033192|NCT01124175|181952181|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level.|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|111.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.84|123.06|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||123.06|101.84|
90865554|NCT01323959|181594069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of subjects seroprotected|95.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|87.8|99.1|||||The pre-specified lower limit (LL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the percentage of seroprotected (Anti-D concentrations ≥ 0.1 IU/mL by ELISA or ≥ 0.01 IU/mL by VERO-cell when subjects with ELISA result \<0.1 IU/mL) subjects was above 80%.|The objective of the analysis was to demonstrate that a booster dose of Boostrix™ Polio vaccine, administered to adults 10 years after a dose of Boostrix™ Polio vaccine or co-administered Boostrix™ + Poliorix™ vaccines, elicited seroprotective antibody concentrations, one month after the booster dose, in at least 80% of the subjects against diphtheria.||99.1|87.8|
90865555|NCT01323959|181594069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of subjects seroprotected|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.8|100.0|||||The pre-specified lower limit (LL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the percentage of seroprotected (Anti-D concentrations ≥ 0.1 IU/mL by ELISA or ≥ 0.01 IU/mL by VERO-cell when subjects with ELISA result \<0.1 IU/mL) subjects was above 80%.|The objective of the analysis was to demonstrate that a booster dose of Boostrix™ Polio vaccine, administered to adults 10 years after a dose of Boostrix™ Polio vaccine or co-administered Boostrix™ + Poliorix™ vaccines, elicited seroprotective antibody concentrations, one month after the booster dose, in at least 80% of the subjects against diphtheria.||100|94.8|
90865556|NCT01323959|181594071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of subjects seroprotected|92.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|82.4|97.4|||||The pre-specified lower limit (LL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the percentage of seroprotected (Anti-D concentrations ≥ 0.1 IU/mL by ELISA or ≥ 0.01 IU/mL by VERO-cell when subjects with ELISA result \<0.1 IU/mL) subjects was above 80%.|The objective of the analysis was to dose in study NCT01277705. Samples were analysed both with ELISA (enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay), and VERO-cell (African green monkey kidney cell) neutralisation testing.||97.4|82.4|
90888140|NCT01928719|181639554|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.31||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.77||Testing the effect of BMI Obese group (\>=30) in a Multivariable Cox Regression Model.|Regression, Cox|Adjusting for Treatment Group, Working Status, and Age.|The direction of comparison is Obese (\>=30) to Underweight (\<18.5) group.|The reference group is BMI Underweight group (\<18.5)||0.77|0.13|0.011
90888141|NCT01928719|181639555|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.1||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.44|-1.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included time, group, and time-by-group interaction; treating baseline scores for outcomes as covariates|The direction of comparison is reduced nicotine content vs. same nicotine content cigarettes.|||-1.75|-6.44|0.0006
90888142|NCT01928719|181639556|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-136.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-171.7|-101.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included time, group, and time-by-group interaction; treating baseline scores for outcomes as covariates|The direction of comparison is reduced nicotine content vs. same nicotine content cigarettes.|||-101.7|-171.7|<.0001
90888143|NCT01928719|181639557|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.03||||0.0305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.68|-0.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included time, group, and time-by-group interaction; treating baseline scores for outcomes as covariates|The direction of comparison is reduced nicotine content vs. same nicotine content cigarettes.|||-0.38|-7.68|0.0305
90888144|NCT01928719|181639558|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.81||||0.0207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|3.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included time, group, and time-by-group interaction; treating baseline scores for outcomes as covariates|The direction of comparison is reduced nicotine content vs. same nicotine content cigarettes.|||3.33|0.28|0.0207
90888145|NCT01928719|181639559|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.16||||0.4191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included time, group, and time-by-group interaction; treating baseline scores for outcomes as covariates|The direction of comparison is reduced nicotine content vs. same nicotine content cigarettes.|||0.23|-0.56|0.4191
90888146|NCT01343407|181639621|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means (LSM)|-22.2||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-35.7|-8.7|||Linear mixed effects model|||||-8.7|-35.7|0.011
90888147|NCT01343407|181639621|OTHER||Difference in LSM|-18.9||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-32.1|-5.8|||Linear mixed effects model|||||-5.8|-32.1|0.023
90888148|NCT01343407|181639622|OTHER||LS Mean Ratio (LSMR)|0.48||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.32|0.72|||Linear mixed effects model||||% Inhibition: 52.2 (90% CI: 28.3, 68.2). The % Inhibition of FEV1\*hr (reduction of the allergen-induced LAR) for MK-1029 vs Placebo was calculated as 100\*(1-LSMR).|0.72|0.32|0.006
90888149|NCT01343407|181639622|OTHER||LS Mean Ratio (LSMR)|0.58||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.41|0.81|||Linear mixed effects model||||% Inhibition: 42.4 (90% CI: 19.3, 58.8) The % Inhibition of FEV1\*hr (reduction of the allergen-induced LAR) for MK-1029 vs Placebo was calculated as 100\*(1-LSMR).|0.81|0.41|0.012
90888150|NCT01343407|181639623|OTHER||LSM Difference|85.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|65.3|106.4|||Linear mixed effects model||Full inhibition is ≥74% inhibition of blood eosinophil CD11b expression at trough|||106.4|65.3|<0.001
90888151|NCT01343407|181639623|OTHER||LSM Difference|83.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|63.9|102.7|||Linear mixed effects model||Full inhibition is ≥74% inhibition of blood eosinophil CD11b expression at trough|||102.7|63.9|<0.001
90960169|NCT00529958|181800451|EQUIVALENCE|The sample size calculation was based on 88 ACL-deficient patients with surgical intervention and an ACL-QOL score of 74.5 (SD=20.1) at a mean 39-month follow-up, a minimal clinically important difference of 10 points, power=0.80 and p=0.05.|||||<|0.05||||||A Bonferroni adjustment for multiple comparisons was used in the sample size calculation, resulting in 90 patients per group. With a 20% lost-to-follow-up rate, the final sample size was 108 patients per group for a total of 324 patients.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"All patients were analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis using a 5% significance level for all analyses. The ACL-QOL scores for each study group were analyzed using adjusted Bonferroni comparisons and repeated-measures analyses, using a mixed-model analysis of variance for treatment group over time of assessment."||||<0.05
91033193|NCT01124175|181952182|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level.|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|105.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.61|108.39|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||108.39|103.61|
90865557|NCT01323959|181594071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of subjects seroprotected|79.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.9|88.3|||||The pre-specified lower limit (LL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the percentage of seroprotected (Anti-D concentrations ≥ 0.1 IU/mL by ELISA or ≥ 0.01 IU/mL by VERO-cell when subjects with ELISA result \<0.1 IU/mL) subjects was above 80%.|The objective of the analysis was to demonstrate that a booster dose of Boostrix™ Polio vaccine, administered to adults 10 years after a dose of Boostrix™ Polio vaccine or co-administered Boostrix™ + Poliorix™ vaccines, elicited seroprotective antibody concentrations, one month after the booster dose, in at least 80% of the subjects against diphtheria.||88.3|67.9|
90865558|NCT01323959|181594071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of subjects seroprotected|84.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|73.3|91.8|||||The pre-specified lower limit (LL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the percentage of seroprotected (Anti-D concentrations ≥ 0.1 IU/mL by ELISA or ≥ 0.01 IU/mL by VERO-cell when subjects with ELISA result \<0.1 IU/mL) subjects was above 80%.|The objective of the analysis was to demonstrate that a booster dose of Boostrix™ Polio vaccine, administered to adults 10 years after a dose of Boostrix™ Polio vaccine or co-administered Boostrix™ + Poliorix™ vaccines, elicited seroprotective antibody concentrations, one month after the booster dose, in at least 80% of the subjects against diphtheria.||91.8|73.3|
90865559|NCT01768286|181594087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||A 2-sided 1-sample binomial test was used to compare over the historical SVR12 rate of 25%. To control the family-wise type I error rate at 0.05, the Hochberg procedure was applied, from which the adjusted p-values were obtained.|Binomial test|||||||<0.001
90865560|NCT01768286|181594087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||A 2-sided 1-sample binomial test was used to compare over the historical SVR12 rate of 25%. To control the family-wise type I error rate at 0.05, the Hochberg procedure was applied, from which the adjusted p-values were obtained.|Binomial test|||||||<0.001
90865561|NCT01768286|181594087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||A 2-sided 1-sample binomial test was used to compare over the historical SVR12 rate of 25%. To control the family-wise type I error rate at 0.05, the Hochberg procedure was applied, from which the adjusted p-values were obtained.|Binomial test|||||||<0.001
90865562|NCT01768286|181594087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||A 2-sided 1-sample binomial test was used to compare over the historical SVR12 rate of 25%. To control the family-wise type I error rate at 0.05, the Hochberg procedure was applied, from which the adjusted p-values were obtained.|Binomial test|||||||<0.001
90865563|NCT00622284|181594108|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis of non-inferiority is rejected if the upper bound of the two-sided 97.5% confidence interval is less than 0.35%. Superiority testing was not part of the pre-specified Week 52 confirmatory analysis.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0005||97.5|0.13|0.31||Due to multiple testing of the primary endpoints at weeks 52 and 104 a Bonferroni correction was applied and 97.5% confidence intervals produced. This 1-sided p-value for non-inferiority should be compared to the 1-sided threshold of 0.0125.|ANCOVA|||Linagliptin versus Glimepiride||0.31|0.13|0.0005
90865564|NCT00622284|181594109|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis of non-inferiority is rejected if the upper bound of the two-sided 97.5% confidence interval is less than 0.35%. However, superiority testing is only applicable if the Linagliptin decrease is greater than that in Glimepiride.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.0004||97.5|0.09|0.3||This 1-sided p-value should be compared to the 1-sided threshold of 0.0125 for non-inferiority. Due to the pre-specified hierarchial approach, further confirmatory analysis on the Week24 endpoints is only applicable if superiority is already met.|ANCOVA|||Linagliptin versus Glimepiride||0.30|0.09|0.0004
90865565|NCT00622284|181594110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.0001||97.5|-2.91|-2.09||This Week52 key secondary endpoint was only to be tested (2-sided threshold of 0.025 to allow for multiple testing within a visit) if the Week52 primary hypothesis was rejected.|ANCOVA|||Linagliptin versus Glimepiride||-2.09|-2.91|<0.0001
90909104|NCT00991276|181687509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-14.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.91|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.26|-8.74||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-8.74|-20.26|<0.0001
90865566|NCT00622284|181594111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.0001||97.5|-3.17|-2.19||Due to testing of multiple endpoints within a visit a sequential testing strategy (at 2-sided threshold of 0.025) was applied to the key secondary endpoints.|ANCOVA|||Linagliptin versus Glimepiride||-2.19|-3.17|<0.0001
90865567|NCT00622284|181594112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||This key secondary endpoint was only to be tested (comparing to a 2-sided threshold of 0.025) if the Week52 body weight change from baseline was confirmatory.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Linagliptin versus Glimepiride||||<0.0001
90865568|NCT00622284|181594113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Due to testing of multiple endpoints within a visit a sequential testing strategy (at 2-sided threshold of 0.025) was applied to the key secondary endpoints.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Linagliptin versus Glimepiride||||<0.0001
90865569|NCT00622284|181594114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|6.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7|<|0.0001||95.0|3.51|10.16|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin versus Glimepiride||10.16|3.51|<0.0001
90865570|NCT00622284|181594115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|6.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.97||0.0012||95.0|2.51|10.25|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin versus Glimepiride||10.25|2.51|0.0012
90960170|NCT01315353|181800480|SUPERIORITY|Confidence interval estimation was stratified by ART use at screening using Greenwood's variance with the inverse of this variance used for the stratum weights.|Cumulative rate difference|1.7|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|-7.9||||||The lower bound of the (lower) one-sided 95% confidence interval was provided.|Treatment comparison was made using the difference (arm B - arm A) in the stratified Kaplan-Meier estimate for the week 130 cumulative rate of CIN2+ with 95% one-sided confidence interval.|||-7.9|
90865571|NCT00622284|181594116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.625||||0.0004||95.0|0.482|0.811|||Regression, Logistic|The odds ratio is treatment adjusted for baseline HbA1c and the number of previous anti-diabetic medications.||Linagliptin versus Glimepiride||0.811|0.482|0.0004
90865572|NCT00622284|181594117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.654||||0.003||95.0|0.494|0.866|||Regression, Logistic|The odds ratio is treatment adjusted for baseline HbA1c and the number of previous anti-diabetic medications.||Linagliptin versus Glimepiride||0.866|0.494|0.0030
90865573|NCT00622284|181594118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.648||||0.0025||95.0|0.489|0.859|||Regression, Logistic|The odds ratio is treatment adjusted for baseline HbA1c and the number of previous anti-diabetic medications.||Linagliptin versus Glimepiride||0.859|0.489|0.0025
90960171|NCT01315353|181800481|OTHER|||||||0.94||||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance used for the two-sided test was 0.05.|Log Rank|Log-rank test was stratified by ART use at screening.||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm A and Arm B with respect to time to CIN2+.||||0.94
90960172|NCT01315353|181800482|OTHER||Cumulative rate difference|4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|13.6|||||Confidence interval estimation was stratified by ART use at screening using Greenwood's variance with the inverse of this variance used for the stratum weights.|Treatment comparison was made using the difference (arm B - arm A) in the stratified Kaplan-Meier estimate for the week 130 cumulative rate of CIN3+ with 95% two-sided confidence interval.||13.6|-4.8|
90960173|NCT01315353|181800483|OTHER|||||||0.445||||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance used for the two-sided test was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm A and Arm B with respect to rate of premature study discontinuation.||||0.445
90960174|NCT01315353|181800484|OTHER|||||||1||||||P-value for the week 26 comparison. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance used for the two-sided test was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm A and Arm B with respect to the proportion of participants with abnormal cervical cytology results at week 26.||||1.000
90960175|NCT01315353|181800484|OTHER|||||||0.279||||||"P-value for the week 52 comparison.~The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance used for the two-sided test was 0.05."|Fisher Exact|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between the Arm A and Arm B with respect to the proportion of participants with abnormal cervical cytology results at week 52.||||0.279
90960176|NCT01315353|181800484|OTHER|||||||0.781||||||"P-value for the week 78 comparison.~The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance used for the two-sided test was 0.05."|Fisher Exact|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm A and Arm B with respect to the proportion of participants with abnormal cervical cytology results at week 78.||||0.781
90960177|NCT01315353|181800484|OTHER|||||||0.375||||||"P-value for the week 104 comparison.~The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance used for the two-sided test was 0.05."|Fisher Exact|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm A and Arm B with respect to the proportion of participants with abnormal cervical cytology results at week 104.||||0.375
90865574|NCT00622284|181594119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.689||||0.024||95.0|0.498|0.952|||Regression, Logistic|The odds ratio is treatment adjusted for baseline HbA1c and the number of previous anti-diabetic medications.||Linagliptin versus Glimepiride||0.952|0.498|0.0240
90865575|NCT00622284|181594120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.0018||95.0|0.56|0.875|||Regression, Logistic|The odds ratio is treatment adjusted for baseline HbA1c and the number of previous anti-diabetic medications.||Linagliptin versus Glimepiride||0.875|0.560|0.0018
90865576|NCT00622284|181594121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.77||0.0918||95.0|-21.07|1.59|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin versus Glimepiride||1.59|-21.07|0.0918
90865577|NCT02935842|181594137|OTHER|||||||||||||||||First Reliable Change (RC), Reliable Change Index (RCI) were calculated on every individual score. Further, ANOVAs and t-tests were administered in order to verify differences between groups or interventions. Significance levels were set at p \< .05.|Reliable Change / Reliable Change Index according to Jacobson \& Truax (1991). There, on the basis of every individual score, the change in performance (i.e. BL-4Weeks/ BL-6Months) has been calculated and is reported with level of significance as well as effect size.|||
90865578|NCT02935842|181594137|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||.05
90865579|NCT02935842|181594141|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||.05
90865580|NCT02935842|181594143|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||.05
90865581|NCT02774954|181594144|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.35
90865582|NCT02774954|181594145|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.35
90865583|NCT03344796|181594146|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.01
90865584|NCT03344796|181594147|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||<0.001
90865585|NCT03344796|181594148|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.01
90960178|NCT01315353|181800484|OTHER|||||||0.444||||||"P-value for the week 130 comparison.~The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance used for the two-sided test was 0.05."|Fisher Exact|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm A and Arm B with respect to the proportion of participants with abnormal cervical cytology results at week 130.||||0.444
90865586|NCT03344796|181594149|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.1|||||||Chi-squared|||Knowledge of sun protection score at baseline compared with score after completion of the arm. The hypothesis is that the focus group, usability test and structured interviews arms will not have significant change in knowledge. It is expected that cohort studies 1 and 2 will have significant change in knowledge of sun protection.||||< 0.1
90865587|NCT02516046|181594179|OTHER||Fleiss' kappa|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.86||||||Inter-reader agreement analysis using Fleiss' kappa. The hypothesis tested was that the observed kappa values were ≥0.64 and the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs were ≥0.55 for the inter-reader agreement among readers.||0.86|0.74|
91033194|NCT01124175|181952183|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level.|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|105.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.32|108.07|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||108.07|103.32|
91033195|NCT01124175|181952184|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level.|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|105.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.22|110.93|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||110.93|101.22|
90865588|NCT03137537|181594186|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90865589|NCT03137537|181594187|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.63
90865590|NCT01552694|181594201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. Unadjusted p-value compares the change (week 8 - baseline) for plasma hsCRP between the 2 groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.006
90865591|NCT01552694|181594202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. Unadjusted analysis.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.24
90865592|NCT01552694|181594203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. Unadjusted analysis|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.78
90865593|NCT03338010|181594211|NON_INFERIORITY|0.40% noninferiority margin was used.|LS Mean Difference|-0.05||||0.545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.10|-0.19|0.545
90865594|NCT03338010|181594212|NON_INFERIORITY|0.40% noninferiority margin was used.|LS Mean Difference|-0.05||||0.545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.10|-0.19|0.545
90865595|NCT03338010|181594213|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.0||||0.602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|4.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Before Morning Meal Glucose||4.8|-2.8|0.602
90865596|NCT03338010|181594213|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.7||||0.373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|4.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2 Hours After Morning Meal Glucose||4.4|-11.8|0.373
90865597|NCT03338010|181594213|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.3||||0.351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|3.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Before Mid-Day Meal Glucose||3.7|-10.3|0.351
90909105|NCT00991276|181687509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|11.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.88||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.65|17.04||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||17.04|5.65|0.0001
91033196|NCT01124175|181952185|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level.|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|103.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.9|105.28|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||105.28|100.90|
90960179|NCT01315353|181800485|OTHER|||||||0.132||||||"P-value for the week 26 comparison.~The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance used for the two-sided test was 0.05."|Fisher Exact|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm A and Arm B with respect to the proportion of participants with hr-HPV at week 26.||||0.132
90865598|NCT03338010|181594213|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.9||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|12.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2 Hours After Mid-Day Meal Glucose||12.8|-3.1|0.230
90865599|NCT03338010|181594213|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.9||||0.819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|8.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Before Evening Meal Glucose||8.5|-6.7|0.819
90865600|NCT03338010|181594213|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.3||||0.588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|10.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2 Hours After Evening Meal Glucose||10.9|-6.2|0.588
90865601|NCT03338010|181594213|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.4||||0.732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|9.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Bedtime Glucose||9.5|-6.7|0.732
90865602|NCT03338010|181594214|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.846|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.846
90865603|NCT03338010|181594215|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.098|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.098
90865604|NCT03338010|181594216|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.32||||0.767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|2.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning Pre-meal Standard Deviation||2.42|-1.78|0.767
90865605|NCT03338010|181594216|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|3.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Daily Mean Standard Deviation||3.3|-2.5|0.781
90865606|NCT03338010|181594217|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.7|-1.2|0.750
90865607|NCT03338010|181594218|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.7|-1.2|0.750
90865608|NCT03338010|181594219|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.3|-0.6|<0.001
90865609|NCT03338010|181594220|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.95||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.72|1.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Inconvenience of Regimen Transformed Score||1.82|-3.72|0.500
90865610|NCT03338010|181594220|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.99||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.62|-0.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Lifestyle Flexibility Transformed Score||-0.36|-7.62|0.031
90865611|NCT03338010|181594220|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.79||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.53|0.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hypoglycemic Control Transformed Score||0.95|-4.53|0.200
90865612|NCT03338010|181594220|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02||||0.988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.92|2.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Glycemic Control Transformed Score||2.88|-2.92|0.988
90865613|NCT03338010|181594220|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.45||||0.337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.41|1.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Insulin Delivery Device Satisfaction Transformed Score||1.51|-4.41|0.337
90865614|NCT03338010|181594220|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.67||||0.205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.26|0.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||ITSQ Overall Total||0.92|-4.26|0.205
90865615|NCT03338010|181594221|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.639|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.639
90865616|NCT03338010|181594222|SUPERIORITY||Relative Ratio|1.19||||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.92|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.92|0.74|0.143
90865617|NCT03338010|181594222|SUPERIORITY||Relative Ratio|1.22||||0.945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|2.23|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||2.23|0.67|0.945
90865618|NCT00758836|181594223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|24.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|16.7|32.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Miettinen and Nurminen method for independent binomial distribution stratified by baseline severity.||||32.2|16.7|<0.001
90865619|NCT00758836|181594223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|27.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|19.6|35.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Miettinen and Nurminen method for independent binomal distribution stratified by baseline severity.||||35.8|19.6|<0.001
90865620|NCT00758836|181594223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|20.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|12.6|28.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Miettinen and Nurminen method for independent binomal distribution stratified by baseline severity.||||28.2|12.6|<0.001
90865621|NCT00758836|181594223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion differenece|4.2||||0.449|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.0|13.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Miettinen and Nurminen method for independent binomal distribution stratified by baseline severity.||||13.3|-5.0|0.449
90865622|NCT00758836|181594223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|7.7||||0.182|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.8|17.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Miettinen and Nurminen method for independent binomal distribution stratified by baseline severity.||||17.1|-1.8|0.182
90865623|NCT00758836|181594224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|40.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|31.9|49.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Miettinen and Nurminen method for independent binomal distribution stratified by baseline severity.||||49.0|31.9|<0.001
90865624|NCT00758836|181594224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|39.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|30.5|48.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Miettinen and Nurminen method for independent binomal distribution stratified by baseline severity.||||48.5|30.5|<0.001
90865625|NCT00758836|181594224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|6.1||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.9|14.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Miettinen and Nurminen method for independent binomal distribution stratified by baseline severity.||||14.9|-2.9|0.265
90865626|NCT00758836|181594224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|5.2||||0.362|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.2|14.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Miettinen and Nurminen method for independent binomal distribution stratified by baseline severity.||||14.5|-4.2|0.362
90865627|NCT00758836|181594224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|34.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|25.3|43.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Miettinen and Nurminen method for independent binomal distribution stratified by baseline severity.||||43.4|25.3|<0.001
90865628|NCT00293033|181594229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.28||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.31|16.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|The SPID was analyzed using a mixed model of repeated measures with fixed effects for treatment, pooled site, and a random effect for subjects.|Onsolis minus placebo|||16.18|3.31|0.004
90865629|NCT00293033|181594230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.91|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.91|-0.40|0.440
90865630|NCT00293033|181594231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|2.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.33|-0.44|0.179
90865631|NCT00293033|181594232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|4.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.61|0.04|0.047
90865632|NCT00293033|181594233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.5|30.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||30.86|8.50|<0.001
90865633|NCT00293033|181594234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|31.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.23|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.85|48.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||48.12|15.85|<0.001
90865634|NCT00293033|181594235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.517|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.517
90865635|NCT00293033|181594236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.458|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.458
90865636|NCT00293033|181594237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.223|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.223
90865637|NCT00293033|181594238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.015|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.015
90865638|NCT00293033|181594239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
90865639|NCT00293033|181594240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90865640|NCT00293033|181594241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.193|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.193
90865641|NCT00293033|181594242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.113|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.113
90865642|NCT00293033|181594243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.192|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.192
90865643|NCT00293033|181594244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
90865644|NCT00293033|181594245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
90865645|NCT00293033|181594246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90865646|NCT00293033|181594247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.157|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.157
90865647|NCT00293033|181594248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.278|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.278
90865648|NCT00293033|181594249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.062|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.062
90865649|NCT00293033|181594250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
90865650|NCT00293033|181594251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.005
90865651|NCT00293033|181594252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
90865652|NCT00293033|181594253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90865653|NCT00293033|181594254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.000
90960180|NCT01315353|181800486|OTHER|||||||0.227||||||"P-value for the week 26 comparison.~The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance used for the two-sided test was 0.05."|Fisher Exact|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm A and Arm B with respect to the proportion of participants with hr-HPV at week 26.||||0.227
90865654|NCT00293033|181594255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.000
90865655|NCT00293033|181594256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.563|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.563
90865656|NCT00293033|181594257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.498|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.498
90865657|NCT00293033|181594258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.077|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.077
90865658|NCT00293033|181594259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.031|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.031
90865659|NCT00293033|181594260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.963|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.963
90865660|NCT00293033|181594261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
90865661|NCT00293033|181594262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.008|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.008
90865662|NCT00293033|181594263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.005
90865663|NCT00293033|181594264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.100
90865664|NCT00293033|181594265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.009|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.009
90865665|NCT00293033|181594266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.004
90865666|NCT00293033|181594267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90865667|NCT00293033|181594268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.000
90865668|NCT00293033|181594269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.000
90865669|NCT00293033|181594270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.75|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.750
90865670|NCT00293033|181594271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.032|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.032
90865671|NCT00293033|181594272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.131|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.131
90865672|NCT00293033|181594273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.007|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.007
90865673|NCT00293033|181594274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
90865674|NCT00293033|181594275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.57||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|11.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.01|0.92|0.023
90865675|NCT00293033|181594276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.25||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.63|34.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||34.04|5.63|0.009
90865676|NCT00293033|181594277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.72||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.32|58.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||58.20|8.32|0.012
90865677|NCT00293033|181594278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|46.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.46||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.69|83.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||83.08|10.69|0.015
90865678|NCT00453063|181594279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.001
90865679|NCT00453063|181594280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.304||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.304
90865680|NCT00453063|181594281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.004
90865681|NCT00453063|181594282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.063||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.063
90865682|NCT00453063|181594283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.356||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.356
90865683|NCT01918774|181594320|OTHER|Pre-post analysis comparing weeks worked in the 6 months preceding baseline and the 6 month study follow-up.|||||<|0.001||||||A priori threshold of significance was p\<.05|within groups t-test|||||||<.001
90865684|NCT01135420|181594339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<.05
90865685|NCT00717197|181594340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|21.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.27|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.46|43.7||||||||43.7|7.46|
90865686|NCT03003390|181594345|SUPERIORITY||Posterior probabilities|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||||Using informative priors of B(1, 1) on the enoxaparin arm and B(18, 82) on the usual care arm, the risks of CADVT were 0.32 (95% CrI: 0.16, 0.51) in the enoxaparin arm and 0.25 (95% CrI: 0.18, 0.33) in the usual care arm. The posterior probability that the absolute difference in the risk of CADVT was lower by 0.06 in the enoxaparin arm was 9.1%. Using minimally informative priors, the risk ratio of CADVT with enoxaparin was 0.55 (95% CrI: 0.24, 1.11).|||
90865687|NCT03003390|181594346|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||Linear mixed effects model|||||||0.22
90865688|NCT03003390|181594347|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
90865689|NCT03003390|181594348|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.31
90865690|NCT03003390|181594349|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.58
90865691|NCT03003390|181594350|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
90865692|NCT03003390|181594352|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.43
91033197|NCT01124175|181952186|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level.|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|102.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.41|104.34|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||104.34|100.41|
90865693|NCT01581931|181594375|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin: the 90% confidence intervall has to be within the intervall (80%, 125%)|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|97.69|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.63|101.94|||ANOVA||Numerator: FDC tablet; denominator: single tablets of linagliptin and metformin; The dispersion parameter is actually the geometric coefficient of variation.|||101.94|93.63|
90865694|NCT01581931|181594378|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin: the 90% confidence intervall has to be within the intervall (80%, 125%)|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|97.76|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.8|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.64|102.07|||ANOVA||Numerator: FDC tablet; denominator: single tablets of linagliptin and metformin; The dispersion parameter is actually the geometric coefficient of variation.|||102.07|93.64|
90865695|NCT01581931|181594379|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin: the 90% confidence intervall has to be within the intervall (80%, 125%)|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|98.79|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.55|103.21|||ANOVA||Numerator: FDC tablet; denominator: single tablets of linagliptin and metformin; The dispersion parameter is actually the geometric coefficient of variation.|||103.21|94.55|
90865696|NCT04666051|181594392|SUPERIORITY|Data from both groups has been collected compared to verify significant statistical difference||||||0.022|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.022
90865697|NCT01397084|181594418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilocoxon signed-rank test|||Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to check whether the change in the frequency of heartburn during the 7-day period prior to the 8 week visit (Visit 3) compared to the frequency of heartburn during the 7-day period prior to baseline (Visit 1) was statistically significant or not.||||<0.001
90865698|NCT02139228|181594422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Group Ratios|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.76|||ANOVA|||||0.76|0.36|
90865699|NCT02139228|181594423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Group Differences|-11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.6|-4.2|||Clopper-Pearson|||||-4.2|-18.6|
90865700|NCT00706823|181594431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
90865701|NCT00706823|181594432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.22
90865702|NCT00706823|181594434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.22
90865703|NCT00706823|181594436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.11||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|58.6|||Regression, Logistic|||||58.6|1.1|0.03
90865704|NCT03766581|181594437|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk (RR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.1|||MCP-MOD|Multiple Comparison Procedures, MODel|95% confidence interval (CI) for composite event based on bootstrap (10000 samples)|Milvexian 25 mg QD over Placebo||1.10|0.87|
90865705|NCT03766581|181594437|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk (RR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.15|||MCP-MOD|Multiple Comparison Procedures, MODel|95% confidence interval (CI) for composite event based on bootstrap (10000 samples)|Milvexian 25 mg BID over Placebo||1.15|0.83|
90865706|NCT03766581|181594437|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk (RR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.16|||MCP-MOD|Multiple Comparison Procedures, MODel|95% confidence interval (CI) for composite event based on bootstrap (10000 samples)|Milvexian 50 mg BID over Placebo||1.16|0.76|
90865707|NCT03766581|181594437|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk (RR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.18|||MCP-MOD|Multiple Comparison Procedures, MODel|95% confidence interval (CI) for composite event based on bootstrap (10000 samples)|Milvexian 100 mg BID over Placebo||1.18|0.73|
90865708|NCT03766581|181594437|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk (RR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.31|||MCP-MOD|Multiple Comparison Procedures, MODel|95% confidence interval (CI) for composite event based on bootstrap (10000 samples)|Milvexian 200 mg BID over Placebo||1.31|0.69|
90865709|NCT03766581|181594459|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk (RR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.49|||Wald Confidence Limits|95% CIs for RR are constructed using Wald Confidence Limits||Milvexian 25 mg QD over Placebo||1.49|0.46|
90865710|NCT03766581|181594459|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk (RR)|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.3|||Wald Confidence Limits|95% CIs for RR are constructed using Wald Confidence Limits||Milvexian 25 mg BID over Placebo||1.30|0.36|
90865711|NCT03766581|181594459|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk (RR)|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.33|||Wald Confidence Limits|95% CIs for RR are constructed using Wald Confidence Limits||Milvexian 50 mg BID over Placebo||1.33|0.39|
90865712|NCT03766581|181594459|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk (RR)|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.25|||Wald Confidence Limits|95% CIs for RR are constructed using Wald Confidence Limits||Milvexian 100 mg BID over Placebo||1.25|0.33|
90865713|NCT03766581|181594459|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk (RR)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|2.25|||Wald Confidence Limits|95% CIs for RR are constructed using Wald Confidence Limits||Milvexian 200 mg BID||2.25|0.87|
90865714|NCT03766581|181594459|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk (RR)|2.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|7.42|||Wald Confidence Limits|95% CIs for RR are constructed using Wald Confidence Limits||Milvexian 50 mg QD over Placebo||7.42|0.83|
90865715|NCT03766581|181594459|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk (RR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|6.96|||Wald Confidence Limits|95% CIs for RR are constructed using Wald Confidence Limits||Milvexian 100 mg QD over Placebo||6.96|0.15|
90865716|NCT03716024|181594460|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|26.0|||||omadacycline minus linezolid|||26.0|1.3|
90865717|NCT03716024|181594461|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|11.4|||||omadacycline minus linezolid|||11.4|-1.7|
90865718|NCT03716024|181594462|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|26.7|||||omadacycline minus linezolid|||26.7|0.9|
90865719|NCT03716024|181594463|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|14.0||||||||14.0|-5.3|
90865720|NCT03600818|181594483|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|18.0|||=|0.0193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.15|31.82||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Fisher Exact|||||31.82|4.15|=0.0193
90865721|NCT03600818|181594484|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. If the primary endpoint reaches statistical significance then the secondary endpoint for total cumulative CS dose was tested next.||||<0.0001
90865722|NCT04377620|181594502|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.46||||0.0292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.201|1.028|||Mixed Models Analysis|logistic regression mixed model includes treatment group and ARDS severity as fixed covariates and investigational site as a random effect.||||1.028|0.201|0.0292
90865723|NCT04377620|181594502|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.42||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.171|1.023|||Mixed Models Analysis|logistic regression mixed model includes treatment group and ARDS severity as fixed covariates and investigational site as a random effect.||||1.023|0.171|0.0280
90865724|NCT00044083|181594529|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Diagnosis effect on placebo|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
90865725|NCT00044083|181594529|OTHER|||||||0.0034||||||Drug Effect on Patients|ANOVA|||||||0.0034
90865726|NCT00044083|181594530|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Diagnosis Effect on Placebo in right DLPFC|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
90865727|NCT00044083|181594530|OTHER|||||||0.014||||||Diagnosis Effect of Placebo in left DLPFC|ANOVA|||||||0.014
90865728|NCT00044083|181594531|OTHER|||||||0.05||||||Drug Effect across both groups in left DLPFC|ANOVA|||||||0.05
90865729|NCT00044083|181594531|OTHER|||||||0.32||||||Drug Effect across both groups in right DLPFC|ANOVA|||||||0.32
90865730|NCT00044083|181594532|OTHER|||||||0.05||||||The Effect of Drug on Patients with Schizophrenia in right DLPFC|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.05
90865731|NCT00044083|181594532|OTHER|||||||0.078||||||Effect of Drug on Patients with Schizophrenia in left DLPFC|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.078
90865732|NCT00044083|181594533|OTHER|||||||0.05||||||Drug Effect on Healthy Volunteers in left DLPFC|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.05
90865733|NCT00044083|181594533|OTHER|||||||0.73||||||Drug Effect on Healthy Volunteers in right DLPFC|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.73
90865734|NCT00044083|181594534|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|Main Effect of Genotype across both Placebo and Tolcapone in right DLPFC||||||<0.0001
90865735|NCT00044083|181594534|OTHER|||||||0.167|||||||ANOVA|Main Effect of Genotype across both Placebo and Tolcapone in left DLPFC||||||0.167
90865736|NCT00044083|181594535|OTHER|||||||0.189||||||Drug by Genotype Effect in left DLPFC|ANOVA|||||||0.189
90865737|NCT00044083|181594535|OTHER|||||||0.041||||||Drug Effect on Val/Val Genotype in left DLPFC|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.041
90865738|NCT00044083|181594535|OTHER|||||||0.718||||||Drug Effect on Val/Met Genotype in left DLPFC|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.718
90865739|NCT00044083|181594535|OTHER|||||||0.469||||||Drug Effect of Met/Met Genotype in left DLPFC|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.469
90865740|NCT00044083|181594536|OTHER|||||||0.7||||||Drug Effect on Positive Syndrome for Patients|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.7
90865741|NCT00044083|181594536|OTHER|||||||0.4||||||Drug Effect on Negative Syndrome for Patients|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.4
90865742|NCT00044083|181594536|OTHER|||||||0.12||||||Drug Effect on General Pathology for Patients|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.12
90865743|NCT03758066|181594553|OTHER|||||||0.03||||||P-value reported for quality of life measured between baseline and 12-month follow-up with a statistical significance threshold of .05.|Sign test|||A two-tailed non-parametric one-sample paired sign test was used to determine whether to reject or fail to reject the null hypothesis that the mean difference of scores between any of the 2 of 3 timepoints is 0 (Baseline v. 6-month, 6-month v. 12-month, and Baseline v. 12-month).||||.03
90865744|NCT03758066|181594554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||P-value reported for self-reported self-efficacy in chronic disease management between baseline and 12-month follow-up with a statistical significance threshold of .05.|Sign test|||A two-tailed non-parametric one-sample paired sign test was used to determine whether to reject or fail to reject the null hypothesis that the mean difference of scores between any of the 2 of 3 timepoints is 0 (Baseline v. 6-month, 6-month v. 12-month, and Baseline v. 12-month).||||.02
90865745|NCT03758066|181594554|OTHER|||||||0.02||||||P-value reported for self-reported self-efficacy in chronic disease management between 6- and 12-month follow-up with a statistical significance threshold of .05.|Sign test|||||||.02
90865746|NCT00332163|181594556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-33.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.0|-14.0|||||Difference = Pre-emptive - Reactive|||-14|-51|
90865747|NCT00332163|181594557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-22.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.0|-3.0|||||Difference = Pre-emptive - Reactive|||-3|-42|
90865748|NCT00332163|181594558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.7|||||Hazard ratio estimated from a Cox Proportional Hazards regression model with an indicator for treatment (pre-emptive vs. reactive), stratified by chemotherapy stratum (Q2W vs Q3W).|||0.7|0.2|
90865749|NCT00332163|181594560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.7|||||Hazard ratio estimated from a Cox Proportional Hazards regression model with an indicator for treatment (Pre-emptive vs. Reactive) stratified by chemotherapy stratum (Q2W vs Q3W).|||0.7|0.2|
90865750|NCT00332163|181594561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|7.0|||||Difference = Pre-emptive - Reactive|||7|-16|
90865751|NCT00332163|181594562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|10.0|||||Difference = Pre-emptive - Reactive|||10|-10|
90865752|NCT00332163|181594563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|17.0|||||Rate difference = Pre-emptive - Reactive|||17|-9|
90865753|NCT00332163|181594564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|18.0|||||Rate difference = Pre-emptive - Reactive|||18|-21|
90865754|NCT00332163|181594565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.0|||||Hazard ratio estimated from a Cox Proportional Hazards regression model with an indicator for treatment (Pre-emptive vs. Reactive) stratified by chemotherapy stratum (Q2W vs Q3W).|||2.0|0.9|
90865755|NCT00332163|181594566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.5|||||Hazard ratio estimated from a Cox Proportional Hazards regression model with an indicator for treatment (Pre-emptive vs. Reactive) stratified by chemotherapy stratum (Q2W vs Q3W).|||1.5|0.6|
90865756|NCT00332163|181594567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.1|||||Hazard ratio estimated from a Cox Proportional Hazards regression model with an indicator for treatment (Pre-emptive vs. Reactive) stratified by chemotherapy stratum (Q2W vs Q3W).|||2.1|0.7|
90865757|NCT00332163|181594568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.6|||||Hazard ratio is estimated from a Cox Proportional Hazards regression model with an indicator for treatment (Pre-emptive vs. Reactive) stratified by chemotherapy stratum (Q2W vs Q3W).|||1.6|0.6|
90865758|NCT03570697|181594586|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|21.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.9||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|37.7|||ANCOVA|||||37.7|4.7|0.015
90865759|NCT03570697|181594587|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|37.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.04||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.63|73.31|||ANCOVA|||||73.31|1.63|0.041
90865760|NCT03570697|181594588|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|32.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.52||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.67|52.35|||ANCOVA|||||52.35|12.67|0.003
90865761|NCT03570697|181594589|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-26.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.4||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.6|-2.4|||ANCOVA|||||-2.4|-49.6|0.032
90865762|NCT03570697|181594590|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|16.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.5||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|31.0|||ANCOVA|||||31.0|1.1|0.036
90865763|NCT03570697|181594591|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-30.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.4||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.5|-9.5|||ANCOVA|||||-9.5|-50.5|0.005
90865764|NCT03570697|181594592|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-2.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.04|-0.82|||ANCOVA|||||-0.82|-4.04|0.003
90865765|NCT02571777|181594617|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.065|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0176|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.031|0.099|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||0.099|0.031|<0.001
90865766|NCT02571777|181594617|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.076|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0176|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.041|0.111|||MMRM|||||0.111|0.041|<0.001
90865767|NCT02571777|181594618|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.014|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0406||0.729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.066|0.094|||MMRM|||Week 26||0.094|-0.066|0.729
90865768|NCT02571777|181594618|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.086|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0404||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.165|-0.006|||MMRM|||Week 26||-0.006|-0.165|0.034
90865769|NCT02571777|181594618|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.071|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0409||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.151|0.01|||MMRM|||Week 26||0.010|-0.151|0.085
90865770|NCT02571777|181594618|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.084|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0406||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.164|-0.005|||MMRM|||Week 26||-0.005|-0.164|0.038
90865771|NCT02571777|181594618|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.059|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0415||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.023|||MMRM|||Week 52||0.023|-0.140|0.157
90865772|NCT02571777|181594618|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.121|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0414||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.202|-0.04|||MMRM|||Week 52||-0.040|-0.202|0.003
90865773|NCT02571777|181594618|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.042||0.814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.092|0.072|||MMRM|||Week 52||0.072|-0.092|0.814
90865774|NCT02571777|181594618|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0416||0.845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.073|0.09|||MMRM|||Week 52||0.090|-0.073|0.845
90865775|NCT02571777|181594619|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.119|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0177|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.085|0.154|||MMRM|||||0.154|0.085|<0.001
90865776|NCT02571777|181594619|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.099|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0177|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.064|0.133|||MMRM|||||0.133|0.064|<0.001
90865777|NCT02571777|181594620|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.086|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0176|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.051|0.12|||MMRM|||||0.120|0.051|<0.001
90865778|NCT02571777|181594620|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.145|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0178|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.111|0.18|||MMRM|||||0.180|0.111|<0.001
90865779|NCT02571777|181594620|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.062|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0178|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.027|0.096|||MMRM|||||0.096|0.027|<0.001
90865780|NCT02571777|181594620|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.087|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0179|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.052|0.122|||MMRM|||||0.122|0.052|<0.001
90865781|NCT02571777|181594621|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.073|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0218|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.116|||MMRM|||Week 4||0.116|0.030|<0.001
90865782|NCT02571777|181594621|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.139|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0217|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.096|0.181|||MMRM|||Week 4||0.181|0.096|<0.001
90865783|NCT02571777|181594621|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.039|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.082|||MMRM|||Week 4||0.082|-0.004|0.074
90865784|NCT02571777|181594621|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.108|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0219|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.065|0.15|||MMRM|||Week 4||0.150|0.065|<0.001
90865785|NCT02571777|181594621|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.056|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0219||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.014|0.099|||MMRM|||Week 12||0.099|0.014|0.010
90865786|NCT02571777|181594621|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.102|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0218|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.059|0.145|||MMRM|||Week 12||0.145|0.059|<0.001
90865787|NCT02571777|181594621|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0221||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.007|0.094|||MMRM|||Week 12||0.094|0.007|0.022
90865788|NCT02571777|181594621|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.099|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.056|0.142|||MMRM|||Week 12||0.142|0.056|<0.001
90865789|NCT02571777|181594622|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.095|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0254|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.045|0.145|||MMRM|||||0.145|0.045|<0.001
90865790|NCT02571777|181594622|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.147|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0256|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.097|0.198|||MMRM|||||0.198|0.097|<0.001
90865791|NCT02571777|181594622|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.049|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0256||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|0.099|||MMRM|||||0.099|-0.001|0.057
90865792|NCT02571777|181594622|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.056|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0258||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.006|0.107|||MMRM|||||0.107|0.006|0.029
90865793|NCT02571777|181594623|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|18.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.59|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.2|23.3|||Linear Mixed Model (LMM)|||Week 26 - Mean morning PEF||23.3|13.2|<0.001
90865794|NCT02571777|181594623|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|35.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.58|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.2|40.3|||LMM|||Week 26 - Mean morning PEF||40.3|30.2|<0.001
90865795|NCT02571777|181594623|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|14.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.61|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.8|20.0|||LMM|||Week 26 - Mean morning PEF||20.0|9.8|<0.001
90865796|NCT02571777|181594623|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|28.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.9|33.1|||LMM|||Week 26 - Mean morning PEF||33.1|22.9|<0.001
90865797|NCT02571777|181594623|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|16.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.53|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.8|21.7|||LMM|||Week 26 - Mean evening PEF||21.7|11.8|<0.001
90865798|NCT02571777|181594623|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|29.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.53|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.2|34.1|||LMM|||Week 26 - Mean evening PEF||34.1|24.2|<0.001
90865799|NCT02571777|181594623|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|14.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.55|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.1|19.1|||LMM|||Week 26 - Mean evening PEF||19.1|9.1|<0.001
90940358|NCT00526097|181760484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.2|-0.1||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||-0.1|-0.2|<0.0001
90865800|NCT02571777|181594623|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|24.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.54|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.3|29.3|||LMM|||Week 26 - Mean evening PEF||29.3|19.3|<0.001
90865801|NCT02571777|181594623|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|18.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.72|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.4|24.1|||LMM|||Week 52 - Mean morning PEF||24.1|13.4|<0.001
90865802|NCT02571777|181594623|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|34.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.5|40.1|||LMM|||Week 52 - Mean morning PEF||40.1|29.5|<0.001
90865803|NCT02571777|181594623|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|15.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.74|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.2|20.9|||LMM|||Week 52 - Mean morning PEF||20.9|10.2|<0.001
90865804|NCT02571777|181594623|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|28.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.72|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.2|33.8|||LMM|||Week 52 - Mean morning PEF||33.8|23.2|<0.001
90865805|NCT02571777|181594623|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|17.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.66|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.3|22.8|||LMM|||Week 52 - Mean evening PEF||22.8|12.3|<0.001
90865806|NCT02571777|181594623|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|29.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.66|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.2|34.7|||LMM|||Week 52 - Mean evening PEF||34.7|24.2|<0.001
90865807|NCT02571777|181594623|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|15.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.69|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.7|20.2|||LMM|||Week 52 - Mean evening PEF||20.2|9.7|<0.001
90865808|NCT02571777|181594623|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|25.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.68|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.5|31.0|||LMM|||Week 52 - Mean evening PEF||31.0|20.5|<0.001
90865809|NCT02571777|181594624|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.81||0.907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|3.8|||LMM|||||3.8|-3.3|0.907
90865810|NCT02571777|181594624|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.81||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|7.0|||LMM|||||7.0|-0.1|0.055
90865811|NCT02571777|181594624|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.83||0.997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|3.6|||LMM|||||3.6|-3.6|0.997
90865812|NCT02571777|181594624|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.82||0.606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|2.6|||LMM|||||2.6|-4.5|0.606
90865813|NCT02571777|181594625|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.78||0.712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|4.2|||LMM|||||4.2|-2.8|0.712
90865814|NCT02571777|181594625|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.78||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|7.2|||LMM|||||7.2|0.2|0.038
90865815|NCT02571777|181594625|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|3.4|||LMM|||||3.4|-3.7|0.943
90865816|NCT02571777|181594625|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.79||0.612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|2.6|||LMM|||||2.6|-4.4|0.612
90865817|NCT02571777|181594626|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.51||0.809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|2.6|||LMM|||||2.6|-3.3|0.809
90865818|NCT02571777|181594626|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|4.0|||LMM|||||4.0|-1.9|0.467
90865819|NCT02571777|181594626|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52||0.318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|4.5|||LMM|||||4.5|-1.5|0.318
90940359|NCT00526097|181760485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0018||95.0|-0.2|0.0||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||-0.0|-0.2|0.0018
90865820|NCT02571777|181594626|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.51||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|3.7|||LMM|||||3.7|-2.3|0.640
90865821|NCT02571777|181594627|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.83||0.814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|3.2|||LMM|||||3.2|-4.0|0.814
90865822|NCT02571777|181594627|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.83||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|7.4|||LMM|||||7.4|0.2|0.036
90865823|NCT02571777|181594627|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.84||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|6.7|||LMM|||||6.7|-0.6|0.098
90865824|NCT02571777|181594627|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.84||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|6.5|||LMM|||||6.5|-0.7|0.118
90865825|NCT02571777|181594628|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.74||0.645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|2.6|||LMM|||Week 26||2.6|-4.2|0.645
90865826|NCT02571777|181594628|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.73||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|6.3|||LMM|||Week 26||6.3|-0.5|0.095
90865827|NCT02571777|181594628|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.75||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|4.7|||LMM|||Week 26||4.7|-2.1|0.460
90865828|NCT02571777|181594628|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.75||0.971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|3.4|||LMM|||Week 26||3.4|-3.5|0.971
90865829|NCT02571777|181594628|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.78||0.963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|3.6|||LMM|||Week 52||3.6|-3.4|0.963
90865830|NCT02571777|181594628|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.77||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|6.6|||LMM|||Week 52||6.6|-0.3|0.075
90865831|NCT02571777|181594628|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.79||0.517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|4.7|||LMM|||Week 52||4.7|-2.3|0.517
90865832|NCT02571777|181594628|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.78||0.956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|3.6|||LMM|||Week 52||3.6|-3.4|0.956
90865833|NCT02571777|181594629|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.2|||Logistic regression model|||Week 26||1.20|0.70|0.535
90865834|NCT02571777|181594629|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.57|||Logistic regression model|||Week 26||1.57|0.93|0.151
90865835|NCT02571777|181594629|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.48|||Logistic regression model|||Week 26||1.48|0.86|0.380
90865836|NCT02571777|181594629|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.57|||Logistic regression model|||Week 26||1.57|0.92|0.172
90865837|NCT02571777|181594629|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.47|||Logistic regression model|||Week 52||1.47|0.83|0.510
90865838|NCT02571777|181594629|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.86|||Logistic regression model|||Week 52||1.86|1.06|0.017
90865839|NCT02571777|181594629|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.38|||Logistic regression model|||Week 52||1.38|0.79|0.744
90865840|NCT02571777|181594629|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.29|||Logistic regression model|||Week 52||1.29|0.75|0.922
90865841|NCT02571777|181594630|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.63|||Regression, Cox|||||1.63|0.27|0.371
90865842|NCT02571777|181594630|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|2.66|||Regression, Cox|||||2.66|0.37|0.996
90865843|NCT02571777|181594630|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.89||||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|4.47|||Regression, Cox|||||4.47|0.80|0.145
90865844|NCT02571777|181594630|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.88||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|4.43|||Regression, Cox|||||4.43|0.80|0.150
90865845|NCT02571777|181594631|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.15|||Regression, Cox|||Moderate or severe asthma exacerbation||1.15|0.77|0.523
90865846|NCT02571777|181594631|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.84|||Regression, Cox|||Moderate or severe asthma exacerbation||0.84|0.58|<0.001
90865847|NCT02571777|181594631|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.06|||Regression, Cox|||Moderate or severe asthma exacerbation||1.06|0.72|0.164
90865848|NCT02571777|181594631|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.92|||Regression, Cox|||Moderate or severe asthma exacerbation||0.92|0.63|0.005
90865849|NCT02571777|181594631|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.16|||Regression, Cox|||Severe asthma exacerbation||1.16|0.72|0.476
90865850|NCT02571777|181594631|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.85|||Regression, Cox|||Severe asthma exacerbation||0.85|0.54|<0.001
90865851|NCT02571777|181594631|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.09|||Regression, Cox|||Severe asthma exacerbation||1.09|0.70|0.243
90865852|NCT02571777|181594631|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.97|||Regression, Cox|||Severe asthma exacerbation||0.97|0.63|0.027
90865853|NCT02571777|181594631|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.12|||Regression, Cox|||All (mild, moderate, severe) asthma exacerbation||1.12|0.79|0.497
90865854|NCT02571777|181594631|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.84|||Regression, Cox|||All (mild, moderate, severe) asthma exacerbation||0.84|0.60|<0.001
90865855|NCT02571777|181594631|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.04|||Regression, Cox|||All (mild, moderate, severe) asthma exacerbation||1.04|0.73|0.126
90865856|NCT02571777|181594631|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.85|||Regression, Cox|||All (mild, moderate, severe) asthma exacerbation||0.85|0.61|<0.001
90865857|NCT02571777|181594632|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.85||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.04|||Generalized linear model|||Moderate or severe asthma exacerbation||1.04|0.68|0.120
90865858|NCT02571777|181594632|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.78|||Generalized linear model|||Moderate or severe asthma exacerbation||0.78|0.52|<0.001
90865859|NCT02571777|181594632|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.87||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.06|||Generalized linear modeñ|||Moderate or severe asthma exacerbation||1.06|0.71|0.170
90865860|NCT02571777|181594632|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.81||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.99|||Generalized linear model|||Moderate or severe asthma exacerbation||0.99|0.66|0.041
90940360|NCT00526097|181760486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for baseline||||||<0.0001
90865861|NCT02571777|181594632|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.78||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.0|||Generalized linear model|||Severe asthma exacerbation||1.00|0.61|0.050
90865862|NCT02571777|181594632|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.73|||Generalized linear model|||Severe asthma exacerbation||0.73|0.45|<0.001
90865863|NCT02571777|181594632|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.93||||0.531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.17|||Generalized linear model|||Severe asthma exacerbation||1.17|0.74|0.531
90865864|NCT02571777|181594632|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.84||||0.117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.05|||Linear generalized model|||Severe asthma exacerbation||1.05|0.67|0.117
90865865|NCT02571777|181594632|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.79||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.96|||Generalized linear model|||All (mild, moderate, severe) asthma exacerbation||0.96|0.66|0.016
90865866|NCT02571777|181594632|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.72|||Generalized linear model|||All (mild, moderate, severe) asthma exacerbation||0.72|0.50|<0.001
90865867|NCT02571777|181594632|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.87||||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.06|||Generalized linear model|||All (mild, moderate, severe) asthma exacerbation||1.06|0.72|0.161
90865868|NCT02571777|181594632|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.84|||Generalized linear model|||All (mild, moderate, severe) asthma exacerbation||0.84|0.58|<0.001
90865869|NCT02571777|181594633|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.183|||||||van Elteren test|||Moderate or severe asthma exacerbation||||0.183
90865870|NCT02571777|181594633|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||van Elteren test|||Moderate or severe asthma exacerbation||||<0.001
90865871|NCT02571777|181594633|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.155|||||||van Elteren test|||Moderate or severe asthma exacerbation||||0.155
90865872|NCT02571777|181594633|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||van Elteren test|||Moderate or severe asthma exacerbation||||0.007
90865873|NCT02571777|181594633|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.172|||||||van Elteren test|||Severe asthma exacerbation||||0.172
90940361|NCT00526097|181760487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for baseline||||||<0.0001
90940362|NCT00526097|181760488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for baseline||||||<0.0001
91033198|NCT00834535|181952208|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model containing factors for sequence of products, subjects within sequence, periods, and products was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|100.83||||||90.0|93.98|108.17|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||108.17|93.98|
91033199|NCT00834535|181952209|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model containing factors for sequence of products, subjects within sequence, periods, and products was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|96.1||||||90.0|92.14|100.22|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||100.22|92.14|
91033200|NCT00834535|181952210|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model containing factors for sequence of products, subjects within sequence, periods, and products was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|96.57||||||90.0|92.8|100.49|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||100.49|92.8|
90865874|NCT02571777|181594633|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||van Elteren test|||Severe asthma exacerbation||||<0.001
90865875|NCT02571777|181594633|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.241|||||||van Elteren test|||Severe asthma exacerbation||||0.241
90865876|NCT02571777|181594633|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.033|||||||van Elteren test|||Severe asthma exacerbation||||0.033
90865877|NCT02571777|181594633|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.095|||||||van Elteren test|||All (mild, moderate, severe) asthma exacerbation||||0.095
90865878|NCT02571777|181594633|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||van Elteren test|||All (mild, moderate, severe) asthma exacerbation||||<0.001
90865879|NCT02571777|181594633|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||van Elteren test|||All (mild, moderate, severe) asthma exacerbation||||0.090
90865880|NCT02571777|181594633|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||van Elteren test|||All (mild, moderate, severe) asthma exacerbation||||<0.001
90865881|NCT02571777|181594635|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.49||||0.314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|1.96|||Regression, Cox|||||1.96|0.12|0.314
90865882|NCT02571777|181594635|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.28||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|1.03|||Regression, Cox|||||1.03|0.08|0.055
90865883|NCT02571777|181594635|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.54|||Regression, Cox|||||1.54|0.25|0.306
90865884|NCT02571777|181594635|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.94|||Regression, Cox|||||1.94|0.30|0.566
90865885|NCT02571777|181594637|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.74||0.645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|2.6|||LMM|||Week 26||2.6|-4.2|0.645
90865886|NCT02571777|181594637|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.73||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|6.3|||LMM|||Week 26||6.3|-0.5|0.095
90865887|NCT02571777|181594637|SUPERIORITY||LMM|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.75||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|4.7|||LMM|||Week 26||4.7|-2.1|0.460
90865888|NCT02571777|181594637|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.75||0.971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|3.4|||LMM|||Week 26||3.4|-3.5|0.971
90865889|NCT02571777|181594637|SUPERIORITY||LMM|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.78||0.963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|3.6|||LMM|||Week 52||3.6|-3.4|0.963
90865890|NCT02571777|181594637|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.77||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|6.6|||LMM|||Week 52||6.6|-0.3|0.075
90865891|NCT02571777|181594637|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.79||0.517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|4.7|||LMM|||Week 52||4.7|-2.3|0.517
90865892|NCT02571777|181594637|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.78||0.956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|3.6|||LMM|||Week 52||3.6|-3.4|0.956
90865893|NCT02571777|181594638|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0502||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.078|0.118|||MMRM|||||0.118|-0.078|0.690
90865894|NCT02571777|181594638|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0502||0.232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.038|0.159|||MMRM|||||0.159|-0.038|0.232
90865895|NCT02571777|181594638|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.054|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0506||0.285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.153|0.045|||MMRM|||||0.045|-0.153|0.285
90865896|NCT02571777|181594638|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0505||0.319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.049|||MMRM|||||0.049|-0.150|0.319
90865897|NCT02571777|181594639|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.068|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0166|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.036|0.101|||MMRM|||Week 4||0.101|0.036|<0.001
90865898|NCT02571777|181594639|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.145|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0165|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.113|0.177|||MMRM|||Week 4||0.177|0.113|<0.001
90865899|NCT02571777|181594639|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.033|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0167||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.066|||MMRM|||Week 4||0.066|0.000|0.049
90865900|NCT02571777|181594639|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.096|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0166|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.064|0.129|||MMRM|||Week 4||0.129|0.064|<0.001
90865901|NCT02571777|181594639|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.058|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0184||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.022|0.094|||MMRM|||Week 12||0.094|0.022|0.002
90865902|NCT02571777|181594639|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.117|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0183|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.081|0.153|||MMRM|||Week 12||0.153|0.081|<0.001
90865903|NCT02571777|181594639|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0185||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.013|0.086|||MMRM|||Week 12||0.086|0.013|0.007
90865904|NCT02571777|181594639|SUPERIORITY||MMRM|0.087|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0184|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.051|0.123|||MMRM|||Week 12||0.123|0.051|<0.001
90865905|NCT03706079|181594644|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.51||||||||0.51|0.35|
90865906|NCT03706079|181594644|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.96||||||||0.96|0.38|
90865907|NCT00329238|181594647|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Comparisons between treatment groups were performed using a Cox regression analysis with treatment and baseline stratification factor in the model.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.44||||0.0137||95.0|0.78|2.64||p-value for non-inferiority. The non-inferiority margin for the hazard ratio was chosen to be 2.85.|Regression, Cox|HR within cohort estimated by Cox regr. with treatment and baseline stratific. factor. Overall HR calc. by pooling with inverse variance weighting.|HR for time to first recurrent VTE or VTE death.|||2.64|0.78|0.0137
90865908|NCT00329238|181594647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2424||||||p-value for superiority. If non-inferiority could be established for HR and for the risk difference, the upper bound of the 95% CI for the hazard ratio was then compared with 1 to evaluate the superiority claim of dabigatran over warfarin.|Regression, Cox|||||||0.2424
90865909|NCT00329238|181594648|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Comparisons between treatment groups were performed using a Cox regression analysis with treatment and baseline stratification factor in the model.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.38|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.5|1.25||p-value for non-inferiority. The non-inferiority margin for the risk difference was chosen to be 2.80.|Regression, Cox|Risk difference for time to first recurrent VTE/VTE death is calculated based on weighted KM estimates across the cohorts via meta-analysis approach.||||1.25|-0.50|<0.0001
90865910|NCT00329238|181594648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4013||||||p-value for superiority. If non-inferiority could be established for HR and for the risk difference, the upper bound of the 95% CI for the risk difference was then compared with 0 to evaluate the superiority claim of dabigatran over warfarin.|Kaplan-Meier|||||||0.4013
90865911|NCT00329238|181594649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18||||0.4732||95.0|0.75|1.84|||Regression, Cox|Hazard ratio estimated using the Cox regression with treatment, cohort, baseline stratification factors and their interaction.|HR for time to first centrally adjudicated recurrent VTE or all cause death.|||1.84|0.75|0.4732
90865912|NCT00329238|181594650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.09||||0.8876||95.0|-1.11|1.28|||Kaplan-Meier|Risk difference for the time to first centrally adjudicated recurrent VTE or all cause death at month 18.||Dabigatran versus Warfarin||1.28|-1.11|0.8876
90865913|NCT00329238|181594651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.32||||0.4548||95.0|0.64|2.71|||Regression, Cox|Hazard ratio estimated using the Cox regression with treatment, cohort, baseline stratification factors and their interaction.|HR for time to first centrally adjudicated recurrent symptomatic DVT|Dabigatran versus Warfarin||2.71|0.64|0.4548
90865914|NCT00329238|181594652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.19||||0.6563||95.0|-0.63|1.0|||Kaplan-Meier|Risk difference for the time to first centrally adjudicated recurrent symptomatic DVT at Month 18.||Dabigatran versus Warfarin||1.00|-0.63|0.6563
90909106|NCT00991276|181687509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-25.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.86|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.51|-20.17||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-20.17|-31.51|<0.0001
90940363|NCT00526097|181760489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for baseline||||||<0.0001
90865915|NCT00329238|181594653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.04||||0.1925||95.0|0.7|5.98|||Regression, Cox|Hazard ratio estimated using the Cox regression with treatment, cohort, baseline stratification factors and their interaction.|Hazard ratio for time to first centrally adjudicated recurrent symptomatic PE.|Dabigatran versus Warfarin||5.98|0.70|0.1925
90865916|NCT00329238|181594654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.26||||0.3723||95.0|-0.32|0.84|||Kaplan-Meier||Risk difference for the time to first centrally adjudicated recurrent symptomatic PE at Month 18|Dabigatran versus Warfarin||0.84|-0.32|0.3723
90865917|NCT00329238|181594655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.9921||95.0|0.06|16.22|||Regression, Cox|Hazard ratio estimated using the Cox regression with treatment, cohort, baseline stratification factors and their interaction.|Hazard ratio for time to deaths related to VTE.|Dabigatran versus Warfarin||16.22|0.06|0.9921
90865918|NCT00329238|181594656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.01||||0.9204||95.0|-0.2|0.23|||Kaplan-Meier|Risk difference for the time to deaths related to VTE at Month 18.||Dabigatran versus Warfarin||0.23|-0.20|0.9204
90865919|NCT00329238|181594657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.7405||95.0|0.47|1.72|||Regression, Cox|Hazard ratio estimated using the Cox regression with treatment, cohort, baseline stratification factors and their interaction.|Hazard ratio for time to all deaths|Dabigatran versus Warfarin||1.72|0.47|0.7405
90865920|NCT00329238|181594658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.02||||0.9622||95.0|-0.89|0.84|||Kaplan-Meier|Risk difference for the time to all deaths at Month 18.||Dabigatran versus Warfarin||0.84|-0.89|0.9622
90940364|NCT00526097|181760490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for baseline||||||<0.0001
90940365|NCT00526097|181760491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for baseline||||||<0.0001
90940366|NCT00526097|181760492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for baseline||||||<0.0001
90940367|NCT00526097|181760493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for baseline||||||<0.0001
90940368|NCT00526097|181760494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for baseline||||||<0.0001
90940369|NCT00526097|181760495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for baseline||||||<0.0001
90940370|NCT00526097|181760496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for baseline||||||<0.0001
90909107|NCT00991276|181687510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-14.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.19|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.84|-8.22||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-8.22|-20.84|<0.0001
91033201|NCT01045096|181952243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.809||90.0|||||ANCOVA|||Sample size of 12 participants per dose group, along with the intense PK sampling in each regimen was needed for characterization of the PK profile. An analysis of variance with covariates (ANCOVA) model with weight as a covariate and regimen as a factor were fitted to Tmax. Pairwise comparisons between regimens were conducted.||||0.809
90865921|NCT00329238|181594659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52||||0.0577||95.0|0.27|1.02|||Regression, Cox||This is the analysis of the time to the first MBE.|Hazard ratio estimated using the Cox regression with treatment, cohort, baseline stratification factors (including active cancer at baseline and symptomatic PE as qualifying event) and their interaction.||1.02|0.27|0.0577
90865922|NCT00329238|181594659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.83|||Regression, Cox||This is the analysis of the time to the first occurrence of any bleeding event.|Hazard ratio estimated using the Cox regression with treatment, cohort, baseline stratification factors (including active cancer at baseline and symptomatic PE as qualifying event) and their interaction.||0.83|0.61|<0.0001
90909108|NCT00991276|181687510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|14.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.18|20.67||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||20.67|8.18|<0.0001
90940371|NCT00526097|181760497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for baseline||||||<0.0001
90865923|NCT00801632|181594662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of Participants|60.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.7|94.7|||||Clopper-Pearson used to derive confidence interval|||94.7|14.7|
90865924|NCT00801632|181594664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.215|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value based on a paired t-test comparing baseline creatinine level with the level at study completion/participant termination.|t-test, 2 sided|The test describes whether the average of the difference is different from zero.||||||0.215
90940372|NCT00526097|181760498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6773|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for baseline||||||0.6773
90940373|NCT00526097|181760499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for baseline||||||0.0002
90940374|NCT00526097|181760500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for baseline||||||0.0001
90940375|NCT00526097|181760501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for baseline||||||0.0005
90940376|NCT00526097|181760502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Exact p-value|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||<0.0001
90940377|NCT00526097|181760503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Exact p-value|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||<0.0001
90865925|NCT00959764|181594673|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Assumed placebo-adjusted effect for both active treatment groups (% increase in BMD)was 1.56% and that the placebo adjusted effect for the rsCT tablets must be at least 0.5 times the placebo adjusted effect for the calcitonin nasal spray (active control treatment group). The null hypothesis to be tested was:~\[Mean(oral) - Mean(placebo)\] - 0.5 x \[Mean(nasal) - Mean(placebo)\] \< 0. Reference Pigeot, et al. 2003"|Mean Difference (Net)|0.77|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.5||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|1.45||The P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|ANCOVA|||The overall analysis across groups was an Analysis of Covariance where the study was powered to 80% with an assumption of a standard deviation of 2.5% and a two-sided 5% level of significance. For each treatment group, the BMD at 48 weeks was compared with the BMD at baseline and a % increase was calculated (baseline = 0%). This difference was subjected to the t-test. Two-sided P-value is less than or equal to 0.05 and was not adjusted as multiple comparisons were not done.||1.45|0.08|0.002
90909109|NCT00991276|181687510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-28.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.16|-22.74||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-22.74|-35.16|<0.0001
90909110|NCT00991276|181687511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-2.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.93|-1.8||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-1.80|-3.93|<0.0001
90940378|NCT00526097|181760504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Exact p-value|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||<0.0001
90865926|NCT00959764|181594674|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Same as for Primary Outcome|Mean Difference (Net)|-21.84|STANDARD_DEVIATION|41.99||0.0006||||||P-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for significance was 0.05|ANCOVA|95% confidence interval not calculated||Same as for Primary Outcome||||0.0006
90865927|NCT00959764|181594675|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Same as Primary Outcome|Mean Difference (Net)|-18.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|47.53||0.0012||||||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|ANCOVA||oral calcitonin vs placebo|Same as Primary Outcome||||0.0012
90865928|NCT02284516|181594688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Effect|7.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.096|=|0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.04|11.28||The primary analysis was performed using a stratified 2-sample t-test (that is, analysis of variance \[ANOVA\]).|ANOVA|||||11.28|3.04|=0.0007
90865929|NCT02284516|181594689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Effect|7.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.792|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.33|11.37||The primary analysis was performed using a stratified 2-sample t-test (that is, analysis of variance \[ANOVA\]).|ANOVA|||Baseline and Day 14||11.37|4.33|<0.0001
90865930|NCT02284516|181594689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Effect|9.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.976|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.44|13.2||The primary analysis was performed using a stratified 2-sample t-test (that is, analysis of variance \[ANOVA\]).|ANOVA|||Baseline and Day 42||13.20|5.44|<0.0001
90865931|NCT00864383|181594692|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was defined as a between-group difference of less than 6 percentage points in the upper boundary of the two-sided 97.5% Wald confidence interval for the difference in proportion of patients with an unfavorable outcome.|Adjusted difference in proportions|6.1|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.7|10.5|||||Adjusted difference from control in proportion of unfavorable outcome - percentage points|||10.5|1.7|
90865932|NCT00864383|181594692|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was defined as a between-group difference of less than 6 percentage points in the upper boundary of the two-sided 97.5% Wald confidence interval for the proportion of patients with an unfavorable outcome.|Adjusted difference from control|11.4|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|6.7|16.1|||||Adjusted difference from control in rate of unfavorable outcome- percentage points|||16.1|6.7|
90865933|NCT00191139|181594771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||survival rate|40.6||||||95.0|23.8|56.8|||normal approximation|Count the number of surviving participants at each time interval to get survival rates.||||56.8|23.8|
90865934|NCT00191139|181594771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||survival rate|55.7||||||95.0|36.8|70.9|||normal approximation|Count the number of surviving participants at each time interval to get survival rates.||||70.9|36.8|
90865935|NCT00191139|181594772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response Rate|75.0||||||95.0|56.6|88.5|||normal approximation|||||88.5|56.6|
90865936|NCT00191139|181594772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response rate|84.4||||||95.0|67.2|94.7|||Normal approximation|||||94.7|67.2|
90865937|NCT00191139|181594773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.08
90865938|NCT00191139|181594774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.38
90865939|NCT01211730|181594776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.709|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.709
90865940|NCT01211730|181594777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.003
90865941|NCT01211730|181594778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0046|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.0046
90865942|NCT01211730|181594779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.75
90865943|NCT01211730|181594780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.56|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.56
90865944|NCT01211730|181594781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.77
90940379|NCT00526097|181760505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0058||||||Exact p-value|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.0058
90909111|NCT00991276|181687511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-4.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.76|-3.65||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-3.65|-5.76|<0.0001
90909112|NCT00991276|181687511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.89||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||2.89|0.79|0.0007
90909113|NCT00991276|181687512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-2.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.0617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.02|0.12||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||0.12|-5.02|0.0617
90909114|NCT00991276|181687512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-6.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.91|-3.8||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-3.80|-8.91|<0.0001
90960181|NCT01315353|181800487|OTHER|||||||1||||||"P-value for the week 26 comparison.~The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance used for the two-sided test was 0.05."|Fisher Exact|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm A and Arm B with respect to the proportion of participants with hr-HPV at week 26.||||1.000
90960182|NCT02186847|181800527|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||0.7563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.73|||Log Rank|One-sided significance level = 0.10|Reference level = Chemoradiation|The study was powered to detect an improvement of the 1-year progression-free survival rate from 50% (no metformin) to 65% (metformin) or equivalently a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.622, at one-sided type 1 error of 0.1 and 85% power with at least 102 progression-free survival events.||1.73|0.77|0.7563
90909115|NCT00991276|181687512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.28||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|6.44||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||6.44|1.37|0.0028
90909116|NCT00991276|181687513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|-0.21||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-0.21|-1.17|0.0056
90909117|NCT00991276|181687513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.95||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-0.95|-1.90|<0.0001
90960183|NCT02186847|181800528|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.68|||Log Rank|Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Reference level = Chemoradiation|||1.68|0.64|0.8910
90960184|NCT02186847|181800529|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.29||||0.4075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.34|||Log Rank|Two-side significance level = 0.05|Reference level = Chemoradiation|||2.34|0.71|0.4075
90960185|NCT02186847|181800530|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.29||||0.4075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.34|||Log Rank|Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Reference level = Chemoradiation|||2.34|0.71|0.4075
90960186|NCT02186847|181800531|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.6266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.8|||Chi-squared|Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Reference level = Chemoradiation|||1.80|0.47|0.6266
90960187|NCT03319849|181800535|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.049|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0206||0.0186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.089|-0.0082|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.0082|-0.0890|0.0186
90960188|NCT00112047|181800547|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assuming 70% response rate for each group at Week 48, 500 participants (250 per group) were sufficient to achieve at least 85% power to establish non-inferiority between the 2 study groups with a delta of 13%. The definition of clinical non-inferiority used a 'delta' of 0.13 (response rate was expressed as a decimal-valued number between 0 and 1). The EFV+FTC+TDF group was declared non-inferior to the CBV+EFV group if the lower confidence bound was \> -0.13.|Difference in percentages|11.4||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|18.6||The difference and 95% CI are stratum-weighted on baseline CD4 using normal approximation. The p-value for the superiority test is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenzel test stratified on baseline CD4 cell count.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|No other adjustments were made.||"Null Hypothesis: the percentage of responders (who achieved and maintained confirmed HIV-1 RNA \< 400 c/mL \[defined by the TLOVR algorithm\]) through Week 48 in the EFV+FTC+TDF group is more than 13% worse than in the CBV+EFV group.~Alternative Hypothesis: the percentage of responders who achieved and maintained confirmed HIV-1 RNA \< 400 c/mL \[defined by the TLOVR algorithm\]) through Week 48 in the EFV+FTC+TDF group is no more than 13% worse than in the CBV+EFV group."||18.6|4.3|0.002
90960189|NCT00112047|181800548|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The definition of clinical non-inferiority used a 'delta' of 0.13 (response rate was expressed as a decimal-valued number between 0 and 1). The EFV+FTC+TDF group was declared non-inferior to the CBV+EFV group if the lower confidence bound was \> -0.13.|Difference in percentages|9.1||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|16.6||The difference and 95% CI are stratum-weighted on baseline CD4 using normal approximation. The p-value for the superiority test is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenzel test stratified on baseline CD4 cell count.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|No other adjustments were made.||"Null Hypothesis: the percentage of responders (who achieved and maintained confirmed HIV-1 RNA \< 50 c/mL \[defined by the TLOVR algorithm\]) through Week 48 in the EFV+FTC+TDF group is more than 13% worse than in the CBV+EFV group.~Alternative Hypothesis: the percentage of responders who achieved and maintained confirmed HIV-1 RNA \< 50 c/mL \[defined by the TLOVR algorithm\]) through Week 48 in the EFV+FTC+TDF group is no more than 13% worse than in the CBV+EFV group."||16.6|1.6|0.021
90865945|NCT02465515|181594782|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was determined by testing the hypothesis that the observed hazard ratio is significantly different from the null margin of 1.3 (a one-sided p \<0.025 for such a test with result in appropriate direction being equivalent to the upper 95% confidence limit for the hazard ratio being less than 1.3)|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.9||One-sided p-value based on Wald test of hazard ratio (HR) \>=1.3 versus HR \<1.3.|Wald test||Hazard ratio is estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment as the only covariate|||0.90|0.68|<0.0001
90865946|NCT02465515|181594782|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Two-sided p-value based on Wald test of HR=1 versus HR not equal to 1|Wald test|||||||<0.001
90865947|NCT02465515|181594783|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.9||Two-sided p-value based on the Wald statistic.|Wald statistic||Hazard ratio is estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment as the only covariate.|||0.90|0.69|<0.001
90865948|NCT02465515|181594784|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.19||Two-sided p-value based on the Wald statistic|Wald statistic||Hazard ratio is estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment as the only covariate|||1.19|0.73|0.578
90865949|NCT02465515|181594785|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.9||Two-sided p-value based on the Wald statistic.|Wald statistic||Hazard ratio is estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment as the only covariate.|||0.90|0.61|0.003
90865950|NCT02465515|181594786|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.14||Two-sided p-value based on the Wald statistic.|Wald statistic||Hazard ratio is estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment as the only covariate.|||1.14|0.66|0.300
90865951|NCT02465515|181594787|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.04||Two-sided p-value based on the Wald statistic.|Wald statistic||Hazard ratio is estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment as the only covariate.|||1.04|0.70|0.113
90970976|NCT01187953|181824223|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|It was assumed that both treatment groups in this study would have a 15% 12-month treatment failure rate, the study will require 270 patients per group to have 90% power to reject the null hypothesis that the investigational drug, LCP-tacro, is inferior to the reference drug, Prograf, based on a 2-sided 95% CI for the difference and a 0.10 non-inferiority margin.||||||0.383|TWO_SIDED|||||Endpoint: Lost to follow up|Fisher Exact|||No overall p value was calculated, only individual p values for each endpoint category. One statistical analysis table is reported for each individual p value.||||0.383
90865952|NCT02465515|181594788|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.53||Two-sided p-value based on Wald test of HR=1 versus HR not equal to 1.|Wald test||Hazard ratio is estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment as the only covariate.|||0.53|0.33|<0.001
90865953|NCT02465515|181594789|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.99||Two-sided p-value based on Wald test of HR=1 versus HR not equal to 1.|Wald test||Hazard ratio is estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment as the only covariate.|||0.99|0.51|0.043
90865954|NCT02465515|181594790|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value based on the covariate-adjusted extended Mantel-Haenszel test. Covariates include Baseline HbA1c (\<8.0% versus \>= 8.0%) and Baseline diabetes therapy (diet and exercise alone versus all other therapies).|Mantel Haenszel|Month 8||||||<0.001
90865955|NCT02465515|181594790|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value based on the covariate-adjusted extended Mantel-Haenszel test. Covariates include Baseline HbA1c (\<8.0% versus \>= 8.0%) and Baseline diabetes therapy (diet and exercise alone versus all other therapies).|Mantel Haenszel|Month 16||||||<0.001
90865956|NCT02465515|181594790|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value based on the covariate-adjusted extended Mantel-Haenszel test. Covariates include Baseline HbA1c (\<8.0% versus \>= 8.0%) and Baseline diabetes therapy (diet and exercise alone versus all other therapies).|Mantel Haenszel|Month 24||||||<0.001
90865957|NCT02465515|181594790|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value based on the covariate-adjusted extended Mantel-Haenszel test. Covariates include Baseline HbA1c (\<8.0% versus \>= 8.0%) and Baseline diabetes therapy (diet and exercise alone versus all other therapies).|Mantel Haenszel|Final assessment||||||<0.001
90865958|NCT02465515|181594791|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.01||Two-sided p-value based on Wald test of HR=1 versus HR not equal to 1|Wald test||Hazard ratio is estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment as the only covariate.|||1.01|0.43|0.055
90865959|NCT02465515|181594792|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.58||P-value from a two-sided t-test to test whether the difference of least square means (Albiglutide - Placebo) is equal to zero|t-test, 2 sided||Based on MMRM model: Change=Baseline HbA1c+Treatment+Visit+Treatment-by-Visit Interaction+Baseline HbA1c-by-Visit Interaction. Difference of least squares means (Albiglutide-Placebo) is from MMRM model for Month 8|||-0.58|-0.69|<0.001
90865960|NCT02465515|181594792|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|-0.45||P-value from a two-sided t-test to test whether the difference of least square means (Albiglutide - Placebo) is equal to zero|t-test, 2 sided||Based on MMRM model: Change=Baseline HbA1c+Treatment+Visit+Treatment-by-Visit Interaction+Baseline HbA1c-by-Visit Interaction. Difference of least squares means (Albiglutide-Placebo) is from MMRM model for Month 16|||-0.45|-0.58|<0.001
90865961|NCT02465515|181594793|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.49||P-value from a two-sided t-test to test whether the difference of least square means (Albiglutide-Placebo) is equal to zero|t-test, 2 sided||Based on MMRM model: Change=Baseline Body Weight+Treatment+Visit+Treatment-by-Visit Interaction+Baseline Body Weight-by-Visit Interaction. Difference of least squares means (Albiglutide-Placebo) is from MMRM model for Month 8|||-0.49|-0.83|<0.001
90865962|NCT02465515|181594793|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.6||P-value from a two-sided t-test to test whether the difference of least square means (Albiglutide - Placebo) is equal to zero|t-test, 2 sided||Based on MMRM model: Change=Baseline Body Weight+Treatment+Visit+Treatment-by-Visit Interaction+Baseline Body weight-by-Visit Interaction. Difference of least squares means (Albiglutide-Placebo) is from MMRM model for Month 16|||-0.60|-1.06|<0.001
90865963|NCT02465515|181594794|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.85|2.93||P-value from a two-sided t-test to test whether the difference of least square means (Albiglutide - Placebo) is equal to zero.|t-test, 2 sided||Based on MMRM model: Change=Baseline Total Score+Treatment+Visit+Treatment-by-Visit Interaction+Baseline Total Score-by-Visit Interaction. Difference of least squares means (Albiglutide-Placebo) is from MMRM model for Month 8|||2.93|1.85|<0.001
90909118|NCT00991276|181687513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.21||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||1.21|0.26|0.0026
90940380|NCT00526097|181760506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.01||0.798||95.0|-3.4|4.5||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||4.5|-3.4|0.7980
90865964|NCT02465515|181594794|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|3.01||P-value from a two-sided t-test to test whether the difference of least square means (Albiglutide-Placebo) is equal to zero|t-test, 2 sided||Based on MMRM model: Change=Baseline Total Score+Treatment+Visit+Treatment-by-Visit Interaction+Baseline Total Score-by-Visit Interaction. Difference of least squares means (Albiglutide-Placebo) is from MMRM model for Month 16|||3.01|1.66|<0.001
90909119|NCT00991276|181687514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.01|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|-4.09||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-4.09|-8.10|<0.0001
90970977|NCT03449095|181824224|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The reported p-value was calculated, and is not attempting to indicate the threshold for statistical significance.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91033202|NCT01045096|181952244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Dose Proportionality Point Estimate|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.66|2.183|||ANCOVA|||Sample size of 12 participants per dose group, along with the intense PK sampling in each regimen was needed for characterization of the PK profile. An ANCOVA model with weight as a covariate and regimen as a factor were fitted to dose-normalized Cmax. Pairwise comparisons between regimens were conducted.||2.183|0.660|
91033203|NCT01045096|181952244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Dose proportionality Point Estimate|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.463|2.427|||ANCOVA|||Sample size of 12 participants per dose group, along with the intense PK sampling in each regimen was needed for characterization of the PK profile. An ANCOVA model with weight as a covariate and regimen as a factor were fitted to dose-normalized Cmax. Pairwise comparisons between regimens were conducted.||2.427|0.463|
91033204|NCT01045096|181952244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Dose Proportionality Point Estimate|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.493|1.579|||ANCOVA|||Sample size of 12 participants per dose group, along with the intense PK sampling in each regimen was needed for characterization of the PK profile. An ANCOVA model with weight as a covariate and regimen as a factor were fitted to dose-normalized Cmax. Pairwise comparisons between regimens were conducted.||1.579|0.493|
90865965|NCT02465515|181594795|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|2.07||P-value from a two-sided t-test to test whether the difference of least square means (Albiglutide-Placebo) is equal to zero.|t-test, 2 sided||Based on MMRM model: Change=Baseline Score+Treatment+Visit+Treatment-by-Visit Interaction+Baseline Score-by-Visit Interaction. Difference of least squares means (Albiglutide-Placebo) is from MMRM model for Month 8.|||2.07|0.87|<0.001
90865966|NCT02465515|181594795|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.52||||0.192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|1.31||P-value from a two-sided t-test to test whether the difference of least square means (Albiglutide - Placebo) is equal to zero|t-test, 2 sided||Based on MMRM model: Change=Baseline Score+Treatment+Visit+Treatment-by-Visit Interaction+Baseline Score-by-Visit Interaction. Difference of least squares means (Albiglutide - Placebo) is from MMRM model for Month 16|||1.31|-0.26|0.192
90865967|NCT02465515|181594796|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.16||Two-sided p-value based on Wald test of HR=1 versus HR not equal to 1.|Wald test||Hazard ratio is estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment as the only covariate.|||1.16|0.79|0.644
90865968|NCT02465515|181594800|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.11||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|-0.39||P-value from a two-sided t-test to test whether the difference of least square means (Albiglutide-Placebo) is equal to zero.|t-test, 2 sided||Based on MMRM model: Change=Baseline eGFR+Treatment+Visit+Treatment-by-Visit Interaction+Baseline eGFR-by-Visit Interaction. Difference of least squares means (Albiglutide-Placebo) is from MMRM model for Month 8.|||-0.39|-1.84|0.003
90865969|NCT02465515|181594800|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.43||||0.315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|0.41||P-value from a two-sided t-test to test whether the difference of least square means (Albiglutide-Placebo) is equal to zero|t-test, 2 sided||Based on MMRM model: Change=Baseline eGFR+Treatment+Visit+Treatment-by-Visit Interaction+Baseline eGFR-by-Visit Interaction. Difference of least squares means (Albiglutide-Placebo) is from MMRM model for Month 16.|||0.41|-1.26|0.315
90865970|NCT02957305|181594836|NON_INFERIORITY|400µg of misoprostol yields a 96% cervical dilation \> 8 mm. We considered 86% of the 200 µg misoprostol group as the minimal acceptable percentage. The non-inferiority margin was determined by 24.46.|treatment difference|25.0||||0.025|ONE_SIDED|95.0||97.5||The null hypothesis: percentage of dilation with 400µg ≥ percentage of dilation with 200µg + 25% Alternative hypothesis: percentage of dilation with 400µg - 25% \< percentage of dilation with 200µg|difference between proportions|difference between percentages and 95% confidence interval||If there is a true difference in favour of the standard treatment of 10% (96% vs 86%), then 184 patients are required to be 95% sure that the upper limit of a one-sided 97.5% confidence interval (or equivalently a 95% two-sided confidence interval) will exclude a difference in favour of the standard group of more than 25%||97.5||0.025
90909120|NCT00991276|181687514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-3.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.01||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.07|-1.07||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-1.07|-5.07|0.0029
90909121|NCT00991276|181687514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-3.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.01||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.02|-1.04||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-1.04|-5.02|0.0032
90909122|NCT00991276|181687516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|10.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.71||0.1677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.56|25.95||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||25.95|-4.56|0.1677
90909123|NCT00991276|181687516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-35.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.63|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.88|-20.66||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-20.66|-50.88|<0.0001
90960190|NCT00112047|181800549|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The definition of clinical non-inferiority used a 'delta' of 0.13 (response rate was expressed as a decimal-valued number between 0 and 1). The EFV+FTC+TDF group was declared non-inferior to the CBV+EFV group if the lower confidence bound was \> -0.13.|Difference in percentages|11.2||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|18.6||The difference and 95% CI are stratum-weighted on baseline CD4 using normal approximation. The p-value for the superiority test is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenzel test stratified on baseline CD4 cell count.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|No other adjustments were made||Null hypothesis: The percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 400 c/mL at Week 48 in the EFV+FTC+TDF group is more than 13% worse than the CBV+EFV group. Alternative hypothesis: The percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 400 c/mL at Week 48 in the EFV+FTC+TDF group is no more than 13% worse than the CBV+EFV group.||18.6|3.7|0.004
90909124|NCT00991276|181687516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|46.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.59|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.45|61.48||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||61.48|31.45|<0.0001
90909125|NCT00991276|181687517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-7.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.72||0.104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.07|1.61||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||1.61|-17.07|0.1040
90909126|NCT00991276|181687517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.68||0.9325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.67|8.87||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||8.87|-9.67|0.9325
90909127|NCT00991276|181687517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-7.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.65||0.1175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.54|1.87||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||1.87|-16.54|0.1175
90909128|NCT00991276|181687518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-23.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.45|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.78|-15.18||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-15.18|-32.78|<0.0001
90909129|NCT00991276|181687518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-24.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.41|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.46|-16.02||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-16.02|-33.46|<0.0001
90909130|NCT00991276|181687518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.38||0.8622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|9.43||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||9.43|-7.90|0.8622
90960191|NCT00112047|181800550|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The definition of clinical non-inferiority used a 'delta' of 0.13 (response rate was expressed as a decimal-valued number between 0 and 1). The EFV+FTC+TDF group was declared non-inferior to the CBV+EFV group if the lower confidence bound was \> -0.13.|Difference in percentages|7.9||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|15.6||The difference and 95% CI are stratum-weighted on baseline CD4 using normal approximation. The p-value for the superiority test is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenzel test stratified on baseline CD4 cell count.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|No other adjustments were made.||Null hypothesis: The percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 50 c/mL at Week 48 in the EFV+FTC+TDF group is more than 13% worse than the CBV+EFV group. Alternative hypothesis: The percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 50 c/mL at Week 48 in the EFV+FTC+TDF group is no more than 13% worse than the CBV+EFV group.||15.6|0.1|0.058
90909131|NCT00991276|181687519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.87||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|0.4||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||0.40|-7.00|0.0800
90909132|NCT00991276|181687519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-2.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86||0.2209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.95|1.39||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||1.39|-5.95|0.2209
90909133|NCT00991276|181687519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.84||0.5815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.66|2.63||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||2.63|-4.66|0.5815
90865971|NCT02957305|181594836|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin was determined by ⅓ of the difference between the 400µg effect (96.7%), compared to the 200 µg dose (23.3%), i.e. 73.4 / 3 = 24.46%|Difference between proportions|0.1146||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.037|0.192|||Chi-squared||The difference between both groups was 11.5% (95%CI = 3.7% to 19.2%)|||0.192|0.037|0.004
90865972|NCT02957305|181594838|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0|0|0.9
90865973|NCT01749137|181594843|SUPERIORITY|P-value from a mixed-effects analysis of covariance model with treatment, visit and visit-by-treatment interaction as factors, baseline weight as a covariate, and participant as the random effect.|Treatment Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.27|0.04|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||0.04|-2.27|0.059
90865974|NCT01749137|181594844|SUPERIORITY|P-value from a mixed-effects analysis of covariance model with treatment, visit and visit-by-treatment interaction as factors, baseline weight as a covariate, and participant as the random effect.|Treatment Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|0.14|||MMRM|||||0.14|-2.48|0.079
90865975|NCT01749137|181594845|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.513||||||P-values from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, controlling for site and the stratification factor severely obese (yes/no).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.513
90865976|NCT01749137|181594853|SUPERIORITY|P-value from a mixed-effects analysis of covariance model with treatment, visit and visit-by-treatment interaction as factors, baseline weight as a covariate, and participant as the random effect.|Treatment Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.98|||MMRM|||||0.98|-2.50|0.387
90865977|NCT01749137|181594854|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-values from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, controlling for site.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||1.000
90865978|NCT03130257|181594873|EQUIVALENCE|The study planned for a sample size of 510 and 80% protocol completion, resulting in sample size 136 per group. With this sample size, the least detectable difference (LDD) is 4.1 mmHg systolic BP (SBP) and 2.8 mmHg diastolic BP (DBP) between any two groups (assuming Standard Deviation 12.1 and 8.3 for SBP and DBP respectively). Actual sample sizes completing protocol were 142, 149, and 111 for Clinic, Home, and Kiosk groups respectively, resulting in LDD of at least 4.3 for SBP and 3.0 for DBP.|||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||We used linear regression models to estimate the mean difference in BP between diagnostic measurement and daytime average 24-hr BP for each randomization group. Models were estimated using generalized estimating equations with robust standard errors, and adjusted for age, sex, BMI, education, and baseline systolic and diastolic BP. Separate models estimated mean differences (diagnostic protocol - 24-hr BP) between groups for systolic and diastolic BP.||||<0.05
90909134|NCT00991276|181687520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|32.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.41|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.02|43.42||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||43.42|22.02|<0.0001
90865979|NCT01751867|181594874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ORR %|29.4||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.1|47.5|||Exact binomial proportion test||ORR % = Number of participants who achieved response divided by total ITT participants|Null Hypothesis: threshold for statistical significance = 10%||47.5|15.1|0.003
90865980|NCT01751867|181594874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ORR %|25.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.2|35.3|||Exact binomial proportion test|||Null Hypothesis: threshold for statistical significance = 10%||35.3|17.2|<0.001
90865981|NCT02064894|181594883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.81
90909135|NCT00991276|181687520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|25.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.37|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.22|36.49||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||36.49|15.22|<0.0001
90970978|NCT03449095|181824225|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||The reported p-value was calculated, and is not attempting to indicate the threshold for statistical significance.|ANCOVA|||||||.001
90865982|NCT01976338|181594885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90865983|NCT02864498|181594910|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.557|||||||General Linear Model|||||||0.5570
90865984|NCT02864498|181594910|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8774|||||||General Linear Model|||||||0.8774
90865985|NCT01112865|181594919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6858|TWO_SIDED|||||Binomial test against the null hypothesis|binomial test|||Null hypothesis: percentage of participants preferring Genotropin Mark VII injection pen = 50%||||0.6858
90865986|NCT02197247|181594922|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|No effect on the PK of AZD9291 after co-administration of rifampicin was concluded if the lower bound of the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios (Period 2 versus Period 1) of AZD9291 AUCtau and Css,max were both above 50%. The experiment-wide power for the ratios being above 50% was 90% (95% power for each parameter).|Geometric least-squares (LS) mean ratio|27.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|24.36|30.29|||||AZD9291+rifampicin / AZD9291 alone (Period 2 versus Period 1).|Natural log-transformed Css,max values were compared between periods using a mixed effects analysis of variance (ANOVA) with period as fixed effect and patient as random effect. It was assumed the within-patient coefficient of variation for AZD9291 in both area under the plasma concentration-time curve during the dosing interval (AUCtau) and Cmax was 34%. A 33% decrease in exposure for AZD9291 when given with rifampicin was also assumed.||30.29|24.36|
90865987|NCT02197247|181594923|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|No effect on the PK of AZD9291 after co-administration of rifampicin was concluded if the lower bound of the 90% CIs for the ratios (Period 2 versus Period 1) of AZD9291 AUCtau and Css,max were both above 50%. The experiment-wide power for the ratios being above 50% was 90% (95% power for each parameter).|Geometric LS Mean Ratio|21.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|19.5|23.83|||||AZD9291+rifampicin / AZD9291 alone (Period 2 versus Period 1).|Natural log-transformed AUCtau values were compared between periods using a mixed effects ANOVA with period as fixed effect and patient as random effect. It was assumed the within-patient coefficient of variation for AZD9291 in both AUCtau and Cmax was 34%. A 33% decrease in exposure for AZD9291 when given with rifampicin was also assumed.||23.83|19.50|
90865988|NCT02197247|181594924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|95.53|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.27|107.03|||||AZD9291 alone / AZD9291 alone (Period 3 versus Period 1). No pre-specified margins for equivalence test for AZD9291 alone in separate periods, but analysed for consistency with AZD9291+rifampicin / AZD9291 alone analysis (primary outcome measure).|Natural log-transformed Css,max values were compared between periods using a mixed effects ANOVA with period as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect.||107.03|85.27|
90865989|NCT02197247|181594925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|21.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|19.08|24.72|||||AZD9291+rifampicin / AZD9291 alone (Period 2 versus Period 1). No pre-specified margins for equivalence test for metabolites, but analysed for consistency with AZD9291 analysis.|For AZ5104 (metabolite), natural log-transformed Css,max values were compared between periods using a mixed effects ANOVA with period as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect.||24.72|19.08|
90865990|NCT02197247|181594925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|88.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.17|101.07|||||AZD9291 alone / AZD9291 alone (Period 3 versus Period 1). No pre-specified margins for equivalence test for metabolites, but analysed for consistency with AZD9291 analysis.|For AZ5104 (metabolite), natural log-transformed Css,max values were compared between periods using a mixed effects ANOVA with period as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect.||101.07|77.17|
90865991|NCT02197247|181594926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|139.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|127.74|151.96|||||AZD9291+rifampicin / AZD9291 alone (Period 2 versus Period 1). No pre-specified margins for equivalence test for metabolites, but analysed for consistency with AZD9291 analysis.|For AZ7550 (metabolite), natural log-transformed Css,max values were compared between periods using a mixed effects ANOVA with period as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect.||151.96|127.74|
90865992|NCT02197247|181594926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|100.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.04|110.29|||||AZD9291 alone / AZD9291 alone (Period 3 versus Period 1). No pre-specified margins for equivalence test for metabolites, but analysed for consistency with AZD9291 analysis.|For AZ7550 (metabolite), natural log-transformed Css,max values were compared between periods using a mixed effects ANOVA with period as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect.||110.29|92.04|
90865993|NCT02197247|181594928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|95.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.37|106.45|||||AZD9291 alone / AZD9291 alone (Period 3 versus Period 1). No pre-specified margins for equivalence test for AZD9291 alone in separate periods, but analysed for consistency with AZD9291+rifampicin / AZD9291 alone analysis (primary outcome measure).|Natural log-transformed AUCtau values were compared between periods using a mixed effects ANOVA with period as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect.||106.45|86.37|
90970979|NCT01979523|181824338|OTHER|||||||0.74|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.74
90970980|NCT03657368|181824346|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.5||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.4|7.3|||Regression, Linear|||||7.3|-0.4|0.042
90865994|NCT02197247|181594929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|18.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|16.61|21.19|||||AZD9291+rifampicin / AZD9291 alone (Period 2 versus Period 1). No pre-specified margins for equivalence test for metabolites, but analysed for consistency with AZD9291 analysis.|For AZ5104 (metabolite), natural log-transformed AUCtau values were compared between periods using a mixed effects ANOVA with period as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect.||21.19|16.61|
90865995|NCT02197247|181594929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|90.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.34|102.27|||||AZD9291 alone / AZD9291 alone (Period 3 versus Period 1). No pre-specified margins for equivalence test for metabolites, but analysed for consistency with AZD9291 analysis.|For AZ5104 (metabolite), natural log-transformed AUCtau values were compared between periods using a mixed effects ANOVA with period as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect.||102.27|79.34|
90865996|NCT02197247|181594930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|129.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|119.14|141.44|||||AZD9291+rifampicin / AZD9291 alone (Period 2 versus Period 1). No pre-specified margins for equivalence test for metabolites, but analysed for consistency with AZD9291 analysis.|For AZ7550 (metabolite), natural log-transformed AUCtau values were compared between periods using a mixed effects ANOVA with period as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect.||141.44|119.14|
90865997|NCT02197247|181594930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|100.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.15|110.19|||||AZD9291 alone / AZD9291 alone (Period 3 versus Period 1). No pre-specified margins for equivalence test for metabolites, but analysed for consistency with AZD9291 analysis.|For AZ7550 (metabolite), natural log-transformed AUCtau values were compared between periods using a mixed effects ANOVA with period as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect.||110.19|92.15|
90865998|NCT01606007|181594940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1112|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.37||Primary endpoint was tested at alpha=0.05; significance was claimed only if Saxagliptin+Dapagliflozin+Metformin was superior to both Saxagliptin+Metformin and Dapagliflozin+Metformin.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.37|-0.81|<0.0001
90865999|NCT01606007|181594940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1108||0.0166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.05||Primary endpoint was tested at alpha=0.05; significance was claimed only if Saxagliptin+Dapagliflozin+Metformin was superior to both Saxagliptin+Metformin and Dapagliflozin+Metformin.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.05|-0.48|0.0166
90866000|NCT01606007|181594941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-44.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.914|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.7|-34.3||Each secondary endpoint was tested at alpha=0.05; significance was claimed only if Saxagliptin+Dapagliflozin+Metformin was superior to both Saxagliptin+Metformin and Dapagliflozin+Metformin.|ANCOVA|||LOCF||-34.3|-53.7|<0.0001
90866001|NCT01606007|181594941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.923||0.0639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.8|0.5||Each secondary endpoint was tested at alpha=0.05; significance testing stops at the endpoint where p-value\>0.05.|ANCOVA|||LOCF||0.5|-18.8|0.0639
90866002|NCT01606007|181594942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.988|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.6|-15.9|||||ANCOVA was applied for comparison, but p-value was not reported because at least one prior test in the hierarchical testing procedure yielded p-value\>0.05.|||-15.9|-31.6|
90866003|NCT01606007|181594942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.957|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|1.7|||||ANCOVA was applied for comparison, but p-value was not reported because at least one prior test in the hierarchical testing procedure yielded p-value\>0.05.|||1.7|-13.8|
90866004|NCT01606007|181594943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference in percentages|23.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.282|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.7|31.5|||||Modified Logistic Regression was applied for comparison, but p-value was not reported because at least one prior test in the hierarchical testing procedure yielded p-value\>0.05.|||31.5|14.7|
90940381|NCT00526097|181760507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.05||0.6129||95.0|-3.0|5.1||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||5.1|-3.0|0.6129
90866005|NCT01606007|181594943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference in percentages|19.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.587|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.1|28.1|||||Modified Logistic Regression was applied for comparison, but p-value was not reported because at least one prior test in the hierarchical testing procedure yielded p-value\>0.05.|||28.1|10.1|
90866006|NCT01606007|181594944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3451|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.73|-1.37|||||ANCOVA was applied for comparison, but p-value was not reported because at least one prior test in the hierarchical testing procedure yielded p-value\>0.05.|||-1.37|-2.73|
90866007|NCT02499783|181594961|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|30.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.2|41.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Crohn's disease severity (CDAI \<= 300 and CDAI \>300) at baseline and corticosteroid use at baseline.|Risk difference = (adalimumab 160/80 mg - placebo). Stratified by Crohn's disease severity (CDAI \<= 300 and CDAI \>300) at baseline and corticosteroid use at baseline.|||41.7|19.2|<0.001
90866008|NCT02499783|181594962|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference Compared to 30%|34.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.2|42.4|||One Sample Exact Test|The one sample Exact test was performed by comparing it to the clinically meaningful remission rate of 30%.||||42.4|26.2|< 0.001
90866009|NCT02499783|181594963|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|33.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.2|43.6||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by be stratified by Crohn's disease severity (CDAI \<= 300, \> 300) at Baseline and corticosteroid use at Baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab 160/80 mg - placebo). Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by be stratified by Crohn's disease severity (CDAI \<= 300, \> 300) at Baseline and corticosteroid use at Baseline.|||43.6|23.2|< 0.001
90866010|NCT02499783|181594967|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|40.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.7|54.2||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by be stratified by Crohn's disease severity (CDAI \<= 300, \> 300) at Baseline and corticosteroid use at Baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab 160/80 mg - placebo). Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by be stratified by Crohn's disease severity (CDAI \<= 300, \> 300) at Baseline and corticosteroid use at Baseline.|||54.2|26.7|< 0.001
90866011|NCT02499783|181594968|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|50.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.9|63.5||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by be stratified by Crohn's disease severity (CDAI \<= 300, \> 300) at Baseline and corticosteroid use at Baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab 160/80 mg - placebo). Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by be stratified by Crohn's disease severity (CDAI \<= 300, \> 300) at Baseline and corticosteroid use at Baseline.|||63.5|36.9|< 0.001
90866012|NCT02499783|181594969|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|27.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.2|37.0||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by be stratified by Crohn's disease severity (CDAI \<= 300, \> 300) at Baseline and corticosteroid use at Baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab 160/80 mg - placebo). Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by be stratified by Crohn's disease severity (CDAI \<= 300, \> 300) at Baseline and corticosteroid use at Baseline.|||37.0|18.2|< 0.001
90866013|NCT02499783|181594971|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|19.6||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.1|32.1||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by be stratified by Crohn's disease severity (CDAI \<= 300, \> 300) at Baseline and corticosteroid use at Baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab 160/80 mg - placebo). Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by be stratified by Crohn's disease severity (CDAI \<= 300, \> 300) at Baseline and corticosteroid use at Baseline.|||32.1|7.1|0.002
90866014|NCT02499783|181594973|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-385.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-598.81|-171.5||P-value for test of difference between adalimumab and placebo for mean change from Baseline using ANCOVA with Treatment, Crohn's disease severity (CDAI \<= 300, \> 300) at Baseline and corticosteroid use at Baseline, and Baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-171.50|-598.81|< 0.001
90866015|NCT02499783|181594974|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|9.8||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|15.8||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by be stratified by Crohn's disease severity (CDAI \<= 300, \> 300) at Baseline and corticosteroid use at Baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab 160/80 mg - placebo). Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by be stratified by Crohn's disease severity (CDAI \<= 300, \> 300) at Baseline and corticosteroid use at Baseline.|||15.8|3.9|0.001
90866016|NCT02499783|181594976|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|18.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.2|28.6||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Crohn's disease severity (CDAI \<= 300 and CDAI \>300) at baseline and corticosteroid use at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab 160/80 mg - placebo). Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Crohn's disease severity (CDAI \<= 300 and CDAI \>300) at baseline and corticosteroid use at baseline.|Clinical Remission at Week 2||28.6|8.2|< 0.001
90866017|NCT02499783|181594976|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|30.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.2|41.7||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Crohn's disease severity (CDAI \<= 300 and CDAI \>300) at baseline and corticosteroid use at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab 160/80 mg - placebo). Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Crohn's disease severity (CDAI \<= 300 and CDAI \>300) at baseline and corticosteroid use at baseline.|Clinical Remission at Week 4||41.7|19.2|< 0.001
90866018|NCT02499783|181594978|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|21.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.6|30.2||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Crohn's disease severity (CDAI \<= 300 and CDAI \>300) at baseline and corticosteroid use at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab 160/80 mg - placebo). Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Crohn's disease severity (CDAI \<= 300 and CDAI \>300) at baseline and corticosteroid use at baseline.|Clinical Remission (CDAI \< 150) Plus A Reduction in HS-CRP of at Least 50% From Baseline at Week 2||30.2|12.6|< 0.001
90866019|NCT02499783|181594978|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|33.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.2|43.6||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Crohn's disease severity (CDAI \<= 300 and CDAI \>300) at baseline and corticosteroid use at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab 160/80 mg - placebo). Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Crohn's disease severity (CDAI \<= 300 and CDAI \>300) at baseline and corticosteroid use at baseline.|Clinical Remission (CDAI \< 150) Plus A Reduction in HS-CRP of at Least 50% From Baseline at Week 4||43.6|23.2|< 0.001
90866020|NCT02499783|181594980|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|21.7||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.7|34.6||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Crohn's disease severity (CDAI \<= 300 and CDAI \>300) at baseline and corticosteroid use at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab 160/80 mg - placebo). Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Crohn's disease severity (CDAI \<= 300 and CDAI \>300) at baseline and corticosteroid use at baseline.|Clinical Response (Decrease in CDAI ≥ 70 Points From Baseline) at Week 2||34.6|8.7|0.001
90866021|NCT02499783|181594980|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|40.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.7|54.2||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Crohn's disease severity (CDAI \<= 300 and CDAI \>300) at baseline and corticosteroid use at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab 160/80 mg - placebo). Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Crohn's disease severity (CDAI \<= 300 and CDAI \>300) at baseline and corticosteroid use at baseline.|Clinical Response (Decrease in CDAI ≥ 70 Points From Baseline) at Week 4||54.2|26.7|< 0.001
90970981|NCT03657368|181824346|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.966|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.9|3.7|||Regression, Linear|||||3.7|-3.9|0.966
90909136|NCT00991276|181687520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|6.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.33||0.2005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.69|17.42||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||17.42|-3.69|0.2005
90909137|NCT00991276|181687521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.57|9.02||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||9.02|4.57|<0.0001
90909138|NCT00991276|181687521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|5.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.02|7.45||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||7.45|3.02|<0.0001
90909139|NCT00991276|181687521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.1622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|3.75||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||3.75|-0.64|0.1622
90909140|NCT00991276|181687528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|-0.47||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-0.47|-1.18|<0.0001
90909141|NCT00991276|181687528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|-0.6||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-0.60|-1.31|<0.0001
90909142|NCT00991276|181687528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.4677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.48||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||0.48|-0.22|0.4677
90909143|NCT00991276|181687529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-25.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.31|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.83|-14.8||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-14.80|-35.83|<0.0001
90909144|NCT00991276|181687529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-28.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.27|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.89|-18.02||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-18.02|-38.89|<0.0001
90909145|NCT00991276|181687529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|3.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.19||0.5461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.13|13.4||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||13.40|-7.13|0.5461
90970982|NCT03657368|181824347|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.519|TWO_SIDED|99.2|0.68|1.27|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.27|0.68|0.519
90866022|NCT02499783|181594982|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|31.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.6|43.2||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Crohn's disease severity (CDAI \<= 300 and CDAI \>300) at baseline and corticosteroid use at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab 160/80 mg - placebo). Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Crohn's disease severity (CDAI \<= 300 and CDAI \>300) at baseline and corticosteroid use at baseline.|Decrease in CDAI ≥ 70 Points From Baseline Plus a Reduction in Hs-CRP of at Least 30% From Baseline at Week 2||43.2|19.6|< 0.001
90866023|NCT02499783|181594982|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|50.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.9|63.5||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Crohn's disease severity (CDAI \<= 300 and CDAI \>300) at baseline and corticosteroid use at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab 160/80 mg - placebo). Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Crohn's disease severity (CDAI \<= 300 and CDAI \>300) at baseline and corticosteroid use at baseline.|Decrease in CDAI ≥ 70 Points From Baseline Plus a Reduction in Hs-CRP of at Least 30% From Baseline at Week 4||63.5|36.9|< 0.001
90866024|NCT02499783|181594984|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-43.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.39|-27.3||P-value for test of difference between adalimumab and placebo for mean change from Baseline using ANCOVA with Treatment, Crohn's disease severity (CDAI \<= 300, \> 300) at Baseline and corticosteroid use at Baseline, and Baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change From Baseline in CDAI at Week 2||-27.30|-59.39|< 0.001
90866025|NCT02499783|181594984|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-66.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.2|-49.06||P-value for test of difference between adalimumab and placebo for mean change from Baseline using ANCOVA with Treatment, Crohn's disease severity (CDAI \<= 300, \> 300) at Baseline and corticosteroid use at Baseline, and Baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change From Baseline in CDAI at Week 4||-49.06|-84.20|< 0.001
90866026|NCT02499783|181594986|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-13.921|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.183|-8.659||P-value for test of difference between adalimumab and placebo for mean change from Baseline using ANCOVA with Treatment, Crohn's disease severity (CDAI \<= 300, \> 300) at Baseline and corticosteroid use at Baseline, and Baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change From Baseline in hs-CRP Level at Week 2||-8.659|-19.183|< 0.001
90866027|NCT02499783|181594986|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-16.844|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.206|-12.483||P-value for test of difference between adalimumab and placebo for mean change from Baseline using ANCOVA with Treatment, Crohn's disease severity (CDAI \<= 300, \> 300) at Baseline and corticosteroid use at Baseline, and Baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change From Baseline in hs-CRP Level at Week 4||-12.483|-21.206|< 0.001
90866028|NCT02228460|181594989|OTHER|||||||0.3173||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|McNemar Test|||A McNemar test was used to test the treatment effect based on paired pre-treatment and post-treatment (Week 26) frequencies of skin GL-3 score grouped into the categories (0 to \<2; 2 to 3).||||0.3173
90866029|NCT02228460|181594990|OTHER|||||||0.625||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to assess the mean change from Baseline to Week 26 in skin GL-3 score.||||0.625
90866030|NCT01010061|181595025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.28||Type I error controlled through closed test procedure.|Log Rank, Stratified||Stratified by Binet stage at Baseline.|||0.28|0.16|<0.0001
90866031|NCT01010061|181595027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.27|||Log Rank, Stratified||Stratified by Binet stage at Baseline.|||0.27|0.14|<0.0001
90866032|NCT01010061|181595030|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|45.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.7|55.5|||Chi-squared|||Includes subjects with best overall response: CR, CRi, PR or nPR.||55.5|34.7|< 0.0001
90866033|NCT01010061|181595031|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.26|||Log Rank, Stratified||Stratified by Binet stage at Baseline.|||0.26|0.15|<0.0001
90866034|NCT01010061|181595032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.0196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.94|||Log Rank, Stratified|||||0.94|0.49|0.0196
90866035|NCT01010061|181595033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (stratified)|0.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.28|||Log Rank, Stratified|Stratified by Binet stage at Baseline.||||0.28|0.13|<0.0001
90866036|NCT01010061|181595035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (stratified)|0.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.35|||Log Rank, Stratified|Stratified by Binet stage at Baseline.||||0.35|0.19|<0.0001
90866037|NCT03066804|181595039|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.8362|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7987|0.8754|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12||0.8754|0.7987|<0.0001
90909146|NCT00991276|181687530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.45||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||1.45|0.63|<0.0001
90970983|NCT03657368|181824347|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.232|TWO_SIDED|99.2|0.63|1.19|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.19|0.63|0.232
90866038|NCT03066804|181595040|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.4985||||0.4164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5267|3.52297|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.52297|-8.5267|0.4164
90866039|NCT03066804|181595041|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5231||||0.4791|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9258|1.972|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.9720|-0.9258|0.4791
90866040|NCT03066804|181595042|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8993||||0.5294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6461|1.2518|||longitudinal binary logistic regression|||||1.2518|0.6461|0.5294
90866041|NCT03066804|181595043|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.106||||0.4938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8287|1.476|||longitudinal binary logistic regression|||||1.4760|0.8287|0.4938
90866042|NCT03066804|181595044|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9798||||0.8314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8122|1.182|||Proportional cumulative odds model|||||1.1820|0.8122|0.8314
90866043|NCT03066804|181595045|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.157||||0.637||95.0|-0.8093|0.4953|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.4953|-0.8093|0.6370
90866044|NCT00740831|181595046|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority analysis based on the use of one-sided confidence intervals, using 2.5% level of statistical significance.|Difference in proportions|1.2|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|-9.3||||||Newcombe-Wilson method for CI. Percentage in A minus percentage in C needed to be greater than non-inferiority margin of -20%.|As comparison involved two doses of PGL4001 vs GnRH-agonist, Bonferroni correction used to adjust confidence intervals.|||-9.3|
90866045|NCT00740831|181595046|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority analysis based on the use of one-sided confidence intervals, using 2.5% level of statistical significance.|Difference in proportions|8.8|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|0.4||||||Newcombe-Wilson method for CI. Percentage in B minus percentage in C needed to be greater than non-inferiority margin of -20%.|As comparison involved two doses of PGL4001 vs GnRH-agonist, Bonferroni correction used to adjust confidence intervals.|||0.4|
90866046|NCT00740831|181595047|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.089|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.003|0.181||No p-values generated|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance after log transformation of the data|As comparison of 2 doses of PGL4001 vs GnRH-agonist, Bonneferroni correction used to adjust confidence intervals|||0.181|-0.003|
90866047|NCT00740831|181595047|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.049|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.043|0.14||No p-values generated|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance after log transformation of the data|As comparison of 2 doses of PGL4001 vs GnRH-agonist, Bonneferroni correction used to adjust confidence intervals|||0.14|-0.043|
90866048|NCT00740831|181595048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-28.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.6|-14.6||Since comparisons of 2 doses of ulipristal acetate vs GnRH-agonist, Bonferroni correction was used, p values were doubled (p-value threshold was 0.05) and CI adjusted|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysed via Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, controlling for strata||||-14.6|-40.6|<0.001
90970984|NCT03657368|181824348|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1||||0.217|TWO_SIDED|99.2|-6.5|2.4|||Regression, Linear|||||2.4|-6.5|0.217
90866049|NCT00740831|181595048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-29.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.0|-16.6||Since comparisons of 2 doses of ulipristal acetate vs GnRH-agonist, Bonferroni correction was used, p values were doubled (p-value threshold was 0.05) and CI adjusted|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysed via Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, controlling for strata||||-16.6|-42.0|<0.001
90866050|NCT00740831|181595049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-28.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.6|-14.6||Since planned analyses involved comparisons of 2 doses of PGL4001 vs GnRH-agonist, a Bonferroni correction was used and p values were doubled (p-value threshold was 0.05) and confidence intervals were similarly adjusted|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysed via a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, controlling for strata||||-14.6|-40.6|<0.001
90866051|NCT00740831|181595049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-29.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.0|-16.6||Since planned analyses involved comparisons of 2 doses of PGL4001 vs GnRH-agonist, a Bonferroni correction was used and p values were doubled (p-value threshold was 0.05) and confidence intervals were similarly adjusted|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysed via a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, controlling for strata||||-16.6|-42.0|<0.001
90866057|NCT03982368|181595073|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|0.93||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|3.32|||ANOVA|||The primary endpoint was analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) including only treatment as the main factor, followed by preplanned comparisons from vehicle and rhNGF dosages according to Williams' procedure.||3.32|-1.47|0.078
90866058|NCT03982368|181595073|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|2.31||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|4.7|||ANOVA|||The primary endpoint was analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) including only treatment as the main factor, followed by preplanned comparisons from vehicle and rhNGF dosages according to Williams' procedure.||4.70|-0.08|0.066
90866059|NCT03982368|181595074|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|1.71||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|4.12|||ANOVA|||||4.12|-0.70|0.032
90866060|NCT03982368|181595074|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|2.44||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|4.86|||ANOVA|||||4.86|0.02|0.029
90866061|NCT03982368|181595075|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.534|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.534
90866062|NCT03982368|181595075|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.611|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.611
90866063|NCT03982368|181595076|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.486|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.486
90866064|NCT03982368|181595076|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.564|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.564
90866065|NCT03982368|181595078|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.810
90866066|NCT03982368|181595078|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.733|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.733
90866067|NCT03982368|181595079|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|1.97||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|4.13|||ANOVA|||The secondary endpoint was analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) including only treatment as the main factor, followed by preplanned comparisons from vehicle and rhNGF dosages according to Williams' procedure.||4.13|-0.19|0.025
90866068|NCT03982368|181595079|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.68||||0.243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|2.83|||ANOVA|||The secondary endpoint was analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) including only treatment as the main factor, followed by preplanned comparisons from vehicle and rhNGF dosages according to Williams' procedure.||2.83|-1.48|0.243
90866069|NCT03982368|181595080|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|2.41||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|4.54|||ANOVA|||||4.54|0.28|0.007
90866070|NCT03982368|181595080|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.71||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|2.85|||ANOVA|||||2.85|-1.43|0.230
90866071|NCT03982368|181595081|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-1.16||||0.799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.11|0.8|||ANOVA|Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF) was used for imputing missing data in the Full analysis set at Week 4.||"The secondary endpoint was analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) including only treatment as the main factor, followed by preplanned comparisons from vehicle and rhNGF dosages according to Williams' procedure.~p value for total corneal ancd conjunctival score is reported."||0.80|-3.11|0.799
90866072|NCT03982368|181595081|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.36||||0.715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.59|||ANOVA|||The secondary endpoint was analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) including only treatment as the main factor, followed by preplanned comparisons from vehicle and rhNGF dosages according to Williams' procedure.||1.59|-2.30|0.715
90866073|NCT03982368|181595082|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-1.54||||0.831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|0.31|||ANOVA|||"The secondary endpoint was analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) including only treatment as the main factor, followed by preplanned comparisons from vehicle and rhNGF dosages according to Williams' procedure.~p value for total corneal ancd conjunctival score is reported."||0.31|-3.40|0.831
90970985|NCT03657368|181824348|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|99.2|-3.7|5.2|||Regression, Linear|||||5.2|-3.7|0.660
90970986|NCT03657368|181824349|SUPERIORITY||mean ratio|1.03||||0.143|TWO_SIDED|99.2|0.97|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.10|0.97|0.143
90866074|NCT03982368|181595082|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.21||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|1.66|||ANOVA|||"The secondary endpoint was analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) including only treatment as the main factor, followed by preplanned comparisons from vehicle and rhNGF dosages according to Williams' procedure.~p value for total corneal ancd conjunctival score is reported."||1.66|-2.07|0.750
90866075|NCT03982368|181595083|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.96||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.75|||ANOVA|||||1.75|0.17|0.004
90866076|NCT03982368|181595083|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.28||||0.217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|1.07|||ANOVA|||||1.07|-0.51|0.217
90866077|NCT03982368|181595084|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.92||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.74|||ANOVA|||||1.74|0.10|0.007
90866078|NCT03982368|181595084|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.28||||0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|1.1|||ANOVA|||||1.10|-0.54|0.225
90866079|NCT03982368|181595085|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.680
90866080|NCT03982368|181595085|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.066|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.066
90909147|NCT00991276|181687530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.46||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||1.46|0.65|<0.0001
90970987|NCT03657368|181824349|SUPERIORITY||mean ratio|0.99||||0.649|TWO_SIDED|99.2|0.93|1.05|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.05|0.93|0.649
90866081|NCT03982368|181595086|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.097|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.097
90866082|NCT03982368|181595086|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.076|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.076
90866083|NCT03982368|181595087|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|16.4||||0.289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|20.8|||ANOVA|||Daily Activity Limitations - change from baseline to week 4||20.8|12.0|0.289
90866084|NCT03982368|181595087|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|19.7||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.4|24.0|||ANOVA|||Daily Activity Limitations - change from baseline to week 4||24.0|15.4|0.032
90866085|NCT03982368|181595087|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|16.4||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.9|20.8|||ANOVA|||Daily Activity Limitations - change to baseline to week 8||20.8|11.9|0.095
90866086|NCT03982368|181595087|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|14.5||||0.282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.1|18.8|||ANOVA|||Daily Activity Limitations - change from baseline to week 8||18.8|10.1|0.282
90866087|NCT03982368|181595087|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|15.0||||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.6|19.4|||ANOVA|||Daily Activity Limitations - change from baseline to week 12||19.4|10.6|0.169
90866088|NCT03982368|181595087|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|15.4||||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.1|19.7|||ANOVA|||Daily Activity Limitations - change from baseline to week 12||19.7|11.1|0.129
90866089|NCT03982368|181595087|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|14.0||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.7|18.4|||ANOVA|||Daily Activity Limitations - change from baseline to week 16||18.4|9.7|0.111
90866090|NCT03982368|181595087|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|14.0||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.7|18.3|||ANOVA|||Daily Activity Limitations - change from baseline to week 16||18.3|9.7|0.107
90960192|NCT00112047|181800551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||The distribution of time to loss-of-virologic response was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier product limit method and compared between treatment groups using a baseline CD4 stratum-weighted log-rank test.|Log Rank|No other adjustments were made.||Null Hypothesis: The percentage of participants with Loss of Virologic Response through Week 48 is equal between the two treatment groups. Alternative hypothesis: The percentage of participants with Loss of Virologic Response through Week 48 is different between the two treatment groups.||||0.003
90960193|NCT00112047|181800552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.046||95.0||||The distribution of time to loss-of-virologic response was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier product limit method and compared between treatment groups using a baseline CD4 stratum-weighted log-rank test.|Log Rank|No other adjustments were made.||Null hypothesis: The percentage of participants with Loss of Virologic Response through Week 48 is equal between the two treatment groups. Alternative hypothesis: The percentage of participants with Loss of Virologic Response through Week 48 is different between the two treatment groups.||||0.046
90960194|NCT00112047|181800553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026||95.0||||The distribution of pure virological failure was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier product limit method and compared between treatment groups using a baseline CD4 stratum-weighted log-rank test.|Log Rank|No other adjustments were made.||Null Hypothesis: The percentage of participants with pure virological failure (confirmed HIV-1 RNA \< 400 c/mL) at Week 48 is equal for the 2 treatment groups. Alternative Hypothesis: The percentage of participants with pure virological failure (confirmed HIV-1 RNA \< 400 c/mL) at Week 48 is different between the 2 treatment groups.||||0.026
90960195|NCT00112047|181800554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.063||95.0||||The distribution of pure virological failure was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier product limit method and compared between treatment groups using a baseline CD4 stratum-weighted log-rank test.|Log Rank|No other adjustments were made.||Null Hypothesis: The percentage of participants with pure virological failure (confirmed HIV-1 RNA \< 50 c/mL) through Week 48 for the EFV+FTC+TDF and CBV+EFV groups are equal. Alternative Hypothesis: The percentage of participants with pure virological failure (confirmed HIV-1 RNA \< 50 c/mL) through Week 48 for the EFV+FTC+TDF and CBV+EFV groups are different.||||0.063
90960196|NCT00112047|181800555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.06||The change from baseline to Week 48 in HIV-1 RNA was compared between the 2 treatment groups using baseline CD4 stratum-weighted CI around the mean difference. P-value is from stratum-weighted Van Elteren test.|Van Elteren|No other adjustments were made.||Null Hypothesis: Changes from baseline through Week 48 in plasma HIV-1 RNA for the EFV+FTC+TDF and CBV+EFV groups are equal. Alternative hypothesis: Changes from baseline through Week 48 in plasma HIV-1 RNA for the EFV+FTC+TDF and CBV+EFV groups are different.||0.06|-0.16|0.31
90960197|NCT00112047|181800556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||stratum-weighted difference|31.74||||0.002||95.0|8.96|54.52||The change from baseline to Week 48 in HIV-1 RNA was compared between the 2 treatment groups using baseline CD4 stratum-weighted CI around the mean difference. P-value is from stratum weighted Van Elteren test.|Van Elteren|No other adjustments were made.||Null Hypothesis: Changes from baseline through Week 48 in CD4 cell count for the EFV+FTC+TDF and CBV+EFV groups are equal. Alternative hypothesis: Changes from baseline through Week 48 in CD4 cell count for the EFV+FTC+TDF and CBV+EFV groups are different.||54.52|8.96|0.002
90960198|NCT00112047|181800557|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The definition of clinical non-inferiority used a 'delta' of 0.13 (response rate was expressed as a decimal-valued number between 0 and 1). The EFV+FTC+TDF group was declared non-inferior to the CBV+EFV group if the lower confidence bound was \> -0.13.|Difference in percentages|12.7||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|21.1||The difference and 95% CI are stratum weighted on baseline CD4 using normal approximation. The p-value for the superiority test is from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified on baseline CD4 cell count.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|No other adjustments were made.||"Null Hypothesis: the percentage of responders (who achieved and maintained confirmed HIV-1 RNA \< 400 c/mL \[defined by the TLOVR algorithm\]) through Week 96 in the EFV+FTC+TDF group is more than 13% worse than in the CBV+EFV group.~Alternative Hypothesis: the percentage of responders who achieved and maintained confirmed HIV-1 RNA \< 400 c/mL \[defined by the TLOVR algorithm\]) through Week 96 in the EFV+FTC+TDF group is no more than 13% worse than in the CBV+EFV group."||21.1|4.3|0.004
90960199|NCT00112047|181800558|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The definition of clinical non-inferiority used a 'delta' of 0.13 (response rate was expressed as a decimal-valued number between 0 and 1). The EFV+FTC+TDF group was declared non-inferior to the CBV+EFV group if the lower confidence bound was \> -0.13.|Difference in proportions|6.4||||0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|15.0||The difference and 95% CI are stratum weighted on baseline CD4 using normal approximation. The p-value for the superiority test is from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified on baseline CD4 cell count.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|No other adjustments were made.||"Null Hypothesis: the percentage of responders (who achieved and maintained confirmed HIV-1 RNA \< 50 c/mL \[defined by the TLOVR algorithm\]) through Week 96 in the EFV+FTC+TDF group is more than 13% worse than in the CBV+EFV group.~Alternative Hypothesis: the percentage of responders who achieved and maintained confirmed HIV-1 RNA \< 50 c/mL \[defined by the TLOVR algorithm\]) through Week 96 in the EFV+FTC+TDF group is no more than 13% worse than in the CBV+EFV group."||15.0|-2.3|0.158
90960200|NCT00112047|181800559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||The distribution of time to loss-of-virologic response was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier product limit method and compared between treatment groups using a baseline CD4 stratum-weighted log-rank test.|Log Rank|No other adjustments were made.||Null Hypothesis: Ther percentage of participants with loss of virologic response (confirmed HIV-1 RNA \< 400 c/mL) at Week 96 for the EFV+FTC+TDF and CBV+EFV groups are equal. Alternative Hypothesis: The percentage of participants with loss of virologic response (confirmed HIV-1 RNA \< 400 c/mL) at Week 96 for the EFV+FTC+TDF and CBV+EFV groups are different||||0.003
90960201|NCT00112047|181800560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.124||95.0||||The distribution of time to loss-of-virologic response was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier product limit method and compared between treatment groups using a baseline CD4 stratum-weighted log-rank test.|Log Rank|No other adjustments were made.||Null Hypothesis: The percentage of participants with loss of virologic response (confirmed HIV-1 RNA \< 50 c/mL) through Week 96 for the EFV+FTC+TDF and CBV+EFV groups are equal. Alternative Hypothesis: The percentage of participants with loss of virologic response (confirmed HIV-1 RNA \< 50 c/mL) through Week 96 for the EFV+FTC+TDF and CBV+EFV groups are different||||0.124
90866091|NCT03982368|181595087|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|14.3||||0.827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.7|18.9|||ANOVA|||Emotional Well-Being - change from baseline to week 4||18.9|9.7|0.827
90866092|NCT03982368|181595087|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|16.3||||0.688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.8|20.8|||ANOVA|||Emotional Well-Being - change from baseline to week 4||20.8|11.8|0.688
90866093|NCT03982368|181595087|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|15.7||||0.324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.4|20.0|||ANOVA|||Emotional Well-Being - change from baseline to week 8||20.0|11.4|0.324
90866094|NCT03982368|181595087|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|12.9||||0.949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.7|17.1|||ANOVA|||Emotional Well-Being - change from baseline to week 8||17.1|8.7|0.949
90866095|NCT03982368|181595087|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|15.7||||0.927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.4|20.1|||ANOVA|||Emotional Well-Being - change from baseline to week 12||20.1|11.4|0.927
90960202|NCT00112047|181800561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025||95.0||||The distribution of pure virological failure was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier product limit method and compared between treatment groups using a baseline CD4 stratum-weighted log-rank test.|Log Rank|No other adjustments were made.||Null Hypothesis: The percentage of participants with pure virological failure (confirmed HIV-1 RNA \< 400 c/mL) at Week 96 is equal for the 2 treatment groups. Alternative Hypothesis: The percentage of participants with pure virological failure (confirmed HIV-1 RNA \< 400 c/mL) at Week 96 is different between the 2 treatment groups.||||0.025
90960203|NCT00112047|181800562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41||95.0||||The distribution of pure virological failure was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier product limit method and compared between treatment groups using a baseline CD4 stratum-weighted log-rank test.|Log Rank|No other adjustments were made.||Null Hypothesis: The percentage of participants with pure virological failure (HIV-1 RNA \< 50 c/mL) through Week 96 for the EFV+FTC+TDF and CBV+EFV groups are equal. Alternative Hypothesis: The percentage of participants with pure virological failure (HIV-1 RNA \< 50 c/mL) through Week 96 for the EFV+FTC+TDF and CBV+EFV groups are different||||0.41
91033205|NCT01045096|181952245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Dose Proportionality Point Estimate|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.693|1.848|||ANCOVA|||Sample size of 12 participants per dose group, along with the intense PK sampling in each regimen was needed for characterization of the PK profile. An ANCOVA model with weight as a covariate and regimen as a factor were fitted to dose-normalized AUC\[0-tlqc\]. Pairwise comparisons between regimens were conducted.||1.848|0.693|
90909148|NCT00991276|181687530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.9403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.39||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||0.39|-0.42|0.9403
90909149|NCT00991276|181687531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-7.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.26||0.0215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.03|-1.14||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-1.14|-14.03|0.0215
90909150|NCT00991276|181687531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.23||0.5569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.49|8.29||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||8.29|-4.49|0.5569
90909151|NCT00991276|181687531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-9.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.81|-3.16||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-3.16|-15.81|0.0036
90909152|NCT00991276|181687532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.6947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.85|4.27||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Awaken Short of Breath/with Headache: P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||4.27|-2.85|0.6947
90909153|NCT00991276|181687532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.79||0.398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.06|2.02||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Awaken Short of Breath/with Headache: P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||2.02|-5.06|0.3980
90866096|NCT03982368|181595087|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|14.8||||0.776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.8|18.8|||ANOVA|||Emotional Well-Being - change from baseline to week 12||18.8|10.8|0.776
90866097|NCT03982368|181595087|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|15.7||||0.418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.4|20.1|||ANOVA|||Emotional Well-Being - change from baseline to week 16||20.1|11.4|0.418
90866098|NCT03982368|181595087|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|14.8||||0.613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.6|19.0|||ANOVA|||Emotional Well-Being - change from baseline to week 16||19.0|10.6|0.613
90866099|NCT03982368|181595087|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|15.8||||0.721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.3|23.2|||ANOVA|||Work Limitations - change from baseline to week 4||23.2|8.3|0.721
90866100|NCT03982368|181595087|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|20.6||||0.558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.1|28.0|||ANOVA|||Work Limitations - change from baseline to week 4||28.0|13.1|0.558
90866101|NCT03982368|181595087|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|18.4||||0.809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.5|25.3|||ANOVA|||Work Limitations - change from baseline to week 8||25.3|11.5|0.809
91033206|NCT01045096|181952245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Dose Proportionality Point Estimate|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.584|2.276|||ANCOVA|||Sample size of 12 participants per dose group, along with the intense PK sampling in each regimen was needed for characterization of the PK profile. An ANCOVA model with weight as a covariate and regimen as a factor were fitted to dose-normalized AUC\[0-tlqc\]. Pairwise comparisons between regimens were conducted.||2.276|0.584|
91033207|NCT01045096|181952245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Dose Proportionality Point Estimate|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.632|1.642|||ANCOVA|||Sample size of 12 participants per dose group, along with the intense PK sampling in each regimen was needed for characterization of the PK profile. An ANCOVA model with weight as a covariate and regimen as a factor were fitted to dose-normalized AUC\[0-tlqc\]. Pairwise comparisons between regimens were conducted.||1.642|0.632|
91033208|NCT01045096|181952246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Dose Proportionality Point Estimate|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.692|1.636|||ANCOVA|||Sample size of 12 participants per dose group, along with the intense PK sampling in each regimen was needed for characterization of the PK profile. An ANCOVA model with weight as a covariate and regimen as a factor were fitted to dose-normalized AUC\[0-24\]. Pairwise comparisons between regimens were conducted.||1.636|0.692|
91033209|NCT01045096|181952246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Dose Proportionality Point Estimate|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.691|2.314|||ANCOVA|||Sample size of 12 participants per dose group, along with the intense PK sampling in each regimen was needed for characterization of the PK profile. An ANCOVA model with weight as a covariate and regimen as a factor were fitted to dose-normalized AUC\[0-24\]. Pairwise comparisons between regimens were conducted.||2.314|0.691|
91033210|NCT01045096|181952246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Dose Proportionality Point Estimate|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.777|1.817|||ANCOVA|||Sample size of 12 participants per dose group, along with the intense PK sampling in each regimen was needed for characterization of the PK profile. An ANCOVA model with weight as a covariate and regimen as a factor were fitted to dose-normalized AUC\[0-24\]. Pairwise comparisons between regimens were conducted.||1.817|0.777|
91033211|NCT00909610|181952267|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) will be applied to log-transformed AUC's and Cmax parameters.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|101.0||||||90.0|92.3|111.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125|||111|92.3|
91033212|NCT00909610|181952268|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) will be applied to log-transformed AUC's and Cmax parameters.|Ratio of the Geometric Mean|106.0||||||90.0|101.0|112.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||112|101|
91033213|NCT00909610|181952269|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) will be applied to log-transformed AUC's and Cmax parameters.|Ratio of the Geometric Mean|101.0||||||90.0|91.9|111.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||111|91.9|
91033214|NCT00909610|181952270|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) will be applied to log-transformed AUC's and Cmax parameters.|Ratio of the Geometric Mean|105.0||||||90.0|100.0|111.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||111|100|
91033215|NCT00909610|181952271|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) will be applied to log-transformed AUC's and Cmax parameters.|Ratio of the Mean|101.0||||||90.0|92.5|111.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||111|92.5|
91033216|NCT00909610|181952272|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) will be applied to log-transformed AUC's and Cmax parameters.|Ratio of the Mean|110.0||||||90.0|103.0|117.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||117|103|
91033217|NCT00909610|181952273|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) will be applied to log-transformed AUC's and Cmax parameters.|Ratio of the Mean|101.0||||||90.0|92.2|111.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||111|92.2|
91033218|NCT00909610|181952274|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) will be applied to log-transformed AUC's and Cmax parameters.|Ratio of the Mean|107.0||||||90.0|100.0|115.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||115|100|
91033219|NCT03612960|181952299|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.43|||t-test, 2 sided||||The mean percent change in BOLD signal used for this t-test was extracted from a brain cluster with significant group differences in changes in activation over time (voxel p\<.05, cluster p\<.05) identified using a whole-brain, voxel-wise two-way mixed effect ANOVA with FSL software.|0.43|0.14|<.001
90866102|NCT03982368|181595087|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|19.4||||0.651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.4|26.4|||ANOVA|||Work Limitations - change from baseline to week 8||26.4|12.4|0.651
90866103|NCT03982368|181595087|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|16.4||||0.769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.5|23.3|||ANOVA|||Work Limitations - change from baseline to week 12||23.3|9.5|0.769
90866104|NCT03982368|181595087|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|21.3||||0.454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.3|28.3|||ANOVA|||Work Limitations - change from baseline to week 12||28.3|14.3|0.454
90866105|NCT03982368|181595087|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|18.3||||0.564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.6|25.0|||ANOVA|||Work Limitations - change from baseline to week 16||25.0|11.6|0.564
90866106|NCT03982368|181595087|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|21.0||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.1|27.8|||ANOVA|||Work Limitations - change from baseline to week 16||27.8|14.1|0.250
91033220|NCT03612960|181952300|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.33||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.24|0.48|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.48|-17.24|.063
91033221|NCT03612960|181952301|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.86||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.57|18.82|||t-test, 2 sided|||||18.82|-21.57|0.890
91033222|NCT00834249|181952302|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|101.73||||||90.0|||||||Bioequivalence is established when ratio of means falls within 80-125.|||||
90960204|NCT00112047|181800563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||stratum-weighted difference|-0.05||||0.45||95.0|-0.17|0.08||The change from baseline to Week 96 in HIV-1 RNA was compared between the 2 treatment groups using baseline CD4 stratum-weighted CI around the mean difference.|Van Elteren|No other adjustments were made.||Null Hypothesis: Changes from baseline through Week 96 in plasma HIV-1 RNA for the EFV+FTC+TDF and CBV+EFV groups are equal. Alternative hypothesis: Changes from baseline through Week 96 in plasma HIV-1 RNA for the EFV+FTC+TDF and CBV+EFV groups are different.||0.08|-0.17|0.45
90960205|NCT00112047|181800564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||stratum-weighted difference|32.93||||0.036||95.0|0.87|64.99||The change from baseline to Week 96 in CD4 cell count was compared between the 2 treatment groups using baseline CD4 stratum-weighted CI around the mean difference. P-value is from stratum weighted Van Elteren test.|Van Elteren|No other adjustments were made.||Null Hypothesis: Changes from baseline through Week 96 in CD4 cell count for the EFV+FTC+TDF and CBV+EFV groups are equal. Alternative hypothesis: Changes from baseline through Week 96 in CD4 cell count for the EFV+FTC+TDF and CBV+EFV groups are different.||64.99|0.87|0.036
90960206|NCT00112047|181800565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The change from Week 48 to Week 96 in limb fat was compared between the 2 treatment groups; the P-value is from the Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|No other adjustments were made.||Null Hypothesis: Change from Week 48 to Week 96 in limb fat for the EFV+FTC+TDF and CBV+EFV groups are equal. Alternative hypothesis: Change from Week 48 to Week 96 in limb fat for the EFV+FTC+TDF and CBV+EFV groups are not equal||||<0.001
90960207|NCT00112047|181800566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025||95.0||||The change from Week 48 to Week 96 in trunk fat was compared between the 2 treatment groups; the P-value is from the Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|No other adjustments were made.||Null Hypothesis: Changes from Week 48 to Week 96 in Trunk Fat for the EFV+FTC+TDF and CBV+EFV groups are equal. Alternative hypothesis: Changes from Week 48 to Week 96 in Trunk Fat for the EFV+FTC+TDF and CBV+EFV groups are different||||0.025
90960208|NCT00112047|181800567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The change from Week 48 to Week 96 in trunk fat was compared between the 2 treatment groups; the P-value is from the Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|No other adjustments were made.||Null Hypothesis: Changes from Week 48 to Week 96 in Total Body Fat for the EFV+FTC+TDF and CBV+EFV groups are equal. Alternative hypothesis: Changes from Week 48 to Week 96 in Total Body Fat for the EFV+FTC+TDF and CBV+EFV groups are different||||<0.001
90960209|NCT00112047|181800568|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The definition of clinical non-inferiority used a 'delta' of 0.13 (response rate was expressed as a decimal-valued number between 0 and 1). The EFV+FTC+TDF group was declared non-inferior to the CBV+EFV group if the lower confidence bound was \> -0.13.|Difference in proportions|12.9||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|21.6||The difference and 95% CI are stratum weighted on baseline CD4 using normal approximation. The p-value for the superiority test is from Cochran-Mantel-Haenzel test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|No other adjustments were made.||"Null Hypothesis: the proportion of responders (who achieved and maintained confirmed HIV-1 RNA \< 400 c/mL \[defined by the TLOVR algorithm\]) through Week 144 in the EFV+FTC+TDF group is more than 13% worse than in the CBV+EFV group.~Alternative Hypothesis: the proportion of responders who achieved and maintained confirmed HIV-1 RNA \< 400 c/mL \[defined by the TLOVR algorithm\]) through Week 144 in the EFV+FTC+TDF group is no more than 13% worse than in the CBV+EFV group."||21.6|4.2|0.004
90960210|NCT00112047|181800569|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The definition of clinical non-inferiority used a 'delta' of 0.13 (response rate was expressed as a decimal-valued number between 0 and 1). The EFV+FTC+TDF group was declared non-inferior to the CBV+EFV group if the lower confidence bound was \> -0.13.|Difference in proportions|8.1||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|17.0||The difference and 95% CI are stratum weighted on baseline CD4 using normal approximation. The p-value for the superiority test is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified on baseline CD4 cell count.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|No other adjustments were made.||"Null Hypothesis: the proportion of responders (who achieved and maintained confirmed HIV-1 RNA \< 50 c/mL \[defined by the TLOVR algorithm\]) through Week 144 in the EFV+FTC+TDF group is more than 13% worse than in the CBV+EFV group.~Alternative Hypothesis: the proportion of responders who achieved and maintained confirmed HIV-1 RNA \< 50 c/mL \[defined by the TLOVR algorithm\]) through Week 144 in the EFV+FTC+TDF group is no more than 13% worse than in the CBV+EFV group."||17.0|-0.8|0.082
91033223|NCT00834249|181952303|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|99.73||||||90.0|||||||Bioequivalence is established when ratio of means falls within 80-125.|||||
90866107|NCT03982368|181595087|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|23.9||||0.853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.6|32.2|||ANOVA|||Treatment Satisfaction - change from baseline to week 4||32.2|15.6|0.853
90866108|NCT03982368|181595087|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|20.0||||0.393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.9|28.0|||ANOVA|||Treatment Satisfaction - change from baseline to week 4||28.0|11.9|0.393
90866109|NCT03982368|181595087|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|27.9||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.2|35.6|||ANOVA|||Treatment Satisfaction - change from baseline to week 8||35.6|20.2|0.010
90866110|NCT03982368|181595087|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|18.3||||0.395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.1|25.4|||ANOVA|||Treatment Satisfaction - change from baseline to week 8||25.4|11.1|0.395
90866111|NCT03982368|181595087|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|24.8||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.1|32.4|||ANOVA|||Treatment Satisfaction - change from baseline to week 12||32.4|17.1|0.068
90866112|NCT03982368|181595087|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|19.3||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.2|26.4|||ANOVA|||Treatment Satisfaction - change from baseline to week 12||26.4|12.2|0.400
90866113|NCT03982368|181595087|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|25.5||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.1|33.0|||ANOVA|||Treatment Satisfaction - change from baseline to week 16||33.0|18.1|0.021
90866114|NCT03982368|181595087|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|23.1||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.1|30.0|||ANOVA|||Treatment Satisfaction - change from baseline to week 16||30.0|16.1|0.056
90866115|NCT03982368|181595087|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|14.2||||0.981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.6|20.7|||ANOVA|||Treatment-Related Bother - change from baseline to week 4||20.7|7.6|0.981
90866116|NCT03982368|181595087|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|17.0||||0.525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.1|22.9|||ANOVA|||Treatment-Related Bother - change from baseline to week 4||22.9|11.1|0.525
90866117|NCT03982368|181595087|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|9.5||||0.356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|16.0|||ANOVA|||Treatment-Related Bother - change from baseline to week 8||16.0|2.9|0.356
90970988|NCT01661140|181824373|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority if the difference between treatments is statistically significant and the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) is greater than 0.9.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.803||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.037|3.133|||Analysis by logistic regression|||Comparison was Tapering MTX : MTX maintenance. Last post-baseline EULAR response recorded used for participants with a missing result at Week 60.||3.133|1.037|0.036
90866118|NCT03982368|181595087|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|6.5||||0.771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|12.4|||ANOVA|||Treatment-Related Bother - change from baseline to week 8||12.4|0.7|0.771
90866119|NCT03982368|181595087|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|8.7||||0.926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|15.5|||ANOVA|||Treatment-Related Bother - change from baseline to week 12||15.5|2.0|0.926
90866120|NCT03982368|181595087|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|7.9||||0.778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|13.9|||ANOVA|||Treatment-Related Bother - change from baseline to week 12||13.9|1.9|0.778
90866121|NCT03982368|181595087|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|10.0||||0.984|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Treatment-Related Bother - change from baseline to week 16||||0.984
90866122|NCT03982368|181595087|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|7.4||||0.514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|13.1|||ANOVA|||Treatment-Related Bother - change from baseline to week 16||13.1|1.6|0.514
90866123|NCT03982368|181595087|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-16.6||||0.985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.4|-12.8|||ANOVA|||Symptom Bother - change from baseline to week 4||-12.8|-20.4|0.985
90866124|NCT03982368|181595087|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-17.8||||0.646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.5|-14.0|||ANOVA|||Symptom Bother - change from baseline to week 4||-14.0|-21.5|0.646
90866125|NCT03982368|181595087|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-20.7||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.5|-16.9|||ANOVA|||Symptom Bother - change from baseline to week 8||-16.9|-24.5|0.007
90866126|NCT03982368|181595087|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-16.2||||0.305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.9|-12.5|||ANOVA|||Symptom Bother - change from baseline to week 8||-12.5|-19.9|0.305
90866127|NCT03982368|181595087|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-19.0||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.7|-15.4|||ANOVA|||Symptom Bother - change from baseline to week 12||-15.4|-22.7|0.015
90866128|NCT03982368|181595087|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-18.0||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.5|-14.4|||ANOVA|||Symptom Bother - change from baseline to week 12||-14.4|-21.5|0.039
90866129|NCT03982368|181595087|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-19.7||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.3|-16.0|||ANOVA|||||-16.0|-23.3|0.001
90866130|NCT03982368|181595087|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-18.9||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.4|-15.3|||ANOVA|||Symptom Bother - change from baseline to week 16||-15.3|-22.4|0.002
90866131|NCT03982368|181595088|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|16.8||||0.241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.2|21.4|||ANOVA|||Daily Activity Limitations - change from baseline to week 4||21.4|12.2|0.241
90866132|NCT03982368|181595088|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|19.7||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.1|24.4|||ANOVA|||Daily Activity Limitations - change from baseline to week 4||24.4|15.1|0.040
90866133|NCT03982368|181595088|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|16.8||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.3|21.4|||ANOVA|||Daily Activity Limitations - change from baseline to week 8||21.4|12.3|0.097
90866134|NCT03982368|181595088|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|15.3||||0.238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.7|19.9|||ANOVA|||Daily Activity Limitations - change from baseline to week 8||19.9|10.7|0.238
90866135|NCT03982368|181595088|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|16.5||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|20.9|||ANOVA|||Daily Activity Limitations - change from baseline to week 12||20.9|12.0|0.070
90940382|NCT00526097|181760508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.31||0.3567||95.0|-2.4|6.7||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||6.7|-2.4|0.3567
90940383|NCT00526097|181760509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.34||0.1407||95.0|-0.7|4.6||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||4.6|-0.7|0.1407
90866136|NCT03982368|181595088|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|16.7||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.3|21.1|||ANOVA|||Daily Activity Limitations - change from baseline to week 12||21.1|12.3|0.058
90866137|NCT03982368|181595088|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|13.7||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.3|18.1|||ANOVA|||Daily Activity Limitations - change from baseline to week 16||18.1|9.3|0.128
90866138|NCT03982368|181595088|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|16.0||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.6|20.3|||ANOVA|||Daily Activity Limitations - change from baseline to week 16||20.3|11.6|0.024
90866139|NCT03982368|181595088|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|15.2||||0.865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.4|20.1|||ANOVA|||Emotional Well-Being - change from baseline to week 4||20.1|10.4|0.865
90866140|NCT03982368|181595088|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|17.3||||0.662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.4|22.2|||ANOVA|||Emotional Well-Being - change from baseline to week 4||22.2|12.4|0.662
90866141|NCT03982368|181595088|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|16.7||||0.266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.2|21.1|||ANOVA|||Emotional Well-Being - change from baseline to week 8||21.1|12.2|0.266
90866142|NCT03982368|181595088|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|13.9||||0.824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.4|18.3|||ANOVA|||Emotional Well-Being - change from baseline to week 8||18.3|9.4|0.824
90866143|NCT03982368|181595088|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|14.8||||0.883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.6|19.0|||ANOVA|||Emotional Well-Being - change from baseline to week 12||19.0|10.6|0.883
90866144|NCT03982368|181595088|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|16.3||||0.516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.1|20.4|||ANOVA|||Emotional Well-Being - change from baseline to week 12||20.4|12.1|0.516
90866145|NCT03982368|181595088|SUPERIORITY|Emotional Well-Being - change from baseline to week 16|Least square mean difference|16.5||||0.407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.1|21.0|||ANOVA|||Emotional Well-Being - change from baseline to week 16||21.0|12.1|0.407
90866146|NCT03982368|181595088|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|16.4||||0.422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|20.9|||ANOVA|||Emotional Well-Being - change from baseline to week 16||20.9|12.0|0.422
90866147|NCT03982368|181595088|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|15.9||||0.615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.1|23.8|||ANOVA|||Work Limitations - change from baseline to week 4||23.8|8.1|0.615
90866148|NCT03982368|181595088|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|21.3||||0.626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.3|29.2|||ANOVA|||Work Limitations - change from baseline to week 4||29.2|13.3|0.626
90866149|NCT03982368|181595088|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|18.3||||0.968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.1|25.6|||ANOVA|||Work Limitations - change from baseline to week 8||25.6|11.1|0.968
90866150|NCT03982368|181595088|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|20.1||||0.689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.8|27.4|||ANOVA|||||27.4|12.8|0.689
90866151|NCT03982368|181595088|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|15.6||||0.528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.5|22.7|||ANOVA|||Work Limitations - change from baseline to week 12||22.7|8.5|0.528
90866152|NCT03982368|181595088|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|23.0||||0.368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.8|30.1|||ANOVA|||Work Limitations - change from baseline to week 12||30.1|15.8|0.368
90866153|NCT03982368|181595088|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|17.7||||0.764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.7|24.7|||ANOVA|||Work Limitations - change from baseline to week 16||24.7|10.7|0.764
90866154|NCT03982368|181595088|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|22.6||||0.184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.5|29.6|||ANOVA|||Work Limitations - change from baseline to week 16||29.6|15.5|0.184
90866155|NCT03982368|181595088|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|25.4||||0.909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.5|34.2|||ANOVA|||Treatment Satisfaction - change from baseline to week 4||34.2|16.5|0.909
90866156|NCT03982368|181595088|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|21.1||||0.428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.2|30.0|||ANOVA|||Treatment Satisfaction - change from baseline to week 4||30.0|12.2|0.428
90866157|NCT03982368|181595088|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|29.8||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.6|37.9|||ANOVA|||Treatment Satisfaction - change from baseline to week 8||37.9|21.6|0.008
90866158|NCT03982368|181595088|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|21.3||||0.222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.5|29.2|||ANOVA|||Treatment Satisfaction - change from baseline to week 8||29.2|13.5|0.222
90866159|NCT03982368|181595088|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|25.3||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.2|33.4|||ANOVA|||Treatment Satisfaction - change from baseline to week 12||33.4|17.2|0.082
90909154|NCT00991276|181687532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|2.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.78||0.2144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|5.76||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Awaken Short of Breath/with Headache: P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||5.76|-1.30|0.2144
90909155|NCT00991276|181687532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|14.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.25|22.08||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Adequacy: P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||22.08|6.25|0.0006
90909156|NCT00991276|181687532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|11.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.97||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.22|18.92||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Adequacy: P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||18.92|3.22|0.0061
90909157|NCT00991276|181687532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.95||0.4342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.72|10.93||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Adequacy: P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||10.93|-4.72|0.4342
90909158|NCT00991276|181687532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-2.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.07||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.53|1.66||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Somnolence: P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||1.66|-6.53|0.2420
90960211|NCT00112047|181800570|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The definition of clinical non-inferiority used a 'delta' of 0.13 (response rate was expressed as a decimal-valued number between 0 and 1). The EFV+FTC+TDF group was declared non-inferior to the CBV+EFV group if the lower confidence bound was \> -0.13.|Difference in proportions|11.6||||0.009||95.0|3.1|20.1||The difference and 95% CI are stratum weighted on baseline CD4 using normal approximation. The p-value for the superiority test is from Cochran-Mantel-Haenzel test stratified on baseline CD4 cell count.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|No other adjustments were made.||Null Hypothesis: The percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 400 c/mL at Week 144 in the EFV+FTC+TDF group is more than 13% worse than the CBV+EFV group. Alternative hypothesis: The percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 400 c/mL at Week 144 in the EFV+FTC+TDF group is no more than 13% worse than the CBV+EFV group.||20.1|3.1|0.009
90970989|NCT03468309|181824425|SUPERIORITY|T-test was used to compare means at baseline and 12-weeks|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
90909159|NCT00991276|181687532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.05||0.981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.12|4.02||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Somnolence: P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||4.02|-4.12|0.9810
90960212|NCT00112047|181800571|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The definition of clinical non-inferiority used a 'delta' of 0.13 (response rate was expressed as a decimal-valued number between 0 and 1). The EFV+FTC+TDF group was declared non-inferior to the CBV+EFV group if the lower confidence bound was \> -0.13.|Difference in proportions|10.4||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|19.0||The p-value for the superiority test is from Cochran-Mantel-Haenzel test stratified on baseline CD4 cell count.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|No other adjustments were made.||Null hypothesis: The percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 50 c/mL at Week 144 in the EFV+FTC+TDF group is more than 13% worse than the CBV+EFV group. Alternative hypothesis: The percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 50 c/mL at Week 144 in the EFV+FTC+TDF group is no more than 13% worse than the CBV+EFV group.||19.0|1.8|0.019
90960213|NCT00112047|181800572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||The distribution of loss of virological response was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier product limit method and compared between treatment groups using a baseline CD4 stratum-weighted log-rank test.|Log Rank|No other adjustments were made.||Null Hypothesis: The percentage of participants with loss of virologic response (confirmed HIV-1 RNA \< 400 c/mL) through Week 144 for the EFV+FTC+TDF and CBV+EFV groups are equal. Alternative Hypothesis: The percentage of participants with loss of virologic response (confirmed HIV-1 RNA \< 400 c/mL) through Week 144 for the EFV+FTC+TDF and CBV+EFV groups are different||||0.003
90960214|NCT00112047|181800573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.056||95.0||||The distribution of pure virological failure was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier product limit method and compared between treatment groups using a baseline CD4 stratum-weighted log-rank test.|Log Rank|No other adjustments were made.||Null Hypothesis: The percentage of participants with loss of virologic response (confirmed HIV-1 RNA \< 50 c/mL) through Week 144 for the EFV+FTC+TDF and CBV+EFV groups are equal. Alternative Hypothesis: The percentage of participants with loss of virologic response (confirmed HIV-1 RNA \< 50 c/mL) through Week 144 for the EFV+FTC+TDF and CBV+EFV groups are different||||0.056
90960215|NCT00112047|181800574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.066||95.0||||The distribution of pure virological failure was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier product limit method and compared between treatment groups using a baseline CD4 stratum-weighted log-rank test.|Log Rank|No other adjustments were made.||Null Hypothesis: The percentage of participants with pure virological failure (confirmed HIV-1 RNA \< 400 c/mL) at Week 144 is equal for the 2 treatment groups. Alternative Hypothesis: The percentage of participants with pure virological failure (confirmed HIV-1 RNA \< 400 c/mL) at Week 144 is different between the 2 treatment groups||||0.066
90960216|NCT00112047|181800575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3||95.0||||The distribution of pure virological failure was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier product limit method and compared between treatment groups using a baseline CD4 stratum-weighted log-rank test.|Log Rank|No other adjustments were made.||Null Hypothesis: The percentage of participants with pure virological failure (confirmed HIV-1 RNA \< 50 c/mL) at Week 144 is equal for the 2 treatment groups. Alternative Hypothesis: The percentage of participants with pure virological failure (confirmed HIV-1 RNA \< 50 c/mL) at Week 144 is different between the 2 treatment groups||||0.30
90960217|NCT00112047|181800576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.08||The change from baseline to Week 144 in HIV-1 RNA was compared between the 2 treatment groups using baseline CD4 stratum-weighted CI around the mean difference. P-value is from a stratum weighted Van Elteren test.|Van Elteren|No other adjustments were made||Null Hypothesis: Changes from baseline to Week 144 in plasma HIV-1 RNA for the EFV+FTC+TDF and CBV+EFV groups are equal. Alternative hypothesis: Changes from baseline to Week 144 in plasma HIV-1 RNA for the EFV+FTC+TDF and CBV+EFV groups are different.||0.08|-0.16|0.39
90960218|NCT00112047|181800577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|41.3||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.05|78.55||The change from baseline to Week 144 in CD4 cell count was compared between the 2 treatment groups using baseline CD4 stratum-weighted CI around the mean difference. P-value is from a stratum weighted Van Elteren test.|Van Elteren|No other adjustments were made||Null Hypothesis: Changes from baseline toWeek 144 in CD4 cell count for the EFV+FTC+TDF and CBV+EFV groups are equal. Alternative hypothesis: Changes from baseline to Week 144 in CD4 cell count for the EFV+FTC+TDF and CBV+EFV groups are different.||78.55|4.05|0.089
90960219|NCT00112047|181800578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||P-value is from the Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|No other adjustments were made||Null Hypothesis: Changes from Week 48 baseline to Week 144 in Limb Fat for the EFV+FTC+TDF and CBV+EFV groups are equal. Alternative hypothesis: Changes from Week 48 baseline to Week 144 in Limb Fat for the EFV+FTC+TDF and CBV+EFV groups are different||||0.001
90960220|NCT00112047|181800579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011||95.0||||P-value is from the Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|No other adjustments were made||Null Hypothesis: Changes from Week 48 baseline to Week 144 in Trunk Fat for the EFV+FTC+TDF and CBV+EFV groups are equal. Alternative hypothesis: Changes from Week 48 baseline to Week 144 in Trunk Fat for the EFV+FTC+TDF and CBV+EFV groups are different||||0.011
90960221|NCT00112047|181800580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is from the Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|No other adjustments were made||Null Hypothesis: Changes from Week 48 baseline to Week 144 in Total Body Fat for the EFV+FTC+TDF and CBV+EFV groups are equal. Alternative hypothesis: Changes from Week 48 baseline to Week 144 in Total Body Fat for the EFV+FTC+TDF and CBV+EFV groups are different||||<0.001
90970990|NCT03468309|181824426|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
90909160|NCT00991276|181687532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-2.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.05||0.2468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.44|1.67||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Somnolence: P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||1.67|-6.44|0.2468
90909161|NCT00991276|181687532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.1496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|1.09||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Sleep Quantity: P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||1.09|-0.17|0.1496
90909162|NCT00991276|181687532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.8184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.55||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Sleep Quantity: P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||0.55|-0.69|0.8184
90909163|NCT00991276|181687532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.0918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|1.15||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Sleep Quantity: P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||1.15|-0.09|0.0918
90909164|NCT00991276|181687532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-9.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.48||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|-4.99||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||6-Item Sleep Problems Index: P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-4.99|-14.80|0.0001
90909165|NCT00991276|181687532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-6.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.46||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.42|-1.67||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||6-Item Sleep Problems Index: P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-1.67|-11.42|0.0089
90909166|NCT00991276|181687532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-3.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.45||0.1746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.21|1.51||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||6-Item Sleep Problems Index: P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||1.51|-8.21|0.1746
90960222|NCT00112047|181800590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16||95.0||||P-value is from the Wilcoxon Signed Rank test. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||Null Hypothesis: Change from Week 144 (Atripla baseline) to Week 240 (Atripla Week 96) limb fat value is equal to zero. Alternative hypothesis: Change from Week 144 (Atripla baseline) to Week 240 (Atripla Week 96) limb fat value is not equal to zero.||||0.16
90960223|NCT00112047|181800591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049||95.0||||P-value is from the Wilcoxon Signed Rank test. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||Null Hypothesis: Change from Week 144 (Atripla baseline) to Week 240 (Atripla Week 96) trunk fat value is equal to zero. Alternative hypothesis: Change from Week 144 (Atripla baseline) to Week 240 (Atripla Week 96) trunk fat value is not equal to zero.||||0.049
90970991|NCT03468309|181824427|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|Assumption of sphericity had been violated X2(2)=13.61, p\<.01 so Huynh-Feldt correction was used||||||<0.05
90909167|NCT00991276|181687532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-10.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.44|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.96|-5.32||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||9-Item Sleep Problems Index: P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-5.32|-14.96|<0.0001
90960224|NCT00112047|181800592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.055||95.0||||P-value is from the Wilcoxon Signed Rank test. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||Null Hypothesis: Change from Week 144 (Atripla baseline) to Week 240 (Atripla Week 96) total body fat value is equal to zero. Alternative hypothesis: Change from Week 144 (Atripla baseline) to Week 240 (Atripla Week 96) total body fat value is not equal to zero.||||0.055
90960225|NCT00112047|181800593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"The number and proportion of participants in each category (very satisfied, not very satisfied) were summarized. The P-value for the category shift from Week 144 baseline within a treatment group was calculated using the McNemar test."|McNemar|||Null Hypothesis: There is no category shift from Week 144 (Atripla baseline) to Week 240 (Atripla Week 96). Alternative Hypothesis: There is a category shift from Week 144 (Atripla baseline) to Week 240 (Atripla Week 96).||||<0.001
90909168|NCT00991276|181687532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-5.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.42||0.0359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.91|-0.34||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||9-Item Sleep Problems Index: P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-0.34|-9.91|0.0359
90909169|NCT00991276|181687532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-5.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.41||0.0395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.78|-0.24||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||9-Item Sleep Problems Index: P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-0.24|-9.78|0.0395
90909170|NCT00991276|181687532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.0278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.27||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Optimal Sleep: P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||0.27|0.02|0.0278
90909171|NCT00991276|181687532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.2||95.0|-0.04|0.2||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Optimal Sleep: P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||0.20|-0.04|0.2000
90909172|NCT00991276|181687532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.3396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.18||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Optimal Sleep: P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||0.18|-0.06|0.3396
90909173|NCT00991276|181687532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-14.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.22|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.93|-8.19||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Sleep Disturbance: P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-8.19|-20.93|<0.0001
90909174|NCT00991276|181687532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-6.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2||0.0584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.43|0.22||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Sleep Disturbance: P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||0.22|-12.43|0.0584
90909175|NCT00991276|181687532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-8.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.19||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.76|-2.15||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Sleep Disturbance: P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-2.15|-14.76|0.0090
90909176|NCT00991276|181687532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-2.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.28||0.2405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|1.82||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Snoring: P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||1.82|-7.20|0.2405
90909177|NCT00991276|181687532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26||0.7565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.18|3.77||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Snoring: P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||3.77|-5.18|0.7565
90960226|NCT00112047|181800594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12||95.0||||"The number and proportion of participants in each category (very satisfied, not very satisfied) were summarized. The P-value for the category shift from Week 144 baseline within a treatment group was calculated using the McNemar test."|McNemar|||Null Hypothesis: There is no category shift from Week 144 (Atripla baseline) to Week 240 (Atripla Week 96). Alternative Hypothesis: There is a category shift from Week 144 (Atripla baseline) to Week 240 (Atripla Week 96).||||0.12
90960227|NCT00112047|181800595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.037||95.0||||"The number and proportion of participants in each category (very satisfied, not very satisfied) were summarized. The P-value for the category shift from Week 144 baseline within a treatment group was calculated using the McNemar test."|McNemar|||Null Hypothesis: There is no category shift from Week 144 (Atripla baseline) to Week 240 (Atripla Week 96). Alternative Hypothesis: There is a category shift from Week 144 (Atripla baseline) to Week 240 (Atripla Week 96).||||0.037
90960228|NCT00112047|181800596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013||95.0||||"The number and proportion of participants in each category (very satisfied, not very satisfied) were summarized. The P-value for the category shift from Week 144 baseline within a treatment group was calculated using the McNemar test."|McNemar|||Null Hypothesis: There is no category shift from Week 144 (Atripla baseline) to Week 240 (Atripla Week 96). Alternative Hypothesis: There is a category shift from Week 144 (Atripla baseline) to Week 240 (Atripla Week 96).||||0.013
90970992|NCT03468309|181824428|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91033224|NCT00834249|181952304|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|99.71||||||90.0|||||||Bioequivalence is established when ratio of means falls within 80-125.|||||
90960229|NCT00112047|181800597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7||95.0||||"The number and proportion of participants in each category (bothers, does not bother) were summarized. The P-value for the category shift from Week 144 baseline within a treatment group was calculated using the McNemar test."|McNemar|||Null Hypothesis: There is no category shift from Week 144 (Atripla baseline) to Week 240 (Atripla Week 96). Alternative Hypothesis: There is a category shift from Week 144 (Atripla baseline) to Week 240 (Atripla Week 96).||||0.70
90960230|NCT00112047|181800598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95||95.0||||P-value is from the Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Null Hypothesis: There is no change in the PCS score from Week 144 (Atripla baseline) to Week 240 (Atripla Week 96). Alternative Hypothesis: There is a change in the PCS score from Week 144 (Atripla baseline) to Week 240 (Atripla Week 96).||||0.95
90960231|NCT00112047|181800599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23||95.0||||P-value is from the Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Null Hypothesis: There is no change in the MCS score from Week 144 (Atripla baseline) to Week 240 (Atripla Week 96). Alternative Hypothesis: There is a change in the MCS score from Week 144 (Atripla baseline) to Week 240 (Atripla Week 96).||||0.23
90960232|NCT01101477|181800641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||The patients with at lease one episode of hypoxemia (SPaO2\<90%) during FB were analyzed by Chi-square test. P value less 0.05 means significance, 2-sided.||||0.05
90960233|NCT01605292|181800648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90960234|NCT01605292|181800649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.006
90960235|NCT01605292|181800650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
90960236|NCT01605292|181800651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.56|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.56
90960237|NCT01605292|181800652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
90960238|NCT01605292|181800653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.07
90960239|NCT01605292|181800654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.75
90960240|NCT01605292|181800656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.007
90960241|NCT01786174|181800669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3||0.746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.17|9.96|||Random slopes model|||Fingolimod vs. Placebo Weeks 0-4||9.96|-7.17|0.746
90960242|NCT01786174|181800670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|2.03|||Random slopes model|||Fingolimod vs. Placebo Weeks 0-4||2.03|-1.53|0.780
90960243|NCT01786174|181800671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26||0.823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|3.99|||Random slopes model|||Fingolimod vs. Placebo Weeks 0-4||3.99|-5.00|0.823
90960244|NCT01786174|181800673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|4.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.04||0.294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.78|12.33|||Random slopes model|||Fingolimod vs. Placebo Weeks 0-4||12.33|-3.78|0.294
90960245|NCT03442985|181800679|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.109||||0.2556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.583|7.638||The p-values were not adjusted for multiple testing due to small sample size.|Negative binomial regression model|||Palovarotene 2.5 mg versus (vs) Palovarotene 5.0 mg: The annualized rate for number of new OCs was estimated using an unadjusted negative binomial regression model, offsetted by log-transformed follow-up time (years) to obtain annualized rate.||7.638|0.583|0.2556
90960246|NCT03442985|181800679|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|3.04||||0.1788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.601|15.373||The p-values were not adjusted for multiple testing due to small sample size.|Negative binomial regression model|||Palovarotene 2.5 mg vs Placebo: The annualized rate for number of new OCs was estimated using an unadjusted negative binomial regression model, offsetted by log-transformed follow-up time (years) to obtain annualized rate.||15.373|0.601|0.1788
90960247|NCT03442985|181800679|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.441||||0.657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.287|7.234||The p-values were not adjusted for multiple testing due to small sample size.|Negative binomial regression model|||Palovarotene 5.0 mg vs Placebo: The annualized rate for number of new OCs was estimated using an unadjusted negative binomial regression model, offsetted by log-transformed follow-up time (years) to obtain annualized rate.||7.234|0.287|0.6570
90960248|NCT03442985|181800680|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|-4412.6||||0.4252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15257.3|6432.1||The p-values were not adjusted for multiple testing due to small sample size.|Unadjusted estimation equation model|||Palovarotene 2.5 mg vs Palovarotene 5.0 mg: The mean difference in the change from baseline for total OC volume was estimated using an unadjusted estimation equation model with independent working covariance matrix to address potential correlation within the same family members.||6432.1|-15257.3|0.4252
90866160|NCT03982368|181595088|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|23.3||||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.6|31.1|||ANOVA|||Treatment Satisfaction - change from baseline to week 12||31.1|15.6|0.154
90866161|NCT03982368|181595088|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|25.8||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.0|33.6|||ANOVA|||Treatment Satisfaction - change from baseline to week 16||33.6|18.0|0.030
90866162|NCT03982368|181595088|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|24.6||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.1|32.1|||ANOVA|||Treatment Satisfaction - change from baseline to week 16||32.1|17.1|0.046
90866163|NCT03982368|181595088|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|15.4||||0.861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.6|22.2|||ANOVA|||Treatment-Related Bother - change from baseline to week 4||22.2|8.6|0.861
90866164|NCT03982368|181595088|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|15.3||||0.865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.0|21.7|||ANOVA|||Treatment-Related Bother - change from baseline to week 4||21.7|9.0|0.865
90866165|NCT03982368|181595088|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|10.5||||0.278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.6|17.3|||ANOVA|||Treatment-Related Bother - change from baseline to week 8||17.3|3.6|0.278
90866166|NCT03982368|181595088|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|7.2||||0.689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|13.5|||ANOVA|||Treatment-Related Bother - change from baseline to week 8||13.5|0.9|0.689
90866167|NCT03982368|181595088|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|9.1||||0.993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|16.2|||ANOVA|||Treatment-Related Bother - change from baseline to week 12||16.2|2.1|0.993
90866168|NCT03982368|181595088|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|9.2||||0.989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|15.7|||ANOVA|||Treatment-Related Bother - change from baseline to week 12||15.7|2.8|0.989
90866169|NCT03982368|181595088|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|10.4||||0.976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|17.0|||ANOVA|||Treatment-Related Bother - change from baseline to week 16||17.0|3.7|0.976
90866170|NCT03982368|181595088|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|9.0||||0.778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|15.1|||ANOVA|||Treatment-Related Bother - change from baseline to week 16||15.1|2.9|0.778
90866171|NCT03982368|181595088|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-17.3||||0.964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.2|-13.3|||ANOVA|||Symptom Bother - change from baseline to week 4||-13.3|-21.2|0.964
90866172|NCT03982368|181595088|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-18.7||||0.581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.7|-14.7|||ANOVA|||Symptom Bother - change from baseline to week 4||-14.7|-22.7|0.581
90866173|NCT03982368|181595088|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-21.4||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.2|-17.5|||ANOVA|||Symptom Bother - change from baseline to week 8||-17.5|-25.2|0.006
90866174|NCT03982368|181595088|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-17.6||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.4|-13.7|||ANOVA|||Symptom Bother - change from baseline to week 8||-13.7|-21.4|0.175
90866175|NCT03982368|181595088|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-19.4||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.1|-15.6|||ANOVA|||Symptom Bother - change from baseline to week 12||-15.6|-23.1|0.016
90866176|NCT03982368|181595088|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-19.8||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.5|-16.1|||ANOVA|||Symptom Bother - change from baseline to week 12||-16.1|-23.5|0.010
90866177|NCT03982368|181595088|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-20.5||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.3|-16.8|||ANOVA|||Symptom Bother - change from baseline to week 16||-16.8|-24.3|0.000
90866178|NCT03982368|181595088|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-20.8||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.6|-17.1|||ANOVA|||Symptom Bother - change from baseline to week 16||-17.1|-24.6|0.000
90866179|NCT03982368|181595089|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.302|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||at week 4||||0.302
90866180|NCT03982368|181595089|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.224|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||at week 4||||0.224
90866181|NCT03982368|181595089|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||at week 8 (FUP)||||0.000
90866182|NCT03982368|181595089|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.885|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||at week 8 (FUP)||||0.885
90866183|NCT03982368|181595089|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||At week 12 (FUP)||||0.035
90866184|NCT03982368|181595089|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.698|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||At week 12 (FUP)||||0.698
90866185|NCT03982368|181595089|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||At week 16 (FUP)||||0.016
90866186|NCT03982368|181595089|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.706|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||At week 16 (FUP)||||0.706
90866187|NCT03982368|181595090|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||at week 4||||0.210
90866188|NCT03982368|181595090|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||at weeek 4||||0.260
90866189|NCT03982368|181595090|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||At week 8 (FUP)||||0.000
90866190|NCT03982368|181595090|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.734|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||at week 8 (FUP)||||0.734
90866191|NCT03982368|181595090|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||at week 12 (FUP)||||0.050
90866192|NCT03982368|181595090|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.985|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||at week 12 (FUP)||||0.985
90960249|NCT03442985|181800680|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|-4640.9||||0.4053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15570.8|6289.0||The p-values were not adjusted for multiple testing due to small sample size.|Unadjusted estimation equation model|||Palovarotene 2.5 mg vs Placebo: The mean difference in the change from baseline for total OC volume was estimated using an unadjusted estimation equation model with independent working covariance matrix to address potential correlation within the same family members.||6289.0|-15570.8|0.4053
90960250|NCT03442985|181800680|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|-228.3||||0.9677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11265.0|10808.4||The p-values were not adjusted for multiple testings due to small sample size.|Unadjusted estimation equation model|||Palovarotene 5.0 mg vs Placebo: The mean difference in the change from baseline for total OC volume was estimated using an unadjusted estimation equation model with independent working covariance matrix to address potential correlation within the same family members.||10808.4|-11265.0|0.9677
90960251|NCT03442985|181800681|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.643||||0.5025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.177|2.335|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression was adjusted for the following covariates: baseline age, sex, and Ext1/2 mutation status.||||2.335|0.177|0.5025
90960252|NCT03442985|181800681|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.528||||0.3763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.128|2.175|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression was adjusted for the following covariates: baseline age, sex, and Ext1/2 mutation status.||||2.175|0.128|0.3763
90960253|NCT03442985|181800681|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.7714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.215|3.123|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression was adjusted for the following covariates: baseline age, sex, and Ext1/2 mutation status.||||3.123|0.215|0.7714
90866193|NCT03982368|181595090|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||at week 16 (FUP)||||0.018
90909178|NCT00991276|181687532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.25||0.3792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.43|2.47||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Snoring: P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||2.47|-6.43|0.3792
90909179|NCT00991276|181687533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|5.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.66||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.98|8.55||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||8.55|1.98|0.0019
90909180|NCT00991276|181687533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|3.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.65||0.0506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|6.51||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||6.51|-0.01|0.0506
90960254|NCT03442985|181800682|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.951||||0.8155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.623|1.451||The p-values were not adjusted for multiple testing due to small sample size. The correlation matrix type = compound symmetry was used.|Negative binomial regression model|||Palovarotene 2.5 mg vs Palovarotene 5.0 mg: The annualized rate for number of new or worsening deformities was estimated using an unadjusted negative binomial regression model, offsetted by log-transformed follow-up time (years) to obtain annualized rate.||1.451|0.623|0.8155
90866194|NCT03982368|181595090|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||at week 16 (FUP)||||0.580
90909181|NCT00991276|181687533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|2.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.64||0.2222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|5.26||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||5.26|-1.24|0.2222
90909182|NCT00959920|181687563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.42|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that patients for whom indwelling foley catheterization was employed will have their time to delivery interval reduced by 30 minutes.||||.42
90866195|NCT03982368|181595091|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|1.2||||0.282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|3.3|||ANOVA|||statistical analysis at week 4||3.3|-1.0|0.282
90866196|NCT03982368|181595091|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|3.9||||0.497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|6.0|||ANOVA|||statistical analysis at week 4||6.0|1.7|0.497
90909183|NCT01107626|181687576|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Log Rank|Stratified logrank test||||||0.12
90960255|NCT03442985|181800682|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.003||||0.9918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.592|1.699||The p-values were not adjusted for multiple testing due to small sample size. The correlation matrix type = compound symmetry was used.|Negative binomial regression model|||Palovarotene 2.5 mg vs Placebo: The annualized rate for number of new or worsening deformities was estimated using an unadjusted negative binomial regression model, offsetted by log-transformed follow-up time (years) to obtain annualized rate.||1.699|0.592|0.9918
90866197|NCT03982368|181595091|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|2.6||||0.734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|4.8|||ANOVA|||statistical analysis at week 8||4.8|0.5|0.734
90866198|NCT03982368|181595091|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|2.2||||0.963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|4.3|||ANOVA|||statistical analysis at week 8||4.3|0.1|0.963
90866199|NCT03982368|181595091|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|2.7||||0.854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|4.8|||ANOVA|||statistical analysis at week 12||4.8|0.7|0.854
90866200|NCT03982368|181595091|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|2.8||||0.881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|4.8|||ANOVA|||statistical analysis at week 12||4.8|0.8|0.881
90866201|NCT03982368|181595091|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|3.0||||0.632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|5.7|||ANOVA|||statistical analysis at week 16||5.7|0.3|0.632
90960256|NCT03442985|181800682|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.055||||0.7997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.589||The p-values were not adjusted for multiple testing due to small sample size. The correlation matrix type = compound symmetry was used.|Negative binomial regression model|||Palovarotene 5.0 mg vs Placebo: The annualized rate for number of new or worsening deformities was estimated using an unadjusted negative binomial regression model, offsetted by log-transformed follow-up time (years) to obtain annualized rate.||1.589|0.700|0.7997
90960257|NCT03442985|181800683|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.548||||0.2186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.772|3.108||The p-values were not adjusted for multiple testing due to small sample size. The correlation matrix type = independent was used.|Poisson regression model|||Palovarotene 2.5 mg vs Palovarotene 5.0 mg: The annualized rate for number of MO-related surgeries was estimated using an unadjusted poisson regression model, offsetted by log-transformed follow-up time (years) to obtain annualized rate.||3.108|0.772|0.2186
90960258|NCT03442985|181800683|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.655||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.676|4.052||The p-values were not adjusted for multiple testing due to small sample size. The correlation matrix type = independent was used.|Poisson regression model|||Palovarotene 2.5 mg vs Placebo: The annualized rate for number of MO-related surgeries was estimated using an unadjusted poisson regression model, offsetted by log-transformed follow-up time (years) to obtain annualized rate.||4.052|0.676|0.2700
90960259|NCT03442985|181800683|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.069||||0.8546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.524|2.178||The p-values were not adjusted for multiple testing due to small sample size. The correlation matrix type = independent was used.|Poisson regression model|||Palovarotene 5.0 mg vs Placebo: The annualized rate for number of MO-related surgeries was estimated using an unadjusted poisson regression model, offsetted by log-transformed follow-up time (years) to obtain annualized rate.||2.178|0.524|0.8546
90960260|NCT00084266|181800701|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The final p-value was compared against an O'Brien-Fleming boundary of 0.048.||||||0.042|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||"Chi-squared test was used to calculate p-value. P-value was calculated for participants with clinical outcome as cure."||||0.042
90960261|NCT00084266|181800713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9344|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Statistical comparison of survival analysis was performed.Log rank method was used to calculate p-value.||||0.9344
90960262|NCT00084266|181800714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5985|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Statistical comparison of survival analysis was performed.Log rank method was used to calculate p-value.||||0.5985
90960263|NCT00084266|181800715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.859|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Statistical comparison of survival analysis was performed.Log rank method was used to calculate p-value.||||0.8590
90960264|NCT01215422|181800716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0|||>|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.15||||Regression, Logistic||||||0.15|>0.05
90960265|NCT01215422|181800717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0||||The p-value represents the comparison of the two interventions combined and compared against baseline for Grades III and IV summed together.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.03
90960266|NCT01215422|181800720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-squared|0.16|||>|0.05||95.0||||Correlation between years of experience (all anesthesiologists, pooled) and time to intubation (both GS and KS VLSs, pooled)|Correlation|||||||>0.05
90960267|NCT00420017|181800724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.38||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.86|||Chi-squared|||||0.86|0.16|0.02
90960268|NCT00420017|181800725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.31
90960269|NCT00420017|181800726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.097||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.097
90866202|NCT03982368|181595091|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|4.4||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|7.0|||ANOVA|||statistical analysis at week 16||7.0|1.7|0.220
90960270|NCT00420017|181800727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.66
90960271|NCT02864381|181800728|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|6.1||P-value is derived from Cochran-Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) stratification factor status.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds Ratio is derived from CMH test stratified by PD-L1 stratification factor status, the Nivolumab alone arm serves as the reference.|||6.1|0.4|0.8
90960272|NCT02864381|181800729|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.836||||0.306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.589|1.189||P-value is derived from log-rank test stratified by PD-L1 stratification factor status.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio is derived from Cox model stratified by PD-L1 stratification factor status, the Nivolumab alone arm serves as the reference.|||1.189|0.589|0.306
90960273|NCT02864381|181800730|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.786||||0.312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.491|1.257||P-value is derived from log-rank test stratified by PD-L1 stratification factor status.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio is derived from Cox model stratified by PD-L1 stratification factor status, the Nivolumab alone arm serves as the reference.|||1.257|0.491|0.312
90960274|NCT01313637|181800764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.122|0.198|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least squares mean difference=UMEC 125 µg minus Placebo.|||0.198|0.122|<0.001
90960275|NCT01313637|181800764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.124|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.086|0.162|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least squares mean difference=VI 25 µg minus Placebo.|||0.162|0.086|<0.001
90960276|NCT01313637|181800764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.238|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.276|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least squares mean difference=UMEC/VI 125/25 µg minus Placebo.|||0.276|0.200|<0.001
90960277|NCT01313637|181800764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.079|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.046|0.112|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least squares mean difference=UMEC/VI 125/25 minus UMEC 125 µg.|||0.112|0.046|<0.001
90960278|NCT01313637|181800764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.114|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.081|0.148|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least squares mean difference=UMEC/VI 125/25 minus VI 25 µg.|||0.148|0.081|<0.001
90909184|NCT01107626|181687576|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Log Rank|Stratified logrank test||||||0.28
90909185|NCT02715258|181687584|SUPERIORITY||mixed-effects repeated measures|-0.41||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.16||The mixed-effects repeated measures analysis includes country, background anti-diabetes treatment status, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and the baseline HbA1c value as a fixed effect covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline in HbA1c (%) at Week 24||-0.16|-0.66|0.0012
90909186|NCT02715258|181687584|SUPERIORITY||mixed-effects repeated measures|-0.41||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.15||The mixed-effects repeated measures analysis includes country, background anti-diabetes treatment status, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and the baseline HbA1c value as a fixed effect covariate.|ANCOVA|||Sensitivity Analysis 1: Multiple imputation for change from baseline in HbA1c (%) including observations obtained after rescue medication||-0.15|-0.68|0.0021
90909187|NCT02715258|181687584|SUPERIORITY||mixed-effects repeated measures|-0.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.3||The mixed-effects repeated measures analysis includes country, background anti-diabetes treatment status, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and the baseline HbA1c value as a fixed effect covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Sensitivity Analysis 2: Multiple imputation for change from baseline in HbA1c (%) excluding observations obtained after rescue medication||-0.30|-0.80|<0.0001
90909188|NCT02715258|181687584|SUPERIORITY||mixed-effects repeated measures|-0.4||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|-0.17||The mixed-effects repeated measures analysis includes country, background anti-diabetes treatment status, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and the baseline HbA1c value as a fixed effect covariate.|ANCOVA|||Sensitivity Analysis 3: LOCF for change from baseline in HbA1c (%) including observations obtained after rescue medication||-0.17|-0.64|0.0009
90960279|NCT00655863|181800862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-307.229|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-443.168|-171.29||p-value and confidence interval presented without multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis that there was no difference between Alogliptin 25 mg QD and placebo groups was tested at a 2-sided 0.05 significance level. The ANCOVA model used for the change in postprandial incremental area the curver for total triglycerides includes treatment and statin use as fixed effects and baseline AUC(0-8h) for total triglycerides as a covariate.||-171.290|-443.168|<0.001
90960280|NCT00655863|181800862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-253.711|||<|0.001||95.0|-394.161|-113.262||p-value and confidence interval presented without multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis that there was no difference between Alogliptin 25 mg QD + Pioglitazone 30 mg QD and placebo QD groups was tested at a 2-sided 0.05 significance level. The ANCOVA model used for the change in postprandial incremental area the curve for total triglycerides includes treatment and statin use as fixed effects and baseline AUC(0-8h) for total triglycerides as a covariate.||-113.262|-394.161|<0.001
90960281|NCT03548987|181800880|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-14.75|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|-13.5|||ANCOVA|||Treatment policy estimand||-13.50|-16.00|<0.0001
90960282|NCT03548987|181800880|OTHER||Treatment difference|-15.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.52|-14.13|||MMRM (mixed model repeated measurement)|||Hypothetical estimand||-14.13|-16.52|<0.0001
90960283|NCT04572841|181800917|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|2.02||||||Analysis was performed for change from baseline using a mixed model for repeated measures with visit, intervention group (SAR441344 and Placebo), and visit by intervention group interaction as fixed categorical effects, and participant specific baseline ESSDAI as continuous covariate.||2.02|-1.39|
90960284|NCT00712673|181800951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.088|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.657|-0.312||Stepwise testing procedure applied to control type 1 error: lixisenatide (morning) compared with placebo (combined), if found statistically significant, then lixisenatide (evening) compared with placebo (combined).|ANCOVA|||To detect 0.5%(or 0.4%) difference between 1 lixisenatide arm and placebo(combined), 225 patients in lixisenatide arm, 170 in placebo(combined) would provide a power of 97% (or 87%) assuming common standard deviation=1.3% with 2-sided test at 5% significance. Statistical testing:2-sided at significance level=0.05. Analysis of co-variance(ANCOVA)included treatment arms, randomization strata of screening HbA1c(\<8.0,\>=8.0%),BMI(\<30,\>=30 kg/m\^2),country as fixed effects, baseline HbA1c as covariate.||-0.312|-0.657|<0.0001
90960285|NCT00712673|181800951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.088|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.193||Stepwise testing procedure applied to control type 1 error: lixisenatide (morning) compared with placebo (combined), if found statistically significant, then lixisenatide (evening) compared with placebo (combined).|ANCOVA|||To detect 0.5%(or 0.4%) difference between 1 lixisenatide arm and placebo(combined), 225 patients in lixisenatide arm, 170 in placebo(combined) would provide a power of 97% (or 87%) assuming common standard deviation=1.3% with 2-sided test at 5% significance. Statistical testing:2-sided at significance level=0.05. Analysis of co-variance(ANCOVA)included treatment arms, randomization strata of screening HbA1c(\<8.0,\>=8.0%),BMI(\<30,\>=30 kg/m\^2),country as fixed effects, baseline HbA1c as covariate.||-0.193|-0.540|<0.0001
90960286|NCT01259726|181801017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<=|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Treatment comparison with placebo using two-sided Chi-Square test at significance level p=0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||<=0.0001
90960287|NCT01259726|181801017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Treatment comparison with placebo using two-sided Chi-Square test at significance level p=0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
90909189|NCT02715258|181687585|SUPERIORITY||mixed-effects repeated measures|-2.14||||0.234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.66|1.39||The mixed-effects repeated measures analysis includes country, background anti-diabetes treatment status, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and the baseline HbA1c value as a fixed effect covariate.|ANCOVA|||Analysis of change from baseline in SBP (mm Hg) at Week 24||1.39|-5.66|0.2340
90960288|NCT01259726|181801017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Treatment comparison with placebo using two-sided Chi-Square test at significance level p=0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
90960289|NCT01259726|181801018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.088|TWO_SIDED|||||Treatment comparison with placebo using two-sided Chi-Square test at significance level p=0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||=0.088
90960290|NCT01259726|181801018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||Treatment comparison with placebo using two-sided Chi-Square test at significance level p=0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||=0.002
90960291|NCT01259726|181801018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.088|TWO_SIDED|||||Treatment comparison with placebo using two-sided Chi-Square test at significance level p=0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||=0.088
90960292|NCT01259726|181801019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.054|TWO_SIDED|||||Treatment comparison with placebo using two-sided Chi-Square test at significance level p=0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||=0.054
90960293|NCT01259726|181801019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.008|TWO_SIDED|||||Treatment comparison with placebo using two-sided Chi-Square test at significance level p=0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||=0.008
90960294|NCT01259726|181801019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.101|TWO_SIDED|||||Treatment comparison with placebo using two-sided Chi-Square test at significance level p=0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||=0.101
90866203|NCT03982368|181595092|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|1.2||||0.296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|3.3|||ANOVA|||statistical analysis at week 4||3.3|-0.9|0.296
90866204|NCT03982368|181595092|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|3.6||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|5.7|||ANOVA|||statistical analysis at week 4||5.7|1.5|0.570
90960295|NCT01259726|181801020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.045|TWO_SIDED|||||Treatment comparison with placebo using two-sided Chi-Square test at significance level p=0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||=0.045
90960296|NCT01259726|181801020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.066|TWO_SIDED|||||Treatment comparison with placebo using two-sided Chi-Square test at significance level p=0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||=0.066
90960297|NCT01259726|181801020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.045|TWO_SIDED|||||Treatment comparison with placebo using two-sided Chi-Square test at significance level p=0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||=0.045
91033225|NCT00834249|181952305|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|109.61||||||90.0|||||||Metabolite results not subjected to bioequivalence criteria, results are presented for informational purposes only.|||||
90866205|NCT03982368|181595092|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|2.7||||0.754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|4.9|||ANOVA|||statistical analysis at week 8||4.9|0.5|0.754
90866206|NCT03982368|181595092|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|2.3||||0.972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|4.5|||ANOVA|||statistical analysis at week 8||4.5|0.0|0.972
90866207|NCT03982368|181595092|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|3.4||||0.793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|5.3|||ANOVA|||statistical analysis at week 12||5.3|1.4|0.793
90960298|NCT02656160|181801067|OTHER|||||||0.85||||||P\<0.05 considered statistically significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||tonic||||0.85
90960299|NCT02656160|181801067|OTHER|||||||0.322||||||P\<0.05 considered statistically significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Phasic activity||||0.322
90960300|NCT02656160|181801068|OTHER|||||||0.42||||||P\<0.05 considered statistically significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.42
90960301|NCT02594826|181801074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|35.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.1|114.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|This is the calculated p-value, which is adjusted for age, marital status, prior screening, health insurance, and having a healthcare provider.||||114.9|11.1|<0.001
90960302|NCT02594826|181801075|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Regression, Linear|Controlling for: marital status, education, language spoken at home, health insurance, regular physician, language of physician, ever had Pap test.||The null hypothesis is that the two conditions would not differ in their knowledge following program participation. The study biostatistician conducted full regression models to examine change in knowledge (from pre- to post-program) within each group and across groups over time. The models controlled for relevant covariates.||||0.005
90960303|NCT00926211|181801076|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Initial planned sample size of 26 would provide approximately 90% power if the survival rate in the implanted transected follicles is at least 40%. Sample size used was 36 with 35 participants completing the 9 month study.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.5||0.023|ONE_SIDED|97.5||3.9||t-test comparison to the upper limit of the non-inferiority margin|t-test, 1 sided|Paired t-test compared to the non-inferiority margin of 4 follicles.|The number of implanted hairs surviving that were harvested using the computer assisted method was subtracted from the number of implanted hairs surviving that were harvested manually.|The hypothesis to be tested is one of non-inferiority. Tests of non-inferiority are one-sided tests and the significance level will be 0.025.||3.9||0.023
90960304|NCT00926211|181801077|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Study was powered for the primary efficacy outcome.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.045|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.146|<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-0.004||||t-test, 1 sided|Paired t-test.||Paired data with each subject as their own control (treatment was randomly assigned to the left or right side of the scalp). Paired difference was analyzed.|||-.004|<0.001
90909190|NCT02715258|181687585|SUPERIORITY||mixed-effects repeated measures|-1.91||||0.2937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.48|1.66||The mixed-effects repeated measures analysis includes country, background anti-diabetes treatment status, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and the baseline HbA1c value as a fixed effect covariate.|ANCOVA|||Sensitivity Analysis 1: Multiple imputation for change from baseline in SBP (mm Hg) including observations obtained after rescue medication||1.66|-5.48|0.2937
90909191|NCT02715258|181687585|SUPERIORITY||mixed-effects repeated measures|-1.72||||0.403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.75|2.32||The mixed-effects repeated measures analysis includes country, background anti-diabetes treatment status, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and the baseline HbA1c value as a fixed effect covariate.|ANCOVA|||Sensitivity Analysis 2: Multiple imputation for change from baseline in SBP (mm Hg) excluding observations obtained after rescue medication||2.32|-5.75|0.4030
90909192|NCT02715258|181687585|SUPERIORITY||mixed-effects repeated measures|-2.09||||0.216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.41|1.23||The mixed-effects repeated measures analysis includes country, background anti-diabetes treatment status, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and the baseline HbA1c value as a fixed effect covariate.|ANCOVA|||||1.23|-5.41|0.2160
90909193|NCT02715258|181687586|SUPERIORITY||mixed-effects repeated measures|-0.79||||0.1222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.21||The mixed-effects repeated measures analysis includes country, background anti-diabetes treatment status, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and the baseline HbA1c value as a fixed effect covariate.|ANCOVA|||Analysis of change from baseline in body weight (kg) at Week 24 for subjects with BMI greater than or equal to 25 kg/m2||0.21|-1.80|0.1222
90909194|NCT02715258|181687586|SUPERIORITY||mixed-effects repeated measures|-0.65||||0.2014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|0.35||The mixed-effects repeated measures analysis includes country, background anti-diabetes treatment status, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and the baseline HbA1c value as a fixed effect covariate.|ANCOVA|||Sensitivity Analysis 1: Multiple imputation for change from baseline in body weight (kg) for subjects with BMI greater than or equal to 25 kg/m2 including observations obtained after rescue medication||0.35|-1.65|0.2014
90909195|NCT02715258|181687586|SUPERIORITY||mixed-effects repeated measures|-0.91||||0.0638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|0.05||The mixed-effects repeated measures analysis includes country, background anti-diabetes treatment status, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and the baseline HbA1c value as a fixed effect covariate.|ANCOVA|||Sensitivity Analysis 2: Multiple imputation for change from baseline in body weight (kg) for subjects with BMI greater than or equal to 25 kg/m2 excluding observations obtained after rescue medication||0.05|-1.88|0.0638
90909196|NCT02715258|181687586|SUPERIORITY||mixed-effects repeated measures|-0.69||||0.1456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|0.24||The mixed-effects repeated measures analysis includes country, background anti-diabetes treatment status, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and the baseline HbA1c value as a fixed effect covariate.|ANCOVA|||Sensitivity Analysis 3: LOCF for change from baseline in body weight (kg) for subjects with BMI greater than or equal to 25 kg/m2 including observations obtained after rescue medication||0.24|-1.63|0.1456
90909197|NCT02715258|181687587|SUPERIORITY||mixed-effects repeated measures|-1.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.92|-1.09||The mixed-effects repeated measures analysis includes country, background anti-diabetes treatment status, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and the baseline HbA1c value as a fixed effect covariate.|ANCOVA|||Analysis of change from baseline in FPG (mmol/L) over time across 24 weeks||-1.09|-1.92|<0.0001
90909198|NCT02715258|181687588|SUPERIORITY||mixed-effects repeated measures|-0.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.43||The mixed-effects repeated measures analysis includes country, background anti-diabetes treatment status, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and the baseline HbA1c value as a fixed effect covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline in HbA1c (%) at Week 6||-0.43|-0.79|<0.0001
90909199|NCT02715258|181687588|SUPERIORITY||mixed-effects repeated measures|-0.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|-0.5||The mixed-effects repeated measures analysis includes country, background anti-diabetes treatment status, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and the baseline HbA1c value as a fixed effect covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline in HbA1c (%) at Week 12||-0.50|-0.92|<0.0001
90909200|NCT02715258|181687588|SUPERIORITY||mixed-effects repeated measures|-0.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.36||The mixed-effects repeated measures analysis includes country, background anti-diabetes treatment status, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and the baseline HbA1c value as a fixed effect covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline in HbA1c (%) at Week 18||-0.36|-0.78|<0.0001
90909201|NCT02715258|181687588|SUPERIORITY||mixed-effects repeated measures|-0.41||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.16||The mixed-effects repeated measures analysis includes country, background anti-diabetes treatment status, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and the baseline HbA1c value as a fixed effect covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline in HbA1c (%) at Week 24||-0.16|-0.66|0.0012
90909202|NCT02715258|181687588|SUPERIORITY||mixed-effects repeated measures|-0.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.39||The mixed-effects repeated measures analysis includes country, background anti-diabetes treatment status, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and the baseline HbA1c value as a fixed effect covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline in HbA1c (%) across 24 weeks||-0.39|-0.76|<0.0001
90909203|NCT02715258|181687589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.39||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.69|6.8||The logistic regression includes country, background anti-diabetes treatment status, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and the baseline HbA1c value as a fixed effect covariate.|ANCOVA|||Model-Adjusted proportion of subjects with HbA1c \<7% across 24 weeks||6.80|1.69|0.0006
90909204|NCT01280591|181687604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-70.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.17||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-106.8|-33.7|||ANCOVA|||||-33.7|-106.8|0.0002
90909205|NCT01280591|181687605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
90909206|NCT01280591|181687606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|70.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.85||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.1|112.7|||ANCOVA|||||112.7|28.1|0.0001
90909207|NCT01280591|181687607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.14||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|19.7|||ANCOVA|||||19.7|3.7|0.0007
90909208|NCT01280591|181687608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
90909209|NCT01280591|181687609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0027|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0027
90909210|NCT01280591|181687610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0321|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0321
90909211|NCT01280591|181687611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0019|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0019
90866208|NCT03982368|181595092|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|3.4||||0.766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|5.3|||ANOVA|||statistical analysis at week 12||5.3|1.5|0.766
90866209|NCT03982368|181595092|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|3.3||||0.458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|6.0|||ANOVA|||statistical analysis at week 16||6.0|0.6|0.458
90866210|NCT03982368|181595092|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|4.6||||0.147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|7.3|||ANOVA|||statistical analysis at week 16||7.3|2.0|0.147
90866211|NCT03652012|181595094|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|54.2||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|106.85||As multiple parameters were assessed from the stimulus-response curve, a Bonferroni-adjusted alpha threshold of α = 0.0125 was applied to account for multiple comparisons when assessing this outcome measure.|ANOVA||Mean difference (Healthy Controls - MCI).|"We conducted a two-way factorial ANOVA (Group x Condition). Group has two levels: MCI and Healthy controls. Condition has two levels: active muscle contraction and rest.~As multiple parameters were assessed from the stimulus-response curve, a Bonferroni-adjusted alpha threshold of α = 0.0125 was applied to account for multiple comparisons when assessing this outcome measure."||106.85|1.54|0.044
90909212|NCT01280591|181687612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
90909213|NCT01280591|181687613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||>0.05
90909214|NCT01280591|181687614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0012|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0012
90909215|NCT01280591|181687615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
90909216|NCT01280591|181687616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
90909217|NCT01280591|181687617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0016|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0016
90909218|NCT01280591|181687618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||>0.05
90909219|NCT01280591|181687619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
90909220|NCT01280591|181687620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0064|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0064
90909221|NCT01280591|181687621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0047|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0047
90909222|NCT01280591|181687622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0053|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0053
90909223|NCT01280591|181687624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2734|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2734
90909224|NCT02175212|181687682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.88||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|3.15|||Regression, Cox|||||3.15|1.12|0.01
90909225|NCT02175212|181687683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.31||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|3.85|||Regression, Cox|||||3.85|1.23|0.01
90909226|NCT02175212|181687684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.48||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|4.68|||Regression, Cox|||||4.68|1.31|0.009
90960305|NCT00585195|181801099|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|131.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.59|179.63||||||||179.63|96.59|
90960306|NCT00585195|181801099|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|239.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|172.14|331.93||||||||331.93|172.14|
90909227|NCT02131324|181687689|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided hypothesis testing was conducted for all the tests. Resulting p-values less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant unless noted otherwise. No adjustments of p values were made for multiple comparisons.||||||0.086|||||||ANOVA|||Two-sided hypothesis testing was conducted for all the tests. Resulting p-values less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant unless noted otherwise. No adjustments of p values were made for multiple comparisons.||||0.086
90909228|NCT00812877|181687697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.35||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|4.66||A clustered permutation test with 10,000 random permutations based on the log rank test statistic was used for the primary treatment comparison to account for censoring and to ensure proper test size given the number of practices.|Log Rank||A confirmatory analysis, adjusted for patient, dentist, and tooth characteristics, and follow-up time, was performed using marginal proportional hazards regression with robust standard error estimates accounting for clustering by practice.|||4.66|1.19|.046
90960307|NCT00585195|181801099|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|201.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|139.33|291.58||||||||291.58|139.33|
90960308|NCT00585195|181801100|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|216.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|161.41|289.56||||||||289.56|161.41|
90909229|NCT01444287|181687722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.636|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2093||0.0035||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as: Control-Test.|Ho: No Lenses (control) - narafilcon B (test) = 0. Ha: No Lenses (control) - narafilcon B (test) ≠ 0.||||0.0035
90909230|NCT01444287|181687722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.743|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2093||0||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as: Control - Test.|Ho: Polymacon (+ control) - Narafilcon B (test) = 0. Ha: Polymacon (+ control) - Narafilcon B (test) ≠ 0.||||0.0000
90960309|NCT00585195|181801100|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|350.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|141.09|868.23||||||||868.23|141.09|
90960310|NCT00585195|181801100|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|365.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|263.22|507.31||||||||507.31|263.22|
90960311|NCT00585195|181801103|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|15.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|10.89|22.26||||||||22.26|10.89|
90960312|NCT00585195|181801104|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|20.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|14.59|29.18||||||||29.18|14.59|
90960313|NCT00585195|181801106|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|157.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|136.89|180.97||||||||180.97|136.89|
90909231|NCT01444287|181687722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0275|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2093||0.8957||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as: Control-Test.|Ho: lotrafilcon A (control) - narafilcon B (test) = 0. Ha: lotrafilcon A (control) - narafilcon B (test) ≠ 0.||||0.8957
90909232|NCT01444287|181687723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0057|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0031||0.0692||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as: Control-Test.|Ho: No Lenses (control) - narafilcon B (test) = 0. Ha: No Lenses (control) - narafilcon B (test) ≠ 0.||||0.0692
91033226|NCT00834249|181952306|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|106.85||||||90.0|||||||Metabolite results not subjected to bioequivalence criteria, results are presented for informational puposes only.|||||
90960314|NCT00585195|181801107|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|132.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|119.1|148.1||||||||148.10|119.10|
90866212|NCT03652012|181595094|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8||||0.912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.87|57.47||As multiple parameters were assessed from the stimulus-response curve, a Bonferroni-adjusted alpha threshold of α = 0.0125 was applied to account for multiple comparisons when assessing this outcome measure.|ANOVA||Mean difference in slope of the stimulus-response curve by muscle contraction condition (Active - Rest).|"We conducted a two-way factorial ANOVA (Group x Condition). Group has two levels: MCI and Healthy controls. Condition has two levels: active muscle contraction and rest.~As multiple parameters were assessed from the stimulus-response curve, a Bonferroni-adjusted alpha threshold of α = 0.0125 was applied to account for multiple comparisons when assessing this outcome measure.~The results presented here reflect the main effect of Condition on the slope of the stimulus-response curve."||57.47|-51.87|0.912
90866213|NCT03652012|181595095|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.6||||0.1021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.33|45.54|||t-test, 2 sided|No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Mean cortical silent period (CSP; units = milliseconds) in the CN group minus mean CSP in the MCI group. Positive values indicate a longer cortical silent period in the control group.|||45.54|-4.33|0.1021
90866214|NCT03652012|181595096|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.208||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.113|0.529|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.529|-0.113|0.19
90866215|NCT03652012|181595097|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0078||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.50|-0.51|0.97
90866216|NCT01288235|181595098|OTHER||3-Year Cumulative incidence|14.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.3|22.3||||||||22.3|8.3|
90866217|NCT01288235|181595098|OTHER||5-Year Cumulative incidence|20.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.7|28.9||||||||28.9|12.7|
90866218|NCT01288235|181595099|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.1||||0.543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|4.9|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t test||||4.9|-2.6|0.543
90909233|NCT01444287|181687723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0032||0.7301||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as: Control-Test.|Ho: Polymacon (+ control) - Narafilcon B (test) = 0. Ha: Polymacon (+ control) - Narafilcon B (test) ≠ 0.||||0.7301
90909234|NCT01444287|181687723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0032||0.8055||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as: Control-Test.|Ho: lotrafilcon A (control) - narafilcon B (test) = 0. Ha: lotrafilcon A (control) - narafilcon B (test) ≠ 0.||||0.8055
90909235|NCT01444287|181687724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0122|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1111||0.9127||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as: Control-Test.|Ho: No Lenses (control) - narafilcon B (test) = 0. Ha: No Lenses (control) - narafilcon B (test) ≠ 0.||||0.9127
90909236|NCT01444287|181687724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6864|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1098||0||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as: Control-Test.|Ho: Polymacon (+ control) - Narafilcon B (test) = 0. Ha: Polymacon (+ control) - Narafilcon B (test) ≠ 0.||||0.0000
90909237|NCT01444287|181687724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1705|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1098||0.1256||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as: Control-Test.|Ho: lotrafilcon A (control) - narafilcon B (test) = 0. Ha: lotrafilcon A (control) - narafilcon B (test) ≠ 0.||||0.1256
91033227|NCT00834249|181952307|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|106.38||||||90.0|||||||Metabolite results not subjected to bioequivalence criteria, results are presented for informational purposes only.|||||
90909238|NCT01444287|181687725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0688|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.044||0.9892||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as: Control-Test.|Ho: No Lenses (control) - narafilcon B (test) = 0. Ha: No Lenses (control) - narafilcon B (test) ≠ 0.||||0.9892
90909239|NCT01444287|181687725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.984||0.0007||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as: Control-Test.|Ho: Polymacon (+ control) - Narafilcon B (test) = 0. Ha: Polymacon (+ control) - Narafilcon B (test) ≠ 0.||||0.0007
90909240|NCT01444287|181687725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.984||0.003||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as: Control-Test.|Ho: lotrafilcon A (control) - narafilcon B (test) = 0. Ha: lotrafilcon A (control) - narafilcon B (test) ≠ 0.||||0.0030
90909241|NCT03095508|181687726|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.446|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.446
90909242|NCT03095508|181687728|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
90909243|NCT03095508|181687729|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.145|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.145
90909244|NCT03095508|181687730|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.188|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.188
90909245|NCT03095508|181687731|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin 14.5% absolute difference between percentages in group A and B|Risk Difference (RD)|0.14||||1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.24||p- value for superiority: 0.021|Fisher Exact|||p1=proportion of patients without sore throat at Day 4 in Arm A p2=proportion of patients without sore throat at Day 4 in Arm B Н0: p1 - p2 ≤ -0.145||0.24|0.03|0.00001
90866219|NCT01288235|181595100|OTHER||3-Year Local Disease Control Probability|89.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|83.1|94.9||||||||94.9|83.1|
90866220|NCT01288235|181595100|OTHER||5-Year Local Disease Control Probability|85.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.2|91.9||||||||91.9|78.2|
90866221|NCT01288235|181595100|OTHER||3-Year Distant Disease Control|97.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|92.1|99.2||||||||99.2|92.1|
90866222|NCT01288235|181595100|OTHER||5-Year Distant Disease Control|95.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.4|98.1||||||||98.1|89.4|
90866223|NCT01288235|181595101|OTHER||3-Year Cumulative incidence of grade 3+|12.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.6|19.5||||||||19.5|6.6|
90866224|NCT01288235|181595101|OTHER||5-Year Cumulative incidence of grade 3+|16.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.8|24.3||||||||24.3|9.8|
90866225|NCT01288235|181595102|OTHER||3-Year Cumulative inc. of hearing loss|12.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|29.5||||||||29.5|2.9|
90909246|NCT00335556|181687732|OTHER||Log Rank Test Statistic|5.419||||0.0199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||The event-free survival distributions of patients with Stage II-IV diffuse anaplastic Wilms' tumor on AREN0321 and NWTS-5 (NCT00002610) were compared using the log-rank test.||||.0199
90909247|NCT00335556|181687733|OTHER||Log Rank Test Statistic|0.8814||||0.3478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||The overall survival distributions of patients with Stage I-IV malignant rhabdoid tumors on AREN0321 and National Wilms Tumor Study-5 -- Treatment of Relapsed Patients, A National Wilms Tumor Study Group Phase III Study (NCT00002610) were compared using the log-rank test.||||.3478
90909248|NCT00335556|181687735|OTHER||Log Rank Test Statistic|3.6216||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||The event-free survival distributions of patients with Stage I focal and diffuse anaplastic Wilms tumors on AREN0321 and National Wilms Tumor Study-5 -- Treatment of Relapsed Patients, A National Wilms Tumor Study Group Phase III Study (NCT00002610) were compared using the log-rank test.||||.0570
90909249|NCT01710514|181687770|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis (H0) was tested against the alternative (Ha) by constructing two-sided 95%CI for the difference. The non-inferiority limit for the difference was pre-specified to -10.0% (absolute). If the lower limit of the two-sided 95%CI was greater than the non-inferiority limit (-10.0%) for both the FAS and per protocol set, the null hypothesis was to be rejected. In that case it would be claimed that the rate observed in this trial was non-inferior to the rate observed in the CS08 trial|Difference of % to historical control|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|1.8||||||To verify sufficient supplementation of luteal hormone, the proportion of subjects with blood progesterone concentration ≥ 10 ng/mL on Day 5 was compared to the result from a historical control, trial CS08 (NCT number: 00884221). The corresponding proportion of subjects in trial CS08 was 99.8% (95%CI: 99.1;100.0, 631/632 subjects). The non-inferiority hypothesis tested for this primary endpoint was: H0: P(000072)-P(CS08) ≤ -10.0% against the alternative Ha: P(000072)-P(CS08) \> -10.0%.||1.8|-3.6|
90909250|NCT03404843|181687775|OTHER|||||||0.97|||||||ANOVA|||Within group comparison of treatment||||0.97
90909251|NCT03404843|181687775|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Within group comparison of treatment||||<0.05
90909252|NCT03404843|181687776|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Within group comparison of treatment||||<0.05
90909253|NCT03404843|181687776|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Within group comparison of treatment||||<0.05
90909254|NCT03404843|181687777|OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||ANOVA|||Within group comparison of treatment||||0.28
90909255|NCT03404843|181687777|OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||ANOVA|||Within group comparison of treatment||||0.37
90909256|NCT03404843|181687778|OTHER|||||||0.89|||||||ANOVA|||Within group comparison of treatment||||0.89
90909257|NCT03404843|181687778|OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||ANOVA|||Within group comparison of treatment||||0.30
90909258|NCT03404843|181687779|OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||ANOVA|||Within group comparison of treatment||||0.08
90909259|NCT03404843|181687779|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Within group comparison of treatment||||0.05
90909260|NCT00567164|181687781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.85|STANDARD_DEVIATION|30.356||0.0001||95.0|-16.3|-7.394|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-7.394|-16.3|0.0001
90909261|NCT05570006|181687831|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|7.4|||||ONE_SIDED|||||Bayesian method||||Compared to historical placebo||||
90909262|NCT02628093|181687871|OTHER|Because this was a pilot (exploratory) randomized study, no formal sample size calculation was required.||||||0.214||||||P value threshold \<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Because this was a pilot (exploratory) randomized study, no formal sample size calculation was required. Demographic, preoperative, and postoperative variables and the primary outcome were compared between groups (THUNDERBEAT and LigaSure) by the Wilcoxon rank-sum test for continuous variables and the chi-square test/Fisher's exact test for categorical variables, as appropriate. All p-values are two-sided with statistical significance evaluated at the 0.05 alpha level.||||0.214
90909263|NCT02628093|181687872|OTHER|||||||0.007||||||P value threshold \<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||compared between groups by the Wilcoxon rank-sum test||||0.007
90909264|NCT02628093|181687876|OTHER|||||||1||||||P value threshold \<0.05|Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
90909265|NCT04310579|181687902|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2||||0.22|ONE_SIDED|95.0||2.5||To demonstrate an effect of oxycodone with midazolam compared to oxycodone alone, it is necessary that the upper bound of the one-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) in the least-square mean VE55 difference between treatments \< 0 L/min.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation will be used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom for tests of fixed effects.|Comparison was the effect of oxycodone with midazolam compared to oxycodone alone.|Part 1 is powered with consideration to both the effect of oxycodone versus placebo and oxycodone plus midazolam versus oxycodone. Assuming a -4 L/min effect size on VE55 and standard deviation of 5 L/min, there is greater than 90% power at a one-sided 0.05 significance level for a sample size of 20 subjects.||2.5||0.22
90909266|NCT04310579|181687903|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.9||||0.01|ONE_SIDED|97.5||-0.6||To demonstrate an effect of oxycodone with paroxetine compared to oxycodone alone, it is necessary that the upper bound of the one-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) in the least-square mean VE55 difference between treatments \< 0 L/min.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation will be used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom for tests of fixed effects.|Comparison was the effect of oxycodone and paroxetine compared to oxycodone and placebo.|Sample size and power were calculated based on 2 primary outcomes (day 1 and day 5) with adjustment for multiplicity (α=.025). The assessments with paroxetine or quetiapine were considered as separate experiments. A sample size of 20 participants was determined to have 90 percent power at a 1-sided significance level to detect a 4 L/min decrease in the primary end point (ventilation at 55 mmHg end-tidal carbon dioxide) assuming a standard deviation of 5 L/min.||-0.6||0.01
90866226|NCT01288235|181595102|OTHER||5-Year Cumulative inc. of hearing loss|12.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|29.5||||||||29.5|2.9|
90866227|NCT01203098|181595108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|4.6||||||Primary analyses were performed on proportion of subjects who experienced thromboembolic events defined as primary efficacy endpoint (incidence of thromboembolic events); incidence of thromboembolic events and its 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated by treatment group, and difference between DU-176b 15 mg and 30 mg groups and its 95% CI were also calculated. For reference, difference between enoxaparin group and each DU-176b group and its 95% CI of each were calculated.||4.6|-7.2|
90866228|NCT01203098|181595108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|6.8||||||Primary analyses were performed on proportion of subjects who experienced thromboembolic events defined as primary efficacy endpoint (incidence of thromboembolic events); incidence of thromboembolic events and its 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated by treatment group, and difference between DU-176b 15 mg and 30 mg groups and its 95% CI were also calculated. For reference, difference between enoxaparin group and each DU-176b group and its 95% CI of each were calculated.||6.8|-4.6|
90866229|NCT03851705|181595114|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.68||||0.9047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.19|25.83||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|ANCOVA|||||25.83|-29.19|0.9047
90866230|NCT03851705|181595115|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.47||||0.8685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.11|83.05||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|ANCOVA|||||83.05|-70.11|0.8685
90866231|NCT03851705|181595116|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.1||||0.2347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.2|8.1||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 90||8.1|-32.2|0.2347
90866232|NCT03851705|181595116|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.6||||0.7058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.9|29.2||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 150||29.2|-19.9|0.7058
90909267|NCT04310579|181687903|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.28|ONE_SIDED|97.5||2.8||To demonstrate an effect of oxycodone with quetiapine compared to oxycodone alone, it is necessary that the upper bound of the one-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) in the least-square mean VE55 difference between treatments \< 0 L/min.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation will be used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom for tests of fixed effects.|Comparison was the effect of oxycodone and quetiapine compared to oxycodone and placebo.|Sample size and power were calculated based on 2 primary outcomes (day 1 and day 5) with adjustment for multiplicity (α=.025). The assessments with paroxetine or quetiapine were considered as separate experiments. A sample size of 20 participants was determined to have 90 percent power at a 1-sided significance level to detect a 4 L/min decrease in the primary end point (ventilation at 55 mmHg end-tidal carbon dioxide) assuming a standard deviation of 5 L/min.||2.8||0.28
90866233|NCT03851705|181595116|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.7||||0.5653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.5|14.1||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 180||14.1|-25.5|0.5653
90940384|NCT00526097|181760510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.74||0.013||95.0|0.9|7.7||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||7.7|0.9|0.0130
90866234|NCT03851705|181595118|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.9||||0.4589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.3|33.6||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 90||33.6|-73.3|0.4589
90866235|NCT03851705|181595118|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.7||||0.5956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.8|84.3||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 150||84.3|-48.8|0.5956
90866236|NCT03851705|181595118|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.5||||0.7861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.7|47.7||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 180||47.7|-62.7|0.7861
90866237|NCT03851705|181595120|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-62.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.1|-45.1||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 90||-45.1|-80.1|<.0001
90866238|NCT03851705|181595120|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-60.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.5|-37.8||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 150||-37.8|-83.5|<.0001
90866239|NCT03851705|181595120|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-92.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-120.4|-64.2||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 150||-64.2|-120.4|<.0001
90866240|NCT03851705|181595122|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-316.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-420.7|-212.6||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 90||-212.6|-420.7|<.0001
90866241|NCT03851705|181595122|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-304.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-408.0|-200.8||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 150||-200.8|-408.0|<.0001
90866242|NCT03851705|181595122|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-390.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-504.5|-276.3||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 180||-276.3|-504.5|<.0001
90866243|NCT03851705|181595124|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.9||||0.3299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.9|8.2||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 90||8.2|-23.9|0.3299
90866244|NCT03851705|181595124|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.7||||0.7778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.7|22.2||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 150||22.2|-16.7|0.7778
90866245|NCT03851705|181595124|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.5||||0.6613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.2|12.3||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 180||12.3|-19.2|0.6613
90866246|NCT03851705|181595125|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.0||||0.4911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.0|36.0||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 90||36.0|-74.0|0.4911
90866247|NCT03851705|181595125|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.1||||0.7461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.2|79.4||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 150||79.4|-57.2|0.7461
90866248|NCT03851705|181595125|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.9||||0.837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.8|51.1||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 180||51.1|-62.8|0.8370
90866249|NCT03851705|181595128|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.7||||0.1371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.5|4.2||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 90||4.2|-29.5|0.1371
90866250|NCT03851705|181595128|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.5||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.6|15.5||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 150||15.5|-22.6|0.7100
90866251|NCT03851705|181595128|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.3||||0.2278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.2|6.6||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 180||6.6|-27.2|0.2278
90866252|NCT03851705|181595130|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.4||||0.2044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.7|10.9||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 90||10.9|-49.7|0.2044
90866253|NCT03851705|181595130|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.8||||0.7875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.9|30.4||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 150||30.4|-39.9|0.7875
90866254|NCT03851705|181595130|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.8||||0.3193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.3|15.7||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 180||15.7|-47.3|0.3193
90866255|NCT03851705|181595132|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.1||||0.2877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.0|8.8||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 90||8.8|-29.0|0.2877
90866256|NCT03851705|181595132|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0||||0.7944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|25.7||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 150||25.7|-19.7|0.7944
90866257|NCT03851705|181595132|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.1||||0.5803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.4|13.3||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 180||13.3|-23.4|0.5803
90866258|NCT03851705|181595134|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.1||||0.4848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.6|35.3||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 90||35.3|-73.6|0.4848
90866259|NCT03851705|181595134|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.2||||0.722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.0|80.3||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 150||80.3|-56.0|0.7220
90866260|NCT03851705|181595134|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.0||||0.8036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.6|49.5||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 180||49.5|-63.6|0.8036
90866261|NCT03851705|181595142|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4||||0.6028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|11.7||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 90||11.7|-6.8|0.6028
90866262|NCT03851705|181595142|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.8428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|14.0||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 150||14.0|-11.5|0.8428
90866263|NCT03851705|181595142|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.4||||0.4946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|13.4||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 180||13.4|-6.6|0.4946
90866264|NCT03851705|181595144|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.9237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|4.4||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 90||4.4|-4.0|0.9237
90866265|NCT03851705|181595144|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.7177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|4.5||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 150||4.5|-6.5|0.7177
90909268|NCT04310579|181687904|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.2|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5||-6.3||To demonstrate an effect of oxycodone with paroxetine compared to oxycodone alone, it is necessary that the upper bound of the one-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) in the least-square mean VE55 difference between treatments \< 0 L/min.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation will be used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom for tests of fixed effects.|Comparison was the effect of oxycodone and paroxetine compared to oxycodone and placebo.|Sample size and power were calculated based on 2 primary outcomes (day 1 and day 5) with adjustment for multiplicity (α=.025). The assessments with paroxetine or quetiapine were considered as separate experiments. A sample size of 20 participants was determined to have 90 percent power at a 1-sided significance level to detect a 4 L/min decrease in the primary end point (ventilation at 55 mmHg end-tidal carbon dioxide) assuming a standard deviation of 5 L/min.||-6.3||<0.001
90909269|NCT04310579|181687904|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.37|ONE_SIDED|97.5||3.2||To demonstrate an effect of oxycodone with quetiapine compared to oxycodone alone, it is necessary that the upper bound of the one-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) in the least-square mean VE55 difference between treatments \< 0 L/min.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation will be used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom for tests of fixed effects.|Comparison was the effect of oxycodone and quetiapine compared to oxycodone and placebo.|Sample size and power were calculated based on 2 primary outcomes (day 1 and day 5) with adjustment for multiplicity (α=.025). The assessments with paroxetine or quetiapine were considered as separate experiments. A sample size of 20 participants was determined to have 90 percent power at a 1-sided significance level to detect a 4 L/min decrease in the primary end point (ventilation at 55 mmHg end-tidal carbon dioxide) assuming a standard deviation of 5 L/min.||3.2||0.37
90909270|NCT04310579|181687905|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.8||||0.005|ONE_SIDED|95.0||-2.5||Secondary analyses are not adjusted for multiplicity. To demonstrate an effect of oxycodone compared to placebo, it is necessary that the upper bound of the one-sided 95% CI in the least-square mean VE55 difference between treatments \< 0 L/min.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation will be used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom for tests of fixed effects.|Comparison was the effect of oxycodone compared to placebo.|Part 1 is powered with consideration to both the effect of oxycodone versus placebo and oxycodone plus midazolam versus oxycodone. Assuming a -4 L/min effect size on VE55 and standard deviation of 5 L/min, there is greater than 90% power at a one-sided 0.05 significance level for a sample size of 20 subjects.||-2.5||0.005
90960328|NCT03081052|181801181|EQUIVALENCE|We estimated sample size based on equivalence test of the incidence rates of a binary outcome (e.g. PGD grade 3 (PGD-3)) of two treatment groups as an illustration. Assuming the incidence rate of PGD-3 under iEPO treatment is 0.30 and acceptable margin of the equivalence is ± 0.19, we will need 200 lung transplant patients to have 80% power to detect an actual difference at α=0.05 between two treatment group under this margin.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.049||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.064|0.162|||two one sided test p-value|||||0.162|-0.064|0.019
91033228|NCT00834743|181952312|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|99.49||||||90.0|90.65|109.18|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||109.18|90.65|
90866266|NCT03851705|181595144|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.5416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|5.4||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 180||5.4|-2.9|0.5416
90866267|NCT03851705|181595146|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.6497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|5.2||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 90||5.2|-3.2|0.6497
90866268|NCT03851705|181595146|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.6||||0.3209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|2.6||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 150||2.6|-7.9|0.3209
90866269|NCT03851705|181595146|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.9294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|5.7||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 180||5.7|-6.3|0.9294
90866270|NCT03851705|181595148|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.3||||0.3105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|33.4||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 90||33.4|-10.8|0.3105
90866271|NCT03851705|181595148|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.4||||0.3018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.3|10.5||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 150||10.5|-33.3|0.3018
90866272|NCT03851705|181595148|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3||||0.8755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.0|31.6||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 180||31.6|-27.0|0.8755
90866273|NCT03851705|181595150|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||0.6848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|7.6||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 90||7.6|-11.5|0.6848
90909271|NCT04310579|181687905|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.37|ONE_SIDED|95.0||3.7||Secondary analyses are not adjusted for multiplicity. To demonstrate an effect of midazolam compared to placebo, it is necessary that the upper bound of the one-sided 95% CI in the least-square mean VE55 difference between treatments \< 0 L/min.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation will be used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom for tests of fixed effects.|Comparison was the effect of midazolam compared to placebo.|Part 1 is powered with consideration to both the effect of oxycodone versus placebo and oxycodone plus midazolam versus oxycodone. Assuming a -4 L/min effect size on VE55 and standard deviation of 5 L/min, there is greater than 90% power at a one-sided 0.05 significance level for a sample size of 20 subjects.||3.7||0.37
90940385|NCT00526097|181760511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.14||0.5849||95.0|-3.0|5.3||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||5.3|-3.0|0.5849
90866274|NCT03851705|181595150|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.4||||0.4075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.5|7.6||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 150||7.6|-18.5|0.4075
90866275|NCT03851705|181595150|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.8||||0.5998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|7.8||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 180||7.8|-13.4|0.5998
90866276|NCT03851705|181595152|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.7958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|6.5||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 90||6.5|-8.4|0.7958
90866277|NCT03851705|181595152|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.6||||0.6003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|7.4||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 150||7.4|-12.7|0.6003
90909272|NCT04310579|181687906|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.3|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5||-3.9||Secondary analyses are not adjusted for multiplicity. To demonstrate an effect of paroxetine compared to placebo, it is necessary that the upper bound of the one-sided 97.5% CI in the least-square mean VE55 difference between treatments \< 0 L/min.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation will be used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom for tests of fixed effects.|Comparison was the effect of paroxetine compared to placebo.|Sample size and power were calculated based on 2 primary outcomes (day 1 and day 5) with adjustment for multiplicity (α=.025). The assessments with paroxetine or quetiapine were considered as separate experiments. A sample size of 20 participants was determined to have 90 percent power at a 1-sided significance level to detect a 4 L/min decrease in the primary end point (ventilation at 55 mmHg end-tidal carbon dioxide) assuming a standard deviation of 5 L/min.||-3.9||<0.001
90909273|NCT04310579|181687906|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.67|ONE_SIDED|97.5||6.4||Secondary analyses are not adjusted for multiplicity. To demonstrate an effect of quetiapine compared to placebo, it is necessary that the upper bound of the one-sided 97.5% CI in the least-square mean VE55 difference between treatments \< 0 L/min.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation will be used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom for tests of fixed effects.|Comparison was the effect of quetiapine compared to placebo.|Sample size and power were calculated based on 2 primary outcomes (day 1 and day 5) with adjustment for multiplicity (α=.025). The assessments with paroxetine or quetiapine were considered as separate experiments. A sample size of 20 participants was determined to have 90 percent power at a 1-sided significance level to detect a 4 L/min decrease in the primary end point (ventilation at 55 mmHg end-tidal carbon dioxide) assuming a standard deviation of 5 L/min.||6.4||0.67
90909274|NCT04310579|181687908|EQUIVALENCE|A difference in exposure was concluded if the 2-sided 90% CI of the geometric mean ratio excluded 1, which is standard in pharmacokinetic studies|Geometric mean ratio|1.06||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.17||Secondary analyses are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis||Comparison was the effect of oxycodone and paroxetine compared to oxycodone and placebo.|Maximum oxycodone concentration was log-transformed and the values between study treatments were compared using a linear mixed effects model on day 1 with treatment as a categorical variable and participant as a random effect||1.17|0.96|0.33
90909275|NCT04310579|181687908|EQUIVALENCE|A difference in exposure was concluded if the 2-sided 90% CI of the geometric mean ratio excluded 1, which is standard in pharmacokinetic studies|Geometric mean ratio|1.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.14|1.37||Secondary analyses are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis||Comparison was the effect of oxycodone and quetiapine compared to oxycodone and placebo.|Maximum oxycodone concentration was log-transformed and the values between study treatments were compared using a linear mixed effects model on day 1 with treatment as a categorical variable and participant as a random effect||1.37|1.14|<0.001
90960329|NCT03081052|181801182|NON_INFERIORITY|We estimated sample size based on equivalence test of the incidence rates of a binary outcome of two treatment groups as an illustration. Assuming the incidence rate of moderate or severe RV failure under iEPO treatment is 0.113 and acceptable margin of the equivalence is ± 0.15, we will need 224 heart failure patients to have 80% power to detect an actual difference at α=0.05 between two treatment group under this margin.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.025||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.066|0.116|||two one-sided test p-value|||||0.116|-0.066|0.012
90866278|NCT03851705|181595152|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.6||||0.5352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|5.8||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 180||5.8|-11.0|0.5352
90866279|NCT03851705|181595154|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.9||||0.1716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.8|4.0||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 90||4.0|-21.8|0.1716
90866280|NCT03851705|181595154|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.0||||0.1671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.2|8.2||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 150||8.2|-46.2|0.1671
90866281|NCT03851705|181595154|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.7||||0.1808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.2|4.7||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 180||4.7|-24.2|0.1808
90866282|NCT03851705|181595156|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.6||||0.3077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.3|9.1||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 90||9.1|-28.3|0.3077
90866283|NCT03851705|181595156|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.4||||0.3628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.1|11.2||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 150||11.2|-30.1|0.3628
90866284|NCT03851705|181595156|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.2||||0.4669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.2|10.8||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 180||10.8|-23.2|0.4669
90866285|NCT03851705|181595162|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.31||||0.6814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.88|16.27|||ANCOVA|||||16.27|-24.88|0.6814
90866286|NCT03851705|181595163|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1||||0.8725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.7|23.51|||ANCOVA|||||23.51|-27.70|0.8725
90960330|NCT03081052|181801183|OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann Location Shift|0.0||||0.747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|3.0|||Log Rank|||||3|-3|0.747
90960331|NCT03081052|181801183|OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann Location Shift|0.0||||0.638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.0|||Log Rank|||||1|-1|0.638
90866287|NCT03851705|181595164|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.79||||0.9425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.3|20.72|||ANCOVA|||||20.72|-22.30|0.9425
90866288|NCT03851705|181595165|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|5.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.2|0.2|
90866289|NCT00621582|181595168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||comparing results of post-treatment global assessment by patient with that of pre-treatment||||0.01
90866290|NCT03617185|181595172|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.98||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.63|0.74||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.74|-4.63|0.15
90866291|NCT03617185|181595172|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.33||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.98|0.31||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.31|-4.98|0.08
90866292|NCT03617185|181595172|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.84||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.43|0.74||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.74|-4.43|0.15
90866293|NCT03617185|181595172|SUPERIORITY||Interaction term for difference in slope|0.07||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.16||The P-value tests for association between the outcome and treatment at each visit, compared to the no-treatment group|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.16|-0.02|0.67
90866294|NCT03617185|181595172|SUPERIORITY||Interaction term for difference in slope|0.09||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.002|0.19||The P-value tests for association between the outcome and treatment at each visit, compared to the no-treatment group|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.19|0.002|0.77
90909276|NCT04310579|181687909|EQUIVALENCE|A difference in exposure was concluded if the 2-sided 90% CI of the geometric mean ratio excluded 1, which is standard in pharmacokinetic studies|Geometric mean ratio|1.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.19|1.43||Secondary analyses are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis||Comparison was the effect of oxycodone and paroxetine compared to oxycodone and placebo.|Maximum oxycodone concentration was log-transformed and the values between study treatments were compared using a linear mixed effects model on day 5 with treatment as a categorical variable and participant as a random effect||1.43|1.19|<0.001
90909277|NCT04310579|181687909|EQUIVALENCE|A difference in exposure was concluded if the 2-sided 90% CI of the geometric mean ratio excluded 1, which is standard in pharmacokinetic studies|Geometric mean ratio|1.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.22|1.57||Secondary analyses are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis||Comparison was the effect of oxycodone and quetiapine compared to oxycodone and placebo.|Maximum oxycodone concentration was log-transformed and the values between study treatments were compared using a linear mixed effects model on day 5 with treatment as a categorical variable and participant as a random effect||1.57|1.22|<0.001
90909278|NCT04310579|181687911|EQUIVALENCE|A difference in exposure was concluded if the 2-sided 90% CI of the geometric mean ratio excluded 1, which is standard in pharmacokinetic studies|Geometric mean ratio|1.03||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.17||Secondary analyses are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis||Comparison was the effect of oxycodone and paroxetine compared to oxycodone and placebo.|Area under the curve was log-transformed and the values between study treatments were compared using a linear mixed effects model on day 1 with treatment as a categorical variable and participant as a random effect||1.17|0.91|0.64
90909279|NCT04310579|181687911|EQUIVALENCE|A difference in exposure was concluded if the 2-sided 90% CI of the geometric mean ratio excluded 1, which is standard in pharmacokinetic studies|Geometric mean ratio|1.06||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|1.15||Secondary analyses are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis||Comparison was the effect of oxycodone and quetiapine compared to oxycodone and placebo.|Area under the curve was log-transformed and the values between study treatments were compared using a linear mixed effects model on day 1 with treatment as a categorical variable and participant as a random effect||1.15|0.98|0.24
90960332|NCT03081052|181801185|OTHER||mean ratio|1.19||||0.453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.87|||log-linear regression|||||1.87|0.76|0.453
90866295|NCT03617185|181595172|SUPERIORITY||Interaction term for difference in slope|0.07||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.16||The P-value tests for association between the outcome and treatment at each visit, compared to the no-treatment group|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.16|-0.02|0.69
90866296|NCT03617185|181595173|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.98||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.77|0.79||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.79|-2.77|0.27
90866297|NCT03617185|181595173|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.09||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.71|0.53||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.53|-2.71|0.18
90866298|NCT03617185|181595173|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.32||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|3.48||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||3.48|-0.82|0.21
90866299|NCT03617185|181595173|SUPERIORITY||Interaction term for difference in slope|0.02||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.09||The P-value tests for association between the outcome and treatment at each visit, compared to the no-treatment group|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.09|-0.05|0.66
90866300|NCT03617185|181595173|SUPERIORITY||Interaction term for difference in slope|0.05||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.11||The P-value tests for association between the outcome and treatment at each visit, compared to the no-treatment group|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.11|-0.02|0.25
90866301|NCT03617185|181595173|SUPERIORITY||Interaction term for difference in slope|-0.06||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.01||The P-value tests for association between the outcome and treatment at each visit, compared to the no-treatment group|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.01|-0.13|0.09
90866302|NCT03617185|181595174|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.06||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.72|3.85||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||3.85|-3.72|0.97
90909280|NCT04310579|181687912|EQUIVALENCE|A difference in exposure was concluded if the 2-sided 90% CI of the geometric mean ratio excluded 1, which is standard in pharmacokinetic studies|Geometric mean ratio|1.1||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.02|1.19||Secondary analyses are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis||Comparison was the effect of oxycodone and paroxetine compared to oxycodone and placebo.|Area under the curve was log-transformed and the values between study treatments were compared using a linear mixed effects model on day 5 with treatment as a categorical variable and participant as a random effect||1.19|1.02|0.05
90909281|NCT04310579|181687912|EQUIVALENCE|A difference in exposure was concluded if the 2-sided 90% CI of the geometric mean ratio excluded 1, which is standard in pharmacokinetic studies|Geometric mean ratio|1.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.19|1.36||Secondary analyses are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis||Comparison was the effect of oxycodone and quetiapine compared to oxycodone and placebo.|Area under the curve was log-transformed and the values between study treatments were compared using a linear mixed effects model on day 5 with treatment as a categorical variable and participant as a random effect||1.36|1.19|<0.001
90909282|NCT00315120|181687951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response ratio|2.0||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|3.2|||Chi-squared|||||3.2|1.2|0.007
90909283|NCT00315120|181687956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response ratio|1.1||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.7|||Chi-squared|||||1.7|0.7|0.72
90909284|NCT05419557|181687982|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.5||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|54.6|||Regression, Logistic|||||54.6|1.3|0.02
90909285|NCT05419557|181687983|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.98||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|64.25|||Regression, Logistic|||||64.25|1.55|0.015
90909286|NCT02281318|181688013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|-4.9|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||-4.9|-10.5|<0.001
90909287|NCT02281318|181688014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|120.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.0|192.0|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||192|47|0.001
90909288|NCT02281318|181688015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|3.22|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.22|1.55|<0.001
90909289|NCT02281318|181688016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|-0.22|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||-0.22|-0.58|<0.001
90909290|NCT03102710|181688065|SUPERIORITY|Covariates included 1) age, 2) cream randomization, and 3) the difference in ERS for lidocaine before and after expectancy manipulation (which represented how well the expectancy was modulated) in Session 2.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for significance was \<0.05.|ANCOVA||The mean difference between anodal vs. sham was 0.4, between cathodal vs. sham was 1.2, and between anodal vs. cathodal was -0.8.|To assess the modulation effects of tDCS on placebo, we first performed an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with placebo as the dependent variable and group (i.e., anodal, cathodal, and sham tDCS) as the fixed factor.||||0.03
90909291|NCT03102710|181688065|SUPERIORITY|Covariates included 1) age, 2) cream randomization, and 3) the difference in ERS for capsaicin before and after expectancy manipulation (which represented how well the expectancy was modulated) in Session 2. In addition, we added the STAI state and trait anxiety scores as covariates when assessing the modulation effects of tDCS on the nocebo effect, as previous studies have suggested that anxiety level could affect nocebo hyperalgesia.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for significance was \<0.05.|ANCOVA||The mean difference between anodal vs. sham was 1.4, between cathodal vs. sham was 1.0, and between anodal vs. cathodal was -0.3.|To assess the modulation effects of tDCS on nocebo, we first performed an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with nocebo as the dependent variable and group (i.e., anodal, cathodal, and sham tDCS) as the fixed factor.||||0.04
90909292|NCT01368406|181688066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|1.13|||t-test, 2 sided|t test for independent samples||||1.13|-0.65|0.055
90909293|NCT01368406|181688066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.48||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.83|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.83|0.13|0.055
90909294|NCT04304534|181688077|OTHER|HRs were only calculated if at least three events occurred in one of the compared groups and at least one event in each of the compared treatment groups. The competing event was non-CV death for events that include CV death.|Cox Proportional Hazard|1.052|||=|0.8439|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.687|1.612|||Log Rank|||Comparison of the Asundexian 20 mg group and 50 mg group versus Placebo group||1.612|0.687|= 0.8439
90909295|NCT04304534|181688077|OTHER|HRs were only calculated if at least three events occurred in one of the compared groups and at least one event in each of the compared treatment groups. The competing event was non-CV death for events that include CV death.|Cox Proportional Hazard|1.096|||=|0.7562|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.674|1.781|||Log Rank|||Comparison of the Asundexian 20 mg group versus Placebo group||1.781|0.674|= 0.7562
90909296|NCT04304534|181688077|OTHER|HRs were only calculated if at least three events occurred in one of the compared groups and at least one event in each of the compared treatment groups. The competing event was non-CV death for events that include CV death.|Cox Proportional Hazard|1.008|||=|0.978|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.614|1.656|||Log Rank|||Comparison of the Asundexian 50 mg group versus Placebo group||1.656|0.614|= 0.978
90909297|NCT04304534|181688078|OTHER|HR was only calculated if at least three events occurred in one of the compared groups and at least one event in each of the compared treatment groups.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98|||=|0.9158|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.713|1.347|||Log Rank|||Comparison of the Pooled Asundexian group versus Placebo group||1.347|0.713|= 0.9158
90909298|NCT04304534|181688078|OTHER|HR was only calculated if at least three events occurred in one of the compared groups and at least one event in each of the compared treatment groups.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.867|||=|0.5633|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.577|1.302|||Log Rank|||Comparison of the Asundexian 10 mg group versus Placebo group||1.302|0.577|= 0.5633
90909299|NCT04304534|181688078|OTHER|HR was only calculated if at least three events occurred in one of the compared groups and at least one event in each of the compared treatment groups.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.875|||=|0.584|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.587|1.306|||Log Rank|||Comparison of the Asundexian 20 mg group versus Placebo group||1.306|0.587|= 0.584
90909300|NCT04304534|181688078|OTHER|HR was only calculated if at least three events occurred in one of the compared groups and at least one event in each of the compared treatment groups.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.202|||=|0.417|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.828|1.747|||Log Rank|||Comparison of the Asundexian 50 mg group versus Placebo group||1.747|0.828|= 0.417
90909301|NCT04304534|181688079|OTHER|HRs were only calculated if at least three events occurred in one of the compared groups and at least one event in each of the compared treatment groups. The competing event was non-CV death for events that include CV death.|Cox Proportional Hazard|1.275|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.322|5.05||||||Comparison of the Asundexian 20 mg group and Asundexian 50 mg group versus Placebo group||5.050|0.322|
90909302|NCT04304534|181688079|OTHER|HRs were only calculated if at least three events occurred in one of the compared groups and at least one event in each of the compared treatment groups. The competing event was non-CV death for events that include CV death.|Cox Proportional Hazard|1.991|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.479|8.273||||||Comparison of the Asundexian 50 mg group versus Placebo group||8.273|0.479|
90909303|NCT04304534|181688080|OTHER|HRs were only calculated if at least three events occurred in one of the compared groups and at least one event in each of the compared treatment groups. The competing event was non-CV death for events that include CV death.|Cox Proportional Hazard|1.125|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.696|1.819||||||Comparison of the Asundexian 20 mg group and Asundexian 50 mg versus Placebo group||1.819|0.696|
90909304|NCT04304534|181688080|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.181|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.686|2.031||||||Comparison of the Asundexian 20 mg group versus Placebo group||2.031|0.686|
90909305|NCT04304534|181688080|OTHER|HRs were only calculated if at least three events occurred in one of the compared groups and at least one event in each of the compared treatment groups. The competing event was non-CV death for events that include CV death.|Cox Proportional Hazard|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.613|1.866||||||Comparison of the Asundexian 50 mg group versus Placebo group||1.866|0.613|
90909306|NCT04304534|181688083|OTHER|For all-cause mortality there is no competing event.|Cox Proportional Hazard|1.266|||=|0.6016|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.603|2.658|||Log Rank|||Comparison of the Asundexian 20 mg group and Asundexian 50 mg group versus Placebo group||2.658|0.603|= 0.6016
90909307|NCT04304534|181688083|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.996|||=|0.9945|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.414|2.401|||Log Rank|||Comparison of the Asundexian 20 mg group versus Placebo group||2.401|0.414|= 0.9945
90909308|NCT04304534|181688083|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.506|||=|0.4085|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.667|3.405|||Log Rank|||Comparison of the Asundexian 50 mg group versus Placebo group||3.405|0.667|= 0.4085
90909309|NCT03055767|181688109|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.038
90909310|NCT03055767|181688110|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.047|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test)|||||||0.047
90909311|NCT03055767|181688111|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.148|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test)|||||||0.148
90909312|NCT03055767|181688112|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.047|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test)|||||||0.047
90909313|NCT03055767|181688113|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test)|||||||0.002
90909314|NCT03055767|181688114|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||McNemar|||||||0.82
90909315|NCT03055767|181688115|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||McNemar|||||||0.006
90909316|NCT03055767|181688116|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.039|||||||McNemar|||||||0.039
90909317|NCT03055767|181688117|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016|||||||McNemar|||||||0.016
90909318|NCT03055767|181688118|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||McNemar|||||||0.18
90909319|NCT03055767|181688119|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test)|||||||<0.001
90909320|NCT03055767|181688120|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test)|||||||0.64
90909321|NCT02228408|181688125|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||poisson|||||||0.04
90909322|NCT02228408|181688126|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.19
90909323|NCT02228408|181688127|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.34
90909324|NCT02228408|181688131|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.62
90909325|NCT00606580|181688147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||H01: There is no difference in the final clinical cure rate between WR 279,396 and Vehicle AND there is no difference in the final clinical cure rate between Paromomycin Alone and Vehicle.||||0.0001
90909326|NCT00606580|181688147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||H01: There is no difference in the final clinical cure rate between WR 279,396 and Vehicle AND there is no difference in the final clinical cure rate between Paromomycin Alone and Vehicle.||||<0.0001
90909327|NCT00606580|181688147|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Test of H02: If H01 was rejected, then H02 would be tested. The comparison of WR 279,396 versus Paromomycin Alone would be considered statistically significant if p \< .05.||||||0.871|||||||Chi-squared|||H02: There is no difference in clinical cure between WR 279,396 and Paromomycin Alone. Test of H02: If H01 was rejected, then H02 would be tested. The comparison of WR 279,396 versus Paromomycin Alone would be considered statistically significant if p \< .05.||||0.871
90909328|NCT00606580|181688148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0006
90909329|NCT00606580|181688148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0002
90909330|NCT00606580|181688148|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Test of H02: If H01 was rejected, then H02 would be tested. The comparison of WR 279,396 versus Paromomycin Alone would be considered statistically significant if p \< .05.||||||0.767|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.767
90909331|NCT00606580|181688149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||Log Rank|Mantel-Cox (log-rank) grouped failure time test using proportion re-epithelialized at each of the scheduled assessments through Day 42 without relapse||||||0.330
90909332|NCT00606580|181688149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.275|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.275
90909333|NCT00606580|181688149|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The comparison of WR 279,396 versus Paromomycin Alone would be considered statistically significant if p \< .05.||||||0.83|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.830
90909334|NCT00606580|181688154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0001
90909335|NCT00606580|181688154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
90960333|NCT03081052|181801185|OTHER||mean ratio|0.94||||0.816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.56|||log-linear regression|||||1.56|0.57|0.816
90909336|NCT00606580|181688154|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Test of H02: If H01 was rejected, then H02 would be tested. The comparison of WR 279,396 versus Paromomycin Alone would be considered statistically significant if p \< .05.||||||0.725|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.725
90909337|NCT00606580|181688155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.005
90909338|NCT00606580|181688155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.005
90909339|NCT00606580|181688155|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Test of H02: If H01 was rejected, then H02 would be tested. The comparison of WR 279,396 versus Paromomycin Alone would be considered statistically significant if p \< .05.||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.000
90909340|NCT00606580|181688156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.003
90909341|NCT00606580|181688156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.002
90909342|NCT00606580|181688156|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Test of H02: If H01 was rejected, then H02 would be tested. The comparison of WR 279,396 versus Paromomycin Alone would be considered statistically significant if p \< .05.||||||0.893|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.893
90909343|NCT00606580|181688157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
90909344|NCT00606580|181688157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
90909345|NCT00606580|181688157|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The comparison of WR 279,396 versus Paromomycin Alone would be considered statistically significant if p \< .05.||||||0.247|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.247
90960334|NCT03081052|181801186|OTHER||mean ratio|1.03||||0.864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.41|||log-linear regression|||||1.41|0.75|0.864
90960335|NCT03081052|181801186|OTHER||mean ratio|0.97||||0.825|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.28|||log-linear regression|||||1.28|0.73|0.825
90960336|NCT03081052|181801187|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.61|||Chi-squared|||||2.61|0.78|0.251
90960337|NCT03081052|181801187|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.5|||Chi-squared|||||2.5|0.58|0.619
90909346|NCT00606580|181688158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.409|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.409
90909347|NCT00606580|181688158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.651|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.651
90909348|NCT00606580|181688158|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The comparison of WR 279,396 versus Paromomycin Alone would be considered statistically significant if p \< .05.||||||0.701|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.701
90909349|NCT00601640|181688178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.022
90909350|NCT02427737|181688181|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Bonferroni-corrected p-values were used after multiplying the uncorrected p-value by 10.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||Comparison among trained and untrained sites||||<0.0001
90909351|NCT02427737|181688181|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3037||||||Bonferroni-corrected p-values were used after multiplying the uncorrected p-value by 10.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||Change in the average quarterly completion rate as compared to the baseline quarter||||0.3037
90909352|NCT02427737|181688181|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||Bonferroni-corrected p-values were used after multiplying the uncorrected p-value by 10.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||Change in the average quarterly completion rate as compared to the baseline quarter||||<0.01
90909353|NCT02427737|181688182|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Bonferroni-corrected p-values were used after multiplying the uncorrected p-value by 10.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||Comparison among trained and untrained sites||||<0.0001
90909354|NCT02427737|181688182|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.201||||||Bonferroni-correction was not done since the corrected p-value would be have been greater than 1.|Chi-squared|||Change in the average quarterly completion rate as compared to the baseline quarter||||0.2010
90909355|NCT02427737|181688182|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Bonferroni-corrected p-values were used after multiplying the uncorrected p-value by 10.|Chi-squared|||Change in the average quarterly completion rate as compared to the baseline quarter||||<0.001
90909356|NCT02427737|181688183|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Bonferroni-corrected p-values were used after multiplying the uncorrected p-value by 10.|Chi-squared|||Comparison among trained and untrained sites||||<0.0001
90960338|NCT03081052|181801189|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.13||||0.614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|23.82|||Fisher Exact|||||23.82|0.19|0.614
90960339|NCT03081052|181801189|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.5424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|2.12|||Fisher Exact|||||2.12|0.17|0.5424
90960340|NCT00720941|181801191|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority is defined as excluding a difference of greater than 25% in the hazards. The upper limit of the 95% confidence interval must be \<1.25.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0466|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8982|1.2195|||||The HR is estimated by the Cox regression model using treatment stratification factors as covariates. The HR is adjusted for Karnofsky Performance Scale scores, prior nephrectomy, and Baseline levels of lactate dehydrogenase (\<=1.5xULN, \>1.5xULN).|||1.2195|0.8982|
90960341|NCT01138007|181801254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squared Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|1.7||The p-value was estimated based on the ANCOVA model including Baseline MADRS score and region as covariates. The multiplicity was adjusted by Dunnett's step-down procedure.|ANCOVA||The confidence interval was estimated based on the ANCOVA model including Baseline MADRS score and region as covariates.|||1.7|-2.7|0.853
90960342|NCT01138007|181801254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||||95.0|||||||In the analysis plan, the second comparison of interest was not to be performed if the first comparison failed to show statistical significance.|||||
90960343|NCT01468831|181801277|OTHER|The mean difference between the minocycline and placebo arms in change in BCVA in the study eye at Month 12 compared to baseline is reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|7.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|26.1|||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||26.1|-10.6|
90866303|NCT03617185|181595174|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.82||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.32|-0.31||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.31|-7.32|0.03
90866304|NCT03617185|181595174|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.56||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.18|2.05||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||2.05|-5.18|0.38
90866305|NCT03617185|181595175|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.62
90866306|NCT03617185|181595175|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.95
90866307|NCT03617185|181595175|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.59
90866308|NCT03617185|181595176|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.26|4.86||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||4.86|-4.26|0.89
90866309|NCT03617185|181595176|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.43||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.64|3.76||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||3.76|-4.64|0.83
90866310|NCT03617185|181595176|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.51||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.27|5.3||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||5.3|-4.27|0.82
90866311|NCT03617185|181595176|SUPERIORITY||Interaction term for difference in slope|0.05||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.21||The P-value tests for association between the outcome and treatment at each visit, compared to the no-treatment group|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.21|-0.11|0.51
90866312|NCT03617185|181595176|SUPERIORITY||Interaction term for difference in slope|0.04||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.19||The P-value tests for association between the outcome and treatment at each visit, compared to the no-treatment group|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.19|-0.11|0.60
90866313|NCT03617185|181595176|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.002||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.17||The P-value tests for association between the outcome and treatment at each visit, compared to the no-treatment group|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.17|-0.17|0.99
90866314|NCT03617185|181595177|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.82
90866315|NCT03617185|181595177|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.21
90866316|NCT03617185|181595177|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.33
90866317|NCT03617185|181595178|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|2.17||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||2.17|-2.12|0.98
90866318|NCT03617185|181595178|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.35||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|1.56||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||1.56|-2.26|0.71
90866319|NCT03617185|181595178|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.31||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||2.31|-2.10|0.92
90866320|NCT03617185|181595178|SUPERIORITY||Interaction term for difference of slope|0.001||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.08||The P-value tests for association between the outcome and treatment at each visit, compared to the no-treatment group|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.08|-0.08|0.98
90866321|NCT03617185|181595178|SUPERIORITY||Interaction term for difference in slope|0.02||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.1||The P-value tests for association between the outcome and treatment at each visit, compared to the no-treatment group|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.10|-0.06|0.66
90909357|NCT02427737|181688183|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.303||||||"Bonferroni-corrected p-values were used after multiplying the uncorrected p-value by 10.~Chi-square analysis was used to assess equipment utilization at trained sites compared with untrained sites when stratifying by time (chi-square MH = 858.2)."|Chi-squared|||Change in the quarterly equipment utilization rate as compared to the baseline quarter Q4FY15 over time and at sites||||0.303
90909358|NCT02427737|181688183|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Bonferroni-corrected p-values were used after multiplying the uncorrected p-value by 10.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||Change in the average quarterly completion rate as compared to the baseline quarter||||<0.001
90909359|NCT02427737|181688184|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||CMH test was used with time as a strata variable (rather than pooling all data together as in the regular chi-squared test). The CMH chi-squared value was 858.2, and the regular chi-squared value was 858.8.|Chi-squared, Corrected|Bonferroni-corrected p-values were used after multiplying the uncorrected p-value by 10.||||||<0.0001
90909360|NCT02427737|181688185|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
90909361|NCT02427737|181688187|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2357||||||Bonferroni-corrected p-values were used after multiplying the uncorrected p-value by 10.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||Comparison among trained and untrained sites||||0.2357
90909362|NCT02427737|181688187|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8523||||||No Bonferroni-correction|Chi-squared|||Change in the quarterly no-shows as compared to the baseline quarter||||0.8523
90909363|NCT02427737|181688187|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5883||||||Bonferroni-correction was not done for this nonsignificant result since the corrected p-value would be have been greater than 1, which is not possible.|Chi-squared|||Change in the quarterly average no-show rate as compared to the baseline quarter at untrained sites||||0.5883
90909364|NCT02427737|181688188|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0195||||||Bonferroni-corrected p-values were used after multiplying the uncorrected p-value by 10.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||Comparison among trained and untrained sites||||0.0195
90909365|NCT02427737|181688188|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.276||||||No Bonferroni-correction|Chi-squared|||Change in the quarterly no-shows compared to the baseline quarter||||0.276
90909366|NCT02427737|181688188|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2764||||||No Bonferroni-correction|Chi-squared|||Change in the quarterly no-shows as compared to the baseline quarter at untrained sites||||0.2764
90909367|NCT02427737|181688189|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||Bonferroni-corrected p-values were used after multiplying the uncorrected p-value by 10.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||Comparison among trained and untrained sites||||<0.01
90909368|NCT02427737|181688189|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9012||||||Bonferroni-correction was not done since the corrected p-value would be have been greater than 1.|Chi-squared|||Change in the quarterly average no show rate as compared to the baseline quarter for trained sites||||0.9012
90909369|NCT02427737|181688189|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9065||||||Bonferroni-corrected p-values were used after multiplying the uncorrected p-value by 10.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||Change in the quarterly average no-show rate as compared to the baseline quarter for untrained sites||||0.9065
90866322|NCT03617185|181595178|SUPERIORITY||Interaction term for difference in slope|-0.02||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.06||The P-value tests for association between the outcome and treatment at each visit, compared to the no-treatment group|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.06|-0.10|0.66
90866323|NCT03617185|181595179|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.26
90866324|NCT03617185|181595179|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.58
90866325|NCT03617185|181595179|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.97
90866326|NCT03617185|181595180|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.25
90866327|NCT03617185|181595180|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.98
90866328|NCT03617185|181595180|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.88
90909370|NCT02427737|181688190|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Bonferroni-corrected p-values were used after multiplying the uncorrected p-value by 10.|Chi-squared, Corrected|CMH test with time as a strata variable was 28.7; chi-square value with pooling all data together was 28.6||Comparison among trained and untrained sites over time||||<0.0001
90909371|NCT02427737|181688195|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
90866329|NCT03617185|181595181|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value tests whether the change in participant count (as either having retinopathy or not having retinopathy) from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|Fisher Exact|||||||1
90866330|NCT03617185|181595181|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value tests whether the change in participant count (as either having retinopathy or not having retinopathy) from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|Fisher Exact|||||||1
90866331|NCT03617185|181595181|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value tests whether the change in participant count (as either having retinopathy or not having retinopathy) from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.44
90866332|NCT03617185|181595182|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.5||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Measure - Peroneal distal motor latency (ms)||0.50|-0.40|0.83
90866333|NCT03617185|181595182|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.21||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Measure -Peroneal distal motor latency (ms)||0.21|-0.62|0.33
90866334|NCT03617185|181595182|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.06||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.49||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Measure -Peroneal distal motor latency (ms)||0.49|-0.36|0.75
90866335|NCT03617185|181595182|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.23||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Measure - Sural peak latency (ms)||0.23|-0.49|0.45
90909372|NCT02427737|181688196|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2396|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2396
90909373|NCT02427737|181688197|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5267|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5267
90909374|NCT02427737|181688198|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
90909375|NCT02427737|181688199|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
90909376|NCT01456936|181688202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0652||||||An interaction between treatment and cohort was considered significant at 10% level. No multiplicity adjustments were utilized.|Regression, Linear|A generalized linear regression analysis based on the safety analysis set was used to evaluate incidence of NPS AE as the primary analysis.||The reduced (final) statistical model included treatment group, cohort and region, plus the 2-way interaction of treatment by cohort. Other interactions not included due to lack of significance. Region reduced to 2-level to address event sparseness issue.||||0.0652
90909377|NCT01456936|181688203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.15|||Regression, Linear||Risk difference for varenicline versus placebo from estimation model.|Non-psychiatric cohort||-0.15|-2.40|
90909378|NCT01456936|181688203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|1.21|||Regression, Linear||Risk difference for bupropion 150 mg BID versus placebo from estimation model.|Non-psychiatric cohort||1.21|-1.37|
90866336|NCT03617185|181595182|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.24||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.08||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Measure -Sural peak latency (ms)||0.08|-0.57|0.13
90960344|NCT01468831|181801278|OTHER|The mean difference between the minocycline and placebo treatment arms in number of bevacizumab injections received from baseline to Month 12 is reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.4|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||||
90866337|NCT03617185|181595182|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.41||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.03||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Measure -Sural peak latency (ms)||-0.03|-0.79|0.03
90866338|NCT03617185|181595182|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.002|1.01||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Measure - Tibial distal motor latency (ms)||1.01|-0.002|0.05
90866339|NCT03617185|181595182|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.48||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|1.03||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Measure - Tibial distal motor latency (ms)||1.03|-0.07|0.08
90866340|NCT03617185|181595182|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.21||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.7||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Measure - Tibial distal motor latency (ms)||0.70|-0.27|0.38
90866341|NCT03617185|181595183|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Measure - Peroneal amplitude (mV)||||0.48
90866342|NCT03617185|181595183|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Measure - Peroneal amplitude (mV)||||0.31
90866343|NCT03617185|181595183|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Measure - Peroneal amplitude (mV)||||0.23
90866344|NCT03617185|181595183|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Measure - Tibial amplitude (mV)||||0.65
90866345|NCT03617185|181595183|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Measure - Tibial amplitude (mV)||||0.69
90866346|NCT03617185|181595183|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Measure - Tibial amplitude (mV)||||0.69
90866347|NCT03617185|181595184|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Measure - Sural amplitude (µV)||||0.82
90866348|NCT03617185|181595184|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Measure - Sural amplitude (µV)||||0.26
90866349|NCT03617185|181595184|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Measure - Sural amplitude (µV)||||0.62
90866350|NCT03617185|181595185|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Measure - Peroneal CV (m/s)||||0.82
90909379|NCT01456936|181688203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|1.12|||Regression, Linear||Risk difference for NRT versus placebo from estimation model.|Non-psychiatric cohort||1.12|-1.54|
90909380|NCT01456936|181688203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|1.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|3.59|||Regression, Linear||Risk difference for varenicline versus placebo from estimation model|Psychiatric cohort||3.59|-0.42|
90866351|NCT03617185|181595185|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Measure - Peroneal CV (m/s)||||0.27
90866352|NCT03617185|181595185|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Measure - Peroneal CV (m/s)||||0.52
90866353|NCT03617185|181595186|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Measure - Peroneal F wave index (ms)||||0.32
90866354|NCT03617185|181595186|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Measure - Peroneal F wave index (ms)||||0.43
90866355|NCT03617185|181595186|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Measure - Peroneal F wave index (ms)||||0.48
90866356|NCT03617185|181595186|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Measure - Tibial F wave index (ms)||||0.75
90866357|NCT03617185|181595186|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Measure - Tibial F wave index (ms)||||0.09
90866358|NCT03617185|181595186|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Measure - Tibial F wave index (ms)||||0.03
90909381|NCT01456936|181688203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|1.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|3.81|||Regression, Linear||Risk difference for bupropion 150 mg BID versus placebo from estimation model.|Psychiatric cohort||3.81|-0.24|
90909382|NCT01456936|181688203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|2.26|||Regression, Linear||Risk difference for NRT versus placebo from estimation model.|Psychiatric cohort||2.26|-1.53|
90909383|NCT01456936|181688218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|5.0||No multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Logistic|||The analysis was done using a logistic regression with terms treatment, cohort, region, treatment by cohort interaction, and region by cohort interaction. Region reduced to 2-level for consistency with primary safety model.||5.00|3.20|<0.0001
90909384|NCT01456936|181688218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|2.85||No multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Logistic|||The analysis was done using a logistic regression with terms treatment, cohort, region, treatment by cohort interaction, and region by cohort interaction. Region reduced to 2-level for consistency with primary safety model.||2.85|1.80|<0.0001
90866359|NCT03617185|181595187|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.129||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.129|-0.16|0.79
90866360|NCT03617185|181595187|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.01||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.01|-0.2|0.46
90866361|NCT03617185|181595187|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.07||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.07|-0.26|0.24
90866362|NCT03617185|181595187|SUPERIORITY||Interaction term for difference in slope|0.001||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.01||The P-value tests for association between the outcome and treatment at each visit, compared to the no-treatment group|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.01|-0.01|0.98
90866363|NCT03617185|181595187|SUPERIORITY||Interaction term for difference in slope|0.002||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.01||The P-value tests for association between the outcome and treatment at each visit, compared to the no-treatment group|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.01|-0.004|0.49
90866364|NCT03617185|181595187|SUPERIORITY||Interaction term for difference in slope|0.004||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.002|0.01||The P-value tests for association between the outcome and treatment at each visit, compared to the no-treatment group|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.01|-0.002|0.17
90866365|NCT03617185|181595188|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.15||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.31||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.31|-0.01|0.07
90866366|NCT03617185|181595188|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.024||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.16||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.16|-0.11|0.72
90866367|NCT03617185|181595188|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.06||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.19||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.19|-0.06|0.33
90909385|NCT01456936|181688218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.83|2.9||No multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Logistic|||The analysis was done using a logistic regression with terms treatment, cohort, region, treatment by cohort interaction, and region by cohort interaction. Region reduced to 2-level for consistency with primary safety model.||2.90|1.83|<0.0001
90909386|NCT01456936|181688219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.24|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.56|4.11||No multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Logistic|||The analysis was done using a logistic regression with terms treatment, cohort, region, treatment by cohort interaction, and region by cohort interaction. Region reduced to 2-level for consistency with primary safety model.||4.11|2.56|<0.0001
90909387|NCT01456936|181688219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|2.39||No multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Logistic|||The analysis was done using a logistic regression with terms treatment, cohort, region, treatment by cohort interaction, and region by cohort interaction. Region reduced to 2-level for consistency with primary safety model.||2.39|1.46|<0.0001
90909388|NCT01456936|181688219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|2.55||No multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Logistic|||The analysis was done using a logistic regression with terms treatment, cohort, region, treatment by cohort interaction, and region by cohort interaction. Region reduced to 2-level for consistency with primary safety model.||2.55|1.56|<0.0001
90866368|NCT03617185|181595189|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.064||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.24||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.24|-0.11|0.46
90909389|NCT01456936|181688220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.07|4.24||No multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Logistic|||The analysis was done using a logistic regression with terms treatment and region. Region reduced to 2-level for consistency with primary safety model.||4.24|3.07|<0.0001
90866369|NCT03617185|181595189|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.13||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.31||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.31|-0.04|0.15
90866370|NCT03617185|181595189|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.11||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.3||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.30|-0.06|0.20
90866371|NCT03617185|181595190|SUPERIORITY||Wilcoxon test statistic|10.0||||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to compare within-participant change between baseline and 2 year for each treatment group||||0.07
90866372|NCT03617185|181595190|SUPERIORITY||Wilcoxon test statistic|3.0||||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to compare within-participant change between baseline and 2 year for each treatment group||||0.34
90866373|NCT03617185|181595190|SUPERIORITY||Wilcoxon test statistic|2.5||||0.42|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to compare within-participant change between baseline and 2 year for each treatment group||||0.42
90866374|NCT03617185|181595190|SUPERIORITY||Wilcoxon test statistic|9.0||||0.77|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to compare within-participant change between baseline and 2 year for each treatment group||||0.77
90866375|NCT03617185|181595191|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.61||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.35||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Questionnaire||0.35|-1.5|0.21
90866376|NCT03617185|181595191|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.8||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Questionnaire||0.80|-0.98|0.85
90866377|NCT03617185|181595191|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.46||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|1.5||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Questionnaire||1.50|-0.58|0.37
90866378|NCT03617185|181595191|SUPERIORITY||Interaction term for difference in slope|1.0||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.02||The P-value tests for association between the outcome and treatment at each visit, compared to the no-treatment group|Mixed Models Analysis|||Questionnaire||1.02|0.99|0.78
90909390|NCT01456936|181688220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.75|2.45||No multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Logistic|||The analysis was done using a logistic regression with terms treatment and region. Region reduced to 2-level for consistency with primary safety model.||2.45|1.75|<0.0001
90866379|NCT03617185|181595191|SUPERIORITY||Interaction term for difference in slope|0.99||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.01||The P-value tests for association between the outcome and treatment at each visit, compared to the no-treatment group|Mixed Models Analysis|||Questionnaire||1.01|0.98|0.53
90866380|NCT03617185|181595191|SUPERIORITY||Interaction term for difference in slope|0.98||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.0||The P-value tests for association between the outcome and treatment at each visit, compared to the no-treatment group|Mixed Models Analysis|||Questionnaire||1.00|0.96|0.08
90866381|NCT03617185|181595192|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
90866382|NCT03617185|181595192|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04
90866383|NCT03617185|181595192|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.47
90909391|NCT01456936|181688220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.82|2.54||No multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Logistic|||The analysis was done using a logistic regression with terms treatment and region. Region reduced to 2-level for consistency with primary safety model.||2.54|1.82|<0.0001
90909392|NCT01456936|181688221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.33|3.83||No multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Logistic|||The analysis was done using a logistic regression with terms treatment, cohort, region, treatment by cohort interaction, and region by cohort interaction. Region reduced to 2-level for consistency with primary safety model.||3.83|2.33|<0.0001
90866384|NCT03617185|181595192|SUPERIORITY||Interaction term for difference in slope|0.98||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.01||The P-value tests for association between the outcome and treatment at each visit, compared to the no-treatment group|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.01|0.96|0.18
90866385|NCT03617185|181595192|SUPERIORITY||Interaction term for difference in slope|0.99||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.02||The P-value tests for association between the outcome and treatment at each visit, compared to the no-treatment group|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.02|0.96|0.52
90866386|NCT03617185|181595192|SUPERIORITY||Interaction term for difference in slope|1.0||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.02||The P-value tests for association between the outcome and treatment at each visit, compared to the no-treatment group|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.02|0.97|0.87
90866387|NCT03617185|181595193|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.20
90866388|NCT03617185|181595193|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.57
90866389|NCT03617185|181595193|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.61
90960345|NCT01468831|181801279|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.5|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|The mean difference between the minocycline and placebo treatment arms in number of bevacizumab injections received from baseline to Month 24 is reported.||||
90909393|NCT01456936|181688221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|2.59||No multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Logistic|||The analysis was done using a logistic regression with terms treatment, cohort, region, treatment by cohort interaction, and region by cohort interaction. Region reduced to 2-level for consistency with primary safety model.||2.59|1.54|<0.0001
90909394|NCT01456936|181688221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.96|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|2.54||No multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Logistic|||The analysis was done using a logistic regression with terms treatment, cohort, region, treatment by cohort interaction, and region by cohort interaction. Region reduced to 2-level for consistency with primary safety model.||2.54|1.51|<0.0001
90909395|NCT01456936|181688222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|3.29||No multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Logistic|||The analysis was done using a logistic regression with terms treatment, cohort, region, treatment by cohort interaction, and region by cohort interaction. Region reduced to 2-level for consistency with primary safety model.||3.29|1.90|<0.0001
90960346|NCT01468831|181801280|OTHER|The mean difference between the minocycline and placebo groups in the change in macular sensitivity in the study eye at Month 3 compared to baseline is reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|2.3|||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||2.3|-3.9|
90960347|NCT01468831|181801281|OTHER|The mean difference between the minocycline and placebo groups in the change in macular sensitivity in the study eye at Month 6 compared to baseline is reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|0.3|||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||0.3|-4.5|
90909396|NCT01456936|181688222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|2.36||No multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Logistic|||The analysis was done using a logistic regression with terms treatment, cohort, region, treatment by cohort interaction, and region by cohort interaction. Region reduced to 2-level for consistency with primary safety model.||2.36|1.33|<0.0001
90960348|NCT01468831|181801282|OTHER|The mean difference between the minocycline and placebo groups in the change in macular sensitivity in the study eye at Month 12 compared to baseline is reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|2.5|||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||2.5|-7.5|
90960349|NCT01468831|181801283|OTHER|The mean difference between the minocycline and placebo groups in the change in macular sensitivity in the study eye at Month 18 compared to baseline is reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|2.4|||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||2.4|-9.4|
90866390|NCT03617185|181595194|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.73||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|-1.2|-1.2|2.67||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Total Score||2.67|-1.2|0.44
90866391|NCT03617185|181595194|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|2.1||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Total Score||2.10|-2.16|0.97
90866392|NCT03617185|181595194|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|2.58||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Total Score||2.58|-1.78|0.71
90866393|NCT03617185|181595194|SUPERIORITY||Interaction term for difference in slope|1.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.02||The P-value tests for association between the outcome and treatment at each visit, compared to the no-treatment group|Mixed Models Analysis|||Total Score||1.02|0.98|0.99
90866394|NCT03617185|181595194|SUPERIORITY||Interaction term for difference in slope|1.0||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.02||The P-value tests for association between the outcome and treatment at each visit, compared to the no-treatment group|Mixed Models Analysis|||Total Score||1.02|0.98|0.88
90866395|NCT03617185|181595194|SUPERIORITY||Interaction term for difference in slope|0.99||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.0||The P-value tests for association between the outcome and treatment at each visit, compared to the no-treatment group|Mixed Models Analysis|||Total Score||1.00|0.97|0.09
90866396|NCT03617185|181595195|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.52||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.41|4.45||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||4.45|-3.41|0.78
90866397|NCT03617185|181595195|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.59||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.14|1.95||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||1.95|-3.14|0.63
90866398|NCT03617185|181595195|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.01||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|3.58||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||3.58|-1.55|0.43
90866399|NCT03617185|181595195|SUPERIORITY||Interaction term for difference in slope|0.99||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.01||The P-value tests for association between the outcome and treatment at each visit, compared to the no-treatment group|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.01|0.98|0.43
90866400|NCT03617185|181595195|SUPERIORITY||Interaction term for difference in slope|1.0||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.02||The P-value tests for association between the outcome and treatment at each visit, compared to the no-treatment group|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.02|0.98|0.83
90909397|NCT01456936|181688222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|2.2||No multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Logistic|||The analysis was done using a logistic regression with terms treatment, cohort, region, treatment by cohort interaction, and region by cohort interaction. Region reduced to 2-level for consistency with primary safety model.||2.20|1.24|<0.0001
90866401|NCT03617185|181595195|SUPERIORITY||Interaction term for difference in slope|0.97|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|0.99||The P-value tests for association between the outcome and treatment at each visit, compared to the no-treatment group|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.99|0.94|<0.01
90866402|NCT03617185|181595196|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.54||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.68|5.59||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||5.59|-6.68|0.84
90866403|NCT03617185|181595196|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.7||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.57|12.97||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||12.97|-7.57|0.48
90866404|NCT03617185|181595196|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.87||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.94|3.18||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||3.18|-4.94|0.64
90866405|NCT03617185|181595197|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.3||0.69|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the group from baseline to 2 years is significant|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.69
90866406|NCT03617185|181595197|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.9||0.24|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the group from baseline to 2 years is significant|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.24
90866407|NCT03617185|181595197|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.1||0.45|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the group from baseline to 2 years is significant|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.45
90866408|NCT03617185|181595197|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.5||0.84|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the group from baseline to 2 years is significant|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.84
90960350|NCT01468831|181801284|OTHER|The mean difference between the minocycline and placebo groups in the change in macular sensitivity in the study eye at Month 24 compared to baseline is reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|2.0|||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||2|-9.5|
90866409|NCT03617185|181595198|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.6||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.66|0.44||The P-value tests for association between the outcome and treatment at each visit, compared to the no-treatment group|t-test, 2 sided|||Mcgill Total Score||0.44|-5.66|0.09
90866410|NCT03617185|181595198|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.97||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.36|2.41||The P-value tests for association between the outcome and treatment at each visit, compared to the no-treatment group|t-test, 2 sided|||Mcgill Total Score||2.41|-4.36|0.56
90866411|NCT03617185|181595198|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.72||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|1.05||The P-value tests for association between the outcome and treatment at each visit, compared to the no-treatment group|t-test, 2 sided|||Mcgill Total Score||1.05|-4.5|0.21
90866412|NCT03617185|181595199|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62||||||The P-value tests for association between the outcome and treatment at each visit, compared to the no-treatment group|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.62
90866413|NCT03617185|181595199|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92||||||The P-value tests for association between the outcome and treatment at each visit, compared to the no-treatment group|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.92
90866414|NCT03617185|181595199|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9||||||The P-value tests for association between the outcome and treatment at each visit, compared to the no-treatment group|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.90
90866415|NCT03617185|181595199|SUPERIORITY||Interaction term for difference in slope|-0.02||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.03||The P-value tests for association between the outcome and treatment at each visit, compared to the no-treatment group|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.03|-0.06|0.46
90909398|NCT01456936|181688223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.28|3.3||No multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Logistic|||The analysis was done using a logistic regression with terms treatment and region. Region reduced to 2-level for consistency with primary safety model.||3.30|2.28|<0.0001
90909399|NCT01456936|181688223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.89|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|2.29||No multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Logistic|||The analysis was done using a logistic regression with terms treatment and region. Region reduced to 2-level for consistency with primary safety model.||2.29|1.56|<0.0001
90909400|NCT01456936|181688223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.49|2.19||No multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Logistic|||The analysis was done using a logistic regression with terms treatment and region. Region reduced to 2-level for consistency with primary safety model.||2.19|1.49|<0.0001
90909401|NCT00543725|181688227|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the lower limit of the 95% 2-sided confidence interval of the difference in proportions (TMC278 - EFV) exceeds -12%, non-inferiority of TMC278 versus EFV can be concluded.|Difference in proportion of response|3.7|||<|0.0001||95.0|-1.6|9.0||Significance level was set at 2.5% (one-sided). No adjustment of p-value for multiple comparisons, since there was only single comparison for the primary endpoint.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model included treatment arm and background NRTI regimen as factors, and baseline (log10) viral load as covariate.|Difference in proportion responders was estimated through the logistic regression model.|Assuming a response rate of 75% at 48 weeks for both treatment groups, 340 subjects were needed per treatment (TMC278 or EFV) to establish non-inferiority of TMC278 versus EFV with a maximum allowable difference of 12% and a 1-sided significance level of 2.5%, to yield 95% power.||9.0|-1.6|<0.0001
90866416|NCT03617185|181595199|SUPERIORITY||Interaction term for difference in slope|-0.02||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.03||The P-value tests for association between the outcome and treatment at each visit, compared to the no-treatment group|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.03|-0.06|0.47
90866417|NCT03617185|181595199|SUPERIORITY||Interaction term for difference in slope|0.003||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.05||The P-value tests for association between the outcome and treatment at each visit, compared to the no-treatment group|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.05|-0.04|0.91
90866418|NCT03617185|181595200|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.06||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.65||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||NeuroQOL- overall QOL||0.65|-0.53|0.83
90866419|NCT03617185|181595200|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.78||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||NeuroQOL- overall QOL||0.78|-0.76|0.97
90866420|NCT03617185|181595200|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.54||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||NeuroQOL- overall QOL||0.54|-0.73|0.76
90866421|NCT03617185|181595201|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.6||0.58|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the group from baseline to 2 years is significant|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.58
90866422|NCT03617185|181595201|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.0||0.8|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the group from baseline to 2 years is significant|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.80
90866423|NCT03617185|181595201|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.4||0.86|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the group from baseline to 2 years is significant|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.86
90866424|NCT03617185|181595201|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.4||0.46|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the group from baseline to 2 years is significant|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.46
90866425|NCT03617185|181595202|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.58|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.7||0.38|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the group from baseline to 2 years is significant|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.38
90866426|NCT03617185|181595202|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.15||0.72|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the group from baseline to 2 years is significant|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.72
90866427|NCT03617185|181595202|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.31|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.07||0.55|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the group from baseline to 2 years is significant|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.55
90866428|NCT03617185|181595202|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.57|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.7||0.28|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the group from baseline to 2 years is significant|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.28
90866429|NCT03617185|181595203|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the group from baseline to 2 years is significant|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.54
90866430|NCT03617185|181595203|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the group from baseline to 2 years is significant|t-test, 2 sided|||||||1.00
90909402|NCT00543725|181688228|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the lower limit of the 95% 2-sided confidence interval of the difference in proportions (TMC278 - EFV) exceeds -12%, non-inferiority of TMC278 versus EFV can be concluded.|Difference in proportion of response|3.9|||<|0.0001||95.0|-1.9|9.6|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model included treatment arm and background NRTI regimen as factors, and baseline (log10) viral load as covariate.|Difference in proportion responders was estimated through the logistic regression model.|||9.6|-1.9|<0.0001
90866431|NCT03617185|181595203|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the group from baseline to 2 years is significant|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.77
90866432|NCT03617185|181595203|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the group from baseline to 2 years is significant|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.24
90866433|NCT03617185|181595204|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.0||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.37|2.36||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||2.36|-6.37|0.36
90866434|NCT03617185|181595204|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.5|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|7.71||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||7.71|1.31|<0.01
90866435|NCT03617185|181595204|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.62||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.37|16.63||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||16.63|-5.37|0.30
90866436|NCT03617185|181595205|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.14||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|7.58||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Inhibitory Control and Attention Test||7.58|-1.30|0.16
90909403|NCT00543725|181688229|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the lower limit of the 95% 2-sided confidence interval of the difference in proportions (TMC278 - EFV) exceeds -12%, non-inferiority of TMC278 versus EFV can be concluded.|Difference in proportion of response|2.4|||<|0.0001||95.0|-3.6|8.4||Significance level was set at 2.5% (one-sided). No adjustment of p-value for multiple comparisons, since there was only single comparison for the primary endpoint.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model included treatment arm and background NRTI regimen as factors, and baseline (log10) viral load as covariate.|Difference in proportion responders was estimated through the logistic regression model.|Assuming a response rate of 75% at 48 weeks for both treatment groups, 340 subjects were needed per treatment (TMC278 or EFV) to establish non-inferiority of TMC278 versus EFV with a maximum allowable difference of 12% and a 1-sided significance level of 2.5%, to yield 95% power.||8.4|-3.6|<0.0001
90909404|NCT00543725|181688230|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the lower limit of the 95% 2-sided confidence interval of the difference in proportions (TMC278 - EFV) exceeds -12%, non-inferiority of TMC278 versus EFV can be concluded.|Difference in proportion of response|0.7|||<|0.0001||95.0|-5.6|7.0|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model included treatment arm and background NRTI regimen as factors, and baseline (log10) viral load as covariate.|Difference in proportion responders was estimated through the logistic regression model.|||7.0|-5.6|<0.0001
90909405|NCT00906698|181688245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted gMean|126.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|69.549|229.012|||ANOVA|||||229.012|69.549|
90909406|NCT00906698|181688246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted gMean|75.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|65.037|87.837|||ANOVA|||||87.837|65.037|
90909407|NCT00906698|181688247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted gMean|132.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|72.305|243.917|||ANOVA|||||243.917|72.305|
90909408|NCT00906698|181688248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted gMean|83.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|61.156|114.823|||ANOVA|||||114.823|61.156|
90909409|NCT00906698|181688251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted gMean|90.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.071|106.978|||ANOVA|||||106.978|76.071|
90909410|NCT00906698|181688252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted gMean|76.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|56.71|103.871|||ANOVA|||||103.871|56.710|
90909411|NCT00906698|181688253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted gMean|83.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|66.369|105.966|||ANOVA|||||105.966|66.369|
90909412|NCT00906698|181688254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted gMean|81.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.47|110.369|||ANOVA|||||110.369|60.470|
90909413|NCT03879642|181688280|SUPERIORITY||partial eta squared|0.117|||||TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||
90909414|NCT03879642|181688281|SUPERIORITY||partial eta squared|0.005|||||TWO_SIDED||||||repeated measures ANOVA|||||||
90909415|NCT02595398|181688291|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|31.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.5|45.9||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.050. Prior to evaluating the results of the CMH test, a Breslow-Day test with Tarone's adjustment was conducted to confirm the homogeneity of the odds ratios between country strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH test was stratified by the country, i.e., US+Israel and India.|Estimated value was calculated as the percentage of subjects in the Active arm meeting the primary endpoint minus the percentage of subjects in the Control arm meeting the primary endpoint.|A total sample size of 150 subjects in a 3:2 randomization had 90% power to detect a difference between treatments in the proportion of subjects showing improvement is 0.60 for treated and 0.34 for sham. The primary analysis was a test of superiority of the CLS-TA arm over the sham arm, and was based on a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by country.||45.9|15.5|<0.001
90909416|NCT02081391|181688368|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.0404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.0|||ANOVA|||The endpoint was analyzed using an analysis of variance model. This included treatment, baseline age group, and the used SOAM as factors. For participants discontinuing treatment before 12 hours for any other reason than no further need of opioid analgesics or switch to exclusively oral opioid analgesics, cumulative SOAM use over the respective time period was based on the observed SOAM use up to the time of the participant's discontinuation.||0|-0.09|0.0404
90909417|NCT02081391|181688369|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|-0.02|||ANOVA|||The endpoint was analyzed using an analysis of variance model. This included treatment, baseline age group, and the used supplemental opioid analgesic medication (SOAM) as factors. For participants discontinuing treatment before 24 hours for any other reason than no further need of SOAM or switch to exclusively oral opioid analgesics, cumulative SOAM use over the respective time period was based on the observed SOAM use up to the time of the participant's discontinuation.||-0.02|-0.18|0.0154
90909418|NCT03184428|181688397|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Spearman's rank-order correlation|Bonferroni adjustment in addition||||||<0.05
90909419|NCT03410992|181688407|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|496.318|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|82.798|2975.086||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups were based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio: Bimekizumab/Placebo calculated using stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables.||2975.086|82.798|<0.001
90866437|NCT03617185|181595205|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.91||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|5.88||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Inhibitory Control and Attention Test||5.88|-2.05|0.33
90866438|NCT03617185|181595205|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.43||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.72|5.59||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Inhibitory Control and Attention Test||5.59|-2.72|0.49
90866439|NCT03617185|181595205|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.97||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.48|9.44||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Dimensional Change Card Sort Test||9.44|-3.48|0.35
90866440|NCT03617185|181595205|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.6||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.48|9.44||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Dimensional Change Card Sort Test||9.44|-3.48|0.10
90866441|NCT03617185|181595205|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.24||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.34|9.82||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Dimensional Change Card Sort Test||9.82|-3.34|0.32
90866442|NCT03617185|181595205|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.4||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.57|9.37||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Picture Sequence Memory Test||9.37|-4.57|0.49
90866443|NCT03617185|181595205|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.2||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.03|9.56||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Picture Sequence Memory Test||9.56|-3.03|0.30
90866444|NCT03617185|181595205|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.49||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|6.38||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Picture Sequence Memory Test||6.38|-5.40|0.86
90909420|NCT03410992|181688408|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|657.255|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|105.792|4083.333||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups were based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio: Bimekizumab/Placebo calculated using stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables.||4083.333|105.792|<0.001
90866445|NCT03617185|181595205|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.42||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.39|6.24||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||List Sorting Working Memory Test||6.24|-5.39|0.88
90866446|NCT03617185|181595205|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.14|6.31||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||List Sorting Working Memory Test||6.31|-5.14|0.83
90866447|NCT03617185|181595205|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.62||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.02|4.76||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||List Sorting Working Memory Test||4.76|-6.02|0.81
90866448|NCT03617185|181595205|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.29||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|1.57||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Pattern Comparison Processing Speed Test||1.57|-12.1|0.12
90866449|NCT03617185|181595205|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.84||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.53|5.84||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Pattern Comparison Processing Speed Test||5.84|-9.53|0.63
90909421|NCT03410992|181688409|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|220.038|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.757|1683.639||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups were based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio: Bimekizumab/Placebo calculated using stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables.||1683.639|28.757|<0.001
90909422|NCT03410992|181688410|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|224.744|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.13|1676.425||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups were based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio: Bimekizumab/Placebo calculated using stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables.||1676.425|30.130|<0.001
90909423|NCT03410992|181688411|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|316.641|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.423|2543.254||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups were based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio: Bimekizumab/Placebo calculated using stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables.||2543.254|39.423|<0.001
90909424|NCT03410992|181688412|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|34.325|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.22|82.856||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups were based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio: Bimekizumab/Placebo calculated using stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables.||82.856|14.220|<0.001
90909425|NCT03410992|181688413|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|43.497|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.728|120.295||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups were based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio: Bimekizumab/Placebo calculated using stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables.||120.295|15.728|<0.001
90909426|NCT03410992|181688414|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|60.946|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.56|180.669||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups were based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio: Bimekizumab/Placebo calculated using stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haensze (CMH) test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables.||180.669|20.560|<0.001
90909427|NCT03410992|181688415|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|158.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.263|506.745||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups were based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio: Bimekizumab/Placebo calculated using stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables.||506.745|49.263|<0.001
90909428|NCT03410992|181688416|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|45.192|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.622|109.672||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups were based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio: Bimekizumab/Placebo calculated using stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables. This statistical analysis is not controlled for multiplicity and is only nominal.||109.672|18.622|<0.001
90909429|NCT03410992|181688416|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|49.297|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.887|128.673||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups were based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio: Bimekizumab/Placebo calculated using stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables. This statistical analysis is not controlled for multiplicity and is only nominal.||128.673|18.887|<0.001
90909430|NCT03410992|181688416|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|47.406|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.087|101.75||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups were based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio: Bimekizumab/Placebo calculated using stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables. This statistical analysis is not controlled for multiplicity and is only nominal.||101.750|22.087|<0.001
90909431|NCT05298111|181688436|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90866450|NCT03617185|181595205|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.87||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|4.05||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Pattern Comparison Processing Speed Test||4.05|-9.80|0.40
90866451|NCT03617185|181595205|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.04||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.63|5.73||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Cognition Fluid Composite||5.73|-3.63|0.65
90866452|NCT03617185|181595205|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.68||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.17|7.54||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Cognition Fluid Composite||7.54|-2.17|0.27
90866453|NCT03617185|181595205|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.27||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|4.65||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Cognition Fluid Composite||4.65|-4.10|0.90
90866454|NCT03617185|181595205|SUPERIORITY||Interaction term for difference in slope|-0.02||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.17||The P-value tests for association between the outcome and treatment at each visit, compared to the no-treatment group|Mixed Models Analysis|||Cognition Fluid Composite||0.17|-0.21|0.85
90866455|NCT03617185|181595205|SUPERIORITY||Interaction term for difference in slope|-0.1||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.09||The P-value tests for association between the outcome and treatment at each visit, compared to the no-treatment group|Mixed Models Analysis|||Cognition Fluid Composite||0.09|-0.29|0.28
90866456|NCT03617185|181595205|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.001||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.19||The P-value tests for association between the outcome and treatment at each visit, compared to the no-treatment group|Mixed Models Analysis|||Cognition Fluid Composite||0.19|-0.18|0.99
90866457|NCT03617185|181595206|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.19||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.49||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Auditory Learning||0.49|-0.87|0.57
90866458|NCT03617185|181595206|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.26||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.28||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Auditory Learning||0.28|-0.81|0.33
90866459|NCT03617185|181595206|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.38||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.23||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Auditory Learning||0.23|-1.00|0.22
90866460|NCT03617185|181595206|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.29||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.81||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Delayed Recall||0.81|-0.23|0.27
90866461|NCT03617185|181595206|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.16||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.37||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Delayed Recall||0.37|-0.69|0.54
90866462|NCT03617185|181595206|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.53||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Delayed Recall||0.53|-0.57|0.93
90866463|NCT03617185|181595206|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.14||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.74||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Recognition||0.74|-0.46|0.64
90866464|NCT03617185|181595206|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.21||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.27||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Recognition||0.27|-0.70|0.37
90866465|NCT03617185|181595206|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.69||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Recognition||0.69|-0.59|0.88
90866466|NCT01964430|181595211|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.1824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.729|1.063|||Log Rank|Stratified by resection status (R0 versus R1) and nodal status (LN+ versus LN).|Estimated using stratified Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for strata of resection status (R0 versus R1) and nodal status (LN+ versus LN-).|||1.063|0.729|0.1824
90866467|NCT01964430|181595212|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.0128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.691|0.957|||Log Rank|Stratified by resection status (R0 versus. R1) and nodal status (LN+ versus. LN-)|Estimated using stratified Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for strata of resection status (R0 versus R1) and nodal status (LN+ versus|||0.957|0.691|0.0128
90866468|NCT00578383|181595218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|5.8||We used type HC3 robust standard errors (SEs)in place of OLS regression SEs to guard against biased estimation of SEs due to heteroscedasticity. This is an uncorrected p-value with a required threshold of 0.025 for significance (correction factor 2).|Regression, Linear|Bonferroni multiple testing corrections were applied separately to results for our primary and secondary outcomes.||Active LFMS treatment would reduce depression immediately after treatment in subjects with bipolar depression and those with major depressive disorder as assessed by the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale.||5.8|0.5|0.009
90866469|NCT00578383|181595219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.9||We used type HC3 robust standard errors (SEs)in place of OLS regression SEs to guard against biased estimation of SEs due to heteroscedasticity. This is an uncorrected p-value with a required threshold of 0.025 for significance (correction factor 2)|Regression, Linear|Bonferroni multiple testing corrections were applied separately to results for our primary and secondary outcomes.||Active LFMS treatment would reduce depression immediately after treatment in subjects with bipolar depression and those with major depressive disorder as assessed by a visual analog scale.||1.9|0.2|0.006
90866470|NCT00578383|181595220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.24||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|6.9||we used type HC3 robust standard errors (SEs)in place of OLS regression SEs to guard against biased estimation of SEs due to heteroscedasticity. This is an uncorrected p-value with a required threshold of 0.025 for significance (correction factor 2).|Regression, Linear|Bonferroni multiple testing corrections were applied separately to results for our primary and secondary outcomes.||Active LFMS treatment would reduce depression immediately after treatment in subjects with bipolar depression and those with major depressive disorder as assessed by the PANAS (POSITIVE SCALE).||6.9|1.3|0.001
90909432|NCT05298111|181688437|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Paired t-test|||||||< 0.001
90909433|NCT05298111|181688438|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Sign test|||||||< 0.001
90909434|NCT05298111|181688439|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Sign test|||||||0.001
90909435|NCT05298111|181688440|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.894|||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.894
90866471|NCT00578383|181595221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.39||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|5.1||we used type HC3 robust standard errors (SEs)in place of OLS regression SEs to guard against biased estimation of SEs due to heteroscedasticity. This is an uncorrected p-value with a required threshold of 0.025 for significance (correction factor 2).|Regression, Linear|Bonferroni multiple testing corrections were applied separately to results for our primary and secondary outcomes.||Active LFMS treatment would reduce depression immediately after treatment in subjects with bipolar depression and those with major depressive disorder as assessed by the PANAS (negative scale)||5.1|-1.1|0.15
90866472|NCT00578383|181595222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.47||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|6.2||We used type HC3 robust standard errors (SEs)in place of OLS regression SEs to guard against biased estimation of SEs due to heteroscedasticity. This is an uncorrected p-value with a required threshold of 0.0125 for significance (correction factor 4)|Regression, Linear|Bonferroni multiple testing corrections were applied separately to results for our primary and secondary outcomes.||Active LFMS treatment would reduce depression immediately after treatment in subjects with bipolar depression as assessed by the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale.||6.2|-1.2|0.09
90909436|NCT05298111|181688441|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.629|||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.629
90909437|NCT05298111|181688442|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.653|||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.653
90909438|NCT05298111|181688443|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.624|||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.624
90909439|NCT05298111|181688444|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.414|||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.414
90909440|NCT05298111|181688445|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.105|||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.105
90909441|NCT04988295|181688447|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.56|||Log Rank|||||0.56|0.35|<0.0001
90909442|NCT04988295|181688447|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.48|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.36|0.64|||Log Rank|||||0.64|0.36|<0.0001
90909443|NCT02657629|181688466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
90909444|NCT00516503|181688467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.90
90909445|NCT00516503|181688468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.50
90909446|NCT00516503|181688469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.50
90909447|NCT00930813|181688492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The study required 100 subjects to provide 80% power to detect a clinically meaningful difference in late lumen loss of 15% of reference vessel diameter between treatment groups on the basis of a 2-sample Student t test with 2-sided alpha 0.05.||||0.016
90909448|NCT04889118|181688555|SUPERIORITY|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.55||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.81||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test.|Log Rank||HR=Pembrolizumab + Lenvatinib vs. Pembrolizumab + Placebo|||0.81|0.37|0.0013
90909449|NCT04889118|181688556|SUPERIORITY|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.3728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.48||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test|Log Rank||HR=Pembrolizumab + Lenvatinib vs. Pembrolizumab + Placebo|||1.48|0.58|0.3728
90909450|NCT00404079|181688595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.0||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis was glucosamine sulfate is not superior to placebo to reduce pain and disability associated with chronic low back pain. Power calculation was based on a 3 point difference between the groups with the primary outcome. Data was analysed with linear mixed models||||0.05
90909451|NCT00404079|181688595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.05
90909452|NCT01879371|181688602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (net)|107.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|105.334|110.431|||||The geometric mean ratio is calculated as the geometric mean of 'Ibuprofen + Caffeine (FDC) tablet ' divided by the geometric mean of ' Ibuprofen acid film-coated tablet '.|"The ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithmic scale included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'period' and 'treatment' as fixed effects and 'subjects within sequences' as random effect.~The main focus was on estimation and not on testing, that is, formal statistical hypotheses were not tested."||110.431|105.334|
90909453|NCT01879371|181688602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (net)|109.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|107.072|111.936|||||The geometric mean ratio is calculated as the geometric mean of 'Ibuprofen + Caffeine (FDC) tablet ' divided by the geometric mean of ' Ibuprofen lysinate film-coated tablet '.|The ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithmic scale included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'period' and 'treatment' as fixed effects and 'subjects within sequences' as random effect. The main focus was on estimation and not on testing, that is, formal statistical hypotheses were not tested.||111.936|107.072|
90909454|NCT01879371|181688603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (net)|99.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.874|105.776|||||The geometric mean ratio is calculated as the geometric mean of 'Ibuprofen + Caffeine (FDC) tablet ' divided by the geometric mean of ' Ibuprofen acid film-coated tablet '.|The ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithmic scale included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'period' and 'treatment' as fixed effects and 'subjects within sequences' as random effect. The main focus was on estimation and not on testing, that is, formal statistical hypotheses were not tested.||105.776|93.874|
90909455|NCT01879371|181688603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (net)|70.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|67.087|73.928|||||The geometric mean ratio is calculated as the geometric mean of 'Ibuprofen + Caffeine (FDC) tablet ' divided by the geometric mean of ' Ibuprofen lysinate film-coated tablet '.|The ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithmic scale included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'period' and 'treatment' as fixed effects and 'subjects within sequences' as random effect. The main focus was on estimation and not on testing, that is, formal statistical hypotheses were not tested.||73.928|67.087|
90909456|NCT01879371|181688604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (net)|106.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|104.05|109.004|||||The geometric mean ratio is calculated as the geometric mean of 'Ibuprofen + Caffeine (FDC) tablet ' divided by the geometric mean of ' Ibuprofen acid film-coated tablet '.|The ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithmic scale included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'period' and 'treatment' as fixed effects and 'subjects within sequences' as random effect. The main focus was on estimation and not on testing, that is, formal statistical hypotheses were not tested.||109.004|104.050|
90960351|NCT01468831|181801285|OTHER|The mean difference between the minocycline and placebo arms in change in BCVA in the study eye at Month 24 compared to baseline is reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|5.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|28.6|||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||28.6|-17.1|
90866473|NCT00578383|181595223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.11||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|9.6||We used type HC3 robust standard errors (SEs)in place of OLS regression SEs to guard against biased estimation of SEs due to heteroscedasticity. This is an uncorrected p-value with a required threshold of 0.0125 for significance (correction factor 4)|Regression, Linear|Bonferroni multiple testing corrections were applied separately to results for our primary and secondary outcomes.||Active LFMS treatment would reduce depression immediately after treatment in subjects with major depressive disorder as assessed by the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale.||9.6|-3.3|0.19
90866474|NCT00578383|181595224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|2.1||We used type HC3 robust standard errors (SEs)in place of OLS regression SEs to guard against biased estimation of SEs due to heteroscedasticity. This is an uncorrected p-value with a required threshold of 0.0125 for significance (correction factor 4)|Regression, Linear|Bonferroni multiple testing corrections were applied separately to results for our primary and secondary outcomes.||Active LFMS treatment would reduce depression immediately after treatment in subjects with bipolar depression as assessed by a visual analog scale.||2.1|-0.6|0.15
90866475|NCT00578383|181595225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|3.6||We used type HC3 robust standard errors (SEs)in place of OLS regression SEs to guard against biased estimation of SEs due to heteroscedasticity. This is an uncorrected p-value with a required threshold of 0.0125 for significance (correction factor 4)|Regression, Linear|Bonferroni multiple testing corrections were applied separately to results for our primary and secondary outcomes.||Active LFMS treatment would reduce depression immediately after treatment in subjects with major depressive disorder as assessed by a visual analog scale.||3.6|-0.4|0.04
90866476|NCT00578383|181595226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.67||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|9.2||we used type HC3 robust standard errors (SEs)in place of OLS regression SEs to guard against biased estimation of SEs due to heteroscedasticity. This is an uncorrected p-value with a required threshold of 0.0125 for significance (correction factor 4)|Regression, Linear|Bonferroni multiple testing corrections were applied separately to results for our primary and secondary outcomes.||Active LFMS treatment would reduce depression immediately after treatment in subjects with bipolar depression as assessed by the PANAS (positive scale)||9.2|0.8|0.004
90866477|NCT00578383|181595227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.58||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|5.8||we used type HC3 robust standard errors (SEs)in place of OLS regression SEs to guard against biased estimation of SEs due to heteroscedasticity. This is an uncorrected p-value with a required threshold of 0.0125 for significance (correction factor 4)|Regression, Linear|Bonferroni multiple testing corrections were applied separately to results for our primary and secondary outcomes.||Active LFMS treatment would reduce depression immediately after treatment in subjects with major depressive disorder as assessed by the PANAS (positive scale)||5.8|1.3|0.30
90866478|NCT00578383|181595228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.01||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|6.8||we used type HC3 robust standard errors (SEs)in place of OLS regression SEs to guard against biased estimation of SEs due to heteroscedasticity. This is an uncorrected p-value with a required threshold of 0.0125 for significance (correction factor 4)|Regression, Linear|Bonferroni multiple testing corrections were applied separately to results for our primary and secondary outcomes.||Active LFMS treatment would reduce depression immediately after treatment in subjects with bipolar depression as assessed by the PANAS (negative scale)||6.8|-4.1|0.52
90866479|NCT00578383|181595229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.43||0.1||95.0|-1.3|5.8||we used type HC3 robust standard errors (SEs)in place of OLS regression SEs to guard against biased estimation of SEs due to heteroscedasticity. This is an uncorrected p-value with a required threshold of 0.0125 for significance (correction factor 4)|Regression, Linear|Bonferroni multiple testing corrections were applied separately to results for our primary and secondary outcomes.||Active LFMS treatment would reduce depression immediately after treatment in subjects with major depressive disorder as assessed by the PANAS (negative scale)||5.8|-1.3|0.10
90909457|NCT01879371|181688604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (net)|108.59|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|106.185|111.054|||||The geometric mean ratio is calculated as the geometric mean of 'Ibuprofen + Caffeine (FDC) tablet ' divided by the geometric mean of ' Ibuprofen lysinate film-coated tablet '.|The ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithmic scale included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'period' and 'treatment' as fixed effects and 'subjects within sequences' as random effect. The main focus was on estimation and not on testing, that is, formal statistical hypotheses were not tested.||111.054|106.185|
90909458|NCT00580801|181688615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean ratio|0.98||||||90.0|0.54|1.78|||||Day 1: The least square (LS) means of the primary parameters for the test and the reference groups were estimated with a linear mixed effects model controlling for treatment group as fixed effects.|||1.78|0.54|
90909459|NCT00580801|181688615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean ratio|1.33||||||90.0|1.03|1.72|||||Day 15: The LS means of the primary parameters for the test and the reference groups were estimated with a linear mixed effects model controlling for treatment group as fixed effects.|||1.72|1.03|
90866480|NCT00113022|181595244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.867||0.919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.565|51.006||The test reported here examines the main effect for placebo versus drug.|Mixed Models Analysis||A positive value indicates greater depression in the active treatment group compared to placebo.|Per protocol, a linear mixed model with a first order autoregressive covariance structure was used. Baseline was included as a covariate. Drug and visit were main effects with an interaction between them included.||51.006|-46.565|.919
90866481|NCT02021773|181595245|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.937||0.0386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.28|-1.21||The threshold for statistical significance was p = .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.21|-44.28|0.0386
90866482|NCT02021773|181595245|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-30.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.9||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.88|-8.95||The threshold for statistical significance was p = .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.95|-51.88|0.0057
90866483|NCT01817530|181595282|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|32.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.12|95.05||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||95.05|11.12|< 0.001
90909460|NCT00580801|181688616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean ratio|1.0||||||90.0|0.58|1.72|||||Day 1: The LS means of the primary parameters for the test and the reference groups were estimated with a linear mixed effects model controlling for treatment group as fixed effects.|||1.72|0.58|
90909461|NCT00580801|181688616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean ratio|1.32||||||90.0|1.05|1.66|||||Day 15: The LS means of the primary parameters for the test and the reference groups were estimated with a linear mixed effects model controlling for treatment group as fixed effects.|||1.66|1.05|
90909462|NCT00580801|181688617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean ratio|1.43||||||90.0|1.02|2.02|||||Day 15: The LS means of the primary parameters for the test and the reference groups were estimated with a linear mixed effects model controlling for treatment group as fixed effects.|||2.02|1.02|
90909463|NCT00580801|181688618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean ratio|1.24||||||90.0|0.88|1.74|||||Day 15: The LS means of the primary parameters for the test and the reference groups were estimated with a linear mixed effects model controlling for treatment group as fixed effects.|||1.74|0.88|
90909464|NCT05576051|181688636|OTHER|||||||0.278|||||||Mixed model linear regression|Mixed model linear regression with propensity-score matched pairs as the random effect.||||||0.278
90909465|NCT05576051|181688637|OTHER|||||||0.131|||||||Mixed model linear regression|Mixed model linear regression with propensity-score matched pairs as the random effect.||||||0.131
90909466|NCT05576051|181688638|OTHER|||||||0.987|||||||Mixed model linear regression|Mixed model linear regression with propensity-score matched pairs as the random effect.||||||0.987
90909467|NCT02107014|181688671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.576|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.576
90866484|NCT01817530|181595282|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
90866485|NCT01817530|181595282|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.72|41.3||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||41.3|6.72|< 0.001
90866486|NCT01817530|181595282|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
90909468|NCT02107014|181688672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.010
90909469|NCT02107014|181688673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.008
90909470|NCT02107014|181688674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.015
90909471|NCT02107014|181688675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.007
90909472|NCT02107014|181688676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.016
90909473|NCT02107014|181688677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
90909474|NCT02107014|181688678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.212|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.212
90909475|NCT02107014|181688681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.008
90909476|NCT02107014|181688682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.004
90909477|NCT02107014|181688683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
90909478|NCT02107014|181688684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.047
90909479|NCT02107014|181688685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.002
90909480|NCT02107014|181688686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.003
90909481|NCT02107014|181688687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.191|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.191
90909482|NCT02107014|181688688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.088|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.088
90909483|NCT02107014|181688689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.478|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.478
90909484|NCT02107014|181688692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.016
90909485|NCT02107014|181688693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.025
90909486|NCT02107014|181688694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.012
90909487|NCT02107014|181688695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.426|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.426
90909488|NCT02107014|181688696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.042|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.042
90909489|NCT02107014|181688697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.708|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.708
90909490|NCT02107014|181688698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.558|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.558
90909491|NCT02107014|181688699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.350
90909492|NCT02107014|181688700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.655|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.655
90909493|NCT02107014|181688701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.248|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.248
90909494|NCT02107014|181688702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.128|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.128
90909495|NCT02107014|181688703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.065|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.065
90909496|NCT02107014|181688704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.962|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.962
90909497|NCT02107014|181688705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.402|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.402
90909498|NCT02107014|181688706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.201|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.201
90909499|NCT02107014|181688707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.016
90909500|NCT02107014|181688708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.006
90909501|NCT02107014|181688709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.007
90909502|NCT02107014|181688710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.038
90866487|NCT01817530|181595282|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.79|25.84||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||25.84|4.79|< 0.001
90866488|NCT01817530|181595282|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
90866489|NCT01817530|181595282|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|19.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.81|49.27||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||49.27|7.81|< 0.001
90909503|NCT02107014|181688711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.032|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.032
90909504|NCT02107014|181688712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.002
90909505|NCT02107014|181688714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.508|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.508
90909506|NCT02107014|181688715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.119|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.119
90960352|NCT01468831|181801286|OTHER|The mean difference between the minocycline and placebo treatment arms in change in retinal thickness as measured by OCT in the study eye at Month 6 compared to baseline is reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|-51.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|70.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-231.2|127.6|||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||127.6|-231.2|
90960353|NCT01468831|181801287|OTHER|The mean difference between the minocycline and placebo treatment arms in change in retinal thickness as measured by OCT in the study eye at Month 12 compared to baseline is reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|-45.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|153.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-522.6|431.6|||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||431.6|-522.6|
90866490|NCT01817530|181595282|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
90909507|NCT02107014|181688716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.326|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.326
90909508|NCT02107014|181688717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.753|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.753
90866491|NCT01817530|181595282|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.95|12.3||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||12.3|2.95|< 0.001
90866492|NCT01817530|181595282|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
90866493|NCT01817530|181595282|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.79|22.34||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||22.34|4.79|< 0.001
90909509|NCT02107014|181688718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.067|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.067
90909510|NCT02107014|181688719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.080
90909511|NCT02107014|181688720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.639|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.639
90909512|NCT02107014|181688723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.945|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.945
90909513|NCT02107014|181688724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.038
90909514|NCT02107014|181688725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.281|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.281
90909515|NCT02107014|181688726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.030
90909516|NCT02107014|181688727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.948|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.948
90909517|NCT02107014|181688728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.610
90909518|NCT02107014|181688729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.893|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.893
90909519|NCT02107014|181688730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.041|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.041
90909520|NCT02107014|181688733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.967|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.967
90909521|NCT02107014|181688734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
90909522|NCT02107014|181688735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
90960354|NCT01468831|181801288|OTHER|The mean difference between the minocycline and placebo treatment arms in change in retinal thickness as measured by OCT in the study eye at Month 18 compared to baseline is reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|-12.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|163.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-513.1|487.6|||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||487.6|-513.1|
90866494|NCT01817530|181595282|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
90866495|NCT01817530|181595283|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|156.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.04|641.22||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||641.22|38.04|< 0.001
90866496|NCT01817530|181595283|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
90909523|NCT02512042|181688780|EQUIVALENCE|The limits of each two-sided 95% confidence interval of the treatment difference (test-reference) for mean IOP of both eyes at approximately 8:00 (hours 0, before the morning drop) at the Day 14 visit should be within +/-1.5mm Hg, and should be within +/-1.0mm Hg for majority of time points using the PP population.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.03||||||||-0.03|-0.69|
90909524|NCT02512042|181688780|EQUIVALENCE|The limits of each two-sided 95% confidence interval of the treatment difference (test-reference) for mean IOP of both eyes at approximately 8:00 hour on Day 42 should be within +/-1.5mm Hg, and should be within +/- 1.0mm Hg for majority of time points using the PP population.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.22||||||||0.22|-0.43|
90909525|NCT02512042|181688780|EQUIVALENCE|The limits of each two-sided 95% confidence interval of the treatment difference (test-reference) for mean IOP of both eyes at approximately 10:00 hour on Day 14 should be within +/-1.5mm Hg, and should be within +/-1.0mm Hg for majority of time points using the PP population.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.09||||||||-0.09|-0.71|
90909526|NCT02512042|181688780|EQUIVALENCE|The limits of each two-sided 95% confidence interval of the treatment difference (test-reference) for mean IOP of both eyes at approximately 10:00 hour on Day 42 should be within +/-1.5mm Hg, and should be within +/-1.0mm Hg for majority of time points using the PP population|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.13||||||||0.13|-0.50|
90866497|NCT01817530|181595283|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|66.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.1|206.88||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||206.88|21.1|< 0.001
90909527|NCT01467700|181688785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.28||0.518|TWO_SIDED|98.0|-2.9|3.1||P-values were from an MMRM model with baseline\*week, pooled center, week, treatment, baseline, and week\*treatment as factors in the analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.1|-2.9|0.518
90909528|NCT01467700|181688785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29||0.979|TWO_SIDED|98.0|-0.4|5.7||P-values were from an MMRM model with baseline\*week, pooled center, week, treatment, baseline, and week\*treatment as factors in the analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.7|-0.4|0.979
90909529|NCT01467700|181688785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29||0.4|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-3.7|3.0||P-values were from an MMRM model with baseline\*week, pooled center, week, treatment, baseline, and week\*treatment as factors in the analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.0|-3.7|0.400
90909530|NCT01467700|181688786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.22||0.017|TWO_SIDED|98.0|-0.5|9.9||P-values were from an MMRM model with baseline\*week, pooled center, week, treatment, baseline, and week\*treatment as factors in the analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.9|-0.5|0.017
90866498|NCT01817530|181595283|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
90866499|NCT01817530|181595283|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|52.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.42|156.09||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||156.09|17.42|< 0.001
90866500|NCT01817530|181595283|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
90866501|NCT01817530|181595283|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|25.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.45|61.96||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||61.96|10.45|< 0.001
90866502|NCT01817530|181595283|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
90909531|NCT01467700|181688786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.25||0.361|TWO_SIDED|98.0|-4.5|6.1||P-values were from an MMRM model with baseline\*week, pooled center, week, treatment, baseline, and week\*treatment as factors in the analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.1|-4.5|0.361
90866503|NCT01817530|181595283|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.38|21.25||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||21.25|4.38|< 0.001
90866504|NCT01817530|181595283|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
90866505|NCT01817530|181595283|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.13|36.67||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||36.67|7.13|< 0.001
90866506|NCT01817530|181595283|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
90866507|NCT01817530|181595284|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|123.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.93|584.85||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||584.85|25.93|< 0.001
90866508|NCT01817530|181595284|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
90866509|NCT01817530|181595284|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|40.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.59|121.03||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||121.03|13.59|< 0.001
90866510|NCT01817530|181595284|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
90909532|NCT01467700|181688786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.23||0.002|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.6|12.1||P-values were from an MMRM model with baseline\*week, pooled center, week, treatment, baseline, and week\*treatment as factors in the analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||12.1|0.6|0.002
90909533|NCT05822440|181688911|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|124.35|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.22|154.29||||||Ratio was between test to reference, where test is PF-07817883 + Itraconazole arm and reference is PF-07817883 arm. Natural log transformed Cmax of PF-07817883 were analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment as fixed effect and participant as a random effect. The ratios (and 90% CIs) were expressed as percentages.||154.29|100.22|
90960355|NCT01468831|181801289|OTHER|The mean difference between the minocycline and placebo treatment arms in change in retinal thickness as measured by OCT in the study eye at Month 24 compared to baseline is reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|-9.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|156.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-487.0|468.0|||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||468|-487|
90866511|NCT01817530|181595284|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|19.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.44|48.58||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||48.58|7.44|< 0.001
90866512|NCT01817530|181595284|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
90866513|NCT01817530|181595284|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|22.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.29|55.77||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||55.77|9.29|< 0.001
90866514|NCT01817530|181595284|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
90866515|NCT01817530|181595284|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.88|24.27||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||24.27|4.88|< 0.001
90866516|NCT01817530|181595284|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
90866517|NCT01817530|181595284|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.46|21.22||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||21.22|4.46|< 0.001
90866518|NCT01817530|181595284|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
90866519|NCT01817530|181595285|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|24.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.57|71.32||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||71.32|8.57|< 0.001
90866520|NCT01817530|181595285|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
90866521|NCT01817530|181595285|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|17.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.57|45.05||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||45.05|6.57|< 0.001
90866522|NCT01817530|181595285|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
90866523|NCT01817530|181595285|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.79|19.92||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||19.92|3.79|< 0.001
90866524|NCT01817530|181595285|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
90866525|NCT01817530|181595285|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|18.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.11|49.02||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||49.02|7.11|< 0.001
90866526|NCT01817530|181595285|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
90866527|NCT01817530|181595285|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.43|10.04||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||10.04|2.43|< 0.001
90909534|NCT05822440|181688912|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|212.83||||||90.0|183.76|246.5||||||Ratio was between test to reference, where test is PF-07817883 + Itraconazole arm and reference is PF-07817883 arm. Natural log transformed Cmax of PF-07817883 were analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment as fixed effect and participant as a random effect. The ratios (and 90% CIs) were expressed as percentages.||246.50|183.76|
90909535|NCT03568318|181688946|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the coprimary and all key secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was controlled at the 0.05 level using a graphical multiple testing procedure following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|50.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.8|57.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||57.4|43.8|<0.001
90909536|NCT03568318|181688946|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the coprimary and all key secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was controlled at the 0.05 level using a graphical multiple testing procedure following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|38.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.8|45.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||45.4|30.8|<0.001
90909537|NCT03568318|181688947|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the coprimary and all key secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was controlled at the 0.05 level using a graphical multiple testing procedure following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|47.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.1|54.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response rate difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||54.0|41.1|<0.001
90909538|NCT03568318|181688947|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the coprimary and all key secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was controlled at the 0.05 level using a graphical multiple testing procedure following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|28.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.1|34.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response rate difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||34.9|22.1|<0.001
90909539|NCT03568318|181688948|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the coprimary and all key secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was controlled at the 0.05 level using a graphical multiple testing procedure following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|48.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.9|55.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||55.7|41.9|<0.001
90866528|NCT01817530|181595285|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
90866529|NCT01817530|181595285|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.17|26.79|||Regression, Logistic|P value is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.||||26.79|5.17|< 0.001
90866530|NCT01817530|181595285|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
90866531|NCT01817530|181595286|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|31.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.02|98.83||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||98.83|10.02|< 0.001
90866532|NCT01817530|181595286|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
90866533|NCT01817530|181595286|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.77|35.91||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||35.91|5.77|< 0.001
90866534|NCT01817530|181595286|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
90866535|NCT01817530|181595286|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.23|22.8||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||22.8|4.23|< 0.001
90866536|NCT01817530|181595286|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
90866537|NCT01817530|181595286|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.66|41.26||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||41.26|6.66|< 0.001
90866538|NCT01817530|181595286|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
90866539|NCT01817530|181595286|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.36|14.68||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||14.68|3.36|< 0.001
90866540|NCT01817530|181595286|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
90909540|NCT03568318|181688948|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the coprimary and all key secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was controlled at the 0.05 level using a graphical multiple testing procedure following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|36.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.7|43.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||43.8|29.7|<0.001
90866541|NCT01817530|181595286|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.85|23.76||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||23.76|4.85|< 0.001
90866542|NCT01817530|181595286|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
90866543|NCT01817530|181595287|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
90866544|NCT01817530|181595287|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
90866545|NCT01817530|181595287|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
90866546|NCT01817530|181595287|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
90866547|NCT01817530|181595287|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
90866548|NCT01817530|181595287|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
90866549|NCT01817530|181595288|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
90866550|NCT01817530|181595288|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
90866551|NCT01817530|181595288|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
90866552|NCT01817530|181595288|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
90866553|NCT01817530|181595288|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
90866554|NCT01817530|181595288|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
90866555|NCT01817530|181595289|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS mean change|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.28|-1.03||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo at each postbaseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-1.03|-6.28|0.007
90866556|NCT01817530|181595289|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS mean change|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98||0.132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.44|0.46||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo at each postbaseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.46|-3.44|0.132
90866557|NCT01817530|181595289|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS mean change|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94||0.876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|2.0||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo at each postbaseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||2.00|-1.71|0.876
90866558|NCT01817530|181595289|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS mean change|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.92|0.04||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo at each postbaseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.04|-3.92|0.055
90866559|NCT01817530|181595289|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS mean change|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|1.74||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo at each postbaseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||1.74|-1.52|0.898
90866560|NCT01817530|181595289|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS mean change|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|1.17||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo at each postbaseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||1.17|-2.05|0.59
90866561|NCT01817530|181595290|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS mean change|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|-0.42||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo at each postbaseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-0.42|-1.64|0.001
90866562|NCT01817530|181595290|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS mean change|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|-0.48||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo at each postbaseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-0.48|-1.42|< 0.001
90866563|NCT01817530|181595290|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS mean change|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|-0.25||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo at each postbaseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-0.25|-1.12|0.002
90866564|NCT01817530|181595290|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS mean change|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|0.12||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo at each postbaseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.12|-1.04|0.118
90866565|NCT01817530|181595290|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS mean change|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|-0.22||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo at each postbaseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-0.22|-1.16|0.004
90866566|NCT01817530|181595290|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS mean change|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|-0.59||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo at each postbaseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-0.59|-1.51|< 0.001
90866567|NCT01817530|181595291|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS mean change|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.15||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo at each post-baseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-0.15|-0.79|0.004
90866568|NCT01817530|181595291|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS mean change|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.13||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo at each post-baseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.13|-0.4|0.314
90909541|NCT03568318|181688949|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the coprimary and all key secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was controlled at the 0.05 level using a graphical multiple testing procedure following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|49.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.3|56.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||56.4|43.3|<0.001
90866569|NCT01817530|181595291|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS mean change|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.39||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo at each post-baseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.39|-0.12|0.307
90866570|NCT01817530|181595291|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS mean change|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.06||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo at each post-baseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.06|-0.58|0.106
90866571|NCT01817530|181595291|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS mean change|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.15||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo at each post-baseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.15|-0.36|0.424
90866572|NCT01817530|181595291|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS mean change|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.35||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo at each post-baseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.35|-0.18|0.528
90866573|NCT01817530|181595292|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.74||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo at each postbaseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||1.74|0.80|< 0.001
90909542|NCT03568318|181688949|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the coprimary and all key secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was controlled at the 0.05 level using a graphical multiple testing procedure following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|29.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.8|36.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||36.3|22.8|<0.001
90909543|NCT03568318|181688950|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the coprimary and all key secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was controlled at the 0.05 level using a graphical multiple testing procedure following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|50.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.8|57.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||57.3|43.8|<0.001
90909544|NCT03568318|181688950|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the coprimary and all key secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was controlled at the 0.05 level using a graphical multiple testing procedure following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|37.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.4|44.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||44.3|30.4|<0.001
90909545|NCT03568318|181688951|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the coprimary and all key secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was controlled at the 0.05 level using a graphical multiple testing procedure following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|57.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.2|63.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||63.9|51.2|<0.001
90909546|NCT03568318|181688951|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the coprimary and all key secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was controlled at the 0.05 level using a graphical multiple testing procedure following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|43.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.0|50.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||50.5|37.0|<0.001
90909547|NCT03568318|181688952|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the coprimary and all key secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was controlled at the 0.05 level using a graphical multiple testing procedure following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|37.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.0|43.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||43.3|31.0|<0.001
90909548|NCT03568318|181688952|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the coprimary and all key secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was controlled at the 0.05 level using a graphical multiple testing procedure following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|24.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.1|29.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||29.9|18.1|<0.001
90960356|NCT01468831|181801290|OTHER|The difference between the minocycline and placebo treatment arms in number of participants improving ≥ 1 logOCT scale step in the study eye at Month 12 compared to baseline is reported.|Difference in Number of Participants|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||||
90960357|NCT01468831|181801291|OTHER|The difference between the minocycline and placebo treatment arms in number of participants improving ≥ 1 logOCT scale step in the study eye at Month 24 compared to baseline is reported|Difference in Number of Participants|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||||
90960358|NCT01468831|181801292|OTHER|The difference between the minocycline and treatment arms in the number of participants experiencing a decrease in fluid leakage at Month 12 compared to baseline is reported.|Difference in Number of Participants|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||||
90909549|NCT03568318|181688953|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the coprimary and all key secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was controlled at the 0.05 level using a graphical multiple testing procedure following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|38.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.8|44.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||44.8|32.8|<0.001
90866574|NCT01817530|181595292|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.72||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo at each postbaseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||1.72|0.78|< 0.001
90866575|NCT01817530|181595292|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.27||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo at each postbaseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||1.27|0.33|< 0.001
90866576|NCT01817530|181595292|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.52||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo at each postbaseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||1.52|0.65|< 0.001
90866577|NCT01817530|181595292|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.16||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo at each postbaseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||1.16|0.29|< 0.001
90866578|NCT01817530|181595292|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.26||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo at each postbaseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||1.26|0.4|< 0.001
90866579|NCT01817530|181595293|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Month 3||||< 0.001
90866580|NCT01817530|181595293|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Month 3||||< 0.001
90866581|NCT01817530|181595293|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Month 3||||0.018
90866582|NCT01817530|181595293|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Month 3||||< 0.001
90866583|NCT01817530|181595293|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Month 3||||< 0.001
90866584|NCT01817530|181595293|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.021||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Month 3||||0.021
90909550|NCT03568318|181688953|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the coprimary and all key secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was controlled at the 0.05 level using a graphical multiple testing procedure following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|23.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.7|28.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||28.9|17.7|<0.001
90960359|NCT01468831|181801292|OTHER|The difference between the minocycline and treatment arms in the number of participants experiencing an increase in fluid leakage at Month 12 compared to baseline is reported.|Difference in Number of Participants|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||||
90866585|NCT01817530|181595293|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Month 6||||< 0.001
90866586|NCT01817530|181595293|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Month 6||||< 0.001
90866587|NCT01817530|181595293|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.032||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Month 6||||0.032
90866588|NCT01817530|181595293|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Month 6||||< 0.001
90866589|NCT01817530|181595293|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Month 6||||0.007
90866590|NCT01817530|181595293|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.495||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Month 6||||0.495
90866591|NCT01817530|181595293|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Final Visit||||< 0.001
90866592|NCT01817530|181595293|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Final Visit||||< 0.001
90866593|NCT01817530|181595293|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Final Visit||||0.015
90866594|NCT01817530|181595293|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Final Visit||||< 0.001
90909551|NCT03568318|181688954|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the coprimary and all key secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was controlled at the 0.05 level using a graphical multiple testing procedure following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|21.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.3|26.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||26.1|16.3|<0.001
90909552|NCT03568318|181688955|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the coprimary and all key secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was controlled at the 0.05 level using a graphical multiple testing procedure following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|16.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.3|21.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||21.1|11.3|<0.001
90909553|NCT03568318|181688955|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the coprimary and all key secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was controlled at the 0.05 level using a graphical multiple testing procedure following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|9.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|13.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||13.4|4.9|<0.001
90909554|NCT03568318|181688956|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the coprimary and all key secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was controlled at the 0.05 level using a graphical multiple testing procedure following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer. This endpoint was a multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoint for European Union (EU)/European Medicines Agency (EMA) regulatory purposes only.|Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-41.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.417|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.46|-33.11|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|Mixed-effect model repeat measurement with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Baseline vIGA-AD category and age in the model.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-33.11|-50.46|<0.001
90909555|NCT03568318|181688956|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the coprimary and all key secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was controlled at the 0.05 level using a graphical multiple testing procedure following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer. This endpoint was a multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoint for European Union (EU)/European Medicines Agency (EMA) regulatory purposes only.|LS Mean Difference|-33.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.403|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.72|-24.44|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|Mixed-effect model repeat measurement with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Baseline vIGA-AD category and age in the model.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-24.44|-41.72|<0.001
90866595|NCT01817530|181595293|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Final Visit||||0.002
90866596|NCT01817530|181595293|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.329||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Final Visit||||0.329
90866597|NCT01817530|181595294|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Month 3||||< 0.001
90866598|NCT01817530|181595294|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Month 3||||< 0.001
90866599|NCT01817530|181595294|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Month 3||||0.036
90866600|NCT01817530|181595294|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Month 3||||< 0.001
90866601|NCT01817530|181595294|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Month 3||||< 0.001
90866602|NCT01817530|181595294|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.040
90866603|NCT01817530|181595294|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Month 6||||< 0.001
90866604|NCT01817530|181595294|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||< 0.001
90866605|NCT01817530|181595294|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.098||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Month 6||||0.098
90960360|NCT01468831|181801292|OTHER|The difference between the minocycline and treatment arms in the number of participants experiencing no change in fluid leakage at Month 12 compared to baseline is reported.|Difference in Number of Participants|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||||
90866606|NCT01817530|181595294|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Month 6||||< 0.001
90866607|NCT01817530|181595294|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Month 6||||0.014
90866608|NCT01817530|181595294|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.409||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Month 6||||0.409
90866609|NCT01817530|181595294|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Final Visit||||< 0.001
90866610|NCT01817530|181595294|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Final Visit||||< 0.001
90866611|NCT01817530|181595294|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.094||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Final Visit||||0.094
90866612|NCT01817530|181595294|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Final Visit||||< 0.001
90866613|NCT01817530|181595294|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Final Visit||||0.002
90866614|NCT01817530|181595294|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.393||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Final Visit||||0.393
90866615|NCT01817530|181595295|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Month 3||||< 0.001
90866616|NCT01817530|181595295|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Month 3||||< 0.001
90866617|NCT01817530|181595295|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Month 3||||< 0.001
90866618|NCT01817530|181595295|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Month 3||||< 0.001
90866619|NCT01817530|181595295|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Month 3||||< 0.001
90866620|NCT01817530|181595295|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Month 6||||< 0.001
90866621|NCT01817530|181595295|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Month 6||||< 0.001
90866622|NCT01817530|181595295|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Month 6||||< 0.001
90866623|NCT01817530|181595295|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Month 6||||< 0.001
90866624|NCT01817530|181595295|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Month 6||||< 0.001
90866625|NCT01817530|181595295|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Month 6||||< 0.001
90960361|NCT01468831|181801293|OTHER|The difference between the minocycline and treatment arms in the number of participants experiencing a decrease in fluid leakage at Month 24 compared to baseline is reported.|Difference in Number of Participants|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||||
90866626|NCT01817530|181595295|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Final Visit||||< 0.001
90866627|NCT01817530|181595295|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Final Visit||||< 0.001
90866628|NCT01817530|181595295|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Final Visit||||< 0.001
90866629|NCT01817530|181595295|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Final Visit||||< 0.001
90866630|NCT01817530|181595295|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Final Visit||||< 0.001
90866631|NCT01817530|181595295|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Final Visit||||< 0.001
90866632|NCT01817530|181595296|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 3||||< 0.001
90866633|NCT01817530|181595296|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 3||||< 0.001
90866634|NCT01817530|181595296|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 3||||0.020
90866635|NCT01817530|181595296|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 3||||< 0.001
90866636|NCT01817530|181595296|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 3||||0.002
90866637|NCT01817530|181595296|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.061||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 3||||0.061
90866638|NCT01817530|181595296|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 6||||< 0.001
90866639|NCT01817530|181595296|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 6||||0.004
90866640|NCT01817530|181595296|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.085||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 6||||0.085
90866641|NCT01817530|181595296|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 6||||< 0.001
90866642|NCT01817530|181595296|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 6||||0.012
90866643|NCT01817530|181595296|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.049||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 6||||0.049
90866644|NCT01817530|181595296|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Final Visit||||< 0.001
90866645|NCT01817530|181595296|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Final Visit||||< 0.001
90866646|NCT01817530|181595296|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.056||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Final Visit||||0.056
90866647|NCT01817530|181595296|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Final Visit||||< 0.001
90866648|NCT01817530|181595296|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Final Visit||||0.005
90866649|NCT01817530|181595296|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.088||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Final Visit||||0.088
90866650|NCT01817530|181595297|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 3||||< 0.001
90866651|NCT01817530|181595297|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 3||||< 0.001
90866652|NCT01817530|181595297|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.188||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 3||||0.188
90866653|NCT01817530|181595297|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 3||||< 0.001
90866654|NCT01817530|181595297|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 3||||0.001
90866655|NCT01817530|181595297|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.104||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 3||||0.104
90866656|NCT01817530|181595297|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 6||||< 0.001
90866657|NCT01817530|181595297|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.021||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 6||||0.021
90866658|NCT01817530|181595297|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.859||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 6||||0.859
90866659|NCT01817530|181595297|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 6||||< 0.001
90909556|NCT03568318|181688957|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-41.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.662|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.68|-36.22|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|Mixed-effect model repeat measurement with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Baseline vIGA-AD category and age in the model.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|The overall type I error rate of the coprimary and all key secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was controlled at the 0.05 level using a graphical multiple testing procedure following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer. This endpoint was a multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes only.||-36.22|-46.68|<0.001
90866660|NCT01817530|181595297|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 6||||0.006
90866661|NCT01817530|181595297|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 6||||0.015
90866662|NCT01817530|181595297|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Final Visit||||< 0.001
90866663|NCT01817530|181595297|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Final Visit||||0.007
90960362|NCT01468831|181801293|OTHER|The difference between the minocycline and treatment arms in the number of participants experiencing an increase in fluid leakage at Month 24 compared to baseline is reported.|Difference in Number of Participants|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||||
90866664|NCT01817530|181595297|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.722||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Final Visit||||0.722
90866665|NCT01817530|181595297|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Final Visit||||< 0.001
90866666|NCT01817530|181595297|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Final Visit||||< 0.001
90866667|NCT01817530|181595297|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.032||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Final Visit||||0.032
90866668|NCT01817530|181595298|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 3||||< 0.001
90866669|NCT01817530|181595298|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 3||||< 0.001
90866670|NCT01817530|181595298|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.041||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 3||||0.041
90866671|NCT01817530|181595298|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 3||||< 0.001
90866672|NCT01817530|181595298|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 3||||< 0.001
90866673|NCT01817530|181595298|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 3||||0.008
90866674|NCT01817530|181595298|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 6||||< 0.001
90866675|NCT01817530|181595298|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 6||||< 0.001
90866676|NCT01817530|181595298|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 6||||0.003
90866677|NCT01817530|181595298|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 6||||< 0.001
90866678|NCT01817530|181595298|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 6||||< 0.001
90866679|NCT01817530|181595298|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 6||||0.003
90866680|NCT01817530|181595298|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Final Visit||||< 0.001
90866681|NCT01817530|181595298|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Final Visit||||< 0.001
90866682|NCT01817530|181595298|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Final Visit||||0.004
90866683|NCT01817530|181595298|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Final Visit||||< 0.001
90866684|NCT01817530|181595298|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Final Visit||||< 0.001
90866685|NCT01817530|181595298|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Final Visit||||0.002
90866686|NCT01817530|181595299|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.58||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.65|3.59||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo at each post-baseline time point is from ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Final Month||3.59|-6.65|0.556
90866687|NCT01817530|181595299|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.63||0.672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.33|4.09||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo at each post-baseline time point is from ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Final Month||4.09|-6.33|0.672
90866688|NCT01817530|181595299|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.71||0.274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.39|8.36||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo at each post-baseline time point is from ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Final Month||8.36|-2.39|0.274
90866689|NCT01817530|181595299|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.65||0.223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.26|1.23||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo at each post-baseline time point is from ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Final Month||1.23|-5.26|0.223
90866690|NCT01817530|181595299|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.68||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.38|1.22||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo at each post-baseline time point is from ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Final Month||1.22|-5.38|0.215
90866691|NCT01817530|181595299|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.68||0.392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.75|1.87||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo at each post-baseline time point is from ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Final Month||1.87|-4.75|0.392
90866692|NCT02761252|181595364|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.194|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3429||0.5721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8693|0.4813|||ANCOVA|||||0.4813|-0.8693|0.5721
90866693|NCT02761252|181595365|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1552|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4489||0.0105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0379|-0.2725|||ANCOVA|||||-0.2725|-2.0379|0.0105
90866694|NCT02761252|181595366|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1393|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2009||0.4885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5342|0.2557|||ANCOVA|||||0.2557|-0.5342|0.4885
90866695|NCT02761252|181595367|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03615|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1504||0.81032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3319|0.2596|||ANCOVA|||||0.2596|-0.3319|0.81032
90866696|NCT02761252|181595368|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8359|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9322||0.3704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9969|2.6688|||ANOVA|||||2.6688|-0.9969|0.3704
90866697|NCT02761252|181595369|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.837|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5735||0.7452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8968|4.2228|||ANOVA|||||4.2228|-5.8968|0.7452
90866698|NCT02370160|181595378|OTHER||||||||||||||||||In Phase I: There were 9 subjects treated on dose level 1 (60 µg/kg/dose). There were 6 subjects treated on Dose level 2 (80 µg/kg/dose). There were four DLT events happened in Phase I. One was treated on dose level 1 and the other three were treated on dose level 2. Therefore the MTD was dose level 1.|||
90866699|NCT04487730|181595385|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4727||||0.6249|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Functional connectivity within the orbital prefrontal cortex (OFC; specifically between lateral and medial OFC), significantly changed over time.||||0.6249
90866700|NCT04487730|181595386|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.8176||||0.525|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Mixed effects model with a fixed effect for treatment and time, as well as time by treatment interaction, and a random effect for subject level.~F value for time by treatment interaction."||||.525
90866701|NCT04487730|181595387|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6503||||0.844|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Mixed effects model with a fixed effect for treatment and time, as well as time by treatment interaction, and a random effect for subject level.~F value for time by treatment interaction."||||.844
90866702|NCT01758432|181595402|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|-95.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
90909557|NCT03568318|181688957|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the coprimary and all key secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was controlled at the 0.05 level using a graphical multiple testing procedure following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer. This endpoint was a multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes only.|LS Mean Difference|-32.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.659|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.35|-26.91|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|Mixed-effect model repeat measurement with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Baseline vIGA-AD category and age in the model.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-26.91|-37.35|<0.001
90866703|NCT01758432|181595402|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|-130.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
90866704|NCT01758432|181595402|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|-129.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
90866705|NCT01758432|181595402|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|-165.91|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
90866706|NCT01758432|181595402|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|-167.94|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
90866707|NCT01758432|181595402|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|-135.91|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
90866708|NCT01758432|181595403|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|85559.49||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0004
90866709|NCT01758432|181595403|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|105508.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
90866710|NCT01758432|181595403|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|182753.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
90866711|NCT01758432|181595403|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|193684.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
90866712|NCT01758432|181595403|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|178055.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
90866713|NCT01758432|181595403|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|169709.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
90866714|NCT01758432|181595404|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|-4.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
90866715|NCT01758432|181595404|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|-4.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
90866716|NCT01758432|181595404|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|-6.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
90866717|NCT01758432|181595404|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|-6.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
90866718|NCT01758432|181595404|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|-7.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
90866719|NCT01758432|181595404|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|-6.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
90866720|NCT01509950|181595425|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.60
90909558|NCT03568318|181688958|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|53.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.8|67.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||67.4|38.8|<0.001
90909559|NCT03568318|181688958|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|32.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.3|49.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||49.0|16.3|<0.001
90866721|NCT04115839|181595436|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|26.9||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|49.6||The stratification factors (Geographic Region, Concurrent Use of conventional synthetic (cs) DMARD(s) and/or Apremilast at Randomization, Prior Use of biologic (bio)DMARD(s)) and treatment groups were included in the imputation model as covariates.|Multiple imputation method|||||49.6|4.3|0.022
90866722|NCT04115839|181595436|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|2.2||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.5|25.0||The stratification factors (Geographic Region, Concurrent Use of csDMARD(s) and/or Apremilast at Randomization, Prior Use of bioDMARD(s)) and treatment groups were included in the imputation model as covariates.|Multiple imputation method|||||25.0|-20.5|0.89
90866723|NCT04115839|181595439|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-5.9||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.6|9.9||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors (geographic Region, concurrent Use of csDMARD(s) and/or Apremilast at Randomization, prior use of bioDMARD(s)) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% confidence interval (CI) for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||9.9|-21.6|0.39
90866724|NCT04115839|181595439|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-2.6||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|14.5||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors (geographic Region, concurrent Use of csDMARD(s) and/or Apremilast at Randomization, prior use of bioDMARD(s)) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% confidence interval (CI) for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||14.5|-19.7|0.65
90866725|NCT04115839|181595439|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.9||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|-19.4|-19.4|21.3||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors (geographic Region, concurrent Use of csDMARD(s) and/or Apremilast at Randomization, prior use of bioDMARD(s)) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% confidence interval (CI) for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||21.3|-19.4|0.86
90909560|NCT03568318|181688959|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|55.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.4|69.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||69.5|41.4|<0.001
90909561|NCT03568318|181688959|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|26.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.1|40.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||40.4|12.1|<0.001
90909562|NCT03568318|181688960|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|30.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.1|46.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||46.8|14.1|<0.001
90909563|NCT03568318|181688960|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|24.5||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.2|40.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||40.8|8.2|0.003
90866726|NCT04115839|181595439|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-2.9||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|16.1||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors (geographic Region, concurrent Use of csDMARD(s) and/or Apremilast at Randomization, prior use of bioDMARD(s)) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% confidence interval (CI) for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||16.1|-22.0|0.70
90866727|NCT04115839|181595439|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|12.4||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|32.3||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors (geographic Region, concurrent Use of csDMARD(s) and/or Apremilast at Randomization, prior use of bioDMARD(s)) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% confidence interval (CI) for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||32.3|-7.5|0.15
90909564|NCT03568318|181688961|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|52.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.3|66.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||66.7|37.3|<0.001
90909565|NCT03568318|181688961|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|27.1||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.1|43.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||43.1|11.1|0.001
90909566|NCT03568318|181688962|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|23.5||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|40.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||40.1|6.9|0.006
90909567|NCT03568318|181688962|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|22.7||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.2|39.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||39.2|6.2|0.007
90866728|NCT04115839|181595439|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|8.8||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|27.7||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors (geographic Region, concurrent Use of csDMARD(s) and/or Apremilast at Randomization, prior use of bioDMARD(s)) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% confidence interval (CI) for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||27.7|-10.1|0.30
90866729|NCT04115839|181595439|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|22.3||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|45.2||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors (geographic Region, concurrent Use of csDMARD(s) and/or Apremilast at Randomization, prior use of bioDMARD(s)) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% confidence interval (CI) for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||45.2|-0.7|0.035
90866730|NCT04115839|181595439|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|12.1||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|33.5||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors (geographic Region, concurrent Use of csDMARD(s) and/or Apremilast at Randomization, prior use of bioDMARD(s)) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% confidence interval (CI) for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||33.5|-9.3|0.22
90960363|NCT01468831|181801293|OTHER|The difference between the minocycline and treatment arms in the number of participants experiencing no change in fluid leakage at Month 24 compared to baseline is reported.|Difference in Number of Participants|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||||
90866731|NCT04115839|181595441|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|2.8|||||95% CI for response rate and difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||2.8|-2.8|
90866732|NCT04115839|181595441|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|2.9|||||95% CI for response rate and difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||2.9|-2.9|
90866733|NCT04115839|181595441|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|12.2|||||95% CI for response rate and difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||12.2|-5.9|
90866734|NCT04115839|181595441|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|2.9|||||95% CI for response rate and difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||2.9|-2.9|
90866735|NCT04115839|181595441|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|11.9|||||95% CI for response rate and difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||11.9|-5.8|
90866736|NCT04115839|181595441|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|16.7|||||95% CI for response rate and difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||16.7|-5.0|
90866737|NCT04115839|181595441|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|11.6|||||95% CI for response rate and difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||11.6|-11.4|
90866738|NCT04115839|181595441|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|16.1|||||95% CI for response rate and difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||16.1|-10.0|
90960364|NCT01287065|181801311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.377|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.293|0.462|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference =FF/VI 100/25 µg PM minus Placebo|||0.462|0.293|
90960365|NCT01287065|181801311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.422|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.337|0.507|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference =FF/VI 100/25 µg AM minus Placebo|||0.507|0.337|
90960366|NCT01287065|181801311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.044|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.125|0.036|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference =FF/VI 100/25 µg AM minusFF/VI 100/25 µg PM|||0.036|-0.125|
90909568|NCT03568318|181688963|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|49.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.1|64.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||64.6|34.1|<0.001
90909569|NCT03568318|181688963|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|26.2||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.4|43.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||43.1|9.4|0.002
90909570|NCT03568318|181688964|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|41.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.8|55.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||55.1|27.8|<0.001
90909571|NCT03568318|181688964|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|24.4||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.3|38.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||38.4|10.3|0.001
90909572|NCT03568318|181688965|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|34.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.6|49.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||49.3|20.6|<0.001
90909573|NCT03568318|181688965|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|24.5||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.4|38.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||38.7|10.4|0.001
90909574|NCT03568318|181688966|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|19.8||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.8|31.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||31.8|7.8|0.001
90909575|NCT03568318|181688967|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|6.2||||0.306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|18.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||18.2|-5.7|0.306
90909576|NCT03568318|181688967|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|-1.0||||0.855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|9.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||9.3|-11.2|0.855
90909577|NCT03568318|181688968|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-16.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.956||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.59|7.48|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|Mixed-effect model repeat measurement with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and Baseline vIGA-AD category in the model.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||7.48|-39.59|0.180
90909578|NCT03568318|181688968|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-26.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.986||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.97|-2.79|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|Mixed-effect model repeat measurement with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and Baseline vIGA-AD category in the model.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-2.79|-49.97|0.029
90909579|NCT03568318|181688969|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-35.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.354|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.28|-25.11|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and Baseline vIGA-AD category in the model.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-25.11|-46.28|<0.001
90909580|NCT03568318|181688969|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-24.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.423|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.1|-13.65|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and Baseline vIGA-AD category in the model.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-13.65|-35.10|<0.001
90909581|NCT03720990|181688970|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.011
90960367|NCT00511472|181801333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|46.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.15||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|22.71|69.5|||ANOVA|||For the least square mean difference - baseline in the ANOVA model = glucose value at Titration Day 1 pre-Breakfast for Titration Group 1||69.50|22.71|0.001
90909582|NCT01249092|181688971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-57.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|62.1||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-88.2|-26.4||This study tested the hypothesis that treatment with pentoxifylline would result in a statistically significant change from baseline in the level of alkaline phosphatase.|Paired t-test|||A p-value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant and all analyses were carried out using SAS version 9.2 (The SAS Institute, Cary, NC). Matched pairs t-test was used to compare the change in alkaline phosphatase from baseline. The efficacy of therapy was measured based on improvement in AP levels after therapy with PTX. AP levels at end of the study were compared with values at baseline by matched pairs t-test.||-26.4|-88.2|0.001
90866739|NCT04115839|181595449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||P-value was provided from mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) having treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 4||0|-1|0.24
90866740|NCT04115839|181595449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||P-value was provided from MMRM having treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 4||0|-1|0.22
90866741|NCT04115839|181595449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.0||P-value was provided from MMRM having treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 8||1|-1|0.43
90866742|NCT04115839|181595449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.0||P-value was provided from MMRM having treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 8||1|-1|0.70
90866743|NCT04115839|181595449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.0||P-value was provided from MMRM having treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 12||0|-2|0.10
90866744|NCT04115839|181595449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.0||P-value was provided from MMRM having treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 12||1|-1|0.90
90866745|NCT04115839|181595449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.0||P-value was provided from MMRM having treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 16||1|-1|0.88
90866746|NCT04115839|181595449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.0||P-value was provided from MMRM having treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 16||1|-1|0.89
90866747|NCT04115839|181595453|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.9|16.5|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||16.5|-15.9|
90866748|NCT04115839|181595453|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|12.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|32.3|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||32.3|-7.1|
90866749|NCT04115839|181595453|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|26.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|50.2|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||50.2|3.0|
90866750|NCT04115839|181595453|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|18.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|40.4|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||40.4|-4.1|
90866751|NCT04115839|181595455|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|11.5|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||11.5|-5.6|
90866752|NCT04115839|181595455|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|2.9|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||2.9|-2.9|
90866753|NCT04115839|181595455|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|12.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|27.8|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||27.8|-2.0|
90866754|NCT04115839|181595455|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|21.9|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||21.9|-3.7|
90866755|NCT04115839|181595457|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|15.4||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|36.3||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors (geographic region, concurrent use of csDMARD(s) and/or apremilast at randomization, prior use of bioDMARD(s)) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 2||36.3|-5.5|0.098
90866756|NCT04115839|181595457|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-5.1||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.1|11.0||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors (geographic region, concurrent use of csDMARD(s) and/or apremilast at randomization, prior use of bioDMARD(s)) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 2||11.0|-21.1|0.40
90866757|NCT04115839|181595457|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|10.8||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|34.3||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors (geographic region, concurrent use of csDMARD(s) and/or apremilast at randomization, prior use of bioDMARD(s)) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||34.3|-12.6|0.26
90866758|NCT04115839|181595457|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|8.8||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|32.2||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors (geographic region, concurrent use of csDMARD(s) and/or apremilast at randomization, prior use of bioDMARD(s)) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||32.2|-14.6|0.39
90866759|NCT04115839|181595457|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|20.0||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|46.9||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors (geographic region, concurrent use of csDMARD(s) and/or apremilast at randomization, prior use of bioDMARD(s)) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||46.9|-6.9|0.088
90866760|NCT04115839|181595457|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-7.0||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.9|18.9||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors (geographic region, concurrent use of csDMARD(s) and/or apremilast at randomization, prior use of bioDMARD(s)) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||18.9|-32.9|0.49
90866761|NCT04115839|181595457|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|28.3||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|54.2||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors (geographic region, concurrent use of csDMARD(s) and/or apremilast at randomization, prior use of bioDMARD(s)) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||54.2|2.4|0.019
90866762|NCT04115839|181595457|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|2.9||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.5|28.4||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors (geographic region, concurrent use of csDMARD(s) and/or apremilast at randomization, prior use of bioDMARD(s)) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||28.4|-22.5|0.85
90866763|NCT04115839|181595457|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|25.9||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|52.3||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors (geographic region, concurrent use of csDMARD(s) and/or apremilast at randomization, prior use of bioDMARD(s)) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||52.3|-0.4|0.036
90866764|NCT04115839|181595457|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|6.1||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|31.8||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors (geographic region, concurrent use of csDMARD(s) and/or apremilast at randomization, prior use of bioDMARD(s)) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||31.8|-19.7|0.60
90909583|NCT01249092|181688972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.66||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.14|8.68||Hypothesis tested if TIMP-1 levels after therapy with pentoxifylline changed significantly from baseline from baseline.|Paired t-test.|||Change from baseline in TIMP-1 levels was assessed by paired-t test. Distribution the variable values was assessed using normal probability plots. Matched pairs t-test was used to compare the change from baseline.||8.68|-24.14|0.5
90909584|NCT00286741|181688989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.15
90866765|NCT04115839|181595459|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|6.0||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|19.8||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors (geographic region, concurrent use of csDMARD(s) and/or apremilast at randomization, prior use of bioDMARD(s)) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 2||19.8|-7.8|0.31
90866766|NCT04115839|181595459|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-2.8||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|5.5||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors (geographic region, concurrent use of csDMARD(s) and/or apremilast at randomization, prior use of bioDMARD(s)) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 2||5.5|-11.1|0.48
90909585|NCT00286741|181688990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.03
90909586|NCT05197049|181688992|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted treatment difference:percentage|34.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.1|44.6|||Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel stratum weights and the Sato variance estimator.||||44.6|25.1|< 0.001
90909587|NCT05197049|181688993|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted treatment difference:percentage|19.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.2|29.6|||Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel stratum weights and the Sato variance estimator.||||29.6|10.2|< 0.001
90909588|NCT05197049|181688994|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted treatment difference:percentage|37.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.6|48.4|||Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel stratum weights and the Sato variance estimator.||||48.4|25.6|< 0.001
90909589|NCT05197049|181688994|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted treatment difference:percentage|39.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.0|50.7|||Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel stratum weights and the Sato variance estimator.||||50.7|28.0|< 0.001
90909590|NCT05197049|181688995|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted treatment difference:percentage|32.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.9|41.2|||Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel stratum weights and the Sato variance estimator.||||41.2|22.9|< 0.001
90909591|NCT05197049|181688996|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted treatment difference:percentage|40.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.9|50.7|||Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel stratum weights and the Sato variance estimator.||||50.7|29.9|< 0.001
90909592|NCT01460342|181689019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.6|-2.4|<0.001
90909593|NCT01460342|181689020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.5||The p-value is for the change from baseline in the IPSS Total Score at Week 4.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.5|-2.0|<0.001
90909594|NCT01460342|181689020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.4||The p-value is for the change from baseline in the IPSS Total Score at Week 8.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.4|-2.0|0.003
90909595|NCT01460342|181689021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.0||The p-value was for the change from baseline in the IPSS Storage (Irritative) Subscore at Week 4.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.0|-0.6|0.090
90909596|NCT01460342|181689021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.1||The p-value was for the change from baseline in the IPSS Storage (Irritative) Subscore at Week 8.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.1|-0.8|0.011
90909597|NCT01460342|181689021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.2||The p-value was for the change from baseline in the IPSS Storage (Irritative) Subscore at Week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.2|-0.9|0.002
90909598|NCT01460342|181689022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.4||The p-value was for the change from baseline in the IPSS Voiding (Obstructive) Subscore at Week 4.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.4|-1.5|<0.001
90909599|NCT01460342|181689022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.2||The p-value was for the change from baseline in the IPSS Voiding (Obstructive) Subscore at Week 8.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.2|-1.3|0.007
90909600|NCT01460342|181689022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.3||The p-value was for the change from baseline in the IPSS Voiding (Obstructive) Subscore at Week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.3|-1.5|0.002
90909601|NCT01460342|181689023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1||The p-value was for the change from baseline in the IPSS QoL Index Score at Week 4.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.1|-0.2|0.277
90909602|NCT01460342|181689023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1||The p-value was for the change from baseline in the IPSS QoL Index Score at Week 8.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.1|-0.3|0.170
90909603|NCT01460342|181689023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.0||The p-value was for the change from baseline in the IPSS QoL Index Score at Week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.0|-0.4|0.038
90909604|NCT01460342|181689024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The p-value was from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for baseline severity of benign prostatic hyperplasia lower urinary tract symptoms (BPH-LUTS) and previous alpha-blocker therapy.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90909605|NCT01460342|181689025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The p-value was from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for baseline severity of benign prostatic hyperplasia lower urinary tract symptoms (BPH-LUTS) and previous alpha-blocker therapy.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90909606|NCT01460342|181689026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.0|-1.2|0.060
90909607|NCT01549652|181689038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87||||||Students' t-tests for paired samples with Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons were used to compare differences between the outcome measures for crossover treatment arms (placebo vs. ondansetron).|t-test, 2 sided|||For the purposes of our post-hoc power calculation we considered a 30% treatment effect clinically significant. Based on the mean observed OOWS score during withdrawal during the placebo session and the variance of that mean score and assuming a paired data analysis and an alpha of 0.05, we found that we had 80% power to detect a treatment effect as low as 25% reduction in OOWS.||||0.87
90909608|NCT01549652|181689039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.92
90909609|NCT01549652|181689040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.47
90909610|NCT01549652|181689041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.91|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.91
90909611|NCT01549652|181689042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90909612|NCT01549652|181689043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
90909613|NCT01549652|181689044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6||||||Students' t-test for paired samples were used to compare differences between the outcome measures for treatment groups (placebo vs. ondansetron).|t-test, 2 sided|||We aimed for a 20% change in OOWS score to show the treatment effect with a power of 80% and an alpha of 0.05, yielding a target of 23 patients per treatment group.||||0.6
90866767|NCT04115839|181595459|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|2.5||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|19.2||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors (geographic region, concurrent use of csDMARD(s) and/or apremilast at randomization, prior use of bioDMARD(s)) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||19.2|-14.1|0.70
90866768|NCT04115839|181595459|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-8.6||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.7|3.6||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors (geographic region, concurrent use of csDMARD(s) and/or apremilast at randomization, prior use of bioDMARD(s)) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||3.6|-20.7|0.17
90866769|NCT04115839|181595459|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|6.5||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|25.6||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors (geographic region, concurrent use of csDMARD(s) and/or apremilast at randomization, prior use of bioDMARD(s)) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||25.6|-12.5|0.34
90909614|NCT01549652|181689045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.20
90909615|NCT01549652|181689046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.34
90909616|NCT01549652|181689047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.40
90909617|NCT01549652|181689048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.84
90909618|NCT01549652|181689049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
90909619|NCT01194258|181689052|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin was set at 0.40.|LS Mean difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041||0.3876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Approximately 110 participants were planned to be enrolled to allow approximately 88 participants to complete both treatment periods. Assuming a dropout rate of ≤20%, an intra-participant correlation of 0.80, a standard deviation of 1.2, and a true difference of 0, the study would have \>90% power to show that either Lispro-PH20 or Aspart-PH20 (each tested separately) was non-inferior to insulin lispro alone with respect to the change from baseline in A1C at the end of each treatment period.||0.05|-0.12|0.3876
90909620|NCT03495713|181689094|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Descriptive analysis only based limited enrollments.|||
90909621|NCT00964119|181689099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0||||P-value \< .05 is the computed p-value for this measurement.|t-test, 2 sided|||PI and lead author left the institution before publishing data. Study has been closed and data files archived.||||<.05
90866770|NCT04115839|181595459|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-0.3||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.9|16.4||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors (geographic region, concurrent use of csDMARD(s) and/or apremilast at randomization, prior use of bioDMARD(s)) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||16.4|-16.9|0.98
90909622|NCT02059980|181689100|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.56|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||It was calculated that 30 participants rnadomized in a 1:1 fashion between the 2 arms would have .90 power to detect a large effect (f=.40), but is somewhat underpowered to detect a medium effect (f=.25) between the two groups. Sample size was determined using a repeated-measures ANOVA test (α = .05, a correlation of .5 among repeated measures, and a nonsphericity correction of .6), considering the design effect and potential patient attrition (=25%).||||= 0.56
90909623|NCT02059980|181689101|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.98|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||It was calculated that 30 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the 2 arms would have .90 power to detect a large effect (f=.40), but is somewhat underpowered to detect a medium effect (f=.25) between the two groups. Sample size was determined using a repeated-measures ANOVA test (α = .05, a correlation of .5 among repeated measures, and a nonsphericity correction of .6), considering the design effect and potential patient attrition (=25%).||||=.98
90909624|NCT03412747|181689107|NON_INFERIORITY|The evaluation of non-inferiority is tested at a 1-sided alpha level of 0.025 and based on a 1-sided 97.5% CI and a non-inferiority margin of 10%.|Risk Difference (RD)|39.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.9|47.7||||||Risk Difference: BKZ-ADA calculated using stratified CMH.||47.7|30.9|
90866771|NCT04115839|181595459|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|18.7||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|42.5||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors (geographic region, concurrent use of csDMARD(s) and/or apremilast at randomization, prior use of bioDMARD(s)) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||42.5|-5.1|0.071
90866772|NCT04115839|181595459|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-8.8||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.7|10.1||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors (geographic region, concurrent use of csDMARD(s) and/or apremilast at randomization, prior use of bioDMARD(s)) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||10.1|-27.7|0.27
90866773|NCT04115839|181595459|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|40.7||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.5|62.0||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors (geographic region, concurrent use of csDMARD(s) and/or apremilast at randomization, prior use of bioDMARD(s)) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||62.0|19.5|0.002
90866774|NCT04115839|181595459|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|15.2||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|32.6||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors (geographic region, concurrent use of csDMARD(s) and/or apremilast at randomization, prior use of bioDMARD(s)) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||32.6|-2.3|0.082
90866775|NCT04115839|181595461|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|11.5|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 2||11.5|-5.6|
90866776|NCT04115839|181595461|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|2.9|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 2||2.9|-2.9|
90866777|NCT04115839|181595461|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|11.0|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||11.0|-5.4|
90866778|NCT04115839|181595461|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|2.9|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||2.9|-2.9|
90909625|NCT03412747|181689107|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.459|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.709|11.816||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups were based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio: BKZ/ADA calculated using stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables.||11.816|4.709|<0.001
90909626|NCT03412747|181689108|NON_INFERIORITY|The evaluation of non-inferiority is tested at a 1-sided alpha level of 0.025 and based on a 1-sided 97.5% CI and a non-inferiority margin of 10%.|Risk Difference (RD)|28.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.7|36.7||||||Risk Difference: BKZ-ADA calculated using stratified CMH.||36.7|19.7|
90909627|NCT03412747|181689108|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.341|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.785|6.765||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups were based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio: BKZ/ADA calculated using stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables.||6.765|2.785|<0.001
90909628|NCT03412747|181689109|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.231|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.515|11.046||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups were based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio: BKZ/ADA calculated using stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables.||11.046|3.515|<0.001
90866779|NCT04115839|181595461|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|12.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|29.5|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||29.5|-4.2|
90866780|NCT04115839|181595461|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|5.7|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||5.7|-11.6|
90866781|NCT04115839|181595461|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|18.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|36.3|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||36.3|0.2|
90866782|NCT04115839|181595461|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|15.6|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||15.6|-9.7|
90866783|NCT04115839|181595461|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|12.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|27.0|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||27.0|-2.0|
90909629|NCT03412747|181689109|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.657|9.041||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups were based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio: BKZ/ADA calculated using stratified CMH test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables.||9.041|3.657|<0.001
90909630|NCT03412747|181689110|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.724|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.683|8.318||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups were based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio: BKZ/ADA calculated using stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables.||8.318|2.683|<0.001
90909631|NCT03412747|181689110|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.762|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.014|7.523||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups were based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio: BKZ/ADA calculated using stratified CMH test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables.||7.523|3.014|<0.001
90866784|NCT04115839|181595461|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|21.9|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||21.9|-3.7|
90866785|NCT04115839|181595477|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|9.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|29.4|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 2||29.4|-10.4|
90866786|NCT04115839|181595477|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|26.7|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 2||26.7|-12.5|
90866787|NCT04115839|181595477|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|43.8|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||43.8|-3.8|
90866788|NCT04115839|181595477|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|29.3|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||29.3|-16.3|
90866789|NCT04115839|181595477|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|17.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|44.5|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||44.5|-8.8|
90866790|NCT04115839|181595477|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.9|28.8|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||28.8|-22.9|
90909632|NCT03412747|181689111|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.103|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.637|10.88||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups were based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio: BKZ/ADA calculated using stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables.||10.880|4.637|<0.001
90909633|NCT03412747|181689112|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.974|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.23|7.661||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups were based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio: BKZ/ADA calculated using stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables.||7.661|3.230|<0.001
90909634|NCT03412747|181689113|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.249|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.207|8.593||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups were based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio: BKZ/ADA calculated using stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables.||8.593|3.207|<0.001
90866791|NCT04115839|181595477|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|50.6|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||50.6|-0.5|
90866792|NCT04115839|181595477|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|14.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|39.9|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||39.9|-10.5|
90866793|NCT04115839|181595477|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|18.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|45.6|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||45.6|-8.7|
90866794|NCT04115839|181595477|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|6.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.5|32.6|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||32.6|-20.5|
90866795|NCT04115839|181595479|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|23.9|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 2||23.9|-6.0|
90866796|NCT04115839|181595479|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|15.9|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 2||15.9|-9.4|
90866797|NCT04115839|181595479|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|26.2|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||26.2|-14.7|
90866798|NCT04115839|181595479|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.4|12.4|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||12.4|-23.4|
90866799|NCT04115839|181595479|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.5|24.1|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||24.1|-21.5|
90866800|NCT04115839|181595479|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.2|22.2|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||22.2|-22.2|
90866801|NCT04115839|181595479|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|21.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|43.9|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||43.9|-0.8|
90866802|NCT04115839|181595479|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|20.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|42.6|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||42.6|-1.4|
90866803|NCT04115839|181595479|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|17.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|42.7|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||42.7|-7.7|
90866804|NCT04115839|181595479|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.2|26.3|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||26.3|-20.2|
90866805|NCT04115839|181595482|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|9.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|27.8||||||Week 2||27.8|-9.2|
90866806|NCT04115839|181595482|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|21.0||||||Week 2||21.0|-13.5|
90866807|NCT04115839|181595482|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.8|28.2||||||Week 4||28.2|-16.8|
90866808|NCT04115839|181595482|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.7|19.0||||||Week 4||19.0|-23.7|
90866809|NCT04115839|181595482|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.1|31.8||||||Week 8||31.8|-21.1|
90866810|NCT04115839|181595482|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.0|19.3||||||Week 8||19.3|-31.0|
90866811|NCT04115839|181595482|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|19.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|45.3||||||Week 12||45.3|-7.0|
90909635|NCT03412747|181689113|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.974|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.257|7.594||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups were based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio: BKZ/ADA calculated using stratified CMH test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables.||7.594|3.257|<0.001
90909636|NCT04982575|181689132|OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.3||||0.2284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The change in HbA1c from baseline was analysed using an ANCOVA (Analysis of Covariance) with randomised treatment and stratification factor as factors and baseline HbA1c as a covariate using retrieved participants multiple imputation of missing data regardless of treatment or stratification.||0.19|-0.79|0.2284
90909637|NCT03038022|181689153|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-18.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.52|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.8|-9.8|||ANOVA|||LS mean difference in LDL-C between MGL-3196 and placebo.||-9.8|-27.8|<0.0001
90909638|NCT03038022|181689159|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-19.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.22|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.9|-11.1|||ANOVA|||||-11.1|-27.9|<0.0001
90909639|NCT03038022|181689160|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-25.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.66|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.7|-14.2|||ANOVA|||LS mean difference in triglycerides between MGL-3196 and placebo.||-14.2|-36.7|<0.0001
90909640|NCT03038022|181689161|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-26.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.01|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.2|-16.4|||ANOVA|||LS mean difference in Lp(a) between MGL-3196 and placebo.||-16.4|-36.2|<0.0001
90909641|NCT03038022|181689162|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-22.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.6|-12.8|||ANOVA|||||-12.8|-32.6|<0.0001
90909642|NCT03038022|181689163|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-18.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.7|-12.2|||ANOVA|||LS mean difference in ApoB between MGL-3196 and placebo.||-12.2|-23.7|<0.0001
90909643|NCT03038022|181689164|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.1||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.3|-3.0|||ANOVA|||||-3.0|-15.3|0.0037
90866812|NCT04115839|181595482|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|8.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.9|34.6||||||Week 12||34.6|-16.9|
90866813|NCT04115839|181595482|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|18.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|45.6||||||Week 16||45.6|-8.7|
90909644|NCT03038022|181689165|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.8||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|-1.8|||ANOVA|||||-1.8|-17.8|0.017
90909645|NCT03038022|181689166|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-27.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.79|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.4|-15.5|||ANOVA|||||-15.5|-38.4|<0.0001
90909646|NCT03038022|181689168|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.25||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.7|-5.9|||ANOVA|||||-5.9|-26.7|0.0025
90909647|NCT03038022|181689168|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-21.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.18|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.4|-10.9|||ANOVA|||||-10.9|-31.4|<0.0001
90909648|NCT03038022|181689169|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-245.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-363.7|-126.7|||ANOVA|||||-126.7|-363.7|<0.0001
90909649|NCT03038022|181689170|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-99.4||||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-170.6|-28.2|||ANOVA|||||-28.2|-170.6|0.0067
90909650|NCT03038022|181689171|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.7||||0.5245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.5|31.0|||ANOVA|||||31.0|-60.5|0.5245
90909651|NCT03038022|181689172|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-135.3||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-224.7|-45.8|||ANOVA|||||-45.8|-224.7|0.0034
90909652|NCT03038022|181689173|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.0||||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.9|-2.2|||ANOVA|||||-2.2|-17.9|0.0129
90909653|NCT03038022|181689174|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.77||||0.3088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|0.72|||ANOVA|||||0.72|-2.26|0.3088
90909654|NCT03038022|181689175|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04||||0.6905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.23|||ANOVA|||||0.23|-0.15|0.6905
90866814|NCT04115839|181595482|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.4|29.5||||||Week 16||29.5|-23.4|
90866815|NCT04115839|181595484|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|5.4||||||Week 2||5.4|-11.0|
90866816|NCT04115839|181595484|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|11.1||||||Week 2||11.1|-10.6|
90909655|NCT03038022|181689176|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.96||||0.5008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|3.78|||ANOVA|||||3.78|-1.86|0.5008
90909656|NCT03038022|181689177|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12||||0.1066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.26|||ANOVA|||||0.26|-0.03|0.1066
90909657|NCT04269200|181689207|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.89||Determined using a log-rank test stratified by mismatch repair (MMR) status (proficient versus deficient) and disease status (recurrent versus newly diagnosed).|Regression, Cox|Model was stratified by MMR status (proficient versus deficient) and disease status (recurrent versus newly diagnosed).|A hazard ratio less than 1 favours SoC + Durvalumab.|||0.89|0.57|0.003
90909658|NCT04269200|181689207|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.69||Determined using a log-rank test stratified by MMR status (proficient versus deficient) and disease status (recurrent versus newly diagnosed).|Regression, Cox|Model was stratified by MMR status (proficient versus deficient) and disease status (recurrent versus newly diagnosed).|A hazard ratio less than 1 favours SoC + Durvalumab + Olaparib.|||0.69|0.43|<0.0001
90866817|NCT04115839|181595484|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|9.5||||||Week 4||9.5|-15.2|
90866818|NCT04115839|181595484|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|4.9||||||Week 4||4.9|-16.3|
90866819|NCT04115839|181595484|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|17.5||||||Week 8||17.5|-16.4|
90866820|NCT04115839|181595484|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.9|8.2||||||Week 8||8.2|-19.9|
90866821|NCT04115839|181595484|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|12.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|28.7||||||Week 12||28.7|-4.3|
90866822|NCT04115839|181595484|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|15.6||||||Week 12||15.6|-9.7|
90866823|NCT04115839|181595484|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|13.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|30.4||||||Week 16||30.4|-4.2|
90866824|NCT04115839|181595484|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|12.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|28.7||||||Week 16||28.7|-4.5|
90866825|NCT04115839|181595487|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|18.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|40.7|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 2||40.7|-3.8|
90866826|NCT04115839|181595487|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|7.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|28.2|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 2||28.2|-13.5|
90866827|NCT04115839|181595487|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|16.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|40.4|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||40.4|-8.5|
90866828|NCT04115839|181595487|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|15.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|40.3|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||40.3|-9.4|
90866829|NCT04115839|181595487|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|18.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|45.0|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||45.0|-7.5|
90866830|NCT04115839|181595487|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.5|20.7|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||20.7|-32.5|
90866831|NCT04115839|181595487|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|40.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.8|65.2|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||65.2|15.8|
90866832|NCT04115839|181595487|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|23.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|49.5|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||49.5|-2.5|
90866833|NCT04115839|181595487|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|20.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|46.9|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||46.9|-6.8|
90866834|NCT04115839|181595487|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|6.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|33.1|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||33.1|-21.0|
90866835|NCT04115839|181595491|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.0|31.0|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||31.0|-31.0|
90866836|NCT04115839|181595491|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|22.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|56.7|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||56.7|-12.8|
90866837|NCT04115839|181595491|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.9|46.5|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||46.5|-37.9|
90866838|NCT04115839|181595491|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.4|46.3|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||46.3|-35.4|
90866839|NCT04115839|181595491|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|17.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.6|59.9|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||59.9|-25.6|
90866840|NCT04115839|181595491|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-13.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.7|26.8|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||26.8|-53.7|
90866841|NCT04115839|181595491|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|28.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|71.2|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||71.2|-14.1|
90866842|NCT04115839|181595491|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.8|39.9|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||39.9|-40.8|
90866843|NCT04115839|181595493|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|6.7||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.3|34.7||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors (geographic region, concurrent use of csDMARD(s) and/or apremilast at randomization, prior use of bioDMARD(s)) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||34.7|-21.3|0.55
90866844|NCT04115839|181595493|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|11.0||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.4|39.3||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors (geographic region, concurrent use of csDMARD(s) and/or apremilast at randomization, prior use of bioDMARD(s)) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||39.3|-17.4|0.24
90866845|NCT04115839|181595493|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|6.2||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.6|35.0||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors (geographic region, concurrent use of csDMARD(s) and/or apremilast at randomization, prior use of bioDMARD(s)) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||35.0|-22.6|0.47
90866846|NCT04115839|181595493|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|10.5||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.6|39.6||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors (geographic region, concurrent use of csDMARD(s) and/or apremilast at randomization, prior use of bioDMARD(s)) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||39.6|-18.6|0.25
90960368|NCT00511472|181801333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|50.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.67|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|27.68|72.88|||ANOVA|||For the least square mean difference - baseline in the ANOVA model = glucose value at Titration Day 1 pre-breakfast for Titration Group 2||72.88|27.68|<0.001
90960369|NCT01242800|181801458|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Log Rank|Stratified log rank test was used for arm comparison||||||0.32
90909659|NCT04269200|181689207|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.25||China cohort designed to provide descriptive analysis only.|Regression, Cox|Model was stratified by disease status (recurrent versus newly diagnosed).|A hazard ratio less than 1 favours SoC + Durvalumab.|||1.25|0.42|
90909660|NCT04269200|181689207|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.61||China cohort designed to provide descriptive analysis only.|Regression, Cox|Model was stratified by disease status (recurrent versus newly diagnosed).|A hazard ratio less than 1 favours SoC + Durvalumab + Olaparib.|||1.61|0.57|
90909661|NCT04269200|181689209|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.07||Descriptive analysis only.|Regression, Cox|Model is unstratified.|A hazard ratio less than 1 favours SoC + Durvalumab.|||1.07|0.59|
90909662|NCT04269200|181689209|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.76||Descriptive analysis only.|Regression, Cox|Model is unstratified.|A hazard ratio less than 1 favours SoC + Durvalumab + Olaparib.|||0.76|0.40|
90909663|NCT04269200|181689209|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|2.21||China cohort designed to provide descriptive analysis only.|Regression, Cox|Model was stratified by disease status (recurrent versus newly diagnosed).|A hazard ratio less than 1 favours SoC + Durvalumab.|||2.21|0.48|
90909664|NCT04269200|181689209|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|2.9||China cohort designed to provide descriptive analysis only.|Regression, Cox|Model was stratified by disease status (recurrent versus newly diagnosed).|A hazard ratio less than 1 favours SoC + Durvalumab.|||2.90|0.68|
90909665|NCT04269200|181689210|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.98||Descriptive analysis only.|Regression, Logistic|Model was stratified by disease status (recurrent versus newly diagnosed).|An odds ratio greater than 1 favours SoC + durvalumab.|||1.98|0.89|
90909666|NCT04269200|181689210|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.18||Descriptive analysis only.|Regression, Logistic|Model was stratified by disease status (recurrent versus newly diagnosed).|An odds ratio greater than 1 favours SoC + durvalumab + Olaparib.|||2.18|0.95|
90909667|NCT04269200|181689217|SUPERIORITY||Least-squares Mean Difference|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|4.5||Descriptive analysis only.|Mixed model for repeated measures|Fixed effects for treatment, visit, and baseline score with the treatment by visit and baseline score by visit interaction. Random patient effect.||||4.5|-1.2|
90909668|NCT04269200|181689217|SUPERIORITY||Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|2.2||Descriptive analysis only.|Mixed model for repeated measures|Fixed effects for treatment, visit, and baseline score with the treatment by visit and baseline score by visit interaction. Random patient effect.||||2.2|-3.4|
90909669|NCT04269200|181689218|SUPERIORITY||Least-squares Mean Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|2.6||Descriptive analysis only.|Mixed model for repeated measures|Fixed effects for treatment, visit, and baseline score with the treatment by visit and baseline score by visit interaction. Random patient effect.||||2.6|-2.5|
90909670|NCT04269200|181689218|SUPERIORITY||Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|1.6||Descriptive analysis only.|Mixed model for repeated measures|Fixed effects for treatment, visit, and baseline score with the treatment by visit and baseline score by visit interaction. Random patient effect.||||1.6|-3.4|
90909671|NCT03887936|181689239|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.6|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.05
90909672|NCT06269367|181689267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.894|||||||ANOVA|Two way repeated measures ANOVA with time (Baseline, post-intervention) and condition (NewGait, Control) as within-subjects factors||||||0.894
90960370|NCT04508023|181801463|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.16||||0.626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.15|||Log Rank|Log rank test stratified by the time from COVID-19 positive test to randomization.||||2.15|0.63|0.626
90909673|NCT06269367|181689268|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.299||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was set to 0.05|ANOVA|Two way repeated measures ANOVA with time (Baseline, post-intervention) and condition (NewGait, Control) as within-subjects factors||||||>0.299
90909674|NCT06269367|181689269|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.469||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance set to 0.05|ANOVA|Two way repeated measures ANOVA with time (Baseline, post-intervention) and condition (NewGait, Control) as within-subjects factors||||||0.469
90909675|NCT05824351|181689308|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence is defined as an average difference of \< or = 2|Mean of paired differences|-0.2571|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.7|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|One-sided lower t-test||Draize scores for erythema/eschar and edema were summed for analysis (range of 0 to 8, where a higher score indicated greater irritation).||||<0.0001
90909676|NCT05824351|181689308|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence is defined as an average difference of \< or = 2|Mean of paired differences|0.0294|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.79||0.0003|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|One-sided upper t-test||Draize scores for erythema/eschar and edema were summed for analysis (range of 0 to 8, where a higher score indicated greater irritation).||||0.0003
90909677|NCT02912260|181689333|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-22.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.22|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.9|-12.2|||ANCOVA|||LS mean difference in hepatic fat fraction between MGL-3196 and placebo at Week 12.||-12.2|-32.9|<0.0001
90909678|NCT02912260|181689335|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-28.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.52|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.3|-15.4|||ANCOVA|||LS mean difference in hepatic fat fraction between MGL-3196 and placebo at Week 36.||-15.4|-41.3|<0.0001
90960371|NCT00511901|181801523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.7||||0.02||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.02
90960372|NCT00511901|181801524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8||||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||FIM at 3 weeks||||1.00
90960373|NCT00511901|181801524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.3||||0.17||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||FIM at 8 weeks||||0.17
90866847|NCT04115839|181595493|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|18.6||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.1|58.3||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors (geographic region, concurrent use of csDMARD(s) and/or apremilast at randomization, prior use of bioDMARD(s)) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||58.3|-21.1|0.44
90866848|NCT04115839|181595493|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-3.8||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.4|30.8||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors (geographic region, concurrent use of csDMARD(s) and/or apremilast at randomization, prior use of bioDMARD(s)) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||30.8|-38.4|0.68
90866849|NCT04115839|181595493|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|21.4||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|62.2||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors (geographic region, concurrent use of csDMARD(s) and/or apremilast at randomization, prior use of bioDMARD(s)) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||62.2|-19.4|0.33
90866850|NCT04115839|181595493|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|2.1||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.9|38.1||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors (geographic region, concurrent use of csDMARD(s) and/or apremilast at randomization, prior use of bioDMARD(s)) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||38.1|-33.9|0.98
90866851|NCT04115839|181595495|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.5|24.5|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||24.5|-24.5|
90866852|NCT04115839|181595495|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.9|22.4|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||22.4|-23.9|
90909679|NCT02912260|181689336|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.991|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|-2.4|||ANCOVA|||LS mean difference in absolute hepatic fat fraction between MGL-3196 and placebo at Week 12.||-2.4|-6.3|<0.0001
90909680|NCT02912260|181689337|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|-2.8|||ANCOVA|||LS mean difference in absolute hepatic fat fraction between MGL-3196 and placebo at Week 36.||-2.8|-7.8|<0.0001
90866853|NCT04115839|181595495|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|13.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|37.4|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||37.4|-10.8|
90866854|NCT04115839|181595495|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|23.6|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||23.6|-11.8|
90866855|NCT04115839|181595495|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-14.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.6|17.1|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||17.1|-46.6|
90866856|NCT04115839|181595495|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-15.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.3|15.2|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||15.2|-46.3|
90866857|NCT04115839|181595495|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|21.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|55.8|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||55.8|-13.0|
90866858|NCT04115839|181595495|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.3|31.5|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||31.5|-22.3|
90866859|NCT04115839|181595497|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|6.7|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||6.7|-6.7|
90866860|NCT04115839|181595497|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|23.3|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||23.3|-11.6|
90866861|NCT04115839|181595497|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|26.2|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||26.2|-12.9|
90866862|NCT04115839|181595497|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|23.6|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||23.6|-11.8|
90866863|NCT04115839|181595497|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|6.9|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||6.9|-6.9|
90866864|NCT04115839|181595497|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|23.6|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||23.6|-11.8|
90909681|NCT02912260|181689348|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|16.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|31.81||0.6155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.0|79.0|||Linear model|||LS mean difference in hsCRP between MGL-3196 and placebo at Week 12.||79.0|-47.0|0.6155
90909682|NCT02912260|181689349|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|56.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|118.09||0.6311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-177.4|291.1|||Linear model|||LS mean difference in hsCRP between MGL-3196 and placebo at Week 36.||291.1|-177.4|0.6311
90909683|NCT02912260|181689350|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.73||0.526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|6.4|||Linear model|||LS mean difference in ALT between MGL-3196 and placebo at Week 12.||6.4|-12.4|0.5260
90909684|NCT02912260|181689351|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-26.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.29||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.8|-9.9|||Linear model|||LS mean difference in ALT between MGL-3196 and placebo at Week 36.||-9.9|-42.8|0.0019
90960374|NCT00511901|181801524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.59||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||FIM at 12 weeks||||0.59
90866865|NCT04115839|181595497|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|7.1|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||7.1|-7.1|
90866866|NCT04115839|181595497|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|23.6|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||23.6|-11.8|
90866867|NCT04115839|181595505|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.04||P-value was provided from MMRM including treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 2||0.04|-0.22|0.19
90866868|NCT04115839|181595505|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.12||P-value was provided from MMRM including treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 2||0.12|-0.15|0.84
90866869|NCT04115839|181595505|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.073||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.07||P-value was provided from MMRM including treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 4||0.07|-0.22|0.30
90909685|NCT02912260|181689352|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1||0.1275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|1.4|||Linear model|||LS mean difference in AST between MGL-3196 and placebo at Week 12.||1.4|-10.9|0.1275
90909686|NCT02912260|181689353|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.42||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|-4.3|||Linear model|||LS mean difference in ALT between MGL-3196 and placebo at Week 36.||-4.3|-17.8|0.0016
90909687|NCT02912260|181689354|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.41||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.6|-6.1|||Linear model|||LS mean difference in LDL-C between MGL-3196 and placebo at Week 12.||-6.1|-19.6|0.0002
90909688|NCT02912260|181689354|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.33||0.3388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|9.8|||Linear model|||LS mean difference in HDL-C between MGL-3196 and placebo at Week 12.||9.8|-3.4|0.3388
90866870|NCT04115839|181595505|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.074||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.16||P-value was provided from MMRM including treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 4||0.16|-0.14|0.89
90909689|NCT02912260|181689354|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.02|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.3|-7.4|||Linear model|||LS mean difference in non-HDL-C between MGL-3196 and placebo at Week 12.||-7.4|-19.3|<0.0001
90909690|NCT02912260|181689354|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.39||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|-4.9|||Linear model|||LS mean difference in TC between MGL-3196 and placebo at Week 12.||-4.9|-14.3|0.0001
90909691|NCT02912260|181689354|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.35||0.0258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.2|-2.0|||Linear model|||LS mean difference in TG between MGL-3196 and placebo at Week 12.||-2.0|-31.2|0.0258
90909692|NCT02912260|181689354|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-15.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.76|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.8|-9.9|||Linear model|||LS mean difference in ApoB between MGL-3196 and placebo at Week 12.||-9.9|-20.8|<0.0001
90909693|NCT02912260|181689354|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-17.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.64||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.9|-6.6|||Linear model|||LS mean difference in ApoCIII between MGL-3196 and placebo at Week 12.||-6.6|-28.9|0.0021
90909694|NCT02912260|181689354|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-20.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.06||0.1123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.8|5.0|||ANOVA|||LS mean difference in Lp(a) between MGL-3196 and placebo at Week 12.||5.0|-46.8|0.1123
90909695|NCT02912260|181689355|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.77||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.9|-5.0|||Linear model|||LS mean difference in LDL-C between MGL-3196 and placebo at Week 36.||-5.0|-19.9|0.0013
90909696|NCT02912260|181689355|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.56||0.8213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|11.5|||Linear model|||LS mean difference in HDL-C between MGL-3196 and placebo at Week 36.||11.5|-14.5|0.8213
90909697|NCT02912260|181689355|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.35|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.7|-9.4|||Linear model|||LS mean difference in nonHDL-C between MGL-3196 and placebo at Week 36.||-9.4|-22.7|<0.0001
90909698|NCT02912260|181689355|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.83|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.1|-6.9|||Linear model|||LS mean difference in TC between MGL-3196 and placebo at Week 36.||-6.9|-18.1|<0.0001
90909699|NCT02912260|181689355|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-37.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.58|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.3|-22.3|||Linear model|||LS mean difference in TG between MGL-3196 and placebo at Week 36.||-22.3|-52.3|<0.0001
90909700|NCT02912260|181689355|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-17.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.6|-11.2|||Linear model|||LS mean difference in ApoB between MGL-3196 and placebo at Week 36.||-11.2|-23.6|<0.0001
90909701|NCT02912260|181689355|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-36.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.58|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.6|-23.5|||Linear model|||LS mean difference in ApoCIII between MGL-3196 and placebo at Week 36.||-23.5|-49.6|<0.0001
90866871|NCT04115839|181595505|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.096||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.01||P-value was provided from MMRM including treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 8||0.01|-0.37|0.064
90866872|NCT04115839|181595505|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.096||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.2||P-value was provided from MMRM including treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 8||0.20|-0.17|0.88
90909702|NCT02912260|181689355|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-20.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.24||0.3008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.2|18.2|||ANOVA|||LS mean difference in Lp(a) between MGL-3196 and placebo at Week 36.||18.2|-58.2|0.3008
90909703|NCT02912260|181689356|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-20.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.06||0.1123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.8|5.0|||Linear model|||LS mean difference in Lp(a) between MGL-3196 and placebo at Week 12.||5.0|-46.8|0.1123
90866873|NCT04115839|181595505|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.03||P-value was provided from MMRM including treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 12||-0.03|-0.43|0.023
90866874|NCT04115839|181595505|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.17||P-value was provided from MMRM including treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 12||0.17|-0.23|0.75
90866875|NCT04115839|181595505|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.106||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.1||P-value was provided from MMRM including treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 16||-0.10|-0.51|0.005
90866876|NCT04115839|181595505|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.105||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.14||P-value was provided from MMRM including treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 16||0.14|-0.27|0.54
90866877|NCT04115839|181595507|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.64||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|4.5||P-value was provided from MMRM including treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 4||4.5|-1.9|0.43
90866878|NCT04115839|181595507|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.64||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|2.9||P-value was provided from MMRM including treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 4||2.9|-3.6|0.81
90866879|NCT04115839|181595507|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.43||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|9.9||P-value was provided from MMRM including treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 16||9.9|0.2|0.040
90866880|NCT04115839|181595507|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.41||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|6.1||P-value was provided from MMRM including treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 16||6.1|-3.4|0.58
90866881|NCT04115839|181595511|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|3.1||P-value was provided from MMRM including treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 4||3.1|-1.2|0.40
90866882|NCT04115839|181595511|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|3.4||P-value was provided from MMRM including treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 4||3.4|-1.0|0.28
90866883|NCT04115839|181595511|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.46||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|6.7||P-value was provided from MMRM including treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 16||6.7|0.9|0.011
90866884|NCT04115839|181595511|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|5.0||P-value was provided from MMRM including treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 16||5.0|-0.7|0.14
90866885|NCT03095066|181595573|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-1.7||||0.405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|2.4||MMRM included fixed effects of treatment, site, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline NPI-C-3 value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Treatment differences in each stage were estimated by the Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM).||2.4|-5.8|0.405
90909704|NCT02912260|181689357|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-20.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.24||0.3008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.2|18.2|||Linear model|||LS mean difference in Lp(a) between MGL-3196 and placebo at Week 36.||18.2|-58.2|0.3008
90909705|NCT02912260|181689358|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-58.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|61.551||0.3419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-180.7|63.21|||Linear model|||LS mean difference in CK-18 between MGL-3196 and placebo at Week 12.||63.21|-180.70|0.3419
90909706|NCT02912260|181689358|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-171.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|57.423||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-285.06|-57.42|||Linear model|||LS mean difference in CK-18 between MGL-3196 and placebo at Week 36.||-57.42|-285.06|0.0035
90866886|NCT03095066|181595574|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.7||||0.921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.3|13.9||MMRM included fixed effects of treatment, site, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline NPI-C-3 value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Treatment differences in each stage were estimated by the MMRM.||13.9|-15.3|0.921
90866887|NCT03095066|181595575|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.7||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.3||MMRM included fixed effects of treatment, site, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline NPI-C-3 value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Baseline to Week 6: Treatment differences in each stage were estimated by the MMRM.||0.3|-1.7|0.150
90866888|NCT03095066|181595575|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.2||||0.921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|4.7||MMRM included fixed effects of treatment, site, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline NPI-C-3 value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Week 7 to Week 12: Treatment differences in each stage were estimated by the MMRM.||4.7|-4.3|0.921
90866889|NCT03095066|181595576|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.3||||0.702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.9||MMRM included fixed effects of treatment, site, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline NPI-C-3 value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Baseline to Week 6: Treatment differences in each stage were estimated by the MMRM.||1.9|-1.3|0.702
90866890|NCT03095066|181595576|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|2.0||||0.469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|7.6||MMRM included fixed effects of treatment, site, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline NPI-C-3 value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Week 7 to Week 12: Treatment differences in each stage were estimated by the MMRM.||7.6|-3.6|0.469
90866891|NCT03095066|181595577|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-1.3||||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|1.0||MMRM included fixed effects of treatment, site, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline NPI-C-3 value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Baseline to Week 6: Treatment differences in each stage were estimated by the MMRM.||1.0|-3.5|0.267
90866892|NCT03095066|181595577|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-1.6||||0.609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|4.8||MMRM included fixed effects of treatment, site, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline NPI-C-3 value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Week 7 to Week 12: Treatment differences in each stage were estimated by the MMRM.||4.8|-8.0|0.609
90866893|NCT03095066|181595578|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.3||||0.743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.7||MMRM included fixed effects of treatment, site, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline NPI-C-3 value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Baseline to Week 6: Treatment differences in each stage were estimated by the MMRM.||1.7|-2.4|0.743
90909707|NCT02912260|181689359|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.395|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1458||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.686|-0.103|||Linear model|||LS mean difference in ELF-test between MGL-3196 and placebo at Week 12.||-0.103|-0.686|0.0089
90909708|NCT02912260|181689359|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.484|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1973||0.0174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.879|-0.088|||Linear model|||LS mean difference in ELF test between MGL-3196 and placebo at Week 36.||-0.088|-0.879|0.0174
90909709|NCT03878446|181689456|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|0.4||||||||0.4|-3.2|
90909710|NCT03878446|181689456|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.5||||||||2.5|-1.1|
90866894|NCT03095066|181595578|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|1.2||||0.575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|6.1||MMRM included fixed effects of treatment, site, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline NPI-C-3 value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Week 7 to Week 12: Treatment differences in each stage were estimated by the MMRM.||6.1|-3.8|0.575
90866895|NCT03095066|181595579|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.1||||0.664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Baseline to Week 6||0.3|-0.5|0.664
90866896|NCT03095066|181595579|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.6||||0.273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Week 7 to Week 12||0.6|-1.9|0.273
90866897|NCT03095066|181595580|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.4||||0.159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Baseline to Week 6||0.1|-0.9|0.159
90866898|NCT03095066|181595580|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.2||||0.745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.1|||ANCOVA|||Week 7 to Week 12||1.1|-1.5|0.745
90866899|NCT03095066|181595581|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.2||||0.268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Baseline to Week 6||0.2|-0.5|0.268
90866900|NCT03095066|181595581|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.5||||0.147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Week 7 to Week 12||0.2|-1.2|0.147
90866901|NCT03095066|181595582|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.1||||0.655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Baseline to Week 6||0.3|-0.5|0.655
90866902|NCT03095066|181595582|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.2||||0.734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.9|||ANCOVA|||Week 7 to Week 12||0.9|-1.2|0.734
90866903|NCT00777608|181595618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.231|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|0.08|||ANOVA|||||0.08|-0.2|0.231
90866904|NCT00777608|181595619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.041|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|-0.008|||ANOVA||Statistical analysis for Week 2|||-0.008|-0.3|0.041
90866905|NCT00777608|181595619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.143|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|0.06|||ANOVA||Statistical analysis for Week 8|||0.06|-0.3|0.143
90866906|NCT00777608|181595619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.226|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|0.09|||ANOVA||Statistical analysis for Week 12|||0.09|-0.2|0.226
90866907|NCT00777608|181595620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.324|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.2|2.2|||ANOVA||Statistical analysis for Week 4|||2.2|-1.2|0.324
90866908|NCT00777608|181595620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.285|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.5|3.1|||ANOVA|||||3.1|-1.5|0.285
90866909|NCT00777608|181595620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.401|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.6|1.9|||ANOVA||Statistical analysis for Week 12|||1.9|-2.6|0.401
90866910|NCT00730132|181595645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.007|||||||Pearson Chi-Square|||Significance of the differences in the number of patients per group who achieved goal TC levels on Visit 2.||||0.007
90866911|NCT00730132|181595646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||Chi square, continuity corrected. Asymptotic significance.|McNemar|||Significance of paired changes in the number of patients who achieved LDL-C target levels on Visit 2, for each treatment group comparison||||<0.001
90866912|NCT00730132|181595647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.757|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.30606||||95.0||||||||Descriptive statistics of relative (%) change in TC levels from Baseline at Visit 2||||
90866913|NCT00730132|181595647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.662||||95.0||||||||Descriptive statistics of relative (%) change in TC from baseline at Visit 2||||
90866914|NCT00730132|181595647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.8181|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.03545||||95.0||||||||Descriptive statistics of relative (%) change in TC from baseline at Visit 2||||
90866915|NCT00730132|181595647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.80928|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.48621||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.307|0.6884|||Games-Howell|||Statin Dose Titration compared to New Statin||.6884|-6.3070|.143
90866916|NCT00730132|181595647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.74811|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.56351||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4298|-2.0664|||Games-Howell|||Statin Dose Titration compared to Ezetimbe||-2.0664|-9.4298|.001
90866917|NCT00730132|181595647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.93883|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38286||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1948|0.3171|||Games-Howell|||New Statin compared to Ezetimibe||.3171|-6.1948|.086
90866918|NCT00730132|181595648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|26.8174|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.85205||||95.0||||||||Descriptive statistics of relative (%) change in LDL-C levels by the end of the study (Visit 2) compared to Baseline (Visit 1)||||
90866919|NCT00730132|181595648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.2488|STANDARD_DEVIATION|20.78727||||95.0||||||||Descriptive statistics of relative (%) change in LDL-C levels by the end of the study (Visit 2) compared to Baseline (Visit 1)||||
90866920|NCT00730132|181595648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.0665|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.5901||||95.0||||||||Descriptive statistics of relative (%) change in LDL-C levels by the end of the study (Visit 2) compared to Baseline (Visit 1)||||
90866921|NCT00730132|181595648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.43138|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.01009||0.756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1604|3.2977|||Games-Howell|||Statin Dose Titration compared to New Statin||3.2977|-6.1604|.756
90866922|NCT00730132|181595648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.24911|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.97821||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9072|-0.591|||Games-Howell|||Statin Dose Titration compared to Ezetimibe||-.5910|-9.9072|.023
90866923|NCT00730132|181595648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.81773|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.88425||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2523|0.6169|||Games-Howell|||New Statin compared to Ezetimibe||.6169|-8.2523|.107
90866924|NCT00370032|181595649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.1||||0.131||95.0|-18.4|2.157|||paired t-test Hommel-Simes|||||2.157|-18.4|0.131
90866925|NCT00370032|181595649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.11||||0.131||95.0|-21.2|2.997|||paired t-test Hommel-Simes|||||2.997|-21.2|0.131
90909711|NCT03878446|181689456|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.9||||||||0.9|-2.6|
90909712|NCT03878446|181689456|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.2||||||||1.2|-2.4|
90960375|NCT00511901|181801525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.3||||0.21||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.21
90960376|NCT00511901|181801526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.66||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Grip strength at 3 weeks||||0.66
90866926|NCT03385564|181595671|OTHER|Percentage of patients with CRR at Week 52 without renal flare were analysed using a logistic regression model. Factors in the model included treatment and the covariates: race (Asian versus (vs.) non-Asian) and proteinuria \<3 gram (g)/day vs. ≥3 g/day (or Urine protein (UP)/ Urine creatinine (UC) \<3 vs. UP/UC ≥3) at screening.|Difference|-5.68||||0.7957|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-34.192|22.825|||Regression, Logistic||The difference was calculated as value from BI 120 milligrams group minus value from Placebo group. Confidence intervals calculated using the delta method.|||22.825|-34.192|0.7957
90866927|NCT03385564|181595671|OTHER|Percentage of patients with CRR at Week 52 without renal flare were analysed using a logistic regression model. Factors in the model included treatment and the covariates: race (Asian versus (vs.) non-Asian) and proteinuria \<3 gram (g)/day vs. ≥3 g/day (or Urine protein (UP)/ Urine creatinine (UC) \<3 vs. UP/UC ≥3) at screening.|Difference|-9.37||||0.5811|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-31.178|12.44|||Regression, Logistic||The difference was calculated as value from BI 180 milligrams group minus value from Placebo group. Confidence intervals calculated using the delta method.|||12.440|-31.178|0.5811
90866928|NCT03385564|181595671|OTHER|Percentage of patients with CRR at Week 52 without renal flare were analysed using a logistic regression model. Factors in the model included treatment and the covariates: race (Asian versus (vs.) non-Asian) and proteinuria \<3 gram (g)/day vs. ≥3 g/day (or Urine protein (UP)/ Urine creatinine (UC) \<3 vs. UP/UC ≥3) at screening.|Difference|1.97||||0.8972|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-17.534|21.48|||Regression, Logistic||The difference was calculated as value from BI 240 milligrams group minus value from Placebo group. Confidence intervals calculated using the delta method.|||21.480|-17.534|0.8972
90866929|NCT03385564|181595672|OTHER||Difference|-9.14||||0.825|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-32.83|17.02|||Barnard test||The difference was calculated as value from BI 120 milligrams group minus value from Placebo group. Confidence intervals calculated using the Newcombe method.|||17.02|-32.83|0.8250
90866930|NCT03385564|181595672|OTHER||Difference|-21.23||||0.2562|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-39.44|0.51|||Barnard test||The difference was calculated as value from BI 180 milligrams group minus value from Placebo group. Confidence intervals calculated using the Newcombe method.|||0.51|-39.44|0.2562
90866931|NCT03385564|181595672|OTHER||Difference|-2.0||||0.9632|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-20.45|16.62|||Barnard test||The difference was calculated as value from BI 240 milligrams group minus value from Placebo group. Confidence intervals calculated using the Newcombe method.|||16.62|-20.45|0.9632
90866932|NCT03385564|181595673|OTHER||Difference|-2.86||||0.9275|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-28.58|21.1|||Barnard test||The difference was calculated as value from BI 120 milligrams group minus value from Placebo group. Confidence intervals calculated using the Newcombe method.|||21.10|-28.58|0.9275
90866933|NCT03385564|181595673|OTHER||Difference|-10.0||||0.6064|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-29.9|10.64|||Barnard test||The difference was calculated as value from BI 180 milligrams group minus value from Placebo group. Confidence intervals calculated using the Newcombe method.|||10.64|-29.90|0.6064
90866934|NCT03385564|181595673|OTHER||Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-18.37|18.07|||||The difference was calculated as value from BI 240 milligrams group minus value from Placebo group. Confidence intervals calculated using the Newcombe method.|||18.07|-18.37|
90909713|NCT03370133|181689466|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|99.869|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.02|293.175||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups (BKZ 320 mg Q4W vs PBO) were based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio was calculated using stratified CMH (Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel) test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables.||293.175|34.020|<0.001
90866935|NCT03385564|181595674|OTHER||Difference|3.73||||0.9119|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-20.53|29.6|||Barnard test||The difference was calculated as value from BI 120 milligrams group minus value from Placebo group. Confidence intervals calculated using the Newcombe method.|||29.60|-20.53|0.9119
90866936|NCT03385564|181595674|OTHER||Difference|3.73||||0.851|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-16.58|24.31|||Barnard test||The difference was calculated as value from BI 180 milligrams group minus value from Placebo group. Confidence intervals calculated using the Newcombe method.|||24.31|-16.58|0.8510
90866937|NCT03385564|181595674|OTHER||Difference|16.43||||0.3498|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.53|34.73|||Barnard test||The difference was calculated as value from BI 240 milligrams group minus value from Placebo group. Confidence intervals calculated using the Newcombe method.|||34.73|-3.53|0.3498
90866938|NCT03385564|181595675|OTHER||Difference|5.43||||0.7921|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-10.19|23.57|||Barnard test||The difference was calculated as value from BI 180 milligrams group minus value from Placebo group. Confidence intervals calculated using the Newcombe method.|||23.57|-10.19|0.7921
90866939|NCT03385564|181595677|OTHER||Difference|32.0||||0.1016|TWO_SIDED|80.0|10.28|44.74|||Barnard test||The difference was calculated as value from BI 120 milligrams group minus value from Placebo group. Confidence intervals calculated using the Newcombe method.|||44.74|10.28|0.1016
90866940|NCT03385564|181595677|OTHER||Difference|-3.71||||0.8323|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-23.79|15.29|||Barnard test||The difference was calculated as value from BI 180 milligrams group minus value from Placebo group. Confidence intervals calculated using the Newcombe method.|||15.29|-23.79|0.8323
90866941|NCT03385564|181595677|OTHER||Difference|7.0||||0.6247|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-10.5|23.31|||Barnard test||The difference was calculated as value from BI 240 milligrams group minus value from Placebo group. Confidence intervals calculated using the Newcombe method.|||23.31|-10.50|0.6247
90909714|NCT03370133|181689466|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.056|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.874|9.466||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups (BKZ 320 mg Q4W vs Ustekinumab) were based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio was calculated using stratified CMH (Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel) test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables.||9.466|3.874|<0.001
90960377|NCT00511901|181801526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Grip strength at 8 weeks||||1.00
90909715|NCT03370133|181689467|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|118.762|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.701|384.307||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups (BKZ 320 mg Q4W vs PBO) were based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio was calculated using stratified CMH (Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel) test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables.||384.307|36.701|<0.001
90866942|NCT01146834|181595682|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.02||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.28|||Chi-squared|||Arm B was initially closed due to low accrual, and Arms D and E were also closed due to no accrual. Arms A and C also had very low accrual. Therefore, the comparison of the primary outcome between Arms A and C is for exploratory purposes only.||0.28|-0.32|0.90
90866943|NCT01146834|181595684|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.25||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.18|||Fisher Exact|||||0.18|-0.68|0.25
90866944|NCT00826943|181595726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0||||The threshold for significance was p \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.03
90866945|NCT00826943|181595726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11||||||The threshold for significance was p \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.11
90866946|NCT00826943|181595726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.45
90866947|NCT00826943|181595727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27||95.0||||The threshold for significance was p \< .05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.27
90866948|NCT00826943|181595727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8||||||The threshold for significance was p \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.8
90866949|NCT00826943|181595727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52||||||The threshold for significance was p \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.52
90866950|NCT00826943|181595728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14||95.0||||The threshold for significance was p \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.14
90866951|NCT00826943|181595728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.54
90866952|NCT00826943|181595728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.42
90866953|NCT03338998|181595750|SUPERIORITY||Geo-mean ratio|1.05||||0.585|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.717|1.535|||ANCOVA|||||1.535|0.717|0.585
90866954|NCT03329573|181595757|EQUIVALENCE|The two formulations were considered to be bioequivalent if the 90% confidence interval of AUC(0-infinity) for difference between both treatments fall in the range of 0.80-1.25.|Ratio of Geometrical Mean|1.059|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.006|1.115||||||||1.115|1.006|
90866955|NCT03329573|181595758|EQUIVALENCE|The two formulations were considered to be bioequivalent if the 90% confidence interval of AUC(0-infinity) for difference between both treatments fall in the range of 0.80-1.25.|Ratio of Geometrical Mean|0.996|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.947|1.047||||||||1.047|0.947|
90866956|NCT03329573|181595759|EQUIVALENCE|The two formulations were considered to be bioequivalent if the 90% confidence interval of AUC(0-t) for difference between both treatments fall in the range of 0.80-1.25.|Ratio of Geometrical Mean|1.064|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.01|1.12||||||||1.120|1.010|
90866957|NCT03329573|181595760|EQUIVALENCE|The two formulations were considered to be bioequivalent if the 90% confidence interval of AUC(0-t) for difference between both treatments fall in the range of 0.80-1.25.|Ratio of Geometrical Mean|0.996|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.949|1.044||||||||1.044|0.949|
90960378|NCT00511901|181801526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.6||||0.53||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Grip strength at 12 weeks||||0.53
90960379|NCT00511901|181801527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.96||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||SPPB at 3 weeks||||0.96
90866958|NCT03329573|181595761|EQUIVALENCE|The two formulations were considered to be bioequivalent if the 90% confidence interval of Cmax for difference between both treatments fall in the range of 0.80-1.25.|Ratio of Geometrical Mean|1.024|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.952|1.101||||||||1.101|0.952|
90866959|NCT03329573|181595762|EQUIVALENCE|The two formulations were considered to be bioequivalent if the 90% confidence interval of Cmax for difference between both treatments fall in the range of 0.80-1.25.|Ratio of Geometrical Mean|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.968|1.074||||||||1.074|0.968|
90866960|NCT00650260|181595787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.027
90866961|NCT00650260|181595788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.078||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.078
90866962|NCT00650260|181595791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
90866963|NCT05405309|181595793|OTHER||||||||||||||||||"The primary analysis was of safety and included all patients who received at least one dose of the investigational regimen. The rate of adverse events was estimated after the first 5 patients were treated at Original DL1 (camonsertib 40mg daily and olaparib 100mg BID dosing 2 days per week, at 28 day cycles)~After the first 5 patients were treated, it was determined that this dosing strategy may not be appropriate for R/R CLL patients and reduced dosing frequency may be necessary to increase the safety of the combination therapy. The protocol and DLs were amended, and sought to enroll an additional 18 patients.~Before the enrollment of 18 additional participants and MTD determination, the study was terminated due to sponsor de-activation of all programs associated with camonsertib."|||
90866964|NCT05438888|181595817|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.753|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.711|0.798|||Log Rank|||||0.798|0.711|<0.001
90866965|NCT05438888|181595818|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.687|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.622|0.76|||Log Rank|||||0.760|0.622|<0.001
90866966|NCT05438888|181595819|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.638|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.714|||Log Rank|||||0.714|0.570|<0.001
90866967|NCT05438888|181595820|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.854|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.791|0.922|||Log Rank|||||0.922|0.791|<0.001
90866968|NCT05438888|181595821|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.638|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.715|||Log Rank|||||0.715|0.570|<0.001
90866969|NCT05438888|181595822|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.868|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.807|0.934|||Log Rank|||||0.934|0.807|<0.001
90866970|NCT05438888|181595823|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.646|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.503|0.83|||Log Rank|||||0.830|0.503|<0.001
90866971|NCT04997304|181595909|OTHER|Test of paired differences||||||0.0019|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||This analysis applies only to comparison of baseline and exacerbation for AirDuo||||0.0019
90866972|NCT04997304|181595909|OTHER|Test of paired differences||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||This analysis applies only to comparison of baseline and exacerbation for ProAir||||0.0020
90866973|NCT04997304|181595910|OTHER|Test of paired differences||||||0.0008|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||This analysis applies only to comparison of baseline and exacerbation for AirDuo||||0.0008
90866974|NCT04997304|181595910|OTHER|Test of paired differences||||||0.0003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||This analysis applies only to comparison of baseline and exacerbation for ProAir||||0.0003
90866975|NCT04997304|181595911|OTHER|Test of paired differences||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||This analysis applies only to comparison of baseline and exacerbation for AirDuo||||0.04
90866976|NCT04997304|181595911|OTHER|Test of paired differences||||||0.0965|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||This analysis applies only to comparison of baseline and exacerbation for ProAir||||0.0965
90866977|NCT05231954|181595917|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.55||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons, and a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.55|1.08|0.006
90866978|NCT05231954|181595917|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.03||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons, and a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.03|0.65|0.081
90866979|NCT05231954|181595918|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|2.05||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons, and the a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.05|1.01|0.044
90909716|NCT03370133|181689467|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.809|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.096|7.47||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups (BKZ 320 mg Q4W vs Ustekinumab) were based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio was calculated using stratified CMH (Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel) test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables.||7.470|3.096|<0.001
90909717|NCT03370133|181689468|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|25.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.063|72.253||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups (BKZ 320 mg Q4W vs PBO) were based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio was calculated using stratified CMH test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables. Logit method was used where CMH test not possible due to very low response.||72.253|9.063|<0.001
90909718|NCT03370133|181689469|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|25.471|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.02|71.925||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups (BKZ 320 mg Q4W vs PBO) were based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio was calculated using stratified CMH test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables. Logit method was used where CMH test not possible due to very low response.||71.925|9.020|<0.001
90909719|NCT03370133|181689470|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|123.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.394|514.862||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups (BKZ 320 mg Q4W vs PBO) were based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio was calculated using stratified CMH test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables. Logit method was used where CMH test not possible due to very low response.||514.862|29.394|<0.001
90909720|NCT03370133|181689470|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|18.202|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.998|30.123||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups (BKZ 320 mg Q4W vs Ustekinumab) were based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio was calculated using stratified CMH test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables.||30.123|10.998|<0.001
90909721|NCT03370133|181689471|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.258|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.356|35.931||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups (BKZ 320 mg Q4W vs PBO) were based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio was calculated using stratified CMH test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables. Logit method was used where CMH test not possible due to very low response.||35.931|7.356|<0.001
90909722|NCT03370133|181689472|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|22.279|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.795|50.674||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups (BKZ 320 mg Q4W vs PBO) were based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio was calculated using stratified CMH test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables. Logit method was used where CMH test not possible due to very low response.||50.674|9.795|<0.001
90909723|NCT03370133|181689473|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|23.049|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.201|52.077||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups (BKZ 320 mg Q4W vs PBO) were based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio was calculated using stratified CMH test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables. Logit method was used where CMH test not possible due to very low response.||52.077|10.201|<0.001
90909724|NCT03370133|181689474|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|37.696|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.92|83.987||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups (BKZ 320 mg Q4W vs PBO) were based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio was calculated using stratified CMH test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables. Logit method was used where CMH test not possible due to very low response.||83.987|16.920|<0.001
90909725|NCT03370133|181689475|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.047|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.107|12.679||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups (BKZ 320 mg Q4W vs Ustekinumab) were based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio was calculated using stratified CMH test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables.||12.679|5.107|<0.001
90909726|NCT03370133|181689476|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.795|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.442|5.899||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups (BKZ 320 mg Q4W vs Ustekinumab) were based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio was calculated using stratified CMH test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables.||5.899|2.442|<0.001
90909727|NCT03370133|181689477|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.379|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.85|6.73||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups (BKZ 320 mg Q4W vs Ustekinumab) were based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio was calculated using stratified CMH test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables.||6.730|2.850|<0.001
90909728|NCT03370133|181689478|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.412|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.573|3.699||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups (BKZ 320 mg Q4W vs Ustekinumab) were based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio was calculated using stratified CMH test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables.||3.699|1.573|<0.001
90909729|NCT02501811|181689485|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.19|2.023|||ANCOVA|The change in LVEF was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values|Confidence intervals based on t-test|||2.023|-2.190|0.993
90909730|NCT02501811|181689485|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96||0.499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.229|2.635|||ANCOVA|The change in LVEF was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t-test|||2.635|-1.229|0.499
90960380|NCT00511901|181801527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4||||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||SPPB at 8 weeks||||1.00
90960381|NCT00511901|181801527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9||||0.66||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||SPPB at 12 weeks||||0.66
90866980|NCT05231954|181595918|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.5||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.50|0.69|0.919
90866981|NCT04249583|181595924|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.05
90866982|NCT03291808|181595932|OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.35
90866983|NCT02891850|181595958|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis was that there was no difference in the satisfactory clinical response rates in terms of odds ratio (OR) when treated with riociguat compared with participants who remained on their previous therapy.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.78||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.526|5.06|||Mantel Haenszel|Stratified by PAH category at baseline||||5.060|1.526|0.0007
90909731|NCT02501811|181689485|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.729|3.485|||ANCOVA|The change in LVEF was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t-test|||3.485|-0.729|0.578
90909732|NCT02501811|181689485|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.552|0.629|||ANCOVA|The change in LVEF was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t-test|||0.629|-3.552|0.523
90909733|NCT02501811|181689485|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|1.127|||ANCOVA|The change in LVEF was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t-test|||1.127|-2.7|0.471
90909734|NCT02501811|181689485|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|2.59|||ANCOVA|The change in LVEF was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t-test|||2.590|-1.240|0.485
90866984|NCT02891850|181595959|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis was that there was no difference in the change of 6MWD in terms of mean difference when treated with riociguat compared with participants who remained on their previous therapy.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.56||||0.0542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.03|40.1|||t-test, 2 sided|Stratified by PAH category at baseline||||40.10|5.03|0.0542
90909735|NCT02501811|181689486|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.406|1.887|||ANCOVA|The change in global circumferential strain was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values|Confidence intervals based on t-test|||1.887|-2.406|0.942
90909736|NCT02501811|181689486|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17||0.282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.815|2.975|||ANCOVA|The change in global circumferential strain was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t-test|||2.975|-1.815|0.282
90909737|NCT02501811|181689486|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|2.635|||ANCOVA|The change in global circumferential strain was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t-test|||2.635|-1.310|0.163
90909738|NCT02501811|181689486|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.471|0.628|||ANCOVA|The change in global circumferential strain was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||0.628|-2.471|0.175
90866985|NCT02891850|181595960|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis was that there was no difference in the change of NT-proBNP in terms of mean difference when treated with riociguat compared with participants who remained on their previous therapy.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-169.65||||0.1067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-426.18|86.88|||t-test, 2 sided|Stratified by PAH category at baseline||||86.88|-426.18|0.1067
90866986|NCT02891850|181595961|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis was that there was no difference in the change from baseline in WHO FC in terms of mean difference when treated with riociguat compared with participants who remained on their previous therapy.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.11|||t-test, 2 sided|Stratified by PAH category at baseline||||-0.11|-0.42|0.0007
90866987|NCT02891850|181595962|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis was that there was no difference in the clinical worsening rates in terms of odds ratio (OR) when treated with riociguat compared with participants who remained on their previous therapy.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.1||||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.013|0.725|||Mantel Haenszel|Stratified by PAH category at baseline||||0.725|0.013|0.0047
90909739|NCT02501811|181689486|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.932|1.254|||ANCOVA|The change in global circumferential strain was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||1.254|-2.932|0.329
90960382|NCT00511901|181801528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.6||||0.64||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||FACIT at 3 weeks||||0.64
90960383|NCT00511901|181801528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.5||||0.83||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||FACIT at 8 weeks||||0.83
90960384|NCT00511901|181801528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.1||||0.46||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||FACIT at 12 weeks||||0.46
90960385|NCT00511901|181801529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.57||||0.37||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Activity Counts at 3 weeks||||0.37
90960386|NCT00511901|181801529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|11.39||||0.69||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Activity Counts at 8 weeks||||0.69
90909740|NCT02501811|181689486|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93||0.752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.829|1.994|||ANCOVA|The change in global circumferential strain was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t-test|||1.994|-1.829|0.752
90909741|NCT02501811|181689487|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.118|1.927|||ANCOVA|The change in regional longitudinal strain was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t-test|||1.927|-1.118|0.733
90909742|NCT02501811|181689487|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.248|2.041|||ANCOVA|The change in regional longitudinal strain was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||2.041|-1.248|0.735
90909743|NCT02501811|181689487|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.464|1.767|||ANCOVA|The change in regional longitudinal strain was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||1.767|-1.464|0.794
90909744|NCT02501811|181689487|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.161|1.666|||ANCOVA|The change in regional longitudinal strain was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||1.666|-1.161|0.951
90909745|NCT02501811|181689487|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.441|1.457|||ANCOVA|The change in regional longitudinal strain was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||1.457|-1.441|0.962
90909746|NCT02501811|181689487|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.793|1.303|||ANCOVA|The change in regional longitudinal strain was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||1.303|-1.793|0.945
90909747|NCT02501811|181689488|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.85||0.602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.754|5.711|||ANCOVA|The change in LVEDVI was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||5.711|-9.754|0.602
90909748|NCT02501811|181689488|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.39||0.443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.609|4.044|||ANCOVA|The change in LVEDVI was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||4.044|-9.609|0.443
90909749|NCT02501811|181689488|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.42||0.348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.011|2.76|||ANCOVA|The change in LVEDVI was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||2.760|-11.011|0.348
90909750|NCT02501811|181689488|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.92||0.812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.76|9.968|||ANCOVA|The change in LVEDVI was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||9.968|-5.760|0.812
90909751|NCT02501811|181689488|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.89||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.052|8.574|||ANCOVA|The change in LVEDVI was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||8.574|-7.052|0.900
90909752|NCT02501811|181689488|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.47||0.848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.321|5.635|||ANCOVA|The change in LVEDVI was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||5.635|-8.321|0.848
90909753|NCT02501811|181689489|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.01||0.659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.281|4.789|||ANCOVA|The change in LVESVI was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||4.789|-7.281|0.659
90909754|NCT02501811|181689489|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.06||0.466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.621|3.71|||ANCOVA|The change in LVESVI was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||3.710|-8.621|0.466
90909755|NCT02501811|181689489|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.08||0.293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.799|1.594|||ANCOVA|The change in LVESVI was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||1.594|-10.799|0.293
90909756|NCT02501811|181689489|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.06||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.795|9.508|||ANCOVA|The change in LVESVI was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||9.508|-2.795|0.530
90909757|NCT02501811|181689489|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.05||0.761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.91|7.33|||ANCOVA|The change in LVESVI was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||7.330|-4.910|0.761
90909758|NCT02501811|181689489|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.12||0.669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.426|4.132|||ANCOVA|The change in LVESVI was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||4.132|-8.426|0.669
90909759|NCT02501811|181689490|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.048|0.04|||ANCOVA|The change in left ventricular sphericity index was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||0.040|-0.048|0.989
90909760|NCT02501811|181689490|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.056|0.033|||ANCOVA|The change in left ventricular sphericity index was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||0.033|-0.056|0.493
90960387|NCT00511901|181801529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|16.15||||0.36||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Activity Counts at 12 weeks||||0.36
90866988|NCT02820753|181596013|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.26||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.51||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference = (Text or Portal) - Enhanced Usual Care|||0.51|0.01|0.04
90866989|NCT02820753|181596014|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.15||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment Difference = (Text or Portal - Enhanced Usual Care|||0.15|-0.08|0.53
90909761|NCT02501811|181689490|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.053|0.039|||ANCOVA|The change in left ventricular sphericity index was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||0.039|-0.053|0.926
90909762|NCT02501811|181689490|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.041|0.047|||ANCOVA|The change in left ventricular sphericity index was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||0.047|-0.041|0.904
90909763|NCT02501811|181689490|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.035|0.049|||ANCOVA|The change in left ventricular sphericity index was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||0.049|-0.035|0.476
90866990|NCT02820753|181596015|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.34||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.48||The threshold for significance is p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment Difference = (Text or Portal) - Enhanced Usual Care|||0.48|-1.16|0.41
90909764|NCT02501811|181689490|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.048|||ANCOVA|The change in left ventricular sphericity index was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||0.048|-0.040|0.515
90909765|NCT02501811|181689491|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|1.687|||ANCOVA|The change in scar size percent was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||1.687|-1.770|0.569
90909766|NCT02501811|181689491|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.792|1.457|||ANCOVA|The change in scar size percent was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||1.457|-1.792|0.767
90866991|NCT02820753|181596016|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.83||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|5.06||The threshold for significance is p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference = (Text or Portal ) - Enhanced Usual Care|||5.06|-1.39|0.27
90866992|NCT02820753|181596017|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.23||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.23||The threshold for significance is p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment Difference = (Text or Portal) - Enhanced Usual Care|||0.23|-0.68|0.33
90866993|NCT00790023|181596018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.94|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.32||The p-value from primary outcome was adjusted at alpha=0.025.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in primary outcome when compare active to placebo group. The alternative hypothesis is that there is a difference in primary outcome when compare active to placebo group. It was estimated that 200 subjects per group will provide at least 85% power to detect a difference between treatment groups of 0.7 in the change from baseline in rTNSS with a two-sided alpha level of 0.025.||1.32|0.57|<0.0001
90909767|NCT02501811|181689491|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.965|0.921|||ANCOVA|The change in scar size percent was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||0.921|-1.965|0.261
90909768|NCT02501811|181689491|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86||0.587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.261|2.222|||ANCOVA|The change in scar size percent was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||2.222|-1.261|0.587
90866994|NCT00790023|181596018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.45||The p-value from primary outcome was adjusted at alpha=0.025.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in primary outcome when compare active to placebo group. The alternative hypothesis is that there is a difference in primary outcome when compare active to placebo group. It was estimated that 200 subjects per group will provide at least 85% power to detect a difference between treatment groups of 0.7 in the change from baseline in rTNSS with a two-sided alpha level of 0.025.||1.45|0.70|<0.0001
90866995|NCT00790023|181596019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.25|||ANCOVA|||Dmitrienko's tree-structured gatekeeping method was used for multiple comparisons||1.25|0.50|<0.0001
90866996|NCT00790023|181596019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.37|||ANCOVA|||Dmitrienko's tree-structured gatekeeping method was used for multiple comparisons||1.37|0.63|<0.0001
90866997|NCT00790023|181596020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.61||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.95|||ANCOVA|||Dmitrienko's tree-structured gatekeeping method was used for multiple comparisons||0.95|0.28|0.0004
90866998|NCT00790023|181596020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.94|||ANCOVA|||Dmitrienko's tree-structured gatekeeping method was used for multiple comparisons||0.94|0.27|0.0005
90866999|NCT01652703|181596050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-68.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.99|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.51|-62.71||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factor of screening LDL-C level.|Placebo is the reference|The null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-62.71|-74.51|<0.001
90867000|NCT01652703|181596050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-52.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.03|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.84|-46.86||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factor of screening LDL-C level.|Placebo is the reference|The null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-46.86|-58.84|<0.001
90867001|NCT01652703|181596050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-63.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.23|-57.66||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factor of screening LDL-C level.|Placebo is the reference|The null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-57.66|-70.23|<0.001
90909769|NCT02501811|181689491|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93||0.994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.763|2.014|||ANCOVA|The change in scar size percent was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||2.014|-1.763|0.994
90867002|NCT01652703|181596050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-58.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.21|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.51|-51.81||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factor of screening LDL-C level.|Placebo is the reference|The null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-51.81|-64.51|<0.001
90909770|NCT02501811|181689491|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.993|1.283|||ANCOVA|The change in scar size percent was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||1.283|-1.993|0.639
90960388|NCT00511901|181801530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|2.5||||0.97||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||POMS at 3 weeks||||0.97
90867003|NCT01652703|181596051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-96.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-106.0|-86.5||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factor of screening LDL-C level.|Placebo is the reference|||-86.5|-106.0|<0.001
90867004|NCT01652703|181596051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-75.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-85.4|-65.5||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factor of screening LDL-C level.|Placebo is the reference|||-65.5|-85.4|<0.001
90867005|NCT01652703|181596051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-88.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-97.4|-79.0||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factor of screening LDL-C level.|Placebo is the reference|||-79.0|-97.4|<0.001
90909771|NCT02501811|181689492|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.42||0.992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.437|3.319|||ANCOVA|The change in scar tissue mass was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t-test|||3.319|-2.437|0.992
90909772|NCT02501811|181689492|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.22||0.862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.278|2.643|||ANCOVA|The change in scar tissue mass was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t-test|||2.643|-2.278|0.862
90909773|NCT02501811|181689492|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.31||0.217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.846|1.443|||ANCOVA|The change in scar tissue mass was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t-test|||1.443|-3.846|0.217
90960389|NCT00511901|181801530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.46||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||POMS at 8 weeks||||0.46
90960390|NCT00511901|181801530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.68||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||POMS at 12 weeks||||0.68
90909774|NCT02501811|181689492|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.47||0.327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.325|4.611|||ANCOVA|The change in scar tissue mass was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t-test|||4.611|-1.325|0.327
90909775|NCT02501811|181689492|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.39||0.859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.551|3.068|||ANCOVA|The change in scar tissue mass was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t-test|||3.068|-2.551|0.859
90909776|NCT02501811|181689492|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.27||0.338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.952|1.184|||ANCOVA|The change in scar tissue mass was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t-test|||1.184|-3.952|0.338
90909777|NCT02501811|181689493|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.456|0.411|||ANCOVA|The change in peak VO2 was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||0.411|-2.456|0.157
90909778|NCT02501811|181689493|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.798|0.859|||ANCOVA|The change in peak VO2 was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||0.859|-2.798|0.428
90909779|NCT02501811|181689493|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|2.093|||ANCOVA|The change in peak VO2 was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||2.093|-0.83|0.382
90909780|NCT02501811|181689493|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.255|-0.052|||ANCOVA|The change in peak VO2 was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||-0.052|-3.255|0.056
90970993|NCT01515787|181824430|NON_INFERIORITY|Disease recurrence or death in order to have 85% power to reject the null hypothesis. Noninferiority of the intervention could be claimed if the upper limit of the two-sided 90.2% confidence interval of the hazard ratio for disease recurrence or death did not exceed the 1.29 noninferiority margin.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|90.2|0.74|1.14|||kaplan meier|||||1.14|0.74|0.005
90867006|NCT01652703|181596051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-80.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-90.0|-71.4||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factor of screening LDL-C level.|Placebo is the reference|||-71.4|-90.0|<0.001
90867007|NCT01652703|181596052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1945.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.64|42232.63||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression model includes treatment arms in dose frequency of Q2W and stratification factor of screening LDL-C level.|Placebo is the reference|||42232.63|89.64|<0.001
90867008|NCT01652703|181596052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|281.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.74|5360.92||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression model includes treatment arms in dose frequency of Q2W and stratification factor of screening LDL-C level.|Placebo is the reference|||5360.92|14.74|<0.001
90867009|NCT01652703|181596052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|536.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.37|10143.4||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression model includes treatment arms in dose frequency of Q4W and stratification factor of screening LDL-C level.|Placebo is the reference|||10143.40|28.37|<0.001
90867010|NCT01652703|181596052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|595.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.11|11402.67||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression model includes treatment arms in dose frequency of Q4W and stratification factor of screening LDL-C level.|Placebo is the reference|||11402.67|31.11|<0.001
90867011|NCT01652703|181596053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-62.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.68|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.85|-57.27||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factor of screening LDL-C level.|Placebo is the reference|||-57.27|-67.85|<0.001
90867012|NCT01652703|181596053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-49.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.72|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.83|-44.08||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factor of screening LDL-C level.|Placebo is the reference|||-44.08|-54.83|<0.001
90867013|NCT01652703|181596053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-58.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.96|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.93|-52.22||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factor of screening LDL-C level.|Placebo is the reference|||-52.22|-63.93|<0.001
90867014|NCT01652703|181596053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-53.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.99|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.46|-47.63||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factor of screening LDL-C level.|Placebo is the reference|||-47.63|-59.46|<0.001
90867015|NCT01652703|181596054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-60.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.52|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.67|-55.72||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factor of screening LDL-C level.|Placebo is the reference|||-55.72|-65.67|<0.001
90867016|NCT01652703|181596054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-46.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.56|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.8|-41.7||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factor of screening LDL-C level.|Placebo is the reference|||-41.70|-51.80|<0.001
90867017|NCT01652703|181596054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-53.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.77|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.91|-47.97||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factor of screening LDL-C level.|Placebo is the reference|||-47.97|-58.91|<0.001
90909781|NCT02501811|181689493|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.991|1.885|||ANCOVA|The change in peak VO2 was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||1.885|-1.991|0.610
90867018|NCT01652703|181596054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-47.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.9|-41.85||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factor of screening LDL-C level.|Placebo is the reference|||-41.85|-52.90|<0.001
90867019|NCT01652703|181596055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-34.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.75||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.71|-11.26||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factor of screening LDL-C level.|Placebo is the reference|||-11.26|-57.71|0.004
90867020|NCT01652703|181596055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-24.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.93||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.83|-0.68||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factor of screening LDL-C level.|Placebo is the reference|||-0.68|-47.83|0.044
90867021|NCT01652703|181596055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-29.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.36||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.32|-11.32||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factor of screening LDL-C level.|Placebo is the reference|||-11.32|-48.32|0.002
90867022|NCT01652703|181596055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-20.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.41||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.41|-2.22||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factor of screening LDL-C level.|Placebo is the reference|||-2.22|-39.41|0.028
90867023|NCT01652703|181596056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-46.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.64|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.21|-41.76||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factor of screening LDL-C level.|Placebo is the reference|||-41.76|-52.21|<0.001
90867024|NCT01652703|181596056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-37.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.68|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.52|-31.91||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factor of screening LDL-C level.|Placebo is the reference|||-31.91|-42.52|<0.001
90867025|NCT01652703|181596056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-46.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.86|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.32|-41.0||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factor of screening LDL-C level.|Placebo is the reference|||-41.00|-52.32|<0.001
90909782|NCT02501811|181689493|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.356|3.557|||ANCOVA|The change in peak VO2 was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||3.557|-0.356|0.195
90970994|NCT01515787|181824432|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.44||||||||1.44|0.74|
90867026|NCT01652703|181596056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-45.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.89|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.02|-39.58||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factor of screening LDL-C level.|Placebo is the reference|||-39.58|-51.02|<0.001
90867027|NCT01652703|181596057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-61.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.93|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.14|-55.56||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factor of screening LDL-C level.|Placebo is the reference|||-55.56|-67.14|<0.001
90867028|NCT01652703|181596057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-47.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.98|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.41|-41.65||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factor of screening LDL-C level.|Placebo is the reference|||-41.65|-53.41|<0.001
90867029|NCT01652703|181596057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-57.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.03|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.73|-51.77||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factor of screening LDL-C level.|Placebo is the reference|||-51.77|-63.73|<0.001
90867030|NCT01652703|181596057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-52.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.27|-46.18||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factor of screening LDL-C level.|Placebo is the reference|||-46.18|-58.27|<0.001
90867031|NCT02728050|181596072|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Fisher Exact|||"Participants on study receiving CLAGM-S were compared to a historical cohort of newly diagnosed AML/high-risk MDS patients treated with CLAG-M alone, matched for mitoxantrone dose, age, and TRM score.~Number of participants in historical cohort = 71. Number of participants in historical cohort who achieved MRD-negative CR = 55 (77.46%)"||||0.48
90867032|NCT02577510|181596105|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS Version 21 statistical software (IBM, Armonk, New York). For continuous data, normality was fi rst assessed with the Lilliefors test and then analyzed using a paired t test. Data that did not have a normal distribution, as well as ordinal data, was analyzed using Wilcoxon's signed ranks or McNemar's test. All P values presented were 2-sided and values inferior to 0.05 were considered signifi cant||||0.05
90867033|NCT03984994|181596156|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.27|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Per the aims of the study, the responses to RT were compared between 2 arms/groups. The change in the outcome (post-RT minus pre-RT) in each arm/group was compared using a t-test. Responses to AEX training itself are not assessed as this was not an aim or hypothesis of the study.~The hypothesis was that the Aerobic exercise training followed by resistance training arm would have greater changes/improvements in study outcomes than the Resistance training followed by aerobic training group."||||0.27
90867034|NCT03984994|181596157|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8||||0.22|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Per the aims of the study, the responses to RT were compared between 2 arms/groups. The change in the outcome (post-RT minus pre-RT) in each arm/group was compared using a t-test. Responses to AEX training itself are not assessed as this was not an aim or hypothesis of the study.~The hypothesis was that the Aerobic exercise training followed by resistance training arm would have greater changes/improvements in study outcomes than the Resistance training followed by aerobic training group."||||0.22
90867035|NCT03984994|181596158|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|251.0||||0.21|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Per the aims of the study, the responses to RT were compared between 2 arms/groups. The change in the outcome (post-RT minus pre-RT) in each arm/group was compared using a t-test. Responses to AEX training itself are not assessed as this was not an aim or hypothesis of the study.~The hypothesis was that the Aerobic exercise training followed by resistance training arm would have greater changes/improvements in study outcomes than the Resistance training followed by aerobic training group."||||0.21
90867036|NCT03984994|181596159|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.7||||0.28|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Per the aims of the study, the responses to RT were compared between 2 arms/groups. The change in the outcome (post-RT minus pre-RT) in each arm/group was compared using a t-test. Responses to AEX training itself are not assessed as this was not an aim or hypothesis of the study.~The hypothesis was that the Aerobic exercise training followed by resistance training arm would have greater changes/improvements in study outcomes than the Resistance training followed by aerobic training group."||||0.28
90867037|NCT00709761|181596180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|53.0||||||95.0|40.7|66.0|||||The estimation parameter represents the percentage of participants experiencing either a CR or a PR.|||66.0|40.7|
90867038|NCT04950998|181596205|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|604.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2560.36||0.376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-813.815|2021.95|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2021.95|-813.815|0.376
90867039|NCT04950998|181596206|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-35.019|STANDARD_DEVIATION|172.168||0.444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-130.36|60.324|||t-test, 2 sided|||||60.324|-130.36|.444
90909783|NCT02501811|181689494|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.01||0.348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.537|56.687|||ANCOVA|The change in exercise tolerance was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||56.687|-19.537|0.348
90867040|NCT02621060|181596213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.0||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.004
90867041|NCT02621060|181596214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.084|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.084
90867042|NCT02621060|181596215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.755|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.755
90867043|NCT02621060|181596216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
90867044|NCT02621060|181596217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.084|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.084
90867045|NCT02621060|181596218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.004
90867046|NCT02621060|181596220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.074|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.074
90909784|NCT02501811|181689494|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.88||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.759|59.134|||ANCOVA|The change in exercise tolerance was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||59.134|-12.759|0.230
90909785|NCT02501811|181689494|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.21||0.905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.974|34.361|||ANCOVA|The change in exercise tolerance was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||34.361|-30.974|0.905
90867047|NCT02621060|181596221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.022
90867048|NCT02621060|181596222|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.022
90867049|NCT02621060|181596223|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|5.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.022
90867050|NCT02621060|181596224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.594|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.594
90867051|NCT02621060|181596225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.42
90867052|NCT02621060|181596226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
90867053|NCT02621060|181596227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
90867054|NCT02621060|181596228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.059|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.059
90867055|NCT02621060|181596229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.049
90909786|NCT02501811|181689494|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.98||0.335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.267|49.03|||ANCOVA|The change in exercise tolerance was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||49.030|-15.267|0.335
90867056|NCT02621060|181596230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
90867057|NCT02621060|181596231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.376|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.376
90867058|NCT02621060|181596232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.472|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.472
90867059|NCT02621060|181596233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.774|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.774
90867060|NCT02621060|181596234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.637|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.637
90867061|NCT00555971|181596251|EQUIVALENCE|This was a statistical analysis to address the null hypothesis that there was no difference between treatment and placebo groups.||||||0.036|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.036
90867062|NCT03087643|181596307|OTHER|||||||0.0492|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0492
90867063|NCT03087643|181596308|OTHER|||||||0.0283|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0283
90867064|NCT03087643|181596309|OTHER|||||||0.0321|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0321
90867065|NCT03087643|181596310|OTHER|||||||0.0451|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0451
90867066|NCT03087643|181596311|OTHER|||||||0.0476|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0476
90970995|NCT01515787|181824434|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|3.16||||||||3.16|0.44|
90867067|NCT02083783|181596312|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.9|11.6|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference in SKAMP-C scores from baseline to 4 hours postdose.||11.6|-17.9|<0.0001
90867068|NCT02083783|181596313|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|38.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.3|50.6|||ANCOVA|||p-value for comparison between change from baseline in placebo vs active treatment||50.6|27.3|<0.0001
90867069|NCT02168361|181596331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Null hypothesis is no difference between two regimens in SVR-12.||||.02
90867070|NCT00668707|181596378|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.22|||Regression, Logistic|||Analysis conducted was an adjusted logistic regression (adjuvant chemotherapy, adjuvant radiation, smoking history). Results were presented as a relative risk. Based on an estimated 30% outcome rate of recurrence or mortality in the control arm, 294 participants per arm provided 80% power to detect a relative risk of one third at an alpha of 0.05. We inflated this sample size to 346 per arm to account for 15% lost to follow-up.||1.22|0.83|0.94
90867071|NCT00668707|181596379|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.2||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|3.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Between-arm least squares mean difference in change from randomization to 24 months post-surgery represented the effect of the intervention.||Analysis for the LC-13 scale.||3.7|-1.3|0.36
90867072|NCT00668707|181596379|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|3.3||Between-arm least squares mean difference in change from randomization to 24 months post-surgery represented the effect of the intervention.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis for Symptom Scale.||3.3|-2.5|0.80
90867073|NCT00668707|181596379|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|2.7||Between-arm least squares mean difference in change from randomization to 24 months post-surgery represented the effect of the intervention.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis for Functional Scale.||2.7|-4.1|0.69
90867074|NCT00668707|181596379|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.8||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|0.9||Between-arm least squares mean difference in change from randomization to 24 months post-surgery represented the effect of the intervention.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis for Global Scale.||0.9|-8.5|0.11
90867075|NCT00668707|181596380|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.1||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Between-arm least squares mean difference in change from randomization to 24 months post-surgery represented the effect of the intervention.||0.9|-7.2|0.13
90867076|NCT00668707|181596381|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.1||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|1.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|Between-arm least squares mean difference in change from randomization to 24 months post-surgery represented the effect of the intervention.||Sleep Adequacy Analysis.||1.9|-10.0|0.18
90960391|NCT06020118|181801535|SUPERIORITY|95% exact Clopper-Pearson confidence boundaries and the p-values were calculated using a logistic regression model adjusted for site.||||||0.938|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Number of participants achieving HAI seroconversion (a titer ≥1:40 following ccIIV4 if the baseline titer is \<1:10 or a four-fold rise in titer if the baseline titer is \>1:10) following ccIIV4 vaccination for each 2023-24 influenza vaccine antigen.|Regression, Logistic|||Antigen: A(H1N1)pdm09||||0.938
90867077|NCT00668707|181596381|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.4||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|4.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|Between-arm least squares mean difference in change from randomization to 24 months post-surgery represented the effect of the intervention.||Sleep problems index II analysis.||4.8|-2.0|0.41
90867078|NCT00668707|181596385|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.62
90867079|NCT00668707|181596386|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.07|||Log Rank|||DFS up to five years post-surgery was compared using Kaplan-Meier curves and the log rank test, followed by a hazard ratio calculated using the Cox proportional hazard model adjusting for adjuvant chemotherapy, adjuvant radiation, and smoking history.||1.07|0.85|0.41
90867080|NCT00668707|181596386|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.11|||Log Rank|||This analysis included only those with stage I or II cancer (pathologic stage). DFS up to five years post-surgery was compared using Kaplan-Meier curves and the log rank test, followed by a hazard ratio calculated using the Cox proportional hazard model adjusting for adjuvant chemotherapy, adjuvant radiation, and smoking history.||1.11|0.85|0.66
90867081|NCT00668707|181596386|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.92|||Log Rank|||This analysis included only those participants who had stage III or IV cancer (pathologic stage). DFS up to five years post-surgery was compared using Kaplan-Meier curves and the log rank test, followed by a hazard ratio calculated using the Cox proportional hazard model adjusting for adjuvant chemotherapy, adjuvant radiation, and smoking history.||0.92|0.61|0.004
90867082|NCT00668707|181596387|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.67||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.21|4.56|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of melatonin changes||4.56|-3.21|0.95
90867083|NCT00668707|181596387|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.63||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|7.42|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of placebo changes||7.42|-0.15|0.02
90867084|NCT00668707|181596388|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.37
90867085|NCT00668707|181596389|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis compares the mean ratios of 6 month cytotoxicity and baseline cytotoxicity between arms.||||0.34
90867086|NCT03846804|181596419|OTHER|||||||0.36|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.36
90867087|NCT03547583|181596439|OTHER||Difference of LS-means|-0.52|||=|0.8008|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-5.17|4.13|||Mixed model repeated-measures|||The analysis of each imputed dataset will be performed using mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM), including treatment, region, heart rhythm, study visit as fixed effects, interaction between study visit and treatment group, and adjustment for the baseline PLS values as covariates.||4.13|-5.17|= 0.8008
90867088|NCT03547583|181596439|OTHER||Difference of LS-means|-1.46|||=|0.4722|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-6.02|3.1|||Mixed model repeated-measures|||The analysis of each imputed dataset will be performed using mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM), including treatment, region, heart rhythm, study visit as fixed effects, interaction between study visit and treatment group, and adjustment for the baseline PLS values as covariates.||3.10|-6.02|= 0.4722
90867089|NCT03547583|181596440|OTHER||Difference of LS-means|-1.81|||=|0.8054|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-18.3|14.67|||Mixed model repeated-measures|||The analysis of each imputed dataset will be performed using mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM), including treatment, region, heart rhythm, study visit as fixed effects, interaction between study visit and treatment group, and adjustment for the baseline 6MWT values as covariates.||14.67|-18.30|= 0.8054
90867090|NCT03547583|181596440|OTHER||Difference of LS-means|-5.49|||=|0.4502|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-21.77|10.8|||mixed model repeated measures|||The analysis of each imputed dataset will be performed using mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM), including treatment, region, heart rhythm, study visit as fixed effects, interaction between study visit and treatment group, and adjustment for the baseline 6MWT values as covariates.||10.80|-21.77|= 0.4502
90867091|NCT02657915|181596442|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.0|||=|0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.56|2.57|||ANCOVA|||||2.57|-14.56|=0.165
90909787|NCT02501811|181689494|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.68||0.827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.106|30.88|||ANCOVA|The change in exercise tolerance was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||30.880|-40.106|0.827
90909788|NCT02501811|181689494|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.63||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.989|8.001|||ANCOVA|The change in exercise tolerance was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||8.001|-50.989|0.163
90867092|NCT02065375|181596465|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion of patients|-1.2||||0.4543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.3|18.9|||Chi-squared|p values from Pearson chi-squared statistical test between the Omaveloxolone Ophthalmic suspension 1.0% and placebo were one sided.||||18.9|-21.3|0.4543
90867093|NCT02065375|181596465|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion of patients|8.2||||0.2297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|29.8|||Chi-squared|p values from Pearson chi-squared statistical test between the Omaveloxolone Ophthalmic suspension 0.5% and placebo were one sided.||||29.8|-13.5|0.2297
90867094|NCT02065375|181596466|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion of patients|-21.6||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.1|0.0|||Chi-squared|p values from Pearson chi-squared statistical test between the Omaveloxolone Ophthalmic suspension 1.0% and placebo were one sided.||||0.00|-43.1|.0280
90867095|NCT02065375|181596466|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion of patients|-24.0||||0.0192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.8|-2.2|||Chi-squared|p values from Pearson chi-squared statistical test between the Omaveloxolone Ophthalmic suspension 0.5% and placebo were one sided.||||-2.2|-45.8|0.0192
90867096|NCT02513394|181596489|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.14|||Log Rank||This two sided p value was stratified by (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy (yes vs no) and age (\<=50 vs \>50).|||1.14|0.81|0.65
90867097|NCT02513394|181596490|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.19||||||||1.19|0.82|
90867098|NCT02513394|181596491|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.28||||||||1.28|0.87|
90867099|NCT02513394|181596492|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.78||||||||1.78|0.98|
90867100|NCT02513394|181596493|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.23||||||||1.23|0.57|
90909789|NCT02501811|181689495|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.63||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.915|-0.357|||ANCOVA|The change in MLHFQ summary score was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||-0.357|-18.915|0.023
90909790|NCT02501811|181689495|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.84||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.871|-3.319|||ANCOVA|The change in MLHFQ summary score was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||-3.319|-26.871|0.050
90909791|NCT02501811|181689495|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.86||0.119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.784|8.836|||ANCOVA|The change in MLHFQ summary score was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||8.836|-14.784|0.119
90909792|NCT02501811|181689495|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.66||0.845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.087|4.762|||ANCOVA|The change in MLHFQ summary score was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||4.762|-18.087|0.845
90909793|NCT02501811|181689495|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.64||0.976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.931|16.848|||ANCOVA|The change in MLHFQ summary score was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||16.848|-5.931|0.976
90909794|NCT02501811|181689495|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.69||0.717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.337|25.578|||ANCOVA|The change in MLHFQ summary score was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||25.578|-1.337|0.717
90867101|NCT00844831|181596517|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.75
90867102|NCT00844831|181596519|OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.9
90867103|NCT03156543|181596531|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Fisher Exact|||Analysis was based on the participants who were positive for C. acnes.||||0.004
90867104|NCT00056316|181596549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.93||||0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference is equal to Behavioral Skills Intervention minus Basic Education Control|||||.05
90867105|NCT00056316|181596550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.07||||0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference is equal to Behavioral Skills Intervention minus Basic Education Control|||||.05
90867106|NCT01315678|181596565|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.51||||0.0286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|2.13|||Regression, Cox|||Stratified Cox proportional hazards model||2.13|1.07|0.0286
90867107|NCT01315678|181596566|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.12||||0.6031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.66|||Regression, Cox|||||1.66|0.76|0.6031
90867108|NCT01315678|181596567|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.84||||0.4861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.44|||Regression, Cox|||||1.44|0.49|0.4861
90867109|NCT00004978|181596580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.16||P-value is 2-sided using an alpha of .05.|Regression, Cox|Hazard ratio is from unadjusted proportional hazards regression model.|HR is for rIL-2 vs control.|||1.16|0.75|.55
90867110|NCT00004978|181596581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.2|||Regression, Cox|||||1.20|0.74|.62
90867111|NCT00004978|181596582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.17|||Regression, Cox|||||1.17|0.69|.42
90867112|NCT00004978|181596583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.14|||Regression, Cox|||||1.14|0.73|.41
90960392|NCT06020118|181801535|SUPERIORITY|95% exact Clopper-Pearson confidence boundaries and the p-values were calculated using a logistic regression model adjusted for site.||||||0.451||||||Number of participants achieving HAI seroconversion (a titer ≥1:40 following ccIIV4 if the baseline titer is \<1:10 or a four-fold rise in titer if the baseline titer is \>1:10) following ccIIV4 vaccination for each 2023-24 influenza vaccine antigen.|Regression, Logistic|||Antigen: A(H3N2)||||0.451
90960393|NCT06020118|181801535|SUPERIORITY|95% exact Clopper-Pearson confidence boundaries and the p-values were calculated using a logistic regression model adjusted for site.||||||0.819||||||Number of participants achieving HAI seroconversion (a titer ≥1:40 following ccIIV4 if the baseline titer is \<1:10 or a four-fold rise in titer if the baseline titer is \>1:10) following ccIIV4 vaccination for each 2023-24 influenza vaccine antigen.|Regression, Logistic|||Antigen: B/Victoria||||0.819
90960394|NCT06020118|181801535|SUPERIORITY|95% exact Clopper-Pearson confidence boundaries and the p-values were calculated using a logistic regression model adjusted for site.||||||0.5||||||Number of participants achieving HAI seroconversion (a titer ≥1:40 following ccIIV4 if the baseline titer is \<1:10 or a four-fold rise in titer if the baseline titer is \>1:10) following ccIIV4 vaccination for each 2023-24 influenza vaccine antigen.|Regression, Logistic|||Antigen: B/Yamagata||||0.500
90909795|NCT02501811|181689496|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1411.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|840.6||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3108.3|284.9|||ANCOVA|Change in NT-proBNP value compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values. Data log transformed, p-values obtained from transformed data|Confidence intervals based on t test|||284.9|-3108.3|0.110
90867113|NCT00004978|181596584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|159.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|145.0|174.0|||||treatment difference (rIL2 - no rIL2) estimated from a longitudinal model that considers CD4+ measured at followup visits|||174|145|
90909796|NCT02501811|181689496|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-634.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|405.1||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1460.7|191.4|||ANCOVA|Change in NT-proBNP value compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values. Data log transformed, p-values obtained from transformed data|Confidence intervals based on t test|||191.4|-1460.7|0.112
90909797|NCT02501811|181689496|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-483.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|400.7||0.891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1301.5|335.2|||ANCOVA|Change in NT-proBNP value compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values. Data log transformed, p-values obtained from transformed data|Confidence intervals based on t test|||335.2|-1301.5|0.891
90867114|NCT00004978|181596586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.0|||Regression, Cox|Hazard ratio (rIL-2 vs. no rIL-2) for first change in antiretroviral treatment.||||1.00|0.88|.07
90867115|NCT00004978|181596587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.23||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.41|||Regression, Cox||HR (IL-2 vs control) for first grade 4 event, ITT analysis.|||1.41|1.07|.003
90867116|NCT00004978|181596588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.97||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||.97
90867117|NCT00004978|181596589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.22|||Regression, Cox|||||1.22|0.76|.74
90909798|NCT02501811|181689496|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-928.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|754.2||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2470.7|613.6|||ANCOVA|Change in NT-proBNP value compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values. Data log transformed, p-values obtained from transformed data|Confidence intervals based on t test|||613.6|-2470.7|0.009
90867118|NCT02155608|181596599|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group: F = .38, df = 1/228.||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects using a piecewise linear time trend. This was parameterized in the model as a standard linear variable, time (ranging from baseline to 4 weeks) and a second variable, time2, defined as 0 at baseline and time past week 1 for subsequent weeks. The time2 coefficient represents the change in slope after the initial week.||||.54
90909799|NCT02501811|181689496|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-777.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|756.5||0.661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2323.2|769.1|||ANCOVA|Change in NT-proBNP value compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values. Data log transformed, p-values obtained from transformed data|Confidence intervals based on t test|||769.1|-2323.2|0.661
90867119|NCT02155608|181596599|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance|Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F=39.97, df = 1/228||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects using a piecewise linear time trend. This was parameterized in the model as a standard linear variable, time (ranging from baseline to 4 weeks) and a second variable, time2, defined as 0 at baseline and time past week 1 for subsequent weeks. The time2 coefficient represents the change in slope after the initial week.||||<.0001
90970996|NCT00517595|181824449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Log Rank|||Within Group 1 (N=48), patients with an ECOG of 0 at baseline (N=18) were compared to patients with an ECOG of 1 at baseline (N=30).||||0.02
90960395|NCT06020118|181801535|SUPERIORITY|95% exact Clopper-Pearson confidence boundaries and the p-values were calculated using a logistic regression model adjusted for site.|||||<|0.001||||||Number of participants achieving HAI seroconversion (a titer ≥1:40 following ccIIV4 if the baseline titer is \<1:10 or a four-fold rise in titer if the baseline titer is \>1:10) following ccIIV4 vaccination for each 2023-24 influenza vaccine antigen.|Regression, Logistic|||Antigen: A(H1N1)pdm09||||<.001
90960396|NCT06020118|181801535|SUPERIORITY|95% exact Clopper-Pearson confidence boundaries and the p-values were calculated using a logistic regression model adjusted for site.||||||0.001||||||Number of participants achieving HAI seroconversion (a titer ≥1:40 following ccIIV4 if the baseline titer is \<1:10 or a four-fold rise in titer if the baseline titer is \>1:10) following ccIIV4 vaccination for each 2023-24 influenza vaccine antigen.|Regression, Logistic|||Antigen: A(H3N2)||||0.001
90960397|NCT06020118|181801535|SUPERIORITY|95% exact Clopper-Pearson confidence boundaries and the p-values were calculated using a logistic regression model adjusted for site.|||||<|0.001||||||Number of participants achieving HAI seroconversion (a titer ≥1:40 following ccIIV4 if the baseline titer is \<1:10 or a four-fold rise in titer if the baseline titer is \>1:10) following ccIIV4 vaccination for each 2023-24 influenza vaccine antigen.|Regression, Logistic|||Antigen: B/Victoria||||<0.001
90867120|NCT02155608|181596599|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group \* time: F = 8.12, df = 1/228.||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects using a piecewise linear time trend. This was parameterized in the model as a standard linear variable, time (ranging from baseline to 4 weeks) and a second variable, time2, defined as 0 at baseline and time past week 1 for subsequent weeks. The time2 coefficient represents the change in slope after the initial week.||||.005
90960398|NCT06020118|181801535|SUPERIORITY|95% exact Clopper-Pearson confidence boundaries and the p-values were calculated using a logistic regression model adjusted for site.|||||<|0.001||||||Number of participants achieving HAI seroconversion (a titer ≥1:40 following ccIIV4 if the baseline titer is \<1:10 or a four-fold rise in titer if the baseline titer is \>1:10) following ccIIV4 vaccination for each 2023-24 influenza vaccine antigen.|Regression, Logistic|||Antigen: B/Yamagata||||<0.001
90960399|NCT06020118|181801536|SUPERIORITY|95% exact Clopper-Pearson confidence boundaries and the p-values were calculated using a logistic regression model adjusted for site.||||||0.894||||||Number of participants in each vaccination group with a seroprotective HAI (in a subset of samples) titer (≥1:40) pre- and post-ccIIV4 immunization for each 2023-24 influenza vaccine antigen.|Regression, Logistic|||Antigen: A(H1N1)pdm09||||0.894
90867121|NCT02155608|181596599|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Time2: F = 28.96, df = 1/228.||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects using a piecewise linear time trend. This was parameterized in the model as a standard linear variable, time (ranging from baseline to 4 weeks) and a second variable, time2, defined as 0 at baseline and time past week 1 for subsequent weeks. The time2 coefficient represents the change in slope after the initial week.||||<.0001
90970997|NCT00517595|181824450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0041||95.0|||||Log Rank|||Within Group 1 (N=48), patients with an ECOG of 0 at baseline (N=18) were compared to patients with an ECOG of 1 at baseline (N=30).||||0.0041
90909800|NCT02501811|181689496|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|151.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|162.2||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-175.4|478.4|||ANCOVA|Change in NT-proBNP value compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values. Data log transformed, p-values obtained from transformed data|Confidence intervals based on t test|||478.4|-175.4|0.015
90970998|NCT01780831|181824500|OTHER|Point and 90% CI estimates of percentage Cohort 1 infants who died or had grade 3/4 AE through 6 weeks of life.|Clopper-Pearson Confidence Interval (CI)|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.0|48.4||||||||48.4|9|
90909801|NCT02501811|181689497|OTHER||slope of time|0.267|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.241||0.269|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made in this Phase II trial|Repeated Measures Linear Regression||"Standard error of the mean is the standard error of the estimate of the slope of time."|Repeated-measures linear regression models were used to address trajectories (upward or downward trends) over time within each of the 4 treatment groups. Results of the overall model are reported||||0.269
90909802|NCT02501811|181689498|OTHER||slope of time|0.141|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.153||0.361|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made in this Phase II trial|Repeated Measures Linear Regression||"Standard error of the mean is the standard error of the estimate of the slope of time."|Repeated-measures linear regression models were used to address trajectories (upward or downward trends) over time within each of the 4 treatment groups. Results of the overall model are reported.||||0.361
90909803|NCT02501811|181689499|OTHER||slope of time|-0.267|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.164||0.107|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made in this Phase II trial|Repeated Measures Linear Regression||"Standard error of the mean is the standard error of the estimate of the slope of time."|Repeated-measures linear regression models were used to address trajectories (upward or downward trends) over time within each of the 4 treatment groups. Results of the overall model are reported.||||0.107
90909804|NCT02501811|181689500|OTHER||slope of time|1.395|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.829||0.095|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made in this Phase II trial|Repeated Measures Linear Regression||"Standard error of the mean is the standard error of the estimate of the slope of time."|Repeated-measures linear regression models were used to address trajectories (upward or downward trends) over time within each of the 4 treatment groups. Results of the overall model are reported.||||0.095
90909805|NCT02501811|181689501|OTHER||slope of time|0.603|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.683||0.379|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made in this Phase II trial|Repeated Measures Linear Regression||"Standard error of the mean is the standard error of the estimate of the slope of time."|Repeated-measures linear regression models were used to address trajectories (upward or downward trends) over time within each of the 4 treatment groups. Results of the overall model are reported.||||0.379
90909806|NCT02501811|181689502|OTHER||slope of time|0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.004||0.401|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made in this Phase II trial|Repeated Measures Linear Regression||"Standard error of the mean is the standard error of the estimate of the slope of time."|Repeated-measures linear regression models were used to address trajectories (upward or downward trends) over time within each of the 4 treatment groups. Results of the overall model are reported.||||0.401
90909807|NCT02501811|181689503|OTHER||slope of time|-0.244|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.158||0.126|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made in this Phase II trial|Repeated Measures Linear Regression||"Standard error of the mean is the standard error of the estimate of the slope of time."|Repeated-measures linear regression models were used to address trajectories (upward or downward trends) over time within each of the 4 treatment groups. Results of the overall model are reported.||||0.126
90909808|NCT02501811|181689504|OTHER||slope of time|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.281||0.139|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made in this Phase II trial|Repeated Measures Linear Regression||"Standard error of the mean is the standard error of the estimate of the slope of time."|Repeated-measures linear regression models were used to address trajectories (upward or downward trends) over time within each of the 4 treatment groups. Results of the overall model are reported.||||0.139
90909809|NCT02501811|181689505|OTHER||slope of time|-0.133|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.184||0.472|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made in this Phase II trial|Repeated Measures Linear Regression||"Standard error of the mean is the standard error of the estimate of the slope of time."|Repeated-measures linear regression models were used to address trajectories (upward or downward trends) over time within each of the 4 treatment groups. Results of the overall model are reported.||||0.472
90909810|NCT02501811|181689506|OTHER||slope of time|6.544|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.882||0.025|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made in this Phase II trial|Repeated Measures Linear Regression||"Standard error of the mean is the standard error of the estimate of the slope of time."|Repeated-measures linear regression models were used to address trajectories (upward or downward trends) over time within each of the 4 treatment groups. Results of the overall model are reported.||||0.025
90909811|NCT02501811|181689507|OTHER||slope with interaction|-7.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3||0.037|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Repeated-measures linear regression models were used to address trajectories (upward or downward trends) over time within each of the 4 treatment groups. A time by treatment interaction was assessed.||||0.037
90909812|NCT02501811|181689507|OTHER||slope with interaction|-6.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.18||0.035|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Repeated-measures linear regression models were used to address trajectories (upward or downward trends) over time within each of the 4 treatment groups. A time by treatment interaction was assessed.||||0.035
90970999|NCT01780831|181824500|OTHER|Point and 90% CI estimates of percentage Cohort 2 infants who died or had grade 3/4 AE through 6 weeks of life.|Clopper-Pearson Confidence Interval (CI)|31.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|18.7|46.6||||||||46.6|18.7|
90867122|NCT02155608|181596599|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F = 6.23, df = 1/57.||Phase 1b: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects between visits 4 and 5.||||.02
90867123|NCT02155608|181596599|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group: F = 4.18, df = 1/57.||Phase 1b: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects between visits 4 and 5.||||.05
90867124|NCT02155608|181596599|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group \* time: F = .12, df = 1/57.||Phase 1b: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects between visits 4 and 5.||||.73
90909813|NCT02501811|181689508|OTHER||slope of time|84.557|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|35.81||0.092|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made in this Phase II trial|Repeated Measures Linear Regression||"Standard error of the mean is the standard error of the estimate of the slope of time."|Repeated-measures linear regression models were used to address trajectories (upward or downward trends) over time within each of the 4 treatment groups. Results of the overall model are reported.||||0.092
90909814|NCT00151996|181689547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in ADHD-RS-IV total score||||<0.0001
90960400|NCT06020118|181801536|SUPERIORITY|95% exact Clopper-Pearson confidence boundaries and the p-values were calculated using a logistic regression model adjusted for site.||||||0.104||||||Number of participants in each vaccination group with a seroprotective HAI (in a subset of samples) titer (≥1:40) pre- and post-ccIIV4 immunization for each 2023-24 influenza vaccine antigen.|Regression, Logistic|||Antigen: A(H3N2)||||0.104
90909815|NCT00151996|181689547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in ADHD-RS-IV total score||||<0.0001
90909816|NCT00151996|181689549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in CPRS-R total score||||<0.0001
90909817|NCT00151996|181689549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0002||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in CPRS-R total score||||0.0002
90909818|NCT00151996|181689551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7004||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in physical summary score||||0.7004
90909819|NCT00151996|181689551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in psychosocial summary score||||<0.0001
90909820|NCT00151996|181689551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9257||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in physical summary score||||0.9257
90909821|NCT00151996|181689551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in psychosocial summary score||||<0.0001
90909822|NCT00420316|181689577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent reduction|34.3||||0.691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-348.7|88.9|||Fisher Exact|||Vaccine efficacy with respect to any rotavirus gastroenteritis (RV GE) caused by the circulating wild-type rotavirus strain. Vaccine efficacy (VE) was defined as the percent reduction in the frequency of the relevant outcome variable in vaccinated subjects compared with those subjects who received placebo.||88.9|-348.7|0.691
90909823|NCT00420316|181689578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent reduction|50.7||||0.551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3769.6|99.4|||Fisher Exact|||Vaccine efficacy with respect to severe rotavirus gastroenteritis (RVGE) caused by the circulating wild-type rotavirus strain was assessed. Vaccine efficacy (VE) was defined as the percent reduction in the frequency of the relevant outcome variable in vaccinated subjects compared with those subjects who have received placebo.||99.4|-3769.6|0.551
90867125|NCT02155608|181596600|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance|Chi-squared|Group: F = 8.75, df = 1/168.||Phase 1a: Assessed effects of group and time on categorical measure CGI-I from Baseline through Visit 4.||||.003
90867126|NCT02155608|181596600|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Chi-squared|Time: F = 1.69, df = 3/168.||Phase 1a: Assessed effects of group and time on categorical measure CGI-I from Baseline through Visit 4.||||.17
90867127|NCT02155608|181596600|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||Chi-squared|Group: Chi-square = .53, df = 1.||Phase 1b: Assessed effects of group on categorical measure CGI-I from at Visit 5 compared to baseline.||||.46
90867128|NCT02155608|181596601|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Group: F=.01; df =1/209.||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects using a piecewise linear time trend. This was parameterized in the model as a standard linear variable, time (ranging from baseline to 4 weeks) and a second variable, time2, defined as 0 at baseline and time past week 1 for subsequent weeks. The time2 coefficient represents the change in slope after the initial week.||||.91
90867129|NCT02155608|181596601|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F=13.03; df = 1/209.||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects using a piecewise linear time trend. This was parameterized in the model as a standard linear variable, time (ranging from baseline to 4 weeks) and a second variable, time2, defined as 0 at baseline and time past week 1 for subsequent weeks. The time2 coefficient represents the change in slope after the initial week.||||.0004
90867130|NCT02155608|181596601|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Group \* time: F = .83; df = 1/209.||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects using a piecewise linear time trend. This was parameterized in the model as a standard linear variable, time (ranging from baseline to 4 weeks) and a second variable, time2, defined as 0 at baseline and time past week 1 for subsequent weeks. The time2 coefficient represents the change in slope after the initial week.||||.37
90867131|NCT02155608|181596601|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007||||||Time2: F = 7.45, df = 1/209.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects using a piecewise linear time trend. This was parameterized in the model as a standard linear variable, time (ranging from baseline to 4 weeks) and a second variable, time2, defined as 0 at baseline and time past week 1 for subsequent weeks. The time2 coefficient represents the change in slope after the initial week.||||.007
90867132|NCT02155608|181596601|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group: F = .19, df = 1/59.||Phase 1b: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects between visits 4 and 5.||||.67
90867133|NCT02155608|181596601|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F = .17, df = 1/50.||Phase 1b: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects between visits 4 and 5.||||.68
90867134|NCT02155608|181596601|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group \* time: F = 2.05, df = 1/50.||Phase 1b: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects between visits 4 and 5.||||.16
90960401|NCT06020118|181801536|SUPERIORITY|95% exact Clopper-Pearson confidence boundaries and the p-values were calculated using a logistic regression model adjusted for site.||||||0.815||||||Number of participants in each vaccination group with a seroprotective HAI (in a subset of samples) titer (≥1:40) pre- and post-ccIIV4 immunization for each 2023-24 influenza vaccine antigen.|Regression, Logistic|||Antigen: B/Victoria||||0.815
90867135|NCT02155608|181596602|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group: F = .01, df = 1/56.||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects.||||.91
90867136|NCT02155608|181596602|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F = 2.12, df = .15||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects.||||.15
90867137|NCT02155608|181596602|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group \* time: F = .21, df = 1/56.||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects.||||.64
90867138|NCT02155608|181596602|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group: F = .20, df = 1/59.||Phase 1b: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects between visits 4 and 5.||||.66
90867139|NCT02155608|181596602|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F = .50, df = 1/47.||Phase 1b: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects between visits 4 and 5.||||.48
90867140|NCT02155608|181596602|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group \* time: F = .06, df = 1/47.||Phase 1b: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects between visits 4 and 5.||||.81
90867141|NCT02155608|181596603|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group: F = .02, df = 1/55.||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects.||||.89
90867142|NCT02155608|181596603|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F = 2.28, df = 1/55.||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects.||||.14
90867143|NCT02155608|181596603|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group \* time: F = .06, df = .81.||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects.||||.80
90867144|NCT02155608|181596603|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group: F = .01, df = 1/58.||Phase 1b: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects between visits 4 and 5.||||.93
90867145|NCT02155608|181596603|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F = 2.22, df = 1/35.||Phase 1b: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects between visits 4 and 5.||||.15
90867146|NCT02155608|181596603|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group \* time: F = 1.23, df = 1/35.||Phase 1b: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects between visits 4 and 5.||||.28
90867147|NCT02155608|181596604|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group: F = .01; df = 1/46.||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects.||||.91
90867148|NCT02155608|181596604|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F = 2.62, df = 1/46.||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects.||||.11
90867149|NCT02155608|181596604|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group \* time: F = .71; df = .40.||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects.||||.40
90867150|NCT02155608|181596604|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group: F = .48. df = 1/55.||Phase 1b: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects between visits 4 and 5.||||.49
90867151|NCT02155608|181596604|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F = 1.87, df = 1/55.||Phase 1b: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects between visits 4 and 5.||||.18
90867152|NCT02155608|181596604|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group \* time: F = .13, df = 1/38.||Phase 1b: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects between visits 4 and 5.||||.72
90867153|NCT02155608|181596605|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Group: F =.25, df = 1/53.||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects.||||.62
90867154|NCT02155608|181596605|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F = 3.58, df = 1/53.||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects.||||.06
90867155|NCT02155608|181596605|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group \* time: F = 2.90, df 1/53.||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects.||||.09
90867156|NCT02155608|181596605|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance|Mixed Models Analysis|Group: F = 3.36, df = 1/58.||Phase 1b: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects between visits 4 and 5.||||.06
90867157|NCT02155608|181596605|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F = 4.20, df = 1/31.||Phase 1b: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects between visits 4 and 5.||||.05
90971000|NCT01780831|181824507|OTHER|Point and 90% CI estimates of percentage Cohort 1 infants who died or had grade 3/4 AE through 24 weeks of life.|Clopper-Pearson Confidence Interval (CI)|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.0|48.4||||||||48.4|9|
90867158|NCT02155608|181596605|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group \* time: F = .66, df = 1/31.||Phase 1b: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects between visits 4 and 5.||||.42
90867159|NCT02155608|181596606|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group: F = 0.29, df = 1/129.||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects.||||.29
90867160|NCT02155608|181596606|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F = 5.83, df = 1/129.||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects.||||.02
90867161|NCT02155608|181596606|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group \* time: F = 1.03, df = 1/129.||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects.||||.31
90867162|NCT02155608|181596606|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group: F = .16, df = 1/59.||Phase 1b: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects between visits 4 and 5.||||.69
90867163|NCT02155608|181596606|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F = .98, df = 1/54.||Phase 1b: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects between visits 4 and 5.||||.33
90867164|NCT02155608|181596606|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group \* time: F = .88, df = 1/54.||Phase 1b: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects between visits 4 and 5.||||.35
90909824|NCT00420316|181689580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent reduction|100.0||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1822.5|100.0|||Fisher Exact|||Vaccine efficacy with respect to severe rotavirus gastroenteritis (RVGE) caused by the wild-type rotavirus strain of serotype G1. Vaccine efficacy (VE) was defined as the percent reduction in the frequency of the relevant outcome variable in vaccinated subjects compared with those subjects who received placebo.||100|-1822.5|0.33
90909825|NCT00420316|181689581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent reduction|-97.2||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9610.8|80.5|||Fisher Exact|||Vaccine efficacy with respect to any rotavirus gastroenteritis (RVGE) caused by the wild-type rotavirus strain of non-G1 serotype. Vaccine efficacy (VE) was defined as the percent reduction in the frequency of the relevant outcome variable in vaccinated subjects compared with those subjects who received placebo.||80.5|-9610.8|1
90909826|NCT00420316|181689582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent reduction|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|98.7|||Fisher Exact|||Vaccine efficacy with respect to severe rotavirus gastroenteritis (RVGE) caused by the wild-type rotavirus strain of non-G1 serotype was assessed. Vaccine efficacy (VE) was defined as the percent reduction in the frequency of the relevant outcome variable in vaccinated subjects compared with those subjects who received placebo.||98.7|0|1
90909827|NCT00420316|181689583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent reduction|-23.2||||0.817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-287.7|54.8|||Fisher Exact|||Vaccine efficacy with respect to severe gastroenteritis (GE) was assessed. Vaccine efficacy (VE) was defined as the percent reduction in the frequency of the relevant outcome variable in vaccinated subjects compared with those subjects who received placebo.||54.8|-287.7|0.817
90909828|NCT03546907|181689586|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.808||||0.1296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.613|1.065|||Negative binomial regression model|||Analysis was performed using negative binomial regression model with total number of events occurring during observation duration as response variable, treatment, baseline eosinophil strata, region, number of severe COPD exacerbations experienced in previous year(0 vs. 1+) at baseline, smoking history(current vs. former smoker), post-BD FEV1 percent(%) predicted (less than\[\<\] 50% vs greater than equal\[\>=\]50%) at baseline as covariates, and log-transformed observation duration as offset variable.||1.065|0.613|0.1296
90909829|NCT03110458|181689627|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8466|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.8466
90909830|NCT03110458|181689628|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9538|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.9538
90909831|NCT03110458|181689629|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3166|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3166
90909832|NCT03110458|181689630|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.393|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.393
90909833|NCT03110458|181689633|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5324|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.5324
90909834|NCT04936035|181689645|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-16.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.2|-12.3||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and race (categorized as Black and all other races) as fixed factors, with baseline 24-hour mean SBP assessed by ABPM as a covariate.|MMRM|||LS Mean Difference between zilebesiran 300 mg Q6M and placebo, 95% CI was calculated using Dunnett's procedure.||-12.3|-21.2|<0.0001
90909835|NCT04936035|181689645|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-15.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.19|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.8|-10.6||The MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and race (categorized as Black and all other races) as fixed factors, with baseline 24-hour mean SBP assessed by ABPM as a covariate.|MMRM|||The adjusted 95% CI and p-value are based on Dunnett's test. LS Mean Difference between zilebesiran 600 mg Q6M and placebo, 95% CI was calculated using Dunnett's procedure.||-10.6|-20.8|<0.0001
90909836|NCT04936035|181689646|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-12.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.89|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.7|-8.3||The MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and race (categorized as Black and all other races) as fixed factors, with office SBP as a covariate.|MMRM|Tested in hierarchical order with success criterion of nominal p-value \<0.05.||||-8.3|-15.7|<0.0001
90909837|NCT04936035|181689646|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-9.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.19|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|-4.8||The MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and race (categorized as Black and all other races) as fixed factors, with office SBP as a covariate.|MMRM|Tested in hierarchical order with success criterion of nominal p-value \<0.05.||||-4.8|-13.4|<0.0001
90909838|NCT04936035|181689647|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-14.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9|-9.4||The MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and race (categorized as Black and all other races) as fixed factors, with baseline 24-hour mean SBP assessed by ABPM as a covariate.|MMRM|Tested in hierarchical order with success criterion of nominal p-value \<0.05.||||-9.4|-18.9|<0.0001
90909839|NCT04936035|181689647|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-14.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.38|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9|-9.5||The MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and race (categorized as Black and all other races) as fixed factors, with baseline 24-hour mean SBP assessed by ABPM as a covariate.|MMRM|Tested in hierarchical order with success criterion of nominal p-value \<0.05.||||-9.5|-18.9|<0.0001
90909840|NCT04936035|181689648|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-12.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.55|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.2|-7.1||The MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and race (categorized as Black and all other races) as fixed factors, with office SBP as a covariate.|MMRM|Tested in hierarchical order with success criterion of nominal p-value \<0.05.||||-7.1|-17.2|<0.0001
90960402|NCT06020118|181801536|SUPERIORITY|95% exact Clopper-Pearson confidence boundaries and the p-values were calculated using a logistic regression model adjusted for site.||||||0.814||||||Number of participants in each vaccination group with a seroprotective HAI (in a subset of samples) titer (≥1:40) pre- and post-ccIIV4 immunization for each 2023-24 influenza vaccine antigen.|Regression, Logistic|||Antigen: B/Yamagata||||0.814
90960403|NCT06020118|181801536|SUPERIORITY|95% exact Clopper-Pearson confidence boundaries and the p-values were calculated using a logistic regression model adjusted for site.|||||<|0.001||||||Number of participants in each vaccination group with a seroprotective HAI (in a subset of samples) titer (≥1:40) pre- and post-ccIIV4 immunization for each 2023-24 influenza vaccine antigen.|Regression, Logistic|||Antigen: A(H1N1)pdm09||||<0.001
90867165|NCT02155608|181596607|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group: F = 1.62, df = 1/128.||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects.||||.21
90867166|NCT02155608|181596607|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F = 5.18, df = 1/128.||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects.||||.02
90867167|NCT02155608|181596607|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group \* time: F = 6.89, df = 1/128.||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects.||||.01
90867168|NCT02155608|181596607|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group: F= 2.16, df = 1/59.||Phase 1b: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects between visits 4 and 5.||||.15
90867169|NCT02155608|181596607|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F = 4.15, df = 1/55.||Phase 1b: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects between visits 4 and 5.||||.05
90867170|NCT02155608|181596607|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group \* time: F = .07, df = 1/55.||Phase 1b: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects between visits 4 and 5.||||.79
90867171|NCT02155608|181596608|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group: F = .01, df = 1/128.||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects.||||.94
90867172|NCT02155608|181596608|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F = .09, df = 1/128.||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects.||||.76
90867173|NCT02155608|181596608|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group \* time: F = .75, df =1/128.||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects.||||.39
90867174|NCT02155608|181596608|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group: F = 3.06, df = 1/59.||Phase 1b: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects between visits 4 and 5.||||.09
90867175|NCT02155608|181596608|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F = .07, df = 1/55.||Phase 1b: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects between visits 4 and 5.||||.79
90867176|NCT02155608|181596608|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group \* time: F = 1.55, df = 1/55.||Phase 1b: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects between visits 4 and 5.||||.22
90867177|NCT02155608|181596609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group: F = .22, df = 1/128.||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects.||||.64
90867178|NCT02155608|181596609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F = 1.49, df = 1/128.||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects.||||.19
90867179|NCT02155608|181596609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group \* time: F = 1.49, df = 1/128.||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects.||||.22
90867180|NCT02155608|181596609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group: F = 3.95, df = 1/59.||Phase 1b: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects between visits 4 and 5.||||.05
90867181|NCT02155608|181596609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F = 0.00, df = 1/55.||Phase 1b: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects between visits 4 and 5.||||.96
90867182|NCT02155608|181596609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group \* time: F = .01, df = 1/55.||Phase 1b: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects between visits 4 and 5.||||.92
90867183|NCT02155608|181596610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group: F = .07, df = 1/128.||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects.||||.79
90867184|NCT02155608|181596610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F = 1.10, df = 1/128.||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects.||||.30
90867185|NCT02155608|181596610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group \* time: F = 4.61, df = 1/128.||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects.||||.03
90867186|NCT02155608|181596610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group: F = 2.24, df = 1/59.||Phase 1b: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects between visits 4 and 5.||||.14
90867187|NCT02155608|181596610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F = .05, df = 1/55.||Phase 1b: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects between visits 4 and 5.||||.82
90867188|NCT02155608|181596610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group \* time: F = 3.35, df = 1/55.||Phase 1b: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects between visits 4 and 5.||||.07
90867189|NCT02155608|181596611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Group: F = .36, df = 1/52||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects.||||.55
90867190|NCT02155608|181596611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F = .09, df = 1/52||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects.||||.34
90867191|NCT02155608|181596611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Group \* time: F = .06, df = 1/52||Phase 1 a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interaction to test for treatment effects.||||.81
90867192|NCT02155608|181596611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Group: F = .05, df = 1/59||Phase 1b: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects between visits 4 and 5.||||.83
90867193|NCT02155608|181596611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F = 4.52, df = 1/43||Phase 1b: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects between visits 4 and 5.||||.04
90867194|NCT02155608|181596611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Group \* time: F = .12, df = 1/43||Phase 1b: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects between visits 4 and 5.||||.73
90867195|NCT02155608|181596612|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Group: F = 1.62, df = 1/58.||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects using a piecewise linear time trend. This was parametrized in the model as a standard linear viable, time (ranging from baseline to 4 weeks) and a second variable, time2. defined as 0 at baseline and time past week 1 for subsequent weeks. The time 2 coefficient represents the change in slope after the initial week.||||.21
90867196|NCT02155608|181596612|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F = .74, df = 1/58.||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects using a piecewise linear time trend. This was parametrized in the model as a standard linear viable, time (ranging from baseline to 4 weeks) and a second variable, time2. defined as 0 at baseline and time past week 1 for subsequent weeks. The time 2 coefficient represents the change in slope after the initial week.||||.39
90867197|NCT02155608|181596612|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Time2: F = 1.88, df = 1/58.||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects using a piecewise linear time trend. This was parametrized in the model as a standard linear viable, time (ranging from baseline to 4 weeks) and a second variable, time2. defined as 0 at baseline and time past week 1 for subsequent weeks. The time 2 coefficient represents the change in slope after the initial week.||||.18
90867198|NCT02155608|181596612|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Group \* time: F = 1.56; df = 1/58.||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects using a piecewise linear time trend. This was parametrized in the model as a standard linear viable, time (ranging from baseline to 4 weeks) and a second variable, time2. defined as 0 at baseline and time past week 1 for subsequent weeks. The time 2 coefficient represents the change in slope after the initial week.||||.22
90867199|NCT02155608|181596612|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Group: F = 1.72, df = 1/12.||Phase 1b: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects between visits 4 and 5.||||.21
90867200|NCT02155608|181596612|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Test not valid due to insufficient data.|Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F = 0.00, df = 1/0.||Phase 1b: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects between visits 4 and 5.||||1
90909841|NCT04936035|181689648|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-10.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.1|-5.3||The MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and race (categorized as Black and all other races) as fixed factors, with office SBP as a covariate.|MMRM|Tested in hierarchical order with success criterion of nominal p-value \<0.05.||||-5.3|-15.1|<0.0001
90971001|NCT01780831|181824507|OTHER|Point and 90% CI estimates of percentage Cohort 2 infants who died or had grade 3/4 AE through 24 weeks of life.|Clopper-Pearson Confidence Interval (CI)|43.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|28.6|58.1||||||||58.1|28.6|
90867201|NCT02155608|181596612|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Test not valid due to insufficient data.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group \* time: F = .87, df = 1/0.||Phase 1b: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects between visits 4 and 5.||||1
90867202|NCT03633695|181596621|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.177|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.214|-0.14||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Acuity Difference = IC-8 Group - Control Group|The null hypothesis was that the mean acuity for the IC-8 Group was greater (i.e. worse) than or equal to that for the Control Group. The alternative hypothesis was that the mean for the IC-8 Group less (i.e., better) than that for the Control Group.||-0.140|-0.214|<.0001
90867203|NCT03633695|181596622|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.191|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.223|-0.158||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Acuity Difference = IC-8 Group - Control Group|The null hypothesis was that the mean acuity for the IC-8 Group was greater (i.e. worse) than or equal to that for the Control Group. The alternative hypothesis was that the mean for the IC-8 Group less (i.e., better) than that for the Control Group.||-0.158|-0.223|<.0001
90867204|NCT03633695|181596623|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin was 0.1 logMAR.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.012|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.007||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|t-test, 1 sided||Acuity Difference = IC-8 IOL Group - Control Group|The null hypothesis was that the mean acuity for the IC-8 IOL Group is inferior to the Control Group by 0.1 logMAR or more. The alternative hypothesis was that the mean acuity for the IC-8 IOL group is inferior to the Control Group by less than 0.1 logMAR.||0.007||<.0001
90867205|NCT03633695|181596624|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.198|-0.163||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Acuity Difference = IC-8 IOL Eye (IC-8 IOL Group) - Fellow Eye (IC-8 IOL Group)|The null hypothesis was that the mean acuity for the IC-8 IOL eyes is greater (i.e., worse) than or equal to that for the fellow eyes. The alternative hypothesis was that the mean for the IC-8 IOL eyes is less (i.e., better) than that for the fellow eyes.||-0.163|-0.198|<.0001
90867206|NCT03633695|181596625|OTHER||Difference in depth of focus|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Difference in depth of focus \[IC-8™ IOL Eyes (IC-8™ IOL Group) - Fellow Eyes (IC-8™ IOL Group)\]|||||
90867207|NCT03633695|181596626|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin was 0.1 logMAR.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.068|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.082||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|t-test, 1 sided||Acuity Difference = IC-8 IOL Eyes (IC-8 Group) - Fellow Eyes (IC-8 Group)|The null hypothesis was that the mean acuity for the IC-8 IOL eyes was inferior to the fellow eyes by 0.1 logMAR or more. The alternative hypothesis was that the mean acuity for the IC-8 eyes was inferior to the fellow eyes by less than 0.1 logMAR.||0.082||<.0001
90867208|NCT03633695|181596634|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin was 0.12 logMAR.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.023|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis was that the mean acuity in Astigmatism Group 2 was inferior to the Astigmatism Group 1 by 0.12 logMAR or more. The alternative hypothesis was that the mean acuity in Astigmatism Group 2 was inferior to Astigmatism Group 1 by less than 0.12 logMAR.||||<.0001
90867209|NCT00869349|181596643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.0||a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Treatment effects are reported as mean between-group differences from baseline to 21 months using t-tests to determine the differential effect of the intervention versus the education group.||0.0|-1.1|0.04
90867210|NCT00869349|181596644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.2||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|-0.8||a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Treatment effects are reported as mean between-group differences from baseline to 21 months using t-tests to determine the differential effect of the intervention versus the education group.||-0.8|-5.6|0.01
90867211|NCT00869349|181596645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.8||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.1||a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Treatment effects are reported as mean between-group differences from baseline to 21 months using t-tests to determine the differential effect of the intervention versus the education group.||3.1|0.5|0.01
90867212|NCT02557555|181596790|OTHER|P-values corresponding to a test of equal proportions (yes/no- 50%/50%)|||||<|0.0001||||||Researched options for labor pain|Test of equal proportion (50/50)|||||||<0.0001
90867213|NCT02557555|181596790|OTHER|P-values corresponding to a test of equal proportions (yes/no- 50%/50%)|||||<|0.0001||||||Pamphlet better explained options for pain|Test of equal proportion (50/50)|||||||<0.0001
90867214|NCT02557555|181596790|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Pamphlet should be given before onset labor pain|Test of equal proportion (50/50)|||||||<0.0001
90867215|NCT02557555|181596790|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Pamphlet information helped to reduce anxiety|Test of equal proportion (50/50)|||||||<0.0001
90867216|NCT02557555|181596790|OTHER|||||||0.0002||||||Information corrected any misconception|Test of equal proportion (50/50)|||||||0.0002
90867217|NCT02557555|181596790|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Written information should always be available|Test of equal proportion (50/50)|||||||<0.0001
90867218|NCT04967443|181596794|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence will be demonstrated if the estimated 90% confidence interval for the ratios (Test/Reference) of adjusted geometric means for AUClast and Cmax fall entirely within (80%, 125%).|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|102.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.14|108.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test: Prazosin HCL 1x2 mg (Ascoli); Reference: Prazosin HCL 1x2 mg (Barceloneta)||108.43|96.14|
90867219|NCT04967443|181596794|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence will be demonstrated if the estimated 90% confidence interval for the ratios (Test/Reference) of adjusted geometric means for AUClast and Cmax fall entirely within (80%, 125%).|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|104.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.68|111.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test: Prazosin HCL 2x1 mg (Ascoli); Reference: Prazosin HCL 1x2 mg (Barceloneta)||111.44|98.68|
90867220|NCT04967443|181596794|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence will be demonstrated if the estimated 90% confidence interval for the ratios (Test/Reference) of adjusted geometric means for AUClast and Cmax fall entirely within (80%, 125%).|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|104.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.58|109.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test: Prazosin HCL 1x5 mg (Ascoli); Reference: Prazosin HCL 1x5 mg (Barceloneta)||109.55|99.58|
90867221|NCT04967443|181596795|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence will be demonstrated if the estimated 90% confidence interval for the ratios (Test/Reference) of adjusted geometric means for AUClast and Cmax fall entirely within (80%, 125%).|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|113.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.79|126.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test: Prazosin HCL 1x2 mg (Ascoli); Reference: Prazosin HCL 1x2 mg (Barceloneta)||126.34|102.79|
90867222|NCT04967443|181596795|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence will be demonstrated if the estimated 90% confidence interval for the ratios (Test/Reference) of adjusted geometric means for AUClast and Cmax fall entirely within (80%, 125%).|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|126.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|114.32|140.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test: Prazosin HCL 2x1 mg (Ascoli); Reference: Prazosin HCL 1x2 mg (Barceloneta)||140.70|114.32|
90867223|NCT04967443|181596795|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence will be demonstrated if the estimated 90% confidence interval for the ratios (Test/Reference) of adjusted geometric means for AUClast and Cmax fall entirely within (80%, 125%).|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|118.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|106.46|130.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test: Prazosin HCL 1x5 mg (Ascoli); Reference: Prazosin HCL 1x5 mg (Barceloneta)||130.94|106.46|
90867224|NCT04967443|181596796|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence will be demonstrated if the estimated 90% confidence interval for the ratios (Test/Reference) of adjusted geometric means for AUClast and Cmax fall entirely within (80%, 125%).|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|100.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.92|107.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test: Prazosin HCL 1x2 mg (Ascoli); Reference: Prazosin HCL 1x2 mg (Barceloneta)||107.27|94.92|
90867225|NCT04967443|181596796|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence will be demonstrated if the estimated 90% confidence interval for the ratios (Test/Reference) of adjusted geometric means for AUClast and Cmax fall entirely within (80%, 125%).|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|102.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.97|108.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test: Prazosin HCL 2x1 mg (Ascoli); Reference: Prazosin HCL 1x2 mg (Barceloneta)||108.57|95.97|
90867226|NCT04967443|181596796|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence will be demonstrated if the estimated 90% confidence interval for the ratios (Test/Reference) of adjusted geometric means for AUClast and Cmax fall entirely within (80%, 125%).|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|104.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.09|109.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test: Prazosin HCL 1x5 mg (Ascoli); Reference: Prazosin HCL 1x5 mg (Barceloneta)||109.23|99.09|
90867227|NCT00602797|181596801|OTHER|An interim analysis was conducted after 10 patients were accrued. Since response rate seen at the first interim analysis was superior to that seen with standard of care, a new monitoring rule was approved. Toxicity monitoring would occur after 19 patients. If 6/19 patients had ≥grade 4 non-hematological toxicity, accrual will be terminated. This will provide 84% power to detect 40% toxicity.|Proportion|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||If 6/19 patients had ≥grade 4 non-hematological toxicity, accrual will be terminated.|Adverse events will be graded using the NCI Common Toxicity Criteria (version 3.0).||||
90960404|NCT06020118|181801536|SUPERIORITY|95% exact Clopper-Pearson confidence boundaries and the p-values were calculated using a logistic regression model adjusted for site.|||||<|0.001||||||Number of participants in each vaccination group with a seroprotective HAI (in a subset of samples) titer (≥1:40) pre- and post-ccIIV4 immunization for each 2023-24 influenza vaccine antigen.|Regression, Logistic|||Antigen: A(H3N2)||||<0.001
90909842|NCT04936035|181689649|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.76|30.64||Logistic regression model included treatment and race (black; all other races) as factors and baseline 24-hour mean SBP as a covariate|Regression, Logistic|Tested in hierarchical order with success criterion of nominal p-value \<0.05.||||30.64|3.76|<0.0001
90909843|NCT04936035|181689649|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|17.93|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.24|51.52||Logistic regression model included treatment and race (black; all other races) as factors and baseline 24-hour mean SBP as a covariate|Regression, Logistic|Tested in hierarchical order with success criterion of nominal p-value \<0.05.||||51.52|6.24|<0.0001
90909844|NCT03745794|181689659|OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.17
90909845|NCT04131933|181689691|SUPERIORITY|It was hypothesized that there would be a 50% reduction in Oncotype DX assay requests following the intervention.||||||0.37|||||||Fisher Exact|Fisher's exact test to compare number of patients with Oncotype DX ordered at 0-6 months (pre-intervention) vs 7-12 months (post-intervention)||Pre-Intervention (Period 1 and Period 2) vs Post-Intervention (Period 3 and Period 4)||||0.37
90909846|NCT00667693|181689695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.55|||Regression, Cox|||||0.55|0.23|<0.001
90909847|NCT00097253|181689724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Cortisol. Analyses consisted of repeated-measures linear models fit to each dependent variable.IVs assessed in each model were odor, time, gender, expectancy group (primed vs. blind), their interactions;baseline level of the DV was included as a covariate. Post hoc tests were used as appropriate. A two-sided significance level of alpha = 0.05 was used. Model controlled for Time 1 baseline.||||0.83
90909848|NCT00097253|181689724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Epinephrine. Analyses consisted of repeated-measures linear models fit to each dependent variable.IVs assessed in each model were odor, time, gender, expectancy group (primed vs. blind), their interactions;baseline level of the DV was included as a covariate. Post hoc tests were used as appropriate. A two-sided significance level of alpha = 0.05 was used. Model controlled for Time 1 baseline.||||0.16
90909849|NCT00097253|181689724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Norepinephrine. Model controlled for Time 1 baseline. Comparing timepoints 4 and 5 for pre versus post stressor, e.g. lemon versus water control; Citrus(5-4)-Water(5-4).||||0.017
90909850|NCT00097253|181689725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||IL-6. Mixed effect linear models were used to test the hypothesis. These models included the post-odor and post-stress dependent variable measurements with a covariate for the baseline pre-odor measurement. Base 10 logarithms were used for each dependent variable and baseline covariate.||||0.10
90909851|NCT00097253|181689725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||IL-10. Mixed effect linear models were used to test the hypothesis. These models included the post-odor and post-stress dependent variable measurements with a covariate for the baseline pre-odor measurement. Base 10 logarithms were used for each dependent variable and baseline covariate.||||0.50
90909852|NCT00097253|181689726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Repeated-measures mixed effects models were used. Model was fit to the log-transformed data. Analysis applied to odor category, e.g. lavender / lemon / water.||||0.60
90909853|NCT00097253|181689727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||The maximum DTH wheal of days 1-3 (24, 48, or 72 h) was used as the dependent variable for each subject at each visit. Visits for subjects with a maximum DTH wheal of 5mm or less were excluded. A repeated measures linear model was used to evaluate odor and placebo effects.||||0.014
90909854|NCT01859312|181689746|OTHER|||||||0.021|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparisons of CSHI (at 6 months) with conventional glucocorticoid therapy (at baseline) were made. Continuous data between baseline and 6 months were compared by paired t tests.||||0.021
90909855|NCT01859312|181689748|OTHER|||||||0.027|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparisons of CSHI (at 6 months) with conventional glucocorticoid therapy (at baseline) were made. Continuous data between baseline and 6 months were compared by paired t tests.||||0.027
90909856|NCT01859312|181689750|OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparisons of CSHI (at 6 months) with conventional glucocorticoid therapy (at baseline) were made. Continuous data between baseline and 6 months were compared by paired t tests.||||0.008
90909857|NCT01859312|181689752|OTHER|||||||0.012|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparisons of CSHI (at 6 months) with conventional glucocorticoid therapy (at baseline) were made. Continuous data between baseline and 6 months were compared by paired t tests.||||0.012
90909858|NCT01859312|181689754|OTHER|||||||0.157|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparisons of CSHI (at 6 months) with conventional glucocorticoid therapy (at baseline) were made. Continuous data between baseline and 6 months were compared by paired t tests.||||0.157
90909859|NCT01859312|181689756|OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparisons of CSHI (at 6 months) with conventional glucocorticoid therapy (at baseline) were made. Continuous data between baseline and 6 months were compared by paired t tests.||||0.015
90909860|NCT01859312|181689758|OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparisons of CSHI (at 6 months) with conventional glucocorticoid therapy (at baseline) were made. Continuous data between baseline and 6 months were compared by paired t tests.||||0.009
90909861|NCT01859312|181689760|OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparisons of CSHI (at 6 months) with conventional glucocorticoid therapy (at baseline) were made. Continuous data between baseline and 6 months were compared by paired t tests.||||0.008
90909862|NCT01859312|181689762|OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparisons of CSHI (at 6 months) with conventional glucocorticoid therapy (at baseline) were made. Continuous data between baseline and 6 months were compared by paired t tests.||||0.009
90909863|NCT01859312|181689764|OTHER|||||||0.043|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparisons of CSHI (at 6 months) with conventional glucocorticoid therapy (at baseline) were made. Continuous data between baseline and 6 months were compared by paired t tests.||||0.043
90909864|NCT01859312|181689766|OTHER|||||||0.024|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparisons of CSHI (at 6 months) with conventional glucocorticoid therapy (at baseline) were made. Continuous data between baseline and 6 months were compared by paired t tests.||||0.024
90909865|NCT01859312|181689768|OTHER|||||||0.031|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparisons of CSHI (at 6 months) with conventional glucocorticoid therapy (at baseline) were made. Continuous data between baseline and 6 months were compared by paired t tests.||||0.031
90909866|NCT01859312|181689770|OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparisons of CSHI (at 6 months) with conventional glucocorticoid therapy (at baseline) were made. Continuous data between baseline and 6 months were compared by paired t tests.||||0.005
90909867|NCT01859312|181689772|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparisons of CSHI (at 6 months) with conventional glucocorticoid therapy (at baseline) were made. Continuous data between baseline and 6 months were compared by paired t tests.||||0.004
90909868|NCT01859312|181689774|OTHER|||||||0.524|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparisons of CSHI (at 6 months) with conventional glucocorticoid therapy (at baseline) were made. Continuous data between baseline and 6 months were compared by paired t tests.||||0.524
90909869|NCT01859312|181689776|OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparisons of CSHI (at 6 months) with conventional glucocorticoid therapy (at baseline) were made. Continuous data between baseline and 6 months were compared by paired t tests.|Comparison of hormone levels on conventional glucocorticoid therapy at baseline and following 6 months of CSHI.|||0.007
90909870|NCT01859312|181689778|OTHER|||||||0.084|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparisons of CSHI (at 6 months) with conventional glucocorticoid therapy (at baseline) were made. Continuous data between baseline and 6 months were compared by paired t tests.||||0.084
90867228|NCT04502693|181596803|OTHER|Effectiveness of rMenB+OMV NZ vaccine is demonstrated if the LL of the 2-sided 97.5% CI for Vaccine Effectiveness (VE) against the selected strain panel between the MenB\_0\_2\_6 and the ACWY groups is above 65%. VE is defined as 1- Risk Ratio (RR) = (1- percentage of samples without bactericidal serum activity at 1:4 dilution in MenB group / percentage of samples without bactericidal serum activity at 1:4 dilution in the ACWY group) x100 percentage.|VE (Vaccine Effectiveness)|83.2|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|81.9|84.4||||||To demonstrate the effectiveness of the rMenB+OMV NZ vaccine against a randomly selected panel of endemic US N. meningitidis serogroup B invasive disease strains as measured by bactericidal activity using enc-hSBA at 1 month after the 3-dose (0,2,6-months) schedule in MenB\_0\_2\_6 group when compared to 1 month after the MenACWY dose in the ACWY group.||84.4|81.9|
90867229|NCT04502693|181596803|OTHER|"Effectiveness of rMenB+OMV NZ vaccine is demonstrated if the LL of the 2-sided 97.5% CI for VE against the selected strain panel between the MenB\_0\_ 6 and the ACWY groups is above 65%.~VE is defined as 1- RR = (1- percentage of samples without bactericidal serum activity at 1:4 dilution in MenB group / percentage of samples without bactericidal serum activity at 1:4 dilution in the ACWY group) x100 percentage."|VE|81.8|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|80.4|83.1||||||To demonstrate the effectiveness of the rMenB+OMV NZ vaccine against a randomly selected panel of endemic US N. meningitidis serogroup B invasive disease strains as measured by bactericidal activity using enc-hSBA at 1 month after the 2-dose (0,6-M) schedule in MenB\_0\_6 group when compared to 1 month after the MenACWY dose in the ACWY group.||83.1|80.4|
90909871|NCT01859312|181689780|OTHER|||||||0.057|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparisons of CSHI (at 6 months) with conventional glucocorticoid therapy (at baseline) were made. Continuous data between baseline and 6 months were compared by paired t tests.||||0.057
90909872|NCT01859312|181689782|OTHER|||||||0.103|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparisons of CSHI (at 6 months) with conventional glucocorticoid therapy (at baseline) were made. Continuous data between baseline and 6 months were compared by paired t tests.||||0.103
90867230|NCT04502693|181596804|OTHER|Effectiveness of rMenB+OMV NZ vaccine is demonstrated if the LL of the 2-sided 97.5% CI for VE against the selected strain panel between the MenB\_0\_2\_6 and the ACWY groups is above 65%. VE is defined as 1- RR = (1- percentage of samples without bactericidal serum activity at 1:4 dilution in MenB group / percentage of samples without bactericidal serum activity at 1:4 dilution in the ACWY group) x100 percentage.|VE|78.7|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|77.2|80.1||||||To demonstrate the effectiveness of the rMenB+OMV NZ vaccine against a randomly selected panel of endemic US N. meningitidis serogroup B invasive disease strains as measured by bactericidal activity using enc-hSBA at 1 month after the 2-dose (0,2-M) schedule in MenB\_0\_2\_6 group when compared to 1 month after the MenACWY dose in the ACWY group.||80.1|77.2|
90867231|NCT04502693|181596807|EQUIVALENCE|Lot-to-lot consistency is claimed if the 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of hSBA GMTs of antibodies against each of the serogroups A, C, W and Y are within the \[0.5;2.0\] equivalence interval for each pair of lots.|GMT ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.1||||||To demonstrate lot-to-lot consistency of the immune responses of ABCWY-1 and ABCWY-2 lots of the MenACWY component of the MenABCWY vaccine, as measured by hSBA GMTs directed against serogroup A at 1 month after last vaccination (Day 211).||1.10|0.84|
90909873|NCT01859312|181689784|OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparisons of CSHI (at 6 months) with conventional glucocorticoid therapy (at baseline) were made. Continuous data between baseline and 6 months were compared by paired t tests.||||0.070
90909874|NCT02982213|181689790|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.025||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.001
90909875|NCT02982213|181689794|EQUIVALENCE|Sample size of 5 per group to achieve 80% power to detect a change in the log odds ration of 1.0 at a .05 significance level using a two sided Mann Whitney U test.||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||McNemar|||||||.001
90909876|NCT03247543|181689795|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.05||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|-1.9|||Mixed Models for Repeated Measures|||||-1.9|-10.0|0.0038
90909877|NCT03247543|181689795|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.11||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|-1.7|||Mixed Models for Repeated Measures|||||-1.7|-9.9|0.0063
90909878|NCT03247543|181689796|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with baseline Clinical Global Impression-Severity of Illness (CGI-S) score and treatment as fixed independent variables.||||-0.2|-0.8|0.0028
90867232|NCT04502693|181596807|EQUIVALENCE|Lot-to-lot consistency is claimed if the 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of hSBA GMTs of antibodies against each of the serogroups A, C, W and Y is within the \[0.5;2.0\] equivalence interval for each pair of lots.|GMT ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|0.98||||||To demonstrate lot-to-lot consistency of the immune responses of ABCWY-1 and ABCWY-3 lots of the MenACWY component of the MenABCWY vaccine, as measured by hSBA GMTs directed against serogroup A at 1 month after last vaccination (Day 211).||0.98|0.75|
90867233|NCT04502693|181596807|EQUIVALENCE|Lot-to-lot consistency is claimed if the 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of hSBA GMTs of antibodies against each of the serogroups A, C, W and Y is within the \[0.5;2.0\] equivalence interval for each pair of lots.|GMT ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.02||||||To demonstrate lot-to-lot consistency of the immune responses of ABCWY-2 and ABCWY-3 lots of the MenACWY component of the MenABCWY vaccine, as measured by hSBA GMTs directed against serogroup A at 1 month after last vaccination (Day 211).||1.02|0.78|
90867234|NCT04502693|181596807|EQUIVALENCE|Lot-to-lot consistency is claimed if the 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of hSBA GMTs of antibodies against each of the serogroups A, C, W and Y are within the \[0.5;2.0\] equivalence interval for each pair of lots.|GMT ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.11||||||To demonstrate lot-to-lot consistency of the immune responses of ABCWY-1 and ABCWY-2 lots of the MenACWY component of the MenABCWY vaccine, as measured by hSBA GMTs directed against serogroup C at 1 month after last vaccination (Day 211).||1.11|0.76|
90867235|NCT04502693|181596807|EQUIVALENCE|Lot-to-lot consistency is claimed if the 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of hSBA GMTs of antibodies against each of the serogroups A, C, W and Y is within the \[0.5;2.0\] equivalence interval for each pair of lots.|GMT ratio|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.41||||||To demonstrate lot-to-lot consistency of the immune responses of ABCWY-1 and ABCWY-3 lots of the MenACWY component of the MenABCWY vaccine, as measured by hSBA GMTs directed against serogroup C at 1 month after last vaccination (Day 211).||1.41|0.97|
90867236|NCT04502693|181596807|EQUIVALENCE|Lot-to-lot consistency is claimed if the 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of hSBA GMTs of antibodies against each of the serogroups A, C, W and Y is within the \[0.5;2.0\] equivalence interval for each pair of lots.|GMT ratio|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.54||||||To demonstrate lot-to-lot consistency of the immune responses of ABCWY-2 and ABCWY-3 lots of the MenACWY component of the MenABCWY vaccine, as measured by hSBA GMTs directed against serogroup C at 1 month after last vaccination (Day 211).||1.54|1.05|
90867237|NCT04502693|181596807|EQUIVALENCE|Lot-to-lot consistency is claimed if the 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of hSBA GMTs of antibodies against each of the serogroups A, C, W and Y are within the \[0.5;2.0\] equivalence interval for each pair of lots.|GMT ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.02||||||To demonstrate lot-to-lot consistency of the immune responses of ABCWY-1 and ABCWY-2 lots of the MenACWY component of the MenABCWY vaccine, as measured by hSBA GMTs directed against serogroup W at 1 month after last vaccination (Day 211).||1.02|0.77|
90867238|NCT04502693|181596807|EQUIVALENCE|Lot-to-lot consistency is claimed if the 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of hSBA GMTs of antibodies against each of the serogroups A, C, W and Y is within the \[0.5;2.0\] equivalence interval for each pair of lots.|GMT ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.02||||||To demonstrate lot-to-lot consistency of the immune responses of ABCWY-1 and ABCWY-3 lots of the MenACWY component of the MenABCWY vaccine, as measured by hSBA GMTs directed against serogroup W at 1 month after last vaccination (Day 211).||1.02|0.77|
90867239|NCT04502693|181596807|EQUIVALENCE|Lot-to-lot consistency is claimed if the 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of hSBA GMTs of antibodies against each of the serogroups A, C, W and Y is within the \[0.5;2.0\] equivalence interval for each pair of lots.|GMT ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.14||||||To demonstrate lot-to-lot consistency of the immune responses of ABCWY-2 and ABCWY-3 lots of the MenACWY component of the MenABCWY vaccine, as measured by hSBA GMTs directed against serogroup W at 1 month after last vaccination (Day 211).||1.14|0.86|
90867240|NCT04502693|181596807|EQUIVALENCE|Lot-to-lot consistency is claimed if the 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of hSBA GMTs of antibodies against each of the serogroups A, C, W and Y are within the \[0.5;2.0\] equivalence interval for each pair of lots.|GMT ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.01||||||To demonstrate lot-to-lot consistency of the immune responses of ABCWY-1 and ABCWY-2 lots of the MenACWY component of the MenABCWY vaccine, as measured by hSBA GMTs directed against serogroup Y at 1 month after last vaccination (Day 211).||1.01|0.73|
90909879|NCT03247543|181689796|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with baseline Clinical Global Impression-Severity of Illness (CGI-S) score and treatment as fixed independent variables.||||-0.1|-0.8|0.0099
90909880|NCT03247543|181689797|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.39||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|-1.1|||ANCOVA|||||-1.1|-6.5|0.0064
90867241|NCT04502693|181596807|EQUIVALENCE|Lot-to-lot consistency is claimed if the 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of hSBA GMTs of antibodies against each of the serogroups A, C, W and Y is within the \[0.5;2.0\] equivalence interval for each pair of lots.|GMT ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.98||||||To demonstrate lot-to-lot consistency of the immune responses of ABCWY-1 and ABCWY-3 lots of the MenACWY component of the MenABCWY vaccine, as measured by hSBA GMTs directed against serogroup Y at 1 month after last vaccination (Day 211).||0.98|0.71|
90867242|NCT04502693|181596807|EQUIVALENCE|Lot-to-lot consistency is claimed if the 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of hSBA GMTs of antibodies against each of the serogroups A, C, W and Y is within the \[0.5;2.0\] equivalence interval for each pair of lots.|GMT ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.14||||||To demonstrate lot-to-lot consistency of the immune responses of ABCWY-2 and ABCWY-3 lots of the MenACWY component of the MenABCWY vaccine, as measured by hSBA GMTs directed against serogroup Y at 1 month after last vaccination (Day 211).||1.14|0.82|
90867243|NCT04502693|181596808|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of MenABCWY vaccine is demonstrated if the LL of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants with 4-fold rise between the 2 groups is above -10%.|Difference in percentage of participants|11.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.88|19.01|||Difference in percentage of participants|||To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of the MenABCWY vaccine compared to the MenACWY vaccine in participants without a previous MenACWY vaccination (unprimed) as measured by the percentages of participants, achieving a 4-fold rise in hSBA titers against N. meningitidis serogroup A at 1 month after the last MenABCWY vaccination (Day 211) and 1 month after the MenACWY vaccination.||19.01|5.88|
90867244|NCT04502693|181596808|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of MenABCWY vaccine is demonstrated if the LL of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants with 4-fold rise between the 2 groups is above -10%.|Difference in percentage of participants|47.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.14|56.3||||||To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of the MenABCWY vaccine compared to the MenACWY vaccine in participants without a previous MenACWY vaccination (unprimed) as measured by the percentages of participants, achieving a 4-fold rise in hSBA titers against N. meningitidis serogroup C at 1 month after the last MenABCWY vaccination (Day 211) and 1 month after the MenACWY vaccination.||56.30|38.14|
90909881|NCT03247543|181689797|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.46||0.0917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|0.4|||ANCOVA|||||0.4|-5.3|0.0917
90909882|NCT03247543|181689798|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059||0.0651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.01|||ANCOVA|||||0.01|-0.22|0.0651
90909883|NCT03247543|181689798|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.04|||ANCOVA|||||0.04|-0.20|0.1680
90909884|NCT03247543|181689799|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.1||||0.1316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|23.1|||Regression, Logistic|||||23.1|-2.9|0.1316
90909885|NCT03247543|181689799|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.4||||0.0276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|28.9|||Regression, Logistic|||||28.9|2.0|0.0276
90867245|NCT04502693|181596808|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of MenABCWY vaccine is demonstrated if the LL of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants with 4-fold rise between the 2 groups is above -10%.|Difference in percentage of participants|35.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.88|44.49||||||To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of the MenABCWY vaccine compared to the MenACWY vaccine in participants without a previous MenACWY vaccination (unprimed) as measured by the percentages of participants, achieving a 4-fold rise in hSBA titers against N. meningitidis serogroup W at 1 month after the last MenABCWY vaccination (Day 211) and 1 month after the MenACWY vaccination.||44.49|26.88|
90867246|NCT04502693|181596808|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of MenABCWY vaccine is demonstrated if the LL of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants with 4-fold rise between the 2 groups is above -10%.|Difference in percentage of participants|26.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.38|35.81||||||To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of the MenABCWY vaccine compared to the MenACWY vaccine in participants without a previous MenACWY vaccination (unprimed) as measured by the percentages of participants, achieving a 4-fold rise in hSBA titers against N. meningitidis serogroup Y at 1 month after the last MenABCWY vaccination (Day 211) and 1 month after the MenACWY vaccination.||35.81|19.38|
90867247|NCT04502693|181596809|OTHER|Effectiveness of MenABCWY vaccine is demonstrated if the LL of the 2-sided 95% CI for VE against the selected strain panel between the ABCWY and the ACWY groups is above 65%. VE is defined as 1- RR = (1- percentage of samples without bactericidal serum activity at 1:4 dilution in ABCWY\_Pooled group / percentage of samples without bactericidal serum activity at 1:4 dilution in the ACWY group) x100 percentage.|VE|77.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|76.6|79.2||||||To demonstrate the effectiveness of the MenABCWY vaccine against a randomly selected panel of endemic US N. meningitidis serogroup B invasive disease strains as measured by enc-hSBA at 1 month after the last MenABCWY vaccination (Day 211) when compared to 1 month after the MenACWY vaccination.||79.2|76.6|
90867248|NCT04502693|181596810|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of MenABCWY to rMenB+OMV NZ is demonstrated if LL of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages of samples with bactericidal serum activity at 1:4 dilution is above -5%.|Difference in percentage of participants|-0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|0.03||||||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the effectiveness of the MenABCWY vaccine (0,6-months schedule) compared to the rMenB+OMV NZ vaccine (0,2-months) in terms of percentage of samples with bactericidal serum activity using enc-hSBA against a randomly selected panel of endemic US N. meningitidis serogroup B invasive disease strains.||0.03|-1.25|
90867249|NCT00279305|181596843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.139|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.104||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0699|0.348|||ANCOVA|||"The calculation for the concentration of c-peptide is a weighted average of the 6 timed measurements of c-peptide in nano-moles/Liter. We try to distinguish this calculation from the AUC by referring to it as the AUC mean and may be expressed algebraically as the AUC/(120 min.); thus, the units are the same as the y-axis."||0.348|-0.0699|0.05
90867250|NCT04404361|181596844|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.51||||0.8516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.55|13.53|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age (\<60 years versus ≥60 years) and 7-point clinical status scale (baseline 3 or 4 versus 5).||||13.53|-10.55|0.8516
90867251|NCT04404361|181596845|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7494|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7494
90867252|NCT04404361|181596846|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.6323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|3.58|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||OR from a CMH test stratified by randomization stratification factors age (\<60 years versus ≥60 years) and 7-point clinical status scale (baseline 3 or 4 versus 5) as entered in the IXRS|||3.58|0.46|0.6323
90867253|NCT04404361|181596847|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.7541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|4.96|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||OR from a CMH test Stratified by randomization stratification factors age (\<60 years versus ≥60 years) and 7-point clinical status scale (baseline 3 or 4 versus 5) as entered in the IXRS|||4.96|0.31|0.7541
90867254|NCT04404361|181596848|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.5666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.53||"log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factors age (\<60 years versus~≥60 years) and 7-point clinical status scale (baseline 3 or 4 versus 5) as entered in the IXRS"|Log Rank|"stratified by randomization stratification factors age (\<60 years versus~≥60 years) and 7-point clinical status scale (baseline 3 or 4 versus 5)"|estimated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model stratified by randomization stratification factors age (\<60 years versus ≥60 years) and 7-point clinical status scale (baseline 3 or 4 versus 5)|||1.53|0.79|0.5666
90867255|NCT04404361|181596850|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.46||||0.2722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|12.93|||Chi-squared|||||12.93|0.47|0.2722
90867256|NCT03307967|181596855|OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Sum||||||.07
90909886|NCT03247543|181689800|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7||0.2128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|1.9|||ANCOVA|||||1.9|-8.7|0.2128
90909887|NCT03247543|181689800|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.83||0.0409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||||-0.2|-11.3|0.0409
90909888|NCT03247543|181689801|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.07||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|-1.2|||ANCOVA|||This analysis pertains to the Hyperactivity/Impulsivity subscale score||-1.2|-5.4|0.0020
90909889|NCT03247543|181689801|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|-1.0|||ANCOVA|||This analysis pertains to the Hyperactivity/Impulsivity subscale score||-1.0|-5.3|0.0039
90909890|NCT03247543|181689801|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.0087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|-0.7|||ANCOVA|||This analysis pertains to the Inattention subscale score||-0.7|-4.8|0.0087
90909891|NCT03247543|181689801|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09||0.0248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||This analysis pertains to the Inattention subscale score||-0.3|-4.6|0.0248
90909892|NCT03247543|181689802|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.43||0.7003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|2.2|||ANCOVA|||||2.2|-3.3|0.7003
90909893|NCT03247543|181689802|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45||0.1602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|0.8|||ANCOVA|||||0.8|-4.9|0.1602
90909894|NCT03247543|181689803|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0236|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 1 of treatment.||||0.0236
90909895|NCT03247543|181689803|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0505|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 2 of treatment.||||0.0505
90909896|NCT03247543|181689803|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1225|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 3 of treatment.||||0.1225
90909897|NCT03247543|181689803|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0254|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 4 of treatment.||||0.0254
90909898|NCT03247543|181689803|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0261|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 5 of treatment.||||0.0261
90909899|NCT03247543|181689803|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0037|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 6 of treatment.||||0.0037
90909900|NCT03247543|181689803|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0385|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 7 of treatment.||||0.0385
90909901|NCT03247543|181689803|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0956|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 8 of treatment.||||0.0956
90909902|NCT03247543|181689803|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0962|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 1 of treatment.||||0.0962
90909903|NCT03247543|181689803|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0744|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 2 of treatment.||||0.0744
90909904|NCT03247543|181689803|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0218|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 3 of treatment.||||0.0218
90909905|NCT03247543|181689803|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.115|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 4 of treatment.||||0.1150
90909906|NCT03247543|181689803|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1086|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 5 of treatment.||||0.1086
90909907|NCT03247543|181689803|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0082|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 6 of treatment.||||0.0082
90909908|NCT03247543|181689803|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2326|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 7 of treatment.||||0.2326
90909909|NCT03247543|181689803|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0883|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 8 of treatment.||||0.0883
90909910|NCT01097343|181689804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||A sample of size of 50 patients for the cross-over study was chosen because it provided 80% power to detect a decrease in the rate of high on-clopidogrel platelet reactivity (HPR, defined as \>230 PRU) from 75% to 46% with high dose clopidogrel, with a two-sided alpha of 0.05||||=0.02
90909911|NCT03727854|181689805|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.933|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.933
90909912|NCT03727854|181689806|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.971|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.971
90909913|NCT03727854|181689807|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.608|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.608
90909914|NCT03727854|181689808|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.617|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.617
90909915|NCT03727854|181689809|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.823|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.823
90909916|NCT03727854|181689810|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.740
90909917|NCT03727854|181689811|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.551|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.551
90909918|NCT03727854|181689812|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.652|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.652
90909919|NCT03727854|181689813|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.639|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.639
90971002|NCT01780831|181824508|OTHER|Point and 90% CI estimates of percentage Cohort 1 infants who died or had SADR of Grade 3 or 4 through 6 weeks of life.|Clopper-Pearson Confidence Interval (CI|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.3|26.4||||||||26.4|0.3|
90867257|NCT03307967|181596856|OTHER|||||||0.98|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Sum Test||||||.98
90867258|NCT02166905|181596897|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.4||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.1|1.2|||Log Rank||Reference=arm 1|||1.2|0.1|0.177
90867259|NCT02617628|181596903|EQUIVALENCE|The odds ratio for relapse versus non-relapse for the AR group relative to the BR group was analyzed, as well as the corresponding odds ratio for unknown relative to non-relapse.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|4.27|||Regression, Logistic||Threshold for significance was set at p\<.05|Based on Lee et al. we estimated a 23-33% group difference in relapse by month 3. Power estimates calculated this estimate with a 2-sided alpha of .05 and a baseline sample size of 100 per group resulted in 80% power to detect a difference of approximately 20% (OR = 2.4) between groups assuming a rate of 50% in the control condition and 10% and 20% attrition by 3- and 6-month follow-ups. For the 86 participants randomized and released, with 80% power; and odds ratio of 3.5.||4.27|0.57|0.38
90867260|NCT02617628|181596904|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|-0.74486||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Cox|||We used Cox proportional hazards regression model to compare the groups on time to reincarceration.||||0.01
90867261|NCT04518306|181596940|SUPERIORITY||LS Means Difference|-7.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.451|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.176|-4.486||No adjustment for multiplicity was made and the 0.05 level of significance was used to claim efficacy compared with placebo|MIANALYZE procedure|||The analysis was performed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) for estimating the difference between Triple ¼ GMRx2 and placebo at Week 4||-4.486|-10.176|<0.0001
90867262|NCT04518306|181596940|SUPERIORITY||LS Means Difference|-8.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.57|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.305|-5.151||No adjustment for multiplicity was made and the 0.05 level of significance was used to claim efficacy compared with placebo|MIANALYZE procedure|||The analysis was performed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) for estimating the difference between Triple ½ GMRx2 and placebo at Week 4||-5.151|-11.305|<0.0001
90867263|NCT04518306|181596941|SUPERIORITY||LS Means Difference|-7.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.649|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.281|-4.681||No adjustment for multiplicity was made and the 0.05 level of significance was used to claim efficacy compared with placebo|MMRM procedure|||||-4.681|-11.281|<0.0001
90909920|NCT01726023|181689861|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority would be concluded if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI; corresponding to a 97.5% 1 sided lower bound) was greater than -12.5% for the primary outcome variable.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.53|4.97||P-value for 1-sided test at test of cure (TOC) with a -12.5% non-inferiority margin, i.e. H0: diff ≤ -12.5%.|% Risk Difference (RD)|RD is CAZ AVI clinical cure rate minus Meropenem clinical cure rate. The CI was calculated by Miettinen and Nurminen method without adjustment.|units for RD are %|The Primary objective of this study was to assess the non inferiority (based on a 12.5% margin) of CAZ AVI plus metronidazole compared to meropenem alone with respect to clinical cure at the TOC visit in patients who were CE.||4.97|-5.53|<0.001
90909921|NCT01726023|181689894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in median time (days)|0.5||||0.773|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.773
90867264|NCT04518306|181596941|SUPERIORITY||LS Means Difference|-9.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.034|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.588|5.449||No adjustment for multiplicity was made and the 0.05 level of significance was used to claim efficacy compared with placebo|MMRM procedure|||||5.449|-13.588|<0.0001
90867265|NCT04518306|181596942|SUPERIORITY||LS Means Difference|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.204||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.413|-1.597||No adjustment for multiplicity was made and the 0.05 level of significance was used to claim efficacy compared with placebo|MMRM procedure|||||-1.597|-6.413|0.0015
90909922|NCT01726023|181689895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in median time (days)|1.0||||0.598|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.598
90867266|NCT04518306|181596942|SUPERIORITY||LS Means Difference|-4.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.133|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.13|-2.595||No adjustment for multiplicity was made and the 0.05 level of significance was used to claim efficacy compared with placebo|MMRM procedure|||||-2.595|-7.130|<0.0001
90867267|NCT04518306|181596943|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|28.09||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.811|42.45|||Wald test||95% confidence intervals for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method|||42.450|11.811|0.0002
90909923|NCT00816829|181689902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between groups was performed using an ANCOVA on log-transformed data at one month after the start of the treatment.||||0.048
90867268|NCT04518306|181596943|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|33.24|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.199|47.186|||Wald test||95% confidence intervals for risk difference utilize Newcombe estimation method|||47.186|17.199|<0.0001
90867269|NCT04518306|181596944|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.07|26.385||No adjustment for multiplicity was made and the 0.05 level of significance was used to claim efficacy compared with placebo.|Wald test||95% confidence intervals for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Percentages were calculated from the total number of participants within the randomized set.||26.385|6.070|<0.0001
90867270|NCT04518306|181596944|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|27.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.237|36.646||No adjustment for multiplicity was made and the 0.05 level of significance was used to claim efficacy compared with placebo|Wald test||95% confidence intervals for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method|Percentages were calculated from the total number of participants within the randomized set||36.646|15.237|<0.0001
90867271|NCT04518306|181596945|SUPERIORITY||LS Means Difference|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.991||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.978|-2.013||No adjustment for multiplicity was made and the 0.05 level of significance was used to claim efficacy compared with placebo|MMRM procedure|||||-2.013|-5.978|0.0002
90867272|NCT04518306|181596945|SUPERIORITY||LS Means Difference|-5.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.908|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.328|-3.694||No adjustment for multiplicity was made and the 0.05 level of significance was used to claim efficacy compared with placebo|MMRM procedure|||||-3.694|-7.328|<0.0001
90867273|NCT04518306|181596946|SUPERIORITY||LS Means Difference|-6.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.752||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|-3.287||No adjustment for multiplicity was made and the 0.05 level of significance was used to claim efficacy compared with placebo|MMRM procedure|||The difference between Triple ¼ GMRx2 Dose and placebo at Week 4 was estimated using MMRM||-3.287|-10.300|0.0003
90867274|NCT04518306|181596946|SUPERIORITY||LS Means Difference|-8.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.829|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.403|-5.082||No adjustment for multiplicity was made and the 0.05 level of significance was used to claim efficacy compared with placebo|MMRM procedure|||The difference between Triple ½ GMRx2 Dose and placebo at Week 4 was estimated using MMRM||-5.082|-12.403|<0.0001
90909924|NCT00816829|181689903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.203||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between groups was performed using an ANCOVA on log-transformed data at one month after the start of the treatment.||||0.203
90909925|NCT00816829|181689904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between groups was performed using Wilcoxon Test on data at one month after the start of the treatment.||||0.007
90909926|NCT00816829|181689905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.199||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between groups was performed using an ANCOVA on log-transformed data at one month after the start of the treatment.||||0.199
90909927|NCT00816829|181689906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.114||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between groups was performed using an ANCOVA on log-transformed data at one month after the start of the treatment.||||0.114
90909928|NCT00816829|181689907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.533||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between groups was performed using an ANCOVA on log-transformed data at one month after the start of the treatment.||||0.533
90909929|NCT00816829|181689908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.521||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between groups was performed using an ANCOVA on log-transformed data at one month after the start of the treatment.||||0.521
90909930|NCT00816829|181689909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.333||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between groups was performed using an ANCOVA on log-transformed data at one month after the start of the treatment.||||0.333
90867275|NCT04518306|181596947|SUPERIORITY||LS Means Difference|-3.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.004||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.865|-1.847||No adjustment for multiplicity was made and the 0.05 level of significance was used to claim efficacy compared with placebo|MMRM procedure|||The difference between Triple ¼ GMRx2 Dose and placebo at Week 4 was estimated using MMRM||-1.847|-5.865|0.0003
90867276|NCT04518306|181596947|SUPERIORITY||LS Means Difference|-5.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.245|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.915|-2.932||No adjustment for multiplicity was made and the 0.05 level of significance was used to claim efficacy compared with placebo|MMRM procedure|||The difference between Triple ½ GMRx2 Dose and placebo at Week 4 was estimated using MMRM||-2.932|-7.915|<0.0001
90867277|NCT04518306|181596948|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|35.48|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.541|48.549||No adjustment for multiplicity was made and the 0.05 level of significance was used to claim efficacy compared with placebo|Wald test||95% confidence intervals for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method|||48.549|19.541|<0.0001
90867278|NCT04518306|181596948|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|29.97|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.218|43.093||No adjustment for multiplicity was made and the 0.05 level of significance was used to claim efficacy compared with placebo|Wald test||95% confidence intervals for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method|||43.093|14.218|<0.0001
90867279|NCT04518306|181596949|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.21||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.637|28.424||No adjustment for multiplicity was made and the 0.05 level of significance was used to claim efficacy compared with placebo|Wald test||95% confidence intervals for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method|||28.424|3.637|0.0030
90867280|NCT04518306|181596949|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|22.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.72|33.665||No adjustment for multiplicity was made and the 0.05 level of significance was used to claim efficacy compared with placebo|Wald test||95% confidence intervals for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method|||33.665|8.720|<0.0001
90867281|NCT04518306|181596950|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.83|2.76|||||95% confidence intervals for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method|||2.760|-9.830|
90867282|NCT04518306|181596950|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.276|9.774|||||95% confidence intervals for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method|||9.774|-5.276|
90867283|NCT04518306|181596951|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.171|1.662|||||95% confidence intervals for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method|||1.662|-12.171|
90867284|NCT04518306|181596951|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.585|4.049||||||||4.049|-10.585|
90867285|NCT04518306|181596952|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.115|9.352|||||95% confidence intervals for risk difference utilize Newcombe estimation method|||9.352|-4.115|
90909931|NCT00816829|181689910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.264||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between groups was performed using an ANCOVA on log-transformed data at one month after the start of the treatment.||||0.264
90909932|NCT00816829|181689911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.401||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between groups was performed using an ANCOVA on log-transformed data at one month after the start of the treatment.||||0.401
90909933|NCT04925752|181689999|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.043|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.182||p-value for rate ratio vs bHIV is from Wald test.|Wald test||Confidence Interval (CI) for rate ratio vs bHIV is based on the delta method.|Null Hypothesis 01: LEN/bHIV\>= 1; Null hypothesis was to be rejected if HIV-1 incidence in LEN was significantly lower than bHIV.||0.182|0.010|<0.0001
90909934|NCT04925752|181689999|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.043|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.182||p-value for rate ratio vs bHIV is from Wald test.|Wald test||CI for rate ratio vs bHIV is based on the delta method.|Null Hypothesis 02: LEN/bHIV\>= 0.8; Null hypothesis was to be rejected if HIV-1 incidence in LEN was significantly and at least 20% lower than bHIV.||0.182|0.010|< 0.0001
90867286|NCT04518306|181596952|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.779|11.2||||||||11.200|-2.779|
90867287|NCT04518306|181596953|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.012|9.35|||||95% confidence intervals for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method|||9.350|-4.012|
90867288|NCT04518306|181596953|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.364|5.278|||||95% confidence intervals for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method|||5.278|-6.364|
90867289|NCT04518306|181596954|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.928|5.573|||||95% confidence intervals for risk difference utilize Newcombe estimation method|||5.573|-10.928|
90867290|NCT04518306|181596954|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|9.53|||||95% confidence intervals for risk difference utilize Newcombe estimation method|||9.53|1.38|
90867291|NCT04518306|181596955|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.492|7.954|||||95% confidence intervals for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method|||7.954|-6.492|
90867292|NCT04518306|181596955|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.171|9.704|||||95% confidence intervals for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method|||9.704|-5.171|
90867293|NCT04518306|181596956|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.324|5.548|||||95% confidence intervals for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method|||5.548|-6.324|
90867294|NCT04518306|181596956|SUPERIORITY||number of participants at 95% CI|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.05|||||For this particular parameter we have used number of participants at 95% CI computed from Clopper-Pearson method as no risk difference was found between the Triple ½ (GMRx2) vs placebo|||3.05|0.00|
90867295|NCT04518306|181596957|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.684|2.778|||||95% confidence intervals for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method|||2.778|-9.684|
90867296|NCT04518306|181596957|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.684|2.59|||||95% confidence intervals for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|||2.590|-9.684|
90867297|NCT04518306|181596958|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.722|12.959|||||95% confidence intervals for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|||12.959|-6.722|
90867298|NCT04518306|181596958|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.158|12.133|||||95% confidence intervals for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|||12.133|-7.158|
90867299|NCT04518306|181596959|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.585|8.916||||||||8.916|-8.585|
90867300|NCT04518306|181596959|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.077|5.161||||||||5.161|-11.077|
90867301|NCT04518306|181596960|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.664|8.366|||GEE procedure|||||8.366|-17.664|<0.0001
90867302|NCT04518306|181596960|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|5.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.04|17.981|||GEE procedure|||||17.981|-9.040|<0.0001
90867303|NCT03268954|181596964|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.968|||=|0.557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.757|1.238|||Log Rank|P-value comparing EFS between treatment groups was based on the 1-sided Cui-Hung-Wang weighted unstratified log-rank test.|HR:unadjusted stratified Cox proportional hazard regression with stratification(low-blast AML,IPSS-R risk groups=very high,high,or intermediate for HRMDS/CMML),treatment as factor.HR\<1:better prevention of EFS in combination arm than azacitidine arm.|IPSS-R indicates the Revised International Prognostic Scoring System.||1.238|0.757|=0.557
90909935|NCT04925752|181690000|OTHER|Null Hypothesis 03: LEN - F/TDF\>= 0.8/100PY; Null hypothesis was to be rejected if HIV-1 incidence in LEN is not substantially greater than F/TDF (LEN is comparable to F/TDF).|Rate difference|-0.828|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.669|-0.255||p-value for rate difference (SC LEN minus F/TDF) is based on a hybrid approach.|Hybrid approach||Exact CI for rate difference versus F/TDF is based on a hybrid approach.|||-0.255|-1.669|<0.0001
90909936|NCT04925752|181690000|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.111||||0.00245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.024|0.513||P-value for rate ratio versus F/TDF is from a Poisson model.|Poisson model||Confidence interval for rate ratio versus F/TDF is from a Poisson model.|Null Hypothesis 04: LEN vs F/TDF\>= 1; Null hypothesis was to be rejected if HIV-1 incidence in LEN was significantly lower than F/TDF.||0.513|0.024|0.00245
90909937|NCT02908620|181690008|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.74||0.322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.06|8.69|||ANOVA||Least squares mean (marginal mean)|||8.69|-3.06|0.322
90909938|NCT02908620|181690009|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.48||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.38|2.99|||ANOVA||Least squares mean (marginal mean)|||2.99|-20.38|0.134
90909939|NCT02908620|181690010|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.92||0.442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.48|14.62|||ANOVA||Least squares mean (marginal mean)|||14.62|-6.48|0.442
90867304|NCT03268954|181596965|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.888|||=|0.152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.709|1.113||P-value comparing OS between treatment groups was based on the 1-sided Cui-Hung-Wang weighted unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||HR:unadjusted stratified Cox proportional hazard regression with stratification(low-blast AML,IPSS-R risk groups=very high,high,or intermediate for HRMDS/CMML),treatment as factor.HR\<1: longer survival time in combination arm than azacitidine arm.|Overall Survival (OS)||1.113|0.709|=0.152
90867305|NCT03268954|181596970|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.037|||=|0.562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.63||P-value comparing time to AML Transformation between treatment groups was based on 1-sided stratified log-rank test stratified by IPSS-R risk groups of very high, high, or intermediate for HR MDS.|Log Rank||HR:unadjusted stratified Cox proportional HazardRegression with stratification(IPSS-R risk groups=very high,high,or intermediate for HRMDS/CMML),treatment as factor.HR\<1:better prevention of AML transformation in combination arm than azacitidine arm.|Time to AML Transformation in HR MDS Participants||1.630|0.660|=0.562
90909940|NCT02908620|181690011|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.78||0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.27|16.9|||ANOVA||Least squares mean (marginal mean)|||16.90|-3.27|0.172
90867306|NCT03268954|181596970|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.512|||=|0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.068|33.773||P-value comparing time to AML Transformation between treatment groups was based on 1-sided stratified log-rank test stratified by IPSS-R risk groups of very high, high, or intermediate for HR CMML.|Log Rank||HR:unadjusted stratified Cox proportional HazardRegression with stratification(IPSS-R risk groups=very high,high,or intermediate for HRMDS/CMML),treatment as factor.HR\<1:better prevention of AML transformation in combination arm than azacitidine arm.|Time to AML Transformation in HR CMML Participants||33.773|0.068|=0.603
90909941|NCT04548622|181690018|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
90909942|NCT04548622|181690019|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004
90909943|NCT04548622|181690020|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
90909944|NCT01227278|181690029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|1.03||||0.941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.58|||Van Elteren Test|Day 1 to 393: Van Elteren test was used to compare the two arms.|95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) for rate ratio was based on normal approximation assuming rate with Poisson distribution.|||1.58|0.67|0.941
90909945|NCT00558363|181690048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk (Hazard Ratio)|0.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.5||Comparing 24-month survival curves (includes time to PSA doubling as well as time to censoring); stratified by site cluster and previous therapy|Log Rank||Relative risk of dutasteride compared to placebo, derived from Cox Proportional Hazard model stratified by site cluster and previous therapy|||0.50|0.23|<0.001
90909946|NCT00558363|181690058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Comparing percentages of participants with PSA doubling: 57% versus 28%|Mantel-Haenszel Chi-Square|||||||<0.001
90909947|NCT00558363|181690059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk (Hazard Ratio)|0.25|||<|0.001||95.0|0.14|0.45||Comparing 12-month survival curves (includes time to PSA doubling as well as time to censoring); stratified by site cluster and previous therapy|Log Rank||Relative risk of dutasteride compared to placebo, derived from Cox proportional hazard model stratified by site cluster and previous therapy|||0.45|0.14|<0.001
90909948|NCT00558363|181690060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Comparing percentages of participants with PSA doubling: 35% versus 10%|Mantel-Haenszel Chi-Square|||||||<0.001
90867307|NCT03268954|181596970|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.034|||=|0.558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.663|1.61||P-value comparing time to AML Transformation between treatment groups was based on 1-sided stratified log-rank test stratified by IPSS-R risk groups of very high, high, or intermediate for HR CMML/MDS.|Log Rank||HR:unadjusted stratified Cox proportional HazardRegression with stratification(IPSS-R risk groups=very high,high,or intermediate for HRMDS/CMML),treatment as factor.HR\<1:better prevention of AML transformation in combination arm than azacitidine arm.|Time to AML Transformation in HR MDS/CMML Participants||1.610|0.663|=0.558
90867308|NCT03268954|181596971|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Rate Difference|-4.18|||=|0.374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.18|4.83||P-value was obtained from a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by low-blast AML, IPSS-R risk groups of very high, high, or intermediate for HR MDS/CMML.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Number of Participants With Complete Remission (CR) and CR+Complete Remission with Incomplete Blood Count Recovery (CRi)||4.83|-13.18|=0.374
90867309|NCT03268954|181596976|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Rate Difference|-4.67|||=|0.329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.72|4.39||P-value was obtained from a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by low-blast AML, Revised International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS-R) risk groups of very high, high, or intermediate for HR MDS/CMML.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Number of Participants with OR||4.39|-13.72|=0.329
90867310|NCT03268954|181596977|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Rate Difference|-0.44|||=|0.891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.03|9.15||P-value was obtained from a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by low-blast AML, IPSS-R risk groups of very high, high, or intermediate for HR MDS/CMML.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Number of Participants with OR2||9.15|-10.03|=0.891
90867311|NCT03268954|181596978|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.679|||=|0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.402|1.146|||Log Rank|P-value was based on 1-sided log-rank test stratified by low-blast AML,IPSS-R risk groups of very high,high,or intermediate for HR MDS/CMML.|Hazard ratio was based on an unadjusted stratified Cox proportional hazard regression model with stratification factors (low-blast AML, IPSS-R risk groups of very high, high, or intermediate for HR MDS/CMML) and treatment as a factor in the model.|Duration of CR||1.146|0.402|=0.072
90867312|NCT03268954|181596979|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.846|||=|0.373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.306|2.339||P-value comparing duration of CR+CRi between treatment groups was based on 1-sided unstratified log-rank.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio was based on an unadjusted unstratified Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment as a factor in the model.|Duration of Complete Remission + Complete Remission with Incomplete Blood Count Recovery (CRi)||2.339|0.306|=0.373
90867313|NCT03268954|181596980|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.889|||=|0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.542|1.458||P-value comparing duration of PR or better response between treatment groups was based on 1-sided log-rank test stratified by low-blast AML, IPSS-R risk groups of very high, high, or intermediate for HR MDS/CMML.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio was based on an unadjusted stratified Cox proportional hazard regression model with stratification factors (low-blast AML, IPSS-R risk groups of very high, high, or intermediate for HR MDS/CMML) and treatment as a factor in the model.|Duration of Overall Response (OR)||1.458|0.542|=0.320
90867314|NCT03268954|181596981|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.796|||=|0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.514|1.231||P-value comparing duration of overall response 2 between treatment groups was based on 1-sided log-rank test stratified by low blast AML, IPSS-R risk groups of very high, high, or intermediate for HR MDS/CMML.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio was based on an unadjusted stratified Cox proportional hazard regression model with stratification factors (low-blast AML, IPSS-R risk groups of very high, high, or intermediate for HR MDS/CMML) and treatment as a factor in the model.|Duration of Overall Response 2 (OR2)||1.231|0.514|=0.151
90867315|NCT03268954|181596982|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Rate Difference|3.27|||=|0.573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.02|15.55||P-value was obtained from a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage of Participants With RBC-transfusion Independence||15.55|-9.02|=0.573
90867316|NCT03268954|181596982|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Rate Difference|-3.43|||=|0.477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.84|18.97||P-value was obtained from a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage of Participants With Platelet-transfusion Independence||18.97|-25.84|=0.477
90909949|NCT00843193|181690087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11||||0.1955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Comparison between GSK679586 10 mg/kg and Placebo at Week 2||0.06|-0.27|0.1955
90909950|NCT00843193|181690087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.0193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|-0.03|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis|||Comparison between GSK679586 10 mg/kg and Placebo at Week 4||-0.03|-0.34|0.0193
90909951|NCT00843193|181690087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.6156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.14|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis|||Comparison between GSK679586 10 mg/kg and Placebo at Week 8||0.14|-0.23|0.6156
90909952|NCT00843193|181690087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.4672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.14|||ANCOVA|||Comparison between GSK679586 120 mg/kg and Placebo at Week 12||0.14|-0.31|0.4672
90909953|NCT00843193|181690090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.7693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Comparison between GSK679586 10 mg/kg and Placebo at Week 2||0.06|-0.08|0.7693
90909954|NCT00843193|181690090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.8987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.09|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis|||Comparison between GSK679586 10 mg/kg and Placebo at Week 4||0.09|-0.08|0.8987
90867317|NCT03268954|181596983|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.231|||=|0.774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.715|2.119||P-value comparing duration of RBC or platelet transfusion between treatment groups was based on 1-sided log-rank test stratified by low-blast AML, IPSS-R risk groups of very high, high, or intermediate for HR MDS/CMML.|Log Rank||HR:unadjusted Cox Proportional Hazard regression;stratification(low-blast AML,IPSS-R risk groups=very high,high,intermediate for HRMDS/CMML),treatment as factor.HR\<1:longer duration of transfusion independence in combination arm than azacitidine arm.|Duration of RBC Transfusion Independence||2.119|0.715|=0.774
90867318|NCT03268954|181596983|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.533|||=|0.801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.567|4.147||P-value comparing duration of platelet transfusion between treatment groups was based on 1-sided log-rank test stratified by low blast AML, IPSS-R risk groups of very high, high, or intermediate for HR MDS/CMML.|Log Rank||HR:unadjusted Cox Proportional Hazard regression;stratification(low-blast AML,IPSS-R risk groups=very high,high,intermediate for HRMDS/CMML),treatment as factor.HR\<1:longer duration of transfusion independence in combination arm than azacitidine arm.|Duration of Platelet Transfusion Independence||4.147|0.567|=0.801
90867319|NCT03268954|181596983|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.968|||=|0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.614||P-value comparing duration of RBC or platelet transfusion between treatment groups was based on 1-sided log-rank test stratified by low-blast AML, IPSS-R risk groups of very high, high, or intermediate for HR MDS/CMML.|Log Rank||HR:unadjusted Cox Proportional Hazard regression;stratification(low-blast AML,IPSS-R risk groups=very high,high,intermediate for HRMDS/CMML),treatment as factor.HR\<1:longer duration of transfusion independence in combination arm than azacitidine arm.|Duration of Transfusion Independence||1.614|0.580|=0.450
90867320|NCT03268954|181596984|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88|||=|0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.628|1.234||P-value comparing time to first CR or PR or CRi (low-blast AML) between treatment groups was based on 1-sided stratified log-rank test stratified by low-blast AML,IPSS-R risk groups of very high,high,or intermediate for HR MDS/CMML.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio was based on an unadjusted stratified Cox proportional hazard regression model with stratification factors (low-blast AML, IPSS-R risk groups of very high, high, or intermediate for HR MDS/CMML) and treatment as a factor in the model.|Time to First Complete Remission (CR) or Partial Remission (PR) or Complete Remission with Incomplete Blood Count Recovery (CRi)||1.234|0.628|=0.228
90867321|NCT03268954|181596985|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Rate Difference|-5.46|||=|0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.36|5.44||P-value was obtained from a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Number of Participants With HI||5.44|-16.36|=0.320
90867322|NCT03268954|181596986|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|2.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|5.58||||||Number of Participants With at Least 1 Inpatient Hospital Admissions Related to HR MDS, CMML or Low-blast AML||5.58|-0.30|
90867323|NCT03268954|181596987|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.858|||=|0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.689|1.067||P-value was obtained from a stratified 1-sided log-rank test stratified by low-blast AML, IPSS-R risk groups of very high, high, or intermediate for HR MDS/CMML.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio was based on a stratified Cox proportional hazard regression model stratified by low-blast AML, IPSS-R risk groups of very high, high, or intermediate for HR MDS/CMML, with treatment as a factor in the model.|Time to Progressive Disease (PD), Relapse after CR (Low-blast AML), Relapse After CR or PR (HR MDS/CMML), or Death||1.067|0.689|=0.084
90867324|NCT03268954|181596989|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Rate Difference|-2.85|||=|0.683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.44|13.75||P-value for HR MDS/CMML was obtained from a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||OR: HR MDS/CMML Participants||13.75|-19.44|=0.683
90867325|NCT03268954|181596989|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Rate Difference|2.36|||=|0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.39|25.12||P-value for Low-blast AML was obtained from an unstratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||ORR: Low-blast AML Participants||25.12|-20.39|=0.840
90867326|NCT03268954|181596990|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.877|||=|0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.608|1.263||P-value comparing EFS between treatment groups was based on 1-sided log-rank test stratified by low-blast AML, IPSS-R risk groups of very high, high, or intermediate for HR MDS/CMML.|Log Rank||HR:unadjusted stratified Cox proportional hazard regression with stratification factors (IPSS-R risk groups=very high,high,or intermediate for HRMDS/CMML),treatment as factor.HR\<1:better prevention of EFS in combination arm than azacitidine arm.|Event-Free Survival in Participants who have TP53 Mutations, 17p Deletions, and/or are Determined to be in an Adverse Cytogenetic Risk Group||1.263|0.608|=0.240
90867327|NCT03268954|181596991|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.826|||=|0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.178||P-value comparing OS between treatment groups was based on 1-sided log-rank test stratified by low-blast AML, IPSS-R risk groups of very high, high, or intermediate for HR MDS/CMML.|Log Rank||HR:unadjusted stratified Cox proportional hazard regression with stratification factors(IPSS-R risk groups of very high,high,intermediate) and treatment as factor in model.HR\<1: longer survival time in combination arm than azacitidine arm.|Overall Survival in Participants who have TP53 Mutations, 17p Deletions, and/or are Determined to be in an Adverse Cytogenetic Risk Group||1.178|0.580|=0.145
90867328|NCT03268954|181596992|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Rate Difference|-5.14|||=|0.261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.95|3.68||P-value was obtained from a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by IPSS-R risk groups of very high, high, or intermediate for HR MDS/CMML.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Overall Response for HR MDS/CMML||3.68|-13.95|=0.261
90867329|NCT03268954|181596992|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Rate Difference|22.36|||=|0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.22|41.49||P-value was obtained from an unstratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Overall Response for Low-blast AML||41.49|3.22|=0.026
90867330|NCT02801331|181597059|EQUIVALENCE|A test of equivalence was conducted for unadjusted comparisons. A chi squared test of proportions was used for unadjusted comparisons.||||||0.6||||||Unadjusted|Chi-squared|||||||.60
90867331|NCT02801331|181597060|EQUIVALENCE|A statistical test comparing cumulative morphine dose was performed for the cohort that was treated with morphine (n=60)||||||0.62|||||||t-test, 2 sided|degrees of freedom =58 for cohort analyzed that received morphine treatment.||||||.62
90909955|NCT00843193|181690090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.4231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.05|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis|||Comparison between GSK679586 10 mg/kg and Placebo at Week 8||0.05|-0.12|0.4231
90867332|NCT02801331|181597061|EQUIVALENCE|A statistical test comparing day of life discharged among untreated infants who completed hospitalization at study site (n=181).||||||0.29|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 179 based on number of infants who completed hospitalization at study site.||||||0.29
90867333|NCT02801331|181597062|EQUIVALENCE|A statistical test comparing day of life discharged among untreated infants (n=121)||||||0.55|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 119 based on number of infants who did not receive morphine treatment.||||||0.55
90867334|NCT02801331|181597063|EQUIVALENCE|A statistical test comparing day of life discharged among treated infants, n=60||||||0.36|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 58 based on number of infants who received morphine treatment.||||||0.36
90867335|NCT02801331|181597064|EQUIVALENCE|A test of equivalence was conducted for unadjusted comparisons. A t test of means was used for unadjusted comparisons.||||||0.56|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 58 based on number of infants who received morphine treatment.||||||0.56
90867336|NCT02801331|181597065|EQUIVALENCE|A statistical test comparing day of life infant started treatment as performed for the cohort that was treated with morphine (n=60)||||||0.25|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 58 based on number of infants who received morphine treatment.||||||0.25
90867337|NCT02443987|181597069|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.40
90867338|NCT02443987|181597070|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.18
90867339|NCT02443987|181597071|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.02
90867340|NCT02443987|181597072|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.51
90867341|NCT03820986|181597079|SUPERIORITY|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate and stratified by BRAF mutation positive (Yes vs. No).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.0176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.98|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test and stratified by BRAF mutation positive (Yes vs. No).|HR=Pembrolizumab + Lenvatinib vs. Pembrolizumab + Placebo|||0.98|0.67|0.0176
90909956|NCT00843193|181690090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.0537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.0|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis|||Comparison between GSK679586 10 mg/kg and Placebo at Week 12||0.00|-0.19|0.0537
90909957|NCT04511650|181690109|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4795|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by disease severity.||Pooled Razuprotafib comparison to Placebo. All results are summarized descriptively by treatment arm and expressed as proportions, along with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of the difference between response rates, and p-values.||||0.4795
90867342|NCT03820986|181597080|SUPERIORITY|HR based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate and stratified by BRAF mutation positive (Yes vs. No).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.9521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.48|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test and stratified by BRAF mutation positive (Yes vs. No).|HR=Pembrolizumab + Lenvatinib vs. Pembrolizumab + Placebo|||1.48|0.97|0.9521
90867343|NCT03820986|181597085|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-3.69||||0.0345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|-0.27||No formal hypothesis testing was conducted. P-value is nominal.|cLDA model||Difference in LS means=Pembrolizumab + Lenvatinib vs. Pembrolizumab + Placebo|Based on a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model with GHS/QoL as the response variable, with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factor BRAF mutation status as covariate. No formal hypothesis testing was conducted. P-value is nominal.||-0.27|-7.10|0.0345
90867344|NCT03820986|181597086|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-5.49||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.53|-2.45|||cLDA model|No formal hypothesis testing was conducted. P-value is nominal.|Difference in LS means=Pembrolizumab + Lenvatinib vs. Pembrolizumab + Placebo|Based on a cLDA model with PF as the response variable, with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factor BRAF mutation status as covariate. No formal hypothesis testing was conducted. P-value is nominal.||-2.45|-8.53|0.0004
90867345|NCT03820986|181597087|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.58||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|2.0|||Log Rank|No formal hypothesis testing was conducted. P-value is nominal.|HR=Lenvatinib + Pembrolizumab vs. Placebo + Pembrolizumab|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by BRAF mutation status (positive vs wild type or unknown) No formal hypothesis testing was conducted. P-value is nominal.||2.00|1.25|0.0001
90867346|NCT03820986|181597088|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.95||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|2.5|||Log Rank|No formal hypothesis testing was conducted. P-value is nominal.|HR=Lenvatinib + Pembrolizumab vs. Placebo + Pembrolizumab|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by BRAF mutation status (positive vs wild type or unknown). No formal hypothesis testing was conducted. P-value is nominal.||2.50|1.52|.0001
90867347|NCT03396367|181597098|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.372||||0.433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.558|1.302||Condition (referent = education control).|Latent Growth Curve||Variable:|||1.302|-.558|.433
90867348|NCT03396367|181597098|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.017||||0.749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.121|0.087|||Latent Growth Curve||Variable: Communication Compentence|||.087|-.121|.749
90867349|NCT03396367|181597098|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.073||||0.302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.121|0.087|||Latent Growth Curve||Moderating Variable: Communication Competence by Condition|||.087|-.121|.302
90867350|NCT03396367|181597098|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.027||||0.799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.182|0.236|||Latent Growth Curve||Variable: Relationship Satisfaction|||.236|-.182|.799
90867351|NCT03396367|181597098|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.211||||0.173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.514|0.092|||Latent Growth Curve||Moderating Variable: Relationship Satisfaction by Condition|||.092|-.514|.173
90909958|NCT00835380|181690131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Seroconversion Rate|99.0||||||95.0|89.0|99.0||||||||99|89|
90909959|NCT01081145|181690133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in treatment failures|-15.6||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.6|-4.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-4.5|-26.6|0.006
90909960|NCT01081145|181690134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.003|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.003
90909961|NCT01081145|181690135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-6.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.01|-3.48||Nominal p-value uncorrected for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||-3.48|-9.01|<0.001
90909962|NCT01081145|181690136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percent of subjects|17.5||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.6|28.5||Nominal p-value uncorrected for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||28.5|6.6|0.001
90909963|NCT01081145|181690137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.06||||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.02||Nominal p-value uncorrected for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||0.02|-0.14|0.118
90909964|NCT01081145|181690140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||Nominal p-value uncorrected for multiplicity.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90909965|NCT01081145|181690144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||Nominal p-value uncorrected for multiplicity.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90909966|NCT03593070|181690147|OTHER|Analyses compared changes in total scores for the MM-CGI from baseline to 24 weeks, for both arms of the intervention (CGMI-V and MT).|Slope|0.646|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.622||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori alpha=0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.001
90909967|NCT03593070|181690148|OTHER||Slope|0.444|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.105||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori alpha=0.05.|Regression, Linear|||Analyses compared changes in total scores for the CESD from baseline to 24 weeks, for both arms of the intervention (CGMI-V and MT).||||0.001
90909968|NCT03593070|181690149|OTHER|Analyses compared changes in total State Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) scores from baseline to 24 weeks, for both arms of the intervention (CGMI-V and MT).|Slope|0.514|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.102||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori alpha=0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.001
90909969|NCT03593070|181690150|OTHER|Analyses compared changes in total positive state of mind scale (PSOMS) scores from baseline to 24 weeks, for both arms of the intervention (CGMI-V and MT).|Slope|0.653|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.093||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori alpha=0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.001
90909970|NCT03593070|181690151|OTHER|Analyses compared changes in conflict scores (based on FPCR) from baseline to 24 weeks, for both arms of the intervention (CGMI-V and MT)|Slope|0.609|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.07||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori alpha=0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.001
90909971|NCT03593070|181690152|OTHER|Analyses compared changes in total scores for satisfaction with care measure (FPCT) from baseline to 24 weeks, for both arms of the intervention (CGMI-V and MT)|Slope|0.731|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.074||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori alpha=0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.001
90909972|NCT03593070|181690153|OTHER|Analyses compared changes in total Family Knowledge of Alzheimer's Test (FKAT) scores from baseline to 24 weeks, for both arms of the intervention (CGMI-V and MT)|Slope|0.687|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.084||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori alpha=0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.001
90909973|NCT03593070|181690154|OTHER||Slope|0.527|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.088||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||A prior alpha=0.05.|Regression, Linear|||Analyses compared changes in caregiver sense of loss, guilt, and role captivity scores from baseline to 24 weeks, for both arms of the intervention (CGMI-V and MT). This measure uses 51 items of the FPCR measure.||||0.001
90909974|NCT04538664|181690162|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.395|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.296|0.528|||Log Rank|||||0.528|0.296|<0.0001
90909975|NCT03722446|181690265|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
90909976|NCT03722446|181690266|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0102|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.01020
90909977|NCT03722446|181690267|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.0000
90909978|NCT03722446|181690268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3753|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3753
90909979|NCT03722446|181690269|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.0000
90909980|NCT03722446|181690270|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
90909981|NCT00635817|181690277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.099||||||There were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||Summary statistics were calculated and tests of significance of the change versus no change were performed.||||0.099
90909982|NCT00635817|181690277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.074||||||There were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||Summary statistics were calculated and tests of significance of the change versus no change were performed.||||0.074
90909983|NCT00635817|181690277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026||95.0||||There were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||Summary statistics were calculated and tests of significance of the change versus no change were performed.||||0.026
90909984|NCT00635817|181690277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.102||95.0||||There were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||Summary statistics were calculated and tests of significance of the change versus no change were performed.||||0.102
90909985|NCT00635817|181690278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||||||There were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Summary statistics were calculated and tests of significance of the ratio versus 1 were performed. All analyses and summaries were conducted separately for the 2 treatment groups (subjects who received leuprolide acetate depot 11.25 mg and 30 mg).||||0.008
90909986|NCT00635817|181690278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||||||There were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Summary statistics were calculated and tests of significance of the ratio versus 1 were performed. All analyses and summaries were conducted separately for the 2 treatment groups (subjects who received leuprolide acetate depot 11.25 mg and 30 mg).||||0.002
90867352|NCT03396367|181597099|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.427||||0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.186|1.04||A latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The intercept quoted here represents the difference between the Partner intervention and the Education intervention at baseline.|Latent Growth Curve|||||1.04|-.186|.172
90867353|NCT03396367|181597099|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.281||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.623|0.061||A latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The intercept quoted here represents the difference between the Partner intervention and the Education intervention at the 3-month follow-up.|Latent Growth Curve|||||.061|-.623|.054
90867354|NCT03396367|181597099|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.125||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.011|0.26||A latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The intercept quoted here represents the difference between the Partner intervention and the Education intervention across the 3-,6-,9-, and 12- month follow-ups.|Latent Growth Curve|||||.260|-.011|.036
90867355|NCT03396367|181597100|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.245||||0.679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.913|1.403||A latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The intercept quoted here represents the difference between the Partner intervention and the Education intervention at baseline.|Latent Growth Curve|||||1.403|-.913|.679
90867356|NCT03396367|181597100|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.301||||0.359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.938|1.336||A latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The intercept quoted here represents the difference between the Partner intervention and the Education intervention at the 3-month follow-up.|Latent Growth Curve|||||1.336|-1.938|.359
90909987|NCT00635817|181690278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.347||||||There were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Summary statistics were calculated and tests of significance of the ratio versus 1 were performed. All analyses and summaries were conducted separately for the 2 treatment groups (subjects who received leuprolide acetate depot 11.25 mg and 30 mg).||||0.347
90909988|NCT00635817|181690278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15||95.0||||There were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Summary statistics were calculated and tests of significance of the ratio versus 1 were performed. All analyses and summaries were conducted separately for the 2 treatment groups (subjects who received leuprolide acetate depot 11.25 mg and 30 mg).||||0.150
90867357|NCT03396367|181597100|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.048||||0.431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.496|0.593||A latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The intercept quoted here represents the difference between the Partner intervention and the Education intervention across the 3-,6-,9-, and 12- month follow-ups.|Latent Growth Curve|||||.593|-.496|.431
90867358|NCT03396367|181597101|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.251||||0.326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.814|1.311||A latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The intercept quoted here represents the difference between the Partner intervention and the Education intervention at baseline.|Latent Growth Curve|||||1.311|-3.814|.326
90867359|NCT03396367|181597101|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.246||||0.384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.383|1.875||A latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The intercept quoted here represents the difference between the Partner intervention and the Education intervention at the 3-month follow-up.|Latent Growth Curve|||||1.875|-1.383|.384
90909989|NCT04341298|181690281|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.65
90909990|NCT04341298|181690282|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.87
90909991|NCT04341298|181690283|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||Mantel Haenszel|Subjects were stratified based on baseline pain score (6-7 vs. 8-10) prior to analysis using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test||Each subject was stratified by baseline pain score for the first severe headache that they experienced (score of 6-7 vs. 8-10). The total number of subjects, and the number of subjects with a pain score of 3 or less after 2 hours, were tabulated within each stratum. A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was conducted to test the hypothesis of lack of association between the proportion of subjects reporting mild or no symptoms after 2 hours and the type of device, across all strata.||||0.66
90867360|NCT03396367|181597101|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.856||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.052|1.659||A latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The intercept quoted here represents the difference between the Partner intervention and the Education intervention across the 3-,6-,9-, and 12- month follow-ups.|Latent Growth Curve|||||1.659|.052|.019
90867361|NCT05426902|181597104|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||Baseline (month 1) vs. intervention period (month 2)||||<0.0001
90867362|NCT05426902|181597105|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline (month 1) vs. intervention period (month 2)||||0.6
90867363|NCT05426902|181597106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline (month 1) vs. intervention period (month 2)||||0.2
90867364|NCT05426902|181597107|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||Baseline (month 1) vs. intervention period (month 2)||||<0.0001
90867365|NCT05426902|181597108|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Fisher Exact|||Baseline (month 1) vs. intervention period (month 2)||||0.4
90867366|NCT05426902|181597113|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"I feel good about my medical visit at baseline (month 1) vs. intervention period (month 2)."||||0.7
90909992|NCT04341298|181690284|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||Mantel Haenszel|Subjects were stratified based on baseline pain score (6-7 vs. 8-10) prior to analysis using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test||Each subject was stratified by baseline pain score for the first severe headache that they experienced (score of 6-7 vs. 8-10). The total number of subjects, and the number of subjects requiring abortive medication within 8 hours were tabulated within each stratum. A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was conducted to test the hypothesis of lack of association between the proportion of subjects requiring abortive medication within 8 hours and the type of device, across all strata.||||0.59
90940386|NCT00526097|181760512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.94||0.7543||95.0|-3.2|4.4||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||4.4|-3.2|0.7543
90867367|NCT05426902|181597113|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"My rheumatologist gave me his/her full attention at baseline (month 1) vs. intervention period (month 2)."||||0.8
90867368|NCT05426902|181597113|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"I was able to say everything I wanted to say to my rheumatologist at baseline (month 1) vs. intervention period (month 2)."||||1.0
90867369|NCT05426902|181597115|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"My rheumatologist and I agreed on how active my lupus was today at baseline (month 1) vs. intervention period (month 2)."||||0.7
90867370|NCT05426902|181597115|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"I understand the care recommendations that my doctor or provider gave me today at baseline (month 1) vs. intervention period (month 2)."||||0.8
90867371|NCT05426902|181597116|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline vs. Follow-Up||||0.02
90867372|NCT05426902|181597117|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"SLE@Duke meets my approval at baseline (month 1) vs. intervention period (month 2)."||||0.7
90867373|NCT05426902|181597117|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"SLE@Duke is appealing to me at baseline (month 1) vs. intervention period (month 2)."||||1.0
90867374|NCT05426902|181597117|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"I like SLE@Duke at baseline (month 1) vs. intervention period (month 2)."||||0.5
90867375|NCT05426902|181597117|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"I welcome SLE@Duke at baseline (month 1) vs. intervention period (month 2)."||||0.6
90867376|NCT05426902|181597118|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"SLE@Duke seems fitting at baseline (month 1) vs. intervention period (month 2)."||||0.7
90867377|NCT05426902|181597118|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"SLE@Duke seems suitable at baseline (month 1) vs. intervention period (month 2)."||||0.7
90867378|NCT05426902|181597118|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"SLE@Duke seems applicable at baseline (month 1) vs. intervention period (month 2)."||||1.0
90867379|NCT05426902|181597118|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"SLE@Duke seems like a good match at baseline (month 1) vs. intervention period (month 2)."||||1.0
90867380|NCT05426902|181597119|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"SLE@Duke seems implementable at baseline (month 1) vs. intervention period (month 2)."||||0.3
90867381|NCT05426902|181597119|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"SLE@Duke seems possible at baseline (month 1) vs. intervention period (month 2)."||||0.3
90867382|NCT05426902|181597119|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"SLE@Duke seems doable at baseline (month 1) vs. intervention period (month 2)."||||0.4
90867383|NCT05426902|181597119|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"SLE@Duke seems easy to use at baseline (month 1) vs. intervention period (month 2)."||||0.3
90867384|NCT00429273|181597125|OTHER|Test for differences in treatment outcomes between three different tx|F-Value for variance component|18.9|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analyses are based on a generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) modelling the effects of the medication when calibrated to optimal dosage and controlling for time effects and within-subject effects. The design is a combined within-between subject design, where each participant is exposed to, and provides information about multiple tx modalities.||||<.01
90867385|NCT01246401|181597133|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.431|||||||Welch's T Test|||||||0.431
90867386|NCT01246401|181597134|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.087|||||||Welch's T Test|||||||0.087
90867387|NCT01246401|181597136|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||Wilcoxon one sided|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
90867388|NCT01246401|181597141|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03962|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.03962
90909993|NCT04341298|181690285|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Mantel Haenszel|Subjects were stratified based on baseline pain score (6-7 vs. 8-10) prior to analysis using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test||Each subject was stratified by baseline pain score for the first severe headache that they experienced (score of 6-7 vs. 8-10). The total number of subjects, and the number of subjects experiencing light sensitivity after 2 hours, were tabulated within each stratum. A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was conducted to test the hypothesis of lack of association between the proportion of subjects reporting light sensitivity after 2 hours and the type of device, across all strata.||||0.19
90909994|NCT04341298|181690286|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Mantel Haenszel|Subjects were stratified based on baseline pain score (6-7 vs. 8-10) prior to analysis using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test||Each subject was stratified by baseline pain score for the first severe headache that they experienced (score of 6-7 vs. 8-10). The total number of subjects, and the number of subjects experiencing light sensitivity after 4 hours, were tabulated within each stratum. A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was conducted to test the hypothesis of lack of association between the proportion of subjects reporting light sensitivity after 4 hours and the type of device, across all strata.||||1.0
90909995|NCT04341298|181690287|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.021|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Pain score difference after 2 hours modeled as a function of study arm, baseline pain score and headache medication use.||Null hypothesis is that 2 hour difference in pain score is equivalent between study arms, after adjusting for baseline pain score and headache medication use.||||0.021
90867389|NCT01218204|181597180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.473|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.7096|26.6553|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|Atorvastatin 10 mg + GSK1292263 100 mg vs Placebo: Apolipoprotein A1||26.6553|-15.7096|
90867390|NCT01218204|181597180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.598|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.784|20.5888|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|Atorvastatin 10 mg + GSK1292263 300 mg vs Placebo: Apolipoprotein A1||20.5888|-21.7840|
90867391|NCT01218204|181597180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|11.906|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3489|33.1602|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|Atorvastatin 10 mg + GSK1292263 800 mg vs Placebo: Apolipoprotein A1||33.1602|-9.3489|
90867392|NCT01218204|181597180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.671|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.9957|24.3384|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|Atorvastatin 10 mg + Ezetimibe 10 mg vs Placebo: Apolipoprotein A1||24.3384|-16.9957|
90867393|NCT01218204|181597180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.618|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.2069|37.4425|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|Atorvastatin 80 mg + GSK1292263 800 mg vs Placebo: Apolipoprotein A1||37.4425|-28.2069|
90867394|NCT01218204|181597180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.713|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0405|39.8527|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of GSK1292263|GSK1292263 100 mg vs Placebo: Apolipoprotein A1||39.8527|-17.0405|
90867395|NCT01218204|181597180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.934|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0153|31.5504|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of GSK1292263|GSK1292263 300 mg vs Placebo: Apolipoprotein A1||31.5504|-21.0153|
90867396|NCT01218204|181597180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.466|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.7517|24.7608|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of GSK1292263|GSK1292263 800 mg vs Placebo: Apolipoprotein A1||24.7608|-23.7517|
90867397|NCT01218204|181597180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|13.743|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.246|33.7161|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|Atorvastatin 10 mg + GSK1292263 100 mg vs Placebo: Apolipoprotein B100||33.7161|-3.2460|
90867398|NCT01218204|181597180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.428|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.3243|8.9224|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value Atorvastatin|Atorvastatin 10 mg + GSK1292263 300 mg vs Placebo: Apolipoprotein B100||8.9224|-21.3243|
90909996|NCT04341298|181690288|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Pain score difference after 4 hours modeled as a function of study arm, baseline pain score and headache medication use.||Null hypothesis is that 4 hour difference in pain score is equivalent between study arms, after adjusting for baseline pain score and headache medication use.||||0.019
90867399|NCT01218204|181597180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.8137|1.1513|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value Atorvastatin|Atorvastatin 10 mg + GSK1292263 800 mg vs Placebo: Apolipoprotein B100||1.1513|-26.8137|
90867400|NCT01218204|181597180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.903|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6557|13.1191|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value Atorvastatin|Atorvastatin 10 mg + Ezetimibe 10 mg vs Placebo: Apolipoprotein B100||13.1191|-16.6557|
90867401|NCT01218204|181597180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-28.231|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.1045|-11.3579|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value Atorvastatin|Atorvastatin 80 mg + GSK1292263 800 mg vs Placebo: Apolipoprotein B100||-11.3579|-45.1045|
90867402|NCT01218204|181597180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.5021|11.3014|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of GSK1292263|GSK1292263 100 mg vs Placebo: Apolipoprotein B100||11.3014|-23.5021|
90867403|NCT01218204|181597180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.2721|8.2918|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of GSK1292263|GSK1292263 300 mg vs Placebo: Apolipoprotein B100||8.2918|-25.2721|
90867404|NCT01218204|181597180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.687|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.0247|6.6498|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of GSK1292263|GSK1292263 800 mg vs Placebo: Apolipoprotein B100||6.6498|-26.0247|
90867405|NCT01218204|181597181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-19.471|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.9323|3.202|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value Atorvastatin|||3.2020|-47.9323|
90867406|NCT01218204|181597181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.1027|25.3126|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value Atorvastatin|||25.3126|-38.1027|
90867407|NCT01218204|181597181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-25.985|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.5492|1.8605|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value Atorvastatin|||1.8605|-45.5492|
90867408|NCT01218204|181597181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.697|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.0846|13.3024|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value Atorvastatin|||13.3024|-45.0846|
90909997|NCT04341298|181690289|SUPERIORITY|Null hypothesis is that proportion of headaches with light sensitivity experienced after 2 hours is equivalent between study arms, after adjusting for baseline pain score and headache medication use.||||||0.028|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Proportion of headaches with light sensitivity after 2 hours modeled as a function of study arm, baseline pain score and headache medication use.||||||0.028
90909998|NCT04341298|181690290|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Proportion of headaches with light sensitivity after 4 hours modeled as a function of study arm, baseline pain score and headache medication use.||Null hypothesis is that proportion of headaches with light sensitivity experienced after 4 hours is equivalent between study arms, after adjusting for baseline pain score and headache medication use.||||0.46
90909999|NCT04487080|181690291|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.85|||Log Rank||HR and its 95% CI was estimated based on a stratified Cox's regression model with treatment as the sole explanatory variable.|||0.85|0.58|0.0002
90910000|NCT03451851|181690334|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|49.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.9|69.4|||Fisher Exact|P-values represented the comparisons with placebo and were based on the Fisher's exact test stratified by age group and region (pooled).||Guselkumab Vs Placebo||69.4|25.9|<0.001
90971003|NCT01780831|181824508|OTHER|Point and 90% CI estimates of percentage Cohort 2 infants who died or had SADR of Grade 3 or 4 through 6 weeks of life.|Clopper-Pearson Confidence Interval (CI)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||CI is not provided since the estimation parameter is 0.|||||
90867409|NCT01218204|181597181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.036|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.2281|15.1569|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|||15.1569|-27.2281|
90867410|NCT01218204|181597181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.198|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.2901|32.6057|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of GSK1292263|||32.6057|-24.2901|
90867411|NCT01218204|181597181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-22.117|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.4767|1.906|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of GSK1292263|||1.9060|-40.4767|
90867412|NCT01218204|181597181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-32.798|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.3842|-12.5064|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of GSK1292263|||-12.5064|-48.3842|
90867413|NCT01218204|181597182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.101|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5469|14.7495|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|For HDLc||14.7495|-4.5469|
90867414|NCT01218204|181597182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|12.273|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5937|21.9532|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|Fo HDLc||21.9532|2.5937|
90867415|NCT01218204|181597182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|28.833|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.955|38.7102|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|For HDLc||38.7102|18.9550|
90867416|NCT01218204|181597182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.701|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5562|12.9578|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|For HDLc||12.9578|-5.5562|
90867417|NCT01218204|181597182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|20.946|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.612|33.281|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|For HDLc||33.2810|8.6120|
90867418|NCT01218204|181597182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|10.561|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9675|22.0898|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of GSK1292263|For HDLc||22.0898|-0.9675|
90867419|NCT01218204|181597182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|11.122|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2902|22.5351|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of GSK1292263|For HDLc||22.5351|-0.2902|
90867420|NCT01218204|181597182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|20.689|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.7527|31.6262|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of GSK1292263|For HDLc||31.6262|9.7527|
90867421|NCT01218204|181597182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.549|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.775|9.6768|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|For LDLc||9.6768|-18.7750|
90867422|NCT01218204|181597182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.337|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.4549|3.7803|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|For LDLc||3.7803|-24.4549|
90867423|NCT01218204|181597182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-21.317|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.0144|-6.619|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|For LDLc||-6.6190|-36.0144|
90867424|NCT01218204|181597182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-20.173|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.271|-6.0755|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|For LDLc||-6.0755|-34.2710|
90867425|NCT01218204|181597182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-25.472|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.3385|-8.1558|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|For LDLc||-8.1558|-49.3385|
90867426|NCT01218204|181597182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.128|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.3049|-0.9514|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of GSK1292263|For LDLc||-0.9514|-23.3049|
90867427|NCT01218204|181597182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-15.798|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.1364|-4.4589|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of GSK1292263|For LDLc||-4.4589|-27.1364|
90867428|NCT01218204|181597182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-21.789|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.3413|-11.2372|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of GSK1292263|For LDLc||-11.2372|-32.3413|
90867429|NCT01218204|181597182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-22.498|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.446|-2.4169|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|For Triglycerides||-2.4169|-38.4460|
90867430|NCT01218204|181597182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-23.781|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.1603|-4.513|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|For Triglycerides||-4.5130|-39.1603|
90867431|NCT01218204|181597182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-39.923|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.3394|-24.2717|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|For Triglycerides||-24.2717|-52.3394|
90867432|NCT01218204|181597182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-17.444|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.502|2.491|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|For Triglycerides||2.4910|-33.5020|
90867433|NCT01218204|181597182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-21.781|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.296|-3.2667|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|For Triglycerides||-3.2667|-40.2960|
90867434|NCT01218204|181597182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-21.421|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.3519|-4.4911|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of GSK1292263|For Triglycerides||-4.4911|-38.3519|
90867435|NCT01218204|181597182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-46.361|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.465|-29.2561|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of GSK1292263|For Triglycerides||-29.2561|-63.4650|
90910001|NCT03451851|181690335|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|55.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.1|74.0|||Fisher Exact|P-values represented the comparisons with placebo and were based on the Fisher's exact test stratified by age group and region (pooled).||Guselkumab Vs Placebo||74.0|32.1|<0.001
90910002|NCT03451851|181690336|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|40.1|||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.6|61.3|||Fisher Exact|P-values represented the comparisons with placebo and were based on the Fisher's exact test stratified by age group and region (pooled).||Guselkumab Vs Placebo||61.3|15.6|=0.003
90910003|NCT03451851|181690337|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|35.0|||=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.5|56.8|||Fisher Exact|P-values represented the comparisons with placebo and were based on the Fisher's exact test stratified by age group and region (pooled).||Guselkumab Vs Placebo||56.8|10.5|=0.004
90910004|NCT03451851|181690338|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|34.1|||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|25.0|9.7|56.1|||Fisher Exact|P-values represented the comparisons with placebo and were based on the Fisher's exact test stratified by age group and region (pooled).||Guselkumab Vs Placebo||56.1|9.7|=0.002
90910005|NCT03451851|181690339|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-5.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.33|-3.06|||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|||Guselkumab Vs Placebo||-3.06|-7.33|<0.001
90910006|NCT03451851|181690345|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|59.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.9|77.6||p-value is nominal|Fisher Exact|P-values represented the comparisons with placebo and were based on the Fisher's exact test stratified by age group and region (pooled).||Guselkumab Vs Placebo||77.6|36.9|<0.001
90910007|NCT03451851|181690353|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|46.7|||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.9|67.3||p-value is nominal|Fisher Exact|P-values represented the comparisons with placebo and were based on the Fisher's exact test stratified by age group and region (pooled).||||67.3|21.9|=0.002
90910008|NCT03451851|181690355|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|23.1|||=|0.139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|47.0||p-value is nominal|Fisher Exact|P-values represented the comparisons with placebo and were based on the Fisher's exact test stratified by age group and region (pooled).||Guselkumab Vs Placebo||47.0|-3.4|=0.139
90910009|NCT03451851|181690357|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-5.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|-2.87||p-value is nominal|MMRM model|||Guselkumab Vs Placebo||-2.87|-8.00|<0.001
90910010|NCT03451851|181690359|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-14.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.28|-9.28||p-value is nominal|MMRM model|||Guselkumab Vs Placebo||-9.28|-20.28|<0.001
90910011|NCT03944512|181690386|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.19||||||||1.19|0.37|
90910012|NCT03944512|181690387|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|2.67||||||||2.67|0.07|
90910013|NCT03944512|181690388|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|77.16||||||||77.16|0.32|
90910014|NCT03944512|181690389|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.43||||||||1.43|0.22|
90910015|NCT03944512|181690390|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||RR not reported given zero events in the placebo group.|||
90910016|NCT03944512|181690391|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|5.24||||||||5.24|0.58|
90910017|NCT03944512|181690392|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.92
90910018|NCT03944512|181690393|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||RR not reported given zero events in the pravastatin and placebo groups|||
90910019|NCT03944512|181690394|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.0
90910020|NCT03944512|181690395|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||RR not reported given zero events in the placebo group|||
90910021|NCT03944512|181690396|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.68
90910022|NCT03944512|181690397|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.23||||||||2.23|0.73|
90910023|NCT03944512|181690398|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|2.91||||||||2.91|0.57|
90910024|NCT03944512|181690399|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.71||||||||1.71|0.19|
90910025|NCT03944512|181690400|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|5.35||||||||5.35|0.02|
90910026|NCT03944512|181690401|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.72
90910027|NCT03944512|181690402|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|13.59||||||||13.59|0.24|
90910028|NCT03944512|181690403|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|2.73||||||||2.73|0.42|
90910029|NCT03944512|181690404|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.18||||||||2.18|0.58|
90910030|NCT03944512|181690405|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.12
90910031|NCT03944512|181690406|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|4.51||||||||4.51|0.52|
90910032|NCT03944512|181690407|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|5.0||||||||5.00|0.42|
90910033|NCT03944512|181690408|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|2.95||||||||2.95|0.11|
90910034|NCT03944512|181690409|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||RR not reported given zero events in both groups.|||
90910035|NCT03944512|181690410|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||RR not reported given zero events in the pravastatin group.|||
90910036|NCT03944512|181690411|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||RR not reported given zero events in both groups.|||
90910037|NCT03944512|181690412|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||RR not reported given zero events in both groups.|||
90910038|NCT03944512|181690413|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||RR not reported given zero events in both groups.|||
90910039|NCT03944512|181690414|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||RR not reported given zero events in pravastatin group.|||
90910040|NCT03944512|181690415|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||RR not reported given zero events in both groups.|||
90910041|NCT03944512|181690416|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|2.04||||||||2.04|0.17|
90910042|NCT03944512|181690417|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||RR not reported given zero events in both groups.|||
90910043|NCT03944512|181690418|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|31.79||||||||31.79|0.03|
90867436|NCT01218204|181597182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-54.843|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.7854|-38.9007|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of GSK1292263|For Triglycerides||-38.9007|-70.7854|
90867437|NCT01218204|181597182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.756|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.7561|2.2448|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|For Non-HDLc||2.2448|-21.7561|
90867438|NCT01218204|181597182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.014|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.7497|-2.2787|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|For Non-HDLc||-2.2787|-25.7497|
90867439|NCT01218204|181597182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-27.675|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.8454|-15.5045|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|For Non-HDLc||-15.5045|-39.8454|
90867440|NCT01218204|181597182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-20.937|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.6057|-9.269|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|For Non-HDLc||-9.2690|-32.6057|
90867441|NCT01218204|181597182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-21.702|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.0346|-14.3696|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|For Non-HDLc||-14.3696|-29.0346|
90867442|NCT01218204|181597182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.0636|-3.2961|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of GSK1292263|For Non-HDLc||-3.2961|-23.0636|
90867443|NCT01218204|181597182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-22.151|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.942|-12.3605|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of GSK1292263|For Non-HDLc||-12.3605|-31.9420|
90867444|NCT01218204|181597182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-26.948|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.2874|-17.6092|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of GSK1292263|For Non-HDLc||-17.6092|-36.2874|
90910044|NCT03944512|181690419|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||RR not reported given zero events in both groups.|||
90910045|NCT03944512|181690420|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.08
90867445|NCT01218204|181597182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.904|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8484|4.04|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|For Cholesterol||4.0400|-11.8484|
90867446|NCT01218204|181597182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.437|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.346|1.4722|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|For Cholesterol||1.4722|-14.3460|
90867447|NCT01218204|181597182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.294|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.3923|-2.196|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|For Cholesterol||-2.1960|-18.3923|
90910046|NCT03944512|181690421|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.21
90867448|NCT01218204|181597182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.065|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7688|-4.3609|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|For Cholesterol||-4.3609|-19.7688|
90867449|NCT01218204|181597182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.941|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9778|-1.9039|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|For Cholesterol||-1.9039|-13.9778|
90867450|NCT01218204|181597182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.384|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.9023|-0.866|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of GSK1292263|For Cholesterol||-0.8660|-15.9023|
90867451|NCT01218204|181597182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-15.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.1404|-8.2592|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of GSK1292263|For Cholesterol||-8.2592|-23.1404|
90867452|NCT01218204|181597182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.728|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.8395|-9.6161||||||For Cholesterol||-9.6161|-23.8395|
90867453|NCT01218204|181597183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.123|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.6276|2.3814|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|||2.3814|-26.6276|
90867454|NCT01218204|181597183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-21.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.9419|-7.3181|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|||-7.3181|-35.9419|
90910047|NCT03944512|181690422|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.58
90910048|NCT03944512|181690423|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.88
90910049|NCT03944512|181690424|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
90867455|NCT01218204|181597183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-41.506|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.3924|-26.6205|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|||-26.6205|-56.3924|
90867456|NCT01218204|181597183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-28.041|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.2554|-13.8263|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|||-13.8263|-42.2554|
90867457|NCT01218204|181597183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-29.293|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.5654|-12.4042|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|||-12.4042|-51.5654|
90867458|NCT01218204|181597183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-20.042|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.8358|-5.2472|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of GSK1292263|||-5.2472|-34.8358|
90867459|NCT01218204|181597183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-21.903|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.6155|-7.1913|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of GSK1292263|||-7.1913|-36.6155|
90867460|NCT01218204|181597183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-35.735|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.722|-21.7485|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of GSK1292263|||-21.7485|-49.7220|
90867461|NCT01218204|181597184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.409|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0123|0.1942|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|||0.1942|-1.0123|
90867462|NCT01218204|181597184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.296|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9063|0.3141|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|||0.3141|-0.9063|
90867463|NCT01218204|181597184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.811|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4125|-0.2098|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|||-0.2098|-1.4125|
90910050|NCT03944512|181690425|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||Fisher Exact||||RR not reported given zero events in the pravastatin group.|||0.22
90910051|NCT03944512|181690426|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.84
90910052|NCT03944512|181690427|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||Fisher Exact||||RR not reported given zero events in the pravastatin group.|||0.47
90940387|NCT00526097|181760513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.58||0.0273||95.0|0.4|6.6||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||6.6|0.4|0.0273
90867464|NCT01218204|181597184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.422|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9831|0.1394|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|||0.1394|-0.9831|
90867465|NCT01218204|181597184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.384|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6009|-0.1669|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|||-0.1669|-0.6009|
90867466|NCT01218204|181597184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.648|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1657|-0.1302|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of GSK1292263|||-0.1302|-1.1657|
90867467|NCT01218204|181597184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.782|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2804|-0.2844|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of GSK1292263|||-0.2844|-1.2804|
90867468|NCT01218204|181597184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.884|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3652|-0.4026|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of GSK1292263|||-0.4026|-1.3652|
90867469|NCT00407797|181597200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Percent change from baseline evaluated by a one-sample two-sided t-test comparing the difference to zero.||||<.0001
90867470|NCT00407797|181597201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.0001
90867471|NCT00407797|181597202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Percent change evaluated by a one-sample two-sided t-test comparing the difference to zero.||||<.0001
90867472|NCT00407797|181597203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Participants with \<= 6 seizures during Baseline period.||||<.0001
90910053|NCT01090024|181690448|SUPERIORITY|One-sided p-value testing superiority of BI 671800 vs placebo with 2.5% alpha.|Adjusted means difference|0.083|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.624||0.4473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.147|1.313|||Mixed effect model||Adjusted means difference of BI 671800 200 mg BID (D) vs Placebo (A).|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM) with terms for baseline, treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect was used. A compound symmetry covariance structure was used.||1.313|-1.147|0.4473
90867473|NCT00407797|181597203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Participants with \> 6 seizures during Baseline Period.||||<.0001
90867474|NCT00407797|181597209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 21: Sleep Disturbance. Change from baseline evaluated by a one-sample two-sided t-test comparing the difference to zero.||||0.0552
90867475|NCT00407797|181597209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||LOCF: Sleep Disturbance. Change from baseline evaluated by a one-sample two-sided t-test comparing the difference to zero.||||0.0350
90867476|NCT00407797|181597209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6743|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 21: Snoring. Change from baseline evaluated by a one-sample two-sided t-test comparing the difference to zero.||||0.6743
90867477|NCT00407797|181597209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4736|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||LOCF: Snoring. Change from baseline evaluated by a one-sample two-sided t-test comparing the difference to zero.||||0.4736
90867478|NCT00407797|181597209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8173|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 21: Awaken Short of Breath. Change from baseline evaluated by a one-sample two-sided t-test comparing the difference to zero.||||0.8173
90867479|NCT00407797|181597209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9092|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||LOCF: Awaken Short of Breath. Change from baseline evaluated by a one-sample two-sided t-test comparing the difference to zero.||||0.9092
90867480|NCT00407797|181597209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1091|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 21: Sleep Adequacy. Change from baseline evaluated by a one-sample two-sided t-test comparing the difference to zero.||||0.1091
90867481|NCT00407797|181597209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0944|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||LOCF: Sleep Adequacy. Change from baseline evaluated by a one-sample two-sided t-test comparing the difference to zero.||||0.0944
90867482|NCT00407797|181597209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8928|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 21: Somnolence. Change from baseline evaluated by a one-sample two-sided t-test comparing the difference to zero.||||0.8928
90867483|NCT00407797|181597209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7669|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||LOCF: Somnolence. Change from baseline evaluated by a one-sample two-sided t-test comparing the difference to zero.||||0.7669
90867484|NCT00407797|181597209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1698|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 21: 9-Item Overall Sleep Problems Index. Change from baseline evaluated by a one-sample two-sided t-test comparing the difference to zero.||||0.1698
90867485|NCT00407797|181597209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0898|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||LOCF: 9-Item Overall Sleep Problem Index. Change from baseline evaluated by a one-sample two-sided t-test comparing the difference to zero.||||0.0898
90971004|NCT01780831|181824509|OTHER|Point and 90% CI estimates of percentage Cohort 1 infants who died or had SADR of Grade 3 or 4 through 24 weeks of life.|Clopper-Pearson Confidence Interval (CI)|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.3|26.4||||||||26.4|0.3|
90867486|NCT00407797|181597209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0465|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 21: Quantity of Sleep. Change from baseline evaluated by a one-sample two-sided t-test comparing the difference to zero.||||0.0465
90867487|NCT00407797|181597209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0316|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||LOCF: Quantity of Sleep. Change from baseline evaluated by a one-sample two-sided t-test comparing the difference to zero.||||0.0316
90867488|NCT00407797|181597210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 21; change from baseline evaluated by a one-sample two-sided t-test comparing the difference to zero.||||0.2187
90867489|NCT00407797|181597210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||LOCF; change from baseline evaluated by a one-sample two-sided t-test comparing the difference to zero.||||0.1905
90867490|NCT00407797|181597211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Anxiety: Week 21. Change from baseline evaluated by a one-sample two-sided t-test comparing the difference to zero.||||<.0001
90867491|NCT00407797|181597211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Anxiety: LOCF. Change from baseline evaluated by a one-sample two-sided t-test comparing the difference to zero.||||<.0001
90867492|NCT00407797|181597211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0799|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Depression: Week 21. Change from baseline evaluated by a one-sample two-sided t-test comparing the difference to zero.||||0.0799
90867493|NCT00407797|181597211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0846|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Depression: LOCF. Change from baseline evaluated by a one-sample two-sided t-test comparing the difference to zero.||||0.0846
90867494|NCT03250845|181597228|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||H0: No difference between Multigam 5% and Multigam 10% infusion time Ha: Multigam 10% infusion time is significantly shorter than Multigam 5%||||<0.0001
90867495|NCT03250845|181597229|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0005|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||H0: No difference in hospitalisation time between Multigam 5% and Multigam 10% infusion Ha: Hospitalisation time with Multigam 10% infusion is significantly shorter than with Multigam 5%||||<0.0005
90867496|NCT03250845|181597231|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||H0: No difference in number of nursing actions per patient between Multigam 5% and Multigam 10% infusion Ha: Number of nursing actions per patient is smaller with Multigam 10% infusion||||0.03
90867497|NCT05973981|181597281|OTHER||Slope|0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.63|||||Adjusted for age, sex, and race|||0.63|-0.25|
90867498|NCT05973981|181597281|OTHER||Slope|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.46|||||adjusted for age, sex, and race|||0.46|-0.41|
90867499|NCT00601458|181597313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-50.7||||0.005||97.8|-73.6|-8.0||1-sided alpha = 0.045 Hochberg closed testing procedure|ANOVA||The natural log scale treatment difference (pregabalin - placebo) and 97.8% CI for the treatment difference were exponentiated and reported as a percentage reduction in 24-h cumulative hydromorphone consumption.|||-8.0|-73.6|0.005
90910054|NCT01090024|181690448|SUPERIORITY|One-sided p-value testing superiority of BI 671800 vs placebo with 2.5% alpha.|Adjusted means difference|0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.625||0.1426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.563|1.903|||Mixed effect model||Adjusted means difference of BI 671800 400 mg PM QD (C) vs Placebo (A).|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM) with terms for baseline, treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect was used. A compound symmetry covariance structure was used.||1.903|-0.563|0.1426
90971005|NCT01780831|181824509|OTHER|Point and 90% CI estimates of percentage Cohort 2 infants who died or had SADR of Grade 3 or 4 through 24 weeks of life.|Clopper-Pearson Confidence Interval (CI)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||CI is not provided since the estimation parameter is 0.|||||
90867500|NCT00601458|181597313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-65.4||||0.0001||97.8|-81.7|-34.6||1-sided alpha = 0.045 Hochberg closed testing procedure|ANOVA||The natural log scale treatment difference (naproxen - placebo) and 97.8% CI for the treatment difference were exponentiated and reported as a percentage reduction in 24-h cumulative hydromorphone consumption.|||-34.6|-81.7|0.0001
90867501|NCT00601458|181597314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.46||||0.004||95.0|0.183|2.95||1-sided alpha = 0.045 Hochberg closed testing procedure|Log Rank||Hodges-Lehmann procedure was used to obtain an estimate of the difference in medians and an exact CI for the difference in medians|||2.95|0.183|0.004
90867502|NCT00601458|181597314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|3.7|||<|0.001||95.0|1.77|6.72||1-sided alpha = 0.045 Hochberg closed testing procedure|Log Rank||Hodges-Lehmann procedure was used to obtain an estimate of the difference in medians and an exact CI for the difference in medians|||6.72|1.77|<0.001
90971006|NCT01780831|181824510|OTHER|||||||0.298|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.298
90867503|NCT00518986|181597315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3043||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Study drug was fixed factor and corresponding baseline value was a covariate.||Since there were two primary outcome measures the Hochberg procedure was used to control overall Type 1 error rate at the 0.05 level. If both p-values for the primary variables were \<= 0.05 the treatment was claimed to be significant for both variables. If 1 p-value was \> 0.05and the other was \<=0.025, the variable with a p-value \<= 0.025 was claimed as significant.||||0.3043
90867504|NCT00518986|181597316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|||||||Chi-squared|P-value for comparison is from a Pearson's chi-square test||Since there were two primary outcome measures the Hochberg procedure was used to control overall Type 1 error rate at the 0.05 level. If both p-values for the primary variables were \<= 0.05 the treatment was claimed to be significant for both variables. If 1 p-value was \> 0.05and the other was \<=0.025, the variable with a p-value \<= 0.025 was claimed as significant.||||0.0120
90867505|NCT00518986|181597317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0027||||||Nominal p-value is presented, but statistical significance cannot be claimed. As a key secondary variable significance could be claimed only if treatment effect was significant for both primary efficacy variables.|ANCOVA|||Least squares (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and p-value for the treatment comparison is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline as covariate.||||0.0027
90867506|NCT00518986|181597318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0019|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0019
90910055|NCT01090024|181690448|SUPERIORITY|One-sided p-value testing superiority of BI 671800 vs placebo with 2.5% alpha.|Adjusted means difference|0.281|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.611||0.3231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.924|1.486|||Mixed effect model||Adjusted means difference of BI 671800 400 mg AM QD (B) vs Placebo (A).|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM) with terms for baseline, treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect was used. A compound symmetry covariance structure was used.||1.486|-0.924|0.3231
90971007|NCT01780831|181824511|OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.37
90971008|NCT01780831|181824512|OTHER|||||||0.98|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.98
90867507|NCT00518986|181597319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3145|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3145
90867508|NCT00518986|181597320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2196|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2196
90867509|NCT00518986|181597321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2017||||||P-value is from Pearson's chi-square test|Chi-squared|||||||0.2017
90867510|NCT00518986|181597322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0032||||||P-value from Pearson's chi-square test|Chi-squared|||||||0.0032
90867511|NCT00518986|181597323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0207||||||P-value from Pearson's chi-square test|Chi-squared|||||||0.0207
90867512|NCT00518986|181597324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0529||||||P-value was generated from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0529
90867513|NCT00518986|181597325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0011|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0011
90867514|NCT00518986|181597326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0064||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0064
90867515|NCT00518986|181597327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1072|||||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.1072
90867516|NCT00518986|181597328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0355|||||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0355
90910056|NCT01090024|181690449|SUPERIORITY|One-sided p-value testing superiority of BI 671800 vs placebo with 2.5% alpha.|Adjusted means difference|-0.056|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063||0.1879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.068|||Mixed effect model||Adjusted means difference of BI 671800 200 mg BID (D) vs Placebo (A).|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM) with terms for baseline, treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect was used. A autoregressive covariance structure was used.||0.068|-0.180|0.1879
90910057|NCT01090024|181690449|SUPERIORITY|One-sided p-value testing superiority of BI 671800 vs placebo with 2.5% alpha.|Adjusted means difference|-0.026|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063||0.3384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.151|0.098|||Mixed effect model||Adjusted means difference of BI 671800 400 mg PM QD (C) vs Placebo (A).|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM) with terms for baseline, treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect was used. A autoregressive covariance structure was used.||0.098|-0.151|0.3384
90867517|NCT00518986|181597329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0591|||||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0591
90867518|NCT00518986|181597330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0025|||||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0025
90867519|NCT00518986|181597331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0794||||||P-value for treatment comparison is from Pearson's chi-square test|Chi-squared|||||||0.0794
90867520|NCT00518986|181597332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0888||||||P-value for the treatment comparison is from a Pearson's chi-square test|Chi-squared|||||||0.0888
90867521|NCT00518986|181597333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0433||||||P-value for the treatment comparison is from a Pearson's chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||||||0.0433
90867522|NCT00518986|181597334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0105||||||P-value for the treatment comparison is from a Pearson's chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||||||0.0105
90867523|NCT00518986|181597335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0523|||||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0523
90867524|NCT00518986|181597336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0289|||||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0289
90867525|NCT00518986|181597337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1272|||||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.1272
90867526|NCT00518986|181597338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0349|||||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0349
90867527|NCT00518986|181597339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0094|||||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0094
90867528|NCT00518986|181597340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0754|||||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0754
90867529|NCT00518986|181597341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0105|||||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0105
90867530|NCT00518986|181597342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2888|||||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.2888
90867531|NCT00518986|181597343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013|||||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0130
90940388|NCT00526097|181760514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.129||95.0|-0.4|3.0||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||3.0|-0.4|0.1290
90867532|NCT00518986|181597344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0354|||||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0354
90867533|NCT00518986|181597345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3854||||||P-value for the treatment comparison is from a Pearson's chi-square test|Chi-squared|||Responders are subjects with worst fatigue score \< 7 after baseline||||0.3854
90867534|NCT00518986|181597346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0145||||||P-value for the treatment comparison is from Pearson's chi-square test|Chi-squared|||Responders were defined as subjects with worst fatigue score \< 7||||0.0145
90867535|NCT00518986|181597347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6475||||||P-value for the treatment comparison is from a Pearson's chi-square test|Chi-squared|||Responders were patients with worst fatigue scores \< 7||||0.6475
90867536|NCT00518986|181597348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0118||||||P-value for the treatment comparison is from Pearson's chi-square test|Chi-squared|||Responders are subjects with worst fatigue score \< 7||||0.0118
90867537|NCT00518986|181597349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3483||||||P-value for the treatment comparison is from the Pearson's chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||Responders are subjects with a worst fatigue score of \< 7||||0.3483
90867538|NCT00518986|181597350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0879|||||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0879
90867539|NCT00518986|181597351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0277|||||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0277
90867540|NCT00518986|181597352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1245|||||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.1245
90867541|NCT00518986|181597353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0305|||||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0305
90867542|NCT00518986|181597354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0129|||||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0129
90867543|NCT00518986|181597355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0308||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0308
90867544|NCT00518986|181597356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0679|||||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0679
90867545|NCT00518986|181597357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0153|||||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0153
90867546|NCT00518986|181597358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0296|||||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0296
90867547|NCT00518986|181597359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0107|||||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0107
90867548|NCT00518986|181597360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0||||P-value for the treatment comparison is from a Pearson's chi-square test|Chi-squared|||Responders are defined as patients with a total score on FOSQ \> 17.9||||0.0100
90867549|NCT00518986|181597361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0854||95.0||||P-value for treatment comparison is from a Pearson's chi-square test|Chi-squared|||Responders are defined as subjects with a total score of \> 17.9||||0.0854
90867550|NCT00518986|181597362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0027||95.0||||P-value for the treatment comparison is from Pearson's chi-square test|Chi-squared|||Responders are defined as subjects with a total score \> 17.9||||0.0027
90867551|NCT00518986|181597363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0189||95.0||||P-value for the treatment comparison is from a Pearson's chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||Responders are defined as subjects who had a total score of \> 17.9||||0.0189
90867552|NCT00518986|181597364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024||95.0||||P-value for the treatment comparison is from a Pearson's chi-square test|Chi-squared|||Responders are defined as subjects with total score \> 17.9||||0.0240
90867553|NCT00518986|181597365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.332||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.3320
90867554|NCT00518986|181597366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.893||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.8930
90867555|NCT00518986|181597367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1774||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.1774
90867556|NCT00518986|181597368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.1000
90867557|NCT00518986|181597369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2428||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.2428
90867558|NCT00518986|181597370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1816||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.1816
90867559|NCT00518986|181597371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1627||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.1627
90867560|NCT00518986|181597372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0018||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0018
90867561|NCT00518986|181597373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0096||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0096
90867562|NCT00518986|181597374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0126||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0126
90867563|NCT01930123|181597431|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.98||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.01
90867564|NCT01930123|181597432|OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mild fibrosis vs. advanced fibrosis||||0.006
90867565|NCT01930123|181597433|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|56.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.6||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.09
90867566|NCT02899793|181597434|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024|||||||Fisher Exact|||Subgroup difference in ORRs||||0.024
90867567|NCT03310021|181597442|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-65.5||||0.0275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.0|-58.0|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||-58.00|-78.00|0.0275
90867568|NCT03310021|181597442|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-61.0||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.0|-44.0|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||-44.00|-65.00|0.025
90867569|NCT03310021|181597442|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-32.5||||0.0136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.0|-9.0|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||-9.00|-47.00|0.0136
90867570|NCT03310021|181597442|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-36.5||||0.0136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.0|-9.0|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||-9.00|-62.00|0.0136
90867571|NCT03310021|181597442|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-59.0||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.0|-38.0|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||-38.00|-70.00|0.025
90867572|NCT03310021|181597442|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-66.0||||0.0119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.0|-61.0|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||-61.00|-68.00|0.0119
90867573|NCT03310021|181597442|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-15.5||||0.2667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.0|17.0|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||17.00|-38.00|0.2667
90867574|NCT03310021|181597442|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-68.0||||0.0238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.0|-59.0|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||-59.00|-74.00|0.0238
90867575|NCT03310021|181597442|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-56.5||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.0|-39.0|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||-39.00|-65.00|0.0007
90867576|NCT03310021|181597442|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-35.0||||0.0121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.0|-24.0|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||-24.00|-53.00|0.0121
90910058|NCT01090024|181690449|SUPERIORITY|One-sided p-value testing superiority of BI 671800 vs placebo with 2.5% alpha.|Adjusted means difference|-0.093|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.214|0.029|||Mixed effect model||Adjusted means difference of BI 671800 400 mg AM QD (B) vs Placebo (A).|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM) with terms for baseline, treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect was used. A autoregressive covariance structure was used.||0.029|-0.214|0.0670
90910059|NCT00470626|181690482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Probability of Successful Retrieval|0.9||||||95.0|||||||Probability of successful retrieval is from Kaplan-Meier analysis.|||||
90910060|NCT02380742|181690488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was that patients' pain scores at removal were the same between the lidocaine and placebo groups after controlling for baseline pain.||||.02
90867577|NCT03310021|181597443|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-80.0||||0.0256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.0|-77.0|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||-77.00|-83.00|0.0256
90867578|NCT03310021|181597443|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-79.5||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-97.0|-67.0|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||-67.00|-97.00|0.025
90867579|NCT03310021|181597443|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-37.0||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.0|5.0|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||5.00|-66.00|0.074
90867580|NCT03310021|181597443|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-10.5||||0.1066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.0|10.0|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||10.00|-59.00|0.1066
90867581|NCT03310021|181597443|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-84.0||||0.0219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-87.0|-71.0|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||-71.00|-87.00|0.0219
90867582|NCT03310021|181597443|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-78.0||||0.0262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.0|-74.0|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||-74.0|-83.00|0.0262
90867583|NCT03310021|181597443|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-50.0||||0.0412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.0|0.0|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||0.00|-65.00|0.0412
90867584|NCT03310021|181597443|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-89.5||||0.0269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-93.0|-77.0|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||-77.00|-93.00|0.0269
90867585|NCT03310021|181597443|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-84.0||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-86.0|-69.0|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||-69.00|-86.00|0.0026
90867586|NCT03310021|181597443|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-65.0||||0.0181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.0|-57.0|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||-57.00|-76.00|0.0181
90867587|NCT03310021|181597444|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-81.06||||0.0282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-92.99|-71.96|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||-71.96|-92.99|0.0282
90867588|NCT03310021|181597444|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-69.15||||0.0282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-96.91|-48.64|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||-48.64|-96.91|0.0282
90867589|NCT03310021|181597444|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-57.39||||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.07|-40.03|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||-40.03|-72.07|0.0085
90867590|NCT03310021|181597444|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-54.96||||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.42|-25.5|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||-25.50|-80.42|0.0085
90867591|NCT03310021|181597444|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-100.25||||0.0282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-133.08|-84.48|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||-84.48|-133.08|0.0282
90867592|NCT03310021|181597444|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-79.87||||0.0282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-86.36|-65.74|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||-65.74|-86.36|0.0282
90867593|NCT03310021|181597444|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-65.02||||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-89.54|-39.17|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||-39.17|-89.54|0.0085
90867594|NCT03310021|181597444|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-91.29||||0.0282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-128.88|-60.83|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||-60.83|-128.88|0.0282
90867595|NCT03310021|181597444|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-81.49||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-91.05|-65.96|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||-65.96|-91.05|0.0034
90867596|NCT03310021|181597444|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-58.47||||0.0189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-110.86|-46.12|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||-46.12|-110.86|0.0189
90867597|NCT03310021|181597445|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-59.39||||0.0282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.48|-52.62|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||-52.62|-66.48|0.0282
90867598|NCT03310021|181597445|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-59.26||||0.0282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.34|-26.94|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||-26.94|-70.34|0.0282
90867599|NCT03310021|181597445|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-36.76||||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.14|-29.76|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||-29.76|-46.14|0.0085
90910061|NCT02380742|181690489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was that patients' pain scores at removal were the same between the lidocaine and placebo groups after controlling for investigator training and pessary type.||||.03
90910062|NCT02380742|181690490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.811|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was that patients' pain scores at removal were the same between the lidocaine and placebo groups after controlling for baseline pain and patient age.||||.03
90910063|NCT02380742|181690491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was that patients' pain scores at insertion were the same between the lidocaine and placebo groups after controlling for baseline pain.||||.09
90910064|NCT01185522|181690509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.22|||Univariate logistic regression model|||Comparison between genders: women and men.||1.22|0.45|0.235
90910065|NCT01185522|181690509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.22|||Univariate logistic regression model|||Comparison between Age: \<= 55 years and \> 55 years||1.22|0.55|0.331
90910066|NCT01185522|181690509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.23|||Univariate logistic regression model|||Comparison between time since initial diagnosis: \>= 10 years and \< 10 years||2.23|1.00|0.050
90910067|NCT01185522|181690509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.46|||Univariate logistic regression model|||Comparison between participants without erosive rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and participants with erosive RA||2.46|0.88|0.144
90910068|NCT01185522|181690509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|2.65|||Univariate logistic regression model|||Comparison between DAS-28 score: \<= 5.1 and DAS-28 \>5.1||2.65|1.14|0.010
90867600|NCT03310021|181597445|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-36.82||||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.81|-20.46|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||-20.46|-55.81|0.0085
90867601|NCT03310021|181597445|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-61.67||||0.0282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.82|-43.78|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||-43.78|-75.82|0.0282
90867602|NCT03310021|181597445|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-67.63||||0.0282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.4|-61.99|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||-61.99|-77.40|0.0282
90867603|NCT03310021|181597445|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-40.33||||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.77|-11.17|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||-11.17|-59.77|0.0085
90910069|NCT01185522|181690509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.1|||Univariate logistic regression model|||Comparison between ESR: \<= 28 mm/h and \> 28 mm/h||2.10|0.92|0.119
90910070|NCT01185522|181690509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.13|||Univariate logistic regression model|||Comparison between number of participants without anemia and number of participants with anemia||2.13|0.81|0.265
90910071|NCT01185522|181690509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.71|||Univariate logistic regression model|||Comparison between dose of corticosteroids: \<= 5 mg and \> 5 mg||1.71|0.77|0.511
90867604|NCT03310021|181597445|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-59.18||||0.0282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-101.02|-48.14|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||-48.14|-101.02|0.0282
90867605|NCT03310021|181597445|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-54.63||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.14|-41.19|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||-41.19|-59.14|0.0027
90867606|NCT03310021|181597445|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-38.14||||0.0189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.78|-15.37|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||-15.37|-65.78|0.0189
90867607|NCT03310021|181597446|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|965.09||||0.0282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|474.48|1377.35|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||1377.35|474.48|0.0282
90867608|NCT03310021|181597446|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|1127.29||||0.0282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|769.46|1575.02|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||1575.02|769.46|0.0282
90867609|NCT03310021|181597446|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|574.89||||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|307.65|1175.28|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||1175.28|307.65|0.0085
90867610|NCT03310021|181597446|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|715.34||||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|535.38|836.4|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||836.40|535.38|0.0085
90910072|NCT01185522|181690509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.0|||Univariate logistic regression model|||Comparison between HAQ score: \<= 1.5 and \> 1.5||2.00|0.90|0.153
90910073|NCT01185522|181690509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|3.31|||Univariate logistic regression model|||Comparison between VAS patient: fatigue \<= 66 and \> 66||3.31|1.45|<0.001
90910074|NCT01185522|181690509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|3.08|||Univariate logistic regression model|||Comparison between VAS patient: pain \<= 66 and \> 66||3.08|1.35|<0.001
90910075|NCT01185522|181690509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.54||||0.261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|2.75|||Univariate logistic regression model|||Comparison between VAS patient (quality of sleep) score: \<=30 score and 30 - 59 score||2.75|0.86|0.261
90910076|NCT01185522|181690509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|2.05|||Univariate logistic regression model|||Comparison between VAS patient (quality of sleep) score: \<= 30 and 59 - 77||2.05|0.67|0.261
90910077|NCT01185522|181690509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.66||||0.261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.89|||Univariate logistic regression model|||Comparison between VAS patient (quality of sleep) score: \<= 30 and \> 77||2.89|0.95|0.261
90910078|NCT01185522|181690509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|3.14|||Univariate logistic regression model|||Comparison between VAS patient: global assessment score: \<= 67 and \> 67||3.14|1.38|<0.001
90910079|NCT01185522|181690509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|3.47|||Univariate logistic regression model|||Comparison between SF36 vitality score: \> 33 and \<= 33||3.47|1.50|< 0.001
90960405|NCT06020118|181801536|SUPERIORITY|95% exact Clopper-Pearson confidence boundaries and the p-values were calculated using a logistic regression model adjusted for site.|||||<|0.001||||||Number of participants in each vaccination group with a seroprotective HAI (in a subset of samples) titer (≥1:40) pre- and post-ccIIV4 immunization for each 2023-24 influenza vaccine antigen.|Regression, Logistic|||Antigen: B/Victoria||||<0.001
90867611|NCT03310021|181597446|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|1141.17||||0.0282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|964.03|1736.78|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||1736.78|964.03|0.0282
90867612|NCT03310021|181597446|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|1198.83||||0.0282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|988.82|1670.3|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||1670.30|988.82|0.0282
90867613|NCT03310021|181597446|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|721.21||||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|585.92|1108.92|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||1108.92|585.92|0.0085
90867614|NCT03310021|181597446|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|1204.62||||0.0282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1001.72|1471.45|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||1471.45|1001.72|0.0282
90867615|NCT03310021|181597446|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|1180.5||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|857.21|1296.02|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||1296.02|857.21|0.0027
90867616|NCT03310021|181597446|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|976.59||||0.0189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|585.99|1498.37|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||1498.37|585.99|0.0189
90867617|NCT03310021|181597447|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|826.9||||0.0282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|505.4|1362.11|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||1362.11|505.40|0.0282
90867618|NCT03310021|181597447|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|1125.7||||0.0282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|873.87|1552.77|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||1552.77|873.87|0.0282
90867619|NCT03310021|181597447|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|538.84||||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|291.2|1077.46|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||1077.46|291.20|0.0085
90867620|NCT03310021|181597447|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|687.57||||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|500.92|902.73|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||902.73|500.92|0.0085
90867621|NCT03310021|181597447|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|1012.45||||0.0282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|859.08|1352.05|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||1352.05|859.08|0.0282
90867622|NCT03310021|181597447|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|1057.27||||0.0282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|818.96|1634.3|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||1634.30|818.96|0.0282
90867623|NCT03310021|181597447|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|630.81||||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|421.78|1124.28|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||1124.28|421.78|0.0085
90867624|NCT03310021|181597447|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|925.84||||0.0282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|663.74|1216.28|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||1216.28|663.74|0.0282
90867625|NCT03310021|181597447|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|871.11||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|631.67|1051.06|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||1051.06|631.67|0.0027
90867626|NCT03310021|181597447|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|874.44||||0.0189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|637.25|1412.21|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||1412.21|637.25|0.0189
90867627|NCT02002091|181597452|OTHER|||||||0.706|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.706
90867628|NCT02002091|181597453|OTHER|||||||0.346|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.346
90867629|NCT02002091|181597454|OTHER|||||||0.123|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.123
90910080|NCT01185522|181690509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.93|||Univariate logistic regression model|||Comparison between HADS score: Anxiety (No case) and HADS score: Anxiety (Doubtful case)||1.93|0.60|0.399
90867630|NCT02002091|181597455|OTHER|||||||0.968|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.968
90867631|NCT02002091|181597456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004||||||The threshold for statistical significance for P-Value is \<0.05|Fisher Exact|||||||0.004
90867632|NCT02002091|181597457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.988|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.988
90867633|NCT02002091|181597458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.038|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.038
90867634|NCT02002091|181597460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.917|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.917
90910081|NCT01185522|181690509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78||||0.399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.26|||Univariate logistic regression model|||Comparison between HADS score: Anxiety (No case) and HADS score: Anxiety (Certain case)||1.26|0.48|0.399
90867635|NCT02002091|181597461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.816|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.816
90867636|NCT02002091|181597462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.008||||||Statistical significance : p\< 0.05|Fisher Exact|||||||0.008
90867637|NCT02002091|181597464|OTHER|||||||0.025||||||The threshold of statistical difference is P-value \< 0.05|Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.025
90867638|NCT02002091|181597467|OTHER|||||||0.059||||||the threshold for statistical significance used is P-value \<0.05|Fisher Exact|||||||0.059
90867639|NCT01233258|181597477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||||||No multiplicity adjustment as only 1 primary endpoint.|ANOVA|No adjustment, no transformation of data seemed to be necessary.||Null hypothesis: bleeding rates are equal, alternative hypothesis rates are unequal. Power calculation: Assumption 5 bleeds per year on prophylactic treatment, 15 on on-demand treatment; 2-sided alpha 5% and 90% power.||||0.0001
90867640|NCT01233258|181597478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||||||No multiplicity adjustment as this is not primary endpoint.|ANOVA|No adjustment, no transformation of data seemed to be necessary.||Null hypothesis: bleeding rates are equal, alternative hypothesis rates are unequal. Power calculation not done for this comparison as not primary comparison.||||0.0001
90867641|NCT01233258|181597479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||ANOVA|No adjustment, no transformation of data seemed to be necessary.||Null hypothesis: bleeding rates are equal, alternative hypothesis rates are unequal. Power calculation not done for this comparison as not primary comparison.||||0.0001
90867642|NCT01233258|181597480|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin 10%|Median Difference (Net)|-0.0001||||0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.049|||No multiplicity adjustment as not primary endpoint.|Exact Permutation Test for paired sample||Confidence interval calculated with exact Hodges- Lehmann estimates for CS/EP minus CS/ADJ|Null hypothesis: the proportion of bleeds controlled by no more than 2 infusions in the CS/EP group plus 10% is less than the proportion of bleeds controlled by no more than 2 infusions in the CS/ADJ group. Alternative hypothesis: the proportion of bleeds controlled by no more than 2 infusions in the CS/EP group plus 10% is greater than or equal to the proportion of bleeds controlled by no more than 2 infusions in the CS/ADJ group. No power calculation since this is not the primary comparison.|||-0.0490|0.0001
90867643|NCT04545385|181597525|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.7817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.545|4.071|||Regression, Logistic|||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with fixed effects for treatment, baseline FEV1, weight, age group, and gender.||4.071|0.545|0.7817
90867644|NCT00418457|181597631|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.28|||Regression, Cox|||||1.28|0.74|0.84
90867645|NCT00418457|181597632|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.17|||GEE|||||1.17|0.85|0.70
90867646|NCT00418457|181597633|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.28|||GEE|||||1.28|0.75|0.81
90867647|NCT00418457|181597634|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.014||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.60|-0.63|0.96
90867648|NCT00418457|181597635|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.75||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|1.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.48|0.02|0.043
90867649|NCT03736447|181597640|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|67.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.0|84.5|||Farrington-Manning test|||||84.5|50.0|<0.0001
90867650|NCT03736447|181597641|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|64.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.0|81.4|||Farrington-Manning test|||||81.4|47.0|<0.0001
90867651|NCT03736447|181597642|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|56.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.8|73.5|||Farrington-Manning test|||||73.5|39.8|<0.0001
90867652|NCT02795832|181597656|SUPERIORITY|ANCOVA model was fitted with percent change from baseline to Week 2 in EASI score as the dependent variable. Explanatory variables fitted were: treatment group (ZPL-5212372, placebo) and baseline EASI score as a continuous variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.441||0.5016|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.24|21.34||The 1-sided p-value tests if the ZPL-5212372 LS mean is \< the placebo LS mean.|ANCOVA|||Observed case||21.34|-21.24|0.5016
90910082|NCT01185522|181690509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.81|||Univariate logistic regression model|||Comparison between HADS score: Depression (No Case) and HADS score: Depression (Doubtful case)||1.81|0.65|0.858
90867653|NCT02795832|181597656|SUPERIORITY|ANCOVA model was fitted with percent change from baseline to Week 2 in EASI score as the dependent variable. Explanatory variables fitted were: treatment group (ZPL-5212372, placebo) and baseline EASI score as a continuous variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.964||0.4082|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-24.39|18.36||The 1-sided p-value tests if the ZPL-5212372 LS mean is \< the placebo LS mean.|ANCOVA|||Multiple imputations||18.36|-24.39|0.4082
90867654|NCT02795832|181597656|SUPERIORITY|ANCOVA model was fitted with percent change from baseline to Week 2 in EASI score as the dependent variable. Explanatory variables fitted were: treatment group (ZPL-5212372, placebo) and baseline EASI score as a continuous variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|-18.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.138||0.0878|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-40.65|4.11||The 1-sided p-value tests if the ZPL-5212372 LS mean is \< the placebo LS mean.|ANCOVA|||Last observation carried forward||4.11|-40.65|0.0878
90867655|NCT02795832|181597656|SUPERIORITY|ANCOVA model was fitted with percent change from baseline to Week 2 in EASI score as the dependent variable. Explanatory variables fitted were: treatment group (ZPL-5212372, placebo) and baseline EASI score as a continuous variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|-37.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.748||0.0275|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-69.53|-5.66||The 1-sided p-value tests if the ZPL-5212372 LS mean is \< the placebo LS mean.|ANCOVA|||Worst case imputation||-5.66|-69.53|0.0275
90867656|NCT02795832|181597657|SUPERIORITY|ANCOVA model was fitted with percent change from baseline to Week 2 in EASI score as the dependent variable. Explanatory variables fitted were: treatment group (ZPL-5212372, placebo) and baseline EASI score as a continuous variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|-11.72||||0.1284|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-28.85|5.51||The 1-sided p-value tests if the ZPL-5212372 LS mean is \< the placebo LS mean.|ANCOVA|||Day 5||5.51|-28.85|0.1284
90867657|NCT02795832|181597657|SUPERIORITY|ANCOVA model was fitted with percent change from baseline to Week 2 in EASI score as the dependent variable. Explanatory variables fitted were: treatment group (ZPL-5212372, placebo) and baseline EASI score as a continuous variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|-5.95||||0.2765|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.85|10.95||The 1-sided p-value tests if the ZPL-5212372 LS mean is \< the placebo LS mean.|ANCOVA|||Day 8||10.95|-22.85|0.2765
90910083|NCT01185522|181690509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.52|||Univariate logistic regression model|||Comparison between HADS score: Depression (No Case) and HADS score: Depression (Certain case)||1.52|0.57|0.858
90910084|NCT01185522|181690509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.58|||Multivariate logistic regression model|||Comparison between time since initial diagnosis: \>= 10 years and \< 10 years||2.58|1.03|0.036
90910085|NCT01185522|181690510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.28|||Univariate logistic regression model|||Predictive factor: C-Reactive Protein||1.28|1.05|0.004
90910086|NCT01185522|181690510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.27|||Multivariate logistic regression model|||Predictive factor: C-Reactive Protein||1.27|1.03|0.013
90910087|NCT01185522|181690511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.05|||Univariate logistic regression model|||Predictive factor: Tender joint||1.05|0.99|0.253
90867658|NCT02795832|181597657|SUPERIORITY|ANCOVA model was fitted with percent change from baseline to Week 2 in EASI score as the dependent variable. Explanatory variables fitted were: treatment group (ZPL-5212372, placebo) and baseline EASI score as a continuous variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|-6.01||||0.2765|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.08|11.06||The 1-sided p-value tests if the ZPL-5212372 LS mean is \< the placebo LS mean.|ANCOVA|||Day 10||11.06|-23.08|0.2765
90867659|NCT02795832|181597657|SUPERIORITY|ANCOVA model was fitted with percent change from baseline to Week 2 in EASI score as the dependent variable. Explanatory variables fitted were: treatment group (ZPL-5212372, placebo) and baseline EASI score as a continuous variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.5016|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.24|21.34|||ANCOVA|||Day 15||21.34|-21.24|0.5016
90867660|NCT02795832|181597658|SUPERIORITY|ANCOVA model was fitted with percent change from baseline to Week 2 in EASI score as the dependent variable. Explanatory variables fitted were: treatment group (ZPL-5212372, placebo) and baseline EASI score as a continuous variable.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.4789|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.28|10.75||The 1-sided p-value tests if the ZPL-5212372 LS mean is \< placebo LS mean.|ANCOVA|||EASI 50||10.75|0.28|0.4789
90910088|NCT01185522|181690511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.09|||Univariate logistic regression model|||Predictive factor : Swollen joint||1.09|1.01|0.021
90910089|NCT01729819|181690523|SUPERIORITY|The change in mean nocturnal voids from baseline as the dependent variable, baseline mean nocturnal voids as a covariate, and treatments and visit (Month 1, Month 2, and Month 3) as factors, was considered for the analysis. Longitudinal analysis based on repeated measures using analysis of covariance with subject as random effect. Missing values post-baseline were not imputed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.08|||ANCOVA|Change in mean nocturnal voids as the dependent variable and baseline mean nocturnal voids as a covariate, treatment and visit as factors.|Longitudinal analysis based on repeated measures using analysis of covariance with subject as random effect. The estimated value represents the contrast of combination - tolterodine.|Combination versus tolterodine (i.e. effect in combination group minus effect in tolterodine group) is presented. The trial was to be declared positive if a statistically significant (two-sided, p \< 0.05) positive effect for combining tolterodine and desmopressin compared to tolterodine monotherapy on the primary endpoint had been demonstrated.||0.08|-0.77|0.112
90910090|NCT01729819|181690524|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.0||||0.385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.96|58.96|||ANCOVA|Change in mean time to first void as dependent variable and baseline mean time to first void as a covariate, and treatment and visit as factors.|The estimated value represents the contrast of combination - tolterodine.|Combination versus tolterodine (i.e. effect in combination group minus effect in tolterodine group) is presented.||58.96|-22.96|0.385
90910091|NCT01729819|181690525|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-64.16||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-141.46|13.14|||ANCOVA|Change in mean nocturnal volume as the dependent variable and baseline mean nocturnal volume as a covariate, and treatment and visit as factors.|The estimated value represents the contrast of combination - tolterodine.|Combination versus tolterodine (i.e. effect in combination group minus effect in tolterodine group) is presented||13.14|-141.46|0.103
90910092|NCT01729819|181690526|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.62||33% responder status as dependent variable, baseline mean nocturnal voids as covariate, treatment, and visit as factors.|Generalized Estimating Equation|||Combination versus tolterodine (i.e. odds of being responder in combination group versus odds of being responder in tolterodine group) is presented. The proportion of responders during three months of treatment was analysed (i.e. the odds ratio of the odds of being a responder) longitudinally using Generalised Estimating Equation (GEE) for a repeated logistic regression.||2.62|0.71|0.352
90910093|NCT01729819|181690527|SUPERIORITY|Estimated contrast (Combination - tolterodine) from longitudinal analysis including a treatment-by visit interaction term||||||0.443||||||Adjusted treatment difference (Combination-tolterodine) in mean number of nocturnal voids at Month 1|ANCOVA|||Treatment difference (Combination-tolterodine) at Month 1||||0.443
90910094|NCT01729819|181690527|SUPERIORITY|Estimated contrast (Combination - tolterodine) from longitudinal analysis including a treatment-by visit interaction term||||||0.086||||||Adjusted treatment difference in mean number of nocturnal voids (Combination-tolterodine) at Month 2|ANCOVA|||Treatment difference (Combination-tolterodine) at Month 2||||0.086
90910095|NCT01729819|181690527|SUPERIORITY|Estimated contrast (Combination - tolterodine) from longitudinal analysis including a treatment-by visit interaction term||||||0.055||||||Adjusted treatment difference (Combination-tolterodine) in mean number of nocturnal voids at Month 3|ANCOVA|||Treatment difference (Combination-tolterodine) at Month 3||||0.055
90910096|NCT01729819|181690527|SUPERIORITY|Estimated contrast (Combination - tolterodine) from longitudinal analysis including a treatment-by visit interaction term||||||0.106||||||Adjusted treatment difference (Combination-tolterodine) in mean number of nocturnal voids for the duration of 3 months|ANCOVA|||Treatment difference (Combination-tolterodine) for the duration of 3 months||||0.106
90910097|NCT01729819|181690528|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.42||||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.05|||ANCOVA|Quality of sleep rating score as dependent variable, baseline quality of sleep rating scale value as a covariate, and responder status as a factor.|Estimated contrast (Combination - tolterodine) from longitudinal analysis of covariance|"Combination versus tolterodine (i.e. score on scale in combination group versus score on scale in tolterodine group) is presented.Statistical analysis for from very tired to wide awake, how do you feel now"||1.05|-0.20|0.178
90867661|NCT02795832|181597658|SUPERIORITY|ANCOVA model was fitted with percent change from baseline to Week 2 in EASI score as the dependent variable. Explanatory variables fitted were: treatment group (ZPL-5212372, placebo) and baseline EASI score as a continuous variable.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.24|999.0||The 1-sided p-value tests if the ZPL-5212372 LS mean is \< placebo LS mean.|ANCOVA|||EASI-75||999|0.24|0.3000
90867662|NCT02795832|181597659|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.45||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|19.2||Results for the ZPL-5212372 and placebo groups are estimated adjusted LS means from the fitted model.|Shapiro-Wilkes test|The p-value tests if the residuals are normally distributed.||||19.20|0.01|0.500
90867663|NCT02795832|181597660|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.22||0.5233|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.02|2.16|||Shapiro-Wilkes test|||||2.16|-2.02|0.5233
90867664|NCT02795832|181597661|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.43||||0.2455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|13.26|||t-test, 1 sided|||||13.26|0.45|0.2455
90867665|NCT02795832|181597662|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.521||0.2812|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.4|5.09||The 1-sided p-value tests if the ZPL-5212372 LS mean is \< placebo LS mean.|Shapiro-Wilkes test|||||5.09|-10.40|0.2812
90867666|NCT01269463|181597728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.01
90867667|NCT01269463|181597729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.01
90867668|NCT01638546|181597742|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The study will be performed as a double-blind, placebo controlled, randomized Phase II in patients with relapsed sensitive or refractory SCLC. Eligible patients will be randomized 1:1 to one of two treatment arms: ABT-888 and temozolomide as the investigational arm, versus placebo and temozolomide as the control arm. The randomization will be stratified by center and by type or relapse (sensitive vs. refractory). The primary objective is to compare the two treatment regimens with respect to efficacy, expressed as Progression Free Survival (PFS) at 4 months post-randomization. PFS will be calculated as proportion of patients alive and without evidence of disease at 4 months after randomization.|||
90867669|NCT00540514|181597755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Response Rate Ratio|1.313||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.1|1.082|1.593||Statistical significance defined as P-value \< 0.049.|Chi-squared||Response rate ratio = PA/PT. A response rate ratio \> 1 favors the albumin-bound paclitaxel/carboplatin arm of the study.|The null hypothesis is that the albumin-bound paclitaxel/carboplatin regimen response rate (PA) is equal to that of the paclitaxel (Taxol)/carboplatin regimen (PT). Superiority of albumin-bound paclitaxel/carboplatin to paclitaxel/carboplatin will be established if the lower bound of the 95.1% CI of the response rate ratio is \> 1.0.||1.593|1.082|0.005
90867670|NCT00540514|181597756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.902||||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.1|0.767|1.06||P-value is based on a stratified log rank test stratified by geographic region (North America/Australia, Eastern Europe, or Asia/Pacific) and histology of primary diagnosis (squamous cell carcinoma, adenocarcinoma, or other carcinoma).|Log Rank||Hazard ratio (albumin-bound paclitaxel/carboplatin to paclitaxel/carboplatin) \<1 favors the albumin-bound paclitaxel/carboplatin group.|||1.060|0.767|0.214
90867671|NCT00540514|181597757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.922||||0.271|TWO_SIDED|95.1|0.797|1.066||P-value is based on a stratified log rank test stratified by geographic region (North America/Australia, Eastern Europe, or Asia/Pacific) and histology of primary diagnosis (Squamous cell carcinoma, adenocarcinoma, or other carcinoma).|Log Rank||Hazard ratio (albumin-bound paclitaxel/carboplatin to paclitaxel/carboplatin) \<1 favors the albumin-bound paclitaxel/carboplatin group.|||1.066|0.797|0.271
90867672|NCT00540514|181597758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Response Rate Ratio|1.074||||0.239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.953|1.21|||Chi-squared|||||1.210|0.953|0.239
90867673|NCT00540514|181597759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.901||||0.551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.652|1.244||P-value is based on a stratified log rank test stratified by geographic region (North America/Australia, Eastern Europe, or Asia/Pacific) and histology of primary diagnosis (Squamous cell carcinoma or Non squamous cell carcinoma).|Log Rank||Hazard ratio (albumin-bound paclitaxel/carboplatin to paclitaxel/carboplatin) \<1 favors the albumin-bound paclitaxel/carboplatin group.|||1.244|0.652|0.551
90867674|NCT00540514|181597762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.302||95.0|||||Univariate Cox regression|||SPARC correlation with overall survival for the overall SPARC population.||||0.302
90867675|NCT00540514|181597763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.036||95.0||||A nonsignificant interaction P-value (ie, p-value ≥ 0.100) indicates the treatment regimen effect was consistent within a prognostic factor.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with effects for treatment regimen, prognostic factor (histology), and treatment regimen by prognostic factor interaction.||||||0.036
90867676|NCT01651195|181597768|SUPERIORITY|We estimated that, with a power of 85% and at a significance level of 0.05 (Power 0.85, ß=0.14990 and α=0.05), we needed 467 conscripts per group to show a 17% difference between the groups. Each conscript was randomly allocated to the probiotic or the control group according to a computer generated, 8-blocked randomization list.|||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact||||"Result variables were analyzed according to intention to treat (ITT) principle. Missing data was handled by statistic modeling. Data on symptom diaries were calculated as follows: the incidence and duration of individual infection symptoms and respiratory episodes were analyzed between the intervention groups using time to event analysis (cox model for hazard) and duration analysis (gamma regression model). The results are expressed as a hazard ratio (incidence rate ratio) of symptoms and the mean duration of symptoms (days) with 95% confidence intervals or standard deviations. The sums of respiratory and gastrointestinal symptoms were calculated with gamma regression analysis."|||< 0.05
90867677|NCT01651195|181597769|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.05
90867678|NCT01651195|181597770|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.05
90867679|NCT01651195|181597771|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.05
90867680|NCT04617509|181597820|SUPERIORITY|Relative bioavailability for Formulation A (FASTED) versus Formulation B (FASTED). The calculated relative bioavailability is based on Cmax ratio (ratio of geometric means) and is presented with 90% CI.|Ratio of geometric means|1.4514|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.111|1.4514||||||Relative bioavailability (A versus B)||1.4514|1.1110|
90867681|NCT04617509|181597820|SUPERIORITY|Relative bioavailability for Formulation A (FED) versus Formulation A (FASTED). The calculated relative bioavailability is based on Cmax ratio (ratio of geometric means) and is presented with 90% CI.|Ratio of geometric mean|0.5497|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.3977|0.7597||||||Relative bioavailability (A FED versus A FASTED)||0.7597|0.3977|
90867682|NCT04617509|181597821|SUPERIORITY|Relative bioavailability for Formulation A (FASTED) versus Formulation B (FASTED). The calculated relative bioavailability is based on AUC0-inf ratio (ratio of geometric means) and is presented with 90% CI.|Ratio of geometric mean|1.3441|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0953|1.6495||||||Relative bioavailability (A versus B)||1.6495|1.0953|
90867683|NCT04617509|181597821|SUPERIORITY|Relative bioavailability for Formulation A (FED) versus Formulation A (FASTED). The calculated relative bioavailability is based on AUC0-inf ratio (ratio of geometric means) and is presented with 90% CI.|Ratio of geometric mean|0.7327|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.591|0.9083||||||Relative bioavailability (A FED versus A FASTED)||0.9083|0.5910|
90910098|NCT01729819|181690528|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34||||0.257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.94|||ANCOVA|Quality of sleep rating score as dependent variable, baseline quality of sleep rating scale value as a covariate, and responder status as a factor.|Estimated contrast (Combination - tolterodine) from longitudinal analysis of covariance|"Combination versus tolterodine (i.e. score on scale in combination group versus score on scale in tolterodine group) is presented. Statistical analysis for Rate how refreshed you feel now"||0.94|-0.26|0.257
90910099|NCT01729819|181690528|SUPERIORITY|Quality of sleep rating score as dependent variable, baseline quality of sleep rating scale value as a covariate, and responder status as a factor.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.88|||ANCOVA|Longitudinal analysis of covariance on change from baseline with baseline as a covariate, and treatment and visit as factors.|Estimated contrast (Combination - tolterodine) from longitudinal analysis of covariance|"Combination versus tolterodine (i.e. score on scale in combination group versus score on scale in tolterodine group) is presented. Statistical analysis for Rate the quality of your sleep last night"||0.88|-0.32|0.360
90910100|NCT03224299|181690538|NON_INFERIORITY|Investigational product cannot be more than 0.05 log10 CFU/cm\^2 less than the active control|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.69||||||"Abdomen 10 minutes~Average treatment effect, calculated using a linear regression model for each body site, was used for primary analysis. In the model, the response was the post-treatment log10 bacterial counts and predictors were the treatment effect as a fixed effect and the pre-treatment log10 bacterial counts as a covariate."||0.69|-0.44|
90910101|NCT03224299|181690538|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|2.49||||||Abdomen 10 minutes Average treatment effect, calculated using a linear regression model for each body site, was used for primary analysis. In the model, the response was the post-treatment log10 bacterial counts and predictors were the treatment effect as a fixed effect and the pre-treatment log10 bacterial counts as a covariate.||2.49|1.36|
90960406|NCT06020118|181801536|SUPERIORITY|95% exact Clopper-Pearson confidence boundaries and the p-values were calculated using a logistic regression model adjusted for site.|||||<|0.001||||||Number of participants in each vaccination group with a seroprotective HAI (in a subset of samples) titer (≥1:40) pre- and post-ccIIV4 immunization for each 2023-24 influenza vaccine antigen.|Regression, Logistic|||Antigen: B/Yamagata||||<0.001
90867684|NCT04617509|181597822|SUPERIORITY|Relative bioavailability for Formulation A (FASTED) versus Formulation B (FASTED). The calculated relative bioavailability is based on AUC0-24h ratio (ratio of geometric means) and is presented with 90% CI.|Ratio of geometric mean|1.371|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.112|1.6904||||||Relative bioavailability (A versus B)||1.6904|1.1120|
90867685|NCT04617509|181597822|SUPERIORITY|Relative bioavailability for Formulation A (FED) versus Formulation A (FASTED). The calculated relative bioavailability is based on AUC0-24h ratio (ratio of geometric means) and is presented with 90% CI.|Ratio of geometric mean|0.7083|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5728|0.8759||||||Relative bioavailability (A FED versus A FASTED)||0.8759|0.5728|
90910102|NCT03224299|181690538|NON_INFERIORITY|Investigational product cannot be more than 0.05 log10 CFU/cm\^2 less than the active control|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.36||||||Abdomen 10 minutes Average treatment effect, calculated using a linear regression model for each body site, was used for primary analysis. In the model, the response was the post-treatment log10 bacterial counts and predictors were the treatment effect as a fixed effect and the pre-treatment log10 bacterial counts as a covariate.||0.36|-0.73|
90960407|NCT06020118|181801537|SUPERIORITY|95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers and p-values were calculated using a linear regression model adjusted for site.||||||0.699||||||GMTs and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers.|Regression, Linear|||Pre-vaccine: Antigen A(H1N1)pdm09||||0.699
90867686|NCT00618072|181597835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.181|||||||Paired t-test|||Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group mean differences at baseline and at 6 months following randomization for each of the 3 comparator groups.||||0.181
90910103|NCT03224299|181690538|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.69|2.78||||||Abdomen 10 minutes Average treatment effect, calculated using a linear regression model for each body site, was used for primary analysis. In the model, the response was the post-treatment log10 bacterial counts and predictors were the treatment effect as a fixed effect and the pre-treatment log10 bacterial counts as a covariate.||2.78|1.69|
90867687|NCT00618072|181597835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026|||||||Paired t-test|||Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group mean differences at baseline and at 6 months following randomization for each of the 3 comparator groups.||||0.026
90867688|NCT00618072|181597835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.063|||||||Paired t-test|||Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group mean differences at baseline and at 6 months following randomization for each of the 3 comparator groups.||||0.063
90867689|NCT00618072|181597836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049|||||||Paired t-test|||Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group mean differences at baseline and at 6 months following randomization for each of the 3 comparator groups.||||0.049
90867690|NCT00618072|181597836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Paired t-test|||Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group mean differences at baseline and at 6 months following randomization for each of the 3 comparator groups.||||0.002
90867691|NCT00618072|181597836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.032|||||||Paired t-test|||Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group mean differences at baseline and at 6 months following randomization for each of the 3 comparator groups.||||0.032
90867692|NCT00618072|181597837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.142|||||||Paired t-test|||Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group mean differences at baseline and at 6 months following randomization for each of the 3 comparator groups.||||0.142
90867693|NCT00618072|181597837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.054|||||||Paired t-test|||Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group mean differences at baseline and at 6 months following randomization for each of the 3 comparator groups.||||0.054
90867694|NCT00618072|181597837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013|||||||Paired t-test|||Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group mean differences at baseline and at 6 months following randomization for each of the 3 comparator groups.||||0.013
90867695|NCT00618072|181597838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.052|||||||Paired t-test|||Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group mean differences at baseline and at 6 months following randomization for each of the 3 comparator groups.||||0.052
90910104|NCT03224299|181690538|NON_INFERIORITY|Investigational product cannot be more than 0.05 log10 CFU/cm\^2 less than the active control|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.31||||||Groin 10 minutes Average treatment effect, calculated using a linear regression model for each body site, was used for primary analysis. In the model, the response was the post-treatment log10 bacterial counts and predictors were the treatment effect as a fixed effect and the pre-treatment log10 bacterial counts as a covariate.||0.31|-0.90|
90867696|NCT00618072|181597838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.143|||||||Paired t-test|||Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group mean differences at baseline and at 6 months following randomization for each of the 3 comparator groups.||||0.143
90867697|NCT00618072|181597838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Paired t-test|||Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group mean differences at baseline and at 6 months following randomization for each of the 3 comparator groups.||||0.005
90867698|NCT00618072|181597839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.265|||||||Paired t-test|||Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group mean differences at baseline and at 6 months following randomization for each of the 3 comparator groups.||||0.265
90867699|NCT00618072|181597839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Paired t-test|||Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group mean differences at baseline and at 6 months following randomization for each of the 3 comparator groups.||||0.001
90867700|NCT00618072|181597839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.389|||||||Paired t-test|||Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group mean differences at baseline and at 6 months following randomization for each of the 3 comparator groups.||||0.389
90867701|NCT00618072|181597840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025|||||||Paired t-test|||Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group mean differences at baseline and at 6 months following randomization for each of the 3 comparator groups.||||0.025
90867702|NCT00618072|181597840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.162|||||||Paired t-test|||Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group mean differences at baseline and at 6 months following randomization for each of the 3 comparator groups.||||0.162
90867703|NCT00618072|181597840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.562|||||||Paired t-test|||Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group mean differences at baseline and at 6 months following randomization for each of the 3 comparator groups.||||0.562
90867704|NCT00618072|181597841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016|||||||Paired t-test|||Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group mean differences at baseline and at 6 months following randomization for each of the 3 comparator groups.||||0.016
90867705|NCT00618072|181597841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Paired t-test|||Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group mean differences at baseline and at 6 months following randomization for each of the 3 comparator groups.||||0.03
90960408|NCT06020118|181801537|SUPERIORITY|95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers and p-values were calculated using a linear regression model adjusted for site.||||||0.88||||||GMTs and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers.|Regression, Linear|||Post-vaccine: Antigen A(H1N1)pdm09||||0.880
90867706|NCT00618072|181597841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||Paired t-test|||Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group mean differences at baseline and at 6 months following randomization for each of the 3 comparator groups.||||0.150
90867707|NCT00618072|181597842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.648|||||||Paired t-test|||Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group mean differences at baseline and at 6 months following randomization for each of the 3 comparator groups.||||0.648
90867708|NCT00618072|181597842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.094|||||||Paired t-test|||Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group mean differences at baseline and at 6 months following randomization for each of the 3 comparator groups.||||0.094
90867709|NCT00618072|181597842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.054|||||||Paired t-test|||Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group mean differences at baseline and at 6 months following randomization for each of the 3 comparator groups.||||0.054
90867710|NCT00618072|181597843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.092|||||||Paired t-test|||Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group mean differences at baseline and at 6 months following randomization for each of the 3 comparator groups.||||0.092
90867711|NCT00618072|181597843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73|||||||Paired t-test|||Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group mean differences at baseline and at 6 months following randomization for each of the 3 comparator groups.||||0.730
90867712|NCT00618072|181597843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Paired t-test|||Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group mean differences at baseline and at 6 months following randomization for each of the 3 comparator groups.||||<0.001
90867713|NCT00133952|181597860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.63||||0.724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|2.67|||Fisher Exact|||||2.67|0.15|0.724
90867714|NCT00133952|181597861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-3.3||||0.616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|9.8|||Mixed models repeated measures|||||9.8|-16.5|0.616
90867715|NCT00133952|181597862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.44|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.44|0.68|0.971
90867716|NCT00133952|181597864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.5||||0.344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.6|||Mixed models repeated measures|||||1.6|-0.6|0.344
90867717|NCT00133952|181597865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.663||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.663
90867718|NCT00133952|181597866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.68||||0.203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.23|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.23|0.37|0.203
90867719|NCT00133952|181597868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|2.92|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.92|0.46|0.749
90867720|NCT03143894|181597869|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47||||0.47|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.47
90867721|NCT03143894|181597870|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.69||||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.69
90867722|NCT03143894|181597871|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.36||||0.36|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.36
90867723|NCT05048784|181597878|OTHER|Statistical analysis was conducted to investigate the bioequivalence of treatment A (test 1) to treatment B (reference) for Cmax.|Ratio of geometric least squares means|1.009|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|1.04|||||The geometric least squares mean ratios and confidence intervals (Cls) were obtained by taking the exponential of the corresponding differences and Cls on the natural-log (In) scale.|||1.040|0.980|
90867724|NCT05048784|181597879|OTHER|Statistical analysis was conducted to investigate the bioequivalence of treatment A (test 1) to treatment B (reference) for AUClast.|Ratio of geometric least squares means|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.967|1.055|||||The geometric least squares mean ratios and Cls were obtained by taking the exponential of the corresponding differences and Cls on the In scale.|||1.055|0.967|
90867725|NCT05048784|181597880|OTHER|Statistical analysis was conducted to investigate the bioequivalence of treatment A (test 1) to treatment B (reference) for AUCinf.|Ratio of geometric least squares means|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.977|1.065|||||The geometric least squares mean ratios and Cls were obtained by taking the exponential of the corresponding differences and Cls on the In scale.|||1.065|0.977|
90867726|NCT05048784|181597882|OTHER|Statistical analysis was conducted to investigate the food effect of treatment C (test 2) to treatment A (test 1) for Cmax.|Ratio of geometric least squares means|1.001|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.836|1.199|||||The geometric least squares mean ratios and Cls were obtained by taking the exponential of the corresponding differences and Cls on the In scale.|||1.199|0.836|
90867727|NCT05048784|181597883|OTHER|Statistical analysis was conducted to investigate the food effect of treatment C (test 2) to treatment A (test 1) for AUClast.|Ratio of geometric least squares means|1.447|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.2|1.745|||||The geometric least squares mean ratios and Cls were obtained by taking the exponential of the corresponding differences and Cls on the In scale.|||1.745|1.200|
90867728|NCT05048784|181597884|OTHER|Statistical analysis was conducted to investigate the food effect of treatment C (test 2) to treatment A (test 1) for AUCinf.|Ratio of geometric least squares means|1.484|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.236|1.783|||||The geometric least squares mean ratios and Cls were obtained by taking the exponential of the corresponding differences and Cls on the In scale.|||1.783|1.236|
90867729|NCT01603056|181597887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.743|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.743
90867730|NCT01603056|181597888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.627|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.627
90867731|NCT01603056|181597889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.74
90867732|NCT01603056|181597890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.641|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.641
90867733|NCT01603056|181597891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.818|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.818
90910105|NCT03224299|181690538|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.98|3.22||||||Groin 10 minutes Average treatment effect, calculated using a linear regression model for each body site, was used for primary analysis. In the model, the response was the post-treatment log10 bacterial counts and predictors were the treatment effect as a fixed effect and the pre-treatment log10 bacterial counts as a covariate.||3.22|1.98|
90867734|NCT01603056|181597892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.391|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.391
90867735|NCT01603056|181597893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.497|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.497
90867736|NCT01603056|181597894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.222|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.222
90867737|NCT01603056|181597895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.438|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.438
90867738|NCT01603056|181597896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.465|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.465
90867739|NCT01603056|181597897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.123|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.123
90867740|NCT01603056|181597898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.719|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.719
90867741|NCT02270957|181597962|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.999
90910106|NCT03224299|181690538|NON_INFERIORITY|Investigational product cannot be more than 0.05 log10 CFU/cm\^2 less than the active control|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.57||||||Groin 10 minutes Average treatment effect, calculated using a linear regression model for each body site, was used for primary analysis. In the model, the response was the post-treatment log10 bacterial counts and predictors were the treatment effect as a fixed effect and the pre-treatment log10 bacterial counts as a covariate.||0.57|-0.61|
90867742|NCT02270957|181597963|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.587|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.587
90867743|NCT02270957|181597964|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.587|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||None of the endpoints were met in any pre-specified unbiased Full Analysis Set analysis|Chi-squared|||||||0.587
90867744|NCT02535312|181597979|OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.08
90867745|NCT02535312|181597980|OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.15
90867746|NCT01539538|181597981|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin of - 15% for lower boundary of 95% confidence interval|difference in proportion|12.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.69|22.11|||one-sided, z-test|||||22.11|3.69|<0.001
90867747|NCT01539538|181597981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|12.9||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.007
90867748|NCT03897465|181597982|NON_INFERIORITY|Pre-specified non-inferiority margin was 10%|Risk Difference (RD)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0||Upper Limit= +Infinity|||||Descriptive analysis of the primary endpoint was provided on per protocol population. The overall difference LomatuellPro (LP) - UrgoTul (UT) of the % of patients meeting main efficacy criterion was calculated with 95% bilateral confidence interval (CI). If lower limit of the 95% CI did not exceed the -10% value of pre-specified non-inferiority margin, non-inferiority had to be accepted. As a sensitivity analysis, the same analysis was performed on mITT (modified Intention-to-treat) population.|||-10|
90867749|NCT02042183|181598051|OTHER|||||||0.1609||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by baseline spontaneous bowel movement (SBM) frequency (\<1.5 or ≥1.5)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1609
90867750|NCT00378378|181598059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.258||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparison p-values were based on a two-way ANOVA for the change from basline||||0.258
90867751|NCT00378378|181598059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.735||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparison p-values were based on a two-way ANOVA for the change from baseline.||||0.735
90867752|NCT00378378|181598059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.194||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparison p-values were based on a two-way ANOVA for the change from baseline.||||0.194
90867753|NCT00378378|181598060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.361||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparison p-values were based on a two-way ANOVA for baseline to endpoint||||0.361
90910107|NCT03224299|181690538|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|2.93||||||Groin 10 minutes Average treatment effect, calculated using a linear regression model for each body site, was used for primary analysis. In the model, the response was the post-treatment log10 bacterial counts and predictors were the treatment effect as a fixed effect and the pre-treatment log10 bacterial counts as a covariate.||2.93|1.72|
90867754|NCT00378378|181598060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.603||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparison p-values were based on a two-way ANOVA for baseline to endpoint.||||0.603
90867755|NCT00378378|181598060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.193||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparison p-values were based on a two-way ANOVA for baseline to endpoint.||||0.193
90867756|NCT02454296|181598061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.01
90867757|NCT02454296|181598062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
90867758|NCT02454296|181598063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.34
90867759|NCT00769392|181598139|OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||single factor analysis of variance|||A comparison of injection discomfort using mean pain scores for all 4 anesthesia intervention agents used in this study.||||0.28
90867760|NCT00769392|181598140|OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||single factor analysis of variance|||A comparison of discomfort of all 4 anesthesia intervention agents used in this study using mean pain scores.||||0.17
90867761|NCT02296320|181598141|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk reduction|31.9||||0.166|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.5|56.8|||Poisson regression with robust variance|||The key efficacy analyses were based on 5000 mg MEDI4893 and placebo. Participants who received 2000 mg MEDI4893 were summarized descriptively.||56.8|-7.5|0.166
90867762|NCT02446483|181598152|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125%.|Point Estimate Percent|101.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.81|107.15||||||||107.15|95.81|
90867763|NCT02446483|181598153|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125%.|Point Estimate Percent|98.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.54|105.28||||||Comparison of T- rabeprazole 20 mg and R- rabeprazole 20 mg for AUC0-t.||105.28|92.54|
90867764|NCT02446483|181598153|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125%.|Point Estimate Percent|98.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.81|104.71||||||Comparison of Treatment A- rabeprazole 20 mg and Treatment B- rabeprazole 20 mg for AUC0-infinity.||104.71|91.81|
90867765|NCT02446483|181598154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0029||95.0|||||Wilcoxon's Signed-Rank Test|||||||0.0029
90867766|NCT00729651|181598156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.02|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.0|0.08|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Primary efficacy endpoint was analyzed by a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with baseline vitamin D level as covariate.|Mantel-Haenszel estimator of the common odds ratio was calculated by using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for subjects' proportions with vitamin D deficiency changes at 16 weeks (visit 4) from baseline (visit 1) between treatment groups.|||0.08|0.00|<0.0001
90867767|NCT00729651|181598157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0091||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Least squares mean is mean of serum PTH percentage changes adjusted serum PTH level at baseline.||||||0.0091
90867768|NCT00729651|181598158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.02|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.01|0.04|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|It was analyzed by a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with baseline vitamin D level as covariate.|Mantel-Haenszel estimator of the common odds ratio was calculated by using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for subjects' proportions with vitamin D deficiency changes at 16 weeks (visit 4) from baseline (visit 1) between treatment groups.|||0.04|0.01|<0.0001
90867769|NCT01049308|181598167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage|57.6|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Descriptive data to describe prevalence of cognitive impairment in outpatient veterans with chronic heart failure||||
90867770|NCT04659161|181598201|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-9.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|-5.2|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures||||Statistics are from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM). The model includes the treatment group (KarXT or placebo), visit, and the interaction between the treatment group and visit as fixed factors, and baseline PANSS total score, site, age, and gender as covariates. An unstructured covariance matrix is used to model the correlation among repeated measurements and the denominator degrees of freedom are computed using the Kenward-Roger method.|-5.2|-13.9|<0.0001
90867771|NCT04659161|181598202|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||||<0.0001
90867772|NCT04659161|181598203|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0055|||||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||||0.0055
90867773|NCT04659161|181598204|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0022|||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||||0.0022
90867774|NCT04659161|181598205|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||||<0.0001
90867775|NCT04659161|181598206|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||||<0.0001
90867776|NCT02197130|181598215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.192||0.2033|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.45|3.49|||MMRM|MMRM: A linear mixed-effect repeated measures model||||3.49|-0.45|0.2033
90867777|NCT02197130|181598215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.118||0.7549|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.2|1.5|||MMRM|||||1.50|-2.20|0.7549
90867778|NCT02197130|181598227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.515||0.003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|2.39|||MMRM|||Week 13||2.39|0.69|0.0030
90867779|NCT02197130|181598227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.491||0.4656|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.45|1.17|||MMRM|||Week 13||1.17|-0.45|0.4656
90867780|NCT02197130|181598227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.492||0.0149|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.39|2.02|||MMRM|||Week 26||2.02|0.39|0.0149
90867781|NCT02197130|181598227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.8233|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.66|0.86|||MMRM|||Week 26||0.86|-0.66|0.8233
90867782|NCT02197130|181598229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.148||0.0181|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.11|0.6|||MMRM|||Week 13||0.60|0.11|0.0181
90867783|NCT02197130|181598229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.7133|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.18|0.28|||MMRM|||Week 13||0.28|-0.18|0.7133
90867784|NCT02197130|181598229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.163||0.4657|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.15|0.39|||MMRM|||Week 26||0.39|-0.15|0.4657
90910108|NCT03224299|181690538|NON_INFERIORITY|Investigational product cannot be more than 0.05 log10 CFU/cm\^2 less than the active control|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.22||||||Abdomen 30 seconds Average treatment effect, calculated using a linear regression model for each body site, was used for primary analysis. In the model, the response was the post-treatment log10 bacterial counts and predictors were the treatment effect as a fixed effect and the pre-treatment log10 bacterial counts as a covariate.||0.22|-0.91|
90910109|NCT03224299|181690538|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.88|3.01||||||Abdomen 30 seconds Average treatment effect, calculated using a linear regression model for each body site, was used for primary analysis. In the model, the response was the post-treatment log10 bacterial counts and predictors were the treatment effect as a fixed effect and the pre-treatment log10 bacterial counts as a covariate.||3.01|1.88|
90910110|NCT03224299|181690538|NON_INFERIORITY|Investigational product cannot be more than 0.05 log10 CFU/cm\^2 less than the active control|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.24||||||Abdomen 30 seconds Average treatment effect, calculated using a linear regression model for each body site, was used for primary analysis. In the model, the response was the post-treatment log10 bacterial counts and predictors were the treatment effect as a fixed effect and the pre-treatment log10 bacterial counts as a covariate.||0.24|-0.85|
90910111|NCT03224299|181690538|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.87|2.95||||||Abdomen 30 seconds Average treatment effect, calculated using a linear regression model for each body site, was used for primary analysis. In the model, the response was the post-treatment log10 bacterial counts and predictors were the treatment effect as a fixed effect and the pre-treatment log10 bacterial counts as a covariate.||2.95|1.87|
90910112|NCT03224299|181690538|NON_INFERIORITY|Investigational product cannot be more than 0.05 log10 CFU/cm\^2 less than the active control|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.4||||||Groin 30 seconds Average treatment effect, calculated using a linear regression model for each body site, was used for primary analysis. In the model, the response was the post-treatment log10 bacterial counts and predictors were the treatment effect as a fixed effect and the pre-treatment log10 bacterial counts as a covariate.||0.40|-0.67|
90960409|NCT06020118|181801537|SUPERIORITY|95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers and p-values were calculated using a linear regression model adjusted for site.||||||0.72||||||GMTs and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers.|Regression, Linear|||Pre-vaccine: Antigen A(H3N2)||||0.720
90910113|NCT03224299|181690538|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|2.8||||||Groin 30 seconds Average treatment effect, calculated using a linear regression model for each body site, was used for primary analysis. In the model, the response was the post-treatment log10 bacterial counts and predictors were the treatment effect as a fixed effect and the pre-treatment log10 bacterial counts as a covariate.||2.80|1.70|
90910114|NCT03224299|181690538|NON_INFERIORITY|Investigational product cannot be more than 0.05 log10 CFU/cm\^2 less than the active control|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.48||||||Groin 30 seconds Average treatment effect, calculated using a linear regression model for each body site, was used for primary analysis. In the model, the response was the post-treatment log10 bacterial counts and predictors were the treatment effect as a fixed effect and the pre-treatment log10 bacterial counts as a covariate.||0.48|-0.56|
90910115|NCT03224299|181690538|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.62|2.68||||||Groin 30 seconds Average treatment effect, calculated using a linear regression model for each body site, was used for primary analysis. In the model, the response was the post-treatment log10 bacterial counts and predictors were the treatment effect as a fixed effect and the pre-treatment log10 bacterial counts as a covariate.||2.68|1.62|
90960410|NCT06020118|181801537|SUPERIORITY|95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers and p-values were calculated using a linear regression model adjusted for site.||||||0.238||||||GMTs and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers.|Regression, Linear|||Post-vaccine: Antigen A(H3N2)||||0.238
90960411|NCT06020118|181801537|SUPERIORITY|95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers and p-values were calculated using a linear regression model adjusted for site.||||||0.28||||||GMTs and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers.|Regression, Linear|||Pre-vaccine: Antigen B/Victoria||||0.280
90910116|NCT00771667|181690540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||||||A fixed sequence testing procedure was employed to control the type I error rate at 0.05 level for the primary endpoint, beginning with the highest dose.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH test is controlling for anti-TNF status.||||||0.005
90910117|NCT00771667|181690540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.057||||||A fixed sequence testing procedure was employed to control the type I error rate at 0.05 level for the primary endpoint, beginning with the highest dose.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH test is controlling for anti-TNF status.||||||0.057
90910118|NCT00771667|181690540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021||||||A fixed sequence testing procedure was employed to control the type I error rate at 0.05 level for the primary endpoint, beginning with the highest dose.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH test is controlling for anti-TNF status.||||||0.021
90910119|NCT00771667|181690541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.682|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH test is controlling for anti-TNF status.||||||0.682
90910120|NCT00771667|181690541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.206|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH test is controlling for anti-TNF status.||||||0.206
90910121|NCT00771667|181690541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.196|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH test is controlling for anti-TNF status.||||||0.196
90910122|NCT00771667|181690542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH test is controlling for anti-TNF status.||||||0.008
90910123|NCT00771667|181690542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH test is controlling for anti-TNF status.||||||<0.001
90960412|NCT06020118|181801537|SUPERIORITY|95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers and p-values were calculated using a linear regression model adjusted for site.||||||0.094||||||GMTs and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers.|Regression, Linear|||Post-vaccine: Antigen B/Victoria||||0.094
90910124|NCT00771667|181690542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH test is controlling for anti-TNF status.||||||0.035
90910125|NCT00771667|181690543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH test is controlling for anti-TNF status.||||||<0.001
90910126|NCT00771667|181690543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH test is controlling for anti-TNF status.||||||0.007
90910127|NCT00771667|181690543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH test is controlling for anti-TNF status.||||||0.006
90910128|NCT00771667|181690544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.074|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH test is controlling for anti-TNF status.||||||0.074
90910129|NCT00771667|181690544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.081|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH test is controlling for anti-TNF status.||||||0.081
90910130|NCT00771667|181690544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.105|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH test is controlling for anti-TNF status.||||||0.105
90910131|NCT00771667|181690545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029||||||Testing for Week-22 clinical remission was performed if the comparison of 6-mg/kg ustekinumab with placebo was positive for the primary endpoint.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH test chi-square test, stratified by IV induction dose and clinical remission status at Week 6.||||||0.029
90910132|NCT00771667|181690546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH test is controlling for induction dose and clinical remission status at Week 6.||||||<0.001
90910133|NCT02814643|181690592|OTHER||Geometric least-square mean ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.56|1.35|||ANCOVA|The linear model effects are treatment group as a fixed effect and age group (adolescents and young adults) as fixed categorical covariate.||Influenza A H1N1||1.35|0.56|
90910134|NCT02814643|181690592|OTHER||Geometric least-square mean ratio|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.82|1.71|||ANCOVA|The linear model effects are treatment group as a fixed effect and age group (adolescents and young adults) as fixed categorical covariate.||Influenza A H3N2||1.71|0.82|
90910135|NCT02814643|181690592|OTHER||Geometric least-square mean ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.67|1.29|||ANCOVA|The linear model effects are treatment group as a fixed effect and age group (adolescents and young adults) as fixed categorical covariate.||Influenza B Yamagata lineage||1.29|0.67|
90910136|NCT02814643|181690592|OTHER||Geometric least-square mean ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.54|1.19|||ANCOVA|The linear model effects are treatment group as a fixed effect and age group (adolescents and young adults) as fixed categorical covariate.||Influenza B Victoria lineage||1.19|0.54|
90910137|NCT02814643|181690593|OTHER||Geometric least-square mean ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.76|1.31|||ANCOVA|The linear model effects are treatment group as a fixed effect and age group (adolescents and young adults) as fixed categorical covariate.||Influenza A H1N1||1.31|0.76|
90910138|NCT02814643|181690593|OTHER||Geometric least-square mean ratio|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|1.77|||ANCOVA|The linear model effects are treatment group as a fixed effect and age group (adolescents and young adults) as fixed categorical covariate.||Influenza A H3N2||1.77|0.93|
90910139|NCT02814643|181690593|OTHER||Geometric least-square mean ratio|1.03||||||90.0|0.79|1.34|||ANCOVA|The linear model effects are treatment group as a fixed effect and age group (adolescents and young adults) as fixed categorical covariate.||Influenza B Yamagata lineage||1.34|0.79|
90910140|NCT02814643|181690593|OTHER||Geometric least-square mean ratio|1.26||||||90.0|0.93|1.7|||ANCOVA|The linear model effects are treatment group as a fixed effect and age group (adolescents and young adults) as fixed categorical covariate.||Influenza B Victoria lineage||1.70|0.93|
90910141|NCT02174562|181690625|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.21||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.75||0.05 was the a priori level of significance.|Poisson regression with robust SEs||PC-OT is the numerator, Enhanced Usual care is the denominator|Null hypothesis is that the Relative Risk of reduction of HbA1C \>=0.5 for PCOT vs EUC is 1.||1.75|0.84|0.31
90910142|NCT02174562|181690626|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|P-value is for comparison of least squares means for period 2 (months 4-6).||Mixed effects linear regression was used to model the percentage of doses taken each month. Fixed effects were period (1-3 months, 4-6 months, 7-9 months, 10-12 months), randomization group, randomization by period interaction, stratification group, age, and run-in percentage doses taken. The outcome was transformed using the arcsin-square root transformation prior to analysis. A first-order autoregressive correlation structure was assumed.||||0.87
90910143|NCT03536884|181690707|NON_INFERIORITY|The evaluation of noninferiority is tested at a 1-sided alpha level of 0.025 and based on a 1-sided 97.5% CI and a noninferiority margin of 10%.|Risk Difference (RD)|12.682|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.771|19.592||||||Risk Difference: BKZ-Secukinumab calculated using stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH).||19.592|5.771|
90910144|NCT03536884|181690707|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.714|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.271|2.31||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups are based on the CMH test for the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio calculated using stratified CMH test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables.||2.310|1.271|<0.001
90910145|NCT03536884|181690708|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.817|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.068|3.836||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups are based on the CMH test from the general association. P-values are not controlled for multiplicity and should only be considered descriptively.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio calculated using stratified CMH test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables.||3.836|2.068|<0.001
90910146|NCT03536884|181690710|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.835|3.377||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups are based on the CMH test from the general association. P-values are not controlled for multiplicity and should only be considered descriptively.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio calculated using stratified CMH test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables.||3.377|1.835|<0.001
90910147|NCT03536884|181690710|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.168|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.511|3.11||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups are based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio calculated using stratified CMH test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables.||3.110|1.511|<0.001
90910148|NCT03536884|181690710|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.243|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.103|5.0||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups are based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio calculated using stratified CMH test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables.||5.000|2.103|<0.001
90910149|NCT03301220|181690719|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.67|||Log Rank|||||0.67|0.36|<0.0001
90910150|NCT05012644|181690770|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.266|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.715|2.241||||||||2.241|0.715|
90910151|NCT05012644|181690771|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.508|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.819|2.774||||||||2.774|0.819|
90910152|NCT04845620|181690772|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.89|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.648|5.064|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by randomized baseline vIGA-AD with multiple imputation of missing observations|Stratified by randomized baseline vIGA-AD with multiple imputation of missing observations|vIGA Success at Week 4||5.064|1.648|<0.0001
90910153|NCT04845620|181690773|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.662|5.772|||Chi-squared|Multiple imputation of missing observations|Multiple imputation of missing observations|vIGA Success at Week 4 in Participants with Moderate Baseline vIGA||5.772|1.662|<0.0001
90910154|NCT04845620|181690774|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.578|3.87|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by randomized baseline vIGA-AD with multiple imputation of missing observations|Stratified by randomized baseline vIGA-AD with multiple imputation of missing observations|EASI-75 at Week 4||3.870|1.578|<0.0001
90910155|NCT04845620|181690775|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.98|5.475|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by randomized baseline vIGA-AD with multiple imputation of missing observations|Stratified by randomized baseline vIGA-AD with multiple imputation of missing observations|vIGA Score of 'Clear' or 'Almost Clear' at Week 4||5.475|1.980|<0.0001
90960413|NCT06020118|181801537|SUPERIORITY|95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers and p-values were calculated using a linear regression model adjusted for site.||||||0.216||||||GMTs and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers.|Regression, Linear|||Pre-vaccine: Antigen B/Yamagata||||0.216
90910156|NCT04845620|181690776|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.912|7.313|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline vIGA-AD with multiple imputation of missing observations|Stratified by baseline vIGA-AD with multiple imputation of missing observations|||7.313|1.912|<0.0001
90910157|NCT04845620|181690777|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|2.216|59.101|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by randomized baseline vIGA-AD with multiple imputation of missing data|Stratified by randomized baseline vIGA-AD with multiple imputation of missing data|vIGA-AD Success at Week 1||59.101|2.216|<0.0001
90867785|NCT02197130|181598229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.8339|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.22|0.28|||MMRM|||Week 26||0.28|-0.22|0.8339
90867786|NCT02615145|181598236|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.111||||||Between group change comparison: overall. The dependent variable is the change of PRISM from Baseline (Visit-Baseline). The analysis is adjusted for Baseline.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.1110
90867787|NCT02615145|181598236|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|1.64||||0.2704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|4.56||Between group change comparison: 3DAA - 2DAA+RBV. The dependent variable is the change of PRISM from Baseline (Visit-Baseline). The analysis is adjusted for Baseline.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||4.56|-1.28|0.2704
90867788|NCT02615145|181598236|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|-0.09||||0.9516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.17|2.98||Between group change comparison: 3DAA+RBV - 2DAA+RBV. The dependent variable is the change of PRISM from Baseline (Visit-Baseline). The analysis is adjusted for Baseline.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||2.98|-3.17|0.9516
90867789|NCT02615145|181598236|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|-1.73||||0.0489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.46|-0.01||Between group change comparison: 3DAA+RBV - 3DAA. The dependent variable is the change of PRISM from Baseline (Visit-Baseline). The analysis is adjusted for Baseline.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||-0.01|-3.46|0.0489
90867790|NCT02615145|181598236|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9785||||||Between group change comparison: overall. The dependent variable is the change of PRISM from Baseline (Visit-Baseline). The analysis is adjusted for Baseline.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||||0.9785
90867791|NCT02615145|181598236|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|-0.13||||0.9379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.37|3.11||Between group change comparison: 3DAA - 2DAA+RBV. The dependent variable is the change of PRISM from Baseline (Visit-Baseline). The analysis is adjusted for Baseline.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||3.11|-3.37|0.9379
90867792|NCT02615145|181598236|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|0.07||||0.9678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.33|3.47||Between group change comparison: 3DAA+RBV - 2DAA+RBV. The dependent variable is the change of PRISM from Baseline (Visit-Baseline). The analysis is adjusted for Baseline.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||3.47|-3.33|0.9678
90867793|NCT02615145|181598236|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|0.2||||0.8373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|2.1||Between group change comparison: 3DAA+RBV - 3DAA. The dependent variable is the change of PRISM from Baseline (Visit-Baseline). The analysis is adjusted for Baseline.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||2.10|-1.70|0.8373
90867794|NCT02615145|181598236|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.417|7.32|||paired t-test|paired t-test of whether difference in means is 0||Week 12 vs Baseline across all participants||7.320|5.417|< 0.0001
90867795|NCT02615145|181598236|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.936|11.362|||paired t-test|paired t-test of whether difference in means is 0||Week 48 vs Baseline across all participants||11.362|8.936|< 0.0001
90867796|NCT02615145|181598241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5751||||||Between group change comparison: overall. The dependent variable in the change of FACIT-F \[0-100\] from Baseline (Visit-Baseline). The analysis is adjusted for Baseline.|ANCOVA|||EOT||||0.5751
90867797|NCT02615145|181598241|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|2.29||||0.5176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.66|9.23||Between group change comparison: 3DAA - 2DAA+RBV. The dependent variable in the change of FACIT-F \[0-100\] from Baseline (Visit-Baseline). The analysis is adjusted for Baseline.|ANCOVA|||EoT||9.23|-4.66|0.5176
90867798|NCT02615145|181598241|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|0.324||||0.9308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|7.64||Between group change comparison: 3DAA+RBV - 2DAA+RBV. The dependent variable in the change of FACIT-F \[0-100\] from Baseline (Visit-Baseline). The analysis is adjusted for Baseline.|ANCOVA|||EoT||7.64|-7.00|0.9308
90867799|NCT02615145|181598241|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|-1.96||||0.3462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.06|2.13||Between group change comparison: 3DAA+RBV - 3DAA. The dependent variable in the change of FACIT-F \[0-100\] from Baseline (Visit-Baseline). The analysis is adjusted for Baseline.|ANCOVA|||EoT||2.13|-6.06|0.3462
90867800|NCT02615145|181598241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7016||||||Between group change comparison: overall. The dependent variable in the change of FACIT-F \[0-100\] from Baseline (Visit-Baseline). The analysis is adjusted for Baseline.|ANCOVA|||12 Weeks after EoT||||0.7016
90867801|NCT02615145|181598241|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|-2.61||||0.4002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.71|3.49||Between group change comparison: 3DAA - 2DAA+RBV. The dependent variable in the change of FACIT-F \[0-100\] from Baseline (Visit-Baseline). The analysis is adjusted for Baseline.|ANCOVA|||12 weeks after EoT||3.49|-8.71|0.4002
90867802|NCT02615145|181598241|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|-2.33||||0.475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.74|4.08||Between group change comparison: 3DAA+RBV - 2DAA+RBV. The dependent variable in the change of FACIT-F \[0-100\] from Baseline (Visit-Baseline). The analysis is adjusted for Baseline.|ANCOVA|||12 weeks after EoT||4.08|-8.74|0.4750
90867803|NCT02615145|181598241|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|0.282||||0.874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.21|3.77||Between group change comparison: 3DAA+RBV - 3DAA. The dependent variable in the change of FACIT-F \[0-100\] from Baseline (Visit-Baseline). The analysis is adjusted for Baseline.|ANCOVA|||12 weeks after EoT||3.77|-3.21|0.8740
90867804|NCT02615145|181598241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7211||||||Between group change comparison: overall. The dependent variable in the change of FACIT-F \[0-100\] from Baseline (Visit-Baseline). The analysis is adjusted for Baseline.|ANCOVA|||48 weeks after EoT||||0.7211
90867805|NCT02615145|181598241|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|-3.67||||0.4256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|5.39||Between group change comparison: 3DAA - 2DAA+RBV. The dependent variable in the change of FACIT-F \[0-100\] from Baseline (Visit-Baseline). The analysis is adjusted for Baseline.|ANCOVA|||48 weeks after EoT||5.39|-12.7|0.4256
90867806|NCT02615145|181598241|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|-3.01||||0.5347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|6.54||Between group change comparison: 3DAA+RBV - 2DAA+RBV. The dependent variable in the change of FACIT-F \[0-100\] from Baseline (Visit-Baseline). The analysis is adjusted for Baseline.|ANCOVA|||48 weeks after EoT||6.54|-12.6|0.5347
90867807|NCT02615145|181598241|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|0.654||||0.792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.23|5.54||Between group change comparison: 3DAA+RBV - 3DAA. The dependent variable in the change of FACIT-F \[0-100\] from Baseline (Visit-Baseline). The analysis is adjusted for Baseline.|ANCOVA|||48 weeks after EoT||5.54|-4.23|0.7920
90867808|NCT02615145|181598241|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.355|7.935|||paired t-test|paired t-test of mean difference from 0||Baseline to EOT across all participants||7.935|3.355|< 0.0001
90867809|NCT02615145|181598241|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.113|12.299|||paired t-test|paired t-test of mean difference versus 0||Baseline vs 12 weeks after EOT across all participants||12.299|8.113|< 0.0001
90867810|NCT02615145|181598241|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.259|12.992|||paired t-test|paired t-test of mean difference versus 0||baseline vs 48 weeks after EOT across all participants||12.992|7.259|< 0.0001
90867811|NCT02615145|181598242|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3869||||||Between group change comparison: overall. The dependent variable in the change of PAM-13 from Baseline (Visit-Baseline). The analysis is adjusted for Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.3869
90867812|NCT02615145|181598242|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|-1.89||||0.3125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.57|1.79||Between group change comparison: 3DAA - 2DAA+RBV. The dependent variable in the change of PAM-13 from Baseline (Visit-Baseline). The analysis is adjusted for Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||1.79|-5.57|0.3125
90867813|NCT02615145|181598242|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|-2.65||||0.1741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.48|1.18||Between group change comparison: 3DAA+RBV - 2DAA+RBV. The dependent variable in the change of PAM-13 from Baseline (Visit-Baseline). The analysis is adjusted for Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||1.18|-6.48|0.1741
90867814|NCT02615145|181598242|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|-0.76||||0.4941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.94|1.42||Between group change comparison: 3DAA+RBV - 3DAA. The dependent variable in the change of PAM-13 from Baseline (Visit-Baseline). The analysis is adjusted for Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||1.42|-2.94|0.4941
90867815|NCT02615145|181598242|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.8842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.271|1.096|||paired t-test|paired t-test of mean difference vs 0||Change from Baseline to Final visit across all participants||1.096|-1.271|0.8842
90867816|NCT00006237|181598249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.49
90867817|NCT00006237|181598250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.02
90867818|NCT02320669|181598252|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.083|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.432|||Regression, Cox|||||1.432|.82|<.05
90867819|NCT00911820|181598267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.714|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.714
90867820|NCT00911820|181598269|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.605|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.605
90867821|NCT00911820|181598270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.721|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.721
90867822|NCT01411774|181598284|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95||||||p \< .05 was the threshold of significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis for the outcomes used linear mixed-effects models, with treatment group as the between-participant factor and time as the within group factor||||||.95
90867823|NCT03292588|181598285|SUPERIORITY|Negative binomial model for the rate of exacerbations in the first year. The model included an offset term to account for differential follow-up among participants. To account for adaptive randomization, the model was also adjusted for study site, number of exacerbations in year prior to study (2 or 3+), peripheral blood eosinophils (\< or ≥400 cells/μl), BMI (\< or ≥95th percentile for age), total serum IgE (\< or ≥540 kUA/L) and treatment dose (40 mg or 100 mg).|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.73||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.96|||Regression, Negative Binomial|Adjusted relative rate of exacerbations in the first year.||||0.96|0.56|0.027
90867824|NCT03292588|181598286|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.28||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|The difference in least square mean of CASI scores for week 12.||Week 12||0.24|-0.81|0.290
90910158|NCT04845620|181690778|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|2.137|6.761|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by randomized baseline vIGA-AD with multiple imputation of missing data|Stratified by randomized baseline vIGA-AD with multiple imputation of missing data|vIGA-AD of Clear or Almost Clear at Week 2||6.761|2.137|<0.0001
90867825|NCT03292588|181598286|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.07||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|The difference in least square mean of CASI scores for week 24.||Week 24||0.55|-0.69|0.820
90867826|NCT03292588|181598286|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.51||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|The difference in least square mean of CASI scores for week 36.||Week 36||0.09|-1.11|0.096
90867827|NCT03292588|181598286|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.06||||0.831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|The difference in least square mean of CASI scores for week 48.||Week 48||0.52|-0.65|0.831
90867828|NCT03292588|181598286|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.02||||0.947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|The difference in least square mean of CASI scores for week 52.||Week 52||0.64|-0.60|0.947
90867829|NCT03292588|181598287|SUPERIORITY|A generalized logit model was used to analyze Physician Global Assessment Tool at Visit 14. The model included treatment arm as fixed effect as primary exposure but was also adjusted for study site, # of exacerbations in year prior to study (2 or 3+), peripheral blood eosinophils ((\< or ≥400 cells/μl), BMI (\< or ≥95th percentile for age) \& total serum IgE (\< or ≥540 kUA/L). No imputation of missing data was used for participants who weren't assessed for quality of life measurements at Visit 14.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.64|||Regression, Logistic|||Physician Global Assessment Tool||1.64|0.62|0.974
90867830|NCT03292588|181598288|SUPERIORITY|A generalized logit model was used to analyze the Patient Global Assessment Tool at Visit 14. The model included treatment arm as fixed effect as the primary exposure but was adjusted for study site, # of exacerbations in year prior to study (2 or 3+), peripheral blood eosinophils ((\< or ≥400 cells/μl), BMI (\< or ≥95th percentile for age) \& total serum IgE (\< or ≥540 kUA/L). No imputation of missing data was used for participants who weren't assessed for quality of life measurements at Visit 14.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72||||0.238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.24|||Regression, Logistic|||Patient Global Assessment Tool||1.24|0.42|0.238
90867831|NCT03292588|181598289|SUPERIORITY|A generalized mixed model as described in section 8.3.1 was used to analyze each spirometry and impulse oscillometry parameter, separately, at each visit where the lung function was collected.|Least Square Mean Difference|-0.005||||0.591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.023|0.013|||Mixed Models Analysis|||FEV1/FVC Week 12||0.013|-0.023|0.591
90867832|NCT03292588|181598289|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.011||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.031|0.008|||Mixed Models Analysis|||FEV1/FVC Week 24||0.008|-0.031|0.265
90867833|NCT03292588|181598289|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.011||||0.345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.012|0.033|||Mixed Models Analysis|||FEV1/FVC Week 36||0.033|-0.012|0.345
90867834|NCT03292588|181598289|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.013||||0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.009|0.036|||Mixed Models Analysis|||FEV1/FVC Week 48||0.036|-0.009|0.248
90867835|NCT03292588|181598289|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.002||||0.864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.023|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||FEV1/FVC Week 52||0.020|-0.023|0.864
90867836|NCT03292588|181598290|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|3.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||FEV1PP Week 12||3.0|-3.8|0.816
90910159|NCT04845620|181690779|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.75|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|2.342|14.113|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline vIGA-AD with multiple imputation of missing data|Stratified by baseline vIGA-AD with multiple imputation of missing data|vIGA-AD of Clear or Almost Clear at Week 2||14.113|2.342|<0.0001
90910160|NCT00708097|181690780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.98||||0.5757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|8.97||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to percent SMH. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||8.97|-5.00|0.5757
90940389|NCT00526097|181760515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.378||95.0|-0.8|2.0||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||2.0|-0.8|0.3780
90867837|NCT03292588|181598290|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.4||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||FEV1PP Week 24||0.6|-7.4|0.095
90867838|NCT03292588|181598290|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|1.5||||0.444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|5.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||FEV1PP Week 36||5.5|-2.4|0.444
90867839|NCT03292588|181598290|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.6||||0.751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|4.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||FEV1PP Week 48||4.6|-3.3|0.751
90867840|NCT03292588|181598290|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.6||||0.184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||FEV1PP Week 52||1.3|-6.5|0.184
90867841|NCT03292588|181598291|SUPERIORITY|Negative binomial model for the rate of exacerbations (per year. The model included an offset term to account for differential follow-up among participants. To account for adaptive randomization, the model was also adjusted for study site, number of exacerbations in year prior to study (2 or 3+), peripheral blood eosinophils (\< or ≥400 cells/μl), BMI (\< or ≥95th percentile for age), total serum IgE (\< or ≥540 kUA/L) and treatment dose (40 mg or 100 mg).|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.85||||0.458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Did not meet FDA-approved dosing||1.31|0.55|0.458
90867842|NCT03292588|181598292|SUPERIORITY|Negative binomial model for the rate of exacerbations (per year. The model included an offset term to account for differential follow-up among participants. To account for adaptive randomization, the model was also adjusted for study site, number of exacerbations in year prior to study (2 or 3+), peripheral blood eosinophils (\< or ≥400 cells/μl), BMI (\< or ≥95th percentile for age), total serum IgE (\< or ≥540 kUA/L) and treatment dose (40 mg or 100 mg).|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.67||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.95|||Regression, Negative Binomial|||Fit FDA-approved dosing||0.95|0.47|0.025
90867843|NCT03292588|181598293|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.3587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.18|||Regression, Cox|||||1.18|0.63|0.3587
90867844|NCT03808493|181598307|EQUIVALENCE|For log-transformed (natural log) AUClast, the two-sided 90% CI of the difference in the least square means (LS-Means) between the formulations (TAK-438 OD tablet-TAK-438 tablet) was provided using the ANOVA model.|LS-Means Difference|-0.0211|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0752|0.0329||||||||0.0329|-0.0752|
90867845|NCT03808493|181598307|EQUIVALENCE|For log-transformed (natural log) AUClast, the two-sided 90% CI of the difference in the LS-Means between the formulations (TAK-438 OD tablet-TAK-438 tablet) was provided using the ANOVA model.|LS-Means Difference|0.0019|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0778|0.0815||||||||0.0815|-0.0778|
90867846|NCT03808493|181598308|EQUIVALENCE|For log-transformed (natural log) Cmax, the two-sided 90% CI of the difference in the LS-Means between the formulations (TAK-438 OD tablet-TAK-438 tablet) was provided using the ANOVA model.|LS-Means Difference|-0.0698|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1404|0.0008||||||||0.0008|-0.1404|
90867847|NCT03808493|181598308|EQUIVALENCE|For log-transformed (natural log) Cmax, the two-sided 90% CI of the difference in the LS-Means between the formulations (TAK-438 OD tablet-TAK-438 tablet) was provided using the ANOVA model.|LS-Means Difference|-0.0811|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1658|0.0036||||||||0.0036|-0.1658|
90867848|NCT03808493|181598309|EQUIVALENCE|For log-transformed (natural log) AUC∞, the two-sided 90% CI of the difference in the LS-Means between the formulations (TAK-438 OD tablet-TAK-438 tablet) was provided using the ANOVA model.|LS-Means Difference|-0.0199|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0731|0.0333||||||||0.0333|-0.0731|
90867849|NCT03808493|181598309|EQUIVALENCE|For log-transformed (natural log) AUC∞, the two-sided 90% CI of the difference in the LS-Means between the formulations (TAK-438 OD tablet-TAK-438 tablet) was provided using the ANOVA model.|LS-Means Difference|0.0035|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.076|0.083||||||||0.0830|-0.0760|
90867850|NCT03808493|181598310|EQUIVALENCE|For log-transformed (natural log) Tmax, the two-sided 90% CI of the difference in the LS-Means between the formulations (TAK-438 OD tablet-TAK-438 tablet) was provided using the ANOVA model.|LS-Means Difference|0.1902|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0199|0.3605||||||||0.3605|0.0199|
90867851|NCT03808493|181598310|EQUIVALENCE|For log-transformed (natural log) Tmax, the two-sided 90% CI of the difference in the LS-Means between the formulations (TAK-438 OD tablet-TAK-438 tablet) was provided using the ANOVA model.|LS-Means Difference|0.2142|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0558|0.3725||||||||0.3725|0.0558|
90867852|NCT03808493|181598311|EQUIVALENCE|For log-transformed (natural log) MRT∞,ev, the two-sided 90% CI of the difference in the LS-Means between the formulations (TAK-438 OD tablet-TAK-438 tablet) was provided using the ANOVA model.|LS-Means Difference|0.0311|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0022|0.0599||||||||0.0599|0.0022|
90960414|NCT06020118|181801537|SUPERIORITY|P values and confidence intervals for the geometric mean titer ratio were estimated using a generalized estimating equation logistic regression accounting for site clustering.||||||0.436||||||GMTs and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers.|Regression, Linear|||Post-vaccine: Antigen B/Yamagata||||0.436
90960415|NCT06020118|181801537|SUPERIORITY|95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers and p-values were calculated using a linear regression model adjusted for site.||||||0.615||||||GMTs and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers.|Regression, Linear|||Pre-vaccine: Antigen A(H1N1)pdm09||||0.615
90960416|NCT06020118|181801537|SUPERIORITY|95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers and p-values were calculated using a linear regression model adjusted for site.|||||<|0.001||||||GMTs and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers.|Regression, Linear|||Post-vaccine: Antigen A(H1N1)pdm09||||<0.001
90867853|NCT03808493|181598311|EQUIVALENCE|For log-transformed (natural log) MRT∞,ev, the two-sided 90% CI of the difference in the LS-Means between the formulations (TAK-438 OD tablet-TAK-438 tablet) was provided using the ANOVA model.|LS-Means Difference|0.0306|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0003|0.0616||||||||0.0616|-0.0003|
90867854|NCT03808493|181598312|EQUIVALENCE|For log-transformed (natural log) λz, the two-sided 90% CI of the difference in the LS-Means between the formulations (TAK-438 OD tablet-TAK-438 tablet) was provided using the ANOVA model.|LS-Means Difference|0.0209|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0112|0.053||||||||0.0530|-0.0112|
90867855|NCT03808493|181598312|EQUIVALENCE|For log-transformed (natural log) λz, the two-sided 90% CI of the difference in the LS-Means between the formulations (TAK-438 OD tablet-TAK-438 tablet) was provided using the ANOVA model.|LS-Means Difference|-0.0135|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0508|0.0238||||||||0.0238|-0.0508|
90867856|NCT05526716|181598321|NON_INFERIORITY|Serotype 3|Geometric Mean Titers Ratio (GMT Ratio)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.97||||||The concomitant group will be considered noninferior to the sequential group if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the OPA GMT ratio (GMTcon/GMTseq) for each of the serotypes is \>0.50.||0.97|0.72|
90867857|NCT05526716|181598321|NON_INFERIORITY|Serotype 6A|GMT Ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.94||||||The concomitant group will be considered noninferior to the sequential group if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the OPA GMT ratio (GMTcon/GMTseq) for each of the serotypes is \>0.50.||0.94|0.66|
90867858|NCT05526716|181598321|NON_INFERIORITY|Serotype 7F|GMT Ratio|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.85||||||The concomitant group will be considered noninferior to the sequential group if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the OPA GMT ratio (GMTcon/GMTseq) for each of the serotypes is \>0.50.||0.85|0.63|
90867859|NCT05526716|181598321|NON_INFERIORITY|Serotype 8|GMT Ratio|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.82||||||The concomitant group will be considered noninferior to the sequential group if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the OPA GMT ratio (GMTcon/GMTseq) for each of the serotypes is \>0.50.||0.82|0.61|
90867860|NCT05526716|181598321|NON_INFERIORITY|Serotype 9N|GMT Ratio|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.79||||||The concomitant group will be considered noninferior to the sequential group if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the OPA GMT ratio (GMTcon/GMTseq) for each of the serotypes is \>0.50.||0.79|0.57|
90867861|NCT05526716|181598321|NON_INFERIORITY|Serotype 10A|GMT Ratio|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.91||||||The concomitant group will be considered noninferior to the sequential group if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the OPA GMT ratio (GMTcon/GMTseq) for each of the serotypes is \>0.50.||0.91|0.65|
90867862|NCT05526716|181598321|NON_INFERIORITY|Serotype 11A|GMT Ratio|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.75||||||The concomitant group will be considered noninferior to the sequential group if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the OPA GMT ratio (GMTcon/GMTseq) for each of the serotypes is \>0.50.||0.75|0.54|
90867863|NCT05526716|181598321|NON_INFERIORITY|Serotype 12F|GMT Ratio|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.94||||||The concomitant group will be considered noninferior to the sequential group if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the OPA GMT ratio (GMTcon/GMTseq) for each of the serotypes is \>0.50.||0.94|0.62|
90867864|NCT05526716|181598321|NON_INFERIORITY|Serotype 15A|GMT Ratio|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.85||||||The concomitant group will be considered noninferior to the sequential group if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the OPA GMT ratio (GMTcon/GMTseq) for each of the serotypes is \>0.50.||0.85|0.60|
90867865|NCT05526716|181598321|NON_INFERIORITY|Serotype 15C|GMT Ratio|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.87||||||The concomitant group will be considered noninferior to the sequential group if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the OPA GMT ratio (GMTcon/GMTseq) for each of the serotypes is \>0.50.||0.87|0.58|
90867866|NCT05526716|181598321|NON_INFERIORITY|Serotype 16F|GMT Ratio|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.81||||||The concomitant group will be considered noninferior to the sequential group if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the OPA GMT ratio (GMTcon/GMTseq) for each of the serotypes is \>0.50.||0.81|0.59|
90867867|NCT05526716|181598321|NON_INFERIORITY|Serotype 17F|GMT Ratio|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.86||||||The concomitant group will be considered noninferior to the sequential group if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the OPA GMT ratio (GMTcon/GMTseq) for each of the serotypes is \>0.50.||0.86|0.62|
90867868|NCT05526716|181598321|NON_INFERIORITY|Serotype 19A|GMT Ratio|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.85||||||The concomitant group will be considered noninferior to the sequential group if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the OPA GMT ratio (GMTcon/GMTseq) for each of the serotypes is \>0.50.||0.85|0.65|
90867869|NCT05526716|181598321|NON_INFERIORITY|Serotype 20A|GMT Ratio|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.87||||||The concomitant group will be considered noninferior to the sequential group if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the OPA GMT ratio (GMTcon/GMTseq) for each of the serotypes is \>0.50.||0.87|0.63|
90867870|NCT05526716|181598321|NON_INFERIORITY|Serotype 22F|GMT Ratio|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.91||||||The concomitant group will be considered noninferior to the sequential group if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the OPA GMT ratio (GMTcon/GMTseq) for each of the serotypes is \>0.50.||0.91|0.65|
90867871|NCT05526716|181598321|NON_INFERIORITY|Serotype 23A|GMT Ratio|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.96||||||The concomitant group will be considered noninferior to the sequential group if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the OPA GMT ratio (GMTcon/GMTseq) for each of the serotypes is \>0.50.||0.96|0.63|
90960417|NCT06020118|181801537|SUPERIORITY|95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers and p-values were calculated using a linear regression model adjusted for site.||||||0.87||||||GMTs and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers.|Regression, Linear|||Pre-vaccine: Antigen A(H3N2)||||0.870
90867872|NCT05526716|181598321|NON_INFERIORITY|Serotype 23B|GMT Ratio|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.72||||||The concomitant group will be considered noninferior to the sequential group if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the OPA GMT ratio (GMTcon/GMTseq) for each of the serotypes is \>0.50.||0.72|0.44|
90867873|NCT05526716|181598321|NON_INFERIORITY|Serotype 24F|GMT Ratio|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.86||||||The concomitant group will be considered noninferior to the sequential group if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the OPA GMT ratio (GMTcon/GMTseq) for each of the serotypes is \>0.50.||0.86|0.61|
90867874|NCT05526716|181598321|NON_INFERIORITY|Serotype 31|GMT Ratio|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.83||||||The concomitant group will be considered noninferior to the sequential group if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the OPA GMT ratio (GMTcon/GMTseq) for each of the serotypes is \>0.50.||0.83|0.56|
90960418|NCT06020118|181801537|SUPERIORITY|95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers and p-values were calculated using a linear regression model adjusted for site.|||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|GMTs and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers.||Post-vaccine: Antigen A(H3N2)||||<0.001
90867875|NCT05526716|181598321|NON_INFERIORITY|Serotype 33F|GMT Ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.01||||||The concomitant group will be considered noninferior to the sequential group if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the OPA GMT ratio (GMTcon/GMTseq) for each of the serotypes is \>0.50.||1.01|0.70|
90867876|NCT05526716|181598321|NON_INFERIORITY|Serotype 35B|GMT Ratio|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.89||||||The concomitant group will be considered noninferior to the sequential group if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the OPA GMT ratio (GMTcon/GMTseq) for each of serotypes is \>0.50.||0.89|0.67|
90867877|NCT05526716|181598322|NON_INFERIORITY|A/H1N1|GMT Ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.97||||||The concomitant group will be considered noninferior to the sequential group if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the HAI GMT ratio (GMTcon/GMTseq) for each of the strains is \>0.67.||0.97|0.70|
90960419|NCT06020118|181801537|SUPERIORITY|95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers and p-values were calculated using a linear regression model adjusted for site.||||||0.64||||||GMTs and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers.|Regression, Linear|||Pre-vaccine: Antigen B/Victoria||||0.640
90867878|NCT05526716|181598322|NON_INFERIORITY|A/H3N2|GMT Ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.93||||||The concomitant group will be considered noninferior to the sequential group if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the HAI GMT ratio (GMTcon/GMTseq) for each of the strains is \>0.67.||0.93|0.67|
90867879|NCT05526716|181598322|NON_INFERIORITY|B/Victoria|GMT Ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.95||||||The concomitant group will be considered noninferior to the sequential group if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the HAI GMT ratio (GMTcon/GMTseq) for each of the strains is \>0.67.||0.95|0.70|
90867880|NCT05526716|181598322|NON_INFERIORITY|B/Yamagata|GMT Ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.0||||||The concomitant group will be considered noninferior to the sequential group if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the HAI GMT ratio (GMTcon/GMTseq) for each of the strains is \>0.67.||1.00|0.78|
90867881|NCT05526716|181598323|OTHER|Serotype 3|GMC Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.02||||||||1.02|0.80|
90867882|NCT05526716|181598323|OTHER|Serotype 6A|GMC Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.11||||||||1.11|0.79|
90960420|NCT06020118|181801537|SUPERIORITY|95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers and p-values were calculated using a linear regression model adjusted for site.|||||<|0.001||||||GMTs and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers.|Regression, Linear|||Post-vaccine: Antigen B/Victoria||||<0.001
90867883|NCT05526716|181598323|OTHER|Serotype 7F|GMC Ratio|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.9||||||||0.90|0.67|
90867884|NCT05526716|181598323|OTHER|Serotype 8|GMC Ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.95||||||||0.95|0.70|
90867885|NCT05526716|181598323|OTHER|Serotype 9N|GMC Ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.05||||||||1.05|0.75|
90867886|NCT05526716|181598323|OTHER|Serotype 10A|GMC Ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.94||||||||0.94|0.67|
90867887|NCT05526716|181598323|OTHER|Serotype 11A|GMC Ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.96||||||||0.96|0.72|
90867888|NCT05526716|181598323|OTHER|Serotype 12F|GMC Ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.01||||||||1.01|0.69|
90960421|NCT06020118|181801537|SUPERIORITY|95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers and p-values were calculated using a linear regression model adjusted for site.||||||0.444||||||GMTs and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers.|Regression, Linear|||Pre-vaccine: Antigen B/Yamagata||||0.444
90867889|NCT05526716|181598323|OTHER|Serotype 15A|GMC Ratio|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.9||||||||0.90|0.63|
90867890|NCT05526716|181598323|OTHER|Serotype 15C|GMC Ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.02||||||||1.02|0.71|
90867891|NCT05526716|181598323|OTHER|Serotype 16F|GMC Ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.99||||||||0.99|0.70|
90867892|NCT05526716|181598323|OTHER|Serotype 17F|GMC Ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.99||||||||0.99|0.72|
90867893|NCT05526716|181598323|OTHER|Serotype 19A|GMC Ratio|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.93||||||||0.93|0.71|
90867894|NCT05526716|181598323|OTHER|Serotype 20A|GMC Ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.97||||||||0.97|0.70|
90867895|NCT05526716|181598323|OTHER|Serotype 22F|GMC Ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.1||||||||1.10|0.80|
90867896|NCT05526716|181598323|OTHER|Serotype 23A|GMC Ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.03||||||||1.03|0.70|
90867897|NCT05526716|181598323|OTHER|Serotype 23B|GMC Ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.02||||||||1.02|0.72|
90867898|NCT05526716|181598323|OTHER|Serotype 24F|GMC Ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.05||||||||1.05|0.69|
90867899|NCT05526716|181598323|OTHER|Serotype 31|GMC Ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.99||||||||0.99|0.72|
90867900|NCT05526716|181598323|OTHER|Serotype 33F|GMC Ratio|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.94||||||||0.94|0.69|
90867901|NCT05526716|181598323|OTHER|Serotype 35B|GMC Ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.99||||||||0.99|0.72|
90867902|NCT01438957|181598352|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|5.0|||||Mantel Haenszel|Stratified by the anesthesia type||The closed testing procedure is used taking multiplicity into consideration, in which Dexmedetomidine 1.0 mcg/kg group, 0.5 mcg/kg group, 0.25 mcg/kg group, 0.067 mcg/kg group and the placebo group are tested in this order||||<0.001
90867903|NCT01438957|181598352|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|5.0|||||Mantel Haenszel|Stratified by the anesthesia type||||||0.003
90910161|NCT00708097|181690781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|2.17||||0.5387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.79|9.14||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to percent SMH. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||9.14|-4.79|0.5387
90910162|NCT00708097|181690781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|2.79||||0.4306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.18|9.77||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to percent SMH. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||9.77|-4.18|0.4306
90867904|NCT01438957|181598352|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.086|||||||Mantel Haenszel|Stratified by the anesthesia type||||||0.086
90867905|NCT01438957|181598352|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mantel-extension test|Stratified by the anesthesia type||Dose-response relationship is assessed using Mantel-extension test. In this analysis, dose of placebo group is hypothesized as 0 microg/kg. Dose-response relationship among Dexmedetomidine 4 dose groups excluding placebo group is also assessed using Mantel-extension test.||||<0.001
90867906|NCT01438957|181598353|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|5.0|||||Mantel Haenszel|Stratified by the anesthesia type||The closed testing procedure is used taking multiplicity into consideration, in which Dexmedetomidine 1.0 mcg/kg group, 0.5 mcg/kg group, 0.25 mcg/kg group, 0.067 mcg/kg group and the placebo group are tested in this order||||<0.001
90867907|NCT01438957|181598353|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|5.0|||||Mantel Haenszel|Stratified by the anesthesia type||||||<0.001
90867908|NCT01438957|181598353|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|5.0|||||Mantel Haenszel|Stratified by the anesthesia type||||||0.006
90867909|NCT01438957|181598353|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.329|TWO_SIDED|5.0|||||Mantel Haenszel|Stratified by the anesthesia type||||||0.329
90867910|NCT01438957|181598354|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|5.0|||||Mantel Haenszel|Stratified by the anesthesia type||The closed testing procedure is used taking multiplicity into consideration, in which Dexmedetomidine 1.0 mcg/kg group, 0.5 mcg/kg group, 0.25 mcg/kg group, 0.067 mcg/kg group and the placebo group are tested in this order||||<0.001
90867911|NCT01438957|181598354|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|5.0|||||Mantel Haenszel|Stratified by the anesthesia type||||||<0.001
90867912|NCT01438957|181598354|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|5.0|||||Mantel Haenszel|Stratified by the anesthesia type||||||0.006
90867913|NCT01438957|181598354|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.371|TWO_SIDED|5.0|||||Mantel Haenszel|Stratified by the anesthesia type||||||0.371
90867914|NCT01438957|181598355|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|Stratified by the anesthesia type||The closed testing procedure is used taking multiplicity into consideration, in which Dexmedetomidine 1.0 mcg/kg group, 0.5 mcg/kg group, 0.25 mcg/kg group, 0.067 mcg/kg group and the placebo group are tested in this order||||<0.001
90867915|NCT01438957|181598355|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Log Rank|Stratified by the anesthesia type||||||0.001
90867916|NCT01438957|181598355|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.212|||||||Log Rank|Stratified by the anesthesia type||||||0.212
90867917|NCT01438957|181598356|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.869|||||||Mantel Haenszel|Stratified by the anesthesia type||The closed testing procedure is used taking multiplicity into consideration, in which Dexmedetomidine 1.0 mcg/kg group, 0.5 mcg/kg group, 0.25 mcg/kg group, 0.067 mcg/kg group and the placebo group are tested in this order||||0.869
90960422|NCT06020118|181801537|SUPERIORITY|P values and confidence intervals for the geometric mean titer ratio were estimated using a generalized estimating equation logistic regression accounting for site clustering.|||||<|0.001||||||GMTs and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers.|Regression, Linear|||Post-vaccine: Antigen B/Yamagata||||<0.001
90960423|NCT06020118|181801538|SUPERIORITY|95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers and p-values were calculated using a linear regression model adjusted for site.||||||0.793||||||Mean fold-rise and 95% confidence intervals were calculated by taking the geometric mean of each individual's ratio of post-to-pre-vaccination titers.|Regression, Linear|||Antigen: A(H1N1)pdm09||||0.793
90960424|NCT06020118|181801538|SUPERIORITY|95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers and p-values were calculated using a linear regression model adjusted for site.||||||0.326||||||Mean fold-rise and 95% confidence intervals were calculated by taking the geometric mean of each individual's ratio of post-to-pre-vaccination titers.|Regression, Linear|||Antigen: A(H3N2)||||0.326
90960425|NCT06020118|181801538|SUPERIORITY|95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers and p-values were calculated using a linear regression model adjusted for site.||||||0.933||||||Mean fold-rise and 95% confidence intervals were calculated by taking the geometric mean of each individual's ratio of post-to-pre-vaccination titers.|Regression, Linear|||Antigen: B/Victoria||||0.933
90960426|NCT06020118|181801538|SUPERIORITY|95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers and p-values were calculated using a linear regression model adjusted for site.||||||0.424||||||Mean fold-rise and 95% confidence intervals were calculated by taking the geometric mean of each individual's ratio of post-to-pre-vaccination titers.|Regression, Linear|||Antigen: B/Yamagata||||0.424
90960427|NCT06020118|181801538|SUPERIORITY|95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers and p-values were calculated using a linear regression model adjusted for site.|||||<|0.001||||||Mean fold-rise and 95% confidence intervals were calculated by taking the geometric mean of each individual's ratio of post-to-pre-vaccination titers.|Regression, Linear|||Antigen: A(H1N1)pdm09||||<0.001
90960428|NCT06020118|181801538|SUPERIORITY|95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers and p-values were calculated using a linear regression model adjusted for site.|||||<|0.001||||||Mean fold-rise and 95% confidence intervals were calculated by taking the geometric mean of each individual's ratio of post-to-pre-vaccination titers.|Regression, Linear|||Antigen: A(H3N2)||||<0.001
90960429|NCT06020118|181801538|SUPERIORITY|95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers and p-values were calculated using a linear regression model adjusted for site.|||||<|0.001||||||Mean fold-rise and 95% confidence intervals were calculated by taking the geometric mean of each individual's ratio of post-to-pre-vaccination titers.|Regression, Linear|||Antigen: B/Victoria||||<0.001
90960430|NCT06020118|181801538|SUPERIORITY|95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers and p-values were calculated using a linear regression model adjusted for site.|||||<|0.001||||||Mean fold-rise and 95% confidence intervals were calculated by taking the geometric mean of each individual's ratio of post-to-pre-vaccination titers.|Regression, Linear|||Antigen: B/Yamagata||||<0.001
90960431|NCT01281969|181801550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.97||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|3.15||p-value is unadjusted. a priori threshold for statistical significance is .05|ANCOVA|F(1,34)=0.62, p=.44||Analysis of covariance model controlling for baseline scores. A priori power calculations based on the Perlmutter et al. study (IVIG effect size 1.2) suggested that a sample size of 16 per group would be sufficient to detect an effect size of 1.0 with 80% power.||3.15|-7.1|0.44
90960432|NCT01281969|181801551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.12||||||p-value is not adjusted.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Mean rank sum in the placebo group = 19.92; mean rank sum in the IVIG group = 15.97. Z = -1.18, p=.12||The Wilcoxon two-sample test was used to compare CGI-Improvement ratings (an ordinal variable) at week 6. Power calculation was based on CYBOCS as primary outcome.||||.12
90960433|NCT01281969|181801552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4||||||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Chi-squared|X2 = 0.72, p=.40||Chi-squared test was used to compare distribution of responders by randomization group. Power calculation was based on CY-BOCS (primary outcome).||||.40
90960434|NCT01296347|181801564|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.33
90960435|NCT01296347|181801565|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||6 weeks||||0.71
90960436|NCT01296347|181801565|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||3 month||||1.0
90960437|NCT01296347|181801565|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||6 months||||0.32
90960438|NCT01296347|181801567|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.47
90960439|NCT01296347|181801568|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.00
90960440|NCT01296347|181801569|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.02
90960441|NCT01296347|181801570|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
90960442|NCT02240693|181801571|SUPERIORITY|H0: The dose group with the peak response in the respective model Mean NTB response = Mean NTB response of placebo.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.075||0.3236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.074|0.223||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to model degrees of freedom.|Mean difference (BI 409306 10 milligram (mg) once daily (QD) minus Placebo matching BI 409306)|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM) includes fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline, and baseline-by-visit interaction.|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|0.223|-0.074|0.3236
90867918|NCT01438957|181598357|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.897|TWO_SIDED|5.0|||||Mantel Haenszel|Stratified by the anesthesia type||The closed testing procedure is used taking multiplicity into consideration, in which Dexmedetomidine 1.0 mcg/kg group, 0.5 mcg/kg group, 0.25 mcg/kg group, 0.067 mcg/kg group and the placebo group are tested in this order||||0.897
90867919|NCT01438957|181598358|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.897|TWO_SIDED|5.0|||||Mantel Haenszel|Stratified by the anesthesia type||The closed testing procedure is used taking multiplicity into consideration, in which Dexmedetomidine 1.0 mcg/kg group, 0.5 mcg/kg group, 0.25 mcg/kg group, 0.067 mcg/kg group and the placebo group are tested in this order||||0.897
90960443|NCT02240693|181801571|SUPERIORITY|H0: The dose group with the peak response in the respective model Mean NTB response = Mean NTB response of placebo.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.076||0.3694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.082||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to model degrees of freedom.|Mean difference (BI 409306 25 mg QD minus Placebo matching BI 409306)|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM) includes fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline, and baseline-by-visit interaction.|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|0.082|-0.220|0.3694
90867920|NCT01438957|181598359|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mantel Haenszel|Stratified by the anesthesia type||The closed testing procedure is used taking multiplicity into consideration, in which Dexmedetomidine 1.0 mcg/kg group, 0.5 mcg/kg group, 0.25 mcg/kg group, 0.067 mcg/kg group and the placebo group are tested in this order||||<0.001
90867921|NCT01438957|181598359|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Mantel Haenszel|Stratified by the anesthesia type||||||0.002
90867922|NCT01438957|181598359|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.116|||||||Mantel Haenszel|Stratified by the anesthesia type||||||0.116
90867923|NCT01438957|181598360|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.088|||||||Mantel Haenszel|Stratified by the anesthesia type||The closed testing procedure is used taking multiplicity into consideration, in which Dexmedetomidine 1.0 mcg/kg group, 0.5 mcg/kg group, 0.25 mcg/kg group, 0.067 mcg/kg group and the placebo group are tested in this order||||0.088
90867924|NCT01438957|181598361|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.085|||||||Log Rank|Stratified by the anesthesia type||The closed testing procedure is used taking multiplicity into consideration, in which Dexmedetomidine 1.0 mcg/kg group, 0.5 mcg/kg group, 0.25 mcg/kg group, 0.067 mcg/kg group and the placebo group are tested in this order||||0.085
90867925|NCT01438957|181598362|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Mantel Haenszel|Stratified by the anesthesia type||The closed testing procedure is used taking multiplicity into consideration, in which Dexmedetomidine 1.0 mcg/kg group, 0.5 mcg/kg group, 0.25 mcg/kg group, 0.067 mcg/kg group and the placebo group are tested in this order||||0.005
90867926|NCT01438957|181598362|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||Mantel Haenszel|Stratified by the anesthesia type||||||0.014
90867927|NCT01438957|181598362|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.055|||||||Mantel Haenszel|Stratified by the anesthesia type||||||0.055
90867928|NCT01438957|181598363|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.737|||||||Mantel Haenszel|Stratified by the anesthesia type||The closed testing procedure is used taking multiplicity into consideration, in which Dexmedetomidine 1.0 mcg/kg group, 0.5 mcg/kg group, 0.25 mcg/kg group, 0.067 mcg/kg group and the placebo group are tested in this order||||0.737
90867929|NCT01438957|181598364|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Mantel Haenszel|Stratified by the anesthesia type||The closed testing procedure is used taking multiplicity into consideration, in which Dexmedetomidine 1.0 mcg/kg group, 0.5 mcg/kg group, 0.25 mcg/kg group, 0.067 mcg/kg group and the placebo group are tested in this order||||0.11
90867930|NCT01438957|181598365|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.567|||||||Mantel Haenszel|Stratified by the anesthesia type||The closed testing procedure is used taking multiplicity into consideration, in which Dexmedetomidine 1.0 mcg/kg group, 0.5 mcg/kg group, 0.25 mcg/kg group, 0.067 mcg/kg group and the placebo group are tested in this order||||0.567
90867931|NCT01438957|181598366|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.044|||||||Mantel Haenszel|Stratified by the anesthesia type||The closed testing procedure is used taking multiplicity into consideration, in which Dexmedetomidine 1.0 mcg/kg group, 0.5 mcg/kg group, 0.25 mcg/kg group, 0.067 mcg/kg group and the placebo group are tested in this order||||0.044
90867932|NCT01438957|181598366|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.234|||||||Mantel Haenszel|Stratified by the anesthesia type||||||0.234
90867933|NCT01438957|181598367|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.729|||||||Mantel Haenszel|Stratified by the anesthesia type||The closed testing procedure is used taking multiplicity into consideration, in which Dexmedetomidine 1.0 mcg/kg group, 0.5 mcg/kg group, 0.25 mcg/kg group, 0.067 mcg/kg group and the placebo group are tested in this order||||0.729
90867934|NCT01438957|181598368|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.082|||||||Mantel Haenszel|Stratified by the anesthesia type||The closed testing procedure is used taking multiplicity into consideration, in which Dexmedetomidine 1.0 mcg/kg group, 0.5 mcg/kg group, 0.25 mcg/kg group, 0.067 mcg/kg group and the placebo group are tested in this order||||0.082
90867935|NCT01438957|181598369|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.451|||||||Mantel Haenszel|Stratified by the anesthesia type||The closed testing procedure is used taking multiplicity into consideration, in which Dexmedetomidine 1.0 mcg/kg group, 0.5 mcg/kg group, 0.25 mcg/kg group, 0.067 mcg/kg group and the placebo group are tested in this order||||0.451
90867936|NCT01438957|181598370|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.873|||||||Mantel Haenszel|Stratified by the anesthesia type||The closed testing procedure is used taking multiplicity into consideration, in which Dexmedetomidine 1.0 mcg/kg group, 0.5 mcg/kg group, 0.25 mcg/kg group, 0.067 mcg/kg group and the placebo group are tested in this order||||0.873
90867937|NCT01438957|181598371|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.374|||||||Mantel Haenszel|Stratified by the anesthesia type||The closed testing procedure is used taking multiplicity into consideration, in which Dexmedetomidine 1.0 mcg/kg group, 0.5 mcg/kg group, 0.25 mcg/kg group, 0.067 mcg/kg group and the placebo group are tested in this order||||0.374
90867938|NCT04592874|181598375|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.7975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|1.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is using the Week 96 timepoint||1.15|-1.49|0.7975
90867939|NCT04592874|181598375|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31||||0.6341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|0.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is using the Week 96 timepoint||0.98|-1.61|0.6341
90867940|NCT04592874|181598375|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.8489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|1.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is using the Week 96 timepoint||1.43|-1.18|0.8489
90867941|NCT04592874|181598376|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.7417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.81|2.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is using the Week 96 timepoint||2.01|-2.81|0.7417
90867942|NCT04592874|181598376|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.74||||0.1559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.16|0.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is using the Week 96 timepoint||0.67|-4.16|0.1559
90867943|NCT04592874|181598376|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0.785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|2.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is using the Week 96 timepoint||2.11|-2.78|0.7850
90867944|NCT04592874|181598377|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.65||||0.7934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.58|4.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is using the Week 96 timepoint||4.28|-5.58|0.7934
90867945|NCT04592874|181598377|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24||||0.9259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.84|5.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is using the Week 96 timepoint||5.32|-4.84|0.9259
90867946|NCT04592874|181598377|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.91||||0.7147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.04|5.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is using the Week 96 timepoint||5.87|-4.04|0.7147
90867947|NCT04592874|181598378|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.97||||0.6403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.14|5.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is using the Week 96 timepoint||5.09|-3.14|0.6403
90867948|NCT04592874|181598378|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4||||0.5016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.71|5.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is using the Week 96 timepoint||5.51|-2.71|0.5016
90910163|NCT00708097|181690781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-25.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.09|-18.06||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to percent SMH. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||-18.06|-32.09|<0.0001
90867949|NCT04592874|181598378|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.94||||0.1631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|7.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is using the Week 96 timepoint||7.08|-1.21|0.1631
90867950|NCT04592874|181598379|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53||||0.7945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.57|3.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is using the Week 96 timepoint||3.51|-4.57|0.7945
90867951|NCT04592874|181598379|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16||||0.9371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.92|4.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is using the Week 96 timepoint||4.25|-3.92|0.9371
90867952|NCT04592874|181598379|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.53||||0.7991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.58|4.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is using the Week 96 timepoint||4.64|-3.58|0.7991
90867953|NCT04592874|181598380|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.6458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is using the Week 96 timepoint||0.11|-0.17|0.6458
90867954|NCT04592874|181598380|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.2779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is using the Week 96 timepoint||0.21|-0.06|0.2779
90867955|NCT04592874|181598380|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.5355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is using the Week 96 timepoint||0.18|-0.10|0.5355
90867956|NCT04182763|181598415|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Wald test after neg binomial regression|Chi-squared with 3 d.f.||Mean counts of events per person were calculated from a negative binomial regression model with categorical coefficients for active dose levels, controlling for the baseline number of prescriptions. A joint test of the null hypothesis that the three regression parameters representing active treatment = 0 was done.||||0.50
90867957|NCT04182763|181598420|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.105||||||Two-sided threshold of p\<.10|Linear contrast / test for trend|Contrast after mixed-effects GLM with log link, random subject intercept, treatment, PKAN type, and time (1 mo vs 3d).||Test that high \> med \> low \> placebo vs the null that all groups are equal at 1 month + 3 days after first dose. Adjusted for PKAN type (classical or atypical), because randomization was stratified on type, and time point.||||0.105
90867958|NCT04182763|181598420|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55||||||Two-sided threshold of p\<.10|Linear contrast / test for trend|Contrast after GLM with log link, treatment, and PKAN type.||Test that high \> med \> low \> placebo vs the null that all groups are equal at 6 months after first dose. PKAN type (classical or atypical) was included because randomization was stratified on type. The study hypothesis was that expression levels would not vary significantly at this time point.||||0.55
90867959|NCT01774604|181598511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.33
90867960|NCT01774604|181598512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
90867961|NCT01774604|181598513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
90867962|NCT01774604|181598514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.15
90867963|NCT01774604|181598515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.75
90867964|NCT01774604|181598516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.25
90867965|NCT01774604|181598517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.10
90867966|NCT01727297|181598539|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.11||All predictors were tested in a multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression model; the results were not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Age was treated as a continuous variable in years.|Regression, Cox||The hazard ratio represented the effect of a one year increase in age on a patient's risk of developing AF. Descriptive statistics (mean±standard deviation) for age were 75.7±7.9 years among patients with AF, and 69.4±10.0 among patients without AF|The null hypothesis was that age did not influence a patient's risk of experiencing AF (it's coefficient in a Cox proportional hazards model was 0).||1.11|1.05|< 0.001
90910164|NCT00708097|181690781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.19||||0.9567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.71|7.09||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to percent SMH. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||7.09|-6.71|0.9567
90910165|NCT00708097|181690781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.81||||0.8188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.14|7.76||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to percent SMH. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||7.76|-6.14|0.8188
90910166|NCT00708097|181690781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-27.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.03|-20.08||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to percent SMH. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||-20.08|-34.03|<0.0001
90910167|NCT00708097|181690781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.62||||0.8599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.28|7.51||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to percent SMH. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||7.51|-6.28|0.8599
90867967|NCT01727297|181598539|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.08||All predictors were tested in a multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression model; the results were not adjusted for multiple comparisons. BMI was treated as a continuous variable.|Regression, Cox||The hazard ratio represented the effect of a one unit increase in BMI on a patient's risk of developing AF. Descriptive statistics (mean ± standard deviation) for BMI were 31.0 ± 6.6 among patients with AF, and 31.2 ± 6.4 among patients without AF|The null hypothesis was that body mass index (BMI) did not influence a patient's risk of experiencing AF (it's coefficient in a Cox proportional hazards model was 0).||1.08|1.01|0.02
90867968|NCT01727297|181598539|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.61||All predictors were tested in a multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression model; the results were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox||The hazard ratio represented the effect of being male on a patient's risk of developing AF.|The null hypothesis was that gender did not influence a patient's risk of experiencing AF (it's coefficient for being male in a Cox proportional hazards model was 0).||1.61|0.77|0.56
90867969|NCT01727297|181598539|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.59||All predictors were tested in a multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression model; the results were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox||The hazard ratio represented the effect of having diabetes on a patient's risk of developing AF.|The null hypothesis was that diabetes did not influence a patient's risk of experiencing AF (it's coefficient in a Cox proportional hazards model was 0).||1.59|0.74|0.66
90867970|NCT01727297|181598539|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.69||All predictors were tested in a multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression model; the results were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox||The hazard ratio represented the effect of having heart failure on a patient's risk of developing AF.|The null hypothesis was that heart failure did not influence a patient's risk of experiencing AF (it's coefficient in a Cox proportional hazards model was 0).||1.69|0.69|0.73
90867971|NCT01727297|181598539|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.23||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.6||All predictors were tested in a multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression model; the results were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox||The hazard ratio represented the effect of having hypertension on a patient's risk of developing AF.|The null hypothesis was that hypertension did not influence a patient's risk of experiencing AF (it's coefficient in a Cox proportional hazards model was 0).||2.60|0.58|0.58
90867972|NCT01727297|181598539|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.32||All predictors were tested in a multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression model; the results were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox||The hazard ratio represented the effect of having renal impairment on a patient's risk of developing AF.|The null hypothesis was that renal impairment did not influence a patient's risk of experiencing AF (it's coefficient in a Cox proportional hazards model was 0).||1.32|0.64|0.65
90867973|NCT01727297|181598539|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.2||All predictors were tested in a multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression model; the results were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox||The hazard ratio represented the effect of having COPD on a patient's risk of developing AF.|The null hypothesis was that Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) did not influence a patient's risk of experiencing AF (it's coefficient in a Cox proportional hazards model was 0).||1.20|0.45|0.22
90867974|NCT01727297|181598539|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.38||All predictors were tested in a multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression model; the results were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox||The hazard ratio represented the effect of having a prior stroke (more than one year pre-device implant) on a patient's risk of developing AF.|The null hypothesis was that prior stroke more than one year pre-device implant did not influence a patient's risk of experiencing AF (it's coefficient in a Cox proportional hazards model was 0).||1.38|0.54|0.53
90940390|NCT00526097|181760516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.6|-0.3||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||-0.3|-0.6|<0.0001
90940391|NCT00526097|181760517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.0|-0.7||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||-0.7|-1.0|<0.0001
90867975|NCT01727297|181598539|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.15||All predictors were tested in a multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression model; the results were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox||The hazard ratio represented the effect of having coronary artery disease on a patient's risk of developing AF.|The null hypothesis was that coronary artery disease did not influence a patient's risk of experiencing AF (it's coefficient in a Cox proportional hazards model was 0).||1.15|0.53|0.21
90910168|NCT00708097|181690781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-27.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.2|-20.3||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to percent SMH. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||-20.30|-34.20|<0.0001
90867976|NCT01727297|181598539|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.17||All predictors were tested in a multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression model; the results were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox||The hazard ratio represented the effect of having sleep apnea on a patient's risk of developing AF.|The null hypothesis was that sleep apnea did not influence a patient's risk of experiencing AF (it's coefficient in a Cox proportional hazards model was 0).||1.17|0.45|0.19
90867977|NCT01727297|181598539|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.97||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|5.14||All predictors were tested in a multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression model; the results were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox||The hazard ratio represented the effect of having a family history of AF on a patient's risk of developing AF.|The null hypothesis was that family history of AF did not influence a patient's risk of experiencing AF (it's coefficient in a Cox proportional hazards model was 0).||5.14|0.76|0.16
90960444|NCT02240693|181801571|SUPERIORITY|H0: The dose group with the peak response in the respective model Mean NTB response = Mean NTB response of placebo.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.078||0.8374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.171|0.139||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to model degrees of freedom.|Mean difference (BI 409306 50 mg QD minus Placebo matching BI 409306)|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM) includes fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline, and baseline-by-visit interaction.|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences|0.139|-0.171|0.8374
90867978|NCT01727297|181598539|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.43||All predictors were tested in a multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression model; the results were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox||The hazard ratio represented the effect of having vascular disease on a patient's risk of developing AF.|The null hypothesis was that vascular disease did not influence a patient's risk of experiencing AF (it's coefficient in a Cox proportional hazards model was 0).||1.43|0.56|0.63
90867979|NCT02321800|181598556|NON_INFERIORITY|The margin of noninferiority was 20%. Noninferiority was concluded if the lower bound of a 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in response rates between the 2 treatment groups was greater than -20%. If the noninferiority inference based on the 20% margin was concluded successfully, noninferiority inference based on the 15% margin was performed.|Treatment Difference|18.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.23|28.92||||||Adjusted estimates of the difference between the two treatment groups are based on a stratified analysis using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights, with clinical diagnosis (complicated urinary tract infection with or without pyelonephritis vs acute uncomplicated pyelonephritis) as the stratification factor.||28.92|8.23|
90867980|NCT02321800|181598557|OTHER||Treatment Difference|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.48|7.79||||||Adjusted estimates of the difference between the two treatment groups are based on a stratified analysis using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights, with clinical diagnosis (complicated urinary tract infection with or without pyelonephritis vs acute uncomplicated pyelonephritis) as the stratification factor.||7.79|-6.48|
90867981|NCT02321800|181598558|OTHER||Treatment Difference|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.48|4.92||||||Adjusted estimates of the difference between the two treatment groups are based on a stratified analysis using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights, with clinical diagnosis (complicated urinary tract infection with or without pyelonephritis vs acute uncomplicated pyelonephritis) as the stratification factor.||4.92|-3.48|
90867982|NCT02321800|181598559|OTHER||Treatment Difference|15.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.69|25.92||||||||25.92|4.69|
90867983|NCT02321800|181598560|OTHER||Treatment Difference|17.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.92|27.58||||||Adjusted estimates of the difference between the two treatment groups are based on a stratified analysis using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights, with clinical diagnosis (complicated urinary tract infection with or without pyelonephritis vs acute uncomplicated pyelonephritis) as the stratification factor.||27.58|6.92|
90867984|NCT02321800|181598561|OTHER||Treatment Difference|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.83|7.39||||||Adjusted estimates of the difference between the two treatment groups are based on a stratified analysis using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights, with clinical diagnosis (complicated urinary tract infection with or without pyelonephritis vs acute uncomplicated pyelonephritis) as the stratification factor.||7.39|-4.83|
90867985|NCT02321800|181598562|OTHER||Treatment Difference|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.04|5.25||||||Adjusted estimates of the difference between the two treatment groups are based on a stratified analysis using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights, with clinical diagnosis (complicated urinary tract infection with or without pyelonephritis vs acute uncomplicated pyelonephritis) as the stratification factor.||5.25|-3.04|
90910169|NCT00708097|181690781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-27.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.84|-20.89||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to percent SMH. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||-20.89|-34.84|<0.0001
90910170|NCT00708097|181690782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.45||||0.5451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.15|3.26||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to percent SMH. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||3.26|-6.15|0.5451
90910171|NCT00708097|181690782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|3.5||||0.1433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|8.19||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to percent SMH. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||8.19|-1.20|0.1433
90867986|NCT02321800|181598563|OTHER||Treatment Difference|13.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.21|24.63||||||Adjusted estimates of the difference between the two treatment groups are based on a stratified analysis using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights, with clinical diagnosis (complicated urinary tract infection with or without pyelonephritis vs acute uncomplicated pyelonephritis) as the stratification factor.||24.63|3.21|
90867987|NCT02321800|181598568|OTHER||Treatment Difference|2.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.66|9.44||||||Adjusted estimates of the difference between the two treatment groups are based on a stratified analysis using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights, with clinical diagnosis (complicated urinary tract infection with or without pyelonephritis vs acute uncomplicated pyelonephritis) as the stratification factor.||9.44|-4.66|
90867988|NCT02321800|181598569|OTHER||Treatment Difference|-0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.57|6.05||||||Adjusted estimates of the difference between the two treatment groups are based on a stratified analysis using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights, with clinical diagnosis (complicated urinary tract infection with or without pyelonephritis vs acute uncomplicated pyelonephritis) as the stratification factor.||6.05|-6.57|
90867989|NCT02321800|181598570|OTHER||Treatment Difference|-1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.42|1.29||||||Adjusted estimates of the difference between the two treatment groups are based on a stratified analysis using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights, with clinical diagnosis (complicated urinary tract infection with or without pyelonephritis vs acute uncomplicated pyelonephritis) as the stratification factor.||1.29|-3.42|
90867990|NCT02321800|181598571|OTHER||Treatment Difference|9.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|18.41||||||Adjusted estimates of the difference between the two treatment groups are based on a stratified analysis using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights, with clinical diagnosis (complicated urinary tract infection with or without pyelonephritis vs acute uncomplicated pyelonephritis) as the stratification factor.||18.41|-0.37|
90867991|NCT01115101|181598649|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|VAS score at 24h were defined as primary endpoint because of the expectation of the maximal effect at this time. Testing for differences of continuous variables between the study groups at baseline was accomplished by the 2-sample t test for independent samples or the Mann-Whitney U test, as appropriate.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.05||95.0|||||Chi-squared|Test selection was based on evaluating the variables for normal distribution employing the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test.||"The sample size of n=120 was computed to detect a difference in VAS score at 24h of 1.2 (30% reduction) at a power of 80%, a two-sided significance level of 0.05.~Because measurements were made several times on the same patients within in two independent groups, GLM Repeated Measurement procedure was applied to test null hypotheses about the effects of both the between-subject factor (study group) and the within-subject factor (time)."||||<0.05
90867992|NCT03366337|181598656|SUPERIORITY|A formal test of mean change from baseline in eGFR ≠ 0 was conducted at Week 12.|LS Mean change from baseline|9.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3743|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|12.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|Available data from analysis visits Week 1 to Week 12 were included. Missing data were not imputed.||||12.13|6.5|<0.0001
90910172|NCT00708097|181690782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|7.47||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.78|12.16||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to percent SMH. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||12.16|2.78|0.0020
90910173|NCT00708097|181690782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|23.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.79|28.25||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to percent SMH. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||28.25|18.79|<0.0001
90910174|NCT00708097|181690782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|4.94||||0.0373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|9.59||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to percent SMH. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||9.59|0.29|0.0373
90910175|NCT00708097|181690782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|8.92||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.24|13.59||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to percent SMH. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||13.59|4.24|0.0002
90910176|NCT00708097|181690782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|24.97|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.27|29.66||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to percent SMH. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||29.66|20.27|<0.0001
90867993|NCT03366337|181598656|SUPERIORITY|A formal test of mean change from baseline in eGFR ≠ 0 was conducted at Week 12.|LS Mean change from baseline|8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.57|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.75|11.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|Available data from analysis visits Week 1 to Week 12 were included. Missing data were not imputed.||||11.25|4.75|<0.0001
90867994|NCT03366337|181598656|SUPERIORITY|A formal test of mean change from baseline in eGFR ≠ 0 was conducted at Week 12.|LS Mean change from baseline|5.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2792||0.0247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|10.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|Available data from analysis visits Week 1 to Week 12 were included. Missing data were not imputed.||||10.16|0.76|0.0247
90867995|NCT03366337|181598656|SUPERIORITY|A formal test of mean change from baseline in eGFR ≠ 0 was conducted at Week 12.|LS Mean change from baseline|7.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.216||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.11|12.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|Available data from analysis visits Week 1 to Week 12 were included. Missing data were not imputed.||||12.55|3.11|0.0030
90867996|NCT01697566|181598682|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Body Weight||||0.006
90867997|NCT01697566|181598682|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Fat Mass||||<0.001
90867998|NCT01697566|181598684|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.019
90867999|NCT01447433|181598686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.439|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.58|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.58|-0.70|0.441
90868000|NCT01447433|181598687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|1.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||Body Fat Mass||1.70|0.05|0.038
90868001|NCT01447433|181598687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|0.07|||t-test, 2 sided|||Body Lean Mass||0.07|-1.06|0.082
90868002|NCT01447433|181598687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.32|||t-test, 2 sided|||Visceral Fat Mass||0.32|0.03|0.018
90868003|NCT01447433|181598688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.09|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.09|0.10|0.031
90868004|NCT01447433|181598689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|5.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.25||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|10.29|||t-test, 2 sided|||||10.29|1.15|0.016
90868005|NCT01447433|181598690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.31|4.58|||t-test, 2 sided|||Waist Circumference||4.58|-2.31|0.508
90868006|NCT01447433|181598690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.07||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.42|2.98|||t-test, 2 sided|||Abdominal Circumference||2.98|-5.42|0.560
90868007|NCT01447433|181598690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|2.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||Hip Circumference||2.70|-0.74|0.255
90868008|NCT01447433|181598691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5||0.404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|5.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||Systolic Blood Pressure||5.3|-12.9|0.404
90868009|NCT01447433|181598691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.18||0.768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.52|7.41|||t-test, 2 sided|||Diastolic Blood Pressure||7.41|-5.52|0.768
90868010|NCT01447433|181598692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||TC||0.20|-0.36|0.565
90868011|NCT01447433|181598692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.39|||t-test, 2 sided|||TG||0.39|-0.24|0.636
90868012|NCT01447433|181598692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.06|||t-test, 2 sided|||HDL||0.06|-0.58|0.112
90868013|NCT01447433|181598692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.05|||t-test, 2 sided|||LDL||0.05|-0.11|0.647
90868014|NCT01447433|181598693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.35|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.35|-0.10|0.260
90868015|NCT01447433|181598694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63||0.598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|4.17|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.17|-2.44|0.598
90868016|NCT01447433|181598695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|98.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|89.0||0.275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-81.6|278.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||||278.7|-81.6|0.275
90868017|NCT04518293|181598698|OTHER|The difference between GMRx2 and dual-TA at Week 12 was estimated using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM).|LS Means Difference|-5.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.774|-4.107|||MIANALYZE procedure|||The LS means (LSM) difference (95% CI) in home seated SBP reduction was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TA arms.||-4.107|-6.774|<.0001
90868018|NCT04518293|181598698|OTHER|The difference between GMRx2 and dual-TI at Week 12 was estimated using a MMRM.|LS Means Difference|-2.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.723|-1.251|||MIANALYZE procedure|||The LSM difference (95% CI) in home SBP reduction was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TI arms.||-1.251|-3.723|<.0001
90868019|NCT04518293|181598698|OTHER|The difference between GMRx2 and dual-AI at Week 12 was estimated using a MMRM.|LS Means Difference|-4.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.758|-3.091|||MIANALYZE procedure|||The LSM difference (95% CI) in home SBP reduction was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-AI arms.||-3.091|-5.758|<.0001
90868020|NCT04518293|181598699|OTHER|The difference between GMRx2 and dual-TA at Week 12 was estimated using a MMRM.|LS Means Difference|-5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.863|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.307|-3.902|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The LSM difference (95% CI) in clinic SBP reduction was calculated between GMRx2 between dual-TA arms.||-3.902|-7.307|<.0001
90868021|NCT04518293|181598699|OTHER|The difference between GMRx2 and dual-TI at Week 12 was estimated using a MMRM.|LS Means Difference|-4.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.212||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.718|-1.933|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The LSM difference (95% CI) in clinic SBP reduction was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TI arms.||-1.933|-6.718|0.0005
90910177|NCT00708097|181690782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|3.98||||0.0925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|8.61||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to percent SMH. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||8.61|-0.66|0.0925
90910178|NCT00708097|181690782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|20.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.35|24.7||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to percent SMH. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||24.70|15.35|<0.0001
90868022|NCT04518293|181598699|OTHER|The difference between GMRx2 and dual-AI at Week 12 was estimated using a MMRM.|LS Means Difference|-6.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.837|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.984|-4.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The LSM difference (95% CI) in clinic SBP reduction was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-AI arms.||-4.680|-7.984|<.0001
90868023|NCT04518293|181598700|OTHER|The difference between GMRx2 and dual-TA at Week 6 was estimated using MMRM.|LS Means Difference|-5.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.858|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.703|-3.317|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The LSM difference (95% CI) in clinic SBP reduction was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TA arms.||-3.317|-6.703|<.0001
90910179|NCT00708097|181690782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|16.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.36|20.74||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to percent SMH. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||20.74|11.36|<0.0001
90940392|NCT00526097|181760518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.007||95.0|-0.3|-0.1||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||-0.1|-0.3|0.0070
90868024|NCT04518293|181598700|OTHER|The difference between GMRx2 and dual-TI at Week 6 was estimated using MMRM.|LS Means Difference|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.293|-1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The LSM difference (95% CI) in clinic SBP reduction was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TI arms.||-1.700|-5.293|0.0002
90868025|NCT04518293|181598700|OTHER|The difference between GMRx2 and dual-AI at Week 6 was estimated using MMRM.|LS Means Difference|-5.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.965|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.251|-3.444|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The LSM difference (95% CI) in clinic SBP reduction was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-AI arms.||-3.444|-7.251|<.0001
90868026|NCT04518293|181598701|OTHER|The difference between GMRx2 and dual-TA at Week 12 was estimated using MMRM.|LS Means Difference|-3.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.692|-2.757|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The LSM difference (95% CI) in clinic DBP reduction was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TA arms.||-2.757|-4.692|<.0001
90868027|NCT04518293|181598701|OTHER|The difference between GMRx2 and dual-TI at Week 12 was estimated using MMRM.|LS Means Difference|-3.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.702|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.897|-2.128|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The LSM difference (95% CI) in clinic DBP reduction was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TI arms.||-2.128|-4.897|<.0001
90868028|NCT04518293|181598701|OTHER|The difference between GMRx2 and dual-AI at Week 12 was estimated using MMRM.|LS Means Difference|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.665|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.812|-3.189|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The LSM difference (95% CI) in clinic DBP reduction was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-AI arms.||-3.189|-5.812|<.0001
90868029|NCT04518293|181598702|OTHER|The difference between GMRx2 and dual-TA at Week 6 was estimated using MMRM.|LS Means Difference|-2.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.487|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.392|-1.469|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The LSM difference (95% CI) in clinic DBP reduction was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TA arms.||-1.469|-3.392|<.0001
90868030|NCT04518293|181598702|OTHER|The difference between GMRx2 and dual-TI at Week 6 was estimated using MMRM.|LS Means Difference|-2.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.371|-1.201|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The LSM difference (95% CI) in clinic DBP reduction was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TI arms.||-1.201|-3.371|<.0001
90868031|NCT04518293|181598702|OTHER|The difference between GMRx2 and dual-AI at Week 6 was estimated using MMRM.|LS Means Difference|-3.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.562|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.882|-2.664|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The LSM difference (95% CI) in clinic DBP reduction was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-AI arms.||-2.664|-4.882|<.0001
90868032|NCT04518293|181598703|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|12.52||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.63|19.487|||Wald test|||The difference between GMRx2 and TA at Week 12 was estimated using Generalized Estimating Equation.||19.487|5.630|0.0003
90868033|NCT04518293|181598703|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|13.36||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.392|20.394|||Wald test|||The difference between GMRx2 and TI at Week 12 was estimated using Generalized Estimating Equation.||20.394|6.392|0.0001
90868034|NCT04518293|181598703|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|20.97|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.812|28.013|||Wald test|||The difference between GMRx2 and AI at Week 12 was estimated using Generalized Estimating Equation.||28.013|13.812|<.0001
90868035|NCT04518293|181598704|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|10.31||||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.044|17.535|||Wald test|||The difference between GMRx2 and TA at Week 6 was estimated using Generalized Estimating Equation.||17.535|3.044|0.0044
90868036|NCT04518293|181598704|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|8.08||||0.0262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.804|15.373|||Wald test|||The difference between GMRx2 and TI at Week 6 was estimated using Generalized Estimating Equation.||15.373|0.804|0.0262
91033229|NCT00834743|181952313|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|99.0||||||90.0|91.44|107.19|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||107.19|91.44|
90868037|NCT04518293|181598704|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|18.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.201|25.746|||Wald test|||The difference between GMRx2 and AI at Week 6 was estimated using Generalized Estimating Equation.||25.746|11.201|<.0001
90868038|NCT04518293|181598705|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|16.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.707|22.837|||Wald test|||The difference between GMRx2 and TA at Week 12 was estimated using Generalized Estimating Equation.||22.837|9.707|<.0001
90868039|NCT04518293|181598705|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|12.03||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.982|18.658|||Wald test|||The difference between GMRx2 and TI at Week 12 was estimated using Generalized Estimating Equation.||18.658|4.982|0.0004
90868040|NCT04518293|181598705|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|18.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.412|24.432|||Wald test|||The difference between GMRx2 and AI at Week 12 was estimated using Generalized Estimating Equation.||24.432|11.412|<.0001
90868041|NCT04518293|181598706|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|10.45||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.993|16.433|||Wald test|||The difference between GMRx2 and TA at Week 6 was estimated using Generalized Estimating Equation.||16.433|3.993|0.0007
90868042|NCT04518293|181598706|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|8.93||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.337|15.058|||Wald test|||The difference between GMRx2 and TI at Week 6 was estimated using Generalized Estimating Equation.||15.058|2.337|0.0046
90868043|NCT04518293|181598706|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|12.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.792|18.073|||Wald test|||||18.073|5.792|<.0001
90868044|NCT04518293|181598707|OTHER|The difference between GMRx2 and dual-TA at Week 6 was estimated using MMRM.|LS Means Difference|-6.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.495|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.086|-5.144|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The LSM difference (95% CI) in home SBP reduction was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TA arms.||-5.144|-7.086|<.0001
90868045|NCT04518293|181598707|OTHER|The difference between GMRx2 and dual-TI at Week 6 was estimated using MMRM.|LS Means Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.543|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.06|-1.932|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The LSM difference (95% CI) in home SBP reduction was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TI arms.||-1.932|-4.060|<.0001
90868046|NCT04518293|181598707|OTHER|The difference between GMRx2 and dual-AI at Week 6 was estimated using MMRM.|LS Means Difference|-5.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.603|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.274|-3.912|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The LSM difference (95% CI) in home SBP reduction was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-AI arms.||-3.912|-6.274|<.0001
90868047|NCT04518293|181598708|OTHER|The difference between GMRx2 and dual-TA at Week 12 was estimated using MMRM.|LS Means Difference|-3.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.364|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.069|-2.632|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The LSM difference (95% CI) in home DBP reduction was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TA arms.||-2.632|-4.069|<.0001
90868048|NCT04518293|181598708|OTHER|The difference between GMRx2 and dual-TI at Week 12 was estimated using MMRM.|LS Means Difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.456|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.998|-1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The LSM difference (95% CI) in home DBP reduction was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TI arms.||-1.200|-2.998|<.0001
90868049|NCT04518293|181598708|OTHER|The difference between GMRx2 and dual-AI at Week 12 was estimated using MMRM.|LS Means Difference|-3.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.499|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.617|-2.649|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The LSM difference (95% CI) in home DBP reduction was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-AI arms.||-2.649|-4.617|<.0001
90868050|NCT04518293|181598709|OTHER|The difference between GMRx2 and dual-TA at Week 6 was estimated using MMRM.|LS Means Difference|-3.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.311|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.137|-2.908|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The LSM difference (95% CI) in home DBP reduction was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TA arms.||-2.908|-4.137|<.0001
90868051|NCT04518293|181598709|OTHER|The difference between GMRx2 and dual-TI at Week 6 was estimated using MMRM.|LS Means Difference|-2.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.361|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.803|-1.376|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The LSM difference (95% CI) in home DBP reduction was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TI arms.||-1.376|-2.803|<.0001
90868052|NCT04518293|181598709|OTHER|The difference between GMRx2 and dual-AI at Week 6 was estimated using MMRM.|LS Means Difference|-3.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.439|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.446|-2.713|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The LSM difference (95% CI) in home DBP reduction was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-AI arms.||-2.713|-4.446|<.0001
90868053|NCT04518293|181598710|OTHER|The difference between GMRx2 and dual-TA at Week 12 was estimated using MMRM.|LS Means Difference|-5.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.713|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.983|-4.169|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The LSM difference (95% CI) in trough (i.e. before morning dose) home SBP reduction was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TA arms.||-4.169|-6.983|<.0001
90868054|NCT04518293|181598710|OTHER|The difference between GMRx2 and dual-TI at Week 12 was estimated using MMRM.|LS Means Difference|-1.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.662||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.218|-0.607|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The LSM difference (95% CI) in trough (i.e. before morning dose) home SBP reduction was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TI arms.||-0.607|-3.218|0.0043
90868055|NCT04518293|181598710|OTHER|The difference between GMRx2 and dual-AI at Week 12 was estimated using MMRM.|LS Means Difference|-3.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.745|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.214|-2.274|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The LSM difference (95% CI) in trough (i.e. before morning dose) home SBP reduction was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-AI arms.||-2.274|-5.214|<.0001
90868056|NCT04518293|181598711|OTHER|The difference between GMRx2 and dual-TA at Week 6 was estimated using MMRM.|LS Means Difference|-6.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.546|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.324|-5.168|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The LSM difference (95% CI) in trough (i.e. before morning dose) home SBP reduction was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TA arms.||-5.168|-7.324|<.0001
90868057|NCT04518293|181598711|OTHER|The difference between GMRx2 and dual-TI at Week 6 was estimated using MMRM.|LS Means Difference|-2.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.616|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.941|-1.507|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The LSM difference (95% CI) in trough (i.e. before morning dose) home SBP reduction was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TI arms.||-1.507|-3.941|<.0001
90868058|NCT04518293|181598711|OTHER|The difference between GMRx2 and dual-AI at Week 6 was estimated using MMRM.|LS Means Difference|-4.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.537|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.489|-3.368|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The LSM difference (95% CI) in trough (i.e. before morning dose) home SBP reduction was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-AI arms.||-3.368|-5.489|<.0001
91033230|NCT00834743|181952314|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|99.05||||||90.0|90.57|108.32|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||108.32|90.57|
90960445|NCT02240693|181801571|SUPERIORITY|H0: The dose group with the peak response in the respective model Mean NTB response = Mean NTB response of placebo.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.077||0.5484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.106|0.199||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to model degrees of freedom.|Mean difference (BI 409306 25 mg twice daily (BID) minus Placebo matching BI 409306)|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM) includes fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline, and baseline-by-visit interaction.|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences|0.199|-0.106|0.5484
90960446|NCT02240693|181801571|SUPERIORITY|H0: The dose group with the peak response in the respective model Mean NTB response = Mean NTB response of placebo.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054||0.7905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.092|0.121||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to model degrees of freedom.|Mean difference (Pooled BI 409306 minus Placebo matching BI 409306)|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM) includes fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline, and baseline-by-visit interaction.|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences|0.121|-0.092|0.7905
90960447|NCT02240693|181801572|SUPERIORITY|Analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) were used to assess between-group differences in the modelled changes from baseline to Week 12.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.102||0.8973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|2.04||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (BI 409306 10 milligram (mg) once daily (QD) minus Placebo matching BI 409306)|The dependent variable was the change from the baseline score at Week 12. The model included fixed, categorical covariates of treatment as well as fixed continuous covariates of baseline score.|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|2.04|-2.33|0.8973
90960448|NCT02240693|181801572|SUPERIORITY|Analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) were used to assess between-group differences in the modelled changes from baseline to Week 12.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.122||0.2141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|3.63||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (BI 409306 25 mg QD minus Placebo matching BI 409306)|The dependent variable was the change from the baseline score at Week 12. The model included fixed, categorical covariates of treatment as well as fixed continuous covariates of baseline score.|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|3.63|-0.82|0.2141
90960449|NCT02240693|181801572|SUPERIORITY|Analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) were used to assess between-group differences in the modelled changes from baseline to Week 12.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.085||0.6553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.64|1.67||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (BI 409306 50 mg QD minus Placebo matching BI 409306)|The dependent variable was the change from the baseline score at Week 12. The model included fixed, categorical covariates of treatment as well as fixed continuous covariates of baseline score.|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences|1.67|-2.64|0.6553
90960450|NCT02240693|181801572|SUPERIORITY|Analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) were used to assess between-group differences in the modelled changes from baseline to Week 12.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.144||0.7166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|2.69||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (BI 409306 25 mg twice daily (BID) minus Placebo matching BI 409306)|The dependent variable was the change from the baseline score at Week 12. The model included fixed, categorical covariates of treatment as well as fixed continuous covariates of baseline score.|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences|2.69|-1.85|0.7166
90960451|NCT02240693|181801573|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.9491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.46||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to model degrees of freedom.|Mean difference (BI 409306 10 milligram (mg) once daily (QD) minus Placebo matching BI 409306)|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM) includes fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline, and baseline-by-visit interaction.|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|0.46|-0.49|0.9491
91033231|NCT00627016|181952315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance for the comparison of the primary endpoint was determined at 0.05 level.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90868059|NCT04518293|181598712|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|14.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.749|21.824|||Wald test|||The difference between GMRx2 and TA at Week 12 was estimated using Generalized Estimating Equation.||21.824|7.749|<.0001
90868060|NCT04518293|181598712|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|8.46||||0.0146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|15.501|||Wald test|||The difference between GMRx2 and TI at Week 12 was estimated using Generalized Estimating Equation.||15.501|1.580|0.0146
90910180|NCT00708097|181690783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.01||||0.9697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-106.34|102.32||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to EFU. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||102.32|-106.34|0.9697
90910181|NCT00708097|181690783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|106.9||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.92|210.87||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to EFU. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||210.87|2.92|0.0440
90910182|NCT00708097|181690783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|160.92||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.96|264.88||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to EFU. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||264.88|56.96|0.0026
90960452|NCT02240693|181801573|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.1699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.84||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to model degrees of freedom.|Mean difference (BI 409306 25 mg QD minus Placebo matching BI 409306)|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM) includes fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline, and baseline-by-visit interaction.|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|0.84|-0.15|0.1699
90960453|NCT02240693|181801573|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.4948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.33||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to model degrees of freedom.|Mean difference (BI 409306 50 mg QD minus Placebo matching BI 409306)|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM) includes fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline, and baseline-by-visit interaction.|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences|0.33|-0.69|0.4948
90868061|NCT04518293|181598712|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|16.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.953|23.171|||Wald test|||The difference between GMRx2 and AI at Week 12 was estimated using Generalized Estimating Equation.||23.171|8.953|<.0001
90868062|NCT04518293|181598713|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|18.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.778|25.226|||Wald test|||The difference between GMRx2 and TA at Week 6 was estimated using Generalized Estimating Equation.||25.226|10.778|<.0001
90868063|NCT04518293|181598713|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|6.64||||0.0674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.613|13.926|||Wald test|||The difference between GMRx2 and TI at Week 12 was estimated using Generalized Estimating Equation.||13.926|-0.613|0.0674
90868064|NCT04518293|181598713|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|18.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.839|25.392|||Wald test|||The difference between GMRx2 and AI at Week 12 was estimated using Generalized Estimating Equation.||25.392|10.839|<.0001
90868065|NCT04518293|181598714|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|17.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.902|24.286|||Wald test|||The difference between GMRx2 and TA at Week 12 was estimated using Generalized Estimating Equation.||24.286|9.902|<.0001
90868066|NCT04518293|181598714|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|12.06||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.632|19.293|||Wald test|||The difference between GMRx2 and TI at Week 12 was estimated using Generalized Estimating Equation.||19.293|4.632|0.0010
90868067|NCT04518293|181598714|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|22.93|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.622|29.796|||Wald test|||The difference between GMRx2 and AI at Week 12 was estimated using Generalized Estimating Equation.||29.796|15.622|<.0001
90868068|NCT04518293|181598715|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|18.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.579|25.124|||Wald test|||The difference between GMRx2 and TA at Week 6 was estimated using Generalized Estimating Equation.||25.124|11.579|<.0001
90868069|NCT04518293|181598715|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|12.22||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.963|19.123|||Wald test|||The difference between GMRx2 and TI at Week 6 was estimated using Generalized Estimating Equation.||19.123|4.963|0.0005
90868070|NCT04518293|181598715|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|16.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.06|22.914|||Wald test|||The difference between GMRx2 and AI at Week 6 was estimated using Generalized Estimating Equation.||22.914|9.060|<.0001
90910183|NCT00708097|181690783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|222.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|117.58|327.36||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to EFU. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||327.36|117.58|<0.0001
90868071|NCT04518293|181598716|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.529|2.768||||||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants discontinuing trial medication due to AE/SAE at Week 12 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TA arms.||2.768|-1.529|
90868072|NCT04518293|181598716|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.098|2.475||||||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants discontinuing trial medication due to AE/SAE at Week 12 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TI arms.||2.475|-2.098|
90868073|NCT04518293|181598716|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.098|2.475||||||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants discontinuing trial medication due to AE/SAE at Week 12 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-AI arms.||2.475|-2.098|
90910184|NCT00708097|181690783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|108.91||||0.0382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.98|211.83||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to EFU. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||211.83|5.98|0.0382
90868074|NCT04518293|181598722|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|4.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.494|7.116||||||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with serum sodium concentration below 135 mmol/l at Week 12 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TA arms.||7.116|0.494|
90910185|NCT00708097|181690783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|162.93||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.68|266.18||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to EFU. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||266.18|59.68|0.0021
90910186|NCT00708097|181690783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|224.48|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|120.51|328.46||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to EFU. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||328.46|120.51|<0.0001
91033232|NCT00627016|181952316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was only declared if the primary endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level. The multiplicity between the two secondary endpoints was adjusted by Hommel-Simes method to maintain the overall 0.05 level.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
90868075|NCT04518293|181598722|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.927|4.02||||||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with serum sodium concentration below 135 mmol/l at Week 12 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TI arms.||4.020|-3.927|
90868076|NCT04518293|181598722|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|3.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|6.764||||||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with serum sodium concentration below 135 mmol/l at Week 12 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-AI arms.||6.764|-0.070|
90868077|NCT04518293|181598723|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|2.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|5.136||||||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with serum sodium concentration below 135 mmol/l at Week 6 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TA arms.||5.136|-0.500|
90868078|NCT04518293|181598723|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|1.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.513|4.517||||||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with serum sodium concentration below 135 mmol/l at Week 6 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TI arms.||4.517|-1.513|
90868079|NCT04518293|181598723|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.855|3.633||||||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with serum sodium concentration below 135 mmol/l at Week 6 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-AI arms.||3.633|-2.855|
90868080|NCT04518293|181598724|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.911|3.129||||||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with serum sodium concentration above 145 mmol/l at Week 12 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TA arms.||3.129|-3.911|
90868081|NCT04518293|181598724|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.519|2.744||||||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with serum sodium concentration above 145 mmol/l at Week 12 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TI arms.||2.744|-4.519|
90868082|NCT04518293|181598724|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.228|3.647||||||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with serum sodium concentration above 145 mmol/l at Week 12 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-AI arms.||3.647|-3.228|
90868083|NCT04518293|181598725|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.993|2.816||||||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with serum sodium concentration above 145 mmol/l at Week 6 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TA arms.||2.816|-3.993|
90910187|NCT00708097|181690783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|54.03||||0.3003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.56|156.61||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to EFU. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||156.61|-48.56|0.3003
90910188|NCT00708097|181690783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|61.55||||0.2432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.14|165.24||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to EFU. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||165.24|-42.14|0.2432
90910189|NCT00708097|181690783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|115.58||||0.0289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.02|219.13||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to EFU. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||219.13|12.02|0.0289
90910190|NCT00708097|181690784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-13.9||||0.9293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-322.47|294.66||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to EFU. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||294.66|-322.47|0.9293
90868084|NCT04518293|181598725|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|1.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.513|4.517||||||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with serum sodium concentration above 145 mmol/l at Week 6 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TI arms.||4.517|-1.513|
90868085|NCT04518293|181598725|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.596|2.44||||||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with serum sodium concentration above 145 mmol/l at Week 6 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TI arms.||2.440|-4.596|
90868086|NCT04518293|181598726|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|6.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.196|9.222||||||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with serum potassium concentration below 3.5 mmol/l at Week 12 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TA arms.||9.222|4.196|
90868087|NCT04518293|181598726|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.883|5.257||||||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with serum potassium concentration below 3.5 mmol/l at Week 12 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TI arms.||5.257|-1.883|
90868088|NCT04518293|181598726|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|-5.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.979|-1.6||||||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with serum potassium concentration below 3.5 mmol/l at Week 12 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-AI arms.||-1.600|-10.979|
90868089|NCT04518293|181598727|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|3.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.123|5.632||||||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with serum potassium concentration below 3.5 mmol/l at Week 6 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TA arms.||5.632|0.123|
90868090|NCT04518293|181598727|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.245|4.134||||||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with serum potassium concentration below 3.5 mmol/l at Week 6 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TI arms.||4.134|-2.245|
90910191|NCT00708097|181690784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|575.71||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|268.24|883.17||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to EFU. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||883.17|268.24|0.0003
90910192|NCT00708097|181690784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|637.67|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|330.3|945.03||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to EFU. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||945.03|330.30|<0.0001
90910193|NCT00708097|181690784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1813.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1503.03|2123.54||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to EFU. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||2123.54|1503.03|<0.0001
90910194|NCT00708097|181690784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|589.61||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|285.31|893.92|||ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to EFU. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||893.92|285.31|0.0002
90940393|NCT00526097|181760519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.5|-1.0||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||-1.0|-1.5|<0.0001
90868091|NCT04518293|181598727|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|-2.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.968|0.819||||||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with serum potassium concentration below 3.5 mmol/l at Week 6 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-AI arms.||0.819|-6.968|
90868092|NCT04518293|181598728|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.863|2.231||||||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with serum potassium concentration above 5.5 mmol/l at Week 12 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TA arms.||2.231|-0.863|
90868093|NCT04518293|181598728|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.897|2.231||||||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with serum potassium concentration above 5.5 mmol/l at Week 12 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TI arms.||2.231|-0.897|
90868094|NCT04518293|181598728|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.494|1.913||||||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with serum potassium concentration above 5.5 mmol/l at Week 12 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-AI arms.||1.913|-1.494|
90868095|NCT04518293|181598729|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.931|1.149||||||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with serum potassium concentration above 5.5 mmol/l at Week 6 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TA arms.||1.149|-1.931|
90868096|NCT04518293|181598729|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.979|1.143||||||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with serum potassium concentration above 5.5 mmol/l at Week 6 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TI arms.||1.143|-1.979|
90868097|NCT04518293|181598729|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.374|1.453||||||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with serum potassium concentration above 5.5 mmol/l at Week 6 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-AI arms.||1.453|-1.374|
90868098|NCT04518293|181598730|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.014|2.087||||||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with eGFR drop of over 30% at Week 12 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TA arms.||2.087|-2.014|
90868099|NCT04518293|181598730|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.015|2.633||||||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with eGFR drop of over 30% at Week 12 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TI arms.||2.633|-1.015|
90868100|NCT04518293|181598730|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.015|2.633||||||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with eGFR drop of over 30% at Week 12 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-AI arms.||2.633|-1.015|
90868101|NCT04518293|181598731|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.501|1.385||||||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with eGFR drop of over 30% at Week 6 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TA arms.||1.385|-2.501|
90868102|NCT04518293|181598731|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.078|1.108||||||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with eGFR drop of over 30% at Week 6 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TI arms.||1.108|-3.078|
90868103|NCT04518293|181598731|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.571|1.37||||||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with eGFR drop of over 30% at Week 6 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-AI arms.||1.370|-2.571|
90868104|NCT04518293|181598732|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|10.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.422|15.138||||||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with serum sodium \<135mmol/L or \>145 mmol/L, and/or serum potassium \<3.5 mmol/L or \>5.5mmol/L at Week 12 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TA arms.||15.138|5.422|
90868105|NCT04518293|181598732|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|3.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.776|8.49||||||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with serum sodium \<135mmol/L or \>145 mmol/L, and/or serum potassium \<3.5 mmol/L or \>5.5mmol/L at Week 12 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TI arms.||8.490|-2.776|
90960454|NCT02240693|181801573|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.7548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.58||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to model degrees of freedom.|Mean difference (BI 409306 25 mg twice daily (BID) minus Placebo matching BI 409306)|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM) includes fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline, and baseline-by-visit interaction.|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences|0.58|-0.42|0.7548
91033233|NCT00627016|181952317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was only declared if the primary endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level. The multiplicity between the two secondary endpoints was adjusted by Hommel-Simes method to maintain the overall 0.05 level.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
90868106|NCT04518293|181598732|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.807|4.174||||||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with serum sodium \<135mmol/L or \>145 mmol/L, and/or serum potassium \<3.5 mmol/L or \>5.5mmol/L at Week 12 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-AI arms.||4.174|-7.807|
90868107|NCT04518293|181598733|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|5.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.531|9.867||||||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with serum sodium \<135mmol/L or \>145 mmol/L, and/or serum potassium \<3.5 mmol/L or \>5.5mmol/L at Week 6 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TA arms.||9.867|0.531|
90868108|NCT04518293|181598733|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|4.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.136|9.397||||||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with serum sodium \<135mmol/L or \>145 mmol/L, and/or serum potassium \<3.5 mmol/L or \>5.5mmol/L at Week 6 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TI arms.||9.397|-0.136|
90868109|NCT04518293|181598733|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.299|3.567||||||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with serum sodium \<135mmol/L or \>145 mmol/L, and/or serum potassium \<3.5 mmol/L or \>5.5mmol/L at Week 6 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-AI arms.||3.567|-7.299|
90868110|NCT04518293|181598734|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.06||||0.9677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.825|3.019|||Wald test|||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with orthostatic hypotension at Week 6 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TA arms.||3.019|-3.825|0.9677
90868111|NCT04518293|181598734|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.35||||0.1952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.55|1.125|||Wald test|||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with orthostatic hypotension at Week 6 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TI arms.||1.125|-6.550|0.1952
90868112|NCT04518293|181598734|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.53||||0.7453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.428|2.642|||Wald test|||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with orthostatic hypotension at Week 6 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-AI arms.||2.642|-4.428|0.7453
90868113|NCT04518293|181598735|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.12||||0.9415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.657|3.222|||Wald test|||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with orthostatic hypotension at Week 12 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TA arms.||3.222|-3.657|0.9415
90868114|NCT04518293|181598735|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.53||||0.1719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.799|1.019|||Wald test|||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with orthostatic hypotension at Week 12 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TI arms.||1.019|-6.799|0.1719
90868115|NCT04518293|181598735|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|-2.16||||0.2342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.38|1.326|||Wald test|||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with orthostatic hypotension at Week 12 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-AI arms.||1.326|-6.380|0.2342
90868116|NCT04518293|181598736|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|-2.87||||0.3548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.316|3.215|||Wald test|||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with orthostatic hypertension at Week 6 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TA arms.||3.215|-9.316|0.3548
90868117|NCT04518293|181598736|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.94||||0.7529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.356|6.8|||Wald test|||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with orthostatic hypertension at Week 6 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TI arms.||6.800|-5.356|0.7529
90868118|NCT04518293|181598736|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|-2.32||||0.4563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.791|3.772|||Wald test|||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with orthostatic hypertension at Week 6 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-AI arms.||3.772|-8.791|0.4563
90868119|NCT04518293|181598737|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.11||||0.9691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.063|5.859|||Wald test|||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with orthostatic hypertension at Week 12 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TA arms.||5.859|-6.063|0.9691
90868120|NCT04518293|181598737|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|-3.59||||0.2454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.018|2.462|||Wald test|||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with orthostatic hypertension at Week 12 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TI arms.||2.462|-10.018|0.2454
90868121|NCT04518293|181598737|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.33||||0.913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.583|5.488|||Wald test|||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with orthostatic hypertension at Week 12 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-AI arms.||5.488|-6.583|0.9130
90868122|NCT01146418|181598803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated Difference|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|3.0|||Clopper-Pearson method|Difference calculated using generalized linear model including covariates for treatment group and age class as stratified (≤38 yrs vs \>38 yrs)||||3.0|-6.5|
90868123|NCT01146418|181598804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated difference|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|3.4|||Clopper-Pearson method|Difference calculated using generalized linear model including covariates for treatment group and age class as stratified (≤38 yrs vs \>38 yrs)||||3.4|-5.7|
90960455|NCT02240693|181801574|SUPERIORITY|Analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) were used to assess between-group differences in the modelled changes from baseline to Week 12.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.081||0.8137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.89||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (BI 409306 10 milligram (mg) once daily (QD) minus Placebo matching BI 409306)|The dependent variable was the change from the baseline score at Week 12. The model included fixed, categorical covariates of treatment as well as fixed continuous covariates of baseline score.|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|1.89|-2.40|0.8137
90960456|NCT02240693|181801574|SUPERIORITY|Analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) were used to assess between-group differences in the modelled changes from baseline to Week 12.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12||0.5801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.84|1.6||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (BI 409306 25 mg QD minus Placebo matching BI 409306)|The dependent variable was the change from the baseline score at Week 12. The model included fixed, categorical covariates of treatment as well as fixed continuous covariates of baseline score.|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|1.60|-2.84|0.5801
90960457|NCT02240693|181801574|SUPERIORITY|Analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) were used to assess between-group differences in the modelled changes from baseline to Week 12.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.072||0.2978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.25|1.0||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (BI 409306 50 mg QD minus Placebo matching BI 409306)|The dependent variable was the change from the baseline score at Week 12. The model included fixed, categorical covariates of treatment as well as fixed continuous covariates of baseline score.|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences|1.00|-3.25|0.2978
90960458|NCT02240693|181801574|SUPERIORITY|Analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) were used to assess between-group differences in the modelled changes from baseline to Week 12.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.072||0.0209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.64|-0.39||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (BI 409306 25 mg twice daily (BID) minus Placebo matching BI 409306)|The dependent variable was the change from the baseline score at Week 12. The model included fixed, categorical covariates of treatment as well as fixed continuous covariates of baseline score.|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences|-0.39|-4.64|0.0209
90868124|NCT03334539|181598805|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|0.11||||0.3378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.34||P-value was calculated using a model with treatment, baseline score, and site as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||0.34|-0.12|0.3378
90868125|NCT03334539|181598805|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.12||||0.2883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.35||P-value was calculated using a model with treatment, baseline score, and site as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||0.35|-0.10|0.2883
90868126|NCT03334539|181598805|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.01||||0.9293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.24||P-value calculated using a model with treatment, baseline score, and site as covariates|ANCOVA|||||0.24|-0.22|0.9293
90910195|NCT00708097|181690784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|651.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|346.44|956.7||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to EFU. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||956.70|346.44|<0.0001
90910196|NCT00708097|181690784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1827.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1519.78|2134.6||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to EFU. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||2134.60|1519.78|<0.0001
91079219|NCT03240406|182044078|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.018||||0.846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.054||Generalized Estimating equation Poisson model adjusted for arm, year, weekday vs weekend, season, EMA cognition, baseline age, sex, education yrs, # of sessions (cubic spline), time of day (cubic spline)|Generalized Estimating Equation|Adjusted for arm, year, wkday/wknd, season, EMA cognition, baseline age, sex, education yrs, # of sessions (cubic spline), time of day (cubic spline)|Difference in the slopes of log-transformed error rates over years between the MHD Arm and the Comparison Arm.|||0.054|-0.090|0.846
91077937|NCT02913105|182041137|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.02||||0.7503|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.13|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||LDL Cholesterol Friedwald: Day 112 (EOS)||1.13|0.92|0.7503
90868127|NCT03334539|181598806|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.1473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.1||P-value calculated using a model with treatment, baseline score, and site as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.7|0.1473
90868128|NCT03334539|181598806|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.2321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.2||P-value calculated using a model with treatment, baseline score, and site as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||0.2|-0.7|0.2321
90868129|NCT03334539|181598806|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.8217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.5||P-value calculated using a model with treatment, baseline score, and site as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||0.5|-0.4|0.8217
90868130|NCT04523220|181598882|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.59|||=|0.222|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.28|1.21||Due to the explorative nature of these analyses, no multiplicity adjustment was done.|Log Rank|||Two-sided log-rank tests and Cox proportional hazards model were used in the analyses.||1.21|0.28|= 0.222
90868131|NCT04523220|181598882|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.72|||=|0.427|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.36|1.42||Due to the explorative nature of these analyses, no multiplicity adjustment was done.|Log Rank|||Two-sided log-rank tests and Cox proportional hazards model were used in the analyses.||1.42|0.36|= 0.427
90868132|NCT04523220|181598883|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.27|||=|0.128|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|1.64||Due to the explorative nature of these analyses, no multiplicity adjustment was done.|Log Rank|||Two-sided log-rank tests and Cox proportional hazards model were used in the analyses.||1.64|0.98|= 0.128
90868133|NCT04523220|181598883|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.24|||=|0.166|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.61||Due to the explorative nature of these analyses, no multiplicity adjustment was done.|Log Rank|||Two-sided log-rank tests and Cox proportional hazards model were used in the analyses.||1.61|0.96|= 0.166
90868134|NCT00256750|181598887|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A non-inferiority margin of 10% for the co-primary endpoint of participant and graft survival was used. Determination of a margin for non-inferiority based on 'preservation of benefit' is not feasible, given the low rate of patient death and/or graft loss in the first year post-transplantation, and the absence of published, adequately sized, parallel-group trials with which to assess the effect of CsA on patient death and/or graft loss in the setting of MMF/steroids/basiliximab.|Difference in Percent|3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|-1.1|9.0||||||||9.0|-1.1|
90868135|NCT00256750|181598887|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A non-inferiority margin of 10% for the co-primary endpoint of participant and graft survival was used. Determination of a margin for non-inferiority based on 'preservation of benefit' is not feasible, given the low rate of patient death and/or graft loss in the first year post-transplantation, and the absence of published, adequately sized, parallel-group trials with which to assess the effect of CsA on patient death and/or graft loss in the setting of MMF/steroids/basiliximab.|Difference in Percent|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|-2.5|8.1|||||If the lower bound of the CI (belatacept-CsA) was \> -10%, then the corresponding belatacept regimen was considered non-inferior to CsA.|||8.1|-2.5|
90868136|NCT00256750|181598888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent|-23.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.3|-33.3|-13.7|||Chi-squared, Corrected|A continuity-corrected Chi-square test at significance level 0.027 was performed for the difference between the belatacept regimen and cyclosporine||||-13.7|-33.3|<.0001
90868137|NCT00256750|181598888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent|-22.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.3|-32.6|-12.9|||Chi-squared, Corrected|A continuity-corrected Chi-square test at significance level 0.027 was performed for the difference between the belatacept regimen and cyclosporine||||-12.9|-32.6|<.0001
90868138|NCT00256750|181598889|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A 20% margin for non-inferiority was used and provides 99% power to ascertain that the upper bound of the 97.3% 2-sided confidence intervals for the absolute difference between each belatacept regimen and cyclosporine, assuming the true acute rejection rate by 12 months is 15% for all three regimens|Difference in Percent|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|3.3|17.1|||||For 97.3% CI of difference, normal approximation is used if N\>=5 in both arms. Otherwise exact method is used.|||17.1|3.3|
90868139|NCT00256750|181598889|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A 20% margin for non-inferiority was used and provides 99% power to ascertain that the upper bound of the 97.3% 2-sided confidence intervals for the absolute difference between each belatacept regimen and cyclosporine, assuming the true acute rejection rate by 12 months is 15% for all three regimens. The 20% non-inferiority margin was not met in the belatacept MI group.|Difference in Percent|14.7|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|7.5|22.2|||||For 97.3% CI of difference, normal approximation is used if N\>=5 in both arms. Otherwise exact method is used.|||22.2|7.5|
90868140|NCT00256750|181598890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.3|7.3|18.7||To account for missing measured GFR due to graft loss or death, an ANOVA model on the ranks of measured GFR (with imputed missing values) at Months 12 with factor for randomization group was applied. Measured GFR missing were assigned the worst rank.|Kruskal-Wallis|Tests comparing a belatacept to CsA were based on the Kruskal-Wallis test (using a chi-square approximation of the distribution of the test statistic)|Test were conducted at a level of 0.027 (2-sided).|Time Frame = Day 1 to Month 12||18.7|7.3|<0.0001
90940394|NCT00526097|181760520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.8|-0.5||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||-0.5|-0.8|<0.0001
90940395|NCT03713281|181760526|SUPERIORITY||Least-square mean|-0.131|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0278|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.208|-0.054|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger modethod for the demoninator degrees of freedom.||Statistically superiority will be concluded if the upper confidence limit will be less than 0.10 logMAR.||-0.054|-0.208|
90960459|NCT02240693|181801575|SUPERIORITY|H0: The dose group with the peak response in the respective model Mean NTB response = Mean NTB response of placebo.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056||0.8694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.101|0.12||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to model degrees of freedom.|Mean difference (BI 409306 10 milligram (mg) once daily (QD) minus Placebo matching BI 409306)|"Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM) includes fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, current Acetylcholine Esterase Inhibitor (AChEI) use (Yes, No), and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline, and baseline-by-visit interaction.~The study identifier is also a categorical covariate for the twin studies analyses."|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|0.120|-0.101|0.8694
91077938|NCT02913105|182041138|OTHER|Change from baseline was analyzed using an ANCOVA model which included effects for treatment, baseline and stratification factor (BMI group). BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.52||0.2073|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.161|16.178|||ANCOVA|||||16.178|-2.161|0.2073
90868141|NCT00256750|181598890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.3|8.9|20.4||To account for missing measured GFR due to graft loss or death, an ANOVA model on the ranks of measured GFR (with imputed missing values) at Months 12 with factor for randomization group was applied. Measured GFR missing were assigned the worst rank.|Kruskal-Wallis|Tests comparing a belatacept to CsA were based on the Kruskal-Wallis test (using a chi-square approximation of the distribution of the test statistic)|Test were conducted at a level of 0.027 (2-sided).|Time Frame = Day 1 to Month 12||20.4|8.9|<0.0001
90868142|NCT00256750|181598890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.3|11.5|23.4||To account for missing measured GFR due to graft loss or death, an ANOVA model on the ranks of measured GFR (with imputed missing values) at Months 24 with factor for randomization group was applied. Measured GFR missing were assigned the worst rank.|Kruskal-Wallis|Tests comparing a belatacept to CsA were based on the Kruskal-Wallis test (using a chi-square approximation of the distribution of the test statistic)|Test were conducted at a level of 0.027 (2-sided).|Time Frame = Day 1 to Month 24||23.4|11.5|<0.0001
90868143|NCT00256750|181598890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.3|8.5|20.5||To account for missing measured GFR due to graft loss or death, an ANOVA model on the ranks of measured GFR (with imputed missing values) at Months 24 with factor for randomization group was applied. Measured GFR missing were assigned the worst rank.|Kruskal-Wallis|Tests comparing a belatacept to CsA were based on the Kruskal-Wallis test (using a chi-square approximation of the distribution of the test statistic)|Test were conducted at a level of 0.027 (2-sided).|Time Frame = Day 1 to Month 24||20.5|8.5|<0.0001
90868144|NCT00256750|181598891|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Test of superiority using DerSimonian-Laird statistic at 0.027 level of significance.|Difference in Percent|-8.5||||0.0581|TWO_SIDED|97.3|-17.9|0.9|||Chi-squared, Corrected|A continuity corrected chi-square test at a significance level of 0.027 was performed.||||0.9|-17.9|0.0581
90868145|NCT00256750|181598891|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Test of superiority using DerSimonian-Laird statistic at 0.027 level of significance.|Difference in Percent|-14.2||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.3|-23.2|-5.0|||Chi-squared, Corrected|A continuity corrected chi-square test at a significance level of 0.027 was performed.||||-5.0|-23.2|0.0010
90868146|NCT00256750|181598896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent|-8.5|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|-14.6|-3.3|||||For 97.3% CI of difference, normal approximation is used if N\>=5 in both arms. Otherwise exact method is used.|Percent treatment difference measured as Belatacept - LI minus Cyclosporine||-3.3|-14.6|
90868147|NCT00256750|181598896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent|-10.3|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|-16.1|-5.1|||||For 97.3% CI of difference, normal approximation is used if N\>=5 in both arms. Otherwise exact method is used.|Percent treatment difference measured as Belatacept - LI minus Cyclosporine||-5.1|-16.1|
90868148|NCT00256750|181598900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|15.3|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|10.3|20.3|||||ANOVA model: GFR = treatment|Month 12||20.3|10.3|
90868149|NCT00256750|181598900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|15.1|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|10.1|20.1|||||ANOVA model: GFR = treatment|Month 12||20.1|10.1|
90868150|NCT00256750|181598900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|17.5|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|12.0|23.1|||||ANOVA model: GFR = treatment|Month 24||23.1|12.0|
90868151|NCT00256750|181598900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|17.6|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|12.0|23.3|||||ANOVA model: GFR = treatment|Month 24||23.3|12.0|
90868152|NCT00256750|181598900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|21.4|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|15.4|27.4|||||ANOVA model: GFR = treatment|Month 36||27.4|15.4|
90868153|NCT00256750|181598900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|20.8|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|14.8|26.9|||||ANOVA model: GFR = treatment|Month 36||26.9|14.8|
90868154|NCT00256750|181598902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent|-5.7||||0.0687|TWO_SIDED|97.3|-12.6|0.5||Normal approximation is used if N\>=5 in both arms. Otherwise, exact method is used.|Chi-squared|||Month 12||0.5|-12.6|0.0687
90868155|NCT00256750|181598902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent|-2.8||||0.4825|TWO_SIDED|97.3|-10.2|4.4||Normal approximation is used if N\>=5 in both arms. Otherwise, exact method is used.|Chi-squared|||Month 12||4.4|-10.2|0.4825
90868156|NCT00256750|181598902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent|-5.1||||0.1267|TWO_SIDED|97.3|-12.3|1.5||Normal approximation is used if N\>=5 in both arms. Otherwise, exact method is used.|Chi-squared|||Month 24||1.5|-12.3|0.1267
90868157|NCT00256750|181598902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent|-2.2||||0.6405|TWO_SIDED|97.3|-9.8|5.4||Normal approximation is used if N\>=5 in both arms. Otherwise, exact method is used.|Chi-squared|||Month 24||5.4|-9.8|0.6405
90910197|NCT00708097|181690784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|61.96||||0.6874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-241.25|365.17||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to EFU. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||365.17|-241.25|0.6874
90910198|NCT00708097|181690784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1237.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|931.46|1543.7|||ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to EFU. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||1543.70|931.46|<0.0001
90910199|NCT00708097|181690784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1175.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|869.15|1482.1||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to EFU. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||1482.10|869.15|<0.0001
90910200|NCT03425643|181690787|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.72||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by Stage (II versus III), TPS (\>=50% versus \<50%), Histology (Squamous versus Non-squamous) and Region (East-Asia versus non-East Asia).|Log Rank||Stratified Cox model with Efron's tie handling method with treatment as a covariate stratified by Stage (II versus III), TPS (\>=50% versus \<50%), Histology (Squamous versus Non-squamous) and Region (East-Asia versus non-East Asia).|||0.72|0.48|<0.00001
90910201|NCT03425643|181690788|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.00517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.93||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by Stage (II versus III), TPS (\>=50% versus \<50%), Histology (Squamous versus Non-squamous) and Region (East-Asia versus non-East Asia).|Log Rank||Stratified Cox model with Efron's tie handling method with treatment as a covariate stratified by Stage (II versus III), TPS (\>=50% versus \<50%), Histology (Squamous versus Non-squamous) and Region (East-Asia versus non-East Asia).|||0.93|0.56|0.00517
90910202|NCT03425643|181690789|OTHER|Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by Stage (II versus III), TPS (\>=50% versus \<50%), Histology (Squamous versus Non-squamous) and Region (East-Asia versus non-East Asia).|Difference in Percentage|19.2|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.9|24.7|||Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen|||||24.7|13.9|<0.00001
90971009|NCT03015259|181824543|EQUIVALENCE|To show the clinical equivalence, an analysis of covariance model was fit on the participants from the test budesonide/formoterol fumarate and Symbicort groups, with the endpoint as outcome and treatment, study site and treatment by site interaction as fixed effects and FEV1 baseline value as covariate.|Test/Referece LS Mean Ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.958|1.13|||||Fieller's formula was applied|Only Treatments 1 and 2 were compared for equivalence. Treatment 3 (placebo) was subtracted from both Treatments 1 and 2, as this primary endpoint was baseline adjusted.||1.130|0.958|
90910203|NCT03425643|181690790|OTHER|Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by Stage (II versus III), TPS (\>=50% versus \<50%), Histology (Squamous versus Non-squamous) and Region (East-Asia versus non-East Asia).|Difference in Pertentage|14.2|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.1|18.7|||Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen|||||18.7|10.1|<0.00001
90910204|NCT03425643|181690791|OTHER|Based on a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model with the scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by visit interaction and stratification factors (Stage (II versus III), TPS (\>=50% versus \<50%), Histology (Squamous versus Non-squamous) and Region (East-Asia versus non-East Asia).|Difference in Least Square Means|1.43||||0.3611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|4.49|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.49|-1.64|0.3611
90910205|NCT03425643|181690792|OTHER|Based on a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model with the scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by visit interaction and stratification factors (Stage (II versus III), TPS (\>=50% versus \<50%), Histology (Squamous versus Non-squamous) and Region (East-Asia versus non-East Asia).|Difference in Least Square Means|2.22||||0.1197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|5.02|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.02|-0.58|0.1197
90910206|NCT00726596|181690813|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6789|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||.6789
90910207|NCT00482729|181690818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.78|-0.43|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, baseline A1C||||-0.43|-0.78|<0.001
90910208|NCT00482729|181690819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.07|||<|0.001||95.0|1.6|2.69||Based on a test of the odds ratio = 1, comparing the odds of having A1C \<7.0% at Week 18 in the Sita/Met FDC group vs. the Metformin group.|ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, baseline A1C|This parameter estimate and 95% confidence interval correspond to the odds of having A1C \<7.0% at Week 18 in the Sita/Met FDC group vs. the Metformin group.|||2.69|1.60|<0.001
90910209|NCT00482729|181690820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-15.7|||<|0.001||95.0|-22.4|-9.0|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, baseline A1C||||-9.0|-22.4|<0.001
90910210|NCT00482729|181690821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.48||||||95.0|-0.67|-0.3|||||This is a difference in least squares means, based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and baseline (i.e., Week 0) A1C.|||-0.30|-0.67|
90868158|NCT00256750|181598902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent|-4.6||||0.2043|TWO_SIDED|97.3|-12.0|2.5|||Chi-squared|Normal approximation is used if N\>=5 in both arms. Otherwise, exact method is used.||Month 36||2.5|-12.0|0.2043
90868159|NCT00256750|181598902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent|-0.9||||0.9481|TWO_SIDED|97.3|-8.8|7.1||Normal approximation is used if N\>=5 in both arms. Otherwise, exact method is used.|Chi-squared|||Month 36||7.1|-8.8|0.9481
90868160|NCT00256750|181598903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|97.3|0.31|0.74|||Chi-squared||Odds ratio is estimated by a cumulative logit model.|||0.74|0.31|0.0002
90868161|NCT00256750|181598903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|0.6||||0.0092|TWO_SIDED|97.3|0.38|0.92|||Chi-squared||Odds ratio is estimated by a cumulative logit model.|||0.92|0.38|0.0092
90868162|NCT00256750|181598904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent|-21.2|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|-67.6|43.2|||||For 97.3% CI of difference, normal approximation is used if N\>=5 in both arms. Otherwise exact method is used.|Month 12||43.2|-67.6|
90868163|NCT00256750|181598904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent|-17.9|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|-72.3|52.2|||||For 97.3% CI of difference, normal approximation is used if N\>=5 in both arms. Otherwise exact method is used.|Month 12||52.2|-72.3|
90868164|NCT00256750|181598905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent|-1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|-7.51|5.23|||||For 97.3% CI of difference, normal approximation is used if N\>=5 in both arms. Otherwise exact method is used.|Month 12||5.23|-7.51|
90910211|NCT00482729|181690822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.11||||||95.0|1.63|2.73|||||This parameter estimate and 95% confidence interval correspond to the odds of having A1C \<7.0% at Week 44 in the Sita/Met FDC group vs. the Metformin group, based on a logistic regression model with terms for treatment and baseline (i.e., Week 0) A1C|||2.73|1.63|
90910212|NCT01549314|181690831|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline to 24 months in cortical volumentric bone mineral density was determined and compared between subjects with CF taking ivacaftor and subjects with CF not taking ivacaftor.||||0.77
90868165|NCT00256750|181598905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent|-2.37|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|-9.01|4.15|||||For 97.3% CI of difference, normal approximation is used if N\>=5 in both arms. Otherwise exact method is used.|Month 12||4.15|-9.01|
90868166|NCT00256750|181598906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|-7.3|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|-11.4|-3.3||||||Systolic, Month 12||-3.3|-11.4|
90910213|NCT01549314|181690831|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline to 24 months in cortical volumentric bone mineral density was determined and compared between subjects with CF not taking ivacaftor and healthy subjects.||||0.82
90868167|NCT00256750|181598906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|-10.1|-2.0||||||Systolic, Month 12||-2.0|-10.1|
90868168|NCT00256750|181598906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|-5.8|-0.7||||||Diastolic, Month 12||-0.7|-5.8|
90868169|NCT00256750|181598906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|-5.1|0.0||||||Diastolic, Month 12||0.0|-5.1|
90868170|NCT00256750|181598906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|-4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|-9.2|-0.6||||||Systolic, Month 24||-0.6|-9.2|
90868171|NCT00256750|181598906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|-5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|-9.9|-1.1||||||Systolic, Month 24||-1.1|-9.9|
90910214|NCT01549314|181690832|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline to 24 months in DXA PA spine bone mineral density was determined and compared between subjects with CF taking ivacaftor and subjects with CF not taking ivacaftor.||||0.64
90910215|NCT01549314|181690832|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline to 24 months in DXA PA spine bone mineral density was determined and compared between subjects with CF not taking ivacaftor and healthy subjects.||||0.78
90868172|NCT00256750|181598906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|-4.4|0.5||||||Diastolic, Month 24||0.5|-4.4|
90868173|NCT00256750|181598906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|-5.0|0.1||||||Diastolic, Month 24||0.1|-5.0|
90868174|NCT00256750|181598906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|-5.8|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|-10.0|-1.6||||||Systolic, Month 36||-1.6|-10.0|
90868175|NCT00256750|181598906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|-7.5|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|-11.7|-3.3||||||Systolic, Month 36||-3.3|-11.7|
90868176|NCT00256750|181598906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|-2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|-5.4|-0.4||||||Diastolic, Month 36||-0.4|-5.4|
90868177|NCT00256750|181598906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|-3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|-6.0|-0.9||||||Diastolic, Month 36||-0.9|-6.0|
90868178|NCT00256750|181598907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent|7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|-2.9|17.1|||||A continuity-corrected Chi-square test at significance level 0.027 was performed for the difference between the belatacept regimen and cyclosporine|At Month 12||17.1|-2.9|
90868179|NCT00256750|181598907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent|3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|-6.6|12.9|||||A continuity-corrected Chi-square test at significance level 0.027 was performed for the difference between the belatacept regimen and cyclosporine|At Month 12||12.9|-6.6|
90910216|NCT01549314|181690833|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline to 24 months in osteocalcin was determined and compared between subjects with CF taking ivacaftor and subjects with CF not taking ivacaftor.||||0.86
90910217|NCT01549314|181690833|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline to 24 months in osteocalcin was determined and compared between subjects with CF not taking ivacaftor and healthy subjects.||||0.99
90910218|NCT00954707|181690838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate of TLF at 12-month (%)|6.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.5|7.5||||||||7.5|5.5|
90910219|NCT00954707|181690839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate of device success (%)|98.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|97.4|98.4||||||||98.4|97.4|
90910220|NCT00954707|181690840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate of lesion success (%)|99.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.6|99.9||||||||99.9|99.6|
90868180|NCT00256750|181598908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent|7.01|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|-2.79|16.71|||||A continuity-corrected Chi-square test at significance level 0.027 was performed for the difference between the belatacept regimen and cyclosporine|||16.71|-2.79|
90868181|NCT00256750|181598908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent|3.77|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|-5.86|13.35|||||A continuity-corrected Chi-square test at significance level 0.027 was performed for the difference between the belatacept regimen and cyclosporine|||13.35|-5.86|
90868182|NCT00256750|181598913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent|-10.4|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|-21.4|1.0||||||||1.0|-21.4|
90868183|NCT00256750|181598913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent|-8.7|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|-19.9|2.7||||||||2.7|-19.9|
90868184|NCT00256750|181598915|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A 20% margin for non-inferiority was used and provides 99% power to ascertain that the upper bound of the 97.3% 2-sided confidence intervals for the absolute difference between each belatacept regimen and cyclosporine, assuming the true acute rejection rate by 12 months is 15% for all three regimens|Difference in Percent|11.4|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|5.0|18.2|||||For 97.3% CI of difference, normal approximation is used if N\>=5 in both arms. Otherwise exact method is used.|Month 6||18.2|5.0|
90868185|NCT00256750|181598915|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A 20% margin for non-inferiority was used and provides 99% power to ascertain that the upper bound of the 97.3% 2-sided confidence intervals for the absolute difference between each belatacept regimen and cyclosporine, assuming the true acute rejection rate by 12 months is 15% for all three regimens|Difference in Percent|16.5|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|9.6|23.8|||||For 97.3% CI of difference, normal approximation is used if N\>=5 in both arms. Otherwise exact method is used.|Month 6||23.8|9.6|
90868186|NCT00256750|181598915|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A 20% margin for non-inferiority was used and provides 99% power to ascertain that the upper bound of the 97.3% 2-sided confidence intervals for the absolute difference between each belatacept regimen and cyclosporine, assuming the true acute rejection rate by 12 months is 15% for all three regimens.|Difference in Percent|8.2|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|1.2|15.4|||||For 97.3% CI of difference, normal approximation is used if N\>=5 in both arms. Otherwise exact method is used|Month 24||15.4|1.2|
90868187|NCT00256750|181598915|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A 20% margin for non-inferiority was used and provides 99% power to ascertain that the upper bound of the 97.3% 2-sided confidence intervals for the absolute difference between each belatacept regimen and cyclosporine, assuming the true acute rejection rate by 12 months is 15% for all three regimens.|Difference in Percent|15.2|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|7.5|23.0|||||For 97.3% CI of difference, normal approximation is used if N\>=5 in both arms. Otherwise exact method is used.|Month 24||23.0|7.5|
90910221|NCT00954707|181690841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate of procedure success (%)|97.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|97.0|98.2||||||||98.2|97.0|
90910222|NCT00954707|181690842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate of Clinically-driven TLR (%)|4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.45|5.13||||||||5.13|3.45|
90910223|NCT00954707|181690843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate of Clinically-driven TVR (%)|5.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.87|6.81||||||||6.81|4.87|
90910224|NCT00954707|181690844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate of Target vessel failure (%)|7.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.85|9.09||||||||9.09|6.85|
90910225|NCT00954707|181690845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate of MACE (%)|7.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.37|8.55||||||||8.55|6.37|
90868188|NCT00256750|181598915|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A 20% margin for non-inferiority was used and provides 99% power to ascertain that the upper bound of the 97.3% 2-sided confidence intervals for the absolute difference between each belatacept regimen and cyclosporine, assuming the true acute rejection rate by 12 months is 15% for all three regimens.|Difference in Percent|7.8|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|0.6|15.0|||||For 97.3% CI of difference, normal approximation is used if N\>=5 in both arms. Otherwise exact method is used.|Month 36||15.0|0.6|
90910226|NCT00954707|181690846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate of protocol defined ST (%)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.38||||||||1.38|0.56|
90868189|NCT00256750|181598915|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A 20% margin for non-inferiority was used and provides 99% power to ascertain that the upper bound of the 97.3% 2-sided confidence intervals for the absolute difference between each belatacept regimen and cyclosporine, assuming the true acute rejection rate by 12 months is 15% for all three regimens.|Difference in Percent|14.7|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|7.0|22.6|||||For 97.3% CI of difference, normal approximation is used if N\>=5 in both arms. Otherwise exact method is used.|Month 36||22.6|7.0|
90910227|NCT00954707|181690847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate of ARC defined ST (%)|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.64||||||||1.64|0.74|
90910228|NCT00954707|181690848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate of major bleeding complications (%)|3.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|3.85||||||||3.85|2.40|
90910229|NCT00954707|181690849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate of cardiac death (%)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.23||||||||1.23|0.46|
90910230|NCT00954707|181690850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate of non-cardiac death (%)|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.12||||||||1.12|0.40|
90910231|NCT02987543|181690851|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|20.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.18|379.18|||Regression, Logistic|||||379.18|4.18|<0.0001
90910232|NCT02987543|181690852|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.63|||Regression, Cox|||||0.63|0.38|<0.0001
90910233|NCT02987543|181690853|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.44||||0.0192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.91|||Regression, Cox|||||0.91|0.22|0.0192
90910234|NCT02987543|181690854|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||0.0175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.97||2-sided p-value|Regression, Cox|||||0.97|0.50|0.0175
90910235|NCT02987543|181690855|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.47|||Regression, Cox|||||0.47|0.25|<0.0001
90910236|NCT00309452|181690871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Between groups comparison for hospitalization rates, adjusted for pretreatment hospitalization||||0.018
90910237|NCT00309452|181690875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Between groups comparison for vocational engagement, adjusted for pretreatment vocational engagement||||0.002
90910238|NCT02962674|181690884|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||"The null and alternative hypotheses associated with this objective was written as:~H0: μ ΔIPSS ≤ 6.5 points HA: μ ΔIPSS \> 6.5 points where μ ΔIPSS was the true underlying value of mean ΔIPSS following a treatment at the 3-month follow-up visit and 6.5 points was an objective performance goal (OPG). The objective was met at a given time point by rejecting the null hypothesis in a one-sided t-test at the 5% significance level."||||0.004
90910239|NCT00531518|181690898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|||||The final analysis included adjstment for site and baseline sum psychotic symptom score.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The analysis used regression discontinuity methods, in which the baseline sum scores were adjusted and centered to an equalize control and experimental conditions.||||.0034
90910240|NCT03265210|181690899|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.95|1.95|||t-test, 2 sided||Mean value in Relief Arm minus Mean value in Referral Arm.|Baseline||1.95|-4.95|0.39
91077939|NCT02913105|182041138|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline was analyzed using an ANCOVA model which included effects for treatment, baseline and stratification factor (BMI group). BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.62||0.2014|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.106|16.563|||ANCOVA|||||16.563|-2.106|0.2014
90910241|NCT03265210|181690899|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.79||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.19|-0.39|||t-test, 2 sided||Mean value in Relief Arm minus Mean value in Referral Arm.|6 weeks||-0.39|-7.19|0.03
90910242|NCT03265210|181690899|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.56||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.38|2.26|||t-test, 2 sided||Mean value in Relief Arm minus Mean value in Referral Arm.|9 weeks||2.26|-5.38|0.42
91077940|NCT02913105|182041138|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline was analyzed using an ANCOVA model which included effects for treatment, baseline and stratification factor (BMI group). BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.93||0.9645|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.974|8.414|||ANCOVA|||||8.414|-7.974|0.9645
91077941|NCT01663857|182041179|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.4
91077942|NCT01663857|182041181|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4686|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.4686
91077943|NCT01172808|182041194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.236|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.181|0.291|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R2.5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.291|0.181|<0.0001
91077944|NCT01172808|182041194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.198|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.142|0.253|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre , week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.253|0.142|<0.0001
91077945|NCT01172808|182041195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.185|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.126|0.244|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R2.5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.244|0.126|<0.0001
91077946|NCT01172808|182041195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.152|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.092|0.211|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction.||0.211|0.092|<0.0001
91077947|NCT01172808|182041196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.174|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.114|0.233|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R2.5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.233|0.114|<0.0001
91077948|NCT01172808|182041196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.102|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.042|0.162|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model. Spatial power used as covariance structure. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||0.162|0.042|0.0008
91077949|NCT01172808|182041197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.125|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.062|0.189|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R2.5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, country, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.189|0.062|0.0001
91077950|NCT01172808|182041197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.076|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.012|0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, country, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.140|0.012|0.0200
91077951|NCT01172808|182041198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.224|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.171|0.278|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R2.5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.278|0.171|<0.0001
90868190|NCT00256750|181598917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|-0.6|||||For 95% CI of difference, normal approximation is used if N\>=5 in both arms. Otherwise exact method is used.|||-0.6|-6.6|
90868191|NCT00256750|181598917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|-0.6|||||For 95% CI of difference, normal approximation is used if N\>=5 in both arms. Otherwise exact method is used.|||-0.6|-6.6|
90868192|NCT00256750|181598921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|-6.5|5.3||||||Month 12||5.3|-6.5|
90868193|NCT00256750|181598921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|-6.9|4.8||||||||4.8|-6.9|
90868194|NCT00256750|181598923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|0.5||||0.6573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.6||Baseline observations were not used for imputations at subsequent time points.|ANOVA|ANOVA model: Component Score = treatment. Missing values were imputed using last observation carried forward (LOCF) method.|Statistical tests comparing each belatacept regimen to the CsA regimen were conducted at a significance level of 0.05. Subjects with only baseline observations were excluded from these summaries.|Mental Component Score; Month 6||2.6|-1.6|0.6573
90868195|NCT00256750|181598923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.7||||0.1198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|3.9||Baseline observations were not used for imputations at subsequent time points.|ANOVA|ANOVA model: Component Score = treatment. Missing values were imputed using last observation carried forward (LOCF) method.|Statistical tests comparing each belatacept regimen to the CsA regimen were conducted at a significance level of 0.05. Subjects with only baseline observations were excluded from these summaries.|Mental Component Score; Month 6||3.9|-0.4|0.1198
90868196|NCT00256750|181598923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.5||||0.0672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|3.2||Baseline observations were not used for imputations at subsequent time points.|ANOVA|ANOVA model: Component Score = treatment. Missing values were imputed using last observation carried forward (LOCF) method.|Statistical tests comparing each belatacept regimen to the CsA regimen were conducted at a significance level of 0.05. Subjects with only baseline observations were excluded from these summaries.|Physical Component Score; Month 6||3.2|-0.1|0.0672
90868197|NCT00256750|181598923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.9||||0.0257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|3.6||Baseline observations were not used for imputations at subsequent time points.|ANOVA|ANOVA model: Component Score = treatment. Missing values were imputed using last observation carried forward (LOCF) method.|Statistical tests comparing each belatacept regimen to the CsA regimen were conducted at a significance level of 0.05. Subjects with only baseline observations were excluded from these summaries.|Physical Component Score; Month 6||3.6|0.2|0.0257
90868198|NCT00256750|181598923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|0.8||||0.4146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|2.9||Baseline observations were not used for imputations at subsequent time points.|ANOVA|ANOVA model: Component Score = treatment. Missing values were imputed using last observation carried forward (LOCF) method.|Statistical tests comparing each belatacept regimen to the CsA regimen were conducted at a significance level of 0.05. Subjects with only baseline observations were excluded from these summaries.|Mental Component Score; Month 12||2.9|-1.2|0.4146
90910243|NCT03265210|181690899|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.37||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.02|0.28|||t-test, 2 sided||Mean value in Relief Arm minus Mean value in Referral Arm.|12 weeks||0.28|-7.02|0.07
90910244|NCT03265210|181690900|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.74||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|0.33|||t-test, 2 sided||Mean value in Relief Arm minus Mean value in Referral Arm.|Domain 1, Baseline||0.33|-1.81|0.17
90910245|NCT03265210|181690900|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|0.44|||t-test, 2 sided||Mean value in Relief Arm minus Mean value in Referral Arm.|Domain 1, 6 weeks||0.44|-1.68|0.25
90910246|NCT03265210|181690900|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.06||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|0.17|||t-test, 2 sided||Mean value in Relief Arm minus Mean value in Referral Arm.|Domain 1, 9 weeks||0.17|-2.29|0.09
90910247|NCT03265210|181690900|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.09||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.19|0.01|||t-test, 2 sided||Mean value in Relief Arm minus Mean value in Referral Arm.|Domain 1, 12 weeks||0.01|-2.19|0.05
90910248|NCT03265210|181690900|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.19||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|-0.48|||t-test, 2 sided||Mean value in Relief Arm minus Mean value in Referral Arm.|Domain 2, Baseline||-0.48|-5.90|0.02
90910249|NCT03265210|181690900|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.3||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.06|-1.54|||t-test, 2 sided||Mean value in Relief Arm minus Mean value in Referral Arm.|Domain 2, 6 weeks||-1.54|-7.06|0.003
90910250|NCT03265210|181690900|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.95||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.85|-3.05|||t-test, 2 sided||Mean value in Relief Arm minus Mean value in Referral Arm.|Domain 2, 9 weeks||-3.05|-8.85|0.0001
90910251|NCT03265210|181690900|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.35||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.46|-1.24|||t-test, 2 sided||Mean value in Relief Arm minus Mean value in Referral Arm.|Domain 2, 12 weeks||-1.24|-7.46|0.007
90910252|NCT03265210|181690901|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.11||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.69|||t-test, 2 sided||Mean value in Relief Arm minus Mean value in Referral Arm.|Domain 1||1.69|0.53|0.0003
90910253|NCT03265210|181690901|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.52||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.83|||t-test, 2 sided||Mean value in Relief Arm minus Mean value in Referral Arm.|Domain 2||0.83|0.21|0.001
90868199|NCT00256750|181598923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|0.4||||0.7327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|2.4||Baseline observations were not used for imputations at subsequent time points.|ANOVA|ANOVA model: Component Score = treatment. Missing values were imputed using last observation carried forward (LOCF) method.|Statistical tests comparing each belatacept regimen to the CsA regimen were conducted at a significance level of 0.05. Subjects with only baseline observations were excluded from these summaries.|Mental Component Score; Month 12||2.4|-1.7|0.7327
90868200|NCT00256750|181598923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|2.1||||0.0144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.8||Baseline observations were not used for imputations at subsequent time points.|ANOVA|ANOVA model: Component Score = treatment. Missing values were imputed using last observation carried forward (LOCF) method.|Statistical tests comparing each belatacept regimen to the CsA regimen were conducted at a significance level of 0.05. Subjects with only baseline observations were excluded from these summaries.|Physical Component Score; Month 12||3.8|0.4|0.0144
90910254|NCT03265210|181690901|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.96||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.56|||t-test, 2 sided||Mean value in Relief Arm minus Mean value in Referral Arm.|Domain 3||1.56|0.36|0.002
90910255|NCT00738699|181690961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.13||||0.836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.46||One-sided log rank test stratified by route of administration for primary chemotherapy (intraperitoneal vs intravenous) and geographic region (North America, Europe, and other participating countries).|Log Rank||Stratified as described above.|||1.46|0.88|0.8360
90910256|NCT00738699|181690962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.11||||0.7568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.48||One-sided log rank test stratified by route of administration for primary chemotherapy and geographic region.|Log Rank||Stratified as described above|||1.48|0.83|0.7568
90910257|NCT00738699|181690963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-7.4||||0.0399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|-0.7||Compared the ratio of complete or partial responders in the two arms. Stratified by route of administration for first line therapy and geographic region as specified at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||(FAR + Paclitaxel) minus (Placebo + Paclitaxel). Confidence interval based on a normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||-0.7|-14.1|0.0399
90910258|NCT00549848|181690967|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.778|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.778
90910259|NCT03670602|181690981|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0035||||||This is for the treatment group x time effect, or if treatment influenced improvements in delay discounting across all three timepoints. The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses were Intention to Treat (ITT) and included all randomized participants||A mixed model ANCOVA with unstructured covariance and random effects of participant. Treatment group and cohort were the between subject variables, weeks as the repeated measure and site as a covariate.||||0.0035
90940396|NCT03713281|181760527|SUPERIORITY||Least-square means|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0278|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.017|0.137|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger method for the demoninator degrees of freedom.||Statistically superiority will be concluded if the upper confidence limit will be less than 0.17 logMAR for near distance logMAR visual acuity.||0.137|-0.017|
90868201|NCT00256750|181598923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|2.8||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|4.5||Baseline observations were not used for imputations at subsequent time points.|ANOVA|ANOVA model: Component Score = treatment. Missing values were imputed using last observation carried forward (LOCF) method.|Statistical tests comparing each belatacept regimen to the CsA regimen were conducted at a significance level of 0.05. Subjects with only baseline observations were excluded from these summaries.|Physical Component Score; Month 12||4.5|1.1|0.0015
90868202|NCT00256750|181598923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.3||||0.234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|3.4||Baseline observations were not used for imputations at subsequent time points.|ANOVA|ANOVA model: Component Score = treatment. Missing values were imputed using last observation carried forward (LOCF) method.|Statistical tests comparing each belatacept regimen to the CsA regimen were conducted at a significance level of 0.05. Subjects with only baseline observations were excluded from these summaries.|Mental Component Score; Month 24||3.4|-0.8|0.2340
90868203|NCT00256750|181598923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|0.5||||0.6635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|2.6||Baseline observations were not used for imputations at subsequent time points.|ANOVA|ANOVA model: Component Score = treatment. Missing values were imputed using last observation carried forward (LOCF) method.|Statistical tests comparing each belatacept regimen to the CsA regimen were conducted at a significance level of 0.05. Subjects with only baseline observations were excluded from these summaries.|Mental Component Score; Month 24||2.6|-1.7|0.6635
90868204|NCT00256750|181598923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.8||||0.0417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|3.5||Baseline observations were not used for imputations at subsequent time points.|ANOVA|ANOVA model: Component Score = treatment. Missing values were imputed using last observation carried forward (LOCF) method.|Statistical tests comparing each belatacept regimen to the CsA regimen were conducted at a significance level of 0.05. Subjects with only baseline observations were excluded from these summaries.|Physical Component Score; Month 24||3.5|0.1|0.0417
90868205|NCT00256750|181598923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|2.7||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|4.4||Baseline observations were not used for imputations at subsequent time points.|ANOVA|ANOVA model: Component Score = treatment. Missing values were imputed using last observation carried forward (LOCF) method.|Statistical tests comparing each belatacept regimen to the CsA regimen were conducted at a significance level of 0.05. Subjects with only baseline observations were excluded from these summaries.|Physical Component Score; Month 24||4.4|0.9|0.0026
90960460|NCT02240693|181801575|SUPERIORITY|H0: The dose group with the peak response in the respective model Mean NTB response = Mean NTB response of placebo.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057||0.9512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.116|0.109||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to model degrees of freedom.|Mean difference (BI 409306 25 mg QD minus Placebo matching BI 409306)|"Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM) includes fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, current Acetylcholine Esterase Inhibitor (AChEI) use (Yes, No), and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline, and baseline-by-visit interaction.~The study identifier is also a categorical covariate for the twin studies analyses."|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|0.109|-0.116|0.9512
90960461|NCT02240693|181801575|SUPERIORITY|H0: The dose group with the peak response in the respective model Mean NTB response = Mean NTB response of placebo.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056||0.9321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.105|0.115||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to model degrees of freedom.|Mean difference (BI 409306 50 mg QD minus Placebo matching BI 409306)|"Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM) includes fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, current Acetylcholine Esterase Inhibitor (AChEI) use (Yes, No), and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline, and baseline-by-visit interaction.~The study identifier is also a categorical covariate for the twin studies analyses."|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences|0.115|-0.105|0.9321
90971010|NCT03015259|181824544|EQUIVALENCE|To show the clinical equivalence, an ANCOVA model was fit with the endpoint as outcome and treatment, study site and treatment-by site interaction as fixed effects and FEV1 baseline value as covariate.|Test/Reference LS Mean Ratio|1.004|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.889|1.14|||||Fieller's formula was applied|Treatments 1 and 2 were baseline adjusted by subtracting Treatment 3 (placebo) from each.||1.140|0.889|
90868206|NCT00256750|181598923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.9||||0.0953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|4.1||Baseline observations were not used for imputations at subsequent time points.|ANOVA|ANOVA model: Component Score = treatment. Missing values were imputed using last observation carried forward (LOCF) method.|Statistical tests comparing each belatacept regimen to the CsA regimen were conducted at a significance level of 0.05. Subjects with only baseline observations were excluded from these summaries.|Mental Component Score; Month 36||4.1|-0.3|0.0953
90868207|NCT00256750|181598923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.5||||0.1961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|3.7||Baseline observations were not used for imputations at subsequent time points.|ANOVA|ANOVA model: Component Score = treatment. Missing values were imputed using last observation carried forward (LOCF) method.|Statistical tests comparing each belatacept regimen to the CsA regimen were conducted at a significance level of 0.05. Subjects with only baseline observations were excluded from these summaries.|Mental Component Score; Month 36||3.7|-0.8|0.1961
90868208|NCT00256750|181598923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|2.1||||0.0191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.9||Baseline observations were not used for imputations at subsequent time points.|ANOVA|ANOVA model: Component Score = treatment. Missing values were imputed using last observation carried forward (LOCF) method.|Statistical tests comparing each belatacept regimen to the CsA regimen were conducted at a significance level of 0.05. Subjects with only baseline observations were excluded from these summaries.|Physical Component Score; Month 36||3.9|0.3|0.0191
90868209|NCT00256750|181598923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.7||||0.0684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|3.5||Baseline observations were not used for imputations at subsequent time points.|ANOVA|ANOVA model: Component Score = treatment. Missing values were imputed using last observation carried forward (LOCF) method.|Statistical tests comparing each belatacept regimen to the CsA regimen were conducted at a significance level of 0.05. Subjects with only baseline observations were excluded from these summaries.|Physical Component Score; Month 36||3.5|-0.1|0.0684
90868210|NCT00256750|181598924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.9||||0.0714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|3.9|||ANOVA|Domain Score = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Bodily Pain, Month 6||3.9|-0.2|0.0714
90868211|NCT00256750|181598924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|2.0||||0.0536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|4.1|||ANOVA|Domain score = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Bodily Pain, Month 6||4.1|-0.0|0.0536
90868212|NCT00256750|181598924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|0.3||||0.7543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.2|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|General Health, Month 6||2.2|-1.6|0.7543
90868213|NCT00256750|181598924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.1||||0.2499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|3.0|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|General Health, Month 6||3.0|-0.8|0.2499
90971011|NCT03015259|181824545|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Comparison of means, no formal statistical comparison|no statistical significance applied|||
90971012|NCT03016325|181824578|SUPERIORITY|Part I, clinically relevant hypotension - relative risk|Relative risk from placebo|2.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|14.53||||||||14.53|0.83|
90868214|NCT00256750|181598924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|0.2||||0.8332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|2.3|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Mental Health, Month 6||2.3|-1.9|0.8332
90868215|NCT00256750|181598924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.3||||0.2523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|3.4|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Mental Health, Month 6||3.4|-0.9|0.2523
90868216|NCT00256750|181598924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|0.9||||0.3018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|2.7|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Physical Functioning, Month 6||2.7|-0.8|0.3018
90868217|NCT00256750|181598924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|0.6||||0.5437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|2.3|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Physical Functioning, Month 6||2.3|-1.2|0.5437
90868218|NCT00256750|181598924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.3||||0.237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|3.6|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Role Emotional, Month 6||3.6|-0.9|0.2370
90868219|NCT00256750|181598924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|2.2||||0.0588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|4.5|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Role Emotional, Month 6||4.5|-0.1|0.0588
90971013|NCT03016325|181824578|SUPERIORITY|Part I, clinically relevant hypotension - relative difference|Relative difference from placebo|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.28||||||||0.28|-0.02|
90971014|NCT03016325|181824578|SUPERIORITY|Part I, symptoms of hypotension - relative risk|Relative risk from placebo|2.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|75.47||||||||75.47|0.31|
90868220|NCT00256750|181598924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|2.0||||0.0502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|4.0|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Role Physical, Month 6||4.0|-0.0|0.0502
90868221|NCT00256750|181598924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|3.6||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|5.6|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Role-Physical, Month 6||5.6|1.5|0.0007
90971015|NCT03016325|181824578|SUPERIORITY|Part I, symptoms of hypotension - relative difference|Relative difference from placebo|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.15||||||||0.15|-0.06|
90971016|NCT03016325|181824578|SUPERIORITY|Part I, confirmed SBP \< 90 mmHg - relative risk|Relative risk from placebo|3.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|14.66||||||||14.66|1.01|
90868222|NCT00256750|181598924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|0.3||||0.7637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|2.4|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Social Functioning, Month 6||2.4|-1.8|0.7637
90960462|NCT02240693|181801575|SUPERIORITY|H0: The dose group with the peak response in the respective model Mean NTB response = Mean NTB response of placebo.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057||0.1288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.199|0.025||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to model degrees of freedom.|Mean difference (BI 409306 25 mg twice daily (BID) minus Placebo matching BI 409306)|"Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM) includes fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, current Acetylcholine Esterase Inhibitor (AChEI) use (Yes, No), and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline, and baseline-by-visit interaction.~The study identifier is also a categorical covariate for the twin studies analyses."|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences|0.025|-0.199|0.1288
90960463|NCT02240693|181801575|SUPERIORITY|H0: The dose group with the peak response in the respective model Mean NTB response = Mean NTB response of placebo.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041||0.6492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.098|0.061||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to model degrees of freedom.|Mean difference (Pooled BI 409306 minus Placebo matching BI 409306)|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM) includes fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, current Acetylcholine Esterase Inhibitor (AChEI) use (Yes, No), and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline, and baseline-by-visit interaction. The study identifier is also a categorical covariate for the twin studies analyses.|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences|0.061|-0.098|0.6492
90960464|NCT02668185|181801591|SUPERIORITY|Generalised linear mixed model with a Poisson error structure|Mean Difference (Net)|29.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.39|42.87||Intention to treat adjusted means.|generalised linear mixed model with a Po|Adjusted for intention to treat||||42.87|17.39|<0.0001
90960465|NCT02668185|181801592|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|50.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
90960466|NCT02668185|181801593|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
90960467|NCT02668185|181801594|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
90868223|NCT00256750|181598924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|0.4||||0.7006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|2.5|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Social Functioning, Month 6||2.5|-1.7|0.7006
90868224|NCT00256750|181598924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.5||||0.1222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|3.4|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Vitality, Month 6||3.4|-0.4|0.1222
90868225|NCT00256750|181598924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|2.2||||0.0289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|4.1|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Vitality, Month 6||4.1|0.2|0.0289
90868226|NCT00256750|181598924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.9||||0.0571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|3.8|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Bodily Pain, Month 12||3.8|-0.1|0.0571
90960468|NCT02668185|181801595|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
90960469|NCT01013597|181801600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.98|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.98
90971017|NCT03016325|181824578|SUPERIORITY|Part I, confirmed SBP \< 90 mmHg - relative difference|Relative difference from placebo|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.29||||||||0.29|0.00|
90868227|NCT00256750|181598924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|2.9||||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|4.9|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Bodily Pain, Month 12||4.9|0.9|0.0042
90868228|NCT00256750|181598924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.9||||0.0423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|3.7|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|General Health, Month 12||3.7|0.1|0.0423
90868229|NCT00256750|181598924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|2.3||||0.0174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|4.1|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|General Health, Month 12||4.1|0.4|0.0174
90868230|NCT00256750|181598924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.0||||0.363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|3.0|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Mental Health, Month 12||3.0|-1.1|0.3630
90910260|NCT03670602|181690981|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||This is for the time effect, or if delay discounting improved across all three timepoints, independent of treatment group. The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses were Intention to Treat (ITT) and included all randomized participants||A mixed model ANCOVA with unstructured covariance and random effects of participant. Treatment group and cohort were the between subject variables, weeks as the repeated measure and site as a covariate||||<0.001
90910261|NCT03670602|181690982|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85||||||This is for the treatment group x time effect, or if treatment differentially influenced weight across all three timepoints. The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses were Intention to Treat (ITT) and included all randomized participants||A mixed model ANCOVA with unstructured covariance and random effects of participant. Group and cohort were the between subject variables, weeks as the repeated measure and site as a covariate||||0.85
90910262|NCT03670602|181690982|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||This is for the time effect, or if time influenced changes in weight, independent of treatment group. The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses were Intention to Treat (ITT) and included all randomized participants||A mixed model ANCOVA with unstructured covariance and random effects of participant. Group and cohort were the between subject variables, weeks as the repeated measure and site as a covariate||||<0.001
90910263|NCT03670602|181690983|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79||||||This is for the treatment group x time effect, or if treatment group influenced change in hBa1c across all three timepoints. The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses were Intention to Treat (ITT) and included all randomized participants||A mixed model ANCOVA with unstructured covariance and random effects of participant. Group and cohort were the between subject variables, weeks as the repeated measure and site as a covariate||||0.79
90960470|NCT00427895|181801605|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.78||||||Serotype 1: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS).||1.78|1.10|
90960471|NCT00427895|181801605|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.32||||||Serotype 3: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS).||1.32|0.90|
90868231|NCT00256750|181598924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|0.5||||0.6319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.6|||ANOVA|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Mental Health, Month 12||2.6|-1.6|0.6319
90868232|NCT00256750|181598924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.8||||0.0503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.7|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Physical Functioning, Month 12||3.7|-0.0|0.0503
90960472|NCT00427895|181801605|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|2.13||||||Serotype 4: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS).||2.13|1.19|
90868233|NCT00256750|181598924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|0.9||||0.3291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|2.8|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Physical Functioning, Month 12||2.8|-0.9|0.3291
90910264|NCT03670602|181690983|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||This is for the time effect, or if hBa1c changed across timepoints, independent of treatment group. The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses were Intention to Treat (ITT) and included all randomized participants||A mixed model ANCOVA with unstructured covariance and random effects of participant. Group and cohort were the between subject variables, weeks as the repeated measure and site as a covariate||||<0.001
90868234|NCT00256750|181598924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.0||||0.386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|3.1|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Role Emotional, Month 12||3.1|-1.2|0.3860
90910265|NCT03670602|181690984|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.201||||||This is for the treatment group x time effect, or if treatment differentially influenced medication adherence across all three timepoints. The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses were Intention to Treat (ITT) and included all randomized participants||A mixed model ANCOVA with unstructured covariance and random effects of participant. Group and cohort were the between subject variables, weeks as the repeated measure and site as a covariate||||0.201
90910266|NCT03670602|181690984|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.315||||||This is for the time effect, or if timepoint influenced medication adherence across all timepoints, independent of treatment group. The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses were Intention to Treat (ITT) and included all randomized participants||A mixed model ANCOVA with unstructured covariance and random effects of participant. Group and cohort were the between subject variables, weeks as the repeated measure and site as a covariate||||0.315
90868235|NCT00256750|181598924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|0.0||||0.9672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|2.3|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Role Emotional, Month 12||2.3|-2.2|0.9672
90868236|NCT00256750|181598924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|2.1||||0.0392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|4.1|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Role-Physical, Month 12||4.1|0.1|0.0392
90868237|NCT00256750|181598924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|2.5||||0.0151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|4.5|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Role-Physical, Month 12||4.5|0.5|0.0151
90868238|NCT00256750|181598924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|0.8||||0.3978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.7|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Social Functioning, Month 12||2.7|-1.1|0.3978
90868239|NCT00256750|181598924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.5||||0.1263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|3.5|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Social Functioning, Month 12||3.5|-0.4|0.1263
90868240|NCT00256750|181598924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|2.3||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|4.2|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Vitality, Month 12||4.2|0.4|0.0160
90868241|NCT00256750|181598924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|2.6||||0.0075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|4.5|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Vitality, Month 12||4.5|0.7|0.0075
90910267|NCT03670602|181690985|SUPERIORITY|A mixed model ANCOVA with unstructured covariance and random effects of participant. Group and cohort were the between subject variables, weeks as the repeated measure and site as a covariate||||||0.345||||||This is for the treatment group x time effect, or if treatment group influenced change in percent of time engaged in moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) across all three timepoints. The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses were Intention to Treat (ITT) and included all randomized participants||||||0.345
90910268|NCT03670602|181690985|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003||||||This is for the time effect, or if percent of time engaged in moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) changed across timepoints, independent of treatment group. The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses were Intention to Treat (ITT) and included all randomized participants||A mixed model ANCOVA with unstructured covariance and random effects of participant. Group and cohort were the between subject variables, weeks as the repeated measure and site as a covariate||||0.0003
90910269|NCT03670602|181690986|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007||||||This is for the treatment group x time effect, or if treatment differentially influenced changes in calorie intake across all three timepoints. The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed model ANCOVA with unstructured covariance and random effects of participant. Group and cohort were the between subject variables, weeks as the repeated measure and site as a covariate||||0.007
90910270|NCT03670602|181690986|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||This is for the time effect, or if time influenced changes in calorie intake, independent of treatment group. The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed model ANCOVA with unstructured covariance and random effects of participant. Group and cohort were the between subject variables, weeks as the repeated measure and site as a covariate||||<0.0001
90960473|NCT00427895|181801605|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.62||||||Serotype 5: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS).||1.62|0.93|
90960474|NCT00427895|181801605|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|12.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.63|17.08||||||Serotype 6A: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS).||17.08|8.63|
90960475|NCT00427895|181801605|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.82|3.48||||||Serotype 6B: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS).||3.48|1.82|
90960476|NCT00427895|181801605|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.98|3.87||||||Serotype 7F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS).||3.87|1.98|
90868242|NCT00256750|181598924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|0.4||||0.699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.4|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Bodily Pain, Month 24||2.4|-1.6|0.6990
90868243|NCT00256750|181598924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.5||||0.1608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|3.5|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Bodily Pain, Month 24||3.5|-0.6|0.1608
90868244|NCT00256750|181598924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|2.2||||0.0214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|4.0|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|General Health, Month 24||4.0|0.3|0.0214
90868245|NCT00256750|181598924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|2.5||||0.00886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|4.4|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|General Health, Month 24||4.4|0.6|0.00886
90868246|NCT00256750|181598924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.2||||0.2555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|3.3|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Mental Health, Month 24||3.3|-0.9|0.2555
90868247|NCT00256750|181598924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|0.8||||0.4804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|2.9|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Mental Health, Month 24||2.9|-1.4|0.4804
90868248|NCT00256750|181598924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|2.2||||0.0276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|4.2|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Physical Functioning, Month 24||4.2|0.2|0.0276
90868249|NCT00256750|181598924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.5||||0.1285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|3.5|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Physical Functioning, Month 24||3.5|-0.4|0.1285
90868250|NCT00256750|181598924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.7||||0.1352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|3.9|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Role Emotional, Month 24||3.9|-0.5|0.1352
90868251|NCT00256750|181598924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.3||||0.2663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|3.5|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Role Emotional, Month 24||3.5|-1.0|0.2663
90868252|NCT00256750|181598924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|2.5||||0.0164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|4.5|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Role-Physical, Month 24||4.5|0.5|0.0164
90868253|NCT00256750|181598924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|3.9||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|5.9|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Role-Physical, Month 24||5.9|1.9|0.0002
90868254|NCT00256750|181598924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.3||||0.1914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|3.3|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Social Functioning, Month 24||3.3|-0.7|0.1914
90868255|NCT00256750|181598924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|0.4||||0.6882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.4|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Social Functioning, Month 24||2.4|-1.6|0.6882
90868256|NCT00256750|181598924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|2.0||||0.0547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|4.0|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Vitality, Month 24||4.0|-0.0|0.0547
90868257|NCT00256750|181598924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.7||||0.0992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|3.8|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Vitality, Month 24||3.8|-0.3|0.0992
90868258|NCT00256750|181598924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|2.3||||0.0339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|4.4|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Bodily Pain, Month 36||4.4|0.2|0.0339
90868259|NCT00256750|181598924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.0||||0.3572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|3.1|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Bodily Pain, Month 36||3.1|-1.1|0.3572
90868260|NCT00256750|181598924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|2.3||||0.0211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|4.2|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|General Health, Month 36||4.2|0.3|0.0211
90868261|NCT00256750|181598924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|2.0||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|4.0|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|General Health, Month 36||4.0|0.0|0.0450
90910271|NCT03670602|181690987|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.774||||||This is for the treatment group x time effect, or if treatment differentially influenced changes in working memory across all three timepoints. The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses were Intention to Treat (ITT) and included all randomized participants||A mixed model ANCOVA with unstructured covariance and random effects of participant. Group and cohort were the between subject variables, weeks as the repeated measure and site as a covariate||||0.774
90910272|NCT03670602|181690987|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019||||||This is for the time effect, or if time influenced changes in working memory, independent of treatment group. The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses were Intention to Treat (ITT) and included all randomized participants||A mixed model ANCOVA with unstructured covariance and random effects of participant. Group and cohort were the between subject variables, weeks as the repeated measure and site as a covariate||||0.019
90868262|NCT00256750|181598924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.5||||0.171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|3.7|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Mental Health, Month 36||3.7|-0.7|0.1710
90868263|NCT00256750|181598924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.3||||0.2484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|3.6|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Mental Health, Month 36||3.6|-0.9|0.2484
90868264|NCT00256750|181598924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.3||||0.1836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|3.2|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Physical Functioning, Month 36||3.2|-0.6|0.1836
90868265|NCT00256750|181598924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.0||||0.3303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.9|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Physical Functioning, Month 36||2.9|-1.0|0.3303
90868266|NCT00256750|181598924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|2.5||||0.0299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|4.8|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Role Emotional, Month 36||4.8|0.2|0.0299
90868267|NCT00256750|181598924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.9||||0.1141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|4.2|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Role Emotional, Month 36||4.2|-0.4|0.1141
90868268|NCT00256750|181598924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|2.7||||0.0087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|4.7|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Role-Physical, Month 36||4.7|0.7|0.0087
90868269|NCT00256750|181598924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|2.6||||0.0128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|4.7|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Role-Physical, Month 36||4.7|0.6|0.0128
90868270|NCT00256750|181598924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.5||||0.1369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|3.5|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Social Functioning, Month 36||3.5|-0.5|0.1369
90868271|NCT00256750|181598924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|0.5||||0.6331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.5|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Social Functioning, Month 36||2.5|-1.5|0.6331
90868272|NCT00256750|181598924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|2.2||||0.0361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|4.3|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Vitality, Month 36||4.3|0.1|0.0361
90971018|NCT03016325|181824578|SUPERIORITY|Part II (low dose), clinically relevant hypotension - relative risk|Relative risk from placebo|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.43||||||||2.43|0.58|
90868273|NCT00256750|181598924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|2.1||||0.0525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|4.2|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Vitality, Month 36||4.2|-0.0|0.0525
90868274|NCT00256750|181598925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|-0.024|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.032|-0.015||Missing data were imputed by LOCF. The ridit of the reference group is by definition 0.5.|z-test|The obtained ridits between treatment groups will be compared using z-test at 0.05 significance level for each year.||Symptom Distress, Month 6. For calculation of symptom distress, those symptoms that never occurred will be converted to missing values, in order to avoid anticipatory symptom distress.||-0.015|-0.032|<0.0001
90868275|NCT00256750|181598925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|-0.019|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.028|-0.011||Missing data were imputed by LOCF. The ridit of the reference group is by definition 0.5.|z-test|The obtained ridits between treatment groups will be compared using z-test at 0.05 significance level for each year.||Symptom Distress, Month 6. For calculation of symptom distress, those symptoms that never occurred will be converted to missing values, in order to avoid anticipatory symptom distress.||-0.011|-0.028|<0.0001
90910273|NCT03670602|181690988|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65||||||This is for the treatment group x time effect, or if treatment differentially influenced relative reinforcing efficacy of unhealthy food across all three timepoints. The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses were Intention to Treat (ITT) and included all randomized participants||A mixed model ANCOVA with unstructured covariance and random effects of participant. Group and cohort were the between subject variables, weeks as the repeated measure and site as a covariate||||0.650
90910274|NCT03670602|181690988|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||This is for the time effect, or if time influenced changes in relative reinforcing efficacy of unhealthy food, independent of treatment group. The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses were Intention to Treat (ITT) and included all randomized participants||A mixed model ANCOVA with unstructured covariance and random effects of participant. Group and cohort were the between subject variables, weeks as the repeated measure and site as a covariate||||<0.0001
90868276|NCT00256750|181598925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|-0.023|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.031|-0.014||Missing data were imputed by LOCF. The ridit of the reference group is by definition 0.5.|z-test|The obtained ridits between treatment groups will be compared using z-test at 0.05 significance level for each year.||Symptom Occurrence, Month 6.||-0.014|-0.031|<0.0001
90868277|NCT00256750|181598925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|-0.026|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.035|-0.017||Missing data were imputed by LOCF. The ridit of the reference group is by definition 0.5.|z-test|The obtained ridits between treatment groups will be compared using z-test at 0.05 significance level for each year.||Symptom Occurrence, Month 6.||-0.017|-0.035|<0.0001
90910275|NCT00957658|181690992|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin = 6%|||||<|0.0001|||||||Asymptotic WALD test|||Literature control = 96% with no aseptic loosening, intraop femoral fracture or thigh pain at 2 years||||<.0001
90910276|NCT00957658|181690995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Sign test|||Improvement from preop to 2 year and preop to 5 year||||<.0001
90910277|NCT00957658|181690996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Compare Pre-op SF-12 Physical Score preop to 2 year and preop to 5 year||||<.0001
90910278|NCT00957658|181690996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Sign test|||Change in SF-12 Mental Score preop to 2 years||||<.0001
90910279|NCT00957658|181690996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Compare SF-12 Mental Score preop to 5 years||||.0004
90910280|NCT00957658|181690997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Sign test|||Compare LEAS score preop to 2 years and preop to 5 years||||<.0001
90910281|NCT00957658|181691000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Compare to historical control (n=94 hips): mean wear 5 years = 0.134 (0.078)||||<.0001
90910282|NCT00957658|181691001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||Sign test|||Compare Wrist DXA T-score preop to 5 years||||.0002
90868278|NCT00256750|181598925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|-0.024|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.032|-0.016||Missing data were imputed by LOCF. The ridit of the reference group is by definition 0.5.|z-test|The obtained ridits between treatment groups will be compared using z-test at 0.05 significance level for each year.||Symptom Distress, Month 12. For calculation of symptom distress, those symptoms that never occurred will be converted to missing values, in order to avoid anticipatory symptom distress.||-0.016|-0.032|<0.0001
90910283|NCT03383887|181691002|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.7||||0.56|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.56
90910284|NCT03383887|181691003|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.027
90910285|NCT00300456|181691004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||alpha = 0.05, all 3 primary endpoints had to show superiority of combo therapy in order to declare combo therapy successful at a given statin dose, Hochberg method for multiple comparison adjustment for 2 statin doses|ANCOVA|||An n = 92 per arm would provide \>99% power to detect a 24% decrease in triglycerides relative to statin monotherapy for each combo therapy dose, assuming an SD of 30%||||<0.001
90910286|NCT00300456|181691004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||alpha = 0.05, all 3 primary endpoints had to show superiority of combo therapy in order to declare combo therapy successful at a given statin dose, Hochberg method for multiple comparison adjustment for 2 statin doses|ANCOVA|||An n = 92 per arm would provide \>99% power to detect 24% decrease in triglycerides relative to statin monotherapy for each combo therapy dose, assuming an SD of 30%||||<0.001
90910287|NCT00300456|181691005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||alpha = 0.05, all 3 primary endpoints had to show superiority of combo therapy in order to declare combo therapy successful at a given statin dose, Hochberg method for multiple comparison adjustment for 2 statin doses|ANCOVA|||An n = 92 per arm would provide 98% power to detect a 9% increase in HDL-C relative to statin monotherapy for each combo therapy dose, assuming an SD of 15%||||<0.001
90910288|NCT00300456|181691005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||alpha = 0.05, all 3 primary endpoints had to show superiority of combo therapy in order to declare combo therapy successful at a given statin dose, Hochberg method for multiple comparison adjustment for 2 statin doses|ANCOVA|||An n = 92 per arm would provide 98% power to detect a 9% increase in HDL-C relative to statin monotherapy for each combo therapy dose, assuming an SD of 15%||||<0.001
90910289|NCT00300456|181691006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||alpha = 0.05, all 3 primary endpoints had to show superiority of combo therapy in order to declare combo therapy successful at a given statin dose, Hochberg method for multiple comparison adjustment for 2 statin doses|ANCOVA|||An n = 92 per arm would provide \>99% power to detect an 11% decrease in LDL-C relative to ABT-335 monotherapy for each combo therapy dose, assuming an SD of 15%||||<0.001
90960477|NCT00427895|181801605|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|4.08||||||Serotype 9V: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS).||4.08|2.00|
90971019|NCT03016325|181824578|SUPERIORITY|Part II (low dose), clinically relevant hypotension - relative difference|Relative difference from placebo|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.16||||||||0.16|-0.11|
90960478|NCT00427895|181801605|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.21||||||Serotype 14: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS).||1.21|0.64|
90868279|NCT00256750|181598925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|-0.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.029|-0.012||Missing data were imputed by LOCF. The ridit of the reference group is by definition 0.5.|z-test|The obtained ridits between treatment groups will be compared using z-test at 0.05 significance level for each year.||Symptom Distress, Month 12. For calculation of symptom distress, those symptoms that never occurred will be converted to missing values, in order to avoid anticipatory symptom distress.||-0.012|-0.029|<0.0001
90868280|NCT00256750|181598925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|-0.026|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.034|-0.017||Missing data were imputed by LOCF. The ridit of the reference group is by definition 0.5.|z-test|The obtained ridits between treatment groups will be compared using z-test at 0.05 significance level for each year.||Symptom Occurrence, Month 12.||-0.017|-0.034|<0.0001
90868281|NCT00256750|181598925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|-0.025|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.034|-0.016||Missing data were imputed by LOCF. The ridit of the reference group is by definition 0.5.|z-test|The obtained ridits between treatment groups will be compared using z-test at 0.05 significance level for each year.||Symptom Occurrence, Month 12.||-0.016|-0.034|<0.0001
90868282|NCT00256750|181598925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|-0.021|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|-0.013||Missing data were imputed by LOCF. The ridit of the reference group is by definition 0.5.|z-test|The obtained ridits between treatment groups will be compared using z-test at 0.05 significance level for each year.||Symptom Distress, Month 24. For calculation of symptom distress, those symptoms that never occurred will be converted to missing values, in order to avoid anticipatory symptom distress.||-0.013|-0.030|<0.0001
90868283|NCT00256750|181598925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|-0.015|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.024|-0.007||Missing data were imputed by LOCF. The ridit of the reference group is by definition 0.5.|z-test|The obtained ridits between treatment groups will be compared using z-test at 0.05 significance level for each year.||Symptom Distress, Month 24. For calculation of symptom distress, those symptoms that never occurred will be converted to missing values, in order to avoid anticipatory symptom distress.||-0.007|-0.024|<0.0001
90868284|NCT00256750|181598925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|-0.023|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.031|-0.015||Missing data were imputed by LOCF. The ridit of the reference group is by definition 0.5.|z-test|The obtained ridits between treatment groups will be compared using z-test at 0.05 significance level for each year.||Symptom Occurrence, Month 24||-0.015|-0.031|<0.0001
90868285|NCT00256750|181598925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|-0.021|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|-0.013||Missing data were imputed by LOCF. The ridit of the reference group is by definition 0.5.|z-test|The obtained ridits between treatment groups will be compared using z-test at 0.05 significance level for each year.||Symptom Occurrence, Month 24||-0.013|-0.030|<0.0001
90868286|NCT00256750|181598926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|0.8||||0.4498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|2.7|||ANCOVA|Adjusted mean based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor, and baseline value as covariate.|Statistical tests comparing each belatacept regimen to the CsA regimen were conducted at a significance level of 0.05. Subjects with only baseline observations were excluded from these summaries.|Mental Component Score; Month 6||2.7|-1.2|0.4498
90868287|NCT00256750|181598926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.9||||0.0584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|3.9|||ANCOVA|Adjusted mean based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor, and baseline value as covariate.|Statistical tests comparing each belatacept regimen to the CsA regimen were conducted at a significance level of 0.05. Subjects with only baseline observations were excluded from these summaries.|Mental Component Score; Month 6||3.9|-0.1|0.0584
90868288|NCT00256750|181598926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.1||||0.1595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|2.7|||ANCOVA|Adjusted mean based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor, and baseline value as covariate.|Statistical tests comparing each belatacept regimen to the CsA regimen were conducted at a significance level of 0.05. Subjects with only baseline observations were excluded from these summaries.|Physical Component Score; Month 6||2.7|-0.5|0.1595
90868289|NCT00256750|181598926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.7||||0.0457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.3|||ANCOVA|Adjusted mean based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor, and baseline value as covariate.|Statistical tests comparing each belatacept regimen to the CsA regimen were conducted at a significance level of 0.05. Subjects with only baseline observations were excluded from these summaries.|Physical Component Score; Month 6||3.3|0.0|0.0457
90868290|NCT00256750|181598926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.3||||0.1729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|3.2|||ANCOVA|Adjusted mean based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor, and baseline value as covariate.|Statistical tests comparing each belatacept regimen to the CsA regimen were conducted at a significance level of 0.05. Subjects with only baseline observations were excluded from these summaries.|Mental Component Score; Month 12||3.2|-0.6|0.1729
90910290|NCT00300456|181691006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||alpha = 0.05, all 3 primary endpoints had to show superiority of combo therapy in order to declare combo therapy successful at a given statin dose, Hochberg method for multiple comparison adjustment for 2 statin doses|ANCOVA|||An n = 92 per arm would provide \>99% power to detect an 11% decrease in LDL-C relative to ABT-335 monotherapy for each combo therapy dose, assuming an SD of 15%||||<0.001
90868291|NCT00256750|181598926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|0.8||||0.4209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.7|||ANCOVA|Adjusted mean based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor, and baseline value as covariate.|Statistical tests comparing each belatacept regimen to the CsA regimen were conducted at a significance level of 0.05. Subjects with only baseline observations were excluded from these summaries.|Mental Component Score; Month 12||2.7|-1.1|0.4209
90868292|NCT00256750|181598926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.6||||0.0526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.2|||ANCOVA|Adjusted mean based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor, and baseline value as covariate.|Statistical tests comparing each belatacept regimen to the CsA regimen were conducted at a significance level of 0.05. Subjects with only baseline observations were excluded from these summaries.|Physical Component Score; Month 12||3.2|-0.0|0.0526
90868293|NCT00256750|181598926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|2.2||||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.9|||ANCOVA|Adjusted mean based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor, and baseline value as covariate.|Statistical tests comparing each belatacept regimen to the CsA regimen were conducted at a significance level of 0.05. Subjects with only baseline observations were excluded from these summaries.|Physical Component Score; Month 12||3.9|0.6|0.0077
90868294|NCT00256750|181598926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.4||||0.1849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|3.4|||ANCOVA|Adjusted mean based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor, and baseline value as covariate.|Statistical tests comparing each belatacept regimen to the CsA regimen were conducted at a significance level of 0.05. Subjects with only baseline observations were excluded from these summaries.|Mental Component Score; Month 24||3.4|-0.6|0.1849
90868295|NCT00256750|181598926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|0.8||||0.4633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|2.8|||ANCOVA|Adjusted mean based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor, and baseline value as covariate.|Statistical tests comparing each belatacept regimen to the CsA regimen were conducted at a significance level of 0.05. Subjects with only baseline observations were excluded from these summaries.|Mental Component Score; Month 24||2.8|-1.3|0.4633
90868296|NCT00256750|181598926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.4||||0.0971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|3.0|||ANCOVA|Adjusted mean based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor, and baseline value as covariate.|Statistical tests comparing each belatacept regimen to the CsA regimen were conducted at a significance level of 0.05. Subjects with only baseline observations were excluded from these summaries.|Physical Component Score; Month 24||3.0|-0.3|0.0971
90868297|NCT00256750|181598926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|2.2||||0.0102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.8|||ANCOVA|Adjusted mean based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor, and baseline value as covariate.|Statistical tests comparing each belatacept regimen to the CsA regimen were conducted at a significance level of 0.05. Subjects with only baseline observations were excluded from these summaries.|Physical Component Score; Month 24||3.8|0.5|0.0102
90868298|NCT00256750|181598926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|2.5||||0.0186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|4.5|||ANCOVA|Adjusted mean based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor, and baseline value as covariate.|Statistical tests comparing each belatacept regimen to the CsA regimen were conducted at a significance level of 0.05. Subjects with only baseline observations were excluded from these summaries.|Mental Component Score; Month 36||4.5|0.4|0.0186
90868299|NCT00256750|181598926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.9||||0.0775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|4.0|||ANCOVA|Adjusted mean based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor, and baseline value as covariate.|Statistical tests comparing each belatacept regimen to the CsA regimen were conducted at a significance level of 0.05. Subjects with only baseline observations were excluded from these summaries.|Mental Component Score; Month 36||4.0|-0.2|0.0775
90868300|NCT00256750|181598926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.6||||0.0768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|3.3|||ANCOVA|Adjusted mean based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor, and baseline value as covariate.|Statistical tests comparing each belatacept regimen to the CsA regimen were conducted at a significance level of 0.05. Subjects with only baseline observations were excluded from these summaries.|Physical Component Score; Month 36||3.3|-0.2|0.0768
90868301|NCT00256750|181598926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.2||||0.1876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|2.9|||ANCOVA|Adjusted mean based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor, and baseline value as covariate.|Statistical tests comparing each belatacept regimen to the CsA regimen were conducted at a significance level of 0.05. Subjects with only baseline observations were excluded from these summaries.|Physical Component Score; Month 36||2.9|-0.6|0.1876
90868302|NCT00256750|181598928|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A non-inferiority margin of 10% for the co-primary endpoint of participant and graft survival was used. Determination of a margin for non-inferiority based on 'preservation of benefit' is not feasible, given the low rate of patient death and/or graft loss in the first year post-transplantation, and the absence of published, adequately sized, parallel-group trials with which to assess the effect of CsA on patient death and/or graft loss in the setting of MMF/steroids/basiliximab.|Difference in Percent|4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|-1.3|10.1||||||Month 24||10.1|-1.3|
90868303|NCT00256750|181598928|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A non-inferiority margin of 10% for the co-primary endpoint of participant and graft survival was used. Determination of a margin for non-inferiority based on 'preservation of benefit' is not feasible, given the low rate of patient death and/or graft loss in the first year post-transplantation, and the absence of published, adequately sized, parallel-group trials with which to assess the effect of CsA on patient death and/or graft loss in the setting of MMF/steroids/basiliximab.|Difference in Percent|3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|-2.2|9.6||||||Month 24||9.6|-2.2|
90868304|NCT00256750|181598928|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A non-inferiority margin of 10% for the co-primary endpoint of participant and graft survival was used. Determination of a margin for non-inferiority based on 'preservation of benefit' is not feasible, given the low rate of patient death and/or graft loss in the first year post-transplantation, and the absence of published, adequately sized, parallel-group trials with which to assess the effect of CsA on patient death and/or graft loss in the setting of MMF/steroids/basiliximab.|Difference in Percent|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|-2.9|9.8||||||Month 36||9.8|-2.9|
90910291|NCT01651949|181691084|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion for non-inferiority with respect to GMT ratio (heterosexual males / females) required that the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval was \>0.67, to exclude a decrease of 1.5-fold or more|GMT Ratio|1.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.21|||ANOVA|An analysis of variance model with a response of log individual titers and fixed effect for group was used.||Anti-HPV Type 6||1.21|1.02|<0.001
90910292|NCT01651949|181691084|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion for non-inferiority with respect to GMT ratio (heterosexual males / females) required that the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval was \>0.67, to exclude a decrease of 1.5-fold or more|GMT Ratio|1.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.19|||ANOVA|An analysis of variance model with a response of log individual titers and fixed effect for group was used||Anti-HPV Type 11||1.19|1.00|<0.001
90910293|NCT01651949|181691084|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion for non-inferiority with respect to GMT ratio (heterosexual males / females) required that the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval was \>0.67, to exclude a decrease of 1.5-fold or more|GMT Ratio|1.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.3|||ANOVA|An analysis of variance model with a response of log individual titers and fixed effect for group was used||Anti-HPV Type 16||1.30|1.10|<0.001
90910294|NCT01651949|181691084|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion for non-inferiority with respect to GMT ratio (heterosexual males / females) required that the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval was \>0.67, to exclude a decrease of 1.5-fold or more|GMT Ratio|1.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.31|||ANOVA|An analysis of variance model with a response of log individual titers and fixed effect for group was used||Anti-HPV Type 18||1.31|1.08|<0.001
90910295|NCT01651949|181691084|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion for non-inferiority with respect to GMT ratio (heterosexual males / females) required that the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval was \>0.67, to exclude a decrease of 1.5-fold or more|GMT Ratio|1.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|1.37|||ANOVA|An analysis of variance model with a response of log individual titers and fixed effect for group was used||Anti-HPV Type 31||1.37|1.13|<0.001
90910296|NCT01651949|181691084|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion for non-inferiority with respect to GMT ratio (heterosexual males / females) required that the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval was \>0.67, to exclude a decrease of 1.5-fold or more|GMT Ratio|1.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.3|||ANOVA|An analysis of variance model with a response of log individual titers and fixed effect for group was used||Anti-HPV Type 33||1.30|1.10|<0.001
90910297|NCT01651949|181691084|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion for non-inferiority with respect to GMT ratio (heterosexual males / females) required that the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval was \>0.67, to exclude a decrease of 1.5-fold or more|GMT Ratio|1.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.41|||ANOVA|An analysis of variance model with a response of log individual titers and fixed effect for group was used||Anti-HPV Type 45||1.41|1.14|<0.001
90910298|NCT01651949|181691084|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion for non-inferiority with respect to GMT ratio (heterosexual males / females) required that the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval was \>0.67, to exclude a decrease of 1.5-fold or more|GMT Ratio|1.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.26|||ANOVA|An analysis of variance model with a response of log individual titers and fixed effect for group was used||Anti-HPV Type 52||1.26|1.05|<0.001
90910299|NCT01651949|181691084|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion for non-inferiority with respect to GMT ratio (heterosexual males / females) required that the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval was \>0.67, to exclude a decrease of 1.5-fold or more|GMT Ratio|1.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.36|||ANOVA|An analysis of variance model with a response of log individual titers and fixed effect for group was used||Anti-HPV Type 58||1.36|1.14|<0.001
90910300|NCT01651949|181691085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-11.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|-8.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen||The incidence of AEs of injection-site erythema reported on the Vaccination Report Card was compared between heterosexual / MSM male participants and female participants|Injection-site Erythema||-8.0|-15.0|<0.001
90960479|NCT00427895|181801605|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|2.51||||||Serotype 18C: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS).||2.51|1.39|
90960480|NCT00427895|181801605|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|2.41||||||Serotype 19A: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS).||2.41|1.56|
90910301|NCT01651949|181691085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-19.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.5|-15.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen||The incidence of AEs of injection-site erythema reported on the Vaccination Report Card was compared between heterosexual / MSM male participants and female participants|Injection-site Pain||-15.7|-22.5|<0.001
90910302|NCT01651949|181691085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-17.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.8|-13.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen||The incidence of AEs of injection-site erythema reported on the Vaccination Report Card was compared between heterosexual / MSM male participants and female participants|Injection-site Swelling||-13.7|-20.8|<0.001
90910303|NCT01651949|181691086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.5||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|0.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen||The incidence of maximum body temperature \>=37.8° C reported on the Vaccination Report Card was compared between heterosexual / MSM male participants and female participants|Elevated Body Temperature||0.2|-3.4|0.091
90910304|NCT01651949|181691087|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion for non-inferiority with respect to seroconversion percentage (heterosexual males minus females) required that the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval was greater than -5|Risk Difference (RD)|0.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Anti-HPV Type 6||0.9|-0.7|<0.001
90910305|NCT01651949|181691087|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion for non-inferiority with respect to seroconversion percentage (heterosexual males minus females) required that the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval was greater than -5|Risk Difference (RD)|0.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.8|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Anti-HPV Type 11||0.8|-0.3|<0.001
90868305|NCT00256750|181598928|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A non-inferiority margin of 10% for the co-primary endpoint of participant and graft survival was used. Determination of a margin for non-inferiority based on 'preservation of benefit' is not feasible, given the low rate of patient death and/or graft loss in the first year post-transplantation, and the absence of published, adequately sized, parallel-group trials with which to assess the effect of CsA on patient death and/or graft loss in the setting of MMF/steroids/basiliximab.|Difference in Percent|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|-2.8|10.0||||||||10.0|-2.8|
90868306|NCT00256750|181598929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent|5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|12.8||||||Month 12||12.8|-1.0|
90868307|NCT00256750|181598929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent|11.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|18.9||||||Month 12||18.9|4.2|
90868308|NCT00256750|181598929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|9.1||||||Month 24||9.1|-5.5|
90868309|NCT00256750|181598929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent|9.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|17.6||||||Month 24||17.6|1.9|
90868310|NCT00256750|181598929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|8.4||||||Month 36||8.4|-6.6|
90868311|NCT00256750|181598929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent|8.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|16.4||||||Month 36||16.4|0.4|
90868312|NCT01600638|181598931|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90868313|NCT01600638|181598932|OTHER||sucess proportion|0.7823|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.614|0.951||||||||0.951|0.614|
90868314|NCT01125605|181598945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0033||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with GLM (Generalized Linear Model) of SAS® (with type III sums of squares); including the baseline value of the sum score as a covariate||decrease of the sum score between baseline (visit 1) and last observation was exploratively analysed||||0.0033
90868315|NCT01125605|181598945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with GLM (Generalized Linear Model) of SAS® (with type III sums of squares); including the baseline value of the sum score as a covariate||decrease of the sum score between baseline (visit1) and last observation by duration of treatment||||0.0002
90868316|NCT01125605|181598946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0014||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0014
90868317|NCT01125605|181598947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0125||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0125
90868318|NCT01125605|181598948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0006
90868319|NCT01125605|181598949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0016||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0016
90868320|NCT01125605|181598950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0504||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0504
90910306|NCT01651949|181691087|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion for non-inferiority with respect to seroconversion percentage (heterosexual males minus females) required that the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval was greater than -5|Risk Difference (RD)|0.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Anti-HPV Type 16||0.7|-0.3|<0.001
90910307|NCT01651949|181691087|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion for non-inferiority with respect to seroconversion percentage (heterosexual males minus females) required that the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval was greater than -5|Risk Difference (RD)|0.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.8|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Anti-HPV Type 18||0.8|-0.4|<0.001
90910308|NCT01651949|181691087|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion for non-inferiority with respect to seroconversion percentage (heterosexual males minus females) required that the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval was greater than -5|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Anti-HPV Type 31||0.5|-0.4|<0.001
90910309|NCT01651949|181691087|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion for non-inferiority with respect to seroconversion percentage (heterosexual males minus females) required that the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval was greater than -5|Risk Difference (RD)|0.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Anti-HPV Type 33||0.7|-0.3|<0.001
90910310|NCT01651949|181691087|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion for non-inferiority with respect to seroconversion percentage (heterosexual males minus females) required that the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval was greater than -5|Risk Difference (RD)|0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Anti-HPV Type 45||1.0|-0.4|<0.001
90910311|NCT01651949|181691087|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion for non-inferiority with respect to seroconversion percentage (heterosexual males minus females) required that the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval was greater than -5|Risk Difference (RD)|0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Anti-HPV Type 52||0.9|-0.2|<0.001
90910312|NCT01651949|181691087|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion for non-inferiority with respect to seroconversion percentage (heterosexual males minus females) required that the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval was greater than -5|Risk Difference (RD)|0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Anti-HPV Type 58||0.9|-0.2|<0.001
90910313|NCT01806714|181691090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.3|||<|0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.6|||clustered stratified Proportional Hazard||We determined hazard ratios using a clustered stratified Cox model with the Efron method to handle tied events and the Huber/White variance estimator that clustered on primary care provider and stratified on practice.|||1.6|1.0|<0.04
90910314|NCT02155829|181691093|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.442|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA covariate included site.||||||0.442
90910315|NCT02155829|181691094|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.994|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA covariate included site.||||||0.994
90868321|NCT01125605|181598952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0002
90868322|NCT03727347|181598993|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Hypothesis was that the improvement (decrease) in rTNSS mean score, from baseline to 12 weeks, would exceed 1 point||||||<0.0001
90868323|NCT00583778|181599017|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|12.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|25.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Data were analyzed using STATA 10 SE.Categorical variables were described using frequencies and relative frequencies. Distribution of continuous variables were evaluated for normality using the Shapiro-Walk test and graphically using histograms and box plots. Because most data were non-parametric, they were described using the median and 25th and 75th percentiles (interquartile range) and then compared using Wilcoxon rank sum test.|This study was designed to detect an absolute difference of 12 % in change of FEV-1percent predicted, with a standard deviation of 25% based on data provided to us from previous studies conducted by Sepracor. Based on this assumption, we sought to enter 76 patients in each group to have an 80% power to detect a 12 % absolute difference in charge of FEV-1 percent predicted over time at an alpha of 0.05. This accounted for a potential 10% dropout rate after randomization.|||< 0.05
90960481|NCT00427895|181801605|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.28||||||Serotype 19F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS).||1.28|0.72|
90960482|NCT00427895|181801605|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|5.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.67|7.33||||||Serotype 23F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS).||7.33|3.67|
90868324|NCT02483520|181599021|SUPERIORITY||LSM Estimate|0.03||||0.977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|2.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed models were fitted to changes in outcomes with SAS Procedure Mixed. Efficacy of the FamTechCare intervention versus attention control was expressed as the model-estimated difference between the groups on mean change from baseline to 3 months. Burden, Depression, Sleep disturbance, Competence, Desire to institutionalize, Reaction to memory symptoms, Reaction to depression symptoms, Reaction to disruptive symptoms were included in the model.||2.08|-2.02|.977
90868325|NCT02483520|181599022|SUPERIORITY||LSM Estimate|-0.22||||0.812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|1.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed models were fitted to changes in outcomes with SAS Procedure Mixed. Efficacy of the FamTechCare intervention versus attention control was expressed as the model-estimated difference between the groups on mean change from baseline to 3 months. Burden, Depression, Sleep disturbance, Competence, Desire to institutionalize, Reaction to memory symptoms, Reaction to depression symptoms, Reaction to disruptive symptoms were included in the model.||1.64|-2.09|.812
90868326|NCT02483520|181599025|SUPERIORITY||LSM Estimate|-1.5||||0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.64|1.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed models were fitted to changes in outcomes with SAS Procedure Mixed. Efficacy of the FamTechCare intervention versus attention control was expressed as the model-estimated difference between the groups on mean change from baseline to 3 months. Burden, Depression, Sleep disturbance, Competence, Desire to institutionalize, Reaction to memory symptoms, Reaction to depression symptoms, Reaction to disruptive symptoms were included in the model.||1.64|-4.64|.343
90868327|NCT02483520|181599026|SUPERIORITY||LSM Estimate|-4.79||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.51|-1.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed models were fitted to changes in outcomes with SAS Procedure Mixed. Efficacy of the FamTechCare intervention versus attention control was expressed as the model-estimated difference between the groups on mean change from baseline to 3 months. Burden, Depression, Sleep disturbance, Competence, Desire to institutionalize, Reaction to memory symptoms, Reaction to depression symptoms, Reaction to disruptive symptoms were included in the model.||-1.08|-8.51|.012
90910316|NCT02155829|181691095|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.684|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA covariate included site.||||||0.684
90960483|NCT00427895|181801605|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.73||||||Serotype 1: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures in 13vPnC participants between Cohort 1 and Cohort 2.||1.73|1.08|
90960484|NCT00427895|181801605|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.19||||||Serotype 3: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures in 13vPnC participants between Cohort 1 and Cohort 2.||1.19|0.81|
90960485|NCT00427895|181801605|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.77||||||Serotype 4: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures in 13vPnC participants between Cohort 1 and Cohort 2.||1.77|1.07|
90960486|NCT00427895|181801605|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.4||||||95.0|1.01|1.8||||||Serotype 5: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures in 13vPnC participants between Cohort 1 and Cohort 2.||1.80|1.01|
90960487|NCT00427895|181801605|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.15||||||Serotype 6A: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures in 13vPnC participants between Cohort 1 and Cohort 2.||2.15|1.30|
90910317|NCT02155829|181691096|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.913|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA covariate included site.||||||0.913
90910318|NCT02155829|181691097|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.746|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA covariate included site.||||||0.746
90910319|NCT02155829|181691098|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.057|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA covariate included site.||||||0.057
90910320|NCT02155829|181691099|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0496|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA covariate included site.||||||0.0496
90910321|NCT01585038|181691101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.54||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|2.64|||t-test, 1 sided|||||2.64|-1.56|0.30
90910322|NCT01585038|181691102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.21||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.71|2.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.30|-4.71|0.35
90910323|NCT01585038|181691103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.7||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.49|75.89|||t-test, 2 sided|||||75.89|-62.49|0.41
90910324|NCT01585038|181691104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-194.1||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-353.7|-34.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-34.6|-353.7|0.02
90960488|NCT00427895|181801605|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|2.12||||||Serotype 6B: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures in 13vPnC participants between Cohort 1 and Cohort 2.||2.12|1.24|
90910325|NCT00678795|181691105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.11||||0.569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.26|||ANCOVA|||The primary endpoint, the change in the number of incontinence episodes per day, was compared between treatment groups using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). The model included treatment and centre as factors and baseline number of incontinence episodes per day as a covariate.||0.26|-0.47|0.569
90910326|NCT00678795|181691106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.76||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|0.07|||ANCOVA|||The change in the number of urgency episodes per day was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment and centre as factors and baseline number of urgency episodes per day as a covariate.||0.07|-1.58|0.071
90910327|NCT00678795|181691107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.28||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.07|||ANCOVA|||The change in the number of nocturia episodes per day was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment and centre as factors and baseline number of nocturia episodes per day as a covariate.||-0.07|-0.50|0.010
90910328|NCT00678795|181691108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.08||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.41|||ANCOVA|||The change in the number of incontinence pads used per day was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment and centre as factors and baseline number of number of incontinence pads used per day as a covariate.||0.41|-0.57|0.74
90910329|NCT00678795|181691109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|3.9||||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|9.46|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline in the I-QOL score at the end of treatment was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment and centre as factors and baseline I-QOL score as a covariate.||9.46|-1.65|0.166
90868328|NCT02483520|181599027|SUPERIORITY||LSM Estimate|0.77||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed models were fitted to changes in outcomes with SAS Procedure Mixed. Efficacy of the FamTechCare intervention versus attention control was expressed as the model-estimated difference between the groups on mean change from baseline to 3 months. Burden, Depression, Sleep disturbance, Competence, Desire to institutionalize, Reaction to memory symptoms, Reaction to depression symptoms, Reaction to disruptive symptoms were included in the model.||1.47|0.07|.033
90868329|NCT02483520|181599030|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.211|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||p-values were calculated for differences between mean group changes using Wilcoxon rank-sum test at 3 months||||.211
90868330|NCT02483520|181599030|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||p-values were calculated for within- group changes using Wilcoxon signed-rank test between baseline and 3 months||||<.001
90868331|NCT02483520|181599031|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.476|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||p-values were calculated for differences between mean group changes using Wilcoxon rank-sum test at 3 months||||.476
90910330|NCT00678795|181691110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|-1.16||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|-0.51|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline in the overall bladder condition Numerical Rating Scale score at the end of treatment was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment and centre as factors and baseline overall bladder condition Numerical Rating Scale score as a covariate.||-0.51|-1.82|0.001
90910331|NCT00678795|181691111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|25.4||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.37|40.42|||Fisher Exact|||For Patient Global Impression of Change, the proportions of subjects who considered their condition 'Very Much Improved', 'Much Improved' or 'Minimally Improved' were compared between treatment groups using Fisher's Exact Test.||40.42|10.37|0.002
90910332|NCT00678795|181691112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.85||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|-0.23|||ANCOVA|||The change in the number of voids per day was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment and centre as factors and baseline number of voids per day as a covariate.||-0.23|-1.47|0.007
90910333|NCT01120275|181691140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||6-month PFS|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.22||||||6-month progression free survival (PFS) was estimated using the method of Kaplan-Meier and confidence intervals were calculated using the log-log transformation.||0.22|0.02|
90910334|NCT01120275|181691141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||1-year OS|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.66||||||1-year overall survival (OS) was estimated using the method of Kaplan-Meier and confidence intervals were calculated using the log-log transformation.||0.66|0.32|
90910335|NCT01156116|181691152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses were adjusted for age, body mass index, and ethnicity-based diabetes risk.||||||0.03
90910336|NCT01156116|181691153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses were adjusted for age, body mass index, and ethnicity-based diabetes risk.||||||0.04
90868332|NCT02483520|181599031|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||p-values were calculated for within- group changes using Wilcoxon signed-rank test between baseline and 3 months||||.005
90868333|NCT02483520|181599032|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.677|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||p-values were calculated for differences between mean group changes using Wilcoxon rank-sum test at 3 months||||.677
90868334|NCT02483520|181599032|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||p-values were calculated for within- group changes using Wilcoxon signed-rank test between baseline and 3 months||||.020
90960489|NCT00427895|181801605|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.79||||||Serotype 7F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures in 13vPnC participants between Cohort 1 and Cohort 2.||1.79|1.03|
90960490|NCT00427895|181801605|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.5||||||95.0|1.11|1.98||||||Serotype 9V: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures in 13vPnC participants between Cohort 1 and Cohort 2.||1.98|1.11|
90960491|NCT00427895|181801605|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|2.12||||||Serotype 14: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures in 13vPnC participants between Cohort 1 and Cohort 2.||2.12|1.16|
90960492|NCT00427895|181801605|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.47||||||Serotype 18C: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures in 13vPnC participants between Cohort 1 and Cohort 2.||1.47|0.86|
90868335|NCT02483520|181599033|SUPERIORITY||LSM Estimate|-0.62||||0.432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|0.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed models were fitted to changes in outcomes with SAS Procedure Mixed. Efficacy of the FamTechCare intervention versus attention control was expressed as the model-estimated difference between the groups on mean change from baseline to 3 months. Burden, Depression, Sleep disturbance, Competence, Desire to institutionalize, Reaction to memory symptoms, Reaction to depression symptoms, Reaction to disruptive symptoms were included in the model.||0.94|-2.18|.432
90868336|NCT02483520|181599034|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.255|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.255
90868337|NCT01104493|181599039|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|H0 (null): Rate difference ≥ 5 percentage points This corresponded to a null hypothesis of: HA (alternative): rate difference \< 5 percentage points.|rate difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|2.6|||score statistic|||Comparison of the rate of fever between the 2 treatment groups was based on the upper limit of the two-sided 95% exact confidence intervals (CIs) for the rate increase (Monovalent vaccine minus Placebo) evaluated against the prespecified equivalence criterion of 5 percentage points.||2.6|-5.2|
90868338|NCT02033694|181599046|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.21||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.35|||Regression, Cox|||Hypothesis 1 (Vulnerable Patient Hypothesis) first fit a univariate proportional hazards regression model in which maxLCBI4mm is the only independent variable and NC-MACE during 2 years is the outcome. The null hypothesis tested by the Wald test that the regression coefficient in a proportional hazards regression model is significantly different from 0. This analysis determined whether maxLCBI4mmI is a risk factor for NC-MACE.||1.35|1.09|0.0004
90868339|NCT02033694|181599046|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|1.6|||Regression, Cox|||Hypothesis 2 (Vulnerable Plaque Hypothesis) first fit a univariate proportional hazards regression model in which maxLCBI4mm in the coronary artery segment is the measure of exposure and NC-MACE during 2 years caused by a new culprit lesion in that segment is the outcome. This analysis was performed with adjustment for the potential clustering effect within patient utilizing the Wei, Lin and Weissfeld (WLW) methodology. This analysis determined whether maxLCBI4mm is a risk factor NC-MACE.||1.60|1.30|<0.0001
90868340|NCT02033694|181599047|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|2.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|3.22|||Regression, Cox|||Secondary Hypothesis 1 (Vulnerable Patient)- Cox proportional hazards regression model to assess a threshold of maxLCBI4mm \> 400 as the independent variable and NC-MACE during 2 years as the outcome.||3.22|1.48|<0.0001
90868341|NCT02033694|181599047|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|4.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.39|7.45|||Regression, Cox|||Secondary Hypothesis 2 (Vulnerable Plaque)- Cox proportional hazards regression model to assess a threshold of maxLCBI4mm \> 400 in the coronary artery segment as the independent variable and NC-MACE during 2 years caused by a new culprit lesion in that segment is the outcome.||7.45|2.39|<0.0001
90868342|NCT01806545|181599090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Proportion treatment difference|-0.11||||0.1197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.242|0.025||P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by diabetic status at surgery comparing the 2 treatment groups.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.025|-0.242|0.1197
90868343|NCT01806545|181599091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Proportion treatment difference|-0.08||||0.1962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.204|0.045||P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by diabetic status at surgery comparing the 2 treatment groups.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.045|-0.204|0.1962
90868344|NCT01806545|181599092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by diabetic status at surgery comparing the 2 treatment groups.|Log Rank|||||||0.090
90868345|NCT01806545|181599093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.193|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|P-value based on log-rank test stratified by diabetic status at surgery comparing the 2 treatment groups.||Analysis of time to loss of patency||||0.193
90868346|NCT01806545|181599094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.231|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by diabetic status at surgery comparing the 2 treatment groups.|Log Rank|||Analysis of time to loss of patency||||0.231
90868347|NCT01806545|181599095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.158|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by diabetic status at surgery comparing the 2 treatment groups.|Log Rank|||Analysis of time to loss of patency||||0.158
90868348|NCT01806545|181599096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean treatment difference|-0.895|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.213|0.423||||||Treatment difference at week 12||0.423|-2.213|
90868349|NCT01806545|181599096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean treatment difference|-0.232|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.791|1.327||||||Treatment difference at week 26||1.327|-1.791|
90868350|NCT01806545|181599097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Proportion treatment difference|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.273|0.2||||||Analysis of week 12||0.200|-0.273|
90868351|NCT01806545|181599097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Proportion treatment difference|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.165|0.318||||||Analysis of week 26||0.318|-0.165|
90868352|NCT01806545|181599098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean treatment difference|0.154|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.096|0.404||||||Analysis of week 12||0.404|-0.096|
90868353|NCT01806545|181599098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean treatment difference|0.565|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.023|1.152||||||Analysis of week 26||1.152|-0.023|
90868354|NCT02442869|181599113|SUPERIORITY||Net difference in proportion|1.73||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|15.35|||Chi-squared|Df (1)|NNT = 5.59|Due to the large number of zeroes in the Suicidal Ideation (SI)-Current Subscale of the SSI at post (over a third of the participants reported no SI at the end of treatment), a zero-altered model was utilized which divided the outcome into (1) the probability of any SI and (2) the intensity of SI when non-zero, as done in other studies. This analysis tested the difference between the CAMS and TAU arms based on number of participants reporting no SI post Stage 1 treatment.||15.35|-2.41|0.19
90868355|NCT02442869|181599114|SUPERIORITY||Net difference in proportion|1.3||||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.25
90868356|NCT02442869|181599115|SUPERIORITY|Power analyses. We determined that with a sample size of 62 clients, the outcome analyses had at least 80% power to detect an effect size of 0.80 (Ahn etal., 2001)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.55||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|1.05|||t-test, 2 sided|t(60) = 2.15||||1.05|0.04|0.035
90868357|NCT03521934|181599116|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.85|||Cox proportional hazards model|||The estimates of the hazard ratio (HR) and corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was to be provided by a marginal Cox proportional hazard model stratified by region and ejection fraction, with non-cardiovascular (non-CV) death treated as a competing event.||0.85|0.52|< 0.001
90868358|NCT03521934|181599117|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.83|||Cox proportional hazards model|||The estimates of the HR and corresponding 2-sided 95% CI was to be provided by a marginal Cox proportional hazard model stratified by region and ejection fraction, with non-CV death treated as a competing event.||0.83|0.49|< 0.001
90868359|NCT03521934|181599118|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84|||=|0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.22|||Cox proportional hazards model|||The estimates of the HR and corresponding 2-sided 95% CI was to be provided by a marginal Cox proportional hazard model stratified by region and ejection fraction, with non-CV death treated as a competing event.||1.22|0.58|= 0.36
90868360|NCT03521934|181599119|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.92||||||The estimates of the HR and corresponding 2-sided 95% CI was to be provided by a marginal Cox proportional hazard model stratified by region and ejection fraction, with non-CV death treated as a competing event.||0.92|0.56|
90910337|NCT01156116|181691154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses were adjusted for age, body mass index, and ethnicity-based diabetes risk.||||||0.009
90910338|NCT01156116|181691155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses were adjusted for age, body mass index, and ethnicity-based diabetes risk.||||||<0.001
90910339|NCT02057718|181691156|OTHER|Null hypothesis (H0): mean change from baseline to Week 13 is zero. The null hypothesis was tested for each of the 2 PFIC subgroups and overall; the change in the overall population is presented here.|Mean Difference (Net)|-23.304|STANDARD_DEVIATION|160.9748|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-82.35|35.742||||||This analysis shows the change from baseline to Week 13 in sBA levels for the overall Modified Intent-to-treat Population. Even though a comparison of PFIC1 vs PFIC2 (overall) is noted, the results are the change from baseline for all participants and is not comparative.||35.742|-82.35|
90910340|NCT00434018|181691168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.001
90910341|NCT01245439|181691199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.929|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change from Visit 1 to Visit 2||||0.929
90910342|NCT01245439|181691199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change from Visit 2 to 3||||<0.001
90910343|NCT01245439|181691199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change from Visit 3 to Visit 4||||<0.001
90910344|NCT01245439|181691199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change from Visit 4 to Visit 5||||0.050
90910345|NCT01245439|181691199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.165|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change from Visit 5 to Visit 6||||0.165
90910346|NCT01245439|181691199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.133|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change from Visit 6 to Visit 7||||0.133
90910347|NCT01245439|181691199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.217|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change from Visit 7 to Visit 8||||0.217
90910348|NCT01245439|181691199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change from Visit 2 to Visit 8||||<0.001
90971020|NCT03016325|181824578|SUPERIORITY|Part II (low dose), symptoms of hypotension - relative risk|Relative risk from placebo|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|54.35||||||||54.35|0.18|
90971021|NCT03016325|181824578|SUPERIORITY|Part II (low dose), symptoms of hypotension - relative difference|Relative difference from placebo|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.09||||||||0.09|-0.05|
90868361|NCT03521934|181599120|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.86||||||The estimates of the HR and corresponding 2-sided 95% CI was to be provided by a marginal Cox proportional hazard model stratified by region and ejection fraction, with non-CV death treated as a competing event.||0.86|0.54|
90868362|NCT03521934|181599121|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.14||||||The estimates of the HR and corresponding 2-sided 95% CI was to be provided by a marginal Cox proportional hazard model stratified by region and ejection fraction.||1.14|0.59|
90868363|NCT03521934|181599122|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|7.0||||||The change from baseline to Month 4 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups as factor and baseline KCCQ-12 score and randomization stratification factors as covariates.||7|1.3|
90910349|NCT01245439|181691202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.169|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change from Visit 1 to Visit 2||||0.169
90910350|NCT01245439|181691202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change from Visit 2 to Visit 3||||<0.001
90910351|NCT01245439|181691202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.053|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change from Visit 3 to Visit 4||||0.053
90910352|NCT01245439|181691202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.514|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change from Visit 4 to Visit 5||||0.514
90910353|NCT01245439|181691202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.064|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change from Visit 5 to Visit 6||||0.064
90910354|NCT01245439|181691202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change from Visit 6 to Visit 7||||0.038
90868364|NCT03521934|181599123|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.98||||||Rate of decline in eGFR observed over time was analyzed by MMRM with absolute change in eGFR from baseline as the outcome, a random effect for intercept, and fixed effects for treatment, baseline value, and time.||0.98|-1.3|
90910355|NCT01245439|181691202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.064|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change from Visit 7 to Visit 8||||0.064
90910356|NCT01245439|181691202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change from Visit 2 to Visit 8||||<0.001
90910357|NCT01245439|181691203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.981|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change from Visit 1 to Visit 2||||0.981
90910358|NCT01245439|181691203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change from Visit 2 to Visit 3||||<0.001
90910359|NCT01245439|181691203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change from Visit 3 to Visit 4||||0.005
90910360|NCT01245439|181691203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.566|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change from Visit 4 to Visit 5||||0.566
90868365|NCT01391559|181599127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.0||||0.17||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.17
90868366|NCT00489541|181599131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||A superiority test of TAXUX Element vs bare metal (BMS) Express historical control. The null hypothesis that the true difference in means (TAXUS Element - BMS Express) is equal to zero was tested against the two-sided alternative that the true difference in means is different from zero. A sample size of 224 patients in the TAXUS Element group (190 after 15% attrition due to angiographic follow-up) provided 85% power.||-0.30|-0.54|<0.0001
90910361|NCT01245439|181691203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.264|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change from Visit 5 to Visit 6||||0.264
90910362|NCT01245439|181691203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.126|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change from Visit 6 to Visit 7||||0.126
90910363|NCT01245439|181691203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.779|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change from Visit 7 to Visit 8||||0.779
90910364|NCT01245439|181691203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||||||<0.001
90910365|NCT01245439|181691204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change in Sensitive Joints Visit 1 to Visit 2||||0.410
90910366|NCT01245439|181691204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change in Sensitive Joints from Visit 2 to Visit 3||||<0.001
90910367|NCT01245439|181691204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change in Sensitive Joints from Visit 3 to Visit 4||||<0.001
90910368|NCT01245439|181691204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change in Sensitive Joints from Visit 4 to Visit 5||||0.021
90910369|NCT01245439|181691204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change in Sensitive Joints from Visit 5 to Visit 6||||0.003
90910370|NCT01245439|181691204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.827|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change in Sensitive Joints from Visit 6 to Visit7||||0.827
90910371|NCT01245439|181691204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.093|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change in Sensitive Joints from Visit 7 to Visit 8||||0.093
90910372|NCT01245439|181691204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change in Sensitive Joints from Visit 2 to Visit 8||||<0.001
90910373|NCT01245439|181691204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.792|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change in Swollen Joints from Visit 1 to Visit 2||||0.792
90910374|NCT01245439|181691204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change in Swollen Joints from Visit 2 to Visit 3||||<0.001
90910375|NCT01245439|181691204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change in Swollen Joints from Visit 3 to Visit 4||||0.002
90910376|NCT01245439|181691204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.374|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change in Swollen Joints from Visit 4 to Visit 5||||0.374
90910377|NCT01245439|181691204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.518|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change in Swollen Joints from Visit 5 to Visit 6||||0.518
90910378|NCT01245439|181691204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.744|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change in Swollen Joints from Visit 6 to Visit 7||||0.744
90910379|NCT01245439|181691204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change in Swollen Joints from Visit 7 to Visit 8||||0.048
90910380|NCT01245439|181691204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change in Swollen Joints from Visit 2 to Visit 8||||<0.001
90910381|NCT01245439|181691205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||PT assessment Visit 2 to Visit 3||||<0.001
90910382|NCT01245439|181691205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||PT assessment Visit 3 to Visit 4||||<0.001
90910383|NCT01245439|181691205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.075|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||PT assessment Visit 4 to Visit 5||||0.075
90910384|NCT01245439|181691205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.119|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||PT assessment Visit 5 to Visit 6||||0.119
90868367|NCT00489541|181599132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||12-month TLR rate|7.34|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||10.8|||Chi-squared|||One-sided, single-sample binomial test to compare the observed TLF rate in PERSEUS SV to the pre-specified performance goal (19.5%). The normal approximation of the test statistic was used. The null hypothesis that the true TAXUS Element TLF rate is greater than or equal to the performance goal was tested against the one-sided alternative that the true rate is less than the performance goal. A sample size of 224 patients (accounting for 5% attrition to follow-up) provided 80% power.||10.8||<0.0001
90868368|NCT01192516|181599154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for age, gender, pain level, and body mass index at baseline.||||||.85
90868369|NCT01192516|181599157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for age, gender, and body mass index.||||||.06
90868370|NCT01192516|181599160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted for age, gender, body mass index, and pain at baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.36
90868371|NCT01217801|181599252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|93.77||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.15|98.63|||Regression, Linear|||Linear mixed effect model, log transformed AUC, LSMeans for treatment Film and Tablet, the difference between the LSMeans and 90%CI calculated and transformed to geometric means, ratio estimates and 90%CI||98.63|89.15|0.05
90868372|NCT00291577|181599293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|98.89||||||90.0|80.34|121.73|||||Ratio percent (%) (Test/Reference) of adjusted geometric means; values have been back-transformed from the log scale.|SU011248 C1D2 vs C2D3. Due to the exploratory nature of the study, no statistical hypothesis testing was done since the primary purpose was to assess the tolerability of the combination of SU011248 with docetaxel.||121.73|80.34|
90868373|NCT00291577|181599293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|81.96||||||90.0|59.76|112.41|||||Ratio percent (%) (Test/Reference) of adjusted geometric means; values have been back-transformed from the log scale.|SU012662 C1D2 vs C2D3||112.41|59.76|
90868374|NCT00291577|181599293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|97.81||||||90.0|80.44|118.94|||||Ratio percent (%) (Test/Reference) of adjusted geometric means; values have been back-transformed from the log scale.|Total drug C1D2 vs C2D3||118.94|80.44|
90868375|NCT00291577|181599294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|101.23||||||90.0|82.75|123.83|||||Ratio percent (%) (Test/Reference) of adjusted geometric means; values have been back-transformed from the log scale.|SU011248 C1D2 vs C2D3||123.83|82.75|
90868376|NCT00291577|181599294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|81.72||||||90.0|62.4|107.04|||||Ratio percent (%) (Test/Reference) of adjusted geometric means; values have been back-transformed from the log scale.|SU012662 C1D2 vs C2D3||107.04|62.40|
90868377|NCT00291577|181599294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|100.0||||||90.0|82.95|120.56|||||Ratio percent (%) (Test/Reference) of adjusted geometric means; values have been back-transformed from the log scale.|Total drug C1D2 vs C2D3||120.56|82.95|
90868378|NCT00291577|181599298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|99.18||||||90.0|78.73|124.95|||||Ratio percent (%) (Test/Reference) of adjusted geometric means; values have been back-transformed from the log scale.|C1D1 vs C2D1||124.95|78.73|
90868379|NCT00291577|181599299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|94.98||||||90.0|78.73|114.58|||||Ratio percent (%) (Test/Reference) of adjusted geometric means; values have been back-transformed from the log scale.|C1D1 vs C2D1||114.58|78.73|
90868380|NCT00291577|181599301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||rate (percent)|73.7||||||95.0|48.8|90.9|||||Two-sided Confidence Interval (CI) (%) from exact method based on F distribution.|Overall confirmed objective response rate (CR + PR)||90.9|48.8|
90868381|NCT00291577|181599302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||rate (percent)|89.5||||||95.0|66.9|98.7|||||Two-sided CI (%) from exact method based on F distribution.|Clinical Benefit Rate (CR + PR + SD \> = 24 weeks)||98.7|66.9|
90910385|NCT01245439|181691205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||PT assessment Visit 6 to Visit 7||||0.007
90868382|NCT00291577|181599304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|95.57||||||90.0|79.9|114.32|||||Ratio percent (%) (Test/Reference) of adjusted geometric means; values have been back-transformed from the log scale.|C1D1 vs C2D1||114.32|79.90|
90910386|NCT01245439|181691205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||PT assessment Visit 7 to Visit 8||||0.047
90868383|NCT00291577|181599305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|112.39||||||90.0|81.05|155.85|||||Ratio percent (%) (Test/Reference) of adjusted geometric means; values have been back-transformed from the log scale.|C1D1 vs C2D1||155.85|81.05|
90868384|NCT00291577|181599306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|95.79||||||90.0|79.82|114.96|||||Ratio percent (%) (Test/Reference) of adjusted geometric means; values have been back-transformed from the log scale.|C1D1 vs C2D1||114.96|79.82|
90868385|NCT03473977|181599313|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0001
90868386|NCT03473977|181599314|OTHER|||||||0.75|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.75
90868387|NCT03473977|181599315|OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.006
90868388|NCT03473977|181599316|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.004
90868389|NCT03473977|181599317|OTHER|||||||0.0058|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0058
90868390|NCT03473977|181599318|OTHER|||||||0.014|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.014
90868391|NCT03473977|181599319|OTHER|||||||0.78|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Pain Score Comparison||||0.78
90868392|NCT03473977|181599319|OTHER|||||||0.34|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Non-pain score comparison||||0.34
90868393|NCT03473977|181599319|OTHER|||||||0.66|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Satisfaction score comparison||||0.66
90910387|NCT01245439|181691205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||PT assessment Visit 2 to Visit 8||||<0.001
90910388|NCT01245439|181691205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||IN assessment Visit 2 to Visit 3||||<0.001
90910389|NCT01245439|181691205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||IN assessment Visit 3 to Visit 4||||<0.001
90910390|NCT01245439|181691205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||IN assessment Visit 4 to Visit 5||||0.001
90910391|NCT01245439|181691205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.084|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||IN assessment Visit 5 to Visit 6||||0.084
90910392|NCT01245439|181691205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.272|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||IN assessment Visit 6 to Visit 7||||0.272
90910393|NCT01245439|181691205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||IN assessment Visit 7 to Visit 8||||0.020
90868394|NCT00545662|181599320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.14||a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression estimated global OR. GEE accounted for correlations of the scales. Models adjusted for site \& injury severity.|The odds in the citicoline group were compared to the odds in the placebo group.|"Null hypothesis: The placebo and citicoline groups do not differ at 90-days on the Core Battery~Power:~1. Two sided type I error of 0.05~2. 85% power~3. Expected OR=1.40 for the global statistic~4. Response rate in the control group~5. Correlations among the nine measures were accounted for. Response rates for the whole sample were a weighted average of the rates provided by TBI severity.~1240 participants were required to detect an OR \>= 1.4 for the global statistic."||1.14|0.83|0.76
90868395|NCT03845985|181599321|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.838||||||Analysis was significantly underpowered.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.838
90868396|NCT03845985|181599322|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62||||||Analysis was significantly underpowered.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.620
90868397|NCT03845985|181599323|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.713||||||Analysis was significantly underpowered.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.713
90868398|NCT03845985|181599324|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.509||||||Analysis was significantly underpowered.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.509
90868399|NCT03845985|181599325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.491||||||Analysis was significantly underpowered.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.491
90868400|NCT03845985|181599326|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.715||||||Analysis was significantly underpowered.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.715
90868401|NCT03845985|181599327|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.665||||||Analysis was significantly underpowered.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.665
90868402|NCT03845985|181599328|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.875||||||Analysis was significantly underpowered.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.875
90868403|NCT03845985|181599329|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61||||||Analysis was significantly underpowered.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of the Risk and Aggression/Liquid Courage/Sociability Subscale||||.610
90868404|NCT03845985|181599329|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.658||||||Analysis was significantly underpowered.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of the Self-Perception/Cognitive and Behavioral Impairment Subscale||||.658
90868405|NCT03845985|181599329|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Analysis was significantly underpowered.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of the Sexuality Subscale||||1.000
90868406|NCT03845985|181599329|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007||||||Analysis was significantly underpowered.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of the Tension Reduction Subscale||||.007
90868407|NCT03845985|181599330|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.407||||||Analysis was significantly underpowered.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.407
90868408|NCT03845985|181599331|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.893||||||Analysis was significantly underpowered.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.893
90868409|NCT03845985|181599332|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.709||||||Analysis was significantly underpowered.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.709
90868410|NCT03926169|181599335|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference (%)|6.0||||0.422|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-10.8|22.8||Across the strata, 97.5% confidence interval for adjusted difference and P-value were calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the actual values stratification factors under a two-sided alpha level 0.025 for each dose.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||22.8|-10.8|0.422
90868411|NCT03926169|181599335|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference (%)|1.3||||0.858|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-15.4|18.1||Across the strata, 97.5% confidence interval for adjusted difference and P-value were calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the actual values stratification factors under a two-sided alpha level 0.025 for each dose.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||18.1|-15.4|0.858
90868412|NCT03926169|181599336|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference (%)|-3.0||||0.725|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-21.8|15.9||Across the strata, 97.5% confidence interval for adjusted difference and P-value were calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the actual values stratification factors under a two-sided alpha level 0.025 for each dose.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||15.9|-21.8|0.725
90868413|NCT03926169|181599336|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference (%)|8.8||||0.301|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-10.3|27.8||Across the strata, 97.5% confidence interval for adjusted difference and P-value were calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the actual values stratification factors under a two-sided alpha level 0.025 for each dose.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||27.8|-10.3|0.301
90868414|NCT03926169|181599337|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference (%)|3.7||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-14.5|21.8||Across the strata, 97.5% confidence interval for adjusted difference and P-value were calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the actual values stratification factors under a two-sided alpha level 0.025 for each dose.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.8|-14.5|0.650
90868415|NCT03926169|181599337|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference (%)|12.3||||0.147|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-6.7|31.3||Across the strata, 97.5% confidence interval for adjusted difference and P-value were calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the actual values stratification factors under a two-sided alpha level 0.025 for each dose.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||31.3|-6.7|0.147
90868416|NCT03926169|181599338|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference (%)|-6.5||||0.342|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-21.8|8.8||Across the strata, 97.5% confidence interval for adjusted difference and P-value were calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the actual values stratification factors under a two-sided alpha level 0.025 for each dose.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||8.8|-21.8|0.342
90868417|NCT03926169|181599338|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference (%)|-10.6||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-25.3|4.2||Across the strata, 97.5% confidence interval for adjusted difference and P-value were calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the actual values stratification factors under a two-sided alpha level 0.025 for each dose.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.2|-25.3|0.108
90910394|NCT01245439|181691205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||IN assessment Visit 2 to Visit 8||||<0.001
90910395|NCT01245439|181691206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change between Visit 2 to Visit 3||||<0.001
90910396|NCT01245439|181691206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change between Visit 3 to Visit 4||||<0.001
90868418|NCT03926169|181599339|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||0.179|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.5|0.9||Mixed-effect model repeat measures analysis with treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor and baseline measurement in the model. An unstructured variance covariance matrix is used.|mixed-effect model repeat measures|||||0.9|-3.5|0.179
90868419|NCT03926169|181599339|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98||0.105|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.8|0.6||Mixed-effect model repeat measures analysis with treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor and baseline measurement in the model. An unstructured variance covariance matrix is used.|mixed-effect model repeat measures|||||0.6|-3.8|0.105
90868420|NCT03926169|181599340|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3385||0.727|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.646|0.883||Mixed-effect model repeat measures analysis with treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor and baseline measurement in the model. An unstructured variance covariance matrix is used.|mixed-effect model repeat measures|||||0.883|-0.646|0.727
90868421|NCT03926169|181599340|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3273||0.963|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.755|0.724||Mixed-effect model repeat measures analysis with treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor and baseline measurement in the model. An unstructured variance covariance matrix is used.|mixed-effect model repeat measures|||||0.724|-0.755|0.963
90868422|NCT03926169|181599341|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2941||0.886|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.622|0.706||Mixed-effect model repeat measures analysis with treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor and baseline measurement in the model. An unstructured variance covariance matrix is used.|mixed-effect model repeat measures|||||0.706|-0.622|0.886
90868423|NCT03926169|181599341|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.236|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2851||0.409|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.408|0.879||Mixed-effect model repeat measures analysis with treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor and baseline measurement in the model. An unstructured variance covariance matrix is used.|mixed-effect model repeat measures|||||0.879|-0.408|0.409
90868424|NCT03926169|181599342|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.252|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3212||0.434|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.977|0.473||Mixed-effect model repeat measures analysis with treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor and baseline measurement in the model. An unstructured variance covariance matrix is used.|mixed-effect model repeat measures|||||0.473|-0.977|0.434
90868425|NCT03926169|181599342|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.074|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3123||0.813|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.779|0.631||Mixed-effect model repeat measures analysis with treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor and baseline measurement in the model. An unstructured variance covariance matrix is used.|mixed-effect model repeat measures|||||0.631|-0.779|0.813
90868426|NCT04974697|181599370|SUPERIORITY|The superiority of the test lens was concluded if the lower credible limit of the mean was above the pre-defined threshold 40 points for myope.|Least-square Mean|58.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.37|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.9|65.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.||It was calculated using a 2-sided one sample means t-test with a family wise type I error rate of 5% and at least 80% statistical power, that 22 subjects were required to test superiority for myope.||65.4|50.9|
90868427|NCT04974697|181599370|SUPERIORITY|The superiority of the test lens was concluded if the lower credible limit of the mean was above the pre-defined threshold 32 points for hyperope.|Least-square Mean|55.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.2|62.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.||It was calculated using a 2-sided one sample means t-test with a family wise type I error rate of 5% and at least 80% statistical power, that 18 subjects were required to test superiority for hyperope.||62.8|47.2|
90868428|NCT04974697|181599371|SUPERIORITY|The superiority of the Test lens was concluded if the upper credible limit of the mean was below the pre-defined threshold 0.00 logMAR for Distance.|Least-square Mean|-0.129|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0166|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.167|-0.091|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.||It was calculated by using a 2-sided one sample mean t-test with a family wise type I error rate of 5% and at least 80% statistical power , 42 subjects were required to test superiority for distance (4m).||-0.091|-0.167|
90868429|NCT04974697|181599371|SUPERIORITY|The superiority of the Test lens was concluded if the upper credible limit of the mean was below the pre-defined threshold +0.17 logMAR for Intermediate.|Least-square Mean|-0.046|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0166|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.084|-0.008|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.||It was calculated by using a 2-sided one sample mean t-test with a family wise type I error rate of 5% and at least 80% statistical power , 7 subjects were required to test superiority for intermediate (64 cm).||-0.008|-0.084|
90868430|NCT04974697|181599371|SUPERIORITY|The superiority of the Test lens was concluded if the upper credible limit of the mean was below the pre-defined threshold +0.17 logMAR for Near.|Least-square Mean|0.067|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0166|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.029|0.105|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.||It was calculated by using a 2-sided one sample mean t-test with a family wise type I error rate of 5% and at least 80% statistical power , 36 subjects were required to test superiority for near (40 cm).||0.105|0.029|
90868431|NCT04974697|181599372|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority of the test lens was concluded if the lower credible limit of the mean was above the pre-defined threshold -5 points for myope.|Least-square Mean|8.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.66|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|13.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.||The study was only powered for the primary endpoint.||13.7|3.1|
90910397|NCT01245439|181691206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.254|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change between Visit 4 to Visit 5||||0.254
90868432|NCT04974697|181599372|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority of the test lens was concluded if the lower credible limit of the mean was above the pre-defined threshold -5 points for hyperope.|Least-square Mean|5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|11.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.||The study was only powered for the primary endpoint.||11.2|-1.2|
90868433|NCT04974697|181599373|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority of the test lens was concluded if the lower credible limit of the mean was above the pre-defined threshold -5 points for myope.|Least-square Mean|6.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.44|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|13.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.||The study was only powered for the primary endpoint.||13.7|0.0|
90868434|NCT04974697|181599373|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority of the test lens was concluded if the lower credible limit of the mean was above the pre-defined threshold -5 points for hyperope.|Least-square Mean|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|11.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.||The study was only powered for the primary endpoint.||11.3|-4.7|
90868435|NCT04974697|181599374|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority of the test lens was concluded if the lower credible limit of the mean was above the pre-defined threshold -5 points for myope.|Least-square Mean|11.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|17.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.||The study was only powered for the primary endpoint.||17.4|5.0|
90868436|NCT04974697|181599374|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority of the test lens was concluded if the lower credible limit of the mean was above the pre-defined threshold -5 points for hyperope.|Least-square Mean|10.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.64|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|17.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.||The study was only powered for the primary endpoint.||17.3|2.8|
90868437|NCT03302234|181599375|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.74156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.37||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG, geographic region of the enrolling site, and predominant tumor history.|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG, geographic region of the enrolling site, and predominant tumor history.|||1.37|0.85|0.74156
90868438|NCT03302234|181599376|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.7172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.3|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG, geographic region of the enrolling site, and predominant tumor history.|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG, geographic region of the enrolling site and predominant tumor history.|||1.30|0.86|0.71720
90868439|NCT03302234|181599377|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-0.1||||0.50644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|8.1|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|One-sided p-value for testing|Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by ECOG, geographic region of the enrolling site and predominant tumor history.|||8.1|-8.2|0.50644
90868440|NCT03302234|181599379|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9815||||0.9112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7386|1.3042|||Log Rank|Two-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG, geographic region of the enrolling site, and predominant tumor histology.|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG, geographic region of the enrolling site, and predominant tumor histology.|||1.3042|0.7386|0.9112
90868441|NCT03302234|181599382|OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.42||||0.8151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.96|3.12|||cLDA Model|Constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) Model|Based on a cLDA model with PRO scores as response variable, with covariates for treatment by time interaction, and stratification factors (ECOG, geographic region of the enrolling site, \& predominant tumor histology) as covariates.|||3.12|-3.96|0.8151
90868442|NCT02984709|181599400|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|-0.17||||0.593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.47||The following a priori selected covariates were adjusted in each analysis: age, sex, race/ethnicity, income, baseline depressive symptoms, pump use, and baseline measurement for each outcome.|Multiple linear regression|||||0.47|-0.81|0.593
90868443|NCT02984709|181599401|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|-1.137||||0.581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.27|2.99||The following a priori selected covariates were adjusted in each analysis: age, sex, race/ethnicity, income, baseline depressive symptoms, pump use, and baseline measurement for each outcome.|Multiple linear regression|||||2.99|-5.27|0.581
90910398|NCT01245439|181691206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.138|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change between Visit 5 to Visit 6||||0.138
90910399|NCT01245439|181691206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change between Visit 6 to Visit 7||||0.002
90910400|NCT01245439|181691206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.104|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change between Visit 7 to Visit 8||||0.104
90910401|NCT01245439|181691206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change between Visit 2 to Visit 8||||<0.001
90910402|NCT01245439|181691207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change between Visit 2 to Visit 3||||<0.001
90971022|NCT03016325|181824578|SUPERIORITY|Part II (low dose), confirmed SBP \< 90 mmHg - relative risk|Relative risk from placebo|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.43||||||||2.43|0.58|
90868444|NCT02984709|181599402|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|-0.587||||0.206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|0.34||The following a priori selected covariates were adjusted in each analysis: age, sex, race/ethnicity, income, baseline depressive symptoms, pump use, and baseline measurement for each outcome.|Multiple linear regression|||||0.34|-1.52|0.206
90868445|NCT02984709|181599403|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|-2.494||||0.511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.11|5.13||The following a priori selected covariates were adjusted in each analysis: age, sex, race/ethnicity, income, baseline depressive symptoms, pump use, and baseline measurement for each outcome.|Multiple linear regression|||Child-reported family conflict||5.13|-10.11|0.511
90910403|NCT01245439|181691207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change between Visit 3 to Visit 4||||0.002
90910404|NCT01245439|181691207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.078|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change between Visit 4 to Visit 5||||0.078
90910405|NCT01245439|181691207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.349|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change between Visit 5 to Visit 6||||0.349
90910406|NCT01245439|181691207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.722|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change between Visit 6 to Visit 7||||0.722
90910407|NCT01245439|181691207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.224|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change between Visit 7 to Visit 8||||0.224
90910408|NCT01972152|181691217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Data were log transformed for analysis.||||||0.24
90910409|NCT01972152|181691218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|||||Data were log transformed for analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.34
90910410|NCT01972152|181691218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||Data were log transformed for analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.01
90910411|NCT01972152|181691219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.95
90910412|NCT01972152|181691220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.76
90910413|NCT01972152|181691221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.68
90910414|NCT01972152|181691221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.02
90910415|NCT01972152|181691222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Data were log transformed for analysis||||||0.16
90910416|NCT01972152|181691223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Data were log transformed for analysis||||||<0.001
90910417|NCT01972152|181691223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Data were log transformed for analysis||||||<0.001
90910418|NCT01972152|181691224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Data were log transformed for analysis||||||<0.001
90910419|NCT01972152|181691224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Data were log transformed for analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
90910420|NCT01972152|181691225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
90910421|NCT01972152|181691225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
90868446|NCT02984709|181599403|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|-3.354||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.44|1.73||The following a priori selected covariates were adjusted in each analysis: age, sex, race/ethnicity, income, baseline depressive symptoms, pump use, and baseline measurement for each outcome.|Multiple linear regression|||Parent-reported family conflict||1.73|-8.44|0.190
90910422|NCT03068611|181691226|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.90
90910423|NCT03068611|181691227|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.54
90910424|NCT03068611|181691228|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Data were log-transformed transformed due to positive skewness||||||.36
90910425|NCT03068611|181691229|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Data were log-transformed to correct positive skewness||||||.92
90910426|NCT04567888|181691242|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|-0.95||Threshold for statistical significance set to .050.|Repeated-measures Multilevel Models|||||-0.95|-1.88|<.001
90910427|NCT04567888|181691243|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.3||Threshold for statistical significance was set to .050.|Repeated-measures Multilevel Models|||||-0.30|-0.78|< .001
90868447|NCT02984709|181599404|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|0.396||||0.873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.57|5.36||The following a priori selected covariates were adjusted in each analysis: age, sex, race/ethnicity, income, baseline depressive symptoms, pump use, and baseline measurement for each outcome.|Multiple linear regression|||||5.36|-4.57|0.873
90910428|NCT01157182|181691244|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|102.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.63|108.55|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||108.55|97.63|
90910429|NCT01157182|181691245|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|98.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.15|101.76|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||101.76|95.15|
90910430|NCT01157182|181691246|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|98.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.33|102.26|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||102.26|95.33|
90910431|NCT01157182|181691247|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|92.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.64|96.55|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||96.55|88.64|
90910432|NCT01157182|181691248|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|95.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.6|98.81|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||98.81|92.60|
90868448|NCT02984709|181599405|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|2.996||||0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.57|14.56||The following a priori selected covariates were adjusted in each analysis: age, sex, race/ethnicity, income, baseline depressive symptoms, pump use, and baseline measurement for each outcome.|Multiple linear regression|||||14.56|-8.57|0.603
90960493|NCT00427895|181801605|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|1.69||||||Serotype 19A: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures in 13vPnC participants between Cohort 1 and Cohort 2.||1.69|1.16|
90971023|NCT03016325|181824578|SUPERIORITY|Part II (low dose), confirmed SBP \< 90 mmHg - relative difference|Relative difference from placebo|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.16||||||||0.16|-0.11|
90868449|NCT02216591|181599444|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013|||||||ANCOVA|Mixed-model general linear model with age and education included as covariates. Time x arm interaction was significant, F(1,16) = 7.76, p = 0.013.||||||.013
90868450|NCT02216591|181599445|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.274|||||||ANCOVA|Mixed-model general linear model with age and education included as covariates. Time x arm interaction was not significant, F(1,16) = 1.29, p = 0.274||||||.274
90868451|NCT02216591|181599446|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||ANCOVA|Mixed-model general linear model with age and education included as covariates. Time x arm interaction was not significant, F(1,16) = .72, p = 0.410||||||.410
90868452|NCT01372462|181599447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|Newman-Keuls multiple comparisons test||The primary endpoint was difference in endurance between nasal cannula oxygen and NIOV+O2. Assuming 153 sec clinically important difference, 183 sec SD, and α=0.05, a sample size of 15 yielded 85% power.||||<0.05
90868453|NCT01372462|181599447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
90868454|NCT01372462|181599447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
90868455|NCT01372462|181599448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|Newman-Keuls multiple comparisons test||One-way, repeated-measures ANOVA and Newman-Keuls multiple comparisons test||||< 0.05
90868456|NCT01372462|181599448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
90868457|NCT01372462|181599448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
90868458|NCT01372462|181599449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||One-way, repeated-measures ANOVA and Newman-Keuls multiple comparisons tests|ANOVA|Newman-Keuls multiple comparisons tests||Per protocol||||<0.05
90868459|NCT01372462|181599449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
90868460|NCT01372462|181599449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
90868461|NCT01179568|181599477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.21|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.81|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with inverse probability weighting controlled for randomization stratification variables (site and baseline MDD) \& race/ethnicity||Our prespecified primary analysis was cross-sectional, comparing treatment response rates for CIT vs PLA at week 12 (aim 1), based on the intention-to-treat principle including all randomized participants. With 10% of 440 target enrollment lost to follow-up we had a power of 76-83% to detect predicted between-group difference in response (CGT with PLA, 40%; CGT with CIT, 60%; CIT 40%; and PLA 20%)||1.81|0.82|<0.05
90868462|NCT01179568|181599477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.17|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with inverse probability weighting controlled for randomization stratification variables (site and baseline MDD) \& race/ethnicity||Our prespecified primary analysis was cross-sectional, comparing treatment response rates for CIT with CGT vs PLA with CGT at week 20 (aim 2) based on the intention-to-treat principle including all randomized participants.||1.17|0.88|<0.05
90868463|NCT01179568|181599477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.21|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.46|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with inverse probability weighting controlled for randomization stratification variables (site and baseline MDD) \& race/ethnicity||Our prespecified primary analysis was cross-sectional, comparing treatment response rates for CIT with CGT vs CIT at week 20 (aim 3) based on the intention-to-treat principle including all randomized participants.||1.46|1|<0.05
90868464|NCT01179568|181599478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04||0.74|TWO_SIDED|||||Pre-specified secondary analyses compared changes in ICG scores using a weighted linear regression, controlling for site, baseline MDD, \& race/ethnicity, and with inverse probability weighting to adjust for missing assessments.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.74
90868465|NCT01179568|181599479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.98||0.53|TWO_SIDED|||||Pre-specified secondary analyses compared changes in ICG scores using a weighted linear regression, controlling for site, baseline MDD, \& race/ethnicity, and with inverse probability weighting to adjust for missing assessments.|Regression, Linear|||||||.53
90868466|NCT01179568|181599479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Pre-specified secondary analyses compared changes in ICG scores using a weighted linear regression, controlling for site, baseline MDD, \& race/ethnicity, and with inverse probability weighting to adjust for missing assessments.|Regression, Linear|||||||<.001
90868467|NCT01179568|181599480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.57||0.59|TWO_SIDED|||||Pre-specified secondary analyses compared changes in WSAS scores using a weighted linear regression, controlling for site, baseline MDD, \& race/ethnicity, and with inverse probability weighting to adjust for missing assessments.|Regression, Linear|||||||.59
90868468|NCT01179568|181599481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.44||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Pre-specified secondary analyses compared changes in WSAS scores using a weighted linear regression, controlling for site, baseline MDD, \& race/ethnicity, and with inverse probability weighting to adjust for missing assessments.||||.40
90868469|NCT01179568|181599481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.46||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Pre-specified secondary analyses compared changes in WSAS scores using a weighted linear regression, controlling for site, baseline MDD, \& race/ethnicity, and with inverse probability weighting to adjust for missing assessments.||||.005
90910433|NCT01157182|181691249|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|95.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.62|98.91|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||98.91|92.62|
90910434|NCT01157182|181691250|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|92.41|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.65|96.33|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||96.33|88.65|
90910435|NCT01157182|181691251|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|95.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.68|98.77|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||98.77|92.68|
90910436|NCT01157182|181691252|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|95.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.68|98.88|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||98.88|92.68|
90910437|NCT01157182|181691253|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|91.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.62|98.31|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||98.31|84.62|
90910438|NCT01157182|181691254|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|94.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.04|99.47|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||99.47|89.04|
90910439|NCT01157182|181691255|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|97.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.7|104.76|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||104.76|90.70|
90910440|NCT01157182|181691256|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|94.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.78|98.81|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||98.81|89.78|
90971024|NCT03016325|181824578|SUPERIORITY|Part II (high dose), clinically relevant hypotension - relative risk|Relative risk from placebo|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|3.59||||||||3.59|1.04|
90910441|NCT01157182|181691257|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|95.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.73|99.36|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||99.36|92.73|
90910442|NCT01157182|181691258|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|97.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.62|100.96|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||100.96|93.62|
90910443|NCT01157182|181691259|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|91.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.46|99.62|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||99.62|84.46|
90910444|NCT01157182|181691260|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|95.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.37|103.14|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||103.14|88.37|
90910445|NCT01157182|181691261|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|95.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.1|103.81|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||103.81|88.10|
90910446|NCT01157182|181691262|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|94.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.56|98.98|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||98.98|89.56|
90910447|NCT01157182|181691263|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|96.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.14|100.04|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||100.04|92.14|
90910448|NCT01157182|181691264|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|96.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.75|100.93|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||100.93|92.75|
90910449|NCT00383188|181691276|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|8.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.97||0.3131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.565|23.664|||Chi-squared|||||23.664|-7.565|0.3131
90910450|NCT00383188|181691276|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|10.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.86||0.1719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.602|26.224|||Chi-squared|||||26.224|-4.602|0.1719
90910451|NCT00383188|181691276|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|9.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.16||0.2783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.123|27.799|||Chi-squared|||||27.799|-8.123|0.2783
90910452|NCT00383188|181691276|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|8.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.43||0.3381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.566|27.404|||Chi-squared|||||27.404|-9.566|0.3381
90910453|NCT00383188|181691277|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.96||0.8619|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.733|10.845|||Chi-squared|||Week 1||10.845|-8.733|0.8619
90910454|NCT00383188|181691277|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|7.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.33||0.2546|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.176|17.651|||Chi-squared|||Week 1||17.651|-3.176|0.2546
90910455|NCT00383188|181691277|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|14.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.96||0.0644|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.921|27.115|||Chi-squared|||Week 1||27.115|0.921|0.0644
90910456|NCT00383188|181691277|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.07||0.8304|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.13|13.125|||Chi-squared|||Week 1||13.125|-10.13|0.8304
90910457|NCT00383188|181691277|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|6.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.45||0.4123|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.15|18.371|||Chi-squared|||Week 2||18.371|-6.150|0.4123
90910458|NCT00383188|181691277|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|5.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.29||0.4591|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.581|17.392|||Chi-squared|||Week 2||17.392|-6.581|0.4591
90910459|NCT00383188|181691277|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|16.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.93||0.0585|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.89|31.28|||Chi-squared|||Week 2||31.280|1.890|0.0585
90868470|NCT02881554|181599498|OTHER|Non-parametric|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.12|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistically significant p-value is \<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis = no difference in TLF between mid-treatment and baseline. Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney) tests were performed assessing the longitudinal difference between mid-treatment TLF from baseline TLF.||||<0.05
90868471|NCT02881554|181599498|OTHER|Non-parametric|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistically significant p-value is \<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis = no difference in TLF between mid-treatment and baseline. Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney) tests were performed assessing the longitudinal difference between post-treatment TLF from baseline TLF.||||<0.001
90910460|NCT00383188|181691277|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|15.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.21||0.0808|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.522|30.829|||Chi-squared|||Week 2||30.829|0.522|0.0808
90910461|NCT00383188|181691277|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|4.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.62||0.524|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.684|17.398|||Chi-squared|||Week 4||17.398|-7.684|0.5240
90910462|NCT00383188|181691277|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|14.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.72||0.0571|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.172|27.588|||Chi-squared|||Week 4||27.588|2.172|0.0571
90910463|NCT00383188|181691277|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|16.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.08||0.0712|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.222|31.087|||Chi-squared|||Week 4||31.087|1.222|0.0712
90910464|NCT00383188|181691277|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|20.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.43||0.0279|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.956|35.99|||Chi-squared|||Week 4||35.990|4.956|0.0279
90910465|NCT00383188|181691277|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.67||0.7848|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.71|10.515|||Chi-squared|||Week 8||10.515|-14.71|0.7848
90960494|NCT00427895|181801605|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.54||||||Serotype 19F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures in 13vPnC participants between Cohort 1 and Cohort 2.||1.54|0.87|
90868472|NCT02881554|181599498|OTHER|Non-parametric|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.05|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistically significant p-value is \<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis = no difference in TLF between mid-treatment and baseline. Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney) tests were performed assessing the longitudinal difference between mid-treatment TLF from baseline TLF.||||<0.05
90910466|NCT00383188|181691277|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|14.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.91||0.0632|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.86|27.869|||Chi-squared|||Week 8||27.869|1.860|0.0632
90910467|NCT00383188|181691277|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|9.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.16||0.2783|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.237|24.893|||Chi-squared|||Week 8||24.893|-5.237|0.2783
90868473|NCT02881554|181599498|OTHER|Non-parametric|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.15|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistically significant p-value is \<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis = no difference in TLF between mid-treatment and baseline. Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney) tests were performed assessing the longitudinal difference between post-treatment TLF from baseline TLF.||||<0.01
90910468|NCT00383188|181691277|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|16.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.55||0.0828|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.703|32.135|||Chi-squared|||Week 8||32.135|0.703|0.0828
90971025|NCT03016325|181824578|SUPERIORITY|Part II (high dose), clinically relevant hypotension - relative difference|Relative difference from placebo|0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.31||||||||0.31|0.01|
90910469|NCT00383188|181691277|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-2.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.54||0.7505|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.77|11.328|||Chi-squared|||Week 16||11.328|-16.77|0.7505
90910470|NCT00383188|181691277|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|1.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.35||0.8641|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.3|15.156|||Chi-squared|||Week 16||15.156|-12.30|0.8641
90910471|NCT00383188|181691277|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|3.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.99||0.7399|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.12|19.734|||Chi-squared|||Week 16||19.734|-13.12|0.7399
90910472|NCT00383188|181691277|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-12.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.42||0.1996|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.98|3.018|||Chi-squared|||Week 16||3.018|-27.98|0.1996
90910473|NCT00383188|181691278|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|1.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.48||0.2982|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.944|3.929|||Chi-squared|||Week 1||3.929|-0.944|0.2982
90868474|NCT02881554|181599498|OTHER|Non-parametric|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistically significant p-value is \<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis = no difference in TLF between mid-treatment and baseline. Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney) tests were performed assessing the longitudinal difference between mid-treatment TLF from baseline TLF.||||0.13
90910474|NCT00383188|181691278|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|1.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.3122|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.892|3.709|||Chi-squared|||Week 1||3.709|-0.892|0.3122
90910475|NCT00383188|181691278|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|4.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.21||0.0649|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.631|9.934|||Chi-squared|||Week 1||9.934|-0.631|0.0649
90910476|NCT00383188|181691278|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|5.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.53||0.0525|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.681|10.938|||Chi-squared|||Week 1||10.938|-0.681|0.0525
90910477|NCT00383188|181691278|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|4.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.12||0.1481|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.681|9.573|||Chi-squared|||Week 2||9.573|-0.681|0.1481
90910478|NCT00383188|181691278|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|8.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.66||0.0292|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.093|14.124|||Chi-squared|||Week 2||14.124|2.093|0.0292
90910479|NCT00383188|181691278|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|10.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.97||0.0167|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.839|18.186|||Chi-squared|||Week 2||18.186|1.839|0.0167
90910480|NCT00383188|181691278|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|11.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4||0.011|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.269|20.029|||Chi-squared|||Week 2||20.029|2.269|0.0110
90910481|NCT00383188|181691278|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-2.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.31||0.455|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.959|2.946|||Chi-squared|||Week 4||2.946|-7.959|0.4550
90910482|NCT00383188|181691278|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|8.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.76||0.0919|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.271|15.946|||Chi-squared|||Week 4||15.946|0.271|0.0919
90868475|NCT02881554|181599498|OTHER|Non-parametric|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.09|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistically significant p-value is \<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis = no difference in TLF between mid-treatment and baseline. Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney) tests were performed assessing the longitudinal difference between post-treatment TLF from baseline TLF.||||<0.05
90868476|NCT02881554|181599498|OTHER|Non-parametric|Spearman's correlation coefficient|-0.61||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistically significant p-value is \<0.05|Spearman rank correlation|||Null hypothesis = no monotonic association between the baseline TLF and Child-Pugh scores. Spearman rank correlation was performed to assess association between baseline TLF and Child-Pugh scores.||||0.002
90868477|NCT02674529|181599525|OTHER|This was a mechanistic trial and non-inferiority or equivalence analysis were not performed.|regression coefficient|-1.29864|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|Drug (antidepressant vs. placebo) prediction of changes in mood as measured by the MADRS scores.||||||0.58
90868478|NCT02674529|181599525|OTHER||r|0.02||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Correlation|Change in MADRS after 8 weeks correlation with brain responses during the baseline fMRI task.||||||0.05
90868479|NCT02674529|181599526|OTHER|This is a mechanistic trial, we did not perform non-inferiority or equivalence analysis.|regression coefficient|-1.4328918|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.4||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.8
90868480|NCT02674529|181599527|OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||The resulting voxel-wise parametric maps are thresholded with height and extent values generated by Monte Carlo simulations with 3dClustSim to protect against overall type I error at p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||At the group-level, a random-effects analysis determines the main effects of the regressors of interest (e.g., high vs. low expectancy) resulting in statistical parametric maps (t or F statistics). To control for potential confounders, sex and depression severity will be entered as covariates in statistical models.||||<0.05
90868481|NCT03761277|181599547|NON_INFERIORITY|This analysis was to demonstrate pain intensity scores (VAS) at the 6-Month Visit is non-inferior to VAS at Baseline, i.e., the change in pain intensity is not greater than 0 by more than 10 points from Baseline to the 6-Month Visit, with change calculated as 6-Month - Baseline.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|25.0|<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5||-7.1|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||This analysis was to demonstrate pain intensity scores (VAS) at the 6-Month Visit is non-inferior to VAS at Baseline, i.e., the change in pain intensity is not greater than 0 by more than 10 points from Baseline to the 6-Month Visit.|Due to non-normality, the non-inferiority test was conducted using a Wilcoxon Signed Rank test, rather than a one-sample t-test. Mean reduction in VAS and the upper 97.5% confidence limit are presented, but the change from baseline was evaluated using non-parametric analysis methods.|-7.1||< 0.001
90868482|NCT03761277|181599547|SUPERIORITY|This analysis was to demonstrate pain intensity scores (VAS) at the 6-Month Visit are less than VAS at Baseline, i.e., the reduction in pain intensity is less than 0 from Baseline to the 6-Month Visit, with change calculated as 6-Month - Baseline.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|25.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.7|-7.1|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||This analysis was to demonstrate pain intensity scores (VAS) at the 6-Month Visit are less than VAS at Baseline, i.e., the reduction in pain intensity is less than 0 from Baseline to the 6-Month Visit.|Due to non-normality, the superiority test was conducted using a Wilcoxon Signed Rank test, rather than a one-sample t-test. Mean reduction in VAS and 95% confidence interval are presented, but the change from baseline was evaluated using non-parametric analysis methods.|-7.1|-22.7|< 0.001
90868483|NCT00759031|181599550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
90868484|NCT00543140|181599551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6919|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were performed as only one hypothesis was tested in this study. The level of significance was set at 0.05.|Exact Binomial method|||The primary analysis used a one-sided binomial exact test method by Clopper and Pearson to determine if the rate of reoperations observed in Years 4 and 5 (combined) of the study was significantly less than 8%. The null hypothesis was that the reoperation rate was greater than or equal to 8%.||||0.6919
90868485|NCT01599234|181599564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.23||||0.22||95.0|-0.59|0.14|||ANCOVA|||The initial model used for the analysis of the end of study value was an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline as a covariate and treatment group, centre group, ambulatory status at baseline and previous use of cannabis as main effects. Interactions between the main effects were investigated, and if they had little influence then they were dropped from the model. These tests were performed at the 10% significance level as a possible indicator of an interactive effect.||0.14|-0.59|0.220
90868486|NCT01599234|181599565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.341||||0.231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|2.167|||ANCOVA|||The numbers of responders was analysed using the difference in proportions and the odds ratio comparing the treatment groups with the provision of 95% CIs for the difference and odds ratio. The two groups were compared using ANCOVA with baseline severity as a covariate and study centre and treatment group as factors.||2.167|0.830|0.231
90910483|NCT00383188|181691278|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|12.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.38||0.0264|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.28|23.272|||Chi-squared|||Week 4||23.272|2.280|0.0264
90910484|NCT00383188|181691278|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|12.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.56||0.0369|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.308|22.881|||Chi-squared|||Week 4||22.881|1.308|0.0369
90868487|NCT01599234|181599566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.16||||0.857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|1.61|||ANCOVA|||The change at the end of treatment was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment, centre group and ambulatory status at baseline as factors and baseline score as a covariate.||1.61|-1.94|0.857
90868488|NCT01599234|181599567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.07||||0.734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.4|||ANCOVA|||The two groups were compared using ANCOVA with baseline severity as a covariate and study centre and treatment group as factors.||0.40|-0.55|0.734
90868489|NCT01599234|181599569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|0.0||||0.624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.0|||ANCOVA|||The change at end of treatment was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment, centre group and ambulatory status at baseline as factors and baseline score as a covariate.||1.0|-2.0|0.624
90868490|NCT01599234|181599570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.248||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.842|1.849|||Regression, Logistic|||The two treatment groups were to be compared using ordinal logistic regression and the proportional odds model. The model was to incorporate ambulatory status at baseline and centre group.||1.849|0.842|0.270
90868491|NCT01599234|181599571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.15||||0.867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|1.64|||ANCOVA|||The change at the end of treatment was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment, centre group and ambulatory status at baseline as factors and baseline score as a covariate.||1.64|-1.95|0.867
90868492|NCT01599234|181599572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.215||||0.569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.622|2.373|||ANCOVA|||The numbers of responders was analysed using the difference in proportions and the odds ratio comparing the treatment groups with the provision of 95% CIs for the difference and odds ratio. The two groups were compared using ANCOVA with baseline severity as a covariate and study centre and treatment group as factors.||2.373|0.622|0.569
90868493|NCT02111772|181599577|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.049|||||||Negative binomial regression|||||||0.049
90868494|NCT02111772|181599578|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Negative binomial regression|||||||<0.001
90868495|NCT01425281|181599594|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||t-test, 2 sided|"Null and alternative hypotheses for superiority testing.~H0: EndpointABSORB BVS = EndpointXIENCE H1: EndpointABSORB BVS ≠ EndpointXIENCE"||Angiographic vasomotion reactivity following nitrate administration, the test was analyzable for 388 paired lesions (Absorb arm \[258 lesions\] vs Xience arm \[130 lesions\]).||||0.49
90910485|NCT00383188|181691278|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-9.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.67||0.0568|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.85|-1.482|||Chi-squared|||Week 8||-1.482|-16.85|0.0568
90910486|NCT00383188|181691278|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|4.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.95||0.4961|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.727|13.835|||Chi-squared|||Week 8||13.835|-5.727|0.4961
90910487|NCT00383188|181691278|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|6.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.26||0.3212|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.008|18.89|||Chi-squared|||Week 8||18.890|-5.008|0.3212
90910488|NCT00383188|181691278|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|1.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.9||0.8274|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.87|12.843|||Chi-squared|||Week 8||12.843|-9.870|0.8274
90868496|NCT01425281|181599595|NON_INFERIORITY|Using t-test with non-inferiority margin of 0.140mm||||||0.78|||||||t-test, 2 sided|"Null and alternative hypotheses for superiority testing.~H0: EndpointABSORB BVS = EndpointXIENCE H1: EndpointABSORB BVS ≠ EndpointXIENCE"||Follow-up angiographic analysis was available for 298 lesions in the Absorb arm and 151 lesions in the Xience arm.||||0.78
90910489|NCT00383188|181691278|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|5.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.94||0.3774|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.538|14.996|||Chi-squared|||Week 12||14.996|-4.538|0.3774
90868497|NCT02509156|181599746|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.57||0.746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.52|6.11|||ANCOVA|The change in LVEF was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t-test|||6.11|-4.52|0.746
90868498|NCT02509156|181599747|SUPERIORITY||slope of time|1.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.024|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made in this Phase I trial|Repeated Measures Linear Regression||"Standard error of the mean is the standard error of the estimate of the slope of time."|Repeated-measures linear regression models were used to address trajectories (upward or downward trends) over time within each of the treatment groups. If there was no significant interaction, only one trajectory (slope) was reported.||||0.024
90868499|NCT02509156|181599748|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94||0.328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.68|1.26|||ANCOVA||Confidence intervals based on t-test|The change in global strain was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.||1.26|-2.68|0.328
90910490|NCT00383188|181691278|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|9.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.11||0.1246|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.591|19.51|||Chi-squared|||Week 12||19.510|-0.591|0.1246
90910491|NCT00383188|181691278|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|8.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.17||0.2257|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.502|20.087|||Chi-squared|||Week 12||20.087|-3.502|0.2257
90910492|NCT00383188|181691278|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|5.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.11||0.4336|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.355|17.03|||Chi-squared|||Week 12||17.030|-6.355|0.4336
90910493|NCT00383188|181691278|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-2.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.02||0.7682|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.61|9.467|||Chi-squared|||Week 16||9.467|-13.61|0.7682
90868500|NCT02509156|181599749|SUPERIORITY||slope of time|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.261|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made in this Phase I trial.|Repeated Measures Linear Regression||"Standard error of the mean is the standard error of the estimate over time of the slope"|Repeated-measures linear regression models were used to address trajectories (upward or downward trends) over time within each of the treatment groups. If there was no significant interaction, only one trajectory (slope) was reported.||||0.261
90868501|NCT02509156|181599750|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.41||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.51|1.35|||ANCOVA||Confidence intervals based on t-test|The change in regional strain was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.||1.35|-4.51|0.071
90868502|NCT02509156|181599751|SUPERIORITY||slope of time|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.689|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made in this Phase I trial.|Repeated Measures Linear Regression||"Standard error of the mean is the standard error of the estimate over time of the slope"|Repeated-measures linear regression models were used to address trajectories (upward or downward trends) over time within each of the treatment groups. If there was no significant interaction, only one trajectory (slope) was reported.||||0.689
90868503|NCT02509156|181599752|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.46||0.935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.33|14.45|||ANCOVA||Confidence intervals based on t-test|The change in LVEDVI was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.||14.45|-12.33|0.935
90910494|NCT00383188|181691278|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-2.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.76||0.6726|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.97|8.257|||Chi-squared|||Week 16||8.257|-13.97|0.6726
90910495|NCT00383188|181691278|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-5.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.68||0.4795|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.28|7.0|||Chi-squared|||Week 16||7.000|-18.28|0.4795
90910496|NCT00383188|181691278|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-16.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.1||0.0276|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-26.19|-6.137|||Chi-squared|||Week 16||-6.137|-26.19|0.0276
90910497|NCT00383188|181691279|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.0|||Chi-squared|||Week 1||0.00|0.00|0.000
90910498|NCT00383188|181691279|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.0|||Chi-squared|||Week 1||0.00|0.00|0.000
90910499|NCT00383188|181691279|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.0|||Chi-squared|||Week 1||0.00|0.00|0.000
90910500|NCT00383188|181691279|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.0|||Chi-squared|||Week 1||0.00|0.00|0.000
90910501|NCT00383188|181691279|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.0|||Chi-squared|||Week 2||0.00|0.00|0.000
90910502|NCT00383188|181691279|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.0|||Chi-squared|||Week 2||0.00|0.00|0.000
90910503|NCT00383188|181691279|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|2.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.25||0.1928|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.423|5.968|||Chi-squared|||Week 2||5.968|-1.423|0.1928
90910504|NCT00383188|181691279|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.47||0.1719|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.56|6.56|||Chi-squared|||Week 2||6.560|-1.560|0.1719
90910505|NCT00383188|181691279|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.97||0.9603|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.138|3.334|||Chi-squared|||Week 4||3.334|-3.138|0.9603
90910506|NCT00383188|181691279|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-1.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.34||0.3157|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.559|0.856|||Chi-squared|||Week 4||0.856|-3.559|0.3157
90910507|NCT00383188|181691279|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|5.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.03||0.1125|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.162|12.096|||Chi-squared|||Week 4||12.096|-1.162|0.1125
90910508|NCT00383188|181691279|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|3.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7||0.2455|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.434|9.732|||Chi-squared|||Week 4||9.732|-2.434|0.2455
90910509|NCT00383188|181691279|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.71||0.3452|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.057|1.847|||Chi-squared|||Week 8||1.847|-7.057|0.3452
90910510|NCT00383188|181691279|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.24||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.333|5.333|||Chi-squared|||Week 8||5.333|-5.333|1.0000
90910511|NCT00383188|181691279|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|7.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.31||0.1267|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.417|16.036|||Chi-squared|||Week 8||16.036|-1.417|0.1267
90910512|NCT00383188|181691279|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|5.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.27||0.2069|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.72|14.612|||Chi-squared|||Week 8||14.612|-2.720|0.2069
90910513|NCT00383188|181691279|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|1.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.08||0.6506|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.871|8.553|||Chi-squared|||Week 12||8.553|-4.871|0.6506
90910514|NCT00383188|181691279|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.12||0.5125|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.075|9.48|||Chi-squared|||Week 12||9.480|-4.075|0.5125
90910515|NCT00383188|181691279|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|3.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.07||0.4412|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.652|12.023|||Chi-squared|||Week 12||12.023|-4.652|0.4412
90910516|NCT00383188|181691279|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|2.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.92||0.6566|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.006|10.195|||Chi-squared|||Week 12||10.195|-6.006|0.6566
90868504|NCT02509156|181599753|SUPERIORITY||slope of time|-1.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.55||0.325|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made in this Phase I trial.|Repeated Measures Linear Regression||"Standard error of the mean is the standard error of the estimate over time of the slope"|Repeated-measures linear regression models were used to address trajectories (upward or downward trends) over time within each of the treatment groups. If there was no significant interaction, only one trajectory (slope) was reported.||||0.325
90868505|NCT02509156|181599754|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.99||0.919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.75|13.08|||ANCOVA||Confidence intervals based on t-test|The change in LVESVI was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.||13.08|-11.75|0.919
90868506|NCT02509156|181599755|SUPERIORITY||slope of time|-1.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45||0.183|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made in this Phase I trial.|Repeated Measures Linear Regression||"Standard error of the mean is the standard error of the estimate over time of the slope."|Repeated-measures linear regression models were used to address trajectories (upward or downward trends) over time within each of the treatment groups. If there was no significant interaction, only one trajectory (slope) was reported.||||0.183
90868507|NCT02509156|181599756|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.077|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.003|0.15|||ANCOVA||Confidence intervals based on t-test|The change in LV sphericity index was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.||0.15|0.003|0.124
90868508|NCT02509156|181599757|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||Repeated-measures linear regression models were used to address trajectories (upward or downward trends) over time within each of the treatment groups. A time by treatment interaction was assessed.|There was a significant treatment and time interaction (p=0.024), so we report a slope for each treatment arm.|||
90868509|NCT02509156|181599758|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14||0.993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.05|1.74|||ANCOVA||Confidence intervals based on t-test|The change in scar percent was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.||1.74|-3.05|0.993
90868510|NCT02509156|181599759|SUPERIORITY||slope of time|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.151|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made in this Phase I trial.|Repeated Measures Linear Regression||"Standard error of the mean is the standard error of the estimate over time of the slope"|Repeated-measures linear regression models were used to address trajectories (upward or downward trends) over time within each of the treatment groups. If there was no significant interaction, only one trajectory (slope) was reported.||||0.151
90868511|NCT02509156|181599760|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|38.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.96||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.84|81.89|||ANCOVA||Confidence intervals based on t-test|The change in distance walked was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.||81.89|-5.84|0.056
90868512|NCT02509156|181599761|SUPERIORITY||slope of time|2.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.06||0.583|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made in this Phase I trial.|Repeated Measures Linear Regression||"Standard error of the mean is the standard error of the estimate over time of the slope"|Repeated-measures linear regression models were used to address trajectories (upward or downward trends) over time within each of the treatment groups. If there was no significant interaction, only one trajectory (slope) was reported.||||0.583
90868513|NCT02509156|181599762|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.37||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.49|4.84|||ANCOVA||Confidence intervals based on t-test|The change in MLHFQ summary score was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.||4.84|-30.49|0.048
90868514|NCT02509156|181599763|SUPERIORITY||slope of time|-8.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made in this Phase I trial.|Repeated Measures Linear Regression||"Standard error of the mean is the standard error of the estimate over time of the slope."|Repeated-measures linear regression models were used to address trajectories (upward or downward trends) over time within each of the treatment groups. If there was no significant interaction, only one trajectory (slope) was reported.||||0.0002
90868515|NCT02509156|181599764|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-315.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|295.0||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-947.5|315.8|||ANCOVA||Confidence intervals based on t-test|The change in NT-proBNP was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values. Data log transformed. p-values were obtained from transformed data.||315.80|-947.50|0.199
90868516|NCT02509156|181599765|SUPERIORITY||slope of time|-23.391|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|202.08||0.229|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made in this Phase I trial.|Repeated Measures Linear Regression||"Standard error of the mean is the standard error of the estimate over time of the slope"|Repeated-measures linear regression models were used to address trajectories (upward or downward trends) over time within each of the treatment groups. If there was no significant interaction, only one trajectory (slope) was reported. Log transformation used for the regression. p-values were obtained from transformed data.||||0.229
90868517|NCT02128113|181599774|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Net)|26.95||||0.4529|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Missing data were imputed.|Difference is Omaveloxolone Ophthalmic Suspension (pooled) - Vehicle Ophthalmic Solution|Comparison of Omaveloxolone Ophthalmic Suspension pooled (0.5% and 1.0%) versus Vehicle Ophthalmic Solution||||0.4529
90868518|NCT02128113|181599774|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Net)|64.31||||0.1276|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Missing data were imputed.|Difference is Omaveloxolone Ophthalmic Suspension 0.5% - Vehicle Ophthalmic Solution|Comparison of Omaveloxolone Ophthalmic Suspension 0.5% versus Vehicle Ophthalmic Solution||||0.1276
90868519|NCT02128113|181599774|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Net)|-11.08||||0.7996|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Missing data were imputed.|Difference is Omaveloxolone Ophthalmic Suspension 1.0% - Vehicle Ophthalmic Solution|Comparison of Omaveloxolone Ophthalmic Suspension 1.0% versus Vehicle Ophthalmic Solution||||0.7996
90868520|NCT02128113|181599775|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion of patients|-13.55||||0.0647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.75|-0.36|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference is Omaveloxolone Ophthalmic Suspension 0.5% - Vehicle Ophthalmic Solution|Comparison of Omaveloxolone Ophthalmic Suspension 0.5% versus Vehicle Ophthalmic Solution||-0.36|-26.75|0.0647
90910517|NCT00383188|181691279|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-5.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5||0.2634|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.57|2.247|||Chi-squared|||Week 16||2.247|-12.57|0.2634
90910518|NCT00383188|181691279|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-2.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.73||0.546|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.63|4.916|||Chi-squared|||Week 16||4.916|-10.63|0.5460
90910519|NCT00383188|181691279|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-7.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.43||0.1626|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.65|-0.086|||Chi-squared|||Week 16||-0.086|-14.65|0.1626
90868521|NCT02128113|181599775|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion of patients|-15.15||||0.0517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.34|-1.96|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference is Omaveloxolone Ophthalmic Suspension 1.0% - Vehicle Ophthalmic Solution|Comparison of Omaveloxolone Ophthalmic Suspension 1.0% versus Vehicle Ophthalmic Solution||-1.96|-28.34|0.0517
90868522|NCT02128113|181599776|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion of patients|-0.11||||0.9258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.91|8.68|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference is Omaveloxolone Ophthalmic Suspension 0.5% - Vehicle Ophthalmic Solution|Comparison of Omaveloxolone Ophthalmic Suspension 0.5% versus Vehicle Ophthalmic Solution||8.68|-8.91|0.9258
90868523|NCT02128113|181599776|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion of patients|-3.03||||0.6547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.27|6.21|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference is Omaveloxolone Ophthalmic Suspension 1.0% - Vehicle Ophthalmic Solution|Comparison of Omaveloxolone Ophthalmic Suspension 1.0% versus Vehicle Ophthalmic Solution||6.21|-12.27|0.6547
90868524|NCT02128113|181599777|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion of patients|-13.56||||0.0657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.84|-0.28|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference is Omaveloxolone Ophthalmic Suspension 0.5% - Vehicle Ophthalmic Solution|Comparison of Omaveloxolone Ophthalmic Suspension 0.5% versus Vehicle Ophthalmic Solution||-0.28|-26.84|0.0657
90868525|NCT02128113|181599777|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of Omaveloxolone Ophthalmic Suspension 1.0% versus Vehicle Ophthalmic Solution|Difference in proportion of patients|-15.15||||0.0526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.42|-1.88|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference is Omaveloxolone Ophthalmic Suspension 1.0% - Vehicle Ophthalmic Solution|||-1.88|-28.42|0.0526
90868526|NCT02128113|181599778|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion of patients|0.0||||0.8771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.87|10.87|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference is Omaveloxolone Ophthalmic Suspension 0.5% - Vehicle Ophthalmic Solution|Comparison of Omaveloxolone Ophthalmic Suspension 0.5% versus Vehicle Ophthalmic Solution||10.87|-10.87|0.8771
90868527|NCT02128113|181599778|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion of patients|1.35||||0.8248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.32|12.02|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference is Omaveloxolone Ophthalmic Suspension 1.0% - Vehicle Ophthalmic Solution|Comparison of Omaveloxolone Ophthalmic Suspension 1.0% versus Vehicle Ophthalmic Solution||12.02|-9.32|0.8248
90868528|NCT02128113|181599779|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Net)|27.21||||0.4686|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Missing data were imputed.||Comparison of Omaveloxolone Ophthalmic Suspension pooled (0.5% and 1.0%) versus Vehicle Ophthalmic Solution||||0.4686
90868529|NCT02128113|181599779|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Net)|49.99||||0.2636|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Missing data were imputed.||Comparison of Omaveloxolone Ophthalmic Suspension 0.5% versus Vehicle Ophthalmic Solution||||0.2636
90868530|NCT02128113|181599779|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Net)|-1.74||||0.9691|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Missing data were imputed.||Comparison of Omaveloxolone Ophthalmic Suspension 1.0% versus Vehicle Ophthalmic Solution||||0.9691
90868531|NCT01750242|181599780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||% of leads|86.5|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|73.7|||||||A 95% lower confidence bound was calculated on the percentage of leads where an overlap existed. A subject may have 1 or 2 leads included in the analysis.|||73.7|
90868532|NCT01750242|181599781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-22.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.5|-18.4||||||Summary statistics on the UPDRS III score. A higher score is more motor dysfunction.||-18.4|-26.5|
90868533|NCT03765918|181599782|OTHER|Difference in percentage (calculated as % Pembrolizumab + SOC arm - % SOC arm) and 95% CI were based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by primary tumor site and tumor stage.|Difference in Percentage|9.3|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.7|12.8||One-sided p-value for testing. H0: difference in % = 0 versus H1: difference in % \> 0.|Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen|||||12.8|6.7|<0.00001
90868534|NCT03765918|181599783|OTHER|Difference in percentage (calculated as % Pembrolizumab + SOC arm - % SOC arm) and 95% CI were based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by primary tumor site and tumor stage.|Difference in Percentage|13.7|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.7|18.7||One-sided p-value for testing. H0: difference in % = 0 versus H1: difference in % \> 0.|Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen|||||18.7|9.7|<0.00001
90910520|NCT00383188|181691279|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-7.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.43||0.1626|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.65|-0.086|||Chi-squared|||Week 16||-0.086|-14.65|0.1626
90910521|NCT00383188|181691280|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean (LSM) Difference|-0.388|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.025||0.7053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.624|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline tender/ joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||1.624|-2.400|0.7053
90910522|NCT00383188|181691280|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.312|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.009||0.1938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.291|0.668|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline tender/ joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.668|-3.291|0.1938
90910523|NCT00383188|181691280|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-2.187|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.174||0.0627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.491|0.116|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline tender/ joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.116|-4.491|0.0627
90868535|NCT03765918|181599784|OTHER|Difference in percentage (calculated as % Pembrolizumab + SOC arm - % SOC arm) and 95% CI were based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by primary tumor site and tumor stage.|Difference in Percentage|9.8|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|13.3||One-sided p-value for testing. H0: difference in % = 0 versus H1: difference in % \> 0.|Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen|||||13.3|7.0|<0.00001
90868536|NCT03765918|181599785|OTHER|Difference in percentage (calculated as % Pembrolizumab + SOC arm - % SOC arm) and 95% CI were based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by primary tumor site and tumor stage.|Difference in Percentage|3.0||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|5.3||One-sided p-value for testing. H0: difference in % = 0 versus H1: difference in % \> 0.|Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen|||||5.3|1.5|0.0006
90910524|NCT00383188|181691280|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.851|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.206||0.4809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.218|1.517|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline tender/ joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||1.517|-3.218|0.4809
90910525|NCT00383188|181691280|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.289|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.017||0.2057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.286|0.709|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline tender/ joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.709|-3.286|0.2057
90910526|NCT00383188|181691280|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.331|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.999||0.1833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.293|0.631|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline tender/ joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.631|-3.293|0.1833
90910527|NCT00383188|181691280|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-2.748|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.166||0.0187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.037|-0.459|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline tender/ joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-0.459|-5.037|0.0187
90910528|NCT00383188|181691280|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.345|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.197||0.2615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.695|1.005|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline tender/ joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||1.005|-3.695|0.2615
90910529|NCT00383188|181691280|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.764|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.017||0.0832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.761|0.233|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline tender/ joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.233|-3.761|0.0832
90868537|NCT03765918|181599786|OTHER|Difference in percentage (calculated as % Pembrolizumab + SOC arm - % SOC arm) and 95% CI were based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by primary tumor site and tumor stage.|Difference in Percentage|4.2||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|7.6||One-sided p-value for testing. H0: difference in % = 0 versus H1: difference in % \> 0.|Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen|||||7.6|2.1|0.0011
90868538|NCT03765918|181599787|OTHER|Difference in percentage (calculated as % Pembrolizumab + SOC arm - % SOC arm) and 95% CI were based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by primary tumor site and tumor stage.|Difference in Percentage|3.1||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|5.6||One-sided p-value for testing. H0: difference in % = 0 versus H1: difference in % \> 0.|Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen|||||5.6|1.6|0.0006
90868539|NCT03765918|181599794|OTHER|Based on a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by primary tumor site, tumor stage, and PD-L1 status.|Difference in Least Square Means|-1.29||||0.4671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.78|2.2||Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model.|cLDA model|||||2.20|-4.78|0.4671
90868540|NCT03765918|181599795|OTHER|Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by primary tumor site, tumor stage, and PD-L1 status.|Difference in Least Square Means|-3.03||||0.1606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.27|1.21||Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model.|cLDA model|||||1.21|-7.27|0.1606
90868541|NCT03765918|181599796|OTHER|Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by primary tumor site, tumor stage, and PD-L1 status.|Difference in Least Square Means|-1.41||||0.4374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.96|2.15||Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model.|cLDA model|||||2.15|-4.96|0.4374
90868542|NCT03765918|181599797|OTHER|Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by primary tumor site, tumor stage, and PD-L1 status.|Difference in Least Square Means|0.39||||0.8379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.35|4.13||Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model.|cLDA model|||||4.13|-3.35|0.8379
90868543|NCT03765918|181599798|OTHER|Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by primary tumor site, tumor stage, and PD-L1 status.|Difference in Least Square Means|-0.39||||0.8643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.84|4.07||Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model.|cLDA model|||||4.07|-4.84|0.8643
90868544|NCT03765918|181599799|OTHER|Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by primary tumor site, tumor stage, and PD-L1 status.|Difference in Least Square Means|-0.29||||0.8813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.12|3.54||Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model.|cLDA model|||||3.54|-4.12|0.8813
90868545|NCT03765918|181599806|OTHER|Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by primary tumor site, tumor stage, and PD-L1 status.|Difference in Least Square Means|0.34||||0.8287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.76|3.45||Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model.|cLDA model|||||3.45|-2.76|0.8287
90868546|NCT03765918|181599807|OTHER|Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by primary tumor site, tumor stage, and PD-L1 status.|Difference in Least Square Means|0.53||||0.7761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.12|4.18||Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model.|cLDA model|||||4.18|-3.12|0.7761
90868547|NCT03765918|181599808|OTHER|Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by primary tumor site, tumor stage, and PD-L1 status.|Difference in Least Square Means|0.65||||0.688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|3.84||Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model.|cLDA model|||||3.84|-2.54|0.6880
90868548|NCT03765918|181599809|OTHER|Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by primary tumor site, tumor stage, and PD-L1 status.|Difference in Least Square Means|-1.45||||0.3858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.73|1.83||Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model.|cLDA model|||||1.83|-4.73|0.3858
90868549|NCT03765918|181599810|OTHER|Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by primary tumor site, tumor stage, and PD-L1 status.|Difference in Least Square Means|-2.45||||0.237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.53|1.62||Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model.|cLDA model|||||1.62|-6.53|0.2370
90868550|NCT03765918|181599811|OTHER|Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by primary tumor site, tumor stage, and PD-L1 status.|Difference in Least Square Means|-1.76||||0.3138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|1.67||Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model.|cLDA model|||||1.67|-5.20|0.3138
90868551|NCT03765918|181599818|OTHER|Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by primary tumor site, tumor stage, and PD-L1 status.|Difference in Least Square Means|-3.28||||0.1763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.05|1.48||Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model.|cLDA model|||||1.48|-8.05|0.1763
90868552|NCT03765918|181599819|OTHER|Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by primary tumor site, tumor stage, and PD-L1 status.|Difference in Least Square Means|-1.18||||0.6882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.95|4.59||Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model.|cLDA model|||||4.59|-6.95|0.6882
90868553|NCT03765918|181599820|OTHER|Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by primary tumor site, tumor stage, and PD-L1 status.|Difference in Least Square Means|-2.52||||0.3103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.39|2.35||Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model.|cLDA model|||||2.35|-7.39|0.3103
90868554|NCT03765918|181599821|OTHER|Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by primary tumor site, tumor stage, and PD-L1 status.|Difference in Least Square Means|-0.48||||0.8475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.41|4.45||Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model.|cLDA model|||||4.45|-5.41|0.8475
90910530|NCT00383188|181691280|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.615|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.999||0.1066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.576|0.347|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline tender/ joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.347|-3.576|0.1066
90910531|NCT00383188|181691280|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-2.406|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.166||0.0394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.695|-0.118|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline tender/ joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-0.118|-4.695|0.0394
90910532|NCT00383188|181691280|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.355|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.197||0.258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.705|0.995|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline tender/ joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.995|-3.705|0.2580
90910533|NCT00383188|181691280|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.758|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.017||0.456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.754|1.238|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline tender/ joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||1.238|-2.754|0.4560
90910534|NCT00383188|181691280|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-2.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.999||0.0434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.982|-0.06|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline tender/ joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-0.060|-3.982|0.0434
90910535|NCT00383188|181691280|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.728|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.165||0.1386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.016|0.56|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline tender/ joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.560|-4.016|0.1386
90910536|NCT00383188|181691280|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.154|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.197||0.3353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.503|1.196|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline tender/ joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||1.196|-3.503|0.3353
90971026|NCT03016325|181824578|SUPERIORITY|Part II (high dose), symptoms of hypotension - relative risk|Relative risk from placebo|5.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|149.72||||||||149.72|0.91|
90868555|NCT03765918|181599822|OTHER|Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by primary tumor site, tumor stage, and PD-L1 status.|Difference in Least Square Means|-0.42||||0.8881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.36|5.51||Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model.|cLDA model|||||5.51|-6.36|0.8881
90868556|NCT03765918|181599823|OTHER|Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by primary tumor site, tumor stage, and PD-L1 status.|Difference in Least Square Means|-0.22||||0.9307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.22|4.78||Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model.|cLDA model|||||4.78|-5.22|0.9307
90868557|NCT03765918|181599830|OTHER|Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by primary tumor site, tumor stage, and PD-L1 status.|Difference in Least Square Means|1.3||||0.5752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.25|5.85||Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model.|cLDA model|||||5.85|-3.25|0.5752
90868558|NCT03765918|181599831|OTHER|Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by primary tumor site, tumor stage, and PD-L1 status.|Difference in Least Square Means|0.98||||0.7196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.38|6.34||Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model.|cLDA model|||||6.34|-4.38|0.7196
90868559|NCT03765918|181599832|OTHER|Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by primary tumor site, tumor stage, and PD-L1 status.|Difference in Least Square Means|0.74||||0.7522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.88|5.37||Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model.|cLDA model|||||5.37|-3.88|0.7522
90868560|NCT03765918|181599833|OTHER|Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by primary tumor site, tumor stage, and PD-L1 status.|Difference in Least Square Means|-0.24||||0.9255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|4.82||Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model.|cLDA model|||||4.82|-5.30|0.9255
90868561|NCT03765918|181599834|OTHER|Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by primary tumor site, tumor stage, and PD-L1 status.|Difference in Least Square Means|2.22||||0.4926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.15|8.6||Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model.|cLDA model|||||8.60|-4.15|0.4926
90868562|NCT03765918|181599835|OTHER|Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by primary tumor site, tumor stage, and PD-L1 status.|Difference in Least Square Means|0.99||||0.7087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.23|6.21||Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model.|cLDA model|||||6.21|-4.23|0.7087
90868563|NCT03765918|181599842|OTHER|Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by primary tumor site, tumor stage, and PD-L1 status.|Difference in Least Square Means|-2.75||||0.1654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.65|1.14||Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model.|cLDA model|||||1.14|-6.65|0.1654
90868564|NCT03765918|181599843|OTHER|Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by primary tumor site, tumor stage, and PD-L1 status.|Difference in Least Square Means|0.26||||0.9117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.29|4.8||Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model.|cLDA model|||||4.80|-4.29|0.9117
90868565|NCT03765918|181599844|OTHER|Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by primary tumor site, tumor stage, and PD-L1 status.|Difference in Least Square Means|-2.22||||0.2808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.25|1.82||Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model.|cLDA model|||||1.82|-6.25|0.2808
90910537|NCT00383188|181691280|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-2.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.016||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.075|-0.085|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline tender/ joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-0.085|-4.075|0.0410
90910538|NCT00383188|181691280|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-2.234|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.998||0.0255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.194|-0.274|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline tender/ joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-0.274|-4.194|0.0255
90868566|NCT03765918|181599845|OTHER|Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by primary tumor site, tumor stage, and PD-L1 status.|Difference in Least Square Means|-2.77||||0.1577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.62|1.08||Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model.|cLDA model|||||1.08|-6.62|0.1577
90910539|NCT00383188|181691280|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-2.384|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.165||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.671|-0.097|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline tender/ joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-0.097|-4.671|0.0410
90960495|NCT00427895|181801605|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.84||||||Serotype 23F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures in 13vPnC participants between Cohort 1 and Cohort 2.||1.84|0.94|
90960496|NCT00427895|181801605|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.03|2.87||||||Serotype 1: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures in 13vPnC participants between Cohort 1 and Cohort 3.||2.87|2.03|
90960497|NCT00427895|181801605|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.13||||||Serotype 3: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures in 13vPnC participants between Cohort 1 and Cohort 3.||1.13|0.84|
90960498|NCT00427895|181801605|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.92|2.76||||||Serotype 4: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures in 13vPnC participants between Cohort 1 and Cohort 3.||2.76|1.92|
90868567|NCT03765918|181599846|OTHER|Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by primary tumor site, tumor stage, and PD-L1 status.|Difference in Least Square Means|-2.81||||0.2485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.59|1.97||Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model.|cLDA model|||||1.97|-7.59|0.2485
90868568|NCT03765918|181599847|OTHER|Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by primary tumor site, tumor stage, and PD-L1 status.|Difference in Least Square Means|-3.03||||0.1364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.03|0.96||Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model.|cLDA model|||||0.96|-7.03|0.1364
90868569|NCT03765918|181599853|SUPERIORITY|Hazard ratio (HR) and associated 95% confidence interval (CI) were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by primary tumor site and tumor stage.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.00411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.92|||Stratified Log Rank|One-sided p-value was based on log-rank test stratified by primary tumor site and tumor stage.||||0.92|0.58|0.00411
90868570|NCT03765918|181599854|SUPERIORITY|HR and associated 95% CI were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by primary tumor site and tumor stage.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.00217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.88|||Stratified Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by primary tumor site and tumor stage.||||0.88|0.49|0.00217
90868571|NCT03765918|181599855|SUPERIORITY|HR and associated 95% CI were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by primary tumor site and tumor stage.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.89|||Stratified Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by primary tumor site and tumor stage.||||0.89|0.55|0.00140
90868572|NCT00299975|181599874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared test from Crosstabs analysis.||||||<0.05
90868573|NCT00299975|181599875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared test from Crosstabs analysis.||||||<0.05
90868574|NCT00299975|181599876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
90868575|NCT00299975|181599877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
90910540|NCT00383188|181691280|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.911|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.196||0.1106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.259|0.438|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline tender/ joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.438|-4.259|0.1106
90910541|NCT00383188|181691280|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.251|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.048||0.8107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.307|1.805|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 16 as an interaction term, baseline tender/ joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||1.805|-2.307|0.8107
90910542|NCT00383188|181691280|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.272|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.017||0.7895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.726|2.269|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 16 as an interaction term, baseline tender/ joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||2.269|-1.726|0.7895
90910543|NCT00383188|181691280|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.306|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.206||0.7996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.673|2.06|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 16 as an interaction term, baseline tender/ joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||2.060|-2.673|0.7996
90960499|NCT00427895|181801605|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|2.42||||||Serotype 5: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures in 13vPnC participants between Cohort 1 and Cohort 3.||2.42|1.55|
90868576|NCT00299975|181599878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared test from Crosstabs analysis was implemented between three treatment groups in each time frame.||||||<0.05
90868577|NCT00299975|181599879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
90868578|NCT00299975|181599880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
90868579|NCT00299975|181599881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
90868580|NCT00299975|181599882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
90868581|NCT00299975|181599883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
90868582|NCT00299975|181599884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
90868583|NCT00299975|181599886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Paired-Samples T Test|Paired-Samples T Test was implemented between pre-treatment (Wk2) and post-treatment (Wk10) of each treatment group.||||||<0.05
90868584|NCT00299975|181599887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Paired-Samples T Test|Paired-Samples T Test was implemented between pre-treatment (Wk2) and post-treatment (Wk10) of each treatment group.||||||<0.05
90868585|NCT00299975|181599888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Paired-Samples T Test|Paired-Samples T Test was implemented between pre-treatment (Wk2) and post-treatment (Wk10) of each treatment group.||||||<0.05
90868586|NCT00299975|181599889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Paired-Samples T Test|Paired-Samples T Test was implemented between pre-treatment (Wk2) and post-treatment (Wk10) of each treatment group.||||||<0.05
90868587|NCT04380116|181599891|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.366|||||||ANOVA|||||||.366
90868588|NCT00036270|181599951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.03|||Log Rank|Log rank (Mantel-Cox). Adjusted for overall stratification factor; 1 degree of freedom.|A hazard ratio less than 1 favors the test treatment (exemestane only arm).|"Analysis at 2.75 years post-randomization. Null hypothesis: no difference in DFS between the two treatments for the first 2.75 years.~To maintain overall alpha of 0.05, 2 adjustments made: first, a nominal alpha of 0.0302 was used for the primary endpoint. Second, level of significant was 0.0012 for interim analysis."||1.03|0.77|0.118
90868589|NCT00036270|181599952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.08|||Log Rank|Log rank (Mantel-Cox). Adjusted for overall stratification factor; 1 degree of freedom.|A hazard ratio less than 1 favors the test treatment (exemestane only arm).|"Analysis at 5 years post-randomization. Null hypothesis: no difference in DFS between the two treatments for the first 5 years.~To maintain overall alpha of 0.05, a nominal alpha of 0.0302 was used."||1.08|0.88|0.604
90868590|NCT00036270|181599953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.14|||Log Rank|Log rank (Mantel-Cox). Adjusted for overall stratification factor; 1 degree of freedom.|A hazard ratio less than 1 favors the test treatment (exemestane only arm).|Analysis at 5 years post-randomization. Null hypothesis: no difference in OS between the two treatments for the first 5 years. Overall alpha of 0.05 was maintained.||1.14|0.89|0.951
90868591|NCT00036270|181599955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.06|||Log Rank|Log rank (Mantel-Cox). Adjusted for overall stratification factor; 1 degree of freedom.|A hazard ratio less than 1 favors the test treatment (exemestane only arm).|Analysis at 5 years post-randomization. Null hypothesis: no difference in time to relapse between the two treatments for the first 5 years. Overall alpha of 0.05 was maintained.||1.06|0.83|0.293
90868592|NCT01370356|181599957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.09|12.53||Statistical test was 2-sided and a 0.05 level of significance was used. A fixed-sequence procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity. Hierarchy of comparisons: 1) 10-week CA for Weeks 15 - 24, 2) CA for Weeks 21 - 24, 3) CA for Weeks 21 - 52.|Regression, Logistic|||Assuming true CA rate of 6.9% for placebo and 17.2% for varenicline (odds ratio ≥ 2.8), a study randomizing 1404 participants (1:1 ratio) has ≥90% power to detect a difference between the two groups. Analysis was done using a logistic regression model; treatment effect as explanatory variable and investigative center as covariate. The interaction effect was tested using an expanded logistic regression model including treatment-by-center interaction.||12.53|6.09|<0.0001
90868593|NCT01370356|181599958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.21|7.61||Statistical test was 2-sided and a 0.05 level of significance was used. A fixed-sequence procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity. Hierarchy of comparisons: 1) 10-week CA for Weeks 15 - 24, 2) CA for Weeks 21 - 24, 3) CA for Weeks 21 - 52.|Regression, Logistic|||Analysis was done using a logistic regression model including treatment effect as the explanatory variable and investigative center as covariate. In addition, the interaction effect was tested using an expanded logistic regression model including the treatment-by-center interaction. However, the inferences reported were based on the logistic regression model including only the main effects of treatment and center, regardless of the significance of the treatment by center interaction.||7.61|4.21|<0.0001
90868594|NCT01370356|181599959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.94|5.5||Statistical test was 2-sided and a 0.05 level of significance was used. A fixed-sequence procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity. Hierarchy of comparisons: 1) 10-week CA for Weeks 15 - 24, 2) CA for Weeks 21 - 24, 3) CA for Weeks 21 - 52.|Regression, Logistic|||Analysis was done using a logistic regression model including treatment effect as the explanatory variable and investigative center as covariate. In addition, the interaction effect was tested using an expanded logistic regression model including the treatment-by-center interaction. However, the inferences reported were based on the logistic regression model including only the main effects of treatment and center, regardless of the significance of the treatment by center interaction.||5.50|2.94|<0.0001
90868595|NCT01370356|181599960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.03|12.51||Statistical test was 2-sided and a 0.05 level of significance was used.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis presented above is for Week 12. Analysis was done using logistic regression model with treatment effect as the explanatory variable and investigative center as covariate. The interaction effect was tested using an expanded logistic regression model with treatment-by-center interaction. The inferences reported were based on the logistic regression model including only the main effects of treatment and center, regardless of the significance of treatment by center interaction.||12.51|6.03|<0.0001
90910544|NCT00383188|181691280|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.185|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.235||0.8811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.24|2.61|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 16 as an interaction term, baseline tender/ joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||2.610|-2.240|0.8811
90868596|NCT01370356|181599960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.51|5.98||Statistical test was 2-sided and a 0.05 level of significance was used.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis presented above is for Week 24. Analysis was done using logistic regression model with treatment effect as the explanatory variable and investigative center as covariate. The interaction effect was tested using an expanded logistic regression model with treatment-by-center interaction. The inferences reported were based on the logistic regression model including only the main effects of treatment and center, regardless of the significance of treatment by center interaction.||5.98|3.51|<0.0001
90868597|NCT01370356|181599960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.05|3.44||Statistical test was 2-sided and a 0.05 level of significance was used.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis presented above is for Week 52. Analysis was done using logistic regression model with treatment effect as the explanatory variable and investigative center as covariate. The interaction effect was tested using an expanded logistic regression model with treatment-by-center interaction. The inferences reported were based on the logistic regression model including only the main effects of treatment and center, regardless of the significance of treatment by center interaction.||3.44|2.05|<0.0001
90971027|NCT03016325|181824578|SUPERIORITY|Part II (high dose), symptoms of hypotension - relative difference|Relative difference from placebo|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.16||||||||0.16|-0.01|
90971028|NCT03016325|181824578|SUPERIORITY|Part II (high dose), confirmed SBP \< 90 mmHg - relative risk|Relative risk from placebo|1.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|3.21||||||||3.21|0.87|
90868598|NCT01370356|181599961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.67|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.05|3.47||Statistical test was 2-sided and a 0.05 level of significance was used.|Regression, Logistic|||Analysis was done using a logistic regression model including treatment effect as the explanatory variable and investigative center as covariate. In addition, the interaction effect was tested using an expanded logistic regression model including the treatment-by-center interaction. However, the inferences reported were based on the logistic regression model including only the main effects of treatment and center, regardless of the significance of the treatment by center interaction.||3.47|2.05|<0.0001
90868599|NCT01218243|181599966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.67|6.36|||ANCOVA|||||6.36|2.67|< 0.01
90868600|NCT01218243|181599967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.6|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.76|16.44|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||16.44|-9.76|>0.05
90868601|NCT01218243|181599968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.184|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|1.78|||ANCOVA|||||1.78|-1.41|> 0.05
90910545|NCT00383188|181691281|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.687|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.886||0.4385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.427|1.053|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline tender/ joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||1.053|-2.427|0.4385
90910546|NCT00383188|181691281|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.085|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.2131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.794|0.624|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline tender/ joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.624|-2.794|0.2131
90868602|NCT01218243|181599969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|5.05|||ANCOVA|||||5.05|1.36|< 0.01
90868603|NCT01218243|181599970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.07|6.18|||ANCOVA|||||6.18|2.07|<0.01
90910547|NCT00383188|181691281|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.013||0.1216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.559|0.419|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline tender/ joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.419|-3.559|0.1216
90910548|NCT00383188|181691281|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.675|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.046||0.519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.728|1.378|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline tender/ joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||1.378|-2.728|0.5190
90910549|NCT00383188|181691281|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.464|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88||0.0967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.193|0.264|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline swollen joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.264|-3.193|0.0967
90910550|NCT00383188|181691281|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.027|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.863||0.2346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.721|0.668|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline swollen joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.668|-2.721|0.2346
90910551|NCT00383188|181691281|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.658|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.007||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.635|0.318|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline swollen joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.318|-3.635|0.1000
90971029|NCT03016325|181824578|SUPERIORITY|Part II (high dose), confirmed SBP \< 90 mmHg - relative difference|Relative difference from placebo|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.25||||||||0.25|-0.04|
90868604|NCT03129100|181599987|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.03|9.35|||Regression, Logistic|||||9.35|2.03|<0.001
90868605|NCT03129100|181599988|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.28||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|11.03|||Regression, Logistic|||||11.03|1.66|0.003
90868606|NCT03129100|181599988|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.42||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|11.02|||Regression, Logistic|||||11.02|1.77|0.001
90868607|NCT03129100|181599990|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.51||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|11.41|||Regression, Logistic|||||11.41|1.78|0.001
90868608|NCT03129100|181599990|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.88|11.31|||Regression, Logistic|||||11.31|1.88|<0.001
90868609|NCT03129100|181599991|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.11|12.69|||Regression, Logistic|||||12.69|2.11|<0.001
90868610|NCT03129100|181599991|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|12.47|||Regression, Logistic|||||12.47|2.20|<0.001
90868611|NCT03129100|181599992|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|11.17|||Regression, Logistic|||||11.17|1.90|<0.001
90868612|NCT03129100|181599992|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.55||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|8.09|||Regression, Logistic|||||8.09|1.56|0.003
90868613|NCT03129100|181599993|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.07|11.72|||Regression, Logistic|||||11.72|2.07|<0.001
90868614|NCT03129100|181599993|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.61||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|8.32|||Regression, Logistic|||||8.32|1.57|0.003
90868615|NCT03129100|181599994|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-1.1|||ANCOVA|||Patient Global||-1.1|-3.1|<0.001
90868616|NCT03129100|181599994|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-1.0|||ANCOVA|||Patient Global||-1.0|-2.9|<0.001
90868617|NCT03129100|181599994|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-1.0|||ANCOVA|||Spinal Pain||-1.0|-3.1|<0.001
90868618|NCT03129100|181599994|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-0.8|||ANCOVA|||Spinal Pain||-0.8|-2.8|<0.001
90868619|NCT03129100|181599994|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.421|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.39|-0.72|||ANCOVA|||BASFI||-0.72|-2.39|<0.001
90868620|NCT03129100|181599994|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.409|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.59|||ANCOVA|||BASFI||-0.59|-2.20|<0.001
90868621|NCT03129100|181599994|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.448|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.05|-1.28|||ANCOVA|||Inflammation||-1.28|-3.05|<0.001
90868622|NCT03129100|181599994|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.433|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.66|-0.95|||ANCOVA|||Inflammation||-0.95|-2.66|<0.001
90868623|NCT03129100|181599995|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.13|13.35|||Regression, Logistic|||||13.35|2.13|<0.001
90971030|NCT03016325|181824578|SUPERIORITY|Part II-Japan (low dose), clinically relevant hypotension - relative difference|Relative difference from placebo|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.78||||||||0.78|-0.17|
90868624|NCT03129100|181599995|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.07||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.75|9.45|||Regression, Logistic|||||9.45|1.75|0.001
90868625|NCT03129100|181599996|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.858|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9586|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.729|-3.987|||ANCOVA|||||-3.987|-11.729|<0.001
90868626|NCT03129100|181599996|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.979|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.655|-2.304|||ANCOVA|||||-2.304|-9.655|0.002
90868627|NCT03129100|181599997|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.104||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.01|||ANCOVA|||||0.01|-0.40|0.062
90868628|NCT03129100|181599997|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||||-0.04|-0.43|0.018
90868629|NCT03129100|181599998|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.335||0.757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.77|||ANCOVA|||||0.77|-0.56|0.757
90868630|NCT03129100|181599998|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.322||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.5|||ANCOVA|||||0.50|-0.77|0.670
90868631|NCT03129100|181599999|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.338||0.236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|0.27|||ANCOVA|||||0.27|-1.07|0.236
90868632|NCT03129100|181599999|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.319||0.373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.35|||ANCOVA|||||0.35|-0.92|0.373
90868633|NCT03129100|181600000|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.459||0.885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.85|||ANCOVA|||||0.85|-0.98|0.885
90868634|NCT03129100|181600000|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.68|||ANCOVA|||||0.68|-0.95|0.735
90868635|NCT03129100|181600001|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.501||0.294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|0.47|||ANCOVA|||||0.47|-1.53|0.294
90868636|NCT03129100|181600001|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.453||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|0.27|||ANCOVA|||||0.27|-1.54|0.164
90868637|NCT03129100|181600002|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-4.3|0.063
90868638|NCT03129100|181600002|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02||0.211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|0.7|||ANCOVA|||||0.7|-3.3|0.211
90868639|NCT03129100|181600003|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|0.9|||ANCOVA|||||0.9|-2.7|0.334
90868640|NCT03129100|181600003|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|0.5|||ANCOVA|||||0.5|-3.0|0.168
90868641|NCT03129100|181600005|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-1.5|0.100
90868642|NCT03129100|181600005|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||-0.0|-1.5|0.047
90868643|NCT03129100|181600006|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.479||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|0.06|||ANCOVA|||||0.06|-1.83|0.068
90868644|NCT03129100|181600006|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.465||0.307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.44|||ANCOVA|||||0.44|-1.40|0.307
90868645|NCT03129100|181600007|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.6021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4684||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3011|5.5053|||ANCOVA|||||5.5053|-0.3011|0.079
90868646|NCT03129100|181600007|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.4096|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3978||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3541|5.1734|||ANCOVA|||||5.1734|-0.3541|0.087
90868647|NCT03129100|181600008|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.837|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1752||0.477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4864|3.1605|||ANCOVA|||||3.1605|-1.4864|0.477
90868648|NCT03129100|181600008|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.3009|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1192||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.088|4.5138|||ANCOVA|||||4.5138|0.0880|0.042
90868649|NCT03129100|181600009|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|0.04|||ANCOVA|||||0.04|-2.02|0.058
90868650|NCT03129100|181600009|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.497||0.147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|0.26|||ANCOVA|||||0.26|-1.71|0.147
90910552|NCT00383188|181691281|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.805|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.038||0.4385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.844|1.234|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline swollen joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||1.234|-2.844|0.4385
90868651|NCT03129100|181600010|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0418|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0334||0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0329|0.1164|||ANCOVA|||||0.1164|-0.0329|0.213
90868652|NCT03129100|181600010|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0388|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0319||0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0324|0.1101|||ANCOVA|||||0.1101|-0.0324|0.225
90868653|NCT03129100|181600011|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-10.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.383||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.28|-1.95|||ANCOVA|||Percentage of Activity Impairment||-1.95|-19.28|0.017
90868654|NCT03129100|181600011|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.199||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.44|1.16|||ANCOVA|||Percentage of Activity Impairment||1.16|-15.44|0.091
90868655|NCT03129100|181600012|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.9|||ANCOVA|||||0.9|-1.7|0.531
90868656|NCT03129100|181600012|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.0|||ANCOVA|||||1.0|-1.4|0.743
90868657|NCT03789474|181600015|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.443|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.443
90868658|NCT03789474|181600016|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.063|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.063
90868659|NCT03789474|181600017|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.057|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.057
90868660|NCT03789474|181600018|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.038
90868661|NCT03789474|181600019|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.072|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.072
90868662|NCT03789474|181600020|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.189|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.189
90868663|NCT03789474|181600021|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.358|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.358
90868664|NCT03789474|181600022|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.406|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.406
90868665|NCT03789474|181600023|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.256|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.256
90868666|NCT03789474|181600024|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.066|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.066
90868667|NCT03789474|181600025|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.316|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.316
90868668|NCT03789474|181600026|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.971|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.971
90868669|NCT03789474|181600027|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.030
90868670|NCT03789474|181600028|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.009
90868671|NCT03789474|181600029|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.704|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.704
90868672|NCT03789474|181600030|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.350
90868673|NCT03789474|181600031|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.708|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.708
90868674|NCT03789474|181600032|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.711|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.711
90868675|NCT03789474|181600033|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.956|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.956
90868676|NCT03789474|181600034|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.139|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.139
90868677|NCT03789474|181600035|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.035
90868678|NCT03789474|181600036|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.502|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.502
90868679|NCT03789474|181600037|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.350
90868680|NCT03789474|181600038|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.380
90868681|NCT03789474|181600039|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.914|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.914
90868682|NCT03789474|181600040|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.915|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.915
90868683|NCT03789474|181600041|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.087|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.087
90868684|NCT03789474|181600042|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.011
90868685|NCT03789474|181600043|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.207|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.207
90868686|NCT03789474|181600044|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.142|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.142
90868687|NCT03789474|181600045|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.021|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.021
90868688|NCT03789474|181600046|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0001
90868689|NCT03789474|181600047|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.030
90868690|NCT03789474|181600048|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.048|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.048
90868691|NCT03789474|181600049|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.047|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.047
90868692|NCT03789474|181600050|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.019
90868693|NCT03789474|181600051|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.000
90868694|NCT03789474|181600052|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.004
90868695|NCT03789474|181600053|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.020
90868696|NCT03789474|181600054|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.000
90868697|NCT03789474|181600055|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.053|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.053
90868698|NCT03789474|181600056|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.746|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.746
90868699|NCT03789474|181600057|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.006
90868700|NCT03789474|181600058|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.003
90868701|NCT03789474|181600059|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.043
90868702|NCT03789474|181600060|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.160
90868703|NCT02010775|181600100|OTHER||Least Squares Mean (LS) Mean Difference|-3.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.58|-2.19|||ANOVA|ANOVA model with treatment, and baseline MMPS grade as factors.||||-2.19|-5.58|< 0.001
90868704|NCT02010775|181600100|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.02|-4.62|||ANOVA|ANOVA model with treatment, and baseline MMPS grade as factors.||||-4.62|-8.02|<0.001
90868705|NCT02010775|181600100|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.56|-5.22|||ANOVA|ANOVA model with treatment, and baseline MMPS grade as factors.||||-5.22|-8.56|<0.001
90868706|NCT02010775|181600100|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.35|-6.0|||ANOVA|ANOVA model with treatment, and baseline MMPS grade as factors.||||-6.00|-9.35|<0.001
90868707|NCT02010775|181600101|OTHER||Percentage Difference|31.5||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.8|53.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-values for between-treatment comparisons were determined using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) tests stratified by baseline MMPS.||||53.3|9.8|0.008
90868708|NCT02010775|181600101|OTHER||Percentage Difference|48.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.6|67.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-values for between-treatment comparisons were determined using CMH tests stratified by baseline MMPS.||||67.8|28.6|< 0.001
90868709|NCT02010775|181600101|OTHER||Percentage Difference|54.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.1|72.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-values for between-treatment comparisons were determined using CMH tests stratified by baseline MMPS.||||72.6|36.1|< 0.001
90868710|NCT02010775|181600101|OTHER||Percentage Difference|54.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.1|72.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-values for between-treatment comparisons were determined using CMH tests stratified by baseline MMPS.||||72.6|36.1|<0.001
90868711|NCT01362205|181600118|OTHER|||||||0.2454|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2454
90910553|NCT00383188|181691281|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.599|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88||0.0696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.327|0.128|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline swollen joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.128|-3.327|0.0696
90910554|NCT00383188|181691281|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.863||0.0642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.294|0.094|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline swollen joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.094|-3.294|0.0642
90868712|NCT02207244|181600129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|||||||< 0.001
90868713|NCT02207244|181600130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|||||||< 0.001
90868714|NCT02207244|181600131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|||||||< 0.001
90868715|NCT02207244|181600132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|||||||< 0.001
90868716|NCT02207244|181600133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|||||||< 0.001
90868717|NCT02207244|181600134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||p value is based on the log-rank test stratified by investigator site (pooled).||||< 0.001
90868718|NCT02207244|181600135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||p value is based on analysis of variance (ANOVA) model stratified by investigator site (pooled).||||< 0.001
90868719|NCT02207244|181600136|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|non-inferiority margin= -10.0%|Difference in Percentage|16.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|23.2|||MH Z-test|||p value is based on 1-sided Mantel Haenszel (MH) Z-test adjusted for investigator site (pooled).||23.2|10.0|< 0.001
90868720|NCT02207244|181600136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|||p value is based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by investigator site (pooled).||||< 0.001
90868721|NCT02207244|181600137|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|non-inferiority margin= -10.0%|Difference in Percentage|23.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.0|30.4|||MH Z-test|||p value is based on 1-sided MH Z-test adjusted for investigator site (pooled).||30.4|16.0|< 0.001
90868722|NCT02207244|181600137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|||p value is based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by investigator site (pooled).||||< 0.001
90868723|NCT02207244|181600138|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|non-inferiority margin= -10%|Difference in percentage|17.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.4|24.4|||MH Z-test|||p value is based on 1-sided MH Z-test adjusted for investigator site (pooled).||24.4|11.4|< 0.001
90868724|NCT02207244|181600138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|||p value is based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by investigator site (pooled).||||< 0.001
90868725|NCT02207244|181600139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|||p value is based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by investigator site (pooled).||||< 0.001
90868726|NCT02207244|181600140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||p value is based on ANOVA model stratified by investigator site (pooled).||||< 0.001
90868727|NCT02207244|181600141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|||p value is based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by investigator site (pooled).||||< 0.001
90868728|NCT03791489|181600151|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
90868729|NCT03791489|181600152|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.03||||||Threshold for statistical significance = p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.03
90868730|NCT02854631|181600199|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|P-value from 2-sided Fisher's exact test was used to explore differences between treatment groups in the percentage of participants with an event.||||||1.00
90868731|NCT02854631|181600200|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.061|||||||Fisher Exact|P-value from 2-sided Fisher's exact test was used to explore differences between treatment groups in the percentage of participants with an event.||||||0.061
90868732|NCT02854631|181600201|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Fisher Exact|P-value from 2-sided Fisher's exact test was used to explore differences between treatment groups in the percentage of participants with an event.||||||0.060
90868733|NCT02854631|181600202|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22||||||P-value from 2-sided Fisher's exact test was used to explore differences between treatment groups in the percentage of participants with an event.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.22
90868734|NCT02854631|181600218|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Fisher Exact|Fisher's exact test (2-sided) was used to explore differences between groups in the percentage of participants with response/non-response.||||||0.30
90868735|NCT02142959|181600258|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference Final Values|-0.1||||0.237|TWO_SIDED|65.0|-0.2|0.0||Omaveloxolone treatment arms were compared with Vehicle Lotion using a hierarchical testing strategy to control the overall type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed factors: treatment grp \& wk of visit; covariates of site, smoking status \& surgery. Missing data imputed using each patient's worst-observation.||Comparison of omaveloxolone lotion pooled (0.5% and 3%) versus vehicle lotion||0.0|-0.2|0.237
90868736|NCT02142959|181600258|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference Final Values|-0.1|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.0||Omaveloxolone treatment arms were compared with Vehicle Lotion using a hierarchical testing strategy to control the overall type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed factor: treatment grp \& visit wk; Covariates: site, smoking status \& breast surgery. Missing data imputed using each patient's worst-observation||Comparison of Omaveloxolone Lotion 0.5% versus Vehicle Lotion||0.0|-0.2|>0.05
90868737|NCT02142959|181600258|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference Final Values|0.0|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed factor: treatment grp \& visit wk; Covariates: site, smoking status \& breast surgery. Missing data imputed using each patient's worst-observation||Comparison of Omaveloxolone Lotion 3% versus Vehicle Lotion||0.1|-0.1|>0.05
90868738|NCT01753856|181600265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group as the main effect and baseline MS/BS as a covariate.||||||<0.001
90910555|NCT00383188|181691281|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.007||0.0695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.807|0.146|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline swollen joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.146|-3.807|0.0695
90910556|NCT00383188|181691281|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.493|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.038||0.6349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.532|1.545|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline swollen joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||1.545|-2.532|0.6349
90910557|NCT00383188|181691281|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.176|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88||0.1818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.903|0.551|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline swollen joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.551|-2.903|0.1818
90910558|NCT00383188|181691281|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.268|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.862||0.1421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.961|0.426|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline swollen joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.426|-2.961|0.1421
90910559|NCT00383188|181691281|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.898|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.006||0.3726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.874|1.078|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline swollen joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||1.078|-2.874|0.3726
90910560|NCT00383188|181691281|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.701|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.038||0.4995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.739|1.337|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline swollen joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||1.337|-2.739|0.4995
90910561|NCT00383188|181691281|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.601|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.879||0.0691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.327|0.126|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline swollen joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.126|-3.327|0.0691
90868739|NCT01753856|181600266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||DL and SL, in CC.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
90868740|NCT01753856|181600266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||SL Only, in CC.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.002
90868741|NCT01753856|181600266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.494|TWO_SIDED|||||No Label, in CC.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.494
90868742|NCT01753856|181600266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||DL and SL, in EC.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.001
90868743|NCT01753856|181600266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|||||SL Only, in EC.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.027
90868744|NCT01753856|181600266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.118|TWO_SIDED|||||No Label, in EC.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.118
90868745|NCT01753856|181600266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||DL and SL, in IC.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
90868746|NCT01753856|181600266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||SL Only, in IC.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.001
90868747|NCT01753856|181600266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|||||No Label, in IC.|Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
90868748|NCT01753856|181600266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||DL and SL, in PC.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.002
90868749|NCT01753856|181600266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||SL Only, in PC.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
90868750|NCT01753856|181600266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||No Label, in PC.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
90868751|NCT01753856|181600267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||EC.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as the main effect and baseline MS/BS as a covariate.||||||<0.001
90868752|NCT01753856|181600267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||IC.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as the main effect and baseline MS/BS as a covariate.||||||<0.001
90868753|NCT01753856|181600267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||PC.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as the main effect and baseline MS/BS as a covariate.||||||<0.001
90868754|NCT01753856|181600268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||CC.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90868755|NCT01753856|181600268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||EC.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90868756|NCT01753856|181600268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||IC.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90868757|NCT01753856|181600268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||PC.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90868758|NCT01753856|181600269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|||||Remodeling-Based Bone Formation in the CC.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.740
90868759|NCT01753856|181600269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|||||Modeling-Based Bone Formation in the CC.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.740
90868760|NCT01753856|181600269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|||||Remodeling-Based Bone Formation in the EC.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.008
90868761|NCT01753856|181600269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|||||Modeling-Based Bone Formation in the EC.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.008
90868762|NCT01753856|181600269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.661|TWO_SIDED|||||Remodeling-Based Bone Formation in the PC.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.661
90910562|NCT00383188|181691281|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.086|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.862||0.2083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.778|0.607|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline swollen joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.607|-2.778|0.2083
90910563|NCT00383188|181691281|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.836|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.006||0.4063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.811|1.139|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline swollen joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||1.139|-2.811|0.4063
90910564|NCT00383188|181691281|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.196|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.038||0.8501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.234|1.841|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline swollen joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||1.841|-2.234|0.8501
90910565|NCT00383188|181691281|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.376|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.904||0.6778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.399|2.15|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 16 as an interaction term, baseline swollen joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||2.150|-1.399|0.6778
90971031|NCT03016325|181824578|SUPERIORITY|Part II-Japan (low dose), confirmed SBP \< 90 mmHg - relative difference|Relative difference from placebo|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.78||||||||0.78|-0.17|
90868763|NCT01753856|181600269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.661|TWO_SIDED|||||Modeling-Based Bone Formation in the PC.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.661
90868764|NCT01753856|181600271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||CC.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90868765|NCT01753856|181600271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||EC.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90868766|NCT01753856|181600271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|||||PC.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.740
90868767|NCT01753856|181600272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||CC.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.||||||<0.001
90868768|NCT01753856|181600272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|||||EC.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.||||||0.004
90868769|NCT01753856|181600272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||IC.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.||||||<0.001
90868770|NCT01753856|181600272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|||||PC.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.||||||0.850
90868771|NCT01753856|181600273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|||||DL Only, in CC.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.||||||0.004
90868772|NCT01753856|181600273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||DL and Imputed SL, in the CC.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.||||||<0.001
90868773|NCT01753856|181600273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||DL Only, in EC.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.||||||<0.001
90868774|NCT01753856|181600273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||DL and Imputed SL, in EC.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.||||||<0.001
90868775|NCT01753856|181600273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||DL Only, in IC.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.||||||<0.001
90868776|NCT01753856|181600273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||DL and Imputed SL, in IC.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.||||||<0.001
90868777|NCT01753856|181600273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.931|TWO_SIDED|||||DL Only, in PC.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.||||||0.931
90868778|NCT01753856|181600273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.549|TWO_SIDED|||||DL and Imputed SL, in PC.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.||||||0.549
90868779|NCT01753856|181600274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||DL Only, in CC.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.||||||<0.001
90868780|NCT01753856|181600274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||DL and Imputed SL, in CC.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.||||||<0.001
90868781|NCT01753856|181600274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||DL Only, in EC.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.||||||<0.001
90868782|NCT01753856|181600274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||DL and Imputed SL, in EC.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.||||||<0.001
90868783|NCT01753856|181600274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||DL Only, in IC.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.||||||<0.001
90868784|NCT01753856|181600274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||DL and Imputed SL, in IC.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.||||||<0.001
90960500|NCT00427895|181801605|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.84|2.67||||||Serotype 6A: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures in 13vPnC participants between Cohort 1 and Cohort 3.||2.67|1.84|
90960501|NCT00427895|181801605|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.13|5.93||||||Serotype 6B: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures in 13vPnC participants between Cohort 1 and Cohort 3.||5.93|4.13|
90960502|NCT00427895|181801605|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.41|3.49||||||Serotype 7F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures in 13vPnC participants between Cohort 1 and Cohort 3.||3.49|2.41|
90971032|NCT03016325|181824578|SUPERIORITY|Part II-Japan (high dose), clinically relevant hypotension - relative difference|Relative difference from placebo|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.88||||||||0.88|-0.04|
90868785|NCT01753856|181600274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||DL Only, in PC.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.||||||<0.001
90868786|NCT01753856|181600274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||DL and Imputed SL, in PC.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.||||||<0.001
90868787|NCT01753856|181600275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||sLS/BS, in CC.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.||||||<0.001
90868788|NCT01753856|181600275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||dLS/BS, in CC.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.||||||<0.001
90868789|NCT01753856|181600275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||sLS/BS, in EC.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.||||||<0.001
90868790|NCT01753856|181600275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||dLS/BS, in EC.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.||||||<0.001
90868791|NCT01753856|181600275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||sLS/BS, in IC.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.||||||<0.001
90868792|NCT01753856|181600275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||dLS/BS, in IC.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.||||||<0.001
90868793|NCT01753856|181600275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||sLS/BS, in PC.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.||||||<0.001
90868794|NCT01753856|181600275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|||||dLS/BS, in PC.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.||||||0.028
90868795|NCT01753856|181600276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||1 month.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90868796|NCT01753856|181600276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||3 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90868797|NCT01753856|181600276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||6 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90868798|NCT01753856|181600277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||1 month.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90868799|NCT01753856|181600277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||3 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90868800|NCT01753856|181600277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||6 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90868801|NCT01753856|181600278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||1 month.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90868802|NCT01753856|181600278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||3 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90868803|NCT01753856|181600278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||6 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90868804|NCT01753856|181600279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||1 month.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90868805|NCT01753856|181600279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||3 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90868806|NCT01753856|181600279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||6 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90868807|NCT01753856|181600280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||DL Only, in CC.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90868808|NCT01753856|181600280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||DL and Imputed SL, in CC.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90868809|NCT01753856|181600280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||DL Only, in EC.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90868810|NCT01753856|181600280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||DL and Imputed SL, in EC.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90868811|NCT01753856|181600280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||DL Only, in IC.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90868812|NCT01753856|181600280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||DL and Imputed SL, in IC.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90868813|NCT01753856|181600281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||DL Only, in CC.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
90868814|NCT01753856|181600281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||DL and Imputed SL, in CC.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90868815|NCT01753856|181600281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.214|TWO_SIDED|||||DL Only, in EC.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.214
90868816|NCT01753856|181600281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|||||DL and Imputed SL, in EC.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.031
90960503|NCT00427895|181801605|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.34|3.52||||||Serotype 9V: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures in 13vPnC participants between Cohort 1 and Cohort 3.||3.52|2.34|
90868817|NCT01753856|181600281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||DL Only, in IC.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90868818|NCT01753856|181600281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||DL and Imputed SL, in IC.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90868819|NCT01753856|181600282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90868820|NCT01753856|181600283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||CC.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90868821|NCT01753856|181600283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||EC.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90868822|NCT01753856|181600283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||IC.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90868823|NCT01753856|181600284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||CC.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90868824|NCT01753856|181600284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||EC.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90868825|NCT01753856|181600284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||IC.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90868826|NCT01753856|181600285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Average length of DLs in the CC|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as the main effect and baseline MS/BS as a covariate.||||||<0.001
90868827|NCT01753856|181600285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|||||Average length of double labels in EC|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as the main effect and baseline MS/BS as a covariate.||||||0.004
90868828|NCT01753856|181600285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Average length of double labels in IC|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as the main effect and baseline MS/BS as a covariate.||||||<0.001
90868829|NCT01753856|181600285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|||||Average length of double labels in the PC|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as the main effect and baseline MS/BS as a covariate.||||||0.850
90868830|NCT01753856|181600286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||CC.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90868831|NCT01753856|181600286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|||||EC.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.042
90868832|NCT01753856|181600286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.678|TWO_SIDED|||||IC.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.678
90868833|NCT01753856|181600287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||CC|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90868834|NCT01753856|181600287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||EC|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90868835|NCT01753856|181600287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||IC|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90868836|NCT01852110|181600297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.7623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.37|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||1.37|-1.00|0.7623
90868837|NCT01852110|181600301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.9604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.42|2.54|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||2.54|-2.42|0.9604
90868838|NCT01852110|181600302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.0829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.22|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||0.22|-0.01|0.0829
90868839|NCT00842712|181600327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.718||||0.0845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.492|1.048|||Log Rank|||PFS Time: Independent read||1.048|0.492|0.0845
90868840|NCT00842712|181600328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.909||||0.5912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.642|1.286|||Log Rank|||||1.286|0.642|0.5912
90868841|NCT00842712|181600329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.813||||0.2648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.564|1.171|||Log Rank|||||1.171|0.564|0.2648
90868842|NCT00279591|181600354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.03
90868843|NCT00903695|181600360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8133||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.01 (multiple comparisons)|ANOVA|"DF = 6~ANOVA calculation: F-ratio = 0.06, t-test = -0.25."||ANOVA used to detect significant difference in test scores between baseline and end assessments, by study arm (nutriceutical vs placebo).||||0.8133
90868844|NCT00903695|181600361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31||||||a priori threshold for statistical sginficance = 0.01 (multiple comparisons)|ANOVA|"DF = 6~ANOVA calculation: F-ratio=1.22, t-test=1.1"||ANOVA used to detect significant difference in test scores between baseline and end assessments, by study arm (nutriceutical vs placebo).||||0.31
90868845|NCT00903695|181600362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.01 (multiple comparisons)|ANOVA|"DF = 6~ANOVA: F-ratio = 1.5, t-test = -1.23"||ANOVA used to detect significant difference in test scores between baseline and end assessments, by study arm (nutriceutical vs placebo).||||0.27
90868846|NCT00903695|181600363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.01 (multiple comparisons)|ANOVA|"DF = 6~ANOVA: F-ratio = 1.7, t-test = 1.3"||ANOVA used to detect significant difference in test scores between baseline and end assessments, by study arm (nutriceutical vs placebo).||||0.24
90868847|NCT00903695|181600364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71||95.0||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.01 (multiple comparisons)|ANOVA|"DF = 6~ANOVA: F-ratio = 0.15, t-test = 0.39"||ANOVA used to detect significant difference in test scores between baseline and end assessments, by study arm (nutriceutical vs placebo).||||0.71
90868848|NCT00903695|181600365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.01 (multiple comparisons)|ANOVA|"DF = 6~ANOVA: F-ratio = 2.25, ttest = -1.5"||ANOVA used to detect significant difference in test scores between baseline and end assessments, by study arm (nutriceutical vs placebo).||||0.18
90868849|NCT00903695|181600366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.01 (multiple comparisons)|ANOVA|"DF = 6~ANOVA: F-ratio = 1.06, t-test = -1.03"||ANOVA used to detect significant difference in test scores between baseline and end assessments, by study arm (nutriceutical vs placebo).||||0.34
90868850|NCT01549860|181600367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.024|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.024
90868851|NCT01549860|181600369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0126|TWO_SIDED|||||The MIST+SOC subjects decreased in their reported mean pain scores and reduced from a median of 3.0 to 0.6 cm after four weeks of study treatment.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0126
90868852|NCT00208091|181600447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.06||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||=0.06
90868853|NCT00208091|181600448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.23||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||=0.23
90868854|NCT00869206|181600491|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Based on the published data on the effect of a standard of dosing schedule of \> zoledronic acid compared to placebo, we choose ∆= 7%, πT= 42%, and πS= 35%. With a total of 1230 eligible patients (615 per arm), the probability of rejecting the null hypothesis using a one-sided test is at most 0.05 (Type I error α) when θ≥ 7% and the probability of rejecting the null hypothesis (the power) is at least 82% when θ≤0|||||<=|0.05|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<=.05
90868855|NCT00869206|181600492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.00394|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00962||0.68|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Model is adjusted for tumor type, baseline creatinine, prior SREs, prior bisphosphonates, age, gender, race, BSA, and baseline performance status||||||0.68
90868856|NCT00869206|181600493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.0016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0034||0.64|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for tumor type, baseline creatinine, prior SRE, prior bisphosphonates, age, gender, BSA, race, and baseline performance status||||||0.64
90868857|NCT00869206|181600495|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.7|-0.3|0.10
90868858|NCT00411645|181600507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.902||||0.789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.424|1.92||The p-value is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusting for recipient CMV serostatus (R+ or R-) and transplant type (myeloablative or non-myeloablative/reduced intensity).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio for maribavir versus placebo|||1.920|0.424|0.789
90868859|NCT00411645|181600508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.721||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.515|1.008||The p-value is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusting for recipient CMV serostatus (R+ or R-) and transplant type (myeloablative or non-myeloablative/reduced intensity).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio for maribavir versus placebo|Analysis of pp65 antigenemia assay||1.008|0.515|0.056
90868860|NCT00411645|181600508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.979||||0.904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.697|1.375||The p-value is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusting for recipient CMV serostatus (R+ or R-) and transplant type (myeloablative or non-myeloablative/reduced intensity).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio for maribavir versus placebo|Analysis of CMV DNA PCR assay||1.375|0.697|0.904
90868861|NCT00411645|181600508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.838||||0.289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.606|1.161||The p-value is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusting for recipient CMV serostatus (R+ or R-) and transplant type (myeloablative or non-myeloablative/reduced intensity).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio for maribavir versus placebo|Analysis of pp65 antigenemia or CMV DNA PCR assay||1.161|0.606|0.289
90960504|NCT00427895|181801605|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.01|5.93||||||Serotype 14: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures in 13vPnC participants between Cohort 1 and Cohort 3.||5.93|4.01|
90971033|NCT03016325|181824578|SUPERIORITY|Part II-Japan (high dose), confirmed SBP \< 90 mmHg - relative difference|Relative difference from placebo|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.88||||||||0.88|-0.04|
90868862|NCT00411645|181600508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.891||||0.493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.239||The p-value is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusting for recipient CMV serostatus (R+ or R-) and transplant type (myeloablative or non-myeloablative/reduced intensity).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio for maribavir versus placebo|Analysis of initiation of anti-CMV therapy||1.239|0.640|0.493
90868863|NCT00411645|181600509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.129|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.129
90868864|NCT00411645|181600509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted hazard ratio|0.83||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.06||The p-value from Wald Chi-Square test for treatment effect.|Wald Chi-squared||Maribavir versus placebo; based on Cox's proportional hazards regression model: time = recipient CMV serostatus (R+ or R-) + transplant type (myeloablative or non-myeloablative/reduced intensity) + treatment.|||1.06|0.65|0.130
90868865|NCT00411645|181600510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.542|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusting for recipient CMV serostatus (R+ or R-) and transplant type (myeloablative or non-myeloablative/reduced intensity).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis of 100 days post-transplant||||0.542
90868866|NCT00411645|181600510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.637|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusting for recipient CMV serostatus (R+ or R-) and transplant type (myeloablative or non-myeloablative/reduced intensity).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis of 6 months post-transplant||||0.637
90868867|NCT00411645|181600510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.825|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusting for recipient CMV serostatus (R+ or R-) and transplant type (myeloablative or non-myeloablative/reduced intensity).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis of 12 months post-transplant||||0.825
90868868|NCT00411645|181600511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.669||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.474|0.946||The p-value is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusting for recipient CMV serostatus (R+ or R-) and transplant type (myeloablative or non-myeloablative/reduced intensity).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio for maribavir versus placebo|Analysis of pp65 antigenemia assay||0.946|0.474|0.022
90868869|NCT00411645|181600511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.878||||0.468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.617|1.247||The p-value is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusting for recipient CMV serostatus (R+ or R-) and transplant type (myeloablative or non-myeloablative/reduced intensity).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio for maribavir versus placebo|Analysis of CMV DNA PCR assay||1.247|0.617|0.468
90868870|NCT00411645|181600511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.772||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.555|1.075||The p-value is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusting for recipient CMV serostatus (R+ or R-) and transplant type (myeloablative or non-myeloablative/reduced intensity).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio for maribavir versus placebo|Analysis of pp65 antigenemia assay or CMV DNA PCR assay||1.075|0.555|0.125
90868871|NCT00411645|181600511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.731||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.521|1.026||The p-value is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusting for recipient CMV serostatus (R+ or R-) and transplant type (myeloablative or non-myeloablative/reduced intensity).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio for maribavir versus placebo|Analysis of initiation of anti-CMV therapy||1.026|0.521|0.069
90868872|NCT00411645|181600511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.913||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.332|2.508||The p-value is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusting for recipient CMV serostatus (R+ or R-) and transplant type (myeloablative or non-myeloablative/reduced intensity).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio for maribavir versus placebo|Analysis of EC-confirmed disease||2.508|0.332|0.860
90910566|NCT00383188|181691281|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.508|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.877||0.5627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.214|2.23|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 16 as an interaction term, baseline swollen joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||2.230|-1.214|0.5627
90868873|NCT00411645|181600512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.835||||0.617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.411|1.693||The p-value is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusting for recipient CMV serostatus (R+ or R-) and transplant type (myeloablative or non-myeloablative/reduced intensity).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio for maribavir versus placebo|Analysis of 12 months post-transplant||1.693|0.411|0.617
90868874|NCT00411645|181600513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.048||||0.7808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.754|1.457||The p-value is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusting for recipient CMV serostatus (R+ or R -) and transplant type (myeloablative or non-myeloablative/reduced intensity).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio for maribavir versus placebo|Analysis of 100 days post-transplant||1.457|0.754|0.7808
90910567|NCT00383188|181691281|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.537|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.038||0.6049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.501|2.576|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 16 as an interaction term, baseline swollen joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||2.576|-1.501|0.6049
90910568|NCT00383188|181691281|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.068||0.6332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.587|2.608|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 16 as an interaction term, baseline swollen joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||2.608|-1.587|0.6332
90910569|NCT00383188|181691282|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-2.802|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.098||0.4943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.85|5.243|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Assessment of Arthritis Pain (VAS) count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||5.243|-10.85|0.4943
90960505|NCT00427895|181801605|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.91|2.79||||||Serotype 18C: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures in 13vPnC participants between Cohort 1 and Cohort 3.||2.79|1.91|
90868875|NCT00411645|181600513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.068||||0.6946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.771|1.479||The p-value is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusting for recipient CMV serostatus (R+ or R -) and transplant type (myeloablative or non-myeloablative/reduced intensity).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio for maribavir versus placebo|Analysis of 6 months post-transplant||1.479|0.771|0.6946
90868876|NCT00411645|181600514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.186||||0.6304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.592|2.375||The p-value is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusting for recipient CMV serostatus (R+ or R -) and transplant type (myeloablative or non-myeloablative/reduced intensity).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio for maribavir versus placebo|Analysis of 100 days post-transplant||2.375|0.592|0.6304
90868877|NCT00411645|181600514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.726||||0.1019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.495|1.066||The p-value is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusting for recipient CMV serostatus (R+ or R -) and transplant type (myeloablative or non-myeloablative/reduced intensity).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio for maribavir versus placebo|Analysis of 6 months post-transplant||1.066|0.495|0.1019
90868878|NCT03462082|181600556|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.163||||||"Holm-adjusted P-Value: 0.326~\*Gait Velocity for Asymmetric STN-DBS 1 (right STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS"|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.163
90868879|NCT03462082|181600556|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.749||||||"Holm-adjusted P-Value: 0.749~\*Gait Velocity for Asymmetric STN-DBS 2 (left STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS"|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.749
90868880|NCT03462082|181600557|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.031||||||"Holm-adjusted P-Value: 0.155~\*MDS-UPDRS (total) for Asymmetric STN-DBS 1 (right STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS"|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to report the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.031
90868881|NCT03462082|181600557|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.778||||||"Holm-adjusted P-Value: 0.902~\*MDS-UPDRS total for Asymmetric STN-DBS 2 (left STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS"|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to report the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.778
90868882|NCT03462082|181600557|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.039||||||"Holm-adjusted P-Value: 0.157~\*MDS-UPDRS (motor) for Asymmetric STN-DBS 1 (right STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS"|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.039
90868883|NCT03462082|181600557|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.451||||||"Holm-adjusted P-Value: 0.902~\*MDS-UPDRS (motor) for Asymmetric STN-DBS 2 (left STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS"|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.451
90910570|NCT00383188|181691282|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-10.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.026||0.0116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.09|-2.283|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Assessment of Arthritis Pain (VAS) count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-2.283|-18.09|0.0116
90910571|NCT00383188|181691282|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-12.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.71||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.98|-3.485|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Assessment of Arthritis Pain (VAS) count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-3.485|-21.98|0.0070
90910572|NCT00383188|181691282|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-11.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.812||0.0209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.58|-1.688|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Assessment of Arthritis Pain (VAS) count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-1.688|-20.58|0.0209
90910573|NCT00383188|181691282|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-7.439|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.056||0.0671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|0.524|||ANCOVA|||Week 2:Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Assessment of Arthritis Pain (VAS) count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.524|-15.40|0.0671
90910574|NCT00383188|181691282|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-10.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.986||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.28|-2.632|||ANCOVA|||Week 2:Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Assessment of Arthritis Pain (VAS) count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-2.632|-18.28|0.0089
90910575|NCT00383188|181691282|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-14.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.657||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.24|-4.959|||ANCOVA|||Week 2:Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Assessment of Arthritis Pain (VAS) count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-4.959|-23.24|0.0025
90910576|NCT00383188|181691282|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-7.876|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.774||0.0994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.25|1.496|||ANCOVA|||Week 2:Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Assessment of Arthritis Pain (VAS) count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||1.496|-17.25|0.0994
90960506|NCT00427895|181801605|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|2.66||||||Serotype 19A: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures in 13vPnC participants between Cohort 1 and Cohort 3.||2.66|2.02|
90960507|NCT00427895|181801605|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.44|3.6||||||Serotype 19F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures in 13vPnC participants between Cohort 1 and Cohort 3.||3.60|2.44|
90868884|NCT03462082|181600557|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.111||||||"Holm-adjusted P-Value: 0.333~\*MDS-UPDRS (axial motor) for Asymmetric STN-DBS 1 (right STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS"|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.111
90868885|NCT03462082|181600557|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||"Holm-adjusted P-Value: 0.030~\*MDS-UPDRS (axial motor) for Asymmetric STN-DBS 2 (left STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS"|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.005
90868886|NCT03462082|181600558|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.984||||||Asymmetric STN-DBS 1 (right STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.984
90868887|NCT03462082|181600558|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.067||||||Asymmetric STN-DBS 2 (left STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.067
90910577|NCT00383188|181691282|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.964|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.056||0.6284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.926|5.999|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Assessment of Arthritis Pain (VAS) count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||5.999|-9.926|0.6284
90910578|NCT00383188|181691282|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-9.934|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.986||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.76|-2.109|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Assessment of Arthritis Pain (VAS) count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-2.109|-17.76|0.0129
90910579|NCT00383188|181691282|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-8.097|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.656||0.0825|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.24|1.044|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Assessment of Arthritis Pain (VAS) count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||1.044|-17.24|0.0825
90910580|NCT00383188|181691282|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.907|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.774||0.6897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.28|7.465|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Assessment of Arthritis Pain (VAS) count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||7.465|-11.28|0.6897
90910581|NCT00383188|181691282|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|1.861|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.055||0.6465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|9.821|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Assessment of Arthritis Pain (VAS) count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||9.821|-6.100|0.6465
90971034|NCT03016325|181824581|SUPERIORITY|Part I, symptoms of hypotension - relative risk|Relative risk from placebo|2.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|75.47||||||||75.47|0.31|
90910582|NCT00383188|181691282|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-10.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.985||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.47|-2.824|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Assessment of Arthritis Pain (VAS) count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-2.824|-18.47|0.0077
90910583|NCT00383188|181691282|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-7.927|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.655||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.07|1.213|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Assessment of Arthritis Pain (VAS) count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||1.213|-17.07|0.0890
90910584|NCT00383188|181691282|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-5.964|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.773||0.2119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.33|3.406|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Assessment of Arthritis Pain (VAS) count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||3.406|-15.33|0.2119
90910585|NCT00383188|181691282|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-4.766|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.053||0.2401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.72|3.191|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Assessment of Arthritis Pain (VAS) count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||3.191|-12.72|0.2401
90910586|NCT00383188|181691282|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-11.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.983||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.89|-3.251|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Assessment of Arthritis Pain (VAS) count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-3.251|-18.89|0.0056
90971035|NCT03016325|181824581|SUPERIORITY|Part I, symptoms of hypotension - relative difference|Relative difference from placebo|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.15||||||||0.15|-0.06|
90910587|NCT00383188|181691282|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-8.885|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.654||0.0566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.02|0.251|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Assessment of Arthritis Pain (VAS) count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.251|-18.02|0.0566
90910588|NCT00383188|181691282|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-10.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.772||0.0348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.45|-0.72|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Assessment of Arthritis Pain (VAS) count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-0.720|-19.45|0.0348
90910589|NCT00383188|181691282|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|4.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.191||0.2436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.336|13.116|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 16 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Assessment of Arthritis Pain (VAS) count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||13.116|-3.336|0.2436
90910590|NCT00383188|181691282|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.781|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.066||0.6616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.762|6.201|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 16 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Assessment of Arthritis Pain (VAS) count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||6.201|-9.762|0.6616
90910591|NCT00383188|181691282|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|3.907|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.83||0.4189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.574|13.388|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 16 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Assessment of Arthritis Pain (VAS) count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||13.388|-5.574|0.4189
90910592|NCT00383188|181691282|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|4.395|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.942||0.3741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.305|14.096|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 16 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Assessment of Arthritis Pain (VAS) count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||14.096|-5.305|0.3741
90910593|NCT00383188|181691283|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-2.996|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.958||0.4493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.77|4.773|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||4.773|-10.77|0.4493
90910594|NCT00383188|181691283|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-14.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.891||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.08|-6.807|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-6.807|-22.08|0.0002
90910595|NCT00383188|181691283|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-11.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.522||0.0109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.42|-2.661|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-2.661|-20.42|0.0109
90910596|NCT00383188|181691283|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-7.364|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.651||0.1137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.49|1.765|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||1.765|-16.49|0.1137
90960508|NCT00427895|181801605|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.31|5.31||||||Serotype 23F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures in 13vPnC participants between Cohort 1 and Cohort 3.||5.31|3.31|
90960509|NCT00427895|181801606|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|Difference in Percentage|39.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.0|45.1||||||||45.1|33.0|
90910597|NCT00383188|181691283|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-3.989|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.915||0.3086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.68|3.697|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||3.697|-11.68|0.3086
90960510|NCT00427895|181801607|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.32|5.09||||||Serotype 1: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS).||5.09|2.32|
90910598|NCT00383188|181691283|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-8.357|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.85||0.0303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.92|-0.799|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-0.799|-15.92|0.0303
90910599|NCT00383188|181691283|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-10.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.489||0.0178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.47|-1.845|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-1.845|-19.47|0.0178
90960511|NCT00427895|181801607|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|2.16||||||Serotype 3: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS).||2.16|1.13|
90971036|NCT03016325|181824581|SUPERIORITY|Part II (low dose), symptoms of hypotension - relative risk|Relative risk from placebo|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|54.35||||||||54.35|0.18|
90960512|NCT00427895|181801607|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.98||||||Serotype 4: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS).||1.98|0.88|
90868888|NCT03462082|181600559|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44||||||Asymmetric STN-DBS 1 (right STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.440
90868889|NCT03462082|181600559|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.051||||||Asymmetric STN-DBS 2 (left STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.051
90868890|NCT03462082|181600560|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.945||||||Asymmetric STN-DBS 1 (right STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.945
90868891|NCT03462082|181600560|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024||||||Asymmetric STN-DBS 2 (left STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.024
90868892|NCT03462082|181600561|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.097||||||"Holm-adjusted P-Value: 1.00~\*Gait velocity for Asymmetric STN-DBS 1 (right STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS"|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.097
90868893|NCT03462082|181600561|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75||||||"Holm-adjusted P-Value: 1.00~\*Gait velocity for Asymmetric STN-DBS 2 (left STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS"|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.750
90868894|NCT03462082|181600562|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.128||||||"Holm-adjusted P-Value: 1.00~\*Step length (mean) for Asymmetric STN-DBS 1 (right STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS"|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.128
90868895|NCT03462082|181600562|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.117||||||"Holm-adjusted P-Value: 1.00~\*Step length (mean) for Asymmetric STN-DBS 2 (left STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS"|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.117
90868896|NCT03462082|181600562|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.145||||||"Holm-adjusted P-Value: 1.00~\*Step length (right) for Asymmetric STN-DBS 1 (right STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS"|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.145
90868897|NCT03462082|181600562|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.056||||||"Holm-adjusted P-Value: 1.00~\*Step length (right) for Asymmetric STN-DBS 2 (left STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS"|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.056
90868898|NCT03462082|181600562|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.151||||||"Holm-adjusted P-Value: 1.00~\*Step length (left) for Asymmetric STN-DBS 1 (right STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS"|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.151
90910600|NCT00383188|181691283|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-5.325|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.612||0.2486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.38|3.729|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||3.729|-14.38|0.2486
90960513|NCT00427895|181801607|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.04|4.97||||||Serotype 5: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS).||4.97|2.04|
90868899|NCT03462082|181600562|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.129||||||"Holm-adjusted P-Value: 1.00~\*Step length (left) for Asymmetric STN-DBS 2 (left STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS"|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.129
90868900|NCT03462082|181600562|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.698||||||"Holm-adjusted P-Value: 1.00~\*Step length difference for Asymmetric STN-DBS 1 (right STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS"|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.698
90868901|NCT03462082|181600562|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.779||||||"Holm-adjusted P-Value: 1.00~\*Step length difference for Asymmetric STN-DBS 2 (left STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS"|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.779
90868902|NCT03462082|181600563|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.874||||||"Holm-adjusted P-Value: 1.00~\*Step length ratio for Asymmetric STN-DBS 1 (right STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS"|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.874
90910601|NCT00383188|181691283|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-2.965|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.915||0.4491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.65|4.72|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||4.720|-10.65|0.4491
90910602|NCT00383188|181691283|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-10.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.85||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.79|-2.671|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-2.671|-17.79|0.0081
90971037|NCT03016325|181824581|SUPERIORITY|Part II (low dose), symptoms of hypotension - relative difference|Relative difference from placebo|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.09||||||||0.09|-0.05|
90868903|NCT03462082|181600563|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.976||||||"Holm-adjusted P-Value: 1.00~\*Step length ratio for Asymmetric STN-DBS 2 (left STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS"|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.976
90910603|NCT00383188|181691283|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-9.291|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.488||0.0388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.1|-0.48|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-0.480|-18.10|0.0388
90868904|NCT03462082|181600563|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.859||||||"Holm-adjusted P-Value: 1.00~\*Step length symmetry for Asymmetric STN-DBS 1 (right STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS"|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.859
90868905|NCT03462082|181600563|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86||||||"Holm-adjusted P-Value: 1.00~\*Step length symmetry for Asymmetric STN-DBS 2 (left STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS"|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.860
90868906|NCT03462082|181600564|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||"Holm-adjusted P-Value: 0.480~\*Pitch (minimum) for Asymmetric STN-DBS 1 (right STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS"|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.040
90868907|NCT03462082|181600564|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.883||||||"Holm-adjusted P-Value: 1.00~\*Pitch (minimum) for Asymmetric STN-DBS 2 (left STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS"|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.883
90868908|NCT03462082|181600564|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.071||||||"Holm-adjusted P-Value: 0.781~\*Pitch (maximum) for Asymmetric STN-DBS 1 (right STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS"|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.071
90910604|NCT00383188|181691283|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.611||0.588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.55|6.553|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||6.553|-11.55|0.5880
90910605|NCT00383188|181691283|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|3.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.914||0.3345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.904|11.464|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||11.464|-3.904|0.3345
90910606|NCT00383188|181691283|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-9.019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.849||0.0194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.58|-1.463|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-1.463|-16.58|0.0194
90868909|NCT03462082|181600564|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.327||||||"Holm-adjusted P-Value: 1.00~\*Pitch (maximum) for Asymmetric STN-DBS 2 (left STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS"|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.327
90868910|NCT03462082|181600565|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.487||||||"Holm-adjusted P-Value: 1.00~\*Loudness (minimum) for Asymmetric STN-DBS 1 (right STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS"|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.487
90910607|NCT00383188|181691283|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-5.946|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.488||0.1855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.76|2.863|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||2.863|-14.76|0.1855
90868911|NCT03462082|181600565|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.861||||||"Holm-adjusted P-Value: 1.00~\*Loudness (minimum) for Asymmetric STN-DBS 2 (left STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS"|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.861
90868912|NCT03462082|181600565|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.411||||||"Holm-adjusted P-Value: 1.00~\*Loudness (maximum) for Asymmetric STN-DBS 1 (right STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS"|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.411
90868913|NCT03462082|181600565|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.997||||||"Holm-adjusted P-Value: 1.00~\*Loudness (maximum) for Asymmetric STN-DBS 2 (left STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS"|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.997
90868914|NCT03462082|181600566|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.388||||||"Holm-adjusted P-Value: 1.00~\*Jitter for Asymmetric STN-DBS 1 (right STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS"|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.388
90868915|NCT03462082|181600566|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.684||||||"Holm-adjusted P-Value: 1.00~\*Jitter for Asymmetric STN-DBS 2 (left STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS"|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.684
90868916|NCT03462082|181600567|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85||||||"Holm-adjusted P-Value: 1.00~\*Shimmer for Asymmetric STN-DBS 1 (right STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS"|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.850
90868917|NCT03462082|181600567|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.712||||||"Holm-adjusted P-Value: 1.00~\*Shimmer for Asymmetric STN-DBS 2 (left STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS"|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.712
90868918|NCT03462082|181600568|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.501|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Asymmetric STN-DBS 1 (right STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.501
90868919|NCT03462082|181600568|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.216||||||Asymmetric STN-DBS 2 (left STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.216
90910608|NCT00383188|181691283|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-5.249|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.611||0.2553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|3.803|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||3.803|-14.30|0.2553
90868920|NCT03462082|181600569|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Non-adjusted P-Values were \>0.05 and Holm-adjusted P-Values were 1.00 for all comparisons, except for the Hopkins Verbal Learning Test-Revised: Delayed Recall. For this test, the non-adjusted P-Value was 0.04 and the Holm-adjusted P-Value was 0.44.|Friedman test|Using ranks for repeated measures (3 conditions)||||||>0.05
90868921|NCT00919724|181600570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.1||||||Comparison between HIV-infected and HIV-uninfected groups. Comparison adjusted for age, gender, race, height, and brachial artery baseline diameter.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.10
90868922|NCT00166114|181600571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.918|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi Square test was performed comparing actual vs. expected non- and partial response or response to either escitalopram or desipramine treatment.||||.918
90868923|NCT03266107|181600586|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
90868924|NCT03266107|181600587|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
90868925|NCT03266107|181600590|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
90868926|NCT02548650|181600603|NON_INFERIORITY|Under the null hypothesis that the mean aggregation between dual and triple therapy is not equal to 0 and a common standard deviation of 13%, a sample size of 28 patients per group with a valid primary end point time point allowed for the 95% confidence interval (CI) to stay within ± 10% with a 80% power and a two-sided alpha=0.05.|Mean Difference (Net)|12.0|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|21.0|||ANOVA|||The primary end point of our study was the comparison of CAT-induced MPA measured by LTA between triple (vorapaxar plus DAPT) and dual (vorapaxar plus clopidogrel) therapy. We hypothesized that dual therapy would be non-inferior to triple therapy after 30±5 days of treatment||21|3|>0.05
90910609|NCT00383188|181691283|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-4.041|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.912||0.302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.72|3.639|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||3.639|-11.72|0.3020
90910610|NCT00383188|181691283|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-10.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.847||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.82|-2.715|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-2.715|-17.82|0.0078
90910611|NCT00383188|181691283|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-8.522|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.486||0.0578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.33|0.284|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.284|-17.33|0.0578
90910612|NCT00383188|181691283|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-7.042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.61||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.09|2.007|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||2.007|-16.09|0.1270
90910613|NCT00383188|181691283|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|5.927|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.051||0.1438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.023|13.877|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 16 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||13.877|-2.023|0.1438
90910614|NCT00383188|181691283|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.979|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.931||0.6149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.696|5.738|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 16 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||5.738|-9.696|0.6149
90910615|NCT00383188|181691283|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|6.545|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.664||0.1609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|15.7|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 16 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||15.700|-2.610|0.1609
90910616|NCT00383188|181691283|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|6.579|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.78||0.1691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.804|15.961|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 16 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||15.961|-2.804|0.1691
90910617|NCT00383188|181691284|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.409|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.341||0.6733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.967|5.149|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline Physician's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||5.149|-7.967|0.6733
90910618|NCT00383188|181691284|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-5.629|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.274||0.0859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.05|0.797|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline Physician's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.797|-12.05|0.0859
90910619|NCT00383188|181691284|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-9.718|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8||0.0107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.18|-2.259|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline Physician's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-2.259|-17.18|0.0107
90910620|NCT00383188|181691284|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-3.695|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.921||0.3463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.39|4.002|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline Physician's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||4.002|-11.39|0.3463
90910621|NCT00383188|181691284|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-5.185|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.312||0.1178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.69|1.316|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline Physician's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||1.316|-11.69|0.1178
90910622|NCT00383188|181691284|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-7.107|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.245||0.0288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.48|-0.737|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline Physician's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-0.737|-13.48|0.0288
90910623|NCT00383188|181691284|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-9.743|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.772||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.15|-2.34|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline Physician's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-2.340|-17.15|0.0100
90910624|NCT00383188|181691284|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-5.468|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.888||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|2.164|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline Physician's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||2.164|-13.10|0.1600
90910625|NCT00383188|181691284|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.312||0.904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|6.101|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline Physician's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||6.101|-6.900|0.9040
90910626|NCT00383188|181691284|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-6.895|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.245||0.0339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.26|-0.524|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline Physician's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-0.524|-13.26|0.0339
90910627|NCT00383188|181691284|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-8.891|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.771||0.0186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.29|-1.488|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline Physician's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-1.488|-16.29|0.0186
90868927|NCT01191801|181600605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.87||||0.0305|ONE_SIDED|95.0||||Unstratified one sided P-Value|Unstratified Log Rank|Since the sample size was increased, the primary analysis used the weighted statistic proposed by Cui, Hung, and Wang (Cui 1999).||||||0.0305
90960514|NCT00427895|181801607|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|4.0||||||Serotype 6B: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS).||4.00|1.50|
90960515|NCT00427895|181801607|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.76|7.99||||||Serotype 7F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS).||7.99|2.76|
90910628|NCT00383188|181691284|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-2.714|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.888||0.4854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.35|4.918|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline Physician's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||4.918|-10.35|0.4854
90960516|NCT00427895|181801607|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|2.97||||||Serotype 9V: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS).||2.97|0.93|
90868928|NCT01191801|181600606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Two sided P-Value|Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
90868929|NCT01191801|181600609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Two sided P-Value|Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
90868930|NCT01191801|181600610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||||Unstratified one-sided P-Value|Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
90868931|NCT01191801|181600611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.3134|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||One sided P-Value|Log Rank|||||||0.3134
90868932|NCT00299104|181600612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0016||95.0||||The Closure Principle was used to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparing all three treatment groups||||0.0016
90868933|NCT00299104|181600612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1824||95.0||||The Closure Principle was used to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Van-Elteren|||Rituximab 2 x 0.5 g + Methotrexate arm versus Placebo + Methotrexate, stratified for region and baseline rheumatoid factor (RF) status||||0.1824
90868934|NCT00299104|181600612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004||95.0||||The Closure Principle was used to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Van-Elteren|||Rituximab 2 x 1.0 g + Methotrexate arm versus Placebo + Methotrexate, stratified for region and baseline RF status||||0.0004
90910629|NCT00383188|181691284|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.387|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.311||0.6753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.886|5.112|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline Physician's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||5.112|-7.886|0.6753
90960517|NCT00427895|181801607|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|2.39||||||Serotype 14: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS).||2.39|0.99|
90868935|NCT00299104|181600613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004||95.0||||The Closure Principle was used to adjust for multiple comparisons. This was a secondary endpoint in a hierarchical testing structure.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparing all three treatment groups||||0.0004
90868936|NCT00299104|181600613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1194||95.0||||The Closure Principle was used to adjust for multiple comparisons. This was a secondary endpoint in a hierarchical testing structure.|Van-Elteren|||Rituximab 2 x 0.5 g + Methotrexate versus Placebo + Methotrexate, stratified for region and baseline RF status||||0.1194
90868937|NCT00299104|181600613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0||||The Closure Principle was used to adjust for multiple comparisons. This was a secondary endpoint in a hierarchical testing structure.|Van-Elteren|||Rituximab 2 x 1.0 g + Methotrexate versus Placebo + Methotrexate, stratified for region and baseline RF status||||0.0001
90868938|NCT00299104|181600614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04||||0.3803||95.0|-0.05|0.13||This was a secondary endpoint in a hierarchical testing structure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Rituximab 2 x 0.5 g + Methotrexate arm versus Placebo + Methotrexate, stratified for region and baseline RF status||0.13|-0.05|0.3803
90868939|NCT00299104|181600614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.0309||95.0|0.01|0.18||This was a secondary endpoint in a hierarchical testing structure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Rituximab 2 x 1.0 g + Methotrexate arm versus Placebo + Methotrexate, stratified for region and baseline RF status||0.18|0.01|0.0309
90868940|NCT00299104|181600615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3752||95.0||||This was a secondary endpoint in a hierarchical testing structure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Rituximab (0.5 g x 2) + Methotrexate versus Placebo + Methotrexate, stratified for region and baseline RF status.||||0.3752
90868941|NCT00299104|181600615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0081||95.0||||This was a secondary endpoint in a hierarchical testing structure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Rituximab (1.0 g x 2) + Methotrexate verus Placebo + Methotrexate, stratified for region and Baseline RF status.||||0.0081
90868942|NCT00299104|181600616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5939||95.0||||The Closure Principle was used to adjust for multiple comparisons. This was a secondary endpoint in a hierarchical testing structure.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparing all three treatment groups.||||0.5939
90868943|NCT00299104|181600616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5478||95.0||||The Closure Principle was used to adjust for multiple comparisons. This was a secondary endpoint in a hierarchical testing structure.|Van-Elteren|||Rituximab 2 x 0.5 g + Methotrexate arm versus Placebo + Methotrexate, stratified for region and baseline RF status||||0.5478
90868944|NCT00299104|181600616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3096||95.0||||The Closure Principle was used to adjust for multiple comparisons. This was a secondary endpoint in a hierarchical testing structure.|Van-Elteren|||Rituximab 2 x 1.0 g + Methotrexate arm versus Placebo + Methotrexate, stratified for region and baseline RF status||||0.3096
90910630|NCT00383188|181691284|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-11.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.244||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.46|-4.724|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline Physician's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-4.724|-17.46|0.0007
90910631|NCT00383188|181691284|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-9.535|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.771||0.0116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.94|-2.134|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline Physician's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-2.134|-16.94|0.0116
90910632|NCT00383188|181691284|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-8.322|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.888||0.0326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.95|-0.691|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline Physician's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-0.691|-15.95|0.0326
90910633|NCT00383188|181691284|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-3.624|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.309||0.2738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.12|2.872|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline Physician's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||2.872|-10.12|0.2738
90868945|NCT00299104|181600621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||This was a secondary endpoint in a hierarchical testing structure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Rituximab 2 x 0.5 g + Methotrexate arm versus Placebo + Methotrexate, stratified for region and baseline RF status||||<0.0001
90910634|NCT00383188|181691284|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-9.778|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.243||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.14|-3.412|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline Physician's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-3.412|-16.14|0.0026
90910635|NCT00383188|181691284|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-9.339|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.769||0.0134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.74|-1.941|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline Physician's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-1.941|-16.74|0.0134
90910636|NCT00383188|181691284|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-5.528|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.886||0.1553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.16|2.101|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline Physician's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||2.101|-13.16|0.1553
90910637|NCT00383188|181691284|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.444||0.9726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.878|6.641|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 16 as an interaction term, baseline Physician's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||6.641|-6.878|0.9726
90910638|NCT00383188|181691284|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|1.409|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.321||0.6714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.109|7.928|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 16 as an interaction term, baseline Physician's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||7.928|-5.109|0.6714
90910639|NCT00383188|181691284|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.646|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.925||0.8693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.058|8.351|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 16 as an interaction term, baseline Physician's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||8.351|-7.058|0.8693
90910640|NCT00383188|181691284|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|1.289|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.035||0.7495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.631|9.208|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 16 as an interaction term, baseline Physician's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||9.208|-6.631|0.7495
90960518|NCT00427895|181801607|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|3.5||||||Serotype 18C: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS).||3.50|1.37|
90971038|NCT03016325|181824581|SUPERIORITY|Part II (high dose), symptoms of hypotension - relative risk|Relative risk from placebo|5.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|149.72||||||||149.72|0.91|
90868946|NCT00299104|181600621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||This was a secondary endpoint in a hierarchical testing structure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Rituximab 2 x 1.0 g + Methotrexate arm versus Placebo + Methotrexate, stratified for region and baseline RF status||||<0.0001
90868947|NCT00299104|181600631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Secondary endpoint in hierarchical testing structure.|ANOVA|||Rituximab (0.5 g x 2) + Methotrexate versus Placebo + Methotrexate stratified for region and RF status.||||<0.0001
90868948|NCT00299104|181600631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Secondary endpoint in hierarchical testing structure.|ANOVA|||Rituximab (1.0 g x 2) + Methotrexate versus Placebo + Methotrexate, stratified for region and baseline RF status.||||<0.0001
90868949|NCT00299104|181600637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||This was a secondary endpoint in a hierarchical testing structure.|Van-Elteren|||Week 104: Rituximab 2 x 0.5 g + Methotrexate arm versus Placebo + Methotrexate, stratified for region and baseline rheumatoid factor (RF) status.||||<0.0001
90868950|NCT00299104|181600641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Secondary endpoint in hierarchical testing structure.|ANOVA|||Rituximab (0.5 g x 2) + Methotrexate versus Placebo + Methotrexate, stratified for region and baseline RF status.||||<0.0001
90868951|NCT00299104|181600641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Secondary endpoint in hierarchical testing structure.|ANOVA|||Rituximab (1.0 g x 2) + Methotrexate versus Placebo + Methotrexate, stratified for region and baseline RF status.||||<0.0001
90910641|NCT00383188|181691285|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-8.983|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.469||0.0447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.75|-0.214|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline C-Reactive Protein as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-0.214|-17.75|0.0447
90910642|NCT00383188|181691285|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-15.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.345||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.65|-6.596|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline C-Reactive Protein as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-6.596|-23.65|0.0005
90971039|NCT03016325|181824581|SUPERIORITY|Part II (high dose), symptoms of hypotension - relative difference|Relative difference from placebo|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.16||||||||0.16|-0.01|
90868952|NCT00320411|181600683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|17.2||||||95.0|8.6|29.4||||||||29.4|8.6|
90868953|NCT00320411|181600685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|32.3||||||95.0|20.0|44.7||||||||44.7|20.0|
90868954|NCT00320411|181600686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|22.8||||||95.0|11.6|34.0||||||||34.0|11.6|
90910643|NCT00383188|181691285|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-17.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.981||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.84|-7.296|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline C-Reactive Protein as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-7.296|-26.84|0.0006
90910644|NCT00383188|181691285|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-16.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.218||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.49|-6.018|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline C-Reactive Protein as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-6.018|-26.49|0.0019
90910645|NCT00383188|181691285|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-3.841|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.366||0.3792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.41|4.726|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline C-Reactive Protein as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||4.726|-12.41|0.3792
90910646|NCT00383188|181691285|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-9.345|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.237||0.0276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.66|-1.031|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline C-Reactive Protein as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-1.031|-17.66|0.0276
90910647|NCT00383188|181691285|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-12.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.873||0.0093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.25|-3.128|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline C-Reactive Protein as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-3.128|-22.25|0.0093
90910648|NCT00383188|181691285|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-9.599|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.03||0.0566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.47|0.271|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline C-Reactive Protein as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.271|-19.47|0.0566
90868955|NCT01025752|181600702|NON_INFERIORITY|A 20% (1.4) reduction in NRS for pain intensity from baseline was considered minimally clinically important the non-inferiority margin was set at one NRS unit. The required sample size was 230 participants. Because enrollment was slower than expected and the standard deviation in the primary outcome was less than the initial power calculation (1.6 vs. 2.45) we conducted a sample size recalculation, based on observed data to determine that we would need 42 completers per arm for 80% power.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.8||Non-inferiority margin of 1|Mixed Models Analysis|The models includes treatment arm, time, treatment-by-time interaction, baseline NRS, stratification variables (distance from VA \& back pain cause)|The upper limit (0.80) fell below the non-inferiority margin of 1.|post-treatment (12 weeks) time point||0.80|-0.67|0.007
90868956|NCT01025752|181600702|NON_INFERIORITY|A 20% (1.4) reduction in NRS for pain intensity from baseline was considered minimally clinically important the non-inferiority margin was set at one NRS unit. The required sample size was 230 participants. Because enrollment was slower than expected and the standard deviation in the primary outcome was less than the initial power calculation (1.6 vs. 2.45) we conducted a sample size recalculation, based on observed data to determine that we would need 42 completers per arm for 80% power.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.49||Non-inferiority margin of 1|Mixed Models Analysis|The models includes treatment arm, time, treatment-by-time interaction, baseline NRS, stratification variables (distance from VA \& back pain cause)|The upper limit (0.49) fell below the non-inferiority margin of 1.|3 month post-baseline time point||0.49|-0.94|<0.0001
90868957|NCT01025752|181600702|NON_INFERIORITY|A 20% (1.4) reduction in NRS for pain intensity from baseline was considered minimally clinically important the non-inferiority margin was set at one NRS unit. The required sample size was 230 participants. Because enrollment was slower than expected and the standard deviation in the primary outcome was less than the initial power calculation (1.6 vs. 2.45) we conducted a sample size recalculation, based on observed data to determine that we would need 42 completers per arm for 80% power.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.71||The non-inferiority margin is 1.|Mixed Models Analysis|The models includes treatment arm, time, treatment-by-time interaction, baseline NRS, stratification variables (distance from VA \& back pain cause)|The upper limit (0.71) fell below the non-inferiority margin of 1.|6 month post- baseline time point.||0.71|-0.86|0.004
90868958|NCT01025752|181600703|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Post-treatment (12 weeks) time point. (Mean difference of IVR CBT- F2F CBT)||0.09|-0.74|0.12
90868959|NCT01025752|181600703|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3 months post-baseline time point. (Mean difference of IVR CBT- F2F CBT)||0.18|-0.87|0.20
90910649|NCT00383188|181691285|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.803|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.366||0.854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.764|9.37|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline C-Reactive Protein as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||9.370|-7.764|0.8540
90971040|NCT03016325|181824582|SUPERIORITY|Part I, confirmed SBP \< 90 mmHg - relative risk|Relative risk from placebo|3.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|14.66||||||||14.66|1.01|
90868960|NCT01025752|181600703|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||6 months post baseline time point. (Mean difference of IVR CBT- F2F CBT)||0.52|-0.57|0.93
90868961|NCT01025752|181600704|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|1.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||post-treatment (12 weeks) time point||1.29|-2.29|0.58
90868962|NCT01025752|181600704|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.53||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.46|0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3 months post-baseline time point||0.41|-3.46|0.12
90868963|NCT01025752|181600704|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.42|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||6 months post-baseline time point||1.20|-2.42|0.51
90868964|NCT01025752|181600705|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|2.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||post-treatment (12 weeks) time point. (Mean difference of IVR CBT- F2F CBT)||2.87|-2.30|0.83
90868965|NCT01025752|181600705|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.15||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|3.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3 months post-baseline time point. (Mean difference of IVR CBT- F2F CBT)||3.98|-1.68|0.42
90868966|NCT01025752|181600705|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.58||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|2.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||6 months post-baseline time point. (Mean difference of IVR CBT- F2F CBT)||2.24|-3.40|0.68
90868967|NCT01025752|181600706|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.25||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|4.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||post-treatment (12 weeks) time point. (Mean difference of IVR CBT- F2F CBT)||4.16|-1.66|0.40
90910650|NCT00383188|181691285|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-2.364|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.237||0.577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.68|5.95|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline C-Reactive Protein as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||5.950|-10.68|0.5770
90910651|NCT00383188|181691285|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-6.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.873||0.1942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.89|3.232|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline C-Reactive Protein as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||3.232|-15.89|0.1942
90910652|NCT00383188|181691285|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|1.494|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.03||0.7665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.376|11.364|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline C-Reactive Protein as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||11.364|-8.376|0.7665
90910653|NCT00383188|181691285|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|3.291|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.366||0.4512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.276|11.858|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline C-Reactive Protein as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||11.858|-5.276|0.4512
90910654|NCT00383188|181691285|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.095|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.237||0.9822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.409|8.22|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline C-Reactive Protein as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||8.220|-8.409|0.9822
90910655|NCT00383188|181691285|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-5.148|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.873||0.291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.71|4.414|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline C-Reactive Protein as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||4.414|-14.71|0.2910
90910656|NCT00383188|181691285|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|2.828|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.03||0.5741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.042|12.698|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline C-Reactive Protein as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||12.698|-7.042|0.5741
90910657|NCT00383188|181691285|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|3.107|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.366||0.4768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.46|11.674|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline C-Reactive Protein as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||11.674|-5.460|0.4768
90971041|NCT03016325|181824582|SUPERIORITY|Part I, confirmed SBP \< 90 mmHg - relative difference|Relative difference from placebo|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.29||||||||0.29|0.00|
90868968|NCT01025752|181600706|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.82|3.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3 months post-baseline. (Mean difference of IVR CBT- F2F CBT)||3.58|-2.82|0.81
90868969|NCT01025752|181600706|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.43||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|5.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||6 months post-baseline time point. (Mean difference of IVR CBT- F2F CBT)||5.82|-0.96|0.16
90868970|NCT01025752|181600707|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.32|2.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||post-treatment (12 weeks time point). (Mean difference of IVR CBT- F2F CBT)||2.80|-2.32|0.85
90868971|NCT01025752|181600707|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.27||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.27|1.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3 months post-baseline time point. (Mean difference of IVR CBT- F2F CBT)||1.73|-4.27|0.40
90868972|NCT01025752|181600707|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.74||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|2.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|||6 months post-baseline time point. (Mean difference of IVR CBT- F2F CBT)||2.83|-4.30|0.68
90910658|NCT00383188|181691285|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-2.256|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.237||0.5945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.57|6.058|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline C-Reactive Protein as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||6.058|-10.57|0.5945
90910659|NCT00383188|181691285|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.609|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.873||0.9006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.953|10.171|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline C-Reactive Protein as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||10.171|-8.953|0.9006
90910660|NCT00383188|181691285|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|9.224|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.03||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.646|19.094|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline C-Reactive Protein as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||19.094|-0.646|0.0670
90910661|NCT00383188|181691285|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|8.261|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.647||0.0757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.857|17.379|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 16 as an interaction term, baseline C-Reactive Protein as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||17.379|-0.857|0.0757
90910662|NCT00383188|181691285|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|5.357|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.427||0.2265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.329|14.043|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 16 as an interaction term, baseline C-Reactive Protein as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||14.043|-3.329|0.2265
90910663|NCT00383188|181691285|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|1.642|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.178||0.7512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.517|11.801|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 16 as an interaction term, baseline C-Reactive Protein as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||11.801|-8.517|0.7512
90960519|NCT00427895|181801607|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|3.68||||||Serotype 19A: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS).||3.68|1.78|
90910664|NCT00383188|181691285|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|2.888|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.323||0.5876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.557|13.332|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 16 as an interaction term, baseline C-Reactive Protein as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||13.332|-7.557|0.5876
90910665|NCT00383188|181691286|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.269|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.188||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.638|0.101|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline DAS28-4(CRP) as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||0.101|-0.638|0.1540
90910666|NCT00383188|181691286|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.182||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.958|-0.242|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline DAS28-4(CRP) as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||-0.242|-0.958|0.0011
90960520|NCT00427895|181801607|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|4.01||||||Serotype 19F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS).||4.01|1.77|
90910667|NCT00383188|181691286|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.691|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.211||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.105|-0.277|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline DAS28-4(CRP) as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||-0.277|-1.105|0.0011
90910668|NCT00383188|181691286|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.554|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.219||0.0115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.983|-0.125|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline DAS28-4(CRP) as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||-0.125|-0.983|0.0115
90910669|NCT00383188|181691286|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.185||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.673|0.053|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline DAS28-4(CRP) as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||0.053|-0.673|0.0940
90910670|NCT00383188|181691286|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.459|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.811|-0.106|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline DAS28-4(CRP) as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||-0.106|-0.811|0.0109
90910671|NCT00383188|181691286|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.667|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.208||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.075|-0.259|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline DAS28-4(CRP) as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||-0.259|-1.075|0.0014
90910672|NCT00383188|181691286|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.447|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.213||0.0364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.867|-0.028|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline DAS28-4(CRP) as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||-0.028|-0.867|0.0364
90910673|NCT00383188|181691286|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.271|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.185||0.1436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.634|0.092|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline DAS28-4(CRP) as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||0.092|-0.634|0.1436
90910674|NCT00383188|181691286|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.404|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.757|-0.052|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline DAS28-4(CRP) as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||-0.052|-0.757|0.0246
90910675|NCT00383188|181691286|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.546|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.208||0.0088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.954|-0.138|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline DAS28-4(CRP) as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||-0.138|-0.954|0.0088
90910676|NCT00383188|181691286|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.267|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.213||0.2121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.686|0.152|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline DAS28-4(CRP) as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||0.152|-0.686|0.2121
90910677|NCT00383188|181691286|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.098|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.185||0.5975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.461|0.265|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline DAS28-4(CRP) as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||0.265|-0.461|0.5975
90910678|NCT00383188|181691286|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.464|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.817|-0.112|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline DAS28-4(CRP) as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||-0.112|-0.817|0.0099
90910679|NCT00383188|181691286|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.445|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.208||0.0328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.853|-0.037|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline DAS28-4(CRP) as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||-0.037|-0.853|0.0328
90960521|NCT00427895|181801607|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.99|6.13||||||Serotype 23F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS).||6.13|1.99|
90960522|NCT00427895|181801607|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.87|6.08||||||Serotype 1: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS/23vPS).||6.08|2.87|
90868973|NCT01025752|181600708|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.94||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||post-treatment (12 weeks) time point. (Mean difference of IVR CBT- F2F CBT)||0.40|-2.28|0.17
90868974|NCT01025752|181600708|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|1.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3 months post-baseline time point. (Mean difference of IVR CBT- F2F CBT)||1.16|-1.39|0.86
90868975|NCT01025752|181600708|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|1.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||6 months post-baseline time point. (Mean difference of IVR CBT- F2F CBT)||1.97|-1.22|0.64
90868976|NCT01537393|181600714|NON_INFERIORITY|The two treatment groups will be declared equivalent if the one-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in proportions excludes the pre-defined non-inferiority limit of 4%.|Risk Difference (RD)|3.2|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||5.4|||||||The bootstrap re-sampling technique were used to account for potentially correlated data from donors who donated both corneas in this study and potentially correlated data from 2 study eyes of the same study participant. The technique will sample with replacement from the observed dataset. Confidence intervals will be calculated using the bias-corrected and accelerated method. The number of bootstraps will be 100,000.|5.4||
90868977|NCT01537393|181600714|OTHER|Confounding and treatment interactions were assessed in Cox proportional hazards regression models|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.71||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|2.71|||Regression, Cox|Unadjusted Hazard Ratio||||2.71|1.09|0.02
90868978|NCT01537393|181600715|OTHER|The primary analysis to assess the effect of PT on 3 year ECD was conducted with a mixed linear model adjusting for baseline ECD, corneal diagnosis, and potential confounders, including storage solution, preparation by eye bank vs surgeon, and accounting for correlated data from participants with 2 study eyes or 2 corneas from the same donor.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|73.0||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|138.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline ECD, diagnosis, storage solution, preparation by eye bank/surgeon, participants with 2 study eyes/ 2 corneas from the same donor||||138|8|0.03
90868979|NCT01197560|181600717|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.079|||||||Fisher Exact|||Pertains to all participants; row 1||||0.079
90868980|NCT01197560|181600717|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.279|||||||Fisher Exact|||Pertains to GCB Subtype; row 2||||0.279
90868981|NCT01197560|181600717|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.179|||||||Fisher Exact|||Pertains to non-GCB Sub-type; row 3||||0.179
90868982|NCT01197560|181600718|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.091|||||||Fisher Exact|||Pertains to all participants||||0.091
90868983|NCT01197560|181600719|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.109|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.109
90868984|NCT01197560|181600720|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Fisher Exact|||Pertains to all participants; row 1||||0.160
90868985|NCT01197560|181600721|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.529|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.529
90868986|NCT01197560|181600722|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.972|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.972
90868987|NCT01197560|181600723|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.020
90868988|NCT01197560|181600724|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.211|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.211
90868989|NCT01414010|181600781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||"Statistical analysis was performed using a variety of computer packages including XLstat, NCSS 2007, R and NCSS 2010"||||<0.05
90868990|NCT00357968|181600782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|43.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.04|48.38|||ANCOVA|||||48.38|38.04|<0.0001
90868991|NCT00357968|181600783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|14.93|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.6|19.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||19.26|10.6|<0.0001
90868992|NCT00357968|181600784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|44.75|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.35|51.15|||ANCOVA|||||51.15|38.35|<0.0001
90868993|NCT00357968|181600789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
90868994|NCT00357968|181600790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0629||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0629
90868995|NCT00357968|181600791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1827||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1827
90868996|NCT00357968|181600792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-54.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.2|-47.4|||ANCOVA|||||-47.4|-61.2|<0.0001
90868997|NCT00357968|181600793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-60.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.1|-54.0|||ANCOVA|||||-54.0|-67.1|<0.0001
90868998|NCT00357968|181600794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-56.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.2|-49.2|||ANCOVA|||||-49.2|-63.2|<0.0001
90868999|NCT00357968|181600795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-20.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.7|-14.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-14.5|-25.7|<0.0001
90869000|NCT00357968|181600796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.47||||0.7058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.95|2.0|||ANCOVA|||||2.00|-2.95|0.7058
90869001|NCT00357968|181600797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.33||||0.4029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.48|1.82|||ANCOVA|||||1.82|-4.48|0.4029
90869002|NCT00357968|181600798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.7893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.08|||ANCOVA|||||0.08|-0.06|0.7893
90869003|NCT00357968|181600799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04||||0.4528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.07|||ANCOVA|||||0.07|-0.25|0.4528
90869004|NCT03919799|181600800|SUPERIORITY|The LOCF imputation was followed by logistic regression analysis. Comparison analysis between belumosudil dose regimen and placebo was performed using a logistic regression analysis with treatment in the model.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.9472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|5.82||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|||Belumosudil 200 mg QD versus Placebo||5.82|0.19|0.9472
90869005|NCT03919799|181600800|SUPERIORITY|The LOCF imputation was followed by logistic regression analysis. Comparison analysis between belumosudil dose regimen and placebo was performed using a logistic regression analysis with treatment in the model.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.39||||0.3078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|2.35||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|||Belumosudil 200 mg BID versus Placebo||2.35|0.07|0.3078
90869006|NCT03919799|181600801|SUPERIORITY|MMRM analysis used rank-transformed data, with CRISS score as a dependent variable and treatment, visit, and visit x treatment interaction as fixed effects. Visit was a repeated factor, and analyses were done through week 24.|Least square mean difference|-0.04||||0.9889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.51|6.42||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||Belumosudil 200 mg QD versus Placebo||6.42|-6.51|0.9889
90869007|NCT03919799|181600801|SUPERIORITY|MMRM analysis using rank-transformed data, with CRISS score as a dependent variable and treatment, visit, and visit x treatment interaction as fixed effects. Visit was a repeated factor, and analyses were done through week 24.|Least square mean difference|-4.18||||0.1916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.59|2.23||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||Belumosudil 200 mg BID versus Placebo||2.23|-10.59|0.1916
90869008|NCT03919799|181600803|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.6||||0.771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|3.6||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||Belumosudil 200 mg QD versus Placebo||3.6|-4.7|0.7710
90869009|NCT03919799|181600803|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|4.6||||0.0308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|8.8||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||Belumosudil 200 mg BID versus Placebo||8.8|0.5|0.0308
90869010|NCT03919799|181600804|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|1.4||||0.6533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|7.7||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||Belumosudil 200 mg QD versus Placebo||7.7|-4.9|0.6533
90869011|NCT03919799|181600804|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-1.5||||0.6338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|5.0||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||Belumosudil 200 mg BID versus Placebo||5.0|-8.1|0.6338
90869012|NCT03919799|181600805|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|14.6||||0.0916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|31.8||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||Belumosudil 200 mg QD versus Placebo||31.8|-2.5|0.0916
90869013|NCT03919799|181600805|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-8.6||||0.3146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.7|8.6|||MMRM|||Belumosudil 200 mg BID versus Placebo||8.6|-25.7|0.3146
90869014|NCT03919799|181600806|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-10.0||||0.3753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.8|12.8||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||Belumosudil 200 mg QD versus Placebo||12.8|-32.8|0.3753
90869015|NCT03919799|181600806|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.7||||0.9481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.5|22.1||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||Belumosudil 200 mg BID versus Placebo||22.1|-23.5|0.9481
90869016|NCT03919799|181600807|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.036||||0.8387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.392|0.32||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||Belumosudil 200 mg QD versus Placebo||0.320|-0.392|0.8387
90869017|NCT03919799|181600807|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.039||||0.8234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.317|0.395||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||Belumosudil 200 mg BID versus Placebo||0.395|-0.317|0.8234
90869018|NCT03919799|181600808|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-3.009||||0.7535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.413|16.395||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||Belumosudil 200 mg QD versus Placebo||16.395|-22.413|0.7535
90869019|NCT03919799|181600808|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-21.015||||0.0348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.419|-1.611||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||Belumosudil 200 mg BID versus Placebo||-1.611|-40.419|0.0348
90869020|NCT03919799|181600809|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|45.566||||0.0343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.621|87.512||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||Belumosudil 200 mg QD versus Placebo||87.512|3.621|0.0343
90910680|NCT00383188|181691286|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.214|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.213||0.3162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.633|0.205|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline DAS28-4(CRP) as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||0.205|-0.633|0.3162
90869021|NCT03919799|181600809|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-21.984||||0.2922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.93|19.962||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||Belumosudil 200 mg BID versus Placebo||19.962|-63.930|0.2922
90869022|NCT03919799|181600810|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-16.757||||0.532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.933|37.419||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||Belumosudil 200 mg QD versus Placebo||37.419|-70.933|0.5320
90869023|NCT03919799|181600810|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|4.02||||0.8804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.156|58.196||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||Belumosudil 200 mg BID versus Placebo||58.196|-50.156|0.8804
90869024|NCT03919799|181600811|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|7.522||||0.8628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.837|95.88||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||Belumosudil 200 mg QD versus Placebo||95.880|-80.837|0.8628
90869025|NCT03919799|181600811|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-42.442||||0.3196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-128.242|43.359|||MMRM|||Belumosudil 200 mg BID versus Placebo||43.359|-128.242|0.3196
90869026|NCT02970422|181600871|OTHER|||||||0.91|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared value= .57||Relief of breathlessness||||.91
90869027|NCT02970422|181600871|OTHER|||||||0.31|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared value= 3.56||Improve your ability to perform activities in and out of your home||||.31
90869028|NCT02970422|181600871|OTHER|||||||0.96|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared value=.32||Prevent lung flare-ups||||.96
90869029|NCT02970422|181600871|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared value= 8.09||Discuss COPD and its progression||||.04
90869030|NCT02970422|181600871|OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared value: 1.41||Improve your physical well-being||||.70
90869031|NCT02970422|181600871|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared value= 10.81||Relief of breathlessness||||.01
90869032|NCT02970422|181600871|OTHER|||||||0.49|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared value= 2.41||Improve your ability to perform activities in and out of your home||||.49
90869033|NCT02970422|181600871|OTHER|||||||0.93|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared value= .44||Prevent lung flare-ups||||.93
90869034|NCT02970422|181600871|OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared value= 1.87||Discuss COPD and its progression||||.60
90869035|NCT02970422|181600871|OTHER|||||||0.31|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared value= 3.61||Improve your physical well-being||||.31
90869036|NCT02970422|181600872|OTHER|||||||0.73|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared value: 1.31||To relieve breathlessness in adults living with COPD||||.73
90869037|NCT02970422|181600872|OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared value= 4.28||To prevent the development of COPD||||.23
90869038|NCT02970422|181600872|OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared value= 5.51||To prevent lung flare-ups in adults living with COPD||||.14
90869039|NCT02970422|181600872|OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared value= 2.28||To increase the ability of adults living with COPD to exercise||||.52
90869040|NCT02970422|181600872|OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared value= 5.88||To improve the maximal amount of exercise of adults living with COPD in and out of the home||||.11
90869041|NCT02970422|181600872|OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared value= 5.57||To relieve breathlessness in adults living with COPD||||.14
90869042|NCT02970422|181600872|OTHER|||||||0.73|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared value= 1.29||To prevent the development of COPD||||.73
90869043|NCT02970422|181600872|OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared value= 4.64||To prevent lung flare-ups in adults living with COPD||||.20
90869044|NCT02970422|181600872|OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared value= 5.02||To increase the ability of adults living with COPD to exercise||||.17
90869045|NCT02970422|181600872|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-square value= 9.97||To improve the maximal amount of exercise of adults living with COPD in and out of the home||||.02
90869046|NCT02970422|181600873|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared|Chi squared value= 17.20||Activity 1: Walking from one place to another outside of your home on a flat surface||||.05
90869047|NCT02970422|181600873|OTHER|||||||0.87|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared value= 4.56||Activity 2: Moving from one place to another using motorized transportation||||.87
90910681|NCT00383188|181691286|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.353|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.185||0.0569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.716|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline DAS28-4(CRP) as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||0.010|-0.716|0.0569
90869048|NCT02970422|181600873|OTHER|||||||0.65|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared value= 6.85||Activity 3: Climbing two or more flights of stairs||||.65
90971042|NCT03016325|181824582|SUPERIORITY|Part II (low dose), confirmed SBP \< 90 mmHg - relative risk|Relative risk from placebo|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.43||||||||2.43|0.58|
90869049|NCT02970422|181600873|OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared value= 10.00||Activity 4: Walking up a hill||||.35
90869050|NCT02970422|181600873|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared value= 18.75||Activity 5: Participating in regular exercise requiring physical effort, to maintain or improve health or fitness||||.03
90869051|NCT02970422|181600873|OTHER|||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared value= 35.52||Activity 1: Walking from one place to another outside of your home on a flat surface||||.00
90869052|NCT02970422|181600873|OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared value= 10.23||Activity 2: Moving from one place to another using motorized transportation||||.33
90869053|NCT02970422|181600873|OTHER|||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared value= 23.94||Activity 3: Climbing two or more flights of stairs||||.00
90869054|NCT02970422|181600873|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared value= 22.80||Activity 4: Walking up a hill||||.01
90869055|NCT02970422|181600873|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared value= 20.43||Activity 5: Participating in regular exercise requiring physical effort, to maintain or improve health or fitness||||.02
90869056|NCT02970422|181600874|OTHER|||||||0|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|Non-parametric led to equal variance (levene's test) which couldn't be assumed, independent samples were taken (Kruskal-Wallis)|||F(3,144)=137.82|||.00
90869057|NCT02970422|181600875|OTHER|||||||0|||||||ANOVA|Factorial ANOVA used because variance could be assumed|||F(3,144)=55.89 Partial ETA squared (effect size)=0.54|||.000
90869058|NCT02970422|181600876|OTHER|||||||0|||||||ANOVA|One-way ANOVA|||F(3,142)=7.61|||.00
90869059|NCT02970422|181600877|OTHER|||||||0.31|||||||ANOVA|One-way ANOVA|||F(3,142)=1.21|||.31
90869060|NCT02970422|181600878|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|Non-parametric independent sample Kruskal-Wallis test (failed variance assumed|||F(3,139)=8.09|||.04
90869061|NCT02970422|181600879|OTHER|||||||0|||||||ANOVA|One-way ANOVA|||F(3,143)=8.01|||.00
90869062|NCT00646776|181600886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate|1.477|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.188|1.835|||ANOVA||Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals of treatment differences on the log scale were exponentiated to obtain estimates on the original scale.|||1.835|1.188|
90869063|NCT00646776|181600887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate|2.489|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.025|3.06|||ANOVA||Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals of treatment differences on the log scale were exponentiated to obtain estimates on the original scale.|||3.060|2.025|
90869064|NCT00646776|181600888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate|1.402|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.052|1.867|||ANOVA||Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals of treatment differences on the log scale were exponentiated to obtain estimates on the original scale.|||1.867|1.052|
90869065|NCT00646776|181600889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate|0.947|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.817|1.098|||ANOVA|||||1.098|0.817|
90869066|NCT00646776|181600890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate|0.745||||0.0963|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5569|0.9967|||ANOVA|||||0.9967|0.5569|0.0963
90869067|NCT00646776|181600891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate|0.857|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.723|1.015|||ANOVA|||||1.015|0.723|
90869068|NCT00646776|181600894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.538|0.809|||ANOVA|||||0.809|0.538|
90910682|NCT00383188|181691286|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.449|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.801|-0.096|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline DAS28-4(CRP) as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||-0.096|-0.801|0.0126
90910683|NCT00383188|181691286|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.515|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.208||0.0135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.923|-0.107|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline DAS28-4(CRP) as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||-0.107|-0.923|0.0135
90910684|NCT00383188|181691286|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.145|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.213||0.4979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.564|0.274|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline DAS28-4(CRP) as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||0.274|-0.564|0.4979
90910685|NCT00383188|181691286|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.271|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.195||0.1643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.111|0.653|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 16 as an interaction term, baseline DAS28-4(CRP) as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||0.653|-0.111|0.1643
90910686|NCT00383188|181691286|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.081|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.185||0.6611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.282|0.445|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 16 as an interaction term, baseline DAS28-4(CRP) as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||0.445|-0.282|0.6611
90910687|NCT00383188|181691286|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.097|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.219||0.6587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.333|0.526|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 16 as an interaction term, baseline DAS28-4(CRP) as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||0.526|-0.333|0.6587
90910688|NCT00383188|181691286|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.154|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.223||0.4903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.284|0.592|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 16 as an interaction term, baseline DAS28-4(CRP) as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||0.592|-0.284|0.4903
90910689|NCT00383188|181691288|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.119|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.1857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.296|0.057|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline HAQ-DI as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.057|-0.296|0.1857
90910690|NCT00383188|181691288|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.277|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.089||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.451|-0.103|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline HAQ-DI as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-0.103|-0.451|0.0019
90910691|NCT00383188|181691288|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.244|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.103||0.0178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.446|-0.042|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline HAQ-DI as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-0.042|-0.446|0.0178
90910692|NCT00383188|181691288|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.098|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.106||0.3547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.305|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline HAQ-DI as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.110|-0.305|0.3547
90910693|NCT00383188|181691288|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.135|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.089||0.1301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.04|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline HAQ-DI as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.040|-0.310|0.1301
90910694|NCT00383188|181691288|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.088||0.0313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.363|-0.017|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline HAQ-DI as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-0.017|-0.363|0.0313
90910695|NCT00383188|181691288|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.219|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.102||0.0323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.019|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline HAQ-DI as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-0.019|-0.420|0.0323
90910696|NCT00383188|181691288|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.105||0.6318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.256|0.156|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline HAQ-DI as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.156|-0.256|0.6318
90960523|NCT00427895|181801607|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.26|4.3||||||Serotype 3: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS/23vPS).||4.30|2.26|
90971043|NCT03016325|181824582|SUPERIORITY|Part II (low dose), confirmed SBP \< 90 mmHg - relative difference|Relative difference from placebo|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.16||||||||0.16|-0.11|
90869069|NCT00646776|181600895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate|0.651|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.43|0.986|||ANOVA|||||0.986|0.430|
90869070|NCT00646776|181600896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate|0.696|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.563|0.862|||ANOVA|||||0.862|0.563|
90869071|NCT00646776|181600902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate|10.902|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.135|14.61|||ANOVA|||||14.610|8.135|
90869072|NCT00646776|181600903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate|7.766|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.133|9.833|||ANCOVA|||||9.833|6.133|
90869073|NCT00646776|181600904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate|11.451|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.147|16.095|||ANOVA|||||16.095|8.147|
90869074|NCT00646776|181600905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate|2.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.783|2.691|||ANOVA||Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals of treatment differences on the log scale were exponentiated to obtain estimates on the original scale.|||2.691|1.783|
90869075|NCT04600921|181600912|SUPERIORITY|The parameters required to calculate sample size were the expected rate of VT/VF episodes/year in the placebo group, the minimal VT/VF rate ratio to be detected in the ertugliflozin group compared with the placebo group, the average follow-up of treatment duration, the negative binomial dispersion parameter, type 1 error probability, and the desired power.|Rate Ratio|0.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.61||The yearly rate ratio was adjusted for baseline number of sVT/VF episodes.|Negative binomial regression model|A prespecified sensitivity analysis was done to mitigate the effect of outliers by using the robust estimation approaches for negative binomial model.|Ertugliflozin is the numerator and the placebo is the denominator.|We compared the rate of sVT/VF episodes between experimental arms after 52 weeks.The initial sample calculation was based on the mathematical formula provided by Zhu and Lakkis for comparing event rates of two negative binomial distributiuons. To detect a 30% reduction in VT/VF episode rates in the ertugliflozin group compared to placebo group, with 80% power and an alpha level of 0.05, accounting for 5% drop out in each group, a total sample size of 402 was estimated to be required.||0.61|0.04|<0.001
90910697|NCT00383188|181691288|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.055|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.089||0.5388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.12|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline HAQ-DI as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.120|-0.230|0.5388
90910698|NCT00383188|181691288|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.157|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.088||0.0755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.329|0.016|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline HAQ-DI as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.016|-0.329|0.0755
90910699|NCT00383188|181691288|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.219|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.102||0.0323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.019|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline HAQ-DI as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-0.019|-0.420|0.0323
90910700|NCT00383188|181691288|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.072|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.105||0.4948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.277|0.134|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline HAQ-DI as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.134|-0.277|0.4948
90910701|NCT00383188|181691288|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.089||0.5022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.115|0.235|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline HAQ-DI as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.235|-0.115|0.5022
90910702|NCT00383188|181691288|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.088||0.0307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.363|-0.018|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline HAQ-DI as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-0.018|-0.363|0.0307
90910703|NCT00383188|181691288|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.172|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.102||0.0933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.372|0.029|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline HAQ-DI as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.029|-0.372|0.0933
90910704|NCT00383188|181691288|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.027|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.105||0.7967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.179|0.233|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline HAQ-DI as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.233|-0.179|0.7967
90971044|NCT03016325|181824582|SUPERIORITY|Part II (high dose), confirmed SBP \< 90 mmHg - relative risk|Relative risk from placebo|1.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|3.21||||||||3.21|0.87|
90869076|NCT04600921|181600913|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.97||||||The number of incident nsVT episodes were analyzed using a beta binomial model.||0.97|0.12|
90869077|NCT04600921|181600914|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.81||||||The number of appropriate ICD therapies were analyzed by using beta binomial model.||1.81|0.13|
90869078|NCT04600921|181600915|SUPERIORITY||Difference in mean change|0.17|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.69|||Regression, Linear|||The change in NTproBNP levels was analyzed by using a multiple linear regression model.||0.69|-0.35|>0.05
90910705|NCT00383188|181691288|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.034|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.089||0.7059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.208|0.141|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline HAQ-DI as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.141|-0.208|0.7059
90960524|NCT00427895|181801607|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT ratio|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|3.8||||||Serotype 4: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS/23vPS).||3.80|1.72|
90960525|NCT00427895|181801607|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.09|10.19||||||Serotype 5: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS/23vPS).||10.19|4.09|
90869079|NCT04600921|181600916|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|3.13||||||The change in HbA1c levels from baseline to week 52 was analyzed by multiple linear regression model.||3.13|-1.69|
90869080|NCT04600921|181600917|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.7||||||||1.7|0.2|
90869081|NCT02700815|181600925|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.277||0.0303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|-0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|A Mixed Model Repeat Measures (MMRM) analysis was used to compare change in POMwp from baseline between placebo and combination therapy diclofenac + capsaicin. MMRM model included fixed effects of treatment, country, application site (back/neck), time and fixed covariates of baseline POMwp and baseline POMwp by time interaction.||-0.06|-1.15|0.0303
90869082|NCT02700815|181600925|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.197||0.2886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|A Mixed Model Repeat Measures (MMRM) analysis was used to compare change in POMwp from baseline between capsaicin and combination therapy diclofenac + capsaicin. MMRM model included fixed effects of treatment, country, application site (back/neck), time and fixed covariates of baseline POMwp and baseline POMwp by time interaction.||0.60|-0.18|0.2886
90869083|NCT02700815|181600925|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.197||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|A Mixed Model Repeat Measures (MMRM) analysis was used to compare change in POMwp from baseline between diclofenac and combination therapy diclofenac + capsaicin. MMRM model included fixed effects of treatment, country, application site (back/neck), time and fixed covariates of baseline POMwp and baseline POMwp by time interaction.||-0.33|-1.10|0.0003
90869084|NCT02700815|181600926|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.221||0.0956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.07|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA includes treatment, country, and application site (back/neck) as fixed effects, and baseline POMwp as a continuous covariate.|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used to compare POMwp AUC(0-72 h) between placebo and combination therapy diclofenac + capsaicin||0.07|-0.80|0.0956
90869085|NCT02700815|181600926|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.157||0.0564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.61|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA includes treatment, country, and application site (back/neck) as fixed effects, and baseline POMwp as a continuous covariate.|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used to compare POMwp AUC(0-72 h) between capsaicin and combination therapy diclofenac + capsaicin||0.61|-0.01|0.0564
90869086|NCT02700815|181600926|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.157||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.25|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA includes treatment, country, and application site (back/neck) as fixed effects, and baseline POMwp as a continuous covariate.|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used to compare POMwp AUC(0-72 h) between diclofenac and combination therapy diclofenac + capsaicin||-0.25|-0.87|0.0004
90960526|NCT00427895|181801607|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.83|4.63||||||Serotype 6B: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS/23vPS).||4.63|1.83|
90910706|NCT00383188|181691288|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.213|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.088||0.0154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.386|-0.041|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline HAQ-DI as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-0.041|-0.386|0.0154
90910707|NCT00383188|181691288|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.136|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.102||0.1836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.336|0.065|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline HAQ-DI as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.065|-0.336|0.1836
90910708|NCT00383188|181691288|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.078|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.105||0.4577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.128|0.284|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline HAQ-DI as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.284|-0.128|0.4577
90971045|NCT03016325|181824582|SUPERIORITY|Part II (high dose), confirmed SBP \< 90 mmHg - relative difference|Relative difference from placebo|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.25||||||||0.25|-0.04|
90910709|NCT00383188|181691288|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.082|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.092||0.3692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.098|0.262|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 16 as an interaction term, baseline HAQ-DI as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.262|-0.098|0.3692
90910710|NCT00383188|181691288|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.065|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.4677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.111|0.241|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 16 as an interaction term, baseline HAQ-DI as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.241|-0.111|0.4677
90960527|NCT00427895|181801607|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.41|6.03||||||Serotype 7F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS/23vPS).||6.03|2.41|
90869087|NCT02700815|181600927|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.238||0.0347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.04|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA includes treatment, country, and application site (back/neck) as fixed effects, and baseline POMwp as a continuous covariate.|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used to compare POMwp AUC(0-120 h) between placebo and combination therapy diclofenac + capsaicin||-0.04|-0.97|0.0347
90869088|NCT02700815|181600927|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.169||0.0622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.65|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA includes treatment, country, and application site (back/neck) as fixed effects, and baseline POMwp as a continuous covariate.|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used to compare POMwp AUC(0-120 h) between capsaicin and combination therapy diclofenac + capsaicin||0.65|-0.02|0.0622
90869089|NCT02700815|181600927|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.169|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.35|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA includes treatment, country, and application site (back/neck) as fixed effects, and baseline POMwp as a continuous covariate.|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used to compare POMwp AUC(0-120 h) between diclofenac and combination therapy diclofenac + capsaicin||-0.35|-1.01|<0.0001
90869090|NCT02700815|181600928|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.882||||0.0202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|3.21|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model include country and application site as covariates. Odds ratio was calculated as combination treatment/individual treatment.||A logistic regression was used to compare change in number of patients with a decrease in POMwp of at least 30% from baseline between placebo and combination therapy diclofenac + capsaicin. The likelihood-ratio test was used to test for differences between treatments.||3.21|1.10|0.0202
90910711|NCT00383188|181691288|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.106||0.3427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.107|0.307|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 16 as an interaction term, baseline HAQ-DI as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.307|-0.107|0.3427
90910712|NCT00383188|181691288|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.135|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.108||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.077|0.347|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 16 as an interaction term, baseline HAQ-DI as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.347|-0.077|0.2120
90910713|NCT00383188|181691289|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.587|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.337||0.0815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.248|0.074|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Intensity Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||0.074|-1.248|0.0815
90910714|NCT00383188|181691289|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.057|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.331||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.707|-0.407|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Intensity Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||-0.407|-1.707|0.0015
90910715|NCT00383188|181691289|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.107|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.385||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.863|-0.351|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Intensity Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||-0.351|-1.863|0.0042
90910716|NCT00383188|181691289|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.842|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.398||0.0348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.624|-0.06|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Intensity Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||-0.060|-1.624|0.0348
90910717|NCT00383188|181691289|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.442|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.332||0.1843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.095|0.211|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Intensity Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||0.211|-1.095|0.1843
90910718|NCT00383188|181691289|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.582|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.327||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.225|0.061|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Intensity Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||0.061|-1.225|0.0760
90960528|NCT00427895|181801607|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|5.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.13|10.82||||||Serotype 9V: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS/23vPS).||10.82|3.13|
90960529|NCT00427895|181801607|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.84||||||Serotype 14: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS/23vPS).||2.84|1.30|
90960530|NCT00427895|181801607|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|4.78||||||Serotype 18C: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS/23vPS).||4.78|2.02|
90960531|NCT00427895|181801607|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.87|3.76||||||Serotype 19A: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS/23vPS).||3.76|1.87|
90960532|NCT00427895|181801607|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.97|6.58||||||Serotype 19F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS/23vPS).||6.58|2.97|
90960533|NCT00427895|181801607|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|9.41||||||Serotype 23F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS/23vPS).||9.41|3.20|
90960534|NCT00427895|181801608|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.10.|Difference in Percentage|6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|11.2||||||Serotype 1: Difference (13vPnC - 23vPS) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95%CI.||11.2|1.9|
90960535|NCT00427895|181801608|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.10.|Difference in Percentage|3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|8.1||||||Serotype 3: Difference (13vPnC - 23vPS) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95%CI.||8.1|-0.3|
90960536|NCT00427895|181801608|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.10.|Difference in Percentage|3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|7.2||||||Serotype 4: Difference (13vPnC - 23vPS) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95%CI.||7.2|-0.2|
90960537|NCT00427895|181801608|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.10.|Difference in Percentage|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|7.2||||||Serotype 5: Difference (13vPnC - 23vPS) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95%CI.||7.2|-2.6|
90960538|NCT00427895|181801608|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.10.|Difference in Percentage|26.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.7|31.7||||||Serotype 6A: Difference (13vPnC - 23vPS) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95%CI.||31.7|21.7|
90960539|NCT00427895|181801608|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.10.|Difference in Percentage|7.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|12.0||||||Serotype 6B: Difference (13vPnC - 23vPS) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95%CI.||12.0|3.2|
90960540|NCT00427895|181801608|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.10.|Difference in Percentage|12.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.3|17.4||||||Serotype 7F: Difference (13vPnC - 23vPS) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95%CI.||17.4|7.3|
90960541|NCT00427895|181801608|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.10.|Difference in Percentage|14.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.7|19.5||||||Serotype 9V: Difference (13vPnC - 23vPS) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95%CI.||19.5|8.7|
90869091|NCT02700815|181600928|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.732||||0.1206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.09|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model include country and application site as covariates. Odds ratio was calculated as combination treatment/individual treatment.||A logistic regression was used to compare change in number of patients with a decrease in POMwp of at least 30% from baseline between capsaicin and combination therapy diclofenac + capsaicin. The likelihood-ratio test was used to test for differences between treatments.||1.09|0.49|0.1206
90910719|NCT00383188|181691289|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.382||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.769|-0.27|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Intensity Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||-0.270|-1.769|0.0078
90910720|NCT00383188|181691289|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.517|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.395||0.1905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.292|0.258|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Intensity Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||0.258|-1.292|0.1905
90910721|NCT00383188|181691289|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.149|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.332||0.6552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.801|0.504|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Intensity Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||0.504|-0.801|0.6552
90960542|NCT00427895|181801608|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.10.|Difference in Percentage|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|3.8||||||Serotype 14: Difference (13vPnC - 23vPS) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95%CI.||3.8|-5.6|
90960543|NCT00427895|181801608|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.10.|Difference in Percentage|6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|10.5||||||Serotype 18C: Difference (13vPnC - 23vPS) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95%CI.||10.5|2.6|
90960544|NCT00427895|181801608|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.10.|Difference in Percentage|4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|7.1||||||Serotype 19A: Difference (13vPnC - 23vPS) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95%CI.||7.1|1.2|
90910722|NCT00383188|181691289|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.327||0.0281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.363|-0.078|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Intensity Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||-0.078|-1.363|0.0281
90869092|NCT02700815|181600928|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.629||||0.0122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|2.39|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model include country and application site as covariates. Odds ratio was calculated as combination treatment/individual treatment.||A logistic regression was used to compare change in number of patients with a decrease in POMwp of at least 30% from baseline between diclofenac and combination therapy diclofenac + capsaicin. The likelihood-ratio test was used to test for differences between treatments.||2.39|1.11|0.0122
90910723|NCT00383188|181691289|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.382||0.0263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.599|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Intensity Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||-0.100|-1.599|0.0263
90960545|NCT00427895|181801608|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|Difference in Percentage|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|3.2||||||Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.10.||3.2|-5.5|
90960546|NCT00427895|181801608|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.10.|Difference in Percentage|23.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.0|29.3||||||Serotype 23F: Difference (13vPnC - 23vPS) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95%CI.||29.3|17.0|
90960547|NCT00427895|181801608|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.10.|Difference in Percentage|3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|7.5||||||Serotype 1: Difference (cohort 2 - cohort 1) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95%CI.||7.5|-0.2|
90910724|NCT00383188|181691289|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.429|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.395||0.2772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.204|0.346|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Intensity Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||0.346|-1.204|0.2772
90910725|NCT00383188|181691289|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.332||0.9433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.676|0.629|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Intensity Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||0.629|-0.676|0.9433
90910726|NCT00383188|181691289|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.768|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.327||0.193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|-0.125|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Intensity Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||-0.125|-1.410|0.193
90960548|NCT00427895|181801608|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.10.|Difference in Percentage|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|4.1||||||Serotype 3: Difference (cohort 2 - cohort 1) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95%CI.||4.1|-3.6|
90960549|NCT00427895|181801608|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.10.|Difference in Percentage|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|5.5||||||Serotype 4: Difference (cohort 2 - cohort 1) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95%CI.||5.5|-0.4|
90910727|NCT00383188|181691289|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.763|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.382||0.461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.512|-0.013|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Intensity Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||-0.013|-1.512|0.461
90910728|NCT00383188|181691289|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.254|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.395||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.029|0.521|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Intensity Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||0.521|-1.029|0.5200
90910729|NCT00383188|181691289|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.476|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.332||0.1526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.129|0.177|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Intensity Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||0.177|-1.129|0.1526
90910730|NCT00383188|181691289|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.095|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.327||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.738|-0.453|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Intensity Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||-0.453|-1.738|0.0009
90910731|NCT00383188|181691289|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.523|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.382||0.1711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.273|0.227|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Intensity Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||0.227|-1.273|0.1711
90869093|NCT02700815|181600929|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.729||||0.0643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|3.09|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model include country and application site as covariates. Odds ratio was calculated as combination treatment/individual treatment.||A logistic regression was used to compare change in number of patients with a decrease in POMwp of at least 50% from baseline between placebo and combination therapy diclofenac + capsaicin. The likelihood-ratio test was used to test for differences between treatments.||3.09|0.97|0.0643
90910732|NCT00383188|181691289|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.563|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.395||0.1539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.338|0.211|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Intensity Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||0.211|-1.338|0.1539
90910733|NCT00383188|181691289|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.512|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.1554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.219|0.195|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Interference Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||0.195|-1.219|0.1554
90910734|NCT00383188|181691289|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.889|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.354||0.0124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.585|-0.193|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Interference Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||-0.193|-1.585|0.0124
90910735|NCT00383188|181691289|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.914|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.412||0.0268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.723|-0.106|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Interference Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||-0.106|-1.723|0.0268
90910736|NCT00383188|181691289|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.681|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.427||0.1113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.519|0.158|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Interference Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||0.158|-1.519|0.1113
90910737|NCT00383188|181691289|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.356||0.1305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|0.16|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Interference Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||0.160|-1.240|0.1305
90910738|NCT00383188|181691289|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.571|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.351||0.1043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.261|0.118|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Interference Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||0.118|-1.261|0.1043
90910739|NCT00383188|181691289|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.017|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.409||0.0131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|-0.214|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Interference Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||-0.214|-1.820|0.0131
90869094|NCT02700815|181600929|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.833||||0.3479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.22|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model include country and application site as covariates. Odds ratio was calculated as combination treatment/individual treatment.||A logistic regression was used to compare change in number of patients with a decrease in POMwp of at least 50% from baseline between capsaicin and combination therapy diclofenac + capsaicin. The likelihood-ratio test was used to test for differences between treatments.||1.22|0.57|0.3479
90869095|NCT02700815|181600929|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.125||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|3.22|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model include country and application site as covariates. Odds ratio was calculated as combination treatment/individual treatment.||A logistic regression was used to compare change in number of patients with a decrease in POMwp of at least 50% from baseline between diclofenac and combination therapy diclofenac + capsaicin. The likelihood-ratio test was used to test for differences between treatments.||3.22|1.40|0.0004
90869096|NCT02700815|181600930|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.313||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|-0.44|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|A Mixed Model Repeat Measures (MMRM) analysis was used to compare change in POMwp from baseline between placebo and combination therapy diclofenac + capsaicin. MMRM model included fixed effects of treatment, country, application site (back/neck), time and fixed covariates of baseline POMwp and baseline POMwp by time interaction.||-0.44|-1.67|0.0008
90869097|NCT02700815|181600930|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.223||0.3726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.64|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|A Mixed Model Repeat Measures (MMRM) analysis was used to compare change in POMwp from baseline between capsaicin and combination therapy diclofenac + capsaicin. MMRM model included fixed effects of treatment, country, application site (back/neck), time and fixed covariates of baseline POMwp and baseline POMwp by time interaction.||0.64|-0.24|0.3726
90869098|NCT02700815|181600930|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.223|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|-0.68|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|A Mixed Model Repeat Measures (MMRM) analysis was used to compare change in POMwp from baseline between diclofenac and combination therapy diclofenac + capsaicin. MMRM model included fixed effects of treatment, country, application site (back/neck), time and fixed covariates of baseline POMwp and baseline POMwp by time interaction.||-0.68|-1.56|<0.0001
90869099|NCT02700815|181600931|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.844||0.881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|1.53|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|A Mixed Model Repeat Measures (MMRM) analysis was used to compare change in PA from baseline between placebo and combination therapy diclofenac + capsaicin. MMRM model included fixed effects of treatment, country, application site (back/neck), time and fixed covariates of baseline PA and baseline PA by time interaction.||1.53|-1.78|0.8810
90869100|NCT02700815|181600931|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.601||0.6094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|1.49|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|A Mixed Model Repeat Measures (MMRM) analysis was used to compare change in PA from baseline between capsaicin and combination therapy diclofenac + capsaicin. MMRM model included fixed effects of treatment, country, application site (back/neck), time and fixed covariates of baseline PA and baseline PA by time interaction.||1.49|-0.87|0.6094
90869101|NCT02700815|181600931|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.602||0.2047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|1.95|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|A Mixed Model Repeat Measures (MMRM) analysis was used to compare change in PA from baseline between diclofenac and combination therapy diclofenac + capsaicin. MMRM model included fixed effects of treatment, country, application site (back/neck), time and fixed covariates of baseline PA and baseline PA by time interaction.||1.95|-0.42|0.2047
90869102|NCT02700815|181600932|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.339||0.2193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|4.27|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|A Mixed Model Repeat Measures (MMRM) analysis was used to compare change in PA from baseline between placebo and combination therapy diclofenac + capsaicin. MMRM model included fixed effects of treatment, country, application site (back/neck), time and fixed covariates of baseline PA and baseline PA by time interaction.||4.27|-0.98|0.2193
90869103|NCT02700815|181600932|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.949||0.7672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|2.15|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|A Mixed Model Repeat Measures (MMRM) analysis was used to compare change in PA from baseline between capsaicin and combination therapy diclofenac + capsaicin. MMRM model included fixed effects of treatment, country, application site (back/neck), time and fixed covariates of baseline PA and baseline PA by time interaction.||2.15|-1.58|0.7672
90910740|NCT00383188|181691289|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.492|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.424||0.2459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.324|0.34|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Interference Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||0.340|-1.324|0.2459
90910741|NCT00383188|181691289|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.221|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.356||0.536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.921|0.479|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Interference Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||0.479|-0.921|0.5360
90910742|NCT00383188|181691289|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.465|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.351||0.1858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.155|0.225|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Interference Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||0.225|-1.155|0.1858
90971046|NCT03016325|181824582|SUPERIORITY|Part II-Japan (low dose), confirmed SBP \< 90 mmHg - relative difference|Relative difference from placebo|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.78||||||||0.78|-0.17|
90910743|NCT00383188|181691289|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.821|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.409||0.0451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.624|-0.018|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Interference Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||-0.018|-1.624|0.0451
90971047|NCT03016325|181824582|SUPERIORITY|Part II-Japan (high dose), confirmed SBP \< 90 mmHg - relative difference|Relative difference from placebo|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.88||||||||0.88|-0.04|
90910744|NCT00383188|181691289|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.189|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.424||0.6551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.021|0.643|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Interference Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||0.643|-1.021|0.6551
90910745|NCT00383188|181691289|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.018|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.356||0.9602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.682|0.718|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Interference Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||0.718|-0.682|0.9602
90971048|NCT02595723|181824615|OTHER|||||||0.003||||||Overall group difference adjusted for prior group, time, and baseline values.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes prior group, time, and baseline values to control for possible effects.||||||0.003
90869104|NCT02700815|181600932|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.0339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|3.88|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|A Mixed Model Repeat Measures (MMRM) analysis was used to compare change in PA from baseline between diclofenac and combination therapy diclofenac + capsaicin. MMRM model included fixed effects of treatment, country, application site (back/neck), time and fixed covariates of baseline PA and baseline PA by time interaction.||3.88|0.15|0.0339
90869105|NCT02324569|181600993|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) mean difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.097|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.826|-0.443|||ANCOVA|||||-0.443|-0.826|<0.0001
90869106|NCT02016560|181601003|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.581||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.968|2.581||A p-value of \<0.05 was the a priori threshold for statistical significance.|Cox proportional hazards|The Cox proportional hazard model was adjusted for baseline age, American National Adult Reading Test (ANART) score, and baseline CDR-SB score.||The specific hypothesis tested was that the hazard of progressing to the clinically meaningful event (defined as CDR-SB value change of at least 1 within 18 months) will be significantly greater for subjects with flortaucipir scans rated by majority interpretation as predicted to progress (Advanced AD scan pattern), as compared to subjects with scans rated as not predicted to progress (Moderate or Not AD scan pattern).||2.581|0.968|0.067
90869107|NCT02016560|181601004|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. No a priori threshold was set.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for age||ANCOVA model comparing the mean SUVr between AD and Older Cognitively Healthy within amyloid positive group.||||<0.0001
90869108|NCT02016560|181601004|OTHER|||||||0.0622||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. No a priori threshold was set.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for age||ANCOVA model comparing the mean SUVr between MCI and Older Cognitively Healthy within the amyloid positive group.||||0.0622
90869109|NCT02016560|181601004|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. No a priori threshold was set.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for age||ANCOVA model comparing the mean SUVr between AD and MCI within the amyloid positive group.||||<0.0001
90869110|NCT02016560|181601005|EQUIVALENCE|Test of whether the least squares mean change is significantly different than zero|||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||SUVr change from baseline as dependent variable, baseline SUVr, age, and visit as independent variables, using an unstructured covariance structure for amyloid positive subjects only.||||<0.0001
90869111|NCT02016560|181601005|EQUIVALENCE|Test of whether the least squares mean change is significantly different than zero||||||0.7851|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||SUVr change from baseline as dependent variable, baseline SUVr, age, and visit as independent variables, using an unstructured covariance structure for amyloid negative subjects only.||||0.7851
90869112|NCT02016560|181601006|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The hypothesis tested was that, of the 5 independent imaging physicians, at least 3 will have the lower bounds of 2-sided 95% confidence intervals ≥50%, for both sensitivity and specificity.|||
90869113|NCT02016560|181601007|OTHER||Pearson's correlation coefficient|-0.0925||||0.4361|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson|||Pearson's correlation coefficient||||0.4361
90869114|NCT03758274|181601008|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.746|||||||Based on simple path model in Mplus.|||||||0.746
90869115|NCT03758274|181601009|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.247|||||||Based on simple path model in Mplus.|||||||0.247
90869116|NCT03758274|181601010|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.689|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.689
90869117|NCT00309387|181601081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.82||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.98|||Regression, Cox|||||0.98|0.68|0.03
90869118|NCT02899988|181601102|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|29.4||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.9|41.9|||Regression, Logistic|||||41.9|16.9|0.009
90869119|NCT02899988|181601102|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|58.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.3|72.3|||Regression, Logistic|||||72.3|45.3|<0.001
90869120|NCT02899988|181601102|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|66.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.7|79.6|||Regression, Logistic|||||79.6|53.7|<0.001
90869121|NCT02899988|181601103|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.7||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|25.7|||Regression, Logistic|||||25.7|5.7|0.039
90869122|NCT02899988|181601103|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|31.4||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.6|44.1|||Regression, Logistic|||||44.1|18.6|0.007
90869123|NCT02899988|181601103|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|31.4||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.6|44.1|||Regression, Logistic|||||44.1|18.6|0.007
90869124|NCT02899988|181601104|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|22.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.62|89.97|||Regression, Logistic|||||89.97|5.62|<0.001
90869125|NCT02899988|181601104|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|74.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.1|87.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||87.0|62.1|<0.001
90869126|NCT02899988|181601104|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|70.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.6|83.7|||Regression, Logistic|||||83.7|57.6|<0.001
90869127|NCT02899988|181601105|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.7||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|25.7|||Regression, Logistic|||sPGA (0)||25.7|5.7|0.041
90869128|NCT02899988|181601105|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|31.4||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.6|44.1|||Regression, Logistic|||sPGA (0)||44.1|18.6|0.007
90869129|NCT02899988|181601105|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|31.4||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.6|44.1|||Regression, Logistic|||sPGA (0)||44.1|18.6|0.008
90869130|NCT02899988|181601105|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|35.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.5|49.1|||Regression, Logistic|||sPGA (0/1)||49.1|21.5|<0.001
90869131|NCT02899988|181601105|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|68.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.6|81.7|||Regression, Logistic|||sPGA (0/1)||81.7|55.6|<0.001
90910746|NCT00383188|181691289|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.351||0.0198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|-0.131|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Interference Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||-0.131|-1.510|0.0198
90910747|NCT00383188|181691289|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.948|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.409||0.0208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.751|-0.145|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Interference Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||-0.145|-1.751|0.0208
90869132|NCT02899988|181601105|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|66.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.4|80.0|||Regression, Logistic|||sPGA (0/1)||80.0|53.4|<0.001
90869133|NCT02899988|181601106|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-26.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
90869134|NCT02899988|181601106|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-37.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
90910748|NCT00383188|181691289|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.433|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.424||0.3077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.265|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Interference Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||0.400|-1.265|0.3077
90910749|NCT00383188|181691289|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.211|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.356||0.555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.911|0.49|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Interference Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||0.490|-0.911|0.5550
90910750|NCT00383188|181691289|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.795|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.351||0.0239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.485|-0.106|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Interference Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||-0.106|-1.485|0.0239
90910751|NCT00383188|181691289|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.613|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.409||0.1342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.416|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Interference Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||0.190|-1.416|0.1342
90910752|NCT00383188|181691289|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.367|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.424||0.3868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.199|0.465|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Interference Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||0.465|-1.199|0.3868
90910753|NCT00383188|181691290|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.792|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.093||0.4693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.357|2.941|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline SF-36 PCS as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||2.941|-1.357|0.4693
90910754|NCT00383188|181691290|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|1.927|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.077||0.0743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|4.044|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline SF-36 PCS as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||4.044|-0.190|0.0743
90910755|NCT00383188|181691290|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|4.196|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.286||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.668|6.723|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline SF-36 PCS as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||6.723|1.668|0.0012
90910756|NCT00383188|181691290|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|1.236|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.308||0.3452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.335|3.807|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline SF-36 PCS as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||3.807|-1.335|0.3452
90910757|NCT00383188|181691290|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|1.095|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.091||0.3162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|3.239|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline SF-36 PCS as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||3.239|-1.050|0.3162
90910758|NCT00383188|181691290|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|2.514|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.072||0.0195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.406|4.622|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline SF-36 PCS as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||4.622|0.406|0.0195
90960550|NCT00427895|181801608|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.10.|Difference in Percentage|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|3.9||||||Serotype 5: Difference (cohort 2 - cohort 1) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95%CI.||3.9|-5.8|
90869135|NCT02899988|181601106|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-29.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.22|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
90869136|NCT02899988|181601107|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
90869137|NCT02899988|181601107|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
90869138|NCT02899988|181601107|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
90869139|NCT02899988|181601108|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
90869140|NCT02899988|181601108|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
90910759|NCT00383188|181691290|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|2.762|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.283||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.239|5.285|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline SF-36 PCS as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||5.285|0.239|0.0320
90910760|NCT00383188|181691290|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.268|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29||0.8356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.268|2.804|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline SF-36 PCS as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||2.804|-2.268|0.8356
90910761|NCT00383188|181691290|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.904|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.626||0.5787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.101|2.293|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline SF-36 MCS as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||2.293|-4.101|0.5787
90869141|NCT02899988|181601108|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
90869142|NCT02899988|181601109|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.24||0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Mental Component Summary (MCS)||||0.009
90869143|NCT02899988|181601109|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.22||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Mental Component Summary (MCS)||||0.002
90910762|NCT00383188|181691290|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|1.291|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.4203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.854|4.436|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline SF-36 MCS as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||4.436|-1.854|0.4203
90910763|NCT00383188|181691290|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|2.318|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.916||0.2272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.449|6.084|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline SF-36 MCS as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||6.084|-1.449|0.2272
90910764|NCT00383188|181691290|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.829|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.947||0.6707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.998|4.655|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline SF-36 MCS as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||4.655|-2.998|0.6707
90910765|NCT00383188|181691290|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.425|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.622||0.7935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.764|3.613|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline SF-36 MCS as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||3.613|-2.764|0.7935
90910766|NCT00383188|181691290|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|2.525|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.592||0.1135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.605|5.655|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline SF-36 MCS as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||5.655|-0.605|0.1135
90869144|NCT02899988|181601109|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.24||0.087|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Mental Component Summary (MCS)||||0.087
90869145|NCT02899988|181601109|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Physical Component Summary||||<0.001
90869146|NCT02899988|181601109|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Physical Component Summary||||<0.001
90869147|NCT02899988|181601109|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Physical Component Summary||||<0.001
90869148|NCT04492618|181601111|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.005
90910767|NCT00383188|181691290|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|2.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.912||0.1697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.128|6.388|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline SF-36 MCS as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||6.388|-1.128|0.1697
90869149|NCT03562481|181601112|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis of variance for a 2x2 crossover study implemented using the pkcross routine of Stata 16.1, accounting of sequence and period effects.|F statistic|0.8||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANOVA|Analysis of variance for a 2x2 crossover study implemented using the pkcross routine of Stata 16.1, accounting of sequence and period effects.||||||0.38
90869150|NCT03562481|181601113|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was defined as a non-statistically significant difference.|F statistic|1.21||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANOVA|||Analysis of variance for 2x2 crossover study using the pkcross routine of Stata 16.1 and accounting for sequence and period effects.||||0.28
90960551|NCT00427895|181801608|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.10.|Difference in Percentage|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|4.8||||||Serotype 6A: Difference (cohort 2 - cohort 1) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95%CI.||4.8|-0.4|
90869151|NCT03562481|181601114|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was defined based on statistical significance in the cross-over ANOVA.|F statistic|11.1||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|||||This is adjusted for period and sequence effects and is statistically significant at the p\<0.05 level.|ANOVA|||Analysis of variance for 2x2 crossover study using the pkcross routine of Stata 16.1 adjusting for perio and sequence effects.||||0.003
90910768|NCT00383188|181691290|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|2.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.918||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.561|5.981|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline SF-36 MCS as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||5.981|-1.561|0.2500
90869152|NCT03562481|181601115|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was determined based on the statistical significance of the Wilcoxon signed-rank test.|Z score|-0.996||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Sign test|Wilcoxon signed-rank test||||||0.33
90869153|NCT03562481|181601116|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was determined based on the statistical significance of the chi square test.|Chi-square test|0.81||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Chi-squared|||||||0.37
90869154|NCT03562481|181601117|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was defined based on statistical significance in the symmetry test.|Chi-square test|0.2||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Sruart-Maxwell symmetry test|||Stuart-Maxwell test of marginal homogeneity implemented with the symmetry routine in Stata 16.1||||0.65
90869155|NCT03562481|181601118|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was defined based on significance in the symmetry test.|Chi-square test|0.14||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Sruart-Maxwell symmetry test|||Test of symmetry or marginal homogeneity (Stuart-Maxwell) implemented with the symmetry routine in Stata 16.1.||||0.71
90869156|NCT03562481|181601119|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was defined based on statistical significance in the symmetry test.|Chi-square test|1.0||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Sruart-Maxwell symmetry test|||Test of symmetry (marginal homogeneity, Stuart-Maxwell) implemented using the symmetry routine in Stata 16.1.||||0.32
90869157|NCT03562481|181601120|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was defined based on the statistical significance of the symmetry test.|Chi-square test|1.29||||0.26|TWO_SIDED||||||Sruart-Maxwell symmetry test|||Test of symmetry (marginal homogeneity, Stuart-Maxwell) implemented using the symmetry routine in Stata 16.1.||||0.26
90869158|NCT00856284|181601127|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was met if the upper limit of the 1-sided 98.75% CI for the difference between alogliptin 25 mg and glipizide in HbA1c change from Baseline was less than 0.3%. If the null hypothesis H01 was rejected, then H02 was tested to show noninferiority of alogliptin 12.5 mg versus glipizide with a margin of 0.3%. Non-inferiority was met if the upper limit of the 1-sided 98.75% CI for the difference between alogliptin 12.5 mg and glipizide in HbA1c change from Baseline was less than 0.3%.|LS Mean Difference|-0.03|||||ONE_SIDED|98.75||0.059||||||The null hypotheses were tested in a fixed order at the 1-sided 0.0125 significance level at Weeks 52 and 104, independently: H01: Alogliptin 25 mg was inferior in HbA1c change from Baseline vs glipizide. H02: Alogliptin 12.5 mg was inferior vs glipizide. H03: Alogliptin 25 mg was not superior vs glipizide. H04: Alogliptin 12.5 mg was not superior vs glipizide. Each subsequent null hypothesis was tested only if all previously tested null hypotheses were rejected with respect to Weeks 52 and 104.||0.059||
90869159|NCT00856284|181601127|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was met if the upper limit of the 1-sided 98.75% CI for the difference between alogliptin 25 mg and glipizide in HbA1c change from Baseline was less than 0.3%. If the null hypothesis H01 was rejected, then H02 was tested to show noninferiority of alogliptin 12.5 mg versus glipizide with a margin of 0.3%. Non-inferiority was met if the upper limit of the 1-sided 98.75% CI for the difference between alogliptin 12.5 mg and glipizide in HbA1c change from Baseline was less than 0.3%.|LS Mean Difference|-0.09|||||ONE_SIDED|98.75||0.003||||||||0.003||
90869160|NCT00856284|181601133|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was met if the upper limit of the 1-sided 98.75% CI for the difference between alogliptin 25 mg and glipizide in HbA1c change from Baseline was less than 0.3%. If the null hypothesis H01 was rejected, then H02 was tested to show noninferiority of alogliptin 12.5 mg versus glipizide with a margin of 0.3%. Non-inferiority was met if the upper limit of the 1-sided 98.75% CI for the difference between alogliptin 12.5 mg and glipizide in HbA1c change from Baseline was less than 0.3%.|LS Mean Difference|-0.13|||||ONE_SIDED|98.75||-0.006||||||The null hypotheses were tested in a fixed order at the 1-sided 0.0125 significance level at Weeks 52 and 104, independently: H01: Alogliptin 25 mg was inferior in HbA1c change from Baseline vs glipizide. H02: Alogliptin 12.5 mg was inferior vs glipizide. H03: Alogliptin 25 mg was not superior vs glipizide. H04: Alogliptin 12.5 mg was not superior vs glipizide. Each subsequent null hypothesis was tested only if all previously tested null hypotheses were rejected with respect to Weeks 52 and 104.||-0.006||
90869161|NCT00856284|181601133|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was met if the upper limit of the 1-sided 98.75% CI for the difference between alogliptin 25 mg and glipizide in HbA1c change from Baseline was less than 0.3%. If the null hypothesis H01 was rejected, then H02 was tested to show noninferiority of alogliptin 12.5 mg versus glipizide with a margin of 0.3%. Non-inferiority was met if the upper limit of the 1-sided 98.75% CI for the difference between alogliptin 12.5 mg and glipizide in HbA1c change from Baseline was less than 0.3%.|LS Mean Difference|-0.09|||||ONE_SIDED|98.75||0.035||||||||0.035||
90910769|NCT00414206|181691299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
90910770|NCT00038103|181691305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Clinical Benefit Rate|49.0||||||95.0|34.4|63.7|||||Number of subjects showing clinical benefits out of the number of subjects in the evaluable set.|||63.7|34.4|
90910771|NCT00038103|181691305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Clinical Benefit Rate|47.1||||||95.0|32.9|61.5|||||Number of subjects showing clinical benefits out of the number of subjects in the evaluable set.|||61.5|32.9|
90910772|NCT00038103|181691306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Objective Response Rate|22.4||||||95.0|11.8|36.6|||||Number of subjects showing objective response out of the number of subjects in the evaluable set.|||36.6|11.8|
90910773|NCT00038103|181691306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Objective Response Rate|23.5||||||95.0|12.8|37.5|||||Number of subjects showing objective response out of the number of subjects in the evaluable set.|||37.5|12.8|
90910774|NCT01144182|181691313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|||||For this pilot study, significance level was set at p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.56
90910775|NCT01144182|181691314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.22
90910776|NCT01144182|181691315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
90910777|NCT01144182|181691316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.34
90910778|NCT01144182|181691317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.008
90910779|NCT01144182|181691318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.30
90910780|NCT01144182|181691319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.15
90910781|NCT01144182|181691320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.55
90910782|NCT01144182|181691321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.56|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.56
90910783|NCT01144182|181691322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
90910784|NCT01144182|181691323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.15
90910785|NCT01144182|181691324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.26
90910786|NCT01144182|181691325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.36
90910787|NCT01670110|181691329|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.001
90910788|NCT01670110|181691330|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.003
90910789|NCT01670110|181691331|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.79
90910790|NCT01670110|181691332|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.79
90910791|NCT01670110|181691333|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
90910792|NCT01670110|181691334|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
90910793|NCT01670110|181691335|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.73
90910794|NCT01670110|181691336|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Physical functioning||||0.31
90910795|NCT01670110|181691336|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Physical role||||0.48
90910796|NCT01670110|181691336|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Bodily pain||||0.89
90910797|NCT01670110|181691336|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||General health||||0.18
90910798|NCT01670110|181691336|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Vitality||||0.28
90910799|NCT01670110|181691336|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Social functioning||||0.66
90910800|NCT01670110|181691336|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Role emotional||||0.43
90910801|NCT01670110|181691336|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Mental health||||0.51
90910802|NCT03693742|181691348|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||A P value of less than 0.05 was considered significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in uptake of F18-DCFPyL between the MSG and placebo groups.~A sample size of 10 achieves 100% power to detect a mean of paired differences of 5.0 (33%) with an estimated standard deviation of differences of 1.0 and with a significance level (alpha) of 0.05 using a one-sided paired t-test. If the estimated standard deviation of differences is 5.0, a sample size of 10 achieves 90% power to detect a mean difference of 5.0 with an alpha of 0.05."||||<0.001
90910803|NCT00798265|181691361|OTHER|||||||0.002||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in HPV-16 at 7 months in Cohort 1.|Spearman correlation (non-parametric)|||||||0.0020
90910804|NCT00798265|181691361|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in HPV-18 at 7 months in Cohort 1.|Spearman correlation (non-parametric)|||||||<.0001
90910805|NCT00798265|181691361|OTHER|||||||0.0002||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in HPV-16 at 7 months in Cohort 2.|Spearman correlation (non-parametric)|||||||0.0002
90910806|NCT00798265|181691361|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in HPV-18 at 7 months in Cohort 2.|Spearman correlation (non-parametric)|||||||<.0001
90910807|NCT04411082|181691369|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.99
90910808|NCT04411082|181691370|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.99
90910809|NCT04411082|181691371|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.99
90910810|NCT04411082|181691372|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.4839|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.4839
90910811|NCT04411082|181691373|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2065|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2065
90910812|NCT04411082|181691374|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4839|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4839
90910813|NCT04411082|181691375|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.99
90910814|NCT04411082|181691376|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.99
90910815|NCT03538041|181691395|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2815|||||||ANOVA|||Week 2||||0.2815
90910816|NCT03538041|181691396|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2921|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Week 2||||0.2921
90910817|NCT03538041|181691397|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1267|||||||ANOVA|||Week 2||||0.1267
90910818|NCT03538041|181691398|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2676|||||||ANOVA|||Week 2||||0.2676
90910819|NCT00964366|181691419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Dunn's Multiple Comparisons Test|||||||> 0.05
90910820|NCT00964366|181691421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||Dapsone versus Clindamycin/BPO gel.|Dunn's Multiple Comparisons Test|||||||< 0.05
90910821|NCT00964366|181691422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
90910822|NCT00964366|181691423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
90910823|NCT05372094|181691424|OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Fixed factor of program and random intercept of participant||||0.007
90910824|NCT05372094|181691424|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Follow up comparison between noise reduction setting OFF and noise reduction setting STRONG||||< 0.05
90910825|NCT05372094|181691424|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Follow up comparison between noise reduction setting STRONG and noise reduction setting WEAK||||<0.01
90910826|NCT05372094|181691424|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Follow up comparison between ratings of effort with OFF and WEAK"||||>.05
90910827|NCT05372094|181691425|OTHER|||||||0.283|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.283
90910828|NCT05372094|181691426|OTHER|||||||0.145|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was done only between NR OFF and NR at a custom or preferred setting.||||0.145
90910829|NCT05372094|181691427|OTHER|||||||0.3018|||||||Exact Binomial test|||An exact binomial test was performed to evaluate if the majority of teens and pre-teens with mild to severe hearing loss preferred NR setting (i.e., either weak or strong) to the NR setting OFF.||||0.3018
90910830|NCT05372094|181691428|OTHER|||||||0.1796|||||||Exact Binomial test|||Exact binomial test was done to evaluate if the majority (\>50%) of teens and pre-teens prefer to use Tap Control to access Bluetooth streaming, compared to using the HA push button or phone controls.||||0.1796
90910831|NCT02957539|181691451|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-10.7|1.6|||||Change in weight from baseline to week 32 in the financial rewards arm minus the change in weight from baseline to week 32 in the no rewards arm.|||1.6|-10.7|
90910832|NCT02957539|181691451|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.0|||<|0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-11.1|1.0|||t-test, 2 sided||Change in weight from baseline to week 32 in the non-financial arm minus the change in weight from baseline to week 32 in the no rewards arm|||1|-11.1|<0.025
90910833|NCT02957539|181691452|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.5|1.8|||||Change in Self Efficacy score from baseline to week 16 in the financial rewards arm minus the change in Self Efficacy score from baseline to week 16 in the no rewards arm.|||1.8|-0.5|
90910834|NCT02957539|181691452|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.8|1.5|||||Change in Self Efficacy score from baseline to week 16 in the nonfinancial rewards arm minus the change in Self Efficacy score from baseline to week 16 in the no rewards arm.|||1.5|-0.8|
90910835|NCT02957539|181691453|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.2|1.4|||||The change in self efficacy from baseline to week 32 in the financial incentive arm minus the change in self efficacy from baseline to week 32 in the no rewards arm|||1.4|-1.2|
90910836|NCT02957539|181691453|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.9|1.8|||||The change in self efficacy from baseline to week 32 in the nonfinancial incentive arm minus the change in self efficacy from baseline to week 32 in the no rewards arm|||1.8|-.9|
90910837|NCT02957539|181691454|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.2|2.8|||||The change in self efficacy from baseline to week 52 in the financial incentive arm minus the change in self efficacy from baseline to week 52 in the no rewards arm|||2.8|0.2|
90910838|NCT02957539|181691454|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.0|2.3|||||The change in self efficacy from baseline to week 52 in the nonfinancial incentive arm minus the change in self efficacy from baseline to week 52 in the no rewards arm|||2.3|0.0|
90910839|NCT02957539|181691455|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.4|0.9|||||Change in intrinsic motivation score from baseline to week 16 in the financial rewards arm minus the change in intrinsic motivation score from baseline to week 16 in the no rewards arm.|||0.9|-0.4|
90910840|NCT02957539|181691455|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.6|0.7|||||Change in intrinsic motivation score from baseline to week 16 in the nonfinancial rewards arm minus the change in intrinsic motivation score from baseline to week 16 in the no rewards arm.|||0.7|-0.6|
90910841|NCT02957539|181691456|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.2|1.3|||||The change in intrinsic motivation from baseline to week 32 in the financial incentive arm minus the change in intrinsic motivation from baseline to week 32 in the no rewards arm|||1.3|-0.2|
90910842|NCT02957539|181691456|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.3|1.6|||||The change in intrinsic motivation from baseline to week 32 in the nonfinancial incentive arm minus the change in intrinsic motivation from baseline to week 32 in the no rewards arm|||1.6|-0.3|
90910843|NCT02957539|181691457|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.5|1.5|||||The change in intrinsic motivation from baseline to week 52 in the financial incentive arm minus the change in intrinsic motivation from baseline to week 52 in the no rewards arm|||1.5|-0.5|
90910844|NCT02957539|181691457|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.8|1.6|||||Incentive Group minus usual care|||1.6|-0.8|
90910845|NCT02957539|181691458|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.0|2.6|||||Change in PHQ-8 score from baseline to week 16 in the financial rewards arm minus the change in PHQ-8 score from baseline to week 16 in the no rewards arm.|||2.6|-2.0|
90910846|NCT02957539|181691458|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.5|2.9|||||Change in PHQ-9 from week baseline to week 16 in the non-financial incentive group minus the change from week baseline to week 16 in the no rewards group|||2.9|-1.5|
90910847|NCT02957539|181691459|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.7|4.5|||||The change in PHQ-8 from baseline to week 32 in the financial incentive arm minus the change in PHQ-8 from baseline to week 32 in the no rewards arm|||4.5|-1.7|
90910848|NCT02957539|181691459|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.7|5.0|||||The change in PHQ-8 from baseline to week 32 in the nonfinancial incentive arm minus the change in PHQ-8 from baseline to week 32 in the no rewards arm|||5.0|-0.7|
90910849|NCT02957539|181691460|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-4.9|2.8|||||Change in PHQ-8 score from baseline to week 52 in the financial rewards arm minus the change in PHQ-8 score from baseline to week 52 in the no rewards arm.|||2.8|-4.9|
90910850|NCT02957539|181691460|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.9|3.6|||||The change in PHQ-8 from baseline to week 52 in the nonfinancial incentive arm minus the change in PHQ-8 from baseline to week 52 in the no rewards arm|||3.6|-2.9|
90869162|NCT01327885|181601134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.768|||=|0.0169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.618|0.954||The P-value was calculated by 2-sided log-rank test as stratified by histology, geographic region, and number of prior regimens for advanced STS.|Log Rank||The Hazard Ratio is based on a stratified Cox regression model including treatment as covariate, and histology, geographic region, and number of prior regimens for advanced STS as strata.|Statistical analysis was designed to detect superiority of Arm A (eribulin) over Arm B (dacarbazine). OS was compared between the two treatment arms using a two-sided stratified log-rank test at a nominal significance level of 0.0455 (adjusted for the interim analysis). This was the primary analysis that was performed when the target number of events (\~353 deaths) was observed.||0.954|0.618|=0.0169
90869163|NCT01327885|181601135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.877|||=|0.2287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.085||P-value was calculated by 2-sided log-rank test, as stratified by histology, geographic region, and number of prior regimens for advanced STS.|Log Rank||The Hazard Ratio is based on a stratified Cox regression model including treatment as covariate, and histology, geographic region, and number of prior regimens for advanced STS as strata.|The PFS and PFS rate at 3, 6, and 12 months (95% confidence interval (CI)) was calculated using Kaplan-Meier (K-M) product-limit method and Greenwood Formula. PFS was compared between the treatment arms using two-sided stratified log-rank test, stratified by histology, geographic region, and number of prior regimens for advanced STS.||1.085|0.710|=0.2287
90869164|NCT01327885|181601136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.9||The P-value was calculated using the stratified CMH method, the stratified factors included histology, geographic region, and number of prior regimens for advanced STS.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The odds ratio between eribulin and dacarbazine was calculated by stratified CMH method. The stratified factors were as described above. The 2-sided 95% CI of the odds ratio is based on asymptotic normal approximation.|The PFR12wks was compared between the treatment arms using stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi-square test stratified by histology, geographic region, and number of prior regimens for advanced STS.||1.9|0.8|0.253
90869165|NCT01327885|181601137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9|||=|0.741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.4||The P-value was calculated using the CMH method. The stratified factors were histology, geographic region, and number of prior regimens for advanced STS.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The Odds Ratio between eribulin and dacarbazine was calculated by stratified CMH method. The stratified factors were as described above. The 2-sided 95% CI of Odds Ratio is based on asymptotic normal approximation.|The PFR12wks was compared between the treatment arms using stratified CMH chi-square test stratified by histology, geographic region, and number of prior regimens for advanced STS.||1.4|0.7|=0.741
90869166|NCT01059825|181601162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.45||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.65|-0.25||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between ertugliflozin and placebo on the primary endpoint.||-0.25|-0.65|0.002
90910851|NCT02957539|181691461|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-7.4|1.0|||||Change in weight from baseline to week 16 in the financial rewards arm minus the change in weight from baseline to week 16 in the no rewards arm.|||1|-7.4|
90869167|NCT01059825|181601162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.69||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.89|-0.49||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between ertugliflozin and placebo on the primary endpoint.||-0.49|-0.89|0.000
90869168|NCT01059825|181601162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.62||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.82|-0.42||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between ertugliflozin and placebo on the primary endpoint.||-0.42|-0.82|0.000
90910852|NCT02957539|181691461|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-8.7|-0.4|||||Change in weight from baseline to week 16 in the nonfinancial rewards arm minus the change in weight from baseline to week 32 in the no rewards arm.|||-0.4|-8.7|
90910853|NCT02957539|181691462|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-6.0|10.7|||||Change in weight from baseline to week 52 in the financial rewards arm minus the change in weight from baseline to week 52 in the no rewards arm.|||10.7|-6|
90960552|NCT00427895|181801608|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.10.|Difference in Percentage|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|7.2||||||Serotype 6B: Difference (cohort 2 - cohort 1) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95%CI.||7.2|0.8|
90910854|NCT02957539|181691462|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-11.2|4.1|||||Change in weight from baseline to week 52 in the nonfinancial rewards arm minus the change in weight from baseline to week 52 in the no rewards arm.|||4.1|-11.2|
90910855|NCT04897737|181691464|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|2.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||All analyses were by intention-to-treat. In the case of missing outcomes for participants who did not return for the follow-up visit, we assigned outcome values of the following: poor PrEP adherence (TFV undetected) and partner not tested for HIV. We constructed univariate Poisson regression models with robust standard errors to examine the predictors of outcomes of interests. Model results are presented as crude risk ratios (RRs) and risk differences (RDs) with 95% CIs.||2.82|1.19|<0.001
90910856|NCT04897737|181691465|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|3.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.08|7.27|||Regression, Linear|||All analyses were by intention-to-treat. In the case of missing outcomes for participants who did not return for the follow-up visit, we assigned outcome values of the following: poor PrEP adherence (TFV undetected) and partner not tested for HIV. We constructed univariate Poisson regression models with robust standard errors to examine the predictors of outcomes of interests. Model results are presented as crude risk ratios (RRs) and 95% CIs.|RD=49.1% (95% CI=32.8, 65.3), p\<0.001|7.27|2.08|<0.001
90910857|NCT04059237|181691467|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Repeated measures ANOVA evaluated change in outcome variables across the study time points.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90910858|NCT04059237|181691468|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Repeated measures ANOVA evaluated change in outcome variables across the study time points.|ANOVA|||||||<.001
90910859|NCT04059237|181691469|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Repeated measures ANOVA evaluated change in outcome variables across the study time points.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90910860|NCT04059237|181691470|OTHER|||||||0.1||||||Repeated measures ANOVA evaluated change in outcome variables across the study time points.|ANOVA|||||||0.10
90910861|NCT04059237|181691471|OTHER|||||||0.01||||||Repeated measures ANOVA evaluated change in outcome variables across the study time points.|ANOVA|||||||.01
90910862|NCT04059237|181691472|OTHER|||||||0.59||||||Repeated measures ANOVA evaluated change in outcome variables across the study time points.|ANOVA|||||||0.59
90910863|NCT04059237|181691473|OTHER|||||||0.02||||||Repeated measures ANOVA evaluated change in outcome variables across the study time points.|ANOVA|||||||0.02
90910864|NCT04059237|181691474|OTHER|||||||0.52||||||Repeated measures ANOVA evaluated change in outcome variables across the study time points.|ANOVA|||||||0.52
90910865|NCT04059237|181691475|OTHER|||||||0.08||||||Repeated measures ANOVA evaluated change in outcome variables across the study time points.|ANOVA|||||||0.08
90910866|NCT01689519|181691501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.68||The analysis was stratified by geographic region and metastasis classification (disease stage).|Log Rank|||Primary Analysis 9 May 2014||0.68|0.39|0.0001
90910867|NCT01689519|181691501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.72||The analysis was stratified by geographic region and metastasis classification (disease stage).|Log Rank|||Post hoc Efficacy Analysis: 16 January 2015||0.72|0.46|<0.0001
90910868|NCT01689519|181691501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.79||The analysis was stratified by geographic region and metastasis classification (disease stage).|Log Rank|||Extended 5-Year Analysis: 21 July 2019||0.79|0.53|<0.0001
90910869|NCT01689519|181691502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.645||||0.0463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.0||The analysis was stratified by geographic region and metastasis classification (disease stage).|Log Rank|||Primary Analysis 9 May 2014||1.00|0.42|0.0463
90910870|NCT01689519|181691502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.87||The analysis was stratified by geographic region and metastasis classification (disease stage).|Log Rank|||Post hoc Analysis 16 January 2015||0.87|0.49|0.0034
90910871|NCT01689519|181691502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.9||The analysis was stratified by geographic region and metastasis classification (disease stage).|Log Rank|||Final Analysis 28 August 2015||0.90|0.55|0.0050
90910872|NCT01689519|181691503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.13|31.58|||Chi-squared|||Primary Analysis: 9 May 2014||31.58|14.13|<0.0001
90910873|NCT01689519|181691503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|28.3|||Chi-squared|||Post hoc Efficacy Analysis: 16 January 2015||28.3|11.0|<0.0001
90910874|NCT01689519|181691503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.4|28.7|||Chi-squared|||Extended 5-Year Analysis: 21 July 2019||28.70|11.40|<0.0001
90910875|NCT03525119|181691505|NON_INFERIORITY|As per predefined criteria in protocol the non-inferiority was established only between group 1 and group 3. Non-inferiority of HAV+TDV to HAV was established if the upper bound of the 95% CI was less than 10%.|Seroprotection Rate Difference|-1.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.91|4.28||||||||4.28|-8.91|
90910876|NCT00414648|181691538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||The model included the time since enrollment, the treatment assignment, and the interaction between time and treatment.|Regression, Linear|Mixed model with the use of the Kenward-Roger correction without imputation of missing data.||FEV1 slope||||<0.001
90910877|NCT00414648|181691539|OTHER|||||||0.441|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.441
90910878|NCT00414648|181691540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|GLM adjusted for baseline||||||0.001
90910879|NCT00414648|181691541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|GLM adjusted for baseline||||||0.17
90910880|NCT00414648|181691542|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Regression, Linear|GLM adjusted for baseline||||||0.34
90910881|NCT00414648|181691543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.88|||||||Regression, Linear|GLM adjusted for baseline||||||0.88
90910882|NCT00414648|181691544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|GLM adjusted for baseline||||||0.001
90910883|NCT01544062|181691569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.7||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|31.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||31.1|2.3|0.024
90910884|NCT01544062|181691569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|||||controlling for age, sex and body mass index|ANCOVA|||||||0.013
90910885|NCT01544062|181691570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.059|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.059
90910886|NCT01544062|181691570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||controlling for age, sex and body mass index|ANCOVA|||||||0.020
90910887|NCT01544062|181691571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.724|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.724
90910888|NCT01544062|181691571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|||||controlling for age, sex and body mass index|ANCOVA|||||||0.510
90910889|NCT01544062|181691572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.397|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.397
90910890|NCT01544062|181691572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.458|TWO_SIDED|||||controlling for age, sex and body mass index|ANCOVA|||||||0.458
90910891|NCT01544062|181691573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.600
90910892|NCT01544062|181691573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.509|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|controlling for age, sex and body mass index||||||0.509
90910893|NCT01544062|181691574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.399|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.399
90910894|NCT01544062|181691574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.395|TWO_SIDED|||||controlling for age, sex and body mass index|ANCOVA|||||||0.395
90910895|NCT01544062|181691575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.771|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.771
90910896|NCT01544062|181691575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.927|TWO_SIDED|||||controlling for age, sex and body mass index|ANCOVA|||||||0.927
90910897|NCT01544062|181691576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.644|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.644
90910898|NCT01544062|181691576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|||||controlling for age, sex and body mass index|ANCOVA|||||||0.160
90910899|NCT01544062|181691577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.710
90910900|NCT01544062|181691577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.475|TWO_SIDED|||||controlling for age, sex and body mass index|ANCOVA|||||||0.475
90910901|NCT01544062|181691578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.508|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.508
90910902|NCT01544062|181691578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.905|TWO_SIDED|||||controlling for age, sex and body mass index|ANCOVA|||||||0.905
90910903|NCT01544062|181691579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.104|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.104
90910904|NCT01544062|181691580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.580
90910905|NCT01544062|181691581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.619|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.619
90910906|NCT01544062|181691582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.511|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.511
90910907|NCT01544062|181691583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.501|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.501
90910908|NCT01544062|181691584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
90910909|NCT01544062|181691585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.299|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.299
90910910|NCT01544062|181691586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
90910911|NCT01544062|181691587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.492|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.492
90910912|NCT01544062|181691588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.455|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.455
90910913|NCT01544062|181691589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
90910914|NCT03028363|181691632|OTHER|||||||0.343|||||||ANCOVA|Ranked ANCOVA, Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) Multiple Imputation||||||0.3430
90910915|NCT03028363|181691633|OTHER|||||||0.126|||||||ANCOVA|Ranked ANCOVA, Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) Multiple Imputation||||||0.1260
90910916|NCT03028363|181691634|OTHER|||||||0.5247|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression (Firth's Penalized Likelihood), MCMC Multiple Imputation||||||0.5247
90910917|NCT04771273|181691644|OTHER|No confirmatory hypothesis testing was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.47||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|7.25||The p-value reported is considered nominal.|Regression, Logistic||Survodutide 2.4 mg vs. Placebo|The logistic regression model included actual treatment, presence of diabetes of any type and Baseline Fibrosis Score. Firth's penalized regression was used.||7.25|1.66|0.0010
90910918|NCT04771273|181691644|OTHER|No confirmatory hypothesis testing was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|9.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.35|20.85||The p-value reported is considered nominal.|Regression, Logistic||Survodutide 4.8 mg vs. Placebo|The logistic regression model included actual treatment, presence of diabetes of any type and Baseline Fibrosis Score. Firth's penalized regression was used.||20.85|4.35|<0.0001
90910919|NCT04771273|181691644|OTHER|No confirmatory hypothesis testing was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|7.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|16.16||The p-value reported is considered nominal.|Regression, Logistic|||The logistic regression model included actual treatment, presence of diabetes of any type and Baseline Fibrosis Score. Firth's penalized regression was used.||16.16|3.10|<.0001
90910920|NCT04771273|181691644|OTHER|"Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. The logistic regression model was fitted without an intercept, and included presence of diabetes of any type \[yes, no\], baseline fibrosis score \[F1, F2, F3\] and the dose group as factors.~P-values from the contrast tests corresponding to each dose response pattern evaluated were adjusted for the multiple comparisons performed."|||||<|0.0001|||||||MCP-Mod linear model fit|Linear model fit assumption||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of survodutide and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 6 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential1, exponential2, Emax1, Emax2, quadratic) while keeping full control of the type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.050).||||<0.0001
90910921|NCT04771273|181691644|OTHER|"Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. The logistic regression model was fitted without an intercept, and included presence of diabetes of any type \[yes, no\], baseline fibrosis score \[F1, F2, F3\] and the dose group as factors.~P-values from the contrast tests corresponding to each dose response pattern evaluated were adjusted for the multiple comparisons performed."|||||<|0.0001|||||||MCP-Mod exponential-1 model fit|Model assumption: 25% of maximum effect is achieved at dose 3.0 mg.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of survodutide and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 6 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential1, exponential2, Emax1, Emax2, quadratic) while keeping full control of the type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.050).||||<0.0001
90910922|NCT04771273|181691644|OTHER|"Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. The logistic regression model was fitted without an intercept and included presence of diabetes of any type \[yes, no\], baseline fibrosis score \[F1, F2, F3\] and the dose group as factors.~P-values from the contrast tests corresponding to each dose response pattern evaluated were adjusted for the multiple comparisons performed."||||||0.0008|||||||MCP-Mod exponential -2 model fit|Model assumption: 5% of maximum effect is achieved at dose 3.0 mg.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of survodutide and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 6 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential1, exponential2, Emax1, Emax2, quadratic) while keeping full control of the type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.050).||||0.0008
90960553|NCT00427895|181801608|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.10.|Difference in Percentage|4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|8.2||||||Serotype 7F: Difference (cohort 2 - cohort 1) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95%CI.||8.2|0.6|
90869169|NCT01059825|181601162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.72||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.93|-0.52||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between ertugliflozin and placebo on the primary endpoint.||-0.52|-0.93|0.000
90869170|NCT01059825|181601162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.76||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.97|-0.56||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.56|-0.97|0.000
90869171|NCT01059825|181601163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.13||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.24|-0.03||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.03|-0.24|0.049
90869172|NCT01059825|181601163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.29||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.39|-0.18||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.18|-0.39|0.000
90869173|NCT01059825|181601163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.22||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.32|-0.11||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.11|-0.32|0.004
90869174|NCT01059825|181601163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.17||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.27|-0.06||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.06|-0.27|0.020
90869175|NCT01059825|181601163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.25||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.36|-0.15||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.15|-0.36|0.001
90869176|NCT01059825|181601164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.37||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.5|-0.23||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.23|-0.50|0.000
90869177|NCT01059825|181601164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.45||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.59|-0.32||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.32|-0.59|0.000
90869178|NCT01059825|181601164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.44||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.57|-0.3||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.30|-0.57|0.000
90869179|NCT01059825|181601164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.36||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.49|-0.22||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.22|-0.49|0.000
90869180|NCT01059825|181601164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.44||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.57|-0.3||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.30|-0.57|0.000
90869181|NCT01059825|181601165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.47||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.64|-0.3||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.30|-0.64|0.000
90869182|NCT01059825|181601165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.66||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.83|-0.49||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.49|-0.83|0.000
90869183|NCT01059825|181601165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.63||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.8|-0.45||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.45|-0.80|0.000
90869184|NCT01059825|181601165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.65||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.82|-0.47||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.47|-0.82|0.000
90869185|NCT01059825|181601165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.67||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.84|-0.5||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.50|-0.84|0.000
90869186|NCT01059825|181601167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.15||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.75|-0.55||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.55|-1.75|0.007
90869187|NCT01059825|181601167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.75||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.35|-1.14||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-1.14|-2.35|0.000
90869188|NCT01059825|181601167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.15||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.76|-1.54||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-1.54|-2.76|0.000
90869189|NCT01059825|181601167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.91||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.52|-1.3||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-1.30|-2.52|0.000
90869190|NCT01059825|181601167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|0.45||||0.833|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.15|1.06||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||1.06|-0.15|0.833
90869191|NCT01059825|181601168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.42||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.73|-0.11||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.11|-0.73|0.043
90869192|NCT01059825|181601168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.13||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.44|-0.81||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.81|-1.44|0.000
90869193|NCT01059825|181601168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.9||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.22|-0.59||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.59|-1.22|0.000
90869194|NCT01059825|181601168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.87||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.18|-0.55||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.55|-1.18|0.000
90869195|NCT01059825|181601168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|0.45||||0.967|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.14|0.76||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||0.76|0.14|0.967
90869196|NCT01059825|181601169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.76||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.17|-0.36||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.36|-1.17|0.008
90869197|NCT01059825|181601169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.32||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.73|-0.91||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.91|-1.73|0.000
90869198|NCT01059825|181601169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.24||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.65|-0.83||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.83|-1.65|0.000
90869199|NCT01059825|181601169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|-1.08||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.49|-0.67||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward..||||-0.67|-1.49|0.000
90869200|NCT01059825|181601169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.45||||0.922|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.04|0.86||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||0.86|0.04|0.922
90869201|NCT01059825|181601170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.03||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.51|-0.56||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.56|-1.51|0.003
90869202|NCT01059825|181601170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.57||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.04|-1.09||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-1.09|-2.04|0.000
90869203|NCT01059825|181601170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.68||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.16|-1.21||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-1.21|-2.16|0.000
90869204|NCT01059825|181601170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.78||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.26|-1.3||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-1.30|-2.26|0.000
90960554|NCT00427895|181801608|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.10.|Difference in Percentage|3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|7.9||||||Serotype 9V: Difference (cohort 2 - cohort 1) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95%CI.||7.9|-0.3|
90869205|NCT01059825|181601170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|0.24||||0.741|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.24|0.71||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||0.71|-0.24|0.741
90869206|NCT01059825|181601172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.13||||0.163|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.92|0.65||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||0.65|-4.92|0.163
90869207|NCT01059825|181601172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-3.48||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.28|-0.68||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.68|-6.28|0.056
90869208|NCT01059825|181601172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.88||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.7|-0.05||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.05|-5.70|0.096
90869209|NCT01059825|181601172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-3.37||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.21|-0.53||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.53|-6.21|0.064
90869210|NCT01059825|181601172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.54||||0.403|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.33|2.26||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||2.26|-3.33|0.403
90869211|NCT01059825|181601173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.37||||0.425|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.91|2.17||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||2.17|-2.91|0.425
90869212|NCT01059825|181601173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.81||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.38|-0.23||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.23|-5.38|0.082
90869213|NCT01059825|181601173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.35||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.92|2.21||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||2.21|-2.92|0.430
90869214|NCT01059825|181601173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-3.47||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.05|-0.89||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.89|-6.05|0.043
90869215|NCT01059825|181601173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|1.01||||0.694|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.55|3.58||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||3.58|-1.55|0.694
90869216|NCT01059825|181601174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.38||||0.234|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.81|1.05||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||1.05|-3.81|0.234
90869217|NCT01059825|181601174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.59||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.03|-0.14||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.14|-5.03|0.087
90869218|NCT01059825|181601174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.86||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.33|-0.4||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.40|-5.33|0.068
90869219|NCT01059825|181601174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.77||||0.346|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.25|1.71||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||1.71|-3.25|0.346
90869220|NCT01059825|181601174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.76||||0.346|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.21|1.7||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||1.70|-3.21|0.346
90869221|NCT01059825|181601175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.1||||0.306|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.87|1.67||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||1.67|-3.87|0.306
90869222|NCT01059825|181601175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.41||||0.133|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.19|0.37||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||0.37|-5.19|0.133
90869223|NCT01059825|181601175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.61||||0.117|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.42|0.2||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||0.20|-5.42|0.117
90869224|NCT01059825|181601175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.87||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.69|-0.04||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.04|-5.69|0.097
90869225|NCT01059825|181601175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.0||||0.179|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.78|0.79||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||0.79|-4.78|0.179
90869226|NCT01059825|181601177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.93||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.62|-0.24||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.24|-3.62|0.072
90869227|NCT01059825|181601177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.81||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.51|-0.11||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.11|-3.51|0.086
90869228|NCT01059825|181601177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-3.99||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.71|-2.27||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-2.27|-5.71|0.002
90869229|NCT01059825|181601177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.64||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.37|-0.92||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.92|-4.37|0.025
90869230|NCT01059825|181601177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|0.88||||0.746|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.82|2.58||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||2.58|-0.82|0.746
90869231|NCT01059825|181601178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.69||||0.289|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.27|0.9||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||0.90|-2.27|0.289
90869232|NCT01059825|181601178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.7||||0.288|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.31|0.91||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||0.91|-2.31|0.288
90869233|NCT01059825|181601178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.41||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.01|0.19||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||0.19|-3.01|0.130
90869234|NCT01059825|181601178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.44||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.05|-0.84||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.84|-4.05|0.026
90869235|NCT01059825|181601178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|1.49||||0.883|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.11|3.08||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||3.08|-0.11|0.883
90869236|NCT01059825|181601179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.67||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.07|-0.27||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.27|-3.07|0.063
90869237|NCT01059825|181601179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.29||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.69|-0.88||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.88|-3.69|0.019
90960555|NCT00427895|181801608|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.10.|Difference in Perecentage|4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|8.7||||||Serotype 14: Difference (cohort 2 - cohort 1) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95%CI.||8.7|-0.1|
90869238|NCT01059825|181601179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.01||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.43|-0.59||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.59|-3.43|0.035
90869239|NCT01059825|181601179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.3||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.73|0.12||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||0.12|-2.73|0.121
90869240|NCT01059825|181601179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|0.29||||0.602|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.13|1.7||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||1.70|-1.13|0.602
90869241|NCT01059825|181601180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.2||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.86|-0.54||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.54|-3.86|0.045
90869242|NCT01059825|181601180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.49||||0.126|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.16|0.18||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||0.18|-3.16|0.126
90869243|NCT01059825|181601180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-3.03||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.72|-1.34||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-1.34|-4.72|0.011
90869244|NCT01059825|181601180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.99||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.69|-0.3||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.30|-3.69|0.066
90869245|NCT01059825|181601180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.48||||0.357|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.15|1.19||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||1.19|-2.15|0.357
90869246|NCT01059825|181601182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-20.99||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-28.29|-13.69||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-13.69|-28.29|0.000
90971049|NCT01902290|181824648|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-0.05||||0.5219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.203|0.103|||Mixed-effect model|The model included fixed effects of treatment group, time, interaction of treatment group by time, stratification variables, and baseline ACQ score.|Difference = Brodalumab - Placebo|||0.103|-0.203|0.5219
90869247|NCT01059825|181601182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-25.82||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-33.17|-18.47||P-value is one-sided.P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-18.47|-33.17|0.000
90869248|NCT01059825|181601182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-34.23||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-41.64|-26.83||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-26.83|-41.64|0.000
90869249|NCT01059825|181601182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-32.02||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-39.49|-24.56||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-24.56|-39.49|0.000
90869250|NCT01059825|181601182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-20.05||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-27.39|-12.72||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-12.72|-27.39|0.000
90869251|NCT01059825|181601183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-20.96||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-28.58|-13.34||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-13.34|-28.58|0.000
90869252|NCT01059825|181601183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-21.57||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-29.27|-13.86||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-13.86|-29.27|0.000
90869253|NCT01059825|181601183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-32.54||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-40.2|-24.88||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-24.88|-40.20|0.000
90869254|NCT01059825|181601183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-22.33||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-30.05|-14.61||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-14.61|-30.05|0.000
90869255|NCT01059825|181601183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-20.57||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-28.19|-12.96||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-12.96|-28.19|0.000
90869256|NCT01059825|181601184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-22.09||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-29.16|-15.01||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-15.01|-29.16|0.000
90869257|NCT01059825|181601184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-27.94||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-35.06|-20.83||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-20.83|-35.06|0.000
90869258|NCT01059825|181601184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-33.12||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-40.29|-25.95||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-25.95|-40.29|0.000
90869259|NCT01059825|181601184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-31.79||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-39.02|-24.56||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-24.56|-39.02|0.000
90940397|NCT01490359|181760612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.71||The GEE model included baseline measure of consistent condom use, intervention condition, time (6- vs. 12-mo follow-up), and type of partner (steady vs casual partners) with robust standard errors and an independent working correlation matrix.|generalized estimating equations (GEE)||Estimate is odds ratio (intervention vs. health control).|Assuming alpha = 0.05, a 2-tailed test, ICC = 0.01, 15% attrition at 12-month follow-up, and N = 1,152 men in the trial from 44 neighborhoods with an average of 26 men in each neighborhood, the trial was estimated to have 81% power to detect a 10% increase in consistent condom use from 32% to 42% in the HIV/STI intervention group.||1.71|1.03|.008
90960556|NCT00427895|181801608|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.10.|Difference in Percentage|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|2.5||||||Serotype 18C: Difference (cohort 2 - cohort 1) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95%CI.||2.5|-3.8|
90869260|NCT01059825|181601184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-23.17||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-30.28|-16.07||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-16.07|-30.28|0.000
90869261|NCT01059825|181601185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-22.07||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-28.87|-15.27||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-15.27|-28.87|0.000
90869262|NCT01059825|181601185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-28.51||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-35.35|-21.67||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-21.67|-35.35|0.000
90869263|NCT01059825|181601185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-35.4||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-42.3|-28.51||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-28.51|-42.30|0.000
90869264|NCT01059825|181601185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-34.81||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-41.76|-27.86||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-27.86|-41.76|0.000
90869265|NCT01059825|181601185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-22.75||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-29.58|-15.92||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-15.92|-29.58|0.000
90869266|NCT03454581|181601196|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.001
90869267|NCT03454581|181601197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.05|||||||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||||0.05
90869268|NCT03454581|181601198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.05|||||||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||||0.05
90869269|NCT03454581|181601199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|||||||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||||<0.05
90869270|NCT03454581|181601200|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||||<0.01
90869271|NCT03454581|181601201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.05|||||||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||||0.05
90869272|NCT03454581|181601202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.05|||||||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||||0.05
90869273|NCT03454581|181601203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.05|||||||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||||0.05
90869274|NCT02289690|181601208|OTHER||RP2D for veliparib in mg BID for 14 days|240.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||The RP2D for veliparib was determined to be 240 mg BID for 14 days with carboplatin (AUC 5 mg/mL\*min) on Day 1 and etoposide (100 mg/m²) on Days 1 to 3 during 21-day cycles for 4 cycles.|A primary objective of Phase 1 was to establish the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) for veliparib combined with carboplatin and etoposide. The RP2D was determined by the rate of DLTs and overall tolerability of veliparib plus carboplatin and etoposide.||||
90869275|NCT02289690|181601224|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.665||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.503|0.88|||Log Rank|Two-sided log-rank test stratified by lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) level|Hazard ratio estimate was obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by LDH level. A hazard ratio \< 1 favors veliparib in combination with carboplatin and etoposide followed by veliparib maintenance monotherapy (Arm A).|"The primary efficacy analysis in the Phase 2 portion of the study was the comparison of PFS among participants who received veliparib in combination with carboplatin and etoposide followed by veliparib maintenance monotherapy (Arm A) vs. placebo in combination with carboplatin and etoposide followed by placebo maintenance monotherapy (Arm C).~Statistical significance was determined by a two-sided p-value ≤ 0.2"||0.880|0.503|0.059
90869276|NCT02289690|181601224|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.979||||0.924|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.744|1.288|||Log Rank|Two-sided log-rank test stratified by lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) level|Hazard ratio estimate was obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by LDH level. A hazard ratio of \< 1 favors veliparib in combination with carboplatin and etoposide followed by placebo maintenance monotherapy (Arm B).|"If the primary analysis of PFS (Arm A vs Arm C) was statistically significant a fixed sequence testing procedure was to be performed with a 2-sided significance level of 0.2 for the following key secondary endpoints:~1. OS (Arm A vs Arm C)~2. PFS (Arms B vs Arm C)~3. OS (Arm B vs Arm C)~4. ORR (Arm A vs Arm C)~5. ORR (Arm B vs Arm C)~If significance versus Arm C was not demonstrated, all endpoints later in the testing hierarchy were to be considered exploratory."||1.288|0.744|0.924
90869277|NCT02289690|181601225|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.432||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.092|1.879|||Log Rank|Two-sided log rank test stratified by LDH level.|Hazard ratio estimate was obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by LDH level. A hazard ratio of \< 1 favors veliparib in combination with carboplatin and etoposide followed by veliparib maintenance monotherapy (Arm A).|"If the primary analysis of PFS (Arm A vs Arm C) was statistically significant a fixed sequence testing procedure was to be performed with a 2-sided significance level of 0.2 for the following key secondary endpoints:~1. OS (Arm A vs Arm C)~2. PFS (Arms B vs Arm C)~3. OS (Arm B vs Arm C)~4. ORR (Arm A vs Arm C)~5. ORR (Arm B vs Arm C)~If significance versus Arm C was not demonstrated, all endpoints later in the testing hierarchy were to be considered exploratory."||1.879|1.092|0.088
90869278|NCT02289690|181601225|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.46||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.104|1.931|||Log Rank|Two-sided log rank test stratified by LDH level.|Hazard ratio estimate was obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by LDH level. A hazard ratio of \< 1 favors veliparib in combination with carboplatin and etoposide followed by placebo maintenance monotherapy (Arm B).|"If the primary analysis of PFS (Arm A vs Arm C) was statistically significant a fixed sequence testing procedure was to be performed with a 2-sided significance level of 0.2 for the following key secondary endpoints:~1. OS (Arm A vs Arm C)~2. PFS (Arms B vs Arm C)~3. OS (Arm B vs Arm C)~4. ORR (Arm A vs Arm C)~5. ORR (Arm B vs Arm C)~If significance versus Arm C was not demonstrated, all endpoints later in the testing hierarchy were to be considered exploratory."||1.931|1.104|0.083
90910923|NCT04771273|181691644|OTHER|"Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. The logistic regression model was fitted without an intercept and included presence of diabetes of any type \[yes, no\], baseline fibrosis score \[F1, F2, F3\] and the dose group as factors.~P-values from the contrast tests corresponding to each dose response pattern evaluated were adjusted for the multiple comparisons performed."|||||<|0.0001|||||||MCP-Mod Emax1 model fit|Model assumption: 50% of maximum effect is achieved at dose 3.0 mg.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of survodutide and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 6 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential1, exponential2, Emax1, Emax2, quadratic) while keeping full control of the type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.050).||||<0.0001
90910924|NCT04771273|181691644|OTHER|"Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. The logistic regression model was fitted without an intercept and included presence of diabetes of any type \[yes, no\], baseline fibrosis score \[F1, F2, F3\] and the dose group as factors.~P-values from the contrast tests corresponding to each dose response pattern evaluated were adjusted for the multiple comparisons performed."|||||<|0.0001|||||||MCP-Mod Emax2 model fit|Model assumption: 80% of maximum effect is achieved at dose 3.0 mg.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of survodutide and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 6 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential1, exponential2, Emax1, Emax2, quadratic) while keeping full control of the type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.050).||||<0.0001
90910925|NCT04771273|181691644|OTHER|"Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. The logistic regression model was fitted without an intercept and included presence of diabetes of any type \[yes, no\], baseline fibrosis score \[F1, F2, F3\] and the dose group as factors.~P-values from the contrast tests corresponding to each dose response pattern evaluated were adjusted for the multiple comparisons performed."|||||<|0.0001|||||||MCP-Mod quadratic model fit|Model assumption: Maximum effect is achieved at dose 4.8 mg.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of survodutide and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 6 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential1, exponential2, Emax1, Emax2, quadratic) while keeping full control of the type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.050).||||<0.0001
90910926|NCT04771273|181691645|OTHER|No confirmatory hypothesis testing was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|5.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.46|12.28||The p-value reported is considered nominal.|Regression, Logistic||Survodutide 2.4 mg vs. Placebo|The logistic regression model includes planned treatment, presence of diabetes of any type and Baseline Fibrosis Score. Firth's penalized regression was used.||12.28|2.46|<.0001
90910927|NCT04771273|181691645|OTHER|No confirmatory hypothesis testing was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|10.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.49|22.87||The p-value reported is considered nominal.|Regression, Logistic||Survodutide 4.8 mg vs. Placebo|The logistic regression model includes planned treatment, presence of diabetes of any type and Baseline Fibrosis Score. Firth's penalized regression was used.||22.87|4.49|<.0001
90940398|NCT04150341|181760620|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.12|-0.14|0.881
90940399|NCT04150341|181760620|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.1|-0.17|0.575
90940400|NCT00405912|181760694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|1-sided test||Data were compared between treatment groups using Fisher's exact test for binary outcomes.||||0.51
90910928|NCT04771273|181691645|OTHER|No confirmatory hypothesis testing was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.87||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.18|10.91||The p-value reported is considered nominal.|Regression, Logistic||Survodutide 6.0 mg vs. Placebo|The logistic regression model includes planned treatment, presence of diabetes of any type and Baseline Fibrosis Score. Firth's penalized regression was used.||10.91|2.18|0.0001
90910929|NCT04771273|181691645|OTHER|"Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. The logistic regression model was fitted without an intercept and included presence of diabetes of any type \[yes, no\], baseline fibrosis score \[F1, F2, F3\] and the dose group as factors.~P-values from the contrast tests corresponding to each dose response pattern evaluated were adjusted for the multiple comparisons performed."||||||0.0001|||||||MCPMod linear model fit|linear model fit assumption||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of survodutide and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 6 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential1, exponential2, Emax1, Emax2, quadratic) while keeping full control of the type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.050).||||0.0001
90910930|NCT04771273|181691645|OTHER|"Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. The logistic regression model was fitted without an intercept, and included presence of diabetes of any type \[yes, no\], baseline fibrosis score \[F1, F2, F3\] and the dose group as factors.~P-values from the contrast tests corresponding to each dose response pattern evaluated were adjusted for the multiple comparisons performed."||||||0.0115|||||||MCPMod exponential-1 model fit|Model assumption: 25% of maximum effect is achieved at dose 3.0 mg.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of survodutide and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 6 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential1, exponential2, Emax1, Emax2, quadratic) while keeping full control of the type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.050).||||0.0115
90910931|NCT04771273|181691645|OTHER|"Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. The logistic regression model was fitted without an intercept, and included presence of diabetes of any type \[yes, no\], baseline fibrosis score \[F1, F2, F3\] and the dose group as factors.~P-values from the contrast tests corresponding to each dose response pattern evaluated were adjusted for the multiple comparisons performed."||||||0.2204|||||||MCP-Mod exponential-2 model fit|Model assumption: 5% of maximum effect is achieved at dose 3.0 mg.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of survodutide and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 6 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential1, exponential2, Emax1, Emax2, quadratic) while keeping full control of the type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.050).||||0.2204
90910932|NCT04771273|181691645|OTHER|"Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. The logistic regression model was fitted without an intercept, and included presence of diabetes of any type \[yes, no\], baseline fibrosis score \[F1, F2, F3\] and the dose group as factors.~P-values from the contrast tests corresponding to each dose response pattern evaluated were adjusted for the multiple comparisons performed."|||||<|0.0001|||||||MCP-Mod Emax1 model fit|Model assumption: 50% of maximum effect is achieved at dose 3.0 mg.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of survodutide and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 6 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential1, exponential2, Emax1, Emax2, quadratic) while keeping full control of the type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.050).||||<0.0001
90869279|NCT02289690|181601226|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.115|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.1|3.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by LDH level.|Odds ratio was from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by LDH level. An odds ratio of \> 1 favors veliparib in combination with carboplatin and etoposide followed by veliparib maintenance monotherapy (Arm A).|"If the primary analysis of PFS (Arm A vs Arm C) was statistically significant a fixed sequence testing procedure was to be performed with a 2-sided significance level of 0.2 for the following key secondary endpoints:~1. OS (Arm A vs Arm C)~2. PFS (Arms B vs Arm C)~3. OS (Arm B vs Arm C)~4. ORR (Arm A vs Arm C)~5. ORR (Arm B vs Arm C)~If significance versus Arm C was not demonstrated, all endpoints later in the testing hierarchy were to be considered exploratory."||3.2|1.1|0.115
90910933|NCT04771273|181691645|OTHER|"Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. The logistic regression model was fitted without an intercept and included presence of diabetes of any type \[yes, no\], baseline fibrosis score \[F1, F2, F3\] and the dose group as factors.~P-values from the contrast tests corresponding to each dose response pattern evaluated were adjusted for the multiple comparisons performed."|||||<|0.0001|||||||MCP-Mod Emax2|Model assumption: 80% of maximum effect is achieved at dose 3.0 mg.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of survodutide and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 6 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential1, exponential2, Emax1, Emax2, quadratic) while keeping full control of the type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.050).||||<0.0001
90910934|NCT04771273|181691645|OTHER|"Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. The logistic regression model was fitted without an intercept, and included presence of diabetes of any type \[yes, no\], baseline fibrosis score \[F1, F2, F3\] and the dose group as factors.~P-values from the contrast tests corresponding to each dose response pattern evaluated were adjusted for the multiple comparisons performed."|||||<|0.0001|||||||MCP-Mod quadratic model fit|Model assumption: Maximum effect is achieved at dose 4.8 mg.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of survodutide and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 6 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential1, exponential2, Emax1, Emax2, quadratic) while keeping full control of the type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.050).||||<0.0001
90910935|NCT04771273|181691646|OTHER|No confirmatory hypothesis testing was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|5.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.47|10.4||The p-value reported is considered nominal.|Regression, Logistic||Survodutide 2.4 mg vs. Placebo|The logistic regression model included actual treatment, presence of diabetes of any type, baseline liver fat content and baseline fibrosis score. Firth's penalized regression was used.||10.40|2.47|<.0001
90910936|NCT04771273|181691646|OTHER|No confirmatory hypothesis testing was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|9.46|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.36|20.51||The p-value reported is considered nominal.|Regression, Logistic||Survodutide 4.8 mg vs. Placebo|The logistic regression model included actual treatment, presence of diabetes of any type, baseline liver fat content and baseline fibrosis score. Firth's penalized regression was used.||20.51|4.36|<.0001
90910937|NCT04771273|181691646|OTHER|No confirmatory hypothesis testing was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|16.09|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.69|38.73||The p-value reported is considered nominal.|Regression, Logistic||Survodutide 6.0 mg vs. Placebo|The logistic regression model included actual treatment, presence of diabetes of any type, baseline liver fat content and baseline fibrosis score. Firth's penalized regression was used.||38.73|6.69|<.0001
90910938|NCT04771273|181691646|OTHER|"Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. The logistic regression model was fitted without an intercept and included presence of diabetes of any type \[yes, no\], baseline fibrosis score \[F1, F2, F3\] and the dose group as factors, and baseline liver fat content (assessed by MRI-PDFF) as a continuous linear covariate.~P-values from the contrast tests corresponding to each dose response pattern evaluated were adjusted for the multiple comparisons performed."|||||<|0.0001|||||||MCP-Mod linear model fit|Linear model fit assumption||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of survodutide and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 6 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential1, exponential2, Emax1, Emax2, quadratic) while keeping full control of the type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.050).||||<0.0001
90910939|NCT04771273|181691646|OTHER|"Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. The logistic regression model was fitted without an intercept and included presence of diabetes of any type \[yes, no\], baseline fibrosis score \[F1, F2, F3\] and the dose group as factors, and baseline liver fat content (assessed by MRI-PDFF) as a continuous linear covariate.~P-values from the contrast tests corresponding to each dose response pattern evaluated were adjusted for the multiple comparisons performed."|||||<|0.0001|||||||MCP-Mod exponential-1 model fit|Model assumption: 25% of maximum effect is achieved at dose 3.0 mg.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of survodutide and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 6 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential1, exponential2, Emax1, Emax2, quadratic) while keeping full control of the type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.050).||||<0.0001
90940401|NCT00405912|181760694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|1-sided test||Data were compared between treatment groups using Fisher's exact test for binary outcomes.||||0.25
90940402|NCT00405912|181760695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|1 sided test||Data were compared between treatment groups using Fisher's exact test for binary outcomes.||||0.52
90940403|NCT00405912|181760695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|1-sided test||Data were compared between treatment groups using Fisher's exact test for binary outcomes.||||0.73
90910940|NCT04771273|181691646|OTHER|"Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. The logistic regression model was fitted without an intercept, and included presence of diabetes of any type \[yes, no\], baseline fibrosis score \[F1, F2, F3\] and the dose group as factors, and baseline liver fat content (assessed by MRI-PDFF) as a continuous linear covariate.~P-values from the contrast tests corresponding to each dose response pattern evaluated were adjusted for the multiple comparisons performed."|||||<|0.0001|||||||MCP-Mod exponential-2 model fit|Model assumption: 5% of maximum effect achieved at dose 3.0 mg.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of survodutide and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 6 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential1, exponential2, Emax1, Emax2, quadratic) while keeping full control of the type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.050).||||<0.0001
90910941|NCT04771273|181691646|OTHER|"Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. The logistic regression model was fitted without an intercept and included presence of diabetes of any type \[yes, no\], baseline fibrosis score \[F1, F2, F3\] and the dose group as factors, and baseline liver fat content (assessed by MRI-PDFF) as a continuous linear covariate.~P-values from the contrast tests corresponding to each dose response pattern evaluated were adjusted for the multiple comparisons performed."|||||<|0.0001|||||||MCP-Mod Emax1 model fit|Model assumption: 50% of maximum effect is achieved at dose 3.0 mg.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of survodutide and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 6 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential1, exponential2, Emax1, Emax2, quadratic) while keeping full control of the type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.050).||||<0.0001
90910942|NCT04771273|181691646|OTHER|"Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. The logistic regression model was fitted without an intercept, and included presence of diabetes of any type \[yes, no\], baseline fibrosis score \[F1, F2, F3\] and the dose group as factors, and baseline liver fat content (assessed by MRI-PDFF) as a continuous linear covariate.~P-values from the contrast tests corresponding to each dose response pattern evaluated were adjusted for the multiple comparisons performed."|||||<|0.0001|||||||MCP-Mod Emax2 model fit|Model assumption: 80% of maximum effect is achieved at dose 3.0 mg.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of survodutide and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 6 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential1, exponential2, Emax1, Emax2, quadratic) while keeping full control of the type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.050).||||<0.0001
90910943|NCT04771273|181691646|OTHER|"Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. The logistic regression model was fitted without an intercept and included presence of diabetes of any type \[yes, no\], baseline fibrosis score \[F1, F2, F3\] and the dose group as factors, and baseline liver fat content (assessed by MRI-PDFF) as a continuous linear covariate.~P-values from the contrast tests corresponding to each dose response pattern evaluated were adjusted for the multiple comparisons performed."|||||<|0.0001|||||||MCP-Mod quadratic model fit|Model assumption: Maximum effect is achieved at dose 4.8 mg.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of survodutide and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 6 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential1, exponential2, Emax1, Emax2, quadratic) while keeping full control of the type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.050).||||<0.0001
90910944|NCT04771273|181691647|OTHER|No confirmatory hypothesis testing was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|10.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.6|23.45||The p-value reported is considered nominal.|Regression, Logistic||Survodutide 2.4 mg vs. Placebo|The logistic regression model included planned treatment, presence of diabetes of any type, baseline liver fat content and baseline fibrosis score. Firth's penalized regression was used.||23.45|4.60|<.0001
90910945|NCT04771273|181691647|OTHER|No confirmatory hypothesis testing was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|12.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|27.45||The p-value reported is considered nominal.|Regression, Logistic||Survodutide 4.8 mg vs. Placebo|The logistic regression model included planned treatment, presence of diabetes of any type, baseline liver fat content and baseline fibrosis score. Firth's penalized regression was used.||27.45|5.30|<.0001
90910946|NCT04771273|181691647|OTHER|No confirmatory hypothesis testing was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|8.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.66|18.5||The p-value reported is considered nominal.|Regression, Logistic||Survodutide 6.0 mg vs. Placebo|The logistic regression model included planned treatment, presence of diabetes of any type, baseline liver fat content and baseline fibrosis score. Firth's penalized regression was used.||18.50|3.66|<.0001
90960557|NCT00427895|181801608|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.10.|Difference in Percentage|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.9||||||Serotype 19A: Difference (cohort 2 - cohort 1) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95%CI.||1.9|-2.1|
90960558|NCT00427895|181801608|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.10.|Difference in Percentage|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|6.2||||||Serotype 19F: Difference (cohort 2 - cohort 1) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95%CI.||6.2|-2.4|
90869280|NCT02289690|181601226|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.604|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.5|1.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by LDH level.|Odds ratio was from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by LDH level. An odds ratio of \> 1 favors veliparib in combination with carboplatin and etoposide followed by placebo maintenance monotherapy (Arm B).|"If the primary analysis of PFS (Arm A vs Arm C) was statistically significant a fixed sequence testing procedure was to be performed with a 2-sided significance level of 0.2 for the following key secondary endpoints:~1. OS (Arm A vs Arm C)~2. PFS (Arms B vs Arm C)~3. OS (Arm B vs Arm C)~4. ORR (Arm A vs Arm C)~5. ORR (Arm B vs Arm C)~If significance versus Arm C was not demonstrated, all endpoints later in the testing hierarchy were to be considered exploratory."||1.3|0.5|0.604
90940404|NCT03730662|181760696|NON_INFERIORITY|"Although the primary objective is to establish noninferiority, sample size selection is guided by the objective of establishing superiority. The chosen sample size and randomization ratio also provides \>90% power to establish superiority of 10 mg LY3298176 and 15 mg LY3298176 doses to insulin glargine in absence of confounding effects of rescue therapy for persistent severe hyperglycemia (efficacy estimand)."|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.13|-0.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.86|-1.13|<0.001
90869281|NCT02495168|181601228|EQUIVALENCE|To show the clinical equivalence, an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was fit on the participants from the generic budesonide/formoterol fumarate and Symbicort groups only, with the endpoint as outcome and treatment, study site and treatment by site interaction as fixed effects and FEV1 baseline value as covariate. If the treatment-by-site interaction factor was not significant at the 0.05 level, the model was to be rerun without the interaction term.|Test/Referece LS Mean Ratio|101.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.7|111.9|||||Fieller's formula was applied to calculate the 90% confidence interval (CI) for the generic budesonide/formoterol fumarate and Symbicort LS mean ratio; covariance between treatment means was assumed to be 0.|||111.9|92.7|
90869282|NCT02495168|181601229|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.334|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.673|2.996||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||LS means difference and p-value from ANCOVA model with treatment and site as fixed effects, baseline FEV1 as covariate and endpoint as outcome on generic budesonide/formoterol fumarate dihydrate and Placebo participants only.||2.996|1.673|<0.0001
90869283|NCT02495168|181601229|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.606|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.939|3.273||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||LS means difference and p-value from ANCOVA model with treatment and site as fixed effects, baseline FEV1 as covariate and endpoint as outcome on Symbicort and Placebo participants only.||3.273|1.939|<0.0001
90869284|NCT02495168|181601230|EQUIVALENCE|To show the clinical equivalence, an ANCOVA model was fit on the participants from the generic budesonide/formoterol fumarate and Symbicort groups only, with the endpoint as outcome and treatment, study site and treatment-by site interaction as fixed effects and FEV1 baseline value as covariate. If the treatment-by-site interaction factor was not significant at the 0.05 level, the model was to be rerun without the interaction term.|Test/Reference LS Mean Ratio|99.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.0|114.5|||||Fieller's formula was applied to calculate the 90% CI for the generic budesonide/formoterol fumarate and Symbicort LS mean ratio; covariance between treatment means was assumed to be 0.|||114.5|87.0|
90869285|NCT02495168|181601231|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.159|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.093|0.226||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||LS means difference and p-value from ANCOVA model with treatment and site as fixed effects, baseline FEV1 as covariate and endpoint as outcome on generic budesonide/formoterol fumarate dihydrate and Placebo participants only.||0.226|0.093|<0.0001
90869286|NCT02495168|181601231|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.164|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.099|0.229||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||LS means difference and p-value from ANCOVA model with treatment and site as fixed effects, baseline FEV1 as covariate and endpoint as outcome on Symbicort and Placebo participants only.||0.229|0.099|<0.0001
90869287|NCT03167411|181601249|EQUIVALENCE|The ratio of the least squares (LS) geometric means of Cmax when bexagliflozin is dosed in combination with exenatide versus when dosed alone, with 80-125% defined as the lack of interaction boundaries. 90% confidence intervals was constructed.|Point Estimate (%)|125.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|104.45|150.24|||||Estimated ratio (%) of exponentiated mean difference of log-transformed PK parameter from ANOVA (linear mixed-effects model), with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect.|||150.24|104.45|
90960559|NCT00427895|181801608|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.10.|Difference in Percentage|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|5.7||||||Serotype 23F: Difference (cohort 2 - cohort 1) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95%CI.||5.7|-4.7|
90869288|NCT03167411|181601252|EQUIVALENCE|The ratio of the least squares (LS) geometric means of AUC0-inf when bexagliflozin is dosed in combination with exenatide versus when dosed alone, with 80-125% defined as the lack of interaction boundaries. 90% confidence intervals was constructed.|Point Estimate (%)|137.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|122.28|154.75|||||Estimated ratio (%) of exponentiated mean difference of log-transformed PK parameter from ANOVA (linear mixed-effects model), with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect.|||154.75|122.28|
90869289|NCT00420927|181601254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023||95.0|||||Chi-squared|P value is from Pearson's chi-square test.||||||0.023
90869290|NCT00420927|181601255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.082||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.082
90910947|NCT04771273|181691647|OTHER|"Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. The logistic regression model was fitted without an intercept, and included presence of diabetes of any type \[yes, no\], baseline fibrosis score \[F1, F2, F3\] and the dose group as factors, and baseline liver fat content (assessed by MRI-PDFF) as a continuous linear covariate.~P-values from the contrast tests corresponding to each dose response pattern evaluated were adjusted for the multiple comparisons performed."|||||<|0.0001|||||||MCP-Mod linear model fit|Linear model fit assumption.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of survodutide and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 6 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential1, exponential2, Emax1, Emax2, quadratic) while keeping full control of the type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.050).||||<0.0001
90869291|NCT00420927|181601256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.280
90869292|NCT00420927|181601256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.287||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.287
90869293|NCT00420927|181601257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.026
90869294|NCT00420927|181601257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.009
90869295|NCT00420927|181601258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.060
90869296|NCT00420927|181601258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.063||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.063
90869297|NCT00420927|181601259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.395||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.395
90869298|NCT00420927|181601259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.640
90869299|NCT00420927|181601260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.159||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.159
90869300|NCT00420927|181601260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.217||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.217
90869301|NCT00420927|181601261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.060
90869302|NCT00420927|181601261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.043||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.043
90869303|NCT00420927|181601262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance adjusting for baseline||||||0.004
90869304|NCT00420927|181601262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance adjusting for baseline||||||0.049
90869305|NCT00420927|181601263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.240
90869306|NCT00420927|181601263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.271||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.271
90869307|NCT00420927|181601264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.230
90869308|NCT00420927|181601264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.550
90869309|NCT00420927|181601265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.301||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.301
90869310|NCT00420927|181601265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.188||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.188
90869311|NCT00420927|181601266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.314||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.314
90869312|NCT00420927|181601266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.235||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.235
90869313|NCT00420927|181601267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance adjusting for baseline||||||0.030
90869314|NCT00420927|181601267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.403||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance adjusting for baseline||||||0.403
90869315|NCT00420927|181601268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance adjusting for baseline||||||0.036
90869316|NCT00420927|181601268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.349||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance adjusting for baseline||||||0.349
90869317|NCT00420927|181601269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.037||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance adjusting for baseline||||||0.037
90869318|NCT00420927|181601269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance adjusting for baseline||||||<0.001
90869319|NCT00420927|181601270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.192||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.192
90869320|NCT00420927|181601270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.241||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.241
90869321|NCT00420927|181601271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.028
90869322|NCT00420927|181601271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.014
90869323|NCT00420927|181601272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.074||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.074
90869324|NCT00420927|181601272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.077||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.077
90869325|NCT00843024|181601284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.3||Adjusted for multiplicity according to the fixed sequence testing strategy|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Sumatriptan 10 mg/Naproxen 60 mg minus placebo|||0.30|0.09|0.003
90869326|NCT00843024|181601284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.26||Adjusted for multiplicity according to the fixed-sequence testing strategy|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Sumatriptan 30 mg/Naproxen180 mg minus placebo|||0.26|0.07|0.003
90869327|NCT00843024|181601284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.22||Adjusted for multiplicity according to the fixed-sequence testing strategy|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Sumatriptan 85 mg/Naproxen 500 mg minus placebo|||0.22|0.05|0.003
90869328|NCT05425745|181601396|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-36.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.019|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.22|-30.39|||ANCOVA|||||-30.39|-42.22|<.0001
90869329|NCT05425745|181601397|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-37.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.572|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.79|-30.78|||ANCOVA|||||-30.78|-44.79|<.0001
90869330|NCT05425745|181601398|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-41.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.938|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.14|-31.76||The hierarchical testing procedure would only be conducted if the previous secondary efficacy endpoint reached a statistically significant treatment effect at p-value\<0.05|ANCOVA|||||-31.76|-51.14|<.0001
90869331|NCT05425745|181601399|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-24.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.136|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.58|-20.2||The hierarchical testing procedure would only be conducted if the previous secondary efficacy endpoint reached a statistically significant treatment effect at p-value\<0.05|ANCOVA|||||-20.20|-28.58|<.0001
90869332|NCT05425745|181601400|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-24.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.583|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.38|-19.25||The hierarchical testing procedure would only be conducted if the previous secondary efficacy endpoint reached a statistically significant treatment effect at p-value\<0.05|ANCOVA|||||-19.25|-29.38|<.0001
90869333|NCT05425745|181601401|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-25.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.114|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.88|-19.67||The hierarchical testing procedure would only be conducted if the previous secondary efficacy endpoint reached a statistically significant treatment effect at p-value\<0.05|ANCOVA|||||-19.67|-31.88|<.0001
90869334|NCT05425745|181601402|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-34.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.661|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.67|-29.24||The hierarchical testing procedure would only be conducted if the previous secondary efficacy endpoint reached a statistically significant treatment effect at p-value\<0.05|ANCOVA|||||-29.24|-39.67|<.0001
90869335|NCT05425745|181601403|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-33.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.241|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.36|-26.65||The hierarchical testing procedure would only be conducted if the previous secondary efficacy endpoint reached a statistically significant treatment effect at p-value\<0.05|ANCOVA|||||-26.65|-39.36|<.0001
90869336|NCT05425745|181601404|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-37.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.535|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.38|-28.58||The hierarchical testing procedure would only be conducted if the previous secondary efficacy endpoint reached a statistically significant treatment effect at p-value \<0.05|ANCOVA|||||-28.58|-46.38|<.0001
90869337|NCT05425745|181601405|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|138.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.244|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|126.42|150.9||The hierarchical testing procedure would only be conducted if the previous secondary efficacy endpoint reached a statistically significant treatment effect at p-value \<0.05|ANCOVA|||||150.90|126.42|<.0001
90869338|NCT05425745|181601406|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|131.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.595|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|118.27|144.13||The hierarchical testing procedure would only be conducted if the previous secondary efficacy endpoint reached a statistically significant treatment effect at p-value \<0.05|ANCOVA|||||144.13|118.27|<.0001
90869339|NCT05425745|181601407|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|121.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.333|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|107.02|135.76||The hierarchical testing procedure would only be conducted if the previous secondary efficacy endpoint reached a statistically significant treatment effect at p-value \<0.05|ANCOVA|||||135.76|107.02|<.0001
90869340|NCT05425745|181601408|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-45.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.88|-26.0||The hierarchical testing procedure would only be conducted if the previous secondary efficacy endpoint reached a statistically significant treatment effect at p-value\<0.05|ANCOVA|||||-26.00|-65.88|<.0001
90940405|NCT03730662|181760696|NON_INFERIORITY|"Although the primary objective is to establish noninferiority, sample size selection is guided by the objective of establishing superiority. The chosen sample size and randomization ratio also provides \>90% power to establish superiority of 10 mg LY3298176 and 15 mg LY3298176 doses to insulin glargine in absence of confounding effects of rescue therapy for persistent severe hyperglycemia (efficacy estimand)."|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.28|-1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.00|-1.28|<0.001
90960560|NCT00427895|181801608|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.10.|Difference in Percentage|7.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|10.6||||||Serotype 1: Difference (cohort 3 - cohort 1) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95%CI.||10.6|4.3|
90869341|NCT05425745|181601409|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-54.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|38.924||0.1648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-131.13|22.53||The hierarchical testing procedure would only be conducted if the previous secondary efficacy endpoint reached a statistically significant treatment effect at p-value\<0.05; therefore hierarchical testing was stopped for subsequent secondary endpoints|ANCOVA|||||22.53|-131.13|0.1648
90869342|NCT00524368|181601416|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If at Week 48, the lower limit of the 95% two-sided confidence interval of the difference between DRV/rtv once daily and DRV/rtv twice daily exceeds -12%, non-inferiority of the DRV/rtv q.d. versus the DRV/rtv b.i.d. therapy was concluded.|Difference in proportion of response|0.0019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.054|0.092|||Regression, Logistic|The model includes treatment as factor and baseline viral load (log10) as covariate.|Difference in proportion of response DRV/rtv once daily minus DRV/rtv twice daily estimated from the logistic regression model.|Assuming a response rate of 70% at 48 weeks for both treatment groups, 306 participants were required per treatment arm to establish noninferiority of darunavir (DRV)/ritonavir (rtv) once daily versus DRV/rtv twice daily with a maximum allowable difference of 12%, with a 1-sided significance level of 0.025 and 90% power.||0.092|-0.054|<0.001
90869343|NCT00524368|181601417|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If at Week 48, the lower limit of this 95% 2-sided CI of the difference between DRV/rtv q.d. and DRV/rtv b.i.d. exceeded -12%, noninferiority of DRV/rtv q.d. and DRV/rtv b.i.d. could be concluded.|Difference in proportion of response|0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.075|||Regression, Logistic|A logistic regression model includes treatment as fixed factor and baseline plasma viral load as a covariate.|Difference in proportion of response between 2 treatment groups (DRV/rtv q.d. minus DRV/rtv b.i.d)|||0.075|-0.060|<0.001
90960561|NCT00427895|181801608|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.10.|Difference in Percentage|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|5.9||||||Serotype 3: Difference (cohort 3 - cohort 1) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95%CI.||5.9|-0.3|
90869344|NCT00524368|181601418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least square means|-0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094||0.977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.188|0.182|||ANCOVA|Including 1 factor for treatment, and including the covariate baseline log10 plasma viral load|Difference between least square means between the DRV/rtv q.d. and DRV/rtv b.i.d. treatment groups at Week 48.|||0.182|-0.188|0.977
90869345|NCT00524368|181601419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094||0.917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.824|1.191|||Cox proportional hazards|Including treatment as fixed factor and baseline plasma viral load as a covariate||||1.191|0.824|0.917
90960562|NCT00427895|181801608|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.10.|Difference in Percentage|4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|6.9||||||Serotype 4: Difference (cohort 3 - cohort 1) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95%CI.||6.9|2.1|
90910948|NCT04771273|181691647|OTHER|"Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. The logistic regression model was fitted without an intercept and included presence of diabetes of any type \[yes, no\], baseline fibrosis score \[F1, F2, F3\] and the dose group as factors, and baseline liver fat content (assessed by MRI-PDFF) as a continuous linear covariate.~P-values from the contrast tests corresponding to each dose response pattern evaluated were adjusted for the multiple comparisons performed."||||||0.0031|||||||MCP-Mod exponential-1 model fit|Model assumption: 25% of maximum effect is achieved at dose 3.0 mg.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of survodutide and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 6 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential1, exponential2, Emax1, Emax2, quadratic) while keeping full control of the type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.050).||||0.0031
90910949|NCT04771273|181691647|OTHER|"Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. The logistic regression model was fitted without an intercept and included presence of diabetes of any type \[yes, no\], baseline fibrosis score \[F1, F2, F3\] and the dose group as factors, and baseline liver fat content (assessed by MRI-PDFF) as a continuous linear covariate.~P-values from the contrast tests corresponding to each dose response pattern evaluated were adjusted for the multiple comparisons performed."||||||0.0925|||||||MCP-Mod exponential-2 model fit|Model assumption: 5% of maximum effect is achieved at dose 3.0 mg.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of survodutide and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 6 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential1, exponential2, Emax1, Emax2, quadratic) while keeping full control of the type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.050).||||0.0925
90910950|NCT04771273|181691647|OTHER|"Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. The logistic regression model was fitted without an intercept and included presence of diabetes of any type \[yes, no\], baseline fibrosis score \[F1, F2, F3\] and the dose group as factors, and baseline liver fat content (assessed by MRI-PDFF) as a continuous linear covariate.~P-values from the contrast tests corresponding to each dose response pattern evaluated were adjusted for the multiple comparisons performed."|||||<|0.0001|||||||MCP-Mod Emax1 model fit|Model assumption: 50% of maximum effect is achieved at dose 3.0 mg.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of survodutide and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 6 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential1, exponential2, Emax1, Emax2, quadratic) while keeping full control of the type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.050).||||<0.0001
90910951|NCT04771273|181691647|OTHER|"Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. The logistic regression model was fitted without an intercept and included presence of diabetes of any type \[yes, no\], baseline fibrosis score \[F1, F2, F3\] and the dose group as factors, and baseline liver fat content (assessed by MRI-PDFF) as a continuous linear covariate.~P-values from the contrast tests corresponding to each dose response pattern evaluated were adjusted for the multiple comparisons performed."|||||<|0.0001|||||||MCP-Mod Emax2 model fit|Model assumption: 80% of maximum effect is achieved at dose 3.0 mg.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of survodutide and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 6 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential1, exponential2, Emax1, Emax2, quadratic) while keeping full control of the type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.050).||||<0.0001
90910952|NCT04771273|181691647|OTHER|"Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. The logistic regression model was fitted without an intercept, and included presence of diabetes of any type \[yes, no\], baseline fibrosis score \[F1, F2, F3\] and the dose group as factors, and baseline liver fat content (assessed by MRI-PDFF) as a continuous linear covariate.~P-values from the contrast tests corresponding to each dose response pattern evaluated were adjusted for the multiple comparisons performed."|||||<|0.0001|||||||MCP-Mod quadratic model fit|Model assumption: Maximum effect is achieved at dose 4.8 mg.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of survodutide and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 6 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential1, exponential2, Emax1, Emax2, quadratic) while keeping full control of the type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.050).||||<0.0001
90960563|NCT00427895|181801608|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.10.|Difference in Percentage|5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|9.1||||||Serotype 5: Difference (cohort 3 - cohort 1) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95%CI.||9.1|1.4|
90960564|NCT00427895|181801608|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.10.|Difference in Percentage|3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|6.1||||||Serotype 6A: Difference (cohort 3 - cohort 1) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95%CI.||6.1|1.7|
90960565|NCT00427895|181801608|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.10.|Difference in Percentage|6.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|9.3||||||Serotype 6B: Difference (cohort 3 - cohort 1) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95%CI.||9.3|4.1|
90960566|NCT00427895|181801608|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.10.|Difference in Percentage|8.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.4|11.6||||||Serotype 7F: Difference (cohort 3 - cohort 1) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95%CI.||11.6|5.4|
90960567|NCT00427895|181801608|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.10.|Difference in Percentage|7.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.8|11.4||||||Serotype 9V: Difference (cohort 3 - cohort 1) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95%CI.||11.4|4.8|
90960568|NCT00427895|181801608|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.10.|Difference in Percentage|11.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|14.9||||||Serotype 14: Difference (cohort 3 - cohort 1) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95%CI.||14.9|8.0|
90869346|NCT00524368|181601420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio, log|0.945|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.154||0.716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.699|1.279|||Regression, Cox|Including baseline log10 viral load as covariate||||1.279|0.699|0.716
90869347|NCT00524368|181601421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least square means|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.072||0.711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.169|0.115|||ANCOVA|Including 1 factor for treatment, and including the covariate baseline log10 plasma viral load|Difference in least square means between the 2 treatment groups (DRV/rtv q.d. and DRV/rtv b.i.d)|||0.115|-0.169|0.711
90869348|NCT00524368|181601422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least square means|-5.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.26||0.562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.09|14.2|||ANCOVA|The model includes treatment as factor and baseline CD4 count and baseline viral load (log10) as covariates.|Difference in least square means DRV/rtv once daily minus DRV/rtv twice daily estimated from the ANCOVA model.|||14.20|-26.09|0.562
90869349|NCT00524368|181601423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least square means|0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.79||0.761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.97|4.06|||ANCOVA|Including factors for treatment, and baseline log10 plasma viral load and baseline FAHI score as covariates|Difference in least square means DRV/rtv once daily minus DRV/rtv twice daily estimated from the ANCOVA model.|||4.06|-2.97|0.761
90869350|NCT03010254|181601461|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.138|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|-0.097||2-sided p-value reported. A hypothesis test was based on a two sample t-test, with a type I error rate of 0.025, 1-sided.|t-test, 2 sided||Least squares mean difference (DFT015 - SN60WF)|||-0.097|-0.180|<0.001
90869351|NCT03010254|181601463|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin was 0.1 logMAR.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.037|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0115|||ONE_SIDED|97.5||0.059|||||Least squares mean difference (DFT015 - SN60WF).The 1-sided 97.5% Upper Confidence Limit is presented.|||0.059||
90869352|NCT03010254|181601464|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0216|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.133|-0.048||2-sided p-value reported. A hypothesis test was based on a two sample t-test, with a type I error rate of 0.025, 1-sided.|t-test, 2 sided||Least squares mean difference (DFT015 - SN60WF)|||-0.048|-0.133|<0.001
90869353|NCT03010254|181601465|OTHER||Mean difference in depth of focus|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|||||Hypothesis testing was not pre-specified.|||Mean difference in depth of focus (DFT015 - SN60WF)|||||
90869354|NCT03010254|181601466|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin was -0.15 log unit|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.179|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0551|||ONE_SIDED|97.5|-0.287||||||Least squares mean difference (DFT015 - SN60WF). The 1-sided 97.5 Lower Limit Confidence Interval is presented.|Without glare|||-0.287|
90869355|NCT03010254|181601466|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin was -0.15 log unit|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.181|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0541|||ONE_SIDED|97.5|-0.287||||||Least squares mean difference (DFT015 - SN60WF). The 1-sided 97.5 Lower Limit Confidence Interval is presented.|With glare|||-0.287|
90869356|NCT03010254|181601467|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|20.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.77|31.04|||||95% CI for the difference (DFT015 - SN60WF) is estimated using Miettinen-Nurminen method (1985).|||31.04|8.77|
90869357|NCT03010254|181601468|SUPERIORITY||Percent difference|21.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.92|35.06|||||95% CI for the difference (DFT015 - SN60WF) is estimated using Miettinen-Nurminen method (1985).|||35.06|7.92|
90869358|NCT02715076|181601469|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||mixed-effects model|||||||<0.05
90869359|NCT01404325|181601470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
90869360|NCT02144233|181601499|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.54
90869361|NCT02785354|181601525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.66|||Fine and Gray model|||Outcome was analyzed during dabigatran or VKA exposure period (on treatment) using: 1) Cumulative function to estimate the incidence (with death as a competing risk), 2) Fine and Gray model to compare the 1-year risk for dabigatran versus VKA, with hazard ratio (HR) and 95% Confidence Interval (CI ) (and death as a competing risk).||0.66|0.51|<0.0001
90910953|NCT04771273|181691648|OTHER|No confirmatory hypothesis testing was performed.|Mean Difference (Net)|-8.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.59|-6.6||The p-value reported is considered nominal.|MMRM||"Survodutide 2.4 mg - Placebo."|Least Squares Mean differences and 95% confidence interval were calculated from mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects for baseline liver fat content (%) as a continuous linear covariate, and treatment, presence of diabetes of any type \[yes, no\], baseline fibrosis score \[F1, F2, F3\], visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline by visit interaction as factors.||-6.60|-10.59|<.0001
90910954|NCT04771273|181691648|OTHER|No confirmatory hypothesis testing was performed.|Mean Difference (Net)|-10.91|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.96|-8.86||The p-value reported is considered nominal.|MMRM||"Survodutide 4.8 mg - Placebo."|Least Squares Mean differences and 95% confidence interval were calculated from mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects for baseline liver fat content (%) as a continuous linear covariate, and treatment, presence of diabetes of any type \[yes, no\], baseline fibrosis score \[F1, F2, F3\], visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline by visit interaction as factors.||-8.86|-12.96|<.0001
90910955|NCT04771273|181691648|OTHER|No confirmatory hypothesis testing was performed.|Mean Difference (Net)|-11.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.23|-8.92||The p-value reported is considered nominal.|MMRM||"Survodutide 6.0 mg - Placebo."|Least Squares Mean differences and 95% confidence interval were calculated from mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects for baseline liver fat content (%) as a continuous linear covariate, and treatment, presence of diabetes of any type \[yes, no\], baseline fibrosis score \[F1, F2, F3\], visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline by visit interaction as factors.||-8.92|-13.23|<.0001
90910956|NCT04771273|181691649|OTHER|No confirmatory hypothesis testing was performed.|Mean Difference (Net)|-9.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.21|-7.03||The p-value reported is considered nominal.|MMRM||"Survodutide 2.4 mg - Placebo."|Least Squares Mean differences and 95% confidence interval were calculated from mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects for baseline liver fat content (%) as a continuous linear covariate, and treatment, presence of diabetes of any type \[yes, no\], baseline fibrosis score \[F1, F2, F3\], visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline by visit interaction as factors.||-7.03|-11.21|<.0001
90910957|NCT04771273|181691649|OTHER|No confirmatory hypothesis testing was performed.|Mean Difference (Net)|-10.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.85|-8.73||The p-value reported is considered nominal.|MMRM||"Survodutide 4.8 mg - Placebo."|Least Squares Mean differences and 95% confidence interval were calculated from mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects for baseline liver fat content (%) as a continuous linear covariate, and treatment, presence of diabetes of any type \[yes, no\], baseline fibrosis score \[F1, F2, F3\], visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline by visit interaction as factors.||-8.73|-12.85|<.0001
90910958|NCT04771273|181691649|OTHER|No confirmatory hypothesis testing was performed.|Mean Difference (Net)|-10.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|-8.73||The p-value reported is considered nominal.|MMRM||"Survodutide 6.0 mg - Placebo."|Least Squares Mean differences and 95% confidence interval were calculated from mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects for baseline liver fat content (%) as a continuous linear covariate, and treatment, presence of diabetes of any type \[yes, no\], baseline fibrosis score \[F1, F2, F3\], visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline by visit interaction as factors.||-8.73|-13.00|<.0001
90960569|NCT00427895|181801608|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.10.|Difference in Percentage|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|5.7||||||Serotype 18C: Difference (cohort 3 - cohort 1) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95%CI.||5.7|0.9|
90910959|NCT04771273|181691650|OTHER|No confirmatory hypothesis testing was performed.|Mean Difference (Net)|-43.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.49|-33.79||The p-value reported is considered nominal.|MMRM||"Survodutide 2.4 mg - Placebo"|Least Squares Mean differences and 95% confidence interval were calculated from mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects for baseline liver fat content (%) as a continuous linear covariate, and treatment, presence of diabetes of any type \[yes, no\], baseline fibrosis score \[F1, F2, F3\], visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline by visit interaction as factors.||-33.79|-53.49|<.0001
90971050|NCT01902290|181824649|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|1.41||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|2.12|||Generalized linear model|Generalized linear model under a negative binomial distribution assumption adjusting for stratification factors.|Rate ratio = Brodalumab : Placebo|||2.12|0.93|0.102
90910960|NCT04771273|181691650|OTHER|No confirmatory hypothesis testing was performed.|Mean Difference (Net)|-55.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.61|-45.42||The p-value reported is considered nominal.|MMRM||"Survodutide 4.8 mg - Placebo"|Least Squares Mean differences and 95% confidence interval were calculated from mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects for baseline liver fat content (%) as a continuous linear covariate, and treatment, presence of diabetes of any type \[yes, no\], baseline fibrosis score \[F1, F2, F3\], visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline by visit interaction as factors.||-45.42|-65.61|<.0001
90910961|NCT04771273|181691650|OTHER|No confirmatory hypothesis testing was performed.|Mean Difference (Net)|-57.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.66|-46.39||The p-value reported is considered nominal.|MMRM||"Survodutide 6.0 mg-Placebo"|Least Squares Mean differences and 95% confidence interval were calculated from mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects for baseline liver fat content (%) as a continuous linear covariate, and treatment, presence of diabetes of any type \[yes, no\], baseline fibrosis score \[F1, F2, F3\], visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline by visit interaction as factors.||-46.39|-67.66|<.0001
90910962|NCT04771273|181691651|OTHER|No confirmatory hypothesis testing was performed.|Mean Difference (Net)|-46.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.74|-36.25||The p-value reported is considered nominal.|MMRM||"Survodutide 2.4 mg - Placebo"|Least Squares Mean differences and 95% confidence interval were calculated from mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects for baseline liver fat content (%) as a continuous linear covariate, and treatment, presence of diabetes of any type \[yes, no\], baseline fibrosis score \[F1, F2, F3\], visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline by visit interaction as factors.||-36.25|-56.74|<.0001
90910963|NCT04771273|181691651|OTHER|No confirmatory hypothesis testing was performed.|Mean Difference (Net)|-55.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.25|-44.98||The p-value reported is considered nominal.|MMRM||"Survodutide 4.8 mg - Placebo"|Least Squares Mean differences and 95% confidence interval were calculated from mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects for baseline liver fat content (%) as a continuous linear covariate, and treatment, presence of diabetes of any type \[yes, no\], baseline fibrosis score \[F1, F2, F3\], visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline by visit interaction as factors.||-44.98|-65.25|<.0001
90910964|NCT04771273|181691651|OTHER|No confirmatory hypothesis testing was performed.|Mean Difference (Net)|-56.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.76|-45.77||The p-value reported is considered nominal.|MMRM||"Survodutide 6.0 mg-Placebo"|Least Squares Mean differences and 95% confidence interval were calculated from mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects for baseline liver fat content (%) as a continuous linear covariate, and treatment, presence of diabetes of any type \[yes, no\], baseline fibrosis score \[F1, F2, F3\], visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline by visit interaction as factors.||-45.77|-66.76|<.0001
90910965|NCT04771273|181691652|OTHER|No confirmatory hypothesis testing was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.61||||0.1894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|3.26||The p-value reported is considered nominal.|Regression, Logistic||Survodutide 2.4 mg vs. Placebo|The logistic regression model included actual treatment, presence of diabetes of any type and baseline fibrosis score. Firth's penalized regression was used.||3.26|0.79|0.1894
90910966|NCT04771273|181691652|OTHER|No confirmatory hypothesis testing was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.0685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|4.2||The p-value reported is considered nominal.|Regression, Logistic||Survodutide 4.8 mg vs. Placebo|The logistic regression model included actual treatment, presence of diabetes of any type and baseline fibrosis score. Firth's penalized regression was used.||4.20|0.95|0.0685
90910967|NCT04771273|181691652|OTHER|No confirmatory hypothesis testing was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.37||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|7.45||The p-value reported is considered nominal.|Regression, Logistic||Survodutide 6.0 mg vs. Placebo|The logistic regression model included actual treatment, presence of diabetes of any type and baseline fibrosis score. Firth's penalized regression was used.||7.45|1.52|0.0028
90910968|NCT04771273|181691653|OTHER|No confirmatory hypothesis testing was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.02||||0.0663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|4.27||The p-value reported is considered nominal.|Regression, Logistic||Survodutide 2.4 mg vs. Placebo|The logistic regression model included planned treatment, presence of diabetes of any type and baseline fibrosis score. Firth's penalized regression was used.||4.27|0.95|0.0663
90960570|NCT00427895|181801608|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.10.|Difference in Percentage|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.1||||||Serotype 19A: Difference (cohort 3 - cohort 1) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95%CI.||3.1|0.3|
90960571|NCT00427895|181801608|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.10.|Difference in Percentage|8.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.4|12.0||||||Serotype 19F: Difference (cohort 3 - cohort 1) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95%CI.||12.0|5.4|
90869362|NCT02785354|181601525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|0.92|||Fine and Gray model|||Outcome was analyzed during rivaroxaban or VKA exposure period (on treatment) using: 1) Cumulative function to estimate the incidence (with death as a competing risk), 2) Fine and Gray model to compare the 1-year risk for rivaroxaban versus VKA, with HR and 95%CI (and death as a competing risk).||0.92|0.75|0.0006
90869363|NCT02785354|181601526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.66|||Fine and Gray model|||Outcome was analyzed during dabigatran or VKA exposure period (on treatment) using: 1) Cumulative function to estimate the incidence (with death as a competing risk), 2) Fine and Gray model to compare the 1-year risk for dabigatran versus VKA, with hazard ratio (HR) and 95%CI (and death as a competing risk).||0.66|0.46|<0.0001
90869364|NCT02785354|181601526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.79|||Fine and Gray model|||Outcome was analyzed during rivaroxaban or VKA exposure period (on treatment) using: 1) Cumulative function to estimate the incidence (with death as a competing risk), 2) Fine and Gray model to compare the 1-year risk for rivaroxaban versus VKA, with HR and 95%CI (and death as a competing risk).||0.79|0.58|<0.0001
90869365|NCT02785354|181601527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.88|||Fine and Gray model|||Outcome was analyzed during dabigatran or VKA exposure period (on treatment) using: 1) Cumulative function to estimate the incidence (with death as a competing risk), 2) Fine and Gray model to compare the 1-year risk for dabigatran versus VKA, with hazard ratio (HR) and 95%CI (and death as a competing risk).||0.88|0.63|0.0007
90869366|NCT02785354|181601527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.8341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.14|||Fine and Gray model|||Outcome was analyzed during rivaroxaban or VKA exposure period (on treatment) using: 1) Cumulative function to estimate the incidence (with death as a competing risk), 2) Fine and Gray model to compare the 1-year risk for rivaroxaban versus VKA, with HR and 95%CI (and death as a competing risk).||1.14|0.85|0.8341
90869367|NCT02785354|181601528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.0147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.95|||Fine and Gray model|||Outcome was analyzed during dabigatran or VKA exposure period (on treatment) using: 1) Cumulative function to estimate the incidence (with death as a competing risk), 2) Fine and Gray model to compare the 1-year risk for dabigatran versus VKA, with hazard ratio (HR) and 95%CI (and death as a competing risk).||0.95|0.65|0.0147
90869368|NCT02785354|181601528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.0501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.0|||Fine and Gray model|||Outcome was analyzed during rivaroxaban or VKA exposure period (on treatment) using: 1) Cumulative function to estimate the incidence (with death as a competing risk), 2) Fine and Gray model to compare the 1-year risk for rivaroxaban versus VKA, with HR and 95%CI (and death as a competing risk).||1.00|0.71|0.0501
90869369|NCT02785354|181601529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.82|||Cox proportional hazard risk model|||Outcome was analyzed during dabigatran or VKA exposure period (on treatment) using: 1) Kaplan-Meier to estimate the cumulative incidence, 2) Cox proportional hazard risk model to compare the 1-year risk for dabigatran versus VKA, with HR and 95%CI.||0.82|0.67|<0.0001
90869370|NCT02785354|181601529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.84|||Cox proportional hazard risk model|||Outcome was analyzed during rivaroxaban or VKA exposure period (on treatment) using: 1) Kaplan-Meier to estimate the cumulative incidence, 2) Cox proportional hazard risk model to compare the 1-year risk for rivaroxaban versus VKA, with HR and 95%CI.||0.84|0.71|<0.0001
90869371|NCT02785354|181601530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.76|||Cox proportional hazard risk model|||Outcome was analyzed during dabigatran or VKA exposure period (on treatment) using: 1) Kaplan-Meier to estimate the cumulative incidence, 2) Cox proportional hazard risk model to compare the 1-year risk for dabigatran versus VKA, with HR and 95%CI.||0.76|0.66|<0.0001
90869372|NCT02785354|181601530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.89|||Cox proportional hazard risk model|||Outcome was analyzed during rivaroxaban or VKA exposure period (on treatment) using: 1) Kaplan-Meier to estimate the cumulative incidence, 2) Cox proportional hazard risk model to compare the 1-year risk for rivaroxaban versus VKA, with HR and 95%CI.||0.89|0.79|<0.0001
90869373|NCT00848081|181601532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.403||||||1-sided test|Fisher Exact|||The p-value is from a one-sided Fisher's exact test with a significance level of 0.05. A total of 142 subjects per treatment arm would provide 91% power to detect the difference between a Group 1 proportion of 0.03 and a Group 2 proportion of 0.13.||||0.403
90869374|NCT00848081|181601534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13||||||p-value is on change from baseline|ANCOVA|||The LS mean, standard error, 2-sided 95% confidence interval and p-value for the difference between placebo and tadalafil 5 mg are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model.||||0.130
90869375|NCT00848081|181601535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.258||||||p-value is on change from baseline|ANOVA|The p-value is from Type III sums of squares ANOVA on rank-transformed data.||||||0.258
90971051|NCT01902290|181824650|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-0.038||||0.6632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.134|||Mixed-effect model|The model included fixed effects of treatment group, time, interaction of treatment group by time, stratification factors, and baseline ACQ score.|Difference = Brodalumab - Placebo|||0.134|-0.210|0.6632
90910969|NCT04771273|181691653|OTHER|No confirmatory hypothesis testing was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.01||||0.0672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|4.23||The p-value reported is considered nominal.|Regression, Logistic||Survodutide 4.8 mg vs. Placebo|The logistic regression model included planned treatment, presence of diabetes of any type and baseline fibrosis score. Firth's penalized regression was used.||4.23|0.95|0.0672
90910970|NCT04771273|181691653|OTHER|No confirmatory hypothesis testing was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.11||||0.0512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|4.46||The p-value reported is considered nominal.|Regression, Logistic||Survodutide 6.0 mg vs. Placebo|The logistic regression model included planned treatment, presence of diabetes of any type and baseline fibrosis score. Firth's penalized regression was used.||4.46|1.00|0.0512
90910971|NCT01543685|181691692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|441.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|129.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|187.1|696.5|||ANCOVA|||||696.5|187.1|<0.001
90910972|NCT01543685|181691692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|260.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|130.3||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|516.3|||ANCOVA|||||516.3|4.1|0.046
90910973|NCT01543685|181691692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|312.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|130.4||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.6|568.9|||ANCOVA|||||568.9|56.6|0.017
90910974|NCT01543685|181691692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|211.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|129.6||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.1|466.2|||ANCOVA|||||466.2|-43.1|0.103
90910975|NCT01543685|181691693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.013
90910976|NCT01543685|181691693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.014
90910977|NCT01543685|181691693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.211||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.211
90910978|NCT01543685|181691693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.098||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.098
90910979|NCT01543685|181691694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
90910980|NCT01543685|181691694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004
90910981|NCT01543685|181691694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.017
90910982|NCT01543685|181691694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.028
90910983|NCT01543685|181691695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90910984|NCT01543685|181691695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004
90910985|NCT01543685|181691695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004
90910986|NCT01543685|181691695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.015
90910987|NCT01543685|181691696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
90910988|NCT01543685|181691696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.022
90910989|NCT01543685|181691696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.146||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.146
90910990|NCT01543685|181691696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.071||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.071
90910991|NCT01543685|181691697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90910992|NCT01543685|181691697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.008
90910993|NCT01543685|181691697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.010
90910994|NCT01543685|181691697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.016
90910995|NCT01543685|181691698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90910996|NCT01543685|181691698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.008
90910997|NCT01543685|181691698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.005
90910998|NCT01543685|181691698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.017
90910999|NCT01543685|181691699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90911000|NCT01543685|181691699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.020
90911001|NCT01543685|181691699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.012
90911002|NCT01543685|181691699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.029
90911003|NCT00556543|181691704|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No power calculation performed.||||||0.19||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's Exact Test with the null hypothesis that the proportion with adverse events was the same in both groups.||||0.190
90911004|NCT01838551|181691715|SUPERIORITY|Under the null hypothesis of at most 20% UFC responders, 90 subjects in the ITT population would provide 90% power, with two-sided type 1 error of 0.05, assuming an observed response of 35%.||||||0.0154||||||One-sided p-value is based on a null hypothesis that true response proportion is ≤ 0.20.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Generalized Linear Model described above was used to generate the p-value.||The least squares mean (LSMEAN) estimate of the UFC response after 6 months of treatment in the Maintenance Phase alongside its 95% Wald CI is presented. Supportive to the 95% CI, the p-value corresponding to the null hypothesis that the response rate is ≤ 20% is presented (1-sided test).||||0.0154
90911005|NCT01391013|181691721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|TWO_SIDED||||||Nonparametric Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.08
90911006|NCT01391013|181691722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88|TWO_SIDED||||||Nonparametric Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.88
90911007|NCT01391013|181691723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31|TWO_SIDED||||||Nonparametric Wilcoxon rank sum test|This statistical analysis applies to 'Week 48'.||||||0.31
90911008|NCT01391013|181691724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37|TWO_SIDED||||||Nonparametric Wilcoxon rank sum test|This statistical analysis applies to 'Week 48'.||||||0.37
90911009|NCT01391013|181691725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66|TWO_SIDED||||||Nonparametric Wilcoxon rank sum test|This statistical analysis applies to 'Week 48'.||||||0.66
90911010|NCT01391013|181691726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Nonparametric Wilcoxon rank sum test|This statistical analysis applies to 'Week 48'.||||||0.02
90911011|NCT01391013|181691727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||Nonparametric Wilcoxon rank sum test|This statistical analysis applies to 'Week 48'.||||||0.12
90911012|NCT01391013|181691728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71|TWO_SIDED||||||Nonparametric Wilcoxon rank sum test|This statistical analysis applies to 'Week 48'.||||||0.71
90911013|NCT01391013|181691729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83|TWO_SIDED||||||Nonparametric Wilcoxon rank sum test|This statistical analysis applies to 'Week 48'.||||||0.83
90911014|NCT01391013|181691730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66|TWO_SIDED||||||Nonparametric Wilcoxon rank sum test|This statistical analysis applies to 'Week 48'.||||||0.66
90911015|NCT01391013|181691731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76|TWO_SIDED||||||Nonparametric Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.76
90911016|NCT01391013|181691732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.56|TWO_SIDED||||||Nonparametric Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.56
90911017|NCT01391013|181691733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||Nonparametric Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.11
90911018|NCT01391013|181691734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|TWO_SIDED||||||Nonparametric Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.18
90911019|NCT01391013|181691735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Nonparametric Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.03
90911020|NCT01391013|181691736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Nonparametric Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.04
90911021|NCT03254394|181691745|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.88||||0.318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.09|20.85||p-value was not adjusted for any parameter.|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: Average AUC of cold pain score over 14 days of a chemotherapy cycle in the Control group is equal or lower than that of the experimental group. The comparison is for average AUC values over 7 cycles of chemotherapy per patient||20.85|-7.09|0.318
90911022|NCT03254394|181691745|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.67||||0.466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.76|29.1||p-value was not adjusted for any parameter.|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: Cold hypersensitivity counted as unpleasantness score for 14 days after cycle (AUC) in the Control group is less than that of the experimental group. The difference was calculated for the Cycle 6 visit.||29.10|-13.76|0.466
90911023|NCT03254394|181691746|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|20.0||||0.338|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value was not adjusted for any parameter.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||the null hypothesis is EORTC QLQ-CIPN20 sensory score change in the Control group is equal to or less than that of the experimental group for the last follow-up study visit.||||0.338
90911024|NCT03254394|181691746|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.759|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value was not adjusted for any parameter.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis is EORTC QLQ-CIPN20 sensory score change in the Control group is equal to or less than that of the experimental group for the cycle 6 (12 weeks) follow-up study visit.||||0.759
90911025|NCT03254394|181691747|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.581|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value was not adjusted for any parameter.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis is NPSI total score in the Control group is equal to or less than that of the experimental group for the C3 (6 weeks) study visit.||||0.581
90911026|NCT03254394|181691747|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.962|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value was not adjusted for any parameter.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis is NPSI total score in the Control group is equal to or less than that of the experimental group for the C6 (12 weeks) study visit.||||0.962
90911027|NCT03254394|181691747|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|10.5||||0.365|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value was not adjusted for any parameter.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis is NPSI total score in the Control group is equal to or less than that of the experimental group for the last follow-up study visit.||||0.365
90911028|NCT03254394|181691748|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|57.68||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1771.0|1886.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is Oxaliplatin cumulative dose in the Control group is equal to or higher than that of the experimental group.||1886|-1771|0.730
90911029|NCT01942707|181691787|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|179.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|222.0||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.003
90911030|NCT01942707|181691788|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.9||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.012
90911031|NCT01942707|181691789|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|40.7||0.809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.809
90911032|NCT01049503|181691797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||"The softwares GraphPad InStat version 3.0 for Windows and GraphPad Prism version 4.0 for Windows (GraphPad Software, La Jolla, Ca, USA) were used. Data were checked for normality and homogeneity using Kolmogorov and Smirnov and Bartlett tests, respectively.~Data were analyzed by 2-way RM-ANOVA after logarithmic transformation and Bonferroni's test."||||<0.05
90911033|NCT01049503|181691798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The softwares GraphPad InStat version 3.0 for Windows and GraphPad Prism version 4.0 for Windows (GraphPad Software, La Jolla, Ca, USA) were used. Data were checked for normality and homogeneity using Kolmogorov; Smirnov and Bartlett tests, respectively. Data from the clinical exams were evaluated by Kruskal-Wallis' test.||||<0.05
90911034|NCT01049503|181691799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The softwares GraphPad InStat version 3.0 for Windows and GraphPad Prism version 4.0 for Windows (GraphPad Software, La Jolla, Ca, USA) were used. Data were checked for normality and homogeneity using Kolmogorov; Smirnov and Bartlett tests, respectively.Data from the clinical exams were evaluated by Kruskal-Wallis' test.||||<0.05
90869376|NCT00848081|181601536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.828|||||||ANOVA|P-value is from Type III sums of squares ANOVA on rank-transformed data; p-value is on change from baseline.||||||0.828
90869377|NCT00875212|181601537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|5.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.25||0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|repeated measure anova|The median value of each parameter (pH baseline, minimal pH) was obtained and these values were compared between each group|The study was based on the use of dentifrices for daily oral hygiene in a crossover design. The null hyphothesis was no difference between pH values of the groups. The statistical analysis was by repeated measurements ANOVA.||||0.001
90869378|NCT00875212|181601537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|5.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.1||0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|repeated-measurements ANOVA||The comparison was based on mean and median values of plaque pH in different moments of cariogenic challenge. The null hypothesis was that no diference between the groups wil be found. The test hypothesis was that the experimental dentifrice of CaGP-F would provide a better control of plaque pH after 14 days of use.||||0.001
90911035|NCT01049503|181691800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||"The softwares GraphPad InStat version 3.0 for Windows and GraphPad Prism version 4.0 for Windows (GraphPad Software, La Jolla, Ca, USA) were used. Data were checked for normality and homogeneity using Kolmogorov and Smirnov and Bartlett tests, respectively.~Data were analyzed by One-way ANOVA after logarithmic transformation and Tukey's test."||||<0.05
90869379|NCT00875212|181601538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.25||0.01||95.0|||||ANOVA|repeated measurements ANOVA|The difference of pH values between groups was above 1.0 unit.|The groups were compared by repeated measurements anova. There was no power calculation, but a pilot study to check the minimal number necessary of subjects in order to find a signifcant difference between interventions.||||0.01
90869380|NCT01752907|181601539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.3479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.0|||t-test, 2 sided||Treatment difference = bone pain DVD - general education DVD|There was no statistical hypothesis testing for this study. The clinical hypothesis was that a difference in mean maximum pain of 0.5 (scale 0 to 10) in favor of bone pain education would be a clinically relevant difference.||1.0|-0.4|0.3479
90869381|NCT02990910|181601568|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi square test was used to compare the count data,p \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||<0.05
90869382|NCT02064868|181601572|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.0172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.98||One-sided p-value|Gehan's generalized Wilcoxon test|||||0.98|0.51|0.0172
90911036|NCT01049503|181691801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The softwares GraphPad InStat version 3.0 for Windows and GraphPad Prism version 4.0 for Windows (GraphPad Software, La Jolla, Ca, USA) were used. Data were checked for normality and homogeneity using Kolmogorov; Smirnov and Bartlett tests, respectively. Data from fluorescence loss were evaluated by Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn's tests.||||<0.05
90911037|NCT01049503|181691802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The softwares GraphPad InStat version 3.0 for Windows and GraphPad Prism version 4.0 for Windows (GraphPad Software, La Jolla, Ca, USA) were used. Data were checked for normality and homogeneity using Kolmogorov; Smirnov and Bartlett tests, respectively. Data from lesion area were evaluated by ANOVA after logarithmic transformation and Tukey's test.||||<0.05
90911038|NCT01049503|181691803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||GraphPad Prism version 4.0 for Windows (GraphPad Software, La Jolla, Ca, USA) were used. Data were checked for normality and homogeneity using Kolmogorov; Smirnov and Bartlett tests, respectively.Data from the clinical exams were evaluated by Kruskal-Wallis' test.||||<0.05
90911039|NCT00970307|181691814|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of Non-inferiority: the upper limit of Standardised asymptotic 95% confidence interval lower or equal to 10% .|Difference in percentage|-0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.21|2.22||||||||2.22|-4.21|
90911040|NCT00970307|181691815|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of Non-inferiority: the upper limit of Standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval lower or equal to 10% .|Difference in percentage|-0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.19|3.57||||||||3.57|-5.19|
90911041|NCT00831272|181691840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32|||||||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||||0.32
90911042|NCT00864682|181691897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Hypothesis: Lidocaine / propofol admixture would be superior to lidocaine pretreatment for attenuating propofol-induced injection pain. Sample size calculated to detect a difference of at least 2 VPS points; beta 0.8.||||<0.0001
90911043|NCT00864682|181691898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.008||95.0|||||Chi-squared|Fisher's exact test after chi-squared||||||<0.008
90911044|NCT00094809|181691907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.19|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.1|0.37|||Mantel Haenszel|Adjusted for chemotherapy regimen|Common odds ratio of the pegfilgrastim group compared to the placebo group|||0.37|0.10|<0.0001
90911045|NCT00094809|181691908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-18.0|||<|0.0001||95.0|-26.2|-9.8|||Mantel Haenszel|Adjusted for chemotherapy regimen|Treatment difference in percentage of participants (pegfilgrastim group - placebo group)|||-9.8|-26.2|<0.0001
90911046|NCT00094809|181691909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-12.0||||0.0646||95.0|-23.7|0.5|||Mantel Haenszel|Adjusted for chemotherapy regimen|Treatment difference in percentage of participants (pegfilgrastim group - placebo group)|||0.5|-23.7|0.0646
90911047|NCT00094809|181691910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.27||||0.0384||95.0|0.07|1.0|||Mantel Haenszel|Adjusted for chemotherapy regimen|Common odds ratio of pegfilgrastim group compared to placebo group|||1.00|0.07|0.0384
90911048|NCT00094809|181691911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73||||0.5514||95.0|0.26|2.04|||Mantel Haenszel|Adjusted for chemotherapy regimen|Common odds ratio for pegfilgrastim group compared to placebo group|||2.04|0.26|0.5514
90911049|NCT00094809|181691913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-3.5||||0.5434||95.0|-14.8|7.8|||Mantel Haenszel|Adjusted for chemotherapy regimen|Treatment difference (pegfilgrastim group - placebo group) in the percentage of participants with a complete or partial response|||7.8|-14.8|0.5434
90911050|NCT00094809|181691914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-12.1||||||95.0|-28.1|4.0|||||Kaplan-Meier estimates of the difference in percent mortality for the pegfilgrastim group - placebo group. Median survival time was not reached for the pegfilgrastim group.|||4.0|-28.1|
90911051|NCT00094809|181691915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.23||||0.0457||95.0|0.05|1.09|||Mantel Haenszel|Adjusted for chemotherapy regimen|Common odds ratio for pegfilgrastim group compared to placebo group|||1.09|0.05|0.0457
90911052|NCT00094809|181691916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71||||0.3792||95.0|0.32|1.53|||Mantel Haenszel|Adjusted for chemotherapy regimen|Common odds ratio of the pegfilgrastim group compared to the placebo group|||1.53|0.32|0.3792
90911053|NCT02469064|181691919|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.2|||Mann Whitneey||Univariate analysis of the probability of extubation was performed using Kaplan-Meir survival analysis and the logrank test.The multivariate analysis was performed by cox regression, a simple model was performed and a final model.|||1.20|0.55|0.84
90911054|NCT02469064|181691920|OTHER||Slope|0.46||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.75|4.78|||t-test, 2 sided||The slope shows the difference between the means of the change in the MIP of the group that received the experimental treatment and the group that received the conventional treatment|||4.78|-3.75|0.48
90911055|NCT05046132|181691952|OTHER||Mean of Placebo-corrected CHFB|3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.48|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.23|6.17||||||"The C-QTc analysis was performed with a non-linear model.~The mean of placebo-corrected CHFB in QTcF at maximum concentration (Cmax) geometric mean of therapeutic dose (3 mg QD) was estimated with bias-corrected 90% CI by nonparametric bootstrap methods."||6.17|1.23|
90911056|NCT05046132|181691953|OTHER||Mean of Placebo-corrected CHFB|4.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.7|7.64||||||The C-QTc analysis was performed with a non-linear model. The mean of placebo-corrected CHFB in QTcF at Cmax geometric mean of therapeutic dose (7 mg QD) was estimated with bias-corrected 90% CI by nonparametric bootstrap methods.||7.64|1.70|
90911057|NCT05046132|181691954|OTHER||LS Mean|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|5.6||||||Pre-dose||5.6|-0.6|
90911058|NCT05046132|181691954|OTHER||LS Mean|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.0|3.1||||||0.5 hr Post dose||3.1|-3.0|
90911059|NCT05046132|181691954|OTHER||LS Mean|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.8|3.0||||||1 hr Post dose||3.0|-2.8|
90911060|NCT05046132|181691954|OTHER||LS Mean|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.8|5.1||||||1.5 hr Post dose||5.1|-1.8|
90911061|NCT05046132|181691954|OTHER||LS Mean|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.8|4.1||||||2 hr Post dose||4.1|-2.8|
90911062|NCT05046132|181691954|OTHER||LS Mean|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.9|3.4||||||2.5 hr Post dose||3.4|-2.9|
90911063|NCT05046132|181691954|OTHER||LS Mean|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.4|5.7||||||3 hr Post dose||5.7|-1.4|
90911064|NCT05046132|181691954|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.9|2.7||||||4 hr Post dose||2.7|-2.9|
90911065|NCT05046132|181691954|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.1|2.7||||||5 hr Post dose||2.7|-3.1|
90911066|NCT05046132|181691954|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.8|2.3||||||6 hr Post dose||2.3|-3.8|
90911067|NCT05046132|181691954|OTHER||LS Mean|-2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.5|-0.1||||||7 hr Post dose||-0.1|-5.5|
90911068|NCT05046132|181691954|OTHER||LS Mean|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.5|1.3||||||8 hr Post dose||1.3|-4.5|
90911069|NCT05046132|181691954|OTHER||LS Mean|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.5|3.0||||||9 hr Post dose||3.0|-2.5|
90911070|NCT05046132|181691954|OTHER||LS Mean|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.3|2.7||||||10 hr Post dose||2.7|-2.3|
90911071|NCT05046132|181691954|OTHER||LS Mean|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.9|-0.1||||||12 hr Post dose||-0.1|-5.9|
90869383|NCT02064868|181601573|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.0634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.02||Two-sided p-value|Gehan's generalized Wilcoxon test|||||1.02|0.61|0.0634
90869384|NCT02064868|181601574|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
90869385|NCT02064868|181601575|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0002
90869386|NCT02064868|181601576|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1392|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1392
90869387|NCT02064868|181601578|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3115|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 5||||0.3115
90911072|NCT05046132|181691954|OTHER||LS Mean|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.1|1.0||||||16 hr Post dose||1.0|-5.1|
90911073|NCT05046132|181691954|OTHER||LS Mean|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.6|3.8||||||24 hr Post dose||3.8|-1.6|
90869388|NCT02064868|181601578|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1236|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14||||0.1236
90869389|NCT00482612|181601579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Baseline TST was used as a covariate.||||||<0.0001
90869390|NCT00482612|181601579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Baseline TST was used as a covariate.||||||<0.0001
90869391|NCT00482612|181601579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Baseline TST was used as a covariate.||||||<0.0001
90869392|NCT00482612|181601580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0014|||||||ANCOVA|Baseline SL was used as a covariate.||||||0.0014
90869393|NCT00482612|181601580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0135|||||||ANCOVA|Baseline SL was used as a covariate.||||||0.0135
90869394|NCT00482612|181601580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Baseline SL was used as a covariate.||||||<0.0001
90869395|NCT04180488|181601601|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error.|LS Mean Difference|-4.23||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.63|-1.84||Threshold for significance at 2-sided 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analyzed by fitting an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with the corresponding baseline value, intervention group, presence of angioedema at baseline, and regions as covariates.||-1.84|-6.63|0.0005
90911074|NCT05046132|181691954|OTHER||LS Mean|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.7|4.5||||||Pre-dose||4.5|-1.7|
90911075|NCT05046132|181691954|OTHER||LS Mean|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.4|4.7||||||0.5 hr Post dose||4.7|-1.4|
90869396|NCT04180488|181601601|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error.|LS Mean Difference|-2.87||||0.0449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.68|-0.07||Threshold for significance at 2-sided 0.043 level.|ANCOVA|||Analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with the corresponding baseline value, intervention group, presence of angioedema at baseline, and regions as covariates.||-0.07|-5.68|0.0449
90869397|NCT04180488|181601601|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error.|LS Mean Difference|-2.54||||0.0184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.65|-0.43||Threshold for significance at 2-sided 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with the corresponding baseline value, intervention group, presence of angioedema at baseline, and regions as covariates.||-0.43|-4.65|0.0184
90869398|NCT04180488|181601602|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error.|LS Mean Difference|-8.53||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.16|-3.9||Threshold for significance at 2-sided 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with the corresponding baseline value, intervention group, presence of angioedema at baseline, and regions as covariates.||-3.90|-13.16|0.0003
90869399|NCT04180488|181601602|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error.|LS Mean Difference|-4.65||||0.0226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.65|-0.65||Threshold for significance at 2-sided 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with the corresponding baseline value, intervention group, presence of angioedema at baseline, and regions as covariates.||-0.65|-8.65|0.0226
90869400|NCT04180488|181601603|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error.|LS Mean Difference|-4.38||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.78|-1.98||Threshold for significance at 2-sided 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with the corresponding baseline value, intervention group, presence of angioedema at baseline, and regions as covariates.||-1.98|-6.78|0.0003
90869401|NCT04180488|181601603|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error.|LS Mean Difference|-2.17||||0.0316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.15|-0.19||Threshold for significance at 2-sided 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with the corresponding baseline value, intervention group, presence of angioedema at baseline, and regions as covariates.||-0.19|-4.15|0.0316
90911076|NCT05046132|181691954|OTHER||LS Mean|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|4.8||||||1 hr Post dose||4.8|-1.0|
90911077|NCT05046132|181691954|OTHER||LS Mean|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.9|6.0||||||1.5 hr Post dose||6.0|-0.9|
90911078|NCT05046132|181691954|OTHER||LS Mean|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.1|4.8||||||2 hr Post dose||4.8|-2.1|
90911079|NCT05046132|181691954|OTHER||LS Mean|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.4|4.9||||||2.5 hr Post dose||4.9|-1.4|
90911080|NCT05046132|181691954|OTHER||LS Mean|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.9|5.1||||||3 hr Post dose||5.1|-1.9|
90911081|NCT05046132|181691954|OTHER||LS Mean|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.4|4.2||||||4 hr Post dose||4.2|-1.4|
90911082|NCT05046132|181691954|OTHER||LS Mean|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|5.7||||||5 hr Post dose||5.7|-0.2|
90911083|NCT05046132|181691954|OTHER||LS Mean|4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.4|7.5||||||6 hr Post dose||7.5|1.4|
90911084|NCT05046132|181691954|OTHER||LS Mean|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.1|5.5||||||7 hr Post dose||5.5|0.1|
90911085|NCT05046132|181691954|OTHER||LS Mean|4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.2|7.0||||||8 hr Post dose||7.0|1.2|
90911086|NCT05046132|181691954|OTHER||LS Mean|3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|6.3||||||9 hr Post dose||6.3|0.8|
90911087|NCT05046132|181691954|OTHER||LS Mean|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|5.8||||||10 hr Post dose||5.8|0.8|
90911088|NCT05046132|181691954|OTHER||LS Mean|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|5.5||||||12 hr Post dose||5.5|-0.3|
90911089|NCT05046132|181691954|OTHER||LS Mean|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.7|3.4||||||16 hr Post dose||3.4|-2.7|
90911090|NCT05046132|181691954|OTHER||LS Mean|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|4.4||||||24 hr Post dose||4.4|-1.0|
90911091|NCT05046132|181691955|OTHER||LS Mean|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.8|3.4||||||Pre dose||3.4|-2.8|
90911092|NCT05046132|181691955|OTHER||LS Mean|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.3|1.0||||||0.5 hr Post dose||1.0|-5.3|
90911093|NCT05046132|181691955|OTHER||LS Mean|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.7|1.4||||||1 hr Post dose||1.4|-4.7|
90911094|NCT05046132|181691955|OTHER||LS Mean|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.3|1.0||||||1.5 hr Post dose||1.0|-5.3|
90911095|NCT05046132|181691955|OTHER||LS Mean|-3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.3|-0.3||||||2 hr Post dose||-0.3|-6.3|
90911096|NCT05046132|181691955|OTHER||LS Mean|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.1|1.7||||||2.5 hr Post dose||1.7|-4.1|
90911097|NCT05046132|181691955|OTHER||LS Mean|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.2|1.7||||||3 hr Post dose||1.7|-4.2|
90911098|NCT05046132|181691955|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.6|2.5||||||4 hr Post dose||2.5|-3.6|
90911099|NCT05046132|181691955|OTHER||LS Mean|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|2.1||||||5 hr Post dose||2.1|-4.1|
90911100|NCT05046132|181691955|OTHER||LS Mean|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.7|3.5||||||6 hr Post dose||3.5|-2.7|
90911101|NCT05046132|181691955|OTHER||LS Mean|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.5|0.5||||||7 hr Post dose||0.5|-5.5|
90911102|NCT05046132|181691955|OTHER||LS Mean|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.2|0.8||||||8 hr Post dose||0.8|-5.2|
90911103|NCT05046132|181691955|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.3|2.6||||||9 hr Post dose||2.6|-4.3|
90911104|NCT05046132|181691955|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.6|3.2||||||10 hr Post dose||3.2|-3.6|
90911105|NCT05046132|181691955|OTHER||LS Mean|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.5|1.0||||||12 hr Post dose||1.0|-5.5|
90911106|NCT05046132|181691955|OTHER||LS Mean|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.4|1.7||||||16 hr Post dose||1.7|-5.4|
90911107|NCT05046132|181691955|OTHER||LS Mean|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.2|6.3||||||24 hr Post dose||6.3|-1.2|
90911108|NCT05046132|181691955|OTHER||LS Mean|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.1|0.8||||||Pre-dose||0.8|-5.1|
90911109|NCT05046132|181691955|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.1|3.0||||||0.5 hr Post dose||3.0|-3.1|
90911110|NCT05046132|181691955|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.0|2.9||||||1 hr Post dose||2.9|-3.0|
90911111|NCT05046132|181691955|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.1|3.0||||||1.5 hr Post dose||3.0|-3.1|
90911112|NCT05046132|181691955|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.8|2.0||||||2 hr Post dose||2.0|-3.8|
90911113|NCT05046132|181691955|OTHER||LS Mean|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.5|3.0||||||2.5 hr Post dose||3.0|-2.5|
90911114|NCT05046132|181691955|OTHER||LS Mean|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.9|3.7||||||3 hr Post dose||3.7|-1.9|
90911115|NCT05046132|181691955|OTHER||LS Mean|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.2|3.7||||||4 hr Post dose||3.7|-2.2|
90911116|NCT05046132|181691955|OTHER||LS Mean|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.8|3.1||||||5 hr Post dose||3.1|-2.8|
90911117|NCT05046132|181691955|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.9|2.0||||||6 hr Post dose||2.0|-3.9|
90911118|NCT05046132|181691955|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.1|2.7||||||7 hr Post dose||2.7|-3.1|
90911119|NCT05046132|181691955|OTHER||LS Mean|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.7|3.1||||||8 hr Post dose||3.1|-2.7|
90911120|NCT05046132|181691955|OTHER||LS Mean|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.7|4.0||||||9 hr Post dose||4.0|-2.7|
90911121|NCT05046132|181691955|OTHER||LS Mean|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.3|4.1||||||10 hr Post dose||4.1|-2.3|
90911122|NCT05046132|181691955|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.5|2.8||||||12 hr Post dose||2.8|-3.5|
90911123|NCT05046132|181691955|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.8|3.0||||||16 hr Post dose||3.0|-3.8|
90911124|NCT05046132|181691955|OTHER||LS Mean|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.1|2.0||||||24 hr Post dose||2.0|-5.1|
90911125|NCT05046132|181691956|OTHER||LS Mean|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.1|6.8||||||Pre dose||6.8|0.1|
90911126|NCT05046132|181691956|OTHER||LS Mean|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.0|4.6||||||0.5 hr Post dose||4.6|-3.0|
90911127|NCT05046132|181691956|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.1|3.9||||||1 hr Post dose||3.9|-4.1|
90911128|NCT05046132|181691956|OTHER||LS Mean|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.7|4.4||||||1.5 hr Post dose||4.4|-2.7|
90911129|NCT05046132|181691956|OTHER||LS Mean|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|6.6||||||2 hr Post dose||6.6|-0.6|
90911130|NCT05046132|181691956|OTHER||LS Mean|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|7.4||||||2.5 hr Post dose||7.4|-0.3|
90911131|NCT05046132|181691956|OTHER||LS Mean|4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.2|8.1||||||3 hr Post dose||8.1|1.2|
90911132|NCT05046132|181691956|OTHER||LS Mean|5.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.5|8.9||||||4 hr Post dose||8.9|1.5|
90911133|NCT05046132|181691956|OTHER||LS Mean|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.7|5.8||||||5 hr Post dose||5.8|-1.7|
90911134|NCT05046132|181691956|OTHER||LS Mean|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.6|5.1||||||6 hr Post dose||5.1|-1.6|
90911135|NCT05046132|181691956|OTHER||LS Mean|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.1|5.7||||||7 hr Post dose||5.7|-1.1|
90911136|NCT05046132|181691956|OTHER||LS Mean|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.4|6.2||||||8 hr Post dose||6.2|-1.4|
90911137|NCT05046132|181691956|OTHER||LS Mean|4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|7.8||||||9 hr Post dose||7.8|0.9|
90911138|NCT05046132|181691956|OTHER||LS Mean|3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.3|7.4||||||10 hr Post dose||7.4|0.3|
90911139|NCT05046132|181691956|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.2|2.7||||||12 hr Post dose||2.7|-4.2|
90911140|NCT05046132|181691956|OTHER||LS Mean|3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.1|7.0||||||16 hr Post dose||7.0|0.1|
90911141|NCT05046132|181691956|OTHER||LS Mean|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.7|2.8||||||24 hr Post dose||2.8|-5.7|
90911142|NCT05046132|181691956|OTHER||LS Mean|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|5.6||||||Pre dose||5.6|-1.0|
90911143|NCT05046132|181691956|OTHER||LS Mean|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.4|2.2||||||0.5 hr Post dose||2.2|-5.4|
90911144|NCT05046132|181691956|OTHER||LS Mean|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.8|4.3||||||1 hr Post dose||4.3|-3.8|
90911145|NCT05046132|181691956|OTHER||LS Mean|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|7.6||||||1.5 hr Post dose||7.6|0.4|
90911146|NCT05046132|181691956|OTHER||LS Mean|6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.7|10.0||||||2 hr Post dose||10.0|2.7|
90911147|NCT05046132|181691956|OTHER||LS Mean|6.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.6|10.2||||||2.5 hr Post dose||10.2|2.6|
90911148|NCT05046132|181691956|OTHER||LS Mean|8.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.0|12.0||||||3 hr Post dose||12.0|5.0|
90911149|NCT05046132|181691956|OTHER||LS Mean|10.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.4|13.8||||||4 hr Post dose||13.8|6.4|
90869402|NCT04180488|181601604|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.413||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.596|7.299||Threshold for significance at 2-sided 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test was performed on association between responder status and intervention group, adjusted by baseline disease severity (UAS7\<28,\>=28), presence of angioedema at baseline and region.||7.299|1.596|0.0014
90869403|NCT04180488|181601604|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.507||||0.0109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.231|5.107||Threshold for significance at 2-sided 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH test was performed on the association between the responder status and intervention group, adjusted by baseline disease severity (UAS7 \<28, \>=28), presence of angioedema at baseline, and region.||5.107|1.231|0.0109
90869404|NCT04180488|181601605|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.848||||0.0075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.301|6.234||Threshold for significance at 2-sided 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH test was performed on the association between the responder status and intervention group, adjusted by baseline disease severity (UAS7 \<28, \>=28), presence of angioedema at baseline, and region.||6.234|1.301|0.0075
90869405|NCT04180488|181601605|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.137||||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.371|7.176||Threshold for significance at 2-sided 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH test was performed on the association between the responder status and intervention group, adjusted by baseline disease severity (UAS7 \<28, \>=28), presence of angioedema at baseline, and region.||7.176|1.371|0.0045
90869406|NCT04180488|181601606|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.908||||0.0199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.173|7.209||Threshold for significance at 2-sided 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH test was performed on the association between the responder status and intervention group, adjusted by baseline disease severity (UAS7 \<28, \>=28), presence of angioedema at baseline, and region.||7.209|1.173|0.0199
90869407|NCT04180488|181601606|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.677||||0.0187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.127|6.359||Threshold for significance at 2-sided 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH test was performed on the association between the responder status and intervention group, adjusted by baseline disease severity (UAS7 \<28, \>=28), presence of angioedema at baseline, and region.||6.359|1.127|0.0187
90869408|NCT04180488|181601607|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error.|LS Mean Difference|0.93||||0.194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|2.34||Threshold for significance at 2-sided 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with the corresponding baseline value, intervention group, presence of angioedema at baseline, and regions as covariates.||2.34|-0.48|0.1940
90869409|NCT04180488|181601608|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error.|LS Mean Difference|-2.37||||0.0377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|-0.13||Threshold for significance at 2-sided 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with the corresponding baseline value, intervention group, presence of angioedema at baseline, and regions as covariates.||-0.13|-4.60|0.0377
90869410|NCT04180488|181601609|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error.|LS Mean Difference|-5.02||||0.0223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.32|-0.72||Threshold for significance at 2-sided 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with the corresponding baseline value, intervention group, presence of angioedema at baseline, and regions as covariates.||-0.72|-9.32|0.0223
90869411|NCT04180488|181601610|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.645||||0.0215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.154|6.061||Threshold for significance at 2-sided 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH test was performed on the association between the responder status and intervention group, adjusted by baseline disease severity (UAS7 \<28, \>=28), presence of angioedema at baseline, and region.||6.061|1.154|0.0215
90869412|NCT04180488|181601611|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.872||||0.0971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.893|3.923||Threshold for significance at 2-sided 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH test was performed on the association between the responder status and intervention group, adjusted by baseline disease severity (UAS7 \<28, \>=28), presence of angioedema at baseline, and region.||3.923|0.893|0.0971
90869413|NCT03975790|181601641|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4695|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.4695
90869414|NCT03975790|181601641|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7644|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7644
90869415|NCT03975790|181601641|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8316|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.8316
90869416|NCT03975790|181601642|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9829|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.9829
90869417|NCT03975790|181601642|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8021|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.8021
90869418|NCT03975790|181601642|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8376|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.8376
90869419|NCT03975790|181601643|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2864|||||||t-test|||||||0.2864
90869420|NCT03975790|181601643|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1583|||||||t-test|||||||0.1583
90869421|NCT03975790|181601643|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4546|||||||t-test|||||||0.4546
90869422|NCT03975790|181601644|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028|||||||t-test|||||||0.0280
90869423|NCT03975790|181601644|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0106|||||||t-test|||||||0.0106
90869424|NCT03975790|181601644|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7293|||||||t-test|||||||0.7293
90869425|NCT03975790|181601645|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9215|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.9215
90869426|NCT03975790|181601645|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6078|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.6078
90869427|NCT03975790|181601645|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6258|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.6258
90869428|NCT03975790|181601646|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3586|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3586
90911150|NCT05046132|181691956|OTHER||LS Mean|7.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.1|11.6||||||5 hr Post dose||11.6|4.1|
90911151|NCT05046132|181691956|OTHER||LS Mean|7.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.4|11.2||||||6 hr Post dose||11.2|4.4|
90911152|NCT05046132|181691956|OTHER||LS Mean|6.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.4|10.2||||||7 hr Post dose||10.2|3.4|
90869429|NCT03975790|181601646|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5117|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5117
90869430|NCT03975790|181601647|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5372|||||||t-test|||||||0.5372
90869431|NCT03975790|181601647|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6155|||||||t-test|||||||0.6155
90869432|NCT03975790|181601647|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9696|||||||t-test|||||||0.9696
90869433|NCT03975790|181601648|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2514|||||||t-test|||||||0.2514
90869434|NCT03975790|181601648|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9851|||||||t-test|||||||0.9851
90911153|NCT05046132|181691956|OTHER||LS Mean|4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6|8.3||||||8 hr Post dose||8.3|0.6|
90869435|NCT03975790|181601648|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4309|||||||t-test|||||||0.4309
90869436|NCT03975790|181601649|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6033|||||||t-test|||||||0.6033
90911154|NCT05046132|181691956|OTHER||LS Mean|6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.1|10.0||||||9 hr Post dose||10.0|3.1|
90869437|NCT03975790|181601649|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.348|||||||t-test|||||||0.3480
90869438|NCT03975790|181601649|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5375|||||||t-test|||||||0.5375
90869439|NCT03975790|181601650|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0345|||||||Chi-squared|||Other aftercare||||0.0345
90869440|NCT03975790|181601650|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2316|||||||Chi-squared|||Other aftercare||||0.2316
90869441|NCT03975790|181601650|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7349|||||||Chi-squared|||Other aftercare||||0.7349
90869442|NCT03975790|181601650|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0774|||||||Chi-squared|||Other connective tissue disease||||0.0774
90869443|NCT03975790|181601650|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4228|||||||Chi-squared|||Other connective tissue disease||||0.4228
90869444|NCT03975790|181601650|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0583|||||||Chi-squared|||Other connective tissue disease||||0.0583
90869445|NCT03975790|181601650|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9683|||||||Chi-squared|||Other non-traumatic joint disorders||||0.9683
90869446|NCT03975790|181601650|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8877|||||||Chi-squared|||Other non-traumatic joint disorders||||0.8877
90869447|NCT03975790|181601650|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9228|||||||Chi-squared|||Other non-traumatic joint disorders||||0.9228
90869448|NCT03975790|181601650|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7661|||||||Chi-squared|||Medical examination/evaluation||||0.7661
90869449|NCT03975790|181601650|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3034|||||||Chi-squared|||Medical examination/evaluation||||0.3034
90869450|NCT03975790|181601650|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2765|||||||Chi-squared|||Medical examination/evaluation||||0.2765
90869451|NCT03975790|181601650|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8652|||||||Chi-squared|||Other suspected conditions||||0.8652
90869452|NCT03975790|181601650|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2243|||||||Chi-squared|||Other suspected conditions||||0.2243
90869453|NCT03975790|181601650|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3449|||||||Chi-squared|||Other suspected conditions||||0.3449
90869454|NCT03975790|181601650|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3529|||||||Chi-squared|||Immunizations/screening for infectious disease||||0.3529
90869455|NCT03975790|181601650|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1012|||||||Chi-squared|||Immunizations/screening for infectious disease||||0.1012
90869456|NCT03975790|181601650|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4123|||||||Chi-squared|||Immunizations/screening for infectious disease||||0.4123
90869457|NCT03975790|181601650|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2742|||||||Chi-squared|||Osteoarthritis||||0.2742
90869458|NCT03975790|181601650|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1009|||||||Chi-squared|||Osteoarthritis||||0.1009
90869459|NCT03975790|181601650|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0318|||||||Chi-squared|||Osteoarthritis||||0.0318
90869460|NCT03975790|181601650|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4808|||||||Chi-squared|||Essential hypertension||||0.4808
90869461|NCT03975790|181601650|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0778|||||||Chi-squared|||Essential hypertension||||0.0778
90869462|NCT03975790|181601650|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2871|||||||Chi-squared|||Essential hypertension||||0.2871
90869463|NCT03975790|181601650|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7356|||||||Chi-squared|||Residual codes; unclassified||||0.7356
90869464|NCT03975790|181601650|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4975|||||||Chi-squared|||Residual codes; unclassified||||0.4975
90869465|NCT03975790|181601650|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7143|||||||Chi-squared|||Residual codes; unclassified||||0.7143
90869466|NCT03975790|181601650|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3559|||||||Chi-squared|||Disorders of lipid metabolism||||0.3559
90869467|NCT03975790|181601650|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7725|||||||Chi-squared|||Disorders of lipid metabolism||||0.7725
90869468|NCT03975790|181601650|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3875|||||||Chi-squared|||Disorders of lipid metabolism||||0.3875
90869469|NCT03975790|181601650|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0225|||||||Chi-squared|||Back problems||||0.0225
90869470|NCT03975790|181601650|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4427|||||||Chi-squared|||Back problems||||0.4427
90869471|NCT03975790|181601650|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4094|||||||Chi-squared|||Back problems||||0.4094
90869472|NCT03975790|181601650|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8775|||||||Chi-squared|||Other upper respiratory infections||||0.8775
90869473|NCT03975790|181601650|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3525|||||||Chi-squared|||Other upper respiratory infections||||0.3525
90869474|NCT03975790|181601650|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4724|||||||Chi-squared|||Other upper respiratory infections||||0.4724
90869475|NCT03975790|181601650|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.717|||||||Chi-squared|||Other lower respiratory disease||||0.7170
90869476|NCT03975790|181601650|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2909|||||||Chi-squared|||Other lower respiratory disease||||0.2909
90869477|NCT03975790|181601650|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5057|||||||Chi-squared|||Other lower respiratory disease||||0.5057
90869478|NCT03975790|181601650|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2613|||||||Chi-squared|||Other nervous system disorders||||0.2613
90869479|NCT03975790|181601650|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9901|||||||Chi-squared|||Other nervous system disorders||||0.9901
90869480|NCT03975790|181601650|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4768|||||||Chi-squared|||Other nervous system disorders||||0.4768
90911155|NCT05046132|181691956|OTHER||LS Mean|6.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.0|10.1||||||10 hr Post dose||10.1|3.0|
90911156|NCT05046132|181691956|OTHER||LS Mean|5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.8|8.8||||||12 hr Post dose||8.8|1.8|
90911157|NCT05046132|181691956|OTHER||LS Mean|7.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.7|10.6||||||16 hr Post dose||10.6|3.7|
90911158|NCT05046132|181691956|OTHER||LS Mean|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|7.5||||||24 hr Post dose||7.5|-1.0|
90911159|NCT05046132|181691957|OTHER||LS Mean|7.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.7|11.8||||||Pre dose||11.8|3.7|
90911160|NCT05046132|181691957|OTHER||LS Mean|6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.3|9.8||||||0.5 hr Post dose||9.8|3.3|
90911161|NCT05046132|181691957|OTHER||LS Mean|4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6|8.6||||||1 hr Post dose||8.6|0.6|
90911162|NCT05046132|181691957|OTHER||LS Mean|4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6|8.6||||||1.5 hr Post dose||8.6|0.6|
90869481|NCT03975790|181601650|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0219|||||||Chi-squared|||Other skin disorders||||0.0219
90869482|NCT03975790|181601650|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5172|||||||Chi-squared|||Other skin disorders||||0.5172
90869483|NCT03975790|181601650|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0278|||||||Chi-squared|||Other skin disorders||||0.0278
90869484|NCT03975790|181601650|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6103|||||||Chi-squared|||Thyroid disorders||||0.6103
90911163|NCT05046132|181691957|OTHER||LS Mean|3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|8.0||||||2 hr Post dose||8.0|-0.4|
90911164|NCT05046132|181691957|OTHER||LS Mean|6.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.8|10.4||||||2.5 hr Post dose||10.4|1.8|
90911165|NCT05046132|181691957|OTHER||LS Mean|5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.7|9.8||||||3 hr Post dose||9.8|1.7|
90911166|NCT05046132|181691957|OTHER||LS Mean|6.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.5|9.8||||||4 hr Post dose||9.8|2.5|
90869485|NCT03975790|181601650|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1682|||||||Chi-squared|||Thyroid disorders||||0.1682
90869486|NCT03975790|181601650|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3654|||||||Chi-squared|||Thyroid disorders||||0.3654
90869487|NCT03975790|181601650|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7637|||||||Chi-squared|||Other bone disease/musculoskeletal deformities||||0.7637
90869488|NCT03975790|181601650|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8693|||||||Chi-squared|||Other bone disease/musculoskeletal deformities||||0.8693
90869489|NCT03975790|181601650|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7349|||||||Chi-squared|||Other bone disease/musculoskeletal deformities||||0.7349
90869490|NCT03975790|181601650|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7324|||||||Chi-squared|||Malaise/fatigue||||0.7324
90911167|NCT05046132|181691957|OTHER||LS Mean|5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.6|9.8||||||5 hr Post dose||9.8|1.6|
90911168|NCT05046132|181691957|OTHER||LS Mean|4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1|8.4||||||6 hr Post dose||8.4|1.1|
90911169|NCT05046132|181691957|OTHER||LS Mean|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.9|7.0||||||7 hr Post dose||7.0|-0.9|
90911170|NCT05046132|181691957|OTHER||LS Mean|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.3|8.8||||||8 hr Post dose||8.8|1.3|
90911171|NCT05046132|181691957|OTHER||LS Mean|6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.5|10.6||||||9 hr Post dose||10.6|2.5|
90869491|NCT03975790|181601650|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4182|||||||Chi-squared|||Malaise/fatigue||||0.4182
90869492|NCT03975790|181601650|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||Chi-squared|||Malaise/fatigue||||0.6200
90869493|NCT03975790|181601650|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6064|||||||Chi-squared|||Esophageal disorders||||0.6064
90869494|NCT03975790|181601650|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.636|||||||Chi-squared|||Esophageal disorders||||0.6360
90869495|NCT03975790|181601650|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9445|||||||Chi-squared|||Esophageal disorders||||0.9445
90869496|NCT03975790|181601650|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8135|||||||Chi-squared|||Nutritional deficiencies||||0.8135
90869497|NCT03975790|181601650|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6705|||||||Chi-squared|||Nutritional deficiencies||||0.6705
90869498|NCT03975790|181601650|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8331|||||||Chi-squared|||Nutritional deficiencies||||0.8331
90869499|NCT03975790|181601650|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4158|||||||Chi-squared|||Other nutritional; endocrine; and metabolic disorders||||0.4158
90869500|NCT03975790|181601650|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.636|||||||Chi-squared|||Other nutritional; endocrine; and metabolic disorders||||0.6360
90869501|NCT03975790|181601650|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3336|||||||Chi-squared|||Other nutritional; endocrine; and metabolic disorders||||0.3336
90869502|NCT03975790|181601650|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6402|||||||Chi-squared|||Diabetes mellitus without complication||||0.6402
90869503|NCT03975790|181601650|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8068|||||||Chi-squared|||Diabetes mellitus without complication||||0.8068
90869504|NCT03975790|181601650|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5983|||||||Chi-squared|||Diabetes mellitus without complication||||0.5983
90869505|NCT03975790|181601650|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9759|||||||Chi-squared|||Other/unspecified benign neoplasm||||0.9759
90869506|NCT03975790|181601650|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.136|||||||Chi-squared|||Other/unspecified benign neoplasm||||0.1360
90869507|NCT03975790|181601650|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1815|||||||Chi-squared|||Other/unspecified benign neoplasm||||0.1815
90869508|NCT03975790|181601650|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2731|||||||Chi-squared|||Genitourinary symptoms/ill-defined conditions||||0.2731
90869509|NCT03975790|181601650|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8327|||||||Chi-squared|||Genitourinary symptoms/ill-defined conditions||||0.8327
90869510|NCT03975790|181601650|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.342|||||||Chi-squared|||Genitourinary symptoms/ill-defined conditions||||0.3420
90869511|NCT03975790|181601651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.059|||||||Chi-squared|||Rheumatoid arthritis/related disease||||0.0590
90869512|NCT03975790|181601651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7055|||||||Chi-squared|||Rheumatoid arthritis/related disease||||0.7055
90869513|NCT03975790|181601651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3088|||||||Chi-squared|||Rheumatoid arthritis/related disease||||0.3088
90869514|NCT03975790|181601651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0036|||||||Chi-squared|||Other aftercare||||0.0036
90869515|NCT03975790|181601651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3772|||||||Chi-squared|||Other aftercare||||0.3772
90869516|NCT03975790|181601651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Chi-squared|||Other aftercare||||0.3000
90869517|NCT03975790|181601651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7354|||||||Chi-squared|||Other connective tissue disease||||0.7354
90869518|NCT03975790|181601651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1435|||||||Chi-squared|||Other connective tissue disease||||0.1435
90869519|NCT03975790|181601651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2876|||||||Chi-squared|||Other connective tissue disease||||0.2876
90911172|NCT05046132|181691957|OTHER||LS Mean|8.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.8|12.3||||||10 hr Post dose||12.3|4.8|
90911173|NCT05046132|181691957|OTHER||LS Mean|7.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.4|11.4||||||12 hr Post dose||11.4|4.4|
90911174|NCT05046132|181691957|OTHER||LS Mean|4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|8.9||||||16 hr Post dose||8.9|0.9|
90911175|NCT05046132|181691957|OTHER||LS Mean|7.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.6|12.0||||||24 hr Post dose||12.0|3.6|
90911176|NCT05046132|181691957|OTHER||LS Mean|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.8|6.0||||||Pre dose||6.0|-1.8|
90911177|NCT05046132|181691957|OTHER||LS Mean|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|6.2||||||0.5 hr Post dose||6.2|-0.0|
90911178|NCT05046132|181691957|OTHER||LS Mean|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.9|5.7||||||1 hr Post dose||5.7|-1.9|
90911179|NCT05046132|181691957|OTHER||LS Mean|6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.6|10.4||||||1.5 hr Post dose||10.4|2.6|
90911180|NCT05046132|181691957|OTHER||LS Mean|5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.3|9.3||||||2 hr Post dose||9.3|1.3|
90911181|NCT05046132|181691957|OTHER||LS Mean|11.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.0|15.1||||||2.5 hr Post dose||15.1|7.0|
90911182|NCT05046132|181691957|OTHER||LS Mean|9.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.9|13.6||||||3 hr Post dose||13.6|5.9|
90911183|NCT05046132|181691957|OTHER||LS Mean|10.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.2|14.2||||||4 hr Post dose||14.2|7.2|
90869520|NCT03975790|181601651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2848|||||||Chi-squared|||Other non-traumatic joint disorders||||0.2848
90869521|NCT03975790|181601651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.183|||||||Chi-squared|||Other non-traumatic joint disorders||||0.1830
90869522|NCT03975790|181601651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6453|||||||Chi-squared|||Other non-traumatic joint disorders||||0.6453
90869523|NCT03975790|181601651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8717|||||||Chi-squared|||Medical examination/evaluation||||0.8717
90869524|NCT03975790|181601651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8717|||||||Chi-squared|||Medical examination/evaluation||||0.8717
90869525|NCT03975790|181601651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3422|||||||Chi-squared|||Medical examination/evaluation||||0.3422
90869526|NCT03975790|181601651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3465|||||||Chi-squared|||Other suspected conditions||||0.3465
90869527|NCT03975790|181601651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4953|||||||Chi-squared|||Other suspected conditions||||0.4953
90869528|NCT03975790|181601651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9796|||||||Chi-squared|||Other suspected conditions||||0.9796
90869529|NCT03975790|181601651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4187|||||||Chi-squared|||Immunizations/screening for infectious disease||||0.4187
90869530|NCT03975790|181601651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.151|||||||Chi-squared|||Immunizations/screening for infectious disease||||0.1510
90869531|NCT03975790|181601651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0751|||||||Chi-squared|||Immunizations/screening for infectious disease||||0.0751
90869532|NCT03975790|181601651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7577|||||||Chi-squared|||Osteoarthritis||||0.7577
90869533|NCT03975790|181601651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.802|||||||Chi-squared|||Osteoarthritis||||0.8020
90869534|NCT03975790|181601651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9879|||||||Chi-squared|||Osteoarthritis||||0.9879
90869535|NCT03975790|181601651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1717|||||||Chi-squared|||Essential hypertension||||0.1717
90869536|NCT03975790|181601651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3065|||||||Chi-squared|||Essential hypertension||||0.3065
90869537|NCT03975790|181601651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.992|||||||Chi-squared|||Essential hypertension||||0.9920
90869538|NCT03975790|181601651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4626|||||||Chi-squared|||Residual codes; unclassified||||0.4626
90869539|NCT03975790|181601651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8922|||||||Chi-squared|||Residual codes; unclassified||||0.8922
90869540|NCT03975790|181601651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7143|||||||Chi-squared|||Residual codes; unclassified||||0.7143
90869541|NCT03975790|181601651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8212|||||||Chi-squared|||Disorders of lipid metabolism||||0.8212
90869542|NCT03975790|181601651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5732|||||||Chi-squared|||Disorders of lipid metabolism||||0.5732
90869543|NCT03975790|181601651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7319|||||||Chi-squared|||Disorders of lipid metabolism||||0.7319
90869544|NCT03975790|181601651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9272|||||||Chi-squared|||Back problems||||0.9272
90869545|NCT03975790|181601651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1441|||||||Chi-squared|||Back problems||||0.1441
90869546|NCT03975790|181601651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1859|||||||Chi-squared|||Back problems||||0.1859
90869547|NCT03975790|181601651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3109|||||||Chi-squared|||Other upper respiratory infections||||0.3109
90869548|NCT03975790|181601651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3313|||||||Chi-squared|||Other upper respiratory infections||||0.3313
90869549|NCT03975790|181601651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1279|||||||Chi-squared|||Other upper respiratory infections||||0.1279
90869550|NCT03975790|181601651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7575|||||||Chi-squared|||Other lower respiratory disease||||0.7575
90869551|NCT03975790|181601651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1583|||||||Chi-squared|||Other lower respiratory disease||||0.1583
90869552|NCT03975790|181601651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1569|||||||Chi-squared|||Other lower respiratory disease||||0.1569
90869553|NCT03975790|181601651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0745|||||||Chi-squared|||Other nervous system disorders||||0.0745
90869554|NCT03975790|181601651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0933|||||||Chi-squared|||Other nervous system disorders||||0.0933
90869555|NCT03975790|181601651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.791|||||||Chi-squared|||Other nervous system disorders||||0.7910
90869556|NCT03975790|181601651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6755|||||||Chi-squared|||Other skin disorders||||0.6755
90869557|NCT03975790|181601651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4183|||||||Chi-squared|||Other skin disorders||||0.4183
90869558|NCT03975790|181601651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6749|||||||Chi-squared|||Other skin disorders||||0.6749
90869559|NCT03975790|181601651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6626|||||||Chi-squared|||Thyroid disorders||||0.6626
90869560|NCT03975790|181601651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5766|||||||Chi-squared|||Thyroid disorders||||0.5766
90869561|NCT03975790|181601651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8376|||||||Chi-squared|||Thyroid disorders||||0.8376
90869562|NCT03975790|181601651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2857|||||||Chi-squared|||Other bone disease/musculoskeletal deformities||||0.2857
90869563|NCT03975790|181601651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.956|||||||Chi-squared|||Other bone disease/musculoskeletal deformities||||0.9560
90869564|NCT03975790|181601651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4384|||||||Chi-squared|||Other bone disease/musculoskeletal deformities||||0.4384
90869565|NCT03975790|181601651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6082|||||||Chi-squared|||Malaise/fatigue||||0.6082
90869566|NCT03975790|181601651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3374|||||||Chi-squared|||Malaise/fatigue||||0.3374
90869567|NCT03975790|181601651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5984|||||||Chi-squared|||Malaise/fatigue||||0.5984
90869568|NCT03975790|181601651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8568|||||||Chi-squared|||Esophageal disorders||||0.8568
90911184|NCT05046132|181691957|OTHER||LS Mean|8.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.9|12.7||||||5 hr Post dose||12.7|4.9|
90911185|NCT05046132|181691957|OTHER||LS Mean|11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.5|14.5||||||6 hr Post dose||14.5|7.5|
90911186|NCT05046132|181691957|OTHER||LS Mean|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.1|14.6||||||7 hr Post dose||14.6|7.1|
90911187|NCT05046132|181691957|OTHER||LS Mean|11.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.6|14.9||||||8 hr Post dose||14.9|7.6|
90911188|NCT05046132|181691957|OTHER||LS Mean|9.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.9|13.7||||||9 hr Post dose||13.7|5.9|
90911189|NCT05046132|181691957|OTHER||LS Mean|10.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.9|14.1||||||10 hr Post dose||14.1|6.9|
90911190|NCT05046132|181691957|OTHER||LS Mean|11.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.4|15.2||||||12 hr Post dose||15.2|8.4|
90911191|NCT05046132|181691957|OTHER||LS Mean|9.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.6|13.3||||||16 hr Post dose||13.3|5.6|
90911192|NCT05046132|181691957|OTHER||LS Mean|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.8|14.9||||||24 hr Post dose||14.9|6.8|
90911193|NCT05046132|181691958|OTHER||LS Mean|-5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.4|-2.2||||||Pre dose||-2.2|-8.4|
90911194|NCT05046132|181691958|OTHER||LS Mean|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.9|0.5||||||0.5 hr Post dose||0.5|-5.9|
90911195|NCT05046132|181691958|OTHER||LS Mean|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.7|-0.7||||||1 hr Post dose||-0.7|-5.7|
90911196|NCT05046132|181691958|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.7|1.9||||||1.5 hr Post dose||1.9|-3.7|
90911197|NCT05046132|181691958|OTHER||LS Mean|-2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.7|-0.2||||||2 hr Post dose||-0.2|-5.7|
90911198|NCT05046132|181691958|OTHER||LS Mean|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.5|-1.5||||||2.5 hr Post dose||-1.5|-6.5|
90911199|NCT05046132|181691958|OTHER||LS Mean|-4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.1|-1.3||||||3 hr Post dose||-1.3|-7.1|
90911200|NCT05046132|181691958|OTHER||LS Mean|-4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.4|-0.8||||||4 hr Post dose||-0.8|-7.4|
90911201|NCT05046132|181691958|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.7|2.1||||||5 hr Post dose||2.1|-3.7|
90911202|NCT05046132|181691958|OTHER||LS Mean|-3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.3|-0.4||||||6 hr Post dose||-0.4|-6.3|
90911203|NCT05046132|181691958|OTHER||LS Mean|-3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.0|-0.5||||||7 hr Post dose||-0.5|-6.0|
90911204|NCT05046132|181691958|OTHER||LS Mean|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.7|1.5||||||8 hr Post dose||1.5|-4.7|
90911205|NCT05046132|181691958|OTHER||LS Mean|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.9|-1.2||||||9 hr Post dose||-1.2|-6.9|
90911206|NCT05046132|181691958|OTHER||LS Mean|-4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.6|-1.0||||||10 hr Post dose||-1.0|-7.6|
90911207|NCT05046132|181691958|OTHER||LS Mean|-5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.7|-2.1||||||12 hr Post dose||-2.1|-8.7|
90911208|NCT05046132|181691958|OTHER||LS Mean|-4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.4|-0.8||||||16 hr Post dose||-0.8|-7.4|
90911209|NCT05046132|181691958|OTHER||LS Mean|-7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.1|-4.2||||||24 hr Post dose||-4.2|-10.1|
90911210|NCT05046132|181691958|OTHER||LS Mean|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.0|4.2||||||Pre dose||4.2|-2.0|
90911211|NCT05046132|181691958|OTHER||LS Mean|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|6.3||||||0.5 hr Post dose||6.3|-0.1|
90911212|NCT05046132|181691958|OTHER||LS Mean|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|4.9||||||1 hr Post dose||4.9|-0.1|
90911213|NCT05046132|181691958|OTHER||LS Mean|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.2|5.8||||||1.5 hr Post dose||5.8|0.2|
90911214|NCT05046132|181691958|OTHER||LS Mean|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|4.6||||||2 hr Post dose||4.6|-1.0|
90911215|NCT05046132|181691958|OTHER||LS Mean|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.9|3.1||||||2.5 hr Post dose||3.1|-1.9|
90911216|NCT05046132|181691958|OTHER||LS Mean|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|4.8||||||3 hr Post dose||4.8|-1.0|
90911217|NCT05046132|181691958|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.5|3.0||||||4 hr Post dose||3.0|-3.5|
90911218|NCT05046132|181691958|OTHER||LS Mean|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.6|3.2||||||5 hr Post dose||3.2|-2.6|
90960572|NCT00427895|181801608|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.10.|Difference in Percentage|10.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|14.7||||||Serotype 23F: Difference (cohort 3 - cohort 1) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95%CI.||14.7|6.8|
90960573|NCT00427895|181801610|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMC Ratio|2.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|3.51||||||Serotype 1: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS).||3.51|1.52|
90960574|NCT00427895|181801610|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMC Ratio|1.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.99||||||Serotype 3: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS).||1.99|0.95|
90869569|NCT03975790|181601651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7698|||||||Chi-squared|||Esophageal disorders||||0.7698
90869570|NCT03975790|181601651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7089|||||||Chi-squared|||Esophageal disorders||||0.7089
90869571|NCT03975790|181601651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3446|||||||Chi-squared|||Nutritional deficiencies||||0.3446
90869572|NCT03975790|181601651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0815|||||||Chi-squared|||Nutritional deficiencies||||0.0815
90869573|NCT03975790|181601651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.402|||||||Chi-squared|||Nutritional deficiencies||||0.4020
90869574|NCT03975790|181601651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4246|||||||Chi-squared|||Other nutritional: endocrine/metabolic disorders||||0.4246
90869575|NCT03975790|181601651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8118|||||||Chi-squared|||Other nutritional: endocrine/metabolic disorders||||0.8118
90869576|NCT03975790|181601651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7454|||||||Chi-squared|||Other nutritional: endocrine/metabolic disorders||||0.7454
90869577|NCT03975790|181601651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3559|||||||Chi-squared|||Diabetes mellitus without complication||||0.3559
90869578|NCT03975790|181601651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7698|||||||Chi-squared|||Diabetes mellitus without complication||||0.7698
90869579|NCT03975790|181601651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7323|||||||Chi-squared|||Diabetes mellitus without complication||||0.7323
90869580|NCT03975790|181601651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5935|||||||Chi-squared|||Other/unspecified benign neoplasm||||0.5935
90869581|NCT03975790|181601651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3928|||||||Chi-squared|||Other/unspecified benign neoplasm||||0.3928
90869582|NCT03975790|181601651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7089|||||||Chi-squared|||Other/unspecified benign neoplasm||||0.7089
90869583|NCT03975790|181601651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8746|||||||Chi-squared|||Other upper respiratory disease||||0.8746
90869584|NCT03975790|181601651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3835|||||||Chi-squared|||Other upper respiratory disease||||0.3835
90869585|NCT03975790|181601651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4992|||||||Chi-squared|||Other upper respiratory disease||||0.4992
90869586|NCT03975790|181601652|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2336|||||||t-test|||||||0.2336
90869587|NCT03975790|181601652|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2109|||||||t-test|||||||0.2109
90869588|NCT03975790|181601652|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0691|||||||t-test|||||||0.0691
90869589|NCT03975790|181601653|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9758|||||||Chi-squared|||MTX Sodium||||0.9758
90869590|NCT03975790|181601653|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9978|||||||Chi-squared|||MTX Sodium||||0.9978
90869591|NCT03975790|181601653|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9861|||||||Chi-squared|||MTX Sodium||||0.9861
90869592|NCT03975790|181601653|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5744|||||||Chi-squared|||Folic Acid||||0.5744
90869593|NCT03975790|181601653|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8542|||||||Chi-squared|||Folic Acid||||0.8542
90869594|NCT03975790|181601653|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8363|||||||Chi-squared|||Folic Acid||||0.8363
90869595|NCT03975790|181601653|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0473|||||||Chi-squared|||Prednisone||||0.0473
90869596|NCT03975790|181601653|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0327|||||||Chi-squared|||Prednisone||||0.0327
90869597|NCT03975790|181601653|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5348|||||||Chi-squared|||Prednisone||||0.5348
90869598|NCT03975790|181601653|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6934|||||||Chi-squared|||Acetaminophen/Hydrocodone Bitartrate||||0.6934
90960575|NCT00427895|181801610|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMC Ratio|2.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|3.64||||||Serotype 4: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS).||3.64|1.47|
90960576|NCT00427895|181801610|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMC Ratio|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.12||||||Serotype 5: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS).||2.12|0.92|
90869599|NCT03975790|181601653|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6017|||||||Chi-squared|||Acetaminophen/Hydrocodone Bitartrate||||0.6017
90869600|NCT03975790|181601653|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4768|||||||Chi-squared|||Acetaminophen/Hydrocodone Bitartrate||||0.4768
90869601|NCT03975790|181601653|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2315|||||||Chi-squared|||Azithromycin||||0.2315
90869602|NCT03975790|181601653|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2588|||||||Chi-squared|||Azithromycin||||0.2588
90869603|NCT03975790|181601653|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8576|||||||Chi-squared|||Azithromycin||||0.8576
90869604|NCT03975790|181601653|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5909|||||||Chi-squared|||Adalimumab||||0.5909
90869605|NCT03975790|181601653|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.057|||||||Chi-squared|||Adalimumab||||0.0570
90869606|NCT03975790|181601653|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0408|||||||Chi-squared|||Adalimumab||||0.0408
90869607|NCT03975790|181601653|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6465|||||||Chi-squared|||Hydroxychloroquine Sulfate||||0.6465
90869608|NCT03975790|181601653|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5654|||||||Chi-squared|||Hydroxychloroquine Sulfate||||0.5654
90869609|NCT03975790|181601653|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8371|||||||Chi-squared|||Hydroxychloroquine Sulfate||||0.8371
90869610|NCT03975790|181601653|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9654|||||||Chi-squared|||Etanercept||||0.9654
90869611|NCT03975790|181601653|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1013|||||||Chi-squared|||Etanercept||||0.1013
90869612|NCT03975790|181601653|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.158|||||||Chi-squared|||Etanercept||||0.1580
90869613|NCT03975790|181601653|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1663|||||||Chi-squared|||Levothyroxine Sodium||||0.1663
90869614|NCT03975790|181601653|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6563|||||||Chi-squared|||Levothyroxine Sodium||||0.6563
90869615|NCT03975790|181601653|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5785|||||||Chi-squared|||Levothyroxine Sodium||||0.5785
90869616|NCT03975790|181601653|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4166|||||||Chi-squared|||Methylprednisolone||||0.4166
90869617|NCT03975790|181601653|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0636|||||||Chi-squared|||Methylprednisolone||||0.0636
90869618|NCT03975790|181601653|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3137|||||||Chi-squared|||Methylprednisolone||||0.3137
90869619|NCT03975790|181601653|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4568|||||||Chi-squared|||Omeprazole||||0.4568
90869620|NCT03975790|181601653|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5785|||||||Chi-squared|||Omeprazole||||0.5785
90869621|NCT03975790|181601653|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9541|||||||Chi-squared|||Omeprazole||||0.9541
90869622|NCT03975790|181601653|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1956|||||||Chi-squared|||Tramadol Hydrochloride||||0.1956
90869623|NCT03975790|181601653|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3633|||||||Chi-squared|||Tramadol Hydrochloride||||0.3633
90869624|NCT03975790|181601653|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9481|||||||Chi-squared|||Tramadol Hydrochloride||||0.9481
90869625|NCT03975790|181601653|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3653|||||||Chi-squared|||Meloxicam||||0.3653
90869626|NCT03975790|181601653|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9255|||||||Chi-squared|||Meloxicam||||0.9255
90869627|NCT03975790|181601653|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5137|||||||Chi-squared|||Meloxicam||||0.5137
90869628|NCT03975790|181601653|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6338|||||||Chi-squared|||Amoxicillin||||0.6338
90869629|NCT03975790|181601653|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6329|||||||Chi-squared|||Amoxicillin||||0.6329
90869630|NCT03975790|181601653|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9228|||||||Chi-squared|||Amoxicillin||||0.9228
90869631|NCT03975790|181601653|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8433|||||||Chi-squared|||Albuterol Sulfate||||0.8433
90869632|NCT03975790|181601653|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1175|||||||Chi-squared|||Albuterol Sulfate||||0.1175
90869633|NCT03975790|181601653|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1215|||||||Chi-squared|||Albuterol Sulfate||||0.1215
90869634|NCT03975790|181601653|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9007|||||||Chi-squared|||Gabapentin||||0.9007
90869635|NCT03975790|181601653|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8789|||||||Chi-squared|||Gabapentin||||0.8789
90869636|NCT03975790|181601653|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8305|||||||Chi-squared|||Gabapentin||||0.8305
90869637|NCT03975790|181601653|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0694|||||||Chi-squared|||Acetaminophen/Oxycodone Hydrochloride||||0.0694
90869638|NCT03975790|181601653|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8606|||||||Chi-squared|||Acetaminophen/Oxycodone Hydrochloride||||0.8606
90869639|NCT03975790|181601653|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3363|||||||Chi-squared|||Acetaminophen/Oxycodone Hydrochloride||||0.3363
90869640|NCT03975790|181601653|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3319|||||||Chi-squared|||Amoxicillin/Clavulanate Potassium||||0.3319
90869641|NCT03975790|181601653|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5615|||||||Chi-squared|||Amoxicillin/Clavulanate Potassium||||0.5615
90869642|NCT03975790|181601653|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8898|||||||Chi-squared|||Amoxicillin/Clavulanate Potassium||||0.8898
90869643|NCT03975790|181601653|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.367|||||||Chi-squared|||Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride||||0.3670
90869644|NCT03975790|181601653|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8155|||||||Chi-squared|||Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride||||0.8155
90869645|NCT03975790|181601653|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7091|||||||Chi-squared|||Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride||||0.7091
90869646|NCT03975790|181601653|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9769|||||||Chi-squared|||Fluticasone Propionate||||0.9769
90869647|NCT03975790|181601653|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5032|||||||Chi-squared|||Fluticasone Propionate||||0.5032
90869648|NCT03975790|181601653|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5631|||||||Chi-squared|||Fluticasone Propionate||||0.5631
90869649|NCT03975790|181601653|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4426|||||||Chi-squared|||Ciprofloxacin Hydrochloride||||0.4426
90869650|NCT03975790|181601653|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5734|||||||Chi-squared|||Ciprofloxacin Hydrochloride||||0.5734
90869651|NCT03975790|181601653|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3071|||||||Chi-squared|||Ciprofloxacin Hydrochloride||||0.3071
90869652|NCT03975790|181601653|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1608|||||||Chi-squared|||Duloxetine Hydrochloride||||0.1608
90869653|NCT03975790|181601653|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4092|||||||Chi-squared|||Duloxetine Hydrochloride||||0.4092
90869654|NCT03975790|181601653|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1215|||||||Chi-squared|||Duloxetine Hydrochloride||||0.1215
90869655|NCT03975790|181601653|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7279|||||||Chi-squared|||Atorvastatin Calcium||||0.7279
90869656|NCT03975790|181601653|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7703|||||||Chi-squared|||Atorvastatin Calcium||||0.7703
90869657|NCT03975790|181601653|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6254|||||||Chi-squared|||Atorvastatin Calcium||||0.6254
90869658|NCT03975790|181601653|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1615|||||||Chi-squared|||Diclofenac Sodium||||0.1615
90911219|NCT05046132|181691958|OTHER||LS Mean|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.8|1.1||||||6 hr Post dose||1.1|-4.8|
90911220|NCT05046132|181691958|OTHER||LS Mean|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.8|1.7||||||7 hr Post dose||1.7|-3.8|
90869659|NCT03975790|181601653|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.505|||||||Chi-squared|||Diclofenac Sodium||||0.5050
90869660|NCT03975790|181601653|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1592|||||||Chi-squared|||Diclofenac Sodium||||0.1592
90911221|NCT05046132|181691958|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.6|2.6||||||8 hr Post dose||2.6|-3.6|
90869661|NCT03975790|181601653|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6088|||||||Chi-squared|||Levofloxacin||||0.6088
90869662|NCT03975790|181601653|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4713|||||||Chi-squared|||Levofloxacin||||0.4713
90869663|NCT03975790|181601653|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3399|||||||Chi-squared|||Levofloxacin||||0.3399
90911222|NCT05046132|181691958|OTHER||LS Mean|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.6|0.2||||||9 hr Post dose||0.2|-5.6|
90911223|NCT05046132|181691958|OTHER||LS Mean|-3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.8|-0.2||||||10 hr Post dose||-0.2|-6.8|
90911224|NCT05046132|181691958|OTHER||LS Mean|-3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.6|0.1||||||12 hr Post dose||0.1|-6.6|
90869664|NCT03975790|181601654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2349|||||||Chi-squared|||MTX Sodium||||0.2349
90869665|NCT03975790|181601654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3956|||||||Chi-squared|||MTX Sodium||||0.3956
90869666|NCT03975790|181601654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||Chi-squared|||Folic Acid||||0.5500
90869667|NCT03975790|181601654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7131|||||||Chi-squared|||Folic Acid||||0.7131
90869668|NCT03975790|181601654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.942|||||||Chi-squared|||Folic Acid||||0.9420
90869669|NCT03975790|181601654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0571|||||||Chi-squared|||Prednisone||||0.0571
90869670|NCT03975790|181601654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.049|||||||Chi-squared|||Prednisone||||0.0490
90869671|NCT03975790|181601654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5631|||||||Chi-squared|||Prednisone||||0.5631
90869672|NCT03975790|181601654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2198|||||||Chi-squared|||Acetaminophen/Hydrocodone Bitartrate||||0.2198
90869673|NCT03975790|181601654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.385|||||||Chi-squared|||Acetaminophen/Hydrocodone Bitartrate||||0.3850
90869674|NCT03975790|181601654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1165|||||||Chi-squared|||Acetaminophen/Hydrocodone Bitartrate||||0.1165
90869675|NCT03975790|181601654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4291|||||||Chi-squared|||Azithromycin||||0.4291
90869676|NCT03975790|181601654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.385|||||||Chi-squared|||Azithromycin||||0.3850
90869677|NCT03975790|181601654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8143|||||||Chi-squared|||Azithromycin||||0.8143
90869678|NCT03975790|181601654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7272|||||||Chi-squared|||Adalimumab||||0.7272
90911225|NCT05046132|181691958|OTHER||LS Mean|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.0|3.6||||||16 hr Post dose||3.6|-3.0|
90911226|NCT05046132|181691958|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.0|2.9||||||24 hr Post dose||2.9|-3.0|
90911227|NCT05046132|181691959|OTHER||LS Mean|-6.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.3|-3.0||||||Pre dose||-3.0|-10.3|
90911228|NCT05046132|181691959|OTHER||LS Mean|-7.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.5|-4.0||||||0.5 hr Post dose||-4.0|-10.5|
90911229|NCT05046132|181691959|OTHER||LS Mean|-5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.8|-1.2||||||1 hr Post dose||-1.2|-8.8|
90911230|NCT05046132|181691959|OTHER||LS Mean|-5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.4|-1.6||||||1.5 hr Post dose||-1.6|-8.4|
90911231|NCT05046132|181691959|OTHER||LS Mean|-3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.6|-0.3||||||2 hr Post dose||-0.3|-6.6|
90911232|NCT05046132|181691959|OTHER||LS Mean|-2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.1|0.3||||||2.5 hr Post dose||0.3|-6.1|
90911233|NCT05046132|181691959|OTHER||LS Mean|-4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.7|-1.5||||||3 hr Post dose||-1.5|-7.7|
90911234|NCT05046132|181691959|OTHER||LS Mean|-7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.3|-3.8||||||4 hr Post dose||-3.8|-10.3|
90911235|NCT05046132|181691959|OTHER||LS Mean|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.9|0.6||||||5 hr Post dose||0.6|-6.9|
90911236|NCT05046132|181691959|OTHER||LS Mean|-4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.8|-0.6||||||6 hr Post dose||-0.6|-7.8|
90911237|NCT05046132|181691959|OTHER||LS Mean|-4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.1|-1.6||||||7 hr Post dose||-1.6|-8.1|
90911238|NCT05046132|181691959|OTHER||LS Mean|-4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.8|-1.1||||||8 hr Post dose||-1.1|-7.8|
90911239|NCT05046132|181691959|OTHER||LS Mean|-5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.3|-2.6||||||9 hr Post dose||-2.6|-9.3|
90911240|NCT05046132|181691959|OTHER||LS Mean|-4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.8|-1.1||||||10 hr Post dose||-1.1|-7.8|
90911241|NCT05046132|181691959|OTHER||LS Mean|-4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.3|-1.1||||||12 hr Post dose||-1.1|-7.3|
90911242|NCT05046132|181691959|OTHER||LS Mean|-5.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.7|-2.0||||||16 hr Post dose||-2.0|-9.7|
90911243|NCT05046132|181691959|OTHER||LS Mean|-8.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.5|-3.8||||||24 hr Post dose||-3.8|-12.5|
90911244|NCT05046132|181691959|OTHER||LS Mean|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.2|5.9||||||Pre dose||5.9|-1.2|
90911245|NCT05046132|181691959|OTHER||LS Mean|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.5|1.8||||||0.5 hr Post dose||1.8|-4.5|
90911246|NCT05046132|181691959|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.0|3.3||||||1 hr Post dose||3.3|-4.0|
90911247|NCT05046132|181691959|OTHER||LS Mean|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.0|3.6||||||1.5 hr Post dose||3.6|-3.0|
90911248|NCT05046132|181691959|OTHER||LS Mean|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.0|2.0||||||2 hr Post dose||2.0|-4.0|
90911249|NCT05046132|181691959|OTHER||LS Mean|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.6|3.6||||||2.5 hr Post dose||3.6|-2.6|
90911250|NCT05046132|181691959|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.7|2.3||||||3 hr Post dose||2.3|-3.7|
90911251|NCT05046132|181691959|OTHER||LS Mean|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.4|0.9||||||4 hr Post dose||0.9|-5.4|
90911252|NCT05046132|181691959|OTHER||LS Mean|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.5|4.6||||||5 hr Post dose||4.6|-2.5|
90911253|NCT05046132|181691959|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.1|2.8||||||6 hr Post dose||2.8|-4.1|
90911254|NCT05046132|181691959|OTHER||LS Mean|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.0|1.3||||||7 hr Post dose||1.3|-5.0|
90911255|NCT05046132|181691959|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.7|2.8||||||8 hr Post dose||2.8|-3.7|
90911256|NCT05046132|181691959|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.4|3.1||||||9 hr Post dose||3.1|-3.4|
90911257|NCT05046132|181691959|OTHER||LS Mean|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.8|3.7||||||10 hr Post dose||3.7|-2.8|
90911258|NCT05046132|181691959|OTHER||LS Mean|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.9|3.1||||||12 hr Post dose||3.1|-2.9|
90911259|NCT05046132|181691959|OTHER||LS Mean|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.1|4.3||||||16 hr Post dose||4.3|-3.1|
90911260|NCT05046132|181691959|OTHER||LS Mean|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.5|5.9||||||24 hr Post dose||5.9|-2.5|
90911261|NCT05046132|181691960|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.6|1.2||||||Pre dose||1.2|-2.6|
90911262|NCT05046132|181691960|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.6|0.7||||||0.5 hr post dose||0.7|-2.6|
90911263|NCT05046132|181691960|OTHER||LS Mean|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.1|2.3||||||1 hr post dose||2.3|-1.1|
90911264|NCT05046132|181691960|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.5|1.3||||||1.5 hr post dose||1.3|-1.5|
90911265|NCT05046132|181691960|OTHER||LS Mean|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8|2.4||||||2 hr post dose||2.4|-0.8|
90911266|NCT05046132|181691960|OTHER||LS Mean|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|2.4||||||2.5 hr post dose||2.4|-1.0|
90911267|NCT05046132|181691960|OTHER||LS Mean|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.6|2.0||||||3 hr post dose||2.0|-1.6|
90869679|NCT03975790|181601654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0501|||||||Chi-squared|||Adalimumab||||0.0501
90869680|NCT03975790|181601654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Adalimumab||||0.0500
90869681|NCT03975790|181601654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3116|||||||Chi-squared|||Hydroxychloroquine Sulfate||||0.3116
90869682|NCT03975790|181601654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4882|||||||Chi-squared|||Hydroxychloroquine Sulfate||||0.4882
90869683|NCT03975790|181601654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9505|||||||Chi-squared|||Hydroxychloroquine Sulfate||||0.9505
90869684|NCT03975790|181601654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.408|||||||Chi-squared|||Etanercept||||0.4080
90869685|NCT03975790|181601654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7644|||||||Chi-squared|||Etanercept||||0.7644
90911268|NCT05046132|181691960|OTHER||LS Mean|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.9|2.3||||||4 hr post dose||2.3|-0.9|
90869686|NCT03975790|181601654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4146|||||||Chi-squared|||Etanercept||||0.4146
90911269|NCT05046132|181691960|OTHER||LS Mean|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.2|2.1||||||5 hr post dose||2.1|-1.2|
90869687|NCT03975790|181601654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1348|||||||Chi-squared|||Levothyroxine Sodium||||0.1348
90869688|NCT03975790|181601654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5948|||||||Chi-squared|||Levothyroxine Sodium||||0.5948
90869689|NCT03975790|181601654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5785|||||||Chi-squared|||Levothyroxine Sodium||||0.5785
90960577|NCT00427895|181801610|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMC Ratio|1.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|2.16||||||Serotype 6B: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS).||2.16|1.01|
90869690|NCT03975790|181601654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1033|||||||Chi-squared|||Methylprednisolone||||0.1033
90869691|NCT03975790|181601654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2117|||||||Chi-squared|||Methylprednisolone||||0.2117
90869692|NCT03975790|181601654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.992|||||||Chi-squared|||Methylprednisolone||||0.9920
90869693|NCT03975790|181601654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9212|||||||Chi-squared|||Omeprazole||||0.9212
90869694|NCT03975790|181601654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9212|||||||Chi-squared|||Omeprazole||||0.9212
90869695|NCT03975790|181601654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4384|||||||Chi-squared|||Omeprazole||||0.4384
90869696|NCT03975790|181601654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0162|||||||Chi-squared|||Tramadol Hydrochloride||||0.0162
90869697|NCT03975790|181601654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3239|||||||Chi-squared|||Tramadol Hydrochloride||||0.3239
90869698|NCT03975790|181601654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4837|||||||Chi-squared|||Tramadol Hydrochloride||||0.4837
90869699|NCT03975790|181601654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7183|||||||Chi-squared|||Meloxicam||||0.7183
90911270|NCT05046132|181691960|OTHER||LS Mean|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|2.4||||||6 hr post dose||2.4|-0.7|
90869700|NCT03975790|181601654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2667|||||||Chi-squared|||Meloxicam||||0.2667
90869701|NCT03975790|181601654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.451|||||||Chi-squared|||Meloxicam||||0.4510
90869702|NCT03975790|181601654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7993|||||||Chi-squared|||Amoxicillin||||0.7993
90869703|NCT03975790|181601654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9896|||||||Chi-squared|||Amoxicillin||||0.9896
90869704|NCT03975790|181601654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8576|||||||Chi-squared|||Amoxicillin||||0.8576
90869705|NCT03975790|181601654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9373|||||||Chi-squared|||Albuterol Sulfate||||0.9373
90869706|NCT03975790|181601654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1253|||||||Chi-squared|||Albuterol Sulfate||||0.1253
90869707|NCT03975790|181601654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1851|||||||Chi-squared|||Albuterol Sulfate||||0.1851
90869708|NCT03975790|181601654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8697|||||||Chi-squared|||Gabapentin||||0.8697
90869709|NCT03975790|181601654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9719|||||||Chi-squared|||Gabapentin||||0.9719
90869710|NCT03975790|181601654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.938|||||||Chi-squared|||Gabapentin||||0.9380
90869711|NCT03975790|181601654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1079|||||||Chi-squared|||Acetaminophen/Oxycodone Hydrochloride||||0.1079
90869712|NCT03975790|181601654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2588|||||||Chi-squared|||Acetaminophen/Oxycodone Hydrochloride||||0.2588
90869713|NCT03975790|181601654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9358|||||||Chi-squared|||Acetaminophen/Oxycodone Hydrochloride||||0.9358
90869714|NCT03975790|181601654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1984|||||||Chi-squared|||Amoxicillin/Clavulanate Potassium||||0.1984
90869715|NCT03975790|181601654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8542|||||||Chi-squared|||Amoxicillin/Clavulanate Potassium||||0.8542
90869716|NCT03975790|181601654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2973|||||||Chi-squared|||Amoxicillin/Clavulanate Potassium||||0.2973
90869717|NCT03975790|181601654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1046|||||||Chi-squared|||Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride||||0.1046
90869718|NCT03975790|181601654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7961|||||||Chi-squared|||Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride||||0.7961
90869719|NCT03975790|181601654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.214|||||||Chi-squared|||Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride||||0.2140
90911271|NCT05046132|181691960|OTHER||LS Mean|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|2.4||||||7 hr post dose||2.4|-0.6|
90911272|NCT05046132|181691960|OTHER||LS Mean|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|2.2||||||8 hr post dose||2.2|-1.0|
90911273|NCT05046132|181691960|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.6|1.3||||||9 hr post dose||1.3|-1.6|
90911274|NCT05046132|181691960|OTHER||LS Mean|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.5|1.6||||||10 hr post dose||1.6|-1.5|
90911275|NCT05046132|181691960|OTHER||LS Mean|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|3.0||||||12 hr post dose||3.0|-0.2|
90911276|NCT05046132|181691960|OTHER||LS Mean|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|3.4||||||16 hr post dose||3.4|-0.3|
90911277|NCT05046132|181691960|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.1|1.6||||||24 hr post dose||1.6|-2.1|
90960578|NCT00427895|181801610|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMC Ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.59||||||Serotype 7F: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS).||1.59|0.67|
90911278|NCT05046132|181691960|OTHER||LS Mean|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.2|2.6||||||Pre dose||2.6|-1.2|
90911279|NCT05046132|181691960|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.9|1.4||||||0.5 hr post dose||1.4|-1.9|
90911280|NCT05046132|181691960|OTHER||LS Mean|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.2|2.2||||||1 hr post dose||2.2|-1.2|
90911281|NCT05046132|181691960|OTHER||LS Mean|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|2.1||||||1.5 hr post dose||2.1|-0.7|
90911282|NCT05046132|181691960|OTHER||LS Mean|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.1|2.2||||||2 hr post dose||2.2|-1.1|
90911283|NCT05046132|181691960|OTHER||LS Mean|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.9|2.5||||||2.5 hr post dose||2.5|-0.9|
90911284|NCT05046132|181691960|OTHER||LS Mean|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.5|2.1||||||3 hr post dose||2.1|-1.5|
90960579|NCT00427895|181801610|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMC Ratio|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.92||||||Serotype 9V: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS).||1.92|0.94|
90911285|NCT05046132|181691960|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.1|1.1||||||4 hr post dose||1.1|-2.1|
90960580|NCT00427895|181801610|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMC Ratio|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.23||||||Serotype 14: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS).||2.23|0.80|
90911286|NCT05046132|181691960|OTHER||LS Mean|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.5|1.9||||||5 hr post dose||1.9|-1.5|
90911287|NCT05046132|181691960|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.7|1.4||||||6 hr post dose||1.4|-1.7|
90911288|NCT05046132|181691960|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.6|1.4||||||7 hr post dose||1.4|-1.6|
90911289|NCT05046132|181691960|OTHER||LS Mean|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|2.4||||||8 hr post dose||2.4|-0.7|
90911290|NCT05046132|181691960|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.6|1.3||||||9 hr post dose||1.3|-1.6|
90911291|NCT05046132|181691960|OTHER||LS Mean|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.4|1.6||||||10 hr post dose||1.6|-1.4|
90911292|NCT05046132|181691960|OTHER||LS Mean|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|3.1||||||12 hr post dose||3.1|-0.1|
90911293|NCT05046132|181691960|OTHER||LS Mean|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|3.0||||||16 hr post dose||3.0|-0.7|
90911294|NCT05046132|181691960|OTHER||LS Mean|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|3.4||||||24 hr post dose||3.4|-0.3|
90911295|NCT05046132|181691961|OTHER||LS Mean|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.3|2.9||||||Pre dose||2.9|-1.3|
90911296|NCT05046132|181691961|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.8|1.2||||||0.5 hr post dose||1.2|-1.8|
90911297|NCT05046132|181691961|OTHER||LS Mean|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.4|3.8||||||1 hr post dose||3.8|-1.4|
90911298|NCT05046132|181691961|OTHER||LS Mean|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.8|1.8||||||1.5 hr post dose||1.8|-1.8|
90911299|NCT05046132|181691961|OTHER||LS Mean|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.0|0.3||||||2 hr post dose||0.3|-3.0|
90911300|NCT05046132|181691961|OTHER||LS Mean|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|3.1||||||2.5 hr post dose||3.1|-0.0|
90911301|NCT05046132|181691961|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.7|1.5||||||3 hr post dose||1.5|-1.7|
90911302|NCT05046132|181691961|OTHER||LS Mean|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|2.9||||||4 hr post dose||2.9|-0.3|
90911303|NCT05046132|181691961|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.2|2.0||||||5 hr post dose||2.0|-2.2|
90911304|NCT05046132|181691961|OTHER||LS Mean|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8|2.3||||||6 hr post dose||2.3|-0.8|
90911305|NCT05046132|181691961|OTHER||LS Mean|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8|2.7||||||7 hr post dose||2.7|-0.8|
90911306|NCT05046132|181691961|OTHER||LS Mean|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|2.4||||||8 hr post dose||2.4|-0.3|
90911307|NCT05046132|181691961|OTHER||LS Mean|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|2.9||||||9 hr post dose||2.9|-0.7|
90911308|NCT05046132|181691961|OTHER||LS Mean|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.4|1.9||||||10 hr post dose||1.9|-1.4|
90911309|NCT05046132|181691961|OTHER||LS Mean|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|3.2||||||12 hr post dose||3.2|-0.6|
90911310|NCT05046132|181691961|OTHER||LS Mean|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|2.4||||||16 hr post dose||2.4|-1.0|
90911311|NCT05046132|181691961|OTHER||LS Mean|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|4.2||||||24 hr post dose||4.2|-1.0|
90911312|NCT05046132|181691961|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.3|1.7||||||Pre dose||1.7|-2.3|
90911313|NCT05046132|181691961|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.6|1.3||||||0.5 hr post dose||1.3|-1.6|
90911314|NCT05046132|181691961|OTHER||LS Mean|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.8|1.2||||||1 hr post dose||1.2|-3.8|
90911315|NCT05046132|181691961|OTHER||LS Mean|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.7|1.8||||||1.5 hr post dose||1.8|-1.7|
90911316|NCT05046132|181691961|OTHER||LS Mean|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.7|0.5||||||2 hr post dose||0.5|-2.7|
90911317|NCT05046132|181691961|OTHER||LS Mean|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8|2.3||||||2.5 hr post dose||2.3|-0.8|
90911318|NCT05046132|181691961|OTHER||LS Mean|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.3|1.8||||||3 hr post dose||1.8|-1.3|
90911319|NCT05046132|181691961|OTHER||LS Mean|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.2|1.9||||||4 hr post dose||1.9|-1.2|
90960581|NCT00427895|181801610|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMC Ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.59||||||Serotype 18C: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS).||1.59|0.68|
90960582|NCT00427895|181801610|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMC Ratio|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.66||||||Serotype 19A: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS).||1.66|0.80|
90911320|NCT05046132|181691961|OTHER||LS Mean|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.5|0.5||||||5 hr post dose||0.5|-3.5|
90911321|NCT05046132|181691961|OTHER||LS Mean|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|2.3||||||6 hr post dose||2.3|-0.6|
90911322|NCT05046132|181691961|OTHER||LS Mean|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.3|2.1||||||7 hr post dose||2.1|-1.3|
90960583|NCT00427895|181801610|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMC Ratio|1.79||||||95.0|1.07|3.0||||||Serotype 19F: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS).||3.00|1.07|
90960584|NCT00427895|181801610|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMC Ratio|1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.24||||||Serotype 23F: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS).||2.24|0.95|
90960585|NCT00427895|181801610|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMC Ratio|2.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|3.12||||||Serotype 1: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS/23vPS).||3.12|1.53|
90911323|NCT05046132|181691961|OTHER||LS Mean|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|2.6||||||8 hr post dose||2.6|-0.0|
90869720|NCT03975790|181601654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8578|||||||Chi-squared|||Fluticasone Propionate||||0.8578
90869721|NCT03975790|181601654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7131|||||||Chi-squared|||Fluticasone Propionate||||0.7131
90911324|NCT05046132|181691961|OTHER||LS Mean|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.3|2.2||||||9 hr post dose||2.2|-1.3|
90911325|NCT05046132|181691961|OTHER||LS Mean|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.7|0.5||||||10 hr post dose||0.5|-2.7|
90911326|NCT05046132|181691961|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.1|1.5||||||12 hr post dose||1.5|-2.1|
90911327|NCT05046132|181691961|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.9|1.4||||||16 hr post dose||1.4|-1.9|
90911328|NCT05046132|181691961|OTHER||LS Mean|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|4.9||||||24 hr post dose||4.9|-0.2|
90911329|NCT02371746|181691982|SUPERIORITY||Change from baseline|30.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.84|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|36.6|||ANCOVA|||estimatCohort 1 all Groups: Non-study eye: TRAVANTAN Z Cohort 1 - Group 1: Study Eye: 28.2 ug travoprost Cohort 1 - Group 2: Study Eye: 42.3 ug travoprost Cohort 1 - Group 3: Study Eye: 42 .5 ug travoprost Cohort 1 - Group 4: Study Eye: 85.0 ug travoprost||36.6|-1.8|<0.001
90869722|NCT03975790|181601654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8421|||||||Chi-squared|||Fluticasone Propionate||||0.8421
90869723|NCT03975790|181601654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7637|||||||Chi-squared|||Ciprofloxacin Hydrochloride||||0.7637
90869724|NCT03975790|181601654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6355|||||||Chi-squared|||Ciprofloxacin Hydrochloride||||0.6355
90911330|NCT00612586|181691983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8956||||||One sided|Log Rank|||||||0.8956
90911331|NCT00612586|181691984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9865||||||One-sided|Log Rank|||||||0.9865
90911332|NCT02613364|181691988|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is established if the difference in mean change on the ISI between YOCAS©® and CBT-I is less than 1.15. Using ANCOVA to estimate differences in mean change between YOCAS©® and CBT-I, a correlation of 0.576 (from our prior study), and a sample of 168 subjects per group, we will have sufficient (80%) power to detect non-inferiority using a margin of 1.15 at p = 0.025.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.66|4.37||The p-value shown above is from the Least Squares Mean between YOCAS - CBT-I from the Mixed Model.|Mixed Models Analysis||The comparison is YOCAS - CBT-I|Constructed a 95% confidence interval on the mean change of ISI from baseline between the arms (YOCAS - CBT-I). If the lower bound of the interval is less than 1.5 then we conclude that YOCAS is non-inferior.||4.37|2.66|<.0001
90869725|NCT03975790|181601654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5425|||||||Chi-squared|||Ciprofloxacin Hydrochloride||||0.5425
90869726|NCT03975790|181601654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.041|||||||Chi-squared|||Duloxetine Hydrochloride||||0.0410
90869727|NCT03975790|181601654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8251|||||||Chi-squared|||Duloxetine Hydrochloride||||0.8251
90869728|NCT03975790|181601654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2871|||||||Chi-squared|||Duloxetine Hydrochloride||||0.2871
90869729|NCT03975790|181601654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1174|||||||Chi-squared|||Diclofenac Sodium||||0.1174
90869730|NCT03975790|181601654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9702|||||||Chi-squared|||Diclofenac Sodium||||0.9702
90869731|NCT03975790|181601654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3109|||||||Chi-squared|||Diclofenac Sodium||||0.3109
90869732|NCT03975790|181601654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6744|||||||Chi-squared|||Levofloxacin||||0.6744
90869733|NCT03975790|181601654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8121|||||||Chi-squared|||Levofloxacin||||0.8121
90869734|NCT03975790|181601654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9451|||||||Chi-squared|||Levofloxacin||||0.9451
90869735|NCT03975790|181601654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.166|||||||Chi-squared|||Cephalexin||||0.1660
90869736|NCT03975790|181601654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9549|||||||Chi-squared|||Cephalexin||||0.9549
90869737|NCT03975790|181601654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3104|||||||Chi-squared|||Cephalexin||||0.3104
90869738|NCT03975790|181601654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0489|||||||Chi-squared|||Ibuprofen||||0.0489
90869739|NCT03975790|181601654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1515|||||||Chi-squared|||Ibuprofen||||0.1515
90869740|NCT03975790|181601654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9481|||||||Chi-squared|||Ibuprofen||||0.9481
90869741|NCT03975790|181601655|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2178|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2178
90869742|NCT03975790|181601655|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5237|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5237
90869743|NCT03975790|181601655|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7964|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7964
90869744|NCT03975790|181601656|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9085|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.9085
90869745|NCT03975790|181601656|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6283|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.6283
90869746|NCT03975790|181601656|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7293|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7293
90869747|NCT03975790|181601657|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9392|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.9392
90869748|NCT03975790|181601657|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3063|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3063
90869749|NCT03975790|181601657|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3467|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3467
90869750|NCT03975790|181601658|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7977|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7977
90869751|NCT03975790|181601658|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5241|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5241
90869752|NCT03975790|181601658|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4702|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.4702
90869753|NCT03975790|181601659|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1461|||||||t-test|||||||0.1461
90869754|NCT03975790|181601659|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1411|||||||t-test|||||||0.1411
90869755|NCT03975790|181601659|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4201|||||||t-test|||||||0.4201
90869756|NCT03975790|181601660|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3955|||||||t-test|||||||0.3955
90869757|NCT03975790|181601660|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6356|||||||t-test|||||||0.6356
90869758|NCT03975790|181601660|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3833|||||||t-test|||||||0.3833
90869759|NCT03975790|181601661|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3292|||||||t-test|||||||0.3292
90869760|NCT03975790|181601661|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2959|||||||t-test|||||||0.2959
90869761|NCT03975790|181601661|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6962|||||||t-test|||||||0.6962
90869762|NCT03975790|181601662|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8138|||||||t-test|||||||0.8138
90869763|NCT03975790|181601662|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||t-test|||||||0.0070
90869764|NCT03975790|181601662|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0358|||||||t-test|||||||0.0358
90869765|NCT03975790|181601663|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8453|||||||t-test|||||||0.8453
90869766|NCT03975790|181601663|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4806|||||||t-test|||||||0.4806
90869767|NCT03975790|181601663|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4809|||||||t-test|||||||0.4809
90869768|NCT03975790|181601664|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3076|||||||t-test|||||||0.3076
90869769|NCT03975790|181601664|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2509|||||||t-test|||||||0.2509
90869770|NCT03975790|181601664|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7827|||||||t-test|||||||0.7827
90869771|NCT03975790|181601665|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4261|||||||Chi-squared|||During Persistency||||0.4261
90869772|NCT03975790|181601665|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5247|||||||Chi-squared|||During Persistency||||0.5247
90869773|NCT03975790|181601665|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2809|||||||Chi-squared|||During Persistency||||0.2809
90869774|NCT03975790|181601665|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1153|||||||Chi-squared|||Post Persistency||||0.1153
90869775|NCT03975790|181601665|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1344|||||||Chi-squared|||Post Persistency||||0.1344
90869776|NCT03975790|181601665|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8229|||||||Chi-squared|||Post Persistency||||0.8229
90869777|NCT03975790|181601666|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7816|||||||Chi-squared|||During Persistency||||0.7816
90869778|NCT03975790|181601666|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7124|||||||Chi-squared|||During Persistency||||0.7124
90869779|NCT03975790|181601666|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6148|||||||Chi-squared|||During Persistency||||0.6148
90869780|NCT03975790|181601666|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4876|||||||Chi-squared|||Post Persistency||||0.4876
90869781|NCT03975790|181601666|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7826|||||||Chi-squared|||Post Persistency||||0.7826
90869782|NCT03975790|181601666|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8337|||||||Chi-squared|||Post Persistency||||0.8337
90869783|NCT03975790|181601667|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1344|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1344
90869784|NCT03975790|181601667|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0095|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0095
90869785|NCT03975790|181601667|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1406|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1406
90869786|NCT03975790|181601668|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9379|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.9379
90869787|NCT03975790|181601668|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3025|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3025
90869788|NCT03975790|181601668|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3388|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3388
90869789|NCT03975790|181601669|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8205|||||||t-test|||||||0.8205
90869790|NCT03975790|181601669|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0467|||||||t-test|||||||0.0467
90869791|NCT03975790|181601669|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1083|||||||t-test|||||||0.1083
90869792|NCT03975790|181601670|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8899|||||||t-test|||||||0.8899
90869793|NCT03975790|181601670|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6183|||||||t-test|||||||0.6183
90869794|NCT03975790|181601670|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6496|||||||t-test|||||||0.6496
90869795|NCT03975790|181601671|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5027|||||||t-test|||||||0.5027
90869796|NCT03975790|181601671|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2375|||||||t-test|||||||0.2375
90869797|NCT03975790|181601671|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5577|||||||t-test|||||||0.5577
90869798|NCT03975790|181601672|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6908|||||||t-test|||||||0.6908
90869799|NCT03975790|181601672|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0859|||||||t-test|||||||0.0859
90869800|NCT03975790|181601672|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2764|||||||t-test|||||||0.2764
90869801|NCT03975790|181601673|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1906|||||||t-test|||||||0.1906
90869802|NCT03975790|181601673|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8744|||||||t-test|||||||0.8744
90869803|NCT03975790|181601673|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3295|||||||t-test|||||||0.3295
90869804|NCT03975790|181601674|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0056|||||||t-test|||All cause||||0.0056
90869805|NCT03975790|181601674|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4222|||||||t-test|||All cause||||0.4222
90869806|NCT03975790|181601674|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0041|||||||t-test|||All cause||||0.0041
90869807|NCT03975790|181601674|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2277|||||||t-test|||RA related||||0.2277
90869808|NCT03975790|181601674|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2812|||||||t-test|||RA related||||0.2812
90869809|NCT03975790|181601674|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0772|||||||t-test|||RA related||||0.0772
90869810|NCT03975790|181601675|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.293|||||||t-test|||All cause||||0.2930
90869811|NCT03975790|181601675|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.439|||||||t-test|||All cause||||0.4390
90869812|NCT03975790|181601675|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.153|||||||t-test|||All cause||||0.1530
90869813|NCT03975790|181601675|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9439|||||||t-test|||RA related||||0.9439
90869814|NCT03975790|181601675|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4477|||||||t-test|||RA related||||0.4477
90869815|NCT03975790|181601675|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4519|||||||t-test|||RA related||||0.4519
90869816|NCT03975790|181601676|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9829|||||||Chi-squared|||Cardiovascular Disease||||0.9829
90869817|NCT03975790|181601676|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8021|||||||Chi-squared|||Cardiovascular Disease||||0.8021
90869818|NCT03975790|181601676|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8376|||||||Chi-squared|||Cardiovascular Disease||||0.8376
90869819|NCT03975790|181601676|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5927|||||||Chi-squared|||COPD||||0.5927
90869820|NCT03975790|181601676|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5202|||||||Chi-squared|||COPD||||0.5202
90869821|NCT03975790|181601676|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8517|||||||Chi-squared|||COPD||||0.8517
90869822|NCT03975790|181601676|SUPERIORITY|||||||8.33|||||||Chi-squared|||Asthma||||8.33
90869823|NCT03975790|181601676|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7483|||||||Chi-squared|||Asthma||||0.7483
90869824|NCT03975790|181601676|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9713|||||||Chi-squared|||Asthma||||0.9713
90869825|NCT03975790|181601676|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9148|||||||Chi-squared|||Kidney disease||||0.9148
90869826|NCT03975790|181601676|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7248|||||||Chi-squared|||Kidney disease||||0.7248
90869827|NCT03975790|181601676|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||Chi-squared|||Kidney disease||||0.8200
90869828|NCT03975790|181601676|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9657|||||||Chi-squared|||Diabetes||||0.9657
90869829|NCT03975790|181601676|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9255|||||||Chi-squared|||Diabetes||||0.9255
90869830|NCT03975790|181601676|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9575|||||||Chi-squared|||Diabetes||||0.9575
90869831|NCT03975790|181601676|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.941|||||||Chi-squared|||Depression||||0.9410
90869832|NCT03975790|181601676|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9146|||||||Chi-squared|||Depression||||0.9146
90869833|NCT03975790|181601676|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9641|||||||Chi-squared|||Depression||||0.9641
90869834|NCT03975790|181601676|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2596|||||||Chi-squared|||Anxiety||||0.2596
90869835|NCT03975790|181601676|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2228|||||||Chi-squared|||Anxiety||||0.2228
90869836|NCT03975790|181601676|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7824|||||||Chi-squared|||Anxiety||||0.7824
90869837|NCT03975790|181601676|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4184|||||||Chi-squared|||Liver disease||||0.4184
90869838|NCT03975790|181601676|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4371|||||||Chi-squared|||Liver disease||||0.4371
90869839|NCT03975790|181601676|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2074|||||||Chi-squared|||Liver disease||||0.2074
90869840|NCT03975790|181601676|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.785|||||||Chi-squared|||Sleep disorders||||0.7850
90869841|NCT03975790|181601676|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1288|||||||Chi-squared|||Sleep disorders||||0.1288
90869842|NCT03975790|181601676|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2839|||||||Chi-squared|||Sleep disorders||||0.2839
90869843|NCT03975790|181601677|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2242|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2242
90869844|NCT03975790|181601677|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0014|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0014
90869845|NCT03975790|181601677|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0557|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0557
90869846|NCT03975790|181601678|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5944|||||||Chi-squared|||Switch immediately||||0.5944
90869847|NCT03975790|181601678|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9255|||||||Chi-squared|||Switch immediately||||0.9255
90869848|NCT03975790|181601678|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7824|||||||Chi-squared|||Switch immediately||||0.7824
90869849|NCT03975790|181601678|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3975|||||||Chi-squared|||Discontinue then switch||||0.3975
90869850|NCT03975790|181601678|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0552|||||||Chi-squared|||Discontinue then switch||||0.0552
90869851|NCT03975790|181601678|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3914|||||||Chi-squared|||Discontinue then switch||||0.3914
90869852|NCT03975790|181601678|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2036|||||||Chi-squared|||Discontinue then restart||||0.2036
90869853|NCT03975790|181601678|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1336|||||||Chi-squared|||Discontinue then restart||||0.1336
90869854|NCT03975790|181601678|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7095|||||||Chi-squared|||Discontinue then restart||||0.7095
90869855|NCT03975790|181601678|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2241|||||||Chi-squared|||Discontinue without switch or restart||||0.2241
90869856|NCT03975790|181601678|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0024|||||||Chi-squared|||Discontinue without switch or restart||||0.0024
90869857|NCT03975790|181601678|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1204|||||||Chi-squared|||Discontinue without switch or restart||||0.1204
90869858|NCT03975790|181601679|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8424|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.8424
90869859|NCT03975790|181601679|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3278|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3278
90869860|NCT03975790|181601679|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3336|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3336
90869861|NCT03975790|181601680|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2036|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2036
90869862|NCT03975790|181601680|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1336|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1336
90869863|NCT03975790|181601680|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7095|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7095
90869864|NCT03975790|181601682|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test|||||||<0.0001
90869865|NCT03975790|181601682|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test|||||||<.0001
90869866|NCT03975790|181601682|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test|||||||<.0001
90869867|NCT03975790|181601683|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0309|||||||Chi-squared|||Leflunomide||||0.0309
90869868|NCT03975790|181601683|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9978|||||||Chi-squared|||Leflunomide||||0.9978
90869869|NCT03975790|181601683|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2629|||||||Chi-squared|||Leflunomide||||0.2629
90869870|NCT03975790|181601683|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0225|||||||Chi-squared|||Sulfasalazine||||0.0225
90869871|NCT03975790|181601683|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4456|||||||Chi-squared|||Sulfasalazine||||0.4456
90869872|NCT03975790|181601683|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5065|||||||Chi-squared|||Sulfasalazine||||0.5065
90869873|NCT03975790|181601683|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6617|||||||Chi-squared|||Hydroxychloroquine||||0.6617
90869874|NCT03975790|181601683|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7309|||||||Chi-squared|||Hydroxychloroquine||||0.7309
90869875|NCT03975790|181601683|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9861|||||||Chi-squared|||Hydroxychloroquine||||0.9861
90869876|NCT03975790|181601684|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.088|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0880
90869877|NCT03975790|181601684|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
90869878|NCT03975790|181601684|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0065|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0065
90869879|NCT03975790|181601685|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5157|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5157
90869880|NCT03975790|181601685|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1231|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1231
90869881|NCT03975790|181601685|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2109|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2109
90869882|NCT03975790|181601686|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8424|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.8424
90869883|NCT03975790|181601686|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3278|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3278
90869884|NCT03975790|181601686|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3336|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3336
90869885|NCT03975790|181601687|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0654|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0654
90869886|NCT03975790|181601687|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7315|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7315
90869887|NCT03975790|181601687|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1897|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1897
90869888|NCT03975790|181601688|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5146|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5146
90869889|NCT03975790|181601688|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7121|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7121
90869890|NCT03975790|181601688|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4434|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.4434
90869891|NCT03975790|181601689|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8966|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.8966
90869892|NCT03975790|181601689|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2105|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2105
90869893|NCT03975790|181601689|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3336|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3336
90869894|NCT03975790|181601691|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.361|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3610
90869895|NCT03975790|181601691|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4519|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.4519
90869896|NCT03975790|181601691|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9612|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.9612
90869897|NCT03975790|181601692|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8135|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.8135
90869898|NCT03975790|181601692|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.591|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5910
90869899|NCT03975790|181601692|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7635|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7635
90869900|NCT03975790|181601693|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.597|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5970
90869901|NCT03975790|181601693|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7055|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7055
90869902|NCT03975790|181601694|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5435|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5435
90869903|NCT03975790|181601694|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.679|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.6790
90869904|NCT03975790|181601694|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9676|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.9676
90869905|NCT03975790|181601695|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8035|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.8035
90869906|NCT03975790|181601695|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4184|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.4184
90869907|NCT03975790|181601695|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.395|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3950
90869908|NCT03975790|181601697|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7871|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7871
90869909|NCT03975790|181601697|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0722|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0722
90869910|NCT03975790|181601697|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.181|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1810
90869911|NCT03975790|181601698|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1984|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1984
90869912|NCT03975790|181601698|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2043|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2043
90869913|NCT03975790|181601698|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0439|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0439
90869914|NCT03975790|181601699|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1702|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1702
90869915|NCT03975790|181601699|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5926|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5926
90869916|NCT03975790|181601699|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3088|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3088
90971052|NCT01902290|181824651|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|1.45||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|2.24|||Generalized linear model|Generalized linear model under a negative binomial distribution assumption adjusting for stratification factors.|Rate ratio = Brodalumab : Placebo|||2.24|0.94|0.096
90869917|NCT03975790|181601700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9141|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.9141
90869918|NCT03975790|181601700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7623|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7623
90869919|NCT03975790|181601700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8517|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.8517
90869920|NCT03975790|181601701|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1208|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1208
90869921|NCT03975790|181601701|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0425|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0425
90869922|NCT03975790|181601701|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0046|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0046
90869923|NCT03975790|181601702|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8698|||||||t-test|||||||0.8698
90869924|NCT03975790|181601702|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7391|||||||t-test|||||||0.7391
90869925|NCT03975790|181601702|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7043|||||||t-test|||||||0.7043
90869926|NCT03975790|181601703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0536|||||||t-test|||||||0.0536
90869927|NCT03975790|181601703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9313|||||||t-test|||||||0.9313
90869928|NCT03975790|181601703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.374|||||||t-test|||||||0.3740
90869929|NCT03975790|181601704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6963|||||||t-test|||||||0.6963
90869930|NCT03975790|181601704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9816|||||||t-test|||||||0.9816
90869931|NCT03975790|181601704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8349|||||||t-test|||||||0.8349
90869932|NCT03975790|181601705|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||t-test|||||||0.0003
90869933|NCT03975790|181601705|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9431|||||||t-test|||||||0.9431
90869934|NCT03975790|181601705|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2964|||||||t-test|||||||0.2964
90869935|NCT03975790|181601706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2614|||||||t-test|||||||0.2614
90869936|NCT03975790|181601706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0014|||||||t-test|||||||0.0014
90869937|NCT03975790|181601706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0535|||||||t-test|||||||0.0535
90869938|NCT03975790|181601707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0051|||||||t-test|||1 months before index date||||0.0051
90869939|NCT03975790|181601707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3041|||||||t-test|||1 months before index date||||0.3041
90869940|NCT03975790|181601707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4432|||||||t-test|||1 months before index date||||0.4432
90869941|NCT03975790|181601707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8641|||||||t-test|||2 months before index date||||0.8641
90869942|NCT03975790|181601707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0435|||||||t-test|||2 months before index date||||0.0435
90869943|NCT03975790|181601707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.153|||||||t-test|||2 months before index date||||0.1530
90869944|NCT03975790|181601707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1188|||||||t-test|||3 months before index date||||0.1188
90869945|NCT03975790|181601707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6807|||||||t-test|||3 months before index date||||0.6807
90869946|NCT03975790|181601707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1772|||||||t-test|||3 months before index date||||0.1772
90869947|NCT03975790|181601707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6104|||||||t-test|||4 months before index date||||0.6104
90869948|NCT03975790|181601707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9564|||||||t-test|||4 months before index date||||0.9564
90940406|NCT03730662|181760697|NON_INFERIORITY|"Although the primary objective is to establish noninferiority, sample size selection is guided by the objective of establishing superiority. The chosen sample size and randomization ratio also provides \>90% power to establish superiority of 10 mg LY3298176 and 15 mg LY3298176 doses to insulin glargine in absence of confounding effects of rescue therapy for persistent severe hyperglycemia (efficacy estimand)."|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.93|-0.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.66|-0.93|<0.001
90940407|NCT03730662|181760698|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|-8.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.3|-9.8|<0.001
90869949|NCT03975790|181601707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7688|||||||t-test|||4 months before index date||||0.7688
90869950|NCT03975790|181601707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5685|||||||t-test|||5 months before index date||||0.5685
90869951|NCT03975790|181601707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5122|||||||t-test|||5 months before index date||||0.5122
90869952|NCT03975790|181601707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4321|||||||t-test|||5 months before index date||||0.4321
90869953|NCT03975790|181601707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7892|||||||t-test|||6 months before index date||||0.7892
90869954|NCT03975790|181601707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2874|||||||t-test|||6 months before index date||||0.2874
90869955|NCT03975790|181601707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2662|||||||t-test|||6 months before index date||||0.2662
90869956|NCT03975790|181601707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3091|||||||t-test|||7 months before index date||||0.3091
90869957|NCT03975790|181601707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5783|||||||t-test|||7 months before index date||||0.5783
90869958|NCT03975790|181601707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4021|||||||t-test|||7 months before index date||||0.4021
90869959|NCT03975790|181601707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.767|||||||t-test|||8 months before index date||||0.7670
90869960|NCT03975790|181601707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6978|||||||t-test|||8 months before index date||||0.6978
90869961|NCT03975790|181601707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6328|||||||t-test|||8 months before index date||||0.6328
90869962|NCT03975790|181601707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0541|||||||t-test|||9 months before index date||||0.0541
90869963|NCT03975790|181601707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6999|||||||t-test|||9 months before index date||||0.6999
90869964|NCT03975790|181601707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.359|||||||t-test|||9 months before index date||||0.3590
90869965|NCT03975790|181601707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.936|||||||t-test|||10 months before index date||||0.9360
90869966|NCT03975790|181601707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.626|||||||t-test|||10 months before index date||||0.6260
90869967|NCT03975790|181601707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7797|||||||t-test|||10 months before index date||||0.7797
90869968|NCT03975790|181601707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0934|||||||t-test|||11 months before index date||||0.0934
90869969|NCT03975790|181601707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.396|||||||t-test|||11 months before index date||||0.3960
90869970|NCT03975790|181601707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4292|||||||t-test|||11 months before index date||||0.4292
90869971|NCT03975790|181601707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.854|||||||t-test|||12 months before index date||||0.8540
90869972|NCT03975790|181601707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||t-test|||12 months before index date||||0.9600
90869973|NCT03975790|181601707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9374|||||||t-test|||12 months before index date||||0.9374
90869974|NCT03975790|181601707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6674|||||||t-test|||1 month after index date||||0.6674
90869975|NCT03975790|181601707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0776|||||||t-test|||1 month after index date||||0.0776
90869976|NCT03975790|181601707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.335|||||||t-test|||1 month after index date||||0.3350
90869977|NCT03975790|181601707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8461|||||||t-test|||2 month after index date||||0.8461
90869978|NCT03975790|181601707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8111|||||||t-test|||2 month after index date||||0.8111
90869979|NCT03975790|181601707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7267|||||||t-test|||2 month after index date||||0.7267
90869980|NCT03975790|181601707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2453|||||||t-test|||3 month after index date||||0.2453
90869981|NCT03975790|181601707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5889|||||||t-test|||3 month after index date||||0.5889
90869982|NCT03975790|181601707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4162|||||||t-test|||3 month after index date||||0.4162
90869983|NCT03975790|181601707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0307|||||||t-test|||4 month after index date||||0.0307
90869984|NCT03975790|181601707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1147|||||||t-test|||4 month after index date||||0.1147
90869985|NCT03975790|181601707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9481|||||||t-test|||4 month after index date||||0.9481
90869986|NCT03975790|181601707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4455|||||||t-test|||5 month after index date||||0.4455
90869987|NCT03975790|181601707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9445|||||||t-test|||5 month after index date||||0.9445
90911333|NCT02613364|181691989|SUPERIORITY|Using ANCOVA to estimate differences in mean change between YOCAS and health education, a correlation of 0.576 (from our prior study), and a sample size of 168 evaluable subjects per group, we will have sufficient power to detect differences on the ISI of at least 1.3, 1.5 and 1.6 (all larger than our 1.15 non-inferiority margin) at 80%, 90%, and 95% power, respectively|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|-0.58||the comparison of YOCAS to the health education control is a traditional null hypothesis of no difference with a two-sided alpha. The p-value shown is from the Least Squares Mean (YOCAS - Health Education) generated from the Mixed Model.|Mixed Models Analysis||The comparison is from the ISI Least Squares Mean difference (YOCAS - Health Education) generated from the Mixed Model.|The comparison of YOCAS to the health education control is a traditional null hypothesis of no difference with a two-sided alpha.||-0.58|-2.23|0.0009
90911334|NCT02613364|181691990|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is that the mean change in the outcome measure between the two arms is zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.04||The comparison of YOCAS to the health education control is a traditional null hypothesis of no difference with a two-sided alpha. The p-value shown is from the Least Squares Mean (YOCAS - Health Education) generated from the Mixed Model.|Mixed Models Analysis||The comparison is from the ISI Least Squares Mean difference (YOCAS - Health Education) generated from the Mixed Model.|The comparison of YOCAS to the health education control is a traditional null hypothesis of no difference with a two-sided alpha.||0.04|-0.98|0.0700
90911335|NCT02613364|181691991|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is that the mean change in the outcome measure between the two arms is zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|2.75||The comparison of YOCAS to CBT-I is a traditional null hypothesis of no difference with a two-sided alpha. The p-value shown is from the Least Squares Mean (YOCAS - CBT-I) generated from the Mixed Model.|Mixed Models Analysis||The comparison is from the ISI Least Squares Mean difference (YOCAS - CBT-I) generated from the Mixed Model.|The comparison of YOCAS to CBT-I is a traditional null hypothesis of no difference with a two-sided alpha.||2.75|1.70|<.0001
90911336|NCT02613364|181691992|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is that the mean change in the outcome measure between the two arms is zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.03||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.91|33.54||The comparison of YOCAS to the health education control is a traditional null hypothesis of no difference with a two-sided alpha. The p-value shown is from the Least Squares Mean (YOCAS - Health Education) generated from the Mixed Model.|Mixed Models Analysis||The comparison is from the Least Squares Mean difference (YOCAS - Health Education) generated from the Mixed Model.|The comparison of YOCAS to the health education control is a traditional null hypothesis of no difference with a two-sided alpha.||33.54|5.91|0.0052
90911337|NCT02613364|181691993|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is that the mean change in the outcome measure between the two arms is zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.12||0.0258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.93|29.94||The comparison of YOCAS to CBT-I is a traditional null hypothesis of no difference with a two-sided alpha. The p-value shown is from the Least Squares Mean (YOCAS - CBT-I) generated from the Mixed Model.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||29.94|1.93|0.0258
90911338|NCT02613364|181691994|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is that the mean change in the outcome measure between the two arms is zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.053|0.048||The comparison of YOCAS to the health education control is a traditional null hypothesis of no difference with a two-sided alpha. The p-value shown is from the Least Squares Mean (YOCAS - Health Education) generated from the Mixed Model.|Mixed Models Analysis||The comparison is from the Least Squares Mean difference (YOCAS - Health Education) generated from the Mixed Model.|||0.048|-0.053|0.92
90911339|NCT02613364|181691995|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is that the mean change in the outcome measure between the two arms is zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.098||The comparison of YOCAS to CBT-I is a traditional null hypothesis of no difference with a two-sided alpha. The p-value shown is from the Least Squares Mean (YOCAS - Health Education) generated from the Mixed Model.|Mixed Models Analysis||The comparison is from the Least Squares Mean difference (YOCAS - CBT-I) generated from the Mixed Model.|The comparison of YOCAS to the CBT-I control is a traditional null hypothesis of no difference with a two-sided alpha.||0.098|-0.004|0.07
90911340|NCT02613364|181691996|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is that the mean change in the outcome measure between the two arms is zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|4.44||The comparison of YOCAS to the health education control is a traditional null hypothesis of no difference with a two-sided alpha. The p-value shown is from the Least Squares Mean (YOCAS - Health Education) generated from the Mixed Model.|Mixed Models Analysis||The comparison is from the Least Squares Mean difference (YOCAS - Health Education) generated from the Mixed Model.|The comparison of YOCAS to the health education control is a traditional null hypothesis of no difference with a two-sided alpha.||4.44|0.09|0.04
90869988|NCT03975790|181601707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6191|||||||t-test|||5 month after index date||||0.6191
90869989|NCT03975790|181601707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0805|||||||t-test|||6 month after index date||||0.0805
90869990|NCT03975790|181601707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7037|||||||t-test|||6 month after index date||||0.7037
90869991|NCT03975790|181601707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4288|||||||t-test|||6 month after index date||||0.4288
90869992|NCT03975790|181601707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3731|||||||t-test|||7 month after index date||||0.3731
90869993|NCT03975790|181601707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4803|||||||t-test|||7 month after index date||||0.4803
90911341|NCT02613364|181691997|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is that the mean change in the outcome measure between the two arms is zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.97|1.43||The comparison of YOCAS to CBT-I is a traditional null hypothesis of no difference with a two-sided alpha. The p-value shown is from the Least Squares Mean (YOCAS - Health Education) generated from the Mixed Model.|Mixed Models Analysis||The comparison is from the Least Squares Mean difference (YOCAS - CBT-I) generated from the Mixed Model.|The comparison of YOCAS to CBT-I is a traditional null hypothesis of no difference with a two-sided alpha.||1.43|-2.97|0.49
90911342|NCT02613364|181691998|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is that the mean change in the outcome measure between the two arms is zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.05||The comparison of YOCAS to the health education control is a traditional null hypothesis of no difference with a two-sided alpha. The p-value shown is from the Least Squares Mean (YOCAS - Health Education) generated from the Mixed Model.|Mixed Models Analysis||The comparison is from the Least Squares Mean difference (YOCAS - Health Education) generated from the Mixed Model.|The comparison of YOCAS to the health education control is a traditional null hypothesis of no difference with a two-sided alpha.||0.05|-0.13|0.43
90911343|NCT02613364|181691999|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is that the mean change in the outcome measure between the two arms is zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.11||The comparison of YOCAS to CBT-I is a traditional null hypothesis of no difference with a two-sided alpha. The p-value shown is from the Least Squares Mean (YOCAS - Health Education) generated from the Mixed Model.|Mixed Models Analysis||The comparison is from the Least Squares Mean difference (YOCAS - CBT-I) generated from the Mixed Model.|The comparison of YOCAS to CBT-I is a traditional null hypothesis of no difference with a two-sided alpha.||0.11|-0.07|0.70
90911344|NCT02613364|181692000|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is that the mean change in the outcome measure between the two arms is zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.65|-0.5||The comparison of YOCAS to the health education control is a traditional null hypothesis of no difference with a two-sided alpha. The p-value shown is from the Least Squares Mean (YOCAS - Health Education) generated from the Mixed Model.|Mixed Models Analysis||The comparison is from the Least Squares Mean difference (YOCAS - Health Education) generated from the Mixed Model.|The comparison of YOCAS to the health education control is a traditional null hypothesis of no difference with a two-sided alpha.||-0.50|-2.65|0.0041
90869994|NCT03975790|181601707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5831|||||||t-test|||7 month after index date||||0.5831
90869995|NCT03975790|181601707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0944|||||||t-test|||8 month after index date||||0.0944
90869996|NCT03975790|181601707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||t-test|||8 month after index date||||0.8800
90869997|NCT03975790|181601707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4949|||||||t-test|||8 month after index date||||0.4949
90869998|NCT03975790|181601707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6373|||||||t-test|||9 month after index date||||0.6373
90869999|NCT03975790|181601707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0497|||||||t-test|||9 month after index date||||0.0497
90870000|NCT03975790|181601707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1695|||||||t-test|||9 month after index date||||0.1695
90870001|NCT03975790|181601707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6373|||||||t-test|||10 month after index date||||0.6373
90870002|NCT03975790|181601707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7866|||||||t-test|||10 month after index date||||0.7866
90870003|NCT03975790|181601707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7643|||||||t-test|||10 months after index date||||0.7643
90870004|NCT03975790|181601707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2307|||||||t-test|||11 month after index date||||0.2307
90870005|NCT03975790|181601707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6712|||||||t-test|||11 month after index date||||0.6712
90870006|NCT03975790|181601707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6953|||||||t-test|||11 months after index date||||0.6953
90870007|NCT03975790|181601707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3675|||||||t-test|||12 month after index date||||0.3675
90870008|NCT03975790|181601707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8027|||||||t-test|||12 month after index date||||0.8027
90870009|NCT03975790|181601707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4817|||||||t-test|||12 month after index date||||0.4817
90870010|NCT03975790|181601708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0063|||||||t-test|||1 month before index date||||0.0063
90870011|NCT03975790|181601708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0162|||||||t-test|||1 month before index date||||0.0162
90870012|NCT03975790|181601708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8715|||||||t-test|||1 month before index date||||0.8715
90870013|NCT03975790|181601708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2799|||||||t-test|||2 months before index date||||0.2799
90870014|NCT03975790|181601708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0126|||||||t-test|||2 months before index date||||0.0126
90870015|NCT03975790|181601708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2126|||||||t-test|||2 months before index date||||0.2126
90870016|NCT03975790|181601708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7004|||||||t-test|||3 months before index date||||0.7004
90870017|NCT03975790|181601708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1476|||||||t-test|||3 months before index date||||0.1476
90870018|NCT03975790|181601708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2057|||||||t-test|||3 months before index date||||0.2057
90870019|NCT03975790|181601708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2905|||||||t-test|||4 months before index date||||0.2905
90870020|NCT03975790|181601708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8273|||||||t-test|||4 months before index date||||0.8273
90870021|NCT03975790|181601708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.627|||||||t-test|||4 months before index date||||0.6270
90870022|NCT03975790|181601708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3256|||||||t-test|||5 months before index date||||0.3256
90870023|NCT03975790|181601708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5631|||||||t-test|||5 months before index date||||0.5631
90940408|NCT03730662|181760698|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|-10.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-10.6|-12.1|<0.001
90870024|NCT03975790|181601708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4491|||||||t-test|||5 months before index date||||0.4491
90870025|NCT03975790|181601708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2009|||||||t-test|||6 months before index date||||0.2009
90870026|NCT03975790|181601708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3011|||||||t-test|||6 months before index date||||0.3011
90870027|NCT03975790|181601708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2065|||||||t-test|||6 months before index date||||0.2065
90870028|NCT03975790|181601708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6098|||||||t-test|||7 months before index date||||0.6098
90870029|NCT03975790|181601708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2586|||||||t-test|||7 months before index date||||0.2586
90870030|NCT03975790|181601708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4074|||||||t-test|||7 months before index date||||0.4074
90870031|NCT03975790|181601708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0345|||||||t-test|||8 months before index date||||0.0345
90940409|NCT03730662|181760698|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|-12.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-12.8|-14.3|<0.001
90940410|NCT03730662|181760699|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.47|6.58|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.58|3.47|<0.001
90911345|NCT02613364|181692001|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is that the mean change in the outcome measure between the two arms is zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.61|3.81||The comparison of YOCAS to CBT-I is a traditional null hypothesis of no difference with a two-sided alpha. The p-value shown is from the Least Squares Mean (YOCAS - Health Education) generated from the Mixed Model.|Mixed Models Analysis||The comparison is from the Least Squares Mean difference (YOCAS - CBT-I) generated from the Mixed Model.|The comparison of YOCAS to CBT-I is a traditional null hypothesis of no difference with a two-sided alpha.||3.81|1.61|<.0001
90870032|NCT03975790|181601708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4377|||||||t-test|||8 months before index date||||0.4377
90870033|NCT03975790|181601708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7191|||||||t-test|||8 months before index date||||0.7191
90870034|NCT03975790|181601708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0199|||||||t-test|||9 months before index date||||0.0199
90870035|NCT03975790|181601708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1032|||||||t-test|||9 months before index date||||0.1032
90870036|NCT03975790|181601708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.904|||||||t-test|||9 months before index date||||0.9040
90870037|NCT03975790|181601708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0316|||||||t-test|||10 months before index date||||0.0316
90911346|NCT02613364|181692002|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is that the mean change in the outcome measure between the two arms is zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.0108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|-0.36||The comparison of YOCAS to the health education control is a traditional null hypothesis of no difference with a two-sided alpha. The p-value shown is from the Least Squares Mean (YOCAS - Health Education) generated from the Mixed Model.|Mixed Models Analysis||The comparison is from the Least Squares Mean difference (YOCAS - Health Education) generated from the Mixed Model.|The comparison of YOCAS to the health education control is a traditional null hypothesis of no difference with a two-sided alpha.||-0.36|-2.78|0.0108
90911347|NCT02613364|181692003|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is that the mean change in the outcome measure between the two arms is zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|4.02||The comparison of YOCAS to CBT-I is a traditional null hypothesis of no difference with a two-sided alpha. The p-value shown is from the Least Squares Mean (YOCAS - CBT-I) generated from the Mixed Model.|Mixed Models Analysis||The comparison is from the Least Squares Mean difference (YOCAS - CBT-I) generated from the Mixed Model.|The comparison of YOCAS to CBT-I is a traditional null hypothesis of no difference with a two-sided alpha.||4.02|1.54|<.0001
90940411|NCT03730662|181760699|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.31|13.49|||Regression, Logistic|||||13.49|6.31|<0.001
90870038|NCT03975790|181601708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6748|||||||t-test|||10 months before index date||||0.6748
90870039|NCT03975790|181601708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2679|||||||t-test|||10 months before index date||||0.2679
90870040|NCT03975790|181601708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.501|||||||t-test|||11 months before index date||||0.5010
90870041|NCT03975790|181601708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3228|||||||t-test|||11 months before index date||||0.3228
90870042|NCT03975790|181601708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7881|||||||t-test|||11 months before index date||||0.7881
90870043|NCT03975790|181601708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0876|||||||t-test|||12 months before index date||||0.0876
90870044|NCT03975790|181601708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1226|||||||t-test|||12 months before index date||||0.1226
90870045|NCT03975790|181601708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9753|||||||t-test|||12 months before index date||||0.9753
90870046|NCT03975790|181601708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0336|||||||t-test|||1 month after index date||||0.0336
90870047|NCT03975790|181601708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2551|||||||t-test|||1 month after index date||||0.2551
90870048|NCT03975790|181601708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6189|||||||t-test|||1 month after index date||||0.6189
90870049|NCT03975790|181601708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7051|||||||t-test|||2 months after index date||||0.7051
90870050|NCT03975790|181601708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9775|||||||t-test|||2 months after index date||||0.9775
90870051|NCT03975790|181601708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7643|||||||t-test|||2 months after index date||||0.7643
90870052|NCT03975790|181601708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2953|||||||t-test|||3 months after index date||||0.2953
90870053|NCT03975790|181601708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6257|||||||t-test|||3 months after index date||||0.6257
90870054|NCT03975790|181601708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4753|||||||t-test|||3 months after index date||||0.4753
90870055|NCT03975790|181601708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0926|||||||t-test|||4 months after index date||||0.0926
90870056|NCT03975790|181601708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0013|||||||t-test|||4 months after index date||||0.0013
90870057|NCT03975790|181601708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0065|||||||t-test|||4 months after index date||||0.0065
90870058|NCT03975790|181601708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2212|||||||t-test|||5 months after index date||||0.2212
90870059|NCT03975790|181601708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9688|||||||t-test|||5 months after index date||||0.9688
90870060|NCT03975790|181601708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5647|||||||t-test|||5 months after index date||||0.5647
90870061|NCT03975790|181601708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0023|||||||t-test|||6 months after index date||||0.0023
90870062|NCT03975790|181601708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1142|||||||t-test|||6 months after index date||||0.1142
90870063|NCT03975790|181601708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3842|||||||t-test|||6 months after index date||||0.3842
90870064|NCT03975790|181601708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9097|||||||t-test|||7 months after index date||||0.9097
90870065|NCT03975790|181601708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3885|||||||t-test|||7 months after index date||||0.3885
90870066|NCT03975790|181601708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3834|||||||t-test|||7 months after index date||||0.3834
90870067|NCT03975790|181601708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3075|||||||t-test|||8 months after index date||||0.3075
90870068|NCT03975790|181601708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9075|||||||t-test|||8 months after index date||||0.9075
90870069|NCT03975790|181601708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5993|||||||t-test|||8 months after index date||||0.5993
90870070|NCT03975790|181601708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0775|||||||t-test|||9 months after index date||||0.0775
90870071|NCT03975790|181601708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1536|||||||t-test|||9 months after index date||||0.1536
90870072|NCT03975790|181601708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8553|||||||t-test|||9 months after index date||||0.8553
90870073|NCT03975790|181601708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6295|||||||t-test|||10 months after index date||||0.6295
90870074|NCT03975790|181601708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0551|||||||t-test|||10 months after index date||||0.0551
90870075|NCT03975790|181601708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2215|||||||t-test|||10 months after index date||||0.2215
90960586|NCT00427895|181801610|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMC Ratio|1.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.91||||||Serotype 3: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS/23vPS).||1.91|1.06|
90960587|NCT00427895|181801610|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMC Ratio|2.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.71|3.55||||||Serotype 4: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS/23vPS).||3.55|1.71|
90870076|NCT03975790|181601708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1948|||||||t-test|||11 months after index date||||0.1948
90870077|NCT03975790|181601708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6621|||||||t-test|||11 months after index date||||0.6621
90870078|NCT03975790|181601708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6629|||||||t-test|||11 months after index date||||0.6629
90870079|NCT03975790|181601708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5699|||||||t-test|||12 months after index date||||0.5699
90870080|NCT03975790|181601708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7105|||||||t-test|||12 months after index date||||0.7105
90870081|NCT03975790|181601708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5965|||||||t-test|||12 months after index date||||0.5965
90870082|NCT03232801|181601709|SUPERIORITY||chi-squared|4.86||||0.027|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.027
90870083|NCT03232801|181601710|SUPERIORITY||chi-squared|0.45||||0.503|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.503
90870084|NCT01577329|181601726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||||||This is a calculated P value and was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||This is a calculated P value comparing two groups at baseline and follow-up||||0.05
90870085|NCT00106392|181601727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.111||95.0||||P-Values were not adjusted.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A group sequential design using the O'Brien and Fleming stopping rule will require 58 evaluable patients per group to detect a 5-point difference in the Erectile Function domain of the IIEF with a power of 80% and an overall significance level of 5%.||||0.111
90870086|NCT00106392|181601728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.453||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.453
90870087|NCT00106392|181601729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.790
90870088|NCT00106392|181601730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.099||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.099
90870089|NCT00106392|181601731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.575||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.575
90870090|NCT00106392|181601732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.879||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.879
90870091|NCT02557698|181601736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-0.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||H0=Intervention and control groups do not differ with respect to the TEWL forearm at visit 3 H1=The TEWL on the forearm at visit 3 differs between the groups||-0.8|-3.1|0.002
90870092|NCT02557698|181601737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-1.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-1.2|-3.5|<0.001
90870093|NCT02557698|181601738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-0.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.2|-3.2|0.024
90870094|NCT02557698|181601739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-0.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.3|-3.1|0.017
90870095|NCT02557698|181601740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|3.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.7|-3.9|0.964
90870096|NCT02557698|181601741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.4||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|8.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||||8.2|0.5|0.025
90870097|NCT02557698|181601742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.1|-2.5|0.458
90870098|NCT02557698|181601743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|0.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.1|-3.5|0.066
90870099|NCT02557698|181601744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.6||||0.171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|2.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.5|-13.7|0.171
90870100|NCT02557698|181601745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.5||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.3|0.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.3|-15.3|0.059
90870101|NCT02557698|181601746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.5|-0.2|0.400
90870102|NCT02557698|181601747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.4|-0.1|0.100
90870103|NCT02557698|181601748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.000
90870104|NCT02557698|181601749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.914|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.914
90870105|NCT02557698|181601750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.822|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.822
90870106|NCT02557698|181601751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.585|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.585
90870107|NCT02557698|181601752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.259|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.259
90870108|NCT02557698|181601753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.581|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.581
90870109|NCT02557698|181601754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.182|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.182
90870110|NCT02557698|181601755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.759|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.759
90870111|NCT02557698|181601756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.831|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.831
90870112|NCT02557698|181601757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.084|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.084
90940412|NCT03730662|181760699|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.88|17.89|||Regression, Logistic|||||17.89|7.88|<0.001
90940413|NCT03730662|181760700|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0||||0.672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|5.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.7|-3.7|0.672
90870113|NCT02557698|181601758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.6||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|7.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||||7.4|-0.3|0.07
90870114|NCT02557698|181601759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.1||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|7.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||||7.7|0.4|0.029
90870115|NCT02557698|181601760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.6|-1.8|0.325
90870116|NCT02557698|181601761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.9|-2.6|0.365
90870117|NCT02557698|181601762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.6||||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|1.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.3|-8.5|0.143
90870118|NCT02557698|181601763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|4.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.2|-6.5|0.662
90870119|NCT02557698|181601764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.1|-0.4|0.326
90870120|NCT02557698|181601765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.4|-0.2|0.687
90870121|NCT01737944|181601766|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The bioequivalence of Methotrexate following Treatment A - SC injection with the Vibex MTX device and Treatment B - SC injection without the device was established if the 90% CI for the geometric LS Mean ratios of AUC(0-inf)/Dose were within the range of 80% to 125%.|Test / Reference Ratio|96.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.33|100.31||||||||100.31|92.33|
90870122|NCT01737944|181601766|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The bioequivalence of Methotrexate following Treatment A-SC injection with the Vibex MTX device and Treatment C-IM injection was established if the 90% CI for the geometric LS Mean ratios of AUC(0-inf)/Dose were within the range of 80% to 125%.|Test / Reference Ratio|101.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.17|105.56||||||||105.56|97.17|
90870123|NCT01737944|181601767|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The bioequivalence of Methotrexate following Treatment A-SC injection with the Vibex MTX device and Treatment B-SC injection was established if the 90% CI for the geometric LS Mean ratios of AUC(0-24)/Dose were within the range of 80% to 125%.|Test / Reference Ratio|96.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.32|100.28||||||||100.28|92.32|
90870124|NCT01737944|181601767|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The bioequivalence of Methotrexate following Treatment A-SC injection with the Vibex MTX device and Treatment C-IM injection was established if the 90% CI for the geometric LS Mean ratios of AUC(0-24)/Dose were within the range of 80% to 125%.|Test / Reference Ratio|101.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.06|105.4||||||||105.40|97.06|
90870125|NCT01737944|181601768|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The bioequivalence of Methotrexate following Treatment A-SC injection with the Vibex MTX device and Treatment B-SC injection without the device was established if the 90% CI for the geometric LS Mean ratios of Cmax/Dose were within the range of 80% to 125%.|Test / Reference Ratio|96.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.93|106.47||||||||106.47|87.93|
90870126|NCT01737944|181601768|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The bioequivalence of Methotrexate following Treatment A-SC injection with the Vibex MTX device and Treatment C-IM injection was established if the 90% CI for the geometric LS Mean ratios of Cmax/Dose were within the range of 80% to 125%.|Test / Reference Ratio|89.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.61|98.78||||||||98.78|81.61|
90870127|NCT03247530|181601788|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.61||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|-2.6|||Mixed Models for Repeated Measures|||||-2.6|-8.9|0.0004
90870128|NCT03247530|181601788|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-6.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.58|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|-3.8|||Mixed Models for Repeated Measures|||||-3.8|-10.0|<0.0001
90870129|NCT03247530|181601789|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with baseline Clinical Global Impression-Severity of Illness (CGI-S) score and treatment as fixed independent variables.||||-0.2|-0.7|0.0020
90870130|NCT03247530|181601789|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.3|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with baseline Clinical Global Impression-Severity of Illness (CGI-S) score and treatment as fixed independent variables.||||-0.3|-0.8|<0.0001
90870131|NCT03247530|181601790|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|-1.9|||ANCOVA|||||-1.9|-6.5|0.0003
90870132|NCT03247530|181601790|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|-2.1|||ANCOVA|||||-2.1|-6.6|0.0002
90870133|NCT03247530|181601791|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||||-0.05|-0.24|0.0019
90870134|NCT03247530|181601791|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.046||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|-0.08|||ANCOVA|||||-0.08|-0.26|0.0020
90870135|NCT03247530|181601792|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.5||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|24.6|||Regression, Logistic|||||24.6|4.3|0.0063
90870136|NCT03247530|181601792|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.3|31.6|||Regression, Logistic|||||31.6|11.3|<0.0001
90870137|NCT03247530|181601793|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63||0.9974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|4.5|||ANCOVA|||||4.5|-4.5|0.9974
90870138|NCT03247530|181601793|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26||0.4557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|2.7|||ANCOVA|||||2.7|-6.1|0.4557
90870139|NCT03247530|181601794|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|-1.2|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis pertains to the Inattention subscale score||-1.2|-4.6|0.0006
90870140|NCT03247530|181601794|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|-1.9|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis pertains to the Inattention subscale score||-1.9|-5.2|<0.0001
90870141|NCT03247530|181601794|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|-0.9|||ANCOVA|||This analysis pertains to the Hyperactivity/Impulsivity subscale score||-0.9|-4.1|0.0026
90870142|NCT03247530|181601794|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|-1.7|||ANCOVA|||This analysis pertains to the Hyperactivity/Impulsivity subscale score||-1.7|-4.8|<0.0001
90870143|NCT03247530|181601795|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.1292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|0.5|||ANCOVA|||||0.5|-4.2|0.1292
90870144|NCT03247530|181601795|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.19||0.3447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|1.2|||ANCOVA|||||1.2|-3.4|0.3447
90870145|NCT03247530|181601796|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 1 of treatment||||0.0005
90870146|NCT03247530|181601796|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0212|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 2 of treatment||||0.0212
90870147|NCT03247530|181601796|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0115|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 3 of treatment||||0.0115
90870148|NCT03247530|181601796|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0027|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 4 of treatment||||0.0027
90870149|NCT03247530|181601796|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0066|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 5 of treatment||||0.0066
90870150|NCT03247530|181601796|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0065|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 6 of treatment||||0.0065
90870151|NCT03247530|181601796|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5826|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 1 of treatment||||0.5826
90870152|NCT03247530|181601796|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0099|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 2 of treatment||||0.0099
90870153|NCT03247530|181601796|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0225|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 3 of treatment||||0.0225
90870154|NCT03247530|181601796|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0008|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 4 of treatment||||0.0008
90870155|NCT03247530|181601796|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 5 of treatment||||0.0020
90870156|NCT03247530|181601796|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 6 of treatment||||0.0002
90870157|NCT04786990|181601801|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4||||<0.0001
90870158|NCT04786990|181601801|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 8||||<0.0001
90870159|NCT04786990|181601802|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4||||<0.0001
90870160|NCT04786990|181601802|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 8||||<0.0001
90870161|NCT04786990|181601804|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4||||<0.0001
90940414|NCT03730662|181760700|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.6||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.1|-8.2|0.134
90940415|NCT03730662|181760700|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|-3.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.4|-12.6|<0.001
90940416|NCT03712449|181760708|OTHER|The data was analyzed using Paired t-test. If normality was not met, then the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used.||||||0.0009|||||||Paired t-test/Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.0009
90940417|NCT03712449|181760708|OTHER|The data was analyzed using Paired t-test. If normality was not met, then the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test/Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||<0.0001
90940418|NCT03712449|181760709|OTHER|The data was analyzed using Paired t-test. If normality was not met, then the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used.||||||0.7878|||||||Paired t-test/Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.7878
90870162|NCT04786990|181601804|OTHER|||||||0.0002||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 8||||0.0002
90870163|NCT04786990|181601805|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4||||<0.0001
90870164|NCT04786990|181601805|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value generated for the comparison between time points for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed. There is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 8||||<0.0001
90911348|NCT01235949|181692007|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of non-inferiority: The upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 98.25% confidence interval (98.25% CI) (adjusted 1-sided alpha = 0.875%) of the difference between groups (NIBU minus IIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL, was lower than (\<) 10% for at least 7 out of the 10 pneumococcal serotypes.|Difference in percentages|-0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|98.25|-4.52|3.17||||||At one month after primary immunization, the difference between groups (NIBU minus IIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL were calculated for anti-pneumococccal serotype 1.||3.17|-4.52|
90911349|NCT01235949|181692007|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of non-inferiority: the upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 98.25% confidence interval (98.25% CI) (adjusted 1-sided alpha = 0.875%) of the difference between groups (NIBU minus IIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL, was lower than (\<) 10% for at least 7 out of the 10 pneumococcal serotypes.|Difference in percentages|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|98.25|-3.94|4.38||||||At one month after primary immunization, the difference between groups (NIBU minus IIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL were calculated for anti-pneumococcal serotype 4.||4.38|-3.94|
90940419|NCT03712449|181760709|OTHER|The data was analyzed using Paired t-test. If normality was not met, then the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used.||||||0.0349|||||||Paired t-test/Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.0349
90940420|NCT03712449|181760710|OTHER|The data was analyzed using Paired t-test. If normality was not met, then the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used.||||||0.0043|||||||Paired t-test/Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.0043
90940421|NCT03712449|181760710|OTHER|The data was analyzed using Paired t-test. If normality was not met, then the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test/Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||<0.0001
90870165|NCT04786990|181601806|OTHER|||||||0.0685||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4||||0.0685
90940422|NCT03712449|181760711|OTHER|The data was analyzed using Paired t-test. If normality was not met, then the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used.||||||0.0017|||||||Paired t-test/Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.0017
90870166|NCT04786990|181601806|OTHER|||||||0.2575||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 8||||0.2575
90870167|NCT04786990|181601807|OTHER|||||||0.0832||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4||||0.0832
90870168|NCT04786990|181601807|OTHER|||||||0.3715||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 8||||0.3715
90870169|NCT04786990|181601808|OTHER|||||||0.0042||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4||||0.0042
90870170|NCT04786990|181601808|OTHER|||||||0.0019||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 8||||0.0019
90870171|NCT04786990|181601809|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4||||<0.0001
90870172|NCT04786990|181601809|OTHER|||||||0.0025||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 8||||0.0025
90870173|NCT04786990|181601810|OTHER|||||||0.0161||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4||||0.0161
90870174|NCT04786990|181601810|OTHER|||||||0.0122||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 8||||0.0122
90870175|NCT04786990|181601811|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4||||<0.0001
90870176|NCT04786990|181601811|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 8||||<0.0001
90870177|NCT04786990|181601812|OTHER|||||||0.0002||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4||||0.0002
90870178|NCT04786990|181601812|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 8||||<0.0001
90870179|NCT04786990|181601813|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4||||<0.0001
90870180|NCT04786990|181601813|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 8||||<0.0001
90870181|NCT04786990|181601814|OTHER|||||||0.0005||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4 versus Week 8||||0.0005
90870182|NCT04786990|181601815|OTHER|||||||0.0005||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4 versus Week 8||||0.0005
90870183|NCT04786990|181601816|OTHER|||||||0.0016||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4 versus Week 8||||0.0016
90870184|NCT04786990|181601817|OTHER|||||||0.89||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4 versus Week 8||||0.8900
90870185|NCT04786990|181601818|OTHER|||||||0.3269||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4 versus Week 8||||0.3269
90911350|NCT01235949|181692007|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of non-inferiority: The upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 98.25% confidence interval (98.25% CI) (adjusted 1-sided alpha = 0.875%) of the difference between groups (NIBU minus IIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL, was lower than (\<) 10% for at least 7 out of the 10 pneumococcal serotypes.|Difference in percentages|-0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|98.25|-4.63|3.19||||||At one month after primary immunization, the difference between groups (NIBU minus IIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL were calculated for anti-pneumococccal serotype 5.||3.19|-4.63|
90911351|NCT01235949|181692007|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of non-inferiority: The upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 98.25% confidence interval (98.25% CI) (adjusted 1-sided alpha = 0.875%) of the difference between groups (NIBU minus IIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL, was lower than (\<) 10% for at least 7 out of the 10 pneumococcal serotypes.|Difference in percentages|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|98.25|-9.4|10.99||||||At one month after primary immunization, the difference between groups (NIBU minus IIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL were calculated for anti-pneumococccal serotype 6B.||10.99|-9.4|
90911352|NCT01235949|181692007|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of non-inferiority: The upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 98.25% confidence interval (98.25% CI) (adjusted 1-sided alpha = 0.875%) of the difference between groups (NIBU minus IIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL, was lower than (\<) 10% for at least 7 out of the 10 pneumococcal serotypes.|Difference in percentages|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|98.25|-2.7|4.71||||||At one month after primary immunization, the difference between groups (NIBU minus IIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL were calculated for anti-pneumococccal serotype 7F.||4.71|-2.7|
90911353|NCT01235949|181692007|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of non-inferiority: The upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 98.25% confidence interval (98.25% CI) (adjusted 1-sided alpha = 0.875%) of the difference between groups (NIBU minus IIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL, was lower than (\<) 10% for at least 7 out of the 10 pneumococcal serotypes.|Difference in percentages|-0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|98.25|-5.05|3.82||||||At one month after primary immunization, the difference between groups (NIBU minus IIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL were calculated for anti-pneumococccal serotype 9V.||3.82|-5.05|
90911354|NCT01235949|181692007|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of non-inferiority: The upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 98.25% confidence interval (98.25% CI) (adjusted 1-sided alpha = 0.875%) of the difference between groups (NIBU minus IIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL, was lower than (\<) 10% for at least 7 out of the 10 pneumococcal serotypes.|Difference in percentages|-0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|98.25|-4.68|3.15||||||At one month after primary immunization, the difference between groups (NIBU minus IIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL were calculated for anti-pneumococccal serotype 14.||3.15|-4.68|
90911355|NCT01235949|181692007|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of non-inferiority: The upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 98.25% confidence interval (98.25% CI) (adjusted 1-sided alpha = 0.875%) of the difference between groups (NIBU minus IIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL, was lower than (\<) 10% for at least 7 out of the 10 pneumococcal serotypes.|Difference in percentages|-0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|98.25|-5.04|3.85||||||At one month after primary immunization, the difference between groups (NIBU minus IIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL were calculated for anti-pneumococccal serotype 18C.||3.85|-5.04|
90911356|NCT01235949|181692007|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of non-inferiority: The upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 98.25% confidence interval (98.25% CI) (adjusted 1-sided alpha = 0.875%) of the difference between groups (NIBU minus IIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL, was lower than (\<) 10% for at least 7 out of the 10 pneumococcal serotypes.|Difference in percentages|-0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|98.25|-4.6|3.14||||||At one month after primary immunization, the difference between groups (NIBU minus IIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL were calculated for anti-pneumococccal serotype 19F.||3.14|-4.6|
90911357|NCT01235949|181692007|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of non-inferiority: The upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 98.25% confidence interval (98.25% CI) (adjusted 1-sided alpha = 0.875%) of the difference between groups (NIBU minus IIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL, was lower than (\<) 10% for at least 7 out of the 10 pneumococcal serotypes.|Difference in percentages|0.08||||||98.25|-7.66|8.1||||||At one month after primary immunization, the difference between groups (NIBU minus IIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL were calculated for anti-pneumococccal serotype 23F.||8.1|-7.66|
90940423|NCT03712449|181760711|OTHER|The data was analyzed using Paired t-test. If normality was not met, then the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test/Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||<0.0001
90940424|NCT03712449|181760712|OTHER|The data was analyzed using Paired t-test. If normality was not met, then the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used.||||||0.0105|||||||Paired t-test/Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.0105
90940425|NCT03712449|181760712|OTHER|The data was analyzed using Paired t-test. If normality was not met, then the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test/Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||<0.0001
90940426|NCT03712449|181760713|OTHER|The data was analyzed using Paired t-test. If normality was not met, then the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used.||||||0.0004|||||||Paired t-test/Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.0004
90940427|NCT03712449|181760713|OTHER|The data was analyzed using Paired t-test. If normality was not met, then the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test/Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||<.0001
90940428|NCT03712449|181760718|OTHER|The data was analyzed using Paired t-test. If normality was not met, then the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used.||||||0.0005|||||||Paired t-test/Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.0005
90940429|NCT03712449|181760718|OTHER|The data was analyzed using Paired t-test. If normality was not met, then the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test/Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||<0.0001
90940430|NCT03897049|181760733|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.961||||0.914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.463|1.994|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.994|0.463|0.914
90940431|NCT03897049|181760734|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.979||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.473|2.074|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.074|0.473|0.990
90940432|NCT03897049|181760735|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.434||||0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.861|2.39|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.390|0.861|0.167
90940433|NCT03897049|181760736|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.492||||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.903|2.466|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.466|0.903|0.118
90940434|NCT03897049|181760737|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.335||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.803|2.221|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.221|0.803|0.265
90940435|NCT03897049|181760738|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.593|1.654|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.654|0.593|0.971
90870186|NCT04786990|181601819|OTHER|||||||0.5085||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4 versus Week 8||||0.5085
90870187|NCT04786990|181601820|OTHER|||||||0.3484||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4 versus Week 8||||0.3484
90870188|NCT04786990|181601821|OTHER|||||||0.4385||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4 versus Week 8||||0.4385
90870189|NCT04786990|181601822|OTHER|||||||0.5073||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4 versus Week 8||||0.5073
90870190|NCT04786990|181601823|OTHER|||||||0.9119||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4 versus Week 8||||0.9119
90870191|NCT04786990|181601824|OTHER|||||||0.014||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4 versus Week 8||||0.0140
90911358|NCT01235949|181692007|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of non-inferiority: The upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 98.25% confidence interval (98.25% CI) (adjusted 1-sided alpha = 0.875%) of the difference between groups (NIBU minus DIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL, was lower than (\<) 10% for at least 7 out of the 10 pneumococcal serotypes.|Difference in percentages|-0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|98.25|-4.52|2.91||||||At one month after primary immunization, the difference between groups (NIBU minus DIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL were calculated for anti-pneumococccal serotype 1.||2.91|-4.52|
90911359|NCT01235949|181692007|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of non-inferiority: The upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 98.25% confidence interval (98.25% CI) (adjusted 1-sided alpha = 0.875%) of the difference between groups (NIBU minus DIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL, was lower than (\<) 10% for at least 7 out of the 10 pneumococcal serotypes.|Difference in percentages|-0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|98.25|-4.57|2.91||||||At one month after primary immunization, the difference between groups (NIBU minus DIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL were calculated for anti-pneumococccal serotype 4.||2.91|-4.57|
90911360|NCT01235949|181692007|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of non-inferiority: The upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 98.25% confidence interval (98.25% CI) (adjusted 1-sided alpha = 0.875%) of the difference between groups (NIBU minus DIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL, was lower than (\<) 10% for at least 7 out of the 10 pneumococcal serotypes.|Difference in percentages|-0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|98.25|-4.63|2.92||||||At one month after primary immunization, the difference between groups (NIBU minus DIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL were calculated for anti-pneumococccal serotype 5.||2.92|-4.63|
90911361|NCT01235949|181692007|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of non-inferiority: The upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 98.25% confidence interval (98.25% CI) (adjusted 1-sided alpha = 0.875%) of the difference between groups (NIBU minus DIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL, was lower than (\<) 10% for at least 7 out of the 10 pneumococcal serotypes.|Difference in percentages|-2.38|||||TWO_SIDED|98.25|-12.02|7.22||||||At one month after primary immunization, the difference between groups (NIBU minus DIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL were calculated for anti-pneumococccal serotype 6B.||7.22|-12.02|
90911362|NCT01235949|181692007|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of non-inferiority: The upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 98.25% confidence interval (98.25% CI) (adjusted 1-sided alpha = 0.875%) of the difference between groups (NIBU minus DIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL, was lower than (\<) 10% for at least 7 out of the 10 pneumococcal serotypes.|Difference in percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|98.25|-3.34|3.48||||||At one month after primary immunization, the difference between groups (NIBU minus DIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL were calculated for anti-pneumococccal serotype 7F.||3.48|-3.34|
90911363|NCT01235949|181692007|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of non-inferiority: The upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 98.25% confidence interval (98.25% CI) (adjusted 1-sided alpha = 0.875%) of the difference between groups (NIBU minus DIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL, was lower than (\<) 10% for at least 7 out of the 10 pneumococcal serotypes.|Difference in percentages|-1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|98.25|-5.66|2.32||||||At one month after primary immunization, the difference between groups (NIBU minus DIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL were calculated for anti-pneumococccal serotype 9V.||2.32|-5.66|
90960588|NCT00427895|181801610|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMC Ratio|1.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|2.74||||||Serotype 5: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS/23vPS).||2.74|1.45|
90960589|NCT00427895|181801610|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMC Ratio|2.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|2.76||||||Serotype 6B: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS/23vPS).||2.76|1.50|
90960590|NCT00427895|181801610|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMC Ratio|1.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|2.58||||||Serotype 7F: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS/23vPS).||2.58|1.32|
90911364|NCT01235949|181692007|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of non-inferiority: The upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 98.25% confidence interval (98.25% CI) (adjusted 1-sided alpha = 0.875%) of the difference between groups (NIBU minus DIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL, was lower than (\<) 10% for at least 7 out of the 10 pneumococcal serotypes.|Difference in percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|98.25|-4.08|4.12||||||At one month after primary immunization, the difference between groups (NIBU minus DIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL were calculated for anti-pneumococccal serotype 14.||4.12|-4.08|
90911365|NCT01235949|181692007|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of non-inferiority: The upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 98.25% confidence interval (98.25% CI) (adjusted 1-sided alpha = 0.875%) of the difference between groups (NIBU minus DIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL, was lower than (\<) 10% for at least 7 out of the 10 pneumococcal serotypes.|Difference in percentages|-0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|98.25|-5.08|3.54||||||At one month after primary immunization, the difference between groups (NIBU minus DIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL were calculated for anti-pneumococccal serotype 18C.||3.54|-5.08|
90911366|NCT01235949|181692007|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of non-inferiority: The upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 98.25% confidence interval (98.25% CI) (adjusted 1-sided alpha = 0.875%) of the difference between groups (NIBU minus DIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL, was lower than (\<) 10% for at least 7 out of the 10 pneumococcal serotypes.|Difference in percentages|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|98.25|-3.4|5.2||||||At one month after primary immunization, the difference between groups (NIBU minus DIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL were calculated for anti-pneumococccal serotype 19F.||5.2|-3.4|
90911367|NCT01235949|181692007|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of non-inferiority: The upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 98.25% confidence interval (98.25% CI) (adjusted 1-sided alpha = 0.875%) of the difference between groups (NIBU minus DIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL, was lower than (\<) 10% for at least 7 out of the 10 pneumococcal serotypes.|Difference in percentages|2.73|||||TWO_SIDED|98.25|-5.3|11.04||||||At one month after primary immunization, the difference between groups (NIBU minus DIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL were calculated for anti-pneumococccal serotype 23F.||11.04|-5.3|
90911368|NCT01235949|181692008|NON_INFERIORITY|A statistically significant decrease in GMC was established if the UL of the two-sided 99.8% CI (adjusted one-sided alpha = 0.11364%) for the GMC ratios (IIBU over NIBU) was below (\<) 1 for at least one of the 10 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.|GMC ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|99.8|0.71|1.29||||||At one month after primary immunization, ELISA Geometric Mean Concentration (GMC) ratios (IIBU over NIBU) were calculated for anti-pneumococcal serotype 1.||1.29|0.71|
90911369|NCT01235949|181692008|NON_INFERIORITY|A statistically significant decrease in GMC was established if the UL of the two-sided 99.8% CI (adjusted one-sided alpha = 0.11364%) for the GMC ratios (IIBU over NIBU) was below (\<) 1 for at least one of the 10 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.|GMC ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|99.8|0.77|1.35||||||At one month after primary immunization, ELISA Geometric Mean Concentration (GMC) ratios (IIBU over NIBU) were calculated for anti-pneumococcal serotype 4.||1.35|0.77|
90911370|NCT01235949|181692008|NON_INFERIORITY|A statistically significant decrease in GMC was established if the UL of the two-sided 99.8% CI (adjusted one-sided alpha = 0.11364%) for the GMC ratios (IIBU over NIBU) was below (\<) 1 for at least one of the 10 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.|GMC ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|99.8|0.8|1.41||||||At one month after primary immunization, ELISA Geometric Mean Concentration (GMC) ratios (IIBU over NIBU) were calculated for anti-pneumococcal serotype 5.||1.41|0.8|
90911371|NCT01235949|181692008|NON_INFERIORITY|A statistically significant decrease in GMC was established if the UL of the two-sided 99.8% CI (adjusted one-sided alpha = 0.11364%) for the GMC ratios (IIBU over NIBU) was below (\<) 1 for at least one of the 10 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.|GMC ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|99.8|0.72|1.74||||||At one month after primary immunization, ELISA Geometric Mean Concentration (GMC) ratios (IIBU over NIBU) were calculated for anti-pneumococcal serotype 6B.||1.74|0.72|
90911372|NCT01235949|181692008|NON_INFERIORITY|A statistically significant decrease in GMC was established if the UL of the two-sided 99.8% CI (adjusted one-sided alpha = 0.11364%) for the GMC ratios (IIBU over NIBU) was below (\<) 1 for at least one of the 10 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.|GMC ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|99.8|0.79|1.35||||||At one month after primary immunization, ELISA Geometric Mean Concentration (GMC) ratios (IIBU over NIBU) were calculated for anti-pneumococcal serotype 7F.||1.35|0.79|
90911373|NCT01235949|181692008|NON_INFERIORITY|A statistically significant decrease in GMC was established if the UL of the two-sided 99.8% CI (adjusted one-sided alpha = 0.11364%) for the GMC ratios (IIBU over NIBU) was below (\<) 1 for at least one of the 10 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.|GMC ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|99.8|0.7|1.31||||||At one month after primary immunization, ELISA Geometric Mean Concentration (GMC) ratios (IIBU over NIBU) were calculated for anti-pneumococcal serotype 9V.||1.31|0.7|
90911374|NCT01235949|181692008|NON_INFERIORITY|A statistically significant decrease in GMC was established if the UL of the two-sided 99.8% CI (adjusted one-sided alpha = 0.11364%) for the GMC ratios (IIBU over NIBU) was below (\<) 1 for at least one of the 10 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.|GMC ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|99.8|0.71|1.4||||||At one month after primary immunization, ELISA Geometric Mean Concentration (GMC) ratios (IIBU over NIBU) were calculated for anti-pneumococcal serotype 14.||1.4|0.71|
90911375|NCT01235949|181692008|NON_INFERIORITY|A statistically significant decrease in GMC was established if the UL of the two-sided 99.8% CI (adjusted one-sided alpha = 0.11364%) for the GMC ratios (IIBU over NIBU) was below (\<) 1 for at least one of the 10 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.|GMC ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|99.8|0.6|1.31||||||At one month after primary immunization, ELISA Geometric Mean Concentration (GMC) ratios (IIBU over NIBU) were calculated for anti-pneumococcal serotype 18C.||1.31|0.6|
90940436|NCT03897049|181760739|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.27||||0.942|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.942
90940437|NCT03897049|181760740|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02||||0.741|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.741
90940438|NCT03897049|181760741|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07||||0.494|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.494
90911376|NCT01235949|181692008|NON_INFERIORITY|A statistically significant decrease in GMC was established if the UL of the two-sided 99.8% CI (adjusted one-sided alpha = 0.11364%) for the GMC ratios (IIBU over NIBU) was below (\<) 1 for at least one of the 10 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.|GMC ratio|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|99.8|0.87|1.75||||||At one month after primary immunization, ELISA Geometric Mean Concentration (GMC) ratios (IIBU over NIBU) were calculated for anti-pneumococcal serotype 19F.||1.75|0.87|
90911377|NCT01235949|181692008|NON_INFERIORITY|A statistically significant decrease in GMC was established if the UL of the two-sided 99.8% CI (adjusted one-sided alpha = 0.11364%) for the GMC ratios (IIBU over NIBU) was below (\<) 1 for at least one of the 10 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.|GMC ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|99.8|0.66|1.44||||||At one month after primary immunization, ELISA Geometric Mean Concentration (GMC) ratios (IIBU over NIBU) were calculated for anti-pneumococcal serotype 23F.||1.44|0.66|
90911378|NCT01235949|181692008|NON_INFERIORITY|A statistically significant decrease in GMC was established if the UL of the two-sided 99.8% CI (adjusted one-sided alpha = 0.11364%) for the GMC ratios (DIBU over NIBU) was below (\<) 1 for at least one of the 10 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.|GMC ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|99.8|0.67|1.21||||||At one month after primary immunization, ELISA Geometric Mean Concentration (GMC) ratios (DIBU over NIBU) were calculated for anti-pneumococcal serotype 1.||1.21|0.67|
90911379|NCT01235949|181692008|NON_INFERIORITY|A statistically significant decrease in GMC was established if the UL of the two-sided 99.8% CI (adjusted one-sided alpha = 0.11364%) for the GMC ratios (DIBU over NIBU) was below (\<) 1 for at least one of the 10 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.|GMC ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|99.8|0.76|1.32||||||At one month after primary immunization, ELISA Geometric Mean Concentration (GMC) ratios (DIBU over NIBU) were calculated for anti-pneumococcal serotype 4.||1.32|0.76|
90911380|NCT01235949|181692008|NON_INFERIORITY|A statistically significant decrease in GMC was established if the UL of the two-sided 99.8% CI (adjusted one-sided alpha = 0.11364%) for the GMC ratios (DIBU over NIBU) was below (\<) 1 for at least one of the 10 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.|GMC ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|99.8|0.66|1.14||||||At one month after primary immunization, ELISA Geometric Mean Concentration (GMC) ratios (DIBU over NIBU) were calculated for anti-pneumococcal serotype 5.||1.14|0.66|
90911381|NCT01235949|181692008|NON_INFERIORITY|A statistically significant decrease in GMC was established if the UL of the two-sided 99.8% CI (adjusted one-sided alpha = 0.11364%) for the GMC ratios (DIBU over NIBU) was below (\<) 1 for at least one of the 10 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.|GMC ratio|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|99.8|0.83|1.97||||||At one month after primary immunization, ELISA Geometric Mean Concentration (GMC) ratios (DIBU over NIBU) were calculated for anti-pneumococcal serotype 6B.||1.97|0.83|
90960591|NCT00427895|181801610|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMC Ratio|1.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|2.62||||||Serotype 9V: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS/23vPS).||2.62|1.46|
90911382|NCT01235949|181692008|NON_INFERIORITY|A statistically significant decrease in GMC was established if the UL of the two-sided 99.8% CI (adjusted one-sided alpha = 0.11364%) for the GMC ratios (DIBU over NIBU) was below (\<) 1 for at least one of the 10 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.|GMC ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|99.8|0.8|1.31||||||At one month after primary immunization, ELISA Geometric Mean Concentration (GMC) ratios (DIBU over NIBU) were calculated for anti-pneumococcal serotype 7F.||1.31|0.8|
90911383|NCT01235949|181692008|NON_INFERIORITY|A statistically significant decrease in GMC was established if the UL of the two-sided 99.8% CI (adjusted one-sided alpha = 0.11364%) for the GMC ratios (DIBU over NIBU) was below (\<) 1 for at least one of the 10 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.|GMC ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|99.8|0.69|1.22||||||At one month after primary immunization, ELISA Geometric Mean Concentration (GMC) ratios (DIBU over NIBU) were calculated for anti-pneumococcal serotype 9V.||1.22|0.69|
90911384|NCT01235949|181692008|NON_INFERIORITY|A statistically significant decrease in GMC was established if the UL of the two-sided 99.8% CI (adjusted one-sided alpha = 0.11364%) for the GMC ratios (DIBU over NIBU) was below (\<) 1 for at least one of the 10 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.|GMC ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|99.8|0.68|1.32||||||At one month after primary immunization, ELISA Geometric Mean Concentration (GMC) ratios (DIBU over NIBU) were calculated for anti-pneumococcal serotype 14.||1.32|0.68|
90911385|NCT01235949|181692008|NON_INFERIORITY|A statistically significant decrease in GMC was established if the UL of the two-sided 99.8% CI (adjusted one-sided alpha = 0.11364%) for the GMC ratios (DIBU over NIBU) was below (\<) 1 for at least one of the 10 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.|GMC ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|99.8|0.6|1.27||||||At one month after primary immunization, ELISA Geometric Mean Concentration (GMC) ratios (DIBU over NIBU) were calculated for anti-pneumococcal serotype 18C.||1.27|0.6|
90870192|NCT04786990|181601825|OTHER|||||||0.1542||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4 versus Week 8||||0.1542
90870193|NCT04786990|181601826|OTHER|||||||0.0086||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4 versus Week 8||||0.0086
90870194|NCT04786990|181601827|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4||||<0.0001
90870195|NCT04786990|181601827|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 8||||<0.0001
90870196|NCT04786990|181601828|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4||||<0.0001
90911386|NCT01235949|181692008|NON_INFERIORITY|A statistically significant decrease in GMC was established if the UL of the two-sided 99.8% CI (adjusted one-sided alpha = 0.11364%) for the GMC ratios (DIBU over NIBU) was below (\<) 1 for at least one of the 10 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.|GMC ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|99.8|0.72|1.44||||||At one month after primary immunization, ELISA Geometric Mean Concentration (GMC) ratios (DIBU over NIBU) were calculated for anti-pneumococcal serotype 19F.||1.44|0.72|
90911387|NCT01235949|181692008|NON_INFERIORITY|A statistically significant decrease in GMC was established if the UL of the two-sided 99.8% CI (adjusted one-sided alpha = 0.11364%) for the GMC ratios (DIBU over NIBU) was below (\<) 1 for at least one of the 10 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.|GMC ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|99.8|0.58|1.27||||||At one month after primary immunization, ELISA Geometric Mean Concentration (GMC) ratios (DIBU over NIBU) were calculated for anti-pneumococcal serotype 23F.||1.27|0.58|
90911388|NCT01235949|181692009|NON_INFERIORITY|A statistically significant decrease in GMC was established if the UL of the two-sided 99.8% CI (adjusted one-sided alpha = 0.11364%) for the GMC ratios (IIBU over NIBU) was below (\<) 1 for protein D.|GMC ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|99.8|0.69|1.28||||||At one month after primary immunization, ELISA Geometric Mean Concentration (GMC) ratios (IIBU over NIBU) were calculated for anti-Protein D (anti-PD) antibody.||1.28|0.69|
90911389|NCT01235949|181692009|NON_INFERIORITY|A statistically significant decrease in GMC was established if the UL of the two-sided 99.8% CI (adjusted one-sided alpha = 0.11364%) for the GMC ratios (DIBU over NIBU) was below (\<) 1 for protein D.|GMC ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|99.8|0.64|1.17||||||At one month after primary immunization, ELISA Geometric Mean Concentration (GMC) ratios (DIBU over NIBU) were calculated for anti-Protein D (anti-PD) antibody.||1.17|0.64|
90911390|NCT01490580|181692054|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.4||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|8.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.1|-21.0|0.38
90911391|NCT02026258|181692073|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.52|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Based on previous findings, it takes approximately 117 ± 46 days for complete alignment of the mandibular anterior teeth in subjects with severe crowding treated without extractions. For a clinically significant 40% faster alignment in the piezotome-corticision group compared to the control group at an alpha-level (p = 0.05) and desired power of 80%, a sample size of 28 subjects (14 per group) was required. Twenty subjects per group assuming an overall attrition rate of 28%.||||<0.05
90870197|NCT04786990|181601828|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 8||||<0.0001
90870198|NCT04786990|181601829|OTHER|||||||0.5582||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data.|t-test, 2 sided|||"Week 4; Morning PR-ADHD-RS-5 Total score versus Evening PR-ADHD-RS-5 Total score"||||0.5582
90870199|NCT04786990|181601830|OTHER|||||||0.5061||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data.|t-test, 2 sided|||"Week 8; Morning PR-ADHD-RS-5 Total score versus Evening PR-ADHD-RS-5 Total score"||||0.5061
90870200|NCT02846779|181601833|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.03||||||||1.03|0.75|
90870201|NCT02846779|181601833|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.06||||||||1.06|0.77|
90870202|NCT02846779|181601834|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.05||||||||0.05|-0.34|
90870203|NCT02846779|181601834|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.06||||||||-0.06|-0.43|
90870204|NCT02846779|181601835|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.11||||||||1.11|0.95|
90870205|NCT02846779|181601835|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.06||||||||1.06|0.92|
90870206|NCT02846779|181601836|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.02||||||||1.02|0.97|
90870207|NCT02846779|181601836|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.0||||||||1.00|0.96|
90870208|NCT02846779|181601837|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|1.53||||||||1.53|1.24|
90870209|NCT02846779|181601837|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.07||||||||1.07|0.85|
90870210|NCT02846779|181601838|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.41||||||||1.41|1.06|
90870211|NCT02846779|181601838|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.32||||||||1.32|0.99|
90911392|NCT02026258|181692074|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||VAS T0||||<0.05
90911393|NCT02026258|181692074|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||VAS T1||||<0.05
90911394|NCT02026258|181692074|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||VAS T2||||<0.05
90911395|NCT02026258|181692074|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.76|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||VAS T3||||<0.05
90911396|NCT02026258|181692075|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.87|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Ease of Procedure||||<0.05
90911397|NCT02026258|181692075|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.69|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Satisfaction with procedure||||<0.05
90911398|NCT02026258|181692076|OTHER||Fisher chi square|0.71|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|Use of Medications||||||<0.05
90870212|NCT00887978|181601842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann (H-L)|10.0||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|22.0|||non-parametric ANCOVA|||Using an allocation ratio of 1:1 between UT-15C SR and placebo, a fixed sample size of approximately 266 subjects would provide at least 90% power at a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided hypothesis) to detect a 30 meter between-treatment difference in the change from Baseline in distance traversed during the 6-Minute Walk, assuming a standard deviation of 75 meters. A total sample size of approximately 300 subjects was determined to account for discontinuations during the enrollment period.||22.0|-2.0|0.089
90911399|NCT02026258|181692076|OTHER||Fisher chi square|0.99|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Undergo procedure again||||<0.05
90911400|NCT02026258|181692076|OTHER||Fisher chi square|0.49|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Recommend procedure to a friend||||<0.05
90911401|NCT02534350|181692077|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.1||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.63|||ANCOVA|||||0.63|-0.43|0.72
90911402|NCT02534350|181692078|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.12||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.69|||ANCOVA|||||0.69|-0.94|0.76
90911403|NCT02534350|181692079|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.01||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.15|||ANCOVA|||||0.15|-0.12|0.86
90911404|NCT02534350|181692080|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-3.25||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.58|9.08|||ANCOVA|||||9.08|-15.58|0.60
90911405|NCT00972504|181692081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.1||||||||-0.1|-1.2|
90911406|NCT00972504|181692081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.8||||||||-0.8|-1.8|
90911407|NCT00972504|181692081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.8||||||||-0.8|-1.9|
90911408|NCT00972504|181692082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.3|||||Comparison of Nasal Blockage between Placebo and GSK1004723 1000 µg once daily.|||0.3|-0.0|
90911409|NCT00972504|181692082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.1|||||Comparison of Nasal Blockage between Placebo and GSK835726 10 mg once daily.|||-0.1|-0.4|
90911410|NCT00972504|181692082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.1|||||Comparison of Nasal Blockage between Placebo and Cetirizine 10 mg once daily.|||-0.1|-0.4|
90911411|NCT00972504|181692082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.1|||||Comparison of Rhinorrhoea between Placebo and GSK1004723 1000 µg once daily.|||-0.1|-0.4|
90911412|NCT00972504|181692082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.2|||||Comparison of Rhinorrhoea between Placebo and GSK835726 10 mg once daily.|||-0.2|-0.6|
90911413|NCT00972504|181692082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.3|||||Comparison of Rhinorrhoea between Placebo and Cetirizine 10 mg once daily.|||-0.3|-0.6|
90911414|NCT00972504|181692082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.1|||||Comparison of Nasal Itching between Placebo and GSK1004723 1000 µg once daily.|||-0.1|-0.4|
90911415|NCT00972504|181692082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.2|||||Comparison of Nasal Itching between Placebo and GSK835726 10 mg once daily.|||-0.2|-0.5|
90911416|NCT00972504|181692082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.2|||||Comparison of Nasal Itching between Placebo and Cetirizine 10 mg once daily.|||-0.2|-0.5|
90911417|NCT00972504|181692082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.2|||||Comparison of Sneezing between Placebo and GSK1004723 1000 µg once daily.|||-0.2|-0.5|
90911418|NCT00972504|181692082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.2|||||Comparison of Sneezing between Placebo and GSK835726 10mg once daily.|||-0.2|-0.4|
90911419|NCT00972504|181692082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.2|||||Comparison of Sneezing between Placebo and Cetirizine 10mg once daily.|||-0.2|-0.5|
90911420|NCT00972504|181692083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.041|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4194|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|-0.212||||||||-0.212|-1.870|
90911421|NCT00972504|181692083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4172|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.584|-0.936||||||||-0.936|-2.584|
90911422|NCT00972504|181692083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.792|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4224|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.626|-1.957||||||||-1.957|-3.626|
90870213|NCT00887978|181601843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
90870214|NCT00887978|181601844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann (H-L) Estimate|0.0||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||0.0|-1.0|0.22
90870215|NCT00887978|181601845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann (H-L) estimate|0.0||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||Imputation strategies were implemented for the 26 UT-15C subjects and 17 placebo subjects without values reported at Week 16.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||0.0|0.0|0.43
90911423|NCT00972504|181692084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.306|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.93||||||||0.93|-0.28|
90911424|NCT00972504|181692084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.305|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|-0.45||||||||-0.45|-1.65|
90911425|NCT00972504|181692084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.308||||95.0|-1.68|-0.46||||||||-0.46|-1.68|
90870216|NCT00887978|181601847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann (H-L) estimate|0.0||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||1.0|0.0|0.30
90870217|NCT00887978|181601850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehman Estimate|14.0||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|28.0|||ANCOVA|||||28.0|0.0|0.058
90870218|NCT00887978|181601851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann Estimate|15.0||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|29.0|||ANCOVA|||||29.0|-1.0|0.054
90870219|NCT00887978|181601853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehman Estimate|4.0||||0.674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|24.0|||ANCOVA|||||24.0|-16.0|0.674
90870220|NCT00887978|181601854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann Estimate|28.0||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|59.0|||ANCOVA|||||59.0|1.0|0.059
90870221|NCT00887978|181601855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann Estimate|10.0||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|31.0|||ANCOVA|||||31.0|-10.0|0.22
90870222|NCT00887978|181601856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann Estimate|3.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.0|28.0|||ANCOVA|||||28.0|-23.0|0.99
90870223|NCT00887978|181601857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann Estimate|-2.0||||0.84||95.0|-25.0|22.0|||ANCOVA|||||22.0|-25.0|0.84
90911426|NCT00716144|181692087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.884|||||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||||||0.884
90870224|NCT05353985|181601860|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.017|||=|0.847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.162|0.197||P-value was based on a MMRM analysis with treatment group, week, treatment-by-week interaction, \& the randomization stratification factors as fixed effects \& baseline CDSD GI symptom severity scores as covariates, and participant as a random effect.|MMRM|||||0.197|-0.162|=0.847
90870225|NCT05353985|181601861|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.331|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.481|-0.181||P-value was based on a ANCOVA model with treatment group and randomization stratification factors as fixed effects and baseline Vh:Cd as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||-0.181|-0.481|<0.001
90870226|NCT00040937|181601865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||4-yr survival (%)|64.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.0|74.0|||Kaplan and Meier|||The study was designed to have 82% power for detecting a 50% improvement in survival from a median of 4 years, as observed in SWOG S9321.||74|55|
90870227|NCT00410046|181601866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Admissions to hospital||||1.0
90870228|NCT00410046|181601866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||Fisher Exact|||Therapeutic warm bath sessions||||0.23
90870229|NCT00410046|181601866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.567|||||||Fisher Exact|||Physiotherapist visits||||0.567
90870230|NCT00410046|181601866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.475|||||||Fisher Exact|||Out-patient physician visit||||0.475
90870231|NCT00410046|181601867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.628|||||||ANCOVA|One-way ANCOVA, baseline was a covariate.||Inpatient hospitalization days per patient||||0.628
90870232|NCT00410046|181601867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.045|||||||ANCOVA|||Therapeutic warm bath sessions per patient||||0.045
90870233|NCT00410046|181601867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.361|||||||ANCOVA|||Physiotherapist visits per patient||||0.361
90870234|NCT00410046|181601867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.816|||||||ANCOVA|||Out-patient physician visit per patient||||0.816
90870235|NCT00410046|181601868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Analysis completed for patients with sick leave during the past 12 months||||1.00
90870236|NCT00410046|181601869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.906|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.906
90870237|NCT00410046|181601874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.743||||||Comparison of Hospitalization 48 weeks before treatment Vs. Hospitalization during 48 treatment weeks|Fisher Exact|||||||0.743
90870238|NCT00410046|181601874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.362||||||Comparison of Therapeutic warm bath 48 weeks before treatment Vs. Therapeutic warm bath during 48 treatment weeks|Fisher Exact|||Comparison of percentages||||0.362
90870239|NCT00410046|181601874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||||||Comparison of Visit to physiotherapist 48 weeks before treatment Vs. Visit to physiotherapist during 48 treatment weeks|Fisher Exact|||||||0.005
90870240|NCT00410046|181601874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.091||||||Comparison of Out-patient physician 48 weeks before treatment Vs. Out-patient physician during 48 treatment weeks|Fisher Exact|||||||0.091
90870241|NCT00410046|181601875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.576||||||Comparison of Sick leave 48 weeks before treatment Vs. Sick leave during 48 weeks of treatment|Fisher Exact|||||||0.576
90870242|NCT01075204|181601882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.334||95.0|||||Chi-squared|9 degrees of freedom.||Logistic regression: Omnibus Test of Model Coefficients (all the nine variables are considered together).||||0.334
90870243|NCT02310568|181601901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.01||0.784|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.8|3.9|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1.||3.9|-2.8|0.784
90870244|NCT02310568|181601901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.94||0.184|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|5.8|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1.||5.8|-0.6|0.184
90870245|NCT02310568|181601901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.22||0.36|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.7|1.6|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1.||1.6|-5.7|0.360
90870246|NCT02310568|181601903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.36||0.708|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.2|5.0|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Week 5: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||5.0|-3.2|0.708
90911427|NCT00716144|181692088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||At Visit 3||||1.000
90911428|NCT00716144|181692088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.604|||||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||At Visit 4||||0.604
90911429|NCT00716144|181692088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.463|||||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||At Visit 5||||0.463
90911430|NCT00716144|181692088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.042|||||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||At Visit 6||||0.042
90911431|NCT00716144|181692088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034|||||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||At Visit 7||||0.034
90911432|NCT00716144|181692088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019|||||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||At Visit 8||||0.019
90870247|NCT02310568|181601903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.36||0.646|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.2|3.0|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Week 5: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||3.0|-5.2|0.646
90870248|NCT02310568|181601903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.09||0.352|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.6|5.6|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Week 5: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||5.6|-1.6|0.352
90870249|NCT02310568|181601903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.99||0.495|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.1|7.3|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Week 6: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||7.3|-3.1|0.495
90870250|NCT02310568|181601903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.99||0.422|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.7|7.6|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Week 6: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||7.6|-2.7|0.422
90870251|NCT02310568|181601903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.65||0.889|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.0|4.2|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Week 6: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||4.2|-5.0|0.889
90870252|NCT02310568|181601903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.71||0.324||90.0|-2.0|7.4|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Week 7: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||7.4|-2.0|0.324
90870253|NCT02310568|181601903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.69||0.939|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.5|4.9|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Week 7: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||4.9|-4.5|0.939
90870254|NCT02310568|181601903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.42||0.308|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.7|6.7|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Week 7: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||6.7|-1.7|0.308
90911433|NCT00716144|181692090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||At Visit 3||||1.000
90911434|NCT00716144|181692090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.673|||||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||At Visit 4||||0.673
90870255|NCT02310568|181601903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.92||0.846|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.0|7.6|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Week 8: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||7.6|-6.0|0.846
90870256|NCT02310568|181601903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.89||0.449|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.8|3.7|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Week 8: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||3.7|-9.8|0.449
90870257|NCT02310568|181601903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.51||0.295|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.3|9.9|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Week 8: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||9.9|-2.3|0.295
90870258|NCT02310568|181601905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.72||0.514|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.0|1.7|||ANCOVA|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Total Score (Week 4): The ANCOVA model included change from baseline as dependent variable, and treatment and baseline in the model. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 is Week 4 (Day 28). The estimates from Stage 1 and the Stage 2 were combined together using a weighted mean (weight=0.5) and assuming the covariance between the two treatment effect estimates is zero.||1.7|-4.0|0.514
90911435|NCT00716144|181692090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55|||||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||At Visit 5||||0.550
90911436|NCT00716144|181692090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.721|||||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||At Visit 7||||0.721
90911437|NCT00716144|181692090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||At Visit 8||||0.030
90911438|NCT00880048|181692091|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.6||||0.0133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.87|-0.34|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30mg: Week 1||-0.34|-2.87|0.0133
90911439|NCT00880048|181692091|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.26||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.54|-0.98|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60mg: Week 1||-0.98|-3.54|0.0006
90911440|NCT00880048|181692091|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.57||||0.0394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.06|-0.08|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 2||-0.08|-3.06|0.0394
90911441|NCT00880048|181692091|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.65||||0.0332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.16|-0.13|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60mg: Week 2||-0.13|-3.16|0.0332
90911442|NCT00880048|181692091|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.82||||0.0601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.71|0.08|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30mg: Week 4||0.08|-3.71|0.0601
90911443|NCT00880048|181692091|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.03||||0.0369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.94|-0.12|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60mg: Week 4||-0.12|-3.94|0.0369
90940439|NCT03897049|181760742|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.15||||0.651|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.651
90870259|NCT02310568|181601905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.65||0.302|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.5|1.0|||ANCOVA|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Total Score (Week 4): The ANCOVA model included change from baseline as dependent variable, and treatment and baseline in the model. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 is Week 4 (Day 28). The estimates from Stage 1 and the Stage 2 were combined together using a weighted mean (weight=0.5) and assuming the covariance between the two treatment effect estimates is zero.||1.0|-4.5|0.302
90870260|NCT02310568|181601905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.94||0.736|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.6|3.8|||ANCOVA|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Total Score (Week 4): The ANCOVA model included change from baseline as dependent variable, and treatment and baseline in the model. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 is Week 4 (Day 28). The estimates from Stage 1 and the Stage 2 were combined together using a weighted mean (weight=0.5) and assuming the covariance between the two treatment effect estimates is zero.||3.8|-2.6|0.736
90870261|NCT02310568|181601905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.85||0.775|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.6|7.8|||ANCOVA|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Total Score (Week 8): The ANCOVA model included change from baseline as dependent variable, and treatment and baseline in the model. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 is Week 4 (Day 28). The estimates from Stage 1 and the Stage 2 were combined together using a weighted mean (weight=0.5) and assuming the covariance between the two treatment effect estimates is zero.||7.8|-5.6|0.775
90870262|NCT02310568|181601905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0||0.553|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.4|4.5|||ANCOVA|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Total Score (Week 8): The ANCOVA model included change from baseline as dependent variable, and treatment and baseline in the model. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 is Week 4 (Day 28). The estimates from Stage 1 and the Stage 2 were combined together using a weighted mean (weight=0.5) and assuming the covariance between the two treatment effect estimates is zero.||4.5|-9.4|0.553
90870263|NCT02310568|181601905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3||0.299|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.2|9.3|||ANCOVA|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Total Score ( Week 8): The ANCOVA model included change from baseline as dependent variable, and treatment and baseline in the model. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 is Week 4 (Day 28). The estimates from Stage 1 and the Stage 2 were combined together using a weighted mean (weight=0.5) and assuming the covariance between the two treatment effect estimates is zero.||9.3|-2.2|0.299
90870264|NCT02310568|181601905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.994|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.1|1.1|||ANCOVA|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Social Sub-Scale Score (Week 4): The ANCOVA model included change from baseline as dependent variable, and treatment and baseline in the model. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 is Week 4 (Day 28). The estimates from Stage 1 and the Stage 2 were combined together using a weighted mean (weight=0.5) and assuming the covariance between the two treatment effect estimates is zero.||1.1|-1.1|0.994
90870265|NCT02310568|181601905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.87|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.9|1.1|||ANCOVA|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Social Sub-Scale Score (Week 4): The ANCOVA model included change from baseline as dependent variable, and treatment and baseline in the model. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 is Week 4 (Day 28). The estimates from Stage 1 and the Stage 2 were combined together using a weighted mean (weight=0.5) and assuming the covariance between the two treatment effect estimates is zero.||1.1|-0.9|0.870
90870266|NCT02310568|181601905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.885|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.3|1.1|||ANCOVA|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Social Sub-Scale Score (Week 4): The ANCOVA model included change from baseline as dependent variable, and treatment and baseline in the model. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 is Week 4 (Day 28). The estimates from Stage 1 and the Stage 2 were combined together using a weighted mean (weight=0.5) and assuming the covariance between the two treatment effect estimates is zero.||1.1|-1.3|0.885
90870267|NCT02310568|181601905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.78||0.834|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.5|2.7|||ANCOVA|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Social Sub-Scale Score (Week 8): The ANCOVA model included change from baseline as dependent variable, and treatment and baseline in the model. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 is Week 4 (Day 28). The estimates from Stage 1 and the Stage 2 were combined together using a weighted mean (weight=0.5) and assuming the covariance between the two treatment effect estimates is zero.||2.7|-3.5|0.834
90870268|NCT02310568|181601905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.281|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.1|1.1|||ANCOVA|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Social Sub-Scale Score (Week 8): The ANCOVA model included change from baseline as dependent variable, and treatment and baseline in the model. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 is Week 4 (Day 28). The estimates from Stage 1 and the Stage 2 were combined together using a weighted mean (weight=0.5) and assuming the covariance between the two treatment effect estimates is zero.||1.1|-5.1|0.281
90911444|NCT00880048|181692091|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.67||||0.1122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.73|0.39|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30mg: Week 6||0.39|-3.73|0.1122
90870269|NCT02310568|181601905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.43||0.272|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.9|4.1|||ANCOVA|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Social Sub-Scale Score (Week 8): The ANCOVA model included change from baseline as dependent variable, and treatment and baseline in the model. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 is Week 4 (Day 28). The estimates from Stage 1 and the Stage 2 were combined together using a weighted mean (weight=0.5) and assuming the covariance between the two treatment effect estimates is zero.||4.1|-0.9|0.272
90870270|NCT02310568|181601905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.249|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.1|0.4|||ANCOVA|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Work Sub-Scale Score (Week 4): The ANCOVA model included change from baseline as dependent variable, and treatment and baseline in the model. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 is Week 4 (Day 28). The estimates from Stage 1 and the Stage 2 were combined together using a weighted mean (weight=0.5) and assuming the covariance between the two treatment effect estimates is zero.||0.4|-2.1|0.249
90870271|NCT02310568|181601905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.016|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.9|-0.6|||ANCOVA|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Work Sub-Scale Score (Week 4): The ANCOVA model included change from baseline as dependent variable, and treatment and baseline in the model. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 is Week 4 (Day 28). The estimates from Stage 1 and the Stage 2 were combined together using a weighted mean (weight=0.5) and assuming the covariance between the two treatment effect estimates is zero.||-0.6|-2.9|0.016
90870272|NCT02310568|181601905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.285|TWO_SIDED|0.285|-0.5|2.3|||ANCOVA|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Work Sub-Scale Score (Week 4): The ANCOVA model included change from baseline as dependent variable, and treatment and baseline in the model. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 is Week 4 (Day 28). The estimates from Stage 1 and the Stage 2 were combined together using a weighted mean (weight=0.5) and assuming the covariance between the two treatment effect estimates is zero.||2.3|-0.5|0.285
90870273|NCT02310568|181601905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38||0.635|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.1|1.8|||ANCOVA|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Work Sub-Scale Score ( Week 8): The ANCOVA model included change from baseline as dependent variable, and treatment and baseline in the model. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 is Week 4 (Day 28). The estimates from Stage 1 and the Stage 2 were combined together using a weighted mean (weight=0.5) and assuming the covariance between the two treatment effect estimates is zero.||1.8|-3.1|0.635
90870274|NCT02310568|181601905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.43||0.217|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.4|0.7|||ANCOVA|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Work Sub-Scale Score (Week 8): The ANCOVA model included change from baseline as dependent variable, and treatment and baseline in the model. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 is Week 4 (Day 28). The estimates from Stage 1 and the Stage 2 were combined together using a weighted mean (weight=0.5) and assuming the covariance between the two treatment effect estimates is zero.||0.7|-4.4|0.217
90870275|NCT02310568|181601905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36||0.399|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.2|3.6|||ANCOVA|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Work Sub-Scale Score (Week 8): The ANCOVA model included change from baseline as dependent variable, and treatment and baseline in the model. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 is Week 4 (Day 28). The estimates from Stage 1 and the Stage 2 were combined together using a weighted mean (weight=0.5) and assuming the covariance between the two treatment effect estimates is zero.||3.6|-1.2|0.399
90870276|NCT02310568|181601905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.429|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.5|0.5|||ANCOVA|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Family Sub-Scale Score (Week 4): The ANCOVA model included change from baseline as dependent variable, and treatment and baseline in the model. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 is Week 4 (Day 28). The estimates from Stage 1 and the Stage 2 were combined together using a weighted mean (weight=0.5) and assuming the covariance between the two treatment effect estimates is zero.||0.5|-1.5|0.429
90870277|NCT02310568|181601905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.26|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.7|0.3|||ANCOVA|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Family Sub-Scale Score (Week 4): The ANCOVA model included change from baseline as dependent variable, and treatment and baseline in the model. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 is Week 4 (Day 28). The estimates from Stage 1 and the Stage 2 were combined together using a weighted mean (weight=0.5) and assuming the covariance between the two treatment effect estimates is zero.||0.3|-1.7|0.260
90870278|NCT02310568|181601905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.799|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|1.3|||ANCOVA|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Family Sub-Scale Score (Week 4): The ANCOVA model included change from baseline as dependent variable, and treatment and baseline in the model. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 is Week 4 (Day 28). The estimates from Stage 1 and the Stage 2 were combined together using a weighted mean (weight=0.5) and assuming the covariance between the two treatment effect estimates is zero.||1.3|-1.0|0.799
90911445|NCT00880048|181692091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.76||||0.4713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.85|1.32|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60mg: Week 6||1.32|-2.85|0.4713
90911446|NCT00880048|181692092|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.15||||0.2232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|7.39|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GW823296 30mg: Week 1||7.39|0.63|0.2232
90911447|NCT00880048|181692092|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.15||||0.0559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|10.2|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GW823296 60mg: Week 1||10.2|0.97|0.0559
90911448|NCT00880048|181692092|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.52||||0.3395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|3.61|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GW823296 30mg: Week 2||3.61|0.64|0.3395
90870279|NCT02310568|181601905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.22||0.738|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.7|2.5|||ANCOVA|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Family Sub-Scale Score (Week 8): The ANCOVA model included change from baseline as dependent variable, and treatment and baseline in the model. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 is Week 4 (Day 28). The estimates from Stage 1 and the Stage 2 were combined together using a weighted mean (weight=0.5) and assuming the covariance between the two treatment effect estimates is zero.||2.5|-1.7|0.738
90870280|NCT02310568|181601905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|-0.5||0.691|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.7|1.7|||ANCOVA|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Family Sub-Scale Score (Week 8): The ANCOVA model included change from baseline as dependent variable, and treatment and baseline in the model. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 is Week 4 (Day 28). The estimates from Stage 1 and the Stage 2 were combined together using a weighted mean (weight=0.5) and assuming the covariance between the two treatment effect estimates is zero.||1.7|-2.7|0.691
90870281|NCT02310568|181601905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.417|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|2.9|||ANCOVA|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Family Sub-Scale Score (Week 8): The ANCOVA model included change from baseline as dependent variable, and treatment and baseline in the model. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 is Week 4 (Day 28). The estimates from Stage 1 and the Stage 2 were combined together using a weighted mean (weight=0.5) and assuming the covariance between the two treatment effect estimates is zero.||2.9|-1.0|0.417
90870282|NCT02310568|181601905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.11||0.998|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.7|3.7|||ANCOVA|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Total Score (Combined Stage 1 and Stage 2): The ANCOVA model included change from baseline as dependent variable, and treatment and baseline in the model. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 is Week 4 (Day 28). The estimates from Stage 1 and the Stage 2 were combined together using a weighted mean (weight=0.5) and assuming the covariance between the two treatment effect estimates is zero.||3.7|-3.7|0.998
90870283|NCT02310568|181601905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.16||0.353|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.8|1.7|||ANCOVA|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Total Score (Combined Stage 1 and Stage 2): The ANCOVA model included change from baseline as dependent variable, and treatment and baseline in the model. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 is Week 4 (Day 28). The estimates from Stage 1 and the Stage 2 were combined together using a weighted mean (weight=0.5) and assuming the covariance between the two treatment effect estimates is zero.||1.7|-5.8|0.353
90870284|NCT02310568|181601905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.92||0.296|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.3|5.4|||ANCOVA|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Total Score (Combined Stage 1 and Stage 2): The ANCOVA model included change from baseline as dependent variable, and treatment and baseline in the model. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 is Week 4 (Day 28). The estimates from Stage 1 and the Stage 2 were combined together using a weighted mean (weight=0.5) and assuming the covariance between the two treatment effect estimates is zero.||5.4|-1.3|0.296
90870285|NCT02310568|181601905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.841|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.8|1.5|||ANCOVA|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Social Sub-Scale Score (Combined Stage 1 and Stage 2): The ANCOVA model included change from baseline as dependent variable, and treatment and baseline in the model. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 is Week 4 (Day 28). The estimates from Stage 1 and the Stage 2 were combined together using a weighted mean (weight=0.5) and assuming the covariance between the two treatment effect estimates is zero.||1.5|-1.8|0.841
90870286|NCT02310568|181601905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.332|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.6|0.7|||ANCOVA|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Social Sub-Scale Score (Combined Stage 1 and Stage 2): The ANCOVA model included change from baseline as dependent variable, and treatment and baseline in the model. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 is Week 4 (Day 28). The estimates from Stage 1 and the Stage 2 were combined together using a weighted mean (weight=0.5) and assuming the covariance between the two treatment effect estimates is zero.||0.7|-2.6|0.332
90870287|NCT02310568|181601905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.359|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|2.2|||ANCOVA|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Social Sub-Scale Score (Combined Stage 1 and Stage 2): The ANCOVA model included change from baseline as dependent variable, and treatment and baseline in the model. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 is Week 4 (Day 28). The estimates from Stage 1 and the Stage 2 were combined together using a weighted mean (weight=0.5) and assuming the covariance between the two treatment effect estimates is zero.||2.2|-0.6|0.359
90870288|NCT02310568|181601905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.347|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.1|0.6|||ANCOVA|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Work Sub-Scale Score (Combined Stage 1 and Stage 2): The ANCOVA model included change from baseline as dependent variable, and treatment and baseline in the model. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 is Week 4 (Day 28). The estimates from Stage 1 and the Stage 2 were combined together using a weighted mean (weight=0.5) and assuming the covariance between the two treatment effect estimates is zero.||0.6|-2.1|0.347
90911449|NCT00880048|181692092|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.4256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|3.5|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GW823296 60mg: Week 2||3.50|0.59|0.4256
90911450|NCT00880048|181692092|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|2.64|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GW823296 30mg: Week 4||2.64|0.69|0.3790
90911451|NCT00880048|181692092|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.2554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.86|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GW823296 60mg: Week 4||2.86|0.76|0.2554
90870289|NCT02310568|181601905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.041|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.2|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Work Sub-Scale Score (Combined Stage 1 and Stage 2): The ANCOVA model included change from baseline as dependent variable, and treatment and baseline in the model. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 is Week 4 (Day 28). The estimates from Stage 1 and the Stage 2 were combined together using a weighted mean (weight=0.5) and assuming the covariance between the two treatment effect estimates is zero.||-0.4|-3.2|0.041
90870290|NCT02310568|181601905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.212|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|2.4|||ANCOVA|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Work Sub-Scale Score (Combined Stage 1 and Stage 2): The ANCOVA model included change from baseline as dependent variable, and treatment and baseline in the model. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 is Week 4 (Day 28). The estimates from Stage 1 and the Stage 2 were combined together using a weighted mean (weight=0.5) and assuming the covariance between the two treatment effect estimates is zero.||2.4|-0.4|0.212
90870291|NCT02310568|181601905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.954|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.2|1.2|||ANCOVA|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Family Sub-Scale Score (Combined Stage 1 and Stage 2): The ANCOVA model included change from baseline as dependent variable, and treatment and baseline in the model. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 is Week 4 (Day 28). The estimates from Stage 1 and the Stage 2 were combined together using a weighted mean (weight=0.5) and assuming the covariance between the two treatment effect estimates is zero.||1.2|-1.2|0.954
90870292|NCT02310568|181601905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.407|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.8|0.6|||ANCOVA|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Family Sub-Scale Score (Combined Stage 1 and Stage 2): The ANCOVA model included change from baseline as dependent variable, and treatment and baseline in the model. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 is Week 4 (Day 28). The estimates from Stage 1 and the Stage 2 were combined together using a weighted mean (weight=0.5) and assuming the covariance between the two treatment effect estimates is zero.||0.6|-1.8|0.407
90870293|NCT02310568|181601905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.412|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|1.7|||ANCOVA|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Family Sub-Scale Score (Combined Stage 1 and Stage 2): The ANCOVA model included change from baseline as dependent variable, and treatment and baseline in the model. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 is Week 4 (Day 28). The estimates from Stage 1 and the Stage 2 were combined together using a weighted mean (weight=0.5) and assuming the covariance between the two treatment effect estimates is zero.||1.7|-0.6|0.412
90870294|NCT02310568|181601906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45||0.856|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.2|2.7|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Week 1: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1.||2.7|-2.2|0.856
90870295|NCT02310568|181601906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38||0.647|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.7|2.9|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Week 1: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1.||2.9|-1.7|0.647
90870296|NCT02310568|181601906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.817|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.0|2.3|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Week 1: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1.||2.3|-3.0|0.817
90870297|NCT02310568|181601906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.81||0.67|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.8|2.2|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Week 2: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1.||2.2|-3.8|0.670
90870298|NCT02310568|181601906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.74||0.736|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.3|3.5|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Week 2: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1.||3.5|-2.3|0.736
90870299|NCT02310568|181601906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.99||0.496|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.7|2.0|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Week 2: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1.||2.0|-4.7|0.496
90870300|NCT02310568|181601906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.72||0.575|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.9|3.8|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Week 3: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1.||3.8|-1.9|0.575
90870301|NCT02310568|181601906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.67||0.362|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.2|4.3|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Week 3: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1.||4.3|-1.2|0.362
90870302|NCT02310568|181601906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.771|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.7|2.6|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Week 3: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1.||2.6|-3.7|0.771
90870303|NCT02310568|181601907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.45|1.26|||Regression, Logistic|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Stage 1: Logistic regression model included treatment as fixed effect, and the baseline as covariate. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and for Stage 2 is Day 28.||1.26|0.45|
90870304|NCT02310568|181601907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.23|1.54|||Regression, Logistic|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Stage 1: Logistic regression model included treatment as fixed effect, and the baseline as covariate. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and for Stage 2 is Day 28.||1.54|0.23|
90911452|NCT00880048|181692092|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53||||0.1961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.91|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GW823296 30mg: Week 6||2.91|0.80|0.1961
90911453|NCT00880048|181692092|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.6916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.25|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GW823296 60mg: Week 6||2.25|0.58|0.6916
90911454|NCT00880048|181692093|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.95|||Log Rank|||||1.95|0.50|0.61
90870305|NCT02310568|181601907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|2.32|||Regression, Logistic|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Stage 1: Logistic regression model included treatment as fixed effect, and the baseline as covariate. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and for Stage 2 is Day 28.||2.32|0.69|
90870306|NCT02310568|181601907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.27|5.78|||Regression, Logistic|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Stage 2: Logistic regression model included treatment as fixed effect, and the baseline as covariate. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and for Stage 2 is Day 28.||5.78|0.27|
90870307|NCT02310568|181601907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|2.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.19|24.51|||Regression, Logistic|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Stage 2: Logistic regression model included treatment as fixed effect, and the baseline as covariate. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and for Stage 2 is Day 28.||24.51|0.19|
90911455|NCT00880048|181692093|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.54|||Log Rank|||||1.54|0.36|0.35
90870308|NCT02310568|181601907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.16|2.09|||Regression, Logistic|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Stage 2: Logistic regression model included treatment as fixed effect, and the baseline as covariate. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and for Stage 2 is Day 28.||2.09|0.16|
90870309|NCT02310568|181601908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.801|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|0.3|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Week 1: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||0.3|-0.4|0.801
90870310|NCT02310568|181601908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.416|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|0.2|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Week 1: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||0.2|-0.5|0.416
90870311|NCT02310568|181601908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.634|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|0.5|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Week 1: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||0.5|-0.3|0.634
90870312|NCT02310568|181601908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.47|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|0.2|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Week 2: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||0.2|-0.6|0.470
90911456|NCT00880048|181692094|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.69||||0.0362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|-0.04|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30mg: Week 1||-0.04|-1.34|0.0362
90911457|NCT00880048|181692094|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.81||||0.0155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|-0.16|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60mg: Week 1||-0.16|-1.46|0.0155
90911458|NCT00880048|181692094|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.46||||0.2593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|0.34|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30mg: Week 2||0.34|-1.27|0.2593
90911459|NCT00880048|181692094|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.62||||0.1407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|0.2|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60mg: Week 2||0.20|-1.44|0.1407
90911460|NCT00880048|181692094|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.67||||0.1933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|0.34|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30mg: Week 4||0.34|-1.67|0.1933
90911461|NCT00880048|181692094|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.74||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|0.27|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60mg: Week 4||0.27|-1.76|0.1500
90911462|NCT00880048|181692094|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.09||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|0.02|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30mg: Week 6||0.02|-2.21|0.0550
90911463|NCT00880048|181692094|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.52||||0.3627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|0.61|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60mg: Week 6||0.61|-1.65|0.3627
90911464|NCT00880048|181692095|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.03||||0.0616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|0.05|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30mg: Week 1||0.05|-2.11|0.0616
90911465|NCT00880048|181692095|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.36|-1.19|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60mg: Week 1||-1.19|-3.36|<0.0001
90911466|NCT00880048|181692095|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.44||||0.0239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.68|-0.19|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30mg: Week 2||-0.19|-2.68|0.0239
90911467|NCT00880048|181692095|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.84||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.12|-0.57|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60mg: Week 2||-0.57|-3.12|0.0048
90911468|NCT00880048|181692095|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.58||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.97|-0.18|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30mg: Week 4||-0.18|-2.97|0.0270
90911469|NCT00880048|181692095|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.86||||0.0103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.27|-0.44|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60mg: Week 4||-0.44|-3.27|0.0103
90911470|NCT00880048|181692095|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.53||||0.0497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.06|0.0|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30mg: Week 6||-0.00|-3.06|0.0497
90870313|NCT02310568|181601908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.683|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|0.3|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Week 2: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||0.3|-0.5|0.683
90870314|NCT02310568|181601908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.775|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|0.4|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Week 2: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||0.4|-0.5|0.775
90870315|NCT02310568|181601908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.848|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|0.3|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Week 3: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||0.3|-0.4|0.848
90870316|NCT02310568|181601908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.49|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|0.6|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Week 3: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||0.6|-0.2|0.490
90870317|NCT02310568|181601908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.433|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|0.2|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Week 3: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||0.2|-0.7|0.433
90870318|NCT02310568|181601908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.796|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|0.5|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Week 4: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||0.5|-0.4|0.796
90870319|NCT02310568|181601908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.624|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|0.5|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Week 4: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||0.5|-0.3|0.624
90870320|NCT02310568|181601908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.844|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|0.4|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Week 4: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||0.4|-0.5|0.844
90870321|NCT02310568|181601908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.743|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|1.0|||LS Mean Difference|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Week 5: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||1.0|-0.7|0.743
90870322|NCT02310568|181601908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.356|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.3|0.4|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Week 5: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||0.4|-1.3|0.356
90870323|NCT02310568|181601908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.18|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|1.4|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Week 5: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||1.4|-0.2|0.180
90870324|NCT02310568|181601908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.589|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|1.2|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Week 6: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||1.2|-0.6|0.589
90870325|NCT02310568|181601908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.873|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8|1.0|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Week 6: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||1.0|-0.8|0.873
90911471|NCT00880048|181692095|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.41||||0.0794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.98|0.17|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60mg: Week 6||0.17|-2.98|0.0794
90911472|NCT00880048|181692096|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.28||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.19|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30mg: Week 1||0.19|-0.75|0.2400
90940440|NCT03897049|181760743|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.022|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.022
90870326|NCT02310568|181601908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.667|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|1.0|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Week 6: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||1.0|-0.6|0.667
90870327|NCT02310568|181601908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.548|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|1.1|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Week 7: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||1.1|-0.5|0.548
90911473|NCT00880048|181692096|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.76||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|-0.28|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60mg: Week 1||-0.28|-1.23|0.0020
90870328|NCT02310568|181601908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.567|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|0.5|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Week 7: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||0.5|-1.0|0.567
90911474|NCT00880048|181692096|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15||||0.5605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.36|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30mg: Week 2||0.36|-0.67|0.5605
90911475|NCT00880048|181692096|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.33||||0.2215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.2|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60mg: Week 2||0.20|-0.86|0.2215
90911476|NCT00880048|181692096|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.35||||0.287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|0.3|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30mg: Week 4||0.30|-1.01|0.2870
90911477|NCT00880048|181692096|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.67||||0.0465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.01|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60mg: Week 4||-0.01|-1.33|0.0465
90911478|NCT00880048|181692096|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.32||||0.3399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.34|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30mg: Week 6||0.34|-0.99|0.3399
90911479|NCT00880048|181692096|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.18||||0.5931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.49|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60mg: Week 6||0.49|-0.86|0.5931
90911480|NCT00880048|181692097|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.83||||0.0562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|8.22|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GW823296 30mg: Week 1||8.22|0.97|0.0562
90960592|NCT00427895|181801610|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMC Ratio|1.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|2.91||||||Serotype 14: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS/23vPS).||2.91|1.32|
90960593|NCT00427895|181801610|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMC Ratio|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.97||||||Serotype 18C: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS/23vPS).||1.97|0.94|
90870329|NCT02310568|181601908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.208|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|1.3|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Week 7: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||1.3|-0.2|0.208
90870330|NCT02310568|181601908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.858|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.2|0.9|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Week 8: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||0.9|-1.2|0.858
90870331|NCT02310568|181601908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.329|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.7|0.3|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Week 8: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||0.3|-1.7|0.329
90870332|NCT02310568|181601908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.272|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|1.5|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Week 8: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||1.5|-0.4|0.272
90870333|NCT02310568|181601908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.946|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|0.5|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Combined Stage 1 (Week 4) and Stage 2 (Week 8): Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect.||0.5|-0.6|0.946
90870334|NCT02310568|181601908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.407|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8|0.3|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Combined Stage 1 (Week 4) and Stage 2 (Week 8): Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect.||0.3|-0.8|0.407
90870335|NCT02310568|181601908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.436|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|0.8|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Combined Stage 1 (Week 4) and Stage 2 (Week 8): Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect.||0.8|-0.3|0.436
90911481|NCT00880048|181692097|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.22||||0.1596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|6.73|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GW823296 60mg: Week 1||6.73|0.73|0.1596
90911482|NCT00880048|181692097|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.91||||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|6.3|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GW823296 30mg: Week 2||6.30|1.34|0.0067
90911483|NCT00880048|181692097|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.93||||0.1154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|4.36|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GW823296 60mg: Week 2||4.36|0.85|0.1154
90911484|NCT00880048|181692097|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.6895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.07|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GW823296 30mg: Week 4||2.07|0.62|0.6895
90911485|NCT00880048|181692097|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.3654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.41|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GW823296 60mg: Week 4||2.41|0.72|0.3654
90911486|NCT00880048|181692097|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.2408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.65|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GW823296 30mg: Week 6||2.65|0.78|0.2408
90960594|NCT00427895|181801610|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMC Ratio|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|2.03||||||Serotype 19A: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS/23vPS).||2.03|1.08|
90960595|NCT00427895|181801610|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMC Ratio|3.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.19|5.12||||||Serotype 19F: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS/23vPS).||5.12|2.19|
90870336|NCT02310568|181601909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.325|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|0.1|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Week 1: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect.||0.1|-0.6|0.325
90870337|NCT02310568|181601909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.996|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|0.3|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Week 1: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||0.3|-0.3|0.996
90870338|NCT02310568|181601909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.377|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|0.2|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Week 1: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||0.2|-0.6|0.377
90911487|NCT00880048|181692097|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.3066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|2.6|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GW823296 60mg: Week 6||2.60|0.74|0.3066
90911488|NCT00880048|181692098|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15||||0.1472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.05|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30mg: Week 1||0.05|-0.36|0.1472
90911489|NCT00880048|181692098|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.27||||0.0107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.06|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60mg: Week 1||-0.06|-0.48|0.0107
90911490|NCT00880048|181692098|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.25||||0.0603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.01|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30mg: Week 2||0.01|-0.51|0.0603
90911491|NCT00880048|181692098|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.1458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.07|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60mg: Week 2||0.07|-0.46|0.1458
90911492|NCT00880048|181692098|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.27||||0.0941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.05|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30mg: Week 4||0.05|-0.58|0.0941
90960596|NCT00427895|181801610|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMC Ratio|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|2.83||||||Serotype 23F: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS/23vPS).||2.83|1.41|
90911493|NCT00880048|181692098|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.27||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.04|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures||Placebo vs GW823296 60mg: Week 4|||0.04|-0.59|0.0880
90911494|NCT00880048|181692098|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.38||||0.0313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.03|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30mg: Week 6||-0.03|-0.73|0.0313
90870339|NCT02310568|181601909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.291|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|0.1|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Week 2: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||0.1|-0.7|0.291
90870340|NCT02310568|181601909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.925|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|0.4|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Week 2: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||0.4|-0.4|0.925
90870341|NCT02310568|181601909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.39|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|0.2|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Week 2: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||0.2|-0.7|0.390
90911495|NCT00880048|181692098|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.2639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.15|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60mg: Week 6||0.15|-0.55|0.2639
90911496|NCT00880048|181692099|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.57||||0.0421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.08|-0.06|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 1||-0.06|-3.08|0.0421
90911497|NCT00880048|181692099|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.74||||0.3394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.27|0.78|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 1||0.78|-2.27|0.3394
90911498|NCT00880048|181692099|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.4||||0.0963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.05|0.25|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 2||0.25|-3.05|0.0963
90911499|NCT00880048|181692099|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.94||||0.0235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.62|-0.26|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 2||-0.26|-3.62|0.0235
90911500|NCT00880048|181692099|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.77||||0.3956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|1.01|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 4||1.01|-2.54|0.3956
90911501|NCT00880048|181692099|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.73||||0.4273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.53|1.07|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 4||1.07|-2.53|0.4273
90911502|NCT00880048|181692099|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.94||||0.3429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.89|1.01|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 6||1.01|-2.89|0.3429
90911503|NCT00880048|181692099|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.19||||0.2403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.18|0.8|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 6||0.80|-3.18|0.2403
90911504|NCT00880048|181692100|SUPERIORITY||Mixed effects repeated measures model|22.52||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.58|49.61|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 1, total sleep time||49.61|-4.58|0.1030
90960597|NCT02678247|181801613|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.3||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||2.3|0.8|<0.001
90870342|NCT02310568|181601909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.502|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|0.3|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Week 3: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||0.3|-0.7|0.502
90870343|NCT02310568|181601909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.348|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|0.7|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Week 3: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||0.7|-0.2|0.348
90870344|NCT02310568|181601909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.16|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|0.1|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Week 3: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||0.1|-1.0|0.160
90870345|NCT02310568|181601909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.965|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|0.5|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Week 4: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||0.5|-0.5|0.965
90870346|NCT02310568|181601909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.389|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|0.7|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Week 4: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||0.7|-0.2|0.389
90870347|NCT02310568|181601909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.433|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8|0.3|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Week 4: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||0.3|-0.8|0.433
90870348|NCT02310568|181601909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.94|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.9|0.8|||LS Mean Difference|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Week 5: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||0.8|-0.9|0.940
90870349|NCT02310568|181601909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.757|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|0.7|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Week 5: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||0.7|-1.0|0.757
90870350|NCT02310568|181601909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.836|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|0.9|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Week 5: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||0.9|-0.7|0.836
90870351|NCT02310568|181601909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.827|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.9|1.1|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Week 6: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||1.1|-0.9|0.827
90870352|NCT02310568|181601909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.507|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|1.3|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Week 6: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||1.3|-0.6|0.507
90870353|NCT02310568|181601909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.632|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.1|0.6|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Week 6: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||0.6|-1.1|0.632
90870354|NCT02310568|181601909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.442|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|1.3|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Week 7: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||1.3|-0.5|0.442
90870355|NCT02310568|181601909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.643|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.1|0.6|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Week 7: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||0.6|-1.1|0.643
90870356|NCT02310568|181601909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.188|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|1.5|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Week 7: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||1.5|-0.2|0.188
90911505|NCT00880048|181692100|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|33.21||||0.0179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.76|60.65|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 1, total sleep time||60.65|5.76|0.0179
90940441|NCT03897049|181760744|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.85||||0.189|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.189
90870357|NCT02310568|181601909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.701|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.4|0.9|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Week 8: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||0.9|-1.4|0.701
90870358|NCT02310568|181601909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.271|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.8|0.4|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Week 8: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||0.4|-1.8|0.271
90870359|NCT02310568|181601909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.445|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|1.5|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Week 8: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||1.5|-0.6|0.445
90870360|NCT02310568|181601909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.714|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8|0.5|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Combined Stage 1 (Week 4) and Stage 2 (Week 8): Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect.||0.5|-0.8|0.714
90870361|NCT02310568|181601909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.515|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8|0.4|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Combined Stage 1 (Week 4) and Stage 2 (Week 8): Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect.||0.4|-0.8|0.515
90870362|NCT02310568|181601909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.778|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|0.7|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Combined Stage 1 (Week 4) and Stage 2 (Week 8): Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect.||0.7|-0.5|0.778
90870363|NCT02310568|181601912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93||0.562|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.1|1.0|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Week 1: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||1.0|-2.1|0.562
90870364|NCT02310568|181601912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.92||0.708|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.9|1.2|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Week 1: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||1.2|-1.9|0.708
90870365|NCT02310568|181601912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.852|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.9|1.5|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Week 1: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||1.5|-1.9|0.852
90870366|NCT02310568|181601912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14||0.347|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.0|0.8|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Week 2: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||0.8|-3.0|0.347
90870367|NCT02310568|181601912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14||0.759|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.2|1.5|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Week 2: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||1.5|-2.2|0.759
90870368|NCT02310568|181601912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.28||0.574|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.9|1.4|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Week 2: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||1.4|-2.9|0.574
90870369|NCT02310568|181601912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09||0.831|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.1|1.6|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Week 3: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||1.6|-2.1|0.831
90870370|NCT02310568|181601912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.705|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.4|2.3|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Week 3: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||2.3|-1.4|0.705
90870371|NCT02310568|181601912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.24||0.6|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.7|1.4|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Week 3: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||1.4|-2.7|0.600
90960598|NCT02678247|181801614|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.1||0.664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.04||p-value was adjusted using a Bonferonni correction with alpha set at 0.017|t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||0.04|-0.06|0.664
90960599|NCT02678247|181801615|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.05||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.17|-0.23||p-value was adjusted using a Bonferonni correction with alpha set at 0.017|t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||-0.23|-3.17|0.026
90870372|NCT02310568|181601912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.23||0.848|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.3|1.8|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Week 4: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||1.8|-2.3|0.848
90870373|NCT02310568|181601912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.24||0.237|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|3.5|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Week 4: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||3.5|-0.6|0.237
90870374|NCT02310568|181601912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.224|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.0|0.6|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Week 4: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||0.6|-4.0|0.224
90870375|NCT02310568|181601912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38||0.747|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.9|2.8|||LS Mean Difference|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Week 5: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||2.8|-1.9|0.747
90911506|NCT00880048|181692100|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|7.62||||0.5773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.25|34.49|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 2, total sleep time||34.49|-19.25|0.5773
90911507|NCT00880048|181692100|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|21.4||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.97|48.76|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 2, total sleep time||48.76|-5.97|0.1250
90911508|NCT00880048|181692100|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|30.87||||0.0344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.29|59.45|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 4, total sleep time||59.45|2.29|0.0344
90911509|NCT00880048|181692100|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|36.52||||0.0131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.72|65.32|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 4, total sleep time||65.32|7.72|0.0131
90911510|NCT00880048|181692100|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.18||||0.8794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.1|30.46|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 6, total sleep time||30.46|-26.10|0.8794
90911511|NCT00880048|181692100|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|28.4||||0.0556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|57.5|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 6, total sleep time||57.50|-0.69|0.0556
90911512|NCT00880048|181692100|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-23.9||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.46|-6.33|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 1, sleep onset latency||-6.33|-41.46|0.0078
90911513|NCT00880048|181692100|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-25.49||||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.3|-7.68|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 1, sleep onset latency||-7.68|-43.30|0.0052
90911514|NCT00880048|181692100|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.45||||0.2373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.14|8.24|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 2, sleep onset latency||8.24|-33.14|0.2373
90911515|NCT00880048|181692100|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.75||||0.8707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.38|22.87|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 2, sleep onset latency||22.87|-19.38|0.8707
90911516|NCT00880048|181692100|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.92||||0.1933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.43|6.59|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo va GW823296 30 mg: Week 4, sleep onset latency||6.59|-32.43|0.1933
90911517|NCT00880048|181692100|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.55||||0.2933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.26|9.17|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 4, sleep onset latency||9.17|-30.26|0.2933
90911518|NCT00880048|181692100|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-28.58||||0.0177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.15|-5.01|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 6, sleep onset latency||-5.01|-52.15|0.0177
90911519|NCT00880048|181692100|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-30.07||||0.0152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.29|-5.84|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 6, sleep onset latency||-5.84|-54.29|0.0152
90911520|NCT00880048|181692100|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-17.19||||0.0108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.36|-4.01|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 1, wake time after sleep onset||-4.01|-30.36|0.0108
90911521|NCT00880048|181692100|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.15||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.61|-2.68|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 1, wake time after sleep onset||-2.68|-29.61|0.0190
90911522|NCT00880048|181692100|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.89||||0.8195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.43|18.21|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 2, wake time after sleep onset||18.21|-14.43|0.8195
90911523|NCT00880048|181692100|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.27||||0.5327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.35|21.89|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 2, wake time after sleep onset||21.89|-11.35|0.5327
90911524|NCT00880048|181692100|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.5||||0.7387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.24|12.25|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 4, wake time after sleep onset||12.25|-17.24|0.7387
90911525|NCT00880048|181692100|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.44||||0.2134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.35|5.48|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 4, wake time after sleep onset||5.48|-24.35|0.2134
90911526|NCT00880048|181692100|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.51||||0.1561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.61|5.6|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 6, wake time after sleep onset||5.60|-34.61|0.1561
90911527|NCT00880048|181692100|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-17.1||||0.1054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.84|3.64|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 6, wake time after sleep onset||3.64|-37.84|0.1054
90911528|NCT00880048|181692101|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.57||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.21|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 1||-0.21|-0.94|0.0024
90911529|NCT00880048|181692101|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.6146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.28|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 1||0.28|-0.47|0.6146
90911530|NCT00880048|181692101|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.25||||0.1442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.09|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 2||0.09|-0.59|0.1442
90911531|NCT00880048|181692101|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04||||0.8001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.39|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 2||0.39|-0.30|0.8001
90911532|NCT00880048|181692101|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05||||0.8439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.45|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 4||0.45|-0.55|0.8439
90911533|NCT00880048|181692101|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.1259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.11|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 4||0.11|-0.91|0.1259
90911534|NCT00880048|181692101|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.3709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.64|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 6||0.64|-0.24|0.3709
90911535|NCT00880048|181692101|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.24||||0.2993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.22|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 6||0.22|-0.70|0.2993
90911536|NCT00880048|181692102|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.59||||0.0344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|1.14|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 1, sleep quality||1.14|0.04|0.0344
90911537|NCT00880048|181692102|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.72||||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.27|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 1, sleep quality||1.27|0.17|0.0111
90911538|NCT00880048|181692102|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.42||||0.1443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.99|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 2, sleep quality||0.99|-0.15|0.1443
90911539|NCT00880048|181692102|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5||||0.0873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|1.08|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 2, sleep quality||1.08|-0.07|0.0873
90911540|NCT00880048|181692102|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.73||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.33|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 4, sleep quality||1.33|0.13|0.0170
90911541|NCT00880048|181692102|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.42||||0.1675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|1.02|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 4, sleep quality||1.02|-0.18|0.1675
90911542|NCT00880048|181692102|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.56||||0.0956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.23|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 6, sleep quality||1.23|-0.10|0.0956
90911543|NCT00880048|181692102|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.32||||0.3503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|1.0|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 6, sleep quality||1.00|-0.35|0.3503
90911544|NCT00880048|181692102|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.34||||0.2147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.88|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 1, refreshing value of sleep||0.88|-0.20|0.2147
90911545|NCT00880048|181692102|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.63||||0.0233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.17|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 1, refreshing value of sleep||1.17|0.09|0.0233
90911546|NCT00880048|181692102|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.33||||0.2404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.89|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 2, refreshing value of sleep||0.89|-0.22|0.2404
90911547|NCT00880048|181692102|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.65||||0.0247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|1.22|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 2, refreshing value of sleep||1.22|0.08|0.0247
90911548|NCT00880048|181692102|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.69||||0.0271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|1.29|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 4, refreshing value of sleep||1.29|0.08|0.0271
90911549|NCT00880048|181692102|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.39||||0.2129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|1.0|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 4, refreshing value of sleep||1.00|-0.22|0.2129
90960600|NCT02678247|181801616|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.58||0.847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|2.42||p-value was adjusted using a Bonferonni correction with alpha set at 0.025|t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||2.42|-2|0.847
90960601|NCT02678247|181801617|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.87|<|0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.42|0.34||p-value was adjusted using a Bonferonni correction with alpha set at 0.017|t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||0.34|-2.42|<0.017
90870376|NCT02310568|181601912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.37||0.764|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.8|2.0|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Week 5: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28). Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||2.0|-2.8|0.764
90870377|NCT02310568|181601912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.22||0.487|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.3|3.0|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Week 5: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||3.0|-1.3|0.487
90870378|NCT02310568|181601912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.53||0.744|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.1|3.2|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Week 6: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||3.2|-2.1|0.744
90911550|NCT00880048|181692102|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.37||||0.2874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|1.06|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 6, refreshing value of sleep||1.06|-0.31|0.2874
90911551|NCT00880048|181692102|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.71||||0.0472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|1.41|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 6, refreshing value of sleep||1.41|0.01|0.0472
90911552|NCT00880048|181692103|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.9824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|7.09|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 1||7.09|0.13|0.9824
90911553|NCT00880048|181692103|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.54||||0.6227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|6.13|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 1||6.13|0.05|0.6227
90911554|NCT00880048|181692103|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.9967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|5.07|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 2||5.07|0.20|0.9967
90911555|NCT00880048|181692103|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|8.63|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 2||8.63|0.46|0.3550
90911556|NCT00880048|181692103|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.35||||0.1009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|6.49|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 4||6.49|0.85|0.1009
90911557|NCT00880048|181692103|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.8||||0.0455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|7.68|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 4||7.68|1.02|0.0455
90911558|NCT00880048|181692103|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3||||0.0507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|5.32|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 6||5.32|1.00|0.0507
90911559|NCT00880048|181692103|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.4962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|3.45|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 6||3.45|0.55|0.4962
90911560|NCT00880048|181692106|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.03||||0.3241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|3.1|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 1||3.10|-1.03|0.3241
90911561|NCT00880048|181692106|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.56||||0.602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.66|1.55|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 1||1.55|-2.66|0.6020
90911562|NCT00880048|181692106|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.44||||0.0594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|4.99|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 2||4.99|-0.10|0.0594
90960602|NCT02678247|181801618|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.58||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.77||p-value was adjusted using a Bonferonni correction with alpha set at 0.025|t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||0.77|-0.53|0.7
90960603|NCT02678247|181801619|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.9||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|7.0||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||7.0|-1.6|0.20
90960604|NCT02678247|181801620|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.0||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|3.7||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||3.7|-6.0|0.62
90960605|NCT02678247|181801621|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.7||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|5.3||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||5.3|-0.2|0.07
90960606|NCT02678247|181801622|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.3||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|1.1||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||1.1|-5.4|0.18
90870379|NCT02310568|181601912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52||0.34|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.1|4.1|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Week 6: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||4.1|-1.1|0.340
90870380|NCT02310568|181601912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36||0.477|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.3|1.4|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Week 6: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||1.4|-3.3|0.477
90870381|NCT02310568|181601912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.51||0.482|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.5|3.7|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Week 7: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||3.7|-1.5|0.482
90870382|NCT02310568|181601912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.49||0.719|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.1|2.0|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Week 7: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||2.0|-3.1|0.719
90911563|NCT00880048|181692106|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.92||||0.4828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|3.5|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 2||3.50|-1.67|0.4828
90911564|NCT00880048|181692106|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.19||||0.9008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|3.18|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 4||3.18|-2.80|0.9008
90911565|NCT00880048|181692106|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.71||||0.6428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.74|2.32|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 4||2.32|-3.74|0.6428
90940442|NCT03897049|181760745|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.07||||0.218|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.218
90960607|NCT02678247|181801623|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.3||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.9||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||0.9|-0.4|0.47
90960608|NCT02678247|181801624|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.5||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|2.0||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||2.0|-1.4|0.68
90870383|NCT02310568|181601912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36||0.245|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|4.0|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Week 7: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||4.0|-0.7|0.245
90870384|NCT02310568|181601912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93||0.586|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.3|4.4|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Week 8: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||4.4|-2.3|0.586
90870385|NCT02310568|181601912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.44|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.8|1.8|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Week 8: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||1.8|-4.8|0.440
90870386|NCT02310568|181601912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.75||0.159|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|5.6|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Week 8: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||5.6|-0.5|0.159
90870387|NCT02310568|181601912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15||0.72|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.6|2.4|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Combined Stage 1 and Stage 2: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect.||2.4|-1.6|0.720
90870388|NCT02310568|181601912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.13||0.991|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.0|1.9|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Combined Stage 1 and Stage 2: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect.||1.9|-2.0|0.991
90870389|NCT02310568|181601912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12||0.704|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.5|2.4|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Combined Stage 1 and Stage 2: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect.||2.4|-1.5|0.704
90870390|NCT02310568|181601913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.539|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.9|1.9|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Week 1: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||1.9|-0.9|0.539
90870391|NCT02310568|181601913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.439|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|1.9|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Week 1: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||1.9|-0.7|0.439
90870392|NCT02310568|181601913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.92||0.914|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.6|1.4|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Week 1: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||1.4|-1.6|0.914
90870393|NCT02310568|181601913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86||0.892|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.3|1.5|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Week 2: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||1.5|-1.3|0.892
90870394|NCT02310568|181601913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.463|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8|2.0|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Week 2: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||2.0|-0.8|0.463
90960609|NCT03534284|181801648|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6761||||||0.05 threshold for significance; no adjustment for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis: average CBT-I=Trazodone=Placebo at week 7||||0.6761
90960610|NCT03534284|181801649|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8375|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis: average CBT-I=Trazodone=Placebo at week 25||||0.8375
90960611|NCT03316300|181801672|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.091|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0176|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|-0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.06|-0.13|<0.0001
90960612|NCT02181387|181801688|OTHER|unpaired t-test compared between groups|||||>|0.05|||||||unpaired t-test compared between groups|||||||>0.05
90960613|NCT02181387|181801688|OTHER|unpaired t-test compared between groups|||||>|0.05|||||||unpaired t-test compared between groups|||||||>0.05
90911566|NCT00880048|181692106|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.68||||0.6911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.06|2.7|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 6||2.70|-4.06|0.6911
90911567|NCT00880048|181692106|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.67||||0.7026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.14|2.8|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 6||2.80|-4.14|0.7026
90911568|NCT00880048|181692107|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.97||||0.1301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.24|0.29|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 1||0.29|-2.24|0.1301
90911569|NCT00880048|181692107|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.47||||0.4644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|1.73|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 1||1.73|-0.79|0.4644
90911570|NCT00880048|181692107|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.76||||0.3382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|0.8|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 2||0.80|-2.33|0.3382
90911571|NCT00880048|181692107|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.94||||0.241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|2.51|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 2||2.51|-0.63|0.2410
90911572|NCT00880048|181692107|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.98||||0.2768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.75|0.79|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 4||0.79|-2.75|0.2768
90911573|NCT00880048|181692107|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.06||||0.9434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.83|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 4||1.83|-1.70|0.9434
90911574|NCT00880048|181692107|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.55||||0.5796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.49|1.4|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 6||1.40|-2.49|0.5796
90911575|NCT00880048|181692107|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.71||||0.4753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|2.66|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 6||2.66|-1.24|0.4753
90911576|NCT02914522|181692129|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|10.8||||0.0157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|19.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel(CMH) test was stratified by concomitant use of oral, systemic corticosteroids (Yes/No) and immunomodulators (Yes/No) at Day 1.||||19.5|2.1|0.0157
90911577|NCT02914522|181692129|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|3.8||||0.3379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|12.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of oral, systemic corticosteroids (Yes or No) and of immunomodulators (Yes or No) at Day 1.||||12.0|-4.3|0.3379
90911578|NCT02914522|181692129|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|7.2||||0.0103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|12.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH was stratified by concomitant use of corticosteroids and of immunomodulators at Day 1, and number of prior exposure to biologic agent (≤1,\>1).||||12.8|1.6|0.0103
90911579|NCT02914522|181692129|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|5.2||||0.0645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|10.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH was stratified by concomitant use of corticosteroids and of immunomodulators at Day 1, and number of prior exposure to biologic agent (≤1,\>1).||||10.5|-0.0|0.0645
90911580|NCT02914522|181692130|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|26.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.0|35.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of corticosteroids and of immunomodulators at maintenance baseline; participation in Induction (A or B).||||35.9|16.0|< 0.0001
90911581|NCT02914522|181692130|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|10.4||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|20.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of corticosteroids and of immunomodulators at maintenance baseline; participation in Induction (A or B).||||20.7|-0.0|0.0420
90911582|NCT02914522|181692131|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|12.1||||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|20.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test is stratified by concomitant use of oral, systemic corticosteroids (Yes or No) and of immunomodulators (Yes or No) at Day 1.||||20.4|3.8|0.0053
90911583|NCT02914522|181692131|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|4.6||||0.2295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|12.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test is stratified by concomitant use of oral, systemic corticosteroids (Yes or No) and of immunomodulators (Yes or No) at Day 1.||||12.2|-3.1|0.2295
90911584|NCT02914522|181692131|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|5.3||||0.0393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|10.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH was stratified by concomitant use of corticosteroids and of immunomodulators at Day 1, and number of prior exposure to biologic agent (≤1,\>1).||||10.7|-0.1|0.0393
90911585|NCT02914522|181692131|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|1.7||||0.5308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|6.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH was stratified by concomitant use of corticosteroids and of immunomodulators at Day 1, and number of prior exposure to biologic agent (≤1,\>1).||||6.6|-3.1|0.5308
90911586|NCT02914522|181692132|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|8.6||||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|14.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test is stratified by concomitant use of oral, systemic corticosteroids (Yes or No) and of immunomodulators (Yes or No) at Day 1.||||14.3|2.9|0.0047
90911587|NCT02914522|181692132|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|2.1||||0.3495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|6.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test is stratified by concomitant use of oral, systemic corticosteroids (Yes or No) and of immunomodulators (Yes or No) at Day 1.||||6.8|-2.6|0.3495
90940443|NCT03897049|181760746|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.479||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.173|1.305|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.305|0.173|0.149
90940444|NCT03897049|181760747|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.111||||0.839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.403|3.063|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.063|0.403|0.839
90940445|NCT03897049|181760748|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.302||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.937|11.641|||Regression, Logistic|||||11.641|0.937|0.063
90940446|NCT03897049|181760749|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08||||0.65|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.650
90940447|NCT03897049|181760750|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.09||||0.531|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.531
90940448|NCT03897049|181760751|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03||||0.761|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.761
90940449|NCT03897049|181760752|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.11||||0.503|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.503
90940450|NCT03897049|181760753|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.541|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.541
90940451|NCT03897049|181760754|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.537|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.537
90940452|NCT03897049|181760755|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.19||||0.057|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.057
90940453|NCT03897049|181760756|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.402|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.402
90940454|NCT03897049|181760757|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.15||||0.308|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.308
90870395|NCT02310568|181601913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.611|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.1|1.1|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Week 2: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||1.1|-2.1|0.611
90870396|NCT02310568|181601913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88||0.321|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|2.4|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Week 3: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||2.4|-0.6|0.321
90870397|NCT02310568|181601913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.294|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|2.3|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Week 3: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||2.3|-0.5|0.294
90870398|NCT02310568|181601913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99||0.987|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.7|1.6|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Week 3: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||1.6|-1.7|0.987
90870399|NCT02310568|181601913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.599|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.2|2.3|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Week 4: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||2.3|-1.2|0.599
90870400|NCT02310568|181601913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.322|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|2.6|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Week 4: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||2.6|-0.7|0.322
90870401|NCT02310568|181601913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17||0.704|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.4|1.5|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Week 4: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||1.5|-2.4|0.704
90870402|NCT02310568|181601913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38||0.804|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.0|2.7|||LS Mean Difference|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Week 5: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||2.7|-2.0|0.804
90870403|NCT02310568|181601913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38||0.559|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.2|1.6|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Week 5: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||1.6|-3.2|0.559
90870404|NCT02310568|181601913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.27||0.369|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|3.4|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Week 5: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||3.4|-1.0|0.369
90870405|NCT02310568|181601913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.56||0.313|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.1|4.3|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Week 6: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||4.3|-1.1|0.313
90870406|NCT02310568|181601913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.56||0.56|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.8|3.6|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Week 6: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||3.6|-1.8|0.560
90870407|NCT02310568|181601913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.43||0.635|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.8|3.2|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Week 6: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||3.2|-1.8|0.635
90870408|NCT02310568|181601913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.62||0.538|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.8|3.8|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Week 7: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||3.8|-1.8|0.538
90870409|NCT02310568|181601913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.942|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.7|2.9|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Week 7: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||2.9|-2.7|0.942
90870410|NCT02310568|181601913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.555|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.7|3.5|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Week 7: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||3.5|-1.7|0.555
90911588|NCT02914522|181692132|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|1.3||||0.4269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|5.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH was stratified by concomitant use of corticosteroids and of immunomodulators at Day 1, and number of prior exposure to biologic agent (≤1,\>1).||||5.1|-2.5|0.4269
90911589|NCT02914522|181692132|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|0.0||||0.9987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|3.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH was stratified by concomitant use of corticosteroids and of immunomodulators at Day 1, and number of prior exposure to biologic agent (≤1,\>1).||||3.4|-3.4|0.9987
90911590|NCT02914522|181692133|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|19.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.9|28.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test is stratified by concomitant use of oral, systemic corticosteroids (Yes or No) and of immunomodulators (Yes or No) at Day 1.||||28.2|9.9|<0.0001
90911591|NCT02914522|181692133|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|7.8||||0.0672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test is stratified by concomitant use of oral, systemic corticosteroids (Yes or No) and of immunomodulators (Yes or No) at Day 1.||||16.2|-0.7|0.0672
90911592|NCT02914522|181692133|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|11.4||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|18.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH was stratified by concomitant use of corticosteroids and of immunomodulators at Day 1, and number of prior exposure to biologic agent (≤1,\>1).||||18.6|4.2|0.0019
90911593|NCT02914522|181692133|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|5.2||||0.1286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|11.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH was stratified by concomitant use of corticosteroids and of immunomodulators at Day 1, and number of prior exposure to biologic agent (≤1,\>1).||||11.8|-1.4|0.1286
90911594|NCT02914522|181692134|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|7.9||||0.0105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|13.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test is stratified by concomitant use of oral, systemic corticosteroids (Yes or No) and of immunomodulators (Yes or No) at Day 1||||13.8|1.9|0.0105
90911595|NCT02914522|181692134|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|4.3||||0.1062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|9.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test is stratified by concomitant use of oral, systemic corticosteroids (Yes or No) and of immunomodulators (Yes or No) at Day 1||||9.6|-1.0|0.1062
90911596|NCT02914522|181692134|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|1.7||||0.3084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|5.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH was stratified by concomitant use of corticosteroids and of immunomodulators at Day 1, and number of prior exposure to biologic agent (≤1,\>1).||||5.6|-2.2|0.3084
90911597|NCT02914522|181692134|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|0.0||||0.9109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|3.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH was stratified by concomitant use of corticosteroids and of immunomodulators at Day 1, and number of prior exposure to biologic agent (≤1,\>1).||||3.4|-3.4|0.9109
90911598|NCT02914522|181692140|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|25.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.0|35.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of corticosteroids and of immunomodulators at maintenance baseline; participation in Induction (A or B).||||35.0|16.0|<0.0001
90911599|NCT02914522|181692140|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|9.2||||0.0658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|19.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of corticosteroids and of immunomodulators at maintenance baseline; participation in Induction (A or B).||||19.5|-1.1|0.0658
90911600|NCT02914522|181692141|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|13.0||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|20.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of corticosteroids and of immunomodulators at maintenance baseline; participation in Induction (A or B).||||20.6|5.3|0.0024
90911601|NCT02914522|181692141|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|0.9||||0.7951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|8.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of corticosteroids and of immunomodulators at maintenance baseline; participation in Induction (A or B).||||8.7|-7.0|0.7951
90911602|NCT02914522|181692142|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|20.8||||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|33.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of corticosteroids and of immunomodulators at maintenance baseline; participation in Induction (A or B).||||33.9|7.7|0.0055
90911603|NCT02914522|181692142|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|8.2||||0.1265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|20.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of corticosteroids and of immunomodulators at maintenance baseline; participation in Induction (A or B).||||20.6|-4.2|0.1265
90911604|NCT02914522|181692143|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|9.5||||0.0157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|17.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of corticosteroids and of immunomodulators at maintenance baseline; participation in Induction (A or B).||||17.1|1.8|0.0157
90911605|NCT02914522|181692143|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|5.5||||0.1808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|13.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of corticosteroids and of immunomodulators at maintenance baseline; participation in Induction (A or B).||||13.9|-2.9|0.1808
90911606|NCT02914522|181692144|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|24.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.6|35.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of corticosteroids and of immunomodulators at maintenance baseline; participation in Induction (A or B).||||35.2|14.6|<0.0001
90911607|NCT02914522|181692144|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|9.9||||0.0521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|21.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of corticosteroids and of immunomodulators at maintenance baseline; participation in Induction (A or B).||||21.2|-1.3|0.0521
90911608|NCT02914522|181692145|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|16.0||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.8|24.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of corticosteroids and of immunomodulators at maintenance baseline; participation in Induction (A or B).||||24.2|7.8|0.0005
90911609|NCT02914522|181692145|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|4.3||||0.2946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|12.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of corticosteroids and of immunomodulators at maintenance baseline; participation in Induction (A or B).||||12.6|-3.9|0.2946
90870411|NCT02310568|181601913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.96||0.728|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.1|2.7|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Week 8: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||2.7|-4.1|0.728
90870412|NCT02310568|181601913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.95||0.362|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.2|1.6|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Week 8: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||1.6|-5.2|0.362
90870413|NCT02310568|181601913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.81||0.538|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.0|4.3|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Week 8: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||4.3|-2.0|0.538
90870414|NCT02310568|181601913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.949|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.0|1.8|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Combined Stage 1 and Stage 2: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect.||1.8|-2.0|0.949
90870415|NCT02310568|181601913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09||0.708|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.3|1.5|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Combined Stage 1 and Stage 2: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect.||1.5|-2.3|0.708
90870416|NCT02310568|181601913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.07||0.752|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.5|2.2|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Combined Stage 1 and Stage 2: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect.||2.2|-1.5|0.752
90870417|NCT02310568|181601914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.37|2.45|||Regression, Logistic|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Logistic regression model includes treatment as fixed effect, and baseline as covariate. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and Stage 2 is Week 4 (Day 28).||2.45|0.37|
90870418|NCT02310568|181601914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.39|6.88|||Regression, Logistic|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Logistic regression model includes treatment as fixed effect, and baseline as covariate. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and Stage 2 is Week 4 (Day 28).||6.88|0.39|
90870419|NCT02310568|181601914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.23|1.49|||Regression, Logistic|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Logistic regression model includes treatment as fixed effect, and baseline as covariate. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and Stage 2 is Week 4 (Day 28).||1.49|0.23|
90870420|NCT02989194|181601920|SUPERIORITY|Descriptive statistics. All statistical comparisons were performed using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level.||||||0.158||||||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only, there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Percent Change from Baseline to Day 2. All null hypotheses were defined as no treatment difference.||||0.158
90870421|NCT02989194|181601920|SUPERIORITY|Descriptive statistics. All statistical comparisons were performed using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level.||||||0.025||||||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only, there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Percent Change from Baseline to Day 3. All null hypotheses were defined as no treatment difference.||||0.025
90870422|NCT02989194|181601920|SUPERIORITY|Descriptive statistics. All statistical comparisons were performed using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level.||||||0.007||||||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only, there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Percent Change from Baseline to Day 4. All null hypotheses were defined as no treatment difference.||||0.007
90870423|NCT02989194|181601920|SUPERIORITY|Descriptive statistics. All statistical comparisons were performed using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level.||||||0.061||||||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only, there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Percent Change from Baseline to Day 5. All null hypotheses were defined as no treatment difference.||||0.061
90940455|NCT03897049|181760758|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.48||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.001
90940456|NCT05109117|181760759|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|2.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|3.9|||ANCOVA|Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, timepoint, treatment\*timepoint (interaction) and subject as terms; Baseline value as covariate.||Pairwise comparison between Treated and Untreated sites 2 hours post-treatment||3.9|1.7|<0.0001
90940457|NCT05109117|181760759|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.5||||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.7|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, timepoint, treatment\*timepoint (interaction) and subject as terms; Baseline value as covariate.||Pairwise comparison between Treated and Untreated sites 4 hours post-treatment||2.7|0.4|0.0077
90870424|NCT02989194|181601920|SUPERIORITY|Descriptive statistics. All statistical comparisons were performed using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level.||||||0.107||||||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only, there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Percent Change from Baseline to Day 6. All null hypotheses were defined as no treatment difference.||||0.107
90870425|NCT02989194|181601920|SUPERIORITY|Descriptive statistics. All statistical comparisons were performed using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level.||||||0.237||||||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only, there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Percent Change from Baseline to Day 7. All null hypotheses were defined as no treatment difference.||||0.237
90870426|NCT02989194|181601920|SUPERIORITY|Descriptive statistics. All statistical comparisons were performed using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level.||||||0.497||||||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only, there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Percent Change from Baseline to Day 8. All null hypotheses were defined as no treatment difference.||||0.497
90870427|NCT02989194|181601920|SUPERIORITY|Descriptive statistics. All statistical comparisons were performed using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level.||||||0.704||||||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only, there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Percent Change from Baseline to Day 9. All null hypotheses were defined as no treatment difference.||||0.704
90870428|NCT02989194|181601920|SUPERIORITY|Descriptive statistics. All statistical comparisons were performed using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level.||||||0.585||||||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only, there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Percent Change from Baseline to Day 10. All null hypotheses were defined as no treatment difference.||||0.585
90870429|NCT02989194|181601931|SUPERIORITY|All statistical comparisons were performed using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level.||||||0.083|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A t-test was used to assess the difference between the VIS410 total and placebo treatment groups from nasopharyngeal swabs based on the TCID50.||||0.083
90870430|NCT02989194|181601932|SUPERIORITY|All statistical comparisons were performed using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level.||||||0.169||||||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only; there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||0.169
90870431|NCT02989194|181601933|SUPERIORITY|Descriptive Statistics. Statistical comparisons were performed using log rank test.||||||0.028||||||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only; there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|||Kaplan-Meier methods were used to calculate the median time. All null hypotheses were defined as no treatment difference.|All statistical comparisons were performed using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level, unless specifically stated otherwise. All null hypotheses were defined as no treatment difference. All p-values are presented for informational purposes only; there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|||0.028
90870432|NCT02989194|181601935|EQUIVALENCE|Descriptive Statistics. All statistical comparisons were performed at the 0.05 significance level.||||||0.173||||||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only; there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|Kaplan-Meier methods were used to calculate the median time, 25th percentile and 75th percentile.||All null hypotheses were defined as no treatment difference.||||0.173
90870433|NCT00711711|181601936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||All outcomes and control variables were compared between the treatment and the control group at each time point using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test or the chi-square test, as appropriate. The change in swelling from second day to seventh day, that is, during the treatment period, was compared using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. The significance level was set at P\<.05.||||0.51
90870434|NCT00711711|181601937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||All outcomes and control variables were compared between the treatment and the control group at each time point using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test or the chi-square test, as appropriate. The change in swelling from second day to seventh day, that is, during the treatment period, was compared using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. The significance level was set at P\<.05.||||0.58
90870435|NCT00616200|181601948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Sickness Impact Profile scores improved.||||.001
90870436|NCT02057406|181601977|SUPERIORITY|The EPA/DHA arm versus placebo at Week 12.||||||0.74|||||||ANCOVA|||The model used post-treatment HAMD values as the dependent variable and included age, race, sex, treatment site, and the baseline HAMD value as covariates. This analysis was conducted under intention-to-treat (ITT) in which the missing HAMD endpoint values were imputed using 50 imputations.||||0.74
90870437|NCT02057406|181601977|SUPERIORITY|High EPA group versus placebo group at Week 12.||||||0.45|||||||ANCOVA|||The model used post-treatment HAMD values as the dependent variable and included age, race, sex, treatment site, and the baseline HAMD value as covariates. This analysis was conducted under intention-to-treat (ITT) in which the missing HAMD endpoint values were imputed using 50 imputations.||||0.45
90870438|NCT02057406|181601978|SUPERIORITY|Active supplements (2:1 EPA/DHA and High EPA combined) versus placebo at Week 12.|||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||The model used post-treatment EPA values as the dependent variable and included age, race, sex, treatment site, and the baseline EPA value as covariates. This analyses was conducted under intention-to-treat (ITT) in which the missing EPA endpoint values were imputed using 50 imputations.||||<0.0001
90911610|NCT04495634|181692169|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was defined through power calculations based on sample size, power of 0.90 and alpha of 0.05 resulting in a margin of +/- 0.26.|||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
90911611|NCT04495634|181692170|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was defined through power calculations based on sample size, power of 0.90 and alpha of 0.05 resulting in a margin of +/- 0.26.||||||0.41|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.41
90911612|NCT04495634|181692171|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was defined through power calculations based on sample size, power of 0.90 and alpha of 0.05 resulting in a margin of +/- 0.26.||||||0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0001
90870439|NCT02057406|181601978|SUPERIORITY|2:1 EPA/DHA versus High EPA at Week 12.||||||0.12|||||||ANCOVA|||The model used post-treatment EPA values as the dependent variable and included age, race, sex, treatment site, and the baseline EPA value as covariates. This analyses was conducted under intention-to-treat (ITT) in which the missing EPA endpoint values were imputed using 50 imputations.||||0.12
90870440|NCT01635101|181601990|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-11.8||||0.736|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-91.0|67.3|||ANOVA|||Difference in Least Squares (LS) Means||67.3|-91.0|0.736
90870441|NCT01635101|181601990|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.4||||0.967|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-75.9|78.7|||ANOVA|||LS Mean Difference||78.7|-75.9|0.967
90870442|NCT05620563|181602026|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.87|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.87|-0.28|
90870443|NCT05620563|181602027|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|0.82|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.82|-1.13|
90870444|NCT05620563|181602028|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.05|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.05|-0.99|
90870445|NCT05620563|181602029|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.82|2.69|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||2.69|-3.82|
90870446|NCT05620563|181602030|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.51|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.51|-0.33|
90870447|NCT05620563|181602031|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.95|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.95|-0.35|
90870448|NCT05620563|181602032|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|9.99|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||9.99|-5.70|
90870449|NCT05620563|181602033|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.24|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.24|-0.39|
90870450|NCT05620563|181602034|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|24.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-115.48|166.06|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||166.06|-115.48|
90870451|NCT05620563|181602035|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.08|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.08|-0.09|
90911613|NCT04495634|181692172|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was defined through power calculations based on sample size, power of 0.90 and alpha of 0.05 resulting in a margin of +/- 0.26.||||||0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0001
90940458|NCT05109117|181760759|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.8||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.9|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, timepoint, treatment\*timepoint (interaction) and subject as terms; Baseline value as covariate.||Pairwise comparison between Treated and Untreated sites 6 hours post-treatment||2.9|0.7|0.0019
90870452|NCT03454997|181602069|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|7.1||||||comparison of baseline and 6 months across both groups||7.1|3.9|
90940459|NCT05109117|181760759|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.0||||0.0707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|2.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, timepoint, treatment\*timepoint (interaction) and subject as terms; Baseline value as covariate.||Pairwise comparison between Treated and Untreated sites 8 hours post-treatment||2.2|-0.1|0.0707
90870453|NCT03454997|181602069|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.1||||||between groups differences of change between baseline and 6 months||1.1|-2.3|
90870454|NCT03454997|181602070|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.4||||||leading behavioral weight loss group baseline to 6 months comparison||0.4|-1.4|
90870455|NCT03454997|181602070|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.0||||||leading behavioral weight loss group between group comparison of change||1.0|-2.0|
90870456|NCT03454997|181602070|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.2||||||completing weight ins baseline to 6 month comparison||0.2|-1.4|
90870457|NCT03454997|181602070|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.5||||||completing weigh ins between groups comparison of change||0.5|-2.5|
90870458|NCT03454997|181602070|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.3||||||managing a group session baseline to 6 months comparison||0.3|-1.2|
90870459|NCT03454997|181602070|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.1||||||managing a group session between groups comparison of change||1.1|-2.0|
90870460|NCT03454997|181602071|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|2.9||||||comparison between baseline and 6 months across groups||2.9|-2.0|
90870461|NCT03454997|181602071|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|0.8||||||between groups comparison of change post training to 6 months||0.8|-9.1|
90870462|NCT03454997|181602072|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|0.3||||||comparison of baseline to 6 months across both groups||0.3|-6.9|
90870463|NCT03454997|181602072|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|1.8||||||comparison of between group differences baseline to 6 months||1.8|-11.4|
90870464|NCT03454997|181602073|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.1||||||Comparison of Baseline \& 6 Months across both groups||1.1|-0.4|
90870465|NCT03454997|181602073|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.2||||||Between Groups Differences of Change between Baseline \& 6 Months||0.2|-2.0|
90870466|NCT03454997|181602074|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|3.3||||||comparison of between group differences baseline to 6 months||3.3|-4.5|
90870467|NCT03454997|181602074|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|0.2||||||comparison of baseline to 6 months across groups||0.2|-3.1|
90870468|NCT03454997|181602075|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|-1.6||||||comparison of baseline and 6 months across groups||-1.6|-6.1|
90870469|NCT03454997|181602075|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.2|6.9||||||between groups differences of change between baseline to 6 months||6.9|-20.2|
90870470|NCT01111149|181602086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical Analysis for Serum Cotinine at Week 12||||>0.05
90870471|NCT01111149|181602086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical Analysis for Serum Nicotine at Week 12||||>0.05
90870472|NCT01111149|181602086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical Analysis for Urine Cotinine at Week 12||||>0.05
90870473|NCT01111149|181602086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical Analysis for Urine Nicotine at Week 12||||>0.05
90870474|NCT01111149|181602087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Statistical analysis for 50% Reduction in Number of Cigarettes Smoked (Week 12)||||>0.05
90870475|NCT01111149|181602087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Statistical Analysis for 30% Reduction in Carbon Monoxide (Week 12)||||>0.05
90870476|NCT01111149|181602087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Statistical Analysis for 30% Reduction in Serum Cotinine (Week 12)||||>0.05
90870477|NCT01111149|181602087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Statistical Analysis for 30% Reduction in Urine Cotinine (Week 12)||||>0.05
90870478|NCT01111149|181602088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for SANS Total Composite (Week 12)||||>0.05
90870479|NCT01111149|181602088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for SANS Total Global (Week 12)||||>0.05
90870480|NCT01111149|181602088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for SANS Affective Flattening (Week 12)||||>0.05
90870481|NCT01111149|181602088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for SANS Alogia (Week 12)||||>0.05
90870482|NCT01111149|181602088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for SANS Avolition (Week 12)||||>0.05
90870483|NCT01111149|181602088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for SANS Anhedonia (Week 12)||||>0.05
90870484|NCT01111149|181602088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for SANS Attention (Week 12)||||>0.05
90870485|NCT01111149|181602088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis of Inappropriate Affect at Week 12||||>0.05
90870486|NCT01111149|181602089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for CPT % Omissions (Week 12)||||>0.05
90870487|NCT01111149|181602089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for CPT% commissions (Week 12)||||>0.05
90870488|NCT01111149|181602089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for perseveration % (week 12)||||>0.05
90870489|NCT01111149|181602090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for Anxiety at week 12||||>0.05
90870490|NCT01111149|181602090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for Dizziness at week 12||||>0.05
90870491|NCT01111149|181602090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for Mania at week 12||||>0.05
90870492|NCT01111149|181602090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for abnormal dreams at week 12||||>0.05
90870493|NCT01111149|181602090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for Abdominal Pain at week 12||||>0.05
90870494|NCT01111149|181602090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for Headache at week 12||||>0.05
90870495|NCT01111149|181602090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for Insomnia at week 12||||>0.05
90870496|NCT01111149|181602090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for Nausea at week 12||||>0.05
90870497|NCT01111149|181602090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for Psychosis at week 12||||>0.05
90870498|NCT01111149|181602090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for Dry Mouth at week 12||||>0.05
90870499|NCT01111149|181602090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for Chest Pain at Week 12||||>0.05
90870500|NCT01111149|181602090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for Irregular Heart Beat at week 12||||>0.05
90870501|NCT01111149|181602090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for Weakness/Fainting at week 12||||>0.05
90940460|NCT02166047|181760772|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|0.023||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.061|0.108||P-value between vesatolimod and placebo was not adjusted for multiplicity due to exploratory nature of the study.|MMRM|||||0.108|-0.061|0.590
90940461|NCT02166047|181760772|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.068||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.018|0.154||P-value between vesatolimod and placebo was not adjusted for multiplicity due to exploratory nature of the study.|MMRM|||||0.154|-0.018|0.120
90870502|NCT01111149|181602090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for Diarrhea at week 12||||>0.05
90870503|NCT01111149|181602090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for Vomiting at week 12||||>0.05
90870504|NCT01111149|181602090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for Constipation at week 12||||>0.05
90870505|NCT01111149|181602090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for Confusion at week 12||||>0.05
90870506|NCT01111149|181602090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for Irritability at week 12||||>0.05
90870507|NCT01111149|181602090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for drooling at week 12||||>0.05
90870508|NCT01111149|181602090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for Cold Sweats at week 12||||>0.05
90870509|NCT01111149|181602090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for Blurred Vision at week 12||||>0.05
90870510|NCT01111149|181602090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for Leg Pain/Cramps||||>0.05
90870511|NCT01111149|181602091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for FTND (Week 12)||||>0.05
90870512|NCT01111149|181602091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for MNWS 24 Hour Total (Week 12)||||>0.05
90870513|NCT01111149|181602091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for MNWS 7 day total (Week 12)||||>0.05
90870514|NCT01111149|181602091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for MNWS Resistance (Week 12)||||>0.05
90911614|NCT03368001|181692174|OTHER|We used structural equation modeling (SEM), as implemented in Mplus 8.7, as a framework for testing all primary hypotheses. We accounted for any non-independence of observations due to cohort membership by obtaining cluster-robust standard errors using robust maximum likelihood estimation (MLR in Mplus) in tandem with the Type = Complex option available in Mplus, treating cohorts as clusters. All models were structurally saturated, so model fit was necessarily perfect.||||||0.039||||||IFM Posttest.|Structural Equation Modeling|We used structural equation modeling (SEM), as implemented in Mplus 8.7, as a framework for testing all primary hypotheses.||Population models were specified using parameter values derived from past research in tandem with minimal expected effect sizes for the effects of most interest. These models were used to generate 5000 samples for a given N, the models were fit to each sample, and the significance (or not) of key effects was noted. This process was repeated until the target power of at least .80 was reached indicating with 216 participants we would have .82 power.||||.039
90911615|NCT03368001|181692174|OTHER|The residuals associated with the mediator and outcome were allowed to covary with the lag and pretest scores associated with the outcome, and the residual associated with the outcome was allowed to covary with the lag and pretest scores associated with the mediator.|Structural Equation Model (SEM)|0.064|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.014|0.118||One-tailed significance test|Structural Equation Model (SEM)|Controlling for Verbal Expressiveness at Pretest and the interval between Pretest and the Followup assessments.|Estimation parameter represents indirect effect (axb)|The indirect effect of SENSE Theatre® vs. TTT through post-test IFM on follow-up Vocal Expressiveness. We adjusted standard errors for cohort, controlled the mediator for individual differences in lag between pretest and posttest for the a path and controlled the outcome for individual differences in lag between pretest to follow-up for the b and c' paths.||0.118|0.014|<0.05
90911616|NCT03368001|181692174|OTHER|The residual associated with the mediator was allowed to covary with the lag and pretest scores associated with the outcome, and the residual associated with the outcome was allowed to covary with the lag and pretest scores associated with the mediator, yielding a saturated model.|Structural Equation Model (SEM)|0.032|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.002|0.087||One-sided hypothesis test.|Structural Equation Model (SEM)|Controlling for Rapport at Pretest and the interval between Pretest and the Followup assessments.|Estimation parameter represents indirect effect (axb)|The partially standardized indirect effect of treatment on follow-up Quality of Rapport through posttest Incidental Face Memory. We adjusted standard errors for cohort, controlled the mediator for individual differences in lag (pretest to posttest) and baseline mediator, and controlled the outcome for individual differences in lag (pretest to follow-up) and baseline outcome.||0.087|0.002|<0.05
90911617|NCT03368001|181692174|OTHER|The residuals associated with the mediator and outcome were allowed to covary with the lag and pretest scores associated with the outcome, and the residual associated with the outcome was allowed to covary with the lag and pretest scores associated with the mediator, yielding a saturated model.|Structural Equation Model (SEM)|0.005|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.015|0.059||One-sided hypothesis test|Structural Equation Model (SEM)|Controlling for Social Anxiety at Pretest and the interval between Pretest and the Followup assessments.|Estimation parameter represents indirect effect (axb)|The partially standardized indirect effect of treatment on follow-up Social Anxiety through posttest IFM. Adjusted standard errors for cohort, controlled the mediator for individual differences in lag between pretest and posttest for the a path and controlled the outcome for individual differences in lag between pretest to follow-up for the b and c' paths.||0.059|-0.015|>0.05
90911618|NCT03368001|181692174|OTHER|The residuals associated with the mediator and outcome were allowed to covary with the lag and pretest scores associated with the outcome, and the residual associated with the outcome was allowed to covary with the lag and pretest scores associated with the mediator, yielding a saturated model.|Structural Equation Model (SEM)|-0.0002|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.054|0.061||One-sided hypothesis test|Structural Equation Model (SEM)|Controlling for SRS-2 Social Communication at Pretest and the interval between Pretest and the Followup assessments.|Estimation parameter represents indirect effect (axb)|The partially standardized indirect effect of treatment on follow-up SRS Communication. We adjusted standard errors for cohort, controlled the mediator for individual differences in lag between pretest and posttest for the a path and controlled the outcome for individual differences in lag between pretest to follow-up for the b and c' paths.||0.061|-0.054|>0.05
90911619|NCT03368001|181692175|OTHER|||||||0.49||||||SRS Communication Posttest.|Structural Equation Modeling|We used structural equation modeling (SEM), as implemented in Mplus 8.7, as a framework for testing all primary hypotheses.||||||.490
90911620|NCT03368001|181692176|OTHER|Posttest ANCOVA controlling for pre-test scores||||||0.704|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.704
90911621|NCT03368001|181692176|OTHER|Followup ANCOVA controlling for pretest values||||||0.406|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.406
90911622|NCT03368001|181692177|OTHER|||||||0.217|||||||Structural Equation Modeling|We used structural equation modeling (SEM), as implemented in Mplus 8.7, as a framework for testing all primary hypotheses.||Vocal Expressiveness Posttest.||||.217
90911623|NCT03368001|181692177|OTHER|||||||0.448|||||||Structural Equation Modeling|We used structural equation modeling (SEM), as implemented in Mplus 8.7, as a framework for testing all primary hypotheses||Quality of Rapport Posttest.||||.448
90911624|NCT03368001|181692177|OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||Structural Equation Modeling|We used structural equation modeling (SEM), as implemented in Mplus 8.7, as a framework for testing all primary hypotheses||Social Anxiety Posttest.||||.150
90870515|NCT01111149|181602092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis of Beck Depression Inventory (Week 12)||||>0.05
90870516|NCT01111149|181602093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for SAS (Week 12)||||>0.05
90870517|NCT01111149|181602093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for BAS items 1-3 (week 12)||||>0.05
90870518|NCT01111149|181602093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for BAS item 4 (Week 12)||||>0.05
90870519|NCT01111149|181602094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for systolic blood pressure (Week 12)||||>0.05
90870520|NCT01111149|181602094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for diastolic blood pressure (Week 12)||||>0.05
90870521|NCT01111149|181602095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for Vital Signs - Weight (Week 12)||||>0.05
90870522|NCT01111149|181602096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for Smoking Abstinence - Number of Cigarettes Smoked (Week 12)||||>0.05
90870523|NCT01111149|181602097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for Smoking Abstinence - Exhaled Carbon Monoxide (Week 12)||||>0.05
90870524|NCT01111149|181602098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for Vital Signs - Pulse (Week 12)||||>0.05
90870525|NCT01111149|181602099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for Lifetime Suicidal Ideation (Week 12)||||>0.05
90911625|NCT03368001|181692178|OTHER|Posttest ANCOVA controlling for pre-test values||||||0.169|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.169
90960614|NCT02881957|181801690|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Two-sided t-test evaluated comparing length of stay in vitamin D3 vs. placebo treated patients utilizing patients as randomized (e.g., intent-to-treat) using a p\<0.05 as significant. Adverse events were monitored until discharge.||||0.2
90870526|NCT01111149|181602099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for Lifetime Suicide Attempts (Week 12)||||>0.05
90870527|NCT01111149|181602100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for SAPS Total Composite Score - Week 12||||>0.05
90870528|NCT01111149|181602100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for SAPS Total Global - Week 12||||>0.05
90870529|NCT01111149|181602100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for SAPS Hallucinations - Week 12||||>0.05
90870530|NCT01111149|181602100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for Delusions - Week 12||||>0.05
90911626|NCT03368001|181692178|OTHER|Followup ANCOVA controlling for pretest values.||||||0.555|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.555
90911627|NCT03612804|181692179|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.64||P-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with random intercept for provider and main effect term for study site.|Proactive care arm represents numerator of odds ratio, unstructured care arm represents denominator of odds ratio.|||1.64|0.67|0.83
90870531|NCT01111149|181602100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical Analysis for SAPS Bizarre Behavior - Week 12||||>0.05
90870532|NCT01111149|181602100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for SAPS Thought Disorder - Week 12||||>0.05
90870533|NCT01111149|181602101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for BPRS Total - Week 12||||>0.05
90870534|NCT01111149|181602101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for BPRS Positive Subscale - Week 12||||>0.05
90870535|NCT01111149|181602101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for BPRS Negative Subscale - Week 12||||>0.05
90870536|NCT01111149|181602101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for Mania Subscale - Week 12||||>0.05
90870537|NCT01111149|181602101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for Disorientation Subscale - Week 12||||>0.05
90870538|NCT01111149|181602101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for BPRS Depression Subscale - Week 12||||>0.05
90870539|NCT01111149|181602102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for Hit Reaction Time - CPT (Week 12)||||>0.05
90870540|NCT01111149|181602103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for Variability of Standard Error - CPT (Week 12)||||>0.05
90870541|NCT01111149|181602104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for Detectibility (d') of Continuous Performance Test (Week 12)||||>0.05
90870542|NCT01111149|181602105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for Response Style Indicator (Beta) for CPT (week 12)||||>0.05
90870543|NCT01111149|181602106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for WISDM Total (Week 12)||||>0.05
90870544|NCT01111149|181602106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical Analysis for WISDM Cognition (Week 12)||||>0.05
90870545|NCT01111149|181602106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for WISDM Craving (Week 12)||||>0.05
90870546|NCT01111149|181602107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for MNWS % Urge to Smoke (Week 12)||||>0.05
90870547|NCT01111149|181602107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for MNWS % Strong Urge (Week 12)||||>0.05
90870548|NCT01111149|181602108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for AIMS Total (Week 12)||||>0.05
90870549|NCT01111149|181602108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for AIMS Severity Index (Week 12)||||>0.05
90870550|NCT01111149|181602108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical Analysis for AIMS Global Score (Week 12)||||>0.05
90870551|NCT02221947|181602112|OTHER||mean Tmax(h)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||SD=0.206|Bryostatin plasma concentration: mean Tmax (h)||||
90870552|NCT02221947|181602112|OTHER||mean (h*ng/mL)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||SD=0.330|Bryostatin plasma concentration AUC0-last (h\*ng/mL)||||
90911628|NCT03105128|181692197|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|20.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.4|29.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||29.0|12.4|<0.001
90911629|NCT03105128|181692197|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|16.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.5|24.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||24.9|8.5|<0.001
90960615|NCT02881957|181801691|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4
90960616|NCT02881957|181801692|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3
90960617|NCT02881957|181801693|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6
90960618|NCT02881957|181801694|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7
90911630|NCT03105128|181692198|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|28.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.2|35.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||35.4|21.2|<0.001
90870553|NCT05025241|181602161|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed rank|||Efficacy endpoints were analyzed using a Wilcoxon signed rank test on the paired participant data from baseline to EOT (Visit 16), when applicable. Baseline values were based on the average non-missing values of visits 1, 2, and 3 for assessments collected at more than one visit during the Screening/Baseline period. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the data. For total scores, waterfall plots, and histograms were created at the EOT visit with plots for all participants||||<0.0001
90870554|NCT05025241|181602162|OTHER|||||||0.0003|||||||Wilcoxon Signed rank|||Efficacy endpoints were analyzed using a Wilcoxon signed rank test on the paired participant data from baseline to EOT (Visit 16), when applicable. Baseline values were based on the average non-missing values of visits 1, 2, and 3 for assessments collected at more than one visit during the Screening/Baseline period. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the data. For total scores, waterfall plots, and histograms were created at the EOT visit with plots for all participants||||0.0003
90870555|NCT05025241|181602163|OTHER|Change from baseline||||||0.0156|||||||Wilcoxon Signed rank|||Efficacy endpoints were analyzed using a Wilcoxon signed rank test on the paired participant data from baseline to EOT (Visit 16), when applicable. Baseline values were based on the average non-missing values of visits 1, 2, and 3 for assessments collected at more than one visit during the Screening/Baseline period. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the data. For total scores, waterfall plots, and histograms were created at the EOT visit with plots for all participants||||0.0156
90870556|NCT05025241|181602164|OTHER|Change from baseline||||||0.0005|||||||Wilcoxon Signed rank|||Efficacy endpoints were analyzed using a Wilcoxon signed rank test on the paired participant data from baseline to EOT (Visit 16), when applicable. Baseline values were based on the average non-missing values of visits 1, 2, and 3 for assessments collected at more than one visit during the Screening/Baseline period. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the data. For total scores, waterfall plots, and histograms were created at the EOT visit with plots for all participants||||0.0005
90870557|NCT05025241|181602165|OTHER|||||||0.0647|||||||Wilcoxon Signed rank|||Efficacy endpoints were analyzed using a Wilcoxon signed rank test on the paired participant data from baseline to EOT (Visit 16), when applicable. Baseline values were based on the average non-missing values of visits 1, 2, and 3 for assessments collected at more than one visit during the Screening/Baseline period. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the data. For total scores, waterfall plots, and histograms were created at the EOT visit with plots for all participants.||||0.0647
90870558|NCT05025241|181602166|OTHER|Change from baseline||||||0.0984|||||||Wilcoxon Signed rank|||Efficacy endpoints were analyzed using a Wilcoxon signed rank test on the paired participant data from baseline to EOT (Visit 16), when applicable. Baseline values were based on the average non-missing values of visits 1, 2, and 3 for assessments collected at more than one visit during the Screening/Baseline period. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the data. For total scores, waterfall plots, and histograms were created at the EOT visit with plots for all participants||||0.0984
90870559|NCT05025241|181602167|OTHER|Change from baseline||||||0.0013|||||||Wilcoxon Signed rank|||Efficacy endpoints were analyzed using a Wilcoxon signed rank test on the paired participant data from baseline to EOT (Visit 16), when applicable. Baseline values were based on the average non-missing values of visits 1, 2, and 3 for assessments collected at more than one visit during the Screening/Baseline period. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the data. For total scores, waterfall plots, and histograms were created at the EOT visit with plots for all participants||||0.0013
90870560|NCT05025241|181602168|OTHER|Change from baseline||||||0.0191|||||||Wilcoxon Signed rank|||Efficacy endpoints were analyzed using a Wilcoxon signed rank test on the paired participant data from baseline to EOT (Visit 16), when applicable. Baseline values were based on the average non-missing values of visits 1, 2, and 3 for assessments collected at more than one visit during the Screening/Baseline period. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the data. For total scores, waterfall plots, and histograms were created at the EOT visit with plots for all participants||||0.0191
90870561|NCT05025241|181602169|OTHER|change from baseline||||||0.0013|||||||Wilcoxon Signed rank|||Efficacy endpoints were analyzed using a Wilcoxon signed rank test on the paired participant data from baseline to EOT (Visit 16), when applicable. Baseline values were based on the average non-missing values of visits 1, 2, and 3 for assessments collected at more than one visit during the Screening/Baseline period. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the data. For total scores, waterfall plots, and histograms were created at the EOT visit with plots for all participants||||0.0013
90870562|NCT05025241|181602170|OTHER|change from baseline||||||0.171|||||||Wilcoxon Signed rank|||Efficacy endpoints were analyzed using a Wilcoxon signed rank test on the paired participant data from baseline to EOT (Visit 16), when applicable. Baseline values were based on the average non-missing values of visits 1, 2, and 3 for assessments collected at more than one visit during the Screening/Baseline period. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the data. For total scores, waterfall plots, and histograms were created at the EOT visit with plots for all participants||||0.1710
90870563|NCT05025241|181602171|OTHER|change from baseline||||||0.0066|||||||Wilcoxon Signed rank|||Efficacy endpoints were analyzed using a Wilcoxon signed rank test on the paired participant data from baseline to EOT (Visit 16), when applicable. Baseline values were based on the average non-missing values of visits 1, 2, and 3 for assessments collected at more than one visit during the Screening/Baseline period. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the data. For total scores, waterfall plots, and histograms were created at the EOT visit with plots for all participants||||0.0066
90870564|NCT05025241|181602172|OTHER|change form baseline||||||0.1094|||||||Wilcoxon Signed rank|||Efficacy endpoints were analyzed using a Wilcoxon signed rank test on the paired participant data from baseline to EOT (Visit 16), when applicable. Baseline values were based on the average non-missing values of visits 1, 2, and 3 for assessments collected at more than one visit during the Screening/Baseline period. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the data. For total scores, waterfall plots, and histograms were created at the EOT visit with plots for all participants||||0.1094
90870565|NCT05025241|181602173|OTHER|change from baseline||||||0.0156|||||||Wilcoxon Signed rank|||Efficacy endpoints were analyzed using a Wilcoxon signed rank test on the paired participant data from baseline to EOT (Visit 16), when applicable. Baseline values were based on the average non-missing values of visits 1, 2, and 3 for assessments collected at more than one visit during the Screening/Baseline period. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the data. For total scores, waterfall plots, and histograms were created at the EOT visit with plots for all participants||||0.0156
90911631|NCT03105128|181692198|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|20.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.6|27.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||27.1|13.6|<0.001
90911632|NCT03105128|181692199|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|21.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.8|29.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||29.9|13.8|<0.001
90911633|NCT03105128|181692199|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|18.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.8|26.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||26.8|10.8|<0.001
90911634|NCT03105128|181692200|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|28.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.2|35.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||35.4|21.2|<0.001
90911635|NCT03105128|181692200|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|20.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.6|27.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||27.1|13.6|<0.001
90911636|NCT03105128|181692201|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.8|29.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||29.9|13.8|<0.001
90911637|NCT03105128|181692201|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|18.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.8|26.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||26.8|10.8|<0.001
90911638|NCT03105128|181692202|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|15.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.2|23.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||23.7|7.2|<0.001
90911639|NCT03105128|181692202|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|11.2||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|19.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||19.2|3.1|0.007
90911640|NCT03105128|181692203|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|23.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.2|31.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||31.9|14.2|<0.001
90911641|NCT03105128|181692203|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|27.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.0|36.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||36.4|19.0|<0.001
90911642|NCT03105128|181692204|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|5.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|7.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||7.2|3.2|<0.001
90911643|NCT03105128|181692204|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|4.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|6.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||6.1|2.1|<0.001
90911644|NCT03105128|181692205|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|7.6||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|13.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||13.7|1.5|0.015
90911645|NCT03105128|181692205|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|8.4||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|14.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||14.6|2.3|0.007
90911646|NCT03105128|181692206|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|24.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.5|30.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||30.5|18.5|<0.001
90911647|NCT03105128|181692206|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|17.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.8|22.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||22.9|11.8|<0.001
90911648|NCT03105128|181692207|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|24.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.7|32.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||32.7|15.7|<0.001
90911649|NCT03105128|181692207|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|23.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.1|32.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||32.1|15.1|<0.001
90911650|NCT03105128|181692208|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|21.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.4|30.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||30.0|12.4|<0.001
90911651|NCT03105128|181692208|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|19.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.1|27.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||27.8|10.1|<0.001
90911652|NCT03105128|181692209|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|15.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.0|21.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.2|9.0|<0.001
90911653|NCT03105128|181692209|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|15.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.4|21.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.4|9.4|<0.001
90911654|NCT03105128|181692210|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|14.9||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.2|23.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||23.5|6.2|0.001
90911655|NCT03105128|181692210|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|11.8||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|20.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||20.3|3.2|0.007
90911656|NCT03105128|181692211|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|13.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.9|19.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||19.5|7.9|<0.001
90911657|NCT03105128|181692211|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|9.1||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|14.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||14.5|3.7|0.001
90911658|NCT03105128|181692212|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|21.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.2|29.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||29.9|12.2|<0.001
90911659|NCT03105128|181692212|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|21.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.8|30.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||30.4|12.8|<0.001
90911660|NCT03105128|181692213|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|14.6||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|27.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||27.0|2.1|0.022
90911661|NCT03105128|181692213|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|23.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.1|36.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||36.3|11.1|<0.001
90911662|NCT03105128|181692214|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|-3.5|||Chi-squared|||||-3.5|-13.9|<0.001
90911663|NCT03105128|181692214|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|-5.2|||Chi-squared|||||-5.2|-15.2|<0.001
90911664|NCT03105128|181692215|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.6||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.6|39.7|||Chi-squared|||||39.7|-28.6|1.00
90911665|NCT03105128|181692215|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.9||||1|TWO_SIDED|25.0|-25.7|39.6|||Chi-squared|||||39.6|-25.7|1.000
90911666|NCT03105128|181692216|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|20.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.4|29.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||29.0|12.4|<0.001
90870566|NCT05025241|181602174|OTHER|change from baseline||||||0.0326|||||||Wilcoxon Signed rank|||Efficacy endpoints were analyzed using a Wilcoxon signed rank test on the paired participant data from baseline to EOT (Visit 16), when applicable. Baseline values were based on the average non-missing values of visits 1, 2, and 3 for assessments collected at more than one visit during the Screening/Baseline period. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the data. For total scores, waterfall plots, and histograms were created at the EOT visit with plots for all participants||||0.0326
90911667|NCT03105128|181692216|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|16.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.5|24.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||24.9|8.5|<0.001
90911668|NCT03105128|181692217|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|15.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.2|23.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||23.7|7.2|<0.001
90911669|NCT03105128|181692217|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|11.2||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|19.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||19.2|3.1|0.007
90911670|NCT03105128|181692218|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|11.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.4|17.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||17.5|5.4|<0.001
90911671|NCT03105128|181692218|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|11.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|17.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||17.8|5.7|<0.001
90870567|NCT01574326|181602201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square (LS) mean difference|-0.9||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|-0.37|||ANCOVA|Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.||Primary efficacy endpoint, change from baseline to Week 2 in serum phosphorus, was compared between treatment groups using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline phosphorus and screening BSA as covariates and fixed effect for treatment. No center effect was included in the model. The estimate of the treatment difference (Sevelamer Carbonate - Placebo) and its 95% CI were presented. Significance was to be declared if the p-value was ≤0.05.||-0.37|-1.44|0.001
90870568|NCT00137046|181602204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||||90.0|-0.041|-0.007|||ANCOVA|||Month 3; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.007|-0.041|
90911672|NCT03105128|181692219|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|23.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.2|31.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||31.9|14.2|<0.001
90911673|NCT03105128|181692219|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|27.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.0|36.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||36.4|19.0|<0.001
90911674|NCT03105128|181692220|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|7.2|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||7.2|3.2|<0.001
90911675|NCT03105128|181692220|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|6.1|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||6.1|2.1|<0.001
90911676|NCT03105128|181692221|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|20.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.3|27.1|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||27.1|14.3|<0.001
90911677|NCT03105128|181692221|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|19.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.1|25.8|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||25.8|13.1|<0.001
90911678|NCT03105128|181692222|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|23.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.8|29.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||29.6|16.8|<0.001
90911679|NCT03105128|181692222|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|15.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.3|21.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.2|9.3|<0.001
90911680|NCT03105128|181692223|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|15.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.0|21.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.2|9.0|<0.001
90911681|NCT03105128|181692223|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|15.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.4|21.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.4|9.4|<0.001
90911682|NCT03105128|181692224|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|14.9||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.2|23.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||23.5|6.2|0.001
90911683|NCT03105128|181692224|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|11.8||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|20.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||20.3|3.2|0.007
90911684|NCT03105128|181692225|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|13.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.9|19.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||19.5|7.9|<0.001
90911685|NCT03105128|181692225|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|9.1||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|14.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||14.5|3.7|0.001
90911686|NCT03105128|181692226|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|21.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.2|29.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||29.9|12.2|<0.001
90911687|NCT03105128|181692226|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|21.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.8|30.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||30.4|12.8|<0.001
90911688|NCT03105128|181692227|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|14.6||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|27.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||27.0|2.1|0.022
90911689|NCT03105128|181692227|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|23.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.1|36.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||36.3|11.1|<0.001
90911690|NCT03105128|181692228|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-8.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|-3.5|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||-3.5|-13.9|<0.001
90911691|NCT03105128|181692228|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-10.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|-5.2|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||-5.2|-15.2|<0.001
90911692|NCT03105128|181692229|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.6||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.6|39.7|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||39.7|-28.6|1.000
90911693|NCT03105128|181692229|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|6.9||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.7|39.6|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||39.6|-25.7|1.000
90911694|NCT03105128|181692230|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.586||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.89|-1.282|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||-1.282|-17.890|0.024
90911695|NCT03105128|181692230|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-12.141||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.39|-3.892|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||-3.892|-20.390|0.004
90911696|NCT03105128|181692231|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.913|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.512|4.313|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||4.313|1.512|<0.001
90911697|NCT03105128|181692231|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.275|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.877|4.672|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||4.672|1.877|<0.001
90911698|NCT04391309|181692247|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.435|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.435
90911699|NCT04391309|181692248|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||All categories included in the analysis||||1
90911700|NCT04391309|181692249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.391|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.391
90870569|NCT00137046|181602204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011||||90.0|-0.04|-0.003|||ANCOVA|||Month 6; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.003|-0.040|
90870570|NCT00137046|181602204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||||90.0|-0.038|0.001|||ANCOVA|||Month 9; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||0.001|-0.038|
90870571|NCT00137046|181602204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.038|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||||90.0|-0.058|-0.019|||ANCOVA|||Month 12; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.019|-0.058|
90870572|NCT00137046|181602204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014||||90.0|-0.065|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||Month 15; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.020|-0.065|
90870573|NCT00137046|181602204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014||||90.0|-0.043|0.002|||ANCOVA|||Month 18; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||0.002|-0.043|
90870574|NCT00137046|181602204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.043|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014||||90.0|-0.066|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||Month 21; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.020|-0.066|
90870575|NCT00137046|181602204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.033|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015||||90.0|-0.058|-0.009|||ANCOVA|||Month 24; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.009|-0.058|
90870576|NCT00137046|181602204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015||||90.0|-0.039|0.009|||ANCOVA|||Follow-up Month 1; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||0.009|-0.039|
90870577|NCT00137046|181602204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014||||90.0|-0.027|0.017|||ANCOVA|||Follow-up Month 3; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||0.017|-0.027|
90870578|NCT00137046|181602204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.013|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015||||90.0|-0.037|0.012|||ANCOVA|||Follow-up Month 6; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||0.012|-0.037|
90870579|NCT00137046|181602204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||||90.0|-0.076|-0.014|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 1; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.014|-0.076|
90870580|NCT00137046|181602204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||||90.0|-0.076|-0.013|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 3; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.013|-0.076|
90870581|NCT00137046|181602204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||||90.0|-0.071|-0.008|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 6; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.008|-0.071|
90870582|NCT00137046|181602204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.041|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||||90.0|-0.074|-0.008|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 9; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.008|-0.074|
90870583|NCT00137046|181602204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.056|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||||90.0|-0.088|-0.025|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 12; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.025|-0.088|
90870584|NCT00137046|181602204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.039|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||||90.0|-0.071|-0.007|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 15; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.007|-0.071|
90870585|NCT00137046|181602204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.044|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021||||90.0|-0.079|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 18; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.010|-0.079|
90870586|NCT00137046|181602204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022||||90.0|-0.055|0.016|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 21; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||0.016|-0.055|
90911701|NCT04391309|181692250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.895|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.895
90911702|NCT04391309|181692251|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.702|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.702
90911703|NCT04391309|181692252|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value based on Fishers exact test, which enumerates all possible tables that have same margins as observed \& calculates proportion of tables where values are more extreme than observed. P-value of 1 = the observed table is the most extreme|Fisher Exact|||All categories included in the analysis.||||1
90911704|NCT04391309|181692253|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value based on Fishers exact test, which enumerates all possible tables that have same margins as observed \& calculates proportion of tables where values are more extreme than observed. P-value of 1 = the observed table is the most extreme|Fisher Exact|||All categories included in the analysis||||1
90911705|NCT04391309|181692254|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value based on Fishers exact test, which enumerates all possible tables that have same margins as observed \& calculates proportion of tables where values are more extreme than observed. P-value of 1 = the observed table is the most extreme|Fisher Exact|||All categories included in the anlysis.||||1
90911706|NCT04391309|181692255|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value based on Fishers exact test, which enumerates all possible tables that have same margins as observed \& calculates proportion of tables where values are more extreme than observed. P-value of 1 = the observed table is the most extreme|Fisher Exact|||All categories included in the analysis.||||1
90911707|NCT04391309|181692256|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value based on Fishers exact test, which enumerates all possible tables that have same margins as observed \& calculates proportion of tables where values are more extreme than observed. P-value of 1 = the observed table is the most extreme|Fisher Exact|||All categories included in the analysis.||||1
90911708|NCT04391309|181692257|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value based on Fishers exact test, which enumerates all possible tables that have same margins as observed \& calculates proportion of tables where values are more extreme than observed. P-value of 1 = the observed table is the most extreme|Fisher Exact|||All categories included in the analysis.||||1
90960619|NCT02881957|181801695|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Chi-squared|||Adverse events were monitored until patient discharge from the hospital.||||0.99
90960620|NCT02881957|181801696|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Chi-squared|||Adverse events were monitored until patient discharge from the hospital.||||0.6
90960621|NCT02881957|181801697|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Chi-squared|||Adverse events were monitored until patient discharge from the hospital.||||0.7
90960622|NCT02881957|181801698|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Chi-squared|||Adverse events were monitored until patient discharge from the hospital.||||0.4
90960623|NCT02881957|181801699|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Chi-squared|||Adverse events were monitored until patient discharge from the hospital.||||0.1
90960624|NCT02425644|181801738|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.695||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.536|0.902|||Negative binomial regression model|||||0.902|0.536|0.0003
90911709|NCT04391309|181692258|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value based on Fishers exact test, which enumerates all possible tables that have same margins as observed \& calculates proportion of tables where values are more extreme than observed. P-value of 1 = the observed table is the most extreme|Fisher Exact|||All categories included in the analysis.||||1
90911710|NCT05826431|181692262|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.65||||0.153|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired samples t-test|||Study analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics Version 29. Frequencies and descriptive data were tabulated to describe the sample and quantify device use, satisfaction, and perceived impact. Qualitative responses regarding usability and feasibility were summarized based on the themes of the responses.||||0.153
90911711|NCT05826431|181692263|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.61||||0.103|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired samples t-test|||||||0.103
90911712|NCT05826431|181692265|OTHER|Single group, frequencies, and descriptive data|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.22||||0.083|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired samples t-test|||||||.083
90911713|NCT05826431|181692266|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26||||441|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired samples t-test|||||||0441
90911714|NCT05826431|181692267|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.61||||0.095|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired samples t-test|||||||0.095
90911715|NCT05826431|181692268|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.487|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired samples t-test|||||||0.487
90911716|NCT05826431|181692269|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.483|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired samples t-test|||||||0.483
90960625|NCT02425644|181801739|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.57||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.83|-1.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.32|-5.83|0.0019
90960626|NCT02425644|181801740|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.444|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.364|0.542|||Negative binomial regression model|||||0.542|0.364|<.0001
90960627|NCT02425644|181801741|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.2939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.18|||Log Rank|||||1.18|0.58|0.2939
90960628|NCT02425644|181801742|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.24|||Log Rank|||||1.24|0.57|0.3720
90960629|NCT00567268|181801801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.004|||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was age. The null hypothesis was that there was no association between the age and the number of responders to the treatment with gabapentin."||||=0.004
90960630|NCT00567268|181801802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.003|||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was number of concomitant antiepileptic drugs at baseline. The null hypothesis was that there was no linear trend in the number of responders to the treatment with gabapentin across increasing levels of the number of concomitant antiepileptic drugs at baseline."||||=0.003
90960631|NCT00567268|181801802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.003|||||||Cochran-Armitage|||"The risk factor tested was number of concomitant antiepileptic drugs at baseline. The null hypothesis was that there was no linear trend in the number of responders to the treatment with gabapentin across increasing levels of the number of concomitant antiepileptic drugs at baseline."||||=0.003
90911717|NCT05826431|181692270|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.82||||0.0483|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired samples t-test|||||||.0483
90911718|NCT05826431|181692271|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42||||0.123|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired samples t-test|||||||0.123
90911719|NCT00768651|181692272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The sample size of 8 was determined to provide a 95% confidence interval expected width of 0.62 for the proportion of subjects who become insulin independent with treatment. Four of eight subjects (50%) would have to achieve insulin independence in order to reject the null hypothesis with 85% power and one sided alpha of 0.025. Statistical significance was set at 5%. Mean values were computed using Student's t-test while medians were compared using Wilcoxon's test.||||< 0.05
90960632|NCT00567268|181801803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||"The factor tested was age. The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between \<65 years and \>=65 years in the number of participants who responded to the treatment with gabapentin."||||<0.001
90870587|NCT00137046|181602204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022||||90.0|-0.079|-0.004|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 24; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.004|-0.079|
90870588|NCT00137046|181602204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.055|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022||||90.0|-0.091|-0.019|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 27; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.019|-0.091|
90870589|NCT00137046|181602204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022||||90.0|-0.081|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 30; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.010|-0.081|
90870590|NCT00137046|181602204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.036|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023||||90.0|-0.073|0.002|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 33; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||0.002|-0.073|
90870591|NCT00137046|181602204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.079|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||||90.0|-0.121|-0.038|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 36; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.038|-0.121|
90870592|NCT00137046|181602204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.061|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038||||90.0|-0.124|0.003|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 39; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||0.003|-0.124|
90870593|NCT00137046|181602204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.066|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||||90.0|-0.098|-0.033|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 39 (LOCF); Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.033|-0.098|
90870594|NCT00137046|181602204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.044|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||||90.0|-0.085|-0.004|||ANCOVA|||Extension Follow Up Month 3; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.004|-0.085|
90870595|NCT00137046|181602206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.031|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055||||90.0|-0.06|0.122|||ANCOVA|||Month 3; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline HbA1c, and Center.||0.122|-0.060|
90870596|NCT00137046|181602206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.136|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062||||90.0|0.033|0.239|||ANCOVA|||Month 6; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline HbA1c, and Center.||0.239|0.033|
90870597|NCT00137046|181602206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.112|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068||||90.0|0.0|0.224|||ANCOVA|||Month 9; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline HbA1c, and Center.||0.224|-0.000|
90870598|NCT00137046|181602206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.257|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.071||||90.0|0.141|0.374|||ANCOVA|||Month 12; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline HbA1c, and Center.||0.374|0.141|
90870599|NCT00137046|181602206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.156|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.071||||90.0|0.04|0.273|||ANCOVA|||Month 15; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline HbA1c, and Center.||0.273|0.040|
90870600|NCT00137046|181602206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.182|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.072||||90.0|0.065|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Month 18; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline HbA1c, and Center.||0.300|0.065|
90870601|NCT00137046|181602206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.078||||90.0|0.06|0.319|||ANCOVA|||Month 21; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline HbA1c, and Center.||0.319|0.060|
90870602|NCT00137046|181602206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.316|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.077||||90.0|0.19|0.443|||ANCOVA|||Month 24; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline HbA1c, and Center.||0.443|0.190|
90870603|NCT00137046|181602206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.093|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.079||||90.0|-0.037|0.224|||ANCOVA|||Follow-up Month 3; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline HbA1c, and Center.||0.224|-0.037|
90870604|NCT00137046|181602206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.075||||90.0|-0.103|0.145|||ANCOVA|||Follow-up Month 6; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline HbA1c, and Center.||0.145|-0.103|
90870605|NCT00137046|181602206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.112|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.082||||90.0|-0.023|0.248|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 1; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline HbA1c, and Center.||0.248|-0.023|
90870606|NCT00137046|181602206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.273|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.089||||90.0|0.126|0.419|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 3; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline HbA1c, and Center.||0.419|0.126|
90870607|NCT00137046|181602206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.363|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.087||||90.0|0.219|0.507|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 6; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline HbA1c, and Center.||0.507|0.219|
90870608|NCT00137046|181602206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.278|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.091||||90.0|0.128|0.428|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 9; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline HbA1c, and Center.||0.428|0.128|
90870609|NCT00137046|181602206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.293|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.091||||90.0|0.144|0.442|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 12; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline HbA1c, and Center.||0.442|0.144|
90870610|NCT00137046|181602206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.213|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094||||90.0|0.058|0.369|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 15; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline HbA1c, and Center.||0.369|0.058|
90870611|NCT00137046|181602206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.243|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.086||||90.0|0.101|0.386|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 18; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline HbA1c, and Center.||0.386|0.101|
90911720|NCT01304147|181692337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|11.3|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||within-subject crossover design||11.3|3.9|<0.001
90911721|NCT01212757|181692376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|13.4||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|22.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|2-sided p-value is based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusting for baseline disease modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) use.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the CMH weights. The 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|In order to maintain the Type 1 error at the 0.05 significance level, the Hochberg procedure was to be used. The results of the endpoint were to be considered statistically significant if both the 30 mg apremilast dose versus placebo comparison and the 20 mg versus placebo comparison were statistically significant at the 0.05 significance level, or one of the comparisons was statistically significant at the 0.025 level.||22.7|4.0|0.0060
90940462|NCT02166047|181760772|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.017||||0.701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.069|0.102||P-value between vesatolimod and placebo was not adjusted for multiplicity due to exploratory nature of the study.|MMRM|||||0.102|-0.069|0.701
90911722|NCT01212757|181692376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|18.7||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.1|28.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the CMH weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|In order to maintain the Type 1 error at the 0.05 significance level, the Hochberg procedure was to be used. The results of the endpoint were to be considered statistically significant if both the 30 mg apremilast dose versus placebo comparison and the 20 mg versus placebo comparison were statistically significant at the 0.05 significance level, or one of the comparisons was statistically significant at the 0.025 level.||28.2|9.1|0.0002
90940463|NCT02166047|181760772|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.082||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.046|0.21||P-value between vesatolimod and placebo was not adjusted for multiplicity due to exploratory nature of the study.|MMRM|||||0.210|-0.046|0.210
90940464|NCT02166047|181760772|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.082||||0.207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.046|0.21||P-value between vesatolimod and placebo was not adjusted for multiplicity due to exploratory nature of the study.|MMRM|||||0.210|-0.046|0.207
90940465|NCT02166047|181760772|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.081||||0.216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.048|0.21||P-value between vesatolimod and placebo was not adjusted for multiplicity due to exploratory nature of the study.|MMRM|||||0.210|-0.048|0.216
90940466|NCT02166047|181760772|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.015||||0.652|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.081|0.051||P-value between vesatolimod and placebo was not adjusted for multiplicity due to exploratory nature of the study.|MMRM|||||0.051|-0.081|0.652
90940467|NCT02166047|181760772|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.066|0.065||P-value between vesatolimod and placebo was not adjusted for multiplicity due to exploratory nature of the study.|MMRM|||||0.065|-0.066|0.994
90940468|NCT02166047|181760772|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.069|0.069||P-value between vesatolimod and placebo was not adjusted for multiplicity due to exploratory nature of the study.|MMRM|||||0.069|-0.069|0.996
90870612|NCT00137046|181602206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.227|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||||90.0|0.079|0.376|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 21; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline HbA1c, and Center.||0.376|0.079|
90870613|NCT00137046|181602206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.225|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.089||||90.0|0.079|0.372|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 24; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline HbA1c, and Center.||0.372|0.079|
90870614|NCT00137046|181602206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.211|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.095||||90.0|0.055|0.368|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 27; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline HbA1c, and Center.||0.368|0.055|
90870615|NCT00137046|181602206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.331|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.092||||90.0|0.18|0.483|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 30; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline HbA1c, and Center.||0.483|0.180|
90870616|NCT00137046|181602206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.462|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.097||||90.0|0.302|0.622|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 33; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline HbA1c, and Center.||0.622|0.302|
90940469|NCT00451555|181760785|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6238|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6238
90940470|NCT00451555|181760785|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6282|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6282
90940471|NCT00451555|181760785|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6242|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6242
90870617|NCT00137046|181602206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.115||||90.0|0.221|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 36; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline HbA1c, and Center.||0.600|0.221|
90870618|NCT00137046|181602206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.451|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.161||||90.0|0.183|0.718|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 39; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline HbA1c, and Center.||0.718|0.183|
90870619|NCT00137046|181602206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.032|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.124||||90.0|-0.174|0.237|||ANCOVA|||Extension Follow Up Month 3; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline HbA1c, and Center.||0.237|-0.174|
90870620|NCT00137046|181602209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.33||||90.0|-25.24|-4.39|||ANCOVA|||Month 3; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Fasting Plasma Glucose, and Center.||-4.39|-25.24|
90870621|NCT00137046|181602209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.27||||90.0|-35.16|-14.51|||ANCOVA|||Month 6; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Fasting Plasma Glucose, and Center.||-14.51|-35.16|
90870622|NCT00137046|181602209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.92||||90.0|-37.56|-14.75|||ANCOVA|||Month 9; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Fasting Plasma Glucose, and Center.||-14.75|-37.56|
90870623|NCT00137046|181602209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.74||||90.0|-30.56|-8.36|||ANCOVA|||Month 12; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Fasting Plasma Glucose, and Center.||-8.36|-30.56|
90870624|NCT00137046|181602209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-39.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.65||||90.0|-50.93|-29.0|||ANCOVA|||Month 15; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Fasting Plasma Glucose, and Center.||-29.00|-50.93|
90870625|NCT00137046|181602209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.02||||90.0|-27.65|-4.51|||ANCOVA|||Month 18; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Fasting Plasma Glucose, and Center.||-4.51|-27.65|
90870626|NCT00137046|181602209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.76||||90.0|-24.69|-2.39|||ANCOVA|||Month 21; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Fasting Plasma Glucose, and Center.||-2.39|-24.69|
90870627|NCT00137046|181602209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.29||||90.0|-30.88|-6.84|||ANCOVA|||Month 24; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Fasting Plasma Glucose, and Center.||-6.84|-30.88|
90870628|NCT00137046|181602209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.12||||90.0|-9.83|16.96|||ANCOVA|||Follow-up Month 6; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin.Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Fasting Plasma Glucose, and Center.||16.96|-9.83|
90870629|NCT00137046|181602209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.2||||90.0|-31.32|-4.27|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 1; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Fasting Plasma Glucose, and Center.||-4.27|-31.32|
90870630|NCT00137046|181602209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.72||||90.0|-33.44|-7.99|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 3; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Fasting Plasma Glucose, and Center.||-7.99|-33.44|
90870631|NCT00137046|181602209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.8||||90.0|-11.06|14.66|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 6; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Fasting Plasma Glucose, and Center.||14.66|-11.06|
90870632|NCT00137046|181602209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.02||||90.0|-23.61|6.17|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 9; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Fasting Plasma Glucose, and Center.||6.17|-23.61|
90870633|NCT00137046|181602209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.84||||90.0|-29.28|-3.4|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 12; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Fasting Plasma Glucose, and Center.||-3.40|-29.28|
90870634|NCT00137046|181602209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.25||||90.0|-26.6|0.63|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 15; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Fasting Plasma Glucose, and Center.||0.63|-26.60|
90870635|NCT00137046|181602209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.58||||90.0|-24.39|3.94|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 18; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Fasting Plasma Glucose, and Center.||3.94|-24.39|
90870636|NCT00137046|181602209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-28.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.82||||90.0|-43.19|-14.09|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 21; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Fasting Plasma Glucose, and Center.||-14.09|-43.19|
90870637|NCT00137046|181602209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.91||||90.0|-23.69|5.71|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 24; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Fasting Plasma Glucose, and Center.||5.71|-23.69|
90940472|NCT00451555|181760786|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.639|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6390
90940473|NCT00451555|181760786|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6721|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6721
90940474|NCT00451555|181760786|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6349|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6349
90940475|NCT00451555|181760787|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8582|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.8582
90940476|NCT00451555|181760787|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7307|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.7307
90940477|NCT00451555|181760787|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9798|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.9798
90940478|NCT00451555|181760788|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5887|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.5887
90940479|NCT00451555|181760788|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4516|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.4516
90940480|NCT00451555|181760788|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7965|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.7965
90940481|NCT01177137|181760791|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.27||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.77|4.07||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.025 to account for two comparisons: (1) TRT versus the Standard of Care and (2) Partial TRT versus the Standard of Care.|repeated measures GEE model||Adjusted for baseline TQ value, clinic, visit, age, gender, baseline Positive and Negative Affect Schedule and State Trait Anxiety Inventory scores, with multiple imputation|||4.07|-8.77|0.47
90940482|NCT01177137|181760791|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.78||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.27|2.65||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.025 to account for two comparisons: (1) TRT versus the Standard of Care and (2) Partial TRT versus the Standard of Care.|repeated measures GEE model||Adjusted for baseline TQ value, clinic, visit, age, gender, baseline Positive and Negative Affect Schedule and State Trait Anxiety Inventory scores, with multiple imputation|||2.65|-8.27|0.31
90940483|NCT01177137|181760792|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.63||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|5.02||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.025 to account for two comparisons: (1) TRT versus the Standard of Care and (2) Partial TRT versus the Standard of Ca|repeated measures GEE model||Adjusted for baseline TFI value, clinic, visit, age, gender, baseline Positive and Negative Affect Schedule and State Trait Anxiety Inventory scores, with multiple imputation|||5.02|-5.30|0.96
90911723|NCT01212757|181692377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14||||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.236|-0.045|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.||Pairwise comparisons (30 mg vs placebo and 20 mg vs placebo) were conducted conditional on the primary endpoint results. If the primary endpoint was statistically significant for both apremilast dose groups, pairwise comparisons for the HAQ-DI were to be evaluated at the 0.05 level using the Hochberg procedure. If only one apremilast dose was statistically significant, then only the comparison between that apremilast dose and placebo was conducted for the HAQ-DI score, at the 0.025 level.||-0.045|-0.236|0.0042
90911724|NCT01212757|181692377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.104||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.199|-0.009|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.||Pairwise comparisons (30 mg vs placebo and 20 mg vs placebo) were conducted conditional on the primary endpoint results. If the primary endpoint was statistically significant for both apremilast dose groups, pairwise comparisons for the HAQ-DI were to be evaluated at the 0.05 level using the Hochberg procedure. If only one apremilast dose was statistically significant, then only the comparison between that apremilast dose and placebo was conducted for the HAQ-DI score, at the 0.025 level.||-0.009|-0.199|0.0320
90911725|NCT01212757|181692378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|9.2||||0.0394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|17.8||Secondary endpoints from the placebo-controlled period (Weeks 16 and 24) were analyzed in a hierarchical fashion to control the Type I error rate as described above.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||17.8|0.5|0.0394
90911726|NCT01212757|181692378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|15.7||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.7|24.7||Secondary endpoints from the placebo-controlled period (Weeks 16 and 24) were analyzed in a hierarchical fashion to control the Type I error rate as described above.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||24.7|6.7|0.0009
90911727|NCT01212757|181692379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.121||||0.0191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.222|-0.02|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.||Secondary endpoints from the placebo-controlled period (Weeks 16 and 24) were analyzed in a hierarchical fashion to control the Type I error rate as described above.||-0.020|-0.222|0.0191
90911728|NCT01212757|181692379|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08||||0.1179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.02|||ANCOVA||Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.|Secondary endpoints from the placebo-controlled period (Weeks 16 and 24) were analyzed in a hierarchical fashion to control the Type I error rate as described above.||0.020|-0.180|0.1179
90911729|NCT01212757|181692380|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.1||||0.0237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|3.92|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.||Secondary endpoints from the placebo-controlled period (Weeks 16 and 24) were analyzed in a hierarchical fashion to control the Type I error rate as described above||3.92|0.28|0.0237
90960633|NCT00567268|181801804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||"The factor tested was age. The null hypothesis was that there was no association between the age and the number of participants who responded to the treatment with gabapentin."||||<0.001
90960634|NCT00567268|181801804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Armitage|||"The factor tested was age. The null hypothesis was that there was no linear trend in the number of responders to the treatment with gabapentin across increasing levels of age categories."||||<0.001
90960635|NCT00567268|181801805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.008|||||||Chi-squared|||"The factor tested was severity of partial epileptic seizure . The null hypothesis was that there was no association between the degree of severity of partial epileptic seizure (mild, moderate, and severe) and the number of participants who responded to the treatment with gabapentin."||||=0.008
90960636|NCT00567268|181801805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.002|||||||Cochran-Armitage|||"The factor tested was severity of partial epileptic seizure. The null hypothesis was that there was no linear trend in the number of responders to the treatment with gabapentin across the degree of severity of partial epileptic seizure (mild, moderate, and severe)."||||=0.002
90960637|NCT00567268|181801806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.018|||||||Chi-squared|||"The factor tested was baseline frequency of epileptic seizure. The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the baseline frequency of epileptic seizure and the number of participants who responded to the treatment with gabapentin."||||=0.018
90911730|NCT01212757|181692380|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.36||||0.1388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|3.15|||ANCOVA||Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.|Secondary endpoints from the placebo-controlled period (Weeks 16 and 24) were analyzed in a hierarchical fashion to control the Type I error rate as described above||3.15|-0.44|0.1388
90960638|NCT00567268|181801807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||"The factor tested was number of concomitant antiepileptic drugs at baseline. The null hypothesis was that there was no association between the number of concomitant antiepileptic drugs at baseline and the number of participants who responded to the treatment with gabapentin."||||<0.001
90971053|NCT01902290|181824652|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-0.046||||0.329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.137|0.046|||Mixed-effect model|The model included fixed effects of treatment group, time, interaction of treatment group by time, stratification variables, and baseline score.|Difference = Brodalumab - Placebo|||0.046|-0.137|0.3290
90870638|NCT00137046|181602209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.8||||90.0|-24.04|5.0|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 27; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Fasting Plasma Glucose, and Center.||5.00|-24.04|
90870639|NCT00137046|181602209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.67||||90.0|-24.71|3.92|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 30; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Fasting Plasma Glucose, and Center.||3.92|-24.71|
90870640|NCT00137046|181602209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.24||||90.0|-21.42|9.09|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 33; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Fasting Plasma Glucose, and Center.||9.09|-21.42|
90870641|NCT00137046|181602209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.44||||90.0|-20.98|10.21|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 36; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Fasting Plasma Glucose, and Center.||10.21|-20.98|
90870642|NCT00137046|181602209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.77||||90.0|-38.43|7.26|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 39; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Fasting Plasma Glucose, and Center.||7.26|-38.43|
90870643|NCT00137046|181602209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.27||||90.0|-15.79|21.46|||ANCOVA|||Extension Follow Up Month 3; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Fasting Plasma Glucose, and Center.||21.46|-15.79|
90870644|NCT00137046|181602210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.523|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.196||||90.0|-0.846|-0.199|||ANCOVA|||Month 3; Treatment-Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Body Weight, and Center.||-0.199|-0.846|
90870645|NCT00137046|181602210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.113|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||||90.0|-1.541|-0.685|||ANCOVA|||Month 6; Treatment-Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Body Weight, and Center.||-0.685|-1.541|
90870646|NCT00137046|181602210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.359|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||||90.0|-1.836|-0.882|||ANCOVA|||Month 9; Treatment-Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Body Weight, and Center.||-0.882|-1.836|
90870647|NCT00137046|181602210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.184|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.314||||90.0|-1.702|-0.666|||ANCOVA|||Month 12; Treatment-Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Body Weight, and Center.||-0.666|-1.702|
90870648|NCT00137046|181602210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.426|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.338||||90.0|-1.984|-0.869|||ANCOVA|||Month 15; Treatment-Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Body Weight, and Center.||-0.869|-1.984|
90870649|NCT00137046|181602210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.717|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.384||||90.0|-2.35|-1.084|||ANCOVA|||Month 18; Treatment-Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Body Weight, and Center.||-1.084|-2.350|
90870650|NCT00137046|181602210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.273|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.411||||90.0|-1.95|-0.596|||ANCOVA|||Month 21; Treatment-Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Body Weight, and Center.||-0.596|-1.950|
90870651|NCT00137046|181602210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.069|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.439||||90.0|-1.792|-0.346|||ANCOVA|||Month 24; Treatment-Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Body Weight, and Center.||-0.346|-1.792|
90870652|NCT00137046|181602210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.785|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.418||||90.0|-1.475|-0.096|||ANCOVA|||Follow-up Month 3; Treatment-Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Body Weight, and Center.||-0.096|-1.475|
90911731|NCT01212757|181692381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|14.9||||0.0065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|25.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|Secondary endpoints from the placebo-controlled period (Weeks 16 and 24) were analyzed in a hierarchical fashion to control the Type I error rate as described above.||25.5|4.3|0.0065
90911732|NCT01212757|181692381|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|14.7||||0.0071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|25.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|Secondary endpoints from the placebo-controlled period (Weeks 16 and 24) were analyzed in a hierarchical fashion to control the Type I error rate as described above.||25.2|4.1|0.0071
90911733|NCT01212757|181692382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-4.9||||0.0648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|0.3|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.3|-10.0|0.0648
90911734|NCT01212757|181692382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-5.5||||0.0347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|-0.4|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.||||-0.4|-10.6|0.0347
90870653|NCT00137046|181602210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.445|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.406||||90.0|-1.114|0.224|||ANCOVA|||Follow-up Month 6; Treatment-Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Body Weight, and Center.||0.224|-1.114|
90870654|NCT00137046|181602210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.054|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.654||||90.0|-1.133|1.025|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 1; Treatment-Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Body Weight, and Center.||1.025|-1.133|
90911735|NCT01212757|181692383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.3496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.4|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.4|-1.2|0.3496
90870655|NCT00137046|181602210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.336|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.668||||90.0|-2.438|-0.235|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 3; Treatment-Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Body Weight, and Center.||-0.235|-2.438|
90870656|NCT00137046|181602210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.462|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.542||||90.0|-2.356|-0.568|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 6; Treatment-Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Body Weight, and Center.||-0.568|-2.356|
90870657|NCT00137046|181602210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.385|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.564||||90.0|-2.316|-0.454|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 9; Treatment-Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Body Weight, and Center.||-0.454|-2.316|
90870658|NCT00137046|181602210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.955|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.559||||90.0|-1.877|-0.034|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 12; Treatment-Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Body Weight, and Center.||-0.034|-1.877|
90870659|NCT00137046|181602210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.588||||90.0|-1.97|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 15; Treatment-Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Body Weight, and Center.||-0.030|-1.970|
90870660|NCT00137046|181602210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.655||||90.0|-2.041|0.121|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 18; Treatment-Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Body Weight, and Center.||0.121|-2.041|
90870661|NCT00137046|181602210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.667|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.668||||90.0|-2.77|-0.565|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 21; Treatment-Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Body Weight, and Center.||-0.565|-2.770|
90870662|NCT00137046|181602210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.872|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.692||||90.0|-3.013|-0.73|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 24; Treatment-Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Body Weight, and Center.||-0.730|-3.013|
90870663|NCT00137046|181602210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.887|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.725||||90.0|-3.084|-0.69|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 27; Treatment-Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Body Weight, and Center.||-0.690|-3.084|
90870664|NCT00137046|181602210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.794|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.891||||90.0|-4.264|-1.324|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 30; Treatment-Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Body Weight, and Center.||-1.324|-4.264|
90870665|NCT00137046|181602210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.287|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.091||||90.0|-5.088|-1.485|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 33; Treatment-Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Body Weight, and Center.||-1.485|-5.088|
90870666|NCT00137046|181602210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.486|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.857||||90.0|-2.901|-0.071|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 36; Treatment-Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Body Weight, and Center.||-0.071|-2.901|
90911736|NCT01212757|181692383|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.8874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.8|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.8|-0.7|0.8874
90911737|NCT01212757|181692384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.5438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.5|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.5|-1.0|0.5438
90870667|NCT00137046|181602210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.131|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.356||||90.0|-5.382|-0.88|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 39; Treatment-Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Body Weight, and Center.||-0.880|-5.382|
90870668|NCT00137046|181602210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.487|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.866||||90.0|-2.918|-0.055|||ANCOVA|||Extension Follow Up Month 3; Treatment-Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Body Weight, and Center.||-0.055|-2.918|
90870669|NCT00137046|181602219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.744|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.144||||90.0|-0.981|-0.506|||ANCOVA|||Month 3; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.506|-0.981|
90870670|NCT00137046|181602219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.797|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.167||||90.0|-1.073|-0.522|||ANCOVA|||Month 6; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.522|-1.073|
90870671|NCT00137046|181602219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.667|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.171||||90.0|-0.949|-0.384|||ANCOVA|||Month 9; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.384|-0.949|
90870672|NCT00137046|181602219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.826|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.181||||90.0|-1.123|-0.528|||ANCOVA|||Month 12; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.528|-1.123|
90870673|NCT00137046|181602219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||||90.0|-0.923|-0.296|||ANCOVA|||Month 15; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.296|-0.923|
90870674|NCT00137046|181602219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.577|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.202||||90.0|-0.91|-0.245|||ANCOVA|||Month 18; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.245|-0.910|
90870675|NCT00137046|181602219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.613|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.212||||90.0|-0.962|-0.263|||ANCOVA|||Month 21; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.263|-0.962|
90870676|NCT00137046|181602219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.385|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.213||||90.0|-0.736|-0.034|||ANCOVA|||Month 24; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.034|-0.736|
90870677|NCT00137046|181602219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.211||||90.0|-0.197|0.497|||ANCOVA|||Follow-up Month 1; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||0.497|-0.197|
90870678|NCT00137046|181602219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.166|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.198||||90.0|-0.16|0.492|||ANCOVA|||Follow-up Month 3; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||0.492|-0.160|
90870679|NCT00137046|181602219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.069|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.208||||90.0|-0.274|0.411|||ANCOVA|||Follow-up Month 6; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||0.411|-0.274|
90911738|NCT01212757|181692384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.3759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.0|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.||||1.0|-0.4|0.3759
90911739|NCT01212757|181692385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-3.51||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.86|-1.16|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.||||-1.16|-5.86|0.0035
90960639|NCT00567268|181801807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Armitage|||"The factor tested was number of concomitant antiepileptic drugs at baseline. The null hypothesis was that there was no linear trend in the number of responders to the treatment with gabapentin across increasing levels of the number of concomitant antiepileptic drugs at baseline."||||<0.001
90960640|NCT00567268|181801808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.025|||||||Cochran-Armitage|||"The factor tested was baseline creatinine clearance. The null hypothesis was that there was no linear trend in the number of responders to the treatment with gabapentin across increasing levels of the baseline creatinine clearance."||||=0.025
90870680|NCT00137046|181602219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.252||||90.0|-0.876|-0.043|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 1; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.043|-0.876|
90911740|NCT01212757|181692385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-4.45||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.76|-2.14|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.||||-2.14|-6.76|0.0002
90911741|NCT01212757|181692386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.18|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.||||-0.18|-0.61|0.0004
90960641|NCT00567268|181801809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.043|||||||Chi-squared|||"The factor tested was non-drug therapy. The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the non-drug therapy and the number of participants who responded to the treatment with gabapentin."||||=0.043
90911742|NCT01212757|181692386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.25|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.||||-0.25|-0.68|<0.0001
90870681|NCT00137046|181602219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.579|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.247||||90.0|-0.986|-0.172|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 3; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.172|-0.986|
90870682|NCT00137046|181602219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.255||||90.0|-0.88|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 6; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.040|-0.880|
90870683|NCT00137046|181602219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.385|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.265||||90.0|-0.822|0.053|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 9; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||0.053|-0.822|
90960642|NCT02525861|181801847|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|5.398|||<|0.001|||||||Mixed-effects model|||Statistical analysis was collected and assessed based on A1P1 Levels at baseline and On-treatment BAL visit.||||<0.001
90960643|NCT02525861|181801848|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|2.259|||<|0.001|||||||mixed-effects model|||Statistical analysis was collected and assessed based on functional A1P1 Levels at baseline and On-treatment BAL visit.||||<0.001
90911743|NCT01212757|181692387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|2.12||||0.0318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|4.06|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.||||4.06|0.19|0.0318
90911744|NCT01212757|181692387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.27||||0.7803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|2.2|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.||||2.20|-1.65|0.7803
90870684|NCT00137046|181602219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.268||||90.0|-1.372|-0.487|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 12; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.487|-1.372|
90870685|NCT00137046|181602219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.823|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.286||||90.0|-1.296|-0.351|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 15; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.351|-1.296|
90870686|NCT00137046|181602219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.525|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.267||||90.0|-0.965|-0.084|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 18; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.084|-0.965|
90870687|NCT00137046|181602219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.647|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.276||||90.0|-1.104|-0.191|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 21; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.191|-1.104|
90870688|NCT00137046|181602219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.853|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.295||||90.0|-1.34|-0.367|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 24; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.367|-1.340|
90870689|NCT00137046|181602219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.303||||90.0|-0.89|0.111|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 27; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||0.111|-0.890|
90911745|NCT01212757|181692388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.86||||0.0473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|3.7|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.||||3.70|0.02|0.0473
90960644|NCT01117454|181801852|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed rank with continuity correction||||||0.008
90870690|NCT00137046|181602219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.636|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.293||||90.0|-1.119|-0.153|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 30; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.153|-1.119|
90870691|NCT00137046|181602219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.522|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||||90.0|-1.0|-0.043|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 33; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.043|-1.000|
90870692|NCT00137046|181602219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.744|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.346||||90.0|-1.315|-0.173|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 36; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.173|-1.315|
90911746|NCT01212757|181692388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.53||||0.0997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|3.35|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.||||3.35|-0.29|0.0997
90870693|NCT00137046|181602219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.378|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.628||||90.0|-2.42|-0.335|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 39; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.335|-2.420|
90870694|NCT00137046|181602219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||||90.0|-1.183|-0.258|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 39 (LOCF); Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.258|-1.183|
90911747|NCT01212757|181692389|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|7.8||||0.1195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|17.5||The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the CMH weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||17.5|-1.9|0.1195
90960645|NCT01942720|181801861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Sperman correlation coeficient|-0.7||||0.631|TWO_SIDED||||||Sperman test|||Relationship of total PillCam SB Lewis score with PGA score change from baseline visit to 6 month follow-up||||0.631
90911748|NCT01212757|181692389|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|15.5||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.6|25.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the CMH weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||25.5|5.6|0.0026
90870695|NCT00137046|181602219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.061|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.323||||90.0|-0.594|0.472|||ANCOVA|||Extension Follow Up Month 3; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||0.472|-0.594|
90870696|NCT02268084|181602250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that the active treatment group does not differ from the sham group in changes in the PCL-M total scores.||||.007
90870697|NCT02268084|181602251|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.326|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.326
90870698|NCT01767155|181602277|OTHER||Kaplan-Meier|69.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.6|75.1||||||Kaplan-Meier log-log transformed estimates: survivors at 6 months||75.1|63.6|
90870699|NCT01767155|181602277|OTHER||Kaplan-Meier|45.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.5|52.0||||||Kaplan-Meier log-log transformed estimates: survivors at 12 months||52.0|39.5|
90870700|NCT01767155|181602277|OTHER||Kaplan-Meier|72.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|66.0|77.3||||||Kaplan-Meier log-log transformed estimates: survivors at 6 months||77.3|66.0|
90870701|NCT01767155|181602277|OTHER||Kaplan-Meier|44.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.2|50.7||||||Kaplan-Meier log-log transformed estimates: survivors at 12 months||50.7|38.2|
90870702|NCT01767155|181602277|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.5441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.3|||Log Rank|2-sided||A Cox model with treatment effects was used to estimate the hazard ratio and perform hypothesis testing. The estimated hazard ratio and the 95% CI of the hazard ratio were presented.||1.30|0.87|0.5441
90870703|NCT01767155|181602278|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.5907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.45|||Mantel Haenszel|2-sided test||Hypothesis testing between the two treatment arms was performed using a Mantel Haenszel test. The odds ratio and 95% CI of the odds ratio were presented.||1.45|0.52|0.5907
90911749|NCT01212757|181692390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.7||||0.5067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|3.4|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.||||3.4|-6.8|0.5067
90870704|NCT01767155|181602279|OTHER||Kaplan-Meier|46.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.5|53.6||||||Kaplan-Meier log-log transformed estimates: survivors at 6 months.||53.6|39.5|
90870705|NCT01767155|181602279|OTHER||Kaplan-Meier|20.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.6|27.4||||||Kaplan-Meier log-log transformed estimates: survivors at 12 months||27.4|14.6|
90870706|NCT01767155|181602279|OTHER||Kaplan-Meier|47.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.0|54.7||||||Kaplan-Meier log-log transformed estimates: survivors at 6 months||54.7|40.0|
90911750|NCT01212757|181692390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean Difference|-3.5||||0.1762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|1.6|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.||||1.6|-8.5|0.1762
90911751|NCT01212757|181692391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.2719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.3|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.3|-1.2|0.2719
90870707|NCT01767155|181602279|OTHER||Kaplan-Meier|12.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|19.3||||||Kaplan-Meier log-log transformed estimates: survivors at 12 months||19.3|6.9|
90870708|NCT01767155|181602279|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.3089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.11|||Log Rank|2-sided||Hypothesis testing between the two treatment arms was performed using a log rank test.||1.11|0.71|0.3089
90870709|NCT01767155|181602280|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.6924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.52|||Mantel Haenszel|2-sided||Hypothesis testing between the two treatment arms was performed using a Mantel Haenszel test.||1.52|0.76|0.6924
90870710|NCT00371137|181602281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Overall Comparison||||>0.001
90870711|NCT00371137|181602281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Pairwise comparison of placebo and Xyrem 4.5g||||<0.001
90870712|NCT00371137|181602281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Pairwise comparison of placebo and Xyrem 6.0g||||0.015
90870713|NCT02837783|181602305|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.283|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.283
90870714|NCT04774328|181602315|OTHER|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)|Median Difference (Final Values)|-39.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|54.818||0.4812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-152.97|74.4|||ANOVA|||||74.40|-152.97|0.4812
90870715|NCT04774328|181602316|OTHER|ANOVA|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-158.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|64.232||0.0222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-291.29|-24.87|||ANOVA|||"Applies to evoked measure of after coughing."||-24.87|-291.29|0.0222
90870716|NCT04774328|181602316|OTHER|ANOVA|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-55.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|43.19||0.2158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-144.61|34.53|||ANOVA|||"Applies to evoked measure for after sitting up."||34.53|-144.61|0.2158
90870717|NCT04774328|181602316|OTHER|ANOVA|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-78.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|42.532||0.0777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-166.93|9.48|||ANOVA|||"Applies to evoked measure of after ambulation."||9.48|-166.93|0.0777
90870718|NCT04774328|181602317|OTHER|ANOVA|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.375|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.7245||0.469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.764|17.014|||ANOVA|||Entry applies to OC 0-96 hours.||17.014|-35.764|0.4690
90870719|NCT04774328|181602317|OTHER|ANOVA|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.125|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.5059||0.5811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.208|21.958|||ANOVA|||Applies to OC 0 - Day 8.||21.958|-38.208|0.5811
90870720|NCT02927080|181602382|SUPERIORITY|Percent Change in Total Muscle Volume (TMV) of the TA muscle in patients with FSHD administered ACE-083 when compared to placebo During Part 2 (randomized, controlled portion)|Mean Difference (Net)|9.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.876||0.0138|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.17|15.92|||ANCOVA|||D190 Percent change from baseline in TMV||15.92|3.17|0.0138
90870721|NCT02927080|181602382|SUPERIORITY|Percent Change in Total Muscle Volume (TMV) of the BB muscle in patients with FSHD administered ACE-083 when compared to placebo During Part 2 (randomized, controlled portion)|Mean Difference (Net)|16.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.032|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.75|23.02|||ANCOVA|||D190 Percent change from baseline in TMV||23.02|9.75|<0.0001
90870722|NCT02927080|181602384|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.299||0.0359|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.86|-0.59|||ANCOVA|||D190 Absolute change from baseline in FF for the TA group administered ACE-083 when compared to Placebo in part 2||-0.59|-4.86|0.0359
90911752|NCT01212757|181692391|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.9727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.7|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.7|-0.8|0.9727
90911753|NCT01212757|181692392|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.3705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.4|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.4|-1.0|0.3705
90911754|NCT01212757|181692392|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.6777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.8|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.8|-0.6|0.6777
90911755|NCT01212757|181692393|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.14||||0.0097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.52|-0.76|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.||||-0.76|-5.52|0.0097
90911756|NCT01212757|181692393|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.5||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.85|-2.16|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.||||-2.16|-6.85|0.0002
90911757|NCT01212757|181692394|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.38||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.15|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.||||-0.15|-0.60|0.0011
90911758|NCT01212757|181692394|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.45||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.23|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.||||-0.23|-0.68|0.0001
90960646|NCT01942720|181801861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Sperman correlation coeficient|0.022||||0.882|TWO_SIDED||||||Sperman correlation|||Relationship of total PillCam SB CECDEIS score with PGA score change from baseline visit to 6 month follow-up||||0.882
90911759|NCT01212757|181692395|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.14||||0.0303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|4.07|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.||||4.07|0.20|0.0303
90911760|NCT01212757|181692395|SUPERIORITY||LS mean Difference|0.16||||0.8704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|2.08|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.||||2.08|-1.76|0.8704
90911761|NCT01212757|181692396|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|3.6||||0.6022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|17.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the CMH weights.|||17.2|-9.9|0.6022
90911762|NCT01212757|181692396|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|1.3||||0.8462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|14.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the CMH weights.|||14.7|-12.1|0.8462
90911763|NCT01212757|181692397|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|2.8||||0.7337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|18.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||18.9|-13.3|0.7337
90960647|NCT01942720|181801862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Sperman correlation coefficient|0.735|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Sperman correlation|||Relationship of PillCam SB TI Lewis scores with TI SES-CD score at baseline visit||||<0.001
90870723|NCT02927080|181602384|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.359||0.3582|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.49|0.99|||ANCOVA|||D190 Absolute change from baseline in FF for the BB group administered ACE-083 when compared to Placebo in part 2||0.99|-3.49|0.3582
90870724|NCT02927080|181602385|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.068||0.1945|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.97|1.41|||ANCOVA|||D190 Percent change from baseline in 6 Minute Walk Test (MWT) distance from baseline||1.41|-11.97|0.1945
90870725|NCT02927080|181602385|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.968||0.3451|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.48|12.86|||ANCOVA|||D190 Percent change from baseline in time to complete a 10 meter walk/run||12.86|-3.48|0.3451
90870726|NCT02927080|181602385|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.03||0.9402|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.47|10.37|||ANCOVA|||D190 Percent change from baseline in time to complete 4-stair climb (ascend)||10.37|-9.47|0.9402
90870727|NCT02927080|181602386|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|36.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.18||0.0183|TWO_SIDED|90.0|11.78|60.46|||ANCOVA|||||60.46|11.78|0.0183
90870728|NCT02927080|181602387|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.0895|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.09|5.69|||ANCOVA|||||5.69|0.09|0.0895
90870729|NCT02927080|181602388|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.459||0.5661|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.67|3.7|||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline in FSHD-HI, patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures Part 2 (Randomized, Controlled Portion)- Total Score for TA group part 2; compared to Placebo||3.70|-7.67|0.5661
90870730|NCT02927080|181602388|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.618||0.976|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.06|5.84|||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline in FSHD-HI, patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures Part 2 (Randomized, Controlled Portion)- Total Score for BB group part 2; compared to Placebo||5.84|-6.06|0.9760
90870731|NCT02670083|181602408|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.354|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.53||||||||0.53|-0.86|
90870732|NCT02670083|181602409|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.083|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.39|1.87||||||||1.87|-2.39|
90870733|NCT02670083|181602410|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.006|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.08|1.88||||||||1.88|-2.08|
90911764|NCT01212757|181692397|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|3.3||||0.6881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|19.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||19.3|-12.7|0.6881
90911765|NCT01212757|181692398|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|17.5||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|27.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the CMH weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||27.9|7.0|0.0014
90911766|NCT01212757|181692398|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|22.1||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.7|32.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the CMH weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||32.5|11.7|0.0001
90960648|NCT01942720|181801862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Sperman correlation coefficient|0.726|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Sperman correlation|||Relationship of PillCam SB TI CECDEIS scores with TI SES-CD score at baseline visit||||<0.001
90870734|NCT02670083|181602411|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.076|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2||||||||0.20|-0.10|
90870735|NCT02670083|181602412|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.486|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|1.29||||||||1.29|-0.62|
90870736|NCT02670083|181602413|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.679|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|5.18||||||||5.18|-1.43|
90870737|NCT02670083|181602414|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.306|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|3.79||||||||3.79|-1.35|
90870738|NCT02670083|181602416|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.723|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|0.9||||||||0.90|-1.95|
90870739|NCT02670083|181602417|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.609|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|1.6||||||||1.60|-0.81|
90870740|NCT02670083|181602418|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.214|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.64|10.86||||||||10.86|-13.64|
90870741|NCT02670083|181602419|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.64|6.27||||||||6.27|-2.64|
90870742|NCT02670083|181602420|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.222|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.45|5.32||||||||5.32|-3.45|
90870743|NCT02670083|181602426|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.22||||||||0.22|-0.24|
90870744|NCT02670083|181602427|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.245|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.72|1.17||||||||1.17|-3.72|
90870745|NCT02670083|181602428|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.253|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.89||||||||0.89|-0.10|
90870746|NCT02692716|181602434|NON_INFERIORITY|This hypothesis was controlled for multiplicity. Non-inferiority of oral semaglutide versus placebo was considered confirmed if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the HR was strictly below 1.8.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.11||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from the non-inferiority margin (non-inferiority).|Regression, Cox|||Data from the in-trial observation period. Time from randomisation to first event adjudication committee (EAC) confirmed MACE was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as categorical fixed factor and stratified by evidence of cardiovascular disease at screening. Participants were censored at the end of their in-trial observation period.||1.11|0.57|< 0.0001
90911767|NCT01212757|181692399|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|6.6||||0.3376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|20.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the CMH weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||20.0|-6.8|0.3376
90960649|NCT01942720|181801863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Sperman correlation coefficient|0.493||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Sperman correlation|||Relationship of PillCam SB Lewis score with TI SES-CD score change from baseline visit to 6 month follow-up||||0.002
90960650|NCT01942720|181801863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Sperman correlation coefficient|0.531|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Sperman correlation|||Relationship of PillCam SB CECDEIS score with TI SES-CD score change from baseline visit to 6 month follow-up||||<0.001
90870747|NCT02692716|181602434|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79|||=|0.1749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.11||Unadjusted two-sided p-value from test of no difference from 1 (superiority).|Regression, Cox|||Data from the in-trial observation period. Time from randomisation to first EAC-confirmed MACE was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as categorical fixed factor and stratified by evidence of cardiovascular disease at screening. Participants were censored at the end of their in-trial observation period.||1.11|0.57|= 0.1749
90870748|NCT02692716|181602435|OTHER|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82|||=|0.1827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.1||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox|||Data from the in-trial observation period. Time from randomisation to first EAC-confirmed expanded cardiovascular outcome was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as categorical fixed factor and stratified by evidence of cardiovascular disease at screening. Participants were censored at the end of their in-trial observation period.||1.10|0.61|= 0.1827
90870749|NCT02692716|181602436|OTHER|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.49|||=|0.0261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.92||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox|||Data from the in-trial observation period. Time from randomisation to first EAC-confirmed cardiovascular death (including undetermined cause of death) was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as categorical fixed factor and stratified by evidence of cardiovascular disease at screening. Participants were censored at the end of their in-trial observation period.||0.92|0.27|= 0.0261
90870750|NCT02692716|181602436|OTHER|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18|||=|0.5044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.9||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox|||Data from the in-trial observation period. Time from randomisation to first EAC-confirmed non-fatal myocardial infarction was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as categorical fixed factor and stratified by evidence of cardiovascular disease at screening. Participants were censored at the end of their in-trial observation period.||1.90|0.73|= 0.5044
90870751|NCT02692716|181602436|OTHER|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||=|0.435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.57||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1|Regression, Cox|||Data from the in-trial observation period. Time from randomisation to first EAC-confirmed non-fatal stroke was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as categorical fixed factor and stratified by evidence of cardiovascular disease at screening. Participants were censored at the end of their in-trial observation period.||1.57|0.35|= 0.4350
90960651|NCT01942720|181801864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Sperman correlation coefficient|0.752|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Sperman correlation|||Relationship of PillCam total SB Lewis score change with TI Leis score change from baseline visit to 6 month follow-up||||<0.001
90960652|NCT01942720|181801864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Sperman correlation coefficient|0.785|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Sperman correlation|||Relationship of PillCam total SB CECDEIS score change with TI Leis score change from baseline visit to 6 month follow-up||||<0.001
90960653|NCT00676065|181801873|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The LASS study was designed to analyse rare events (incidence rate \<1 per 1,000 woman-years and ≥ 1 per 10,000 WY). 300,000 WY of observation would be sufficient to exclude a two-fold risk of rare events in users of DRSP compared to other oral contraceptives with a power (1-β) of 0.80 and an one-sided α of 0.05.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.9|||||Hazard ratio was adjusted for age, BMI, smoking, hypertension and family history|Tested null hypotheses: the ATE hazard ratio for DRSP/E2 vs. OCs containing LNG is higher or equal to 2.||0.9|0.2|
90870752|NCT02692716|181602436|OTHER|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.56|||=|0.3605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|4.01||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox|||Data from the in-trial observation period. Time from randomisation to first EAC-confirmed unstable angina pectoris requiring hospitalisation was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as categorical fixed factor and stratified by evidence of cardiovascular disease at screening. Participants were censored at the end of their in-trial observation period.||4.01|0.60|= 0.3605
90870753|NCT02692716|181602436|OTHER|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86|||=|0.6227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.55||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox|||Data from the in-trial observation period. Time from randomisation to first EAC-confirmed hospitalisation for heart failure was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as categorical fixed factor and stratified by evidence of cardiovascular disease at screening. Participants were censored at the end of their in-trial observation period.||1.55|0.48|= 0.6227
90870754|NCT02692716|181602437|OTHER|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77|||=|0.0952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.05||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox|||Data from the in-trial observation period. Time from randomisation to first EAC-confirmed all-cause death, non-fatal myocardial infarction or non-fatal stroke was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as categorical fixed factor and stratified by evidence of cardiovascular disease at screening. Participants were censored at the end of their in-trial observation period.||1.05|0.56|= 0.0952
90971054|NCT01902290|181824653|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.03||||0.4549||95.0|-0.049|0.109|||Mixed-effect model|Model includes treatment, time, stratification factors, treatment by time and baseline value of age, gender, pooled race group, height and FEV1.|Difference = Brodalumab - Placebo|||0.109|-0.049|0.4549
90911768|NCT01212757|181692399|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|6.1||||0.3756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|19.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the CMH weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||19.4|-7.2|0.3756
90911769|NCT01212757|181692400|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|6.8||||0.3959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|22.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the CMH weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||22.2|-8.7|0.3959
90870755|NCT02692716|181602438|OTHER|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.8583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.66||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox|||Data from the on-treatment observation period. Time from first dose of trial product to first EAC-confirmed fatal or non-fatal myocardial infarction was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as categorical fixed factor and stratified by evidence of cardiovascular disease at screening. Participants were censored at the end of their on-treatment observation period.||1.66|0.66|0.8583
90870756|NCT02692716|181602439|OTHER|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.4485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.56||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox|||Data from the in-trial observation period. Time from randomisation to first EAC-confirmed fatal or non-fatal stroke was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as categorical fixed factor and stratified by evidence of cardiovascular disease at screening. Participants were censored at the end of their in-trial observation period.||1.56|0.37|0.4485
90870757|NCT02692716|181602440|OTHER|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.84||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox|||Data from the in-trial observation period. Time from randomisation to first EAC-confirmed all-cause death was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as categorical fixed factor and stratified by evidence of cardiovascular disease at screening. Participants were censored at the end of their in-trial observation period.||0.84|0.31|0.0078
90870758|NCT02692716|181602441|OTHER|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|2.3||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox|||Data from date of first dose of trial product to date of end of treatment visit. Time from first dose to first AE leading to permanent trial product discontinuation was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as categorical fixed factor and stratified by evidence of cardiovascular disease at screening. Participants were censored at the date of their end of treatment visit or at their end of study date, whichever came first.||2.30|1.42|<0.0001
90870759|NCT01571427|181602454|EQUIVALENCE|It was calculated that 82 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the 2 arms would have at least 80% to detect a Cohen's D of 0.45 in the difference in changes from baseline to week 6 at alpha=0.05 (two tailed). All randomized participants (n=83) were included in the analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Estimates reported here is coefficient for the experimental group (with the control group as a reference), using a linear regression model controlling for Geriatric Depression Scale - 15 items version (GDS-15).|||||0.25
90870760|NCT01571427|181602454|EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation was based on the entire sample (CDR=0 and CDR=0.5 combined). Analyses within each CDR group are exploratory.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Estimates reported here is coefficient for the experimental group (with the control group as a reference), using a linear regression model controlling for Geriatric Depression Scale - 15 items version (GDS-15).|Analysis 2: AMONG CDR=0 group (N=49)||||0.25
90911770|NCT01212757|181692400|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|6.8||||0.3941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|22.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||22.4|-8.7|0.3941
90911771|NCT01212757|181692401|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|12.1||||0.0142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|21.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the CMH weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||21.7|2.6|0.0142
90911772|NCT01212757|181692401|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|20.5||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.8|30.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the CMH weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||30.3|10.8|0.0001
90911773|NCT01212757|181692402|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|5.6||||0.0589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|11.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the CMH weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||11.3|-0.2|0.0589
90911774|NCT01212757|181692402|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|9.8||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|16.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the CMH weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||16.1|3.4|0.0034
90911775|NCT01212757|181692403|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.6||||0.562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the CMH weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||2.7|-1.5|0.5620
90911776|NCT01212757|181692403|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|3.1||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|6.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the CMH weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||6.2|-0.0|0.0570
90870761|NCT01571427|181602454|EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation was based on the entire sample which combined CDR=0 and CDR=0.5 groups. Analyses within each CDR group are exploratory.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.85|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Estimates reported here is coefficient for the experimental group (with the control group as a reference), using a linear regression model controlling for Geriatric Depression Scale - 15 items version (GDS-15).|Analyses 3: AMONG CDR=0.5 (Mild Cognitive Impairment) group, N=34 .||||0.85
90870762|NCT01571427|181602455|EQUIVALENCE|It was calculated that 82 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the 2 arms would have at least 80% to detect a Cohen's D of 0.45 in the difference in changes from baseline to week 6 at alpha=0.05 (two tailed). All randomized participants (n=83) were included in the analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.92||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Estimates reported here is coefficient for the experimental group (with the control group as a reference), using a linear regression model controlling for Geriatric Depression Scale - 15 items version (GDS-15).|||||0.02
90870763|NCT01571427|181602455|EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation was based on the entire sample which combined CDR=0 and CDR=0.5 groups. Analyses by each CDR group are exploratory.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.28||0.003|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistically significant based on the Bonferroni multiple comparison adjusted P value of P\<0.004.|Regression, Linear||Estimates reported here is coefficient for the experimental group (with the control group as a reference), using a linear regression model controlling for Geriatric Depression Scale - 15 items version (GDS-15).|Analysis 2: AMONG CDR=0 group (N=49)||||0.003
90870764|NCT01571427|181602455|EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation was based on the entire sample which combined CDR=0 and CDR=0.5 groups. Analyses by each CDR group are exploratory.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14||0.65|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Estimates reported here is coefficient for the experimental group (with the control group as a reference), using a linear regression model controlling for Geriatric Depression Scale - 15 items version (GDS-15).|Analyses 3: CDR=0.5 (Mild Cognitive Impairment) group, N=34||||0.65
90870765|NCT01571427|181602456|EQUIVALENCE|It was calculated that 82 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the 2 arms would have at least 80% to detect a Cohen's D of 0.45 in the difference in changes from baseline to week 6 at alpha=0.05 (two tailed). All randomized participants (n=83) were included in the analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.33||0.98|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Estimates reported here is coefficient for the experimental group (with the control group as a reference), using a linear regression model controlling for Geriatric Depression Scale - 15 items version (GDS-15).|||||0.98
90911777|NCT01212757|181692404|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|3.1||||0.3629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|9.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the CMH weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||9.6|-3.5|0.3629
90971055|NCT01902290|181824654|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.128||||0.6317||95.0|-0.396|0.653|||Mixed-effect model|The model included fixed effects of treatment group, time, interaction of treatment group by time, stratification variables, and baseline value.|Difference = Brodalumab - Placebo|||0.653|-0.396|0.6317
90870766|NCT01571427|181602456|EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation was based on the entire sample which combined CDR=0 and CDR=0.5 groups. Analyses by each CDR group are exploratory.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63||0.96|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Estimates reported here is coefficient for the experimental group (with the control group as a reference), using a linear regression model controlling for Geriatric Depression Scale - 15 items version (GDS-15).|Analysis 2: Among CDR 0 (n=49)||||0.96
90870767|NCT01571427|181602456|EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation was based on the entire sample which combined CDR=0 and CDR=0.5 groups. Analyses by each CDR group are exploratory.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.38||0.83|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Estimates reported here is coefficient for the experimental group (with the control group as a reference), using a linear regression model controlling for Geriatric Depression Scale - 15 items version (GDS-15).|Analysis 3: Among CDR 0.5 (n=34)||||0.83
90870768|NCT01571427|181602457|EQUIVALENCE|It was calculated that 82 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the 2 arms would have at least 80% to detect a Cohen's D of 0.45 in the difference in changes from baseline to week 6 at alpha=0.05 (two tailed). All randomized participants (n=83) were included in the analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.68|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Estimates reported here is coefficient for the experimental group (with the control group as a reference), using a linear regression model controlling for Geriatric Depression Scale - 15 items version (GDS-15).|||||0.68
90870769|NCT01571427|181602457|EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation was based on the entire sample which combined CDR=0 and CDR=0.5 groups. Analyses by each CDR group are exploratory.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Estimates reported here is coefficient for the experimental group (with the control group as a reference), using a linear regression model controlling for Geriatric Depression Scale - 15 items version (GDS-15).|Analysis 2: CDR 0 (n=49)||||0.69
90870770|NCT01571427|181602457|EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation was based on the entire sample which combined CDR=0 and CDR=0.5 groups. Analyses by each CDR group are exploratory.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02||0.86|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Estimates reported here is coefficient for the experimental group (with the control group as a reference), using a linear regression model controlling for Geriatric Depression Scale - 15 items version (GDS-15).|Analysis 3: CDR 0.5 (n=34)||||0.86
90870771|NCT01571427|181602458|EQUIVALENCE|It was calculated that 82 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the 2 arms would have at least 80% to detect a Cohen's D of 0.45 in the difference in changes from baseline to week 6 at alpha=0.05 (two tailed). All randomized participants (n=83) were included in the analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.92|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Estimates reported here is coefficient for the experimental group (with the control group as a reference), using a linear regression model controlling for Geriatric Depression Scale - 15 items version (GDS-15).|||||0.92
90870772|NCT01571427|181602458|EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation was based on the entire sample which combined CDR=0 and CDR=0.5 groups. Analyses by each CDR group are exploratory.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.92|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Estimates reported here is coefficient for the experimental group (with the control group as a reference), using a linear regression model controlling for Geriatric Depression Scale - 15 items version (GDS-15).|Analysis 2: CDR 0 (n=49)||||0.92
90911778|NCT01212757|181692404|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|5.4||||0.1323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|12.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the CMH weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||12.3|-1.5|0.1323
90911779|NCT01212757|181692405|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.6||||0.7273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|3.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the CMH weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||3.0|-4.3|0.7273
90911780|NCT01212757|181692405|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|2.4||||0.2929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|6.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the CMH weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||6.8|-2.0|0.2929
90911781|NCT01212757|181692406|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-2.2||||0.7023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|9.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the CMH weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||9.1|-13.5|0.7023
90911782|NCT01212757|181692406|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|5.9||||0.3305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|17.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the CMH weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||17.7|-5.9|0.3305
90911783|NCT01212757|181692407|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.3||||0.9698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|16.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the CMH weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||16.6|-16.0|0.9698
90911784|NCT01212757|181692407|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|1.9||||0.8205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|18.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the CMH weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||18.1|-14.3|0.8205
90911785|NCT01212757|181692408|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-1.2||||0.8424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|10.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the CMH weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||10.3|-12.7|0.8424
90911786|NCT01212757|181692408|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|5.9||||0.3395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|17.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the CMH weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||17.8|-6.0|0.3395
90911787|NCT01212757|181692409|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|5.9||||0.4811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|22.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the CMH weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||22.1|-10.3|0.4811
90971056|NCT01902290|181824655|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.277||||0.238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.843|1.936|||Log Rank|Log rank test stratified for baseline stratification factors.||||1.936|0.843|0.238
90911788|NCT01212757|181692409|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|3.3||||0.6965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|19.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the CMH weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||19.5|-13.3|0.6965
90911789|NCT03686813|181692435|OTHER|||||||0.317|||||||McNemar|||||||0.317
90911790|NCT03686813|181692436|OTHER|||||||0.317|||||||McNemar|||||||0.317
90911791|NCT03686813|181692437|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||McNemar|||||||>0.999
90911792|NCT03686813|181692438|OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||McNemar|||||||0.18
90911793|NCT03686813|181692439|OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||McNemar|||||||0.29
90911794|NCT02525796|181692447|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|3.2||||0.84|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||ANOVA comparing the change in PTH over 4 weeks between eplerenone monotherapy and placebo||||0.84
90911795|NCT02525796|181692447|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|4.5||||0.54|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||ANOVA comparing the change in PTH over 4 weeks between amiloride monotherapy and placebo||||0.54
90911796|NCT02525796|181692447|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|7.6||||0.58|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||ANOVA comparing the change in PTH over 4 weeks between eplerenone monotherapy and amiloride monotherapy||||0.58
90911797|NCT02525796|181692448|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.82|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||ANOVA comparing the change in serum calcium over 4 weeks between eplerenone monotherapy and placebo||||0.82
90911798|NCT02525796|181692448|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.21|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||ANOVA comparing the change in serum calcium over 4 weeks between amiloride monotherapy and placebo||||0.21
90911799|NCT02525796|181692448|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||ANOVA comparing the change in serum calcium over 4 weeks between eplerenone monotherapy and amiloride monotherapy||||0.12
90870773|NCT01571427|181602458|EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation was based on the entire sample which combined CDR=0 and CDR=0.5 groups. Analyses by each CDR group are exploratory.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.94|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Estimates reported here is coefficient for the experimental group (with the control group as a reference), using a linear regression model controlling for Geriatric Depression Scale - 15 items version (GDS-15).|Analysis 3: CDR 0.5 (n=34)||||0.94
90870774|NCT01571427|181602459|EQUIVALENCE|It was calculated that 82 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the 2 arms would have at least 80% to detect a Cohen's D of 0.45 in the difference in changes from baseline to week 6 at alpha=0.05 (two tailed). All randomized participants (n=83) were included in the analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.84||0.46|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Estimates reported here is coefficient for the experimental group (with the control group as a reference), using a linear regression model controlling for Geriatric Depression Scale - 15 items version (GDS-15).|||||0.46
90870775|NCT01571427|181602459|EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation was based on the entire sample which combined CDR=0 and CDR=0.5 groups. Analyses by each CDR group are exploratory.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.08||0.61|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Estimates reported here is coefficient for the experimental group (with the control group as a reference), using a linear regression model controlling for Geriatric Depression Scale - 15 items version (GDS-15).|Analysis 2: CDR 0 (n=49)||||0.61
90870776|NCT01571427|181602459|EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation was based on the entire sample which combined CDR=0 and CDR=0.5 groups. Analyses by each CDR group are exploratory.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.42||0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Estimates reported here is coefficient for the experimental group (with the control group as a reference), using a linear regression model controlling for Geriatric Depression Scale - 15 items version (GDS-15).|Analysis 3: CDR 0.5 (n=34)||||0.80
90870777|NCT01571427|181602460|EQUIVALENCE|It was calculated that 82 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the 2 arms would have at least 80% to detect a Cohen's D of 0.45 in the difference in changes from baseline to week 6 at alpha=0.05 (two tailed). All randomized participants (n=83) were included in the analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.88||0.72|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Estimates reported here is coefficient for the experimental group (with the control group as a reference), using a linear regression model controlling for Geriatric Depression Scale - 15 items version (GDS-15).|||||0.72
90870778|NCT01571427|181602460|EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation was based on the entire sample which combined CDR=0 and CDR=0.5 groups. Analyses by each CDR group are exploratory.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.1||0.84|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Estimates reported here is coefficient for the experimental group (with the control group as a reference), using a linear regression model controlling for Geriatric Depression Scale - 15 items version (GDS-15).|Analysis 2: CDR 0 (n=49)||||0.84
90870779|NCT01571427|181602460|EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation was based on the entire sample which combined CDR=0 and CDR=0.5 groups. Analyses by each CDR group are exploratory.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.4||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Estimates reported here is coefficient for the experimental group (with the control group as a reference), using a linear regression model controlling for Geriatric Depression Scale - 15 items version (GDS-15).|Analysis 3: CDR 0.5 (n=34)||||0.40
90870780|NCT01571427|181602461|EQUIVALENCE|It was calculated that 82 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the 2 arms would have at least 80% to detect a Cohen's D of 0.45 in the difference in changes from baseline to week 6 at alpha=0.05 (two tailed). All randomized participants (n=83) were included in the analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91||0.38|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Estimates reported here is coefficient for the experimental group (with the control group as a reference), using a linear regression model controlling for Geriatric Depression Scale - 15 items version (GDS-15).|||||0.38
90870781|NCT01571427|181602461|EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation was based on the entire sample which combined CDR=0 and CDR=0.5 groups. Analyses by each CDR group are exploratory.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.31||0.39|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Estimates reported here is coefficient for the experimental group (with the control group as a reference), using a linear regression model controlling for Geriatric Depression Scale - 15 items version (GDS-15).|Analysis 2: CDR 0 (n=49)||||0.39
90870782|NCT01571427|181602461|EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation was based on the entire sample which combined CDR=0 and CDR=0.5 groups. Analyses by each CDR group are exploratory.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26||0.59|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Estimates reported here is coefficient for the experimental group (with the control group as a reference), using a linear regression model controlling for Geriatric Depression Scale - 15 items version (GDS-15).|Analysis 3: CDR 0.5 (n=34)||||0.59
90870783|NCT01571427|181602462|EQUIVALENCE|It was calculated that 82 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the 2 arms would have at least 80% to detect a Cohen's D of 0.45 in the difference in changes from baseline to week 6 at alpha=0.05 (two tailed). All randomized participants (n=83) were included in the analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Estimates reported here is coefficient for the experimental group (with the control group as a reference), using a linear regression model controlling for Geriatric Depression Scale - 15 items version (GDS-15).|||||0.03
90870784|NCT01571427|181602462|EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation was based on the entire sample which combined CDR=0 and CDR=0.5 groups. Analyses by each CDR group are exploratory.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.24|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Estimates reported here is coefficient for the experimental group (with the control group as a reference), using a linear regression model controlling for Geriatric Depression Scale - 15 items version (GDS-15).|Analysis 2: CDR 0 (n=49)||||0.24
90911800|NCT01198275|181692459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.441|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.292|0.666|||Kaplan Meyer analysis|The time to first AF recurrence was analyzed with the Kaplan-Meier method and compared with the log-rank test.|Hazard ratios between n-3 PUFA and Placebo together with confidence intervals were estimated using the Cox proportional regression model.|Give a relapse rate ranging from 40% to 60% on ACE-I/ARB and amiodarone therapy, considering the high risk of relapses in our study population we conservatively assumed a 50% relapse rate. We calculated that a total of 180 patients would yield 80% power to detect a clinically relevant difference of about 20% in AF recurrence with the addition of n-3 PUFAs at a log-rank test, with a significance level of 0.05.||0.666|0.292|< 0.05
90911801|NCT02729701|181692477|OTHER|||||||0.017||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test for within-group change by paired two-sample non-parametric test||||0.017
90911802|NCT02729701|181692478|OTHER|||||||0.043||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2-sided||Test for within-group change via paired, two-sample non-parametric test||||0.043
90911803|NCT02729701|181692479|OTHER|||||||0.088||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test for within-group change using paired two-sample non-parametric etst||||0.088
90911804|NCT02477670|181692481|SUPERIORITY||SPCD Weighted OLS z-statistic|-1.79||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.75|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sequential Parallel Comparison Design (SPCD) Weighted Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) z-statistic. Treatment differences in each stage were estimated by the Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM).||0.17|-3.75|0.073
90911805|NCT02477670|181692482|SUPERIORITY||SPCD Weighted OLS z-statistic|-2.25||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.21|-0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment differences in each stage were estimated by the MMRM.||-0.29|-4.21|0.025
90911806|NCT02477670|181692483|SUPERIORITY||SPCD Weighted OLS z-statistic|-2.2||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.16|-0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment differences in each stage were estimated by the MMRM.||-0.24|-4.16|0.027
90960654|NCT00676065|181801873|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The LASS study was designed to analyse rare events (incidence rate \<1 per 1,000 woman-years and ≥ 1 per 10,000 WY). 300,000 WY of observation would be sufficient to exclude a two-fold risk of rare events in users of DRSP compared to other oral contraceptives with a power (1-β) of 0.80 and an one-sided α of 0.05.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.9|||||Hazard ratio was adjusted for age, BMI, smoking, hypertension and family history|Tested null hypotheses: the ATE hazard ratio for DRSP/E2 vs. OCs containing other progestogens is higher or equal to 2.||0.9|0.2|
90971057|NCT01902290|181824656|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.351||95.0|0.78|2.01|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression adjusted for stratification factors.||||2.01|0.78|0.351
90911807|NCT02477670|181692484|SUPERIORITY||SPCD Weighted OLS z-statistic|-2.26||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.22|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment differences in each stage were estimated by the MMRM.||-0.3|-4.22|0.024
90911808|NCT02477670|181692485|SUPERIORITY||SPCD Weighted OLS z-statistic|-2.6||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.56|-0.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment differences in each stage were estimated by the MMRM.||-0.64|-4.56|0.009
90911809|NCT02477670|181692486|SUPERIORITY||SPCD Weighted OLS z-statistic|-0.39||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|1.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment differences in each stage were estimated by the MMRM.||1.57|-2.35|0.700
90911810|NCT02477670|181692487|SUPERIORITY||SPCD Weighted OLS z-statistic|-1.93||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.89|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment differences in each stage were estimated by the MMRM.||0.03|-3.89|0.054
90911811|NCT02477670|181692488|SUPERIORITY||SPCD Weighted OLS z-statistic|-0.35||||0.723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.31|1.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment differences in each stage were estimated by the MMRM.||1.61|-2.31|0.723
90911812|NCT02477670|181692489|SUPERIORITY||SPCD Weighted OLS z-statistic|-1.85||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.81|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment differences in each stage were estimated by the MMRM.||0.11|-3.81|0.064
90911813|NCT02477670|181692490|SUPERIORITY||SPCD Weighted OLS z-statistic|-1.64||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment differences in each stage were estimated by the MMRM.||0.32|-3.6|0.100
90911814|NCT02477670|181692491|SUPERIORITY||SPCD Weighted OLS z-statistic|-0.86||||0.388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.82|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment differences in each stage were estimated by the MMRM.||1.1|-2.82|0.388
90911815|NCT02477670|181692492|SUPERIORITY||SPCD Weighted OLS z-statistic|-0.9||||0.367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.86|1.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment differences in each stage were estimated by the MMRM.||1.06|-2.86|0.367
90870785|NCT01571427|181602462|EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation was based on the entire sample which combined CDR=0 and CDR=0.5 groups. Analyses by each CDR group are exploratory.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Estimates reported here is coefficient for the experimental group (with the control group as a reference), using a linear regression model controlling for Geriatric Depression Scale - 15 items version (GDS-15).|Analysis 3: CDR 0.5 (n=34)||||0.04
90870786|NCT01571427|181602463|EQUIVALENCE|It was calculated that 82 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the 2 arms would have at least 80% to detect a Cohen's D of 0.45 in the difference in changes from baseline to week 6 at alpha=0.05 (two tailed). All randomized participants (n=83) were included in the analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.65|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Estimates reported here is coefficient for the experimental group (with the control group as a reference), using a linear regression model controlling for Geriatric Depression Scale - 15 items version (GDS-15).|||||0.65
90870787|NCT01571427|181602463|EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation was based on the entire sample which combined CDR=0 and CDR=0.5 groups. Analyses by each CDR group are exploratory.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.64|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Estimates reported here is coefficient for the experimental group (with the control group as a reference), using a linear regression model controlling for Geriatric Depression Scale - 15 items version (GDS-15).|Analysis 2: CDR 0 (n=49)||||0.64
90870788|NCT01571427|181602463|EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation was based on the entire sample which combined CDR=0 and CDR=0.5 groups. Analyses by each CDR group are exploratory.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.42|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Estimates reported here is coefficient for the experimental group (with the control group as a reference), using a linear regression model controlling for Geriatric Depression Scale - 15 items version (GDS-15).|Analysis 3: CDR 0.5 (n=34)||||0.42
90870789|NCT01571427|181602464|EQUIVALENCE|It was calculated that 82 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the 2 arms would have at least 80% to detect a Cohen's D of 0.45 in the difference in changes from baseline to week 6 at alpha=0.05 (two tailed). All randomized participants (n=83) were included in the analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.45|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Estimates reported here is coefficient for the experimental group (with the control group as a reference), using a linear regression model controlling for Geriatric Depression Scale - 15 items version (GDS-15).|||||0.45
90870790|NCT01571427|181602464|EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation was based on the entire sample which combined CDR=0 and CDR=0.5 groups. Analyses by each CDR group are exploratory.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.93|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Estimates reported here is coefficient for the experimental group (with the control group as a reference), using a linear regression model controlling for Geriatric Depression Scale - 15 items version (GDS-15).|Analysis 2: CDR 0 (n=49)||||0.93
90870791|NCT01571427|181602464|EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation was based on the entire sample which combined CDR=0 and CDR=0.5 groups. Analyses by each CDR group are exploratory.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Estimates reported here is coefficient for the experimental group (with the control group as a reference), using a linear regression model controlling for Geriatric Depression Scale - 15 items version (GDS-15).|Analysis 3: CDR 0.5 (n=34)||||0.40
90911816|NCT02477670|181692493|SUPERIORITY||SPCD Weighted OLS z-statistic|-0.76||||0.447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.72|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment differences in each stage were estimated by the MMRM.||1.2|-2.72|0.447
90911817|NCT02477670|181692494|SUPERIORITY||SPCD Weighted OLS z-statistic|-2.23||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.19|-0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment differences in each stage were estimated by the MMRM.||-0.27|-4.19|0.026
90911818|NCT02477670|181692495|SUPERIORITY||SPCD Weighted OLS z-statistic|-1.62||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.58|0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment differences in each stage were estimated by the MMRM.||0.34|-3.58|0.106
90911819|NCT02477670|181692496|SUPERIORITY||SPCD Weighted OLS z-statistic|1.78||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|3.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment differences in each stage were estimated by the MMRM.||3.74|-0.18|0.074
90911820|NCT02477670|181692497|SUPERIORITY||SPCD Weighted OLS z-statistic|-0.79||||0.427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.75|1.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment differences in each stage were estimated by the MMRM.||1.17|-2.75|0.427
90911821|NCT02477670|181692498|SUPERIORITY||SPCD Weighted OLS z-statistic|-1.91||||0.0566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.87|0.05|||McNemar|||Treatment differences in each stage were estimated by the MMRM.||0.05|-3.87|0.0566
90911822|NCT02477670|181692499|SUPERIORITY||SPCD Weighted OLS z-statistic|-1.37||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.33|0.59|||ANCOVA|||||0.59|-3.33|0.1700
90911823|NCT02477670|181692500|SUPERIORITY||SPCD Weighted OLS z-statistic|0.53||||0.595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|2.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment differences in each stage were estimated by the MMRM.||2.49|-1.43|0.595
90911824|NCT02477670|181692501|SUPERIORITY||SPCD Weighted OLS z-statistic|2.284||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.324|4.244|||ANCOVA|||||4.244|0.324|0.022
90911825|NCT02477670|181692502|SUPERIORITY||SPCD Weighted OLS z-statistic|-0.17||||0.862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|1.79|||ANCOVA|||||1.79|-2.13|0.862
90870792|NCT01571427|181602465|EQUIVALENCE|It was calculated that 82 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the 2 arms would have at least 80% to detect a Cohen's D of 0.45 in the difference in changes from baseline to week 6 at alpha=0.05 (two tailed). All randomized participants (n=83) were included in the analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Estimates reported here is coefficient for the experimental group (with the control group as a reference), using a linear regression model controlling for Geriatric Depression Scale - 15 items version (GDS-15).|||||0.30
90870793|NCT01571427|181602465|EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation was based on the entire sample which combined CDR=0 and CDR=0.5 groups. Analyses by each CDR group are exploratory.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.75|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Estimates reported here is coefficient for the experimental group (with the control group as a reference), using a linear regression model controlling for Geriatric Depression Scale - 15 items version (GDS-15).|Analysis 2: CDR 0 (n=49)||||0.75
90870794|NCT01571427|181602465|EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation was based on the entire sample which combined CDR=0 and CDR=0.5 groups. Analyses by each CDR group are exploratory.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Estimates reported here is coefficient for the experimental group (with the control group as a reference), using a linear regression model controlling for Geriatric Depression Scale - 15 items version (GDS-15).|Analysis 3: CDR 0.5 (n=34)||||0.12
90870795|NCT01170754|181602483|NON_INFERIORITY|Inferiority between the two groups was defined as a difference of 10% in the overall BBPS score||||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||p\<.05 was defined as the a priori threshold for statistical significance|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.45
90870796|NCT01170754|181602484|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between the two groups was defined as a p-value = or \>.05.||||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||p\<.05 was defined as the a priori threshold for statistical significance|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.13
90911826|NCT02477670|181692503|SUPERIORITY||SPCD Weighted OLS z-statistic|-1.149||||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.109|0.811|||ANCOVA|||||0.811|-3.109|0.251
90971058|NCT01902290|181824657|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-0.001||||0.987||95.0|-0.174|0.171|||Mixed-effects model|The model included fixed effects of treatment group, time, interaction of treatment group by time, stratification variables, and baseline AQLQ score.|Difference = Brodalumab - Placebo|||0.171|-0.174|0.9870
90870797|NCT01170754|181602485|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between the two groups was defined as a p-value = or \>.05.||||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||p\<.05 was defined as the a priori threshold for statistical significance|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.31
90911827|NCT02477670|181692504|SUPERIORITY||SPCD Weighted OLS z-statistic|-1.159||||0.246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.119|0.801|||ANCOVA|||||0.801|-3.119|0.246
90911828|NCT02477670|181692505|SUPERIORITY||SPCD Weighted OLS z-statistic|0.231||||0.818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.729|2.191|||ANCOVA|||||2.191|-1.729|0.818
90911829|NCT02477670|181692506|SUPERIORITY||SPCD Weighted OLS z-statistic|-0.04||||0.968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.92|||ANCOVA|||||1.92|-2.00|0.968
90911830|NCT02477670|181692507|SUPERIORITY||SPCD Weighted OLS z-statistic|-0.306||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.266|1.654|||ANCOVA|||||1.654|-2.266|0.760
90911831|NCT02477670|181692508|SUPERIORITY||SPCD Weighted OLS z-statistic|1.243||||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.717|3.203|||ANCOVA|||||3.203|-0.717|0.214
90911832|NCT02477670|181692509|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.071|||||||SPCD 1 degree of freedom score test|||||||0.071
90911833|NCT02477670|181692510|SUPERIORITY||SPCD Weighted OLS z-statistic|0.951||||-0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.009|2.911|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment differences in each stage were estimated by the MMRM.||2.911|-1.009|-0.06
90911834|NCT01930045|181692563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.4||||0.507|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.31|0.52|||Hochberg step-up procedure||The Maalox followed by Raltegravir treatment group was the numerator, and the Raltegravir alone treatment group was the denominator|The hypothesis is that the true Raltegravir C 12 hrs geometric mean ratio (GMR) is not less than 0.4||0.52|0.31|0.507
90911835|NCT01930045|181692563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|0.38||||0.624|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.3|0.49|||Hochberg step-up procedure||The Raltegravir followed by Maalox treatment group was the numerator, and the Raltegravir alone treatment group was the denominator|The hypothesis is that the true Raltegravir C 12 hrs GMR is not less than 0.4||0.49|0.30|0.624
90870798|NCT01170754|181602486|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between the two groups was defined as a p-value = or \>.05.||||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||p\<.05 was defined as the a priori threshold for statistical significance|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.87
90870799|NCT01170754|181602487|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between the two groups was defined as a p-value = or \>.05.||||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||p\<.05 was defined as the a priori threshold for statistical significance|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.25
90870800|NCT01170754|181602488|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between the two groups was defined as a p-value = or \>.05.||||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||p\<.05 was defined as the a priori threshold for statistical significance|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.47
90870801|NCT01170754|181602489|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between the two groups was defined as a p-value = or \>.05.||||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.34
90870802|NCT01170754|181602490|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between the two groups was defined as a p-value = or \>.05.||||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||p\<.05 was defined as the a priori threshold for statistical significance|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.18
90870803|NCT01170754|181602491|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between the two groups was defined as a p-value = or \>.05.||||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||p\<.05 was defined as the a priori threshold for statistical significance|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.75
90870804|NCT01170754|181602492|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between the two groups was defined as a p-value = or \>.05.||||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||p\<.05 was defined as the a priori threshold for statistical significance|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.92
90870805|NCT01170754|181602493|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between the two groups was defined as a p-value = or \>.05.||||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||p\<.05 was defined as the a priori threshold for statistical significance|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.60
90870806|NCT01170754|181602494|NON_INFERIORITY|Inferiority between groups was defined as a difference of 10% in the overall BBPS score.||||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||p\<.05 was defined as the a priori threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.98
90870807|NCT03590041|181602508|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||Linear Mixed Model adjusted for a priori patient covariates: Race/Ethnicity, Gender, Health Literacy, Food Availability, Charlson Score, Mental Illness, Substance use. Adjusted P-value represents the significance test for the time x group interaction|Mixed Models Analysis|||We hypothesized that patients in Patient-Driven SMAs would have greater reductions in Diabetes Distress than those in Standardized SMAs. We expected seeing an effect size of a .6 unit decrease (.30) in Standardized SMAs and 1.2 unit decrease (.60) in Patient-Driven SMAs. We estimate we have \>80% power to detect effect sizes between .29 (ICC=3%) and .34 (ICC=5%).||||0.04
90870808|NCT03590041|181602509|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82||||||Linear Mixed Model adjusted for a priori patient covariates: Race/Ethnicity, Gender, Health Literacy, Food Availability, Charlson Score, Mental Illness, Substance use. Adjusted P-value represents the significance test for the time x group interaction|Mixed Models Analysis|||We hypothesized that patients in the Patient-Driven condition would have a greater reduction in HbA1c than patients in the Standardized condition. We estimate we have \>80% power to detect effect sizes between .29 (ICC=3%) and .34 (ICC=5%).||||0.82
90870809|NCT00267046|181602522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fine and Gray method.|||||||<0.001
90870810|NCT01442493|181602556|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.92
90911836|NCT01930045|181692564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.63|1.05|||||The Maalox followed by Raltegravir treatment group was the numerator, and the Raltegravir alone treatment group was the denominator|||1.05|0.63|
90870811|NCT01442493|181602557|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.06
90870812|NCT01442493|181602558|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.08
90870813|NCT01442493|181602559|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.54
90870814|NCT01442493|181602560|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.04
90870815|NCT01442493|181602561|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.11
90870816|NCT01442493|181602562|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.21
90870817|NCT01741701|181602611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.50
90911837|NCT01930045|181692564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|0.92|||||The Raltegravir followed by Maalox treatment group was the numerator, and the Raltegravir alone treatment group was the denominator|||0.92|0.50|
90911838|NCT01930045|181692565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.55|1.1|||||The Maalox followed by Raltegravir treatment group was the numerator, and the Raltegravir alone treatment group was the denominator|||1.10|0.55|
90870818|NCT01741701|181602612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of change between groups from baseline to 4 months||||0.51
90870819|NCT01741701|181602613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between groups in the change from baseline to 4 months||||0.97
90870820|NCT01741701|181602614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between groups in the change from baseline to 4 months||||.77
90870821|NCT01741701|181602615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between groups in change from baseline to 4 months||||.90
90870822|NCT01741701|181602616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between groups in change from baseline to 4 months||||.95
90870823|NCT04677374|181602617|OTHER|||||||0.044|||||||Test of proportions|||||||0.044
90870824|NCT04677374|181602617|OTHER|||||||0.259|||||||Test of proportions|||||||0.259
90870825|NCT04677374|181602617|OTHER|||||||0.044|||||||Test of proportions|||||||0.044
90870826|NCT04677374|181602618|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|4.93||||||||4.93|1.01|
90870827|NCT04677374|181602618|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|4.0||||||||4.00|0.69|
90870828|NCT04677374|181602618|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|5.36||||||||5.36|1.00|
90911839|NCT01930045|181692565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.48|1.04|||||The Raltegravir followed by Maalox treatment group was the numerator, and the Raltegravir alone treatment group was the denominator|||1.04|0.48|
90870829|NCT02602496|181602629|EQUIVALENCE|Value at week 8 minus value at week 0||||||0.9942||||||Corrected for baseline concentrations, age, gender, and body mass index|ANOVA|||||||0.9942
90870830|NCT02602496|181602629|EQUIVALENCE|Value at week 8 minus value at week 0||||||0.0062|||||||ANOVA|Corrected for baseline concentrations, age, gender, and body mass index||||||0.0062
90870831|NCT02602496|181602629|EQUIVALENCE|Value at week 8 minus value at week 0||||||0.6843|||||||ANOVA|Corrected for baseline concentrations, age, gender, and body mass index||||||0.6843
90870832|NCT02602496|181602630|EQUIVALENCE|Value at week 8 minus value at week 0||||||0.5096||||||Corrected for baseline concentrations, age, gender, and body mass index|ANOVA|||||||0.5096
90870833|NCT02602496|181602630|EQUIVALENCE|Value at week 8 minus value at week 0||||||0.2276|||||||ANOVA|Corrected for baseline concentrations, age, gender, and body mass index||||||0.2276
90870834|NCT02602496|181602630|EQUIVALENCE|Value at week 8 minus value at week 0||||||0.0006|||||||ANOVA|Corrected for baseline concentrations, age, gender, and body mass index||||||0.0006
90870835|NCT02602496|181602631|EQUIVALENCE|Value at week 8 minus value at week 0||||||0.9708||||||Corrected for baseline concentrations, age, gender, and body mass index|ANOVA|||||||0.9708
90870836|NCT02602496|181602631|EQUIVALENCE|Value at week 8 minus value at week 0||||||0.1642|||||||ANOVA|Corrected for baseline concentrations, age, gender, and body mass index||||||0.1642
90870837|NCT02602496|181602631|EQUIVALENCE|Value at week 8 minus value at week 0||||||0.6043|||||||ANOVA|Corrected for baseline concentrations, age, gender, and body mass index||||||0.6043
90870838|NCT02602496|181602632|EQUIVALENCE|Value at week 8 minus value at week 0||||||0.0868||||||Corrected for baseline concentrations, age, gender, and body mass index|ANOVA|||||||0.0868
90870839|NCT02602496|181602632|EQUIVALENCE|Value at week 8 minus value at week 0||||||0.0083|||||||ANOVA|Corrected for baseline concentrations, age, gender, and body mass index||||||0.0083
90870840|NCT02602496|181602632|EQUIVALENCE|Value at week 8 minus value at week 0||||||0.0151|||||||ANOVA|Corrected for baseline concentrations, age, gender, and body mass index||||||0.0151
90870841|NCT02602496|181602633|EQUIVALENCE|Value at week 8 minus value at week 0||||||0.9255||||||Corrected for baseline concentrations, age, gender, and body mass index|ANOVA|||||||0.9255
90870842|NCT02602496|181602633|EQUIVALENCE|Value at week 8 minus value at week 0||||||0.0454|||||||ANOVA|Corrected for baseline concentrations, age, gender, and body mass index||||||0.0454
90870843|NCT02602496|181602633|EQUIVALENCE|Value at week 8 minus value at week 0||||||0.292|||||||ANOVA|Corrected for baseline concentrations, age, gender, and body mass index||||||0.2920
90870844|NCT02602496|181602634|EQUIVALENCE|Value at week 8 minus value at week 0||||||0.2252||||||Corrected for baseline concentrations, age, gender, and body mass index|ANOVA|||||||0.2252
90870845|NCT02602496|181602634|EQUIVALENCE|Value at week 8 minus value at week 0||||||0.4715|||||||ANOVA|Corrected for baseline concentrations, age, gender, and body mass index||||||0.4715
90870846|NCT02602496|181602634|EQUIVALENCE|Value at week 8 minus value at week 0||||||0.7157|||||||ANOVA|Corrected for baseline concentrations, age, gender, and body mass index||||||0.7157
90870847|NCT02602496|181602635|EQUIVALENCE|Value at week 8 minus value at week 0||||||0.8323||||||Corrected for baseline concentrations, age, gender, and body mass index|ANOVA|||||||0.8323
90870848|NCT02602496|181602635|EQUIVALENCE|Value at week 8 minus value at week 0||||||0.8927|||||||ANOVA|Corrected for baseline concentrations, age, gender, and body mass index||||||0.8927
90870849|NCT02602496|181602635|EQUIVALENCE|Value at week 8 minus value at week 0||||||0.3173|||||||ANOVA|Corrected for baseline concentrations, age, gender, and body mass index||||||0.3173
90870850|NCT02602496|181602636|EQUIVALENCE|Value at week 8 minus value at week 0||||||0.27||||||Corrected for baseline concentrations, age and gender|ANOVA|||||||0.27
90870851|NCT02756689|181602649|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.38
90870852|NCT02756689|181602650|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.29
90870853|NCT02756689|181602651|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.1||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|5.3|||Chi-squared|||||5.3|0.8|0.09
90870854|NCT02756689|181602652|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.12
90870855|NCT02756689|181602653|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|3.3||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|11.4|||Chi-squared|||||11.4|0.9|0.06
90911840|NCT01930045|181692566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.39|0.65|||||The Maalox followed by Raltegravir treatment group was the numerator, and the Raltegravir alone treatment group was the denominator|The hypothesis is that the true Raltegravir C 12 hrs GMR is not less than 0.4||0.65|0.39|
90911841|NCT01930045|181692566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|0.64|||||The Raltegravir followed by Maalox treatment group was the numerator, and the Raltegravir alone treatment group was the denominator|The hypothesis is that the true Raltegravir C 12 hrs GMR is not less than 0.4||0.64|0.40|
90911842|NCT01930045|181692567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.64|1.18|||||The Maalox followed by Raltegravir treatment group was the numerator, and the Raltegravir alone treatment group was the denominator|||1.18|0.64|
90870856|NCT02756689|181602654|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.8||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.8|||Chi-squared|||||2.8|0.2|0.74
90870857|NCT02756689|181602655|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1
90870858|NCT02756689|181602656|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.82
90870859|NCT02756689|181602657|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.38
90870860|NCT02756689|181602658|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.42
90870861|NCT02756689|181602659|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.06
90870862|NCT02756689|181602660|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|4.7|||Chi-squared|||||4.7|0.2|>0.99
90870863|NCT02756689|181602661|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.7||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.7|||Chi-squared|||||1.7|0.3|0.43
90870864|NCT02756689|181602662|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.3||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.3|||Chi-squared|||||1.3|0.1|0.09
90870865|NCT02756689|181602663|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.7||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|3.8|||Chi-squared|||||3.8|0.1|0.68
90870866|NCT02756689|181602664|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.8||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.6|||Chi-squared|||||2.6|0.3|0.73
90870867|NCT02756689|181602665|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5
90870868|NCT02756689|181602666|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|15.4|||Chi-squared|||||15.4|0.1|>0.99
90870869|NCT02756689|181602667|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.99
90870870|NCT02756689|181602668|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5
90870871|NCT02756689|181602669|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.3||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|2.3|||Chi-squared|||||2.3|0.03|0.37
90870872|NCT02756689|181602670|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.99
90870873|NCT02756689|181602671|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.5||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|5.3|||Chi-squared|||||5.3|0.05|0.62
90870874|NCT02756689|181602672|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.2|||Chi-squared|||||3.2|0.3|>0.99
90870875|NCT02756689|181602673|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.234|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.234
90870876|NCT02756689|181602674|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.68
90870877|NCT02756689|181602675|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.77
90870878|NCT02756689|181602676|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5
90870879|NCT02756689|181602677|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.75
90870880|NCT02756689|181602678|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.75
90870881|NCT02756689|181602679|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.29
90870882|NCT02756689|181602680|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.42
90870883|NCT02756689|181602681|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.96
90870884|NCT02756689|181602682|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.75
90870885|NCT02756689|181602683|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.57
90870886|NCT02756689|181602684|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.39
90870887|NCT02756689|181602685|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.24
90870888|NCT02756689|181602686|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.12
90870889|NCT02756689|181602687|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.06
90870890|NCT02756689|181602688|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.83
90870891|NCT02756689|181602689|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.60
90870892|NCT02557646|181602690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0437|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Cumulative dose of ribavirin \>90%: the relationship between cumulative dose and SVR response in participants in whom the cumulative dose of ribavirin exceeded 90% was analyzed using Chi-square test.||||0.0437
90870893|NCT02557646|181602692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6859|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||The relationship between the starting dose ribavirin and virological response was analyzed using Chi-square test.||||0.6859
90870894|NCT02557646|181602693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.374|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||The relationship between the starting dose ribavirin and sustained virological response (SVR) was analyzed using Chi-square test.||||0.3740
90870895|NCT02557646|181602694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0263|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||The relationship between the body weight-normalized dose of ribavirin and virological response was analyzed using Chi-square test.||||0.0263
90870896|NCT02557646|181602695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0475|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||The relationship between the body weight-normalized dose of ribavirin and sustained virological (SVR) response was analyzed using Chi-square test.||||0.0475
90870897|NCT02557646|181602701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1499|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||The relationship between the cumulative dose of ribavirin and relapse rate was analyzed using Chi-square test.||||0.1499
90870898|NCT02557646|181602702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5885|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||The relationship between the starting dose of ribavirin and relapse rate was analyzed using Chi-square test.||||0.5885
90870899|NCT02557646|181602703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0062|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||The relationship between the body weight-normalized dose of ribavirin and relapse rate was analyzed using Chi-square test.||||0.0062
90870900|NCT00110149|181602748|OTHER|As the study was not able to be completed the simple number of patients per outcome is listed.|||||||||||||||||The trial was to measure the response rate and EFS of patients but the manufacturer of the investigational agent closed and sold the agent to a new company so the trial was not able to be completed.|||
90870901|NCT00748033|181602750|OTHER|||||||0.065|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon signed rank test, two-sided. Testing the hypothesis that the perception is same.||||0.0650
90870902|NCT00748033|181602751|OTHER|||||||0.2487|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon signed rank test, two-sided. Testing the hypothesis that the perception is same.||||0.2487
90870903|NCT00748033|181602752|OTHER|||||||0.7288|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon signed rank test, two-sided. Testing the hypothesis that the perception is same.||||0.7288
90870904|NCT00748033|181602753|OTHER|||||||0.0045|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon signed rank test, two-sided. Testing the hypothesis that the perception is same.||||0.0045
90870905|NCT00748033|181602754|OTHER|||||||0.4561|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed rank test if the difference between 5s and 24h is equal to 0.||Testing the hypothesis that 5s and 24 h are equal at insertion.||||0.4561
90870906|NCT00748033|181602755|OTHER|||||||0.1797|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed rank test if the difference between 5s and 24h is equal to 0.||Testing the hypothesis that 5s and 24 h are equal at withdrawal.||||0.1797
90911843|NCT01930045|181692567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.64|1.22|||||The Raltegravir followed by Maalox treatment group was the numerator, and the Raltegravir alone treatment group was the denominator|||1.22|0.64|
90911844|NCT01930045|181692568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.58|1.4|||||The Maalox followed by Raltegravir treatment group was the numerator, and the Raltegravir alone treatment group was the denominator|||1.40|0.58|
90870907|NCT00748033|181602756|OTHER|||||||0.5171|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed rank test if the difference between 5s and 24h is equal to 0.||The mean perception of the 5s and the 24h catheter is calculated for each patient. The patients are then divided in two groups depending on the order the patients received the two catheters and the hypotheses that the mean of the 5s and the 24h catheter is equal in the two groups are tested. If the test results in a significant p-value it can be concluded that a carry-over effect is present.||||0.5171
90971059|NCT01902290|181824658|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.635||||0.9053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.82|11.089|||Mixed-effect model|Model includes treatment, time, stratification factors, treatment by time and baseline value of age, gender, pooled race group, height and AM PEFR.|Difference = Brodalumab - Placebo|Analysis of morning peak flow||11.089|-9.820|0.9053
90870908|NCT00748033|181602757|OTHER|||||||0.7105|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The mean perception of the 5s and the 24h catheter is calculated for each patient. The patients are then divided in two groups depending on the order the patients received the two catheters and the hypotheses that the mean of the 5s and the 24h catheter is equal in the two groups are tested. If the test results in a significant p-value it can be concluded that a carry-over effect is present.||||0.7105
90870909|NCT00748033|181602758|OTHER|||||||0.0003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0003
90870910|NCT00748033|181602759|OTHER|||||||0.0346|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0346
90870911|NCT00748033|181602760|OTHER|||||||0.0016|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0016
90870912|NCT01018186|181602773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|2.08|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25 OD versus FP 500 BD to Baseline of 24-Hour Urinary Cortisol Excretion at Week 12|||2.08|1.34|
90870913|NCT01018186|181602773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|2.13|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25 OD versus FP 500 BD to Baseline of 24-Hour Urinary Cortisol Excretion at Week 28|||2.13|1.29|
90870914|NCT01018186|181602773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.33|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25 OD versus FP 500 BD to Baseline of 24-Hour Urinary Cortisol Excretion at Week 52|||1.33|0.83|
90870915|NCT01018186|181602773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|1.89|||||Ratio of FF/VI 200/25 OD versus FP 500 BD to Baseline of 24-Hour Urinary Cortisol Excretion at Week 12|||1.89|1.22|
90870916|NCT01018186|181602773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|1.84|||||Ratio of FF/VI 200/25 OD versus FP 500 BD to Baseline of 24-Hour Urinary Cortisol Excretion at Week 28|||1.84|1.11|
90870917|NCT01018186|181602773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.38|||||Ratio of FF/VI 200/25 OD versus FP 500 BD to Baseline of 24-Hour Urinary Cortisol Excretion at Week 52|||1.38|0.87|
90870918|NCT01018186|181602774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of LSGM to Baseline|1.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|2.08|||ANCOVA|||||2.08|1.34|<0.001
90870919|NCT01018186|181602774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of LSGM to Baseline|1.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|1.89|||ANCOVA|||||1.89|1.22|<0.001
90870920|NCT01018186|181602775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of LSGM to Baseline|1.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|2.13|||ANCOVA|||||2.13|1.29|<0.001
90870921|NCT01018186|181602775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of LSGM to Baseline|1.43||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|1.84|||ANCOVA|||||1.84|1.11|0.006
90870922|NCT01018186|181602776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of LSGM to Baseline|1.05||||0.674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.33|||ANCOVA|||||1.33|0.83|0.674
90870923|NCT01018186|181602776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of LSGM to Baseline|1.09||||0.444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.38|||ANCOVA|||||1.38|0.87|0.444
90870924|NCT03552198|181602843|OTHER|||||||0.964|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA, adjusted for baseline measures, tested for differences between intervention and control groups in preventative behaviours at 4 weeks||We predicted that the groups receiving the alternative format of air quality notifications would report greater frequency of behaviour change at 4 weeks compared to the groups receiving the usual format.||||.964
90870925|NCT03552198|181602844|OTHER|||||||0.043|||||||Chi-squared|χ2(1)=4.11, V=0.229||We predicted that more respondents in the intervention groups (i.e. receiving alternative health advice) would consider making permanent changes to their daily travel route, exercise location or exercise time compared to the control groups||||0.043
90870926|NCT03552198|181602845|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||We predicted that the alternative health advice would lead to greater actual behaviour change compared to the usual format||||>0.05
90870927|NCT03552198|181602846|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA, adjusted for baseline intentions, tested for differences between groups in intentions in relation to an high-air-pollution scenario at 4 weeks||We predicted that the alternative format would lead to stronger intentions to adhere to recommendations associated with an hypothetical high air pollution episode compared to the usual format.||||>0.05
90870928|NCT00923247|181602885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019|||||||Mann-Whitney|(nonparametric unpaired t-test; assumed homoscedasticity)||Patients given bortezomib on cycle 1, day 1 vs. cycle 3, day 1. A paired analysis among same 14 patients on Phase 1 portion. To assess whether presence of vandetanib significantly altered bortezomib Cmax (normalized to dose).||||0.019
90870929|NCT00923247|181602886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.052|||||||Mann-Whitney|(nonparametric unpaired t-test; assumed homoscedasticity)||Patients given bortezomib on cycle 1 day 1 vs. cycle 3 day 1. A paired analysis among same 14 patients on Phase 1 portion. To assess whether presence of vandetanib significantly altered bortezomib AUCinf (normalized to dose).||||0.052
90911845|NCT01930045|181692568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.58|1.41|||||The Raltegravir followed by Maalox treatment group was the numerator, and the Raltegravir alone treatment group was the denominator|||1.41|0.58|
90911846|NCT01193153|181692606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|3.99|||Log Rank|||All participants: p-value was calculated using log-rank test.||3.99|1.55|<0.001
90911847|NCT01193153|181692606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.38||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|7.28|||Regression, Cox|||Monotherapy subset: Hazard ratio and corresponding p-value, and 95% Confidence Interval (CI) were calculated from Cox proportional hazard regression model.||7.28|1.57|0.002
90911848|NCT01193153|181692606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.03||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|3.68|||Regression, Cox|||Adjunct therapy subset: Hazard ratio and corresponding p-value, and 95% CI were calculated from Cox proportional hazard regression model.||3.68|1.11|0.021
90911849|NCT01193153|181692606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|4.67|||Regression, Cox|||Psychotic Symptoms: Hazard ratio and corresponding p-value, and 95% CI were calculated from Cox proportional hazard regression model.||4.67|1.70|<0.001
90911850|NCT01193153|181692606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|5.04|||Regression, Cox|||Mood Symptoms (Any Mood Symptoms):Hazard ratio and corresponding p-value, and 95% CI were calculated from Cox proportional hazard regression model.||5.04|1.70|<0.001
90911851|NCT01193153|181692606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.62||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|9.89|||Regression, Cox|||Mood Symptoms (Manic): Hazard ratio and corresponding p-value, and 95% CI were calculated from Cox proportional hazard regression model.||9.89|1.32|0.012
90911852|NCT01193153|181692606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.12||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|6.98|||Regression, Cox|||Mood Symptoms (Depressive): Hazard ratio and corresponding p-value, and 95% CI were calculated from Cox proportional hazard regression model.||6.98|1.39|0.006
90911853|NCT01193153|181692606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.93||||0.238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|5.78|||Regression, Cox|||Mood Symptoms (Mixed): Hazard ratio and corresponding p-value, and 95% CI were calculated from Cox proportional hazard regression model.||5.78|0.65|0.238
90911854|NCT01193153|181692607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.33||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|5.95||P-value based on change from DB baseline in PSP score and was analyzed using mixed-model repeated measures analysis of covariance based on observed data; within-participant repeated measures were modeled using an unstructured covariance matrix.|MMRM ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the mean of the PSP total score between the two treatment groups.||5.95|0.68|0.014
90911855|NCT01193153|181692609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|4.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.94|7.15||Change at Endpoint (Week 64/LOCF)|ANCOVA|||||7.15|1.94|<0.001
90911856|NCT01678196|181692619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.927|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.927
90911857|NCT01678196|181692620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA reflects change from Time 1 scores (entered as covariate) to Time 2 Scores.||||||0.67
90911858|NCT01678196|181692621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.743|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA results include Time 1 scores as a covariate, thus reflecting change over time||||||0.743
90911859|NCT01678196|181692622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA reflects change for Time 1 values (entered as the covariate) to Time 2 values (entered as the DV)||||||<.001
90911860|NCT02503202|181692623|EQUIVALENCE|Lot consistency requires the 95% confidence interval of the GMT ratio of \>0.5 and ≤2.0 for the primary analysis and \>0.67 and ≤1.5 for the secondary analysis.|GMT ratio (Lot A / Lot B)|0.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.14||Primary analysis: a p-value \<0.025 supported the conclusion of equivalence. If equivalence was established for the 3 pairwise comparisons, the lots would be considered to be consistent.|ANOVA|||||1.14|0.77|<0.001
90911861|NCT02503202|181692623|EQUIVALENCE|Lot consistency requires the 95% confidence interval of the GMT ratio of \>0.5 and ≤2.0 for the primary analysis and \>0.67 and ≤1.5 for the secondary analysis.|GMT ratio (Lot A / Lot C)|0.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.09||Primary analysis: a p-value \<0.025 supported the conclusion of equivalence. If equivalence was established for the 3 pairwise comparisons, the lots would be considered to be consistent.|ANOVA|||||1.09|0.71|<0.001
90911862|NCT02503202|181692623|EQUIVALENCE|Lot consistency requires the 95% confidence interval of the GMT ratio of \>0.5 and ≤2.0 for the primary analysis and \>0.67 and ≤1.5 for the secondary analysis.|GMT ratio (Lot B / Lot C)|0.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.15||Primary analysis: a p-value \<0.025 supported the conclusion of equivalence. If equivalence was established for the 3 pairwise comparisons, the lots would be considered to be consistent.|ANOVA|||||1.15|0.77|<0.001
90911863|NCT02503202|181692624|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|1.1||||0.368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|4.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference is Lot A - Lot B|||4.0|-1.5|0.368
90911864|NCT02503202|181692624|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||0.989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|3.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference is Lot A - Lot C|||3.0|-3.1|0.989
90911865|NCT02503202|181692624|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.1||||0.361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|1.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference is Lot B - Lot C|||1.5|-4.1|0.361
90911866|NCT02503202|181692624|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|1.2||||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|3.3|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference is High-dose Lot - Placebo|||3.3|-1.7|0.214
90911867|NCT02503202|181692625|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|4.1||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|9.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference is Lot A - Lot B|Injection site erythema||9.9|-1.6|0.160
90870930|NCT00923247|181602887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44|||||||Mann-Whitney|(nonparametric unpaired t-test; assumed homoscedasticity)||Patients given bortezomib on cycle 1 day 1 vs. cycle 3 day 1. A paired analysis among same 14 patients on Phase 1 portion. To assess whether presence of vandetanib significantly altered bortezomib half-life.||||0.440
90870931|NCT00923247|181602888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016|||||||Mann-Whitney|(nonparametric unpaired t-test; assumed homoscedasticity)||Patients given bortezomib on cycle 1 day 1 vs. cycle 3 day 1. A paired analysis among same 14 patients on Phase 1 portion. To assess whether presence of vandetanib significantly altered bortezomib clearance.||||0.016
90870932|NCT00923247|181602889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Mann-Whitney|(nonparametric unpaired t-test; assumed homoscedasticity)||Patients given bortezomib on cycle 1 day 1 vs. cycle 3 day 1. A paired analysis among same 14 patients on Phase I portion. To assess whether presence of vandetanib significantly altered bortezomib volume of distribution.||||0.010
90870933|NCT01691781|181602909|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.049||||||This p-value reflects the difference in PTH means among participants with primary hyperparathyroidism|t-test, 2 sided|||The statistical analysis compared the change in PTH, before and after ACE inhibitor therapy, among participants with primary hyperparathyroidism.||||0.049
90911868|NCT02503202|181692625|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1||||0.971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|6.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference is Lot A - Lot C|Injection site erythema||6.0|-6.2|0.971
90911869|NCT02503202|181692625|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.2||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|1.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference is Lot B - Lot C|Injection site erythema||1.5|-10.0|0.151
90911870|NCT02503202|181692625|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.8||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|9.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference is High-dose Lot - Placebo|Injection site erythema||9.9|1.4|0.016
90911871|NCT02503202|181692625|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.2||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|1.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference is Lot A - Lot B|Injection site pain||1.6|-14.0|0.120
90870934|NCT01691781|181602909|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8||||||This p-value reflects the difference in PTH means among normal control participants without primary hyperparathyroidism|t-test, 2 sided|||The statistical analysis compared the change in PTH, before and after ACE inhibitor therapy, among normal control participants (without primary hyperparathyroidism).||||0.80
90870935|NCT01691781|181602910|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22||||||This p-value reflects the comparison of means among the primary hyperparathyroidism group only.|t-test, 2 sided|||The statistical analysis compared the change in urinary aldosterone excretion rate, before and after ACE inhibitor therapy, among participants with primary hyperparathyroidism.||||0.22
90870936|NCT01691781|181602910|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86||||||This p-value reflects the mean difference in 24h aldosterone excretion rate among normal control participants without primary hyperparathyroidism|t-test, 2 sided|||The statistical analysis compared the change in urinary aldosterone excretion rate, before and after ACE inhibitor therapy, among normal control participants without primary hyperparathyroidism.||||0.86
90870937|NCT01691781|181602911|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48||||||This p-value reflects the statistic for the comparison of mean calcium levels for the primary hyperparathyroidism group.|t-test, 2 sided|||The statistical analysis compared the change in serum calcium, before and after ACE inhibitor therapy, among participants with primary hyperparathyroidism.||||0.48
90870938|NCT01691781|181602911|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8||||||This p-value reflects the statistic for the comparison of mean calcium levels for the normal control participants without primary hyperparathyroidism.|t-test, 2 sided|||The statistical analysis compared the change in serum calcium, before and after ACE inhibitor therapy, among normal control participants without primary hyperparathyroidism.||||0.80
90911872|NCT02503202|181692625|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.5||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|94.0|-11.4|4.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference is Lot A - Lot C|Injection site pain||4.4|-11.4|0.380
90911873|NCT02503202|181692625|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.7||||0.499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|10.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference is Lot B - Lot C|Injection site pain||10.4|-5.1|0.499
90911874|NCT02503202|181692625|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|54.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.2|62.3|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference is High-dose Lot - Placebo|Injection site pain||62.3|46.2|<0.001
90911875|NCT02503202|181692625|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|4.0||||0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|10.3|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference is Lot A - Lot B|Injection site swelling||10.3|-2.2|0.202
90911876|NCT02503202|181692625|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.5||||0.878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|6.1|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference is Lot A - Lot C|Injection site swelling||6.1|-7.1|0.878
90911877|NCT02503202|181692625|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.6||||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|1.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference is Lot B - Lot C|Injection site swelling||1.7|-10.9|0.154
90911878|NCT02503202|181692625|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|13.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|18.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference is High-dose Lot - Placebo|Injection site swelling||18.6|7.4|<0.001
90911879|NCT02503202|181692626|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|4.6||||0.176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|11.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference is Lot A - Lot B|||11.4|-2.1|0.176
90911880|NCT02503202|181692626|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.1||||0.769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|6.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference is Lot A - Lot C|||6.0|-8.2|0.769
90911881|NCT02503202|181692626|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.7||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|1.1|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference is Lot B - Lot C|||1.1|-12.5|0.100
90911882|NCT02503202|181692626|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|31.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.6|37.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference is High-dose Lot - Placebo|||37.5|25.6|<0.001
90911883|NCT02503202|181692627|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||0.983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|4.1|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference is Lot A - Lot B|Arthralgia||4.1|-4.2|0.983
90911884|NCT02503202|181692627|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.8||||0.699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|3.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference is Lot A - Lot C|Arthralgia||3.4|-5.1|0.699
90870939|NCT03978520|181602912|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|12.8|||=|0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|27.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"ABBV-599 High Dose (Elsubrutinib 60 mg/upadacitinib 30 mg) vs elsubrutinib placebo/upadacitinib placebo~The difference between the groups was assessed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, stratified by baseline corticosteroid dose above 10 mg prednisone-equivalent (≤10 mg or \> 10 mg), screening SLEDAI-2K (\< 10 or ≥10), baseline interferon score (high or low or NA), baseline immunosuppressant (azathioprine, tacrolimus, cyclosporine, methotrexate \[MTX\], mycophenolate) (yes or no)."||27.1|-1.6|=0.081
90870940|NCT03978520|181602912|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|16.9|||=|0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|31.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Elsubrutinib placebo/upadacitinib 30 mg vs elsubrutinib placebo/upadacitinib placebo~The difference between the groups was assessed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, stratified by baseline corticosteroid dose above 10 mg prednisone-equivalent (≤10 mg or \> 10 mg), screening SLEDAI-2K (\< 10 or ≥10), baseline interferon score (high or low or NA), baseline immunosuppressant (azathioprine, tacrolimus, cyclosporine, methotrexate \[MTX\], mycophenolate) (yes or no)."||31.9|1.8|=0.028
90870941|NCT03978520|181602912|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|-4.7|||=|0.566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.8|11.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"ABBV-599 High Dose (Elsubrutinib 60 mg/upadacitinib 30 mg) vs elsubrutinib placebo/upadacitinib 30 mg~The difference between the groups was assessed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, stratified by baseline corticosteroid dose above 10 mg prednisone-equivalent (≤10 mg or \> 10 mg), screening SLEDAI-2K (\< 10 or ≥10), baseline interferon score (high or low or NA), baseline immunosuppressant (azathioprine, tacrolimus, cyclosporine, methotrexate \[MTX\], mycophenolate) (yes or no)."||11.4|-20.8|=0.566
90870942|NCT03978520|181602913|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|18.3|||=|0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|32.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"ABBV-599 High Dose (Elsubrutinib 60 mg/upadacitinib 30 mg) vs elsubrutinib placebo/upadacitinib placebo~The difference between the groups was assessed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, stratified by baseline corticosteroid dose above 10 mg prednisone-equivalent (≤10 mg or \> 10 mg), screening SLEDAI-2K (\< 10 or ≥10), baseline interferon score (high or low or NA), baseline immunosuppressant (azathioprine, tacrolimus, cyclosporine, methotrexate \[MTX\], mycophenolate) (yes or no)."||32.6|3.9|=0.013
90870943|NCT03978520|181602913|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|18.1|||=|0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|33.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Elsubrutinib placebo/upadacitinib 30 mg vs elsubrutinib placebo/upadacitinib placebo~The difference between the groups was assessed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, stratified by baseline corticosteroid dose above 10 mg prednisone-equivalent (≤10 mg or \> 10 mg), screening SLEDAI-2K (\< 10 or ≥10), baseline interferon score (high or low or NA), baseline immunosuppressant (azathioprine, tacrolimus, cyclosporine, methotrexate \[MTX\], mycophenolate) (yes or no)."||33.2|3.0|=0.018
90870944|NCT03978520|181602913|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|-1.2|||=|0.882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6|15.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"ABBV-599 High Dose (Elsubrutinib 60 mg/upadacitinib 30 mg) vs elsubrutinib placebo/upadacitinib 30 mg~The difference between the groups was assessed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, stratified by baseline corticosteroid dose above 10 mg prednisone-equivalent (≤10 mg or \> 10 mg), screening SLEDAI-2K (\< 10 or ≥10), baseline interferon score (high or low or NA), baseline immunosuppressant (azathioprine, tacrolimus, cyclosporine, methotrexate \[MTX\], mycophenolate) (yes or no)."||15.2|-17.6|=0.882
90870945|NCT03978520|181602914|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|14.7|||=|0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|29.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"ABBV-599 High Dose (Elsubrutinib 60 mg/upadacitinib 30 mg) vs elsubrutinib placebo/upadacitinib placebo~The difference between the groups was assessed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, stratified by baseline corticosteroid dose above 10 mg prednisone-equivalent (≤10 mg or \> 10 mg), screening SLEDAI-2K (\< 10 or ≥10), baseline interferon score (high or low or NA), baseline immunosuppressant (azathioprine, tacrolimus, cyclosporine, methotrexate \[MTX\], mycophenolate) (yes or no)."||29.4|0.0|=0.049
90870946|NCT03978520|181602914|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|13.9|||=|0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|30.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Elsubrutinib placebo/upadacitinib 30 mg vs elsubrutinib placebo/upadacitinib placebo~The difference between the groups was assessed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, stratified by baseline corticosteroid dose above 10 mg prednisone-equivalent (≤10 mg or \> 10 mg), screening SLEDAI-2K (\< 10 or ≥10), baseline interferon score (high or low or NA), baseline immunosuppressant (azathioprine, tacrolimus, cyclosporine, methotrexate \[MTX\], mycophenolate) (yes or no)."||30.1|-2.2|=0.091
90870947|NCT03978520|181602914|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|-6.3|||=|0.447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.5|9.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"ABBV-599 High Dose (Elsubrutinib 60 mg/upadacitinib 30 mg) vs Elsubrutinib placebo/upadacitinib 30 mg~The difference between the groups was assessed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, stratified by baseline corticosteroid dose above 10 mg prednisone-equivalent (≤10 mg or \> 10 mg), screening SLEDAI-2K (\< 10 or ≥10), baseline interferon score (high or low or NA), baseline immunosuppressant (azathioprine, tacrolimus, cyclosporine, methotrexate \[MTX\], mycophenolate) (yes or no)."||9.9|-22.5|=0.447
90870948|NCT03978520|181602915|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|16.7|||=|0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|28.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"ABBV-599 High Dose (Elsubrutinib 60 mg/upadacitinib 30 mg) vs elsubrutinib placebo/upadacitinib placebo~The difference between the groups was assessed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, stratified by baseline corticosteroid dose above 10 mg prednisone-equivalent (≤10 mg or \> 10 mg), screening SLEDAI-2K (\< 10 or ≥10), baseline interferon score (high or low or NA), baseline immunosuppressant (azathioprine, tacrolimus, cyclosporine, methotrexate \[MTX\], mycophenolate) (yes or no)."||28.9|4.5|=0.007
90870949|NCT03978520|181602915|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|31.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.1|44.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Elsubrutinib placebo/upadacitinib 30 mg vs elsubrutinib placebo/upadacitinib placebo||44.0|18.1|<0.001
90870950|NCT03978520|181602915|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|-13.7|||=|0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.4|1.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"ABBV-599 High Dose (Elsubrutinib 60 mg/upadacitinib 30 mg) vs elsubrutinib placebo/upadacitinib 30 mg~The difference between the groups was assessed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, stratified by baseline corticosteroid dose above 10 mg prednisone-equivalent (≤10 mg or \> 10 mg), screening SLEDAI-2K (\< 10 or ≥10), baseline interferon score (high or low or NA), baseline immunosuppressant (azathioprine, tacrolimus, cyclosporine, methotrexate \[MTX\], mycophenolate) (yes or no)."||1.0|-28.4|=0.068
90870951|NCT03978520|181602916|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.527|=|0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|1.23|||Mixed-effect model repeat measurement|||"ABBV-599 High Dose (Elsubrutinib 60 mg/upadacitinib 30 mg) vs elsubrutinib placebo/upadacitinib placebo~The Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement model included fixed effects of Tx, visit and Tx-by-visit interaction, stratification factors (Baseline corticosteroid dose \> 10 mg prednisone-equivalent (≤ 10 mg or \>10 mg), screening SLEDAI-2K (\<10 or ≥ 10), baseline interferon score (high/low/NA, baseline immunosuppressant (yes/no)), and continuous fixed covariates of measurements at Baseline."||1.23|-0.84|=0.710
90870952|NCT03978520|181602916|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.545|=|0.963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|1.1|||Mixed-effect model repeat measurement|||"Elsubrutinib placebo/upadacitinib 30 mg vs elsubrutinib placebo/upadacitinib placebo~The Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement model included fixed effects of Tx, visit and Tx-by-visit interaction, stratification factors (Baseline corticosteroid dose \> 10 mg prednisone-equivalent (≤ 10 mg or \>10 mg), screening SLEDAI-2K (\<10 or ≥ 10), baseline interferon score (high/low/NA, baseline immunosuppressant (yes/no)), and continuous fixed covariates of measurements at Baseline."||1.10|-1.05|=0.963
90870953|NCT03978520|181602916|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.547|=|0.754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.25|||Mixed-effect model repeat measurement|||"ABBV-599 High Dose (Elsubrutinib 60 mg/upadacitinib 30 mg) vs elsubrutinib placebo/upadacitinib 30 mg~The Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement model included fixed effects of Tx, visit and Tx-by-visit interaction, stratification factors (Baseline corticosteroid dose \> 10 mg prednisone-equivalent (≤ 10 mg or \>10 mg), screening SLEDAI-2K (\<10 or ≥ 10), baseline interferon score (high/low/NA, baseline immunosuppressant (yes/no)), and continuous fixed covariates of measurements at Baseline."||1.25|-0.90|=0.754
90870954|NCT03978520|181602917|SUPERIORITY||Rate difference|-1.06|||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|-0.39|||Binomial regression|||"Mild/Moderate~ABBV-599 High Dose (Elsubrutinib 60 mg/upadacitinib 30 mg) vs Elsubrutinib placebo/upadacitinib placebo~A negative binomial regression model was used to assess treatment effect with treatment, visit, and stratification factors as covariates."||-0.39|-1.74|=0.002
90870955|NCT03978520|181602917|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|-0.69|||=|0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|0.03|||Binomial regression|||"Mild/Moderate~Elsubrutinib placebo/upadacitinib 30 mg vs elsubrutinib placebo/upadacitinib placebo~A negative binomial regression model was used to assess treatment effect with treatment, visit, and stratification factors as covariates."||0.03|-1.41|=0.059
90911885|NCT02503202|181692627|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.8||||0.716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|3.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference is Lot B - Lot C|Arthralgia||3.5|-5.1|0.716
90870956|NCT03978520|181602917|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|-0.37|||=|0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|0.27|||Binomial regression|||"Mild/Moderate~ABBV-599 High Dose (Elsubrutinib 60 mg/upadacitinib 30 mg) vs elsubrutinib placebo/upadacitinib 30 mg~A negative binomial regression model was used to assess treatment effect with treatment, visit, and stratification factors as covariates."||0.27|-1.01|=0.252
90870957|NCT03978520|181602917|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|-0.1|||=|0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.17|||Binomial regression|||"Severe~ABBV-599 High Dose (Elsubrutinib 60 mg/upadacitinib 30 mg) vs elsubrutinib placebo/upadacitinib placebo~A negative binomial regression model was used to assess treatment effect with treatment, visit, and stratification factors as covariates."||0.17|-0.37|=0.467
90870958|NCT03978520|181602917|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|-0.26|||=|0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|-0.02|||Binomial regression|||"Severe~Elsubrutinib placebo/upadacitinib 30 mg vs elsubrutinib placebo/upadacitinib placebo~A negative binomial regression model was used to assess treatment effect with treatment, visit, and stratification factors as covariates."||-0.02|-0.49|=0.033
90870959|NCT03978520|181602917|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|0.15|||=|0.156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.37|||Binomial regression|||"Severe~ABBV-599 High Dose (Elsubrutinib 60 mg/upadacitinib 30 mg) vs elsubrutinib placebo/upadacitinib 30 mg~A negative binomial regression model was used to assess treatment effect with treatment, visit, and stratification factors as covariates."||0.37|-0.06|=0.156
90870960|NCT03978520|181602917|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|-1.16|||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|-0.44|||Binomial regression|||"Overall~ABBV-599 High Dose (Elsubrutinib 60 mg/upadacitinib 30 mg) vs elsubrutinib placebo/upadacitinib placebo~A negative binomial regression model was used to assess treatment effect with treatment, visit, and stratification factors as covariates."||-0.44|-1.89|=0.002
90870961|NCT03978520|181602917|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|-0.95|||=|0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.19|||Binomial regression|||"Overall~Elsubrutinib placebo/upadacitinib 30 mg vs elsubrutinib placebo/upadacitinib placebo~A negative binomial regression model was used to assess treatment effect with treatment, visit, and stratification factors as covariates."||-0.19|-1.70|=0.014
90870962|NCT03978520|181602917|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|-0.22|||=|0.526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.46|||Binomial regression|||"Overall~ABBV-599 High Dose (Elsubrutinib 60 mg/upadacitinib 30 mg) vs elsubrutinib placebo/upadacitinib 30 mg~A negative binomial regression model was used to assess treatment effect with treatment, visit, and stratification factors as covariates."||0.46|-0.89|=0.526
90870963|NCT03200860|181602918|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.18
90870964|NCT03200860|181602919|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.37
90870965|NCT03200860|181602920|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.58
90911886|NCT02503202|181692627|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|6.2||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|10.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference is High-dose Lot - Placebo|Arthralgia||10.4|1.8|0.012
90911887|NCT02503202|181692627|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.7||||0.677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|4.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference is Lot A - Lot B|Arthritis||4.4|-2.9|0.677
90911888|NCT02503202|181692627|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|1.9||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|5.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference is Lot A - Lot C|Arthritis||5.4|-1.4|0.250
90870966|NCT03200860|181602921|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.63
90870967|NCT03200860|181602922|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.31
90870968|NCT03200860|181602923|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.014
90870969|NCT02634320|181602936|OTHER|Statistical test is to confirm the change from baseline is statistically different from 0.||||||0.078||||||Change from baseline at last on-treatment visit|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.078
90870970|NCT02421315|181602964|OTHER|a t-test comparing groups in a specific region-of-interest (ROI); the insula|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057||0.0585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.224|||t-test, 2 sided|||We hypothesized that compared to HC, children and adolescents with OCD would have increased activation in subcortical structures (insula, and putamen) comprising a right hemisphere dorsal frontostriatal circuit.||0.224|-0.004|0.0585
90870971|NCT02421315|181602965|SUPERIORITY|We selected 'arbitrary units' as the unit of measure here because we are looking at connectivity strengths|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.49512921|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06553315||0.037|TWO_SIDED|||||"NBS controls for family-wise error rate using permutation testing to identify components or clusters of contiguous region-to-region connections. A statistical threshold of p\<.05 with 20,000 permutations was used."|t-test, 1 sided||Direction of the comparison: HC\>OCD|Whole-Brain Connectome-Level Analyses were performed on the FC-strength indices between 352 regions. Edge-wise functional connectivity analyses was then be conducted across the resulting matrix comprised of 352 nodes and 123,904 edges, using the Network-Based Statistics (NBS) Toolbox. We hypothesized that youth with OCD would show altered FC between task-control circuit regions.||||.037
90870972|NCT02421315|181602965|OTHER||Slope|-0.521|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Separate cross-lagged panel models were computed in the OCD group for the three functional connections that differed significantly across groups at baseline (see Statistical Analysis 1). These models were constructed using IBM SPSS Amos (v.23) to test for directional relationships between OCD symptoms and FC pre- to post-treatment in the OCD patients. CY-BOCS total scores at each time point were used as the OCD symptoms measure.||||<.05
90870973|NCT02421315|181602966|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.0464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0018|0.218|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.218|0.0018|0.0464
90911889|NCT02503202|181692627|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|1.1||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|4.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference is Lot B - Lot C|Arthritis||4.5|-2.1|0.460
90911890|NCT02503202|181692627|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|3.1||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|6.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference is High-dose Lot - Placebo|Arthritis||6.0|0.2|0.041
90911891|NCT02503202|181692628|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.5||||0.353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|1.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference is Lot A - Lot B|||1.9|-5.1|0.353
90911892|NCT02503202|181692628|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.8||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|2.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference is Lot A - Lot C|||2.5|-4.2|0.620
90911893|NCT02503202|181692628|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.8||||0.663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|4.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference is Lot B - Lot C|||4.5|-2.9|0.663
90870974|NCT02421315|181602967|SUPERIORITY|only participants were assigned to groups (OCD, HC) and we measured streamline count in these participants to index structural connectivity|Slope|-102.67|||<|0.025|TWO_SIDED|||||"NBS controls for family-wise error rate using permutation testing to identify components or clusters of contiguous region-to-region connections. A statistical threshold of p=.025 with 10,000 permutations was used."|Regression, Linear||Direction of comparison: HC\>OCD|Whole-Brain Connectome-Level Analyses were performed on the structural connectivity indices (streamline count) between 164 regions. Edge-wise structural connectivity analyses was then be conducted across the resulting matrix comprised of 164 nodes and 26,896 edges, using the Network-Based Statistics (NBS) Toolbox.||||<0.025
90870975|NCT04216329|181602988|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Students t-test|||||||0.02
90911894|NCT02503202|181692628|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.3||||0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|5.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference is High-dose Lot - Placebo|||5.7|-1.8|0.202
90911895|NCT02503202|181692629|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.7||||0.483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|3.3|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference is Lot A - Lot B|||3.3|-1.6|0.483
90911896|NCT02503202|181692629|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.4||||0.746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|3.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference is Lot A - Lot C|||3.0|-2.2|0.746
90870976|NCT04216329|181602988|OTHER|||||||0.07||||||P-value 0.07 represents the difference between baseline depression scores and completion of treatment scores.|Students t-test|||||||0.07
90870977|NCT04216329|181602988|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Students t-test|||||||0.02
90911897|NCT02503202|181692629|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.4||||0.704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|2.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference is Lot B - Lot C|||2.0|-2.8|0.704
90911898|NCT02503202|181692629|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|1.5||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|3.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference is High-dose Lot - Placebo|||3.9|-1.3|0.151
90911899|NCT03951649|181692669|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.30
90870978|NCT04216329|181602988|OTHER|||||||0.07||||||P-value 0.07 represents the difference between baseline depression scores and completion of treatment scores.|Students t-test|||||||0.07
90870979|NCT04216329|181602988|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Students t-test|||||||0.02
90870980|NCT04216329|181602988|OTHER|||||||0.07||||||P-value 0.07 represents the difference between baseline depression scores and completion of treatment scores.|Students t-test|||||||0.07
90870981|NCT04216329|181602990|OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||Students t-test|||||||0.09
90870982|NCT04216329|181602990|OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||Students t-test|||||||0.09
90870983|NCT04216329|181602990|OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||Students t-test|||||||0.09
90870984|NCT01405456|181603055|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in Insulin Stimulated Glucose Uptake measured during euglycemic hyperinsulinemic clamp procedure from baseline to 6 months||||0.71
90870985|NCT01405456|181603056|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in Visceral Adipose Tissue area as measured by magnetic resonance imaging of the abdomen from baseline to 6 months||||0.42
90911900|NCT03951649|181692670|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99||||||The p-value was calculated using a 2 sided Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.99
90870986|NCT01405456|181603057|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in Liver Fat (Intrahepatic Lipid) as measured by magnetic resonance spectroscopy from baseline to 6 months||||0.51
90870987|NCT01405456|181603058|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in Intramyocellular Lipid of calf muscles as measured by magnetic resonance spectroscopy from baseline to 6 months||||0.04
90870988|NCT01405456|181603059|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in Flow Mediated Vasodilation (maximum percentage) from baseline to 6 months||||0.44
90870989|NCT01405456|181603060|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Mean serum measurements of Potassium||||0.07
90870990|NCT01405456|181603061|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in Hemoglobin A1c from baseline to 6 months||||0.70
90870991|NCT01405456|181603062|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in C-Reactive Protein from baseline to 6 months||||0.10
90870992|NCT01405456|181603063|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in Plasminogen Activator Inhibitor 1 from baseline to 6 months||||0.37
90870993|NCT01405456|181603064|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in Adiponectin from baseline to 6 months||||0.78
90870994|NCT01405456|181603065|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in IL-6 from baseline to 6 months||||0.10
90870995|NCT01405456|181603066|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in MCP-1 from baseline to 6 months||||0.04
90870996|NCT02044393|181603077|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"90% confidence interval for gMean ratio of IT+BI 691751 to BI 69175 treatment was provided.~The ANOVA model included the fixed effects 'sequence', 'period' and 'treatment' and as a random effect 'subject within sequence' as source of variation."|gMean ratio|74.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|32.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|62.371|87.959|||||"ratio of IT+BI 691751 to BI 691751 treatment. Estimated value and its confidence interval (CI) are in percentage unit.~The standard error of the mean actually is the geometric coefficient of variance."|gMean ratio of IT+BI 691751 to BI 69175 treatment (in plasma)||87.959|62.371|
90870997|NCT02044393|181603077|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"90% confidence interval for gMean ratio of IT+BI 691751 to BI 69175 treatment was provided.~The ANOVA model included the fixed effects 'sequence', 'period' and 'treatment' and as a random effect 'subject within sequence' as source of variation."|gMean ratio|86.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.04|95.56|||||"ratio of IT+BI 691751 to BI 691751 treatment. Estimated value and its confidence interval (CI) are in percentage unit.~The standard error of the mean actually is the geometric coefficient of variance."|gMean ratio of IT+BI 691751 to BI 691751 treatment (in whole blood)||95.56|78.04|
90870998|NCT02044393|181603078|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"90% confidence interval for gMean ratio of IT+BI 691751 to BI 69175 treatment was provided.~The ANOVA model included the fixed effects 'sequence', 'period' and 'treatment' and as a random effect 'subject within sequence' as source of variation."|gMean ratio|95.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|23.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.195|108.537|||||ratio of test to reference treatment. The standard error of the mean actually is the geometric coefficient of variance.|gMean ratio of test to reference treatment (in plasma)||108.537|84.195|
90911901|NCT03951649|181692671|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.19
90911902|NCT03951649|181692672|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.028
90911903|NCT03951649|181692673|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value was calculated|Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
90911904|NCT03951649|181692674|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.61
90911905|NCT03951649|181692675|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.43
90911906|NCT03951649|181692677|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.19
90911907|NCT03951649|181692678|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.18
90911908|NCT03951649|181692679|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.92
90911909|NCT03951649|181692680|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.13
90911910|NCT03951649|181692681|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.14
90911911|NCT03951649|181692682|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.23
90911912|NCT00758602|181692694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.6581||||0.0813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|1.4||p-value, least squares (LS) mean difference, and 95% confidence interval (CI) based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, center, and the treatment-by-center interaction as fixed effects, and the donor age as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||1.40|-0.08|0.0813
90911913|NCT00758602|181692695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-1.5977||||0.7949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.77|10.58||p-value, LS mean difference, and 95% CI based on ANCOVA model with treatment, center, and the treatment-by-center interaction as fixed effects, and the donor age as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||10.58|-13.77|0.7949
90911914|NCT00758602|181692696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6812|||||||Fisher Exact|||Acute rejection, 6 months post-transplant||||0.6812
90911915|NCT00758602|181692696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6812|||||||Fisher Exact|||Acute rejection, 12 months post-transplant||||0.6812
90911916|NCT00758602|181692696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Death, 12 months post-transplant||||1.0000
90870999|NCT02044393|181603078|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"90% confidence interval for gMean ratio of IT+BI 691751 to BI 69175 treatment was provided.~The ANOVA model included the fixed effects 'sequence', 'period' and 'treatment' and as a random effect 'subject within sequence' as source of variation."|gMean ratio|93.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.142|101.57|||||ratio of test to reference treatment. The standard error of the mean actually is the geometric coefficient of variance.|gMean ratio of test to reference treatment (in whole blood)||101.570|86.142|
90871000|NCT02044393|181603079|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"90% confidence interval for gMean ratio of IT+BI 691751 to BI 69175 treatment was provided.~The ANOVA model included the fixed effects 'sequence', 'period' and 'treatment' and as a random effect 'subject within sequence' as source of variation."|gMean ratio|74.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|32.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|62.946|89.035|||||ratio of IT+BI 691751 to BI 691751 treatment. The standard error of the mean actually is the geometric coefficient of variance.|gMean ratio of IT+BI 691751 to BI 691751 treatment (in plasma)||89.035|62.946|
90871001|NCT02044393|181603079|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"90% confidence interval for gMean ratio of IT+BI 691751 to BI 69175 treatment was provided.~The ANOVA model included the fixed effects 'sequence', 'period' and 'treatment' and as a random effect 'subject within sequence' as source of variation."|gMean ratio|88.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.6|98.95|||||ratio of IT+BI 691751 to BI 691751 treatment. The standard error of the mean actually is the geometric coefficient of variance.|gMean ratio of IT+BI 691751 to BI 691751 treatment (in whole blood)||98.95|78.60|
90871002|NCT00534430|181603082|EQUIVALENCE|Given the small sample-size of the disease sub-groups, this was a hypothesis generating study.|Median Difference (Net)|0.0|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A-priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Log Rank|No adjustments.||Log-rank test. (Mantel-Haenszel test). Null hypothesis is all four groups are statistically from the same population. Alternative hypothesis is that at least one of the groups is from a population different from the remaining groups. Anticipated sample-sizes comparing Active ALL (anticipated N= 12) with the combined AML patients (anticipated N=38) was deemed to be too small for formal hypothesis testing.||||>0.05
90871003|NCT00534430|181603083|EQUIVALENCE|Given the small sample-size of the disease sub-groups, this was a hypothesis generating study.|Median Difference (Net)|0.0|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A-priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Gray's Test|No adjustments.||Gray's estimate. (Fine and Gray). Null hypothesis is all four groups are statistically from the same population. Alternative hypothesis is that at least one of the groups is from a population different from the remaining groups. Anticipated sample-sizes comparing Active ALL (anticipated N= 12) with the combined AML patients (anticipated N=38) was deemed to be too small for formal hypothesis testing||||>0.05
90871004|NCT03395886|181603103|OTHER|||||||0.831|||||||Chi-squared|||Summary statistics are expressed as numbers and percentages and compared between groups by Chi-square test.||||0.831
90871005|NCT03395886|181603104|OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||Generalized estimating equations|||||||0.800
90871006|NCT00589914|181603105|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was 5 points in the change in PANSS total score i.e., lower limit of the 95% CI for difference between groups (RISPERDAL CONSTA minus paliperidone palmitate) had to be greater than -5 to demonstrate non-inferiority.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|2.38||No p-value to report.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with factors treatment, country and baseline score. Weighted approach used to account for interim analysis for sample size re-estimation.||Null hypothesis: Difference between groups (RISPERDAL CONSTA minus paliperidone palmitate) for the mean change from baseline to endpoint in PANSS total score (LOCF) was less than or equal to -5 (prespecified non-inferiority margin). Sample size: SD of 20 for the change in PANSS total score, a true difference between treatment groups of 0.1 in favor of RISPERDAL CONSTA, 2-sided significance level of 5%, and 80% power. A sample size reestimation was performed when 60% of the data was available.||2.38|-1.62|
90911917|NCT00758602|181692698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Log Rank|||||||1.0000
90911918|NCT00758602|181692699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4586|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4586
90911919|NCT00758602|181692700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
90911920|NCT00208507|181692726|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|This was a non-inferiority test of the Harris Hip Score means at 24+ months with a 5 point non-inferiority margin.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.61||||0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-1.56||||ANCOVA|Preoperative Harris Hip score was included in the ANCOVA model as the only covariate.|||||-1.56|0.001
90911921|NCT00982033|181692728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.90
90971060|NCT01902290|181824658|SUPERIORITY||Difference|5.92||||0.2661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.515|16.354|||Mixed-effects model|Model includes treatment, time, stratification factors, treatment by time and baseline value of age, gender, pooled race group, height and PM PEFR.|Difference = Brodalumab - Placebo|Analysis of evening peak flow||16.354|-4.515|0.2661
90871007|NCT00589914|181603106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.17||No P-values reported.|ANCOVA|||The change from baseline was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with factors for treatment and country and baseline score as a covariate.||0.17|-0.07|
90871008|NCT00589914|181603107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|1.69||No P-values reported.|ANCOVA|||The change from baseline was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with factors for treatment and country and baseline score as a covariate.||1.69|-1.22|
90871009|NCT02564042|181603111|OTHER||Proportion difference|54.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.9|76.6|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1% BID and Vehicle BID has been presented|||76.6|25.9|
90871010|NCT02564042|181603111|OTHER||Proportion difference|51.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.2|73.2|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1% QD and Vehicle QD has been presented|||73.2|22.2|
90971061|NCT01902290|181824659|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-4.021||||0.0871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.627|0.586|||Mixed-effect model|Model includes treatment, time, stratification factors, treatment by time and baseline value of age, gender, race group, height and PEFR variation.|Difference = Brodalumab - Placebo|||0.586|-8.627|0.0871
90871011|NCT02564042|181603111|OTHER||Proportion difference|35.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|60.5|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5% BID and Vehicle BID has been presented|||60.5|6.3|
90871012|NCT02564042|181603111|OTHER||Proportion difference|30.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|55.9|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5% QD and Vehicle QD has been presented|||55.9|1.6|
90871013|NCT02564042|181603112|OTHER||Proportion difference|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|26.6|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1% QD and Vehicle QD at Week 1 has been presented|||26.6|-21.0|
90871014|NCT02564042|181603112|OTHER||Proportion difference|6.3||||||95.0|-20.5|32.4|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1% BID and Vehicle BID at Week 2 has been presented|||32.4|-20.5|
90871015|NCT02564042|181603112|OTHER||Proportion difference|15.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|39.1|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1% QD and Vehicle QD at Week 2 has been presented|||39.1|-9.6|
90871016|NCT02564042|181603112|OTHER||Proportion difference|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.6|29.9|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5% BID and Vehicle BID at Week 2 has been presented|||29.9|-23.6|
90871017|NCT02564042|181603112|OTHER||Proportion difference|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.2|28.1|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5% QD and Vehicle QD at Week 2 has been presented|||28.1|-22.2|
90871018|NCT02564042|181603112|OTHER||Proportion difference|27.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|52.4|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1% BID and Vehicle BID at Week 4 has been presented|||52.4|-0.5|
90871019|NCT02564042|181603112|OTHER||Proportion difference|25.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|49.3|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1% QD and Vehicle QD at Week 4 has been presented|||49.3|-0.4|
90871020|NCT02564042|181603112|OTHER||Proportion difference|9.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.4|35.7|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5% BID and Vehicle BID at Week 4 has been presented|||35.7|-18.4|
90871021|NCT02564042|181603112|OTHER||Proportion difference|6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|31.7|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5% QD and Vehicle QD at Week 4 has been presented|||31.7|-19.7|
90871022|NCT02564042|181603112|OTHER||Proportion difference|45.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.6|68.4|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1% BID and Vehicle BID at Week 8 has been presented|||68.4|16.6|
90871023|NCT02564042|181603112|OTHER||Proportion difference|37.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.7|61.3|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1% QD and Vehicle QD at Week 8 has been presented|||61.3|8.7|
90871024|NCT02564042|181603112|OTHER||Proportion difference|32.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|57.2|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5% BID and Vehicle BID at Week 8 has been presented|||57.2|3.5|
90871025|NCT02564042|181603112|OTHER||Proportion difference|34.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|58.7|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5% QD and Vehicle QD at Week 8 has been presented|||58.7|6.3|
90871026|NCT02564042|181603112|OTHER||Proportion difference|49.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.1|72.4|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1% BID and Vehicle BID at Week 12 has been presented|||72.4|20.1|
90871027|NCT02564042|181603112|OTHER||Proportion difference|51.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.2|73.2|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1% QD and Vehicle QD at Week 12 has been presented|||73.2|22.2|
90871028|NCT02564042|181603112|OTHER||Proportion difference|30.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|56.1|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5% BID and Vehicle BID at Week 12 has been presented|||56.1|1.0|
90871029|NCT02564042|181603112|OTHER||Proportion difference|41.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.7|65.0|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5% QD and Vehicle QD at Week 12 has been presented|||65.0|12.7|
90871030|NCT02564042|181603112|OTHER||Proportion difference|49.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.1|72.4|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1% BID and Vehicle BID at Week 14 has been presented|||72.4|20.1|
90871031|NCT02564042|181603112|OTHER||Proportion difference|60.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.2|80.1|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1% QD and Vehicle QD at Week 14 has been presented|||80.1|33.2|
90871032|NCT02564042|181603112|OTHER||Proportion difference|30.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|56.5|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5% BID and Vehicle BID at Week 14 has been presented|||56.5|0.2|
90871033|NCT02564042|181603112|OTHER||Proportion difference|42.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.4|66.5|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5% QD and Vehicle QD at Week 14 has been presented|||66.5|14.4|
90871034|NCT02564042|181603112|OTHER||Proportion difference|52.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.2|74.4|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1% BID and Vehicle BID at Week 16 has been presented|||74.4|23.2|
90871035|NCT02564042|181603112|OTHER||Proportion difference|52.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.4|74.0|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1% QD and Vehicle QD at Week 16 has been presented|||74.0|24.4|
90871036|NCT02564042|181603112|OTHER||Proportion difference|35.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|60.5|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5% BID and Vehicle BID at Week 16 has been presented|||60.5|6.3|
90911922|NCT00855465|181692784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Prespecified significance level for all significance tests was 5%. Primary analysis, due to result of Shapiro-Wilk test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Test was stratified by region.||Missing values for participants who withdrew/died before 16 weeks were imputed with a worst value of 0m in case of death/clinical worsening without termination visit and with the last observed value otherwise. Comparison was done using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), with baseline 6MWD as a covariate and treatment group and region as main effects. The primary statistical method was the stratified Wilcoxon test if the Shapiro-Wilk test for normality of residuals was statistically significant.||||<0.0001
90871037|NCT02564042|181603112|OTHER||Proportion difference|48.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.7|71.1|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5% QD and Vehicle QD at Week 16 has been presented|||71.1|19.7|
90871038|NCT02564042|181603112|OTHER||Proportion difference|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.9|53.9|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1% BID and Vehicle BID at EW has been presented|||53.9|-36.9|
90871039|NCT02564042|181603112|OTHER||Proportion difference|42.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|81.6|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1% QD and Vehicle QD at EW has been presented|||81.6|-6.3|
90871040|NCT02564042|181603121|OTHER||Proportion difference|-3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.8|21.9|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1% BID and Vehicle BID at Week 1 has been presented|||21.9|-28.8|
90871041|NCT02564042|181603121|OTHER||Proportion difference|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.4|25.1|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5% BID and Vehicle BID at Week 1 has been presented|||25.1|-25.4|
90871042|NCT02564042|181603121|OTHER||Proportion difference|9.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|35.3|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1% BID and Vehicle BID at Week 2 has been presented|||35.3|-17.5|
90871043|NCT02564042|181603121|OTHER||Proportion difference|9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|33.3|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1% QD and Vehicle QD at Week 2 has been presented .|||33.3|-15.4|
90871044|NCT02564042|181603121|OTHER||Proportion difference|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|36.1|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5% BID and Vehicle BID at Week 2 has been presented .|||36.1|-17.1|
90871045|NCT02564042|181603121|OTHER||Proportion difference|6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.3|31.0|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5% QD and Vehicle QD at Week 2 has been presented|||31.0|-19.3|
90871046|NCT02564042|181603121|OTHER||Proportion difference|9.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.2|36.7|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1% BID and Vehicle BID at Week 4 has been presented|||36.7|-18.2|
90871047|NCT02564042|181603121|OTHER||Proportion difference|19.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|43.6|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1% QD and Vehicle QD at Week 4 has been presented .|||43.6|-6.9|
90871048|NCT02564042|181603121|OTHER||Proportion difference|12.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.1|38.9|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5% BID and Vehicle BID at Week 4 has been presented|||38.9|-15.1|
90871049|NCT02564042|181603121|OTHER||Proportion difference|12.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|37.4|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5% QD and Vehicle QD at Week 4 has been presented .|||37.4|-13.6|
90871050|NCT02564042|181603121|OTHER||Proportion difference|42.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.8|66.0|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1% BID and Vehicle BID at Week 8 has been presented|||66.0|13.8|
90871051|NCT02564042|181603121|OTHER||Proportion difference|37.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.7|61.3|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1% QD and Vehicle QD at Week 8 has been presented|||61.3|8.7|
90871052|NCT02564042|181603121|OTHER||Proportion difference|33.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.8|58.2|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5% BID and Vehicle BID at Week 8 has been presented .|||58.2|4.8|
90871053|NCT02564042|181603121|OTHER||Proportion difference|40.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.8|63.9|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5% QD and Vehicle QD at Week 8 has been presented.|||63.9|12.8|
90871054|NCT02564042|181603121|OTHER||Proportion difference|54.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.9|76.6|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1% BID and Vehicle BID at Week 12 has been presented.|||76.6|25.9|
90871055|NCT02564042|181603121|OTHER||Proportion difference|51.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.2|73.2|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1% QD and Vehicle QD at Week 12 has been presented|||73.2|22.2|
90871056|NCT02564042|181603121|OTHER||Proportion difference|35.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|60.5|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5% BID and Vehicle BID at Week 12 has been presented|||60.5|6.3|
90871057|NCT02564042|181603121|OTHER||Proportion difference|30.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|55.9|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5% QD and Vehicle QD at Week 12 has been presented|||55.9|1.6|
90871058|NCT02564042|181603121|OTHER||Proportion difference|51.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.0|74.0|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1% BID and Vehicle BID at Week 14 has been presented|||74.0|22.0|
90871059|NCT02564042|181603121|OTHER||Proportion difference|61.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.6|81.0|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1% QD and Vehicle QD at Week 14 has been presented|||81.0|34.6|
90871060|NCT02564042|181603121|OTHER||Proportion difference|23.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|51.0|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5% BID and Vehicle BID at Week 14 has been presented|||51.0|-6.1|
90871061|NCT02564042|181603121|OTHER||Proportion difference|37.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.8|61.6|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5% QD and Vehicle QD at Week 14 has been presented|||61.6|7.8|
90871062|NCT02564042|181603121|OTHER||Proportion difference|53.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.7|75.6|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1% BID and Vehicle BID at Week 16 has been presented|||75.6|24.7|
90871063|NCT02564042|181603121|OTHER||Proportion difference|53.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.8|75.5|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1% QD and Vehicle QD at Week 16 has been presented|||75.5|25.8|
90871064|NCT02564042|181603121|OTHER||Proportion difference|29.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|55.0|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5% BID and Vehicle BID at Week 16 has been presented|||55.0|-0.3|
90911923|NCT00855465|181692784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|45.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.74|66.63||Additional analysis, due to result of Shapiro-Wilk test.|ANCOVA|||||66.63|24.74|<0.0001
90960655|NCT00676065|181801874|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The LASS study was designed to analyse rare events (incidence rate \<1 per 1,000 woman-years and ≥ 1 per 10,000 WY). 300,000 WY of observation would be sufficient to exclude a two-fold risk of rare events in users of DRSP compared to other oral contraceptives with a power (1-β) of 0.80 and an one-sided α of 0.05.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.7|||||Hazard ratio was adjusted for age, BMI, current duration of use, and family history of VTE.|Tested null hypotheses: the VTE hazard ratio for DRSP/E2 vs. OCs containing LNG is higher or equal to 2.||1.7|0.8|
90960656|NCT00676065|181801874|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The LASS study was designed to analyse rare events (incidence rate \<1 per 1,000 woman-years and ≥ 1 per 10,000 WY). 300,000 WY of observation would be sufficient to exclude a two-fold risk of rare events in users of DRSP compared to other oral contraceptives with a power (1-β) of 0.80 and an one-sided α of 0.05.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.0|||||Hazard ratio was adjusted for age, BMI, current duration of use, and family history of VTE.|Tested null hypotheses: the VTE hazard ratio for DRSP/E2 vs. OCs containing other progestogens is higher or equal to 2.||1.0|0.5|
90871065|NCT02564042|181603121|OTHER||Proportion difference|35.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|60.2|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5% QD and Vehicle QD at Week 16 has been presented|||60.2|6.5|
90871066|NCT02564042|181603121|OTHER||Proportion difference|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.9|53.9|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1% BID and Vehicle BID at EW has been presented|||53.9|-36.9|
90871067|NCT02564042|181603121|OTHER||Proportion difference|42.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|81.6|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1% QD and Vehicle QD at EW has been presented|||81.6|-6.3|
90871068|NCT02564042|181603121|OTHER||Proportion difference|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.7|80.6|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5% BID and Vehicle BID at EW has been presented|||80.6|-35.7|
90911924|NCT00855465|181692784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0001|||||||Shapiro-Wilk|||Shapiro-Wilk test for normality of ANCOVA residuals.||||0.0001
90911925|NCT00855465|181692785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Hierarchical testing for secondary efficacy parameters in the order: PVR, NT-proBNP, WHO functional class, Time to clinical worsening, Borg scale, EQ5D, LPH. Primary analysis due to result of Shapiro-Wilk test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Missing values at week 16 were imputed using the last available post-baseline observation. Same analysis method as for primary efficacy parameter.||||<0.0001
90871069|NCT02692703|181603164|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority of the rate of sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment as compared with the historical rate for the current standard of care regimens (SOF/LDV + RBV or SOF + DCV + RBV) was analyzed; the lower confidence bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (95% CI) for the percentage of participants with sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment must exceed 86% to achieve noninferiority.|Percentage of Participants|98.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|95.3|100.0||||||Based on a 2-sided significance level of 0.05 and an underlying rate of ≥96%, 90 participants provides \>90% power to demonstrate noninferiority of the regimen to the historical rate for current standard of care regimens (SOF/LDV + RBV OR SOF + DCV + RBV) (94%) (based on the normal approximation of a single binomial proportion in a one-sample test for superiority).||100.0|95.3|
90871070|NCT02289898|181603167|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93|||=|0.7158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.375|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Efficacy (investigator-assessed Kaplan-Meier estimates of progression-free survival) of placebo/placebo arm to the pooled demcizumab arm (i.e., placebo/placebo arm to demcizumab/placebo and demcizumab/demcizumab arms) in subjects with first-line metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.||1.375|0.630|=0.7158
90871071|NCT02254486|181603185|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The confidence limits were adjusted for multiple comparisons (two alternative primary endpoints): To be declared non-inferior, the primary endpoint must show a difference in success rates of no greater than 10% in favor of Trisulfate Solution using lower 1-sided 97.5% confidence limits. Calculated using exact Clopper-Pearson confidence limits.|Difference in success rate|0.14||||0.528|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-8.15|||P-value adjusted for multiple comparisons (two alternative primary endpoints): To be declared superior, the primary endpoint must demonstrate non-inferiority with 1-sided p-value \<0.025, the threshold for statistical significance.|Fisher Exact|||The hypothesis was to demonstrate NI of NER1006 to Trisulfate Solution (TS) (10% margin). Success rate was number of patients with successful overall bowel cleansing as proportion of number of patients in each group. Treatment effect was NER1006 success rate - TS success rate. A Hochberg procedure was used to control Type I error since there were 2 alternative primary endpoints. An alpha level of 1.25% 1-sided was used. A closed testing procedure used to evaluate superiority if NI was met.|||-8.15|0.528
90911926|NCT00855465|181692785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-246.43|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-303.33|-189.53||Additional analysis due to result of Shapiro-Wilk test.|ANCOVA|||||-189.53|-303.33|<0.0001
90871072|NCT02254486|181603186|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The confidence limits were adjusted for multiple comparisons (two alternative primary endpoints): To be declared non-inferior the primary endpoint must show a difference in success rates of no greater than 10% in favour of Trisulfate Solution using lower 1-sided 97.5% confidence limits. Calculated using exact Clopper-Pearson confidence limits.|Difference in excellent plus good rate|6.58||||0.059|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-1.69|||P-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons (two alternative primary endpoints): To be declared superior, primary endpoint must demonstrate non-inferiority and with 1-sided p-value \<0.025; the threshold for statistical significance.|Fisher Exact|||The hypothesis was to demonstrate NI of NER1006 to Trisulfate Solution (TS) (10% margin). Success rate was number of patients with successful overall bowel cleansing as proportion of number of patients in each group. Treatment effect was NER1006 success rate - TS success rate. A Hochberg procedure was used to control Type I error since there were 2 alternative primary endpoints. An alpha level of 1.25% 1-sided was used. A closed testing procedure used to evaluate superiority if NI was met.|||-1.69|0.059
90871073|NCT02254486|181603187|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To be declared non-inferior, the key secondary endpoint must show a difference in rates of no greater than 10% in favor of Trisulfate Solution using lower 1-sided 97.5% confidence limits. Calculated using exact Clopper-Pearson confidence limits.|Difference in ADR|-3.01||||0.863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.36|5.28||To be declared superior, the key secondary endpoint must demonstrate non-inferiority and show a significant advantage for NER1006 relative to Trisulfate Solution with 1-sided p-value \<0.025, the threshold for statistical significance.|Fisher Exact|||If at least one of the alternative primary endpoints was met, then key secondary endpoints for the same colon region as met by the primary endpoint were evaluated hierarchically in a pre-specified order. The difference in ADR was calculated as NER1006 rate - TS rate using 1-sided 97.5% confidence limits. Formal testing was to proceed in the hierarchy if preceding key secondary endpoint met non-inferiority. This procedure ensured overall Type I error control at 2.5% 1-sided.||5.28|-11.36|0.863
90871074|NCT02254486|181603188|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To be declared non-inferior, the key secondary endpoint must show a difference in rates of no greater than 10% in favor of Trisulfate Solution using lower 1-sided 97.5% confidence limits. Calculated using exact Clopper-Pearson confidence limits.||||||0.66||||||To be declared superior, the key secondary endpoint must demonstrate non-inferiority and show a significant advantage for NER1006 relative to Trisulfate Solution with 1-sided p-value \<0.025, the threshold for statistical significance.|Fisher Exact|||If at least one of the alternative primary endpoints was met, then key secondary endpoints for the same colon region as met by the primary endpoint were evaluated hierarchically in a pre-specified order. The difference in ADR was calculated as NER1006 rate - TS rate using 1-sided 97.5% confidence limits. Formal testing was to proceed in the hierarchy if preceding key secondary endpoint met non-inferiority. This procedure ensured overall Type I error control at 2.5% 1-sided.||||0.660
90871075|NCT02254486|181603189|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To be declared non-inferior, the key secondary endpoint must show a difference in rates of no greater than 10% in favor of Trisulfate Solution using lower 1-sided 97.5% confidence limits. Calculated using exact Clopper-Pearson confidence limits.||||||0.953||||||To be declared superior, the key secondary endpoint must demonstrate non-inferiority and show a significant advantage for NER1006 relative to Trisulfate Solution with 1-sided p-value \<0.025, the threshold for statistical significance.|Fisher Exact|||If at least one of the alternative primary endpoints was met, then key secondary endpoints for the same colon region as met by the primary endpoint were evaluated hierarchically in a pre-specified order. The difference in PDR was calculated as NER1006 rate - Trisulfate Solution rate using 1-sided 97.5% confidence limits. Formal testing was to proceed in the hierarchy if preceding key secondary endpoint met non-inferiority. This procedure ensured overall Type I error control at 2.5% 1-sided.||||0.953
90871076|NCT02254486|181603190|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Formal hierarchical testing of this key secondary endpoints was not performed due to the results of the non-inferiority analysis.||||||0.781|||||||Fisher Exact|||If at least one of the alternative primary endpoints were met, then key secondary endpoints were evaluated hierarchichally in a pre-specified order. Non-inferiority was concluded if the 1-sided 97.5% confidence limit (CL) for difference in proportion of events between 2 groups excluded a 10% or greater difference was in favor of Trisulate Solution. Formal testing was to proceed in the hierarchy if preceding key secondary endpoint had at least met non-inferiority.||||0.781
90871077|NCT01493570|181603191|OTHER||Ratio CSF to Plasma in %|28.31||||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|25.418|31.532||p-value for ratio outside interval 80% - 125%|ANOVA||Intra Individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\]) = 17.50 .|Dose-adjusted CSF to plasma ratio for Cmax. The Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model was used with 'subject nested within treatment' considered as random effect.||31.532|25.418|1.0000
90911927|NCT00855465|181692785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0001|||||||Shapiro-Wilk|||Shapiro-Wilk test for normality of ANCOVA residuals.||||0.0001
90911928|NCT00855465|181692786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Hierarchical testing for secondary efficacy parameters in the order: PVR, NT-proBNP, WHO functional class, Time to clinical worsening, Borg scale, EQ5D, LPH. Primary analysis due to result of Shapiro-Wilk test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Missing values at week 16 were imputed using the last available post-baseline observation. Same analysis method as for primary efficacy parameter.||||<0.0001
90911929|NCT00855465|181692786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-443.99||||0.0293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-842.95|-45.03||Additional analysis due to result of Shapiro-Wilk test.|ANCOVA|||||-45.03|-842.95|0.0293
90911930|NCT00855465|181692786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0001|||||||Shapiro-Wilk|||Shapiro-Wilk test for normality of ANCOVA residuals.||||0.0001
90960657|NCT00676065|181801875|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The LASS study was designed to analyse rare events (incidence rate \<1 per 1,000 woman-years and ≥ 1 per 10,000 WY). 300,000 WY of observation would be sufficient to exclude a two-fold risk of rare events in users of DRSP compared to other oral contraceptives with a power (1-β) of 0.80 and an one-sided α of 0.05.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.4|||||Hazard ratio was adjusted for age, BMI, smoking, educational level and age at menarche.|Tested null hypotheses: the breast cancer hazard ratio for DRSP/E2 vs. OCs containing LNG is higher or equal to 2.||1.4|0.5|
90871078|NCT02772081|181603202|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference|-15.4||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.9|17.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||First Administration; Treatment comparison. Adjusted difference, its 95% confidence interval (CI) and p-value are estimated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test||17.1|-47.9|0.390
90871079|NCT02772081|181603208|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|5.0||||0.563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|23.8|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Duration of standalone oxygen supplementation||23.8|-13.8|0.563
90871080|NCT02772081|181603208|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|21.7|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Duration of NIV||21.7|-19.7|0.612
90871081|NCT02772081|181603211|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.619||||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.447|0.21|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||T0, Treatment comparison. The analysis was based on an mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment, timepoint, treatment by timepoint interaction, and GA group as fixed effects and pre-procedure SpO2/FiO2 as a covariate.||0.210|-1.447|0.137
90871082|NCT02772081|181603211|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.268||||0.534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.604|1.14|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||5 min, Treatment comparison. The analysis was based on an MMRM with treatment, timepoint, treatment by timepoint interaction, and GA group as fixed effects and pre-procedure SpO2/FiO2 as a covariate.||1.140|-0.604|0.534
90871083|NCT02772081|181603211|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.27||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.597|1.136|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||15 min, Treatment comparison. The analysis was based on an MMRM with treatment, timepoint, treatment by timepoint interaction, and GA group as fixed effects and pre-procedure SpO2/FiO2 as a covariate.||1.136|-0.597|0.530
90871084|NCT02772081|181603211|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.641||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.108|1.389|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||30 min, Treatment comparison. The analysis was based on an MMRM with treatment, timepoint, treatment by timepoint interaction, and GA group as fixed effects and pre-procedure SpO2/FiO2 as a covariate.||1.389|-0.108|0.091
90871085|NCT02772081|181603211|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.463||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.023|0.903|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||1 hour, Treatment comparison. The analysis was based on an MMRM with treatment, timepoint, treatment by timepoint interaction, and GA group as fixed effects and pre-procedure SpO2/FiO2 as a covariate.||0.903|0.023|0.040
90871086|NCT02772081|181603211|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.166||||0.532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.371|0.703|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||6 hours, Treatment comparison. The analysis was based on an MMRM with treatment, timepoint, treatment by timepoint interaction, and GA group as fixed effects and pre-procedure SpO2/FiO2 as a covariate.||0.703|-0.371|0.532
90871087|NCT02772081|181603211|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.048||||0.877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.578|0.674|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||12 hours, Treatment comparison. The analysis was based on an MMRM with treatment, timepoint, treatment by timepoint interaction, and GA group as fixed effects and pre-procedure SpO2/FiO2 as a covariate.||0.674|-0.578|0.877
90871088|NCT02772081|181603211|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.244||||0.356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.289|0.776|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||24 hours, Treatment comparison. The analysis was based on an MMRM with treatment, timepoint, treatment by timepoint interaction, and GA group as fixed effects and pre-procedure SpO2/FiO2 as a covariate.||0.776|-0.289|0.356
90871089|NCT02772081|181603211|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.303||||0.258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.235|0.841|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||48 hours, Treatment comparison. The analysis was based on an MMRM with treatment, timepoint, treatment by timepoint interaction, and GA group as fixed effects and pre-procedure SpO2/FiO2 as a covariate.||0.841|-0.235|0.258
90871090|NCT02772081|181603211|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.022||||0.945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.616|0.66|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||72 hours, Treatment comparison. The analysis was based on an MMRM with treatment, timepoint, treatment by timepoint interaction, and GA group as fixed effects and pre-procedure SpO2/FiO2 as a covariate.||0.660|-0.616|0.945
90871091|NCT02772081|181603211|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.075||||0.766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.586|0.436|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||120 hours, Treatment comparison. The analysis was based on an MMRM with treatment, timepoint, treatment by timepoint interaction, and GA group as fixed effects and pre-procedure SpO2/FiO2 as a covariate.||0.436|-0.586|0.766
90871092|NCT02772081|181603212|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.051||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.141|0.243|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||T0, Treatment comparison. The analysis was based on an MMRM with treatment, timepoint, treatment by timepoint interaction, and GA group as fixed effects and pre-procedure FiO2 as a covariate.||0.243|-0.141|0.590
90871093|NCT02772081|181603212|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.051||||0.511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.107|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||5 min, Treatment comparison. The analysis was based on an MMRM with treatment, timepoint, treatment by timepoint interaction, and GA group as fixed effects and pre-procedure FiO2 as a covariate.||0.107|-0.210|0.511
90871094|NCT02772081|181603212|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.05||||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.196|0.096|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||15 min, Treatment comparison. The analysis was based on an MMRM with treatment, timepoint, treatment by timepoint interaction, and GA group as fixed effects and pre-procedure FiO2 as a covariate.||0.096|-0.196|0.488
90871095|NCT02772081|181603212|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.11||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.239|0.019|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||30 min, Treatment comparison. The analysis was based on an MMRM with treatment, timepoint, treatment by timepoint interaction, and GA group as fixed effects and pre-procedure FiO2 as a covariate.||0.019|-0.239|0.091
90871096|NCT02772081|181603212|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.024||||0.344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.076|0.027|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||1 hour, Treatment comparison. The analysis was based on an MMRM with treatment, timepoint, treatment by timepoint interaction, and GA group as fixed effects and pre-procedure FiO2 as a covariate.||0.027|-0.076|0.344
90871097|NCT02772081|181603212|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.026||||0.376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.084|0.033|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||6 hours, Treatment comparison. The analysis was based on an MMRM with treatment, timepoint, treatment by timepoint interaction, and GA group as fixed effects and pre-procedure FiO2 as a covariate.||0.033|-0.084|0.376
90871098|NCT02772081|181603212|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.04||||0.396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.135|0.055|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||12 hours, Treatment comparison. The analysis was based on an MMRM with treatment, timepoint, treatment by timepoint interaction, and GA group as fixed effects and pre-procedure FiO2 as a covariate.||0.055|-0.135|0.396
90911931|NCT00855465|181692787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0026||||||Hierarchical testing for secondary efficacy parameters in the order: PVR, NT-proBNP, WHO functional class, Time to clinical worsening, Borg scale, EQ5D, LPH.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Test was stratified by region.||Missing values for participants who withdrew or died before 16 weeks were imputed with a worst value of IV in case of clinical worsening without termination visit or measurement at that termination visit and with a worst value of V in case of death and with the last observed value otherwise.||||0.0026
90911932|NCT00855465|181692788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.37||||0.1724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.72|1.99||Hierarchical testing for secondary efficacy parameters in the order: PVR, NT-proBNP, WHO functional class, Time to clinical worsening, Borg scale, EQ5D, LPH.|Log Rank|Test was stratified by region.|Based on Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by region.|"Test for difference of occurence of Any event."||1.99|-8.72|0.1724
90871099|NCT02772081|181603212|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.026||||0.268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.074|0.021|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||24 hours, Treatment comparison. The analysis was based on an MMRM with treatment, timepoint, treatment by timepoint interaction, and GA group as fixed effects and pre-procedure FiO2 as a covariate.||0.021|-0.074|0.268
90911933|NCT00855465|181692789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0035||||||Hierarchical testing for secondary efficacy parameters in the order: PVR, NT-proBNP, WHO functional class, Time to clinical worsening, Borg scale, EQ5D, LPH. Nominally significant only due to hierarchical testing.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Test was stratified by region.||Missing values for participants who withdrew or died before 16 weeks were imputed with a worst value of 10 in case of death or clinical worsening without termination visit and with the last observed value otherwise.||||0.0035
90911934|NCT00855465|181692790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Hierarchical testing for secondary efficacy parameters in the order: PVR, NT-proBNP, WHO FC, TTCW, Borg scale, EQ5D, LPH. Primary analysis due to result of Shapiro-Wilk test.Nominally significant only due to hierarchical testing.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Missing values at baseline were imputed using last available observation prior to start of study treatment. Missing values for participants who withdrew or died before 16 weeks were imputed with a worst value of -0.594 in case of death or clinical worsening without termination visit and with the last observed value otherwise.||||<0.0001
90960658|NCT00676065|181801875|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The LASS study was designed to analyse rare events (incidence rate \<1 per 1,000 woman-years and ≥ 1 per 10,000 WY). 300,000 WY of observation would be sufficient to exclude a two-fold risk of rare events in users of DRSP compared to other oral contraceptives with a power (1-β) of 0.80 and an one-sided α of 0.05.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.5|||||Hazard ratio was adjusted for age, BMI, smoking, educational level and age at menarche.|Tested null hypotheses: the breast cancer hazard ratio for DRSP/E2 vs. OCs containing other progestogens is higher or equal to 2.||1.5|0.6|
90960659|NCT03952806|181801876|SUPERIORITY||Least Square mean difference|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.4656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.30|-0.60|0.4656
90960660|NCT02875977|181801915|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.794||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.782|4.119|||Regression, Logistic|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the odds of completing half of the recommended PFPT visits between those assigned to standard versus experimental counseling||4.119|0.782|0.17
90871100|NCT02772081|181603212|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.037||||0.147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.089|0.014|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||48 hours, Treatment comparison. The analysis was based on an MMRM with treatment, timepoint, treatment by timepoint interaction, and GA group as fixed effects and pre-procedure FiO2 as a covariate.||0.014|-0.089|0.147
90871101|NCT02772081|181603212|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.0||||0.994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.055|0.055|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||72 hours, Treatment comparison. The analysis was based on an MMRM with treatment, timepoint, treatment by timepoint interaction, and GA group as fixed effects and pre-procedure FiO2 as a covariate.||0.055|-0.055|0.994
90871102|NCT02772081|181603212|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.004||||0.853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.048|0.04|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||120 hours, Treatment comparison. The analysis was based on an MMRM with treatment, timepoint, treatment by timepoint interaction, and GA group as fixed effects and pre-procedure FiO2 as a covariate.||0.040|-0.048|0.853
90871103|NCT02772081|181603213|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-10.4||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.6|1.7|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||T0; Treatment comparison. The analysis was based on an MMRM with treatment, timepoint, treatment by timepoint interaction, and GA group as fixed effects and pre-procedure SpO2 as a covariate.||1.7|-22.6|0.090
90871104|NCT02772081|181603213|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.3||||0.917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|5.8|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||5 min; Treatment comparison. The analysis was based on an MMRM with treatment, timepoint, treatment by timepoint interaction, and GA group as fixed effects and pre-procedure SpO2 as a covariate.||5.8|-6.4|0.917
90871105|NCT02772081|181603213|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-1.5||||0.668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|5.6|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||15 min; Treatment comparison. The analysis was based on an MMRM with treatment, timepoint, treatment by timepoint interaction, and GA group as fixed effects and pre-procedure SpO2 as a covariate.||5.6|-8.5|0.668
90871106|NCT02772081|181603213|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|4.0||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|9.6|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||30 min; Treatment comparison. The analysis was based on an MMRM with treatment, timepoint, treatment by timepoint interaction, and GA group as fixed effects and pre-procedure SpO2 as a covariate.||9.6|-1.5|0.149
90871107|NCT02772081|181603213|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|1.8||||0.318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|5.5|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||1 hour; Treatment comparison. The analysis was based on an MMRM with treatment, timepoint, treatment by timepoint interaction, and GA group as fixed effects and pre-procedure SpO2 as a covariate.||5.5|-1.9|0.318
90871108|NCT02772081|181603213|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|1.6||||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|3.7|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||6 hour; Treatment comparison. The analysis was based on an MMRM with treatment, timepoint, treatment by timepoint interaction, and GA group as fixed effects and pre-procedure SpO2 as a covariate.||3.7|-0.6|0.148
90871109|NCT02772081|181603213|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|3.3||||0.333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|10.2|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||12 hours; Treatment comparison. The analysis was based on an MMRM with treatment, timepoint, treatment by timepoint interaction, and GA group as fixed effects and pre-procedure SpO2 as a covariate.||10.2|-3.6|0.333
90911935|NCT00855465|181692790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.21||Additional analysis due to result of Shapiro-Wilk test.|ANCOVA|||||0.21|0.06|0.0002
90911936|NCT00855465|181692790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0001|||||||Shapiro-Wilk|||Shapiro-Wilk test for normality of ANCOVA residuals.||||0.0001
90911937|NCT00855465|181692791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.122||||||Hierarchical testing for secondary efficacy parameters in the order: PVR, NT-proBNP, WHO functional class, Time to clinical worsening, Borg Dyspnea Score, EQ5D, LPH. Primary analysis due to result of Shapiro-Wilk test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Missing values at baseline were imputed using last available observation prior to start of study treatment. Missing values for participants who withdrew or died before 16 weeks were imputed with a worst value of 105 in case of death or clinical worsening without termination visit and with the last observed value otherwise.||||0.1220
90911938|NCT00855465|181692791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.76||||0.0165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.45|-1.06||Additional analysis due to result of Shapiro-Wilk test.|ANCOVA|||||-1.06|-10.45|0.0165
90911939|NCT00855465|181692791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0001|||||||Shapiro-Wilk|||Shapiro-Wilk test for normality of ANCOVA residuals.||||0.0001
90911940|NCT00855465|181692793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Exploratory testing. Primary analysis due to result of Shapiro-Wilk test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Missing values at week 16 were imputed using the last available post-baseline observation. Same analysis as for primary efficacy parameter.||||<0.0001
90911941|NCT00855465|181692793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.96|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.75|-3.16||Additional analysis due to result of Shapiro-Wilk test.|ANCOVA|||||-3.16|-6.75|<0.0001
90911942|NCT00855465|181692793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0231|||||||Shapiro-Wilk|||Shapiro-Wilk test for normality of ANCOVA residuals.||||0.0231
90911943|NCT00855465|181692794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.62||Exploratory testing. Primary analysis due to result of Shapiro-Wilk test.|ANCOVA|||Missing values at week 16 were imputed using the last available post-baseline observation. Same analysis as for primary efficacy parameter.||0.62|0.33|<0.0001
90911944|NCT00855465|181692794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Additional analysis due to result of Shapiro-Wilk test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
90911945|NCT00855465|181692794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.116|||||||Shapiro-Wilk|||Shapiro-Wilk test for normality of ANCOVA residuals.||||0.1160
90911946|NCT04365400|181692832|SUPERIORITY||Hodges Lehmann Median|8.24||||0.1148124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.01|18.19|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||18.19|-2.01|0.1148124
90911947|NCT04365400|181692832|SUPERIORITY||Hodges Lehmann Median|-0.82||||0.8668467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.16|7.96|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||7.96|-10.16|0.8668467
90911948|NCT04365400|181692833|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Change in HbA1c (%)|0.02516||||0.8658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26658|0.316897|||ANCOVA|||||0.316897|-0.26658|0.8658
90911949|NCT04365400|181692833|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Change in HbA1c (%)|-0.07333||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39012|0.243455|||ANCOVA|||||0.243455|-0.39012|0.6500
90911950|NCT04173572|181692836|OTHER|Single group mean difference between baseline and post-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|-13.47|STANDARD_DEVIATION|48.09|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Baseline: 10 participants analyzed (had data at both time points)||||
90911951|NCT04173572|181692836|OTHER|Single group mean difference between baseline and post-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|52.743|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Baseline: 9 participants analyzed (had data at both time points)||||
90911952|NCT04173572|181692837|OTHER|Single group mean difference between baseline and post-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|22.133|STANDARD_DEVIATION|79.938|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Baseline: 15 participants analyzed (had data at both time points)||||
90911953|NCT04173572|181692837|OTHER|Single group mean difference between baseline and post-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|7.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|99.645|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Baseline: 15 participants analyzed (had data at both time points)||||
90911954|NCT04173572|181692838|OTHER|Single group mean difference between baseline and post-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|13.642|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4213.837|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Baseline: 14 participants analyzed (had data at both time points)||||
90911955|NCT04173572|181692838|OTHER|Single group mean difference between baseline and post-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|-483.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2497.312|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Baseline: 15 participants analyzed (had data at both time points)||||
90911956|NCT04173572|181692839|OTHER|Single group mean difference between baseline and post-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.229|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Baseline: 15 participants analyzed (had data at both time points)||||
90911957|NCT04173572|181692839|OTHER|Single group mean difference between baseline and post-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.563|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.695|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Baseline: 16 participants analyzed (had data at both time points)||||
90911958|NCT04173572|181692840|OTHER|Single group mean difference between baseline and post-treatment assessments.|Median Difference (Net)|-9.333|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.166|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Baseline: 15 participants analyzed (had data at both time points)||||
90911959|NCT04173572|181692840|OTHER|Single group mean difference between baseline and post-treatment assessments.|Median Difference (Net)|0.625|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.664|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Baseline: 16 participants analyzed (had data at both time points)||||
90911960|NCT04173572|181692841|OTHER|Single group mean difference between baseline and post-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.392|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.148|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Baseline: 13 participants analyzed (had data at both time points)||||
90871110|NCT02772081|181603213|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.9||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|4.0|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||24 hours; Treatment comparison. The analysis was based on an MMRM with treatment, timepoint, treatment by timepoint interaction, and GA group as fixed effects and pre-procedure SpO2 as a covariate.||4.0|-2.2|0.560
90871111|NCT02772081|181603213|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|2.0||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|4.3|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||48 hours; Treatment comparison. The analysis was based on an MMRM with treatment, timepoint, treatment by timepoint interaction, and GA group as fixed effects and pre-procedure SpO2 as a covariate.||4.3|-0.3|0.089
90871112|NCT02772081|181603213|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|1.9||||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|4.4|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||72 hours; Treatment comparison. The analysis was based on an MMRM with treatment, timepoint, treatment by timepoint interaction, and GA group as fixed effects and pre-procedure SpO2 as a covariate.||4.4|-0.5|0.115
90911961|NCT04173572|181692841|OTHER|Single group mean difference between baseline and post-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.113|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.401|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Baseline: 15 participants analyzed (had data at both time points)||||
90911962|NCT04173572|181692842|OTHER|Single group mean difference between baseline and post-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|2.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|20.11|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Baseline: 15 participants analyzed (had data at both time points)||||
90911963|NCT04173572|181692842|OTHER|Single group mean difference between baseline and post-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.49|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.91|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Baseline: 15 participants analyzed (had data at both time points)||||
90911964|NCT04173572|181692843|OTHER|Single group mean difference between baseline and post-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.39|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.67|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Baseline: 11 participants analyzed (had data at both time points)||||
90911965|NCT04173572|181692843|OTHER|Single group mean difference between baseline and post-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|3.43|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.4|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Baseline: 11 participants analyzed (had data at both time points)||||
90911966|NCT04173572|181692844|OTHER|Single group mean difference between baseline and post-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.667|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.067|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Baseline: 15 participants analyzed (had data at both time points)||||
90911967|NCT04173572|181692844|OTHER|Single group mean difference between baseline and post-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.071|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.25|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Baseline: 14 participants analyzed (had data at both time points)||||
90911968|NCT04173572|181692845|OTHER|Single group mean difference between baseline and post-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.9|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Baseline: 14 participants analyzed (had data at both time points)||||
90911969|NCT04173572|181692845|OTHER|Single group mean difference between baseline and post-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.714|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.717|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Baseline: 14 participants analyzed (had data at both time points)||||
90911970|NCT04173572|181692846|OTHER|Single group mean difference between baseline and post-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|3.071|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.737|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Baseline: 14 participants analyzed (had data at both time points)||||
90911971|NCT04173572|181692846|OTHER|Single group mean difference between baseline and post-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|5.571|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.288|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Baseline: 14 participants analyzed (had data at both time points)||||
90871113|NCT02772081|181603213|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|1.1||||0.284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|3.3|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||120 hours; Treatment comparison. The analysis was based on an MMRM with treatment, timepoint, treatment by timepoint interaction, and GA group as fixed effects and pre-procedure SpO2 as a covariate.||3.3|-1.0|0.284
90871114|NCT02772081|181603214|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference|-15.7||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.6|8.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Any intubation procedure in first 72 hours of life.||8.2|-39.6|0.220
90871115|NCT02772081|181603214|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference|4.9||||0.741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.8|32.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Any intubation procedure within 36 weeks PMA.||32.5|-22.8|0.741
90871116|NCT02772081|181603215|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-8.0||||0.333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.3|16.3|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Duration of invasive MV in first 28 days PNA.||16.3|-32.3|0.333
90871117|NCT02772081|181603215|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-8.0||||0.334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.5|33.5|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Duration of invasive MV within 36 weeks PMA.||33.5|-49.5|0.334
90871118|NCT02772081|181603216|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference|-28.6||||0.596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-120.9|63.6|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Duration of invasive mechanical ventilation.||63.6|-120.9|0.596
90911972|NCT00281918|181692887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||<.0001
90911973|NCT00281918|181692888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||<.0001
90911974|NCT00281918|181692889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0427||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.0427
90911975|NCT00281918|181692890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7882||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.7882
90960661|NCT02875977|181801916|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.564||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.314|1.014|||Regression, Logistic|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the odds of initiating PFPT between those assigned to standard versus experimental counseling||1.014|0.314|0.056
90960662|NCT02875977|181801917|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.044||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.517|2.11|||Regression, Logistic|The statistical test of the hypothesis excludes the three individuals with unknown PFPT discharge status||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the odds of discharge from PFPT between those assigned to standard versus experimental counseling||2.110|0.517|0.90
90960663|NCT02875977|181801918|SUPERIORITY||Z-Score|-1.4262||||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Among those who initiated PFPT therapy, the null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the number of days to initiating PFPT therapy between those assigned to standard versus experimental counseling||||0.16
90960664|NCT02875977|181801919|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.456|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.5481||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6149|8.7028|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the change from pre-PFPT to post-PFPT UDI-6 scores between those assigned to standard versus experimental counseling||8.7028|-17.6149|0.50
90911976|NCT00281918|181692891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.67|||Log Rank|||||0.67|0.48|<.0001
90911977|NCT00281918|181692892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.86|||Log Rank|||||0.86|0.54|0.0010
90960665|NCT00446992|181801923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Univariate linear regression|||Baseline compared to Week 16||||<0.001
90960666|NCT00446992|181801924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.043|TWO_SIDED||||||Univariate linear regression|||Baseline compared to Week 16||||.043
90911978|NCT00281918|181692893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.48|0.67|||Log Rank|||||0.67|0.48|<.0001
90911979|NCT00281918|181692894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.0523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.02|||Log Rank|||||1.02|0.52|0.0523
90911980|NCT00281918|181692895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.71|||Log Rank|||||0.71|0.48|<.0001
90911981|NCT00281918|181692896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.62|3.28|||Chi-squared|||||3.28|1.62|<.0001
90911982|NCT00281918|181692897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.72|||Log Rank|||||0.72|0.49|<.0001
90911983|NCT01199237|181692898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11||||||Significant at p\<0.05|Chi-squared|||||||0.11
90960667|NCT00446992|181801925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||Univariate linear regression|||Baseline compared to Week 16||||= 0.690
90960668|NCT00446992|181801926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.691|TWO_SIDED||||||Intervariate|||Baseline compared to Week 16||||= 0.691
90960669|NCT00446992|181801927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.877|TWO_SIDED||||||Univariate linear regression|||Baseline compared to Week 16||||= 0.877
90960670|NCT00446992|181801928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||Univariate linear regression|||Baseline compared to Week 16||||= 0.003
90960671|NCT00446992|181801929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Univariate linear regression|||Baseline compared to Week 16||||= .005
90911984|NCT03772964|181692910|SUPERIORITY|Comparisons between samples and sample groups (beta-diversity), were evaluated with ADONIS (aka PERMANOVA) comparisons of differences between sample groups.|R2|0.071435|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ADONISBeta Diversity|Comparisons between samples and sample groups (beta-diversity) were evaluated with ADONIS (aka PERMANOVA)|R2 values estimate the amount of variation explained by each variable.|Beta Diversity - Differences between Samples and Sample groups||||<0.01
90911985|NCT03772964|181692911|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6057|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.6057
90911986|NCT03772964|181692913|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90911987|NCT03772964|181692914|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.69
90911988|NCT01867580|181692941|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.677|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.6770
90911989|NCT01867580|181692942|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0202|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0202
90911990|NCT01867580|181692943|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0142|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.0142
90911991|NCT01278862|181692944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2423|||||||Fisher Exact|||null hypothesis no difference in color match||||0.2423
90911992|NCT01278862|181692944|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||null hypothesis no difference in margin discoloration||||>0.999
90911993|NCT01278862|181692944|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||null hypothesis no difference in crown fracture||||>0.999
90911994|NCT01278862|181692944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis no difference in Proximal Contact - Mesial||||>0.999
90911995|NCT01278862|181692944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis no difference in proximal contact - distal||||>0.999
90911996|NCT01278862|181692945|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||null hypothesis no difference in gingival index||||>0.999
90911997|NCT01278862|181692945|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.524|||||||Fisher Exact|||null hypothesis no difference in plaque index||||0.5240
90911998|NCT04520165|181692946|EQUIVALENCE|if p\<0.05 than the null hypothesis was considered as wrong and groups differed for the analysed parameter.|||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The baseline parameters in each group were compared with Mann-Whitney U test was performed.||||<0.05
90911999|NCT04520165|181692948|EQUIVALENCE|if p\<0.05 than the null hypothesis was considered as wrong and groups differed for the analysed parameter.|||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The baseline parameters in each group were compared with Mann-Whitney U test was performed.||||<0.05
90912000|NCT04520165|181692949|EQUIVALENCE|if p\<0.05 than the null hypothesis was considered as wrong and groups differed for the analysed parameter.|||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The baseline parameters in each group were compared with Mann-Whitney U test was performed.||||<0.05
90912001|NCT03086369|181693009|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.054||||0.7902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.728|1.527|||Log Rank|Stratified by age group (\<70 years versus ≥70 years) and prior adjuvant/neo-adjuvant gemcitabine use (yes vs no).|Stratified by age group (\<70 years versus ≥70 years) and prior adjuvant/neo-adjuvant gemcitabine use (yes vs no).|||1.527|0.728|0.7902
90912002|NCT03086369|181693013|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.192||||0.3771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.806|1.764|||Log Rank|Stratified by age group (\<70 years versus ≥70 years) and prior adjuvant/neo-adjuvant gemcitabine use (yes vs no).|Stratified by age group (\<70 years versus ≥70 years) and prior adjuvant/neo-adjuvant gemcitabine use (yes vs no).|||1.764|0.806|0.3771
90912003|NCT03086369|181693016|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.39||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.175|0.872|||Log Rank|Stratified by age group (\<70 years versus ≥70 years) and prior adjuvant/neo-adjuvant gemcitabine use (yes vs no).||||0.872|0.175|0.017
90960672|NCT00446992|181801930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.696|TWO_SIDED||||||Univariate linear regression|||Baseline compared to Week 16||||= 0.696
90912004|NCT03086369|181693017|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.718||||0.288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.392|1.317|||Log Rank|Stratified by age group (\<70 years versus ≥70 years) and prior adjuvant/neo-adjuvant gemcitabine use (yes vs no).|Stratified by age group (\<70 years versus ≥70 years) and prior adjuvant/neo-adjuvant gemcitabine use (yes vs no).|Appetite loss||1.317|0.392|0.288
90912005|NCT03086369|181693017|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.788||||0.442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.423|1.468|||Log Rank|Stratified by age group (\<70 years versus ≥70 years) and prior adjuvant/neo-adjuvant gemcitabine use (yes vs no).|Stratified by age group (\<70 years versus ≥70 years) and prior adjuvant/neo-adjuvant gemcitabine use (yes vs no).|Constipation||1.468|0.423|0.442
90912006|NCT03086369|181693017|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.037||||0.883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.612|1.755|||Log Rank|Stratified by age group (\<70 years versus ≥70 years) and prior adjuvant/neo-adjuvant gemcitabine use (yes vs no).|Stratified by age group (\<70 years versus ≥70 years) and prior adjuvant/neo-adjuvant gemcitabine use (yes vs no).|Diarrhoea||1.755|0.612|0.883
90912007|NCT03086369|181693017|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.933||||0.803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.532|1.636|||Log Rank|Stratified by age group (\<70 years versus ≥70 years) and prior adjuvant/neo-adjuvant gemcitabine use (yes vs no).|Stratified by age group (\<70 years versus ≥70 years) and prior adjuvant/neo-adjuvant gemcitabine use (yes vs no).|Dyspnoea||1.636|0.532|0.803
90912008|NCT03086369|181693017|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.053||||0.805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.675|1.645|||Log Rank|Stratified by age group (\<70 years versus ≥70 years) and prior adjuvant/neo-adjuvant gemcitabine use (yes vs no).|Stratified by age group (\<70 years versus ≥70 years) and prior adjuvant/neo-adjuvant gemcitabine use (yes vs no).|Fatigue||1.645|0.675|0.805
90912009|NCT03086369|181693017|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.784||||0.465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.464|||Log Rank|Stratified by age group (\<70 years versus ≥70 years) and prior adjuvant/neo-adjuvant gemcitabine use (yes vs no).|Stratified by age group (\<70 years versus ≥70 years) and prior adjuvant/neo-adjuvant gemcitabine use (yes vs no).|Financial difficulties||1.464|0.420|0.465
90960673|NCT00446992|181801931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.013|TWO_SIDED||||||Univariate linear regression|||Baseline compared to Week 16||||= 0.013
90871119|NCT02772081|181603217|SUPERIORITY||CMH adjusted difference|-18.6||||0.219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.0|9.8||The percentage of neonates needing invasive MV in the first 72 hours of life, was compared between the treatment groups using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, adjusted for gestational age (GA) group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Invasive MV in the first 72 hours of life.||9.8|-47.0|0.219
90871120|NCT02772081|181603217|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference|-3.4||||0.826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.5|26.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Invasive MV in first 28 days PNA||26.7|-33.5|0.826
90871121|NCT02772081|181603217|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference|-3.4||||0.826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.5|26.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Invasive MV within 36 weeks PMA.||26.7|-33.5|0.826
90912010|NCT03086369|181693017|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.457||||0.231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.787|2.698|||Log Rank|Stratified by age group (\<70 years versus ≥70 years) and prior adjuvant/neo-adjuvant gemcitabine use (yes vs no).|Stratified by age group (\<70 years versus ≥70 years) and prior adjuvant/neo-adjuvant gemcitabine use (yes vs no).|Insomnia||2.698|0.787|0.231
90871122|NCT01077856|181603254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Standardized Prevalence Ratio (SPR)|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|2.0|||||SPR is the age-adjusted ratio of percentage of live births with a major congenital anomaly (Women who received Gardasil / Women in the general population)|||2.00|0.89|
90871123|NCT01077856|181603254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Standardized Prevalence Ratio (SPR)|1.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|4.77|||||SPR is the age-adjusted ratio of percentage of live births with a major congenital anomaly (Women who received Gardasil / Women in the general population)|||4.77|0.00|
90871124|NCT01077856|181603254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Standardized Prevalence Ratio (SPR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.02|||||SPR is the age-adjusted ratio of percentage of live births with a major congenital anomaly (Women who received Gardasil / Women in the general population)|||2.02|0.00|
90871125|NCT03950167|181603259|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.85||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||A p value of \<0.05 was accepted as significant in all statistical analyses.|t-test, 2 sided||p value demonstrated above is the calculated value. Fasting CCK level difference: hyperemesis group-control group|||||0.05
90871126|NCT03950167|181603259|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.68||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||p value demonstrated above is the calculated value. Postprandial CCK level difference: hyperemesis group-control group|Since this is the first study comparing both CCK levels and GB functions in patients diagnosed with hyperemesis gravidarum (HG) and healthy pregnant women, a power analysis was not feasible.||||0.05
90871127|NCT03950167|181603260|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.91||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||A p value of \<0.05 was accepted as significant in all statistical analyses.|t-test, 2 sided||p value demonstrated above is the calculated value. Fasting GB wall thickness: Hyperemesis group-control group|||||0.05
90912011|NCT03086369|181693017|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.914||||0.748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.532|1.57|||Log Rank|Stratified by age group (\<70 years versus ≥70 years) and prior adjuvant/neo-adjuvant gemcitabine use (yes vs no).|Stratified by age group (\<70 years versus ≥70 years) and prior adjuvant/neo-adjuvant gemcitabine use (yes vs no).|Nausea and vomiting||1.570|0.532|0.748
90912012|NCT03086369|181693017|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.947||||0.875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.491|1.827|||Log Rank|Stratified by age group (\<70 years versus ≥70 years) and prior adjuvant/neo-adjuvant gemcitabine use (yes vs no).|Stratified by age group (\<70 years versus ≥70 years) and prior adjuvant/neo-adjuvant gemcitabine use (yes vs no).|Pain||1.827|0.491|0.875
90912013|NCT00955825|181693032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference vs. Placebo|-0.126||||0.0003||95.0|-0.194|-0.058|||ANCOVA||Relative LS Means difference (%) = - 28.24|||-0.058|-0.194|0.0003
90912014|NCT01904071|181693040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<.0001
90912015|NCT01904071|181693041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<.05
90912016|NCT01904071|181693042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.005|||||||ANOVA|||||||<.005
90912017|NCT01904071|181693043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<.001
90912018|NCT01904071|181693044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.342|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.342
90912019|NCT04035668|181693047|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.86||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.71|-1.01||one-sided p-value|MMRM||Difference (Any remibrutinib - Placebo)|||-1.01|-4.71|0.002
90912020|NCT04035668|181693047|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.24|1.25|||MMRM||Difference (remibrutinib 100 mg qd - remibrutinib 100 mg bid)|||1.25|-3.24|
90912021|NCT04035668|181693048|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.99||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|0.3||one-sided p-value|MMRM||Difference (Any remibrutinib - Placebo)|Week 2||0.30|-2.29|0.065
90912022|NCT04035668|181693048|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.76||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.24|-0.29||one-sided p-value|MMRM||Difference (Any remibrutinib - Placebo)|Week 4||-0.29|-3.24|0.010
90912023|NCT04035668|181693048|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47||||0.289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.17|1.22||one-sided p-value|MMRM||Difference (Any remibrutinib - Placebo)|Week 8||1.22|-2.17|0.289
90912024|NCT04035668|181693048|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.19||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.97|0.59||one-sided p-value|MMRM||Difference (Any remibrutinib - Placebo)|Week 12||0.59|-2.97|0.093
90912025|NCT04035668|181693048|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.13||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.84|0.57||one-sided p-value|MMRM||Difference (Any remibrutinib - Placebo)|Week 16||0.57|-2.84|0.094
90912026|NCT04035668|181693048|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.99||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.71|-0.28||one-sided p-value|MMRM|||Week 20|Difference (Any remibrutinib - Placebo)|-0.28|-3.71|0.012
90912027|NCT04035668|181693048|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.84|||MMRM||Difference (remibrutinib 100 mg qd - remibrutinib 100 mg bid)|Week 2||0.84|-2.10|
90912028|NCT04035668|181693048|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|1.69|||MMRM||Difference (remibrutinib 100 mg qd - remibrutinib 100 mg bid)|Week 4||1.69|-1.75|
90912029|NCT04035668|181693048|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|2.21|||MMRM||Difference (remibrutinib 100 mg qd - remibrutinib 100 mg bid)|Week 8||2.21|-1.83|
90912030|NCT04035668|181693048|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|1.01|||MMRM||Difference (remibrutinib 100 mg qd - remibrutinib 100 mg bid)|Week 12||1.01|-3.20|
90912031|NCT04035668|181693048|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|0.6|||MMRM||Difference (remibrutinib 100 mg qd - remibrutinib 100 mg bid)|Week 16||0.60|-3.50|
90912032|NCT04035668|181693048|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.22|0.95|||MMRM||Difference (remibrutinib 100 mg qd - remibrutinib 100 mg bid)|Week 20||0.95|-3.22|
90912033|NCT04035668|181693049|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.62||one-sided p-value|MMRM||Difference (Any remibrutinib - Placebo)|Week 2||0.62|-0.69|0.460
90912034|NCT04035668|181693049|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.66||one-sided p-value|MMRM||Difference (Any remibrutinib - Placebo)|Week 4||0.66|-0.82|0.418
90912035|NCT04035668|181693049|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.7||one-sided p-value|MMRM||Difference (Any remibrutinib - Placebo)|Week 8||0.70|-0.76|0.466
90912036|NCT04035668|181693049|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.79||one-sided p-value|MMRM||Difference (Any remibrutinib - Placebo)|Week 12||0.79|-0.67|0.560
90912037|NCT04035668|181693049|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.99||one-sided p-value|MMRM||Difference (Any remibrutinib - Placebo)|Week 16||0.99|-0.73|0.616
90912038|NCT04035668|181693049|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.99||one-sided p-value|MMRM|||Week 20|Difference (Any remibrutinib - Placebo)|0.99|-0.81|0.581
90912039|NCT04035668|181693049|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17||||0.663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.96||one-sided p-value|MMRM||Difference (Any remibrutinib - Placebo)|Week 24||0.96|-0.62|0.663
90912040|NCT04035668|181693049|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|0.11|||MMRM||Difference (remibrutinib 100 mg qd - remibrutinib 100 mg bid)|Week 2||0.11|-1.35|
90912041|NCT04035668|181693049|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|0.26|||MMRM||Difference (remibrutinib 100 mg qd - remibrutinib 100 mg bid)|Week 4||0.26|-1.42|
90912042|NCT04035668|181693049|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|0.42|||MMRM||Difference (remibrutinib 100 mg qd - remibrutinib 100 mg bid)|Week 8||0.42|-1.31|
90871128|NCT03950167|181603260|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||A p value of \<0.05 was accepted as significant in all statistical analyses.|t-test, 2 sided||p value demonstrated above is the calculated value. Postprandial GB wall thickness: hyperemesis group-control group|||||0.05
90871129|NCT03950167|181603261|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||A p value of \<0.05 was accepted as significant in all statistical analyses.|t-test, 2 sided||p value demonstrated above is the calculated value. Fasting GB volume: hyperemesis group-control group|||||0.05
90871130|NCT03950167|181603261|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.71||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||A p value of \<0.05 was accepted as significant in all statistical analyses.|t-test, 2 sided||p value demonstrated above is the calculated value. Postprandial GB volume: hyperemesis group-control group|||||0.05
90912043|NCT04035668|181693049|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|0.31|||MMRM||Difference (remibrutinib 100 mg qd - remibrutinib 100 mg bid)|Week 12||0.31|-1.44|
90871131|NCT03950167|181603262|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||A p value of \<0.05 was accepted as significant in all statistical analyses.|t-test, 2 sided||p value demonstrated above is the calculated value. Fasting GB ejection fraction: hyperemesis group-control group|||||0.05
90871132|NCT03950167|181603262|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.63||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||A p value of \<0.05 was accepted as significant in all statistical analyses.|t-test, 2 sided||p value demonstrated above is the calculated value. Postprandial GB ejection fraction: hyperemesis group-control group|||||0.05
90871133|NCT02533427|181603263|OTHER||% Geometric Least Square Mean(GLSM)Ratio|107.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.19|111.69|||||Test/Reference: Norelgestromin Part B/Part A|Norelgestromin Part B/Part A||111.69|103.19|
90871134|NCT02533427|181603264|OTHER||% GLSM Ratio|115.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|106.49|124.5|||||Test/Reference: Norgestrel Part B/Part A|Norgestrel Part B/Part A||124.50|106.49|
90871135|NCT02533427|181603265|OTHER||% GLSM Ratio|105.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.95|114.66|||||Test/Reference: Ethinyl estradiol Part B/Part A|Ethinyl estradiol Part B/Part A||114.66|96.95|
90912044|NCT04035668|181693049|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|0.65|||MMRM||Difference (remibrutinib 100 mg qd - remibrutinib 100 mg bid)|Week 16||0.65|-1.39|
90912045|NCT04035668|181693049|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|0.65|||MMRM||Difference (remibrutinib 100 mg qd - remibrutinib 100 mg bid)|Week 20||0.65|-1.39|
90912046|NCT04035668|181693049|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|0.57|||MMRM||Difference (remibrutinib 100 mg qd - remibrutinib 100 mg bid)|Week 24||0.57|-1.37|
90912047|NCT04035668|181693050|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.73||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.18|0.73||one-sided p-value|MMRM||Difference (Any remibrutinib - Placebo)|Week 2||0.73|-6.18|0.940
90871136|NCT02533427|181603266|OTHER||% GLSM Ratio|248.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|33.11|1870.81|||||Test/Reference: Norgestimate Part B/Part A|Norgestimate Part B/Part A||1870.81|33.11|
90871137|NCT02533427|181603267|OTHER||% GLSM Ratio|107.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.78|118.65|||||Test/Reference: Norelgestromin Part B/Part A|Norelgestromin Part B/Part A||118.65|97.78|
90871138|NCT02533427|181603268|OTHER||% GLSM Ratio|115.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|108.12|122.37|||||Test/Reference: Norgestrel Part B/Part A|Norgestrel Part B/Part A||122.37|108.12|
90871139|NCT02533427|181603269|OTHER||% GLSM Ratio|121.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|106.1|138.12|||||Test/Reference: Ethinyl estradiol Part B/Part A|Ethinyl estradiol Part B/Part A||138.12|106.10|
90871140|NCT02533427|181603270|OTHER||% GLSM Ratio|112.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.19|144.14|||||Test/Reference: Norgestimate Part B/Part A|Norgestimate Part B/Part A||144.14|87.19|
90871141|NCT02533427|181603271|OTHER||% GLSM Ratio|114.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|107.4|121.39|||||Test/Reference: Norelgestromin Part B/Part A|Norelgestromin Part B/Part A||121.39|107.40|
90871142|NCT02533427|181603272|OTHER||% GLSM Ratio|121.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|110.85|133.44|||||Test/Reference: Norgestrel Part B/Part A|Norgestrel Part B/Part A||133.44|110.85|
90871143|NCT02533427|181603273|OTHER||% GLSM Ratio|92.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.55|104.45|||||Test/Reference: Ethinyl estradiol Part B/Part A|Ethinyl estradiol Part B/Part A||104.45|82.55|
90871144|NCT01979016|181603290|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-69.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-92.5|-46.2|||ANCOVA||Dupilumab 200 mg qw vs Placebo qw|Analysis was performed by a mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) model.||-46.2|-92.5|< 0.0001
91033234|NCT00286754|181952362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||BP control and SBP were compared at 6 months across treatment arms using a Bonferroni adjustment of 1.25% for each of the 4 comparisons (SMI versus UC and HEI versus UC for BP control and SBP separately). This p-value is for comparison of SMI vs. UC|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The study was an effectiveness trial of 2 active interventions, each compared with an active standard of care control group. We expected that 54% of patients on BP-lowering therapy would be properly controlled with HEI and 43% with UC, whereas we expected SMI to increase this to 69% control in 6 months. BP control and SBP were compared at 6 months across treatment arms using a 2.5% type I error (Bonferroni adjustment), ie, 1.25% for each of the 4 comparisons.||||0.001
91033235|NCT00286754|181952362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|||||BP control and SBP were compared at 6 months across treatment arms using a Bonferroni adjustment of 1.25% for each of the 4 comparisons (SMI versus UC and HEI versus UC for BP control and SBP separately). This p-value is for comparison of HEI vs. UC|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.108
91033236|NCT00286754|181952363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|||||BP control and SBP were compared at 6 months across treatment arms using a 2.5% type I error (Bonferroni adjustment), 1.25% for each of the 4 comparisons (SMI versus UC and HEI vs UC for BP control and SBP separately). This p-value is for SMI vs UC|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The study was designed as an effectiveness trial of 2 active interventions, each compared with an active standard of care control group. The study was not powered to test comparisons between the 2 active intervention arms.||||0.009
91033237|NCT00286754|181952363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|||||BP control and SBP were compared at 6 months across treatment arms using a Bonferroni adjustment of 1.25% for each of the 4 comparisons (SMI versus UC and HEI vs UC for BP control and SBP separately). This p-value is for comparison of HEI vs. UC|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.047
91033238|NCT00286754|181952364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|3e-06|TWO_SIDED|||||Change in BP control were compared by treatment arm using a 1.67% type I error (with Bonferroni adjustment), ie, 1.67% for each assessment of change in proportion with BP under control from baseline to 6 months by SMI, HEI or UC (3 tests).|McNemar|||||||<0.000003
91033239|NCT00286754|181952364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|||||Change in BP control were compared by treatment arm using a 1.67% type I error (with Bonferroni adjustment), ie, 1.67% for each assessment of change in proportion with BP under control from baseline to 6 months by SMI, HEI or UC (3 tests).|McNemar|||||||0.012
91033240|NCT00286754|181952364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|||||Change in BP control were compared by treatment arm using a 1.67% type I error (with Bonferroni adjustment), ie, 1.67% for each assessment of change in proportion with BP under control from baseline to 6 months by SMI, HEI or UC (3 tests).|McNemar|||||||0.89
91033241|NCT00286754|181952365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.009|TWO_SIDED|||||Change in SBP were compared by treatment arm using a 1.67% type I error (Bonferroni adjustment), ie, 1.67% for each of the 3 comparisons by arm (6-month-baseline for SMI, HEI and UC separately).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.009
91033242|NCT00286754|181952365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|||||Change in SBP were compared by treatment arm using a 1.67% type I error (Bonferroni adjustment), ie, 1.67% for each of the 3 comparisons by arm (6-month-baseline for SMI, HEI and UC separately).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.008
91033243|NCT00286754|181952365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|||||Change in SBP were compared by treatment arm using a 1.67% type I error (Bonferroni adjustment), ie, 1.67% for each of the 3 comparisons by arm (6-month-baseline for SMI, HEI and UC separately).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.9
91033244|NCT00286754|181952366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|||||Since we are performing 3 tests, we will adjust the type I error to 0.017|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.880
91033245|NCT00286754|181952366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.318|TWO_SIDED|||||Change in SBP were compared by treatment arm using a 1.67% type I error (Bonferroni adjustment), ie, 1.67% for each of the 3 comparisons by arm (6-month-baseline for SMI, HEI and UC separately).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.318
91033246|NCT00286754|181952367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.306|TWO_SIDED|||||Since we are performing 3 tests, we will adjust the type I error to 0.017|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.306
91033247|NCT00286754|181952367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.205|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.205
91033248|NCT00286754|181952368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|||||Since we are performing 3 tests, we will adjust the type I error to 0.017|Chi-squared|||||||0.011
91033249|NCT00286754|181952368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.638|TWO_SIDED|||||Since we are performing 3 tests, we will adjust the type I error to 0.017|Chi-squared|||||||0.638
91033250|NCT00286754|181952369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|||||Since we are performing 3 tests, we will adjust the type I error to 0.017|Chi-squared|||||||0.012
91033251|NCT00286754|181952369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.333|TWO_SIDED|||||Since we are performing 3 tests, we will adjust the type I error to 0.017|Chi-squared|||||||0.333
91033252|NCT00286754|181952370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.581|TWO_SIDED|||||Since we are performing 3 tests, we will adjust the type I error to 0.017|Chi-squared|||||||0.581
91033253|NCT00286754|181952370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.502|TWO_SIDED|||||Since we are performing 3 tests, we will adjust the type I error to 0.017|Chi-squared|||||||0.502
91033254|NCT02726581|181952390|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.3||||||||1.30|0.62|
91033255|NCT02726581|181952391|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.19||||||||1.19|0.53|
91033256|NCT02726581|181952392|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.46||||||||1.46|0.39|
91033257|NCT00565448|181952431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The Fisher's exact test was used to compare the CR proportions.|Fisher Exact|||There was no formal power calculation. A selection design was used to determine how many participants would be accrued to correctly select the treatment group with the best CR rate with 80% probability.||||1.0000
91033258|NCT00302952|181952437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.79||||||Adjustments were made for baseline ln(CRP), baseline DAS28-CRP score, race, methotrexate use, anti-TNF use, and disease duration.|ANCOVA|||The p-value compares Lovastatin with the Placebo treatment group. Log transformed CRP was analyzed to meet the heterogeneity assumption for ANCOVA models.||||0.79
90871145|NCT01979016|181603291|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|37.0|||=|0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.82|55.25|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 200 mg qw vs Placebo qw|Analysis was performed by a MMRM model.||55.25|18.82|= 0.0006
90871146|NCT01979016|181603292|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|48.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.0|68.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 200 mg qw vs Placebo qw|Analysis was performed by a MMRM model.||68.30|28.00|< 0.0001
90871147|NCT01979016|181603293|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|-1.52|||ANCOVA||Dupilumab 200 mg qw vs Placebo qw|Analysis was performed by a MMRM model.||-1.52|-3.80|< 0.0001
90871148|NCT01979016|181603294|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-48.08|||=|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.31|-24.85|||ANCOVA||Dupilumab 200 mg qw vs Placebo qw|Analysis was performed by a MMRM model.||-24.85|-71.31|= 0.0001
90871149|NCT01979016|181603295|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-21.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.0|-14.0|||ANCOVA||Dupilumab 200 mg qw vs Placebo qw|Analysis was performed by a MMRM model.||-14.0|-29.0|<0.0001
90871150|NCT01979016|181603296|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-31.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.5|-21.1|||ANCOVA||Dupilumab 200 mg qw vs Placebo qw|Analysis was performed by a MMRM model.||-21.1|-41.5|< 0.0001
90871151|NCT01979016|181603297|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-46.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.0|-31.3|||ANCOVA||Dupilumab 200 mg qw vs Placebo qw|Analysis was performed by MMRM model.||-31.3|-62.0|< 0.0001
90871152|NCT01979016|181603298|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|55.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.38|77.73|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical comparison for percentage of participants who achieved 50% reduction from baseline in EASI score (EASI-50). Analysis was performed by a MMRM model.||77.73|33.38|< 0.0001
90912048|NCT04035668|181693050|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.89||||0.322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.95|4.74||one-sided p-value|MMRM||Difference (Any remibrutinib - Placebo)|Week 4||4.74|-2.95|0.322
90912049|NCT04035668|181693050|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.36||||0.753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.32|2.59||one-sided p-value|MMRM||Difference (Any remibrutinib - Placebo)|Week 8||2.59|-5.32|0.753
90912050|NCT04035668|181693050|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.74||||0.891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.13|1.66||one-sided p-value|MMRM||Difference (Any remibrutinib - Placebo)|Week 12||1.66|-7.13|0.891
90912051|NCT04035668|181693050|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.88||||0.941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.77|1.01||one-sided p-value|MMRM||Difference (Any remibrutinib - Placebo)|Week 16||1.01|-8.77|0.941
90871153|NCT01979016|181603298|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|51.9|||=|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.59|74.12|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical comparison for percentage of participants who achieved 75% reduction from baseline in EASI score (EASI-75). Analysis was performed by a MMRM model.||74.12|29.59|= 0.0001
90871154|NCT01979016|181603298|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|33.3|||=|0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.55|51.11|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical comparison for percentage of participants who achieved 90% reduction from baseline in EASI score (EASI-90). Analysis was performed by a MMRM model.||51.11|15.55|= 0.0011
90871155|NCT01979016|181603299|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|48.1|||=|0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.0|69.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical comparison for percentage of participants who achieved 50% reduction from baseline in SCORAD Score (SCORAD-50). Analysis was performed by a MMRM model.||69.3|27.0|= 0.0002
90871156|NCT01979016|181603299|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|11.1|||=|0.0792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|23.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical comparison for percentage of participants who achieved 75% reduction from baseline in SCORAD Score (SCORAD-75). Analysis was performed by a MMRM model.||23.0|-0.7|= 0.0792
90871157|NCT01979016|181603299|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|7.4|||=|0.1573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|17.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical comparison for percentage of participants who achieved 90% reduction from baseline in SCORAD Score (SCORAD-90). Analysis was performed by a MMRM model.||17.3|-2.5|= 0.1573
90912052|NCT04035668|181693050|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.39||||0.304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.01|6.79||one-sided p-value|MMRM|||Week 20|Difference (Any remibrutinib - Placebo)|6.79|-4.01|0.304
90871158|NCT01979016|181603300|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-10.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|-6.6|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed by a MMRM model.||-6.6|-14.3|< 0.0001
90871159|NCT01979016|181603301|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-46.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.9|-28.5|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed by a MMRM model.||-28.5|-63.9|< 0.0001
90871160|NCT01979016|181603303|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.02|-2.39|||ANCOVA|||||-2.39|-5.02|< 0.0001
90871161|NCT00372112|181603310|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.48|7.7||||||Placebo versus GW642444 100 mcg once daily for 0-4 h at Day 1.||7.70|-3.48|
90871162|NCT00372112|181603310|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|11.07||||||Placebo versus GW642444 400 mcg once daily for 0-4 h at Day 1.||11.07|-0.41|
90871163|NCT00372112|181603310|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.35|8.33||||||Placebo versus Salmeterol 50 mcg BD for 0-4 h at Day 1.||8.33|-3.35|
90871164|NCT00372112|181603310|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.11|5.36||||||Placebo versus GW642444 100 mcg once daily for 0-4 h at Day 2.||5.36|-6.11|
90871165|NCT00372112|181603310|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|10.29||||||Placebo versus GW642444 400 mcg once daily for 0-4 h at Day 2.||10.29|-1.57|
90871166|NCT00372112|181603310|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|10.65||||||Placebo versus Salmeterol 50 mcg BD for 0-4 h at Day 2.||10.65|-1.45|
90871167|NCT00372112|181603310|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.44|1.93||||||Placebo versus GW642444 100 mcg once daily for 0-4 h at Day 7.||1.93|-10.44|
90871168|NCT00372112|181603310|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.22|6.32||||||Placebo versus GW642444 400 mcg once daily for 0-4 h at Day 7.||6.32|-7.22|
90871169|NCT00372112|181603310|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.25|5.33||||||Placebo versus Salmeterol 50 mcg BD for 0-4 h at Day 7.||5.33|-8.25|
90871170|NCT00372112|181603310|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.98|6.29||||||Placebo versus GW642444 100 mcg once daily for 0-4 h at Day 8.||6.29|-5.98|
90871171|NCT00372112|181603310|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|8.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|15.08||||||Placebo versus GW642444 400 mcg once daily for 0-4 h at Day 8.||15.08|1.52|
90871172|NCT00372112|181603310|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.85|10.5||||||Placebo versus Salmeterol 50 mcg BD for 0-4 h at Day 8.||10.50|-2.85|
90871173|NCT00372112|181603310|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.16|4.97||||||Placebo versus GW642444 100 mcg once daily for 0-4 h at Day 14.||4.97|-7.16|
90871174|NCT00372112|181603310|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|13.66||||||Placebo versus GW642444 400 mcg once daily for 0-4 h at Day 14.||13.66|-0.11|
90871175|NCT00372112|181603310|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.58|10.15||||||Placebo versus Salmeterol 50 mcg BD for 0-4 h at Day 14.||10.15|-3.58|
90871176|NCT00372112|181603310|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.64|5.4||||||Placebo versus GW642444 100 mcg once daily for 0-4 h at Day 15.||5.40|-7.64|
90871177|NCT00372112|181603310|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.71|10.89||||||Placebo versus GW642444 400 mcg once daily for 0-4 h at Day 15.||10.89|-3.71|
90871178|NCT00372112|181603310|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.96|9.18||||||Placebo versus Salmeterol 50 mcg BD for 0-4 h at Day 15.||9.18|-4.96|
90871179|NCT00372112|181603312|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|12.0||||||Placebo versus GW642444 100 mcg once daily for 0-4 h maximum HR at Day 1.||12.0|-7.7|
90912053|NCT04035668|181693050|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.05||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.89|4.79||one-sided p-value|MMRM||Difference (Any remibrutinib - Placebo)|Week 24||4.79|-6.89|0.640
90912054|NCT04035668|181693050|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|6.07|||MMRM||Difference (remibrutinib 100 mg qd - remibrutinib 100 mg bid)|Week 2||6.07|-1.44|
90912055|NCT04035668|181693050|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.46|5.18|||MMRM||Difference (remibrutinib 100 mg qd - remibrutinib 100 mg bid)|Week 4||5.18|-3.46|
90871180|NCT00372112|181603312|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|13.1||||||Placebo versus GW642444 400 mcg once daily for 0-4 h maximum HR at Day 1.||13.1|-7.2|
90871181|NCT00372112|181603312|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|10.1||||||Placebo versus Salmeterol 50 mcg BD for 0-4 h maximum HR at Day 1.||10.1|-10.2|
90871182|NCT00372112|181603312|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|10.4||||||Placebo versus GW642444 100 mcg once daily for 0-4 h maximum HR at Day 2.||10.4|-6.1|
90871183|NCT00372112|181603312|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|14.3||||||Placebo versus GW642444 400 mcg once daily for 0-4 h maximum HR at Day 2.||14.3|-2.8|
90871184|NCT00372112|181603312|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|10.1||||||Placebo versus Salmeterol 50 mcg BD for 0-4 h maximum HR at Day 2.||10.1|-6.9|
90871185|NCT00372112|181603312|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.1|6.2||||||Placebo versus GW642444 100 mcg once daily for 0-4 h maximum HR at Day 7.||6.2|-16.1|
90871186|NCT00372112|181603312|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|10.2||||||Placebo versus GW642444 400 mcg once daily for 0-4 h maximum HR at Day 7.||10.2|-14.0|
90871187|NCT00372112|181603312|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|7.5||||||Placebo versus Salmeterol 50 mcg BD for 0-4 h maximum HR at Day 7.||7.5|-17.1|
90871188|NCT00372112|181603312|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|10.9||||||Placebo versus GW642444 100 mcg once daily for 0-4 h maximum HR at Day 8.||10.9|-4.1|
90871189|NCT00372112|181603312|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|19.0||||||Placebo versus GW642444 400 mcg once daily for 0-4 h maximum HR at Day 8.||19.0|2.6|
90871190|NCT00372112|181603312|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|11.4||||||Placebo versus Salmeterol 50 mcg BD for 0-4 h maximum HR at Day 8.||11.4|-5.2|
90871191|NCT00372112|181603312|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|2.7||||||Placebo versus GW642444 100 mcg once daily for 0-4 h maximum HR at Day 14.||2.7|-17.0|
90871192|NCT00372112|181603312|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|16.8||||||Placebo versus GW642444 400 mcg once daily for 0-4 h maximum HR at Day 14.||16.8|-6.0|
90871193|NCT00372112|181603312|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|8.0||||||Placebo versus Salmeterol 50 mcg BD for 0-4 h maximum HR at Day 14.||8.0|-13.8|
90871194|NCT00372112|181603312|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|8.3||||||Placebo versus GW642444 100 mcg once daily for 0-4 h maximum HR at Day 15.||8.3|-7.8|
90871195|NCT00372112|181603312|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|15.6||||||Placebo versus GW642444 400 mcg once daily for 0-4 h maximum HR at Day 15.||15.6|-2.1|
90871196|NCT00372112|181603312|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|13.3||||||Placebo versus Salmeterol 50 mcg BD for 0-4 h maximum HR at Day 15.||13.3|-4.5|
90871197|NCT00372112|181603327|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1131|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0031|0.2293|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline FEV1, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 100 mcg once daily for FEV1 over 22-24 h at Day 1.||0.2293|-0.0031|
90871198|NCT00372112|181603327|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.159|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0408|0.2771|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline FEV1, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 400 mcg once daily for FEV1 over 22-24 h at Day 1.||0.2771|0.0408|
90871199|NCT00372112|181603327|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0764|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0375|0.1903|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline FEV1, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus Salmeterol 50 mcg BD for FEV1 over 22-24 h at Day 1.||0.1903|-0.0375|
90871200|NCT00372112|181603327|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1741|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0178|0.3305|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline FEV1, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 100 mcg once daily for FEV1 over 22-24 h at Day 7.||0.3305|0.0178|
90871201|NCT00372112|181603327|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1713|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.006|0.3365|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline FEV1, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 400 mcg once daily for FEV1 over 22-24 h at Day 7.||0.3365|0.0060|
90871202|NCT00372112|181603327|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1377|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0233|0.2987|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline FEV1, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus Salmeterol 50 mcg BD for FEV1 over 22-24 h at Day 7.||0.2987|-0.0233|
90871203|NCT00372112|181603327|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.139|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0266|0.3046|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline FEV1, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 100 mcg once daily for FEV1 over 22-24 h at Day 14.||0.3046|-0.0266|
90871204|NCT00372112|181603327|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1906|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0177|0.3635|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline FEV1, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 400 mcg once daily for FEV1 over 22-24 h at Day 14.||0.3635|0.0177|
90871205|NCT00372112|181603327|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0956|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0686|0.2599|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline FEV1, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus Salmeterol 50 mcg BD for FEV1 over 22-24 h at Day 14.||0.2599|-0.0686|
90871206|NCT00372112|181603332|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.009|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.608|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline glucose, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 100 mcg once daily for weighted mean glucose 0-4 h at Day 1.||0.608|-0.590|
90871207|NCT00372112|181603332|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.237|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.354|0.829|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline glucose, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 400 mcg once daily for weighted mean glucose 0-4 h at Day 1.||0.829|-0.354|
90871208|NCT00372112|181603332|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.093|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.469|0.654|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline glucose, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus Salmeterol 50 mcg BD for weighted mean glucose 0-4 h at Day 1.||0.654|-0.469|
90912056|NCT04035668|181693050|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.43|4.83|||MMRM||Difference (remibrutinib 100 mg qd - remibrutinib 100 mg bid)|Week 8||4.83|-4.43|
90912057|NCT04035668|181693050|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.53|5.78|||MMRM||Difference (remibrutinib 100 mg qd - remibrutinib 100 mg bid)|Week 12||5.78|-4.53|
90912058|NCT04035668|181693050|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|6.82|||MMRM||Difference (remibrutinib 100 mg qd - remibrutinib 100 mg bid)|Week 16||6.82|-4.60|
90971062|NCT00385255|181824665|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was defined as the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference between the two groups (Boostrix+Fluarix 19-64 YOA Group minus Fluarix Boostrix 19-64 YOA Group), in terms of percentages of subjects with anti-D antibody concentrations ≥ 0.1 IU/mL, being ≥ - 10%.|Difference in percentage|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|3.56||||||Difference in seroprotection rates against diphteria toxoid: To demonstrate that the immunogenicity of Boostrix® vaccine co-administered with Fluarix® vaccine (Boostrix+Fluarix 19-64 YOA Group) at Day 0, was non-inferior to that of Boostrix® vaccine administered alone at Month 1 (Fluarix Boostrix 19-64 YOA Group), in terms of seroprotection rates for anti-D antibody, one month post-Boostrix® vaccination.||3.56|-1.36|
90871209|NCT00372112|181603332|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.199|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.591|0.988|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline glucose, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 100 mcg once daily for weighted mean glucose 0-4 h at Day 2.||0.988|-0.591|
90871210|NCT00372112|181603332|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.633|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.152|1.418|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline glucose, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 400 mcg once daily for weighted mean glucose 0-4 h at Day 2.||1.418|-0.152|
90871211|NCT00372112|181603332|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.065|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.667|0.797|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline glucose, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus Salmeterol 50 mcg BD for weighted mean glucose 0-4 h at Day 2.||0.797|-0.667|
90871212|NCT00372112|181603332|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.097|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.476|0.67|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline glucose, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 100 mcg once daily for weighted mean glucose 0-4 h at Day 7.||0.670|-0.476|
90871213|NCT00372112|181603332|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.408|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.208|1.024|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline glucose, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 400 mcg once daily for weighted mean glucose 0-4 h at Day 7.||1.024|-0.208|
90871214|NCT00372112|181603332|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.471|0.631|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline glucose, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus Salmeterol 50 mcg BD for weighted mean glucose 0-4 h at Day 7.||0.631|-0.471|
91033259|NCT00302952|181952439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.91||||||Adjustments were made for baseline DAS28-CRP score.|ANCOVA|ANOVA was performed on participants with a DAS28-CRP score at Day 84.||The p-value compares Lovastatin with the Placebo treatment group.||||0.91
90871215|NCT00372112|181603332|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.245|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|1.149|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline glucose, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 100 mcg once daily for weighted mean glucose 0-4 h at Day 8.||1.149|-0.660|
90871216|NCT00372112|181603332|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.796|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.174|1.766|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline glucose, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 400 mcg once daily for weighted mean glucose 0-4 h at Day 8.||1.766|-0.174|
90871217|NCT00372112|181603332|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.144|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.742|1.03|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline glucose, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus Salmeterol 50 mcg BD for weighted mean glucose 0-4 h at Day 8.||1.030|-0.742|
90871218|NCT00372112|181603332|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.056|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.556|0.669|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline glucose, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 100 mcg once daily for weighted mean glucose 0-4 h at Day 14.||0.669|-0.556|
90871219|NCT00372112|181603332|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.138|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.767|0.491|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline glucose, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 400 mcg once daily for weighted mean glucose 0-4 h at Day 14.||0.491|-0.767|
90871220|NCT00372112|181603332|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.187|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.765|0.391|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline glucose, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus Salmeterol 50 mcg BD for weighted mean glucose 0-4 h at Day 14.||0.391|-0.765|
90871221|NCT00372112|181603332|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.094|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.619|0.806|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline glucose, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 100 mcg once daily for weighted mean glucose 0-4 h at Day 15.||0.806|-0.619|
90871222|NCT00372112|181603332|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.358|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|1.105|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline glucose, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 400 mcg once daily for weighted mean glucose 0-4 h at Day 15.||1.105|-0.390|
90871223|NCT00372112|181603332|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.178|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.522|0.877|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline glucose, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus Salmeterol 50 mcg BD for weighted mean glucose 0-4 h at Day 15.||0.877|-0.522|
90871224|NCT00372112|181603332|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.294|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.586|-0.001|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline potassium, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 100 mcg once daily for weighted mean potassium 0-4 h at Day 1.||-0.001|-0.586|
90871225|NCT00372112|181603332|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.371|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.657|-0.085|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline potassium, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 400 mcg once daily for weighted mean potassium 0-4 h at Day 1.||-0.085|-0.657|
90871226|NCT00372112|181603332|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.153|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.133|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline potassium, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus Salmeterol 50 mcg BD for weighted mean potassium 0-4 h at Day 1.||0.133|-0.440|
91033260|NCT00302952|181952440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentage|-11.0||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.9|14.0|||Chi-squared||The difference in percentages is calculated as Lovastatin - Placebo.|The p-value compares Lovastatin with the Placebo treatment group.||14.0|-35.9|0.39
90871227|NCT00372112|181603332|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.216|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.679|0.247|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline potassium, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 100 mcg once daily for weighted mean potassium 0-4 h at Day 2.||0.247|-0.679|
90871228|NCT00372112|181603332|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.536|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.998|-0.074|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline potassium, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 400 mcg once daily for weighted mean potassium 0-4 h at Day 2.||-0.074|-0.998|
90871229|NCT00372112|181603332|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.018|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.452|0.416|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline potassium, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus Salmeterol 50 mcg BD for weighted mean potassium 0-4 h at Day 2.||0.416|-0.452|
90871230|NCT00372112|181603332|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.486|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.878|-0.095|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline potassium, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 100 mcg once daily for weighted mean potassium 0-4 h at Day 7.||-0.095|-0.878|
90871231|NCT00372112|181603332|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.562|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.135|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline potassium, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 400 mcg once daily for weighted mean potassium 0-4 h at Day 7.||-0.135|-0.990|
90871232|NCT00372112|181603332|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.575|0.196|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline potassium, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus Salmeterol 50 mcg BD for weighted mean potassium 0-4 h at Day 7.||0.196|-0.575|
90912059|NCT04035668|181693050|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|12.04|||MMRM||Difference (remibrutinib 100 mg qd - remibrutinib 100 mg bid)|Week 20||12.04|-0.66|
90912060|NCT04035668|181693050|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.53|10.59|||MMRM||Difference (remibrutinib 100 mg qd - remibrutinib 100 mg bid)|Week 24||10.59|-3.53|
90912061|NCT04035668|181693051|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.84|7.96||one-sided p-value|MMRM||Difference (Any remibrutinib - Placebo)|Week 2||7.96|-7.84|0.494
91033261|NCT00302952|181952441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.19||||||Adjustments were made for baseline serum IgM RF by ELISA test result. In the ANCOVA model, baseline value was a covariate; therefore, an adjustment was performed.|ANCOVA|||The p-value compares Lovastatin with the Placebo treatment group.||||0.19
91033262|NCT00302952|181952442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.35||||||Adjustments were made for baseline serum anti-CCP by ELISA|ANCOVA|||The p-value compares Lovastatin with the Placebo treatment group.||||0.35
90871233|NCT00372112|181603332|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.075|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.235|0.385|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline potassium, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 100 mcg once daily for weighted mean potassium 0-4 h at Day 8.||0.385|-0.235|
91033263|NCT02979353|181952452|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.96||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Analysis 1 applies to the Hospital Discharge timepoint (average 3 days after study enrollment)||||0.017
91033264|NCT02979353|181952452|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Analysis 2 applies to the Post-Acute Care Discharge time point (occurred on average 31 days after study enrollment)||||<0.0001
91033265|NCT02979353|181952452|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Analysis 3 applies to the 90 Day Follow-Up After PAC Discharge (occurred, on average, 122 days after study enrollment)||||<0.0001
90871234|NCT00372112|181603332|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.275|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.623|0.073|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline potassium, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 400 mcg once daily for weighted mean potassium 0-4 h at Day 8.||0.073|-0.623|
90871235|NCT00372112|181603332|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.103|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.213|0.418|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline potassium, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus Salmeterol 50 mcg BD for weighted mean potassium 0-4 h at Day 8.||0.418|-0.213|
90912062|NCT04035668|181693051|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.87||||0.866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.81|3.06||one-sided p-value|MMRM||Difference (Any remibrutinib - Placebo)|Week 4||3.06|-10.81|0.866
90912063|NCT04035668|181693051|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.82||||0.684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.37|5.73||one-sided p-value|MMRM||Difference (Any remibrutinib - Placebo)|Week 8||5.73|-9.37|0.684
91033266|NCT02979353|181952453|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.28||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Statistical Analysis 1 applies to the Hospital Discharge time point (occurred, on average, 3 days after study enrollment)||||0.02
91033267|NCT02979353|181952453|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.59|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Statistical Analysis 2 applies to Post-Acute Care Discharge time point (occurred, on average, 31 days after study enrollment).||||<0.00001
91033268|NCT02979353|181952453|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.35||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Statistical Analysis 3 applies to 90-Day Follow Up After PAC Discharge time point (occurred, on average, 122 after study enrollment).||||0.01
91033269|NCT04185909|181952463|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<.0001
91033270|NCT03435081|181952489|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.31|9.15|||Regression, Logistic|||||9.15|2.31|<0.001
91033271|NCT03435081|181952490|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.51||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|5.83|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.83|1.08|0.033
91033272|NCT03435081|181952490|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|11.68|||Regression, Logistic|||||11.68|2.40|<0.001
91033273|NCT03435081|181952491|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|3.63|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.63|0.80|0.167
91033274|NCT03435081|181952492|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.23||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|6.31|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.31|0.79|0.131
91033275|NCT03435081|181952492|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.63|17.19|||Regression, Logistic|||||17.19|2.63|<0.001
90912064|NCT04035668|181693051|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.39||||0.908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.93|2.14||one-sided p-value|MMRM||Difference (Any remibrutinib - Placebo)|Week 12||2.14|-10.93|0.908
90912065|NCT04035668|181693051|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|8.26||one-sided p-value|MMRM||Difference (Any remibrutinib - Placebo)|Week 16||8.26|-8.00|0.487
90912066|NCT04035668|181693051|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.06||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.61|4.49||one-sided p-value|MMRM|||Week 20|Difference (Any remibrutinib - Placebo)|4.49|-10.61|0.790
90912067|NCT04035668|181693051|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.48|9.88||one-sided p-value|MMRM||Difference (Any remibrutinib - Placebo)|Week 24||9.88|-6.48|0.340
90912068|NCT04035668|181693051|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.06|8.68|||MMRM||Difference (remibrutinib 100 mg qd - remibrutinib 100 mg bid)|Week 2||8.68|-9.06|
90912069|NCT04035668|181693051|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.59|6.17|||MMRM||Difference (remibrutinib 100 mg qd - remibrutinib 100 mg bid)|Week 4||6.17|-9.59|
90912070|NCT04035668|181693051|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.34|8.74|||MMRM||Difference (remibrutinib 100 mg qd - remibrutinib 100 mg bid)|Week 8||8.74|-9.34|
90912071|NCT04035668|181693051|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.74|3.86|||MMRM||Difference (remibrutinib 100 mg qd - remibrutinib 100 mg bid)|Week 12||3.86|-11.74|
90912072|NCT04035668|181693051|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.34|4.93|||MMRM||Difference (remibrutinib 100 mg qd - remibrutinib 100 mg bid)|Week 16||4.93|-14.34|
90912073|NCT04035668|181693051|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.44|2.87|||MMRM||Difference (remibrutinib 100 mg qd - remibrutinib 100 mg bid)|Week 20||2.87|-15.44|
90912074|NCT04035668|181693051|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.01|6.16|||MMRM||Difference (remibrutinib 100 mg qd - remibrutinib 100 mg bid)|Week 24||6.16|-14.01|
90912075|NCT04035668|181693052|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.71||||0.575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.75|8.16||one-sided p-value|MMRM||Difference (Any remibrutinib - Placebo)|Week 2||8.16|-6.75|0.575
90912076|NCT04035668|181693052|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.98||||0.294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.22|5.27||one-sided p-value|MMRM||Difference (Any remibrutinib - Placebo)|Week 4||5.27|-9.22|0.294
90912077|NCT04035668|181693052|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|7.41||one-sided p-value|MMRM||Difference (Any remibrutinib - Placebo)|Week 8||7.41|-8.40|0.450
90912078|NCT04035668|181693052|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.02||||0.913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.74|14.78||one-sided p-value|MMRM||Difference (Any remibrutinib - Placebo)|Week 12||14.78|-2.74|0.913
90912079|NCT04035668|181693052|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.59||||0.722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.16|11.34||one-sided p-value|MMRM||Difference (Any remibrutinib - Placebo)|Week 16||11.34|-6.16|0.722
90912080|NCT04035668|181693052|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.86||||0.241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.96|5.24||one-sided p-value|MMRM|||Week 20|Difference (Any remibrutinib - Placebo)|5.24|-10.96|0.241
90912081|NCT04035668|181693052|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.95||||0.742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.09|11.99||one-sided p-value|MMRM||Difference (Any remibrutinib - Placebo)|Week 24||11.99|-6.09|0.742
90912082|NCT04035668|181693052|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.28|7.91|||MMRM||Difference (remibrutinib 100 mg qd - remibrutinib 100 mg bid)|Week 2||7.91|-8.28|
90912083|NCT04035668|181693052|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.87|7.58|||MMRM||Difference (remibrutinib 100 mg qd - remibrutinib 100 mg bid)|Week 4||7.58|-8.87|
90912084|NCT04035668|181693052|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.28|9.48|||MMRM||Difference (remibrutinib 100 mg qd - remibrutinib 100 mg bid)|Week 8||9.48|-9.28|
90912085|NCT04035668|181693052|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.71|5.9|||MMRM||Difference (remibrutinib 100 mg qd - remibrutinib 100 mg bid)|Week 12||5.90|-14.71|
90912086|NCT04035668|181693052|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.47|-1.77|||MMRM||Difference (remibrutinib 100 mg qd - remibrutinib 100 mg bid)|Week 16||-1.77|-22.47|
90912087|NCT04035668|181693052|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|3.5|||MMRM||Difference (remibrutinib 100 mg qd - remibrutinib 100 mg bid)|Week 20||3.50|-16.00|
90912088|NCT04035668|181693052|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.16|2.96|||MMRM||Difference (remibrutinib 100 mg qd - remibrutinib 100 mg bid)|Week 24||2.96|-19.16|
90912089|NCT00004124|181693067|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.43|||Regression, Cox|||||1.43|0.79|0.70
90912090|NCT00004124|181693068|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.27|||Regression, Cox|||||1.27|0.80|0.94
90912091|NCT00371566|181693126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.93||0.394||95.0|-5.5|2.19|||ANCOVA|Null hypothesis or reject it in favor of the two sided alternative hypothesis||The study was designed to provide evidence to support the null hypothesis: Delta equals 0% or reject it in favor of the two sided alternative hypothesis: Delta does not equal 0%, where Delta was the difference in the true response rate for the two treatment groups.||2.19|-5.50|.394
90912092|NCT05565391|181693164|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.95|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|2.47|||Log-binomial regression model||Unweighted RRs were estimated using a log-binomial regression model with Wald confidence intervals.|||2.47|1.54|<.0001
91033276|NCT03435081|181952493|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.079||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.54|1.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.36|-26.54|0.077
90871236|NCT00372112|181603332|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.299|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.042|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline potassium, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 100 mcg once daily for weighted mean potassium 0-4 h at Day 14.||0.042|-0.640|
90871237|NCT00372112|181603332|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.271|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.621|0.079|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline potassium, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 400 mcg once daily for weighted mean potassium 0-4 h at Day 14.||0.079|-0.621|
90912093|NCT05565391|181693164|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|2.67|||Log-binomial regression model||Unweighted RRs were estimated using a log-binomial regression model with Wald confidence intervals.|||2.67|1.52|<.0001
90912094|NCT05565391|181693165|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.69|2.9|||Log-binomial regression model||Risk ratio was estimated using a log-binomial regression model and confidence interval was estimated using robust error variance.|||2.90|1.69|<.0001
90871238|NCT00372112|181603332|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.095|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.432|0.243|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline potassium, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus Salmeterol 50 mcg BD for weighted mean potassium 0-4 h at Day 14.||0.243|-0.432|
90871239|NCT00372112|181603332|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.173|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.158|0.505|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline potassium, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 100 mcg once daily for weighted mean potassium 0-4 h at Day 15.||0.505|-0.158|
90912095|NCT05565391|181693166|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.79||||0.0447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|3.15|||Log-binomial regression model||Risk ratio was estimated using a log-binomial regression model and confidence interval was estimated using robust error variance.|||3.15|1.01|0.0447
90912096|NCT05565391|181693167|OTHER|||||||0.4241|||||||Quantile regression|||||||0.4241
90912097|NCT05565391|181693167|OTHER|||||||0.0281|||||||Quantile regression|||||||0.0281
90912098|NCT05565391|181693168|OTHER|||||||0.7682|||||||Quantile regression|||||||0.7682
90912099|NCT05565391|181693169|OTHER|||||||0.0326|||||||Quantile regression|||||||0.0326
90912100|NCT05565391|181693170|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.31|||Cox proportional hazard model||Hazard ratio was estimated using unadjusted Cox proportional hazard model.|||0.31|0.09|<.0001
90912101|NCT05565391|181693170|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.43|||Cox proportional hazard model||Hazard ratio was estimated using unadjusted Cox proportional hazard model.|||0.43|0.11|<.0001
91033277|NCT03435081|181952493|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.875||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.85|-6.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-6.75|-33.85|0.004
91033278|NCT03435081|181952494|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|4.36|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.36|0.36|0.733
91033279|NCT03435081|181952494|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.42||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.93|15.22|||Regression, Logistic|||||15.22|1.93|0.002
90871240|NCT00372112|181603332|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.196|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.535|0.143|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline potassium, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 400 mcg once daily for weighted mean potassium 0-4 h at Day 15.||0.143|-0.535|
90871241|NCT00372112|181603332|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.139|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.198|0.475|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline potassium, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus Salmeterol 50 mcg BD for weighted mean potassium 0-4 h at Day 15.||0.475|-0.198|
90871242|NCT00372112|181603332|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|0.9|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline glucose, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 100 mcg once daily for maximum glucose 0-4 h at Day 1.||0.90|-1.18|
90871243|NCT00372112|181603332|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|1.3|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline glucose, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 400 mcg once daily for maximum glucose 0-4 h at Day 1.||1.30|-0.72|
90871244|NCT00372112|181603332|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|0.8|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline glucose, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus Salmeterol 50 mcg BD for maximum glucose 0-4 h at Day 1.||0.80|-1.15|
90871245|NCT00372112|181603332|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|1.44|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline glucose, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 100 mcg once daily for maximum glucose 0-4 h at Day 2.||1.44|-0.64|
90871246|NCT00372112|181603332|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|1.7|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline glucose, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 400 mcg once daily for maximum glucose 0-4 h at Day 2.||1.70|-0.32|
90871247|NCT00372112|181603332|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|1.2|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline glucose, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus Salmeterol 50 mcg BD for maximum glucose 0-4 h at Day 2.||1.20|-0.74|
90871248|NCT00372112|181603332|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|1.01|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline glucose, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 100 mcg once daily for maximum glucose 0-4 h at Day 7.||1.01|-1.11|
90871249|NCT00372112|181603332|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|1.62|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline glucose, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 400 mcg once daily for maximum glucose 0-4 h at Day 7.||1.62|-0.57|
90871250|NCT00372112|181603332|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|1.15|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline glucose, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus Salmeterol 50 mcg BD for maximum glucose 0-4 h at Day 7.||1.15|-0.89|
90871251|NCT00372112|181603332|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|1.5|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline glucose, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 100 mcg once daily for maximum glucose 0-4 h at Day 8.||1.50|-0.98|
90871252|NCT00372112|181603332|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|2.14|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline glucose, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 400 mcg once daily for maximum glucose 0-4 h at Day 8.||2.14|-0.42|
90871253|NCT00372112|181603332|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.54|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline glucose, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus Salmeterol 50 mcg BD for maximum glucose 0-4 h at Day 8.||1.54|-0.90|
90871254|NCT00372112|181603332|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.3|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline glucose, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 100 mcg once daily for maximum glucose 0-4 h at Day 14.||1.30|-1.20|
90871255|NCT00372112|181603332|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|2.03|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline glucose, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 400 mcg once daily for maximum glucose 0-4 h at Day 14.||2.03|-0.53|
90871256|NCT00372112|181603332|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|1.23|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline glucose, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus Salmeterol 50 mcg BD for maximum glucose 0-4 h at Day 14.||1.23|-1.23|
90871257|NCT00372112|181603332|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|1.23|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline glucose, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 100 mcg once daily for maximum glucose 0-4 h at Day 15.||1.23|-0.78|
90871258|NCT00372112|181603332|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|1.89|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline glucose, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 400 mcg once daily for maximum glucose 0-4 h at Day 15.||1.89|-0.21|
90871259|NCT00372112|181603332|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.48|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline glucose, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus Salmeterol 50 mcg BD for maximum glucose 0-4 h at Day 15.||1.48|-0.50|
90871260|NCT00372112|181603332|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.09|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline potassium, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 100 mcg once daily for minimum potassium 0-4 h at Day 1.||0.09|-0.47|
90871261|NCT00372112|181603332|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.04|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline potassium, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 400 mcg once daily for minimum potassium 0-4 h at Day 1.||0.04|-0.49|
90912102|NCT05565391|181693171|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.22|||Cox proportional hazard model||Hazard ratio was estimated using weighted Cox proportional hazard model and confidence interval was estimated using robust error variance.|||0.22|0.06|<.0001
90912103|NCT05565391|181693172|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.45|||Weighted Cox proportional hazard model||Hazard ratio was estimated using weighted Cox proportional hazard model and confidence interval was estimated using robust error variance.|||0.45|0.10|<.0001
90912104|NCT00530842|181693174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.087|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044||0.0482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.174|-0.001|||ANOVA|ANOVA with fixed terms for sequence, treatment, and period and random term for subject within sequence.||||-0.001|-0.174|0.0482
90912105|NCT00530842|181693175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|3.0||||0.3407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|27.5|||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||The confidence interval was determined by Hodges-Lehmann method.|||27.5|-9.5|0.3407
90912106|NCT00761930|181693277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||<0.05
90912107|NCT00761930|181693278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||<0.05
90912108|NCT00761930|181693279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||<0.05
90912109|NCT03478696|181693280|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be demonstrated, if the lower bound of the two-sided 95 percentage (%) confidence interval around the (FF/UMEC/VI versus BUD/FOR+TIO) treatment difference was above -50 milliliter.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0154|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.041|||||The primary treatment effect estimated (hypothetical effect) excluded data following intercurrent events: discontinuation of treatment, taking wrong treatment, taking prohibited medication, unblinding, noncompliance, COPD exacerbation or pneumonia.|||0.041|-0.020|
90912110|NCT03478696|181693281|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.026|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0122||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.002|0.049||Only if superiority is achieved on the primary study endpoint, then inferences can be made on change from Baseline in trough FEV1 on Day 2 using p-values.|Mixed model repeated measures||Day 2|||0.049|0.002|0.037
90912111|NCT03478696|181693281|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.063|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0134|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.036|0.089||Only if superiority is achieved on the primary study endpoint, then inferences can be made on change from Baseline in trough FEV1 on Day 28 using p-values.|Mixed model repeated measures||Day 28|||0.089|0.036|<0.001
90912112|NCT03478696|181693281|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.054|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0144|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.026|0.083||Only if superiority is achieved on the primary study endpoint, then inferences can be made on change from Baseline in trough FEV1 on Day 84 using p-values.|Mixed model repeated measures||Day 84|||0.083|0.026|<0.001
90912113|NCT03478696|181693281|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.051|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0157||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.021|0.082||Only if superiority is achieved on the primary study endpoint, then inferences can be made on change from Baseline in trough FEV1 on Day 85 using p-values.|Mixed model repeated measures||Day 85|||0.082|0.021|0.001
90871262|NCT00372112|181603332|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.07|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline potassium, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus Salmeterol 50 mcg BD for minimum potassium 0-4 h at Day 1.||0.07|-0.46|
90912114|NCT03478696|181693282|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0098||0.702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.016|0.023||Only if superiority is achieved on the primary study endpoint, then inferences can be made on weighted mean change from Baseline in FEV1 over 0-24 hours on Day 1 using p-values.|Mixed model repeated measures||The treatment effect to be estimated was hypothetical effect if all participants stayed on their randomized study treatment. Only on treatment data was included in analysis.|||0.023|-0.016|0.702
90912115|NCT03478696|181693283|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0141||0.244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.011|0.044||The analysis was performed using mixed model repeated measures analysis, which included covariates of Baseline FEV1, geographical region, treatment, visit, visit by treatment and visit by Baseline interaction.|Mixed model repeated measures||The treatment effect to be estimated was hypothetical effect if all participants stayed on their randomized study treatment. Only on treatment data was included in analysis.|||0.044|-0.011|0.244
90912116|NCT04673851|181693284|OTHER|Single group mean difference between baseline and mid-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.86|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.44|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Midtreatment - Baseline: 21 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
90912117|NCT04673851|181693284|OTHER|Effect size of single group mean difference between baseline and mid-treatment assessments.|Cohen's d|0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Midtreatment - Baseline: 21 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
91033280|NCT03435081|181952495|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.08||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|7.36|||Regression, Logistic|||||7.36|1.29|0.012
90871263|NCT00372112|181603332|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.27|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline potassium, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 100 mcg once daily for minimum potassium 0-4 h at Day 2.||0.27|-0.47|
90871264|NCT00372112|181603332|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.03|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline potassium, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 400 mcg once daily for minimum potassium 0-4 h at Day 2.||-0.03|-0.73|
90912118|NCT04673851|181693284|OTHER|Single group mean difference between baseline and post-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.65|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.61|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Baseline: 20 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
90912119|NCT04673851|181693284|OTHER|Effect size of single group mean difference between baseline and post-treatment assessments.|Cohen's d|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Baseline: 20 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
90912120|NCT04673851|181693284|OTHER|Single group mean difference between baseline and mid-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.97|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.19|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Midtreatment - Baseline: 30 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
90912121|NCT04673851|181693284|OTHER|Effect size of single group mean difference between baseline and mid-treatment assessments.|Cohen's d|0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Midtreatment - Baseline: 30 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
91033281|NCT03435081|181952495|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.31|12.28|||Regression, Logistic|||||12.28|2.31|<0.001
90871265|NCT00372112|181603332|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.34|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline potassium, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus Salmeterol 50 mcg BD for minimum potassium 0-4 h at Day 2.||0.34|-0.37|
90912122|NCT04673851|181693284|OTHER|Single group mean difference between baseline and post-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|-4.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.93|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Baseline: 27 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
90912123|NCT04673851|181693284|OTHER|Effect size of single group mean difference between baseline and post-treatment assessments.|Cohen's d|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Baseline: 27 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
90912124|NCT04673851|181693285|OTHER|Single group mean difference between baseline and mid-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.52|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.95|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Midtreatment - Baseline: 21 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
90912125|NCT04673851|181693285|OTHER|Effect size of single group mean difference between baseline and mid-treatment assessments.|Cohen's d|0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Midtreatment - Baseline: 21 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
90912126|NCT04673851|181693285|OTHER|Single group mean difference between baseline and post-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.8|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Baseline: 20 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
90912127|NCT04673851|181693285|OTHER|Effect size of single group mean difference between baseline and post-treatment assessments.|Cohen's d|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Baseline: 20 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
90912128|NCT04673851|181693285|OTHER|Single group mean difference between baseline and mid-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.67|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.29|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Midtreatment - Baseline: 30 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
90912129|NCT04673851|181693285|OTHER|Effect size of single group mean difference between baseline and mid-treatment assessments.|Cohen's d|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Midtreatment - Baseline: 30 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
90912130|NCT04673851|181693285|OTHER|Single group mean difference between baseline and post-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|2.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.47|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Baseline: 27 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
90871266|NCT00372112|181603332|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.12|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline potassium, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 100 mcg once daily for minimum potassium 0-4 h at Day 7.||-0.12|-0.97|
90871267|NCT00372112|181603332|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.12|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline potassium, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 400 mcg once daily for minimum potassium 0-4 h at Day 7.||-0.12|-0.98|
90912131|NCT04673851|181693285|OTHER|Effect size of single group mean difference between baseline and post-treatment assessments.|Cohen's d|0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Baseline: 27 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
90912132|NCT04673851|181693286|OTHER|Single group mean difference between baseline and mid-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.08|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Midtreatment - Baseline: 21 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
90912133|NCT04673851|181693286|OTHER|Effect size of single group mean difference between baseline and mid-treatment assessments.|Cohen's d|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Midtreatment - Baseline: 21 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
90912134|NCT04673851|181693286|OTHER|Single group mean difference between baseline and post-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.35|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.53|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Baseline: 20 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
90912135|NCT04673851|181693286|OTHER|Effect size of single group mean difference between baseline and post-treatment assessments.|Cohen's d|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Baseline: 20 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
90912136|NCT04673851|181693286|OTHER|Single group mean difference between baseline and mid-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.95|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Midtreatment - Baseline: 30 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
90912137|NCT04673851|181693286|OTHER|Effect size of single group mean difference between baseline and mid-treatment assessments.|Cohen's d|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Midtreatment - Baseline: 30 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
90912138|NCT04673851|181693286|OTHER|Single group mean difference between baseline and post-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.56|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.6|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Baseline: 27 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
90912139|NCT04673851|181693286|OTHER|Effect size of single group mean difference between baseline and post-treatment assessments.|Cohen's d|0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Baseline: 27 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
90912140|NCT04673851|181693287|OTHER|Single group mean difference between baseline and mid-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.29|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.27|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Midtreatment - Baseline: 21 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
90871268|NCT00372112|181603332|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.08|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline potassium, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus Salmeterol 50 mcg BD for minimum potassium 0-4 h at Day 7.||0.08|-0.76|
90871269|NCT00372112|181603332|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.33|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline potassium, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 100 mcg once daily for minimum potassium 0-4 h at Day 8.||0.33|-0.26|
90871270|NCT00372112|181603332|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.1|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline potassium, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 400 mcg once daily for minimum potassium 0-4 h at Day 8.||-0.10|-0.70|
90871271|NCT00372112|181603332|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.34|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline potassium, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus Salmeterol 50 mcg BD for minimum potassium 0-4 h at Day 8.||0.34|-0.26|
90871272|NCT00372112|181603332|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.12|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline potassium, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 100 mcg once daily for minimum potassium 0-4 h at Day 14.||0.12|-0.42|
90871273|NCT00372112|181603332|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.04|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline potassium, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 400 mcg once daily for minimum potassium 0-4 h at Day 14.||0.04|-0.51|
90871274|NCT00372112|181603332|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.21|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline potassium, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus Salmeterol 50 mcg BD for minimum potassium 0-4 h at Day 14.||0.21|-0.34|
90871275|NCT00372112|181603332|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.35|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline potassium, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 100 mcg once daily for minimum potassium 0-4 h at Day 15.||0.35|-0.25|
90871276|NCT00372112|181603332|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.05|||Regression, Linear|||Placebo versus GW642444 400 mcg once daily for minimum potassium 0-4 h at Day 15.||-0.05|-0.66|
90871277|NCT00372112|181603332|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.34|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline potassium, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus Salmeterol 50 mcg BD for minimum potassium 0-4 h at Day 15.||0.34|-0.26|
90871278|NCT04649060|181603345|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.184|||=|0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.052|0.65|||Log Rank|||||0.650|0.052|=0.0032
90871279|NCT04649060|181603346|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.03
90871280|NCT04649060|181603347|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.418||||0.525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.026|6.693|||Log Rank|||||6.693|0.026|0.525
90871281|NCT04649060|181603349|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0997|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0997
90871282|NCT04649060|181603350|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.111||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.013|0.96|||Log Rank|||||0.960|0.013|0.016
90871283|NCT04649060|181603352|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.231||||0.0187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.063|0.846|||Log Rank|||||0.846|0.063|0.0187
90871284|NCT04649060|181603353|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.224||||0.0384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.047|1.056|||Log Rank|||||1.056|0.047|0.0384
90871285|NCT04649060|181603354|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.47||||0.3721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.086|2.569|||Log Rank|||||2.569|0.086|0.3721
90871286|NCT01985867|181603370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.19||||0.399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|1.5|||risk analysis (prospective)|||||1.5|0.24|0.399
90871287|NCT01985867|181603371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.7|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.7|-0.6|0.589
90871288|NCT01985867|181603372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|4.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||4.0|0.5|0.005
90871289|NCT01985867|181603373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.0|0.0|0.659
90871290|NCT01985867|181603374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.0|0.0|0.790
90871291|NCT01985867|181603375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.0|0.0|0.698
90871292|NCT01985867|181603376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.3||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|6.2|||risk analysis (prospective)|||||6.2|0.9|0.120
90871293|NCT01985867|181603377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.116|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.116
90871294|NCT01985867|181603378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.8|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.8|-0.6|0.612
90871295|NCT01985867|181603379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||2.0|0.0|0.004
90871296|NCT01985867|181603380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.0|0.0|0.708
90871297|NCT01985867|181603381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.0|-1.0|0.522
90912141|NCT04673851|181693287|OTHER|Effect size of single group mean difference between baseline and mid-treatment assessments.|Cohen's d|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Midtreatment - Baseline: 21 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
90912142|NCT04673851|181693287|OTHER|Single group mean difference between baseline and post-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|2.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.86|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Baseline: 20 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
90912143|NCT04673851|181693287|OTHER|Effect size of single group mean difference between baseline and post-treatment assessments.|Cohen's d|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Baseline: 20 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
90912144|NCT04673851|181693287|OTHER|Single group mean difference between baseline and mid-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|2.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.84|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Midtreatment - Baseline: 30 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
90871298|NCT01985867|181603382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.0|0.0|0.185
90871299|NCT01985867|181603383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.0|0.0|0.973
90871300|NCT01985867|181603384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.0|0.0|0.642
90871301|NCT02648178|181603400|OTHER|We used a linear mixed model to estimate associations between cigarette smoking and that of e-cigarette smoking, by week and their interactions. We also used the same model to estimate association between biomarkers such as NNAL (4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanol), Nicotine, Cotinine, Hydro and Creatinine and CO (Carbon Monoxide) level,by week and their interactions.||||||||||||We tested whether there were significant associations between cigarette smoking and e-cigarette smoking, as well as whether there were significant associations between biomarkers mentioned above with CO level.||We provided estimated values of coefficients from model and their 95% confidence intervals.|||We used a linear mixed model to estimate associations between cigarette smoking and that of e-cigarette smoking, week and their interactions. We also used the same model to estimate association between biomarkers such as NNAL, Nicotine, Cotinine, Hydro and Creatinine and CO level, week and their interactions.|||
90871302|NCT02205814|181603411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Fourhundred evaluable patients were supposed to provide approximately 80% power in rejecting the null hypothesis of equality between any dose of fasitibant and placebo based on previous results and an overall significance level of 5% (two-sided).|mixed linear model for repeated measures|||||||<0.05
90871303|NCT02205814|181603412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Fourhundred evaluable patients were supposed to provide approximately 80% power in rejecting the null hypothesis of equality between any dose of fasitibant and placebo based on previous results and an overall significance level of 5% (two-sided).|mixed linear model for repeated measures|||All secondary efficacy variables were analysed on the ITT population only. Multiplicity was adjusted using the Hochberg procedure. The continuous secondary efficacy variables were analysed over time and were treated in the same way as the primary efficacy variable with respective output.||||<0.05
90871304|NCT02397785|181603427|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8979|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||It was calculated that 52 participants (26 in each arm) was sufficient to detect a 30% reduction in the VAS score (⍺ = 0.05, β = 0.80) from baseline to 12 weeks using paired t-tests, assuming average pain of 80-90 on the VAS and 10% drop-out. Because stratified randomization was performed on the basis of levator ani muscle spasm, there was an imbalance between the size of the sham and active groups, and 58 subjects were ultimately recruited with approval from the Institutional Review Board.||||0.8979
90871305|NCT02397785|181603428|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9338|||||||Sign test|||||||0.9338
90871306|NCT02397785|181603429|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1568|||||||Sign test|||||||0.1568
90871307|NCT02397785|181603430|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3817|||||||Sign test|||||||0.3817
90871308|NCT02397785|181603431|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.286|||||||Sign test|||||||0.2860
90871309|NCT02397785|181603432|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2884|||||||Sign test|||||||0.2884
90871310|NCT02397785|181603433|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0855|||||||Sign test|||||||0.0855
90871311|NCT02397785|181603434|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0287|||||||Sign test|||||||0.0287
90871312|NCT02397785|181603435|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2887|||||||Sign test|||||||0.2887
90871313|NCT02397785|181603436|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9954|||||||Sign test|||||||0.9954
90871314|NCT02397785|181603437|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0574|||||||Sign test|||||||0.0574
90871315|NCT02397785|181603438|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7827|||||||Sign test|||||||0.7827
90871316|NCT02397785|181603439|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2114|||||||Sign test|||||||0.2114
90871317|NCT02397785|181603440|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4986|||||||Sign test|||||||0.4986
90871318|NCT02397785|181603441|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.461|||||||Sign test|||||||0.4610
90912145|NCT04673851|181693287|OTHER|Effect size of single group mean difference between baseline and mid-treatment assessments.|Cohen's d|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Midtreatment - Baseline: 30 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
90912146|NCT04673851|181693287|OTHER|Single group mean difference between baseline and post-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|6.48|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.5|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Baseline: 27 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
90912147|NCT04673851|181693287|OTHER|Effect size of single group mean difference between baseline and post-treatment assessments.|Cohen's d|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Baseline: 27 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
90871319|NCT02397785|181603442|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2556|||||||Sign test|||||||0.2556
90871320|NCT02397785|181603443|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0723|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0723
90871321|NCT02397785|181603444|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7456|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7456
90871322|NCT02397785|181603445|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.138|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1380
90871323|NCT02397785|181603446|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3155|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3155
90871324|NCT01288469|181603462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-55.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.62|-46.03||Threshold for significance ≤0.05.|ANCOVA||Alirocumab vs. placebo|Throughout the ANCOVA model, the Alirocumab + atorvastatin 80 mg group was compared to the placebo + atorvastatin 80 mg group using appropriate contrast and the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the difference was provided.||-46.03|-65.62|<0.0001
90871325|NCT01606436|181603475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.2|2.44||||||Comparison at 0.5 hours postdose.||2.44|-1.20|
90912148|NCT04673851|181693288|OTHER|Single group mean difference between mid-treatment and post-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|4.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.86|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Midtreatment: 19 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
90912149|NCT04673851|181693288|OTHER|Effect size of single group mean difference between mid-treatment and post-treatment assessments.|Cohen's d|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Midtreatment: 19 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
90912150|NCT04673851|181693288|OTHER|Single group mean difference between 1.5 month and mid-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.77|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.88|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Midtreatment - 1.5 Months: 30 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
90871326|NCT01606436|181603475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|2.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.05|4.73||||||Comparison at 2.0 hours postdose.||4.73|1.05|
90871327|NCT01606436|181603475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|2.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.28|3.95||||||Comparison at 3.0 hours postdose.||3.95|0.28|
90871328|NCT01606436|181603475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.36|3.32||||||Comparison at 4.0 hours postdose.||3.32|-0.36|
90871329|NCT01606436|181603475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.36|3.32||||||Comparison at 5.0 hours postdose.||3.32|-0.36|
90871330|NCT01606436|181603475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|3.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.64|5.32||||||Comparison at 6.0 hours postdose.||5.32|1.64|
90871331|NCT01606436|181603475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|2.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.27|3.97||||||Comparison at 8.0 hours postdose.||3.97|0.27|
90871332|NCT01606436|181603475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.17|3.51||||||Comparison at 12.0 hours postdose.||3.51|-0.17|
90871333|NCT01606436|181603475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.57|3.59||||||Comparison at 0.5 hours postdose.||3.59|-1.57|
90871334|NCT01606436|181603475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|4.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.4|7.57||||||Comparison at 2.0 hours postdose.||7.57|2.40|
90912151|NCT04673851|181693288|OTHER|Effect size of single group mean difference between 1.5 month and mid-treatment assessments.|Cohen's d|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Midtreatment - 1.5 Months: 30 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
90912152|NCT04673851|181693288|OTHER|Single group mean difference between 1.5 month and 4.5 month assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.78|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||4.5 Months - 1.5 Months: 27 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
90912153|NCT04673851|181693288|OTHER|Effect size of single group mean difference between 1.5 month and 4.5 month assessments.|Cohen's d|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||4.5 Months - 1.5 Months: 27 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
90912154|NCT04673851|181693288|OTHER|Single group mean difference between 1.5 month and post-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.63|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.95|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - 1.5 Months: 27 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
90912155|NCT04673851|181693288|OTHER|Effect size of single group mean difference between 1.5 month and post-treatment assessments.|Cohen's d|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - 1.5 Months: 27 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
90912156|NCT04673851|181693289|OTHER|Single group mean difference between mid-treatment and post-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.68|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.76|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Midtreatment: 19 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
90871335|NCT01606436|181603475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|6.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.71|8.86||||||Comparison at 3.0 hours postdose.||8.86|3.71|
90871336|NCT01606436|181603475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|6.35|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.78|8.93||||||Comparison at 4.0 hours postdose.||8.93|3.78|
90871337|NCT01606436|181603475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|4.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.11|7.31||||||Comparison at 12.0 hours postdose.||7.31|2.11|
90871338|NCT01911689|181603488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The independent T test was used to determine the differences for the T2\* value between the Control group and AP group.||||<0.01
90871339|NCT01911689|181603489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The independent T test was used to determine the differences for the T2\* value between the edematous AP and necrotizing AP||||0.05
90871340|NCT01911689|181603490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to assess the differences in the T2\* value between the mild, moderate, and severe AP groups according to the MRSI score.||||<0.01
90871341|NCT01911689|181603490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||compare the T2\* value in the mild and moderate AP according to MRSI||||0.0111
90871342|NCT01911689|181603490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||compare the T2\* value between the mild and severe AP||||0.002
90871343|NCT01911689|181603490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||compare the T2\* value between the moderate and severe AP according to MRSI||||0.071
90871344|NCT01911689|181603491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.629
90871345|NCT03334448|181603495|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Means|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.818|0.957||||||||0.957|0.818|
90912157|NCT04673851|181693289|OTHER|Effect size of single group mean difference between mid-treatment and post-treatment assessments.|Cohen's d|0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Midtreatment: 19 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
90912158|NCT04673851|181693289|OTHER|Single group mean difference between 1.5 month and mid-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.73|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Midtreatment - 1.5 Months: 30 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
90912159|NCT04673851|181693289|OTHER|Effect size of single group mean difference between 1.5 month and mid-treatment assessments.|Cohen's d|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Midtreatment - 1.5 Months: 30 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
90912160|NCT04673851|181693289|OTHER|Single group mean difference between 1.5 month and 4.5 month assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.56|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.44|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||4.5 Months - 1.5 Months: 27 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
90912161|NCT04673851|181693289|OTHER|Effect size of single group mean difference between 1.5 month and 4.5 month assessments.|Cohen's d|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||4.5 Months - 1.5 Months: 27 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
90912162|NCT04673851|181693289|OTHER|Single group mean difference between 1.5 month and post-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.59|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.15|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - 1.5 Months: 27 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
90871346|NCT03334448|181603496|SUPERIORITY||Ration of Lease Square Means|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|1.09||||||||1.09|0.83|
90871347|NCT02326025|181603497|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.964|1.13|||||Log(PK) is participant and treatment and random error, where participant is fitted as a random effect.|||1.13|0.964|
90871348|NCT02326025|181603497|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of LS Means|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.957|1.11||||||||1.11|0.957|
90871349|NCT02326025|181603498|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of LS Means|0.944|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.77|1.16||||||||1.16|0.770|
90871350|NCT02326025|181603498|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of LS Means|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.801|1.33||||||||1.33|0.801|
90871351|NCT02643082|181603529|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean ratio between treatments|1.75|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|1.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.86|1.65|<0.0001
90871352|NCT02643082|181603530|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean ratio between treatments|0.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.33|0.26|<0.0001
90871353|NCT02643082|181603531|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean ratio between treatments|0.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.33|0.25|<0.0001
90871354|NCT02643082|181603532|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean ratio between treatments|1.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.67|1.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.92|1.67|<0.0001
90871355|NCT02643082|181603533|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference Between Treatments|0.443|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.318|0.569|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.569|0.318|<0.0001
90871356|NCT02643082|181603534|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean ratio between treatments|0.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|0.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.92|0.82|<0.0001
90871357|NCT02289417|181603535|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Difference|19.2||||0.0142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|33.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification was based on baseline use of oral (PO) corticosteroids and previously used immunosuppressants (yes/no).|Stratified difference in percentages is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights, with 2-sided 95% CI based on the stratified Newcombe method.|||33.6|3.4|0.0142
90871358|NCT02289417|181603535|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Difference|7.7||||0.2689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|22.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification was based on baseline use of PO corticosteroids and previously used immunosuppressants (yes/no).|Stratified difference in percentages is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights, with 2-sided 95% CI based on the stratified Newcombe method|||22.0|-6.9|0.2689
90871359|NCT02289417|181603536|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Difference|14.6||||0.1224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|31.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification was based on baseline use of PO corticosteroids and previously used immunosuppressants (yes/no).|Stratified difference in percentages is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights, with 2-sided 95% CI based on the stratified Newcombe method.|||31.5|-3.6|0.1224
90871360|NCT02289417|181603536|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Difference|19.4||||0.0401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|36.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification was based on baseline use of PO corticosteroids and previously used immunosuppressants (yes/no).|Stratified difference in percentages is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights, with 2-sided 95% CI based on the stratified Newcombe method.|||36.0|1.1|0.0401
90871361|NCT02289417|181603537|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Difference|5.2||||0.2472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|16.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification was based on baseline use of PO corticosteroids and previously used immunosuppressants (yes/no).|Stratified difference in percentages is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights, with 2-sided 95% CI based on the stratified Newcombe method.|||16.7|-5.7|0.2472
90871362|NCT02289417|181603537|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Difference|3.1||||0.4628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|14.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification was based on baseline use of PO corticosteroids and previously used immunosuppressants (yes/no).|Stratified difference in percentages is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights, with 2-sided 95% CI based on the stratified Newcombe method.|||14.6|-7.5|0.4628
90871363|NCT02289417|181603538|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Difference|32.0||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.8|47.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification was based on baseline use of PO corticosteroids and previously used immunosuppressants (yes/no).|Stratified difference in percentages is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights, with 2-sided 95% CI based on the stratified Newcombe method.|||47.4|13.8|0.0005
90871364|NCT02289417|181603538|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Difference|3.7||||0.6878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|21.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification was based on baseline use of PO corticosteroids and previously used immunosuppressants (yes/no).|Stratified difference in percentages is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights, with 2-sided 95% CI based on the stratified Newcombe method.|||21.5|-14.4|0.6878
90871365|NCT02289417|181603539|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Difference|11.5||||0.1388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|26.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification was based on baseline use of PO corticosteroids and previously used immunosuppressants (yes/no).|Stratified difference in percentages is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights, with 2-sided 95% CI based on the stratified Newcombe method.|||26.1|-4.1|0.1388
90871366|NCT02289417|181603539|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Difference|13.5||||0.0788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|27.7||Stratification was based on baseline use of PO corticosteroids and previously used immunosuppressants (yes/no).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Stratified difference in percentages is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights, with 2-sided 95% CI based on the stratified Newcombe method.|||27.7|-1.6|0.0788
90871367|NCT02289417|181603540|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Difference|24.8||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.5|40.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification was based on baseline use of PO corticosteroids and previously used immunosuppressants (yes/no).|Stratified difference in percentages is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights, with 2-sided 95% CI based on the stratified Newcombe method.|||40.1|7.5|0.0046
90871368|NCT02289417|181603540|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Difference|6.0||||0.4476||95.0|-9.8|21.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification was based on baseline use of PO corticosteroids and previously used immunosuppressants (yes/no).|Stratified difference in percentages is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights, with 2-sided 95% CI based on the stratified Newcombe method.|||21.6|-9.8|0.4476
90871369|NCT02289417|181603541|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Difference|16.7||||0.0755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|33.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification was based on baseline use of PO corticosteroids and previously used immunosuppressants (yes/no).|Stratified difference in percentages is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights, with 2-sided 95% CI based on the stratified Newcombe method.|||33.5|-1.4|0.0755
90871370|NCT02289417|181603541|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Difference|19.8||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|36.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification was based on baseline use of PO corticosteroids and previously used immunosuppressants (yes/no).|Stratified difference in percentages is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights, with 2-sided 95% CI based on the stratified Newcombe method.|||36.4|1.5|0.0370
90871371|NCT02289417|181603542|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Difference|14.6||||0.1167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|31.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification was based on baseline use of PO corticosteroids and previously used immunosuppressants (yes/no).|Stratified difference in percentages is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights, with 2-sided 95% CI based on the stratified Newcombe method.|||31.4|-3.3|0.1167
90871372|NCT02289417|181603542|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Difference|18.1||||0.0534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|34.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification was based on baseline use of PO corticosteroids and previously used immunosuppressants (yes/no).|Stratified difference in percentages is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights, with 2-sided 95% CI based on the stratified Newcombe method.|||34.9|-0.3|0.0534
90871373|NCT02289417|181603543|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Difference|16.6||||0.0758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|33.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification was based on baseline use of PO corticosteroids and previously used immunosuppressants (yes/no).|Stratified difference in percentages is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights, with 2-sided 95% CI based on the stratified Newcombe method.|||33.3|-1.5|0.0758
90871374|NCT02289417|181603543|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Difference|32.5||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.9|47.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification was based on baseline use of PO corticosteroids and previously used immunosuppressants (yes/no).|Stratified difference in percentages is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights, with 2-sided 95% CI based on the stratified Newcombe method.|||47.5|14.9|0.0004
90912163|NCT04673851|181693289|OTHER|Effect size of single group mean difference between 1.5 month and post-treatment assessments.|Cohen's d|0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - 1.5 Months: 27 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
91033282|NCT03435081|181952496|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.273||0.433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.32|-0.75|0.433
91033283|NCT03435081|181952496|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.269||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|-0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.06|-1.12|0.029
91033284|NCT03435081|181952497|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.441||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|-0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.25|-1.99|0.012
90871375|NCT02725710|181603548|OTHER|||||||0.56|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.56
90871376|NCT01782222|181603561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.24||0.977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.42|2.5|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model for the change from Baseline to End of Maintenance containing treatment and disease stage as factors, and Baseline value as covariate.||||2.50|-2.42|0.977
90871377|NCT01782222|181603561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21||0.859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|2.18|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model for the change from Baseline to End of Maintenance containing treatment and disease stage as factors, and Baseline value as covariate.||||2.18|-2.61|0.859
90871378|NCT01782222|181603562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean|-7.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.53||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|-2.28|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model for the change from Baseline to End of Maintenance containing treatment and disease stage as factors, and Baseline value as covariate.||||-2.28|-12.30|0.005
90871379|NCT01782222|181603562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean|-6.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.45||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|-1.21|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model for the change from Baseline to End of Maintenance containing treatment and disease stage as factors, and Baseline value as covariate.||||-1.21|-10.90|0.015
90871380|NCT01782222|181603563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.46||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.17|1.76|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model for the change from Baseline to End of Maintenance containing treatment and disease stage as factors, and Baseline value as covariate.||||1.76|-8.17|0.200
90871381|NCT01782222|181603563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean|-3.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.55||0.239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.19|2.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model for the change from Baseline to End of Maintenance containing treatment and disease stage as factors, and Baseline value as covariate.||||2.10|-8.19|0.239
90871382|NCT01782222|181603564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean|-2.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.23||0.519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.48|4.31|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model for the change from Baseline to End of Maintenance containing treatment and disease stage as factors, and Baseline value as covariate.||||4.31|-8.48|0.519
90871383|NCT01782222|181603564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean|-5.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.15||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.29|1.17|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model for the change from Baseline to End of Maintenance containing treatment and disease stage as factors, and Baseline value as covariate.||||1.17|-11.29|0.111
90871384|NCT01782222|181603565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean|-3.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.39|0.15|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model for the change from Baseline to End of Treatment containing treatment and disease stage as factors, and Baseline value as covariate.||||0.15|-7.39|0.060
90871385|NCT01782222|181603565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean|-3.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.46|-0.3|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model for the change from Baseline to End of Treatment containing treatment and disease stage as factors, and Baseline value as covariate.||||-0.30|-7.46|0.034
90871386|NCT01782222|181603566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.4|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model for the change from Baseline to End of Maintenance containing treatment and disease stage as factors, and Baseline value as covariate.||||0.40|-1.16|0.334
90871387|NCT01782222|181603566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.77|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model for the change from Baseline to End of Maintenance containing treatment and disease stage as factors, and Baseline value as covariate.||||0.77|-0.74|0.968
90871388|NCT01782222|181603567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26||0.899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|2.66|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model for the change from Baseline to End of Maintenance containing treatment and disease stage as factors, and Baseline value as covariate.||||2.66|-2.34|0.899
90871389|NCT01782222|181603567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.19||0.785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.68|2.03|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model for the change from Baseline to End of Treatment containing treatment and disease stage as factors, and Baseline value as covariate.||||2.03|-2.68|0.785
90871390|NCT01782222|181603568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean|-4.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.99||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.91|-1.01|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model for the change from Baseline to End of Maintenance containing treatment and disease stage as factors, and Baseline value as covariate.||||-1.01|-8.91|0.014
90871391|NCT01782222|181603568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean|-4.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.92||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.63|-1.03|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model for the change from Baseline to End of Maintenance containing treatment and disease stage as factors, and Baseline value as covariate.||||-1.03|-8.63|0.013
90871392|NCT00064844|181603622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||chi square|7.25|||<|0.01||95.0|||||Chi-squared|df = 1, N = 96||||||<0.01
90912164|NCT04673851|181693290|OTHER|Single group mean difference between mid-treatment and post-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|2.42|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.48|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Midtreatment: 19 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
90912165|NCT04673851|181693290|OTHER|Effect size of single group mean difference between mid-treatment and post-treatment assessments.|Cohen's d|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Midtreatment: 19 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
90912166|NCT04673851|181693290|OTHER|Single group mean difference between 1.5 month and mid-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.83|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.05|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Midtreatment - 1.5 Months: 30 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
90912167|NCT04673851|181693290|OTHER|Effect size of single group mean difference between 1.5 month and mid-treatment assessments.|Cohen's d|0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Midtreatment - 1.5 Months: 30 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
90912168|NCT04673851|181693290|OTHER|Single group mean difference between 1.5 month and 4.5 month assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.41|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.55|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||4.5 Months - 1.5 Months: 27 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
90912169|NCT04673851|181693290|OTHER|Effect size of single group mean difference between 1.5 month and 4.5 month assessments.|Cohen's d|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||4.5 Months - 1.5 Months: 27 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
90912170|NCT04673851|181693290|OTHER|Single group mean difference between 1.5 month and post-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.12|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - 1.5 Months: 27 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
90912171|NCT04673851|181693290|OTHER|Effect size of single group mean difference between 1.5 month and post-treatment assessments.|Cohen's d|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - 1.5 Months: 27 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
90912172|NCT03399370|181693329|SUPERIORITY|LS Mean Difference (95% CI) from Placebo|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-57.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.86|-54.43||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|ANCOVA||Represents the least squares mean difference from Placebo|||-54.43|-60.86|<.0001
90912173|NCT03399370|181693330|SUPERIORITY|LS Mean Difference (95% CI) from Placebo|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-53.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.23|-51.33||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|ANCOVA||Represents the least squares mean difference from Placebo|||-51.33|-56.23|<0.0001
90912174|NCT03399370|181693331|SUPERIORITY|LS Mean Difference (95% CI) from Placebo|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-54.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.37|-50.88||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|ANCOVA||Represents the least squares mean difference from Placebo|||-50.88|-57.37|<0.0001
90912175|NCT03399370|181693332|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-53.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.75|-50.8||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|ANCOVA||Represents the least squares mean difference from Placebo|||-50.80|-55.75|<0.0001
90912176|NCT03399370|181693333|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-83.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-89.25|-77.34||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|ANCOVA||Represents the least squares mean difference from Placebo|||-77.34|-89.25|<0.0001
90912177|NCT03399370|181693334|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-33.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.3|-30.97||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|ANCOVA||Represents the least squares mean difference from Placebo|||-30.97|-35.30|<0.0001
90912178|NCT03399370|181693335|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-43.09|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.5|-40.67||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|ANCOVA||Represents the least squares mean difference from Placebo|||-40.67|-45.50|<.0001
90871393|NCT01428453|181603623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|39.8||||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|92.0|||ANCOVA|The analysis method was ANCOVA adjusted for Treatment, Baseline CSF Abeta1-42 and Age.|Comparison of CSF Abeta42 between placebo and rilapladib 250 mg.|||92.0|-12.4|0.133
90871394|NCT01428453|181603623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-250.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|265.66||0.829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-771.9|271.2|||ANCOVA|The analysis method was ANCOVA adjusted for Treatment, Baseline CSF Abeta1-40 and Age.|Comparison of CSF Abeta40 between placebo and rilapladib 250 mg.|||271.2|-771.9|0.829
90912179|NCT03399370|181693336|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-47.36|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.25|-44.47||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|ANCOVA||Represents the least squares mean difference from Placebo|||-44.47|-50.25|<0.0001
90912180|NCT05819190|181693362|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0192|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the mean AUC of WURSS-21 scores assessed during the first 8 days of the study between both groups - FAS set||||0.0192
90912181|NCT05819190|181693363|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0296|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the mean AUC of WURSS-21 scores assessed during the first 8 days of the study between both groups - PP set||||0.0296
90912182|NCT05819190|181693364|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0085|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0085
90912183|NCT05819190|181693365|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0081|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0081
90912184|NCT05819190|181693366|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0050
91033285|NCT03435081|181952497|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.433||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|-0.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.51|-2.22|0.002
90871395|NCT01428453|181603624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.016|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.003|0.036|||||The analysis method was ANCOVA adjusted for Treatment, Baseline CSF Ratio Abeta1-42/Abeta1-40 and Age.|||0.036|-0.003|
90912185|NCT05819190|181693367|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0107|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0107
90912186|NCT05819190|181693368|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0424|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0424
90912187|NCT05819190|181693369|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43||||||one sided test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||0.05 global significance level (type I error rate)||||0.430
90912188|NCT05819190|181693370|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.339|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|one sided test||0.05 global significance level (type I error rate)||||0.339
90871396|NCT01428453|181603625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-57.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|44.4||0.902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-144.5|30.3|||ANCOVA|The analysis method was ANCOVA adjusted for Treatment, Baseline CSF tau and Age.|Comparison of CSF tau between placebo and rilapladib 250 mg.|||30.3|-144.5|0.902
90912189|NCT05819190|181693371|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.704|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|one sided test||0.05 global significance level (type I error rate)||||0.704
90912190|NCT05819190|181693372|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.298|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|One sided test||0.05 global significance level (type I error rate)||||0.298
90871397|NCT01428453|181603625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.46||0.892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|1.8|||ANCOVA|The analysis method was ANCOVA adjusted for Treatment, Baseline CSF P-tau and Age.|Comparison of P-tau between placebo and rilapladib 250 mg.|||1.8|-7.9|0.892
90871398|NCT01428453|181603626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.167||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.021|0.313||The analysis method was Mixed-Model Repeated Measures adjusted for Treatment, Visit, Baseline Working Memory/Executive Function Composite Score, Treatment by Visit and Baseline Working Memory/Executive Function Composite Score by Visit.|Mixed-Model Repeated Measures analysis||A positive treatment difference indicates benefit, relative to placebo.|||0.313|0.021|0.026
90871399|NCT01428453|181603627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.256||0.828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.26|||ANCOVA|The analysis method was ANCOVA adjusted for Treatment, Baseline CSF Albumin Quotient and Age.||||0.26|-0.74|0.828
90871400|NCT01428453|181603628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|1.2|||Mixed-Model Repeated Measures analysis||Comparison of Abeta42 between placebo and rilapladib 250 mg. The analysis method for Plasma parameters was Mixed-Model Repeated Measures adjusted for Treatment, Visit, Baseline, Treatment by Visit, Baseline by Visit and Age.|||1.2|-3.9|
90871401|NCT01428453|181603628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0||||||95.0|-10.2|12.2|||Mixed-Model Repeated Measures analysis||Comparison of Abeta40 between placebo and rilapladib 250 mg. The analysis method for Plasma parameters was Mixed-Model Repeated Measures adjusted for Treatment, Visit, Baseline, Treatment by Visit, Baseline by Visit and Age.|||12.2|-10.2|
90871402|NCT01428453|181603629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.003|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.016|0.01|||Mixed-Model Repeated Measures analysis||The analysis method for Plasma parameters was Mixed-Model Repeated Measures adjusted for Treatment, Visit, Baseline, Treatment by Visit, Baseline by Visit and Age.|||0.010|-0.016|
90871403|NCT01428453|181603631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.067|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.191|0.057|||Mixed-Model Repeated Measures analysis||"The analysis method was Mixed-Model Repeated Measures adjusted for Treatment, Visit, Baseline Score, Treatment by Visit and Baseline Score by Visit. A positive treatment difference indicates benefit, relative to placebo.~placebo."|||0.057|-0.191|
90871404|NCT01428453|181603631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.138||||0.982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.267||The analysis method was Mixed-Model Repeated Measures adjusted for Treatment, Visit, Baseline Overall Composite Score, Treatment by Visit and Baseline Overall Composite Score by Visit.|Mixed-Model Repeated Measures analysis|The probability (effect size) for change from Baseline in CogState battery overall composite score \>0 is presented.|A positive treatment difference indicates benefit, relative to placebo. Comparison of overall composite score between placebo and rilapladib 250 mg at Week 24.|||0.267|0.010|0.982
90871405|NCT01428453|181603632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.063|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.257|0.13|||Mixed-Model Repeated Measures analysis|The analysis method was Mixed-Model Repeated Measures adjusted for Treatment, Visit, Baseline Score, Treatment by Visit and Baseline Score by Visit.|Comparison of attention composite score between placebo and rilapladib 250 mg at Week 12. A positive treatment difference indicates benefit, relative to placebo.|||0.130|-0.257|
90912191|NCT05819190|181693373|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.906|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|one sided test||0.05 global significance level (type I error rate)||||0.906
90912192|NCT05819190|181693374|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.582|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|one sided test||0.05 global significance level (type I error rate)||||0.582
90912193|NCT05819190|181693375|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.743|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|one sided test||0.05 global significance level (type I error rate)||||0.743
90912194|NCT05819190|181693376|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.605|||||||Fisher Exact|One sided test||0.05 global significance level (type I error rate)||||0.605
91033286|NCT03435081|181952498|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.69||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|3.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.20|0.90|0.105
91033287|NCT03435081|181952498|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|6.68|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.68|2.02|<0.001
90871406|NCT01428453|181603632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.269|||Mixed-Model Repeated Measures analysis|The analysis method was Mixed-Model Repeated Measures adjusted for Treatment, Visit, Baseline Score, Treatment by Visit and Baseline Score by Visit.|Comparison of attention composite score between placebo and rilapladib 250 mg at Week 24. A positive treatment difference indicates benefit, relative to placebo.|||0.269|-0.130|
90871407|NCT03918447|181603637|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means Difference|0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.122|=|0.3886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|3.19|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with baseline eGFR as a covariate, and treatment group as fixed effects.||3.19|-1.25|=0.3886
90871408|NCT03918447|181603639|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means Difference|7.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.777|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.41|9.47|||MMRM|||Mixed model repeated measure (MMRM) model used baseline eGFR as a covariate, and the following fixed factors: treatment group, time (Week 1 to 100, excluding Week 52), and the interaction between treatment and time. Within-participant errors are modeled using an unstructured covariance matrix.||9.47|6.41|<0.0001
90912195|NCT05819190|181693377|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|one sided test||0.05 global significance level (type I error rate)||||1.000
90912196|NCT05819190|181693378|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.988|||||||Fisher Exact|One sided test||0.05 global significance level (type I error rate)||||0.988
90912197|NCT05819190|181693379|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.483|||||||Fisher Exact|one sided test||0.05 global significance level (type I error rate)||||0.483
91033288|NCT03435081|181952499|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.81||||0.144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|22.85|||Regression, Logistic|||||22.85|0.63|0.144
90912198|NCT01656304|181693382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate|0.333|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1217|||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.2|0.5||||||||.50|.20|
90912199|NCT01093534|181693412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.169||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.368|0.03||Hochberg Method for controlling the overall risk of type I error of 5% was used to adjust for using two co-primary endpoints.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with fixed effects for treatment and region and Baseline of least squares mean BWT as a covariate.||The null hypothesis was that the mean change from Baseline in BWT in the pooled solifenacin group and placebo was the same. Estimated as two-sided contrast with 95% confidence interval. Power was planned for 80% (assumption: mean difference = 0.5 mm, standard deviation=1.65, 314 and 157 participants, bonferroni adjustment for alpha =0.025)||0.030|-0.368|0.095
90912200|NCT01093534|181693413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.25||||||Hochberg Method for controlling the overall risk of type I error of 5% was used to adjust for using two co-primary endpoints.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Nonparametric Wilcoxon rank-sum test does not adjust for other factors.||The null hypothesis for the co-primary treatment comparison was that the mean free (neutralized) uNGF/Cr value in the pooled solifenacin group and placebo was the same. Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used instead of a contrast from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), because data was not normally distributed. Power was planned for 80% (assumption: mean difference = 0.74 pg/μmol, standard deviation=2.0, 220 and 110 participants, bonferroni adjustment for alpha =0.025).||||0.250
90912201|NCT02124460|181693491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.3928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.03|||Linear repeated measures|Multiple imputation was used for missing follow-up data.|Health Coaching group compared to Enhanced Primary Care|||0.03|-0.08|0.3928
90912202|NCT02124460|181693492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.89||||0.2306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|2.33|||Linear repeated measures|Multiple imputation used for missing data at follow-up|Health Coaching group compared to Enhanced Primary Care|||2.33|-0.56|0.2306
90912203|NCT02124460|181693493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.16|||Linear repeated measures|Multiple imputation used for missing data at follow-up|Health Coaching group compared to Enhanced Primary Care.|||0.16|-0.02|.14
90912204|NCT02124460|181693494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.19|||Linear repeated measures|Multiple imputation used for missing data at follow-up.||||-0.19|-0.81|0.0016
90912205|NCT02124460|181693495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.62||Multiple imputation used for missing data at follow-up.|Linear repeated measures|||||0.62|0.22|<.0001
90912206|NCT02124460|181693496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.18||||0.3043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.53|||Linear repeated measures|Multiple imputation used for missing data at follow-up.||||0.53|-0.16|0.3043
90912207|NCT02124460|181693497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32||||0.0113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.56|||Linear repeated measures|Multiple imputation used for missing data at follow-up.||||0.56|0.07|0.0113
90912208|NCT02124460|181693498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.21||||0.0792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.03|||Linear repeated measures|Multiple imputation used for missing data at follow-up.||||0.03|-0.45|0.0792
90912209|NCT00392678|181693519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
90912210|NCT03008915|181693526|OTHER|Paired t-test for participants with measures on both aspirin and placebo.||||||0.692|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between measures on aspirin and placebo.||||0.692
90912211|NCT00712166|181693531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8||||0.433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.83|6.44||"The primary endpoint analysis was based on a two-sided test with an 0.05 a priori threshold for statistical significance.~A gate-keeper approach was established a priori to control the type 1 error rate, however, the primary endpoint was not met."|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included: treatment, baseline CFQ-R RSS, age group (\<18, \>=18 years). Denominator degrees of freedom computed with Satterthwaite approximation.||"Null hypothesis was there was no difference between 75 mg AZLI TID and placebo treatment groups in change from baseline in CFQ-R RSS score at Day 28.~At the 5% significance level (i.e., α = 0.05) using a two-sided significance test, a sample size of 70 participants per treatment group provided at least 90% power to detect a 10 point difference between groups in the mean change from baseline at Day 28 in the CFQ-R RSS score, assuming a common standard deviation (SD) of 17.5."||6.44|-2.83|0.433
90912212|NCT00712166|181693532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.37||||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|7.78||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included terms: treatment, baseline CFQ-R RSS, age group (\<18, \>=18 years). Treatment differences were calculated as AZLI-placebo.||Null hypothesis was there was no difference between 75 mg AZLI TID and placebo treatment groups in change from baseline in the CFQ-R RSS score at Day 14.||7.78|-1.04|0.133
90912213|NCT00712166|181693533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.56|4.76||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline CFQ-R RSS and age group (\<18 years, \>=18 years). Treatment differences calculated as AZLI-placebo.||Null hypothesis was there was no difference between 75 mg AZLI TID and placebo treatment groups in change from baseline in the CFQ-R RSS score at Day 42.||4.76|-4.56|0.965
90912214|NCT00712166|181693534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.47||||0.256||95.0|-1.81|6.76||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included: treatment, baseline CFQ-R Physical Function Domain score and age (\<18, \>=18 years). Treatment differences calculated as AZLI-placebo.||Null hypothesis was there was no difference between 75 mg AZLI TID and placebo treatment groups in change from baseline in the CFQ-R physical functioning domain score at Day 28.||6.76|-1.81|0.256
90912215|NCT00712166|181693535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999||0.0||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|A participant with multiple usage was counted only once.||Null hypothesis was there was no difference between 75 mg AZLI TID and placebo treatment groups in number of participants using additional (nonprotocol-specified) antipseudomonal antibiotics during study.||||>0.999
90871409|NCT01774968|181603644|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A non-inferiority margin of 0.4% was used.|LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.3709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Approximately 325 participants were to be randomized (in a 1:1 ratio of U-500R insulin TID:BID) and 260 were to complete the study (with a 20% dropout rate). The 260 completers would provide a 66.4% chance to show equivalence of TID and BID algorithms, 14.4% chance to show noninferiority of TID, 2.5% chance to superiority of TID, 14.4% chance to show noninferiority of BID, and 2.5% chance to show superiority of BID, assuming a difference in HbA1c change of 0% and a standard deviation of 1.1%.||0.12|-0.33|0.3709
90871410|NCT05355805|181603660|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.075||0.3055|TWO_SIDED|||||The estimated risk difference divided by the standard error was used as the test statistic and a p-value calculated assuming that the test statistic follows a standard normal distribution under the null hypothesis.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"The common risk difference between placebo QW/Q2W and the izokibep 160 mg QW arm among the four strata, prior biologic/Janus Kinase (JAK) inhibitor use for HS (Yes/No) and Hurley Stage (II or III), used for randomization and associated standard error was estimated by combining the observed risk differences using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting.~Non-response imputation was used for participants with missing HiSCR75."||||0.3055
90871411|NCT05355805|181603660|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.427||0.6192|TWO_SIDED|||||The estimated risk difference divided by the standard error was used as the test statistic and a p-value calculated assuming that the test statistic follows a standard normal distribution under the null hypothesis.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"The common risk difference between placebo QW/Q2W and the izokibep 160 mg Q2W arm among the four strata, prior biologic/JAK inhibitor use for HS (Yes/No) and Hurley Stage (II or III), used for randomization and associated standard error was estimated by combining the observed risk differences using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting.~Non-response imputation was used for participants with missing HiSCR75."||||0.6192
90871412|NCT05355805|181603663|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.229||0.1606|TWO_SIDED|||||The estimated risk difference divided by the standard error was used as the test statistic and a p-value calculated assuming that the test statistic follows a standard normal distribution under the null hypothesis.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"The common risk difference between placebo QW/Q2W and the izokibep 160 mg QW arm among the four strata, prior biologic/JAK inhibitor use for HS (Yes/No) and Hurley Stage (II or III), used for randomization and associated standard error will be estimated by combining the observed risk differences using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting.~Non-response imputation was used for participants with missing HiSCR90."||||0.1606
90871413|NCT05355805|181603663|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.294||0.5116|TWO_SIDED|||||The estimated risk difference divided by the standard error was used as the test statistic and a p-value calculated assuming that the test statistic follows a standard normal distribution under the null hypothesis.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"The common risk difference between placebo QW/Q2W and the izokibep 160 mg Q2W arm among the four strata, prior biologic/JAK inhibitor use for HS (Yes/No) and Hurley Stage (II or III), used for randomization and associated standard error will be estimated by combining the observed risk differences using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting.~Non-response imputation was used for participants with missing HiSCR90."||||0.5116
90871414|NCT05355805|181603664|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.019||0.0514|TWO_SIDED|||||The estimated risk difference divided by the standard error was used as the test statistic and a p-value calculated assuming that the test statistic follows a standard normal distribution under the null hypothesis.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"The common risk difference between placebo QW/Q2W and the izokibep 160 mg QW arm among the four strata, prior biologic/JAK inhibitor use for HS (Yes/No) and Hurley Stage (II or III), used for randomization and associated standard error will be estimated by combining the observed risk differences using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting.~Non-response imputation was used for participants with missing HiSCR100."||||0.0514
90871415|NCT05355805|181603664|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.764||0.3322|TWO_SIDED|||||The estimated risk difference divided by the standard error was used as the test statistic and a p-value calculated assuming that the test statistic follows a standard normal distribution under the null hypothesis.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"The common risk difference between placebo QW/Q2W and the izokibep 160 mg Q2W arm among the four strata, prior biologic/JAK inhibitor use for HS (Yes/No) and Hurley Stage (II or III), used for randomization and associated standard error will be estimated by combining the observed risk differences using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting.~Non-response imputation was used for participants with missing HiSCR100."||||0.3322
90912216|NCT00712166|181693536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.122||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|A participant with multiple hospitalizations was counted only once.||Null hypothesis was there was no difference between 75 mg AZLI TID and placebo treatment groups in proportion of participants hospitalized.||||0.122
91033289|NCT03435081|181952499|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.1||||0.227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|19.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||19.40|0.50|0.227
90971063|NCT00385255|181824665|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was defined as the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference between the two groups (Boostrix+ Fluarix 19-64 YOA Group minus Fluarix Boostrix 19-64 YOA Group), in terms of percentage of subjects with anti-T antibody concentrations ≥ 0.1 IU/mL, being ≥ - 10%.|Difference in percentage|-1.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.96|-0.74||||||Difference in seroprotection rates against tetanus toxoid: To demonstrate that the immunogenicity of Boostrix® vaccine co-administered with Fluarix® vaccine (Boostrix+Fluarix 19-64 YOA Group) at Day 0, was non-inferior to that of Boostrix® vaccine administered alone at Month 1 (Fluarix Boostrix 19-64 YOA Group), in terms of seroprotection rates for anti-T antibody, one month post-Boostrix® vaccination.||-0.74|-2.96|
90871416|NCT05355805|181603665|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.78||0.3258|TWO_SIDED|||||The estimated risk difference divided by the standard error was used as the test statistic and a p-value calculated assuming that the test statistic follows a standard normal distribution under the null hypothesis.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"The common risk difference between placebo QW/Q2W and the izokibep 160 mg QW arm among the four strata, prior biologic/JAK inhibitor use for HS (Yes/No) and Hurley Stage (II or III), used for randomization and associated standard error will be estimated by combining the observed risk differences using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting.~Non-response imputation was used for participants with missing HiSCR50."||||0.3258
90871417|NCT05355805|181603665|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.775||0.4068|TWO_SIDED|||||The estimated risk difference divided by the standard error was used as the test statistic and a p-value calculated assuming that the test statistic follows a standard normal distribution under the null hypothesis.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"The common risk difference between placebo QW/Q2W and the izokibep 160 mg Q2W arm among the four strata, prior biologic/JAK inhibitor use for HS (Yes/No) and Hurley Stage (II or III), used for randomization and associated standard error will be estimated by combining the observed risk differences using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting.~Non-response imputation was used for participants with missing HiSCR50."||||0.4068
90871418|NCT05355805|181603666|SUPERIORITY|Predictors in the regression model for missing values at Week 16 are Baseline Hurley stage, baseline abscess count, baseline inflammatory nodule count, baseline draining fistula count, sex, race, age, BMI and Prior Biologic/JAK inhibitor use for HS plus counts of abscess, inflammatory nodule, and draining fistula at prior scheduled assessment. Missing flare values in both the placebo and izokibep groups are imputed using observed data from the placebo group only.|Risk Difference (RD)|-7.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.661||0.3329|TWO_SIDED|||||The estimated risk difference divided by the standard error will be used as the test statistic and a p-value calculated assuming that the test statistic follows a standard normal distribution under the null hypothesis.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"The common risk difference between placebo QW/Q2W and the izokibep 160 mg QW arm among the four strata, prior biologic/JAK inhibitor use for HS (Yes/No) and Hurley Stage (II or III), used for randomization and associated standard error will be estimated by combining the observed risk differences using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting.~Missing data of abscess and inflammatory nodules counts at scheduled visits are imputed assuming monotone missingness pattern."||||0.3329
90871419|NCT05355805|181603666|SUPERIORITY|Predictors in the regression model for missing values at Week 16 are Baseline Hurley stage, baseline abscess count, baseline inflammatory nodule count, baseline draining fistula count, sex, race, age, BMI and Prior Biologic/JAK inhibitor use for HS plus counts of abscess, inflammatory nodule, and draining fistula at prior scheduled assessment. Missing flare values in both the placebo and izokibep groups are imputed using observed data from the placebo group only.|Risk Difference (RD)|4.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.574||0.5882|TWO_SIDED|||||The estimated risk difference divided by the standard error was used as the test statistic and a p-value calculated assuming that the test statistic follows a standard normal distribution under the null hypothesis.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"The common risk difference between placebo QW/Q2W and the izokibep 160 mg Q2W arm among the four strata, prior biologic/JAK inhibitor use for HS (Yes/No) and Hurley Stage (II or III), used for randomization and associated standard error will be estimated by combining the observed risk differences using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting.~Missing data of abscess and inflammatory nodules counts at scheduled visits are imputed assuming monotone missingness pattern."||||0.5882
90871420|NCT05355805|181603667|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.995||0.5422|TWO_SIDED|||||The estimated risk difference divided by the standard error was used as the test statistic and a p-value calculated assuming that the test statistic follows a standard normal distribution under the null hypothesis.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The common risk difference between placebo QW/Q2W and the izokibep 160 mg QW arm among the four strata, prior biologic/JAK inhibitor use for HS (Yes/No), used for randomization and associated standard error will be estimated by combining the observed risk differences using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting.||||0.5422
90871421|NCT05355805|181603667|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.77||0.6569|TWO_SIDED|||||The estimated risk difference divided by the standard error was used as the test statistic and a p-value calculated assuming that the test statistic follows a standard normal distribution under the null hypothesis.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The common risk difference between placebo QW/Q2W and the izokibep 160 mg Q2W arm among the four strata, prior biologic/JAK inhibitor use for HS (Yes/No), used for randomization and associated standard error will be estimated by combining the observed risk differences using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting.||||0.6569
90871422|NCT05355805|181603668|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.951||0.4031|TWO_SIDED|||||The estimated risk difference divided by the standard error was used as the test statistic and a p-value calculated assuming that the test statistic follows a standard normal distribution under the null hypothesis.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The common risk difference between placebo QW/Q2W and the izokibep 160 mg QW arm among the four strata, prior biologic/JAK inhibitor use for HS (Yes/No) and Hurley Stage (II or III), used for randomization and associated standard error will be estimated by combining the observed risk differences using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting.||||0.4031
90912217|NCT00712166|181693539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.21||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.23||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included treatment, baseline log10 CFU, and age group (\<18, \>=18 years). Treatment differences were calculated as AZLI-placebo.||Null hypothesis was there was no difference between 75 mg AZLI TID and placebo treatment groups in change from baseline in the log10 CFU at Day 28.||-0.23|-2.20|0.016
91033290|NCT03435081|181952500|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.921||0.316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.67|3.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.79|-11.67|0.316
91033291|NCT03435081|181952500|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.758||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.23|-4.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.40|-19.23|0.002
90912218|NCT00712166|181693540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.73||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|5.04||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment, baseline FEV1 % predicted, and age group (\<18, \>=18 years). Treatment differences were calculated as AZLI-placebo.||Null hypothesis was there was no difference between 75 mg AZLI TID and placebo treatment groups in % change from baseline in FEV1 % predicted at Day 28.||5.04|0.42|0.021
90912219|NCT05147233|181693557|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|33.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.5|44.9|||Wald test|||||44.9|21.5|<0.0001
90912220|NCT05147233|181693558|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|23.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.7|35.3|||Wald test|||||35.3|11.7|<0.0001
90912221|NCT02878850|181693566|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.95||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.85|12.75|||t-test, 2 sided|||||12.75|-6.85|0.55
90912222|NCT02878850|181693567|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.63||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.48|11.21|||ANCOVA|||||11.21|-12.48|0.92
90912223|NCT02878850|181693568|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.35||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|2.53|||ANCOVA|||||2.53|-1.83|0.75
90912224|NCT02878850|181693569|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.94||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.64|6.53|||ANCOVA|||||6.53|-2.64|0.40
90912225|NCT02878850|181693570|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.0|||<|0.001||95.0|1.36|2.94|||Chi-squared|||||2.94|1.36|<0.001
90912226|NCT02878850|181693571|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.08||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|3.65|||Chi-squared|||||3.65|0.44|0.87
90912227|NCT02878850|181693572|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.62||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|1.32|||ANCOVA|||||1.32|-0.08|0.08
90912228|NCT02878850|181693573|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.73||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.84|6.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||6.10|-16.84|0.35
90912229|NCT02878850|181693574|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-35.37||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.87|-1.87|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-1.87|-68.87|0.04
90912230|NCT04517864|181693575|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0382|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.056|0.097||There was no formal statistical hypothesis testing for this study, and hence there was no P-value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear Mixed-effects Model: baseline, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit interaction as fixed effects; participant as a random effect||||0.097|-0.056|
90912231|NCT04517864|181693576|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.009|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0307|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.052|0.07||There was no formal statistical hypothesis testing for this study, and hence there was no P-value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed-effects model: baseline, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit interaction as fixed effects; participant as a random effect||||0.070|-0.052|
90912232|NCT04517864|181693577|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0297|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.065|0.053||There was no formal statistical hypothesis testing for this study, and hence there was no P-value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear Mixed-effects Model: baseline, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit interaction as fixed effects; participant as a random effect||||0.053|-0.065|
90912233|NCT04517864|181693579|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0235|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|0.088||There was no formal statistical hypothesis testing for this study, and hence there was no P-value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed-effects model: baseline, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit interaction as fixed effects; participant as a random effect||||0.088|-0.005|
90912234|NCT04517864|181693585|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0224|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.059|0.03||There was no formal statistical hypothesis testing for this study, and hence there was no P-value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed-effects model: baseline, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit interaction as fixed effects; participant as a random effect||Month 6||0.030|-0.059|
90912235|NCT04517864|181693585|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0236|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.107|-0.012||There was no formal statistical hypothesis testing for this study, and hence there was no P-value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed-effects model: baseline, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit interaction as fixed effects; participant as a random effect||Month 9||-0.012|-0.107|
90912236|NCT04517864|181693587|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.028|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0242|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.076|0.02||There was no formal statistical hypothesis testing for this study, and hence there was no P-value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed-effects model: baseline, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit interaction as fixed effects; participant as a random effect||Month 6||0.020|-0.076|
90912237|NCT04517864|181693587|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0261|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.049|0.056||There was no formal statistical hypothesis testing for this study, and hence there was no P-value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed-effects model: baseline, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit interaction as fixed effects; participant as a random effect||Month 9||0.056|-0.049|
90912238|NCT04541303|181693611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028|||||||None specified|||||||.028
90912239|NCT03351075|181693621|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.31||||0.5163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.28|2.65||No corrections for multiple testing were performed.|Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||The sample size was based on comparing the changes for the primary outcome measure (PDI-DLV) at 12 months after surgery. The calculation was based on comparing the values at 12 months. Assuming a coefficient of variation (CV) equal to 0.5, 87 participants per group were needed based on a two-sample pooled t-test of a mean ratio with lognormal data and α=0.05 to detect with 80% power a difference of 20% in PDI. To anticipate a drop-out ratio of 5%, a total of 184 subjects were needed.||2.65|-5.28|0.5163
91033292|NCT03435081|181952501|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|6.78|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.78|0.29|0.683
90912240|NCT03351075|181693622|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.97||||0.5655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.26|2.33||No corrections for multiple testing were performed.|multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in self-reported pain-related disability from baseline to 4 months||2.33|-4.26|0.5655
90912241|NCT03351075|181693622|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.07||||0.5592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.64|2.51||P\<.05 was considered significant. No corrections for multiple testing were performed.|multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in self-reported pain-related disability from baseline to 1.5 years||2.51|-4.64|0.5592
90912242|NCT03351075|181693623|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.23||||0.563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.84|5.37||No corrections for multiple testing were performed.|Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in self-reported pain intensity from baseline to 4 months||5.37|-9.84|0.5630
90912243|NCT03351075|181693623|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.3||||0.2524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.68|3.09||No corrections for multiple testing were performed.|Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in self-reported pain intensity from baseline to 12 months||3.09|-11.68|0.2524
90912244|NCT03351075|181693623|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.8||||0.2315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.69|3.09|||Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in self-reported pain intensity from baseline to 1.5 years||3.09|-12.69|0.2315
90912245|NCT03351075|181693624|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.47||||0.7494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.39|3.32||No corrections for multiple testing were performed.|Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in self-reported central sensitisation symptoms from baseline to 4 months.||3.32|-2.39|0.7494
90912246|NCT03351075|181693624|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.25||||0.8617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|2.58|||Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||The difference in change in self-reported central sensitisation symptoms from baseline to 12 months.||2.58|-3.09|0.8617
90912247|NCT03351075|181693624|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.29||||0.8454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.16|2.59|||Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in self-reported central sensitisation symptoms from baseline to 1.5 years||2.59|-3.16|0.8454
90912248|NCT03351075|181693625|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.35||||0.3463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.51|||multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in mechanical detection sensitivity at the arm from baseline to 4 months||2.51|0.72|0.3463
90912249|NCT03351075|181693625|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.86||||0.6613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.451|1.66|||Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in mechanical detection sensitivity at the arm from baseline to 1 year||1.66|0.451|0.6613
90912250|NCT03351075|181693625|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.26||||0.4908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|2.42|||Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in mechanical detection sensitivity at the arm from baseline to 1.5 years||2.42|0.65|0.4908
90912251|NCT03351075|181693626|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.22||||0.7708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|1.69|||Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in warmth detection sensitivity from baseline to 4 months||1.69|-1.25|0.7708
90912252|NCT03351075|181693626|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.29||||0.706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|1.81|||Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in warmth detection sensitivity from baseline to 1 year||1.81|-1.23|0.7060
90912253|NCT03351075|181693626|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02||||0.9806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|1.42|||Multivariate linear model|||Difference in change in warmth detection sensitivity from baseline to 1.5 years||1.42|-1.38|0.9806
90912254|NCT03351075|181693627|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.74||||0.0284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|1.4|||Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome||Difference in change in wind-up from baseline to 4 months||1.40|0.08|0.0284
90912255|NCT03351075|181693627|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.09||||0.7776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.73|||Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome||Difference in change in wind-up from baseline to 1 year||0.73|-0.55|0.7776
90912256|NCT03351075|181693627|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.31||||0.3829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|1.01|||Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome||Difference in change in wind-up from baseline to 1.5 years||1.01|-0.39|0.3829
91033293|NCT03435081|181952501|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.25||||0.277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|9.68|||Regression, Logistic|||||9.68|0.52|0.277
90871423|NCT05355805|181603668|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.959||0.0327|TWO_SIDED|||||The estimated risk difference divided by the standard error was used as the test statistic and a p-value calculated assuming that the test statistic follows a standard normal distribution under the null hypothesis.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The common risk difference between placebo QW/Q2W and the izokibep 160 mg Q2W arm among the four strata, prior biologic/JAK inhibitor use for HS (Yes/No) and Hurley Stage (II or III), used for randomization and associated standard error will be estimated by combining the observed risk differences using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting.||||0.0327
90871424|NCT02423577|181603673|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.14||||0.1436|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|1.31|||Chi-squared|||||1.31|0.98|0.1436
91033294|NCT03435081|181952502|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.996||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.93|-0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.12|-11.93|0.046
90871425|NCT01986855|181603674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-0.03||||0.807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.18||The cLDA model included fixed effects for treatment, time, eGFR stratum (\<45 or ≥45 mL/min/1.73m\^2), baseline treatment with insulin stratum (yes/no), and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||0.18|-0.23|0.807
90871426|NCT01986855|181603674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-0.15||||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.06||The cLDA model included fixed effects for treatment, time, eGFR stratum (\<45 or ≥45 mL/min/1.73m\^2), baseline treatment with insulin stratum (yes/no), and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||0.06|-0.35|0.155
90871427|NCT01986855|181603675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages vs. Placebo|3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|12.1|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen Method|||12.1|-4.8|
90871428|NCT01986855|181603675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages vs. Placebo|-7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|2.3|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen Method|||2.3|-16.3|
90871429|NCT01986855|181603676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages vs. Placebo|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|9.0|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen Method|||9.0|-2.7|
90871430|NCT01986855|181603676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages vs. Placebo|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|3.7|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen Method|||3.7|-6.5|
90871431|NCT01986855|181603677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-0.03||||0.828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.23||The cLDA model included fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline treatment with insulin stratum (yes/no), and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||0.23|-0.28|0.828
90871432|NCT01986855|181603677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-0.09||||0.496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.17||The cLDA model included fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline treatment with insulin stratum (yes/no), and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||0.17|-0.35|0.496
90871433|NCT01986855|181603678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-1.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.57|-0.96||The cLDA model included fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline treatment with insulin stratum (yes/no), and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable. P-value is nominal.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-0.96|-2.57|<0.001
90871434|NCT01986855|181603678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-1.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.66|-1.02||The cLDA model included fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline treatment with insulin stratum (yes/no), and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable. P-value is nominal.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-1.02|-2.66|<0.001
91033295|NCT03435081|181952502|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.911||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.46|-1.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.98|-13.46|0.009
91033296|NCT03435081|181952503|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.598|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.598
91033297|NCT03435081|181952503|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.785|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.785
90960674|NCT00406653|181801932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.2||||0.611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.4||Due to randomization misspecification, 2:2:2:1 ratio applied instead of planned 2:1:2:2 (placebo, ABA 3mg/kg, \~10mg/kg, 30/\~10mg/kg). Only \~half intended number assigned to ABA 30/\~10 mg/kg arm and \~double intended number assigned to ABA 3 mg/kg arm|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Second primary comparison (conditional on first): power=91%, sample size=134, 5% significance; expected PLA response rate= 25%, ABA/\~10 mg/kg=45%|All participants who prematurely discontinued for any reason considered not to have achieved clinical response. Normal approximation used if number of responses in treatment group was ≥5. Otherwise an exact method was used.|Conditional on abatacept (ABA) 30/\~10 mg/kg vs placebo (PLA)comparison being statistically significant at 5% significance level, ABA \~10 mg/kg vs PLA to be tested at 5% significance level. Null hypothesis=no treatment difference (relative risk \[RR\] of ABA over placebo=1).First comparison: power=99%,sample size=134,expected PLA response rate=25%, ABA 30/\~10 mg/kg=55%. Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Chi square p-value and RR along with 95% confidence interval provided, adjusting for randomization strata||2.4|0.6|0.611
91033298|NCT03435081|181952504|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.562||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.21|0.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.66|-25.21|0.063
90871435|NCT01986855|181603679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-1.42||||0.451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.13|2.29||The cLDA model included fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline treatment with insulin stratum (yes/no), and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||2.29|-5.13|0.451
90871436|NCT01986855|181603679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-3.46||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.24|0.31||The cLDA model included fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline treatment with insulin stratum (yes/no), and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||0.31|-7.24|0.072
90871437|NCT01986855|181603680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-6.81||||0.291|TWO_SIDED|96.0|-19.47|5.85||The cLDA model included fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline treatment with insulin stratum (yes/no), and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||5.85|-19.47|0.291
90871438|NCT01986855|181603680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-15.51||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.5|-2.53||The cLDA model included fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline treatment with insulin stratum (yes/no), and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable. P-value is nominal.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-2.53|-28.50|0.019
90871439|NCT01986855|181603681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.16||||0.713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|2.56||Adjusted Odds Ratio based on a logistic regression model fitted with fixed effects for treatment, baseline treatment with insulin stratum (yes/no), and a covariate for baseline A1C.|Logistic regression model|||||2.56|0.53|0.713
90871440|NCT01986855|181603681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.06||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|2.55||Adjusted Odds Ratio based on a logistic regression model fitted with fixed effects for treatment, baseline treatment with insulin stratum (yes/no), and a covariate for baseline A1C.|Logistic regression model|||||2.55|0.44|0.890
90871441|NCT02014597|181603692|OTHER|||||||0.0583||||||Scotopic logCS|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0583
90871442|NCT02014597|181603692|OTHER|||||||0.1762||||||Photopic logCS|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.1762
90871443|NCT02014597|181603693|OTHER|||||||0.183||||||Scotopic|Pearson correlation|||Correlation between logCS and MD.||||0.183
90871444|NCT02014597|181603693|OTHER|||||||0.771||||||Photopic|Pearson correlation|||Correlation between logCS and MD.||||0.771
91033299|NCT03435081|181952504|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.437|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.54|-9.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-9.17|-34.54|<0.001
90871445|NCT02014597|181603693|OTHER|||||||0.492||||||Scotopic|Pearson correlation|||Correlation between logCS and PSD.||||0.492
90871446|NCT02014597|181603693|OTHER|||||||0.83||||||Photopic|Pearson correlation|||Correlation between logCS and PSD.||||0.830
90871447|NCT00754624|181603735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.048|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.059|-0.037|||Random coefficient|Adjusted for Baseline FEV1 value||A random coefficient model with a random intercept and slope associated with each subject, was fitted (using the PROC MIXED procedure in SAS) to the observed FEV1 data to estimate the annual rate of decline. The model included terms for baseline FEV1 and time (in years) of FEV1 measurements. Missing pulmonary functions were not imputed.||-0.037|-0.059|
90871448|NCT00754624|181603736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.058|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.072|-0.043|||Random Coefficient|Adjusted for Baseline FVC value||A random coefficient model with a random intercept and slope associated with each subject, was fitted (using the PROC MIXED procedure in SAS) to the observed FVC data to estimate the annual rate of decline. The model included terms for baseline FVC and time (in years) of FVC measurements. Missing pulmonary functions were not imputed.||-0.043|-0.072|
90871449|NCT00754624|181603737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.311|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.454|-0.168|||Random Coefficient|Adjusted for Baseline DLCo value||A random coefficient model with a random intercept and slope associated with each subject, was fitted (using the PROC MIXED procedure in SAS) to the observed DLco data to estimate the annual rate of decline. The model included terms for baseline DLco and time (in years) of DLco measurements. Missing pulmonary functions were not imputed.||-0.168|-0.454|
90871450|NCT00720434|181603742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.36357||||0.0131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.19228|-0.53485|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used to compare differences among treatments. Independent variables included treatment and log-transformed baseline HCV viral load. Adjusted mean difference and corresponding 95 percentage (%) confidence interval (CI) were calculated.||-0.53485|-4.19228|0.0131
90871451|NCT00720434|181603742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.4919||||0.0142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.44619|-0.5376|||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model was used to compare differences among treatments. Independent variables included treatment and log-transformed baseline HCV viral load. Adjusted mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were calculated.||-0.53760|-4.44619|0.0142
90871452|NCT00720434|181603742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.46325||||0.1368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.41898|0.49248|||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model was used to compare differences among treatments. Independent variables included treatment and log-transformed baseline HCV viral load. Adjusted mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were calculated.||0.49248|-3.41898|0.1368
90871453|NCT00720434|181603742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.90032||||0.3321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.76711|0.96648|||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model was used to compare differences among treatments. Independent variables included treatment and log-transformed baseline HCV viral load. Adjusted mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were calculated.||0.96648|-2.76711|0.3321
90871454|NCT00720434|181603742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.02865||||0.2839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.95573|0.89844|||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model was used to compare differences among treatments. Independent variables included treatment and log-transformed baseline HCV viral load. Adjusted mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were calculated.||0.89844|-2.95573|0.2839
90871455|NCT00720434|181603742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.12833||||0.8891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73676|1.99342|||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model was used to compare differences among treatments. Independent variables included treatment and log-transformed baseline HCV viral load. Adjusted mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were calculated.||1.99342|-1.73676|0.8891
90871456|NCT00720434|181603743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1565|0.8785||||||Week 4: The difference in proportions between treatment groups presented along with 95% CI, were based on exact method for small samples from the binomial distribution.||0.8785|0.1565|
90871457|NCT00720434|181603743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.233|0.969||||||Week 4: The difference in proportions between treatment groups presented along with 95% CI, were based on exact method for small samples from the binomial distribution.||0.9690|0.2330|
90871458|NCT00720434|181603743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|0.625|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0871|0.9191||||||Week 4: The difference in proportions between treatment groups presented along with 95% CI, were based on exact method for small samples from the binomial distribution.||0.9191|0.0871|
90871459|NCT00720434|181603743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|-0.025|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4769|0.4336||||||Week 4: The difference in proportions between treatment groups presented along with 95% CI, were based on exact method for small samples from the binomial distribution.||0.4336|-0.4769|
90871460|NCT00720434|181603743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|0.125||||||95.0|-0.4024|0.6049||||||Week 4: The difference in proportions between treatment groups presented along with 95% CI, were based on exact method for small samples from the binomial distribution.||0.6049|-0.4024|
90871461|NCT00720434|181603743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|-0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5729|0.3149||||||Week 4: The difference in proportions between treatment groups presented along with 95% CI, were based on exact method for small samples from the binomial distribution.||0.3149|-0.5729|
90871462|NCT00720434|181603743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1836|0.6931||||||Week 12: The difference in proportions between treatment groups presented along with 95% CI, were based on exact method for small samples from the binomial distribution.||0.6931|-0.1836|
90871463|NCT00720434|181603743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|0.375|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1732|0.7797||||||Week 12: The difference in proportions between treatment groups presented along with 95% CI, were based on exact method for small samples from the binomial distribution.||0.7797|-0.1732|
90912257|NCT03351075|181693628|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.31||||0.1948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.77|||Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in conditioned pain modulation from baseline to 4 months||0.77|-0.16|0.1948
90871464|NCT00720434|181603743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|0.125|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4024|0.6049||||||Week 12: The difference in proportions between treatment groups presented along with 95% CI, were based on exact method for small samples from the binomial distribution.||0.6049|-0.4024|
90871465|NCT00720434|181603743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|0.175|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2934|0.5917||||||Week 12: The difference in proportions between treatment groups presented along with 95% CI, were based on exact method for small samples from the binomial distribution.||0.5917|-0.2934|
90871466|NCT00720434|181603743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2913|0.696||||||Week 12: The difference in proportions between treatment groups presented along with 95% CI, were based on exact method for small samples from the binomial distribution.||0.6960|-0.2913|
90871467|NCT00720434|181603743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|-0.075|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5144|0.388||||||Week 12: The difference in proportions between treatment groups presented along with 95% CI, were based on exact method for small samples from the binomial distribution.||0.3880|-0.5144|
90871468|NCT00720434|181603743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3728|0.5414||||||Week 48: The difference in proportions between treatment groups presented along with 95% CI, were based on exact method for small samples from the binomial distribution.||0.5414|-0.3728|
90871469|NCT00720434|181603743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2913|0.696||||||Week 48: The difference in proportions between treatment groups presented along with 95% CI, were based on exact method for small samples from the binomial distribution.||0.6960|-0.2913|
90871470|NCT00720434|181603743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|0.125|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4024|0.6049||||||Week 48: The difference in proportions between treatment groups presented along with 95% CI, were based on exact method for small samples from the binomial distribution.||0.6049|-0.4024|
90871471|NCT00720434|181603743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|-0.025||||||95.0|-0.4769|0.4336||||||Week 48: The difference in proportions between treatment groups presented along with 95% CI, were based on exact method for small samples from the binomial distribution.||0.4336|-0.4769|
90871472|NCT00720434|181603743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|0.125|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4024|0.6049||||||Week 48: The difference in proportions between treatment groups presented along with 95% CI, were based on exact method for small samples from the binomial distribution.||0.6049|-0.4024|
90871473|NCT00720434|181603743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|-0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5729|0.3149||||||Week 48: The difference in proportions between treatment groups presented along with 95% CI, were based on exact method for small samples from the binomial distribution.||0.3149|-0.5729|
90871474|NCT00720434|181603743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6191|0.2811||||||Week 60: The difference in proportions between treatment groups presented along with 95% CI, were based on exact method for small samples from the binomial distribution.||0.2811|-0.6191|
90871475|NCT00720434|181603743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.507|0.507||||||Week 60: The difference in proportions between treatment groups presented along with 95% CI, were based on exact method for small samples from the binomial distribution.||0.5070|-0.5070|
90871476|NCT00720434|181603743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.507|0.507||||||Week 60: The difference in proportions between treatment groups presented along with 95% CI, were based on exact method for small samples from the binomial distribution.||0.5070|-0.5070|
90871477|NCT00720434|181603743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6191|0.2811||||||Week 60: The difference in proportions between treatment groups presented along with 95% CI, were based on exact method for small samples from the binomial distribution.||0.2811|-0.6191|
90871478|NCT00720434|181603743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.507|0.507||||||Week 60: The difference in proportions between treatment groups presented along with 95% CI, were based on exact method for small samples from the binomial distribution.||0.5070|-0.5070|
90871479|NCT00720434|181603743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6191|0.2811||||||Week 60: The difference in proportions between treatment groups presented along with 95% CI, were based on exact method for small samples from the binomial distribution.||0.2811|-0.6191|
90871480|NCT00720434|181603743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6191|0.2811||||||Week 72: The difference in proportions between treatment groups presented along with 95% CI, were based on exact method for small samples from the binomial distribution.||0.2811|-0.6191|
90871481|NCT00720434|181603743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.507|0.507||||||Week 72: The difference in proportions between treatment groups presented along with 95% CI, were based on exact method for small samples from the binomial distribution.||0.5070|-0.5070|
90871482|NCT00720434|181603743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.507|0.507||||||Week 72: The difference in proportions between treatment groups presented along with 95% CI, were based on exact method for small samples from the binomial distribution.||0.5070|-0.5070|
90871483|NCT00720434|181603743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6191|0.2811||||||Week 72: The difference in proportions between treatment groups presented along with 95% CI, were based on exact method for small samples from the binomial distribution.||0.2811|-0.6191|
90871484|NCT00720434|181603743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.507|0.507||||||Week 72: The difference in proportions between treatment groups presented along with 95% CI, were based on exact method for small samples from the binomial distribution.||0.5070|-0.5070|
90871485|NCT00720434|181603743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6191|0.2811||||||Week 72: The difference in proportions between treatment groups presented along with 95% CI, were based on exact method for small samples from the binomial distribution.||0.2811|-0.6191|
90871486|NCT00720434|181603746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.36357||||0.0131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.19228|-0.53485|||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model was used to compare differences among treatments. Independent variables included treatment and log-transformed baseline HCV viral load. Adjusted mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were calculated.||-0.53485|-4.19228|0.0131
90871487|NCT00720434|181603746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.4919||||0.0142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.44619|-0.5376|||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model was used to compare differences among treatments. Independent variables included treatment and log-transformed baseline HCV viral load. Adjusted mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were calculated.||-0.53760|-4.44619|0.0142
90871488|NCT00720434|181603746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.46325||||0.1368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.41898|0.49248|||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model was used to compare differences among treatments. Independent variables included treatment and log-transformed baseline HCV viral load. Adjusted mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were calculated.||0.49248|-3.41898|0.1368
90871489|NCT00720434|181603746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.90032||||0.3321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.76711|0.96648|||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model was used to compare differences among treatments. Independent variables included treatment and log-transformed baseline HCV viral load. Adjusted mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were calculated.||0.96648|-2.76711|0.3321
90871490|NCT00720434|181603746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.02865||||0.2839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.95573|0.89844|||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model was used to compare differences among treatments. Independent variables included treatment and log-transformed baseline HCV viral load. Adjusted mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were calculated.||0.89844|-2.95573|0.2839
90871491|NCT00720434|181603746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.12833||||0.8891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73676|1.99342|||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model was used to compare differences among treatments. Independent variables included treatment and log-transformed baseline HCV viral load. Adjusted mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were calculated.||1.99342|-1.73676|0.8891
90912258|NCT03351075|181693628|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17||||0.4937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.65|||Multivariate linear model|||Difference in change in conditioned pain modulation from baseline to 1 year||0.65|-0.31|0.4937
90912259|NCT03351075|181693628|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.23||||0.369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.73|||Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in conditioned pain modulation from baseline to 1.5 years||0.73|-0.27|0.3690
90912260|NCT03351075|181693629|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.24||||0.2915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|6.43|||Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in self-reported upper limb function from baseline to 4 months||6.43|-1.94|0.2915
90871492|NCT02425046|181603752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67||||||Threshold for statistical significance \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Multiple imputation used to fill in missing data - imputation included demographic and 6 month data. 5 datasets created and results averaged.||||||0.67
90871493|NCT02425046|181603753|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.735|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Multiple imputation used to fill in missing data - imputation included demographic and 6 month data. 5 datasets created and results averaged.||null hypothesis - there will be no difference between the groups.||||0.735
90871494|NCT02425046|181603754|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.599|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Multiple imputation used to fill in missing data - imputation included demographic and 6 month data. 5 datasets created and results averaged.||Null hypothesis that there would be no difference in change in FNPA scores between the two groups over 12 months.||||0.599
90871495|NCT02425046|181603755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.583|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Multiple imputation used to fill in missing data - imputation included demographic and 6 month data. 5 datasets created and results averaged.||Null hypothesis: Change in MVPA from baseline to 12 months will not be different between target children in the two groups.||||0.583
90871496|NCT02425046|181603756|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.312|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Multiple imputation including demographics and 6 month data used to complete dataset. 5 datasets created and t-score averaged.||Null hypothesis is that there will be no difference between the two arms in change in sugar sweetened beverage intake over 12 months.||||0.312
90871497|NCT02425046|181603757|SUPERIORITY||difference in change between two arms|75.0||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|165.0|||Linear quantile mixed model|Linear quantile mixed models (a non-parametric linear mixed model) was used because of non-normal distribution that could not be transformed.|Comparison of the intervention target adult change in reported physical activity compared to the control group.|Linear quantile mixed models (a non-parametric linear mixed model) was used because because of non-normal distribution that could not be remedied by transformation.||165|-15|0.10
90871498|NCT02425046|181603758|SUPERIORITY||difference in change between two arms|-2.54||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.14|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis||The intervention arm in comparison to the control arm.|||0.07|-5.14|0.057
90871499|NCT02425046|181603759|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.874|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Multiple imputation including demographics and 6 month data used to complete dataset. 5 datasets created and t-score averaged.||||||0.874
90871500|NCT02425046|181603760|SUPERIORITY||% difference in change between arms|7.0||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|23.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Screen time was log transformed to normalized the distribution. Results have been back transformed from log 10 scale.|% change in screen time of the intervention arm compared to the control arm.|||23|-7|0.31
90871501|NCT02425046|181603761|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.516|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Multiple imputation including demographics and 6 month data used to complete dataset. 5 datasets created and t-score averaged.||||||0.516
90871502|NCT02782780|181603762|SUPERIORITY|Linear mixed models with random effects for subjects were used to analyze all available data for the intent-to-treat analysis. Because sex was used as a stratification variable in the randomization procedure, it was not included as a covariate the analyses|||||<|0.01||||||Test of treatment effect: t(91.6)=3.21|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.01
90871503|NCT02782780|181603762|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Baseline vs. 6-month follow-up in CBTI group: t(92.3)=4.10|Mixed Models Analysis|Planned contrasts following the mixed models were used to compare baseline data to 6-month follow-up data in the CBTI group.||||||<0.001
90871504|NCT02782780|181603763|SUPERIORITY|Linear mixed models with random effects for subjects were used to analyze all available data for the intent-to-treat analysis. Because sex was used as a stratification variable in the randomization procedure, it was not included as a covariate the analyses|||||<|0.001||||||test of treatment effect: t(94.7)=6.10|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
90871505|NCT02782780|181603763|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||baseline vs. 6-month follow-up in CBTI group: t(94)=6.67|Mixed Models Analysis|Planned contrasts following the mixed models were used to compare baseline data to 6-month follow-up data in the CBTI group.||To compare baseline data to 6-month follow-up data in the CBT-I group, planned contrasts following the mixed models were used.||||<0.001
90871506|NCT02782780|181603764|SUPERIORITY|Linear mixed models with random effects for subjects were used to analyze all available data for the intent-to-treat analysis. Because sex was used as a stratification variable in the randomization procedure, it was not included as a covariate the analyses|||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|test of treatment effect: t(104)=3.40||||||<0.001
90912261|NCT03351075|181693629|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.63||||0.4632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.02|2.75|||Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in self-reported upper limb function from baseline to 1 year||2.75|-6.02|0.4632
90871507|NCT02782780|181603764|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Baseline vs. 6-month follow-up in CBTi group: t(91.6)=4.37|Mixed Models Analysis|Planned contrasts following the mixed models were used to compare baseline data to 6-month follow-up data in the CBTi group.||||||<0.001
90871508|NCT02782780|181603765|SUPERIORITY|Linear mixed models with random effects for subjects were used to analyze all available data for the intent-to-treat analysis. Because sex was used as a stratification variable in the randomization procedure, it was not included as a covariate the analyses|||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|test of treatment effect: t(99.9)=2.09||||||<0.05
90871509|NCT02782780|181603765|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline vs. 6-month follow-up in CBTi group: t(92.1)=2.56||Planned contrasts following the mixed models were used to compare baseline data to 6-month follow-up data in the CBTi group.||||<0.01
90871510|NCT02782780|181603766|SUPERIORITY|Linear mixed models with random effects for subjects were used to analyze all available data for the intent-to-treat analysis. Because sex was used as a stratification variable in the randomization procedure, it was not included as a covariate the analyses|||||=|0.991|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Test of treatment effect: t(110)=-0.41||||||=0.991
90871511|NCT02782780|181603766|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.41||||||Baseline vs. 6-month follow-up in CBTi group: t(91.8)=0.94|Mixed Models Analysis|Planned contrasts following the mixed models were used to compare baseline data to 6-month follow-up data in the CBTi group.||||||=0.41
90871512|NCT02782780|181603767|SUPERIORITY|Linear mixed models with random effects for subjects were used to analyze all available data for the intent-to-treat analysis. Because sex was used as a stratification variable in the randomization procedure, it was not included as a covariate the analyses|||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Test of treatment effect: t(83.7)=2.51||||||<0.05
90871513|NCT02782780|181603767|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.49||||||Planned contrasts following the mixed models were used to compare baseline data to 6-month follow-up data in the CBTi group.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline vs. 6-month follow-up in CBTi group: t(90.9)=0.27||||||=0.49
91033300|NCT03435081|181952505|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.536||0.217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.93|1.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.12|-4.93|0.217
90871514|NCT02782780|181603768|SUPERIORITY|Linear mixed models with random effects for subjects were used to analyze all available data for the intent-to-treat analysis. Because sex was used as a stratification variable in the randomization procedure, it was not included as a covariate the analyses.|||||<|0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|test of treatment effect: t(105)=4.55||||||<0.01
90871515|NCT02782780|181603768|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||Planned contrasts following the mixed models were used to compare baseline data to 6-month follow-up data in the CBTi group.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline vs. 6-month follow-up in CBTi group: t(91.3)=3.23||||||<0.01
90871516|NCT02782780|181603769|SUPERIORITY|Linear mixed models with random effects for subjects were used to analyze all available data for the intent-to-treat analysis. Because sex was used as a stratification variable in the randomization procedure, it was not included as a covariate the analyses.|||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Test of treatment effect: t(91.6)=3.37||||||<0.001
90871517|NCT02782780|181603769|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Baseline vs. 6-month follow-up in CBTi group: (92.1)=3.64|Mixed Models Analysis|Planned contrasts following the mixed models were used to compare baseline data to 6-month follow-up data in the CBTi group.||||||<0.001
90871518|NCT02782780|181603770|SUPERIORITY|Linear mixed models with random effects for subjects were used to analyze all available data for the intent-to-treat analysis. Because sex was used as a stratification variable in the randomization procedure, it was not included as a covariate the analyses.|||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Test of treatment effect: t(99.2)=5.45||||||<0.001
91033301|NCT03435081|181952505|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.487||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|-1.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.84|-7.70|0.002
90871519|NCT02782780|181603770|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Baseline vs. 6-month follow-up in CBTi group: t(93.4)=6.06|Mixed Models Analysis|Planned contrasts following the mixed models were used to compare baseline data to 6-month follow-up data in the CBTi group.||||||<0.001
90871520|NCT02782780|181603771|SUPERIORITY|Linear mixed models with random effects for subjects were used to analyze all available data for the intent-to-treat analysis. Because sex was used as a stratification variable in the randomization procedure, it was not included as a covariate the analyses.|||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|test of treatment effect: t(76.9)=-4.20||||||<0.001
90871521|NCT02782780|181603771|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Baseline vs. 6-month follow-up in CBTi group: t(33.1)=6.52|Mixed Models Analysis|Planned contrasts following the mixed models were used to compare baseline data to 6-month follow-up data in the CBTi group.||||||<0.001
90871522|NCT02782780|181603772|SUPERIORITY|Linear mixed models with random effects for subjects were used to analyze all available data for the intent-to-treat analysis. Because sex was used as a stratification variable in the randomization procedure, it was not included as a covariate the analyses.|||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Test of treatment effect: t(75.6)=4.33||||||<0.001
90871523|NCT02782780|181603772|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Planned contrasts following the mixed models were used to compare baseline data to 6-month follow-up data in the CBTi group.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline vs. 6-month follow-up in CBTi group: t(34.4)=4.75||||||<0.001
90871524|NCT02782780|181603773|SUPERIORITY|Linear mixed models with random effects for subjects were used to analyze all available data for the intent-to-treat analysis. Because sex was used as a stratification variable in the randomization procedure, it was not included as a covariate the analyses.|||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Test of treatment effect: t(75.1)=3.91||||||<0.001
90871525|NCT02782780|181603773|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Planned contrasts following the mixed models were used to compare baseline data to 6-month follow-up data in the CBTi group.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline vs. 6-month in CBTi group: t(34.5)=4.39||||||<0.001
90871526|NCT03654651|181603781|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.6|-2.7|
90871527|NCT03654651|181603781|OTHER|change from baseline|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.9|-2.7|
90871528|NCT03654651|181603781|OTHER|Change from baseline|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.4|-2.2|
90871529|NCT03654651|181603782|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|3.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.4|-4.8|
90871530|NCT03654651|181603782|OTHER|change from baseline|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|5.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.4|-5.1|
90871531|NCT03654651|181603782|OTHER|change from baseline|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|5.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.4|-5.1|
90871532|NCT03654651|181603783|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|2.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.1|-1.2|
90871533|NCT03654651|181603783|OTHER|change from baseline|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.0|-1.5|
90871534|NCT03654651|181603783|OTHER|change from baseline|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.5|-2.1|
90871535|NCT03654651|181603784|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|4.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||peripheral systolic BP||4.6|-3.1|
90871536|NCT03654651|181603784|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||peripheral diastolic BP||2.9|-2.1|
90871537|NCT03654651|181603784|OTHER|change from baseline|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|3.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||peripheral systolic BP change from baseline||3.3|-2.5|
90871538|NCT03654651|181603784|OTHER|change from baseline|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|2.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||peripheral systolic BP change from baseline||2.6|-3.1|
90871539|NCT03654651|181603784|OTHER|change from baseline|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||peripheral diastolic BP change from baseline||2.5|-1.5|
90871540|NCT03654651|181603784|OTHER|change from baseline|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|2.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||peripheral diastolic BP change from baseline||2|-2|
90871541|NCT03654651|181603785|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|4.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||central systolic BP||4.4|-2.4|
90871542|NCT03654651|181603785|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|3.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||central diastolic BP||3.3|-1.7|
91033302|NCT03435081|181952506|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.178||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.10|-0.60|0.155
91033303|NCT03435081|181952506|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.174||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.07|-0.76|0.017
90871543|NCT03654651|181603785|OTHER|change from baseline|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|3.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||central systolic BP change from baseline||3.1|-1.9|
90871544|NCT03654651|181603785|OTHER|change from baseline|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|2.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||central systolic BP change from baseline||2.1|-2.9|
90871545|NCT03654651|181603785|OTHER|change from baseline|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||central diastolic BP change from baseline||2.6|-1.5|
90871546|NCT03654651|181603785|OTHER|change from baseline|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||central diastolic BP change from baseline||1.6|-2.4|
90871547|NCT03654651|181603786|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.5|-0.1|
90871548|NCT03654651|181603786|OTHER|change from baseline|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.6|0.1|
90871549|NCT03654651|181603786|OTHER|change from baseline|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.3|-0.1|
90871550|NCT03654651|181603787|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|3.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.3|-5.9|
90871551|NCT03654651|181603787|OTHER|change from baseline|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|2.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.9|-3.7|
90871552|NCT03654651|181603787|OTHER|change from baseline|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|4.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.3|-4.0|
90871553|NCT03654651|181603788|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|9.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.8|-1.4|
90871554|NCT03654651|181603788|OTHER|change from baseline|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|6.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.9|-2.1|
90871555|NCT03654651|181603788|OTHER|change from baseline|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|2.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.2|-6.8|
90912262|NCT03351075|181693629|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.16||||0.1944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.94|1.63|||Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in self-reported upper limb function from baseline to 1,5 years||1.63|-7.94|0.1944
91033304|NCT03435081|181952507|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.565||0.345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|1.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Anxiety||1.65|-0.58|0.345
90871556|NCT03654651|181603789|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.3|-2.3|
90871557|NCT03654651|181603789|OTHER|change from baseline|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.8|-0.6|
90871558|NCT03654651|181603789|OTHER|change from baseline|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.3|-1.6|
90871559|NCT03654651|181603790|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|8.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.2|-3.8|
90871560|NCT03654651|181603790|OTHER|change from baseline|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|5.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.1|-4.9|
90871561|NCT03654651|181603790|OTHER|change from baseline|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.3|-7.8|
90871562|NCT03654651|181603791|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.3|2.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.8|-18.3|
90871563|NCT03654651|181603791|OTHER|change from baseline|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.1|-4.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.8|-29.1|
90871564|NCT03654651|181603791|OTHER|change from baseline|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|5.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.7|-17.1|
90871565|NCT03654651|181603792|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.7|-0.3|
90871566|NCT03654651|181603792|OTHER|change from baseline|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.5|-0.1|
90871567|NCT03654651|181603792|OTHER|change from baseline|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.5|-0.5|
90871568|NCT00759954|181603829|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 90% confidence intervals for the ratios (test/reference) of the least squares means of the non-transformed parameters Cmax, AUClast, AUCinf, Tmax, λz, and T1/2, were calculated. The Wilcoxon signed rank test was used for a nonparametric comparison of Tmax values and a significant difference was defined a priori as p \< 0.05.|mean ratio|97.19|||<|0.05||90.0|91.31|103.45|||ANOVA|||||103.45|91.31|<0.05
90871569|NCT00759954|181603831|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 90% confidence intervals for the ratios (test/reference) of the least squares means of the non-transformed parameters Cmax, AUClast, AUCinf, Tmax, λz, and T1/2, were calculated. The Wilcoxon signed rank test was used for a nonparametric comparison of Tmax values and a significant difference was defined a priori as p \< 0.05.|mean ratio|95.82|||<|0.05||90.0|92.93|98.8|||ANOVA|Analysis of Variance for the log-transformed AUC. The 90% confidence interval for the ratio of AUC(Test)/AUC(Ref) is provided.||||98.80|92.93|< 0.05
90871570|NCT00759954|181603832|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 90% confidence intervals for the ratios (test/reference) of the least squares means of the non-transformed parameters Cmax, AUClast, AUCinf, Tmax, λz, and T1/2, were calculated. The Wilcoxon signed rank test was used for a nonparametric comparison of Tmax values and a significant difference was defined a priori as p \< 0.05.|mean ratio|98.1|||<|0.05||90.0|94.2|102.1|||ANOVA|||||102.1|94.2|< 0.05
90871571|NCT00982592|181603858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.54|||Log Rank|||||1.54|0.70|0.874
90871572|NCT00982592|181603860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3||||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|2.05|||Log Rank|||||2.05|0.83|0.253
90871573|NCT00143403|181603909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||||95.0|0.67|1.2|||||HR: Irinotecan+5-FU/FA / 5-FU/FA|||1.20|0.67|
90871574|NCT00143403|181603909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.468||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.468
90871575|NCT01860651|181603920|OTHER||mean difference over time|-0.002||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|0.001|||Mixed Effect Model|||"Statistical analysis of Medical adherence in study Medication adm. at home were analysed using a Mixed Effect Model (MEM). The MEM model included a random patient effect and a fixed effect interaction between group and time, to evaluate difference between the groups over time."||0.001|-0.005|0.22
90871576|NCT03235154|181603979|OTHER|There was no comparator arm in this small single arm study||||||||||||No confidence intervals around point estimates provided given very small number of participants||||This was a single arm intervention study with a very small number of participants. Therefore, only descriptive statistics are provided.|No confidence intervals around point estimates provided given very small number of participants|||
90871577|NCT00536198|181603980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Group comparison||||0.21
90871578|NCT00536198|181603980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Change over time in both groups||||<0.001
90871579|NCT00536198|181603980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Group by time: comparison of rates of change||||0.06
90871580|NCT00536198|181603980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|3.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Estimated mean difference from baseline to endpoint between active vs. placebo||3.75|0.01|0.049
90871581|NCT00536198|181603981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Group comparison||||0.54
90871582|NCT00536198|181603981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Change over time in both groups||||<0.001
90871583|NCT00536198|181603981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Group by time: comparison of rates of change||||0.02
90871584|NCT00536198|181603981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.62||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.97|8.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Estimated mean difference from baseline to end point between active vs. placebo||8.31|1.97|0.0015
90871585|NCT00536198|181603982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Group comparison||||0.46
90871586|NCT00536198|181603982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Change over time in both groups||||<0.0001
90871587|NCT00536198|181603982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Group by time: comparison rates of change||||0.69
90871588|NCT00536198|181603982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.02||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Estimated mean difference from Cycle 1 to end point between active vs. placebo||1.26|0.83|0.84
90871589|NCT00536198|181603983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Group comparison||||0.01
90871590|NCT00536198|181603983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Change over time in both groups||||<0.001
90871591|NCT00536198|181603983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Group by time: comparison rates of change||||0.28
90871592|NCT00536198|181603983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.59||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Estimated mean difference from baseline to end point between active vs. placebo||1.19|0.30|0.056
90871593|NCT00536198|181603985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Group comparison||||0.30
90871594|NCT00536198|181603985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Change over time in both groups||||<0.01
90871595|NCT00536198|181603985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Group by time: comparison rates of change||||0.73
90871596|NCT00536198|181603985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.12||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Estimated mean difference from baseline to end point between active vs. placebo||1.35|0.92|0.06
91033305|NCT03435081|181952507|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.543||0.336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|0.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Anxiety||0.55|-1.59|0.336
90971064|NCT00385255|181824666|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was defined as the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference between the two groups (Boostrix+Fluarix 19-64 YOA Group minus Fluarix Boostrix 19-64 YOA Group), in terms of percentage of subjects with anti-T antibody concentrations ≥ 1.0 IU/mL, being ≥ - 10%.|Difference in percentage|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|3.68||||||Difference in seropositivity rates against tetanus toxoid: To demonstrate that the immunogenicity of Boostrix® vaccine co-administered with Fluarix® vaccine (Boostrix+Fluarix 19-64 YOA Group) at Day 0, was non-inferior to that of Boostrix® vaccine administered alone at Month 1 (Fluarix Boostrix 19-64 YOA Group), in terms of seropositivity rates for anti-T antibody, one month post-Boostrix® vaccination.||3.68|-0.77|
90871597|NCT00536198|181603986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Group comparison||||0.80
90871598|NCT00536198|181603986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Change over time in both groups||||<0.001
90871599|NCT00536198|181603986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Group by time: comparison rates of change||||0.43
90871600|NCT00536198|181603986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.11||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Estimated mean difference from baseline to endpoint between active vs. placebo||1.45|0.85|0.61
90871601|NCT00536198|181603987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Group comparison||||0.83
90871602|NCT00536198|181603987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Change over time in both groups||||<0.001
90871603|NCT00536198|181603987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Group by time: comparison rates of change||||0.02
90871604|NCT00536198|181603987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.09||||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Estimated mean difference from baseline to end point between active vs. placebo||1.25|0.96|0.169
90871605|NCT00536198|181603988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Group comparison||||0.37
90871606|NCT00536198|181603988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Change over time in both groups||||<0.001
90871607|NCT00536198|181603988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Group by time: comparison rates of change||||0.73
90871608|NCT00536198|181603988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.08||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Estimated mean difference from baseline to end point between active vs. placebo||1.28|0.91|0.13
90871609|NCT00536198|181603989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Group comparison||||0.31
90871610|NCT00536198|181603989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Change over time in both groups||||<0.001
90871611|NCT00536198|181603989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Group by time: comparison rates of change||||0.46
90871612|NCT00536198|181603989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.09||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Estimated mean difference from baseline to end point between active vs. placebo||1.23|0.96|0.94
90871613|NCT00536198|181603990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Group comparison||||<0.001
90871614|NCT00536198|181603990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Change over time in both groups||||<0.001
90871615|NCT00536198|181603990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Group by time: comparison rates of change||||<0.01
90871616|NCT00536198|181603990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|1.22||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Estimated mean difference from baseline to end point between active vs. placebo||1.41|1.05|0.027
90871617|NCT00536198|181603991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Group comparison||||0.01
90871618|NCT00536198|181603991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Group by time: comparison rates of change||||<0.001
90871619|NCT00536198|181603991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.55||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Estimated mean difference between active and placebo groups at end-point only||1.02|0.30|0.056
90871620|NCT00965718|181604025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.123||||||Global health status scores at baseline and final observation point were compared via a 2-sided t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.123
90871621|NCT01244425|181604041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||likelihood-ratio chi square test|||||||<0.001
90871622|NCT01244425|181604042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||likelihood ratio chi-square test|||||||<0.001
90871623|NCT01244425|181604043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028||95.0|||||likelihood ratio chi-square test|||||||0.028
90871624|NCT01244425|181604044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017||95.0|||||likelihood ratio chi-square test|||||||0.017
90871625|NCT01244425|181604045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.293||95.0|||||likelihood ratio chi-square test|||||||0.293
90871626|NCT01244425|181604046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.237||95.0|||||likelihood ratio chi-square test|||||||0.237
90871627|NCT01244425|181604047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.808||95.0|||||likelihood ratio chi-square test|||||||0.808
90912263|NCT03351075|181693630|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-293.0||||0.5332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1218.0|632.0|||Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in step count from baseline to 4 months||632|-1218|0.5332
90912264|NCT03351075|181693630|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|839.0||||0.1201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-221.0|1900.0|||Multivariate linear model|||Difference in change in step count from baseline to 1 year||1900|-221|0.1201
90912265|NCT03351075|181693631|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.831||||0.359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.561|1.233|||Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in self-reported pain catastrophizing from baseline to 4 months||1.233|0.561|0.3590
90912266|NCT03351075|181693631|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.839||||0.3744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.236|||Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in self-reported pain catastrophizing from baseline to 1 year||1.236|0.570|0.3744
90912267|NCT03351075|181693631|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.848||||0.4533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.522|1.304|||Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in self-reported pain catastrophizing from baseline to 1.5 years||1.304|0.522|0.4533
90912268|NCT03351075|181693632|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.862||||0.5018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.558|1.33|||MUltivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in self-reported depression from baseline to 4 months||1.330|0.558|0.5018
90912269|NCT03351075|181693632|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.808||||0.3362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.522|1.248|||Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in self-reported depression from baseline to 1 year||1.248|0.522|0.3362
90912270|NCT03351075|181693632|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.958||||0.8375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.633|1.449|||Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in self-reported depression from baseline to 1.5 years||1.449|0.633|0.8375
90912271|NCT03351075|181693633|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.32||||0.1745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.14|||Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in self-reported health-related quality of life from baseline to 4 months||0.14|-0.78|0.1745
90912272|NCT03351075|181693633|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.18||||0.5025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.71|||Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in self-reported health-related quality of life from baseline to 1 year||0.71|-0.35|0.5025
90912273|NCT03351075|181693633|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.45||||0.1363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|1.05|||Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in self-reported health-related quality of life from baseline to 1,5 years||1.05|-0.14|0.1363
90912274|NCT03351075|181693634|SUPERIORITY||Percentage|-0.184||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.358|0.008|||Fisher Exact|||Difference in proportion of working participants at 1 year||0.008|-0.358|0.074
90912275|NCT03351075|181693634|SUPERIORITY||Percentage|-0.09||||0.352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.078|||Fisher Exact|||Difference in proportion of working participants at 1,5 years||0.078|-0.26|0.352
90912276|NCT03351075|181693635|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.23||||0.8497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.17|2.64|||Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in cold detection sensitivity from baseline to 4 months||2.64|-2.17|0.8497
90912277|NCT03351075|181693635|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.81||||0.4971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|3.14|||Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in cold detection sensitivity from baseline to 1 year||3.14|-1.52|0.4971
90912278|NCT03351075|181693635|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.45||||0.6831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|2.62|||Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in cold detection sensitivity from baseline to 1.5 years||2.62|-1.72|0.6831
90912279|NCT03351075|181693636|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.78||||0.8584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.72|57.28|||Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in mechanical pain sensitivity at the arm from baseline to 4 months||57.28|-47.72|0.8584
90912280|NCT03351075|181693636|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-57.25||||0.0353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-110.57|-3.93|||Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in mechanical pain sensitivity at the arm from baseline to 1 year||-3.93|-110.57|0.0353
90912281|NCT03351075|181693636|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-20.1||||0.4865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.72|36.52|||Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in mechanical pain sensitivity at the arm from baseline to 1.5 years||36.52|-76.72|0.4865
90871628|NCT01482884|181604074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|4.8||||0.4062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|22.5||Glucocorticosteroid-refractory status as stratification factor|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The null hypothesis is that the proportion of participants responding on tralokinumab is less than or equal to the proportion of participants responding on placebo.||22.5|-13.0|0.4062
90912282|NCT03351075|181693637|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.11||||0.1278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.27|||Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in pressure pain sensitivity at the pectoral region from baseline to 4 months||1.27|0.97|0.1278
90912283|NCT03351075|181693637|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.11||||0.1875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.3|||Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in pressure pain sensitivity at the pectoral region from baseline to 1 year||1.30|0.95|0.1875
90912284|NCT03351075|181693637|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.05||||0.5612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.23|||Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in pressure pain sensitivity at the pectoral region from baseline to 1.5 years||1.23|0.89|0.5612
90912285|NCT03351075|181693638|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.089||||0.7902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.693|1.62|||Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in self-reported anxiety from baseline to 4 months||1.620|0.693|0.7902
90912286|NCT03351075|181693638|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.934||||0.7578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.604|1.443|||Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in self-reported anxiety from baseline to 1 year||1.443|0.604|0.7578
90912287|NCT03351075|181693638|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.01||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.679|1.504|||Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in self-reported anxiety from baseline to 1.5 years||1.504|0.679|0.9600
90912288|NCT03351075|181693639|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.068||||0.7619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.696|1.639|||Multivariate linear model|multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in self-reported stress from baseline to 4 months||1.639|0.696|0.7619
90912289|NCT03351075|181693639|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.087||||0.7169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.702|1.673|||Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in self-reported stress from baseline to 1 year||1.673|0.702|0.7169
90912290|NCT03351075|181693639|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.987||||0.9535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.639|1.525|||Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in self-reported stress from baseline to 1.5 years||1.525|0.639|0.9535
90912291|NCT05219253|181693641|SUPERIORITY|The superiority was to be concluded if the lower limit (LL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the adjusted GMC ratio between the HZ/su Group and Placebo Group for anti-gE antibody concentrations was equal to or above (\>=) 3.|GMC Ratio|19.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.09|27.82|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate the immunogenicity of HZ/su vaccine compared to Placebo, in terms of anti-gE GMCs, at 1 month post-Dose 2 of study intervention administration (Month 3).||27.82|14.09|
90912292|NCT03262935|181693670|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6401|||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4885|0.8389||P-value from stratified log-rank test for median estimate of PFS: stratified according to the randomization stratification factors.|Log Rank|||A stratified Cox regression analysis was used to estimate the hazard ratio of PFS, along with 95% CIs. Stratification factors assigned at randomization were world region (Europe, Singapore, and North America), number of prior treatment lines for locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer (excluding hormone therapy) (1 to 2, \>2), and prior treatment with pertuzumab (yes, no).||0.8389|0.4885|=0.002
90871629|NCT01482884|181604075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.3937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|0.65|||ANCOVA|Mayo score at baseline as a covariate, and treatment and glucocorticosteroid-refractory status as factors in the model.||||0.65|-1.63|0.3937
90912293|NCT03262935|181693671|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.868|||=|0.236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.676|1.1145||P-value from stratified log-rank test for Kaplan-Meier estimate of median OS: stratified according to the randomization stratification factors.|Log Rank|||A stratified Cox regression analysis was used to estimate the hazard ratio of OS, along with 95% CIs. Stratification factors assigned at randomization were world region (Europe, Singapore, and North America), number of prior treatment lines for locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer (excluding hormone therapy) (1 to 2, \>2), and prior treatment with pertuzumab (yes, no).||1.1145|0.676|=0.236
91033306|NCT03435081|181952507|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.465||0.353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|1.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Depression||1.35|-0.48|0.353
90912294|NCT03262935|181693672|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.732||||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test including the randomization stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (strata based on the baseline stratification factors) was used to compare the two treatment groups with respect to the ORR at two-sided 5% level of significance.||||=0.732
90912295|NCT03262935|181693673|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5995|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4666|0.7703||P-value from stratified log-rank test for median estimate of PFS: stratified according to the randomization stratification factors.|Log Rank|||A stratified Cox regression analysis was used to estimate the HR of PFS, along with the 95% CI. The treatment groups were compared using the 2-sided stratified log-rank test.||0.7703|0.4666|<0.001
90912296|NCT03262935|181693674|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.473|||||||MMRM|||The change from baseline in the global health status/QoL scale transformed score was analyzed using a mixed model repeated measurement (MMRM) approach.||||0.473
90912297|NCT01811706|181693675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of T25FW between Dalfampridine and Placebo. The test was performed with a significant level of 0.05 (two-sided).||||>0.05
90912298|NCT01811706|181693676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of SARA score between Dalfampridine and Placebo. The test was performed with a significant level of 0.05 (two-sided).||||>0.05
90912299|NCT01811706|181693677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of Stride Length on BAG between Dalfampridine and Placebo. The test was performed with a significant level of 0.05 (two-sided).||||>0.05
90912300|NCT00186186|181693778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.00001
90912301|NCT00186186|181693779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|54.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91033307|NCT03435081|181952507|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.446||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|0.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Depression||0.45|-1.31|0.340
90912302|NCT01616654|181693798|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|13.115||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.266|29.495|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The 95% confidence interval on the difference between Vehicle and the specified treatment group success rates was based on normal approximation with continuity correction.||29.495|-3.266|0.096
90912303|NCT01616654|181693798|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|16.393||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.249|33.036|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The 95% confidence interval on the difference between Vehicle and the specified treatment group success rates was based on normal approximation with continuity correction||33.036|-0.249|0.040
90912304|NCT01616654|181693798|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|10.273||||0.184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.923|26.47|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The 95% confidence interval on the difference between Vehicle and the specified treatment group success rates was based on normal approximation with continuity correction.||26.470|-5.923|0.184
90912305|NCT01616654|181693798|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|16.393||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.249|33.036|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The 95% confidence interval on the difference between Vehicle and the specified treatment group success rates was based on normal approximation with continuity correction.||33.036|-0.249|0.041
90912306|NCT01616654|181693799|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|-6.74||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.96|1.48|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with terms for treatment, stratum, and Baseline lesion count as covariate.||1.48|-14.96|0.108
90912307|NCT01616654|181693799|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|-7.88||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.11|0.34|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with terms for treatment, stratum, and Baseline lesion count as covariate.||0.34|-16.11|0.060
90912308|NCT01616654|181693799|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|-8.11||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.35|0.13|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with terms for treatment, stratum, treatment stratum, and with Baseline lesion count as covariate.||0.13|-16.35|0.054
90912309|NCT01616654|181693799|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|-12.97||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.18|-4.76|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with terms for treatment, stratum, treatment stratum, and with Baseline lesion count as covariate.||-4.76|-21.18|0.002
90912310|NCT01616654|181693800|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.067|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.067
90912311|NCT01616654|181693800|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.054|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.054
90912312|NCT01616654|181693800|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.038
90912313|NCT01616654|181693800|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.003
90912314|NCT02057692|181693804|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.889|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3969||0.0321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.698|0.081|||ANCOVA|||The primary analysis of change from baseline to endpoint (Week 13/ET) average daily ItchRO(Obs) was evaluated by analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) using a PROC MIXED procedure. Least-squares (LS) mean change from baseline to Endpoint (Week 13/ET), along with associated 95% confidence interval (CI) for the LS mean, and pair-wise treatment P-values were calculated for each treatment group.||0.081|-1.698|0.0321
90912315|NCT02057692|181693804|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.906|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3503||0.0145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|-0.192|||ANCOVA|||The primary analysis of change from baseline to endpoint (Week 13/ET) average daily ItchRO(Obs) was evaluated by ANCOVA using a PROC MIXED procedure. LS mean change from baseline to Endpoint (Week 13/ET), along with associated 95% CI for the LS mean, and pair-wise treatment P-values were calculated for each treatment group.||-0.192|-1.620|0.0145
90912316|NCT02057692|181693804|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.039|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4431||0.9298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.942|0.863|||ANCOVA|||The primary analysis of change from baseline to endpoint (Week 13/ET) average daily ItchRO(Obs) was evaluated by ANCOVA using a PROC MIXED procedure. LS mean change from baseline to Endpoint (Week 13/ET), along with associated 95% confidence interval (CI) for the LS mean, and pair-wise treatment P-values were calculated for each treatment group.||0.863|-0.942|0.9298
91033308|NCT03435081|181952508|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.228||0.224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.92|0.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.92|-3.92|0.224
91033309|NCT03435081|181952508|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.184||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.83|-1.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.16|-5.83|0.004
90912317|NCT03923491|181693809|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.69||1|TWO_SIDED|||||Familywise error rates were controlled at alpha=.05 for primary and secondary outcomes separately using Holm's sequentially rejective procedure.|Regression, Linear|||Inverse probability of retention weighted normal linear regression models for between-arm differences in HEI-2015 total score controlling for baseline HEI-2015 saturated fat, child involvement in food preparation, and receipt of any food assistance.||||1.00
90912318|NCT03923491|181693809|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||1|TWO_SIDED|||||Familywise error rates were controlled at alpha=.05 for primary and secondary outcomes separately using Holm's sequentially rejective procedure.|Regression, Linear|||Inverse probability of retention weighted normal linear regression models for between-arm differences in HEI-2015 total vegetable component controlling for baseline HEI-2015 saturated fat, child involvement in food preparation, and receipt of any food assistance.||||1.00
90912319|NCT03923491|181693809|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88||0.2|TWO_SIDED|||||Familywise error rates were controlled at alpha=.05 for primary and secondary outcomes separately using Holm's sequentially rejective procedure.|Regression, Linear|||Inverse probability of retention weighted normal linear regression models for between-arm differences in HEI-2015 greens and beans component controlling for baseline HEI-2015 saturated fat, child involvement in food preparation, and receipt of any food assistance.||||0.20
90912320|NCT03923491|181693809|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67||0.2|TWO_SIDED|||||Familywise error rates were controlled at alpha=.05 for primary and secondary outcomes separately using Holm's sequentially rejective procedure.|Regression, Linear|||Inverse probability of retention weighted normal linear regression models for between-arm differences in HEI-2015 total fruit component controlling for baseline HEI-2015 saturated fat, child involvement in food preparation, and receipt of any food assistance.||||0.20
90912321|NCT03923491|181693809|SUPERIORITY||Slope|2.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.19|TWO_SIDED|||||Familywise error rates were controlled at alpha=.05 for primary and secondary outcomes separately using Holm's sequentially rejective procedure.|Regression, Linear|||Inverse probability of retention weighted normal linear regression models for between-arm differences in HEI-2015 whole fruit component controlling for baseline HEI-2015 saturated fat, child involvement in food preparation, and receipt of any food assistance.||||0.19
90912322|NCT03923491|181693809|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||1|TWO_SIDED|||||Familywise error rates were controlled at alpha=.05 for primary and secondary outcomes separately using Holm's sequentially rejective procedure.|Regression, Linear|||Inverse probability of retention weighted normal linear regression models for between-arm differences in HEI-2015 whole grain component controlling for baseline HEI-2015 saturated fat, child involvement in food preparation, and receipt of any food assistance.||||1.0
90912323|NCT03923491|181693809|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||1|TWO_SIDED|||||Familywise error rates were controlled at alpha=.05 for primary and secondary outcomes separately using Holm's sequentially rejective procedure.|Regression, Linear|||Inverse probability of retention weighted normal linear regression models for between-arm differences in HEI-2015 total dairy component controlling for baseline HEI-2015 saturated fat, child involvement in food preparation, and receipt of any food assistance.||||1.0
90912324|NCT03923491|181693809|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||1|TWO_SIDED|||||Familywise error rates were controlled at alpha=.05 for primary and secondary outcomes separately using Holm's sequentially rejective procedure.|Regression, Linear|||Inverse probability of retention weighted normal linear regression models for between-arm differences in HEI-2015 total protein foods component controlling for baseline HEI-2015 saturated fat, child involvement in food preparation, and receipt of any food assistance.||||1.00
90912325|NCT03923491|181693809|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||-0.12|TWO_SIDED|||||Familywise error rates were controlled at alpha=.05 for primary and secondary outcomes separately using Holm's sequentially rejective procedure.|Regression, Linear|||Inverse probability of retention weighted normal linear regression models for between-arm differences in HEI-2015 seafood and plant protein component controlling for baseline HEI-2015 saturated fat, child involvement in food preparation, and receipt of any food assistance.||||-0.12
90912326|NCT03923491|181693809|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12||1|TWO_SIDED|||||Familywise error rates were controlled at alpha=.05 for primary and secondary outcomes separately using Holm's sequentially rejective procedure.|Regression, Linear|||Inverse probability of retention weighted normal linear regression models for between-arm differences in HEI-2015 fatty acid component controlling for baseline HEI-2015 saturated fat, child involvement in food preparation, and receipt of any food assistance.||||1.00
90912327|NCT03923491|181693809|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||1|TWO_SIDED|||||Familywise error rates were controlled at alpha=.05 for primary and secondary outcomes separately using Holm's sequentially rejective procedure.|Regression, Linear|||Inverse probability of retention weighted normal linear regression models for between-arm differences in HEI-2015 sodium component controlling for baseline HEI-2015 saturated fat, child involvement in food preparation, and receipt of any food assistance.||||1.00
91033310|NCT03435081|181952509|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.956||0.575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.3|8.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Absenteeism Change from Baseline||8.57|-15.30|0.575
91033311|NCT03435081|181952509|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.664||0.851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.43|10.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Absenteeism Change from Baseline||10.30|-12.43|0.851
90912328|NCT03923491|181693809|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16||1|TWO_SIDED|||||Familywise error rates were controlled at alpha=.05 for primary and secondary outcomes separately using Holm's sequentially rejective procedure.|Regression, Linear|||Inverse probability of retention weighted normal linear regression models for between-arm differences in HEI-2015 refined grains component controlling for baseline HEI-2015 saturated fat, child involvement in food preparation, and receipt of any food assistance.||||1.00
90912329|NCT03923491|181693809|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.13||1|TWO_SIDED|||||Familywise error rates were controlled at alpha=.05 for primary and secondary outcomes separately using Holm's sequentially rejective procedure.|Regression, Linear|||Inverse probability of retention weighted normal linear regression models for between-arm differences in HEI-2015 added sugar component controlling for baseline HEI-2015 saturated fat, child involvement in food preparation, and receipt of any food assistance.||||1.00
90912330|NCT03923491|181693809|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86||1|TWO_SIDED|||||Familywise error rates were controlled at alpha=.05 for primary and secondary outcomes separately using Holm's sequentially rejective procedure.|Regression, Linear|||||||1.00
90912331|NCT02633358|181693812|SUPERIORITY|Therapeutic hypothermia need to have superiority in the survival rate after 90 days|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.82||P-value less than 0.05 means significant data|Chi-squared|Test method for proportional data||Therapeutic hypothermia group compare with control group||0.82|0.41|<0.001
90912332|NCT02633358|181693813|SUPERIORITY|Therapeutic hypothermia nee to have superiority in neurological outcome in the 90 days after enrollment.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.8||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.98||P value less than 0.05 means significant date|Chi-squared|Test method for proportional data||Therapeutic hypothermia group compare with control group||0.98|0.66|0.04
90912333|NCT02633358|181693814|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||P-value less than 0.05 is statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
90912334|NCT02633358|181693815|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||P-value less than 0.05 is statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
90971065|NCT00385255|181824667|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was defined as the lower limit of the 95% CI for GMC ratios of antibodies against the pertussis toxoid (PT) antigens between the two groups (Boostrix+Fluarix 19-64 YOA Group minus Fluarix Boostrix 19-64 YOA Group) being ≥ 0.67.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.82|||ANCOVA|||Difference in adjusted GMC ratios for anti-PT antibody: To demonstrate that the immunogenicity of Boostrix® vaccine co-administered with Fluarix® vaccine (Boostrix+Fluarix 19-64 YOA Group) at Day 0, was non-inferior to that of Boostrix® vaccine administered alone at Month 1 (Fluarix Boostrix 19-64 YOA Group), in terms of geometric mean concentrations (GMCs) for anti-PT antibody, one month post-Boostrix® vaccination.||0.82|0.67|
90871630|NCT01482884|181604076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|12.1||||0.1043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|28.3||Glucocorticosteroid-refractory status as stratification factor|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||28.3|-4.0|0.1043
90871631|NCT01482884|181604077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|12.4||||0.0326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|24.1||Glucocorticosteroid-refractory status as stratification factor|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||24.1|0.7|0.0326
90871632|NCT01482884|181604079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.91|||ANCOVA|Modified Riley score at baseline as a covariate, and treatment as factors in the model.||||0.91|-0.41|0.4490
90912335|NCT02633358|181693816|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||P-value less then 0.05 is statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
90871633|NCT04853225|181604153|OTHER||Adjusted rate of change|-59.46|||||||||||||Pre-bronchodilator. Adjusted rate of change was analyzed using Random Coefficient Model. The model was fitted with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix.|||||
90871634|NCT04853225|181604153|OTHER||Adjusted rate of change|-62.73|||||||||||||Post-bronchodilator. Adjusted rate of change was analyzed using Random Coefficient Model. The model was fitted with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix.|||||
90871635|NCT04853225|181604153|OTHER||Adjusted rate of change|-48.54|||||||||||||Pre-bronchodilator. Adjusted rate of change was analyzed using Random Coefficient Model. The model was fitted with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix.|||||
90871636|NCT04853225|181604153|OTHER||Adjusted rate of change|-50.32|||||||||||||Post-bronchodilator. Adjusted rate of change was analyzed using Random Coefficient Model. The model was fitted with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix.|||||
90871637|NCT04853225|181604153|OTHER||Adjusted rate of change|-22.67|||||||||||||Pre-bronchodilator. Adjusted rate of change was analyzed using Random Coefficient Model. The model was fitted with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix.|||||
90871638|NCT04853225|181604153|OTHER||Adjusted rate of change|-33.32|||||||||||||Post-bronchodilator. Adjusted rate of change was analyzed using Random Coefficient Model. The model was fitted with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix.|||||
90871639|NCT04853225|181604153|OTHER||Adjusted rate of change|-20.4|||||||||||||Pre-bronchodilator. Adjusted rate of change was analyzed using Random Coefficient Model. The model was fitted with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix.|||||
90871640|NCT04853225|181604153|OTHER||Adjusted rate of change|-31.08|||||||||||||Post-bronchodilator. Adjusted rate of change was analyzed using Random Coefficient Model. The model was fitted with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix.|||||
90871641|NCT04853225|181604153|OTHER||Adjusted rate of change|-64.74|||||||||||||Pre-bronchodilator. Adjusted rate of change was analyzed using Random Coefficient Model. The model was fitted with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix.|||||
90871642|NCT04853225|181604153|OTHER||Adjusted rate of change|-60.26|||||||||||||Post-bronchodilator. Adjusted rate of change was analyzed using Random Coefficient Model. The model was fitted with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix.|||||
90912336|NCT03622580|181693818|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the two-sided 97.52% confidence interval for the difference in adjusted means for the faricimab 6 mg Q8W and the active comparator (aflibercept 2 mg Q8W) arms was greater than -4 letters, then faricimab 6 mg Q8W was considered non-inferior to aflibercept 2 mg Q8W. Non-inferiority was tested one-sided at a significance level of α = 0.0248.|Adjusted mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.0|1.6|||||The difference in adjusted means was calculated as Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the ITT Population.|Three hypotheses were tested in order for each faricimab arm (Q8W or PTI) separately against the aflibercept arm using a graph-based testing procedure. The analysis presented here is for the non-inferiority of Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W compared with Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the ITT Population.||1.6|-2.0|
90912337|NCT03622580|181693818|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the two-sided 97.52% confidence interval for the difference in adjusted means for the faricimab 6 mg PTI and the active comparator (aflibercept 2 mg Q8W) arms was greater than -4 letters, then faricimab 6 mg PTI was considered non-inferior to aflibercept 2 mg Q8W. Non-inferiority was tested one-sided at a significance level of α = 0.0248.|Adjusted mean difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.1|2.5|||||The difference in adjusted means was calculated as Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the ITT Population.|Three hypotheses were tested in order for each faricimab arm (Q8W or PTI) separately against the aflibercept arm using a graph-based testing procedure. The analysis presented here is for the non-inferiority of Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI compared with Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the ITT Population.||2.5|-1.1|
90912338|NCT03622580|181693818|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.4699|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.8|1.4||Tested at an overall significance level of α = 0.0248.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures||The difference in adjusted means was calculated as Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the Treatment-Naive Population.|Three hypotheses were tested in order for each faricimab arm (Q8W or PTI) separately against the aflibercept arm using a graph-based testing procedure. The analysis presented here is for the superiority of Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W compared with Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the Treatment-Naive Population.||1.4|-2.8|0.4699
90912339|NCT03622580|181693818|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94||0.965|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.1|2.2||Tested at an overall significance level of α = 0.0248.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures||The difference in adjusted means was calculated as Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the Treatment-Naive Population.|Three hypotheses were tested in order for each faricimab arm (Q8W or PTI) separately against the aflibercept arm using a graph-based testing procedure. The analysis presented here is for the superiority of Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI compared with Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the Treatment-Naive Population.||2.2|-2.1|0.9650
91033312|NCT03435081|181952509|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.212||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.05|-1.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Presenteeism Change from Baseline||-1.45|-22.05|0.026
90912340|NCT03622580|181693818|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.7967|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.0|1.6||Tested at an overall significance level of α = 0.0248.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures||The difference in adjusted means was calculated as Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the ITT Population.|Three hypotheses were tested in order for each faricimab arm (Q8W or PTI) separately against the aflibercept arm using a graph-based testing procedure. The analysis presented here is for the superiority of Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W compared with Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the ITT Population.||1.6|-2.0|0.7967
90940484|NCT01177137|181760792|SUPERIORITY||Slope|2.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.53||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|7.7||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.025 to adjust for two comparisons: (1) TRT versus the Standard of Care and (2) Partial TRT versus the Standard of Ca|repeated measures GEE model||Adjusted for baseline TFI value, clinic, visit, age, gender, baseline Positive and Negative Affect Schedule and State Trait Anxiety Inventory scores, with multiple imputation|||7.70|-2.21|0.28
90940485|NCT01177137|181760793|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|1.77||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.025 to account for two comparisons: (1) TRT versus the Standard of Care and (2) Partial TRT versus the Standard of Care.|repeated measures GEE model||Adjusted for baseline THI value, clinic, visit, age, gender, baseline Positive and Negative Affect Schedule and State Trait Anxiety Inventory scores, with multiple imputation|||1.77|-0.55|0.30
90940486|NCT01177137|181760793|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|0.52||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.025 to account for two comparisons: (1) TRT versus the Standard of Care and (2) Partial TRT versus the Standard of Ca|repeated measures GEE model||Adjusted for baseline THI value, clinic, visit, age, gender, baseline Positive and Negative Affect Schedule and State Trait Anxiety Inventory scores, with multiple imputation|||0.52|-1.75|0.29
90912341|NCT03622580|181693818|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.3772|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.1|2.5||Tested at an overall significance level of α = 0.0248.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures||The difference in adjusted means was calculated as Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the ITT Population.|Three hypotheses were tested in order for each faricimab arm (Q8W or PTI) separately against the aflibercept arm using a graph-based testing procedure. The analysis presented here is for the superiority of Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI compared with Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the ITT Population.||2.5|-1.1|0.3772
90971066|NCT00385255|181824667|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was defined as the lower limit of the 95% CI for GMC ratios of antibodies against the filamentous hemagglutinin (FHA) antigens between the two groups (Boostrix+Fluarix 19-64 YOA Group minus Fluarix Boostrix 19-64 YOA Group) being ≥ 0.67.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.79|||ANCOVA|||Difference in adjusted GMC ratio for anti-FHA antibody: To demonstrate that the immunogenicity of Boostrix® vaccine co-administered with Fluarix® vaccine (Boostrix+Fluarix 19-64 YOA Group) at Day 0, was non-inferior to that of Boostrix® vaccine administered alone at Month 1 (Fluarix Boostrix 19-64 YOA Group), in terms of geometric mean concentrations (GMCs) for anti-FHA antibody, one month post-Boostrix® vaccination.||0.79|0.64|
90871643|NCT04853225|181604153|OTHER||Adjusted rate of change|-27.85|||||||||||||Pre-bronchodilator. Adjusted rate of change was analyzed using Random Coefficient Model. The model was fitted with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix.|||||
90871644|NCT04853225|181604153|OTHER||Adjusted rate of change|-28.65|||||||||||||Post-bronchodilator. Adjusted rate of change was analyzed using Random Coefficient Model. The model was fitted with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix.|||||
90871645|NCT04853225|181604154|OTHER||Adjusted rate of change|-87.47|||||||||||||Pre-bronchodilator. Adjusted rate of change was analyzed using Random Coefficient Model. The model was fitted with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix.|||||
90871646|NCT04853225|181604154|OTHER||Adjusted rate of change|-83.25|||||||||||||Post-bronchodilator. Adjusted rate of change was analyzed using Random Coefficient Model. The model was fitted with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix.|||||
90871647|NCT04853225|181604154|OTHER||Adjusted rate of change|-77.54|||||||||||||Pre-bronchodilator. Adjusted rate of change was analyzed using Random Coefficient Model. The model was fitted with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix.|||||
90871648|NCT04853225|181604154|OTHER||Adjusted rate of change|-77.41|||||||||||||Post-bronchodilator. Adjusted rate of change was analyzed using Random Coefficient Model. The model was fitted with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix.|||||
90871649|NCT04853225|181604154|OTHER||Adjusted rate of change|-60.1|||||||||||||Pre-bronchodilator. Adjusted rate of change was analyzed using Random Coefficient Model. The model was fitted with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix.|||||
90871650|NCT04853225|181604154|OTHER||Adjusted rate of change|-73.65|||||||||||||Post-bronchodilator. Adjusted rate of change was analyzed using Random Coefficient Model. The model was fitted with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix.|||||
90871651|NCT04853225|181604154|OTHER||Adjusted rate of change|-45.44|||||||||||||Pre-bronchodilator. Adjusted rate of change was analyzed using Random Coefficient Model. The model was fitted with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix.|||||
90871652|NCT04853225|181604154|OTHER||Adjusted rate of change|-79.49|||||||||||||Post-bronchodilator. Adjusted rate of change was analyzed using Random Coefficient Model. The model was fitted with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix.|||||
90871653|NCT04853225|181604154|OTHER||Adjusted rate of change|-74.39|||||||||||||Pre-bronchodilator. Adjusted rate of change was analyzed using Random Coefficient Model. The model was fitted with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix.|||||
90871654|NCT04853225|181604154|OTHER||Adjusted rate of change|-63.04|||||||||||||Post-bronchodilator. Adjusted rate of change was analyzed using Random Coefficient Model. The model was fitted with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix.|||||
90871655|NCT04853225|181604154|OTHER||Adjusted rate of change|-25.59|||||||||||||Pre-bronchodilator. Adjusted rate of change was analyzed using Random Coefficient Model. The model was fitted with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix.|||||
90871656|NCT04853225|181604154|OTHER||Adjusted rate of change|-38.69|||||||||||||Post-bronchodilator. Adjusted rate of change was analyzed using Random Coefficient Model. The model was fitted with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix.|||||
90871657|NCT03789318|181604155|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2912|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.2912
90871658|NCT03789318|181604156|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.498|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.4980
90871659|NCT03789318|181604157|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1958|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.1958
90871660|NCT03789318|181604158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9546|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.9546
90871661|NCT03789318|181604159|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4434|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.4434
90871662|NCT01325584|181604167|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.07
90871663|NCT01325584|181604169|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.53
90871664|NCT01325584|181604170|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.48
90871665|NCT02771990|181604176|OTHER|Pilot study|z-score|3.11||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.002
90871666|NCT02771990|181604177|OTHER|Pilot study||||||0.67|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.67
90871667|NCT01409564|181604183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||Repeated ANOVA|Uncorrected, Repeated ANOVA||Repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test group\*time interaction effect in glucose uptake of Left Parietal Lobe in two groups on two data points (baseline, 24-week).||||0.14
90871668|NCT01409564|181604183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Repeated ANOVA|||Repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test group\*time interaction effect in glucose uptake of Right Parietal Lobe in two groups on two data points (baseline, 24-week).||||0.08
90871669|NCT01409564|181604183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Repeated ANOVA|||Repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test group\*time interaction effect in glucose uptake of Left Inferior Frontal Gyrus in two groups on two data points (baseline, 24-week).||||<0.01
90871670|NCT01409564|181604183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Repeated ANOVA|||Repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test group\*time interaction effect in glucose uptake of Right Inferior Frontal Gyrus in two groups on two data points (baseline, 24-week).||||0.08
90912342|NCT03622580|181693819|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the two-sided 97.52% confidence interval for the difference in CMH weighted percentages of participants for the faricimab 6 mg Q8W and the active comparator (aflibercept 2 mg Q8W) arms was greater than -10%, then faricimab 6 mg Q8W was considered non-inferior to aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.|Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|10.2|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.3|20.0||||||The analysis presented here is for the non-inferiority of Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W compared with Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the ITT Population.||20.0|0.3|
90871671|NCT01409564|181604184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93|||||||Repeated ANOVA|||Repeated ANOVA, tested for group\*time interaction effect of ADAS-Cog scores on three data points (Baseline, 12-week, 24-week)||||0.93
90871672|NCT01409564|181604185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||Repeated ANOVA|||Repeated ANOVA, tested for group\*time interaction effect of MMSE scores on three data points (Baseline, 12-week, 24-week)||||0.15
90871673|NCT01409564|181604186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82|||||||Repeated ANOVA|||Repeated ANOVA, tested for group\*time interaction effect of ADCS-ADL scores on three data points (Baseline, 12-week, 24-week)||||0.82
90871674|NCT01409564|181604187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79|||||||Chi-squared|||Repeated ANOVA, tested for group\*time interaction effect of Summed CDR scores on three data points (Baseline, 12-week, 24-week)||||0.79
90871675|NCT01409564|181604188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87|||||||Chi-squared|||Distribution of Fazekas scale in two groups according to Chi-square test results.||||0.87
90871676|NCT04615923|181604203|SUPERIORITY||Disease Rate Ratio|0.99|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.103|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.801|1.207||Posterior probability that the disease rate ratio (DRR) is less than 1 (i.e. Pridopidine slowed progression) was (0.5475). NOTE: p-value is not provided for Bayesian model.|Bayesian shared-parameter model|A Bayesian shared-parameter model of change in disease severity as measured by ALSFRS-R total score and mortality.|"DDR \<1 imply slowing of disease progression by verdiperstat relative to placebo.Note: reported Confidence Interval is actually a Bayesian credible interval."||The DRR parameter for active treatment represents the relative change to the rate of decline of ALSFRS-R and the rate of mortality of treated participant relative to a placebo participant. The estimated DRR can also be interpreted as the average rate of decline in function and mortality. The model includes covariates for baseline use of edaravone, baseline use of riluzole, months since onset of symptoms, and pre-baseline slope of ALSFRS-R, and random effects for regimen and participant-specific slopes.|1.207|0.801|
90912343|NCT03622580|181693819|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the two-sided 97.52% confidence interval for the difference in CMH weighted percentages of participants for the faricimab 6 mg PTI and the active comparator (aflibercept 2 mg Q8W) arms was greater than -10%, then faricimab 6 mg PTI was considered non-inferior to aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.|Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|6.1|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.6|15.8||||||The analysis presented here is for the non-inferiority of Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI compared with Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the ITT Population.||15.8|-3.6|
90912344|NCT03622580|181693819|SUPERIORITY||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|7.2||||0.1761|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-4.6|18.9||Tested at an overall significance level of α = 0.0248.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The analysis presented here is for the superiority of Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W compared with Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the Treatment-Naive Population.||18.9|-4.6|0.1761
90871677|NCT04615923|181604205|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.334||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates include baseline use of edaravone and riluzole, months since symptom onset, and pre-baseline ALSFRS-R slope.|Pridopidine 24-week change from baseline relative to placebo 24-week change from baseline.|||0.57|-0.75|0.78
90871678|NCT04615923|181604206|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.217||0.6594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates include baseline use of edaravone and riluzole, months since symptom onset, and pre-baseline ALSFRS-R slope.|Pridopidine 24-week change from baseline relative to placebo 24-week change from baseline.|||0.52|-0.33|0.6594
90871679|NCT04615923|181604207|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.745||0.7918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.89|2.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates include baseline use of edaravone and riluzole, months since symptom onset, and pre-baseline ALSFRS-R slope.|Pridopidine 24-week change from baseline relative to placebo 24-week change from baseline.|||2.96|-3.89|0.7918
90871680|NCT04615923|181604208|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.426||0.9903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates include baseline use of edaravone and riluzole, months since symptom onset, and pre-baseline ALSFRS-R slope.|Pridopidine 24-week change from baseline relative to placebo 24-week change from baseline.|||0.84|-0.83|0.9903
90871681|NCT04615923|181604209|SUPERIORITY|Analysis performed using interval-censored survival analysis. This type of model accommodates interval censoring between ALSFRS-R assessments|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.27|||Regression, Cox|Interval censored cox model adjusted for time since symptom onset, pre-baseline change in ALSFRS-R, baseline use of edaravone, riluzole, and neudexta||||1.27|0.69|
90871682|NCT04615923|181604210|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.285||0.5888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.23|4.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates include baseline use of edaravone and riluzole, months since symptom onset, and pre-baseline ALSFRS-R slope.|Pridopidine 24-week change from baseline relative to placebo 24-week change from baseline.|||4.67|-8.23|0.5888
90871683|NCT04615923|181604211|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.969|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.9690
90871684|NCT02618434|181604212|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.56||||0.9383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.96|7.84|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||7.84|-8.96|0.9383
90871685|NCT02618434|181604213|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis pertains to Visit 4||0.03|-0.33|0.0979
90871686|NCT02618434|181604213|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.126||0.0502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis pertains to Visit 5||0.00|-0.50|0.0502
90871687|NCT02618434|181604213|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141||0.4769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis pertains to Visit 6||0.18|-0.38|0.4769
90871688|NCT02618434|181604214|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.113||0.0881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis pertains to Visit 4||0.03|-0.41|0.0881
90871689|NCT02618434|181604214|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.135||0.0522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis pertains to Visit 5||0.00|-0.53|0.0522
90871690|NCT02618434|181604214|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.156||0.1766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis pertains to Visit 6||0.10|-0.52|0.1766
90871691|NCT02618434|181604215|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.613||0.3409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|4.72|||ANCOVA|||This analysis pertains to the Physical Functioning Summary Score at Visit 6.||4.72|-1.64|0.3409
90871692|NCT02618434|181604215|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.952||0.0215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.08|-0.33|||ANCOVA|||This analysis pertains to the Psychosocial Health Summary Score at Visit 6.||-0.33|-4.08|0.0215
90871693|NCT02618434|181604216|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.5977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|2.89|||ANCOVA|||This analysis pertains to the Total Score at Visit 6.||2.89|-5.00|0.5977
90871694|NCT02618434|181604216|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.807||0.8049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|1.79|||ANCOVA|||This analysis pertains to the Parental Distress Domain score at Visit 6.||1.79|-1.39|0.8049
90871695|NCT02618434|181604216|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.801||0.8911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|1.69|||ANCOVA|||This analysis pertains to the Parent-Child Dysfunctional Interaction score at Visit 6.||1.69|-1.47|0.8911
90871696|NCT02618434|181604216|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.849||0.1426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.93|0.42|||ANCOVA|||This analysis pertains to the Difficult Child Domain score Visit 6.||0.42|-2.93|0.1426
90871697|NCT02618434|181604217|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.134||0.6171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis pertains to Visit 4||0.20|-0.33|0.6171
90871698|NCT02618434|181604217|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.143||0.0617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis pertains to Visit 5||0.01|-0.55|0.0617
90871699|NCT02618434|181604217|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.171||0.4419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis pertains to Visit 6||0.21|-0.47|0.4419
90871700|NCT02618434|181604218|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.0416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||This analysis pertains to the Inattention subscale at Visit 6.||-0.01|-0.32|0.0416
90871701|NCT02618434|181604218|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.089||0.0921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.02|||ANCOVA|||This analysis pertains to Hyperactivity/Impulsivity subscale at Visit 6||0.02|-0.33|0.0921
90871702|NCT02618434|181604218|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094||0.448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.11|||ANCOVA|||This analysis pertains to the Oppositional Defiant Disorder subscale at Visit 6||0.11|-0.26|0.4480
90871703|NCT02618434|181604218|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.077||0.0457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.0|||ANCOVA|||This analysis pertains to the Combined Scale score at Visit 6||-0.00|-0.31|0.0457
90871704|NCT02618434|181604219|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.8525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.93|||Regression, Logistic|||This analysis pertains to ≥ 30% Responders.||1.93|0.58|0.8525
90871705|NCT02618434|181604219|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.6635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.51|||Regression, Logistic|||This analysis pertains to ≥ 50% Responders.||1.51|0.52|0.6635
90871706|NCT04626297|181604221|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.2|11.2||||||||11.2|-10.2|
90871707|NCT04626297|181604222|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|12.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.5|22.0||||||||22.0|2.5|
90871708|NCT04626297|181604223|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|21.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.3|33.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||33.2|10.3|<0.001
90871709|NCT04626297|181604224|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|25.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.6|38.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||38|12.6|<0.001
90871710|NCT04626297|181604225|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|20.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.0|31.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||31.6|9.0|<0.001
90871711|NCT04626297|181604226|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|11.9||||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|27.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||27.5|-3.8|0.138
90871712|NCT04626297|181604227|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-8.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.447|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.04|-3.39|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) included treatment, baseline value, visit, the interaction of the baseline value-by-visit, the interaction of treatment by-visit, geographic region, age group, baseline IGA score as fixed factors.|||-3.39|-13.04|<0.001
90871713|NCT04626297|181604228|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.152||0.001658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||||-0.2|-0.8|0.001658
90871714|NCT02598076|181604231|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.015
90871715|NCT02598076|181604232|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.034|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.034
90871716|NCT02598076|181604233|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.23
90871717|NCT02598076|181604234|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.095|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.095
90871718|NCT02598076|181604235|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.047|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.047
90871719|NCT00010374|181604294|OTHER|Performance goal of 35%|Exact two-sided binomial test|96.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|87.0|99.5|||Exact two-sided binomial test|||||99.5|87.0|<0.001
90871720|NCT01669915|181604297|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The rates of cognitive decline over 2.8 years were compared in the two groups (rate in vitamin D active group minus the rate in placebo group). A mixed model included terms for the variables time since randomization, assignment to one arm, assignment to the other arm, sex, age, race/ethnicity, history of depression and the six interaction terms (products with time since randomization).||0.02|-0.01|0.31
90871721|NCT01669915|181604297|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.003|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The rates of cognitive decline over 2.8 years were compared in the two groups (rate in omega-3 fatty acids active group minus the rate in placebo group). A mixed model included the variables, time since randomization, assignment to one arm, assignment to the other arm, sex, age, race/ethnicity, history of depression and the six interaction terms (products with time since randomization).||0.003|-0.02|0.14
90871722|NCT01669915|181604298|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.03||Given the 3 secondary analyses, the p-value threshold was 0.0167 (=Bonferroni correction of 0.05/3=0.0167).|Mixed Models Analysis|||The rates of cognitive decline over 2.8 years were compared in the two groups (rate in vitamin D active group minus the rate in placebo group). A mixed model included the variables, time since randomization, assignment to one arm, assignment to the other arm, sex, age, race/ethnicity, history of depression and the six interaction terms (products with time since randomization).||0.03|-0.01|0.49
90871723|NCT01669915|181604298|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|-0.002||Given the 3 secondary analyses, the p-value threshold was 0.0167 (=Bonferroni correction of 0.05/3=0.0167).|Mixed Models Analysis|||The rates of cognitive decline over 2.8 years were compared in the two groups (rate in omega-3 active group minus the rate in placebo group). A mixed model included the variables, time since randomization, assignment to one arm, assignment to the other arm, sex, age, race/ethnicity, history of depression and the six interaction terms (products with time since randomization).||-0.002|-0.04|0.03
90871724|NCT01669915|181604299|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.02||Given the 3 secondary analyses, the p-value threshold was 0.0167 (=Bonferroni correction of 0.05/3=0.0167).|Mixed Models Analysis|||The rates of cognitive decline over 2.8 years were compared in the two groups (rate in vitamin D active group minus the rate in placebo group). A mixed model included terms for the variables time since randomization, assignment to one arm, assignment to the other arm, sex, age, race/ethnicity, history of depression and the six interaction terms (products with time since randomization).||0.02|-0.01|0.23
90871725|NCT01669915|181604299|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.003||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.02||Given the 3 secondary analyses, the p-value threshold was 0.0167 (=Bonferroni correction of 0.05/3=0.0167).|Mixed Models Analysis|||The rates of cognitive decline over 2.8 years were compared in the two groups (rate in omega-3 active group minus the rate in placebo group). A mixed model included terms for the variables time since randomization, assignment to one arm, assignment to the other arm, sex, age, race/ethnicity, history of depression and the six interaction terms (products with time since randomization)||0.02|-0.01|0.68
90871726|NCT01669915|181604300|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.09||Given the 3 secondary analyses, the p-value threshold was 0.0167 (=Bonferroni correction of 0.05/3=0.0167).|Mixed Models Analysis|||The rates of cognitive decline over 2.8 years were compared in the two groups (rate in vitamin D active group minus the rate in placebo group). A mixed model included the variables, time since randomization, assignment to one arm, assignment to the other arm, sex, age, race/ethnicity, history of depression and the six interaction terms (products with time since randomization).||0.09|-0.04|0.46
90871727|NCT01669915|181604300|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|-0.04||Given the 3 secondary analyses, the p-value threshold was 0.0167 (=Bonferroni correction of 0.05/3=0.0167).|Mixed Models Analysis|||The rates of cognitive decline over 2.8 years were compared in the two groups (rate in omega-3 active group minus the rate in placebo group). A mixed model included the variables, time since randomization, assignment to one arm, assignment to the other arm, sex, age, race/ethnicity, history of depression and the six interaction terms (products with time since randomization).||-0.04|-0.17|0.003
90871728|NCT03530098|181604306|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.59||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|-0.04|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.04|-1.14|0.04
90871729|NCT03530098|181604307|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.001
90871730|NCT00533845|181604308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.0022
90871731|NCT04294472|181604392|SUPERIORITY|Cohort 1 vs Placebo||||||0.1866|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.1866
90871732|NCT04294472|181604392|SUPERIORITY|Cohort 2 vs Placebo||||||0.2627|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.2627
90871733|NCT04294472|181604393|SUPERIORITY|Cohort 1 vs Placebo||||||0.0639|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0639
90871734|NCT04294472|181604393|SUPERIORITY|Cohort 2 vs Placebo||||||0.0508|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0508
90871735|NCT00563381|181604400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.77|0.9|||Regression, Cox|Treatment effect adjusted for pooled centre||Tiotropium versus Salmeterol||0.90|0.77|<0.0001
90871736|NCT00563381|181604401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio (ratio of incidence rates)|0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001||95.0|0.66|0.82|||Poisson regression|Poisson regression correcting for overdisperion and adjusted for treatment exposure||Tiotropium vs. Salmeterol||0.82|0.66|<0.0001
90871737|NCT00563381|181604402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9||||0.0002||95.0|0.85|0.95|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Tiotropium versus Salmeterol||0.95|0.85|0.0002
90871738|NCT00563381|181604403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio (ratio of incidence rates)|0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0017||95.0|0.83|0.96|||Poisson regression|Poisson regression correcting for overdisperion and adjusted for treatment exposure||Tiotropium versus Salmeterol||0.96|0.83|0.0017
90871739|NCT00563381|181604404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.61|0.85|||Regression, Cox|Treatment effect adjusted for pooled centre||Tiotropium versus Salmeterol||0.85|0.61|<0.0001
90871740|NCT00563381|181604405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.77||||0.0005||95.0|0.66|0.89|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Tiotropium versus Salmeterol||0.89|0.66|0.0005
90871741|NCT00563381|181604406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.0242||95.0|0.78|0.98|||Regression, Cox|Treatment effect adjusted for pooled centre||Tiotropium versus Salmeterol||0.98|0.78|0.0242
90871742|NCT00563381|181604407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9||||0.0406||95.0|0.82|1.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Tiotropium versus Salmeterol||1.00|0.82|0.0406
90871743|NCT00563381|181604408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.78|0.91|||Regression, Cox|Treatment effect adjusted for pooled centre||Tiotropium versus Salmeterol||0.91|0.78|<0.0001
90871744|NCT00563381|181604409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.69|0.85|||Regression, Cox|Treatment effect adjusted for pooled centre||Tiotropium versus Salmeterol||0.85|0.69|<0.0001
90871745|NCT00563381|181604410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.78|0.92|||Regression, Cox|Treatment effect adjusted for pooled centre||Tiotropium versus Salmeterol||0.92|0.78|<0.0001
90871746|NCT00563381|181604411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.68|0.86|||Regression, Cox|Treatment effect adjusted for pooled centre||Tiotropium versus Salmeterol||0.86|0.68|<0.0001
90871747|NCT00563381|181604412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio (ratio of incidence rates)|0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001||95.0|0.76|0.9|||Poisson regression|Poisson regression correcting for overdispersion and adjusted for treatment exposure||Tiotropium versus Salmeterol||0.90|0.76|<0.0001
90871748|NCT00563381|181604413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio (ratio of incidence rates)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0036||95.0|0.84|0.97|||Poisson regression|Poisson regression correcting for overdisperion and adjusted for treatment exposure||Tiotropium versus Salmeterol||0.97|0.84|0.0036
90871749|NCT00563381|181604414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio (ratio of incidence rates)|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001||95.0|0.73|0.88|||Poisson regression|Poisson regression correcting for overdisperion and adjusted for treatment exposure||Tiotropium versus Salmeterol||0.88|0.73|<0.0001
90871750|NCT00563381|181604415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in peak expiratory flow rates|-1.6||||0.1035||95.0|-3.53|0.33|||Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model|Mixed effects repeated measures model (MMRM) (fixed terms: treatment, centre, week, treatment\*week; covariates: baseline PEFR, baseline PEFR\*week)||Tiotropium versus Salmeterol||0.33|-3.53|0.1035
90871751|NCT00563381|181604416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in peak expiratory flow rates|-2.06||||0.0369||95.0|-3.99|-0.12|||Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model|Mixed effects repeated measures model (MRMM)(fixed terms: treatment, centre, week, treatment\*week; covariates: baseline PEFR, baseline PEFR\*week).||Tiotropium versus Salmeterol||-0.12|-3.99|0.0369
90871752|NCT00563381|181604417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in peak expiratory flow rates|-2.07||||0.0362||95.0|-4.0|-0.13|||Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model|MMRM (fixed terms: treatment, centre, week, treatment\*week; covariates: baseline PEFR, baseline PEFR\*week)||Tiotropium versus Salmeterol||-0.13|-4.00|0.0362
90871753|NCT00563381|181604418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in peak expiratory flow rates|-1.88||||0.0573||95.0|-3.82|0.06|||Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model|MMRM (fixed terms: treatment, centre, week, treatment\*week; covariates: baseline PEFR, baseline PEFR\*week)||Tiotropium versus Salmeterol||0.06|-3.82|0.0573
90871754|NCT00563381|181604419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in peak expiratory flow rates|-1.1||||0.2641||95.0|-3.04|0.83|||Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model|MMRM (fixed terms: treatment, centre, week, treatment\*week; covariates: baseline PEFR, baseline PEFR\*week)||Tiotropium versus Salmeterol||0.83|-3.04|0.2641
90871755|NCT00563381|181604420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in peak expiratory flow rates|-1.01||||0.3068||95.0|-2.95|0.93|||Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model|MMRM (fixed terms: treatment, centre, week, treatment\*week; covariates: baseline PEFR, baseline PEFR\*week)||Tiotropium versus Salmeterol||0.93|-2.95|0.3068
90871756|NCT00563381|181604421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in peak expiratory flow rates|-0.78||||0.4299||95.0|-2.72|1.16|||Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model|MMRM (fixed terms: treatment, centre, week, treatment\*week; covariates: baseline PEFR, baseline PEFR\*week)||Tiotropium versus Salmeterol||1.16|-2.72|0.4299
90871757|NCT00563381|181604422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in peak expiratory flow rates|-0.48||||0.6277||95.0|-2.42|1.46|||Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model|MMRM (fixed terms: treatment, centre, week, treatment\*week; covariates: baseline PEFR, baseline PEFR\*week)||Tiotropium versus Salmeterol||1.46|-2.42|0.6277
90871758|NCT00563381|181604423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in peak expiratory flow rates|-0.85||||0.3931||95.0|-2.8|1.1|||Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model|MMRM (fixed terms: treatment, centre, week, treatment\*week; covariates: baseline PEFR, baseline PEFR\*week)||Tiotropium versus Salmeterol||1.10|-2.80|0.3931
90871759|NCT00563381|181604424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in peak expiratory flow rates|-0.97||||0.3297||95.0|-2.92|0.98|||Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model|MMRM (fixed terms: treatment, centre, week, treatment\*week; covariates: baseline PEFR, baseline PEFR\*week)||Tiotropium versus Salmeterol||0.98|-2.92|0.3297
90871760|NCT00563381|181604425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in peak expiratory flow rates|-1.3||||0.1904||95.0|-3.25|0.65|||Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model|MMRM (fixed terms: treatment, centre, week, treatment\*week; covariates: baseline PEFR, baseline PEFR\*week)||Tiotropium versus Salmeterol||0.65|-3.25|0.1904
90871761|NCT00563381|181604426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in peak expiratory flow rates|-0.99||||0.3172||95.0|-2.94|0.95|||Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model|MMRM (fixed terms: treatment, centre, week, treatment\*week; covariates: baseline PEFR, baseline PEFR\*week)||Tiotropium versus Salmeterol||0.95|-2.94|0.3172
90871762|NCT00563381|181604427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in peak expiratory flow rates|-0.67||||0.5017||95.0|-2.62|1.28|||Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model|MMRM (fixed terms: treatment, centre, week, treatment\*week; covariates: baseline PEFR, baseline PEFR\*week)||Tiotropium versus Salmeterol||1.28|-2.62|0.5017
90871763|NCT00563381|181604428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in peak expiratory flow rates|-1.23||||0.2174||95.0|-3.18|0.72|||Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model|MMRM (fixed terms: treatment, centre, week, treatment\*week; covariates: baseline PEFR, baseline PEFR\*week)||Tiotropium versus Salmeterol||0.72|-3.18|0.2174
91033313|NCT03435081|181952509|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.056||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.89|-5.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Presenteeism Change from Baseline||-5.91|-25.89|0.002
91033314|NCT03435081|181952509|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.237||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.18|-0.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Overall Work Impairment Change from Baseline||-0.51|-25.18|0.041
90871764|NCT00563381|181604429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in peak expiratory flow rates|-1.1||||0.2682||95.0|-3.05|0.85|||Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model|MMRM (fixed terms: treatment, centre, week, treatment\*week; covariates: baseline PEFR, baseline PEFR\*week)||Tiotropium versus Salmeterol||0.85|-3.05|0.2682
90871765|NCT00563381|181604430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in peak expiratory flow rates|-0.59||||0.552||95.0|-2.55|1.36|||Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model|MMRM (fixed terms: treatment, centre, week, treatment\*week; covariates: baseline PEFR, baseline PEFR\*week)||Tiotropium versus Salmeterol||1.36|-2.55|0.5520
90871766|NCT00667368|181604431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.9||||0.754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|10.1|||Two-sample test, Poisson||The risk difference reflects the treatment arm minus the control arm. The units are the number of positive tests for chlamydia and gonorrhea per 100 person-years.|||10.1|-12.0|0.754
90871767|NCT00667368|181604432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
90871768|NCT04044716|181604444|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.048|||||||ANCOVA|age, joint involved in surgery, sex, baseline pain||||||.048
90871769|NCT04044716|181604445|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||ANCOVA|adjusted for age, sex, type of surgery (joint), baseline pain||||||0.29
90871770|NCT04044716|181604446|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||ANCOVA|adjusted for age, sex, type of surgery (joint), baseline morphine milligram equivalents (MME)||||||0.64
90871771|NCT04044716|181604447|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||ANCOVA|adjusted for age, sex, type of surgery (joint), baseline MME, and time in hospital||||||0.86
90871772|NCT04044716|181604448|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.661||||||adjusted for age, type of surgery (joint), and sex|ANCOVA|||||||0.661
90871773|NCT01683383|181604466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Adjusted Wald estimation|||||||<0.001
90871774|NCT01683383|181604467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.04
90871775|NCT01683383|181604469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90871776|NCT02850965|181604472|EQUIVALENCE|Protocol defined margins are: \[-18.0%, +18.0%\] for Week 16, 95% confidence interval. Between-imputation variance is zero. Confidence interval is based on one imputed set.|Difference in PASI 75 Response Rate|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|8.7|||Regression, Logistic||Difference in PASI 75 Response Rate = (BI 695501 - US-licensed Humira, %).|The week 16 confidence interval for the estimated difference in percentage are produced using the cumulative distribution function method of Reeve.|The statistical model: Logit (response to treatment at Week 16)=Treatment+Baseline PASI+Prior exposure to a biologic agent+random error. Model included fixed, categorical effects of treatment (BI 695501 vs US-licensed Humira) and prior exposure to a biologic agent (yes/no), continuous effect of baseline PASI. The random error was assumed to be binomially distributed.|8.7|-14.4|
90871777|NCT02850965|181604473|OTHER|Missing PASI 75 at Week 24 data were imputed using a combination of non-responder imputation (NRI) and last observed carried forward (LOCF).|Difference in PASI 75 Response Rate|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|12.6|||Regression, Logistic||Difference in PASI 75 Response Rate = (BI 695501 - US-licensed Humira, %).|The week 24 confidence interval for the estimated difference in percentage are produced using the cumulative distribution function method of Reeve.|The statistical model: Logit (response to treatment at Week 24)=Treatment+Baseline PASI+Prior exposure to a biologic agent+random error. Model included fixed, categorical effects of treatment (BI 695501 vs US-licensed Humira) and prior exposure to a biologic agent (yes/no), continuous effect of baseline PASI. The random error was assumed to be binomially distributed.|12.6|-8.5|
90871778|NCT02850965|181604474|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|6.0|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA)|Difference of Least Squares Means (LSM)= LSM of (BI 695501 - Humira)|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was performed based on the following model: PASI percentage improvement from baseline at Week 16= Treatment + Baseline PASI +Prior exposure to a biologic agent + random error.||6.0|-2.7|
90871779|NCT02850965|181604475|OTHER|Missing sPGA at Week 16 data were imputed using a combination of non-responder imputation (NRI) and last observed carried forward (LOCF).|Difference in sPGA <= 1 Response Rate|7.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|19.1|||Regression, Logistic||Difference in sPGA \<= 1 Response Rate = (BI 695501 - US-licensed Humira, %)|The week 16 confidence interval for the estimated difference in percentage are produced using the cumulative distribution function method of Reeve.|The statistical model: Logit (response to treatment at Week 16)=Treatment+Baseline PASI+Prior exposure to a biologic agent+random error. Model included fixed, categorical effects of treatment (BI 695501 vs US-licensed Humira) and prior exposure to a biologic agent (yes/no), continuous effect of baseline PASI.|19.1|-4.8|
90871780|NCT02850965|181604476|OTHER|Missing DLQI at Week 16 data were imputed using a combination of non-responder imputation (NRI) and last observed carried forward (LOCF).|Difference in DLQI Response Rate|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|11.3|||Regression, Logistic||Difference in DLQI (0, 1) Response Rate = (BI 695501 - US-licensed Humira, %)|The week 16 confidence interval for the estimated difference in percentage are produced using the cumulative distribution function method of Reeve.|The statistical model: Logit (response to treatment at Week 16)=Treatment+Baseline PASI+Prior exposure to a biologic agent+random error. Model included fixed, categorical effects of treatment (BI 695501 vs US-licensed Humira) and prior exposure to a biologic agent (yes/no), continuous effect of baseline PASI.|11.3|-11.7|
90871781|NCT03178903|181604491|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.678||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<.05 was the a priori threshold for statistical significance.|ANCOVA|Covarying for baseline depressive symptoms and MVPA.||||||.87
90871782|NCT01897402|181604524|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assumptions for the sample size calculations were: 1) Seroconversion for the control vaccine (Menactra) is 40-80% and 2) the true treatments are theoretically equal and 3) the power of detecting non-inferiority is 90%.|Percentage Difference|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|9.1|||||Serogroup A|The hypothesis was that the test vaccine is comparable to the licensed active control vaccine. Differences between treatment groups were described using exact two-sided 95% confidence intervals on differences in % seroconversion between the two treatment groups (test vaccine minus reference vaccine) for each serogroup. If the lower bound of the difference is ≥ -15%, then the test vaccine meets the preliminary criterion for non-inferiority.||9.1|-7.9|
90871783|NCT01897402|181604524|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assumptions for the sample size calculations were: 1) Seroconversion for the control vaccine (Menactra) is 40-80% and 2) the true treatments are theoretically equal and 3) the power of detecting non-inferiority is 90%.|Percentage Difference|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|2.6|||||Serogroup C|The hypothesis was that the test vaccine is comparable to the licensed active control vaccine. Differences between treatment groups were described using exact two-sided 95% confidence intervals on differences in % seroconversion between the two treatment groups (test vaccine minus reference vaccine) for each serogroup. If the lower bound of the difference is ≥ -15%, then the test vaccine meets the preliminary criterion for non-inferiority.||2.6|-14.6|
90871784|NCT01897402|181604524|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assumptions for the sample size calculations were: 1) Seroconversion for the control vaccine (Menactra) is 40-80% and 2) the true treatments are theoretically equal and 3) the power of detecting non-inferiority is 90%.|Percentage Difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|7.9|||||Serogroup Y|The hypothesis was that the test vaccine is comparable to the licensed active control vaccine. Differences between treatment groups were described using exact two-sided 95% confidence intervals on differences in % seroconversion between the two treatment groups (test vaccine minus reference vaccine) for each serogroup. If the lower bound of the difference is ≥ -15%, then the test vaccine meets the preliminary criterion for non-inferiority.||7.9|-9.9|
90871785|NCT01897402|181604524|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assumptions for the sample size calculations were: 1) Seroconversion for the control vaccine (Menactra) is 40-80% and 2) the true treatments are theoretically equal and 3) the power of detecting non-inferiority is 90%.|Percentage Difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|9.1|||||Serogroup W-135|The hypothesis was that the test vaccine is comparable to the licensed active control vaccine. Differences between treatment groups were described using exact two-sided 95% confidence intervals on differences in % seroconversion between the two treatment groups (test vaccine minus reference vaccine) for each serogroup. If the lower bound of the difference is ≥ -15%, then the test vaccine meets the preliminary criterion for non-inferiority.||9.1|-8.5|
90871786|NCT01648205|181604533|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|26.8||0.7958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|11.0|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was used||||11.0|-14.1|0.7958
90871787|NCT01648205|181604534|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|8.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|35.9||0.3369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|26.2|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was used||||26.2|-9.5|0.3369
90871788|NCT00580606|181604551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|55.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.2|77.6||No adjustments were made to the p-value.|Barnard's Statistic|The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.||Number of participants who successfully consumed 5,000 mg of peanut powder or at least a 10-fold increase in the amount of peanut powder compared to their baseline OFC was compared using Barnard's Statistic with the null hypothesis that there was no difference between treatment groups.||77.6|22.2|<0.001
90871789|NCT04847557|181604576|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|6.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|10.6|||Stratified Wilcoxon|Stratified Wilcoxon test used to control for stratification factors of HF decompensation within 12 months of screening,diagnosed T2DM \& baseline BMI|The Hodges-Lehmann estimate for the median difference and 95% CIs was reported.|||10.6|3.3|<0.001
90871790|NCT04847557|181604577|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.95|||Regression, Cox|||Heart Failure Outcomes||0.95|0.41|0.026
90871791|NCT04847557|181604578|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|18.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.9|26.7|||Stratified Wilcoxon|Stratified Wilcoxon test used to control for stratification factors of HF decompensation within 12 months of screening,diagnosed T2DM \& baseline BMI|The Hodges-Lehmann estimate for the median difference and 95% CIs was reported.|||26.7|9.9|<0.001
90871792|NCT04847557|181604579|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-11.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.85|-10.38|||ANCOVA|||||-10.38|-12.85|<0.001
90871793|NCT04847557|181604580|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-34.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.6|-22.17|||ANCOVA|||||-22.17|-45.60|<0.001
90871794|NCT04847557|181604581|SUPERIORITY||Win Ratio|1.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|2.28|||||The win ratio was reported as the measure of treatment effect based on the principle that each participant is compared with every other participant within each stratum in a pair-wise manner that proceeds in a hierarchical fashion.|||2.28|1.17|
90871795|NCT04847557|181604582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|3.4||||||||3.40|1.53|
90871796|NCT04847557|181604583|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.245|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.633|2.452||||||||2.452|0.633|
90871797|NCT04847557|181604584|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.539|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.342|0.85||||||||0.850|0.342|
90871798|NCT04847557|181604585|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.14||||||||1.14|0.46|
90871799|NCT04847557|181604586|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.05||||||||1.05|0.37|
90871800|NCT04346537|181604596|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||< 0.001
90871801|NCT04346537|181604597|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||< 0.001
90871802|NCT04346537|181604598|OTHER|Two-one sided t-tests (TOST) -- the 90% confidence interval was required to be contained with 300 and 1300 ohms.|||||<|0.001|||||||Two one-sided t-tests|||||||< 0.001
90871803|NCT01134783|181604599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.707|TWO_SIDED|||||The analysis used hierarchical linear models having repeated measures of the outcome regressed on experimental condition, adjusted for baseline age, sex, race, and household education level as well as wave and college.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.707
90871804|NCT01134783|181604600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|||||The analysis used hierarchical linear models having repeated measures of the outcome regressed on experimental condition, adjusted for baseline age, sex, race, and household education level as well as wave and college.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.049
90912345|NCT03622580|181693819|SUPERIORITY||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|4.8||||0.3539|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-6.7|16.3||Tested at an overall significance level of α = 0.0248.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The analysis presented here is for the superiority of Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI compared with Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the Treatment-Naive Population.||16.3|-6.7|0.3539
90912346|NCT03622580|181693819|SUPERIORITY||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|10.2||||0.0237|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.3|20.0||Tested at an overall significance level of α = 0.0248.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The analysis presented here is for the superiority of Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W compared with Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the ITT Population.||20.0|0.3|0.0237
90960675|NCT00406653|181801935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.44||Due to randomization misspecification, 2:2:2:1 ratio applied instead of planned 2:1:2:2 (placebo, ABA mg/kg, \~10 mg/kg, 30/\~10 mg/kg). Only \~half intended number assigned to ABA 30/\~10 mg/kg arm and \~double intended number assigned to ABA 3 mg/kg arm|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Second primary comparison (conditional on first): power=80%, sample size=134, 5% significance; expected PLA response rate= 15%, ABA/\~10 mg/kg=30%|All participants who prematurely discontinued for any reason considered not to have achieved clinical response. Normal approximation used if number of responses in treatment group was ≥5. Otherwise an exact method was used.|Conditional on abatacept (ABA) 30/\~10 mg/kg vs placebo (PLA)comparison being statistically significant at 5% significance level, ABA \~10 mg/kg vs PLA to be tested at 5% signficance level. Null hypothesis=no treatment difference (relative risk \[RR\] of ABA over placebo=1).First comparison: power=95%,sample size=134,expected PLA response rate=15%, ABA 30/\~10 mg/kg=35%. Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Chi square p-value and RR along with 95% confidence interval provided, adjusting for randomization strata||3.44|0.4|
90960676|NCT00406653|181801936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.436||95.0||||All statistical testing was performed at a pre-specified alpha-level of 5%.|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||The Cochran-Armitage trend test was performed to evaluate whether a relationship existed between the response and dose regimen by comparing the proportion of participants in response across all four treatment arms. Normal approximation was used if the number of responses in a treatment group is at least 5. Otherwise an exact method was used.||||0.436
90912347|NCT03622580|181693819|SUPERIORITY||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|6.1||||0.1677|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.6|15.8||Tested at an overall significance level of α = 0.0248.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The analysis presented here is for the superiority of Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI compared with Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the ITT Population.||15.8|-3.6|0.1677
91033315|NCT03435081|181952509|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.034||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.2|-4.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Overall Work Impairment Change from Baseline||-4.34|-28.20|0.008
90871805|NCT02345850|181604643|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.805||||0.2368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.562|1.154||The primary pairwise comparisons are tested at a Bonferroni adjusted significance level of 0.05/3.|Log Rank|||The primary null hypothesis of the study is that there is no difference of the CRFS hazard ratio between CD34 select graft vs. Tac/MTX Control. The data in primary outcome table provides point estimates at specific time points (1 year and 2 years post randomization). The statistics in this session provides comparisons between different arms for the entire period of the study.||1.154|0.562|0.2368
90871806|NCT02345850|181604643|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.864||||0.4134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.609|1.228||The primary pairwise comparisons are tested at a Bonferroni adjusted significance level of 0.05/3.|Log Rank|||The primary null hypothesis of the study is that there is no difference of the CRFS hazard ratio between Post-Transplant Cyclophosphamide vs. Tac/MTX Control. The data in primary outcome table provides point estimates. The statistics in this session provides comparisons between different arms for the entire period of the study.||1.228|0.609|0.4134
90871807|NCT02345850|181604643|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.933||||0.7166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.643|1.355||The primary pairwise comparisons are tested at a Bonferroni adjusted significance level of 0.05/3.|Log Rank|||The primary null hypothesis of the study is that there is no difference of the CRFS hazard ratio between CD34 select graft vs. Post-Transplant Cyclophosphamide. The data in primary outcome table provides point estimates. The statistics in this session provides comparisons between different arms for the entire period of the study.||1.355|0.643|0.7166
90871808|NCT02345850|181604643|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.386||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Regression, Cox|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of the CRFS hazard ratio between treatment groups after adjustment for age, donor type, performance status, primary disease, and disease risk. The data in primary outcome table provides point estimates. The statistics in this session provides comparisons between different arms for the entire period of the study.||||0.386
90912348|NCT03622580|181693822|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|4.9||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants gaining ≥15 letters in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||4.9|-10.0|
90912349|NCT03622580|181693822|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|11.1||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants gaining ≥15 letters in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||11.1|-4.0|
90912350|NCT03622580|181693822|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|7.9||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants gaining ≥10 letters in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||7.9|-8.6|
90912351|NCT03622580|181693822|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|8.8||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants gaining ≥10 letters in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||8.8|-7.4|
90912352|NCT03622580|181693822|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|4.1||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants gaining ≥5 letters in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||4.1|-9.1|
90912353|NCT03622580|181693822|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|4.5||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants gaining ≥5 letters in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||4.5|-8.5|
90912354|NCT03622580|181693822|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|4.8||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants gaining ≥0 letters in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||4.8|-4.6|
90912355|NCT03622580|181693822|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|7.5||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants gaining ≥0 letters in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||7.5|-1.0|
90912356|NCT03622580|181693827|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-5.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|3.5||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants gaining ≥15 letters in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||3.5|-14.0|
90912357|NCT03622580|181693827|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|10.3||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants gaining ≥15 letters in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||10.3|-7.0|
90912358|NCT03622580|181693827|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|9.5||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants gaining ≥10 letters in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||9.5|-9.5|
90912359|NCT03622580|181693827|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|11.3||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants gaining ≥10 letters in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||11.3|-7.1|
90912360|NCT03622580|181693827|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|2.9||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants gaining ≥5 letters in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||2.9|-11.9|
90912361|NCT03622580|181693827|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-7.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|0.2||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants gaining ≥5 letters in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||0.2|-14.6|
90912362|NCT03622580|181693827|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|5.2||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants gaining ≥0 letters in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||5.2|-5.5|
90912363|NCT03622580|181693827|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|7.0||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants gaining ≥0 letters in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||7.0|-3.0|
90912364|NCT03622580|181693832|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|1.3||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants avoiding a loss of ≥15 letters in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||1.3|-2.8|
90912365|NCT03622580|181693832|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.5||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants avoiding a loss of ≥15 letters in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||1.5|-2.2|
90912366|NCT03622580|181693832|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|0.9||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants avoiding a loss of ≥10 letters in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||0.9|-4.6|
90912367|NCT03622580|181693832|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|2.2||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants avoiding a loss of ≥10 letters in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||2.2|-2.2|
90912368|NCT03622580|181693832|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|2.2||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants avoiding a loss of ≥5 letters in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||2.2|-4.5|
90912369|NCT03622580|181693832|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|3.4||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants avoiding a loss of ≥5 letters in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||3.4|-2.6|
90912370|NCT03622580|181693836|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|1.3||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants avoiding a loss of ≥15 letters in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||1.3|-3.5|
90912371|NCT03622580|181693836|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|1.3||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants avoiding a loss of ≥15 letters in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||1.3|-3.1|
90912372|NCT03622580|181693836|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|0.9||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants avoiding a loss of ≥10 letters in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||0.9|-5.1|
90912373|NCT03622580|181693836|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|1.6||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants avoiding a loss of ≥10 letters in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||1.6|-3.5|
90912374|NCT03622580|181693836|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|2.8||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants avoiding a loss of ≥5 letters in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||2.8|-5.2|
90912375|NCT03622580|181693836|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|3.3||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants avoiding a loss of ≥5 letters in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||3.3|-4.1|
90871809|NCT02345850|181604643|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.461||||||A Bonferroni adjusted significance level of 0.05/3=0.0167 is used for each of three interaction tests to account for multiple testing.|Cox proportional hazards regression|||Subgroup analyses are conducted for CRFS according to disease, disease risk and age. Interaction tests between treatment group and subgroup are conducted within a Cox proportional hazards regression model with treatment, subgroup, and a treatment\*subgroup interaction term. The null hypothesis is that there is no Interaction between treatment group and disease risk (Low/Intermediate vs. High) for CRFS.||||0.461
90912376|NCT03622580|181693840|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|2.9||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the ITT Population.||2.9|-12.6|
90871810|NCT02345850|181604643|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.115||||||Cox proportional hazards regression|Cox proportional hazards regression|||Subgroup analyses are conducted for CRFS according to disease, disease risk and age. Interaction tests between treatment group and subgroup are conducted within a Cox proportional hazards regression model with treatment, subgroup, and a treatment\*subgroup interaction term. The null hypothesis is that there is no Interaction between treatment group and Age (\<=50 vs. \>50) for CRFS.||||0.115
90871811|NCT02345850|181604643|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.227||||||A Bonferroni adjusted significance level of 0.05/3=0.0167 is used for each of three interaction tests to account for multiple testing.|Cox proportional hazards regression|||Subgroup analyses are conducted for CRFS according to disease, disease risk and age. Interaction tests between treatment group and subgroup are conducted within a Cox proportional hazards regression model with treatment, subgroup, and a treatment\*subgroup interaction term. The null hypothesis is that there is no Interaction between treatment group and Disease (AML vs. ALL vs. MDS) for CRFS.||||0.227
90871812|NCT02345850|181604644|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.744||||0.0197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.086|2.8||The OS pairwise comparisons are tested at a Bonferroni adjusted significance level of 0.05/3.|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of the OS hazard ratio between CD34 select graft vs. Tac/MTX Control.||2.800|1.086|0.0197
90871813|NCT02345850|181604644|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.016||||0.9525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.599|1.724||The OS pairwise comparisons are tested at a Bonferroni adjusted significance level of 0.05/3.|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of the OS hazard ratio between Post-Transplant Cyclophosphamide vs. Tac/MTX Control.||1.724|0.599|0.9525
90871814|NCT02345850|181604644|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.774||||0.0185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.093|2.877||The OS pairwise comparisons are tested at a Bonferroni adjusted significance level of 0.05/3.|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of the OS hazard ratio between CD34 select graft vs. Post-Transplant Cyclophosphamide.||2.877|1.093|0.0185
90871815|NCT02345850|181604644|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.026||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Regression, Cox|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of the OS hazard ratio between treatment groups after adjustment for age, donor type, performance status, primary disease, and disease risk.||||0.026
90871816|NCT02345850|181604645|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of Relapse-Free Survival between the treatment groups.||||0.029
90871817|NCT02345850|181604645|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.145||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Regression, Cox|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of the RFS hazard ratio between treatment groups after adjustment for age, donor type, performance status, primary disease, and disease risk.||||0.145
90871818|NCT02345850|181604646|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of Transplant-Related Mortality between the treatment groups.||||0.020
90871819|NCT02345850|181604646|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Regression, Cox|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of the TRM hazard ratio between treatment groups after adjustment for age, donor type, performance status, primary disease, and disease risk.||||0.040
90871820|NCT02345850|181604647|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2389||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of immunosuppression-free survival at 1-year post-transplant between the treatment groups.||||0.2389
90871821|NCT02345850|181604647|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cohen's Kappa|||The null hypothesis is that there is no agreement between CRFS and immunosuppression-free survival at 1-year post-transplant.||||<0.0001
90871822|NCT02345850|181604648|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.076||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of Disease Relapse between the treatment groups.||||0.076
90912377|NCT03622580|181693840|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|9.8||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the ITT Population.||9.8|-5.9|
90912378|NCT03622580|181693840|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-8.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|0.5||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the Treatment-Naive Population.||0.5|-17.8|
90871823|NCT02345850|181604648|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.106||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Regression, Cox|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of the Disease Relapse hazard ratio between treatment groups after adjustment for age, donor type, performance status, primary disease, and disease risk.||||0.106
90871824|NCT02345850|181604649|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0764||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of Neutrophil Engraftment post-transplantation between the treatment groups.||||0.0764
90871825|NCT02345850|181604650|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of Platelet recovery post-transplantation between the treatment groups.||||0.0001
90871826|NCT02345850|181604652|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1478|||||||Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of Secondary graft failure post-transplantation between the treatment groups.||||0.1478
90871827|NCT02345850|181604653|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0026||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of grade II-IV acute GVHD post-transplantation between the treatment groups.||||0.0026
90871828|NCT02345850|181604653|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0369||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of grade III-IV acute GVHD post-transplantation between the treatment groups.||||0.0369
90871829|NCT02345850|181604653|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Regression, Cox|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of the grade II-IV acute GVHD hazard ratio between treatment groups after adjustment for age, donor type, performance status, primary disease, and disease risk.||||0.002
90871830|NCT02345850|181604653|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Regression, Cox|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of the grade III-IV acute GVHD hazard ratio between treatment groups after adjustment for age, donor type, performance status, primary disease, and disease risk.||||0.046
90871831|NCT02345850|181604655|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0024||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of chronic GVHD post-transplantation between the treatment groups.||||0.0024
90871832|NCT02345850|181604655|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Regression, Cox|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of the chronic GVHD hazard ratio between treatment groups after adjustment for age, donor type, performance status, primary disease, and disease risk.||||0.005
90871833|NCT02345850|181604656|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.229||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of Chronic GVHD-free Survival post-transplantation between the treatment groups.||||0.229
90871834|NCT02345850|181604658|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0006||||||Superiority - Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of Grades II-III infection post-transplantation between the treatment groups.||||0.0006
90871835|NCT02345850|181604658|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0145||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of Grades III infection post-transplantation between the treatment groups.||||0.0145
90871836|NCT02392247|181604672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.44||This study was not designed to determine which method is 'superior'.Statistical significance refers to deviation of slope for perfect agreement (=1) between paired measurements to quantify strength of association .|Deming Regression||Slope measured deviation from 1:1 concordance between SEER and TEG with TEG measurement as denominator. Confidence intervals were obtained by bootstrapping 1000 times on the parameters estimates for the slopes, intervals and correlation coefficients|A cohort of 50 patients was estimated to capture at least 7 'bleeding' patients with a likelihood of 95%, assuming a 25% incidence of bleeding, and standard deviation of 20%, to determine maximum clot stiffness within +/- 10% of the mean. This was a descriptive and method-comparison study. Method comparisons were performed according to Clinical Laboratory Science Institute (CLSI) guidelines (Deming regression on paired measurements)||0.44|0.26|<0.001
90912379|NCT03622580|181693840|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|8.2||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the Treatment-Naive Population.||8.2|-9.9|
90912380|NCT03622580|181693843|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|3.8||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the ITT Population.||3.8|-10.2|
90912381|NCT03622580|181693843|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|9.2||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the ITT Population.||9.2|-4.3|
90912382|NCT03622580|181693843|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|3.1||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the Treatment-Naive Population.||3.1|-12.6|
90912383|NCT03622580|181693843|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|6.4||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the Treatment-Naive Population.||6.4|-8.9|
90912384|NCT03622580|181693846|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|2.9||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the ITT Population.||2.9|-1.8|
90912385|NCT03622580|181693846|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|2.3||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the ITT Population.||2.3|-2.2|
90912386|NCT03622580|181693846|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|3.6||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the Treatment-Naive Population.||3.6|-2.0|
90912387|NCT03622580|181693846|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|2.5||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the Treatment-Naive Population.||2.5|-2.6|
90912388|NCT03622580|181693855|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.0||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the ITT Population.||2.0|-1.1|
90912389|NCT03622580|181693855|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.0||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the ITT Population.||2.0|-1.1|
90912390|NCT03622580|181693855|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.6||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the Treatment-Naive Population.||0.6|-1.9|
90912391|NCT03622580|181693855|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.5||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the Treatment-Naive Population.||2.5|-1.5|
90912392|NCT03622580|181693856|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.2||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the ITT Population.||1.2|-0.4|
90912393|NCT03622580|181693856|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the ITT Population.||0.0|0.0|
90912394|NCT03622580|181693856|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the Treatment-Naive Population.||0.0|0.0|
90912395|NCT03622580|181693856|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the Treatment-Naive Population.||0.0|0.0|
90912396|NCT03622580|181693863|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-36.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.88|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.8|-24.7||||||This is the adjusted mean difference for Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the ITT Population.||-24.7|-47.8|
90912397|NCT03622580|181693863|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-26.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.86|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.7|-14.7||||||This is the adjusted mean difference for Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the ITT Population.||-14.7|-37.7|
90912398|NCT03622580|181693863|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-31.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.35|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.6|-18.6||||||This is the adjusted mean difference for Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the Treatment-Naive Population.||-18.6|-43.6|
90912399|NCT03622580|181693863|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-23.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.28|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.2|-11.6||||||This is the adjusted mean difference for Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the Treatment-Naive Population.||-11.6|-36.2|
90912400|NCT03622580|181693866|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|16.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.9|23.1||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the ITT Population.||23.1|8.9|
90912401|NCT03622580|181693866|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|12.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.4|20.0||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the ITT Population.||20.0|5.4|
90912402|NCT03622580|181693866|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|15.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.3|23.2||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the Treatment-Naive Population.||23.2|7.3|
90912403|NCT03622580|181693866|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|12.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|20.6||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the Treatment-Naive Population.||20.6|4.4|
90912404|NCT03959241|181693894|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.641||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.492|0.835||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Regression, Cox|||This is the result of the Cox proportional hazards analysis. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of GRFS hazard ratio between treatment groups after adjustment for age group, donor type and HLA Matching Score, disease risk index, Planned RIC Conditioning Regimen, and Planned post-transplant maintenance therapies.||0.835|0.492|0.001
90912405|NCT03959241|181693895|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.995||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|||This is the unadjusted analysis. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of grade II-IV acute GVHD post-transplantation between the treatment groups.||||0.995
90912406|NCT03959241|181693895|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|||This is the unadjusted analysis. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of grade III-IV acute GVHD post-transplantation between the treatment groups||||0.001
90912407|NCT03959241|181693895|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.758|1.267||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Regression, Cox|||This is the result of the Cox proportional hazards analysis. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of grade II-IV acute GVHD post-transplantation between the treatment groups using a Cox regression model for the cause-specific hazard of aGVHD||1.267|0.758|0.879
91033316|NCT03435081|181952509|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.219||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.95|-1.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Activity Impairment Change from Baseline||-1.32|-17.95|0.023
90912408|NCT03959241|181693895|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.386||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.215|0.691||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Regression, Cox|||This is the result of the Cox proportional hazards analysis. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of grade III-IV aGVHD hazard ratio between treatment groups after adjustment for age group, donor type and HLA Matching Score, disease risk index, Planned RIC Conditioning Regimen, and Planned post-transplant maintenance therapies.||0.691|0.215|0.001
90912409|NCT03959241|181693899|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|||This is the unadjusted analysis. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of chronic GVHD post-transplantation between the treatment groups||||0.005
90960677|NCT00406653|181801943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||All statistical testing was performed at a pre-specified alpha-level of 5%.|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||The Cochran-Armitage trend test was performed to evaluate whether a relationship existed between the response and dose regimen by comparing the proportion of participants in response across all four treatment arms. Normal approximation was used if the number of responses in a treatment group is at least 5. Otherwise an exact method was used.||||0.112
90960678|NCT00731120|181801961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.803||0.279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.45|0.71||Hierarchical testing stopped at 10 mg versus placebo for HAM-A total score at Week 8 in the testing sequence, a nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), with treatment and center as fixed factors and baseline HAM-A as a covariate.||P-values were tested at the 5% significance level (ie, statistical significance if P\<0.05). To control for multiplicity, a pre-specified sequential testing procedure was applied to compare 10 mg and 2.5 mg vortioxetine to placebo; as soon as an endpoint was non-significant at 0.05, the testing procedure stopped for all subsequent endpoints.||0.71|-2.45|0.279
90960679|NCT00731120|181801961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.791||0.306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.36|0.74||Pre-specified sequential statistical testing procedure indicates that when p-value \>0.05, hierarchical testing stops and for subsequent endpoints in the sequence a nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), with treatment and center as fixed factors and baseline HAM-A as a covariate.||||0.74|-2.36|0.306
90960680|NCT02434939|181801974|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|a clinically significant difference in validated pain scores was defined as 1.3. assuming both treatments are on average equal, 240 patients provided 95% power to demonstrate that IV low dose ketamine is non inferior to IV morphine with a 0.05 level of significance.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.5||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|13.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||||13.2|-2.2|0.18
90960681|NCT02434939|181801977|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A clinically meaningful difference in validated pain scores was defined as 1.3.Assuming both treatments are on average equal, a sample size of 240 patients (120 per group) provided 95% power to demonstrate that IV LDK is non-inferior to IV morphine with a 0.05 level of significance.||||||0.07|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.07
90871837|NCT02392247|181604673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|3.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|3.4||This study was not designed to determine which method is 'superior'. Statistical significance refers to deviation of slope for perfect agreement (=1) between paired measurements to quantify strength of association .|Deming regression|Confidence intervals were obtained by bootstrapping 1000 times on the parameters estimates for the slopes, intervals and correlation coefficients|Slope measured deviation from 1:1 concordance between SEER and TEG with TEG as denominator. Confidence intervals were obtained by bootstrapping 1000 times on the parameters estimates for the slopes, intervals and correlation coefficients|A cohort of 50 patients was estimated to capture at least 7 'bleeding' patients with a likelihood of 95%, assuming a 25% incidence of bleeding, and standard deviation of 20%, to determine maximum clot stiffness within +/- 10% of the mean. This was a descriptive and method-comparison study. Method comparisons were performed according to Clinical Laboratory Science Institute (CLSI) guidelines (Deming regression on paired measurements )||3.4|2.9|<0.001
90912410|NCT03959241|181693899|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.556||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.381|0.813||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Regression, Cox|||This is the result of the Cox proportional hazards analysis. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of the chronic GVHD hazard ratio between treatment groups after adjustment for age group, donor type and HLA Matching Score, disease risk index, Planned RIC Conditioning Regimen, and Planned post-transplant maintenance therapies||0.813|0.381|0.002
90912411|NCT03959241|181693902|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Chi-squared|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of Immunosuppression-Free Survival between the treatment groups||||0.038
90960682|NCT01326533|181801978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline value as covariate||||||<0.01
90960683|NCT01326533|181801979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline value as covariate||||||0.013
90960684|NCT04079803|181801980|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.087||||||P value adjusted for multiplicity of 6 co-primary endpoints (p\<0.008 required for significance).|ANCOVA|General Linear Model for the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with a two-sided 95% confidence interval and baseline measurement as the covariate.||This primary analysis includes two 100 mg subjects who showed no detectable simufilam in plasma at return visits (their exclusion was not prespecified in the Statistical Analysis Plan).|In a secondary analysis removing two subjects with no detectable simufilam in plasma, P=0.0088 and CFB was 13.4. In percent change from baseline with these two subjects removed, P=0.004.|||0.087
91033317|NCT03435081|181952509|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.115||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.4|-5.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Activity Impairment Change from Baseline||-5.17|-21.40|0.001
90912412|NCT03959241|181693903|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.032||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of Neutrophil Recovery between the treatment groups||||0.032
91033318|NCT03435081|181952510|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Health State Index Score (US algorithm)||0.07|-0.03|0.482
90871838|NCT01991067|181604685|OTHER|Furthermore, a multivariable logistic regression model was applied accounting for group as well as age, body mass index, and gender as possible influence factors.|||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was a p-value of \<0.05.|Fisher Exact|||The calculation of the sample size was performed using nQuery 6.1. The primary endpoint was the outcome of the NT 4 weeks after the second vaccination. A Fisher exact tes was calculated to analyze the primary hypothesis on the difference in NT-titer response between patients and controls||||<0.001
90871839|NCT01991067|181604686|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Fisher Exact|||A Fisher exact test was calculated to analyze antibody response by ELISA between patients and controls. To measure the Agreement between the NT and ELISA response, Cohens Kappa and the corresponding 95% confidence interval were calculated||||0.02
90871840|NCT01991067|181604687|OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"For titer values the geometric mean was calculated and the corresponding two-sided 95% confidence intervals were constructed by back-transfomration of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed results.~To investigate the difference in absolute titer values and geometric mean fold changes between time point and Groups, Wilcoxon tests were performed."||||<0.01
90871841|NCT00127712|181604721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.02
90871842|NCT00127712|181604722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
90871843|NCT00127712|181604723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.001
90871844|NCT00127712|181604724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.79
90871845|NCT02801942|181604725|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.307|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.59|9.21|||||The mean difference in circulating B lymphocytes (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||9.21|-4.59|
90871846|NCT02801942|181604725|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.398|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|8.54|||||The mean difference in Classical B Lymphocytes (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||8.54|-1.46|
90871847|NCT02801942|181604725|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.854|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.87|0.86|||||The mean difference in Double Negative B Lymphocytes (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||0.86|-6.87|
90871848|NCT02801942|181604725|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.482||||95.0|-11.86|6.84|||||The mean difference in Naive B Lymphocytes (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||6.84|-11.86|
90912413|NCT03959241|181693904|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of Platelet Recovery greater than or equal to 20,000/mm\^3 between the treatment groups||||<0.001
90912414|NCT03959241|181693904|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of Platelet Recovery greater than or equal to 50,000/mm\^3 between the treatment groups||||<0.001
90871849|NCT02801942|181604726|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.658|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|8.98|||||The mean difference in Circulating B Lymphocytes (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||8.98|-2.22|
90871850|NCT02801942|181604726|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.833|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.72|20.91|||||The mean difference in Classical B Lymphocytes (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||20.91|-3.72|
90871851|NCT02801942|181604726|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.347|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.53|3.38|||||The mean difference in Double Negative B Lymphocytes (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||3.38|-6.53|
90912415|NCT03959241|181693905|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of Lymphocyte Recovery between the treatment groups||||<0.001
90871852|NCT02801942|181604726|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.221|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.32|2.71|||||The mean difference in Naive B Lymphocytes (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||2.71|-19.32|
90871853|NCT02801942|181604727|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.873|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|2.75|||||The mean difference in B-cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||2.75|-0.90|
90871854|NCT02801942|181604727|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.19|||||The mean difference in CD56bright NK cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||0.19|-0.07|
90871855|NCT02801942|181604727|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.41|2.84|||||The mean difference in CD56lo CD16+ (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||2.84|-3.41|
90871856|NCT02801942|181604727|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.13|||||The mean difference in CD56lo CD16- (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||0.13|-0.10|
90871857|NCT02801942|181604727|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.118|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.31|||||The mean difference in Dendritic cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||0.31|-0.19|
90871858|NCT02801942|181604727|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.482|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.23|2.96|||||The mean difference in NK cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||2.96|-3.23|
90871859|NCT02801942|181604728|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.231|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.14|6.23|||||The mean difference in B-cells in (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) iLN has been presented.|||6.23|-3.14|
90871860|NCT02801942|181604728|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.34|||||The mean difference in CD56bright sNK cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||0.34|-0.25|
90871861|NCT02801942|181604728|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.253|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.52|||||The mean difference in CD56lo CD16+ (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||0.52|-0.54|
90871862|NCT02801942|181604728|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.1|||||The mean difference in CD56lo CD16- (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||0.10|-0.15|
90871863|NCT02801942|181604728|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.128|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.34|||||The mean difference in Dendritic cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||0.34|-0.21|
90871864|NCT02801942|181604728|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.487|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.96|||||The mean difference in NK cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||0.96|-1.10|
90871865|NCT02801942|181604729|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.326|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|3.8|||||The mean difference in CD56bright NK cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||3.80|-1.73|
90871866|NCT02801942|181604729|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.324|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.54|2.16|||||The mean difference in CD56lo CD16+ (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||2.16|-7.54|
90871867|NCT02801942|181604729|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.738|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|1.95|||||The mean difference in CD56lo CD16- (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||1.95|-1.12|
90960685|NCT04079803|181801980|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||P value adjusted for multiplicity of 6 co-primary endpoints (p\<0.008 required for significance).|ANCOVA|General Linear Model for the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with a two-sided 95% confidence interval and baseline measurement as the covariate.||This primary analysis includes one 50 mg subject who showed no detectable simufilam in plasma at return visits (their exclusion was not prespecified in the Statistical Analysis Plan).|In a secondary analysis removing one subject with no detectable simufilam in plasma, P=0.0006 and CFB was 16.9. In percent change from baseline with this subject removed, P=0.0004.|||0.01
90871868|NCT02801942|181604730|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.564|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.92|18.6|||||The mean difference in CD56bright NK cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||18.60|-4.92|
90871869|NCT02801942|181604730|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.918|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.77|9.0|||||The mean difference in CD56lo CD16+ (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||9.00|-24.77|
90871870|NCT02801942|181604730|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.379|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.66|3.73|||||The mean difference in CD56lo CD16- (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||3.73|-6.66|
90871871|NCT02801942|181604731|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.558|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.17|10.84|||||The mean difference in myeloid dendritic cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||10.84|-8.17|
90871872|NCT02801942|181604731|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.658|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.57|7.86|||||The mean difference in plasmacytoid dendritic cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||7.86|-11.57|
90871873|NCT02801942|181604732|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.658|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|24.09|||||The mean difference in myeloid dendritic cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||24.09|0.38|
90871874|NCT02801942|181604732|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.961|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.52|3.78|||||The mean difference in plasmacytoid dendritic cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||3.78|-25.52|
90871875|NCT02801942|181604735|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.329|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.41|14.99|||||The mean difference in CD45RA+ Effector Memory CD8 (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||14.99|-11.41|
90960686|NCT04079803|181801981|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P value adjusted for multiplicity of 6 co-primary endpoints (p\<0.008 required for significance).|ANCOVA|General Linear Model for the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with a two-sided 95% confidence interval and baseline measurement as the covariate.||This primary analysis includes two 100 mg subjects who showed no detectable simufilam in plasma at return visits (their exclusion was not prespecified in the Statistical Analysis Plan).|In a secondary analysis removing two subjects with no detectable simufilam in plasma, P\<0.0001 and CFB was -19.8.|||<0.0001
90960687|NCT04079803|181801981|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0012||||||P value adjusted for multiplicity of 6 co-primary endpoints (p\<0.008 required for significance).|ANCOVA|General Linear Model for the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with a two-sided 95% confidence interval and baseline measurement as the covariate.||This primary analysis includes one 50 mg subject who showed no detectable simufilam in plasma at return visits (their exclusion was not prespecified in the Statistical Analysis Plan).|In a secondary analysis removing one subject with no detectable simufilam in plasma, P=0.001 and CFB was -14.9.|||0.0012
90871876|NCT02801942|181604735|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.28|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|4.91|||||The mean difference in Central Memory CD8 (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||4.91|-4.60|
90871877|NCT02801942|181604735|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.297|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|11.26|||||The mean difference in Effector Memory CD8 (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||11.26|-2.50|
90871878|NCT02801942|181604735|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.729|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.01|5.89|||||The mean difference in Naive CD8 (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||5.89|-18.01|
90871879|NCT02801942|181604735|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.305|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.6|||||The mean difference in Stem Cell Memory-like CD8 (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||0.60|-0.67|
90871880|NCT02801942|181604736|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.133|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.33|7.73|||||The mean difference in CD45RA+ Effector Memory CD8 (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||7.73|-5.33|
90871881|NCT02801942|181604736|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.466|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.73|2.41|||||The mean difference in Central Memory CD8 (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||2.41|-3.73|
90871882|NCT02801942|181604736|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.79|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.67|3.96|||||The mean difference in Effector Memory CD8 (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||3.96|-7.67|
90871883|NCT02801942|181604736|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.342|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.54|13.87|||||The mean difference in Naive CD8 (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||13.87|-12.54|
90871884|NCT02801942|181604736|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.492|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|0.36|||||The mean difference in Stem Cell Memory-like CD8 (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||0.36|-1.71|
90871885|NCT02801942|181604739|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.236|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.16|||||The mean difference in PD-1+ ICOS+ TFH cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||0.16|-0.84|
90871886|NCT02801942|181604740|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.362|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.37|2.96|||||The mean difference in PD-1+ ICOS+ TFH cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||2.96|-15.37|
90871887|NCT02801942|181604741|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.269|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|3.68|||||The mean difference in CD45RA+ Effector Memory Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||3.68|-1.61|
90871888|NCT02801942|181604741|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.152|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.12|5.03|||||The mean difference in Central Memory Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||5.03|-8.12|
90871889|NCT02801942|181604741|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.089|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.59|4.13|||||The mean difference in Effector Memory Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||4.13|-4.59|
90871890|NCT02801942|181604741|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.835|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.08|8.92|||||The mean difference in Naive Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||8.92|-7.08|
91033319|NCT03435081|181952510|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Health State Index Score (US algorithm)||0.10|0.00|0.043
90871891|NCT02801942|181604741|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.21|||||The mean difference in Stem Cell Memory-like Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||0.21|-0.40|
90871892|NCT02801942|181604742|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.236||||95.0|-0.23|0.75|||||The mean difference in CD45RA+ Effector Memory Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||0.75|-0.23|
90871893|NCT02801942|181604742|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.943|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|6.29|||||The mean difference in Central Memory Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||6.29|-10.20|
90871894|NCT02801942|181604742|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.621|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.38|9.69|||||The mean difference in Effector Memory Conv T cells(Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||9.69|-5.38|
90871895|NCT02801942|181604742|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.629|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.47|8.86|||||The mean difference in Naive Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||8.86|-10.47|
90960688|NCT04079803|181801982|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||P value adjusted for multiplicity of 6 co-primary endpoints (p\<0.008 required for significance).|ANCOVA|General Linear Model for the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with a two-sided 95% confidence interval and baseline measurement as the covariate.||This primary analysis includes two 100 mg subjects who showed no detectable simufilam in plasma at return visits (their exclusion was not prespecified in the Statistical Analysis Plan).|In a secondary analysis removing two subjects with no detectable simufilam in plasma, P=0.003 and CFB was -3.2.|||0.005
90871896|NCT02801942|181604742|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.268|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.34|||||The mean difference in Stem cell Memory-like Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||0.34|-0.77|
90871897|NCT02801942|181604743|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.556|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.42|0.25|||||The mean difference in TFH cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||0.25|-10.42|
90871898|NCT02801942|181604743|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.07|||||The mean difference in PD-1+ ICOS+ TFH cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||0.07|-0.15|
90871899|NCT02801942|181604743|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.428|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.08|2.88|||||The mean difference in TH17 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||2.88|-3.08|
90871900|NCT02801942|181604743|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.294|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.87|11.05|||||The mean difference in TH1 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||11.05|-6.87|
90871901|NCT02801942|181604743|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.382|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.94|5.0|||||The mean difference in TH1 TH17 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||5.00|-4.94|
90871902|NCT02801942|181604743|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.112|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.31|2.32|||||The mean difference in TH1 TH17 TH2 T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||2.32|-2.31|
90871903|NCT02801942|181604743|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.026|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.73|1.55|||||The mean difference in TH1 TH2 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||1.55|-2.73|
90871904|NCT02801942|181604743|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.474|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|4.64|||||The mean difference in TH2 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||4.64|-1.51|
90871905|NCT02801942|181604743|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.504|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|1.05|||||The mean difference in TH22 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||1.05|-1.05|
90871906|NCT02801942|181604744|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.607|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.99|9.07|||||The mean difference in TFH cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||9.07|-5.99|
90871907|NCT02801942|181604744|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.855|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.43|1.18|||||The mean difference in PD-1+ ICOS+ TFH cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||1.18|-2.43|
90871908|NCT02801942|181604744|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.391|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.49|3.31|||||The mean difference in TH17 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||3.31|-2.49|
91033320|NCT03435081|181952510|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Health State Index Score (UK algorithm)||0.09|-0.06|0.656
90871909|NCT02801942|181604744|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.824|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.39|2.39|||||The mean difference in TH1 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||2.39|-9.39|
90871910|NCT02801942|181604744|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.738|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|1.78|||||The mean difference in TH1 TH17 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||1.78|-1.29|
90871911|NCT02801942|181604744|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.544|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|1.54|||||The mean difference in TH1 TH17 TH2 T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||1.54|-0.73|
90871912|NCT02801942|181604744|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.246|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|3.07|||||The mean difference in TH1 TH2 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||3.07|-2.12|
90871913|NCT02801942|181604744|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.641|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.45|8.55|||||The mean difference in TH2 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||8.55|-2.45|
90871914|NCT02801942|181604744|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.448|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.96|||||The mean difference in TH22 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||0.96|-0.92|
90871915|NCT02801942|181604745|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.82|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.71|1.05|||||The mean difference in TFH cells-like Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||1.05|-10.71|
90871916|NCT02801942|181604745|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.953|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.82|1.16|||||The mean difference in TH1 cells-like Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||1.16|-2.82|
90871917|NCT02801942|181604745|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.536||||95.0|-6.08|0.33|||||The mean difference in TH1 TH17 TH2 cells-like Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||0.33|-6.08|
90871918|NCT02801942|181604745|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.963|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|3.81|||||The mean difference in TH1 TH2 cells-like Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||3.81|-0.20|
91033321|NCT03435081|181952510|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Health State Index Score (UK algorithm)||0.14|-0.00|0.057
90871919|NCT02801942|181604745|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.289|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.99|2.39|||||The mean difference in TH17 cells-like Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||2.39|-2.99|
90912416|NCT03959241|181693906|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.919||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of Donor Cell Engraftment at Day 28 after transplantation between the treatment groups||||0.919
90912417|NCT03959241|181693906|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.198||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of Donor Cell Engraftment at Day 100 after transplantation between the treatment groups||||0.198
90871920|NCT02801942|181604745|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.907|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|7.36|||||The mean difference in TH2 cells-like Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||7.36|-0.59|
90871921|NCT02801942|181604745|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.413|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.11|1.78|||||The mean difference in TH22 cells-like Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||1.78|-4.11|
90871922|NCT02801942|181604746|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.918|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|6.63|||||The mean difference in TFH cells-like Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||6.63|-5.60|
90871923|NCT02801942|181604746|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.842|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.93|-0.26|||||The mean difference in TH1 cells-like Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||-0.26|-7.93|
90871924|NCT02801942|181604746|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.209|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.34|1.24|||||The mean difference in TH1 TH17 TH2 cells-like Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||1.24|-4.34|
90871925|NCT02801942|181604746|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.725|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.51|2.77|||||The mean difference in TH1 TH2 cells-like Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||2.77|-4.51|
90912418|NCT03959241|181693907|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of quantitative donor chimerism at Day 28 after transplantation between the treatment groups||||0.670
90912419|NCT03959241|181693907|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.607||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of quantitative donor chimerism at Day 100 after transplantation between the treatment groups||||0.607
90912420|NCT03959241|181693908|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.906||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|||This is the unadjusted analysis. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of Disease Relapse between the treatment groups||||0.906
90871926|NCT02801942|181604746|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.193|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.02|4.09|||||The mean difference in TH17 cells-like Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||4.09|-5.02|
90871927|NCT02801942|181604746|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.405|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.52|7.68|||||The mean difference in TH2 cells-like Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||7.68|-6.52|
90871928|NCT02801942|181604746|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.811|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|1.4|||||The mean difference in TH22 cells-like Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||1.40|-2.21|
90871929|NCT02801942|181604747|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.601|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|1.65|||||The mean difference in Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||1.65|-0.86|
90871930|NCT02801942|181604748|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.929|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|1.7|||||The mean difference in Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||1.70|-2.18|
90960689|NCT04079803|181801982|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||P value adjusted for multiplicity of 6 co-primary endpoints (p\<0.008 required for significance).|ANCOVA|General Linear Model for the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with a two-sided 95% confidence interval and baseline measurement as the covariate.||This primary analysis includes one 50 mg subject who showed no detectable simufilam in plasma at return visits (their exclusion was not prespecified in the Statistical Analysis Plan).|In a secondary analysis removing one subject with no detectable simufilam in plasma, P=0.003 and CFB was -2.5.|||0.002
90871931|NCT02801942|181604749|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.443|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|1.87|||||The mean difference in CD69+ CD8 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||1.87|0.02|
91033322|NCT03435081|181952511|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.597||0.609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.45|3.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.79|-6.45|0.609
90871932|NCT02801942|181604749|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|0.38|||||The mean difference in Ki67+ CD8 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||0.38|-2.04|
90871933|NCT02801942|181604750|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.299|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.81|6.27|||||The mean difference in CD69+ CD8 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||6.27|-11.81|
90871934|NCT02801942|181604750|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.051|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|4.44|||||The mean difference in Ki67+ CD8 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||4.44|-0.04|
90871935|NCT02801942|181604751|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.214|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.91|3.32|||||The mean difference in CD15s+ Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||3.32|-5.91|
90871936|NCT02801942|181604751|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.308|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.57|||||The mean difference in CD69+ Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||1.57|0.28|
90871937|NCT02801942|181604751|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.017|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.08|10.51|||||The mean difference in Helios+ Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||10.51|-2.08|
90871938|NCT02801942|181604751|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.985|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.03|1.08|||||The mean difference in Ki67+ T Reg cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||1.08|-3.03|
90871939|NCT02801942|181604751|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.802|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|3.07|||||The mean difference in Memory Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||3.07|-12.80|
90871940|NCT02801942|181604751|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.733|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|18.47|||||The mean difference in Resting Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||18.47|-1.27|
90871941|NCT02801942|181604752|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.905||||95.0|-3.78|16.85|||||The mean difference in CD15s+ Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||16.85|-3.78|
90871942|NCT02801942|181604752|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.595|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.17|1.1|||||The mean difference in CD69+ Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||1.10|-18.17|
90871943|NCT02801942|181604752|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.519|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.23|7.45|||||The mean difference in Helios+ Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||7.45|-3.23|
90871944|NCT02801942|181604752|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|7.59|||||The mean difference in Ki67+ T Reg cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||7.59|-0.98|
90871945|NCT02801942|181604752|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.026|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.23|8.67|||||The mean difference in Memory Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||8.67|-8.23|
90871946|NCT02801942|181604752|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.595|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|17.95|||||The mean difference in Resting Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||17.95|-1.32|
90871947|NCT02801942|181604753|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.601|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|1.57|||||The mean difference in CD15s+ Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||1.57|-0.94|
90871948|NCT02801942|181604753|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.306|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.28|||||The mean difference in CD69+ Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||1.28|0.00|
90871949|NCT02801942|181604753|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.345|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|1.11|||||The mean difference in Helios+ Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||1.11|-0.33|
90871950|NCT02801942|181604753|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.47|||||The mean difference in Ki67+ Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||0.47|-0.78|
90871951|NCT02801942|181604754|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.989|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|3.86|||||The mean difference in CD15s+ Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||3.86|-0.30|
90871952|NCT02801942|181604754|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.716|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.45|7.35|||||The mean difference in CD69+ Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||7.35|-12.45|
90871953|NCT02801942|181604754|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.957|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|2.14|||||The mean difference in Helios+ Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||2.14|-1.86|
90871954|NCT02801942|181604754|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.872|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|4.58|||||The mean difference in Ki67+ Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||4.58|0.90|
90871955|NCT02801942|181604755|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.344|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|3.38|||||The mean difference in CD15s+ Memory Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||3.38|-2.23|
90871956|NCT02801942|181604755|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.351|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.57|||||The mean difference in CD69+ Memory Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||1.57|0.10|
90871957|NCT02801942|181604755|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.594|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|2.07|||||The mean difference in Helios+ Memory Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||2.07|-0.41|
90912421|NCT03959241|181693908|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.985||||0.947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.641|1.515||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Regression, Cox|||This is the result of the Cox proportional hazards analysis. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of Disease Relapse hazard ratio between treatment groups after adjustment for age group, donor type and HLA Matching Score, disease risk index, Planned RIC Conditioning Regimen, and Planned post-transplant maintenance therapies||1.515|0.641|0.947
90912422|NCT03959241|181693909|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.167||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|||This is the unadjusted analysis. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of Treatment-related Mortality between the treatment groups||||0.167
90912423|NCT03959241|181693909|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.675||||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.404|1.127||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Regression, Cox|||This is the result of the Cox proportional hazards analysis. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of Treatment-related Mortality hazard ratio between treatment groups after adjustment for age group, donor type and HLA Matching Score, disease risk index, Planned RIC Conditioning Regimen, and Planned post-transplant maintenance therapies||1.127|0.404|0.133
90912424|NCT03959241|181693913|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of Grade 2 and 3 infections between the treatment groups||||0.018
90912425|NCT03959241|181693914|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.825||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of CMV between the treatment groups||||0. 825
90912426|NCT03959241|181693915|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.351||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Log Rank|||This is the unadjusted analysis. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of Disease-Free Survival between the treatment groups||||0.351
90912427|NCT03959241|181693915|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.847||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.176||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Regression, Cox|||This is the result of the Cox proportional hazards analysis. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of Disease-Free Survival hazard ratio between treatment groups after adjustment for age group, donor type and HLA Matching Score, disease risk index, Planned RIC Conditioning Regimen, and Planned post-transplant maintenance therapies||1.176|0.610|0.320
90912428|NCT03959241|181693916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.335||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Log Rank|||This is the unadjusted analysis. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of Overall Survival between the treatment groups||||0.335
90912429|NCT03959241|181693916|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.797||||0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.541|1.175||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Regression, Cox|||This is the result of the Cox proportional hazards analysis. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of the Overall Survival hazard ratio between treatment groups after adjustment for age group, donor type and HLA Matching Score, disease risk index, Planned RIC Conditioning Regimen, and Planned post-transplant maintenance therapies||1.175|0.541|0.252
90912430|NCT00545844|181693949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90912431|NCT00545844|181693950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90912432|NCT00545844|181693951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||McNemar-Bowker|||McNemar-Bowker test is McNemar chi-squared statistic for binary matched pairs, with Bowker chi-squared fit test of symmetry model (tests all rows of data) (cf. Agresti, 2007)||||<0.001
91033323|NCT03435081|181952511|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.503||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|8.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.41|-1.46|0.166
90912433|NCT00545844|181693952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||McNemar-Bowker|||McNemar-Bowker test is McNemar chi-squared statistic for binary matched pairs, with Bowker chi-squared fit test of symmetry model (tests all rows of data) (cf. Agresti, 2007)||||<0.001
90912434|NCT00545844|181693953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||McNemar-Bowker|||McNemar-Bowker test is McNemar chi-squared statistic for binary matched pairs, with Bowker chi-squared fit test of symmetry model (tests all rows of data) (cf. Agresti, 2007)||||<0.001
90912435|NCT01264718|181693998|OTHER|The Intervention Cost-Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) is the difference in total costs between the intervention group and controls was divided by the intergroup difference in the proportion of insured children.|ICER|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||The estimated value is the savings per child per year insured.|||||
90912436|NCT01264718|181693998|OTHER|The Intervention Cost-Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) is the difference in total costs between the intervention group and controls was divided by the intergroup difference in the proportion of insured children.|ICER|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||The estimated value is the savings for each percent increase in children obtaining insurance per year.|||||
90871958|NCT02801942|181604755|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.589|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|0.92|||||The mean difference in Ki67+ Memory Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||0.92|-1.54|
90871959|NCT02801942|181604756|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.728|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|6.63|||||The mean difference in CD15s+ Memory Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||6.63|-0.62|
90912437|NCT03538054|181694025|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-5.065||||0.146|TWO_SIDED|||||The clinical threshold was p \< 0.05, with no corrections for multiple comparisons.|GEE|Outcome scores were mean-centered by participant, allowing analyses to reflect within-person changes rather than between-person differences.||||||0.146
90871960|NCT02801942|181604756|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.392|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.33|7.21|||||The mean difference in CD69+ Memory Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||7.21|-11.33|
90871961|NCT02801942|181604756|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.042|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.56|17.13|||||The mean difference in Helios+ Memory Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||17.13|-14.56|
90871962|NCT02801942|181604756|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.843|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|3.92|||||The mean difference in Ki67+ Memory Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||3.92|0.36|
90871963|NCT02801942|181604757|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.097|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.24|8.83|||||The mean difference in Circulating B Lymphocytes (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||8.83|-4.24|
90871964|NCT02801942|181604757|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.334|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|9.39|||||The mean difference in Circulating B Lymphocytes (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||9.39|-0.47|
90912438|NCT03538054|181694026|SUPERIORITY||Slope|4.221||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|||||The clinical threshold was p \< 0.05, with no corrections for multiple comparisons.|GEE|Outcome scores were mean-centered by participant, allowing analyses to reflect within-person changes rather than between-person differences.||||||0.052
90871965|NCT02801942|181604757|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.693|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.24|28.32|||||The mean difference in Classical B Lymphocytes (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||28.32|-5.24|
90871966|NCT02801942|181604757|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.73|19.01|||||The mean difference in Classical B Lymphocytes (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||19.01|-7.73|
90871967|NCT02801942|181604757|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.336|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.46|5.71|||||The mean difference in Double Negative B Lymphocytes (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||5.71|-8.46|
90871968|NCT02801942|181604757|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.755|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.54|1.98|||||The mean difference in Double Negative B Lymphocytes (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||1.98|-5.54|
90871969|NCT02801942|181604757|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.08|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.58|4.98|||||The mean difference in Naive B Lymphocytes (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||4.98|-21.58|
90871970|NCT02801942|181604757|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.019|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.49|4.87|||||The mean difference in Naive B Lymphocytes by (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) core biopsy method has been presented.|||4.87|-21.49|
90912439|NCT00667745|181694028|SUPERIORITY||F value, main effect|0.94||||0.33|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.33
90912440|NCT00667745|181694029|SUPERIORITY||Chi-squared|0.0||||0.967|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.967
90912441|NCT00667745|181694030|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.45||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.50
90912442|NCT00667745|181694031|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02||||0.88|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.88
90912443|NCT00667745|181694032|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.92||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|||||Value shown above describes emergent suicidal ideation for participants with baseline MSSI = 0. P=.36 describes exacerbation of baseline suicidal ideation for those with baseline MSSI \> 0.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.49
90940487|NCT01177137|181760795|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.37||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.08|2.29||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.025 to account for two comparisons (1) TRT versus the Standard of Care and (2) Partial TRT versus the Standard of Care.|repeated measures GEE model||Adjusted for baseline TQ value, clinic, visit, age, gender, baseline Positive and Negative Affect Schedule and State Trait Anxiety Inventory scores, with multiple imputation|||2.29|-3.08|0.77
90940488|NCT01177137|181760795|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.16|1.96||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.025 to account for two comparisons (1) TRT versus the Standard of Care and (2) Partial TRT versus the Standard of Care.|repeated measures GEE model||Adjusted for baseline TQ value, clinic, visit, age, gender, baseline Positive and Negative Affect Schedule and State Trait Anxiety Inventory scores, with multiple imputation|||1.96|-3.16|0.65
90871971|NCT02801942|181604758|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.538|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|10.48|||||The mean difference in B-cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||10.48|-0.54|
90871972|NCT02801942|181604758|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.99|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.37|4.61|||||The mean difference in B-cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||4.61|-8.37|
90871973|NCT02801942|181604758|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.189|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.54|||||The mean difference in CD56bright NK cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||0.54|-0.26|
90871974|NCT02801942|181604758|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.147|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.27|||||The mean difference in CD56bright NK cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||0.27|-0.37|
90871975|NCT02801942|181604758|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.402|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|0.49|||||The mean difference in CD56lo CD16+ (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||0.49|-1.27|
90871976|NCT02801942|181604758|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.312|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|1.07|||||The mean difference in CD56lo CD16+ (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||1.07|-0.33|
90871977|NCT02801942|181604758|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.13|||||The mean difference in CD56lo CD16- by (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) FNA method has been presented.|||0.13|-0.16|
90912444|NCT02317016|181694040|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No effect on the PK of rosuvastatin after co-administration of AZD9291 was concluded if the 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of rosuvastatin AUC and Cmax were within the range of 70% to 143%.|Geometric least-squares (LS) mean ratio|171.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|145.94|202.53|||||AZD9291+ rosuvastatin / rosuvastatin alone (Day 32 versus Day 1).|Natural log-transformed Cmax values were compared between treatments using a mixed effects analysis of variance (ANOVA) with treatment as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect. It was assumed the within-patient coefficient of variation for rosuvastatin in both area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC) and Cmax was 41%. No change in the exposure for rosuvastatin when given with AZD9291 was also assumed.||202.53|145.94|
90912445|NCT02317016|181694041|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No effect on the PK of rosuvastatin after co-administration of AZD9291 was concluded if the 2-sided 90% CIs for the ratios of rosuvastatin AUC and Cmax were within the range of 70% to 143%.|Geometric LS Mean Ratio|134.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|115.41|157.07|||||AZD9291+ rosuvastatin / rosuvastatin alone (Day 32 versus Day 1).|Natural log-transformed AUC values were compared between treatments using a mixed effects ANOVA with treatment as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect. It was assumed the within-patient coefficient of variation for rosuvastatin in both AUC and Cmax was 41%. No change in the exposure for rosuvastatin when given with AZD9291 was also assumed.||157.07|115.41|
90912446|NCT00536380|181694054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.721||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.721
90912447|NCT00387465|181694056|OTHER|The maximum tolerated dose (MTD) was derived from the number of participants experiencing dose-limiting toxicities in the Phase I arms. The MTD was the dose at which ≤30% of patients experienced DLTs during cycle 1 up to a pre-specified maximal dose of 40 mg/m2 of azacitidine.|Maximum Tolerated Dose|40.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||MTD of Azacitidine measured in mg/m\^2|||||
90871978|NCT02801942|181604758|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.12|||||The mean difference in CD56lo CD16- (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||0.12|-0.17|
90871979|NCT02801942|181604758|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.114|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.47|||||The mean difference in Dendritic cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||0.47|-0.03|
90871980|NCT02801942|181604758|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.221|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.4|||||The mean difference in Dendritic cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||0.40|-0.59|
90871981|NCT02801942|181604758|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.766|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|1.6|||||The mean difference in NK cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||1.60|-1.72|
90871982|NCT02801942|181604758|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.417|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.82|||||The mean difference in NK cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||0.82|-0.99|
90871983|NCT02801942|181604759|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.475|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.72|30.15|||||The mean difference in CD56bright NK cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||30.15|-2.72|
90871984|NCT02801942|181604759|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.566|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.85|16.78|||||The mean difference in CD56bright NK cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||16.78|-16.85|
90871985|NCT02801942|181604759|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.586|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.98|-1.08|||||The mean difference in CD56lo CD16+ (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||-1.08|-38.98|
91033324|NCT03435081|181952512|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.96||||0.258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|6.26|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.26|0.61|0.258
91033325|NCT03435081|181952512|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.99||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|8.97|||Regression, Logistic|||||8.97|0.99|0.052
90871986|NCT02801942|181604759|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.739|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.14|32.65|||||The mean difference in CD56lo CD16+ by (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) core biopsy method has been presented.|||32.65|-24.14|
90871987|NCT02801942|181604759|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.429|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.54|5.26|||||The mean difference in CD56lo CD16- (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||5.26|-5.54|
90871988|NCT02801942|181604759|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.148|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.31|6.73|||||The mean difference in CD56lo CD16- (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||6.73|-12.31|
90871989|NCT02801942|181604760|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.673|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.58|25.08|||||The mean difference in Myeloid Dendritic cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||25.08|-8.58|
90871990|NCT02801942|181604760|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.189|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.17|29.26|||||The mean difference in Myeloid Dendritic cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||29.26|3.17|
90871991|NCT02801942|181604760|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.509|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.03|15.25|||||The mean difference in Plasmacytoid Dendritic cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||15.25|-31.03|
90871992|NCT02801942|181604760|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.781|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.04|-1.66|||||The mean difference in (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||-1.66|-26.04|
90871993|NCT02801942|181604762|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.561|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.05|5.82|||||The mean difference in CD45RA+ Effector Memory CD8 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||5.82|-9.05|
90871994|NCT02801942|181604762|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.418|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.13|11.16|||||The mean difference in CD45RA+ Effector Memory CD8 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||11.16|-3.13|
90871995|NCT02801942|181604762|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.428|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.14|2.82|||||The mean difference in Central Memory CD8 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||2.82|-3.14|
90871996|NCT02801942|181604762|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.851|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.03|2.71|||||The mean difference in Central Memory CD8 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||2.71|-5.03|
90871997|NCT02801942|181604762|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.132|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.65|4.43|||||The mean difference in Effector Memory CD8 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||4.43|-8.65|
90871998|NCT02801942|181604762|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.071|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|4.81|||||The mean difference in Effector Memory CD8 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||4.81|-8.00|
90871999|NCT02801942|181604762|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.594|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.21|17.24|||||The mean difference in Naive CD8 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||17.24|-10.21|
90872000|NCT02801942|181604762|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.155|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|12.74|||||The mean difference in Naive CD8 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||12.74|-17.10|
90872001|NCT02801942|181604762|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.708|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.42|0.58|||||The mean difference in Stem Cell Memory-like CD8 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||0.58|-2.42|
91033326|NCT02601560|181952517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.095|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.095
91033327|NCT02601560|181952517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90960690|NCT04079803|181801983|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002||||||P value adjusted for multiplicity of 6 co-primary endpoints (p\<0.008 required for significance).|ANCOVA|General Linear Model for the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with a two-sided 95% confidence interval and baseline measurement as the covariate.||This primary analysis includes two 100 mg subjects who showed no detectable simufilam in plasma at return visits (their exclusion was not prespecified in the Statistical Analysis Plan).|In a secondary analysis removing two subjects with no detectable simufilam in plasma, P=0.0002 and CFB was -681.|||0.0002
90872002|NCT02801942|181604762|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.372|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|0.35|||||The mean difference in Stem Cell Memory-like CD8 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||0.35|-1.19|
90872003|NCT02801942|181604764|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.545|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.56|0.78|||||The mean difference in PD-1+ ICOS+ TFH cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||0.78|-11.56|
90872004|NCT02801942|181604764|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.114|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.22|8.16|||||The mean difference in PD-1+ ICOS+ TFH cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy FNA method has been presented.|||8.16|-22.22|
90872005|NCT02801942|181604765|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.358|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|1.14|||||The mean difference in CD45RA+ Effector Memory Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||1.14|-0.36|
90872006|NCT02801942|181604765|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.184|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.52|||||The mean difference in CD45RA+ Effector Memory Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||0.52|-0.25|
90872007|NCT02801942|181604765|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.22|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.02|8.64|||||The mean difference in Central Memory Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||8.64|-9.02|
90872008|NCT02801942|181604765|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.223|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.57|5.13|||||The mean difference in Central Memory Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||5.13|-12.57|
90872009|NCT02801942|181604765|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.034|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.16|10.66|||||The mean difference in Effector Memory Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||10.66|-6.16|
90872010|NCT02801942|181604765|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.994|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.27|10.39|||||The mean difference in Effector Memory Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||10.39|-6.27|
90872011|NCT02801942|181604765|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.727|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.09|9.92|||||The mean difference in Naive Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||9.92|-14.09|
90872012|NCT02801942|181604765|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.976|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.91|10.87|||||The mean difference in Naive Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||10.87|-9.91|
90872013|NCT02801942|181604765|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.314|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.65|||||The mean difference in Stem Cell Memory-like Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||0.65|-0.67|
90872014|NCT02801942|181604765|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.325|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.26|||||The mean difference in Stem Cell Memory-like Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||0.26|-1.10|
90872015|NCT02801942|181604766|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.671|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|16.81|||||The mean difference in TFH cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||16.81|-2.80|
90872016|NCT02801942|181604766|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.828|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.02|6.17|||||The mean difference in TFH cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||6.17|-14.02|
90872017|NCT02801942|181604766|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.651|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.69|0.16|||||The mean difference in PD-1+ ICOS+ TFH cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||0.16|-2.69|
90872018|NCT02801942|181604766|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.507|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.21|3.24|||||The mean difference in PD-1+ ICOS+ TFH cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||3.24|-3.21|
90912448|NCT03418324|181694067|OTHER|Binomial proportion (Clopper-Pearson exact confidence interval) for each arm|Binomial proportion|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|98.7|||||Estimated values reflects the percentage of participants with overall clinical benefit.|For this study, we are not comparing outcome measures between the two arms||98.7|1.3|
90872019|NCT02801942|181604766|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.709|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|4.33|||||The mean difference in TH17 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||4.33|-2.78|
90872020|NCT02801942|181604766|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.339|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.75|2.85|||||The mean difference in TH17 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||2.85|-2.75|
90872021|NCT02801942|181604766|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.631|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.56|6.63|||||The mean difference in TH1 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||6.63|-8.56|
90872022|NCT02801942|181604766|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.708|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.69|-0.38|||||The mean difference in TH1 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||-0.38|-11.69|
90872023|NCT02801942|181604766|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.889|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|1.78|||||The mean difference in TH1 TH17 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||1.78|-1.98|
90872024|NCT02801942|181604766|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.787|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|2.24|||||The mean difference in TH1 TH17 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||2.24|-1.07|
90872025|NCT02801942|181604766|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.613|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|1.72|||||The mean difference in TH1 TH17 TH2 T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||1.72|-0.85|
90912449|NCT03418324|181694067|OTHER|Binomial proportion (Clopper-Pearson exact confidence interval) for each arm|Binomial proportion|66.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.3|95.7|||||Estimated values reflects the percentage of participants with overall clinical benefit|For this study, we are not comparing outcome measures between the two groups.||95.7|22.3|
90912450|NCT03418324|181694070|OTHER|Binomial proportion (Clopper-Pearson exact confidence interval) for each arm.|Binomial proportion|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|98.7||||||For this study, we are not comparing outcome measures between the two arms||98.7|1.3|
90912451|NCT03418324|181694070|OTHER|Binomial proportion (Clopper-Pearson exact confidence interval) for each arm.|Binomial proportion|66.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.3|95.7||||||For this study, we are not comparing outcome measures between the two arms.||95.7|22.3|
90960691|NCT04079803|181801983|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005||||||P value adjusted for multiplicity of 6 co-primary endpoints (p\<0.008 required for significance).|ANCOVA|General Linear Model for the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with a two-sided 95% confidence interval and baseline measurement as the covariate.||This primary analysis includes one 50 mg subject who showed no detectable simufilam in plasma at return visits (their exclusion was not prespecified in the Statistical Analysis Plan).|In a secondary analysis removing one subject with no detectable simufilam in plasma, P=0.0005 and CFB was -527.|||0.0005
90872026|NCT02801942|181604766|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.565|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.56|||||The mean difference in TH1 TH17 TH2 T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||1.56|-0.80|
90872027|NCT02801942|181604766|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.546|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.71|3.76|||||The mean difference in TH1 TH2 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||3.76|-2.71|
90872028|NCT02801942|181604766|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.61|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.95|3.79|||||The mean difference in TH1 TH2 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||3.79|-2.95|
90872029|NCT02801942|181604766|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.356|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.84|9.14|||||The mean difference in TH2 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||9.14|-4.84|
90872030|NCT02801942|181604766|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.481|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|9.15|||||The mean difference in TH2 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||9.15|-1.25|
90872031|NCT02801942|181604766|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.627|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|1.38|||||The mean difference in TH22 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||1.38|-1.28|
90872032|NCT02801942|181604766|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.438|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.91|||||The mean difference in TH22 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||0.91|-0.93|
90872033|NCT02801942|181604767|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.63|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|8.0|||||The mean difference in TFH cells-like Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||8.00|-7.40|
90872034|NCT02801942|181604767|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.694|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|6.35|||||The mean difference in TFH cells-like Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||6.35|-4.90|
90872035|NCT02801942|181604767|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.377|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.89|0.08|||||The mean difference in TH1 cells-like Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||0.08|-9.89|
90912452|NCT03418324|181694071|OTHER|Binomial proportion (Clopper-Pearson exact confidence interval) for each arm.|Binomial proportion|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|98.7||||||For this study, we are not comparing outcome measures between the two arms.||98.7|1.3|
90912453|NCT03418324|181694071|OTHER|Binomial proportion (Clopper-Pearson exact confidence interval) for each arm.|Binomial proportion|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.8|88.2||||||For this study, we are not comparing outcome measures between the two arms.||88.2|11.8|
91033328|NCT02601560|181952517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91033329|NCT02601560|181952517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91033330|NCT02601560|181952517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.440
90872036|NCT02801942|181604767|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.682|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.82|0.24|||||The mean difference in TH1 cells-like Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||0.24|-6.82|
90872037|NCT02801942|181604767|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.036|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.67|2.1|||||The mean difference in TH1 TH17 TH2 cells-like Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||2.10|-2.67|
90872038|NCT02801942|181604767|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.929|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|1.59|||||The mean difference in TH1 TH17 TH2 cells-like Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||1.59|-7.20|
90872039|NCT02801942|181604767|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.117|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.98|3.11|||||The mean difference in TH1 TH2 cells-like Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||3.11|-5.98|
90872040|NCT02801942|181604767|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.047|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.59|3.99|||||The mean difference in TH1 TH2 cells-like Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||3.99|-4.59|
90872041|NCT02801942|181604767|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.645|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.99|4.06|||||The mean difference in TH17 cells-like Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||4.06|-6.99|
90872042|NCT02801942|181604767|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.185|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.05|5.11|||||The mean difference in TH17 cells-like Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||5.11|-4.05|
90872043|NCT02801942|181604767|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.299|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.23|6.73|||||The mean difference in TH2 cells-like Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||6.73|-11.23|
90872044|NCT02801942|181604767|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.472|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.84|10.67|||||The mean difference in TH2 cells-like Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||10.67|-3.84|
90872045|NCT02801942|181604767|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.153|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|2.0|||||The mean difference in TH22 cells-like Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||2.00|-3.30|
90872046|NCT02801942|181604767|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.869|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|1.72|||||The mean difference in TH22 cells-like Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||1.72|-2.06|
90872047|NCT02801942|181604768|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.304|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.27|3.19|||||The mean difference in Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||3.19|-2.27|
90872048|NCT02801942|181604768|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.056|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.24|1.36|||||The mean difference in Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||1.36|-3.24|
90872049|NCT02801942|181604769|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.069|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.91|9.58|||||The mean difference in CD69+ CD8 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||9.58|-11.91|
90872050|NCT02801942|181604769|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.301|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.85|7.1|||||The mean difference in CD69+ CD8 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||7.10|-15.85|
90872051|NCT02801942|181604769|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.374|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|4.59|||||The mean difference in Ki67+ CD8 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||4.59|-1.62|
90872052|NCT02801942|181604769|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.291|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|5.88|||||The mean difference in Ki67+ CD8 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||5.88|-0.05|
90912454|NCT01768676|181694074|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The difference in percentage of subjects with a \>/= 50% reduction from baseline to Week 26 in sperm concentration between treatment arms was analyzed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method to account for the randomization stratification by baseline sperm concentration. If upper limit of 95% CI \< 20% then avanafil is considered non-inferior to placebo.|Risk Difference (RD)|-12.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.41|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.56|-4.29|||||Confidence interval was only calculated for primary endpoint of the difference between avanafil and placebo, not for each individual arm.|||-4.29|-21.56|
90912455|NCT01768676|181694075|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If upper limit of 95% CI \< 20% then avanafil is considered non-inferior to placebo.|Risk Difference (RD)|-11.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.5|0.7|||||Confidence interval was only calculated for primary endpoint of the difference between avanafil and placebo, not for each individual arm.|||0.7|-23.5|
90872053|NCT02801942|181604770|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.083|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|11.31|||||The mean difference in CD15s+ Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||11.31|-1.60|
90872054|NCT02801942|181604770|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.78|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.15|22.57|||||The mean difference in CD15s+ Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||22.57|-6.15|
90872055|NCT02801942|181604770|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.812|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.48|1.11|||||The mean difference in CD69+ Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||1.11|-23.48|
90872056|NCT02801942|181604770|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.855|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.14|2.37|||||The mean difference in CD69+ Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||2.37|-14.14|
90872057|NCT02801942|181604770|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.48|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.54|6.84|||||The mean difference in Helios+ Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||6.84|-3.54|
91033331|NCT02601560|181952517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90872058|NCT02801942|181604770|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.937|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.84|8.98|||||The mean difference in Helios+ Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||8.98|-3.84|
90872059|NCT02801942|181604770|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.781|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.67|9.12|||||The mean difference in Ki67+ T Reg cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||9.12|-2.67|
90912456|NCT01768676|181694076|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If upper limit of 95% CI \< 20% then avanafil is considered non-inferior to placebo.|Risk Difference (RD)|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|1.3|||||Confidence interval was only calculated for primary endpoint of the difference between avanafil and placebo, not for each individual arm.|||1.3|-4.2|
90912457|NCT01768676|181694077|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If upper limit of 95% CI \< 20% then avanafil is considered non-inferior to placebo.|Risk Difference (RD)|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|1.1|||||Confidence interval was only calculated for primary endpoint of the difference between avanafil and placebo, not for each individual arm.|||1.1|-6.8|
90912458|NCT01768676|181694078|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If upper limit of 95% CI \< 20% then avanafil is considered non-inferior to placebo.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||||Confidence interval was only calculated for primary endpoint of the difference between avanafil and placebo, not for each individual arm.|||0|0|
90912459|NCT00605033|181694079|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was defined as a lower bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval of the proportion difference greater than -0.15.|Proportion difference|-0.054|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.142|0.034|||Binomial approximation|||||0.034|-0.142|
90912460|NCT02023125|181694089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|270.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|228.0|320.0|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratios (Treatment B/Treatment A) and confidence intervals (CIs).||320|228|
91033332|NCT00420238|181952537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.83||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|-1.51|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Comparison of least squares means. Primary analysis: analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and BASDAI baseline as a covariate.||-1.51|-16.5|0.019
90912461|NCT02023125|181694090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|116.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.0|132.0|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratios (Alectinib + Esomeprazole/Alectinib Alone) and CIs.||132|103|
90872060|NCT02801942|181604770|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.337|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|6.21|||||The mean difference in Ki67+ T Reg cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||6.21|0.55|
90912462|NCT02023125|181694091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|292.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|258.0|329.0|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratios (Treatment B/Treatment A) and CIs.||329|258|
90872061|NCT02801942|181604770|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.736|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.49|8.58|||||The mean difference in Memory Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||8.58|-11.49|
90912463|NCT02023125|181694092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|122.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|109.0|136.0|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratios (Alectinib + Esomeprazole/Alectinib Alone) and CIs.||136|109|
90912464|NCT02023125|181694093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|377.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|303.0|468.0|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratios (Treatment B/Treatment A) and CIs.||468|303|
90912465|NCT02023125|181694094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|102.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.0|119.0|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratios (Alectinib + Esomeprazole/Alectinib Alone) and CIs.||119|87.0|
90912466|NCT02023125|181694095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|328.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|276.0|389.0|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratios (Treatment B/Treatment A) and CIs.||389|276|
90872062|NCT02801942|181604770|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.142|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.81|10.58|||||The mean difference in Memory Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||10.58|-6.81|
90872063|NCT02801942|181604770|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.79|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.01|22.92|||||The mean difference in Resting Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||22.92|-2.01|
90872064|NCT02801942|181604770|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.913|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.24|16.59|||||The mean difference in Resting Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||16.59|-4.24|
90872065|NCT02801942|181604771|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.696|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|2.83|||||The mean difference in CD15s+ Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||2.83|-0.08|
90872066|NCT02801942|181604771|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.324|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|4.98|||||The mean difference in CD15s+ Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||4.98|-0.61|
90872067|NCT02801942|181604771|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.389|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.66|12.85|||||The mean difference in CD69+ Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||12.85|-14.66|
90872068|NCT02801942|181604771|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.862|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.71|6.33|||||The mean difference in CD69+ Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||6.33|-14.71|
90872069|NCT02801942|181604771|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.234|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.73|2.47|||||The mean difference in Helios+ Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||2.47|-2.73|
90872070|NCT02801942|181604771|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.859|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|2.28|||||The mean difference in Helios+ Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||2.28|-1.45|
90872071|NCT02801942|181604771|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.205|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|5.78|||||The mean difference in Ki67+ Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||5.78|0.64|
90872072|NCT02801942|181604771|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.712|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|3.79|||||The mean difference in Ki67+ Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||3.79|0.75|
91033333|NCT00420238|181952538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.92||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|10.42|||GEE model||An odds-ratio greater than 1 indicates the odds of response is greater in the etanercept group than in the placebo group.|Week 2: Generalized estimating equations (GEE) model, using a logit link, a binomial distribution and an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits and their interactions as fixed factors.||10.42|0.82|0.098
90872073|NCT02801942|181604772|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.37|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|6.15|||||The mean difference in CD15s+ Memory Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||6.15|0.40|
90872074|NCT02801942|181604772|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.109|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|7.17|||||The mean difference in CD15s+ Memory Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||7.17|-1.68|
90912467|NCT02023125|181694096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|110.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.3|126.0|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratios (Alectinib + Esomeprazole/Alectinib Alone) and CIs.||126|96.3|
90872075|NCT02801942|181604772|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.712|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.49|14.48|||||The mean difference in CD69+ Memory Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||14.48|-14.49|
90872076|NCT02801942|181604772|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.947|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.67|4.43|||||The mean difference in CD69+ Memory Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||4.43|-12.67|
90872077|NCT02801942|181604772|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.967|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.48|8.13|||||The mean difference in Helios+ Memory Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||8.13|-5.48|
90872078|NCT02801942|181604772|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.287|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.36|6.84|||||The mean difference in Helios+ Memory Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||6.84|-4.36|
90912468|NCT02023125|181694099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|306.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|269.0|348.0|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratios (Treatment B/Treatment A) and CIs.||348|269|
90912469|NCT02023125|181694100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|122.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|110.0|136.0|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratios (Alectinib + Esomeprazole/Alectinib Alone) and CIs.||136|110|
90872079|NCT02801942|181604772|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.019|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|4.84|||||The mean difference in Ki67+ Memory Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||4.84|0.54|
90872080|NCT02801942|181604772|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.737|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|3.13|||||The mean difference in Ki67+ Memory Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||3.13|0.03|
90872081|NCT00799487|181604801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-27.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.4|-20.2||P-values were determined by using a repeated measures mixed model with actual value as the dependent variable with terms for treatment, time, treatment by time interaction, period, sequence, and baseline score.|Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo minus Concerta|||-20.2|-34.4|<0.0001
90872082|NCT00799487|181604802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-28.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.1|-20.8||P-values were determined by using a repeated measures mixed model with actual value as the dependent variable with terms for treatment, time, treatment by time interaction, period, sequence, and baseline score.|Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo minus Concerta|||-20.8|-35.1|<0.0001
90872083|NCT00799487|181604803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|5.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|6.6||P-values were determined by using a repeated measures mixed model with actual value as the dependent variable with terms for treatment, time, treatment by time interaction, period, sequence, and baseline score.|Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo minus Concerta|||6.6|3.4|<0.0001
90872084|NCT00799487|181604804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|4.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|5.8||P-values were determined by using a repeated measures mixed model with actual value as the dependent variable with terms for treatment, time, treatment by time interaction, period, sequence, and baseline score.|Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo minus Concerta|||5.8|3.2|<0.0001
90872085|NCT00799487|181604805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|9.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|12.0||P-values were determined by using a repeated measures mixed model with actual value as the dependent variable with terms for treatment, time, treatment by time interaction, period, sequence, and baseline score.|Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo minus Concerta|||12.0|6.9|<0.0001
90872086|NCT00799487|181604806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-3.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.27|-2.74||P-values were determined by using a general linear mixed model.|Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo minus Concerta|||-2.74|-4.27|<0.0001
90872087|NCT00799487|181604807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-17.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.72|-11.45||P-values were determined by using a general linear mixed model.|Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo minus Concerta|||-11.45|-23.72|<0.0001
90872088|NCT00799487|181604808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-30.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.29|-21.37||P-values were determined by using a general linear mixed model.|Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo minus Concerta|||-21.37|-39.29|<0.0001
90872089|NCT00799487|181604809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.13||||0.0297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|-0.12||P-values were determined by using a general linear mixed model.|Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo minus Concerta|||-0.12|-2.15|0.0297
90872090|NCT00799487|181604810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.84||||0.0955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|0.15||P-values were determined by using a general linear mixed model. Finger Windows Forwards was the first non-significant p-value in the gatekeeper sequence.|Mixed Models Analysis|Testing of additional endpoints in the sequence was still performed without any unqualified statements about the individual statistical significance.|Placebo minus Concerta|||0.15|-1.84|0.0955
90872091|NCT00799487|181604811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-14.37||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.52|-7.23||P-values were determined by using a general linear mixed model.|Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo minus Concerta|||-7.23|-21.52|0.0002
90872092|NCT00799487|181604812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.26||||0.2335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.17||P-values were determined by using a general linear mixed model.|Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo minus Concerta|||0.17|-0.70|0.2335
90912470|NCT02023125|181694101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|349.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|288.0|422.0|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratios (Treatment B/Treatment A) and CIs.||422|288|
90912471|NCT02023125|181694102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|109.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.3|126.0|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratios (Alectinib + Esomeprazole/Alectinib Alone) and CIs.||126|95.3|
90912472|NCT04493242|181694162|OTHER|log-rank test||||||0.1343|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1343
90912473|NCT02027558|181694168|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.58|-1.83|||Mixed Models Analysis||The parameter estimate is the improvement in the outcome from baseline to 3-months for the treatment group versus the same improvement in respect to the control group.|||-1.83|-4.58|<.001
90912474|NCT02027558|181694169|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.52||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.02|-2.49|||Mixed Models Analysis||The parameter estimate is the improvement in the outcome from baseline to 3-months for the treatment group versus the same improvement in respect to the control group.|||-2.49|-29.02|0.013
90872093|NCT00799487|181604813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-2.51||||0.2321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.67|1.65||P-values were determined by using a general linear mixed model.|Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo minus Concerta|||1.65|-6.67|0.2321
90872094|NCT00799487|181604814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-3.52||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.64|-1.4||P-values were determined by using a general linear mixed model.|Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo minus Concerta|||-1.40|-5.64|0.0015
90872095|NCT00799487|181604815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-5.38||||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.43|-1.33||P-values were determined by using a general linear mixed model.|Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo minus Concerta|||-1.33|-9.43|0.0101
90872096|NCT00799487|181604816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.09||||0.6642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.34||P-values were determined by using a general linear mixed model.|Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo minus Concerta|||0.34|-0.53|0.6642
90872097|NCT00799487|181604817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-35.3||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.89|-11.71||P-values were determined by using a general linear mixed model.|Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo minus Concerta|||-11.71|-58.89|0.0040
90872098|NCT00799487|181604818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|-0.03||P-values were determined by using a general linear mixed model.|Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo minus Concerta|||-0.03|-0.14|0.0012
90872099|NCT00799487|181604819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.07||||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|-0.02||P-values were determined by using a general linear mixed model.|Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo minus Concerta|||-0.02|-0.12|0.0051
90872100|NCT00799487|181604820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05||||0.1768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.02||P-values were determined by using a general linear mixed model.|Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo minus Concerta|||0.02|-0.13|0.1768
90872101|NCT00799487|181604821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02||||0.4245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.04||P-values were determined by using a general linear mixed model.|Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo minus Concerta|||0.04|-0.09|0.4245
90872102|NCT00799487|181604822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean DIfference|0.0||||0.9729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.09||P-values were determined by using a general linear mixed model.|Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo minus Concerta|||0.09|-0.09|0.9729
90872103|NCT00799487|181604823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04||||0.3486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.04||P-values were determined by using a general linear mixed model.|Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo minus Concerta|||0.04|-0.12|0.3486
90872104|NCT00799487|181604824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.03||||0.1466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.01||P-values were determined by using a general linear mixed model.|Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo minus Concerta|||0.01|-0.07|0.1466
90872105|NCT00799487|181604825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.03||||0.1368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.08||P-values were determined by using a general linear mixed model.|Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo minus Concerta|||0.08|-0.01|0.1368
90872106|NCT02959944|181604828|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Rates|0.043||||0.5384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.094|0.181||P-value is computed using non-stratified Chi-Square test.|Chi-squared||Confidence interval is computed using normal approximation.|||0.181|-0.094|0.5384
90872107|NCT02959944|181604829|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Rates|0.043||||0.5384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.094|0.181||P-value is computed using non-stratified Chi-Square test.|Chi-squared||Confidence interval is computed using normal approximation.|||0.181|-0.094|0.5384
90872108|NCT02959944|181604830|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.324||||||Gray's chi-square test (p-value) was calculated using SAS lifetest procedure adjusting for competing risks including death, cGVHD progression, relapse of underlying disease, and start of subsequent cGVHD therapy.|Chi-squared|||||||0.324
90872109|NCT02959944|181604831|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.281||||||Gray's chi-square test (p-value) was calculated using SAS lifetest procedure adjusting for competing risks including death, cGVHD progression, relapse of underlying disease, and start of subsequent cGVHD therapy.|Chi-squared|||||||0.281
90872110|NCT02959944|181604832|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.275||||||Gray's chi-square test (p-value) was calculated using SAS lifetest procedure adjusting for competing risks including death, cGVHD progression, relapse of underlying disease, and start of subsequent cGVHD therapy.|Chi-squared|||||||0.275
90872111|NCT02959944|181604833|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.216||||||Gray's chi-square test (p-value) was calculated using SAS lifetest procedure adjusting for competing risks including death, cGVHD progression, relapse of underlying disease, and start of subsequent cGVHD therapy.|Chi-squared|||||||0.216
90872112|NCT02959944|181604834|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Rates|-0.067||||0.351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.208|0.074||P-value was computed using non-stratified Chi-Square test.|Chi-squared||Confidence interval is computed using normal approximation.|||0.074|-0.208|0.3510
90872113|NCT02959944|181604835|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Rates|-0.067||||0.351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.208|0.074||P-value was computed using non-stratified Chi-Square test.|Chi-squared||Confidence interval is computed using normal approximation.|||0.074|-0.208|0.3510
90872114|NCT02959944|181604836|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Rates|0.124||||0.0659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.007|0.256||P-value is computed using non-stratified Chi-Square test.|Chi-squared||Confidence interval is computed using normal approximation.|||0.256|-0.007|0.0659
90872115|NCT02959944|181604837|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Rates|0.125||||0.0708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.261||P-value is computed using non-stratified Chi-Square test.|Chi-squared|||||0.261|-0.010|0.0708
90872116|NCT02959944|181604838|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Rates|-0.059||||0.4064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.199|0.08||P-value was computed using non-stratified Chi-Square test.|Chi-squared||Confidence interval was computed using normal approximation.|||0.080|-0.199|0.4064
90872117|NCT02959944|181604839|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Rates|-0.049||||0.4955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.188|0.091||P-value was computed using non-stratified Chi-Square test.|Chi-squared||Confidence interval was computed using normal approximation.|||0.091|-0.188|0.4955
90912475|NCT02027558|181694170|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-20.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.75||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.63|-3.29|||Mixed Models Analysis||The parameter estimate is the improvement in the outcome from baseline to 3-months for the treatment group versus the same improvement in respect to the control group.|||-3.29|-37.63|0.019
90872118|NCT02959944|181604840|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.994|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.507|1.949|||||Hazard ratio is estimated using unstratified Cox regression model with treatment as the only covariate.|||1.949|0.507|
90872119|NCT02959944|181604841|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.061|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.591|1.904|||||Hazard ratio is estimated using unstratified Cox regression model with treatment as the only covariate.|||1.904|0.591|
90872120|NCT02959944|181604842|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.697||||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.451|1.076|||Regression, Cox|||||1.076|0.451|0.1010
90872121|NCT02959944|181604843|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.717||||0.1004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.482|1.068|||Regression, Cox|||||1.068|0.482|0.1004
90872122|NCT03070782|181604883|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-31.0||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.0|-12.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|||-12|-46|0.0032
90872123|NCT03070782|181604883|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-54.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.0|-41.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|||-41|-64|<.0001
90872124|NCT03070782|181604883|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-70.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.0|-62.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|||-62|-77|<.0001
90872125|NCT03070782|181604883|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-56.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.0|-43.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|||-43|-65|<.0001
90872126|NCT03070782|181604883|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-78.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.0|-72.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|||-72|-83|<.0001
90872127|NCT03070782|181604887|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-6.0||||0.4407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|9.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|||9|-19|0.4407
90872128|NCT03070782|181604887|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-25.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.0|-13.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|||-13|-35|<.0001
90872129|NCT03070782|181604887|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-14.0||||0.0368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.0|-1.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|||-1|-26|0.0368
90872130|NCT03070782|181604887|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-16.0||||0.0216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.0|-3.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|||-3|-28|0.0216
90872131|NCT03070782|181604887|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-22.0||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.0|-9.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|||-9|-33|0.0012
90872132|NCT03070782|181604888|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.98||||0.0286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|21.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||21.0|1.2|0.0286
90872133|NCT03070782|181604888|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|31.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.3|131.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||131.4|7.3|<.0001
90872134|NCT03070782|181604888|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|122.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.0|627.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||627.4|24.0|<.0001
90872135|NCT03070782|181604888|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|43.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.8|195.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||195.0|9.8|<.0001
90872136|NCT03070782|181604888|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1124.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|109.3|11571.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||11571|109.3|<.0001
90872137|NCT03070782|181604889|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.34||||0.2007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|155.3|||Regression, Logistic|||||155.3|0.3|0.2007
90872138|NCT03070782|181604889|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|27.92||||0.0258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|521.5|||Regression, Logistic|||||521.5|1.5|0.0258
90872139|NCT03070782|181604889|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|113.92||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.2|2098.5|||Regression, Logistic|||||2098.5|6.2|0.0014
90872140|NCT03070782|181604889|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|59.85||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|1128.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||1128.0|3.2|0.0063
90872141|NCT03070782|181604889|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|347.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.3|6597.9|||Regression, Logistic|||||6597.9|18.3|<.0001
90872142|NCT03070782|181604890|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-4.0||||0.4022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|5.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|||5|-12|0.4022
90872143|NCT03070782|181604890|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-16.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.0|-9.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|||-9|-23|<.0001
90872144|NCT03070782|181604890|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-9.0||||0.0323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|-1.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|||-1|-17|0.0323
90872145|NCT03070782|181604890|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-10.0||||0.0157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|-2.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|||-2|-18|0.0157
90872146|NCT03070782|181604890|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-17.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.0|-9.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|||-9|-24|<.0001
90872147|NCT03070782|181604891|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-9.0||||0.4956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.0|21.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|||21|-32|0.4956
90872148|NCT03070782|181604891|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-36.0||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.0|-14.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|||-14|-52|0.0027
90912476|NCT02027558|181694171|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|10.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.04||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.53|16.44|||Mixed Models Analysis||The parameter estimate is the improvement in the outcome from baseline to 3-months for the treatment group versus the same improvement in respect to the control group.|||16.44|4.53|0.001
90912477|NCT02027558|181694172|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.87|6.83|||Mixed Models Analysis||The parameter estimate is the improvement in the outcome from baseline to 3-months for the treatment group versus the same improvement in respect to the control group.|||6.83|1.87|0.001
90912478|NCT02027558|181694173|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.99||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.29|-7.55|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-7.55|-27.29|0.0007
90912479|NCT00516386|181694176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|543.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|41.0|<|0.05|||||||Paired t-test|||We used paired t-tests to assess changes in levels of IGF-1 from baseline levels in girls with AN receiving rhIGF-1. Our hypothesis was that rhIGF-1 administration would be associated with a significant increase in IGF-1 levels.||||<0.05
90912480|NCT00516386|181694177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|39.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.3|<|0.05||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||We used a paired t-test to determine the change in P1NP from baseline to 7-10 days following administration of rhIGF-1||||<0.05
90872149|NCT03070782|181604891|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-54.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.0|-38.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|||-38|-65|<.0001
90872150|NCT03070782|181604891|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-31.0||||0.0114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.0|-8.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|||-8|-48|0.0114
90912481|NCT02694978|181694192|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin of 2.64% was used for the primary endpoint statistical analysis.|Treatment difference|-0.1||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.61|||Wald|The p-value was calculated using the Wald large sample assumption.||"Statistical analysis was only performed on composite reaction data (that is, the Any TE moderate to severe hypersensitivity rxn row in the data table)."||0.61|-0.80|0.0001
90912482|NCT03675581|181694210|OTHER|Relative systemic exposure|Ratio of the geometric means (T/R) %|101.36|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.83|110.67|||ANOVA|"The statistical model was analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale considering the effects subjects as random and treatment as fixed."|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) T=Test, R=Reference|||110.67|92.83|
90912483|NCT03675581|181694211|OTHER|Relative systemic exposure|Ratio of the geometric means (T/R) %|96.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.48|101.58|||ANOVA|"The statistical model was analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale considering the effects subjects as random and treatment as fixed."|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) T = Test, R = Reference|||101.58|91.48|
90912484|NCT03675581|181694212|OTHER|Relative systemic exposure|Ratio of the geometric means (T/R) %|116.69|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|107.63|126.51|||ANOVA|"The statistical model was analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale considering the effects subjects as random and treatment as fixed."|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) T=Test, R=Reference|||126.51|107.63|
90872151|NCT03070782|181604891|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-62.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.0|-49.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|||-49|-72|<.0001
90872152|NCT03070782|181604892|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-45.0||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.0|-19.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|||-19|-62|0.0020
90912485|NCT03675581|181694213|OTHER|Relative systemic exposure|Ratio of the geometric means (T/R) %|100.89|STANDARD_DEVIATION|18.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.9|113.23|||ANOVA|"The statistical model was analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale considering the effects subjects as random and treatment as fixed."|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) T=Test, R=Reference|||113.23|89.90|
90912486|NCT03675581|181694214|OTHER|Relative systemic exposure|Ratio of the geometric means (T/R) %|101.24|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.95|109.1|||ANOVA|"The statistical model was analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale considering the effects subjects as random and treatment as fixed."|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) T=Test, R=Reference|||109.10|93.95|
90912487|NCT03675581|181694215|OTHER|Relative systemic exposure|Ratio of the geometric means (T/R) %|88.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.03|96.96|||ANOVA|"The statistical model was analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale considering the effects subjects as random and treatment as fixed."|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) T=Test, R=Reference|||96.96|80.03|
90912488|NCT00807144|181694216|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.26
90912489|NCT00807144|181694217|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Log Rank|||Year 1||||0.48
90912490|NCT00807144|181694217|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||Log Rank|||Year 2||||0.75
90912491|NCT00355914|181694219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Results were considered statistically significant if the P value was less than 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||compared baseline, 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months between groups||||>0.05
90912492|NCT00355914|181694220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0||||Results were considered statistically significant if the P value was less than 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||baseline, 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months between groups||||>0.05
90872153|NCT03070782|181604892|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-63.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.0|-46.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|||-46|-74|<.0001
90872154|NCT03070782|181604892|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-82.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-87.0|-73.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|||-73|-87|<.0001
90912493|NCT03823300|181694221|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of a two-sided 95.03% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in adjusted means of the two treatments (faricimab minus aflibercept) is greater than -4 letters (the non-inferiority margin), then faricimab is considered non-inferior to aflibercept.|Adjusted mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.8|||||The treatment difference in adjusted means of change from baseline BCVA is the calculated difference of Arm A: Faricimab and Arm B: Aflibercept. MMRM adjustments are listed in the outcome measure description.|The null hypothesis, H0: μ(faricimab) - μ(aflibercept) ≤-4 letters; the alternative hypothesis, Ha: μ(faricimab) - μ(aflibercept) \>-4 letters. A sample size of approximately 320 participants in each arm provided greater than 90% power to show non-inferiority of faricimab to aflibercept in the change from baseline BCVA averaged over Weeks 40, 44, and 48 in the ITT population, using a non-inferiority margin of 4 letters at the one-sided 0.02485 significance level.||1.8|-1.7|
90912494|NCT03823300|181694222|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.3|||||The treatment difference in adjusted means of change from baseline BCVA is the calculated difference of Arm A: Faricimab and Arm B: Aflibercept. MMRM adjustments are listed in the outcome measure description.|Treatment Difference in Adjusted Means at Weeks 52-60||1.3|-2.4|
90912495|NCT03823300|181694224|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|4.3|||||The treatment difference in CMH weighted percentage of participants gaining ≥15 letters is the calculated difference of Arm A: Faricimab and Arm B: Aflibercept.|Gaining ≥15 Letters: Treatment Difference at Weeks 40-48||4.3|-8.3|
90912496|NCT03823300|181694224|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|10.7|||||The treatment difference in CMH weighted percentage of participants gaining ≥10 letters is the calculated difference of Arm A: Faricimab and Arm B: Aflibercept.|Gaining ≥10 Letters: Treatment Difference at Weeks 40-48||10.7|-3.9|
90912497|NCT03823300|181694224|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|8.6|||||The treatment difference in CMH weighted percentage of participants gaining ≥5 letters is the calculated difference of Arm A: Faricimab and Arm B: Aflibercept.|Gaining ≥5 Letters: Treatment Difference at Weeks 40-48||8.6|-6.6|
90912498|NCT03823300|181694224|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|9.3|||||The treatment difference in CMH weighted percentage of participants gaining ≥0 letters is the calculated difference of Arm A: Faricimab and Arm B: Aflibercept.|Gaining ≥0 Letters: Treatment Difference at Weeks 40-48||9.3|-3.1|
90912499|NCT03823300|181694225|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|5.3|||||The treatment difference in CMH weighted percentage of participants gaining ≥15 letters is the calculated difference of Arm A: Faricimab and Arm B: Aflibercept.|Treatment Difference in CMH Weighted Percentages at Weeks 52-60||5.3|-7.7|
90912500|NCT03823300|181694230|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|1.3|||||The treatment difference in CMH weighted percentage of participants avoiding a loss of ≥15 letters is the calculated difference of Arm A: Faricimab and Arm B: Aflibercept.|Avoiding a Loss of ≥15 Letters: Treatment Difference at Weeks 40-48||1.3|-4.4|
90912501|NCT03823300|181694230|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|2.8|||||The treatment difference in CMH weighted percentage of participants avoiding a loss of ≥10 letters is the calculated difference of Arm A: Faricimab and Arm B: Aflibercept.|Avoiding a Loss of ≥10 Letters: Treatment Difference at Weeks 40-48||2.8|-4.5|
90912502|NCT03823300|181694230|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|7.3|||||The treatment difference in CMH weighted percentage of participants avoiding a loss of ≥5 letters is the calculated difference of Arm A: Faricimab and Arm B: Aflibercept.|Avoiding a Loss of ≥5 Letters: Treatment Difference at Weeks 40-48||7.3|-2.1|
90912503|NCT03823300|181694231|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|3.3|||||The treatment difference in CMH weighted percentage of participants avoiding a loss of ≥15 letters is the calculated difference of Arm A: Faricimab and Arm B: Aflibercept.|Treatment Difference in CMH Weighted Percentages at Weeks 52-60||3.3|-2.6|
90960692|NCT04079803|181801984|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003||||||P value adjusted for multiplicity of 6 co-primary endpoints (p\<0.008 required for significance).|ANCOVA|General Linear Model for the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with a two-sided 95% confidence interval and baseline measurement as the covariate.||This primary analysis includes two 100 mg subjects who showed no detectable simufilam in plasma at return visits (their exclusion was not prespecified in the Statistical Analysis Plan).|In a secondary analysis removing two subjects with no detectable simufilam in plasma, P=0.0002 and CFB was -78.5.|||0.0003
90912504|NCT03823300|181694235|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|5.1|||||The treatment difference in CMH weighted percentage of participants gaining ≥15 letters or achieving BCVA ≥84 letters is the calculated difference of Arm A: Faricimab and Arm B: Aflibercept.|Treatment Difference in CMH Weighted Percentages at Weeks 40-48||5.1|-8.5|
90912505|NCT03823300|181694237|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|12.9|||||The treatment difference in CMH weighted percentage of participants achieving BCVA ≥69 letters is the calculated difference of Arm A: Faricimab and Arm B: Aflibercept.|Treatment Difference in CMH Weighted Percentages at Weeks 40-48||12.9|-1.4|
90960693|NCT04079803|181801984|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0058||||||P value adjusted for multiplicity of 6 co-primary endpoints (p\<0.008 required for significance).|ANCOVA|General Linear Model for the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with a two-sided 95% confidence interval and baseline measurement as the covariate.||This primary analysis includes one 50 mg subject who showed no detectable simufilam in plasma at return visits (their exclusion was not prespecified in the Statistical Analysis Plan).|In a secondary analysis removing one subject with no detectable simufilam in plasma, P=0.0008 and CFB was -51.0.|||0.0058
90872155|NCT03070782|181604892|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-68.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.0|-54.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|||-54|-78|<.0001
90872156|NCT03070782|181604892|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-89.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-93.0|-84.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|||-84|-93|<.0001
90872157|NCT01830699|181604896|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For details of power calculation, see above. Using a minimal clinical importance of -9.1, the null hypothesis was a mean difference less than -9.1.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.9||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Setting α=0.05 and β=0.8, with effect size of 0.17 anticipated total n = 138 to be recruited (requested recruitment of 150 to account for possible drop-outs)~1st data analysis (n = 33), effect size calculated at 1.1 with new n = 29 with α=0.05 and β=1.0."||||0.004
90912506|NCT03823300|181694239|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|4.4|||||The treatment difference in CMH weighted percentage of participants with BCVA ≤38 letters is the calculated difference of Arm A: Faricimab and Arm B: Aflibercept.|Treatment Difference in CMH Weighted Percentages at Weeks 40-48||4.4|-3.6|
90872158|NCT01830699|181604897|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|See details above regarding effect size, power, etc.||||||0.044|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Setting α=0.05 and β=0.8, with effect size of 0.17 anticipated total n = 138 to be recruited (requested recruitment of 150 to account for possible drop-outs)~1st data analysis (n = 33), effect size calculated at 1.1 with new n = 29 with α=0.05 and β=1.0."||||0.044
90872159|NCT05081011|181604899|OTHER|||||||0.006||||||A p-value of 0.05 would be considered statistically significant|Log Rank|||||||0.006
90872160|NCT05081011|181604900|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.7||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|57.4||A p-value of 0.05 would be considered statistically significant.|Welch 2-sample method|||||57.4|8.0|0.01
90872161|NCT05081011|181604901|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.6||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|-0.4||A p-value of 0.05 would be considered statistically significant.|Welch 2-sample method|||||-0.4|-6.8|0.03
90872162|NCT05081011|181604902|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|2.8|||Welch 2-sample method|||||2.8|-0.03|0.06
90872163|NCT05081011|181604903|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|3.5|||Welch 2-sample method|||||3.5|-1.6|0.46
90872164|NCT05081011|181604904|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.56||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.91|||2-sample test|2-sample test for equality of proportions with Yates continuity correction|Comparison of percentage (proportion) of participants achieving glycemic control.|Comparison of percentage (proportion) of participants achieving glycemic control.||0.91|0.21|0.005
90872165|NCT05081011|181604905|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-68.9||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-107.1|-30.1|||Welch 2-sample method|||||-30.1|-107.1|0.001
90912507|NCT03823300|181694247|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|2.1|||||The treatment difference in adjusted means of change from baseline CST is the calculated difference of Arm A: Faricimab and Arm B: Aflibercept. MMRM adjustments are listed in the outcome measure description.|Treatment Difference in Adjusted Means at Weeks 40-48||2.1|-14.8|
90912508|NCT03823300|181694248|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.05|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|9.3|||||The treatment difference in adjusted means of change from baseline CST is the calculated difference of Arm A: Faricimab and Arm B: Aflibercept. MMRM adjustments are listed in the outcome measure description.|Treatment Difference in Adjusted Means at Weeks 52-60||9.3|-6.6|
90872166|NCT02288559|181604924|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.435||||0.0428|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.162|0.707|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measures|MMRM analysis variables: treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline GA area, and BCVA ETDRS chart Snellen equivalent category.||||0.707|0.162|0.0428
90872167|NCT02288559|181604924|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.21||||0.3361|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.491|0.071|||MMRM|MMRM analysis variables: treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline GA area, and BCVA ETDRS chart Snellen equivalent category.||||0.071|-0.491|0.3361
90872168|NCT00558025|181604931|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin: -15 %, power: 80%|Risk Difference (RD)|-10.75||||||95.0|-20.51|1.48|||Wilson score interval|||Successfully switched patients||1.48|-20.51|
90872169|NCT00558025|181604931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0803||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|test with stratification by country||||||0.0803
90872170|NCT00558025|181604932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.2061||95.0|-2.8|0.6|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors of treatment, country and baseline as covariate||||0.6|-2.8|0.2061
90872171|NCT00558025|181604933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.4694||95.0|-0.8|0.4|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors of treatment, country and baseline as covariate||||0.4|-0.8|0.4694
90872172|NCT00558025|181604934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.1804||95.0|-2.3|0.4|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors of treatment, country and baseline as covariate||||0.4|-2.3|0.1804
90872173|NCT00558025|181604935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1623|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|test with stratification by country||||||0.1623
90872174|NCT00558025|181604936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1299|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|test with stratification by country||||||0.1299
90872175|NCT00558025|181604937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.619||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|test with stratification by country||||||0.6190
90872176|NCT00356369|181604959|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion indicative of non-inferiority: Lower limit of the standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference between MenACWY-TT and (minus) MenACWY in the percentage of subjects with bactericidal vaccine response was greater than (\>) -15%.|Difference in % for rSBA-MenA antibodies|13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.52|23.5||||||To evaluate the non-inferiority of the vaccine response\* induced by the MenACWY-TT vaccine when compared to the licensed MenACWY vaccine.||23.5|3.52|
90872177|NCT00356369|181604959|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion indicative of non-inferiority: Lower limit of the standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference between MenACWY-TT and (minus) MenACWY in the percentage of subjects with bactericidal vaccine response was ≥ -12%.|Difference in % for rSBA-MenC antibodies|4.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|11.36||||||To evaluate the non-inferiority of the vaccine response\* induced by the MenACWY-TT vaccine when compared to the licensed MenACWY vaccine.||11.36|-1.03|
90872178|NCT00356369|181604959|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion indicative of non-inferiority: Lower limit of the standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference between MenACWY-TT and (minus) MenACWY in the percentage of subjects with bactericidal vaccine response was ≥ -12%.|Difference in%for rSBA-MenW-135 antibody|4.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|11.49||||||To evaluate the non-inferiority of the vaccine response\* induced by the MenACWY-TT vaccine when compared to the licensed MenACWY vaccine.||11.49|-0.07|
90872179|NCT00356369|181604959|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion indicative of non-inferiority: Lower limit of the standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference between MenACWY-TT and (minus) MenACWY in the percentage of subjects with bactericidal vaccine response was ≥ -12%.|Difference in % for rSBA-MenY antibodies|8.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|16.17||||||To evaluate the non-inferiority of the vaccine response\* induced by the MenACWY-TT vaccine when compared to the licensed MenACWY vaccine.||16.17|1.72|
90872180|NCT00356369|181604960|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion indicative of non-inferiority: Upper limit of the standardized asymptotic 95% CI on the difference between MenACWY- TT and (minus) MenACWY in the incidence of Grade 3 systemic symptoms was below 5%.|Difference in % Grade 3 general symptoms|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|3.09||||||To evaluate the non-inferiority of the MenACWY-TT conjugate vaccine when compared to the licensed MenACWY vaccine in terms of the incidence of any Grade 3 systemic symptom within 4 days after vaccination.||3.09|-1.64|
90872181|NCT00673465|181604991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-4.4||||0.5269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.5|9.7|||ANOVA|ANOVA model extracting the effect due to treatment, period, sequence and participant.||||9.7|-18.5|0.5269
90912509|NCT01290224|181694268|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A one-sided McNemar's test of the primary endpoint with 10 patients will have 86% power at 5% Type I error rate to detect a 60% difference in the percentage of at least 50% reduction in the scrambler and sham procedure, based on the assumption that the proportion of discordant pairs is at 70%.||||||0.763||95.0|||||McNemar|||McNemar's test was used to test for a difference between Scrambler and Sham procedure in their success rate.||||0.7630
90912510|NCT05694065|181694284|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The diagnostic discrimination ability of UFR was analyzed by ROC curve analysis using the DeLong method. Cutoff value of ≤0.80 was used for FFR and UFR to define the physiological significance of a coronary stenosis, with two-sided P\<0.05 considered statistically significant.|||
90872182|NCT00673465|181604991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-53.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.1|-39.8|||ANOVA|ANOVA model extracting the effect due to treatment, period, sequence and participant.||||-39.8|-68.1|<0.0001
90872183|NCT00673465|181604995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-2.81||||0.741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.1|14.5|||ANOVA|ANOVA model extracting the effect due to treatment, period, sequence and participant.||||14.5|-20.1|0.7410
90872184|NCT00673465|181604995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-63.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.9|-46.2|||ANOVA|ANOVA model extracting the effect due to treatment, period, sequence and participant.||||-46.2|-80.9|<0.0001
90912511|NCT05694065|181694288|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The diagnostic discrimination abilities of UFR and MLA were compared by ROC curves analysis using the DeLong method. A prespecified MLA cutoff value was applied based on the prior study. Cutoff value of ≤0.80 was used for FFR and UFR to define the physiological significance of a coronary stenosis, with two-sided P\<0.05 considered statistically significant.|||
91033334|NCT00420238|181952538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.02||||0.197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|5.88|||GEE model||An odds-ratio greater than 1 indicates the odds of response is greater in the etanercept group than in the placebo group.|Week 4: Generalized estimating equations (GEE) model, using a logit link, a binomial distribution and an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits and their interactions as fixed factors.||5.88|0.69|0.197
90872185|NCT00673465|181604997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-3.59||||0.3146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|3.6|||ANOVA|ANOVA model extracting the effect due to treatment, period, sequence and participant.||||3.6|-10.8|0.3146
90872186|NCT00673465|181604997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-26.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.8|-19.4|||ANOVA|ANOVA model extracting the effect due to treatment, period, sequence and participant.||||-19.4|-33.8|<0.0001
90872187|NCT00996307|181605085|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The two-sided confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated and assessed for non-inferiority first against the margin of 0.5 (exploratory margin) and in case of success against the margin of 0.667 (based on CBER guidance against the licensed comparator).|Ratio of GMTs|4.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.55|6.46|||||Ratio of GMTs at Day 22|||6.46|2.55|
90872188|NCT00996307|181605085|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The two-sided CIs were calculated and assessed for non-inferiority first against the margin of 0.5 (exploratory margin) and in case of success against the margin of 0.667 (based on CBER guidance against the licensed comparator).|Ratio of GMTs|2.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|3.56|||||Ratio of GMTs at Day 22|||3.56|1.42|
90872189|NCT00996307|181605085|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The two-sided CIs were calculated and assessed for non-inferiority first against the margin of 0.5 (exploratory margin) and in case of success against the margin of 0.667 (based on CBER guidance against the licensed comparator).|Ratio of GMTs|4.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|7.19|||||Ratio of GMTs at Day 22|||7.19|2.8|
90872190|NCT00996307|181605085|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The two-sided CIs were calculated and assessed for non-inferiority first against the margin of 0.5 (exploratory margin) and in case of success against the margin of 0.667 (based on CBER guidance against the licensed comparator).|Ratio of GMTs|2.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|3.96|||||Ratio of GMTs at Day 22|||3.96|1.56|
90872191|NCT00996307|181605085|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The two-sided CIs were calculated and assessed for non-inferiority first against the margin of 0.5 (exploratory margin) and in case of success against the margin of 0.667 (based on CBER guidance against the licensed comparator).|Ratio of GMTs|8.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.52|12.0|||||Ratio of GMTs at Day 43|||12|5.52|
90872192|NCT00996307|181605085|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The two-sided CIs were calculated and assessed for non-inferiority first against the margin of 0.5 (exploratory margin) and in case of success against the margin of 0.667 (based on CBER guidance against the licensed comparator).|Ratio of GMTs|4.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.94|6.15|||||Ratio of GMTs at Day 43|||6.15|2.94|
90872193|NCT00996307|181605085|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The two-sided CIs were calculated and assessed for non-inferiority first against the margin of 0.5 (exploratory margin) and in case of success against the margin of 0.667 (based on CBER guidance against the licensed comparator).|Ratio of GMTs|7.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.36|11.0|||||Ratio of GMTs at Day 43|||11|5.36|
90872194|NCT00996307|181605085|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The two-sided CIs were calculated and assessed for non-inferiority first against the margin of 0.5 (exploratory margin) and in case of success against the margin of 0.667 (based on CBER guidance against the licensed comparator).|Ratios of GMTs|4.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.86|6.02|||||Ratio of GMTs at Day 43|||6.02|2.86|
90872195|NCT00996307|181605085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMTs|3.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.37|5.65||||||Superiority of the adjuvanted vaccines against the non-adjuvanted vaccines was to be tested against the margin of 1 on day 22||5.65|2.37|
90912512|NCT01087762|181694289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.3|||=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|32.4||Difference of Certolizumab Pegol 200 mg versus Placebo (and corresponding 95 % Confidence Interval and p-value) were estimated using a standard two-sided Wald asymptotic test with a 5 % alpha level.|Wald-test, 2-sided|Wald test and Confidence Interval (CI) calculation were performed without continuity correction.||A hierarchical test procedure was applied to protect the overall significance level for the multiplicity of dose groups and endpoints. Conditional on the first test being significant, the second hypothesis was tested with the same alpha level of 5 %. Statistical testing for the following hypotheses was performed only if the previous null hypothesis in the hierarchy was rejected.||32.4|6.3|=0.004
90912513|NCT01087762|181694289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.3|38.2||Difference of Certolizumab Pegol 400 mg versus Placebo (and corresponding 95 % Confidence Interval and p-value) were estimated using a standard two-sided Wald asymptotic test with a 5 % alpha level.|Wald-test, 2-sided|Wald test and Confidence Interval (CI) calculation were performed without continuity correction.||A hierarchical test procedure was applied to protect the overall significance level for the multiplicity of dose groups and endpoints. Conditional on the first test being significant, the second hypothesis was tested with the same alpha level of 5 %. Statistical testing for the following hypotheses was performed only if the previous null hypothesis in the hierarchy was rejected.||38.2|12.3|<0.001
90912514|NCT01087762|181694290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|37.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.4|50.0||Difference of Certolizumab Pegol 200 mg versus Placebo (and corresponding 95 % Confidence Interval and p-value) were estimated using a standard two-sided Wald asymptotic test with a 5 % alpha level.|Wald-test, 2-sided|Wald test and Confidence Interval (CI) calculation were performed without continuity correction.||A hierarchical test procedure was applied to protect the overall significance level for the multiplicity of dose groups and endpoints. Conditional on the first test being significant, the second hypothesis was tested with the same alpha level of 5 %. Statistical testing for the following hypotheses was performed only if the previous null hypothesis in the hierarchy was rejected.||50.0|25.4|<0.001
90912515|NCT01087762|181694290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|41.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.9|53.3||Difference of Certolizumab Pegol 400 mg versus Placebo (and corresponding 95 % Confidence Interval and p-value) were estimated using a standard two-sided Wald asymptotic test with a 5 % alpha level.|Wald-test, 2-sided|Wald test and Confidence Interval (CI) calculation were performed without continuity correction.||A hierarchical test procedure was applied to protect the overall significance level for the multiplicity of dose groups and endpoints. Conditional on the first test being significant, the second hypothesis was tested with the same alpha level of 5 %. Statistical testing for the following hypotheses was performed only if the previous null hypothesis in the hierarchy was rejected.||53.3|28.9|<0.001
90912516|NCT01087762|181694291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|-1.01||Difference of CZP 200 mg + 400 mg vs. Placebo was estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment, region, modified New York criteria and prior TNF-antagonist exposure as factors and Baseline BASFI score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||A hierarchical test procedure was applied to protect the overall significance level for the multiplicity of dose groups and endpoints. Conditional on the first test being significant, the second hypothesis was tested with the same alpha level of 5 %. Statistical testing for the following hypotheses was performed only if the previous null hypothesis in the hierarchy was rejected.||-1.01|-1.96|<0.001
90912517|NCT01087762|181694292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.38|-1.38||Difference of CZP 200 mg + 400 mg vs. Placebo was estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment, region, modified New York criteria and prior TNF-antagonist exposure as factors and Baseline BASFI score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||A hierarchical test procedure was applied to protect the overall significance level for the multiplicity of dose groups and endpoints. Conditional on the first test being significant, the second hypothesis was tested with the same alpha level of 5 %. Statistical testing for the following hypotheses was performed only if the previous null hypothesis in the hierarchy was rejected.||-1.38|-2.38|<0.001
90912518|NCT01087762|181694293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|-1.12||Difference of CZP 200 mg + 400 mg vs. Placebo was estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment, region, modified New York criteria and prior TNF-antagonist exposure as factors and Baseline BASDAI score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||A hierarchical test procedure was applied to protect the overall significance level for the multiplicity of dose groups and endpoints. Conditional on the first test being significant, the second hypothesis was tested with the same alpha level of 5 %. Statistical testing for the following hypotheses was performed only if the previous null hypothesis in the hierarchy was rejected.||-1.12|-2.07|<0.001
90940489|NCT01177137|181760796|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|0.67||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at \<0.025 to account for two comparisons (1) TRT versus the Standard of Care and (2) Partial TRT versus the Standard of Care.|repeated measures GEE model||Adjusted for baseline TQ value, clinic, visit, age, gender, baseline Positive and Negative Affect Schedule and State Trait Anxiety Inventory scores, with multiple imputation|||0.67|-1.38|0.50
90872196|NCT00996307|181605085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMTs|2.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|3.4||||||Superiority of the adjuvanted vaccines against the non-adjuvanted vaccines was to be tested against the margin of 1 on day 22.||3.4|1.43|
90872197|NCT00996307|181605085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMTs|4.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.85|6.86||||||Superiority of the adjuvanted vaccines against the non-adjuvanted vaccines was to be tested against the margin of 1 on day 22.||6.86|2.85|
90872198|NCT00996307|181605085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMTs|2.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|4.13||||||Superiority of the adjuvanted vaccines against the non-adjuvanted vaccines was to be tested against the margin of 1 on day 22.||4.13|1.72|
90872199|NCT00996307|181605085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMTs|7.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.54|11.0||||||Superiority of the adjuvanted vaccines against the non-adjuvanted vaccines was to be tested against the margin of 1 on day 43.||11|5.54|
90872200|NCT00996307|181605085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMTs|4.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.23|6.42||||||Superiority of the adjuvanted vaccines against the non-adjuvanted vaccines||6.42|3.23|
90872201|NCT00996307|181605085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMTs|7.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|11.0||||||Superiority of the adjuvanted vaccines against the non-adjuvanted vaccines was to be tested against the margin of 1 on day 43.||11|5.3|
90872202|NCT00996307|181605085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMTs|4.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.09|6.19||||||Superiority of the adjuvanted vaccines against the non-adjuvanted vaccines was to be tested against the margin of 1 on day 43.||6.19|3.09|
90872203|NCT00824512|181605178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9133|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||No multiplicity adjustment performed for this study and all statistical tests are two-sided at the 5% significance level.|Non parametric ANCOVA on the rank test|The baseline value was used as a covariate.||||||0.9133
90872204|NCT01209260|181605200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||||||Statistical tests were 2-sided and considered significant if they yielded a p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Sample size of 72 was targeted to achieve 80% power to detect a 5-minute reduction in transseptal access procedure time (assuming a standard deviation of 7.5 minutes), using a 2-sided alpha of 0.05, with the primary analysis done on an intention-to-treat basis.||||0.005
90872205|NCT01209260|181605202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical tests were 2-sided and considered significant if they yielded a p\<0.05|Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
90872206|NCT01209260|181605203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical tests were 2-sided and considered significant if they yielded a p\<0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
90872207|NCT02260921|181605221|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares (LS) Means|-7.53||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.48|-3.58||P-values are obtained by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and WOMAC baseline pain score as a covariate.|ANCOVA||LS estimates are obtained by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and WOMAC baseline pain score as a covariate.|||-3.58|-11.48|0.0002
90872208|NCT00850564|181605294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.005||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||Paired t-test comparing baseline and 2 week mean overnight growth hormone||||<0.005
90872209|NCT00850564|181605295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||Paired t-test comparing insulin stimulated glucose uptake (M) between baseline and 2 week visits.||||0.61
90912519|NCT01087762|181694294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.49|-1.5||Difference of CZP 200 mg + 400 mg vs. Placebo was estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment, region, modified New York criteria and prior TNF-antagonist exposure as factors and Baseline BASDAI score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||A hierarchical test procedure was applied to protect the overall significance level for the multiplicity of dose groups and endpoints. Conditional on the first test being significant, the second hypothesis was tested with the same alpha level of 5 %. Statistical testing for the following hypotheses was performed only if the previous null hypothesis in the hierarchy was rejected.||-1.50|-2.49|<0.001
90872210|NCT01804075|181605329|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.6
90872211|NCT00254540|181605334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Objective Response Rate(percentage)|48.0||||||95.0|27.8|68.7||||||||68.7|27.8|
90872212|NCT00254540|181605334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Objective Response Rate(percentage)|46.2||||||95.0|26.6|66.6||||||||66.6|26.6|
90872213|NCT01313767|181605350|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|90% of the power, 0.45 of non-inferiority margin|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17||||0.1347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||The difference between the two groups was provided with 95% CI. If the upper limit of CI is no greater than 0.45 (non-inferiority margin), the study group was determined not inferior to the control group. Additionally, difference between groups in change from baseline to week 4 in wrist flexor MAS score was compared using two sample t-test.||0.40|-0.05|0.1347
90872214|NCT01313767|181605351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.2591|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference between groups in change from baseline to week 8 in wrist flexor MAS score was compared using two sample t-test.||||0.2591
90872215|NCT01313767|181605351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.3395|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference between groups in change from baseline to week 12 in wrist flexor MAS score was compared using two sample t-test.||||0.3395
90872216|NCT01313767|181605352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.0675|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference between groups in change from baseline to week 4 in elbow flexor MAS score was compared using two sample t-test.||||0.0675
90872217|NCT01313767|181605352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.0605|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference between groups in change from baseline to week 8 in elbow flexor MAS score was compared using two sample t-test.||||0.0605
90872218|NCT01313767|181605352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0.0429|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference between groups in change from baseline to week 12 in elbow flexor MAS score was compared using two sample t-test.||||0.0429
90912520|NCT01087762|181694295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.2||Difference of CZP 200 mg + 400 mg vs. Placebo was estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment, region, modified New York criteria and prior TNF-antagonist exposure as factors and Baseline BASMI score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||A hierarchical test procedure was applied to protect the overall significance level for the multiplicity of dose groups and endpoints. Conditional on the first test being significant, the second hypothesis was tested with the same alpha level of 5 %. Statistical testing for the following hypotheses was performed only if the previous null hypothesis in the hierarchy was rejected.||-0.20|-0.60|<0.001
90912521|NCT01087762|181694296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.23||Difference of CZP 200 mg + 400 mg vs. Placebo was estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment, region, modified New York criteria and prior TNF-antagonist exposure as factors and Baseline BASMI score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||A hierarchical test procedure was applied to protect the overall significance level for the multiplicity of dose groups and endpoints. Conditional on the first test being significant, the second hypothesis was tested with the same alpha level of 5 %. Statistical testing for the following hypotheses was performed only if the previous null hypothesis in the hierarchy was rejected.||-0.23|-0.66|<0.001
90912522|NCT02311972|181694302|SUPERIORITY|Mean axillary admission temperature||||||0.7294|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7294
90912523|NCT02311972|181694303|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.236|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2360
90872219|NCT01313767|181605353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.6954|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference between groups in change from baseline to week 4 in finger flexor MAS score was compared using two sample t-test.||||0.6954
90872220|NCT01313767|181605353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.6024|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference between groups in change from baseline to week 8 in finger flexor MAS score was compared using two sample t-test.||||0.6024
90872221|NCT01313767|181605353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.9316|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference between groups in change from baseline to week 12 in finger flexor MAS score was compared using two sample t-test.||||0.9316
90872222|NCT01313767|181605354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19||||0.2284|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference between groups in change from baseline to week 4 in thumb flexor MAS score was compared using two sample t-test.||||0.2284
90872223|NCT01313767|181605354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.3221|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference between groups in change from baseline to week 8 in thumb flexor MAS score was compared using two sample t-test.||||0.3221
90872224|NCT01313767|181605354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.593|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference between groups in change from baseline to week 12 in thumb flexor MAS score was compared using two sample t-test.||||0.5930
90872225|NCT01313767|181605355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.07||||0.1585|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Difference between groups in frequency of responders who have improved at least 1-point on the MAS at week 4 from baseline in wrist flexor was compared using Pearson's chi-square test.||||0.1585
90872226|NCT01313767|181605355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0028||||0.9596|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Difference between groups in frequency of responders who have improved at least 1-point on the MAS at week 8 from baseline in wrist flexor was compared using Pearson's chi-square test.||||0.9596
90872227|NCT01313767|181605355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.0304||||0.6164|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Difference between groups in frequency of responders who have improved at least 1-point on the MAS at week 12 from baseline in wrist flexor was compared using Pearson's chi-square test.||||0.6164
90872228|NCT01313767|181605356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.098||||0.1802|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Difference between groups in frequency of responders who have improved at least 1-point on the MAS at week 4 from baseline in elbow flexor was compared using Pearson's chi-square test.||||0.1802
90872229|NCT01313767|181605356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.1164||||0.1176|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Difference between groups in frequency of responders who have improved at least 1-point on the MAS at week 8 from baseline in elbow flexor was compared using Pearson's chi-square test.||||0.1176
90872230|NCT01313767|181605356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.1138||||0.1252|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Difference between groups in frequency of responders who have improved at least 1-point on the MAS at week 12 from baseline in elbow flexor was compared using Pearson's chi-square test.||||0.1252
90872231|NCT01313767|181605357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.098||||0.3431|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Difference between groups in frequency of responders who have improved at least 1-point on the MAS at week 4 from baseline in finger flexor was compared using Pearson's chi-square test.||||0.3431
90872232|NCT01313767|181605357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1097||||0.1329|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Difference between groups in frequency of responders who have improved at least 1-point on the MAS at week 8 from baseline in finger flexor was compared using Pearson's chi-square test||||0.1329
90872233|NCT01313767|181605357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0853||||0.2611|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Difference between groups in frequency of responders who have improved at least 1-point on the MAS at week 12 from baseline in finger flexor was compared using Pearson's chi-square test||||0.2611
90912524|NCT02311972|181694304|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
90912525|NCT02311972|181694305|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1089|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1089
90912526|NCT02311972|181694306|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
90872234|NCT01313767|181605358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.0654||||0.4623|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Difference between groups in frequency of responders who have improved at least 1-point on the MAS at week 4 from baseline in thumb flexor was compared using Pearson's chi-square test.||||0.4623
90872235|NCT01313767|181605358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1194||||0.2007|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Difference between groups in frequency of responders who have improved at least 1-point on the MAS at week 8 from baseline in thumb flexor was compared using Pearson's chi-square test.||||0.2007
90872236|NCT01313767|181605358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0172||||0.8553|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Difference between groups in frequency of responders who have improved at least 1-point on the MAS at week 12 from baseline in thumb flexor was compared using Pearson's chi-square test.||||0.8553
90872237|NCT01313767|181605359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.604|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference between groups in change from baseline to week 4 in DAS score of hygiene was compared using wilcoxon rank sum test.||||0.6040
90872238|NCT01313767|181605359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.3233|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference between groups in change from baseline to week 8 in DAS score of hygiene was compared using wilcoxon rank sum test.||||0.3233
90872239|NCT01313767|181605359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.4469|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference between groups in change from baseline to week 12 in DAS score of hygiene was compared using wilcoxon rank sum test.||||0.4469
90912527|NCT02311972|181694307|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4947|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4947
90912528|NCT02311972|181694308|SUPERIORITY|Infant 007|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90912529|NCT02311972|181694308|SUPERIORITY|Infant 010|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90912530|NCT02311972|181694308|SUPERIORITY|Infant 015|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90912531|NCT02311972|181694308|SUPERIORITY|Infant 039|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90912532|NCT02311972|181694308|SUPERIORITY|Infant 040||||||0.3947|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3947
91033335|NCT00420238|181952538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|5.95|||GEE model||An odds-ratio greater than 1 indicates the odds of response is greater in the etanercept group than in the placebo group.|Week 8: Generalized estimating equations (GEE) model, using a logit link, a binomial distribution and an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits and their interactions as fixed factors.||5.95|0.89|0.087
91033336|NCT00420238|181952538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.83||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|7.29|||GEE model||An odds-ratio greater than 1 indicates the odds of response is greater in the etanercept group than in the placebo group.|Week 12: Generalized estimating equations (GEE) model, using a logit link, a binomial distribution and an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits and their interactions as fixed factors.||7.29|1.10|0.031
91033337|NCT00420238|181952539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|4.57|||GEE model||An odds ratio greater than 1 indicates the odds of response is greater in the etanercept group than in the placebo group.|Week 2: Generalized estimating equations (GEE) model, using a logit link, a binomial distribution and an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits, and their interaction as fixed factors.||4.57|0.62|0.310
91033338|NCT00420238|181952539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.61||||0.309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|3.99|||GEE model||An odds ratio greater than 1 indicates the odds of response is greater in the etanercept group than in the placebo group.|Week 4: Generalized estimating equations (GEE) model, using a logit link, a binomial distribution and an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits, and their interaction as fixed factors.||3.99|0.65|0.309
91033339|NCT00420238|181952539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.61||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.81|11.74|||GEE model||An odds ratio greater than 1 indicates the odds of response is greater in the etanercept group than in the placebo group.|Week 8: Generalized estimating equations (GEE) model, using a logit link, a binomial distribution and an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits, and their interaction as fixed factors.||11.74|1.81|0.001
91033340|NCT00420238|181952539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.14||||0.003||95.0|1.65|10.42|||GEE model||An odds ratio greater than 1 indicates the odds of response is greater in the etanercept group than in the placebo group.|Week 12: Generalized estimating equations (GEE) model, using a logit link, a binomial distribution and an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits, and their interaction as fixed factors.||10.42|1.65|0.003
91033341|NCT00420238|181952541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.13||||0.259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|7.94|||GEE model||An odds ratio greater than 1 indicates the odds of response is greater in etanercept group than in placebo group.|Week 2: Generalized estimating equations (GEE) model, using a logit link, a binomial distribution and an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits, and their interaction as fixed factors.||7.94|0.57|0.259
91033342|NCT00420238|181952541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.54||||0.44||95.0|0.51|4.64|||GEE model||An odds ratio greater than 1 indicates the odds of response is greater in etanercept group than in placebo group.|Week 4: Generalized estimating equations (GEE) model, using a logit link, a binomial distribution and an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits, and their interaction as fixed factors.||4.64|0.51|0.440
91033343|NCT00420238|181952541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.88||||0.046||95.0|1.02|8.16|||GEE model||An odds ratio greater than 1 indicates the odds of response is greater in etanercept group than in placebo group.|Week 8: Generalized estimating equations (GEE) model, using a logit link, a binomial distribution and an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits, and their interaction as fixed factors.||8.16|1.02|0.046
91033344|NCT00420238|181952541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.85||||0.014||95.0|1.31|11.32|||GEE model||An odds ratio greater than 1 indicates the odds of response is greater in etanercept group than in placebo group.|Week 12: Generalized estimating equations (GEE) model, using a logit link, a binomial distribution and an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits, and their interaction as fixed factors.||11.32|1.31|0.014
91033345|NCT00420238|181952543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.01||||0.204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|16.53|||GEE model||An odds ratio greater than 1 indicates the odds of response is greater in etanercept group than in placebo group.|Week 2: Generalized estimating equations (GEE) model, using a logit link, a binomial distribution and an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits, and their interaction as fixed factors.||16.53|0.55|0.204
90912533|NCT02393716|181694316|OTHER|Single arm study with a hypothesis test comparing to performance goal|Percentage|2.9|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5||7.2|||Based on exact binomial distribution|||"The primary safety endpoint was tested against a predetermined safety Performance Goal (PG) using the following statistical hypotheses:~H0: p ≥ 20% vs. H1: p \< 20% where p is the proportion of subjects experiencing a MAE within 30 days of the index procedure in the target population of subjects treated with the Endurant Evo AAA Stent graft system and 20% is the safety PG."||7.2||<0.001
91033346|NCT00420238|181952543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.48||||0.073||95.0|0.87|23.07|||GEE model||An odds ratio greater than 1 indicates the odds of response is greater in etanercept group than in placebo group.|Week 4: Generalized estimating equations (GEE) model, using a logit link, a binomial distribution and an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits, and their interaction as fixed factors.||23.07|0.87|0.073
90872240|NCT01313767|181605360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37||||0.122|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference between groups in change from baseline to week 4 in DAS score of dressing was compared using wilcoxon rank sum test.||||0.1220
90872241|NCT01313767|181605360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41||||0.1016|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference between groups in change from baseline to week 8 in DAS score of dressing was compared using wilcoxon rank sum test.||||0.1016
90912534|NCT02393716|181694317|OTHER|Single-arm study with a hypothesis test comparing to performance goal|Percentage|95.8|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|90.4||||Based on exact binomial distribution|||"The primary effectiveness endpoint was tested against a predetermined effectiveness PG using following statistical hypotheses:~H0: q ≤ 80% vs. H1: q \> 80% where q is the proportion of subjects who have a successful aneurysm treatment in the target population of subjects treated with the Endurant Evo AAA Stent graft system and 80% is the effectiveness PG."|||90.4|<0.001
90912535|NCT01924767|181694335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean of ratio|43.661|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.52|69.269|||Regression, Linear|||This was non-confirmatory testing, dose proportionality of dose from 2.5mg to 100mg for Cmax (single dose) was analysed.||69.269|27.520|
90912536|NCT01924767|181694335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean of ratio|31.234|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.193|80.011|||Regression, Linear|||This was non-confirmatory testing, dose proportionality of dose from 2.5mg to 100mg for Cmax,ss (Multiple dose) was analysed.||80.011|12.193|
90912537|NCT01924767|181694336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean of ratio|49.707|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.49|73.776|||Regression, Linear|||This was non-confirmatory testing, dose proportionality of dose from 2.5mg to 100mg for AUC (0-infinity, single dose) was analysed.||73.776|33.490|
90912538|NCT01924767|181694336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean of ratio|37.632|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.429|91.789|||Regression, Linear|||This was non confirmatory testing, dose proportionality of dose from 2.5mg to 100mg for AUC (0-infinity, at steady state, day 9) was analysed.||91.789|15.429|
90912539|NCT01924767|181694347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|37645.43||||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11021.57|64269.3||This was non-confirmatory testing.|ANCOVA|The baseline value has been used a continuous covariate.||The mean change from baseline (day -2) to day 8 and comparisons to placebo for Urine Glucose Excretion (AE(0-24)).||64269.30|11021.57|0.0067
90912540|NCT01924767|181694347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|82898.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55344.83|110451.6||This was non-confirmatory testing.|ANCOVA|The baseline value has been used a continuous covariate.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated.|The mean change from baseline (day -2) to day 8 and comparisons to placebo for Urine Glucose Excretion (AE(0-24)).||110451.6|55344.83|<0.0001
90912541|NCT01924767|181694347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|79982.89|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53087.22|106878.6||This was non-confirmatory testing.|ANCOVA|The baseline value has been used a continuous covariate.|Mean Difference to placebo is calculated.|The mean change from baseline (day -2) to day 8 and comparisons to placebo for Urine Glucose Excretion (AE(0-24)).||106878.6|53087.22|<0.0001
90912542|NCT01924767|181694347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|91306.96|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|64685.41|117928.5||This was non-confirmatory testing.|ANCOVA|The baseline value has been used a continuous covariate.|Mean Difference to placebo was calculated|The mean change from baseline (day -2) to day 8 and comparisons to placebo for Urine Glucose Excretion (AE(0-24)).||117928.5|64685.41|<0.0001
90912543|NCT01924767|181694348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.456||||0.0449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.543|-0.369||This was non-confirmatory testing.|ANCOVA|The baseline value has been used a continuous covariate.|Mean difference to placebo was calculated.|The mean percent decrease in Mean daily glucose from baseline with treatment compared with placebo from baseline -2 to day 8||-0.369|-30.543|0.0449
90912544|NCT01924767|181694348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.467||||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.085|-7.848||This was non-confirmatory testing.|ANCOVA|The baseline value has been used a continuous covariate.|Mean difference to placebo was calculated.|The mean percent decrease in Mean daily glucose from baseline with treatment compared with placebo from baseline -2 to day 8||-7.848|-39.085|0.0042
90912545|NCT01924767|181694348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.956||||0.0521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.057|0.145||This was non-confirmatory testing.|ANCOVA|The baseline value has been used a continuous covariate.|Mean difference to placebo was calculated.|The mean percent decrease in Mean daily glucose from baseline with treatment compared with placebo from baseline -2 to day 8||0.145|-30.057|0.0521
91033347|NCT00420238|181952543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.73||||0.121||95.0|0.71|19.69|||GEE model||An odds ratio greater than 1 indicates the odds of response is greater in etanercept group than in placebo group.|Week 8: Generalized estimating equations (GEE) model, using a logit link, a binomial distribution and an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits, and their interaction as fixed factors.||19.69|0.71|0.121
90912546|NCT01924767|181694348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference to placebo|-10.602||||0.1676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.848|4.644||This was non-confirmatory testing.|ANCOVA|The baseline value has been used a continuous covariate.|Mean difference to placebo was calculated|The mean percent decrease in Mean daily glucose from baseline with treatment compared with placebo from baseline -2 to day 8||4.644|-25.848|0.1676
90912547|NCT01924767|181694349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.269||||0.2239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.162|4.624||This was non-confirmatory testing.|ANCOVA|The baseline value has been used a continuous covariate.|Mean difference to placebo was calculated.|The mean percent change in Fasting Plasma Glucose from baseline with treatment compared with placebo from baseline -2 to day 8||4.624|-19.162|0.2239
90872242|NCT01313767|181605360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32||||0.2235|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference between groups in change from baseline to week 12 in DAS score of dressing was compared using wilcoxon rank sum test.||||0.2235
90872243|NCT01313767|181605361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.503|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference between groups in change from baseline to week 4 in DAS score of limb position was compared using wilcoxon rank sum test.||||0.5030
90872244|NCT01313767|181605361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.6934|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference between groups in change from baseline to week 8 in DAS score of limb position was compared using wilcoxon rank sum test.||||0.6934
90872245|NCT01313767|181605361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.9574|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference between groups in change from baseline to week 12 in DAS score of limb position was compared using wilcoxon rank sum test.||||0.9574
90912548|NCT01924767|181694349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.844||||0.0421||95.0|-25.205|-0.484||This was non-confirmatory testing.|ANCOVA|The baseline value has been used a continuous covariate.|Mean difference to placebo was calculated|The mean percent change in Fasting Plasma Glucose from baseline with treatment compared with placebo from baseline -2 to day 8||-0.484|-25.205|0.0421
90912549|NCT01924767|181694349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.719||||0.6527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.842|9.403||This was non-confirmatory testing.|ANCOVA|The baseline value has been used a continuous covariate.|Mean difference to placebo was calculated.|The mean percent change in Fasting Plasma Glucose from baseline with treatment compared with placebo from baseline -2 to day 8||9.403|-14.842|0.6527
90912550|NCT01924767|181694349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.998||||0.1318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.818|2.822||This was non-confirmatory testing.|ANCOVA|The baseline value has been used a continuous covariate.|Mean difference to placebo was calculated.|The mean percent change in Fasting Plasma Glucose from baseline with treatment compared with placebo from baseline -2 to day 8||2.822|-20.818|0.1318
90912551|NCT00470106|181694405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Not corrected for multiple comparisons because it is primary.|mixed model|same analysis as for secondary outcome variable.||||||<.001
90912552|NCT00470106|181694406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.1||||||A priori threshold for significance was P \< .05|mixed model|Same as for the primary variable.||||||<.10
90872246|NCT01313767|181605362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25||||0.7237|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference between groups in change from baseline to week 4 in DAS score of pain was compared using wilcoxon rank sum test.||||0.7237
90872247|NCT01313767|181605362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||0.7237|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference between groups in change from baseline to week 8 in DAS score of pain was compared using wilcoxon rank sum test.||||0.7237
90872248|NCT01313767|181605362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.4017|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference between groups in change from baseline to week 12 in DAS score of pain was compared using wilcoxon rank sum test.||||0.4017
90872249|NCT01313767|181605363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2346|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Difference between groups in frequency distribution of responders on the Global Assessment at week 12 was compared using Fisher's exact test.||||0.2346
90872250|NCT01313767|181605364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9513|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Difference between groups in frequency distribution of responders on the Global Assessment at week 12 was compared using Fisher's exact test.||||0.9513
90872251|NCT01313767|181605365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.8088|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference between groups in change from baseline to week 4 in carer burden scale of cleaning the palm was compared using wilcoxon rank sum test.||||0.8088
90872252|NCT01313767|181605365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.3702|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference between groups in change from baseline to week 8 in carer burden scale of cleaning the palm was compared using wilcoxon rank sum test.||||0.3702
90872253|NCT01313767|181605365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28||||0.1497|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference between groups in change from baseline to week 12 in carer burden scale of cleaning the palm was compared using wilcoxon rank sum test.||||0.1497
90872254|NCT01313767|181605366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.9634|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference between groups in change from baseline to week 4 in carer burden scale of cutting the finger-nails was compared using wilcoxon rank sum test.||||0.9634
90872255|NCT01313767|181605366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.7302|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference between groups in change from baseline to week 8 in carer burden scale of cutting the finger-nails was compared using wilcoxon rank sum test.||||0.7302
90872256|NCT01313767|181605366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.7715|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference between groups in change from baseline to week 12 in carer burden scale of cutting the finger-nails was compared using wilcoxon rank sum test.||||0.7715
90872257|NCT01313767|181605367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.9362|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference between groups in change from baseline to week 4 in carer burden scale of putting shirts on was compared using wilcoxon rank sum test.||||0.9362
90872258|NCT01313767|181605367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.7998|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference between groups in change from baseline to week 8 in carer burden scale of putting shirts on was compared using wilcoxon rank sum test.||||0.7998
90872259|NCT01313767|181605367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.5436|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference between groups in change from baseline to week 12 in carer burden scale of putting shirts on was compared using wilcoxon rank sum test.||||0.5436
90872260|NCT01313767|181605368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.7014|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference between groups in change from baseline to week 4 in carer burden scale of cleaning the armpit was compared using wilcoxon rank sum test.||||0.7014
90872261|NCT01313767|181605368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.8884|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference between groups in change from baseline to week 8 in carer burden scale of cleaning the armpit was compared using wilcoxon rank sum test.||||0.8884
90872262|NCT01313767|181605368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27||||0.284|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference between groups in change from baseline to week 12 in carer burden scale of cleaning the armpit was compared using wilcoxon rank sum test.||||0.2840
90872263|NCT01084174|181605375|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Regression, Linear|Analyzed by linear regression models using generalized estimating equations to account for repeated measures over time with robust standard errors||||||.003
90872264|NCT01084174|181605376|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<.001
90872265|NCT01084174|181605377|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<.001
90960694|NCT04079803|181801985|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001||||||P value adjusted for multiplicity of 6 co-primary endpoints (p\<0.008 required for significance).|ANCOVA|General Linear Model for the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with a two-sided 95% confidence interval and baseline measurement as the covariate.||This primary analysis includes two 100 mg subjects who showed no detectable simufilam in plasma at return visits (their exclusion was not prespecified in the Statistical Analysis Plan).|In a secondary analysis removing two subjects with no detectable simufilam in plasma, P=0.0001 and CFB was -23.7.|||0.0001
90960695|NCT04079803|181801985|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001||||||P value adjusted for multiplicity of 6 co-primary endpoints (p\<0.008 required for significance).|ANCOVA|General Linear Model for the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with a two-sided 95% confidence interval and baseline measurement as the covariate.||This primary analysis includes one 50 mg subject who showed no detectable simufilam in plasma at return visits (their exclusion was not prespecified in the Statistical Analysis Plan).|In a secondary analysis removing one subject with no detectable simufilam in plasma, P=0.0002 and CFB was -20.9.|||0.0001
90960696|NCT04079803|181801986|OTHER||Effect size|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Reported effect size vs. placebo was calculated with Hedge's g (for groups of 20 or fewer) but was identical when calculated by Cohen's d.|This study was not powered for statistical significance on cognitive measures.||||
90960697|NCT04079803|181801986|OTHER||Effect size|0.37|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Reported effect size vs. placebo was calculated with Hedge's g (for groups of 20 or fewer) but was identical when calculated by Cohen's d.|This study was not powered for statistical significance on cognitive measures.||||
90872266|NCT01084174|181605378|OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.40
90872267|NCT01084174|181605379|OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.07
90872268|NCT01084174|181605380|OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.007
90872269|NCT03103919|181605425|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.31|||=|0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.04|1.41|||ANCOVA|The model used an ANCOVA with baseline as a covariate, center as factor, and group as main factor.|The difference presented is Experimental Group (Rotigotine + Standard Care + Kinesia-360™ wearable device FAS) minus Control Group (Rotigotine + Standard Care FAS).|||1.41|-10.04|=0.134
90872270|NCT03103919|181605426|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|||=|0.982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.45|||ANCOVA|The model used an ANCOVA with baseline as a covariate, center as factor, and group as main factor.|The difference presented is Experimental Group (Rotigotine + Standard Care + Kinesia-360™ wearable device FAS) minus Control Group (Rotigotine + Standard Care FAS).|||0.45|-0.44|=0.982
90872271|NCT03103919|181605427|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18|||=|0.566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.45|||ANCOVA|The model used an ANCOVA with baseline as a covariate, center as factor, and group as main factor.|The difference presented is Experimental Group (Rotigotine + Standard Care + Kinesia-360™ wearable device FAS) minus Control Group (Rotigotine + Standard Care FAS).|||0.45|-0.81|=0.566
90872272|NCT03103919|181605428|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|||=|0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.35|||ANCOVA|The model used an ANCOVA with baseline as a covariate, center as factor, and group as main factor.|The difference presented is Experimental Group (Rotigotine + Standard Care + Kinesia-360™ wearable device FAS) minus Control Group (Rotigotine + Standard Care FAS).|||0.35|-0.50|=0.720
90872273|NCT03103919|181605429|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|||=|0.443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.53|||ANCOVA|The model used an ANCOVA with baseline as a covariate, center as factor, and group as main factor.|The difference presented is Experimental Group (Rotigotine + Standard Care + Kinesia-360™ wearable device FAS) minus Control Group (Rotigotine + Standard Care FAS).|||0.53|-0.24|=0.443
90872274|NCT03103919|181605430|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|||=|0.777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.57|||ANCOVA|The model used an ANCOVA with baseline as a covariate, center as factor, and group as main factor.|The difference presented is Experimental Group (Rotigotine + Standard Care + Kinesia-360™ wearable device FAS) minus Control Group (Rotigotine + Standard Care FAS).|||0.57|-0.75|=0.777
90872275|NCT03103919|181605431|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|||=|0.947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.31|||ANCOVA|The model used an ANCOVA with baseline as a covariate, center as factor, and group as main factor.|The difference presented is Experimental Group (Rotigotine + Standard Care + Kinesia-360™ wearable device FAS) minus Control Group (Rotigotine + Standard Care FAS).|||0.31|-0.33|=0.947
90872276|NCT03103919|181605432|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27|||=|0.306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.26|||ANCOVA|The model used an ANCOVA with baseline as a covariate, center as factor, and group as main factor.|The difference presented is Experimental Group (Rotigotine + Standard Care + Kinesia-360™ wearable device FAS) minus Control Group (Rotigotine + Standard Care FAS).|||0.26|-0.79|=0.306
90872277|NCT03103919|181605433|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|||=|0.819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.31|||ANCOVA|The model used an ANCOVA with baseline as a covariate, center as factor, and group as main factor.|The difference presented is Experimental Group (Rotigotine + Standard Care + Kinesia-360™ wearable device FAS) minus Control Group (Rotigotine + Standard Care FAS).|||0.31|-0.25|=0.819
90872278|NCT03103919|181605434|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|||=|0.663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.41|||ANCOVA|The model used an ANCOVA with baseline as a covariate, center as factor, and group as main factor.||||0.41|-0.26|=0.663
90872279|NCT03103919|181605435|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|||=|0.197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.11|||ANCOVA|The model used an ANCOVA with baseline as a covariate, center as factor, and group as main factor.||||0.11|-0.51|=0.197
90912553|NCT03621761|181694407|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.774||||0.3451|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Comparison of treatment effect of CBT monotherapy vs. combination therapy (reference) on total MFIS score, in linear regression models adjusted for age, sex, anxiety, pain, activity level, study site, and baseline MFIS score. Output reflects models that were imputed for missing data.||||0.3451
90912554|NCT03621761|181694407|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.3094||||0.4834|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Comparison of treatment effect of modafinil monotherapy vs. combination therapy (reference) on total MFIS score, in linear regression models adjusted for age, sex, anxiety, pain, activity level, study site, and baseline MFIS score. Output reflects models that were imputed for missing data.||||0.4834
90912555|NCT03621761|181694408|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.4077||||0.257|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Comparison of treatment effect of CBT monotherapy vs. combination therapy (reference) on change in EMA fatigue intensity NRS score, in complete case linear regression models adjusted for age, sex, anxiety, pain, activity level, study site, and baseline EMA fatigue intensity score.||||0.2570
90912556|NCT03621761|181694408|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.2452||||0.5017|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Comparison of treatment effect of modafinil monotherapy vs. combination therapy (reference) on change in EMA fatigue intensity NRS score, in complete case linear regression models adjusted for age, sex, anxiety, pain, activity level, study site, and baseline EMA fatigue intensity score.||||0.5017
90912557|NCT03621761|181694409|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.095||||0.154|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Comparison of treatment effect of CBT monotherapy vs. combination therapy (reference) on change in EMA fatigue interference NRS score, in complete case linear regression models adjusted for age, sex, anxiety, pain, activity level, study site, and baseline EMA fatigue interference score.||||0.154
90912558|NCT03621761|181694409|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.034||||0.61|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Comparison of treatment effect of modafinil monotherapy vs. combination therapy (reference) on change in EMA fatigue interference NRS score, in complete case linear regression models adjusted for age, sex, anxiety, pain, activity level, study site, and baseline EMA fatigue interference score.||||0.610
90912559|NCT03621761|181694410|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.00427||||0.4955|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Comparison of treatment effect of CBT monotherapy vs. combination therapy (reference) on change in fatigability score, in complete case linear regression models adjusted for age, sex, anxiety, pain, activity level, study site, and baseline fatigability score.||||0.4955
90912560|NCT03621761|181694410|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.00948||||0.1333|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Comparison of treatment effect of modafinil monotherapy vs. combination therapy (reference) on change in fatigability score, in complete case linear regression models adjusted for age, sex, anxiety, pain, activity level, study site, and baseline fatigability score.||||0.1333
90912561|NCT03987451|181694428|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.28||||0.0867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|1.24|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The common odds ratio between semaglutide and placebo adjusting for baseline diabetes was estimated along with exact 95% confidence interval based on conditioning on the marginal 2×2 tables.||1.24|0.06|0.0867
90912562|NCT01183780|181694480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.844||||0.0219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.976|||Log Rank|The analysis was performed on stratified data.|The estimation was performed on stratified data.|||0.976|0.730|0.0219
90912563|NCT01183780|181694481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.793||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.697|0.903|||Log Rank|Analysis was performed on stratified data.|Analysis was performed on stratified data.|||0.903|0.697|0.0005
90912564|NCT01183780|181694482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6336|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.6336
90912565|NCT01596504|181694524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-6.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06|<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-7.77|||p-values ordered(p1≤p2) as per rules:if p2≤0.05: lixisenatide superior to liraglutide (both doses);if p2\>0.05 \& p1≤0.025:lixisenatide superior to dose of liraglutide associated with p1;if p2\>0.05 \& p1\>0.025:no comparison as statistically significant.|Linear fixed effects model|The threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Lixisenatide vs Liraglutide 1.2 mg|Analysis was performed using linear fixed effects model with treatment groups and stratification factors (HbA1c levels on Day -7 \[\<8% and \>=8%\], use of metformin at screening \[yes or no\]) and the study site) as fixed effects and baseline plasma glucose AUC from 0.5 to 4.5 hours as covariate. To address multiplicity issue and ensure overall 1-sided level of 5%, Hochberg method was used for testing procedure of comparison between lixisenatide vs liraglutide 1.2 mg or 1.8 mg.|||-7.77|<0.0001
90912566|NCT01596504|181694524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-4.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04|<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-6.34|||p-values ordered(p1≤p2) as per rules:if p2≤0.05:lixisenatide superior to liraglutide (both doses);if p2\>0.05 \& p1≤0.025:lixisenatide superior to dose of liraglutide associated with p1;if p2\>0.05 \& p1\>0.025: no comparison as statistically significant.|Linear fixed effects model|The threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Lixisenatide vs Liraglutide 1. 8 mg|Analysis was performed using linear mixed effects model with treatment groups and stratification factors (HbA1c levels on Day -7 \[\<8% and \>=8%\], use of metformin at screening \[yes or no\]), and the study site) as fixed effects and baseline plasma glucose AUC from 0.5 to 4.5 hours as covariate. To address multiplicity issue and ensure overall 1-sided level of 5%, Hochberg method was used for testing procedure of comparison between lixisenatide vs liraglutide 1.2 mg or 1.8 mg.|||-6.34|<0.0001
90912567|NCT03257813|181694569|NON_INFERIORITY|it will be considered not inferior if they keep the IOP goal with differences of no more than 1.5 mmHg||||||0.013||||||Baseline|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.013
90912568|NCT03257813|181694569|NON_INFERIORITY|it will be considered not inferior if they keep the IOP goal with differences of no more than 1.5 mmHg||||||0.001||||||CrossOver|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
90912569|NCT03257813|181694569|NON_INFERIORITY|it will be considered not inferior if they keep the IOP goal with differences of no more than 1.5 mmHg||||||0.05||||||Final Visit|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.050
90912570|NCT03257813|181694570|NON_INFERIORITY|to be considered as not inferior to the group, the differences between both should not be greater than 2 points on the snellen scale||||||0.823||||||Baseline|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.823
90912571|NCT03257813|181694570|NON_INFERIORITY|to be considered as not inferior to the group, the differences between both should not be greater than 2 points on the snellen scale||||||0.507||||||CrossOver|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.507
90912572|NCT03257813|181694570|NON_INFERIORITY|to be considered as not inferior to the group, the differences between both should not be greater than 2 points on the snellen scale||||||0.495||||||Final Visit|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.495
90912573|NCT03257813|181694571|NON_INFERIORITY|to be considered as not inferior to the group, the differences between both should not be greater than 20% of the frequency.||||||0.085|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.085
90912574|NCT03257813|181694572|NON_INFERIORITY|to be considered as not inferior to the group, the differences between both should not be greater than 20% of the frequency.||||||0.001||||||Baseline|Fisher Exact|||||||0.001
90912575|NCT03257813|181694572|NON_INFERIORITY|to be considered as not inferior to the group, the differences between both should not be greater than 20% of the frequency.||||||0.148||||||CrossOver|Fisher Exact|||||||0.148
90912576|NCT03257813|181694572|NON_INFERIORITY|to be considered as not inferior to the group, the differences between both should not be greater than 20% of the frequency.||||||0.212||||||Final Visit|Fisher Exact|||||||0.212
90912577|NCT03257813|181694573|NON_INFERIORITY|to be considered as not inferior to the group, the differences between both should not be greater than 20% of the frequency.||||||0.497||||||Baseline|Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.497
90912578|NCT03257813|181694573|NON_INFERIORITY|to be considered as not inferior to the group, the differences between both should not be greater than 20% of the frequency.||||||0.497||||||CrossOver|Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.497
90912579|NCT03257813|181694573|NON_INFERIORITY|to be considered as not inferior to the group, the differences between both should not be greater than 20% of the frequency.||||||0||||||"Final Visit~No statistic will be calculated because Final Chemosis is a constant"|Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0
90912580|NCT03257813|181694574|NON_INFERIORITY|to be considered as not inferior to the group, the differences between both should not be greater than 20% of the frequency.||||||1||||||baseline|Chi-squared|||||||1.000
90912581|NCT03257813|181694574|NON_INFERIORITY|to be considered as not inferior to the group, the differences between both should not be greater than 20% of the frequency.||||||0.391||||||Cross Over|Chi-squared|||||||0.391
90912582|NCT03257813|181694574|NON_INFERIORITY|to be considered as not inferior to the group, the differences between both should not be greater than 20% of the frequency.||||||0.534||||||Final Visit|Chi-squared|||||||0.534
90912583|NCT03257813|181694575|NON_INFERIORITY|to be considered as not inferior to the group, the differences between both should not be greater than 20% of the frequency.||||||0.023||||||Baseline|Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.023
90912584|NCT03257813|181694575|NON_INFERIORITY|to be considered as not inferior to the group, the differences between both should not be greater than 20% of the frequency.||||||1||||||CrossOver|Chi-squared|||||||1.000
90912585|NCT03257813|181694575|NON_INFERIORITY|to be considered as not inferior to the group, the differences between both should not be greater than 20% of the frequency.||||||0.793||||||Final Visit|Chi-squared|||||||0.793
90912586|NCT03257813|181694576|NON_INFERIORITY|to be considered as not inferior to the group, the differences between both should not be greater than 20% of the frequency.||||||0.825||||||Baseline|Chi-squared|||||||0.825
90912587|NCT03257813|181694576|NON_INFERIORITY|to be considered as not inferior to the group, the differences between both should not be greater than 20% of the frequency.||||||1||||||CrossOver|Chi-squared|||||||1.000
90912588|NCT03257813|181694576|NON_INFERIORITY|to be considered as not inferior to the group, the differences between both should not be greater than 20% of the frequency.||||||0.765|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.765
90912589|NCT02878330|181694577|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk Reduction|70.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.3|81.2|||Poisson regression|||||81.2|52.3|<0.0001
90912590|NCT02878330|181694578|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk Reduction|78.4||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.9|90.3|||Poisson regression|||||90.3|51.9|0.0002
90912591|NCT04246762|181694584|OTHER||geometric LS mean ratio of AUC (0-inf))|70.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.62|81.91|||||Results based on a linear mixed model for the log-transformed values of PK parameters of midazolam with a fixed effect for treatment and a random effect for subject.|Estimate of the mean difference between treatments (midazolam (as part of a 4-drug oral cocktail) after OKZ administration compared to midazolam (as part of a 4-drug oral cocktail) administrated alone) and its corresponding 90% confidence interval (CI) were calculated. The mean difference and the CI were back transformed to the original scale to obtain estimates of the geometric mean ratio and the associated 90% CI.||81.91|60.62|
90912592|NCT04246762|181694584|OTHER||geometric LS mean ratio of AUC (0-inf))|67.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|56.73|81.21|||||Results based on a linear mixed model for the log-transformed values of PK parameters of omeprazole with a fixed effect for treatment and a random effect for subject.|Estimate of the mean difference between treatments (omeprazole (as part of a 4-drug oral cocktail) after OKZ administration compared to omeprazole (as part of a 4-drug oral cocktail) administrated alone) and its corresponding 90% confidence interval (CI) were calculated. The mean difference and the CI were back transformed to the original scale to obtain estimates of the geometric mean ratio and the associated 90% CI.||81.21|56.73|
90912593|NCT04246762|181694584|OTHER||geometric LS mean ratio of AUC (0-inf))|122.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|107.98|139.93|||||Results based on a linear mixed model for the log-transformed values of baseline-adjusted PK parameters of caffeine with a with fixed effect for treatment and a random effect for subject.|Estimate of the mean difference between treatments (caffeine (as part of a 4-drug oral cocktail) after OKZ administration compared to caffeine (as part of a 4-drug oral cocktail) administrated alone) and its corresponding 90% confidence interval (CI) were calculated. The mean difference and the CI were back transformed to the original scale to obtain estimates of the geometric mean ratio and the associated 90% CI.||139.93|107.98|
90912594|NCT04246762|181694585|OTHER||geometric LS mean ratio of AUC (0-last))|90.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.72|95.13|||||Results based on a linear mixed model for the log-transformed values of PK parameters of S-warfarin with a fixed effect for treatment and a random effect for subject.|Estimate of the mean difference between treatments (S-warfarin (as part of a 4-drug oral cocktail) after OKZ administration compared to initial S-warfarin administrated alone (as part of a 4-drug oral cocktail)) and its corresponding 90% confidence interval (CI) was calculated. The mean difference and the CI were back transformed to the original scale to obtain estimate of the geometric mean ratio and the associated 90% CI.||95.13|86.72|
90912595|NCT04246762|181694586|OTHER||geometric LS mean ratio of Cmax|68.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|59.46|78.92|||||Results based on a linear mixed model for the log-transformed values of PK parameters of midazolam with a fixed effect for treatment and a random effect for subject.|Estimate of the mean difference between treatments (midazolam (as part of a 4-drug oral cocktail) after OKZ administration compared to midazolam (as part of a 4-drug oral cocktail) administrated alone) and its corresponding 90% confidence interval (CI) were calculated. The mean difference and the CI were back transformed to the original scale to obtain estimates of the geometric mean ratio and the associated 90% CI.||78.92|59.46|
90912596|NCT04246762|181694586|OTHER||geometric LS mean ratio of Cmax|73.54|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|64.18|84.27|||||Results based on a linear mixed model for the log-transformed values of PK parameters of omeprazole with a fixed effect for treatment and a random effect for subject.|Estimate of the mean difference between treatments (omeprazole (as part of a 4-drug oral cocktail) after OKZ administration compared to omeprazole (as part of a 4-drug oral cocktail) administrated alone) and its corresponding 90% confidence interval (CI) were calculated. The mean difference and the CI were back transformed to the original scale to obtain estimates of the geometric mean ratio and the associated 90% CI.||84.27|64.18|
90912597|NCT04246762|181694586|OTHER||geometric LS mean ratio of Cmax|97.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.36|105.09|||||Results based on a linear mixed model for the log-transformed values of baseline-adjusted PK parameters of caffeine with a with fixed effect for treatment and a random effect for subject.|Estimate of the mean difference between treatments (caffeine (as part of a 4-drug oral cocktail) after OKZ administration compared to caffeine (as part of a 4-drug oral cocktail) administrated alone) and its corresponding 90% confidence interval (CI) were calculated. The mean difference and the CI were back transformed to the original scale to obtain estimates of the geometric mean ratio and the associated 90% CI.||105.09|91.36|
90912598|NCT04246762|181694586|OTHER||geometric LS mean ratio of Cmax|102.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.8|110.39|||||Results based on a linear mixed model for the log-transformed values of PK parameters of S-warfarin with a fixed effect for treatment and a random effect for subject.|Estimate of the mean difference between treatments (S-warfarin (as part of a 4-drug oral cocktail) after OKZ administration compared to initial S-warfarin administrated alone (as part of a 4-drug oral cocktail)) and its corresponding 90% confidence interval (CI) was calculated. The mean difference and the CI were back transformed to the original scale to obtain estimate of the geometric mean ratio and the associated 90% CI. The sample size computation was based on results reported for sirukumab.||110.39|94.80|
90912599|NCT03615924|181694597|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate ratio|1.06||||0.7597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.5|||Negative binomial model|||Incidence rates, incidence rate ratios, and p-values are from a negative binomial model analysis, with treatment group and baseline hydroxyurea use included in the model as covariates.||1.50|0.75|0.7597
90912600|NCT03615924|181694598|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate ratio|1.02||||0.9037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.45|||Negative binomial model|||Incidence rates, incidence rate ratios, and p-values are from a negative binomial model analysis, with treatment group and baseline hydroxyurea use included in the model as covariates.||1.45|0.72|0.9037
90912601|NCT03615924|181694599|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate ratio|0.76||||0.7136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|3.3|||Negative binomial model|||Incidence rates, incidence rate ratios, and p-values are from a negative binomial model analysis, with treatment group and baseline hydroxyurea use included in the model as covariates.||3.30|0.17|0.7136
90912602|NCT03615924|181694600|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate ratio|0.84||||0.497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.4|||Negative binomial model|||Incidence rates, incidence rate ratios, and p-values are from a negative binomial model analysis, with treatment group and baseline hydroxyurea use included in the model as covariates.||1.40|0.50|0.4970
90912603|NCT03615924|181694601|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate ratio|1.43||||0.1636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|2.36|||Negative binomial model|||Incidence rates, incidence rate ratios, and p-values are from a negative binomial model analysis, with treatment group and baseline hydroxyurea use included in the model as covariates.||2.36|0.87|0.1636
90912604|NCT03615924|181694602|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate ratio|1.68||||0.2011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|3.75|||Negative binomial model|||Incidence rates, incidence rate ratios, and p-values are from a negative binomial model analysis, with treatment group and baseline hydroxyurea use included in the model as covariates.||3.75|0.76|0.2011
90960698|NCT04079803|181801987|OTHER||Effect size|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Reported effect size vs. placebo was calculated with Hedge's g (for groups of 20 or fewer) but was almost identical (0.45) when calculated by Cohen's d.|This study was not powered for statistical significance on cognitive measures.||||
90960699|NCT04079803|181801987|OTHER||Effect size|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Reported effect size vs. placebo was calculated with Hedge's g (for groups of 20 or fewer) but was identical when calculated by Cohen's d.|This study was not powered for statistical significance on cognitive measures.||||
90960700|NCT04079803|181801988|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0078||||||Secondary CSF biomarkers were not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|General Linear Model for the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with a two-sided 95% confidence interval and baseline measurement as the covariate.||This analysis is for IL-6.||||0.0078
90912605|NCT03615924|181694604|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate ratio|0.0||||0.994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0||Upper limit of confidence interval was not calculable due to 0 events in Ticagrelor 15/30/45 mg bd reporting group.||Negative binomial model|||Incidence rates, incidence rate ratios, and p-values are from a negative binomial model analysis, with treatment group and baseline hydroxyurea use included in the model as covariates.|||0.00|0.9940
90912606|NCT03615924|181694605|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate ratio|0.77||||0.4822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.58|||Negative binomial model|||Incidence rates, incidence rate ratios, and p-values are from a negative binomial model analysis, with treatment group and baseline hydroxyurea use included in the model as covariates.||1.58|0.38|0.4822
90912607|NCT02954848|181694619|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|3.8||||0.0643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|10.6|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test||The point estimate of the median difference between the treatment groups was calculated using the Hodges-Lehmann estimation.|||10.600|0.000|0.0643
90912608|NCT02954848|181694620|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0003
90912609|NCT02954848|181694621|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.11||||0.0826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.01|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||||0.0100|-0.2400|0.0826
90912610|NCT02954848|181694622|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|3.3||||0.0478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|5.3|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Statistical analysis for criteria 1, improved response||5.300|0.000|0.0478
90912611|NCT02954848|181694622|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.8963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|6.0|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Statistical analysis for criteria 1, not improved response||6.000|-6.100|0.8963
90912612|NCT02954848|181694622|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|5.2||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|10.7|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Statistical analysis for criteria 2, improved response||10.700|0.000|0.0120
90912613|NCT02954848|181694622|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-4.7||||0.0871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.4|0.0|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Statistical analysis for criteria 2, not improved response||0.000|-17.400|0.0871
90912614|NCT02954848|181694623|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0025|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0025
90912615|NCT02954848|181694624|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1059|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.1059
90912616|NCT02954848|181694625|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0004
90912617|NCT02954848|181694626|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5393|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.5393
90960701|NCT04079803|181801988|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019||||||Secondary CSF biomarkers were not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|General Linear Model for the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with a two-sided 95% confidence interval and baseline measurement as the covariate.||This analysis is for IL-6.||||0.019
90912618|NCT02954848|181694627|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.0505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.0|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Statistical analysis for criteria 1, improved response||0.0000|-0.2100|0.0505
90912619|NCT02954848|181694627|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.8138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.15|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Statistical analysis for criteria 1, not improved response||0.1500|-0.1200|0.8138
90912620|NCT02954848|181694627|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|-0.03|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Statistical analysis for criteria 2, improved response||-0.0300|-0.2800|0.0129
90912621|NCT02954848|181694627|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.17||||0.0765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.36|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Statistical analysis for criteria 2, not improved response||0.3600|-0.0100|0.0765
90960702|NCT04079803|181801988|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002||||||Secondary CSF biomarkers were not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|General Linear Model for the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with a two-sided 95% confidence interval and baseline measurement as the covariate.||This analysis is for sTREM2.||||0.0002
90912622|NCT02954848|181694628|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|6.5||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|15.3|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Statistical analysis for Grade N of endoscopic findings||15.300|-1.900|0.1490
90912623|NCT02954848|181694628|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|3.6||||0.2146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|10.7|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Statistical analysis for Grade M of endoscopic findings||10.700|-1.400|0.2146
90912624|NCT02954848|181694629|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0059|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0059
90912625|NCT02954848|181694630|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0153|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0153
90912626|NCT02954848|181694631|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.0757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.02|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Statistical analysis for Grade N of endoscopic findings||0.0200|-0.4300|0.0757
90912627|NCT02954848|181694631|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.3837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.09|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Statistical analysis for Grade M of endoscopic findings||0.0900|-0.2200|0.3837
90912628|NCT02954848|181694632|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.6631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|3.5|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Statistical analysis for Criteria 1, Grade N and improved response||3.500|-5.000|0.6631
90912629|NCT02954848|181694632|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|3.2||||0.5627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|13.9|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Statistical analysis for Criteria 1, Grade N and not improved response||13.900|-7.100|0.5627
90912630|NCT02954848|181694632|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|3.7||||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|8.0|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Statistical analysis for Criteria 1, Grade M and improved response||8.000|0.000|0.0042
90912631|NCT02954848|181694632|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.6452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|6.4|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Statistical analysis for Criteria 1, Grade M and not improved response||6.400|-9.400|0.6452
90912632|NCT02954848|181694632|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|7.4||||0.0376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|17.8|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Statistical analysis for Criteria 2, Grade N and improved response||17.800|0.000|0.0376
90960703|NCT04079803|181801988|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0007||||||Secondary CSF biomarkers were not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|General Linear Model for the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with a two-sided 95% confidence interval and baseline measurement as the covariate.||This analysis is for sTREM2.||||0.0007
90912633|NCT02954848|181694632|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-13.0||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.7|3.6|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Statistical analysis for Criteria 2, Grade N and not improved response||3.600|-35.700|0.1600
90912634|NCT02954848|181694632|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|3.6||||0.1032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|10.7|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Statistical analysis for Criteria 2, Grade M and improved response||10.700|0.000|0.1032
90912635|NCT02954848|181694632|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-3.3||||0.2613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|0.2|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Statistical analysis for Criteria 2, Grade M and not improved response||0.200|-14.300|0.2613
90912636|NCT02954848|181694633|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.997|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.9970
90912637|NCT02954848|181694634|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0125|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0125
90912638|NCT02954848|181694635|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0004
90912639|NCT02954848|181694636|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7999|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.7999
90912640|NCT02954848|181694637|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0059|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0059
90912641|NCT02954848|181694638|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.552|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.5520
90912642|NCT02954848|181694639|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0175|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0175
90912643|NCT02954848|181694640|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7505|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.7505
90912644|NCT02954848|181694641|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.7845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.16|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Statistical analysis for Criteria 1, Grade N and improved response||0.1600|-0.2300|0.7845
90912645|NCT02954848|181694641|SUPERIORITY||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|-0.11||||0.4456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.17|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Statistical analysis for Criteria 1, Grade N and not improved response||0.1700|-0.3300|0.4456
90912646|NCT02954848|181694641|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|-0.02|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Statistical analysis for Criteria 1, Grade M and improved response||-0.0200|-0.2900|0.0200
90912647|NCT02954848|181694641|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.4673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.22|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Statistical analysis for Criteria 1, Grade M and not improved response||0.2200|-0.1000|0.4673
90912648|NCT02954848|181694641|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.29||||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.07|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Statistical analysis for Criteria 2, Grade N and improved response||-0.0700|-0.5300|0.0095
90912649|NCT02954848|181694641|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.31||||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.71|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Statistical analysis for Criteria 2, Grade N and not improved response||0.7100|-0.1600|0.1650
90912650|NCT02954848|181694641|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.2475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.07|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Statistical analysis for Criteria 2, Grade M and improved response||0.0700|-0.2400|0.2475
90912651|NCT02954848|181694641|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.2367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.32|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Statistical analysis for Criteria 2, Grade M and not improved||0.3200|-0.0900|0.2367
90912652|NCT02954848|181694642|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|5.5||||0.1885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|14.3|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Statistical analysis for improved response||14.300|-2.700|0.1885
90912653|NCT02954848|181694642|SUPERIORITY||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|25.6||||0.2337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.2|75.0|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Statistical analysis for not improved response||75.000|-19.200|0.2337
90912654|NCT02954848|181694643|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0811|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0811
90912655|NCT02954848|181694644|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0288|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0288
90912656|NCT02954848|181694645|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.1488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.04|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Statistical analysis for improved response||0.0400|-0.4200|0.1488
90912657|NCT02954848|181694645|SUPERIORITY||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|-0.44||||0.3778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|0.69|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Statistical analysis for not improved response||0.6900|-1.5700|0.3778
90912658|NCT00922207|181694654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.6853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.75|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.75|0.46|0.6853
90912659|NCT00922207|181694654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.66||||0.1977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.26|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.26|0.35|0.1977
90912660|NCT00922207|181694654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.2916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.38|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.38|0.39|0.2916
90912661|NCT00922207|181694655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|0.34||||0.0353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.66|||ANCOVA|||Baseline||0.66|0.02|0.0353
90912662|NCT00922207|181694655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.23||||0.1114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.52|||ANCOVA|||Baseline||0.52|-0.05|0.1114
90912663|NCT00922207|181694655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.21|||ANCOVA|||Baseline||0.21|-0.42|0.5150
90912664|NCT00922207|181694655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.89|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4||0.89|0.34|<0.001
90912665|NCT00922207|181694655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.19|-1.65|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4||-1.65|-2.19|<0.001
90912666|NCT00922207|181694655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.81|-2.27|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4||-2.27|-2.81|<0.001
90912667|NCT00922207|181694655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|2.06|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8||2.06|1.34|<0.001
90912668|NCT00922207|181694655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.55||||0.0071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.15|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8||-0.15|-0.95|0.0071
90912669|NCT00922207|181694655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|-1.9|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8||-1.90|-2.61|<0.001
90912670|NCT00922207|181694655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|2.08|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16||2.08|1.16|<0.001
90912671|NCT00922207|181694655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.02||||0.9557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.53|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16||0.53|-0.56|0.9557
90912672|NCT00922207|181694655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|-1.14|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16||-1.14|-2.15|<0.001
90912673|NCT00922207|181694655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.73||||0.0094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.27|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 28||1.27|0.18|0.0094
90912674|NCT00922207|181694655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.51||||0.0943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|1.11|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 28||1.11|-0.09|0.0943
90912675|NCT00922207|181694655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.23||||0.4354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.35|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 28||0.35|-0.82|0.4354
90872280|NCT03103919|181605438|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14|||=|0.876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|5.66||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups have been calculated using logistic regression with factors for treatment and center.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated as Control Group/Experimental Group (Rotigotine + Standard Care SS / Rotigotine + Standard Care + Kinesia-360™ wearable device SS) calculated using logistic regression with factors for treatment and center.|||5.66|0.23|=0.876
90872281|NCT01124422|181605472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.58||0.181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.2|13.0||ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, investigator, Oxycon stratum, and baseline value|ANCOVA|||||13.0|-68.2|0.181
90872282|NCT02135146|181605503|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.31
90872283|NCT02135146|181605503|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.07
90872284|NCT00810407|181605514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||"The factor tested was diagnosis. The null hypothesis was that there was no association between diagnosis and the number of participants with treatment-related adverse events."||||<0.001
90872285|NCT00810407|181605515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||"The factor tested was gender. The null hypothesis was that there was no association between gender and the number of participants with treatment-related adverse events."||||<0.001
90872286|NCT00810407|181605516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.587|||||||Fisher Exact|||"The factor tested was age. The null hypothesis was that there was no association between age of participants and the number of participants with treatment-related adverse events."||||0.587
90872287|NCT00810407|181605516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.428|||||||Cochran-Armitage (EXACT)|||"The factor tested was age. The null hypothesis was that there was no ordinal trend in the number of participants with treatment-related adverse events across the age at baseline."||||0.428
90872288|NCT03315208|181605522|SUPERIORITY||Chi-squared statistic value|0.23||||0.63|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|df=1||||||0.63
90872289|NCT03315208|181605523|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.72||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value is for the model parameter of the condition-by-time interaction term.|Mixed Models Analysis||The treatment condition effect was determined by the model parameter of the condition-by-time interaction term.|Linear mixed effects models with random intercepts (as best practice likelihood ratio tests dropping random slopes and intercepts indicated that only random intercepts should be retained) were used, with restricted maximum likelihood estimation (REML) for missing data. Analyses were intent-to-treat so included all randomized participants (n=29 in the UP+TAU group and n=18 in the TAU alone group), regardless of whether or not they completed the mid- or post-treatment assessments.||||0.29
90872290|NCT03315208|181605524|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.56||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value is for the model parameter of the condition-by-time interaction term.|Mixed Models Analysis||The treatment condition effect was determined by the model parameter of the condition-by-time interaction term.|Linear mixed effects models with random intercepts (as best practice likelihood ratio tests dropping random slopes and intercepts indicated that only random intercepts should be retained) were used, with restricted maximum likelihood estimation (REML) for missing data. Analyses were intent-to-treat so included all randomized participants (n=29 in the UP+TAU group and n=18 in the TAU alone group), regardless of whether or not they completed the mid- or post-treatment assessments.||||.50
90872291|NCT03315208|181605525|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.96||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value is for the model parameter of the condition-by-time interaction term.|Mixed Models Analysis||The treatment condition effect was determined by the model parameter of the condition-by-time interaction term. BSI scores were binarized (0 and \>=1) for this analysis due to the non-normal distribution of this outcome.|Linear mixed effects models with random intercepts (as best practice likelihood ratio tests dropping random slopes and intercepts indicated that only random intercepts should be retained) were used, with restricted maximum likelihood estimation (REML) for missing data. Analyses were intent-to-treat so included all randomized participants (n=29 in the UP+TAU group and n=18 in the TAU alone group), regardless of whether or not they completed the mid- or post-treatment assessments.||||0.45
90912676|NCT00922207|181694655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.36||||0.2509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.98|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 40||0.98|-0.26|0.2509
90912677|NCT00922207|181694655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.67||||0.0429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|1.31|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 40||1.31|0.02|0.0429
90912678|NCT00922207|181694655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.3585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.93|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 40||0.93|-0.34|0.3585
90912679|NCT00922207|181694655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.04||||0.9014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.74|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 52||0.74|-0.65|0.9014
90912680|NCT00922207|181694655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.57||||0.1122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|1.28|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 52||1.28|-0.13|0.1122
90912681|NCT00922207|181694655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.51||||0.1602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.23|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 52||1.23|-0.20|0.1602
90912682|NCT00922207|181694655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.49||||0.1599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 64||0.19|-1.17|0.1599
90912683|NCT00922207|181694655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.23||||0.5045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.92|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 64||0.92|-0.45|0.5045
90912684|NCT00922207|181694655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.72||||0.0412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|1.41|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 64||1.41|0.03|0.0412
90912685|NCT00922207|181694655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.54||||0.1347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 76||0.17|-1.24|0.1347
90912686|NCT00922207|181694655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.4027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|1.01|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 76||1.01|-0.41|0.4027
90872292|NCT03315208|181605527|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.19||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value is for the model parameter of the condition-by-time interaction term.|Mixed Models Analysis||The treatment condition effect was determined by the model parameter of the condition-by-time interaction term.|Linear mixed effects models with random intercepts (as best practice likelihood ratio tests dropping random slopes and intercepts indicated that only random intercepts should be retained) were used, with restricted maximum likelihood estimation (REML) for missing data. Analyses were intent-to-treat so included all randomized participants (n=29 in the UP+TAU group and n=18 in the TAU alone group), regardless of whether or not they completed the mid- or post-treatment assessments.||||0.76
90872293|NCT03315208|181605528|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.07||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value is for the model parameter of the condition-by-time interaction term.|Mixed Models Analysis||The treatment condition effect was determined by the model parameter of the condition-by-time interaction term. Due to the non-normal distribution of the Craving Scale, scores on this measure were binarized (\< 15 and \>= 15) for this analysis.|Linear mixed effects models with random intercepts (as best practice likelihood ratio tests dropping random slopes and intercepts indicated that only random intercepts should be retained) were used, with restricted maximum likelihood estimation (REML) for missing data. Analyses were intent-to-treat so included all randomized participants (n=29 in the UP+TAU group and n=18 in the TAU alone group), regardless of whether or not they completed the mid- or post-treatment assessments.||||.21
90872294|NCT03315208|181605529|SUPERIORITY||t statistic|0.29||||0.77|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Due to the non-normal distribution of the PDA variable, this variable was treated as binary (\<50% and \>=50%) for mixed models; however, due to the small numbers of participants (\< 5) in certain cells of treatment condition (UP versus TAU) by time point, we ran into issues with convergence of linear mixed models. Thus, here we report the results from an independent samples t-test of means (percentage of past 30 days abstinent) at post-treatment (UP versus TAU).||||0.77
90872295|NCT02320149|181605538|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|-3.6||Analyses were based on ANCOVA model for the endpoint with treatment group and pooled study center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA||sarecycline - placebo|||-3.6|-6.7|< 0.0001
90872296|NCT02320149|181605539|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Rate Difference|11.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.39|15.72||P-values were based on the test of general association between the response and treatment group using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with pooled site as stratification factor.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||sarecycline - placebo|||15.72|6.39|< 0.0001
90872297|NCT02320149|181605540|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-16.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.9|-11.6||Analyses were based on ANCOVA model for the endpoint with treatment group and pooled study center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA||sarecycline - placebo|Percent Change from Baseline to Week 12||-11.6|-21.9|< 0.0001
90872298|NCT02320149|181605541|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-12.5|||<|0.0001||95.0|-16.9|-8.0||Analyses were based on ANCOVA model for the endpoint with treatment group and pooled study center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA||sarecycline - placebo|Percent Change from Baseline to Week 9||-8.0|-16.9|< 0.0001
90912687|NCT00922207|181694655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.81||||0.0311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.55|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 76||1.55|0.07|0.0311
90872299|NCT02320149|181605542|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-13.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|-9.1||Analyses were based on ANCOVA model for the endpoint with treatment group and pooled study center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA||sarecycline - placebo|Percent Change from Baseline to Week 6||-9.1|-17.5|< 0.0001
90872300|NCT02320149|181605543|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.2||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|-3.3||Analyses were based on ANCOVA model for the endpoint with treatment group and pooled study center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA||sarecycline - placebo|Percent Change from Baseline to Week 3||-3.3|-11.1|0.0003
90872301|NCT02320149|181605544|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|-2.5||Analyses were based on ANCOVA model for the endpoint with treatment group and pooled study center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA||sarecycline - placebo|Change from Baseline to Week 9||-2.5|-5.3|< 0.0001
90872302|NCT02320149|181605545|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|-2.9||Analyses were based on ANCOVA model for the endpoint with treatment group and pooled study center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA||sarecycline - placebo|Change from Baseline to Week 6||-2.9|-5.4|< 0.0001
90872303|NCT02320149|181605546|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.1||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-0.9||Analyses were based on ANCOVA model for the endpoint with treatment group and pooled study center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA||sarecycline - placebo|Change from Baseline to Week 3||-0.9|-3.3|0.0005
90912688|NCT00922207|181694655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.36||||0.3183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|0.35|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 88||0.35|-1.07|0.3183
90912689|NCT00922207|181694655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.52||||0.1371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|1.22|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 88||1.22|-0.17|0.1371
90912690|NCT00922207|181694655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.9||||0.0113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.6|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 88||1.60|0.21|0.0113
90912691|NCT00922207|181694655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.21||||0.5608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 100||0.50|-0.92|0.5608
90912692|NCT00922207|181694655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.17||||0.6323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.88|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 100||0.88|-0.53|0.6323
90912693|NCT00922207|181694655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.2752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|1.11|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 100||1.11|-0.32|0.2752
90912694|NCT00922207|181694656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.59||||0.6107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|9.71|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Baseline||9.71|0.26|0.6107
90912695|NCT00922207|181694656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0788|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Baseline||||0.0788
90912696|NCT00922207|181694656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1761|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Baseline||||0.1761
90912697|NCT00922207|181694656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.7044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|5.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||5.09|0.34|0.7044
90912698|NCT00922207|181694656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.35||||0.0927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|46.76|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||46.76|0.61|0.0927
90960704|NCT04079803|181801988|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001||||||Secondary CSF biomarkers were not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|General Linear Model for the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with a two-sided 95% confidence interval and baseline measurement as the covariate.||This analysis is for HMGB1.||||0.0001
90872304|NCT02320149|181605547|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.3||||0.5786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|10.8||Analyses were based on ANCOVA model for the endpoint with treatment group and pooled study center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA||sarecycline - placebo|Percent Change from Baseline to Week 12||10.8|-19.4|0.5786
90872305|NCT02320149|181605548|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.8||||0.6969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|11.4||Analyses were based on ANCOVA model for the endpoint with treatment group and pooled study center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA||sarecycline - placebo|Percent Change from Baseline to Week 9||11.4|-17.1|0.6969
90872306|NCT02320149|181605549|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.0||||0.7377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|20.7||Analyses were based on ANCOVA model for the endpoint with treatment group and pooled study center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA||sarecycline - placebo|Percent Change from Baseline to Week 6||20.7|-14.7|0.7377
90872307|NCT02320149|181605550|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|6.4||||0.2861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|18.1||Analyses were based on ANCOVA model for the endpoint with treatment group and pooled study center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA||sarecycline - placebo|Percent Change from Baseline to Week 3||18.1|-5.3|0.2861
90872308|NCT02320149|181605551|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.9||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|-1.5||Analyses were based on ANCOVA model for the endpoint with treatment group and pooled study center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA||sarecycline - placebo|Change from Baseline to Week 12||-1.5|-6.3|0.0014
90872309|NCT02320149|181605552|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.4||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|-1.4||Analyses were based on ANCOVA model for the endpoint with treatment group and pooled study center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA||sarecycline - placebo|Change from Baseline to Week 9||-1.4|-5.5|0.0010
90872310|NCT02320149|181605553|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.0||||0.0371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-0.1||Analyses were based on ANCOVA model for the endpoint with treatment group and pooled study center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA||sarecycline - placebo|Change from Baseline to Week 6||-0.1|-4.0|0.0371
90872311|NCT02320149|181605554|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.8||||0.3806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.0||Analyses were based on ANCOVA model for the endpoint with treatment group and pooled study center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA||sarecycline - placebo|Change from Baseline to Week 3||1.0|-2.5|0.3806
90872312|NCT06133348|181605557|OTHER|Single group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.9||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|5.8|||Paired t-Test|||||5.8|0.9|0.0089
90872313|NCT06133348|181605558|OTHER|Single group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|23.8||0.0169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|18.8|||Paired t-Test|||||18.8|2|0.0169
90872314|NCT06133348|181605559|OTHER|Single group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.3||0.0162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|4.3|||Paired t-Test|||||4.3|0.5|0.0162
90960705|NCT04079803|181801988|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001||||||Secondary CSF biomarkers were not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|General Linear Model for the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with a two-sided 95% confidence interval and baseline measurement as the covariate.||This analysis is for HMGB1.||||0.0001
90872315|NCT06133348|181605560|OTHER|Single group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.6||0.0144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|6.1|||Paired t-Test|||||6.1|0.7|0.0144
90872316|NCT06133348|181605561|OTHER|Single group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.3||0.0264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|5.5|||Paired t-Test|||||5.5|0.4|0.0264
90872317|NCT06133348|181605562|OTHER|Single group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.7||0.1622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.6|||Paired t-Test|||||1.6|-0.3|0.1622
90872318|NCT06133348|181605563|OTHER|Single group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.0||0.1506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|2.5|||Paired t-Test|||||2.5|-0.4|0.1506
90872319|NCT06133348|181605564|OTHER|Single group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.5||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|5.4|||Paired t-Test|||||5.4|1.5|0.0012
90872320|NCT06133348|181605565|OTHER|Single group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.1||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.0|||Paired t-Test|||||2|0.5|0.0021
90872321|NCT06133348|181605566|OTHER|Single group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.6||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.4|||Paired t-Test|||||2.4|0.6|0.0027
90872322|NCT06133348|181605567|OTHER|Single group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.697|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.0||0.0494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.4|||Paired t-Test|||||1.4|0.0|0.0494
90872323|NCT06133348|181605568|OTHER|Single group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.8||0.4707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.3|||Paired t-Test|||||2.3|-1.1|0.4707
90872324|NCT06133348|181605569|OTHER|Single group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.1||0.0082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|-0.7|||Paired t-Test|||||-0.7|-4.3|0.0082
90872325|NCT06133348|181605570|OTHER|Single group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.3||0.1327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|0.4|||Paired t-Test|||||0.4|-2.7|0.1327
90872326|NCT06133348|181605571|OTHER|Single group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.0||0.2046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|0.6|||Paired t-Test|||||0.6|-2.9|0.2046
90872327|NCT06133348|181605572|OTHER|Single group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.9||0.5252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|1.4|||Paired t-Test|||||1.4|-2.8|0.5252
90872328|NCT06133348|181605573|OTHER|Single group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.0||0.4569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|2.9|||Paired t-Test|||||2.9|-1.3|0.4569
90872329|NCT06133348|181605574|OTHER|Single group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|40.8||0.1497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|29.0|||Paired t-Test|||||29.0|-4.7|0.1497
90872330|NCT06133348|181605575|OTHER|Single group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|65.5||0.2163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|43.7|||Paired t-Test|||||43.7|-10.4|0.2163
90872331|NCT06133348|181605576|OTHER|Single group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.1||0.0915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|7.7|||Paired t-Test|||||7.7|-0.6|0.0915
90872332|NCT06133348|181605577|OTHER|Single group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|28.1||0.3573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|16.9|||Paired t-Test|||||16.9|-6.3|0.3573
90872333|NCT06133348|181605578|OTHER|Single group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.7||0.3741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|1.1|||Paired t-Test|||||1.1|-2.8|0.3741
90872334|NCT06133348|181605579|OTHER|Single group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.4||0.6187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.0|||Paired t-Test|||||1.0|-0.6|0.6187
90872335|NCT06133348|181605580|OTHER|Single group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.2||0.3572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.1|||Paired t-Test|||||0.1|-0.04|0.3572
90872336|NCT06133348|181605581|OTHER|Single group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.8||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|4.3|||Paired t-Test|||||4.3|-0.5|0.1080
90872337|NCT06133348|181605582|OTHER|Single group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.7||0.2088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|2.5|||Paired t-Test|||||2.5|-0.6|0.2088
90872338|NCT06133348|181605585|OTHER|Single group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.4||0.7333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2|||Paired t-Test|||||0.2|-0.1|0.7333
90872339|NCT06133348|181605586|OTHER|Single group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.5||0.6382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.3|||Paired t-Test|||||1.3|-0.8|0.6382
90872340|NCT06133348|181605587|OTHER|Single group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.4||0.4771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.4|||Paired t-Test|||||0.4|-0.8|0.4771
90872341|NCT00333866|181605602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) mean difference|-0.23||||0.2361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.15|||ANCOVA|Hochberg's approach was used to protect the Type I error rate at 0.05 level, Hochberg adjusted p-values were presented.||P value was calculated using Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline mean pain score as covariate.||0.15|-0.61|0.2361
90872342|NCT00333866|181605602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.56||||0.0132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.17|||ANCOVA|Hochberg's approach was used to protect the Type I error rate at 0.05 level, Hochberg adjusted p-values were presented.||P value was calculated using ANCOVA with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline mean pain score as covariate.||-0.17|-0.94|0.0132
90872343|NCT00333866|181605602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) mean difference|-0.33||||0.1694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.05|||ANCOVA|Hochberg's approach was used to protect the Type I error rate at 0.05 level, Hochberg adjusted p-values were presented.||P value was calculated using ANCOVA with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline mean pain score as covariate.||0.05|-0.72|0.1694
90872344|NCT00333866|181605603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0227||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. P-values were calculated using a modified ridit transformation with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel procedure, adjusting for center.||||0.0227
90872345|NCT00333866|181605603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0017||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. P-values were calculated using a modified ridit transformation with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel procedure, adjusting for center.||||0.0017
90912699|NCT00922207|181694656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.04||||0.1858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|36.89|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||36.89|0.44|0.1858
90912700|NCT00922207|181694656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.9385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|3.38|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||3.38|0.33|0.9385
90912701|NCT00922207|181694656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.57||||0.5068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|5.77|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||5.77|0.43|0.5068
90912702|NCT00922207|181694656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.5544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|5.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||5.50|0.41|0.5544
90912703|NCT00922207|181694656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77||||0.651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|2.31|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||2.31|0.26|0.6510
90912704|NCT00922207|181694656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59||||0.3192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.69|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||1.69|0.20|0.3192
90872346|NCT00333866|181605603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0768||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. P-values were calculated using a modified ridit transformation with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel procedure, adjusting for center.||||0.0768
90872347|NCT00333866|181605604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|-0.6|||ANCOVA|||P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline mean sleep score as covariate.||-0.60|-1.42|<.0001
90872348|NCT00333866|181605604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.78||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.37|||ANCOVA|||P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline mean sleep score as covariate.||-0.37|-1.20|0.0002
90872349|NCT00333866|181605604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.48||||0.0222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.07|||ANCOVA|||P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline mean sleep score as covariate.||-0.07|-0.89|0.0222
90872350|NCT00333866|181605605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.5|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 1: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.5|-1.2|<.0001
90872351|NCT00333866|181605605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.7||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.3|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 1: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.3|-1.1|0.0003
90872352|NCT00333866|181605605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.4|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 1: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.4|-1.2|<.0001
90872353|NCT00333866|181605605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.97|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.6|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 2: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.6|-1.3|<.0001
90872354|NCT00333866|181605605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.4|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 2: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.4|-1.2|<.0001
90872355|NCT00333866|181605605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.5|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 2: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.5|-1.2|<.0001
90872356|NCT00333866|181605605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.8|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 3: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.8|-1.5|<.0001
90872357|NCT00333866|181605605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.4|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 3: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.4|-1.2|<.0001
90872358|NCT00333866|181605605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.67||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.3|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 3: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.3|-1.0|0.0005
90872359|NCT00333866|181605605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.28|||<|0.0001||95.0|-1.7|-0.9|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 4: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.9|-1.7|<.0001
90872360|NCT00333866|181605605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.94|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.6|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 4: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.6|-1.3|<.0001
90872361|NCT00333866|181605605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.4|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 4: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.4|-1.2|<.0001
90912705|NCT00922207|181694656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.5818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|2.03|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||2.03|0.29|0.5818
90912706|NCT00922207|181694656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.8796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|2.66|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 28||2.66|0.41|0.8796
90912707|NCT00922207|181694656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.64||||0.305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.52|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 28||1.52|0.27|0.3050
90912708|NCT00922207|181694656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.61||||0.2414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.44|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 28||1.44|0.26|0.2414
90912709|NCT00922207|181694656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.8502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.22|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40||2.22|0.50|0.8502
90912710|NCT00922207|181694656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.61|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40||1.61|0.38|0.5000
90912711|NCT00922207|181694656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.3882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.53|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40||1.53|0.36|0.3882
90912712|NCT00922207|181694656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.9584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.99|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52||1.99|0.50|0.9584
90912713|NCT00922207|181694656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||0.2576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.34|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52||1.34|0.35|0.2576
90912714|NCT00922207|181694656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||0.2362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.34|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52||1.34|0.36|0.2362
90912715|NCT00922207|181694656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.9861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 64||1.90|0.49|0.9861
90912716|NCT00922207|181694656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.2919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.35|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 64||1.35|0.37|0.2919
90912717|NCT00922207|181694656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72||||0.2674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.38|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 64||1.38|0.38|0.2674
90912718|NCT00922207|181694656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.6148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.64|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 76||1.64|0.43|0.6148
90872362|NCT00333866|181605605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.8|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 5: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.8|-1.6|<.0001
90872363|NCT00333866|181605605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.5|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 5: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.5|-1.3|<.0001
90872364|NCT00333866|181605605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.5|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 5: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.5|-1.2|<.0001
90872365|NCT00333866|181605605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.9|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 6: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.9|-1.7|<.0001
90872366|NCT00333866|181605605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.92|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.5|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 6: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.5|-1.3|<.0001
90872367|NCT00333866|181605605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.72||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.3|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 6: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.3|-1.1|0.0003
90872368|NCT00333866|181605605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.9|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 7: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.9|-1.7|<.0001
90872369|NCT00333866|181605605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.92|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.5|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 7: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.5|-1.3|<.0001
90872370|NCT00333866|181605605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.59||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.2|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 7: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.2|-1.0|0.0037
90872371|NCT00333866|181605605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.9|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 8: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.9|-1.7|<.0001
90872372|NCT00333866|181605605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.97|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.6|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 8: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.6|-1.4|<.0001
90872373|NCT00333866|181605605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.61||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.2|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 8: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.2|-1.0|0.0031
90872374|NCT00333866|181605605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.7|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 9: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.7|-1.5|<.0001
90960706|NCT04079803|181801988|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001||||||Secondary CSF biomarkers were not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|General Linear Model for the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with a two-sided 95% confidence interval and baseline measurement as the covariate.||This analysis is for albumin.||||0.0001
90872375|NCT00333866|181605605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.4|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 9: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.4|-1.2|<.0001
90960707|NCT04079803|181801988|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046||||||Secondary CSF biomarkers were not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|General Linear Model for the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with a two-sided 95% confidence interval and baseline measurement as the covariate.||This analysis is for albumin.||||0.046
90912719|NCT00922207|181694656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.57||||0.0904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.08|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 76||1.08|0.30|0.0904
90912720|NCT00922207|181694656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.68||||0.2073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.27|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 76||1.27|0.36|0.2073
90912721|NCT00922207|181694656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.98|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 88||1.98|0.52|0.9980
90912722|NCT00922207|181694656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.3489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 88||1.40|0.39|0.3489
90912723|NCT00922207|181694656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73||||0.2847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.38|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 88||1.38|0.38|0.2847
90912724|NCT00922207|181694656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.5596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.62|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 100||1.62|0.44|0.5596
90912725|NCT00922207|181694656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67||||0.2112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.27|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 100||1.27|0.36|0.2112
90912726|NCT00922207|181694656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.4066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.48|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 100||1.48|0.43|0.4066
90912727|NCT00922207|181694658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.6921|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Baseline||||0.6921
90912728|NCT00922207|181694658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.11||||0.3939|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Baseline||||0.3939
90912729|NCT00922207|181694658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.6818|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Baseline||||0.6818
90912730|NCT00922207|181694658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.7582|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6||||0.7582
90912731|NCT00922207|181694658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67||||0.5381|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6||||0.5381
90912732|NCT00922207|181694658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.7747|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6||||0.7747
90912733|NCT00922207|181694658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.8034|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||||0.8034
90912734|NCT00922207|181694658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.6306|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||||0.6306
90912735|NCT00922207|181694658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.4574|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||||0.4574
90912736|NCT00922207|181694658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.5824|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||||0.5824
90912737|NCT00922207|181694658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.9321|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||||0.9321
90912738|NCT00922207|181694658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.5263|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||||0.5263
90912739|NCT00922207|181694658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65||||0.2025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 22||||0.2025
90912740|NCT00922207|181694658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.6702|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 22||||0.6702
90912741|NCT00922207|181694658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77||||0.0818|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 22||||0.0818
90912742|NCT00922207|181694658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.6214|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 28||||0.6214
90912743|NCT00922207|181694658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.6774|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 28||||0.6774
90912744|NCT00922207|181694658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.3154|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 28||||0.3154
90912745|NCT00922207|181694658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||0.2709|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 34||||0.2709
90912746|NCT00922207|181694658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.3804|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 34||||0.3804
90912747|NCT00922207|181694658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.7645|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 34||||0.7645
90912748|NCT00922207|181694658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65||||0.182|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40||||0.1820
90912749|NCT00922207|181694658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.7167|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40||||0.7167
90912750|NCT00922207|181694658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.3104|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40||||0.3104
90912751|NCT00922207|181694658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59||||0.091|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 46||||0.0910
90912752|NCT00922207|181694658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.6094|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 46||||0.6094
90912753|NCT00922207|181694658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.2166|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 46||||0.2166
90912754|NCT00922207|181694658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.901|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52||||0.9010
90912755|NCT00922207|181694658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.906|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52||||0.9060
90912756|NCT00922207|181694658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.7268|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52||||0.7268
90912757|NCT00922207|181694658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.5372|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 64||||0.5372
90912758|NCT00922207|181694658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65||||0.1588|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 64||||0.1588
90912759|NCT00922207|181694658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.4268|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 64||||0.4268
90912760|NCT00922207|181694658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.4389|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 76||||0.4389
90912761|NCT00922207|181694658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.6708|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 76||||0.6708
90912762|NCT00922207|181694658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.2145|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 76||||0.2145
90912763|NCT00922207|181694658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.8608|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 88||||0.8608
90912764|NCT00922207|181694658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.52||||0.0283|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 88||||0.0283
90912765|NCT00922207|181694658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.53||||0.0369|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 88||||0.0369
90872376|NCT00333866|181605605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.53||||0.0117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.1|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 9: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.1|-0.9|0.0117
90912766|NCT00922207|181694658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.4606|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 100||||0.4606
90912767|NCT00922207|181694658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.0832|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 100||||0.0832
90912768|NCT00922207|181694658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71||||0.2655|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 100||||0.2655
90912769|NCT00922207|181694659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.21||||0.0649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.43|||ANCOVA|||Baseline||0.43|-0.01|0.0649
90912770|NCT00922207|181694659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.13||||0.1867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.33|||ANCOVA|||Baseline||0.33|-0.06|0.1867
90912771|NCT00922207|181694659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.08||||0.5003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.15|||ANCOVA|||Baseline||0.15|-0.30|0.5003
90912772|NCT00922207|181694659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.08||||0.2259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4||0.05|-0.22|0.2259
90912773|NCT00922207|181694659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4||-0.11|-0.36|<0.001
90960708|NCT04079803|181801988|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012||||||Secondary CSF biomarkers were not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|General Linear Model for the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with a two-sided 95% confidence interval and baseline measurement as the covariate.||This analysis is for Immunoglobulin G.||||0.012
90912774|NCT00922207|181694659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.15||||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4||-0.04|-0.27|0.0085
90912775|NCT00922207|181694659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.02||||0.816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.18|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8||0.18|-0.22|0.8160
90912776|NCT00922207|181694659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.08||||0.4393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.12|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8||0.12|-0.27|0.4393
90912777|NCT00922207|181694659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.06||||0.489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8||0.11|-0.22|0.4890
90912778|NCT00922207|181694659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.08||||0.4656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16||0.30|-0.14|0.4656
90912779|NCT00922207|181694659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.08||||0.5016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.31|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16||0.31|-0.15|0.5016
90912780|NCT00922207|181694659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.01||||0.9582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.22|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16||0.22|-0.23|0.9582
91033348|NCT00420238|181952543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.36||||0.058||95.0|0.96|11.8|||GEE model||An odds ratio greater than 1 indicates the odds of response is greater in etanercept group than in placebo group.|Week 12: Generalized estimating equations (GEE) model, using a logit link, a binomial distribution and an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits, and their interaction as fixed factors.||11.80|0.96|0.058
91033349|NCT00420238|181952545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.5||||0.287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|35.14|||GEE model||An odds ratio greater than 1 indicates the odds of response is greater in etanercept group than in placebo group.|Week 2: Generalized estimating equations (GEE) model, using a logit link, a binomial distribution and an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits, and their interaction as fixed factors.||35.14|0.35|0.287
90872377|NCT00333866|181605605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.8|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 10: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.8|-1.6|<.0001
90872378|NCT00333866|181605605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.5|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 10: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.5|-1.3|<.0001
90872379|NCT00333866|181605605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.61||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.2|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 10: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.2|-1.0|0.0040
90872380|NCT00333866|181605605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.7|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 11: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.7|-1.6|<.0001
90872381|NCT00333866|181605605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.4|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 11: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.4|-1.2|<.0001
90872382|NCT00333866|181605605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.56||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.1|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 11: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.1|-1.0|0.0100
90912781|NCT00922207|181694659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.07||||0.6214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.36|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 28||0.36|-0.21|0.6214
90912782|NCT00922207|181694659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.09||||0.5493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.39|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 28||0.39|-0.21|0.5493
90912783|NCT00922207|181694659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.02||||0.8881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.32|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 28||0.32|-0.28|0.8881
90912784|NCT00922207|181694659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.04||||0.7912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.27|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 40||0.27|-0.36|0.7912
90912785|NCT00922207|181694659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.11||||0.5427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.46|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 40||0.46|-0.24|0.5427
90912786|NCT00922207|181694659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.15||||0.3788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.49|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 40||0.49|-0.19|0.3788
90912787|NCT00922207|181694659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.09||||0.6172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.26|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 52||0.26|-0.44|0.6172
90912788|NCT00922207|181694659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.11||||0.6002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 52||0.50|-0.29|0.6002
90912789|NCT00922207|181694659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.19||||0.3101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.56|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 52||0.56|-0.18|0.3101
90912790|NCT00922207|181694659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.14||||0.4256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 64||0.20|-0.47|0.4256
90912791|NCT00922207|181694659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.01||||0.9762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.36|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 64||0.36|-0.35|0.9762
90912792|NCT00922207|181694659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.13||||0.4504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.47|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 64||0.47|-0.21|0.4504
90912793|NCT00922207|181694659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.12||||0.4076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 76||0.17|-0.42|0.4076
90912794|NCT00922207|181694659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.05||||0.7591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.27|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 76||0.27|-0.37|0.7591
90912795|NCT00922207|181694659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.08||||0.6449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 76||0.40|-0.25|0.6449
90912796|NCT00922207|181694659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.06||||0.7108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.25|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 88||0.25|-0.36|0.7108
90912797|NCT00922207|181694659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.12||||0.4725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.47|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 88||0.47|-0.22|0.4725
90912798|NCT00922207|181694659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.19||||0.2439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 88||0.50|-0.13|0.2439
90912799|NCT00922207|181694659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.1862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 100||0.50|-0.10|0.1862
90912800|NCT00922207|181694659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.15||||0.3057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.43|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 100||0.43|-0.14|0.3057
90912801|NCT00922207|181694659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.04||||0.8002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.29|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 100||0.29|-0.38|0.8002
90912802|NCT02476890|181694667|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.9666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||C2 Response/Healthy||0.7|-0.6|0.9666
90912803|NCT02476890|181694667|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22||||0.5993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||C5 Response/Healthy||0.6|-1.1|0.5993
90912804|NCT02476890|181694667|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32||||0.2823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||C2 Response/Chronic Cough||0.9|-0.3|0.2823
90912805|NCT02476890|181694667|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25||||0.4287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||C5 Response/Chronic Cough||0.9|-0.4|0.4287
90912806|NCT02476890|181694668|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.56||||0.1771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||C2 Response/Healthy||1.4|-0.3|0.1771
90912807|NCT02476890|181694668|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.5473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||C5 Response/Healthy||1.3|-0.7|0.5473
90912808|NCT02476890|181694668|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23||||0.5169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||C2 Response/Chronic Cough||1.0|-0.5|0.5169
90912809|NCT02476890|181694668|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28||||0.4243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||C5 Response/Chronic Cough||1.0|-0.4|0.4243
90912810|NCT02476890|181694669|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.89||||0.1125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|2.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||C2 Response/Healthy||2.0|-0.2|0.1125
90912811|NCT02476890|181694669|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.88||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||C5 Response/Healthy||1.4|0.4|0.0029
90912812|NCT02476890|181694669|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.54||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||C2 Response/Chronic Cough||2.4|0.7|0.0006
90912813|NCT02476890|181694669|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||C5 Response/Chronic Cough||2.2|0.4|0.0067
90912814|NCT02476890|181694670|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||C2 Response/Healthy||0.5|0.2|< 0.0001
90912815|NCT02476890|181694670|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23||||0.1798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||C5 Response/Healthy||0.6|-0.1|0.1798
90912816|NCT02476890|181694670|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||C2 Response/Chronic Cough||0.5|0.1|0.0011
90912817|NCT02476890|181694670|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||C5 Response/Chronic Cough||0.4|0.1|0.0023
90912818|NCT02476890|181694671|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.0||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.8|-6.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cough Severity VAS Analysis||-6.2|-29.8|0.0037
90912819|NCT02476890|181694672|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.0||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.1|-7.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Urge to Cough VAS Analysis||-7.0|-29.1|0.0020
90872383|NCT00333866|181605605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.6|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 12: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.6|-1.5|<.0001
90872384|NCT00333866|181605605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.73||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.3|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 12: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.3|-1.2|0.0006
90872385|NCT00333866|181605605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.4||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.0|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 12: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||0.0|-0.8|0.0690
90872386|NCT00333866|181605605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.8|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 13: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.8|-1.6|<.0001
90872387|NCT00333866|181605605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.88|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.5|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 13: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.5|-1.3|<.0001
90872388|NCT00333866|181605605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.61||||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.2|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 13: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.2|-1.0|0.0054
90872389|NCT00333866|181605605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.8|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 14: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.8|-1.6|<.0001
90872390|NCT00333866|181605605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.4|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 14: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.4|-1.3|<.0001
90872391|NCT00333866|181605605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.65||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.2|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 14: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.2|-1.1|0.0036
90872392|NCT00333866|181605605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.9|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Overall: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.9|-1.5|<.0001
90872393|NCT00333866|181605605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.6|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Overall: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.6|-1.1|<.0001
90872394|NCT00333866|181605605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.4|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Overall: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.4|-1.0|<.0001
90872395|NCT00333866|181605606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.95|||Regression, Logistic|||P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. Logistic regression method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||1.95|0.71|0.5370
91033350|NCT00420238|181952545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.8||||0.169||95.0|0.51|44.94|||GEE model||An odds ratio greater than 1 indicates the odds of response is greater in etanercept group than in placebo group.|Week 4: Generalized estimating equations (GEE) model, using a logit link, a binomial distribution and an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits, and their interaction as fixed factors.||44.94|0.51|0.169
90872396|NCT00333866|181605606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.92||||0.0109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|3.18|||Regression, Logistic|||P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. Logistic regression method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||3.18|1.16|0.0109
90872397|NCT00333866|181605606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.9613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.68|||Regression, Logistic|||P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. Logistic regression method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||1.68|0.61|0.9613
90872398|NCT00333866|181605607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-12.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.56|-7.86|||ANCOVA|||Sleep Disturbance: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||-7.86|-17.56|<.0001
90872399|NCT00333866|181605607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-13.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.18|-8.38|||ANCOVA|||Sleep Disturbance: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||-8.38|-18.18|<.0001
90872400|NCT00333866|181605607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-7.2||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.06|-2.33|||ANCOVA|||Sleep Disturbance: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||-2.33|-12.06|0.0038
90872401|NCT00333866|181605607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|5.9||||0.0142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|10.61|||ANCOVA|||Snoring: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||10.61|1.19|0.0142
90912820|NCT02476890|181694673|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.6||||0.0075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|-1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cough Frequency Analysis||-1.0|-6.2|0.0075
90912821|NCT03299816|181694676|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|Mixed effects regression|Urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio (ACR) was not normally distributed and was natural log transformed for analyses||||||0.17
90912822|NCT03299816|181694677|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|Mixed effects regression|||||||0.36
90912823|NCT03299816|181694678|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|Mixed effects regression|||||||0.33
90912824|NCT03299816|181694679|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|Mixed effects regression|Urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio (ACR) was not normally distributed and was natural log transformed for analyses||||||0.61
90912825|NCT03299816|181694680|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|Mixed effects regression|Urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio (ACR) was not normally distributed and was natural log transformed for analyses||||||0.73
90912826|NCT03299816|181694681|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|Mixed effects regression|||||||0.75
90872402|NCT00333866|181605607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|4.92||||0.0414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|9.66|||ANCOVA|||Snoring: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||9.66|0.19|0.0414
90872403|NCT00333866|181605607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.21||||0.6165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.53|5.95|||ANCOVA|||Snoring: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||5.95|-3.53|0.6165
90872404|NCT00333866|181605607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-9.24||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.44|-4.05|||ANCOVA|||Shortness of Breath, Headache: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||-4.05|-14.44|0.0005
90912827|NCT01184508|181694691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares (LS) mean difference (Net)|-1.03||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.02|-0.05||The comparison between LY2300559 and placebo for the LS mean change from baseline to Month 3 in the number of migraine attacks was conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed-effects model repeated-measures|Fixed effects: pooled investigator, treatment (tx) group, month, tx group\*month, baseline, baseline\*month; Random effect: pts; Repeated effect: month.||||-0.05|-2.02|0.085
90912828|NCT01184508|181694693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares (LS) mean difference|1.75||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.27|11.76||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Month 3 in average duration of photophobia.|Mixed-effects model repeated-measures|Fixed effects: pooled investigator, treatment (tx) group, month, tx group\*month, baseline, baseline\*month; Random effect: pts; Repeated effect: month.||||11.76|-8.27|0.770
90912829|NCT01184508|181694693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|7.3||||0.276|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.91|18.52||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Month 3 in average duration of phonophobia.|Mixed-effects model repeated-measures|Fixed effects: pooled investigator, tx group, month, tx group\*month, baseline, baseline\*month; Random effect: pts; Repeated effect: month.||||18.52|-3.91|0.276
90912830|NCT01184508|181694693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.7||||0.606|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.51|6.1||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Month 3 in average duration of nausea.|Mixed-effects model repeated-measures|Fixed effects: pooled investigator, tx group, month, tx group\*month, baseline, baseline\*month; Random effect: pts; Repeated effect: month.||||6.10|-11.51|0.606
90912831|NCT01184508|181694694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-1.57||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.48|0.34||The p-value is for the mean change from baseline to Month 3 in the number of migraine days.|Mixed-effects model repeated-measures|Fixed effects: pooled investigator, treatment (tx) group, month, tx group\*month, baseline, baseline\*month; Random effect: pts; Repeated effect: month.||||0.34|-3.48|0.174
90912832|NCT01184508|181694697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-0.27||||0.963|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.76|9.23||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in MSQ restrictive function score.|ANCOVA|Fixed effects: investigator (pooled site), treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit, baseline and baseline\*visit.||||9.23|-9.76|0.963
90960709|NCT04079803|181801988|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014||||||Secondary CSF biomarkers were not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|General Linear Model for the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with a two-sided 95% confidence interval and baseline measurement as the covariate.||This analysis is for Immunoglobulin G.||||0.014
90872405|NCT00333866|181605607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-11.92|||<|0.0001||95.0|-17.17|-6.68|||ANCOVA|||Shortness of Breath, Headache: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||-6.68|-17.17|<.0001
90872406|NCT00333866|181605607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-8.95||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.16|-3.74|||ANCOVA|||Shortness of Breath, Headache: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||-3.74|-14.16|0.0008
90912833|NCT01184508|181694697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.17||||0.591|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.85|4.5||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in MSQ preventive function score.|ANCOVA|Fixed effects: investigator (pooled site), treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit, baseline and baseline\*visit.||||4.50|-8.85|0.591
90872407|NCT00333866|181605607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.36||||0.0127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.64|||ANCOVA|||Quantity of Sleep: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||0.64|0.08|0.0127
90872408|NCT00333866|181605607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.5||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.79|||ANCOVA|||Quantity of Sleep: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||0.79|0.22|0.0005
90872409|NCT00333866|181605607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.21||||0.1453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.49|||ANCOVA|||Quality of Sleep: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||0.49|-0.07|0.1453
90872410|NCT00333866|181605607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|4.34||||0.1033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|9.57|||ANCOVA|||Sleep Adequacy: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||9.57|-0.88|0.1033
90872411|NCT00333866|181605607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|9.14||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.88|14.41|||ANCOVA|||Sleep Adequacy: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||14.41|3.88|0.0007
90872412|NCT00333866|181605607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.56||||0.337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.68|7.81|||ANCOVA|||Sleep Adequacy: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||7.81|-2.68|0.3370
90872413|NCT00333866|181605607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.01||||0.3308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|6.07|||ANCOVA|||Somnolence: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||6.07|-2.05|0.3308
90872414|NCT00333866|181605607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.7||||0.7364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.39|4.8|||ANCOVA|||Somnolence: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||4.80|-3.39|0.7364
90872415|NCT00333866|181605607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.76||||0.7132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.31|4.84|||ANCOVA|||Somnolence: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||4.84|-3.31|0.7132
90872416|NCT00333866|181605607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-6.9||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.54|-3.25|||ANCOVA|||Overall sleep Problem Index: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||-3.25|-10.54|0.0002
90872417|NCT00333866|181605607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-8.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.94|-4.55|||ANCOVA|||Overall Sleep Problem Index: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||-4.55|-11.94|<.0001
90872418|NCT00333866|181605607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-4.36||||0.0197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.02|-0.7|||ANCOVA|||Overall Sleep Problem Index: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||-0.70|-8.02|0.0197
90872419|NCT00333866|181605608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.17||||0.3627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.2|||ANCOVA|||FIQ Physical Impairment: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||0.20|-0.54|0.3627
90872420|NCT00333866|181605608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.26||||0.1686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.11|||ANCOVA|||FIQ Physical Impairment: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||0.11|-0.63|0.1686
90872421|NCT00333866|181605608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.18||||0.3468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.19|||ANCOVA|||FIQ Physical Impairment: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||0.19|-0.55|0.3468
90872422|NCT00333866|181605608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.11||||0.7147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.49|||ANCOVA|||FIQ Feel Good: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||0.49|-0.71|0.7147
91033351|NCT00420238|181952545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.48||||0.073||95.0|0.87|23.07|||GEE model||An odds ratio greater than 1 indicates the odds of response is greater in etanercept group than in placebo group.|Week 8: Generalized estimating equations (GEE) model, using a logit link, a binomial distribution and an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits, and their interaction as fixed factors.||23.07|0.87|0.073
90912834|NCT01184508|181694697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.89||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.81|10.58||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in MSQ emotional function score.|ANCOVA|Fixed effects: investigator (pooled site), treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit, baseline and baseline\*visit.||||10.58|-6.81|0.720
90912835|NCT01184508|181694698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-0.25||||0.688|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.3|0.8||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in MIBS-4 overall weighted score.|ANCOVA|Fixed effects: pooled investigator, treatment group, and baseline.||||0.80|-1.30|0.688
90912836|NCT01184508|181694700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.607||95.0||||The p-value is for the percentage of participants using breakthrough medication at Month 3.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.607
90912837|NCT03684265|181694710|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence acceptance range for the ratio of geometric means was 80- 125%|Geometric mean ratio T/R, %|92.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.66|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.02|96.62|||||Standard error of the mean is actually intra individual coefficient of variation.|Relative bioavailability comparison of Movalis® capsules (T) with Movalis® tablets (R) for AUC0-t. The analysis of variance (ANOVA) model in the log scale was used. This model included the sequence, period and type of therapy as fixed effects and the effect study subjects grouped within the sequence was considered random||96.62|89.02|
90912838|NCT03684265|181694711|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence acceptance range for the ratio of geometric means was 80- 125%|Geometric mean ratio T/R, %|78.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.57|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|73.7|84.56|||||Standard error of the mean is actually intra individual coefficient of variation.|Relative bioavailability comparison of Movalis® capsules (T) with Movalis® tablets (R) for Cmax. The analysis of variance (ANOVA) model in the log scale was used. This model included the sequence, period and type of therapy as fixed effects and the effect study subjects grouped within the sequence was considered random||84.56|73.70|
90912839|NCT03684265|181694712|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence acceptance range for the ratio of geometric means was 80- 125%|Geometric mean ratio T/R, %|97.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.96|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.57|101.72|||||Standard error of the mean is actually intra individual coefficient of variation.|Relative bioavailability comparison of Movalis® capsules (T) with Movalis® tablets (R) for AUC0-∞. The analysis of variance (ANOVA) model in the log scale was used. This model included the sequence, period and type of therapy as fixed effects and the effect study subjects grouped within the sequence was considered random||101.72|92.57|
90912840|NCT02194933|181694743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3992||||||Test for Baseline vs. Week 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.3992
90912841|NCT02194933|181694744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0053||||||Test for Baseline vs. Week 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0053
90912842|NCT02194933|181694746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1559|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1559
90912843|NCT02194933|181694746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6201|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.6201
90912844|NCT02194933|181694747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1642|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1642
90912845|NCT02194933|181694747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1873|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1873
90912846|NCT02194933|181694750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2061|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2061
90912847|NCT02194933|181694750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1778|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1778
90912848|NCT02194933|181694751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4138|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.4138
90912849|NCT02194933|181694751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3375|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.3375
90912850|NCT02194933|181694754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8437|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8437
90912851|NCT02194933|181694754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8318|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8318
90912852|NCT02194933|181694755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6697|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.6697
90912853|NCT02194933|181694755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8829|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8829
90912854|NCT02194933|181694756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2301|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2301
90912855|NCT02194933|181694756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0599|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0599
90912856|NCT02194933|181694757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1595|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1595
90912857|NCT02194933|181694757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1211|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1211
90912858|NCT02194933|181694758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1322|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1322
90912859|NCT02194933|181694758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2113|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2113
90912860|NCT02194933|181694759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0578|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0578
90912861|NCT02194933|181694759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0588|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0588
90912862|NCT02194933|181694760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1666|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1666
90872423|NCT00333866|181605608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.63||||0.0409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||FIQ Feel Good: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||-0.03|-1.23|0.0409
90872424|NCT00333866|181605608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.04||||0.9077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.63|||ANCOVA|||FIQ Feel Good: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||0.63|-0.56|0.9077
90872425|NCT00333866|181605608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.14||||0.5923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.37|||ANCOVA|||FIQ Work Missed: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||0.37|-0.64|0.5923
90872426|NCT00333866|181605608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.61||||0.0174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||FIQ Work Missed: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||-0.11|-1.12|0.0174
90872427|NCT00333866|181605608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.16||||0.5408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.35|||ANCOVA|||FIQ Work Missed: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||0.35|-0.66|0.5408
90872428|NCT00333866|181605608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.09||||0.7236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.4|||ANCOVA|||FIQ Do Work: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||0.40|-0.57|0.7236
90872429|NCT00333866|181605608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.71||||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|-0.22|||ANCOVA|||FIQ Do Work: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||-0.22|-1.19|0.0045
90872430|NCT00333866|181605608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.14||||0.5613||95.0|-0.63|0.34|||ANCOVA|||FIQ Do Work: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||0.34|-0.63|0.5613
90872431|NCT00333866|181605608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.14||||0.5609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.33|||ANCOVA|||FIQ Pain: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||0.33|-0.60|0.5609
90912863|NCT02194933|181694760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.767|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7670
90912864|NCT02194933|181694761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7178|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7178
90872432|NCT00333866|181605608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.75||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|-0.28|||ANCOVA|||FIQ Pain: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||-0.28|-1.22|0.0016
90872433|NCT00333866|181605608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.21||||0.3692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.25|||ANCOVA|||FIQ Pain: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||0.25|-0.68|0.3692
90872434|NCT00333866|181605608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.24||||0.3294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.25|||ANCOVA|||FIQ Fatigue: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||0.25|-0.73|0.3294
91033352|NCT00420238|181952545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.48||||0.073||95.0|0.87|23.07|||GEE model||An odds ratio greater than 1 indicates the odds of response is greater in etanercept group than in placebo group.|Week 12: Generalized estimating equations (GEE) model, using a logit link, a binomial distribution and an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits, and their interaction as fixed factors.||23.07|0.87|0.073
90872435|NCT00333866|181605608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.56||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.06|||ANCOVA|||FIQ Fatigue: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||-0.06|-1.05|0.0270
90872436|NCT00333866|181605608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.05||||0.8432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.44|||ANCOVA|||FIQ Fatigue: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||0.44|-0.54|0.8432
90872437|NCT00333866|181605608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.46||||0.0806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.06|||ANCOVA|||FIQ Rested: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||0.06|-0.98|0.0806
90872438|NCT00333866|181605608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.53||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||FIQ Rested: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||-0.01|-1.06|0.0470
90872439|NCT00333866|181605608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.23||||0.3845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.29|||ANCOVA|||FIQ Rested: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||0.29|-0.75|0.3845
90872440|NCT00333866|181605608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.12||||0.6326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.6|||ANCOVA|||FIQ Stiffness: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||0.60|-0.37|0.6326
90872441|NCT00333866|181605608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.22||||0.374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.27|||ANCOVA|||FIQ Stiffness: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||0.27|-0.71|0.3740
90872442|NCT00333866|181605608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.03||||0.8936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.52|||ANCOVA|||FIQ Stiffness: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||0.52|-0.45|0.8936
90872443|NCT00333866|181605608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.19||||0.4743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.34|||ANCOVA|||FIQ Anxiety: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||0.34|-0.73|0.4743
90872444|NCT00333866|181605608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.64||||0.0192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||FIQ Anxiety: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||-0.10|-1.18|0.0192
90872445|NCT00333866|181605608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.18||||0.5101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.35|||ANCOVA|||FIQ anxiety: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||0.35|-0.71|0.5101
91033353|NCT00420238|181952547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.95||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.19|-1.72|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate.||-1.72|-18.19|0.018
91033354|NCT00420238|181952548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.54||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.4|1.33|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 2: Comparison of leasts squares means. Mixed-model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) using an auto-regressive correlation structure with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate, and patients as a random factor.||1.33|-18.40|0.089
91033355|NCT00420238|181952548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.02||||0.11||95.0|-17.89|1.85|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 4: Comparison of leasts squares means. Mixed-model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) using an auto-regressive correlation structure with treatment groups, visits and their interactions as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate, and patients as a random factor.||1.85|-17.89|0.110
90872446|NCT00333866|181605608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.2||||0.4617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.34|||ANCOVA|||FIQ Depression: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||0.34|-0.75|0.4617
91033356|NCT00420238|181952548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.73||||0.004||95.0|-24.6|-4.86|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 8: Comparison of leasts squares means. Mixed-model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) using an auto-regressive correlation structure with treatment groups, visits and their interactions as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate, and patients as a random factor.||-4.86|-24.60|0.004
90872447|NCT00333866|181605608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.97||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|-0.42|||ANCOVA|||FIQ Depression: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||-0.42|-1.51|0.0006
90872448|NCT00333866|181605608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.33||||0.229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.21|||ANCOVA|||FIQ Depression: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||0.21|-0.88|0.2290
90872449|NCT00333866|181605609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.44||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.95|2.06|||ANCOVA|||P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||2.06|-4.95|0.4200
91033357|NCT00420238|181952548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.27||||0.065||95.0|-19.14|0.59|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 12: Comparison of leasts squares means. Mixed-model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) using an auto-regressive correlation structure with treatment groups, visits and their interactions as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate, and patients as a random factor.||0.59|-19.14|0.065
91033358|NCT00420238|181952550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.99||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|-4.28|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate.||-4.28|-17.70|0.002
91033359|NCT00420238|181952551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.33||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.81|0.15|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 2: Comparison of leasts squares means. Mixed-model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) using an auto-regressive correlation structure with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate, and patients as a random factor.||0.15|-16.81|0.054
91033360|NCT00420238|181952551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.02||||0.011||95.0|-19.5|-2.54|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 4: Comparison of leasts squares means. Mixed-model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) using an auto-regressive correlation structure with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate, and patients as a random factor.||-2.54|-19.50|0.011
91033361|NCT00420238|181952551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.75||||0.003||95.0|-21.23|-4.27|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 8: Comparison of leasts squares means. Mixed-model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) using an auto-regressive correlation structure with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate, and patients as a random factor.||-4.27|-21.23|0.003
91033362|NCT00420238|181952551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.29|||<|0.001||95.0|-23.7|-6.82|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 8: Comparison of leasts squares means. Mixed-model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) using an auto-regressive correlation structure with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate, and patients as a random factor.||-6.82|-23.7|<0.001
91033363|NCT00420238|181952553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.59||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.69|-0.49|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.49|-18.69|0.039
91033364|NCT00420238|181952554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.28||||0.254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.13|4.57|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 2: Comparison of leasts squares means. Mixed-model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) using an auto-regressive correlation structure with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate, and patients as a random factor.||4.57|-17.13|0.254
91033365|NCT00420238|181952554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.17||||0.348||95.0|-16.02|5.68|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 4: Comparison of leasts squares means. Mixed-model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) using an auto-regressive correlation structure with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate, and patients as a random factor.||5.68|-16.02|0.348
91033366|NCT00420238|181952554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.72||||0.014||95.0|-24.57|-2.88|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 8: Comparison of leasts squares means. Mixed-model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) using an auto-regressive correlation structure with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate, and patients as a random factor.||-2.88|-24.57|0.014
91033367|NCT00420238|181952554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.69|||<|0.001||95.0|-30.54|-8.84|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 12: Comparison of leasts squares means. Mixed-model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) using an auto-regressive correlation structure with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate, and patients as a random factor.||-8.84|-30.54|<0.001
91033368|NCT00420238|181952556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.49||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.73|0.75|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate.||0.75|-17.73|0.071
90872450|NCT00333866|181605609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-5.85||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.38|-2.31|||ANCOVA|||P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||-2.31|-9.38|0.0012
90912865|NCT02194933|181694761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2336|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2336
90912866|NCT02194933|181694762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6558|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.6558
90872451|NCT00333866|181605609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.17||||0.5126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.68|2.34|||ANCOVA|||P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||2.34|-4.68|0.5126
90872452|NCT00333866|181605610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.51||||0.7781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.07|3.05|||ANCOVA|||Physical functioning: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||3.05|-4.07|0.7781
90872453|NCT00333866|181605610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.99||||0.2792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|5.59|||ANCOVA|||Physical Functioning: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||5.59|-1.62|0.2792
90872454|NCT00333866|181605610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.58||||0.7512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|4.15|||ANCOVA|||Physical Functioning: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||4.15|-3.00|0.7512
90912867|NCT02194933|181694762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9058|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.9058
90872455|NCT00333866|181605610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.02||||0.649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.39|5.43|||ANCOVA|||Physical role Limitations: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||5.43|-3.39|0.6490
90872456|NCT00333866|181605610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.5||||0.5105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.96|5.96|||ANCOVA|||Physical Role Limitations: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||5.96|-2.96|0.5105
90872457|NCT00333866|181605610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.39||||0.8625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.04|4.82|||ANCOVA|||Physical Role Limitations: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||4.82|-4.04|0.8625
90872458|NCT00333866|181605610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|3.87||||0.1489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|9.12|||ANCOVA|||Emotional Role Limitations: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||9.12|-1.39|0.1489
90872459|NCT00333866|181605610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|6.24||||0.0213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|11.54|||ANCOVA|||Emotional Role Limitations: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||11.54|0.93|0.0213
90872460|NCT00333866|181605610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|3.75||||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|9.02|||ANCOVA|||Emotional Role Limitations: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||9.02|-1.51|0.1620
90872461|NCT00333866|181605610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.85||||0.2446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|7.65|||ANCOVA|||Social Functioning: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||7.65|-1.95|0.2446
90872462|NCT00333866|181605610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|5.01||||0.0429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|9.85|||ANCOVA|||Social Functioning: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||9.85|0.16|0.0429
90872463|NCT00333866|181605610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|3.35||||0.1721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|8.16|||ANCOVA|||Social Functioning: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||8.16|-1.46|0.1721
90872464|NCT00333866|181605610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|4.08||||0.0291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|7.74|||ANCOVA|||Mental Health: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||7.74|0.42|0.0291
90912868|NCT02194933|181694763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0078|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0078
91033369|NCT00420238|181952557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.57||||0.511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.31|7.17|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 2: Comparison of leasts squares means. Mixed-model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) using an auto-regressive correlation structure with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate, and patients as a random factor.||7.17|-14.31|0.511
91033370|NCT00420238|181952557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.57||||0.401||95.0|-15.31|6.17|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 4: Comparison of leasts squares means. Mixed-model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) using an auto-regressive correlation structure with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate, and patients as a random factor.||6.17|-15.31|0.401
90872465|NCT00333866|181605610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|5.93||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.23|9.62|||ANCOVA|||Mental Health: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||9.62|2.23|0.0017
90872466|NCT00333866|181605610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|3.32||||0.0763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|6.99|||ANCOVA|||Mental Health: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||6.99|-0.35|0.0763
90912869|NCT02194933|181694763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4272|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.4272
90960710|NCT04079803|181801989|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||As secondary endpoints, lymphocyte biomarkers were not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANOVA|ANOVA was used instead of ANCOVA due to the range in baseline values; it was deemed more appropriate to compare to each subject's own baseline value.||Change from baseline in FLNA linkage to alpha7nAChR in subject lymphocytes. FLNA linkage to alpha7nAChR was expressed as the ratio of densitometric units of immunoblot bands of alpha7nAChR (probed with a specific antibody) to densitometric units of total FLNA.||||0.005
90872467|NCT00333866|181605610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.58||||0.1524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|6.11|||ANCOVA|||Bodily Pain: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||6.11|-0.95|0.1524
90872468|NCT00333866|181605610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|5.36||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|8.93|||ANCOVA|||Bodily Pain: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||8.93|1.80|0.0032
90872469|NCT00333866|181605610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.82||||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|6.36|||ANCOVA|||Bodily Pain: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||6.36|-0.72|0.1180
90872470|NCT00333866|181605610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|3.15||||0.1081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|6.99|||ANCOVA|||Vitality: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||6.99|-0.69|0.1081
90872471|NCT00333866|181605610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|5.1||||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|8.99|||ANCOVA|||Vitality: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||8.99|1.22|0.0101
90872472|NCT00333866|181605610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.75||||0.7031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|4.6|||ANCOVA|||Vitality: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||4.60|-3.10|0.7031
90872473|NCT00333866|181605610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.27||||0.4253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|4.39|||ANCOVA|||General Health Perception: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||4.39|-1.86|0.4253
90872474|NCT00333866|181605610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.73||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|5.89|||ANCOVA|||General Health Perception: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||5.89|-0.44|0.0910
90872475|NCT00333866|181605610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.82||||0.2526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|4.95|||ANCOVA|||General Health Perception: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||4.95|-1.30|0.2526
90872476|NCT00333866|181605610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.62||||0.0195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|4.82|||ANCOVA|||Mental Component Score: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||4.82|0.42|0.0195
90872477|NCT00333866|181605610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|3.66||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|5.88|||ANCOVA|||Mental Component Score: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||5.88|1.44|0.0013
90872478|NCT00333866|181605610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.14||||0.0568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|4.34|||ANCOVA|||Mental Component Score: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||4.34|-0.06|0.0568
90872479|NCT00333866|181605610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.13||||0.8529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|1.27|||ANCOVA|||Physical Component Score: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||1.27|-1.54|0.8529
90872480|NCT00333866|181605610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.54||||0.4564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|1.96|||ANCOVA|||Physical Component Score: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||1.96|-0.88|0.4564
90872481|NCT00333866|181605610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.13||||0.8576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|1.54|||ANCOVA|||Physical Component Score: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||1.54|-1.28|0.8576
90872482|NCT00333866|181605611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.29||||0.7384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|1.4|||ANCOVA|||P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||1.40|-1.98|0.7384
90872483|NCT00333866|181605611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.41||||0.1044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.12|0.29|||ANCOVA|||P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||0.29|-3.12|0.1044
90872484|NCT00333866|181605611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.87||||0.3137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.58|0.83|||ANCOVA|||P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||0.83|-2.58|0.3137
90872485|NCT00333866|181605612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.59||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|0.09|||ANCOVA|||HADS-Anxiety Total: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||0.09|-1.28|0.0900
90872486|NCT00333866|181605612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.5||||0.1564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.19|||ANCOVA|||HADS-Anxiety Total: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||0.19|-1.20|0.1564
90872487|NCT00333866|181605612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.11||||0.7519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.58|||ANCOVA|||HADS-Anxiety Total: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||0.58|-0.80|0.7519
90872488|NCT00333866|181605612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.15||||0.6416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.8|||ANCOVA|||HADS-Depression Total: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||0.80|-0.50|0.6416
90872489|NCT00333866|181605612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.59||||0.0778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|0.07|||ANCOVA|||HADS-Depression Total: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||0.07|-1.25|0.0778
90872490|NCT00333866|181605612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.21||||0.5191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.44|||ANCOVA|||HADS-Depression Total: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||0.44|-0.87|0.5191
90872491|NCT00333866|181605613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.44||||0.534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.97|3.09|||ANCOVA|||P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||3.09|-5.97|0.5340
90912870|NCT05382104|181694796|EQUIVALENCE|A linear mixed-effects model was applied to natural log (ln)-transformed Cmax with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a random effect. Point estimates and their associated 90 percent (%) confidence intervals (CIs) was constructed for the differences between Treatment B versus Treatment A. The point estimates and their associated 90% CIs were then back transformed to provide point estimates and 90% CIs for ratios of Treatment B versus Treatment A.|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|76.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|71.78|81.78|||||Geometric mean ratio (%) was calculated as 100\*(Treatment B / Treatment A).|||81.78|71.78|
90912871|NCT05382104|181694796|EQUIVALENCE|A linear mixed-effects model was applied to ln-transformed Cmax with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a random effect. Point estimates and their associated 90% CIs was constructed for differences between Treatment C versus Treatment A. The point estimates and their associated 90% CIs were then back transformed to provide point estimates and 90% CIs for ratios of Treatment C versus Treatment A.|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|71.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|67.14|76.37|||||Geometric mean ratio (%) was calculated as 100\*(Treatment C / Treatment A).|||76.37|67.14|
90912872|NCT05382104|181694797|EQUIVALENCE|A linear mixed-effects model was applied to ln-transformed AUClast with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a random effect. Point estimates and their associated 90% CIs was constructed for the differences between Treatment B versus Treatment A. The point estimates and their associated 90% CIs were then back transformed to provide point estimates and 90% CIs for ratios of Treatment B versus Treatment A.|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|84.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.74|87.66|||||Geometric mean ratio (%) was calculated as 100\*(Treatment B / Treatment A).|||87.66|80.74|
90960711|NCT04079803|181801989|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009||||||As secondary endpoints, lymphocyte biomarkers were not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANOVA|ANOVA was used instead of ANCOVA due to the range in baseline values; it was deemed more appropriate to compare to each subject's own baseline value.||Change from baseline in FLNA linkage to alpha7nAChR in subject lymphocytes. FLNA linkage to alpha7nAChR was expressed as ratios of densitometric units of immunoblot bands of alpha7nAChR (probed with a specific antibody) to densitometric units of total FLNA.||||0.009
91033371|NCT00420238|181952557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.45||||0.023||95.0|-23.19|-1.71|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 8: Comparison of leasts squares means. Mixed-model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) using an auto-regressive correlation structure with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate, and patients as a random factor.||-1.71|-23.19|0.023
91033372|NCT00420238|181952557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.25||||0.01||95.0|-24.99|-3.51|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 12: Comparison of leasts squares means. Mixed-model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) using an auto-regressive correlation structure with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate, and patients as a random factor.||-3.51|-24.99|0.010
91033373|NCT00420238|181952559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.25||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.03|1.53|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.||1.53|-12.03|0.127
91033374|NCT00420238|181952560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43||||0.914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.23|7.38|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 2: Comparison of leasts squares means. Mixed-model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) using an auto-regressive correlation structure with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate, and patients as a random factor.||7.38|-8.23|0.914
91033375|NCT00420238|181952560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4||||0.544||95.0|-10.21|5.41|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 4: Comparison of leasts squares means. Mixed-model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) using an auto-regressive correlation structure with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate, and patients as a random factor.||5.41|-10.21|0.544
91033376|NCT00420238|181952560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.21||||0.039||95.0|-16.02|-0.4|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 8: Comparison of leasts squares means. Mixed-model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) using an auto-regressive correlation structure with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate, and patients as a random factor.||-0.40|-16.02|0.039
90872492|NCT00333866|181605613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-7.44||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|-2.88|||ANCOVA|||P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||-2.88|-12.00|0.0014
90872493|NCT00333866|181605613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-2.56||||0.2694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.09|1.98|||ANCOVA|||P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||1.98|-7.09|0.2694
90872494|NCT00333866|181605614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|263.77||||0.1277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.78|603.33|||ANCOVA|||P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. P value was calculated using analysis of variance (ANOVA), with treatment and center in the model.||603.33|-75.78|0.1277
90872495|NCT00333866|181605614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|47.89||||0.7829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-293.2|389.02|||ANCOVA|||P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. P value was calculated using ANOVA, with treatment and center in the model.||389.02|-293.2|0.7829
90872496|NCT00333866|181605614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-11.51||||0.9471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-351.9|328.86|||ANCOVA|||P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. P value was calculated using ANOVA, with treatment and center in the model.||328.86|-351.9|0.9471
90912873|NCT05382104|181694797|EQUIVALENCE|A linear mixed-effects model was applied to ln-transformed AUClast with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a random effect. Point estimates and their associated 90% CIs was constructed for differences between Treatment C versus Treatment A. The point estimates and their associated 90% CIs were then back transformed to provide point estimates and 90% CIs for ratios of Treatment C versus Treatment A.|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|87.35|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.87|90.96|||||Geometric mean ratio (%) was calculated as 100\*(Treatment C / Treatment A).|||90.96|83.87|
90912874|NCT05382104|181694798|EQUIVALENCE|A linear mixed-effects model was applied to ln-transformed AUC0-infinity with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a random effect. Point estimates and their associated 90% CIs was constructed for the differences between Treatment B versus Treatment A. The point estimates and their associated 90% CIs were then back transformed to provide point estimates and 90% CIs for ratios of Treatment B versus Treatment A.|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|84.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.28|88.34|||||Geometric mean ratio (%) was calculated as 100\*(Treatment B / Treatment A).|||88.34|81.28|
90912875|NCT05382104|181694798|EQUIVALENCE|A linear mixed-effects model was applied to ln-transformed AUC0-infinity with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a random effect. Point estimates and their associated 90% CIs was constructed for differences between Treatment C versus Treatment A. The point estimates and their associated 90% CIs were then back transformed to provide point estimates and 90% CIs for ratios of Treatment C versus Treatment A.|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|87.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.3|91.53|||||Geometric mean ratio (%) was calculated as 100\*(Treatment C / Treatment A).|||91.53|84.30|
90912876|NCT02336438|181694802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.99
90912877|NCT02336438|181694803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4922|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.4922
90912878|NCT02336438|181694804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.77
90912879|NCT02336438|181694805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0156|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.0156
90912880|NCT02336438|181694806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.020
90912881|NCT02336438|181694807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.13
90912882|NCT05190419|181694825|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-35.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.83|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.7|-16.0||No adjustment for multiplicity was made and the 0.05 level of significance was used to claim efficacy compared with placebo.|ANCOVA|p-value is calculated by analysis of covariance with treatment group as factor and baseline PASI as covariate.||||-16.0|-54.7|<0.001
90912883|NCT05190419|181694825|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-43.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.75|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.1|-24.8||No adjustment for multiplicity was made and the 0.05 level of significance was used to claim efficacy compared with placebo.|ANCOVA|p-value is calculated by analysis of covariance with treatment group as factor and baseline PASI as covariate.||||-24.8|-63.1|<0.001
90912884|NCT05190419|181694825|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-46.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.75|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.6|-27.3||No adjustment for multiplicity was made and the 0.05 level of significance was used to claim efficacy compared with placebo.|ANCOVA|p-value is calculated by analysis of covariance with treatment group as factor and baseline PASI as covariate.||||-27.3|-65.6|<0.001
90912885|NCT01227707|181694837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||one sample binomial test|||||||1.00
90912886|NCT03215927|181694853|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-2.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.34|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.36|4.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjustments are for baseline FVC, age, and gender, with a repeated measures effect of participant.|The comparison difference value is µABT - µPlacebo.|The null hypothesis for the change outcomes is µABT - µPlacebo = 0.||4.26|-9.36|<0.05
90912887|NCT03215927|181694854|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|2.77|||Regression, Cox||ABT is the numerator and Placebo is the denominator for the hazard ratios. The dispersion value given is the SE of the estimate on the natural log scale.|The null hypothesis for the time to event outcomes is exp(bABT) / exp(bPlacebo) = 1.||2.77|0.16|<0.05
90912888|NCT03215927|181694855|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|7.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.12|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|23.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjustments are for baseline FVC, age, and gender, with a repeated measures effect of participant.|The comparison difference value is µABT - µPlacebo.|The null hypothesis for the change outcomes is µABT - µPlacebo = 0.||23.83|-8.80|<0.05
90912889|NCT03215927|181694856|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|4.02|||Regression, Cox||ABT is the numerator and Placebo is the denominator for the hazard ratios. The dispersion value given is the SE of the estimate on the natural log scale.|The null hypothesis for the time to event outcomes is exp(bABT) / exp(bPlacebo) = 1.||4.02|0.04|<0.05
90912890|NCT03779048|181694859|OTHER|Regression using baseline scores to predict 4-week weight loss during the behavioral treatment run-in. Primary prediction analysis presented below was pre-specified to evaluate together postprandial satiety, postprandial increases in GLP-1 and gastric emptying (acetaminophen tests) and includes only the 125 participants from whom baseline blood samples could be obtained.|Standardized Beta coefficient|0.11||||0.24|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Controls for postprandial increases in GLP-1 and gastric emptying (acetaminophen tests)||||||.24
90912891|NCT03779048|181694860|OTHER|Regression using baseline scores to predict 4-week weight loss during the behavioral treatment run-in. Primary prediction analysis presented below was pre-specified to evaluate together postprandial satiety, postprandial increases in GLP-1 and gastric emptying (acetaminophen tests) and includes only the 125 participants from whom baseline blood samples could be obtained.|Standardized Beta coefficient|-0.09||||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Controls for baseline postprandial satiety and gastric emptying (acetaminophen test)||||||.34
90960712|NCT04079803|181801989|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||As secondary endpoints, lymphocyte biomarkers were not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANOVA|ANOVA was used instead of ANCOVA due to the range in baseline values; it was deemed more appropriate to compare to each subject's own baseline value.||Change from baseline in FLNA linkage to TLR4 in subject lymphocytes. FLNA linkage to TLR4 was expressed as the ratio of densitometric units of immunoblot bands of TLR4 (probed with a specific antibody) to densitometric units of total FLNA.||||0.01
90912892|NCT03779048|181694861|OTHER|Regression using baseline scores to predict 4-week weight loss during the behavioral treatment run-in. Primary prediction analysis presented below was pre-specified to evaluate together postprandial satiety, postprandial increases in GLP-1 and gastric emptying (acetaminophen tests) and includes only the 125 participants from whom baseline blood samples could be obtained.|Standardized Beta coefficient|0.03||||0.78|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Controls for baseline postprandial satiety and postprandial change in GLP-1||||||.78
90960713|NCT04079803|181801989|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||As secondary endpoints, lymphocyte biomarkers were not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANOVA|ANOVA was used instead of ANCOVA due to the range in baseline values; it was deemed more appropriate to compare to each subject's own baseline value.||Change from baseline in FLNA linkage to TLR4 in subject lymphocytes. FLNA linkage to TLR4 was expressed as the ratio of densitometric units of immunoblot bands of TLR4 (probed with a specific antibody) to densitometric units of total FLNA.||||0.01
90960714|NCT04079803|181801990|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|ANOVA followed by Dunnett's multiple comparisons test.||||||0.01
90960715|NCT04079803|181801990|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||ANOVA|ANOVA followed by Dunnett's multiple comparisons test.||||||0.02
90960716|NCT04079803|181801990|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||ANOVA|This p value is for the main effect of treatment of the ANOVA.||||||0.009
90960717|NCT04079803|181801991|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.003
90912893|NCT03779048|181694862|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|5.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.1|1.1|.003
90912894|NCT03779048|181694863|OTHER|Correlation between baseline postprandial hunger AUC and 4-week percent weight loss.|r|-0.1||||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.23
90912895|NCT03779048|181694864|OTHER|Correlation between baseline high energy density food reinforcer points earned and 4-week percent weight loss.|r|-0.1||||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.23
90912896|NCT03779048|181694865|OTHER|Regression results using baseline AUC for delay discounting to predict 4-week percent weight loss, controlling for participant age.|r2 change|0.033||||0.033|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.033
90912897|NCT03779048|181694866|OTHER|Correlation between baseline implicit wanting and 4-week percent weight loss. Because categories are scored relative to each other they cannot be included together in the same analysis, so separate correlations were conducted.|r|0.17||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||Correlation to Implicit wanting of High Fat Savory.|Regression, Linear|||||||.04
90912898|NCT03779048|181694866|OTHER|Correlation to Implicit wanting of Low Fat Savory.|r|-0.03||||0.72|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Correlation between baseline implicit wanting and 4-week percent weight loss. Because categories are scored relative to each other they cannot be included taughter in the same analysis, so separate correlations were conducted.||||.72
90912899|NCT03779048|181694866|OTHER|Correlation to Implicit wanting of High Fat Sweet.|r|0.01||||0.94|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Correlation between baseline implicit wanting and 4-week percent weight loss. Because categories are scored relative to each other they cannot be included together in the same analysis, so separate correlations were conducted.||||.94
90912900|NCT03779048|181694866|OTHER|Correlation to Implicit wanting of Low Fat Sweet.|r|-0.15||||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Correlation between baseline implicit wanting and 4-week percent weight loss. Because categories are scored relative to each other they cannot be included together in the same analysis, so separate correlations were conducted.||||.09
90960718|NCT04079803|181801991|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.016
90960719|NCT01668667|181802046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted mean difference|-2.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.745||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.62|-0.52|||ANCOVA|No adjustment for multiplicity will be made for these analyses.|The change from baseline data is analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled site as the main effects and the baseline IRLS Rating Scale total score as a covariate.|The null hypothesis for this study is that there is no difference between GEn and placebo in the change from Baseline to the end of treatment in the IRLS Rating Scale total score. All comparisons will be made at the two-sided 0.05 level of significance.||-0.52|-4.62|0.014
90960720|NCT01668667|181802046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted mean difference|-2.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.764||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.68|-0.54|||ANCOVA|No adjustment for multiplicity will be made for these analyses.|The change from baseline data is analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled site as the main effects and the baseline IRLS Rating Scale total score as a covariate.|The null hypothesis for this study is that there is no difference between GEn and placebo in the change from Baseline to the end of treatment in the IRLS Rating Scale total score. All comparisons will be made at the two-sided 0.05 level of significance.||-0.54|-4.68|0.014
90960721|NCT01668667|181802046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted mean difference|-1.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.767||0.144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.63|0.53|||ANCOVA|No adjustment for multiplicity will be made for these analyses.|The change from baseline data is analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled site as the main effects and the baseline IRLS Rating Scale total score as a covariate|The null hypothesis for this study is that there is no difference between GEn and placebo in the change from Baseline to the end of treatment in the IRLS Rating Scale total score. All comparisons will be made at the two-sided 0.05 level of significance.||0.53|-3.63|0.144
90912901|NCT03779048|181694867|OTHER|Correlation between baseline fasting active ghrelin and 4-week percent weight loss.|r|0.03||||0.73|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.73
90960722|NCT01668667|181802047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.26||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|3.95|||Regression, Logistic||The analysis method used was logistic regression with terms of pooled site and treatment.|"The null hypothesis for this study is that there is no difference between GEn and placebo in the proportion of subjects who are responders with much improved or very much improved on the investigator-rated CGI-I at the end of treatment."||3.95|1.30|0.004
90912902|NCT03779048|181694868|OTHER||r|-0.1||||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Correlation between baseline fasting leptin and 4-week percent weight loss.||||.25
90872497|NCT06073119|181605615|SUPERIORITY||Response rate difference (RRD), %|23.43||||0.0874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.74|45.98||A hierarchical testing was used to control the overall type I error of 0.05 (two-sided). Testing was performed in the order of 200 mg BID, 100 mg BID, 200 mg QD versus placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for baseline PASI score (\<=20, \>20).|Difference = SAR441566 Dose Regimen 200 mg BID - placebo.|||45.98|-2.74|0.0874
90872498|NCT06073119|181605615|SUPERIORITY||RRD, %|33.08||||0.0185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.71|54.83||A hierarchical testing was used to control the overall type I error of 0.05 (two-sided). Testing was performed in the order of 200 mg BID, 100 mg BID, 200 mg QD versus placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for baseline PASI score (\<=20, \>20).|Difference = SAR441566 Dose Regimen 100 mg BID - placebo.|||54.83|5.71|0.0185
90872499|NCT06073119|181605615|SUPERIORITY||RRD, %|38.02||||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.62|58.84||A hierarchical testing was used to control the overall type I error of 0.05 (two-sided). Testing was performed in the order of 200 mg BID, 100 mg BID, 200 mg QD versus placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for baseline PASI score (\<=20, \>20).|Difference = SAR441566 Dose Regimen 200 mg QD - placebo.|||58.84|10.62|0.0077
90872500|NCT06073119|181605615|SUPERIORITY||RRD, %|9.35||||0.4576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.72|32.4||No multiplicity adjustment, hence p-value is nominal.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for baseline PASI score (\<=20, \>20).|Difference = SAR441566 Dose Regimen 100 mg QD - placebo.|||32.40|-14.72|0.4576
90872501|NCT06073119|181605615|SUPERIORITY||RRD, %|13.44||||0.3051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.38|36.72||No multiplicity adjustment, hence p-value is nominal.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for baseline PASI score (\<=20, \>20).|Difference = SAR441566 Dose Regimen 50 mg QD - placebo.|||36.72|-11.38|0.3051
90872502|NCT00456547|181605630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0||||Adjusted for 12 comparisons|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
90872503|NCT00456547|181605631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0||||Corrected for 12 comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
90872504|NCT00456547|181605632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0||||Corrected for 12 comparisons|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
90872505|NCT00456547|181605633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0||||Corrected for 12 comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
90872506|NCT02408315|181605642|NON_INFERIORITY|Estimates obtained from Kaplan-Meier method and results of Log-rank test. P-value for non-inferiority hypothesis based on Cox proportional hazards model (H0: HR ≤ 0.74 vs. HA: HR \> .74), p-value \< .05 provides evidence to reject inferiority and conclude BM is non-inferior to VM.||||||0.663|||||||Cox proportional|||||||0.663
90912903|NCT03779048|181694869|OTHER|Correlation between baseline postprandial AUC for change in insulin and 4-week percent weight loss.|r|-0.03||||0.72|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.72
90912904|NCT03779048|181694870|OTHER|Correlation between baseline postprandial incremental AUC for PYY and 4-week percent weight loss.|r|-0.02||||0.82|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.82
90872507|NCT01285310|181605668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.4||||0.3134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.1|7.0|||Chi-squared||2-sided 95% CI of the proportion difference is based on a normal approximation to the binomial distribution|Significance testing was done using the following closed procedure; if the overall test among treatments is statistically significant at the 0.05 level, pair-wise comparisons (30 mg versus PBO, and 20 mg versus PBO, using a 0.05 two-sided significance level) will be performed||7.0|-27.1|0.3134
90872508|NCT01285310|181605668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.2||||0.8721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|13.8|||Chi-squared||2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the binomial distribution|||13.8|-16.2|0.8721
90872509|NCT01285310|181605669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.004|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 16, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||||
90872510|NCT01285310|181605669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.091|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 16, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||||
90872511|NCT01285310|181605670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.5||||||||||||||||||
90872512|NCT01285310|181605670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.6||||||||||||||||||
90872513|NCT01285310|181605671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.007||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 24; treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||||
90872514|NCT01285310|181605671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.15|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 24, treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||||
90872515|NCT01285310|181605672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.17|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 16; treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate|||||
90872516|NCT01285310|181605672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.77|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 16; treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||||
90872517|NCT01285310|181605673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.21||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 16; treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||||
90872518|NCT01285310|181605673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 24; treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||||
90872519|NCT01285310|181605674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.5||||||||||||||||||
90872520|NCT01285310|181605674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.2||||||||||||||||||
90912905|NCT03779048|181694871|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.1||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|5.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.0|1.1|.002
90912906|NCT03779048|181694876|SUPERIORITY|Difference between placebo- and phentermine-treated participants in change in delay discounting area under the curve from randomization to week 24 was calculated using repeated measures ANCOVA, controlling for age.|F|0.17||||0.68|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||.68
90960723|NCT01668667|181802047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.15||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|3.77|||Regression, Logistic||The analysis method used was logistic regression with terms of pooled site and treatment.|"The null hypothesis for this study is that there is no difference between GEn and placebo in the proportion of subjects who are responders with much improved or very much improved on the investigator-rated CGI-I at the end of treatment."||3.77|1.23|0.007
90872521|NCT01285310|181605675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.14||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 16, treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||||
90872522|NCT01285310|181605675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 24; treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||||
90872523|NCT01285310|181605676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|6.15|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model (Ancova) for the change from baseline at Week 16, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate|||||
90872524|NCT01285310|181605676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.61|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model (Ancova) for the change from baseline at Week 16, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate|||||
90872525|NCT01285310|181605677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|2.58|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 16, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||||
90872526|NCT01285310|181605677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-3.26||||||||||||||||||
90872527|NCT01285310|181605678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-35.54|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 16, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||||
90872528|NCT01285310|181605678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-38.37|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 16, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||||
90872529|NCT01285310|181605679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-14.35|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 16, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||||
90872530|NCT01285310|181605679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.34|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 16, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||||
90872531|NCT01285310|181605680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 16, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||||
90872532|NCT01285310|181605680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-3.84|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 16, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||||
90872533|NCT01285310|181605681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|5.93|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 16, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||||
90872534|NCT01285310|181605681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.77|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 16, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate|||||
90872535|NCT01285310|181605682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|4.7|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 16, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||||
90872536|NCT01285310|181605682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|58.05||||||||||||||||||
90872537|NCT01285310|181605683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|7.18|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 16, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||||
90872538|NCT01285310|181605683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-16.19|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 16, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||||
90872539|NCT01285310|181605684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 16, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||||
90872540|NCT01285310|181605684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.1|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 16, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate|||||
90872541|NCT01285310|181605685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.9||||||||||||||||||
90872542|NCT01285310|181605685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.4||||||||||||||||||
90872543|NCT01285310|181605686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.9||||||||||||||||||
90872544|NCT01285310|181605686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.9||||||||||||||||||
90872545|NCT01285310|181605687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.4||||||||||||||||||
90872546|NCT01285310|181605687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.1||||||||||||||||||
90872547|NCT01285310|181605688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.5||||||||||||||||||
90872548|NCT01285310|181605688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.2||||||||||||||||||
90872549|NCT01285310|181605689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.3||||||||||||||||||
90872550|NCT01285310|181605689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.5||||||||||||||||||
90872551|NCT01285310|181605690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.5||||||||||||||||||
90872552|NCT01285310|181605690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.5||||||||||||||||||
90872553|NCT01285310|181605691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90872554|NCT01285310|181605691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90872555|NCT01285310|181605692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.12|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 24 with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||||
90872556|NCT01285310|181605692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.98|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 24 with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||||
90872557|NCT01285310|181605693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.94||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 24; treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||||
90872558|NCT01285310|181605693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.24||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 24; treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||||
90872559|NCT01285310|181605694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions|-4.3||||||||||||||||||
90872560|NCT01285310|181605694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions|4.6||||||||||||||||||
90872561|NCT01285310|181605695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.03|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 24 with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||||
90872562|NCT01285310|181605695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.09|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 24 with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||||
90872563|NCT01285310|181605696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|4.6|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 24, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||||
90872564|NCT01285310|181605696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|3.01|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 24; treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||||
90872565|NCT01285310|181605697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.86|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 24, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate|||||
90872566|NCT01285310|181605697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-7.02|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 24, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate|||||
90872567|NCT01285310|181605698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-34.82|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 24, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate|||||
90872568|NCT01285310|181605698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-37.82|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 24, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate|||||
90872569|NCT01285310|181605699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-14.34|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 24, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||||
90872570|NCT01285310|181605699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-12.5|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 24, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||||
90872571|NCT01285310|181605700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|5.85|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 24, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||||
90872572|NCT01285310|181605700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-1.8|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 24, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||||
90872573|NCT01285310|181605701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|1.57|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 24, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||||
90872574|NCT01285310|181605701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-5.72|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 24, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||||
90872575|NCT01285310|181605702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|8.29|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 24, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||||
90872576|NCT01285310|181605702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|67.09|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 24, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||||
90872577|NCT01285310|181605703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|12.05|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 24, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||||
90872578|NCT01285310|181605703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-6.54|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 24, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||||
90872579|NCT01285310|181605704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 24, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate|||||
90872580|NCT01285310|181605704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.7|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 24, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate|||||
90872581|NCT01285310|181605705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.4||||||||||||||||||
90872582|NCT01285310|181605705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.6||||||||||||||||||
90872583|NCT01285310|181605706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-11.9||||||||||||||||||
90872584|NCT01285310|181605706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.3||||||||||||||||||
90872585|NCT01285310|181605707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-11.2||||||||||||||||||
90872586|NCT01285310|181605707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.0||||||||||||||||||
90912907|NCT03779048|181694877|OTHER|Regression using the three Eating Inventory subscales (Cognitive restraint, disinhibition, hunger) to predict 4-week weight loss|r2|0.01||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|||||For full model including all 3 predictors|Regression, Linear|||||||.75
90912908|NCT03779048|181694878|OTHER|Correlation between baseline past-week appetite and 4-week percent weight loss.|r|-0.09||||0.31|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.31
90912909|NCT03779048|181694880|OTHER|Regression using baseline scores for Behavioral Inhibition (BIS) and Behavioral Activation fro Reward to predict 4-week weight loss during the behavioral treatment run-in.|r2|0.05||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.03
90912910|NCT03779048|181694881|OTHER|Correlation between baseline BIS-15 total score and 4-week percent weight loss.|r|0.03||||0.76|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.76
90912911|NCT05328297|181694904|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.96|=|0.438|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.84|2.23|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||2.23|-2.84|=0.438
90912912|NCT01286272|181694931|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.8457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.74|||Log Rank|||||1.74|0.51|0.8457
90912913|NCT02945332|181694936|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.85||0.32|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.32
90912914|NCT02945332|181694937|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.93
90912915|NCT02945332|181694938|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.68||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.16
90912916|NCT02945332|181694939|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|11.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.32||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.40
90912917|NCT02945332|181694940|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|31.36||0.77|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.77
90912918|NCT02945332|181694941|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.16||0.42|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.42
90912919|NCT03979365|181694943|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.944|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.944
90912920|NCT03979365|181694944|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.345|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Trembling Hands||||0.345
90912921|NCT03979365|181694944|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.451|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Muscle Cramps||||0.451
90912922|NCT03979365|181694944|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.953|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Muscle Weakness||||0.953
90912923|NCT03979365|181694944|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.579|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Swollen Gums||||0.579
90912924|NCT03979365|181694944|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.513|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Increased Hair Growth||||0.513
90912925|NCT03979365|181694945|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.010
90912926|NCT03979365|181694948|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.836|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.836
90912927|NCT03979365|181694949|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.008
90912928|NCT03979365|181694950|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.314|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Taste Change||||0.314
90912929|NCT03979365|181694950|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.486|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Appetite||||0.486
90912930|NCT03979365|181694950|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.452|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Constipation||||0.452
90912931|NCT03979365|181694950|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Diarrhea||||0.750
90912932|NCT03979365|181694950|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.764|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Swelling||||0.764
90912933|NCT03979365|181694950|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.726|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Palpitations||||0.726
90912934|NCT03979365|181694950|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.421|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Dry Skin||||0.421
90912935|NCT03979365|181694950|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.679|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Darker Skin||||0.679
90912936|NCT03979365|181694950|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.779|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Blurry Vision||||0.779
90912937|NCT03979365|181694950|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.533|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Headache||||0.533
90912938|NCT03979365|181694950|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.668|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Insomnia||||0.668
90912939|NCT03979365|181694950|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Fatigue||||1.00
90912940|NCT03979365|181694950|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.232|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Anxiety||||0.232
90912941|NCT03979365|181694950|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.566|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Depression||||0.566
90912942|NCT03979365|181694950|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Sadness||||0.038
90912943|NCT03979365|181694951|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.754|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.754
90912944|NCT03979365|181694953|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.371|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.371
90912951|NCT01124188|181694978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.8||||||||1.80|0.63|
90912952|NCT01124188|181694979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.49
90912953|NCT01124188|181694980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.88
90912954|NCT02296424|181695042|EQUIVALENCE|nominal 2.5% two-sided significance level was expected to have 90% powe to detect a difference between the Null Hypothesis proportion of patients who remain at their dose level.||||||0.0001|||||||exact binomial test|||||||0.0001
90912955|NCT02680457|181695048|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.630
90912956|NCT02680457|181695049|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.00
90912957|NCT01112670|181695050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.83
90960724|NCT01668667|181802047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.24||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|3.94|||Regression, Logistic||The analysis method used was logistic regression with terms of pooled site and treatment.|"The null hypothesis for this study is that there is no difference between GEn and placebo in the proportion of subjects who are responders with much improved or very much improved on the investigator-rated CGI-I at the end of treatment."||3.94|1.27|0.005
90960725|NCT01668667|181802048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.022|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||For the mean change from Baseline for IRLS Rating Scale total score at the EOT, the linear contrast test based on an analysis of variance with treatment effect was used to detect linear dose-response trends across increasing levels of GEn dosage.||||0.022
90960726|NCT01668667|181802048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.072|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Overall treatment effect||||0.072
90960727|NCT01668667|181802049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|||||A significant p-value will indicate a nonzero linear effect across increasing levels of GEn dosage.|Cochran-Armitage trend test|||||||0.012
90960728|NCT02988622|181802050|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1205|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.5499||0.0492|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0492
90960729|NCT02988622|181802051|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.241|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0817||0.0817|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0817
90960730|NCT02988622|181802052|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3659|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.7951||0.0686|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0686
90960731|NCT02988622|181802053|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0843|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.5789||0.6278|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6278
90960732|NCT02988622|181802054|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3373|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.7619||0.0848|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0848
90960733|NCT02988622|181802055|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2195|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.0788||0.3418|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3418
90912958|NCT01112670|181695051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.67
90960734|NCT02988622|181802056|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2375|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.5528||0.1752|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1752
90960735|NCT02988622|181802058|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3824|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.5685||0.0281|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0281
90960736|NCT03261700|181802059|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of groups on Empowerment via the Personal Progress Scale Revised||||<.05
90960737|NCT03261700|181802060|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of groups on self-efficacy via the General Self-Efficacy Scale||||<.05
90960738|NCT00413972|181802109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<.0001
90912959|NCT01112670|181695052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.90
90912960|NCT01112670|181695053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.56||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.56
90912961|NCT01112670|181695054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.97
90960739|NCT00413972|181802109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<.0001
90960740|NCT00413972|181802109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<.0001
90960741|NCT04947527|181802122|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|1.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.2|-4.2|0.279
90960742|NCT04947527|181802123|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages/proportions|-14.4||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.7|-2.1|||Chi-squared|||||-2.1|-26.7|0.023
90960743|NCT04947527|181802124|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.09||||0.133|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.133
90960744|NCT02618642|181802128|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3879|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||the results in the irradiated group (n=45) and the control group (n=15) were compared||||0.3879
90960745|NCT02618642|181802128|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5361|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||comparison was conducted of the results obtained with a different filter were compared||||0.5361
90960746|NCT02618642|181802129|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4669|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||the results in the irradiated group (n=45) vs the control group (placebo) (n=15) were compared.||||0.4669
90960747|NCT02618642|181802129|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4161|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.4161
90960748|NCT02618642|181802130|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9596|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||the results in the irradiated group (n=45) and the control group (n=15) were compared.||||0.9596
90960749|NCT02618642|181802130|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0907|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0907
90960750|NCT02618642|181802131|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||the results in the irradiated group (n=45) and the control group (n=15) were compared.||||0.0110
90960751|NCT02618642|181802131|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1165|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||comparison was conducted of the results obtained with a different filter (groups v, x, y,||||0.1165
90960752|NCT02618642|181802132|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||he results in the irradiated group (n=45) and the control group (n=15) were compared||||0.0200
90960753|NCT02618642|181802132|SUPERIORITY|comparison was conducted of the results obtained with a different filter (groups v, x, y,||||||0.0014|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0014
90960754|NCT00822523|181802164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Two sample t-test comparing baseline and day 1 H0: There is no change in mean force between baseline and day 1 HA: There is change in mean force between baseline and day 1||||0.61
90960755|NCT00822523|181802164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.787|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Two sample t-test comparing baseline and day 2 H0: There is no change in mean force between baseline and day 2 HA: There is change in mean force between baseline and day 2||||0.787
90960756|NCT00822523|181802164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.234|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Two sample t-test comparing baseline and day 4 H0: There is no change in mean force between baseline and day 4 HA: There is change in mean force between baseline and day 4||||0.234
90912962|NCT01112670|181695055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.86
90912963|NCT01112670|181695056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.21
90912964|NCT01112670|181695057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.22
90912965|NCT01112670|181695058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.14
90912966|NCT01112670|181695059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.29
90912967|NCT01112670|181695060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.43
90872587|NCT00514540|181605741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.005|ONE_SIDED|95.0||||"Stoppage of trial early if 1) probability of response with the frontline treatment DC in the 1st 2 courses is unacceptably low compared to a target of 30% Pr(p1\*p2 \> .30\|data) \< 0.005, or 2) risk of a SAE is unacceptably high Pr(m \> m\* \|data) \< 0.001"|Bayesian probability model|Operating Characteristics of futility monitoring rule 1 \& safety monitoring rule 2 applied simultaneously for frontline treatment DC in courses 1 \& 2.||Disease status evaluated at the end of course 1 \& the end of course 2. Primary outcomes are response, defined as the absence of disease progression, and the time to a serious adverse event (SAE), defined as grade 3 or 4 neurotoxicity or death. Bayesian probability model \& decision rules used to monitor patient outcomes.||||< 0.005
90872588|NCT00555321|181605747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.1|49.8|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|||49.8|16.1|
90872589|NCT00555321|181605747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|26.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.6|43.5|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|||43.5|9.6|
91033377|NCT00420238|181952560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.54||||0.004||95.0|-19.35|-3.73|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 12: Comparison of leasts squares means. Mixed-model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) using an auto-regressive correlation structure with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate, and patients as a random factor.||-3.73|-19.35|0.004
90872590|NCT00555321|181605747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|31.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.8|48.5|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|||48.5|14.8|
91033378|NCT00420238|181952563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.86||||0.122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.57|1.85|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 2: Comparison of leasts squares means. Mixed-model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) using an auto-regressive correlation structure with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate, and patients as a random factor.||1.85|-15.57|0.122
91033379|NCT00420238|181952563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.45||||0.145||95.0|-15.16|2.26|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 4: Comparison of leasts squares means. Mixed-model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) using an auto-regressive correlation structure with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate, and patients as a random factor.||2.26|-15.16|0.145
90872591|NCT00555321|181605747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|29.6|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|||29.6|-8.7|
91033380|NCT00420238|181952563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.55||||0.005||95.0|-21.26|-3.84|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 8: Comparison of leasts squares means. Mixed-model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) using an auto-regressive correlation structure with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate, and patients as a random factor.||-3.84|-21.26|0.005
90872592|NCT00555321|181605747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.3|23.2|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|||23.2|-15.3|
90872593|NCT00555321|181605747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|28.4|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|||28.4|-9.8|
90872594|NCT00555321|181605748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|8.7|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 6||8.7|-12.9|
90872595|NCT00555321|181605748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|8.5|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 6||8.5|-13.6|
90872596|NCT00555321|181605748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.8|1.5|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 6||1.5|-23.8|
90872597|NCT00555321|181605748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||||95.0|||||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 6||||
90872598|NCT00555321|181605748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|11.3|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 6||11.3|-12.1|
90872599|NCT00555321|181605748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.9|4.1|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 6||4.1|-22.9|
90872600|NCT00555321|181605748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|8.7|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 12||8.7|-12.9|
90872601|NCT00555321|181605748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.1|5.4|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 12||5.4|-18.1|
90872602|NCT00555321|181605748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.9|-9.5|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 12||-9.5|-38.9|
90872603|NCT00555321|181605748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|14.4|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 12||14.4|-9.9|
90872604|NCT00555321|181605748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5|10.7|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 12||10.7|-15.5|
90872605|NCT00555321|181605748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.5|-4.1|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 12||-4.1|-35.5|
90872606|NCT00555321|181605749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|15.3|||||For 95% CI of difference, normal approximation was used if N\>=5 in both arms. Otherwise exact method was used.|||15.3|-14.5|
90872607|NCT00555321|181605749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.7|8.8|||||For 95% CI of difference, normal approximation was used if N\>=5 in both arms. Otherwise exact method was used.|||8.8|-25.7|
90912968|NCT01192542|181695064|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin of 0.05 (1/2 LogMAR line) was used.|Least-square mean difference|-0.009|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0064|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.022|0.003|||Mixed Models Analysis|Comparisons between two lenses were carried out using 95% confidence intervals (CI) constructed for least-square mean differences.|The mean difference is calculated as: Test lens - Control lens.|The alternative hypothesis is the monocular visual acuity of the galyfilcon A prototype lens is non-inferior to that of the enfilcon A lens.||0.003|-0.022|
90912969|NCT01192542|181695067|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin of 0.05 (1/2 LogMAR line) was used.|Least-square mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0091|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.018|0.018|||Mixed Models Analysis|Comparisons between two lenses were carried out using 95% confidence intervals (CI) constructed for least-square mean differences.||The alternative hypothesis is the binocular visual acuity of the galyfilcon A prototype lens is non-inferior to that of the enfilcon A lens.||0.018|-0.018|
90912970|NCT04141917|181695077|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio, log|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|5.02||||||The number of influenza-positive tests was analyzed using a generalized linear mixed model following a Poisson distribution with a log link and robust variance. The model is adjusted for calendar time and an exposure time variable based on shelter capacity. This model includes symptomatic individuals who tested throughout Year 1 of the study (November 15, 2019 - March 31, 2020).||5.02|0.35|
90912971|NCT03515304|181695091|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2497|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2497
90912972|NCT00367055|181695154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.376||95.0||||p value is for Total AUC(0-10 min)|Van Elteren|||||||0.376
90912973|NCT00367055|181695154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99||95.0||||p value is for Incremental AUC(0-10 min)|Van Elteren|||||||0.990
90912974|NCT01215695|181695181|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
90872608|NCT00555321|181605749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|17.5|||||For 95% CI of difference, normal approximation was used if N\>=5 in both arms. Otherwise exact method was used.|||17.5|-13.2|
90872609|NCT00555321|181605749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.1|13.1|||||For 95% CI of difference, normal approximation was used if N\>=5 in both arms. Otherwise exact method was used.|||13.1|-18.1|
90872610|NCT00555321|181605749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.4|6.2|||||For 95% CI of difference, normal approximation was used if N\>=5 in both arms. Otherwise exact method was used.|||6.2|-29.4|
90912975|NCT01215695|181695182|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
90912976|NCT01215695|181695183|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.05
90912977|NCT01215695|181695184|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.05
90872611|NCT00555321|181605749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.9|15.3|||||For 95% CI of difference, normal approximation was used if N\>=5 in both arms. Otherwise exact method was used.|||15.3|-16.9|
90872612|NCT00555321|181605750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.8|50.6|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|||50.6|15.8|
90872613|NCT00555321|181605750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|29.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.4|46.3|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|||46.3|11.4|
90872614|NCT00555321|181605750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|34.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.9|51.5|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|||51.5|16.9|
90912978|NCT01215695|181695185|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
90912979|NCT00961636|181695186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The closed ordered testing procedure was applied to the efficacy hypotheses. If statistical significance was achieved for the primary hypothesis, then the secondary hypothesis was tested. All tests were performed at significance level 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test was stratified by country||||||<0.001
90912980|NCT00961636|181695187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The closed ordered testing procedure was applied to the efficacy hypotheses. If statistical significance was achieved for the primary hypothesis, then the secondary hypothesis was tested. All tests were performed at significance level 0.05.|Unconditional Miettinen and Nurminen|||||||<0.001
90912981|NCT00688519|181695200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.058|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled center||||||0.058
90960757|NCT00822523|181802164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.256|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Two sample t-test comparing baseline and day 14 H0: There is no change in mean force between baseline and day 14 HA: There is change in mean force between baseline and day 14||||0.256
90912982|NCT00688519|181695200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.313|||||||Breslow-Day Test|Breslow-Day test of the homogeneity of the odds ratio using a 0.1 significance level.||Consistency of results across investigative centers was verified using the Breslow-Day test of homogeneity the odds ration using a significance level of 0.1||||0.313
90912983|NCT00688519|181695201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||These P-values are provided for information purposes only; they are considered non-significant (per the statistical analysis plan) because the analysis of the primary end point did not reach statistical significance.||||0.029
90912984|NCT00688519|181695202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled center||These P-values are provided for information purposes only; they are considered non-significant (per the statistical analysis plan) because the analysis of the primary end point did not reach statistical significance.||||0.013
90912985|NCT00688519|181695203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled center||These P-values are provided for information purposes only; they are considered non-significant (per the statistical analysis plan) because the analysis of the primary end point did not reach statistical significance.||||0.008
90912986|NCT00688519|181695204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled center||These P-values are provided for information purposes only; they are considered non-significant (per the statistical analysis plan) because the analysis of the primary end point did not reach statistical significance.||||0.018
90912987|NCT00688519|181695205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.167|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|stratified by pooled center||Comparison of calcipotriene foam and vehicle foam for patients who had mild disease at baseline||||0.167
90912988|NCT00688519|181695205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|stratified by pooled center||Comparison of calcipotriene foam and vehicle foam for patients who had moderate disease at baseline||||0.009
90912989|NCT00430300|181695220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||NDLM estimate difference|-0.0087||||0.0284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0943|0.0774|||Bayesian NDLM model|||The Bayesian normal dynamic linear model (NDLM) was used for analysis. 95% credible intervals of the effect size and the posterior distribution were calculated. Posterior distribution was used to calculate a probability (presented as p value) that the dose gives a difference of 0.075 liter from placebo.||0.0774|-0.0943|0.0284
90912990|NCT00430300|181695220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||NDLM estimate difference|-0.0389||||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1299|0.0471|||Bayesian NDLM model|||The Bayesian normal dynamic linear model (NDLM) was used for analysis. 95% credible intervals of the effect size and the posterior distribution were calculated. Posterior distribution was used to calculate a probability (presented as p value) that the dose gives a difference of 0.075 liter from placebo.||0.0471|-0.1299|0.0056
91033381|NCT00420238|181952563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.95||||0.008||95.0|-20.66|-3.24|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 12: Comparison of leasts squares means. Mixed-model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) using an auto-regressive correlation structure with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate, and patients as a random factor.||-3.24|-20.66|0.008
91033382|NCT00420238|181952567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.94||||0.139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.84|1.96|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate.||1.96|-13.84|0.139
90912991|NCT00430300|181695220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||NDLM estimate difference|-0.051||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1298|0.029|||Bayesian NDLM model|||The Bayesian normal dynamic linear model (NDLM) was used for analysis. 95% credible intervals of the effect size and the posterior distribution were calculated. Posterior distribution was used to calculate a probability (presented as p value) that the dose gives a difference of 0.075 liter from placebo.||0.0290|-0.1298|0.0009
90912992|NCT00430300|181695221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.5849|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.09||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.09|0.5849
90912993|NCT00430300|181695221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.9737|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.17||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.17|0.9737
90912994|NCT00430300|181695221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.387|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.06||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.06|0.3870
90912995|NCT00430300|181695221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.8612|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.15||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.15|0.8612
90912996|NCT00430300|181695221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.7499|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.13||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.13|0.7499
90912997|NCT00430300|181695221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.5134|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.08||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.08|0.5134
90872615|NCT00555321|181605750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|31.6|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|||31.6|-7.1|
90872616|NCT00555321|181605750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|27.2|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|||27.2|-11.5|
90912998|NCT00430300|181695221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.1244|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.04||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.04|0.1244
90912999|NCT00430300|181695221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.53|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.12||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.12|0.5300
90913000|NCT00430300|181695221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.055|ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.0||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.00|0.0550
90872617|NCT00555321|181605750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|32.6|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|||32.6|-5.9|
90872618|NCT00555321|181605751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|36.8|||||For 95% CI of difference, normal approximation was used if N\>=5 in both arms. Otherwise exact method was used.|||36.8|-5.8|
90872619|NCT00555321|181605751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|38.0|||||For 95% CI of difference, normal approximation was used if N\>=5 in both arms. Otherwise exact method was used.|||38.0|-6.0|
90872620|NCT00555321|181605751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|26.8|||||For 95% CI of difference, normal approximation was used if N\>=5 in both arms. Otherwise exact method was used.|||26.8|-16.6|
90872621|NCT00555321|181605751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|36.1|||||For 95% CI of difference, normal approximation was used if N\>=5 in both arms. Otherwise exact method was used.|||36.1|-10.8|
90872622|NCT00555321|181605751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|37.3|||||For 95% CI of difference, normal approximation was used if N\>=5 in both arms. Otherwise exact method was used.|||37.3|-10.9|
90872623|NCT00555321|181605751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.8|26.0|||||For 95% CI of difference, normal approximation was used if N\>=5 in both arms. Otherwise exact method was used.|||26.0|-21.8|
90872624|NCT00555321|181605775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|43.3|||||For 95% CI of difference, normal approximation was used if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 6||43.3|-6.7|
90872625|NCT00555321|181605775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.6|25.5|||||For 95% CI of difference, normal approximation was used if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 6||25.5|-21.6|
90872626|NCT00555321|181605775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.1|28.7|||||For 95% CI of difference, normal approximation was used if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 6||28.7|-20.1|
90872627|NCT00555321|181605775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.2|32.1|||||For 95% CI of difference, normal approximation was used if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 6||32.1|-21.2|
91033383|NCT00420238|181952568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.89||||0.857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.88|10.67|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 2: Comparison of leasts squares means. Mixed-model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) using an auto-regressive correlation structure with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate, and patients as a random factor.||10.67|-8.88|0.857
90872628|NCT00555321|181605775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.0|14.2|||||For 95% CI of difference, normal approximation was used if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 6||14.2|-36.0|
90913001|NCT00430300|181695222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.7444|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.16||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.16|0.7444
91033384|NCT00420238|181952568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.1||||0.304||95.0|-14.88|4.67|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 4: Comparison of leasts squares means. Mixed-model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) using an auto-regressive correlation structure with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate, and patients as a random factor.||4.67|-14.88|0.304
91033385|NCT00420238|181952568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.9||||0.047||95.0|-19.68|-0.13|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 8: Comparison of leasts squares means. Mixed-model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) using an auto-regressive correlation structure with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate, and patients as a random factor.||-0.13|-19.68|0.047
91033386|NCT00420238|181952568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.65||||0.007||95.0|-23.43|-3.88|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 12: Comparison of leasts squares means. Mixed-model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) using an auto-regressive correlation structure with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate, and patients as a random factor.||-3.88|-23.43|0.007
90960758|NCT00822523|181802164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.292|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Two sample t-test comparing baseline and day 21 H0: There is no change in mean force between baseline and day 21 HA: There is change in mean force between baseline and day 21||||0.292
90960759|NCT00822523|181802164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.589|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Two sample t-test comparing baseline and month 4 H0: There is no change in mean force between baseline and month 4 HA: There is change in mean force between baseline and month 4||||0.589
90960760|NCT00822523|181802165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.636|||||||Repeated measure ANOVA|||Repeated measure ANOVA assessing change in the three baseline force measurements H0: There no significant difference in the three baseline force measurements HA: There is a significant difference in the three baseline force measurements||||0.636
90960761|NCT00822523|181802165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.178|||||||Repeated measure ANOVA|||Repeated measure ANOVA assessing change in baseline force by treatment arm. H0: There is no difference in mean baseline force by treatment arm HA: There is a difference in mean baseline force by treatment arm||||0.178
90960762|NCT00822523|181802166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.995|||||||Repeated measure ANOVA|||Repeated measure ANOVA assessing percent change (from baseline) in force for contrast of day 14 and day 21 H0: There is no difference in percent change in force between day 14 and day 21 HA: There is a difference in percent change in force between day 14 and day 21||||0.995
90960763|NCT00822523|181802166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2088|||||||Repeated measure ANOVA|||"Repeated measure ANOVA assessing percent change in force from baseline for day 14 and 21 by treatment arm.~H0: There is no significant different in percent change in force by treatment arm HA: There is a significant different in percent change in force by treatment arm"||||0.2088
90960764|NCT00822523|181802168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||r value|0.9||||0.0374|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Correlation Test|||Day 4||||0.0374
90960765|NCT00822523|181802168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||r value|0.7||||0.188|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Correlation Test|||Day 14||||0.188
90872629|NCT00555321|181605775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.6|17.3|||||For 95% CI of difference, normal approximation was used if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 6||17.3|-34.6|
90872630|NCT00555321|181605775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.8|35.1|||||For 95% CI of difference, normal approximation was used if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 12||35.1|-18.8|
90872631|NCT00555321|181605775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.3|6.3|||||For 95% CI of difference, normal approximation was used if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 12||6.3|-46.3|
90872632|NCT00555321|181605775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.2|5.2|||||For 95% CI of difference, normal approximation was used if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 12||5.2|-48.2|
90872633|NCT00555321|181605775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|48.4|||||For 95% CI of difference, normal approximation was used if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 12||48.4|-5.2|
90872634|NCT00555321|181605775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.9|19.8|||||For 95% CI of difference, normal approximation was used if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 12||19.8|-32.9|
90872635|NCT00555321|181605775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.8|18.7|||||For 95% CI of difference, normal approximation was used if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 12||18.7|-34.8|
90872636|NCT00555321|181605776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.4|26.3|||||For 95% CI of difference, normal approximation was used if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method was used.|Analysis at Month 12||26.3|-42.4|
90872637|NCT00555321|181605776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.2|19.0|||||For 95% CI of difference, normal approximation was used if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method was used.|Analysis at Month 12||19.0|-49.2|
90872638|NCT00555321|181605776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-58.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-81.6|-19.8|||||For 95% CI of difference, normal approximation was used if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method was used.|Analysis at Month 12||-19.8|-81.6|
90872639|NCT00555321|181605776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.9|16.9|||||For 95% CI of difference, normal approximation was used if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method was used.|Analysis at Month 12||16.9|-55.9|
90872640|NCT00555321|181605776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-31.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.6|9.4|||||For 95% CI of difference, normal approximation was used if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method was used.|Analysis at Month 12||9.4|-62.6|
90872641|NCT00555321|181605776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-72.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-94.0|-33.1|||||For 95% CI of difference, normal approximation was used if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method was used.|Analysis at Month 12||-33.1|-94.0|
90872642|NCT00555321|181605776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.6|34.3|||||For 95% CI of difference, normal approximation was used if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method was used.|Analysis at database lock||34.3|-32.6|
90960766|NCT00822523|181802168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||r value|0.8||||0.104|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Correlation Test|||Month 4||||0.104
90960767|NCT00822523|181802170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||r value|0.9||||0.0374|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Correlation Test|||Day 4||||0.0374
90960768|NCT00822523|181802170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||r value|0.7||||0.188|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Correlation Test|||Day 14||||0.188
90872643|NCT00555321|181605776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.4|20.6|||||For 95% CI of difference, normal approximation was used if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method was used.|Analysis at database lock||20.6|-47.4|
90872644|NCT00555321|181605776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-42.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.6|0.5|||||For 95% CI of difference, normal approximation was used if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method was used.|Analysis at database lock||0.5|-72.6|
90872645|NCT00555321|181605776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.1|31.1|||||For 95% CI of difference, normal approximation was used if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method was used.|Analysis at database lock||31.1|-41.1|
90872646|NCT00555321|181605776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.9|16.9|||||For 95% CI of difference, normal approximation was used if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method was used.|Analysis at database lock||16.9|-55.9|
90872647|NCT00555321|181605776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-50.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-81.9|-3.5|||||For 95% CI of difference, normal approximation was used if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method was used.|Analysis at database lock||-3.5|-81.9|
90872648|NCT00555321|181605789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.2|6.0|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 6||6.0|-21.2|
90872649|NCT00555321|181605789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.2|5.3|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 6||5.3|-18.2|
90872650|NCT00555321|181605789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|4.5|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 6||4.5|-14.9|
90872651|NCT00555321|181605789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.1|7.1|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 6||7.1|-25.1|
90872652|NCT00555321|181605789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.6|4.5|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 6||4.5|-15.6|
90872653|NCT00555321|181605789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|3.9|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 6||3.9|-12.7|
90872654|NCT00555321|181605789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||||95.0|||||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 12||||
90872655|NCT00555321|181605789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.2|5.3|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 12||5.3|-18.2|
90872656|NCT00555321|181605789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|4.5|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 12||4.5|-14.9|
90872657|NCT00555321|181605789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||||95.0|||||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 12||||
90872658|NCT00555321|181605789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.6|4.5|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 12||4.5|-15.6|
90872659|NCT00555321|181605789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|3.9|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 12||3.9|-12.7|
90872660|NCT00555321|181605790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.6|10.2|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 6||10.2|-25.6|
90872661|NCT00555321|181605790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|22.3|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 6||22.3|-11.7|
90872662|NCT00555321|181605790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.1|15.2|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 6||15.2|-20.1|
90872663|NCT00555321|181605790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.0|12.5|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 12||12.5|-24.0|
90872664|NCT00555321|181605790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|24.2|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 6||24.2|-10.5|
90872665|NCT00555321|181605790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.5|17.6|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 6||17.6|-18.5|
90872666|NCT00555321|181605790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.3|9.4|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 12||9.4|-23.3|
90872667|NCT00555321|181605790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.4|6.5|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 12||6.5|-27.4|
90872668|NCT00555321|181605790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.5|-2.7|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 12||-2.7|-37.5|
90913002|NCT00430300|181695222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.9134|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.21||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.21|0.9134
90913003|NCT00430300|181695222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.6841|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.13||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.13|0.6841
90960769|NCT00822523|181802170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||r value|0.9||||0.0374|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Correlation Test|||Month 4||||0.0374
90960770|NCT00822523|181802171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||r value|0.9||||0.0374|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Correlation Test|||Day 4||||0.0374
90960771|NCT00822523|181802171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||r value|0.7||||0.188|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Correlation Test|||Day 14||||0.188
90960772|NCT00822523|181802171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||r value|0.7||||0.188|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Correlation Test|||Month 4||||0.188
90960773|NCT00822523|181802172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||r value|0.9||||0.0374|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Correlation Test|||Day 4||||0.0374
90872669|NCT00555321|181605790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5|19.7|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 12||19.7|-15.5|
90872670|NCT00555321|181605790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|16.9|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 12||16.9|-19.4|
90872671|NCT00555321|181605790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.3|7.9|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 12||7.9|-29.3|
90872672|NCT00555321|181605797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|36.0|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 6||36.0|-6.3|
90872673|NCT00555321|181605797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.4|10.2|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 6||10.2|-23.4|
90872674|NCT00555321|181605797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.4|10.0|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 6||10.0|-23.4|
90872675|NCT00555321|181605797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|23.4|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 6||23.4|-22.0|
90872676|NCT00555321|181605797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.6|-0.1|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 6||-0.1|-38.6|
90872677|NCT00555321|181605797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.1|-1.8|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 6||-1.8|-39.1|
90872678|NCT00555321|181605797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|34.0|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 12||34.0|-8.7|
90872679|NCT00555321|181605797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.2|8.7|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 12||8.7|-25.2|
90872680|NCT00555321|181605797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.3|7.7|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 12||7.7|-26.3|
90872681|NCT00555321|181605797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.5|21.1|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 12.||21.1|-24.5|
90872682|NCT00555321|181605797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.5|-1.9|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 12||-1.9|-40.5|
90872683|NCT00555321|181605797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.8|-4.3|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 12||-4.3|-41.8|
90872684|NCT02480439|181605817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate|0.966|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8747|1.0668|||||Relative Bioavailability A/B. The point estimates and 90% CIs were obtained from the exponentiated results of the analysis of the natural logarithm-transformed data.|||1.0668|0.8747|
90872685|NCT02480439|181605817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate|0.9223|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8352|1.0185|||||Relative Bioavailability B/C. The point estimates and 90% CIs were obtained from the exponentiated results of the analysis of the natural logarithm-transformed data.|||1.0185|0.8352|
90872686|NCT02480439|181605818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate|0.9998|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.954|1.0477|||||Relative Bioavailability A/B. The point estimates and 90% CIs were obtained from the exponentiated results of the analysis of the natural logarithm-transformed data.|||1.0477|0.9540|
90913004|NCT00430300|181695222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.9283|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.23||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.23|0.9283
90913005|NCT00430300|181695222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.2991|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.08||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.08|0.2991
90913006|NCT00430300|181695222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.7403|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.15||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.15|0.7403
90913007|NCT00430300|181695222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.3499|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.11||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 6: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.11|0.3499
90913008|NCT00430300|181695222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.2734|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.09||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 6: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.09|0.2734
90913009|NCT00430300|181695222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.5806|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.14||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 6: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.14|0.5806
90913010|NCT00430300|181695222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.054|ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.0||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.00|0.0540
90913011|NCT00430300|181695222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.2616|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.11||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.11|0.2616
90913012|NCT00430300|181695222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0724|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.02||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.02|0.0724
90913013|NCT00430300|181695223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.9362|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.32||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.32|0.9362
90872687|NCT02480439|181605818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate|1.0149|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9685|1.0636|||||Relative Bioavailability B/C. The point estimates and 90% CIs were obtained from the exponentiated results of the analysis of the natural logarithm-transformed data.|||1.0636|0.9685|
90872688|NCT02480439|181605819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate|0.9992|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9541|1.0464|||||Relative Bioavailability A/B. The point estimates and 90% CIs were obtained from the exponentiated results of the analysis of the natural logarithm-transformed data.|||1.0464|0.9541|
90872689|NCT02480439|181605819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate|1.0134|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9676|1.0612|||||Relative Bioavailability B/C. The point estimates and 90% CIs were obtained from the exponentiated results of the analysis of the natural logarithm-transformed data.|||1.0612|0.9676|
90872690|NCT01712490|181605847|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.603|0.983|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio (A+AVD/ABVD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) are based on a stratified Cox's proportional hazard regression model with stratification factors region and number of International Prognostic Factor Project (IPFP) risk factors at baseline with treatment as the explanatory variable in the model. Hazard ratio less than (\<) 1 favors A+AVD arm.||0.983|0.603|0.035
90872691|NCT01712490|181605848|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.728||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.448|1.184|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio (A+AVD/ABVD) and 95% CI are based on a stratified Cox's proportional hazard regression model with stratification factors region and number of IPFP risk factors at baseline with treatment as the explanatory variable in the model. Hazard ratio \<1 favors A+AVD arm.||1.184|0.448|0.199
90872692|NCT00560859|181605873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of change from baseline|2.0||||0.16|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.16
90872693|NCT01129960|181605883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3726|||||||Dunnett's test (analysis of covariance)|||||||0.3726
90872694|NCT01129960|181605883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8034|||||||Dunnett's test (analysis of covariance)|||||||0.8034
90872695|NCT01129960|181605883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1391|||||||Dunnett's test (analysis of covariance)|||||||0.1391
90872696|NCT00071513|181605914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Mean changes in Short Moods and Feelings measure of depression was the unit of analysis.||||<0.05
90872697|NCT00071513|181605914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A secondary hypothesis of the study was that attachment to school and/or perceptions of school supportiveness would mediate the effect of the HSTS intervention on depressive symptoms.||||<0.01
90872698|NCT02622321|181605916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ABR Ratio|0.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.057|0.277||Statistical significance was controlled at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05 based on a Wald testing procedure.|Stratified Wald Test|||Analysis was performed using an NB regression model, which accounted for different follow-up times, with the participant's number of bleeds as a function of randomization and the time that each participant stays in the study included as an offset in the model. The model also included the number of bleeds (less than \[\<\] 9 or greater than or equal to \[\>/=\] 9) in the last 24 weeks prior to study entry as a stratification factor in the randomization.||0.277|0.057|<0.0001
90872699|NCT02622321|181605917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ABR Ratio|0.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.102|0.375||Statistical significance was controlled at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05 based on a Wald testing procedure.|Stratified Wald Test|||Analysis was performed using an NB regression model, which accounted for different follow-up times, with the participant's number of bleeds as a function of randomization and the time that each participant stays in the study included as an offset in the model. The model also included the number of bleeds (\<9 or \>/=9) in the last 24 weeks prior to study entry as a stratification factor in the randomization.||0.375|0.102|<0.0001
90872700|NCT02622321|181605918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ABR Ratio|0.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.055|0.218||Statistical significance was controlled at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05 based on a Wald testing procedure.|Non-Stratified Wald Test|||This intra-participant comparison of ABR for all bleeds was performed using an NB regression model.||0.218|0.055|<0.0001
90960774|NCT00822523|181802172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||r value|0.7||||0.188|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Correlation Test|||Day 14||||0.188
90872701|NCT02622321|181605919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ABR Ratio|0.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.031|0.198||Statistical significance was controlled at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05 based on a Wald testing procedure.|Non-Stratified Wald Test|||This intra-participant comparison of ABR for treated bleeds was performed using an NB regression model.||0.198|0.031|<0.0001
90872702|NCT02622321|181605920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ABR Ratio|0.11||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.025|0.52||Statistical significance was controlled at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05 based on a Wald testing procedure.|Stratified Wald Test|||Analysis was performed using an NB regression model, which accounted for different follow-up times, with the participant's number of bleeds as a function of randomization and the time that each participant stays in the study included as an offset in the model. The model also included the number of bleeds (\<9 or \>/=9) in the last 24 weeks prior to study entry as a stratification factor in the randomization.||0.520|0.025|0.0050
90872703|NCT02622321|181605921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ABR Ratio|0.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.119|0.435||Statistical significance was controlled at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05 based on a Wald testing procedure.|Non-Stratified Wald Test|||This intra-participant comparison of ABR for all bleeds was performed using an NB regression model.||0.435|0.119|<0.0001
90872704|NCT02622321|181605922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ABR Ratio|0.21||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.089|0.486||Statistical significance was controlled at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05 based on a Wald testing procedure.|Non-Stratified Wald Test|||This intra-participant comparison of ABR for treated bleeds was performed using an NB regression model.||0.486|0.089|0.0003
90960775|NCT00822523|181802172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||r value|0.5||||0.391|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Correlation Test|||Month 4||||0.391
90872705|NCT02622321|181605923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ABR Ratio|0.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.037|0.154||Statistical significance was controlled at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05 based on a Wald testing procedure.|Stratified Wald Test|||Analysis was performed using an NB regression model, which accounted for different follow-up times, with the participant's number of bleeds as a function of randomization and the time that each participant stays in the study included as an offset in the model. The model also included the number of bleeds (\<9 or \>/=9) in the last 24 weeks prior to study entry as a stratification factor in the randomization.||0.154|0.037|<0.0001
90960776|NCT00822523|181802173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||r value|0.9||||0.0374|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Correlation Test|||Day 4||||0.0374
90960777|NCT00822523|181802173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||r value|0.7||||0.188|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Correlation Test|||Day 14||||0.188
90913014|NCT00430300|181695223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.9469|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.33||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.33|0.9469
90913015|NCT00430300|181695223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.9153|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.27||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.27|0.9153
90913016|NCT00430300|181695223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.9686|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.36||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.36|0.9686
90913017|NCT00430300|181695223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.1548|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.06||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.06|0.1548
90913018|NCT00430300|181695223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.7973|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.22||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.22|0.7973
90913019|NCT00430300|181695223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.6348|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.22||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 6: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.22|0.6348
90913020|NCT00430300|181695223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.5742|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.19||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 6: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.19|0.5742
90913021|NCT00430300|181695223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.6719|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.19||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 6: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.19|0.6719
90913022|NCT00430300|181695223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0881|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.04||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.04|0.0881
90913023|NCT00430300|181695223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.2772|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.13||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.13|0.2772
90913024|NCT00430300|181695223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.1363|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.06||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.06|0.1363
90913025|NCT00430300|181695224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0938|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.03||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.03|0.0938
90913026|NCT00430300|181695224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.2149|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.09||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.09|0.2149
90913027|NCT00430300|181695224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.1682|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.06||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.06|0.1682
90913028|NCT00430300|181695224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.4492|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.16||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.16|0.4492
90960778|NCT00822523|181802173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||r value|0.9||||0.0374|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Correlation Test|||Month 4||||0.0374
90872706|NCT02622321|181605924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ABR Ratio|0.05||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.009|0.227||Statistical significance was controlled at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05 based on a Wald testing procedure.|Stratified Wald Test|||Analysis was performed using an NB regression model, which accounted for different follow-up times, with the participant's number of bleeds as a function of randomization and the time that each participant stays in the study included as an offset in the model. The model also included the number of bleeds (\<9 or \>/=9) in the last 24 weeks prior to study entry as a stratification factor in the randomization.||0.227|0.009|0.0002
90872707|NCT02622321|181605928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Mean Difference|21.55||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.89|35.22||Statistical significance was controlled at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|||Actual number of participants included for inferential statistics in Arm A is 25. Means adjusted for covariates: baseline score, treatment group and treatment by baseline interaction arm. Analysis was performed using Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA).||35.22|7.89|0.0029
90872708|NCT02622321|181605929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Mean Difference|14.01||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.56|22.45||Statistical significance was controlled at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|||Actual number of participants included for inferential statistics in Arm A is 25. Means adjusted for covariates: baseline score, treatment group and treatment by baseline interaction arm.||22.45|5.56|0.0019
90872709|NCT02622321|181605930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-9.72||||0.0171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.62|-1.82||Statistical significance was controlled at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|||Actual number of participants included for inferential statistics in Arm A is 29. Means adjusted for covariates: baseline score, treatment group and treatment by baseline interaction arm.||-1.82|-17.62|0.0171
90872710|NCT02622321|181605931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.16||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|-0.07||Statistical significance was controlled at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|||Actual number of participants included for inferential statistics in Arm A is 29. Means adjusted for covariates: baseline score, treatment group and treatment by baseline interaction arm.||-0.07|-0.25|0.0014
90872711|NCT01958008|181605948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.2674|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1019|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0636|1.4713|||Regression, Linear|Power model that describes the functional relationship between the dose and pharmacokinetic endpoint Cmax,ss||Dose proportionality was analysed over the dose range 10 to 50 mg for plasma PK parameters based on a power model||1.4713|1.0636|
90872712|NCT01958008|181605949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.2139|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.081|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0519|1.3759|||Regression, Linear|Power model that describes the functional relationship between the dose and pharmacokinetic endpoint AUC tau,ss||Dose proportionality was analysed over the dose range 10 to 50 mg for plasma PK parameters based on a power model||1.3759|1.0519|
90872713|NCT03194698|181606028|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0312|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0312
90872714|NCT03194698|181606029|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.79
90872715|NCT03194698|181606030|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.74
90913029|NCT00430300|181695224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.2539|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.1||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.10|0.2539
90913030|NCT00430300|181695224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.8168|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.22||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.22|0.8168
90960779|NCT00822523|181802174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||r value|0.9||||0.0374|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Correlation Test|||Day 4||||0.0374
90872716|NCT02068443|181606052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.087|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.821|-0.48|||||Estimated Value was for the difference between Alogliptin + Metformin Hydrochloride QD and Alogliptin alone (Metformin QD - Alogliptin alone).|||-0.480|-0.821|
90872717|NCT02068443|181606052|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority of Alogliptin + Metformin Hydrochloride QD to Alogliptin + Metformin Hydrochloride BID.|LS Mean Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.069|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.026|0.247|||||Estimated Value was for the difference between Alogliptin + Metformin Hydrochloride QD and Alogliptin + Metformin Hydrochloride BID (Metformin QD - Metformin BID).|||0.247|-0.026|
90872718|NCT02723084|181606063|NON_INFERIORITY|The percentage of participants achieving SVR12 was calculated for each arm and a 2- sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in SVR12 rates (Arm A minus Arm B) was calculated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution to assess non-inferiority in SVR12 rates of arm A to arm B. If the lower bound of the CI for the difference was above the noninferiority margin of -10%, then arm A was considered non-inferior to arm B.|Risk Difference (RD)|4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|12.1|||||95% CI was calculated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Difference in SVR12 rates (Arm A - Arm B)||12.1|-3.5|
90872719|NCT00225251|181606123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.0|||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.05
90872720|NCT00710710|181606128|OTHER||Maximum likelihood estimation|0.0233||||0.7021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0006|0.1229||p0 = 0.056, one sided exact binomial test with a 2.5% significance level|Exact binomial test|||Confirmed objective response, comparison with historical controls (Gemcitabine)||0.1229|0.0006|0.7021
90872721|NCT00710710|181606128|OTHER||Maximum likelihood estimation|0.0233||||0.9156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0006|0.1229||p0 = 0.092, one sided exact binomial test with a 2.5% significance level|Exact binomial test|||Confirmed objective response, comparison with historical controls (Gemcitabine)||0.1229|0.0006|0.9156
90913031|NCT00430300|181695224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.3248|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.13||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 6: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.13|0.3248
90913032|NCT00430300|181695224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.3148|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.13||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 6: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.13|0.3148
90960780|NCT00822523|181802174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||r value|0.7||||0.188|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Correlation Test|||Day 14||||0.188
90960781|NCT00822523|181802174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||r value|0.4||||0.505|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Correlation Test|||Month 4||||0.505
90872722|NCT00710710|181606128|OTHER||Maximum likelihood estimation|0.0233||||0.7021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0006|0.1229||p0 = 0.056, one sided exact binomial test with a 2.5% significance level|Exact binomial test|||Confirmed objective response, comparison with historical controls (Gemcitabine)||0.1229|0.0006|0.7021
90872723|NCT00710710|181606128|OTHER||Maximum likelihood estimation|0.0233||||0.9156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0006|0.1229||p0 = 0.092, one sided exact binomial test with a 2.5% significance level|Exact binomial test|||Confirmed objective response, comparison with historical controls (Gemcitabine)||0.1229|0.0006|0.9156
90872724|NCT00710710|181606131|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.22||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.91|||Regression, Cox||if HR is below 1, then 60mg BI 2536 IV on day 1-3 is better.|||1.91|0.78|0.38
90872725|NCT00710710|181606132|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.78|||Regression, Cox||if HR is below 1, then 60mg BI 2536 IV on day 1-3 is better.|||1.78|0.68|0.69
90872726|NCT00710710|181606133|OTHER||Maximum likelihood estimation|0.0||||0.9161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0822||p0 = 0.056, one sided exact binomial test with a 2.5% significance level|Exact binomial test|||Confirmed objective response, comparison with historical controls (Gemcitabine)||0.0822|0.0000|0.9161
90872727|NCT00710710|181606133|OTHER||Maximum likelihood estimation|0.0||||0.9842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0822||p0 = 0.092, one sided exact binomial test with a 2.5% significance level|Exact binomial test|||Confirmed objective response, comparison with historical controls (Gemcitabine)||0.0822|0.0000|0.9842
90872728|NCT00710710|181606133|OTHER||Maximum likelihood estimation|0.0||||0.9161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0822||p0 = 0.056, one sided exact binomial test with a 2.5% significance level|Exact binomial test|||Confirmed objective response, comparison with historical controls (Gemcitabine)||0.0822|0.0000|0.9161
90872729|NCT00710710|181606133|OTHER||Maximum likelihood estimation|0.0||||0.9842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0822||p0 = 0.092, one sided exact binomial test with a 2.5% significance level|Exact binomial test|||Confirmed objective response, comparison with historical controls (Gemcitabine)||0.0822|0.0000|0.9842
90872730|NCT00715078|181606140|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Cohort B is considered non-inferior to Cohort A if the lower limit of the 90% confidence interval (CI) for the ratio of Cohort B vs. Cohort A in the geometric mean of cumulative CD54 upregulation ratio is \>0.8. The use of one-sided CI is based on an assumption that a higher concentration will correspond to a higher CD54 upregulation ratio. The use of 0.8 as margin is based on the assumption that a relative difference of \<20% in upregulation ratios may not be clinically significant.|ratio of geometric means (GeoMean)|1.046||||0.5019|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.936|1.168|||ANOVA|||The sample size determination is based on a standard deviation of 0.45 for the log transformed CD54 upregulation ratio estimated from previous studies assuming there is no difference in central values between the two compared cohorts. A sample size of 38 subjects per cohort will provide 70% power for the non-inferiority test for the two pairwise comparisons (Cohort B vs. Cohort A and Cohort C vs. Cohort A).||1.168|0.936|0.5019
90872731|NCT00715078|181606140|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Cohort C is considered non-inferior to Cohort A if the lower limit of the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of Cohort C vs. Cohort A in the geometric mean of cumulative CD54 upregulation ratio is \>0.8. The use of one-sided CI is based on an assumption that a higher concentration will correspond to a higher CD54 upregulation ratio. The use of 0.8 as margin is based on the assumption that a relative difference of \<20% in upregulation ratios may not be clinically significant.|the ratio of geometric means|0.907||||0.1443|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.813|1.013|||ANOVA|||The sample size determination is based on a standard deviation of 0.45 for the log transformed CD54 upregulation ratio estimated from previous studies assuming there is no difference in central values between the two compared cohorts. A sample size of 38 subjects per cohort will provide 70% power for the non-inferiority test for the two pairwise comparisons (Cohort B vs. Cohort A and Cohort C vs. Cohort A).||1.013|0.813|0.1443
90913033|NCT00430300|181695224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.6563|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.2||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 6: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.20|0.6563
90913034|NCT00430300|181695224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.1735|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.09||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.09|0.1735
90913035|NCT00430300|181695224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.1237|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.06||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.06|0.1237
90913036|NCT00430300|181695224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.6113|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.21||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.21|0.6113
90872732|NCT01529346|181606143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.38|0.22||||||15 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.22|-0.38|
90872733|NCT01529346|181606143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|0.39||||||15 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.39|-0.20|
90913037|NCT00430300|181695225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.5549|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.09||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.09|0.5549
90960782|NCT00822523|181802175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||r value|0.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Correlation Test|||Day 4||||<0.0001
90960783|NCT00822523|181802175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||r value|0.9||||0.0374|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Correlation Test|||Day 14||||0.0374
90960784|NCT00822523|181802175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||r value|0.8||||0.104|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Correlation Test|||Month 4||||0.104
90872734|NCT01529346|181606143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.28|0.32||||||15 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.32|-0.28|
90872735|NCT01529346|181606143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.41|0.24||||||15 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.24|-0.41|
90872736|NCT01529346|181606143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.32|0.44||||||30 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.44|-0.32|
90872737|NCT01529346|181606143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.01|0.77||||||30 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.77|0.01|
90872738|NCT01529346|181606143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.22|0.54||||||30 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.54|-0.22|
90872739|NCT01529346|181606143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.24|1.07||||||30 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||1.07|0.24|
90872740|NCT01529346|181606143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.37|0.42||||||45 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.42|-0.37|
90872741|NCT01529346|181606143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.78||||||45 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.78|-0.00|
90872742|NCT01529346|181606143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.29|0.5||||||45 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.50|-0.29|
90872743|NCT01529346|181606143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.59|1.45||||||45 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||1.45|0.59|
90872744|NCT01529346|181606143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.21|0.62||||||60 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.62|-0.21|
90872745|NCT01529346|181606143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.07|0.76||||||60 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.76|-0.07|
90872746|NCT01529346|181606143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.11|0.72||||||60 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.72|-0.11|
90913038|NCT00430300|181695225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.988|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.2||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.20|0.9880
90913039|NCT00430300|181695225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.8572|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.12||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.12|0.8572
90913040|NCT00430300|181695225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.8402|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.14||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.14|0.8402
90913041|NCT00430300|181695225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.6562|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.1||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.10|0.6562
90960785|NCT00822523|181802176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||r value|0.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Correlation Test|||Day 4||||<0.0001
90872747|NCT01529346|181606143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|1.75||||||60 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||1.75|0.85|
90872748|NCT01529346|181606143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.04|0.81||||||90 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.81|-0.04|
90872749|NCT01529346|181606143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|0.75||||||90 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.75|-0.10|
90872750|NCT01529346|181606143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.05|0.81||||||90 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.81|-0.05|
90872751|NCT01529346|181606143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.22|2.15||||||90 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||2.15|1.22|
90872752|NCT01529346|181606143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.01|0.99||||||2 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.99|0.01|
90872753|NCT01529346|181606143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.05|1.03||||||2 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||1.03|0.05|
90872754|NCT01529346|181606143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.04|0.94||||||2 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.94|-0.04|
90872755|NCT01529346|181606143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.26|2.31||||||2 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||2.31|1.26|
90913042|NCT00430300|181695225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.5632|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.08||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.08|0.5632
90913043|NCT00430300|181695225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.637|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.13||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 6: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.13|0.6370
90913044|NCT00430300|181695225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.4686|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.1||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 6: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.10|0.4686
90913045|NCT00430300|181695225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.6164|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.11||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 6: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.11|0.6164
90913046|NCT00430300|181695233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.9885|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-2.4||||Mixed Models Analysis|||TDI at Week 2: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-2.4|0.9885
90960786|NCT00822523|181802176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||r value|0.9||||0.0374|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Correlation Test|||Day 14||||0.0374
90872756|NCT01529346|181606143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.06|1.11||||||3 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||1.11|0.06|
90872757|NCT01529346|181606143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.11|1.17||||||3 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||1.17|0.11|
90872758|NCT01529346|181606143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.11|1.15||||||3 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||1.15|0.11|
90872759|NCT01529346|181606143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.33|2.4||||||3 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||2.40|1.33|
90872760|NCT01529346|181606143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.07|1.05||||||4 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||1.05|-0.07|
90872761|NCT01529346|181606143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.24|0.91||||||4 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.91|-0.24|
90872762|NCT01529346|181606143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.13|0.98||||||4 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.98|-0.13|
90872763|NCT01529346|181606143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.05|2.17||||||4 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||2.17|1.05|
90872764|NCT01529346|181606143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.74|0.64||||||6 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.64|-0.74|
90872765|NCT01529346|181606143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.86|0.56||||||6 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.56|-0.86|
90872766|NCT01529346|181606143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.57|0.8||||||6 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.80|-0.57|
90872767|NCT01529346|181606143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.22|1.58||||||6 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||1.58|0.22|
90872768|NCT01529346|181606143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.93|0.59||||||8 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.59|-0.93|
90872769|NCT01529346|181606143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.98|0.62||||||8 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.62|-0.98|
90872770|NCT01529346|181606143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.05|0.45||||||8 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.45|-1.05|
90872771|NCT01529346|181606143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.47|1.02||||||8 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||1.02|-0.47|
90872772|NCT01529346|181606143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.15|1.11||||||24 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||1.11|0.15|
90960787|NCT00822523|181802176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||r value|0.9||||0.0374|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Correlation Test|||Month 4||||0.0374
90960788|NCT00822523|181802177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||r value|0.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Correlation Test|||Day 4||||<0.0001
90960789|NCT00822523|181802177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||r value|0.9||||0.0374|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Correlation Test|||Day 14||||0.0374
90960790|NCT00822523|181802177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||r value|0.7||||0.188|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Correlation Test|||Month 4||||0.188
90960791|NCT00822523|181802178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||r value|0.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Correlation Test|||Day 4||||<0.0001
90913047|NCT00430300|181695233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.8055|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-1.5||||Mixed Models Analysis|||TDI at Week 2: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-1.5|0.8055
90913048|NCT00430300|181695233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.9759|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-2.0||||Mixed Models Analysis|||TDI at Week 2: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-2.0|0.9759
90913049|NCT00430300|181695233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.4401|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-1.1||||Mixed Models Analysis|||TDI at Week 4: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-1.1|0.4401
90913050|NCT00430300|181695233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.5957|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-1.4||||Mixed Models Analysis|||TDI at Week 4: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-1.4|0.5957
90872773|NCT01529346|181606143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.27|0.74||||||24 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.74|-0.27|
90872774|NCT01529346|181606143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.03|0.91||||||24 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.91|-0.03|
90872775|NCT01529346|181606143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|0.67||||||24 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.67|-0.30|
90872776|NCT01529346|181606144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.19|0.14||||||15 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.14|-0.19|
90872777|NCT01529346|181606144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.03|0.37||||||15 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.37|0.03|
90872778|NCT01529346|181606144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|0.24||||||15 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.24|-0.10|
90872779|NCT01529346|181606144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.16|0.21||||||15 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.21|-0.16|
90872780|NCT01529346|181606144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.06|0.45||||||30 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.45|-0.06|
90872781|NCT01529346|181606144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.19|0.7||||||30 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.70|0.19|
90872782|NCT01529346|181606144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.04|0.54||||||30 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.54|0.04|
90872783|NCT01529346|181606144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.32|0.87||||||30 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.87|0.32|
90960792|NCT00822523|181802178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||r value|0.9||||0.0374|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Correlation Test|||Day 14||||0.0374
90960793|NCT00822523|181802178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||r value|0.5||||0.391|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Correlation Test|||Month 4||||0.391
90872784|NCT01529346|181606144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.16|0.4||||||45 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.40|-0.16|
90872785|NCT01529346|181606144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.12|0.68||||||45 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.68|0.12|
90872786|NCT01529346|181606144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.05|0.5||||||45 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.50|-0.05|
90872787|NCT01529346|181606144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|1.01||||||45 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||1.01|0.40|
90913051|NCT00430300|181695233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.8302|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-1.7||||Mixed Models Analysis|||TDI at Week 4: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-1.7|0.8302
90913052|NCT00430300|181695233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.9657|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-3.1||||Mixed Models Analysis|||TDI at Week 6: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-3.1|0.9657
90913053|NCT00430300|181695233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.6378|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-1.7||||Mixed Models Analysis|||TDI at Week 6: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-1.7|0.6378
90872788|NCT01529346|181606144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.19|0.4||||||60 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.40|-0.19|
90872789|NCT01529346|181606144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|0.49||||||60 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.49|-0.10|
90913054|NCT00430300|181695233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.899|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-2.2||||Mixed Models Analysis|||TDI at Week 6: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-2.2|0.8990
90913055|NCT00430300|181695234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.8757|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.42||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cough, Change at Week 1: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.42|0.8757
90913056|NCT00430300|181695234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.6334|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.3||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cough, Change at Week 1: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.30|0.6334
90913057|NCT00430300|181695234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.5448|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.23||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cough, Change at Week 1: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.23|0.5448
90913058|NCT00430300|181695234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.6986|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.34||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cough, Change at Week 2: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.34|0.6986
90913059|NCT00430300|181695234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.3151|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.18||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cough, Change at Week 2: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.18|0.3151
90913060|NCT00430300|181695234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.1802|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.1||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cough, Change at Week 2: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.10|0.1802
90913061|NCT00430300|181695234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.9102|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.49||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cough, Change at Week 3: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.49|0.9102
90960794|NCT00822523|181802179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||r value|0.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Correlation Test|||Day 4||||<0.0001
90960795|NCT00822523|181802179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||r value|0.9||||0.0374|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Correlation Test|||Day 14||||0.0374
90913062|NCT00430300|181695234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.6391|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.32||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cough, Change at Week 3: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.32|0.6391
90913063|NCT00430300|181695234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.6838|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.3||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cough, Change at Week 3: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.30|0.6838
90913064|NCT00430300|181695234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.9648|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.49||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cough, Change at Week 4: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.49|0.9648
90913065|NCT00430300|181695234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.8961|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.4||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cough, Change at Week 4: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.40|0.8961
90913066|NCT00430300|181695234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.9534|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.41||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cough, Change at Week 4: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.41|0.9534
90913067|NCT00430300|181695234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.7726|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.45||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cough, Change at Week 5: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.45|0.7726
90913068|NCT00430300|181695234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.5665|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.33||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cough, Change at Week 5: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.33|0.5665
90913069|NCT00430300|181695234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.2684|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.17||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cough, Change at Week 5: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.17|0.2684
90913070|NCT00430300|181695234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.6485|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.39||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cough, Change at Week 6: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.39|0.6485
90913071|NCT00430300|181695234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.4821|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.3||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cough, Change at Week 6: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.30|0.4821
90913072|NCT00430300|181695234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.2557|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.17||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cough, Change at Week 6: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.17|0.2557
90960796|NCT00822523|181802179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||r value|0.9||||0.0374|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Correlation Test|||Month 4||||0.0374
90913073|NCT00430300|181695234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.9031|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.52||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cough, Change at Week 7: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.52|0.9031
90913074|NCT00430300|181695234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.8634|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.47||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cough, Change at Week 7: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.47|0.8634
90960797|NCT00822523|181802180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||r value|0.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Correlation Test|||Day 4||||<0.0001
90960798|NCT00822523|181802180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||r value|0.9||||0.0374|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Correlation Test|||Day 14||||0.0374
90913075|NCT00430300|181695234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.6375|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.3||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cough, Change at Week 7: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.30|0.6375
90913076|NCT00430300|181695234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.8775|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.51||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cough, Change at Week 8: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.51|0.8775
90913077|NCT00430300|181695234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.7191|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.4||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cough, Change at Week 8: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.40|0.7191
90913078|NCT00430300|181695234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.8677|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.44||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cough, Change at Week 8: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.44|0.8677
90913079|NCT00430300|181695234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.9838|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.42||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Breathlessness, Change at Week 1: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.42|0.9838
90913080|NCT00430300|181695234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.8106|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.28||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Breathlessness, Change at Week 1: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.28|0.8106
90913081|NCT00430300|181695234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.775|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.23||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Breathlessness, Change at Week 1: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.23|0.7750
90913082|NCT00430300|181695234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.8082|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.33||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Breathlessness, Change at Week 2: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.33|0.8082
90913083|NCT00430300|181695234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.7678|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.31||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Breathlessness, Change at Week 2: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.31|0.7678
90913084|NCT00430300|181695234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.5373|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.2||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Breathlessness, Change at Week 2: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.20|0.5373
90913085|NCT00430300|181695234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.9548|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.47||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Breathlessness, Change at Week 3: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.47|0.9548
90913086|NCT00430300|181695234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.9743|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.49||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Breathlessness, Change at Week 3: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.49|0.9743
90913087|NCT00430300|181695234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.8408|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.32||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Breathlessness, Change at Week 3: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.32|0.8408
90913088|NCT00430300|181695234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.9887|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.55||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Breathlessness, Change at Week 4: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.55|0.9887
90913089|NCT00430300|181695234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.9918|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.55||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Breathlessness, Change at Week 4: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.55|0.9918
90913090|NCT00430300|181695234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.9833|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.46||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Breathlessness, Change at Week 4: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.46|0.9833
90913091|NCT00430300|181695234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.9619|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.5||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Breathlessness, Change at Week 5: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.50|0.9619
90913092|NCT00430300|181695234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.9917|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.58||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Breathlessness, Change at Week 5: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.58|0.9917
90913093|NCT00430300|181695234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.9376|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.4||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Breathlessness, Change at Week 5: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.40|0.9376
90960799|NCT00822523|181802180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||r value|0.4||||0.505|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Correlation Test|||Month 4||||0.505
91033387|NCT00420238|181952571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.31|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Vital Capacity: Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate.||0.31|0.06|0.003
90872790|NCT01529346|181606144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.16|0.43||||||60 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.43|-0.16|
90872791|NCT01529346|181606144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.41|1.06||||||60 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||1.06|0.41|
90913094|NCT00430300|181695234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.9084|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.47||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Breathlessness, Change at Week 6: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.47|0.9084
90913095|NCT00430300|181695234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.7906|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.38||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Breathlessness, Change at Week 6: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.38|0.7906
90913096|NCT00430300|181695234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.8765|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.38||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Breathlessness, Change at Week 6: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.38|0.8765
90913097|NCT00430300|181695234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.8469|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.38||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Breathlessness, Change at Week 7: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.38|0.8469
90913098|NCT00430300|181695234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.9717|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.5||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Breathlessness, Change at Week 7: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.50|0.9717
90913099|NCT00430300|181695234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.7591|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.29||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Breathlessness, Change at Week 7: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.29|0.7591
90913100|NCT00430300|181695234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.7141|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.38||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Breathlessness, Change at Week 8: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.38|0.7141
90913101|NCT00430300|181695234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.8104|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.42||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Breathlessness, Change at Week 8: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.42|0.8104
90913102|NCT00430300|181695234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.7664|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.35||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Breathlessness, Change at Week 8: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.35|0.7664
90913103|NCT00430300|181695234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.7888|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.31||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sputum, Change at Week 1: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.31|0.7888
90913104|NCT00430300|181695234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.393|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.17||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sputum, Change at Week 1: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.17|0.3930
90913105|NCT00430300|181695234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.4785|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.17||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sputum, Change at Week 1: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.17|0.4785
90913106|NCT00430300|181695234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.6756|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.34||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sputum, Change at Week 2: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.34|0.6756
90913107|NCT00430300|181695234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.2627|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.17||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sputum, Change at Week 2: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.17|0.2627
91033388|NCT00420238|181952571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.31|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Forced Vital Capacity: Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate.||0.31|0.05|0.006
90913108|NCT00430300|181695234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.2281|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.13||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sputum, Change at Week 2: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.13|0.2281
90913109|NCT00430300|181695234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.7656|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.38||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sputum, Change at Week 3: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.38|0.7656
90913110|NCT00430300|181695234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.2105|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.13||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sputum, Change at Week 3: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.13|0.2105
90913111|NCT00430300|181695234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.2221|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.12||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sputum, Change at Week 3: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.12|0.2221
90913112|NCT00430300|181695234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.4396|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.23||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sputum, Change at Week 4: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.23|0.4396
90913113|NCT00430300|181695234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.2243|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.14||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sputum, Change at Week 4: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.14|0.2243
90913114|NCT00430300|181695234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.3597|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.17||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sputum, Change at Week 4: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.17|0.3597
90913115|NCT00430300|181695234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.203|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.12||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sputum, Change at Week 5: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.12|0.2030
90913116|NCT00430300|181695234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.1207|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.07||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sputum, Change at Week 5: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.07|0.1207
90913117|NCT00430300|181695234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.1836|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.09||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sputum, Change at Week 5: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.09|0.1836
90913118|NCT00430300|181695234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.2359|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.16||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sputum, Change at Week 6: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.16|0.2359
90913119|NCT00430300|181695234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.2861|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.18||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sputum, Change at Week 6: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.18|0.2861
90913120|NCT00430300|181695234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.2151|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.13||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sputum, Change at Week 6: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.13|0.2151
90913121|NCT00430300|181695234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.3545|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.21||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sputum, Change at Week 7: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.21|0.3545
90913122|NCT00430300|181695234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.7102|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.35||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sputum, Change at Week 7: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.35|0.7102
90913123|NCT00430300|181695234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.3883|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.19||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sputum, Change at Week 7: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.19|0.3883
90913124|NCT00430300|181695234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.2228|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.14||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sputum, Change at Week 8: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.14|0.2228
90913125|NCT00430300|181695234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.6342|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.32||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sputum, Change at Week 8: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.32|0.6342
90913126|NCT00430300|181695234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.3141|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.16||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sputum, Change at Week 8: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.16|0.3141
90960800|NCT03567434|181802181|SUPERIORITY|The original hypothesis was that resting MSNA burst frequency would be higher the morning after evening binge alcohol when compared to fluid control condition. A p-value of \< 0.05 was used for significance.||||||0.283||||||The original hypothesis was that resting MSNA burst frequency would be higher the morning after evening binge alcohol when compared to fluid control condition. A p-value of \< 0.05 was used for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis on Burst Frequency (Burst/Min)||||0.283
90872792|NCT01529346|181606144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.01|0.64||||||90 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.64|0.01|
90872793|NCT01529346|181606144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.01|0.62||||||90 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.62|-0.01|
90872794|NCT01529346|181606144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.08|0.71||||||90 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.71|0.08|
90872795|NCT01529346|181606144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.61||||||90 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||1.61|0.92|
90872796|NCT01529346|181606144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.04|0.76||||||2 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.76|0.04|
90872797|NCT01529346|181606144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.03|0.69||||||2 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.69|-0.03|
90872798|NCT01529346|181606144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.05|0.77||||||2 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.77|0.05|
90872799|NCT01529346|181606144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.68||||||2 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||1.68|0.92|
90872800|NCT01529346|181606144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.16|0.95||||||3 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.95|0.16|
90872801|NCT01529346|181606144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.17|0.97||||||3 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.97|0.17|
90872802|NCT01529346|181606144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.24|1.03||||||3 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||1.03|0.24|
90913127|NCT00430300|181695235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.27|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.28||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 1: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.28|0.2700
90872803|NCT01529346|181606144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.78||||||3 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||1.78|0.97|
90913128|NCT00430300|181695235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.1831|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.2||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 1: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.20|0.1831
90913129|NCT00430300|181695235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.1796|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.17||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 1: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.17|0.1796
90913130|NCT00430300|181695235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.8136|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.79||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.79|0.8136
90913131|NCT00430300|181695235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.6877|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.66||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.66|0.6877
90913132|NCT00430300|181695235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.6382|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.54||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.54|0.6382
90913133|NCT00430300|181695235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.766|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.87||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 3: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.87|0.7660
90913134|NCT00430300|181695235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.7226|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.8||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 3: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.80|0.7226
90913135|NCT00430300|181695235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.6634|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.65||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 3: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.65|0.6634
90913136|NCT00430300|181695235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.7598|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.83||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.83|0.7598
90913137|NCT00430300|181695235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.53|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.59||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.59|0.5300
90913138|NCT00430300|181695235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.7054|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.66||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.66|0.7054
90913139|NCT00430300|181695235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.8851|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-1.3||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 5: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-1.30|0.8851
90913140|NCT00430300|181695235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.7575|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-1.05||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 5: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-1.05|0.7575
90913141|NCT00430300|181695235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.4325|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.58||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 5: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.58|0.4325
90913142|NCT00430300|181695235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.8934|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-1.41||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 6: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-1.41|0.8934
90913143|NCT00430300|181695235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.5283|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.82||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 6: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.82|0.5283
90913144|NCT00430300|181695235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.49|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.68||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 6: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.68|0.4900
90913145|NCT00430300|181695235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.7465|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-1.2||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 7: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-1.20|0.7465
90913146|NCT00430300|181695235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.5848|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.95||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 7: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.95|0.5848
90913147|NCT00430300|181695235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.3178|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.53||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 7: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.53|0.3178
90913148|NCT00430300|181695235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.8169|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-1.34||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-1.34|0.8169
90913149|NCT00430300|181695235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.6727|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-1.08||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-1.08|0.6727
90913150|NCT00430300|181695235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.5014|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.75||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.75|0.5014
90913151|NCT00430300|181695236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.3||0.7292|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-14.3||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning PEFR, Change at Week 1: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-14.3|0.7292
90913152|NCT00430300|181695236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.2||0.2768|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-6.6||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning PEFR, Change at Week 1: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-6.6|0.2768
90913153|NCT00430300|181695236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4||0.3795|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-7.4||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning PEFR, Change at Week 1: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-7.4|0.3795
90960801|NCT03567434|181802181|SUPERIORITY|The original hypothesis was that resting MSNA burst incidence would be higher the morning after evening binge alcohol when compared to fluid control condition. A p-value of \< 0.05 was used for significance.||||||0.92||||||The original hypothesis was that resting MSNA burst frequency would be higher the morning after evening binge alcohol when compared to fluid control condition. A p-value of \< 0.05 was used for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis on Burst Incidence (Burst/100hb)||||0.920
90960802|NCT03567434|181802183|SUPERIORITY|The original hypothesis was that sympathetic baroreflex sensitivity would be blunted the morning after evening binge alcohol when compared to fluid control condition. A p-value of \< 0.05 was used for significance.||||||0.888||||||The original hypothesis was that sympathetic baroreflex sensitivity would be blunted the morning after evening binge alcohol when compared to fluid control condition. A p-value of \< 0.05 was used for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.888
90960803|NCT05269355|181802195|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.83|||Regression, Cox|||||0.83|0.45|0.0017
90872804|NCT01529346|181606144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.08|0.92||||||4 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.92|0.08|
90872805|NCT01529346|181606144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.03|0.84||||||4 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.84|-0.03|
90960804|NCT01880528|181802217|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.006
90960805|NCT01880528|181802218|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0337|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0337
90913154|NCT00430300|181695236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.7||0.7374|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-17.7||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning PEFR, Change at Week 2: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-17.7|0.7374
90913155|NCT00430300|181695236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-5.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.6||0.7615|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-18.1||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning PEFR, Change at Week 2: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-18.1|0.7615
90913156|NCT00430300|181695236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.6||0.5811|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-12.4||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning PEFR, Change at Week 2: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-12.4|0.5811
90913157|NCT00430300|181695236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-10.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.6||0.8939|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-25.3||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning PEFR, Change at Week 3: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-25.3|0.8939
90913158|NCT00430300|181695236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-7.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4||0.8117|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-21.6||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning PEFR, Change at Week 3: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-21.6|0.8117
90960806|NCT01880528|181802219|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0427|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0427
90960807|NCT01880528|181802220|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0237|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0237
90960808|NCT00081497|181802221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Change in Slope Mean|-0.029||||0.013||95.0|-0.051|-0.007|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with a population level (fixed effect) intercept and slope and a subject level (random effect) intercept and slope.||The statistical analysis represents the primary outcome measure results.||-0.007|-0.051|0.0130
90872806|NCT01529346|181606144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.09|0.93||||||4 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.93|0.09|
90913159|NCT00430300|181695236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.4||0.4393|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-11.2||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning PEFR, Change at Week 3: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-11.2|0.4393
90913160|NCT00430300|181695236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-8.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.8||0.8055|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-24.7||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning PEFR, Change at Week 4: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-24.7|0.8055
90913161|NCT00430300|181695236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.5||0.6767|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-20.2||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning PEFR, Change at Week 4: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-20.2|0.6767
90913162|NCT00430300|181695236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4||0.407|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-12.0||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning PEFR, Change at Week 4: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-12.0|0.4070
90913163|NCT00430300|181695236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-18.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.7||0.9705|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-34.7||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning PEFR, Change at Week 5: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-34.7|0.9705
90913164|NCT00430300|181695236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-8.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.4||0.8249|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-24.6||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning PEFR, Change at Week 5: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-24.6|0.8249
90913165|NCT00430300|181695236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-12.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.3||0.9345|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-26.6||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning PEFR, Change at Week 5: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-26.6|0.9345
90913166|NCT00430300|181695236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.0||0.7384|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-25.3||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning PEFR, Change at Week 6: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-25.3|0.7384
90913167|NCT00430300|181695236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.7||0.5239|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-18.4||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning PEFR, Change at Week 6: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-18.4|0.5239
90913168|NCT00430300|181695236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.4||0.417|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-13.7||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning PEFR, Change at Week 6: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-13.7|0.4170
91033389|NCT00420238|181952571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.17|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Forced Expitatory Volume in 1 second: Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate.||0.17|-0.04|0.205
91033390|NCT00420238|181952572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.59||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.93|-0.26|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Analysis oaf covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.26|-4.93|0.030
90913169|NCT00430300|181695236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.3||0.7695|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-24.8||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning PEFR, Change at Week 7: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-24.8|0.7695
90913170|NCT00430300|181695236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.1||0.4566|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-15.6||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning PEFR, Change at Week 7: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-15.6|0.4566
90913171|NCT00430300|181695236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.9||0.3535|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-11.4||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning PEFR, Change at Week 7: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-11.4|0.3535
90913172|NCT00430300|181695236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-12.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.1||0.8598|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-30.7||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning PEFR, Change at Week 8: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-30.7|0.8598
90960809|NCT00081497|181802222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|-6.787||||0.0027||95.0|-11.123|-2.45|||Mixed Effects Model|||Statistical Analysis 1 represents the post-hoc outcome results for difference in slope mean of eGFR subgroup \>60.||-2.450|-11.123|0.0027
90913173|NCT00430300|181695236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-9.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.9||0.8005|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-27.4||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning PEFR, Change at Week 8: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-27.4|0.8005
90960810|NCT00081497|181802222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|2.33||||0.1268||95.0|-0.685|5.345|||Mixed Effects Model|||Statistical Analysis 2 represents the post-hoc outcome results for difference in slope mean of eGFR subgroup ≤ 60.||5.345|-0.685|0.1268
91033391|NCT00420238|181952573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.02|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and baseline value as covariate.||-0.02|-0.45|0.035
90913174|NCT00430300|181695236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.6||0.3441|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-12.2||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning PEFR, Change at Week 8: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-12.2|0.3441
90913175|NCT00430300|181695236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.9||0.4436|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-10.5||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening PEFR, Change at Week 1: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-10.5|0.4436
90913176|NCT00430300|181695236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.8||0.7238|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-15.5||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening PEFR, Change at Week 1: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-15.5|0.7238
90872807|NCT01529346|181606144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.75|1.59||||||4 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||1.59|0.75|
90872808|NCT01529346|181606144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.27|0.72||||||6 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.72|-0.27|
90872809|NCT01529346|181606144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.37|0.65||||||6 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.65|-0.37|
90872810|NCT01529346|181606144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.23|0.77||||||6 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.77|-0.23|
90872811|NCT01529346|181606144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.33|1.31||||||6 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||1.31|0.33|
90872812|NCT01529346|181606144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.24|0.89||||||8 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.89|-0.24|
90872813|NCT01529346|181606144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.25|0.94||||||8 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.94|-0.25|
90872814|NCT01529346|181606144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.31|0.8||||||8 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.80|-0.31|
90872815|NCT01529346|181606144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.08|1.19||||||8 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||1.19|0.08|
90913177|NCT00430300|181695236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.0||0.5743|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-11.1||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening PEFR, Change at Week 1: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-11.1|0.5743
90913178|NCT00430300|181695236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.8||0.619|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-19.3||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening PEFR, Change at Week 2: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-19.3|0.6190
90913179|NCT00430300|181695236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-15.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.7||0.9473|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-32.1||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening PEFR, Change at Week 2: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-32.1|0.9473
90872816|NCT01529346|181606144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.07|0.83||||||24 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.83|0.07|
90872817|NCT01529346|181606144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.36|0.44||||||24 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.44|-0.36|
90872818|NCT01529346|181606144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.07|0.68||||||24 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.68|-0.07|
90872819|NCT01529346|181606144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.32|0.45||||||24 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.45|-0.32|
90872820|NCT01529346|181606145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.43|3.71||||||SPID(6): LS mean estimate of the treatment difference along with 90% confidence interval (CI) were based on an ANCOVA model included treatment as a fixed effect and baseline pain intensity as a covariate.||3.71|0.43|
90872821|NCT01529346|181606145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.05|3.33||||||SPID(6): LS mean estimate of the treatment difference along with 90% CI were based on an ANCOVA model included treatment as a fixed effect and baseline pain intensity as a covariate.||3.33|0.05|
90872822|NCT01529346|181606145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|3.99||||||SPID(6): LS mean estimate of the treatment difference along with 90% CI were based on an ANCOVA model included treatment as a fixed effect and baseline pain intensity as a covariate.||3.99|0.69|
90872823|NCT01529346|181606145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.19|8.79||||||SPID(6): LS mean estimate of the treatment difference along with 90% CI were based on an ANCOVA model included treatment as a fixed effect and baseline pain intensity as a covariate.||8.79|5.19|
90872824|NCT01529346|181606145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|9.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.74|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.97|17.63||||||SPID(24): LS mean estimate of the treatment difference along with 90% CI were based on an ANCOVA model included treatment as a fixed effect and baseline pain intensity as a covariate.||17.63|1.97|
90872825|NCT01529346|181606145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.74|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.28|11.37||||||SPID(24): LS mean estimate of the treatment difference along with 90% CI were based on an ANCOVA model included treatment as a fixed effect and baseline pain intensity as a covariate.||11.37|-4.28|
90872826|NCT01529346|181606145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|10.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.76|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.97|18.68||||||SPID(24): LS mean estimate of the treatment difference along with 90% CI were based on an ANCOVA model included treatment as a fixed effect and baseline pain intensity as a covariate.||18.68|2.97|
90872827|NCT01529346|181606145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|22.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.19|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|13.82|30.97||||||SPID(24): LS mean estimate of the treatment difference along with 90% CI were based on an ANCOVA model included treatment as a fixed effect and baseline pain intensity as a covariate.||30.97|13.82|
90872828|NCT01529346|181606146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|12.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.66|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.26|23.27||||||LS mean estimate of the treatment difference along with 90% CI were based on an ANCOVA model including treatment as a fixed effect and baseline pain intensity as a covariate.||23.27|1.26|
90872829|NCT01529346|181606146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.66|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.82|15.18||||||LS mean estimate of the treatment difference along with 90% CI were based on an ANCOVA model including treatment as a fixed effect and baseline pain intensity as a covariate.||15.18|-6.82|
90872830|NCT01529346|181606146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|12.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.69|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.52|23.61||||||||23.61|1.52|
90872831|NCT01529346|181606146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|32.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|20.51|44.61||||||||44.61|20.51|
90872832|NCT01529346|181606147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6|1.5||||||Hazard Ratio (HR) estimates of the treatment difference along with 90% CI were based on Cox proportional hazards model including treatment and baseline pain intensity as fixed effects.||1.5|0.6|
90872833|NCT01529346|181606147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.9||||||HR estimates of the treatment difference along with 90% CI were based on Cox proportional hazards model including treatment and baseline pain intensity as fixed effects.||1.9|0.9|
90872834|NCT01529346|181606147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7|1.6||||||HR estimates of the treatment difference along with 90% CI were based on Cox proportional hazards model including treatment and baseline pain intensity as fixed effects.||1.6|0.7|
90872835|NCT01529346|181606147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|2.4||||||HR estimates of the treatment difference along with 90% CI were based on Cox proportional hazards model including treatment and baseline pain intensity as fixed effects.||2.4|1.0|
90872836|NCT01529346|181606148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1|3.8||||||HR estimates of the treatment difference along with 90% CI were based on Cox proportional hazards model including treatment and baseline pain intensity as fixed effects.||3.8|1.1|
90872837|NCT01529346|181606148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.4|4.9||||||HR estimates of the treatment difference along with 90% CI were based on Cox proportional hazards model including treatment and baseline pain intensity as fixed effects.||4.9|1.4|
90872838|NCT01529346|181606148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1|4.1||||||HR estimates of the treatment difference along with 90% CI were based on Cox proportional hazards model including treatment and baseline pain intensity as fixed effects.||4.1|1.1|
90872839|NCT01529346|181606148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.8|9.9||||||HR estimates of the treatment difference along with 90% CI were based on Cox proportional hazards model including treatment and baseline pain intensity as fixed effects.||9.9|2.8|
90872840|NCT01529346|181606149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|1.0||||||HR estimates of the treatment difference along with 90% CI were based on Cox proportional hazards model including treatment and baseline pain intensity as fixed effects.||1.0|0.4|
90872841|NCT01529346|181606149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|1.2||||||HR estimates of the treatment difference along with 90% CI were based on Cox proportional hazards model including treatment and baseline pain intensity as fixed effects.||1.2|0.5|
90872842|NCT01529346|181606149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.3|0.8||||||HR estimates of the treatment difference along with 90% CI were based on Cox proportional hazards model including treatment and baseline pain intensity as fixed effects.||0.8|0.3|
90872843|NCT01529346|181606149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.2|0.6||||||HR estimates of the treatment difference along with 90% CI were based on Cox proportional hazards model including treatment and baseline pain intensity as fixed effects.||0.6|0.2|
90913180|NCT00430300|181695236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-7.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.5||0.8014|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-21.4||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening PEFR, Change at Week 2: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-21.4|0.8014
90913181|NCT00430300|181695236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.6||0.7929|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-21.5||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening PEFR, Change at Week 3: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-21.5|0.7929
90913182|NCT00430300|181695236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-23.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4||0.9963|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-37.3||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening PEFR, Change at Week 3: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-37.3|0.9963
90913183|NCT00430300|181695236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.4||0.7387|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-17.1||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening PEFR, Change at Week 3: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-17.1|0.7387
90913184|NCT00430300|181695236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4||0.6286|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-16.8||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening PEFR, Change at Week 4: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-16.8|0.6286
90913185|NCT00430300|181695236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-14.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.3||0.9538|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-27.8||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening PEFR, Change at Week 4: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-27.8|0.9538
90872844|NCT01287897|181606158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.5||0.3406|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.0|21.7||Type I rate was controlled for the 2 time points (Week 8 and Week 12) at 0.05 (one sided).|Generalized linear mixed model (GLMM)|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||||21.7|-13.0|0.3406
90872845|NCT01287897|181606158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.0||0.0438|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7|36.7||Type I rate was controlled for the 2 time points (Week 8 and Week 12) at 0.05 (one sided).|GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||||36.7|0.7|0.0438
90872846|NCT01287897|181606159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.6||0.2258|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.1|32.6||Type I rate was controlled for the 2 time points (Week 8 and Week 12) at 0.05 (one sided).|GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||||32.6|-12.1|0.2258
90872847|NCT01287897|181606160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.5||0.2627|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.6|23.9||Type I rate was controlled for the 2 time points (Week 8 and Week 12) at 0.05 (one sided).|GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||||23.9|-10.6|0.2627
90872848|NCT01287897|181606160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.9||0.0425|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|36.7||Type I rate was controlled for the 2 time points (Week 8 and Week 12) at 0.05 (one sided).|GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||||36.7|0.8|0.0425
90872849|NCT01287897|181606161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.7||0.1362|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.5|37.6||Type I rate was controlled for the 2 time points (Week 8 and Week 12) at 0.05 (one sided).|GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||||37.6|-7.5|0.1362
90872850|NCT01287897|181606162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.0||0.1527|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.3|18.6|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI-70 response rate for the 10-mg arm at Week 2.||18.6|-4.3|0.1527
90872851|NCT01287897|181606162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.1||0.0235|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.1|33.2|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI-70 response rate for the 10-mg arm at Week 4.||33.2|3.1|0.0235
90913186|NCT00430300|181695236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.3||0.5701|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-13.4||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening PEFR, Change at Week 4: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-13.4|0.5701
90913187|NCT00430300|181695236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-14.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.0||0.9242|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-31.3||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening PEFR, Change at Week 5: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-31.3|0.9242
90913188|NCT00430300|181695236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-22.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.8||0.9876|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-38.8||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening PEFR, Change at Week 5: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-38.8|0.9876
90913189|NCT00430300|181695236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-18.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.7||0.9802|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-32.5||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening PEFR, Change at Week 5: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-32.5|0.9802
90913190|NCT00430300|181695236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.6||0.5705|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-19.5||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening PEFR, Change at Week 6: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-19.5|0.5705
90913191|NCT00430300|181695236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.3||0.8063|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-26.1||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening PEFR, Change at Week 6: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-26.1|0.8063
90913192|NCT00430300|181695236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.1||0.6667|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-19.1||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening PEFR, Change at Week 6: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-19.1|0.6667
90960811|NCT01439360|181802227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine efficacy (VE)|63.2|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|51.8|72.3|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for age category and stratified for cohort.|VE was defined as the hazard ratio of cases of influenza A and or B disease in subjects receiving D-QIV vaccine in contrast with subjects receiving non-influenza vaccine control subtracted from 1.|The efficacy of the D-QIV vaccine would be demonstrated if the LL of the two-sided 97.5% CI for vaccine efficacy (VE) is above (\>) 25%.||72.3|51.8|
90913193|NCT00430300|181695236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.4||0.464|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-16.4||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening PEFR, Change at Week 7: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-16.4|0.4640
90913194|NCT00430300|181695236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-12.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.2||0.8821|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-29.3||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening PEFR, Change at Week 7: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-29.3|0.8821
90872852|NCT01287897|181606162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.9||0.0792|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.3|30.2|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI-70 response rate for the 10-mg arm at Week 6.||30.2|-2.3|0.0792
90872853|NCT01287897|181606162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.0||0.1909||90.0|-8.4|27.6|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI-70 response rate for the 10-mg arm at Week 10.||27.6|-8.4|0.1909
90872854|NCT01287897|181606162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.8||0.1981|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.4|17.0|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI-70 response rate for the 50-mg arm at Week 2.||17.0|-5.4|0.1981
90913195|NCT00430300|181695236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.0||0.7591|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-21.4||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening PEFR, Change at Week 7: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-21.4|0.7591
90913196|NCT00430300|181695236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.0||0.4001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-15.6||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening PEFR, Change at Week 8: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-15.6|0.4001
90913197|NCT00430300|181695236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-12.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.8||0.8707|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-30.3||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening PEFR, Change at Week 8: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-30.3|0.8707
90913198|NCT00430300|181695236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.6||0.4629|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-15.0||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening PEFR, Change at Week 8: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-15.0|0.4629
90913199|NCT00430300|181695237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6428|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2023|2.0419||||||A proportional odds model was fitted using Proc Logistic in Statistical Analysis System (SAS), using treatment as a categorical variable and center as a covariate. The odds ratio and corresponding 95% confidence interval were tested using Type III (Wald) tests.||2.0419|0.2023|
90913200|NCT00430300|181695237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5574|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1505|2.0647||||||A proportional odds model was fitted using Proc Logistic in SAS, using treatment as a categorical variable and center as a covariate. The odds ratio and corresponding 95% confidence interval were tested using Type III (Wald) tests.||2.0647|0.1505|
90913201|NCT00430300|181695237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.327|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.083|1.2879||||||A proportional odds model was fitted using Proc Logistic in SAS, using treatment as a categorical variable and center as a covariate. The odds ratio and corresponding 95% confidence interval were tested using Type III (Wald) tests.||1.2879|0.0830|
90913202|NCT00430300|181695238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5709|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.179|1.8204||||||A proportional odds model was fitted using Proc Logistic in SAS, using treatment as a categorical variable and center as a covariate. The odds ratio and corresponding 95% confidence interval were tested using Type III (Wald) tests.||1.8204|0.1790|
90960812|NCT01439360|181802228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine efficacy (VE)|49.8|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|41.8|56.8|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for age category and stratified for cohort|VE was defined as the hazard ratio of cases of influenza A and or B disease in subjects receiving D-QIV vaccine in contrast with subjects receiving non-influenza vaccine control subtracted from 1.|The efficacy of the D-QIV vaccine would be demonstrated if the LL of the two-sided 97.5% CI for VE is above 15%.||56.8|41.8|
90960813|NCT00820027|181802392|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.49||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.08|||longitudinal data analysis (LDA)|Estimate from LDA model with terms for baseline pain intensity, type of anesthesia, treatment, day, and interaction of day by treatment.||||-0.08|-0.89|0.018
90960814|NCT00820027|181802392|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.54||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.14|||LDA|Estimate from LDA model with terms for baseline pain intensity, type of anesthesia, treatment, day, and interaction of day by treatment.||||-0.14|-0.95|0.009
90960815|NCT00820027|181802393|SUPERIORITY||Between-Treatment Ratio|0.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.85|||ANOVA|Estimate from ANOVA model with terms for baseline pain intensity, type of anesthesia, treatment, day, and interaction of day by treatment.|A ratio \<1 indicates a beneficial effect of Etoricoxib.|||0.85|0.56|<0.001
90913203|NCT00430300|181695238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6416|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1736|2.3715||||||A proportional odds model was fitted using Proc Logistic in SAS, using treatment as a categorical variable and center as a covariate. The odds ratio and corresponding 95% confidence interval were tested using Type III (Wald) tests.||2.3715|0.1736|
90913204|NCT00430300|181695238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5877|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1516|2.2777||||||A proportional odds model was fitted using Proc Logistic in SAS, using treatment as a categorical variable and center as a covariate. The odds ratio and corresponding 95% confidence interval were tested using Type III (Wald) tests.||2.2777|0.1516|
90960816|NCT00820027|181802393|SUPERIORITY||Between-Treatment Ratio|0.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.82|||ANOVA|Estimate from ANOVA model with terms for baseline pain intensity, type of anesthesia, treatment, day, and interaction of day by treatment.|A ratio \<1 indicates a beneficial effect of Etoricoxib.|||0.82|0.54|<0.001
90960817|NCT00820027|181802394|OTHER||Difference in Percent|0.5||||0.506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|2.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||2.5|-3.3|0.506
90913205|NCT02666742|181695244|SUPERIORITY|Continuous variables were compared by two-sample t-tests and categorical variables by chi-square test. All tests were two-tailed, and a P value less than 0.05 was considered to indicate statistical significance. Bonferroni correction was not performed due to prespecified outcomes in the trial. Analyses were performed using GraphPad 6||||||0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||Due to lack of precedent robust clinical data, we performed exploratory study to evaluate safety and efficacy of DOAC vs. Aspirin (ASA) in patients undergoing left ventricular arrhythmia (LVA) ablation; therefore, sample size calculation was not undertaken.||||0.001
90913206|NCT01063517|181695259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.62|1.03|||||The numerator of the hazard ratio is hazards of progression in olaparib+paclitaxel group and denominator is hazards of progression in placebo+paclitaxel group. Confidence intervals are calculated using the profile-likelihood method.|The analysis was performed using a Cox proportional hazards model with factors for treatment group, ATM status and gastrectomy (full, partial, none).||1.03|0.62|
90913207|NCT01063517|181695260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.51|1.08|||||The numerator of the hazard ratio is hazards of progression in olaparib+paclitaxel group and denominator is hazards of progression in placebo+paclitaxel group. Confidence intervals are calculated using the profile-likelihood method.|The analysis was performed using a Cox proportional hazards model with factors for treatment group and gastrectomy (full, partial, none).||1.08|0.51|
90960818|NCT00820027|181802394|OTHER||Difference in Percent|0.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|1.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||1.7|-3.8|>0.999
90960819|NCT00820027|181802394|OTHER||Difference in Percent|0.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|1.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||1.7|-3.8|>0.999
90960820|NCT00820027|181802394|OTHER||Difference in Percent|0.5||||0.316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|2.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||2.5|-1.3|0.316
90913208|NCT01063517|181695261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.41|0.75|||||The numerator of the hazard ratio is hazards of death in olaparib+paclitaxel group and denominator is hazards of death in placebo+paclitaxel group. Confidence intervals are calculated using the profile-likelihood method.|The analysis was performed using a Cox proportional hazards model with factors for treatment group, ATM status and gastrectomy (full, partial, none).||0.75|0.41|
90913209|NCT01063517|181695262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.22|0.56|||||The numerator of the hazard ratio is hazards of death in olaparib+paclitaxel group and denominator is hazards of death in placebo+paclitaxel group. Confidence intervals are calculated using the profile-likelihood method.|The analysis was performed using a Cox proportional hazards model with factors for treatment group and gastrectomy (full, partial, none).||0.56|0.22|
90913210|NCT01359371|181695293|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Fisher Exact|||Bivariate relationships between a patient's participation in the program and smoking status were calculated.||||<.01
90960821|NCT00820027|181802394|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percent|0.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||1.7|-1.7|>0.999
90913211|NCT01359371|181695294|OTHER|T-tests, chi squares and Fishers exact tests were used to compare groups.|||||<|0.05||||||This was just a sample description, so there was not adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Chi-squared||||T-tests, chi squares and Fishers exact tests were used to compare groups.|||<.05
90913212|NCT01359371|181695294|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||T-tests, chi squares and Fishers exact tests were used to compare groups.||||<.05
90913213|NCT02974634|181695297|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.32||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|5.6||Comparison of intervention and usual care at 6 month follow up|t-test, 2 sided||Interaction coefficient (slope) of arm by time period (6 months follow up vs baseline) from mixed linear model|||5.6|-3.5|0.06
90913214|NCT02974634|181695298|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.91||Comparison of intervention and usual care at 6 month follow up|t-test, 2 sided||Interaction coefficient (slope) of arm by time period (6 months follow up vs baseline) from mixed linear model|||0.91|-0.24|0.68
90913215|NCT05011396|181695299|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.36||0.0153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|-1.1|||ANCOVA|||||-1.1|-10.5|0.0153
90913216|NCT05011396|181695300|SUPERIORITY||Other|0.1625||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0132|0.3119|||Wald Normal Approximation (Z)|||||0.3119|0.0132|0.0330
90913217|NCT03622593|181695348|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the two-sided 97.52% confidence interval for the difference in adjusted means for the faricimab 6 mg Q8W and the active comparator (aflibercept 2 mg Q8W) arms was greater than -4 letters, then faricimab 6 mg Q8W was considered non-inferior to aflibercept 2 mg Q8W. Non-inferiority was tested one-sided at a significance level of α = 0.0248.|Adjusted mean difference|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.1|3.2|||||The difference in adjusted means was calculated as Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the ITT Population.|Three hypotheses were tested in order for each faricimab arm (Q8W or PTI) separately against the aflibercept arm using a graph-based testing procedure. The analysis presented here is for the non-inferiority of Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W compared with Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the ITT Population.||3.2|-0.1|
90913218|NCT03622593|181695348|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the two-sided 97.52% confidence interval for the difference in adjusted means for the faricimab 6 mg PTI and the active comparator (aflibercept 2 mg Q8W) arms was greater than -4 letters, then faricimab 6 mg PTI was considered non-inferior to aflibercept 2 mg Q8W. Non-inferiority was tested one-sided at a significance level of α = 0.0248.|Adjusted mean difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.1|2.1|||||The difference in adjusted means was calculated as Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the ITT Population.|Three hypotheses were tested in order for each faricimab arm (Q8W or PTI) separately against the aflibercept arm using a graph-based testing procedure. The analysis presented here is for the non-inferiority of Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI compared with Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the ITT Population.||2.1|-1.1|
90913219|NCT03622593|181695348|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.1718|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.7|3.0||Tested at an overall significance level of α = 0.0248.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures||The difference in adjusted means was calculated as Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the Treatment-Naive Population.|Three hypotheses were tested in order for each faricimab arm (Q8W or PTI) separately against the aflibercept arm using a graph-based testing procedure. The analysis presented here is for the superiority of Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W compared with Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the Treatment-Naive Population.||3.0|-0.7|0.1718
90913220|NCT03622593|181695348|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.4602|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.2|2.4||Tested at an overall significance level of α = 0.0248.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures||The difference in adjusted means was calculated as Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the Treatment-Naive Population.|Three hypotheses were tested in order for each faricimab arm (Q8W or PTI) separately against the aflibercept arm using a graph-based testing procedure. The analysis presented here is for the superiority of Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI compared with Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the Treatment-Naive Population.||2.4|-1.2|0.4602
90913221|NCT03622593|181695348|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.0361|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.1|3.2||Tested at an overall significance level of α = 0.0248.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures||The difference in adjusted means was calculated as Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the ITT Population.|Three hypotheses were tested in order for each faricimab arm (Q8W or PTI) separately against the aflibercept arm using a graph-based testing procedure. The analysis presented here is for the superiority of Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W compared with Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the ITT Population.||3.2|-0.1|0.0361
90913222|NCT03622593|181695348|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.493|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.1|2.1||Tested at an overall significance level of α = 0.0248.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures||The difference in adjusted means was calculated as Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the ITT Population.|Three hypotheses were tested in order for each faricimab arm (Q8W or PTI) separately against the aflibercept arm using a graph-based testing procedure. The analysis presented here is for the superiority of Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI compared with Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the ITT Population.||2.1|-1.1|0.4930
90960822|NCT00820027|181802394|OTHER||Difference in Percent|0.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|3.8|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Placebo vs. Ibuprofen 1800 mg||3.8|-1.7|>0.999
90960823|NCT00820027|181802394|OTHER||Difference in Percent|-0.5||||0.309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||1.2|-2.5|0.309
90960824|NCT00820027|181802395|OTHER||Difference in Percent|-3.2||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|0.1|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||0.1|-9.2|0.054
90960825|NCT00820027|181802395|OTHER||Difference in Percent|-2.3||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|1.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||1.2|-8.4|0.209
90960826|NCT00820027|181802395|OTHER||Difference in Percent|-2.3||||0.227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|1.3|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||1.3|-8.4|0.227
90960827|NCT00820027|181802395|OTHER||Difference in Percent|-0.9||||0.415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|1.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||1.6|-3.7|0.415
90960828|NCT00820027|181802395|OTHER||Difference in Percent|-0.1||||0.965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|2.8|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||2.8|-3.0|0.965
90960829|NCT00820027|181802395|OTHER||Difference in Percent|2.3||||0.227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|8.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Placebo vs. Ibuprofen 1800 mg||8.4|-1.3|0.227
90960830|NCT00820027|181802395|OTHER||Difference in Percent|0.8||||0.437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|3.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||3.6|-1.7|0.437
90960831|NCT00820027|181802396|OTHER||Difference in Percent|0.5||||0.806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|4.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||4.5|-5.3|0.806
90960832|NCT00820027|181802396|OTHER||Difference in Percent|-1.8||||0.278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|1.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||1.4|-7.4|0.278
90960833|NCT00820027|181802396|OTHER||Difference in Percent|0.1||||0.971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|3.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||3.9|-5.7|0.971
90960834|NCT00820027|181802396|OTHER||Difference in Percent|0.5||||0.786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|4.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||4.2|-3.2|0.786
90960835|NCT00820027|181802396|OTHER||Difference in Percent|-1.8||||0.184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|1.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||1.0|-5.2|0.184
90960836|NCT00820027|181802396|OTHER||Difference in Percent|-0.1||||0.971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|5.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Placebo vs. Ibuprofen 1800 mg||5.7|-3.9|0.971
90960837|NCT00820027|181802396|OTHER||Difference in Percent|-2.3||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|0.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||0.6|-5.8|0.113
90960838|NCT00820027|181802397|OTHER||Difference in Percent|-5.3||||0.365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|6.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||6.0|-17.0|0.365
90960839|NCT00820027|181802397|OTHER||Difference in Percent|-7.2||||0.222||95.0|-18.8|4.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||4.2|-18.8|0.222
90872855|NCT01287897|181606162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.3||0.0132|TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.3|35.8|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI-70 response rate for the 50-mg arm at Week 4.||35.8|5.3|0.0132
90872856|NCT01287897|181606162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.1||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.6|41.7|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI-70 response rate for the 50-mg arm at Week 6.||41.7|8.6|0.0063
90872857|NCT01287897|181606162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.2||0.0138|TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.2|43.1|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI-70 response rate for the 50-mg arm at Week 10.||43.1|6.2|0.0138
90872858|NCT01287897|181606163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.2||0.0662|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.4|32.1|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI-70 response rate for the 200-mg arm at Week 2.||32.1|-1.4|0.0662
90872859|NCT01287897|181606163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.0||0.1708|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.9|25.8|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI-70 response rate for the 200-mg arm at Week 4.||25.8|-6.9|0.1708
90872860|NCT01287897|181606163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.1||0.2416|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.5|26.0|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI-70 response rate for the 200-mg arm at Week 6.||26.0|-10.5|0.2416
90872861|NCT01287897|181606163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.1||0.088|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.1|42.3|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI-70 response rate for the 200-mg arm at Week 10.||42.3|-4.1|0.0880
90960840|NCT00820027|181802397|OTHER||Difference in Percent|-5.5||||0.349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.2|5.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||5.9|-17.2|0.349
90960841|NCT00820027|181802397|OTHER||Difference in Percent|0.2||||0.965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|9.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||9.0|-8.7|0.965
90960842|NCT00820027|181802397|OTHER||Difference in Percent|-1.6||||0.718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|7.3|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||7.3|-10.5|0.718
90960843|NCT00820027|181802397|OTHER||Difference in Percent|5.5||||0.349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|17.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Placebo vs. Ibuprofen 1800 mg||17.2|-5.9|0.349
90960844|NCT00820027|181802397|OTHER||Difference in Percent|1.8||||0.684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|10.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||10.6|-7.0|0.684
90960845|NCT00820027|181802398|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority reached if the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval of the between-treatment difference (Etoricoxib minus Ibuprofen) in LS means is no greater than 1.|Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.27||||||||0.27|-0.36|
90960846|NCT00820027|181802398|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority reached if the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval of the between-treatment difference (Etoricoxib minus Ibuprofen) in LS means is no greater than 1.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.22||||||||0.22|-0.42|
90960847|NCT00820027|181802399|OTHER|Estimate from ANOVA model with terms for baseline pain intensity, type of anesthesia, treatment, day, and interaction of day by treatment.|Between-Treatment Ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.23|||||A ratio \<1 indicates a beneficial effect of Etoricoxib.|||1.23|0.89|
90960848|NCT00820027|181802399|OTHER|Estimate from ANOVA model with terms for baseline pain intensity, type of anesthesia, treatment, day, and interaction of day by treatment.|Between-Treatment Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.18|||||A ratio \<1 indicates a beneficial effect of Etoricoxib.|||1.18|0.85|
90872862|NCT01287897|181606164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2||0.261|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.2|7.2|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience and concomitant immunosuppressant therapy were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI remission rate for the 10-mg arm at Week 2.||7.2|-3.2|0.2610
90872863|NCT01287897|181606164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8||0.4291|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.6|7.0|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience and concomitant immunosuppressant therapy were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI remission rate for the 10-mg arm at Week 4.||7.0|-5.6|0.4291
90872864|NCT01287897|181606164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.0||0.5791|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.0|8.6|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience and concomitant immunosuppressant therapy were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI remission rate for the 10-mg arm at Week 6.||8.6|-11.0|0.5791
90913223|NCT03622593|181695349|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the two-sided 97.52% confidence interval for the difference in CMH weighted percentages of participants for the faricimab Q8W and the active comparator (aflibercept Q8W) arms was greater than -10%, then faricimab Q8W was considered non-inferior to aflibercept.|Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-12.6|7.4||||||This analysis is for the non-inferiority of Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W compared with Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the ITT Population.||7.4|-12.6|
90913224|NCT03622593|181695349|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the two-sided 97.52% confidence interval for the difference in CMH weighted percentages of participants for the faricimab PTI and the active comparator (aflibercept Q8W) arms was greater than -10%, then faricimab PTI was considered non-inferior to aflibercept.|Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-13.4|6.3||||||This analysis is for the non-inferiority of Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI compared with Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the ITT Population.||6.3|-13.4|
90872865|NCT01287897|181606164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.0||0.7544|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.8|7.7|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience and concomitant immunosuppressant therapy were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI remission rate for the 10-mg arm at Week 8.||7.7|-18.8|0.7544
90872866|NCT01287897|181606164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.2||0.2308||90.0|-8.3|21.9|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience and concomitant immunosuppressant therapy were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI remission rate for the 10-mg arm at Week 10.||21.9|-8.3|0.2308
90872867|NCT01287897|181606164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.1||0.5038|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.8|11.7|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience and concomitant immunosuppressant therapy were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI remission rate for the 10-mg arm at Week 12.||11.7|-11.8|0.5038
90872868|NCT01287897|181606164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.9||0.0498|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|16.0|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience and concomitant immunosuppressant therapy were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI remission rate for the 50-mg arm at Week 2.||16.0|0.0|0.0498
90872869|NCT01287897|181606164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.6||0.0155|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.9|28.7|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience and concomitant immunosuppressant therapy were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI remission rate for the 50-mg arm at Week 4.||28.7|3.9|0.0155
90872870|NCT01287897|181606164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.5||0.0399|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|28.9|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience and concomitant immunosuppressant therapy were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI remission rate for the 50-mg arm at Week 6.||28.9|0.9|0.0399
90872871|NCT01287897|181606164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.6||0.1866|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.2|24.3|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience and concomitant immunosuppressant therapy were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI remission rate for the 50-mg arm at Week 8.||24.3|-7.2|0.1866
90872872|NCT01287897|181606164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.3||0.0415|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|34.7|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience and concomitant immunosuppressant therapy were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI remission rate for the 50-mg arm at Week 10.||34.7|0.9|0.0415
90872873|NCT01287897|181606164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.5||0.0408|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|32.1|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience and concomitant immunosuppressant therapy were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI remission rate for the 50-mg arm at Week 12.||32.1|0.9|0.0408
90872874|NCT01287897|181606165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.3||0.1342|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.8|14.5|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience and concomitant immunosuppressant therapy were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI remission rate for the 200-mg arm at Week 2.||14.5|-2.8|0.1342
90872875|NCT01287897|181606165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3||0.2623|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.3|9.8|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience and concomitant immunosuppressant therapy were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI remission rate for the 200-mg arm at Week 4.||9.8|-4.3|0.2623
90872876|NCT01287897|181606165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.3||0.3324|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.7|13.2|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience and concomitant immunosuppressant therapy were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI remission rate for the 200-mg arm at Week 6.||13.2|-7.7|0.3324
90960849|NCT00820027|181802399|OTHER|Estimate from ANOVA model with terms for baseline pain intensity, type of anesthesia, treatment, day, and interaction of day by treatment.|Between-Treatment Ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.23|||||A ratio \<1 indicates a beneficial effect of Etoricoxib.|||1.23|0.89|
90872877|NCT01287897|181606165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.5||0.6637|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.5|9.1|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience and concomitant immunosuppressant therapy were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI remission rate for the 200-mg arm at Week 8.||9.1|-15.5|0.6637
90960850|NCT02604433|181802401|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.17|14.53||Significance level of 0.050 for 2-sided tests.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and p-value were estimated from the Cochran Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the geographical regions defined at randomization.||14.53|2.17|<0.0001
90872878|NCT01287897|181606165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.0||0.2721||90.0|-9.3|20.2|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience and concomitant immunosuppressant therapy were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI remission rate for the 200-mg arm at Week 10.||20.2|-9.3|0.2721
90872879|NCT01287897|181606165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.8||0.3022|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.8|16.9|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience and concomitant immunosuppressant therapy were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI remission rate for the 200-mg arm at Week 12.||16.9|-8.8|0.3022
90872880|NCT01287897|181606166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.0||0.2687|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.2|15.8|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI-100 response rate for the 10-mg arm at Week 2.||15.8|-7.2|0.2687
90872881|NCT01287897|181606166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.4||0.246|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.1|17.3|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI-100 response rate for the 10-mg arm at Week 4.||17.3|-7.1|0.2460
90872882|NCT01287897|181606166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.3||0.0633|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.1|29.5|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI-100 response rate for the 10-mg arm at Week 6.||29.5|-1.1|0.0633
90872883|NCT01287897|181606166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.9||0.4036|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.8|18.6|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI-100 response rate for the 10-mg arm at Week 8.||18.6|-13.8|0.4036
90872884|NCT01287897|181606166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.2||0.1921||90.0|-7.9|25.6|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI-100 response rate for the 10-mg arm at Week 10.||25.6|-7.9|0.1921
90872885|NCT01287897|181606166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.3||0.1541|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.5|27.5|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI-100 response rate for the 10-mg arm at Week 12.||27.5|-6.5|0.1541
90872886|NCT01287897|181606166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.5||0.4893|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.5|10.9|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI-100 response rate for the 50-mg arm at Week 2.||10.9|-10.5|0.4893
90872887|NCT01287897|181606166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.6||0.0619|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.9|27.4|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI-100 response rate for the 50-mg arm at Week 4.||27.4|-0.9|0.0619
90872888|NCT01287897|181606166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.3||0.029|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.3|33.1|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI-100 response rate for the 50-mg arm at Week 6.||33.1|2.3|0.0290
90872889|NCT01287897|181606166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.7||0.0988|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.8|31.4|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI-100 response rate for the 50-mg arm at Week 8.||31.4|-3.8|0.0988
90872890|NCT01287897|181606166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.8||0.0549|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|35.0|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI-100 response rate for the 50-mg arm at Week 10.||35.0|-0.5|0.0549
90872891|NCT01287897|181606166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.5||0.092|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.3|31.3|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI-100 response rate for the 50-mg arm at Week 12.||31.3|-3.3|0.0920
90960851|NCT02604433|181802401|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|16.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|23.1|||||Luspatercept - Placebo|||23.1|10.0|
90960852|NCT02604433|181802401|SUPERIORITY||Common Risk Difference|16.5||||||95.0|9.9|23.1|||||Luspatercept - Placebo|||23.1|9.9|
91033392|NCT00420238|181952574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.19|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 2: Mixed model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), using an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate and patients as a random factor.||0.19|-0.38|0.515
90913225|NCT03622593|181695349|SUPERIORITY||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-5.4||||0.3009|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-16.9|6.1||Tested at an overall significance level of α = 0.0248.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||This analysis is for the superiority of Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W compared with Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the Treatment-Naive Population.||6.1|-16.9|0.3009
90913226|NCT03622593|181695349|SUPERIORITY||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-6.9||||0.1735|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-18.3|4.4||Tested at an overall significance level of α = 0.0248.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||This analysis is for the superiority of Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI compared with Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the Treatment-Naive Population.||4.4|-18.3|0.1735
90913227|NCT03622593|181695349|SUPERIORITY||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-2.6||||0.5757|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-12.6|7.4||Tested at an overall significance level of α = 0.0248.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||This analysis is for the superiority of Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W compared with Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the ITT Population.||7.4|-12.6|0.5757
90913228|NCT03622593|181695349|SUPERIORITY||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-3.5||||0.4293|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-13.4|6.3||Tested at an overall significance level of α = 0.0248.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||This analysis is for the superiority of Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI compared with Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the ITT Population.||6.3|-13.4|0.4293
90913229|NCT03622593|181695352|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|11.1||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants gaining ≥15 letters in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||11.1|-4.0|
90960853|NCT02604433|181802402|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.27|18.26||Significance level of 0.050 for 2-sided tests.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio 95% CIs, and p-value were estimated from the CMH test stratified by the geographical regions defined at randomization. To control the overall Type 1 error rate for outcomes 2-4, the testing procedure was implemented strictly in order: the test for this outcome was only conducted when there was evidence showing that erythroid response was achieved in the luspatercept group from Week 13 to Week 24 (primary endpoint).||18.26|2.27|<0.0001
90960854|NCT02604433|181802403|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.24||||0.0402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|18.79||Significance level of 0.050 for 2-sided tests.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio, 95% CIs, and p-value were estimated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the geographical regions defined at randomization. To control the overall Type 1 error rate, the testing procedure was done strictly in order: the test for this outcome was only conducted when there was evidence showing erythroid response was achieved in the luspatercept group for the primary endpoint, and 33% hematological improvement was achieved in the luspatercept group in outcome 2.||18.79|0.96|0.0402
90872892|NCT01287897|181606167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.8||0.4031|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.5|12.9|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI-100 response rate for the 200-mg arm at Week 2.||12.9|-9.5|0.4031
90872893|NCT01287897|181606167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.6||0.1219|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.6|26.8|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI-100 response rate for the 200-mg arm at Week 4.||26.8|-4.6|0.1219
90872894|NCT01287897|181606167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.0||0.16|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.5|26.4|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI-100 response rate for the 200-mg arm at Week 6.||26.4|-6.5|0.1600
90872895|NCT01287897|181606167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.3||0.6019|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-19.5|14.2|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI-100 response rate for the 200-mg arm at Week 8.||14.2|-19.5|0.6019
90872896|NCT01287897|181606167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.3||0.1601||90.0|-8.0|32.5|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI-100 response rate for the 200-mg arm at Week 10.||32.5|-8.0|0.1601
90872897|NCT01287897|181606167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.7||0.2622|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.8|26.6|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI-100 response rate for the 200-mg arm at Week 12.||26.6|-11.8|0.2622
90872898|NCT01287897|181606168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.22||0.2173|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-29.8|10.6|||Linear mixed model (LMM)|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in change from baseline in CDAI score for the 10-mg arm at Week 2.||10.6|-29.8|0.2173
90872899|NCT01287897|181606168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.95||0.1778|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-33.4|9.4|||LMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in change from baseline in CDAI score for the 10-mg arm at Week 4.||9.4|-33.4|0.1778
90872900|NCT01287897|181606168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.37||0.1661|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-43.0|11.2|||LMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in change from baseline in CDAI score for the 10-mg arm at Week 6.||11.2|-43.0|0.1661
90913230|NCT03622593|181695352|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|5.2||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants gaining ≥15 letters in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||5.2|-9.1|
90913231|NCT03622593|181695352|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|13.4||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants gaining ≥10 letters in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||13.4|-2.5|
90913232|NCT03622593|181695352|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|6.8||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants gaining ≥10 letters in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||6.8|-8.9|
90960855|NCT02604433|181802404|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.92||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|86.29||Significance level of 0.050 for 2-sided tests.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio, 95% CIs, and p-value were estimated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the geographical regions defined at randomization. To control the overall Type 1 error rate, the testing procedure was done strictly in order: the test for this outcome was only conducted when there was evidence showing erythroid response was achieved in the luspatercept group for the primary endpoint, and achievement of objective in the luspatercept group in outcomes 2+3.||86.29|1.65|0.0017
90960856|NCT02604433|181802405|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|-0.93||Significance level of 0.050 for 2-sided tests.|ANCOVA|Estimates were based on an ANCOVA model with geographical regions defined at randomization and baseline transfusion burden as covariates.|luspatercept - placebo|Change from baseline at Week 48 LSM = least squares mean||-0.93|-1.76|<0.0001
90960857|NCT02604433|181802406|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.2||||0.7598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.51||Significance level of 0.050 for 2-sided tests.|ANCOVA||luspatercept - placebo|Change from baseline at Week 48 P-value ANCOVA model with geographical regions defined at randomization and baseline LIC as covariates. LS = least square||1.51|-1.10|0.7598
90960858|NCT02604433|181802407|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-68.0||||0.2552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-185.8|49.7||Significance level of 0.050 for 2-sided tests|ANCOVA|Estimates are based on an ANCOVA model with geographical regions defined at randomization and baseline ICT as covariates.|luspatercept - placebo|Deferasirox: Change from baseline at Week 48 LS = least squares||49.7|-185.8|0.2552
90960859|NCT02604433|181802407|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-76.4||||0.7746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-612.9|460.1||Significance level of 0.050 for 2-sided tests|ANCOVA|Estimates are based on an ANCOVA model with geographical regions defined at randomization and baseline ICT as covariates.|luspatercept - placebo|Deferiprone: Change from baseline at Week 48 LS = least squares||460.1|-612.9|0.7746
90872901|NCT01287897|181606168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.66||0.1993|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-44.1|14.3|||LMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in change from baseline in CDAI score for the 10-mg arm at Week 8.||14.3|-44.1|0.1993
90872902|NCT01287897|181606168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-30.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.66||0.0632|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-62.7|2.3|||LMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in change from baseline in CDAI score for the 10-mg arm at Week 10.||2.3|-62.7|0.0632
90872903|NCT01287897|181606168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.71||0.1975|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-49.4|15.8|||LMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in change from baseline in CDAI score for the 10-mg arm at Week 12.||15.8|-49.4|0.1975
90872904|NCT01287897|181606168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.25||0.5868|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.6|22.9|||LMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in change from baseline in CDAI score for the 50-mg arm at Week 2.||22.9|-17.6|0.5868
90872905|NCT01287897|181606168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.93||0.0243|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-47.0|-4.3|||LMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in change from baseline in CDAI score for the 50-mg arm at Week 4.||-4.3|-47.0|0.0243
90872906|NCT01287897|181606168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.12||0.0834|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-49.0|4.3|||LMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in change from baseline in CDAI score for the 50-mg arm at Week 6.||4.3|-49.0|0.0834
90872907|NCT01287897|181606168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-28.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.43||0.0499|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-57.7|0.0|||LMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in change from baseline in CDAI score for the 50-mg arm at Week 8.||-0.0|-57.7|0.0499
90872908|NCT01287897|181606168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-44.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.45||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-77.1|-12.7|||LMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in change from baseline in CDAI score for the 50-mg arm at Week 10.||-12.7|-77.1|0.0111
90872909|NCT01287897|181606168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-39.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.49||0.0221|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-71.7|-7.3|||LMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in change from baseline in CDAI score for the 50-mg arm at Week 12.||-7.3|-71.7|0.0221
90872910|NCT01287897|181606169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.27||0.3157|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-39.0|21.4|||LMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in change from baseline in CDAI score for the 200-mg arm at Week 2.||21.4|-39.0|0.3157
90872911|NCT01287897|181606169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.28||0.4171|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-34.0|26.4|||LMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in change from baseline in CDAI score for the 200-mg arm at Week 4.||26.4|-34.0|0.4171
90872912|NCT01287897|181606169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.79||0.3837|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-36.6|25.5|||LMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in change from baseline in CDAI score for the 200-mg arm at Week 6.||25.5|-36.6|0.3837
90872913|NCT01287897|181606169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.27||0.3204|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-40.8|22.8|||LMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in change from baseline in CDAI score for the 200-mg arm at Week 8.||22.8|-40.8|0.3204
90872914|NCT01287897|181606169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.64||0.0649|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-62.3|2.6|||LMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in change from baseline in CDAI score for the 200-mg arm at Week 10.||2.6|-62.3|0.0649
90872915|NCT01287897|181606169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-31.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.87||0.0598|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-63.9|1.8|||LMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in change from baseline in CDAI score for the 200-mg arm at Week 12.||1.8|-63.9|0.0598
90872916|NCT02282020|181606191|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.53||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|4.58|||Regression, Logistic|Model includes a factor for time to disease progression after the end of last platinum based chemotherapy (6-12 months vs \> 12 months)|An odds ratio \>1 favours the olaparib arm|||4.58|1.40|0.002
90872917|NCT02282020|181606192|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.91||Determined using a log-rank test with a factor for time to disease progression after the end of last platinum based chemotherapy (6-12 months vs \> 12 months).|Log Rank||A hazard ratio \< 1 favours the olaparib arm|||0.91|0.43|0.013
90872918|NCT02282020|181606193|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.15||Determined using a log-rank test with a factor for time to disease progression after the end of last platinum based chemotherapy (6-12 months vs \> 12 months).|Log Rank||A hazard ratio \< 1 favours the olaparib arm|||1.15|0.56|0.229
90872919|NCT02282020|181606194|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.49||Determined using a log-rank test with a factor for time to disease progression after the end of last platinum based chemotherapy (6-12 months vs \> 12 months).|Log Rank||A hazard ratio \< 1 favours the olaparib arm|||1.49|0.76|0.714
90872920|NCT02282020|181606195|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.85||Determined using a log-rank test with a factor for time to disease progression after the end of last platinum based chemotherapy (6-12 months vs \> 12 months).|Log Rank||A hazard ratio \<1 favours the olaparib arm|||0.85|0.41|0.005
90872921|NCT02282020|181606196|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.69||Model included factors for number of prior chemotherapy regimens received for ovarian cancer (2 or 3 prior lines vs 4 or more lines) and time to disease progression after the end of last platinum based chemotherapy (6-12 months vs \> 12 months).|Log Rank||A hazard ratio \< 1 favours the olaparib arm|||0.69|0.35|<0.001
90872922|NCT02282020|181606197|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.05||Model included factors for number of prior chemotherapy regimens received for ovarian cancer (2 or 3 prior lines vs 4 or more lines) and time to disease progression after the end of last platinum based chemotherapy (6-12 months vs \> 12 months).|Log Rank||A hazard ratio \< 1 favours the olaparib arm|||1.05|0.53|0.089
90872923|NCT02282020|181606198|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.29||Model included factors for number of prior chemotherapy regimens received for ovarian cancer (2 or 3 prior lines vs 4 or more lines) and time to disease progression after the end of last platinum based chemotherapy (6-12 months vs \> 12 months).|Log Rank||A hazard ratio \< 1 favours the olaparib arm|||0.29|0.14|<0.001
90872924|NCT02282020|181606201|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|5.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes factors for patient, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline TOI score and baseline TOI score by visit interaction.||||5.5|-0.5|0.108
90872925|NCT02282020|181606202|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.24||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|6.86||Estimated from an unadjusted logistic regression model|Regression, Logistic||An odds ratio \> 1 favours the olaparib arm|||6.86|0.88|0.092
90872926|NCT02282020|181606203|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.4||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|4.39||Determined using a log-rank test with a factor for time to disease progression after the end of last platinum based chemotherapy (6-12 months vs \> 12 months).|Regression, Logistic||An odds ratio \> 1 favours the olaparib arm|||4.39|1.32|0.004
90872927|NCT02282020|181606204|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.91||Determined using a log-rank test with a factor for time to disease progression after the end of last platinum based chemotherapy (6-12 months vs \> 12 months).|Log Rank||A hazard ratio \< 1 favours the olaparib arm|||0.91|0.42|0.014
90960860|NCT02604433|181802407|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-147.3||||0.5186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-673.1|378.5||Significance level of 0.050 for 2-sided tests|ANCOVA|Estimates are based on an ANCOVA model with geographical regions defined at randomization and baseline ICT as covariates.|luspatercept - placebo|Deferoxamine Mesilate / Deferoxamine: Change from baseline at Week 48 LS = least squares||378.5|-673.1|0.5186
90872928|NCT02282020|181606205|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.14||Determined using a log-rank test with a factor for time to disease progression after the end of last platinum based chemotherapy (6-12 months vs \> 12 months).|Log Rank||A hazard ratio \< 1 favours the olaparib arm|||1.14|0.56|0.213
90872929|NCT02282020|181606206|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.51||Determined using a log-rank test with a factor for time to disease progression after the end of last platinum based chemotherapy (6-12 months vs \> 12 months).|Log Rank||A hazard ratio \< 1 favours the olaparib arm|||1.51|0.76|0.699
90872930|NCT02282020|181606207|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.27||Model included factors for number of prior chemotherapy regimens received for ovarian cancer (2 or 3 prior lines vs 4 or more lines) and time to disease progression after the end of last platinum based chemotherapy (6-12 months vs \> 12 months).|Log Rank||A hazard ratio \< 1 favours the olaparib arm|||0.27|0.12|<0.001
90872931|NCT02282020|181606208|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.66||Model included factors for number of prior chemotherapy regimens received for ovarian cancer (2 or 3 prior lines vs 4 or more lines) and time to disease progression after the end of last platinum based chemotherapy (6-12 months vs \> 12 months).|Log Rank||A hazard ratio \< 1 favours the olaparib arm|||0.66|0.33|<0.001
90872932|NCT02282020|181606209|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.01||Model included factors for number of prior chemotherapy regimens received for ovarian cancer (2 or 3 prior lines vs 4 or more lines) and time to disease progression after the end of last platinum based chemotherapy (6-12 months vs \> 12 months).|Log Rank||A hazard ratio \< 1 favours the olaparib arm|||1.01|0.51|0.055
90872933|NCT02902965|181606223|OTHER||median PFS|8.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.2|10.8|||||Kaplan-Meier estimates for median PFS and its associated 95% confidence intervals using log-log transformed Greenwood variance estimate were calculated.|||10.8|6.2|
90872934|NCT02902965|181606224|OTHER||ORR in %|56.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.7|68.2|||||Overall response = confirmed sCR + CR + VGPR + PR with corresponding 95% Exact binomial Cl|||68.2|44.7|
90872935|NCT02902965|181606225|OTHER||PFS rate|6.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|16.9|||||Kaplan-Meier method used for PFS rate and its associated 95% confidence intervals using log-log transformed Greenwood variance estimate were calculated.|||16.9|1.6|
90872936|NCT02902965|181606228|OTHER||median TTP|10.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.8|12.0|||||KM estimates for median TTP with associated 95% CI|||12|7.8|
90872937|NCT02328755|181606268|OTHER|Single group|cumulative incidence|0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.58||||||The analysis applies only to the first row, for recipients of HLA-matched HCT who received the phase II MTD (180mcg) peg-IFN-a (n=31).||0.58|0.24|
90872938|NCT02328755|181606269|OTHER|Single group|Kaplan-Meier|55.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.0|75.0||||||The analysis applies only to the first row, data at 6 months, for recipients of HLA-matched HCT who received the phase II MTD (180mcg) peg-IFN-a (n=31).|Survival proportion estimates at 6 months and 2 years were calculated using Kaplan-Meier methods, and the 2-sided, 95% confidence intervals calculated by the Greenwood method.|75|40|
90872939|NCT02328755|181606269|OTHER|Single group|Kaplan-Meier|33.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.0|58.0||||||The analysis applies only to the 3rd row, data at 24 months, for recipients of HLA-matched HCT who received the phase II MTD (180mcg) peg-IFN-a (n=31).|Survival proportion estimates at 6 months and 2 years were calculated using Kaplan-Meier methods, and the 2-sided, 95% confidence intervals calculated by the Greenwood method.|58|19|
90872940|NCT02328755|181606270|OTHER|Single group|||||||||||||||||Survival proportion estimates at 6 months and 2 years were calculated using Kaplan-Meier methods, and the 2-sided, 95% confidence intervals calculated by the Greenwood method.|||
90872941|NCT02328755|181606271|OTHER|Single group|||||||||||||||||GVHD proportion estimates and corresponding 95% confidence intervals were calculated using methods of Fine and Gray.|||
90872942|NCT02328755|181606272|OTHER|Single group|||||||||||||||||Non-relapse mortality estimates and corresponding 95% confidence intervals were calculated using methods of Fine and Gray.|||
90872943|NCT01506479|181606273|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|16.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||16.6|12.0|<0.0001
90872944|NCT01506479|181606274|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.9||||0.34|ONE_SIDED|90.0||4.6||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.10|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the vigorous exercise group warrants further investigation using a futility threshold of 3.5 compared to the control group (difference between the mean change in the control group and the mean change in the vigorous exercise group). The alternative hypothesis is that vigorous exercise does not warrant further investigation.||4.6||0.34
90872945|NCT01506479|181606274|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2||||0.03|ONE_SIDED|90.0||2.8||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set to 0.10. If the p-value is less than 0.10, the null hypothesis is rejected in favor of the alternative (moderate exercise does not warrant further investigation).|t-test, 1 sided||"The estimate is the difference between the control group and the moderate exercise group.~The upper bound of the confidence interval should be compared to the futility threshold of 3.5 to reject or not reject the null hypothesis."|The null hypothesis is that the moderate exercise group warrants further investigation using a futility threshold of 3.5 compared to the control group (difference in the mean change between the control group and the moderate exercise group). The alternative hypothesis is that moderate exercise does not warrant further investigation .||2.8||0.03
90872946|NCT01506479|181606275|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1334|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1334
90872947|NCT02746874|181606352|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.978|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.978
90872948|NCT02746874|181606354|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.978|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.978
90872949|NCT02746874|181606355|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.371|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.371
90872950|NCT02746874|181606356|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.325|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.325
90872951|NCT02746874|181606357|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.466|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.466
90872952|NCT02746874|181606358|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.368|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.368
90872953|NCT02746874|181606359|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.509|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.509
90872954|NCT02746874|181606360|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.593|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.593
90872955|NCT02746874|181606361|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.687|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.687
90872956|NCT02746874|181606362|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.813|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.813
90872957|NCT02746874|181606363|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.687|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.687
90872958|NCT02746874|181606364|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.840
90872959|NCT02746874|181606365|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.913|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.913
90872960|NCT02746874|181606366|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.301|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.301
90872961|NCT02746874|181606367|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.826|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.826
90872962|NCT02746874|181606368|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.813|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.813
90872963|NCT02746874|181606370|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.047|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.047
90872964|NCT02746874|181606371|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.115|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.115
90872965|NCT02746874|181606372|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.349|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.349
90872966|NCT01156311|181606391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.92|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|-0.33|||Wilcoxon signed rank test||based on Hodges-Lehmann estimate|Change from average of Weeks -8, -4, and 0 to average of Weeks 16, 20, 24 MRI scans.||-0.33|-1.17|<0.0001
90872967|NCT01156311|181606391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.17||||0.0124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|-0.33|||Wilcoxon signed rank test||based on Hodges-Lehmann estimate|Change from average of Weeks -8, -4, and 0 to average of Weeks 16, 20, 24 MRI scans.||-0.33|-1.83|0.0124
90872968|NCT01156311|181606392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.25|||Wilcoxon signed rank test||based on Hodges-Lehmann estimate|Change from average of Weeks -4, and 0 to average of Weeks 20, 24 MRI scans.||-0.25|-1.50|0.0010
90872969|NCT01156311|181606392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.0339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|0.0|||Wilcoxon signed rank test||based on Hodges-Lehmann estimate|Change from average of Weeks -4, and 0 to average of Weeks 20, 24 MRI scans.||0.00|-1.25|0.0339
90872970|NCT01025791|181606399|OTHER||0.1 mg vs. placebo|-7.06||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.1|-3.0|||ANOVA|||||-3.00|-11.1|0.003
90872971|NCT01025791|181606399|OTHER||0.2 mg vs. placebo|-1.23||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.42|2.96|||ANOVA|||||2.96|-5.42|0.310
90872972|NCT01025791|181606399|OTHER||0.5 mg vs. placebo|0.01||||0.498|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.05|4.06|||ANOVA|||||4.06|-4.05|0.498
90872973|NCT01025791|181606399|OTHER||1 mg vs. placebo|-5.69||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.74|-1.63|||ANOVA|||||-1.63|-9.74|0.012
90872974|NCT01025791|181606399|OTHER||1 mg + 0.8 mg vs. placebo|-3.97||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.16|0.22|||ANOVA|||||0.22|-8.16|0.059
90872975|NCT01025791|181606399|OTHER||0.4 mg vs. placebo|2.22||||0.191|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.09|6.54|||ANOVA|||||6.54|-2.09|0.191
90872976|NCT01025791|181606399|OTHER||1.2 mg vs. placebo|1.24||||0.333|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.67|6.15|||ANOVA|||||6.15|-3.67|0.333
90872977|NCT01025791|181606399|OTHER||1.2 mg + 0.6 mg vs. placebo|-1.43||||0.314|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.5|3.63|||ANOVA|||||3.63|-6.50|0.314
90872978|NCT01025791|181606399|OTHER||1 mg + 0.8 mg vs. placebo|-9.31||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.2|-4.37|||ANOVA|||||-4.37|-14.2|0.001
90872979|NCT01025791|181606399|OTHER||1.2 mg + 1.0 mg vs. placebo|-6.45||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.4|-1.51|||ANOVA|||||-1.51|-11.4|0.017
90872980|NCT01025791|181606399|OTHER||1.0 mg + 0.6 mg + 0.6 mg vs. placebo|-9.96||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.9|-5.02|||ANOVA|||||-5.02|-14.9|0.001
90872981|NCT01025791|181606399|OTHER||1 mg + 1 mg + 0.6 mg vs. placebo|-9.0||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|-4.17|||ANOVA|||||-4.17|-13.8|0.002
90872982|NCT01025791|181606404|OTHER||GMR (Fed/Fasted)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|0.92||||||||0.92|0.86|
90872983|NCT01025791|181606405|OTHER||GMR (Fed/fasted)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.19||||||||1.19|0.79|
90872984|NCT01025791|181606406|OTHER||0.1 mg vs placebo|-0.53||||0.396|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.92|2.86|||ANOVA|||||2.86|-3.92|0.396
90872985|NCT01025791|181606406|OTHER||0.2 mg vs. placebo|2.33||||0.1329|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.17|5.83|||ANOVA|||||5.83|-1.17|0.1329
90872986|NCT01025791|181606406|OTHER||0.5mg vs. placebo|-2.96||||0.0741|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.35|0.43|||ANOVA|||||0.43|-6.35|0.0741
90872987|NCT01025791|181606406|OTHER||1 mg vs. placebo|7.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.69|10.47|||ANOVA|||||10.47|3.69|<0.001
90872988|NCT01025791|181606406|OTHER||1 mg + 0.8 mg vs. placebo|4.39||||0.0211|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.89|7.09|||ANOVA|||||7.09|0.89|0.0211
90872989|NCT01025791|181606406|OTHER||0.4 mg vs. placebo|0.85||||0.399|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.79|6.48|||ANOVA|||||6.48|-4.79|0.399
90872990|NCT01025791|181606406|OTHER||1.2 mg vs. placebo|4.54||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.94|11.02|||ANOVA|||||11.02|-1.94|0.100
90872991|NCT01025791|181606406|OTHER||1.2 mg + 0.6 mg vs. placebo|3.38||||0.195|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.29|10.06|||ANOVA|||||10.06|-3.29|0.195
90872992|NCT01025791|181606406|OTHER||1.0 mg + 0.8 mg vs. placebo|9.16||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.74|16.58|||ANOVA|||||16.58|1.74|0.022
90872993|NCT01025791|181606406|OTHER||1.2 mg + 1.0 mg vs. placebo|5.74||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.68|13.16|||ANOVA|||||13.16|-1.68|0.098
90872994|NCT01025791|181606406|OTHER||1 mg + 0.6 mg + 0.6 mg vs. placebo|3.48||||0.214|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.94|10.9|||ANOVA|||||10.90|-3.94|0.214
90872995|NCT01025791|181606406|OTHER||1 mg + 1 mg + 0.6 mg vs. placebo|4.24||||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.03|11.52|||ANOVA|||||11.52|-3.03|0.163
90913233|NCT03622593|181695352|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|10.3||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants gaining ≥5 letters in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||10.3|-2.7|
90913234|NCT03622593|181695352|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|5.9||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants gaining ≥5 letters in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||5.9|-7.3|
90913235|NCT03622593|181695352|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|5.2||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants gaining ≥0 letters in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||5.2|-3.8|
90913236|NCT03622593|181695352|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|4.2||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants gaining ≥0 letters in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||4.2|-4.9|
90913237|NCT03622593|181695357|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|8.9||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants gaining ≥15 letters in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||8.9|-8.5|
90913238|NCT03622593|181695357|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|4.8||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants gaining ≥15 letters in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||4.8|-11.8|
90913239|NCT03622593|181695357|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|11.4||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants gaining ≥10 letters in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||11.4|-6.9|
90913240|NCT03622593|181695357|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|8.1||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants gaining ≥10 letters in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||8.1|-9.8|
90913241|NCT03622593|181695357|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|8.5||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants gaining ≥5 letters in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||8.5|-6.2|
90913242|NCT03622593|181695357|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|6.2||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants gaining ≥5 letters in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||6.2|-8.3|
90913243|NCT03622593|181695357|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|6.2||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants gaining ≥0 letters in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||6.2|-3.8|
90913244|NCT03622593|181695357|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|5.2||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants gaining ≥0 letters in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||5.2|-4.8|
90913245|NCT03622593|181695362|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.1||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants avoiding a loss of ≥15 letters in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||2.1|-1.6|
90913246|NCT03622593|181695362|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.9||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants avoiding a loss of ≥15 letters in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||1.9|-1.8|
90913247|NCT03622593|181695362|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|2.1||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants avoiding a loss of ≥10 letters in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||2.1|-2.3|
90913248|NCT03622593|181695362|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.9||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants avoiding a loss of ≥10 letters in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||1.9|-2.4|
90913249|NCT03622593|181695362|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|4.5||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants avoiding a loss of ≥5 letters in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||4.5|-1.9|
90913250|NCT03622593|181695362|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|4.6||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants avoiding a loss of ≥5 letters in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||4.6|-1.5|
90913251|NCT03622593|181695366|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|2.2||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants avoiding a loss of ≥15 letters in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||2.2|-2.3|
90913252|NCT03622593|181695366|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|2.2||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants avoiding a loss of ≥15 letters in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||2.2|-2.0|
90913253|NCT03622593|181695366|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|2.6||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants avoiding a loss of ≥10 letters in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||2.6|-2.7|
90913254|NCT03622593|181695366|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|2.3||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants avoiding a loss of ≥10 letters in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||2.3|-2.9|
90913255|NCT03622593|181695366|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|4.7||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants avoiding a loss of ≥5 letters in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||4.7|-2.0|
90960861|NCT02604433|181802408|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-342.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-498.3|-186.87||Significance level of 0.050 for 2-sided tests|ANCOVA|Estimates based on an ANCOVA model with geographical regions defined at randomization and baseline serum ferritin as covariates.|luspatercept - placebo|Change from baseline at Week 48 LS = least squares||-186.87|-498.30|<0.0001
90960862|NCT02604433|181802409|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.0||||0.9201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.01||Significance level of 0.050 for 2-sided tests.|ANCOVA|Estimates are based on an ANCOVA model with geographical regions defined at randomization and baseline BMD measurement as covariates.|luspatercept - placebo|Total Hip Bone Mineral Density: Change from baseline at Week 48 LS = least squares||0.01|-0.01|0.9201
90872996|NCT02237950|181606425|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.015
90872997|NCT02237950|181606426|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.007
90872998|NCT02237950|181606427|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.002
90872999|NCT02237950|181606428|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.014
90873000|NCT02237950|181606429|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.012
90873001|NCT02237950|181606430|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.059|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.059
90873002|NCT02237950|181606431|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.008
90873003|NCT05185089|181606434|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.305||0.989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.63|||ANCOVA|||||0.63|-0.62|0.989
90873004|NCT05185089|181606434|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.293||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.01|||ANCOVA|||||0.01|-1.16|0.054
90873005|NCT05185089|181606435|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.62|||ANCOVA|||||0.62|-0.52|0.872
90873006|NCT05185089|181606435|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.276||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||||-0.02|-1.14|0.041
90873007|NCT05185089|181606436|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.303||0.991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.6|||ANCOVA|||||0.60|-0.61|0.991
90873008|NCT05185089|181606436|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.298||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|0.22|||ANCOVA|||||0.22|-0.97|0.215
90873009|NCT05185089|181606437|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.291||0.639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.45|||ANCOVA|||||0.45|-0.73|0.639
90873010|NCT05185089|181606437|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.271||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.08|||ANCOVA|||||0.08|-1.00|0.092
90873011|NCT05185089|181606438|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.104||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.26|||ANCOVA|||||0.26|-0.17|0.650
90873012|NCT05185089|181606438|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.085||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.06|||ANCOVA|||||-0.06|-0.41|0.010
90873013|NCT05185089|181606439|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.53|||ANCOVA|||||0.53|-0.44|0.856
90873014|NCT05185089|181606439|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||||-0.03|-0.87|0.036
90873015|NCT05185089|181606440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.462||0.678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|1.11|||ANCOVA|||||1.11|-0.73|0.678
90873016|NCT05185089|181606440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.525||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|2.31|||ANCOVA|||||2.31|0.16|0.025
90873017|NCT05185089|181606441|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.143||0.633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.35|||ANCOVA|||||0.35|-0.22|0.633
90873018|NCT05185089|181606441|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.139||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.56|||ANCOVA|||||0.56|-0.02|0.063
90873019|NCT05185089|181606442|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.185||0.732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.31|||ANCOVA|||||0.31|-0.44|0.732
90873020|NCT05185089|181606442|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.214||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.89|||ANCOVA|||||0.89|0.01|0.044
90873021|NCT05185089|181606443|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.58|||ANCOVA|||||0.58|-0.19|0.318
90873022|NCT05185089|181606443|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.228||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.98|||ANCOVA|||||0.98|0.05|0.030
90873023|NCT05185089|181606444|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean Ratios|1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.105||0.438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.33|||ANCOVA|||||1.33|0.88|0.438
90873024|NCT05185089|181606444|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean Ratios|1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.122||0.761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.31|||ANCOVA|||||1.31|0.82|0.761
90873025|NCT05185089|181606445|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean Ratios|1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.108||0.449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.34|||ANCOVA|||||1.34|0.88|0.449
90873026|NCT05185089|181606445|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean Ratios|1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.125||0.732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.32|||ANCOVA|||||1.32|0.82|0.732
90873027|NCT05185089|181606446|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean Ratios|1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.161||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.54|||ANCOVA|||||1.54|0.84|0.400
90873028|NCT05185089|181606446|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean Ratios|0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.187||0.912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.4|||ANCOVA|||||1.40|0.69|0.912
90873029|NCT05185089|181606447|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean Ratios|1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.084||0.287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.29|||ANCOVA|||||1.29|0.93|0.287
90873030|NCT05185089|181606447|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean Ratios|1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.092||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.29|||ANCOVA|||||1.29|0.90|0.420
90913256|NCT03622593|181695366|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|4.4||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants avoiding a loss of ≥5 letters in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||4.4|-2.1|
90873031|NCT05185089|181606448|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean Ratios|1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.022||0.765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.05|||ANCOVA|||||1.05|0.96|0.765
90873032|NCT05185089|181606448|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean Ratios|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.033||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|0.97|||ANCOVA|||||0.97|0.85|0.004
90873033|NCT00345254|181606456|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1
90873034|NCT02663232|181606487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Bivariate regression analysis|Bivariate regression analysis of clinical risk factors for BRAF mutation||The association of Melanoma Stage (IIIC \[referral category\] versus (vs) M1a vs M1b vs M1c) with the risk of BRAF mutation (Yes/No) was assessed using bivariate regression analysis.||||0.001
90873035|NCT02663232|181606487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.196|TWO_SIDED||||||Bivariate regression analysis|Bivariate regression analysis of clinical risk factors for BRAF mutation||The association of Melanoma Stage IIIC/M1a/M1b \[referral category\] vs M1c with the risk of BRAF mutation (Yes/No) was assessed using bivariate regression analysis.||||0.196
90873036|NCT02663232|181606487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Multivariate regression analysis|Multivariate regression analysis of clinical risk factors for BRAF mutation||The association of Melanoma Stage IIIc with the risk of BRAF mutation (Yes/No) was assessed using multivariate regression analysis.||||0.002
90873037|NCT02663232|181606487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.716||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.115|6.616|||Multivariate regression analysis|Multivariate regression analysis of clinical risk factors for BRAF mutation (n=184)||The association of Melanoma Stage M1a (using Melanoma Stage IIIC as referral category) with the risk of BRAF mutation (Yes/No) was assessed using multivariate regression analysis.||6.616|1.115|0.028
90873038|NCT02663232|181606487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.466||||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.168|1.291|||Multivariate regression analysis|Multivariate regression analysis of clinical risk factors for BRAF mutation (n=184)||The association of Melanoma Stage M1b (using Melanoma Stage IIIC as referral category) with the risk of BRAF mutation (Yes/No) was assessed using multivariate regression analysis.||1.291|0.168|0.142
90873039|NCT02663232|181606487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.822||||0.653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.351|1.928|||Multivariate regression analysis|Multivariate regression analysis of clinical risk factors for BRAF mutation (n=184)||The association of Melanoma Stage M1c (using Melanoma Stage IIIC as referral category) with the risk of BRAF mutation (Yes/No) was assessed using multivariate regression analysis.||1.928|0.351|0.653
90913257|NCT03622593|181695370|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|12.7||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the ITT Population.||12.7|-3.1|
90913258|NCT03622593|181695370|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|6.2||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the ITT Population.||6.2|-8.8|
90913259|NCT03622593|181695370|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|11.6||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the Treatment-Naive Population.||11.6|-6.5|
90913260|NCT03622593|181695370|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|7.4||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the Treatment-Naive Population.||7.4|-10.0|
90913261|NCT03622593|181695373|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|11.8||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the ITT Population.||11.8|-2.4|
90913262|NCT03622593|181695373|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|9.8||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the ITT Population.||9.8|-4.1|
90913263|NCT03622593|181695373|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|9.4||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the Treatment-Naive Population.||9.4|-6.5|
90913264|NCT03622593|181695373|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|9.3||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the Treatment-Naive Population.||9.3|-6.0|
90913265|NCT03622593|181695376|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.5||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the ITT Population.||1.5|-1.4|
90913266|NCT03622593|181695376|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.2||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the ITT Population.||0.2|-1.6|
90913267|NCT03622593|181695376|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.1||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the Treatment-Naive Population.||2.1|-1.1|
90913268|NCT03622593|181695376|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.4||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the Treatment-Naive Population.||0.4|-1.4|
90913269|NCT03622593|181695385|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.8||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the ITT Population.||1.8|-1.0|
90913270|NCT03622593|181695385|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.0||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the ITT Population.||2.0|-1.0|
90913271|NCT03622593|181695385|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.8||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the Treatment-Naive Population.||1.8|-0.6|
90913272|NCT03622593|181695385|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|2.8||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the Treatment-Naive Population.||2.8|-0.4|
90913273|NCT03622593|181695386|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the ITT Population.||0.0|0.0|
90913274|NCT03622593|181695386|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the ITT Population.||0.0|0.0|
90913275|NCT03622593|181695386|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the Treatment-Naive Population.||0.0|0.0|
90913276|NCT03622593|181695386|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the Treatment-Naive Population.||0.0|0.0|
91033393|NCT00420238|181952574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.316||95.0|-0.43|0.14|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 4: Mixed model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), using an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate and patients as a random factor.||0.14|-0.43|0.316
90873040|NCT02663232|181606488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.24|TWO_SIDED||||||Bivariate regression analysis|Bivariate regression analysis of clinical risk factors for BRAF mutation||The association of Family family history of melanoma (yes vs no) with the risk of BRAF mutation (Yes/No) was assessed using bivariate regression analysis.||||0.240
90873041|NCT02663232|181606489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.719|TWO_SIDED||||||Bivariate regression analysis|Bivariate regression analysis of clinical risk factors for BRAF mutation||The association of sun exposure yes vs no with the risk of BRAF mutation (Yes/No) was assessed using bivariate regression analysis.||||0.719
90873042|NCT02663232|181606490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.262|TWO_SIDED||||||Bivariate regression analysis|Bivariate regression analysis of clinical risk factors for BRAF mutation||The association of primary tumor site (trunk \[referral category\] vs head and neck vs upper extremities vs lower extremities vs. visceral/mucosa) with the risk of BRAF mutation (Yes/No) was assessed using bivariate regression analysis.||||0.262
90873043|NCT02663232|181606491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.313|TWO_SIDED||||||Bivariate regression analysis|Bivariate regression analysis of clinical risk factors for BRAF mutation||The association of LDH (elevated \[referral category\] vs normal vs unknown) with the risk of BRAF mutation (Yes/No) was assessed using bivariate regression analysis.||||0.313
90873044|NCT02663232|181606492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.291|TWO_SIDED||||||Bivariate regression analysis|Bivariate regression analysis of clinical risk factors for BRAF mutation||The association of time since diagnosis of primary melanoma (continuous variable) with the risk of BRAF mutation (Yes/No) was assessed using bivariate regression analysis.||||0.291
90873045|NCT02663232|181606493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.164|TWO_SIDED||||||Bivariate regression analysis|Bivariate regression analysis of anatomopathological risk factors for BRAF mutation||The association of tumor sample source (primary tumor \[referral category\] vs metastases vs relapses) with the risk of BRAF mutation (Yes/No) was assessed using bivariate regression analysis.||||0.164
90873046|NCT02663232|181606494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.505|TWO_SIDED||||||Bivariate regression analysis|Bivariate regression analysis of anatomopathological risk factors for BRAF mutation||The association of tumor sample type (paraffin-embedded blocks \[referral category\] vs slides of paraffin blocks vs cytology slides) with the risk of BRAF mutation (Yes/No) was assessed using bivariate regression analysis.||||0.505
90873047|NCT02663232|181606495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.701|TWO_SIDED||||||Bivariate regression analysis|Bivariate regression analysis of anatomopathological risk factors for BRAF mutation||The association of method of fixation (buffered formalin \[referral category\] vs other) with the risk of BRAF mutation (Yes/No) was assessed using bivariate regression analysis.||||0.701
90913277|NCT03622593|181695393|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-25.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.95|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.4|-14.0||||||This is the adjusted mean difference for Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the ITT Population.||-14.0|-37.4|
91033394|NCT00420238|181952574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39||||0.008||95.0|-0.67|-0.1|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 8: Mixed model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), using an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate and patients as a random factor.||-0.10|-0.67|0.008
91033395|NCT00420238|181952574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37||||0.011||95.0|-0.65|-0.08|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 12: Mixed model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), using an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate and patients as a random factor.||-0.08|-0.65|0.011
90913278|NCT03622593|181695393|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-17.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.88|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.2|-6.0||||||This is the adjusted mean difference for Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the ITT Population.||-6.0|-29.2|
90913279|NCT03622593|181695393|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-20.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.59|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.9|-7.0||||||This is the adjusted mean difference for Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the Treatment-Naive Population.||-7.0|-32.9|
90913280|NCT03622593|181695393|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-14.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.51|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.1|-1.5||||||This is the adjusted mean difference for Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the Treatment-Naive Population.||-1.5|-27.1|
90913281|NCT03622593|181695396|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|12.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|18.9||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the ITT Population.||18.9|5.7|
90913282|NCT03622593|181695396|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|8.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|14.9||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the ITT Population.||14.9|1.5|
91033396|NCT00420238|181952586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.37|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate.||0.37|-0.22|0.613
90873048|NCT02663232|181606496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.683|TWO_SIDED||||||Bivariate regression analysis|Bivariate regression analysis of anatomopathological risk factors for BRAF mutation||The association of Berslow thickness (≤1 mm \[referral category\] vs 1.01-2 mm vs 2.01-4 mm vs 4 mm) with the risk of BRAF mutation (Yes/No) was assessed using bivariate regression analysis.||||0.683
90873049|NCT02663232|181606497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.615|TWO_SIDED||||||Bivariate regression analysis|Bivariate regression analysis of anatomopathological risk factors for BRAF mutation||The association of Ulceration (no \[referral category\] vs yes) with the risk of BRAF mutation (Yes/No) was assessed using bivariate regression analysis.||||0.615
90873050|NCT02663232|181606498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.949|TWO_SIDED||||||Bivariate regression analysis|Bivariate regression analysis of anatomopathological risk factors for BRAF mutation||The association of presence of regression (Without regression \[referral category\] vs With regression) with the risk of BRAF mutation (Yes/No) was assessed using bivariate regression analysis.||||0.949
90873051|NCT02663232|181606499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.374|TWO_SIDED||||||Bivariate regression analysis|Bivariate regression analysis of anatomopathological risk factors for BRAF mutation||The association of Vascular invasion (Without vascular invasion \[referral category\] vs With vascular invasion) with the risk of BRAF mutation (Yes/No) was assessed using bivariate regression analysis.||||0.374
90873052|NCT02730455|181606504|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.64||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.07|||Regression, Logistic|||Composite Measure: The global odds ratio was based on a linear logistic regression model with baseline National Institute of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) category (score 5-15, 16-23), age (\<60, 60-69, 70-80), tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) use (yes/no), treatment window (\<=9, \>9 and \<=24hours), thrombectomy (yes/no) and region (Spain, UK/Germany, United States of America \[USA\]) as covariates and unstructured working correlation structure||1.07|0.38|0.086
90873053|NCT02730455|181606504|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.57||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.95|||Regression, Logistic|||Composite Measure: The global odds ratio was based on a linear logistic regression model with baseline NIHSS category (score 5-15, 16-23), age (\<60, 60-69, 70-80), tPA use (yes/no), treatment window (\<=9, \>9 and \<=24hours), thrombectomy (yes/no) and region (Spain, UK/Germany, USA) as covariates and unstructured working correlation structure||0.95|0.34|0.031
90873054|NCT02730455|181606505|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67||||0.222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.28|||Regression, Logistic|||The odds ratio was based on a linear logistic regression model with baseline NIHSS category (score 5-15, 16-23), age (\<60, 60-69, 70-80), tPA use (yes/no), treatment window (\<=9, \>9 and \<=24hours), thrombectomy (yes/no) and region (Spain, UK/Germany, USA) as covariates and unstructured working correlation structure||1.28|0.35|0.222
90873055|NCT02730455|181606505|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.54||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.06|||Regression, Logistic|||The odds ratio was based on a linear logistic regression model with baseline NIHSS category (score 5-15, 16-23), age (\<60, 60-69, 70-80), tPA use (yes/no), treatment window (\<=9, \>9 and \<=24hours), thrombectomy (yes/no) and region (Spain, UK/Germany, USA) as covariates and unstructured working correlation structure||1.06|0.28|0.073
90873056|NCT02730455|181606506|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.56||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.08|||Regression, Logistic|||The odds ratio was based on a linear logistic regression model with baseline NIHSS category (score 5-15, 16-23), age (\<60, 60-69, 70-80), tPA use (yes/no), treatment window (\<=9, \>9 and \<=24hours), thrombectomy (yes/no) and region (Spain, UK/Germany, USA) as covariates and unstructured working correlation structure.||1.08|0.29|0.085
90873057|NCT02730455|181606506|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.54||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.04|||Regression, Logistic|||The odds ratio was based on a linear logistic regression model with baseline NIHSS category (score 5-15, 16-23), age (\<60, 60-69, 70-80), tPA use (yes/no), treatment window (\<=9, \>9 and \<=24hours), thrombectomy (yes/no) and region (Spain, UK/Germany, USA) as covariates and unstructured working correlation structure.||1.04|0.28|0.067
90873058|NCT02730455|181606507|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-7.7||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.97|1.64|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||Treatment and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as explanatory variables. Baseline NIHSS category (score 5-15, 16-23), tPA use (yes/no), age (\<60, 60-69, 70-80), thrombectomy (yes/no), region (Spain, UK/Germany, USA) and treatment window were considered as covariates. An unstructured variance-covariance matrix was used in the model.||1.64|-16.97|0.106
90873059|NCT02730455|181606507|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-6.1||||0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.43|3.27|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||Treatment and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as explanatory variables. Baseline NIHSS category (score 5-15, 16-23), tPA use (yes/no), age (\<60, 60-69, 70-80), thrombectomy (yes/no), region (Spain, UK/Germany, USA) and treatment window were considered as covariates. An unstructured variance-covariance matrix was used in the model.||3.27|-15.43|0.202
90873060|NCT02730455|181606508|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.64|1.99|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||Treatment and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as explanatory variables. Baseline NIHSS category (score 5-15, 16-23), tPA use (yes/no), age (\<60, 60-69, 70-80), thrombectomy (yes/no), region (Spain, UK/Germany, USA) and treatment window were considered as covariates. An unstructured variance-covariance matrix was used in the model.||1.99|-2.64|0.780
90873061|NCT02730455|181606508|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.89|1.73|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||Treatment and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as explanatory variables. Baseline NIHSS category (score 5-15, 16-23), tPA use (yes/no), age (\<60, 60-69, 70-80), thrombectomy (yes/no), region (Spain, UK/Germany, USA) and treatment window were considered as covariates. An unstructured variance-covariance matrix was used in the model.||1.73|-2.89|0.622
90873062|NCT02730455|181606509|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.2||||0.315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|3.4|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||Treatment and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as explanatory variables. Baseline NIHSS category (score 5-15, 16-23), tPA use (yes/no), age (\<60, 60-69, 70-80), thrombectomy (yes/no), region (Spain, UK/Germany, USA) and treatment window were considered as covariates. An unstructured variance-covariance matrix was used in the model.||3.40|-1.10|0.315
90913283|NCT03622593|181695396|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|16.3||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the Treatment-Naive Population.||16.3|1.6|
90873063|NCT02730455|181606509|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.7||||0.542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.96|1.56|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||Treatment and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as explanatory variables. Baseline NIHSS category (score 5-15, 16-23), tPA use (yes/no), age (\<60, 60-69, 70-80), thrombectomy (yes/no), region (Spain, UK/Germany, USA) and treatment window were considered as covariates. An unstructured variance-covariance matrix was used in the model.||1.56|-2.96|0.542
90873064|NCT02730455|181606512|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028|||||||Cochran-Armitage trend test|||"mRS: The Cochran-Armitage trend test of a monotonically increasing dose response in proportion of excellent outcome.~Dose levels are log transformed."||||0.028
90873065|NCT02730455|181606512|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.049|||||||Cochran-Armitage trend test|||BI: The Cochran-Armitage trend test of a monotonically increasing dose response in proportion of excellent outcome. Dose levels are log transformed.||||0.049
90873066|NCT00001723|181606556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.007
90873067|NCT01324999|181606568|OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparing baseline to week 24.||||0.68
90873068|NCT01324999|181606569|OTHER|||||||0.34|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.34
90873069|NCT01324999|181606570|OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.99
90873070|NCT01324999|181606571|OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparing baseline to week 24||||0.19
90873071|NCT01324999|181606572|OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparing Baseline to week 24.||||0.68
90873072|NCT01324999|181606573|OTHER|||||||0.92|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparing baseline to week 24||||0.92
90913284|NCT03622593|181695396|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|6.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|13.6||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the Treatment-Naive Population.||13.6|-1.2|
90913285|NCT01324453|181695471|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.90
90873073|NCT01324999|181606574|OTHER|||||||0.44|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparison of baseline to week 24||||0.44
90873074|NCT00060008|181606591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.016
90913286|NCT01324453|181695472|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.81
90913287|NCT01324453|181695473|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.45
90913288|NCT01324453|181695474|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.58
90873075|NCT02848651|181606598|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.3502|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.54|1.18|||Log Rank|||||1.18|0.54|0.3502
90873076|NCT02848651|181606605|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.1783|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|1.1|||Log Rank|||||1.10|0.40|0.1783
90873077|NCT02848651|181606605|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.44||||0.0358|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.23|0.85|||Log Rank|||||0.85|0.23|0.0358
90913289|NCT01324453|181695475|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.86
90913290|NCT01324453|181695476|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||1.00
90873078|NCT02848651|181606606|SUPERIORITY||Differences in Rates|13.27||||0.0326|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.53|24.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||24.00|2.53|0.0326
90873079|NCT02848651|181606606|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Rates|30.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|14.82|45.62|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||45.62|14.82|<0.0001
90873080|NCT02848651|181606606|SUPERIORITY||Differences in Rates|41.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|22.13|60.61|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||60.61|22.13|<0.0001
90873081|NCT03653637|181606637|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.3|||Regression, Cox|This model adjusted for site and lifetime suicide attempt history.|The HR represents the PLF+TAU group compared to TAU.|||1.30|0.43|0.263
90873082|NCT03653637|181606640|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.07||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.3||p-value is for the treatment-by-time interaction|Mixed Models Analysis|The mixed model has a random intercept for participant and is adjusted for site. Time is a linear effect.|||PLF is coded as 1 and TAU is coded as 0.|.30|-.43|.72
90873083|NCT03653637|181606641|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.1||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.3||The p-value is for the treatment-by-time interaction|Mixed Models Analysis|The mixed model has a random intercept for participant and is adjusted for site. Time is a linear effect.|||PLF is coded as 1 and TAU is coded as 0.|.30|-.43|.23
90873084|NCT03653637|181606642|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.27||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|96.0|-0.04|0.58||The p-value is for the treatment-by-time interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|The mixed model has a random intercept for participant and is adjusted for site. Time is a linear effect.|||PLF is coded as 1 and TAU is coded as 0.|.58|-.04|.09
90913291|NCT01324453|181695477|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.58
90913292|NCT01324453|181695478|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.77
90913293|NCT01499134|181695479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.039|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.039
90913294|NCT01499134|181695480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.585|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.585
90873085|NCT03653637|181606643|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.17||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|2.76||The p-value is for the treatment-by-time interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|The mixed model has a random intercept for participant and is adjusted for site.|PLF is coded as 1 and TAU is coded as 0.|||2.76|-.42|.15
90873086|NCT03653637|181606644|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|0.91|||t-test, 2 sided|||||.91|-1.78|.52
90873087|NCT03653637|181606645|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|188.5||||0.83|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The estimation parameter statistic provided is the U value from the Mann-Whitney U test.|||||.83
90873088|NCT03653637|181606647|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.22||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.15||The p-value is for the treatment-by-time interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|The mixed model has a random intercept for participant and is adjusted for site. Time is a linear effect.|||PLF is coded as 1 and TAU is coded as 0.|.15|-.58|.24
90873089|NCT03653637|181606648|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.07||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.19||The p-value is for the treatment-by-time interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|The mixed model has a random intercept for participant and is adjusted for site. Time is a linear effect.||"This analysis concerns the verbal aggression subscale."|PLF is coded as 1 and TAU is coded as 0.|.19|-.06|.28
90873090|NCT03653637|181606648|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.07||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.12||The p-value is for the treatment-by-time interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|The mixed model has a random intercept for participant and is adjusted for site. Time is a linear effect.|PLF is coded as 1 and TAU is coded as 0.|"This analysis concerns the physical aggression subscale."||.12|-.25|.48
90873091|NCT03653637|181606648|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.08||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.07||The p-value is for the treatment-by-time interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|The mixed model has a random intercept for participant and is adjusted for site. Time is a linear effect.|PLF is coded as 1 and TAU is coded as 0.|"This analysis concerns the anger subscale."||.07|-.24|.30
90873092|NCT03653637|181606648|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.02||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.22||The p-value is for the treatment-by-time interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|The mixed model has a random intercept for participant and is adjusted for site. Time is a linear effect.||"This analysis concerns the hostility subscale."|PLF is coded as 1 and TAU is coded as 0.|.22|-.17|.82
90873093|NCT03653637|181606649|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.08||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.11||The p-value is for the treatment-by-time interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|The mixed model has a random intercept for participant and is adjusted for site. Time is a linear effect.|PLF is coded as 1 and TAU is coded as 0.|||.11|-.27|.41
90873094|NCT03653637|181606650|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.13||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.48||The p-value is for the treatment-by-time interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|The mixed model has a random intercept for participant and is adjusted for site. Time is a linear effect.|PLF is coded as 1 and TAU is coded as 0.|||.48|-.68|.67
90873095|NCT01346839|181606655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||<0.05
90873096|NCT01702454|181606660|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion: The lower limit (LL) of the two-sided 95% Confidence Interval (CI) for the GMT ratio is above 1|Adjusted GMT ratio|8.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.21|12.96|||||The GMTs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMTs, which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMT ratio with 95% confidence interval.|The adjusted GMT of HI antibodies for A/Christchurch strain at post-vaccination dose 1, the GMT ratio of Fluarix Quadrivalent Primed Group/Fluarix Quadrivalent Unprimed Group and the 2-sided 95% CI on each GMT ratio were computed after fitting an ANCOVA model on the logarithm10 transformation of the titers, including the vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination log-10 titer and age as regressors.||12.96|6.21|
90873097|NCT01702454|181606660|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion: The lower limit (LL) of the two-sided 95% Confidence Interval (CI) for the GMT ratio is above 1|Adjusted GMT ratio|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.81|4.02|||||The GMTs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMTs, which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMT ratio with 95% confidence interval|The adjusted GMT of HI antibodies for A/Victoria strain at post-vaccination dose 1, the GMT ratio of Fluarix Quadrivalent Primed Group/Fluarix Quadrivalent Unprimed Group and the 2-sided 95% CI on each GMT ratio were computed after fitting an ANCOVA model on the logarithm10 transformation of the titers, including the vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination log-10 titer and age as regressors.||4.02|1.81|
90873098|NCT01702454|181606660|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion: The lower limit (LL) of the two-sided 95% Confidence Interval (CI) for the GMT ratio is above 1|Adjusted GMT ratio|3.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.89|5.37|||||The GMTs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMTs, which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMT ratio with 95% confidence interval.|The adjusted GMT of HI antibodies for B/Brisbane strain at post-vaccination dose 1, the GMT ratio of Fluarix Quadrivalent Primed Group/Fluarix Quadrivalent Unprimed Group and the 2-sided 95% CI on each GMT ratio were computed after fitting an ANCOVA model on the logarithm10 transformation of the titers, including the vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination log-10 titer and age as regressors.||5.37|2.89|
90913295|NCT01499134|181695481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value is correct, confirmed with report from statistician.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.000
90913296|NCT01499134|181695482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.363|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.363
90913297|NCT01499134|181695483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.017
90913298|NCT01499134|181695484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.476|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.476
90913299|NCT01499134|181695485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.170
90913300|NCT01499134|181695486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.595|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.595
90913301|NCT01256034|181695578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
90913302|NCT03557658|181695590|EQUIVALENCE|The acceptance range for bioequivalence is 80.0 - 125.00%.|Point Estimate|106.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.34|144.02|||||Point Estimate is the estimated ratio of exponentiated mean difference of log-transformed PK parameter from ANOVA. Confidence interval is obtained from ANOVA with hepatic function group as a fixed effect, and the subject as a random effect.|Geometric LS Mean was used as PK parameters for total bexagliflozin by hepatic function group.||144.02|78.34|
90873099|NCT01702454|181606660|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion: The lower limit (LL) of the two-sided 95% Confidence Interval (CI) for the GMT ratio is above 1|Adjusted GMT ratio|6.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.21|8.63|||||The GMTs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMTs, which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMT ratio with 95% confidence interval.|The adjusted GMT of HI antibodies for B/Hub-Wuj strain at post-vaccination dose 1, the GMT ratio of Fluarix Quadrivalent Primed Group/Fluarix Quadrivalent Unprimed Group and the 2-sided 95% CI on each GMT ratio were computed after fitting an ANCOVA model on the logarithm10 transformation of the titers, including the vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination log-10 titer and age as regressors.||8.63|5.21|
90913303|NCT03557658|181695590|EQUIVALENCE|The acceptance range for bioequivalence is 80.00 - 125.00%.|Point Estimate|110.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.34|163.06|||||Point Estimate is the estimated ratio of exponentiated mean difference of log-transformed PK parameter from ANOVA. Confidence interval is obtained from ANOVA with hepatic function group as a fixed effect, and the subject as a random effect.|Geometric LS Mean was used as PK parameters for unbound bexagliflozin by hepatic function group||163.06|75.34|
90913304|NCT03557658|181695593|EQUIVALENCE|The acceptance range for bioequivalence is 80.00 - 125.00%.|Point Estimate|128.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.98|164.73|||||Point Estimate is the estimated ratio of exponentiated mean difference of log-transformed PK parameter from ANOVA. Confidence interval is obtained from ANOVA with hepatic function group as a fixed effect, and the subject as a random effect.|Geometric LS Mean was used as PK parameters for total bexagliflozin by hepatic function group||164.73|99.98|
90913305|NCT03557658|181695593|EQUIVALENCE|The acceptance range for bioequivalence is 80.00 - 125.00%.|Point Estimate|132.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.46|181.08|||||Point Estimate is the estimated ratio of exponentiated mean difference of log-transformed PK parameter from ANOVA. Confidence interval is obtained from ANOVA with hepatic function group as a fixed effect, and the subject as a random effect.|Geometric LS Mean was used as PK parameters for unbound bexagliflozin by hepatic function group||181.08|96.46|
90913306|NCT01194154|181695595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||treatment effect|2.21||||0.657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|4.78|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with adjustment for baseline eGFR was used to obtain an estimate of the treatment difference.|||4.78|-0.35|0.657
90913307|NCT01194154|181695596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||treatment effect|2.24||||0.709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|5.01|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||ANCOVA model with adjustment for baseline eGFR was used to obtain an estimate of the treatment difference.|||5.01|-0.54|0.709
90913308|NCT01901276|181695606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.71|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within-individual differences in Shannon indices were tested using paired t tests (normally distributed data).||||0.71
90913309|NCT02314117|181695607|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.753|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.607|0.935||||||||0.935|0.607|
90913310|NCT02314117|181695608|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.962|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.801|1.156||||||||1.156|0.801|
90913311|NCT02314117|181695609|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.926|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.774|1.108||||||||1.108|0.774|
90913312|NCT02314117|181695612|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.699|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.569|0.859||||||||0.859|0.569|
90913313|NCT02314117|181695613|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.657|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.499|0.866||||||||0.866|0.499|
90913314|NCT02314117|181695614|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.013|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.332||||||||1.332|0.770|
90913315|NCT02314117|181695616|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.117|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.58||||||||1.580|0.790|
90913316|NCT02716324|181695620|SUPERIORITY||Beta Coefficient|0.001||||0.871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.012|||GLS random-effects model|||Random effects models regressed VPRS scores on intervention status, time (days), intervention by time, season, and clustered by doctor's office. We examined intervention X time interaction term for statistical significance.||0.012|-0.010|.871
90913317|NCT02716324|181695621|SUPERIORITY||Beta coefficient|0.001||||0.499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.002|0.004|||Random effects model|||Random effects models regressed GAS scores on intervention status, time (days), intervention by time, season, and clustered by doctor's office. We examined intervention X time interaction term for statistical significance.||0.004|-0.002|0.499
90873100|NCT01702454|181606662|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|SCR difference was calculated using standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the group difference in proportion.|Difference in percentages|44.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.87|52.84||||||To assess the immune response in terms of SCR difference at Day 7 after one dose of Fluarix Quadrivalent vaccine (2012-2013 formulation) in vaccine-primed and vaccine-unprimed subjects, for all the strains.||52.84|35.87|
90913318|NCT02716324|181695622|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.718|||||||Chi-squared|||Differences in proportions between the two groups in use of any services were assessed using the Chi-square Test.||||0.718
90913319|NCT02716324|181695622|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.903|||||||Chi-squared|||Differences in proportions between the two groups in use of ambulatory mental health services were assessed using the Chi-square Test.||||0.903
90913320|NCT02716324|181695622|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.915|||||||Chi-squared|||Differences in proportions between the two groups in use of any inpatient mental health services were assessed using the Chi-square Test.||||0.915
90913321|NCT02716324|181695623|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||Chi-squared|||Differences in proportions between the two groups in use of any mental health services during the study period were assessed using the Chi-square Test.||||0.310
90913322|NCT02716324|181695623|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.251|||||||Chi-squared|||Differences in proportions between the two groups in use of ambulatory mental health services during the study period were assessed using the Chi-square Test.||||0.251
90913323|NCT02716324|181695623|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||Differences in proportions between the two groups in use of inpatient mental health services during the study period were assessed using the Chi-square Test.||||1.00
90960863|NCT02604433|181802409|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.01||||0.462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.01||Significance level of 0.050 for 2-sided tests.|ANCOVA|Estimates are based on an ANCOVA model with geographical regions defined at randomization and baseline BMD measurement as covariates.|luspatercept - placebo|Lumbar Spine Bone Mineral Density: Change from baseline at Week 48 LS = least squares||0.01|-0.02|0.4620
90960864|NCT02604433|181802410|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-2.22||||0.0543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.48|0.04||Significance level of 0.050 for 2-sided tests.|ANCOVA|Estimates were based on an ANCOVA model with geographical regions defined at randomization and baseline myocardial T2\* as covariates.|luspatercept - placebo|Change from baseline at Week 48 LS = least square||0.04|-4.48|0.0543
90873101|NCT01702454|181606662|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|SCR difference was calculated using standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the group difference in proportion.|Difference in percentages|45.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.58|53.3||||||To assess the immune response in terms of SCR difference at Day 7 after one dose of Fluarix Quadrivalent vaccine (2012-2013 formulation) in vaccine-primed and vaccine-unprimed subjects, for all the strains.||53.3|36.58|
90913324|NCT02716324|181695624|SUPERIORITY||Beta coefficient|0.0||||0.662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|0.001|||Random effects model|||Random effects models regressed Parent-reported PRO School Performance Scores on intervention status, time (days), intervention by time, season, and clustered by doctor's office. we examined intervention X time interaction term for statistical significance.||0.001|-0.001|0.662
90913325|NCT02716324|181695624|SUPERIORITY||Beta coefficient|0.001||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.002|||Random effects model|||Random effects models regressed Child PRO School Performance Scores on intervention status, time (days), intervention by time, season, and clustered by doctor's office. we examined intervention X time interaction term for statistical significance.||0.002|0.000|0.075
90960865|NCT02604433|181802411|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.666||||||Significance level of 0.050 for 2-sided tests.|t-test, 2 sided|||Physical Health Domain Score - Change from Baseline at Week 24||||0.666
90873102|NCT01702454|181606662|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|SCR difference was calculated using standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the group difference in proportion.|Difference in percentages|37.86||||||95.0|28.83|46.26||||||To assess the immune response in terms of SCR difference at Day 7 after one dose of Fluarix Quadrivalent vaccine (2012-2013 formulation) in vaccine-primed and vaccine-unprimed subjects, for all the strains.||46.26|28.83|
90873103|NCT01702454|181606662|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|SCR difference was calculated using standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the group difference in proportion|Difference in percentages|56.0||||||95.0|48.32|63.04||||||"To assess the immune response in terms of SCR difference at Day 7 after one dose of Fluarix Quadrivalent vaccine (2012-2013 formulation) in vaccine-primed and vaccine-unprimed subjects, for all the strains.~B/Hu-Wuj = B/Hubei-Wujiagang/158/2009 (Yamagata)"||63.04|48.32|
90913326|NCT02716324|181695625|SUPERIORITY||Beta coefficient|0.0||||0.707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|0.001|||Random effects model|||Random effects models regressed Parent-reported PRO Student Engagement Scores on intervention status, time (days), intervention by time, season, and clustered by doctor's office. we examined intervention X time interaction term for statistical significance.||0.001|-0.001|0.707
90913327|NCT02716324|181695625|SUPERIORITY||Beta coefficient|0.0||||0.735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|0.001|||Random effects model|||Random effects models regressed Child PRO Student Engagement Scores on intervention status, time (days), intervention by time, season, and clustered by doctor's office. we examined intervention X time interaction term for statistical significance.||0.001|-0.001|0.735
90913328|NCT02716324|181695626|SUPERIORITY||Beta coefficient|0.0||||0.735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|0.001||Random effects models regressed Child Patient Reported Outcomes Teacher Connectedness Scores on intervention status, time (days), intervention by time, season, and clustered by doctor's office. The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Random effects model|||Random effects models regressed Child PRO Teacher Connectedness Scores on intervention status, time (days), intervention by time, season, and clustered by doctor's office. we examined intervention X time interaction term for statistical significance.||0.001|-0.001|0.735
90913329|NCT02716324|181695627|SUPERIORITY||Beta coefficient|0.0||||0.873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|0.001||Random effects models regressed Parent Patient Reported Outcomes Peer Relationships Scores on intervention status, time (days), intervention by time, season, and clustered by doctor's office. The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Random effects model|||Random effects models regressed Parent-reported PRO Peer Relationship Scores on intervention status, time (days), intervention by time, season, and clustered by doctor's office. we examined intervention X time interaction term for statistical significance.||0.001|-0.001|0.873
90960866|NCT02604433|181802411|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.384||||||Significance level of 0.050 for 2-sided tests.|t-test, 2 sided|||Total Score - Change from Baseline at Week 24||||0.384
90960867|NCT02604433|181802412|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.918||||||Significance level of 0.050 for 2-sided tests.|t-test, 2 sided|||Physical Functioning Domain - Change from Baseline at Week 24||||0.918
90873104|NCT01702454|181606664|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|SPR difference was calculated using standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the group difference in proportion.|Difference in SPR|62.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.27|68.89||||||To assess the immune response in terms of SPR difference at Day 7 after one dose of Fluarix Quadrivalent vaccine (2012-2013 formulation) in vaccine-primed and vaccine-unprimed subjects, for all the strains||68.89|55.27|
90873105|NCT01702454|181606664|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|SPR difference was calculated using standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the group difference in proportion.|Difference in SPR|47.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.08|55.06||||||To assess the immune response in terms of SPR difference at Day 7 after one dose of Fluarix Quadrivalent vaccine (2012-2013 formulation) in vaccine-primed and vaccine-unprimed subjects, for all the strains.||55.06|39.08|
90913330|NCT02716324|181695627|SUPERIORITY||Beta coefficient|0.0||||0.888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|0.001||Random effects models regressed Child Patient Reported Outcomes Peer Relationships Scores on intervention status, time (days), intervention by time, season, and clustered by doctor's office. The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Random effects model|||Random effects models regressed Child-reported PRO Peer Relationship Scores on intervention status, time (days), intervention by time, season, and clustered by doctor's office. we examined intervention X time interaction term for statistical significance.||0.001|-0.001|0.888
90913331|NCT02716324|181695628|SUPERIORITY||Beta coefficient|0.0||||0.679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|0.001||Random effects models regressed Child Patient Reported Outcomes Family Relationships Scores on intervention status, time (days), intervention by time, season, and clustered by doctor's office. The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Random effects model|||Random effects models regressed Child-reported PRO Family Relationship Scores on intervention status, time (days), intervention by time, season, and clustered by doctor's office. we examined intervention X time interaction term for statistical significance.||0.001|-0.001|0.679
90913332|NCT02716324|181695629|SUPERIORITY||Beta coefficient|0.074||||0.495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.164|0.311|||Random effects model|||Random effects models regressed Access Engagement Scores Scores on intervention status adjusted for season and clustered by doctor's office.||0.311|-0.164|0.495
90913333|NCT02716324|181695629|SUPERIORITY||Beta coefficient|-0.013||||0.885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.217|0.191|||Random effects model|||Random effects models regressed Patient Family Centered Care Engagement Scores Scores on intervention status adjusted for season and clustered by doctor's office.||0.191|-0.217|0.885
90913334|NCT02716324|181695629|SUPERIORITY||Beta coefficient|0.073||||0.527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.182|0.328|||Random effects model|||Random effects models regressed Communication Engagement Scores Scores on intervention status adjusted for season and clustered by doctor's office.||0.328|-0.182|0.527
90913335|NCT02716324|181695629|SUPERIORITY||Beta coefficient|0.136||||0.285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.138|0.41|||Random effects model|||Random effects models regressed Understanding Engagement Scores Scores on intervention status adjusted for season and clustered by doctor's office.||0.410|-0.138|0.285
90913336|NCT04347954|181695633|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.349|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.584|0.886||||||Analysis of change in mean Ct values incorporating baseline, hour 1, and day 3 values.||0.886|-1.584|
90873106|NCT01702454|181606664|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|SPR difference was calculated using standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the group difference in proportion|Difference in SPR|56.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.44|63.43||||||To assess the immune response in terms of SPR difference at Day 7 after one dose of Fluarix Quadrivalent vaccine (2012-2013 formulation) in vaccine-primed and vaccine-unprimed subjects, for all the strains.||63.43|49.44|
90913337|NCT04347954|181695633|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.059|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.318|0.201||||||Analysis of change in mean Ct values incorporating baseline, hour 1, and day 3 values.||0.201|-2.318|
90913338|NCT02045836|181695647|NON_INFERIORITY|Non Inferiority criterion used: Upper Limit (UL) of the 95% CI for each individual pneumococcal conjugate serotype Opsonophagocytic Assay (OPA) GMT ratio of the Control group over the Co-Ad group had to be below 2.|Adjusted GMT|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.31|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline titre - pooled variance|Adjusted GMT ratio (Control group / Co-Ad group)|Adjusted ratios of GMTs between groups (Control group and Co-Ad group) for MOPA-1.||1.31|0.81|
90913339|NCT02045836|181695647|NON_INFERIORITY|Non Inferiority criterion used: Upper Limit (UL) of the 95% CI for each individual pneumococcal conjugate serotype Opsonophagocytic Assay (OPA) GMT ratio of the Control group over the Co-Ad group had to be below 2.|Adjusted GMT|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.16|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline titre - pooled variance|Adjusted GMT ratio (Control group / Co-Ad group)|Adjusted ratios of GMTs between groups (Control group and Co-Ad group) for MOPA-3||1.16|0.8|
90913340|NCT02045836|181695647|NON_INFERIORITY|Non Inferiority criterion used: Upper Limit (UL) of the 95% CI for each individual pneumococcal conjugate serotype Opsonophagocytic Assay (OPA) GMT ratio of the Control group over the Co-Ad group had to be below 2.|Adjusted GMT|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.4|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline titre - pooled variance|Adjusted GMT ratio (Control group / Co-Ad group)|Adjusted ratios of GMTs between groups (Control group and Co-Ad group) for MOPA-4||1.4|0.92|
90913341|NCT02045836|181695647|NON_INFERIORITY|Non Inferiority criterion used: Upper Limit (UL) of the 95% CI for each individual pneumococcal conjugate serotype Opsonophagocytic Assay (OPA) GMT ratio of the Control group over the Co-Ad group had to be below 2.|Adjusted GMT|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.21|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline titre - pooled variance|Adjusted GMT ratio (Control group / Co-Ad group)|Adjusted ratios of GMTs between groups (Control group and Co-Ad group) for MOPA-5||1.21|0.75|
90913342|NCT02045836|181695647|NON_INFERIORITY|Non Inferiority criterion used: Upper Limit (UL) of the 95% CI for each individual pneumococcal conjugate serotype Opsonophagocytic Assay (OPA) GMT ratio of the Control group over the Co-Ad group had to be below 2.|Adjusted GMT|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.16|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline titre - pooled variance|Adjusted GMT ratio (Control group / Co-Ad group)|Adjusted ratios of GMTs between groups (Control group and Co-Ad group) for MOPA-6B||1.16|0.73|
90913343|NCT02045836|181695647|NON_INFERIORITY|Non Inferiority criterion used: Upper Limit (UL) of the 95% CI for each individual pneumococcal conjugate serotype Opsonophagocytic Assay (OPA) GMT ratio of the Control group over the Co-Ad group had to be below 2.|Adjusted GMT|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.29|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline titre - pooled variance|Adjusted GMT ratio (Control group / Co-Ad group)|Adjusted ratios of GMTs between groups (Control group and Co-Ad group) for MOPA-7F||1.29|0.89|
90960868|NCT02604433|181802412|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.857||||||Significance level of 0.050 for 2-sided tests.|t-test, 2 sided|||General Health Domain - Change from Baseline at Week 24||||0.857
90873107|NCT01702454|181606664|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|SPR difference was calculated using standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the group difference in proportion.|Difference in SPR|56.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.41|63.49||||||"To assess the immune response in terms of SPR difference at Day 7 after one dose of Fluarix Quadrivalent vaccine (2012-2013 formulation) in vaccine-primed and vaccine-unprimed subjects, for all the strains.~B/Hu-Wuj = B/Hubei-Wujiagang/158/2009 (Yamagata)"||63.49|49.41|
90873108|NCT03510884|181606697|SUPERIORITY|Bonferroni adjustment was applied to handle multiplicity for the comparison of each alirocumab dosing regimen group versus its placebo group for the primary efficacy endpoint.|LS mean difference|-43.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-56.0|-30.7||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.025 level.|MMRM||Alirocumab Q2W versus Placebo Q2W|The MMRM model included fixed categorical effects of treatment group (alirocumab, placebo), randomization strata (previous participation \[yes or no\] to DFI14223 study, Baseline BW \[\<50 or \>=50 kg\]) as per interactive voice response system (IVRS), time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, strata-by-time point interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of Baseline LDL-C value and Baseline value by time-point interaction. Comparison was performed using an appropriate contrast.||-30.7|-56.0|<0.0001
90873109|NCT03510884|181606697|SUPERIORITY|Bonferroni adjustment was applied to handle multiplicity for the comparison of each alirocumab dosing regimen group versus its placebo group for the primary efficacy endpoint.|LS mean difference|-33.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-46.4|-21.2||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.025 level.|MMRM||Alirocumab Q4W versus Placebo Q4W|The MMRM model included the fixed categorical effects of treatment group (alirocumab, placebo), randomization strata (Baseline BW \[\<50 or \>=50 kg\]) as per IVRS, time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, and BW strata-by-time point interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of Baseline LDL-C value and Baseline value by time-point interaction. Comparison was performed using an appropriate contrast.||-21.2|-46.4|<0.0001
90873110|NCT03510884|181606698|SUPERIORITY|Hierarchical testing method was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints were reported and independently for each dosing regimen. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.025 level. Statistical significance of the primary endpoint was required before testing the first secondary endpoint for each dosing regimen independently.|LS mean difference|-45.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.7|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-56.3|-34.7||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|MMRM||Alirocumab Q2W versus Placebo Q2W|The MMRM model included the fixed categorical effects of treatment group (alirocumab, placebo), randomization strata (previous participation \[yes or no\] to DFI14223 study, Baseline BW \[\<50 or \>=50 kg\]) as per IVRS, time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, strata-by-time point interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of Baseline LDL-C value and Baseline value by time-point interaction. Comparison was performed using an appropriate contrast.||-34.7|-56.3|<0.0001
90913344|NCT02045836|181695647|NON_INFERIORITY|Non Inferiority criterion used: Upper Limit (UL) of the 95% CI for each individual pneumococcal conjugate serotype Opsonophagocytic Assay (OPA) GMT ratio of the Control group over the Co-Ad group had to be below 2.|Adjusted GMT|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.19|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline titre - pooled variance|Adjusted GMT ratio (Control group / Co-Ad group)|Adjusted ratios of GMTs between groups (Control group and Co-Ad group) for MOPA-9V||1.19|0.79|
90913345|NCT02045836|181695647|NON_INFERIORITY|Non Inferiority criterion used: Upper Limit (UL) of the 95% CI for each individual pneumococcal conjugate serotype Opsonophagocytic Assay (OPA) GMT ratio of the Control group over the Co-Ad group had to be below 2.|Adjusted GMT|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.18|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline titre - pooled variance|Adjusted GMT ratio (Control group / Co-Ad group)|Adjusted ratios of GMTs between groups (Control group and Co-Ad group) for MOPA-14||1.18|0.81|
90913346|NCT02045836|181695647|NON_INFERIORITY|Non Inferiority criterion used: Upper Limit (UL) of the 95% CI for each individual pneumococcal conjugate serotype Opsonophagocytic Assay (OPA) GMT ratio of the Control group over the Co-Ad group had to be below 2.|Adjusted GMT|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.16|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline titre - pooled variance|Adjusted GMT ratio (Control group / Co-Ad group)|Adjusted ratios of GMTs between groups (Control group and Co-Ad group) for MOPA-18C||1.16|0.77|
90913347|NCT02045836|181695647|NON_INFERIORITY|Non Inferiority criterion used: Upper Limit (UL) of the 95% CI for each individual pneumococcal conjugate serotype Opsonophagocytic Assay (OPA) GMT ratio of the Control group over the Co-Ad group had to be below 2.|Adjusted GMT|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.4|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline titre - pooled variance|Adjusted GMT ratio (Control group / Co-Ad group)|Adjusted ratios of GMTs between groups (Control group and Co-Ad group) for MOPA-19A||1.4|0.95|
90913348|NCT02045836|181695647|NON_INFERIORITY|Non Inferiority criterion used: Upper Limit (UL) of the 95% CI for each individual pneumococcal conjugate serotype Opsonophagocytic Assay (OPA) GMT ratio of the Control group over the Co-Ad group had to be below 2.|Adjusted GMT|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.25|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline titre - pooled variance|Adjusted GMT ratio (Control group / Co-Ad group)|Adjusted ratios of GMTs between groups (Control group and Co-Ad group) for MOPA-19F||1.25|0.84|
90913349|NCT02045836|181695647|NON_INFERIORITY|Non Inferiority criterion used: Upper Limit (UL) of the 95% CI for each individual pneumococcal conjugate serotype Opsonophagocytic Assay (OPA) GMT ratio of the Control group over the Co-Ad group had to be below 2.|Adjusted GMT|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.12|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline titre - pooled variance|Adjusted GMT ratio (Control group / Co-Ad group)|Adjusted ratios of GMTs between groups (Control group and Co-Ad group) for MOPA-23F||1.12|0.7|
90960869|NCT02604433|181802412|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.839||||||Significance level of 0.050 for 2-sided tests.|t-test, 2 sided|||PCS - Change from Baseline at Week 24||||0.839
90960870|NCT02604433|181802415|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.6||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|32.9||Significance level of 0.050 for 2-sided tests.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and p-value were estimated from the Cochran Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the geographical regions defined at randomization.||32.9|1.8|0.0015
90873111|NCT03510884|181606698|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing method was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported and independently for each dosing regimen. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.025 level. Statistical significance of the primary endpoint was required before testing the first secondary endpoint for each dosing regimen independently.|LS mean difference|-41.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.9|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-52.7|-30.2||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|MMRM||Alirocumab Q4W versus Placebo Q4W|The MMRM model included the fixed categorical effects of treatment group (alirocumab, placebo), randomization strata (Baseline BW \[\<50 or \>=50 kg\]) as per IVRS, time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, and BW strata-by-time point interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of Baseline LDL-C value and Baseline value by time-point interaction. Comparison was performed using an appropriate contrast.||-30.2|-52.7|<0.0001
90913350|NCT02045836|181695648|NON_INFERIORITY|Non Inferiority criterion used: UL of the 95% CI for the anti-gE antibodies GMC ratio between the Control group and the Co-Ad group had to be below 1.5|Adjusted GMC|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.11|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline concentration and age - pooled variance|Adjusted ratios of GMCs between groups (Control group and Co-Ad group)|Adjusted ratios of GMCs between groups (Control group and Co-Ad group) for anti-gE antibody ELISA concentrations||1.11|0.93|
91033397|NCT00420238|181952587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.47|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 2: mixed model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), using an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits, and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate and patients as a random factor.||0.47|-0.34|0.744
90873112|NCT03510884|181606699|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the considered dosing regimen).|LS mean difference|-37.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-47.5|-28.2||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|MMRM||Alirocumab Q2W versus Placebo Q2W|The MMRM model included the fixed categorical effects of treatment group (alirocumab, placebo), randomization strata (previous participation \[yes or no\] to DFI14223 study, Baseline BW \[\<50 or \>=50 kg\]) as per IVRS, time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, strata-by-time point interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of Baseline Apo B value and Baseline Apo B value by time-point interaction. Comparison was performed using an appropriate contrast.||-28.2|-47.5|<0.0001
90873113|NCT03510884|181606699|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the considered dosing regimen).|LS mean difference|-30.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.9|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-42.0|-19.4||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|MMRM||Alirocumab Q4W versus Placebo Q4W|The MMRM model included the fixed categorical effects of treatment group (alirocumab, placebo), randomization strata (Baseline BW \[\<50 or \>=50 kg\]) as per IVRS, time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, and BW strata-by-time point interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of Baseline Apo B value and Baseline Apo B value by time-point interaction. Comparison was performed using an appropriate contrast.||-19.4|-42.0|<0.0001
90873114|NCT03510884|181606700|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the considered dosing regimen).|LS mean difference|-40.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-52.2|-29.1||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|MMRM||Alirocumab Q2W versus Placebo Q2W|The MMRM model included the fixed categorical effects of treatment group (alirocumab, placebo), randomization strata (previous participation \[yes or no\] to DFI14223 study, Baseline BW \[\<50 or \>=50 kg\]) as per IVRS, time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, strata-by-time point interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of Baseline non-HDL-C value and Baseline non-HDL-C value by time-point interaction. Comparison was performed using an appropriate contrast.||-29.1|-52.2|<0.0001
90913351|NCT01378065|181695703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
90913352|NCT01378065|181695704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
90913353|NCT01378065|181695705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
90913354|NCT01378065|181695706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
90913355|NCT01378065|181695707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.202|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.202
90913356|NCT01378065|181695708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
90913357|NCT01378065|181695709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004
90913358|NCT01378065|181695710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.034|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.034
90913359|NCT01378065|181695711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis baseline to 6 weeks.||||0.001
90913360|NCT01378065|181695712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis baseline to 3 months.||||0.004
90913361|NCT01378065|181695713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis baseline to 6 months.||||<.001
90913362|NCT01378065|181695714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis baseline to 12 months.||||<.001
90913363|NCT00361283|181695715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-111.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|76.7||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-264.0|42.0||No confounders were controlled for as each person is his/her own control.|t-test, 2 sided|||The study in healthy volunteers was to compare levels at baseline to 16 weeks in ENA-78, a cytokine. The one sample t-test was used to obtain the result.||42|-264|0.15
90913364|NCT01579916|181695719|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|H0 (null): Rate difference greater than or equal to 5 percentage points. This corresponds to a null hypothesis of: HA (alternative): rate difference \< 5 percentage points.|Rate difference|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|0.6|||Score statistic|||Comparison of the rate of fever between the 2 treatment groups was based on the upper limit of the two-sided 95% exact confidence intervals (CIs) for the rate increase (trivalent influenza virus vaccine minus placebo) evaluated against the prespecified equivalence criterion of 5 percentage points||0.6|-8.9|
90913365|NCT01123083|181695838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.0|||Repeated Measures Mixed Effects Model||Estimated treatment group difference, adjusted for age, region and Baseline C-peptide AUC. Confidence Interval, not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|||0.00|-0.17|0.051
91033398|NCT00420238|181952587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.625||95.0|-0.5|0.3|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 4: mixed model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), using an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits, and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate and patients as a random factor.||0.30|-0.50|0.625
90913366|NCT01123083|181695839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|-0.02|||Repeated Measures Mixed Effects Model||Estimated treatment group difference, adjusted for age, region and Baseline C-peptide AUC. Confidence Interval, not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Week 12||-0.02|-0.18|0.022
91033399|NCT00420238|181952587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.325||95.0|-0.2|0.6|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 8: mixed model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), using an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits, and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate and patients as a random factor.||0.60|-0.20|0.325
90913367|NCT01123083|181695839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06||||0.191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.03|||Repeated Measures Mixed Effects Model||Estimated treatment group difference, adjusted for age, region and Baseline C-peptide AUC. Confidence Interval, not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Month 6||0.03|-0.15|0.191
90913368|NCT01123083|181695841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.37|||GEE Model||Estimated treatment group difference, adjusted for age, region and Baseline HbA1c/Insulin Use Response. Confidence Interval, not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Week 12||3.37|0.50|0.912
90913369|NCT01123083|181695841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|2.42|||GEE Model||Estimated treatment group difference, adjusted for age, region and Baseline HbA1c/Insulin Use Response. Confidence Interval, not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Month 6||2.42|0.37|0.912
90913370|NCT01123083|181695841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|4.52|||GEE Model||Estimated treatment group difference, adjusted for age, region and Baseline HbA1c/Insulin Use Response. Confidence Interval, not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Month 12||4.52|0.54|0.412
90960871|NCT02604433|181802418|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-67.27||||0.0195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-123.63|-10.91||Significance level of 0.050 for 2-sided tests.|t-test, 2 sided||luspatercept - placebo|≥ 33% Transfusion Burden Reduction||-10.91|-123.63|0.0195
90873115|NCT03510884|181606700|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the considered dosing regimen).|LS mean difference|-31.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-44.1|-19.7||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|MMRM||Alirocumab Q4W versus Placebo Q4W|The MMRM model included the fixed categorical effects of treatment group (alirocumab, placebo), randomization strata (Baseline BW \[\<50 or \>=50 kg\]) as per IVRS, time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, and BW strata-by-time point interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of Baseline non-HDL-C value and Baseline non-HDL-C value by time-point interaction. Comparison was performed using an appropriate contrast.||-19.7|-44.1|<0.0001
90873116|NCT03510884|181606701|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the considered dosing regimen).|LS mean difference|-30.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-39.8|-21.9||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|MMRM||Alirocumab Q2W versus Placebo Q2W|The MMRM model included the fixed categorical effects of treatment group (alirocumab, placebo), randomization strata (previous participation \[yes or no\] to DFI14223 study, Baseline BW \[\<50 or \>=50 kg\]) as per IVRS, time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, strata-by-time point interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of Baseline Total-C value and Baseline Total-C value by time-point interaction. Comparison was performed using an appropriate contrast.||-21.9|-39.8|<0.0001
90873117|NCT03510884|181606701|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the considered dosing regimen).|LS mean difference|-23.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-33.5|-13.1||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|MMRM||Alirocumab Q4W versus Placebo Q4W|The MMRM model included the fixed categorical effects of treatment group (alirocumab, placebo), randomization strata (Baseline BW \[\<50 or \>=50 kg\]) as per IVRS, time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, and BW strata-by-time point interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of Baseline Total-C value and Baseline Total-C value by time-point interaction. Comparison was performed using an appropriate contrast.||-13.1|-33.5|<0.0001
90873118|NCT03510884|181606702|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the considered dosing regimen).|LS mean difference|-38.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-48.2|-29.6||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|MMRM||Alirocumab Q2W versus Placebo Q2W|The MMRM model included the fixed categorical effects of treatment group (alirocumab, placebo), randomization strata (previous participation \[yes or no\] to DFI14223 study, Baseline BW \[\<50 or \>=50 kg\]) as per IVRS, time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, strata-by-time point interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of Baseline Apo B value and Baseline Apo B value by time-point interaction. Comparison was performed using an appropriate contrast.||-29.6|-48.2|<0.0001
90873119|NCT03510884|181606702|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the considered dosing regimen).|LS mean difference|-32.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-42.8|-22.7|||MMRM||Alirocumab Q4W versus Placebo Q4W|The MMRM model included the fixed categorical effects of treatment group (alirocumab, placebo), randomization strata (Baseline BW \[\<50 or \>=50 kg\]) as per IVRS, time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, and BW strata-by-time point interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of Baseline Apo B value and Baseline Apo B value by time-point interaction. Comparison was performed using an appropriate contrast.||-22.7|-42.8|<0.0001
90913371|NCT01123083|181695842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.02|||Repeated Measures Mixed Effects Model||Estimated treatment group difference, adjusted for age, region and Baseline Mean Daily Insulin Use. Confidence Interval, not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Week 12||0.02|-0.08|0.210
90913372|NCT01123083|181695842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.02|||Repeated Measures Mixed Effects Model||Estimated treatment group difference, adjusted for age, region and Baseline Mean Daily Insulin Use. Confidence Interval, not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Month 6||0.02|-0.11|0.210
90960872|NCT02604433|181802418|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.24||||0.7473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-144.87|201.34||Significance level of 0.050 for 2-sided tests.|t-test, 2 sided||luspatercept - placebo|≥ 50% Transfusion Burden Reduction||201.34|-144.87|0.7473
90873120|NCT03510884|181606703|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the considered dosing regimen).|LS mean difference|-42.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.7|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-53.8|-31.8||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|MMRM||Alirocumab Q2W versus Placebo Q2W|The MMRM model included the fixed categorical effects of treatment group (alirocumab, placebo), randomization strata (previous participation \[yes or no\] to DFI14223 study, Baseline BW \[\<50 or \>=50 kg\]) as per IVRS, time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, strata-by-time point interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of Baseline Non-HDL-C value and Baseline Non-HDL-C value by time-point interaction. Comparison was performed using an appropriate contrast.||-31.8|-53.8|<0.0001
90913373|NCT01123083|181695842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04||||0.402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.13|||Repeated Measures Mixed Effects Model||Estimated treatment group difference, adjusted for age, region and Baseline Mean Daily Insulin Use. Confidence Interval, not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Month 12||0.13|-0.05|0.402
90913374|NCT01123083|181695843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.18||||0.582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.16|||Repeated Measures Mixed Effects Model||Estimated treatment group difference, adjusted for age, region and baseline HbA1c. Confidence Interval, not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Week 12||0.16|-0.52|0.582
90913375|NCT01123083|181695843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.45|||Repeated Measures Mixed Effects Model||Estimated treatment group difference, adjusted for age, region and baseline HbA1c. Confidence Interval, not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Month 6||0.45|-0.46|0.987
90913376|NCT01123083|181695843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.13||||0.572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.59|||Repeated Measures Mixed Effects Model||Estimated treatment group difference, adjusted for age, region and baseline HbA1c. Confidence Interval, not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Month 12||0.59|-0.33|0.572
90913377|NCT01123083|181695846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.452|||||||Hochberg-adjusted p-value|||Month 6||||0.452
90913378|NCT01123083|181695846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.452|||||||Hochberg-adjusted p-value|||Month 12||||0.452
91033400|NCT00420238|181952587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.76||95.0|-0.34|0.46|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 12: mixed model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), using an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits, and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate and patients as a random factor.||0.46|-0.34|0.760
91033401|NCT00420238|181952589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.72||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.35|8.91|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 2: mixed model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), using an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate and patients as a random factor.||8.91|-18.35|0.490
91033402|NCT00420238|181952589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.09||||0.651||95.0|-16.73|10.54|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 4: mixed model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), using an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate and patients as a random factor.||10.54|-16.73|0.651
91033403|NCT00420238|181952589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.39||||0.84||95.0|-15.12|12.34|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 8: mixed model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), using an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate and patients as a random factor.||12.34|-15.12|0.840
91033404|NCT00420238|181952589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.02||||0.562||95.0|-17.81|9.77|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 12: mixed model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), using an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate and patients as a random factor.||9.77|-17.81|0.562
91033405|NCT00420238|181952591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.44|-10.03|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA)with treatment as a factor and baseline vlue as a covariate.||-10.03|-19.44|<0.0001
91033406|NCT00420238|181952592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.17|-6.58|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 2: Mixed model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), using an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate and atients as a random factor.||-6.58|-18.17|<0.0001
91033407|NCT00420238|181952592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.45|||<|0.0001||95.0|-23.25|-11.65|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 4: Mixed model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), using an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate and patients as a random factor.||-11.65|-23.25|<0.0001
90913379|NCT01123083|181695847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.123|||||||Hochberg-adjusted p-value|||Month 6||||0.123
90913380|NCT01123083|181695847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.373|||||||Hochberg-adjusted p-value|||Month 12||||0.373
91033408|NCT00420238|181952592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.95|||<|0.0001||95.0|-22.75|-11.15|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 8: Mixed model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), using an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate and patients as a random factor.||-11.15|-22.75|<0.0001
91033409|NCT00420238|181952592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.16|||<|0.0001||95.0|-23.96|-12.36|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 12: Mixed model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), using an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate and patients as a random factor.||-12.36|-23.96|<0.0001
91033410|NCT00420238|181952594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.24|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.23|-8.25|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate.||-8.25|-18.23|<0.0001
90960873|NCT01128894|181802433|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The p-value was from a 1-sided t test testing whether or not the difference of least square means (albiglutide - liraglutide) was less than or equal to the prespecified noninferiority margin of 0.3%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||0.0846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.34|||ANCOVA|||||0.34|0.08|0.0846
90873121|NCT03510884|181606703|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the considered dosing regimen).|LS mean difference|-37.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-47.9|-27.0||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|MMRM||Alirocumab Q4W versus Placebo Q4W|The MMRM model included the fixed categorical effects of treatment group (alirocumab, placebo), randomization strata (Baseline BW \[\<50 or \>=50 kg\]) as per IVRS, time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, and BW strata-by-time point interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of Baseline non-HDL-C value and Baseline non-HDL-C value by time-point interaction. Comparison was performed using an appropriate contrast.||-27.0|-47.9|<0.0001
90873122|NCT03510884|181606704|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the considered dosing regimen).|LS mean difference|-32.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-41.3|-24.2||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|MMRM||Alirocumab Q2W versus Placebo Q2W|The MMRM model included the fixed categorical effects of treatment group (alirocumab, placebo), randomization strata (previous participation \[yes or no\] to DFI14223 study, Baseline BW \[\<50 or \>=50 kg\]) as per IVRS, time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, strata-by-time point interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of Baseline Total-C value and Baseline Total-C value by time-point interaction. Comparison was performed using an appropriate contrast.||-24.2|-41.3|<0.0001
90873123|NCT03510884|181606704|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the considered dosing regimen).|LS mean difference|-27.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-35.6|-20.2||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|MMRM||Alirocumab Q4W versus Placebo Q4W|The MMRM model included the fixed categorical effects of treatment group (alirocumab, placebo), randomization strata (Baseline BW \[\<50 or \>=50 kg\]) as per IVRS, time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, and BW strata-by-time point interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of Baseline Total-C value and Baseline Total-C value by time-point interaction. Comparison was performed using an appropriate contrast.||-20.2|-35.6|<0.0001
90960874|NCT01128738|181802440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage difference|50.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.1|62.3|||Fisher Exact||Percentage difference was estimated as BTX 50 U minus placebo.|||62.3|38.1|<0.001
90960875|NCT00973362|181802488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Sensitivity (%)|75.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.1|88.8||||||||88.8|53.1|
90960876|NCT00973362|181802488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Specificity (%)|62.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.2|65.9||||||||65.9|59.2|
90960877|NCT00973362|181802488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Positive Predictive Value [PPV] (%)|4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|5.8||||||||5.8|3.4|
90960878|NCT00973362|181802488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Negative Predictive Value [NPV] (%)|99.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.1|99.6||||||||99.6|98.1|
90913401|NCT04956575|181696021|OTHER|The ratio of GMT was estimated by the ratio of model based GMT.|Ratio|1.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|2.61|||||The 2 sided 95% assessed the difference in immune response between the mRNA-1010 compared with the active comparator, Afluria Quadrivalent, at Day 29.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against H1N1 at Day 29.||2.61|1.27|
90913402|NCT04956575|181696021|OTHER|The ratio of GMT was estimated by the ratio of model based GMT.|Ratio|2.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.79|3.7|||||The 2 sided 95% assessed the difference in immune response between the mRNA-1010 compared with the active comparator, Afluria Quadrivalent, at Day 29.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against H1N1 at Day 29.||3.70|1.79|
90913403|NCT04956575|181696021|OTHER|The ratio of GMT was estimated by the ratio of model based GMT.|Ratio|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.88|3.88|||||The 2 sided 95% assessed the difference in immune response between the mRNA-1010 compared with the active comparator, Afluria Quadrivalent, at Day 29.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against H1N1 at Day 29.||3.88|1.88|
90913404|NCT04956575|181696021|OTHER|The ratio of GMT was estimated by the ratio of model based GMT.|Ratio|1.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|2.5|||||The 2 sided 95% assessed the difference in immune response between the mRNA-1010 compared with the active comparator, Afluria Quadrivalent, at Day 29.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against H3N2 at Day 29.||2.50|1.29|
90913405|NCT04956575|181696021|OTHER|The ratio of GMT was estimated by the ratio of model based GMT.|Ratio|2.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|3.05|||||The 2 sided 95% assessed the difference in immune response between the mRNA-1010 compared with the active comparator, Afluria Quadrivalent, at Day 29.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against H3N2 at Day 29.||3.05|1.57|
90913406|NCT04956575|181696021|OTHER|The ratio of GMT was estimated by the ratio of model based GMT.|Ratio|2.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.81|3.5|||||The 2 sided 95% assessed the difference in immune response between the mRNA-1010 compared with the active comparator, Afluria Quadrivalent, at Day 29.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against H3N2 at Day 29.||3.50|1.81|
90913407|NCT04956575|181696021|OTHER|The ratio of GMT was estimated by the ratio of model based GMT.|Ratio|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.87|||||The 2 sided 95% assessed the difference in immune response between the mRNA-1010 compared with the active comparator, Afluria Quadrivalent, at Day 29.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against Victoria-lineage at Day 29.||0.87|0.54|
90913408|NCT04956575|181696021|OTHER|The ratio of GMT was estimated by the ratio of model based GMT.|Ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.12|||||The 2 sided 95% assessed the difference in immune response between the mRNA-1010 compared with the active comparator, Afluria Quadrivalent, at Day 29.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against Victoria-lineage at Day 29.||1.12|0.69|
90913409|NCT04956575|181696021|OTHER|The ratio of GMT was estimated by the ratio of model based GMT.|Ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.06|||||The 2 sided 95% assessed the difference in immune response between the mRNA-1010 compared with the active comparator, Afluria Quadrivalent, at Day 29.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against Victoria-lineage at Day 29.||1.06|0.66|
90913410|NCT04956575|181696021|OTHER|The ratio of GMT was estimated by the ratio of model based GMT.|Ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.44|||||The 2 sided 95% assessed the difference in immune response between the mRNA-1010 compared with the active comparator, Afluria Quadrivalent, at Day 29.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against Yamagata-lineage at Day 29.||1.44|0.86|
90913411|NCT04956575|181696021|OTHER|The ratio of GMT was estimated by the ratio of model based GMT.|Ratio|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.54|||||The 2 sided 95% assessed the difference in immune response between the mRNA-1010 compared with the active comparator, Afluria Quadrivalent, at Day 29.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against Yamagata-lineage at Day 29.||1.54|0.93|
90913412|NCT04956575|181696021|OTHER|The ratio of GMT was estimated by the ratio of model based GMT.|Ratio|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.55|||||The 2 sided 95% assessed the difference in immune response between the mRNA-1010 compared with the active comparator, Afluria Quadrivalent, at Day 29.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against Yamagata-lineage at Day 29.||1.55|0.93|
90913413|NCT04956575|181696022|OTHER|The ratio of GMT was estimated by the ratio of model based GMT.|Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.44|||||The 2 sided 95% assessed the difference in immune response between the mRNA-1010 compared with the active comparator, Afluria Quadrivalent, at Day 29.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against H1N1 at Day 29.||1.44|0.57|
90913414|NCT04956575|181696022|OTHER|The ratio of GMT was estimated by the ratio of model based GMT.|Ratio|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.0|||||The 2 sided 95% assessed the difference in immune response between the mRNA-1010 compared with the active comparator, Afluria Quadrivalent, at Day 29.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against H1N1 at Day 29.||2.00|0.78|
90913415|NCT04956575|181696022|OTHER|The ratio of GMT was estimated by the ratio of model based GMT.|Ratio|1.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|2.99|||||The 2 sided 95% assessed the difference in immune response between the mRNA-1010 compared with the active comparator, Afluria Quadrivalent, at Day 29.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent. against H1N1 at Day 29.||2.99|1.16|
90913416|NCT04956575|181696022|OTHER|The ratio of GMT was estimated by the ratio of model based GMT.|Ratio|1.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|2.21|||||The 2 sided 95% assessed the difference in immune response between the mRNA-1010 compared with the active comparator, Afluria Quadrivalent, at Day 29.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against H3N2 at Day 29.||2.21|0.91|
90913417|NCT04956575|181696022|OTHER|The ratio of GMT was estimated by the ratio of model based GMT.|Ratio|1.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|2.97|||||The 2 sided 95% assessed the difference in immune response between the mRNA-1010 compared with the active comparator, Afluria Quadrivalent, at Day 29.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against H3N2 at Day 29.||2.97|1.21|
90913418|NCT04956575|181696022|OTHER|The ratio of GMT was estimated by the ratio of model based GMT.|Ratio|2.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.68|4.14|||||The 2 sided 95% assessed the difference in immune response between the mRNA-1010 compared with the active comparator, Afluria Quadrivalent, at Day 29.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against H3N2 at Day 29.||4.14|1.68|
90913419|NCT04956575|181696022|OTHER|The ratio of GMT was estimated by the ratio of model based GMT.|Ratio|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.5|||||The 2 sided 95% assessed the difference in immune response between the mRNA-1010 compared with the active comparator, Afluria Quadrivalent, at Day 29.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against Victoria-lineage at Day 29.||0.50|0.26|
90913420|NCT04956575|181696022|OTHER|The ratio of GMT was estimated by the ratio of model based GMT.|Ratio|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.64|||||The 2 sided 95% assessed the difference in immune response between the mRNA-1010 compared with the active comparator, Afluria Quadrivalent, at Day 29.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against Victoria-lineage at Day 29.||0.64|0.33|
90913421|NCT04956575|181696022|OTHER|The ratio of GMT was estimated by the ratio of model based GMT.|Ratio|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.76|||||The 2 sided 95% assessed the difference in immune response between the mRNA-1010 compared with the active comparator, Afluria Quadrivalent, at Day 29.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against Victoria-lineage at Day 29.||0.76|0.38|
90913422|NCT04956575|181696022|OTHER|The ratio of GMT was estimated by the ratio of model based GMT.|Ratio|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.9|||||The 2 sided 95% assessed the difference in immune response between the mRNA-1010 compared with the active comparator, Afluria Quadrivalent, at Day 29.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against Yamagata-lineage at Day 29.||0.90|0.43|
90913423|NCT04956575|181696022|OTHER|The ratio of GMT was estimated by the ratio of model based GMT.|Ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.35|||||The 2 sided 95% assessed the difference in immune response between the mRNA-1010 compared with the active comparator, Afluria Quadrivalent, at Day 29.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against Yamagata-lineage at Day 29.||1.35|0.63|
90913424|NCT04956575|181696022|OTHER|The ratio of GMT was estimated by the ratio of model based GMT.|Ratio|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.09|||||The 2 sided 95% assessed the difference in immune response between the mRNA-1010 compared with the active comparator, Afluria Quadrivalent, at Day 29.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against Yamagata-lineage at Day 29.||1.09|0.51|
90913425|NCT04956575|181696025|OTHER||Percent difference|12.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|27.93|||||Seroconversion percent difference of mRNA-1010 - Afluria Quadrivalent. 95% CI was calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen (score) method.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against H1N1 at Day 29.||27.93|-2.00|
90913426|NCT04956575|181696025|OTHER||Percent difference|25.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.18|39.89|||||Seroconversion percent difference of mRNA-1010 - Afluria Quadrivalent. 95% CI was calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen (score) method.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against H1N1 at Day 29.||39.89|11.18|
90913427|NCT04956575|181696025|OTHER||Percent Difference|26.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.33|40.84|||||Seroconversion percent difference of mRNA-1010 - Afluria Quadrivalent. 95% CI was calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen (score) method.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against H1N1 at Day 29.||40.84|12.33|
90913428|NCT04956575|181696025|OTHER||Percent Difference|25.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.82|40.13|||||Seroconversion percent difference of mRNA-1010 - Afluria Quadrivalent. 95% CI was calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen (score) method.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against H3N2 at Day 29.||40.13|9.82|
90913429|NCT04956575|181696025|OTHER||Percent Difference|31.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.66|45.73|||||Seroconversion percent difference of mRNA-1010 - Afluria Quadrivalent. 95% CI was calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen (score) method.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against H3N2 at Day 29.||45.73|15.66|
90913430|NCT04956575|181696025|OTHER||Percent Difference|38.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.98|52.3|||||Seroconversion percent difference of mRNA-1010 - Afluria Quadrivalent. 95% CI was calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen (score) method.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against H3N2 at Day 29.||52.30|22.98|
90913431|NCT04956575|181696025|OTHER||Percent Difference|-9.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.83|3.79|||||Seroconversion percent difference of mRNA-1010 - Afluria Quadrivalent. 95% CI was calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen (score) method.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against Victoria-lineage at Day 29.||3.79|-24.83|
90913432|NCT04956575|181696025|OTHER||Percent Difference|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.91|14.73|||||Seroconversion percent difference of mRNA-1010 - Afluria Quadrivalent. 95% CI was calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen (score) method.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against Victoria-lineage at Day 29.||14.73|-14.91|
90913433|NCT04956575|181696025|OTHER||Percent Difference|4.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.19|18.59|||||Seroconversion percent difference of mRNA-1010 - Afluria Quadrivalent. 95% CI was calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen (score) method.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against Victoria-lineage at Day 29.||18.59|-11.19|
90913434|NCT04956575|181696025|OTHER||Percent Difference|8.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.72|23.09|||||Seroconversion percent difference of mRNA-1010 - Afluria Quadrivalent. 95% CI was calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen (score) method.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against Yamagata-lineage at Day 29.||23.09|-6.72|
90913435|NCT04956575|181696025|OTHER||Percent Difference|15.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|29.37|||||Seroconversion percent difference of mRNA-1010 - Afluria Quadrivalent. 95% CI was calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen (score) method.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against Yamagata-lineage at Day 29.||29.37|-0.74|
90913436|NCT04956575|181696025|OTHER||Percent Difference|19.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.22|33.22|||||Seroconversion percent difference of mRNA-1010 - Afluria Quadrivalent. 95% CI was calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen (score) method.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent. against Yamagata-lineage at Day 29.||33.22|3.22|
90913437|NCT04956575|181696026|OTHER||Percent Difference|9.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.62|28.31|||||Seroconversion percent difference of mRNA-1010 - Afluria Quadrivalent. 95% CI was calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen (score) method.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against H1N1 at Day 29.||28.31|-10.62|
90913438|NCT04956575|181696026|OTHER||Percent Difference|18.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|36.61|||||Seroconversion percent difference of mRNA-1010 - Afluria Quadrivalent. 95% CI was calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen (score) method.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against H1N1 at Day 29.||36.61|-1.81|
90913439|NCT04956575|181696026|OTHER||Percent Difference|23.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|41.86|||||Seroconversion percent difference of mRNA-1010 - Afluria Quadrivalent. 95% CI was calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen (score) method.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against H1N1 at Day 29.||41.86|4.20|
90913440|NCT04956575|181696026|OTHER||Percent Difference|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.41|20.6|||||Seroconversion percent difference of mRNA-1010 - Afluria Quadrivalent. 95% CI was calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen (score) method.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against H3N2 at Day 29.||20.60|-18.41|
90913441|NCT04956575|181696026|OTHER||Percent Difference|22.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.09|40.6|||||Seroconversion percent difference of mRNA-1010 - Afluria Quadrivalent. 95% CI was calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen (score) method.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against H3N2 at Day 29.||40.60|2.09|
90913442|NCT04956575|181696026|OTHER||Percent Difference|36.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.38|53.36|||||Seroconversion percent difference of mRNA-1010 - Afluria Quadrivalent. 95% CI was calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen (score) method.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against H3N2 at Day 29.||53.36|17.38|
90913443|NCT04956575|181696026|OTHER||Percent Difference|-37.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.36|-20.45|||||Seroconversion percent difference of mRNA-1010 - Afluria Quadrivalent. 95% CI was calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen (score) method.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against Victoria-lineage at Day 29.||-20.45|-53.36|
90913444|NCT04956575|181696026|OTHER||Treatment Difference|-26.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.66|-6.9|||||Seroconversion percent difference of mRNA-1010 - Afluria Quadrivalent. 95% CI was calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen (score) method.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against Victoria-lineage at Day 29.||-6.90|-43.66|
90913445|NCT04956575|181696026|OTHER||Percent Difference|-19.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.95|0.11|||||Seroconversion percent difference of mRNA-1010 - Afluria Quadrivalent. 95% CI was calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen (score) method.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against Victoria-lineage at Day 29.||0.11|-37.95|
90913446|NCT04956575|181696026|OTHER||Percent Difference|-23.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.09|-4.26|||||Seroconversion percent difference of mRNA-1010 - Afluria Quadrivalent. 95% CI was calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen (score) method.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against Yamagata-lineage at Day 29.||-4.26|-41.09|
90960879|NCT00973362|181802488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Prevalence (%)|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90913447|NCT04956575|181696026|OTHER||Percent Difference|-4.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.09|15.59|||||Seroconversion percent difference of mRNA-1010 - Afluria Quadrivalent. 95% CI was calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen (score) method.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of against Afluria Quadrivalent Yamagata-lineage at Day 29.||15.59|-24.09|
90873124|NCT03510884|181606705|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the considered dosing regimen).|Odds Ratio (OR)|77.6|||=|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|6.3|960.0||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Regression, Logistic||Alirocumab Q2W versus Placebo Q2W: Combined estimate for odds ratio was obtained by combining the logarithm of odds ratio from logistic regression model analyses of the different imputed data sets, using Rubin's formulae.|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model. Logistic regression model stratified by randomization factors (previous participation \[yes or no\] to DFI14223 study, Baseline BW \[\<50 or \>=50 kg\]) as per IVRS included the fixed categorical effect of treatment group and the continuous fixed covariate of Baseline LDL-C value.||960.0|6.3|=0.0001
90873125|NCT03510884|181606705|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the considered dosing regimen).|Odds Ratio (OR)|14.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|3.2|69.8||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Regression, Logistic||Alirocumab Q4W versus Placebo Q4W: Combined estimate for odds ratio was obtained by combining the logarithm of odds ratio from logistic regression model analyses of the different imputed data sets, using Rubin's formulae.|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model. Logistic regression model stratified by randomization factors (Baseline BW \[\<50 or \>=50 kg\]) as per IVRS included the fixed categorical effect of treatment group and the continuous fixed covariate of Baseline LDL-C value.||69.8|3.2|<0.0001
90873126|NCT03510884|181606706|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the considered dosing regimen).|Odds Ratio (OR)|26.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|4.0|174.8||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Regression, Logistic||Alirocumab Q2W versus Placebo Q2W: Combined estimate for odds ratio was obtained by combining the logarithm of odds ratio from logistic regression model analyses of the different imputed data sets, using Rubin's formulae.|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model. The logistic regression model stratified by randomization factors (previous participation \[yes or no\] to DFI14223 study, Baseline BW \[\<50 or \>=50 kg\]) as per IVRS included the fixed categorical effect of treatment group and the continuous fixed covariate of Baseline LDL-C value.||174.8|4.0|<0.0001
90873127|NCT03510884|181606706|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the considered dosing regimen).|Odds Ratio (OR)|40.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|5.7|290.9||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Regression, Logistic||Alirocumab Q4W versus Placebo Q4W: Combined estimate for odds ratio was obtained by combining the logarithm of odds ratio from logistic regression model analyses of the different imputed data sets, using Rubin's formulae.|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model. The logistic regression model stratified by randomization factors (Baseline BW \[\<50 or \>=50 kg\]) as per IVRS included the fixed categorical effect of treatment group and the continuous fixed covariate of Baseline LDL-C value.||290.9|5.7|<0.0001
90873128|NCT03510884|181606707|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the considered dosing regimen).|Odds Ratio (OR)|52.7|||=|0.0011|TWO_SIDED|97.5|3.5|804.3||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Regression, Logistic||Alirocumab Q2W versus Placebo Q2W: Combined estimate for odds ratio was obtained by combining the logarithm of odds ratio from logistic regression model analyses of the different imputed data sets, using Rubin's formulae.|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model. The logistic regression model stratified by randomization factors (previous participation \[yes or no\] to DFI14223 study, Baseline BW \[\<50 or \>=50 kg\]) as per IVRS included the fixed categorical effect of treatment group and the continuous fixed covariate of Baseline LDL-C value.||804.3|3.5|=0.0011
90873129|NCT03510884|181606707|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the considered dosing regimen).|Odds Ratio (OR)|43.1|||=|0.0006|TWO_SIDED|97.5|3.7|498.6||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Regression, Logistic||Alirocumab Q4W versus Placebo Q4W: Combined estimate for odds ratio was obtained by combining the logarithm of odds ratio from logistic regression model analyses of the different imputed data sets, using Rubin's formulae.|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model. The logistic regression model stratified by randomization factors (Baseline BW \[\<50 or \>=50 kg\]) as per IVRS included the fixed categorical effect of treatment group and the continuous fixed covariate of Baseline LDL-C value.||498.6|3.7|=0.0006
90913448|NCT04956575|181696026|OTHER||Percent Difference|-8.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.13|11.27|||||Seroconversion percent difference of mRNA-1010 - Afluria Quadrivalent. 95% CI was calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen (score) method.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against Yamagata-lineage at Day 29.||11.27|-28.13|
90913449|NCT00854906|181696032|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This was a pilot study. Therefore, no formal power analyses were performed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.666|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.6||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.069|1.401|||t-test, 2 sided|||The paired T-test was used to compare mean KTBUT and mean FTBUT.||1.401|-0.069|0.074
90913450|NCT00854906|181696033|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The analysis will evaluate the association between OSDI with KTBUT.|Pearson's Correlation, r|-0.34||||0.093|ONE_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||A correlation was performed between ODSI questionnaire results and each participant's KTBUT.||||0.093
90913451|NCT00854906|181696033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson's Correlation, r|-0.26||||0.216|||||||Pearson's Correlation|||A correlation was performed between ODSI questionnaire results and each participant's FTBUT.||||0.216
90913452|NCT03482011|181696156|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|63.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.5|69.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||69.4|56.5|<0.001
90913453|NCT03482011|181696157|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|57.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.3|64.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||64.4|51.3|<0.001
90913454|NCT03482011|181696158|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.6|19.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||19.7|11.6|<0.001
90913455|NCT03482011|181696159|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|73.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.1|80.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||80.1|67.1|<0.001
90913456|NCT03482011|181696160|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|30.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.0|35.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||35.7|26.0|<0.001
90913457|NCT03482011|181696161|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|48.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.9|53.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||53.2|42.9|<0.001
90913458|NCT03482011|181696162|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.5|22.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||22.1|14.5|<0.001
90913459|NCT03482011|181696163|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|49.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.8|56.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||56.4|42.8|<0.001
90913460|NCT03482011|181696164|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|66.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.0|77.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||77.5|56.0|<0.001
90873130|NCT03510884|181606708|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the considered dosing regimen).|Odds Ratio (OR)|41.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|6.6||The percentage of participants reaching LDL-C level lower than 110 mg/dL was 0% in the placebo arm, as a result it was possible to derive the estimated odds-ratio, but the estimated confidence interval (CI) was very wide, with the upper limit estimated to Infinity, therefore upper limit of 97.5% CI was not available to report.|Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Exact conditional logistic regression||Alirocumab Q2W versus Placebo Q2W: Odds ratios and confidence intervals estimated from exact conditional logistic regression model.|The LOCF approach followed by exact conditional logistic regression model. The exact conditional logistic regression model stratified by randomization factors (previous participation \[yes or no\] to DFI14223 study, Baseline BW \[\<50 or \>=50 kg\]) as per IVRS included the fixed categorical effect of treatment group and the quartiles of the Baseline LDL-C value.|||6.6|<0.0001
90913461|NCT03482011|181696164|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|65.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.9|77.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||77.0|54.9|<0.001
90913462|NCT03482011|181696165|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.31|-2.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.10|-7.31|<0.001
90913463|NCT03482011|181696166|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-17.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.28|-15.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-15.39|-19.28|<0.001
90913464|NCT03482011|181696167|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.73|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.37|-3.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.58|-10.37|<0.001
90913465|NCT03482011|181696168|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|6.22|||ANCOVA|||||6.22|3.50|<0.001
90913466|NCT03482011|181696169|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.33|6.23|||ANCOVA|||||6.23|3.33|<0.001
90913467|NCT03482011|181696170|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|68.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.2|72.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||72.9|63.2|<0.001
90913468|NCT03482011|181696171|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.84||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|-0.06|||ANOVA|||Absenteeism||-0.06|-7.30|0.002
90913469|NCT03482011|181696171|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-20.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.37|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.89|-15.6|||ANCOVA|||Presenteeism||-15.60|-24.89|<0.001
90913470|NCT03482011|181696171|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-21.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.78|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.56|-15.62|||ANCOVA|||Overall Absenteeism and Presenteeism||-15.62|-26.56|<0.001
90913471|NCT03482011|181696171|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-22.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.39|-18.43|||ANCOVA|||Impairment in Activities Performed Outside of Work||-18.43|-27.39|<0.001
90913472|NCT03482011|181696172|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.79||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.08|4.14|||ANCOVA|||||4.14|-3.08|0.004
90913473|NCT03482011|181696173|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|48.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.6|55.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||55.9|41.6|<0.001
90913474|NCT00468052|181696175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Null hypothesis is not significantly different from group D and F.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Sixty subjects were required per group to determine that with Dex would decrease the incidence of severe EA after surgery by 50% with 80% power (0.05)in comparison with the control group.60 subjects were required by group to show the that intraoperative rescue fentanyl and rescue morphine in the PACU would be 50% lower in subjects receiving dex.||||.001
90913475|NCT00468052|181696175|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Treatment with Dex would reduce the incidence of severe agitation be 50% with an 80% power (alpha 0.05)||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis dexmedetomidine would be a safe and effective substitute to opiates in reducing pain and the incidence of severe EA||||.001
90913476|NCT00468052|181696176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.004
90913477|NCT00468052|181696178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.03
90913478|NCT00468052|181696179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.02
90960880|NCT00973362|181802488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|13.1|||||The relative risk of CIN2+ is defined as the \[ absolute risk of APTIMA HPV (Positive Result) / absolute risk of APTIMA HPV (Negative Result) \] .|||13.1|1.8|
90873131|NCT03510884|181606708|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the considered dosing regimen).|Odds Ratio (OR)|104.8|||=|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|97.5|5.2|2095.9||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Regression, Logistic||Alirocumab Q4W versus Placebo Q4W: Combined estimate for odds ratio was obtained by combining the logarithm of odds ratio from logistic regression model analyses of the different imputed data sets, using Rubin's formulae.|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model. The logistic regression model stratified by randomization factors (Baseline BW \[\<50 or \>=50 kg\]) as per IVRS included the fixed categorical effect of treatment group and the continuous fixed covariate of Baseline LDL-C value.||2095.9|5.2|=0.0005
90873132|NCT03510884|181606709|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the considered dosing regimen).|Adjusted mean difference|-15.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.7|=|0.0237|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-30.3|-0.1||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Robust regression model||Alirocumab Q2W versus Placebo Q2W|Multiple imputation approach followed by robust regression model. The robust regression model included the fixed categorical effect of treatment group and randomization strata (previous participation \[yes or no\] to DFI14223 study, Baseline BW \[\<50 or \>=50 kg\]) as per IVRS and the continuous fixed covariate of Baseline lipoprotein (a) value.||-0.1|-30.3|=0.0237
90873133|NCT03510884|181606709|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the considered dosing regimen).|Adjusted mean difference|-24.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.7|=|0.0043|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-44.4|-5.4||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Robust regression model||Alirocumab Q4W versus Placebo Q4W|Multiple imputation approach followed by robust regression model. The robust regression model included the fixed categorical effect of treatment group and randomization strata (Baseline BW \[\<50 or \>=50 kg\]) as per IVRS and the continuous fixed covariate of Baseline lipoprotein (a) value.||-5.4|-44.4|=0.0043
90873134|NCT03510884|181606710|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the considered dosing regimen).|Adjusted mean difference|-5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.1|=|0.4288|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-21.7|10.4||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Robust regression model||Alirocumab Q2W versus Placebo Q2W|Multiple imputation approach followed by robust regression model. The robust regression model included the fixed categorical effect of treatment group and randomization strata (previous participation \[yes or no\] to DFI14223 study, Baseline BW \[\<50 or \>=50 kg\]) as per IVRS and the continuous fixed covariate of Baseline lipoprotein (a) value.||10.4|-21.7|=0.4288
90873135|NCT03510884|181606710|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the considered dosing regimen).|Adjusted mean difference|-13.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.6|=|0.1148|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-32.7|5.7||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Robust regression model||Alirocumab Q4W versus Placebo Q4W|Multiple imputation approach followed by robust regression model. The robust regression model included the fixed categorical effect of treatment group and randomization strata (Baseline BW \[\<50 or \>=50 kg\]) as per IVRS and the continuous fixed covariate of Baseline lipoprotein (a) value.||5.7|-32.7|=0.1148
90873136|NCT00157950|181606740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion|98.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.6|99.8|||||Exact binomial confidence interval|||99.8|93.6|
90873137|NCT00157950|181606741|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The lower bound of the 95% confidence interval for the proportion of subjects receiving Gardasil who were seropositive at Week 4 postdose 3 must be greater than 90%|Proportion|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.8|100.0|||||Exact binomial confidence interval|||100|96.8|
90873138|NCT00157950|181606742|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The lower bound of the 95% confidence interval for the proportion of subjects receiving Gardasil who were seropositive at Week 4 postdose 3 must be greater than 90%|Proportion|99.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|95.2|100.0|||||Exact binomial confidence interval|||100|95.2|
90873139|NCT00157950|181606743|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The lower bound of the 95% confidence interval for the proportion of subjects receiving Gardasil who were seropositive at Week 4 postdose 3 must be greater than 90%|Proportion|99.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|95.0|100.0|||||Exact binomial confidence interval|||100|95.0|
90873140|NCT01500629|181606802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.79||||0.156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||The following comparison was made: Allergen Block (C-1266-7) vs placebo. For this comparison, the following hypothesis was tested: Ho: µ1= µ2 against the two-sided alternative H1: µ1≠ µ2 where µ1 and µ2 are the mean values of the parameter variable for the two treatment groups.||0.33|-1.90|0.156
90873141|NCT01500629|181606803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28||||0.625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|0.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||The following comparison was made: Allergen Block (C-1266-7) vs placebo. For this comparison, the following hypothesis was tested: Ho: µ1= µ2 against the two-sided alternative H1: µ1≠ µ2 where µ1 and µ2 are the mean values of the parameter variable for the two treatment groups.||0.92|-1.49|0.625
90873142|NCT01500629|181606804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.72||||0.291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|0.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||The following comparison was made: Allergen Block (C-1266-7) vs placebo. For this comparison, the following hypothesis was tested: Ho: µ1= µ2 against the two-sided alternative H1: µ1≠ µ2 where µ1 and µ2 are the mean values of the parameter variable for the two treatment groups.||0.67|-2.12|0.291
90873143|NCT01500629|181606805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|1.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||The following comparison was made: Allergen Block (C-1266-7) vs placebo. For this comparison, the following hypothesis was tested: Ho: µ1= µ2 against the two-sided alternative H1: µ1≠ µ2 where µ1 and µ2 are the mean values of the parameter variable for the two treatment groups.||1.07|-1.21|0.899
90960881|NCT00973362|181802489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Sensitivity (%)|84.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.4|94.5||||||||94.5|62.4|
90873144|NCT01500629|181606806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.701||||||The rank sum test was based on period difference for comparison between sequence.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The following comparison was made: Allergen Block (C-1266-7) vs placebo. For this comparison, the following hypothesis was tested: Ho: µ1= µ2 against the two-sided alternative H1: µ1≠ µ2 where µ1 and µ2 are the mean values of the parameter variable for the two treatment groups.||||0.701
90873145|NCT01500629|181606807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.108||||||The rank sum test was based on period difference for comparison between sequence.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The following comparison was made: Allergen Block (C-1266-7) vs placebo. For this comparison, the following hypothesis was tested: Ho: µ1= µ2 against the two-sided alternative H1: µ1≠ µ2 where µ1 and µ2 are the mean values of the parameter variable for the two treatment groups.||||0.108
90873146|NCT01500629|181606808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.253||||||The rank sum test was based on period difference for comparison between sequence.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The following comparison was made: Allergen Block (C-1266-7) vs placebo. For this comparison, the following hypothesis was tested: Ho: µ1= µ2 against the two-sided alternative H1: µ1≠ µ2 where µ1 and µ2 are the mean values of the parameter variable for the two treatment groups.||||0.253
90913479|NCT04707313|181696188|SUPERIORITY||Difference to placebo|-5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.41|-3.74|||Mixed Models Analysis||MMRM:treatment,time,strata(female vs male),treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effect, natural log-transformed baseline as covariate,natural log-transformed baseline-by-time interaction with time fitted:repeated effect, participant:random effect.|||-3.74|-7.41|<.0001
90873147|NCT01500629|181606809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.287||||||The rank sum test was based on period difference for comparison between sequence.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The following comparison was made: Allergen Block (C-1266-7) vs placebo. For this comparison, the following hypothesis was tested: Ho: µ1= µ2 against the two-sided alternative H1: µ1≠ µ2 where µ1 and µ2 are the mean values of the parameter variable for the two treatment groups.||||0.287
90873148|NCT01500629|181606810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.409||||||The rank sum test was based on period difference for comparison between sequence.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The following comparison was made: Allergen Block (C-1266-7) vs placebo. For this comparison, the following hypothesis was tested: Ho: µ1= µ2 against the two-sided alternative H1: µ1≠ µ2 where µ1 and µ2 are the mean values of the parameter variable for the two treatment groups.||||0.409
90873149|NCT01500629|181606811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.092||||||The rank sum test was based on period difference for comparison between sequence.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The following comparison was made: Allergen Block (C-1266-7) vs placebo. For this comparison, the following hypothesis was tested: Ho: µ1= µ2 against the two-sided alternative H1: µ1≠ µ2 where µ1 and µ2 are the mean values of the parameter variable for the two treatment groups.||||0.092
90873150|NCT01500629|181606812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.042||||||The rank sum test was based on period difference for comparison between sequence.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The following comparison was made: Allergen Block (C-1266-7) vs placebo. For this comparison, the following hypothesis was tested: Ho: µ1= µ2 against the two-sided alternative H1: µ1≠ µ2 where µ1 and µ2 are the mean values of the parameter variable for the two treatment groups.||||0.042
90873151|NCT01500629|181606813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.307||||||The rank sum test was based on period difference for comparison between sequence.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The following comparison was made: Allergen Block (C-1266-7) vs placebo. For this comparison, the following hypothesis was tested: Ho: µ1= µ2 against the two-sided alternative H1: µ1≠ µ2 where µ1 and µ2 are the mean values of the parameter variable for the two treatment groups.||||0.307
90873152|NCT01500629|181606814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.903||||||The rank sum test was based on period difference for comparison between sequence.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The following comparison was made: Allergen Block (C-1266-7) vs placebo. For this comparison, the following hypothesis was tested: Ho: µ1= µ2 against the two-sided alternative H1: µ1≠ µ2 where µ1 and µ2 are the mean values of the parameter variable for the two treatment groups.||||0.903
90873153|NCT01500629|181606815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.121||||||The rank sum test was based on period difference for comparison between sequence.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The following comparison was made: Allergen Block (C-1266-7) vs placebo. For this comparison, the following hypothesis was tested: Ho: µ1= µ2 against the two-sided alternative H1: µ1≠ µ2 where µ1 and µ2 are the mean values of the parameter variable for the two treatment groups.||||0.121
90873154|NCT01500629|181606816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.689||||||The rank sum test was based on period difference for comparison between sequence.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The following comparison was made: Allergen Block (C-1266-7) vs placebo. For this comparison, the following hypothesis was tested: Ho: µ1= µ2 against the two-sided alternative H1: µ1≠ µ2 where µ1 and µ2 are the mean values of the parameter variable for the two treatment groups.||||0.689
90873155|NCT01500629|181606817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.314||||||The rank sum test was based on period difference for comparison between sequence.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The following comparison was made: Allergen Block (C-1266-7) vs placebo. For this comparison, the following hypothesis was tested: Ho: µ1= µ2 against the two-sided alternative H1: µ1≠ µ2 where µ1 and µ2 are the mean values of the parameter variable for the two treatment groups.||||0.314
90873156|NCT01500629|181606818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.034||||||The rank sum test was based on period difference for comparison between sequence.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The following comparison was made: Allergen Block (C-1266-7) vs placebo. For this comparison, the following hypothesis was tested: Ho: µ1= µ2 against the two-sided alternative H1: µ1≠ µ2 where µ1 and µ2 are the mean values of the parameter variable for the two treatment groups.||||0.034
90873157|NCT01500629|181606819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.845||||||The rank sum test was based on period difference for comparison between sequence.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The following comparison was made: Allergen Block (C-1266-7) vs placebo. For this comparison, the following hypothesis was tested: Ho: µ1= µ2 against the two-sided alternative H1: µ1≠ µ2 where µ1 and µ2 are the mean values of the parameter variable for the two treatment groups.||||0.845
90873158|NCT01500629|181606820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.619||||||The rank sum test was based on period difference for comparison between sequence.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The following comparison was made: Allergen Block (C-1266-7) vs placebo. For this comparison, the following hypothesis was tested: Ho: µ1= µ2 against the two-sided alternative H1: µ1≠ µ2 where µ1 and µ2 are the mean values of the parameter variable for the two treatment groups.||||0.619
90913480|NCT04707313|181696188|SUPERIORITY||Difference to placebo|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.8|-3.16|||Mixed Models Analysis||MMRM:treatment,time,strata(female vs male),treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effect, natural log-transformed baseline as covariate,natural log-transformed baseline-by-time interaction with time fitted:repeated effect, participant:random effect.|||-3.16|-6.80|<.0001
90913481|NCT04707313|181696188|SUPERIORITY||Difference to Placebo|-9.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.89|-7.28|||Mixed Models Analysis||MMRM:treatment,time,strata(female vs male),treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effect, natural log-transformed baseline as covariate,natural log-transformed baseline-by-time interaction with time fitted:repeated effect, participant:random effect.|||-7.28|-10.89|<.0001
90960882|NCT00973362|181802489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Specificity (%)|48.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.2|52.2||||||||52.2|45.2|
90913482|NCT04707313|181696188|SUPERIORITY||Difference to Placebo|-6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.75|-4.39|||Mixed Models Analysis||MMRM:treatment,time,strata(female vs male),treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effect, natural log-transformed baseline as covariate,natural log-transformed baseline-by-time interaction with time fitted:repeated effect, participant:random effect.|||-4.39|-8.75|<.0001
90913483|NCT04707313|181696188|SUPERIORITY||Difference to Placebo|-9.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.43|-7.56|||Mixed Models Analysis||MMRM:treatment,time,strata(female vs male),treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effect, natural log-transformed baseline as covariate,natural log-transformed baseline-by-time interaction with time fitted:repeated effect, participant:random effect.|||-7.56|-11.43|<.0001
90913484|NCT04707313|181696188|SUPERIORITY||Difference to Placebo|-7.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.41|-4.78|||Mixed Models Analysis||MMRM:treatment,time,strata(female vs male),treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effect, natural log-transformed baseline as covariate,natural log-transformed baseline-by-time interaction with time fitted:repeated effect, participant:random effect.|||-4.78|-9.41|<.0001
90913485|NCT04707313|181696188|SUPERIORITY||Difference to Placebo|-9.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.11|-7.08|||Mixed Models Analysis||MMRM:treatment,time,strata(female vs male),treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effect, natural log-transformed baseline as covariate,natural log-transformed baseline-by-time interaction with time fitted:repeated effect, participant:random effect.|||-7.08|-11.11|<.0001
90913486|NCT04707313|181696188|SUPERIORITY||Difference to Placebo|-7.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.32|-4.99|||Mixed Models Analysis||MMRM:treatment,time,strata(female vs male),treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effect, natural log-transformed baseline as covariate,natural log-transformed baseline-by-time interaction with time fitted:repeated effect, participant:random effect.|||-4.99|-9.32|<.0001
90913487|NCT04707313|181696189|SUPERIORITY||Difference to Placebo|-8.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.66|-4.63|||Mixed Models Analysis||MMRM:treatment,time,strata(female vs male),treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effect, natural log-transformed baseline as covariate,natural log-transformed baseline-by-time interaction with time fitted:repeated effect, participant:random effect.|||-4.63|-11.66|<.0001
90913488|NCT04707313|181696189|SUPERIORITY||Difference to placebo|-8.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.83|-4.92|||Mixed Models Analysis||MMRM:treatment,time,strata(female vs male),treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effect, natural log-transformed baseline as covariate,natural log-transformed baseline-by-time interaction with time fitted:repeated effect, participant:random effect.|||-4.92|-11.83|<.0001
90913489|NCT04707313|181696189|SUPERIORITY||Difference to Placebo|-12.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.15|-9.47|||Mixed Models Analysis||MMRM:treatment,time,strata(female vs male),treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effect, natural log-transformed baseline as covariate,natural log-transformed baseline-by-time interaction with time fitted:repeated effect, participant:random effect.|||-9.47|-16.15|<.0001
90913490|NCT04707313|181696202|SUPERIORITY|Logistic regression models (included terms for treatment, strata \[females versus males\] and baseline body weight as a covariate) were applied to the imputed datasets from the multiple imputation method above and parameter estimates were combined using standard multiple imputation techniques.|Odds Ratio (OR)|7.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.81|19.3||||||||19.30|2.81|
90913491|NCT04707313|181696202|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.62|16.53||||||Logistic regression models (included terms for treatment, strata \[females versus males\] and baseline body weight as a covariate) were applied to the imputed datasets from the multiple imputation method above and parameter estimates were combined using standard multiple imputation techniques.||16.53|2.62|
90913492|NCT04707313|181696202|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.47|41.24||||||Logistic regression models (included terms for treatment, strata \[females versus males\] and baseline body weight as a covariate) were applied to the imputed datasets from the multiple imputation method above and parameter estimates were combined using standard multiple imputation techniques.||41.24|6.47|
90913493|NCT04707313|181696202|SUPERIORITY|Logistic regression models (included terms for treatment, strata \[females versus males\] and baseline body weight as a covariate) were applied to the imputed datasets from the multiple imputation method above and parameter estimates were combined using standard multiple imputation techniques.|Odds Ratio (OR)|14.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.39|37.66||||||||37.66|5.39|
90913494|NCT04707313|181696202|SUPERIORITY|Logistic regression models (included terms for treatment, strata \[females versus males\] and baseline body weight as a covariate) were applied to the imputed datasets from the multiple imputation method above and parameter estimates were combined using standard multiple imputation techniques.|Odds Ratio (OR)|30.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|11.35|80.2||||||||80.20|11.35|
90960883|NCT00973362|181802489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Positive Predictive Value [PPV] (%)|3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|4.4||||||||4.4|2.9|
90913495|NCT04707313|181696202|SUPERIORITY|Logistic regression models (included terms for treatment, strata \[females versus males\] and baseline body weight as a covariate) were applied to the imputed datasets from the multiple imputation method above and parameter estimates were combined using standard multiple imputation techniques.|Odds Ratio (OR)|9.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.91|33.53||||||||33.53|2.91|
90913496|NCT04707313|181696202|SUPERIORITY|Logistic regression models (included terms for treatment, strata \[females versus males\] and baseline body weight as a covariate) were applied to the imputed datasets from the multiple imputation method above and parameter estimates were combined using standard multiple imputation techniques.|Odds Ratio (OR)|24.41|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.28|71.95||||||||71.95|8.28|
90913497|NCT04707313|181696202|SUPERIORITY|Logistic regression models (included terms for treatment, strata \[females versus males\] and baseline body weight as a covariate) were applied to the imputed datasets from the multiple imputation method above and parameter estimates were combined using standard multiple imputation techniques.|Odds Ratio (OR)|12.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.56|35.08||||||||35.08|4.56|
90913498|NCT04707313|181696203|SUPERIORITY|Logistic regression models (included terms for treatment, strata \[females versus males\] and baseline body weight as a covariate) were applied to the imputed datasets from the multiple imputation method above and parameter estimates were combined using standard multiple imputation techniques.|Odds Ratio (OR)|33.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.05|366.64||||||||366.64|3.05|
90913499|NCT04707313|181696203|SUPERIORITY|Logistic regression models (included terms for treatment, strata \[females versus males\] and baseline body weight as a covariate) were applied to the imputed datasets from the multiple imputation method above and parameter estimates were combined using standard multiple imputation techniques.|Odds Ratio (OR)|34.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.1|373.85||||||||373.85|3.10|
90913500|NCT04707313|181696203|SUPERIORITY|Logistic regression models (included terms for treatment, strata \[females versus males\] and baseline body weight as a covariate) were applied to the imputed datasets from the multiple imputation method above and parameter estimates were combined using standard multiple imputation techniques.|Odds Ratio (OR)|127.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|10.55|1533.46||||||||1533.46|10.55|
90913501|NCT02459899|181696214|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.139||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.02||Threshold for significance \< 0.05|MMRM|||Analysis was performed using MMRM model with treatment, randomization strata of insulin delivery method (CSII, MDI), time (study week), and a treatment-by-time interaction as fixed categorical effects, and Baseline A1C-by-time interaction as a covariate.||0.02|-0.53|0.07
90913502|NCT02459899|181696214|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.135|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.22||Threshold for significance \< 0.05|MMRM|||Analysis was performed using MMRM model with treatment, randomization strata of insulin delivery method (CSII, MDI), time (study week), and a treatment-by-time interaction as fixed categorical effects, and Baseline A1C-by-time interaction as a covariate.||-0.22|-0.75|<0.001
90913503|NCT02459899|181696214|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.11||Threshold for significance \< 0.05|MMRM|||Analysis was performed using MMRM model with treatment, randomization strata of insulin delivery method (CSII, MDI), time (study week), and a treatment-by-time interaction as fixed categorical effects, and Baseline A1C-by-time interaction as a covariate.||-0.11|-0.65|0.006
90913504|NCT02739035|181696220|SUPERIORITY|A difference of 10 degrees in total mean range of motion between the control and the treatment group was considered a clinically significant improvement.||||||0.23||||||Using a standard alpha value of 0.05, p values below 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||"Outcomes were compared between the two study groups using two-sample t-tests. T-tests were two-sided and the standard alpha value of 0.05 was the threshold for statistical significance.~The null hypothesis was that there were no significant differences between control group of MUA alone and the treatment group of MUA with dexamethasone and celecoxib."||||0.23
90913505|NCT02739035|181696221|SUPERIORITY|A difference of 10 degrees in total mean range of motion (ROM) between the control and the treatment group was considered a clinically significant improvement. To detect this difference, a previous study's mean and standard deviation were referenced in order to predict the variation of results. 54 patients per arm were required to have 90% power with a two-sided t-test and a type I error rate of 5%. 130 patients were targeted for recruitment to account for up to a 20% dropout rate.||||||0.81||||||Using a standard alpha value of 0.05, p values below 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||"Outcomes were compared between the two study groups using two-sample t-tests. T-tests were two-sided and the standard alpha value of 0.05 was the threshold for statistical significance.~The null hypothesis was that there were no significant differences between control group of MUA alone and the treatment group of MUA with dexamethasone and celecoxib."||||0.81
90913506|NCT04446117|181696243|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.65||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.84||Stratification factors used: Liver metastasis, prior docetaxel use for locally advanced or metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC) and disease state at first NHT.|Log Rank||Stratification factors used: Liver metastasis, prior docetaxel use for locally advanced or mCSPC and disease state at first NHT.|||0.84|0.50|0.0007
90913507|NCT04446117|181696244|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.89||||0.2956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.1||Stratification factors used: Liver metastasis, prior docetaxel use for locally advanced or mCSPC and disease state at first NHT.|Log Rank|||||1.10|0.72|0.2956
90913508|NCT03165175|181696245|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72||||||This p-value is the for the group by time (group: intervention/control, by time: baseline/1 month) interaction.|ANOVA|||||||.72
90913509|NCT03165175|181696246|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.598||||||This p-value is the for the group by time (group: intervention/control, by time: baseline/1 month) interaction.|ANOVA|||||||.598
90913510|NCT03165175|181696247|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.954||||||This p-value is the for the group by time (group: intervention/control, by time: baseline/1 month) interaction.|ANOVA|||||||.954
90913511|NCT03165175|181696248|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.167||||||This p-value is the for the group by time (group: intervention/control, by time: baseline/1 month) interaction.|ANOVA|||||||.167
90913512|NCT03165175|181696249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022||||||This p-value is the for the group by time (group: intervention/control, by time: baseline/1 month) interaction.|ANOVA|||||||.022
90913513|NCT04470193|181696267|SUPERIORITY|We approached 62 subjects to get a sample size of 50 participants, allowing up to 16% attrition, to estimate the proportions of patients satisfying dropout of 0.13 to within margins of error (half-widths of 90% Cis). The 50 evaluable subjects were used to estimate the SD of QoL, with a margin of error of ∼20%. The sample size also allowed us to provide provisional estimates of the effect size for the QoL outcome to within a margin of error of ±7.1 points, assuming a true SD of 15 points.|||||>|0.05|||||||generalized estimating equation model|||We used a generalized estimating equation model for repeated assessments, with a common unstructured residual covariance matrix to account for correlation in repeated measurements in the same patient, to compare QoL total score at baseline, 1 month, and 3 months between the groups. We hypothesized that MyChildCMC users would have better outcomes for the child (higher QoL, fewer ED and/or hospital use and hospital days) and parent (higher satisfaction with child's care).||||>0.05
90913514|NCT04470193|181696268|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.05||||0.882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.88|0.58|0.882
90913515|NCT04470193|181696269|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.62|0.39|<0.001
90913516|NCT04470193|181696270|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.11||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.22|1.01|0.035
90913517|NCT02517307|181696271|OTHER|||||||0.136|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||We compared the effects of intralipid on Rd in controls subjects versus subjects with a FAOD by mixed-effect models. Factors were group (control or FAOD) treatment (glycerol or intralipid) and the interaction of those factors. The hypothesis was intralipid would decrease Rd in controls but not in subjects with an FAOD.||||0.136
90913518|NCT02517307|181696272|OTHER|We analyzed the data with a mixed model looking at the effect of group (control vs FAOD) and treatment (glycerol vs intralipid) and their interaction.||||||0.011|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||We tested if intralipid did not suppress endogenous glucose production or Ra as much as glycerol in controls compared to subjects with an FAOD.||||0.011
90913519|NCT00843882|181696273|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.004
90913520|NCT00843882|181696282|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0002
90913521|NCT01582269|181696297|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9336|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.49|||Bayesian exponential-likelihood model|||The Bayesian analyses below include credible intervals rather than confidence intervals for the hazard ratios.|The posterior probability treatment difference is 0.6158|1.49|0.58|
90913522|NCT01582269|181696297|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.129|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.65|||Bayesian exponential-likelihood model|||The Bayesian analyses below include credible intervals rather than confidence intervals for the hazard ratios.|The posterior probability treatment difference is 0.2628|1.65|0.78|
90913523|NCT03360396|181696320|OTHER|Study was closed early in all regions except for France. Statistical Analysis plan was updated to include descriptive statistics only. Sites in France remain open and all subjects in France will be followed through 36 months.||||||||||||Study was closed early in all regions except for France. Statistical Analysis plan was updated to include descriptive statistics only. Sites in France remain open and all subjects in France will be followed through 36 months.||Study was closed early in all regions except for France. SAP was updated to include descriptive statistics only. French sites remain open.||Study was closed early in all regions except for France. Statistical Analysis plan was updated to include descriptive statistics only. Sites in France remain open and all subjects in France will be followed through 36 months.|Study was closed early in all regions except for France. Statistical Analysis plan was updated to include descriptive statistics only. Sites in France remain open and all subjects in France will be followed through 36 months.|||
90913524|NCT03360396|181696321|OTHER|Study was terminated early, and Statistical Analysis plan was updated to include descriptive statistics only.||||||||||||Study was terminated early, and Statistical Analysis plan was updated to include descriptive statistics only.||Study was terminated early, and Statistical Analysis plan was updated to include descriptive statistics only.||Study was terminated early, and Statistical Analysis plan was updated to include descriptive statistics only.|Study was terminated early, and Statistical Analysis plan was updated to include descriptive statistics only.|||
90913525|NCT00546871|181696357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Poisson|0.067|||||ONE_SIDED|99.0||0.134||||||||0.134||
90913526|NCT01113931|181696389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent Cure Rates|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|5.1||||||The planned sample size of 480 randomized subjects ensured that approximately 200 subjects per group were included in the primary efficacy analyses. The 20% rate of exclusion was to account for subjects who had a negative test for urogenital C. trachomatis at the Baseline visit.||5.1|-4.6|
90960884|NCT00973362|181802489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Negative Predictive Value [NPV] (%)|99.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.1|99.8||||||||99.8|98.1|
90960885|NCT00973362|181802489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Prevalence (%)|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90913527|NCT01113931|181696392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent Cure Rates|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|5.1||||||The planned sample size of 480 randomized subjects ensured that approximately 200 subjects per group were included in the primary efficacy analyses. The 20% rate of exclusion was to account for subjects who had a negative test for urogenital C. trachomatis at the Baseline visit.||5.1|-4.6|
90913528|NCT00432458|181696393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Log Rank|Model was stratified by beta-2 microglobulin (high vs low), lytic bone lesions (present vs not) and bone marrow labeling index (high vs low)||||||0.02
90913529|NCT00432458|181696394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0048||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0048
90913530|NCT00432458|181696395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
90913531|NCT00114101|181696407|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|This study was designed to have 80% power, with the use of the log-rank test at a one-sided significance level of 0.05, to detect a hazard ratio of 1.4, assuming proportional hazards and an exponential time to event distribution. Under the assumed framework, 309 events were expected. The expected drop out rate before randomization was 15%.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.53||Participants were randomized with the use of a permuted-block design stratified by beta 2 microglobulin, prior use of thalidomide and prior use of lenalidomide. TTP was monitored with the use of a group sequential design for superiority and futility.|Log Rank|||||0.53|0.26|<0.001
90913532|NCT00114101|181696409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.02|||Log Rank|||||1.02|0.26|0.70
90913533|NCT00114101|181696410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.69|||Fisher Exact|||||0.69|0.41|<0.001
90913534|NCT01786564|181696419|OTHER|This is cross-sectional analysis in a single group.|Regression Coefficient|-0.075||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.173|0.023||Unadjusted association. A priori p value of .05 was selected for statistical significance.|Regression, Linear|||The cross-sectional association between habitual sleep duration and oral disposition index was analyzed.||.023|-.173|.13
90913535|NCT01786564|181696419|OTHER|This is cross-sectional analysis|Regression Coefficient|0.12||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|1.19||Unadjusted association. P value of .05 was selected a priori as statistical significance|Regression, Linear|Unadjusted.||The cross-sectional association between habitual sleep quality (sleep percentage) and oral disposition index was analyzed.||1.19|-0.95|.83
90913536|NCT01786564|181696419|OTHER|This is cross-sectional analysis in a single group.|Regression Coefficient|-0.05||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.166|0.66||Unadjusted association. A priori p value of .05 was selected for statistical significance.|Regression, Linear|Unadjusted||The cross-sectional association between amount of Stage 3 sleep and oral disposition index was analyzed.||0.66|-.166|.39
90913537|NCT01786564|181696419|OTHER|Unadjusted association. P value of .05 was selected a priori as statistical significance|Regression Coefficient|-0.058||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.129|0.014||Unadjusted association. P value of .05 was selected a priori as statistical significance|Regression, Linear|Unadjusted association.||The cross-sectional association between amount of REM sleep and oral disposition index was analyzed.||.014|-.129|.11
90913538|NCT02138006|181696420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.30
90913539|NCT00424762|181696422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||powered to detect at least 33% difference between groups||||>0.05
90913540|NCT00424762|181696423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||powered to detect difference of at least 10% between groups||||0.26
90913541|NCT00424762|181696424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||comparative incidence||||0.03
90913542|NCT00723450|181696480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0717||95.0|||||Log Rank|A stratified log rank test was performed where the stratification factor was the index mood state at Screen visit.||||||0.0717
90913543|NCT02326649|181696502|OTHER|||||||0.47|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.47
90913544|NCT02326649|181696502|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.561|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.528||0.255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.295|18.417|||Regression, Linear|||Intercept for multilinear regression for difference in stroke volume controlling for difference in heart rate and blood pressure||18.417|-5.295|0.255
90913545|NCT02326649|181696502|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.417||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.395|1.395|||Regression, Linear|||Heart rate delta for multilinear regression for difference in stroke volume controlling for difference in heart rate and blood pressure||1.395|-0.395|0.250
90913546|NCT02326649|181696502|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.427|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.305||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.081|0.227|||Regression, Linear|||Diastolic BP delta for multilinear regression for difference in stroke volume controlling for difference in heart rate and blood pressure||0.227|-1.081|0.183
90913547|NCT02326649|181696502|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.557|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.452||0.238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.411|1.526|||Regression, Linear|||Systolic BP delta for multilinear regression for difference in stroke volume controlling for difference in heart rate and blood pressure||1.526|-0.411|0.238
90913548|NCT02311907|181696503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Generalized linear models (repeated measures analysis of variance \[ANOVA\]) will be used to compare the CIPN between GSH and placebo arms.||||0.21
90913549|NCT02311907|181696504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.63
90913550|NCT02950558|181696512|OTHER|||||||0.1269|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1269
90913551|NCT02950558|181696513|OTHER|||||||0.8808|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8808
90913552|NCT02950558|181696514|OTHER|||||||0.0382|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0382
90913553|NCT02950558|181696515|OTHER|||||||0.4696|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4696
90913554|NCT02950558|181696516|OTHER|||||||0.1818|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1818
90940490|NCT01177137|181760796|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|0.9||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.025 to account for two comparisons (1) TRT versus the Standard of Care and (2) Partial TRT versus the Standard of Care.|repeated measures GEE model||Adjusted for baseline TQ value, clinic, visit, age, gender, baseline Positive and Negative Affect Schedule and State Trait Anxiety Inventory scores, with multiple imputation|||0.90|-1.14|0.82
90940491|NCT01177137|181760797|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|0.62||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.025 to account for two comparisons (1) TRT versus the Standard of Care and (2) Partial TRT versus the Standard of Care.|repeated measures GEE model||Adjusted for baseline TQ value, clinic, visit, age, gender, baseline Positive and Negative Affect Schedule and State Trait Anxiety Inventory scores, with multiple imputation.|||0.62|-1.37|0.46
90913555|NCT04001517|181696524|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.175||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.345||The comparison is of neflamapimod 40mg TID to placebo. The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis||The comparison is of neflamapimod 40mg TID to placebo. The positive value represents a better outcome with neflamapimod 40mg treatment vs. placebo.|This was an exploratory trial and no explicit a priori hypothesis was established and contained in the protocol. As such, no formal power calculations were conducted. The primary objective of the study was to evaluate the effects of neflamapimod on cognition, and accordingly the primary endpoint was change in combined z-score of the six tests in the NTB, analyzed by Linear Mixed Effects (LME) model for repeated measures.||0.345|0.001|0.049
90913556|NCT04001517|181696524|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of combined neflamapimod groups vs. placebo.|||||>|0.2|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>0.2
90913557|NCT04001517|181696525|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of combined neflamapimod 40mg TID vs. placebo. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.56||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.16||Comparison of combined neflamapimod dose groups vs. placebo utilizing mixed model for repeated measures with baseline as a covariate. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis||The comparison is of neflamapimod 40mg TID to placebo. A negative value indicates improvement compared to placebo.|||-0.16|-0.96|0.007
90913558|NCT04001517|181696525|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.45||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.06||Mixed model for repeated measures with baseline as a covariate. The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis||Comparison of combined neflamapimod dose groups vs. placebo. Negative values represents a better outcome with neflamapimod relative to placebo.|A secondary analysis was conducted comparing the combined neflamapimod dose groups vs. placebo.||-0.06|-0.83|0.023
90913559|NCT04001517|181696526|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.2|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>0.2
90913560|NCT04001517|181696527|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.53||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.61|0.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||.55|-3.61|0.15
90913561|NCT04001517|181696527|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.31||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.03|2.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of combined neflamapimod groups (i.e., all neflamapimod) vs. placebo||2.34|-5.03|0.077
90960886|NCT00973362|181802489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|16.7|||||The relative risk of CIN2+ is defined as the \[ absolute risk of FDA-Approved HPV DNA Assay (Positive Result) / absolute risk of FDA-Approved HPV DNA Assay (Negative Result) \] .|||16.7|1.4|
90960887|NCT00973362|181802490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Sensitivity(%)|86.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.4|92.3||||||||92.3|78.4|
90913562|NCT04001517|181696528|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.32|||>|0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|1.91|||Mixed Models Analysis||Comparison of change from baseline over course of study for NFMD 40mg TID vs. placebo.|||1.91|-1.27|>0.2
90913563|NCT04001517|181696529|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.4||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference for the comparison of 40 mg TID vs. placebo is reported.|||-0.2|-2.6|0.024
90913564|NCT04001517|181696529|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of combined neflamapimod dose groups vs. placebo.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.36||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.69|-0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.04|-2.69|0.044
90913565|NCT02547922|181696566|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.031||||0.9052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.621|1.713||The p-values presented are unadjusted and was compared with the respective adjusted significance level (α). If α is not displayed, no formal testing can be performed and the corresponding p-value was nominal.|Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric mean ratio \>1 favours placebo.|The model includes fixed effects for treatment group, visit, stratification factors, log-transformed 24-hour UPCR at baseline, and treatment-by-visit interaction. All data up to and including the date of discontinuation of study treatment were included in the analysis.||1.713|0.621|0.9052
90913566|NCT02547922|181696567|SUPERIORITY||Difference in estimates|-0.08||||0.9929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.92|16.76||At Week 52, the p-values presented are unadjusted and will be compared to the respective adjusted significance level (α). If α is not displayed no formal testing can be performed and the corresponding p-value is nominal.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The statistical analysis represents the estimated percentage of responders. The responder/non-responder rates (percentages), the difference in estimates and associated 95% CI are weighted and are calculated using a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) approach.||16.76|-16.92|0.9929
90913567|NCT02248480|181696572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.0001
90913568|NCT04036058|181696589|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.611|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.611
90913569|NCT04036058|181696590|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0435|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0435
90913570|NCT04036058|181696591|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1158|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1158
90913571|NCT04036058|181696592|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0898|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0898
90913572|NCT04036058|181696593|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.114|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.114
90913573|NCT05555082|181696600|OTHER|Single-arm feasibility design; exploratory within-group analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.398||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.236|-0.559||P-values reported for transparency; feasibility study not powered for hypothesis testing.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with repeated measures; maximum likelihood estimation.|Within-group change from baseline to 12 months|Single-arm feasibility design; exploratory within-group analysis.||-0.559|-6.236|0.021
90913574|NCT05555082|181696600|OTHER||Cohens d|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90960888|NCT00973362|181802490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Specificty|62.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.6|66.0||||||||66.0|59.6|
90960889|NCT00973362|181802490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||PPV|20.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.1|22.0||||||||22.0|18.1|
90960890|NCT00973362|181802490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||NPV|97.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.5|98.8||||||||98.8|96.5|
90913575|NCT05555082|181696601|OTHER|Single-arm feasibility design; exploratory within-group analysis.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.328||||0.318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.013|1.357||P-values reported for transparency; study not powered for significance testing.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with repeated measures; maximum likelihood estimation.|Within-group change from baseline to 12 months;|"Single-arm feasibility design; exploratory within-group analysis."||1.357|-4.013|0.318
90913576|NCT05555082|181696601|OTHER||Cohens d|0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90913577|NCT05555082|181696602|OTHER|Single-arm feasibility design; exploratory within-group analysis.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.453||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.174|1.268||P-values reported for transparency; study not powered for significance testing.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with repeated measures; maximum likelihood estimation.|Within-group change from baseline to 12 months|"Single-arm feasibility design; exploratory within-group analysis."||1.268|-4.174|0.28
90913578|NCT05555082|181696602|OTHER||Cohens d|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90913579|NCT05555082|181696603|OTHER|Single-arm feasibility design; exploratory within-group analysis.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.122||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.917|-0.326||P-values reported for transparency; study not powered for significance testing.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with repeated measures; maximum likelihood estimation.|Within-group change from baseline to 12 months|"Single-arm feasibility design; exploratory within-group analysis."||-0.326|-3.917|0.023
90913580|NCT05555082|181696603|OTHER||Cohens d|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90913581|NCT05555082|181696604|OTHER|Single-arm feasibility design; exploratory within-group analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.876||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.66|41.092||P-values reported for transparency; study not powered for significance testing.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with repeated measures; maximum likelihood estimation.|Within-group change from baseline to 12 months|"Single-arm feasibility design; exploratory within-group analysis."||41.092|8.660|0.004
90913582|NCT05555082|181696604|OTHER||Cohens d|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90913583|NCT06001177|181696608|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.185||0.1668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.11||P-value was based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.11|-0.63|0.1668
90913584|NCT03593876|181696618|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The a priori analysis plan was to defer statistical or hypothesis testing due to the focus on feasibility, and rather to assess mean participant-therapist communication scores across intervention sessions. The mean and standard deviation of these scores was 3.00 (1.00). The a priori criterion for feasibility was a mean score of 2.0 or greater.|||
90913585|NCT03593876|181696619|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|51.71|STANDARD_DEVIATION|21.04|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||The a priori analysis plan was to defer statistical or hypothesis testing due to the focus on feasibility, and rather to assess change scores and effect size of the change scores to compare with previously published clinical trials.|The repeated measures effect size of change was Cohen's d(rm)=3.08.|||
90913586|NCT03593876|181696620|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|11.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.24|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||The a priori analysis plan was to defer statistical or hypothesis testing due to the focus on feasibility, and rather to assess change scores and effect size of the change scores to compare with previously published clinical trials.|The repeated measures effect size of change, Cohen's d(rm)=1.70|||
90913587|NCT02696707|181696649|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin between groups was set as 4%|Difference|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.2||||||||1.2|-2.5|
90913588|NCT00071799|181696653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|The p value is two-sided from the log rank test stratified by the randomization stratification factors of IPSS classification and FAB classification.||"A 95% CI range value of 'does not exist' is not accommodated in the results table, so all the 95% CI range values are offered here.~Azacitidine: low range of 17.9 months and high range of 'does not exist'.~Conventional Care: low range of 9.8 and high range of 17.0 months."||||0.0001
90913589|NCT00071799|181696653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.77|||Regression, Cox||Cox proportional hazards model stratified on the randomization factors of FAB and IPSS with model term of treatment.|||0.77|0.43|0.0002
90913590|NCT00071799|181696654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3973||||||The p value is two-sided from the log rank test stratified by the randomization stratification factors of IPSS classification and FAB classification|Log Rank|||"Age \< 65 years The Kaplan-Meier median time to death was not reached due to a small number of events, so the KM 25th percentile survival time is presented.~Some of the values in outcome table #2 do not have 95% CI values so no 95% CI ranges are contained in the table. Those 95% CI ranges are added here.~Azacitidine: low range of 7.1 months and high range of 15.6 months.~Conventional Care: low range of 4.4 and high range of 12.4 months."||||0.3973
90913591|NCT00071799|181696654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p value is two-sided from the log rank test stratified by the randomization stratification factors of IPSS classification and FAB classification|Log Rank|||"Age \>= 65 years~Some of the values in outcome table #2 do not have 95% CI values so no 95% CI ranges are contained in the table. Those 95% CI ranges are added here.~Azacitidine: low range of 17.1 months and high range of 34.7 months.~Conventional Care: low range of 8.8 and high range of 16.4 months."||||<0.0001
91033411|NCT00420238|181952595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.55|-8.1|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 2: Mixed model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), using an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits and their interactions as fixed factors, baseline as a covariate and patients as a random factor.||-8.10|-20.55|<0.0001
90913592|NCT00071799|181696654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0707||||||The p value is two-sided from the log rank test stratified by the randomization stratification factors of IPSS classification and FAB classification|Log Rank|||"Age \>= 75 years. The Kaplan-Meier median time to death was not reached due to a small number of events, so the KM 25th percentile survival time is presented.~Some of the values in outcome table #2 do not have 95% CI values so no 95% CI ranges are contained in the table. Those 95% CI ranges are added here.~Azacitidine: low range of 1.7 months and high range of 15.0 months.~Conventional Care: low range of 4.1 and high range of 7.6 months."||||0.0707
90960891|NCT00973362|181802490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Prevalence (%)|9.7|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90960892|NCT00973362|181802491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Sensitivity (%)|88.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|80.5|93.8||||||||93.8|80.5|
90960893|NCT00973362|181802491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Specificity(%)|55.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.3|59.3||||||||59.3|52.3|
90873159|NCT01500629|181606821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.803||||||The rank sum test was based on period difference for comparison between sequence.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The following comparison was made: Allergen Block (C-1266-7) vs placebo. For this comparison, the following hypothesis was tested: Ho: µ1= µ2 against the two-sided alternative H1: µ1≠ µ2 where µ1 and µ2 are the mean values of the parameter variable for the two treatment groups.||||0.803
90873160|NCT01500629|181606822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.175||||||The rank sum test was based on period difference for comparison between sequence.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The following comparison was made: Allergen Block (C-1266-7) vs placebo. For this comparison, the following hypothesis was tested: Ho: µ1= µ2 against the two-sided alternative H1: µ1≠ µ2 where µ1 and µ2 are the mean values of the parameter variable for the two treatment groups.||||0.175
90873161|NCT01500629|181606823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.206|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|The rank sum test was based on period difference for comparison between sequence.||The following comparison was made: Allergen Block (C-1266-7) vs placebo. For this comparison, the following hypothesis was tested: Ho: µ1= µ2 against the two-sided alternative H1: µ1≠ µ2 where µ1 and µ2 are the mean values of the parameter variable for the two treatment groups.||||0.206
90873162|NCT01500629|181606824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.072||||||The rank sum test was based on period difference for comparison between sequence.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The following comparison was made: Allergen Block (C-1266-7) vs placebo. For this comparison, the following hypothesis was tested: Ho: µ1= µ2 against the two-sided alternative H1: µ1≠ µ2 where µ1 and µ2 are the mean values of the parameter variable for the two treatment groups.||||0.072
90913593|NCT00071799|181696654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0042||||||The p value is two-sided from the log rank test stratified by the randomization stratification factors of IPSS classification and FAB classification|Log Rank|||"Gender: Male~Some of the values in outcome table #2 do not have 95% CI values so no 95% CI ranges are contained in the table. Those 95% CI ranges are added here.~Azacitidine: low range of 17.9 months and high range of 'does not exist'.~Conventional Care: low range of 10.8 and high range of 17.2 months."||||0.0042
90873163|NCT01500629|181606825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.014||||||The rank sum test was based on period difference for comparison between sequence.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The following comparison was made: Allergen Block (C-1266-7) vs placebo. For this comparison, the following hypothesis was tested: Ho: µ1= µ2 against the two-sided alternative H1: µ1≠ µ2 where µ1 and µ2 are the mean values of the parameter variable for the two treatment groups.||||.0140
90913594|NCT00071799|181696654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0469||||||The p value is two-sided from the log rank test stratified by the randomization stratification factors of IPSS classification and FAB classification|Log Rank|||"Gender: Female~Some of the values in outcome table #2 do not have 95% CI values so no 95% CI ranges are contained in the table. Those 95% CI ranges are added here.~Azacitidine: low range of 13.0 months and high range of 'does not exist'.~Conventional Care: low range of 8.2 and high range of 17.6 months."||||0.0469
90913595|NCT00071799|181696654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0056||95.0||||"95% CI ranges are added here.~Azacitidine: low range of 21.1 months and high range of 'does not exist'.~Conventional Care: low range of 9.3 and high range of 21.9 months."|Log Rank|The p value is two-sided from the log rank test stratified by the randomization stratification factors of IPSS classification and FAB classification.||FAB: Refractory anemia with excess blasts (RAEB). All patients were stratified at randomization by FAB classification and IPSS score as determined by the investigator using centrally read bone marrow and cytogenetic data. Subsequently, the FAB classifications and IPSS scores were reviewed by an Independent Review Committee (IRC). The subgroup analyses presented by FAB and IPSS represent the FAB classification and IPSS scores as determined by the IRC.||||0.0056
90913596|NCT00071799|181696654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0322||95.0||||The p value is two-sided from the log rank test stratified by the randomization stratification factors of IPSS classification and FAB classification|Log Rank|||"FAB: RAEB in transformation~Some of the values in outcome table #2 do not have 95% CI values so no 95% CI ranges are contained in the table. Those 95% CI ranges are added here.~Azacitidine: low range of 11.7 months and high range of 'does not exist'.~Conventional Care: low range of 9.4 and high range of 17.0 months."||||0.0322
90913597|NCT00071799|181696654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1679||95.0||||The p value is two-sided from the log rank test stratified by the randomization stratification factors of IPSS classification and FAB classification|Log Rank|||"WHO: RAEB 1. The Kaplan-Meier median time to death was not reached due to a small number of events, so the KM 25th percentile survival time is presented.~Some of the values in outcome table #2 do not have 95% CI values so no 95% CI ranges are contained in the table. Those 95% CI ranges are added here.~Azacitidine: low range of 6.6 months and high range of 'does not exist'.~Conventional Care: low range of 1.8 and high range of 9.8 months."||||0.1679
90960894|NCT00973362|181802491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||PPV(%)|18.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.0|20.4||||||||20.4|17.0|
90960895|NCT00973362|181802491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||NPV(%)|97.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.2|98.8||||||||98.8|96.2|
90960896|NCT00973362|181802491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Prevalence(%)|10.3|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91033412|NCT00420238|181952595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.98|||<|0.0001||95.0|-21.2|-8.76|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 4: Mixed model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), using an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits and their interactions as fixed factors, baseline as a covariate and patients as a random factor.||-8.76|-21.20|<0.0001
90913598|NCT00071799|181696654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0692||95.0||||The p value is two-sided from the log rank test stratified by the randomization stratification factors of IPSS classification and FAB classification|Log Rank|||"WHO: RAEB-2~Some of the values in outcome table #2 do not have 95% CI values so no 95% CI ranges are contained in the table. Those 95% CI ranges are added here.~Azacitidine: low range of 15.9 months and high range of 'does not exist'.~Conventional Care: low range of 8.8 and high range of 19.4 months."||||0.0692
90913599|NCT00071799|181696654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0017||95.0||||The p value is two-sided from the log rank test stratified by the randomization stratification factors of IPSS classification and FAB classification|Log Rank|||"WHO: Other~Some of the values in outcome table #2 do not have 95% CI values so no 95% CI ranges are contained in the table. Those 95% CI ranges are added here.~Azacitidine: low range of 15.6 months and high range of 'does not exist'.~Conventional Care: low range of 11.1 and high range of 17.5 months."||||0.0017
90940492|NCT01177137|181760797|SUPERIORITY|The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.025 to account for two comparisons (1) TRT versus the Standard of Care and (2) Partial TRT versus the Standard of Care.|Slope|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|0.64|||repeated measures GEE model||Adjusted for baseline TQ value, clinic, visit, age, gender, baseline Positive and Negative Affect Schedule and State Trait Anxiety Inventory scores, with multiple imputation|||0.64|-1.35|0.48
90873164|NCT01500629|181606826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||The following comparison was made: Allergen Block (C-1266-7) vs placebo. For this comparison, the following hypothesis was tested: Ho: µ1= µ2 against the two-sided alternative H1: µ1≠ µ2 where µ1 and µ2 are the mean values of the parameter variable for the two treatment groups.||0.22|-0.24|0.907
90873165|NCT01500629|181606827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||The following comparison was made: Allergen Block (C-1266-7) vs placebo. For this comparison, the following hypothesis was tested: Ho: µ1= µ2 against the two-sided alternative H1: µ1≠ µ2 where µ1 and µ2 are the mean values of the parameter variable for the two treatment groups.||0.18|-0.28|0.666
90873166|NCT01500629|181606828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||The following comparison was made: Allergen Block (C-1266-7) vs placebo. For this comparison, the following hypothesis was tested: Ho: µ1= µ2 against the two-sided alternative H1: µ1≠ µ2 where µ1 and µ2 are the mean values of the parameter variable for the two treatment groups.||0.28|-0.29|0.972
90873167|NCT01500629|181606829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||The following comparison was made: Allergen Block (C-1266-7) vs placebo. For this comparison, the following hypothesis was tested: Ho: µ1= µ2 against the two-sided alternative H1: µ1≠ µ2 where µ1 and µ2 are the mean values of the parameter variable for the two treatment groups.||0.59|-0.31|0.521
90873168|NCT01500629|181606830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||The following comparison was made: Allergen Block (C-1266-7) vs placebo. For this comparison, the following hypothesis was tested: Ho: µ1= µ2 against the two-sided alternative H1: µ1≠ µ2 where µ1 and µ2 are the mean values of the parameter variable for the two treatment groups.||0.39|-0.15|0.376
90873169|NCT01500629|181606831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||The following comparison was made: Allergen Block (C-1266-7) vs placebo. For this comparison, the following hypothesis was tested: Ho: µ1= µ2 against the two-sided alternative H1: µ1≠ µ2 where µ1 and µ2 are the mean values of the parameter variable for the two treatment groups.||0.30|-0.11|0.350
90873170|NCT01500629|181606832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||The following comparison was made: Allergen Block (C-1266-7) vs placebo. For this comparison, the following hypothesis was tested: Ho: µ1= µ2 against the two-sided alternative H1: µ1≠ µ2 where µ1 and µ2 are the mean values of the parameter variable for the two treatment groups.||0.34|-0.36|0.947
90873171|NCT01500629|181606833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||The following comparison was made: Allergen Block (C-1266-7) vs placebo. For this comparison, the following hypothesis was tested: Ho: µ1= µ2 against the two-sided alternative H1: µ1≠ µ2 where µ1 and µ2 are the mean values of the parameter variable for the two treatment groups.||0.19|-0.30|0.651
90873172|NCT01500629|181606838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46||||0.261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||The following comparison was made: Allergen Block (C-1266-7) vs placebo. For this comparison, the following hypothesis was tested: Ho: µ1= µ2 against the two-sided alternative H1: µ1≠ µ2 where µ1 and µ2 are the mean values of the parameter variable for the two treatment groups.||0.38|-1.30|0.261
90873173|NCT01500629|181606839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27||||0.481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|1.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||The following comparison was made: Allergen Block (C-1266-7) vs placebo. For this comparison, the following hypothesis was tested: Ho: µ1= µ2 against the two-sided alternative H1: µ1≠ µ2 where µ1 and µ2 are the mean values of the parameter variable for the two treatment groups.||1.04|-0.51|0.481
90913600|NCT00071799|181696654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.103||95.0||||"95% CI ranges are added here.~Azacitidine: low range of 17.1 months and high range of 'does not exist'.~Conventional Care: low range of 8.7 and high range of 24.1 months."|Log Rank|The p value is two-sided from the log rank test stratified by the randomization stratification factors of IPSS classification and FAB classification.||IPSS: Intermediate 2 All patients were stratified at randomization by FAB classification and IPSS score as determined by the investigator using centrally read bone marrow and cytogenetic data. Subsequently, the FAB classifications and IPSS scores were reviewed by an Independent Review Committee (IRC). The subgroup analyses presented by FAB and IPSS represent the FAB classification and IPSS scores as determined by the IRC.||||0.1030
90913601|NCT00071799|181696654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002||95.0||||"95% CI ranges are added here.~Azacitidine: low range of 15.0 months and high range of 'does not exist'.~Conventional Care: low range of 9.0 and high range of 17.0 months."|Log Rank|The p value is two-sided from the log rank test stratified by the randomization stratification factors of IPSS classification and FAB classification||IPSS: High All patients were stratified at randomization by FAB classification and IPSS score as determined by the investigator using centrally read bone marrow and cytogenetic data. Subsequently, the FAB classifications and IPSS scores were reviewed by an Independent Review Committee (IRC). The subgroup analyses presented by FAB and IPSS represent the FAB classification and IPSS scores as determined by the IRC.||||0.0020
90913602|NCT00071799|181696655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0025||95.0||||The p value is two-sided from the log rank test stratified by the randomization stratification factors of IPSS classification and FAB classification.|Log Rank|||||||0.0025
90913603|NCT00071799|181696655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.87|||Regression, Cox||Cox proportional hazards model stratified on the randomization factors of FAB and IPSS with model term of treatment.|||0.87|0.53|0.0027
90913604|NCT00071799|181696656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2555||95.0||||The p value is two-sided from the log rank test stratified by the randomization stratification factors of IPSS classification and FAB classification|Log Rank|||||||0.2555
90913605|NCT00071799|181696656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.2562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.15|||Regression, Cox||Cox proportional hazards model stratified on the randomization factors of FAB and IPSS with model term of treatment.|||1.15|0.60|0.2562
90960897|NCT02683941|181802501|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.95|||Log Rank|||The hazard ratio and the 95% confidence interval (CI) were estimated using a Cox proportional hazards model, stratified for interactive web response system (IWRS) tumour subtype (typical versus \[vs\] atypical) using the exact method for ties. P-value of stratified log rank test comparing lanreotide to placebo with strata based on the IWRS tumour subtype (typical vs atypical) stratification factor.||1.95|0.48|0.866
90873174|NCT01500629|181606840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||The following comparison was made: Allergen Block (C-1266-7) vs placebo. For this comparison, the following hypothesis was tested: Ho: µ1= µ2 against the two-sided alternative H1: µ1≠ µ2 where µ1 and µ2 are the mean values of the parameter variable for the two treatment groups.||0.89|-0.85|0.961
90873175|NCT01500629|181606841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24||||0.546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|1.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||The following comparison was made: Allergen Block (C-1266-7) vs placebo. For this comparison, the following hypothesis was tested: Ho: µ1= µ2 against the two-sided alternative H1: µ1≠ µ2 where µ1 and µ2 are the mean values of the parameter variable for the two treatment groups.||1.04|-0.57|0.546
90873176|NCT01067456|181606842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.57||||0.79|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.79
90873177|NCT00227903|181606853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.88||95.0||||Not corrected for multiple comparison|Mixed Models Analysis|2 degrees of freedom||We estimated that 110 people with 10% attrition would provide 80% power||||0.88
90873178|NCT00227903|181606854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.08||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.08
90873179|NCT00227903|181606855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.88||95.0||||Not corrected for multiple comparison.|Mixed Models Analysis|2 degrees of freedom||We estimated that 110 people with 10% attrition would provide 80% power.||||0.88
90873180|NCT00227903|181606856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.41||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.41
90873181|NCT00227903|181606857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.67|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.67|0.36|0.79
90873182|NCT00227903|181606858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|2.62|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.62|0.42|0.79
90873183|NCT00227903|181606859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|2.72|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.72|0.34|0.88
90873184|NCT00227903|181606860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|2.57|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.57|0.57|0.88
90873185|NCT00227903|181606861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.84|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.84|0.32|0.50
90873186|NCT00227903|181606862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.10
90873187|NCT00227903|181606863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.10
90873188|NCT00227903|181606864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.10
90873189|NCT00227903|181606865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.10
90873190|NCT00227903|181606866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|2.11|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.11|0.27|0.50
90873191|NCT00227903|181606867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|3.14|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.14|0.44|0.07
90873192|NCT00227903|181606868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|4.52|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.52|0.47|0.07
90873193|NCT00227903|181606869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.28||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|1.02|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.02|0.08|0.07
90913606|NCT00071799|181696657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||The p value is from Fisher's exact test comparing the difference in the azacitidine group and the combined group of CCR regimens among patients who were transfusion dependent at baseline and transfusion independent during the on-treatment period.||||<0.0001
90913607|NCT00071799|181696658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0005||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||The p value is from Fisher's exact test comparing the difference in the azacitidine group and the combined group of CCR regimens among patients who were transfusion independent at baseline and remained transfusion independent during the on-treatment period.||||0.0005
90913608|NCT00071799|181696659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||The p value is from Fisher's exact test comparing the difference in the azacitidine group and the combined group of CCR regimens among patients who were transfusion dependent at baseline and transfusion independent during the on-treatment period||||1.000
90960898|NCT02683941|181802502|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.88|||Log Rank|||The hazard ratio and the 95% CI were estimated using a Cox proportional hazards model, stratified for IWRS tumour subtype (typical vs atypical) using the exact method for ties. P-value of stratified log rank test comparing lanreotide to placebo with strata based on the IWRS tumour subtype (typical vs atypical) stratification factor.||1.88|0.48|0.837
90960899|NCT02683941|181802503|OTHER||Percentage difference|14.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.97|37.86||||||The treatment difference compares lanreotide to placebo (central review). The 95% exact unconditional CI was used for ORR difference.||37.86|-10.97|
90873194|NCT00227903|181606870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.62||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|3.9|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.90|0.10|0.07
90873195|NCT00227903|181606871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|4.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.20|0.32|0.91
90873196|NCT00227903|181606872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|5.07|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.07|0.35|0.91
90873197|NCT00227903|181606873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|5.23|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.23|0.14|0.91
90913609|NCT00071799|181696660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||The p value is from Fisher's exact test comparing the difference in the azacitidine group and the combined group of CCR regimens among patients who were transfusion independent at baseline and remained transfusion independent during the on-treatment period.||||<0.0001
90913610|NCT00071799|181696661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Overall (Complete + Partial Remission)||||0.0001
90913611|NCT00071799|181696661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.015||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Complete remission||||0.0150
90913612|NCT00071799|181696661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0094||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Partial Remission||||0.0094
90913613|NCT00071799|181696661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3297||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Stable Disease||||0.3297
90913614|NCT00071799|181696662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Any Improvement||||<0.0001
90913615|NCT00071799|181696662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Erythroid Response - Major||||<0.0001
90913616|NCT00071799|181696662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6203||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Erythroid Response - Minor||||0.6203
90873198|NCT00227903|181606874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|7.12|||Regression, Logistic|||||7.12|0.21|0.91
90873199|NCT00227903|181606875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|3.55|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.55|0.46|.04
90873200|NCT00227903|181606876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|4.17|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.17|0.35|0.04
90873201|NCT00227903|181606877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.25||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|1.63|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.63|0.04|0.04
90873202|NCT00227903|181606878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|3.74|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.74|0.04|0.04
90873203|NCT00227903|181606879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.01||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.01
90873204|NCT00227903|181606880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
90873205|NCT04309656|181606899|EQUIVALENCE|Comparisons performed: Treatment B (test) versus Treatment A (reference). Relative bioavailability of test compared to reference assessed via 90% CI. CI obtained by taking the antilog of the upper and lower limits of CI for the difference of the least squares means on the log scale within the ANOVA framework model.|Geometric mean ratio (%)|85.85||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.21|90.75|||ANOVA|||||90.75|81.21|0.0001
90873206|NCT04309656|181606899|EQUIVALENCE|Comparisons performed: Treatment B (test) versus Treatment A (reference). Relative bioavailability of test compared to reference assessed via 90% CI. CI obtained by taking the antilog of the upper and lower limits of CI for the difference of the least squares means on the log scale within the ANOVA framework model.|Geometric mean ratio (%)|92.99||||0.3001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.65|104.62|||ANOVA|||||104.62|82.65|0.3001
90913617|NCT00071799|181696662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0003||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Platelet Response - Major||||0.0003
90913618|NCT00071799|181696662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7514||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Platelet Response - Minor||||0.7514
90913619|NCT00071799|181696662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8695||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Neutrophil Response - Major||||0.8695
90913620|NCT00071799|181696662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.176||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Neutrophil Response - Minor||||0.1760
90913621|NCT00071799|181696663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0466||95.0||||The p value is two-sided from the log rank test which compares whether the azacitidine and control group follow the same duration curve.|Log Rank|||||||0.0466
90913622|NCT00071799|181696663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.0474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.0|||Regression, Cox|||||1.00|0.53|0.0474
90913623|NCT00071799|181696664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0002||95.0||||The p value is two-sided from the log rank test which compares whether the azacitidine and control group follow the same duration curve.|Log Rank|||||||0.0002
90913624|NCT00071799|181696665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.67||||0.1327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.2|||exact binomial|||||1.20|0.35|0.1327
90913625|NCT00071799|181696667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||The p value is two-sided from the log rank test stratified by the randomization stratification factors of IPSS classification and FAB classification|Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
90913626|NCT00071799|181696667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.7|||Regression, Cox||Cox proportional hazards model stratified on the randomization factors of FAB and IPSS with model term of treatment.|||0.70|0.35|<0.0001
90913627|NCT00189202|181696707|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin 8% plus or minus 4.||||||0.28|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.28
90913628|NCT00189202|181696708|OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||Kaplan-Meier|||||||0.70
90913629|NCT03506880|181696743|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Tukey's Post-Hoc||Estimation parameter used to determine significance between mean values in MADD, SG, and AC group.|It was hypothesized that drinking would increase from baseline to 12-month follow-up for those in the AC, but not for those in the SG and MADD conditions.||||>0.05
90913630|NCT03506880|181696744|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Tukey's Post-Hoc||Estimation parameter used to determine significance between mean values in MADD, SG, and AC group.|It was also hypothesized that teens in the SG and MADD conditions would report significantly more declining rides with impaired drivers than those in the AC group.||||<0.01
90913631|NCT03506880|181696745|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|||>|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Tukey's Post-Hoc||Estimation parameter used to determine significance between mean values in MADD, SG, and AC group.|It was hypothesized that participants in the MADD and SG groups would be significantly less willing to ride in a car with an impaired driver than those in the AC group.||||>0.01
90913632|NCT02709655|181696763|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.24||0.0937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.54|0.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was performed using an REML-based MMRM approach with freely varying mean and covariance structure and with country, treatment (vortioxetine 10 mg/day, vortioxetine 20 mg/day, fluoxetine, and placebo), and Week as fixed factors and Baseline CDRS-R total score as a continuous covariate, the treatment-by-week interaction, and Baseline CDRS-R-by-Week interaction.||0.36|-4.54|0.0937
90913633|NCT02709655|181696763|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.44||0.2336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.56|1.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was performed using an REML-based MMRM approach with freely varying mean and covariance structure and with country, treatment (vortioxetine 10 mg/day, vortioxetine 20 mg/day, fluoxetine, and placebo), and Week as fixed factors and Baseline CDRS-R total score as a continuous covariate, the treatment-by-week interaction, and Baseline CDRS-R-by-Week interaction.||1.11|-4.56|0.2336
90913634|NCT02709655|181696763|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.44||0.0879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.29|0.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was performed using an REML-based MMRM approach with freely varying mean and covariance structure and with country, treatment (vortioxetine 10 mg/day, vortioxetine 20 mg/day, fluoxetine, and placebo), and Week as fixed factors and Baseline CDRS-R total score as a continuous covariate, the treatment-by-week interaction, and Baseline CDRS-R-by-Week interaction.||0.37|-5.29|0.0879
90960900|NCT02683941|181802503|OTHER||Percentage difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.69|26.53||||||The treatment difference compares lanreotide to placebo (local review). The 95% exact unconditional CI was used for ORR difference.||26.53|-22.69|
90960901|NCT02683941|181802504|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.5|||Log Rank|||The hazard ratio and the 95% CI were estimated using a Cox proportional hazards model, stratified for IWRS tumour subtype (typical vs atypical) using the exact method for ties. P-value of stratified log rank test comparing lanreotide to placebo with strata based on the IWRS tumour subtype (typical vs atypical) stratification factor.||1.50|0.50|0.582
90913635|NCT02709655|181696763|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.0531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.65|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was performed using an REML-based MMRM approach with freely varying mean and covariance structure and with country, treatment (vortioxetine 10 mg/day, vortioxetine 20 mg/day, fluoxetine, and placebo), and Week as fixed factors and Baseline CDRS-R total score as a continuous covariate, the treatment-by-week interaction, and Baseline CDRS-R-by-Week interaction.||0.04|-6.65|0.0531
90913636|NCT00102063|181696784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
90913637|NCT00102063|181696784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.007
90913638|NCT00857649|181696792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52||0.418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|4.21|||ANCOVA|Centre and treatment as factors and baseline score as covariate. Estimate based on Least Squares.||||4.21|-1.75|0.418
90913639|NCT00857649|181696793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.92||0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.34|||ANCOVA|Centre and treatment as factors and baseline score as covariate. Estimate based on Least Squares.||||1.34|-2.30|0.603
90913640|NCT00857649|181696794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.31|||ANCOVA|Centre and treatment as factors and baseline score as covariate. Estimate based on Least Squares.||||0.31|-0.22|0.734
90913641|NCT00857649|181696795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.29|-0.32|||ANCOVA|Centre and treatment as factors and baseline score as covariate. Estimate based on Least Squares.||||-0.32|-3.29|0.017
90873207|NCT04309656|181606900|EQUIVALENCE|Comparisons performed: Treatment B (test) versus Treatment A (reference). Relative bioavailability of test compared to reference assessed via 90% CI. CI obtained by taking the antilog of the upper and lower limits of CI for the difference of the least squares means on the log scale within the ANOVA framework model.|Geometric mean ratio (%)|100.6||||0.6686|TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.23|103.03|||ANOVA|||||103.03|98.23|0.6686
90873208|NCT04309656|181606900|EQUIVALENCE|Comparisons performed: Treatment B (test) versus Treatment A (reference). Relative bioavailability of test compared to reference assessed via 90% CI. CI obtained by taking the antilog of the upper and lower limits of CI for the difference of the least squares means on the log scale within the ANOVA framework model.|Geometric mean ratio (%)|89.7||||0.0745|TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.2|99.1|||ANOVA|||||99.10|81.20|0.0745
90913642|NCT00857649|181696796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|2.83|||ANCOVA|Centre and treatment as factors and baseline score as covariate. Estimate based on Least Squares.||||2.83|-1.03|0.360
90913643|NCT02498769|181696797|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.19|||Regression, Cox|||||1.19|0.41|0.18
90913644|NCT02498769|181696798|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.63||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.27|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.27|0.31|0.19
90913645|NCT02498769|181696799|OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||ICU length of stay hours||||.16
90913646|NCT02498769|181696799|OTHER|||||||0.51|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Hospital LOS||||.51
90913647|NCT02498769|181696800|OTHER|||||||0.97|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.97
90873209|NCT04309656|181606901|EQUIVALENCE|Comparisons performed: Treatment B (test) versus Treatment A (reference). Relative bioavailability of test compared to reference assessed via 90% CI. CI obtained by taking the antilog of the upper and lower limits of CI for the difference of the least squares means on the log scale within the ANOVA framework model.|Geometric mean ratio (%)|101.03||||0.4683|TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.65|103.47|||ANOVA|||||103.47|98.65|0.4683
90913648|NCT02115282|181696825|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.13||The p value was based on stratified log rank test, the threshold for significance was two-sided p value of 0.2%.|Log Rank|||||1.13|0.67|0.30
90913649|NCT02115282|181696826|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.21||The p value was based on stratified log rank test, stratified on the four randomization factors. The threshold for statistical significance was two-sided p value of 3.7% after taking into account the five interim analyses of OS into account.|Log Rank|||||1.21|0.82|0.94
90913650|NCT01713946|181696876|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.21||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|4.2|||Bonferroni-Holm|||||4.20|1.16|0.008
90913651|NCT01713946|181696876|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|7.32|||Bonferroni-Holm|||||7.32|2.10|<0.001
90913652|NCT01713946|181696877|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|15.96||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.98|31.68|||Bonferroni-Holm|||||31.68|1.98|0.003
90913653|NCT01713946|181696877|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|27.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.36|43.36|||Bonferroni-Holm|||||43.36|16.36|<0.001
90913654|NCT01713946|181696878|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|55.73||||||||55.73|0.77|
90913655|NCT01713946|181696878|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|44.03||||||||44.03|0.57|
90913656|NCT01713946|181696879|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|2.97||||||||2.97|1.05|
90913657|NCT01713946|181696879|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.25|6.48||||||||6.48|2.25|
90913658|NCT01713946|181696881|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|3.1||||||||3.1|-0.4|
90913659|NCT01713946|181696881|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|5.9||||||||5.9|2.5|
90913660|NCT01713946|181696882|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.07||||||||2.07|0.77|
90913661|NCT01713946|181696882|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.96||||||||1.96|0.74|
90913662|NCT01713946|181696883|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square means|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|2.1||||||||2.1|-4.4|
90913663|NCT01713946|181696883|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square means|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|4.3||||||||4.3|-2.2|
90913664|NCT01713946|181696884|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square means|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|6.2||||||||6.2|-10.5|
90913665|NCT01713946|181696884|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square means|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|8.6||||||||8.6|-7.8|
90913666|NCT01713946|181696885|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square means|-2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.9|12.3||||||||12.3|-17.9|
90913667|NCT01713946|181696885|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square means|-7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|6.6||||||||6.6|-22.0|
90913668|NCT03142841|181696921|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-5.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.48||0.001|ONE_SIDED|||||a priori \<0.05 threshold|Mixed Models Analysis||Group X Time Interaction|||||0.001
90913669|NCT03142841|181696922|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-4.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.69||0.017|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori \<0.05 threshold|Mixed Models Analysis||Group X Time Interaction|||||0.017
90913670|NCT03142841|181696923|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-4.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.68||0.017|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori of \<0.05 threshold|Mixed Models Analysis||Group X Time Interaction|||||0.017
90913671|NCT03142841|181696924|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-5.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.84||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori of \<0.05 threshold|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.002
90913672|NCT03142841|181696925|SUPERIORITY||Slope|6.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.51||0.152|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori of \<0.05 threshold|Mixed Models Analysis||Group x Time Interaction|||||0.152
90913673|NCT03142841|181696926|SUPERIORITY||Slope|12.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.68||0.008|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori of \<0.05 threshold|Mixed Models Analysis||Group x Time Interaction|||||0.008
90913674|NCT03142841|181696927|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.78||0.812|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori of \<0.05 threshold|Mixed Models Analysis||Group X Time Interaction|||||0.812
90913675|NCT03142841|181696928|SUPERIORITY||Slope|3.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.02||0.229|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori of \<0.05 threshold|Mixed Models Analysis||Group x Time Interaction|||||0.229
90913676|NCT03142841|181696929|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.25||0.968|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori of \<0.05 threshold|Mixed Models Analysis||Group X Time Interaction|||||0.968
90913677|NCT03142841|181696930|SUPERIORITY||Slope|7.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.58||0.196|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori of \<0.05 threshold|Mixed Models Analysis||Group X Time Interaction|||||0.196
90913678|NCT03142841|181696931|SUPERIORITY||Slope|3.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.89||0.067|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori of \<0.05 threshold|Mixed Models Analysis||Group x Time Interaction|||||0.067
90913679|NCT03142841|181696932|SUPERIORITY||Slope|3.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.16||0.066|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori of \<0.05 threshold|Mixed Models Analysis||Group X Time Interaction|||||0.066
90913680|NCT03142841|181696933|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.64||0.225|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori of \<0.05 threshold|Mixed Models Analysis||Group X Time Interaction|||||0.225
90913681|NCT03142841|181696934|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.138|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori of \<0.05 threshold|Mixed Models Analysis||Group X Time Interaction|||||0.138
90913682|NCT03142841|181696935|SUPERIORITY||Slope|5.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.64||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori of \<0.05 threshold|Mixed Models Analysis||Group x Time Interaction|||||0.002
90913683|NCT03142841|181696936|SUPERIORITY||Slope|3.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.052|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori of \<0.05 threshold|Mixed Models Analysis||Group X Time Interaction|||||0.052
90960902|NCT00325039|181802510|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This study was an equivalence trial and was designed to have 80% power to show equivalence between the two sling procedures, with an equivalence margin of +/- 12 percentage points, at a two-sided significance level of 5%. The margin of +/- 12 was chosen on the basis of clinical considerations and a calculation of the number of patients it was feasible to enroll in the trial.|difference in success rate (RMUS-TMUS)|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|9.6||||||With 294 women/arm, the study would have 80% power to show equivalence between the two procedures, with an equivalence margin of +/- 12 percentage points, at a two-sided significance level of 5%. A planned time-to-event interim analysis of the primary outcome (objective treatment success) was conducted when 33% of the anticipated treatment failures occurred. We adjusted the primary outcome analysis for this interim look by assigning nominal alpha values of 0.049 to the 95% confidence intervals.||9.6|-3.6|
90913684|NCT03142841|181696937|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.981|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori of \<0.05 threshold|Mixed Models Analysis||Group X Time Interaction|||||0.981
90913685|NCT03142841|181696938|SUPERIORITY||Slope|3.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.68||0.221|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori of \<0.05 threshold|Mixed Models Analysis||Group x Time Interaction|||||0.221
90913686|NCT03142841|181696939|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.66||0.159|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori of \<0.05 threshold|Mixed Models Analysis||Group x Time Interaction|||||0.159
90913687|NCT03142841|181696940|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-3.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91||0.103|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori of \<0.05 threshold|Mixed Models Analysis||Group x Time Interaction|||||0.103
90960903|NCT00325039|181802511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|-4.1||||0.14||95.0||||This was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; the a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Chi-squared|||Although the primary aim of the study was designed as an equivalence trial, the secondary aims were considered as superiority tests.||||0.14
91033413|NCT00420238|181952595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.19|||<|0.0001||95.0|-21.41|-8.96|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 8: Mixed model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), using an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits and their interactions as fixed factors, baseline as a covariate and patients as a random factor.||-8.96|-21.41|<0.0001
90913688|NCT03142841|181696941|SUPERIORITY||Slope|2.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.45||0.247|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori of \<0.05 threshold|Mixed Models Analysis||Group x Time Interaction|||||0.247
90913689|NCT03142841|181696942|SUPERIORITY||Slope|3.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.52||0.174|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori of \<0.05 threshold|Mixed Models Analysis||Group x Time Interaction|||||0.174
90913690|NCT03142841|181696943|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.09||0.408|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori of \<0.05 threshold|Mixed Models Analysis||Group x Time Interaction|||||0.408
90913691|NCT03142841|181696944|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.06||0.457|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori of \<0.05 threshold|Mixed Models Analysis||Group x Time Interaction|||||0.457
90913692|NCT03142841|181696945|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.79||0.187|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori of \<0.05 threshold|Mixed Models Analysis||Group x Time Interaction|||||0.187
90913693|NCT03142841|181696946|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.99||0.315|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori of \<0.05 threshold|Mixed Models Analysis||Group x Time Interaction|||||0.315
90913694|NCT03142841|181696947|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.41||0.289|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori of \<0.05 threshold|Mixed Models Analysis||Group x Time Interaction|||||0.289
90913695|NCT03142841|181696948|SUPERIORITY||Slope|2.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52||0.055|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori of \<0.05 threshold|Mixed Models Analysis||Group x Time Interaction|||||0.055
90913696|NCT03142841|181696949|OTHER|||||||0.095|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.095
90913697|NCT03142841|181696950|OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.6
90913698|NCT03142841|181696951|OTHER|||||||0.063|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.063
90913699|NCT03142841|181696952|OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.9
90913700|NCT03142841|181696953|OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.15
90913701|NCT03142841|181696954|OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.11
90913702|NCT02189252|181697016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio in %|160.05||||0.2702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.71|395.82||The closed sequential testing procedure stopped at this step as the P Value is greater than 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||In order to address the issue of multiple testing while maintaining overall type I error, a closed testing sequence was used involving 4 analyses stated in the primary objective of this study. In total, 4 statistical tests, each at a significance level of 5%, were carried along the fixed sequence until the first statistically non-significant treatment difference was observed (i.e. p-value\>0.05). This is the first test in the fixed testing sequence.||395.82|64.71|0.2702
90873210|NCT04309656|181606901|EQUIVALENCE|Comparisons performed: Treatment B (test) versus Treatment A (reference). Relative bioavailability of test compared to reference assessed via 90% CI. CI obtained by taking the antilog of the upper and lower limits of CI for the difference of the least squares means on the log scale within the ANOVA framework model.|Geometric mean ratio (%)|89.63||||0.0734|TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.1|99.05|||ANOVA|||||99.05|81.10|0.0734
90873211|NCT03720470|181606906|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|23.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.7|31.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 versus placebo) and confidence interval (CI) for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions. P-value was adjusted by baseline disease severity.||31.4|14.7|<0.0001
90873212|NCT03720470|181606906|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|34.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.1|43.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 versus placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions. P-value was adjusted by baseline disease severity.||43.5|26.1|<0.0001
90873213|NCT03720470|181606907|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|31.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.2|41.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 versus placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions. P-value was adjusted by baseline disease severity.||41.6|22.2|<0.0001
90873214|NCT03720470|181606907|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|43.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.7|52.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 versus placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions. P-value was adjusted by baseline disease severity.||52.7|33.7|<0.0001
90873215|NCT03720470|181606908|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|17.9||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.5|26.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 versus placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions. P-value was adjusted by baseline disease severity.||26.3|9.5|0.0002
90873216|NCT03720470|181606908|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|34.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.0|43.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 versus placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions. P-value was adjusted by baseline disease severity.||43.7|26.0|<.0001
90873217|NCT03720470|181606908|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|5.2||||0.2084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|13.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 versus dupilumab) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions. P-value was adjusted by baseline disease severity.||13.4|-2.9|0.2084
90873218|NCT03720470|181606908|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|22.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.5|30.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 versus dupilumab) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions. P-value was adjusted by baseline disease severity.||30.7|13.5|<0.0001
90873219|NCT03720470|181606909|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|22.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.7|30.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 versus placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions. P-value was adjusted by baseline disease severity.||30.5|13.7|<0.0001
91033414|NCT00420238|181952595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.41|||<|0.0001||95.0|-20.63|-8.19|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 12: Mixed model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), using an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits and their interactions as fixed factors, baseline as a covariate and patients as a random factor.||-8.19|-20.63|<0.0001
90873220|NCT03720470|181606909|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|35.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.3|43.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 versus placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions. P-value was adjusted by baseline disease severity.||43.7|26.3|<0.0001
90873221|NCT03720470|181606909|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|5.2||||||Week 16: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 versus dupilumab) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions. P-value was adjusted by baseline disease severity.||5.2|-12.2|
90873222|NCT03720470|181606909|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|9.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|18.5||||||Week 16: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 versus dupilumab) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions. P-value was adjusted by baseline disease severity.||18.5|0.4|
90873223|NCT03720470|181606910|OTHER||Difference in percentage|24.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.0|34.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 versus placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions. P-value was adjusted by baseline disease severity.||34.1|14.0|<0.0001
91033415|NCT00420238|181952598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.87||||0.184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|4.7|||GEE model||An odds-ratio greater than 1 indicates the odds of response is greater in etanercept group than in placebo group.|Week 2: Generalized estimating equation (GEE) model, using a logit link, binomial distribution and an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors.||4.70|0.74|0.184
91033416|NCT00420238|181952598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.62||||0.036||95.0|1.06|6.46|||GEE model||An odds-ratio greater than 1 indicates the odds of response is greater in etanercept group than in placebo group.|Week 4: Generalized estimating equation (GEE) model, using a logit link, binomial distribution and an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors.||6.46|1.06|0.036
90913703|NCT02189252|181697016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio in %|121.61||||0.6367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.17|300.76||The p-value was only interpreted descriptively|Mixed Models Analysis|||In order to address the issue of multiple testing while maintaining overall type I error, a closed testing sequence was used involving 4 analyses stated in the primary objective of this study. In total, 4 statistical tests, each at a significance level of 5%, were carried along the fixed sequence until the first statistically non-significant treatment difference was observed (i.e. p-value\>0.05). This is the second test in the fixed testing sequence.||300.76|49.17|0.6367
90873224|NCT03720470|181606910|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|30.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.3|39.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 versus placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions. P-value was adjusted by baseline disease severity.||39.8|20.3|<0.0001
90873225|NCT03720470|181606910|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|4.2||||||Week 16: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 versus dupilumab) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions. P-value was adjusted by baseline disease severity.||4.2|-9.6|
90873226|NCT03720470|181606910|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|9.6||||||Week 16: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 versus dupilumab) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions. P-value was adjusted by baseline disease severity.||9.6|-3.3|
90873227|NCT01988103|181606946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|16.4||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.8|27.0|||Chi-squared|||||27.0|5.8|0.0032
90873228|NCT01988103|181606946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|21.1||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.1|32.1|||Chi-squared|||||32.1|10.1|0.0003
90873229|NCT01988103|181606947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|15.1||||0.0165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|27.1|||Chi-squared|||||27.1|3.1|0.0165
90873230|NCT01988103|181606947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|20.8||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.2|33.3|||Chi-squared||Missing values were imputed using the LOCF method.|||33.3|8.2|0.0020
90913704|NCT02189252|181697017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio in %|193.91||||0.0511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.61|377.47||The p-value was only interpreted descriptively|Mixed Models Analysis|||In order to address the issue of multiple testing while maintaining overall type I error, a closed testing sequence was used involving 4 analyses stated in the primary objective of this study. In total, 4 statistical tests, each at a significance level of 5%, were carried along the fixed sequence until the first statistically non-significant treatment difference was observed (i.e. p-value\>0.05). This is the third test in the fixed testing sequence.||377.47|99.61|0.0511
90873231|NCT01988103|181606948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.1||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.5|-13.6|||ANCOVA||2-sided 95% CI and p-values were based on an analysis of covariance model with treatment arm as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Means (LS Means) and p-values were adjusted by covariate.|||-13.6|-44.5|0.0003
90873232|NCT01988103|181606948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-38.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.4|-22.6|||ANCOVA||2-sided 95% CI and p-values were based on an analysis of covariance model with treatment arm as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Means (LS Means) and p-values were adjusted by covariate.|||-22.6|-53.4|<0.0001
90873233|NCT01988103|181606949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.5||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.9|-14.0|||ANCOVA||2-sided 95% CI and p-values were based on an analysis of covariance model with treatment arm as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Means (LS Means) and p-values were adjusted by covariate.|||-14.0|-44.9|0.0002
90873234|NCT01988103|181606949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-39.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.9|-24.1|||ANCOVA||2-sided 95% CI and p-values were based on an analysis of covariance model with treatment arm as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Means (LS Means) and p-values were adjusted by covariate.|||-24.1|-54.9|<0.0001
90873235|NCT01988103|181606950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|19.7||||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.1|33.4|||Chi-squared|||||33.4|6.1|0.0057
90913705|NCT02189252|181697017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio in %|133.32||||0.3543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.49|259.52||The p-value was only interpreted descriptively|Mixed Models Analysis|||In order to address the issue of multiple testing while maintaining overall type I error, a closed testing sequence was used involving 4 analyses stated in the primary objective of this study. In total, 4 statistical tests, each at a significance level of 5%, were carried along the fixed sequence until the first statistically non-significant treatment difference was observed (i.e. p-value\>0.05). This is the fourth test in the fixed testing sequence.||259.52|68.49|0.3543
90913706|NCT02189252|181697018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio in %|259.19||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|119.75|560.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||560.99|119.75|0.0210
90913707|NCT02189252|181697018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio in %|177.95||||0.1256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|82.22|385.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||385.16|82.22|0.1256
90913708|NCT02189252|181697019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio in %|298.91||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|164.32|543.74||The p-value was only interpreted descriptively|Mixed Models Analysis|||||543.74|164.32|0.0025
90873236|NCT01988103|181606950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|29.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.4|42.9|||Chi-squared|||||42.9|15.4|<0.0001
90873237|NCT01988103|181606951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.6||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.6|-6.7|||ANCOVA||2-sided 95% CI and p-values were based on an analysis of covariance model with treatment arm as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Means (LS Means) and p-values were adjusted by covariate.|||-6.7|-22.6|0.0003
90873238|NCT01988103|181606951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.7|-16.9|||ANCOVA||2-sided 95% CI and p-values were based on an analysis of covariance model with treatment arm as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Means (LS Means) and p-values were adjusted by covariate. Missing values were imputed using the LOCF method.|||-16.9|-32.7|<0.0001
90873239|NCT01988103|181606952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.0204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-0.3|||ANCOVA||2-sided 95% CI and p-values were based on an analysis of covariance model with treatment arm as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Means (LS Means) and p-values were adjusted by covariate.|||-0.3|-3.2|0.0204
90913709|NCT02189252|181697019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio in %|187.28||||0.0418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|102.95|340.66||The p-value was only interpreted descriptively|Mixed Models Analysis|||||340.66|102.95|0.0418
90873240|NCT01988103|181606952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|-2.0|||ANCOVA||2-sided 95% CI and p-values were based on an analysis of covariance model with treatment arm as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Means (LS Means) and p-values were adjusted by covariate.|||-2.0|-4.9|<0.0001
90913710|NCT02189252|181697020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio in %|79.36||||0.6833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.95|274.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||274.45|22.95|0.6833
90913711|NCT02189252|181697020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio in %|69.39||||0.522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.07|239.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||239.98|20.07|0.5220
90971067|NCT00385255|181824667|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was defined as the lower limit of the 95% CI for GMC ratios of antibodies against the pertactin (PRN) antigens between the two groups (Boostrix+Fluarix 19-64 YOA Group minus Fluarix Boostrix 19-64 YOA Group) being ≥ 0.67.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.81|||ANCOVA|||Difference in adjusted GMC ratio for anti-PRN antibody: To demonstrate that the immunogenicity of Boostrix® vaccine co-administered with Fluarix® vaccine (Boostrix+Fluarix 19-64 YOA Group) at Day 0, was non-inferior to that of Boostrix® vaccine administered alone at Month 1 (Fluarix Boostrix 19-64 YOA Group), in terms of geometric mean concentrations (GMCs) for anti-PRN antibody, one month post-Boostrix® vaccination.||0.81|0.60|
90873241|NCT01988103|181606953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.88||||0.5149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|3.53|||ANCOVA||2-sided 95% CI and p-values were based on an analysis of covariance model with treatment arm as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Means (LS Means) and p-values were adjusted by covariate.|||3.53|-1.78|0.5149
90913712|NCT02189252|181697021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio in %|104.78||||0.9034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.92|244.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||244.41|44.92|0.9034
90913713|NCT02189252|181697021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio in %|80.58||||0.5782||95.0|34.55|187.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||187.95|34.55|0.5782
90913714|NCT02189252|181697022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio in %|753.75||||0.0391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|112.03|5071.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5071.6|112.03|0.0391
90873242|NCT01988103|181606953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.85||||0.1693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|4.5|||ANCOVA||2-sided 95% CI and p-values were based on an analysis of covariance model with treatment arm as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Means (LS Means) and p-values were adjusted by covariate.|||4.50|-0.79|0.1693
90971068|NCT00385255|181824668|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was defined as the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference between the two groups (Boostrix+Fluarix 19-64 YOA Group minus Fluarix Boostrix 19-64 YOA Group), in terms of percentage of subjects with anti-H1N1 antibody titers ≥ 1:40 being ≥ -10%.|Difference in percentage|-1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.58|1.23||||||Difference in percentage of subjects with anti-H1N1 antibody titers ≥ 1:40: To demonstrate that the immunogenicity of Boostrix® vaccine co-administered with Fluarix® vaccine (Boostrix+Fluarix 19-64 YOA Group) at Day 0, was non-inferior to that of Fluarix® vaccine administered alone at Day 0 (Fluarix Boostrix 19-64 YOA Group), in terms of percentage of subjects with anti-H1N1 antibody titers ≥ 1:40, one month post-Fluarix® vaccination.||1.23|-3.58|
90873249|NCT02451839|181607007|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||paired t-test|||||||< 0.001
90873250|NCT02451839|181607008|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||paired t-test|||||||<0.001
90873251|NCT02451839|181607009|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||paired t-test|||||||<0.001
90873252|NCT02451839|181607010|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||paired t-test|||||||<0.001
90873253|NCT02451839|181607011|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||paired t-test|||||||<0.001
90873254|NCT02451839|181607012|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||paired t-test|||||||<0.001
90913715|NCT02189252|181697022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio in %|104.98||||0.9578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.6|706.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||706.33|15.60|0.9578
90873255|NCT02451839|181607013|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.015
90913716|NCT02189252|181697023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio in %|376.64||||0.0186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|128.55|1103.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1103.5|128.55|0.0186
90913717|NCT02189252|181697023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio in %|131.74||||0.5955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.97|386.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||386.00|44.97|0.5955
90913718|NCT04396860|181697024|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.47||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|2.21|||Log Rank|Stratified log-rank|Reference level = Arm 1|For the phase II endpoint, observation of 100 PFS events among the 150 randomized patients (from both arms) provides 95% statistical power to detect an improvement in median PFS from 5.7 months in the control arm to 9.7 months in the experimental arm, corresponding to a hazard reduction of 42% (hazard ratio 0.58) at one-sided significance level of 0.15 (and 87% power for hazard ratio of 0.65 at this same alpha).||2.21|0.98|0.96
90873256|NCT02451839|181607014|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||paired t-test|||||||<0.001
90873257|NCT02451839|181607015|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.006
90873258|NCT02451839|181607016|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||paired t-test|||||||<0.001
90873259|NCT02451839|181607017|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||paired t-test|||||||<0.001
90873260|NCT02451839|181607018|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.006
90873261|NCT02451839|181607019|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||paired t-test|||||||<0.001
90873262|NCT02451839|181607020|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||paired t-test|||||||<0.001
90873263|NCT02451839|181607021|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||paired t-test|||||||<0.001
90873264|NCT02451839|181607022|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||paired t-test|||||||<0.001
90873265|NCT01949051|181607086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.943|-0.756|||Mixed Model ANOVA|||||-0.756|-1.943|<0.0001
90873266|NCT01949051|181607086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.118||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.712|-0.525|||Mixed Model ANOVA|||||-0.525|-1.712|0.0003
90873267|NCT01949051|181607086|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Levocabastine OD would be declared as non-inferior to levocabastine BID if upper limit of 95% confidence interval of the treatment difference estimate (OD vs BD) was less than 1|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.231|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.361|0.823||||||||0.823|-0.361|
90873268|NCT04483011|181607136|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.72||0.034|TWO_SIDED|||||\< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The p value in RiaGev group at Day 5 over Dave 1 is reported.|A comparison between before and after RiaGev supplementation.||||0.034
90873269|NCT04483011|181607136|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.79||0.265|TWO_SIDED|||||p \> 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The p value in Comparator group at Day 5 over Day 1 is reported.|A comparison between before and after supplementation of Comparator.||||0.265
90873270|NCT04483011|181607136|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.72||0.044|TWO_SIDED|||||\< 0.05|ANCOVA||The p value between RiaGev and Comparator groups at Day 5 over Day 1 is reported.|A comparison between RiaGev and Comparator groups.||||0.044
90873271|NCT04483011|181607137|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.33|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.88||0.008|TWO_SIDED|||||p \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The p value in RiaGev group at Day 5 over Day 1 is reported.|A comparison between before and after supplementation of RiaGev.||||0.008
90873272|NCT04483011|181607137|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.34|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.34||0.297|TWO_SIDED|||||p \> 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The p value in Comparator group at Day 5 over Day 1 is reported.|A comparison between before and after supplementation with Comparator.||||0.297
90873273|NCT04483011|181607137|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.33|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.88||0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||p \< 0.05|ANCOVA||The p value between RiaGev and Comparator groups at Day 5 over Day 1 is reported.|A comparison between RiaGev and Comparator supplementation.||||0.04
90873274|NCT04483011|181607138|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.57||0.004|TWO_SIDED|||||p \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The p value in the RiaGev group at Day 5 over Day 1 is reported.|A comparison between before and after RiaGev supplementation.||||0.004
90873275|NCT04483011|181607138|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.88||0.64|TWO_SIDED|||||p \> 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The p value in Comparator group at Day 5 over Day 1 is reported.|A comparison between before and after supplementation with Comparator.||||0.640
90873276|NCT04483011|181607138|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.57||0.014|TWO_SIDED|||||p \< 0.05|ANCOVA||The p value between RiaGev and Comparator groups at Day 5 over Day 1 is reported.|A comparison between RiaGev and Comparator supplementation.||||0.014
90873277|NCT04483011|181607139|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1037.92|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1590.74||0.013|TWO_SIDED|||||p \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The p value in RiaGev group at Day 8 over Day 1 is reported.|A comparison before and after RiaGev supplementation.||||0.013
90873278|NCT04483011|181607139|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-302.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1427.42||0.382|TWO_SIDED|||||p \> 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The p value in Comparator group at Day 8 over Day 1 is reported.|A comparison before before and after supplementation with Comparator.||||0.382
90873279|NCT04483011|181607140|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-135.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2153.66||0.793|TWO_SIDED|||||p \> 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The p value in RiaGev group at Day 8 over Day 1 baseline is reported.|A comparison between before and after RiaGev supplementation||||0.793
90873280|NCT04483011|181607140|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-134.79|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1830.16||0.758|TWO_SIDED|||||p \> 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The p value in Comparator group at Day 8 over Day 1 baseline is reported.|A comparison between before and after supplementation with Comparator.||||0.758
90873281|NCT04483011|181607141|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|70.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|123.89||0.003|TWO_SIDED|||||p \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The p value in RiaGev group at Day 5 over Day 1 is reported.|A comparison between before and after RiaGev supplementation||||0.003
90873282|NCT04483011|181607141|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|15.55|STANDARD_DEVIATION|88.62||0.766|TWO_SIDED|||||p \> 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The p value in Comparator group at Day 5 over Day 1 is reported.|A comparison between before and after supplementation with Comparator.||||0.766
90873283|NCT04483011|181607142|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|24.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|58.2||0.029|TWO_SIDED|||||p \< 0.05|ANCOVA||The p value between RiaGev and Comparator groups at Day 5 is reported.|A comparison between RiaGev and Comparator groups after 7-day supplementation.||||0.029
90873284|NCT04483011|181607143|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.32||0.034|TWO_SIDED|||||p \< 0.05|ANCOVA||The p value between RiaGev and Comparator groups at Day 5 is reported.|A comparison between RiaGev and Comparator groups.||||0.034
90873285|NCT04483011|181607144|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.33|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.99||0.014|TWO_SIDED|||||p \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The p value in RiaGev group at Day 5 over Day 1 is reported.|A comparison between before and after RiaGev supplementation.||||0.014
90913719|NCT04147897|181697035|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Difference|1.5||||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||adjusted mixed-effects linear regression|||Mixed-effects linear models were used to analyze within-person changes from baseline to 3 months, accounting for repeated measures within participants and clustering of patients within agencies. Difference-in-differences estimates were derived to compare EF vs IF, with Cohen's d effect sizes calculated for each contrast.|Cohen's d: 0.28|||.06
90873286|NCT04483011|181607144|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.56|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.66||0.049|TWO_SIDED|||||p \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The p value in Comparator group at Day 5 over Day 1 is reported.|A comparison between before and after supplementation with Comparator.||||0.049
90873287|NCT01454947|181607149|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007||||||P values computed using difference between proportions (z value) with Bonferroni correction.|2 proportion Z-test|||||||0.007
90913720|NCT04147897|181697035|SUPERIORITY||Difference-in-Difference|1.0||||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||Adjusted mixed-effects linear regression|||Mixed-effects linear models were used to analyze within-person changes from baseline to 6 months, accounting for repeated measures within participants and clustering of patients within agencies. Difference-in-differences estimates were derived to compare EF vs IF, with Cohen's d effect sizes calculated for each contrast.|Cohen's d: 0.19|||.25
90913721|NCT04147897|181697036|SUPERIORITY||difference in difference|0.7||||0.37|TWO_SIDED||||||adjusted mixed-effects linear regression|||Mixed-effects linear models were used to analyze within-person changes from baseline to 3 months, accounting for repeated measures within participants and clustering of patients within agencies. Difference-in-differences estimates were derived to compare EF vs IF, with Cohen's d effect sizes calculated for each contrast.|Cohen's d: 0.13|||0.37
90873288|NCT01896531|181607209|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12|||=|0.56|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|1.55|||Log Rank|||All randomized participants||1.55|0.81|= 0.56
90873289|NCT01896531|181607209|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07|||=|0.86|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.54|2.11|||Log Rank|||Participants with PTEN loss tumors||2.11|0.54|= 0.86
90873290|NCT01896531|181607210|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.52|||=|0.0234|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.12|2.07|||Log Rank|||All randomized participants||2.07|1.12|= 0.0234
90873291|NCT01896531|181607210|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.66|||=|0.2867|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.75|3.65|||Log Rank|||Participants with PTEN loss tumors||3.65|0.75|= 0.2867
90873292|NCT01896531|181607210|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.66|||=|0.1369|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|2.93|||Log Rank|||Participants who are Akt Dx+||2.93|0.94|= 0.1369
90873293|NCT01896531|181607211|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|-5.2|||=|0.5202|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.46|8.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||All randomized participants||8.06|-18.46|= 0.5202
90873294|NCT01896531|181607211|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|-23.33|||=|0.2035|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-52.24|5.58|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Participants with PTEN loss tumors||5.58|-52.24|= 0.2035
90873295|NCT01896531|181607211|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|-4.35|||=|0.7697|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-28.48|19.79|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Participants who are Akt Dx+||19.79|-28.48|= 0.7697
90873296|NCT01896531|181607212|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14|||=|0.5974|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.76|1.73|||Log Rank|||All randomized participants||1.73|0.76|= 0.5974
90873297|NCT01896531|181607212|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||=|0.5385|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.28|1.79|||Log Rank|||Participants with PTEN loss tumors||1.79|0.28|= 0.5385
90873298|NCT01896531|181607212|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|||=|0.6097|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.35|1.75|||Log Rank|||Participants who are Akt Dx+||1.75|0.35|= 0.6097
90873299|NCT00770289|181607217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson's correlation coefficient|0.899|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.886|0.911||The statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05.|Pearson's correlation|||Change from baseline at Week 12: Pearson's correlation coefficient was used to evaluate compatibility between the questionnaires.||0.911|0.886|<0.0001
90873300|NCT00770289|181607217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson's correlation coefficient|0.797|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.771|0.82||The statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05.|Pearson's correlation|||Change from baseline at Week 12: Pearson's correlation coefficient was used to evaluate compatibility between the questionnaires.||0.820|0.771|<0.0001
90873301|NCT00770289|181607217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson's correlation coefficient|0.765|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.736|0.791||The statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05.|Pearson's correlation|||Change from baseline at Week 12: Pearson's correlation coefficient was used to evaluate compatibility between the questionnaires.||0.791|0.736|<0.0001
90873302|NCT02733991|181607219|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.88|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.51|-2.25|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model based Estimated mean; Treatment arm - Control arm|||-2.25|-3.51|<0.0001
90873303|NCT02733991|181607220|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-42.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.01|-33.19|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model based Estimated mean; Treatment arm - Control arm|||-33.19|-52.01|<0.0001
90873304|NCT02733991|181607221|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of 40 min/day|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-38.8|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5||-0.46|||||Model based Estimated mean; difference = control arm - treatment arm|||-0.46||
90873305|NCT02733991|181607221|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|38.8||||0.0474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|77.11|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model based Estimated mean; Difference = Treatment arm - Control arm|||77.11|0.46|0.0474
90913722|NCT04147897|181697036|SUPERIORITY||Difference-in-Difference|0.6||||0.44|TWO_SIDED||||||Adjusted mixed-effects linear regression|||Mixed-effects linear models were used to analyze within-person changes from baseline to 6 months, accounting for repeated measures within participants and clustering of patients within agencies. Difference-in-differences estimates were derived to compare EF vs IF, with Cohen's d effect sizes calculated for each contrast.|Cohen's d: 0.13|||.44
90913723|NCT04147897|181697037|SUPERIORITY||Difference-in-Difference|-0.4||||0.619|TWO_SIDED||||||Adjusted mixed-effects linear regression|||Mixed-effects linear models were used to analyze within-person changes from baseline to 3 months, accounting for repeated measures within participants and clustering of patients within agencies. Difference-in-differences estimates were derived to compare EF vs IF, with Cohen's d effect sizes calculated for each contrast.|Cohen's d: -0.07|||.619
90913724|NCT04147897|181697037|SUPERIORITY||Difference-in-Difference|1.5||||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Adjusted mixed-effects linear regression|||Mixed-effects linear models were used to analyze within-person changes from baseline to 6 months, accounting for repeated measures within participants and clustering of patients within agencies. Difference-in-differences estimates were derived to compare EF vs IF, with Cohen's d effect sizes calculated for each contrast.|Cohen's d: 0.26|||0.10
90913725|NCT04147897|181697038|SUPERIORITY||Difference-in-Difference|1.9||||0.32|TWO_SIDED||||||Adjusted mixed-effects linear regression|||Mixed-effects linear models were used to analyze within-person changes from baseline to 3 months, accounting for repeated measures within participants and clustering of patients within agencies. Difference-in-differences estimates were derived to compare EF vs IF, with Cohen's d effect sizes calculated for each contrast.|Cohen's d: 0.15|||.32
90913726|NCT04147897|181697038|SUPERIORITY||Difference-in-Difference|3.0||||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||Adjusted mixed-effects linear regression|||Mixed-effects linear models were used to analyze within-person changes from baseline to 6 months, accounting for repeated measures within participants and clustering of patients within agencies. Difference-in-differences estimates were derived to compare EF vs IF, with Cohen's d effect sizes calculated for each contrast.|Cohen's d: 0.23|||0.16
90960904|NCT00325039|181802512|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This study was an equivalence trial and was designed to have 80% power to show equivalence between the two sling procedures, with an equivalence margin of +/- 12 percentage points, at a two-sided significance level of 5%. The margin of +/- 12 was chosen on the basis of clinical considerations and a calculation of the number of patients it was feasible to enroll in the trial.|difference in success (RMUS - TMUS)|6.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|14.3||||||With 294 women/arm, the study would have 80% power to show equivalence between the two procedures, with an equivalence margin of +/- 12 percentage points, at a two-sided significance level of 5%. A planned time-to-event interim analysis of the primary outcome (objective treatment success) was conducted when 33% of the anticipated treatment failures occurred. We adjusted the primary outcome analysis for this interim look by assigning nominal alpha values of 0.049 to the 95% confidence intervals.||14.3|-1.6|
90873306|NCT02956486|181607222|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-0.17||||0.385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.22|||MMRM|||Analysis was based on the MMRM and factors for treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit interaction, clinical disease staging (mild cognitive impairment \[MCI\]/Prodromal, mild alzheimer's disease \[AD\]), concurrent AD medication use, region, apolipoprotein E (ApoE4) status (positive, negative) as fixed effects, and the baseline value and the baseline value by visit interaction as covariate.||0.22|-0.57|0.385
90873307|NCT02956486|181607224|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02||||0.345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.02|||MMRM|||Analysis was based on the MMRM and factors for treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit interaction, clinical disease staging (MCI/Prodromal, mild AD), concurrent AD medication use, region, ApoE4 status (positive, negative) as fixed effects, and the baseline value and the baseline value by visit interaction as covariate.||0.02|-0.06|0.345
90873308|NCT02956486|181607225|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-12.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.79|-6.88|||MMRM|||Analysis was based on the MMRM and factors for treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit interaction, clinical disease staging (MCI/Prodromal, mild AD), concurrent AD medication use, region, ApoE4 status (positive, negative) as fixed effects, and the baseline value and the baseline value by visit interaction as covariate.||-6.88|-18.79|<.001
90913727|NCT04147897|181697039|SUPERIORITY||Difference-in-Difference|1.1||||0.31|TWO_SIDED||||||Adjusted mixed-effects linear regression|||Mixed-effects linear models were used to analyze within-person changes from baseline to 3 months, accounting for repeated measures within participants and clustering of patients within agencies. Difference-in-differences estimates were derived to compare EF vs IF, with Cohen's d effect sizes calculated for each contrast.|Cohen's d: 0.15|||.31
90913728|NCT04147897|181697039|SUPERIORITY||Difference-in-Difference|1.3||||0.28|TWO_SIDED||||||Adjusted mixed-effects linear regression|||Mixed-effects linear models were used to analyze within-person changes from baseline to 6 months, accounting for repeated measures within participants and clustering of patients within agencies. Difference-in-differences estimates were derived to compare EF vs IF, with Cohen's d effect sizes calculated for each contrast.|Cohen's d: 0.17|||.28
90960905|NCT00325039|181802513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the two arms do not differ according to quality of life, as measured by the IIQ.||||0.47
90873309|NCT02956486|181607226|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.23||||0.316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.22|||MMRM|||Analysis was based on the MMRM and factors for treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit interaction, clinical disease staging (MCI/Prodromal, mild AD), concurrent AD medication use, region, ApoE4 status (positive, negative) as fixed effects, and the baseline value and the baseline value by visit interaction as covariate.||0.22|-0.67|0.316
90873310|NCT02956486|181607227|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.03||||0.254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.02|||MMRM|||Analysis was based on the MMRM and factors for treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit interaction, clinical disease staging (MCI/Prodromal, mild AD), concurrent AD medication use, region, ApoE4 status (positive, negative) as fixed effects, and the baseline value and the baseline value by visit interaction as covariate.||0.02|-0.07|0.254
90873311|NCT02956486|181607228|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Mean Slope|-0.008||||0.9088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.145|0.129|||Linear mixed effects model|||Based on the linear mixed effects model, which included assessment time and treatment group by assessment time interaction as covariate with random intercept and slope.||0.129|-0.145|0.9088
90873312|NCT02956486|181607229|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.6155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.16|||Regression, Cox|||Based on a Cox regression model which included treatment group, clinical disease staging (MCI/Prodromal, mild AD), concurrent AD medication use, region, APOE4 status (positive, negative) as covariate.||1.16|0.77|0.6155
90873313|NCT02956486|181607230|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.1281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.35|||Regression, Cox|||Based on a Cox regression model which included treatment group, concurrent AD medication use, region, APOE4 status (positive, negative) as covariate.||1.35|0.96|0.1281
90873314|NCT02956486|181607231|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.43||||0.525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|0.9|||MMRM|||Analysis was based on the MMRM and factors for treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit interaction, clinical disease staging (MCI/Prodromal, mild AD), concurrent AD medication use, region, ApoE4 status (positive, negative) as fixed effects, and the baseline value and the baseline value by visit interaction as covariate.||0.90|-1.75|0.525
90873315|NCT02956486|181607232|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01||||0.977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.62|||MMRM|||Analysis was based on the MMRM and factors for treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit interaction, clinical disease staging (MCI/Prodromal, mild AD), concurrent AD medication use, region, ApoE4 status (positive, negative) as fixed effects, and the baseline value and the baseline value by visit interaction as covariate.||0.62|-0.64|0.977
90873316|NCT02956486|181607233|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.11||||0.854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|1.32|||MMRM|||Analysis was based on the MMRM and factors for treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit interaction, clinical disease staging (MCI/Prodromal, mild AD), concurrent AD medication use, region, ApoE4 status (positive, negative) as fixed effects, and the baseline value and the baseline value by visit interaction as covariate.||1.32|-1.09|0.854
90873317|NCT02956486|181607234|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27||||0.314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.26|||MMRM|||Analysis was based on the MMRM and factors for treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit interaction, clinical disease staging (MCI/Prodromal, mild AD), concurrent AD medication use, region, ApoE4 status (positive, negative) as fixed effects, and the baseline value and the baseline value by visit interaction as covariate.||0.26|-0.79|0.314
90873318|NCT02956486|181607235|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.07||||0.895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|1.07|||MMRM|||Analysis was based on the MMRM and factors for treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit interaction, clinical disease staging (MCI/Prodromal, mild AD), concurrent AD medication use, region, ApoE4 status (positive, negative) as fixed effects, and the baseline value and the baseline value by visit interaction as covariate.||1.07|-0.93|0.895
90873319|NCT02956486|181607236|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.04||||0.542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.17|||MMRM|||Analysis was based on the MMRM and factors for treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit interaction, clinical disease staging (MCI/Prodromal, mild AD), concurrent AD medication use, region, ApoE4 status (positive, negative) as fixed effects, and the baseline value as covariate.||0.17|-0.09|0.542
90873320|NCT02956486|181607237|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.01|||MMRM|||Analysis was based on the MMRM and factors for treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit interaction, clinical disease staging (MCI/Prodromal, mild AD), concurrent AD medication use, region, ApoE4 status (positive, negative) as fixed effects, and the baseline value as covariate.||0.01|-0.02|0.380
90873321|NCT02956486|181607238|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.02|||MMRM|||Analysis was based on the MMRM and factors for treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit interaction, clinical disease staging (MCI/Prodromal, mild AD), concurrent AD medication use, region, ApoE4 status (positive, negative) as fixed effects, and the baseline value as covariate.||0.02|-0.82|0.063
90960906|NCT00325039|181802514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The UDI measure was compared using a two-sample t test.||||0.41
90960907|NCT00892723|181802560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (rank sum)|For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.||||||0.87
90960908|NCT00892723|181802560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (rank sum)|For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.||||||0.86
90960909|NCT00892723|181802560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (rank sum)|For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.||||||0.11
90960910|NCT00892723|181802560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.91||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (rank sum)|For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.||||||0.91
90913729|NCT04147897|181697040|SUPERIORITY||Difference-in-Difference|0.5||||0.63|TWO_SIDED||||||Adjusted mixed-effects linear regression|||Mixed-effects linear models were used to analyze within-person changes from baseline to 3 months, accounting for repeated measures within participants and clustering of patients within agencies. Difference-in-differences estimates were derived to compare EF vs IF, with Cohen's d effect sizes calculated for each contrast.|Cohen's d: 0.07|||.63
90873322|NCT02956486|181607239|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.56||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.01|||MMRM|||Analysis was based on the MMRM and factors for treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit interaction, clinical disease staging (MCI/Prodromal, mild AD), concurrent AD medication use, region, ApoE4 status (positive, negative) as fixed effects, and the baseline value as covariate.||-0.01|-1.11|0.045
90873323|NCT02956486|181607240|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04||||0.799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.24|||MMRM|||Analysis was based on the MMRM and factors for treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit interaction, clinical disease staging (MCI/Prodromal, mild AD), concurrent AD medication use, region, ApoE4 status (positive, negative) as fixed effects, and the baseline value as covariate.||0.24|-0.32|0.799
90913730|NCT04147897|181697040|SUPERIORITY||Difference-in-Difference|0.9||||0.46|TWO_SIDED||||||Adjusted mixed-effects linear regression|||Mixed-effects linear models were used to analyze within-person changes from baseline to 6 months, accounting for repeated measures within participants and clustering of patients within agencies. Difference-in-differences estimates were derived to compare EF vs IF, with Cohen's d effect sizes calculated for each contrast.|Cohen's d: 0.12|||.46
90913731|NCT04147897|181697041|SUPERIORITY||Difference-in-Difference|-0.4||||0.67|TWO_SIDED||||||Adjusted mixed-effects linear regression|||Mixed-effects linear models were used to analyze within-person changes from baseline to 3 months, accounting for repeated measures within participants and clustering of patients within agencies. Difference-in-differences estimates were derived to compare EF vs IF, with Cohen's d effect sizes calculated for each contrast.|Cohen's d: -0.07|||0.67
90913732|NCT04147897|181697041|SUPERIORITY||Difference-in-Difference|0.7||||0.53|TWO_SIDED||||||Adjusted mixed-effects linear regression|||Mixed-effects linear models were used to analyze within-person changes from baseline to 6 months, accounting for repeated measures within participants and clustering of patients within agencies. Difference-in-differences estimates were derived to compare EF vs IF, with Cohen's d effect sizes calculated for each contrast.|Cohen's d: 0.10|||0.53
90913733|NCT05764161|181697048|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.5859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.651|2.143|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by IGA-CPG-S score (2 or ≥3) and geographic region (North America or outside of North America).||||2.143|0.651|0.5859
90913734|NCT05764161|181697048|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|3.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.966|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.84|17.46||||||||17.46|-9.84|
90913735|NCT05764161|181697049|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.86||||0.0741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.938|3.683|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by IGA-CPG-S score (2 or ≥3) and geographic region (North America or outside of North America).||||3.683|0.938|0.0741
90913736|NCT05764161|181697049|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|11.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.162|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|23.23||||||||23.23|-0.93|
90913737|NCT05764161|181697050|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.07||||0.1493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|5.74|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by IGA-CPG-S score (2 or ≥3) and geographic region (North America or outside of North America).||||5.740|0.750|0.1493
90873324|NCT02956486|181607241|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.32||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.07|||MMRM|||Analysis was based on the MMRM and factors for treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit interaction, clinical disease staging (MCI/Prodromal, mild AD), concurrent AD medication use, region, ApoE4 status (positive, negative) as fixed effects, and the baseline value as covariate.||-0.07|-0.56|0.012
90873325|NCT00680745|181607251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0867|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.27||significant at alpha=0.019 (2-sided) applying Dunnett's adjustment. A hierarchical closed testing procedure was used to control the Type I error rate across the primary and key secondary endpoints.|ANCOVA|with treatment group as effect (all treatment groups included) and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0 (with alpha = 0.019 applying Dunnett's adjustment, two-sided)||-0.27|-0.61|<0.0001
90913738|NCT05764161|181697050|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|6.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.257|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|14.51||||||||14.51|-2.18|
90913739|NCT05764161|181697051|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.68||||0.0142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.193|6.033|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by IGA-CPG-S score (2 or ≥3) and geographic region (North America or outside of North America).||||6.033|1.193|0.0142
90913740|NCT05764161|181697051|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|13.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.384|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|24.01||||||||24.01|2.90|
90913741|NCT05764161|181697052|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.07||||0.0387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|8.897|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by IGA-CPG-S score (2 or ≥3) and geographic region (North America or outside of North America).||||8.897|1.060|0.0387
90913742|NCT05764161|181697052|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|9.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.343|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|18.0||||||||18.00|0.98|
90913743|NCT05764161|181697054|SUPERIORITY||Least squares Mean Difference|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.244||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|-0.39|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|MMRM model: (Response Variable = Treatment + Stratification Factors \[IGA-CPG-S/Region\] + Visit + Treatment\*Visit)||Week 2||-0.39|-1.35|0.0005
90913744|NCT05764161|181697054|SUPERIORITY||Least squares Mean Difference|-1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.303||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|-0.45|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|MMRM model: (Response Variable = Treatment + Stratification Factors \[IGA-CPG-S/Region\] + Visit + Treatment\*Visit)||Week 4||-0.45|-1.64|0.0007
90913745|NCT05764161|181697054|SUPERIORITY||Least squares Mean Difference|-1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.367||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|-0.36|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|MMRM model: (Response Variable = Treatment + Stratification Factors \[IGA-CPG-S/Region\] + Visit + Treatment\*Visit)||Week 8||-0.36|-1.81|0.0036
90913746|NCT05764161|181697054|SUPERIORITY||Least squares Mean Difference|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.396||0.0287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|-0.09|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|MMRM model: (Response Variable = Treatment + Stratification Factors \[IGA-CPG-S/Region\] + Visit + Treatment\*Visit)||Week 12||-0.09|-1.65|0.0287
90960911|NCT00892723|181802561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (rank sum)|For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.||||||0.23
90960912|NCT00892723|181802561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (rank sum)|For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.||||||0.82
90960913|NCT00892723|181802561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (rank sum)|For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.||||||0.23
90873326|NCT00680745|181607251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0885|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.32||significant at alpha=0.019 (2-sided) applying Dunnett's adjustment. A hierarchical closed testing procedure was used to control the Type I error rate across the primary and key secondary endpoints.|ANCOVA|with treatment group as effect (all treatment groups included) and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0 (with alpha = 0.019 applying Dunnett's adjustment, two-sided).||-0.32|-0.67|<0.0001
90873327|NCT00680745|181607251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0873|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|-0.51||significant at alpha=0.019 (2-sided) applying Dunnett's adjustment. A hierarchical closed testing procedure was used to control the Type I error rate across the primary and key secondary endpoints.|ANCOVA|with treatment group as effect (all treatment groups included) and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0 (with alpha = 0.019 applying Dunnett's adjustment, two-sided).||-0.51|-0.86|<0.0001
90873328|NCT00680745|181607252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3153||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|0.15||not significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure within treatment group.|ANCOVA|with treatment group as effect (all treatment groups included) and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||0.15|-1.08|0.1410
90873329|NCT00680745|181607252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3217||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|-0.21||significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure within treatment group.|ANCOVA|with treatment group as effect (all treatment groups included) and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-0.21|-1.47|0.0091
90873330|NCT00680745|181607252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3168|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.17|-0.92||significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure within treatment group.|ANCOVA|with treatment group as effect (all treatment groups included) and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-0.92|-2.17|<0.0001
90873331|NCT00680745|181607253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-31.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.874|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.0|-18.0||Not significant. Hierarchical closed testing procedure within treatment group stopped at previous endpoint.|ANCOVA|with treatment group as effect (all treatment groups included) and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-18.0|-45.0|
90873332|NCT00680745|181607253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.968||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.7|-12.3||significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure within treatment group.|ANCOVA|with treatment group as effect (all treatment groups included) and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-12.3|-39.7|0.0002
90873333|NCT00680745|181607253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-28.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.77|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.2|-15.6||significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure within treatment group.|ANCOVA|with treatment group as effect (all treatment groups included) and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-15.6|-42.2|<0.0001
90873334|NCT00680745|181607254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|13.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.265|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.4|22.1||Not significant. Hierarchical closed testing procedure within treatment group stopped at previous endpoint.|Regression, Logistic|Based on methodology of Zhang, Tsiatis \& Davidian and Davidian, Tsiatis, Zhang \& Lu, with adjustment for baseline value.||H0: proportion(treat) minus proportion(placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: proportion(treat) minus proportion(placebo) =/= 0||22.1|5.4|
90873335|NCT00680745|181607254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|17.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.392||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.7|25.9||significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure within treatment group.|Regression, Logistic|Based on methodology of Zhang, Tsiatis \& Davidian and Davidian, Tsiatis, Zhang \& Lu, with adjustment for baseline value.||H0: proportion(treat) minus proportion(placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: proportion(treat) minus proportion(placebo) =/= 0||25.9|8.7|0.0001
90873336|NCT00680745|181607254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|18.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.457|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.9|27.4||significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure within treatment group.|Regression, Logistic|Based on methodology of Zhang, Tsiatis \& Davidian and Davidian, Tsiatis, Zhang \& Lu, with adjustment for baseline value.||H0: proportion(treat) minus proportion(placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: proportion(treat) minus proportion(placebo) =/= 0||27.4|9.9|<0.0001
90960914|NCT00892723|181802561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (rank sum)|For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.||||||0.71
90960915|NCT00892723|181802562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (rank sum)|For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.||||||0.73
90960916|NCT00892723|181802562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.94||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (rank sum)|For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.||||||0.94
90960917|NCT00892723|181802562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (rank sum)|For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.||||||0.14
90960918|NCT00892723|181802562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (rank sum)|For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.||||||0.68
90873337|NCT00680745|181607255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4159|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|0.45||Not significant. Hierarchical closed testing procedure within treatment group stopped at previous endpoint.|ANCOVA|with treatment group as effect (all treatment groups included) and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||0.45|-1.19|
90873338|NCT00680745|181607255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4234||0.0262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|-0.11||significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure within treatment group.|ANCOVA|with treatment group as effect (all treatment groups included) and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-0.11|-1.78|0.0262
90873339|NCT00680745|181607255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4211|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.0|-2.5|-0.84||significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure within treatment group.|ANCOVA|with treatment group as effect (all treatment groups included) and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-0.84|-2.50|<0.0001
90873340|NCT00680745|181607256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.522|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.8|-7.9||Not significant. Hierarchical closed testing procedure within treatment group stopped at previous endpoint.|ANCOVA|with treatment group as effect (all treatment groups included) and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-7.9|-21.8|
90873341|NCT00680745|181607256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.594|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.3|-12.2||significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure within treatment group.|ANCOVA|with treatment group as effect (all treatment groups included) and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-12.2|-26.3|<0.0001
90873342|NCT00680745|181607256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.545|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.5|-19.5||significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure within treatment group.|ANCOVA|with treatment group as effect (all treatment groups included) and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-19.5|-33.5|<0.0001
90873343|NCT01867021|181607309|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The HI GMTs of TIV vaccine for strain A/H1N1 considered non-inferior to HI GMTs of TIVf vaccine if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of GMTs (GMT TIVf / GMT TIV) was ≤1.5|Ratio of GMTs|1.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|2.06|||ANCOVA|Not applicable(NA)||Non-inferiority of HI GMTs of TIV vaccine over HI GMTs of TIVf vaccine for the strain A/H1N1 at day 22||2.06|1.66|
90873344|NCT01867021|181607309|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The HI GMTs of TIV vaccine for strain A/H3N2 considered non-inferior to HI GMTs of TIVf vaccine if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of GMTs (GMT TIVf / GMT TIV) was ≤1.5|Ratio of GMTs|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|1.64|||ANCOVA|||Non-inferiority of HI GMTs of TIV vaccine over HI GMTs of TIVf vaccine for the strain A/H3N2 at day 22||1.64|1.38|
90913747|NCT05764161|181697056|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.783||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.288|2.468|||Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factors between treatment and vehicle.|Cox regression model stratified by stratification factors (Baseline IGA 2/3, Region North America/ Outside of North America) was conducted to compare the difference in hazard rate between treatment and vehicle.|||2.468|1.288|0.0005
90873345|NCT01867021|181607309|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The HI GMTs of TIV vaccine for strain B considered non-inferior to HI GMTs of TIVf vaccine if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of GMTs (GMT TIVf / GMT TIV) was ≤1.5|Ratio of GMTs|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.08|||ANCOVA|||Non-inferiority of HI GMTs of TIV vaccine over HI GMTs of TIVf vaccine for the strain B at day 22||1.08|0.93|
90873346|NCT01867021|181607310|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Percentage of subjects with HI seroconversion of TIV vaccine for strain A/H1N1 considered non-inferior to percentage of subjects with HI seroconversion of TIVf vaccine if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI on the difference between the seroconversion rates (Seroconversion TIVf - Seroconversion TIV) was ≤10%.|Difference in seroconversion rates|9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.6|11.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Non-inferiority of percentage of subjects with HI seroconversion of TIV vaccine over TIVf vaccine for the strain A/H1N1 at day 22||11.5|5.6|
90873347|NCT01867021|181607310|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Percentage of subjects with HI seroconversion of TIV vaccine for strain A/H3N2 considered non-inferior to percentage of subjects with HI seroconversion of TIVf vaccine if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI on the difference between the seroconversion rates (Seroconversion TIVf - Seroconversion TIV) was ≤10%.|Difference in seroconversion rates|13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.1|16.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Non-inferiority of percentage of subjects with HI seroconversion of TIV vaccine over TIVf vaccine for the strain A/H3N2 at day 22||16.1|10.1|
90873348|NCT01867021|181607310|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Percentage of subjects with HI seroconversion of TIV vaccine for strain B considered non-inferior to percentage of subjects with HI seroconversion of TIVf vaccine if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI on the difference between the seroconversion rates (Seroconversion TIVf - Seroconversion TIV) was ≤10%.|Difference in seroconversion rates|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|2.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Non-inferiority of percentage of subjects with HI seroconversion of TIV vaccine over TIVf vaccine for the strain B at day 22||2.3|-5|
90873349|NCT03171415|181607322|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|5.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The Kruskal-Wallis T-test was applied for analyzing the difference in between the study groups||||>0.05
90913748|NCT05764161|181697057|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.477||||0.0399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.015|2.15|||Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factors between treatment and vehicle.|Cox regression model stratified by stratification factors (Baseline IGA 2/3, Region North America/ Outside of North America) was conducted to compare the difference in hazard rate between treatment and vehicle.|||2.150|1.015|0.0399
90960919|NCT00892723|181802562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.56||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (rank sum)|For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.||||||0.56
90913749|NCT05764161|181697060|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.249||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|-0.31|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|MMRM model: (Response Variable = Treatment + Stratification Factors \[IGA-CPG-S/Region\] + Visit + Treatment\*Visit)||Week 2||-0.31|-1.29|0.0016
90913750|NCT05764161|181697060|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.0071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|-0.24|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|MMRM model: (Response Variable = Treatment + Stratification Factors \[IGA-CPG-S/Region\] + Visit + Treatment\*Visit)||Week 4||-0.24|-1.51|0.0071
90913751|NCT05764161|181697060|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.369||0.0198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.14|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|MMRM model: (Response Variable = Treatment + Stratification Factors \[IGA-CPG-S/Region\] + Visit + Treatment\*Visit)||Week 8||-0.14|-1.60|0.0198
90913752|NCT05764161|181697060|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.403||0.1384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.2|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|MMRM model: (Response Variable = Treatment + Stratification Factors \[IGA-CPG-S/Region\] + Visit + Treatment\*Visit)||Week 12||0.20|-1.40|0.1384
90913753|NCT05764161|181697066|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.744||0.0759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|0.14|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|MMRM model: (Response Variable = Treatment + Stratification Factors \[IGA-CPG-S/Region\] + Visit + Treatment\*Visit)||Week 2||0.14|-2.80|0.0759
90913754|NCT05764161|181697066|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.809||0.1447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|0.41|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|MMRM model: (Response Variable = Treatment + Stratification Factors \[IGA-CPG-S/Region\] + Visit + Treatment\*Visit)||Week 4||0.41|-2.78|0.1447
90913755|NCT05764161|181697066|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.3395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.64|0.91|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|MMRM model: (Response Variable = Treatment + Stratification Factors \[IGA-CPG-S/Region\] + Visit + Treatment\*Visit)||Week 8||0.91|-2.64|0.3395
90913756|NCT05764161|181697066|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.943||0.4794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.53|1.19|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|MMRM model: (Response Variable = Treatment + Stratification Factors \[IGA-CPG-S/Region\] + Visit + Treatment\*Visit)||Week 12||1.19|-2.53|0.4794
90913757|NCT05764161|181697068|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.522||0.3053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.38|7.57|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|MMRM model: (Response Variable = Treatment + Stratification Factors \[IGA-CPG-S/Region\] + Visit + Treatment\*Visit)||Week 2||7.57|-2.38|0.3053
90913758|NCT05764161|181697068|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.45||0.3893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.72|6.95|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|MMRM model: (Response Variable = Treatment + Stratification Factors \[IGA-CPG-S/Region\] + Visit + Treatment\*Visit)||Week 4||6.95|-2.72|0.3893
90913759|NCT05764161|181697068|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.371||0.2357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|7.5|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|MMRM model: (Response Variable = Treatment + Stratification Factors \[IGA-CPG-S/Region\] + Visit + Treatment\*Visit)||Week 8||7.50|-1.86|0.2357
90913760|NCT05764161|181697068|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.567||0.5839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.66|6.47|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|MMRM model: (Response Variable = Treatment + Stratification Factors \[IGA-CPG-S/Region\] + Visit + Treatment\*Visit)||Week 12||6.47|-3.66|0.5839
90873350|NCT03171415|181607322|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The Kruskal-Wallis T-test was applied for analyzing the difference in between the study groups, at day 28 and Day 56||||<0.05
90873351|NCT03171415|181607322|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The Kruskal-Wallis T-test was applied for analyzing the difference in between the study groups||||<0.05
90873352|NCT03171415|181607322|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The Kruskal-Wallis T-test was applied for analyzing the difference in between the study groups||||<0.05
90873353|NCT03171415|181607323|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
90873354|NCT03171415|181607323|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
90873355|NCT03171415|181607323|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
90873356|NCT03171415|181607323|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
90873357|NCT03171415|181607329|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
90873358|NCT00680043|181607365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.238|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.79|0.29|||ANOVA|||||0.29|-0.79|
90873359|NCT00680043|181607365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.238|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.56|0.52|||ANOVA|||||0.52|-0.56|
90873360|NCT00680043|181607367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.01|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.01|0.84|
90873361|NCT00680043|181607367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.03|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.03|0.92|
90873362|NCT02480114|181607387|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.549||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.364|0.827|||Proportional Odds Regression|||||0.827|0.364|0.004
90873363|NCT02480114|181607388|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
90913761|NCT03034915|181697095|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.066|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0118|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.043|0.089|||Mixed model repeated measures||LS Mean difference comparing UMEC/VI versus UMEC at Week 24.|||0.089|0.043|<0.001
90913762|NCT03034915|181697095|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.141|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0117|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.118|0.164|||Mixed model repeated measures||LS Mean difference comparing UMEC/VI versus salmeterol at Week 24.|||0.164|0.118|<0.001
90960920|NCT00892723|181802562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (rank sum)|For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.||||||0.32
90873364|NCT02480114|181607389|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.371|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.244|0.597|||Proportional Odds Regression|||||0.597|0.244|<0.001
90873365|NCT01031069|181607401|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was defined as the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the ratio of GMTs (Cervarix over Gardasil) being above (\>) 0.5 for HPV-16 type.|Adjusted GMT ratio|2.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.92|4.52||||||Adjusted GMT ratios for anti-HPV-16 neutra antibody (ED50): To demonstrate that the immunogenicity of Cervarix vaccine (HIV+/Cervarix Group) was non-inferior to that of Gardasil vaccine (HIV+/Gardasil Group), in terms of geometric mean titers (GMTs) against HPV-16, measured by Pseudovirion-based neutralization assay (PBNA) one month after the administration of the third dose of vaccine in HIV+ subjects.|Primary objectives were to be assessed sequentially: firstly, non-inferiority for both HPV-16 and HPV-18, and then, superiority for HPV-18 followed by superiority for HPV-16.|4.52|1.92|
90873366|NCT01031069|181607401|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was defined as the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the ratio of GMTs (Cervarix over Gardasil) being above (\>) 0.5 for HPV-18 type.|Adjusted GMT ratio|7.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.84|12.66||||||Adjusted GMT ratios for anti-HPV-18 neutra antibody (ED50): To demonstrate that the immunogenicity of Cervarix vaccine (HIV+/Cervarix Group) was non-inferior to that of Gardasil vaccine (HIV+/Gardasil Group), in terms of geometric mean titers (GMTs) against HPV-18, measured by Pseudovirion-based neutralization assay (PBNA) one month after the administration of the third dose of vaccine in HIV+ subjects.|Primary objectives were to be assessed sequentially: firstly, non-inferiority for both HPV-16 and HPV-18, and then, superiority for HPV-18 followed by superiority for HPV-16.|12.66|4.84|
90873367|NCT01031069|181607402|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was defined as the lower limit of the 95% CI for the ratio of GMTs (Cervarix over Gardasil) being above 1 for HPV-18 type, with a statistically significant p-value.|Adjusted GMT ratio|7.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.79|11.54|||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the log10 transformation of the titers for HIV+ subjects and including the vaccine group as fixed effect.||Adjusted GMT ratios for anti-HPV-18 neutra antibody (ED50): To demonstrate that the immunogenicity of Cervarix vaccine (HIV+/Cervarix Group) was superior to that of Gardasil vaccine (HIV+/Gardasil Group), in terms of geometric mean titers (GMTs) against HPV-18, measured by Pseudovirion-based neutralization assay (PBNA) in HIV+ subjects, assessed following a sequential approach.|Primary objectives were to be assessed sequentially: firstly, non-inferiority for both HPV-16 and HPV-18, and then, superiority for HPV-18 followed by superiority for HPV-16.|11.54|4.79|<0.0001
90873368|NCT01031069|181607402|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was defined as the lower limit of the 95% CI for the ratio of GMTs (Cervarix over Gardasil) being above 1 for HPV-16 type, with a statistically significant p-value.|Adjusted GMT ratio|2.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.83|4.11|||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the log10 transformation of the titers for HIV+ subjects and including the vaccine group as fixed effect.||Adjusted GMT ratios for anti-HPV-16 neutra antibody (ED50): To demonstrate that the immunogenicity of Cervarix vaccine (HIV+/Cervarix Group) was superior to that of Gardasil vaccine (HIV+/Gardasil Group), in terms of geometric mean titers (GMTs) against HPV-16, measured by Pseudovirion-based neutralization assay (PBNA) in HIV+ subjects, following a sequential approach.|Primary objectives were to be assessed sequentially: firstly, non-inferiority for both HPV-16 and HPV-18, and then, superiority for HPV-18 followed by superiority for HPV-16.|4.11|1.83|<0.0001
90873369|NCT01031069|181607419|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was defined as the lower limit of the 97.5% CI for the ratio of GMTs (Cervarix over Gardasil) for HPV-18 type being above 1, with a statistically significant p-value.|Adjusted GMT ratio|5.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|3.2|9.06|||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the log10 transformation of the titers for HIV- subjects and including the vaccine group as fixed effect.||Adjusted GMT ratio for anti-HPV-18 neutra antibody (ED50): To demonstrate that the immunogenicity of Cervarix vaccine (HIV-/Cervarix Group) was superior to that of Gardasil vaccine (HIV-/Gardasil Group), in terms of geometric mean titers (GMTs) against HPV-18, measured by Pseudovirion-based neutralization assay (PBNA) in HIV- subjects.||9.06|3.20|<0.0001
90873370|NCT01031069|181607419|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was defined as the lower limit of the 97.5% CI for the ratio of GMTs (Cervarix over Gardasil) for HPV-16 type being above 1, with a statistically significant p-value.|Adjusted GMT ratio|3.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.84|5.06|||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the log10 transformation of the titers for HIV- subjects and including the vaccine group as fixed effect.||Adjusted GMT ratio for anti-HPV-16 neutra antibody (ED50): To demonstrate that the immunogenicity of Cervarix vaccine (HIV-/Cervarix Group) was superior to that of Gardasil vaccine (HIV-/Gardasil Group), in terms of geometric mean titers (GMTs) against HPV-16, measured by Pseudovirion-based neutralization assay (PBNA) in HIV- subjects.||5.06|1.84|<0.0001
90873371|NCT01317160|181607424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.042|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Domeij-Arverud et al., Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:675-80.||||0.042
90873372|NCT01317160|181607424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.81|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|6.32|||Regression, Logistic|Age was adjusted for in the calculation.|Risk of VTE by routine care (numerator) divided by IPC treatment (denominator)|||6.32|1.25|<0.05
90873373|NCT01317160|181607426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.737|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.737
90873374|NCT03578367|181607454|OTHER|No test performed|Risk Difference (RD)|19.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.0|33.1||||||||33.1|5.0|
90873375|NCT03578367|181607454|OTHER|No test performed|Risk Difference (RD)|28.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|12.4|44.8||||||||44.8|12.4|
90873376|NCT03578367|181607455|OTHER|No test performed|Risk Difference (RD)|14.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.7|30.3||||||||30.3|-1.7|
90873377|NCT03578367|181607455|OTHER|No test performed|Risk Difference (RD)|23.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.9|41.7||||||||41.7|5.9|
90873378|NCT04203238|181607496|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.89|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
90873379|NCT01662908|181607497|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.74|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|30.2||||||||30.2|-12.7|
90873380|NCT03182829|181607539|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority was chosen|Mean Difference (Final Values)|100.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|90.0|100.0|||Chi-squared||||Fisher's exact test|100|90|<0.05
90873381|NCT02664441|181607540|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.7||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|Randomization stratification variables (site, sex and age group) were used as covariates.||||0.6|-4.1|0.40
90873382|NCT02664441|181607541|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.1||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Randomization stratification variables (site, sex and age group) were used as covariates.||||-0.4|-5.7|0.02
90873383|NCT02664441|181607542|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.2||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.8|-2.7|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline values||Analysis for Fat Intake||-2.7|-37.8|.032
90873384|NCT02664441|181607542|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-430.0||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-761.0|-100.0|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline values||Analysis for Total Calorie Intake||-100|-761|.02
90873385|NCT02664441|181607543|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.42||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|2.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|Randomization stratification variables (site, sex and age group) as covariates.|Data were log-transformed prior to analysis. Results were back-transformed through exponentiation and presented as geometric mean ratios with 95% confidence intervals|||2.08|0.97|0.19
90873386|NCT02664441|181607544|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.0||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|Randomization stratification variables (site, sex and age group) as covariates.|Data were log-transformed prior to analysis. Results were back-transformed through exponentiation and presented as geometric mean ratios with 95% confidence intervals|Analysis for HDL Cholesterol||1.11|0.91|0.82
90873387|NCT02664441|181607544|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.0||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|Randomization stratification variables (site, sex and age group) as covariates.|Data were log-transformed prior to analysis. Results were back-transformed through exponentiation and presented as geometric mean ratios with 95% confidence intervals|Analysis for Triglycerides||1.19|0.83|0.92
90873388|NCT02664441|181607545|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.62||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|Randomization stratification variables (site, sex and age group) as covariates|Data were log-transformed prior to analysis. Results were back-transformed through exponentiation and presented as geometric mean ratios with 95% confidence intervals|||0.92|0.41|0.03
90873389|NCT02664441|181607546|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.39||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|Randomization stratification variables (site, sex and age group) as covariates|Data were log-transformed prior to analysis. Results were back-transformed through exponentiation and presented as geometric mean ratios with 95% confidence intervals|||2.14|0.90|0.32
90873390|NCT02664441|181607547|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.95||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Randomization stratification variables (site, sex and age group) were used as covariates.|Data were log-transformed prior to analysis. Results were back-transformed through exponentiation and presented as geometric mean ratios with 95% confidence intervals.|||1.10|0.81|0.69
90873391|NCT02664441|181607548|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-166.4||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-269.7|-63.1|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline values||||-63.1|-269.7|0.004
90873392|NCT02664441|181607549|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-145.0||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-653.5|363.4|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline||||363.4|-653.5|0.58
90873393|NCT02664441|181607550|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.5||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.1|2.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Randomization stratification variables (site, sex and age group) were used as covariates.||||2.1|-19.1|0.088
90873394|NCT00786487|181607551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
90873395|NCT00786487|181607551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
90873396|NCT02259582|181607553|SUPERIORITY|Based on RECIST v1.1. Response outcomes from an assessment done anytime less than Day 35 were considered as not evaluable unless the response assessment was progress disease.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.04|||=|0.0401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.013|0.095|||Log Rank|||The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate both the survival curves and the median survival time. The 95% confidence interval (CI) for the median survival time was calculated. A p-value for treatment effect was generated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model.||.095|.013|=0.0401
90873397|NCT01969240|181607554|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.86||||||||0.86|0.46|
90873398|NCT01969240|181607555|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.013|||||||t-test, 2 sided|The a-priori significance level was 0.05.||||||<0.013
90873399|NCT01969240|181607556|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.1|11.5||||||||11.5|9.1|
90873400|NCT01969240|181607557|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.998|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.998
90873401|NCT01969240|181607558|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||negative binomial model|||||||<0.001
90873402|NCT01969240|181607559|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|-0.9||||||||-0.90|-4.8|
90873403|NCT01969240|181607560|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|3.6||||||||3.6|-0.2|
90913763|NCT03034915|181697095|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.075|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0119|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.051|0.098|||Mixed model repeated measures||LS Mean difference comparing UMEC versus salmeterol at Week 24.|||0.098|0.051|<0.001
90873404|NCT00412854|181607588|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The upper limit of the standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) on the group difference \[Infanrix+Hiberix Group minus Infanrix/Hib Group\] in percentage of seroprotected subjects was ≤ 10%.|Difference in seroprotection rate|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|3.39||||||"Difference in seroprotection rates against diphteria toxoid:~To demonstrate that the immunogenicity of Infanrix™/Hib vaccine administered at 3, 4 and 5 months of age (Infanrix/Hib Group) was non-inferior to that of the concomitant administration of Infanrix™ and Hiberix™ vaccines at the same age (Infanrix+Hiberix Group), in terms of immune response to all vaccine antigens, one month after the three-dose primary vaccination course."||3.39|-1.68|
90873405|NCT00412854|181607588|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The upper limit of the standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) on the group difference \[Infanrix+Hiberix Group minus Infanrix/Hib Group\] in percentage of seroprotected subjects was ≤ 10%.|Difference in seroprotection rate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|2.3||||||"Difference in seroprotection rates against tetanus toxoid:~To demonstrate that the immunogenicity of Infanrix™/Hib vaccine administered at 3, 4 and 5 months of age (Infanrix/Hib Group) was non-inferior to that of the concomitant administration of Infanrix™ and Hiberix™ vaccines at the same age (Infanrix+Hiberix Group), in terms of immune response to all vaccine antigens, one month after the three-dose vaccination course."||2.30|-2.29|
90913764|NCT03034915|181697096|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.157||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.68|||Mixed model repeated measures||LS Mean difference comparing UMEC/VI versus UMEC at Week 24.|||0.68|0.06|0.018
90913765|NCT03034915|181697096|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.155||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.76|||Mixed model repeated measures||LS Mean difference comparing UMEC/VI versus salmeterol at Week 24.|||0.76|0.15|0.004
90873406|NCT00412854|181607589|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The upper limit of the standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) on the group difference \[Infanrix+Hiberix Group minus Infanrix/Hib Group\] in percentage of seroprotected subjects was ≤ 10%.|Difference in seroprotection rate|2.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|6.18||||||"Difference in seroprotection rates against PRP:~To demonstrate that the immunogenicity of Infanrix™/Hib vaccine administered at 3, 4 and 5 months of age (Infanrix/Hib Group) was non-inferior to that of the concomitant administration of Infanrix™ and Hiberix™ vaccines at the same age (Infanrix+Hiberix Group), in terms of immune response to all vaccine antigens, one month after the three-dose vaccination course."||6.18|0.15|
90873407|NCT00412854|181607590|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The upper limit of the standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) on the group difference \[Infanrix+Hiberix Group minus Infanrix/Hib Group\] in percentage of subjects with a vaccine response was ≤ 10%.|Difference in seroresponse rate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|2.3||||||"Difference in vaccine response rates against PT:~To demonstrate that the immunogenicity of Infanrix™/Hib vaccine administered at 3, 4 and 5 months of age (Infanrix/Hib Group) was non-inferior to that of the concomitant administration of Infanrix™ and Hiberix™ vaccines at the same age (Infanrix+Hiberix Group), in terms of immune response to all vaccine antigens, one month after the three-dose vaccination course."||2.30|-2.29|
90913766|NCT03034915|181697096|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.159||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.39|||Mixed model repeated measures||LS Mean difference comparing UMEC versus salmeterol at Week 24|||0.39|-0.23|0.610
90913767|NCT03034915|181697097|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|1.75|||generalized linear mixed model||Odds Ratio (responder vs. a non-responder) comparing UMEC/VI vs UMEC at Week 24|||1.75|1.17|<0.001
90913768|NCT03034915|181697097|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|1.81|||generalized linear mixed model||Odds Ratio (responder vs. a non-responder) comparing UMEC/VI versus salmeterol at Week 24|||1.81|1.21|<0.001
90913769|NCT03034915|181697097|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.27|||generalized linear mixed model||Odds Ratio (responder vs. a non-responder) comparing UMEC versus salmeterol at Week 24.|||1.27|0.84|0.755
90913770|NCT03034915|181697098|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.213||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.11|||Mixed model repeated measures||LS Mean difference comparing UMEC/VI versus UMEC at Week 21 to Week 24|||-0.11|-0.95|0.013
90913771|NCT03034915|181697098|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.211|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|-0.42|||Mixed model repeated measures||LS Mean difference comparing UMEC/VI versus salmeterol at Week 21 to Week 24..|||-0.42|-1.25|<0.001
90913772|NCT03034915|181697098|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.214||0.159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.12|||Mixed model repeated measures||LS Mean difference comparing UMEC versus salmeterol at Week 21 to Week 24|||0.12|-0.72|0.159
90913773|NCT03034915|181697099|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.114||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.05||E-RS Breathlessness Score|Mixed model repeated measures||LS Mean difference comparing UMEC/VI versus UMEC at Week 21 to Week 24.|||-0.05|-0.50|0.016
90913774|NCT03034915|181697099|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.113|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.23||E-RS Breathlessness Score|Mixed model repeated measures||LS Mean difference comparing UMEC/VI versus salmeterol at Week 21 to Week 24.|||-0.23|-0.68|<0.001
90873408|NCT00412854|181607590|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The upper limit of the standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) on the group difference \[Infanrix+Hiberix Group minus Infanrix/Hib Group\] in percentage of subjects with a vaccine response was ≤ 10%.|Difference in seroresponse rate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|2.3||||||"Difference in vaccine response rates against FHA:~To demonstrate that the immunogenicity of Infanrix™/Hib vaccine administered at 3, 4 and 5 months of age (Infanrix/Hib Group) was non-inferior to that of the concomitant administration of Infanrix™ and Hiberix™ vaccines at the same age (Infanrix+Hiberix Group), in terms of immune response to all vaccine antigens, one month after the three-dose vaccination course."||2.30|-2.29|
90913775|NCT03034915|181697099|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.115||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.04||E-RS Breathlessness Score|Mixed model repeated measures||LS Mean difference comparing UMEC versus salmeterol at Week 21 to Week 24.|||0.04|-0.41|0.115
90913776|NCT03034915|181697099|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063||0.247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.05||E-RS Cough and Sputum Score|Mixed model repeated measures||LS Mean difference comparing UMEC/VI versus UMEC at Week 21 to Week 24.|||0.05|-0.20|0.247
90913777|NCT03034915|181697099|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.0||E-RS Cough and Sputum Score|Mixed model repeated measures||LS Mean difference comparing UMEC/VI versus salmeterol at Week 21 to Week 24.|||0.00|-0.25|0.042
90913778|NCT03034915|181697099|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063||0.391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.07||E-RS Cough and Sputum Score|Mixed model repeated measures||LS Mean difference comparing UMEC versus salmeterol at Week 21 to Week 24.|||0.07|-0.18|0.391
90913779|NCT03034915|181697099|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|-0.04||E-RS Chest Symptoms Score|Mixed model repeated measures||LS Mean difference comparing UMEC/VI versus UMEC at Week 21 to Week 24|||-0.04|-0.31|0.014
90913780|NCT03034915|181697099|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.069|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.1||E-RS Chest Symptoms Score|Mixed model repeated measures||LS Mean difference comapring UMEC/VI versus salmeterol at Week 21 to Week 24.|||-0.10|-0.37|<0.001
90913781|NCT03034915|181697099|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.07||E-RS Chest Symptoms Score|Mixed model repeated measures||LS Mean difference comparing UMEC versus salmeterol at Week 21 to Week 24.|||0.07|-0.20|0.340
90913782|NCT03034915|181697100|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|1.89|||generalized linear mixed model||Odds Ratio (responder vs. a non-responder) comparing UMEC/VI vs UMEC at Week 21 to Week 24|||1.89|1.22|<0.001
90913783|NCT03034915|181697100|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|1.9|||generalized linear mixed model||Odds Ratio (responder vs. a non-responder) comparing UMEC/VI versus salmeterol at Week 21 to Week 24.|||1.90|1.23|<0.001
90913784|NCT03034915|181697100|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.26|||generalized linear mixed model||Odds Ratio (responder vs. a non-responder) comparing UMEC versus salmeterol at Week 21 to Week 24.|||1.26|0.80|0.969
90960921|NCT00892723|181802562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (rank sum)|For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.||||||0.33
90873409|NCT00412854|181607590|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The upper limit of the standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) on the group difference \[Infanrix+Hiberix Group minus Infanrix/Hib Group\] in percentage of subjects with a vaccine response was ≤ 10%.|Difference in seroresponse rate|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.17|5.07||||||"Difference in vaccine response rates against PRN:~To demonstrate that the immunogenicity of Infanrix™/Hib vaccine administered at 3, 4 and 5 months of age (Infanrix/Hib Group) was non-inferior to that of the concomitant administration of Infanrix™ and Hiberix™ vaccines at the same age (Infanrix+Hiberix Group), in terms of immune response to all vaccine antigens, one month after the three-dose vaccination course."||5.07|-2.17|
90873410|NCT02436889|181607635|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.949|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.949
90873411|NCT02436889|181607636|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.11||||0.2415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|8.31|||ANCOVA|change from baseline, adjusted for baseline value||||8.31|-2.09|0.2415
90873412|NCT02436889|181607637|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.01||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.16|-5.87|||ANCOVA|||||-5.87|-18.16|0.0001
90873413|NCT02436889|181607638|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.63||||0.1956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|0.33|||ANCOVA|||||0.33|-1.59|0.1956
90873414|NCT02436889|181607639|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.87||||0.0168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|3.4|||ANCOVA|||||3.40|0.34|0.0168
90873415|NCT02436889|181607640|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1||||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.71|||ANCOVA|||||3.71|0.50|0.0101
90873416|NCT01034462|181607641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-3.095||||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.256|-0.935|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures.||||-0.935|-5.256|0.0051
90913785|NCT03034915|181697101|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.672||0.709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|1.57|||mixed model repeated measure||LS Mean difference comparing UMEC/VI versus UMEC at Week 24.|||1.57|-1.07|0.709
90913786|NCT03034915|181697101|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.665||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.99|-0.39|||mixed model repeated measure||LS Mean difference comparing UMEC/VI versus salmeterol at Week 24.|||-0.39|-2.99|0.011
90873417|NCT01034462|181607642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-2.632||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.193|-1.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures.||||-1.070|-4.193|0.0010
90873418|NCT00708643|181607648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0047|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2863|||TWO_SIDED|98.75|-3.0047|2.7153|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as narafilcon A minus the habitual lens.|The alternative hypothesis is that narafilcon A will provide a lower level of limbal hyperemia than the habitual lens.||2.7153|-3.0047|
90873419|NCT00708643|181607649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0804|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7605|||TWO_SIDED|99.0|-0.0804|1.8821|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as narafilcon A minus habitual lens.|The alternative hypothesis is that narafilcon A provides better comfort than the habitual lens by having a lower rating on the scale.||1.8821|-0.0804|
90873420|NCT00708643|181607650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2228|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7002|||TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.2228|4.6564|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as narafilcon A minus the habitual lens.|The alternative hypothesis is that narafilcon A provides a lowe level of upper lid margin staining than the habitual lens.||4.6564|0.2228|
90873421|NCT00708643|181607651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2596|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1873|||TWO_SIDED|98.75|1.2596|4.2599|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as narafilcon A minus the habitual lens.|||4.2599|1.2596|
90873422|NCT00708643|181607652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8625|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3407|||TWO_SIDED|98.75|-0.8625|5.0524|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as narafilcon A minus habitual lens.|The alternative hypothesis is that narafilcon A provides a lower level of tarsal hyperemia than the habitual lens.||5.0524|-0.8625|
90873423|NCT00708643|181607653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.241|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6975|||TWO_SIDED|98.75|-0.241|4.0043|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as narafilcon A minus habitual lens.|The alternative hypothesis is that narafilcon A provides lower levels of corneal staining than the habitual lens.||4.0043|-0.2410|
90873424|NCT02493608|181607719|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90873425|NCT02493608|181607720|OTHER|||||||0.218||||||POD 1|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.218
90873426|NCT02493608|181607720|OTHER|||||||0.638||||||POD 2|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.638
90873427|NCT02493608|181607721|OTHER|||||||0.113|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.113
90873428|NCT03045887|181607742|OTHER||Ratio|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.243|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.27|0.61|||||AUC(0-t). Standard error of mean was on logged scale|||0.61|0.27|
90873429|NCT03045887|181607742|OTHER||Ratio|0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.243|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.65|1.47|||||AUC(0-t).Standard error of mean was on logged scale|||1.47|0.65|
90873430|NCT03045887|181607742|OTHER||Ratio|1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.161|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.01|1.74|||||AUC(0-t).Standard error of mean was on logged scale|||1.74|1.01|
90873431|NCT03045887|181607742|OTHER||Ratio|1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.255|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|1.62|||||AUC(0-t).Standard error of mean was on logged scale|||1.62|0.69|
90873432|NCT03045887|181607742|OTHER||Ratio|1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.161|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|1.64|||||AUC(0-t).Standard error of mean was on logged scale|||1.64|0.95|
90873433|NCT03045887|181607743|OTHER||Ratio|1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.098|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.01|1.47|||||Treatment ratio of adjusted geometric mean (Day 14/Day 1) for AUC(0-24) is presented|||1.47|1.01|
90873434|NCT03045887|181607744|OTHER||ratio|0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.61|0.99||||||||0.99|0.61|
90873435|NCT03045887|181607744|OTHER||ratio|0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.75|1.22||||||||1.22|0.75|
90873436|NCT03045887|181607744|OTHER||ratio|0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.106|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.68|0.97||||||||0.97|0.68|
90873437|NCT03045887|181607744|OTHER||ratio|0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.154|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.51|0.86||||||||0.86|0.51|
90873438|NCT03045887|181607744|OTHER||ratio|0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.106|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.63|0.9||||||||0.90|0.63|
90873439|NCT03045887|181607745|OTHER||ratio|1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.104|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.36|||||Treatment ratio of adjusted geometric mean (Day 14/Day 1) for Cmax is presented|||1.36|0.96|
90873440|NCT03045887|181607751|OTHER||Ratio|2.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.128|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.67|2.55|||||Treatment ratio of adjusted geometric mean (Day 14/Day 1) for Ctau is presented.|||2.55|1.67|
90960922|NCT00892723|181802562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (rank sum)|For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.||||||0.65
90873441|NCT04446377|181607767|SUPERIORITY|The alternative hypothesis for the statistical testing was that LAM-002A would induce greater changes in viral load from Day 1 to Day 4 than would Placebo.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|0.53||Pre-specified 2-sided significance level of 0.20|Mixed Models Analysis|ANCOVA linear mixed model to evaluate the relative differences between the LAM-002A and Placebo groups in the log10 viral load from Day 1 to Day 4.|The difference between the groups (LAM-002A vs Placebo).|The analysis tested whether the viral load in nasopharyngeal samples was lower at Day 4 in those receiving LAM-002A compared to Placebo.||0.53|-1.47|0.35
90913787|NCT03034915|181697101|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.678||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.27|-0.61|||mixed model repeated measure||LS Mean difference comparing UMEC versus salmeterol at Week 24.|||-0.61|-3.27|0.004
90873442|NCT04446377|181607769|SUPERIORITY|The alternative hypothesis for the statistical testing was that LAM-002A would reduce the cumulative rate of hospitalization or death during the 28-day period comprising 10 days of study drug administration and a further 18 days of observation.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.03||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|22.89|||Log Rank|||||22.89|0.18|0.55
90913788|NCT03034915|181697102|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.48|||generalized linear mixed model||Odds Ratio (responder vs. a non-responder) comparing UMEC/VI versus UMEC at Week 24.|||1.48|0.99|0.063
90913789|NCT03034915|181697102|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|1.83|||generalized linear mixed model||Odds Ratio (responder vs. a non-responder) comparing UMEC/VI versus salmeterol at Week 24.|||1.83|1.22|<0.001
90913790|NCT03034915|181697102|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.51|||generalized linear mixed model||Odds Ratio (responder vs. a non-responder) comparing UMEC versus salmeterol at Week 24.|||1.51|1.00|0.045
90873443|NCT04446377|181607771|SUPERIORITY|The alternative hypothesis for the statistical testing was that a higher proportion of participants would have ≥95% oxygen saturation during LAM-002A administration than during Placebo administration as assessed across Days 1, 4, and 11 of the study drug course.|Risk Difference (RD)|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Risk Difference from generalized estimating equations (GEE) logistic regression at Baseline||||
90873444|NCT04446377|181607771|SUPERIORITY|The alternative hypothesis for the statistical testing was that a higher proportion of participants would have ≥95% oxygen saturation during LAM-002A administration than during Placebo administration as assessed across Days 1, 4, and 11 of the study drug course.|Risk Difference (RD)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Risk Difference from GEE Logistic Regression at Day 1||||
90873445|NCT04446377|181607771|SUPERIORITY|The alternative hypothesis for the statistical testing was that a higher proportion of participants would have ≥95% oxygen saturation during LAM-002A administration than during Placebo administration as assessed across Days 1, 4, and 11 of the study drug course.|Risk Difference (RD)|-8.8|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Risk Difference from GEE logistic regression at Day 4||||
90873446|NCT04446377|181607771|SUPERIORITY|The alternative hypothesis for the statistical testing was that a higher proportion of participants would have ≥95% oxygen saturation during LAM-002A administration than during Placebo administration as assessed across Days 1, 4, and 11 of the study drug course.|Risk Difference (RD)|-3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Risk Difference from GEE logistic regression at Day 11||||
90873447|NCT04446377|181607772|SUPERIORITY|The alternative hypothesis for the statistical testing was that, relative to Placebo, LAM-002A would result in a greater proportion of participants with a SARS-CoV-2 viral load \<LLOQ on Day 4.|Relative Risk|2.51||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|8.48||Prespecified significance level of 0.20.|Fisher Exact|||||8.48|0.74|0.20
90873448|NCT01414075|181607786|OTHER|||||||0.0757||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a factor, baseline Hb and iron repletion status as covariates was used to compare treatments.||||0.0757
90873449|NCT01414075|181607786|OTHER|||||||0.063||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor, baseline Hb and iron repletion status as covariates was used to compare treatments.||||0.0630
90873450|NCT01414075|181607786|OTHER|||||||0.8653||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor, baseline Hb and iron repletion status as covariates was used to compare treatments.||||0.8653
90873451|NCT01414075|181607786|OTHER|||||||0.8982||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor, baseline Hb and iron repletion status as covariates was used to compare treatments.||||0.8982
90873452|NCT01862874|181607866|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine Efficacy|85.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.7|97.3|||One-sided exact test||Vaccine efficacy is defined as the percentage reduction in relative risk for the V501 group versus the placebo group.||If the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval for vaccine efficacy excludes 0%, then superiority of the V501 group is demonstrated.|97.3|52.7|<0.001
90873453|NCT01862874|181607867|OTHER|Statistical testing of no difference in incidence of maximum temperature ≥37.5°C|Risk Difference (RD)|-1.2||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|0.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference (V501 - placebo) was estimated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||0.9|-3.5|0.256
90873454|NCT01862874|181607868|OTHER|Statistical testing of no difference in incidence of injection-site erythema|Risk Difference (RD)|2.9||||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|7.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference (V501 - placebo) was estimated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Injection-site erythema||7.9|-2.1|0.251
90873455|NCT01862874|181607868|OTHER|Statistical testing of no difference in incidence of injection-site pain|Risk Difference (RD)|6.4||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|12.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference (V501 - placebo) was estimated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Injection-site pain||12.2|0.5|0.033
90873456|NCT01862874|181607868|OTHER|Statistical testing of no difference in incidence of injection-site swelling|Risk Difference (RD)|6.8||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|11.3|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference (V501 - placebo) was estimated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Injection-site swelling||11.3|2.3|0.003
90873457|NCT01862874|181607869|OTHER|Statistical testing of no difference in incidence of systemic AEs|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|3.3|||||Risk difference (V501 - placebo) was estimated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||3.3|-5.2|
90873458|NCT01862874|181607870|OTHER|Statistical testing of no difference in incidence of vaccine-related systemic AEs|Risk Difference (RD)|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|0.8|||||Risk difference (V501 - placebo) was estimated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||0.8|-4.1|
90873459|NCT01862874|181607871|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine Efficacy|86.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.2|97.4|||One-sided exact test||Vaccine efficacy is defined as the percentage reduction in relative risk for the V501 versus the placebo group.||If the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval for vaccine efficacy excludes 0%, superiority of the V501 group is demonstrated.|97.4|55.2|<0.001
90873460|NCT02056340|181607883|OTHER|||||||0.611||||||Threshold for significaance was p value \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We used a linear mixed-effects model which accounted for all measurements taken and the time that those measurements were taken.||||0.611
90873461|NCT02056340|181607884|OTHER|||||||0.029||||||P value reflects baseline to 72 hours between groups. A p-value \<0.05 will be considered significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The primary comparison was at 72 hours for the self-reported influenza severity score.||||0.029
90873462|NCT00867009|181607896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants with response|38.5|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|32.3|45.09||||||||45.09|32.30|
90873463|NCT00867009|181607897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median number of months|5.82|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|4.4|6.7||||||||6.70|4.40|
90873464|NCT00867009|181607898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants with response|45.0|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|39.0|51.0||||||||51|39|
90873465|NCT00867009|181607899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants with response|59.6|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|53.06|65.94||||||||65.94|53.06|
90873466|NCT00147199|181607900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann Estimate|20.0||||0.00044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|32.8|||ANCOVA|Lowest rank was assigned for death, discontinuation due to disease progression, and for patients who initiated additional approved PAH therapy.||Sample size was calculated based on the primary endpoint; change in 6MWD at Week 12. Assuming a between-treatment difference of 35m, a standard deviation of 75m, and a type I (alpha) error of 0.05 (i.e., two-sided p-value of less than 0.05), in order to have 90% power to detect this difference, 100 subjects per treatment group were required for this trial (total n=200). This allowed for a dropout rate of 10% as 110 subjects per group was planned.||32.8|8.0|0.00044
90873467|NCT00147199|181607902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann (H-L)|0.0||||0.623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.0|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||0.0|-0.5|0.623
90873468|NCT00147199|181607903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann (H-L)|0.0||||0.807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||Imputation strategies were implemented for 16 inhaled treprostinil subjects and 9 placebo subjects without values reported at Week 12|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||0.0|0.0|0.807
90873469|NCT00147199|181607904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann (H-L)|13.7||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|24.8|||ANCOVA|||||24.8|4.0|0.007
90873470|NCT00147199|181607905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann (H-L)|18.5||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.5|28.3|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||28.3|8.5|0.0003
90873471|NCT00147199|181607906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehman Estimate|-4.0||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Global Score||0|-8.0|0.027
90873472|NCT00147199|181607906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehman Estimate|-2.0||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Physical Dimension||0.0|-3.0|0.037
90873473|NCT00147199|181607906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehman Estimate|-1.0||||0.173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Emotional Dimension Score||0.0|-2.0|0.173
90873474|NCT00147199|181607908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehman Estimate|-167.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-333.0|-64.0|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||-64|-333|0.001
90873475|NCT00883116|181607927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3||||0.0397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.7|||Log Rank|||||1.7|1.0|0.0397
90873476|NCT00883116|181607928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.8011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.3|||Log Rank|||||1.3|0.8|0.8011
90873477|NCT01705288|181607963|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Intention to Treat Analysis||||0.36
90873478|NCT01705288|181607964|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Intention to Treat Analysis||||0.05
90873479|NCT01705288|181607965|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.18
90873480|NCT00670800|181607974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.143||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.143
90873481|NCT00670800|181607974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.900
90873482|NCT00670800|181607974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.133||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.133
90873483|NCT00670800|181607975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.049
90873484|NCT00670800|181607975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.717||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.717
90873485|NCT00670800|181607975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.038
90873486|NCT00670800|181607976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.498||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.498
90873487|NCT00670800|181607976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.835||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.835
90913791|NCT03034915|181697103|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.6|||mixed model repeated measures||LS Mean difference comparing UMEC/VI versus UMEC at Week 24.|||0.6|-0.6|0.891
90873488|NCT00670800|181607976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.606||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.606
90873489|NCT00670800|181607977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.118||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.118
90873490|NCT00670800|181607977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.581||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.581
90873491|NCT00670800|181607977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.190
90913792|NCT03034915|181697103|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.1|||mixed model repeated measures||LS Mean difference comparing UMEC/VI versus salmeterol at Week 24.|||0.1|-1.1|0.074
90873492|NCT03274687|181608023|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin for the difference in mean change score (∆2 - ∆1) is -5.||||||0.98|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Null hypothesis (H0): mean change score of HYPORT (∆2) is worse than that of COPORT (∆1), specifically ∆2 - ∆1 \< -5. Alternative hypothesis (HA): ∆2 is not worse than ∆1, specifically ∆2 - ∆1 ≥ -5. The study sample size is based on 90% power for this endpoint and 91% power for the bowel endpoint (resulting in 81.9% statistical power to reject the null hypothesis for both endpoints) and a one-sided alpha=0.025 with an overall type I error of 0.05 with a Bonferroni adjustment.||||0.98
90873493|NCT03274687|181608024|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin for the difference in mean change score (∆2 - ∆1) is -6.||||||0.96|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Null hypothesis (H0): mean change score of HYPORT (∆2) is worse than that of COPORT (∆1), specifically ∆2 - ∆1 \< -5. Alternative hypothesis (HA): ∆2 is not worse than ∆1, specifically ∆2 - ∆1 ≥ -5. The study sample size is based on 91% power for this endpoint and 90% power for the urinary endpoint (resulting in 81.9% statistical power to reject the null hypothesis for both endpoints) and a one-sided alpha=0.025 with an overall type I error of 0.05 with a Bonferroni adjustment.||||0.96
90873494|NCT03274687|181608025|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||End of RT||||0.70
90873495|NCT03274687|181608025|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||6 months||||0.67
90873496|NCT03274687|181608025|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||1 year||||0.66
90873497|NCT03274687|181608026|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0011|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||End of RT||||0.0011
90873498|NCT03274687|181608026|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||6 months||||0.93
90873499|NCT03274687|181608026|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||1 year||||0.30
90873500|NCT03274687|181608027|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||Gray's test|Two-sided significance level 0.05||Protocol definition of biochemical failure||||0.29
90873501|NCT03274687|181608027|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||Gray's test|Two-sided significance level 0.05||Phoenix definition of biochemical failure||||0.22
90873502|NCT03274687|181608028|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96||||||Two-sided significance level 0.05|Gray's test|||||||0.96
90873503|NCT03274687|181608029|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35||||||Two-sided significance level 0.05|Gray's test|||||||0.35
90873504|NCT03274687|181608030|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41||||||Two-sided significance level 0.05|Gray's test|||||||0.41
90873505|NCT03274687|181608031|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6||||||Two-sided significance level 0.05|Gray's test|||||||0.60
90960923|NCT00892723|181802562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (rank sum)|For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.||||||0.21
90960924|NCT00892723|181802562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (rank sum)|For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.||||||0.90
90960925|NCT00892723|181802563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (signed rank)|For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.||||||0.16
90960926|NCT00892723|181802563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.|Wilcoxon (signed rank)|||||||0.74
90960927|NCT00892723|181802563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||For this early phase study, no adjustments were used.|Wilcoxon (signed rank)|||||||0.45
90960928|NCT00892723|181802563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (signed rank)|For this early phase study, no adjustments were used.||||||0.079
90960929|NCT00892723|181802563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (signed rank)|For this early phase study, no adjustments were used.||||||0.16
90873506|NCT03274687|181608033|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.58||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|9.47||Two-side significance level 0.05|Log Rank||Reference = COPORT|||9.47|0.26|0.61
90873507|NCT03274687|181608034|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53|||||||Chi-squared|||Patients with any grade 3 or higher adverse event of any attribution||||0.53
90960930|NCT00892723|181802563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||For this early phase study, no adjustments were used.|Wilcoxon (signed rank)|For this early phase study, no adjustments were used.||||||0.45
90960931|NCT00426153|181802567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048||95.0|||||Rank-sum test|||P values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.||||0.048
90960932|NCT00426153|181802568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.045||95.0||||P values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant|Rank sum|||||||0.045
90960933|NCT00426153|181802569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98||95.0||||P Values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant|Rank sum|||||||0.98
90960934|NCT00150969|181802571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91033417|NCT00420238|181952598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.96||||0.001||95.0|1.89|13.03|||GEE model||An odds-ratio greater than 1 indicates the odds of response is greater in etanercept group than in placebo group.|Week 8: Generalized estimating equation (GEE) model, using a logit link, binomial distribution and an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors.||13.03|1.89|0.001
91033418|NCT00420238|181952598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.38||||0.065||95.0|0.95|5.96|||GEE model||An odds-ratio greater than 1 indicates the odds of response is greater in etanercept group than in placebo group.|Week 12: Generalized estimating equation (GEE) model, using a logit link, binomial distribution and an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors.||5.96|0.95|0.065
90873508|NCT03274687|181608034|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6929|||||||Chi-squared|||Patients with any grade 3 or higher gastrointestinal adverse event of any attribution||||0.6929
90873509|NCT03274687|181608034|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2605|||||||Chi-squared|||Patients with any grade 3 or higher genitourinary adverse event of any attribution||||0.2605
90873510|NCT01199289|181608059|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.068||||0.5838|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.311|0.175|||ANCOVA|||||0.175|-0.311|0.5838
90873511|NCT01199289|181608059|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.075||||0.5391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.316|0.166|||ANCOVA|||||0.166|-0.316|0.5391
90960935|NCT00150969|181802578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
90960936|NCT01630434|181802610|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin, which is here taken to be 0.04.|difference of proportion|-0.091||||0.004|ONE_SIDED|95.0||-0.01|||Wald Method|||||-0.01||0.004
90960937|NCT01630434|181802610|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin, which is here taken to be 0.04.|difference of proportion|-0.038||||0.06|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.045|||Wald Method|||||0.045||0.06
90960938|NCT01630434|181802611|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is 5%.|Difference of proportions|-0.015||||0.0003|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.016|||Wald Method|||||0.016||0.0003
90960939|NCT01630434|181802611|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is 5%.|Difference of proportions|0.006||||0.027|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.044|||Wald Method|||||0.044||0.027
90960940|NCT01630434|181802612|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is 7.5%.|Difference of proportions|0.035||||0.118|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.091|||Wald Method|||||0.091||0.118
90960941|NCT01630434|181802612|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is 7.5%.|Difference of proportions|0.065||||0.389|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.124|||Wald Method|||||0.124||0.389
90960942|NCT01630434|181802613|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is 4%|Difference of proportions|0.043|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.071||||||||0.071||
90960943|NCT01630434|181802613|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is 4%.|Difference of proportions|0.054|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.087||||||||0.087||
90960944|NCT01630434|181802614|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is 0.7.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.045|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.047|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.047||<0.0001
90960945|NCT01054846|181802660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||z value|2.696|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Differences between Survey 1 and Survey 2||||<0.01
90960946|NCT01054846|181802660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||z value|1.351|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Difference between Survey 1 and Survey 2||||>0.05
90960947|NCT00394953|181802662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.83|3.79|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||The proportion of responders treated with methoxy polyethylene glycol-epoetin beta versus the proportion of responders treated with darbepoetin alpha during the evaluation period.||3.79|1.83|<0.0001
91033419|NCT00420238|181952600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.57||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.64|12.74|||GEE model||Odds ratio greater than 1 indicates the odds of response is greater in etanercept group than in placebo group.|Week 2: Generalized estimating equation (GEE) model, using a logit link, binomial distribution and an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors.||12.74|1.64|0.004
90873512|NCT01199289|181608059|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.113||||0.3583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.355|0.129|||ANCOVA|||||0.129|-0.355|0.3583
90873513|NCT01199289|181608060|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.047||||0.4076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.157|0.064|||ANCOVA|||Pre-Bronchodilator||0.064|-0.157|0.4076
90873514|NCT01199289|181608060|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.022||||0.6915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.086|||ANCOVA|||Pre-Bronchodilator||0.086|-0.130|0.6915
90873515|NCT01199289|181608060|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.019||||0.7271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.126|0.088|||ANCOVA|||Pre-Bronchodilator||0.088|-0.126|0.7271
90873516|NCT01199289|181608060|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.005||||0.921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.086|0.095|||ANCOVA|||Post-Bronchodilator||0.095|-0.086|0.9210
90873517|NCT01199289|181608060|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.07||||0.1139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.017|0.157|||ANCOVA|||Post-Bronchodilator||0.157|-0.017|0.1139
90873518|NCT01199289|181608060|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.021||||0.6426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.066|0.107|||ANCOVA|||Post-Bronchodilator||0.107|-0.066|0.6426
90873519|NCT01199289|181608061|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-16.847||||0.0262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.686|-2.009|||ANCOVA|||AM||-2.009|-31.686|0.0262
90873520|NCT01199289|181608061|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.723||||0.3627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.239|7.793|||ANCOVA|||AM||7.793|-21.239|0.3627
90873521|NCT01199289|181608061|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.488||||0.4507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.791|8.814|||ANCOVA|||AM||8.814|-19.791|0.4507
90873522|NCT01199289|181608061|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-10.426||||0.1228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.686|2.834|||ANCOVA|||PM||2.834|-23.686|0.1228
90873523|NCT01199289|181608061|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.738||||0.3092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.758|6.281|||ANCOVA|||PM||6.281|-19.758|0.3092
90913793|NCT03034915|181697103|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.1|||mixed model repeated measures||LS Mean difference comparing UMEC versus salmeterol at Week 24.|||0.1|-1.1|0.107
90913794|NCT03034915|181697104|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|1.65|||generalized linear mixed model||Odds Ratio (responder vs. a non-responder) comparing UMEC/VI versus UMEC at Week 24.|||1.65|1.11|0.003
90873524|NCT01199289|181608061|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-8.043||||0.2167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.831|4.744|||ANCOVA|||PM||4.744|-20.831|0.2167
90873525|NCT01199289|181608062|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.331||||0.5157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|1.332|||ANCOVA|||||1.332|-0.670|0.5157
90873526|NCT01199289|181608062|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.234||||0.6434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.229|0.76|||ANCOVA|||||0.760|-1.229|0.6434
90873527|NCT01199289|181608062|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.199||||0.6954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.196|0.799|||ANCOVA|||||0.799|-1.196|0.6954
90873528|NCT01199289|181608063|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.283||||0.5577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.231|0.665|||ANCOVA|||||0.665|-1.231|0.5577
90873529|NCT01199289|181608063|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.038||||0.9366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.904|0.98|||ANCOVA|||||0.980|-0.904|0.9366
90873530|NCT01199289|181608063|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.138||||0.7745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.808|1.084|||ANCOVA|||||1.084|-0.808|0.7745
90873531|NCT01199289|181608064|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.026||||0.8524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.251|0.303|||ANCOVA|||||0.303|-0.251|0.8524
90873532|NCT01199289|181608064|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.033||||0.8139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.305|0.24|||ANCOVA|||||0.240|-0.305|0.8139
90873533|NCT01199289|181608064|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.002||||0.9881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.281|0.276|||ANCOVA|||||0.276|-0.281|0.9881
90873534|NCT01199289|181608065|SUPERIORITY|With use of SABA|LS Mean Difference|-0.062||||0.1213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.141|0.017|||ANCOVA|||||0.017|-0.141|0.1213
90873535|NCT01199289|181608065|SUPERIORITY|With use of SABA|LS Mean Difference|-0.017||||0.6643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.095|0.061|||ANCOVA|||||0.061|-0.095|0.6643
90913795|NCT03034915|181697104|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.5|||generalized linear mixed model||Odds Ratio (responder vs. a non-responder) comparing UMEC/VI versus salmeterol at Week 24.|||1.50|1.01|0.037
90913796|NCT03034915|181697104|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.11|||generalized linear mixed model||Odds Ratio (responder vs. a non-responder) comparing UMEC versus salmeterol at Week 24.|||1.11|0.75|0.363
90913797|NCT03861767|181697106|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.97||||||Low dose groups collapsed and compared to placebo||1.97|0.67|
90873536|NCT01199289|181608065|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.042||||0.2879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.121|0.036|||ANCOVA|With use of SABA||||0.036|-0.121|0.2879
90873537|NCT01199289|181608065|SUPERIORITY|Without use of SABA|LS Mean Difference|-0.074||||0.0546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.001|||ANCOVA|||||0.001|-0.150|0.0546
90873538|NCT01199289|181608065|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.004||||0.9078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.071|||ANCOVA|||Without use of SABA||0.071|-0.080|0.9078
90873539|NCT01199289|181608065|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.035||||0.3616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.111|0.04|||ANCOVA|||Without use of SABA||0.040|-0.111|0.3616
90873540|NCT02636868|181608069|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.363||||||a priori threshold of statistical significance set at 0.05|Regression, Logistic|Pooled site, treatment, gender, birth weight, and baseline fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO₂) in model||Null hypothesis is no difference across treatment groups||||0.363
90873541|NCT02636868|181608069|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36||||||a priori threshold of statistical significance set at 0.05|Regression, Logistic|Pooled site, treatment, gender, birth weight, and baseline FiO₂ in model||Null hypothesis of no difference between treatments||||0.360
90873542|NCT02636868|181608069|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.461||||||a priori threshold of statistical significance set at 0.05|Regression, Logistic|Pooled site, treatment, gender, birth weight, and baseline FiO₂ in model||Null hypothesis of no difference between treatments||||0.461
90873543|NCT02636868|181608070|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.401||||||a priori threshold of statistical significance set at 0.05|Regression, Logistic|Pooled site, treatment, gender, birth weight, and baseline FiO₂ in model||Null hypothesis is no difference across treatment groups||||0.401
90873544|NCT02636868|181608070|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.372||||||a priori threshold of statistical significance set at 0.05|Regression, Logistic|Pooled site, treatment, gender, birth weight, and baseline FiO₂ in model||Null hypothesis is no difference across treatment groups||||0.372
90873545|NCT02636868|181608070|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.648||||||a priori threshold of statistical significance set at 0.05|Regression, Logistic|Pooled site, treatment, gender, birth weight, and baseline FiO₂ in model||Null hypothesis is no difference across treatment groups||||0.648
90873546|NCT02636868|181608071|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.996||||||a priori threshold of statistical significance set at 0.05|Log Rank|||Null hypothesis of no difference across treatments||||0.996
90913798|NCT03861767|181697106|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.25||||||Intermediate dose groups were collapsed and compared to placebo||1.25|0.42|
90913799|NCT03861767|181697106|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.84||||||High dose groups were collapsed and compared to placebo||1.84|0.61|
90913800|NCT03861767|181697107|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|2.03|||Regression, Logistic|||All intervention groups were grouped together and compared to placebo||2.03|0.52|0.92
90913801|NCT03861767|181697108|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|2.0|||Regression, Logistic|||All intervention groups were grouped together and compared to placebo||2.00|0.52|0.80
90913802|NCT03861767|181697109|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|3.11|||Regression, Logistic|||All intervention groups were grouped together and compared to placebo||3.11|0.49|0.65
90913803|NCT03861767|181697110|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.62||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|3.62|||Regression, Logistic|||All intervention groups were grouped together and compared to placebo||3.62|0.73|0.23
90913804|NCT03861767|181697111|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.86|||Regression, Logistic|||All intervention groups were grouped together and compared to placebo||2.86|0.71|0.31
90913805|NCT03861767|181697112|SUPERIORITY||Beta-coefficient|0.0011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.042||0.97|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||All intervention groups were grouped together and compared to placebo||||0.97
90913806|NCT03861767|181697113|SUPERIORITY||Beta-coefficient|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||All intervention groups were grouped together and compared to placebo||||0.30
90913807|NCT03861767|181697114|SUPERIORITY||Beta-coefficient|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.65|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||All intervention groups were grouped together and compared to placebo||||0.65
90913808|NCT03861767|181697116|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|2.86|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.86|0.74|0.27
90913809|NCT03861767|181697117|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.98||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|7.44|||Regression, Logistic|||All intervention groups were collapsed and compared to placebo||7.44|1.19|0.01
90873547|NCT02636868|181608071|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.951||||||a priori threshold of statistical significance set at 0.05|Log Rank|||Null hypothesis of no difference between treatments||||0.951
90913810|NCT03861767|181697118|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.67|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|5.3|||Regression, Logistic|||All intervention groups were collapsed and compared to placebo||5.30|1.34|<0.01
90873548|NCT02636868|181608071|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.995||||||a priori threshold of statistical significance set at 0.05|Log Rank|||Null hypothesis of no difference between treatments||||0.995
90873549|NCT02636868|181608072|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.312||||||A priori threshold of statistical significance set at 0.10|Regression, Linear|Generalized linear model using Poisson distribution with pooled site, treatment, gender, birth weight, and baseline FiO₂ in model||Null hypothesis of no difference between treatment groups||||0.312
90873550|NCT02636868|181608072|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.094||||||A priori threshold of statistical significance set at 0.10|Regression, Linear|Generalized linear model using Poisson distribution with pooled site, treatment, gender, birth weight, and baseline FiO₂ in model||Null hypothesis of no difference between treatment groups||||0.094
90873551|NCT02636868|181608072|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.414||||||A priori threshold of statistical significance set at 0.10|Regression, Linear|Generalized linear model using Poisson distribution with pooled site, treatment, gender, birth weight, and baseline FiO₂ in model.||Null hypothesis of no difference between treatment groups||||0.414
90873552|NCT02636868|181608073|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.099||||||A priori statistical significance of 0.05|Regression, Logistic|Pooled site, treatment, gender, birth weight, and baseline fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2) in model||Null hypothesis of no difference between treatment groups||||0.099
90873553|NCT02636868|181608073|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09||||||A priori statistical significance of 0.05|Regression, Logistic|Pooled site, treatment, gender, birth weight, and baseline FiO2 in model||Null hypothesis of no difference between treatments||||0.090
90873554|NCT02636868|181608073|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.461||||||A priori statistical significance of 0.05|Regression, Logistic|Pooled site, treatment, gender, birth weight, and baseline FiO2 in model||Null hypothesis of no difference between treatment groups||||0.461
90873555|NCT02636868|181608074|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.534||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance set at 0.05|ANOVA|treatment and pooled site in model||Null hypothesis of no treatment between treatments||||0.534
90873556|NCT02636868|181608074|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance set at 0.05|ANOVA|Treatment and pooled site in model||Null hypothesis of no difference between treatment groups||||0.480
90873557|NCT02636868|181608074|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.313||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance set at 0.05|ANOVA|Treatment and pooled site in model||Null hypothesis of no difference between treatment groups||||0.313
90873558|NCT02127567|181608087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|2.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.7|1.5|<0.001
90873559|NCT02127567|181608088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.8|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|4.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.4|1.1|<0.01
90873560|NCT02127567|181608089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|2.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.0|-0.7|0.44
90960948|NCT02446886|181802677|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.65||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Previously published reproducibility of our MWF imaging (FAST-T2) has been established to be +/- 2.0 Our hypothesis for this study was the monthly ACTH would lead to greater remylination in acute MS lesions. However, to reach this goal, improvement must be beyond established reproducibility. Note: Since MWF is a fraction of myelin water to total water, it does not have a unit.||||0.04
91033420|NCT00420238|181952600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.46||||0.054||95.0|0.99|6.12|||GEE model||Odds ratio greater than 1 indicates the odds of response is greater in etanercept group than in placebo group.|Week 4: Generalized estimating equation (GEE) model, using a logit link, binomial distribution and an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors.||6.12|0.99|0.054
91033421|NCT00420238|181952600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.26|||<|0.001||95.0|2.27|17.31|||GEE model||Odds ratio greater than 1 indicates the odds of response is greater in etanercept group than in placebo group.|Week 8: Generalized estimating equation (GEE) model, using a logit link, binomial distribution and an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors.||17.31|2.27|<0.001
90873561|NCT02127567|181608090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|3.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.6|0.8|<0.01
90873562|NCT02127567|181608091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.8|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.9|0.7|<0.01
90873563|NCT02127567|181608092|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.3|-2.0|0.78
90873564|NCT02127567|181608093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.4|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|6.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.7|4.1|<0.01
90873565|NCT02127567|181608094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.3|0.5|0.002
90873566|NCT03316131|181608121|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.67|9.22||||||||9.22|-8.67|
90873567|NCT03316131|181608122|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.03|1.25||||||Treatment A/Treatment B, for Verinurad||1.25|1.03|
90873568|NCT03316131|181608122|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.07||||||Treatment A/Treatment B, for M1||1.07|0.88|
90873569|NCT03316131|181608122|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.08||||||Treatment A/Treatment B, for M8||1.08|0.91|
90873570|NCT03316131|181608123|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.13||||||Treatment A/Treatment B, for Verinurad||1.13|1.00|
90873571|NCT03316131|181608123|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.02||||||Treatment A/Treatment B, for M1||1.02|0.90|
90873572|NCT03316131|181608123|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|1.04||||||Treatment A/Treatment B, for M8||1.04|0.94|
90873573|NCT03316131|181608127|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.13||||||Treatment A/Treatment B, for Verinurad||1.13|1.00|
90873574|NCT03316131|181608127|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.96||||||90.0|0.9|1.02||||||Treatment A/Treatment B, for M1||1.02|0.90|
90873575|NCT03316131|181608127|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|1.04||||||Treatment A/Treatment B, for M8||1.04|0.94|
90873576|NCT02560584|181608128|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Exact one-sided test for a single propor|||"The proportion of patients with malignancy detected only with BLC with Cysview was to be analyzed using an exact one-sided test for a single proportion based on the cumulative binomial distribution with a significance level of 2.5%.~Null hypothesis: Malignancy is detected with BL only in 0.5% or less of the patients"||||<0.0001
90873577|NCT02560584|181608130|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Exact one-sided test for single proporti|||"The proportion of patients with one or more CIS lesions detected with BL and none with WL was to be evaluated using an exact binomial test for single proportion with a significance level of 2.5% (one-sided).~Null hypothesis: One or more CIS lesions are detected with BLC with Cysview and none with WL in less than or equal to 0.1% of the patients."||||<0.0001
90873578|NCT03518073|181608168|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.959|1.265|||||Posterior mean ratio with 95% credible interval is reported.|||1.265|0.959|
90873579|NCT03518073|181608168|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.907|1.209|||||Posterior mean ratio with 95% credible interval is reported.|||1.209|0.907|
90873580|NCT03518073|181608169|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.943|1.29|||||Posterior mean ratio with 95% credible interval is reported.|||1.290|0.943|
90873581|NCT03518073|181608169|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.737|1.053|||||Posterior mean ratio with 95% credible interval is reported.|||1.053|0.737|
90873582|NCT03518073|181608170|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.873|1.284|||||Posterior mean ratio with 95% credible interval is reported.|||1.284|0.873|
90873583|NCT03518073|181608170|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Ratio|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.006|1.453|||||Posterior mean ratio with 95% credible interval is reported.|||1.453|1.006|
90873584|NCT03518073|181608171|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.963|1.3|||||Posterior mean ratio with 95% credible interval is reported.|||1.300|0.963|
90873585|NCT03518073|181608171|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.805|1.119|||||Posterior mean ratio with 95% credible interval is reported.|||1.119|0.805|
90873586|NCT03518073|181608172|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.221|||||Posterior mean ratio with 95% credible interval is reported.|||1.221|0.880|
90873587|NCT03518073|181608172|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.742|1.065|||||Posterior mean ratio with 95% credible interval is reported.|||1.065|0.742|
90873588|NCT03518073|181608173|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.05|-0.01|0.253
90873589|NCT03518073|181608173|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016||0.354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.05|-0.02|0.354
90873590|NCT03518073|181608174|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.554||0.691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|3.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.68|-2.44|0.691
90873591|NCT03518073|181608174|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.599||0.749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.64|3.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.66|-2.64|0.749
90913811|NCT03861767|181697119|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.56|||Regression, Logistic|||All intervention groups were collapsed into one group and compared with placebo. Patients were compared whether they were discharged home or other.||1.56|0.52|0.72
90913812|NCT00346333|181697121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance= 0.05. Annual assessments of data by data monitoring board were done with p-values adjusted using the O'Brien-Fleming rule for intermediate looks.|Longitudinal regression analysis|||"Primary Analysis:Proc mixed of the Statistical Analysis System (SAS) was used to compare annual rates of change by treatment group over 4 years.~Power Calculation:240 patients were estimated to be needed to provide sufficient power (i.e. alpha=0.05;beta=0.10)to observe a statistically significant difference between mean change in the 2 groups on the HFA 30-2 total point score over a 4-year interval."||||0.66
90913813|NCT00346333|181697121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance= 0.05. Annual assessments of data by data monitoring board were done with p-values adjusted using the O'Brien-Fleming rule for intermediate looks.|Clustered Wilcoxon|||Secondary Analysis: As change distribution was non-normal, slope for each eye was calculated with least squares regression and converted to ranks. The Clustered Wilcoxon test was used to compare slope distributions between groups accounting for correlation between slopes for eyes within individuals.||||0.52
90873592|NCT03045081|181608177|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were used to test this hypothesis. GEE allows for the analysis of repeated measures with unknown covariance structure and uses all available data that participants provide, even if follow-up data are missing (ie, intent-to-treat analysis). Models for the entire study sample and for only those who provided outcome data at all study time points (0, 3, 6 months; i.e., as treated 'completer' analysis) were evaluated (see Statistical Analysis 2).|||||<|0.05||||||Wald χ2 p-values \< 0.05 considered statistically significant for group x time interactions.|Wald χ2|Intent-to-treat analysis (full sample)||We hypothesized that we would observe a group (usual care vs PTSM) by time (0, 3, 6 months) interaction, such that the PTSM group would demonstrate improvement in pain self efficacy over time compared to the usual care group.||||<0.05
90873593|NCT03045081|181608177|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were used to test this hypothesis.|||||<|0.05||||||Wald χ2 values \< 0.05 considered statistically significant for group x time interactions.|Wald χ2|Study 'completers' only||We hypothesized that we would observe a group (usual care vs PTSM) by time (0, 3, 6 months) interaction, such that the PTSM group would demonstrate improvement in chronic pain self-efficacy over time compared to the usual care group. This analysis was limited to those participants who provided data at each of the study time points ('completer analysis').||||<0.05
90873594|NCT03045081|181608178|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were used to test this hypothesis. Main effects of group and time, and group × time interactions were evaluated. Models for the entire study sample and for only those who provided outcome data at all study time points (0, 3, 6 months; 'study completers') were evaluated (see Statistical Analysis 2).||||||0.068||||||Wald χ2 p-values \< 0.05 considered statistically significant for group x time interaction|Wald χ2|Intent-to-treat analysis (full sample)||We hypothesized that we would observe a group (usual care vs PTSM) by time (0, 3, 6 months) interaction, such that the PTSM group would demonstrate improvement in chronic pain acceptance - Activity Engagement - over time compared to the usual care group. Note: this questionnaire has 2 subscales, Activity Engagement and Pain Willingness. Intent-to-treat and as treated analyses were conducted for each subscale.||||0.068
90873595|NCT03045081|181608178|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were used to test this hypothesis.|||||<|0.05||||||Wald χ2 \<0.05 considered statistically significant for group x time interaction.|Wald χ2|Study 'completers' only||We hypothesized that we would observe a group by time interaction, such that the PTSM group would demonstrate improvement in chronic pain acceptance - Activity Engagement - over time compared to the usual care group.This analysis was limited to those participants who provided data at each of the study time points ('completer' analysis).||||<0.05
90873596|NCT03045081|181608178|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were used to test this hypothesis.||||||0.173||||||Wald χ2 \< 0.05 considered statistically significant for group x time interaction.|Wald χ2|Intent-to-treat analysis (full sample).||We hypothesized that we would observe a group by time interaction such that the PTSM group would demonstrate improvement in chronic pain acceptance - Pain Willingness - over time compared to the usual care group.||||0.173
90873597|NCT03045081|181608178|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations were used to test this hypothesis.||||||0.167||||||Wald χ2 \>0.05 considered statistically significant for group x time interaction.|Wald χ2|Study 'completers' only||We hypothesized that we would observe a group by time interaction such that the PTSM group would demonstrate improvement in chronic pain acceptance - Pain Willingness - over time compared to the usual care group. This analysis was restricted to those study participants who provided data at each of the study time points ('completer' analysis).||||0.167
90913814|NCT00346333|181697122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0||||A priori threshold for statistical significance= 0.05. Annual assessments of data by data monitoring board were done with p-values adjusted using the O'Brien-Fleming rule for intermediate looks.|Longitudinal regression analysis|||Primary Analysis: Proc Mixed of SAS was used to compare annual rates of change by treatment group over four years.The unit of analysis was the eye. Each patient contributed 2, 1, or 0 eyes with non-missing data.||||0.05
90913815|NCT00346333|181697122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance= 0.05. Annual assessments of data by data monitoring board were done with p-values adjusted using the O'Brien-Fleming rule for intermediate looks.|Clustered Wilcoxon|||Secondary Analysis: As change distribution was non-normal, slope for each eye was calculated with least squares regression and converted to ranks. The Clustered Wilcoxon test was used to compare slope distributions between groups accounting for correlation between slopes for eyes within individuals.||||0.03
90960949|NCT02446886|181802682|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.65||||0.077|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed-effects models were implemented to assess the variables of interest (lesion MWF) among patients randomized to once versus the monthly ACTH treatment group. The modeling strategy accounts for multiple lesions per patient, repeated measurements (longitudinal analysis) and the following covariates were always considered: patient age, gender, disease duration, individual T2w lesion volume, time on disease modifying treatments (DMT) prior to enrollment, and DMT during the study.|Linear mixed-effects models were implemented|||0.077
90913816|NCT00346333|181697123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance= 0.05. Annual assessments of data by data monitoring board were done with p-values adjusted using the O'Brien-Fleming rule for intermediate looks.|Longitudinal regression analysis|||Primary analysis:Proc Mixed of SAS was used to compare annual rates of change by treatment group over four years.The unit of analysis was the eye.Each patient contributed 2,1,or 0 eyes with non-missing data.||||0.24
90913817|NCT00346333|181697123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2||||||Apriori threshold for statistical significance= 0.05. Annual assessments of data by data monitoring board were done with p-values adjusted using the O'Brien-Fleming rule for intermediate looks.|Clustered Wilcoxon|||Secondary Analysis: As change distribution was non-normal, slope for each eye was calculated with least squares regression and converted to ranks. The Clustered Wilcoxon test was used to compare slope distributions between groups accounting for correlation between slopes for eyes within individuals.||||0.20
90913818|NCT00346333|181697124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance= 0.05. Annual assessments of data by data monitoring board were done with p-values adjusted using the O'Brien-Fleming rule for intermediate looks.|Longitudinal regression analysis|||Proc MIXED of SAS was used to compare annual rates of change over four years between the treatment groups.||||0.59
90913819|NCT00346333|181697125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance= 0.05. Annual assessments of data by data monitoring board were done with p-values adjusted using the O'Brien-Fleming rule for intermediate looks.|Longitudinal regression analysis|||Proc MIXED of SAS was used to compare annual rates of change over 4 years between the 2 groups.||||0.80
90960950|NCT03021954|181802694|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.086|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis is in the intervention group, we expect a decrease in the area of the levator hiatus at 40 days and 3 months post-partum. Power 90 % confidence interval β = 0.10, α = 0.05||||0.086
90960951|NCT03021954|181802695|EQUIVALENCE|||||||0.29|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis is platelet rich plasma can maintain or increase levator ani muscle contractions post-partum||||0.29
90960952|NCT01592864|181802752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.2||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons, as primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as fixed factor and baseline Schiff Score as covariate.|Difference is 0.454% SnF minus 0.76% NaMFP such that a negative difference favours first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for both treatments.||-0.2|-0.6|<0.0001
90960953|NCT01592864|181802753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.3||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons, as primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as fixed factor and baseline Schiff Score as covariate.|Difference is 0.454% SnF minus 0.76% NaMFP such that a negative difference favours first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for both treatments.||-0.3|-0.6|<0.0001
90960954|NCT01592864|181802754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|16.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.1|22.8||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons, as primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as fixed factor and baseline Schiff Score as covariate.|Difference is 0.454% SnF minus 0.76% NaMFP such that a positive difference favours first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for both treatments.||22.8|11.1|<0.0001
90960955|NCT01592864|181802755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|9.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.4|13.9||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons, as primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as fixed factor and baseline Schiff Score as covariate.|Difference is 0.454% SnF minus 0.76% NaMFP such that a positive difference favors first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for both treatments.||13.9|5.4|<0.0001
90960956|NCT02120716|181802757|OTHER|Logistic regression analysis.|Odds Ratio (OR)|5.5||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|51.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||51.2|0.6|0.13
91033422|NCT00420238|181952600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.88||||0.025||95.0|1.14|7.27|||GEE model||Odds ratio greater than 1 indicates the odds of response is greater in etanercept group than in placebo group.|Week 12: Generalized estimating equation (GEE) model, using a logit link, binomial distribution and an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors.||7.27|1.14|0.025
91033423|NCT03555305|181952607|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed using linear mixed effects model and participant as a random effect, with period, sequence, and treatment as fixed effects. The estimate of the ratio of means of each PK/PD parameters between the 2 treatments and the corresponding 90% confidence interval were calculated. A typical bio-equivalence limit (0.8 to 1.25) was used as equivalence margin.|Ratio of geometric least squares means|0.961|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.886|1.04|||Linear mixed-effects model|||||1.04|0.886|
91033424|NCT03555305|181952608|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed using linear mixed effects model and participant as a random effect, with period, sequence, and treatment as fixed effects. The estimate of the ratio of means of each PK/PD parameters between the 2 treatments and the corresponding 90% confidence interval were calculated. A typical bio-equivalence limit (0.8 to 1.25) was used as equivalence margin.|Ratio of geometric least squares means|0.943|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.874|1.02|||Linear mixed-effects model|||||1.02|0.874|
91033425|NCT01811953|181952645|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means (gMean), test/reference, for the primary endpoints using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Geometric mean ratio|102.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.017|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.531|105.653|||ANOVA||The geometric mean ratio was calculated as the geometric mean of '1 Empagliflozin/Metformin (T)' divided by the geometric mean of '3 Empagliflozin + Metformin (R)'.|||105.653|99.531|<0.0001
90913820|NCT01188499|181697126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Primary objective of safety and tolerability measured by percent participants experiencing at least one adverse event. No formal statistics performed.|||||
90913821|NCT01188499|181697127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Percent patients overall across all five arms demonstrating complete or partial response by RECIST. No formal statistics performed.|||||
90913822|NCT00588770|181697156|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22||||||The P value was based on stratified log rank test, stratified by choice of chemotherapy combination, performance status, weight loss in the last 6 months, and prior radiation of the head and neck.|Log Rank|||The study hypothesis is that the addition of bevacizumab will improve the median survival by 35% from 8.5 months (based on E1395 and E5397) to 11.5 months.||||0.22
90913823|NCT04697628|181697161|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.7||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.89||Two-sided p-value calculated from stratified log-rank test.|Stratified log-rank test||Hazard Ratio (HR) was calculated from Cox proportional hazards model and Efron method was used in handling ties and computed using stratification factors at randomization.|||0.89|0.54|0.0038
91033426|NCT01811953|181952645|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means (gMean), test/reference, for the primary endpoints using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Geometric mean ratio|98.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.024|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.879|103.059|||ANOVA||The geometric mean ratio was calculated as the geometric mean of '2 Empagliflozin/Metformin (T)' divided by the geometric mean of '4 Empagliflozin + Metformin (R)'.|||103.059|94.879|<0.0001
91033427|NCT01811953|181952645|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means (gMean), test/reference, for the primary endpoints using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Geometric mean ratio|106.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.018|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.728|109.386|||ANOVA||The geometric mean ratio was calculated as the geometric mean of '5 Empagliflozin/Metformin (T)' divided by the geometric mean of '6 Empagliflozin + Metformin (R)'.|||109.386|102.728|<0.0001
90873598|NCT03045081|181608179|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were used to test this hypothesis. Main effects of group and time, and group × time interactions were evaluated. Models for the entire study sample and for only those who provided outcome data at all study time points (0, 3, 6 months) were evaluated (see Statistical Analysis 2).||||||0.176||||||Wald χ2 p-values \< 0.05 considered statistically significant for group x time interaction|Wald χ2|Intent-to-treat analysis (full sample).||We hypothesized that we would observe a group (usual care vs PTSM) by time (0, 3, 6 months) interaction, such that the PTSM group would demonstrate improved confidence in patient-provider interactions over time compared to the usual care group.||||0.176
90873599|NCT03045081|181608179|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations were used to test this hypothesis.||||||0.143||||||Wald χ2 \< 0.05 considered statistically significant for group x time interaction.|Wald χ2|Study 'completers' only||We hypothesized that we would observe a group (usual care vs PTSM) by time (0, 3, 6 months) interaction, such that the PTSM group would demonstrate improved confidence in patient-provider interactions over time compared to the usual care group. This analysis was restricted to those study participants who provided data at each of the study time points ('completer' analysis).||||0.143
90873600|NCT03045081|181608180|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were used to test this hypothesis. Main effects of group and time, and group × time interactions were evaluated. Models for the entire study sample and for only those who provided outcome data at all study time points (0, 3, 6 months) were evaluated (see Statistical Analysis 2).|||||<|0.05||||||Wald χ2 p-values \< 0.05 considered statistically significant.|Wald χ2|Intent-to-treat analysis (full sample).||We hypothesized that we would observe a group (usual care vs PTSM) by time (0, 3, 6 months) interaction, such that the PTSM group would demonstrate improved satisfaction with pain treatment over time compared to the usual care group.||||<0.05
90873601|NCT03045081|181608180|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were used to test this hypothesis.|||||<|0.001||||||Wald χ2 \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant for the group x time interaction.|Wald χ2|Study 'completers' only||We hypothesized that we would observe a group (usual care vs PTSM) by time (0, 3, 6 months) interaction, such that the PTSM group would demonstrate improved satisfaction with pain treatment over time compared to the usual care group. This analysis was restricted to those study participants who provided data at each of the study time points (i.e., 'completer' analysis).||||<0.001
90873602|NCT03045081|181608182|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were used to test this hypothesis.Models for the entire study sample and for only those who provided outcome data at all study time points (0, 3, 6 months) were evaluated (see Statistical Analysis 2).||||||0.102||||||Wald χ2 p-values \< 0.05 considered statistically significant.|Wald χ2|Intent-to-treat analysis (full sample).||We hypothesized that we would observe a group (usual care vs PTSM) by time (0, 3, 6 months) interaction, such that the PTSM group would demonstrate greater reductions in pain intensity and interference over time compared to the usual care group.||||0.102
90873603|NCT03045081|181608182|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were used to test this hypothesis.|||||<|0.05||||||Wald χ2 \< 0.05 considered statistically significant for group x time interaction|Wald χ2|Study 'completers' only||We hypothesized that we would observe a group (usual care vs PTSM) by time (0, 3, 6 months) interaction, such that the PTSM group would demonstrate greater reductions in pain intensity and interference over time compared to the usual care group. This analysis was restricted to those study participants who provided data at each time point (as treated, 'completer' analysis).||||<0.05
90873604|NCT00453921|181608248|OTHER||||||<|0.04||||||For active therapy/placebo relative to both placebo|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.04
90873605|NCT00453921|181608250|EQUIVALENCE|Looking for statistical difference, p \< .01, between groups looking at change scores|||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
90873606|NCT00453921|181608251|EQUIVALENCE|group differences|||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
90873607|NCT00453921|181608254|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.01
90873608|NCT00453921|181608254|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||a priopr|ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
90960957|NCT02120716|181802758|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.7|||<|0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|33.0|||Regression, Logistic|||The reported percentages were captured at two separate time points (baseline, and at 4-Month Follow-Up).||33.0|4.2|<0.015
90960958|NCT04677179|181802760|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.57||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|11.32|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||11.32|0.03|0.750
90960959|NCT04677179|181802760|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.838|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|6.21|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||6.21|0.10|0.838
91033428|NCT01811953|181952646|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means (gMean), test/reference, for the primary endpoints using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Geometric mean ratio|96.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.25|101.26|||ANOVA||The geometric mean ratio was calculated as the geometric mean of '1 Empagliflozin/Metformin (T)' divided by the geometric mean of '3 Empagliflozin + Metformin (R)'.|||101.26|91.25|<0.0001
91033429|NCT01811953|181952646|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means (gMean), test/reference, for the primary endpoints using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Geometric mean ratio|99.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.56|106.62|||ANOVA||The geometric mean ratio was calculated as the geometric mean of '2 Empagliflozin/Metformin (T)' divided by the geometric mean of '4 Empagliflozin + Metformin (R)'.|||106.62|92.56|<0.0001
90873609|NCT00303498|181608255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Net)|43.0||||0.0302|||||||ANCOVA|Change at Week 24: P-value was obtained from the non-parametric analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) controlling for baseline treadmill exercise time.||The median of the treatment difference was calculated using the Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||||0.0302
90873610|NCT00303498|181608256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.495|||||||ANCOVA|Change at Week 24: P-value was calculated from an ANCOVA with effect for treatment and baseline value as a covariate.||||||0.4950
90913824|NCT04697628|181697162|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.67|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.82||Two-sided p-value calculated from stratified log-rank test.|Stratified log-rank test||HR was calculated from Cox proportional hazards model and Efron method was used in handling ties and computed using stratification factors at randomization.|||0.82|0.54|<0.0001
90873611|NCT00303498|181608257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|10.6||||0.3874|||||||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated from an ANCOVA with effect for treatment and baseline value as a covariate.||Change at Week 24 for PLAX 2D mode||||0.3874
90873612|NCT00303498|181608257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8||||0.7038|||||||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated from an ANCOVA with effect for treatment and baseline value as a covariate.||Change at Week 24 for PSAX M-mode||||0.7038
90873613|NCT00303498|181608258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.9||||0.8998|||||||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated from an ANCOVA with effect for treatment and baseline value as a covariate.||||||0.8998
90873614|NCT00303498|181608259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.7||||0.7245|||||||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated from an ANCOVA with effect for treatment and baseline value as a covariate.||||||0.7245
90873615|NCT00303498|181608260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.8649|||||||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated from an ANCOVA with effect for treatment and baseline value as a covariate.||||||0.8649
90913825|NCT04697628|181697163|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|7.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||OR calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method controlling for stratification factors at randomization.|||7.6|2.1|<0.0001
90873616|NCT00303498|181608261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5909||||||The statistical analysis (P value) was performed on the composite change for all categories.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Change at Week 24||||0.5909
90873617|NCT00174915|181608262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The overall 0.05 level of significance for the multiple comparisons of each febuxostat dose to placebo was controlled using Hochberg's method. The p-value was statistically significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL versus \[v.\] \>1.5 mg/dL).||||||<0.001
90873618|NCT00174915|181608262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The overall 0.05 level of significance for the multiple comparisons of each febuxostat dose to placebo was controlled using Hochberg's method. The p-value was statistically significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL v. \>1.5 mg/dL).||||||<0.001
90873619|NCT00174915|181608262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The overall 0.05 level of significance for the multiple comparisons of each febuxostat dose to placebo was controlled using Hochberg's method. The p-value was statistically significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL v. \>1.5 mg/dL).||||||<0.001
90873620|NCT00174915|181608262|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of febuxostat 80 mg to allopurinol was declared if the value of the lower bound of the 97.5% confidence interval is \> -10%.|Difference in percentage|25.7||||||97.5|16.7|34.7||||||||34.7|16.7|
90913826|NCT00762619|181697224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
90913827|NCT00762619|181697225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
90960960|NCT04677179|181802761|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.57||||0.563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|3.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.30|0.10|0.563
90960961|NCT04677179|181802761|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78||||0.759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|3.64|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.64|0.17|0.759
90960962|NCT04677179|181802762|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.18||||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|1.93|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.93|0.02|0.163
90913828|NCT00762619|181697226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
90960963|NCT04677179|181802762|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.54||||0.439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|2.77|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.77|0.11|0.439
91033430|NCT01811953|181952646|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means (gMean), test/reference, for the primary endpoints using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Geometric mean difference|100.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.74|106.14|||ANOVA||The geometric mean ratio was calculated as the geometric mean of '5 Empagliflozin/Metformin (T)' divided by the geometric mean of '6 Empagliflozin + Metformin (R)'.|||106.14|95.74|<0.0001
91033431|NCT01811953|181952647|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means (gMean), test/reference, for the primary endpoints using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Geometric mean ratio|102.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.017|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.315|105.43|||ANOVA||The geometric mean ratio was calculated as the geometric mean of '1 Empagliflozin/Metformin (T)' divided by the geometric mean of '3 Empagliflozin + Metformin (R)'.|||105.430|99.315|<0.0001
90873621|NCT00174915|181608262|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of febuxostat 120 mg to allopurinol was declared if the value of the lower bound of the 97.5% confidence interval is \> -10%.|Difference in percentage|42.7||||||97.5|34.0|51.3||||||||51.3|34.0|
90873622|NCT00174915|181608262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Comparisons of each febuxostat dose to allopurinol were adjusted to control the overall 0.05 level of significance for superiority by using Hochberg's method. The p-value was statistically significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL v. \>1.5 mg/dL).||||||<0.001
90873623|NCT00174915|181608262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Comparisons of each febuxostat dose to allopurinol were adjusted to control the overall 0.05 level of significance for superiority by using Hochberg's method. The p-value was statistically significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL v. \>1.5 mg/dL).||||||<0.001
90873624|NCT00174915|181608262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL v. \>1.5 mg/dL).||||||<0.001
90873625|NCT00174915|181608262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL v. \>1.5 mg/dL).||||||<0.001
90913829|NCT00762619|181697227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
90913830|NCT00762619|181697228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
90913831|NCT00762619|181697229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
90913832|NCT00762619|181697230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
90960964|NCT04677179|181802763|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|9.88|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||9.88|0.17|0.821
90960965|NCT04677179|181802763|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|5.49|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.49|0.37|0.572
90960966|NCT04677179|181802764|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|10.16|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.16|0.14|0.886
90960967|NCT04677179|181802764|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78||||0.784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|4.18|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.18|0.14|0.784
90960968|NCT04677179|181802765|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.37||||0.331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|2.43|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.43|0.06|0.331
90960969|NCT04677179|181802765|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.51||||0.407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.52|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.52|0.10|0.407
90913833|NCT00762619|181697231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
90913834|NCT00762619|181697232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
90913835|NCT00762619|181697233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
90913836|NCT00762619|181697234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
90873626|NCT00174915|181608262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL v. \>1.5 mg/dL).||||||<0.001
90873627|NCT00174915|181608262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.479||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL v. \>1.5 mg/dL).||||||0.479
90873628|NCT00174915|181608262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL v. \>1.5 mg/dL).||||||<0.001
90873629|NCT00174915|181608263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL v. \>1.5 mg/dL).||||||<0.001
90873630|NCT00174915|181608263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL v. \>1.5 mg/dL).||||||<0.001
90873631|NCT00174915|181608263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL v. \>1.5 mg/dL).||||||<0.001
90873632|NCT00174915|181608263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL v. \>1.5 mg/dL).||||||<0.001
90873633|NCT00174915|181608263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL v. \>1.5 mg/dL).||||||<0.001
90873634|NCT00174915|181608263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL v. \>1.5 mg/dL).||||||<0.001
90873635|NCT00174915|181608263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL v. \>1.5 mg/dL).||||||0.011
90873636|NCT00174915|181608263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL v. \>1.5 mg/dL).||||||<0.001
90873637|NCT00174915|181608263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.091||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL v. \>1.5 mg/dL).||||||0.091
90873638|NCT00174915|181608263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL v. \>1.5 mg/dL).||||||<0.001
90873639|NCT00174915|181608264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL v. \>1.5 mg/dL).||||||<0.001
90913837|NCT00762619|181697235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
90913838|NCT00762619|181697236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
90913839|NCT00762619|181697237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
90913840|NCT00762619|181697238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
90913841|NCT00762619|181697239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
90873640|NCT00174915|181608264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL v. \>1.5 mg/dL).||||||<0.001
90873641|NCT00174915|181608264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL v. \>1.5 mg/dL).||||||<0.001
90873642|NCT00174915|181608264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL v. \>1.5 mg/dL).||||||<0.001
90873643|NCT00174915|181608264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL v. \>1.5 mg/dL).||||||<0.001
90913842|NCT00762619|181697240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
90913843|NCT00762619|181697241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
90913844|NCT00762619|181697242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
90913845|NCT00762619|181697243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
90913846|NCT00762619|181697244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
90913847|NCT00762619|181697245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
90913848|NCT00762619|181697246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
90913849|NCT00762619|181697247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
90913850|NCT00762619|181697248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
90913851|NCT00762619|181697249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
90913852|NCT00762619|181697250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
90913853|NCT00762619|181697251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
90873644|NCT00174915|181608264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL v. \>1.5 mg/dL).||||||<0.001
90873645|NCT00174915|181608264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.074||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL v. \>1.5 mg/dL).||||||0.074
90873646|NCT00174915|181608264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL v. \>1.5 mg/dL).||||||<0.001
90873647|NCT00174915|181608264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL v. \>1.5 mg/dL).||||||0.001
90913854|NCT00762619|181697252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
90913855|NCT00762619|181697253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
90913856|NCT00762619|181697254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
90913857|NCT00762619|181697255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
90913858|NCT00762619|181697256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
90913859|NCT00762619|181697257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
90913860|NCT00762619|181697258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
90913861|NCT00762619|181697259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
90913862|NCT00762619|181697260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
90913863|NCT00762619|181697261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
90913864|NCT00762619|181697262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
90913865|NCT00762619|181697263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
90913866|NCT00762619|181697264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
90913867|NCT00762619|181697265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
90913868|NCT00762619|181697266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
90913869|NCT00762619|181697267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
90913870|NCT00762619|181697268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
90913871|NCT00762619|181697269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
90913872|NCT00762619|181697270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
90913873|NCT00762619|181697271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
90913874|NCT00762619|181697272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
90913875|NCT00762619|181697273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
90913876|NCT00762619|181697274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
90913877|NCT00762619|181697275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
90913878|NCT00762619|181697276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
90913879|NCT00762619|181697277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
90913880|NCT00762619|181697278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
90913881|NCT00762619|181697279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
90913882|NCT00762619|181697280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
90913883|NCT00762619|181697281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
90913884|NCT00762619|181697282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
90913885|NCT00762619|181697283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
90913886|NCT00762619|181697284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
90913887|NCT00762619|181697285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
90913888|NCT00762619|181697286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
90913889|NCT00762619|181697287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
90913890|NCT00762619|181697288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
90913891|NCT00762619|181697289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
90913892|NCT00762619|181697290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
90913893|NCT00762619|181697291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
90913894|NCT01350804|181697294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.79||||0.0458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|3.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.2|1.0|0.0458
90913895|NCT01350804|181697294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.02||||0.0152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|3.5|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.5|1.1|0.0152
90873648|NCT00174915|181608264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL v. \>1.5 mg/dL).||||||<0.001
90873649|NCT00174915|181608265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from contrast within the framework of the ANOVA model with treatment and baseline renal function as factors. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90873650|NCT00174915|181608265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from contrast within the framework of the ANOVA model with treatment and baseline renal function as factors. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90873651|NCT00174915|181608265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from contrast within the framework of the ANOVA model with treatment and baseline renal function as factors. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90873652|NCT00174915|181608265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from contrast within the framework of the ANOVA model with treatment and baseline renal function as factors. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90873653|NCT00174915|181608265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from contrast within the framework of the ANOVA model with treatment and baseline renal function as factors. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90873654|NCT00174915|181608265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from contrast within the framework of the ANOVA model with treatment and baseline renal function as factors. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90913896|NCT05793112|181697310|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|57.57||||0.154|||||||Wilcoxon range sum test|||||||0.154
90913897|NCT05793112|181697311|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-5.0||||0.073|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.073
90913898|NCT05793112|181697312|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.471|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.471
90913899|NCT05793112|181697313|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.057|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 0 (Baseline)||||0.057
91077952|NCT01172808|182041198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.195|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.141|0.249|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.249|0.141|<0.0001
90873655|NCT00174915|181608265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from contrast within the framework of the ANOVA model with treatment and baseline renal function as factors. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90873656|NCT00174915|181608265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from contrast within the framework of the ANOVA model with treatment and baseline renal function as factors. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90873657|NCT00174915|181608265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from contrast within the framework of the ANOVA model with treatment and baseline renal function as factors. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90873658|NCT00174915|181608265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from contrast within the framework of the ANOVA model with treatment and baseline renal function as factors. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90873659|NCT00174915|181608266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from contrast within the framework of the ANOVA model with treatment and baseline renal function as factors. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90873660|NCT00174915|181608266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from contrast within the framework of the ANOVA model with treatment and baseline renal function as factors. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90913900|NCT05793112|181697313|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.169|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 7||||0.169
90913901|NCT05793112|181697313|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.168|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 14||||0.168
90873661|NCT00174915|181608266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from contrast within the framework of the ANOVA model with treatment and baseline renal function as factors. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90873662|NCT00174915|181608266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from contrast within the framework of the ANOVA model with treatment and baseline renal function as factors. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90873663|NCT00174915|181608266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from contrast within the framework of the ANOVA model with treatment and baseline renal function as factors. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90913902|NCT05793112|181697313|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.139|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 21||||0.139
90913903|NCT05793112|181697313|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.348|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 28||||0.348
90960970|NCT04677179|181802766|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.5||||0.564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|6.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||6.00|0.38|0.564
90960971|NCT04677179|181802766|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.51||||0.681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|10.97|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.97|0.21|0.681
90960972|NCT04677179|181802767|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.6||||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|10.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.4|-3.3|0.317
90873664|NCT00174915|181608266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from contrast within the framework of the ANOVA model with treatment and baseline renal function as factors. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90873665|NCT00174915|181608266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from contrast within the framework of the ANOVA model with treatment and baseline renal function as factors. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90873666|NCT00174915|181608266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from contrast within the framework of the ANOVA model with treatment and baseline renal function as factors. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90873667|NCT00174915|181608266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from contrast within the framework of the ANOVA model with treatment and baseline renal function as factors. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90873668|NCT00174915|181608266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from contrast within the framework of the ANOVA model with treatment and baseline renal function as factors. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90913904|NCT05850520|181697314|NON_INFERIORITY|One-sided test (alpha=0.025) for non-inferiority at a 4-letter margin.|Difference in LS means|-0.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.9||1-sided p-value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline BCVA measurement was used as a covariate and treatment group, visit, and the stratification variables as fixed factors.|Estimation mainly based on hypothetical strategy, i.e. observed data beyond intercurrent events (premature discontinuation of treatment, prohibited medication, missing injection) were censored. Missing/censored data was handled implicitly by MMRM.|8q8/3 -2q4||1.9|-2.0|<0.0001
90960973|NCT04677179|181802767|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.9||||0.238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|16.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||16.1|-2.3|0.238
90960974|NCT04677179|181802768|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|9.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.935||0.378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.17|31.6|||ANCOVA|||||31.60|-12.17|0.378
90873669|NCT00174915|181608267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.789||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.789
90960975|NCT04677179|181802768|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.406||0.928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.78|19.88|||ANCOVA|||||19.88|-21.78|0.928
90960976|NCT01257425|181802784|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin defined as 0.8 to 1.25|Ratio of AUC values|0.977|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.08|||ANCOVA|||||1.08|0.88|
90960977|NCT01257425|181802785|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin is 0.8 to 1.25|Ratio of AUC values|0.932|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.82|1.06|||ANCOVA|||||1.06|0.82|
90873670|NCT00174915|181608267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.320
90873671|NCT00174915|181608267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.381||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.381
90873672|NCT00174915|181608267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.809||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.809
90873673|NCT00174915|181608267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.154||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.154
90873674|NCT00174915|181608267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.247||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.247
90873675|NCT00174915|181608267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.415||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.415
90873676|NCT00174915|181608267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.649||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.649
90873677|NCT00174915|181608267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.807||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.807
90873678|NCT00174915|181608267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.844||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.844
90960978|NCT01257425|181802786|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin is 0.8 to 1.25|Ratio of AUC values|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|1.02|||ANCOVA|||||1.02|0.81|
90913905|NCT05850520|181697314|NON_INFERIORITY|One-sided test (alpha=0.025) for non-inferiority at a 4-letter margin.|Difference in LS means|0.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.7||1-sided p-value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline BCVA measurement was used as a covariate and treatment group, visit, and the stratification variables as fixed factors.|Estimation mainly based on hypothetical strategy, i.e. observed data beyond intercurrent events (premature discontinuation of treatment, prohibited medication, missing injection) were censored. Missing/censored data was handled implicitly by MMRM.|8q8/5 -2q4||2.7|-1.1|<0.0001
91033432|NCT01811953|181952647|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means (gMean), test/reference, for the primary endpoints using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Geometric mean ratio|98.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.024|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.784|103.037|||ANOVA||The geometric mean ratio was calculated as the geometric mean of '2 Empagliflozin/Metformin (T)' divided by the geometric mean of '4 Empagliflozin + Metformin (R)'.|||103.037|94.784|<0.0001
91033433|NCT01811953|181952647|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means (gMean), test/reference, for the primary endpoints using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Geometric mean ratio|105.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.018|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.73|109.329|||ANOVA||The geometric mean ratio was calculated as the geometric mean of '5 Empagliflozin/Metformin (T)' divided by the geometric mean of '6 Empagliflozin + Metformin (R)'.|||109.329|102.730|<0.0001
90873679|NCT00174915|181608268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.699||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.699
90873680|NCT00174915|181608268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.822||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.822
90873681|NCT00174915|181608268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.579||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.579
90873682|NCT00174915|181608268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.679||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.679
90873683|NCT00174915|181608268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.278||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.278
90873684|NCT00174915|181608268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.104||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.104
90873685|NCT00174915|181608268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.56||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.560
90873686|NCT00174915|181608268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.309||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.309
90873687|NCT00174915|181608268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.759||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.759
90873688|NCT00174915|181608268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.385||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.385
90873689|NCT00174915|181608269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.949||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.949
90873690|NCT00174915|181608269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.050
90873691|NCT00174915|181608269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.577||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.577
90873692|NCT00174915|181608269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.598||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.598
90873693|NCT00174915|181608269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.062||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.062
90873694|NCT00174915|181608269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.969||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.969
90873695|NCT00174915|181608269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.056||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.056
90873696|NCT00174915|181608269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.659||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.659
90873697|NCT00174915|181608269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.197||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.197
90873698|NCT00174915|181608269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.521||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.521
90873699|NCT00174915|181608270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.683||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.683
90873700|NCT00174915|181608270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.078||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.078
90873701|NCT00174915|181608270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.442||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.442
90873702|NCT00174915|181608270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.990
90873703|NCT00174915|181608270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.077||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.077
90873704|NCT00174915|181608270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.662||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.662
90873705|NCT00174915|181608270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.139||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.139
90873706|NCT00174915|181608270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.705||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.705
90873707|NCT00174915|181608270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.337||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.337
90873708|NCT00174915|181608270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.643||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.643
90873709|NCT00174915|181608271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.645||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL v. \>1.5 mg/dL).||||||0.645
90873710|NCT00174915|181608271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.756||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL v. \>1.5 mg/dL).||||||0.756
90873711|NCT00174915|181608271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.428||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL v. \>1.5 mg/dL).||||||0.428
90913906|NCT05850520|181697315|SUPERIORITY|Two-sided test (alpha = 0.05)|Difference in LS means|-2.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-2.6||Nominal p-value based on a non-parametric rank ANCOVA adjusted for baseline BCVA, baseline CST, and the stratification variables.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline BCVA, baseline CST, and the stratification variables.|Estimation based on composite strategy for premature treatment discontinuation due to treatment related AEs and hypothetical strategy for premature treatment discontinuation due to other reasons. Hypothetical values imputed using a MI model.|8q8/3 -2q4||-2.6|-2.8|<0.0001
90913907|NCT05850520|181697315|SUPERIORITY|Two-sided test (alpha = 0.05)|Difference in LS means|-1.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-1.7||Nominal p-value based on a non-parametric rank ANCOVA adjusted for baseline BCVA, baseline CST, and the stratification variables.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline BCVA, baseline CST, and the stratification variables.|Estimation based on composite strategy for premature treatment discontinuation due to treatment related AEs and hypothetical strategy for premature treatment discontinuation due to other reasons. Hypothetical values imputed using a MI model.|8q8/5 -2q4||-1.7|-1.9|<0.0001
90873712|NCT00174915|181608271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.076||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons..|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL v. \>1.5 mg/dL)||||||0.076
90960979|NCT01257425|181802788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.11|||ANCOVA|||||0.11|-0.09|0.85
90873713|NCT00174915|181608271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.106||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL v. \>1.5 mg/dL).||||||0.106
90873714|NCT00174915|181608271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.069||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL v. \>1.5 mg/dL).||||||0.069
90873715|NCT00174915|181608271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.837||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL v. \>1.5 mg/dL).||||||0.837
90873716|NCT00174915|181608271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.749||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL v. \>1.5 mg/dL).||||||0.749
90873717|NCT00174915|181608271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.581||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL v. \>1.5 mg/dL).||||||0.581
90960980|NCT01257425|181802789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.98
90873718|NCT00174915|181608271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.311||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL v. \>1.5 mg/dL).||||||0.311
90873719|NCT03060447|181608273|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||Dose 1: Day 2||||0.55
90873720|NCT03060447|181608273|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||Dose 1: Day 8||||0.54
90873721|NCT03060447|181608273|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||Dose 2: Day 1||||0.54
90873722|NCT03060447|181608273|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||Dose 2: Day 8||||0.54
90873723|NCT03060447|181608273|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||Dose 3: Day 1||||0.54
90873724|NCT03060447|181608273|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||Dose 3: Day 8||||0.57
90873725|NCT03060447|181608273|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||Dose 4: Day 1||||0.54
90873726|NCT03060447|181608273|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||Dose 4: Day 2||||0.52
90960981|NCT01257425|181802790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.84
90960982|NCT04262817|181802791|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of Nicotine type.||||0.01
90873727|NCT03060447|181608273|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||Dose 4: Day 4||||0.52
90873728|NCT03060447|181608273|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||Dose 4: Day 8||||0.61
90873729|NCT03060447|181608273|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||Dose 5: Day 1||||0.54
90873730|NCT03060447|181608273|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||Dose 5: Day 8||||0.52
90873731|NCT03060447|181608273|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||Dose 6: Day 1||||0.52
90873732|NCT03060447|181608273|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests||Dose 6: Day 4||||0.52
90873733|NCT03060447|181608273|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||Dose 6: Day 8||||0.52
90873734|NCT03060447|181608273|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||Dose 7: Day 1||||0.52
90873735|NCT03060447|181608273|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||Dose 7 - Day 8||||0.52
90873736|NCT03060447|181608273|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||Dose 8: Day 1||||0.52
90873737|NCT03060447|181608273|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||Dose 8: Day 8||||0.52
90873738|NCT03060447|181608273|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||Dose 9: Day 1||||0.52
90873739|NCT03060447|181608273|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests||Dose 9: Day 8||||1.00
90873740|NCT03060447|181608273|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests||Dose 10: Day 1||||0.52
90873741|NCT03060447|181608273|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||Dose 10: Day 2||||0.52
90873742|NCT03060447|181608273|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||Dose 10: Day 4||||0.52
90873743|NCT03060447|181608273|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||Dose 10: Day 8||||0.52
90873744|NCT03060447|181608273|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||Dose 10: Day 14||||0.52
90873745|NCT03060447|181608274|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035|||||||Log Rank|P-value between treatment groups was based on log-rank test.||≥ 50 Copies/mL||||0.035
90873746|NCT03060447|181608274|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024|||||||Log Rank|P-value between treatment groups was based on log-rank test.||≥ 200 Copies/mL||||0.024
90873747|NCT03060447|181608275|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values between treatment groups were based on Wilcoxon rank sum test.||||||0.67
90873748|NCT03060447|181608276|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values between treatment groups were based on Wilcoxon rank sum test.||||||0.78
90873749|NCT03060447|181608277|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||IFN-a, Baseline||||0.34
90873750|NCT03060447|181608277|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||IFN-a, Dose 1: Day 2||||0.11
90873751|NCT03060447|181608277|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||IFN-a, Dose 1: Day 8||||0.81
90873752|NCT03060447|181608277|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||IFN-a, Dose 4: Day 1||||0.83
90873753|NCT03060447|181608277|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||IFN-a, Dose 4: Day 2||||0.12
90873754|NCT03060447|181608277|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||IFN-a, Dose 4: Day 8||||0.45
90873755|NCT03060447|181608277|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||IFN-a, Dose 10: Day 1||||0.25
90873756|NCT03060447|181608277|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.053|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||IFN-a, Dose 10: Day 2||||0.053
90873757|NCT03060447|181608277|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||IFN-a, Dose 10: Day 8||||0.16
90960983|NCT04262817|181802791|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of Flavor type.||||0.34
90960984|NCT04262817|181802792|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of Nicotine type.||||0.38
90960985|NCT04262817|181802792|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of Flavor type.||||0.85
90873758|NCT03060447|181608277|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||IFN-a, ATI Remission Visit||||0.27
90873759|NCT03060447|181608277|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||IL-1RA, Baseline||||0.35
90873760|NCT03060447|181608277|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||IL-1RA, Dose 1: Day 2||||0.013
90913908|NCT05850520|181697319|SUPERIORITY|Two-sided test (alpha = 0.05)|Difference in LS means|-0.1||||0.9804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|9.8||Nominal p-value for the two-sided test.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline CST measurement was used as a covariate and treatment group, visit, and the stratification variables as fixed factors.|Estimation mainly based on hypothetical strategy, i.e. observed data beyond ICE (premature discontinuation of treatment, prohibited medication, missing injection) were censored. Missing/censored data was handled implicitly by MMRM.|8q8/3 - 2q4||9.8|-10.0|0.9804
90913909|NCT05850520|181697319|SUPERIORITY|Two-sided test (alpha = 0.05)|Difference in LS means|1.2||||0.7863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|10.2||Nominal p-value for the two-sided test.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline CST measurement was used as a covariate and treatment group, visit, and the stratification variables as fixed factors.|Estimation mainly based on hypothetical strategy, i.e. observed data beyond ICE (premature discontinuation of treatment, prohibited medication, missing injection) were censored. Missing/censored data was handled implicitly by MMRM.|8q8/5 - 2q4||10.2|-7.7|0.7863
90913910|NCT05850520|181697320|SUPERIORITY|Two-sided test (alpha = 0.05)|Difference in LS means|-0.36||||0.6869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.4||Nominal p-value for the two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Baseline NEI-VFQ-25 total score measurement used as a covariate and treatment group, visit, and stratification variables as fixed factors.|Estimation mainly based on hypothetical strategy, i.e. observed data beyond ICE (premature discontinuation of treatment, prohibited medication, missing active injection) were censored. Missing/censored data was imputed by LOCF approach.|8q8/3 - 2q4||1.40|-2.1|0.6869
90913911|NCT05850520|181697320|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS means|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|2.45|||ANCOVA|Baseline NEI-VFQ-25 total score measurement used as a covariate and treatment group, visit, and stratification variables as fixed factors.|Estimation mainly based on hypothetical strategy, i.e. observed data beyond ICE (premature discontinuation of treatment, prohibited medication, missing active injection) were censored. Missing/censored data was imputed by LOCF approach.|8q8/5 - 2q4||2.45|-1.2|
90913912|NCT05777785|181697355|SUPERIORITY|Power analysis determined that a sample size of 90 participants will have 80% power to detect an effect size of 0.30 (Cohen's D) using a paired t-test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9789||||0.037|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.037
90913913|NCT05777785|181697357|SUPERIORITY|Power analysis determined that a sample size of 90 participants will have 80% power to detect an effect size of 0.30 (Cohen's D) using a paired t-test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.09||||0.027|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.027
90913914|NCT05777785|181697358|SUPERIORITY|Power analysis determined that a sample size of 90 participants will have 80% power to detect an effect size of 0.30 (Cohen's D) using a paired t-test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.09||||0.029|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.029
90913915|NCT02396316|181697381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS mean change|-4.9||||0.0644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Point estimate, 95% CI and P-value were based on treatment difference of the LS mean changes using an ANCOVA model with treatment group and stage of NVG for randomization as fixed effects, baseline value as covariate. The superiority of aflibercept injection to sham injection was to be established if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference (the aflibercept group minus the sham group) is less than 0.||0.3|-10.2|0.0644
90913916|NCT02396316|181697382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||MH adjusted difference|59.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.0|81.2|||Mantel Haenszel|||The point estimate of the treatment difference (the aflibercept group minus the sham group) at Week 1 and its two-sided 95% confidence interval stratified by stage of NVG (as randomized) using Mantel-Haenszel weights.||81.2|37.0|
90873761|NCT03060447|181608277|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||IL-1RA, Dose 1: Day 8||||0.15
90873762|NCT03060447|181608277|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||IL-1RA, Dose 4: Day 1||||0.30
90873763|NCT03060447|181608277|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||IL-1RA, Dose 4: Day 2||||0.003
90873764|NCT03060447|181608277|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||IL-1RA, Dose 4: Day 8||||0.49
90873765|NCT03060447|181608277|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||IL-1RA, Dose 10: Day 1||||0.25
90873766|NCT03060447|181608277|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.055|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||IL-1RA, Dose 10: Day 2||||0.055
90873767|NCT03060447|181608277|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||IL-1RA, Dose 10: Day 8||||0.90
90873768|NCT03060447|181608277|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||IL-1RA, ATI Remission Visit||||0.39
90960986|NCT04262817|181802793|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of Nicotine type.||||0.39
90960987|NCT04262817|181802793|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of Flavor type.||||0.77
90960988|NCT04262817|181802794|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of Nicotine type.||||0.43
90960989|NCT04262817|181802794|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of Flavor type.||||0.05
90960990|NCT04262817|181802795|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of Nicotine type.||||0.05
90960991|NCT04262817|181802795|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of Flavor type.||||0.04
90873769|NCT03060447|181608277|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||IP-10, Baseline||||0.75
90873770|NCT03060447|181608277|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||IP-10, Dose 1: Day 2||||<0.001
90873771|NCT03060447|181608277|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||IP-10, Dose 1: Day 8||||0.69
90873772|NCT03060447|181608277|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||IP-10, Dose 4: Day 1||||0.15
90873773|NCT03060447|181608277|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||IP-10, Dose 4: Day 2||||0.018
90873774|NCT03060447|181608277|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||IP-10, Dose 4: Day 8||||0.030
90873775|NCT03060447|181608277|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.087|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||IP-10, Dose 10: Day 1||||0.087
90873776|NCT03060447|181608277|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||IP-10, Dose 10: Day 2||||<0.001
90873777|NCT03060447|181608277|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.066|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||IP-10, Dose 10: Day 8||||0.066
90873778|NCT03060447|181608277|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||IP-10, ATI Remission||||0.86
90873779|NCT03060447|181608277|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||ITAC, Baseline||||0.19
90873780|NCT03060447|181608277|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.021|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||ITAC, Dose 1: Day 2||||0.021
90873781|NCT03060447|181608277|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||ITAC, Dose 1: Day 8||||0.31
90873782|NCT03060447|181608277|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||ITAC, Dose 4: Day 1||||0.10
90873783|NCT03060447|181608277|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||ITAC, Dose 4: Day 2||||0.018
90873784|NCT03060447|181608277|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||ITAC, Dose 4: Day 8||||0.69
90873785|NCT03060447|181608277|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||ITAC, Dose 10: Day 1||||0.46
90873786|NCT03060447|181608277|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||ITAC, Dose 10: Day 2||||0.21
90873787|NCT03060447|181608277|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||ITAC, Dose 10: Day 8||||0.67
90960992|NCT04262817|181802796|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of Nicotine type.||||0.01
90873788|NCT03060447|181608277|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||ITAC, ATI Remission||||0.60
90873789|NCT03060447|181608278|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||ISG15, Dose 1: Day 2||||0.002
90873790|NCT03060447|181608278|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||ISG15, Dose 4: Day 1||||0.58
90873791|NCT03060447|181608278|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||ISG15, Dose 4: Day 2||||0.009
90873792|NCT03060447|181608278|SUPERIORITY|ISG15, Dose 10: Day 1||||||0.031|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||||||0.031
90873793|NCT03060447|181608278|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||ISG15, Dose 10: Day 2||||0.001
90873794|NCT03060447|181608278|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||OAS-1, Dose 1: Day 2||||0.003
90873795|NCT03060447|181608278|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.057|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||OAS-1, Dose 4: Day 1||||0.057
90873796|NCT03060447|181608278|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||OAS-1, Dose 4: Day 2||||0.009
90873797|NCT03060447|181608278|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.057|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||OAS-1, Dose 10: Day 1||||0.057
90960993|NCT04262817|181802796|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of Flavor type.||||0.38
90960994|NCT02254278|181802797|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||binomial|One-sided significance level=0.10||Assuming a binomial distribution, 140 eligible patients per arm were required for 80% power and 1-sided type I error rate of 10% to test the null hypothesis of 2-year progression-free survival (PFS) rate ≤ 85% against the alternative hypothesis of \> 85% with a binomial test. The arms are not compared to each other; they are each tested separately against the null hypothesis.||||0.04
90960995|NCT02254278|181802797|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||bionmial|One-sided significance level = 0.10||Assuming a binomial distribution, 140 eligible patients per arm were required for 80% power and 1-sided type I error rate of 10% to test the null hypothesis of 2-year PFS rate ≤ 85% against the alternative hypothesis of \> 85% with a binomial test. The arms are not compared to each other; they are each tested separately against the null hypothesis.||||0.23
90960996|NCT02254278|181802798|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.39||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.9|||Log Rank|Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Reference level = IMRT 5 weeks|||0.90|0.17|0.02
90873798|NCT03060447|181608278|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||OAS-1, Dose 10: Day 2||||0.005
90873799|NCT03060447|181608278|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||MX1, Dose 1: Day 2||||<0.001
90873800|NCT03060447|181608278|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||MX1, Dose 4: Day 1||||0.17
90873801|NCT03060447|181608278|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||MX1, Dose 4: Day 2||||0.003
90913917|NCT00566735|181697395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Degrees of freedom = 28||Independent t-test to assess differences between the placebo and galantamine groups in regard to pre- and post-ECT scores on the Delayed Memory Index (DMI).||||<0.05
90913918|NCT04603924|181697399|OTHER||||||||||||||||||"For the analysis of this efficacy endpoint, missing scores of the WHO Ordinal Scale for Clinical Improvement will be assumed to be \> 2 (i.e., no hospital discharge). Median time-to-clinical improvement and corresponding 95% confidence interval were estimated from the Kaplan-Meier curves. In some cases the 95% confidence interval was Not Evaluable (NE) by this method."|||
90913919|NCT04603924|181697400|OTHER||||||||||||||||||"For the analysis of this efficacy endpoint, missing scores of the WHO Ordinal Scale for Clinical Improvement were be assumed to be \> 2 (i.e., no hospital discharge). Median number of days to a 2-point improvement and corresponding 95% confidence interval were estimated from the Kaplan-Meier curves.~In some cases the 95% confidence interval was Not Evaluable (NE) by this method."|||
90913920|NCT02544152|181697424|OTHER||||||=|0.987|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value is from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by sex and baseline stool consistency||||=0.9870
90913921|NCT00465816|181697446|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of rSBA-MenA GMTs between Nimenrix + Twinrix group and (over) Nimenrix group was ≥ 0.5.|Adjusted GMT ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.22|||ANCOVA|||To assess the Non-inferiority in term of rSBA-MenA GMT of the Nimenrix + Twinrix group compared to Nimenrix one, two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) from ANCOVA model on the GMTs ratio (Nimenrix+Twinrix group over Nimenrix group) was computed. The model was adjusted for age strata and baseline titre.||1.22|0.8|
90873802|NCT03060447|181608278|SUPERIORITY|MX1, Dose 10: Day 1||||||0.1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||||||0.100
90873803|NCT03060447|181608278|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||MX1, Dose 10: Day 2||||<0.001
90873804|NCT03060447|181608279|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7469|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD4/CD38/HLADR, Baseline||||0.7469
90873805|NCT03060447|181608279|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1207|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD4/CD38/HLADR, Dose 4: Day 1||||0.1207
90873806|NCT03060447|181608279|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4113|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD4/CD38/HLADR, Dose 4: Day 2||||0.4113
90873807|NCT03060447|181608279|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1113|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD4/CD38/HLADR, Dose 4: Day 4||||0.1113
90873808|NCT03060447|181608279|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.241|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD4/CD38/HLADR, Dose 6: Day 1||||0.2410
90873809|NCT03060447|181608279|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1098|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD4/CD38/HLADR, Dose 6: Day 4||||0.1098
90913922|NCT00465816|181697446|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of rSBA-MenC GMTs between Nimenrix + Twinrix group and (over) Nimenrix group was ≥ 0.5.|Adjusted GMT ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.21|||ANCOVA|||To assess the Non-inferiority in term of rSBA-MenC GMT of the Nimenrix+Twinrix group compared to Nimenrix one, Two-sided 95% CI from ANCOVA model on the GMTs ratio (Nimenrix+Twinrix group over Nimenrix group) was computed. The model was adjusted for age strata and baseline titre.||1.21|0.68|
90913923|NCT00465816|181697446|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of rSBA-MenW-135 GMTs between Nimenrix + Twinrix group and (over) Nimenrix group was ≥ 0.5.|Adjusted GMT ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.19|||ANCOVA|||To assess the Non-inferiority in term of rSBA-MenW-135 GMT of the Nimenrix+Twinrixg roup compared to Nimenrix one, Two-sided 95% CI from ANCOVA model on the GMTs ratio (Nimenrix+Twinrix group over Nimenrix group) was computed. The model was adjusted for age strata and baseline titre.||1.19|0.87|
90913924|NCT00465816|181697446|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of rSBA-MenY GMTs between Nimenrix + Twinrix group and (over) Nimenrix group was ≥ 0.5.|Adjusted GMT ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.19|||ANCOVA|||To assess the Non-inferiority in term of rSBA-MenY GMT of the Nimenrix+Twinrix group compared to Nimenrix one, Two-sided 95% CI from ANCOVA model on the GMTs ratio (Nimenrix+Twinrix group over Nimenrix group) was computed. The model was adjusted for age strata and baseline titre.||1.19|0.85|
90940493|NCT01177137|181760798|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.53||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.025 to account for two comparisons (1) TRT versus the Standard of Care and (2) Partial TRT versus the Standard of Care.|repeated measures GEE model||Adjusted for baseline TQ value, clinic, visit, age, gender, baseline Positive and Negative Affect Schedule and State Trait Anxiety Inventory scores, with multiple imputation|||0.53|-0.74|0.75
90873810|NCT03060447|181608279|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0369|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD4/CD38/HLADR, Dose 10: Day 1||||0.0369
90873811|NCT03060447|181608279|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0814|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD4/CD38/HLADR, Dose 10: Day 2||||0.0814
90873812|NCT03060447|181608279|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1658|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD4/CD38/HLADR, Dose 10: Day 4||||0.1658
90873813|NCT03060447|181608279|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9431|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD4/CD38/HLADR, Dose 10: Day 14||||0.9431
90873814|NCT03060447|181608279|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6514|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD8/CD38/HLADR, Baseline||||0.6514
90873815|NCT03060447|181608279|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0821|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD8/CD38/HLADR, Dose 4: Day 1||||0.0821
90873816|NCT03060447|181608279|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2353|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD8/CD38/HLADR, Dose 4: Day 2||||0.2353
90873817|NCT03060447|181608279|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1779|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD8/CD38/HLADR, Dose 4: Day 4||||0.1779
90873818|NCT03060447|181608279|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7491|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD8/CD38/HLADR, Dose 6: Day 1||||0.7491
90873819|NCT03060447|181608279|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD8/CD38/HLADR, Dose 6: Day 4||||0.0700
90873820|NCT03060447|181608279|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3711|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD8/CD38/HLADR, Dose 10: Day 1||||0.3711
90873821|NCT03060447|181608279|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0814|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD8/CD38/HLADR, Dose 10: Day 2||||0.0814
90873822|NCT03060447|181608279|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD8/CD38/HLADR, Dose 10: Day 4||||0.0700
90873823|NCT03060447|181608279|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8303|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD8/CD38/HLADR, Dose 10: Day 14||||0.8303
90873824|NCT03060447|181608279|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.953|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD69+CD56+CD16+, Baseline||||0.9530
90873825|NCT03060447|181608279|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1735|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD69+CD56+CD16+, Dose 4: Day 1||||0.1735
90873826|NCT03060447|181608279|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2971|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD69+CD56+CD16+, Dose 4: Day 2||||0.2971
90873827|NCT03060447|181608279|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD69+CD56+CD16+, Dose 4: Day 4||||1.0000
90873828|NCT03060447|181608279|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD69+CD56+CD16+, Dose 6: Day 1||||1.0000
90873829|NCT03060447|181608279|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3374|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD69+CD56+CD16+, Dose 6: Day 4||||0.3374
90873830|NCT03060447|181608279|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7656|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD69+CD56+CD16+, Dose 10: Day 1||||0.7656
90873831|NCT03060447|181608279|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0814|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD69+CD56+CD16+, Dose 10: Day 2||||0.0814
90873832|NCT03060447|181608279|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3374|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD69+CD56+CD16+, Dose 10: Day 4||||0.3374
90873833|NCT03060447|181608279|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.432|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD69+CD56+CD16+, Dose 10: Day 14||||0.4320
90873834|NCT03060447|181608279|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8597|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD69+CD56dimCD16neg, Baseline||||0.8597
90873835|NCT03060447|181608279|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD69+CD56dimCD16neg, Dose 4: Day 1||||1.0000
90873836|NCT03060447|181608279|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0306|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD69+CD56dimCD16neg, Dose 4: Day 2||||0.0306
90873837|NCT03060447|181608279|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8345|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD69+CD56dimCD16neg, Dose 4: Day 4||||0.8345
90873838|NCT03060447|181608279|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9151|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD69+CD56dimCD16neg, Dose 6: Day 1||||0.9151
90913925|NCT00465816|181697447|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower limit of the two-sided standardised asymptotic 95% CI for group difference (Nimenrix+Twinrix group minus Twinrix group) in the percentage of subjects with vaccine seroconversion was ≥ pre-defined clinical limit of -10%.|Percentage difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|3.9||||||To assess the Non-inferiority of the Nimenrix+Twinrix group compared to Twinrix one, two-sided standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the difference in seroconversion rates for hepatitis A (Nimenrix+Twinrix group minus Twinrix group) was computed.||3.9|-1.19|
90873839|NCT03060447|181608279|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1098|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD69+CD56dimCD16neg, Dose 6: Day 4||||0.1098
90873840|NCT03060447|181608279|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD69+CD56dimCD16neg, Dose 10: Day 1||||1.0000
90873841|NCT03060447|181608279|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0814|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD69+CD56dimCD16neg, Dose 10: Day 2||||0.0814
90873842|NCT03060447|181608279|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4555|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD69+CD56dimCD16neg, Dose 10: Day 4||||0.4555
90873843|NCT03060447|181608279|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6171|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD69+CD56dimCD16neg, Dose 10: Day 14||||0.6171
90873844|NCT03060447|181608279|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0677|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD69+CD56brCD16dim, Baseline||||0.0677
90873845|NCT03060447|181608279|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4712|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD69+CD56brCD16dim, Dose 4: Day 1||||0.4712
90873846|NCT03060447|181608279|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6889|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD69+CD56brCD16dim, Dose 4: Day 2||||0.6889
90960997|NCT02254278|181802799|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.43||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|5.08|||Log Rank|Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Reference level = IMRT 5 weeks|||5.08|0.4|0.58
90873847|NCT03060447|181608279|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1437|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD69+CD56brCD16dim, Dose 4: Day 4||||0.1437
90873848|NCT03060447|181608279|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7491|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD69+CD56brCD16dim, Dose 6: Day 1||||0.7491
90873849|NCT03060447|181608279|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD69+CD56brCD16dim, Dose 6: Day 4||||0.0700
90873850|NCT03060447|181608279|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7656|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD69+CD56brCD16dim, Dose 10: Day 1||||0.7656
90873851|NCT03060447|181608279|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1752|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD69+CD56brCD16dim, Dose 10: Day 2||||0.1752
90873852|NCT03060447|181608279|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD69+CD56brCD16dim, Dose 10: Day 4||||0.0700
90873853|NCT03060447|181608279|SUPERIORITY|CD69+CD56brCD16dim, Dose 10: Day 14||||||0.2246|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||||||0.2246
90873854|NCT00546637|181608327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.1959||95.0|-0.9|0.2||P-value was based on an ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (Net) = Least squares mean|The null hypothesis was that the mean change from Baseline in 24-hour micturition-related urgency was the same at Week 12 for the two treatment groups: fesoterodine + alpha-blocker vs. placebo + alpha-blocker. It was estimated that 900 randomized subjects would have 85% power to detect a mean difference of -0.93(SD = 4.15) between the 2 treatments on the primary endpoint,mean reduction of micturition-related urgency episodes/24hr from Baseline to Week 12,assuming a 10% non-evaluability rate.||0.2|-0.9|0.1959
90873855|NCT00546637|181608328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0621||95.0|-1.0|0.0||P-value was based on an ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (net) = Least squares mean|||0.0|-1.0|0.0621
90873856|NCT00546637|181608330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0056||95.0|-0.8|-0.1||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as a covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (net) = Least squares mean|Week 4||-0.1|-0.8|0.0056
90873857|NCT00546637|181608330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.009||95.0|-0.7|-0.1||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (net) = Least squares mean|Week 12||-0.1|-0.7|0.0090
90960998|NCT02254278|181802800|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|2.95||Two-side significance level = 0.05|Log Rank||Reference level = IMRT 5 weeks|||2.95|0.31|0.93
90873858|NCT00546637|181608331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0012||95.0||||P-value was based on a ranked ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and ranked baseline value as a covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|Ranked ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons were performed only if the corresponding numerical change from Baseline at the same visit was statistically significant.||Week 4||||0.0012
90873859|NCT00546637|181608331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0027||95.0||||P-value was based on a ranked ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and ranked baseline value as a covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|Ranked ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons were performed only if the corresponding numerical change from Baseline at the same visit was statistically significant.||Week 12||||0.0027
90873860|NCT00546637|181608332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.1112||95.0|-0.2|0.0||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (net) = Least squares mean|Week 4||0.0|-0.2|0.1112
90873861|NCT00546637|181608332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0855||95.0|-0.3|0.0||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (net) = Least squares mean|Week 12||0.0|-0.3|0.0855
90873862|NCT00546637|181608334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.3847||95.0||||P-value was based on Van Elteren's Test adjusted by baseline quartiles. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|Van Elteren's Test||Median difference was estimated using Hodges-Lehmann estimate of the location shift between the two groups.|Week 4||||0.3847
90873863|NCT00546637|181608334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.4449||95.0||||P-value was based on Van Elteren's Test adjusted by baseline quartiles. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|Van Elteren's Test||Median difference was estimated using Hodges-Lehmann estimate of the location shift between the two groups.|Week 12||||0.4449
90873864|NCT00546637|181608336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.33||||0.0062||95.0||||P-value was based on Van Elteren's Test adjusted by baseline quartiles. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|Van Elteren's Test||Median difference was based on Hodges-Lehmann estimate of the location shift between the two groups.|Week 4||||0.0062
90873865|NCT00546637|181608336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.0825||95.0||||P-value was based on Van Elteren's Test adjusted by baseline quartiles. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|Van Elteren's Test||Median difference was based on Hodges-Lehmann estimate of the location shift between the two groups.|Week 12||||0.0825
90873866|NCT00546637|181608337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0025||95.0||||P-value for median was based on a ranked ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and ranked baseline value as a covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|Ranked ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons were performed only if the corresponding numerical change from Baseline at the same visit was statistically significant.||Week 4||||0.0025
90873867|NCT00546637|181608338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.1748||95.0|-0.3|0.0||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (net) = Least squares mean|Week 4||0.0|-0.3|0.1748
90873868|NCT00546637|181608338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.6572||95.0|-0.1|0.2||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (net) = Least squares mean|Week 12||0.2|-0.1|0.6572
90873869|NCT00546637|181608340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.0051||95.0|-2.9|-0.5||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (net) = Least squares mean|Week 4||-0.5|-2.9|0.0051
90873870|NCT00546637|181608340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.1231||95.0|-2.3|0.3||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (net) = Least squares mean|Week 12||0.3|-2.3|0.1231
90913926|NCT00465816|181697448|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower limit of the two-sided standardised asymptotic 95% CI for group difference (Nimenrix+Twinrix group minus Twinrix group) in the percentage of subjects with vaccine seroconversion was ≥ pre-defined clinical limit of -10%.|Percentage difference|-0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.64|2.92||||||To assess the Non-inferiority of the Nimenrix+Twinrix group compared to the Twinrix one, two-sided standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the difference in seroprotection rates for hepatitis B (Nimenrix+Twinrix group minus Twinrix group) was computed.||2.92|-2.64|
90913927|NCT02139046|181697471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|25.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.4|30.9||To adjust for multiple comparisons, a closed testing strategy was used. Febuxostat XR 40 and 80 mg were tested separately versus placebo and the corresponding febuxostat IR group at a Bonferroni-corrected significance level of 0.025.|Z-test|Point estimates, confidence intervals, and p-values are presented using the Cui, Hung, and Wang (CHW) Z-test which accounts for the interim analysis.||||30.9|20.4|<0.001
90960999|NCT02254278|181802801|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|Two-sided significance level = 0.05||End of RT||||<0.0001
90961000|NCT02254278|181802801|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Fisher Exact|Two-sided significance level = 0.05||One month after end of RT||||0.17
90873871|NCT00546637|181608341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.3579||95.0|-1.0|0.4||P-value was based on an ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (net) = Least squares mean|Week 4||0.4|-1.0|0.3579
90873872|NCT00546637|181608341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.9274||95.0|-0.8|0.7||P-value was based on an ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (net) = Least squares mean|Week 12||0.7|-0.8|0.9274
90873873|NCT00546637|181608342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0223||95.0|-0.7|-0.1||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as a covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (net) = Least squares mean|Week 4||-0.1|-0.7|0.0223
90873874|NCT00546637|181608342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.1744||95.0|-0.6|0.1||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as a covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (net) = Least squares mean|Week 12||0.1|-0.6|0.1744
90873875|NCT00546637|181608343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.7564||95.0|-0.4|0.5||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as a covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (net) = Least squares mean|Week 4||0.5|-0.4|0.7564
90873876|NCT00546637|181608343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.401||95.0|-0.3|0.7||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as a covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (net) = Least squares mean|Week 12||0.7|-0.3|0.4010
90873877|NCT00546637|181608344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.1472||95.0|-0.2|0.0||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (net) = Least squares mean|Week 4||0.0|-0.2|0.1472
90873878|NCT00546637|181608344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.5839||95.0|-0.2|0.1||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (net) = Least squares mean|Week 12||0.1|-0.2|0.5839
90873879|NCT00546637|181608345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.6621||95.0|-0.1|0.2||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (net) = Least squares mean|Week 4 Q1||0.2|-0.1|0.6621
90873880|NCT00546637|181608345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.5|-0.2||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (net) = Least squares mean|Week 4 Q2||-0.2|-0.5|<.0001
90873881|NCT00546637|181608345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.3242||95.0|-0.1|0.2||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (net) = Least squares mean|Week 4 Q3||0.2|-0.1|0.3242
90873882|NCT00546637|181608345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.1604||95.0|-0.3|0.0||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (net) = Least squares mean|Week 4 Q4||0.0|-0.3|0.1604
90873883|NCT00546637|181608345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.4102||95.0|-0.2|0.1||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (net) = Least squares mean|Week 4 Q5||0.1|-0.2|0.4102
90961001|NCT02254278|181802801|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Fisher Exact|Two-side significance level = 0.05||Six months after end of RT||||0.16
90961002|NCT02254278|181802801|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Fisher Exact|Two-side significance level = 0.05||One year after end of RT||||0.26
90873884|NCT00546637|181608345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.3079||95.0|-0.1|0.2||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (net) = Least squares mean|Week 4 Q6||0.2|-0.1|0.3079
90873885|NCT00546637|181608345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.4066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (net) = Least squares mean|Week 4 Q7||0.2|-0.1|0.4066
90873886|NCT00546637|181608346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.1595||95.0|0.0|0.3||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (net) = Least squares mean|Week 12 Q1||0.3|-0.0|0.1595
90873887|NCT00546637|181608346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0614||95.0|-0.3|0.0||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (net) = Least squares mean|Week 12 Q2||0.0|-0.3|0.0614
90961003|NCT02254278|181802801|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||Fisher Exact|Two-side significance level = 0.05||Two years after the end of RT||||0.82
90873888|NCT00546637|181608346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.2032||95.0|-0.1|0.3||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (net) = Least squares mean|Week 12 Q3||0.3|-0.1|0.2032
90873889|NCT00546637|181608346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0631||95.0|-0.3|0.0||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (net) = Least squares mean|Week 12 Q4||0.0|-0.3|0.0631
90873890|NCT00546637|181608346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.9706||95.0|-0.2|0.2||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (net) = Least squares mean|Week 12 Q5||0.2|-0.2|0.9706
90873891|NCT00546637|181608346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.8058||95.0|-0.1|0.2||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (net) = Least squares mean|Week 12 Q6||0.2|-0.1|0.8058
90873892|NCT00546637|181608346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.3302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (net) = Least squares mean|Week 12 Q7||0.2|-0.1|0.3302
90873893|NCT00546637|181608347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1136||95.0||||P-value was obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with modified ridit scoring, stratified by center. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1136
90873894|NCT00546637|181608348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5775||95.0||||P-value was obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with modified ridit scoring, stratified by center. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.5775
90873895|NCT00546637|181608349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7433||95.0||||P-value was obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with modified ridit scoring, stratified by center. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.7433
90873896|NCT00546637|181608350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9402||95.0||||P-value was obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with modified ridit scoring, stratified by center. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.9402
90913928|NCT02139046|181697471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|49.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.9|55.8||To adjust for multiple comparisons, a closed testing strategy was used. Febuxostat XR 40 and 80 mg were tested separately versus placebo and the corresponding febuxostat IR group at a Bonferroni-corrected significance level of 0.025.|Z-test|Point estimates, confidence intervals, and p-values are presented using the CHW Z-test which accounts for the interim analysis.||||55.8|43.9|<0.001
90913929|NCT02139046|181697471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|10.2||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|17.0||To adjust for multiple comparisons, a closed testing strategy was used. Febuxostat XR 40 and 80 mg were tested separately versus placebo and the corresponding febuxostat IR group at a Bonferroni-corrected significance level of 0.025.|Z-test|Point estimates, confidence intervals, and p-values are presented using the CHW Z-test which accounts for the interim analysis.||||17.0|3.5|0.001
90913930|NCT02139046|181697471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|7.5||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|15.9||To adjust for multiple comparisons, a closed testing strategy was used. Febuxostat XR 40 and 80 mg were tested separately versus placebo and the corresponding febuxostat IR group at a Bonferroni-corrected significance level of 0.025.|Z-test|Point estimates, confidence intervals, and p-values are presented using the CHW Z-test which accounts for the interim analysis.||||15.9|-0.8|0.043
90913931|NCT02139046|181697472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|2.1||||0.503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|9.0||To adjust for multiple comparisons, a closed testing strategy was used. Febuxostat XR 40 and 80 mg were tested separately versus placebo and the corresponding febuxostat IR group at a Bonferroni-corrected significance level of 0.025.|Z-test|Point estimates, confidence intervals, and p-values are presented using the CHW Z-test which accounts for the interim analysis.||||9.0|-4.9|0.503
90913932|NCT02139046|181697472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|5.9||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|13.0||To adjust for multiple comparisons, a closed testing strategy was used. Febuxostat XR 40 and 80 mg were tested separately versus placebo and the corresponding febuxostat IR group at a Bonferroni-corrected significance level of 0.025.|Z-test|Point estimates, confidence intervals, and p-values are presented using the CHW Z-test which accounts for the interim analysis.||||13.0|-1.2|0.064
90873897|NCT00546637|181608351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.004||95.0|-4.5|-0.9||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (net) = Least squares mean|Week 4||-0.9|-4.5|0.0040
90873898|NCT00546637|181608351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.0068||95.0|-4.8|-0.8||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (net) = Least squares mean|Week 12||-0.8|-4.8|0.0068
90873899|NCT00546637|181608352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.0412||95.0|0.1|3.6||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference (net)= Least squares mean|Week 4||3.6|0.1|0.0412
90873900|NCT00546637|181608352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.1373||95.0|-0.5|3.4||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference (net)= Least squares mean|Week 12||3.4|-0.5|0.1373
90873901|NCT00546637|181608353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.0941||95.0|-0.3|3.8||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference (net) = Least squares mean|Week 4||3.8|-0.3|0.0941
90873902|NCT00546637|181608353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.2273||95.0|-0.8|3.4||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference (net) = Least squares mean|Week 12||3.4|-0.8|0.2273
90873903|NCT00546637|181608354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.0507||95.0|0.0|4.3||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference (net)= Least squares mean|Week 4||4.3|-0.0|0.0507
90873904|NCT00546637|181608354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.1136||95.0|-0.4|4.1||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference (net)= Least squares mean|Week 12||4.1|-0.4|0.1136
90913933|NCT02139046|181697472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|1.8||||0.561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|8.7||To adjust for multiple comparisons, a closed testing strategy was used. Febuxostat XR 40 and 80 mg were tested separately versus placebo and the corresponding febuxostat IR group at a Bonferroni-corrected significance level of 0.025.|Z-test|Point estimates, confidence intervals, and p-values are presented using the CHW Z-test which accounts for the interim analysis.||||8.7|-5.1|0.561
90913934|NCT02139046|181697472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|-0.5||||0.869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|6.9||To adjust for multiple comparisons, a closed testing strategy was used. Febuxostat XR 40 and 80 mg were tested separately versus placebo and the corresponding febuxostat IR group at a Bonferroni-corrected significance level of 0.025.|Z-test|Point estimates, confidence intervals, and p-values are presented using the CHW Z-test which accounts for the interim analysis.||||6.9|-8.0|0.869
90873905|NCT00546637|181608355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.0845||95.0|-0.3|4.1||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference (net)= Least squares mean|Week 4||4.1|-0.3|0.0845
90873906|NCT00546637|181608355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.0662||95.0|-0.2|4.6||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference (net) = Least squares mean|Week 12||4.6|-0.2|0.0662
90873907|NCT00546637|181608356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.1085||95.0|-0.3|3.2||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference (net) = Least squares mean|Week 4||3.2|-0.3|0.1085
90913935|NCT02139046|181697473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|47.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.6|53.6||To adjust for multiple comparisons, a closed testing strategy was used. Febuxostat XR 40 and 80 mg were tested separately versus placebo and the corresponding febuxostat IR group at a Bonferroni-corrected significance level of 0.025.|Z-test|Point estimates, confidence intervals, and p-values are presented using the CHW Z-test which accounts for the interim analysis.||||53.6|41.6|<0.001
90961004|NCT02254278|181802803|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||binomial test|One-sided significance level = 0.10||Progression-free survival: The null hypothesis of negative predictive value ≤ 90% was tested against the alternative of \> 90% with a 1-sided binomial test at the 0.10 level.||||0.3
90913936|NCT02139046|181697473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|60.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.6|66.3||To adjust for multiple comparisons, a closed testing strategy was used. Febuxostat XR 40 and 80 mg were tested separately versus placebo and the corresponding febuxostat IR group at a Bonferroni-corrected significance level of 0.025.|Z-test|Point estimates, confidence intervals, and p-values are presented using the CHW Z-test which accounts for the interim analysis.||||66.3|54.6|<0.001
90913937|NCT02139046|181697473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|7.8||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|16.1||To adjust for multiple comparisons, a closed testing strategy was used. Febuxostat XR 40 and 80 mg were tested separately versus placebo and the corresponding febuxostat IR group at a Bonferroni-corrected significance level of 0.025.|Z-test|Point estimates, confidence intervals, and p-values are presented using the CHW Z-test which accounts for the interim analysis.||||16.1|-0.5|0.036
90873908|NCT00546637|181608356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.7685||95.0|-1.6|2.1||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference (net) = Least squares mean|Week 12||2.1|-1.6|0.7685
90873909|NCT00546637|181608357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|6.0||||0.0005||95.0||||P-value was based on Van Elteren's Test adjusted by baseline quartiles. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|Van Elteren's Test||Median difference was based on Hodges-Lehmann estimate of the location shift between the two groups.|Week 4||||0.0005
90873910|NCT00546637|181608357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|7.0|||<|0.0001||95.0||||P-value was based on Van Elteren's Test adjusted by baseline quartiles. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|Van Elteren's Test||Median difference was based on Hodges-Lehmann estimate of the location shift between the two groups.|Week 8||||<.0001
90873911|NCT00546637|181608357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|9.0||||0.0003||95.0||||P-value was based on Van Elteren's Test adjusted by baseline quartiles. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|Van Elteren's Test||Median difference was based on Hodges-Lehmann estimate of the location shift between the two groups.|Week 12||||0.0003
90873912|NCT00546637|181608358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.2251||95.0||||P-value was based on Van Elteren's Test adjusted by baseline quartiles. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|Van Elteren's Test||Median difference was based on Hodges-Lehmann estimate of the location shift between the two groups.|||||0.2251
90873913|NCT00587483|181608361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.37||An alpha of 0.0167 was used to account for multiple comparisons among the 3 groups. Given the total of 3 comparisons, 0.05/3 = 0.0167 was used in the calculation.|Regression, Logistic|||The expected overall incidence of ventricular fibrillation after removal of the aortic clamp is at least 70%. Using a chi square analysis with 80% power and an alpha of 0.0167, we estimate that we will need 113 patients in each group to show a 30% reduction in the incidence of ventricular fibrillation with amiodarone.||1.37|0.48|0.427
90873914|NCT00587483|181608361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65||||0.117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.11|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.11|0.39|0.117
90913938|NCT02139046|181697473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|3.3||||0.364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|11.6||To adjust for multiple comparisons, a closed testing strategy was used. Febuxostat XR 40 and 80 mg were tested separately versus placebo and the corresponding febuxostat IR group at a Bonferroni-corrected significance level of 0.025.|Z-test|Point estimates, confidence intervals, and p-values are presented using the CHW Z-test which accounts for the interim analysis.||||11.6|-4.9|0.364
90913939|NCT00818454|181697477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||MMRM ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
90873915|NCT00587483|181608361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.37|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.37|0.47|0.433
90873916|NCT00587483|181608362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.19|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.19|0.45|0.215
90873917|NCT00587483|181608362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.51||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.84|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.84|0.32|0.008
90873918|NCT00587483|181608362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.33|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.33|0.52|0.424
90873919|NCT04984993|181608368|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Significance level of 0.025|t-test, 1 sided|||Null hypothesis: mu \<= 0 versus alternative hypothesis: mu \>0, where mu is the population mean change from baseline in the EF domain of the IIEF questionnaire at week 24.||||<0.001
90873920|NCT04984993|181608369|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Significance level of 0.025|t-test, 1 sided|||Null hypothesis: mu \<= 30 versus alternative hypothesis: mu \>30, where mu is the population mean percentage of MED3000 uses per patient that resulted in the patient noticing their erection starting within 15 minutes.||||<0.001
90873921|NCT04984993|181608369|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Significance level of 0.025|t-test, 1 sided|||Null hypothesis: mu \<= 30 versus alternative hypothesis: mu \>30, where mu is the population mean percentage of MED3000 uses per patient that resulted in the patient noticing their erection starting within 10 minutes.||||<0.001
90873922|NCT04984993|181608369|OTHER|||||||0.89||||||Significance level of 0.025|t-test, 1 sided|||Null hypothesis: mu \<= 30 versus alternative hypothesis: mu \>30, where mu is the population mean percentage of MED3000 uses per patient that resulted in the patient noticing their erection starting within 5 minutes.||||0.890
90913940|NCT00818454|181697478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||MMRM ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
90913941|NCT00818454|181697479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.159|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|||||||0.159
90873923|NCT04984993|181608370|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Significance level of 0.025|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
90873924|NCT04984993|181608370|OTHER|||||||0.3327||||||Significance level of 0.025|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.3327
90913942|NCT00818454|181697480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8278|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|||||||0.8278
90913943|NCT00818454|181697481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5098|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|||||||0.5098
90913944|NCT00818454|181697482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6591|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|||||||0.6591
90913945|NCT00818454|181697483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3631|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|||||||0.3631
90913946|NCT00818454|181697484|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Enter additional comments here, if non-inferiority or equivalence analysis||||||0.6787|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|||||||0.6787
90913947|NCT00818454|181697485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline, period, week, and treatment by week interaction||||||0.0001
90913948|NCT00818454|181697486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline, period, week, and treatment by week interaction||||||0.0003
90913949|NCT00773370|181697487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference between slopes|8.43|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.17|<|0.25|TWO_SIDED|||||Random effects ANOVA with random intercept and random slope compared the time course (slopes) of change in our outcome measures across three time points: baseline, three, and six-months in our two experimental groups--APA-stroke and Sittercise.|ANOVA|||||||<0.25
90913950|NCT00773370|181697487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|14.95|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.92|<|0.004|TWO_SIDED|||||Random effects ANOVA, random intercept, random slope estimating within group change (slope) over time|ANOVA|||Within group change over time||||<0.004
90913951|NCT00773370|181697487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|6.52|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.13||0.218|TWO_SIDED|||||Random effects ANOVA, random intercept, random slope estimating within group change (slope) over time|ANOVA|||Within group change over time||||.218
90913952|NCT00773370|181697488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between slopes|0.186|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.256||0.47|TWO_SIDED|||||Random effects ANOVA with random intercept and random slope compared the time course (slopes) of change in our outcome measures across three time points: baseline, three, and six-months in our two experimental groups--APA-stroke and Sittercise.|ANOVA|||||||.47
90873925|NCT04984993|181608370|OTHER||||||>|0.999||||||Significance level of 0.025|t-test, 1 sided|||||||>0.999
90873926|NCT03108027|181608389|OTHER|A hypothesis test is not planned for this study, inferences are to be performed by interpreting confidence interval of treatment difference.'|Mean Difference (Net)|0.6096|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.538|0.6811|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.6811|0.5380|
90873927|NCT03108027|181608389|OTHER|A hypothesis test is not planned for this study, inferences are to be performed by interpreting confidence interval of treatment difference.'|Mean Difference (Net)|0.6152|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5437|0.6868|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.6868|0.5437|
90873928|NCT03108027|181608389|OTHER|A hypothesis test is not planned for this study, inferences are to be performed by interpreting confidence interval of treatment difference.'|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0057|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.076|0.0647|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.0647|-0.0760|
90873929|NCT03108027|181608390|OTHER|A hypothesis test is not planned for this study, inferences are to be performed by interpreting confidence interval of treatment difference.'|Mean Difference (Net)|0.6206|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5335|0.7077|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.7077|0.5335|
90873930|NCT03108027|181608390|OTHER|A hypothesis test is not planned for this study, inferences are to be performed by interpreting confidence interval of treatment difference.'|Mean Difference (Net)|0.7347|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6469|0.8225|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.8225|0.6469|
90873931|NCT03108027|181608390|OTHER|A hypothesis test is not planned for this study, inferences are to be performed by interpreting confidence interval of treatment difference.'|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1141|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.197|-0.0311|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.0311|-0.1970|
90873932|NCT03108027|181608391|OTHER|A hypothesis test is not planned for this study, inferences are to be performed by interpreting confidence interval of treatment difference.'|Mean Difference (Net)|72.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|61.3|82.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning average PEF||82.9|61.3|
90873933|NCT03108027|181608391|OTHER|A hypothesis test is not planned for this study, inferences are to be performed by interpreting confidence interval of treatment difference.'|Mean Difference (Net)|86.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.1|97.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning average PEF||97.8|76.1|
90873934|NCT03108027|181608391|OTHER|A hypothesis test is not planned for this study, inferences are to be performed by interpreting confidence interval of treatment difference.'|Mean Difference (Net)|-14.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-25.6|-4.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning average PEF||-4.1|-25.6|
90873935|NCT03108027|181608391|OTHER|A hypothesis test is not planned for this study, inferences are to be performed by interpreting confidence interval of treatment difference.'|Mean Difference (Net)|73.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|61.9|84.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening average PEF||84.2|61.9|
90873936|NCT03108027|181608391|OTHER|A hypothesis test is not planned for this study, inferences are to be performed by interpreting confidence interval of treatment difference.'|Mean Difference (Net)|58.7||||||90.0|47.5|69.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening average PEF||69.9|47.5|
90873937|NCT03108027|181608391|OTHER|A hypothesis test is not planned for this study, inferences are to be performed by interpreting confidence interval of treatment difference.'|Mean Difference (Net)|14.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.3|25.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening average PEF||25.5|3.3|
90913953|NCT00773370|181697488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.215|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.175||0.225|TWO_SIDED|||||Random effects ANOVA, random intercept, random slope estimating within group change (slope) over time|ANOVA|||Within group change over time||||.225
90913954|NCT00773370|181697488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.029|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.187||0.88|TWO_SIDED|||||Random effects ANOVA, random intercept, random slope estimating within group change (slope) over time|ANOVA|||Within group change over time||||.88
90913955|NCT00773370|181697489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between slopes|0.002|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.078||0.98|TWO_SIDED|||||Random effects ANOVA with random intercept and random slope compared the time course (slopes) of change in our outcome measures across three time points: baseline, three, and six-months in our two experimental groups--APA-stroke and Sittercise.|ANOVA|||||||.98
90873938|NCT00003901|181608434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.59||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|2.23|||Regression, Cox|||||2.23|1.13|0.007
90873939|NCT00003901|181608435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.03||||0.886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.54|||Regression, Cox|||||1.54|0.69|0.886
90873940|NCT00003901|181608436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.63||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|2.36|||Regression, Cox|||||2.36|1.13|0.009
90873941|NCT00003901|181608437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.78||||0.332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.28|||Regression, Cox|||||1.28|0.48|0.332
90873942|NCT00268996|181608453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted percentage change|-11.717||||0.348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.995|14.607|||ANCOVA||Adjusted percentage change is shown \[(Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet /Placebo) - 1 multiplied by 100\]|||14.607|-31.995|0.348
90873943|NCT00268996|181608454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference|-0.082||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.214|0.049|||ANCOVA||Difference in adjusted means is shown (Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet - Placebo).|||0.049|-0.214|0.220
90873944|NCT00268996|181608455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted percentage change|3.977||||0.751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.331|32.379|||ANCOVA||Adjusted percentage change is shown \[(Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet /Placebo) - 1 multiplied by 100\]|||32.379|-18.331|0.751
90873945|NCT00268996|181608456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted percentage change|-60.737|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.486|-57.78|||ANCOVA||Adjusted percentage change is shown \[(Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet /Placebo) - 1 multiplied by 100\]|Placebo vs Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet at Week 26 (LOCF)||-57.780|-63.486|<0.001
90873946|NCT00268996|181608456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted percentage change|-59.326|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.21|-56.222|||ANCOVA||Adjusted percentage change is shown \[(Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet /Placebo) - 1 multiplied by 100\]|Placebo vs Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet at Week 52 (LOCF)||-56.222|-62.210|<0.001
90873947|NCT00268996|181608457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference|0.253||||0.945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.998|7.504|||ANCOVA||Difference in adjusted means are shown (Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet - Placebo).|||7.504|-6.998|0.945
90913956|NCT00773370|181697489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.033|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.054||0.54|TWO_SIDED|||||Random effects ANOVA, random intercept, random slope estimating within group change (slope) over time|ANOVA|||Within group change over time||||.54
90913957|NCT00773370|181697489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.031|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.057||0.59|TWO_SIDED|||||Random effects ANOVA, random intercept, random slope estimating within group change (slope) over time|ANOVA|||Within group change over time||||.59
90913958|NCT00773370|181697490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.296|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.77||0.98|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Random effects ANOVA with random intercept and random slope was used to compare the time course of change in our outcome measures across three time points: baseline, three, and six-months in our two experimental groups--APA-stroke and Sittercise.||||.98
90913959|NCT00773370|181697490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|15.49|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.19||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||Random effects ANOVA, random intercept, random slope estimating within group change (slope) over time|ANOVA|||||||.02
90913960|NCT00773370|181697490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|15.193|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.553||0.051|TWO_SIDED|||||Random effects ANOVA, random intercept, random slope estimating within group change (slope) over time|ANOVA|||||||.051
90873948|NCT00268996|181608458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in adjusted means|-0.062||||0.898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.009|0.886|||ANCOVA||Difference in adjusted means are shown (Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet - Placebo).|||0.886|-1.009|0.898
90873949|NCT00268996|181608459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in adjusted means|-5.165||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.185|-1.145|||ANCOVA||Difference in adjusted means are shown (Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet - Placebo).|||-1.145|-9.185|0.012
90873950|NCT00268996|181608460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in adjusted means|-1.967||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.912|-0.022|||ANCOVA||Difference in adjusted means are shown (Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet - Placebo).|||-0.022|-3.912|0.047
90873951|NCT00268996|181608461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted percentage change|6.958||||0.487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.568|29.364|||ANCOVA||Adjusted percentage change is shown \[(Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet /Placebo) - 1 multiplied by 100\]|Week 26 (LOCF): Comparison between Placebo vs Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet||29.364|-11.568|0.487
90913961|NCT01765543|181697493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.614|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.484|0.78||||||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameters, and then back transformed to provide geometric mean ratio (Period C/Period A) and confidence intervals.||0.780|0.484|
90913962|NCT01765543|181697494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.596|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.469|0.759||||||ANOVA was applied to the log-transformed PK parameters, and then back transformed to provide geometric mean ratio (Period C/Period A) and confidence intervals.||0.759|0.469|
90873952|NCT00268996|181608461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted percentage change|12.255||||0.247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.725|36.562|||ANCOVA||Adjusted percentage change is shown \[(Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet /Placebo) - 1 multiplied by 100\]|Week 52 (LOCF): Comparison between Placebo Vs Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet||36.562|-7.725|0.247
90873953|NCT00268996|181608462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted percentage change|-1.112||||0.687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.363|4.433|||ANCOVA||Adjusted percentage change is shown \[(Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet once daily/Placebo) - 1 multiplied by 100\]|Placebo vs Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet once daily at Week 26 (LOCF)||4.433|-6.363|0.687
90873954|NCT00268996|181608462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted percentage change|-3.237||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.976|2.865|||ANOVA||Adjusted percentage change is shown \[(Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet once daily/Placebo) - 1 multiplied by 100\]|||2.865|-8.976|0.290
90873955|NCT00268996|181608463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted percentage change|16.725||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.232|33.271|||ANCOVA||Adjusted percentage change is shown \[(Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet once daily/Placebo) - 1 multiplied by 100\]|Placebo vs Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet once daily at Week 26 (LOCF)||33.271|2.232|0.022
90873956|NCT00268996|181608463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted percentage change|9.256||||0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.136|27.172|||ANCOVA||Adjusted percentage change is shown \[(Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet once daily/Placebo) - 1 multiplied by 100\]|Placebo vs Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet once daily at Week 52 (LOCF)||27.172|-6.136|0.252
90873957|NCT00268996|181608464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted percentage change|15.449||||0.196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.204|43.632|||ANCOVA||Adjusted percentage change is shown \[(Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet once daily/Placebo) - 1 multiplied by 100\]|Placebo vs Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet once daily at Week 26||43.632|-7.204|0.196
90873958|NCT00268996|181608464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted percentage change|38.567||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.355|83.997|||ANCOVA||Adjusted percentage change is shown \[(Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet once daily/Placebo) - 1 multiplied by 100\]|Placebo vs Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet once daily at Week 52||83.997|4.355|0.024
90913963|NCT01765543|181697495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.908|1.36||||||ANOVA was applied to the log-transformed PK parameters, and then back transformed to provide geometric mean ratio (Period C/Period A) and confidence intervals.||1.36|0.908|
90913964|NCT00779870|181697510|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.06
90913965|NCT00779870|181697510|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.8
90873959|NCT00268996|181608465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted percentage change|-2.098||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.303|14.517|||ANCOVA||Adjusted percentage change is shown \[(Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet once daily/Placebo) - 1 multiplied by 100\]|Placebo vs Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet once daily at Week 26 (LOCF)||14.517|-16.303|0.790
90873960|NCT00268996|181608465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted percentage change|1.986||||0.818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.807|20.673|||ANCOVA||Adjusted percentage change is shown \[(Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet once daily/Placebo) - 1 multiplied by 100\]|Placebo vs Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet once daily at Week 52 (LOCF)||20.673|-13.807|0.818
90873961|NCT00268996|181608466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted percentage change|-0.252||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.151|21.561|||ANCOVA||Adjusted percentage change is shown \[(Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet once daily/Placebo) - 1 multiplied by 100\]|Placebo vs Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet once daily at Week 26 (LOCF)||21.561|-18.151|0.980
90873962|NCT00268996|181608466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted percentage change|-8.585||||0.663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.007|37.012|||ANCOVA||Adjusted percentage change is shown \[(Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet once daily/Placebo) - 1 multiplied by 100\]|Placebo vs Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet once daily at Week 52 (LOCF)||37.012|-39.007|0.663
90913966|NCT01040689|181697513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.185|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.145|0.224|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.224|0.145|<0.0001
90913967|NCT01040689|181697513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.207|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.167|0.246|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.246|0.167|<0.0001
90913968|NCT01040689|181697513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.173|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.133|0.212|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Tio 18 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.212|0.133|<0.0001
90961005|NCT02254278|181802803|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||binomial test|One-sided significance level = 0.10||Local-regional control: The null hypothesis of negative predictive value ≤ 90% was tested against the alternative of \> 90% with a 1-sided binomial test at the 0.10 level.||||0.07
90873963|NCT00268996|181608468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted treatment Difference|1.758||||0.811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.675|16.192|||ANCOVA||Difference in adjusted means are shown (Darapladib 160mg EC tablet once daily - Placebo).|For vessel volume||16.192|-12.675|0.811
90873964|NCT00268996|181608468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference|2.627||||0.708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.171|16.425|||ANCOVA||Difference in adjusted means are shown (Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet once daily - Placebo).|For lumen volume||16.425|-11.171|0.708
90873965|NCT00268996|181608469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference|-0.012||||0.873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.136||Data analyzed using ANCOVA, with ACS status, pooled country, baseline value , matched segment length and treatment included as covariates.|ANCOVA||Difference in adjusted means are shown (Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet one daily - Placebo).|Placebo vs Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet: Mean vessel area||0.136|-0.160|0.873
90873966|NCT00268996|181608469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference|0.048||||0.756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.258|0.354|||ANCOVA|Data analyzed using ANCOVA, with ACS status, pooled country, baseline value , matched segment length and treatment included as covariates.|Difference in adjusted means are shown (Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet one daily - Placebo).|Placebo vs Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet: Mean vessel area||0.354|-0.258|0.756
90873967|NCT00268996|181608469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference|0.061||||0.687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.237|0.36|||ANCOVA|Data analyzed using ANCOVA, with ACS status, pooled country, baseline value , matched segment length and treatment included as covariates.|Difference in adjusted means are shown (Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet one daily - Placebo).|Placebo vs Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet: Mean lumen area||0.360|-0.237|0.687
90913969|NCT01040689|181697514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.131|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001||95.0|0.09|0.173|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.173|0.090|<0.0001
90913970|NCT01040689|181697514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.178|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001||95.0|0.136|0.219|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.219|0.136|<0.0001
90873968|NCT00268996|181608470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference|-0.584||||0.854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.819|5.65|||ANCOVA|Data analyzed using ANCOVA, with ACS status, pooled country, baseline value, matched segment length and treatment included as covariates.|Difference in adjusted means are shown (Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet one daily - Placebo).|Placebo vs Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet: Fibrous tissue volume||5.650|-6.819|0.854
90873969|NCT00268996|181608470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference|1.926||||0.418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.748|6.6||Data analyzed using ANCOVA, with ACS status, pooled country, baseline value, matched segment length and treatment included as covariates.|ANCOVA||Difference in adjusted means are shown (Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet one daily - Placebo).|Placebo vs Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet: Fibro-fatty volume||6.600|-2.748|0.418
90873970|NCT00268996|181608471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference|2.0||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.299|3.701|||ANOVA|Data analyzed using ANCOVA, with ACS status, pooled country, baseline value, matched segment length and treatment included as covariates.|Difference in adjusted means are shown (Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet one daily - Placebo).|Placebo vs Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet: Fibrous tissue as % of VH plaque||3.701|0.299|0.021
90913971|NCT01040689|181697514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.123|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001||95.0|0.081|0.164|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Tio 18 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.164|0.081|<0.0001
90961006|NCT02254278|181802804|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Fisher Exact|Two-sided significance level = 0.05||||||0.28
90873971|NCT00268996|181608471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference|0.739||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.635|3.114|||ANCOVA|Data analyzed using ANCOVA, with ACS status, pooled country, baseline value, matched segment length and treatment included as covariates.|Difference in adjusted means are shown (Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet one daily - Placebo).|Placebo vs Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet: Fibro-fatty as percentage of VH plaque||3.114|-1.635|0.540
90873972|NCT00862745|181608494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons, threshold for significance is P \< .05|ANCOVA|Mean difference=Drug A minus Drug B||Null hypothesis: fesoterodine treatment is not associated with greater reduction in urgency incontinence frequency compared to placebo in women diagnosed using the 3IQ||||<0.001
90873973|NCT05838742|181608504|OTHER|Analysis performed using a Bayesian mixed model repeated measures adjusting for treatment, week, baseline, region and the treatment by week and baseline by week interactions using vague priors.|Difference in Posterior Mean Change|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|1.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyzed using a joint model for change from baseline in average weekly pain score and time to intercurrent event handled using a composite strategy.|||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|1.17|-0.23|
90873974|NCT05838742|181608504|OTHER|Analysis performed using a Bayesian mixed model repeated measures adjusting for treatment, week, baseline, region and the treatment by week and baseline by week interactions using vague priors.|Difference in Posterior Mean Change|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyzed using a joint model for change from baseline in average weekly pain score and time to intercurrent event handled using a composite strategy.|||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|0.95|-0.46|
90873975|NCT05838742|181608504|OTHER|Analysis performed using a Bayesian mixed model repeated measures adjusting for treatment, week, baseline, region and the treatment by week and baseline by week interactions using vague priors.|Difference in Posterior Mean Change|0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyzed using a joint model for change from baseline in average weekly pain score and time to intercurrent event handled using a composite strategy.|||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|1.10|-0.31|
90873976|NCT05838742|181608504|OTHER|Analysis performed using a Bayesian mixed model repeated measures adjusting for treatment, week, baseline, region and the treatment by week and baseline by week interactions using vague priors.|Difference in Posterior Mean Change|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyzed using a joint model for change from baseline in average weekly pain score and time to intercurrent event handled using a composite strategy.|||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|0.80|-0.60|
90913972|NCT01040689|181697515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.158|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.121|0.196|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.196|0.121|<0.0001
90873977|NCT00501293|181608583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test of MTS at baseline and 6 months||||||0.028
90873978|NCT00501293|181608583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test of placebo at baseline and 6 months||||||<0.001
90873979|NCT00501293|181608584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test of MTS at baseline and 6 months||||||0.027
90873980|NCT00501293|181608584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test of placebo at baseline and 6 months||||||<0.001
90873981|NCT00501293|181608587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.071||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test of MTS at baseline and 6 months||||||0.071
90873982|NCT00501293|181608587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test of placebo at baseline and 6 months||||||0.017
90873983|NCT04249310|181608665|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|2.46|||||\[(Tiotropium/Olodaterol) / Tiotropium\] Cox-regression was used to estimate the hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals.|||2.46|0.32|
90873984|NCT04249310|181608666|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.15|||||\[(Tiotropium/Olodaterol) / Tiotropium\] Cox regression was used to estimate the hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals.|Moderate or Severe COPD Exacerbation||1.15|0.63|
90873985|NCT04249310|181608666|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.01|||||\[(Tiotropium/Olodaterol) / Tiotropium\] Cox regression was used to estimate the hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals.|Moderate COPD Exacerbation||1.01|0.43|
90873986|NCT04249310|181608666|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.31|||||\[(Tiotropium/Olodaterol) / Tiotropium\] Cox regression was used to estimate the hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals.|Severe COPD Exacerbation||1.31|0.62|
90873987|NCT01119131|181608686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.699|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.699
90873988|NCT01119131|181608687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.308|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.308
90873989|NCT01119131|181608688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.419|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.419
90873990|NCT01119131|181608689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.253|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.253
90873991|NCT01119131|181608690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.793|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.793
90873992|NCT01119131|181608692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.949|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.949
90873993|NCT01119131|181608693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.957|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.957
90873994|NCT00923598|181608702|EQUIVALENCE|A method by Armitage et al was used, where by equivalence of treatments would be concluded if the 95% CI for the difference fell within the prespecified tolerated interval. Under these assumptions, a trial with 36 subjects (72 limbs) would correctly conclude there is no treatment difference with probability 80%, and incorrectly conclude equivalence when there is a difference of 20% with probability 5%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|17.0|||Fisher Exact|||||17|-10|0.05
90961007|NCT02254278|181802805|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Two-sided significance level = 0.05||||||0.03
90873995|NCT00467259|181608720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|p-value obtained from Fisher's exact test and corresponds to the test of the null hypothesis of no treatment difference.||1000 naturally postmenopausal women not on concomitant E+P therapy at baseline were to be randomized (800 TTS; 200 placebo). It was assumed 60% would complete 1 year and 80% of these would have evaluable biopsies. Of the 800 randomized to TTS approximately 380 were expected to have evaluable biopsies at 1 year. 380 patients on TTS with evaluable biopsies at 1 year would provide 90% power to rule out an incidence of hyperplasia of 2% using the upper bound of a 2-sided 95% CI.||||1.0000
90913973|NCT01040689|181697515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.192|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.155|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.230|0.155|<0.0001
90913974|NCT01040689|181697515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.148|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.11|0.185|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Tio 18 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.185|0.110|<0.0001
90913975|NCT01040689|181697516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.182|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|0.147|0.216|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.216|0.147|<0.0001
90961008|NCT02254278|181802809|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Fisher Exact|Two-sided significance level = 0.05||||||0.08
90961009|NCT02254278|181802810|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Fisher Exact|||||||0.02
90873996|NCT00467259|181608721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|p-value obtained from Fisher's exact test and corresponds to the test of the null hypothesis of no treatment difference.||1000 naturally postmenopausal women not on concomitant E+P therapy at baseline were to be randomized (800 TTS; 200 placebo). It was assumed 60% would complete 1 year and 80% of these would have evaluable biopsies. Of the 800 randomized to TTS approximately 380 were expected to have evaluable biopsies at 1 year. 380 patients on TTS with evaluable biopsies at 1 year would provide 90% power to rule out an incidence of hyperplasia of 2% using the upper bound of a 2-sided 95% CI.||||1.0000
90873997|NCT00467259|181608722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|p-value obtained from Fisher's Exact test and corresponds to the test of the null hypothesis of no treatment difference.||1000 naturally postmenopausal women not on concomitant E+P therapy at baseline were to be randomized (800 TTS; 200 placebo). It was assumed 60% would complete 1 year and 80% of these would have evaluable biopsies. Of the 800 randomized to TTS approximately 380 were expected to have evaluable biopsies at 1 year. 380 patients on TTS with evaluable biopsies at 1 year would provide 90% power to rule out an incidence of hyperplasia of 2% using the upper bound of a 2-sided 95% CI.||||1.0000
90873998|NCT00459667|181608729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Number of patients w/ Flu-Like-Syndrome|17.4||||||95.0|14.4|20.7||||||The 95% Confidence Interval was calculated for number of patients w/ Flu-Like-Syndrome||20.7|14.4|
90873999|NCT00459667|181608729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Number of patients w/ Flu-Like-Syndrome|15.8||||||95.0|13.1|18.9||||||The 95% Confidence Interval was calculated for number of patients w/ Flu-Like-Syndrome||18.9|13.1|
90874000|NCT00459667|181608729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Number of patients w/ Flu-Like-Syndrome|31.1||||||95.0|24.4|38.4||||||The 95% Confidence Interval was calculated for number of patients w/ Flu-Like-Syndrome||38.4|24.4|
91033434|NCT01811953|181952648|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means (gMean), test/reference, for the primary endpoints using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Geometric mean ratio|102.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.035|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.255|108.351|||ANOVA||The geometric mean ratio was calculated as the geometric mean of '1 Empagliflozin/Metformin (T)' divided by the geometric mean of '3 Empagliflozin + Metformin (R)'.|||108.351|96.255|<0.0001
90874001|NCT00459667|181608730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||number of patients w/ IS reactions.|31.7||||||95.0|28.0|35.7||||||The 95% Confidence Interval was calculated for number of patients w/ Injection-site (IS) reactions.||35.7|28.0|
90874002|NCT00459667|181608730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||number of patients w/ IS reactions.|26.2||||||95.0|22.8|29.8||||||The 95% Confidence Interval was calculated for number of patients w/ Injection-site (IS) reactions.||29.8|22.8|
90874003|NCT00459667|181608730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||number of patients w/ IS reactions.|31.7||||||95.0|24.9|39.0||||||The 95% Confidence Interval was calculated for number of patients w/ Injection-site (IS) reactions.||39.0|24.9|
90874004|NCT00556712|181608741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.82|||Log Rank|||||0.82|0.62|<0.0001
90874005|NCT00556712|181608745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.0097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.96|||Log Rank|||||0.96|0.72|0.0097
90874006|NCT00556712|181608748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.93|||Log Rank|||||0.93|0.66|0.0050
90874007|NCT00556712|181608751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.1768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.14|||Log Rank|||||1.14|0.51|0.1768
90874008|NCT00556712|181608754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.4797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.4|||Log Rank|||||1.40|0.49|0.4797
90874009|NCT00556712|181608756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.82|||Log Rank|||||0.82|0.61|<0.0001
90874010|NCT00556712|181608758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Response Rates|6.53||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|10.3|||Chi-squared||The approximate 95% CI for the difference of two rates was determined using the Hauck-Anderson method.|||10.3|2.7|0.0006
90874011|NCT00556712|181608760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Response Upgrade Rates|4.2||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|6.7|||Chi-squared||The approximate 95% CI for the difference of two rates was determined using the Hauck-Anderson method.|||6.7|1.6|0.0007
90874012|NCT00556712|181608762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Disease Control Rates|9.8||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|16.4|||Chi-squared||Approximate 95% CI for the difference of two rates was determined using the Hauck-Anderson method.|Analysis included CR + PR + SD rate.||16.4|3.1|0.0035
90874013|NCT00556712|181608762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Disease Control Rates|13.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.1|19.7|||Chi-squared||Approximate 95% CI for the difference of two rates was determined using the Hauck-Anderson method.|Analysis included CR + PR + SD \> 12 weeks rate.||19.7|7.1|<0.0001
90874014|NCT00556712|181608764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.3787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.12|||Log Rank|||||1.12|0.74|0.3787
90874015|NCT00556712|181608766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.82|||Log Rank|||||0.82|0.58|< 0.0001
90874016|NCT00556712|181608769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.5385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.31|||Log Rank|||||1.31|0.87|0.5385
90874017|NCT00556712|181608772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.16|||Log Rank|||||1.16|0.79|0.6530
90874018|NCT00818662|181608789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-square means|-0.8||||0.476||95.0|-3.1|1.5|||ANCOVA||Results combined from 100 imputations from estimates \& standard errors from 100 ANCOVA results for fixed effect of treatment, E4 allele of apolipoprotein E carrier status, \& continuous covariates age at baseline, baseline ADAS-Cog \& education level|||1.5|-3.1|0.476
90874019|NCT00818662|181608789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-square means|0.7||||0.53||95.0|-1.6|3.0|||ANCOVA||Results combined from 100 imputations from estimates \& standard errors from 100 ANCOVA results for fixed effect of treatment, E4 allele of apolipoprotein E carrier status, \& continuous covariates age at baseline, baseline ADAS-Cog \& education level|||3.0|-1.6|0.530
90913976|NCT01040689|181697516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.213|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|0.178|0.247|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.247|0.178|<0.0001
90874020|NCT00818662|181608790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-square means|0.4||||0.812||95.0|-2.9|3.7|||ANCOVA||Results combined from 100 imputations from estimates \& standard errors from 100 ANCOVA results for fixed effect of treatment, E4 allele of apolipoprotein E carrier status, \& continuous covariates age at baseline, baseline ADAS-Cog \& education level|||3.7|-2.9|0.812
90874021|NCT00818662|181608790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-square means|-0.9||||0.602||95.0|-4.3|2.5|||ANCOVA||Results combined from 100 imputations from estimates \& standard errors from 100 ANCOVA results for fixed effect of treatment, E4 allele of apolipoprotein E carrier status, \& continuous covariates age at baseline, baseline ADAS-Cog \& education level|||2.5|-4.3|0.602
90874022|NCT00818662|181608791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-square means|-0.7||||0.368||95.0|-2.3|0.8|||ANCOVA||Estimated within a ANCOVA model accounting for the fixed effect of treatment, E4 allele of apolipoprotein E carrier status, and for the continuous covariates age at baseline, baseline ADAS-Cog and education level (in years)|||0.8|-2.3|0.368
90874023|NCT00818662|181608791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-square means|0.8||||0.319||95.0|-0.8|2.4|||ANCOVA||Estimated within a ANCOVA model accounting for the fixed effect of treatment, E4 allele of apolipoprotein E carrier status, and for the continuous covariates age at baseline, baseline ADAS-Cog and education level (in years)|||2.4|-0.8|0.319
90913977|NCT01040689|181697516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.132|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|0.097|0.167|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Tio 18 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.167|0.097|<0.0001
90913978|NCT01040689|181697517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.206|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.17|0.243|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.243|0.170|<0.0001
90913979|NCT01040689|181697517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.215|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|0.179|0.252|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.252|0.179|<0.0001
90913980|NCT01040689|181697517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.182|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.146|0.219|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Tio 18 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.219|0.146|<0.0001
90913981|NCT01040689|181697518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.213|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|0.177|0.249|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.249|0.177|<0.0001
90913982|NCT01040689|181697518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.239|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|0.203|0.275|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.275|0.203|<0.0001
90913983|NCT01040689|181697518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.161|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|0.125|0.197|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Tio 18 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.197|0.125|<0.0001
90961010|NCT06609135|181802811|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.045|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical Analysis assessed correlation of GI values at 31 weeks between participants that were successful in discontinuation of non-invasive ventilation at 32 weeks postmenstrual age and those that were unsuccessful.||||0.045
90961011|NCT06609135|181802812|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.045|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical Analysis assessed correlation of GI values at 31 weeks between participants that were successful in discontinuation of non-invasive ventilation at 32 weeks postmenstrual age and those that were unsuccessful.||||0.045
90913984|NCT01040689|181697519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.213|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001||95.0|0.168|0.258|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.258|0.168|<0.0001
90961012|NCT06609135|181802813|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical Analysis assessed correlation of GI values at 32 weeks between participants that were successful in discontinuation of non-invasive ventilation at 33 weeks postmenstrual age and those that were unsuccessful.||||0.49
90961013|NCT06609135|181802814|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical Analysis assessed correlation of GI values at 32 weeks between participants that were successful in discontinuation of non-invasive ventilation at 33 weeks postmenstrual age and those that were unsuccessful.||||0.49
90961014|NCT06609135|181802815|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical Analysis assessed correlation of GI values at 34 weeks between participants that were successful in discontinuation of non-invasive ventilation by 36 weeks postmenstrual age and those that were unsuccessful.||||0.56
90961015|NCT06609135|181802816|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical Analysis assessed correlation of GI values at 34 weeks between participants that were successful in discontinuation of non-invasive ventilation by 36 weeks postmenstrual age and those that were unsuccessful.||||0.56
90961016|NCT06609135|181802817|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical Analysis assessed correlation of FLS values at 31 weeks between participants that were successful in discontinuation of non-invasive ventilation at 32 weeks postmenstrual age and those that were unsuccessful.||||0.09
90913985|NCT01040689|181697519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.234|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001||95.0|0.189|0.279|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.279|0.189|<0.0001
90913986|NCT01040689|181697519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.201|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001||95.0|0.156|0.246|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Tio 18 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.246|0.156|<0.0001
90913987|NCT01040689|181697520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.133|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.096|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.170|0.096|<0.0001
90913988|NCT01040689|181697520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.147|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.11|0.184|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.184|0.110|<0.0001
90874024|NCT00818662|181608792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-square means|0.3||||0.778||95.0|-1.8|2.4|||ANCOVA||Estimated within a ANCOVA model accounting for the fixed effect of treatment, E4 allele of apolipoprotein E carrier status, and for the continuous covariates age at baseline, baseline ADCS-ADL and education level (in years)|||2.4|-1.8|0.778
90874025|NCT00818662|181608792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-square means|-0.2||||0.851||95.0|-2.3|1.9|||ANCOVA||Estimated within a ANCOVA model accounting for the fixed effect of treatment, E4 allele of apolipoprotein E carrier status, and for the continuous covariates age at baseline, baseline ADCS-ADL and education level (in years)|||1.9|-2.3|0.851
90874026|NCT00818662|181608793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-square means|0.1||||0.306||95.0|-0.1|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.3|-0.1|0.306
90874027|NCT00818662|181608793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-square means|0.3||||0.028||95.0|0.0|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.5|0.0|0.028
90874028|NCT00818662|181608794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-square means|-0.1||||0.66||95.0|-0.3|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.2|-0.3|0.660
90874029|NCT00818662|181608794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-square means|0.0||||0.766||95.0|-0.2|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.3|-0.2|0.766
90874030|NCT00818662|181608795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-square means|1.9||||0.206||95.0|-1.0|4.8|||ANCOVA|||||4.8|-1.0|0.206
90913989|NCT01040689|181697520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.097|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.06|0.134|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Tio 18 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.134|0.060|<0.0001
90913990|NCT01040689|181697521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.282|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034|<|0.0001||95.0|0.216|0.348|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.348|0.216|<0.0001
90874031|NCT00818662|181608795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-square means|-1.4||||0.331||95.0|-4.3|1.5|||ANCOVA|||||1.5|-4.3|0.331
90874032|NCT00818662|181608796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-square means|0.7||||0.64||95.0|-2.1|3.4|||ANCOVA|||||3.4|-2.1|0.640
90874033|NCT00818662|181608796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-square means|2.5||||0.075||95.0|-0.3|5.3|||ANCOVA|||||5.3|-0.3|0.075
90874034|NCT00818662|181608797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-square means|1.1||||0.093||95.0|-0.2|2.3|||ANCOVA|||||2.3|-0.2|0.093
90913991|NCT01040689|181697521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.303|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033|<|0.0001||95.0|0.237|0.368|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.368|0.237|<0.0001
90913992|NCT01040689|181697521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.276|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034|<|0.0001||95.0|0.21|0.342|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Tio 18 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.342|0.210|<0.0001
90874035|NCT00818662|181608797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-square means|1.1||||0.094||95.0|-0.2|2.3|||ANCOVA|||||2.3|-0.2|0.094
90874036|NCT00818662|181608798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-square means|-1.1||||0.096||95.0|-2.3|0.2|||ANCOVA|||||0.2|-2.3|0.096
90874037|NCT00818662|181608798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-square means|-1.0||||0.123||95.0|-2.2|0.3|||ANCOVA|||||0.3|-2.2|0.123
90874038|NCT00818662|181608799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-square means|0.4||||0.167||95.0|-0.2|1.0|||ANCOVA|||||1.0|-0.2|0.167
90874039|NCT00818662|181608799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-square means|0.0||||0.998||95.0|-0.6|0.6|||ANCOVA|||||0.6|-0.6|0.998
90874040|NCT00818662|181608800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-square means|0.4||||0.173||95.0|-0.2|0.9|||ANCOVA|||||0.9|-0.2|0.173
90874041|NCT00818662|181608800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-square means|0.1||||0.744||95.0|-0.4|0.6|||ANCOVA|||||0.6|-0.4|0.744
90874042|NCT00818662|181608801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-square means|1.5||||0.238||95.0|-1.0|4.0|||ANCOVA|||||4.0|-1.0|0.238
90874043|NCT00818662|181608801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-square means|-1.1||||0.4||95.0|-3.6|1.4|||ANCOVA|||||1.4|-3.6|0.400
90874044|NCT00818662|181608802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-square means|-0.6||||0.695||95.0|-3.6|2.4|||ANCOVA|||||2.4|-3.6|0.695
90874045|NCT00818662|181608802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-square means|-1.3||||0.41||95.0|-4.5|1.9|||ANCOVA|||||1.9|-4.5|0.410
90874046|NCT00818662|181608803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-square means|0.0||||0.988||95.0|-1.5|1.5|||ANCOVA|||||1.5|-1.5|0.988
90874047|NCT00818662|181608803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-square means|0.4||||0.555||95.0|-1.0|1.9|||ANCOVA|||||1.9|-1.0|0.555
90874048|NCT00818662|181608804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-square means|-1.5||||0.783||95.0|-12.2|9.2|||ANCOVA|||||9.2|-12.2|0.783
90913993|NCT01040689|181697522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.196|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033|<|0.0001||95.0|0.131|0.262|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.262|0.131|<0.0001
90913994|NCT01040689|181697522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.252|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033|<|0.0001||95.0|0.187|0.318|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.318|0.187|<0.0001
90874049|NCT00818662|181608804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-square means|-2.1||||0.7||95.0|-13.1|8.8|||ANCOVA|||||8.8|-13.1|0.700
90874050|NCT00818662|181608805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-square means|-15.2||||0.191||95.0|-38.0|7.7|||ANCOVA|||||7.7|-38.0|0.191
90913995|NCT01040689|181697522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.184|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033|<|0.0001||95.0|0.118|0.249|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Tio 18 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.249|0.118|<0.0001
90874051|NCT00818662|181608805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-square means|-1.6||||0.892||95.0|-25.4|22.1|||ANCOVA|||||22.1|-25.4|0.892
90874052|NCT00818662|181608806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-square means|-0.1||||0.588||95.0|-0.4|0.2|||ANCOVA|||||0.2|-0.4|0.588
90874053|NCT00818662|181608806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-square means|-0.2||||0.351||95.0|-0.5|0.2|||ANCOVA|||||0.2|-0.5|0.351
90874054|NCT01722071|181608820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sided paired t-test was performed to determine whether oxytocin administration was associated with reward-related BOLD signal changes (within the Nucleus Accumbens \[Bilateral\]). For the group of 18 participants, BOLD signal activity was compared between oxytocin and placebo scanning days.||||0.890
90874055|NCT01722071|181608820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.422|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sided paired t-test was performed to determine whether oxytocin administration was associated with reward-related BOLD signal changes (within the Nucleus Accumbens \[Bilateral\]). For the group of 8 participants, BOLD signal activity was compared between oxytocin and placebo scanning days.||||0.422
90874056|NCT01722071|181608820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.814|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sided paired t-test was performed to determine whether oxytocin administration was associated with reward-related BOLD signal changes (within the Nucleus Accumbens \[Bilateral\]). For the group of 10 participants, BOLD signal activity was compared between oxytocin and placebo scanning days.||||0.814
90874057|NCT01338493|181608821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90874058|NCT01338493|181608822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90874059|NCT01846611|181608823|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.925|||=|0.5236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.727|1.177|||Unstratified log rank test|||||1.177|0.727|= 0.5236
90913996|NCT01040689|181697523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031|<|0.0001||95.0|0.178|0.301|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.301|0.178|<0.0001
90913997|NCT01040689|181697523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.278|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031|<|0.0001||95.0|0.216|0.339|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.339|0.216|<0.0001
90913998|NCT01040689|181697523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031|<|0.0001||95.0|0.168|0.291|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Tio 18 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.291|0.168|<0.0001
90961017|NCT06609135|181802818|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical Analysis assessed correlation of FLS values at 31 weeks between participants that were successful in discontinuation of non-invasive ventilation at 32 weeks postmenstrual age and those that were unsuccessful.||||0.09
90961018|NCT06609135|181802819|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical Analysis assessed correlation of FLS values at 32 weeks between participants that were successful in discontinuation of non-invasive ventilation at 33 weeks postmenstrual age and those that were unsuccessful.||||0.44
90874060|NCT01846611|181608824|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.935|||=|0.5174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.762|1.147|||Unstratified log rank test|||||1.147|0.762|= 0.5174
90913999|NCT01040689|181697524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.268|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031|<|0.0001||95.0|0.207|0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.330|0.207|<0.0001
90961019|NCT06609135|181802820|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical Analysis assessed correlation of FLS values at 32 weeks between participants that were successful in discontinuation of non-invasive ventilation at 33 weeks postmenstrual age and those that were unsuccessful.||||0.44
90874061|NCT01846611|181608825|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.523|||=|0.0142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.075|2.158|||Fisher Exact|||||2.158|1.075|= 0.0142
90874062|NCT00775645|181608833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.4|||Regression, Linear|Linear regression model adjusted for baseline score, taxane regiment, and age.||||0.4|-2.2|0.17
90961020|NCT06609135|181802821|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical Analysis assessed correlation of FLS values at 34 weeks between participants that were successful in discontinuation of non-invasive ventilation by 36 weeks postmenstrual age and those that were unsuccessful.||||0.59
90874063|NCT00775645|181608834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|2.7|||Regression, Linear|Linear regression model adjusted for baseline score, taxane regiment, and age.||||2.7|-3|0.92
90874064|NCT00775645|181608835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|3.3|||Regression, Linear|Linear regression model adjusted for baseline score, taxane regiment, and age.||||3.3|-0.7|0.20
90874065|NCT00775645|181608836|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors.||||||0.46
90874066|NCT02671422|181608845|OTHER||1 year-survival rate|0.342|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.894|||||Confidence interval is computed based on the LOGLOG method.|||0.894|0.000|
90874067|NCT03061331|181608852|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.1||||0.9277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|2.7|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure (MMRM)|||||2.7|-2.5|0.9277
90874068|NCT02625259|181608859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.83||||||Analysis of variance was performed for calculating 90 percent (%) confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of log-transformed geometric mean Cmax of TAK-117 tablet versus capsule dosage form.||1.83|1.00|
90874069|NCT02625259|181608859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.86|1.67||||||Analysis of variance was performed for calculating 90% CIs for the ratios of log-transformed geometric mean Cmax of TAK-117 tablet dosage form with food versus without food.||1.67|0.86|
90874070|NCT02625259|181608859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.02|0.07||||||Analysis of variance was performed for calculating 90% CIs for the ratios of log-transformed geometric mean Cmax of TAK-117 tablet dosage form with lansoprazole versus a single dose of TAK-117 alone.||0.07|0.02|
90914000|NCT01040689|181697524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.312|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031|<|0.0001||95.0|0.251|0.374|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.374|0.251|<0.0001
90914001|NCT01040689|181697524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.215|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031|<|0.0001||95.0|0.153|0.277|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Tio 18 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.277|0.153|<0.0001
91033435|NCT01811953|181952648|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means (gMean), test/reference, for the primary endpoints using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Geometric mean ratio|106.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.063||0.0082|TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.863|118.353|||ANOVA||The geometric mean ratio was calculated as the geometric mean of '2 Empagliflozin/Metformin (T)' divided by the geometric mean of '4 Empagliflozin + Metformin (R)'.|||118.353|95.863|0.0082
90874071|NCT02625259|181608861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|2.18||||||Analysis of variance was performed for calculating 90 % CIs for the ratios of log-transformed geometric mean AUClast of TAK-117 tablet versus capsule dosage form.||2.18|0.98|
90874072|NCT02625259|181608861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.11|2.78||||||Analysis of variance was performed for calculating 90% CIs for the ratios of log-transformed geometric mean AUClast of TAK-117 tablet dosage form with food versus without food.||2.78|1.11|
91033436|NCT01811953|181952648|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means (gMean), test/reference, for the primary endpoints using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Geometric mean ratio|104.352|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.031|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.152|110.224|||ANOVA||The geometric mean ratio was calculated as the geometric mean of '5 Empagliflozin/Metformin (T)' divided by the geometric mean of '6 Empagliflozin + Metformin (R)'.|||110.224|99.152|<0.0001
91033437|NCT01811953|181952649|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means (gMean), test/reference, for the primary endpoints using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Geometric mean ratio|94.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.038||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.931|101.21|||ANOVA||The geometric mean ratio was calculated as the geometric mean of '1 Empagliflozin/Metformin (T)' divided by the geometric mean of '3 Empagliflozin + Metformin (R)'.|||101.210|88.931|0.0001
90874073|NCT02625259|181608861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.01|0.04||||||Analysis of variance was performed for calculating 90% CIs for the ratios of log-transformed geometric mean AUClast of TAK-117 tablet dosage form with lansoprazole versus a single dose of TAK-117 alone.||0.04|0.01|
90874074|NCT02625259|181608862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.53|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|2.51||||||Analysis of variance was performed for calculating 90 % CIs for the ratios of log-transformed geometric mean AUC∞ of TAK-117 tablet versus capsule dosage form.||2.51|0.93|
90874075|NCT02625259|181608862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|2.25||||||Analysis of variance was performed for calculating 90% CIs for the ratios of log-transformed geometric mean AUC∞ of TAK-117 tablet dosage form with food versus without food.||2.25|1.00|
90874076|NCT02625259|181608862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.03|0.18||||||Analysis of variance was performed for calculating 90% CIs for the ratios of log-transformed geometric mean AUC∞ of TAK-117 tablet dosage form with lansoprazole versus a single dose of TAK-117 alone.||0.18|0.03|
90874077|NCT00513474|181608864|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036|||||||Gray's test for competing risks|||||||.036
90874078|NCT04772755|181608868|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0249|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0249
90874079|NCT04772755|181608869|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8918|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.8918
90874080|NCT04772755|181608870|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6587|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6587
90874081|NCT04772755|181608871|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0059|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0059
90874082|NCT04772755|181608872|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1647|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1647
90874083|NCT04772755|181608873|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0090
90874084|NCT04772755|181608874|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0273|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0273
90874085|NCT04772755|181608875|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0458|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0458
90874086|NCT04772755|181608876|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0976|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0976
90874087|NCT00662363|181608890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||independent sample t test|||Primary outcome measures chosen were between group comparisons for change on Constipation Symptom Questionnaire ratings at exit from the study. The PAC-SYM is a symptom scale where higher numbers indicate more symptoms. Change from baseline to Day 7 was calculated and larger negative differences indicated greater improvement in constipation symptoms. The PAC-QOL is a quality of life scale where higher numbers indicate better quality of life. Change from baseline to 7 days was calculated.||||<0.05
90874088|NCT01905657|181608900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Hazard Ratio based on stratified Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate and p-value based on stratified log-rank test, in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54||||0.00024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.77|||Log Rank||Numerator=Pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg Denominator=Docetaxel 75 mg/m\^2|In participants with strongly PD-L1 positive tumors||0.77|0.38|0.00024
90874089|NCT01905657|181608900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Hazard Ratio based on stratified Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate and p-value based on stratified log-rank test, in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5||||2e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.7|||Log Rank||Numerator=Pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg Denominator=Docetaxel 75 mg/m\^2|In participants with strongly PD-L1 positive tumors||0.70|0.36|0.00002
90874090|NCT01905657|181608900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Hazard Ratio based on stratified Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate and p-value based on stratified log-rank test, in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.00076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.88|||Log Rank||Numerator=Pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg Denominator=Docetaxel 75 mg/m\^2|In participants with PD-L1 positive tumors||0.88|0.58|0.00076
90874091|NCT01905657|181608900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Hazard Ratio based on stratified Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate and p-value based on stratified log-rank test, in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.75|||Log Rank||Numerator=Pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg Denominator=Docetaxel 75 mg/m\^2|In participants with PD-L1 positive tumors||0.75|0.49|<0.00001
90874092|NCT01905657|181608901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Hazard Ratio based on stratified Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate and p-value based on stratified log-rank test, in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58||||9e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.77|||Log Rank||Numerator=Pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg Denominator=Docetaxel 75 mg/m\^2|In participants with strongly PD-L1 positive tumors||0.77|0.43|0.00009
90874093|NCT01905657|181608901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Hazard Ratio based on stratified Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate and p-value based on stratified log-rank test, in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59||||7e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.78|||Log Rank||Numerator=Pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg Denominator=Docetaxel 75 mg/m\^2|In participants with strongly PD-L1 positive tumors||0.78|0.45|0.00007
90874094|NCT01905657|181608901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Hazard Ratio based on stratified Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate and p-value based on stratified log-rank test, in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.06758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.04|||Log Rank||Numerator=Pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg Denominator=Docetaxel 75 mg/m\^2|In participants with PD-L1 positive tumors||1.04|0.73|0.06758
90874095|NCT01905657|181608901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Hazard Ratio based on stratified Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate and p-value based on stratified log-rank test, in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.00462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.94|||Log Rank||Numerator=Pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg Denominator=Docetaxel 75 mg/m\^2|In participants with PD-L1 positive tumors||0.94|0.66|0.00462
90914002|NCT01040689|181697525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.317|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036|<|0.0001||95.0|0.246|0.388|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.388|0.246|<0.0001
90914003|NCT01040689|181697525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.318|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036|<|0.0001||95.0|0.247|0.388|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.388|0.247|<0.0001
90874096|NCT01905657|181608904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages|-2.3||||0.66608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|8.2||P-value indicated for testing a difference in percentage equal to 0 versus a difference in percentage not equal to 0, in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Miettinen & Nurminen method||This is an adjusted risk difference estimated by stratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|In participants with strongly PD-L1 positive tumors||8.2|-12.7|0.66608
90874097|NCT01905657|181608904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages|22.2|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.0|30.7||P-value indicated for testing a difference in percentage equal to 0 versus a difference in percentage greater than 0, in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Miettinen & Nurminen method||This is an adjusted risk difference estimated by stratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|In participants with strongly PD-L1 positive tumors||30.7|14.0|<0.00001
90914004|NCT01040689|181697525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.302|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036|<|0.0001||95.0|0.231|0.373|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Tio 18 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.373|0.231|<0.0001
90914005|NCT01040689|181697526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001||95.0|0.222|0.378|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.378|0.222|<0.0001
90914006|NCT01040689|181697526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.297|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001||95.0|0.22|0.375|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.375|0.220|<0.0001
90914007|NCT01040689|181697526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.295|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001||95.0|0.217|0.373|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Tio 18 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.373|0.217|<0.0001
90914008|NCT01040689|181697527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.185|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036|<|0.0001||95.0|0.115|0.255|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.255|0.115|<0.0001
90914009|NCT01040689|181697527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.212|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036|<|0.0001||95.0|0.143|0.282|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.282|0.143|<0.0001
90914010|NCT01040689|181697527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.129|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||0.0003||95.0|0.059|0.199|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Tio 18 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.199|0.059|0.0003
90914011|NCT02755805|181697531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d effect size at month 6|1.11||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold set at p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|"F(3,74)=4.37~P-values were calculated using mixed model analyses and controlled for stoke severity as a covariate."|Effect size was calculated using mean change scores (baseline to month 6) and standard error of change (baseline to month 6) for each group.|All analyses were performed using the intent-to-treat principle so that comparisons were made according to the assigned intervention group regardless of study completion.||||0.007
90914012|NCT02755805|181697532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d effect size at month 6|0.76||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold set at p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|F(2,34)=2.55|Effect size was calculated using mean change scores (baseline to month 6) and standard error of change (baseline to month 6) for each group.|All analyses were performed using the intent-to-treat principle so that comparisons were made according to the assigned intervention group regardless of study completion.||||0.09
90961021|NCT06609135|181802822|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical Analysis assessed correlation of GI values at 34 weeks between participants that were successful in discontinuation of non-invasive ventilation by 36 weeks postmenstrual age and those that were unsuccessful.||||0.59
90914013|NCT02755805|181697533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d effect size at month 6|1.23||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold set at p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|F(2,34)=7.83|Effect size was calculated using mean change scores (baseline to month 6) and standard error of change (baseline to month 6) for each group.|All analyses were performed using the intent-to-treat principle so that comparisons were made according to assigned intervention group regardless of study completion.||||.002
90914014|NCT02755805|181697534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d effect size at month 6|0.7||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold set at \<0.05|repeated measures fixed effects model|F(2,28)=3.61|Effect size was calculated using mean change scores (baseline to month 6) and standard error of change (baseline to month 6) for each group.|All analyses were performed using the intent-to-treat principle so that comparisons were made according to the assigned intervention group regardless of study completion.||||.04
90914015|NCT03593213|181697539|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56|||=|0.1576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.29||The significance level was 0.05 using the log rank test.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio (cariprazine 3.0 or 4.5 mg/day vs. placebo) was based on Cox proportional hazards regression model, with treatment group as an explanatory variable.|||1.29|0.25|=0.1576
90914016|NCT03593213|181697539|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61|||=|0.2066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.45||The significance level was 0.05 using the log rank test.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio (cariprazine 3.0 or 4.5 mg/day vs. placebo) was based on Cox proportional hazards regression model, with treatment group as an explanatory variable.|||1.45|0.26|=0.2066
90914017|NCT03654768|181697631|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.09
90914018|NCT03654768|181697632|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.30
90914019|NCT03654768|181697633|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.90
90874098|NCT01905657|181608904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages|8.7||||0.00045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.6|13.9||P-value indicated for testing a difference in percentage equal to 0 versus a difference in percentage greater than 0, in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Miettinen & Nurminen method||This is an adjusted risk difference estimated by stratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|In participants with PD-L1 positive tumors||13.9|3.6|0.00045
90874099|NCT01905657|181608904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages|9.1||||0.00024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|14.3||P-value indicated for testing a difference in percentage equal to 0 versus a difference in percentage greater than 0, in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Miettinen & Nurminen method||This is an adjusted risk difference estimated by stratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|In participants with PD-L1 positive tumors||14.3|4.1|0.00024
90874100|NCT03761147|181608914|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
90874101|NCT05119569|181608941|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.313||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.149|0.658|||Negative Binomial Regression Model|||||0.658|0.149|0.0022
90874102|NCT05119569|181608942|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.265||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.128|0.55|||Negative Binomial Regression Model|||||0.550|0.128|0.0004
90874103|NCT05119569|181608943|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.005||||0.0117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.317|13.078|||Logistic Regression Model|||||13.078|1.317|0.0117
90874104|NCT05119569|181608948|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.78||||0.5889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.316|1.922|||Negative Binomial Regression Model|||||1.922|0.316|0.5889
90874105|NCT05119569|181608949|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.076||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.016|0.355|||Negative Binomial Regression Model|||||0.355|0.016|0.0011
90874106|NCT05119569|181608950|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.104||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.022|0.481|||Negative Binomial Regression Model|||||0.481|0.022|0.0038
90874107|NCT05119569|181608951|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.512||||0.0958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.233|1.126|||Negative Binomial Regression Model|||||1.126|0.233|0.0958
90874108|NCT05119569|181608952|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.105|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.039|0.283|||Negative Binomial Regression Model|||||0.283|0.039|<0.0001
90874109|NCT05119569|181608953|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.053||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.012|0.233|||Negative Binomial Regression Model|||||0.233|0.012|0.0001
90874110|NCT03700671|181608962|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||A P-value of 0.05 was used as the threshold for significance|ANOVA|||A sample size of 38 using G\*Power 3.1 software was calculated based on previously published data in which the mean difference between HIIT and moderate intensity continuous training (MICT) was 3.2 ml.kg-1.min-1 with a pooled standard deviation of 3 ml.kg-1.min-1. Statistical significance was set at = 0.05 and power set to 0.95. To allow for 10% attrition 42 individuals were recruited to the study||||<0.01
90874111|NCT03700671|181608963|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||0.05 was used as a threshold for significance|ANOVA|||||||<0.01
90874112|NCT04434092|181608981|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is met when the lower limit of the 95% CI is greater than -20%.|Weighted Difference in Proportion|-2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.67|11.14|||||95% CI for the difference in proportions of participants with TA is calculated by Stratified Newcombe CI method.|||11.14|-15.67|
90874113|NCT04434092|181608982|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is met if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the odds ratio is above 0.2|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.82||||||||1.82|0.57|
90874114|NCT04434092|181608983|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is met if the upper limit (UL) of the 95% CI for the difference between crovalimab and eculizumab in the proportion of participants with BTH is less than the non-inferiority margin of 20%|Weighted Difference in Proportion|-3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.82|5.26|||||95% CI for the difference in proportions of participants is calculated by Stratified Newcombe CI method.|||5.26|-14.82|
90874115|NCT04434092|181608984|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is met when the lower limit of the 95% CI is greater than -20%.|Weighted Difference in Proportion|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.37|16.31|||||95% CI for the difference in proportions of participants is calculated by Stratified Newcombe CI method.|||16.31|-11.37|
90874116|NCT04434092|181608985|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin was a -5 point score, where higher scores indicated less fatigue, and hence non-inferiority hypothesis was tested comparing the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference with a non-inferiority margin of -5 points.|Difference in Adjusted mean|2.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.993|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|4.6|||||Non-inferiority is met when the lower limit of the 95% CI is greater than -5.|||4.60|0.68|
90874117|NCT00312494|181609013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1077||95.0||||The p-values reported are unadjusted for multiple comparisons. Dunnet's procedure for multiple dose comparisons to placebo was used for primary efficacy measure at Week 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||N=135/arm (405 total) for 85% power for 2-sample t-test (2-sided alpha=0.05) based on true mean difference=3.5 and SD=10. Interim Analysis (IA) to validate sample-size assumptions and adjust sample-size if needed. Based on IA results total sample-size increased to N=223/arm (669 total) to maintain desired power. Null Hypothesis=No statistically significant difference between add-on ziprasidone (higher, lower dose) and add-on placebo groups with respect to the population mean for primary endpoint||||0.1077
90874118|NCT00312494|181609013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4274||95.0||||The p-values reported are unadjusted for multiple comparisons. Dunnet's procedure for multiple dose comparisons to placebo was used for primary efficacy measure at Week 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with model terms: treatment, length of prior lithium/divalproex usage, type of mood stabilizer therapy, rapid cycling, hospitalization status, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline YMRS total score. Tests were 2-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.4274
90874119|NCT00312494|181609014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4025||95.0||||The p-values reported are unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1 MMRM with model terms: treatment, length of prior lithium/divalproex usage, type of mood stabilizer therapy, rapid cycling, hospitalization status, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline YMRS total score.||||0.4025
90914020|NCT01152190|181697648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.009||0.121||95.0||||The p-value associated with the LS mean difference of change from baseline to Week 8 between the tadalafil and placebo treatment groups was tested at a significance level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiplicity.|Mixed-Model Repeated Measures|||||||0.121
90961022|NCT06729593|181802823|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.11||Proportional odds model stratified by disease severity (high flow nasal canula(HFNC)/non-invasive ventilation(NIV) or invasive mechanical ventiliation(IMV)/ECMO) at study entry to determine the odds of being in a better category at day 90.|Proportional odds model||Summary odds ratio for being in a better category, active/placebo (95% confidence interval); pvalue|||2.11|0.45|0.96
90961023|NCT06729593|181802824|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.42|||Cox proportional hazards model||Hazard ratio for active/placebo (95% confidence interval); pvalue|||1.42|0.39|0.37
90961024|NCT06729593|181802825|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|2.14|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio for active/placebo (95% confidence interval); pvalue|||2.14|0.37|0.80
90961025|NCT06729593|181802826|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.67|||Cox proportional hazards model||Hazard ratio for active/placebo (95% confidence interval); pvalue|||1.67|0.64|0.88
90961026|NCT06729593|181802827|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.5|||Cox proportional hazards model||Hazard ratio for active/placebo (95% confidence interval); pvalue|||1.50|0.43|0.50
90914021|NCT01152190|181697649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.008||0.226||95.0||||The p-value associated with the LS mean difference of change from baseline to Week 4 between the tadalafil and placebo treatment groups was tested at a significance level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiplicity.|Mixed-Model Repeated Measures|||||||0.226
90961027|NCT05437510|181802845|SUPERIORITY||Efficacy|84.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|69.493|92.411|||Exact method using binomial distribution|||The 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the efficacy was calculated by an exact method assuming a binomial distribution of the number of RSV LRTI hospitalizations in the nirsevimab group conditional on the total number in both groups accounting for the follow-up time post-dosing/randomization.||92.411|69.493|<0.0001
90961028|NCT05437510|181802846|SUPERIORITY||Efficacy|77.71||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.249|93.432|||Exact method using binomial distribution|||The 2-sided 95% CI for the efficacy was calculated by an exact method assuming a binomial distribution of the number of very severe RSV LRTI in the nirsevimab group conditional on the total number in both groups accounting for the follow-up time post-dosing/randomization.||93.432|39.249|0.0014
90961029|NCT05437510|181802847|SUPERIORITY||Efficacy|90.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.676|98.813||Adjusted p-value is reported.|Exact method using binomial distribution|||Statistical analysis for France: The adjusted 2-sided 95% CI for the efficacy was calculated by an exact method assuming a binomial distribution of the number of RSV LRTI hospitalizations in the nirsevimab group conditional on the total number in both groups accounting for the follow-up time post-dosing/randomization. Adjustment based on Bonferroni-Holm procedure.||98.813|63.676|<0.0001
91033438|NCT01811953|181952649|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means (gMean), test/reference, for the primary endpoints using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Geometric mean ratio|97.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.035|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.339|103.935|||ANOVA||The geometric mean ratio was calculated as the geometric mean of '2 Empagliflozin/Metformin (T)' divided by the geometric mean of '4 Empagliflozin + Metformin (R)'.|||103.935|92.339|<0.0001
90874120|NCT00312494|181609014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.283||95.0||||The p-values reported are unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1 MMRM with model terms: treatment, length of prior lithium/divalproex usage, type of mood stabilizer therapy, rapid cycling, hospitalization status, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline YMRS total score.||||0.2830
91033439|NCT01811953|181952649|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means (gMean), test/reference, for the primary endpoints using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Geometric mean ratio|102.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.034|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.166|109.082|||ANOVA||The geometric mean ratio was calculated as the geometric mean of '5 Empagliflozin/Metformin (T)' divided by the geometric mean of '6 Empagliflozin + Metformin (R)'.|||109.082|97.166|<0.0001
90874121|NCT00312494|181609014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4125||95.0||||The p-values reported are unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2 MMRM with model terms: treatment, length of prior lithium/divalproex usage, type of mood stabilizer therapy, rapid cycling, hospitalization status, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline YMRS total score.||||0.4125
90874122|NCT00312494|181609014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1527||95.0||||The p-values reported are unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2 MMRM with model terms: treatment, length of prior lithium/divalproex usage, type of mood stabilizer therapy, rapid cycling, hospitalization status, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline YMRS total score.||||0.1527
90874123|NCT00312494|181609015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0101||95.0||||The p-values reported are unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1 MMRM with model terms: treatment, length of prior lithium/divalproex usage, type of mood stabilizer therapy, rapid cycling, hospitalization status, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline MADRS total score.||||0.0101
90874124|NCT00312494|181609015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0694||95.0||||The p-values reported are unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1 MMRM with model terms: treatment, length of prior lithium/divalproex usage, type of mood stabilizer therapy, rapid cycling, hospitalization status, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline MADRS total score.||||0.0694
90874125|NCT00312494|181609015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0183||95.0||||The p-values reported are unadjusted for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2 MMRM with model terms: treatment, length of prior lithium/divalproex usage, type of mood stabilizer therapy, rapid cycling, hospitalization status, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline MADRS total score.||||0.0183
90874126|NCT00312494|181609015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0176||95.0||||The p-values reported are unadjusted for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2 MMRM with model terms: treatment, length of prior lithium/divalproex usage, type of mood stabilizer therapy, rapid cycling, hospitalization status, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline MADRS total score.||||0.0176
90874127|NCT00312494|181609015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2302||95.0||||The p-values reported are unadjusted for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 MMRM with model terms: treatment, length of prior lithium/divalproex usage, type of mood stabilizer therapy, rapid cycling, hospitalization status, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline MADRS total score.||||0.2302
90874128|NCT00312494|181609015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0796||95.0||||The p-values reported are unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 MMRM with model terms: treatment, length of prior lithium/divalproex usage, type of mood stabilizer therapy, rapid cycling, hospitalization status, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline MADRS total score.||||0.0796
90874129|NCT00312494|181609016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6191||95.0||||The p-values reported are unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1 MMRM with model terms: treatment, length of prior lithium/divalproex usage, type of mood stabilizer therapy, rapid cycling, hospitalization status, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline as covariate.||||0.6191
90874130|NCT00312494|181609016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5629||95.0||||The p-values reported are unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1 MMRM with model terms: treatment, length of prior lithium/divalproex usage, type of mood stabilizer therapy, rapid cycling, hospitalization status, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline as covariate.||||0.5629
90874131|NCT00312494|181609016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9049||95.0||||The p-values reported are unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2 MMRM with model terms: treatment, length of prior lithium/divalproex usage, type of mood stabilizer therapy, rapid cycling, hospitalization status, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline as covariate.||||0.9049
90874132|NCT00312494|181609016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7153||95.0||||The p-values reported are unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2 MMRM with model terms: treatment, length of prior lithium/divalproex usage, type of mood stabilizer therapy, rapid cycling, hospitalization status, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline as covariate.||||0.7153
90874133|NCT00312494|181609016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.242||95.0||||The p-values reported are unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 MMRM with model terms: treatment, length of prior lithium/divalproex usage, type of mood stabilizer therapy, rapid cycling, hospitalization status, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline as covariate.||||0.2420
90874134|NCT00312494|181609016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6121||95.0||||The p-values reported are unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 MMRM with model terms: treatment, length of prior lithium/divalproex usage, type of mood stabilizer therapy, rapid cycling, hospitalization status, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline as covariate.||||0.6121
90874135|NCT00312494|181609017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6138||95.0||||The p-values reported are unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1 MMRM with model terms: treatment, length of prior lithium/divalproex usage, type of mood stabilizer therapy, rapid cycling, hospitalization status, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||0.6138
90874136|NCT00312494|181609017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6536||95.0||||The p-values reported are unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1 MMRM with model terms: treatment, length of prior lithium/divalproex usage, type of mood stabilizer therapy, rapid cycling, hospitalization status, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||0.6536
90874137|NCT00312494|181609017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4758||95.0||||The p-values reported are unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2 MMRM with model terms: treatment, length of prior lithium/divalproex usage, type of mood stabilizer therapy, rapid cycling, hospitalization status, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||0.4758
90874138|NCT00312494|181609017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7581||95.0||||The p-values reported are unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2 MMRM with model terms: treatment, length of prior lithium/divalproex usage, type of mood stabilizer therapy, rapid cycling, hospitalization status, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||0.7581
90874139|NCT00312494|181609017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2221||95.0||||The p-values reported are unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 MMRM with model terms: treatment, length of prior lithium/divalproex usage, type of mood stabilizer therapy, rapid cycling, hospitalization status, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||0.2221
90914022|NCT01152190|181697650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.009||0.208||95.0||||The p-value associated with the LS mean difference of change from baseline to Week 4 in the prostate peripheral zone RI was tested at a significance level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiplicity.|Mixed-Model Repeated Measures|||||||0.208
90914023|NCT01152190|181697650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.009||0.066||95.0||||The p-value associated with the LS mean difference of change from baseline to Week 8 in the prostate peripheral zone RI was tested at a significance level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiplicity.|Mixed-Model Repeated Measures|||||||0.066
90914024|NCT01152190|181697650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017||0.195||95.0||||The p-value associated with the LS mean difference of change from baseline to Week 4 in bladder neck RI was tested at a significance level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiplicity.|Mixed-Model Repeated Measures|||||||0.195
90914025|NCT01152190|181697650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022||0.625||95.0||||The p-value associated with the LS mean difference of change from baseline to Week 8 in bladder neck RI was tested at a significance level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiplicity.|Mixed-Model Repeated Measures|||||||0.625
90914026|NCT01152190|181697651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|2.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.38||0.439||95.0||||The p-value associated with the LS mean difference of change from baseline to Week 4 in the prostate transition zone CPI was tested at a significance level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiplicity.|Mixed-Model Repeated Measures|||||||0.439
90914027|NCT01152190|181697651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.867||0.86||95.0||||The p-value associated with the LS mean difference of change from baseline to Week 8 in the prostate transition zone CPI was tested at a significance level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiplicity.|Mixed-Model Repeated Measures|||||||0.860
90914028|NCT01152190|181697651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|3.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.937||0.24||95.0||||The p-value associated with the LS mean difference of change from baseline to Week 4 in the prostate peripheral zone CPI was tested at a significance level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiplicity.|Mixed-Model Repeated Measures|||||||0.240
90914029|NCT01152190|181697651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.729||0.839||95.0||||The p-value associated with the LS mean difference of change from baseline to Week 8 in the prostate peripheral zone CPI was tested at a significance level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiplicity.|Mixed-Model Repeated Measures|||||||0.839
90914030|NCT01152190|181697651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.77||0.468||95.0||||The p-value associated with the LS mean difference of change from baseline to Week 4 in the bladder neck CPI was tested at a significance level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiplicity.|Mixed-Model Repeated Measures|||||||0.468
90914031|NCT01152190|181697651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|7.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.199||0.131||95.0||||The p-value associated with the LS mean difference of change from baseline to Week 8 in the bladder neck CPI was tested at a significance level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiplicity.|Mixed-Model Repeated Measures|||||||0.131
90914032|NCT05797155|181697660|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.66||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|2.67|||Regression, Logistic||The Support2Quit group was scored 1 and the Comparison group was scored 0 (reference group for the odds ratio).|This is a cross sectional analysis at 1-month.||2.67|1.04|.036
90914033|NCT05797155|181697660|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.72|||Regression, Logistic||The Support2Quit group was scored 1 and the Comparison group was scored 0 (reference group for the odds ratio).|This is a cross sectional analysis at 3-months||1.72|0.72|.632
90914034|NCT05797155|181697661|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.437|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||The Support2Quit group was scored 1 and the Comparison group was scored 0 (reference group for the condition by time interaction).|This is a longitudinal analysis from baseline to 3-month follow-up||||.437
90914035|NCT05797155|181697662|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|2.42|||Regression, Logistic||The Support2Quit group was scored 1 and the Comparison group was scored 0 (reference group for the odds ratio).|This is a cross sectional analysis at 1-month||2.42|0.94|.088
90874140|NCT00312494|181609017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5665||95.0||||The p-values reported are unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 MMRM with model terms: treatment, length of prior lithium/divalproex usage, type of mood stabilizer therapy, rapid cycling, hospitalization status, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||0.5665
90874141|NCT00312494|181609018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1063||95.0||||The p-values reported are unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 total score MMRM with model terms: treatment, length of prior lithium/divalproex usage, type of mood stabilizer therapy, rapid cycling, hospitalization status, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline PANSS total score.||||0.1063
90874142|NCT00312494|181609018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2499||95.0||||The p-values reported are unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 total score MMRM with model terms: treatment, length of prior lithium/divalproex usage, type of mood stabilizer therapy, rapid cycling, hospitalization status, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline PANSS total score.||||0.2499
90914036|NCT05797155|181697662|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|2.07|||Regression, Logistic||The Support2Quit group was scored 1 and the Comparison group was scored 0 (reference group for the odds ratio).|This is a cross sectional analysis at 3-months||2.07|0.64|.646
90914037|NCT05797155|181697663|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|2.72|||Regression, Logistic||The Support2Quit group was scored 1 and the Comparison group was scored 0 (reference group for the odds ratio).|This is a cross sectional analysis at 1-month||2.72|1.15|.010
90914038|NCT05797155|181697663|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|2.11|||Regression, Logistic||The Support2Quit group was scored 1 and the Comparison group was scored 0 (reference group for the odds ratio).|This is a cross sectional analysis at 3-months||2.11|0.89|.158
90961030|NCT05437510|181802847|SUPERIORITY||Efficacy|83.2||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.589|97.593||Adjusted p-value is reported.|Exact method using binomial distribution|||Statistical analysis for UK: The adjusted 2-sided 95% CI for the efficacy was calculated by an exact method assuming a binomial distribution of the number of RSV LRTI hospitalizations in the nirsevimab group conditional on the total number in both groups accounting for the follow-up time post-dosing/randomization. Adjustment based on Bonferroni-Holm procedure.||97.593|33.589|0.0036
90914039|NCT03617263|181697664|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0613|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0613
90874143|NCT00312494|181609018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0876||95.0||||The p-values reported are unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 positive score MMRM with model terms: treatment, length of prior lithium/divalproex usage, type of mood stabilizer therapy, rapid cycling, hospitalization status, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline PANSS positive score.||||0.0876
90914040|NCT03617263|181697665|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 12||||<.0001
90914041|NCT03617263|181697665|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 24||||<.0001
90874144|NCT00312494|181609018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3623||95.0||||The p-values reported are unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 positive score MMRM with model terms: treatment, length of prior lithium/divalproex usage, type of mood stabilizer therapy, rapid cycling, hospitalization status, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline PANSS positive score.||||0.3623
90914042|NCT03617263|181697666|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0142|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.0142
90914043|NCT03617263|181697666|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0077|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.0077
90914044|NCT03617263|181697667|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2893|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.2893
90914045|NCT03617263|181697667|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1989|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.1989
90914046|NCT03617263|181697668|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 12||||<.0001
90914047|NCT03617263|181697668|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 24||||<.0001
90914048|NCT03617263|181697669|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8664|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.8664
90914049|NCT03617263|181697669|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1137|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.1137
90914050|NCT03617263|181697670|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0487|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.0487
90914051|NCT03617263|181697670|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7743|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.7743
90914052|NCT03617263|181697671|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1174|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.1174
90914053|NCT03617263|181697671|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1483|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.1483
90914054|NCT03617263|181697672|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0941|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.0941
90914055|NCT03617263|181697672|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2378|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.2378
90914056|NCT03617263|181697673|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1542|||||||ANCOVA|||CK-18 Fragment - M30||||0.1542
90914057|NCT03617263|181697673|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2037|||||||ANCOVA|||CK-18 Fragment - M65||||0.2037
90914058|NCT03617263|181697674|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4431|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.4431
90914059|NCT03617263|181697675|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2289|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2289
90914060|NCT03617263|181697676|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0853|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0853
90914061|NCT03617263|181697677|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2559|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2559
90914062|NCT03617263|181697678|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.6800
90914063|NCT03617263|181697678|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4587|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.4587
90914064|NCT03617263|181697679|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.923|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.9230
90914065|NCT03617263|181697679|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7115|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.7115
90914066|NCT03617263|181697680|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1983|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1983
90914067|NCT03617263|181697681|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7576|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.7576
90914068|NCT03617263|181697682|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2784|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.2784
90914069|NCT03617263|181697682|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0091|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.0091
90874145|NCT00312494|181609018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4686||95.0||||The p-values reported are unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 negative score MMRM with model terms: treatment, length of prior lithium/divalproex usage, type of mood stabilizer therapy, rapid cycling, hospitalization status, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline PANSS negative score.||||0.4686
90874146|NCT00312494|181609018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2202||95.0||||The p-values reported are unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 negative score MMRM with model terms: treatment, length of prior lithium/divalproex usage, type of mood stabilizer therapy, rapid cycling, hospitalization status, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline PANSS negative score.||||0.2202
90874147|NCT00312494|181609019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0728||95.0||||The p-values reported are unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 MMRM with model terms: treatment, length of prior lithium/divalproex usage, type of mood stabilizer therapy, rapid cycling, hospitalization status, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline GAF score.||||0.0728
90874148|NCT00312494|181609019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3174||95.0||||The p-values reported are unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 MMRM with model terms: treatment, length of prior lithium/divalproex usage, type of mood stabilizer therapy, rapid cycling, hospitalization status, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline GAF score.||||0.3174
90874149|NCT00312494|181609020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.446||95.0||||The p-values reported are unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 MMRM with model terms: treatment, length of prior lithium/divalproex usage, type of mood stabilizer therapy, rapid cycling, hospitalization status, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline LIFE-RIFT total score.||||0.4460
90874150|NCT00312494|181609020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3253||95.0||||The p-values reported are unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 MMRM with model terms: treatment, length of prior lithium/divalproex usage, type of mood stabilizer therapy, rapid cycling, hospitalization status, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline LIFE-RIFT total score.||||0.3253
90874151|NCT00065507|181609024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-1.18|||Regression, Linear|Linear regression model adjusted for baseline HBV DNA and LVDr status.||||-1.18|-2.30|<0.0001
90914070|NCT03617263|181697683|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0941|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.0941
90874152|NCT00065507|181609025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|-0.96|||Regression, Linear|adjusted for baseline HBV DNA and LVDr Status||||-0.96|-1.85|<0.0001
90874153|NCT00065507|181609026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Percent Difference|32.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.2|45.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||45.2|20.2|<0.0001
90874154|NCT00065507|181609027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean percent treatment difference|38.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.8|50.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||50.3|24.8|<0.0001
90874155|NCT00065507|181609028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent treatment difference|19.2||||0.0193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|34.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24 treatment difference||34.6|3.7|0.0193
90874156|NCT00065507|181609028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent treatment difference|16.4||||0.0425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|32.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48 treatment difference||32.0|0.9|0.0425
90874157|NCT00065507|181609034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|0.82|||Regression, Linear|Model estimate incorporates prognostic factors measured at baseline. Adjusted for baseline||Covariate adjusted model for MELD score at Week 24||0.82|-1.63|0.51
90874158|NCT00065507|181609034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|1.88|||Regression, Linear|Model estimate incorporates prognostic factors measured at baseline. Adjusted for baseline||Covariate adjusted model for MELD score at Week 48||1.88|-1.08|<0.0001
90874159|NCT00065507|181609042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|10.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|25.2||||||Difference estimate ETV - ADV at Week 48||25.2|-4.5|
90874160|NCT00065507|181609043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|8.0||||||Difference Estimate at Week 48||8.0|-8.7|
90874161|NCT00065507|181609044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-7.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.3|6.9||||||Difference Estimate at Week 48||6.9|-21.3|
90874162|NCT00065507|181609045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|11.7||||||Difference Estimate at Week 48||11.7|-0.3|
90874163|NCT00065507|181609046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.18|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional hazard model, adjusted for age \<=45 versus age \>45 years, gender, and race (white versus non-white).||treatment comparison of HCC-free survival at Week 48||1.18|0.46|0.20
90914071|NCT03617263|181697683|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0009|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0009
90914072|NCT03617263|181697684|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1363|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.1363
90914073|NCT03617263|181697684|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3057|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.3057
90914074|NCT03617263|181697685|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3323|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.3323
90961031|NCT05437510|181802847|SUPERIORITY||Efficacy|74.62||||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.74|92.595||Adjusted p-value is reported.|Exact method using binomial distribution|||Statistical analysis for Germany: The adjusted 2-sided 95% CI for the efficacy was calculated by an exact method assuming a binomial distribution of the number of RSV LRTI hospitalizations in the nirsevimab group conditional on the total number in both groups accounting for the follow-up time post-dosing/randomization. Adjustment based on Bonferroni-Holm procedure.||92.595|29.740|0.0051
90961032|NCT05437510|181802848|SUPERIORITY||Efficacy|57.97|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.36|70.76|||Exact method using binomial distribution|||"Statistical analysis for Overall:~The 2-sided 95% CI for the efficacy was calculated by an exact method assuming a binomial distribution of the number of all-cause LRTI hospitalizations in the nirsevimab group conditional on the total number in both groups accounting for the follow-up time post-dosing/randomization."||70.760|40.360|<0.0001
90961033|NCT05437510|181802848|SUPERIORITY||Efficacy|52.48||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.121|72.36|||Exact method using binomial distribution|||"Statistical analysis for France:~The 2-sided 95% CI for the efficacy was calculated by an exact method assuming a binomial distribution of the number of all-cause LRTI hospitalizations in the nirsevimab group conditional on the total number in both groups accounting for the follow-up time post-dosing/randomization."||72.360|20.121|0.0039
90961034|NCT05437510|181802848|SUPERIORITY||Efficacy|58.62||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.115|78.049|||Exact method using binomial distribution|||"Statistical analysis for UK:~The 2-sided 95% CI for the efficacy was calculated by an exact method assuming a binomial distribution of the number of all-cause LRTI hospitalizations in the nirsevimab group conditional on the total number in both groups accounting for the follow-up time post-dosing/randomization."||78.049|25.115|0.0024
90914075|NCT03617263|181697685|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0624|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.0624
90914076|NCT03617263|181697686|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.505|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.5050
90914077|NCT03617263|181697686|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0279|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.0279
90961035|NCT05437510|181802848|SUPERIORITY||Efficacy|70.74||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.567|89.396|||Exact method using binomial distribution|||"Statistical analysis for Germany:~The 2-sided 95% CI for the efficacy was calculated by an exact method assuming a binomial distribution of the number of all-cause LRTI hospitalizations in the nirsevimab group conditional on the total number in both groups accounting for the follow-up time post-dosing/randomization."||89.396|29.567|0.0037
90914078|NCT03617263|181697687|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3508|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.3508
90914079|NCT03617263|181697687|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0059|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.0059
90961036|NCT05437510|181802849|SUPERIORITY||Efficacy|82.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.271|91.357|||Exact method using binomial distribution|||"Statistical analysis for Overall:~The 2-sided 95% CI for the efficacy was calculated by an exact method assuming a binomial distribution of the number of RSV LRTI hospitalizations in the nirsevimab group conditional on the total number in both groups accounting for the follow-up time post-dosing/randomization."||91.357|67.271|<0.0001
90961037|NCT05437510|181802849|SUPERIORITY||Efficacy|86.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.283|96.459|||Exact method using binomial distribution|||"Statistical analysis for France:~The 2-sided 95% CI for the efficacy was calculated by an exact method assuming a binomial distribution of the number of RSV LRTI hospitalizations in the nirsevimab group conditional on the total number in both groups accounting for the follow-up time post-dosing/randomization."||96.459|60.283|<0.0001
90914080|NCT03617263|181697688|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.6800
90914081|NCT03617263|181697688|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.731|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.7310
90914082|NCT03617263|181697689|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0896|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.0896
90914083|NCT03617263|181697689|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0053|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.0053
90914084|NCT03617263|181697690|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5962|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.5962
90914085|NCT03617263|181697690|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3035|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.3035
90914086|NCT03617263|181697691|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3482|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.3482
90914087|NCT03617263|181697691|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4176|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.4176
90914088|NCT03617263|181697692|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.993|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.9930
90914089|NCT03617263|181697692|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3612|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.3612
90914090|NCT03617263|181697693|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4373|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.4373
90914091|NCT03617263|181697693|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6248|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.6248
90914092|NCT03617263|181697694|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0994|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.0994
90914093|NCT03617263|181697694|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3527|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.3527
90914094|NCT03617263|181697695|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7065|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.7065
90914095|NCT03617263|181697695|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4096|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.4096
90914096|NCT03617263|181697696|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2475|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.2475
90914097|NCT03617263|181697696|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1621|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.1621
90914098|NCT03617263|181697697|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5862|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.5862
90914099|NCT03617263|181697697|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2026|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.2026
90914100|NCT03617263|181697698|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6434|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.6434
90914101|NCT03617263|181697698|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9895|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.9895
90914103|NCT03785782|181697739|OTHER|||||||0.2988|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.2988
90914104|NCT03785782|181697740|OTHER|||||||0.36|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.36
90914105|NCT03785782|181697741|OTHER|||||||0.43|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.43
90914106|NCT03785782|181697742|OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.42
90874164|NCT01042236|181609077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88||0.4907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|2.41||A treatment by period interaction term (fixed effect) was included if significant at 10% significance level.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline (prior to Period 1) at the end of the treatment period was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model, with fixed effect terms for sequence, period and treatment, using baseline (prior to Period 1) as a covariate, and participant within sequence as a random effect.||2.41|-1.18|0.4907
90874165|NCT01042236|181609077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88||0.5944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.27|1.32||A treatment by period interaction term (fixed effect) was included if significant at 10% significance level.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline (prior to Period 1) at the end of the treatment period was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model, with fixed effect terms for sequence, period and treatment, using baseline (prior to Period 1) as a covariate, and participant within sequence as a random effect.||1.32|-2.27|0.5944
90874166|NCT01042236|181609078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94||0.987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|1.94||A treatment by period interaction term (fixed effect) was included if significant at 10% significance level.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline (prior to Period 1) at the end of the treatment period was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model, with fixed effect terms for sequence, period and treatment, using baseline (prior to Period 1) as a covariate, and participant within sequence as a random effect.||1.94|-1.91|0.9870
90874167|NCT01042236|181609078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94||0.4167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.71|1.15||A treatment by period interaction term (fixed effect) was included if significant at 10% significance level.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline (prior to Period 1) at the end of the treatment period was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model, with fixed effect terms for sequence, period and treatment, using baseline (prior to Period 1) as a covariate, and participant within sequence as a random effect.||1.15|-2.71|0.4167
90874168|NCT01042236|181609079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.9403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.26||A treatment by period interaction term (fixed effect) was included if significant at 10% significance level.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline (prior to Period 1) at the end of the treatment period was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model, with fixed effect terms for sequence, period and treatment, using baseline (prior to Period 1) as a covariate, and participant within sequence as a random effect.||0.26|-0.24|0.9403
90874169|NCT01042236|181609079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.1881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.09||A treatment by period interaction term (fixed effect) was included if significant at 10% significance level.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline (prior to Period 1) at the end of the treatment period was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model, with fixed effect terms for sequence, period and treatment, using baseline (prior to Period 1) as a covariate, and participant within sequence as a random effect.||0.09|-0.42|0.1881
90874170|NCT01042236|181609080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.8602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.22||A treatment by period interaction term (fixed effect) was included if significant at 10% significance level.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline (prior to Period 1) at the end of the treatment period was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model, with fixed effect terms for sequence, period and treatment, using baseline (prior to Period 1) as a covariate, and participant within sequence as a random effect.||0.22|-0.26|0.8602
90914107|NCT03785782|181697743|OTHER|||||||0.45|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.45
90914108|NCT03785782|181697744|OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.18
90914109|NCT03785782|181697745|OTHER|||||||0.78|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.78
90914110|NCT03785782|181697746|OTHER|||||||0.45|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.45
90914111|NCT03785782|181697747|OTHER|||||||0.34|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.34
90914112|NCT03785782|181697748|OTHER|||||||0.7465|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.7465
90914113|NCT03785782|181697749|OTHER|||||||0.0466|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.0466
90914114|NCT03785782|181697750|OTHER|||||||0.1567|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.1567
90914115|NCT03785782|181697751|OTHER|||||||0.1837|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.1837
90914116|NCT03785782|181697752|OTHER|||||||0.7447|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.7447
90914117|NCT03785782|181697753|OTHER|||||||0.0739|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.0739
90914118|NCT03785782|181697754|OTHER|||||||0.9995|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.9995
90914119|NCT00304031|181697761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.2||One-sided|Log Rank||Reference level = Conventional adjuvant TMZ|This study was looking for a 20% reduction in hazard rate: null hypothesis (conventional arm): Median survival time (MST) = 14.0 mo.; alternative hypothesis (dose-dense arm): MST= 17.5 mo. A one-sided log-rank test at a significance level of 0.025 would have 80% power to detect this difference with a sample size of 750 patients (647 deaths were required for the final analysis).||1.20|0.88|0.63
90914120|NCT00304031|181697762|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.0||Two-side significance level = 0.05|Log Rank||Reference level = Conventional adjuvant TMZ|||1.00|0.75|0.06
90914121|NCT00304031|181697763|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.19||One-sided significance level = 0.05|Log Rank||Reference level = Conventional adjuvant TMZ|Unmethylated MGMT||1.19|0.82|0.44
90914122|NCT00304031|181697763|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.62||One-sided significance level = 0.05|Log Rank||Reference level = Conventional adjuvant TMZ|Methylated MGMT||1.62|0.87|0.86
90914123|NCT00304031|181697764|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.05||One-sided significance level = 0.05|Log Rank||Reference level = Conventional adjuvant TMZ|Unmethylated MGMT||1.05|0.73|0.15
90914124|NCT00304031|181697764|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.15||One-sided significance level = 0.05|Log Rank||Reference level = Conventional adjuvant TMZ|Methylated MGMT||1.15|0.66|0.33
90914125|NCT00304031|181697765|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012||||||Two-sided significance level of 0.05|Chi-squared|||||||0.012
90914126|NCT00304031|181697766|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|Two-sided significance level of 0.05||||||<0.001
90914127|NCT00304031|181697767|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Two-sided test|Log Rank|||||||<0.001
90914128|NCT00304031|181697768|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.96
90914129|NCT00304031|181697769|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.73
90914130|NCT00304031|181697770|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.57
90914131|NCT00304031|181697771|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.78
90914132|NCT00304031|181697772|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.24
90914133|NCT00304031|181697773|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.74
90914134|NCT00304031|181697774|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.79
90914135|NCT00304031|181697775|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2184|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept effects are not shown.)||A mixed effects model was run with EORTC QLQ-C30 Global Health Status Score (baseline, 10,12, 22, 24, and 46 weeks) as the outcome of interest. Treatment arm, recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) class, MGMT status, and time were included in the model. Treatment arm is reported here.||||0.2184
90914136|NCT00304031|181697775|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0763|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept effects are not shown.)||A mixed effects model was run with EORTC QLQ-C30 Global Health Status Score (baseline, 10,12, 22, 24, and 46 weeks) as the outcome of interest. Treatment arm, RPA class, MGMT status, and time were included in the model. RPA class is reported here.||||0.0763
90914137|NCT00304031|181697775|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5235|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept effects are not shown.)||A mixed effects model was run with EORTC QLQ-C30 Global Health Status Score (baseline, 10,12, 22, 24, and 46 weeks) as the outcome of interest. Treatment arm, RPA class, MGMT status, and time were included in the model. MGMT status is reported here.||||0.5235
90914138|NCT00304031|181697776|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Z-test of two proportions|||||||0.03
90914139|NCT00304031|181697777|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Z-test of two proportions|||||||0.03
90914140|NCT00304031|181697778|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||Chi-squared|Two-sided test||||||0.0002
90914141|NCT00304031|181697779|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Fisher Exact|Two-sided test||||||0.005
90914142|NCT00304031|181697780|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018|||||||Fisher Exact|Two-sided test||||||0.018
90914143|NCT00304031|181697781|SUPERIORITY|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept effects are not shown.)||||||0.1702|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed effects model was run with MDASI Symptom Severity Score (baseline, 10, 12, 22, 24, 46 weeks) as the outcome of interest. Treatment arm, recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) class, MGMT status, and time were included in the model. Treatment arm is reported here.||||0.1702
90914144|NCT00304031|181697781|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8159|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept effects are not shown.)||A mixed effects model was run with EORTC QLQ-C30 Global Health Status Score (baseline, 10, 12, 22, 24, 46 weeks) as the outcome of interest. Treatment arm, recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) class, MGMT status, and time were included in the model. RPA is reported here.||||0.8159
90914145|NCT00304031|181697781|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2174|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept effects are not shown.)||A mixed effects model was run with EORTC QLQ-C30 Global Health Status Score (baseline, 10, 12, 22, 24, 46 weeks) as the outcome of interest. Treatment arm, recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) class, MGMT status, and time were included in the model. MGMT status is reported here.||||0.2174
90914146|NCT00304031|181697782|OTHER|||||||0.023|||||||Regression, Cox|||A Cox proportional hazards model was run with overall survival as the outcome of interest and baseline scores as continuous covariates. The final model was determined from stepwise selection. EORTC physical functioning, EORTC role functioning, standardized HVLT-R recognition, standardized HVLT-R recall, and standardized COWA were included in the initial model. EORTC physical functioning is reported here.||||0.023
90914147|NCT00304031|181697782|OTHER|||||||0.043|||||||Regression, Cox|||A Cox proportional hazards model was run with overall survival as the outcome of interest and baseline scores as continuous covariates. The final model was determined from stepwise selection. EORTC physical functioning, EORTC role functioning, standardized HVLT-R recognition, standardized HVLT-R recall, and standardized COWA were included in the initial model. Standardized HVLT-R recognition is reported here.||||0.043
90961038|NCT05437510|181802849|SUPERIORITY||Efficacy|85.2||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.084|97.183|||Exact method using binomial distribution|||"Statistical analysis for UK:~The 2-sided 95% CI for the efficacy was calculated by an exact method assuming a binomial distribution of the number of RSV LRTI hospitalizations in the nirsevimab group conditional on the total number in both groups accounting for the follow-up time post-dosing/randomization."||97.183|50.084|0.0004
90961039|NCT05437510|181802849|SUPERIORITY||Efficacy|74.36||||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.006|92.518|||Exact method using binomial distribution|||"Statistical analysis for Germany:~The 2-sided 95% CI for the efficacy was calculated by an exact method assuming a binomial distribution of the number of RSV LRTI hospitalizations in the nirsevimab group conditional on the total number in both groups accounting for the follow-up time post-dosing/randomization."||92.518|29.006|0.0055
90874171|NCT01042236|181609080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.1271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.06||A treatment by period interaction term (fixed effect) was included if significant at 10% significance level.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline (prior to Period 1) at the end of the treatment period was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model, with fixed effect terms for sequence, period and treatment, using baseline (prior to Period 1) as a covariate, and participant within sequence as a random effect.||0.06|-0.43|0.1271
90874172|NCT01172847|181609103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mean exposure ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.05|||||Estimate of the treatment difference and corresponding 90% CI was derived from the back-transformed model.|Mean exposure ratio of oseltamivir||1.05|0.91|
90874173|NCT01172847|181609103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mean exposure ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|1.02|||||Estimate of the treatment difference and corresponding 90% CI was derived from the back-transformed model.|Mean exposure ratio of oseltamivir carboxylate||1.02|0.95|
90874174|NCT01172847|181609104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mean exposure ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.06|||||Estimate of the treatment difference and corresponding 90% CI was derived from the back-transformed model.|Mean exposure ratio of rimantadine||1.06|1.00|
90874175|NCT01172847|181609105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mean exposure ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.77|0.96|||||Estimate of the treatment difference and corresponding 90% CI was derived from the back-transformed model.|Mean exposure ratio of oseltamivir||0.96|0.77|
90874176|NCT01172847|181609105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mean exposure ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.05|||||Estimate of the treatment difference and corresponding 90% CI was derived from the back-transformed model.|Mean exposure ratio of oseltamivir carboxylate||1.05|0.92|
90874177|NCT01172847|181609106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mean exposure ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.99|1.06|||||Estimate of the treatment difference and corresponding 90% CI was derived from the back-transformed model.|mean exposure ratio of rimantadine||1.06|0.99|
90874178|NCT00183092|181609111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.43||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|3.53|||Regression, Cox|||||3.53|0.58|0.43
90874179|NCT00183092|181609112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.5||||0.54||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. One subject in the placebo group was administered only 25 items on the MMSE due to visual impairment, and this subject's score was scaled based on percentage correct.|ANCOVA|||The difference between change scores, adjusted for Month-0 performance. Positive adjusted differences indicate greater adjusted change (worsening) in the placebo group; negative indicate greater adjusted changed (worsening) in the quinacrine group.||||.54
90874180|NCT00183092|181609113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.9||||0.36||95.0||||significance threshold p=0.05|Quade's rank analysis of covariance|||The difference between scores, adjusted for Month-0 performance.||||.36
90874181|NCT00183092|181609114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.8||||0.01||95.0||||Significance threshold p\<0.05|Quade's rank analysis of covariance|||The difference between change scores, adjusted for Month-0 performance. Positive adjusted differences indicate greater adjusted change (worsening) in the placebo group; negative indicate greater adjusted changed (worsening) in the quinacrine group.||||.01
90874182|NCT00183092|181609115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5||||0.03||95.0||||Threshold for significance p\<0.05|Quade's rank analysis of covariance|||The difference between change scores, adjusted for Month-0 performance. Positive adjusted differences indicate greater adjusted change (worsening) in the placebo group; negative indicate greater adjusted changed (worsening) in the quinacrine group.||||0.03
90874183|NCT00183092|181609116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.92||95.0||||Significance threshold p\<0.05|ANCOVA|||The difference between change scores, adjusted for Month-0 performance. Positive adjusted differences indicate greater adjusted change (worsening) in the placebo group; negative indicate greater adjusted changed (worsening) in the quinacrine group.||||0.92
90874184|NCT00183092|181609117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4||||0.71||95.0||||Significance threshold p\<0.05|ANCOVA|||The difference between change scores, adjusted for Month-0 performance. Positive adjusted differences indicate greater adjusted change (worsening) in the placebo group; negative indicate greater adjusted changed (worsening) in the quinacrine group.||||0.71
90874185|NCT00183092|181609118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8||||0.7||95.0||||Significance threshold p\<0.05|ANCOVA|||The difference between change scores, adjusted for Month-0 performance. Positive adjusted differences indicate greater adjusted change (worsening) in the placebo group; negative indicate greater adjusted change (worsening) in the quinacrine group.||||0.70
90874186|NCT00665353|181609119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||proportion|0.158||||0.29|ONE_SIDED|90.0|0.059|||This is an unadjusted p-value. Statistical significance was defined a priori as 0.10.|Exact test of proportions|||The proportion of subjects responding was compared to a historical null rate of 0.10. The hypothesized response rate was 0.30.|||0.059|0.29
90874187|NCT00665353|181609122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||proportion|0.053||||0.42|ONE_SIDED|90.0|0.001|||This is an unadjusted p-value. Statistical significance was defined a priori as 0.10.|Exact test of proportions|||The proportion of subjects responding was compared to a historical null rate of 0.02. The hypothesized response rate was 0.15.|||0.001|0.42
90874188|NCT00870363|181609127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||>0.05
90874189|NCT02132767|181609134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.76
90874190|NCT02132767|181609135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.003
90874191|NCT02132767|181609136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.14
90874192|NCT02132767|181609137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.71
90874193|NCT02132767|181609138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.03
90874194|NCT02132767|181609139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.88
90874195|NCT02132767|181609140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.82
90874196|NCT02132767|181609141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73|||||||Regression, Poisson|||||||0.73
90874197|NCT02865187|181609149|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.0||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|5.1||a priori threshold for significance was set at p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||5.1|-7.4|0.71
90874198|NCT02865187|181609150|SUPERIORITY||Chi square|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold for significance was set at p\< 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||1.00
90874199|NCT03557151|181609255|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Transdisciplinary Care is being compared to Usual Care using the Time 2 HbA1c (as baseline) and Time 5 HbA1c (as the outcome) controlling for race/ethnicity, gender, and age of the patient. The interaction of condition and time is used to evaluate the treatment effect. Missing data were not imputed.||0.60|-0.68|0.895
90874200|NCT03557151|181609256|SUPERIORITY||Slope|2.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.34||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|6.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||TC is being compared to UC using baseline and 12 month data, controlling for patient age, sex, and race/ethnicity. The interaction between condition and time is used to examine the treatment effect. Missing data were not imputed.||6.88|-2.29|.33
90874201|NCT03557151|181609257|SUPERIORITY||Slope|4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.25||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|8.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||TC is being compared to UC using baseline and 12 month data and controlling for patient age, sex, and race/ethnicity. The interaction between condition and time is used to evaluate the treatment effect. Missing data are not imputed.||8.53|-.32|.07
90874202|NCT03557151|181609258|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.77||0.527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.77|5.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis included baseline and 12-month data. The interaction of condition (TC or UC) and time was used to examine the treatment effect. Child sex, age, and race/ethnicity were covariates. Missing data were not imputed.||5.0|-9.77|.527
90874203|NCT03557151|181609259|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.89||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.94|2.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis uses baseline and 12 month data. The interaction of condition and time is used to evaluate the treatment effect. Child sex, age, and race/ethnicity were used as covariates. Missing data were not imputed.||2.35|-8.94|.253
90874204|NCT03557151|181609260|SUPERIORITY||Slope|9.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.77||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.31|17.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis included baseline and 12 month data. The condition by time interaction was used to evaluate the treatment effect. Child age, sex, and race/ethnicity were included as covariates. Missing data were not imputed.||17.08|2.31|0.01
90874205|NCT03557151|181609261|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.07||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.62|4.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis uses baseline and 12-month data. The interaction between condition and time is used to evaluate the treatment effect. Child age, sex, and race/ethnicity were covariates. Missing data were not imputed.||4.35|-3.62|.83
90914148|NCT00304031|181697782|OTHER|||||||0.021|||||||Regression, Cox|||A Cox proportional hazards model was run with overall survival as the outcome of interest and baseline scores as continuous covariates. The final model was determined from stepwise selection. EORTC physical functioning, EORTC role functioning, standardized HVLT-R recognition, standardized HVLT-R recall, and standardized COWA were included in the initial model. Standardized COWA is reported here.||||0.021
90914149|NCT00304031|181697783|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2357|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept effects are not shown.)||A mixed effects model was run with NCF Composite Score (baseline, 10, 22, 46 weeks) as the outcome of interest. Treatment arm, recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) class, MGMT status, and time were included in the model. Treatment arm is reported here.||||0.2357
90914150|NCT00304031|181697783|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0147|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept effects are not shown.)||A mixed effects model was run with NCF Composite Score (baseline, 10, 22, 46 weeks) as the outcome of interest. Treatment arm, recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) class, MGMT status, and time were included in the model. RPA is reported here.||||0.0147
90914151|NCT00304031|181697783|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.457|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept effects are not shown.)||A mixed effects model was run with NCF Composite Score (baseline, 10, 22, 46 weeks) as the outcome of interest. Treatment arm, recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) class, MGMT status, and time were included in the model. MGMT Status is reported here.||||0.457
90914152|NCT00304031|181697784|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Chi-squared|Two-sided test||||||0.02
90914153|NCT00304031|181697785|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|Two-sided test||||||0.99
90914154|NCT00304031|181697786|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||Fisher Exact|Two-sided test||||||0.33
90914155|NCT03762668|181697800|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority in VA was declared if the Upper Confidence Limit was less than 0.05.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.005|||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.01|||mixed effects repeated measures model||test minus control|||0.01||
90914156|NCT02164240|181697802|OTHER||Clinical Benefit Rate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|24.7||descriptive statistics only||||Clinical benefit rate of at least 30% at 16 weeks for the entire, combined population, was considered worthy of further study.||24.7|0|
90914157|NCT02731755|181697807|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Between time points and treatments, calculated p value||||0.5
90914158|NCT02731755|181697808|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Ach-iAUC||||0.04
90914159|NCT02731755|181697808|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||SNP-IAUC||||0.007
90914160|NCT02731755|181697808|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Ach - AUC||||0.02
90914161|NCT02731755|181697809|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.9
90914162|NCT02731755|181697811|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7
90914163|NCT03718767|181697848|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.623|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.623
90914164|NCT03718767|181697848|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.73||||0.073|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.073
90914165|NCT02658240|181697860|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|||The study was powered to detect a mean difference of 1.5 in pain scores in favor of patients undergoing SFICB procedure assuming a standard deviation of 2.5. With a two sided alpha level of 0.05, a total of 52 patients would be needed to have 80% power using a repeated measures ANOVA F test with 6 observations on each subject. Correlation on the repeat observations was assumed to be 0.5. Assuming a 14% loss to follow-up, 60 patients were enrolled at 1:1 ratio.||||0.05
90914166|NCT02658240|181697861|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.05
90914167|NCT02658240|181697862|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|80.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.149
90914168|NCT02658240|181697863|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.584|TWO_SIDED|80.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.584
90914169|NCT03691428|181697864|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.05
90914170|NCT03691428|181697865|SUPERIORITY|A multivariate dyadic linear growth curve model was used to predict the trajectories of psychological well-being (Raudenbush, Brennan, \& Barnett, 1995).|||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.05
90914171|NCT03691428|181697866|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.05
90914172|NCT03691428|181697867|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.05
90914173|NCT03691428|181697868|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.05
90914174|NCT04589689|181697886|OTHER|||||||0.777||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis at 3 months.||||0.777
90914175|NCT04589689|181697886|OTHER|||||||0.247||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis at 6-month.||||0.247
90914176|NCT04589689|181697887|OTHER|||||||0.16||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis at 3-month follow-up.||||0.160
90914177|NCT04589689|181697887|OTHER|||||||0.275||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis at 6-month follow-up.||||0.275
90914178|NCT04589689|181697888|OTHER|||||||0.509||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis at 3-month follow-up.||||0.509
90914179|NCT04589689|181697888|OTHER|||||||0.61||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis at 6-month follow-up.||||0.610
90914180|NCT04589689|181697889|OTHER|||||||0.807||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis at 3-month follow-up.||||0.807
90914181|NCT04589689|181697889|OTHER|||||||0.826||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis at 6-month follow-up.||||0.826
90914182|NCT04589689|181697890|OTHER|||||||0.076||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis at 3-month follow-up.||||0.076
90914183|NCT04589689|181697890|OTHER|||||||0.747||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis at 6-month follow-up.||||0.747
90914184|NCT04589689|181697891|OTHER|||||||0.154||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis at 3-month follow-up.||||0.154
90914185|NCT04589689|181697891|OTHER|||||||0.107||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis at 6-month follow-up.||||0.107
90914186|NCT04589689|181697892|OTHER|||||||0.445||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis at 3-month follow-up.||||0.445
90914187|NCT04589689|181697892|OTHER|||||||0.543||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis at 6-month follow-up.||||0.543
90914188|NCT04589689|181697893|OTHER|||||||0.157||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis at 6-month follow-up.||||0.157
90874206|NCT02028065|181609316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in incidence|5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|10.7|||||Difference is Sugammadex 4 mg/kg incidence minus Placebo incidence. Confidence interval calculated using method of Miettinen and Nurminen (Statistics in Medicine 1985;4:213-226).|Planned sample size of 150 participants in each sugammadex group (4 mg/kg and 16 mg/kg) allowed estimation of adjudicated hypersensitivity in each sugammadex group with a 95% confidence interval with a half-width between 1.2 and 4.2 percentage points. Calculation, based on method of Clopper and Pearson (Biometrika 1934;26\[4\]:404-413), used underlying event rate of up to 6% in the sugammadex high dose group, based on study results from protocol P06042 (NCT00988065).||10.7|-0.9|
90874207|NCT02028065|181609316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in incidence|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|14.2|||||Difference is Sugammadex 16 mg/kg incidence minus Placebo incidence. Confidence interval calculated using method of Miettinen and Nurminen(Statistics in Medicine 1985;4:213-226).|Planned sample size of 150 participants in each sugammadex group (4 mg/kg and 16 mg/kg) allowed estimation of adjudicated hypersensitivity in each sugammadex group with a 95% confidence interval with a half-width between 1.2 and 4.2 percentage points. Calculation, based on method of Clopper and Pearson (Biometrika 1934;26\[4\]:404-413), used underlying event rate of up to 6% in the sugammadex high dose group, based on study results from protocol P06042 (NCT00988065).||14.2|1.7|
90874208|NCT02028065|181609317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in incidence|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|2.5|||||Difference is Sugammadex 4 mg/kg incidence minus Placebo incidence. Confidence interval calculated using method of Miettinen and Nurminen (Statistics in Medicine 1985;4:213-226).|||2.5|-4.8|
90874209|NCT02028065|181609317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in incidence|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|3.7|||||Difference is Sugammadex 16 mg/kg incidence minus Placebo incidence. Confidence interval calculated using method of Miettinen and Nurminen (Statistics in Medicine 1985;4:213-226).|||3.7|-4.2|
90874210|NCT00576927|181609344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46||||0.655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.156|8.717||p-value suspect because of sparse cell counts|Chi-squared|||||8.717|0.156|0.655
90914189|NCT01254019|181697894|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|10.334||||0.415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.645|35.312||Statistical significance was assessed at the 5% level.|Mixed Effect Model for Repeated Measures|Model included terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit, country grouping, Baseline and Baseline by visit.||GSK2402968 6mg/kg/week Vs Placebo||35.312|-14.645|0.415
90914190|NCT01254019|181697895|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.53||||0.757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.95|2.88||Statistical significance (SS) was only to be assessed if a statistically significant difference was observed for the primary and any secondary endpoints higher in the pre-defined hierarchy. Hence conclusions with regards to SS should not be made.|Mixed Effect Model for Repeated Measures|Model included terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit, country grouping, Baseline and Baseline by visit.||GSK2402968 6mg/kg/week Vs Placebo||2.88|-3.95|0.757
90914191|NCT01254019|181697896|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.021||||0.718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.137|0.095||SS was only to be assessed if a statistically significant difference was observed for the primary and any secondary endpoints higher in the pre-defined hierarchy. Hence conclusions with regards to SS should not be made.|Mixed Effect Model for Repeated Measures|Model included terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit, country grouping, Baseline and Baseline by visit.||GSK2402968 6mg/kg/week Vs Placebo||0.095|-0.137|0.718
90914192|NCT01254019|181697897|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.009||||0.881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.129|0.111||SS was only to be assessed if a statistically significant difference was observed for the primary and any secondary endpoints higher in the pre-defined hierarchy. Hence conclusions with regards to SS should not be made.|Mixed Effect Model for Repeated Measures|Model included terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit, country grouping, Baseline and Baseline by visit.||GSK2402968 6mg/kg/week Vs Placebo||0.111|-0.129|0.881
90914193|NCT01254019|181697898|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.115||||0.658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.097|3.866||No adjustment for multiplicity was made, so p-values should not be used to make conclusions with regards to statistical significance.|Mixed Effect Model for Repeated Measures|Model included terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit, country grouping, Baseline and Baseline by visit.||GSK2402968 6mg/kg/week Vs Placebo||3.866|-6.097|0.658
90874211|NCT01850524|181609352|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.676|1.018|||Log Rank|Log-rank test is stratified by age (\<75 years vs \>=75), ISS (stage I or II vs stage III), and BPI-SF worst pain score (\<4 vs \>=4) at screening.||||1.018|0.676|0.073
90874212|NCT01850524|181609353|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.998||||0.988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.261|||Log Rank|Log-rank test is stratified by age (\<75 years vs \>=75), ISS (stage I or II vs stage III), and BPI-SF worst pain score (\<4 vs \>=4) at screening.|Hazard ratio is based on an Unadjusted Cox's proportional hazard regression model is stratified by age (\<75 years vs \>=75), ISS (stage I or II vs stage III), and BPI-SF worst pain score (\<4 vs \>=4) at screening.|||1.261|0.790|0.988
90914194|NCT01254019|181697899|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.041||||0.513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.082|0.164||No adjustment for multiplicity was made, so p-values should not be used to make conclusions with regards to statistical significance.|Mixed Effect Model for Repeated Measures|Model included terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit, country grouping, Baseline and Baseline by visit.||GSK2402968 6mg/kg/week Vs Placebo||0.164|-0.082|0.513
90874213|NCT01850524|181609354|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|3.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test is stratified by age (\<75 years vs \>=75), ISS (stage I or II vs stage III), and BPI-SF worst pain score (\<4 vs \>=4) at screening.|Odds ratio and confidence interval are based on logistic regression model with treatment group as categorical predictor variable,age(\<75 years vs \>=75), ISS(stage I or II vs stage III),and BPI-SF worst pain score(\<4 vs \>=4)at screening as covariates.|||3.09|1.43|<0.001
90874214|NCT01850524|181609355|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.9195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.656|1.463|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with prognostic factor: age (\<75 years vs \>=75) and ISS (stage I or II vs stage III).|Odds ratio \> 1 favors Ixazomib+LenDex versus LenDex alone.|||1.463|0.656|0.9195
90874215|NCT01850524|181609356|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test is stratified by age (\<75 years vs \>=75), ISS (stage I or II vs stage III), and BPI-SF worst pain score (\<4 vs \>=4) at screening.|Odds ratio and confidence interval are based on logistic regression model with treatment group as categorical predictor variable,age(\<75 years vs \>=75), ISS(stage I or II vs stage III),and BPI-SF worst pain score(\<4 vs \>=4)at screening as covariates.|||1.70|0.79|0.436
90874216|NCT01850524|181609357|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.402|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.185|1.659|||Log Rank|Log-rank test is stratified by age (\<75 years vs \>=75), ISS (stage I or II vs stage III), and BPI-SF worst pain score (\<4 vs \>=4) at screening.|Hazard ratio is based on an unadjusted Cox's proportional hazard regression model stratified by age (\<75 years vs \>=75), ISS (stage I or II vs stage III), and BPI-SF worst pain score (\<4 vs \>=4) at screening.|||1.659|1.185|<0.001
90874217|NCT01850524|181609359|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.738||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.589|0.925|||Log Rank|Log-rank test is stratified by age (\<75 years vs \>=75), ISS (stage I or II vs stage III), and BPI-SF worst pain score (\<4 vs \>=4) at screening.|Hazard ratio is based on an unadjusted Cox's proportional hazard regression model stratified by age (\<75 years vs \>=75), ISS (stage I or II vs stage III), and BPI-SF worst pain score (\<4 vs \>=4) at screening.|||0.925|0.589|0.008
90874218|NCT01850524|181609360|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.859||||0.189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.684|1.078|||Log Rank|Log-rank test is stratified by age (\<75 years vs \>=75), ISS (stage I or II vs stage III), and BPI-SF worst pain score (\<4 vs \>=4) at screening.|Hazard ratio is based on an unadjusted Cox's proportional hazard regression model stratified by age (\<75 years vs \>=75), ISS (stage I or II vs stage III), and BPI-SF worst pain score (\<4 vs \>=4) at screening.|||1.078|0.684|0.189
90874219|NCT01850524|181609366|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.118||||0.662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.678|1.845|||Log Rank|Log-rank test is stratified by age (\<75 years vs \>=75), ISS (stage I or II vs stage III), and BPI-SF worst pain score (\<4 vs \>=4) at screening.|Hazard ratio is based on an unadjusted Cox's proportional hazard regression model stratified by age (\<75 years vs \>=75), ISS (stage I or II vs stage III), and BPI-SF worst pain score (\<4 vs \>=4) at screening.|OS in High-risk Population Carrying Del(17p), Amp(1q21), t(4;14), or t(14;16) Mutations||1.845|0.678|0.662
90874220|NCT01850524|181609367|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.466|1.24|||Log Rank|Log-rank test is stratified by age (\<75 years vs \>=75), ISS (stage I or II vs stage III), and BPI-SF worst pain score (\<4 vs \>=4) at screening.|Hazard ratio is based on an unadjusted Cox's proportional hazard regression model stratified by age (\<75 years vs \>=75), ISS (stage I or II vs stage III), and BPI-SF worst pain score (\<4 vs \>=4) at screening.|PFS in High-risk Population Carrying del(17p), t(4;14), or t(14;16) Mutations||1.240|0.466|0.271
90874221|NCT01850524|181609369|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.661|1.12|||Log Rank|Log-rank test is stratified by age (\<75 years vs \>=75), ISS (stage I or II vs stage III), and BPI-SF worst pain score (\<4 vs \>=4) at screening.|Hazard ratio is based on an unadjusted Cox's proportional hazard regression model stratified by age (\<75 years vs \>=75), ISS (stage I or II vs stage III), and BPI-SF worst pain score (\<4 vs \>=4) at screening.|Time to Pain Progression||1.120|0.661|0.260
90874222|NCT02157298|181609405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1053|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.39||Significant at alpha=0.05 (two-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure|Mixed Models Analysis|with fixed categorical effects of treatment, week, DPP-4, baseline eGFR, treatment-by-week interaction, continuous fixed covariate of baseline value.||H0: mean(dapa) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus alternative HA: mean(dapa) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-0.39|-0.81|<0.0001
90874223|NCT02157298|181609406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.301|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.2|-12.2||Significant at alpha=0.05 (two-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure|Mixed Models Analysis|with fixed categorical effects of treatment, week, DPP-4, baseline eGFR, treatment-by-week interaction, continuous fixed covariate of baseline value.||H0: mean(dapa) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus alternative HA: mean(dapa) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-12.2|-33.2|<0.0001
90961040|NCT05437510|181802850|SUPERIORITY||Efficacy|75.31||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.012|91.747|||Exact method using binomial distribution|||"Statistical analysis for Overall:~The 2-sided 95% CI for the efficacy was calculated by an exact method assuming a binomial distribution of the number of very severe RSV LRTI through Day 151 post-dosing/randomization in the nirsevimab group conditional on the total number in both groups accounting for the follow-up time post-dosing/randomization."||91.747|38.012|0.0013
90874224|NCT02157298|181609407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.255|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.7||Significant at alpha=0.05 (two-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure|Mixed Models Analysis|with fixed categorical effects of treatment, week, DPP-4, baseline eGFR, treatment-by-week interaction, continuous fixed covariate of baseline value.||H0: mean(dapa) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus alternative HA: mean(dapa) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-0.7|-1.7|<0.0001
90874225|NCT02157298|181609408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4017||0.0743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|0.07||Significant at alpha=0.05 (two-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure|Mixed Models Analysis|with fixed categorical effects of treatment, week, DPP-4, baseline eGFR, treatment-by-week interaction, continuous fixed covariate of baseline value.||H0: mean(dapa) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus alternative HA: mean(dapa) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||0.07|-1.51|0.0743
90874226|NCT02157298|181609409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.769||0.3727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|10.7||Significant at alpha=0.05 (two-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure|Regression, Logistic|Based on methodology of Zhang, Tsiatis \& Davidian and Tsitatis, Davidian, Zhang \& Lu, with adjustment with adjustment for baseline value and DPP-4||H0: proportion(dapa) minus proportion(placebo) = 0 versus alternative HA: proportion(dapa) minus proportion(placebo) =/= 0||10.7|-4.0|0.3727
90874227|NCT04059094|181609410|OTHER||Adjusted means difference|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.45||0.5468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|6.5|||Mixed model with repeated measurements||Adjusted means difference was calculated as value from BI 1265162 200μg minus value from placebo group.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for baseline, visit, treatment, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline-by-visit interaction, and random effect for patient was applied. No hypothesis testing was performed, as this trial was prematurely discontinued. MMRM only included data from 200µg BI and placebo, as the sample size of the BI 20µg, BI 50µg and BI 100µg dose levels was limited because of the premature discontinuation of the trial.||6.5|-3.5|0.5468
90914195|NCT01254019|181697900|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.965||||0.769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.446|5.516||No adjustment for multiplicity was made, so p-values should not be used to make conclusions with regards to statistical significance.|Mixed Effect Model for Repeated Measures|Model included terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit, country grouping, Baseline and Baseline by visit.||GSK2402968 6mg/kg/week Vs Placebo||5.516|-7.446|0.769
90914196|NCT01254019|181697903|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4044.99||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5232.21|-2857.77||No adjustment for multiplicity was made, so p-values should not be used to make conclusions with regards to statistical significance.|Mixed Effect Model for Repeated Measures|Model included terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit, country grouping, Baseline and Baseline by visit.||GSK2402968 6mg/kg/week Vs Placebo||-2857.77|-5232.21|0.000
90914197|NCT01254019|181697909|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0288||||0.207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0161|0.0738||No adjustment for multiplicity was made, so p-values should not be used to make conclusions with regards to statistical significance.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Model included terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit, country grouping, Baseline and Baseline by visit.||GSK2402968 6mg/kg/week Vs Placebo, HUI2 at Week 48||0.0738|-0.0161|0.207
90914198|NCT01254019|181697909|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0048||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.058|0.0676||No adjustment for multiplicity was made, so p-values should not be used to make conclusions with regards to statistical significance.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Model included terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit, country grouping, Baseline and Baseline by visit.||GSK2402968 6mg/kg/week Vs Placebo, HUI3 at Week 48||0.0676|-0.0580|0.880
90914199|NCT03061474|181697918|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6096|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.6096
90914200|NCT03061474|181697928|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.648|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.648
90914201|NCT03061474|181697929|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6833|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.6833
90914202|NCT03061474|181697930|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4438|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.4438
90914203|NCT03061474|181697931|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7158|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.7158
90914204|NCT03061474|181697932|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93428359|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.93428359
90914205|NCT03061474|181697933|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9931|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.9931
90914206|NCT03061474|181697934|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3233|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.3233
90914207|NCT03061474|181697935|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1008|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1008
90914208|NCT03061474|181697936|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0323|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0323
90914209|NCT01391130|181697956|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2149||||0.4318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7462|1.9779|||Log Rank|||||1.9779|0.7462|0.4318
90914210|NCT03520413|181697965|EQUIVALENCE|Difference between groups at 12months|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|-0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.11|-1.12|0.02
90914211|NCT03520413|181697966|EQUIVALENCE|Difference between groups at 12months|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.07|-0.42|0.007
90914212|NCT03520413|181697967|EQUIVALENCE|Difference between groups at 12months|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.51||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.78|0.25|0.0002
90914213|NCT03520413|181697968|EQUIVALENCE|Difference between groups at 12months|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.39||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.71|0.07|0.02
90914214|NCT03520413|181697969|EQUIVALENCE|Difference between groups at 6months|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.62|-0.24|0.39
90914215|NCT03520413|181697970|EQUIVALENCE|Difference between groups at 12months|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.16||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.53|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.21|-2.53|0.10
90914216|NCT00566527|181697990|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared when the lower bound of the 95% CI was \> -5. Values are shown as percentages.|Measles Response Rate (Arm 2 - Arm 3)|-0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.82|0.87||||||Measles difference||0.87|-2.82|
90914217|NCT00566527|181697990|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared when the lower bound of the 95% CI was \> -5. Values are shown as percentages.|Mumps Response Rate (Arm 2 - Arm 3)|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.32||||||Mumps difference||1.32|-1.20|
90914218|NCT00566527|181697990|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared when the lower bound of the 95% CI was \> -5. Values are shown as percentages.|Rubella Response Rate (Arm 2 - Arm 3)|-0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|1.03||||||Rubella difference||1.03|-1.55|
90914219|NCT00566527|181697990|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared when the lower bound of the 95% CI was \> -10. Values are shown as percentages.|Varicella Response Rate (Arm 2 - Arm 3)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|1.1||||||Varicella difference||1.10|-1.28|
90914220|NCT00566527|181697991|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared when the lower bound of the 95% CI was \> -5. Values are shown as percentages.|Measles Response Rate (Arm 1 - Arm 3)|-3.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.44|-1.87||||||Measles difference||-1.87|-6.44|
90874228|NCT04059094|181609411|OTHER||Adjuste means difference|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.83||0.3039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|6.5|||ANCOVA||Adjusted means difference was calculated as value from BI 1265162 200μg minus value from placebo group.|ANCOVA based on analysis of covariance with fixed effects for baseline and treatment was applied. Statistical analysis was performed for 200μg BI and placebo groups only. No hypothesis testing was performed, as this trial was prematurely discontinued. ANCOVA only included data from 200µg BI and placebo, as the sample size of the BI 20µg, BI 50µg and BI 100µg dose levels was limited because of the premature discontinuation of the trial.||6.5|-2.4|0.3039
90874229|NCT03715764|181609437|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87||||||Results for the final model, variable GROUP, adjusted for confounders.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.87
90874230|NCT03715764|181609437|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Results for the final model for the variable TIME, adjusted for confounders.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
90874231|NCT03715764|181609437|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18||||||Results for the final model, variable Group x Time (Statistical interaction of group and time), adjusted for confounders.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.18
90874232|NCT03715764|181609438|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56||||||Results for the final model, variable GROUP, adjusted for confounders.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.56
90874233|NCT03715764|181609438|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0049||||||Results for the final model, variable TIME, adjusted for confounders.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0049
90874234|NCT03715764|181609438|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49||||||Results for the final model, adjusted for confounders, for the variable Group x Time (Statistical interaction of group and time).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.49
90874235|NCT03715764|181609439|SUPERIORITY|Used as a confounder in the mixed effect model analysis for primary outcome. All participants enrolled in the study were included in the 12 months analysis.|||||<|0.2||||||Confounding variables with p-values \< 0.2 were carried forward to the final model.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.2
90874236|NCT03715764|181609440|SUPERIORITY|Used as a confounder in the mixed effect model analysis for primary outcome. All participants enrolled in the study were included in the 12 months analysis.|||||<|0.2||||||Confounding variables with p-values \< 0.2 were carried forward to the final model.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.2
90874237|NCT06092710|181609446|OTHER|Then, to see if the median of a particular group is diﬀerent from 0 (= no sensitivity: not feeling the diﬀerences in airflow induced by the diﬀerent tests given by the operator), Wilcoxon tests were performed on each group of data. If the p-value is small (less than 5%, ideally less than 1%), the null hypothesis that the score is identical to 0 is rejected.||||||0.05572|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Non-parametric tests on patient sensitivity, given the non-normal distribution, (based on the median of the data) were applied to analyse the diﬀerences between the groups (ST1+ ST2 according to the STATUS3 and STATUS4 classification criteria). To analyse any diﬀerences in sensitivity between patient groups, Kruskal-Wallis tests were applied. In this type of analysis, having a p-value greater than 1% and ideally greater than 5% would indicate the absence of diﬀerences between groups.||||0.05572
90874238|NCT06092710|181609446|OTHER|Wilcoxon tests were performed on each group of data. If the p-value is small (less than 5%, ideally less than 1%), the null hypothesis that the score is identical to 0 is rejected.|||||<|8e-07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||to see if the median of a particular group is diﬀerent from 0 (= no sensitivity: not feeling the diﬀerences in airflow induced by the diﬀerent tests given by the operator), Wilcoxon tests were performed on each group of data. If the p-value is small (less than 5%, ideally less than 1%), the null hypothesis that the score is identical to 0 is rejected. In this case, it means that the patients in the test group feel the diﬀerences in airflow depending on their position.||||<0.0000008
90874239|NCT06092710|181609446|OTHER|Wilcoxon tests were performed on each group of data. If the p-value is small (less than 5%, ideally less than 1%), the null hypothesis that the score is identical to 0 is rejected. In this case, it means that the patients in the test group feel the diﬀerences in airflow depending on their position.|||||<|1e-07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||to see if the median of a particular group is diﬀerent from 0 (= no sensitivity: not feeling the diﬀerences in airflow induced by the diﬀerent tests given by the operator), Wilcoxon tests were performed on each group of data. If the p-value is small (less than 5%, ideally less than 1%), the null hypothesis that the score is identical to 0 is rejected. In this case, it means that the patients in the test group feel the diﬀerences in airflow depending on their position.||||<0.0000001
90874240|NCT06092710|181609447|SUPERIORITY|||||||1.06e-06||||||Confidence level used: 0.95 Tukey multiple comparisons of means (95% family-wise confidence level)|ANOVA|||Parametric tests on the prediction of patients' pathological status with SFI (Intermediate Final Score) For these analyses, as the SFI score follow a normal distribution, ANOVAs (analyses of variance) were performed. For discrete variables with more than 2 levels of value, a post-hoc 2-to-2 comparison analysis was performed (Tukey) to see which level of the variable diﬀered from one another.||||0.00000106
90874241|NCT06092710|181609447|SUPERIORITY|||||||48||||||Confidence level used: 0.95 Tukey multiple comparisons of means (95% family-wise confidence level)|ANOVA|||"Parametric tests on the prediction of patients' pathological status with SFT score (Final Total score):~For these analyses, as SFT score follow a normal distribution, ANOVAs (analyses of variance) were performed. For discrete variables with more than 2 levels of value, a post-hoc 2-to-2 comparison analysis was performed (Tukey) to see which level of the variable diﬀered from one another."||||0000000048
90874242|NCT06092710|181609447|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.73||||7.7e-07|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"Determination of cut-oﬀ values for SFI:~The Cutoﬀ\_final txt file includes the various sensitivity and specificity calculations as well as the Youden index in order to determine the best cut-oﬀ value (largest Youden). The ROC curves allow the values in the file to be appreciated graphically."||||0.00000077
90874243|NCT06092710|181609447|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.37||||6.9e-07|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"Determination of cut-oﬀ values for SFT:~The Cutoﬀ\_final txt file includes the various sensitivity and specificity calculations as well as the Youden index in order to determine the best cut-oﬀ value (largest Youden). The ROC curves allow the values in the file to be appreciated graphically."||||0.00000069
90874244|NCT06092710|181609448|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0142266|||||||TUKEY TEST|||"Parametric tests on the prediction of patients' pathological status (SFI and SFT scores):~For these analyses, as the SFI and SFT scores follow a normal distribution, ANOVAs (analyses of variance) were performed. For discrete variables with more than 2 levels of value (STATUS4), a post-hoc 2-to-2 comparison analysis was performed (Tukey) to see which level of the variable diﬀered from one another."||||0.0142266
90914221|NCT00566527|181697991|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared when the lower bound of the 95% CI was \> -5. Values are shown as percentages.|Mumps Response Rate (Arm 1 - Arm 3)|-0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|1.01||||||Mumps difference||1.01|-1.71|
90914222|NCT00566527|181697991|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared when the lower bound of the 95% CI was \> -5. Values are shown as percentages.|Rubella Response Rate (Arm 1 - Arm 3)|-0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|1.09||||||Rubella difference||1.09|-1.34|
90961041|NCT05437510|181802850|SUPERIORITY||Efficacy|78.1||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.823|97.697|||Exact method using binomial distribution|||"Statistical analysis for France:~The 2-sided 95% CI for the efficacy was calculated by an exact method assuming a binomial distribution of the number of very severe RSV LRTI through Day 151 post-dosing/randomization in the nirsevimab group conditional on the total number in both groups accounting for the follow-up time post-dosing/randomization."||97.697|-5.823|0.0620
90961042|NCT05437510|181802850|SUPERIORITY||Efficacy|91.01||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.156|99.791|||Exact method using binomial distribution|||"Statistical analysis for UK:~The 2-sided 95% CI for the efficacy was calculated by an exact method assuming a binomial distribution of the number of very severe RSV LRTI through Day 151 post-dosing/randomization in the nirsevimab group conditional on the total number in both groups accounting for the follow-up time post-dosing/randomization."||99.791|38.156|0.0060
90874245|NCT06092710|181609448|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0023308|||||||TUKEY TEST|||"Parametric tests on the prediction of patients' pathological status (SFI and SFT scores):~For these analyses, as the SFI and SFT scores follow a normal distribution, ANOVAs (analyses of variance) were performed. For discrete variables with more than 2 levels of value (STATUS4), a post-hoc 2-to-2 comparison analysis was performed (Tukey) to see which level of the variable diﬀered from one another."||||0.0023308
90874246|NCT06092710|181609448|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0023308|||||||TUKEY TEST|||"Parametric tests on the prediction of patients' pathological status (SFI and SFT scores):~For these analyses, as the SFI and SFT scores follow a normal distribution, ANOVAs (analyses of variance) were performed. For discrete variables with more than 2 levels of value (STATUS4), a post-hoc 2-to-2 comparison analysis was performed (Tukey) to see which level of the variable diﬀered from one another."||||0.0023308
90874247|NCT06092710|181609448|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9915779|||||||TUKEY TEST|||"Parametric tests on the prediction of patients' pathological status (SFI and SFT scores):~For these analyses, as the SFI and SFT scores follow a normal distribution, ANOVAs (analyses of variance) were performed. For discrete variables with more than 2 levels of value (STATUS4), a post-hoc 2-to-2 comparison analysis was performed (Tukey) to see which level of the variable diﬀered from one another."||||0.9915779
90874248|NCT06092710|181609448|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9999943|||||||TUKEY TEST|||"Parametric tests on the prediction of patients' pathological status (SFI and SFT scores):~For these analyses, as the SFI and SFT scores follow a normal distribution, ANOVAs (analyses of variance) were performed. For discrete variables with more than 2 levels of value (STATUS4), a post-hoc 2-to-2 comparison analysis was performed (Tukey) to see which level of the variable diﬀered from one another."||||0.9999943
90874249|NCT06092710|181609448|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9905111|||||||TUKEY TEST|||"Parametric tests on the prediction of patients' pathological status (SFI and SFT scores):~For these analyses, as the SFI and SFT scores follow a normal distribution, ANOVAs (analyses of variance) were performed. For discrete variables with more than 2 levels of value (STATUS4), a post-hoc 2-to-2 comparison analysis was performed (Tukey) to see which level of the variable diﬀered from one another."||||0.9905111
90961043|NCT05437510|181802850|SUPERIORITY||Efficacy|26.01||||0.9851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-337.329|89.162|||Exact method using binomial distribution|||"Statistical analysis for Germany:~The 2-sided 95% CI for the efficacy was calculated by an exact method assuming a binomial distribution of the number of very severe RSV LRTI through Day 151 post-dosing/randomization in the nirsevimab group conditional on the total number in both groups accounting for the follow-up time post-dosing/randomization."||89.162|-337.329|0.9851
90914223|NCT00566527|181697991|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared when the lower bound of the 95% CI was \> -10. Values are shown as percentages.|Varicella Response Rate (Arm 1 - Arm 3)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|1.1||||||Varicella difference||1.10|-1.83|
90874250|NCT02879305|181609548|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was achieved if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the hazard ratio was below the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 1.25.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.07|||||Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment group, dialysis type and region as covariates.|||1.07|0.81|
90874251|NCT02879305|181609549|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be established if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference was greater than -0.75 g/dL.|Least square (LS) mean difference|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.24|||||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model adjusted for treatment, Baseline Hgb, dialysis type and region along with 95% CI for treatment difference (daprodustat-rhEPO).|||0.24|0.12|
90914224|NCT04975308|181698002|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.867||||0.1158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.724|1.039|||Log Rank|||||1.039|0.724|0.1158
90914225|NCT04975308|181698003|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.569|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.441|0.733|||Log Rank|||||0.733|0.441|<0.0001
90914226|NCT04975308|181698004|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.617||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.464|0.821|||Log Rank|||||0.821|0.464|0.0008
90914227|NCT04345913|181698067|OTHER|This test is used to compare the survival distributions of different groups in a survival analysis. It's a nonparametric test.||||||0.5259|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.5259
90914228|NCT04345913|181698072|OTHER|This test is used to compare the survival distributions of different groups in a survival analysis. It's a nonparametric test.||||||0.706|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.7060
90914229|NCT02601170|181698139|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
90874252|NCT02879305|181609550|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.156123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.07||The p-value was compared against 0.0125 based on the Holm-Bonferonni adjustment.|Wald test||Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment group, dialysis type and region as covariates.|||1.07|0.81|0.156123
90914230|NCT00026312|181698167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Log Rank Test Statistic|2.6803||||0.1016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||The event-free survival distributions of patients randomized to Regimen A - RA Only and randomized to Regimen B - RA + Immunotherapy were compared using the log-rank test.||||0.1016
90874253|NCT02879305|181609551|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.023539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.0||The p-value was compared against 0.006250 based on the Holm-Bonferonni adjustment.|Wald test||Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment group, dialysis type and region as covariates.|||1.00|0.78|0.023539
90874254|NCT02879305|181609552|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.325797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.11||The p-value was compared against 0.025000 based on the Holm-Bonferonni adjustment.|Wald test||Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment group, dialysis type and region as covariates.|||1.11|0.85|0.325797
90874255|NCT02879305|181609553|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-9.1||||0.026947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.4|0.2||The p-value was compared against 0.008333 based on the Holm-Bonferonni adjustment.|ANCOVA||Analysis was carried out by using ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, Baseline monthly IV iron dose, dialysis type and region.|||0.2|-18.4|0.026947
90874256|NCT02879305|181609554|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.3281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.13|||Wald test||Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment group, dialysis type and region as covariates.|||1.13|0.82|0.3281
90874257|NCT02879305|181609555|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.3553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.23|||Wald test||Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment group, dialysis type and region as covariates.|||1.23|0.74|0.3553
90874258|NCT02879305|181609556|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.0524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.04|||Wald test||Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment group, dialysis type and region as covariates.|||1.04|0.63|0.0524
90874259|NCT02879305|181609557|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.1927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.25|||Wald test||Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment group, dialysis type and region as covariates.|||1.25|0.56|0.1927
90874260|NCT02879305|181609558|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.0351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.01|||Chi-squared||Overall HR is presented using Model 1. Model 1 assumed a common treatment effect, regardless of number of events experienced. HR was estimated using a Prentice, Williams and Peterson(PWP) model, with treatment, dialysis type and region as covariates.|||1.01|0.80|0.0351
90874261|NCT02879305|181609558|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.3258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.11|||Chi-squared||First Event Hazard ratio is presented using Model 2. Model 2 assumed treatment effect differs by number of events experienced. Hazard Ratio (HR) was estimated using a PWP model, with treatment, dialysis type and region as covariates.|||1.11|0.85|0.3258
90874262|NCT02879305|181609558|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.0158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.98|||Chi-squared||Second Event Hazard ratio is presented using Model 2. Model 2 assumed treatment effect differs by number of events experienced. HR was estimated using a PWP model, with treatment, dialysis type and region as covariates.|||0.98|0.58|0.0158
90874263|NCT02879305|181609558|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.0981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.17|||Chi-squared||Third Event Hazard ratio is presented using Model 2. Model 2 assumed treatment effect differs by number of events experienced. HR was estimated using a PWP model, with treatment, dialysis type and region as covariates.|||1.17|0.47|0.0981
90874264|NCT02879305|181609558|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.3258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.11|||Chi-squared||First Event Hazard ratio is presented using Model 3. Model 3 assumed treatment effect for first event differs from a common effect for subsequent events. HR was estimated using a PWP model, with treatment, dialysis type and region as covariates.|||1.11|0.85|0.3258
90874265|NCT02879305|181609558|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.94|||Chi-squared||Subsequent Event Hazard ratio is presented using Model 3. Model 3 assumed treatment effect for first event differs from a common effect for subsequent events. HR was estimated using a PWP model, with treatment, dialysis type and region as covariates.|||0.94|0.60|0.0058
90874266|NCT02879305|181609559|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.0872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.06|||Wald test||Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment group, dialysis type and region as covariates.|||1.06|0.73|0.0872
90874267|NCT02879305|181609560|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.04|||Wald test||Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment group, dialysis type and region as covariates.|||1.04|0.87|0.1540
90874268|NCT02879305|181609561|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.1244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.07|||Wald test||Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment group, dialysis type and region as covariates.|||1.07|0.77|0.1244
90874269|NCT02879305|181609562|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.02|||Wald test||Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment group, dialysis type and region as covariates.|||1.02|0.81|0.0540
90874270|NCT02879305|181609563|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.7658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.45|||Wald test||Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment group, dialysis type and region as covariates.|||1.45|0.84|0.7658
90914231|NCT00026312|181698168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Log Rank Test Statistic|2.6176||||0.1057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||The event-free survival distributions of patients randomized to Regimen A - RA Only and randomized to Regimen B - RA + Immunotherapy for the subgroup of patients with INSS Stage 4 disease were compared using the log-rank test.||||0.1057
90874271|NCT02879305|181609564|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.0425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.02|||Wald test||Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment group, dialysis type and region as covariates.|||1.02|0.69|0.0425
90874272|NCT02879305|181609565|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be established if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference was greater than the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of -0.75 g/dL.|LS mean difference|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.21||||||||0.21|0.03|
90874273|NCT02879305|181609566|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rate|3.5||||0.0367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|7.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for dialysis type, and region was used to compare the number of responders between the treatment groups.|||7.1|-0.1|0.0367
90874274|NCT02879305|181609567|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be established if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the treatment difference was greater than non-inferiority margin of -15%.|Median Difference (Final Values)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.86|||||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of the treatment difference (daprodustat-rhEPO) and associated two-sided asymptotic 95% CI is presented.|||3.86|0.00|
90874275|NCT02879305|181609568|SUPERIORITY||Probability|0.52||||0.0805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.54|||van Elteren test||Mann-Whitney estimate (Probability) of the treatment effect has been presented.|||0.54|0.49|0.0805
90874276|NCT02879305|181609569|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be established if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the treatment difference was greater than non-inferiority margin of -15%.|Median Difference (Final Values)|2.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|4.05|||||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of the treatment difference (daprodustat-rhEPO) and associated two-sided asymptotic 95% CI is presented.|||4.05|0.28|
90914232|NCT00026312|181698171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.0262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The number of courses of therapy delivered or patients randomized to Regimen B - RA + Immunotherapy and non-randomly assigned to Regimen B after halting of randomization, excluding patients with persistent disease, were compared using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||||0.0262
90914233|NCT00026312|181698172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Log Rank Test Statistic|3.4471||||0.0634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||The overall survival distributions of patients randomized to Regimen A - RA Only and randomized to Regimen B - RA + Immunotherapy were compared using the log-rank test.||||0.0634
90874277|NCT02879305|181609570|SUPERIORITY||Probability|0.53||||0.0139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.55|||van Elteren test||Mann-Whitney estimate (Probability) of the treatment effect has been presented.|||0.55|0.50|0.0139
90874278|NCT02879305|181609571|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.33||||0.6551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|1.94|||MMRM||The difference in change from Baseline in SBP at Week 52 was analyzed with a MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in means between arms.|||1.94|-1.28|0.6551
90874279|NCT02879305|181609571|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.46||||0.1586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|0.44|||MMRM||The difference in change from Baseline in DBP at Week 52 was analyzed with a MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in means between arms.|||0.44|-1.36|0.1586
90874280|NCT02879305|181609571|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.18||||0.3646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.84|||MMRM||The difference in change from Baseline in MAP at Week 52 was analyzed with a MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in means between arms.|||0.84|-1.20|0.3646
90874281|NCT02879305|181609572|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.0||||0.5012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|1.54|||ANCOVA||For SBP: Treatment group comparisons were based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, dialysis type, region and Baseline value.|||1.54|-1.54|0.5012
90874282|NCT02879305|181609572|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.45||||0.8451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|1.31|||ANCOVA||For DBP: Treatment group comparisons were based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, dialysis type, region and Baseline value.|||1.31|-0.42|0.8451
90874283|NCT02879305|181609572|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.31||||0.7312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|1.28|||ANCOVA||For MAP: Treatment group comparisons were based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, dialysis type, region and Baseline value.|||1.28|-0.67|0.7312
90874284|NCT02879305|181609573|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of exacerbation rate|1.0||||0.529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.11|||Negative binomial model||Ratio of model estimated exacerbation rates and CIs were estimated using a negative binomial model for the treatment group comparison.|||1.11|0.91|0.5290
90874285|NCT02879305|181609575|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.5772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.52|||Wald test||Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model adjusted for treatment group, dialysis type and region.|||1.52|0.71|0.5772
90874286|NCT02879305|181609576|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.29||||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.86|||MMRM||Week 8: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 and the model adjusted Week 8 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.86|-0.29|0.1620
90914234|NCT00026312|181698172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Log-Rank Test Statistic|4.1362||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||The overall survival distributions of patients randomized to Regimen A - RA Only and randomized to Regimen B - RA + Immunotherapy for the subgroup of patients with INSS Stage 4 disease were compared using the log-rank test.||||0.042
90914235|NCT02582593|181698188|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|0.27||||0.575|TWO_SIDED|||||t = .581, only 1 comparison (2 groups) and thus multiple comparison correction not needed|t-test, 2 sided|||An independent sample t-test was used to examine difference in Pre-post intervention change scores for the Active and Sham groups;. Cohen's d was calculated to determine effect size.||||.575
90874287|NCT02879305|181609576|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.61||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|1.18|||MMRM||Week 12: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 and the model adjusted Week 12 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||1.18|0.04|0.0180
90874288|NCT02879305|181609576|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.33||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.97|||MMRM||Week 28: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 and the model adjusted Week 28 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.97|-0.31|0.1530
90874289|NCT02879305|181609576|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.53||||0.0686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|1.22|||MMRM||Week 52: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 and the model adjusted Week 52 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||1.22|-0.17|0.0686
90874290|NCT02879305|181609577|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.17||||0.6807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.54|||MMRM||Week 8: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 and the model adjusted Week 8 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.54|-0.88|0.6807
90874291|NCT02879305|181609577|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.17||||0.3256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.91|||MMRM||Week 12: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 and the model adjusted Week 12 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.91|-0.57|0.3256
90914236|NCT02582593|181698189|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|1.06||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|||||t = 1.574; only two comparisons, thus not necessary to adjust|t-test, 2 sided|||independent t-test, cohen's d effect size||||.160
90914237|NCT02582593|181698190|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|0.27||||0.424|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||independent t-test, Cohen's d effect size||||.424
90914238|NCT02582593|181698191|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|-1.03||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|||||no adjustment necessary, only 1 comparison|t-test, 2 sided|||independent sample t-test, Cohen's d effect size||||0.099
90914239|NCT01185561|181698196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.43||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.03|13.76|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in CES-D score between those assigned to the psychoeducational intervention and those assigned to usual medical care six months after randomization.||13.76|4.03|.001
90874292|NCT02879305|181609577|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.01||||0.5144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.78|||MMRM||Week 28: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 and the model adjusted Week 28 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.78|-0.81|0.5144
90874293|NCT02879305|181609577|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.6||||0.912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|0.27|||MMRM||Week 52: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 and the model adjusted Week 52 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.27|-1.47|0.9120
90874294|NCT02879305|181609578|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.25||||0.7432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.5|||MMRM||Bodily pain,Week8: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week8 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.50|-0.99|0.7432
90874295|NCT02879305|181609578|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.58||||0.0631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|1.33|||MMRM||Bodily pain,Week12: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week12 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||1.33|-0.16|0.0631
90874296|NCT02879305|181609578|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.04||||0.4604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.87|||MMRM||Bodily pain,Week28: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week28 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.87|-0.79|0.4604
90874297|NCT02879305|181609578|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.28||||0.2688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.15|||MMRM||Bodily pain,Week52: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week52 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||1.15|-0.60|0.2688
90874298|NCT02879305|181609578|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.26||||0.1918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.84|||MMRM||General health,Week8:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week8 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.84|-0.32|0.1918
90914240|NCT01185561|181698197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.27||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|14.37|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the State Anxiety Sub-test score between those assigned to the psychoeducational intervention and those assigned to usual medical care six months after randomization.||14.37|1.29|.02
90914241|NCT01185561|181698198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.91||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.64|14.31|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the State Trait Anxiety Sub-test score between those assigned to the psychoeducational intervention and those assigned to usual medical care six months after randomization.||14.31|2.64|.005
90914242|NCT01185561|181698199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.75||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.77|8.24|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the State Trait Anger Expression Sub-test score between those assigned to the psychoeducational intervention and those assigned to usual medical care six months after randomization.||8.24|-6.77|.85
90914243|NCT03401112|181698243|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0686|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0686
90914244|NCT03401112|181698243|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0294|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0294
90874299|NCT02879305|181609578|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.45||||0.0677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|1.04|||MMRM||General health,Week12:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week12 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region,Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||1.04|-0.14|0.0677
90874300|NCT02879305|181609578|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.33||||0.8386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.32|||MMRM||General health,Week28:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week28 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region,Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.32|-0.98|0.8386
90874301|NCT02879305|181609578|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.29||||0.7928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.41|||MMRM||General health,Week52:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week52 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region,Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.41|-0.99|0.7928
90874302|NCT02879305|181609578|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.04||||0.4537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.71|||MMRM||Mental health,Week8:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week8 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.71|-0.63|0.4537
90874303|NCT02879305|181609578|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.05||||0.5548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.65|||MMRM||Mental health,Week12:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week12 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region,Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.65|-0.74|0.5548
90874304|NCT02879305|181609578|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.13||||0.3626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.88|||MMRM||Mental health,Week28:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week28 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region,Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.88|-0.61|0.3626
90914245|NCT03475316|181698247|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|1.49|||||The estimate parameter is the difference in change at post intervention from pre between dance and treadmill group.|Linear mixed effects model were used to compare changes in the composite score pre and post intervention.||1.49|-1.14|
90914246|NCT03475316|181698248|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|166.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|-202.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-231.12|563.44|||||The estimate parameter reflects change in functional activation/deactivation pattern from pre to post intervention as a function intervention (social dancing vs. treadmill walking).|Estimates with standard errors (SE) are from linear mixed effect models used to examine the difference in change in functional activation/deactivation covariance patterns during the Digit Symbol Substitution test at post intervention from pre intervention between the social dancing and treadmill walking group.||563.44|-231.12|
90914247|NCT03475316|181698248|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|24.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|28.47|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.2|80.4|||||The estimate parameter reflects change in functional activation/deactivation pattern from pre to post intervention as a function intervention (social dancing vs. treadmill walking).|Estimates with standard errors (SE) and p-values are from linear mixed effect models used to examine the difference in change in functional activation/deactivation covariance patterns during the Flanker interference test at post intervention from pre intervention between the social dancing and treadmill walking group.||80.40|-31.20|
90874305|NCT02879305|181609578|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.81||||0.9721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|0.02|||MMRM||Mental health,Week52:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week52 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region,Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.02|-1.64|0.9721
90874306|NCT02879305|181609578|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.09||||0.5789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.78|||MMRM||Role-emotional,Week8:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week8 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.78|-0.96|0.5789
90874307|NCT02879305|181609578|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.37||||0.2054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|1.24|||MMRM||Role-emotional,Week12:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week12 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region,Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||1.24|-0.51|0.2054
90874308|NCT02879305|181609578|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.05||||0.5389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.89|||MMRM||Role-emotional,Week28:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week28 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region,Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.89|-0.98|0.5389
90874309|NCT02879305|181609578|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.09||||0.4289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|1.09|||MMRM||Role-emotional,Week52:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week52 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region,Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||1.09|-0.91|0.4289
90874310|NCT02879305|181609578|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.08||||0.4096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.75|||MMRM||Role-physical,Week8:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week8 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.75|-0.60|0.4096
90874311|NCT02879305|181609578|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.4||||0.1196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|1.07|||MMRM||Role-physical,Week12:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week12 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region,Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions|||1.07|-0.27|0.1196
90874312|NCT02879305|181609578|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.3||||0.2093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|1.01|||MMRM||Role-physical,Week28:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week28 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region,Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions|||1.01|-0.42|0.2093
90874313|NCT02879305|181609578|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.39||||0.1674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.19|||MMRM||Role-physical,Week52:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week52 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region,Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions|||1.19|-0.40|0.1674
90914248|NCT03475316|181698248|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|58.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|51.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.14|158.58|||||The estimate parameter reflects change in functional activation/deactivation pattern from pre to post intervention as a function intervention (social dancing vs. treadmill walking).|Estimates with standard errors (SE) are from linear mixed effect models used to examine the difference in functional activation/deactivation covariance patterns during the Imagery of Walking-While Talking task at post intervention from pre intervention between the social dancing and treadmill walking group.||158.58|-42.14|
90914249|NCT03475316|181698249|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|6.64|||||The Estimation Parameter is the difference in change at post from pre between dance and treadmill group.|Linear mixed effects model were used to compare changes in the CHAMPS scores pre and post intervention.||6.64|-5.10|
90914250|NCT03475316|181698250|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.57|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|26.14|||||The estimate parameter is the difference in change at post intervention from pre between dance and treadmill group.|Linear mixed effects model were used to compare changes in gait speed pre and post intervention.||26.14|-11.60|
90914251|NCT03475316|181698251|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.91|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|14.55|||||The estimate parameter is the difference in change at post intervention from pre between dance and treadmill group.|Linear mixed effects model were used to compare changes in unipedal stance time pre and post intervention.||14.55|-13.40|
90914252|NCT03475316|181698253|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|3.46|||||The estimate parameter is the difference in change at post intervention from pre between dance and treadmill group.|Linear mixed effects model were used to compare changes in the geriatric depression scale pre and post intervention.||3.46|-1.30|
90961044|NCT05437510|181802851|SUPERIORITY||Efficacy|43.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.677|58.057|||Exact method using binomial distribution|||"Statistical analysis for Overall:~The 2-sided 95% CI for the efficacy was calculated by an exact method assuming a binomial distribution of the number of hospitalizations for all-cause LRTI through Day 151 post-dosing/randomization in the nirsevimab group conditional on the total number in both groups accounting for the follow-up time post-dosing/randomization."||58.057|24.677|<0.0001
90961045|NCT05437510|181802851|SUPERIORITY||Efficacy|34.78||||0.0754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.148|59.648|||Exact method using binomial distribution|||"Statistical analysis for France:~The 2-sided 95% CI for the efficacy was calculated by an exact method assuming a binomial distribution of the number of hospitalizations for all-cause LRTI through Day 151 post-dosing/randomization in the nirsevimab group conditional on the total number in both groups accounting for the follow-up time post-dosing/randomization."||59.648|-4.148|0.0754
90914253|NCT02476409|181698254|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.094|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.094
90914254|NCT02476409|181698255|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.166|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.166
90914255|NCT02476409|181698255|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.491|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.491
90914256|NCT02476409|181698256|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.543|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||P-value for Change in Dyspnea VAS - Baseline to Day 3 Tolvaptan versus placebo.||||0.543
90914257|NCT02476409|181698257|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.050
90914258|NCT02476409|181698258|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.092|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.092
90914259|NCT02476409|181698259|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.034|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.034
90914260|NCT02476409|181698260|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.643|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.643
90914261|NCT00275392|181698261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|||||Interaction effect|RM ANOVA|||||||0.026
90914262|NCT00275392|181698261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||main effect of time|RM ANOVA|||||||<.001
90914263|NCT00275392|181698261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||main effect of group|RM ANOVA|||||||>.05
90914264|NCT00275392|181698262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Interaction effect|RM ANOVA|||||||> 0.05
90914265|NCT00275392|181698262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|||||main effect of time|RM ANOVA|||||||.016
90914266|NCT00275392|181698262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Main effect of Group|RM ANOVA|||||||>.05
91033440|NCT01811953|181952650|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means (gMean), test/reference, for the primary endpoints using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Geometric mean ratio|94.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.8|100.26|||ANOVA||The geometric mean ratio was calculated as the geometric mean of '1 Empagliflozin/Metformin (T)' divided by the geometric mean of '3 Empagliflozin + Metformin (R)'.|||100.26|89.80|<0.0001
90874314|NCT02879305|181609578|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.14||||0.6585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.54|||MMRM||Social fun, Week 8: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week8 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.54|-0.82|0.6585
90874315|NCT02879305|181609578|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.69||||0.0293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|1.4|||MMRM||Social fun, Week 12: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week12 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||1.40|-0.03|0.0293
90874316|NCT02879305|181609578|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.33||||0.2057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|1.11|||MMRM||Social fun, Week 28: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week28 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||1.11|-0.45|0.2057
90874317|NCT02879305|181609578|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.02||||0.4849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.9|||MMRM||Social fun, Week 52: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week52 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.90|-0.86|0.4849
90874318|NCT02879305|181609579|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.03||||0.4621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.64|||MMRM||Week 8: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 and model adjusted Week 8 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.64|-0.58|0.4621
90874319|NCT02879305|181609579|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.35||||0.1439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.98|||MMRM||Week 12: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 and model adjusted Week 12 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.98|-0.29|0.1439
90874320|NCT02879305|181609579|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.24||||0.2392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.92|||MMRM||Week 28: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 and model adjusted Week 28 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.92|-0.43|0.2392
90874321|NCT02879305|181609579|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.15||||0.6545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.6|||MMRM||Week 52: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 and model adjusted Week 52 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.60|-0.90|0.6545
90874322|NCT02879305|181609580|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.64||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|1.31|||MMRM||Week 8: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 and model adjusted Week 8 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||1.31|-0.02|0.0290
90874323|NCT02879305|181609580|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.56||||0.0509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|1.24|||MMRM||Week 12: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 and model adjusted Week 12 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||1.24|-0.11|0.0509
90874324|NCT02879305|181609580|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.77||||0.0237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|1.53|||MMRM||Week 28: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 and model adjusted Week 28 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||1.53|0.01|0.0237
90874325|NCT02879305|181609580|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.58||||0.0828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|1.39|||MMRM||Week 52: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 and model adjusted Week 52 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||1.39|-0.24|0.0828
90874326|NCT02879305|181609581|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.0003||||0.4939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0326|0.0331|||MMRM||MMRM model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.0331|-0.0326|0.4939
90874327|NCT02879305|181609582|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.8||||0.9292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|0.6|||MMRM||MMRM model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.6|-4.2|0.9292
90874328|NCT02879305|181609583|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.06||||0.0428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.01|||MMRM||Week 8: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 and model adjusted Week 8 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.01|-0.13|0.0428
90874329|NCT02879305|181609583|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.04||||0.1155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.03|||MMRM||Week 12: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 and model adjusted Week 12 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.03|-0.11|0.1155
90874330|NCT02879305|181609583|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.04||||0.1426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.03|||MMRM||Week 28: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 and model adjusted Week 28 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.03|-0.12|0.1426
90874331|NCT02879305|181609583|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.05||||0.1152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.03|||MMRM||Week 52: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 and model adjusted Week 52 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.03|-0.13|0.1152
90874332|NCT00613938|181609592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|62.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.9|<|0.001||95.0|39.01|85.73||Comparisons of tapentadol dose groups and placebo was performed with Hochberg procedure for adjustment for the multiple tests.|ANCOVA||The results shown are the treatment group differences between Tapentadol IR 50mg group and placebo.|Null hypothesis: There are no differences in pain intensity measured by SPID-48 hours between any of tapentadol dose groups and placebo. ANCOVA model with factors of treatment, center and baseline pain intensity score was used for the primary analysis.||85.73|39.01|<0.001
90874333|NCT01853046|181609643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.796|1.63||||||Point estimates (LS-means) and 2-sided exploratory 90% confidence intervals for AUC(0-tlast) of regorafenib calculated by re-transformation of the logarithmic data from ANOVAs.||1.63|0.796|
90874334|NCT01853046|181609643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS-means|0.684|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.397|1.18||||||Point estimates (LS-means) and 2-sided exploratory 90% confidence intervals for AUC(0-tlast) of metabolites M-2 calculated by re-transformation of the logarithmic data from ANOVAs.||1.18|0.397|
90874335|NCT01853046|181609643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS-means|0.446|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.2|0.996||||||Point estimates (LS-means) and 2-sided exploratory 90% confidence intervals for AUC(0-tlast) of metabolites M-5 calculated by re-transformation of the logarithmic data from ANOVAs||0.996|0.200|
90874336|NCT05022784|181609668|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||The statistical method applied in this analysis is Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), which compares the mean value in each group and tests if they are significantly different via a fixed-effect regression model.||||<.0001
90874337|NCT05022784|181609669|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||The statistical method applied in this analysis is Chi-squared hypothesis test, which tested if the count in each group was impacted by any confounding variable.||||<.0001
90874338|NCT05022784|181609670|OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||Chi-squared|||The statistical method applied in this analysis is Chi-squared hypothesis test, which tested if the count in each group was impacted by any confounding variable.||||0.37
90874339|NCT05022784|181609671|OTHER|||||||0.477|||||||Chi-squared|||The statistical method applied in this analysis is Chi-squared hypothesis test, which tested if the count in each group was impacted by any confounding variable.||||0.477
90874340|NCT05022784|181609672|OTHER|||||||0.644|||||||ANOVA|||The statistical method applied in this analysis is Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), which compared the mean value in each group and tests if they are significantly different via a fixed-effect regression model.||||0.644
90874341|NCT05022784|181609673|OTHER|||||||0.206|||||||ANOVA|||The statistical method applied in this analysis is Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), which compared the mean value in each group and tests if they are significantly different via a fixed-effect regression model.||||0.206
90874342|NCT05022784|181609674|OTHER|||||||0.052|||||||Chi-squared|||The statistical method applied in this analysis is Chi-squared hypothesis test, which tested if the count in each group was impacted by any confounding variable.||||0.052
90874343|NCT05022784|181609675|OTHER|||||||0.044|||||||Chi-squared|||The statistical method applied in this analysis is Chi-squared hypothesis test, which tested if the count in each group was impacted by any confounding variable.||||0.044
90874344|NCT05022784|181609676|OTHER|||||||0.525|||||||Chi-squared|||The statistical method applied in this analysis is Chi-squared hypothesis test, which tested if the count in each group was impacted by any confounding variable.||||0.525
90874345|NCT05022784|181609677|OTHER|||||||0.024|||||||Chi-squared|||The statistical method applied in this analysis is Chi-squared hypothesis test, which tested if the count in each group was impacted by any confounding variable.||||0.024
90874346|NCT05022784|181609678|OTHER|||||||0.016|||||||Chi-squared|||The statistical method applied in this analysis is Chi-squared hypothesis test, which tested if the count in each group was impacted by any confounding variable.||||0.016
90874347|NCT05022784|181609679|OTHER|||||||0.913|||||||Chi-squared|||The statistical method applied in this analysis is Chi-squared hypothesis test, which tested if the count in each group was impacted by any confounding variable.||||0.913
90874348|NCT05022784|181609680|OTHER|||||||0.448|||||||Chi-squared|||The statistical method applied in this analysis is Chi-squared hypothesis test, which tested if the count in each group was impacted by any confounding variable.||||0.448
90874349|NCT05022784|181609681|OTHER|||||||0.515|||||||Chi-squared|||The statistical method applied in this analysis is Chi-squared hypothesis test, which tested if the count in each group was impacted by any confounding variable.||||0.515
90874350|NCT05022784|181609682|OTHER|||||||0.829|||||||Chi-squared|||The statistical method applied in this analysis is Chi-squared hypothesis test, which tested if the count in each group was impacted by any confounding variable.||||0.829
90874351|NCT05022784|181609683|OTHER|||||||0.471|||||||Chi-squared|||The statistical method applied in this analysis is Chi-squared hypothesis test, which tested if the count in each group was impacted by any confounding variable.||||0.471
90874352|NCT05022784|181609684|OTHER|||||||0.915|||||||Chi-squared|||The statistical method applied in this analysis is Chi-squared hypothesis test, which tested if the count in each group was impacted by any confounding variable.||||0.915
90874353|NCT05022784|181609685|OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.190
90874354|NCT05022784|181609686|OTHER|||||||0.928|||||||Chi-squared|||The statistical method applied in this analysis is Chi-squared hypothesis test, which tested if the count in each group was impacted by any confounding variable.||||0.928
90874355|NCT05022784|181609687|OTHER|||||||0.49|||||||Chi-squared|||The statistical method applied in this analysis is Chi-squared hypothesis test, which tested if the count in each group was impacted by any confounding variable.||||0.490
90874356|NCT05022784|181609688|OTHER|||||||0.667|||||||Chi-squared|||The statistical method applied in this analysis is Chi-squared hypothesis test, which tested if the count in each group was impacted by any confounding variable.||||0.667
90874357|NCT05022784|181609689|OTHER|||||||0.032|||||||ANOVA|||The statistical method applied in this analysis is Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), which compared the mean value in each group and tests if they are significantly different via a fixed-effect regression model.||||0.032
90874358|NCT05022784|181609690|OTHER|||||||0.721|||||||ANOVA|||The statistical method applied in this analysis is Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), which compared the mean value in each group and tests if they are significantly different via a fixed-effect regression model.||||0.721
90874359|NCT05022784|181609691|OTHER|||||||0.352|||||||ANOVA|||The statistical method applied in this analysis is Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), which compared the mean value in each group and tests if they are significantly different via a fixed-effect regression model.||||0.352
90874360|NCT05022784|181609692|OTHER|||||||0.136|||||||Chi-squared|||The statistical method applied in this analysis is Chi-squared hypothesis test, which tested if the count in each group was impacted by any confounding variable.||||0.136
90874361|NCT05022784|181609693|OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||ANOVA|||The statistical method applied in this analysis is Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), which compared the mean value in each group and tests if they are significantly different via a fixed-effect regression model.||||0.270
90874362|NCT05022784|181609694|OTHER|||||||0.306|||||||ANOVA|||The statistical method applied in this analysis is Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), which compared the mean value in each group and tests if they are significantly different via a fixed-effect regression model.||||0.306
90874363|NCT05022784|181609695|OTHER|||||||0.145|||||||ANOVA|||The statistical method applied in this analysis is Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), which compared the mean value in each group and tests if they are significantly different via a fixed-effect regression model.||||0.145
90874364|NCT05022784|181609696|OTHER|||||||0.109|||||||ANOVA|||The statistical method applied in this analysis is Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), which compared the mean value in each group and tests if they are significantly different via a fixed-effect regression model.||||0.109
90874365|NCT05022784|181609697|OTHER|||||||0.454|||||||ANOVA|||The statistical method applied in this analysis is Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), which compared the mean value in each group and tests if they are significantly different via a fixed-effect regression model.||||0.454
90874366|NCT05022784|181609698|OTHER|||||||0.96|||||||ANOVA|||The statistical method applied in this analysis is Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), which compared the mean value in each group and tests if they are significantly different via a fixed-effect regression model.||||0.960
90874367|NCT05022784|181609699|OTHER|||||||0.265|||||||ANOVA|||The statistical method applied in this analysis is Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), which compared the mean value in each group and tests if they are significantly different via a fixed-effect regression model.||||0.265
90874368|NCT05022784|181609700|OTHER|||||||0.026|||||||ANOVA|||The statistical method applied in this analysis is Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), which compared the mean value in each group and tests if they are significantly different via a fixed-effect regression model.||||0.026
90874369|NCT05022784|181609701|OTHER|||||||0.016|||||||ANOVA|||The statistical method applied in this analysis is Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), which compared the mean value in each group and tests if they are significantly different via a fixed-effect regression model.||||0.016
90874370|NCT05022784|181609702|OTHER|||||||0.937|||||||ANOVA|||The statistical method applied in this analysis is Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), which compared the mean value in each group and tests if they are significantly different via a fixed-effect regression model.||||0.937
90874371|NCT05022784|181609703|OTHER|||||||0.948|||||||ANOVA|||The statistical method applied in this analysis is Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), which compared the mean value in each group and tests if they are significantly different via a fixed-effect regression model.||||0.948
90914267|NCT00457743|181698299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Disease control Rate (percentage)|56.7||||||95.0|37.4|74.5|||||The disease control rate, defined as the percentage of subjects confirmed with CR, PR, and SD \>=10 weeks on study according to RECIST.|||74.5|37.4|
90914268|NCT00457743|181698301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Objective Response Rate(percentage)|13.3||||||95.0|3.8|30.7|||||The subjects confirmed with complete response (CR) and partial response (PR) according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST).|||30.7|3.8|
90914269|NCT00457743|181698310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CBR rate (percentage)|40.0||||||95.0|22.7|59.4|||||The clinical benefit response (CBR) rate, defined as the percentage of the subjects confirmed with CR, PR, or SD\>=22 weeks on study according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST).|||59.4|22.7|
90914270|NCT00468910|181698347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The study was powered to detect an attributable change in the aspirin group of 50% relative to baseline values - an approximate 50% increase in spectral slope.||||0.11
90914271|NCT00468910|181698348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.17
90914272|NCT05323734|181698369|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-14.53||||0.0904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.04|2.48|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum|Wilcoxon Rank-Sum statistic is applied using a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|The Hodges-Lehmann approach is applied for estimating 95% confidence interval.|||2.48|-32.04|0.0904
90914273|NCT05323734|181698370|OTHER||Difference in percentage|6.4||||0.3407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|20.1|||Fisher Exact|||||20.1|-6.4|0.3407
90914274|NCT05323734|181698371|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.7069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.7|||Regression, Logistic||The estimated odds ratio of the ganaxolone group compared to the placebo group based on proportional odds logistic regression with treatment as a factor.|||1.70|0.46|0.7069
90961046|NCT05437510|181802851|SUPERIORITY||Efficacy|40.67||||0.0177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.211|62.156|||Exact method using binomial distribution|||"Statistical analysis for UK:~The 2-sided 95% CI for the efficacy was calculated by an exact method assuming a binomial distribution of the number of hospitalizations for all-cause LRTI through Day 151 post-dosing/randomization in the nirsevimab group conditional on the total number in both groups accounting for the follow-up time post-dosing/randomization."||62.156|8.211|0.0177
90961047|NCT05437510|181802851|SUPERIORITY||Efficacy|66.38||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.952|86.137|||Exact method using binomial distribution|||"Statistical analysis for Germany:~The 2-sided 95% CI for the efficacy was calculated by an exact method assuming a binomial distribution of the number of hospitalizations for all-cause LRTI through Day 151 post-dosing/randomization in the nirsevimab group conditional on the total number in both groups accounting for the follow-up time post-dosing/randomization."||86.137|25.952|0.0046
90961048|NCT05437510|181802856|SUPERIORITY||Efficacy|82.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.826|91.49|||Exact method using binomial distribution|||"Statistical analysis for Overall:~The 2-sided 95% CI for the efficacy was calculated by an exact method assuming a binomial distribution of the number of RSV LRTI hospitalizations through Day 181 post-dosing/randomization in the nirsevimab group conditional on the total number in both groups accounting for the follow-up time post-dosing/randomization."||91.490|67.826|<0.0001
90961049|NCT05437510|181802856|SUPERIORITY||Efficacy|86.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.34|96.464|||Exact method using binomial distribution|||"Statistical analysis for France:~The 2-sided 95% CI for the efficacy was calculated by an exact method assuming a binomial distribution of the number of RSV LRTI hospitalizations through Day 181 post-dosing/randomization in the nirsevimab group conditional on the total number in both groups accounting for the follow-up time post-dosing/randomization."||96.464|60.340|<0.0001
90874372|NCT05022784|181609704|OTHER|||||||0.574|||||||ANOVA|||The statistical method applied in this analysis is Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), which compared the mean value in each group and tests if they are significantly different via a fixed-effect regression model.||||0.574
90874373|NCT05022784|181609705|OTHER|||||||0.491|||||||ANOVA|||The statistical method applied in this analysis is Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), which compared the mean value in each group and tests if they are significantly different via a fixed-effect regression model.||||0.491
90874374|NCT05022784|181609706|OTHER|||||||0.432|||||||ANOVA|||The statistical method applied in this analysis is Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), which compared the mean value in each group and tests if they are significantly different via a fixed-effect regression model.||||0.432
90874375|NCT00708162|181609714|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: the EVG group was at least 10% worse than the RAL group with respect to percentage of participants achieving and maintaining HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL through Week 48; alternative hypothesis: the EVG group was less than 10% worse than the RAL group.|Difference in percentages|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|8.2|||||The difference in percentages and its 95% confidence interval (CI) were based on stratum-adjusted HIV-1 RNA level and the class of second agent (NRTI or other classes) using Mantel-Haenszel (MH) proportions and normal approximation.|The planned sample size of 700 HIV-1 infected participants, (350 in each group) was estimated to provide at least 85% power to establish noninferiority in the percentage of participants achieving and maintaining confirmed HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL through Week 48. For sample size and power computation, it was assumed that both elvitegravir and raltegravir arms have a response rate of 0.74, that a noninferiority margin was 0.10, and that the significance level of the test was 1-sided 0.025 level.||8.2|-6.0|
90874376|NCT00708162|181609715|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: the EVG arm was at least 10% worse than the RAL arm with respect to percentage of participants achieving and maintaining HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL through Week 48; alternative hypothesis: the EVG arm was less than 10% worse than the RAL arm.|Difference in percentages|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|9.9|||||The difference in percentages and its 95% CI were based on stratum-adjusted HIV-1 RNA level and the class of second agent (NRTI or other classes) using MH proportions and normal approximation.|||9.9|-4.6|
90874377|NCT00708162|181609716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|7.7|||||The difference in percentages and its 95% CI were based on stratum-adjusted HIV-1 RNA level and the class of second agent (NRTI or other classes) using MH proportions and normal approximation.|||7.7|-6.0|
90874378|NCT00708162|181609717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|8.2|||||The difference in percentages and its 95% CI were based on stratum-adjusted HIV-1 RNA level and the class of second agent (NRTI or other classes) using MH proportions and normal approximation.|||8.2|-6.4|
90874379|NCT00708162|181609718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|9.3|||||The difference in percentages and its 95% CI were based on stratum-adjusted HIV-1 RNA level and the class of second agent (NRTI or other classes) using MH proportions and normal approximation.|||9.3|-5.0|
90874380|NCT00708162|181609719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|6.8|||||The difference in percentages and its 95% CI were based on stratum-adjusted HIV-1 RNA level and the class of second agent (NRTI or other classes) using MH proportions and normal approximation.|||6.8|-7.9|
90874381|NCT00708162|181609724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|7.3|||||The difference in percentages and its 95% CI were based on stratum-adjusted HIV-1 RNA level and the class of second agent (NRTI or other classes) using MH proportions and normal approximation.|||7.3|-6.9|
90874382|NCT00708162|181609725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|-2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|4.4|||||The difference in percentages and its 95% CI were based on stratum-adjusted HIV-1 RNA level and the class of second agent (NRTI or other classes) using MH proportions and normal approximation.|||4.4|-10.2|
90874383|NCT00708162|181609726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|4.7|||||The difference in percentages and its 95% CI were based on stratum-adjusted HIV-1 RNA level and the class of second agent (NRTI or other classes) using MH proportions and normal approximation.|||4.7|-8.6|
90874384|NCT00708162|181609727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|5.5|||||The difference in percentages and its 95% CI were based on stratum-adjusted HIV-1 RNA level and the class of second agent (NRTI or other classes) using MH proportions and normal approximation.|||5.5|-8.8|
90874385|NCT00708162|181609728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log10 copies/mL|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.19|||||The difference in least squares means (LSM) and its 95% CI were obtained using an analysis of variance model (ANOVA) adjusting for baseline HIV-1 RNA level and class of the second agent (NRTI or other classes).|||0.19|-0.16|
90874386|NCT00708162|181609729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log10 copies/mL|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.22|||||The difference in LSM and its 95% CI were obtained using ANOVA adjusting for baseline HIV-1 RNA level and class of the second agent (NRTI or other classes).|||0.22|-0.12|
90874387|NCT00708162|181609730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in cells/mm^3|-9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.0|16.0|||||The difference in LSM and its 95% CI were obtained using ANOVA adjusting for baseline HIV-1 RNA level and class of the second agent (NRTI or other classes).|||16|-33|
90874388|NCT00708162|181609731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in cells/mm^3|7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.0|39.0|||||The difference in LSM and its 95% CI were obtained using ANOVA adjusting for baseline HIV-1 RNA level and class of the second agent (NRTI or other classes).|||39|-25|
90874389|NCT02057198|181609755|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.15||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.05||Data from the specified time points were combined to construct a decay slope, representing the reduction in log(CFUs)/day for each treatment group. We compared the slope (rate of change) between treatment groups using mixed effects models.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed effects model was used to compare decay slopes for the reduction in log(CFUs)/day according to each treatment group||||0.05|-0.34|0.52
90874390|NCT02057198|181609755|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.17||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.35||Data from the specified time points were combined to construct a decay slope, representing the reduction in log(CFUs)/day for each treatment group. We compared the slope (rate of change) between treatment groups using mixed effects models.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed effects model was used to compare decay slopes for the reduction in log(CFUs)/day according to each treatment group||||0.35|-0.69|0.66
90874391|NCT02057198|181609756|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi square (2 proportion test)|||||||<0.001
90874392|NCT02057198|181609756|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Chi square (2 proportion test)|||||||0.01
90874393|NCT02057198|181609757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Chi square (2 proportion test)|||||||0.99
90874394|NCT02057198|181609757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||Chi square (2 proportion test)|||||||0.52
90874395|NCT02057198|181609758|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.43||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed effects model was used to compare decay slopes for the reduction in log(CFUs)/day according to each treatment group||Data from the specified time points were combined to construct a decay slope, representing the reduction in log(CFUs)/day for each treatment group. We compared the slope (rate of change) between treatment groups using mixed effects models. Data from the specified time points were combined to construct a decay slope, representing the reduction in log(CFUs)/day for each treatment group. We compared the slope (rate of change) between treatment groups using mixed effects models.||-0.19|-0.67|0.05
90874396|NCT02057198|181609758|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.85||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|-0.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed effects model was used to compare decay slopes for the reduction in log(CFUs)/day according to each treatment group||Data from the specified time points were combined to construct a decay slope, representing the reduction in log(CFUs)/day for each treatment group. We compared the slope (rate of change) between treatment groups using mixed effects models. Data from the specified time points were combined to construct a decay slope, representing the reduction in log(CFUs)/day for each treatment group. We compared the slope (rate of change) between treatment groups using mixed effects models.||-0.57|-1.14|0.002
90874397|NCT02057198|181609760|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Chi square (two proportion test)|||||||0.48
90874398|NCT02057198|181609760|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||Chi square (two proportion test)|||||||0.66
90874399|NCT01985581|181609761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-3.0||||0.0392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|-0.2|||ANOVA|||||-0.2|-5.9|0.0392
90874400|NCT01985581|181609762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.3||||0.894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|4.6|||ANOVA|||||4.6|-4.0|0.894
90874401|NCT01985581|181609763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-6.2||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|-3.2|||ANOVA|||||-3.2|-9.1|0.0001
90874402|NCT01985581|181609765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.3||||0.8706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|3.7|||ANOVA|||||3.7|-3.2|0.8706
90874403|NCT03878745|181609773|SUPERIORITY|Two-sided 95% confidence intervals is calculated for the average relative rating. A linear model was used to evaluate the pen needle group effect on the response to test whether the groups can be combined and to adjust for the order effect. The order of the pen needles used and the group to which the subject belongs were used as covariates. If the lower bound of the CI is \> 0, we can conclude in superiority.|Overall Mean|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.35||||||||0.35|0.07|
90874404|NCT03878745|181609774|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.6||||||||1.6|-1.6|
90874405|NCT03878745|181609775|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|0.1||||||||0.1|-3.6|
90914275|NCT05323734|181698372|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.6434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.72|||Regression, Logistic||The estimated odds ratio of the ganaxolone group compared to the placebo group based on proportional odds logistic regression with treatment as a factor.|||1.72|0.42|0.6434
90914276|NCT00357097|181698439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.6|||<|0.001||95.0|-5.6|-1.6|||ANCOVA||Mean difference = Ropinirole minus Placebo. Used adjusted change from baseline.|||-1.6|-5.6|<0.001
90914277|NCT00385801|181698477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86||||||The effect of treatment on intensity of craving was assessed and the threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|F=0.03||Intensity of craving||||0.86
90914278|NCT03603717|181698491|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.01
90914279|NCT03603717|181698492|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.03
90914280|NCT03603717|181698493|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.84
90914281|NCT03603717|181698494|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.01
90914282|NCT03505099|181698496|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Proportion|76.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.95|92.21|||Fisher Exact||||Data for the current study were compared to historical control data (Finkel et al, 2014 - PubMed 25080519) where 19 out of 81 participants (23.46%) with 3 copies of SMN2 achieved standing alone for at least 3 seconds.|92.21|50.95|<0.0001
90914283|NCT03505099|181698497|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Proportion|73.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.67|91.61|||Fisher Exact||||Data for the current study were compared to historical control data (Finkel et al 2014 - PubMed 25080519) where 6 out of 23 participants (26.09%) with 2 copies of SMN2 were alive and did not require permanent ventilation.|91.61|44.67|<0.0001
90914284|NCT03505099|181698499|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Proportion|72.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.9|90.11|||Fisher Exact||||Data for the current study were compared to historical control data (Finkel et al, 2014 - PubMed 25080519) where 17 out of 81 participants (20.99%) with 3 copies of SMN2 achieved the ability to walk alone.|90.11|44.90|<0.0001
90914285|NCT00732381|181698500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.006||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.006
90914286|NCT00732381|181698501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<.001
90914287|NCT00457691|181698502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.095||||0.8072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.892|1.344||p-value from 1-sided log-rank test, stratified by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status, organ sites with disease, primary tumor site, prior adjuvant treatment|Log Rank|||||1.344|0.892|0.8072
90914288|NCT00457691|181698503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.171||||0.9163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.936|1.466||p-value from 1-sided log-rank test, stratified by ECOG performance status, organ sites with disease, primary tumor site, prior adjuvant treatment|Log Rank|||||1.466|0.936|0.9163
90914289|NCT00516321|181698532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage difference in SVR|7.9||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|13.4||Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi-square test adjusted for the randomization strata|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The estimated value reflects the percentage of participants with SVR in the eltrombopag group minus the percentage of participants with SVR in the placebo group. Adjusted for the actual strata: HCV genotype, baseline platelet count, and HCV RNA.|||13.4|2.4|0.0064
90914290|NCT00414544|181698555|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority was tested.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.0|1.0|||Confidence interval|The 90% lower confidence bound of the difference between CosmetaLife and Restylane were computed.|The confidence interval is built around the mean difference of the two reporting groups.|The a priori hypothesis for statistical analysis was based on predetermined clinical relevance being set to a difference score between CosmetaLife and Control (Restylane) of -0.5. This clinical relevance was set to -0.5 because the observation scale used is not accurate below 0.5 differences. That is CosmetaLife needed to be greater than 0.5 less than Control (Restylane) in the treatment difference scores to be considered inferior.||1.0|-2.0|
90914291|NCT00373386|181698558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.644|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||compared with baseline||||0.644
90914292|NCT00373386|181698559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018||||||Versus baseline|t-test, 2 sided|paired||Compared with baseline||||0.018
90914293|NCT00373386|181698560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison to baseline||||0.04
90914294|NCT00373386|181698561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison with baseline||||0.004
90914295|NCT00373386|181698562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.804|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison with baseline||||0.804
90914296|NCT00373386|181698563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.095|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison with baseline||||0.095
90914297|NCT00373386|181698564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.648|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison with baseline||||0.648
90914298|NCT01925469|181698587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Differences in the median change in pain scores were assessed using Wilcoxon rank sum test.||An a priori sample size calculation determined at least 28 patients were needed to detect a clinically significant 13 mm difference in pain score (α=0.05, power =0.80) with a standard deviation of 12 mm. Intention to treat analysis was performed.||||0.43
90914299|NCT01925469|181698588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher exact test was used to assess differences in satisfaction scores by treatment group. Correlation between pain and satisfaction scores was assessed by Spearman's correlation coefficient.||||0.4
90914300|NCT01925469|181698589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.33
90914301|NCT01308567|181698590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.975||||0.7574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.819|1.16||P-value from two-sided stratified log-rank test, stratified for ECOG PS score at baseline, measurable disease at baseline and region with commercial availability of cabazitaxel at time of randomization. Threshold for statistical significance = 0.0479|Log Rank||Cabazitaxel 25 mg/m\^2 vs Docetaxel 75 mg/m\^2|Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox Proportional Hazards regression model. The Cox proportional hazard model was adjusted by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) score at baseline, measurable disease at baseline, and region with commercial availability of cabazitaxel at the time of randomization.||1.16|0.819|0.7574
90914302|NCT01308567|181698590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.009||||0.9967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.197||P-value from two-sided stratified log-rank test, stratified for ECOG PS score at baseline, measurable disease at baseline and region with commercial availability of cabazitaxel at time of randomization. Threshold for statistical significance = 0.0479|Log Rank||Cabazitaxel 20 mg/m\^2 vs Docetaxel 75 mg/m\^2|Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox Proportional Hazards regression model. The Cox proportional hazard model was adjusted by ECOG PS score at baseline, measurable disease at baseline, and region with commercial availability of cabazitaxel at the time of randomization.||1.197|0.85|0.9967
90914303|NCT01308567|181698591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.989|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.849|1.152|||||Cabazitaxel 25 mg/m\^2 vs Docetaxel 75 mg/m\^2|Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox Proportional Hazards regression model. The Cox proportional hazard model was adjusted by ECOG PS score at baseline, measurable disease at baseline, and region with commercial availability of cabazitaxel at the time of randomization.||1.152|0.849|
90914304|NCT01308567|181698591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.063|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.913|1.236|||||Cabazitaxel 20 mg/m\^2 vs Docetaxel 75 mg/m\^2|Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox Proportional Hazards regression model. The Cox proportional hazard model was adjusted by ECOG PS score at baseline, measurable disease at baseline, and region with commercial availability of cabazitaxel at the time of randomization.||1.236|0.913|
90914305|NCT01308567|181698592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.958|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.785|1.17|||||Cabazitaxel 25 mg/m\^2 vs Docetaxel 75 mg/m\^2|Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox Proportional Hazards regression model. The Cox proportional hazard model was adjusted by ECOG PS score at baseline, measurable disease at baseline, and region with commercial availability of cabazitaxel at the time of randomization.||1.17|0.785|
90914306|NCT01308567|181698592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.916|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.118|||||Cabazitaxel 20 mg/m\^2 vs Docetaxel 75 mg/m\^2|Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox Proportional Hazards regression model. The Cox proportional hazard model was adjusted by ECOG PS score at baseline, measurable disease at baseline, and region with commercial availability of cabazitaxel at the time of randomization.||1.118|0.75|
90914307|NCT01308567|181698594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.948|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.123|||||Cabazitaxel 25 mg/m\^2 vs Docetaxel 75 mg/m\^2|Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox Proportional Hazards regression model. The Cox proportional hazard model was adjusted by ECOG PS score at baseline, measurable disease at baseline, and region with commercial availability of cabazitaxel at the time of randomization.||1.123|0.8|
90914308|NCT01308567|181698594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.047|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.886|1.238|||||Cabazitaxel 20 mg/m\^2 vs Docetaxel 75 mg/m\^2|Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox Proportional Hazards regression model. The Cox proportional hazard model was adjusted by ECOG PS score at baseline, measurable disease at baseline, and region with commercial availability of cabazitaxel at the time of randomization.||1.238|0.886|
90914309|NCT01308567|181698596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.189|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.986|1.434|||||Cabazitaxel 25 mg/m\^2 vs Docetaxel 75 mg/m\^2|Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox Proportional Hazards regression model. The Cox proportional hazard model was adjusted by ECOG PS score at baseline, measurable disease at baseline, and region with commercial availability of cabazitaxel at the time of randomization.||1.434|0.986|
90914310|NCT01308567|181698596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.189|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.985|1.435|||||Cabazitaxel 20 mg/m\^2 vs Docetaxel 75 mg/m\^2|Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox Proportional Hazards regression model. The Cox proportional hazard model was adjusted by ECOG PS score at baseline, measurable disease at baseline, and region with commercial availability of cabazitaxel at the time of randomization.||1.435|0.985|
90914311|NCT01308567|181698598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.121|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.886|1.417|||||Cabazitaxel 25 mg/m\^2 vs Docetaxel 75 mg/m\^2|Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox Proportional Hazards regression model. The Cox proportional hazard model was adjusted by ECOG PS score at baseline, measurable disease at baseline, and region with commercial availability of cabazitaxel at the time of randomization.||1.417|0.886|
90914312|NCT01308567|181698598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.014|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.798|1.288|||||Cabazitaxel 20 mg/m\^2 vs Docetaxel 75 mg/m\^2|Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox Proportional Hazards regression model. The Cox proportional hazard model was adjusted by ECOG PS score at baseline, measurable disease at baseline, and region with commercial availability of cabazitaxel at the time of randomization.||1.288|0.798|
90914313|NCT04425863|181698617|OTHER|||||||0.0246|||||||Chi-squared|||A chi-squared test is used to find out whether there is a statistically significant decrease in mortality rate when the IDEA treatment protocol is used in hospitalized patients in comparison with other treatments in the same hospital in the same period of time (3 out of 12 inpatients died)||||0.0246
90961050|NCT05437510|181802856|SUPERIORITY||Efficacy|85.92||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.85|97.311|||Exact method using binomial distribution|||"Statistical analysis for UK:~The 2-sided 95% CI for the efficacy was calculated by an exact method assuming a binomial distribution of the number of RSV LRTI hospitalizations through Day 181 post-dosing/randomization in the nirsevimab group conditional on the total number in both groups accounting for the follow-up time post-dosing/randomization."||97.311|52.850|0.0002
90914314|NCT04425863|181698617|OTHER|||||||0.0475|||||||Chi-squared|||Overall mortality rate of patients treated according to IDEA protocol is compared by a chi-squared test against overall mortality rate in Argentina (the same region where the hospital is located). Data used for overall mortality in Argentina correspond to June 30th according to the website of the Ministry of Health of Argentina||||0.0475
90914315|NCT04425863|181698617|OTHER|||||||0.0025|||||||Chi-squared|||A chi-square test was applied to compare the mortality rate of patients treated with IDEA protocol as compared with data published (26.84 %) in Bertsimas D, Lukin G, Mingardi L, Nohadani O, Orfanoudaki A, Stellato B et al. (2020), COVID-19 Mortality Risk Assessment: An International Multi-Center Study doi: 10.1101/2020.07.07.20148304||||0.0025
90914316|NCT02527148|181698622|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Improvement from preoperative to 6 weeks for the control cases||||<0.0001
90914317|NCT02527148|181698622|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Improvement from preoperative to 6 weeks for the Shapematch cases||||<0.0001
90914318|NCT02527148|181698622|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare improvement of OKS from preoperative to 6 weeks between both groups.||||0.0004
90914319|NCT02527148|181698622|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Improvement from preoperative to 6 months for Control cases.||||<0.0001
90914320|NCT02527148|181698622|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Improvement form preoperative to 6 months for Shapematch cases.||||<0.0001
90914321|NCT02527148|181698622|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3894|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare improvement of OKS from preoperative to 6 months between both groups.||||0.3894
90914322|NCT02527148|181698622|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Improvement from preoperative to 12 months for the Control cases||||<0.0001
90914323|NCT02527148|181698622|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Improvement from preoperative to 12 months for the Shapematch cases||||<0.0001
90914324|NCT02527148|181698622|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4387|||||||t-test, 2 sided|p-values from repeated ANOVA with change from preoperative variable/scores as dependent variable.||To compare improvement of OKS from preoperative to 12 months between both groups.||||0.4387
90914325|NCT02527148|181698622|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.261|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare improvement of OKS from preoperative to 2 years between both groups.||||0.2610
90914326|NCT02527148|181698622|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8458|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare improvement of OKS from preoperative to 5 years between both groups.||||0.8458
90914327|NCT02527148|181698623|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare mean duration of surgery between both groups.||||0.10
90914328|NCT02527148|181698624|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare wound length between both groups.||||0.05
90914329|NCT02527148|181698626|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare average length of hospital stay between both groups.||||0.07
90914330|NCT02527148|181698627|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.023||||0.55|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of baseline differences||||0.55
90914331|NCT02527148|181698627|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.043||||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of QALY between each instrument platform at 12-months||||0.23
90914332|NCT02527148|181698628|EQUIVALENCE|To determine equivalence in baseline characteristics between the control and intervention group.||||||0.724|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare VAS rest preoperatively between both groups.||||0.7240
90914333|NCT02527148|181698628|EQUIVALENCE|To determine equivalence in baseline characteristics between the control and intervention group.||||||0.7545|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare VAS mobilisation preoperatively between both groups.||||0.7545
90914334|NCT02527148|181698628|NON_INFERIORITY|Precision Knee Navigation is the current standard of care and is the control against the newer intervention of OtisMed® ShapeMatch® with Triathlon||||||0.6921|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare VAS rest at 6 weeks between both groups.||||0.6921
90914335|NCT02527148|181698628|NON_INFERIORITY|Precision Knee Navigation is the current standard of care and is the control against the newer intervention of OtisMed® ShapeMatch® with Triathlon||||||0.9601|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare VAS mobilisation at 6 weeks between both groups.||||0.9601
90914336|NCT02527148|181698628|NON_INFERIORITY|Precision Knee Navigation is the current standard of care and is the control against the newer intervention of OtisMed® ShapeMatch® with Triathlon||||||0.0697|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare VAS rest at 6 months between both groups.||||0.0697
90914337|NCT02527148|181698628|EQUIVALENCE|Precision Knee Navigation is the current standard of care and is the control against the newer intervention of OtisMed® ShapeMatch® with Triathlon||||||0.0342|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare VAS mobilisation at 6 months between both groups.||||0.0342
90914338|NCT02527148|181698628|EQUIVALENCE|Precision Knee Navigation is the current standard of care and is the control against the newer intervention of OtisMed® ShapeMatch® with Triathlon||||||0.3487|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare VAS rest at 12 months between both groups.||||0.3487
90914339|NCT02527148|181698628|EQUIVALENCE|Precision Knee Navigation is the current standard of care and is the control against the newer intervention of OtisMed® ShapeMatch® with Triathlon||||||0.2201|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare VAS mobilisation at 1 year between both groups.||||0.2201
90914340|NCT02527148|181698628|EQUIVALENCE|Precision Knee Navigation is the current standard of care and is the control against the newer intervention of OtisMed® ShapeMatch® with Triathlon||||||0.2291|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare VAS rest at 2 years between both groups.||||0.2291
90914341|NCT02527148|181698628|EQUIVALENCE|Precision Knee Navigation is the current standard of care and is the control against the newer intervention of OtisMed® ShapeMatch® with Triathlon||||||0.6436|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare VAS mobilisation at 2 years between both groups.||||0.6436
90914342|NCT02527148|181698628|EQUIVALENCE|Precision Knee Navigation is the current standard of care and is the control against the newer intervention of OtisMed® ShapeMatch® with Triathlon||||||0.4344|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare VAS rest at 5 years between both groups.||||0.4344
90914343|NCT02527148|181698628|EQUIVALENCE|Precision Knee Navigation is the current standard of care and is the control against the newer intervention of OtisMed® ShapeMatch® with Triathlon||||||0.8732|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare VAS mobilisation at 5 years between both groups.||||0.8732
90914344|NCT02527148|181698629|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.911|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare WOMAC preoperatively between both groups.||||0.911
90914345|NCT02527148|181698629|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.588|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare WOMAC at 6-weeks between both groups.||||0.588
90874406|NCT03878745|181609776|SUPERIORITY|A mixed effect model was used (fixed effects of PN, abdomen site, order of pair, order of PN within pair and random subject effect) to estimate average difference (BD Nano PN - Terumo PN) in delivery time and total injection time. A Box-Cox transformation might be used to normalize the data if necessary.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||-0.026|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.026||<0.001
90874407|NCT03878745|181609777|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.2||||||||1.2|-1.2|
90874408|NCT02632552|181609781|EQUIVALENCE|Using a pre-intervention rate of 18 for both intervention and control, and a post-control change of 1, assuming an alpha of 0.05, we have power (0.8) to detect a difference of differences in change in mean urgent care/ED utilization of 0.75 with a standard deviation equal to the control mean; however, the equivalence boundary did not apply because this is a pragmatic trial.|Incidence Rate Ratio|1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.45|||Mixed Effects Negative Binomial Model|A segmented negative binomial regression model was used to estimate changes in ED/urgent care utilization between the intervention and control groups.||||1.45|0.85|0.45
90874409|NCT02632552|181609782|EQUIVALENCE|We initially powered at 80% to detect an effect size of 0.5 for all secondary outcomes; however, the equivalence boundary did not apply because this is a pragmatic trial.|Beta for the Mean Difference|-1.8||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.21|3.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.61|-7.21|0.05
90874410|NCT02632552|181609783|EQUIVALENCE|We initially powered at 80% to detect an effect size of 0.5 for all secondary outcomes; however, the equivalence boundary did not apply because this is a pragmatic trial.|Beta for the Mean Difference|0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|1.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMA by group, time, and group by time as predictors. We also adjusted by: Marital Status and indicator variable for problems learning online.||||1.57|0.08|0.03
90874411|NCT02632552|181609784|EQUIVALENCE|We initially powered at 80% to detect an effect size of 0.5 for all secondary outcomes; however, the equivalence boundary did not apply because this is a pragmatic trial.|Beta for Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMA by group, time, and group by time as predictors. We also adjusted by: Marital Status and indicator variable for problems learning online.||||0.29|-0.41|0.75
90874412|NCT02632552|181609785|EQUIVALENCE|We initially powered at 80% to detect an effect size of 0.5 for all secondary outcomes; however, the equivalence boundary did not apply because this is a pragmatic trial.|Beta for Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMA by group, time, and group by time as predictors. We also adjusted by: Marital Status and indicator variable for problems learning online.||||0.70|-0.50|0.74
90874413|NCT02632552|181609786|EQUIVALENCE|We initially powered at 80% to detect an effect size of 0.5 for all secondary outcomes; however, the equivalence boundary did not apply because this is a pragmatic trial.|Beta for mean difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|1.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMA by group, time, and group by time as predictors. We also adjusted by: Marital Status and indicator variable for problems learning online.||||1.29|-2.21|0.63
90874414|NCT02632552|181609787|EQUIVALENCE|We initially powered at 80% to detect an effect size of 0.5 for all secondary outcomes; however, the equivalence boundary did not apply because this is a pragmatic trial.|Beta of Mean Difference|1.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|4.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMA by group, time, and group by time as predictors. We also adjusted by: Marital Status and indicator variable for problems learning online.||||4.05|-0.97|0.23
90874415|NCT02632552|181609788|EQUIVALENCE|We initially powered at 80% to detect an effect size of 0.5 for all secondary outcomes; however, the equivalence boundary did not apply because this is a pragmatic trial.|Beta for the Mean Difference|-2.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.95|3.1||MMA by group, time, and group by time as predictors. We also adjusted by: Marital Status and indicator variable for problems learning online.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.10|-7.95|0.38
90874416|NCT02632552|181609789|EQUIVALENCE|We initially powered at 80% to detect an effect size of 0.5 for all secondary outcomes; however, the equivalence boundary did not apply because this is a pragmatic trial.|Beta for the Mean Difference|-2.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|3.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMA by group, time, and group by time as predictors. We also adjusted by: Marital Status and indicator variable for problems learning online.||||3.52|-9.10|0.38
90874417|NCT02611778|181609805|EQUIVALENCE|The confidence interval (CI) for treatment difference (FYB201 - Lucentis) was calculated using Least Square Means. If the 90% CI was completely contained in the interval \]-3.5;3.5\[ ETDRS letters, equivalence of FYB201 and Lucentis could be concluded.|Difference in least square means|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.6|0.9|||ANCOVA||An ANCOVA model was used for the analysis with the change in BCVA between baseline and Week 8 as the dependent variable, the baseline BCVA as covariate, and (pooled) country and treatment group as fixed effects.|The hypothesis of biosimilarity of FYB201 and Lucentis was tested with a two-sided equivalence test with an equivalence margin of 3 ETDRS letters. An ANCOVA model was used with the change in BCVA between baseline and Week 8 as the dependent variable, the baseline BCVA as covariate, and the country and the treatment group as fixed effects.||0.9|-1.6|
90874418|NCT02611778|181609806|OTHER||Difference in least square means|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.6|1.5|||ANCOVA||An ANCOVA model was used for the analysis with the change in BCVA between baseline and Week 24 as the dependent variable, the baseline BCVA as covariate, and (pooled) country and treatment group as fixed effects.|There was no formal hypothesis testing.||1.5|-1.6|
90874419|NCT02611778|181609807|OTHER||Difference in least square means|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.8|1.7|||ANCOVA||An ANCOVA model was used for the analysis with the change in BCVA between baseline and Week 48 as the dependent variable, the baseline BCVA as covariate, and (pooled) country and treatment group as fixed effects.|There was no formal hypothesis testing.||1.7|-1.8|
90874420|NCT02611778|181609808|OTHER||Difference in least square means|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.6|1.8|||ANCOVA||An ANCOVA model was used for the analysis with the change in BCVA between baseline and 12 months (average of Weeks 40, 44 and 48) as the dependent variable, the baseline BCVA as covariate, and (pooled) country and treatment group as fixed effects.|There was no formal hypothesis testing.||1.8|-1.6|
90874421|NCT02611778|181609809|OTHER||Difference in least square means|0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.469|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.22|19.6|||ANCOVA||An ANCOVA model was used for the analysis with the change in FCP retinal thickness between baseline and Week 24 as the dependent variable, the baseline FCP retinal thickness as covariate, and (pooled) country and treatment group as fixed effects.|There was no formal hypothesis testing.||19.60|-18.22|
90874422|NCT02611778|181609810|OTHER||Difference in least square means|2.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.632|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.49|21.85|||ANCOVA||An ANCOVA model was used for the analysis with the change in FCP retinal thickness between baseline and Week 48 as the dependent variable, the baseline FCP retinal thickness as covariate, and (pooled) country and treatment group as fixed effects.|There was no formal hypothesis testing.||21.85|-16.49|
90874423|NCT02611778|181609811|OTHER||Difference in least square means|-5.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.136|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.62|10.8|||ANCOVA||An ANCOVA model was used for the analysis with the change in FCS retinal thickness between baseline and Week 24 as the dependent variable, the baseline FCS retinal thickness as covariate, and (pooled) country and treatment group as fixed effects.|There was no formal hypothesis testing.||10.80|-22.62|
90874424|NCT02611778|181609812|OTHER||Difference in least square means|3.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.285|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.28|20.63|||ANCOVA||An ANCOVA model was used for the analysis with the change in FCS retinal thickness between baseline and Week 48 as the dependent variable, the baseline FCS retinal thickness as covariate, and (pooled) country and treatment group as fixed effects.|There was no formal hypothesis testing.||20.63|-13.28|
90874425|NCT02611778|181609813|OTHER||Difference in least square means|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4709|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.706|0.846|||ANCOVA||An ANCOVA model was used for the analysis with the change in total lesion area between baseline and Week 24 as the dependent variable, the baseline total lesion area as covariate, and (pooled) country and treatment group as fixed effects.|There was no formal hypothesis testing.||0.846|-0.706|
90874426|NCT02611778|181609814|OTHER||Difference in least square means|0.342|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5387|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.547|1.23|||ANCOVA||An ANCOVA model was used for the analysis with the change in total lesion area between baseline and Week 48 as the dependent variable, the baseline total lesion area as covariate, and (pooled) country and treatment group as fixed effects.|There was no formal hypothesis testing.||1.230|-0.547|
90914346|NCT02527148|181698629|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare WOMAC at 6-months between both groups.||||0.030
90914347|NCT02527148|181698629|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.131|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare WOMAC at 1-year between both groups.||||0.131
90914348|NCT02527148|181698629|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.347|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare WOMAC at 2-years between both groups.||||0.347
90874427|NCT02611778|181609815|OTHER||Difference in least square means|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.886|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.25|1.67|||ANCOVA||An ANCOVA model was used for the analysis with change in NEI VFQ-25 composite score between baseline and Week 24 as dependent variable, baseline NEI VFQ-25 composite score as covariate, and (pooled) country and treatment group as fixed effects.|There was no formal hypothesis testing.||1.67|-1.25|
90914349|NCT02527148|181698629|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.341|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare WOMAC at 5-years between both groups.||||0.341
90914350|NCT02527148|181698630|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.452|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare EQ-5D index preoperatively between both groups.||||0.452
90914351|NCT02527148|181698630|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.201|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare EQ-5D VAS preoperatively between both groups.||||0.201
90914352|NCT02527148|181698630|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.741|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare EQ-5D index at 6-weeks between both groups.||||0.741
90914353|NCT02527148|181698630|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.794|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare EQ-5D VAS at 6-weeks between both groups.||||0.794
90914354|NCT02527148|181698630|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.232|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare EQ-5D index at 6-months between both groups.||||0.232
90914355|NCT02527148|181698630|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.513|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare EQ-5D VAS at 6-months between both groups.||||0.513
90874428|NCT02611778|181609816|OTHER||Difference in least square means|1.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.027|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.04|3.42|||ANCOVA||An ANCOVA model was used for the analysis with change in NEI VFQ-25 composite score between baseline and Week 48 as dependent variable, baseline NEI VFQ-25 composite score as covariate, and (pooled) country and treatment group as fixed effects.|There was no formal hypothesis testing.||3.42|0.04|
90874429|NCT04008030|181609822|SUPERIORITY|Arm B over Arm A|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.81||Boundary for statistical significance p-value \< 0.0095.|Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified by the same factors as used in the Cox proportional hazard model.|a Cox Model stratified by tumor sidedness (left vs. right) and prior lines of therapy (0, 1, \>= 2) as entered into the IRT.|||0.81|0.48|0.0003
90874430|NCT04008030|181609823|SUPERIORITY|Arm B over Arm C|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.32||Boundary for statistical significance p-value \< 0.0209.|Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified by the same factors as used in the Cox proportional hazard model.|From a Cox Model stratified by tumor sidedness (left vs. right) as entered into the IRT.|||0.32|0.14|<0.0001
90874431|NCT04008030|181609825|SUPERIORITY|Arm B over Arm A|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.79|||||from a Cox Model stratified by tumor sidedness (left vs. right) and prior lines of therapy (0, 1, \>= 2) as entered into the IRT.|||0.79|0.52|
90914356|NCT02527148|181698630|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare EQ-5D index at 1-year between both groups.||||0.180
90874432|NCT04008030|181609826|SUPERIORITY|Arm B over Arm C|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.46|||||From a Cox Model stratified by tumor sidedness (left vs. right) as entered into the IRT.|||0.46|0.23|
90874433|NCT04008030|181609828|SUPERIORITY|Arm B over Arm A|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||||95.0|0.45|0.8|||||from a Cox proportional hazard model stratified by tumor sidedness (left vs right) and prior lines of therapy (0, 1, ≥ 2) per IRT.|||0.80|0.45|
90874434|NCT04008030|181609829|SUPERIORITY|Arm B over Arm A|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63||||||95.0|0.48|0.83|||||from a Cox proportional hazard model stratified by tumor sidedness (left vs right) and prior lines of therapy (0, 1, ≥ 2) per IRT.|||0.83|0.48|
90874435|NCT04008030|181609830|SUPERIORITY|Arm B over Arm C|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.2||||||95.0|0.12|0.31|||||From a stratified Cox proportional hazard model by tumor sidedness (left vs. right) as entered into the IRT.|||0.31|0.12|
90874436|NCT04008030|181609831|SUPERIORITY|Arm B over Arm C|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.2||||||95.0|0.12|0.31|||||From a stratified Cox proportional hazard model by tumor sidedness (left vs. right) as entered into the IRT.|||0.31|0.12|
90874437|NCT04008030|181609832|SUPERIORITY|Arm B over Arm A|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64||||||95.0|0.52|0.79|||||from a Cox Model stratified by tumor sidedness (left vs. right) and prior lines of therapy (0, 1, \>= 2) as entered into the IRT.|||0.79|0.52|
90874438|NCT04008030|181609833|SUPERIORITY|Arm B over Arm A|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||||95.0|0.48|0.8|||||Cox Model stratified by tumor sidedness (left vs. right) and prior lines of therapy (0, 1, \>= 2) as entered into the IRT.|||0.80|0.48|
90914357|NCT02527148|181698630|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.864|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare EQ-5D VAS at 1-year between both groups.||||0.864
90914358|NCT02527148|181698630|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.223|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare EQ-5D index at 2-year between both groups.||||0.223
90914359|NCT02527148|181698630|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.355|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare EQ-5D VAS at 2-year between both groups.||||0.355
90874439|NCT04008030|181609835|SUPERIORITY|Arm B over Arm A|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77||||0.0011||95.0|1.26|2.5||Boundary for statistical significance p-value \< 0.006|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Two-sided p-value from stratified CMH Test.|||Stratified by tumor sidedness (left vs. right) and prior lines of therapy (0, 1, \>= 2) as entered into the IRT|2.50|1.26|0.0011
90874440|NCT04008030|181609836|SUPERIORITY|Arm B over Arm C|Odds Ratio (OR)|7.02||||||95.0|3.91|12.62|||||Stratified by tumor sidedness (left vs. right)|||12.62|3.91|
90874441|NCT04008030|181609836|SUPERIORITY|Arm B over Arm A|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67||||||95.0|1.06|2.63|||||Stratified by tumor sidedness (left vs. right)|||2.63|1.06|
90874442|NCT04008030|181609837|SUPERIORITY|Arm B over Arm A|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.83|||||From a Cox Model stratified by tumor sidedness (left vs. right) and prior lines of therapy (0, 1, \>= 2) as entered into the IRT.|||0.83|0.45|
90874443|NCT01928329|181609856|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.03||The \<0.05 is the apriori threshold for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|HbA1c Linear Mixed Model Results (adjusts the model for: baseline BMI, gender, study site, race (White/Non White) and Baseline C-Peptide production).||||0.03|-0.50|0.0816
90874444|NCT01928329|181609857|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.25||The \<0.05 is the apriori threshold for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|HbA1c Linear Mixed Model Results (adjusts the model for: baseline BMI, gender, study site, race (White/Non White) and Baseline C-Peptide production).||||0.25|-0.28|0.912
90874445|NCT01928329|181609858|SUPERIORITY||Z score|-0.801||||0.423|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.423
90874446|NCT01928329|181609859|SUPERIORITY||Z score|-1.312||||0.189|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.189
90874447|NCT02141997|181609882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.863|||||||Fisher Exact|||P-value calculated using 1-sided Fisher's Exact test.||||=0.863
90874448|NCT02141997|181609882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.414|||||||Fisher Exact|||P-value calculated using 1-sided Fisher's Exact test.||||=0.414
90874449|NCT02141997|181609882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.196|||||||Fisher Exact|||P-value calculated using 1-sided Fisher's Exact test.||||=0.196
90874450|NCT00598663|181609930|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.43|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|||||ANCOVA|ANOVA with adjustment for period effect and subject as random effect. Period was included in the model regardless of statistical significance.||||||<0.0001
90874451|NCT06273124|181609937|SUPERIORITY||Kaplan-Meier 7 Day Survival Estimate|95.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.0|97.0|||Bootstrapping Kaplan-Meier estimates|||Ninety-five percent confidence intervals for the 7-day survival rates and p-values for the survival probabilities being greater than 75% were calculated with a bootstrap to account for the correlated data from having each participant wear multiple infusion sets.||97|94|<0.001
90874452|NCT06273124|181609938|SUPERIORITY||Kaplan-Meier 7 Day Survival Estimate|95.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.0|96.0|||Bootstrapping Kaplan-Meier estimates|||Ninety-five percent confidence intervals for the 7-day survival rates and p-values for the survival probabilities being greater than 75% were calculated with a bootstrap to account for the correlated data from having each participant wear multiple infusion sets.||96|93|<0.001
90874453|NCT03336853|181609939|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.82|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.82|0.66|<.0001
90874454|NCT00732615|181609940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment difference|52.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.6|64.0||A fixed sequence test procedure was used to control the study level type I error. Order of test sequence started with the primary efficacy endpoint and proceeded to the 3 secondary efficacy endpoints, in the order defined in the protocol.|Fisher Exact|The 2-sided Fisher's Exact test was utilized to test for difference between NPSP558 and the placebo treatment groups.|The above two sided asymptotic 95% confidence interval is based on normal approximation.|The null hypothesis is that the % of subjects meeting primary efficacy endpoint criteria are the same for both tmt arms. The sample size was determined based on the assumption that 40% and 10% of subjects for NPSP558 and pbo arms would meet the endpt criteria, respectively. Based on 2-tailed test, alpha of 0.05 and 2-to-1 randomization ratio, 84 (56 NPSP558, 28 pbo) subjects who completing the study would achieve 80% statistical power. Adjusted for dropouts, planned enrollment was 110 subjects.||64.0|40.6|<0.001
90874455|NCT00732615|181609941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Following fixed sequence test procedure described in the primary endpoint section, statistical hypothesis testing was conducted for this secondary endpoint after the testing for the primary endpoint reached statistical significance.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis conducted using percentage change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as factor, and baseline calcium dose as covariate.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the percentage changes from baseline for the two treatment arms.||||<0.001
90874456|NCT00732615|181609942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.711|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.619|52.363||Following fixed sequence test procedure described in the primary endpoint section, statistical hypothesis testing was conducted for this secondary endpoint after the testing for the first secondary endpoint reached statistical significance.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the proportions of subjects (who achieved this secondary endpoint) from the two treatment arms.||52.363|2.619|<0.001
90874457|NCT00732615|181609943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.879||||0.747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.402|1.922||Following fixed sequence test procedure described in the primary endpoint section, statistical hypothesis testing was conducted for this secondary endpoint after the testing for the second secondary endpoint reached statistical significance.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The null hypothesis is that the percentages of subjects with any reported clinical symptoms for the two treatment arms are the same.||1.922|0.402|0.747
90874458|NCT01341964|181609951|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.66|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|not normally distributed, values were log-transformed.||||||0.66
90914360|NCT02527148|181698630|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.314|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare EQ-5D index at 5-year between both groups.||||0.314
90874459|NCT01516424|181609953|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The power is 80%, non-inferiority margin is 7.0.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.69|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|7.75||Satisfaction with the non-inferiority criteria was determined by the upper limit of confidence interval. If the upper limit of 95% confidence interval was less than 7.0, then non-inferiority was concluded.|ANCOVA|Study center and grouping as fixed effects.|This is ITT analysis data.|"ANCOVA was employed to compare the changes of PANSS scores at week 8 relative to the baseline in these 2 groups. Least Squares Means for the differences in changes between the 2 groups (μ blonanserin - μ risperidone) and the two-sided 95% Confidence Interval were calculated in accordance with the main model.~H0: Compared with risperidone, blonanserin reduced more than 7.0 in mean change in PANSS total score from baseline at week 8 of treatment (μ blonanserin-μ risperidone\> 7.0)."||7.75|-0.36|<0.05
90874460|NCT01516424|181609953|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The power is 80%, non-inferiority margin is 7.0.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.94|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|6.65||Satisfaction with the non-inferiority criteria was determined by the upper limit of confidence interval. If the upper limit of 95% confidence interval was less than 7.0, then non-inferiority was concluded.|ANCOVA|Study center and grouping as fixed effects.|This is PPS analysis data.|"ANCOVA was employed to compare the changes of PANSS total scores at end of treatment relative to the baseline in these 2 groups. LSMeans for the differences in changes between the 2 groups (μ blonanserin - μ risperidone) and the two-sided 95% Confidence Interval were calculated in accordance with the main model.~H0: Compared with risperidone, blonanserin reduced more than 7.0 in mean change in PANSS total score from baseline at week 8 of treatment (μ blonanserin-μ risperidone\> 7.0)."||6.65|-0.76|<0.05
90874461|NCT00597766|181609958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GroupXtime interaction|-0.17||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Comparison 60mg vs. 20mg: F (1,92)=2.06, p=0.16|Linear mixed model|1st order antedependence covariance structure||"Hypothesis that 60mg group would have greater pain relief than the the 20mg group.~The study was powered to detect the difference in pain between the 40mg and placebo at 4-wks. To detect effect size 0.75 with alpha of 0.05, beta of 0.20, 31 the difference between the 60mg and placebo groups (effect size \> 1.0),18 participants per group are needed. \*NOTE\* the design was changed from placebo-control due to ethical concerns arising from ethical concerns of placebo injection."||||0.16
90874462|NCT00597766|181609958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||group x time interaction|-0.04||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Comparison 40mg vs. 20mg: F (1,90)=0.1, p=0.77|linear mixed model|first order antedependent covariance structure||"Hypothesis that 40mg group would have greater pain reduction than the 20mg group.~The study was powered to detect the difference in pain between the 40mg and placebo at 4-wks. To detect effect size 0.75 with alpha of 0.05, beta of 0.20, 31 the difference between the 60mg and placebo groups (effect size \> 1.0),18 participants per group are needed. \*NOTE\* the design was changed from placebo-control due to ethical concerns arising from ethical concerns of placebo injection."||||0.77
90874463|NCT00597766|181609959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||group x time interaction|-0.3||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Comparison 60mg vs. 20mg: F (1,36)=1.7, p=0.2|Linear mixed model|first order antedpendent covariance structure||This study was not powered for secondary outcomes. The effect of treatment group over time was analyzed using a linear mixed model for repeated measures with random intercept and subject effects. The dependent variable was treatment group and variables for week (continuous) and group interaction term was included in the model. The effect of treatment at discrete time points was analyzed using a linear mixed model with categorical time.||||0.2
90874464|NCT00597766|181609959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||group x time interaction|-0.02||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Comparison 40mg vs. 20mg: F (1,35)=0.0, p=0.9|linear mixed model|1st order antedependence covariance structure||This study was not powered for secondary outcomes.The effect of treatment group over time was analyzed using a linear mixed model for repeated measures with random intercept and subject effects. The dependent variable was treatment group and variables for week (continuous) and group interaction term was included in the model. The effect of treatment at discrete time points was analyzed using a linear mixed model with categorical time.||||0.9
90874465|NCT00597766|181609960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Groupxtime interaction|1.3||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Comparison 60mg vs. 20mg: F (1,36)=1.6, p=0.2|linear mixed model|unstructured covariance structure||The study was not powered for secondary analyses. The effect of treatment group over time was analyzed using a linear mixed model for repeated measures with random intercept and subject effects. The dependent variable was treatment group and variables for week (continuous) and group interaction term was included in the model. The effect of treatment at discrete time points was analyzed using a linear mixed model with categorical time.||||0.2
90874466|NCT00597766|181609960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Groupxtime interaction|1.1||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Comparison 40mg vs. 20mg: F (1,35)=1.0, p=0.3|linear mixed model|Unstructured covariance structure||Secondary outcomes were not powered for analysis. The effect of treatment group over time was analyzed using a linear mixed model for repeated measures with random intercept and subject effects. The dependent variable was treatment group and variables for week (continuous) and group interaction term was included in the model. The effect of treatment at discrete time points was analyzed using a linear mixed model with categorical time.||||0.3
90914361|NCT02527148|181698630|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.914|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare EQ-5D VAS at 5-year between both groups.||||0.914
90914362|NCT02527148|181698631|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.523|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare FJS at 6-weeks between both groups.||||0.523
90914363|NCT02527148|181698631|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.932|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare FJS at 6-months between both groups.||||0.932
90914364|NCT02527148|181698631|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.934|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare FJS at 1-year between both groups.||||0.934
90914365|NCT02527148|181698631|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.566|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare FJS at 2-year between both groups.||||0.566
90914366|NCT02527148|181698631|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.263|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare FJS at 5-year between both groups.||||0.263
90914367|NCT02527148|181698632|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3768|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare IKSS Pain preoperatively between both groups.||||0.3768
90914368|NCT02527148|181698632|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6425|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare IKSS Function preoperatively between both groups.||||0.6425
90914369|NCT02527148|181698632|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5041|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare IKSS ROM preoperatively between both groups.||||0.5041
90874467|NCT00597766|181609961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||group x time interaction|0.4||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Comparison 60mg vs. 20mg: F (1,36)=0.06, p=0.8|linear mixed model|first order antedepentent covariance structure||This study was not powered for secondary outcomes.The effect of treatment group over time was analyzed using a linear mixed model for repeated measures with random intercept and subject effects. The dependent variable was treatment group and variables for week (continuous) and group interaction term was included in the model. The effect of treatment at discrete time points was analyzed using a linear mixed model with categorical time.||||0.8
90874468|NCT00597766|181609961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||group x time interaction|1.7||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Comparison 40mg vs. 20mg: F (1,35)=1.1, p=0.3|linear mixed model|first order antedependent covariance structure||This study was not powered for secondary outcomes.The effect of treatment group over time was analyzed using a linear mixed model for repeated measures with random intercept and subject effects. The dependent variable was treatment group and variables for week (continuous) and group interaction term was included in the model. The effect of treatment at discrete time points was analyzed using a linear mixed model with categorical time.||||0.3
90874469|NCT00530764|181609971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.6|||Regression, Logistic|||The proportions of responders were compared between the treatment groups using logistic regression with region and treatment groups as factors. The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between each of the Sativex treatment groups and placebo. The estimated response rates, odds ratios, 95% CIs for the odds ratios and p-values were presented.||2.60|0.72|0.33
90874470|NCT00530764|181609971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.76|||Regression, Logistic|||As for Sativex Low dose versus placebo||1.76|0.46|0.62
90874471|NCT00530764|181609971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.28|||Regression, Logistic|||As for Sativex Low dose versus placebo||2.28|0.62|0.61
90874472|NCT00530764|181609972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-12.5||||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.35|-3.33|||Wilcoxon rank sum tests|||Each of the active treatment groups were compared with placebo using pairwise Wilcoxon rank-sum tests. The Hodges-Lehmann estimates and 95% CI for the median differences were also presented.||-3.33|-21.35|0.0077
90874473|NCT00530764|181609972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.97||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.04|7.14|||Wilcoxin rank sum test|||As for Sativex low dose versus placebo||7.14|-11.04|0.67
90874474|NCT00530764|181609972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-8.75||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.14|0.0|||Wilcoxin rank sum test|||As for Sativex low dose versus placebo||0.00|-17.14|0.039
90874475|NCT00530764|181609973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment effect|-0.75||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|-0.22|||ANCOVA|||The change in mean pain NRS score (average pain) was analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with the baseline value as a covariate and region and treatment group as factors.||-0.22|-1.28|0.006
90874476|NCT00530764|181609973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment effect|-0.09||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.44|||ANCOVA|||As for Sativex low dose versus placebo||0.44|-0.62|0.75
90874477|NCT00530764|181609973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment effect|-0.36||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.18|||ANCOVA|||As for Sativex low dose versus placebo||0.18|-0.89|0.19
90874478|NCT00530764|181609974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment effect|-0.73||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.17|||ANCOVA|||The change in mean pain NRS score (worst pain) was analyzed using ANCOVA with the baseline value as a covariate and region and treatment group as factors.||-0.17|-1.30|0.011
90874479|NCT00530764|181609974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment effect|-0.35||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.11|||ANCOVA|||As for Sativex low dose versus placebo||0.11|-0.81|0.14
90874480|NCT00530764|181609974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Treatment Effect|-0.24||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.32|||ANCOVA|||As for Sativex low dose versus placebo||0.32|-0.81|0.40
90874481|NCT00530764|181609975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Treatment Effect|-0.88||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|-0.31|||ANCOVA|||The change in mean sleep disturbance NRS score was analyzed using ANCOVA with the baseline value as a covariate and region and treatment group as factors.||-0.31|-1.45|0.003
90874482|NCT00530764|181609975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Treatment Effect|-0.08||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.49|||ANCOVA|||As for Sativex low dose versus placebo||0.49|-0.65|0.78
90874483|NCT00530764|181609975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Treatment Effect|-0.33||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.24|||ANCOVA|||As for Sativex low dose versus placebo.||0.24|-0.90|0.26
90874484|NCT00840294|181610007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.33
90874485|NCT00828347|181610040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.036
90874486|NCT01340898|181610041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of subjects|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.9|100.0|||||Immunogenicity was considered demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided exact 95% confidence interval (CI) for the percentage of subjects with rSBA titre ≥ 1:8 was greater than or equal to the pre-defined clinical limit of 80%.|Demonstration of the immunogenicity of the Nimenrix™ conjugate vaccine in terms of bactericidal antibodies to N. meningitidis serogroup A one-month post-dose 3 of Nimenrix™ vaccine at 7 months of age in healthy infants||100|98.9|
90874487|NCT01340898|181610041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of subjects|99.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.3|100.0|||||Immunogenicity was considered demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided exact 95% confidence interval (CI) for the percentage of subjects with rSBA titre ≥ 1:8 was greater than or equal to the pre-defined clinical limit of 80%.|Demonstration of the immunogenicity of the Nimenrix™ conjugate vaccine in terms of bactericidal antibodies to N. meningitidis serogroup C one-month post-dose 3 of Nimenrix™ vaccine at 7 months of age in healthy infants.||100|98.3|
90874488|NCT01340898|181610041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of subjects|99.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|97.8|99.9|||||Immunogenicity was considered demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided exact 95% confidence interval (CI) for the percentage of subjects with rSBA titre ≥ 1:8 was greater than or equal to the pre-defined clinical limit of 80%.|Demonstration of the immunogenicity of the Nimenrix™ conjugate vaccine in terms of bactericidal antibodies to N. meningitidis serogroup W-135 one-month post-dose 3 of Nimenrix™ vaccine at 7 months of age in healthy infants||99.9|97.8|
90914370|NCT02527148|181698632|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.223|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare IKSS Pain at 6-weeks between both groups.||||0.2230
90914371|NCT02527148|181698632|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8209|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare IKSS Function at 6-weeks between both groups.||||0.8209
90914372|NCT02527148|181698632|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6958|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare IKSS ROM at 6-weeks between both groups.||||0.6958
90874489|NCT01340898|181610041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of subjects|99.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.3|100.0|||||Immunogenicity was considered demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided exact 95% confidence interval (CI) for the percentage of subjects with rSBA titre ≥ 1:8 was greater than or equal to the pre-defined clinical limit of 80%.|Demonstration of the immunogenicity of the Nimenrix™ conjugate vaccine in terms of bactericidal antibodies to N. meningitidis serogroup Y one-month post-dose 3 of Nimenrix™ vaccine at 7 months of age in healthy infants||100|98.3|
90874490|NCT02669433|181610091|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.01||||0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|0.79||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo - active|||0.79|-4.80|0.158
90874491|NCT02669433|181610091|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.74||||0.6069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.08|3.55||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo - active|||3.55|-2.08|0.6069
90874492|NCT02669433|181610092|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47||||0.6531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.55|1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo - active|||1.60|-2.55|0.6531
90914373|NCT02527148|181698632|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0548|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare IKSS Pain at 6-months between both groups.||||0.0548
90914374|NCT02527148|181698632|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1958|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare IKSS Function at 6-months between both groups.||||0.1958
90914375|NCT02527148|181698632|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2786|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare IKSS ROM at 6-months between both groups.||||0.2786
90914376|NCT02527148|181698632|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2399|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare IKSS Pain at 1-year between both groups.||||0.2399
90914377|NCT02527148|181698632|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4135|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare IKSS Function at 1-year between both groups.||||0.4135
90874493|NCT02669433|181610092|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.67||||0.5274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|2.75||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo - active|||2.75|-1.41|0.5274
90874494|NCT02669433|181610093|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.3953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.5||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo - active|||0.5|-0.2|0.3953
90874495|NCT02669433|181610093|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.7008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.42||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo - active|||0.42|-0.28|0.7008
90874496|NCT01698801|181610100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Overall dichotomized response rate|87.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|74.269|100.0||One sample binomial test for the overall response rate was performed to provide p-value (significance level: 0.05) based on EE population. The hypotheses of interest are: H0: p = 0.3, H1: p ≠ 0.3, where p is overall response.|Binomial test for dichotomized response|||||100|74.269|<0.0001
90874497|NCT00665847|181610126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion|52.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.7|62.2|||||The standard error for a proportion was calculated as the square root of the variance divided by the number of patients. The variance for a proportion is equal to p\*(1-p), with p being the proportion.|||62.2|42.7|
90874498|NCT01686633|181610130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.108|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.045|0.171|||ANCOVA|||||0.171|0.045|<0.001
90874499|NCT01686633|181610130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.024|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.037|0.086||||||||0.086|-0.037|
90914378|NCT02527148|181698632|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5278|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare IKSS ROM at 1-year between both groups.||||0.5278
90914379|NCT02527148|181698632|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2992|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare IKSS Pain at 2-year between both groups.||||0.2992
90914380|NCT02527148|181698632|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5462|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare IKSS Function at 2-year between both groups.||||0.5462
90914381|NCT02527148|181698632|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5765|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare IKSS ROM at 2-year between both groups.||||0.5765
90914382|NCT02527148|181698632|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5493|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare IKSS Pain at 5-year between both groups.||||0.5493
90914383|NCT02527148|181698632|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1705|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare IKSS Function at 5-year between both groups.||||0.1705
90914384|NCT02527148|181698632|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2918|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare IKSS ROM at 5-year between both groups.||||0.2918
90914385|NCT02527148|181698633|OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of coronal mechanical axis:hip knee ankle angle between both groups.||||0.6
90914386|NCT02527148|181698633|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of coronal angle fem comp and mech axis femur between both groups.||||0.002
90914387|NCT02527148|181698633|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of coronal angle tibial comp and mech axis tibia between both groups.||||<0.001
90914388|NCT02527148|181698633|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of sagital tibial component slope between both groups.||||<0.001
90914389|NCT02527148|181698633|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Fem comp rotation relative to surg epicond axis+=ER between both groups.||||<0.001
90914390|NCT02918279|181698634|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-0.22||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.08|||ANCOVA||Liraglutide 3.0 mg - Placebo|Analysis of in-trial data with missing observations was imputed from the placebo arm based on a jump to reference multiple (x100) imputation approach. Responses at week 56 were analysed using an analysis of covariance model with treatment, sex, region, baseline glycaemic category, stratification factor for Tanner stage and interaction between baseline glycaemic category and stratification factor for Tanner stage as fixed effects, baseline BMI SDS, age as covariates.||-0.08|-0.37|0.0022
90914391|NCT01641198|181698717|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.115|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.01||Statistical analysis was based on the mixed linear model with the level of significance set at p\<0.05 and Bonferroni correction for pairwise comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed linear model with effects of time, implant position, implant configuration, implant type (and implant length as a covariate effect)||Mean bone change between B and SW estimated with the mixed linear model (mean±SE, 95% CI)||0.01|-0.59|<0.05
90874500|NCT02642614|181610264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted mean|1.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.154|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|2.72|||ANCOVA||"Standard Error of Mean is actually Standard Error of ratio of adjusted means, adjusted means ratio is calculated as 5 milligram BI 1026706 divided by Placebo."|Adjusted means were calculated by exponentiating Least Square (LS) means of corresponding values obtained from fitting an ANCOVA model to the natural log transformed endpoint variable, including treatment effect and study baseline as covariates, and adjusting for stratification factors (extensive pharmacokinetic (PK) sub-study participation and Multiple-breath washout (MBW) sub-study participation)||2.72|0.93|0.1540
90914392|NCT01641198|181698717|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.69||Statistical analysis was based on the mixed linear model with the level of significance set at p\<0.05 and Bonferroni correction for pairwise comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed linear model with effects of time, implant position, implant configuration, implant type (and implant length as a covariate effect)||Mean bone change between B and SC estimated with the mixed linear model (mean±SE, 95% CI)||0.69|0.09|<0.05
90914393|NCT01641198|181698717|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.685|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.115|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.39||Statistical analysis was based on the mixed linear model with the level of significance set at p\<0.05 and Bonferroni correction for pairwise comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed linear model with effects of time, implant position, implant configuration, implant type (and implant length as a covariate effect)||Mean bone change between SW and SC estimated with the mixed linear model (mean±SE, 95% CI)||-0.39|-0.98|<0.05
90914394|NCT01641198|181698718|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.135|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.13||Statistical analysis was based on the mixed linear model with the level of significance set at p\<0.05 and Bonferroni correction for pairwise comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed linear model with effects of time, implant position, implant configuration, implant type (and implant length as a covariate effect)||Mean bone change between B and SW estimated with the mixed linear model (mean±SE, 95% CI)||0.13|-0.47|<0.05
90914395|NCT01641198|181698718|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.85||Statistical analysis was based on the mixed linear model with the level of significance set at p\<0.05 and Bonferroni correction for pairwise comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed linear model with effects of time, implant position, implant configuration, implant type (and implant length as a covariate effect)||Mean bone change between B and SC estimated with the mixed linear model (mean±SE, 95% CI)||0.85|0.26|<0.05
90914396|NCT01641198|181698718|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.725|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.135|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.43||Statistical analysis was based on the mixed linear model with the level of significance set at p\<0.05 and Bonferroni correction for pairwise comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed linear model with effects of time, implant position, implant configuration, implant type (and implant length as a covariate effect)||Mean bone change between SW and SC estimated with the mixed linear model (mean±SE, 95% CI)||-0.43|-1.02|<0.05
90874501|NCT02642614|181610264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted mean|1.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.143|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|2.65|||ANCOVA||"Standard Error of Mean is actually Standard Error of ratio of adjusted means, adjusted means ratio is calculated as 25 milligram BI 1026706 divided by Placebo."|The adjusted means were calculated by exponentiating the LS means of the corresponding values obtained from fitting an ANCOVA model to the natural log transformed endpoint variable, including treatment effect and study baseline as covariates, and adjusting for stratification factors (extensive PK sub-study participation and MBW sub-study participation)||2.65|0.94|0.1430
90874502|NCT02642614|181610264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted mean|1.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.2398|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.86|2.41|||ANCOVA||"Standard Error of Mean is actually Standard Error of ratio of adjusted means, adjusted means ratio is calculated as 100 milligram BI 1026706 divided by Placebo."|The adjusted means were calculated by exponentiating the LS means of the corresponding values obtained from fitting an ANCOVA model to the natural log transformed endpoint variable, including treatment effect and study baseline as covariates, and adjusting for stratification factors (extensive PK sub-study participation and MBW sub-study participation)||2.41|0.86|0.2398
90874503|NCT01729754|181610273|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|59.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.9|65.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no). P-values are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Difference and confidence intervals (CIs) are calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no) with sample size weights.|||65.9|52.9|<0.001
90874504|NCT01729754|181610273|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|55.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.3|61.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no). P-values are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Difference and CIs are calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no) with sample size weights.|||61.8|48.3|<0.001
90874505|NCT01729754|181610274|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|54.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.9|60.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no). P-values are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Difference and CIs are calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no) with sample size weights.|||60.8|47.9|<0.001
90874506|NCT01729754|181610274|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|50.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.2|56.5||Stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no). P-values are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference and CIs are calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no) with sample size weights.|||56.5|43.2|<0.001
90914397|NCT01641198|181698719|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.59||Statistical analysis was based on the mixed linear model with the level of significance set at p\<0.05 and Bonferroni correction for pairwise comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed linear model with effects of time, implant position, implant configuration, implant type (and implant length as a covariate effect)||Mean bone change between B and SW estimated with the mixed linear model (mean±SE, 95% CI)||0.59|-0.19|<0.05
90914398|NCT01641198|181698719|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.22||Statistical analysis was based on the mixed linear model with the level of significance set at p\<0.05 and Bonferroni correction for pairwise comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed linear model with effects of time, implant position, implant configuration, implant type (and implant length as a covariate effect)||Mean bone change between B and SC estimated with the mixed linear model (mean±SE, 95% CI)||1.22|0.45|<0.05
90914399|NCT01641198|181698719|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.635|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.26||Statistical analysis was based on the mixed linear model with the level of significance set at p\<0.05 and Bonferroni correction for pairwise comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed linear model with effects of time, implant position, implant configuration, implant type (and implant length as a covariate effect)||Mean bone change between SW and SC estimated with the mixed linear model (mean±SE, 95% CI).||-0.26|-1.01|<0.05
90914400|NCT00346151|181698720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate|60.0||||||95.0|15.0|95.0|||95% exact binomial CI of proportion|||Proportion of participant's cumulative incidence of acute rejection at 24 weeks with 95% exact binomial confidence interval. Local biopsy reads were used in determining primary endpoint.||95|15|
90914401|NCT00346151|181698721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate|100.0||||||95.0|40.0|100.0|||95% exact binomial CI of proportion|||Proportion with 95% exact binomial confidence interval||100|40|
90914402|NCT00346151|181698722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence rate|80.0||||||95.0|28.0|99.0|||95% exact binomial CI of proportion|||Proportion with 95% exact binomial confidence interval||99|28|
90914403|NCT00346151|181698725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate|100.0||||||95.0|40.0|100.0|||95% exact binomial CI of proportion|||Proportion with 95% exact binomial confidence interval||100|40|
90914404|NCT00346151|181698727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate|0.0||||||95.0|0.0|52.2|||95% exact binomial CI of proportion|||Proportion with 95% exact binomial confidence interval||52.2|0|
90914405|NCT00346151|181698728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate|80.0||||||95.0|28.0|99.0|||95% exact binomial CI of proportion|||Proportion with 95% exact binomial confidence interval||99|28|
90914406|NCT00346151|181698729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate|0.0||||||95.0|0.0|52.2|||95% exact binomial CI of proportion|||Proportion with 95% exact binomial confidence interval||52.2|0|
90914407|NCT00346151|181698730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate|0.0||||||95.0|0.0|52.2|||95% exact binomial CI of proportion|||Proportion with 95% exact binomial confidence interval||52.2|0|
90914408|NCT00346151|181698731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate|100.0||||||95.0|47.8|100.0|||95% exact binomial CI of proportion|||Proportion with 95% exact binomial confidence interval||100|47.8|
90914409|NCT00346151|181698732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate|0.0||||||95.0|0.0|52.2|||95% exact binomial CI of proportion|||Proportion with 95% exact binomial confidence interval||52.2|0|
90914410|NCT00346151|181698733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate|0.0||||||95.0|0.0|52.2|||95% exact binomial CI of proportion|||Proportion with 95% exact binomial confidence interval||52.2|0|
90961051|NCT05437510|181802856|SUPERIORITY||Efficacy|74.39||||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.077|92.525|||Exact method using binomial distribution|||"Statistical analysis for Germany:~The 2-sided 95% CI for the efficacy was calculated by an exact method assuming a binomial distribution of the number of RSV LRTI hospitalizations through Day 181 post-dosing/randomization in the nirsevimab group conditional on the total number in both groups accounting for the follow-up time post-dosing/randomization."||92.525|29.077|0.0054
90914411|NCT00346151|181698734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate|20.0||||||95.0|0.5|71.6|||95% exact binomial CI of proportion|||Proportion with 95% exact binomial confidence interval||71.6|0.5|
90914412|NCT01075217|181698735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.45|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|3.5||P-value provided is for the difference in pain assessment between Isovue and Visipaque in Group 1, i.e., pain was not assessed separately from heat.|t-test, 2 sided|||||3.5|1.4|<0.0001
90914413|NCT01075217|181698735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.94||0.3244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.4||P-value provided is for the difference in pain assessment between Isovue and Visipaque in Group 2, i.e., pain was assessed separately from heat.|t-test, 2 sided|||||1.4|-0.5|0.3244
90914414|NCT01075217|181698736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.35||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.7|0.5|0.0059
90914415|NCT03260140|181698740|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.93||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.24|-0.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|Difference in average weight at 12 months between control and intervention groups.|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed model analysis comparing the average 12-month weight between control and intervention groups. Our analysis controlled for randomization strata: age (less than or greater than/equal to 65), BMI (at least 30/less than 35, at least 35/less than 40, or at least 40/less than for 45), and population density (rural or urban), while random effects were used to account for within-person variability.||-0.61|-3.24|0.001
90914416|NCT03260140|181698741|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.69||||0.388|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.11|2.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|Difference in average SF-12 PCS score at 12 months between control and intervention groups.|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed model analysis comparing the 12-month SF-12 PCS between control and intervention groups. Our analysis controlled for randomization strata: age (less than or greater than/equal to 65), BMI (at least 30/less than 35, at least 35/less than 40, or at least 40/less than for 45), and population density (rural or urban), while random effects were used to account for within-person variability.||2.49|-1.11|0.388
90914417|NCT03260140|181698742|SUPERIORITY||Sign test|1.76||||0.308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|3.66|||F test-ratio of 2 McNemar's Chi-Squares|||Group-specific McNemar's Chi-Square tests were applied to examine the change from baseline to follow-up in dichotomized IPAQ (\>=150 vs \<150) minutes of physical activity per week. To compare intervention vs. control at 12 months, we applied an F test. The intervention effect was an odds ratio of the ratios of discordant pairs in the intervention vs the control group.||3.66|0.85|0.308
90914418|NCT03260140|181698743|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|Difference in average weight at 12 months between control and intervention groups.|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed model analysis comparing the average 12-month score between control and intervention groups. Our analysis controlled for randomization strata: age (less than or greater than/equal to 65), BMI (at least 30/less than 35, at least 35/less than 40, or at least 40/less than for 45), and population density (rural or urban), while random effects were used to account for within-person variability.||0.24|-0.61|0.396
90914419|NCT03260140|181698744|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|1.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|Difference in average score at 12 months between control and intervention groups.|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed model analysis comparing the average 12-month score between control and intervention groups. Our analysis controlled for randomization strata: age (less than or greater than/equal to 65), BMI (at least 30/less than 35, at least 35/less than 40, or at least 40/less than for 45), and population density (rural or urban), while random effects were used to account for within-person variability.||1.61|-1.02|0.657
90940494|NCT01177137|181760798|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|-0.17||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.025 to account for two comparisons (1) TRT versus the Standard of Care and (2) Partial TRT versus the Standard of Care.|repeated measures GEE model||Adjusted for baseline TQ value, clinic, visit, age, gender, baseline Positive and Negative Affect Schedule and State Trait Anxiety Inventory scores, with multiple imputation|||-0.17|-1.56|0.015
90940495|NCT01177137|181760799|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.69||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.025 to account for two comparisons (1) TRT versus the Standard of Care and (2) Partial TRT versus the Standard of Care.|repeated measures GEE model||Adjusted for baseline TQ value, clinic, visit, age, gender, baseline Positive and Negative Affect Schedule and State Trait Anxiety Inventory scores, with multiple imputation|||0.69|-0.83|0.85
90940496|NCT01177137|181760799|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.46||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.025 to account for two comparisons (1) TRT versus the Standard of Care and (2) Partial TRT versus the Standard of Care.|repeated measures GEE model||Adjusted for baseline TQ value, clinic, visit, age, gender, baseline Positive and Negative Affect Schedule and State Trait Anxiety Inventory scores, with multiple imputation|||0.46|-0.86|0.55
90940497|NCT01177137|181760800|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-3.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.27|2.88||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.025 to account for two comparisons (1) TRT versus the Standard of Care and (2) Partial TRT versus the Standard of Care|repeated measures GEE model||Adjusted for baseline TFI value, clinic, visit, age, gender, baseline Positive and Negative Affect Schedule and State Trait Anxiety Inventory scores, with multiple imputation|||2.88|-9.27|0.30
90940498|NCT01177137|181760800|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.98||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.75|4.93||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.025 to account for two comparisons (1) TRT versus the Standard of Care and (2) Partial TRT versus the Standard of Care|repeated measures GEE model||Adjusted for baseline TFI value, clinic, visit, age, gender, baseline Positive and Negative Affect Schedule and State Trait Anxiety Inventory scores, with multiple imputation|||4.93|-6.75|0.76
90940499|NCT01177137|181760801|SUPERIORITY||Slope|3.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.34||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.44|9.68||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.025 to account for two comparisons (1) TRT versus the Standard of Care and (2) Partial TRT versus the Standard of Care|repeated measures GEE model||Adjusted for baseline TFI value, clinic, visit, age, gender, baseline Positive and Negative Affect Schedule and State Trait Anxiety Inventory scores, with multiple imputation|||9.68|-3.44|0.35
90874507|NCT01729754|181610277|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|19.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.5|26.7||Stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no). P-values are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference and CIs are calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no) with sample size weights.|||26.7|11.5|<0.001
90914420|NCT03260140|181698745|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.83||||0.281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|0.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|Difference in average score at 12 months between control and intervention groups.|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed model analysis comparing the average 12-month score between control and intervention groups. Our analysis controlled for randomization strata: age (less than or greater than/equal to 65), BMI (at least 30/less than 35, at least 35/less than 40, or at least 40/less than for 45), and population density (rural or urban), while random effects were used to account for within-person variability.||0.68|-2.33|0.281
90914421|NCT03260140|181698746|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|Difference in average score at 12 months between control and intervention groups.|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rodgers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed model analysis comparing the average score between control and intervention groups. Our analysis controlled for randomization strata: age (less than or greater than/equal to 65), BMI (at least 30/less than 35, at least 35/less than 40, or at least 40/less than for 45), and population density (rural or urban), while random effects were used to account for within-person variability.||0.23|-0.11|0.483
90914422|NCT03260140|181698747|SUPERIORITY||Mean percent change in HbA1c|0.02||||0.985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.57|2.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|Difference in average HbA1c at 12 months between control and intervention groups.|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed model analysis on log-transformed HbA1c comparing the average HbA1c between control and intervention groups. Our analysis controlled for randomization strata: age (less than or greater than/equal to 65), BMI (at least 30/less than 35, at least 35/less than 40, or at least 40/less than for 45), and population density (rural or urban), while random effects were used to account for within-person variability.||2.69|-2.57|0.985
90914423|NCT03260140|181698748|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.22||||0.806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|1.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|Difference in average SF-12 MCS score at 12 months between control and intervention groups.|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed model analysis comparing the average 12-month MCS between control and intervention groups. Our analysis controlled for randomization strata: age (less than or greater than/equal to 65), BMI (at least 30/less than 35, at least 35/less than 40, or at least 40/less than for 45), and population density (rural or urban), while random effects were used to account for within-person variability.||1.55|-1.99|0.806
90914424|NCT03260140|181698749|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|1.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|Difference in average DBP at 12 months between control and intervention groups.|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed model analysis comparing the average 12-month DBP between control and intervention groups. Our analysis controlled for randomization strata: age (less than or greater than/equal to 65), BMI (at least 30/less than 35, at least 35/less than 40, or at least 40/less than for 45), and population density (rural or urban), while random effects were used to account for within-person variability.||1.05|-1.77|0.620
90914425|NCT03260140|181698750|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.32|2.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|Difference in average SPB at 12 months between control and intervention groups.|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed model analysis comparing the average SBP between control and intervention groups. Our analysis controlled for randomization strata: age (less than or greater than/equal to 65), BMI (at least 30/less than 35, at least 35/less than 40, or at least 40/less than for 45), and population density (rural or urban), while random effects were used to account for within-person variability.||2.28|-2.32|0.987
90914426|NCT00463788|181698751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.126||||0.1109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.809|5.591|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Randomization strata: first- or second line according to Interactive Voice Response System (IVRS).||||5.591|0.809|0.1109
90914427|NCT00463788|181698752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.675||||0.0324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.969|||Log Rank|||||0.969|0.470|0.0324
90914428|NCT00463788|181698753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.821||||0.3121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.561|1.204|||Log Rank|||||1.204|0.561|0.3121
90914429|NCT00463788|181698754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.754||||0.5993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.262|2.17|||Log Rank|||||2.170|0.262|0.5993
90914430|NCT00360698|181698756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|13.68||||0.0499||95.0|0.01|28.37|||Chi-squared||Difference in percentage between groups: Insulin Glulisine+Insulin Glargine+Metformin+Glimepiride group - Insulin Glargine+Metformin+Glimepiride group|The null-hypothesis stated no differences between the 2 treatment groups regarding the percentage of patients with Glycosylated Haemoglobin (HbA1c) level \<7%. A sample size of 98 randomized (49/arm) patients would allow to demonstrate with 80% power that 40 % of patients in the Insulin Glulisine+Insulin Glargine+Metformin+Glimepiride group would achieve a HbA1c level \< 7 % compared to 15 % of patients in the Insulin Glargine+Metformin+Glimepiride group(5% alpha risk, 2-sided test).||28.37|0.01|0.0499
90874508|NCT01729754|181610277|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|20.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.4|27.6||Stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no). P-values are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference and CIs are calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no) with sample size weights.|||27.6|12.4|<0.001
90940500|NCT01177137|181760801|SUPERIORITY||Slope|3.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.19||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.96|9.54||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.025 to account for two comparisons (1) TRT versus the Standard of Care and (2) Partial TRT versus the Standard of Care.|repeated measures GEE model||Adjusted for baseline TFI value, clinic, visit, age, gender, baseline Positive and Negative Affect Schedule and State Trait Anxiety Inventory scores, with multiple imputation|||9.54|-2.96|0.30
90874509|NCT01729754|181610280|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|24.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.2|31.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no). P-values are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Difference and CIs are calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no) with sample size weights.|||31.7|16.2|<0.001
90874510|NCT01729754|181610280|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|19.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.7|27.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no). P-values are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Difference and CIs are calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no) with sample size weights|||27.3|11.7|<0.001
90874511|NCT01729754|181610283|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|35.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.2|41.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no). P-values are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Difference and CIs are calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no) with sample size weights.|||41.1|29.2|<0.001
90874512|NCT01729754|181610283|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|37.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.1|43.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no). P-values are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Difference and CIs are calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no) with sample size weights|||43.4|31.1|<0.001
90874513|NCT01729754|181610283|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|15.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.3|22.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no). P-values are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Difference and CIs are calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no) with sample size weights.|||22.1|8.3|<0.001
90874514|NCT01729754|181610283|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|17.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.3|24.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no). P-values are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Difference and CIs are calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no) with sample size weights.|||24.4|10.3|<0.001
90874515|NCT01729754|181610284|OTHER||Difference in percentages|27.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.1|34.7||Stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no). P-values are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference and CIs are calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no) with sample size weights.|||34.7|19.1|<0.001
90874516|NCT01729754|181610284|OTHER||Difference in percentages|24.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.0|32.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no). P-values are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Difference and CIs are calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no) with sample size weights.|||32.6|17.0|<0.001
90874517|NCT01729754|181610287|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|11.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.8|16.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no). P-values are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Difference and CIs are calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no) with sample size weights.|||16.0|7.8|<0.001
90874518|NCT01729754|181610287|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|12.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.5|16.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no). P-values are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Difference and CIs are calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no) with sample size weights.|||16.6|8.5|<0.001
90874519|NCT01729754|181610287|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|7.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|11.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no). P-values are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Difference and CIs are calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no) with sample size weights.|||11.6|2.8|0.001
90874520|NCT01729754|181610287|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|7.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|12.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no). P-values are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Difference and CIs are calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no) with sample size weights.|||12.3|3.3|<0.001
90874521|NCT01729754|181610288|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|15.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.4|22.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no). P-values are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Difference and CIs are calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no) with sample size weights.|||22.1|9.4|<0.001
90874522|NCT01729754|181610288|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|11.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.6|17.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no). P-values are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Difference and CIs are calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no) with sample size weights.|||17.9|5.6|<0.001
90874523|NCT01729754|181610292|OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-8.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|-7.2|||cLDA|Terms for time, the interaction of time by treatment, body weight (\<=90 kg, \>90 kg), and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no).||||-7.2|-9.3|<0.001
90874524|NCT01729754|181610292|OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-8.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|-7.3|||cLDA|Terms for time, the interaction of time by treatment, body weight (\<=90 kg, \>90 kg), and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no).||||-7.3|-9.3|<0.001
90874525|NCT01729754|181610292|OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.3||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.5|||cLDA|Terms for time, the interaction of time by treatment, body weight (\<=90 kg, \>90 kg), and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no).||||-0.5|-2.1|0.002
90874526|NCT01729754|181610292|OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.4||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.6|||cLDA|Terms for time, the interaction of time by treatment, body weight (\<=90 kg, \>90 kg), and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no).||||-0.6|-2.2|0.001
90874527|NCT01729754|181610293|OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-1.0|||cLDA|Terms for time, the interaction of time by treatment, body weight (\<=90 kg, \>90 kg), and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no).||||-1.0|-2.4|<0.001
90874528|NCT01729754|181610293|OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-1.5|||cLDA|Terms for time, the interaction of time by treatment, body weight (\<=90 kg, \>90 kg), and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no).||||-1.5|-2.9|<0.001
90914431|NCT00360698|181698758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116||0.029||95.0|-0.49|-0.03||Threshold for statistical significance (alpha) = 0.05 ; 2 sided-test|ANCOVA|The analysis is an ANCOVA analysis on the change with group as fixed effect and baseline HbA1c as covariate|Difference between groups: Insulin Glulisine+Insulin Glargine+Metformin+Glimepiride group - Insulin Glargine+Metformin+Glimepiride group|The null-hypothesis stated no difference between the 2 treatment groups regarding the adjusted mean change from baseline in Glycosylated Haemoglobin (HbA1c) at the end of treatment.||-0.03|-0.49|0.029
90914432|NCT00360698|181698760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.987||0.0109||95.0|-22.83|-3.04||Threshold for statistical significance (alpha) = 0.05 ; 2 sided-test|ANCOVA|The analysis is an ANCOVA analysis on the change with group as fixed effect and baseline daily mean plasma glucose as covariate|Difference between groups: Insulin Glulisine+Insulin Glargine+Metformin+Glimepiride group - Insulin Glargine+Metformin+Glimepiride group|The null-hypothesis stated no differences between the 2 treatment groups regarding the adjusted mean change from baseline in daily mean plasma glucose at the end of treatment.||-3.04|-22.83|0.0109
90914433|NCT00360698|181698761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.431||0.5762||95.0|-0.61|1.1||Threshold for statistical significance (alpha) = 0.05 ; 2 sided-test|ANCOVA|The analysis is an ANCOVA analysis on the change with group as fixed effect and baseline weight as covariate|Difference between groups: Insulin Glulisine+Insulin Glargine+Metformin+Glimepiride group - Insulin Glargine+Metformin+Glimepiride group|The null-hypothesis stated no differences between the 2 treatment groups regarding the adjusted mean change from baseline in weight at the end of treatment.||1.1|-0.61|0.5762
90874529|NCT01729754|181610296|OTHER||Difference in percentages|39.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.8|46.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no). P-values are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Difference and CIs are calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no) with sample size weights.|||46.1|31.8|<0.001
90914434|NCT00360698|181698764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.958||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance (alpha) = 0.05 ; 2 sided-test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null-hypothesis stated no difference between the 2 treatment groups regarding the rate of symptomatic hypoglycemia with plasma glucose \<70 mg/dL during the treatment period.||||0.958
90874530|NCT01729754|181610296|OTHER||Difference in percentages|32.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.5|39.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no). P-values are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Difference and CIs are calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no) with sample size weights.|||39.1|24.5|<0.001
90874531|NCT01729754|181610296|OTHER||Difference in percentages|11.9||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|19.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no). P-values are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Difference and CIs are calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no) with sample size weights.|||19.5|4.1|0.003
90874532|NCT01729754|181610296|OTHER||Difference in percentages|4.8||||0.221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|12.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no). P-values are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Difference and CIs are calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no) with sample size weights.|||12.5|-2.9|0.221
90874533|NCT01729754|181610297|OTHER||Difference in percentages|25.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.7|33.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no). P-values are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Difference and CIs are calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no) with sample size weights.|||33.4|17.7|<0.001
90874534|NCT01729754|181610297|OTHER||Difference in percentages|15.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|22.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no). P-values are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Difference and CIs are calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no) with sample size weights.|||22.9|6.9|<0.001
90874535|NCT00605813|181610358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|||||not adjusted, p=0.050|Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was renal dysfunction. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without renal dysfunction in the participants of responders."||||0.003
90874536|NCT00605813|181610359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||not adjusted, p=0.050|Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was past medical history of other illness. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without past medical history of other illness in the participants of responders."||||<0.001
90874537|NCT00605813|181610360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||not adjusted, p=0.050|Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was non-pharmaceutical therapies. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with or without non-pharmaceutical therapies in the participants of responders."||||0.040
90874538|NCT00605813|181610361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|||||not adjusted, p=0.050|Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was present or past history of intentional suicidal ideation. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between present or past history of intentional suicidal ideation (including suicide attempt) in the participants of responders."||||0.004
90874539|NCT01163279|181610367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||||||Statistical analysis applies to post intervention performance category|Chi-squared|||||||0.03
90874540|NCT01163279|181610367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32||||||Statistical analysis applies to post intervention satisfaction category|Chi-squared|||||||0.32
90874541|NCT01163279|181610367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54||||||Statistical analysis applies to 3-month follow up performance category|Chi-squared|||||||0.54
90874542|NCT01163279|181610367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26||||||Statistical analysis applies to 3-month follow up satisfaction category|Chi-squared|||||||0.26
90874543|NCT01163279|181610368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||Statistical analysis applies to immediately post intervention and 3 months post intervention categories|ANOVA|||||||<0.05
90874544|NCT01163279|181610369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Statistical analysis applies to immediately post intervention and 3 months post intervention categories|ANOVA|||||||>0.05
90874545|NCT01163279|181610370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Statistical analysis applies to immediately post intervention and 3 months post intervention categories|ANOVA|||||||>0.05
90874546|NCT01163279|181610371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||Statistical analysis applies to immediately post intervention and 3 months post intervention categories|ANOVA|||||||<0.05
90874547|NCT01163279|181610372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.1||||||Statistical analysis applies to immediately post intervention category|ANOVA|||||||<0.1
90874548|NCT01163279|181610372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||Statistical analysis applies to 3 months post intervention category|ANOVA|||||||<0.05
90874549|NCT01163279|181610373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||Statistical analysis applies to immediately post intervention category|ANOVA|||||||<0.05
90874550|NCT01163279|181610373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Statistical analysis applies to 3 months post intervention category|ANOVA|||||||>0.05
90874551|NCT01163279|181610374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.1||||||Statistical analysis applies to immediately post intervention category|ANOVA|||||||<0.1
90874552|NCT01163279|181610374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||Statistical analysis applies to 3 months post intervention category|ANOVA|||||||<0.05
90874553|NCT01163279|181610375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||Statistical analysis applies to immediately post intervention and 3 months post intervention categories|ANOVA|||||||<0.05
90874554|NCT01163279|181610376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Statistical analysis applies to immediately post intervention category|ANOVA|||||||>0.05
90874555|NCT01163279|181610376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||Statistical analysis applies to 3 months post intervention category|ANOVA|||||||<0.05
90874556|NCT01163279|181610377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Statistical analysis applies to immediately post intervention and 3 months post intervention categories|ANOVA|||||||>0.05
90874557|NCT00594997|181610381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||p\<0.05 threshold for statistical significance|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.0001
90874558|NCT02389998|181610385|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.03|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.03
90874559|NCT02389998|181610386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.001
90874560|NCT02389998|181610387|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||McNemar|||||||0.3
90874561|NCT01770379|181610415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.2001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|3.03|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.03|0.79|0.2001
90874562|NCT01770379|181610415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.62||||0.1574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|3.15|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.15|0.83|0.1574
90874563|NCT00778700|181610419|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.406||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.85|-0.51|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment as the main factor and Baseline score as the covariate.||||-0.51|-1.85|0.0041
90874564|NCT00778700|181610419|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.408||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.08|-0.73|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment as the main factor and Baseline score as the covariate.||||-0.73|-2.08|0.0007
90874565|NCT00778700|181610419|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.407||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.88|-0.53|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment as the main factor and Baseline score as the covariate.||||-0.53|-1.88|0.0035
90874566|NCT03274440|181610440|OTHER|A random-effects linear mixed model evaluated changes in YBOCCS as a function of condition (THC, CBD, placebo \[PBO\]), time point, and their interaction.||||||0.577|||||||Linear mixed effects regression|||Test for interaction effect between condition and time (includes all three groups and all time points)||||.577
90874567|NCT03274440|181610440|OTHER|A random-effects linear mixed model evaluated changes in YBOCCS as a function of condition (THC, CBD, placebo \[PBO\]), time point, and their interaction.|||||<|0.001|||||||Linear mixed effects regression|F=10.50; df=6, 10||Test for main effect of time (includes all three groups and all time points)||||<.001
90874568|NCT03274440|181610440|OTHER|A random-effects linear mixed model evaluated changes in YBOCCS as a function of condition (THC, CBD, placebo \[PBO\]), time point, and their interaction.||||||0.72|||||||Linear mixed effects regression|||Test for main effect of condition (includes all three groups and all time points)||||.72
90874569|NCT03274440|181610441|OTHER|A random-effects linear mixed model evaluated changes in STAI-S as a function of condition (THC, CBD, placebo \[PBO\]), time point, and their interaction.||||||0.577|||||||Linear mixed effects regression|||Test for interaction between condition and time||||.577
90874570|NCT03274440|181610441|OTHER|A random-effects linear mixed model evaluated changes in STAI-S as a function of condition (THC, CBD, placebo \[PBO\]), time point, and their interaction.|||||<|0.001|||||||Linear mixed effects regression|F=7.00, df=6,10||Test for main effect of time||||<.001
90874571|NCT03274440|181610441|OTHER|A random-effects linear mixed model evaluated changes in STAI-S as a function of condition (THC, CBD, placebo \[PBO\]), time point, and their interaction.||||||0.002|||||||Linear mixed effects regression|F=6.26, df=2, 10||Test for main effect of condition||||.002
90874572|NCT00385996|181610484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Binomial distribution|Binomial distribution and test proportion =0.50||One arm phase 2 trial. This study is designed to asses response rate and defined as the percentage of subjects achieving at least 50% tumor volume. One-sided alpha is set at no more than 5% and the power no less than 90%,and the null hypothesis of RR of less than 10% and alternative hypothesis of RR of greater than 30%, a total of 30 patients will be enrolled (Fleming 1982).At least 7 responders out of 30 patients are needed to reject the null hypothesis of a 10% RR.||||<0.01
90874573|NCT00385996|181610486|OTHER||TTP [% without disease at 24 months]|63.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.4|83.8|||||Using the Kaplan-Meier method.|One arm study||83.8|43.4|
90874574|NCT00385996|181610487|OTHER||% alive without disease at 25 months|72.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.1|91.3|||||Using the Kaplan-Meier method.|One arm study||91.3|54.1|
90874575|NCT02574247|181610502|OTHER|||||||0.34|||||||Spearman partial rank correlation|Age and high-frequency pure-tone average controlled for.||Statistical analysis for the row CRM at -9 dB SNR||||0.34
90874576|NCT02574247|181610502|OTHER|||||||0.64|||||||Spearman partial rank correlation|Age and high-frequency pure-tone average controlled for.||Statistical analysis for the row CRM at -6 dB SNR||||0.64
90874577|NCT02574247|181610502|OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||Spearman partial rank correlation|Age and high-frequency average controlled for.||Statistical analysis for the row IEEE at -6 dB SNR||||0.24
90874578|NCT02574247|181610502|OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||Spearman partial rank correlation|Age and high-frequency average controlled for.||Statistical analysis for the row IEEE at -3 dB SNR||||0.20
90874579|NCT02574247|181610505|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Spearman partial rank correlation|Age and high-frequency pure-tone average controlled for.||Statistical analysis for the row CRM slope||||0.03
90874580|NCT02574247|181610505|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Spearman partial rank correlation|Age and high-frequency pure-tone average controlled for.||Statistical analysis for row IEEE slope||||0.04
90874581|NCT02707991|181610506|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.115||0.036|ONE_SIDED|||||one-sided test|z-test for difference in proportions|||||||0.036
90874582|NCT05167734|181610522|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|linear mixed effects model adjusting for baseline hemoglobin, age, sex, and surgical vs. non-surgical admission|values greater than 0 infer higher hemoglobin in active intervention|||1.2|0.1|0.02
90874583|NCT05167734|181610523|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|linear mixed effects model adjusting for baseline hemoglobin, age, sex, and surgical vs. non-surgical admission|adjusted mean difference|3-months post hospitalization||1.1|0.0|0.04
90874584|NCT05167734|181610523|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|linear mixed effects model adjusting for baseline hemoglobin, age, sex, and surgical vs. non-surgical admission||Hospital Discharge||0.7|-0.3|0.42
90874585|NCT05167734|181610524|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.352|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.352
90874586|NCT05167734|181610525|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||threshold for significance - p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
90874587|NCT05167734|181610526|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|2.4|||proportional odds|proportional odds models adjusting for baseline hemoglobin, age, sex, and surgical vs. non-surgical admission|Estimates are odds ratios and correspond to the multiplicative increase in odds of higher value/score associated with active intervention|Hospital Discharge||2.40|0.44|0.94
90874588|NCT05167734|181610526|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.79||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|4.2|||proportional odds|proportional odds models adjusting for baseline hemoglobin, age, sex, and surgical vs. non-surgical admission|Estimates are odds ratios and correspond to the multiplicative increase in odds of higher value/score associated with active intervention|1-month post hospitalization||4.20|0.76|0.18
90874589|NCT05167734|181610526|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|3.0|||proportional odds|proportional odds models adjusting for baseline hemoglobin, age, sex, and surgical vs. non-surgical admission|Estimates are odds ratios and correspond to the multiplicative increase in odds of higher value/score associated with active intervention|3-months post hospitalization||3.00|0.51|0.64
90874590|NCT05167734|181610527|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.81||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|4.8|||proportional odds|proportional odds models adjusting for baseline hemoglobin, age, sex, and surgical vs. non-surgical admission|Estimates are odds ratios and correspond to the multiplicative increase in odds of higher value/score associated with active intervention|Hospital discharge||4.80|0.68|0.23
90874591|NCT05167734|181610527|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.43||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|6.8|||proportional odds|proportional odds models adjusting for baseline hemoglobin, age, sex, and surgical vs. non-surgical admission|Estimates are odds ratios and correspond to the multiplicative increase in odds of higher value/score associated with active intervention|1-month post hospitalization||6.80|0.87|0.09
90874592|NCT05167734|181610527|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.52||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|7.2|||proportional odds|proportional odds models adjusting for baseline hemoglobin, age, sex, and surgical vs. non-surgical admission|Estimates are odds ratios and correspond to the multiplicative increase in odds of higher value/score associated with active intervention|3-months post hospitalization||7.20|0.88|0.084
90874593|NCT05167734|181610528|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|218.0||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.0|510.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusting for baseline hemoglobin, age, sex, surgical vs. non-surgical admission, and baseline ADLs|scores greater than 0 reflect greater ambulatory distance in active intervention|1-month post hospitalization||510|-73|0.13
90874594|NCT05167734|181610528|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|178.0||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-154.0|510.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusting for baseline hemoglobin, age, sex, surgical vs. non-surgical admission, baseline ADLs||3-months post hospitalization||510|-154|0.27
90874595|NCT05167734|181610529|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.49||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|7.8|||proportional odds|adjusting for baseline hemoglobin, age, sex, and surgical vs. non-surgical admission|Estimates are odds ratios and correspond to the multiplicative increase in odds of higher value/score associated with active intervention|1-month post hospitalization||7.80|0.79|0.12
90874596|NCT05167734|181610529|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.1||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|10.5|||proportional odds|proportional odds models adjusting for baseline hemoglobin, age, sex, and surgical vs. non-surgical admission|Estimates are odds ratios and correspond to the multiplicative increase in odds of higher value/score associated with active intervention|3-months post hospitalization||10.5|0.91|0.07
90874597|NCT05167734|181610530|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|1.8|||proportional odds|proportional odds models adjusting for baseline hemoglobin, age, sex, and surgical vs. non-surgical admission|Estimates are odds ratios and correspond to the multiplicative increase in odds of higher value/score associated with active intervention|1-month post hospitalization for anxiety score||1.80|0.14|0.29
90874598|NCT05167734|181610530|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.68||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|2.6|||proportional odds|proportional odds models adjusting for baseline hemoglobin, age, sex, and surgical vs. non-surgical admission|Estimates are odds ratios and correspond to the multiplicative increase in odds of higher value/score associated with active intervention|3-months post hospitalization for anxiety score||2.60|0.18|0.57
90874599|NCT05167734|181610530|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.36||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.3|||proportional odds|proportional odds models adjusting for baseline hemoglobin, age, sex, and surgical vs. non-surgical admission|Estimates are odds ratios and correspond to the multiplicative increase in odds of higher value/score associated with active intervention|1-month post hospitalization for depression score||1.30|0.10|0.12
90874600|NCT05167734|181610530|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.62||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|2.4|||proportional odds|proportional odds models adjusting for baseline hemoglobin, age, sex, and surgical vs. non-surgical admission|Estimates are odds ratios and correspond to the multiplicative increase in odds of higher value/score associated with active intervention|3-months post hospitalization for depression score||2.40|0.16|0.48
90874601|NCT05167734|181610531|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|5.6|||proportional odds|proportional odds models adjusting for baseline hemoglobin, age, sex, and surgical vs. non-surgical admission|Estimates are odds ratios and correspond to the multiplicative increase in odds of higher value/score associated with active intervention|1-month post hospitalization||5.60|0.39|0.56
90874602|NCT05167734|181610531|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.16||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|59.9|||proportional odds|proportional odds models adjusting for baseline hemoglobin, age, sex, and surgical vs. non-surgical admission|Estimates are odds ratios and correspond to the multiplicative increase in odds of higher value/score associated with active intervention|3-months post hospitalization||59.9|1.40|0.02
90874603|NCT05167734|181610532|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.16||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|1.4|||Regression, Logistic|adjusting for baseline hemoglobin, age, sex, and surgical vs. non-surgical admission|Estimates are odds ratios and correspond to the multiplicative increase in odds of higher value/score associated with active intervention|||1.40|0.02|0.09
90874604|NCT05167734|181610534|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.8|||Regression, Logistic|logistic models adjusting for baseline hemoglobin, age, sex, and surgical vs. non-surgical admission|Estimates are odds ratios and correspond to the multiplicative increase in odds for the given event associated with intervention associated with active intervention|3-months post hospitalization||1.80|0.30|0.48
90874605|NCT05167734|181610535|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.13||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|24.0|||Regression, Logistic|logistic models adjusting for baseline hemoglobin, age, sex, and surgical vs. non-surgical admission|Estimates are odds ratios and correspond to the multiplicative increase in odds for the given event associated with intervention associated with active intervention|3-months post hospitalization||24.0|0.19|0.54
90874606|NCT01528254|181610539|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.58|||Regression, Cox|||||0.58|0.45|<0.001
90874607|NCT01528254|181610540|OTHER||Slope|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.00|-0.05|0.042
90874608|NCT01528254|181610541|OTHER||Slope|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.47|-0.29|0.635
90874609|NCT01528254|181610542|OTHER||Slope|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.02|-0.05|0.530
90914435|NCT00360698|181698765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.302||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance (alpha) = 0.05 ; 2 sided-test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null-hypothesis stated no difference between the 2 treatment groups regarding the rate of nocturnal symptomatic hypoglycemia with plasma glucose \<70 mg/dL during the treatment period.||||0.302
90874610|NCT01528254|181610543|OTHER||Slope|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.90|-0.35|0.381
90874611|NCT01528254|181610544|OTHER||Slope|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From Week 13 to end of Period 1||0.38|-0.53|0.744
90874612|NCT01528254|181610544|OTHER||Slope|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From Week 13 to end of Period 2||-0.09|-0.91|0.017
90874613|NCT01528254|181610544|OTHER||Slope|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From Week 13 to end of study||-0.17|-0.99|0.006
90874614|NCT01528254|181610545|OTHER||Slope|-5.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.16||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.26|-0.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From Week 13 to end of Period 1||-0.79|-9.26|0.020
90874615|NCT01528254|181610545|OTHER||Slope|-5.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.73||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.46|-1.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From Week 13 to end of Period 2||-1.69|-8.46|0.003
90874616|NCT01528254|181610545|OTHER||Slope|-5.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.64||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.61|-2.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From Week 13 to end of study||-2.16|-8.61|0.001
90874617|NCT00416078|181610562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|||||F test of time X group effect F(1,3)=.26|Mixed Models Analysis|||intent to treat||||.65
90874618|NCT00416078|181610563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|||||t test of differential change over time in the two groups t(30)=.67|Mixed Models Analysis|||intent to treat analysis||||.51
90874619|NCT00416078|181610564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|||||t test of differential change over time in the two groups t(29)=.27|Mixed Models Analysis|||intent to treat analysis||||.79
90874620|NCT00416078|181610565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|||||t test for differential change over time in the two groups t(29)=.70|Mixed Models Analysis|||intent to treat analysis||||.49
90874621|NCT00416078|181610566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|||||t test for differential change over time in the two groups t(29)=.43|Mixed Models Analysis|||intent to treat analysis||||.67
90874622|NCT00416078|181610567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.64
90874623|NCT02607033|181610571|OTHER|Wilxocon signed Rank test||||||0.028|||||||Wilxocon signed Rank test|||Wilxocon signed Rank test to compare pre to post onset of pain time in the Exercise + Weight loss group. Due to low sample size were unable to compare changes between the Exercise + Weight Loss group and the Exercise only groups.||||0.028
90874624|NCT00773292|181610627|OTHER|change from baseline||||||0.24|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.24
90874625|NCT03227029|181610677|OTHER||% vaccine recipients with solicited AEs|64.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|46.0|80.0|||||Proportions of study participants were calculated and presented with 90% exact confidence intervals. This highlights that we are 95% sure that the true proportion is not higher that the upper limit of the confidence interval.|||80|46|
90874626|NCT03227029|181610677|OTHER||% vaccine recipients with solicited AEs|84.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|67.0|94.0||||||||94|67|
90874627|NCT03227029|181610677|OTHER||% placebo recipients with solicited AEs|58.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|32.0|82.0||||||||82|32|
90874628|NCT03227029|181610678|OTHER||% vaccine recipients with usolicited AEs|36.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|20.0|54.0||||||||54|20|
90874629|NCT03227029|181610678|OTHER||% vaccine recipients with usolicited AEs|52.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|34.0|69.0||||||||69|34|
90914436|NCT00360698|181698766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.192||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance (alpha) = 0.05 ; 2 sided-test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null-hypothesis stated no difference between the 2 treatment groups regarding the rate of severe symptomatic hypoglycemia during the treatment period.||||0.192
90874630|NCT03227029|181610678|OTHER||% placebo recipients with usolicited AEs|42.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|18.0|68.0||||||||68|18|
90874631|NCT03227029|181610680|OTHER||% recipients infected with vaccine virus|88.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|72.0|97.0||||||||97|72|
90874632|NCT03227029|181610680|OTHER||% recipients infected with vaccine virus|96.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.0|100.0||||||||100|82|
90874633|NCT03227029|181610680|OTHER||% recipients infected with vaccine virus|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|22.0||||||||22|0|
90874634|NCT03227029|181610683|OTHER||% with >=4 fold rise in RSV-PRNT|60.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|42.0|76.0||||||||76|42|
90874635|NCT03227029|181610683|OTHER||% with >=4 fold rise in RSV-PRNT|92.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.0|98.0||||||||98|76|
90874636|NCT03227029|181610683|OTHER||% with >=4 fold rise in RSV-PRNT|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|22.0||||||||22|0|
90874637|NCT03227029|181610683|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||Due to unequal sample sizes, a 1-sided Fisher's exact test was used to test the hypothesis that proportions of greater than or equal to 4-fold rises were higher in the vaccinated than in the placebo group. Statistical significance level was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.01
90874638|NCT03227029|181610683|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||Due to unequal sample sizes, a 1-sided Fisher's exact test was used to test the hypothesis that proportions of greater than or equal to 4-fold rises were higher in the vaccinated than in the placebo group. Statistical significance level was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.01
90874639|NCT03227029|181610684|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||Due to unequal sample sizes, a 1-sided Wilcoxon test was used to test the hypothesis that antibody levels at Day 56 were higher in the vaccinated than in the placebo group. Statistical significance level was 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
90874640|NCT03227029|181610684|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||Due to unequal sample sizes, a 1-sided Wilcoxon test was used to test the hypothesis that antibody levels at Day 56 were higher in the vaccinated than in the placebo group. Statistical significance level was 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
90874641|NCT03227029|181610685|OTHER||% with >=4 fold rise in RSV F protein|60.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|42.0|76.0||||||||76|42|
90874642|NCT03227029|181610685|OTHER||% with >=4 fold rise in RSV F protein|92.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.0|98.0||||||||98|76|
90874643|NCT03227029|181610685|OTHER||% with >=4 fold rise in RSV F protein|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|22.0||||||||22|0|
90874644|NCT03227029|181610685|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||Due to unequal sample sizes, a 1-sided Fisher's exact test was used to test the hypothesis that proportions of greater than or equal to 4-fold rises were higher in the vaccinated than in the placebo group. Statistical significance level was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.01
90874645|NCT03227029|181610685|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||Due to unequal sample sizes, a 1-sided Fisher's exact test was used to test the hypothesis that proportions of greater than or equal to 4-fold rises were higher in the vaccinated than in the placebo group. Statistical significance level was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.01
90874646|NCT03227029|181610686|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||Due to unequal sample sizes, a 1-sided Wilcoxon test was used to test the hypothesis that antibody levels at Day 56 were higher in the vaccinated than in the placebo group. Statistical significance level was 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
90874647|NCT03227029|181610686|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||Due to unequal sample sizes, a 1-sided Wilcoxon test was used to test the hypothesis that antibody levels at Day 56 were higher in the vaccinated than in the placebo group. Statistical significance level was 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
90874648|NCT01291173|181610689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.014||||0.8825|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.203|0.175|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.175|-0.203|0.8825
90874649|NCT01291173|181610689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.258||||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.446|-0.069|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.069|-0.446|0.0077
90874650|NCT01291173|181610689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.345||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.534|-0.155|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.155|-0.534|0.0004
90874651|NCT01291173|181610690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4676
90874652|NCT01291173|181610690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0198
90874653|NCT01291173|181610690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0031
90874654|NCT01291173|181610691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3341
90874655|NCT01291173|181610691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0063
90874656|NCT01291173|181610691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0022
90874657|NCT01291173|181610692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0937
90874658|NCT01291173|181610692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0127
90874659|NCT01291173|181610692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0009
90874660|NCT01291173|181610695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0091
90874661|NCT01291173|181610695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0004
90874662|NCT01291173|181610695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
90874663|NCT01291173|181610696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.97||||0.0142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.34|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.60|-5.34|0.0142
90874664|NCT01291173|181610696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.25||||0.0075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.62|-0.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.88|-5.62|0.0075
90914437|NCT01755949|181698767|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline C-reactive protein vs day 28 C-reactive protein||||0.038
90914438|NCT01755949|181698767|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline C-reactive protein vs day 28 C-reactive protein||||0.98
90914439|NCT01755949|181698767|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.072|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||difference between placebo and colchicine levels at day 28||||0.072
90914440|NCT01755949|181698768|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||placebo vs colchicine||||0.08
90874665|NCT01291173|181610696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.93|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|-2.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.56|-7.30|<0.0001
90914441|NCT01667796|181698786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||univariate generalized estimating equati|||||||0.001
90874666|NCT01291173|181610697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.7538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.80|-1.11|0.7538
90914442|NCT01667796|181698786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted for adherence, body mass index, and oral contraceptive use|Generalized estimating equation|||||||0.008
90874667|NCT01291173|181610697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.49||||0.3062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|1.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.44|-0.45|0.3062
90874668|NCT01291173|181610697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.7697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|1.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.09|-0.81|0.7697
90874669|NCT01291173|181610698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.53||||0.2046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|1.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.35|-0.29|0.2046
90874670|NCT01291173|181610698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.3348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|1.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.22|-0.42|0.3348
90874671|NCT01291173|181610698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.81||||0.0505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.63|-0.00|0.0505
90874672|NCT01291173|181610699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cognitive Restraint of Eating||||0.0371
90874673|NCT01291173|181610699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cognitive Restraint of Eating||||0.1380
90874674|NCT01291173|181610699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cognitive Restraint of Eating||||0.0459
90874675|NCT01291173|181610699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Disinhibition||||0.0278
90874676|NCT01291173|181610699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Disinhibition||||0.0022
90874677|NCT01291173|181610699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Disinhibition||||<0.0001
90874678|NCT01291173|181610699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hunger||||0.0149
90874679|NCT01291173|181610699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hunger||||0.0009
90874680|NCT01291173|181610699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hunger||||<0.0001
90874681|NCT01291173|181610700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.9||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.44|-0.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.38|-7.44|0.030
90874682|NCT01291173|181610700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.4||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.95|-1.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.94|-8.95|0.002
90874683|NCT01291173|181610700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.99|-4.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.92|-11.99|<0.001
90874684|NCT01291173|181610701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.65||||0.0824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.64|0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.34|-5.64|0.0824
90874685|NCT01291173|181610701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.07||||0.1725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.05|0.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.91|-5.05|0.1725
90874686|NCT01291173|181610701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.71||||0.0148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.69|-0.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.73|-6.69|0.0148
90874687|NCT01291173|181610702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.25||||0.2504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|3.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Aggregate Physical Score||3.38|-0.89|0.2504
90874688|NCT01291173|181610702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.09||||0.309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|3.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Aggregate Physical Score||3.21|-1.02|0.3090
90874689|NCT01291173|181610702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5||||0.0216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|4.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Aggregate Physical Score||4.64|0.37|0.0216
90874690|NCT01291173|181610702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.9587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.75|2.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Aggregate Mental Score||2.90|-2.75|0.9587
90874691|NCT01291173|181610702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.64||||0.653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.17|3.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Aggregate Mental Score||3.45|-2.17|0.6530
90874692|NCT01291173|181610702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.9814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.79|2.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Aggregate Mental Score||2.86|-2.79|0.9814
90914443|NCT01444417|181698794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.0497||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.896|43.199|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline age group.||The incidence of durable platelet response was compared by the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by the baseline age group. The Mantel-Haenszel common odds ratio (romiplostim vs placebo) was estimated along with its 95% confidence interval.||43.199|1.896|0.0018
90914444|NCT01444417|181698795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.0443||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.535|32.265|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline age group.||The incidence of overall platelet response was compared by the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by the baseline age group. The Mantel-Haenszel common odds ratio (romiplostim vs placebo) was estimated along with its 95% confidence interval.||32.265|2.535|0.0002
90914445|NCT01444417|181698796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004|||||||ANOVA|P-value from Analysis of Variance with main effects (treatment and age group) model after testing for non-significant interaction (p-value ≥ 0.10).||||||0.0004
90914446|NCT01444417|181698797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.813||||0.7103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.277|2.391|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline age group||||2.391|0.277|0.7103
90914447|NCT02200770|181698801|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.272|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1496|0.4961|||Regression, Cox|||||0.4961|0.1496|<0.0001
90914448|NCT02200770|181698802|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.352||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1755|0.7059|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.7059|0.1755|0.0033
90914449|NCT02200770|181698803|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.134|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.096||0.9026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0254|2.2941|||ANCOVA|||||2.2941|-2.0254|0.9026
90914450|NCT02200770|181698804|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.566||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3866|0.8279|||Negative Binomial Regression|||||0.8279|0.3866|0.0034
90914451|NCT02200770|181698805|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.317||||0.0146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1257|0.7972|||Negative Binomial Regression|||||0.7972|0.1257|0.0146
90914452|NCT02214160|181698825|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0347|||||||Paired T-test|||||||0.0347
90914453|NCT02214160|181698826|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0343|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.0343
90914454|NCT01063972|181698842|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.46
90961052|NCT05437510|181802857|SUPERIORITY||Efficacy|41.89|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.073|56.333|||Exact method using binomial distribution|||"Statistical analysis for Overall:~The 2-sided 95% CI for the efficacy was calculated by an exact method assuming a binomial distribution of the number of hospitalizations for all-cause LRTI through day 181 post-dosing/randomization in the nirsevimab group conditional on the total number in both groups accounting for the follow-up time post-dosing/randomization."||56.333|23.073|<0.0001
90914455|NCT01063972|181698843|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.22
90914456|NCT01063972|181698844|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.56
90914457|NCT01063972|181698845|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.48
90914458|NCT00442117|181698904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.074||||0.4982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.196|2.049|||ANOVA|||||2.049|-4.196|0.4982
90914459|NCT00442117|181698905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7601||||0.6544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.585|4.106|||ANOVA|||||4.106|-2.585|0.6544
90914460|NCT00442117|181698906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.704||||0.3796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.528|2.115|||ANOVA|||||2.115|-5.528|0.3796
90914461|NCT00442117|181698907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.432||||0.9622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.56|18.24|||ANOVA|||||18.240|-17.560|0.9622
90914462|NCT03073941|181698943|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-Inferiority analysis was performed once the 1 year OKS of the first 216 patients were collected. A one-sided T-test, 90% power, SD=10 and with a non-inferiority margin of 4 OKS was used and the analysis was based on the difference of average OKS between Persona and NexGen 1 year postoperatively.|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|90% power, SD=10 and with a non-inferiority margin of 4 OKS||||||<0.05
90914463|NCT04250883|181698959|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|for age||||||0.54
90914464|NCT04250883|181698960|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|for age||||||0.97
90914465|NCT04250883|181698962|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64||||||At 12 days postoperative|Chi-squared, Corrected|for age||||||0.64
90914466|NCT04250883|181698962|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38||||||At 3 months postoperative|Chi-squared, Corrected|for age||||||0.38
90914467|NCT04250883|181698963|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|For age||Count of patients with or without pain at 3 months postoperative||||0.84
90914468|NCT04250883|181698963|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|||||||ANCOVA|Correction for age||Number of Words Chosen||||0.89
90914469|NCT04250883|181698963|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||ANCOVA|Correction for age||Pain Rating index||||0.98
90914470|NCT04250883|181698964|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||ANCOVA|Correction for age||||||0.9
90914471|NCT04250883|181698965|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||ANCOVA|Correction for age||At 1 hour||||0.68
90914472|NCT04250883|181698965|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91|||||||ANCOVA|Correction for age||At 6 hours||||0.91
90914473|NCT04250883|181698965|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||ANCOVA|Correction for age||||||0.73
90914474|NCT04250883|181698965|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||ANCOVA|Correction for age||||||0.77
90914475|NCT04250883|181698966|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||ANCOVA|Correction for age||At 1 hour||||0.63
90914476|NCT04250883|181698966|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||ANCOVA|Correction for age||At postoperative day 1||||0.19
90914477|NCT04250883|181698967|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|||||||ANCOVA|Correction for age||At 1 hour||||0.89
90914478|NCT04250883|181698967|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||ANCOVA|Correction for age||At postoperative day 1||||0.49
90914479|NCT04250883|181698968|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||ANCOVA|Correction for age||||||0.42
90914480|NCT04250883|181698969|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||ANCOVA|Correction for age||Of Total complications within 30 days postoperative||||0.92
90914481|NCT04250883|181698970|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.098|||||||ANCOVA|correction for age||Time to maximal intensity||||0.098
90914482|NCT04250883|181698970|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||ANCOVA|correction for age||Angle from minimal to maximal intensity||||0.008
90914483|NCT04250883|181698970|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.042|||||||ANCOVA|correction for age||Delta between minimal and maximal intensity||||0.042
90914484|NCT04250883|181698971|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||ANCOVA|Correction for age||postoperative day 1||||0.35
90914485|NCT04250883|181698971|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||ANCOVA|Correction for age||at postoperative day 12||||0.52
90914486|NCT04250883|181698972|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||ANCOVA|correction for age||at postoperative day 1||||0.99
90914487|NCT04250883|181698972|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||ANCOVA|Correction for age||At postoperative day 12||||0.30
90914488|NCT04250883|181698973|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||ANCOVA|Correction for age||||||0.42
90914489|NCT04250883|181698974|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||ANCOVA|Correction for age||||||0.3
90914490|NCT04250883|181698975|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||ANCOVA|Correction for age||||||0.33
90914491|NCT04250883|181698976|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018|||||||ANCOVA|Correction for age||||||0.018
90914492|NCT02763319|181698979|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.837|1.351|||Inverse normal test|The Inverse Normal method combines information (p-value) from the interim analysis and information from the final analysis.|The hazard ratio estimate for treatment was based on a stratified Cox model with stratification factors as per the Interactive Web Response System (IWRS). Rituximab + bendamustine was the reference treatment group.|||1.351|0.837|0.468
90914493|NCT02763319|181698980|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.586|1.33|||Inverse normal test|The Inverse Normal method combines information (p-value) from the interim analysis and information from the final analysis.|The hazard ratio estimate for treatment was based on a stratified Cox model with stratification factors as per the Interactive Web Response System. Rituximab + bendamustine is the reference treatment group.|||1.330|0.586|0.568
90914494|NCT02763319|181698981|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.812|1.779|||||||A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by Baseline stratification factors was performed for response variable coded as follows: 1 for response (CR or PR) and 0 for nonresponse (stable disease \[SD\] or progressive disease \[PD\] or unknown).|1.779|0.812|
90914495|NCT02763319|181698982|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.778|3.041|||||||A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by Baseline stratification factors was performed for response variable coded as follows: 1 for response (CR or PR) and 0 for nonresponse (stable disease \[SD\] or progressive disease \[PD\] or unknown).|3.041|0.778|
90914496|NCT02763319|181698983|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.938|1.745|||||||The hazard ratio estimate for treatment was based on a stratified Cox model with stratification factors as per IWRS. Rituximab + bendamustine was the reference treatment group.|1.745|0.938|
90914497|NCT02763319|181698984|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.673|2.035|||||||The hazard ratio estimate for treatment was based on a stratified Cox model with stratification factors as per IWRS. Rituximab + bendamustine was the reference treatment group.|2.035|0.673|
90914498|NCT02763319|181698985|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.875|1.452|||||||The hazard ratio estimate for treatment was based on a stratified Cox model with stratification factors as per IWRS. Rituximab + bendamustine was the reference treatment group.|1.452|0.875|
90914499|NCT02763319|181698986|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.682|1.626|||||||The hazard ratio estimate for treatment was based on a stratified Cox model with stratification factors as per IWRS. Rituximab + bendamustine was the reference treatment group.|1.626|0.682|
90914500|NCT02763319|181698987|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.829|1.985|||||||A CMH test stratified by Baseline stratification factors was performed for response variable coded as follows: 1 for response (CR or PR) and 0 for nonresponse (stable disease \[SD\] or progressive disease \[PD\] or unknown).|1.985|0.829|
90914501|NCT02763319|181698988|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.755|3.457|||||||A CMH test stratified by Baseline stratification factors was performed for response variable coded as follows: 1 for response (CR or PR) and 0 for nonresponse (stable disease \[SD\] or progressive disease \[PD\] or unknown).|3.457|0.755|
90914502|NCT02763319|181698989|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.831|1.416|||||||The hazard ratio estimate for treatment was based on a stratified Cox model with stratification factors as per IWRS. Rituximab + bendamustine was the reference treatment group.|1.416|0.831|
90914503|NCT02763319|181698990|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.633|1.595|||||||The hazard ratio estimate for treatment was based on a stratified Cox model with stratification factors as per IWRS. Rituximab + bendamustine was the reference treatment group.|1.595|0.633|
90914504|NCT02763319|181698991|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.794|1.244|||||||The hazard ratio estimate for treatment was based on a stratified Cox model with stratification factors as per IWRS. Rituximab + bendamustine was the reference treatment group.|1.244|0.794|
90914505|NCT02763319|181698992|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.22|||||||The hazard ratio estimate for treatment was based on a stratified Cox model with stratification factors as per IWRS. Rituximab + bendamustine was the reference treatment group.|1.220|0.570|
90914506|NCT00722046|181699053|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|1.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.04||0.6504|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.68|6.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed model repeated measures used terms for treatment, visit, baseline value, country, and treatment-by-visit interaction, with unstructured covariance matrix.||6.45|-3.68|0.6504
90914507|NCT00722046|181699053|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.13||0.5213|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.2|7.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed model repeated measures used terms for treatment, visit, baseline value, country, and treatment-by-visit interaction, with unstructured covariance matrix.||7.23|-3.20|0.5213
90914508|NCT00722046|181699053|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.13||0.4698|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.94|7.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed model repeated measures used terms for treatment, visit, baseline value, country, and treatment-by-visit interaction, with unstructured covariance matrix.||7.48|-2.94|0.4698
90914509|NCT00722046|181699053|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.66||0.5183|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.71|6.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed model repeated measures used terms for treatment, visit, baseline value, country, and treatment-by-visit interaction, with unstructured covariance matrix.||6.17|-2.71|0.5183
90914510|NCT00722046|181699053|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7||0.7529|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.65|5.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed model repeated measures used terms for treatment, visit, baseline value, country, and treatment-by-visit interaction, with unstructured covariance matrix.||5.35|-3.65|0.7529
90961053|NCT05437510|181802857|SUPERIORITY||Efficacy|32.19||||0.1003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.188|57.545|||Exact method using binomial distribution|||"Statistical analysis for France:~The 2-sided 95% CI for the efficacy was calculated by an exact method assuming a binomial distribution of the number of hospitalizations for all-cause LRTI through day 181 post-dosing/randomization in the nirsevimab group conditional on the total number in both groups accounting for the follow-up time post-dosing/randomization."||57.545|-7.188|0.1003
90874693|NCT01074450|181610712|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|100.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.23|108.1|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||108.1|94.23|
90874694|NCT01074450|181610713|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|104.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.74|109.92|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||109.92|99.74|
90874695|NCT01074450|181610714|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|104.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.05|109.52|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||109.52|99.05|
90874696|NCT04788953|181610732|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Change from baseline using mixed-effects tobit regression model (censored normal). Group (Solriamfetol, Placebo), visit (Baseline, End-of-Treatment), trial (1-4) main factors and their interactions. Covariates considered: age, sex, ethnicity, race.|Mixed Models Analysis|P-value is difference between groups.||The statistical null hypothesis was that solriamfetol does not improve change in MWT scores versus placebo after 4 weeks of treatment (H0: µsol - µpl ≤ 0). Study was designed to have 97% power to detect a difference of 5.7 minutes or greater on MWT sleep latency (α=0.05, assumed σ=7.2) with 100 participants. Blinded interim power analysis on the baseline data conducted in October 2023 indicated the trial would have \>99% power to detect a similar difference with only 74 participants.||||<0.001
90874697|NCT04788953|181610733|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Change from baseline using mixed-effects linear regression model. Group (Solriamfetol, Placebo), visit (Baseline, End-of-Treatment), trial (1-4) main factors and their interactions. Covariates considered: age, sex, ethnicity, race.|Mixed Models Analysis|P-value is difference between groups.||||||<0.001
90874698|NCT04788953|181610734|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||"Chi-squared tests performed on dichotomized CGI-Change data (Improved \[very much improved, much improved, minimally improved\] vs. Not Improved \[no change, minimally worse, much worse, very much worse\])."|Chi-squared|P-value is difference between groups.||||||0.01
90874699|NCT04788953|181610736|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline using mixed-effects linear regression model. Group (Solriamfetol vs. Placebo) and visit (Baseline vs. End-of-Treatment) as main factors and their interactions. Covariates considered: age, sex, ethnicity, race.||||||0.02|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|P-value is difference between groups.||||||0.02
90874700|NCT04788953|181610737|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64||||||Change from baseline using mixed-effects linear regression model. Group (Solriamfetol vs. Placebo) and visit (Baseline vs. End-of-Treatment) as main factors and their interactions. Covariates considered: age, sex, ethnicity, race.|Mixed Models Analysis|P-value is difference between groups.||||||0.64
90874701|NCT04788953|181610738|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||Change from baseline using mixed-effects linear regression model. Group (Solriamfetol vs. Placebo) and visit (Baseline vs. End-of-Treatment) as main factors and their interactions. Covariates considered: age, sex, ethnicity, race.|Mixed Models Analysis|P-value is difference between groups.||||||0.04
90874702|NCT04788953|181610739|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61||||||Change from baseline using mixed-effects linear regression model. Group (Solriamfetol vs. Placebo) and Condition (Baseline vs. Treatment) as main factors and their interactions. Covariates considered: age, sex, ethnicity, race.|Mixed Models Analysis|P-value is difference between groups.||||||0.61
90874703|NCT04788953|181610740|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57||||||Change from baseline using mixed-effects linear regression model. Group (Solriamfetol vs. Placebo) and Condition (Baseline vs. Treatment) as main factors and their interactions. Covariates considered: age, sex, ethnicity, race.|Mixed Models Analysis|P-value is difference between groups.||||||0.57
90874704|NCT04788953|181610741|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Change from baseline using mixed-effects linear regression model. Group (Solriamfetol vs. Placebo) and visit (Baseline vs. End-of-Treatment) as main factors and their interactions. Covariates considered: age, sex, ethnicity, race.|Mixed Models Analysis|P-value is difference between groups.||||||<0.001
90914511|NCT00722046|181699055|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.59||0.4688|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.38|5.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed model repeated measures used terms for treatment, visit, baseline value, country, and treatment-by-visit interaction, with unstructured covariance matrix.||5.24|-13.38|0.4688
91033441|NCT01811953|181952650|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means (gMean), test/reference, for the primary endpoints using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Geometric mean ratio|99.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.14|107.03|||ANOVA||The geometric mean ratio was calculated as the geometric mean of '2 Empagliflozin/Metformin (T)' divided by the geometric mean of '4 Empagliflozin + Metformin (R)'.|||107.03|92.14|<0.0001
90874705|NCT00469092|181610742|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is shown if the upper limit of the 95% CI is less than 0.4%. Furthermore, superiority of BIAsp 30 OD over insulin glargine OD was shown if the upper limit of the 95% CI for the difference is lower than 0%. Equivalence is shown if the upper limit of the 95% CI for the difference is lower than 0.4% and the lower limit of the 95% CI is greater than -0.4%.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.16||||0.029||95.0|-0.3|-0.02||P-value is for the test for difference in means equals 0 against the alternative that the difference is different from 0.|Regression, Linear|||HbA1c was compared between the treatment groups by fitting a linear regression model (ANCOVA) with treatment and country as factors and the baseline values as a continuous covariate. Mean and SE are estimated from the model.||-0.02|-0.30|0.029
90874706|NCT00469092|181610743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0059||95.0||||P-value for parallelism is overall test for parallel time profiles between treatment groups i.e. time by treatment group interaction effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The profiles were compared between the treatment groups by fitting a repeated measures mixed model including treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction and country as fixed effects, and subject as random effect.||||0.0059
90874707|NCT00469092|181610744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.914||||||95.0|0.57|1.47|||||The OR and 95% CI is for the HbA1c \<= 6.5% treatment target.|||1.47|0.57|
90874708|NCT00469092|181610744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.014||||||95.0|0.67|1.54|||||The OR and 95% CI is for the HbA1c \< 7.0% treatment target.|||1.54|0.67|
90874709|NCT00469092|181610744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.131||||||95.0|0.72|1.77|||||The OR and 95% CI is for the reduction more than 1.0% from baseline treatment target.|||1.77|0.72|
90874710|NCT00469092|181610744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.905||||||95.0|0.59|1.38|||||The OR and 95% CI is for the HbA1c \< 7% no nocturnal (00:00-06:00) hypoglycemia treatment target|||1.38|0.59|
90874711|NCT00469092|181610744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.181||||||95.0|0.74|1.87|||||The OR and 95% CI is for the HbA1c \< 7%, no daytime (06:01-23:59) hypoglycemia treatment target|||1.87|0.74|
91033442|NCT01811953|181952650|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means (gMean), test/reference, for the primary endpoints using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Geometric mean ratio|100.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.77|105.96|||ANOVA||The geometric mean ratio was calculated as the geometric mean of '5 Empagliflozin/Metformin (T)' divided by the geometric mean of '6 Empagliflozin + Metformin (R)'.|||105.96|95.77|<0.0001
91033443|NCT03785548|181952651|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.851|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.576||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.241|7.944|||ANCOVA|F(1, 140)=1.225||||7.944|-2.241|0.270
90874712|NCT00469092|181610744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.122||||||95.0|0.69|1.82|||||The OR and 95% CI is for the HbA1c \< 7%, no hypoglycemia treatment target.|||1.82|0.69|
90874713|NCT00469092|181610745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04||||||95.0|-2.4|2.48|||||The mean difference and 95% CI is for the burden score. The scores were compared between the treatment groups by fitting a linear regression model with treatment and country as factors and the baseline values as a continuous covariate.|The Diab MedSat measure was scored as an overall score as well as three subscale scores. The scores were transformed to a 0-100 scale with higher scores indicating greater satisfaction. The score of the subscales was computed as the mean of the items in each subscale. The overall score is the mean of all three subscales.||2.48|-2.40|
90874714|NCT00469092|181610745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.22||||||95.0|-3.56|3.11|||||The mean difference and 95% CI is for the efficacy score. The scores were compared between the treatment groups by fitting a linear regression model with treatment and country as factors and the baseline values as a continuous covariate.|The Diab MedSat measure was scored as an overall score as well as three subscale scores. The scores were transformed to a 0-100 scale with higher scores indicating greater satisfaction. The score of the subscales was computed as the mean of the items in each subscale. The overall score is the mean of all three subscales.||3.11|-3.56|
90874715|NCT00469092|181610745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.39||||||95.0|-3.14|2.35|||||The mean difference and 95% CI is for the symptoms score. The scores were compared between the treatment groups by fitting a linear regression model with treatment and country as factors and the baseline values as a continuous covariate.|The Diab MedSat measure was scored as an overall score as well as three subscale scores. The scores were transformed to a 0-100 scale with higher scores indicating greater satisfaction. The score of the subscales was computed as the mean of the items in each subscale. The overall score is the mean of all three subscales.||2.35|-3.14|
90874716|NCT00469092|181610745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11||||||95.0|-2.36|2.14|||Regression, Linear||The mean difference and 95% CI is for the overall score. The scores were compared between the treatment groups by fitting a linear regression model with treatment and country as factors and the baseline values as a continuous covariate.|Diab MedSat measure was scored as an overall score as well as three subscale scores, and transformed to a 0-100 scale with higher scores indicating greater satisfaction. The score of the subscales was computed as the mean of the items in each subscale. The overall score is the mean of all three subscales.||2.14|-2.36|
90874717|NCT02024867|181610748|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size of 120 per group was calculated according to an assumed treatment cure rate of 95% with 10 days of antibiotics, and a non-inferiority margin of 7% (allowing up to 88% cure rate with 3 days of antibiotics), to achieve a power of 0.80 (alpha=0.05). An additional 25 patients were recruited to account for an estimated 10% lost to follow-up.|Rate Difference|4.0||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|9.5|||Chi-squared|||||9.5|-1.5|0.25
90874718|NCT02024867|181610749|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|described previously|Rate Difference|10.7||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|19.2|||Chi-squared|||||19.2|2.1|0.02
90874719|NCT02024867|181610750|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|described previously|Rate Difference|10.1||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|18.2|||Chi-squared|||||18.2|2.1|0.03
90874720|NCT02024867|181610751|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|described previously|Rate Difference|0.1|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|7.0|||Chi-squared|||||7.0|-6.9|>0.05
91033444|NCT03785548|181952652|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.141|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.098||0.964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.983|6.266|||ANCOVA|F(1, 140)=0.002||||6.266|-5.983|0.964
90874721|NCT02024867|181610752|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|described previously|Rate Difference|10.3||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|19.9|||Chi-squared|||||19.9|0.8|0.046
90874722|NCT02024867|181610753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|described previously|rate difference|0.0|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
90874723|NCT01086540|181610771|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|23.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.71||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Estimate is for the difference (Rituximab - Placebo) at Week 24.|The null hypothesis was that the mean change in 6MWD between baseline and Week 24 does not differ between rituximab and placebo. A repeated measures random effect model was fit to model the distance walked as a function of treatment, visit week, a treatment by visit week interaction, and a quadratic visit term. A random slope and intercept were fit for each participant using a separate unstructured covariance matrix for each treatment group. The model included all available data up to Week 24.||||0.12
90874724|NCT01086540|181610772|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.42|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A repeated measures mixed model was fit with PVR as the outcome and treatment, visit week (actual observed week), and their interaction as predictors. Random intercepts and slopes were fit for each participant using an unstructured covariance structure for each treatment group.||||0.42
90874725|NCT01086540|181610773|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.1||0.28|TWO_SIDED|||||Week 48 value. P-values not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimate is for the difference (Rituximab - Placebo) at Week 48.|A repeated measures random effect model was fit to model the distance walked as a function of treatment, visit week, a treatment by visit week interaction, and a quadratic visit term. A random slope and intercept were fit for each participant using a separate unstructured covariance matrix for each treatment group. The model included all available data up to Week 48.||||0.28
90874726|NCT01086540|181610773|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.5||0.031|TWO_SIDED|||||Week 24 value. P-values not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimate is for the difference (Rituximab - Placebo) at Week 24.|A repeated measures random effect model was fit to model the distance walked as a function of treatment, visit week, a treatment by visit week interaction, and a quadratic visit term. A random slope and intercept were fit for each participant using a separate unstructured covariance matrix for each treatment group. The model included all available data up to Week 48.||||0.031
90874727|NCT01086540|181610774|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92||||||P-values not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|||Kaplan-Meier curves for time to clinical worsening were compared using a log-rank test.||||0.92
90874728|NCT01086540|181610775|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36||||||P-values not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|||Kaplan-Meier curves for time to change or addition of PAH medications were compared using a log-rank test.||||0.36
90874729|NCT01086540|181610776|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7||0.81|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimate is for the difference (Rituximab - Placebo) at Week 48.|A repeated measures random effect model was fit with the mental component score as the outcome, and treatment, visit week (actual observed week), and their interaction as predictors. Random intercepts and slopes were fit for each participant using an unstructured covariance structure for each treatment group.||||0.81
90874730|NCT01086540|181610777|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.3|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimate is for the difference (Rituximab - Placebo) at Week 48.|A repeated measures random effect model was fit with the physical component score as the outcome, and treatment, visit week (actual observed week), and their interaction as predictors. Random intercepts and slopes were fit for each participant using an unstructured covariance structure for each treatment group.||||0.30
90874731|NCT01086540|181610778|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.58|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimate is for the difference (Rituximab - Placebo) at Week 48.|A repeated measures random effect model was fit with HAQ-DI as the outcome, and treatment, visit week (actual observed week), and their interaction as predictors. Random intercepts and slopes were fit for each participant using an unstructured covariance structure for each treatment group.||||0.58
90874732|NCT01086540|181610779|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47||||||P-values not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||A Poisson model was used to describe the rate of new digital ulcers (per week) as the outcome with treatment, number of digital ulcers at Baseline, and if the measurement was affected by changed or new PAH therapeutic agents as covariates.||||0.47
90874733|NCT01086540|181610780|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7||0.43|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimate is for the difference (Rituximab - Placebo) at Week 48.|A repeated measures random effect model was fit with severity of Raynaud's (0 to 100) as the outcome, and treatment, visit week (actual observed week), and their interaction as predictors. Random intercepts and slopes were fit for each participant using an unstructured covariance structure for each treatment group.||||0.43
90874734|NCT01086540|181610781|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8||0.65|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimate is for the difference (Rituximab - Placebo) at Week 48.|A repeated measures random effect model was fit with DLCO as the outcome, and treatment, visit week (actual observed week), and their interaction as predictors. Random intercepts and slopes were fit for each participant using an unstructured covariance structure for each treatment group.||||0.65
90961054|NCT05437510|181802857|SUPERIORITY||Efficacy|39.83||||0.0164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.449|60.911|||Exact method using binomial distribution|||"Statistical analysis for UK:~The 2-sided 95% CI for the efficacy was calculated by an exact method assuming a binomial distribution of the number of hospitalizations for all-cause LRTI through day 181 post-dosing/randomization in the nirsevimab group conditional on the total number in both groups accounting for the follow-up time post-dosing/randomization."||60.911|8.449|0.0164
90961055|NCT05437510|181802857|SUPERIORITY||Efficacy|64.06||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.386|84.478|||Exact method using binomial distribution|||"Statistical analysis for Germany:~The 2-sided 95% CI for the efficacy was calculated by an exact method assuming a binomial distribution of the number of hospitalizations for all-cause LRTI through day 181 post-dosing/randomization in the nirsevimab group conditional on the total number in both groups accounting for the follow-up time post-dosing/randomization."||84.478|23.386|0.0058
90961056|NCT00826111|181802916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0085|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0534||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.139|0.0122|||t-test, 2 sided|||||.01220|-0.1390|0.88
90961057|NCT00826111|181802917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.031|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.112||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.286|0.224|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.224|-0.286|0.79
90961058|NCT00826111|181802918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0222|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0128||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.0136|||t-test, 2 sided|||||.0136|-0.580|0.16
90961059|NCT00826111|181802919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.515||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|2.77|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.77|-1.35|0.29
90961060|NCT00826111|181802920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.005||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0077|0.0174|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.0174|-0.0077|0.37
90961061|NCT00826111|181802921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0056|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0042||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0037|0.1481|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.1481|-0.0037|0.21
90961062|NCT00826111|181802922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.94||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|16.46|||t-test, 2 sided|||||16.46|-1.76|0.10
90961063|NCT00826111|181802923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.06||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.31|10.51|||t-test, 2 sided|||||10.51|-9.31|0.89
90961064|NCT00826111|181802924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.78||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.31|6.91|||t-test, 2 sided|||||6.91|-10.31|0.66
90961065|NCT02072434|181802931|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|1.43||||||||1.43|0.12|
90961066|NCT02072434|181802932|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|3.55||||||||3.55|0.64|
90961067|NCT02072434|181802933|OTHER||Difference between percentages|-0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|0.15||||||||0.15|-1.59|
90961068|NCT00402363|181802985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||0.263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.46|||Regression, Cox|||||1.46|0.90|0.263
90961069|NCT00402363|181802986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.64||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.92|||Log Rank|||||2.92|0.92|0.089
90961070|NCT00402363|181802986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.22||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.52|||Regression, Cox|||||1.52|0.98|0.081
90961071|NCT00402363|181802987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.49|||Regression, Cox|||||1.49|0.91|0.213
90961072|NCT00402363|181802987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.5||||0.171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|2.69|||Log Rank|||||2.69|0.83|0.171
90961073|NCT00402363|181802988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.22||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.53|||Regression, Cox|||||1.53|0.98|0.082
90961074|NCT00402363|181802989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.4|||Regression, Cox|||||1.40|0.89|0.331
90961075|NCT00402363|181802989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.29||||0.297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.11|||Log Rank|||||2.11|0.79|0.297
90961076|NCT00402363|181802990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.42|||Regression, Cox|||||1.42|0.94|0.168
90961077|NCT00402363|181802991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.43|||Regression, Cox|||||1.43|0.90|0.270
90961078|NCT00402363|181802991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19||||0.486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.95|||Log Rank|||||1.95|0.73|0.486
90961079|NCT00402363|181802992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.42|||Regression, Cox|||||1.42|0.94|0.167
90961080|NCT00402363|181802993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.47|||Regression, Cox|||||1.47|0.81|0.565
90961081|NCT00402363|181802993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.68||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|3.15|||Log Rank|||||3.15|0.89|0.103
90961082|NCT00402363|181802994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.56|||Regression, Cox|||||1.56|0.92|0.185
90961083|NCT00402363|181802995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.51|||Regression, Cox|||||1.51|0.83|0.461
90914512|NCT00722046|181699055|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.64||0.9743|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.59|9.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed model repeated measures used terms for treatment, visit, baseline value, country, and treatment-by-visit interaction, with unstructured covariance matrix.||9.22|-9.59|0.9743
90914513|NCT00722046|181699055|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.65||0.8824|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.57|10.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed model repeated measures used terms for treatment, visit, baseline value, country, and treatment-by-visit interaction, with unstructured covariance matrix.||10.25|-8.57|0.8824
90914514|NCT00722046|181699055|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.81||0.4831|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.77|5.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed model repeated measures used terms for treatment, visit, baseline value, country, and treatment-by-visit interaction, with unstructured covariance matrix.||5.58|-13.77|0.4831
90914515|NCT00722046|181699055|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.88||0.9562|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.48|10.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed model repeated measures used terms for treatment, visit, baseline value, country, and treatment-by-visit interaction, with unstructured covariance matrix.||10.13|-9.48|0.9562
90914516|NCT00925587|181699065|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin -0.5 g/dL|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.188|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.122|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.427|0.052|||||Darbepoetin alfa QM - Darbepoetin alfa Q2W|Power = 90% at sample size calculation||0.052|-0.427|
90914517|NCT00774397|181699145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0537||95.0||||P-value based on Fisher's exact test (2-sided)|Fisher Exact|||||||0.0537
90914518|NCT00774397|181699145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0213||||||P-value based on Fisher's exact test (2-sided)|Fisher Exact|||||||0.0213
90961084|NCT00402363|181802995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.51||||0.206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.86|||Log Rank|||||2.86|0.79|0.206
91077953|NCT01172808|182041199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.158|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.215|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R2.5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, country, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.215|0.100|<0.0001
90914519|NCT00774397|181699145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value based on Fisher's exact test (2-sided)|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
90914520|NCT00774397|181699145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value based on Fisher's exact test (2-sided)|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
90914521|NCT00774397|181699145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value based on Fisher's exact test (2-sided)|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
90961085|NCT00402363|181802996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.57|||Regression, Cox|||||1.57|0.92|0.188
90961086|NCT00402363|181802997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||median difference (Hodges-Lehmann)|0.07||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|2.08|||non-parametric ANCOVA|||||2.08|-0.09|0.290
90914522|NCT00774397|181699145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value based on Fisher's exact test (2-sided)|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
90914523|NCT01039688|181699271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.18||A stepdown procedure was used to control for multiple comparisons. In order for the comparison of CP-690,550 5 mg to be statistically significant versus MTX, the comparison of CP-690,550 10 mg versus MTX had to be statistically significant.|ANCOVA|||||-0.18|-0.73|0.0014
90914524|NCT01039688|181699271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.23||A stepdown procedure was used to control for multiple comparisons. In order for the comparison of CP-690,550 5 mg to be statistically significant versus MTX, the comparison of CP-690,550 10 mg versus MTX had to be statistically significant.|ANCOVA|||||-0.23|-0.77|0.0004
90914525|NCT01039688|181699272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|13.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.81|19.82||A stepdown procedure was used to control for multiple comparisons. For comparison of 5 mg to be statistically significant, comparison of 10 mg to MTX in ACR70 and comparison of 5 mg to MTX in change from BL in mTSS had to be statistically significant|Normal approximation|||||19.82|6.81|<0.0001
90914526|NCT01039688|181699272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|25.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.51|31.99||A stepdown procedure was used to control for multiple comparisons. For comparison of 10 mg to MTX in ACR70 to be statistically significant, comparison of 10 mg to MTX in change from BL in mTSS had to be statistically significant|Normal approximation|||||31.99|18.51|<0.0001
90914527|NCT03844269|181699372|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||EEG data excluded if excessive noise (rejection of more than 30% of target trials due to voltage fluctuations greater than ± 100 μV deflections within an epoch) at the pre- or post-intervention assessment||||<0.05
90914528|NCT00475319|181699386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||versus placebo|t-test, 2 sided|a general linear model||||||0.001
90914529|NCT00475319|181699387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||versus placebo|t-test, 2 sided|a general linear model||||||0.001
90914530|NCT03698708|181699388|SUPERIORITY||cohen's d|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED||||||repeated measures ANOVA|||||||
90914531|NCT03698708|181699389|SUPERIORITY||cohen's d|0.22|||||TWO_SIDED||||||repeated measures ANOVA|||||||
90914532|NCT03698708|181699390|SUPERIORITY||cohen's d|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED||||||repeated measures ANOVA|||||||
90914533|NCT03698708|181699391|SUPERIORITY||cohen's d|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED||||||repeated measures ANOVA|||||||
91077954|NCT01172808|182041199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.106|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.049|0.164|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, country, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.164|0.049|0.0003
91077955|NCT01172808|182041200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|37.907|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.994|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.113|47.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R2.5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||47.700|28.113|<0.0001
90914534|NCT03698708|181699392|SUPERIORITY||cohen's d|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED||||||repeated measures ANOVA|||||||
90914535|NCT03698708|181699393|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.07|1.74|||ANOVA|||||1.74|-10.07|
90914536|NCT00891930|181699421|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013|||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.0130
90914537|NCT02512965|181699435|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.46||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.79|6.69||2-sided, adjusted for stratification factors at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by stratification factor at randomization.|||6.69|1.79|0.0002
90914538|NCT02512965|181699436|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.56||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|4.85|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by stratification factors at randomization.|||4.85|1.35|0.0036
90914539|NCT02512965|181699437|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.24|||Log Rank|2-sided p-value adjusted for stratification factors at randomization.|Estimate adjusted for stratification factors at randopmization.|||1.24|0.46|0.26
90914540|NCT02512965|181699438|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.4||2-sided p-value adjusted for stratification factors at randomization.|Log Rank|||||1.40|0.48|0.47
91077956|NCT01172808|182041200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.677|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.023|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.825|43.529|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||43.529|23.825|<0.0001
90914541|NCT04303156|181699439|OTHER||GMR|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.68|2.88|||||Severe Renal Impairment / Healthy|Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|GMR calculated using the mean square error referencing a t-distribution. Confidence limits exponentiated to obtain the 90% confidence interval.|2.88|1.68|
90914542|NCT04303156|181699440|OTHER||GMR|1.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.46|2.55|||||Severe Renal Impairment / Healthy|GMR|GMR calculated using the mean square error referencing a t-distribution. Confidence limits exponentiated to obtain the 90% confidence interval.|2.55|1.46|
90914543|NCT04303156|181699441|OTHER||GMR|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.67|1.57|||||Severe Renal Impairment / Healthy|GMR|GMR calculated using the mean square error referencing a t-distribution. Confidence limits exponentiated to obtain the 90% confidence interval.|1.57|0.67|
90914544|NCT04303156|181699444|OTHER||GMR|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.35|0.6|||||Severe Renal Impairment / Healthy|GMR|GMR calculated using the mean square error referencing a t-distribution. Confidence limits exponentiated to obtain the 90% confidence interval.|0.60|0.35|
90914545|NCT04303156|181699445|OTHER||GMR|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.56|1.14|||||Severe Renal Impairment / Healthy|GMR|GMR calculated using the mean square error referencing a t-distribution. Confidence limits exponentiated to obtain the 90% confidence interval.|1.14|0.56|
90914546|NCT04303156|181699446|OTHER||GMR|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.03|2.14|||||Severe Renal Impairment / Healthy|GMR|GMR calculated using the mean square error referencing a t-distribution. Confidence limits exponentiated to obtain the 90% confidence interval.|2.14|1.03|
90914547|NCT04303156|181699447|OTHER||GMR|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|1.93|||||Severe Renal Impairment / Healthy|GMR|GMR calculated using the mean square error referencing a t-distribution. Confidence limits exponentiated to obtain the 90% confidence interval.|1.93|0.98|
90914548|NCT04303156|181699448|OTHER||GMR|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.64|1.39|||||Severe Renal Impairment / Healthy|GMR|GMR calculated using the mean square error referencing a t-distribution. Confidence limits exponentiated to obtain the 90% confidence interval.|1.39|0.64|
90914549|NCT04303156|181699450|OTHER||GMR|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|1.35|||||Severe Renal Impairment / Healthy|GMR|GMR calculated using the mean square error referencing a t-distribution. Confidence limits exponentiated to obtain the 90% confidence interval.|1.35|0.69|
90914550|NCT04303156|181699451|OTHER||GMR|1.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.55|6.02|||||Severe Renal Impairment / Healthy|GMR|GMR calculated using the mean square error referencing a t-distribution. Confidence limits exponentiated to obtain the 90% confidence interval.|6.02|0.55|
90914551|NCT04303156|181699452|OTHER||GMR|2.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.51|4.8|||||Severe Renal Impairment / Healthy|GMR|GMR calculated using the mean square error referencing a t-distribution. Confidence limits exponentiated to obtain the 90% confidence interval.|4.80|1.51|
90914552|NCT04283552|181699476|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Two-tailed Wildoxon signed-rank test|||This statistical analysis is for Reader 1.||||0.001
90914553|NCT04283552|181699476|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Two-tailed Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||This statistical analysis is for Reader 2.||||0.28
90914554|NCT04283552|181699477|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||Two-tailed Wilcoxon signed-rank test.|||This is the statistical analysis for Reader 1.||||0.22
90914555|NCT04283552|181699477|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Two-tailed Wilcoxon signed-rank test.|||This is the statistical analysis for Reader 2.||||>0.05
90914556|NCT04283552|181699478|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||Two-tailed Wilcoxon signed-rank test.|||This is the statistical analysis for Reader 1.||||0.009
90914557|NCT04283552|181699478|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Two-tailed Wilcoxon signed-rank test.|||This statistical analysis is for Reader 2.||||>0.05
90914558|NCT04283552|181699479|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Two-tailed Wilcoxon signed-rank test.|||This is the statistical analysis for Reader 1.||||<0.001
90914559|NCT04283552|181699479|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Two-tailed Wilcoxon signed-rank test.|||This is the statistical analysis for Reader 2.||||0.02
90914560|NCT04283552|181699480|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Two-tailed Wilcoxon signed-rank test.|||This is the statistical analysis for Reader 1.||||<0.001
90874735|NCT01086540|181610783|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.7||0.42|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A repeated measures mixed model was fit with percent change in PVR as the outcome and baseline PVR, treatment, visit week (actual observed week), and their interaction as predictors. Random intercepts and slopes were fit for each participant using an unstructured covariance structure for each treatment group.||||0.42
90914561|NCT04283552|181699480|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Two-tailed Wilcoxon signed-rank test.|||This is the statistical analysis for Reader 2.||||0.02
90914562|NCT04283552|181699483|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Two-tailed Wilcoxon signed-rank test.|||This is the statistical analysis comparing PS-Early Reader 1 to PS-Late Reader 1.||||<0.001
90874736|NCT01086540|181610788|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17||||||P-values not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|||Kaplan-Meier curves for time to all-cause mortality were compared using a log-rank test.||||0.17
90874737|NCT01086540|181610789|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35||||||P-values not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|||Kaplan-Meier curves for time to all-cause mortality were compared using a log-rank test.||||0.35
90874738|NCT00527943|181610795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.92||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.01|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||1.01|0.85|0.072
90874739|NCT00527943|181610796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.89||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|0.98|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||0.98|0.81|0.018
90914563|NCT04283552|181699483|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Two-tailed Wilcoxon signed-rank test.|||This is the statistical analysis comparing PS-Early Reader 2 and PS-Late Reader 2.||||<0.001
90874740|NCT00527943|181610797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|1.57|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||1.57|1.18|<0.001
90874741|NCT00527943|181610798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|1.54|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||1.54|1.29|<0.001
90914564|NCT01852071|181699491|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|14.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|42.81||||||Percentage of patients alive at 1-year post-treatment in the historical control groups (without MRD) were compared to the percentage of study patients alive at 1-year post-treatment with OTL-101. Results are reported as percentage difference in OS of historical control group from OTL-101 on-study subjects.||42.81|-5.40|
90914565|NCT01852071|181699491|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Percentage of patients alive at 1-year post-treatment in the historical control groups (with MRD) were compared to the percentage of study patients alive at 1-year post-treatment with OTL-101. Results are reported as percentage difference in OS of historical control group from OTL-101 on-study subjects.||||
90874742|NCT00527943|181610799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.91||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.0|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||1.00|0.84|0.038
90914566|NCT01852071|181699491|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|7.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.08|25.13||||||Percentage of patients alive at 1-year post-treatment in the historical control groups (all control patients) were compared to the percentage of study patients alive at 1-year post-treatment with OTL-101. Results are reported as percentage difference in OS of historical control group from OTL-101 on-study subjects.||25.13|-10.08|
90914567|NCT01852071|181699492|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|35.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.21|64.86||||||Percentage of patients with EvFS at 1-year post-treatment in the historical control groups (without MRD) were compared to the percentage of study patients with EvFS at 1-year post-treatment with OTL-101. Results are reported as percentage difference in EvFS of historical control group from OTL-101 on-study subjects.||64.86|11.21|
90914568|NCT01852071|181699492|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Percentage of patients with EvFS at 1-year post-treatment in the historical control groups (with MRD) were compared to the percentage of study patients with EvFS at 1-year post-treatment with OTL-101. Results are reported as percentage difference in EvFS of historical control group from OTL-101 on-study subjects.||||
90914569|NCT01852071|181699492|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|19.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|39.35||||||Percentage of patients with EvFS at 1-year post-treatment in the historical control groups (all control patients) were compared to the percentage of study patients with EvFS at 1-year post-treatment with OTL-101. Results are reported as percentage difference in EvFS of historical control group from OTL-101 on-study subjects.||39.35|0.71|
90914570|NCT01852071|181699493|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|14.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|42.81||||||Percentage of patients alive at 2-years post-treatment in the historical control groups (without MRD) were compared to the percentage of study patients alive at 2-years post-treatment with OTL-101. Results are reported as percentage difference in OS of historical control group from OTL-101 on-study subjects.||42.81|-5.40|
90914571|NCT01852071|181699493|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|9.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.55|41.28||||||Percentage of patients alive at 2-years post-treatment in the historical control groups (with MRD) were compared to the percentage of study patients alive at 2-years post-treatment with OTL-101. Results are reported as percentage difference in OS of historical control group from OTL-101 on-study subjects.||41.28|-9.55|
90874743|NCT00527943|181610800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.9||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|0.99|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||0.99|0.81|0.027
90874744|NCT00527943|181610801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.94||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.03|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||1.03|0.87|0.174
90874745|NCT00527943|181610802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.93||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.02|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||1.02|0.86|0.108
90874746|NCT00527943|181610803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.0||||0.963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.22|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||1.22|0.83|0.963
90874747|NCT00527943|181610804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.88||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.98|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||0.98|0.79|0.021
90874748|NCT00527943|181610805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.14||||0.418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.58|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||1.58|0.83|0.418
90914572|NCT01852071|181699493|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.62|31.22||||||Percentage of patients alive at 2-years post-treatment in the historical control groups (all control patients) were compared to the percentage of study patients alive at 2-years post-treatment with OTL-101. Results are reported as percentage difference in OS of historical control group from OTL-101 on-study subjects.||31.22|-5.62|
90914573|NCT01852071|181699494|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.71|76.96||||||Percentage of patients with EvFS at 2-years post-treatment in the historical control groups (without MRD) were compared to the percentage of study patients with EvFS at 2-years post-treatment with OTL-101. Results are reported as percentage difference in EvFS of historical control group from OTL-101 on-study subjects.||76.96|22.71|
90914574|NCT01852071|181699494|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|36.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.8|69.21||||||Percentage of patients with EvFS at 2-years post-treatment in the historical control groups (with MRD) were compared to the percentage of study patients with EvFS at 2-years post-treatment with OTL-101. Results are reported as percentage difference in EvFS of historical control group from OTL-101 on-study subjects.||69.21|9.80|
90914575|NCT01852071|181699494|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|44.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.78|65.23||||||Percentage of patients with EvFS at 2-years post-treatment in the historical control groups (all control patients) were compared to the percentage of study patients with EvFS at 2-years post-treatment with OTL-101. Results are reported as percentage difference in EvFS of historical control group from OTL-101 on-study subjects.||65.23|22.78|
90914576|NCT02755116|181699518|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted relative risk|0.76||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.2|||log-binomial regression|||||1.20|0.48|0.003
90914577|NCT01214824|181699529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.014||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Comparison is HbA1c at 6 months versus Baseline||||0.014
90914578|NCT01214824|181699531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5304||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||Comparison is masked phase 2 versus masked phase 1||||0.5304
90961087|NCT00402363|181802997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||median difference (Hodges-Lehmann)|0.063||||0.479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|2.02|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||2.02|-0.08|0.479
90961088|NCT00402363|181802997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||median difference (Hodges-Lehmann)|0.039||||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|1.49|||non-parametric ANCOVA|||||1.49|-0.06|0.218
90961089|NCT00402363|181802998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||median difference (Hodges-Lehmann)|0.321||||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|2.21|||non-parametric ANCOVA|||||2.21|-0.18|0.218
90874749|NCT00527943|181610806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.07||||0.493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.31|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||1.31|0.88|0.493
90874750|NCT00527943|181610807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.05||||0.515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.23|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||1.23|0.90|0.515
90874751|NCT00527943|181610808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.93||||0.606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.23|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||1.23|0.70|0.606
90874752|NCT02612428|181610831|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.913||||0.762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.509|1.64|||Log Rank|||The primary endpoint was assessed using a Kaplan-Meier survival analysis of the Intent-to-treat (ITT) population utilizing a log-rank test.||1.640|0.509|0.762
90874753|NCT02612428|181610832|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6829|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.6829
90874754|NCT02612428|181610833|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.048|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.048
90874755|NCT00137423|181610842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Objective Response Rate|28.3||||||95.0|16.8|42.3|||F distribution|||Objective response rate required a sample size of 100 to test null hypothesis that true response rate was \<=5% versus alternative hypothesis that true response rate was \>=15% with 90% power and alpha level of 0.05. If number of OR\> =11 null hypothesis that true response rate was \<=5% could be rejected with a target α error rate of 0.05.||42.3|16.8|
90874756|NCT00137423|181610842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Objective Response Rate|11.5||||||95.0|4.4|23.4|||F distribution|||Objective response rate required a sample size of 100 to test null hypothesis that true response rate was \<=5% versus alternative hypothesis that true response rate was \>=15% with 90% power and alpha level of 0.05. If number of OR\> =11 null hypothesis that true response rate was \<=5% could be rejected with a target α error rate of 0.05.||23.4|4.4|
90914579|NCT01499654|181699544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
90914580|NCT01499654|181699544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.67
90961090|NCT00402363|181802998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||median difference (Hodges-Lehmann)|0.216||||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|3.14|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||3.14|-0.14|0.188
90961091|NCT00402363|181802998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||median difference (Hodges-Lehmann)|0.181||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|2.1|||non-parametric ANCOVA|||||2.10|-0.10|0.097
90961092|NCT00402363|181802999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||median difference (Hodges-Lehmann)|0.242||||0.239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|2.17|||non-parametric ANCOVA|||||2.17|-0.19|0.239
90961093|NCT00402363|181802999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||median difference (Hodges-Lehmann)|0.249||||0.152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|4.31|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||4.31|-0.09|0.152
90961094|NCT00402363|181802999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||median difference (Hodges-Lehmann)|0.2||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|2.11|||non-parametric ANCOVA|||||2.11|-0.08|0.094
90961095|NCT02175004|181803020|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-17.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.12|-9.56||P-value= MMRM with fixed categorical effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, each of 3 randomization stratification factors, fixed covariates for parent study baseline value, baseline-by-time interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline in the mNIS+7 Composite Score at Week 78||-9.56|-26.12|<0.001
90874757|NCT00137423|181610846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||1-year survival rate|77.4||||||95.0|63.6|86.5|||Kaplan-Meier method||valid presentation only if at least 1 patient has overall survival \>=1 year. Based on normal approximation, 95% CI will be derived by log transformation of the cumulative hazard rate.|||86.5|63.6|
90874758|NCT00137423|181610846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||1-year survival rate|66.0||||||95.0|51.6|77.1|||Kaplan-Meier method||valid presentation only if at least 1 patient has overall survival \>=1 year. Based on normal approximation, 95% CI will be derived by log transformation of the cumulative hazard rate.|||77.1|51.6|
90914581|NCT01499654|181699545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90914582|NCT01499654|181699545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
90914583|NCT01499654|181699546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90914584|NCT01499654|181699546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.08
90914585|NCT01499654|181699547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.006
90914586|NCT01499654|181699547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.44
90914587|NCT05938413|181699582|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority test to compare viral suppression rate between month 3 and baseline.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.01|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90914588|NCT03312907|181699585|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.5342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.71|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated using logistic regression model with covariates: Baseline SLEDAI-2K, Baseline immunosuppressant, Baseline prednisone equivalent dose. Belimumab + Standard therapy arm was excluded from model.|||2.71|0.60|0.5342
90874759|NCT03742037|181610875|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference to placebo|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.4749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|0.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The analysis was performed on the Full Analysis Set (FAS). The FAS included all participants who were randomized. Baseline was defined as the last measurement before randomization.||0.68|-1.45|0.4749
90874760|NCT03742037|181610875|SUPERIORITY||LS mean to placebo|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.2941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|0.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The analysis was performed on the Full Analysis Set (FAS). The FAS included all participants who were randomized. Baseline was defined as the last measurement before randomization.||0.49|-1.65|0.2941
90874761|NCT03742037|181610875|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference to placebo|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.9802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|1.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The analysis was performed on the Full Analysis Set (FAS). The FAS included all participants who were randomized. Baseline was defined as the last measurement before randomization.||1.08|-1.05|0.9802
90874762|NCT03742037|181610875|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.0291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|-0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The analysis was performed on the Full Analysis Set (FAS). The FAS included all participants who were randomized. Baseline was defined as the last measurement before randomization.||-0.12|-2.25|0.0291
90874763|NCT03742037|181610876|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A generalized mixed effects model for repeated measures was applied to the SRI-4 response from Month 1 through 6 with treatment group, month, treatment group by month interaction, and stratification factors (oral corticosteroids dose \& mSLEDAI-2K) as fixed effects \& participant as random effect.||1.9|0.54|0.974
90874764|NCT03742037|181610876|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.2845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A generalized mixed effects model for repeated measures was applied to the SRI-4 response from Month 1 through 6 with treatment group, month, treatment group by month interaction, and stratification factors (oral corticosteroids dose \& mSLEDAI-2K) as fixed effects \& participant as random effect.||2.65|0.75|0.2845
90874765|NCT03742037|181610876|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.5115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A generalized mixed effects model for repeated measures was applied to the SRI-4 response from Month 1 through 6 with treatment group, month, treatment group by month interaction, and stratification factors (oral corticosteroids dose \& mSLEDAI-2K) as fixed effects \& participant as random effect.||2.32|0.66|0.5115
90874766|NCT03742037|181610876|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.5115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A generalized mixed effects model for repeated measures was applied to the SRI-4 response from Month 1 through 6 with treatment group, month, treatment group by month interaction, and stratification factors (oral corticosteroids dose \& mSLEDAI-2K) as fixed effects \& participant as random effect.||2.32|0.66|0.5115
90874767|NCT00056407|181610888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk Reduction|23.3|||<|0.0001||95.0|15.6|30.3||The p value is given is for the overall assessment.|Mantel-Cox||Estimation data given are for the overall assessment.|||30.3|15.6|<0.0001
90874768|NCT00056407|181610889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk Reduction|23.1|||<|0.0001||95.0|15.5|30.0||The p value is given is for the overall assessment.|Mantel-Cox||Estimation data are given are for the overall assessment.|||30.0|15.5|<0.0001
90874769|NCT00056407|181610890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk Reduction|22.8|||<|0.0001||95.0|15.2|29.8||The p value is given for the overall assessment.|Mantel-Cox||Estimation data are given for the overall assessment.|||29.8|15.2|<0.0001
90874770|NCT00056407|181610913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in adjusted means|18.8|||<|0.001||95.0|17.3|20.4|||general linear model, t-test||The adjusted mean difference was calculated as the difference between the adjusted means (-6.1 and 12.7) for the placebo and Dutasteride arms, respectively.|||20.4|17.3|<0.001
90874771|NCT02335099|181610940|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.77||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|217.52|||Fisher Exact|||||217.52|0.27|0.32
90874772|NCT02335099|181610941|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.86||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|3.2|||Log Rank|||||3.20|0.23|0.82
90874773|NCT01765153|181610970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04366667|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04366667
90874774|NCT04702997|181611016|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Net)|7.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.268|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.18|10.24||KDIGO strata, treatment group, time (Week 1 to 12), and the interaction between treatment and time were used as fixed factors.|Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is bardoxolone methyl - placebo|||10.24|5.18|<0.0001
90914589|NCT03312907|181699585|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.54|||||Odds ratio was calculated using logistic regression model with covariates: Baseline SLEDAI-2K, Baseline immunosuppressant, and Baseline prednisone equivalent dose. Belimumab + Placebo arm excluded from model.|||1.54|0.32|
90874775|NCT00353262|181611180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.79|1.02||||||Cycle 2, Day 1 versus Cycle 1, Day 1||1.02|0.79|
90874776|NCT00353262|181611180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.76|0.99||||||Cycle 3, Day 1 versus Cycle 1, Day 1||0.99|0.76|
90874777|NCT00353262|181611180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|1.1||||||Cycle 3, Day 1 to Cycle 2, Day 1||1.10|0.85|
90874778|NCT00353262|181611181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.01|1.08||||||Cycle 2, Day 1 versus Cycle 1, Day 2||1.08|1.01|
90874779|NCT00353262|181611181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|1.05||||||Cycle 3, Day 1 to Cycle 1, Day 2||1.05|0.98|
90874780|NCT00353262|181611181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|1.0||||||Cycle 3, Day 1 to Cycle 2, Day 1||1.00|0.94|
90874781|NCT00353262|181611182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|1.24||||||Capecitabine: Cycle 2, Day 1 versus Cycle 1, Day 1||1.24|0.83|
90914590|NCT03312907|181699586|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.8582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|3.78|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated using logistic regression model with covariates: Baseline SLEDAI-2K, Baseline immunosuppressant, Baseline prednisone equivalent dose and treatment group. Belimumab + Standard therapy arm was excluded from model.|||3.78|0.33|0.8582
90874782|NCT00353262|181611182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|1.42||||||Capecitabine: Cycle 3, Day 1 to Cycle 2, Day 1||1.42|0.94|
90961096|NCT02175004|181803020|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-20.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.27|-8.95||P-value= MMRM with fixed categorical effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, each of 3 randomization stratification factors, fixed covariates for parent study baseline value, baseline-by-time interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline in the mNIS+7 Composite Score at Week 156||-8.95|-31.27|<0.001
90961097|NCT02175004|181803021|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.06||||0.638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.2||P-value=MMRM with fixed categorical effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, each of 3 randomization stratification factors, fixed covariates for parent study baseline value, baseline-by-time interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline in the mNIS +7 Component: Heart Rate to Deep Breathing Score at Week 78||0.20|-0.32|0.638
90874783|NCT00353262|181611182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.44||||||Capecitabine: Cycle 3, Day 1 to Cycle 1, Day 1||1.44|0.96|
90874784|NCT00353262|181611182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|1.08||||||5'-DFCR: Cycle 2, Day 1 versus Cycle 1, Day 1||1.08|0.69|
90874785|NCT00353262|181611182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.86|1.34||||||5'-DFCR: Cycle 3, Day 1 versus Cycle 1, Day 1||1.34|0.86|
90874786|NCT00353262|181611182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.55||||||5'-DFCR: Cycle 3, Day 1 versus Cycle 2, Day 1||1.55|1.00|
90874787|NCT00353262|181611182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.66|1.01||||||5-FU: Cycle 2, Day 1 versus Cycle 1, Day 1||1.01|0.66|
90874788|NCT00353262|181611182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.64|0.97||||||5-FU: Cycle 3, Day 1 versus Cycle 1, Day 1||0.97|0.64|
90874789|NCT00353262|181611182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.78|1.19||||||5-FU: Cycle 3, Day 1 versus Cycle 2, Day 1||1.19|0.78|
90874790|NCT00353262|181611182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.04||||||FBAL: Cycle 2, Day 1 versus Cycle 1, Day 1||1.04|0.91|
90874791|NCT00353262|181611182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.04||||||FBAL: Cycle 3, Day 1 versus Cycle 1, Day 1||1.04|0.90|
90874792|NCT00353262|181611182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|1.07||||||FBAL: Cycle 3, Day 1 versus Cycle 2, Day 1||1.07|0.93|
90874793|NCT00353262|181611184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.61|0.9||||||5'-DFUR: Cycle 2, Day 1 versus Cycle 1, Day 1||0.90|0.61|
90874794|NCT00353262|181611184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.53|0.79||||||5'-DFUR: Cycle 3, Day 1 versus Cycle 1, Day 1||0.79|0.53|
90874795|NCT00353262|181611184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.71|1.06||||||5'-DFUR: Cycle 3, Day 1 versus Cycle 2, Day 1||1.06|0.71|
90874796|NCT00353262|181611184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.63|1.08||||||Capecitabine: Cycle 2, Day 1 versus Cycle 1, Day 1||1.08|0.63|
90874797|NCT00353262|181611184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.78|1.34||||||Capecitabine: Cycle 3, Day 1 versus Cycle 2, Day 1||1.34|0.78|
90874798|NCT00353262|181611184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.65|1.1||||||Capecitabine: Cycle 3, Day 1 versus Cycle 1, Day 1||1.10|0.65|
90874799|NCT00353262|181611184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.65|1.18||||||5'-DFCR: Cycle 2, Day 1 versus Cycle 1, Day 1||1.18|0.65|
90874800|NCT00353262|181611184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.71|1.3||||||5'-DFCR: Cycle 3, Day 1 versus Cycle 1, Day 1||1.30|0.71|
90874801|NCT00353262|181611184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|1.49||||||5'-DFCR: Cycle 3, Day 1 versus Cycle 2, Day 1||1.49|0.81|
90874802|NCT00353262|181611184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.56|0.98||||||5-FU: Cycle 2, Day 1 versus Cycle 1, Day 1||0.98|0.56|
90874803|NCT00353262|181611184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.44|0.76||||||5-FU: Cycle 3, Day 1 versus Cycle 1, Day 1||0.76|0.44|
90874804|NCT00353262|181611184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.59|1.03||||||5-FU: Cycle 3, Day 1 versus Cycle 2, Day 1||1.03|0.59|
90874805|NCT00353262|181611184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|1.0||||||FBAL: Cycle 2, Day 1 versus Cycle 1, Day 1||1.00|0.83|
90874806|NCT00353262|181611184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.76|0.91||||||FBAL: Cycle 3, Day 1 versus Cycle 1, Day 1||0.91|0.76|
90874807|NCT00353262|181611184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|1.0||||||FBAL: Cycle 3, Day 1 versus Cycle 2, Day 1||1.00|0.83|
90874808|NCT00353262|181611186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.09|1.33||||||Total Platinum: Cycle 2, Day 1 versus Cycle 1, Day 2||1.33|1.09|
90874809|NCT00353262|181611186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.21|1.48||||||Total Platinum: Cycle 3, Day 1 versus Cycle 1, Day 2||1.48|1.21|
90874810|NCT00353262|181611186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.01|1.23||||||Total Platinum: Cycle 3, Day 1 versus Cycle 2, Day 1||1.23|1.01|
90874811|NCT00353262|181611188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.09||||||Total Platinum: Cycle 2, Day 1 versus Cycle 1, Day 2||1.09|0.96|
90874812|NCT00353262|181611188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|1.08||||||Total Platinum: Cycle 3, Day 1 versus Cycle 1, Day 2||1.08|0.95|
90874813|NCT00353262|181611188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|1.05||||||Total Platinum: Cycle 3, Day 1 versus Cycle 2, Day 1||1.05|0.93|
90874814|NCT00353262|181611188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|1.09||||||Free Platinum: Cycle 2, Day 1 versus Cycle 1, Day 2||1.09|0.94|
90874815|NCT00353262|181611188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.08||||||Free Platinum: Cycle 3, Day 1 versus Cycle 1, Day 2||1.08|0.92|
90874816|NCT00353262|181611188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.07||||||Free Platinum: Cycle 3, Day 1 versus Cycle 2, Day 1||1.07|0.91|
90874817|NCT01103284|181611213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|The Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure (MMRM) was adjusted for the following baseline covariates: age, C-peptide, insulin dose by body weight and AUC||||||0.33
90874818|NCT01103284|181611214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model was adjusted for the following covariates: age, Baseline C-peptide, Baseline insulin dose adjusted for body weight, and Baseline AUC.||||||0.68
90874819|NCT01103284|181611215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model was adjusted for the following covariates: age, Baseline C-peptide, Baseline insulin dose adjusted for body weight, and Baseline AUC||||||0.44
90874820|NCT01103284|181611217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.38||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.79||Standard multiple imputation was used to predict the number and timing of hypoglycemic events after discontinuing the study for subjects who did not remain in the study until Month 25.|negative binomial regression|||The number of hypoglycemia events during the study was analyzed using a negative binomial regression model, with number of events as the dependent variable, and treatment, age, baseline daily insulin dose, and baseline C-peptide as covariates. The log of duration in the study for each patient was used as an offset variable in the model.||0.79|-0.02|0.07
90874821|NCT01190254|181611250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares (LS) Means|-4.8||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|0.4||p-value is adjusted by Hochberg's method for testing two asenapine groups versus the placebo group|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 100, asenapine 2.5 mg - 96, asenapine - 104)||0.4|-9.9|0.070
90874822|NCT01190254|181611250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-5.6||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|-0.5||p-value is adjusted by Hochberg's method for testing two asenapine groups versus the placebo group|MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 100, asenapine 2.5 mg - 96, asenapine - 104)||-0.5|-10.7|0.064
90874823|NCT01190254|181611250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.064||||||p-value (adjusted to control Type I error in multiple testing) for Linear dose-response pattern (Placebo\<2.5 mg\<5.0 mg)|MMRM|||Investigation of dose-response relationship of change from baseline to Day 56 in PANSS Total Score was a Secondary study endpoint. Multiple contrast testing using MMRM model was used to evaluate 3 pre-defined dose-response patterns (Linear, Convex, Concave)||||0.064
90874824|NCT01190254|181611250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.046||||||p-value (adjusted to control Type I error in multiple testing) for Convex dose-response pattern (Placebo\<2.5 mg=5.0 mg)|MMRM|||Investigation of dose-response relationship of change from baseline to Day 56 in PANSS Total Score was a Secondary study endpoint. Multiple contrast testing using MMRM model was used to evaluate 3 pre-defined dose-response patterns (Linear, Convex, Concave)||||0.046
90874825|NCT01190254|181611250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.273||||||p-value (adjusted to control Type I error in multiple testing) for Concave dose-response pattern (Placebo=2.5 mg\<5.0 mg)|MMRM|||Investigation of dose-response relationship of change from baseline to Day 56 in PANSS Total Score was a Secondary study endpoint. Multiple contrast testing using MMRM model was used to evaluate 3 pre-defined dose-response patterns (Linear, Convex, Concave)||||0.273
90914591|NCT03312907|181699586|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.7|||||Odds ratio was calculated using logistic regression model with covariates: Baseline SLEDAI-2K, Baseline immunosuppressant, Baseline prednisone equivalent dose and treatment group. Belimumab + Placebo arm was excluded from model.|||1.70|0.17|
90914592|NCT03312907|181699587|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.64||||0.3613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|4.72|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated using logistic regression model with covariates: Baseline SLEDAI-2K, Baseline immunosuppressant, Baseline prednisone equivalent dose and treatment group. Belimumab + Standard therapy arm was excluded from model.|||4.72|0.57|0.3613
90914593|NCT03312907|181699587|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.09|||||Odds ratio was calculated using logistic regression model with covariates: Baseline SLEDAI-2K, Baseline immunosuppressant, Baseline prednisone equivalent dose and treatment group. Belimumab + Placebo arm excluded from model.|||1.09|0.19|
90914594|NCT03312907|181699593|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.13|||Cox proportional hazards model||Hazard ratio was calculated using Cox proportional hazards model with covariates: Baseline SLEDAI-2K, Baseline immunosuppressant, Baseline prednisone equivalent dose and treatment group. Belimumab + Standard therapy arm was excluded from model.|||1.13|0.57|0.2150
90874826|NCT01190254|181611251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.2||||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Confirmative testing for the key secondary endpoint was to be performed only if both asenapine doses were superior to placebo in change from baseline in PANSS total score at Day 56 (hypotheses associated with Primary outcome measure). If this did not occur, no confirmative testing could be performed and multiplicity unadjusted p-values are provided. Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 100, asenapine 2.5 mg - 96, asenapine - 104)||0.1|-0.5|0.218
90874827|NCT01190254|181611251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.3||||0.024||95.0|-0.6|0.0|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Confirmative testing for the key secondary endpoint was to be performed only if both asenapine doses were superior to placebo in change from baseline in PANSS total score at Day 56 (hypotheses associated with Primary outcome measure). If this did not occur, no confirmative testing could be performed and multiplicity unadjusted p-values are provided. Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 100, asenapine 2.5 mg - 96, asenapine - 104)||-0.0|-0.6|0.024
90874828|NCT01190254|181611252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-1.6||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|0.1|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 100, asenapine 2.5 mg - 96, asenapine - 104)||0.1|-3.3|0.067
90874829|NCT01190254|181611252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-2.1||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|-0.5|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 100, asenapine 2.5 mg - 96, asenapine - 104)||-0.5|-3.8|0.012
90914595|NCT03312907|181699593|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.63|||||Hazard ratio was calculated using Cox proportional hazards model with covariates: Baseline SLEDAI-2K, Baseline immunosuppressant, Baseline prednisone equivalent dose and treatment group. Belimumab + Placebo arm excluded from model.|||2.63|1.03|
90914596|NCT03312907|181699594|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.3757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.19|||Cox proportional hazards model||Hazard ratio was calculated using Cox proportional hazards model with covariates: Baseline SLEDAI-2K, Baseline immunosuppressant, Baseline prednisone equivalent dose and treatment group. Belimumab + Standard therapy arm was excluded from model.|||1.19|0.64|0.3757
90914597|NCT03312907|181699594|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.49|||||Hazard ratio was calculated using Cox proportional hazards model with covariates: Baseline SLEDAI-2K, Baseline immunosuppressant, Baseline prednisone equivalent dose and treatment group. Belimumab + Placebo arm excluded from model.|||1.49|0.71|
90914598|NCT03312907|181699595|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.55||||0.5127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|5.78|||Cox proportional hazards model||Hazard ratio was calculated using Cox proportional hazards model with covariates: Baseline SLEDAI-2K, Baseline immunosuppressant, Baseline prednisone equivalent dose and treatment group. Belimumab + Standard therapy arm was excluded from model.|||5.78|0.42|0.5127
90914599|NCT03312907|181699595|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|2.1|||||Hazard ratio was calculated using Cox proportional hazards model with covariates: Baseline SLEDAI-2K, Baseline immunosuppressant, Baseline prednisone equivalent dose and treatment group. Belimumab + Placebo arm excluded from model.|||2.10|0.23|
90961098|NCT02175004|181803021|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.01||||0.965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.29||P-value= MMRM with fixed categorical effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, each of 3 randomization stratification factors, fixed covariates for parent study baseline value, baseline-by-time interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline in the mNIS +7 Component: Heart Rate to Deep Breathing Score at Week 156||0.29|-0.30|0.965
90961099|NCT02175004|181803022|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|-0.5||P-value= MMRM with fixed categorical effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, each of 3 randomization stratification factors, fixed covariates for parent study baseline value, baseline-by-time interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline in the mNIS +7 Component: Nerve Conduction Score at Week 78||-0.50|-1.68|<0.001
90961100|NCT02175004|181803022|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.66||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|0.05||P-value= MMRM with fixed categorical effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, each of 3 randomization stratification factors, fixed covariates for parent study baseline value, baseline-by-time interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline in the mNIS +7 Component: Nerve Conduction Score at Week 156||0.05|-1.38|0.067
90914600|NCT03312907|181699596|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.8436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|5.05|||Cox proportional hazards model||Hazard ratio was calculated using Cox proportional hazards model with covariates: Baseline SLEDAI-2K, Baseline prednisone equivalent dose and treatment group. Belimumab + Standard therapy arm was excluded from model.|||5.05|0.14|0.8436
90914601|NCT03312907|181699596|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|3.14|||||Hazard ratio was calculated using Cox proportional hazards model with covariates: Baseline SLEDAI-2K, Baseline prednisone equivalent dose and treatment group. Belimumab + Placebo arm excluded from model.|||3.14|0.09|
90874830|NCT01190254|181611253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-1.2||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.2|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 100, asenapine 2.5 mg - 96, asenapine - 104)||0.2|-2.6|0.097
90914602|NCT03312907|181699603|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.7102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|15.7|||Regression, Logistic|Week 52|Odds ratio at Week 52 was calculated using Logistic regression model with covariates:Baseline SLEDAI-2K,Baseline immunosuppressant,Baseline prednisone equivalent dose and treatment group. Belimumab+ Standard therapy arm was excluded from the model.|||15.70|0.15|0.7102
90914603|NCT03312907|181699603|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|10.71|||||Odds ratio at Week 52 was calculated using Logistic regression model with covariates:Baseline SLEDAI-2K,Baseline immunosuppressant, Baseline prednisone equivalent dose and treatment group. Belimumab + Placebo arm was excluded from the model.|||10.71|0.10|
90914604|NCT03312907|181699603|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.8641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|3.15|||Regression, Logistic|Week 104|Odds ratio at Week 104 was calculated using Logistic regression model with covariates:Baseline SLEDAI-2K,Baseline immunosuppressant,Baseline prednisone equivalent dose and treatment group. Belimumab + Standard therapy arm was excluded from the model.|||3.15|0.26|0.8641
90914605|NCT03312907|181699603|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|5.64|||||Odds ratio at Week 104 was calculated using Logistic regression model with covariates:Baseline SLEDAI-2K,Baseline immunosuppressant,Baseline prednisone equivalent dose and treatment group. Belimumab + Placebo arm was excluded from the model.|||5.64|0.26|
90914606|NCT05286385|181699613|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin -10%|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.59|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.29|0.29||||||||0.29|-6.29|
90914607|NCT05286385|181699614|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin -10%|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.04|3.44||||||||3.44|-8.04|
90961101|NCT02175004|181803023|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.34||||0.821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.67|3.36||P-value= MMRM with fixed categorical effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, each of 3 randomization stratification factors, fixed covariates for parent study baseline value, baseline-by-time interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline in the mNIS +7 Component: Heat-Pain Sensory Score at Week 78||3.36|-2.67|0.821
90874831|NCT01190254|181611253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-1.2||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.2|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 100, asenapine 2.5 mg - 96, asenapine - 104)||0.2|-2.6|0.099
91035855|NCT02558491|181958301|OTHER|||||||0.042||||||No a priori sample size was determined due to the feasibility/pilot nature of the trial. Significance level was set at P-value \<0.05.|ANOVA|||Secondary analysis followed the same format unless variables could not be considered normally distributed; in that case a related samples Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used. Data were first binned (to ensure minimum count of five per bins) \& w2 statistics was used with expected counts given by standard of care. Based on achieved recruitment, moderate effect size (0.3) was detectable with 80% power, or large effect size (0.4) with 95% power (G-Power 3.1.9.2). Outcome measurement was for overall.||||0.042
90874832|NCT01190254|181611254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-2.7||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|0.1|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 100, asenapine 2.5 mg - 96, asenapine - 104)||0.1|-5.6|0.062
90914608|NCT05286385|181699615|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin -10%|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.55|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.95|3.55||||||||3.55|-2.95|
90914609|NCT01154985|181699621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Armitage trend test|||Proportion of responders in the EPA-E 1800 mg and 2700 mg groups compared to the proportion of responders in the placebo group compared using the Cochran-Armitage trend test in the Efficacy Evaluable analysis set. P-value less than 5% 1-sided. A total sample size of 210 (70 per arm) was planned to give 80% power for detecting a positive dose-response slope among the 3 treatment arms at 12 months.||||0.57
90914610|NCT01154985|181699622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0137|TWO_SIDED|||||Two-sided p-values testing for significance was performed within treatment group change from baseline and comparisons between treatment groups. Multiple comparison techniques were not applied.|ANCOVA|||Least Squares (LS) mean, 95% CI and 2-sided p-value obtained from ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline ALT as a covariate. 1,800 mg/day EPA-E treatment group compared to placebo.||||0.0137
90914611|NCT01154985|181699622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|29.1||||||Least Squares (LS) mean, 95% CI and 2-sided p-value obtained from ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline ALT as a covariate. 1,800 mg/day EPA-E treatment group compared to placebo.||29.1|3.4|
90914612|NCT01154985|181699622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|||||Two-sided p-values testing for significance was performed within treatment group change from baseline and comparisons between treatment groups. Multiple comparison techniques were not applied.|ANCOVA|||Least Squares (LS) mean, 95% CI and 2-sided p-value obtained from ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline ALT as a covariate. 2,700 mg/day EPA-E treatment group compared to placebo.||||0.0006
90914613|NCT01154985|181699622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.6|34.4||||||Least Squares (LS) mean, 95% CI and 2-sided p-value obtained from ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline ALT as a covariate. 2,700 mg/day EPA-E treatment group compared to placebo.||34.4|9.6|
90914614|NCT01154985|181699623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1592|TWO_SIDED|||||Two-sided p-values testing for significance was performed within treatment group change from baseline and comparisons between treatment groups. Multiple comparison techniques were not applied.|ANCOVA|||Least Squares (LS) mean, 95% CI and 2-sided p-value obtained from ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline ALT as a covariate. 1,800 mg/day EPA-E treatment group compared to placebo.||||0.1592
90914615|NCT01154985|181699623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|23.0||||||Least Squares (LS) mean, 95% CI and 2-sided p-value obtained from ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline ALT as a covariate. 1,800 mg/day EPA-E treatment group compared to placebo.||23.0|-3.8|
90874833|NCT01190254|181611254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-3.2||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|-0.4|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 100, asenapine 2.5 mg - 96, asenapine - 104)||-0.4|-6.0|0.025
90874834|NCT01190254|181611255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-2.1||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|0.4|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 100, asenapine 2.5 mg - 96, asenapine - 104)||0.4|-4.6|0.098
90874835|NCT01190254|181611255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-2.3||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|0.2|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 100, asenapine 2.5 mg - 96, asenapine - 104)||0.2|-4.8|0.071
90874836|NCT01190254|181611256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-1.4||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|0.3|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 100, asenapine 2.5 mg - 96, asenapine - 104)||0.3|-3.1|0.106
90874837|NCT01190254|181611256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-1.9||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|-0.2|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 100, asenapine 2.5 mg - 96, asenapine - 104)||-0.2|-3.6|0.026
90874838|NCT01190254|181611257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-1.2||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.2|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 100, asenapine 2.5 mg - 96, asenapine - 104)||0.2|-2.6|0.083
90874839|NCT01190254|181611257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-1.3||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|0.1|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 100, asenapine 2.5 mg - 96, asenapine - 104)||0.1|-2.7|0.067
90914616|NCT01154985|181699623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0153|TWO_SIDED|||||Two-sided p-values testing for significance was performed within treatment group change from baseline and comparisons between treatment groups. Multiple comparison techniques were not applied.|ANCOVA|||Least Squares (LS) mean, 95% CI and 2-sided p-value obtained from ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline ALT as a covariate. 2,700 mg/day EPA-E treatment group compared to placebo.||||0.0153
90874840|NCT01190254|181611258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.9||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.3|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 100, asenapine 2.5 mg - 96, asenapine - 104)||0.3|-2.1|0.131
90874841|NCT01190254|181611258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.9||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.3|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 100, asenapine 2.5 mg - 96, asenapine - 104)||0.3|-2.1|0.135
90874842|NCT01190254|181611259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-1.0||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.1|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 100, asenapine 2.5 mg - 96, asenapine - 104)||0.1|-2.0|0.071
90874843|NCT01190254|181611259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.8||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.2|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 100, asenapine 2.5 mg - 96, asenapine - 104)||0.2|-1.9|0.120
90874844|NCT01190254|181611260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.4||||0.263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.3|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 100, asenapine 2.5 mg - 96, asenapine - 104)||0.3|-1.2|0.263
90914617|NCT01154985|181699623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|28.9||||||Least Squares (LS) mean, 95% CI and 2-sided p-value obtained from ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline ALT as a covariate. 2,700 mg/day EPA-E treatment group compared to placebo.||28.9|3.1|
90961102|NCT02175004|181803023|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.16||||0.293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.21|1.9||P-value= MMRM with fixed categorical effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, each of 3 randomization stratification factors, fixed covariates for parent study baseline value, baseline-by-time interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline in the mNIS +7 Component: Heat-Pain Sensory Score at Week 156||1.90|-6.21|0.293
90874845|NCT01190254|181611260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.5||||0.146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.2|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 100, asenapine 2.5 mg - 96, asenapine - 104)||0.2|-1.3|0.146
90874846|NCT01190254|181611261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|3.6||95% Confidence Interval and p-value are based on Wald statistic|Regression, Logistic|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, and baseline PANSS Total Score|OR was adjusted for baseline and (pooled) site. An OR of \>1 is considered to mean that asenapine has a higher probability of achieving Total PANSS 30% response|||3.6|1.1|0.028
90874847|NCT01190254|181611261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|3.3||95% Confidence Interval and p-value are based on Wald statistic|Regression, Logistic|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, and baseline PANSS Total Score|OR was adjusted for baseline and (pooled) site. An OR of \>1 is considered to mean that asenapine has a higher probability of achieving Total PANSS 30% response|||3.3|1.0|0.048
90874848|NCT01190254|181611262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.576||||||p-value is for Log Rank test of difference in time to event (PANSS 30% response) curves between the three treatment groups|Log Rank|||||||0.576
90874849|NCT01190254|181611262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3||||0.171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.0|||Regression, Cox|Model included factors for (pooled) site, treatment and baseline PANSS Total Score|An HR of \>1 is considered to mean that asenapine has a higher likelihood of being a Total PANSS 30% Responder than placebo|||2.0|0.9|0.171
90874850|NCT01190254|181611262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.8|||Regression, Cox|Model included factors for (pooled) site, treatment and baseline PANSS Total Score|An HR of \>1 is considered to mean that asenapine has a higher likelihood of being a Total PANSS 30% Responder than placebo|||1.8|0.8|0.368
90874851|NCT01190254|181611263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.3||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.0|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, and the interaction of visit by treatment|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 100, asenapine 2.5 mg - 96, asenapine - 104)||0.0|-0.6|0.094
90874852|NCT01190254|181611263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.5||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.2|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, and the interaction of visit by treatment|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 100, asenapine 2.5 mg - 96, asenapine - 104)||-0.2|-0.8|0.003
90874853|NCT01190254|181611264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.8||95% Confidence Interval and p-value are based on Wald statistic|Regression, Logistic|Model included terms of region (Asia-Pacific, North America, Eastern Europe \[Africa/Latin America sites assigned to this region\]) and treatment|OR was adjusted for region. An OR of \>1 is considered to mean that asenapine has a higher probability of achieving CGI-I response|||2.8|0.8|0.177
90914618|NCT01599793|181699627|EQUIVALENCE|Testing if the change of ktrans between 2 weeks and baseline = 0 (i.e testing if the difference of means between 2 weeks and baseline =0)||||||0.0016|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The least square means of ktrans at different time points (baseline, 2 weeks, 12 weeks, 24 weeks) are estimated by a linear mixed model. Comparison of means at different time points were performed. The primary result reported below is for the difference of means between 2 weeks and baseline.||||0.0016
90961103|NCT02175004|181803024|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.78||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.53|-0.03||P-value= MMRM with fixed categorical effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, each of 3 randomization stratification factors, fixed covariates for parent study baseline value, baseline-by-time interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline in the mNIS +7 Component: Touch-Pressure Sensory Score at Week 78||-0.03|-5.53|0.047
90874854|NCT01190254|181611264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.9||95% Confidence Interval and p-value are based on Wald statistic|Regression, Logistic|Model included terms of region (Asia-Pacific, North America, Eastern Europe \[Africa/Latin America sites assigned to this region\]) and treatment|OR was adjusted for region. An OR of \>1 is considered to mean that asenapine has a higher probability of achieving CGI-I response|||2.9|0.9|0.114
90914619|NCT01599793|181699629|OTHER|We calculated Spearman Correlation Coefficient between the percent change in Ktrans (from week 0 to 12) and the bone scan response change. We tested if the coefficient = 0|Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.36853||||0.3291|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3291
90961104|NCT02175004|181803024|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.07||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|-0.13||P-value= MMRM with fixed categorical effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, each of 3 randomization stratification factors, fixed covariates for parent study baseline value, baseline-by-time interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline in the mNIS +7 Component: Touch-Pressure Sensory Score at Week 156||-0.13|-6.00|0.041
90874855|NCT01190254|181611265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.057||||||p-value is for Log Rank test of difference in time to event (CGI-I response) curves between the three treatment groups|Log Rank|||||||0.057
90961105|NCT02175004|181803025|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-17.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.92|-8.03||P-value= MMRM with fixed categorical effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, each of 3 randomization stratification factors, fixed covariates for parent study baseline value, baseline-by-time interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline in the NIS Composite Score at Week 52 of Year 4||-8.03|-26.92|<0.001
90914620|NCT01599793|181699631|OTHER|We calculated Spearman Correlation Coefficient between the percent change in Ktrans (from week 0 to 12) and the PSA change. We tested if the coefficient = 0|Spearman Correlation Coefficients|-0.41818||||0.2006|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2006
90874856|NCT01190254|181611265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.4||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.3|||Regression, Cox|Model included factors for (pooled) site and treatment|An HR of \>1 is considered to mean that asenapine has a higher likelihood of being a CGI-I Responder than placebo|||2.3|0.9|0.135
90874857|NCT01190254|181611265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.8||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.9|||Regression, Cox|Model included factors for (pooled) site and treatment|An HR of \>1 is considered to mean that asenapine has a higher likelihood of being a CGI-I Responder than placebo|||2.9|1.2|0.010
90874858|NCT01190254|181611266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|1.4||||0.417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|4.8|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 100, asenapine 2.5 mg - 96, asenapine - 104)||4.8|-2.0|0.417
90874859|NCT01190254|181611266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|4.2||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|7.6|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 100, asenapine 2.5 mg - 96, asenapine - 104)||7.6|0.8|0.017
90874860|NCT01190254|181611267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.6||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.8|||ANCOVA|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, and baseline|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|||2.8|-1.6|0.600
90874861|NCT01190254|181611267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|2.1||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|4.3|||ANCOVA|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, and baseline|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|||4.3|-0.1|0.064
90874862|NCT01190254|181611268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.1||||0.407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.33|||ANCOVA|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, and baseline|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|||0.33|-0.13|0.407
90874863|NCT01190254|181611268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.19||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.42|||ANCOVA|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, and baseline|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|||0.42|-0.04|0.111
90874864|NCT00202644|181611278|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Noninferiority of anagrelide could be concluded if lower limit of 95% Confidence Interval for the difference between treatment groups (Hydroxyurea - Anagrelide) was \> -100 x 10\^9/Liter.|Least Square Mean|-100.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|39.93|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-179.42|-21.49||||||||-21.49|-179.42|
90874865|NCT00202644|181611279|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Noninferiority of anagrelide could be concluded if lower limit of 95% Confidence Interval for the difference between treatment groups (Hydroxyurea - Anagrelide) was \> -100 x 10\^9/Liter.|Least Square Mean|-113.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|37.56|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-187.4|-38.83||||||Month 3||-38.83|-187.40|
90874866|NCT00202644|181611279|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Noninferiority of anagrelide could be concluded if lower limit of 95% Confidence Interval for the difference between treatment groups (Hydroxyurea - Anagrelide) was \> -100 x 10\^9/Liter.|Least Square Mean|-68.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|43.83|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-154.95|18.43||||||Month 36||18.43|-154.95|
90874867|NCT03232281|181611296|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference was \>-10%, triptorelin pamoate PR 3-month non-inferiority to triptorelin acetate PR 1-month was confirmed.|Rate difference (%)|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.41|2.58|||||The rate difference (triptorelin pamoate PR 3-month - triptorelin acetate PR 1-month) and the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference were calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen method, stratified by randomisation stratification factors.|The null hypothesis was that triptorelin pamoate PR 3-month was inferior to triptorelin acetate PR 1-month. The alternative hypothesis was that triptorelin pamoate PR 3-month was non-inferior to triptorelin acetate PR 1-month.||2.58|-4.41|
90874868|NCT03232281|181611297|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference was \>-10%, triptorelin pamoate PR 3-month non-inferiority to triptorelin acetate PR 1-month was observed without multiplicity adjustment.|Rate difference (%)|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.26|1.93|||||The rate difference (triptorelin pamoate PR 3-month - triptorelin acetate PR 1-month) and the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference were calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen method, stratified by randomisation stratification factors.|Rate difference at Week 4. The null hypothesis was that triptorelin pamoate PR 3-month was inferior to triptorelin acetate PR 1-month. The alternative hypothesis was that triptorelin pamoate PR 3-month was non-inferior to triptorelin acetate PR 1-month.||1.93|-5.26|
90874869|NCT03232281|181611297|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference was \>-10%, triptorelin pamoate PR 3-month non-inferiority to triptorelin acetate PR 1-month was observed without multiplicity adjustment.|Rate difference (%)|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|-0.16|||||The rate difference (triptorelin pamoate PR 3-month - triptorelin acetate PR 1-month) and the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference were calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen method, stratified by randomisation stratification factors.|Rate difference at Week 8. The null hypothesis was that triptorelin pamoate PR 3-month was inferior to triptorelin acetate PR 1-month. The alternative hypothesis was that triptorelin pamoate PR 3-month was non-inferior to triptorelin acetate PR 1-month.||-0.16|-6.80|
90874870|NCT03232281|181611298|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference was \>-10%, triptorelin pamoate PR 3-month non-inferiority to triptorelin acetate PR 1-month was observed without multiplicity adjustment.|Rate difference (%)|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.26|1.93|||||The rate difference (triptorelin pamoate PR 3-month - triptorelin acetate PR 1-month) and the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference were calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen method, stratified by randomisation stratification factors.|Rate difference at Week 4. The null hypothesis was that triptorelin pamoate PR 3-month was inferior to triptorelin acetate PR 1-month. The alternative hypothesis was that triptorelin pamoate PR 3-month was non-inferior to triptorelin acetate PR 1-month.||1.93|-5.26|
90914621|NCT01599793|181699633|OTHER|We calculated Spearman Correlation Coefficient between the percent change in Ktrans (from week 0 to 12) and the Change in pain scale. We tested if the coefficient = 0|Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.17669||||0.5828|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5828
90914622|NCT04040296|181699645|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|1.4||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|3.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference between arms in the percentage of subjects with the primary outcome within 14 days of randomization.|||3.8|-1.1|0.28
90874871|NCT03232281|181611298|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference was \>-10%, triptorelin pamoate PR 3-month non-inferiority to triptorelin acetate PR 1-month was observed without multiplicity adjustment.|Rate difference (%)|-4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.93|-0.52|||||The rate difference (triptorelin pamoate PR 3-month - triptorelin acetate PR 1-month) and the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference were calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen method, stratified by randomisation stratification factors.|Rate difference at Week 8. The null hypothesis was that triptorelin pamoate PR 3-month was inferior to triptorelin acetate PR 1-month. The alternative hypothesis was that triptorelin pamoate PR 3-month was non-inferior to triptorelin acetate PR 1-month.||-0.52|-8.93|
90914623|NCT04040296|181699646|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|9.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.1|11.0|||Van Elteren test||Difference between arms in the percentage of implemented recommendations with 24 hours of randomization.|Proportions were compared using Cochrane-Mantel Haenszel χ2 test, accounting for stratification by hospital site.||11|8.1|<.001
90914624|NCT04040296|181699647|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|0.5||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.6|||Van Elteren test||Difference between arms in the percentage of subjects with AKI progression within 14 days of randomization.|Proportions were compared using Cochrane-Mantel Haenszel χ2 test, accounting for stratification by hospital site.||2.6|-1.6|.65
90914625|NCT04040296|181699648|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|0.1||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.8|||Van Elteren test||Difference between arms in the percentage of subjects who received inpatient dialysis within 14 days of randomization.|Proportions were compared using Cochrane-Mantel Haenszel χ2 test, accounting for stratification by hospital site.||.8|-.7|.89
90914626|NCT04040296|181699649|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|0.4||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.1|||Van Elteren test||Difference between arms in the percentage of subjects with inpatient mortality within 14 days of randomization.|Proportions were compared using Cochrane-Mantel Haenszel χ2 test, accounting for stratification by hospital site.||2.1|-1.5|.72
90914627|NCT04040296|181699650|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|1.9||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|4.1|||Van Elteren test||Difference between arms in the percentage of subjects who received a kidney consult within 14 days of randomization.|Proportions were compared using Cochrane-Mantel Haenszel χ2 test, accounting for stratification by hospital site.||4.1|-.3|.31
90961106|NCT02175004|181803026|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.01||||0.941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.17||P-value= MMRM with fixed categorical effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, each of 3 randomization stratification factors, fixed covariates for parent study baseline value, baseline-by-time interaction.|MMRM|||Change from Baseline in the NIS Component: Cranial Nerves Score Score at Week 52 of Year 4||0.17|-0.19|0.941
90961107|NCT02175004|181803027|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.56||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.97|-2.16||P-value= MMRM with fixed categorical effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, each of 3 randomization stratification factors, fixed covariates for parent study baseline value, baseline-by-time interaction.|MMRM|||Change from Baseline in the NIS Component: Muscle Weakness Score at Week 52 of Years 4||-2.16|-16.97|0.011
90914628|NCT04040296|181699651|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-0.9||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.4|||Van Elteren test||Difference between arms in the percentage of subjects discharged to hospice care within 14 days of randomization.|Proportions were compared using Cochrane-Mantel Haenszel χ2 test, accounting for stratification by hospital site.||.4|-2.3|.17
90914629|NCT02652442|181699696|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired samples t-test for change in SVV (measured in degrees)||Null hypothesis: The change in SVV (Post-OAR - Pre-OAR) will not be different for the off-axis distance of 3.5 cm and 7.0 cm.||||0.97
90914630|NCT02652442|181699696|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired samples t-test for change in SVV (measured in degrees)||Null hypothesis: The change in SVV (Post-OAR - Pre-OAR) will not be different for the centrifugation duration of 1 minute and 3 minutes.||||0.51
90914631|NCT02652442|181699696|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired samples t-test for change in SVV (measured in degrees)||Null hypothesis: The change in SVV (Post-OAR - Pre-OAR) will not be different for the centrifugation schedule of daily OAR and biweekly OAR for a total of 5 sessions.||||0.44
90914632|NCT02252042|181699697|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.0316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.01|||Log Rank||Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG PS (0 vs. 1), HPV status (Positive vs. Negative) \& PD-L1 status (Strongly Positive, Not Strongly Positive)|||1.01|0.67|0.03160
90914633|NCT02252042|181699698|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.01605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.98||Nominal p-value|Log Rank||Nominal HR. Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG PS (0 vs. 1), HPV status (Positive vs. Negative) \& PD-L1 status (Strongly Positive, Not Strongly Positive)|||0.98|0.65|0.01605
90914634|NCT02252042|181699699|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.00493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.93|||Log Rank||Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG PS (0 vs. 1), HPV status (Positive vs. Negative) \& PD-L1 status (Strongly Positive, Not Strongly Positive)|||0.93|0.58|0.00493
90914635|NCT02252042|181699700|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.32504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.16|||Log Rank||Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG PS (0 vs. 1), HPV status (Positive vs. Negative) \& PD-L1 status (Strongly Positive, Not Strongly Positive)|||1.16|0.79|0.32504
90914636|NCT02252042|181699701|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.07736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.06|||Log Rank||Cox regression model with treatment as a single covariate|||1.06|0.69|0.07736
90874872|NCT03232281|181611298|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference was \>-10%, triptorelin pamoate PR 3-month non-inferiority to triptorelin acetate PR 1-month was observed without multiplicity adjustment.|Rate difference (%)|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.44|1.17|||||The rate difference (triptorelin pamoate PR 3-month - triptorelin acetate PR 1-month) and the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference were calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen method, stratified by randomisation stratification factors.|Rate difference at Week 12. The null hypothesis was that triptorelin pamoate PR 3-month was inferior to triptorelin acetate PR 1-month. The alternative hypothesis was that triptorelin pamoate PR 3-month was non-inferior to triptorelin acetate PR 1-month.||1.17|-7.44|
90874873|NCT00861146|181611305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.01|||||||Chi-squared|df = 1||||||<.01
90874874|NCT00861146|181611306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||mixed model regression analyses (F)|2.04|||>|0.15|||||||mixed model regression analyses|||Drinking outcomes assessed using the timeline follow-back were evaluated with mixed model regression analyses using maximum likelihood estimation. Time was measured in three monthly periods and treated as a repeated factor (due to the fixed time period between estimates).||||> .15
90874875|NCT00861146|181611307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|df=1||||||<.001
90874876|NCT02278263|181611358|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Assuming a common standard deviation of 412 mL, to detect a difference of 300 mL of blood loss between the two treatment arms (sTXA and tTXA) and the placebo group, a sample size of 125 participants is required for a statistical power of 0.85, and a type I error of 0.05. The sample size required was 125 participants in total. The was increased by 15% to allow for expected dropouts. Therefore, a minimum of 147 patients was required for the study.||||<0.05
90874877|NCT04339296|181611483|EQUIVALENCE|An independent sample t-test was performed between intervention and control group to determine if the difference of the mean medication adherence is equal to zero (null hypothesis).|Mean Difference (Net)|7.18|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical test was set at 95% confidence level.|t-test, 2 sided||Medication Adherence Difference = Intervention Adherence - Control Adherence|||||<0.01
90874878|NCT04339296|181611484|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis assumes that the true mean difference for intervention participants self-reported medication adherence scores (from baseline to 6-month) is equal to zero.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.5|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical test was set at 95% confidence level.|t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference (intervention participants self-reported score) = baseline minus 6-month.|||||<0.01
90914637|NCT02252042|181699702|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|4.6||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|10.6|||Log Rank|H0: difference in %=0; H1: difference in %\>0|Stratified by ECOG PS (0 vs. 1), HPV status (Positive vs. Negative) \& PD-L1 status (Strongly Positive, Not Strongly Positive)|||10.6|-1.2|0.0610
90914638|NCT02252042|181699703|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|7.5||||0.0171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|14.6|||Log Rank|H0: difference in %=0; H1: difference in %\>0|Stratified by ECOG PS (0 vs. 1), HPV status (Positive vs. Negative) \& PD-L1 status (Strongly Positive, Not Strongly Positive)|||14.6|0.6|0.0171
90961108|NCT02175004|181803028|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.05||||0.356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.28|1.18||P-value= MMRM with fixed categorical effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, each of 3 randomization stratification factors, fixed covariates for parent study baseline value, baseline-by-time interaction.|MMRM|||Change from Baseline in the NIS Component: Reflexes Score at Week 52 of Years 4||1.18|-3.28|0.356
90874879|NCT04339296|181611484|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis assumes that the true mean difference for control participants self-reported medication adherence scores (from baseline to 6-month) is equal to zero.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.07||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical tests was set at 95% confidence level.|t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference (control participants self-reported score) = baseline minus 6-month.|||||0.07
90874880|NCT00969150|181611501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-1.49||||0.2492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.02|1.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures.||||1.05|-4.02|0.2492
90874881|NCT00969150|181611502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.54||||0.5625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.38|1.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures.||||1.29|-2.38|0.5625
90874882|NCT00597012|181611537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|6.5|||ANCOVA|||"The primary analysis was implemented with an analysis of covariance with changes in the WOMAC physical-function score from baseline to 6 months as the dependent variable, treatment as the independent variable of interest, and study site as a covariate.~The primary analysis used a modified intention-to-treat approach in which patients who did not withdraw from the study were evaluated in the group to which they were randomly assigned."||6.5|-1.8|0.26
90874883|NCT00597012|181611538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.9||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|7.0|||ANCOVA|||||7.0|-1.2|0.16
90874884|NCT00597012|181611539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.1||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|6.6|||ANCOVA|||||6.6|-4.4|0.68
90874885|NCT01304966|181611550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.013
90874886|NCT04105998|181611551|SUPERIORITY|Exploratory analysis without power calculation||||||0.64|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Exploratory analysis without power calculation||||0.64
90874887|NCT04105998|181611552|SUPERIORITY|Exploratory analysis without power calculation||||||0.19|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Exploratory analysis without power calculation||||0.19
90874888|NCT04105998|181611553|SUPERIORITY|Exploratory analysis without power calculation||||||0.067|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Exploratory analysis without power calculation||||0.067
90874889|NCT04105998|181611554|SUPERIORITY|Exploratory analysis without power calculation||||||0.25|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Exploratory analysis without power calculation||||0.25
90874890|NCT04105998|181611555|SUPERIORITY|Exploratory analysis without power calculation||||||0.058|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Exploratory analysis without power calculation||||0.058
90914639|NCT02252042|181699706|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.14545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.12||p-value stratified by ECOG PS (0 vs. 1), HPV status (Positive vs. Negative) \& PD-L1 status (Strongly Positive, Not Strongly Positive)|Log Rank||Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG PS (0 vs. 1), HPV status (Positive vs. Negative) \& PD-L1 status (Strongly Positive, Not Strongly Positive)|||1.12|0.70|0.14545
90914640|NCT02252042|181699707|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.05851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.06||p-value stratified by ECOG PS (0 vs. 1), HPV status (Positive vs. Negative) \& PD-L1 status (Strongly Positive, Not Strongly Positive)|Log Rank||Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG PS (0 vs. 1), HPV status (Positive vs. Negative) \& PD-L1 status (Strongly Positive, Not Strongly Positive)|||1.06|0.62|0.05851
90914641|NCT02252042|181699708|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.65759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.27|||Log Rank||Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG PS (0 vs. 1), HPV status (Positive vs. Negative) \& PD-L1 status (Strongly Positive, Not Strongly Positive)|||1.27|0.86|0.65759
90914642|NCT02252042|181699709|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.51982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.26|||Log Rank||Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG PS (0 vs. 1), HPV status (Positive vs. Negative) \& PD-L1 status (Strongly Positive, Not Strongly Positive)|||1.26|0.81|0.51982
90914643|NCT01636687|181699718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|53.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.6|67.7|||Fisher Exact|||Response criterion: IGA 0/1||67.7|36.6|<0.0001
90914644|NCT01636687|181699718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|73.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.8|83.9|||Fisher Exact|||Response Criterion: IGA 0/1||83.9|58.8|<0.0001
90874891|NCT04105998|181611556|SUPERIORITY|Exploratory analysis without power calculation||||||0.111|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Exploratory analysis without power calculation||||0.111
90874892|NCT02073279|181611613|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.45||||0.0184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.89|||Log Rank|||Stratified by prior therapy (B-cell depleting therapy or immunosuppressants/others) and most recent attack (first attack or relapse).||0.89|0.23|0.0184
90874893|NCT02073279|181611614|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.215|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.178||0.4436||95.0|-5.086|11.515|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: treatment group as fixed effect and baseline measurements, prior therapy, most recent attack (first attack/relapse) as covariates.||||11.515|-5.086|0.4436
90874894|NCT02073279|181611615|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.107|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.567||0.1824||95.0|-1.008|5.221|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included treatment group as fixed effect. Baseline measurements, prior therapy, most recent attack (first attack/relapse) as covariates.||||5.221|-1.008|0.1824
90874895|NCT01857232|181611722|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.004
90874896|NCT01857232|181611722|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0987|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.0987
90874897|NCT01857232|181611722|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1041|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.1041
90874898|NCT01857232|181611723|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0235|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|1-sided||||||0.0235
90874899|NCT01857232|181611723|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1651|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|1-sided||||||0.1651
90874900|NCT01857232|181611723|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1332|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|1-sided||||||0.1332
90874901|NCT00391274|181611735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.5||||0.1326||95.0|0.76|8.25||Logistic regression of best overall tumor response (complete response + partial response).|Regression, Logistic|Treatment was the only covariate.||||8.25|0.76|0.1326
90874902|NCT00391274|181611736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7704||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.7704
90874903|NCT00391274|181611736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.7784||95.0|0.75|1.46|||Regression, Cox|Treatment was the only covariate.||||1.46|0.75|0.7784
90874904|NCT00391274|181611739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.4921||95.0|0.78|1.68||P-value for Overall Survival (up to 24 months)|Regression, Cox|Treatment was the only covariate.||||1.68|0.78|0.4921
90874905|NCT00391274|181611739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.9256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.4||P-value for Overall Survival (up to 30 months)|Regression, Cox|||||1.40|0.74|0.9256
90914645|NCT01636687|181699718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|68.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.1|79.8|||Fisher Exact|||Response criterion: PASI 75||79.8|53.1|<0.0001
90914646|NCT01636687|181699718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|83.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|70.7|91.7|||Fisher Exact|||Response criterion: PASI 75||91.7|70.7|<0.0001
90914647|NCT00666276|181699743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.712|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Gender. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between males and females in the incidence rate of ADRs."||||=0.712
90914648|NCT00666276|181699744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.257|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Age. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between over 65 and less than 65 in the incidence rate of ADRs."||||=0.257
90874906|NCT04501666|181611743|SUPERIORITY||Strata adjusted percentage difference|40.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.4|50.8||A 2-sided p-value was derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test using the randomized stratification variables (analysis center and body weight at randomization \[\< 90 kg, \>= 90 kg\]). Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05.||50.8|29.4|< 0.0001
90874907|NCT04501666|181611744|SUPERIORITY||Strata adjusted percentage difference|14.6||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.7|22.6||A 2-sided p-value was derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test using the randomized stratification variables (analysis center and body weight at randomization \[\< 90 kg, \>= 90 kg\]). Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05.||22.6|6.7|0.0025
90874908|NCT04501666|181611746|SUPERIORITY||Strata adjusted percentage difference|31.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.0|40.4||A 2-sided p-value was derived from CMH test using the randomized stratification variables (analysis center and body weight at randomization \[\< 90 kg, \>= 90 kg\]). Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05.||40.4|23.0|< 0.0001
90874909|NCT04501666|181611747|SUPERIORITY||Strata adjusted percentage difference|30.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.3|38.7||A 2-sided p-value was derived from CMH test using the randomized stratification variables (analysis center and body weight at randomization \[\< 90 kg, \>= 90 kg\]). Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05.||38.7|22.3|< 0.0001
90874910|NCT04501666|181611748|SUPERIORITY||Strata adjusted percentage difference|38.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.8|48.2||A 2-sided p-value was derived from CMH test using the randomized stratification variables (analysis center and body weight at randomization \[\< 90 kg, \>= 90 kg\]). Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05.||48.2|27.8|< 0.0001
90874911|NCT04501666|181611749|SUPERIORITY||Strata adjusted percentage difference|22.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.7|30.7||A 2-sided p-value was derived from CMH test using the randomized stratification variables (analysis center and body weight at randomization \[\< 90 kg, \>= 90 kg\]). Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05.||30.7|14.7|< 0.0001
90874912|NCT04501666|181611750|SUPERIORITY||Strata adjusted percentage difference|18.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.3|25.0||A 2-sided p-value was derived from CMH test using the randomized stratification variables (analysis center and body weight at randomization \[\< 90 kg, \>= 90 kg\]). Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05.||25.0|12.3|< 0.0001
90874913|NCT00894322|181611796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.269||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.4||Treatment group and HbA1c stratum at screening were factors. Placebo was reference group.|ANOVA|||||-0.40|-1.50|0.0013
90874914|NCT00894322|181611797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0033|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for HbA1c strata at screening.||||||0.0033
90874915|NCT00894322|181611798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.835||0.2285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.73|0.68|||ANOVA|treatment group and HbA1c stratum at screening were factors.||Least square mean (LS) mean, 95% confidence interval (CI) and p-value calculated for the changes in weight from baseline in participants in cohort 2 treated with exenatide with placebo as reference group.||0.68|-2.73|0.2285
90874916|NCT00894322|181611799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-40.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.8||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.5|-14.3|||ANOVA|treatment group and HbA1c stratum at screening were factors.||||-14.3|-66.5|0.0035
90874917|NCT00553150|181611804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Maximum Tolerated Dose (mg)|70.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90874918|NCT03338855|181611810|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-1.068|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.014||0.3047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.183|1.047|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|A linear mixed model with treatment group, treatment sequence, and period as fixed effects and patient as random effect.||Comparison of delta RD (basal vs high insulin) between dapagliflozin and placebo after 5 weeks of treatment was performed using a random effects analysis of variance model.||1.047|-3.183|0.3047
90961109|NCT02175004|181803029|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.58|-2.19||P-value= MMRM with fixed categorical effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, each of 3 randomization stratification factors, fixed covariates for parent study baseline value, baseline-by-time interaction.|MMRM|||Change from Baseline in the NIS Component: Sensory Score at Week 52 of Years 4||-2.19|-8.58|<0.001
90961110|NCT02175004|181803030|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.31||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.48|-1.14||P-value= MMRM with fixed categorical effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, each of 3 randomization stratification factors, fixed covariates for parent study baseline value, baseline-by-time interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline in the Norfolk QOL-DN Questionnaire Total Score at Week 78||-1.14|-17.48|0.026
90874919|NCT03338855|181611811|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.705|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.517||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.784|-0.625|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|A linear mixed model with treatment group, treatment sequence, and period as fixed effects and patient as random effect.||Comparison of delta EGP (basal vs low insulin) between dapagliflozin and placebo after 5 weeks of treatment was performed using a random effects analysis of variance model.||-0.625|-2.784|0.0036
90874920|NCT03338855|181611811|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.292|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.409|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.146|-1.438|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|A linear mixed model with treatment group, treatment sequence, and period as fixed effects and patient as random effect.||Comparison of delta EGP (basal vs high insulin) between dapagliflozin and placebo after 5 weeks of treatment was performed using a random effects analysis of variance model.||-1.438|-3.146|<0.0001
90874921|NCT03338855|181611812|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.009||0.1842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.006|0.03|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|A linear mixed model with treatment group, treatment sequence, and period as fixed effects and patient as random effect.||Comparison of delta RER (basal vs high insulin) between dapagliflozin and placebo after 5 weeks of treatment was performed using a random effects analysis of variance model.||0.030|-0.006|0.1842
90874922|NCT03338855|181611813|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.023|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.005||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.033|-0.013|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|A linear mixed model with treatment group, treatment sequence, and period as fixed effects and patient as random effect.||Comparison of 24-hour RER between dapagliflozin and placebo after 5 weeks of treatment was performed using a random effects analysis of variance model.||-0.013|-0.033|0.0001
90874923|NCT03338855|181611814|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.109|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.065||0.1095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.245|0.027|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|A linear mixed model with treatment group, treatment sequence, and period as fixed effects and patient as random effect.||Comparison of energy expenditure between dapagliflozin and placebo after 5 weeks of treatment was performed using a random effects analysis of variance model.||0.027|-0.245|0.1095
90874924|NCT03338855|181611815|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-246.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|464.3||0.6005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1209.5|716.2|||Linear Mixed Effects Model||A linear mixed model with treatment group, treatment sequence, and period as fixed effects and patient as random effect.|Comparison of fat mass between dapagliflozin and placebo after 5 weeks of treatment was performed using a random effects analysis of variance model.||716.2|-1209.5|0.6005
90874925|NCT03338855|181611815|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-666.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|301.1||0.0376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1291.0|-41.9|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|A linear mixed model with treatment group, treatment sequence, and period as fixed effects and patient as random effect.||Comparison of lean mass between dapagliflozin and placebo after 5 weeks of treatment was performed using a random effects analysis of variance model.||-41.9|-1291.0|0.0376
90874926|NCT03338855|181611816|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.256|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.289||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.854|-0.657|||Linear Mixed Effects Model||A linear mixed model with treatment group, treatment sequence, and period as fixed effects and patient as random effect.|Comparison of total mass between dapagliflozin and placebo after 5 weeks of treatment was performed using a random effects analysis of variance model.||-0.657|-1.854|0.0003
90874927|NCT03338855|181611817|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-244.301|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|165.168||0.1555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-590.002|101.401|||Linear Mixed Effects Model||A linear mixed model with treatment group, treatment sequence, and period as fixed effects and patient as random effect.|Comparison of FGF21 AUC between dapagliflozin and placebo after 5 weeks of treatment was performed using a random effects analysis of variance model.||101.401|-590.002|0.1555
90874928|NCT00975481|181611846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.8096|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.0866|26.5327|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML) estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95 percent (%) Confidence Interval (CI) were obtained from the model.||26.5327|15.0866|<0.0001
90874929|NCT00975481|181611846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.4625|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.7321|30.1929|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||30.1929|18.7321|<0.0001
90874930|NCT00975481|181611846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5792||||0.8428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3385|5.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||5.1800|-6.3385|0.8428
90874931|NCT00975481|181611846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9993||||0.4957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7832|3.7845|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||3.7845|-7.7832|0.4957
90874932|NCT00975481|181611846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9683||||0.7431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8567|6.7932|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||6.7932|-4.8567|0.7431
90874933|NCT00975481|181611846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.3889|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.1044|-15.6734|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-15.6734|-27.1044|<0.0001
90874934|NCT00975481|181611846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.809|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.5584|-17.0596|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-17.0596|-28.5584|<0.0001
90874935|NCT00975481|181611846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-19.8414|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.6435|-14.0393|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-14.0393|-25.6435|<0.0001
90874936|NCT00975481|181611846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.0418|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.6705|-19.413|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-19.4130|-30.6705|<0.0001
90874937|NCT00975481|181611846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.4618|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.1455|-20.7782|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-20.7782|-32.1455|<0.0001
90874938|NCT00975481|181611846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.4943|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.244|-17.7445|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-17.7445|-29.2440|<0.0001
90914649|NCT00666276|181699745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.082|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Hepatic dysfunctions. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with Hepatic dysfunction and without Hepatic dysfunction in the incidence rate of ADRs."||||=0.082
90914650|NCT00666276|181699746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.462|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Renal dysfunctions. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with Renal dysfunction and without Renal dysfunction in the incidence rate of ADRs."||||=0.462
90914651|NCT00666276|181699747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Duration of drug administration. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between over 15 days and less than 15 days in the incidence rate of ADRs."||||<0.001
90914652|NCT00666276|181699748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.018|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Route of administration. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between oral, injection and switch in the incidence rate of ADRs."||||=0.018
90914653|NCT00666276|181699749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.311|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Weight. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between over 40kg and less than 40kg in the incidence rate of ADRs."||||=0.311
90914654|NCT00666276|181699750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.044|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Concomitant drugs. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with Concomitant drug and without Concomitant drug in the incidence rate of ADRs."||||=0.044
90914655|NCT00666276|181699751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Non-drug therapies. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with Non-drug therapies and without Non-drug therapies in the incidence rate of ADRs."||||=0.008
90914656|NCT02594735|181699755|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.002
90914657|NCT02594735|181699756|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90874939|NCT00975481|181611846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4538||||0.572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5274|3.6198|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||3.6198|-6.5274|0.5720
90914658|NCT02594735|181699757|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004
90914659|NCT02594735|181699758|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90874940|NCT00975481|181611846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.9938||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0695|-3.918|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-3.9180|-14.0695|0.0006
90874941|NCT00975481|181611846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8686||||0.4704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2342|6.9713|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||6.9713|-3.2342|0.4704
90874942|NCT00975481|181611846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0725||||0.4255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0533|7.1984|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||7.1984|-3.0533|0.4255
90914660|NCT02594735|181699759|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90914661|NCT02594735|181699760|OTHER|||||||0.375|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.375
90914662|NCT02594735|181699761|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90914663|NCT02594735|181699762|OTHER|||||||0.044|||||||Sign test|Data was not normally distributed||||||0.044
90914664|NCT02594735|181699763|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
90914665|NCT00364013|181699776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Normal score|-2.27||||0.0234||||||P-value is based on a 2-sided log-rank test stratified by Region (Western Europe, Canada and Australia vs. Rest of World) and ECOG score (0 or 1 vs. 2).|Stratified log-rank test||A normal score \<0 indicates fewer than expected events for the panitumumab plus FOLFOX arm and therefore a longer progression-free survival time.|PFS in the Wild-type KRAS Efficacy Analysis Set was compared at a significance level of 5%.||||0.0234
90914666|NCT00364013|181699776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Normal score|2.28||||0.0227||||||P-value is based on a 2-sided log-rank test stratified by Region (Western Europe, Canada and Australia vs. Rest of World) and ECOG score (0 or 1 vs. 2).|Stratified log-rank test||A normal score \<0 indicates fewer than expected events for the panitumumab plus FOLFOX arm and therefore a longer progression-free survival time.|PFS in the Mutant KRAS Efficacy Analysis Set was compared at a significance level of 5% conditional on first demonstrating a significant treatment effect in PFS in the Wild-type KRAS Efficacy Analysis Set.||||0.0227
90914667|NCT00364013|181699777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Normal score|-1.8||||0.0723||||||cP-value is based on a 2-sided log-rank test stratified by Region (Western Europe, Canada and Australia vs. Rest of World) and ECOG score (0 or 1 vs. 2).|Stratified log-rank test||A normal score \<0 indicates fewer than expected events for the panitumumab plus FOLFOX arm and therefore a longer overall survival time.|Overall survival comparisons in the wild-type KRAS Efficacy Analysis Set was performed at a significance level of 4.99% conditional on a statistically significant difference for PFS in the Wild-type KRAS Efficacy Analysis Set.||||0.0723
90914668|NCT00364013|181699777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Normal score|1.83||||0.0678||||||P-value is based on a 2-sided log-rank test stratified by Region (Western Europe, Canada and Australia vs. Rest of World) and ECOG score (0 or 1 vs. 2).|Stratified log-rank test||A normal score \<0 indicates fewer than expected events for the panitumumab plus FOLFOX arm and therefore a longer overall survival time.|Overall survival comparisons in the mutant KRAS Efficacy Analysis Set was performed at an significance level of 4.99% conditional on a statistically significant difference for PFS in the Mutant KRAS Efficacy Analysis Set.||||0.0678
90914669|NCT00364013|181699778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.0684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.87|||Stratified exact test|Adjusted for geographic region and ECOG score.|The odds ratio is defined as the odds of having an objective response in the panitumumab plus arm relative to the odds on the FOLFOX alone arm.|||1.87|0.98|0.0684
90914670|NCT00364013|181699778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.9822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.47|||Stratified exact test|Adjusted for geographic region and ECOG score|The odds ratio is defined as the odds of having an objective response in the panitumumab plus arm relative to the odds on the FOLFOX alone arm.|||1.47|0.65|0.9822
90914671|NCT01240330|181699812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.46|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.3|21.59|||t-test, 1 sided|||The femoral venous peak flow velocity (PFV) compared to the subject's own resting baseline PFV.||21.59|16.30|<0.0001
90914672|NCT05082935|181699823|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.048||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.008|0.104|||ANCOVA|||||0.104|-0.008|0.09
90914673|NCT05082935|181699824|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.29|||ANCOVA|||||0.29|0.02|0.02
90914674|NCT05082935|181699825|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Means|-0.076||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.145|-0.007|||ANCOVA|||||-0.007|-0.145|0.03
90914675|NCT05082935|181699826|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.09|||ANCOVA|||||0.09|-0.04|0.38
90914676|NCT05082935|181699827|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.096||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.16|||ANCOVA|||||0.16|0.04|0.002
90914677|NCT02423798|181699840|OTHER||Mean|9.13|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90961111|NCT02175004|181803030|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.4||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.41|1.62||P-value= MMRM with fixed categorical effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, each of 3 randomization stratification factors, fixed covariates for parent study baseline value, baseline-by-time interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline in the Norfolk QOL-DN Questionnaire Total Score at Week 156||1.62|-16.41|0.107
90914678|NCT00392054|181699851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.9||Cox regression analysis, stratified by clinical site, was performed and presented as hazard ratios with 95% confidence intervals and a two-sided p-value testing of less than or equal to 0.05 (two-sided) for the Wald test.|Regression, Cox|||Event rates were plotted over time using Kaplan-Meier methodology. Only events occurring after the 90-day treatment period were included in the final analysis. Treatment groups were analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis.||0.90|0.35|0.0016
90914679|NCT00392054|181699853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.95|||Regression, Cox|||||0.95|0.33|0.03
90914680|NCT00392054|181699854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.89|||Regression, Cox|||||0.89|0.3|0.017
90914681|NCT00392054|181699855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.4|||Regression, Cox|||||0.4|0.28|<0.0001
90914682|NCT00392054|181699856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.72|||Regression, Cox|||||1.72|0.42|0.66
90914683|NCT02928224|181699872|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Stratified Log-rank|||||||<0.0001
90914684|NCT02928224|181699873|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Stratified Log-rank|||||||<0.0001
90961112|NCT02175004|181803030|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.72||||0.669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.22|9.77||P-value= MMRM with fixed categorical effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, each of 3 randomization stratification factors, fixed covariates for parent study baseline value, baseline-by-time interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline in the Norfolk QOL-DN Questionnaire Total Score at Week 52 of Year 4||9.77|-15.22|0.669
90961113|NCT02175004|181803031|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.3||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.75|1.15||P-value= MMRM with fixed categorical effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, each of 3 randomization stratification factors, fixed covariates for parent study baseline value, baseline-by-time interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline in the Norfolk QOL-DN Change From CS2 Baseline in the Norfolk QOL-DN Questionnaire Total Score at Week 78||1.15|-13.75|0.097
90961114|NCT02175004|181803031|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-8.89||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.88|1.11||P-value= MMRM with fixed categorical effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, each of 3 randomization stratification factors, fixed covariates for parent study baseline value, baseline-by-time interaction.|MMRM|||Change from Baseline in the Norfolk QoL-DN Physical Functioning/Large Fiber Neuropathy Domain Score at Week 156||1.11|-18.88|0.081
90914685|NCT02928224|181699874|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
90914686|NCT02928224|181699883|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Stratified Log-rank|||||||<0.0001
90914687|NCT02928224|181699884|OTHER|||||||0.5958|||||||Stratified Log-rank|||||||0.5958
90914688|NCT02928224|181699885|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Stratified Log-rank|||||||<0.0001
90914689|NCT02928224|181699886|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Stratified Log-rank|||||||<0.0001
90914690|NCT02928224|181699887|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Stratified Log-rank|||||||<0.0001
90914691|NCT02928224|181699888|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Stratified Log-rank|||||||<0.0001
90914692|NCT02928224|181699889|OTHER|||||||0.1004|||||||Stratified Log-rank|||||||0.1004
90914693|NCT02928224|181699890|OTHER|||||||0.3724|||||||Stratified Log-rank|||||||0.3724
90914694|NCT02928224|181699891|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
90914695|NCT02928224|181699892|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
90914696|NCT02928224|181699893|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
90914697|NCT02928224|181699894|OTHER|||||||0.1928|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1928
90914698|NCT02928224|181699895|OTHER|||||||0.0357|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0357
90914699|NCT00958633|181699969|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.1|||Log Rank||The hazard ratio for time to any mood episode in the 52-week group relative to the 8-week group was 0.68 (95% confidence interval \[CI\], 0.43 to 1.10; P = 0.12 by log-rank test).|||1.10|0.43|0.12
90914700|NCT00958633|181699970|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|6.08||||||Manic or Hypomanic events||6.08|.86|
90914701|NCT00958633|181699970|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.75||||||Depressive Events||0.75|0.25|
90914702|NCT00094575|181699983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.22|||Log Rank||The HR was estimated by comparing Endovascular repair arm vs the Open repair arm.|The primary outcome was long-term, all-cause mortality. The sample size would provide 80% power to detect a 25% relative reduction in mortality at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05. The primary comparison was the main effects of Endovascular repair vs Open repair of AAA.||1.22|0.77|0.81
90914703|NCT00094575|181699984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.12
90914704|NCT00094575|181699985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.81
90914705|NCT00094575|181699986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.80
90914706|NCT00094575|181699987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.78
90914707|NCT00094575|181699988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Note: Since this is measuring change over time since baseline, values could be below 0.||||0.58
90914708|NCT00094575|181699989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.37
90914709|NCT00094575|181699990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.68
90914710|NCT00940537|181700057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.097||95.0||||a priori threshhold for significance was set at p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|this was a paired t-test||As there was no a priori reason for the level of IHTG to impact this measurement we compared the pre and post-prandial results for all subjects whose data were of sufficient quality (N=12). These results are comparing the two categories of fasting and post-prandial. Null hypothesis was that there would be no difference in IHTG before and after a high fat, high carbohydrate meal.||||.097
90914711|NCT00940537|181700058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0||||This p-value compares the low IHTG (\<5%) subjects to those with medium levels of IHTG (5 - 10%). The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||null hypothesis was that the T2 ratio would not depend on level of intrahepatic triglyceride (IHTG) and would be equal for the low and medium IHTG categories.||||0.006
90914712|NCT00940537|181700058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||null hypothesis was that the T2 ratio would not depend on level of intra-hepatic triglyceride (IHTG) and would be equal for the low (\<5%) and high (\>10%) IHTG categories.||||<0.0001
90914713|NCT00940537|181700058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis was that there would be no difference in T2 relaxation ratios for varying levels of intra-hepatic triglyceride (IHTG). Thus the medium (5 - 10%) and high (\<10%) IHTG groups would not be statistically different with regard to average T2 ratio.||||.93
90914714|NCT02576574|181700170|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.93|||Log Rank|||||0.93|0.54|0.0070
90914715|NCT02576574|181700171|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.0196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.98|||Log Rank|||||0.98|0.52|0.0196
90961115|NCT02175004|181803031|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-11.87||||0.171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.89|5.16||P-value= MMRM with fixed categorical effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, each of 3 randomization stratification factors, fixed covariates for parent study baseline value, baseline-by-time interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline in the Norfolk QOL-DN Physical Functioning/Large Fiber Neuropathy Domain Score at Week 52 of Year 4||5.16|-28.89|0.171
90961116|NCT02076178|181803118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Fisher Exact|||Any Grade 2 or higher event, any Grade 2 or higher event Vs Cabotegravir||||<0.01
90961117|NCT00343252|181803135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.642||95.0||||All comparisons were conducted using a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Chi-square|No adjustments for multiplicity were performed.||Tested the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference between treatment groups in the proportion of participants with at least a 30% reduction in the severity of worst back pain from baseline to the 6-month endpoint.||||0.642
90961118|NCT00343252|181803136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.683||95.0||||All comparisons were conducted using a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Chi-square|No adjustments for multiplicity were performed.||Tested the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference between treatment groups in the proportion of participants with at least a 30% reduction in the severity of worst back pain from baseline at the 12-month endpoint.||||0.683
90914716|NCT02576574|181700172|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.1032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.09|||Log Rank|||||1.09|0.67|0.1032
90914717|NCT02576574|181700173|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.07|||Log Rank|||||1.07|0.59|0.0630
90914718|NCT02576574|181700174|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.0147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.98|||Log Rank|||||0.98|0.62|0.0147
90914719|NCT02576574|181700175|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.1753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.15|||Log Rank|||||1.15|0.67|0.1753
90914720|NCT02576574|181700176|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.0257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.0|||Log Rank|||||1.00|0.66|0.0257
90914721|NCT02576574|181700177|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.0809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.07|||Log Rank|||||1.07|0.66|0.0809
90914722|NCT02576574|181700178|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.1294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.07|||Log Rank|||||1.07|0.78|0.1294
90914723|NCT02576574|181700179|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.2618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.13|||Log Rank|||||1.13|0.79|0.2618
90914724|NCT02576574|181700180|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|2.18|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.18|0.91|0.0640
90914725|NCT02576574|181700181|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.2217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.07|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.07|0.73|0.2217
90914726|NCT02576574|181700182|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.1912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.72|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.72|0.81|0.1912
90914727|NCT02576574|181700183|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.4951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.57|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.57|0.64|0.4951
90914728|NCT01780298|181700249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-36.278|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.203|-30.352|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 1 (COPD) - Group 4 (Never smokers)|||-30.352|-42.203|<0.0001
90914729|NCT01780298|181700249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-32.739|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.418|-27.06|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 1 (COPD) - Group 3 (Ex-smokers)|||-27.060|-38.418|<0.0001
90961119|NCT00343252|181803137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.809||95.0||||All comparisons were conducted using a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Chi-square|No adjustments for multiplicity were performed.||Tested the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference between treatment groups in the proportion of participants with at least a 30% reduction in the severity of average back pain from baseline to the 6-month endpoint.||||0.809
90914730|NCT01780298|181700249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.265|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.081|-19.449|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 1 (COPD) - Group 2 (Current cigarette smokers)|||-19.449|-31.081|<0.0001
90961120|NCT00343252|181803138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.986||95.0||||All comparisons were conducted using a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Chi-square|No adjustments for multiplicity were performed.||Tested the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference between treatment groups in the proportion of participants with at least a 30% reduction in the severity of average back pain from baseline to the 12-month endpoint.||||0.986
90961121|NCT00343252|181803139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.26||Comparison of the Kaplan-Meier survival curves between treatment groups was conducted using log-rank, significance level of 0.05.|Log Rank|No adjustments for multiplicity were performed.||Tested the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference between treatment groups in the time to first occurrence of a \>=30% reduction in worst back pain at the 6-month endpoint.||1.26|0.85|0.746
91035856|NCT02558491|181958301|OTHER|||||||0.276||||||No a priori sample size was determined due to the feasibility/pilot nature of the trial. Significance level was set at P-value \<0.05.|ANOVA|||Secondary analysis followed the same format unless variables could not be considered normally distributed; in that case a related samples Wilcoxon signed-rank test is used. Data were first binned (to ensure minimum count of five per bins) and the w2 statistics was used with the expected counts given by SoC. Based on achieved recruitment, a moderate effect size (0.3) is detectable with 80% power, or a large effect size (0.4) with 95% power (G-Power 3.1.9.2). Outcome measurement was for overnight.||||0.276
90914731|NCT01780298|181700249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.538||||0.1504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.398|1.321|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 3 (Ex-smokers) - Group 4 (Never smokers)|||1.321|-8.398|0.1504
90914732|NCT01780298|181700249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.474||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.207|-3.741|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 2 (Current cigarette smokers) - Group 3 (Ex-smokers)|||-3.741|-11.207|0.0002
90914733|NCT01780298|181700249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.013|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.979|-6.046|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 2 (Current cigarette smokers) - Group 4 (Never smokers)|||-6.046|-15.979|<0.0001
90914734|NCT01780298|181700250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.611|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.249|-22.973|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 1 (COPD) - Group 4 (Never smokers)|||-22.973|-32.249|<0.0001
90914735|NCT01780298|181700250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.553|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.501|-19.604|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 1 (COPD) - Group 3 (Ex-smokers)|||-19.604|-29.501|<0.0001
90914736|NCT01780298|181700250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.107|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.043|-9.17|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 1 (COPD) - Group 2 (Current cigarette smokers)|||-9.170|-19.043|<0.0001
90914737|NCT01780298|181700250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.058||||0.0983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.702|0.585|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 3 (Ex-smokers) - Group 4 (Never smokers)|||0.585|-6.702|0.0983
90914738|NCT01780298|181700250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.446|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.845|-7.047|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 2 (Current cigarette smokers) - Group 3 (Ex-smokers)|||-7.047|-13.845|<0.0001
90914739|NCT01780298|181700250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.504|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.302|-9.707|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 2 (Current cigarette smokers) - Group 4 (Never smokers)|||-9.707|-17.302|<0.0001
90914740|NCT01780298|181700251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|40.448|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.374|52.521|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 1 (COPD) - Group 4 (Never smokers)|||52.521|28.374|<0.0001
90914741|NCT01780298|181700251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|26.538|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.89|38.185|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 1 (COPD) - Group 3 (Ex-smokers)|||38.185|14.890|<0.0001
90914742|NCT01780298|181700251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.661||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.997|33.324|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 1 (COPD) - Group 2 (Current cigarette smokers)|||33.324|7.997|0.0018
90874943|NCT00975481|181611846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3425||||0.8959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5053|4.8204|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||4.8204|-5.5053|0.8959
90874944|NCT00975481|181611846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.3224||||0.1967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7402|8.385|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||8.3850|-1.7402|0.1967
90874945|NCT00975481|181611846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.5264||||0.1733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5676|8.6203|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||8.6203|-1.5676|0.1733
90874946|NCT00975481|181611846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1113||||0.6697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0285|6.2512|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||6.2512|-4.0285|0.6697
90874947|NCT00975481|181611846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.8623|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.8712|15.8535|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||15.8535|5.8712|<0.0001
90874948|NCT00975481|181611846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.0663|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0281|16.1045|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||16.1045|6.0281|<0.0001
90874949|NCT00975481|181611846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.6513||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5552|13.7474|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||13.7474|3.5552|0.0010
90874950|NCT00975481|181611847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.6388|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.5727|22.7049|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||22.7049|10.5727|<0.0001
90874951|NCT00975481|181611847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.8432|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.7627|25.9238|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||25.9238|13.7627|<0.0001
90874952|NCT00975481|181611847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6121||||0.6029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7209|4.4967|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||4.4967|-7.7209|0.6029
90914743|NCT01780298|181700251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.91||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.534|22.286|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 3 (Ex-smokers) - Group 4 (Never smokers)|||22.286|5.534|0.0015
90874953|NCT00975481|181611847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.9241||||0.3477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0571|3.2089|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||3.2089|-9.0571|0.3477
90874954|NCT00975481|181611847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0908||||0.9769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.085|6.2667|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||6.2667|-6.0850|0.9769
90874955|NCT00975481|181611847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.2509|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.3155|-12.1864|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-12.1864|-24.3155|<0.0001
90874956|NCT00975481|181611847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.5629|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.6616|-13.4642|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-13.4642|-25.6616|<0.0001
90874957|NCT00975481|181611847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.548|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.7036|-10.3923|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-10.3923|-22.7036|<0.0001
90874958|NCT00975481|181611847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.4554|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.4199|-15.4908|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-15.4908|-27.4199|<0.0001
90874959|NCT00975481|181611847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.7673|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.7925|-16.7422||Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.|Mixed Models Analysis|||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-16.7422|-28.7925|<0.0001
90914744|NCT01780298|181700251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.877||||0.1847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.886|14.639|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 2 (Current cigarette smokers) - Group 3 (Ex-smokers)|||14.639|-2.886|0.1847
90914745|NCT01780298|181700251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.787||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.536|30.038|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 2 (Current cigarette smokers) - Group 4 (Never smokers)|||30.038|9.536|0.0003
90914746|NCT01780298|181700252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2979.725||||0.1981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7560.258|1600.808|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 1 (COPD) - Group 4 (Never smokers)|||1600.808|-7560.258|0.1981
90961122|NCT00343252|181803140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.25||Comparison of the Kaplan-Meier survival curves between treatment groups was conducted using log-rank, significance level of 0.05.|Log Rank|No adjustments for multiplicity were performed.||Tested the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference between treatment groups in the time to first occurrence of a \>=30% reduction in worst back pain at the 12-month endpoint.||1.25|0.86|0.719
90874960|NCT00975481|181611847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.7524|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.8485|-13.6563|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-13.6563|-25.8485|<0.0001
90874961|NCT00975481|181611847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.0888||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3225|18.8551|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||18.8551|5.3225|0.0006
90914747|NCT01780298|181700252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2317.131||||0.1956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1224.786|5859.048|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 1 (COPD) - Group 3 (Ex-smokers)|||5859.048|-1224.786|0.1956
90914748|NCT01780298|181700252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2396.589||||0.2077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1367.692|6160.87|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 1 (COPD) - Group 2 (Current cigarette smokers)|||6160.870|-1367.692|0.2077
90874962|NCT00975481|181611847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.0768||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3132|16.8403|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||16.8403|3.3132|0.0038
90874963|NCT00975481|181611847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.1875||||0.2257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.989|2.6139|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||2.6139|-10.9890|0.2257
90874964|NCT00975481|181611847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8589||||0.8042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6927|5.975|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||5.9750|-7.6927|0.8042
90874965|NCT00975481|181611847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6335||||0.6399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5177|5.2506|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||5.2506|-8.5177|0.6399
90874966|NCT00975481|181611847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.2763|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.0228|-9.5229|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-9.5229|-23.0228|<0.0001
90874967|NCT00975481|181611847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.9477||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7374|-6.158|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-6.1580|-19.7374|0.0002
90874968|NCT00975481|181611847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.7223||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.572|-6.8727|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-6.8727|-20.5720|0.0001
90874969|NCT00975481|181611847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.2643|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.9226|-7.606|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-7.6060|-20.9226|<0.0001
90874970|NCT00975481|181611847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.9356||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6548|-4.2165|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-4.2165|-17.6548|0.0016
90874971|NCT00975481|181611847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.7103||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.5055|-4.9151|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-4.9151|-18.5055|0.0008
90874972|NCT00975481|181611848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.009|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.7265|34.2916|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||34.2916|13.7265|<0.0001
90874973|NCT00975481|181611848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|29.4156|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.116|39.7151|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||39.7151|19.1160|<0.0001
90961123|NCT00343252|181803141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.26||Comparison of the Kaplan-Meier survival curves between treatment groups was conducted using log-rank, significance level of 0.05.|Log Rank|No adjustments for multiplicity were performed.||Tested the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference between treatment groups in the time to first occurrence of a \>=30% reduction for average back pain at the 6-month endpoint.||1.26|0.86|0.681
90961124|NCT00343252|181803142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.23||Comparison of the Kaplan-Meier survival curves between treatment groups was conducted using log-rank, significance level of 0.05.|Log Rank|No adjustments for multiplicity were performed.||Tested the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference between treatment groups in the time to first occurrence of a \>=30% reduction in average back pain at the 12-month endpoint.||1.23|0.86|0.789
90961125|NCT00343252|181803143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.968||95.0||||No adjustments for multiplicity were performed.|ANCOVA|The model includes terms for treatment, pooled site, baseline glucocorticoid usage status (yes/no), and baseline score.||Tested the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference between the treatment groups in the proportion of participants with a reduction in disability at the 3-month endpoint.||||0.968
90914749|NCT01780298|181700252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5296.856||||0.1154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11930.19|1336.478|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 3 (Ex-smokers) - Group 4 (Never smokers)|||1336.478|-11930.190|0.1154
90914750|NCT01780298|181700252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-79.458||||0.8095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-736.151|577.234|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 2 (Current cigarette smokers) - Group 3 (Ex-smokers)|||577.234|-736.151|0.8095
90914751|NCT01780298|181700252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5376.314||||0.1113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12030.714|1278.085|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 2 (Current cigarette smokers) - Group 4 (Never smokers)|||1278.085|-12030.714|0.1113
90914752|NCT01780298|181700253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.015|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.51|7.521|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 1 (COPD) - Group 4 (Never smokers)|||7.521|4.510|<0.0001
90914753|NCT01780298|181700253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.845|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.379|6.31|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 1 (COPD) - Group 3 (Ex-smokers)|||6.310|3.379|<0.0001
90914754|NCT01780298|181700253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.454|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.923|4.984|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 1 (COPD) - Group 2 (Current cigarette smokers)|||4.984|1.923|<0.0001
90914755|NCT01780298|181700253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.171||||0.0418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.045|2.296|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 3 (Ex-smokers) - Group 4 (Never smokers)|||2.296|0.045|0.0418
90914756|NCT01780298|181700253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.391||||0.0357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.096|2.686|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 2 (Current cigarette smokers) - Group 3 (Ex-smokers)|||2.686|0.096|0.0357
90914757|NCT01780298|181700253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.562||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.303|3.82|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 2 (Current cigarette smokers) - Group 4 (Never smokers)|||3.820|1.303|0.0001
90914758|NCT01780298|181700254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|39.633|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.964|45.302|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 1 (COPD) - Group 4 (Never smokers)|||45.302|33.964|<0.0001
90874974|NCT00975481|181611848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.3979||||0.2239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.7479|3.9521|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||3.9521|-16.7479|0.2239
90874975|NCT00975481|181611848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.1396||||0.4326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5328|6.2526|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||6.2526|-14.5328|0.4326
90874976|NCT00975481|181611848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7283||||0.7447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.195|8.7383|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||8.7383|-12.1950|0.7447
90874977|NCT00975481|181611848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-30.4069|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.6795|-20.1343|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-20.1343|-40.6795|<0.0001
90874978|NCT00975481|181611848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-28.1487|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.4812|-17.8161|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-17.8161|-38.4812|<0.0001
90874979|NCT00975481|181611848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.7374|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.1651|-15.3096|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-15.3096|-36.1651|<0.0001
90874980|NCT00975481|181611848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-35.8134|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.9257|-25.7012|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-25.7012|-45.9257|<0.0001
90874981|NCT00975481|181611848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-33.5552|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.7675|-23.3429|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-23.3429|-43.7675|<0.0001
90874982|NCT00975481|181611848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-31.1439|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.4754|-20.8124|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-20.8124|-41.4754|<0.0001
90914759|NCT01780298|181700254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|35.792|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.761|41.822|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 1 (COPD) - Group 3 (Ex-smokers)|||41.822|29.761|<0.0001
90914760|NCT01780298|181700254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|29.167|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.445|34.888|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 1 (COPD) - Group 2 (Current cigarette smokers)|||34.888|23.445|<0.0001
90914761|NCT01780298|181700254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.842||||0.0418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.147|7.536|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 3 (Ex-smokers) - Group 4 (Never smokers)|||7.536|0.147|0.0418
90914762|NCT01780298|181700254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.625||||0.0084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.763|11.487|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 2 (Current cigarette smokers) - Group 3 (Ex-smokers)|||11.487|1.763|0.0084
91035857|NCT02558491|181958302|OTHER|||||||0.026||||||No a priori sample size was determined due to the feasibility/pilot nature of the trial. Significance level was set at P-value \<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Secondary analysis followed the same format unless variables could not be considered normally distributed; in that case a related samples Wilcoxon signed-rank test is used. Data were first binned (to ensure minimum count of five per bins) and the w2 statistics was used with the expected counts given by SoC. Based on achieved recruitment, a moderate effect size (0.3) is detectable with 80% power, or a large effect size (0.4) with 95% power (G-Power 3.1.9.2). Outcome measurement was for overall.||||0.026
90961126|NCT00343252|181803144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.568||95.0||||No adjustments for multiplicity were performed.|ANCOVA|The model includes terms for treatment, pooled site, baseline glucocorticoid usage status (yes/no), and baseline score.||Tested the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference between treatment groups in the proportion of participants with a reduction in disability at the 6-month endpoint.||||0.568
90961127|NCT00343252|181803145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.932||95.0||||No adjustments for multiplicity were performed.|ANCOVA|The model includes terms for treatment, pooled site, baseline glucocorticoid usage status (yes/no), and baseline score.||Tested the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference between treatment groups in the proportion of participants with a reduction in disability at the 12-month endpoint.||||0.932
90961128|NCT00343252|181803146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.814||95.0||||No adjustments for multiplicity were performed.|ANCOVA|The model includes terms for treatment, pooled site, baseline glucocorticoid usage status (yes/no), and baseline score.||Tested the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference between treatment groups in the proportion of participants with an improvement in quality of life at the 6-month endpoint.||||0.814
90961129|NCT00343252|181803147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.572||95.0||||No adjustments for multiplicity were performed.|ANCOVA|The model includes terms for treatment, pooled site, baseline glucocorticoid usage status (yes/no), and baseline score.||Tested the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference between treatment groups in the proportion of participants with an improvement in quality of life at the 12-month endpoint.||||0.572
90961130|NCT00343252|181803150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6||95.0||||P-value is for responder versus non-responder.|Chi-squared|||||||0.600
90961131|NCT00343252|181803151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.399||95.0||||P-value is for responder versus non-responder.|Chi-squared|||||||0.399
90961132|NCT00343252|181803152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.28|||Log Rank|||||1.28|0.89|0.453
90961133|NCT00343252|181803153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.3|||Log Rank|||||1.30|0.91|0.353
90961134|NCT00343252|181803154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.943||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.943
90961135|NCT00343252|181803155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.553||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.553
90961136|NCT01519466|181803182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.32||0.0926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|0.12|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.12|-1.55|0.0926
90961137|NCT01519466|181803182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.97||||||||||||||||
90961138|NCT01519466|181803183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.49||0.3251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.09|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.09|-0.27|0.3251
90961139|NCT01519466|181803183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.51||||||||||||||||
90961140|NCT01519466|181803184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.26||0.5798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.58|||t-test, 2 sided|||Hyperglycaemia, glucose above 10mmol/l (180mg/dL)||0.58|-0.33|0.5798
90961141|NCT01519466|181803184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.03||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.06|||t-test, 2 sided|||Hypoglycaemia, glucose below 3.9mmol/l (70mg/dL)||0.06|-0.68|0.0960
90961142|NCT01519466|181803184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.36|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.53||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.01|6.71|||t-test, 2 sided|||Treatment Satisfaction||6.71|2.01|0.0007
90961143|NCT00307125|181803187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Analysis by Fisher's exact test counting participants with 50% decrease in anti-HLA antibodies at any time within 12 months post treatment initiation||||>0.999
90961144|NCT00307125|181803192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
90961145|NCT00307125|181803193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
90961146|NCT03552822|181803196|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||< 0.001
90961147|NCT03552822|181803197|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.037|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.037
90961148|NCT03552822|181803198|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||< 0.001
90961149|NCT03552822|181803199|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||< 0.001
90961150|NCT03552822|181803200|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.108|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.108
90961151|NCT03552822|181803201|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.159|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.159
90961152|NCT03552822|181803202|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||< 0.001
90961153|NCT03552822|181803203|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.020
90961154|NCT03552822|181803204|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.085|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.085
90961155|NCT00561951|181803228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0.002||95.0|-0.56|-0.13||The closed testing procedure was used in order to control the probability of a type 1 error.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model with the treatment group, region as fixed effects and baseline values as a covariate was used.||The significance level was 0.05 (2-sided).||-0.13|-0.56|0.002
90961156|NCT00561951|181803228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.6|-0.17||The closed testing procedure was used in order to control the probability of a type 1 error.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model with the treatment group, region as fixed effects and baseline values as a covariate was used.||The significance level was 0.05 (2-sided).||-0.17|-0.60|<0.001
90961157|NCT00561951|181803230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56||||0.002||95.0|-0.91|-0.22|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model with the treatment group, region as fixed effects and baseline values as a covariate was used.||The significance level was 0.05 (2-sided).||-0.22|-0.91|0.002
90961158|NCT00561951|181803230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.01|-0.32|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model with the treatment group, region as fixed effects and baseline values as a covariate was used.||The significance level was 0.05 (2-sided).||-0.32|-1.01|<0.001
90874983|NCT00975481|181611849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.8779|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.5658|30.1899|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||30.1899|19.5658|<0.0001
90874984|NCT00975481|181611849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.9857|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.667|31.3043|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||31.3043|20.6670|<0.0001
90874985|NCT00975481|181611849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0544||||0.4489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2911|7.3998|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||7.3998|-3.2911|0.4489
90874986|NCT00975481|181611849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5743||||0.8329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7941|5.9427|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||5.9427|-4.7941|0.8329
90874987|NCT00975481|181611849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6863||||0.5387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7203|7.0929|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||7.0929|-3.7203|0.5387
90874988|NCT00975481|181611849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.8235|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.1283|-17.5187|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-17.5187|-28.1283|<0.0001
90874989|NCT00975481|181611849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.3036|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.64|-18.9672|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-18.9672|-29.6400|<0.0001
90874990|NCT00975481|181611849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.1916|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.5768|-17.8064|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-17.8064|-28.5768|<0.0001
90874991|NCT00975481|181611849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.9313|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.1559|-18.7066|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-18.7066|-29.1559|<0.0001
90874992|NCT00975481|181611849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.4114|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.6869|-20.1358|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-20.1358|-30.6869|<0.0001
90961159|NCT00561951|181803232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.65||||0.003||95.0|-1.07|-0.22|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model with the treatment group, region as fixed effects and baseline values as a covariate was used.||The significance level was 0.05 (2-sided).||-0.22|-1.07|0.003
90874993|NCT00975481|181611849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.2994|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.6361|-18.9626|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-18.9626|-29.6361|<0.0001
90874994|NCT00975481|181611849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4301||||0.5349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9725|3.1123|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||3.1123|-5.9725|0.5349
90874995|NCT00975481|181611849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.1367||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6684|-4.605|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-4.6050|-13.6684|0.0001
90874996|NCT00975481|181611849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3357||||0.5637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2244|5.8958|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||5.8958|-3.2244|0.5637
90874997|NCT00975481|181611849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4065||||0.8612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1779|4.9909|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||4.9909|-4.1779|0.8612
90874998|NCT00975481|181611849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9175||||0.6954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7022|5.5373|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||5.5373|-3.7022|0.6954
90874999|NCT00975481|181611849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.7658||||0.2287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7552|7.2868|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||7.2868|-1.7552|0.2287
90914763|NCT01780298|181700254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.467|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.888|15.045|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 2 (Current cigarette smokers) - Group 4 (Never smokers)|||15.045|5.888|<0.0001
90914764|NCT01780298|181700255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.929|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.654|1.203|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 1 (COPD) - Group 4 (Never smokers)|||1.203|0.654|<0.0001
90961160|NCT00561951|181803232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66||||0.002||95.0|-1.09|-0.23|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model with the treatment group, region as fixed effects and baseline values as a covariate was used.||The significance level was 0.05 (2-sided).||-0.23|-1.09|0.002
90875000|NCT00975481|181611849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8366||||0.4267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7158|6.389|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||6.3890|-2.7158|0.4267
90914765|NCT01780298|181700255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.875|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.609|1.141|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 1 (COPD) - Group 3 (Ex-smokers)|||1.141|0.609|<0.0001
90914766|NCT01780298|181700255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.649|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.386|0.912|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 1 (COPD) - Group 2 (Current cigarette smokers)|||0.912|0.386|<0.0001
90914767|NCT01780298|181700255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.069||||0.3985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.093|0.231|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 3 (Ex-smokers) - Group 4 (Never smokers)|||0.231|-0.093|0.3985
90914768|NCT01780298|181700255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22||||0.0267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.026|0.414|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 2 (Current cigarette smokers) - Group 3 (Ex-smokers)|||0.414|0.026|0.0267
90914769|NCT01780298|181700255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.305||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.104|0.506|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 2 (Current cigarette smokers) - Group 4 (Never smokers)|||0.506|0.104|0.0036
90914770|NCT01780298|181700256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.564|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.179|1.949|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 1 (COPD) - Group 4 (Never smokers)|||1.949|1.179|<0.0001
90914771|NCT01780298|181700256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.291|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.924|1.658|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 1 (COPD) - Group 3 (Ex-smokers)|||1.658|0.924|<0.0001
90914772|NCT01780298|181700256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.073|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.724|1.421|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 1 (COPD) - Group 2 (Current cigarette smokers)|||1.421|0.724|<0.0001
90914773|NCT01780298|181700256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.276||||0.0282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.031|0.521|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 3 (Ex-smokers) - Group 4 (Never smokers)|||0.521|0.031|0.0282
90914774|NCT01780298|181700256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.207||||0.1223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.057|0.471|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 2 (Current cigarette smokers) - Group 3 (Ex-smokers)|||0.471|-0.057|0.1223
90914775|NCT01780298|181700256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.492|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.273|0.71|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 2 (Current cigarette smokers) - Group 4 (Never smokers)|||0.710|0.273|<0.0001
90914776|NCT01780298|181700257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.372|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.269|0.478|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 1 (COPD) - Group 4 (Never smokers)|||0.478|0.269|<0.0001
90914777|NCT01780298|181700257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.256|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.158|0.354|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 1 (COPD) - Group 3 (Ex-smokers)|||0.354|0.158|<0.0001
90914778|NCT01780298|181700257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.136||||0.0199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.022|0.249|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 1 (COPD) - Group 2 (Current cigarette smokers)|||0.249|0.022|0.0199
90914779|NCT01780298|181700257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.117||||0.0247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.015|0.218|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 3 (Ex-smokers) - Group 4 (Never smokers)|||0.218|0.015|0.0247
90914780|NCT01780298|181700257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.0204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.019|0.221|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 2 (Current cigarette smokers) - Group 3 (Ex-smokers)|||0.221|0.019|0.0204
90914781|NCT01780298|181700257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.237|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.127|0.347|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 2 (Current cigarette smokers) - Group 4 (Never smokers)|||0.347|0.127|<0.0001
90914782|NCT05930782|181700298|EQUIVALENCE|The treatment was considered as bioequivalent if the 90% confidence interval (CI) for geometric least square mean ratios (GMR) of Cmax falls within the acceptance range of 80.00 % to 125.00 %.|geometric least square mean ratios (GMR)|73.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|48.32|113.02||||||||113.02|48.32|
90914783|NCT05930782|181700299|EQUIVALENCE|The treatment was considered as bioequivalent if the 90% confidence interval (CI) for geometric least square mean ratios (GMR) of ln-transformed parameters falls within the acceptance range of 80.00 % to 125.00 %.|geometric least square mean ratio (GMR)|75.41|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|56.46|100.71||||||||100.71|56.46|
90914784|NCT05930782|181700300|EQUIVALENCE|The treatment was considered as bioequivalent if the 90% confidence interval (CI) for geometric least square mean ratios (GMR) of ln-transformed parameters falls within the acceptance range of 80.00 % to 125.00 %.|geometric least square mean ratios (GMR)|86.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|68.16|109.63||||||||109.63|68.16|
90914785|NCT05930782|181700301|EQUIVALENCE|The treatment was considered as bioequivalent if the 90% confidence interval (CI) for geometric least square mean ratios (GMR) of ln-transformed parameters falls within the acceptance range of 80.00 % to 125.00 %.|geometric least square mean ratios (GMR)|77.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|59.49|101.39||||||||101.39|59.49|
90914786|NCT05930782|181700302|EQUIVALENCE|The treatment was considered as bioequivalent if the 90% confidence interval (CI) for geometric least square mean ratios (GMR) of ln-transformed parameters falls within the acceptance range of 80.00 % to 125.00 %.|geometric least square mean ratios (GMR)|55.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.03|113.02|||||For AUC0-inf, the GMR and 90% CI values were unreliable as there was only 1 calculable value for the Test (Group 2) and 2 values for the Reference (Group 1) products.|||113.02|6.03|
90914787|NCT01391832|181700309|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of differences between rTMS+CPT and sham+CPT groups in change Clinical Administered Post-Traumatic Scale Total Severity Scores from baseline to 1-month follow-up.|t-value on group differences in change|-1.51|||>|0.05|ONE_SIDED|||||Predicted effects on symptom reduction were evaluated with α = 0.05 for one-tailed t-distributions, recommended for designs examining efficacy of therapeutic interventions (Overall, 1991).|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood estimators of variance components for fixed effects; Satterthwaite estimates of effective degrees of freedom.|degrees of freedom = 327|Restricted maximum likelihood estimators (ReML) of the variance components were used to compute the maximum likelihood estimators of the fixed effects parameters (i.e., group, time, therapist, all two-way interaction terms, and the three-way interaction term). Thus, we did not exclude participants with missing time points.||||>0.05
90914788|NCT01391832|181700309|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of differences between rTMS+CPT and sham+CPT groups in change Clinical Administered Post-Traumatic Scale Total Severity Scores from baseline to 3-month follow-up.|t-value on group differences in change|-2.05|||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|||||Predicted effects on symptom reduction were evaluated with α = 0.05 for one-tailed t-distributions, recommended for designs examining efficacy of therapeutic interventions (Overall, 1991).|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood estimators of variance components for fixed effects; Satterthwaite estimates of effective degrees of freedom.|degrees of freedom = 327|Restricted maximum likelihood estimators (ReML) of the variance components were used to compute the maximum likelihood estimators of the fixed effects parameters (i.e., group, time, therapist, all two-way interaction terms, and the three-way interaction term). Thus, we did not exclude participants with missing time points.||||<0.05
90914789|NCT01391832|181700309|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of differences between rTMS+CPT and sham+CPT groups in change Clinical Administered Post-Traumatic Scale Total Severity Scores from baseline to 6-month follow-up.|t-value on group differences in change|-2.01|||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|||||Predicted effects on symptom reduction were evaluated with α = 0.05 for one-tailed t-distributions, recommended for designs examining efficacy of therapeutic interventions (Overall, 1991).|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood estimators of variance components for fixed effects; Satterthwaite estimates of effective degrees of freedom.|degrees of freedom = 327|Restricted maximum likelihood estimators (ReML) of the variance components were used to compute the maximum likelihood estimators of the fixed effects parameters (i.e., group, time, therapist, all two-way interaction terms, and the three-way interaction term). Thus, we did not exclude participants with missing time points.||||<0.05
90914790|NCT01391832|181700310|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.666|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.7101||0.3422|TWO_SIDED|1.422|-0.7548|2.088||It is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|degrees of freedom = 58|mean change from baseline to 6-month follow-up, rTMS Active - rTMS Sham|Null hypothesis test of differences in N2 micro-volt change from baseline to 6-month followup.||2.088|-0.7548|.3422
90914791|NCT01391832|181700310|OTHER|The analysis examined correlations in change in N2 and PTSD symptoms.|Slope|-0.3||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||Not adjusted|Regression, Linear|||The analysis examined the association between change in PTSD symptoms from baseline to 6-month follow-up and the change in N2 amplitude to the threatening stimulus from baseline to 6-month follow-up.|Correlations for the individual groups were active rTMS r(28)=-.373 and sham rTMS r(32)=-.296.|||0.02
90914792|NCT00232180|181700327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.535|0.741||Using an adaptation of Haybittle-Peto stopping criterion adjusting for two interim analyses, p-value for final primary analysis will be compared to alpha=0.049. No adjustment in alpha will be made on parameters/endpoints other than primary endpoint.|Cox proportional hazard model|||Cox proportional hazard model includes treatment as the major factor, adjusting for age, estimated glomerular filtration rate, left ventricular ejection fraction, body mass index, hemoglobin, heart rate, systolic blood pressure, diabetes, history of hypertension, prior myocardial infarction, baseline left bundle branch block, time from electrocardiogram Q wave to the end of the S wave corresponding to ventricle depolarization (QRS) and atrial fibrillation as covariates.||0.741|0.535|<0.0001
90914793|NCT00232180|181700329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.647|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.552|0.757||Statistically significant if p-value \<0.01|Cox proportional hazard model|||The statistical analysis was only performed on the adjudicated endpoint data up to cut-off. Cox proportional hazard model includes treatment as the major factor, adjusting for age, estimated glomerular filtration rate, left ventricular ejection fraction, body mass index, hemoglobin, heart rate, systolic blood pressure, diabetes, history of hypertension, prior myocardial infarction, baseline left bundle branch block, QRS complex and atrial fibrillation as covariates.||0.757|0.552|<0.0001
90961161|NCT00561951|181803234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39||||0.002||95.0|-0.63|-0.14|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model with the treatment group, region as fixed effects and baseline values as a covariate was used.||The significance level was 0.05 (2-sided).||-0.14|-0.63|0.002
90875001|NCT00975481|181611849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3476||||0.314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2429|6.9381|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||6.9381|-2.2429|0.3140
90875002|NCT00975481|181611849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.4724|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.9992|14.9456|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||14.9456|5.9992|<0.0001
90875003|NCT00975481|181611849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.5432|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.032|14.0544|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||14.0544|5.0320|<0.0001
90875004|NCT00975481|181611849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.0542|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.494|14.6144|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||14.6144|5.4940|<0.0001
90875005|NCT00975481|181611850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.4728|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.4718|19.4737|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||19.4737|9.4718|<0.0001
90875006|NCT00975481|181611850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.7284|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.7131|24.7437|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||24.7437|14.7131|<0.0001
90875007|NCT00975481|181611850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2088||||0.9348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8289|5.2466|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||5.2466|-4.8289|0.9348
90875008|NCT00975481|181611850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7271||||0.5009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7841|3.3299|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||3.3299|-6.7841|0.5009
90875009|NCT00975481|181611850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3325||||0.8975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4245|4.7595|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||4.7595|-5.4245|0.8975
90875010|NCT00975481|181611850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.264|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.266|-9.2619|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-9.2619|-19.2660|<0.0001
90914794|NCT00232180|181700330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.761||||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.622|0.932||Statistically significant if p-value \<0.01|Cox proportional hazard model|||The statistical analysis was only performed on the adjudicated endpoint data up to cut-off. Cox proportional hazard model includes treatment as the major factor, adjusting for age, estimated glomerular filtration rate, left ventricular ejection fraction, body mass index, hemoglobin, heart rate, systolic blood pressure, diabetes, history of hypertension, prior myocardial infarction, baseline left bundle branch block, QRS complex and atrial fibrillation as covariates.||0.932|0.622|0.0081
90940501|NCT01177137|181760802|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.37||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|8.02||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.025 to account for two comparisons (1) TRT versus the Standard of Care and (2) Partial TRT versus the Standard of Care|repeated measures GEE model||Adjusted for baseline TFI value, clinic, visit, age, gender, baseline Positive and Negative Affect Schedule and State Trait Anxiety Inventory scores, with multiple imputation|||8.02|-5.20|0.68
90875011|NCT00975481|181611850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.1999|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.2294|-11.1704|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-11.1704|-21.2294|<0.0001
90875012|NCT00975481|181611850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.8053|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.8822|-9.7283|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-9.7283|-19.8822|<0.0001
90875013|NCT00975481|181611850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.5195|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.4361|-14.603|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-14.6030|-24.4361|<0.0001
90875014|NCT00975481|181611850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.4555|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.423|-16.488|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-16.4880|-26.4230|<0.0001
90875015|NCT00975481|181611850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.0609|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.0872|-15.0345|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-15.0345|-25.0872|<0.0001
90875016|NCT00975481|181611851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.1634|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9014|4.4254|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||4.4254|1.9014|<0.0001
90875017|NCT00975481|181611851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.6706|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4066|5.9346|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||5.9346|3.4066|<0.0001
90875018|NCT00975481|181611851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1478||||0.8184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1217|1.4173|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||1.4173|-1.1217|0.8184
90875019|NCT00975481|181611851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2211||||0.7324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.054|1.4963|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||1.4963|-1.0540|0.7324
90875020|NCT00975481|181611851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0946||||0.8844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1898|1.3791|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||1.3791|-1.1898|0.8844
90875021|NCT00975481|181611851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0156|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2754|-1.7558|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-1.7558|-4.2754|<0.0001
90875022|NCT00975481|181611851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.9423|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2101|-1.6745|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-1.6745|-4.2101|<0.0001
90940502|NCT01177137|181760802|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.26||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.44|7.33||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.025 to account for two comparisons (1) TRT versus the Standard of Care and (2) Partial TRT versus the Standard of Care.|repeated measures GEE model||Adjusted for baseline TFI value, clinic, visit, age, gender, baseline Positive and Negative Affect Schedule and State Trait Anxiety Inventory scores, with multiple imputation|||7.33|-5.44|0.77
90914795|NCT00232180|181700331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.757||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.609|0.941||Statistically significant if p-value \<0.01|Cox proportional hazard model|||The statistical analysis was only performed on the adjudicated endpoint data up to cut-off. Cox proportional hazard model includes treatment as the major factor, adjusting for age, estimated glomerular filtration rate, left ventricular ejection fraction, body mass index, hemoglobin, heart rate, systolic blood pressure, diabetes, history of hypertension, prior myocardial infarction, baseline left bundle branch block, QRS complex and atrial fibrillation as covariates.||0.941|0.609|0.0120
90914796|NCT00232180|181700332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.768|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.673|0.876||Statistically significant if p-value \<0.01|Cox proportional hazard model|||The statistical analysis was only performed on the adjudicated endpoint data up to cut-off. Cox proportional hazard model includes treatment as the major factor, adjusting for age, estimated glomerular filtration rate, left ventricular ejection fraction, body mass index, hemoglobin, heart rate, systolic blood pressure, diabetes, history of hypertension, prior myocardial infarction, baseline left bundle branch block, QRS complex and atrial fibrillation as covariates.||0.876|0.673|<0.0001
90914797|NCT00232180|181700333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.576|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.473|0.702||Statistically significant if p-value \<0.01|Cox proportional hazard model|||The statistical analysis was only performed on the adjudicated endpoint data up to cut-off. Cox proportional hazard model includes treatment as the major factor, adjusting for age, estimated glomerular filtration rate, left ventricular ejection fraction, body mass index, hemoglobin, heart rate, systolic blood pressure, diabetes, history of hypertension, prior myocardial infarction, baseline left bundle branch block, QRS complex and atrial fibrillation as covariates.||0.702|0.473|<0.0001
90914798|NCT00232180|181700334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.751|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.664|0.849||Statistically significant if p-value \<0.01|Cox proportional hazard model|||The statistical analysis was only performed on the adjudicated endpoint data up to cut-off. Cox proportional hazard model includes treatment as the major factor, adjusting for age, estimated glomerular filtration rate, left ventricular ejection fraction, body mass index, hemoglobin, heart rate, systolic blood pressure, diabetes, history of hypertension, prior myocardial infarction, baseline left bundle branch block, QRS complex and atrial fibrillation as covariates.||0.849|0.664|<0.0001
90914799|NCT00232180|181700335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.577|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.475|0.701||Statistically significant if p-value \<0.01|Cox proportional hazard model|||The statistical analysis was only performed on the adjudicated endpoint data up to cut-off. Cox proportional hazard model includes treatment as the major factor, adjusting for age, estimated glomerular filtration rate, left ventricular ejection fraction, body mass index, hemoglobin, heart rate, systolic blood pressure, diabetes, history of hypertension, prior myocardial infarction, baseline left bundle branch block, QRS complex and atrial fibrillation as covariates.||0.701|0.475|<0.0001
90914800|NCT00232180|181700336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.694|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.598|0.806||Statistically significant if p-value \<0.01|Cox proportional hazard model|||The statistical analysis was only performed on the adjudicated endpoint data up to cut-off. Cox proportional hazard model includes treatment as the major factor, adjusting for age, estimated glomerular filtration rate, left ventricular ejection fraction, body mass index, hemoglobin, heart rate, systolic blood pressure, diabetes, history of hypertension, prior myocardial infarction, baseline left bundle branch block, QRS complex and atrial fibrillation as covariates.||0.806|0.598|<0.0001
90914801|NCT00232180|181700337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.316||||0.2321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.839|2.064||Statistically significant if p-value \<0.01|Cox proportional hazard model|||The statistical analysis was only performed on the adjudicated endpoint data up to cut-off. Cox proportional hazard model includes treatment as the major factor, adjusting for age, estimated glomerular filtration rate, left ventricular ejection fraction, body mass index, hemoglobin, heart rate, systolic blood pressure, diabetes, history of hypertension, prior myocardial infarction, baseline left bundle branch block, QRS complex and atrial fibrillation as covariates.||2.064|0.839|0.2321
90914802|NCT00232180|181700338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.789||||0.4213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.443|1.406||Statistically significant if p-value \<0.01|Cox proportional hazard model|||The statistical analysis was only performed on the adjudicated endpoint data up to cut-off. Cox proportional hazard model includes treatment as the major factor, adjusting for age, estimated glomerular filtration rate, left ventricular ejection fraction, body mass index, hemoglobin, heart rate, systolic blood pressure, diabetes, history of hypertension, prior myocardial infarction, baseline left bundle branch block, QRS complex and atrial fibrillation as covariates.||1.406|0.443|0.4213
90961162|NCT00561951|181803234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27||||0.03||95.0|-0.52|-0.03|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model with the treatment group, region as fixed effects and baseline values as a covariate was used.||The significance level was 0.05 (2-sided).||-0.03|-0.52|0.030
90961163|NCT00561951|181803236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.624||95.0|-0.18|0.11|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model with the treatment group, region as fixed effects and baseline values as a covariate was used.||The significance level was 0.05 (2-sided).||0.11|-0.18|0.624
90914803|NCT00232180|181700339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.994||||0.9754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.694|1.424||Statistically significant if p-value \<0.01|Cox proportional hazard model|||The statistical analysis was only performed on the adjudicated endpoint data up to cut-off. Cox proportional hazard model includes treatment as the major factor, adjusting for age, estimated glomerular filtration rate, left ventricular ejection fraction, body mass index, hemoglobin, heart rate, systolic blood pressure, diabetes, history of hypertension, prior myocardial infarction, baseline left bundle branch block, QRS complex and atrial fibrillation as covariates.||1.424|0.694|0.9754
90961164|NCT00561951|181803236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11||||0.129||95.0|-0.26|0.03|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model with the treatment group, region as fixed effects and baseline values as a covariate was used.||The significance level was 0.05 (2-sided).||0.03|-0.26|0.129
90875023|NCT00975481|181611851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0688|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3484|-1.7891|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-1.7891|-4.3484|<0.0001
90875024|NCT00975481|181611851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.5228|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7651|-3.2805|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-3.2805|-5.7651|<0.0001
90875025|NCT00975481|181611851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.4495|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7031|-3.1959|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-3.1959|-5.7031|<0.0001
90875026|NCT00975481|181611851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.576|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8438|-3.3081|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-3.3081|-5.8438|<0.0001
90875027|NCT00975481|181611852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|46.0798|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.0453|58.1142|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||58.1142|34.0453|<0.0001
90875028|NCT00975481|181611852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|49.8771|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.8247|61.9295|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||61.9295|37.8247|<0.0001
90875029|NCT00975481|181611852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5797||||0.9248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6918|11.5325|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||11.5325|-12.6918|0.9248
90875030|NCT00975481|181611852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.3632||||0.5857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5264|8.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||8.8000|-15.5264|0.5857
90875031|NCT00975481|181611852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.4225||||0.4768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.827|16.6719|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||16.6719|-7.8270|0.4768
90914804|NCT00232180|181700340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.2652|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.485|1.22||Statistically significant if p-value \<0.01|Cox proportional hazard model|||The statistical analysis was only performed on the adjudicated endpoint data up to cut-off. Cox proportional hazard model includes treatment as the major factor, adjusting for age, estimated glomerular filtration rate, left ventricular ejection fraction, body mass index, hemoglobin, heart rate, systolic blood pressure, diabetes, history of hypertension, prior myocardial infarction, baseline left bundle branch block, QRS complex and atrial fibrillation as covariates.||1.220|0.485|0.2652
90914805|NCT00232180|181700341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.971||||0.9537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.366|2.578||Statistically significant if p-value \<0.01|Cox proportional hazard model|||The statistical analysis was only performed on the adjudicated endpoint data up to cut-off. Cox proportional hazard model includes treatment as the major factor, adjusting for age, estimated glomerular filtration rate, left ventricular ejection fraction, body mass index, hemoglobin, heart rate, systolic blood pressure, diabetes, history of hypertension, prior myocardial infarction, baseline left bundle branch block, QRS complex and atrial fibrillation as covariates.||2.578|0.366|0.9537
91077957|NCT01172808|182041201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.073|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066||0.2717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.057|0.203|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R2.5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.203|-0.057|0.2717
90914806|NCT00232180|181700342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.154||||0.8539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.251|5.312||Statistically significant if p-value \<0.01|Cox proportional hazard model|||The statistical analysis was only performed on the adjudicated endpoint data up to cut-off. Cox proportional hazard model includes treatment as the major factor, adjusting for age, estimated glomerular filtration rate, left ventricular ejection fraction, body mass index, hemoglobin, heart rate, systolic blood pressure, diabetes, history of hypertension, prior myocardial infarction, baseline left bundle branch block, QRS complex and atrial fibrillation as covariates.||5.312|0.251|0.8539
90914807|NCT00232180|181700343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.585||||0.0175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.376|0.91||Statistically significant if p-value \<0.01|Cox proportional hazard model|||The statistical analysis was only performed on the adjudicated endpoint data up to cut-off. Cox proportional hazard model includes treatment as the major factor, adjusting for age, estimated glomerular filtration rate, left ventricular ejection fraction, body mass index, hemoglobin, heart rate, systolic blood pressure, diabetes, history of hypertension, prior myocardial infarction, baseline left bundle branch block, QRS complex and atrial fibrillation as covariates.||0.910|0.376|0.0175
90914808|NCT00232180|181700344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.885||||0.6009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.559|1.4||Statistically significant if p-value \<0.01|Cox proportional hazard model|||The statistical analysis was only performed on the adjudicated endpoint data up to cut-off. Cox proportional hazard model includes treatment as the major factor, adjusting for age, estimated glomerular filtration rate, left ventricular ejection fraction, body mass index, hemoglobin, heart rate, systolic blood pressure, diabetes, history of hypertension, prior myocardial infarction, baseline left bundle branch block, QRS complex and atrial fibrillation as covariates.||1.400|0.559|0.6009
91033445|NCT01819597|181952654|OTHER|This is a phase II study design to determine the non-futility of proceeding to a phase III pivotal evaluation. The study group was planned to be compared to a propensity score matching (PSM) cohort from to the patients in the medical arms of the SAMMPRIS trial and to patients in the medical arm of COSS that had demonstrated angiographic intracranial atherosclerosis and occlusion.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.38||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.14|0.94||Pre-established α ≤ 0.10 for phase IIa|Regression, Cox|Alpha set at ≤ 0.1. for phase II study|ERSIAS/ Controls.|We derived the sample size required to power the trial to test the difference between two binomial event rates using the method of Farrington and Manning as implemented in R package gsDesign (Anderson, 2011). An estimated sample size of 52 patients will be necessary to detect a ∆ of 0.05, with a one-sided alpha of 0.10 and a beta of 0.10 - acceptable parameters for a non-definitive, non-futility study (Palesch et al., 2005, Levin, 2005).||0.94|0.14|0.08
91033446|NCT00830206|181952687|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on the pharmacokinetic parameters using SAS® Software.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|102.62||||||90.0|94.84|111.05|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||111.05|94.84|
90875032|NCT00975481|181611852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-46.6594|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.6804|-34.6385|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-34.6385|-58.6804|<0.0001
90875033|NCT00975481|181611852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-49.443|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.5346|-37.3514|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-37.3514|-61.5346|<0.0001
90875034|NCT00975481|181611852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-41.6573|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.86|-29.4546|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-29.4546|-53.8600|<0.0001
90875035|NCT00975481|181611852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-50.4567|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.2925|-38.621|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-38.6210|-62.2925|<0.0001
90875036|NCT00975481|181611852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-53.2403|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.1923|-41.2882|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-41.2882|-65.1923|<0.0001
90914809|NCT02748317|181700345|OTHER|1 group t-test no comparison group|||||=|0.219||||||P-value is not adjusted|t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.219
90914810|NCT01424397|181700404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||||||||||||||Bayesian analysis: The posterior probability of a reduction in TNSS with FP alone compared to Placebo using Mixed Models Analysis was 1.0000|||
91033447|NCT00830206|181952688|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on the pharmacokinetic parameters using SAS® software.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|100.85||||||90.0|94.48|107.65|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||107.65|94.48|
91033448|NCT00830206|181952689|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on the pharmacokimetic parameters using SAS® software.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|101.92||||||90.0|95.18|109.14|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||109.14|95.18|
90914811|NCT01424397|181700404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||||||||||||||Bayesian analysis: The posterior probability of a reduction in TNSS with SB-705498 alone compared to Placebo using Mixed Models Analysis was 0.7127|||
90914812|NCT01424397|181700404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||||||||||||||Bayesian analysis: The posterior probability of a reduction in TNSS with SB-705498 + FP compared to Placebo using Mixed Models Analysis was 1.0000|||
90914813|NCT01424397|181700404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||||||||||||||Bayesian analysis: The posterior probability of a reduction in TNSS with SB-705498 + FP compared to FP alone using Mixed Models Analysis was 0.0160|||
90914814|NCT01424397|181700406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|81.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.56|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.54|102.15||||||Placebo versus FP 200 μg,Nasal Airflow resistance Total WM,0-4 hr||102.15|60.54|
90914815|NCT01424397|181700406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.548|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-39.7|25.05||||||Placebo versus FP 12 mg SB-705498 , Nasal Airflow resistance Total WM, 0-4 hr||25.05|-39.7|
90914816|NCT01424397|181700406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|72.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.567|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|48.28|96.52||||||Placebo versus SB-705498 + FP 12 mg, Nasal Airflow resistance Total WM, 0-4 hr||96.52|48.28|
90914817|NCT01424397|181700406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.592|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-33.1|15.22||||||FP 200 μg versus SB-705498 + FP 12 mg, Nasal Airflow resistance Total WM, 0-4 hr||15.22|-33.1|
90875037|NCT00975481|181611852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-45.4546|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.5459|-33.3633|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-33.3633|-57.5459|<0.0001
90875038|NCT00975481|181611853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|46.845|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.6464|59.0436|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||59.0436|34.6464|<0.0001
90875039|NCT00975481|181611853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|57.5013|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.3036|69.6991|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||69.6991|45.3036|<0.0001
90875040|NCT00975481|181611853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.0913||||0.4129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3421|7.1595|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||7.1595|-17.3421|0.4129
90875041|NCT00975481|181611853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1893||||0.8488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4954|11.1168|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||11.1168|-13.4954|0.8488
90914818|NCT01424397|181700407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.113|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.87|-0.49||||||||-0.49|-0.87|
90914819|NCT01424397|181700407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.173|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|0.27||||||||0.27|-0.30|
90914820|NCT01424397|181700407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.74|-0.31||||||||-0.31|-0.74|
90914821|NCT01424397|181700407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.06|0.37||||||||0.37|-0.06|
90914822|NCT01149369|181700415|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|P-values, relative risk ratios, and 95% confidence limits (CI) for the primary ITT were calculated using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test, stratified by clinic.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.2||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by clinic||Either 1) improvement in mean of available nausea VAS scores over 28-day treatment period compared to means of VAS during the 7-day baseline (BL) period being ≤ -25 mm, or 2) mean VAS after 28-days of treatment was \< 25 mm.||1.7|0.8|0.43
90914823|NCT01149369|181700416|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.5||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||||-0.1|-2.8|0.03
90914824|NCT01149369|181700417|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3|||ANCOVA|||||0.3|-0.3|0.94
90914825|NCT01149369|181700418|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.6|||ANCOVA|||||0.6|-0.4|0.73
90914826|NCT01149369|181700419|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.4|0.22
90914827|NCT01149369|181700420|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.0|-0.6|0.06
90961165|NCT02640157|181803246|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority: a) the lower bound (LB) of the 95%CI for the difference was above the non-inferiority margin of -6% and the LB of the 95%CI for the SVR12 rate within Arm A was \>92%; or b) the LB of the 95%CI for the difference was below the non-inferiority margin of -6% and the LB of the 97.5%CI for the SVR12 rate within Arm A was \>92%; or c) the LB of the 97.5%CI for the difference was above the non-inferiority margin of -6% and the LB of the 95%CI for the SVR12 rate within Arm A was below 92%.|Difference in percentage of participants|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|3.1||||||Difference in SVR12 rates (Arm A - Arm B).||3.1|-5.6|
90961166|NCT02640157|181803246|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority: a) the lower bound (LB) of the 95%CI for the difference was above the non-inferiority margin of -6% and the LB of the 95%CI for the SVR12 rate within Arm A was \>92%; or b) the LB of the 95%CI for the difference was below the non-inferiority margin of -6% and the LB of the 97.5%CI for the SVR12 rate within Arm A was \>92%; or c) the LB of the 97.5%CI for the difference was above the non-inferiority margin of -6% and the LB of the 95%CI for the SVR12 rate within Arm A was below 92%.|percentage of participants|95.3|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|92.2|98.4||||||||98.4|92.2|
90961167|NCT02640157|181803246|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority: a) the lower bound (LB) of the 95%CI for the difference was above the non-inferiority margin of -6% and the LB of the 95%CI for the SVR12 rate within Arm A was \>92%; or b) the LB of the 95%CI for the difference was below the non-inferiority margin of -6% and the LB of the 97.5%CI for the SVR12 rate within Arm A was \>92%; or c) the LB of the 97.5%CI for the difference was above the non-inferiority margin of -6% and the LB of the 95%CI for the SVR12 rate within Arm A was below 92%.|Difference in percentage of participants|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-6.2|3.7||||||Difference in SVR12 rates (Arm A - Arm B).||3.7|-6.2|
90961168|NCT02640157|181803247|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority: a) the lower bound (LB) of the 95%CI for the difference was above the non-inferiority margin of -6% and the LB of the 95%CI for the SVR12 rate within Arm C was \>92%; or b) the LB of the 95%CI for the difference was below the non-inferiority margin of -6% and the LB of the 97.5%CI for the SVR12 rate within Arm C was \>92%; or c) the LB of the 97.5%CI for the difference was above the non-inferiority margin of -6% and the LB of the 95%CI for the SVR12 rate within Arm C was below 92%.|Difference in percentage of participants|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|4.0||||||Difference in SVR12 rates (Arm C - Arm A)||4.0|-4.8|
91033449|NCT00905346|181952691|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of the LS Mean (Test/Ref x 100)|98.39||||||90.0|94.36|102.59|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||102.59|94.36|
90914828|NCT01149369|181700421|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.3|0.24
91033450|NCT00905346|181952692|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of the LS Mean (Test/Ref x 100)|102.92||||||90.0|99.88|106.05|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||106.05|99.88|
91033451|NCT00905346|181952693|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of the LS Mean (Test/Ref x 100)|102.63||||||90.0|99.24|106.14|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||106.14|99.24|
91033452|NCT03585790|181952699|NON_INFERIORITY|Margin acceptable mean difference (Single Vision - Multifocal) = -5 rating units (0-100 scale, 0 = optimal)||||||0.18|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Ho: Single Vision - Multifocal \>= M vs. Ho: Single Vision - Multifocal \< M. Alpha = 0.05, two sided beta = 0.80||||0.18
90875042|NCT00975481|181611853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.1995||||0.4086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1963|17.5954|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||17.5954|-7.1963|0.4086
90875043|NCT00975481|181611853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-51.9363|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.1108|-39.7618|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-39.7618|-64.1108|<0.0001
90875044|NCT00975481|181611853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-48.0343|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.2801|-35.7885|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-35.7885|-60.2801|<0.0001
90875045|NCT00975481|181611853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-41.6455|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.9964|-29.2946|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-29.2946|-53.9964|<0.0001
90875046|NCT00975481|181611853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-62.5926|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.5881|-50.5971|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-50.5971|-74.5881|<0.0001
90875047|NCT00975481|181611853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-58.6906|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.7965|-46.5847|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-46.5847|-70.7965|<0.0001
90875048|NCT00975481|181611853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-52.3018|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.5427|-40.0609|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-40.0609|-64.5427|<0.0001
90914829|NCT01149369|181700422|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||||-0.1|-0.7|0.01
90914830|NCT01149369|181700423|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.4|0.22
90914831|NCT01149369|181700424|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.1|0.51
90914832|NCT01149369|181700425|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.5|0.12
90914833|NCT01149369|181700426|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||||-0.1|-0.6|0.02
90914834|NCT01149369|181700427|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.7|||ANCOVA|||||0.7|-0.1|0.17
90914835|NCT01149369|181700428|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|2.6||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|12.2|||ANCOVA|||||12.2|-7.0|0.59
90914836|NCT01149369|181700429|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|2.1||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|10.0|||ANCOVA|||||10.0|-5.9|0.61
90914837|NCT01149369|181700430|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2|||ANCOVA|||||0.2|-0.1|0.23
90914838|NCT01149369|181700431|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5|||ANCOVA|||||0.5|-0.5|0.97
90914839|NCT01149369|181700432|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|3.1||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|24.2|||ANCOVA|||||24.2|-18.0|0.77
90914840|NCT01149369|181700433|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.2|0.46
90914841|NCT01149369|181700434|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.4|||ANCOVA|||||0.4|-0.2|0.44
90914842|NCT01149369|181700435|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.9|||ANCOVA|||||0.9|-0.7|0.77
90914843|NCT01149369|181700436|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.5|||ANCOVA|||||0.5|-0.6|0.80
90961169|NCT02640157|181803247|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority: a) the lower bound (LB) of the 95%CI for the difference was above the non-inferiority margin of -6% and the LB of the 95%CI for the SVR12 rate within Arm C was \>92%; or b) the LB of the 95%CI for the difference was below the non-inferiority margin of -6% and the LB of the 97.5%CI for the SVR12 rate within Arm C was \>92%; or c) the LB of the 97.5%CI for the difference was above the non-inferiority margin of -6% and the LB of the 95%CI for the SVR12 rate within Arm C was below 92%.|Percentage of participants|94.9|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|91.0|98.8||||||||98.8|91.0|
90875049|NCT00975481|181611854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.4604||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.321|26.5998|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||26.5998|6.3210|0.0016
90914844|NCT01149369|181700437|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.1|0.88
90914845|NCT01149369|181700438|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-10.9||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.5|4.7|||ANCOVA|||||4.7|-26.5|0.17
90914846|NCT01149369|181700439|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.0|-1.5|0.07
90914847|NCT01149369|181700440|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.3|||ANCOVA|||||1.3|-0.7|0.53
90875050|NCT00975481|181611854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.9971|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.8247|38.1696|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||38.1696|17.8247|<0.0001
90914848|NCT01149369|181700441|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.0|||ANCOVA|||||1.0|-0.9|0.93
90914849|NCT01149369|181700442|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.2|||ANCOVA|||||0.2|-1.0|0.52
90914850|NCT01149369|181700443|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.1|0.76
90914851|NCT01149369|181700444|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.9|||ANCOVA|||||0.9|-2.0|0.45
90914852|NCT01149369|181700445|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|0.0|0.18
90914853|NCT01149369|181700446|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||-0|-0.2|0.008
90914854|NCT01149369|181700447|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||||-0.3|-0.9|0.001
90914855|NCT01149369|181700448|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||||-0.4|-1.2|<0.001
90914856|NCT01149369|181700449|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.7|0.13
90914857|NCT01149369|181700450|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||||-0.2|-1.2|0.004
90914858|NCT01149369|181700451|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.9|0.08
91077958|NCT01172808|182041201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067||0.2956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.061|0.201|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.201|-0.061|0.2956
90914859|NCT01149369|181700452|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||||-0.1|-0.8|0.007
90914860|NCT01149369|181700453|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||||-0.2|-1.3|0.005
90914861|NCT01149369|181700454|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||||-0.3|-1.1|0.001
90914862|NCT01149369|181700455|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||||-0.3|-2.3|0.003
90914863|NCT01149369|181700456|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||||-0.1|-1.0|0.03
90914864|NCT01149369|181700457|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.8|0.16
90914865|NCT01149369|181700458|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.0|-0.9|0.05
90875051|NCT00975481|181611854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1425||||0.8254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3591|9.0742|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||9.0742|-11.3591|0.8254
90961170|NCT02640157|181803247|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority: a) the lower bound (LB) of the 95%CI for the difference was above the non-inferiority margin of -6% and the LB of the 95%CI for the SVR12 rate within Arm C was \>92%; or b) the LB of the 95%CI for the difference was below the non-inferiority margin of -6% and the LB of the 97.5%CI for the SVR12 rate within Arm C was \>92%; or c) the LB of the 97.5%CI for the difference was above the non-inferiority margin of -6% and the LB of the 95%CI for the SVR12 rate within Arm C was below 92%.|Difference in percentage of participants|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-5.4|4.6||||||||4.6|-5.4|
90875052|NCT00975481|181611854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.747||||0.8858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5075|11.0015|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||11.0015|-9.5075|0.8858
90875053|NCT00975481|181611854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.4279||||0.5128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8972|13.7529|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||13.7529|-6.8972|0.5128
90875054|NCT00975481|181611854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.6028||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.7485|-7.4572|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-7.4572|-27.7485|0.0008
90875055|NCT00975481|181611854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.7134||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.9136|-5.5132|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-5.5132|-25.9136|0.0028
90875056|NCT00975481|181611854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.0325||||0.0135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.3295|-2.7355|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-2.7355|-23.3295|0.0135
90875057|NCT00975481|181611854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.1396|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.1071|-19.1721|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-19.1721|-39.1071|<0.0001
90875058|NCT00975481|181611854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.2502|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.3224|-17.178|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-17.1780|-37.3224|<0.0001
90875059|NCT00975481|181611854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.5693|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.7614|-14.3772|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-14.3772|-34.7614|<0.0001
90875060|NCT00975481|181611855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2535||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5623|1.9446|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||1.9446|0.5623|0.0005
90875061|NCT00975481|181611855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.501|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8073|4.1948|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||4.1948|2.8073|<0.0001
90875062|NCT00975481|181611855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3418||||0.3347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3559|1.0396|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||1.0396|-0.3559|0.3347
90914866|NCT01149369|181700459|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.6|||ANCOVA|||||0.6|-0.4|0.72
90914867|NCT01149369|181700460|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||||-0.3|-1.2|0.001
90914868|NCT01149369|181700461|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.0|-0.9|0.04
90914869|NCT01149369|181700462|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.9|0.14
90914870|NCT01149369|181700463|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.0|-1.0|0.07
90875063|NCT00975481|181611855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3208||||0.3678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3808|1.0225|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||1.0225|-0.3808|0.3678
90875064|NCT00975481|181611855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.036||||0.9197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6686|0.7406|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||0.7406|-0.6686|0.9197
90875065|NCT00975481|181611855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9117||||0.0099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6013|-0.222|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-0.2220|-1.6013|0.0099
90914871|NCT01149369|181700464|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.2|||ANCOVA|||||0.2|-0.8|0.19
90914872|NCT01149369|181700465|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||-0.0|-0.9|0.04
90914873|NCT01149369|181700466|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||||-0.1|-1.0|0.02
90914874|NCT01149369|181700467|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.0|-0.9|0.06
90914875|NCT01149369|181700468|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.8|0.09
90914876|NCT01149369|181700469|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-7|0.17
90961171|NCT00710021|181803265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53||||||The p-value compares the Placebo with the pooled Vitamin D treatment group.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.53
90961172|NCT00710021|181803266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038||||||The p-value compares the Placebo with the pooled Vitamin D treatment group.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.038
90961173|NCT00710021|181803267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047||||||The p-value compares the Placebo with the pooled Vitamin D treatment group.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.047
90961174|NCT00710021|181803268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12||||||The p-value compares the Placebo with the pooled Vitamin D treatment group.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.12
90961175|NCT00710021|181803269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31||||||The p-value compares the Placebo with the pooled Vitamin D treatment group.|F-tests derived from the GLM|The test was for the comparison of pooled Vitamin D versus Placebo after adjustment for baseline Ifit1 expression.||||||0.31
90961176|NCT00710021|181803270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019||||||The p-value compares the Placebo with the pooled Vitamin D treatment group.|F-tests derived from the GLM|The test was for the comparison of pooled Vitamin D versus Placebo after adjustment for baseline Ifit1 expression.||||||0.019
90875066|NCT00975481|181611855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9326||||0.0088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6269|-0.2384|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-0.2384|-1.6269|0.0088
90961177|NCT00710021|181803271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28||||||The p-value compares the Placebo with the pooled Vitamin D treatment group.|F-tests derived from the GLM|The test was for the comparison of pooled Vitamin D versus Placebo after adjustment for baseline Ifi44 expression.||||||0.28
90961178|NCT00710021|181803272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||||||The p-value compares the Placebo with the pooled Vitamin D treatment group.|F-tests derived from the GLM|The test was for the comparison of pooled Vitamin D versus Placebo after adjustment for baseline Ifi44 expression.||||||0.050
90961179|NCT00710021|181803273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29||||||The p-value compares the Placebo with the pooled Vitamin D treatment group.|F-tests derived from the GLM|The test was for the comparison of pooled Vitamin D versus Placebo after adjustment for baseline Mx1 expression.||||||0.29
90961180|NCT00710021|181803274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014||||||The p-value compares the Placebo with the pooled Vitamin D treatment group.|F-tests derived from the GLM|The test was for the comparison of pooled Vitamin D versus Placebo after adjustment for baseline Mx1 expression.||||||0.014
90961181|NCT00710021|181803275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96||||||The p-value compares the Placebo with the pooled Vitamin D treatment group.|F-tests derived from the GLM|The test was for the comparison of pooled Vitamin D versus Placebo after adjustment for baseline serum C3 level.||||||0.96
90875067|NCT00975481|181611855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2175||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9171|-0.5178|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-0.5178|-1.9171|0.0008
90875068|NCT00975481|181611855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.1592|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.838|-2.4804|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-2.4804|-3.8380|<0.0001
90914877|NCT01149369|181700470|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||||-0.2|-1.1|0.009
90914878|NCT01149369|181700471|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||||-0.2|-1.2|0.004
90914879|NCT01149369|181700472|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.8|0.10
90914880|NCT01149369|181700473|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.9|0.13
90914881|NCT01149369|181700474|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.4|||ANCOVA|||||0.4|-0.5|0.98
90914882|NCT01149369|181700475|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.7|0.007
90961182|NCT00710021|181803276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67||||||The p-value compares the Placebo with the pooled Vitamin D treatment group.|F-tests derived from the GLM|The test was for the comparison of pooled Vitamin D versus Placebo after adjustment for baseline serum C3 level.||||||0.67
90914883|NCT01149369|181700476|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.0|-0.9|0.06
90914884|NCT01149369|181700477|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||||-0.2|-1.0|0.001
90914885|NCT01149369|181700478|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.2|||ANCOVA|||||0.2|-0.6|0.28
90914886|NCT01149369|181700479|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.0|-1.0|0.05
90914887|NCT01149369|181700480|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.9|0.08
90914888|NCT01149369|181700481|SUPERIORITY|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.6|||ANCOVA|||||0.6|-1.1|0.53
90914889|NCT01149369|181700482|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.5|||ANCOVA|||||0.5|-1.3|0.38
91033453|NCT00829673|181952732|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model containing factors for sequence of products, subjects within sequence, periods, and products was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|107.82||||||90.0|100.24|115.98|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||115.98|100.24|
90914890|NCT01149369|181700483|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.2||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|0.4|||ANCOVA|||||0.4|-4.7|0.09
90875069|NCT00975481|181611855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.1802|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8656|-2.4947|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-2.4947|-3.8656|<0.0001
90875070|NCT00975481|181611855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.465|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1583|-2.7717|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-2.7717|-4.1583|<0.0001
90875071|NCT00975481|181611856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.2943|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0783|6.5102|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||6.5102|4.0783|<0.0001
90914891|NCT01149369|181700484|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.8||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|1.5|||ANCOVA|||||1.5|-5.2|0.28
90914892|NCT01149369|181700485|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.6||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|1.4|||ANCOVA|||||1.4|-4.6|0.30
90914893|NCT01149369|181700486|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-21.2||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.5|28.1|||ANCOVA|||||28.1|-70.5|0.40
90914894|NCT01149369|181700487|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-4.2||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|3.5|||ANCOVA|||||3.5|-12.0|0.28
90914895|NCT01149369|181700488|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|2.4||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|8.9|||ANCOVA|||||8.9|-4.1|0.47
90914896|NCT01149369|181700489|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.2||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|6.9|||ANCOVA|||||6.9|-4.5|0.68
90914897|NCT01149369|181700490|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|2.0||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|7.6|||ANCOVA|||||7.6|-3.6|0.48
90914898|NCT01149369|181700491|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.5||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|5.1|||ANCOVA|||||5.1|-2.2|0.43
90914899|NCT01149369|181700492|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-4.8||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|-1.2|||ANCOVA|||||-1.2|-8.5|0.01
90914900|NCT01149369|181700493|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.4||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|6.1|||ANCOVA|||||6.1|-3.4|0.57
90961183|NCT00710021|181803277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59||||||The p-value compares the Placebo with the pooled Vitamin D treatment group.|F-tests derived from the GLM|The test was for the comparison of pooled Vitamin D versus Placebo after adjustment for baseline serum C4 level.||||||0.59
90914901|NCT01149369|181700494|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.84||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|1.0|||ANCOVA|||||1.0|-2.6|0.34
90914902|NCT03873337|181700578|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||not adjusted for multiple comparisons|t-test, 1 sided|df = 25||One-tailed, paired sample t-tests will be used to examine decreases in scores on the TASQ at one-month post target quit date (2-months after baseline assessment.||||<0.001
90914903|NCT03873337|181700578|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||not adjusted for multiple comparisons|t-test, 1 sided|df = 27||One-tailed, paired sample t-tests will be used to examine decreases in scores on the TASQ at 3-months post target quit date (4 months after baseline assessment.||||0.002
90914904|NCT03873337|181700579|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||not adjusted for multiple comparisons|t-test, 1 sided|df = 27||One-tailed, paired sample t-tests will be used to examine decreases in cigarettes smoked per day at one-month post target quit date (2-months after baseline assessment.||||<0.001
90914905|NCT03873337|181700579|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||not adjusted for multiple comparisons|t-test, 1 sided|df = 27||One-tailed, paired sample t-tests will be used to examine decreases in cigarettes smoked per day at 3-months post target quit date (4-months after baseline assessment.||||<0.001
90914906|NCT01574807|181700583|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||Multiple McNemar tests corrected with Step-down Bonferroni method of Holm. A priori threshold for significance was 0.05.|McNemar|||||||1.00
90914907|NCT01185782|181700584|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The primary endpoint was to determine whether or not SJ-0021 is inferior to u-hFSH in inducing ovulation. The criterion for non-inferiority was that the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI (= one-sided 97.5% CI) had to be greater than -15% for SJ-0021 to be considered not inferior to u-hFSH.)"|Delta|-3.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.05|6.04|||Chi-squared|||||6.04|-13.05|
90914908|NCT01185782|181700585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.214||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.214
90914909|NCT01185782|181700586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.087||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.087
90914910|NCT01185782|181700587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.069||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.069
90914911|NCT01185782|181700588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.852||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.852
90914912|NCT01185782|181700589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.102||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.102
90914913|NCT01185782|181700590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.56||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.560
90914914|NCT01185782|181700591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.555||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.555
90914915|NCT01185782|181700592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.416||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.416
90914916|NCT02507752|181700596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Physical component score at Week 24: The statistical hypothesis (H0) that the change is equal to 0 is evaluated using the Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA).||||< 0.001
90961184|NCT00710021|181803278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65||||||The p-value compares the Placebo with the pooled Vitamin D treatment group.|F-tests derived from the GLM|The test was for the comparison of pooled Vitamin D versus Placebo after adjustment for baseline serum C4 level.||||||0.65
90961185|NCT00710021|181803279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86||||||The p-value compares the Placebo with the pooled Vitamin D treatment group.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.86
90875072|NCT00975481|181611856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.8983|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.6799|8.1167|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||8.1167|5.6799|<0.0001
90875073|NCT00975481|181611856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6545||||0.2917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5676|1.8767|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||1.8767|-0.5676|0.2917
90875074|NCT00975481|181611856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8489||||0.1738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3784|2.0763|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||2.0763|-0.3784|0.1738
90875075|NCT00975481|181611856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9372||||0.1373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3024|2.1767|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||2.1767|-0.3024|0.1373
90875076|NCT00975481|181611856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.6397|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8537|-3.4257|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-3.4257|-5.8537|<0.0001
90875077|NCT00975481|181611856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.4453|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6662|-3.2244|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-3.2244|-5.6662|<0.0001
90875078|NCT00975481|181611856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.3571|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5887|-3.1255|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-3.1255|-5.5887|<0.0001
90875079|NCT00975481|181611856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.2437|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4397|-5.0477|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-5.0477|-7.4397|<0.0001
90914917|NCT02507752|181700596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.014|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Mental component score at Week 24: The statistical hypothesis (H0) that the change is equal to 0 is evaluated using the Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA).||||= 0.014
90914918|NCT02507752|181700598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.021|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Mean change from Baseline in ESR at Week 12: The statistical hypothesis (H0) that the change is equal to 0 is evaluated using the Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)||||= 0.021
90914919|NCT02507752|181700598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Mean change from Baseline in ESR at Week 24: The statistical hypothesis (H0) that the change is equal to 0 is evaluated using the Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)||||= 0.003
90914920|NCT02507752|181700599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.744|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Mean change from Baseline in CRP at Week 12: The statistical hypothesis (H0) that the change is equal to 0 is evaluated using the Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)||||= 0.744
90914921|NCT02507752|181700599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.646|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Mean change from Baseline in CRP at Week 24: The statistical hypothesis (H0) that the change is equal to 0 is evaluated using the Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)||||= 0.646
90914922|NCT02507752|181700600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Mean change from Baseline in SJC at Week 12: The statistical hypothesis (H0) that the change is equal to 0 is evaluated using the Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)||||< 0.001
90914923|NCT02507752|181700600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Mean change from Baseline in SJC at Week 24: The statistical hypothesis (H0) that the change is equal to 0 is evaluated using the Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)||||< 0.001
90914924|NCT02507752|181700601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Mean change from Baseline in TJC at Week 12: The statistical hypothesis (H0) that the change is equal to 0 is evaluated using the Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)||||< 0.001
90914925|NCT02507752|181700601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Mean change from Baseline in TJC at Week 24: The statistical hypothesis (H0) that the change is equal to 0 is evaluated using the Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)||||< 0.001
90914926|NCT02507752|181700602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Mean change from Baseline in DAS28 at Week 12: The statistical hypothesis (H0) that the change is equal to 0 is evaluated using the Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)||||< 0.001
90914927|NCT02507752|181700602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Mean change from Baseline in DAS28 at Week 24: The statistical hypothesis (H0) that the change is equal to 0 is evaluated using the Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)||||< 0.001
90914928|NCT02507752|181700603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Mean change from Baseline in patient global assessment at Week 12: The statistical hypothesis (H0) that the change is equal to 0 is evaluated using the Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)||||< 0.001
90914929|NCT02507752|181700603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Mean change from Baseline in patient global assessment at Week 24: The statistical hypothesis (H0) that the change is equal to 0 is evaluated using the Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)||||< 0.001
90914930|NCT02507752|181700604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.011|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Change in HAQ score from screening to Week 12: The statistical hypothesis (H0) that the change is equal to 0 is evaluated using the Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)||||= 0.011
90914931|NCT02507752|181700604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Change in HAQ score from screening to Week 24: The statistical hypothesis (H0) that the change is equal to 0 is evaluated using the Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)||||= 0.001
90914932|NCT02507752|181700605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Change in pain scale from screening to Week 12: The statistical hypothesis (H0) that the change is equal to 0 is evaluated using the Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)||||< 0.001
90914933|NCT02507752|181700605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Change in pain scale from screening to Week 24: The statistical hypothesis (H0) that the change is equal to 0 is evaluated using the Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)||||< 0.001
90914934|NCT02507752|181700606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Physical component score at Week 12: The statistical hypothesis (H0) that the change is equal to 0 is evaluated using the Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)||||= 0.001
90914935|NCT02507752|181700606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Mental component score at Week 12: The statistical hypothesis (H0) that the change is equal to 0 is evaluated using the Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)||||= 0.001
90914936|NCT02507752|181700607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.102|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Physical functioning domain at Week 12: The statistical hypothesis (H0) that the change is equal to 0 is evaluated using the Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)||||= 0.102
90914937|NCT02507752|181700607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Physical functioning domain at Week 24: The statistical hypothesis (H0) that the change is equal to 0 is evaluated using the Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)||||= 0.008
90914938|NCT02507752|181700607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Role physical domain at Week 12: The statistical hypothesis (H0) that the change is equal to 0 is evaluated using the Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)||||= 0.008
90914939|NCT02507752|181700607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Role physical domain at Week 24: The statistical hypothesis (H0) that the change is equal to 0 is evaluated using the Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)||||< 0.001
90914940|NCT02507752|181700607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Bodily pain domain at Week 12: The statistical hypothesis (H0) that the change is equal to 0 is evaluated using the Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)||||= 0.002
90914941|NCT02507752|181700607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Bodily pain domain at Week 24: The statistical hypothesis (H0) that the change is equal to 0 is evaluated using the Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)||||< 0.001
90914942|NCT02507752|181700607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.077|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||General health domain at Week 12: The statistical hypothesis (H0) that the change is equal to 0 is evaluated using the Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)||||= 0.077
90914943|NCT02507752|181700607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.068|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||General health domain at Week 24: The statistical hypothesis (H0) that the change is equal to 0 is evaluated using the Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)||||= 0.068
90914944|NCT02507752|181700607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.018|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Vitality domain at Week 12: The statistical hypothesis (H0) that the change is equal to 0 is evaluated using the Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)||||= 0.018
90914945|NCT02507752|181700607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.053|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Vitality domain at Week 24: The statistical hypothesis (H0) that the change is equal to 0 is evaluated using the Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)||||= 0.053
90914946|NCT02507752|181700607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Social functioning domain at Week 12: The statistical hypothesis (H0) that the change is equal to 0 is evaluated using the Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)||||= 0.002
90914947|NCT02507752|181700607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Social functioning domain at Week 24: The statistical hypothesis (H0) that the change is equal to 0 is evaluated using the Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)||||= 0.003
90914948|NCT02507752|181700607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.015|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Role emotional domain at Week 12: The statistical hypothesis (H0) that the change is equal to 0 is evaluated using the Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)||||= 0.015
90914949|NCT02507752|181700607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.154|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Role emotional domain at Week 24: The statistical hypothesis (H0) that the change is equal to 0 is evaluated using the Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)||||= 0.154
90914950|NCT02507752|181700607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.024|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Mental health domain at Week 12: The statistical hypothesis (H0) that the change is equal to 0 is evaluated using the Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)||||= 0.024
90914951|NCT02507752|181700607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.029|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Mental health domain at Week 24: The statistical hypothesis (H0) that the change is equal to 0 is evaluated using the Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)||||= 0.029
90961186|NCT00710021|181803280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||The p-value compares the Placebo with the pooled Vitamin D treatment group.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
90914952|NCT03292913|181700626|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.07||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|Risk ratio is adjusted for sex, age, race, site, viral load suppression at baseline, and new to care.||Outcome measure for this analysis is viral load suppression. A priori threshold for statistical significance is p-value less than 0.05.||1.21|0.96|0.220
90914953|NCT03292913|181700627|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.04||||0.481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|Risk ratio is adjusted for sex, age, race, site, and new to care.||Outcome measure for this analysis is retention in care. A priori threshold for statistical significance is p-value less than 0.05.||1.15|0.94|0.481
90914954|NCT03292913|181700628|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.86||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|Risk ratio is adjusted for sex, age, race, site, and new to care.||Outcome measure for this analysis is a 6-month visit gap defined ashaving at least 189 days between two sequentially kept visits, post-randomization. A priori threshold for statistical significance is p-value less than 0.05.||1.03|0.72|0.093
90914955|NCT03950622|181700629|OTHER|Estimated differences, confidence intervals (CIs), and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percent|-2.4||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|1.1|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Injection site redness/erythema||1.1|-5.8|0.175
90914956|NCT03950622|181700629|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percent|11.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|17.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Injection site tenderness/pain||17.2|6.0|<0.001
90914957|NCT03950622|181700629|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percent|1.3||||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|5.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Injection site swelling||5.0|-2.4|0.488
90914958|NCT03950622|181700630|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percent|-0.2||||0.888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|2.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Joint pain/arthralgia||2.4|-2.8|0.888
90914959|NCT03950622|181700630|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percent|0.1||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|4.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Tiredness/fatigue||4.4|-4.2|0.960
90914960|NCT03950622|181700630|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percent|-1.4||||0.469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|2.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Headache||2.4|-5.1|0.469
90914961|NCT03950622|181700630|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percent|3.4||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|7.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Muscle pain/myalgia||7.4|-0.4|0.082
90914962|NCT03950622|181700631|OTHER|Estimated differences and CIs are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percent|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Vaccine-related SAEs||0.6|-0.6|
90914963|NCT03950622|181700632|NON_INFERIORITY|The statistical criterion for noninferiority requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the OPA GMT ratio (V114/ Prevnar 13™) to be greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|0.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.96|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|GMT ratio, 95% CI, and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||Serotype 1 (Shared)||0.96|0.66|<0.001
90914964|NCT03950622|181700632|NON_INFERIORITY|The statistical criterion for noninferiority requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the OPA GMT ratio (V114/ Prevnar 13™) to be greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|1.85|||cLDA|GMT ratio, 95% CI, and p-value are estimated from a cLDA model.||Serotype 3 (Shared)||1.85|1.38|<0.001
90914965|NCT03950622|181700632|NON_INFERIORITY|The statistical criterion for noninferiority requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the OPA GMT ratio (V114/ Prevnar 13™) to be greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|0.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.8|||cLDA|GMT ratio, 95% CI, and p-value are estimated from a cLDA model.||Serotype 4 (Shared)||0.80|0.57|<0.001
90914966|NCT03950622|181700632|NON_INFERIORITY|The statistical criterion for noninferiority requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the OPA GMT ratio (V114/ Prevnar 13™) to be greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|0.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.98|||cLDA|GMT ratio, 95% CI, and p-value are estimated from a cLDA model.||Serotype 5 (Shared)||0.98|0.64|<0.001
90914967|NCT03950622|181700632|NON_INFERIORITY|The statistical criterion for noninferiority requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the OPA GMT ratio (V114/ Prevnar 13™) to be greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.19|||cLDA|GMT ratio, 95% CI, and p-value are estimated from a cLDA model.||Serotype 6A (Shared)||1.19|0.84|<0.001
90914968|NCT03950622|181700632|NON_INFERIORITY|The statistical criterion for noninferiority requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the OPA GMT ratio (V114/ Prevnar 13™) to be greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.48|||cLDA|GMT ratio, 95% CI, and p-value are estimated from a cLDA model.||Serotype 6B (Shared)||1.48|1.02|<0.001
90914969|NCT03950622|181700632|NON_INFERIORITY|The statistical criterion for noninferiority requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the OPA GMT ratio (V114/ Prevnar 13™) to be greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|0.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.9|||cLDA|GMT ratio, 95% CI, and p-value are estimated from a cLDA model.||Serotype 7F (Shared)||0.90|0.68|<0.001
90914970|NCT03950622|181700632|NON_INFERIORITY|The statistical criterion for noninferiority requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the OPA GMT ratio (V114/ Prevnar 13™) to be greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|0.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.94|||cLDA|GMT ratio, 95% CI, and p-value are estimated from a cLDA model.||Serotype 9V (Shared)||0.94|0.70|<0.001
90875080|NCT00975481|181611856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.0493|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2568|-4.8419|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-4.8419|-7.2568|<0.0001
90875081|NCT00975481|181611856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.9611|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1812|-4.741|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-4.7410|-7.1812|<0.0001
90875082|NCT00975481|181611857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.6205|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.1192|-20.1219|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-20.1219|-33.1192|<0.0001
90875083|NCT00975481|181611857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-32.5724|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.1073|-26.0375|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-26.0375|-39.1073|<0.0001
90914971|NCT03950622|181700632|NON_INFERIORITY|The statistical criterion for noninferiority requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the OPA GMT ratio (V114/ Prevnar 13™) to be greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|0.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.89|||cLDA|GMT ratio, 95% CI, and p-value are estimated from a cLDA model.||Serotype 14 (Shared)||0.89|0.64|<0.001
90914972|NCT03950622|181700632|NON_INFERIORITY|The statistical criterion for noninferiority requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the OPA GMT ratio (V114/ Prevnar 13™) to be greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.26|||cLDA|GMT ratio, 95% CI, and p-value are estimated from a cLDA model.||Serotype 18C (Shared)||1.26|0.91|<0.001
90914973|NCT03950622|181700632|NON_INFERIORITY|The statistical criterion for noninferiority requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the OPA GMT ratio (V114/ Prevnar 13™) to be greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.93|||cLDA|GMT ratio, 95% CI, and p-value are estimated from a cLDA model.||Serotype 19A (Shared)||0.93|0.70|<0.001
90914974|NCT03950622|181700632|NON_INFERIORITY|The statistical criterion for noninferiority requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the OPA GMT ratio (V114/ Prevnar 13™) to be greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|0.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.02|||cLDA|GMT ratio, 95% CI, and p-value are estimated from a cLDA model.||Serotype 19F (Shared)||1.02|0.76|<0.001
90914975|NCT03950622|181700632|NON_INFERIORITY|The statistical criterion for noninferiority requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the OPA GMT ratio (V114/ Prevnar 13™) to be greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.44|||cLDA|GMT ratio, 95% CI, and p-value are estimated from a cLDA model.||Serotype 23F (Shared)||1.44|0.96|<0.001
90914976|NCT03950622|181700632|SUPERIORITY|The statistical criterion for superiority requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the OPA GMT ratio \[V114/ Prevnar 13™\] to be greater than 2.0.|GMT Ratio|31.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.35|39.97|||cLDA|GMT ratio, 95% CI, and p-value are estimated from a cLDA model.||Serotype 22F (Unique to V114)||39.97|25.35|<0.001
90914977|NCT03950622|181700632|SUPERIORITY|The statistical criterion for superiority requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the OPA GMT ratio \[V114/ Prevnar 13™\] to be greater than 2.0.|GMT Ratio|7.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.07|8.32|||cLDA|GMT ratio, 95% CI, and p-value are estimated from a cLDA model.||Serotype 33F (Unique to V114)||8.32|6.07|<0.001
90914978|NCT03950622|181700633|SUPERIORITY|The statistical criterion for superiority requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the differences \[V114 - Prevnar 13™\] between the proportions of participants with a ≥4-fold rise from prevaccination \[Day 1\] to 30 days postvaccination \[Day 30\] to be greater than 0.1.|Percentage Point Difference|57.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.0|61.8|||Miettinen & Nurminen|Estimated difference, 95% CI, and p-value are based on the stratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method.||Serotype 22F (Unique to V114)||61.8|52.0|<0.001
90914979|NCT03950622|181700633|SUPERIORITY|The statistical criterion for superiority requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the differences \[V114 - Prevnar 13™\] between the proportions of participants with a ≥4-fold rise from prevaccination \[Day 1\] to 30 days postvaccination \[Day 30\] to be greater than 0.1)|Percentage Point Difference|50.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.9|54.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen|Estimated difference, 95% CI, and p-value are based on the stratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method.||Serotype 33F (Unique to V114)||54.9|45.9|<0.001
90914980|NCT03950622|181700634|SUPERIORITY|The statistical criterion for superiority requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the OPA GMT ratio \[V114/ Prevnar 13™\] to be greater than 1.2.|GMT Ratio|1.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|1.85|||cLDA|GMT ratio, 95% CI, and p-value are estimated from a cLDA model.||Serotype 3 (Shared)||1.85|1.38|<0.001
90961187|NCT00710021|181803281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62||||||The p-value compares the Placebo with the pooled Vitamin D treatment group.|F-tests derived from the GLM|The test was for the comparison of pooled Vitamin D versus Placebo after adjustment for baseline SELENA-SLEDAI score.||||||0.62
90961188|NCT00710021|181803282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||The p-value compares the Placebo with the pooled Vitamin D treatment group.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
90875084|NCT00975481|181611857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8966||||0.5685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6607|8.454|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||8.4540|-4.6607|0.5685
90875085|NCT00975481|181611857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.5761||||0.2848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.159|3.0068|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||3.0068|-10.1590|0.2848
90875086|NCT00975481|181611857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.1754||||0.344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7855|3.4347|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||3.4347|-9.7855|0.3440
90875087|NCT00975481|181611857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.5172|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.0454|34.989|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||34.9890|22.0454|<0.0001
90875088|NCT00975481|181611857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.0445|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.5383|29.5506|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||29.5506|16.5383|<0.0001
90875089|NCT00975481|181611857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.4452|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.8772|30.0131|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||30.0131|16.8772|<0.0001
90875090|NCT00975481|181611857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|34.469|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.1136|40.8244|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||40.8244|28.1136|<0.0001
90875091|NCT00975481|181611857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.9963|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.5734|35.4192|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||35.4192|22.5734|<0.0001
90875092|NCT00975481|181611857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|29.397|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.8946|35.8994|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||35.8994|22.8946|<0.0001
90875093|NCT00975481|181611858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|46.6044|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.4091|59.7996|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||59.7996|33.4091|<0.0001
90875094|NCT00975481|181611858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|50.7222|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.5038|63.9407|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||63.9407|37.5038|<0.0001
90914981|NCT03950622|181700635|SUPERIORITY|The statistical criterion for superiority requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference(V114 - Prevnar 13™) between the proportions of participants with a ≥4-fold rise from prevaccination (Day 1) to 30 days postvaccination (Day 30) to be greater than 0.|Percentage Point Difference|11.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|16.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen|Estimated difference, 95% CI, and p-value are based on the stratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method.||Serotype 3 (Shared) ≥4-Fold Rise in OPA||16.9|6.0|<0.001
90914982|NCT03950622|181700636|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.83||||||Serotype 1 (Shared)||0.83|0.62|
90914983|NCT03950622|181700636|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|1.71||||||Serotype 3 (Shared)||1.71|1.33|
90914984|NCT03950622|181700636|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.83||||||Serotype 4 (Shared)||0.83|0.62|
90875095|NCT00975481|181611858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6987||||0.9174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9815|12.584|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||12.5840|-13.9815|0.9174
90875096|NCT00975481|181611858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.5629||||0.5002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.9006|8.7749|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||8.7749|-17.9006|0.5002
90875097|NCT00975481|181611858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.3982||||0.3482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0337|19.8301|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||19.8301|-7.0337|0.3482
90875098|NCT00975481|181611858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-47.3031|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.4869|-34.1193|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-34.1193|-60.4869|<0.0001
90875099|NCT00975481|181611858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-51.1672|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.4276|-37.9069|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-37.9069|-64.4276|<0.0001
90875100|NCT00975481|181611858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-40.2062|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.589|-26.8234|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-26.8234|-53.5890|<0.0001
90875101|NCT00975481|181611858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-51.421|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.3974|-38.4445|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-38.4445|-64.3974|<0.0001
90875102|NCT00975481|181611858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-55.2851|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.3904|-42.1798|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-42.1798|-68.3904|<0.0001
90875103|NCT00975481|181611858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-44.3241|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.5825|-31.0656|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-31.0656|-57.5825|<0.0001
90875104|NCT00975481|181611859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-46.3823|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.1244|-30.6401|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For placebo, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI was obtained from the model.||-30.6401|-62.1244|<0.0001
90875105|NCT00975481|181611859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-51.5199|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.2633|-35.7765|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For placebo, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-35.7765|-67.2633|<0.0001
90875106|NCT00975481|181611859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.0366||||0.4524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7924|21.8657|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For placebo, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||21.8657|-9.7924|0.4524
90875107|NCT00975481|181611859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4423||||0.762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4599|18.3446|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For placebo, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||18.3446|-13.4599|0.7620
90875108|NCT00975481|181611859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1573||||0.9846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.8609|16.1754|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For placebo, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||16.1754|-15.8609|0.9846
90875109|NCT00975481|181611859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|52.4189|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.7157|68.1221|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For placebo, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||68.1221|36.7157|<0.0001
90875110|NCT00975481|181611859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|48.8246|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.0228|64.6264|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For placebo, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||64.6264|33.0228|<0.0001
90875111|NCT00975481|181611859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|46.5395|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.5968|62.4823|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For placebo, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||62.4823|30.5968|<0.0001
90875112|NCT00975481|181611859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|57.5565|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.0679|73.0451|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For placebo, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||73.0451|42.0679|<0.0001
90875113|NCT00975481|181611859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|53.9622|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.3293|69.5952|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For placebo, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||69.5952|38.3293|<0.0001
90875114|NCT00975481|181611859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|51.6772|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.866|67.4884|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For placebo, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||67.4884|35.8660|<0.0001
90875115|NCT00975481|181611859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|37.4454||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.7051|57.1857|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For benzodiazepines, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||57.1857|17.7051|0.0003
90875116|NCT00975481|181611859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|41.6714|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.2888|61.054|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For benzodiazepines, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||61.0540|22.2888|<0.0001
90914985|NCT03950622|181700636|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.96||||||Serotype 5 (Shared)||0.96|0.70|
90875117|NCT00975481|181611859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.7583||||0.0744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.2956|1.7789|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For benzodiazepines, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||1.7789|-37.2956|0.0744
90875118|NCT00975481|181611859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.5551||||0.3458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.5573|10.4471|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For benzodiazepines, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||10.4471|-29.5573|0.3458
90914986|NCT03950622|181700636|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.21||||||Serotype 6A (Shared)||1.21|0.87|
90875119|NCT00975481|181611859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.792||||0.9375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.1777|20.7616|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For benzodiazepines, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||20.7616|-19.1777|0.9375
90914987|NCT03950622|181700636|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|1.64||||||Serotype 6B (Shared)||1.64|1.17|
90914988|NCT03950622|181700636|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.89||||||Serotype 7F (Shared)||0.89|0.66|
90914989|NCT03950622|181700636|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.0||||||Serotype 9V (Shared)||1.00|0.75|
90914990|NCT03950622|181700636|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.89||||||Serotype 14 (Shared)||0.89|0.65|
90914991|NCT03950622|181700636|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.05||||||Serotype 18C (Shared)||1.05|0.77|
90914992|NCT03950622|181700636|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.97||||||Serotype 19A (Shared)||0.97|0.73|
90914993|NCT03950622|181700636|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.05||||||Serotype 19F (Shared)||1.05|0.78|
90914994|NCT03950622|181700636|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.28||||||Serotype 23F (Shared)||1.28|0.92|
90914995|NCT03950622|181700636|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|10.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.37|12.03||||||Serotype 22F (Unique to V114)||12.03|9.37|
90875120|NCT00975481|181611859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-55.2037|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.8113|-35.5961|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For benzodiazepines, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-35.5961|-74.8113|<0.0001
90914996|NCT03950622|181700636|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|8.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|10.07||||||Serotype 33F (Unique to V114)||10.07|8.00|
90914997|NCT01546753|181700670|SUPERIORITY|The change from baseline OFC to week 38 OFC (primary outcome measure) was compared between the two groups using a Mann-Whitney U test.||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
90914998|NCT01546753|181700671|SUPERIORITY|Differences in dichotomous outcomes for the percentage of participants who reach the 5000 mg cumulative dose to the walnut at the week 38 desensitization OFC was analyzed using Fisher's exact test||||||0.01|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.01
90914999|NCT01546753|181700672|SUPERIORITY|Differences in dichotomous outcomes including the percentage of subjects who reach the 2000 mg cumulative dose to the walnut at the week 38 desensitization OFC was analyzed using Fisher's exact test|||||<|0.01|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.01
90915000|NCT01546753|181700673|SUPERIORITY|Differences in dichotomous outcomes such as the percentage of subjects who reach the 2000 mg cumulative dose to the tree nut at the week 38 desensitization OFC was analyzed using Fisher's exact test|||||<|0.01|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.01
90915001|NCT01546753|181700675|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
90915002|NCT01195883|181700692|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.23|||GEE model|||||1.23|0.65|0.51
90915003|NCT01195883|181700693|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.95||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.11|||Chi-squared|||||1.11|0.81|0.42
90915004|NCT01195883|181700694|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.89||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.09|||Chi-squared|||||1.09|0.72|0.26
90915005|NCT01195883|181700695|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|2.58|||Chi-squared|||||2.58|0.69|0.40
90915006|NCT04470375|181700717|OTHER|Paired samples pre-post t-test||||||0.137|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.137
90915007|NCT04470375|181700718|OTHER|Paired samples t-test (pre - post measure of group)||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.010
90915008|NCT04470375|181700719|OTHER|Paired samples t-test (pre post measure of group)||||||0.591|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.591
90915009|NCT00311363|181700720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.353||||0.0158||95.0|0.2|0.8||Model included terms for treatment group, randomization IRLS score (Week 24), and pooled study site|Regression, Logistic|||||0.8|0.2|0.0158
90915010|NCT05714696|181700756|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.007
90915011|NCT05714696|181700757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.049|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.049
90915012|NCT05714696|181700758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.029
90915013|NCT05714696|181700759|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.163|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.163
90915014|NCT05714696|181700760|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.442|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.442
90915015|NCT05714696|181700762|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.527|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.527
90915016|NCT05714696|181700763|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.311|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.311
90915017|NCT05714696|181700764|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.004
90915018|NCT05714696|181700765|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.005
90915019|NCT04090190|181700769|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6497|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||T-test of Wilcoxon rank sum was used to test this non-normal data. Null hypothesis is that the concentration of urine inflammatory markers is the same at baseline and follow-up. This p-value is the probability that the difference in the CRP Calc. Conc. (pg/ml) between baseline and follow-up.||||0.6497
90875121|NCT00975481|181611859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-47.0005|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.002|-26.9989|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For benzodiazepines, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-26.9989|-67.0020|<0.0001
90875122|NCT00975481|181611859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-36.6534||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.7246|-16.5822|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For benzodiazepines, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-16.5822|-56.7246|0.0004
90875123|NCT00975481|181611859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-59.4297|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.5162|-40.3433|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For benzodiazepines, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-40.3433|-78.5162|<0.0001
90915020|NCT04090190|181700769|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4281|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||T-test of Wilcoxon rank sum was used to test this non-normal data. Null hypothesis is that the concentration of urine inflammatory markers is the same at baseline and follow-up. This p-value is the probability that the difference in the IL-12/IL-23p40 Calc. Conc. (pg/ml) between baseline and follow-up.||||0.4281
90875124|NCT00975481|181611859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-51.2265|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.8131|-31.6399|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For benzodiazepines, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-31.6399|-70.8131|<0.0001
90915021|NCT04090190|181700769|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3157|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis is that the baseline and follow-up levels of the urine inflammatory markers are due to chance. This p-value represents the probability that the difference between the baseline and follow-up levels of MCP-1 Calc. Conc. (pg/ml) is due to chance.||||0.3157
90915022|NCT04090190|181700769|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1463|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This p-value represents the probability that the difference between baseline and follow-up levels of GM-CSF Calc. Conc. (pg/ml) is due to chance.||||0.1463
90915023|NCT04090190|181700769|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6091|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis is that the baseline and follow-up levels of the urine inflammatory markers are due to chance. This p-value represents the probability that the difference between the baseline and follow-up levels of IL-1β Calc. Conc. (pg/ml) is due to chance.||||0.6091
90915024|NCT04090190|181700769|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3011|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis is that the baseline and follow-up levels of the urine inflammatory markers are due to chance. This p-value represents the probability that the difference between the baseline and follow-up levels of IL-6 Calc. Conc. (pg/ml) is due to chance.||||0.3011
90915025|NCT04090190|181700769|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5009|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis is that the baseline and follow-up levels of the urine inflammatory markers are due to chance. This p-value represents the probability that the difference between the baseline and follow-up levels of IL-8 Calc. Conc. (pg/ml) is due to chance.||||0.5009
90961189|NCT00710021|181803283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||The p-value compares the Placebo with the pooled Vitamin D treatment group.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
90875125|NCT00975481|181611859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-40.8794||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.4726|-21.2862|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For benzodiazepines, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-21.2862|-60.4726|0.0001
90875126|NCT00975481|181611859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.5197||||0.0102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7096|41.3298|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For codeine/morphine, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||41.3298|5.7096|0.0102
90875127|NCT00975481|181611859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.7321||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.3632|45.1011|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For codeine/morphine, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||45.1011|10.3632|0.0021
90875128|NCT00975481|181611859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.7334||||0.5935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.2807|12.814|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For codeine/morphine, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||12.8140|-22.2807|0.5935
90875129|NCT00975481|181611859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.5486||||0.6945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3397|21.437|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For codeine/morphine, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||21.4370|-14.3397|0.6945
90875130|NCT00975481|181611859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.2936||||0.4177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4975|25.0847|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For codeine/morphine, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||25.0847|-10.4975|0.4177
90875131|NCT00975481|181611859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-28.2531||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.802|-10.7042|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For codeine/morphine, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-10.7042|-45.8020|0.0019
90875132|NCT00975481|181611859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.9711||||0.0299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.9541|-1.988|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For codeine/morphine, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-1.9880|-37.9541|0.0299
90875133|NCT00975481|181611859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.2261||||0.0759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.1785|1.7264|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For codeine/morphine, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||1.7264|-34.1785|0.0759
90875134|NCT00975481|181611859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-32.4655||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.2278|-15.7032|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For codeine/morphine, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-15.7032|-49.2278|0.0002
90875135|NCT00975481|181611859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.1835||||0.0069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.5832|-6.7838|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For codeine/morphine, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-6.7838|-41.5832|0.0069
90961190|NCT00710021|181803284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||The p-value compares the Placebo with the pooled Vitamin D treatment group.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
90961191|NCT00710021|181803285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||The p-value compares the Placebo with the pooled Vitamin D treatment group.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
90961192|NCT00710021|181803286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||The p-value compares the Placebo with the pooled Vitamin D treatment group.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
90915026|NCT01212991|181700775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.706|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.596|0.837||A 2-stage group sequential method (Lan DeMets OBF) assigned the level of significance for the pre-specified interim overall survival analysis (p\<0.015) based on overall 2-sided type I error rate of 0.049. Final results based upon interim analysis.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio is based on an unstratified Cox regression model (with treatment as the only covariate) and is relative to placebo with \<1 favoring enzalutamide.|||0.837|0.596|<0.0001
90915027|NCT01212991|181700776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.186|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.149|0.231||The assigned 2-sided type I error rate was 0.001 for the analysis of radiographic progression-free survival.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio is based on an unstratified Cox regression model (with treatment as the only covariate) and is relative to placebo with \< 1 favoring enzalutamide.|||0.231|0.149|<0.0001
90915028|NCT01212991|181700777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.718|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.61|0.844||The Holm step down method of multiple comparisons was used to maintain a study wide type I error of 5% for prespecified secondary efficacy analyses. The 2-sided type I error rate was 0.01 for this analysis.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio is based on an unstratified Cox regression model (with treatment as the only covariate) and is relative to placebo with \< 1 favoring enzalutamide.|||0.844|0.610|<0.0001
90915029|NCT01212991|181700778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.349|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.303|0.403||The Holm step down method of multiple comparisons was used to maintain a study wide type I error of 5% for prespecified secondary efficacy analyses. The 2-sided type I error rate was 0.0125 for this analysis.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio is based on an unstratified Cox regression model (with treatment as the only covariate) and is relative to placebo with \< 1 favoring enzalutamide.|||0.403|0.303|<0.0001
90915030|NCT01212991|181700779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.169|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.147|0.195||The Holm step down method of multiple comparisons was used to maintain a study wide type I error of 5% for prespecified secondary efficacy analyses. The 2-sided type I error rate was 0.0167 for this analysis.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio is based on an unstratified Cox regression model (with treatment as the only covariate) and is relative to placebo with \< 1 favoring enzalutamide.|||0.195|0.147|<0.0001
90915031|NCT01212991|181700780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in response rates|74.51|||<|0.0001||95.0|71.45|77.57||The Holm step down method of multiple comparisons was used to maintain a study wide type I error of 5% for prespecified secondary efficacy analyses. The 2-sided type I error rate was 0.025 for this analysis.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||77.57|71.45|<0.0001
90915032|NCT01212991|181700781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in objective response rate|53.85|||<|0.0001||95.0|48.53|59.17||The Holm step down method of multiple comparisons was used to maintain a study wide type I error of 5% for prespecified secondary efficacy analyses. The 2-sided type I error rate was 0.05 for this analysis.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||59.17|48.53|<0.0001
90915033|NCT01351272|181700785|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.09|||||||SPM two-sample t-test|||||||=0.09
90915034|NCT01351272|181700786|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.16|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||= 0.16
90915035|NCT01351272|181700787|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.09|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||= 0.09
90915036|NCT01285999|181700849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.21||p-value has not been adjusted.|t-test, 2 sided|No adjustment.||H0: μt - μc = 0 H1: μt - μc ≠ 0 where μt and μc are the mean 9-month in-stent late loss values for the subjects in the PROMUS Element test and TAXUS Liberté control treatment groups, respectively.||-0.21|-0.37|0.05
90915037|NCT01951170|181700881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83||||||Change in mTSS scores from baseline to Week 24.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.83
90915038|NCT02597920|181700906|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Within group comparison of Baseline CDS with that of Visit 2.||||<0.0001
90915039|NCT02597920|181700906|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Within group comparison of Baseline CDS with that of Visit 3.||||<0.0001
90915040|NCT02597920|181700906|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Within group comparison of Baseline SDS with that of Visit 2.||||<0.0001
90915041|NCT02597920|181700906|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Within group comparison of Baseline SDS with that of Visit 3.||||<0.0001
90915042|NCT02597920|181700907|OTHER|||||||0.0005|||||||Propensity score matching method|||Between group comparison of Visit 2 CDS||||0.0005
90915043|NCT02597920|181700907|OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||Propensity score matching method|||Between group comparison of Visit 3 CDS||||0.0002
90915044|NCT02597920|181700907|OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||Propensity score matching method|||Between group comparison of Visit 2 SDS||||0.0002
90915045|NCT02597920|181700907|OTHER|||||||0.0004|||||||Propensity score matching method|||Between group comparison of Visit 3 SDS||||0.0004
90915046|NCT02597920|181700912|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Within group comparison of Visit 2 CDS with that of Visit 3.||||<0.0001
90915047|NCT02597920|181700912|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Within group comparison of Visit 2 SDS with that of Visit 3.||||<0.0001
90915048|NCT01068743|181700930|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|BE was concluded if the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the test-to-reference ratios (B/A) of geometric means were entirely contained within 80% to 125% for both Cmax and AUC0-inf of saxagliptin.|Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Means|101.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.17|104.84|||||Ratio=Treatment B/Treatment A. Geometric least squares means values are presented in other statistical analysis entries. LS=Least Squares.|If there was no difference between the bioavailabilities of saxagliptin from the FDC tablet versus saxagliptin from coadministration of saxagliptin and metformin tablets under both fasted and fed conditions, then 20 participants would have provided 98% and 99% power to conclude bioequivalence (BE) with respect to Cmax and AUC0-inf, respectively. If there was a 5% difference, then 20 participants would have provided 93% and 99% power to conclude BE with respect to Cmax and AUC0-inf, respectively.||104.84|98.17|
90915049|NCT01068743|181700930|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|BE was concluded if the 90% CIs for the test-to-reference ratios (D/C) of geometric means were entirely contained within 80% to 125% for both Cmax and AUC0-inf of saxagliptin.|Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Means|102.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.53|105.42|||||Ratio=Treatment D/Treatment C. Geometric least squares means values are presented in other statistical analysis entries.|If there was no difference between the bioavailabilities of saxagliptin from the FDC tablet versus saxagliptin from coadministration of saxagliptin and metformin tablets under both fasted and fed conditions, then 20 participants would have provided 98% and 99% power to conclude BE with respect to Cmax and AUC0-inf, respectively. If there was a 5% difference, then 20 participants would have provided 93% and 99% power to conclude BE with respect to Cmax and AUC0-inf,respectively.||105.42|99.53|
90875136|NCT00975481|181611859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.4385||||0.0222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.8861|-2.991|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For codeine/morphine, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-2.9910|-37.8861|0.0222
90875137|NCT00975481|181611859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.589||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0126|37.1654|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For THC, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||37.1654|12.0126|0.0002
90875138|NCT00975481|181611859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|29.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.4903|41.7298|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For THC, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||41.7298|16.4903|<0.0001
90875139|NCT00975481|181611859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.6428||||0.6809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0309|15.3165|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For THC, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||15.3165|-10.0309|0.6809
90875140|NCT00975481|181611859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.3215||||0.6067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0415|9.3985|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For THC, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||9.3985|-16.0415|0.6067
90875141|NCT00975481|181611859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.4722||||0.3999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.335|18.2795|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For THC, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||18.2795|-7.3350|0.3999
90915050|NCT01068743|181700930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng*hr/mL)|49.23||||||||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment A.||||
90915051|NCT01068743|181700930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng*hr/mL)|49.94||||||||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment B.||||
90915052|NCT01068743|181700930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng*hr/mL)|52.71||||||||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment C.||||
90915053|NCT01068743|181700930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng*hr/mL)|53.99||||||||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment D.||||
90875142|NCT00975481|181611859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.9461||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.5327|-9.3596|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For THC, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-9.3596|-34.5327|0.0007
90875143|NCT00975481|181611859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.9105|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.564|-15.257|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For THC, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-15.2570|-40.5640|<0.0001
90875144|NCT00975481|181611859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.1168||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.8907|-6.3428|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For THC, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-6.3428|-31.8907|0.0036
90875145|NCT00975481|181611859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.4672|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.8298|-14.1046|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For THC, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-14.1046|-38.8298|<0.0001
90915054|NCT01068743|181700933|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|BE was concluded if the 90% CIs for the test-to-reference ratios (B/A) of geometric means were entirely contained within 80% to 125% for both Cmax and AUC0-inf of saxagliptin.|Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Means|102.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.68|110.88|||||Ratio=Treatment B/Treatment A. Geometric least squares means values are presented in other statistical analysis entries.|If there was no difference between the bioavailabilities of saxagliptin from the FDC tablet versus saxagliptin from coadministration of saxagliptin and metformin tablets under both fasted and fed conditions, then 20 participants would have provided 98% and 99% power to conclude BE with respect to Cmax and AUC0-inf, respectively. If there was a 5% difference, then 20 participants would have provided 93% and 99% power to conclude BE with respect to Cmax and AUC0-inf, respectively.||110.88|94.68|
90961193|NCT00710021|181803287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||The p-value compares the Placebo with the pooled Vitamin D treatment group.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
90875146|NCT00975481|181611859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-32.4315|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.925|-19.938|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For THC, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-19.9380|-44.9250|<0.0001
90875147|NCT00975481|181611859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.6378||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.2802|-10.9954|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For THC, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-10.9954|-36.2802|0.0003
90875148|NCT00975481|181611859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6675||||0.9728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.708|41.043|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For pseudoephedrine, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||41.0430|-39.7080|0.9728
90875149|NCT00975481|181611859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|42.7977||||0.0246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.1059|79.4894|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For pseudoephedrine, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||79.4894|6.1059|0.0246
90875150|NCT00975481|181611859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.5411||||0.7068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.785|48.8672|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For pseudoephedrine, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||48.8672|-33.7850|0.7068
90915055|NCT01068743|181700933|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|BE was concluded if the 90% CIs for the test-to-reference ratios (D/C) of geometric means were entirely contained within 80% to 125% for both Cmax and AUC0-inf of saxagliptin.|Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Means|106.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.43|114.66|||||Ratio=Treatment D/Treatment C. Geometric least squares means values presented in other statistical analysis entries.|If there was no difference between the bioavailabilities of saxagliptin from the FDC tablet versus saxagliptin from coadministration of saxagliptin and metformin tablets under both fasted and fed conditions, then 20 participants would have provided 98% and 99% power to conclude BE with respect to Cmax and AUC0-inf, respectively. If there was a 5% difference, then 20 participants would have provided 93% and 99% power to conclude BE with respect to Cmax and AUC0-inf, respectively.||114.66|98.43|
90915056|NCT01068743|181700933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng/mL)|9.73||||||||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment A.||||
90915057|NCT01068743|181700933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng/mL)|9.97||||||||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment B.||||
90915058|NCT01068743|181700933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng/mL)|10.33||||||||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment C.||||
90915059|NCT01068743|181700933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng/mL)|10.97||||||||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment D.||||
90915060|NCT01068743|181700934|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|BE was concluded if the 90% CIs for the test-to-reference ratios (B/A) of geometric means were entirely contained within 80% to 125% for both Cmax and AUC0-inf of metformin.|Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Means|102.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.26|107.18|||||Ratio = Treatment B/Treatment A. Geometric least squares means values are presented in other statistical analysis entries.|If there was no difference between the bioavailabilities of metformin from the FDC tablet versus metformin from coadministration of saxagliptin and metformin tablets under both fasted and fed conditions, then 20 participants would have provided 99% power to conclude BE with respect to each of Cmax and AUC0-inf. If there was a 5% difference, then 20 subjects would provide 97% and 99% power to conclude BE with respect to Cmax and AUC0-inf, respectively.||107.18|97.26|
90961194|NCT00710021|181803288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||The p-value compares the Placebo with the pooled Vitamin D treatment group.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
90961195|NCT00710021|181803289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||The p-value compares the Placebo with the pooled Vitamin D treatment group.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
90875151|NCT00975481|181611859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.7069||||0.5492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.0358|47.4496|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For pseudoephedrine, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||47.4496|-26.0358|0.5492
90875152|NCT00975481|181611859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.1248||||0.5899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.3098|53.5595|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For pseudoephedrine, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||53.5595|-31.3098|0.5899
90875153|NCT00975481|181611859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.8736||||0.6998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.8691|43.6163|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For pseudoephedrine, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||43.6163|-29.8691|0.6998
90915061|NCT01068743|181700934|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|BE was concluded if the 90% CIs for the test-to-reference ratios (B/A) of geometric means were entirely contained within 80% to 125% for both Cmax and AUC0-inf of metformin.|Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Means|99.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.23|102.21|||||Ratio=Treatment D/Treatment C. Geometric least squares means values are presented in other statistical analysis entries.|If there was no difference between the bioavailabilities of metformin from the FDC tablet versus metformin from coadministration of saxagliptin and metformin tablets under both fasted and fed conditions, then 20 participants would have provided 99% power to conclude BE with respect to each of Cmax and AUC0-inf. If there was a 5% difference, then 20 subjects would provide 97% and 99% power to conclude BE with respect to Cmax and AUC0-inf, respectively.||102.21|96.23|
90915062|NCT01068743|181700934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng*hr/mL)|11998.0||||||||||||||Geometric least squares mean for Treatment A.||||
90961196|NCT00710021|181803290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||The p-value compares the Placebo with the pooled Vitamin D treatment group.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
90915063|NCT01068743|181700934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng*hr/mL)|12250.0||||||||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment B.||||
90915064|NCT01068743|181700934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng*hr/mL)|12036.0||||||||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment C.||||
90915065|NCT01068743|181700934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng*hr/mL)|11937.0||||||||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment D.||||
90940503|NCT01177137|181760803|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-3.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.47||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|5.23||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.025 to account for two comparisons (1) TRT versus the Standard of Care and (2) Partial TRT versus the Standard of Care.|repeated measures GEE model||Adjusted for baseline TFI value, clinic, visit, age, gender, baseline Positive and Negative Affect Schedule and State Trait Anxiety Inventory scores, with multiple imputation|||5.23|-12.30|0.43
90940504|NCT01177137|181760803|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-13.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.24||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.02|-5.38||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.025 to account for two comparisons (1) TRT versus the Standard of Care and (2) Partial TRT versus the Standard of Care.|repeated measures GEE model||Adjusted for baseline TFI value, clinic, visit, age, gender, baseline Positive and Negative Affect Schedule and State Trait Anxiety Inventory scores, with multiple imputation|||-5.38|-22.02|0.001
90940505|NCT01177137|181760804|SUPERIORITY||Slope|3.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.91||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.96|11.38||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.025 to account for two comparisons (1) TRT versus the Standard of Care and (2) Partial TRT versus the Standard of Care.|repeated measures GEE model||Adjusted for baseline TFI value, clinic, visit, age, gender, baseline Positive and Negative Affect Schedule and State Trait Anxiety Inventory scores, with multiple imputation|||11.38|-3.96|0.34
90940506|NCT01177137|181760804|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.82||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.72|7.26||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.025 to account for two comparisons (1) TRT versus the Standard of Care and (2) Partial TRT versus the Standard of Care.|repeated measures GEE model||Adjusted for baseline TFI value, clinic, visit, age, gender, baseline Positive and Negative Affect Schedule and State Trait Anxiety Inventory scores, with multiple imputation|||7.26|-7.72|0.95
90940507|NCT01177137|181760805|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.69||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.07|5.38||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.025 to account for two comparisons (1) TRT versus the Standard of Care and (2) Partial TRT versus the Standard of Care|repeated measures GEE model||Adjusted for baseline TFI value, clinic, visit, age, gender, baseline Positive and Negative Affect Schedule and State Trait Anxiety Inventory scores, with multiple imputation|||5.38|-9.07|0.62
90940508|NCT01177137|181760805|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-4.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.58||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.48|2.55||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.025 to account for two comparisons (1) TRT versus the Standard of Care and (2) Partial TRT versus the Standard of Care|repeated measures GEE model||Adjusted for baseline TFI value, clinic, visit, age, gender, baseline Positive and Negative Affect Schedule and State Trait Anxiety Inventory scores, with multiple imputation|||2.55|-11.48|0.21
90940509|NCT01177137|181760806|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.39||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.78|6.52||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.025 to account for two comparisons (1) TRT versus the Standard of Care and (2) Partial TRT versus the Standard of Care.|repeated measures GEE model||Adjusted for baseline TFI value, clinic, visit, age, gender, baseline Positive and Negative Affect Schedule and State Trait Anxiety Inventory scores, with multiple imputation|||6.52|-6.78|0.97
90940510|NCT01177137|181760806|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-3.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.27||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.43|3.4||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.025 to account for two comparisons (1) TRT versus the Standard of Care and (2) Partial TRT versus the Standard of Care|repeated measures GEE model||Adjusted for baseline TFI value, clinic, visit, age, gender, baseline Positive and Negative Affect Schedule and State Trait Anxiety Inventory scores, with multiple imputation|||3.40|-9.43|0.36
90940511|NCT01177137|181760807|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.01||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.67|7.14||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.025 to account for two comparisons (1) TRT versus the Standard of Care and (2) Partial TRT versus the Standard of Care|repeated measures GEE model||Adjusted for baseline TFI value, clinic, visit, age, gender, baseline Positive and Negative Affect Schedule and State Trait Anxiety Inventory scores, with multiple imputation|||7.14|-4.67|0.68
90940512|NCT01177137|181760807|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-3.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.93||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.26|2.23||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.025 to account for two comparisons (1) TRT versus the Standard of Care and (2) Partial TRT versus the Standard of Care|repeated measures GEE model||Adjusted for baseline TFI value, clinic, visit, age, gender, baseline Positive and Negative Affect Schedule and State Trait Anxiety Inventory scores, with multiple imputation|||2.23|-9.26|0.23
90940513|NCT01177137|181760808|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.27||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|1.66||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.025 to account for two comparisons (1) TRT versus the Standard of Care and (2) Partial TRT versus the Standard of Care.|repeated measures GEE model||Adjusted for baseline THI value, clinic, visit, age, gender, baseline Positive and Negative Affect Schedule and State Trait Anxiety Inventory scores, with multiple imputation|||1.66|-3.30|0.52
90875154|NCT00975481|181611859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.0394||||0.6187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.4818|51.5606|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For pseudoephedrine, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||51.5606|-31.4818|0.6187
90875155|NCT00975481|181611859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.4573||||0.5863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.0355|49.9502|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For pseudoephedrine, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||49.9502|-29.0355|0.5863
90875156|NCT00975481|181611859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-35.2566||||0.0832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.608|5.0948|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For pseudoephedrine, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||5.0948|-75.6080|0.0832
90875157|NCT00975481|181611859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-32.0907||||0.0827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.7519|4.5704|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For pseudoephedrine, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||4.5704|-68.7519|0.0827
90875158|NCT00975481|181611859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-31.6728||||0.1386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.5352|11.1895|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For pseudoephedrine, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||11.1895|-74.5352|0.1386
90875159|NCT00975481|181611860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3637||||0.1691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1566|0.884|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||0.8840|-0.1566|0.1691
90875160|NCT00975481|181611860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8444||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3238|1.365|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||1.3650|0.3238|0.0017
90875161|NCT00975481|181611860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2093||||0.4305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3141|0.7327|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||0.7327|-0.3141|0.4305
90875162|NCT00975481|181611860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1206||||0.6517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4064|0.6476|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||0.6476|-0.4064|0.6517
90940514|NCT01177137|181760808|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.22||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.21|-0.41||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.025 to account for two comparisons (1) TRT versus the Standard of Care and (2) Partial TRT versus the Standard of Care|repeated measures GEE model||Adjusted for baseline THI value, clinic, visit, age, gender, baseline Positive and Negative Affect Schedule and State Trait Anxiety Inventory scores, with multiple imputation|||-0.41|-5.21|0.022
90961197|NCT00710021|181803291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1||||||The p-value compares the Placebo with the pooled Vitamin D treatment group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Note that none of the Grade 3 or above events were considered by the investigators to be related to study treatment.||||||0.10
90961198|NCT01992393|181803305|OTHER|||||||0.036|||||||GEE|||||||0.036
90940515|NCT01177137|181760809|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|2.23||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.025 to account for two comparisons (1) TRT versus the Standard of Care and (2) Partial TRT versus the Standard of Care|repeated measures GEE model||Adjusted for baseline THI value, clinic, visit, age, gender, baseline Positive and Negative Affect Schedule and State Trait Anxiety Inventory scores, with multiple imputation|||2.23|-1.54|0.72
91033454|NCT00829673|181952733|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model containing factors for sequence of products, subjects within sequence, periods, and products was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|100.74||||||90.0|97.3|104.29|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||104.29|97.3|
91033455|NCT00829673|181952734|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model containing factors for sequence of products, subjects within sequence, periods, and products was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|100.5||||||90.0|97.09|104.03|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||104.03|97.09|
90875163|NCT00975481|181611860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0374||||0.8892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5666|0.4919|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||0.4919|-0.5666|0.8892
90875164|NCT00975481|181611860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1544||||0.5576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6737|0.3649|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||0.3649|-0.6737|0.5576
90875165|NCT00975481|181611860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2431||||0.3594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7658|0.2796|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||0.2796|-0.7658|0.3594
90875166|NCT00975481|181611860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4011||||0.1355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9291|0.127|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||0.1270|-0.9291|0.1355
90875167|NCT00975481|181611860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6351||||0.0153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1466|-0.1236|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-0.1236|-1.1466|0.0153
90875168|NCT00975481|181611860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7238||||0.0065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2418|-0.2059|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-0.2059|-1.2418|0.0065
90875169|NCT00975481|181611860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8818||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4042|-0.3594|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-0.3594|-1.4042|0.0011
90915066|NCT01068743|181700935|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|BE was concluded if the 90% CIs for the test-to-reference ratios (B/A) of geometric means were entirely contained within 80% to 125% for both Cmax and AUC0-inf of metformin.|Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Means|99.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.41|109.5|||||Ratio=Treatment B/Treatment A. Geometric least squares means values presented in other statistical analysis entries.|If there was no difference between the bioavailabilities of metformin from the FDC tablet versus metformin from coadministration of saxagliptin and metformin tablets under both fasted and fed conditions, then 20 participants would have provided 99% power to conclude BE with respect to each of Cmax and AUC0-inf. If there was a 5% difference, then 20 subjects would provide 97% and 99% power to conclude BE with respect to Cmax and AUC0-inf, respectively.||109.5|90.41|
90875170|NCT00975481|181611860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1614|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9373|-1.3856|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-1.3856|-2.9373|<0.0001
90875171|NCT00975481|181611860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0336|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8085|-2.2587|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-2.2587|-3.8085|<0.0001
90875172|NCT00975481|181611860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2791||||0.4804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0586|0.5004|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||0.5004|-1.0586|0.4804
90875173|NCT00975481|181611860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.024||||0.9519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7608|0.8087|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||0.8087|-0.7608|0.9519
90875174|NCT00975481|181611860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.497||||0.2152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.286|0.2921|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||0.2921|-1.2860|0.2152
90875175|NCT00975481|181611860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8824|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1094|2.6553|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||2.6553|1.1094|<0.0001
90875176|NCT00975481|181611860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1854|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.407|2.9638|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||2.9638|1.4070|<0.0001
90875177|NCT00975481|181611860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6645|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8786|2.4503|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||2.4503|0.8786|<0.0001
90875178|NCT00975481|181611860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.7545|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9912|3.5179|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||3.5179|1.9912|<0.0001
90940516|NCT01177137|181760809|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.83|0.75||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.025 to account for two comparisons (1) TRT versus the Standard of Care and (2) Partial TRT versus the Standard of Care|repeated measures GEE model||Adjusted for baseline THI value, clinic, visit, age, gender, baseline Positive and Negative Affect Schedule and State Trait Anxiety Inventory scores, with multiple imputation|||0.75|-2.83|0.26
90961199|NCT01992393|181803306|OTHER|||||||0.042|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sided two sample t-test comparing difference of values from baseline and 12 week between TIME and TAU.||||0.042
90961200|NCT01992393|181803306|OTHER|||||||0.204|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sided two sample t-test comparing difference of values from baseline and 16 week between TIME and TAU||||0.204
90961201|NCT01992393|181803307|OTHER|||||||0.129|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sided two sample t-test comparing difference of values from baseline and 12 week between TIME and TAU.||||0.129
90961202|NCT01992393|181803307|OTHER|||||||0.978|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sided two sample t-test comparing difference of values from baseline and 16 week between TIME and TAU.||||0.978
90961203|NCT01992393|181803308|OTHER|||||||0.128|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sided two sample t-test comparing difference of values from baseline and 12 week between TIME and TAU.||||0.128
90961204|NCT01992393|181803308|OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sided two sample t-test comparing difference of values from baseline and 16 week between TIME and TAU.||||0.015
90961205|NCT01992393|181803309|OTHER|||||||0.759|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sided two sample t-test comparing difference of values from baseline and 12 week between TIME and TAU.||||0.759
90915067|NCT01068743|181700935|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|BE was concluded if the 90% CIs for the test-to-reference ratios (D/C) of geometric means were entirely contained within 80% to 125% for both Cmax and AUC0-inf of metformin.|Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Means|98.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.28|102.32|||||Ratio=Treatment D/Treatment C. Geometric least squares means values presented in other statistical analysis entries.|If there was no difference between the bioavailabilities of metformin from the FDC tablet versus metformin from coadministration of saxagliptin and metformin tablets under both fasted and fed conditions, then 20 participants would have provided 99% power to conclude BE with respect to each of Cmax and AUC0-inf. If there was a 5% difference, then 20 subjects would provide 97% and 99% power to conclude BE with respect to Cmax and AUC0-inf, respectively.||102.32|94.28|
90915068|NCT01068743|181700935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng/mL|1724.4||||||||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment A.||||
90915069|NCT01068743|181700935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Square Means (ng/mL)|1715.8||||||||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment B.||||
90961206|NCT01992393|181803309|OTHER|||||||0.471|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sided two sample t-test comparing difference of values from baseline and 16 week between TIME and TAU.||||0.471
90961207|NCT01992393|181803310|OTHER|||||||0.775|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sided two sample t-test comparing difference of values from baseline and 12 week between TIME and TAU.||||0.775
90961208|NCT01992393|181803310|OTHER|||||||0.433|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sided two sample t-test comparing difference of values from baseline and 16 week between TIME and TAU.||||0.433
90961209|NCT01992393|181803311|OTHER|||||||0.936|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sided two sample t-test comparing difference of values from baseline and 12 week between TIME and TAU.||||0.936
91033456|NCT00272779|181952735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|7.1||Assuming 70% response rate (70% of participants remain on treatment for 48 wks and HIV RNA \<50 copies/mL) on both regimens, sample size of 882 randomized participants (441/regimen) provided 90% power to demonstrate ATV/RTV is non-inferior to LPV/RTV|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The ATV/RTV regimen was deemed to be non-inferior to the lopinavir/ritonavir regimen if the lower CI for the difference in proportions \> -10%.||Treatment regimens compared by calculation of the difference in proportions (atazanavir/ritonavir- lopinavir/ritonavir) and 95% CI based on stratified normal approximation.Analyses were stratified by the same strata as randomization-HIV RNA level at enrollment and geographic region.The proportion of participants with HIV RNA below 50 copies/mL was computed within each stratum, and combined by use of a weighted average with weights proportional to stratum size:Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting||7.1|-3.8|
90961210|NCT01992393|181803311|OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sided two sample t-test comparing difference of values from baseline and 16 week between TIME and TAU.||||0.600
90961211|NCT01992393|181803312|OTHER|||||||0.56|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sided two sample t-test comparing difference of values from baseline and 12 week between TIME and TAU.||||0.560
90961212|NCT01992393|181803312|OTHER|||||||0.305|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sided two sample t-test comparing difference of values from baseline and 12 week between TIME and TAU.||||0.305
90961213|NCT00147823|181803334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Using baseline (6 wk) and two year post operative predicted effects data, and setting desirable power to detect our effects to 80%||The sample size provided at least 80% power at a 5% alpha level to detect a medium to large effect in patients receiving Vitoss alone compared to combination therapy consisting of Vitoss with Bone Marrow Aspirate. Since a random coefficients model was used to analyze the data, the sample size calculation was estimated under this model assuming a 3% attrition rate between all measurement times.||||<0.01
90961214|NCT00147823|181803335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||<0.01
90915070|NCT01068743|181700935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Square Mean (ng/mL)|1581.4||||||||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment C.||||
90915071|NCT01068743|181700935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng/mL)|1553.2||||||||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment D.||||
90915072|NCT01068743|181700940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Means|101.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.07|104.9|||||Ratio=Treatment B/Treatment A. Geometric least squares means values presented in other statistical analysis entries.|||104.90|98.07|
90915073|NCT01068743|181700940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Means|102.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.56|105.57|||||Ratio=Treatment D/Treatment C. Geometric least squares means values presented in other statistical analysis entries.|||105.57|99.56|
90915074|NCT01068743|181700940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng*h/mL)|47.15|||||||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment A.|||||
90915075|NCT01068743|181700940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng*h/mL)|47.83|||||||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment B.|||||
90915076|NCT01068743|181700940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng*h/mL)|50.89|||||||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment C.|||||
90915077|NCT01068743|181700940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng*h/mL)|52.17|||||||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment D.|||||
90915078|NCT01068743|181700943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Means|100.41|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.4|105.68|||||Ratio=Treatment B/Treatment A. Geometric least squares means values presented in other statistical analysis entries.|||105.68|95.40|
90915079|NCT01068743|181700943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Means|99.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.19|102.02|||||Ratio=Treatment D/Treatment C. Geometric least squares means values presented in other statistical analysis entries.|||102.02|96.19|
90915080|NCT01068743|181700943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng*h/mL)|11827.0|||||||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment A.|||||
90915081|NCT01068743|181700943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng*h/mL)|11875.0|||||||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment B.|||||
90915082|NCT01068743|181700943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng*h/mL)|11845.0|||||||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment C.|||||
90915083|NCT01068743|181700943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng*h/mL)|11734.0|||||||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment D.|||||
90915084|NCT03740009|181700962|NON_INFERIORITY|For analyses the researchers used a paired T-test to compare baseline and post-treatment mean activation values across 3 regions of interest (ROIs): the caudate, putamen and nucleus accumbens.||||||0.53|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||\[Ho\]: TSEC has no meaningful effect on activity within key nodes of the frontostriate in response to reward.||||0.53
90915085|NCT03740009|181700963|NON_INFERIORITY|Analysis included MASQ-AD scores from all visits to characterize the change in scores from baseline to post-treatment.|GLM|-5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.59|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Mixed models of 3 week TSEC administration for MASQ-AD scores assessed at each study visit from baseline to post-treatment.|GLM||F value=13.26|\[Ho\] No change in depressive symptoms from baseline throughout 3 weeks of TSEC administration||||<0.001
90915086|NCT01061151|181700964|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|96.5|-2.1|-0.4|||||The combination of Arm B and Arm C minus Arm A, based on a repeated confidence interval (Lan-DeMets approach with an O'Brien-Fleming type I error spending function to preserve an experiment-wise type I error rate of 5%).|Arm B and Arm C were combined and compared to Arm A. This comparison was an a priori planned comparison.||-0.4|-2.1|
90915087|NCT01061151|181700965|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||Fisher Exact|||Periods 1 and 2||||0.008
90915088|NCT01061151|181700965|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||Fisher Exact|||Period 2||||0.77
90915089|NCT01061151|181700965|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||Period 2||||>0.99
90915090|NCT01061151|181700966|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Fisher Exact|||Periods 1 and 2||||0.30
90915091|NCT01061151|181700966|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||Fisher Exact|||Period 2||||0.64
90915092|NCT01061151|181700966|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Fisher Exact|||Period 2||||0.06
90915093|NCT01061151|181700967|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||Periods 1 and 2||||<0.001
90915094|NCT01061151|181700967|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Fisher Exact|||Period 2||||0.04
90915095|NCT01061151|181700967|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||Fisher Exact|||Period 2||||0.46
90915096|NCT01061151|181700968|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|96.0|0.3|3.1|||||The confidence interval was based on a repeated confidence interval.|||3.1|0.3|
90915097|NCT01061151|181700969|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.98
90915098|NCT01061151|181700970|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.55||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|2.08|||Log Rank||The hazard ratio compares Arm A relative to Arm B.|||2.08|0.14|0.37
90915099|NCT01061151|181700972|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Two-sided Z test|||Overall survival||||0.16
90915100|NCT01061151|181700972|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0156|||||||Two-sided Z test|||Overall survival, period 2 group||||0.0156
90915101|NCT01061151|181700972|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||Two-sided Z test|||Overall survival, period 2 group||||0.31
90915102|NCT01061151|181700972|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0022|||||||Two-sided Z test|||Overall survival, period 2 group||||0.0022
90915103|NCT01061151|181700972|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Two-sided Z test|||HIV-free survival||||0.13
90915104|NCT01061151|181700972|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||Two-sided Z test|||HIV-free survival, period 2 group||||0.44
90915105|NCT01061151|181700972|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||Two-sided Z test|||HIV-free survival, period 2 group||||0.24
90915106|NCT01061151|181700972|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Two-sided Z test|||HIV-free survival, group 2||||0.26
90915107|NCT02384070|181701001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||Analysis of the variance was used and Chi-square test for categorical variables. A sample size was calculated for a 95% confidence level and a power of 80%, assuming a 10% difference between groups.|ANOVA|||||||1
90915108|NCT02384070|181701001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||The prior threshold for statistical significance was P \< 0.05|ANOVA|||||||1
90915109|NCT01102231|181701018|OTHER||Proportion difference|0.905|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.846|0.964||||||||0.964|0.846|
90915110|NCT00546754|181701021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.153||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.153
90915111|NCT00546754|181701022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.343||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.343
90915112|NCT00546754|181701023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.118||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.118
90915113|NCT00546754|181701024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.395||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.395
90915114|NCT00546754|181701025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.662||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.662
90875179|NCT00975481|181611860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0576|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2858|3.8294|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||3.8294|2.2858|<0.0001
90875180|NCT00975481|181611860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5366|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7578|3.3155|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||3.3155|1.7578|<0.0001
90875181|NCT01387347|181611862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.2596|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Inferior corneal fluorescein staining score at Day 29(primary sign) was summarized using descriptive statistics (number of observations, mean, standard deviation, median, minimum, and maximum). Active treatment was compared to placebo using a two-sample t-test assuming unequal variances, assessed at the α = 0.05 level||||0.2596
90875182|NCT01387347|181611862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0075|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of central corneal fluorescein staining score between the placebo and Thymosin beta 4 groups||||0.0075
90875183|NCT01387347|181611862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of superior corneal fluorescein staining score between the placebo and Thymosin beta 4 groups||||0.0210
90875184|NCT01387347|181611863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.3734|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between the groups uses a two-sample t-test assuming unequal variances, assessed at the alpha = 0.05 level.||||0.3734
90875185|NCT01387347|181611863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0244|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of discomfort score between the placebo and Thymosin beta 4 groups on Day 28||||0.0244
90875186|NCT03388294|181611871|OTHER|The focus for this analysis is change over time|Mean Difference (Net)|7.32||||0.028|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.028
90875187|NCT03388294|181611872|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|12.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The focus for this analysis is change over time||||<0.001
90875188|NCT03388294|181611873|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.87
90875189|NCT03388294|181611874|OTHER|The focus for this analysis is change over time|Mean Difference (Net)|0.61||||0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.006
90875190|NCT03388294|181611875|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.76
90875191|NCT03388294|181611876|OTHER|The focus for this analysis is change over time||||||0.849|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.849
90875192|NCT03388294|181611877|OTHER|The focus for this analysis is change over time|Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.063|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.063
90875193|NCT03388294|181611878|OTHER|The focus for this analysis is change over time|Mean Difference (Net)|0.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
90875194|NCT03388294|181611882|OTHER|The focus for this analysis is change over time|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.9||||0.036|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.036
90875195|NCT03388294|181611883|OTHER|The focus for this analysis is change over time||||||0.0002|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0002
90875196|NCT03388294|181611884|OTHER|The focus for this analysis is change over time|Mean Difference (Net)|0.36||||0.864|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.864
90875197|NCT03388294|181611885|OTHER|The focus for this analysis is change over time|Mean Difference (Net)|3.14||||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.12
90875198|NCT03388294|181611886|OTHER|The focus for this analysis is change over time|Mean Difference (Net)|0.02||||0.881|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.881
90875199|NCT03388294|181611887|OTHER|The focus for this analysis is change over time|Mean Difference (Net)|0.02||||0.846|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.846
90875200|NCT00399360|181611892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.37
90875201|NCT00399360|181611893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.80
90875202|NCT00399360|181611894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.08
90875203|NCT00399360|181611895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.13
90875204|NCT00399360|181611896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.85
90875205|NCT00399360|181611897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.03
90875206|NCT00399360|181611898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.10
90875207|NCT00399360|181611899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.63
90875208|NCT00399360|181611900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.05
90875209|NCT00399360|181611901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.02
90875210|NCT03143569|181611915|OTHER|||||||0.45|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.45
90875211|NCT03143569|181611916|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
90875212|NCT03143569|181611917|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
90875213|NCT03143569|181611918|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
90875214|NCT03143569|181611919|OTHER|||||||0.018|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.018
90875215|NCT00319644|181611961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.0||||0.26||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||The chi-square test(or Fisher exact test where needed) was used to compare proportions with dichotomous variables. The Student-t test was used for quantitative variables woth normal distribution, and Mann-Whitney-U test was used for data not normally distributed.||||0.26
90875216|NCT02472795|181611963|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.22|||ANCOVA|||||0.22|-0.56|0.39
90875217|NCT02472795|181611963|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.09|||ANCOVA|||||0.09|-0.91|0.02
90875218|NCT02472795|181611963|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.19|||ANCOVA|||||-0.19|-0.95|0.004
90875219|NCT02472795|181611963|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.02|||ANCOVA|||||0.02|-0.75|0.06
90875220|NCT02472795|181611965|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.145|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.134||0.2837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.413|0.123|||ANCOVA|||||0.123|-0.413|0.2837
90875221|NCT02472795|181611965|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.515|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.797|-0.234|||ANCOVA|||||-0.234|-0.797|0.0006
90875222|NCT02472795|181611965|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.565|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.825|-0.305|||ANCOVA|||||-0.305|-0.825|0.0001
90875223|NCT02472795|181611965|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.147|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.173|-0.586|||ANCOVA|||||-0.586|-1.173|<0.0001
90875224|NCT02472795|181611967|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.214|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.626||0.1755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.513|6.085|||ANCOVA|||||6.085|-32.513|0.1755
90875225|NCT02472795|181611967|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-39.311|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.096||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.552|-19.069|||ANCOVA|||||-19.069|-59.552|0.0003
90875226|NCT02472795|181611967|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-47.278|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.329|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.981|-28.574|||ANCOVA|||||-28.574|-65.981|<0.0001
90875227|NCT02472795|181611967|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-56.452|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.541|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.585|-35.32|||ANCOVA|||||-35.320|-77.585|<0.0001
90875228|NCT04318080|181611969|SUPERIORITY|Analysis tested whether ORR with tislelizumab was superior to a historical ORR of 45% using a one-sided binomial exact test (α = 0.05).|Z-test|2.62||||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|||||One-sided p-value based on a binomial exact test comparing observed ORR to historical rate of 45%.|Binomial Exact Test|||The primary analysis was conducted on both cohorts combined, A binomial exact test was performed to test the null hypothesis (H0: ORR = 45% based on previous clinical trials) and alternative hypothesis (ORR \>45%). If the one-sided p-value was ≤ 0.05, tislelizumab was considered to statistically significantly increase ORR compared to the historical control.||||0.0044
90875229|NCT01536379|181611977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-34.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|37.24|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-109.5|40.7||||||||40.7|-109.5|
90875230|NCT01536379|181611998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|204.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|90.0|550.0|||||Week 24 comparison|||550.00|90.00|
90875231|NCT01536379|181611998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-33.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-169.84|25.0|||||Week 52 comparison|||25.00|-169.84|
90875232|NCT01536379|181611999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1232.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|25735.56|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50457.0|52921.8|||||Week 24 comparison|||52921.8|-50457.0|
90875233|NCT01536379|181611999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13128.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|24165.18|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61868.9|35612.2|||||Week 52 comparison|||35612.2|-61868.9|
90875234|NCT01536379|181612000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.78|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.3|3.7|||||Week 24 comparison|||3.7|-31.3|
90875235|NCT01536379|181612000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.68|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|22.2|||||Week 52 comparison|||22.2|-8.6|
90875236|NCT01536379|181612001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2791.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4651.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12105.0|6524.0|||||Week 24 comparison|||6524|-12105|
90875237|NCT01536379|181612001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-458.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4501.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9487.0|8572.0|||||Week 52 comparison|||8572|-9487|
90875238|NCT01536379|181612002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.156|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.59|1.01|||||Week 24 comparison|||1.01|-3.59|
90875239|NCT01536379|181612002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.017|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|2.82|||||Week 52 comparison|||2.82|-1.24|
90875240|NCT01536379|181612003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-30326.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|34677.86|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100559.1|39905.3|||||Week 24 comparison|||39905.3|-100559.1|
90875241|NCT01536379|181612003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-46955.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|32594.81|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-113218.9|19308.3|||||Week 52 comparison|||19308.3|-113218.9|
90875242|NCT01536379|181612004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.54|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|4.2|||||Week 24 comparison|||4.2|-10.1|
90875243|NCT01536379|181612004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.35|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|6.3|||||Week 52 comparison|||6.3|-7.2|
90875244|NCT01536379|181612005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|648.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12618.44|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24661.1|25957.7|||||Week 24 comparison|||25957.7|-24661.1|
90875245|NCT01536379|181612005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5618.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12153.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29994.8|18757.0|||||Week 52 comparison|||18757.0|-29994.8|
90875246|NCT01536379|181612006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.67|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|3.5|||||Week 24 comparison|||3.5|-3.2|
90875247|NCT01536379|181612006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|2.3|||||Week 52 comparison|||2.3|-3.5|
90875248|NCT01536379|181612007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.255|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.07|0.98|||||Week 24 comparison|||0.98|-4.07|
90875249|NCT01536379|181612007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.329|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.68|1.67|||||Week 52 comparison|||1.67|-3.68|
90875250|NCT01536379|181612008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportion|-0.067|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.638|0.505|||||Week 24 comparison|||0.505|-0.638|
90875251|NCT01536379|181612008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportion|-0.267|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.838|0.305|||||Week 52 comparison|||0.305|-0.838|
90875252|NCT01536379|181612009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|52.06|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-105.9|100.3|||||Week 24 comparison|||100.3|-105.9|
90875253|NCT01536379|181612009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|47.52|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-107.1|81.4|||||Week 52 comparison|||81.4|-107.1|
90875254|NCT01536379|181612010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.44|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.56|5.71|||||Week 24 comparison|||5.71|-31.56|
90875255|NCT01536379|181612010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.315|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.11|13.72|||||Week 52 comparison|||13.72|-19.11|
90875256|NCT01536379|181612011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.225|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.84|3.96||||||||3.96|-4.84|
90875257|NCT05027438|181612049|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.58|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||post-treatment - baseline (negative value indicates reduction of symptoms)|baseline to post-treatment|effect size (f2) = 1.42 (large \>=0.35)|||<0.001
90875258|NCT05027438|181612049|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||3-month follow-up - baseline (negative value indicates reduction of symptoms)|baseline to 3-month follow-up|effect size (f2) = 1.54 (large \>=0.35)|||<0.001
90875259|NCT05027438|181612050|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|58.55|STANDARD_DEVIATION|43.98||0.004|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni correction|Friedman test|||% change in medication dose from baseline to post-treatment||||0.004
90875260|NCT05027438|181612050|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|62.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|54.93||0.005|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni correction|Friedman test|||% change in medication dose from baseline to 3-month follow-up||||0.005
90875261|NCT05027438|181612051|SUPERIORITY||Proportion (%)|31.8||||0.052|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran's Q test|Bonferroni correction||baseline to post-treatment||||0.052
90875262|NCT05027438|181612051|SUPERIORITY||Proportion (%)|60.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran's Q test|Bonferroni correction||baseline to 3-month follow-up||||<0.001
90875263|NCT05027438|181612052|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.67|STANDARD_DEVIATION|20.57|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||post-treatment - baseline (negative value indicates reduction of symptoms)|baseline to post-treatment|effect size (f2) = 0.54 (large \>=0.35)|||<0.001
90875264|NCT05027438|181612052|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-17.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.11|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||3-month follow-up - baseline (negative value indicates reduction of symptoms)|baseline to 3-month follow-up|effect size (f2) = 0.47 (large \>=0.35)|||<0.001
90875265|NCT05027438|181612053|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.24|STANDARD_DEVIATION|20.34||0.101|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||post-treatment - baseline (negative value indicates reduction of symptoms)|baseline to post-treatment|effect size (f2) = 0.10 (small \>=0.02)|||0.101
90875266|NCT05027438|181612053|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.34|STANDARD_DEVIATION|18.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||3-month follow-up - baseline (negative value indicates reduction of symptoms)|baseline to 3-month follow-up|effect size (f2) = 0.34 (medium; large \>=0.35)|||<0.001
90915115|NCT00546754|181701026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.020
90915116|NCT00546754|181701027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90875267|NCT05027438|181612054|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||post-treatment - baseline (positive value indicates improvement)|baseline to post-treatment|effect size (f2) = 0.87 (large \>=0.35)|||<0.001
90875268|NCT05027438|181612054|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||3-month follow-up - baseline (positive value indicates improvement)|baseline to 3-month follow-up|effect size (f2) = 0.96 (large \>=0.35)|||<0.001
90875269|NCT05027438|181612055|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.48|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||post-treatment - baseline (negative value indicates improvement)|Sleep Disturbance - higher scores indicate more sleep disturbance. The T-score rescales the raw score into a standardized T-score with a mean of 50 and a standard deviation (SD) of 10.|effect size (f2) = 1.14 (large \>=0.35)|||<0.001
90875270|NCT05027438|181612055|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.82|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.62|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||3-month follow-up - baseline (negative value indicates improvement)|Sleep Disturbance - higher scores indicate more sleep disturbance. The T-score rescales the raw score into a standardized T-score with a mean of 50 and a standard deviation (SD) of 10.|effect size (f2) = 1.21 (large \>=0.35)|||<0.001
90875271|NCT05027438|181612056|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.21||0.22|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||post-treatment - baseline (positive value indicates improvement)||effect size (f2) = 0.18 (medium \>=0.15)|||0.22
90875272|NCT05027438|181612056|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||3-month follow-up - baseline (positive value indicates improvement)||effect size (f2) = 1.99 (large \>=0.35)|||<0.001
90875273|NCT04729127|181612057|OTHER|||||||0.79|||||||Regression, Linear|||See protocol for full statistical analysis plan.||||.79
90875274|NCT04729127|181612057|OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||Regression, Linear|||See protocol for full statistical analysis plan.||||.27
90875275|NCT04729127|181612058|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Regression, Linear|||See protocol for full statistical analysis plan.||||.04
90875276|NCT04729127|181612058|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Regression, Linear|||See protocol for full statistical analysis plan.||||.02
90875277|NCT04729127|181612059|OTHER|||||||0.78|||||||Regression, Linear|||See protocol for full statistical analysis plan.||||.78
90875278|NCT04729127|181612059|OTHER|||||||0.89|||||||Regression, Linear|||See protocol for full statistical analysis plan.||||.89
90875279|NCT04729127|181612060|OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||Regression, Linear|||See protocol for full statistical analysis plan.||||.07
90875280|NCT04729127|181612060|OTHER|||||||0.88|||||||Regression, Linear|||See protocol for full statistical analysis plan.||||.88
90915117|NCT00546754|181701028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.935||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.935
90875281|NCT04729127|181612063|OTHER|||||||0.26|||||||Regression, Linear|||See protocol for full statistical analysis plan.||||.26
90875282|NCT04729127|181612063|OTHER|||||||0.74|||||||Regression, Linear|||See protocol for full statistical analysis plan.||||.74
90875283|NCT02807350|181612069|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|19.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|29.0||||||\>1 point analysis||29|7|
90875284|NCT02807350|181612069|OTHER|\>2 points analysis|Risk Difference (RD)|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|28.0||||||||28|10|
90915118|NCT00546754|181701029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90915119|NCT00546754|181701030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.899||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.899
90915120|NCT00546754|181701031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.218||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.218
90915121|NCT00546754|181701032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.386||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.386
90915122|NCT00546754|181701033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.725||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.725
90915123|NCT05061693|181701065|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.1||||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|45.4|||Regression, Logistic|Exact Logistic regression: (response at Week 16 = treatment + stratification factor \[Day 1 Investigator's Global Assessment score (3 or 4)\])||||45.4|1.6|0.0061
90915124|NCT05061693|181701065|SUPERIORITY||difference in response rate|28.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.18|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||The standard error of the difference between response rates was from normal approximation.|||||
90915125|NCT05061693|181701065|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.2||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|65.6|||Regression, Logistic|Exact Logistic regression: (response at Week 16 = treatment + stratification factor \[Day 1 Investigator's Global Assessment score (3 or 4)\])||||65.6|2.3|0.0005
90875285|NCT02807350|181612070|OTHER|\>1 analysis|Risk Difference (RD)|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|15.0||||||||15|-7|
90875286|NCT02807350|181612070|OTHER|\>2 analysis|Risk Difference (RD)|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|17.0||||||||17|-2|
90875287|NCT03388138|181612090|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of the etafilcon A with ketotifen lens relative to the etafilcon A lens was established if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval was below 0.1 logMAR.|Least-Square Mean Difference|0.0017|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01169|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.021|0.025|||Linear Mixed Model|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|LS Mean difference was calculated as etafilcon A with ketotifen - etafilcon A|||0.025|-0.021|
90875288|NCT03388138|181612091|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of the etafilcon A with ketotifen lens relative to the etafilcon A lens was established if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval was below 0.1 logMAR.|Least-Square Mean Difference|0.0007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01158|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.022|0.024|||Linear Mixed Model|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|LS Mean difference was calculated as etafilcon A with ketotifen - etafilcon A|||0.024|-0.022|
90875289|NCT02436759|181612109|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Two-sided t-test with treatment as a fixed factor and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.0001
90875290|NCT02436759|181612110|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||ANCOVA|Two-sided t-test||||||0.12
90875291|NCT01912287|181612122|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.46||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|5.42|||Generalized Linear Mixed Models|||This comparison is from the Generalized Linear Mixed Models (GLMM) analysis using a quadratic growth curve over time. This comparison is at post-treatment. Note, although all 3 groups are included in the GLMM, this statistical test specifically compares response rates of KY vs. SE at post-treatment||5.42|1.12|.03
90875292|NCT01912287|181612122|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|5.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.12|11.82|||Generalized Linear Mixed Models|||This comparison is from the Generalized Linear Mixed Models (GLMM) analysis using a quadratic growth curve over time. This comparison is at post-treatment. Note, although all 3 groups are included in the GLMM, this statistical test specifically compares response rates of CBT vs. SE at post-treatment||11.82|2.12|<.001
90875293|NCT01912287|181612122|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.49||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|1.03|||Generalized Linear Mixed Models|||This comparison is from the Generalized Linear Mixed Models (GLMM) analysis using a quadratic growth curve over time. This comparison is at post-treatment. Note, although all 3 groups are included in the GLMM, this statistical test specifically compares response rates of KY vs. CBT at post-treatment||1.03|0.24|0.07
90915126|NCT05061693|181701065|SUPERIORITY||difference in response rate|36.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.42|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||The standard error of the difference between response rates was from normal approximation.|||||
90915127|NCT05061693|181701065|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|107.5|||Regression, Logistic|Exact Logistic regression: (response at Week 16 = treatment + stratification factor \[Day 1 Investigator's Global Assessment score (3 or 4)\])||||107.5|3.9|<0.0001
90915128|NCT05061693|181701065|SUPERIORITY||difference in response rate|48.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||The standard error of the difference between response rates was from normal approximation.|||||
90915129|NCT00396084|181701079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Mean adjusted aAUC for all 4 treatment groups over the 7 days of study drug administration||||<0.001
90875294|NCT01514760|181612142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||This a comparison for participants with uncontrolled asthma at baseline and change in scores over time.||||0.03
90875295|NCT04600414|181612143|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.38|||Multi-level model to account for cluster|||||0.38|0.03|<0.001
90875296|NCT04600414|181612144|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.97|2.57|||Multi-level model to account for cluster|||||2.57|-4.97|0.532
90875297|NCT01895855|181612214|SUPERIORITY|The lower, two sided 95% confidence bound on protective efficacy must be \>/= 30%.|Vaccine Efficacy|90.3|||||ONE_SIDED|95.1|62.7||||||Confidence intervals for the protective vaccine efficacy (PE) estimates were calculated using the method of Farrington and Manning (Farrington 1990).|35 participants were challenged 10 days after receiving PXVX0200. 66 participants were challenged either 10 days or 90 days after receiving placebo.|||62.7|
90875298|NCT01895855|181612215|SUPERIORITY|The lower, two sided 95% confidence bound on protective efficacy must be \>/= 30%.|Vaccine Efficacy|79.5|||||ONE_SIDED|95.1|49.9||||||Confidence intervals for the protective vaccine efficacy (PE) estimates were calculated using the method of Farrington and Manning (Farrington 1990).|33 participants were challenged 90 days after receiving PXVX0200. 66 participants were challenged either 10 days or 90 days after receiving placebo.|||49.9|
90875299|NCT01895855|181612216|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0073|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||35 participants were challenged 10 days after receiving PXVX0200. 66 participants were challenged either 10 days or 90 days after receiving placebo.||||0.0073
90875300|NCT01895855|181612217|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||33 participants were challenge 90 days after receiving PXVX0200. 66 participants were challenged either 10 days or 90 days after receiving placebo.||||<0.0001
90875301|NCT01895855|181612218|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine Efficacy|84.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.0|100.0|||||Confidence interval for the protective vaccine efficacy (PE) estimates were calculated using the method of Farrington and Manning (Farrington 1990).|35 participants were challenged 10 days after receiving PXVX0200. 66 participants were challenged either 10 days or 90 days after receiving placebo.||100.0|67.0|
90915130|NCT00396084|181701079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.041|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 1. Pooled sputum bacillary load data for patients in the 3 fluoroquinolones arms were combined and compared to that of patients in the INH arm.||||0.041
90875302|NCT01895855|181612219|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine Efficacy|50.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.6|66.8|||||Confidence interval for protective vaccine efficacy (PE) estimates were calculated using the method of Farrington and Manning (Farrington 1990).|33 participants were challenged 90 days after receiving PXVX0200. 66 participants were challenged either 10 days or 90 days after receiving placebo.||66.8|33.6|
90875303|NCT01895855|181612220|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0025|||||||Fisher Exact|||35 participants were challenged 10 days after receiving PXVX0200. 66 participants were challenged either 10 days or 90 days after receiving placebo.||||0.0025
90875304|NCT01895855|181612221|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0159|||||||Fisher Exact|||33 participants were challenged 90 days after receiving PXVX0200. 66 participants were challenged either 10 days or 90 days after receiving placebo.||||0.0159
90875305|NCT01895855|181612222|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||35 participants were challenged 10 days after receiving PXVX0200. 66 participants were challenged either 10 days or 90 days after receiving placebo.||||<0.0001
90875306|NCT01895855|181612223|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||33 participants were challenged 90 days after receiving PXVX0200. 66 participants were challenged either 10 days or 90 days after receiving placebo.||||<0.0001
90875307|NCT01895855|181612224|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||35 participants were challenged 10 days after receiving PXVX0200. 66 participants were challenged either 10 days or 90 days after receiving placebo.||||<0.0001
90875308|NCT01895855|181612225|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||33 participants were challenged 90 days after receiving PXVX0200. 66 participants were challenged either 10 days or 90 days after receiving placebo.||||<0.0001
90875309|NCT03559257|181612227|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-3.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.92|-2.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.32|-3.92|<0.0001
90875310|NCT03559257|181612228|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.41|-1.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.72|-3.41|<0.0001
90875311|NCT03559257|181612229|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.935|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.719|5.693|||pseudo likelihood-based repeated measure|||||5.693|2.719|<0.0001
90875312|NCT03559257|181612230|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.481|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.252|5.381|||Pseudo likelihood-based repeated measure|||||5.381|2.252|<0.0001
90875313|NCT03559257|181612231|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|12.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.19|15.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||15.87|9.19|<0.0001
90875314|NCT03559257|181612232|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|11.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.22|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.14|15.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||15.89|7.14|<0.0001
90875315|NCT03559257|181612233|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.878||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.374|14.554|||Pseudo likelihood-based repeated measure|||||14.554|2.374|0.0001
90875316|NCT03559257|181612234|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|999.999|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|548.706|999.999|||Pseudo likelihood-based repeated measure||Estimated value and upper bound are \>999.999|||999.999|548.706|<0.0001
90875317|NCT03559257|181612235|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.012|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.352|10.679|||pseudo likelihood-based repeated measure|||||10.679|2.352|<0.0001
90875318|NCT03559257|181612236|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|999.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|999.99|999.99|||Pseudo likelihood-based repeated measure||Point estimate, upper limit and lower limit are \>999.99|||999.99|999.99|<0.0001
90875319|NCT03559257|181612237|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.14|-2.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.65|-4.14|<0.0001
90875320|NCT03559257|181612238|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-3.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.96|-2.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.29|-3.96|<0.0001
90875321|NCT03559257|181612239|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
90875322|NCT03559257|181612240|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|-0.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.54|-1.58|<0.0001
90875323|NCT03559257|181612241|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||Activity Impairment.||||<0.0001
90875324|NCT03559257|181612241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.388|||||||ANCOVA|||Absenteeism.||||0.3880
90875325|NCT03559257|181612241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004|||||||ANCOVA|||Presenteeism.||||0.0004
90875326|NCT03559257|181612241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||ANCOVA|||Work impairment.||||0.0003
90875327|NCT03559257|181612242|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0003
90875328|NCT03559257|181612243|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1267|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1267
90875329|NCT03559257|181612244|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.163|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1630
90875330|NCT03559257|181612245|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0277|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0277
90875331|NCT01519960|181612262|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.43|||=|0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|19.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis stratified by hepatitis B virus (HBV) genotype A versus non-A genotypes and alanine aminotransferase (ALT) less than (\<) 5 times (×) upper limit of normal (ULN) versus greater than or equal to (≥) 5 × ULN at Baseline. The OR was calculated using Group B as reference.||19.2|1.54|= 0.0043
90875332|NCT01519960|181612262|OTHER||||||=|0.3732|||||||Breslow-Day|||||||= 0.3732
90875333|NCT00951808|181612340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||optimal threshold level of sPLA2|48.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.0|58.0|||||The optimal threshold level (TL) was determined to be the same for all analysis groups.|The optimal threshold level (TL), determined via receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis, maximizes the difference between the true positive rate (TPR) and the false positive rate (FPR). Since there is no corresponding analytic standard deviation (SD) for this value, we computed a robust SD based upon the interquartile range (IQR)/1.35 from a bootstrap sample of optimal TLs.||58|38|
90875334|NCT03204305|181612347|SUPERIORITY||t-test|-2.51||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||p \< 0.05 for all analyses. Bonferroni corrections were made to reduce family-wise error rate.|t-test, 2 sided|Composite VT was compared using independent t-tests.||VT in the 8 volumes of interest were analyzed using linear regression model group coded encoded as a dummy variable \[1=females cannabis users; 2= female healthy controls\], age as a covariate, and VT for VOIs (ventral striatum, amygdala, putamen, cingulate, globus pallidus, insula, frontal cortex, and hippocampus) as dependent variables, followed by post hoc Tukey's HSD between between groups.||||0.02
90875335|NCT03204305|181612347|SUPERIORITY||t-test|-2.36||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
90875336|NCT03204305|181612347|SUPERIORITY||t-test|-2.35||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
90875337|NCT03204305|181612347|SUPERIORITY||t-test|-2.23||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04
90875338|NCT03204305|181612348|SUPERIORITY||t test|-2.52||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
90875339|NCT03194555|181612432|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.17||||0.4267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.67|8.01|||Chi-squared|||||8.01|-3.67|0.4267
90875340|NCT03194555|181612433|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.0||||0.268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.46|66.83|||Chi-squared|||||66.83|-18.46|0.268
90875341|NCT03194555|181612434|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.0||||0.0926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.2|67.4|||Chi-squared|||||67.4|-17.2|0.0926
90875342|NCT03194555|181612435|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.0||||0.2894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.2|67.4|||Chi-squared|||||67.4|-17.2|0.2894
90875343|NCT03194555|181612436|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.83||||0.5724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1557|8.8157|||Chi-squared|||||8.8157|-5.1557|0.5724
90875344|NCT03194555|181612437|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-9.84||||0.2998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.15|30.83|||Chi-squared|||||30.83|-11.15|0.2998
90915131|NCT00396084|181701079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 2. Pooled sputum bacillary load data for patients in the 3 fluoroquinolones arms were combined and compared to that of patients in the INH arm.||||0.008
90915132|NCT00396084|181701079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 3. Pooled sputum bacillary load data for patients in the 3 fluoroquinolones arms were combined and compared to that of patients in the INH arm.||||0.012
90915133|NCT00396084|181701079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 4. Pooled sputum bacillary load data for patients in the 3 fluoroquinolones arms were combined and compared to that of patients in the INH arm.||||0.01
90915134|NCT00396084|181701079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 5. Pooled sputum bacillary load data for patients in the 3 fluoroquinolones arms were combined and compared to that of patients in the INH arm.||||0.03
90915135|NCT00396084|181701079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.091||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 6. Pooled sputum bacillary load data for patients in the 3 fluoroquinolones arms were combined and compared to that of patients in the INH arm.||||0.091
90915136|NCT00396084|181701079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.354||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 7. Pooled sputum bacillary load data for patients in the 3 fluoroquinolones arms were combined and compared to that of patients in the INH arm.||||0.354
90915137|NCT00396084|181701083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Mean values of EBA Days 0 to 2 for the 4 treatment groups were compared.||||0.05
90915138|NCT00396084|181701083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Two way comparison of INH against gatifloxacin using a simultaneous non-parametric procedure.||||0.01
90875345|NCT03194555|181612438|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-11.67||||0.2673|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2673
90875346|NCT03194555|181612441|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|28.76||||0.3527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-94.5005|36.9805|||Chi-squared|||||36.9805|-94.5005|0.3527
90875347|NCT03194555|181612442|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.95||||0.5246|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5246
90875348|NCT03194555|181612444|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.34||||0.8649|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.8649
90875349|NCT01831154|181612445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.512|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared value of 1.34 and Cramer's V .190||Cross tabulation with statistical testing with chi-square and Cramer's V was performed on infection to determine if there was any difference in surgical site infections between the interventional groups in 30 day period.||||0.512
90875350|NCT01831154|181612446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.024
90875351|NCT01831154|181612448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.132|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.132
90875352|NCT01831154|181612449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.908||||||A one way ANOVA was used to determine if participants in the tight glycemic group had shorter intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (LOS) than participants in the other interventional groups.|ANOVA|||||||0.908
90915139|NCT00396084|181701083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Two way comparison of INH against moxifloxacin using a simultaneous non-parametric procedure.||||0.02
90915140|NCT00396084|181701083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Two way comparison of INH against levofloxacin using a simultaneous non-parametric procedure.||||0.14
90915141|NCT00396084|181701084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51|||||||ANOVA|||Mean values of EBA Days 2 to 7 for the 4 treatment groups were compared.||||0.51
90915142|NCT00396084|181701084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The rate of fall in sputum cfu for the 4 treatment groups between day 2 and day 7 of monotherapy was estimated by the slope of the linear regression obtained from fitting the 6 sputum cfu values corresponding to days 2 through 7.||||0.16
90915143|NCT00396084|181701084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EBA Days 2-7 for patients in the 3 fluoroquinolone groups were pooled and compared to bactericidal activity of patients in the INH arm.||||0.036
90915144|NCT00396084|181701085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Mean adjusted aAUC for all 3 treatment groups over the 7 days of study drug administration||||<0.001
90875353|NCT03255382|181612474|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|73.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.3|85.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||85.3|61.3|< 0.001
90875354|NCT03255382|181612475|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|46.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.8|60.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||60.8|32.8|< 0.001
90875355|NCT03255382|181612476|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|63.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.2|76.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||76.6|50.2|< 0.001
90875356|NCT03255382|181612477|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|53.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.4|65.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||65.7|40.4|< 0.001
90875357|NCT03255382|181612478|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|39.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.3|51.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||51.9|27.3|< 0.001
90875358|NCT03255382|181612479|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|36.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.1|48.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||48.5|24.1|< 0.001
91033457|NCT00272779|181952736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|8.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment regimens were compared by calculation of the difference in proportions (ATV/RTV-LPV/RTV) and 95% CI based on a stratified normal approximation. Analyses were stratified by the same strata as randomization-ie, HIV RNA level at enrollment and geographic region. The proportion of participants with HIV RNA below 400 copies per mL was computed within each stratum, and combined by use of a weighted average with weights proportional to stratum size (Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting).||8.1|-1.5|
90875359|NCT03255382|181612480|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|46.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.7|59.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||59.0|33.7|< 0.001
90875360|NCT03255382|181612481|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|9.9||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|19.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||19.7|0.1|0.047
90915145|NCT00396084|181701085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 1. Pooled sputum bacillary load data for patients in the linezolid arms were combined and compared to that of patients in the INH arm.||||0.023
90915146|NCT00396084|181701085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 2. Pooled sputum bacillary load data for patients in the linezolid arms were combined and compared to that of patients in the INH arm.||||0.018
90915147|NCT00396084|181701085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 3. Pooled sputum bacillary load data for patients in the linezolid arms were combined and compared to that of patients in the INH arm.||||0.03
90915148|NCT00396084|181701085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 4. Pooled sputum bacillary load data for patients in the linezolid arms were combined and compared to that of patients in the INH arm.||||0.012
90915149|NCT00396084|181701085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 5. Pooled sputum bacillary load data for patients in the linezolid arms were combined and compared to that of patients in the INH arm.||||0.003
90915150|NCT00396084|181701085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 6. Pooled sputum bacillary load data for patients in the linezolid arms were combined and compared to that of patients in the INH arm.||||0.003
90875361|NCT03255382|181612482|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|66.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.8|79.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||79.5|53.8|< 0.001
90915151|NCT00396084|181701085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 7. Pooled sputum bacillary load data for patients in the linezolid arms were combined and compared to that of patients in the INH arm.||||0.004
90915152|NCT00396084|181701086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Mean values of EBA Days 0 to 2 for the 3 treatments groups were compared.||||<0.01
90915153|NCT00396084|181701086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Two way comparison of INH against Linezolid once daily using a simultaneous non-parametric procedure.||||<0.01
90875362|NCT03255382|181612483|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|66.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.3|79.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||79.9|53.3|< 0.001
90875363|NCT03255382|181612484|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|66.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.8|79.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||79.5|53.8|< 0.001
90915154|NCT00396084|181701086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mean EBA 0-2 of INH was compared to pooled Linezolid once daily and Linezolid twice daily results.||||<0.01
90875364|NCT03255382|181612485|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|56.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.0|70.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||70.0|43.0|< 0.001
90875365|NCT03255382|181612486|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|64.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.5|77.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||77.2|52.5|< 0.001
90915155|NCT00396084|181701089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||ANOVA|||Mean values EBA Days 2-7 for the 3 treatment groups were compared.||||0.25
90915156|NCT00396084|181701089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||ANOVA|||The rate of fall in sputum cfu for the 3 treatment groups between day 2 and day 7 of monotherapy was estimated by the slope of the linear regression obtained from fitting the 6 sputum cfu values corresponding to days 2 through 7.||||0.42
90915157|NCT00396084|181701089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EBA Days 2-7 for INH was compared to that of the pooled linezolid arms.||||0.14
90915158|NCT00696618|181701129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons.|multi-level|||Nine research participants provided the ability to detect an effect size of 1.25 standard deviation units relative to the mean with 80% power using two-sided, 5% alpha in a paired analysis. The Baseline condition (no intervention) was assigned a value of 1 and geometric mean ratios with 95% confidence intervals for each intervention were calculated relative to baseline.||||<.05
90915159|NCT00696618|181701130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||multi-level|||||||<.05
90915160|NCT00696618|181701131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||mulit-level analysis|||||||<.05
90915161|NCT00028093|181701137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the outcome between the two groups||||0.54
90915162|NCT03473340|181701149|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17697507|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-Value provided is for net change only.||||0.17697507
90915163|NCT03473340|181701150|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77367872|||||||Welch Two Sample t-test|||P-Value provided is for net change only.||||0.77367872
90915164|NCT03473340|181701151|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68595748|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-Value provided is for net change only.||||0.68595748
90915165|NCT03473340|181701152|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.00127634|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.00127634
90915166|NCT03473340|181701153|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.80904544|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.80904544
90915167|NCT02079844|181701154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.232|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7313||0.753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.269|1.733||P-values are from ANOVA with treatment sequence, study period, and treatment as fixed effects and subject nested within treatment sequence as a random effect.|ANOVA|||||1.733|-1.269|0.753
90915168|NCT02079844|181701154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.133|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7417||0.859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.389|1.655||P-values are from ANOVA with treatment sequence, study period, and treatment as fixed effects and subject nested within treatment sequence as a random effect.|ANOVA|||||1.655|-1.389|0.859
90915169|NCT02079844|181701155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.938|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2436||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.614|4.49||P-values are from ANOVA with treatment sequence, study period, and treatment as fixed effects and subject nested within treatment sequence as a random effect.|ANOVA|||||4.490|-0.614|0.131
90915170|NCT02079844|181701155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.377|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2545||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.198|4.951||P-values are from ANOVA with treatment sequence, study period, and treatment as fixed effects and subject nested within treatment sequence as a random effect.|ANOVA|||||4.951|-0.198|0.069
90915171|NCT02079844|181701156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.076|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1757||0.671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.739|0.106||P-values are from ANOVA with treatment sequence, study period, and treatment as fixed effects and subject nested within treatment sequence as a random effect.|ANOVA|||||0.106|-0.739|0.671
90915172|NCT02079844|181701156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.171|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1757||0.345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.193|0.571||P-values are from ANOVA with treatment sequence, study period, and treatment as fixed effects and subject nested within treatment sequence as a random effect.|ANOVA|||||0.571|-1.193|0.345
90915173|NCT01420549|181701171|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority assessment was analyzed by the bilateral confidence interval (95%) for the ratio of the mean LDLfinal/LDLbaseline of the R/E combination, compared to the mean LDLfinal/LDLbaseline of the S/E combination and the bilateral confidence interval (95%) for the difference between the two means of the percentage variation of LDL-C in the treatments (\[(LDLfinal - LDLbaseline)/LDLbaseline))\*100)R+E\] - \[(LDLfinal - LDLbaseline)/LDLbaseline))\*100)S+E\].|Median Difference (Final Values)|-10.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.33||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.94|-3.7|||ANCOVA|Estimates for treatment effect and their 95% confidence intervals were exponentiated to produce estimates of percentage change.|Mean Percentage Change LDL- C (%)|Rosuvastatin + Ezetimibe versus Simvastatin + Ezetimibe||-3.70|-16.94|0.0013
90915174|NCT03394885|181701172|OTHER||Exact Binomial Confidence Interval|83.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|66.0|100.0||||||||100|66|
90915175|NCT03949335|181701194|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
90915176|NCT03949335|181701195|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
90915177|NCT03949335|181701196|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
90915178|NCT03949335|181701197|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority margin equals -0.1|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.031|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.053|-0.01||Success criteria was evaluated using lower confidence interval. No P-Value was calculated.||||||-0.010|-0.053|
90915179|NCT03949335|181701199|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
90915180|NCT00801983|181701242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||GEE|||Subjects were compared across keyboard types - The percentage of subjects with MSD when using the alternative keyboard were compared to the % of subjects with MSD when they were using the typical keyboard||||>.05
90915181|NCT03149991|181701245|SUPERIORITY|The unstructured covariance matrix structure was used to model nesting of observations within persons. Non-significant site interaction effects were removed one at a time. Least squares means estimates of the linear fixed effects model on SDQ change scores, adjusting for baseline covariates was used to test the primary hypothesis via contrast statements.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.46|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Because sample sizes per site varied substantially, we used the Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom method.|degrees of freedom = 44.5; t=-0.74|SDQ total was primary outcome \& Day 14 primary endpoint. Change from baseline was calculated for each person at each follow-up. Change score was the dependent variable in a linear fixed effects model, where a (-)number = less severe depression. For group comparison, treatment was coded as 1 \& placebo as 0, thus a (-)value means treatment doing better. Fixed effects: group(brex v placebo), day(1-28), site(6 sites). All 2-\& 3-way interactions were included, as well as a priori defined covariates.||||0.46
90915182|NCT03149991|181701245|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Degrees of freedom = 41.3; t=2.07.|Secondary Aim: To evaluate the short-term effect of brexpiprazole, as measured by the Symptoms of Depression Questionnaire (SDQ), on Day 2. We used the same model as in Aim 1 to test this hypothesis.||||0.04
90915183|NCT03149991|181701245|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.92|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Degrees of freedom=38.2; t=0.10.|To evaluate the long-term effect of brexpiprazole as measured by the Symptoms of Depression Questionnaire (SDQ) on Day 28. The same model as was used in Aim 1 was used to test this hypothesis.||||0.92
90915184|NCT03149991|181701246|SUPERIORITY||Chi-squared test|0.51||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value was not adjusted, however there were adjustments when using a logistic regression in Statistical Analysis #2.|Chi-squared|||We used a Chi-squared test to assess differences between treatment and control in terms of percent of participants achieving a long-term sustained response, as measured by achieving a 50% or greater reduction on the MADRS on Day 28.||||0.47
91033458|NCT00272779|181952739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-16.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.9|3.1|||95% CI comparison of difference|||Mean changes in CD4 cell counts from baseline at week 48 were compared between treatment regimens with 95% CIs based on stratified normal approximations and observed values.||3.1|-35.9|
90915185|NCT03149991|181701246|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.83||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|6.44|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for a priori defined covariates also included in Aim 1.||Logistic regression was used to assess a difference in 50% reduction on the MADRS on Day 28 between groups.||6.44|0.52|0.35
90915186|NCT03149991|181701247|SUPERIORITY|We used contrast tests comparing brexpiprazole and placebo on the a priori specified days of interest.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.59||0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||Because tests were conducted for secondary outcomes, p-values were not corrected for multiple testing.|Mixed Models Analysis||degrees of freedom = 41.0, t=2.13.|The same model building approach as used for the primary outcome variable was used for the secondary outcome variables. As per the primary outcome variable, the change scores (i.e., compared to baseline) were the dependent variables of interest. For each secondary outcome variable, non-significant site interaction effects were removed one at a time. This analysis is for the MADRS change scores, reporting here information for Day 2.||||0.04
90875366|NCT03255382|181612487|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|1.7||||0.392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|5.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||5.4|-2.1|0.392
90875367|NCT03255382|181612488|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|36.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.8|49.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||49.3|23.8|< 0.001
90875368|NCT03255382|181612489|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|56.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.2|70.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||70.0|43.2|< 0.001
90875369|NCT03255382|181612490|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|64.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.5|78.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||78.3|51.5|< 0.001
90875370|NCT03255382|181612491|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|66.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.3|79.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||79.8|53.3|< 0.001
90875371|NCT03255382|181612492|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|0.0||||0.991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|2.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||2.1|-2.0|0.991
90875372|NCT03255382|181612493|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|3.3||||0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|9.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||9.8|-3.2|0.323
90875373|NCT03255382|181612494|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|21.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.4|32.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||32.6|10.4|< 0.001
90875374|NCT03255382|181612495|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|33.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.7|45.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||45.5|20.7|< 0.001
90875375|NCT03255382|181612496|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|41.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.3|55.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||55.3|27.3|< 0.001
90875376|NCT03255382|181612497|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|44.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.9|58.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||58.5|30.9|< 0.001
90875377|NCT03255382|181612498|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.825|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.82|-5.56|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with strata (phototherapy \[yes/no\]), baseline value, and the treatment in this model.||-5.56|-8.82|< 0.001
90915187|NCT03149991|181701247|SUPERIORITY|We used contrast tests comparing brexpiprazole and placebo on the a priori specified days of interest.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.94||0.73|TWO_SIDED|||||Because these tests were conducted for secondary outcomes, p-values were not corrected for multiple testing.|Mixed Models Analysis||df = 44.2, t=-0.35|The same model building approach as used for the primary outcome variable was used for the secondary outcome variables. As per the primary outcome variable, the change scores (i.e., compared to baseline) were the dependent variables of interest. For each secondary outcome variable, non-significant site interaction effects were removed one at a time. This analysis is for the MADRS change scores, reporting here information for Day 14.||||0.73
90875378|NCT03255382|181612499|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.936|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.43|-7.72|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with strata (phototherapy \[yes/no\]), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||-7.72|-11.43|< 0.001
90875379|NCT03255382|181612500|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-8.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.972|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.72|-6.87|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with strata (phototherapy \[yes/no\]), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||-6.87|-10.72|< 0.001
90875380|NCT03255382|181612501|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.958|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.68|-5.88|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with strata (phototherapy \[yes/no\]), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||-5.88|-9.68|< 0.001
90875381|NCT03255382|181612502|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.101|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.07|-5.71|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with strata (phototherapy \[yes/no\]), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||-5.71|-10.07|< 0.001
90875382|NCT03255382|181612503|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-8.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.175|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.71|-6.06|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with strata (phototherapy \[yes/no\]), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||-6.06|-10.71|< 0.001
90875383|NCT03255382|181612504|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|29.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.1|42.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||42.4|17.1|< 0.001
90875384|NCT03255382|181612505|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|66.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.4|80.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||80.0|53.4|< 0.001
90875385|NCT03255382|181612506|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|56.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.7|70.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||70.8|42.7|< 0.001
90875386|NCT03255382|181612507|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|59.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.3|73.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||73.6|46.3|< 0.001
90875387|NCT03255382|181612508|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|44.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.8|59.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||59.1|30.8|< 0.001
90875388|NCT03255382|181612509|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|55.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.2|68.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||68.8|41.2|< 0.001
90875389|NCT03255382|181612510|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|1.7||||0.392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|5.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||5.4|-2.1|0.392
90940517|NCT01177137|181760810|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.78||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.025 to account for two comparisons (1) TRT versus the Standard of Care and (2) Partial TRT versus the Standard of Care|repeated measures GEE model||Adjusted for baseline THI value, clinic, visit, age, gender, baseline Positive and Negative Affect Schedule and State Trait Anxiety Inventory scores, with multiple imputation|||1.78|0.55|0.30
90875390|NCT03255382|181612511|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|8.4||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|16.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||16.7|0.1|0.048
90875391|NCT03255382|181612512|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|18.3||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.1|29.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||29.5|7.1|0.001
90875392|NCT03255382|181612513|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|33.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.2|45.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||45.9|20.2|< 0.001
90875393|NCT03255382|181612514|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|41.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.3|55.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||55.3|27.3|< 0.001
90875394|NCT03255382|181612515|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|46.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.6|60.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||60.1|32.6|< 0.001
90875395|NCT03255382|181612516|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|19.8||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.6|31.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||31.9|7.6|0.001
90875396|NCT03255382|181612517|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|38.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.0|51.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||51.5|25.0|< 0.001
90875397|NCT03255382|181612518|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|-2.0|||van Elteren test|||P-values were calculated by stratified van Elteren test.||-2.0|-4.5|< 0.001
90875398|NCT03255382|181612519|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|-2.7|||van Elteren test|||P-values were calculated by stratified van Elteren test.||-2.7|-5.1|< 0.001
90875399|NCT03255382|181612520|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.146|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.764|1.528|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with strata (phototherapy \[yes/no\]), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||1.528|0.764|< 0.001
90875400|NCT03255382|181612521|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.936|1.704|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with strata (phototherapy \[yes/no\]), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||1.704|0.936|< 0.001
90875401|NCT03255382|181612522|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|-1.1|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with strata (phototherapy \[yes/no\]), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||-1.1|-3.6|< 0.001
90875402|NCT03255382|181612523|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|-1.6|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with strata (phototherapy \[yes/no\]), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||-1.6|-4.3|< 0.001
90875403|NCT03255382|181612524|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.307||0.352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.32|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with strata (phototherapy \[yes/no\]), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||0.32|-0.90|0.352
90875404|NCT03255382|181612525|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.296||0.315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.29|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with strata (phototherapy \[yes/no\]), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||0.29|-0.88|0.315
90875405|NCT03255382|181612526|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|-2.7|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with strata (phototherapy \[yes/no\]), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||-2.7|-6.9|< 0.001
90875406|NCT03255382|181612527|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.64|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|-6.1|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with strata (phototherapy \[yes/no\]), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||-6.1|-12.6|< 0.001
90875407|NCT03255382|181612528|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-10.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.51|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|-7.2|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with strata (phototherapy \[yes/no\]), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||-7.2|-13.2|< 0.001
90875408|NCT03255382|181612529|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.51|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|-6.8|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with strata (phototherapy \[yes/no\]), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||-6.8|-12.8|< 0.001
90875409|NCT03255382|181612530|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.39|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|-6.8|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with strata (phototherapy \[yes/no\]), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||-6.8|-12.4|< 0.001
90875410|NCT03255382|181612531|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-10.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.47|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|-7.1|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with strata (phototherapy \[yes/no\]), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||-7.1|-12.9|< 0.001
90875411|NCT03255382|181612532|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|4.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.385||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.74|7.23|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with strata (phototherapy \[yes/no\]), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||7.23|1.74|0.002
90875412|NCT03255382|181612533|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|4.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.322|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.01|7.25|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with strata (phototherapy \[yes/no\]), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||7.25|2.01|< 0.001
90875413|NCT03255382|181612534|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|6.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.787|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.11|10.2|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with strata (phototherapy \[yes/no\]), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||10.20|3.11|< 0.001
90875414|NCT03255382|181612535|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|7.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.784|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.31|11.38|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with strata (phototherapy \[yes/no\]), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||11.38|4.31|< 0.001
90875415|NCT03255382|181612536|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.7|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with strata (phototherapy \[yes/no\]), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||-0.7|-1.2|< 0.001
90875416|NCT03255382|181612537|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.8|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with strata (phototherapy \[yes/no\]), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||-0.8|-1.3|< 0.001
90915188|NCT03149991|181701247|SUPERIORITY|We used contrast tests comparing brexpiprazole and placebo on the a priori specified days of interest.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.16||0.37|TWO_SIDED|||||Because these tests were conducted for secondary outcomes, p-values were not corrected for multiple testing.|Mixed Models Analysis||df =44.8, t=-0.91|The same model building approach as used for the primary outcome variable was used for the secondary outcome variables. As per the primary outcome variable, the change scores (i.e., compared to baseline) were the dependent variables of interest. For each secondary outcome variable, non-significant site interaction effects were removed one at a time. This analysis is for the MADRS change scores, reporting here information for Day 28.||||0.37
90915189|NCT03149991|181701247|SUPERIORITY|We used contrast tests comparing brexpiprazole and placebo on the a priori specified days of interest.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.06|TWO_SIDED|||||Because these tests were conducted for secondary outcomes, p-values were not corrected for multiple testing.|Mixed Models Analysis||degrees of freedom = 40.3, t=1.94.|The same model building approach as used for the primary outcome variable was used for the secondary outcome variables. As per the primary outcome variable, the change scores (i.e., compared to baseline) were the dependent variables of interest. For each secondary outcome variable, non-significant site interaction effects were removed one at a time. This analysis is for the HAMD6 change scores, reporting here information for Day 2.||||0.06
90915190|NCT03149991|181701247|SUPERIORITY|We used contrast tests comparing brexpiprazole and placebo on the a priori specified days of interest.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06||0.83|TWO_SIDED|||||Because these tests were conducted for secondary outcomes, p-values were not corrected for multiple testing.|Mixed Models Analysis||df = 44.2, t=-0.22|The same model building approach as used for the primary outcome variable was used for the secondary outcome variables. As per the primary outcome variable, the change scores (i.e., compared to baseline) were the dependent variables of interest. For each secondary outcome variable, non-significant site interaction effects were removed one at a time. This analysis is for the HAMD6 change scores, reporting here information for Day 14.||||0.83
90915191|NCT03149991|181701247|SUPERIORITY|We used contrast tests comparing brexpiprazole and placebo on the a priori specified days of interest.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.52|TWO_SIDED|||||Because these tests were conducted for secondary outcomes, p-values were not corrected for multiple testing.|Mixed Models Analysis||df =44.0, t=-0.64|The same model building approach as used for the primary outcome variable was used for the secondary outcome variables. As per the primary outcome variable, the change scores (i.e., compared to baseline) were the dependent variables of interest. For each secondary outcome variable, non-significant site interaction effects were removed one at a time. This analysis is for the HAMD6 change scores, reporting here information for Day 28.||||0.52
90915192|NCT03149991|181701247|SUPERIORITY|We used contrast tests comparing brexpiprazole and placebo on the a priori specified days of interest.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.11|TWO_SIDED|||||Because these tests were conducted for secondary outcomes, p-values were not corrected for multiple testing.|Mixed Models Analysis||df = 31.0, t=1.67|The same model building approach as used for the primary outcome variable was used for the secondary outcome variables. As per the primary outcome variable, the change scores (i.e., compared to baseline) were the dependent variables of interest. For each secondary outcome variable, non-significant site interaction effects were removed one at a time. This analysis is for the CGI-S change scores, reporting here information for Day 2.||||0.11
90915193|NCT03149991|181701247|SUPERIORITY|We used contrast tests comparing brexpiprazole and placebo on the a priori specified days of interest.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.98|TWO_SIDED|||||Because these tests were conducted for secondary outcomes, p-values were not corrected for multiple testing.|Mixed Models Analysis||df=41.1, t=-0.03|The same model building approach as used for the primary outcome variable was used for the secondary outcome variables. As per the primary outcome variable, the change scores (i.e., compared to baseline) were the dependent variables of interest. For each secondary outcome variable, non-significant site interaction effects were removed one at a time. This analysis is for the CGI-S change scores, reporting here information for Day 14.||||0.98
90875417|NCT03255382|181612538|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-0.9|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with strata (phototherapy \[yes/no\]), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||-0.9|-3.2|< 0.001
90875418|NCT03255382|181612539|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-1.1|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with strata (phototherapy \[yes/no\]), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||-1.1|-3.5|< 0.001
90875419|NCT03255382|181612540|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|-1.9|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with strata (phototherapy \[yes/no\]), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||-1.9|-4.3|< 0.001
90875420|NCT03255382|181612541|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|-1.8|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with strata (phototherapy \[yes/no\]), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||-1.8|-4.4|< 0.001
90875421|NCT03255382|181612542|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|38.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.6|53.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||53.1|23.6|< 0.001
90875422|NCT03255382|181612543|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|56.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.7|70.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||70.9|42.7|< 0.001
90875423|NCT03255382|181612544|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|-5.1|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with prior phototherapy (yes/no), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||-5.1|-9.6|< 0.001
90875424|NCT03255382|181612545|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|-5.5|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with strata (phototherapy \[yes/no\]), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||-5.5|-9.7|< 0.001
90875425|NCT03255382|181612546|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.23|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|-4.1|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with strata (phototherapy \[yes/no\]), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||-4.1|-9.0|< 0.001
90875426|NCT03255382|181612547|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-8.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.53|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|-5.0|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with strata (phototherapy \[yes/no\]), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||-5.0|-11.1|< 0.001
90875427|NCT03255382|181612548|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.087|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0215|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.045|0.13|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with strata (phototherapy \[yes/no\]), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||0.130|0.045|< 0.001
90875428|NCT03255382|181612549|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.059|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0186||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.022|0.096|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with strata (phototherapy \[yes/no\]), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||0.096|0.022|0.002
90875429|NCT03255382|181612550|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|14.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.4|20.5|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with strata (phototherapy \[yes/no\]), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||20.5|9.4|< 0.001
90875430|NCT03255382|181612551|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|16.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.73|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.4|22.2|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with strata (phototherapy \[yes/no\]), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||22.2|11.4|< 0.001
90875431|NCT03255382|181612552|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-11.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.64|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|-6.2|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with strata (phototherapy \[yes/no\]), baseline value, and the treatment in this model.||-6.2|-16.6|< 0.001
90875432|NCT03255382|181612553|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-13.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.1|-8.4|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with strata (phototherapy \[yes/no\]), baseline value, and the treatment in this model.||-8.4|-19.1|< 0.001
90875433|NCT03255382|181612554|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-17.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.75|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.8|-9.8|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with strata (phototherapy \[yes/no\]), baseline value, and the treatment in this model.||-9.8|-24.8|< 0.001
90875434|NCT03255382|181612555|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-21.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.66|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.8|-14.2|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with strata (phototherapy \[yes/no\]), baseline value, and the treatment in this model.||-14.2|-28.8|< 0.001
90915194|NCT03149991|181701247|SUPERIORITY|We used contrast tests comparing brexpiprazole and placebo on the a priori specified days of interest.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.45|TWO_SIDED|||||Because these tests were conducted for secondary outcomes, p-values were not corrected for multiple testing.|Mixed Models Analysis||df=46.0, t=-0.76|The same model building approach as used for the primary outcome variable was used for the secondary outcome variables. As per the primary outcome variable, the change scores (i.e., compared to baseline) were the dependent variables of interest. For each secondary outcome variable, non-significant site interaction effects were removed one at a time. This analysis is for the CGI-S change scores, reporting here information for Day 28.||||0.45
90915195|NCT03149991|181701247|SUPERIORITY|We used contrast tests comparing brexpiprazole and placebo on the a priori specified days of interest. This model contains an interaction effect with site, because the SITE\*DRUG effect was significant (p=0.03).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||Because these tests were conducted for secondary outcomes, p-values were not corrected for multiple testing.|Mixed Models Analysis||df=49.2, t=2.39;|The same model building approach as used for the primary outcome variable was used for the secondary outcome variables. As per the primary outcome variable, the change scores (i.e., compared to baseline) were the dependent variables of interest. For each secondary outcome variable, non-significant site interaction effects were removed one at a time. This analysis is for the CGI-I change scores, reporting here information for Day 2.||||0.02
90875435|NCT00735787|181612590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||The primary null hypothesis for this study was that there was no difference in the proportion of subjects that achieved PGA clear or almost clear at Week 16 between the adalimumab and placebo groups. Analysis was done using a two-sided Fisher's exact test at alpha level=0.05.||||0.014
90875436|NCT00624052|181612623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||||95.0|0.47|1.66|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.66|0.47|
90875437|NCT00624052|181612623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.28||||||95.0|0.14|0.59|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.59|0.14|
90875438|NCT00624052|181612623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.24||||||95.0|0.12|0.48|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.48|0.12|
90875439|NCT00624052|181612623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.32||||||95.0|0.17|0.59|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.59|0.17|
90875440|NCT00624052|181612623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.27||||||95.0|0.15|0.49|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.49|0.15|
90875441|NCT00624052|181612623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||||95.0|0.42|1.68|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.68|0.42|
90875442|NCT01474876|181612651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0164|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Treatment response and participant age||||0.0164
91077959|NCT01172808|182041202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.202|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.318|-0.085|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R2.5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||-0.085|-0.318|0.0007
90875443|NCT01474876|181612651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Treatment response and presence of enthesitis at Visit 0||||0.0200
90875444|NCT01474876|181612651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0867|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Treatment response and BASDAI score at Visit 0||||0.0867
90875445|NCT01474876|181612651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Remission and participant age||||0.0001
90875446|NCT01474876|181612651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0734|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Remission and positive tuberculosis screening at Visit 0||||0.0734
90875447|NCT01474876|181612651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0438|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Remission and male gender||||0.0438
90875448|NCT01474876|181612651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.503|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Remission and BASDAI score at Visit 0||||0.5030
90875449|NCT01474876|181612660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0576|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Treatment response and presence of enthesitis at Visit 0||||0.0576
90875450|NCT01474876|181612660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1739|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Treatment response and BASDAI score at Visit 0||||0.1739
90875451|NCT01474876|181612660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0733|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Remission and Psoriasis at Visit 0||||0.0733
90875452|NCT01474876|181612660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Remission and BASDAI at Visit 0||||0.5000
90875453|NCT04035161|181612685|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority criterion with a 0.5 log10 margin will be implemented for the average treatment effect (ATE) of the Investigational Product compared to the Active Control (i.e., the upper two-sided 95% confidence bound of the post-product application bacterial load corrected for pre-product application bacterial load of the Investigational Product - Active Control should be less than 0.5 log10).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.16||||||"Abdomen at 10 minutes post-product application.~Average treatment effect (ATE) of the Investigational Product compared to the Active Control on the abdomen at 10 minutes post-product application. ATE was calculated using a linear regression model for each body site used for primary analysis. In the model, the response was the post-treatment log10 bacterial counts and predictors were the treatment effect as a fixed effect and the pre-treatment log10 bacterial counts as a covariate."||0.16|-0.15|
90875454|NCT04035161|181612685|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority criterion with a 0.5 log10 margin will be implemented for the average treatment effect (ATE) of the Investigational Product compared to the Active Control (i.e., the upper two-sided 95% confidence bound of the post-product application bacterial load corrected for pre-product application bacterial load of the Investigational Product - Active Control should be less than 0.5 log10).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.05||||||"Groin at 10 minutes post-product application.~Average treatment effect (ATE) of the Investigational Product compared to the Active Control on the groin at 10 minutes post-product application. ATE was calculated using a linear regression model for each body site used for primary analysis. In the model, the response was the post-treatment log10 bacterial counts and predictors were the treatment effect as a fixed effect and the pre-treatment log10 bacterial counts as a covariate."||-0.05|-0.43|
90875455|NCT04035161|181612685|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|1.97||||||"Abdomen at 10 minutes post-product application.~Average treatment effect (ATE) of the Investigational Product compared to the Negative Control on the abdomen at 10 minutes post-product application. ATE was calculated using a linear regression model for each body site used for primary analysis. In the model, the response was the post-treatment log10 bacterial counts and predictors were the treatment effect as a fixed effect and the pre-treatment log10 bacterial counts as a covariate."||1.97|1.66|
90875456|NCT04035161|181612685|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.19|2.56||||||"Groin at 10 minutes post-product application.~Average treatment effect (ATE) of the Investigational Product compared to the Negative Control on the groin at 10 minutes post-product application. ATE was calculated using a linear regression model for each body site used for primary analysis. In the model, the response was the post-treatment log10 bacterial counts and predictors were the treatment effect as a fixed effect and the pre-treatment log10 bacterial counts as a covariate."||2.56|2.19|
90875457|NCT04035161|181612688|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority criterion with a 0.5 log10 margin will be implemented for the average treatment effect (ATE) of the Investigational Product compared to the Active Control (i.e., the upper two-sided 95% confidence bound of the post-product application bacterial load corrected for pre-product application bacterial load of the Investigational Product - Active Control should be less than 0.5 log10).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.23||||||"Abdomen at 30 seconds post-product application.~Average treatment effect (ATE) of the Investigational Product compared to the Active Control on the abdomen at 30 seconds post-product application. ATE was calculated using a linear regression model for each body site used for primary analysis. In the model, the response was the post-treatment log10 bacterial counts and predictors were the treatment effect as a fixed effect and the pre-treatment log10 bacterial counts as a covariate."||0.23|-0.08|
90875458|NCT04035161|181612688|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.84|2.15||||||"Abdomen at 30 seconds post-product application.~Average treatment effect (ATE) of the Investigational Product compared to the Negative Control on the abdomen at 30 seconds post-product application. ATE was calculated using a linear regression model for each body site used for primary analysis. In the model, the response was the post-treatment log10 bacterial counts and predictors were the treatment effect as a fixed effect and the pre-treatment log10 bacterial counts as a covariate."||2.15|1.84|
90915196|NCT03149991|181701247|SUPERIORITY|We used contrast tests comparing brexpiprazole and placebo on the a priori specified days of interest. This model contains an interaction effect with site, because the SITE\*DRUG effect was significant (p=0.03).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.07|TWO_SIDED|||||Because these tests were conducted for secondary outcomes, p-values were not corrected for multiple testing.|Mixed Models Analysis||df=56.8, t=1.85|The same model building approach as used for the primary outcome variable was used for the secondary outcome variables. As per the primary outcome variable, the change scores (i.e., compared to baseline) were the dependent variables of interest. For each secondary outcome variable, non-significant site interaction effects were removed one at a time. This analysis is for the CGI-I change scores, reporting here information for Day 14.||||0.07
90915197|NCT03149991|181701247|SUPERIORITY|We used contrast tests comparing brexpiprazole and placebo on the a priori specified days of interest. This model contains an interaction effect with site, because the SITE\*DRUG effect was significant (p=0.03).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.37|TWO_SIDED|||||Because these tests were conducted for secondary outcomes, p-values were not corrected for multiple testing.|Mixed Models Analysis||df=50.5, t=0.91|The same model building approach as used for the primary outcome variable was used for the secondary outcome variables. As per the primary outcome variable, the change scores (i.e., compared to baseline) were the dependent variables of interest. For each secondary outcome variable, non-significant site interaction effects were removed one at a time. This analysis is for the CGI-I change scores, reporting here information for Day 28.||||0.37
90915198|NCT03149991|181701251|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis was that there would be no group differences in terms of occurrence of abnormal ECGs.|Chi-squared test|0.28||||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis was to assess group differences (drug vs. placebo) in terms of number of abnormal ECGs out of total ECGs assessed.||||0.60
90915199|NCT03149991|181701251|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis was that there would be no group differences in number/percentage of people with an abnormal ECG at baseline.|Chi-squared test|0.94||||0.33|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis was to assess for group differences (drug vs. placebo) in number/percentage of people with an abnormal ECG at baseline.||||0.33
90915200|NCT03149991|181701251|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis was that there would be no group differences in number/percentage of people with an abnormal ECG at Visit 4.|Chi-squared test|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis was to assess for group differences (drug vs. placebo) in number/percentage of people with an abnormal ECG at Visit 4.||||1.00
90915201|NCT03149991|181701251|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis was that there would be no group differences in number/percentage of people with an abnormal ECG at Visit 5.|Chi-squared test|0.08||||0.78|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis was to assess for group differences (drug vs. placebo) in number/percentage of people with an abnormal ECG at Visit 5.||||0.78
90915202|NCT03149991|181701251|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis was that there would be no group differences in number/percentage of people with an abnormal ECG at Visit 6.|Chi-squared test|0.02||||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis was to assess for group differences (drug vs. placebo) in number/percentage of people with an abnormal ECG at Visit 6.||||0.90
90915203|NCT03149991|181701251|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis was that there would be no group differences in number/percentage of people with an abnormal ECG at Visit 7.|Chi-squared test|0.63||||0.43|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis was to assess for group differences (drug vs. placebo) in number/percentage of people with an abnormal ECG at Visit 7.||||0.43
90915204|NCT03149991|181701251|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis was that there would be no group differences in number/percentage of people with an abnormal ECG at Visit 9.|Chi-squared test|0.09||||0.76|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis was to assess for group differences (drug vs. placebo) in number/percentage of people with an abnormal ECG at Visit 9.||||0.76
90915205|NCT03149991|181701253|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis was that there would be no group differences in number of participants reporting adverse events.|Chi-squared test|0.009||||0.92|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis assessed group differences (drug vs. placebo) in terms of number of participants reporting adverse events.||||0.92
90915206|NCT03149991|181701254|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis was that there would be no difference between the groups in terms of mean number of adverse events per person, among those who reported any adverse events.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24||||0.81|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This analysis assessed group differences (drug vs. placebo) in terms of mean number of adverse events per person, among those who reported any adverse events.||||0.81
90915207|NCT03149991|181701255|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis was that there would be no group differences in occurrence of suicidal ideation.|Chi-squared test|0.43||||0.51|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis was to compare by group (drug vs. placebo) the occurrence of suicidal ideation (endorsement of item 1 on the CHRT) throughout the trial.||||0.51
90915208|NCT03149991|181701255|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis was that there would be no group differences in occurrence of suicidal ideation.|Chi-squared|2.85||||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis was to compare by group (drug vs. placebo) the occurrence of suicidal ideation (endorsement of item 1 on the CHRT) at Screening.||||0.09
90915209|NCT03149991|181701255|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis was that there would be no group differences in occurrence of suicidal ideation.|Chi-squared|0.004||||0.95|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis was to compare by group (drug vs. placebo) the occurrence of suicidal ideation (endorsement of item 1 on the CHRT) at Baseline.||||0.95
90915210|NCT03149991|181701255|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis was that there would be no group differences in occurrence of suicidal ideation.|Chi-squared|0.005||||0.94|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis was to compare by group (drug vs. placebo) the occurrence of suicidal ideation (endorsement of item 1 on the CHRT) on Day 1.||||0.94
90915211|NCT03149991|181701255|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis was that there would be no group differences in occurrence of suicidal ideation.|Chi-squared|1.97||||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis was to compare by group (drug vs. placebo) the occurrence of suicidal ideation (endorsement of item 1 on the CHRT) on Day 2.||||0.16
90915212|NCT03149991|181701255|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis was that there would be no group differences in occurrence of suicidal ideation.|Chi-squared|0.44||||0.51|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis was to compare by group (drug vs. placebo) the occurrence of suicidal ideation (endorsement of item 1 on the CHRT) on Day 5.||||0.51
90915213|NCT03149991|181701255|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis was that there would be no group differences in occurrence of suicidal ideation.|Chi-squared|0.94||||0.33|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis was to compare by group (drug vs. placebo) the occurrence of suicidal ideation (endorsement of item 1 on the CHRT) on Day 8.||||0.33
90915214|NCT03149991|181701255|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis was that there would be no group differences in occurrence of suicidal ideation.|Chi-squared|0.003||||0.96|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis was to compare by group (drug vs. placebo) the occurrence of suicidal ideation (endorsement of item 1 on the CHRT) on Day 11.||||0.96
90915215|NCT03149991|181701255|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis was that there would be no group differences in occurrence of suicidal ideation.|Chi-squared|0.5||||0.48|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis was to compare by group (drug vs. placebo) the occurrence of suicidal ideation (endorsement of item 1 on the CHRT) on Day 14.||||0.48
90915216|NCT03149991|181701255|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis was that there would be no group differences in occurrence of suicidal ideation.|Chi-squared|0.67||||0.41|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis was to compare by group (drug vs. placebo) the occurrence of suicidal ideation (endorsement of item 1 on the CHRT) on Day 17.||||0.41
90915217|NCT03149991|181701255|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis was that there would be no group differences in occurrence of suicidal ideation.|Chi-squared|0.17||||0.68|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis was to compare by group (drug vs. placebo) the occurrence of suicidal ideation (endorsement of item 1 on the CHRT) on Day 21.||||0.68
90915218|NCT03149991|181701255|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis was that there would be no group differences in occurrence of suicidal ideation.|Chi-squared|0.67||||0.41|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis was to compare by group (drug vs. placebo) the occurrence of suicidal ideation (endorsement of item 1 on the CHRT) on Day 23.||||0.41
90915219|NCT03149991|181701255|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis was that there would be no group differences in occurrence of suicidal ideation.|Chi-squared|0.67||||0.41|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis was to compare by group (drug vs. placebo) the occurrence of suicidal ideation (endorsement of item 1 on the CHRT) on Day 28.||||0.41
90915220|NCT03122886|181701262|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|6.37|||Log Rank|||||6.37|0.12|0.90
90915221|NCT04524390|181701294|SUPERIORITY||Least-Square mean|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.182||0.7419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.76|1.97|||MMRM|||||1.97|-2.76|0.7419
90915222|NCT04524390|181701295|SUPERIORITY||Least-Square mean|-45.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|35.398||0.2002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-116.86|25.05|||MMRM|||||25.05|-116.86|0.2002
90915223|NCT04524390|181701296|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8412|||||||Barnard's exact test|||||||0.8412
90915224|NCT04524390|181701297|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999|||||||Barnard's exact test|||||||> 0.9999
90915225|NCT04524390|181701298|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6658|||||||Barnard's exact test|||||||0.6658
90915226|NCT04524390|181701299|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6236|||||||Barnard's exact test|||||||0.6236
90915227|NCT04524390|181701300|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6658|||||||Barnard's exact test|||||||0.6658
90915228|NCT04524390|181701301|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6659|||||||Barnard's exact test|||||||0.6659
90915229|NCT01693120|181701320|SUPERIORITY||rate|1.6||||0.175|ONE_SIDED|95.0||4.9|||exact binomial test|||The null hypothesis was that the procedure or device related stroke rate within 30-days of a Phased RF ablation procedure was 3.5% or greater. The alternative hypothesis was that this rate was less than 3.5%. A sample size of 300 subjects provided 90% power to test the null hypothesis assuming the true stroke rate was 1.0% with a one-sided type I error rate of 0.05||4.9||0.175
90915230|NCT01693120|181701321|OTHER|The goal of the analysis was to compute a two-sided 95% confidence interval around the 6-month effectiveness rate. There was no pre-specified hypothesis.|rate|52.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.1|62.1||||||||62.1|43.1|
90915231|NCT01693120|181701322|OTHER|There was no prespecified hypothesis tested.|rate|90.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|84.3|95.1||||||There was no prespecified hypothesis tested.||95.1|84.3|
90915232|NCT01693120|181701323|OTHER|There was no pre-specified hypothesis to test|rate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|6.1||||||There was no pre-specified hypothesis to test||6.1|0|
90915233|NCT04723394|181701362|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk Reduction (100*[1-RR])|50.38||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.38|71.25|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH was stratified by randomization factors||AZD7442 vs Placebo||71.25|14.38|0.010
90915234|NCT04723394|181701363|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk Reduction (100*[1-RR])|49.24||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.72|69.79|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH was stratified by randomization factors||AZD7442 vs Placebo||69.79|14.72|0.009
90915235|NCT00077675|181701381|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size was selected on the basis of clinical judgment and was deemed adequate to provide clinically meaningful descriptive results consistent with study objectives. This sample size was estimated to provide 91% power to test telavancin's non-inferiority to vancomycin with respect to clinical response using a non-inferiority margin of 20%||||||0.5318|||||||2-sided 95% confidence interval calculat|||95% Confidence Interval: -0.0527 to 0.1102 No estimated value Parameter that was estimated: Risk Difference||||0.5318
90915236|NCT04532528|181701398|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.||||||0.9701|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.9701
90915237|NCT04532528|181701399|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.||||||0.7376|||||||Chi-squared|||At 3 months only||||0.7376
90915238|NCT04532528|181701399|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.||||||0.1356|||||||Chi-squared|||At 6 months only||||0.1356
90915239|NCT04532528|181701399|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.||||||0.68|||||||Chi-squared|||At 9 months only||||0.6800
90915240|NCT04532528|181701400|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.||||||0.5777|||||||Chi-squared|||At 3 months only||||0.5777
90915241|NCT04532528|181701400|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.||||||0.3313|||||||Chi-squared|||At 6 months only||||0.3313
90875459|NCT03479307|181612692|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.013|-0.407|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Difference (95% CI): Bilastine Ophthalmic Solution 0.6% arm minus Vehicle of Bilastine Ophthalmic Solution arm at Visit 4b (including all time points).||-0.407|-1.013|< 0.0001
90875460|NCT03479307|181612692|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.167|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.439|-0.895|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Difference (95% CI): Bilastine Ophthalmic Solution 0.6% arm minus Vehicle of Bilastine Ophthalmic Solution arm at Visit 5 (including all time points).||-0.895|-1.439|< 0.0001
90875461|NCT03479307|181612692|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.413|-0.868|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Difference (95% CI): Ketotifen Ophthalmic Solution 0.025% (Zaditen) arm minus Vehicle of Bilastine Ophthalmic Solution arm at Visit 5 (including all time points).||-0.868|-1.413|< 0.0001
90875462|NCT03479307|181612692|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of 0.40|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.009||||0.0007|ONE_SIDED|97.5||0.235|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Difference (one-sided, 97.5% CI): Bilastine Ophthalmic Solution 0.6% arm minus Ketotiphen Ophthalmic Solution 0.025% (Zaditen) arm at Visit 5, 3 minutes Post-CAC (non-inferiority test).||0.235||0.0007
90875463|NCT03479307|181612692|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of 0.40|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.077||||0.0002|ONE_SIDED|97.5||0.175|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Difference (one-sided, 97.5% CI): Bilastine Ophthalmic Solution 0.6% arm minus Ketotiphen Ophthalmic Solution 0.025% (Zaditen) arm at Visit 5, 5 minutes Post-CAC (non-inferiority test).||0.175||0.0002
90915242|NCT04532528|181701400|OTHER|No formal hypotheses was tested.||||||0.5697|||||||Chi-squared|||At 9 months only||||0.5697
90915243|NCT04532528|181701400|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.||||||0.5135|||||||Chi-squared|||At 12 months only||||0.5135
90915244|NCT04532528|181701401|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.||||||0.8509|||||||Chi-squared|||At 3 months only||||0.8509
90875464|NCT03479307|181612692|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of 0.40|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.159|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|97.5||0.101|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Difference (one-sided, 97.5% CI): Bilastine Ophthalmic Solution 0.6% arm minus Ketotiphen Ophthalmic Solution 0.025% (Zaditen) arm at Visit 5, 7 minutes Post-CAC (non-inferiority test).||0.101||< 0.0001
90875465|NCT00657241|181612725|SUPERIORITY|All hemodynamic variables are continuous and all participants received both treatments, so paired-t analysis could be used. While paired t-tests do not necessarily require a power and sample size analysis, we estimated that 30 subjects were sufficient to detect an 8% difference in CTTI between comparators at p\<0.05 with a conservatively estimated power of 0.8.|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis performed on treatment groups (valsartan or carvedilol CR) at end of treatment period (4 weeks), not on the randomization arms in the crossover design (which controlled for carryover effects of the prior treatment arm).||||<0.05
90875466|NCT00657241|181612727|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||Statistical analysis performed on treatment groups (valsartan or carvedilol CR) at end of treatment period (4 weeks), not on the randomization arms in the crossover design (which controlled for carryover effects of the prior treatment arm).||||0.05
90875467|NCT00657241|181612728|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Statistical analysis performed on treatment groups (valsartan or carvedilol CR) at end of treatment period (4 weeks), not on the randomization arms in the crossover design (which controlled for carryover effects of the prior treatment arm).||||0.05
90875468|NCT00657241|181612729|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||Statistical analysis performed on treatment groups (valsartan or carvedilol CR) at end of treatment period (4 weeks), not on the randomization arms in the crossover design (which controlled for carryover effects of the prior treatment arm).||||0.05
90875469|NCT00657241|181612730|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||Statistical analysis performed on treatment groups (valsartan or carvedilol CR) at end of treatment period (4 weeks), not on the randomization arms in the crossover design (which controlled for carryover effects of the prior treatment arm).||||0.05
90915245|NCT04532528|181701401|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.||||||0.3302|||||||Chi-squared|||At 6 months only||||0.3302
90915246|NCT04532528|181701401|OTHER|No formal hypotheses was tested.||||||0.9005|||||||Chi-squared|||At 9 months only||||0.9005
90915247|NCT04532528|181701401|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.||||||0.2789|||||||Chi-squared|||At 12 months only||||0.2789
90915248|NCT04532528|181701402|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.||||||0.667|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||At 3 months only||||0.6670
90875470|NCT02113956|181612737|SUPERIORITY||Incident Rate Ratio (IRR)|1.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.57|||Poisson regression||Adjusted for age and baseline number of condomless sex acts|||2.57|0.79|
90875471|NCT02113956|181612738|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.12|||Regression, Logistic||||Adjusted for age and baseline rate of abstinence|1.12|0.36|
90875472|NCT02113956|181612739|SUPERIORITY||Incident Rate Ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.02|||Poisson||||Adjusted for age and baseline number of condomless sex acts|2.02|0.45|
90875473|NCT02113956|181612740|SUPERIORITY||Incident Rate Ratio (IRR)|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|3.18|||Poisson||||Adjusted for age and baseline number of condomless sex acts|3.18|0.12|
90875474|NCT02113956|181612741|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.997|||Regression, Logistic||||Adjusted for age and baseline rate of abstinence|0.997|0.23|
90875475|NCT02113956|181612742|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|2.53|||Regression, Logistic||||Adjusted for age and baseline rate of abstinence|2.53|0.38|
90875476|NCT02113956|181612743|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|7.09|||Regression, Logistic||||Adjusted for age and baseline rate of HIV testing|7.09|1.65|
90875477|NCT02113956|181612744|SUPERIORITY||Incident Risk Ratio (IRR)|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.5|||Poisson||||Adjusted for age and baseline number of condomless sex acts|1.5|0.22|
90875478|NCT02113956|181612745|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.09|||Regression, Logistic||||Adjusted for age and baseline rate of abstinence|2.09|0.6|
90875479|NCT02113956|181612746|SUPERIORITY||Incident Rate Ratio (IRR)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.68|||||||Adjusted for age and baseline number of condomless sex acts|1.68|0.22|
90875480|NCT02113956|181612747|SUPERIORITY||Incident Rate Ratio (IRR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|92.03|||||||Adjusted for age and baseline number of condomless sex acts|92.03|0.01|
90875481|NCT02113956|181612748|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.88|||Regression, Logistic||||Adjusted for age and baseline rate of abstinence|1.88|0.46|
90875482|NCT02113956|181612749|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|16.95|||Regression, Logistic||||Adjusted for age and baseline rate of abstinence|16.95|0.88|
90875483|NCT02113956|181612750|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|7.58|||Regression, Logistic||||Adjusted for age and baseline rate of HIV testing|7.58|1.52|
90875484|NCT02467465|181612752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.175|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.175
90875485|NCT02467465|181612753|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.250
90875486|NCT02467465|181612754|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.466|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.466
90875487|NCT02467465|181612756|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.737|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.737
90875488|NCT02467465|181612757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.275|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.275
90875489|NCT02467465|181612758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.066|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.066
90875490|NCT02467465|181612760|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.849|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.849
90875491|NCT02467465|181612761|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.425|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.425
90875492|NCT02467465|181612762|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.487|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.487
90875493|NCT02467465|181612764|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.651|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.651
90875494|NCT02467465|181612765|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.387|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.387
90875495|NCT02467465|181612766|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.755|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.755
90875496|NCT02467465|181612768|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.032|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.032
90875497|NCT02467465|181612769|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.058|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.058
90875498|NCT02467465|181612770|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.279|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.279
90915249|NCT04532528|181701402|OTHER|||||||0.1285|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||At 6 months only||||0.1285
90915250|NCT04532528|181701402|OTHER|No formal hypotheses was tested.||||||0.7151|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||At 9 months only||||0.7151
90915251|NCT04532528|181701402|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested||||||0.803|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||At 12 months only||||0.8030
90915252|NCT01911169|181701418|OTHER||Cohen's d|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Effect size of primary outcome was calculated||||
90915253|NCT01911169|181701418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This study was conducted to determine the effect size for in change in FMD at 16 weeks with 25(OH) therapy. For change in FMD at 16 weeks with 25(OH)D repletion, based on this effect size, to detect significant differences between 2 groups, assuming 1) normally distributed data, 2) the same effect size, 3) alpha= 0.05, and 4) a power of 0.8, 35 patients in each group would be required. Therefore, this was designed as a pilot to determine effect size.||||> 0.05
90915254|NCT03926039|181701427|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence Analysis||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Both group of average difference (95% CI) in intervention group and control group||||0.05
90915255|NCT01266122|181701458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||log(Incident Risk Ratio)|-0.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|-0.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects Poisson regression||Intent to treat analysis||-.44|-1.47|<.001
90915256|NCT01266122|181701459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-square statistic|1.39|||=|0.239|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Intent to treat analysis.||||=.239
90915257|NCT03756571|181701461|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.36
90915258|NCT03756571|181701462|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.50
90915259|NCT03756571|181701463|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.15
90915260|NCT03756571|181701464|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.23
90915261|NCT03756571|181701465|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.70
90915262|NCT03756571|181701466|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.33
90915263|NCT03756571|181701467|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.03
90915264|NCT03756571|181701468|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.03
90915265|NCT03756571|181701469|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.08
90915266|NCT03756571|181701470|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.18
90915267|NCT03756571|181701471|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.15
90915268|NCT03756571|181701472|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.80
90875499|NCT01499563|181612771|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|-0.4|||Mixed Effects model for Repeated Measure||95% CI for LS Mean difference are with Bonferroni correction|The study was powered for prespecified comparison of both doses of ITI-007 with placebo using a Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons. The study was not statistically powered to include multiple comparisons of risperidone to placebo and thus, this comparison is not presented here.||-0.4|-11.1|0.017
90875500|NCT01499563|181612771|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|4.5|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure||95% CI for LS Mean difference are with Bonferroni correction|The study was powered for prespecified comparison of both doses of ITI-007 with placebo using a Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons. The study was not statistically powered to include multiple comparisons of risperidone to placebo and thus, this comparison is not presented here.||4.5|-6.3|0.708
90875501|NCT03658538|181612775|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.4||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|-0.5||P-value corresponds to the statistical significance of the group difference (active vs. control) in the primary outcome, and was not adjusted for the multiple comparison and based on the a priori threshold for statistical significance (P\<0.05).|Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLMM)|The analysis was adjusted for covariates.||||-0.5|-8.2|0.025
90875502|NCT03658538|181612776|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.061||||||P-value corresponds to the statistical significance of the group difference (active vs. control) in the primary outcome, and was not adjusted for the multiple comparison and based on the a priori threshold for statistical significance (P\<0.05).|Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLMM)|The analysis was adjusted for covariates.||||||0.061
90875503|NCT04262232|181612792|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.8||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-0.95|||Paired t-test, two-sided||Baseline value minus two weeks post-intervention value.|||-0.95|-2.6|0.0001
90875504|NCT04262232|181612793|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|1.63|||Paired t-test, two-sided||Baseline value minus two weeks post-intervention value.|||1.63|1.17|<0.0001
90875505|NCT04262232|181612795|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.8||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.99|-0.61|||Paired t-test, two-sided||Baseline value minus two weeks post-intervention value.|||-0.61|-4.99|0.01
90875506|NCT04262232|181612797|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|2.02|||Paired t-test, two-sided||Baseline value minus two weeks post-intervention value.|||2.02|-1.02|0.51
90875507|NCT02738151|181612798|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of Toujeo vs Tresiba was demonstrated if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference between groups was \<0.3%.|Least Square (LS) Mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.152|0.051||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Toujeo vs. Tresiba|A hierarchical step-down testing procedure was used to control type 1 error. Analysis was performed using a MMRM approach with treatment groups, randomization strata, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed categorical effects and baseline HbA1c value and baseline HbA1c value-by-visit interaction as continuous fixed covariates.||0.051|-0.152|<.0001
90875508|NCT02738151|181612798|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.3302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.152|0.051|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Superiority of Toujeo over Tresiba was demonstrated if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the mean change in HbA1c from baseline to Week 24 between Toujeo over Tresiba on ITT population was \<0 (zero).||0.051|-0.152|0.3302
90875509|NCT01975909|181612819|EQUIVALENCE|We hypothesized that the real TMS would improve the performance of SARA (i.e., greater percent decrease of SARA score from baseline) as compared to the sham TMS.||||||0.29|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.29
90875510|NCT01975909|181612820|EQUIVALENCE|We hypothesized that the real TMS would improve the performance of 25-foot walking test (i.e., greater percent increase of walking speed from baseline) as compared to the sham TMS.||||||0.47|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.47
90875511|NCT01975909|181612821|EQUIVALENCE|We hypothesized that the real TMS would improve the performance of 9-hole peg test (i.e., greater percent decrease of time to complete the test from baseline) as compared to the sham TMS.||||||0.12|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.12
90875512|NCT01975909|181612822|EQUIVALENCE|We hypothesized that the real TMS would improve the performance of 90-second walking test (i.e., greater percent increase of walking speed from baseline) as compared to the sham TMS.||||||0.69|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.69
90875513|NCT01975909|181612823|EQUIVALENCE|We hypothesized that the real TMS would improve the standing postural control stability (i.e., greater percent decrease increase of postural sway speed from baseline) as compared to the sham TMS.||||||0.009|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.009
90875514|NCT01975909|181612824|EQUIVALENCE|We hypothesized that the real TMS would improve the performance of TUG test (i.e., greater percent decrease of time to complete TUG test from baseline) as compared to the sham TMS.||||||0.18|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.18
90875515|NCT04916600|181612963|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|22.0||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = .05|Chi-squared||Treatment difference = Active device \>=24 hour group - remainder of participants (Active \<24 hr, Sham \>=24 hr, and Sham \<24 hr groups)|||||.043
90875516|NCT04916600|181612964|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.4||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = .05|t-test, 2 sided|df=101||||||.032
90875517|NCT01921179|181612971|EQUIVALENCE|A repeated measures MANOVA was used to compare the impact of GOALS training versus the BHE training on neurocognitive performance Attention and Executive Function Overall Domain Z Score|||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
90875518|NCT01921179|181612972|EQUIVALENCE|A repeated measure multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was used to compare neurocognitive performance on Overall Attention /Executive Function overall score at baseline and at 6+ month post-GOALS training follow-up|||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measure MANOVA was used to compare performance on neurocognitive domain scores at baseline and at 6+ month follow-up post-GOALS training||||||<0.001
90875519|NCT01921179|181612973|EQUIVALENCE|A repeated measures MANOVA was used to compare the impact of GOALS training versus the BHE training on functional performance|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|A repeated measures MANOVA was used to compare the impact of GOALS training versus the BHE training on functional performance||||||>0.05
90875520|NCT01921179|181612974|EQUIVALENCE|A repeated measure multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was used to compare performance on Goal Processing Scale Overall domain scores at baseline and 6+ month post-GOALS training follow-up|||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90875521|NCT01921179|181612975|EQUIVALENCE|A repeated measures MANOVA was used to compare the impact of GOALS training versus the BHE training on emotional regulation measures - POMS Total score|||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|A repeated measures MANOVA was used to compare the impact of GOALS versus the BHE training on emotional regulation measures - POMS Total score||||||<0.05
90875522|NCT01921179|181612976|EQUIVALENCE|A repeated measure multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was used to compare participants' self-report on POMS Total Mood Disturbance overall score at baseline and 6+ month post-GOALS training follow-up|||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
90875523|NCT02603809|181612978|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Multiple Comparison Procedure-Modeling|||"Multiple Comparison Procedure-Modeling (MCP-Mod) was used to assess a dose-response across placebo and all aprocitentan doses. The null hypothesis of no dose-response was rejected if at least one of the six Multiple Contrast Tests (MCTs) had a multiplicity adjusted p-value \<0.05. The analysis was performed using the R-package DoseFinding (Bornkamp B, Pinheiro J, Bretz F. Planning and analyzing dose finding experiments. 2016. Available from: cran.r-projects.org/web/packages/DoseFinding.)"||||<0.001
90875524|NCT02603809|181612978|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.548||0.8117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|2.49|||ANCOVA|with Dunnett correction.||||2.49|-5.10|0.8117
90875525|NCT02603809|181612978|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-4.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.532||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.68|-1.17|||ANCOVA|with Dunnett correction.||||-1.17|-8.68|0.0053
90875526|NCT02603809|181612978|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-6.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.554|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|-3.19|||ANCOVA|with Dunnett correction.||||-3.19|-10.80|<.0001
90875527|NCT02603809|181612978|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-4.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.549||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.75|-1.15|||ANCOVA|with Dunnett correction.||||-1.15|-8.75|0.0057
90875528|NCT02603809|181612979|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Multiple Comparison Procedure-Modeling|||"Multiple Comparison Procedure-Modeling (MCP-Mod) was used to assess a dose-response across placebo and all aprocitentan doses. The null hypothesis of no dose-response was rejected if at least one of the six Multiple Contrasts Tests (MCTs) had a multiplicity adjusted p-value \<0.05. The analysis was performed using the R-package DoseFinding (Bornkamp B, Pinheiro J, Bretz F. Planning and analyzing dose finding experiments. 2016. Available from: cran-rprojects.org/web/packages/DoseFinding.)"||||<0.001
90875529|NCT02603809|181612979|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-2.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.445||0.7071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.44|3.54|||ANCOVA|with Dunnett correction.||||3.54|-8.44|0.7071
90875530|NCT02603809|181612979|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-7.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.42||0.0138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.98|-1.12|||ANCOVA|with Dunnett correction.||||-1.12|-12.98|0.0138
90875531|NCT02603809|181612979|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-9.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.457||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.92|-3.88|||ANCOVA|with Dunnett correction.||||-3.88|-15.92|0.0003
90875532|NCT02603809|181612979|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-7.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0077||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.58|-1.59|||ANCOVA|with Dunnett correction.||||-1.59|-13.58|0.0077
90875533|NCT02603809|181612985|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Multiple Comparison Procedure-Modeling|||"Multiple Comparison Procedure-Modeling (MCP-Mod) was used to assess a dose-response across placebo and all aprocitentan doses. The null hypothesis of no dose-response was rejected if at least one of the six Multiple Contrast Tests (MCTs) had a multiplicity adjusted p-value \<0.05. The analysis was performed using the R-package DoseFinding (Bornkamp B, Pinheiro J, Bretz F. Planning and analyzing dose finding experiments. 2016. Available from: cran.r-projects.org/web/packages/DoseFinding.)"||||<0.001
90875534|NCT02603809|181612985|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-1.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.401||0.5356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.19|1.69|||ANCOVA|with Dunnett correction.||||1.69|-5.19|0.5356
90875535|NCT02603809|181612985|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-5.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.396||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.25|-2.4|||ANCOVA|with Dunnett correction.||||-2.40|-9.25|0.0001
90875536|NCT02603809|181612985|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-7.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.41|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.96|-4.04|||ANCOVA|with Dunnett correction.||||-4.04|-10.96|<.0001
90875537|NCT02603809|181612985|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-5.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.41||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.11|-2.19|||ANCOVA|with Dunnett correction.||||-2.19|-9.11|0.0003
90875538|NCT00380978|181612986|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.04||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.2|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Group sample sizes of 800 in each group achieve 80% power to detect equivalence when the margin of equivalence extends from 0.1 to 0.25||1.20|0.90|0.65
90875539|NCT00380978|181612987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.2|||Chi-squared|||There rate of instrumented vaginal delivery will be equal in both groups.||1.20|0.80|0.63
90875540|NCT00380978|181612988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.047
90875541|NCT00380978|181612989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.35
90875542|NCT00380978|181612990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-4.0|||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-3.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||-3|-4|<0.005
90875543|NCT00380978|181612991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.005||95.0|||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||<0.005
90875544|NCT00380978|181612992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.11
90875545|NCT00380978|181612993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.005||95.0|||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||<0.005
90875546|NCT02981342|181613019|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0495|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0495
90875547|NCT02981342|181613019|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.023|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0230
90875548|NCT02981342|181613020|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0085|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0085
90875549|NCT02981342|181613020|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0123|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0123
90875550|NCT02981342|181613021|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||1
90875551|NCT02981342|181613021|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3017|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3017
90875552|NCT02981342|181613026|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||1
90875553|NCT02981342|181613026|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3017|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3017
90875554|NCT02981342|181613028|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.6||||0.1938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.782|3.272|||Log Rank|||||3.272|0.782|0.1938
90875555|NCT02981342|181613028|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.533||||0.2477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.746|3.15|||Log Rank|||||3.150|0.746|0.2477
90875556|NCT02981342|181613030|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|2.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pain at its Worst in Last 24 Hours||2.13|-0.84|0.383
90875557|NCT02981342|181613030|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|1.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pain at its Worst in Last 24 Hours||1.28|-1.91|0.692
90875558|NCT02981342|181613030|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|1.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pain at its Least in Last 24 Hours||1.80|-0.85|0.469
90875559|NCT02981342|181613030|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|1.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pain at its Least in Last 24 Hours||1.22|-1.62|0.776
90875560|NCT02981342|181613030|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|2.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pain on the Average||2.11|-0.72|0.328
90875561|NCT02981342|181613030|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|1.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pain on the Average||1.54|-1.45|0.954
90875562|NCT02981342|181613030|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|2.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pain Right Now||2.36|-0.85|0.350
90875563|NCT02981342|181613030|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|2.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pain right now.||2.44|-1.01|0.405
90875564|NCT02981342|181613030|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|1.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pain Interfered General Activity||1.91|-1.06|0.565
90875565|NCT02981342|181613030|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|1.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pain Interfered General Activity||1.43|-1.74|0.848
90875566|NCT02981342|181613030|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|1.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pain Interfered with Mood||1.25|-1.37|0.928
90875567|NCT02981342|181613030|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|1.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pain Interfered with Mood||1.08|-1.71|0.650
90875568|NCT02981342|181613030|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86||0.865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pain Interfered Walking Ability||1.60|-1.89|0.865
90875569|NCT02981342|181613030|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.92||0.497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|2.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pain Interfered Walking Ability||2.50|-1.23|0.497
90875570|NCT02981342|181613030|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|2.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pain Interfered with Normal Work||2.50|-0.72|0.272
90875571|NCT02981342|181613030|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|2.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pain Interfered with Normal Work||2.19|-1.25|0.583
90875572|NCT02981342|181613030|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|1.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pain Interfered with Relations||1.79|-1.53|0.876
90875573|NCT02981342|181613030|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88||0.644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|2.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pain Interfered with relations.||2.19|-1.37|0.644
90875574|NCT02981342|181613030|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|2.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pain Interfered with Sleep||2.48|-0.97|0.384
90875575|NCT02981342|181613030|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89||0.318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|2.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.71|-0.90|0.318
90875576|NCT02981342|181613030|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||0.407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|2.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pain Interfered Enjoyment of Life||2.78|-1.15|0.407
90875577|NCT02981342|181613030|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|2.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pain Interfered Enjoyment of Life||2.62|-1.58|0.620
90915269|NCT03752151|181701497|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||McNemar|||The null hypothesis was that the probability of meeting the endpoint (Atrioventricular synchrony \>70%) was the same in MARVEL 2 Monitor Mode and MARVEL 2 Adaptive Mode. A sample size of 35 participants with a predominant rhythm of 3rd degree atrioventricular block and normal sinus function provided \>90% power at a type I error rate of 0.05 assuming the proportion of patients meeting the endpoint in one mode, but not the other exceeded 50% and 90% of these pairs favored the Adaptive mode.||||<0.001
90915270|NCT03752151|181701498|SUPERIORITY||proportion expressed as a percentage|100.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|95.2|100.0|||Exact binomial test|||The null hypothesis is that 87% or fewer participants will achieve the endpoint. The alternative hypothesis is that more than 87% of participants will achieve the endpoint. A sample size of 70 participants provides at least 90% power to test the null hypothesis assuming the true rate of meeting the endpoint in the population is 98% at a type I error rate of 2.5%.||100|95.2|<0.001
91077960|NCT01172808|182041202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.133|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.0262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|-0.016|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||-0.016|-0.250|0.0262
90875578|NCT02981342|181613030|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||BPI-Mean Interference Score||1.91|-0.90|0.475
90875579|NCT02981342|181613030|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|1.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|||BPI-Mean Interference Score||1.96|-1.04|0.540
90875580|NCT02981342|181613031|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.98||0.818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.46|10.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Global health status||10.68|-13.46|0.818
90875581|NCT02981342|181613031|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.06||0.533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.03|8.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Global health status||8.42|-16.03|0.533
90875582|NCT02981342|181613031|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.75||0.681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|10.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Functional Scales: Physical functioning||10.82|-16.40|0.681
90875583|NCT02981342|181613031|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-9.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.75||0.189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.63|4.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Functional Scales: Physical functioning||4.59|-22.63|0.189
90875584|NCT02981342|181613031|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.54||0.921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.29|20.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Functional Scales: Role functioning||20.21|-18.29|0.921
90875585|NCT02981342|181613031|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.62||0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|19.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Functional Scales: Role functioning.||19.42|-19.40|0.999
90875586|NCT02981342|181613031|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-4.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.91||0.541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.2|9.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Functional Scales: Emotional functioning||9.68|-18.20|0.541
90875587|NCT02981342|181613031|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-6.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.05||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.17|7.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Functional Scales: Emotional functioning||7.27|-21.17|0.330
90875588|NCT02981342|181613031|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.29||0.747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.74|10.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Functional Scales: Cognitive Functioning||10.66|-14.74|0.747
91077961|NCT01172808|182041203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.0377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|2.11||Calculated as 2\*one-sided-p-value in the direction corresponding to testing the null hypothesis|Fisher Exact||Tio R2.5 / Placebo|||2.11|1.02|0.0377
90875589|NCT02981342|181613031|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-5.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.43||0.419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.22|7.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Functional Scales: Cognitive functioning||7.73|-18.22|0.419
90875590|NCT02981342|181613031|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-4.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.53||0.596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.23|11.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Functional Scales: Social functioning||11.19|-19.23|0.596
90875591|NCT02981342|181613031|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-19.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.71||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.68|-3.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Functional Scales: Social functioning||-3.55|-34.68|0.017
90875592|NCT02981342|181613031|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.57||0.919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.03|14.49||Social Scales: Fatigue|Mixed Models Analysis|||Symptoms Scales: Fatigue||14.49|-16.03|0.919
90875593|NCT02981342|181613031|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|8.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.54||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.72|23.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Symptom Scales: Fatigue||23.69|-6.72|0.267
90875594|NCT02981342|181613031|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.54||0.866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.66|15.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Symptom Scales: Nausea and Vomiting||15.77|-18.66|0.866
90875595|NCT02981342|181613031|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.59||0.652|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.23|13.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Symptom Scales: Nausea and Vomiting||13.43|-21.23|0.652
90875596|NCT02981342|181613031|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|7.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.67||0.417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.39|24.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Symptom Scales: Pain||24.60|-10.39|0.417
90875597|NCT02981342|181613031|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|4.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.69||0.618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.16|21.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Symptom Scales: Pain||21.89|-13.16|0.618
90875598|NCT02981342|181613031|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-10.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.44||0.206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.85|6.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Symptom Scales: Dyspnoea||6.18|-27.85|0.206
91077962|NCT01172808|182041203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|2.54||Calculated as 2\*one-sided-p-value in the direction corresponding to testing the null hypothesis|Fisher Exact||Tio R5 / Placebo|||2.54|1.22|0.0022
91077963|NCT01172808|182041204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|30.591|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.52|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.726|39.455|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R2.5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, country, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||39.455|21.726|<0.0001
90875599|NCT02981342|181613031|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|4.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4||0.566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.08|21.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Symptom Scales: Dyspnoea||21.80|-12.08|0.566
90875600|NCT02981342|181613031|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-7.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.93||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.01|8.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Symptom Scales: Insomnia||8.96|-23.01|0.380
90875601|NCT02981342|181613031|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|1.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.99||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|17.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Symptom Scales: Insomnia||17.64|-14.60|0.850
90875602|NCT02981342|181613031|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.91||0.756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.78|15.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Symptom Scales: Appetite loss||15.21|-20.78|0.756
90875603|NCT02981342|181613031|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|3.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.31||0.747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.77|21.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Symptom Scales: Appetite loss||21.82|-15.77|0.747
90875604|NCT02981342|181613031|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|9.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.23||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.16|28.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Symptom Scales: Constipation||28.09|-9.16|0.311
90875605|NCT02981342|181613031|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-9.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.3||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.75|8.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Symptom Scales: Constipation||8.80|-28.75|0.290
90915271|NCT03752151|181701499|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.7|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test since each participant had LVOT VTI measurements in MARVEL 2 Adaptive and Monitor modes||The null hypothesis is that the mean LVOT VTI during MARVEL 2 Adaptive mode equals the mean LVOT VTI during MARVEL 2 Monitor mode. A sample size of 35 participants with paired LVOT VTI measurements provides 89% power at a type I error rate of 5% to reject the null hypothesis assuming the true difference in LVOT VTI is 2.1 cm with a standard deviation of 3.8 cm.||2.7|0.7|0.002
90915272|NCT03224390|181701502|SUPERIORITY||Instrumental variables estimate|0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.85||||||||.85|-.03|
90915273|NCT00703820|181701509|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.87||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|3.41||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.0429 so that the overall level of the study is maintained at 0.05 across the 4 interim analyses and the final analysis.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The p-value was computed using an exact, risk-group stratified, two-sided test.|The odds ratio is defined as the ratio of the odds that a Clofarabine+Cytarabine patient is MRD positive to the odds that a Cytarabine+Daunorubicin+Etoposide patient is MRD positive.|The study was designed to test the null hypothesis that Cytarabine+Daunorubicin+Etoposide and Clofarabine+Cytarabine result in the same proportion of patients with positive MRD after 22 days. Power calculations indicate that enrollment of a total of 240 MRD-evaluable patients in a 5-stage Haybittle-Peto group sequential design gives 80% power at the 5% level to detect an odds ratio of 2.5. The design was developed using East statistical software.||3.41|1.03|0.035
90915274|NCT03811574|181701562|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-7.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.62|-5.43|||ANCOVA|||Treatment policy estimand||-5.43|-9.62|<.0001
90915275|NCT03811574|181701562|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-11.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.88|-9.24|||ANCOVA|||Treatment policy estimand||-9.24|-12.88|<.0001
90915276|NCT03811574|181701563|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.53|22.22|||Regression, Logistic|||Treatment policy estimand||22.22|5.53|<.0001
90915277|NCT03811574|181701563|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|21.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.27|41.86|||Regression, Logistic|||Treatment policy estimand||41.86|11.27|<.0001
90915278|NCT00736853|181701614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.377||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.221|0.641|||Log Rank|Stratified Log-rank test with the target disease as the stratification factor||||0.641|0.221|0.0001
90915279|NCT01616459|181701648|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|GMCs ratio and its CI were calculated using an ANCOVA model on the logarithm-transformed concentrations, including the vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination concentration as regressor. The GMCs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMCs (N=218 and Adjusted GMC =1.51 in the 11Pn Group and N= 203 and Adjusted GMC= 1.36 for the Synflorix Group) which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMC ratio with 95.9% confidence interval.|Adjusted GMCs ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.9|0.75|1.07||||||ANTI-1 serotype test :to demonstrate that 11Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™ 1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 9 out of 11 vaccine serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) GMCs. Criteria: UL of the 2-sided 95.9% CI of the ELISA GMC ratios (Prevnar13/11Pn) and (Synflorix/11Pn) groups \< a limit of 2-fold for at least 9 out of 11 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||1.07|0.75|
90915280|NCT01616459|181701648|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|GMCs ratio and its CI were calculated using an ANCOVA model on the logarithm-transformed concentrations, including the vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination concentration as regressor. The GMCs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMCs (N=218 and Adjusted GMC =1.77 in the 11Pn Group and N= 203 and Adjusted GMC= 1.66 for the Synflorix Group) which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMC ratio with 95.9% confidence interval.|Adjusted GMCs ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.9|0.77|1.14||||||ANTI-4 serotype test: To demonstrate that 11Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™ 1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 9 out of 11 vaccine serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) GMCs. Criteria: UL of the 2-sided 95.9% CI of the ELISA GMC ratios (Prevnar13/11Pn) and (Synflorix/11Pn) groups \< a limit of 2-fold for at least 9 out of 11 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||1.14|0.77|
90940518|NCT01177137|181760810|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|0.52||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.025 to account for two comparisons (1) TRT versus the Standard of Care and (2) Partial TRT versus the Standard of Care|repeated measures GEE model||Adjusted for baseline THI value, clinic, visit, age, gender, baseline Positive and Negative Affect Schedule and State Trait Anxiety Inventory scores, with multiple imputation|||0.52|-1.75|0.29
90915281|NCT01616459|181701648|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|GMCs ratio and its CI were calculated using an ANCOVA model on the logarithm-transformed concentrations, including the vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination concentration as regressor. The GMCs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMCs (N=218 and Adjusted GMC = 2.46 in the 11Pn Group and N= 201 and Adjusted GMC= 2.16 for the Synflorix Group) which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMC ratio with 95.9% confidence interval.|Adjusted GMCs ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.9|0.75|1.03||||||ANTI-5 serotype test: To demonstrate that 11Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™ 1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 9 out of 11 vaccine serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) GMCs. Criteria: UL of the 2-sided 95.9% CI of the ELISA GMC ratios (Prevnar13/11Pn) and (Synflorix/11Pn) groups \< a limit of 2-fold for at least 9 out of 11 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||1.03|0.75|
90915282|NCT01616459|181701648|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|GMCs ratio and its CI were calculated using an ANCOVA model on the logarithm-transformed concentrations, including the vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination concentration as regressor. The GMCs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMCs (N=218 and Adjusted GMC =0.51 in the 11Pn Group and N= 200 and Adjusted GMC= 0.47 for the Synflorix Group) which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMC ratio with 95.9% confidence interval.|Adjusted GMCs ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.9|0.71|1.23||||||ANTI-6B serotype test: To demonstrate that 11Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™ 1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 9 out of 11 vaccine serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) GMCs. Criteria: UL of the 2-sided 95.9% CI of the ELISA GMC ratios (Prevnar13/11Pn) and (Synflorix/11Pn) groups \< a limit of 2-fold for at least 9 out of 11 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||1.23|0.71|
90940519|NCT03569475|181760813|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.41||0.2215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.49|1.04|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures||Estimates and p-values are based on MMRM with treatment group, pooled study center, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and Baseline and Baseline-by-visit as covariates using an unstructured covariance matrix.|||1.04|-4.49|0.2215
91033459|NCT00272779|181952761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|6.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|12.0||Assuming 70% response rate (70% of participants remain on treatment for 96 wks and HIV RNA \<50 copies/mL) on both regimens, sample size of 882 randomized participants (441/regimen) provided 90% power to demonstrate ATV/RTV is non-inferior to LPV/RTV|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The ATV/RTV regimen was deemed to be non-inferior to the lopinavir/ritonavir regimen if the lower CI for the difference in proportions \> -10%.||Treatment regimens compared by calculation of the difference in proportions (atazanavir/ritonavir- lopinavir/ritonavir) and 95% CI based on stratified normal approximation.Analyses were stratified by the same strata as randomization-HIV RNA level at enrollment and geographic region.The proportion of participants with HIV RNA below 50 copies/mL was computed within each stratum, and combined by use of a weighted average with weights proportional to stratum size:Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting||12.0|0.3|
90875606|NCT02981342|181613031|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-10.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.58||0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.93|10.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Symptom Scales: Diarrhoea||10.78|-31.93|0.323
90875607|NCT02981342|181613031|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.54||0.651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.08|16.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Symptom Scales: Diarrhoea||16.48|-26.08|0.651
90875608|NCT02981342|181613031|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|1.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.47||0.841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.57|16.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Symptom Scales: Financial Difficulties||16.59|-13.57|0.841
90875609|NCT02981342|181613031|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|7.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.57||0.344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.03|22.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Symptom Scales: Financial Difficulties||22.54|-8.03|0.344
90875610|NCT01245270|181613034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.003||95.0||||"For the incremental area under the curve (AUCi), only the extent of interpolated values above baseline contributed.~Values obtained following the control and extract capsules were compared by paired t-tests."|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
90875611|NCT01245270|181613035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.028||95.0||||For incremental area under the curve (AUCi), only the extent of interpolated values above baseline contributed. Values obtained following the control and extract capsules were compared by paired t-tests.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.028
90875612|NCT01277523|181613042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.111|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055||0.0457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.002|0.22||Stepwise testing of the null hypothesis was used to test the efficacy of Tio R5 and then Tio R2.5, each over placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||0.220|0.002|0.0457
90875613|NCT01277523|181613042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055||0.1039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.019|0.198||Stepwise testing of the null hypothesis was used to test the efficacy of Tio R5 and then Tio R2.5, each over placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||0.198|-0.019|0.1039
90875614|NCT01277523|181613043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.115|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059||0.0509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.231||Stepwise testing of the null hypothesis was used to test the efficacy of Tio R5 and then Tio R2.5, each over placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||0.231|-0.000|0.0509
90875615|NCT01277523|181613043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.054|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.058||0.3605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.061|0.168||Stepwise testing of the null hypothesis was used to test the efficacy of Tio R5 and then Tio R2.5, each over placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||0.168|-0.061|0.3605
90875616|NCT01277523|181613044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.091|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059||0.1264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.026|0.207|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||0.207|-0.026|0.1264
90875617|NCT01277523|181613044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.063|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059||0.2845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.053|0.179|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||0.179|-0.053|0.2845
90875618|NCT01277523|181613045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.113|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053||0.0338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.009|0.217|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||0.217|0.009|0.0338
90915283|NCT01616459|181701648|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|GMCs ratio and its CI were calculated using an ANCOVA model on the logarithm-transformed concentrations, including the vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination concentration as regressor. The GMCs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMCs (N=219 and Adjusted GMC =2.30 in the 11Pn Group and N= 202 and Adjusted GMC= 2.17 for the Synflorix Group) which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMC ratio with 95.9% confidence interval.|Adjusted GMCs ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.9|0.81|1.1||||||ANTI-7F serotype test: To demonstrate that 11Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™ 1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 9 out of 11 vaccine serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) GMCs. Criteria: UL of the 2-sided 95.9% CI of the ELISA GMC ratios (Prevnar13/11Pn) and (Synflorix/11Pn) groups \< a limit of 2-fold for at least 9 out of 11 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||1.10|0.81|
90915284|NCT01616459|181701648|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|GMCs ratio and its CI were calculated using an ANCOVA model on the logarithm-transformed concentrations, including the vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination concentration as regressor. The GMCs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMCs (N=218 and Adjusted GMC =1.56 in the 11Pn Group and N= 200 and Adjusted GMC= 1.40 for the Synflorix Group) which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMC ratio with 95.9% confidence interval.|Adjusted GMCs ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.9|0.76|1.06||||||ANTI-9V serotype test: To demonstrate that 11Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™ 1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 9 out of 11 vaccine serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) GMCs. Criteria: UL of the 2-sided 95.9% CI of the ELISA GMC ratios (Prevnar13/11Pn) and (Synflorix/11Pn) groups \< a limit of 2-fold for at least 9 out of 11 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||1.06|0.76|
90915285|NCT01616459|181701648|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|GMCs ratio and its CI were calculated using an ANCOVA model on the logarithm-transformed concentrations, including the vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination concentration as regressor. The GMCs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMCs (N=218 and Adjusted GMC = 4.22 in the 11Pn Group and N= 201 and Adjusted GMC= 4.06 for the Synflorix Group) which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMC ratio with 95.9% confidence interval.|Adjusted GMCs ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.9|0.81|1.15||||||ANTI-14 serotype test: To demonstrate that 11Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™ 1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 9 out of 11 vaccine serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) GMCs. Criteria: UL of the 2-sided 95.9% CI of the ELISA GMC ratios (Prevnar13/11Pn) and (Synflorix/11Pn) groups \< a limit of 2-fold for at least 9 out of 11 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||1.15|0.81|
90915286|NCT01616459|181701648|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|GMCs ratio and its CI were calculated using an ANCOVA model on the logarithm-transformed concentrations, including the vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination concentration as regressor. The GMCs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMCs (N=218 and Adjusted GMC =2.81 in the 11Pn Group and N= 201 and Adjusted GMC= 2.57 for the Synflorix Group) which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMC ratio with 95.9% confidence interval.|Adjusted GMCs ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.9|0.74|1.14||||||ANTI-18C serotype test: To demonstrate that 11Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™ 1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 9 out of 11 vaccine serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) GMCs. Criteria: UL of the 2-sided 95.9% CI of the ELISA GMC ratios (Prevnar13/11Pn) and (Synflorix/11Pn) groups \< a limit of 2-fold for at least 9 out of 11 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||1.14|0.74|
90915287|NCT01616459|181701648|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|GMCs ratio and its CI were calculated using an ANCOVA model on the logarithm-transformed concentrations, including the vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination concentration as regressor. The GMCs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMCs (N=218 and Adjusted GMC = 3.70 in the 11Pn Group and N= 202 and Adjusted GMC= 3.68 for the Synflorix Group) which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMC ratio with 95.9% confidence interval.|Adjusted GMCs ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.9|0.81|1.23||||||ANTI-19F serotype test: To demonstrate that 11Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™ 1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 9 out of 11 vaccine serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) GMCs. Criteria: UL of the 2-sided 95.9% CI of the ELISA GMC ratios (Prevnar13/11Pn) and (Synflorix/11Pn) groups \< a limit of 2-fold for at least 9 out of 11 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||1.23|0.81|
90940520|NCT03569475|181760813|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.41||0.1964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.59|0.95|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures||Estimates and p-values are based on MMRM with treatment group, pooled study center, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and Baseline and Baseline-by-visit as covariates using an unstructured covariance matrix.|||0.95|-4.59|0.1964
90940521|NCT03569475|181760814|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.6789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.21|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures||Estimates and p-values are based on MMRM with treatment group, pooled study center, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and Baseline and Baseline-by-visit as covariates using an unstructured covariance matrix.|||0.21|-0.32|0.6789
90915288|NCT01616459|181701648|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|GMCs ratio and its CI were calculated using an ANCOVA model on the logarithm-transformed concentrations, including the vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination concentration as regressor. The GMCs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMCs (N=218 and Adjusted GMC = 0.62 in the 11Pn Group and N= 199 and Adjusted GMC= 0.71 for the Synflorix Group) which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMC ratio with 95.9% confidence interval.|Adjusted GMCs ratio|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.9|0.89|1.48||||||ANTI-23F serotype test: To demonstrate that 11Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™ 1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 9 out of 11 vaccine serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) GMCs. Criteria: UL of the 2-sided 95.9% CI of the ELISA GMC ratios (Prevnar13/11Pn) and (Synflorix/11Pn) groups \< a limit of 2-fold for at least 9 out of 11 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||1.48|0.89|
90915289|NCT01616459|181701648|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|GMCs ratio and its CI were calculated using an ANCOVA model on the logarithm-transformed concentrations/titres, including the vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination concentration as regressor. The GMCs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMCs (N=217 and Adjusted GMC =1.61 in the 11Pn Group and N= 206 and Adjusted GMC= 2.75 for the Prevnar13 Group) which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMC ratio with 95.9% confidence interval.|Adjusted GMCs ratio|1.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.9|1.44|2.03||||||ANTI-19A serotype test: To demonstrate that 11Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™ 1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 9 out of 11 vaccine serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) GMCs. Criteria: UL of the 2-sided 95.9% CI of the ELISA GMC ratios (Prevnar13/11Pn) and (Synflorix/11Pn) groups \< a limit of 2-fold for at least 9 out of 11 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||2.03|1.44|
90915290|NCT01616459|181701648|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|12-valent formulation objectives to be assessed sequentially after demonstration for 11-valent formulation. GMCs ratio and its CI obtained using ANCOVA model on logarithm-transformed concentrations, including vaccine group as fixed effect and pre-vaccination concentration as regressor. GMCs were used to calculate Adjusted GMCs (N=207 and Adj. GMC =1.58 in 12Pn Group and N= 203 and Adj. GMC= 1.35 for Synflorix Group) which in turn were used to calculate Adjusted GMC ratio with 95.8% CI.|Adjusted GMCs ratio|0.86||||||95.8|0.72|1.02||||||ANTI-1 serotype test: To demonstrate that 12Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™ 1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 10 out of 12 vaccine serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 6A \& 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) GMCs. Criteria: UL of the 2-sided 95.8 CI of the ELISA GMC ratios (Prevnar13/12Pn) and (Synflorix/12Pn) groups \< a limit of 2-fold for at least 10 out of 12 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||1.02|0.72|
90915291|NCT01616459|181701648|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|12-valent formulation objectives to be assessed sequentially after demonstration for 11-valent formulation. GMCs ratio and its CI obtained using ANCOVA model on logarithm-transformed concentrations, including vaccine group as fixed effect and pre-vaccination concentration as regressor. GMCs were used to calculate Adjusted GMCs (N=208 and Adj. GMC =1.94 in 12Pn Group and N= 203 and Adj. GMC= 1.66 for Synflorix Group) which in turn were used to calculate Adjusted GMC ratio with 95.8% CI.|Adjusted GMCs ratio|0.86||||||95.8|0.7|1.05||||||ANTI-4 serotype test: To demonstrate that 12Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™ 1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 10 out of 12 vaccine serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 6A \& 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) GMCs. Criteria: UL of the 2-sided 95.8 CI of the ELISA GMC ratios (Prevnar13/12Pn) and (Synflorix/12Pn) groups \< a limit of 2-fold for at least 10 out of 12 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||1.05|0.70|
90915292|NCT01616459|181701648|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|12-valent formulation objectives to be assessed sequentially after demonstration for 11-valent formulation. GMCs ratio and its CI obtained using ANCOVA model on logarithm-transformed concentrations, including vaccine group as fixed effect and pre-vaccination concentration as regressor. GMCs were used to calculate Adjusted GMCs (N=208 and Adj. GMC =2.37 in 12Pn Group and N= 201 and Adj. GMC= 2.16 for Synflorix Group) which in turn were used to calculate Adjusted GMC ratio with 95.8% CI.|Adjusted GMCs ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.8|0.78|1.07||||||ANTI-5 serotype test: To demonstrate that 12Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™ 1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 10 out of 12 vaccine serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 6A \& 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) GMCs. Criteria: UL of the 2-sided 95.8 CI of the ELISA GMC ratios (Prevnar13/12Pn) and (Synflorix/12Pn) groups \< a limit of 2-fold for at least 10 out of 12 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||1.07|0.78|
90915293|NCT01616459|181701648|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|12-valent formulation objectives to be assessed sequentially after demonstration for 11-valent formulation. GMCs ratio and its CI obtained using ANCOVA model on logarithm-transformed concentrations, including vaccine group as fixed effect and pre-vaccination concentration as regressor. GMCs were used to calculate Adjusted GMCs (N=208 and Adj. GMC =0.56 in 12Pn Group and N= 200 and Adj. GMC= 0.47 for Synflorix Group) which in turn were used to calculate Adjusted GMC ratio with 95.8% CI.|Adjusted GMCs ratio|0.84||||||95.8|0.64|1.11||||||ANTI-6B serotype test: To demonstrate that 12Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™ 1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 10 out of 12 vaccine serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 6A \& 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) GMCs. Criteria: UL of the 2-sided 95.8 CI of the ELISA GMC ratios (Prevnar13/12Pn) and (Synflorix/12Pn) groups \< a limit of 2-fold for at least 10 out of 12 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||1.11|0.64|
90940522|NCT03569475|181760814|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.1126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.05|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.05|-0.48|0.1126
91033460|NCT00272779|181952762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|10.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment regimens were compared by calculation of the difference in proportions (ATV/RTV-LPV/RTV) and 95% CI based on a stratified normal approximation. Analyses were stratified by the same strata as randomization-ie, HIV RNA level at enrollment and geographic region. The proportion of participants with HIV RNA below 400 copies per mL was computed within each stratum, and combined by use of a weighted average with weights proportional to stratum size (Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting).||10.6|-0.4|
91033461|NCT00272779|181952764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-21.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.3|0.9|||95% CI comparison of difference|||Mean changes in CD4 cell counts from baseline at week 48 were compared between treatment regimens with 95% CIs based on stratified normal approximations and observed values.||0.9|-43.3|
90875619|NCT01277523|181613045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.087|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053||0.0999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.017|0.191|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||0.191|-0.017|0.0999
90875620|NCT01277523|181613046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.087|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057||0.1252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.024|0.198|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||0.198|-0.024|0.1252
90875621|NCT01277523|181613046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.052|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056||0.3549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.058|0.163|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||0.163|-0.058|0.3549
90875622|NCT01277523|181613047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.088||0.1819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.055|0.292|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||0.292|-0.055|0.1819
90875623|NCT01277523|181613047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.053|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.088||0.5448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.119|0.226|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||0.226|-0.119|0.5448
90875624|NCT01277523|181613049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.058|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.082||0.4762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.102|0.219|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||0.219|-0.102|0.4762
90875625|NCT01277523|181613049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.036|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.081||0.6558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.123|0.196|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||0.196|-0.123|0.6558
90875626|NCT01277523|181613051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.153||0.996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.301|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.300|-0.301|0.9960
90875627|NCT01277523|181613051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.058|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.151||0.703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.355|0.239|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.239|-0.355|0.7030
90875628|NCT01277523|181613052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.032|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094||0.7309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.217|0.153|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.153|-0.217|0.7309
90875629|NCT01277523|181613052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.049|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.093||0.5954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.232|0.133|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.133|-0.232|0.5954
90875630|NCT01277523|181613053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.089|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.083||0.2841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.074|0.252|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.252|-0.074|0.2841
90875631|NCT01277523|181613053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.082||0.795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.182|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.182|-0.140|0.7950
90875632|NCT01277523|181613054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.9671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|16.95|||Regression, Cox|||||16.95|0.07|0.9671
90875633|NCT01277523|181613054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.06||||0.5557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|22.7|||Regression, Cox|||||22.70|0.19|0.5557
90875634|NCT01277523|181613055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.3567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.38|||Regression, Cox|||||1.38|0.41|0.3567
90875635|NCT01277523|181613055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.1168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.14|||Regression, Cox|||||1.14|0.32|0.1168
90875636|NCT00112502|181613057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.7||||||||1.7|0.8|
90875637|NCT00112502|181613058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.2||||||||1.2|0.6|
90875638|NCT00112502|181613059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.8||||||||1.8|0.9|
90875639|NCT00112502|181613060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.3||||||||1.3|0.6|
90875640|NCT00112502|181613062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.5||||||||1.5|0.7|
90875641|NCT00112502|181613063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.2||||||||1.2|0.5|
90875642|NCT00112502|181613064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.8||||||||1.8|0.8|
90875643|NCT00112502|181613065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.1||||||||1.1|0.5|
90875644|NCT01959542|181613115|OTHER|Pearson's product-moment correlation|Pearson's product-moment correlation|-0.53||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-86.0|0.1|||Pearson's product-moment correlation|||||0.10|-086|0.09
90875645|NCT01959542|181613116|OTHER||Pearson's product-moment correlation|-0.62||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.15|||Pearson's product-moment correlation|Pearson's product moment correlation||||-0.15|-0.62|0.03
90875646|NCT02584504|181613173|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-39.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-46.5|-32.4||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level for Bonferroni adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W vs. Placebo|Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W group was compared to placebo group using an appropriate contrast statement.||-32.4|-46.5|<0.0001
90875647|NCT02584504|181613173|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-65.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-72.9|-58.7||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level for Bonferroni adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo|Alirocumab 150 mg Q2W group was compared to placebo group using an appropriate contrast statement.||-58.7|-72.9|<0.0001
90875648|NCT02584504|181613173|OTHER|Statistical test was not planned because this comparison was for a descriptive purpose.|LS Mean Difference|-26.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.5|-20.0|||||Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W group vs Alirocumab 150 mg Q2W|Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W group was compared to Alirocumab 150 mg Q2W group using an appropriate contrast statement.||-20.0|-32.5|
90915294|NCT01616459|181701648|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|12-valent formulation objectives to be assessed sequentially after demonstration for 11-valent formulation. GMCs ratio and its CI obtained using ANCOVA model on logarithm-transformed concentrations, including vaccine group as fixed effect and pre-vaccination concentration as regressor. GMCs were used to calculate Adjusted GMCs (N=211 and Adj. GMC =2.42 in 12Pn Group and N= 202 and Adj. GMC= 2.17 for Synflorix Group) which in turn were used to calculate Adjusted GMC ratio with 95.8% CI.|Adjusted GMCs ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.8|0.76|1.06||||||ANTI-7F serotype test: To demonstrate that 12Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™ 1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 10 out of 12 vaccine serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 6A \& 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) GMCs. Criteria: UL of the 2-sided 95.8 CI of the ELISA GMC ratios (Prevnar13/12Pn) and (Synflorix/12Pn) groups \< a limit of 2-fold for at least 10 out of 12 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||1.06|0.76|
90915295|NCT01616459|181701648|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|12-valent formulation objectives to be assessed sequentially after demonstration for 11-valent formulation. GMCs ratio and its CI obtained using ANCOVA model on logarithm-transformed concentrations, including vaccine group as fixed effect and pre-vaccination concentration as regressor. GMCs were used to calculate Adjusted GMCs (N=208 and Adj. GMC =1.78 in 12Pn Group and N= 200 and Adj. GMC= 1.40 for Synflorix Group) which in turn were used to calculate Adjusted GMC ratio with 95.8% CI.|Adjusted GMCs ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.8|0.67|0.93||||||ANTI-9V serotype test: To demonstrate that 12Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™ 1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 10 out of 12 vaccine serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 6A \& 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) GMCs. Criteria: UL of the 2-sided 95.8 CI of the ELISA GMC ratios (Prevnar13/12Pn) and (Synflorix/12Pn) groups \< a limit of 2-fold for at least 10 out of 12 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||0.93|0.67|
90915296|NCT01616459|181701648|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|12-valent formulation objectives to be assessed sequentially after demonstration for 11-valent formulation. GMCs ratio and its CI obtained using ANCOVA model on logarithm-transformed concentrations, including vaccine group as fixed effect and pre-vaccination concentration as regressor. GMCs were used to calculate Adjusted GMCs (N=209 and Adj. GMC =4.48 in 12Pn Group and N= 201 and Adj. GMC= 4.10 for Synflorix Group) which in turn were used to calculate Adjusted GMC ratio with 95.8% CI.|Adjusted GMCs ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.8|0.77|1.09||||||ANTI-14 serotype test: To demonstrate that 12Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™ 1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 10 out of 12 vaccine serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 6A \& 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) GMCs. Criteria: UL of the 2-sided 95.8 CI of the ELISA GMC ratios (Prevnar13/12Pn) and (Synflorix/12Pn) groups \< a limit of 2-fold for at least 10 out of 12 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||1.09|0.77|
90915297|NCT01616459|181701648|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|12-valent formulation objectives to be assessed sequentially after demonstration for 11-valent formulation. GMCs ratio and its CI obtained using ANCOVA model on logarithm-transformed concentrations, including vaccine group as fixed effect and pre-vaccination concentration as regressor. GMCs were used to calculate Adjusted GMCs (N=209 and Adj. GMC =2.55 in 12Pn Group and N= 201 and Adj. GMC= 2.57 for Synflorix Group) which in turn were used to calculate Adjusted GMC ratio with 95.8% CI.|Adjusted GMCs ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.8|0.81|1.26||||||ANTI-18C serotype test: To demonstrate that 12Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™ 1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 10 out of 12 vaccine serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 6A \& 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) GMCs. Criteria: UL of the 2-sided 95.8 CI of the ELISA GMC ratios (Prevnar13/12Pn) and (Synflorix/12Pn) groups \< a limit of 2-fold for at least 10 out of 12 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||1.26|0.81|
90915298|NCT01616459|181701648|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|12-valent formulation objectives to be assessed sequentially after demonstration for 11-valent formulation. GMCs ratio and its CI obtained using ANCOVA model on logarithm-transformed concentrations, including vaccine group as fixed effect and pre-vaccination concentration as regressor. GMCs were used to calculate Adjusted GMCs (N=211 and Adj. GMC =3.29 in 12Pn Group and N= 202 and Adj. GMC= 3.67 for Synflorix Group) which in turn were used to calculate Adjusted GMC ratio with 95.8% CI.|Adjusted GMCs ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.8|0.9|1.38||||||ANTI-19F serotype test: To demonstrate that 12Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™ 1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 10 out of 12 vaccine serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 6A \& 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) GMCs. Criteria: UL of the 2-sided 95.8 CI of the ELISA GMC ratios (Prevnar13/12Pn) and (Synflorix/12Pn) groups \< a limit of 2-fold for at least 10 out of 12 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||1.38|0.90|
90915299|NCT01616459|181701648|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|12-valent formulation objectives to be assessed sequentially after demonstration for 11-valent formulation. GMCs ratio and its CI obtained using ANCOVA model on logarithm-transformed concentrations, including vaccine group as fixed effect and pre-vaccination concentration as regressor. GMCs were used to calculate Adjusted GMCs (N=208 and Adj. GMC =0.68 in 12Pn Group and N= 199 and Adj. GMC= 0.71 for Synflorix Group) which in turn were used to calculate Adjusted GMC ratio with 95.8% CI..|Adjusted GMCs ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.8|0.81|1.37||||||ANTI-23F serotype test: To demonstrate that 12Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™ 1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 10 out of 12 vaccine serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 6A \& 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) GMCs. Criteria: UL of the 2-sided 95.8 CI of the ELISA GMC ratios (Prevnar13/12Pn) and (Synflorix/12Pn) groups \< a limit of 2-fold for at least 10 out of 12 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||1.37|0.81|
90940523|NCT02630706|181760818|SUPERIORITY|Constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA)|Difference in the LSM vs. placebo|-0.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.52||cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, anti-AHA status at Screening (metformin alone, metformin + another AHA), country (China, other), baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.|cLDA|Least squares means = LSM||The primary hypothesis of the study was the mean change from baseline in HbA1c for 15 mg ertugliflozin is greater than that for placebo.||-0.52|-0.85|<0.001
90915300|NCT01616459|181701648|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|12-valent formulation objectives to be assessed sequentially after demonstration for 11-valent formulation. GMCs ratio and its CI obtained using ANCOVA model on logarithm-transformed concentrations, including vaccine group as fixed effect and pre-vaccination concentration as regressor. GMCs were used to calculate Adjusted GMCs (N=210 and Adj. GMC =1.09 in 12Pn Group and N= 214 and Adj. GMC= 2.07 for Prevnar13 Group) which in turn were used to calculate Adjusted GMC ratio with 95.8% CI.|Adjusted GMCs ratio|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.8|1.51|2.39||||||ANTI-6A serotype test: To demonstrate that 12Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™ 1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 10 out of 12 vaccine serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 6A\&19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) GMCs. Criteria: UL of the 2-sided 95.8 CI of the ELISA GMC ratios (Prevnar13/12Pn) and (Synflorix/12Pn) groups \< a limit of 2-fold for at least 10 out of 12 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||2.39|1.51|
90875649|NCT02584504|181613174|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-40.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-47.4|-33.8||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level for Bonferroni adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W vs. Placebo|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.025 level. Hierarchical procedure for comparisons of Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W versus Placebo Q2W and Alirocumab 150 mg Q2W versus Placebo Q2W were processed separately.||-33.8|-47.4|<0.0001
90875650|NCT02584504|181613174|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-67.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-74.2|-60.5||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level for Bonferroni adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the relevant compared arms).||-60.5|-74.2|<0.0001
90875651|NCT02584504|181613175|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-50.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-56.6|-44.5||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level for Bonferroni adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the relevant compared arms).||-44.5|-56.6|<0.0001
90875652|NCT02584504|181613175|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-66.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-72.3|-60.1||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level for Bonferroni adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the relevant compared arms).||-60.1|-72.3|<0.0001
90875653|NCT02584504|181613176|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-51.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-57.4|-45.4||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level for Bonferroni adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the relevant compared arms).||-45.4|-57.4|<0.0001
90875654|NCT02584504|181613176|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-67.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-73.3|-61.3||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level for Bonferroni adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the relevant compared arms).||-61.3|-73.3|<0.0001
90875655|NCT02584504|181613177|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-26.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-32.5|-19.9||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level for Bonferroni adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the relevant compared arms).||-19.9|-32.5|<0.0001
90875656|NCT02584504|181613177|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-51.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-58.3|-45.5||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level for Bonferroni adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the relevant compared arms).||-45.5|-58.3|<0.0001
90875657|NCT02584504|181613178|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-27.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-33.5|-20.9||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level for Bonferroni adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the relevant compared arms).||-20.9|-33.5|<0.0001
90875658|NCT02584504|181613178|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-53.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-59.7|-47.1||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level for Bonferroni adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the relevant compared arms).||-47.1|-59.7|<0.0001
90875659|NCT02584504|181613179|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-31.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-37.7|-25.0||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level for Bonferroni adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the relevant compared arms).||-25.0|-37.7|<0.0001
90875660|NCT02584504|181613179|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-56.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-62.5|-49.8||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level for Bonferroni adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the relevant compared arms).||-49.8|-62.5|<0.0001
90875661|NCT02584504|181613180|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-32.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-38.6|-26.3||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level for Bonferroni adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the relevant compared arms).||-26.3|-38.6|<0.0001
90875662|NCT02584504|181613180|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-57.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-63.8|-51.4||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level for Bonferroni adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the relevant compared arms).||-51.4|-63.8|<0.0001
90875663|NCT02584504|181613181|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-22.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-27.4|-17.6||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level for Bonferroni adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the relevant compared arms).||-17.6|-27.4|<0.0001
90875664|NCT02584504|181613181|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-41.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-46.4|-36.5||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level for Bonferroni adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the relevant compared arms).||-36.5|-46.4|<0.0001
90915301|NCT01616459|181701648|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|12-valent formulation objectives to be assessed sequentially after demonstration for 11-valent formulation. GMCs ratio and its CI obtained using ANCOVA model on logarithm-transformed concentrations, including vaccine group as fixed effect and pre-vaccination concentration as regressor. GMCs were used to calculate Adjusted GMCs (N=208 and Adj. GMC =1.19 in 12Pn Group and N= 206 and Adj. GMC= 2.76 for Prevnar13 Group) which in turn were used to calculate Adjusted GMC ratio with 95.8% CI.|Adjusted GMCs ratio|2.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.8|1.94|2.77||||||ANTI-19A serotype test: To demonstrate that 12Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™ 1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 10 out of 12 vaccine serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 6A\&19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) GMCs. Criteria: UL of the 2-sided 95.8 CI of the ELISA GMC ratios (Prevnar13/12Pn) and (Synflorix/12Pn) groups \< a limit of 2-fold for at least 10 out of 12 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||2.77|1.94|
90915302|NCT01616459|181701649|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|2-sided 95.9 % Confidence Interval (CI) adjusted 1-sided (alpha = 2.05 %) of the difference between groups in terms of percentage of subjects. Confidence Interval (CI) for difference in proportion: Proc StatXact was used to derive the standardized asymptotic CI for the group difference in proportions \[Newcombe, 1998\]. The standardized asymptotic method used within GSK Biologicals is method 6.|Difference in percentage|-0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.9|-3.89|1.36||||||ANTI-1 serotype test: To demonstrate that 11Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 9 out of 11 serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of % of subjects with antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 μg/mL. Criteria: UL of 2-sided 95.9 % CI of the difference between (Prevnar13 minus 11Pn) and (Synflorix minus 11Pn) groups \< 10 % for at least 9 out of 11 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||1.36|-3.89|
90915303|NCT01616459|181701649|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|2-sided 95.9% Confidence Interval (CI) adjusted 1-sided (alpha = 2.05 %) of the difference between groups in terms of percentage of subjects. Confidence Interval (CI) for difference in proportion: Proc StatXact was used to derive the standardized asymptotic CI for the group difference in proportions \[Newcombe, 1998\]. The standardized asymptotic method used within GSK Biologicals is method 6.|Difference in percentage|-1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.9|-4.94|2.45||||||ANTI-4 serotype test: To demonstrate that 11Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 9 out of 11 serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of % of subjects with antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 μg/mL. Criteria: UL of 2-sided 95.9 % CI of the difference between (Prevnar13 minus 11Pn) and (Synflorix minus 11Pn) groups \< 10 % for at least 9 out of 11 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||2.45|-4.94|
90915304|NCT01616459|181701649|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|2-sided 95.9 % Confidence Interval (CI) adjusted 1-sided (alpha = 2.05 %) of the difference between groups in terms of percentage of subjects. Confidence Interval (CI) for difference in proportion: Proc StatXact was used to derive the standardized asymptotic CI for the group difference in proportions \[Newcombe, 1998\]. The standardized asymptotic method used within GSK Biologicals is method 6.|Difference in percentage|-0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.9|-2.82|1.38||||||ANTI-5 serotype test: To demonstrate that 11Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 9 out of 11 serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of % of subjects with antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 μg/mL. Criteria: UL of 2-sided 95.9 % CI of the difference between (Prevnar13 minus 11Pn) and (Synflorix minus 11Pn) groups \< 10 % for at least 9 out of 11 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||1.38|-2.82|
90915305|NCT01616459|181701649|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|2-sided 95.9 % Confidence Interval (CI) adjusted 1-sided (alpha = 2.05 %) of the difference between groups in terms of percentage of subjects. Confidence Interval (CI) for difference in proportion: Proc StatXact was used to derive the standardized asymptotic CI for the group difference in proportions \[Newcombe, 1998\]. The standardized asymptotic method used within GSK Biologicals is method 6.|Difference in percentage|-2.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.9|-10.65|6.13||||||ANTI-6B serotype test: To demonstrate that 11Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 9 out of 11 serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of % of subjects with antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 μg/mL. Criteria: UL of 2-sided 95.9 % CI of the difference between (Prevnar13 minus 11Pn) and (Synflorix minus 11Pn) groups \< 10 % for at least 9 out of 11 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||6.13|-10.65|
91033462|NCT00272779|181952780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||point estimate|0.761|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.507|1.142|||ANOVA||Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for differences between treatment regimens were calculated on the log scale, and were exponentiated to obtain estimates for ratios of geometric means on the original scale.|||1.142|0.507|
91033463|NCT00272779|181952781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||point estimate|1.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.005|2.121|||ANOVA||Point estimates and 90% CIs for differences between treatment regimens were calculated on the log scale, and were exponentiated to obtain estimates for ratios of geometric means on the original scale.|||2.121|1.005|
90961215|NCT04417127|181803346|SUPERIORITY|Analysis of the primary outcome was conducted using a doubly-robust generalized estimating equation (GEE) with a logit link function. Multiple imputation was used to account for missing data on baseline covariates; Rubin's rule was used for variance estimation. The GEE model included the intervention arm, used an independence working correlation matrix and variance was estimated using a sandwich variance estimator for clustered data.|Odds Ratio, log|0.84||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.12||Baseline values of variables (county, gender, age, education, income, viral load) were used for differential dropout adjustment for the primary comparison and differential dropout and confounding adjustments for comparisons to matched participants.|Wald test|Hypothesis: Microfinance with Integrated, Community-based Care \> Microfinance with Usual Care in terms of viral suppression at 18-months.|The intervention effect was estimated using the log odds ratio coefficient associated with the intervention in the GEE. The primary hypothesis test of intervention effect was conducted using a Wald test and 95% Wald-based confidence intervals.|For the primary outcome, the primary analysis was an intention-to-treat analysis that included all randomized participants comparing viral suppression at 18-months. Following studies of the effect of financial interventions, we powered the study to have at least 80% power to detect a 15% additive increase in viral suppression among microfinance group members receiving integrated community care compared to those receiving facility-based care, assuming 15% dropout.||1.12|0.63|0.23
90961216|NCT04417127|181803346|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|2.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|3.19||Hypothesis: Microfinance with Integrated, Community-based Care \> Usual (Facility-based) Care in terms of viral suppression at 18-months.|Wald test|||A secondary analysis of the primary outcome included a comparison of viral suppression at 18- months, between each of the two randomized trial arms and the non-randomized, prospectively-followed, frequency-matched participants who were not engaged in microfinance. The secondary analysis used the same analytic model as the primary analysis, assuming no clustering in the non-randomized sample.||3.19|1.48|<0.001
90875665|NCT02584504|181613182|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|61.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|13.9|268.9||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level for Bonferroni adjustment.|Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model.|Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the relevant compared arms).||268.9|13.9|<0.0001
90875666|NCT02584504|181613182|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|281.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|33.3|2382.2||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level for Bonferroni adjustment.|Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model.|Alirocumab 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the relevant compared arms).||2382.2|33.3|<0.0001
90875667|NCT02584504|181613183|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|102.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|19.0|556.8||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level for Bonferroni adjustment.|Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model.|Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the relevant compared arms).||556.8|19.0|<0.0001
90915306|NCT01616459|181701649|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|2-sided 95.9 % Confidence Interval (CI) adjusted 1-sided (alpha = 2.05 %) of the difference between groups in terms of percentage of subjects. Confidence Interval (CI) for difference in proportion: Proc StatXact was used to derive the standardized asymptotic CI for the group difference in proportions \[Newcombe, 1998\]. The standardized asymptotic method used within GSK Biologicals is method 6.|Difference in percentage|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.9|-2.39|2.21||||||ANTI-7F serotype test: To demonstrate that 11Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 9 out of 11 serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of % of subjects with antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 μg/mL. Criteria: UL of 2-sided 95.9 % CI of the difference between (Prevnar13 minus 11Pn) and (Synflorix minus 11Pn) groups \< 10 % for at least 9 out of 11 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||2.21|-2.39|
90915307|NCT01616459|181701649|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|2-sided 95.9 % Confidence Interval (CI) adjusted 1-sided (alpha = 2.05 %) of the difference between groups in terms of percentage of subjects. Confidence Interval (CI) for difference in proportion: Proc StatXact was used to derive the standardized asymptotic CI for the group difference in proportions \[Newcombe, 1998\]. The standardized asymptotic method used within GSK Biologicals is method 6.|Difference in percentage|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.9|-2.36|3.22||||||ANTI-9V serotype test: To demonstrate that 11Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 9 out of 11 serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of % of subjects with antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 μg/mL. Criteria: UL of 2-sided 95.9 % CI of the difference between (Prevnar13 minus 11Pn) and (Synflorix minus 11Pn) groups \< 10 % for at least 9 out of 11 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||3.22|-2.36|
90915308|NCT01616459|181701649|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|2-sided 95.9 % Confidence Interval (CI) adjusted 1-sided (alpha = 2.05 %) of the difference between groups in terms of percentage of subjects. Confidence Interval (CI) for difference in proportion: Proc StatXact was used to derive the standardized asymptotic CI for the group difference in proportions \[Newcombe, 1998\]. The standardized asymptotic method used within GSK Biologicals is method 6.|Difference in percentage|0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.9|-1.51|2.66||||||ANTI-14 serotype test: To demonstrate that 11Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 9 out of 11 serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of % of subjects with antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 μg/mL. Criteria: UL of 2-sided 95.9 % CI of the difference between (Prevnar13 minus 11Pn) and (Synflorix minus 11Pn) groups \< 10 % for at least 9 out of 11 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||2.66|-1.51|
90915309|NCT01616459|181701649|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|2-sided 95.9 % Confidence Interval (CI) adjusted 1-sided (alpha = 2.05 %) of the difference between groups in terms of percentage of subjects. Confidence Interval (CI) for difference in proportion: Proc StatXact was used to derive the standardized asymptotic CI for the group difference in proportions \[Newcombe, 1998\]. The standardized asymptotic method used within GSK Biologicals is method 6.|Difference in percentage|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.9|-4.18|1.7||||||ANTI-18C serotype test: To demonstrate that 11Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 9 out of 11 serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of % of subjects with antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 μg/mL. Criteria: UL of 2-sided 95.9 % CI of the difference between (Prevnar13 minus 11Pn) and (Synflorix minus 11Pn) groups \< 10 % for at least 9 out of 11 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||1.70|-4.18|
90915310|NCT01616459|181701649|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|2-sided 95.9 % Confidence Interval (CI) adjusted 1-sided (alpha = 2.05 %) of the difference between groups in terms of percentage of subjects. Confidence Interval (CI) for difference in proportion: Proc StatXact was used to derive the standardized asymptotic CI for the group difference in proportions \[Newcombe, 1998\]. The standardized asymptotic method used within GSK Biologicals is method 6.|Difference in percentage|-2.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.9|-5.64|-0.52||||||ANTI-19F serotype test: To demonstrate that 11Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 9 out of 11 serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of % of subjects with antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 μg/mL. Criteria: UL of 2-sided 95.9 % CI of the difference between (Prevnar13 minus 11Pn) and (Synflorix minus 11Pn) groups \< 10 % for at least 9 out of 11 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||-0.52|-5.64|
90940524|NCT02630706|181760818|SUPERIORITY|cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, anti-AHA status at Screening (metformin alone, metformin + another AHA), country (China, other), baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.|Difference in the LS Means vs. Placebo|-0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.63|||cLDA|||The primary hypothesis of the study was the mean change from baseline in HbA1c for 5 mg ertugliflozin is greater than that for placebo.||-0.63|-0.97|<0.001
90940525|NCT02630706|181760819|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the LSM vs. placebo|-0.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|-0.5||cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, anti-AHA status at Screening (metformin alone, metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.|cLDA|||||-0.50|-0.86|<0.001
90961217|NCT04417127|181803346|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|1.42||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.92||Hypothesis: Microfinance with Usual (Facility-based) Care \> Usual (Facility-based) Care in terms of viral suppression at 18-months.|Wald test|||A secondary analysis of the primary outcome included a comparison of viral suppression at 18- months, between each of the two randomized trial arms and the non-randomized, prospectively-followed, frequency-matched participants who were not engaged in microfinance. The secondary analysis used the same analytic model as the primary analysis, assuming no clustering in the non-randomized sample.||1.92|1.05|0.023
90961218|NCT04417127|181803347|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|3.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.58|4.26|||Wald test|||The retention in care analysis was an intention-to-treat analysis that included all enrolled participants and used the same analysis methods as those for the viral suppression (primary outcome) analysis. The retention in care analyses were not adjusted for multiplicity and should be considered hypothesis generating.||4.26|2.58|<0.001
91033464|NCT00272779|181952782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||point estimate|0.839|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.612|1.151|||ANOVA||Point estimates and 90% CIs for differences between treatment regimens were calculated on the log scale, and were exponentiated to obtain estimates for ratios of geometric means on the original scale.|||1.151|0.612|
90875668|NCT02584504|181613183|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|500.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|47.9|5230.9||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level for Bonferroni adjustment.|Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model.|Alirocumab 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the relevant compared arms).||5230.9|47.9|<0.0001
90875669|NCT02584504|181613184|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-32.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-43.4|-22.5||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level for Bonferroni adjustment.|Regression, Robust|Multiple imputation approach followed by robust regression model.|Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the relevant compared arms).||-22.5|-43.4|<0.0001
90915311|NCT01616459|181701649|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|2-sided 95.9 % Confidence Interval (CI) adjusted 1-sided (alpha = 2.05 %) of the difference between groups in terms of percentage of subjects. Confidence Interval (CI) for difference in proportion: Proc StatXact was used to derive the standardized asymptotic CI for the group difference in proportions \[Newcombe, 1998\]. The standardized asymptotic method used within GSK Biologicals is method 6.|Difference in percentage|2.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.9|-4.84|10.25||||||ANTI-23F serotype test: To demonstrate that 11Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 9 out of 11 serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of % of subjects with antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 μg/mL. Criteria: UL of 2-sided 95.9 % CI of the difference between (Prevnar13 minus 11Pn) and (Synflorix minus 11Pn) groups \< 10 % for at least 9 out of 11 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||10.25|-4.84|
90915312|NCT01616459|181701650|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|2-sided 95.9 % Confidence Interval (CI) adjusted 1-sided (alpha = 2.05 %) of the difference between groups in terms of percentage of subjects. Confidence Interval (CI) for difference in proportion: Proc StatXact was used to derive the standardized asymptotic CI for the group difference in proportions \[Newcombe, 1998\]. The standardized asymptotic method used within GSK Biologicals is method 6.|Difference in percentage|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.9|-1.46|3.66||||||ANTI-19A serotype test: To demonstrate that 11Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 9 out of 11 serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of % of subjects with antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 μg/mL. Criteria: UL of 2-sided 95.9 % CI of the difference between (Prevnar13 minus 11Pn) and (Synflorix minus 11Pn) groups \< 10 % for at least 9 out of 11 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||3.66|-1.46|
90915313|NCT01616459|181701651|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Objectives for 12-valent formulation were to be assessed sequentially after demonstration of objectives for 11-valent formulation. 2-sided 95.8% Confidence Interval (CI) adjusted 1-sided (alpha =2.08%) of the difference between groups in terms of percentage of subjects. CI for difference in proportion: Proc StatXact was used to derive the standardized asymptotic CI for the group difference in proportions \[Newcombe,1998\]. The standardized asymptotic method used within GSK Biologicals is method 6.|Difference in percentage|-0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.8|-3.44|2.22||||||ANTI-1 serotype test: To demonstrate that 12Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 10 out of 12 serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 6A and 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of % of subjects with antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 μg/mL. Criteria: UL of 2-sided 95.8 % CI of the difference between (Prevnar13 minus 12Pn) and (Synflorix minus 12Pn) groups \< 10 % for at least 10 out of 12 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||2.22|-3.44|
90915314|NCT01616459|181701651|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Objectives for 12-valent formulation were to be assessed sequentially after demonstration of objectives for 11-valent formulation. 2-sided 95.8% Confidence Interval (CI) adjusted 1-sided (alpha =2.08%) of the difference between groups in terms of percentage of subjects. CI for difference in proportion: Proc StatXact was used to derive the standardized asymptotic CI for the group difference in proportions \[Newcombe,1998\]. The standardized asymptotic method used within GSK Biologicals is method 6.|Difference in percentage|-0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.8|-4.03|3.86||||||ANTI-4 serotype test: To demonstrate that 12Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 10 out of 12 serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 6A and 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of % of subjects with antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 μg/mL. Criteria: UL of 2-sided 95.8 % CI of the difference between (Prevnar13 minus 12Pn) and (Synflorix minus 12Pn) groups \< 10 % for at least 10 out of 12 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||3.86|-4.03|
90940526|NCT02630706|181760819|SUPERIORITY|cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, anti-AHA status at Screening (metformin alone, metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.|Difference in the LS Means vs. Placebo|-0.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.58|||cLDA|||||-0.58|-0.95|<0.001
90940527|NCT02630706|181760820|OTHER||Difference in % vs. Placebo|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|4.6|||||||Miettinen-Nurminen method|4.6|-16.5|
90940528|NCT02630706|181760820|OTHER||Difference in % vs. Placebo|-2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|7.7|||||||Miettinen-Nurminen method|7.7|-13.3|
90940529|NCT02630706|181760821|OTHER||Difference in % vs. Placebo|-8.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.5|3.0|||||||Miettinen-Nurminen method|3.0|-20.5|
91033465|NCT00272779|181952783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||point estimate|0.282|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.181|0.439|||ANOVA||Point estimates and 90% CIs for differences between treatment regimens were calculated on the log scale, and were exponentiated to obtain estimates for ratios of geometric means on the original scale.|||0.439|0.181|
90875670|NCT02584504|181613184|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-50.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-61.5|-40.3||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level for Bonferroni adjustment.|Regression, Robust|Multiple imputation approach followed by robust regression model.|Alirocumab 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the relevant compared arms).||-40.3|-61.5|<0.0001
90875671|NCT02584504|181613185|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.7||||0.0241|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.0|11.3||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level for Bonferroni adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the relevant compared arms).||11.3|0.0|0.0241
90875672|NCT02584504|181613185|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|7.8||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|97.5|2.1|13.5||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level for Bonferroni adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the relevant compared arms).||13.5|2.1|0.0022
90875673|NCT02584504|181613186|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|5.9||||0.2645|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-5.9|17.7||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level for Bonferroni adjustment.|Regression, Robust|Multiple imputation approach followed by robust regression model.|Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the relevant compared arms).||17.7|-5.9|0.2645
90875674|NCT02584504|181613186|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-11.6||||0.0299|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-23.5|0.4||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level for Bonferroni adjustment.|Regression, Robust||Alirocumab 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the relevant compared arms).||0.4|-23.5|0.0299
90915315|NCT01616459|181701651|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Objectives for 12-valent formulation were to be assessed sequentially after demonstration of objectives for 11-valent formulation. 2-sided 95.8% Confidence Interval (CI) adjusted 1-sided (alpha =2.08%) of the difference between groups in terms of percentage of subjects. CI for difference in proportion: Proc StatXact was used to derive the standardized asymptotic CI for the group difference in proportions \[Newcombe,1998\]. The standardized asymptotic method used within GSK Biologicals is method 6.|Difference in percentage|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.8|-2.37|2.3||||||ANTI-5 serotype test: To demonstrate that 12Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 10 out of 12 serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 6A and 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of % of subjects with antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 μg/mL. Criteria: UL of 2-sided 95.8 % CI of the difference between (Prevnar13 minus 12Pn) and (Synflorix minus 12Pn) groups \< 10 % for at least 10 out of 12 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||2.30|-2.37|
90915316|NCT01616459|181701651|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Objectives for 12-valent formulation were to be assessed sequentially after demonstration of objectives for 11-valent formulation. 2-sided 95.8% Confidence Interval (CI) adjusted 1-sided (alpha =2.08%) of the difference between groups in terms of percentage of subjects. CI for difference in proportion: Proc StatXact was used to derive the standardized asymptotic CI for the group difference in proportions \[Newcombe,1998\]. The standardized asymptotic method used within GSK Biologicals is method 6.|Difference in percentage|-4.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.8|-12.94|3.6||||||ANTI-6B serotype test: To demonstrate that 12Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 10 out of 12 serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 6A and 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of % of subjects with antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 μg/mL. Criteria: UL of 2-sided 95.8 % CI of the difference between (Prevnar13 minus 12Pn) and (Synflorix minus 12Pn) groups \< 10 % for at least 10 out of 12 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||3.60|-12.94|
90940530|NCT02630706|181760821|OTHER||Difference in % vs. Placebo|-4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|6.9|||||||Miettinen-Nurminen method|6.9|-16.5|
90940531|NCT02630706|181760824|SUPERIORITY|cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, anti-hyperglycemic medication status at Screening (metformin alone, metformin + another AHA), Country (China, other), baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|Difference in LS Means vs. Placebo|-27.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.85|-21.7|||cLDA|||||-21.70|-33.85|<0.001
90875675|NCT02432846|181613189|OTHER|Exploratory superiority (non-powered)|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.978||||0.964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.371|2.579|||Log Rank|||||2.579|0.371|0.964
90875676|NCT02432846|181613189|OTHER|Exploratory superiority (non-powered)|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.619||||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.314|1.222|||Log Rank|||||1.222|0.314|0.163
90875677|NCT02432846|181613189|OTHER|Exploratory superiority (non-powered)|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.732||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.421|1.27|||Log Rank|||||1.270|0.421|0.250
90875678|NCT02432846|181613190|OTHER|Exploratory superiority (non-powered)|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.756||||0.596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.268|2.134|||Log Rank|||||2.134|0.268|0.596
90875679|NCT02432846|181613190|OTHER|Exploratory superiority (non-powered)|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.661||||0.285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.308|1.418|||Log Rank|||||1.418|0.308|0.285
90875680|NCT02432846|181613190|OTHER|Exploratory superiority (non-powered)|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.699||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.378|1.29|||Log Rank|||||1.290|0.378|0.240
90875681|NCT02432846|181613191|OTHER|Exploratory superiority (non-powered)|||||=|0.812|||||||Log Rank|||||||= 0.812
90875682|NCT02432846|181613192|OTHER|Exploratory superiority (non-powered)|||||=|0.861|||||||Log Rank|||||||= 0.861
90875683|NCT03814746|181613223|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|1.08|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.55|||negative binomial regression model|||||1.55|0.76|> 0.999
90875684|NCT03814746|181613223|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.89|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.27|||negative binomial regression model|||||1.27|0.62|> 0.999
90875685|NCT03814746|181613224|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.7|||negative binomial regression model|||||1.70|0.87|
90875686|NCT03814746|181613224|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.17|||negative binomial regression model|||||1.17|0.59|
90875687|NCT03814746|181613229|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.97|||Cox Model|for time to first occurrence of VOC||||1.97|0.92|
90875688|NCT03814746|181613229|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.58|||Cox Model|for time to first occurrence of VOC||||1.58|0.72|
90875689|NCT03814746|181613229|SUPERIORITY|for time to second occurrence of VOC|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.04|||Cox Model|||||2.04|0.81|
90875690|NCT03814746|181613229|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.54|||Cox Model|for time to second occurrence of VOC||||1.54|0.59|
90875691|NCT03814746|181613230|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.43|||Negative binomial regression model|for the Annualized rate of all visits to clinics, emergency rooms and hospitalizations||||1.43|0.75|
90875692|NCT03814746|181613230|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.14|||Negative binomial regression model|for the Annualized rate of all visits to clinics, emergency rooms and hospitalizations||||1.14|0.59|
90875693|NCT03814746|181613230|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.59|||Negative binomial regression model|for the Annualized rate of VOC-related visits to clinics, emergency rooms and hospitalizations||||1.59|0.77|
90875694|NCT03814746|181613230|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.25|||Negative binomial regression model|for the Annualized rate of VOC-related visits to clinics, emergency rooms and hospitalizations||||1.25|0.60|
90875695|NCT03814746|181613231|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|2.09|||Negative binomial regression model|for the Annualized days of all visits to clinics, emergency rooms and hospitalizations||||2.09|0.85|
90875696|NCT03814746|181613231|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.38|||Negative binomial regression model|for the Annualized days of all visits to clinics, emergency rooms and hospitalizations||||1.38|0.57|
90875697|NCT03814746|181613231|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.09|||Negative binomial regression model|for the Annualized days of VOC-related visits to clinics, emergency rooms and hospitalizations||||2.09|0.77|
90940532|NCT02630706|181760824|SUPERIORITY|cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, anti-hyperglycemic medication status at Screening (metformin alone, metformin + another AHA), Country (China, other), baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|Difference in LS Means vs. Placebo|-30.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.45|-24.35|||cLDA|||||-24.35|-36.45|<0.001
90875698|NCT03814746|181613231|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.44|||Negative binomial regression model|for the Annualized days of VOC-related visits to clinics, emergency rooms and hospitalizations||||1.44|0.52|
90875699|NCT03992781|181613247|SUPERIORITY||Relative change|-53.1|||<|0.001|||||||t-test|||Relative change in CUDOS score between Visit 3 and Visit 1 was tested by ratio t-test (paired t-test of logarithm) at 0.05 alpha level. This was expressed in percentage.||||<0.001
90875700|NCT03992781|181613248|SUPERIORITY||Relative change|-35.4|||<|0.001|||||||t-test|||Relative change in CUDOS score between Visit 2 and Visit 1 was tested by ratio t-test (paired t-test of logarithm) at 0.05 alpha level. This was expressed in percentage.||||<0.001
90875701|NCT03992781|181613249|SUPERIORITY||Relative change|-33.2|||<|0.001|||||||t-test|||Relative change in CUXOS score between Visit 2 and Visit 1 was tested by ratio t-test (paired t-test of logarithm) at 0.05 alpha level. This was expressed in percentage.||||<0.001
90875702|NCT03992781|181613249|SUPERIORITY||Relative change|-47.1|||<|0.001|||||||t-test|||Relative change in CUXOS score between Visit 3 and Visit 1 was tested by ratio t-test (paired t-test of logarithm) at 0.05 alpha level. This was expressed in percentage.||||<0.001
90875703|NCT03992781|181613250|SUPERIORITY||Relative change|-27.6|||<|0.001|||||||t-test|||Relative change in JSEQ score between Visit 2 and Visit 1 was tested by ratio t-test (paired t-test of logarithm) at 0.05 alpha level. This was expressed in percentage.||||<0.001
90875704|NCT03992781|181613250|SUPERIORITY||Relative change|-34.5|||<|0.001|||||||t-test|||Relative change in JSEQ score between Visit 3 and Visit 1 was tested by ratio t-test (paired t-test of logarithm) at 0.05 alpha level. This was expressed in percentage.||||<0.001
90875705|NCT03992781|181613251|SUPERIORITY||Relative change|-43.4|||<|0.001|||||||t-test|||Relative change in VAS score between Visit 2 and Visit 1 was tested by ratio t-test (paired t-test of logarithm) at 0.05 alpha level. This was expressed in percentage.||||<0.001
90875706|NCT03992781|181613251|SUPERIORITY||Relative change|-35.4|||<|0.001|||||||t-test|||Relative change in VAS score between Visit 3 and Visit 1 was tested by ratio t-test (paired t-test of logarithm) at 0.05 alpha level. This was expressed in percentage.||||<0.001
90875707|NCT01996826|181613259|OTHER|Based on prior studies endothelial rejection episodes tend to occur in the range of about 60% of transplants. We used rates ranging from 50 to 70 % to compute the sample size. We specified the probability of a type 1 error equal to 0.05, study power equal to 80%, a follow-up period of 12 months, and 4% loss to follow-up. Calculations resulted in sample size estimates of between 65 and 124 participants.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.35||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|1.14|||Log Rank|||Endothelial rejection rates in patients in the treatment group and the control group were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier survival curve. The Kaplan-Meier/product limit estimator is a non-parametric statistical test used to show the probability of an event occurring at a given time interval. The Kaplan-Meier estimator is used to show what the probability of corneal transplant rejection (and therefore transplant survival) after administration of the active treatment or control.||1.14|0.12|0.10
90915317|NCT01616459|181701651|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Objectives for 12-valent formulation were to be assessed sequentially after demonstration of objectives for 11-valent formulation. 2-sided 95.8% Confidence Interval (CI) adjusted 1-sided (alpha =2.08%) of the difference between groups in terms of percentage of subjects. CI for difference in proportion: Proc StatXact was used to derive the standardized asymptotic CI for the group difference in proportions \[Newcombe,1998\]. The standardized asymptotic method used within GSK Biologicals is method 6.|Difference in percentage|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.8|-1.93|3.06||||||ANTI-7F serotype test: To demonstrate that 12Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 10 out of 12 serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 6A and 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of % of subjects with antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 μg/mL. Criteria: UL of 2-sided 95.8 % CI of the difference between (Prevnar13 minus 12Pn) and (Synflorix minus 12Pn) groups \< 10 % for at least 10 out of 12 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||3.06|-1.93|
90915318|NCT01616459|181701651|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Objectives for 12-valent formulation were to be assessed sequentially after demonstration of objectives for 11-valent formulation. 2-sided 95.8% Confidence Interval (CI) adjusted 1-sided (alpha =2.08%) of the difference between groups in terms of percentage of subjects. CI for difference in proportion: Proc StatXact was used to derive the standardized asymptotic CI for the group difference in proportions \[Newcombe,1998\]. The standardized asymptotic method used within GSK Biologicals is method 6.|Difference in percentage|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.8|-2.72|2.64||||||ANTI-9V serotype test: To demonstrate that 12Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 10 out of 12 serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 6A and 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of % of subjects with antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 μg/mL. Criteria: UL of 2-sided 95.8 % CI of the difference between (Prevnar13 minus 12Pn) and (Synflorix minus 12Pn) groups \< 10 % for at least 10 out of 12 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||2.64|-2.72|
90915319|NCT01616459|181701651|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Objectives for 12-valent formulation were to be assessed sequentially after demonstration of objectives for 11-valent formulation. 2-sided 95.8% Confidence Interval (CI) adjusted 1-sided (alpha =2.08%) of the difference between groups in terms of percentage of subjects. CI for difference in proportion: Proc StatXact was used to derive the standardized asymptotic CI for the group difference in proportions \[Newcombe,1998\]. The standardized asymptotic method used within GSK Biologicals is method 6.|Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.8|-1.94|1.9||||||ANTI-14 serotype test: To demonstrate that 12Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 10 out of 12 serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 6A and 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of % of subjects with antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 μg/mL. Criteria: UL of 2-sided 95.8 % CI of the difference between (Prevnar13 minus 12Pn) and (Synflorix minus 12Pn) groups \< 10 % for at least 10 out of 12 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||1.90|-1.94|
90961219|NCT04417127|181803347|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|7.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|9.55|||Wald test|||The retention in care analysis was an intention-to-treat analysis that included all enrolled participants and used the same analysis methods as those for the viral suppression (primary outcome) analysis. The retention in care analyses were not adjusted for multiplicity and should be considered hypothesis generating.||9.55|6.00|<0.001
90961220|NCT04417127|181803347|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|2.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.14|3.06|||Wald test|||The retention in care analysis was an intention-to-treat analysis that included all enrolled participants and used the same analysis methods as those for the viral suppression (primary outcome) analysis. The retention in care analyses were not adjusted for multiplicity and should be considered hypothesis generating.||3.06|2.14|<0.001
90961221|NCT04417127|181803348|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.206|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.595|2.183|||Wald test|||||2.183|-2.595|
90961222|NCT04417127|181803349|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4478|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.701|-0.194|||Wald test|||||-0.194|-0.701|
90961223|NCT03566810|181803391|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90% Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.00% - 125.00%.|Ratio of Geometric Least Square(LS)Mean%|98.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.2|105.64||||||Statistical Comparison of Test GXR Versus Reference GXR under Fasting conditions.||105.64|92.20|
90961224|NCT03566810|181803391|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90% Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.00% - 125.00%.|Ratio of Geometric LS Mean Percentage|99.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.15|106.05||||||Statistical Comparison of Test GXR Versus Reference GXR under Fed conditions.||106.05|93.15|
90961225|NCT03566810|181803392|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90% Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.00% - 125.00%.|Ratio of Geometric LS Mean Percentage|98.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.08|107.44||||||Statistical Comparison of Test GXR Versus Reference GXR under Fasting conditions.||107.44|91.08|
90961226|NCT03566810|181803392|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90% Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.00% - 125.00%.|Ratio of Geometric LS Mean Percentage|96.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.87|104.46||||||Statistical Comparison of Test GXR Versus Reference GXR under Fed conditions.||104.46|89.87|
90961227|NCT03566810|181803393|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90% Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.00% - 125.00%.|Median point estimate difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|0.0||||||Statistical Comparison of Test GXR Versus Reference GXR under Fasting conditions.||0.00|-0.50|
90961228|NCT03566810|181803393|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90% Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.00% - 125.00%.|Median point estimate difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|0.5||||||Statistical Comparison of Test GXR Versus Reference GXR under Fed conditions.||0.50|-0.50|
90961229|NCT03566810|181803395|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90% Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.00% - 125.00%.|Ratio of Geometric LS Mean Percentage|97.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.38|104.86||||||Statistical Comparison of Test GXR Versus Reference GXR under Fasting conditions.||104.86|91.38|
90875708|NCT01996826|181613260|OTHER|The count of ocular adverse events for subjects in intervention group (Avastin® (bevacizumab) and control group (0.9% NaCl \& Refresh Liquigel) were counted and compared.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.92||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.06|||Fisher Exact|||The incidence of Ocular Adverse Events for subjects in intervention group (Avastin® (bevacizumab) and control group (0.9% NaCl \& Refresh Liquigel) were counted and compared.||1.06|0.78|0.36
90875709|NCT01996826|181613260|OTHER|Mild ocular adverse events for subjects in intervention group and control group were counted and compared.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.95||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.4|||Fisher Exact|||The number of mild severity Ocular Adverse Events for subjects in intervention group (Avastin® (bevacizumab) and control group (0.9% NaCl \& Refresh Liquigel) were counted and compared.||1.4|0.63|0.82
90875710|NCT01996826|181613260|OTHER|Moderate severity ocular adverse events for subjects in intervention group and control group were counted and compared.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.95|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|2.2|||Fisher Exact|||The number of moderate severity Ocular Adverse Events for subjects in intervention group (Avastin® (bevacizumab) and control group (0.9% NaCl \& Refresh Liquigel) were counted and compared.||2.2|0.41|>0.99
90875711|NCT01996826|181613260|OTHER|Severe ocular adverse events for subjects in intervention group and control group were counted and compared.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.63||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.9|||Fisher Exact|||Severe ocular adverse events for subjects in intervention group and control group were counted and compared.||1.9|0.20|0.51
90875712|NCT01996826|181613261|OTHER|The incidence of Systematic Adverse Events for subjects in intervention group (Avastin® (bevacizumab) and control group (0.9% NaCl \& Refresh Liquigel) were calculated and compared.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.92||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.02|||Fisher Exact|||||1.02|0.79|0.24
90875713|NCT01996826|181613261|OTHER|Mild severity systemic adverse events for subjects in intervention group and control group were counted and compared.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.62||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|3.9|||Fisher Exact|||The number of mild systemic Adverse Events for subjects in intervention group (Avastin® (bevacizumab) and control group (0.9% NaCl \& Refresh Liquigel) were counted and compared.||3.9|0.68|0.40
90875714|NCT01996826|181613261|OTHER|Moderate severity systemic adverse events for subjects in intervention group and control group were counted and compared.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.95|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|14.5|||Fisher Exact|||The number of moderate severity systemic Adverse Events for subjects in intervention group (Avastin® (bevacizumab) and control group (0.9% NaCl \& Refresh Liquigel) were counted and compared.||14.5|0.26|>0.99
90875715|NCT01996826|181613261|OTHER|Severe systemic adverse events for subjects in intervention group and control group were counted and compared.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.9|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|14.5|||Fisher Exact|||The number of severe systemic Adverse Events for subjects in intervention group (Avastin® (bevacizumab) and control group (0.9% NaCl \& Refresh Liquigel) were counted and compared.||14.5|0.26|>0.99
90875716|NCT00518323|181613271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.17||0.508||95.0|-8.36|4.16||The p value was associated with the closed testing procedure using Dunnett's test.|ANCOVA|Used ANCOVA model with treatment(placebo, pali ER Low, pali ER Medium, and pali ER High) and country as factors and baseline value as a covariate.|The 95% confidence intervals were unadjusted for multiplicity.|If there were approximately 49 subjects per treatment group who had Week 6 (LOCF or end point) PANSS total measurements, the study was expected to have approximately 80% power to detect a clinically relevant difference of 13.2 points between any paliperidone ER group compared with placebo for the primary outcome measure.||4.16|-8.36|0.508
90875717|NCT00518323|181613271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.27||0.006||95.0|-16.58|-3.67||The p value was associated with the closed testing procedure using Dunnett's test.|ANCOVA|Used ANCOVA model with treatment(placebo, pali ER Low, pali ER Medium, and pali ER High) and country as factors and baseline value as a covariate.|The 95% confidence intervals were unadjusted for multiplicity.|If there were approximately 49 subjects per treatment group who had Week 6 (LOCF or end point) PANSS total measurements, the study was expected to have approximately 80% power to detect a clinically relevant difference of 13.2 points between any paliperidone ER group compared with placebo for the primary outcome measure.||-3.67|-16.58|0.006
90875718|NCT00518323|181613271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.29||0.086||95.0|-13.07|-0.09||The p value was associated with the closed testing procedure using Dunnett's test.|ANCOVA|Used ANCOVA model with treatment(placebo, pali ER Low, pali ER Medium, and pali ER High) and country as factors and baseline value as a covariate.|The 95% confidence intervals were unadjusted for multiplicity.|If there were approximately 49 subjects per treatment group who had Week 6 (LOCF or end point) PANSS total measurements, the study was expected to have approximately 80% power to detect a clinically relevant difference of 13.2 points between any paliperidone ER group compared with placebo for the primary outcome measure.||-0.09|-13.07|0.086
90875719|NCT00518323|181613272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.968||95.0||||Comparison with placebo was without multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|||Analysis of the change in the CGI-S score at end point was performed using an analysis of covariance model on the ranks of the change in score at end point with treatment (placebo, pali ER Low, pali ER Medium, and pali ER High) and country as factors, and (non-ranked) baseline CGI-S score as a covariate.||||0.968
90875720|NCT00518323|181613272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Comparison with placebo was without multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|||Analysis of the change in the CGI-S score at end point was performed using an analysis of covariance model on the ranks of the change in score at end point with treatment (placebo, pali ER Low, pali ER Medium, and pali ER High) and country as factors, and (non-ranked) baseline CGI-S score as a covariate.||||<0.001
90940533|NCT02630706|181760825|SUPERIORITY|cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, anti-hyperglycemic medication status at Screening (metformin alone, metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|Difference in LS Means vs. Placebo|-26.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.41|-20.01|||cLDA|||||-20.01|-32.41|<0.001
91033466|NCT00272779|181952784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||point estimate|0.925|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.699|1.223|||ANOVA||Point estimates and 90% CIs for differences between treatment regimens were calculated on the log scale, and were exponentiated to obtain estimates for ratios of geometric means on the original scale.|||1.223|0.699|
91033467|NCT00272779|181952785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||point estimate|0.853|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.626|1.161|||ANOVA||Point estimates and 90% CIs for differences between treatment regimens were calculated on the log scale, and were exponentiated to obtain estimates for ratios of geometric means on the original scale.|||1.161|0.626|
90915320|NCT01616459|181701651|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Objectives for 12-valent formulation were to be assessed sequentially after demonstration of objectives for 11-valent formulation. 2-sided 95.8% Confidence Interval (CI) adjusted 1-sided (alpha =2.08%) of the difference between groups in terms of percentage of subjects. CI for difference in proportion: Proc StatXact was used to derive the standardized asymptotic CI for the group difference in proportions \[Newcombe,1998\]. The standardized asymptotic method used within GSK Biologicals is method 6.|Difference in percentage|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.8|-3.72|2.52||||||ANTI-18C serotype test: To demonstrate that 12Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 10 out of 12 serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 6A and 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of % of subjects with antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 μg/mL. Criteria: UL of 2-sided 95.8 % CI of the difference between (Prevnar13 minus 12Pn) and (Synflorix minus 12Pn) groups \< 10 % for at least 10 out of 12 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||2.52|-3.72|
90915321|NCT01616459|181701651|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Objectives for 12-valent formulation were to be assessed sequentially after demonstration of objectives for 11-valent formulation. 2-sided 95.8% Confidence Interval (CI) adjusted 1-sided (alpha =2.08%) of the difference between groups in terms of percentage of subjects. CI for difference in proportion: Proc StatXact was used to derive the standardized asymptotic CI for the group difference in proportions \[Newcombe,1998\]. The standardized asymptotic method used within GSK Biologicals is method 6.|Difference in percentage|-0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.8|-4.38|2.1||||||ANTI-19F serotype test: To demonstrate that 12Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 10 out of 12 serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 6A and 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of % of subjects with antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 μg/mL. Criteria: UL of 2-sided 95.8 % CI of the difference between (Prevnar13 minus 12Pn) and (Synflorix minus 12Pn) groups \< 10 % for at least 10 out of 12 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||2.10|-4.38|
90915322|NCT01616459|181701651|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Objectives for 12-valent formulation were to be assessed sequentially after demonstration of objectives for 11-valent formulation. 2-sided 95.8% Confidence Interval (CI) adjusted 1-sided (alpha =2.08%) of the difference between groups in terms of percentage of subjects. CI for difference in proportion: Proc StatXact was used to derive the standardized asymptotic CI for the group difference in proportions \[Newcombe,1998\]. The standardized asymptotic method used within GSK Biologicals is method 6.|Difference in percentage|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.8|-5.07|10.06||||||ANTI-23F serotype test: To demonstrate that 12Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 10 out of 12 serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 6A and 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of % of subjects with antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 μg/mL. Criteria: UL of 2-sided 95.8 % CI of the difference between (Prevnar13 minus 12Pn) and (Synflorix minus 12Pn) groups \< 10 % for at least 10 out of 12 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||10.06|-5.07|
90915323|NCT01616459|181701652|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Objectives for 12-valent formulation were to be assessed sequentially after demonstration of objectives for 11-valent formulation. 2-sided 95.8% Confidence Interval (CI) adjusted 1-sided (alpha =2.08%) of the difference between groups in terms of percentage of subjects. CI for difference in proportion: Proc StatXact was used to derive the standardized asymptotic CI for the group difference in proportions \[Newcombe,1998\]. The standardized asymptotic method used within GSK Biologicals is method 6.|Difference in percentage|11.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.8|7.22|16.49||||||ANTI-6A serotype test: To demonstrate that 12Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 10 out of 12 serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 6A \& 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of % of subjects with antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 μg/mL. Criteria: UL of 2-sided 95.8 % CI of the difference between (Prevnar13 minus 12Pn) and (Synflorix minus 12Pn) groups \<10% for at least 10 out of 12 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||16.49|7.22|
90915324|NCT01616459|181701652|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Objectives for 12-valent formulation were to be assessed sequentially after demonstration of objectives for 11-valent formulation. 2-sided 95.8% Confidence Interval (CI) adjusted 1-sided (alpha =2.08%) of the difference between groups in terms of percentage of subjects. CI for difference in proportion: Proc StatXact was used to derive the standardized asymptotic CI for the group difference in proportions \[Newcombe,1998\]. The standardized asymptotic method used within GSK Biologicals is method 6.|Difference in percentage|3.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.8|1.03|7.57||||||ANTI-19A serotype test: To demonstrate that 12Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 10 out of 12 serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 6A \& 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of % of subjects with antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 μg/mL. Criteria: UL of 2-sided 95.8 % CI of the difference between (Prevnar13 minus 12Pn) and (Synflorix minus 12Pn) groups \<10% for at least 10 out of 12 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||7.57|1.03|
91033468|NCT00272779|181952786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||point estimate|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.689|1.151|||ANOVA||Point estimates and 90% CIs for differences between treatment regimens were calculated on the log scale, and were exponentiated to obtain estimates for ratios of geometric means on the original scale.|||1.151|0.689|
91033469|NCT00272779|181952810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0847||95.0||||The explanatory variables in the model include treatment, genotype, time, and their interaction effects as fixed effects and the spatial exponential with respect to time from baseline was used to model the covariance structure of repeated measures.|linear mixed effect model|The FDR multiple testing adjustment was used to adjust p-values for the number of SNPs being tested (only SNPs with FDR-adj p-values \<0.2 reported)||Null Hypothesis: There is no association between the mean change from baseline in fasting non-HDL cholesterol (phenotype) and the RETN\_097 genotypes. A single SNP association analysis was conducted using the linear mixed effect model for repeated measures (baseline, week 48 and 96) to test the overall genotype effect (i.e. an omnibus test on both the marginal genotype effect and the genotype-by-treatment interaction effect). Number of participants with RETN\_097 reported in Outcome Measure 16.||||0.0847
90875721|NCT00518323|181613272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021||95.0||||Comparison with placebo was without multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|||Analysis of the change in the CGI-S score at end point was performed using an analysis of covariance model on the ranks of the change in score at end point with treatment (placebo, pali ER Low, pali ER Medium, and pali ER High) and country as factors, and (non-ranked) baseline CGI-S score as a covariate.||||0.021
90875722|NCT00518323|181613273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.846||95.0|-4.54|3.73||Comparison with placebo was without multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Used ANCOVA model with treatment (placebo, pali ER Low, pali ER Medium, and pali ER High) and country as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||||3.73|-4.54|0.846
90875723|NCT00518323|181613273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.17|<|0.001||95.0|4.28|12.82||Comparison with placebo was without multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Used ANCOVA model with treatment(placebo, pali ER Low, pali ER Medium, and pali ER High) and country as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||||12.82|4.28|<0.001
90875724|NCT00518323|181613273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.18||0.067||95.0|-0.28|8.33||Comparison with placebo was without multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Used ANCOVA model with treatment(placebo, pali ER Low, pali ER Medium, and pali ER High) and country as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||||8.33|-0.28|0.067
90875725|NCT00518323|181613274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.27||0.058||95.0|-0.29|16.56||Comparison with placebo was without multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Used ANCOVA model with treatment(placebo, pali ER Low, pali ER Medium, and pali ER High) and country as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||||16.56|-0.29|0.058
90875726|NCT00518323|181613274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.4|<|0.001||95.0|8.08|25.43||Comparison with placebo was without multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Used ANCOVA model with treatment(placebo, pali ER Low, pali ER Medium, and pali ER High) and country as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||||25.43|8.08|<0.001
90875727|NCT00518323|181613274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.43||0.003||95.0|4.76|22.23||Comparison with placebo was without multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Used ANCOVA model with treatment(placebo, pali ER Low, pali ER Medium, and pali ER High) and country as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||||22.23|4.76|0.003
90875728|NCT00518323|181613275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.15||0.237||95.0|-13.11|3.26||Comparison with placebo was without multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Used ANCOVA model with treatment(placebo, pali ER Low, pali ER Medium, and pali ER High) and country as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||||3.26|-13.11|0.237
90875729|NCT00518323|181613275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.28||0.119||95.0|-15.15|1.74||Comparison with placebo was without multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Used ANCOVA model with treatment(placebo, pali ER Low, pali ER Medium, and pali ER High) and country as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||||1.74|-15.15|0.119
90875730|NCT00518323|181613275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.34||0.574||95.0|-11.0|6.11||Comparison with placebo was without multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Used ANCOVA model with treatment(placebo, pali ER Low, pali ER Medium, and pali ER High) and country as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||||6.11|-11.00|0.574
90875731|NCT03164928|181613276|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.11||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.673|||ANCOVA|||||0.673|-0.450|0.68
90875732|NCT03164928|181613277|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.17||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.194|0.542|||Repeated Measures Model|||Month 6||0.542|-0.194|0.34
90875733|NCT03164928|181613277|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.03||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.609|0.661|||Repeated Measures Model|||Month 18||0.661|-0.609|0.93
90875734|NCT03164928|181613277|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.11||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.572|0.795|||Repeated Measures Model|||Month 24||0.795|-0.572|0.74
90875735|NCT03164928|181613277|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means Difference|-0.8||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.848|0.239|||Repeated Measures Model|||Month 36||0.239|-1.848|0.12
90875736|NCT03164928|181613278|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.41||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|0.223|||Repeated Measures Model|||Month 6 (Total Hip)||0.223|-1.050|0.19
90875737|NCT03164928|181613278|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.06||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.631|0.515|||Repeated Measures Model|||Month 12 (Total Hip)||0.515|-0.631|0.83
90875738|NCT03164928|181613278|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.27||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.108|0.565|||Repeated Measures Model|||Month 18 (Total Hip)||0.565|-1.108|0.51
90875739|NCT03164928|181613278|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.18||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.098|0.746|||Repeated Measures Model|||Month 24 (Total Hip)||0.746|-1.098|0.69
90875740|NCT03164928|181613278|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.09||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.465|1.286|||Repeated Measures Model|||Month 36 (Total Hip)||1.286|-1.465|0.89
90875741|NCT03164928|181613278|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.18||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.969|0.614|||Repeated Measures Model|||Month 6 (Femoral Neck)||0.614|-0.969|0.64
90875742|NCT03164928|181613278|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.1||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.808|1.0|||Repeated Measures Model|||Month 12 (Femoral Neck)||1.000|-0.808|0.83
90875743|NCT03164928|181613278|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.37||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.697|1.442|||Repeated Measures Model|||Month 18 (Femoral Neck)||1.442|-0.697|0.48
90875744|NCT03164928|181613278|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.11||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.222|1.443|||Repeated Measures Model|||Month 24 (Femoral Neck)||1.443|-1.222|0.86
90875745|NCT03164928|181613278|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.38||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.378|2.13|||Repeated Measures Model|||Month 36 (Femoral Neck)||2.130|-1.378|0.66
90875746|NCT03329690|181613306|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test with region as a stratification factor||||||<0.0001
90875747|NCT01519414|181613343|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.02
90940534|NCT02630706|181760825|SUPERIORITY|cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, anti-hyperglycemic medication status at Screening (metformin alone, metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|Difference in LS Means vs. Placebo|-28.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.67|-22.43|||cLDA|||||-22.43|-34.67|<0.001
90915325|NCT05165485|181701679|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-23.0||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.0|14.0||The familywise type 1 error rate is controlled at 0.05 by testing the primary and secondary endpoint hypotheses in sequence, stopping after the first failure to reject the null hypothesis.|Mixed Models Analysis|Denominator degrees of freedom were approximated by the Kenward and Roger (1997) method.|Revefenacin - Tiotropium Least Squares Mean Difference|The null hypothesis was that the Revefenacin - Tiotropium Least Squares Mean Difference was zero and the alternative hypothesis was that it was nonzero.|The Revefenacin - Tiotropium Least Squares Mean Difference was estimated by fitting a repeated measures mixed model which included terms for participant, treatment, 6 categorical covariates, and 3 continuous covariates: baseline FEV1, screening FEV1, and baseline PIFR. The 6 categorical covariates were reversibility to ipratropium status (reversible/not reversible), smoking status (current/former), concomitant LABA or LABA/ICS use (Yes/No), GOLD airflow category (3/4, i.e., postipratropium FEV1 % predicted \< 30%/≥ 30%), sex (woman/man), and age group (\< 65/≥ 65).|14|-61|0.22
90915326|NCT05165485|181701680|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.0|20.0||The familywise type 1 error rate is controlled at 0.05 by testing the primary and secondary endpoint hypotheses in sequence and stopping after the first failure to reject the null hypothesis. Accordingly, the p-value is not shown.|Mixed Models Analysis||Revefenacin - Tiotropium Least Squares Mean Difference|The OTE is defined as the average of the Day 30, Day 60, and Day 85 Revefenacin - Tiotropium Least Squares Mean differences. The null hypothesis was that the OTE Revefenacin - Tiotropium Least Squares Mean Difference was zero and the alternative hypothesis was that it was nonzero.|The Revefenacin - Tiotropium Least Squares Mean Difference was estimated by fitting a repeated measures mixed model which included terms for participant, treatment, 6 categorical covariates, and 3 continuous covariates: baseline FEV1, screening FEV1, and baseline PIFR. The 6 categorical covariates were reversibility to ipratropium status (reversible/not reversible), smoking status (current/former), concomitant LABA or LABA/ICS use (Yes/No), GOLD airflow category (3/4, i.e., postipratropium FEV1 % predicted \< 30%/≥ 30%), sex (woman/man), and age group (\< 65/≥ 65).|20|-38|
90915327|NCT05165485|181701681|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.0|32.0||The familywise type 1 error rate is controlled at 0.05 by testing the primary and secondary endpoint hypotheses in sequence and stopping after the first failure to reject the null hypothesis. Accordingly, the p-value is not shown.|Mixed Models Analysis||Revefenacin - Tiotropium Least Squares Mean Difference|The null hypothesis was that the Revefenacin - Tiotropium Least Squares Mean Difference was zero and the alternative hypothesis was that it was nonzero.|The Revefenacin - Tiotropium Least Squares Mean Difference was estimated by fitting a repeated measures mixed model which included terms for participant, treatment, 6 categorical covariates, and 3 continuous covariates: baseline FEV1, screening FEV1, and baseline PIFR. The 6 categorical covariates were reversibility to ipratropium status (reversible/not reversible), smoking status (current/former), concomitant LABA or LABA/ICS use (Yes/No), GOLD airflow category (3/4, i.e., postipratropium FEV1 % predicted \< 30%/≥ 30%), sex (woman/man), and age group (\< 65/≥ 65).|32|-29|
90915328|NCT05165485|181701682|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.0|29.0||The familywise type 1 error rate is controlled at 0.05 by testing the primary and secondary endpoint hypotheses in sequence and stopping after the first failure to reject the null hypothesis. Accordingly, the p-value is not shown.|Mixed Models Analysis||Revefenacin - Tiotropium Least Squares Mean Difference|The null hypothesis was that the Revefenacin - Tiotropium Least Squares Mean Difference was zero and the alternative hypothesis was that it was nonzero.|The Revefenacin - Tiotropium Least Squares Mean Difference was estimated by fitting a repeated measures mixed model which included terms for participant, treatment, 6 categorical covariates, and 3 continuous covariates: baseline FEV1, screening FEV1, and baseline PIFR. The 6 categorical covariates were reversibility to ipratropium status (reversible/not reversible), smoking status (current/former), concomitant LABA or LABA/ICS use (Yes/No), GOLD airflow category (3/4, i.e., postipratropium FEV1 % predicted \< 30%/≥ 30%), sex (woman/man), and age group (\< 65/≥ 65).|29|-40|
90915329|NCT05165485|181701683|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-41.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-118.0|35.0||The familywise type 1 error rate is controlled at 0.05 by testing the primary and secondary endpoint hypotheses in sequence and stopping after the first failure to reject the null hypothesis. Accordingly, the p-value is not shown.|Mixed Models Analysis||Revefenacin - Tiotropium Least Squares Mean Difference.|The null hypothesis was that the Revefenacin - Tiotropium Least Squares Mean Difference was zero and the alternative hypothesis was that it was nonzero.|The Revefenacin - Tiotropium Least Squares Mean Difference was estimated by fitting a repeated measures mixed model which included terms for participant, treatment, 6 categorical covariates, and 3 continuous covariates: baseline FVC, screening FVC, and baseline PIFR. The 6 categorical covariates were reversibility to ipratropium status (reversible/not reversible), smoking status (current/former), concomitant LABA or LABA/ICS use (Yes/No), GOLD airflow category (3/4, i.e., postipratropium FEV1 % predicted \< 30%/≥ 30%), sex (woman/man), and age group (\< 65/≥ 65).|35|-118|
90915330|NCT05165485|181701684|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.92||The familywise type 1 error rate is controlled at 0.05 by testing the primary and secondary endpoint hypotheses in sequence and stopping after the first failure to reject the null hypothesis. Accordingly, the p-value is not shown.|Regression, Logistic||The profile likelihood method was used to estimate the Revefenacin / Tiotropium responder OR.|The null hypothesis was that the Revefenacin / Tiotropium responder Odds Ratio was equal to 1 and the alternative hypothesis was that it was not equal to 1.|The Revefenacin / Tiotropium responder OR was estimated by fitting a logistic regression model which included terms for participant, treatment, 6 categorical covariates, and 3 continuous covariates: baseline FEV1, screening FEV1, and baseline PIFR. The 6 categorical covariates were reversibility to ipratropium status (reversible/not reversible), smoking status (current/former), concomitant LABA or LABA/ICS use (Yes/No), GOLD airflow category (3/4, i.e., postipratropium FEV1 % predicted \< 30%/≥ 30%), sex (woman/man), and age group (\< 65/≥ 65).|0.92|0.39|
90961230|NCT03566810|181803395|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90% Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.00% - 125.00%.|Ratio of Geometric LS Mean Percentage|98.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.37|104.14||||||Statistical Comparison of Test GXR Versus Reference GXR under Fed conditions.||104.14|92.37|
90961231|NCT01444651|181803414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||beta estimate|-1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression was used to model the change in HOMA-IR (3 month minus baseline value), comparing tadalafil versus placebo groups after adjusting for baseline HOMA-IR.||||0.34
90875748|NCT00531817|181613378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.29|25.42||The p-value was not adjusted. The primary objective was a single comparison with an a priori threshold of 0.05 for statistical significance.|Fisher Exact|||Power calculation: Assuming placebo+DMARDs response rate of 15% and tocilizumab 8 mg/kg+DMARDs response rate of 28% based on previous trials, a sample size of 570 patients (2:1 ratio, tocilizumab+DMARDs n=380 and placebo+DMARDs n=190) will provide \> 90% power to detect a difference between 2 treatment arms with 5% Type I error with a 2-sided Fisher's exact test. Null Hypothesis: The percentage of patients responding in each treatment group (tocilizumab+DMARDs vs placebo+ DMARDs) is the same.||25.42|12.29|<0.0001
90875749|NCT00561080|181613388|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Superiority was achieved if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio was greater than 1.2|Geometric Mean Titer Ratio (GMTR)|1.11||||0.948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.22|||ANOVA||GMTR = GMT Post Dose 2/GMT Post dose 1|||1.22|1.02|0.948
90875750|NCT00561080|181613388|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Superiority was achieved if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio was greater than 1.2|GMTR|0.78|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.85|||ANOVA||GMTR = GMT Post Dose 2/GMT Post dose 1|||0.85|0.73|>0.999
90875751|NCT00561080|181613389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMFR|2.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.11|2.62|||||GMFR=GMT Post Dose/GMT Pre Dose|||2.62|2.11|
90875752|NCT00561080|181613391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.17|||||GMT Ratio = Group 2 GMT/Group 1 GMT|ANCOVA model includes country and age at first vaccination as independent variables and baseline antibody titre as covariate. The GMT 12-month post-last dose is the GMT adjusted from the ANCOVA model||1.17|0.96|
90875753|NCT00561080|181613391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.19|||||GMT Ratio = GMT Group 3/GMT Group 1|ANCOVA model includes country and age at first vaccination as independent variables and baseline antibody titre as covariate. The GMT 12-month post-last dose is the GMT adjusted from the ANCOVA model||1.19|0.98|
90875754|NCT01641692|181613418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.066||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|0.127|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.127|0.004|0.036
90875755|NCT01641692|181613418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.090|-0.030|0.331
90875756|NCT01641692|181613418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.034||||0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.027|0.095|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.095|-0.027|0.272
90875757|NCT01641692|181613418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.088||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.026|0.149|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.149|0.026|0.005
90875758|NCT01641692|181613418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.011||||0.722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.073|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.073|-0.050|0.722
90875759|NCT01641692|181613418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.057||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.006|0.119|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.119|-0.006|0.076
90875760|NCT01641692|181613418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.051||||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.113|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.113|-0.010|0.101
90875761|NCT01641692|181613421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.7|-2.1|0.840
90875762|NCT01641692|181613421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.3|-2.4|0.553
90875763|NCT01641692|181613421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|3.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.3|-0.4|0.121
90875764|NCT01641692|181613421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.7|-2.1|0.814
90875765|NCT01641692|181613421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.3|-1.5|0.683
90940535|NCT02630706|181760826|SUPERIORITY|cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, anti-hyperglycemic medication status at Screening (metformin alone, metformin + another AHA), Country (China, other), baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|Difference in LS Means vs. Placebo|-2.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|-1.5|||cLDA|||||-1.50|-2.51|<0.001
90875766|NCT01641692|181613421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|2.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.7|-1.2|0.456
90961232|NCT01444651|181803415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||beta estimate|0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.18|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression was used to model the change in Matsuda Index (3-month minus baseline), comparing tadalafil versus placebo groups after adjusting for baseline value.||||0.18
90875767|NCT01641692|181613421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.1|-2.7|0.399
90875768|NCT01641692|181613422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|3.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.2|0.2|0.030
90875769|NCT01641692|181613422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|2.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.8|-0.1|0.077
90875770|NCT01641692|181613422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.5|0.5|0.010
90875771|NCT01641692|181613422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|3.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.9|0.9|0.002
90875772|NCT01641692|181613422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|3.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.7|0.7|0.005
90875773|NCT01641692|181613422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|4.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.3|1.2|<0.001
90875774|NCT01641692|181613422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.0|0.0|0.054
90875775|NCT01641692|181613423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|2.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.0|-1.4|0.752
90915331|NCT05165485|181701685|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.45||The familywise type 1 error rate is controlled at 0.05 by testing the primary and secondary endpoint hypotheses in sequence and stopping after the first failure to reject the null hypothesis. Accordingly, the p-value is not shown.|Regression, Cox||The profile likelihood method was used to estimate the Revefenacin / Tiotropium HR.|The null hypothesis was that the Revefenacin / Tiotropium CompEx Event Hazard Ratio was equal to 1 and the alternative hypothesis was that it was not equal to 1.|The Revefenacin / Tiotropium HR was estimated by fitting a Cox proportional hazards model which included terms for participant, treatment, 6 categorical covariates, and 3 continuous covariates: baseline FEV1, screening FEV1, and baseline PIFR. The 6 categorical covariates were reversibility to ipratropium status (reversible/not reversible), smoking status (current/former), concomitant LABA or LABA/ICS use (Yes/No), GOLD airflow category (3/4, i.e., postipratropium FEV1 % predicted \< 30%/≥ 30%), sex (woman/man), and age group (\< 65/≥ 65).|1.45|0.69|
90915332|NCT03237481|181701701|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (LSMD)|-81.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.592|=|0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-125.83|-37.02|||ANOVA|||||-37.02|-125.83|= 0.0004
90915333|NCT03237481|181701702|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (LSMD)|-72.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.23|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-108.32|-36.65|||ANOVA|||||-36.65|-108.32|< 0.0001
90915334|NCT03237481|181701703|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||= 0.0001
90915335|NCT03237481|181701704|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.111|||=|0.0486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.003|0.218|||Fisher Exact|||||0.218|0.003|= 0.0486
90915336|NCT03237481|181701705|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.024|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||= 0.024
90915337|NCT04714320|181701710|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.135||||||The stratification factor (screening estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m\^2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the analysis of covariate (ANCOVA) model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change From Baseline in Seated Automated Office SBP to Day 85||||=0.135
90915338|NCT04714320|181701710|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.867||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change From Baseline in Seated Automated Office SBP to Day 85||||=0.867
90915339|NCT04714320|181701712|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change From Baseline at Day 15||||<0.001
90915340|NCT04714320|181701712|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change From Baseline at Day 15||||<0.001
90915341|NCT04714320|181701712|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 29||||<0.001
90915342|NCT04714320|181701712|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 29||||<0.001
90915343|NCT04714320|181701712|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 43||||<0.001
90915344|NCT04714320|181701712|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 43||||<0.001
90915345|NCT04714320|181701712|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 57||||<0.001
90915346|NCT04714320|181701712|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 57||||<0.001
90875776|NCT01641692|181613423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|3.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.2|-0.1|0.072
90875777|NCT01641692|181613423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.2|-1.1|0.503
90875778|NCT01641692|181613423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.3|-1.1|0.476
90875779|NCT01641692|181613423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|3.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.2|-0.2|0.084
90875780|NCT01641692|181613423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.7|-1.8|0.970
90875781|NCT01641692|181613423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.0|-2.4|0.423
90875782|NCT02921776|181613445|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.45|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.45
90875783|NCT02921776|181613446|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.48||||0.55|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.55
90875784|NCT02921776|181613447|OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||Effect size|Effect size =-0.29||||||0.10
90875785|NCT02921776|181613447|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.39||||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.10
90875786|NCT02921776|181613448|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Benzodiazepine exposure||||0.02
90875787|NCT02921776|181613448|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.291|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Opioid Exposure||||0.291
90875788|NCT02921776|181613449|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.04||||0.38|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.38
90875789|NCT02921776|181613450|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.32
90875790|NCT02921776|181613451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|4.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.72|0.19|0.93
90875791|NCT02921776|181613452|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.6||||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.07
90875792|NCT02921776|181613454|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.71
90875793|NCT02921776|181613455|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline||||0.94
90875794|NCT02921776|181613455|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Patient Extubation or Discharge from ICU||||0.89
90875795|NCT02921776|181613455|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||1-Month||||0.38
90875796|NCT02921776|181613455|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||3-Month||||0.63
90875797|NCT02921776|181613455|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.73
90875798|NCT02921776|181613456|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline||||0.82
90875799|NCT02921776|181613456|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Patient extubation or discharge from ICU||||0.84
90875800|NCT02921776|181613456|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||1-month||||0.96
90915347|NCT04714320|181701712|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]) and treatment received were included in the Van Elteren model as independent variables.|Van Elteren|||Change from Baseline at Day 71||||<0.001
90875801|NCT02921776|181613456|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||3-Month||||0.17
90875802|NCT02921776|181613456|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.39
90875803|NCT02921776|181613457|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||1-month||||0.26
90875804|NCT02921776|181613457|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||3-month||||0.25
90875805|NCT02921776|181613457|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||6-month||||0.79
90875806|NCT02921776|181613465|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.23||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|1.01|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.01|0.05|0.05
90875807|NCT02921776|181613465|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.27||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|1.3|||Regression, Linear|||Adjusted for baseline communication difficulty||1.30|0.06|0.10
90875808|NCT05247229|181613466|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.37||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.73|||Chi-squared|||Q10 Difference between pre- and post-program surveys from generalized estimating equation linear regressions accounting for clustering of longitudinal observations within person, adjusted associations and 95% confidence intervals.||0.73|0.00|0.05
90875809|NCT05247229|181613466|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.22||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.7|||Chi-squared|||Q13 Difference between pre- and post-program surveys from generalized estimating equation linear regressions accounting for clustering of longitudinal observations within person, adjusted associations and 95% confidence intervals.||0.70|-0.25|0.36
90875810|NCT05247229|181613467|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.42||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.11|||Chi-squared|||Q6 Difference between pre- and post-program surveys from generalized estimating equation linear regressions accounting for clustering of longitudinal observations within person, adjusted associations and 95% confidence intervals.||0.11|-0.96|0.12
90875811|NCT05247229|181613467|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.41||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|1.05|||Chi-squared|||Q7 Difference between pre- and post-program surveys from generalized estimating equation linear regressions accounting for clustering of longitudinal observations within person, adjusted associations and 95% confidence intervals.||1.05|-0.23|0.21
90875812|NCT05247229|181613467|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.07||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.54|||Chi-squared|||Q15 Difference between pre- and post-program surveys from generalized estimating equation linear regressions accounting for clustering of longitudinal observations within person, adjusted associations and 95% confidence intervals.||0.54|-0.41|0.78
90875813|NCT05247229|181613468|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.51||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.86|||Chi-squared|||Q1 Difference between pre- and post-program surveys from generalized estimating equation linear regressions accounting for clustering of longitudinal observations within person, adjusted associations and 95% confidence intervals.||0.86|0.16|0.01
90875814|NCT05247229|181613468|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.09||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.52|||Chi-squared|||Q2 Difference between pre- and post-program surveys from generalized estimating equation linear regressions accounting for clustering of longitudinal observations within person, adjusted associations and 95% confidence intervals.||0.52|-0.34|0.67
90875815|NCT05247229|181613468|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.13||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.41|||Chi-squared|||Q3 Difference between pre- and post-program surveys from generalized estimating equation linear regressions accounting for clustering of longitudinal observations within person, adjusted associations and 95% confidence intervals.||0.41|-0.15|0.35
90915348|NCT04714320|181701712|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]) and treatment received were included in the Van Elteren model as independent variables.|Van Elteren|||Change from Baseline at Day 71||||<0.001
90915349|NCT04714320|181701712|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]) and treatment received were included in the Van Elteren model as independent variables.|Van Elteren|||Change from Baseline at Day 85||||<0.001
90915350|NCT04714320|181701712|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]) and treatment received were included in the Van Elteren model as independent variables.|Van Elteren|||Change from Baseline at Day 85||||<0.001
90915351|NCT04714320|181701712|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 92||||<0.001
90915352|NCT04714320|181701712|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 92||||<0.001
90915353|NCT04714320|181701712|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]) and treatment received were included in the Van Elteren model as independent variables.|Van Elteren|||Change from Baseline at Day 106||||<0.001
90915354|NCT04714320|181701712|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]) and treatment received were included in the Van Elteren model as independent variables.|Van Elteren|||Change from Baseline at Day 106||||<0.001
90915355|NCT04714320|181701712|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 120||||<0.001
90915356|NCT04714320|181701712|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 120||||<0.001
90915357|NCT04714320|181701712|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]) and treatment received were included in the Van Elteren model as independent variables.|Van Elteren|||Change from Baseline at Day 148||||<0.001
90915358|NCT04714320|181701712|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.002||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]) and treatment received were included in the Van Elteren model as independent variables.|Van Elteren|||Change from Baseline at Day 148||||=0.002
90915359|NCT04714320|181701712|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]) and treatment received were included in the Van Elteren model as independent variables.|Van Elteren|||Change from Baseline at Day 169||||<0.001
90915360|NCT04714320|181701712|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.002||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]) and treatment received were included in the Van Elteren model as independent variables.|Van Elteren|||Change from Baseline at Day 169||||=0.002
90915361|NCT04714320|181701713|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Percent Change from Baseline at Day 15||||<0.001
90915362|NCT04714320|181701713|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Percent Change from Baseline at Day 15||||<0.001
90915363|NCT04714320|181701713|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Percent Change from Baseline at Day at 29||||<0.001
90915364|NCT04714320|181701713|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Percent Change from Baseline at Day at 29||||<0.001
90915365|NCT04714320|181701713|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]) and treatment received were included in the Van Elteren model as independent variables.|Van Elteren|||Percent Change from Baseline at Day 43||||<0.001
90915366|NCT04714320|181701713|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]) and treatment received were included in the Van Elteren model as independent variables.|Van Elteren|||Percent Change from Baseline at Day 43||||<0.001
90915367|NCT04714320|181701713|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Percent Change from Baseline at Day 57||||<0.001
90915368|NCT04714320|181701713|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Percent Change from Baseline at Day 57||||<0.001
90915369|NCT04714320|181701713|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]) and treatment received were included in the Van Elteren model as independent variables.|Van Elteren|||Percent Change from Baseline at Day 71||||<0.001
90915370|NCT04714320|181701713|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]) and treatment received were included in the Van Elteren model as independent variables.|Van Elteren|||Percent Change from Baseline at Day 71||||<0.001
90961233|NCT01444651|181803416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||beta estimate|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.76|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression was used to model the difference in EndoPAT (3-month minus baseline), comparing tadalafil to placebo groups after adjusting for baseline values.||||0.76
90961234|NCT01444651|181803417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||beta estimate|1.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression was used to model the change in insulinogenic index (3-month minus baseline), comparing tadalafil to placebo groups after adjusting for baseline value.||||0.06
90875816|NCT05247229|181613468|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.09||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.61|||Chi-squared|||Q4 Difference between pre- and post-program surveys from generalized estimating equation linear regressions accounting for clustering of longitudinal observations within person, adjusted associations and 95% confidence intervals.||0.61|-0.43|0.73
90875817|NCT05247229|181613468|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.2||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.52|||Chi-squared|||Q5 Difference between pre- and post-program surveys from generalized estimating equation linear regressions accounting for clustering of longitudinal observations within person, adjusted associations and 95% confidence intervals.||0.52|-0.13|0.23
90875818|NCT05247229|181613468|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.71||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.15|||Chi-squared|||Q9 Difference between pre- and post-program surveys from generalized estimating equation linear regressions accounting for clustering of longitudinal observations within person, adjusted associations and 95% confidence intervals.||1.15|0.27|0.00
90875819|NCT05247229|181613468|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.37||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.73|||Chi-squared|||Q10 Difference between pre- and post-program surveys from generalized estimating equation linear regressions accounting for clustering of longitudinal observations within person, adjusted associations and 95% confidence intervals.||0.73|0.00|0.05
90875820|NCT05247229|181613468|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.37||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.82|||Chi-squared|||Q11 Difference between pre- and post-program surveys from generalized estimating equation linear regressions accounting for clustering of longitudinal observations within person, adjusted associations and 95% confidence intervals.||0.82|-0.07|0.10
90875821|NCT05247229|181613468|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.3||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.91|||Chi-squared|||Q12 Difference between pre- and post-program surveys from generalized estimating equation linear regressions accounting for clustering of longitudinal observations within person, adjusted associations and 95% confidence intervals.||0.91|-0.30|0.32
90875822|NCT05247229|181613468|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.22||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.7|||Chi-squared|||Q13 Difference between pre- and post-program surveys from generalized estimating equation linear regressions accounting for clustering of longitudinal observations within person, adjusted associations and 95% confidence intervals.||0.70|-0.25|0.36
90875823|NCT05247229|181613468|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.35||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.78|||Chi-squared|||Q14 Difference between pre- and post-program surveys from generalized estimating equation linear regressions accounting for clustering of longitudinal observations within person, adjusted associations and 95% confidence intervals.||0.78|-0.07|0.11
90875824|NCT01698463|181613478|OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||\<0.05 (threshold for significance).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
90875825|NCT04709575|181613484|SUPERIORITY||linear mixed-effect model|-0.995||||0.0497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9886|-0.0011|||LS Mean Difference|||||-0.0011|-1.9886|0.0497
90875826|NCT00858442|181613526|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Applies normality test of shapiro Wilks = 0.953, P\> 0.449 in group without PRP and in PRP group shapiro Wilks=0.946, P \> 0.259.~The data were normally distributed, with equal variances (Test of levene: F = 0.1234, P\> 0.99)"|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.452|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.452|>|0.1574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.332|2.428||Applies t-test for equality of means. t = -1.016 is obtained. p\> 0.1574|t-test, 1 sided|||||2.428|-7.332|>0.1574
90875827|NCT00858442|181613527|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Applies normality test of shapiro Wilks =0.972, P\> 0.687 in group without PRP and in PRP group shapiro Wilks = 0.964, P \> 0.410.~The data were normally distributed, with equal variances (Test of levene: F = 3.153, P\> 0.082)"|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27186|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.50519|>|0.593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28561|0.74189||Applies t-test for equality of means. t = -0.538 is obtained. p\> 0.593|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.74189|-1.28561|>0.593
90875828|NCT00858442|181613528|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Applies normality test of shapiro Wilks=0.822, P\<0.001 in group without PRP, and in PRP group shapiro Wilks =0.910, P\<0.017.~The data were no normally distributed, with equal variances (Test of levene, F=1.324, P\>0.255)"|||||>|0.398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Mean rank group without PRP= 28.88 Mean rank group with PRP= 26.31 Z value = -0.027||||||>0.398
90875829|NCT02016625|181613529|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis (H0): ratio is outside of interval (80%, 125%) vs. alternative hypothesis (H1): ratio is inside of interval (80%, 125%)|gMean ratio (%)|108.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.5||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.992|117.076|||ANOVA||ratio of cyclo + FDV to cyclo treatment. The standard error of the mean actually is the geometric coefficient of variation (%).|Geometric mean (gMean) ratio of cyclo + FDV to cyclo treatment. The statistical model used for the analysis of primary endpoints was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model accounted for variation from 'subject' and 'treatment' effects. The 'subject' effect was considered to be random, whereas the 'treatment' effect was considered as fixed.||117.076|99.992|0.0033
90961235|NCT01444651|181803418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||beta estimate|3.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38||0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression was used to model the change in oral disposition index (3-month minus baseline), comparing tadalafil versus placebo groups after adjusting for baseline value.||||0.009
90961236|NCT01444651|181803419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||beta estimate|8.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.05||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression was used to model the change in Matsuda disposition index (3-month minus baseline), comparing tadalafil to placebo groups after adjusting for baseline value.||||0.05
90961237|NCT02952001|181803478|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.562||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.050. No adjustments made or required for multiplicity.|Log-rank chi-square test|||The null hypothesis of no difference in the survival time distributions was tested.||||0.562
90915371|NCT04714320|181701713|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]) and treatment received were included in the Van Elteren model as independent variables.|Van Elteren|||Percent Change from Baseline at Day 85||||<0.001
90915372|NCT04714320|181701713|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]) and treatment received were included in the Van Elteren model as independent variables.|Van Elteren|||Percent Change from Baseline at Day 85||||<0.001
90915373|NCT04714320|181701713|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]) and treatment received were included in the Van Elteren model as independent variables.|Van Elteren|||Percent Change from Baseline at Day 92||||<0.001
90915374|NCT04714320|181701713|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2)) and treatment received were included in the Van Elteren model as independent variables|Van Elteren|||Percent Change from Baseline at Day 92||||<0.001
90875830|NCT02016625|181613530|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|H0: ratio is outside of interval (80%, 125%) vs. H1: ratio is inside of interval (80%, 125%)|gMean ratio (%)|106.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.7||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.36|115.534|||ANOVA||gMean ratio of cyclo+FDV to cyclo treatment. The standard error of the mean actually is the geometric coefficient of variation (%).|gMean ratio of cyclo+FDV to cyclo treatment The statistical model used for the analysis of primary endpoints was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model accounted for variation from 'subject' and 'treatment' effects. The 'subject' effect was considered to be random, whereas the 'treatment' effect was considered as fixed.||115.534|98.360|0.0019
90915375|NCT04714320|181701713|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2)) and treatment received were included in the Van Elteren model as independent variables.|Van Elteren|||Percent Change from Baseline at Day 106||||<0.001
90915376|NCT04714320|181701713|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2)) and treatment received were included in the Van Elteren model as independent variables.|Van Elteren|||Percent Change from Baseline at Day 106||||<0.001
90915377|NCT04714320|181701713|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Percent Change from Baseline at Day 120||||<0.001
90915378|NCT04714320|181701713|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Percent Change from Baseline at Day 120||||<0.001
90915379|NCT04714320|181701713|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Percent Change from Baseline at Day 148||||<0.001
90915380|NCT04714320|181701713|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.005||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Percent Change from Baseline at Day 148||||=0.005
90915381|NCT04714320|181701713|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2)) and treatment received were included in the Van Elteren model as independent variables.|Van Elteren|||Percent Change from Baseline at Day 169||||<0.001
90915382|NCT04714320|181701713|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.002||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2)) and treatment received were included in the Van Elteren model as independent variables.|Van Elteren|||Percent Change from Baseline at Day 169||||=0.002
90915383|NCT04714320|181701714|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.094||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline in 24-hour Mean SBP at Day 85||||=0.094
90915384|NCT04714320|181701714|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.842||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline in 24-hour Mean SBP at Day 85||||=0.842
90915385|NCT04714320|181701714|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.066||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change From Baseline in 24-hour Mean DBP at Day 85||||=0.066
90915386|NCT04714320|181701714|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.442||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change From Baseline in 24-hour Mean DBP at Day 85||||=0.442
90915387|NCT04714320|181701715|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.834||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in the Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg at Day 8||||=0.834
90915388|NCT04714320|181701715|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.945||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in the Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg at Day 8||||=0.945
90915389|NCT04714320|181701715|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.208||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in the Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg at Day 15||||=0.208
90915390|NCT04714320|181701715|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.74||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in the Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg at Day 15||||=0.740
90915391|NCT04714320|181701715|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.019||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in the Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg at Day 22||||=0.019
90915392|NCT04714320|181701715|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.56||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in the Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg at Day 22||||=0.560
90915393|NCT04714320|181701715|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.903||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure are included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction will be applied if quasi-complete separation of data points is detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg at Day 29||||=0.903
90915394|NCT04714320|181701715|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.268||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure are included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction will be applied if quasi-complete separation of data points is detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg at Day 29||||=0.268
90915395|NCT04714320|181701715|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.702||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg at Day 36||||=0.702
90915396|NCT04714320|181701715|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.885||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg at Day 36||||=0.885
90915397|NCT04714320|181701715|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.066||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg at Day 43||||=0.066
90915398|NCT04714320|181701715|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.783||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg at Day 43||||=0.783
90915399|NCT04714320|181701715|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.456||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg at Day 50||||=0.456
90915400|NCT04714320|181701715|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.102||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg at Day 50||||=0.102
90915401|NCT04714320|181701715|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.668||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg at Day 57||||=0.668
90915402|NCT04714320|181701715|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.454||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg at Day 57||||=0.454
90915403|NCT04714320|181701715|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.044||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg at Day 64||||=0.044
90915404|NCT04714320|181701715|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.704||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg at Day 64||||=0.704
90915405|NCT04714320|181701715|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.878||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg at Day 71||||=0.878
90915406|NCT04714320|181701715|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.681||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg at Day 71||||=0.681
90915407|NCT04714320|181701715|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.199||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg at Day 78||||=0.199
90961238|NCT00148954|181803482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.34||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|1.62|||Regression, Cox|||||1.62|1.11|0.003
90875831|NCT02016625|181613531|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|H0: ratio is outside of interval (80%, 125%) VS H1: ratio is inside of interval (80%, 125%)|gMean ratio (%)|90.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.6||0.0457|TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.281|101.205|||ANOVA||gMean ratio of cyclo+FDV to cyclo treatment. The standard error of the mean actually is the geometric coefficient of variation (%).|gMean ratio of cyclo+FDV to cyclo treatment The statistical model used for the analysis of primary endpoints was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model accounted for variation from 'subject' and 'treatment' effects. The 'subject' effect was considered to be random, whereas the 'treatment' effect was considered as fixed.||101.205|80.281|0.0457
90875832|NCT02016625|181613532|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|H0: ratio is outside of interval (80%, 125%) VS H1: ratio is inside of interval (80%, 125%)|gMean ratio (%)|140.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|35.8||0.8122|TWO_SIDED|90.0|111.772|177.833|||ANOVA||gMean ratio of cyclo+FDV to FDV treatment. The standard error of the mean actually is the geometric coefficient of variation (%).|gMean ratio of cyclo+FDV to FDV treatment. The statistical model used for the analysis of primary endpoints was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model accounted for variation from 'subject' and 'treatment' effects. The 'subject' effect was considered to be random, whereas the 'treatment' effect was considered as fixed.||177.833|111.772|0.8122
90875833|NCT02016625|181613533|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|H0: ratio is outside of interval (80%, 125%) VS H1: ratio is inside of interval (80%, 125%)|gMean ratio (%)|116.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.0||0.065|TWO_SIDED|90.0|108.674|125.801|||ANOVA||gMean ratio of cyclo+FDV to FDV treatment. The standard error of the mean actually is the geometric coefficient of variation (%).|gMean ratio of cyclo+FDV to FDV treatment. The statistical model used for the analysis of primary endpoints was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model accounted for variation from 'subject' and 'treatment' effects. The 'subject' effect was considered to be random, whereas the 'treatment' effect was considered as fixed.||125.801|108.674|0.0650
90875834|NCT02016625|181613534|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|H0: ratio is outside of interval (80%, 125%) VS H1: ratio is inside of interval (80%, 125%)|gMean ratio (%)|122.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|23.9||0.4181|TWO_SIDED|90.0|104.8|143.6|||ANOVA||gMean ratio of cyclo+FDV to FDV treatment. The standard error of the mean actually is the geometric coefficient of variation (%).|gMean ratio of cyclo+FDV to FDV treatment. The statistical model used for the analysis of primary endpoints was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model accounted for variation from 'subject' and 'treatment' effects. The 'subject' effect was considered to be random, whereas the 'treatment' effect was considered as fixed.||143.60|104.80|0.4181
90875835|NCT02016625|181613535|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|H0: ratio is outside of interval (80%, 125%) VS H1: ratio is inside of interval (80%, 125%)|gMean ratio (%)|127.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.8||0.6207|TWO_SIDED|90.0|114.453|141.827|||ANOVA||gMean ratio of tac+FDV to FDV treatment. The standard error of the mean actually is the geometric coefficient of variation (%).|gMean ratio of tac+FDV to FDV treatment. The statistical model used for the analysis of primary endpoints was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model accounted for variation from 'subject' and 'treatment' effects. The 'subject' effect was considered to be random, whereas the 'treatment' effect was considered as fixed.||141.827|114.453|0.6207
90875836|NCT02016625|181613536|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|H0: ratio is outside of interval (80%, 125%) VS H1: ratio is inside of interval (80%, 125%)|gMean ratio (%)|136.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.4||0.8592|TWO_SIDED|90.0|118.683|157.793|||ANOVA||gMean ratio of tac+FDV to FDV treatment. The standard error of the mean actually is the geometric coefficient of variation (%).|gMean ratio of tac+FDV to FDV treatment. The statistical model used for the analysis of primary endpoints was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model accounted for variation from 'subject' and 'treatment' effects. The 'subject' effect was considered to be random, whereas the 'treatment' effect was considered as fixed.||157.793|118.683|0.8592
90875837|NCT02016625|181613537|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|H0: ratio is outside of interval (80%, 125%) VS H1: ratio is inside of interval (80%, 125%)|gMean ratio (%)|99.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|28.5||0.0269|TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.857|118.644|||ANOVA||gMean ratio of tac+FDV to FDV treatment. The standard error of the mean actually is the geometric coefficient of variation (%).|gMean ratio of tac+FDV to FDV treatment. The statistical model used for the analysis of primary endpoints was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model accounted for variation from 'subject' and 'treatment' effects. The 'subject' effect was considered to be random, whereas the 'treatment' effect was considered as fixed.||118.644|82.857|0.0269
90875838|NCT02016625|181613538|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|H0: ratio is outside of interval (80%, 125%) VS H1: ratio is inside of interval (80%, 125%)|gMean ratio (%)|93.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|25.1||0.0493|TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.059|110.022|||ANOVA||gMean ratio of tac+FDV to FDV treatment. The standard error of the mean actually is the geometric coefficient of variation (%).|gMean ratio of tac+FDV to FDV treatment. The statistical model used for the analysis of primary endpoints was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model accounted for variation from 'subject' and 'treatment' effects. The 'subject' effect was considered to be random, whereas the 'treatment' effect was considered as fixed.||110.022|80.059|0.0493
90875839|NCT02016625|181613539|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|H0: ratio is outside of interval (80%, 125%) VS H1: ratio is inside of interval (80%, 125%)|gMean ratio (%)|99.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.0||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.375|106.115|||ANOVA||gMean ratio of tac+FDV to FDV treatment. The standard error of the mean actually is the geometric coefficient of variation (%).|gMean ratio of tac+FDV to FDV treatment. The statistical model used for the analysis of primary endpoints was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model accounted for variation from 'subject' and 'treatment' effects. The 'subject' effect was considered to be random, whereas the 'treatment' effect was considered as fixed.||106.115|93.375|0.0000
90915408|NCT04714320|181701715|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.602||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg at Day 78||||=0.602
90915409|NCT04714320|181701715|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.135||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg at Day 85||||=0.135
90915410|NCT04714320|181701715|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.407||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg at Day 85||||=0.407
90915411|NCT04714320|181701715|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.795||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg at Day 92||||=0.795
90915412|NCT04714320|181701715|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.036||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg at Day 92||||=0.036
90915413|NCT04714320|181701715|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.915||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg at Day 106||||=0.915
90915414|NCT04714320|181701715|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.957||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg at Day 106||||=0.957
90961239|NCT01681628|181803486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.1|24.0||This was an a priori threshold.|t-test, 2 sided|||Means and differences were calculated for both groups before (time 1) and after treatment (or no treatment) (time 2). Also, the differences in mean scores from time 1 to 2 were compared between the two groups, the primary outcome. The numbers in the groups were considered adequate based on previous similar studies. The null hypothesis was that there would be no difference in any mean change in scores from time 1 to 2, between both groups.||24.0|16.1|<0.001
90875840|NCT02016625|181613540|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|H0: ratio is outside of interval (80%, 125%) VS H1: ratio is inside of interval (80%, 125%)|gMean ratio (%)|96.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.9||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.53|104.45|||ANOVA||gMean ratio of tac+FDV to FDV treatment. The standard error of the mean actually is the geometric coefficient of variation (%).|gMean ratio of tac+FDV to FDV treatment. The statistical model used for the analysis of primary endpoints was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model accounted for variation from 'subject' and 'treatment' effects. The 'subject' effect was considered to be random, whereas the 'treatment' effect was considered as fixed.||104.45|88.53|0.0008
90875841|NCT01268111|181613663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4
90875842|NCT02094716|181613665|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6084|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.6084
90915415|NCT04714320|181701715|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.804||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg at Day 120||||=0.804
90915416|NCT04714320|181701715|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.775||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg at Day 120||||=0.775
90961240|NCT01681628|181803486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.1|34.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in PCL-C scores from before to after treatment.||34.7|29.1|<0.001
90875843|NCT02094716|181613667|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6937|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.6937
90875844|NCT02094716|181613668|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.101|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1010
90875845|NCT02094716|181613668|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0764|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0764
90875846|NCT04259762|181613700|OTHER|This is a summary of the total number of participants in the focus groups who endorsed the particular theme.|Proportion endorsing themes|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||All focus groups were summarized together and, therefore, the denominators (N=85 \[Community\], N=11 \[Provider\]) for each theme are the same. Further, the focus groups only made qualitative (and no quantitative) assessments/endoresement of themes. No formal comparisons among groups were made.||||
90875847|NCT04259762|181613702|OTHER|Formal statistical comparisons were not made.|Proportion endorsing attempt to screen|0.567|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.303|0.831|||||"Pooled estimate of attempt to screening. Using R:~n1 \<- c(20,28,11,15,26,23,21); nt \<- c(45,50,45,50,50,50,22) p1 \<- n1/nt; v1 \<- p1\*(1-p1)/nt fit \<- lm(p1 \~ 1,weight=1/v1) summary(fit)$coef\[1\] + qt(.975,6)\*c(0,-1,1)\*summary(fit)$coef\[2\]"|||0.831|0.303|
90875848|NCT01203046|181613703|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|It was used for the calculation of statistical power an author of 5% level, it was felt that the difference between the minimum value of non inferiority does not exceed 10%.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.65|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|19.83|||Regression, Logistic|||||19.83|0.35|<0.05
90875849|NCT01203046|181613704|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Consider a 5% confidence level, the power of assigned contrast was 80% to detect a difference minima of at least 10% of equivalence between the analyzed groups.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|6.51|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.51|0.21|<0.05
90875850|NCT03453684|181613705|OTHER||Overall SE of the estimate|0.009|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Standard error of the estimate of Typical value: 0.45 Standard error of the estimate of w\^2: 0.39|||||
90875851|NCT03453684|181613706|OTHER||Overall Standard Error of the Estimate|9.85|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Standard error of the estimate of Typical value: 0.61 Standard error of the estimate of ꙍ\^2 (intersubject variability): \^a (fixed to 0)|||||
90875852|NCT03453684|181613707|OTHER||Overall Standard Error of the Estimate|8.37|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Standard error of the estimate of Typical value: 0.02 Standard error of the estimate of ꙍ\^2 (intersubject variability): \^a (fixed to 0)|||||
90875853|NCT03453684|181613708|OTHER||Overall Standard Error of the Estimate|4.83|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Standard error of the estimate of Typical value: 0.003 Standard error of the estimate of ꙍ\^2 (intersubject variability): 0.03|||||
90875854|NCT03453684|181613709|OTHER||Overall Standard Error of the Estimate|17.21|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Standard error of the estimate of Typical value: 0.13|||||
90875855|NCT03453684|181613710|OTHER||SE of the estimate of Typical Value|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90875856|NCT03453684|181613711|OTHER||SE of the estimate of Typical Value|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Standard error of the estimate of Typical value should be read as: 2.1E-06 Standard error of the estimate of ꙍ\^2 (intersubject variability): 0.24|||||
90875857|NCT03453684|181613712|OTHER||SE of the estimate of Typical Value|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Standard error of the estimate of ꙍ\^2 (intersubject variability): 0.08|||||
90875858|NCT03453684|181613713|OTHER||Overall Standard Error of the Estimate|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Standard error of the estimate of Typical value: 0.02|||||
90915417|NCT04714320|181701715|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.801||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg at Day 148||||=0.801
90915418|NCT04714320|181701715|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.329||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg at Day 148||||=0.329
90875859|NCT03453684|181613714|OTHER||SE of the estimate of Typical Value|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90875860|NCT01817725|181613786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
90875861|NCT02418468|181613798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.07|||mixed models for repeated measures (MMRM|||||0.07|-0.26|0.262
90875862|NCT02337907|181613799|SUPERIORITY|H0: The dose group with the peak response in the respective model Mean NTB response = Mean NTB response of placebo.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.073||0.7907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.163|0.124||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to model degrees of freedom.|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM) includes fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, current Acetylcholine Esterase Inhibitor (AChEI) use (Yes, No), and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline, and baseline-by-visit interaction.||0.124|-0.163|0.7907
90875863|NCT02337907|181613799|SUPERIORITY|H0: The dose group with the peak response in the respective model Mean NTB response = Mean NTB response of placebo.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.075||0.7622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.125|0.171||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to model degrees of freedom.|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM) includes fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, current Acetylcholine Esterase Inhibitor (AChEI) use (Yes, No), and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline, and baseline-by-visit interaction.||0.171|-0.125|0.7622
90875864|NCT02337907|181613799|SUPERIORITY|H0: The dose group with the peak response in the respective model Mean NTB response = Mean NTB response of placebo.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.071||0.8789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.152||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to model degrees of freedom.|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM) includes fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, current Acetylcholine Esterase Inhibitor (AChEI) use (Yes, No), and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline, and baseline-by-visit interaction.||0.152|-0.130|0.8789
90875865|NCT02337907|181613799|SUPERIORITY|H0: The dose group with the peak response in the respective model Mean NTB response = Mean NTB response of placebo.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.074||0.0609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.285|0.006||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to model degrees of freedom.|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM) includes fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, current Acetylcholine Esterase Inhibitor (AChEI) use (Yes, No), and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline, and baseline-by-visit interaction.||0.006|-0.285|0.0609
90875866|NCT02337907|181613799|SUPERIORITY|H1-0: Mean NTB response of pooled doses of 10 mg QD, 25 mg QD, 25 mg BID and 50 mg QD = Mean NTB response of placebo|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053||0.5687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.135|0.074||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to model degrees of freedom.|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM) includes fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, current Acetylcholine Esterase Inhibitor (AChEI) use (Yes, No), and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline, and baseline-by-visit interaction.||0.074|-0.135|0.5687
90915419|NCT04714320|181701715|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.882||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg at Day 169||||=0.882
90915420|NCT04714320|181701715|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.235||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg at Day 169||||=0.235
90915421|NCT04714320|181701715|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.505||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 8||||=0.505
90915422|NCT04714320|181701715|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.436||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 8||||=0.436
90915423|NCT04714320|181701715|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.637||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 15||||=0.637
90915424|NCT04714320|181701715|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.254||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 15||||=0.254
90915425|NCT04714320|181701715|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.848||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 22||||=0.848
90915426|NCT04714320|181701715|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.24||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 22||||=0.240
90915427|NCT04714320|181701715|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.382||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 29||||=0.382
90915428|NCT04714320|181701715|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.935||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 29||||=0.935
90915429|NCT04714320|181701715|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.278||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 36||||=0.278
90915430|NCT04714320|181701715|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.211||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 36||||=0.211
90915431|NCT04714320|181701715|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.562||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 43||||=0.562
90915432|NCT04714320|181701715|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.25||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 43||||=0.250
90961241|NCT01681628|181803486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.4|17.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||Changes in PCL-C scores for control group after no treatment.||17.1|11.4|<0.001
90915433|NCT04714320|181701715|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.114||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 50||||=0.114
90915434|NCT04714320|181701715|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.55||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 50||||=0.550
90915435|NCT04714320|181701715|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.423||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 57||||=0.423
90915436|NCT04714320|181701715|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.422||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 57||||=0.422
90915437|NCT04714320|181701715|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.073||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 64||||=0.073
90961242|NCT01681628|181803486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.1|22.5|||t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom 94||Change in control group PCL-C scores after treatment, that is from time 2 to time 3.||22.5|17.1|<0.001
90961243|NCT01681628|181803487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|65.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-squared test of any change in PCL-C from time 1 to time 2.||||<0.001
90875867|NCT02337907|181613800|SUPERIORITY|H0: The dose group with the peak response in the respective model Mean NTB response = Mean NTB response of placebo.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056||0.8694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.101|0.12||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to model degrees of freedom.|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM) includes fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, current Acetylcholine Esterase Inhibitor (AChEI) use (Yes, No), and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline, and baseline-by-visit interaction. The study identifier is also a categorical covariate for the twin studies analyses.||0.120|-0.101|0.8694
90875868|NCT02337907|181613800|SUPERIORITY|H0: The dose group with the peak response in the respective model Mean NTB response = Mean NTB response of placebo.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057||0.9512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.116|0.109||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to model degrees of freedom.|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM) includes fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, current Acetylcholine Esterase Inhibitor (AChEI) use (Yes, No), and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline, and baseline-by-visit interaction. The study identifier is also a categorical covariate for the twin studies analyses.||0.109|-0.116|0.9512
90915438|NCT04714320|181701715|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.278||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 64||||=0.278
90915439|NCT04714320|181701715|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.338||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 71||||=0.338
90915440|NCT04714320|181701715|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.969||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 71||||=0.969
90915441|NCT04714320|181701715|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.489||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 78||||=0.489
90915442|NCT04714320|181701715|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.156||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 78||||=0.156
90915443|NCT04714320|181701715|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.389||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 85||||=0.389
90915444|NCT04714320|181701715|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.775||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 85||||=0.775
90915445|NCT04714320|181701715|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.437||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 92||||=0.437
90915446|NCT04714320|181701715|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.618|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 92||||=0.618
90915447|NCT04714320|181701715|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.079||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 106||||=0.079
90915448|NCT04714320|181701715|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.349||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 106||||=0.349
90915449|NCT04714320|181701715|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.58||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 120||||=0.580
90915450|NCT04714320|181701715|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.106||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 120||||=0.106
90915451|NCT04714320|181701715|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.955||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 148||||=0.955
90915452|NCT04714320|181701715|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.134||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 148||||=0.134
90915453|NCT04714320|181701715|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.933||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 169||||=0.933
90915454|NCT04714320|181701715|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.502||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 169||||=0.502
90915455|NCT04714320|181701715|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.653||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg and DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 8||||=0.653
90915456|NCT04714320|181701715|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.816||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg and DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 8||||=0.816
90915457|NCT04714320|181701715|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.184||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg and DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 15||||=0.184
90915458|NCT04714320|181701715|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.765||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg and DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 15||||=0.765
90915459|NCT04714320|181701715|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.009||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg and DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 22||||=0.009
90961244|NCT01681628|181803487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% of participants with PCL score > 50|41.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of the percentage with diagnostic scores in the wait list group after no treatment at times 1 and 2.||||<0.001
90875869|NCT02337907|181613800|SUPERIORITY|H0: The dose group with the peak response in the respective model Mean NTB response = Mean NTB response of placebo.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056||0.9321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.105|0.115||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to model degrees of freedom.|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM) includes fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, current Acetylcholine Esterase Inhibitor (AChEI) use (Yes, No), and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline, and baseline-by-visit interaction. The study identifier is also a categorical covariate for the twin studies analyses.||0.115|-0.105|0.9321
90875870|NCT02337907|181613800|SUPERIORITY|H0: The dose group with the peak response in the respective model Mean NTB response = Mean NTB response of placebo.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057||0.1288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.199|0.025||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to model degrees of freedom.|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM) includes fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, current Acetylcholine Esterase Inhibitor (AChEI) use (Yes, No), and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline, and baseline-by-visit interaction. The study identifier is also a categorical covariate for the twin studies analyses.||0.025|-0.199|0.1288
90875871|NCT02337907|181613800|SUPERIORITY|H1-0: Mean NTB response of pooled doses of 10 mg QD, 25 mg QD, 25 mg BID and 50 mg QD = Mean NTB response of placebo.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041||0.6492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.098|0.061||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to model degrees of freedom.|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM) includes fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, current Acetylcholine Esterase Inhibitor (AChEI) use (Yes, No), and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline, and baseline-by-visit interaction. The study identifier is also a categorical covariate for the twin studies analyses.||0.061|-0.098|0.6492
90875872|NCT02337907|181613801|SUPERIORITY|Analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) were used to assess between-group differences in the modelled changes from baseline to Week 12.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.066||0.5287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|2.77||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|ANCOVA||The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|The dependent variable was the change from the baseline score at Week 12. The model included fixed, categorical covariates of treatment as well as fixed continuous covariates of baseline score.||2.77|-1.43|0.5287
90875873|NCT02337907|181613801|SUPERIORITY|Analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) were used to assess between-group differences in the modelled changes from baseline to Week 12.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.099||0.7105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.57|1.76||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|ANCOVA||The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|The dependent variable was the change from the baseline score at Week 12. The model included fixed, categorical covariates of treatment as well as fixed continuous covariates of baseline score.||1.76|-2.57|0.7105
90875874|NCT02337907|181613801|SUPERIORITY|Analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) were used to assess between-group differences in the modelled changes from baseline to Week 12.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.064||0.3822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|3.03||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|ANCOVA||The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|The dependent variable was the change from the baseline score at Week 12. The model included fixed, categorical covariates of treatment as well as fixed continuous covariates of baseline score.||3.03|-1.16|0.3822
90875875|NCT02337907|181613801|SUPERIORITY|Analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) were used to assess between-group differences in the modelled changes from baseline to Week 12.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.066||0.6472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.59|1.61||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|ANCOVA||The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|The dependent variable was the change from the baseline score at Week 12. The model included fixed, categorical covariates of treatment as well as fixed continuous covariates of baseline score.||1.61|-2.59|0.6472
90875876|NCT02337907|181613802|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.7551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.64||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|Kenward-Roger was used to model degrees of freedom.|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM) includes fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, current Acetylcholine Esterase Inhibitor (AChEI) use (Yes, No), and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline, and baseline-by-visit interaction.||0.64|-0.46|0.7551
90961245|NCT01681628|181803487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|39.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
90875877|NCT02337907|181613802|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.3643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.8||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|Kenward-Roger was used to model degrees of freedom.|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM) includes fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, current Acetylcholine Esterase Inhibitor (AChEI) use (Yes, No), and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline, and baseline-by-visit interaction.||0.80|-0.29|0.3643
90875878|NCT02337907|181613802|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.7822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.6||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|Kenward-Roger was used to model degrees of freedom.|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM) includes fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, current Acetylcholine Esterase Inhibitor (AChEI) use (Yes, No), and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline, and baseline-by-visit interaction.||0.60|-0.45|0.7822
90875879|NCT02337907|181613802|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.6889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.65||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|Kenward-Roger was used to model degrees of freedom.|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM) includes fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, current Acetylcholine Esterase Inhibitor (AChEI) use (Yes, No), and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline, and baseline-by-visit interaction.||0.65|-0.43|0.6889
90875880|NCT02337907|181613803|SUPERIORITY|Analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) were used to assess between-group differences in the modelled changes from baseline to Week 12.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.933||0.1595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|3.15||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|ANCOVA||The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|The dependent variable was the change from the baseline score at Week 12. The model included fixed, categorical covariates of treatment as well as fixed continuous covariates of baseline score.||3.15|-0.52|0.1595
90875881|NCT02337907|181613803|SUPERIORITY|Analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) were used to assess between-group differences in the modelled changes from baseline to Week 12.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.962||0.2455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|3.01||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|ANCOVA||The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|The dependent variable was the change from the baseline score at Week 12. The model included fixed, categorical covariates of treatment as well as fixed continuous covariates of baseline score.||3.01|-0.77|0.2455
90875882|NCT02337907|181613803|SUPERIORITY|Analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) were used to assess between-group differences in the modelled changes from baseline to Week 12.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94||0.1732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|3.13||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|ANCOVA||The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|The dependent variable was the change from the baseline score at Week 12. The model included fixed, categorical covariates of treatment as well as fixed continuous covariates of baseline score.||3.13|-0.57|0.1732
90875883|NCT02337907|181613803|SUPERIORITY|Analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) were used to assess between-group differences in the modelled changes from baseline to Week 12.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.936||0.0088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|4.31||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|ANCOVA||The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|The dependent variable was the change from the baseline score at Week 12. The model included fixed, categorical covariates of treatment as well as fixed continuous covariates of baseline score.||4.31|0.63|0.0088
90875884|NCT00909779|181613804|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The study was powered under a one-sided alternative hypothesis, in which arformoterol is superior to placebo, with a hazard ratio of 0.80 or less. To achieve 80% power, it was necessary to observe 86 total events for the primary endpoint adjusted for interim analysis. Assuming an annual event proportion of 17.3% in the placebo group and 30% lost to follow-up, we anticipated to randomize approximately 900 subjects (450 per arm).~The non-inferiority margin for the hazard ratio is 1.4."|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.606|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.425|0.864|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio was calculated as arformoterol vs. placebo.|"The null hypothesis is: There is 40% or higher excess risk of the primary events in the arformoterol group relative to placebo (a constant hazard ratio of 1.4).~The primary analysis was a Cox proportional hazards regression model, with treatment group, baseline smoking status, sex, age, BMI, and baseline FEV1 as covariates. The hazard ratio and 90% two-sided confidence interval for the hazard ratio (adjusted for the interim analysis) comparing arformoterol to placebo were estimated."||0.864|0.425|
90875885|NCT02295995|181613859|OTHER|||||||||||||||||The between-group difference at 12 weeks \[mean difference (MD) and 95% Confidence Interval\] was calculated for all outcome measures. Cohen's d effect sizes were calculated as the difference in mean-level change (from baseline to 12 weeks) between the two groups divided by the standard deviation (SD) and is interpreted as d=0.20 (small), d=0.50 (medium), and d=0.80 (large). Cohen's d for physical activity in this sample was 1.37|Cohen's d calculated as the change from baseline to 12 weeks in both groups.|||
90875886|NCT02295995|181613860|OTHER|||||||||||||||||The between-group difference at 12 weeks \[mean difference (MD) and 95% Confidence Interval\] was calculated for all outcome measures. Cohen's d effect sizes were calculated as the difference in mean-level change (from baseline to 12 weeks) between the two groups divided by the standard deviation (SD) and is interpreted as d=0.20 (small), d=0.50 (medium), and d=0.80 (large). Cohen's d for PCL-5 in this sample was 0.38|Cohen's d calculated as the change from baseline to 12 weeks in both groups.|||
90875887|NCT02295995|181613861|OTHER|||||||||||||||||The between-group difference at 12 weeks \[mean difference (MD) and 95% Confidence Interval\] was calculated for all outcome measures. Cohen's d effect sizes were calculated as the difference in mean-level change (from baseline to 12 weeks) between the two groups divided by the standard deviation (SD) and is interpreted as d=0.20 (small), d=0.50 (medium), and d=0.80 (large). Cohen's d for 6-minute walk in this sample was 0.50|Cohen's d calculated as the change from baseline to 12 weeks in both groups.|||
90875888|NCT03649711|181613862|OTHER|Post treatment values were compared using ANCOVA||||||0.002|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.002
90875889|NCT03649711|181613862|OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||mean changes in values were compared by Wilcoxon rank sum test adjusted for multiple comparisons (Bonferonni method) between CKD-ticagrelor arm, and the non-CKD controls||||0.18
90875890|NCT03649711|181613863|OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||ANCOVA|||CKD groups randomized were compared for post treatment values.||||0.22
90875891|NCT04350788|181613868|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||We analyzed program satisfaction between SCP and ESCP by role (patient vs partner). The following result is for patient.||||0.02
90875892|NCT04350788|181613868|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||We analyzed program satisfaction between SCP and ESCP by role (patient vs partner). The following result is for partner.||||0.25
90875893|NCT04350788|181613869|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||We analyzed this measure between SCP and ESCP by role (patient vs partner) and by domain. The following result is for patient in general domain.||||0.36
90875894|NCT04350788|181613869|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||We analyzed this measure between SCP and ESCP by role (patient vs partner) and by domain. The following result is for patient in content domain.||||0.38
90875895|NCT04350788|181613869|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||We analyzed this measure between SCP and ESCP by role (patient vs partner) and by domain. The following result is for patient in navigation domain.||||0.02
90875896|NCT04350788|181613869|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||We analyzed this measure between SCP and ESCP by role (patient vs partner) and by domain. The following result is for partner in general domain.||||0.62
90875897|NCT04350788|181613869|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||We analyzed this measure between SCP and ESCP by role (patient vs partner) and by domain. The following result is for partner in content domain.||||0.65
90875898|NCT04350788|181613869|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||We analyzed this measure between SCP and ESCP by role (patient vs partner) and by domain. The following result is for partner in navigation domain.||||0.45
90875899|NCT04350788|181613870|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.35
90915460|NCT04714320|181701715|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.578||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg and DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 22||||=0.578
90915461|NCT04714320|181701715|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.725||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg and DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 29||||=0.725
90915462|NCT04714320|181701715|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.287||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg and DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 29||||=0.287
90915463|NCT04714320|181701715|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.705||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg and DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 36||||=0.705
90875900|NCT04350788|181613871|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||ANCOVA|||We analyzed this measure between SCP and ESCP by role (patient vs partner) and by domain. The following result is for patient in urinary domain.||||0.01
90875901|NCT04350788|181613871|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||ANCOVA|||We analyzed this measure between SCP and ESCP by role (patient vs partner) and by domain. The following result is for patient in bowel domain.||||0.41
90915464|NCT04714320|181701715|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.975||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg and DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 36||||=0.975
90915465|NCT04714320|181701715|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.118||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg and DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 43||||=0.118
90915466|NCT04714320|181701715|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.959||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg and DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 43||||=0.959
90915467|NCT04714320|181701715|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.413||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg and DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 50||||=0.413
90915468|NCT04714320|181701715|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.043||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg and DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 50||||=0.043
90915469|NCT04714320|181701715|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.849||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg and DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 57||||=0.849
90915470|NCT04714320|181701715|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.662||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg and DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 57||||=0.662
90875902|NCT04350788|181613871|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||ANCOVA|||We analyzed this measure between SCP and ESCP by role (patient vs partner) and by domain. The following result is for patient in sexual domain.||||0.21
90875903|NCT04350788|181613871|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||ANCOVA|||We analyzed this measure between SCP and ESCP by role (patient vs partner) and by domain. The following result is for patient in hormonal domain.||||0.52
90875904|NCT04350788|181613871|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||ANCOVA|||We analyzed this measure between SCP and ESCP by role (patient vs partner) and by domain. The following result is for partner in urinary domain.||||0.79
90875905|NCT04350788|181613871|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||ANCOVA|||We analyzed this measure between SCP and ESCP by role (patient vs partner) and by domain. The following result is for partner in bowel domain.||||0.84
90875906|NCT04350788|181613871|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||ANCOVA|||We analyzed this measure between SCP and ESCP by role (patient vs partner) and by domain. The following result is for partner in sexual domain.||||0.82
90875907|NCT04350788|181613871|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||ANCOVA|||We analyzed this measure between SCP and ESCP by role (patient vs partner) and by domain. The following result is for partner in hormonal domain.||||0.33
90875908|NCT04350788|181613872|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.18
90875909|NCT04350788|181613872|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.38
90875910|NCT04350788|181613873|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||generalized linear regression|||||||0.05
90915471|NCT04714320|181701715|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.047||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg and DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 64||||=0.047
90875911|NCT04350788|181613874|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.10
90875912|NCT04350788|181613875|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.29
90875913|NCT04350788|181613876|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.49
90875914|NCT04350788|181613877|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.09
90875915|NCT04350788|181613878|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.16
90875916|NCT04350788|181613879|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.55
90875917|NCT02967692|181613915|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.655|1.027|||Log Rank|||||1.027|0.655|0.042
90915472|NCT04714320|181701715|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.95||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg and DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 64||||=0.950
90875918|NCT02967692|181613923|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.183||||0.2975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.865|1.619|||Log Rank|||||1.619|0.865|0.2975
90875919|NCT04447417|181613945|OTHER||Point estimate|0.43|||<=|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.37|0.49||One-sided p-value. Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|linear mixed model||Point estimate obtained was back-transformed by exponentiation|TEWL data for linear mixed model was log-transformed to account for right skewness of data and heteroskedasticity. The linear mixed effect on log (TEWL) included age, sex, number of STS, localization on the body, visit, number of STS-by-visit interaction and number of STS-by-age interaction as fixed effects. Model was run on data on lesional skin area.||0.49|0.37|<=0.0001
90915473|NCT04714320|181701715|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.656||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg and DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 71||||=0.656
90875920|NCT00066066|181613975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for significance was alpha = 0.05|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis of no difference among treatment groups in non-smokers was tested by comparing change in mean CAL in individuals at 3 months post-therapy.||||>0.05
90875921|NCT00066066|181613975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for significance was alpha = 0.05|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis of no difference among treatment groups in non-smokers was tested by comparing change in mean CAL in individuals at 6 months post-therapy.||||>0.05
90875922|NCT00066066|181613975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for significance was alpha = 0.05|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis of no difference among treatment groups in non-smokers was tested by comparing change in mean CAL in individuals at 12 months post-therapy.||||<0.05
90875923|NCT00066066|181613975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for significance was alpha = 0.05|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis of no difference among treatment groups in smokers was tested by comparing change in mean CAL in individuals at 3 months post-therapy.||||<0.05
90875924|NCT00066066|181613975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for significance was alpha = 0.05|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis of no difference among treatment groups in smokers was tested by comparing change in mean CAL in individuals at 6 months post-therapy.||||<0.05
90875925|NCT00066066|181613975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for significance was alpha = 0.05|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis of no difference among treatment groups in smokers was tested by comparing change in mean CAL in individuals at 12 months post-therapy.||||>0.05
90875926|NCT01280552|181613977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||Stratified for age and MGMT methylation status|Log Rank|||Stratified log rank p value stratified for age and MGMT methylation status||||0.010
90875927|NCT01280552|181613979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|||||Analyses were stratified for age and MGMT methylation status.|Log Rank|||||||0.033
90875928|NCT02155738|181613980|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Aim 1: Quantify the impact of IV acetaminophen on 1a) postoperative pain scores ... 1a) To achieve this aim, we will measure the degree of postoperative pain using visual analog scales (VAS) at multiple specified time points throughout the postoperative period; we report on change from Baseline VAS at 24 Hours Postop. Null Hypothesis is that there is no difference between subgroups in VAS scores. Sample size was determined considering significant differences in VAS scores.||||<0.05
90875929|NCT02155738|181613981|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||1b) We will use equianalgesic dosage tables to convert intra- and postoperative narcotics into morphine equivalents to compare narcotic requirements for the first week after surgery. We hypothesize that those patients receiving preemptive IV acetaminophen will have lower postoperative VAS scores and reduced narcotic requirements compared to placebo.||||<0.05
90875930|NCT00887354|181613992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean|0.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.025|0.055|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.055|0.025|<.0001
90875931|NCT01466348|181613999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|3.6||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|5.6|||ANOVA|No baseline covariate adjustment was carried out.|A positive difference favors the paracetamol/ caffeine treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference in treatments in the change from baseline in the number of valid responses from the RVIP.||5.6|1.5|0.0008
90875932|NCT01466348|181614000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|6.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|8.4|||ANOVA|No baseline covariate adjustment was applied.|A positive difference favors the paracetamol/ caffeine treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference in treatments in the change from baseline in the number of valid responses from the RVIP.||8.4|4.5|<0.0001
90875933|NCT01955161|181614024|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.9591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|1.26||Corrected for multiplicity|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, country, MMSE stratum, week as fixed effects, baseline score, treatment-by-week, MMSE stratum-by-week, and baseline-by-week interactions|A negative mean difference indicates a treatment effect in favour of idalopirdine|For demonstrating efficacy of a dose, change in cognition (ADAS-cog) and either change in daily functioning (ADCS-ADL23) or change in global clinical impression (ADCS-CGIC) had to show statistically significant favourable differences compared to placebo at Week 24. Multiple testing procedures were used to control the overall type 1 error at 5%. The null hypothesis of no difference in mean change from baseline in ADAS-cog total score at Week 24 was tested for each dose at significance level 2.5%.||1.26|-0.59|0.9591
90875934|NCT01955161|181614024|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.98||Corrected for multiplicity according to the multiple testing procedure|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, country, MMSE stratum, week as fixed effects, baseline score, treatment-by-week, MMSE stratum-by-week, and baseline-by-week interactions|A negative mean difference indicates a treatment effect in favour of idalopirdine.|For demonstrating efficacy of a dose, change in cognition (ADAS-cog) and either change in daily functioning (ADCS-ADL23) or change in global clinical impression (ADCS-CGIC) had to show statistically significant favourable differences compared to placebo at Week 24. Multiple testing procedures were used to control the overall type 1 error at 5%. The null hypothesis of no difference in mean change from baseline in ADAS-cog total score at Week 24 was tested for each dose at significance level 2.5%.||0.98|-0.88|1.000
90875935|NCT01955161|181614025|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|1.21||Corrected for multiplicity according toe the multiple testing procedure|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, country, MMSE stratum, week as fixed effects, baseline score, treatment-by-week, MMSE stratum-by-week, and baseline-by-week interactions|A positive mean difference indicates a treatment effect in favour of idalopirdine.|For demonstrating efficacy of a dose, change in cognition (ADAS-cog) and either change in daily functioning (ADCS-ADL23) or change in global clinical impression (ADCS-CGIC) had to show statistically significant favourable differences compared to placebo at Week 24. Multiple testing procedures were used to control the overall type 1 error at 5%. The null hypothesis of no difference in mean change from baseline in ADAS-cog total score at Week 24 was tested for each dose at significance level 2.5%.||1.21|-1.37|1.000
90875936|NCT01955161|181614025|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|1.31||Corrected for multiplicity according to the multiple testing procedure|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, country, MMSE stratum, week as fixed effects, baseline score, treatment-by-week, MMSE stratum-by-week, and baseline-by-week interactions|A positive mean difference indicates a treatment effect in favour of idalopirdine.|For demonstrating efficacy of a dose, change in cognition (ADAS-cog) and either change in daily functioning (ADCS-ADL23) or change in global clinical impression (ADCS-CGIC) had to show statistically significant favourable differences compared to placebo at Week 24. Multiple testing procedures were used to control the overall type 1 error at 5%. The null hypothesis of no difference in mean change from baseline in ADAS-cog total score at Week 24 was tested for each dose at significance level 2.5%.||1.31|-1.29|1.000
90875937|NCT01955161|181614026|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.2||Corrected for multiplicity according to the multiple testing procedure|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, country, MMSE stratum, week as fixed effects, baseline score, treatment-by-week, MMSE stratum-by-week, and baseline-by-week interactions|A negative mean difference indicates a treatment effect in favour of idalopirdine.|For demonstrating efficacy of a dose, change in cognition (ADAS-cog) and either change in daily functioning (ADCS-ADL23) or change in global clinical impression (ADCS-CGIC) had to show statistically significant favourable differences compared to placebo at Week 24. Multiple testing procedures were used to control the overall type 1 error at 5%. The null hypothesis of no difference in mean change from baseline in ADAS-cog total score at Week 24 was tested for each dose at significance level 2.5%.||0.20|-0.15|1.000
90915474|NCT04714320|181701715|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.922||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg and DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 71||||=0.922
90915475|NCT04714320|181701715|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.143||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg and DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 78||||=0.143
90915476|NCT04714320|181701715|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.452||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg and DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 78||||=0.452
90915477|NCT04714320|181701715|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.231||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg and DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 85||||=0.231
90915478|NCT04714320|181701715|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.405||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg and DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 85||||=0.405
90915479|NCT04714320|181701715|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.718||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg and DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 92||||=0.718
90915480|NCT04714320|181701715|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.053||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg and DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 92||||=0.053
90915481|NCT04714320|181701715|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.893||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg and DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 106||||=0.893
90915482|NCT04714320|181701715|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.662||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg and DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 106||||=0.662
90915483|NCT04714320|181701715|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.688||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg and DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 120||||=0.688
90915484|NCT04714320|181701715|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.611||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg and DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 120||||=0.611
90915485|NCT04714320|181701715|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.907||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg and DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 148||||=0.907
90915486|NCT04714320|181701715|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.699||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg and DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 148||||=0.699
90915487|NCT04714320|181701715|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.802||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg and DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 169||||=0.802
90915488|NCT04714320|181701715|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.206||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg and DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 169||||=0.206
90915489|NCT04714320|181701716|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.28||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg at Day 8||||=0.280
90915490|NCT04714320|181701716|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.648||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg at Day 8||||=0.648
90915491|NCT04714320|181701716|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.416||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg at Day 15||||=0.416
90915492|NCT04714320|181701716|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.9||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg at Day 15||||=0.900
90915493|NCT04714320|181701716|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.627||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg at Day 22||||=0.627
90915494|NCT04714320|181701716|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.921||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg at Day 22||||=0.921
90915495|NCT04714320|181701716|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.464||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg at Day 29||||=0.464
90875938|NCT01955161|181614026|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.02||Corrected for multiplicity according to the multiple testing procedure|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, country, MMSE stratum, week as fixed effects, baseline score, treatment-by-week, MMSE stratum-by-week, and baseline-by-week interactions|A negative mean difference indicates a treatment effect in favour of idalopirdine.|For demonstrating efficacy of a dose, ADAS-cog total score and either ADCS-ADL23 total score or ADCS CGIC had to show statistically significant favourable differences compared to placebo at Week 24. Multiple testing procedures were used to control the overall type 1 error at 5%. The null hypothesis of no difference in mean change from baseline in ADAS-cog total score at Week 24 was tested for each dose at significance level 2.5%.||0.02|-0.34|1.000
90875939|NCT03928847|181614035|SUPERIORITY|The mean EGCG blood levels were compared among 450 mg, 600 mg, and 750 mg groups.|Mean Difference (Net)|250.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90875940|NCT03928847|181614036|OTHER|ELISA data from each patient before and after EGCG treatment were compared and analyzed with the use of the Wilcoxon signed-rank test (two-tailed).|||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
90875941|NCT03928847|181614037|OTHER|ELISA data from each patient before and after EGCG treatment were compared and analyzed with the use of the Wilcoxon signed-rank test (two-tailed).|||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
90875942|NCT03928847|181614038|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.01
90875943|NCT03928847|181614039|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.01
90875944|NCT03928847|181614040|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.01
90875945|NCT00914810|181614053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.5|-0.8|0.55
90875946|NCT00914810|181614054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|10.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|13.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||13.6|7.4|<0.0001
90875947|NCT01344447|181614066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage difference|22.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.1|20.4||Not Appropriate, upper intervals were not used in the statistical analysis and were not of interest for the study.||McNemar|Cluster adjusted McNemar||Majority reader; Superiority analysis; The percentage difference was calculated as gadobutrol-enhanced minus unenhanced MRA.|||20.4|<0.0001
90875948|NCT01344447|181614066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage difference|63.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.1|60.9||Not Appropriate, upper intervals were not used in the statistical analysis and were not of interest for the study.||McNemar|Cluster adjusted McNemar||Blinded reader 1; Superiority analysis; The percentage difference was calculated as gadobutrol-enhanced minus unenhanced MRA.|||60.9|<0.0001
90875949|NCT01344447|181614066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage difference|19.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.1|17.8||Not Appropriate, upper intervals were not used in the statistical analysis and were not of interest for the study.||McNemar|Cluster adjusted McNemar||Blinded reader 2; Superiority analysis; The percentage difference was calculated as gadobutrol-enhanced minus unenhanced MRA.|||17.8|<0.0001
90875950|NCT01344447|181614066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage difference|15.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.1|13.3||Not Appropriate, upper intervals were not used in the statistical analysis and were not of interest for the study.||McNemar|Cluster adjusted McNemar||Blinded reader 3; Superiority analysis; The percentage difference was calculated as gadobutrol-enhanced minus unenhanced MRA.|||13.3|<0.0001
90915496|NCT04714320|181701716|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.458||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg at Day 29||||=0.458
90915497|NCT04714320|181701716|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.779||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg at Day 36||||=0.779
90915498|NCT04714320|181701716|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.629||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg at Day 36||||=0.629
90915499|NCT04714320|181701716|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.242||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg at Day 43||||=0.242
90875951|NCT01344447|181614066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage difference|18.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.1|16.5||Not Appropriate, upper intervals were not used in the statistical analysis and were not of interest for the study.||McNemar|Cluster adjusted McNemar||Clinical investigator; Superiority analysis; The percentage difference was calculated as gadobutrol-enhanced minus unenhanced MRA.|||16.5|<0.0001
90875952|NCT01344447|181614067|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|using a -7.5% non-inferiority margin|Percentage difference|5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.1|-3.6||Not Appropriate, upper intervals were not used in the statistical analysis and were not of interest for the study.||The cluster-adjusted two-sided 95% CI|||Majority reader; The percentage difference was calculated as gadobutrol-enhanced minus unenhanced MRA.|||-3.6|
90875953|NCT01344447|181614067|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|using a -7.5% non-inferiority margin|Percentage difference|5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.1|-5.4||Not Appropriate, upper intervals were not used in the statistical analysis and were not of interest for the study.||The cluster-adjusted two-sided 95% CI|||Blinded reader 1; the percentage difference was calculated as gadobutrol-enhanced minus unenhanced MRA.|||-5.4|
90875954|NCT01344447|181614067|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|using a -7.5% non-inferiority margin|Percentage difference|5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.1|-4.7||Not Appropriate, upper intervals were not used in the statistical analysis and were not of interest for the study.||The cluster-adjusted two-sided 95% CI|||Blinded reader 2; the percentage difference was calculated as gadobutrol-enhanced minus unenhanced MRA.|||-4.7|
90875955|NCT01344447|181614067|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|using a -7.5% non-inferiority margin|Percentage difference|3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.1|-5.9||Not Appropriate, upper intervals were not used in the statistical analysis and were not of interest for the study.||The cluster-adjusted two-sided 95% CI|||Blinded reader 3; the percentage difference was calculated as gadobutrol-enhanced minus unenhanced MRA.|||-5.9|
90875956|NCT01344447|181614067|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|using a -7.5% non-inferiority margin|Percentage difference|21.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.1|14.1||Not Appropriate, upper intervals were not used in the statistical analysis and were not of interest for the study.||The cluster-adjusted two-sided 95% CI|||Clinical investigator; the percentage difference was calculated as gadobutrol-enhanced minus unenhanced MRA.|||14.1|
90875957|NCT01344447|181614068|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|using a -7.5% non-inferiority margin|Percentage difference|8.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.1|7.7||Not Appropriate, upper intervals were not used in the statistical analysis and were not of interest for the study.||The cluster-adjusted two-sided 95% CI|||Majority reader; The percentage difference was calculated as gadobutrol-enhanced minus unenhanced MRA.|||7.7|
90875958|NCT01344447|181614068|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|using a -7.5% non-inferiority margin|Percentage difference|30.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.1|28.6||Not Appropriate, upper intervals were not used in the statistical analysis and were not of interest for the study.||The cluster-adjusted two-sided 95% CI|||Blinded reader 1; the percentage difference was calculated as gadobutrol-enhanced minus unenhanced MRA.|||28.6|
90875959|NCT01344447|181614068|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|using a -7.5% non-inferiority margin|Percentage difference|9.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.1|8.5||Not Appropriate, upper intervals were not used in the statistical analysis and were not of interest for the study.||The cluster-adjusted two-sided 95% CI|||Blinded reader 2; the percentage difference was calculated as gadobutrol-enhanced minus unenhanced MRA.|||8.5|
90875960|NCT01344447|181614068|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|using a -7.5% non-inferiority margin|Percentage difference|7.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.1|6.6||Not Appropriate, upper intervals were not used in the statistical analysis and were not of interest for the study.||The cluster-adjusted two-sided 95% CI|||Blinded reader 3; the percentage difference was calculated as gadobutrol-enhanced minus unenhanced MRA.|||6.6|
90875961|NCT01344447|181614068|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|using a -7.5% non-inferiority margin|Percentage difference|9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.1|7.9||Not Appropriate, upper intervals were not used in the statistical analysis and were not of interest for the study.||The cluster-adjusted two-sided 95% CI|||Clinical investigator; the percentage difference was calculated as gadobutrol-enhanced minus unenhanced MRA.|||7.9|
90875962|NCT01344447|181614069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage|61.7|||||ONE_SIDED|95.1|55.3||||One sided 95.1% confidence interval|||Majority reader|||55.3|
90875963|NCT01344447|181614069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage|60.3|||||ONE_SIDED|95.1|53.6||||One sided 95.1% confidence interval|||Blinded Reader 1|||53.6|
90875964|NCT01344447|181614069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage|59.6|||||ONE_SIDED|95.1|53.1||||One sided 95.1% confidence interval|||Blinded Reader 2|||53.1|
90875965|NCT01344447|181614069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage|58.7|||||ONE_SIDED|95.1|52.2||||One sided 95.1% confidence interval|||Blinded Reader 3|||52.2|
90875966|NCT01344447|181614069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage|61.5|||||ONE_SIDED|95.1|56.7||||One sided 95.1% confidence interval|||Clinical investigator|||56.7|
90875967|NCT01344447|181614070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage|98.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.1|97.7||||One sided 95.1% confidence interval|||Majority reader|||97.7|
90875968|NCT01344447|181614070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage|97.6|||||ONE_SIDED|95.1|97.3||||One sided 95.1% confidence interval|||Blinded Reader 1|||97.3|
90875969|NCT01344447|181614070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage|97.2|||||ONE_SIDED|95.1|96.9||||One sided 95.1% confidence interval|||Blinded Reader 2|||96.9|
90875970|NCT01344447|181614070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage|98.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.1|97.7||||One sided 95.1% confidence interval|||Blinded Reader 3|||97.7|
90915500|NCT04714320|181701716|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.29||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg at Day 43||||=0.290
90875971|NCT01344447|181614070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage|99.2|||||ONE_SIDED|95.1|98.9||||One sided 95.1% confidence interval|||Clinical investigator|||98.9|
90875972|NCT01344447|181614071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diameter difference|0.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.8|||||||||Mean Difference|||CTA Minus Unenhanced MRA for blinded Reader on vessel DIA at normal point||||
90875973|NCT01344447|181614071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diameter difference|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.79|||||||||Mean Difference|||CTA minus Gadobutrol-Enhanced MRA for blinded reader on vessel DIA at normal point||||
90875974|NCT01344447|181614071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diameter difference|0.29|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.87|||||||||Mean Difference|||CTA minus Unenhanced MRA for blinded reader on vessel DIA at narrowest point||||
90875975|NCT01344447|181614071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diameter difference|0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.8|||||||||Mean Difference|||CTA minus Gadobutrol-Enhanced MRA for blinded reader on vessel DIA at narrowest point||||
90875976|NCT01344447|181614071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diameter difference|0.48|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.98|||||||||Mean Difference|||CTA minus Unenhanced MRA for clinical investigators on vessel DIA at normal point||||
90875977|NCT01344447|181614071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diameter difference|0.33|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.01|||||||||Mean Difference|||CTA minus Gadobutrol-enhanced MRA for clinical investigators on vessel DIA at normal point||||
90875978|NCT01344447|181614071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diameter difference|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.81|||||||||Mean Difference|||CTA minus Unenhanced MRA for clinical investigators on vessel DIA at narrowest point||||
90875979|NCT01344447|181614071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diameter difference|0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.79|||||||||Mean Difference|||CTA minus Gadobutrol-enhanced MRA for clinical investigators on vessel DIA at narrowest point||||
90875980|NCT00952341|181614093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||"Adjusted by gender and concomitant~chemotherapy.~The apriori significance level was set at 0.05.~There was no adjustment for multiplicity."||||0.007
90875981|NCT00952341|181614094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.942||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||"Adjusted by gender and concomitant chemotherapy.~The apriori significance level was set at 0.05.~There was no adjustment for multiplicity."||||0.942
90875982|NCT00952341|181614095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||"Adjusted by gender and concomitant chemotherapy.~The apriori significance level was set at 0.05.~There was no adjustment for multiplicity."||||0.001
90875983|NCT00952341|181614096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||"Adjusted by gender and concomitant~chemotherapy."||||0.003
90875984|NCT00952341|181614097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.882||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||Adjusted by gender and concomitant chemotherapy.||||0.882
90875985|NCT00952341|181614098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||Adjusted by gender and concomitant chemotherapy.||||0.001
90875986|NCT02066467|181614121|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||exact binominal methodology|||||||<0.0001
90875987|NCT02066467|181614123|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||exact binominal methodology|||||||<0.0001
90875988|NCT00706979|181614126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.2||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.4|||Regression, Logistic|||A logistic regression model was used to examine the primary hypothesis that NRT-enhanced PQAs would yield a higher rate of any ever-occurring quit attempt.||1.4|1.1|0.008
90875989|NCT00706979|181614127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.3||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.7|||Regression, Logistic|||A logistic regression model was used to examine the secondary hypothesis that NRT-enhanced PQAs would yield a higher rate of 7 days of abstinence at some point during the study.||1.7|1.0|0.09
90875990|NCT00706979|181614128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.3||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.5|||Regression, Logistic|||A logistic regression model was used to examine the primary hypothesis that NRT-enhanced PQAs would yield a higher rate for the primary outcome of any 24hr quit attempt.||1.5|1.1|0.004
90875991|NCT00706979|181614129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.2||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.6|||Regression, Logistic|||A logistic regression model was used to examine the secondary hypothesis that NRT-enhanced PQAs would yield a higher rate for 7 days of abstinence at the six month follow-up.||1.6|0.9|0.3
90875992|NCT01592344|181614136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0048
90875993|NCT01592344|181614137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90875994|NCT01592344|181614138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90915501|NCT04714320|181701716|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.349||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg at Day 50||||=0.349
90915502|NCT04714320|181701716|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.532||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg at Day 50||||=0.532
90915503|NCT04714320|181701716|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.205||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg at Day 57||||=0.205
90915504|NCT04714320|181701716|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.368||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg at Day 57||||=0.368
90875995|NCT01592344|181614139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90875996|NCT02738333|181614140|NON_INFERIORITY|A sample size of 100 participants per treatment group would provide over 90% power to establish non-inferiority in the SVR12 rates between the LDV/SOF group and SOF+RBV group. Sample size was based on the assumptions that the clinically meaningful non-inferiority margin is 10%, both groups have a SVR12 rate of 96%, and the significance level is 0.025 one-sided.|Difference in proportions|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|7.1|||||Difference in proportions between treatment groups and associated 95% confidence intervals (CI) are calculated based on stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel proportions.|||7.1|-5.3|
90875997|NCT03033511|181614175|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.36||stratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||||1.36|0.84|0.537
90915505|NCT04714320|181701716|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.084||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg at Day 64||||=0.084
90875998|NCT03033511|181614176|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.36||stratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||||1.36|0.92|0.237
90875999|NCT03033511|181614177|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean of Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.39|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.08|2.35||||||Change at Week 6||2.35|-3.08|
90876000|NCT03033511|181614177|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-10.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.58|-6.29||||||Change at Week 12||-6.29|-14.58|
90876001|NCT03033511|181614177|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-27.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.57|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.19|-9.16||||||Change at Week 18||-9.16|-46.19|
90876002|NCT03033511|181614177|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-18.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.99|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.28|1.39||||||Change at Week 24||1.39|-38.28|
90876003|NCT03033511|181614177|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-22.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.27|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.63|-1.37||||||Change at Week 30||-1.37|-42.63|
90876004|NCT03033511|181614177|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Change at Week 36||||
90876005|NCT03033511|181614177|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|3.33|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Change at Week 42||||
90876006|NCT03033511|181614177|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-56.67|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Change at Week 48||||
90876007|NCT03033511|181614177|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Change at Week 60||||
90876008|NCT03033511|181614177|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Change at Week 66||||
90876009|NCT03033511|181614177|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Change at Week 78||||
90876010|NCT03033511|181614177|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-9.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.16|-6.19||||||Change at Final Visit||-6.19|-12.16|
90876011|NCT00525733|181614197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.46
90876012|NCT04327388|181614198|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.026||||0.9561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.751|1.402|||Log-rank test|Analyzed based on logrank test stratified by severity of illness (severe, critical) and use of systemic corticosteroids (Yes, No) as entered in IRT.|Hazard ratio for estimation of treatment effect of each sarilumab dose versus placebo was assessed by cox proportional hazard model stratified by severity of illness (severe, critical) and use of systemic corticosteroids (Yes, No) as entered in IRT.|||1.402|0.751|0.9561
90876013|NCT04327388|181614198|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.135||||0.3376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.835|1.543|||Log-rank test|Analyzed based on logrank test stratified by severity of illness (severe, critical) and use of systemic corticosteroids (Yes, No) as entered in IRT.|Hazard ratio for estimation of treatment effect of each sarilumab dose versus placebo was assessed by cox proportional hazard model stratified by severity of illness (severe, critical) and use of systemic corticosteroids (Yes, No) as entered in IRT.|||1.543|0.835|0.3376
90876014|NCT04327388|181614199|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-1.7||||0.628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.27|5.81|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|By Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by severity of illness (severe, critical) and use of systemic corticosteroids (Yes, No) as entered in IRT.||||5.81|-9.27|0.6280
90876015|NCT04327388|181614199|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|0.2||||0.8478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.93|7.41|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|By Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by severity of illness (severe, critical) and use of systemic corticosteroids (Yes, No) as entered in IRT.||||7.41|-6.93|0.8478
90876016|NCT01464346|181614467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Intercept from ANCOVA as agreement rate|88.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|85.69|90.33|||ANCOVA|Mixed effects model was used, with day of sensor wear(1,3 or 6) as covariate. Day was centered to 0 to permit interpretation of the model intercept||||90.33|85.69|<0.05
90876017|NCT01464346|181614468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Intercept from ANCOVA as agreement rate|90.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|88.77|92.28|||ANCOVA|Mixed effects model was used, with day of sensor wear(1,3 or 6) as covariate. Day was centered to 0 to permit interpretation of the model intercept||||92.28|88.77|< 0.05
90876018|NCT01286012|181614481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
90876019|NCT01286012|181614482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.915|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.915
90876020|NCT01286012|181614483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6714|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.6714
90876021|NCT01286012|181614484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.028
90876022|NCT01286012|181614485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.361|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.361
90876023|NCT00827983|181614486|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis (H0) was tested against the alternative by calculating a two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in ongoing pregnancy rates. If the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval was greater than the non-inferiority limit (-10.0%), the null hypothesis was rejected and the test group considered not inferior to the control treatment.|Difference in pregnancy rates|-3.1||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|3.7|||Chi-squared|||"The non -inferiority hypothesis to be tested for the primary endpoint was that the ongoing pregnancy rate (oPR) in the test group (Pe)was lower than the oPR in the control group (Pc)against the alternative one that the oPR in the test group was equal to or higher than the oPR in the control group.~H0 : Pc\>= Pe + d(-10%) H1 : Pc\< Pe + d(-10%)"||3.7|-9.9|0.37
90915506|NCT04714320|181701716|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.179||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg at Day 64||||=0.179
90915507|NCT04714320|181701716|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.584||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg at Day 71||||=0.584
90915508|NCT04714320|181701716|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.762||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg at Day 71||||=0.762
90915509|NCT04714320|181701716|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.675||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg at Day 78||||=0.675
90915510|NCT04714320|181701716|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.166||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg at Day 78||||=0.166
90876024|NCT00827983|181614487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.1||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.87|3.68|||Chi-squared|||||3.68|-9.87|0.37
90876025|NCT00827983|181614488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.33||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|5.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.8|-4.7|0.85
90876026|NCT02226003|181614517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-1.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|-0.84|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||-0.84|-1.49|< 0.001
90876027|NCT02226003|181614517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-1.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|-0.91|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||-0.91|-1.57|< 0.001
90876028|NCT02226003|181614518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage vs Placebo|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|16.4||||||||16.4|-11.2|
90876029|NCT02226003|181614518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage vs Placebo|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|16.4||||||||16.4|-11.4|
90876030|NCT02226003|181614520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-38.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.93|-27.96|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||-27.96|-49.93|< 0.001
90876031|NCT02226003|181614520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-46.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.09|-35.02|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||-35.02|-57.09|< 0.001
90876032|NCT02226003|181614521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-62.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.47|-44.37|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||-44.37|-80.47|< 0.001
90876033|NCT02226003|181614521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-69.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-87.83|-51.46|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||-51.46|-87.83|< 0.001
90876034|NCT02226003|181614522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.81|16.83|||Logistic regression model|||||16.83|2.81|< 0.001
91077964|NCT01172808|182041204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.533|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.772|32.549|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, country, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||32.549|14.772|<0.0001
90876035|NCT02226003|181614522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.98|18.31|||Logistic regression model|||||18.31|2.98|< 0.001
90876036|NCT02226003|181614523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-2.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.99|-1.01|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||-1.01|-2.99|< 0.001
90876037|NCT02226003|181614523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-2.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-1.11|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||-1.11|-3.10|< 0.001
90876038|NCT02226003|181614524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-4.44||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.87|-1.01|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||-1.01|-7.87|0.011
90876039|NCT02226003|181614524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-6.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.83|-2.95|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||-2.95|-9.83|< 0.001
90876040|NCT02226003|181614525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-1.65||||0.184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.09|0.79|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||0.79|-4.09|0.184
90876041|NCT02226003|181614525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-2.18||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.62|0.26|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||0.26|-4.62|0.080
90915511|NCT04714320|181701716|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.09||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg at Day 85||||=0.090
90915512|NCT04714320|181701716|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.488||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg at Day 85||||=0.488
90915513|NCT04714320|181701716|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.218||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg at Day 92||||=0.218
90915514|NCT04714320|181701716|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.232||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg at Day 92||||=0.232
90915515|NCT04714320|181701716|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.421||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg at Day 106||||=0.421
90915516|NCT04714320|181701716|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.815||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg at Day 106||||=0.815
90915517|NCT04714320|181701716|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.711||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg at Day 120||||=0.711
90876042|NCT01876485|181614529|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.43||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||proc mixed in SAS (multilevel modeling)|Numerator degrees of freedom = 1 for both models (4mo and 10mo) and denominator degrees of freedom vary based on multiple imputation.||"We compared group differences in HbA1c at 4. The value of HbA1c at 4 months was the dependent variable, treatment group was the independent variable, and baseline HbA1c was a covariate.~Power calculations were based on effect sizes for the HbA1c in similar trial that revealed small-to-medium effect sizes. Our goal was to include 130 patients in each arm. The randomized samples (n = 140 EPIC, n = 140 EUC) exceed the required 130 per group."||||0.003
90876043|NCT01876485|181614529|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||proc mixed in SAS (multilevel modeling)|Numerator degrees of freedom = 1 for both models (4mo and 10mo) and denominator degrees of freedom vary based on multiple imputation.||"We compared group differences in HbA1c at 10 months. The value of HbA1c at 10 months was the dependent variable, treatment group was the independent variable, and baseline HbA1c was a covariate.~Power calculations were based on effect sizes for the HbA1c in similar trial that revealed small-to-medium effect sizes. Our goal was to include 130 patients in each arm. The randomized samples (n = 140 EPIC, n = 140 EUC) exceed the required 130 per group."||||.60
90915518|NCT04714320|181701716|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.514||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg at Day 120||||=0.514
90915519|NCT04714320|181701716|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.479||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg at Day 148||||=0.479
90876044|NCT01876485|181614530|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||proc mixed in SAS (multilevel modeling)|||We compared group differences in DDS at 4 months. The value of DDS at 4 months was the dependent variable, treatment group was the independent variable, and baseline DDS was a covariate. Power calculations were based on effect sizes for the DDS in similar trial that revealed small-to-medium effect sizes. Our goal was to include 130 patients in each arm. The randomized samples (n=138 EPIC, n=135 EUC) exceed the required 130 per group.||||0.003
90915520|NCT04714320|181701716|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.292||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg at Day 148||||=0.292
90915521|NCT04714320|181701716|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.528||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg at Day 169||||=0.528
90915522|NCT04714320|181701716|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.946||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg at Day 169||||=0.946
90915523|NCT04714320|181701716|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.552||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 8||||=0.552
90961246|NCT01681628|181803488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.2|20.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||Both the original treatment and control groups were combined as both groups had been treated at a similar time before the nineteen month assessment. The null hypothesis was that there had been no change in the PCL-C scores at nineteen months compared to one week following treatment.||20.5|15.2|<0.001
90961247|NCT04796896|181803509|NON_INFERIORITY|"The noninferiority of GM value (based on GLSM) was considered demonstrated if:~The lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \>0.667 based on the noninferiority margin of 1.5, and the GMR point estimate ≥0.8 (minimum threshold)."|GMR|1.224|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.061|1.413||||||||1.413|1.061|
90915524|NCT04714320|181701716|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.598||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 8||||=0.598
90961248|NCT04796896|181803510|NON_INFERIORITY|"The noninferiority of GM value (based on GLSM) was considered demonstrated if the following were true:~The lower bound of the 95% CI of the GMR was \>0.667 based on the noninferiority margin of 1.5, and the GMR point estimate ≥0.8 (minimum threshold)."|GMR|0.995|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.139||||||||1.139|0.870|
90961249|NCT04796896|181803510|NON_INFERIORITY|"The noninferiority of GM value (based on GLSM) was considered demonstrated if the following were true:~The lower bound of the 95% CI of the GMR was \>0.667 based on the noninferiority margin of 1.5, and the GMR point estimate ≥0.8 (minimum threshold)."|GMR|1.257|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.101|1.434||||||||1.434|1.101|
91033470|NCT00272779|181952811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0058||95.0||||The explanatory variables in the model include treatment, genotype, time, and their interaction effects as fixed effects and the spatial exponential with respect to time from baseline was used to model the covariance structure of repeated measures.|linear mixed effect model|The FDR multiple testing adjustment was used to adjust p-values for the number of SNPs being tested (only SNPs with FDR-adj p-values \<0.2 reported)||Null Hypothesis: There is no association between the mean change from baseline in fasting triglycerides (phenotype) and the RETN\_097 genotypes. A single SNP association analysis was conducted using the linear mixed effect model for repeated measures (baseline, week 48 and 96) to test the overall genotype effect (i.e. an omnibus test on both the marginal genotype effect and the genotype-by-treatment interaction effect). Number of participants with RETN\_097 reported in Outcome Measure 16.||||0.0058
91033471|NCT00272779|181952812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0058||95.0||||The explanatory variables in the model include treatment, genotype, time, and their interaction effects as fixed effects and the spatial exponential with respect to time from baseline was used to model the covariance structure of repeated measures.|linear mixed effect model|The FDR multiple testing adjustment was used to adjust p-values for the number of SNPs being tested (only SNPs with FDR-adj p-values \<0.2 reported)||Null Hypothesis: There is no association between the mean change from baseline in fasting triglycerides (phenotype) and the RETN\_2265 genotypes. A single SNP association analysis was conducted using the linear mixed effect model for repeated measures (baseline, weeks 48 and 96) to test the overall genotype effect (i.e. an omnibus test on both the marginal genotype effect and the genotype-by-treatment interaction effect). Number of participants with RETN\_2265 reported in Outcome Measure 16.||||0.0058
91033472|NCT00272779|181952813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0253||95.0||||The explanatory variables in the model include treatment, genotype, time, and their interaction effects as fixed effects and the spatial exponential with respect to time from baseline was used to model the covariance structure of repeated measures.|linear mixed effect model|The FDR multiple testing adjustment was used to adjust p-values for the number of SNPs being tested (only SNPs with FDR-adj p-values \<0.2 reported)||Null Hypothesis: There is no association between the mean change from baseline in fasting triglycerides (phenotype) and the RETN\_598 genotypes. A single SNP association analysis was conducted using the linear mixed effect model for repeated measures (baseline, week 48 and 96) to test the overall genotype effect (i.e. an omnibus test on both the marginal genotype effect and the genotype-by-treatment interaction effect). Number of participants with RETN\_598 reported in Outcome Measure 16.||||0.0253
91033473|NCT00272779|181952814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1173||95.0||||The explanatory variables in the model include treatment, genotype, time, and their interaction effects as fixed effects and the spatial exponential with respect to time from baseline was used to model the covariance structure of repeated measures.|linear mixed effect model|The FDR multiple testing adjustment was used to adjust p-values for the number of SNPs being tested (only SNPs with FDR-adj p-values \<0.2 reported)||Null Hypothesis: There is no association between the mean change from baseline in fasting triglycerides (phenotype) and the APOE\_C130R genotypes. A single SNP association analysis was conducted using the linear mixed effect model for repeated measures (baseline, week 48 and 96) to test the overall genotype effect (i.e. an omnibus test on both the marginal genotype effect and the genotype-by-treatment interaction effect). Number of participants with APOE\_C130R reported in Outcome Measure 16.||||0.1173
91033474|NCT00272779|181952815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1173||95.0||||The explanatory variables in the model include treatment, genotype, time, and their interaction effects as fixed effects and the spatial exponential with respect to time from baseline was used to model the covariance structure of repeated measures.|linear mixed effect model|The FDR multiple testing adjustment was used to adjust p-values for the number of SNPs being tested (only SNPs with FDR-adj p-values \<0.2 reported)||Null Hypothesis: There is no association between the mean change from baseline in fasting triglycerides (phenotype) and the RETN\_734 genotypes. A single SNP association analysis was conducted using the linear mixed effect model for repeated measures (baseline, weeks 48 and 96) to test the overall genotype effect (i.e. an omnibus test on both the marginal genotype effect and the genotype-by-treatment interaction effect). Number of participants with RETN\_734 reported in Outcome Measure 16.||||0.1173
91033475|NCT00272779|181952816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1847||95.0||||The explanatory variables in the model include treatment, genotype, time, and their interaction effects as fixed effects and the spatial exponential with respect to time from baseline was used to model the covariance structure of repeated measures.|linear mixed effect model|The FDR multiple testing adjustment was used to adjust p-values for the number of SNPs being tested (only SNPs with FDR-adj p-values \<0.2 reported)||Null Hypothesis: There is no association between the mean change from baseline in fasting PAI-1 (phenotype) and the APOE\_R176C genotypes. A single SNP association analysis was conducted using the linear mixed effect model for repeated measures (baseline, weeks 48 and 96) to test the overall genotype effect (i.e. an omnibus test on both the marginal genotype effect and the genotype-by-treatment interaction effect). Number of participants with APOE\_R176C reported in Outcome Measure 16.||||0.1847
91033476|NCT00272779|181952817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1833||95.0||||The explanatory variables in the model include treatment, genotype, time, and their interaction effects as fixed effects and the spatial exponential with respect to time from baseline was used to model the covariance structure of repeated measures.|linear mixed effect model|The FDR multiple testing adjustment was used to adjust p-values for the number of SNPs being tested (only SNPs with FDR-adj p-values \<0.2 reported)||Null Hypothesis:There is no association between the mean change from baseline in fasting Tumor Necrosis Factor(TNF)-alpha (phenotype) and the IL6\_5309 genotypes. A single SNP association analysis was conducted using the linear mixed effect model for repeated measures (baseline, wk48 and 96) to test the overall genotype effect (ie. an omnibus test on both marginal genotype effect and the genotype-by-treatment interaction effect). Number of participants with IL6\_5309 reported in Outcome Measure 16||||0.1833
91035858|NCT02558491|181958302|OTHER|||||||0.173||||||No a priori sample size was determined due to the feasibility/pilot nature of the trial. Significance level was set at P-value \<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Secondary analysis followed the same format unless variables could not be considered normally distributed; in that case a related samples Wilcoxon signed-rank test is used. Data were first binned (to ensure minimum count of five per bins) and the w2 statistics was used with the expected counts given by SoC. Based on achieved recruitment, a moderate effect size (0.3) is detectable with 80% power, or a large effect size (0.4) with 95% power (G-Power 3.1.9.2). Outcome measurement was for mealtime.||||0.173
90876045|NCT01876485|181614530|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||proc mixed in SAS (multilevel modeling)|||We compared group differences in DDS at 10 months. The value of DDS at 10 months was the dependent variable, treatment group was the independent variable, and baseline DDS was a covariate. Power calculations were based on effect sizes for the DDS in similar trial that revealed small-to-medium effect sizes. Our goal was to include 130 patients in each arm. The randomized samples (n=138 EPIC, n=135 EUC) exceed the required 130 per group.||||.003
90876046|NCT00663052|181614531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|18.34||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|29.88|||Fisher Exact||Primary endpoint used 95% CI to compare to prespecified target rates for each treatment arm.|With 125 participants/group, estimation was: 1)approximately 90% power to reject null hypothesis- PASI 75 response rate at 24 weeks: 50% in ETN 50 mg QW, assuming true rate is 65% or greater; 2)90% power to reject null hypothesis- PASI 75 response rate at 24 weeks: 60% in 50 mg BIW, assuming true rate is 74% or greater. The 95% CI widths on these are approximately ±8.8%, indicating PASI 75 for ETN 50 mg QW and ETN 50 mg BIW must be at least 58.8% \& 68.8%, respectively to reject null hypotheses.||29.88|6.80|0.0015
90876047|NCT00663052|181614532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|3.14||||0.3605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.88|10.16|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 2||10.16|-3.88|0.3605
90876048|NCT00663052|181614532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|17.91||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|29.32|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 4||29.32|6.50|0.0013
90876049|NCT00663052|181614532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|19.6||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.51|31.7|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 8||31.70|7.51|0.0011
90876050|NCT00663052|181614532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|20.09|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.77|30.4|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 12||30.40|9.77|<.0001
90876051|NCT00663052|181614532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|14.38||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.39|23.37|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 16||23.37|5.39|0.0010
91077965|NCT01172808|182041205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.447|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.44|36.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R2.5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||36.880|19.440|<0.0001
90876052|NCT00663052|181614532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|10.75||||0.0087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.35|19.16|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 20||19.16|2.35|0.0087
90876053|NCT00663052|181614532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|11.46||||0.0068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.77|20.15|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 24||20.15|2.77|0.0068
90876054|NCT00663052|181614533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|1.5||||0.2435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|4.32|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 2||4.32|-1.31|0.2435
90876055|NCT00663052|181614533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|1.64||||0.5929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|7.67|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 4||7.67|-4.40|0.5929
90876056|NCT00663052|181614533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|13.44||||0.0156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|24.86|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 8||24.86|2.02|0.0156
90876057|NCT00663052|181614533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|25.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.89|37.47|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 12||37.47|12.89|<.0001
90876058|NCT00663052|181614533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|21.84||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.82|33.85|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 16||33.85|9.82|0.0003
90876059|NCT00663052|181614533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|19.8||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.23|31.38|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 20||31.38|8.23|0.0006
90876060|NCT00663052|181614533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|18.34||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|29.88|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 24||29.88|6.80|0.0015
90876061|NCT00663052|181614534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.74||The P-value at Week 2 was not applicable as the percentage of participants achieving 90% improvement in PASI in both treatment groups were 0%.|Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 2||0.74|-0.74|
90876062|NCT00663052|181614534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|0.02||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.77|2.81|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 4||2.81|-2.77|1.0000
90876063|NCT00663052|181614534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|3.94||||0.2611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|11.07|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 8||11.07|-3.20|0.2611
90876064|NCT00663052|181614534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|18.37||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.3|28.45|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 12||28.45|8.30|0.0002
91077966|NCT01172808|182041205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.462|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.619|33.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||33.120|15.619|<0.0001
91077967|NCT01172808|182041206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.558|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.603||0.355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|0.624|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R2.5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.624|-1.740|0.3550
91077968|NCT01172808|182041206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.608||0.0094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.388|2.771|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||2.771|0.388|0.0094
90961250|NCT04796896|181803511|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority of the SRR was considered demonstrated if the following were true: The lower bound of the 95% CI of the SRR difference was \>-10% based on the noninferiority margin of 10% and the SRR difference point estimate was ≥-5% (minimum threshold).|percentage difference|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.6||||||||1.6|-2.2|
91035859|NCT02558491|181958302|OTHER|||||||0.715||||||No a priori sample size was determined due to the feasibility/pilot nature of the trial. Significance level was set at P-value \<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Secondary analysis followed the same format unless variables could not be considered normally distributed; in that case a related samples Wilcoxon signed-rank test is used. Data were first binned (to ensure minimum count of five per bins) and the w2 statistics was used with the expected counts given by SoC. Based on achieved recruitment, a moderate effect size (0.3) is detectable with 80% power, or a large effect size (0.4) with 95% power (G-Power 3.1.9.2). Outcome measurement was for overnight.||||0.715
90876065|NCT00663052|181614534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|17.31||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.43|29.19|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 16||29.19|5.43|0.0031
90876066|NCT00663052|181614534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|15.92||||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|28.04|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 20||28.04|3.80|0.0081
90876067|NCT00663052|181614534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|16.78||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.46|29.1|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 24||29.10|4.46|0.0064
90876068|NCT00663052|181614535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.74||The P-value at Week 2 was to be calculated by Fisher Exact method but was not estimable as the percentage of participants achieving 100% improvement in PASI in both treatment groups were 0%.||||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 2||0.74|-0.74|
90876069|NCT00663052|181614535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|-0.73||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|1.44|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 4||1.44|-2.90|1.0000
90876070|NCT00663052|181614535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|-1.46||||0.4983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.21|1.29|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 8||1.29|-4.21|0.4983
90876071|NCT00663052|181614535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|1.57||||0.4957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.23|6.37|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 12||6.37|-3.23|0.4957
90915525|NCT04714320|181701716|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.184||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 15||||=0.184
90915526|NCT04714320|181701716|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.614||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 15||||=0.614
90915527|NCT04714320|181701716|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.933||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 22||||=0.933
91035860|NCT02558491|181958303|OTHER|||||||0.036||||||No a priori sample size was determined due to the feasibility/pilot nature of the trial. Significance level was set at P-value \<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Secondary analysis followed the same format unless variables could not be considered normally distributed; in that case a related samples Wilcoxon signed-rank test is used. Data were first binned (to ensure minimum count of five per bins) and the w2 statistics was used with the expected counts given by SoC. Based on achieved recruitment, a moderate effect size (0.3) is detectable with 80% power, or a large effect size (0.4) with 95% power (G-Power 3.1.9.2). Outcome measurement was for overall.||||0.036
90876072|NCT00663052|181614535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|3.14||||0.3115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.24|9.52|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 16||9.52|-3.24|0.3115
90876073|NCT00663052|181614535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|6.99||||0.0773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|15.1|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 20||15.10|-1.13|0.0773
90876074|NCT00663052|181614535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|5.53||||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.82|13.87|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 24||13.87|-2.82|0.1830
90876075|NCT00663052|181614536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-1.3||||0.0103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.3|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 2||-0.3|-2.3|0.0103
90876076|NCT00663052|181614536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-1.8||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-0.6|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 4||-0.6|-3.0|0.0031
90876077|NCT00663052|181614536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-3.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|-1.7|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 8||-1.7|-4.4|<0.0001
90876078|NCT00663052|181614536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-3.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|-2.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 12||-2.2|-5.0|<0.0001
90876079|NCT00663052|181614536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-2.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-1.5|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 16||-1.5|-4.0|<0.0001
90876080|NCT00663052|181614536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-2.1||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-0.8|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 20||-0.8|-3.3|0.0012
90876081|NCT00663052|181614536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-2.0||||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-0.7|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 24||-0.7|-3.4|0.0042
90876082|NCT00663052|181614537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Comparison of treatment groups for PASI 50. Log rank test used to compare groups; CI based on product-limit method.||||<0.0001
90876083|NCT00663052|181614537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Comparison of treatment groups for PASI 75. Log rank test used to compare groups; CI based on product-limit method.||||<0.0001
90876084|NCT00663052|181614537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0053|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Comparison of treatment groups for PASI 90. Log rank test used to compare groups; CI based on product-limit method.||||0.0053
90876085|NCT00663052|181614537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0432|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Comparison of treatment groups for PASI 100. Log rank test used to compare groups; CI based on product-limit method.||||0.0432
90876086|NCT00663052|181614538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.74|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 2||0.74|-0.74|
90876087|NCT00663052|181614538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|-0.73||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|1.44|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 4||1.44|-2.90|1.0000
90961251|NCT04796896|181803512|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority of the SRR was considered demonstrated if the following were true: The lower bound of the 95% CI of the SRR difference was \>-10% based on the noninferiority margin of 10% and the SRR difference point estimate was ≥-5% (minimum threshold).|percentage difference|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.5||||||||1.5|-2.5|
90961252|NCT04796896|181803512|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority of the SRR was considered demonstrated if the following were true: The lower bound of the 95% CI of the SRR difference was \>-10% based on the noninferiority margin of 10% and the SRR difference point estimate was ≥-5% (minimum threshold).|percentage difference|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|2.4||||||||2.4|-0.8|
90915528|NCT04714320|181701716|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.803||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 22||||=0.803
90915529|NCT04714320|181701716|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.686||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 29||||=0.686
90915530|NCT04714320|181701716|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.752||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 29||||=0.752
90915531|NCT04714320|181701716|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.106||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 36||||=0.106
90915532|NCT04714320|181701716|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.779||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 36||||=0.779
90915533|NCT04714320|181701716|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.323||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 43||||=0.323
90915534|NCT04714320|181701716|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.991||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 43||||=0.991
90915535|NCT04714320|181701716|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.973||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 50||||=0.973
90915536|NCT04714320|181701716|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.23||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 50||||=0.230
91033477|NCT00272779|181952818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1833||95.0||||The explanatory variables in the model include treatment, genotype, time, and their interaction effects as fixed effects and the spatial exponential with respect to time from baseline was used to model the covariance structure of repeated measures.|linear mixed effect model|The FDR multiple testing adjustment was used to adjust p-values for the number of SNPs being tested (only SNPs with FDR-adj p-values \<0.2 reported)||Null Hypothesis: There is no association between the mean change from baseline in fasting TNF-alpha (phenotype) and the RS11030679 genotypes. A single SNP association analysis was conducted using the linear mixed effect model for repeated measures (baseline, week 48 and 96) to test the overall genotype effect (i.e. an omnibus test on both the marginal genotype effect and the genotype-by-treatment interaction effect). Number of participants with RETN\_097 reported in Outcome Measure 16.||||0.1833
90915537|NCT04714320|181701716|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.792||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 57||||=0.792
90915538|NCT04714320|181701716|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.744||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 57||||=0.744
90915539|NCT04714320|181701716|SUPERIORITY|Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|||||=|0.925|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 64||||=0.925
90915540|NCT04714320|181701716|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.991||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 64||||=0.991
90876088|NCT00663052|181614538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|0.04||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.58|3.67|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 8||3.67|-3.58|1.0000
90876089|NCT00663052|181614538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|6.1||||0.0401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|12.47|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 12||12.47|-0.26|0.0401
90876090|NCT00663052|181614538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|3.29||||0.4415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.95|11.54|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 16||11.54|-4.95|0.4415
90915541|NCT04714320|181701716|SUPERIORITY|Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|||||=|0.53|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 71||||=0.530
90915542|NCT04714320|181701716|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.849||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 71||||=0.849
90876091|NCT00663052|181614538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|8.6||||0.0617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|17.87|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 20||17.87|-0.67|0.0617
90876092|NCT00663052|181614538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|8.64||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|18.24|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 24||18.24|-0.96|0.0720
90876093|NCT00663052|181614539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|-1.45||||0.6223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.07|2.16|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 2||2.16|-5.07|0.6223
90876094|NCT00663052|181614539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|6.21||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|13.98|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 4||13.98|-1.56|0.1000
90876095|NCT00663052|181614539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|15.59||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.53|26.65|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 8||26.65|4.53|0.0037
90876096|NCT00663052|181614539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|22.04||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.75|34.33|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 12||34.33|9.75|0.0004
90876097|NCT00663052|181614539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|13.46||||0.0285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|25.97|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 16||25.97|0.94|0.0285
90876098|NCT00663052|181614539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|15.05||||0.0139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.67|27.43|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 20||27.43|2.67|0.0139
90876099|NCT00663052|181614539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|19.56||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.38|31.74|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 24||31.74|7.38|0.0012
90876100|NCT00663052|181614540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|5.01||||0.3956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.01|16.03|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 2||16.03|-6.01|0.3956
90876101|NCT00663052|181614540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|8.66||||0.1754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.82|21.14|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 4||21.14|-3.82|0.1754
91033478|NCT00272779|181952819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1694||95.0||||The explanatory variables in the model include treatment, genotype, time, and their interaction effects as fixed effects and the spatial exponential with respect to time from baseline was used to model the covariance structure of repeated measures.|linear mixed effect model|The FDR multiple testing adjustment was used to adjust p-values for the number of SNPs being tested (only SNPs with FDR-adj p-values \<0.2 reported)||Null Hypothesis: There is no association between the mean change from baseline in SAT-to-TAT Ratio (phenotype) and the CCDC122\_5980 genotypes. A single SNP association analysis was conducted using the linear mixed effect model for repeated measures (baseline, week 48 and 96) to test the overall genotype effect (i.e. an omnibus test on both the marginal genotype effect and the genotype-by-treatment interaction effect). Number of participants with CCDC122\_5980 reported in Outcome Measure 16.||||0.1694
90876102|NCT00663052|181614540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|13.81||||0.0207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|25.72|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 8||25.72|1.90|0.0207
90876103|NCT00663052|181614540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|19.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.23|29.53|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 12||29.53|9.23|<0.0001
90876104|NCT00663052|181614540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|13.54||||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.79|23.29|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 16||23.29|3.79|0.0044
90876105|NCT00663052|181614540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|10.62||||0.0223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|20.13|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 20||20.13|1.11|0.0223
90876106|NCT00663052|181614540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|11.37||||0.0133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.96|20.78|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 24||20.78|1.96|0.0133
90876107|NCT00663052|181614541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Comparison between treatment groups for PGA Clear/Almost Clear (0,1). Log rank test used to compare groups; CI based on product-limit method.||||0.0003
90876108|NCT00663052|181614541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Comparison between treatment groups for PGA Clear/Almost Clear/Mild (0,1,2). Log rank test used to compare groups; CI based on product-limit method.||||0.0022
90876109|NCT00663052|181614542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-0.2||||0.0193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.0|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 2||-0.0|-0.3|0.0193
90876110|NCT00663052|181614542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-0.2||||0.0114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 4||-0.1|-0.4|0.0114
90876111|NCT00663052|181614542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-0.3||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 8||-0.2|-0.5|0.0006
90876112|NCT00663052|181614542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-0.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.3|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 12||-0.3|-0.7|<0.0001
90876113|NCT00663052|181614542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-0.3||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 16||-0.1|-0.5|0.0058
90876114|NCT00663052|181614542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-0.4||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 20||-0.1|-0.6|0.0018
90876115|NCT00663052|181614542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-0.4||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 24||-0.2|-0.6|0.0009
91035861|NCT02558491|181958303|OTHER|||||||0.213||||||No a priori sample size was determined due to the feasibility/pilot nature of the trial. Significance level was set at P-value \<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Secondary analysis followed the same format unless variables could not be considered normally distributed; in that case a related samples Wilcoxon signed-rank test is used. Data were first binned (to ensure minimum count of five per bins) and the w2 statistics was used with the expected counts given by SoC. Based on achieved recruitment, a moderate effect size (0.3) is detectable with 80% power, or a large effect size (0.4) with 95% power (G-Power 3.1.9.2). Outcome measurement was for mealtime.||||0.213
90876116|NCT00663052|181614543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-0.1||||0.6396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 2||0.2|-0.3|0.6396
90915543|NCT04714320|181701716|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.953||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 78||||=0.953
90915544|NCT04714320|181701716|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.884||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 78||||=0.884
90876117|NCT00663052|181614543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-0.4||||0.0074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 4||-0.1|-0.7|0.0074
90876118|NCT00663052|181614543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-0.6||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 8||-0.2|-0.9|0.0007
90876119|NCT00663052|181614543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-0.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.5|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 12||-0.5|-1.1|<0.0001
90876120|NCT00663052|181614543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-0.5||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 16||-0.1|-0.8|0.0040
90876121|NCT00663052|181614543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-0.6||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.3|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 20||-0.3|-0.9|0.0004
90876122|NCT00663052|181614543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-0.2||||0.1799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 24||-0.1|-0.5|0.1799
90876123|NCT00663052|181614544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|0.0||||0.7757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.3|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 2||0.3|-0.2|0.7757
90876124|NCT00663052|181614544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-0.2||||0.2112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 4||0.1|-0.4|0.2112
90876125|NCT00663052|181614544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-0.1||||0.5467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 8||0.2|-0.3|0.5467
90915545|NCT04714320|181701716|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.23||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 85||||=0.230
90876126|NCT00663052|181614544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-0.1||||0.3684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 12||0.1|-0.4|0.3684
90876127|NCT00663052|181614544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-0.2||||-0.2046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 16||0.1|-0.4|-0.2046
90876128|NCT00663052|181614544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-0.2||||0.0649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.0|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 20||0.0|-0.5|0.0649
90876129|NCT00663052|181614544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|0.0||||0.8683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 24||0.2|-0.3|0.8683
90876130|NCT00663052|181614545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|0.0||||0.8898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 2||0.2|-0.3|0.8898
90876131|NCT00663052|181614545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-0.4||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 4||-0.1|-0.7|0.0090
90876132|NCT00663052|181614545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-0.4||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 8||-0.2|-0.7|0.0028
90876133|NCT00663052|181614545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-0.6||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.3|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 12||-0.3|-0.9|0.0001
90915546|NCT04714320|181701716|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.589||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 85||||=0.589
90915547|NCT04714320|181701716|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.919||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 92||||=0.919
90961253|NCT04796896|181803513|NON_INFERIORITY|"The noninferiority of GM value (based on GLSM) was considered demonstrated if the following were true:~The lower bound of the 95% CI of the GMR was \>0.667 based on the noninferiority margin of 1.5, and the GMR point estimate ≥0.8 (minimum threshold)."|GMR|3.897|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.158|4.808||||||||4.808|3.158|
90915548|NCT04714320|181701716|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.753||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 92||||=0.753
90915549|NCT04714320|181701716|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.747||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 106||||=0.747
90915550|NCT04714320|181701716|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.764||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 106||||=0.764
90876134|NCT00663052|181614545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-0.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.3|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 16||-0.3|-0.9|<0.0001
90876135|NCT00663052|181614545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-0.5||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 20||-0.2|-0.8|0.0016
90876136|NCT00663052|181614545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-0.3||||0.0602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.0|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 24||0.0|-0.6|0.0602
90876137|NCT00663052|181614548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|0.42||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|8.55|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 12||8.55|-7.70|1.0000
90876138|NCT00663052|181614548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|3.94||||0.4213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.75|13.63|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 16||13.63|-5.75|0.4213
90876139|NCT00663052|181614548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|3.98||||0.4039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.38|13.35|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 20||13.35|-5.38|0.4039
90915551|NCT04714320|181701716|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.527||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 120||||=0.527
90915552|NCT04714320|181701716|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.639||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 120||||=0.639
90915553|NCT04714320|181701716|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.744||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 148||||=0.744
90876140|NCT00663052|181614548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|2.5||||0.6168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.87|11.88|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 24||11.88|-6.87|0.6168
90876141|NCT00663052|181614549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-0.2||||0.862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|2.3|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||||2.3|-2.8|0.8620
90876142|NCT00663052|181614550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|5.68||||0.3525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.05|17.4|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 2||17.40|-6.05|0.3525
90876143|NCT00663052|181614550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|14.7||||0.0202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.19|27.2|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 4||27.20|2.19|0.0202
90876144|NCT00663052|181614550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|14.41||||0.0178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.17|26.64|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 8||26.64|2.17|0.0178
90876145|NCT00663052|181614550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|21.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.02|32.03|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 12||32.03|11.02|<0.0001
90915554|NCT04714320|181701716|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.539||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 148||||=0.539
90876146|NCT00663052|181614550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|10.53||||0.0325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|20.64|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 16||20.64|0.43|0.0325
90876147|NCT00663052|181614550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|12.04||||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|21.97|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 20||21.97|2.10|0.0129
90876148|NCT00663052|181614550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|11.28||||0.0209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|21.3|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 24||21.30|1.26|0.0209
90876149|NCT00663052|181614551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|12.1||||0.0461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|24.44|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 2||24.44|-0.24|0.0461
90876150|NCT00663052|181614551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|8.83||||0.1314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|20.1|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 4||20.10|-2.44|0.1314
90876151|NCT00663052|181614551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|11.2||||0.0289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|21.74|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 8||21.74|0.65|0.0289
90876152|NCT00663052|181614551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|8.52||||0.0433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|17.07|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 12||17.07|-0.04|0.0433
90876153|NCT00663052|181614551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|7.06||||0.0902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|15.43|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 16||15.43|-1.32|0.0902
90876154|NCT00663052|181614551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|7.79||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|16.26|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 20||16.26|-0.68|0.0630
90876155|NCT00663052|181614551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|7.7||||0.0907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|16.93|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 24||16.93|-1.53|0.0907
90876156|NCT00663052|181614554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|3.25||||0.6255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.39|15.9|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 2||15.90|-9.39|0.6255
90876157|NCT00663052|181614554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|9.3||||0.1292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.85|21.45|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 4||21.45|-2.85|0.1292
90876158|NCT00663052|181614554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|11.86||||0.0251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|22.78|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 8||22.78|0.94|0.0251
90876159|NCT00663052|181614554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|14.16||||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.68|24.64|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 12||24.64|3.68|0.0055
90876160|NCT00663052|181614554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|11.99||||0.0159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|22.2|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 16||22.20|1.78|0.0159
90876161|NCT00663052|181614554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|9.05||||0.0672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|19.18|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 20||19.18|-1.08|0.0672
90876162|NCT00663052|181614554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|10.51||||0.0351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|20.75|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 24||20.75|0.27|0.0351
90876163|NCT00663052|181614555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|6.24||||0.2283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.11|16.58|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 2||16.58|-4.11|0.2283
90876164|NCT00663052|181614555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|5.49||||0.2326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.68|14.66|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 4||14.66|-3.68|0.2326
90876165|NCT00663052|181614555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|10.0||||0.0165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|18.52|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 8||18.52|1.47|0.0165
90876166|NCT00663052|181614555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|10.0||||0.0165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|18.52|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 12||18.52|1.47|0.0165
90876167|NCT00663052|181614555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|4.85||||0.2536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.46|13.15|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 16||13.15|-3.46|0.2536
90876168|NCT00663052|181614555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|5.6||||0.1761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.59|13.78|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 20||13.78|-2.59|0.1761
90876169|NCT00663052|181614555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|4.01||||0.3943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.18|13.2|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 24||13.20|-5.18|0.3943
90876170|NCT00663052|181614556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-0.3||||0.5748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.8|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 2||0.8|-1.5|0.5748
90961254|NCT04796896|181803513|NON_INFERIORITY|"The noninferiority of GM value (based on GLSM) was considered demonstrated if the following were true:~The lower bound of the 95% CI of the GMR was \>0.667 based on the noninferiority margin of 1.5, and the GMR point estimate ≥0.8 (minimum threshold)."|GMR|3.982|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.404|4.657||||||||4.657|3.404|
91035862|NCT02558491|181958303|OTHER|||||||0.11||||||No a priori sample size was determined due to the feasibility/pilot nature of the trial. Significance level was set at P-value \<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Secondary analysis followed the same format unless variables could not be considered normally distributed; in that case a related samples Wilcoxon signed-rank test is used. Data were first binned (to ensure minimum count of five per bins) and the w2 statistics was used with the expected counts given by SoC. Based on achieved recruitment, a moderate effect size (0.3) is detectable with 80% power, or a large effect size (0.4) with 95% power (G-Power 3.1.9.2). Outcome measurement was for overnight.||||0.110
90876171|NCT00663052|181614556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-1.2||||0.0471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.0|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 4||-0.0|-2.4|0.0471
90876172|NCT00663052|181614556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-2.0||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-0.7|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 8||-0.7|-3.3|0.0025
90876173|NCT00663052|181614556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-2.2||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-0.9|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 12||-0.9|-3.5|0.0009
90876174|NCT00663052|181614556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-1.9||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-0.7|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 16||-0.7|-3.1|0.0015
90876175|NCT00663052|181614556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-1.5||||0.0197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 20||-0.2|-2.7|0.0197
90876176|NCT00663052|181614556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-1.3||||0.0506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.0|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 24||0.0|-2.6|0.0506
90876177|NCT00663052|181614557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|0.04||||0.0435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.09|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 12||0.09|0.00|0.0435
90915555|NCT04714320|181701716|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.417||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 169||||=0.417
90915556|NCT04714320|181701716|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.466||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 169||||=0.466
90961255|NCT04796896|181803515|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority of the SRR was considered demonstrated if the following were true: The lower bound of the 95% CI of the SRR difference was \>-10% based on the noninferiority margin of 10% and the SRR difference point estimate was ≥-5% (minimum threshold).|percentage difference|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|2.4||||||||2.4|-4.4|
90961256|NCT04796896|181803515|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority of the SRR was considered demonstrated if the following were true: The lower bound of the 95% CI of the SRR difference was \>-10% based on the noninferiority margin of 10% and the SRR difference point estimate was ≥-5% (minimum threshold).|percentage difference|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|2.4||||||||2.4|-2.2|
90961257|NCT04796896|181803524|OTHER|The 95% confidence interval (CI) of the ratio was calculated using the exact method conditional upon the total number of cases, adjusting for person-years.|Vaccine Efficacy|0.706|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.325|0.873|||||Vaccine efficacy (percent), was defined as 1 - ratio of incidence rate (mRNA-1273 vs. placebo).|||0.873|0.325|
91033479|NCT00272779|181952820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1335||95.0||||The explanatory variables in the model include treatment, genotype, time, and their interaction effects as fixed effects and the spatial exponential with respect to time from baseline was used to model the covariance structure of repeated measures.|linear mixed effect model|The FDR multiple testing adjustment was used to adjust p-values for the number of SNPs being tested (only SNPs with FDR-adj p-values \<0.2 reported)||Null Hypothesis: There is no association between the mean change from baseline in VAT (phenotype) and the BRUNOL\_1842 genotypes. A single SNP association analysis was conducted using the linear mixed effect model for repeated measures (baseline, week 48 and 96) to test the overall genotype effect (i.e. an omnibus test on both the marginal genotype effect and the genotype-by-treatment interaction effect). Number of participants with BRUNOL\_1842 reported in Outcome Measure 16.||||0.1335
90876178|NCT00663052|181614557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|0.05||||0.0275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 24||0.10|0.01|0.0275
90876179|NCT00663052|181614558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|0.0||||0.9473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.7|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 12||0.7|-0.7|0.9473
90876180|NCT00663052|181614558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-0.1||||0.8217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.6|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 24||0.6|-0.8|0.8217
90876181|NCT00663052|181614559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of Adjusted Mean Change|-0.7||||0.0539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.0|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 12||0.0|-1.4|0.0539
90961258|NCT04796896|181803524|OTHER|The 95% CI of the ratio was calculated using the exact method conditional upon the total number of cases, adjusting for person-years.|Vaccine Efficacy|0.409|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.287|0.509|||||Vaccine Efficacy (percent), was defined as 1 - ratio of incidence rate (mRNA-1273 vs. placebo).|||0.509|0.287|
90961259|NCT04796896|181803524|OTHER|The 95% CI of the ratio was calculated using the exact method conditional upon the total number of cases, adjusting for person-years.|Vaccine Efficacy|0.324|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.127|0.474|||||Vaccine Efficacy (percent), was defined as 1 - ratio of incidence rate (mRNA-1273 vs. placebo).|||0.474|0.127|
90961260|NCT04796896|181803525|OTHER|The 95% CI of the ratio was calculated using the exact method conditional upon the total number of cases, adjusting for person-years.|Vaccine Efficacy|0.683|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.151|0.882|||||Vaccine Efficacy (percent), was defined as 1 - ratio of incidence rate (mRNA-1273 vs. placebo).|||0.882|0.151|
90915557|NCT04714320|181701716|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.38||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg and DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 8||||=0.380
90961261|NCT04796896|181803525|OTHER|The 95% CI of the ratio was calculated using the exact method conditional upon the total number of cases, adjusting for person-years.|Vaccine Efficacy|0.281|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.007|0.48|||||Vaccine Efficacy (percent), was defined as 1 - ratio of incidence rate (mRNA-1273 vs. placebo).|||0.480|-0.007|
91035863|NCT02558491|181958304|OTHER|||||||0.018||||||No a priori sample size was determined due to the feasibility/pilot nature of the trial. Significance level was set at P-value \<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Secondary analysis followed the same format unless variables could not be considered normally distributed; in that case a related samples Wilcoxon signed-rank test is used. Data were first binned (to ensure minimum count of five per bins) and the w2 statistics was used with the expected counts given by SoC. Based on achieved recruitment, a moderate effect size (0.3) is detectable with 80% power, or a large effect size (0.4) with 95% power (G-Power 3.1.9.2). Outcome measurement was for overall.||||0.018
90876182|NCT00663052|181614559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of Adjusted Mean Change|-0.5||||0.1494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 24||0.2|-1.3|0.1494
90876183|NCT00663052|181614565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2139|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 12||||0.2139
90876184|NCT00663052|181614565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 24||||1.0000
90876185|NCT00663052|181614567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2443|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 12||||0.2443
91035864|NCT02558491|181958304|OTHER|||||||0.149||||||No a priori sample size was determined due to the feasibility/pilot nature of the trial. Significance level was set at P-value \<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Secondary analysis followed the same format unless variables could not be considered normally distributed; in that case a related samples Wilcoxon signed-rank test is used. Data were first binned (to ensure minimum count of five per bins) and the w2 statistics was used with the expected counts given by SoC. Based on achieved recruitment, a moderate effect size (0.3) is detectable with 80% power, or a large effect size (0.4) with 95% power (G-Power 3.1.9.2). Outcome measurement was for mealtime.||||0.149
91033480|NCT00272779|181952821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1335||95.0||||The explanatory variables in the model include treatment, genotype, time, and their interaction effects as fixed effects and the spatial exponential with respect to time from baseline was used to model the covariance structure of repeated measures.|linear mixed effect model|The FDR multiple testing adjustment was used to adjust p-values for the number of SNPs being tested (only SNPs with FDR-adj p-values \<0.2 reported)||Null Hypothesis: There is no association between the mean change from baseline in VAT (phenotype) and the RETN\_730 genotypes. A single SNP association analysis was conducted using the linear mixed effect model for repeated measures (baseline, weeks 48 and 96) to test the overall genotype effect (i.e. an omnibus test on both the marginal genotype effect and the genotype-by-treatment interaction effect). Number of participants with RETN\_730 reported in Outcome Measure 16.||||0.1335
91033481|NCT00272779|181952822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1696||95.0||||The explanatory variables in the model include treatment, genotype, time, and their interaction effects as fixed effects and the spatial exponential with respect to time from baseline was used to model the covariance structure of repeated measures.|linear mixed effect model|The FDR multiple testing adjustment was used to adjust p-values for the number of SNPs being tested (only SNPs with FDR-adj p-values \<0.2 reported)||Null Hypothesis: There is no association between the mean change from baseline in VAT-to-TAT Ratio (phenotype) and the CCDA122\_5980 genotypes. A single SNP association analysis was conducted using the linear mixed effect model for repeated measures (baseline, weeks 48 and 96) to test the overall genotype effect (i.e. an omnibus test on both the marginal genotype effect and the genotype-by-treatment interaction effect). Number of participants with CCDA122\_5980 reported in Outcome Measure 16.||||0.1696
90876186|NCT00663052|181614567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 24||||1.0000
90876187|NCT00663052|181614568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0807|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison of treatment groups at Week 12||||0.0807
91033482|NCT02440711|181952823|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18||||||A significance threshold for all analyses was set at α=0.05. Bonferroni corrections for multiple comparisons were applied.|Multivariate regression|The multivariate regression included participants' biological masses and walking speeds as covariates.||Analysis of VO2 at slow walking speed||||.18
91033483|NCT02440711|181952823|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21||||||A significance threshold for all analyses was set at α=0.05. Bonferroni corrections for multiple comparisons were applied.|Multivariate regression|The multivariate regression included participants' biological masses and walking speeds as covariates.||Analysis of VO2 at comfortable walking speed||||.21
91033484|NCT02440711|181952823|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16||||||A significance threshold for all analyses was set at α=0.05. Bonferroni corrections for multiple comparisons were applied.|Multivariate regression|The multivariate regression included participants' biological masses and walking speeds as covariates.||Analysis of VO2 at fast walking speed||||.16
91033485|NCT02440711|181952825|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29||||||Holm-Bonferroni adjustments for multiple comparisons were applied to yield an experiment-wise alpha level of .05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.29
91033486|NCT02440711|181952827|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||Holm-Bonferroni adjustments for multiple comparisons were applied to yield an experiment-wise alpha level of .05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
91033487|NCT02440711|181952829|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25||||||Holm-Bonferroni adjustments for multiple comparisons were applied to yield an experiment-wise alpha level of .05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.25
91033488|NCT02440711|181952831|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86||||||Holm-Bonferroni adjustments for multiple comparisons were applied to yield an experiment-wise alpha level of .05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.86
91033489|NCT02440711|181952833|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14||||||Holm-Bonferroni adjustments for multiple comparisons were applied to yield an experiment-wise alpha level of .05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Prosthetic side step length results||||.14
91033490|NCT02440711|181952833|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Holm-Bonferroni adjustments for multiple comparisons were applied to yield an experiment-wise alpha level of .05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Sound side step length results||||<0.001
91033491|NCT02440711|181952835|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61||||||Holm-Bonferroni adjustments for multiple comparisons were applied to yield an experiment-wise alpha level of .05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Prosthetic side step time results||||.61
91033492|NCT02440711|181952835|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4||||||Holm-Bonferroni adjustments for multiple comparisons were applied to yield an experiment-wise alpha level of .05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Sound side step time results||||.40
91033493|NCT02440711|181952837|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14||||||Holm-Bonferroni adjustments for multiple comparisons were applied to yield an experiment-wise alpha level of .05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.14
91033494|NCT02440711|181952839|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||Holm-Bonferroni adjustments for multiple comparisons were applied to yield an experiment-wise alpha level of .05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
91033495|NCT02440711|181952841|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||Holm-Bonferroni adjustments for multiple comparisons were applied to yield an experiment-wise alpha level of .05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
91033496|NCT02440711|181952843|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||Holm-Bonferroni adjustments for multiple comparisons were applied to yield an experiment-wise alpha level of .05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.005
90876188|NCT00663052|181614568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1454|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison of treatment groups at Week 24||||0.1454
90876189|NCT06002958|181614584|OTHER||Cohen's d|-0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.815|0.255|||||Inner|||0.255|-0.815|
90876190|NCT06002958|181614584|OTHER||Cohen's d|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.503|0.545|||||Outer|||0.545|-0.503|
91033497|NCT02440711|181952845|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||Holm-Bonferroni adjustments for multiple comparisons were applied to yield an experiment-wise alpha level of .05.|t-test, 2 sided|||TAPES-AR results||||0.002
90876191|NCT06002958|181614584|OTHER||Cohen's d|-0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.225|||||Individual|||0.225|-0.850|
90876192|NCT06002958|181614584|OTHER||Cohen's d|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.534|||||Process|||0.534|-0.850|
90876193|NCT05760300|181614590|OTHER||Geometric Least-squares Mean Ratio|84.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.1|119.0|||||Parametric (normal theory) analysis of covariance (ANOVA) model appropriate for a parallel design with renal function group as a fixed effect was fitted to the natural log-transformed values of the multiple dose PK parameter under evaluation.|||119|60.1|
90876194|NCT05760300|181614590|OTHER||Geometric Least-squares Mean Ratio|104.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.8|133.0|||||Parametric (normal theory) ANOVA model appropriate for a parallel design with renal function group as a fixed effect was fitted to the natural log-transformed values of the multiple dose PK parameter under evaluation.|||133|80.8|
91033498|NCT02440711|181952845|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Holm-Bonferroni adjustments for multiple comparisons were applied to yield an experiment-wise alpha level of .05.|t-test, 2 sided|||TAPES-FUN results||||<0.001
90876195|NCT05760300|181614591|OTHER||Geometric Least-squares Mean Ratio|106.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|63.6|175.0|||||Parametric (normal theory) ANOVA model appropriate for a parallel design with renal function group as a fixed effect was fitted to the natural log-transformed values of the multiple dose PK parameter under evaluation.|||175|63.6|
90876196|NCT05760300|181614591|OTHER||Geometric Least-squares Mean Ratio|108.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.8|151.0|||||Parametric (normal theory) ANOVA model appropriate for a parallel design with renal function group as a fixed effect was fitted to the natural log-transformed values of the multiple dose PK parameter under evaluation.|||151|77.8|
91033499|NCT02440711|181952845|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85||||||Holm-Bonferroni adjustments for multiple comparisons were applied to yield an experiment-wise alpha level of .05.|t-test, 2 sided|||TAPES-AES results||||0.85
90876197|NCT05760300|181614592|OTHER||Geometric Least-squares Mean Ratio|83.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|67.4|104.0|||||Parametric (normal theory) ANOVA model appropriate for a parallel design with renal function group as a fixed effect was fitted to the natural log-transformed values of the multiple dose PK parameter under evaluation.|||104|67.4|
90876198|NCT05760300|181614592|OTHER||Geometric Least-squares Mean Ratio|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|56.2|179.0|||||Parametric (normal theory) ANOVA model appropriate for a parallel design with renal function group as a fixed effect was fitted to the natural log-transformed values of the multiple dose PK parameter under evaluation.|||179|56.2|
90876199|NCT05760300|181614593|OTHER||Geometric Least-squares Mean Ratio|96.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|65.1|143.0|||||Parametric (normal theory) ANOVA model appropriate for a parallel design with renal function group as a fixed effect was fitted to the natural log-transformed values of the multiple dose PK parameter under evaluation.|||143|65.1|
90915558|NCT04714320|181701716|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.73||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg and DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 8||||=0.730
90876200|NCT05760300|181614593|OTHER||Geometric Least-squares Mean Ratio|77.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|42.7|142.0|||||Parametric (normal theory) ANOVA model appropriate for a parallel design with renal function group as a fixed effect was fitted to the natural log-transformed values of the multiple dose PK parameter under evaluation.|||142|42.7|
91033500|NCT00234286|181952881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.76|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||1.76|1.09|.009
91033501|NCT00234286|181952882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.96|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||1.96|0.95|0.09
90876201|NCT05760300|181614598|OTHER||Geometric Least-squares Mean Ratio|160.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.2|263.0|||||Parametric (normal theory) ANOVA model appropriate for a parallel design with renal function group as a fixed effect was fitted to the natural log-transformed values of the multiple dose PK parameter under evaluation.|Day 1||263|97.2|
90876202|NCT05760300|181614598|OTHER||Geometric Least-squares Mean Ratio|65.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|35.0|124.0|||||Parametric (normal theory) ANOVA model appropriate for a parallel design with renal function group as a fixed effect was fitted to the natural log-transformed values of the multiple dose PK parameter under evaluation.|Day 6||124|35.0|
90876203|NCT05760300|181614598|OTHER||Geometric Least-squares Mean Ratio|86.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|53.3|141.0|||||Parametric (normal theory) ANOVA model appropriate for a parallel design with renal function group as a fixed effect was fitted to the natural log-transformed values of the multiple dose PK parameter under evaluation.|Day 1||141|53.3|
90961262|NCT04796896|181803525|OTHER|The 95% CI of the ratio was calculated using the exact method conditional upon the total number of cases, adjusting for person-years.|Vaccine Efficacy|-0.068|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.832|0.352|||||Vaccine Efficacy (percent), was defined as 1 - ratio of incidence rate (mRNA-1273 vs. placebo).|||0.352|-0.832|
91033502|NCT00234286|181952883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.42|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||1.42|0.59|0.69
91033503|NCT00234286|181952884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.96|||Generalized Estimating Equations|||||0.96|0.53|.03
90876204|NCT05760300|181614598|OTHER||Geometric Least-squares Mean Ratio|72.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|50.4|105.0|||||Parametric (normal theory) ANOVA model appropriate for a parallel design with renal function group as a fixed effect was fitted to the natural log-transformed values of the multiple dose PK parameter under evaluation.|Day 6||105|50.4|
91033504|NCT00234286|181952885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.66||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.16|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||1.16|0.38|0.15
90876205|NCT05760300|181614599|OTHER||Geometric Least-squares Mean Ratio|139.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.8|221.0|||||Parametric (normal theory) ANOVA model appropriate for a parallel design with renal function group as a fixed effect was fitted to the natural log-transformed values of the multiple dose PK parameter under evaluation.|Day 1||221|87.8|
91033505|NCT00234286|181952886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.62|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||1.62|0.67|0.86
91033506|NCT00234286|181952887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.96|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||1.96|0.95|0.09
91033507|NCT00234286|181952888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.98||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|3.36|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||3.36|1.17|0.01
91033508|NCT00234286|181952889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.35|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||2.35|0.73|0.36
91033509|NCT00234286|181952890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.77|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||1.77|1.08|0.01
91033510|NCT00234286|181952891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.3|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||1.30|0.70|0.76
91033511|NCT00234286|181952892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.77||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|5.44|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||5.44|1.41|.004
91033512|NCT00234286|181952893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.12||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|11.28|||Generalized Estimating Equations|||||11.28|1.51|0.007
91033513|NCT00234286|181952894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.64||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|3.2|||Generalized Estimating Equations|||||3.20|0.84|0.14
91033514|NCT00234286|181952895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|1.88|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||1.88|1.15|.003
91033515|NCT00234286|181952896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.45||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|9.7|||Generalized Estimation Equations|||||9.70|0.62|0.19
91033516|NCT00376623|181952904|OTHER|A one-sided exact binomial test with a 2.5 % significance level was used to detect the difference between BI 2536 and historical placebo with objective response rate = 0.9 % (two out of 211) with a 95 % confidence interval of 0.2 % to 3 %.||||||0.0548|||||||One-sided exact binomial test|Null hypothesis H0: p \<= 0.009 Alternative hypothesis HA: p \> 0.009||Efficacy of BI 2536 was evaluated by comparing the tumour response rate of the present trial with the tumour response rate published for patients with the same stage of disease treated with placebo. For this, treatment groups 'BI 2536 200 mg' and 'combination of treatment group 50 mg BI 2536 (day 1 - day 3) and 60 mg BI 2536 (day 1 - day 3)' were pooled together and compared to historical placebo.||||0.0548
91033517|NCT00376623|181952905|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.55|||Log Rank||"Hazard ratio calculated as Combination of 50 mg BI 2536 and 60 mg BI 2536 divided by 200 mg BI 2536"|Exploratory analysis. No formal hypotheses were tested.||1.55|0.67|0.92
91033518|NCT00376623|181952906|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.78|||Log Rank||"Hazard ratio calculated as Combination of 50 mg BI 2536 and 60 mg BI 2536 divided by 200 mg BI 2536"|Exploratory analysis. No formal hypotheses were tested.||1.78|0.7|0.65
91033519|NCT00376623|181952909|OTHER|Exploratory analysis. No formal hypotheses were tested.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|2.51|||Regression, Cox||"Hazard ratio calculated as Combination of 50 mg BI 2536 and 60 mg BI 2536 divided by 200 mg BI 2536"|||2.51|0.94|
91033520|NCT00376623|181952910|OTHER|Exploratory analysis. No formal hypotheses were tested.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.49|||Regression, Cox||"Hazard ratio calculated as Combination of 50 mg BI 2536 and 60 mg BI 2536 divided by 200 mg BI 2536"|||1.49|0.59|
91033521|NCT00376623|181952911|OTHER|Exploratory analysis. No formal hypotheses were tested.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.01|||Regression, Cox||"Hazard ratio calculated as Combination of 50 mg BI 2536 and 60 mg BI 2536 divided by 200 mg BI 2536"|||2.01|0.81|
91033522|NCT02331394|181952925|EQUIVALENCE|"The equivalence assumes that the true mean difference between the paired samples is zero. Under this model, all observable differences are explained by random variation.Equality margins are:~Upper Equivalence Margin=1.5 Lower Equivalence Margin=-1.5"|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparisons of repeated measures were made using paired sample t test, which compared subjects data at 2 different times: baseline and end of the study. A P value of 0.05 was considered statistically significant||||<0.05
91033523|NCT02331394|181952928|SUPERIORITY|Pared t-test was used to evaluate the significance of the change in scores||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
91035865|NCT02558491|181958304|OTHER|||||||0.109||||||No a priori sample size was determined due to the feasibility/pilot nature of the trial. Significance level was set at P-value \<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Secondary analysis followed the same format unless variables could not be considered normally distributed; in that case a related samples Wilcoxon signed-rank test is used. Data were first binned (to ensure minimum count of five per bins) and the w2 statistics was used with the expected counts given by SoC. Based on achieved recruitment, a moderate effect size (0.3) is detectable with 80% power, or a large effect size (0.4) with 95% power (G-Power 3.1.9.2). Outcome measurement was for overnight.||||0.109
91033524|NCT01371786|181952929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.76|-4.09||No formal statistical testing was conducted. Only descriptive statistics were calculated and presented.|||Difference calculated as Mometasone minus Ciclesonide|No formal null hypothesis was stated or tested.Descriptive statistics only were calculated and presented. The sample size was determined outside of statistical considerations. The sample size of 10 subjects was sufficient to provide approximately 80% power to detect a difference of 25% between the two treatment groups in the percentage of nasal deposition approximately 2 minutes post dose, assuming a two-sided test evaluated at a significance level of 0.05, with a SD of the difference of 23.17%.||-4.09|-21.76|
91033525|NCT01054586|181952934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|6.1||||0.02||95.0|1.26|29.46||Only variables showing an imbalance between the treatment groups (when possible and besides APRI score) were included. The following were also included, but p \> 0.05: APRI score, use of non-ARV drug, baseline CD4, platelets, and bilirubin.|Regression, Cox||"Confidence Interval and Hazard Ratio for ART naïve. Not ART naïve is the reference group."|||29.46|1.26|0.02
91033526|NCT01054586|181952935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.12||||0.05||95.0|1.03|16.5||Only variables showing an imbalance between the treatment groups (when possible and besides APRI score) were included. The following were also included, but p \> 0.05: APRI score, use of non-ARV drug, baseline CD4, platelets, and bilirubin.|Regression, Cox||"Confidence Interval and Hazard Ratio for FPV 700 mg BID/RTV 100 mg BID. LPV is the reference group."|||16.50|1.03|0.05
91033527|NCT01054586|181952935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.62||||0.68||95.0|0.16|16.27||Only variables showing an imbalance between the treatment groups (when possible and besides APRI score) were included. The following were also included, but p \> 0.05: APRI score, use of non-ARV drug, baseline CD4, platelets, and bilirubin.|Regression, Cox||"Confidence Interval and Hazard Ratio for FPV 700 mg BID/RTV 100 mg QD. LPV is the reference group."|||16.27|0.16|0.68
91033528|NCT01054586|181952936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.83||||0.17||95.0|0.65|12.36||Only variables showing an imbalance between the treatment groups (when possible) were included. The following were also included, but p \> 0.05: APRI score, use of non-ARV drug, baseline CD4, platelets, and bilirubin.|Regression, Cox||"Confidence Interval and Hazard Ratio for FPV 700 mg BID/RTV 100 mg BID. LPV is the reference group."|||12.36|0.65|0.17
91033529|NCT01054586|181952936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.26||||0.85||95.0|0.12|13.33||Only variables showing an imbalance between the treatment groups (when possible) were included. The following were also included, but p \> 0.05: APRI score, use of non-ARV drug, baseline CD4, platelets, and bilirubin.|Regression, Cox||"Confidence Interval and Hazard Ratio for FPV 700 mg BID/RTV 100 mg QD. LPV is the reference group."|||13.33|0.12|0.85
91033530|NCT01054586|181952937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.2||||0.06||95.0|0.94|10.82||Only variables showing an imbalance between the treatment groups (when possible and besides APRI score) were included. The following were also included, but p \> 0.05: APRI score, use of non-ARV drug, baseline CD4, platelets, and bilirubin.|Regression, Cox||"Confidence Interval and Hazard Ratio for FPV 700 mg BID/RTV 100 mg BID. LPV is the reference group."|||10.82|0.94|0.06
91033531|NCT01054586|181952937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.96||95.0|0.11|9.83||Only variables showing an imbalance between the treatment groups (when possible and besides APRI score) were included. The following were also included, but p \> 0.05: APRI score, use of non-ARV drug, baseline CD4, platelets, and bilirubin.|Regression, Cox||"Confidence Interval and Hazard Ratio for FPV 700 mg BID/RTV 100 mg QD. LPV is the reference group."|||9.83|0.11|0.96
91033532|NCT01054586|181952938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.31||||0.57||95.0|0.52|3.31||Variables showing imbalance between treatments (when possible and besides APRI score) were included. Gender, mode of HIV transmission, ART naive, APRI score, use of non-ARV drug, baseline CD4, platelets, and bilirubin were also included, but p\>0.05.|Regression, Cox||"Confidence Interval and Hazard Ratio for FPV 700 mg BID/RTV 100 mg BID. LPV is the reference group."|||3.31|0.52|0.57
91033533|NCT01054586|181952938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.28||||0.22||95.0|0.04|2.14||Variables showing imbalance between treatments (when possible and besides APRI score) were included. Gender, mode of HIV transmission, ART naive, APRI score, use of non-ARV drug, baseline CD4, platelets, and bilirubin were also included, but p\>0.05.|Regression, Cox||"Confidence Interval and Hazard Ratio for FPV 700 mg BID/RTV 100 mg QD. LPV is the reference group."|||2.14|0.04|0.22
91033534|NCT01054586|181952938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.86||||0.47||95.0|0.35|9.91||Variables showing imbalance between treatments (when possible and besides APRI score) were included. Gender, mode of HIV transmission, ART naive, APRI score, use of non-ARV drug, baseline CD4, platelets, and bilirubin were also included, but p\>0.05.|Regression, Cox||"Confidence Interval and Hazard Ratio for FPV, Other. LPV is the reference group."|||9.91|0.35|0.47
91033535|NCT01054586|181952939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.4||||0.48||95.0|0.55|3.55||Only variables showing imbalance between treatments (when possible) were included. The following were also included, but p \> 0.05: gender, mode of HIV transmission, ART naive, APRI score, use of non-ARV drug, baseline CD4, platelets, and bilirubin.|Regression, Cox||"Confidence Interval and Hazard Ratio for FPV 700 mg BID/RTV 100 mg BID. LPV is the reference group."|||3.55|0.55|0.48
91033536|NCT01054586|181952939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.26||||0.23||95.0|0.03|2.18||Only variables showing imbalance between treatments (when possible) were included. The following were also included, but p \> 0.05: gender, mode of HIV transmission, ART naive, APRI score, use of non-ARV drug, baseline CD4, platelets, and bilirubin.|Regression, Cox||"Confidence Interval and Hazard Ratio for FPV 700 mg BID/RTV 100 mg QD. LPV is the reference group."|||2.18|0.03|0.23
91033537|NCT01054586|181952939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.67||||0.56||95.0|0.29|9.47||Only variables showing imbalance between treatments (when possible) were included. The following were also included, but p \> 0.05: gender, mode of HIV transmission, ART naive, APRI score, use of non-ARV drug, baseline CD4, platelets, and bilirubin.|Regression, Cox||"Confidence Interval and Hazard Ratio for FPV, Other. LPV is the reference group."|||9.47|0.29|0.56
91033538|NCT01054586|181952941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||0.72||95.0|0.51|2.66||Only variables showing an imbalance between treatment groups were included: gender, mode of HIV transmission, ART naive, use of non-ARV drug, baseline bilirubin.|Regression, Cox||"Confidence Interval and Hazard Ratio for  FPV 700 mg BID/RTV 100 mg BID. LPV is the reference group."|||2.66|0.51|0.72
90915559|NCT04714320|181701716|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.595||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg and DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 15||||=0.595
90915560|NCT04714320|181701716|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.279||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg and DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 15||||=0.279
90876206|NCT05760300|181614599|OTHER||Geometric Least-squares Mean Ratio|66.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|37.3|120.0|||||Parametric (normal theory) ANOVA model appropriate for a parallel design with renal function group as a fixed effect was fitted to the natural log-transformed values of the multiple dose PK parameter under evaluation.|Day 6||120|37.3|
90876207|NCT05760300|181614599|OTHER||Geometric Least-squares Mean Ratio|85.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|54.5|135.0|||||Parametric (normal theory) ANOVA model appropriate for a parallel design with renal function group as a fixed effect was fitted to the natural log-transformed values of the multiple dose PK parameter under evaluation.|Day 1||135|54.5|
90876208|NCT05760300|181614599|OTHER||Geometric Least-squares Mean Ratio|70.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|49.4|100.0|||||Parametric (normal theory) ANOVA model appropriate for a parallel design with renal function group as a fixed effect was fitted to the natural log-transformed values of the multiple dose PK parameter under evaluation.|Day 6||100|49.4|
90876209|NCT05760300|181614600|OTHER||Geometric Least-squares Mean Ratio|84.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|32.7|217.0|||||Parametric (normal theory) ANOVA model appropriate for a parallel design with renal function group as a fixed effect was fitted to the natural log-transformed values of the multiple dose PK parameter under evaluation.|Day 1||217|32.7|
90876210|NCT05760300|181614600|OTHER||Geometric Least-squares Mean Ratio|58.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|30.1|112.0|||||Parametric (normal theory) ANOVA model appropriate for a parallel design with renal function group as a fixed effect was fitted to the natural log-transformed values of the multiple dose PK parameter under evaluation.|Day 6||112|30.1|
90876211|NCT05760300|181614600|OTHER||Geometric Least-squares Mean Ratio|85.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|54.1|135.0|||||Parametric (normal theory) ANOVA model appropriate for a parallel design with renal function group as a fixed effect was fitted to the natural log-transformed values of the multiple dose PK parameter under evaluation.|Day 1||135|54.1|
90876212|NCT05760300|181614600|OTHER||Geometric Least-squares Mean Ratio|69.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|48.9|99.2|||||Parametric (normal theory) ANOVA model appropriate for a parallel design with renal function group as a fixed effect was fitted to the natural log-transformed values of the multiple dose PK parameter under evaluation.|Day 6||99.2|48.9|
90876213|NCT02446990|181614610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.1969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.2|||Regression, Cox|||||1.2|0.96|0.1969
90876214|NCT02446990|181614611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.3461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.21|||Regression, Cox|||||1.21|0.94|0.3461
90876215|NCT02446990|181614612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.2493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.28|||Regression, Cox|||||1.28|0.94|0.2493
90876216|NCT02446990|181614613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.5162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.26|||Regression, Cox|||||1.26|0.89|0.5162
90876217|NCT02446990|181614614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.1647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.05|||Regression, Cox|||||2.05|0.88|0.1647
90876218|NCT02446990|181614615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.6024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.21|||Regression, Cox|||||1.21|0.90|0.6024
90876219|NCT02446990|181614616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.89||||0.1458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.04|||Regression, Cox|||||1.04|0.75|0.1458
90876220|NCT02446990|181614617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.0||||0.979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.12|||Regression, Cox|||||1.12|0.89|0.9790
90876221|NCT02446990|181614618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.06||||0.4299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.22|||Regression, Cox|||||1.22|0.92|0.4299
90876222|NCT02446990|181614619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.97||||0.5916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.08|||Regression, Cox|||||1.08|0.88|0.5916
90876223|NCT02446990|181614620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.98||||0.6963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.08|||Regression, Cox|||||1.08|0.89|0.6963
90876224|NCT02446990|181614621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.06||||0.2222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.18|||Regression, Cox|||||1.18|0.96|0.2222
90876225|NCT02446990|181614622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.05||||0.3671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.18|||Regression, Cox|||||1.18|0.94|0.3671
90876226|NCT02446990|181614623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.97||||0.5285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.07|||Regression, Cox|||||1.07|0.87|0.5285
90876227|NCT01064401|181614624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.469|0.645||Estimated from a negative binomial regression model adjusted for the baseline relapse rate, history of prior IFN beta use, baseline EDSS (≤ 2.5 vs \> 2.5) and baseline age (≤ 35 vs \> 35 years).|Negative Binomial Regression|||||0.645|0.469|< 0.0001
90876228|NCT01064401|181614624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Reduction|45.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.5|53.1||||||||53.1|35.5|
90961263|NCT04796896|181803526|OTHER|The 95% CI of the ratio was calculated using the exact method conditional upon the total number of cases, adjusting for person-years.|Vaccine Efficacy|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.416|0.965|||||Vaccine Efficacy (percent), was defined as 1 - ratio of incidence rate (mRNA-1273 vs. placebo).|||0.965|-0.416|
90876229|NCT01064401|181614625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Reduction|54.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.9|60.8||Estimated from a negative binomial regression model, adjusted for baseline volume of T2 hyperintense lesions, history of prior IFN beta use and baseline age (≤ 35 vs \> 35 years).|Negative Binomial Regression|The logarithmic transformation of the scan number of the MRI assessment was included in the model as the 'offset' parameter.||||60.8|46.9|< 0.0001
90961264|NCT04796896|181803526|OTHER|The 95% CI of the ratio was calculated using the exact method conditional upon the total number of cases, adjusting for person-years.|Vaccine Efficacy|0.466|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.328|0.574|||||Vaccine Efficacy (percent), was defined as 1 - ratio of incidence rate (mRNA-1273 vs. placebo).|||0.574|0.328|
90876230|NCT01064401|181614626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.84||||0.1575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.07||Based on Cox Proportional Hazards model, adjusted by baseline EDSS values as continuous variable, history of prior IFN beta use, and baseline age (≤ 35 vs \> 35 years).|Cox Proportional Hazard|||||1.07|0.66|0.1575
90876231|NCT01064401|181614626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Reduction|16.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|34.2||||||||34.2|-7.0|
90876232|NCT01064401|181614627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.69||Based on Cox proportional hazards model, adjusted for baseline relapse rate, history of prior IFN beta use, baseline EDSS (EDSS ≤ 2.5 vs EDSS \> 2.5) and baseline age (≤ 35 vs \> 35 years).|Cox Proportional Hazard|||||0.69|0.50|< 0.0001
90876233|NCT01064401|181614627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Reduction in Risk of Relapse|40.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.8|49.5||||||||49.5|30.8|
90961265|NCT04796896|181803526|OTHER|The 95% CI of the ratio was calculated using the exact method conditional upon the total number of cases, adjusting for person-years.|Vaccine Efficacy|0.432|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.232|0.576|||||Vaccine Efficacy (percent), was defined as 1 - ratio of incidence rate (mRNA-1273 vs. placebo).|||0.576|0.232|
90876234|NCT01064401|181614628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.0176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.95||Based on logistic regression model, adjusted for baseline MSIS-29 physical score, baseline Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) score, history of prior IFN beta use, and baseline age (≤ 35 vs \> 35 years).|Regression, Logistic|||||0.95|0.60|0.0176
90876235|NCT01064401|181614628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Reduction in Odds of Worsening|24.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|39.6||||||||39.6|4.7|
90876236|NCT03628703|181614672|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.49
90876237|NCT02117999|181614675|NON_INFERIORITY|Sample size calculation was performed to detect a difference of 0.95 D between the average Kmax changes for the T-ionto CL and standard CL groups at 12 months, at a significance level of 5% and a power of 81%, assuming a standard deviation of 1.20 D.|||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis of changes from baseline in each group was made using the paired Student t-test. Treatment effects were assessed using repeated measures ANOVA between groups and time (3 days, 7 days, 1-, 3-, 6- and 12-months). The outcome measures over time were corrected for baseline values. The relationship between the change in Kmax at 12 months and baseline parameters was assessed using Pearson's correlation analysis for either group.||||<0.05
90876238|NCT02117999|181614676|NON_INFERIORITY|sample size calculation was performed to detect a difference of 0.95 D between the average Kmax changes for the T-ionto CL and standard CL groups at 12 months, at a significance level of 5% and a power of 81%, assuming a standard deviation of 1.20 D. The sample size of the study was 34 cases (allocation ratio of 2:1)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|35.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Analysis of changes from baseline in each group was made using the paired Student t-test. Treatment effects were assessed using repeated measures ANOVA between groups and time (3 days, 7 days, 1-, 3-, 6- and 12-months). The outcome measures over time were corrected for baseline values.||||0.05
90876239|NCT01331148|181614681|OTHER|||||||0.0507|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Due to the longitudinal nature of the data and presence of missing values, repeated measures analyses were conducted using the MIXED procedure in SAS. Spearman's rank correlation coefficient was used to quantify the relationship between PedsQL scores with 25OHD concentrations and pain days. Two-way analysis of variance models compared PedsQL scores between treatment groups over time.||||0.0507
90876240|NCT05477875|181614693|EQUIVALENCE|Two-way ANOVA using group and intervention as fixed factors were analyzed, with outcome variable p-value reported below, threshold 0.05.||||||0.538|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.538
90876241|NCT05477875|181614694|EQUIVALENCE|Two-way ANOVA using group and intervention as fixed factors were analyzed, with outcome variable p-value reported below, threshold 0.05.||||||0.538|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.538
90876242|NCT05477875|181614695|EQUIVALENCE|Two-way ANOVA using group and intervention as fixed factors were analyzed, with outcome variable p-value reported below, threshold 0.05.||||||0.516|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.516
90876243|NCT05477875|181614696|EQUIVALENCE|"Alpha = 0.05, two-way ANOVA with Group x Time Points as fixed factors and PROWL-SS from (1-100) as the dependent variable."|||||<|0.851|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.851
90915561|NCT04714320|181701716|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.196||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg and DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 22||||=0.196
90915562|NCT04714320|181701716|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.728||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg and DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 22||||=0.728
90915563|NCT04714320|181701716|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.453||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg and DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 29||||=0.453
90876244|NCT05477875|181614697|EQUIVALENCE|"Alpha = 0.05, two-way ANOVA with Group x Time Points as fixed factors and QIRC from (1-100) as the dependent variable."|||||<|0.543|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.543
90876245|NCT05477875|181614698|EQUIVALENCE|"Alpha = 0.05, two-way ANOVA with Group x Time Points as fixed factors and OSDI from (0-48) as the dependent variable."||||||0.725|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.725
90876246|NCT05477875|181614699|EQUIVALENCE|Two-way ANOVA using group and intervention as fixed factors were analyzed, with outcome variable p-value reported below, threshold 0.05.||||||0.516|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.516
90876247|NCT03989440|181614727|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.54||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|2.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.55|-1.48|0.59
90876248|NCT03989440|181614728|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.56||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.62|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.50|-3.62|0.13
90876249|NCT03989440|181614729|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.16||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.81|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.50|-2.81|0.16
90876250|NCT03989440|181614730|SUPERIORITY||% Difference in responder rate|-9.3||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.3|25.4|||Fisher Exact|||||25.4|-43.3|0.68
90876251|NCT04608500|181614731|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.861|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.16|5.54|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model includes treatment, Baseline inflammatory lesion count, and analysis center.||||5.54|2.16|<0.0001
90876252|NCT04608500|181614732|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.263||||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.064|1.499||The p-value is for the null hypothesis that the combined risk ratio equals 1.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by analysis center.||||1.499|1.064|0.0077
90876253|NCT04608500|181614733|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.193||||0.0189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.024|1.39||The p-value is for the null hypothesis that the combined risk ratio equals 1.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Test Stratified by Analysis Center||||1.390|1.024|0.0189
90876254|NCT04608500|181614734|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.672|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.05|16.54|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment, Baseline inflammatory lesion count, and analysis center.||||16.54|6.05|<0.0001
90876255|NCT04608500|181614735|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.821|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.77|5.99|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment, Baseline inflammatory lesion count, and analysis center.||Statistical Analysis For Week 4||5.99|2.77|<0.0001
90876256|NCT04608500|181614735|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.793|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.52|6.63|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment, Baseline inflammatory lesion count, and analysis center.||Statistical Analysis For Week 8||6.63|3.52|<0.0001
90876257|NCT04608500|181614736|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.715||||0.0114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.129|2.605||p-value is for the null hypothesis that the risk ratio equals 1.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by analysis center.||Statistical Analysis For Week 4||2.605|1.129|0.0114
90876258|NCT04608500|181614736|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.319||||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.082|1.607||p-value is for the null hypothesis that the risk ratio equals 1.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by analysis center.||Statistical Analysis For Week 8||1.607|1.082|0.0061
90876259|NCT01010906|181614744|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% Confidence Interval falls within the interval \[0.50, 2.00\], then treatment of HI participants is similar to treatment of healthy matched for mild HI participants.|Geometric Least-Square Mean Ratio|1.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|3.43||||||||3.43|0.96|
90876260|NCT01010906|181614744|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% Confidence Interval falls within the interval \[0.50, 2.00\], then treatment of HI participants is similar to treatment of healthy matched for moderate HI participants.|Geometric Least-Square Mean Ratio|3.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.6|6.04||||||||6.04|1.60|
90876261|NCT01010906|181614744|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% Confidence Interval falls within the interval \[0.50, 2.00\], then treatment of HI participants is similar to treatment of healthy matched for severe HI participants.|Geometric Least-Square Mean Ratio|8.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.2|13.64||||||||13.64|5.20|
90876262|NCT01010906|181614745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least-Square Mean Ratio|1.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.76|3.24||||||||3.24|0.76|
90876263|NCT01010906|181614745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least-Square Mean Ratio|2.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.21|4.03||||||||4.03|1.21|
90876264|NCT01010906|181614745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least-Square Mean Ratio|6.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.9|9.71||||||||9.71|3.90|
90876265|NCT03739112|181614753|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for relative vaccine efficacy (VE) was \> -20%.|percent VE|8.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.7|28.7|||||VE of VLP vaccine versus Fluarix = (1-ARVv/ARVc) x 100% where ARVv = attack rate in participants vaccinated with the Quadrivalent VLP Influenza vaccine and ARVc = attack rate in participants vaccinated with an active Fluarix.|||28.7|-16.7|
90876266|NCT03054857|181614801|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.532||||0.289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.689|3.406|||Chi-squared|||||3.406|0.689|0.289
90876267|NCT03054857|181614802|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.329||||0.636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.409|4.319|||Chi-squared|||||4.319|0.409|0.636
90876268|NCT03054857|181614804|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.053|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.792||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.626|0.52|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.52|-2.626|0.187
90876269|NCT03054857|181614805|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.644|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.606||0.543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.74|10.45|||t-test, 2 sided|||||10.45|-19.74|0.543
90876270|NCT02529137|181614817|NON_INFERIORITY|the non-inferiority margin was set at 4%|difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.01||||||||1.01|-0.30|
90876271|NCT02357901|181614836|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||significance at the 0.025 level|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||<0.0001
90876272|NCT02357901|181614836|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||significance at the 0.025 level|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||<0.0001
90876273|NCT02357901|181614837|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Significance level of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
90876274|NCT02357901|181614837|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Significance level of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
90876275|NCT02357901|181614838|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Significance level of 0.05.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||<0.0001
90876276|NCT02357901|181614838|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Significance level of 0.05.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||<0.0001
90876277|NCT02357901|181614839|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Significance level of 0.05.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||<0.0001
90876278|NCT02357901|181614839|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Significance level of 0.05.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||<0.0001
90876279|NCT02357901|181614840|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-9.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.62||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.56|-4.3||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||Change from baseline was analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with terms for treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate. Center was included in the model as a random effect.||-4.30|-14.56|0.0003
90915564|NCT04714320|181701716|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.681||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg and DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 29||||=0.681
90876280|NCT02357901|181614840|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-12.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.61|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.51|-7.28||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||Change from baseline was analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with terms for treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate. Center was included in the model as a random effect.||-7.28|-17.51|<0.0001
90876281|NCT02357901|181614841|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|stratified by site||||||<0.0001
90876282|NCT02357901|181614841|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|stratified by site||||||<0.0001
90876283|NCT02357901|181614842|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|stratified by site||||||<0.0001
90876284|NCT02357901|181614842|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|stratified by site||||||<0.0001
90876285|NCT02357901|181614843|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.46||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||Change from baseline was analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with terms for treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate. Center was included in the model as a random effect.||-0.46|-0.96|<0.0001
90876286|NCT02357901|181614843|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|-0.62||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||Change from baseline was analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with terms for treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate. Center was included in the model as a random effect.||-0.62|-1.12|<0.0001
90876287|NCT02357901|181614844|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.33||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||Change from baseline was analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with terms for treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate. Center was included in the model as a random effect.||-0.33|-0.89|<0.0001
90876288|NCT02357901|181614844|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.41||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||Change from baseline was analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with terms for treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate. Center was included in the model as a random effect.||-0.41|-0.97|<0.0001
90876289|NCT02357901|181614845|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.3143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|0.36||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||Change from baseline was analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with terms for treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate. Center was included in the model as a random effect.||0.36|-1.13|0.3143
90876290|NCT02357901|181614845|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|-0.23||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||Change from baseline was analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with terms for treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate. Center was included in the model as a random effect.||-0.23|-1.72|0.0101
90915565|NCT04714320|181701716|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.863||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg and DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 36||||=0.863
90876291|NCT02357901|181614846|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.0726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.29|0.14||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||Change from baseline was analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with terms for treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate. Center was included in the model as a random effect.||0.14|-3.29|0.0726
90876292|NCT02357901|181614846|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.32|-0.9||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||Change from baseline was analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with terms for treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate. Center was included in the model as a random effect.||-0.90|-4.32|0.0028
90876293|NCT02357901|181614847|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|7.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.81|9.2||Significance level of 0.05.|ANOVA|a random effects ANOVA model with treatment included as fixed effect and center as random effect.||||9.20|5.81|<0.0001
90876294|NCT02357901|181614847|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|7.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.82|9.21||Significance level of 0.05.|ANOVA|a random effects ANOVA model with treatment included as fixed effect and center as random effect.||||9.21|5.82|<0.0001
90876295|NCT02759120|181614892|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.53|||Regression, Cox|||||1.53|0.71|0.83
90876296|NCT02759120|181614893|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.78|||Regression, Cox|||||1.78|0.70|0.65
91033539|NCT01054586|181952941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.27||||0.21||95.0|0.03|2.08||Only variables showing an imbalance between treatment groups were included: gender, mode of HIV transmission, ART naive, use of non-ARV drug, baseline bilirubin.|Regression, Cox||"Confidence Interval and Hazard Ratio for  FPV 700 mg BID/RTV 100 mg QD. LPV is the reference group."|||2.08|0.03|0.21
90876297|NCT02759120|181614894|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.34||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|2.17|||Regression, Cox|||||2.17|0.82|0.25
90876298|NCT02759120|181614895|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.36||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|2.01|||Regression, Cox|||||2.01|0.91|0.13
90876299|NCT02759120|181614896|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.21||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.89|||Regression, Cox|||||1.89|0.78|0.40
90876300|NCT02759120|181614897|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.29||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.83|||Regression, Cox|||||1.83|0.90|0.16
90876301|NCT02759120|181614898|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.14||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|2.83|||Regression, Cox|||||2.83|-0.56|0.19
90876302|NCT02759120|181614899|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.83||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|3.35|||Regression, Cox|||||3.35|-1.67|0.51
90876303|NCT02759120|181614900|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.71||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.11|||Regression, Cox|||||1.11|0.46|0.13
90876304|NCT02759120|181614901|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.64|3.39|||Regression, Cox|||||3.39|-4.64|0.76
90876305|NCT02759120|181614902|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.46|||Regression, Cox|||||0.46|-0.24|0.54
90876306|NCT02759120|181614903|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.8|||Regression, Linear|||||0.80|-0.79|0.99
90876307|NCT02759120|181614904|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.64|3.39|||Regression, Cox|||||3.39|-4.64|0.76
90876308|NCT02759120|181614905|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.031|0.051|||Regression, Cox|||||0.051|-0.031|0.63
90876309|NCT02759120|181614906|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.018||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.007|0.043|||Regression, Cox|||||0.043|-0.007|0.15
90876310|NCT02759120|181614907|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.52||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|2.15|||Regression, Cox|||||2.15|-1.11|0.53
90876311|NCT02759120|181614908|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|2.2|||Regression, Linear|||||2.20|-1.61|0.75
90876312|NCT04302389|181614911|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This was a within-subject comparison at two timepoints (baseline, 3 months)||||<0.001
90876313|NCT02063516|181614930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||It was calculated that 80 adult patients randomized from different surgical department would have 80% power to detect a difference in 2 point in mean. Sampling size was determined using 2 sided t-test (alpha=0.05).||||0.04
90876314|NCT02063516|181614931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.836
90876315|NCT02063516|181614932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Amount of air added at 30 minutes to maintain cuff pressure 60cmH2O||||0.0035
90876316|NCT02063516|181614932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Amount of air added at 60 minutes to maintain cuff pressure 60cmH2O||||0.003
90876317|NCT02063516|181614932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0042|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Amount of air added at 90 minutes to maintain cuff pressure 60cmH2O||||0.0042
90876318|NCT02063516|181614932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Amount of air added at 120 minutes to maintain cuff pressure 60cmH2O||||0.004
90876319|NCT02293655|181614939|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6||0.55|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Compared at Baseline Time point||||0.55
90876320|NCT02293655|181614939|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison at MPH Maintenance Visit (Week 8)||||.30
90876321|NCT02293655|181614939|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9||0.28|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison at Randomization Phase 1 (Week 9)||||.28
90876322|NCT02293655|181614939|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison at Randomization Phase 2 (Week 10)||||.00
90876323|NCT02293655|181614939|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison at Randomization Phase 3 (Week 12)||||.01
90876324|NCT02293655|181614940|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|36.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|25.4||0.32|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Compared at baseline timepoint||||.32
90876325|NCT02293655|181614940|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|30.1||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Compared at Maintenance Time Point (week 8)||||.90
90876326|NCT02293655|181614940|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|100.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|37.5||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Compared at Randomization Phase 1 (week 9)||||.007
90876327|NCT02293655|181614940|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|49.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|56.6||0.26|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Compared at Randomization Phase 2 (week 10)||||.26
90876328|NCT02293655|181614940|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|123.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|37.6||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Compared at Randomization Phase 3 (week 12)||||.01
90876329|NCT02293655|181614941|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|31.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|32.9||0.33|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison at Baseline||||.33
90876330|NCT02293655|181614941|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|56.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|29.5||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison at Maintenance (week 8)||||.06
90876331|NCT02293655|181614941|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|108.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|46.8||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison at Randomization Phase 1 (week 9)||||.05
90876332|NCT02293655|181614941|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|118.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|44.2||0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison at Randomization Phase 2 (week 10)||||.008
90876333|NCT02293655|181614941|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|77.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|42.9||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison at Randomization Phase 3 (week 12)||||.07
90876334|NCT02063854|181614955|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was tested using t-test at a one-sided significance level of 2.5% and a non-inferiority margin (Δ) of 1.5%.||||||0.1346|||||||t-test, 1 sided|With a non-inferiority margin (Δ) of 1.5%.||||||0.1346
90876335|NCT02063854|181614955|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was tested using t-test at a one-sided significance level of 2.5% and a non-inferiority margin (Δ) of 1.5%.||||||0.6711|||||||t-test, 1 sided|With a non-inferiority margin (Δ) of 1.5%.||||||0.6711
90876336|NCT02063854|181614955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.92|0.001||||||||0.001|-1.920|
90876337|NCT02063854|181614955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.617|-0.794||||||||-0.794|-2.617|
90876338|NCT02063854|181614955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.166|1.658||||||||1.658|-0.166|
90876339|NCT02246673|181614986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|-28.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.85|-22.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 1||-22.51|-33.85|<0.0001
90876340|NCT02246673|181614986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|-25.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.23|-19.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 1||-19.34|-31.23|<0.0001
90876341|NCT02246673|181614986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|-29.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.15|-25.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 2||-25.15|-33.15|<0.0001
90876342|NCT02246673|181614986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|-22.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.36|-18.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 2||-18.14|-26.36|<0.0001
90876343|NCT02246673|181614986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|-17.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.54|-13.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 3||-13.50|-21.54|<0.0001
90876344|NCT02246673|181614986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|-15.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.53|-11.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 3||-11.49|-19.53|<0.0001
90876345|NCT02246673|181614986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|-9.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.97|-5.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 4||-5.51|-13.97|<0.0001
90915566|NCT04714320|181701716|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.837||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg and DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 36||||=0.837
90876346|NCT02246673|181614986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|-4.98||||0.0221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.19|-0.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect||Cohort 4||-0.76|-9.19|0.0221
90876347|NCT02246673|181614986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|-35.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.89|-31.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 5||-31.87|-38.89|<0.0001
90876348|NCT02246673|181614986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|-27.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.6|-23.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 5||-23.57|-30.60|<0.0001
90876349|NCT02246673|181614986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|-31.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.77|-27.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 5||-27.75|-34.77|<0.0001
90876350|NCT02246673|181614987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|24.27||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.57|35.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 1||35.98|12.57|0.0002
90876351|NCT02246673|181614987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|20.08||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.38|31.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 1||31.79|8.38|0.0013
90876352|NCT02246673|181614987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|23.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.23|33.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 2||33.17|14.23|<0.0001
90876353|NCT02246673|181614987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|18.37||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.3|28.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 2||28.44|8.30|0.0008
90876354|NCT02246673|181614987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|18.82||||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.86|32.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 3||32.79|4.86|0.0101
90876355|NCT02246673|181614987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|20.52||||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.56|34.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 3||34.48|6.56|0.0055
90876356|NCT02246673|181614987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|10.36||||0.0065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.13|17.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 4||17.59|3.13|0.0065
90876357|NCT02246673|181614987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|1.79||||0.614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.37|8.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect||Cohort 4||8.94|-5.37|0.6140
90876358|NCT02246673|181614987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|30.83||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.62|46.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 5||46.04|15.62|0.0002
90876359|NCT02246673|181614987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|24.38||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.63|39.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 5||39.14|9.63|0.0019
90876360|NCT02246673|181614987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|26.35||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.59|41.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 5||41.11|11.59|0.0009
90876361|NCT02246673|181614988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|139.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.92|184.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 1||184.31|93.92|<0.0001
90876362|NCT02246673|181614988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|174.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|125.52|233.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 1||233.42|125.52|<0.0001
90876363|NCT02246673|181614988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|168.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|123.13|212.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 2||212.93|123.13|<0.0001
90876364|NCT02246673|181614988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|188.75|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|138.04|239.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 2||239.46|138.04|<0.0001
90876365|NCT02246673|181614988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|70.43||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.74|107.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 3||107.12|33.74|0.0005
90876366|NCT02246673|181614988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|91.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.81|128.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 3||128.19|54.81|<0.0001
90876367|NCT02246673|181614988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|40.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.17|55.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 4||55.05|25.17|<0.0001
90876368|NCT02246673|181614988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|15.96||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|30.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 4||30.71|1.20|0.0350
90876369|NCT02246673|181614988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|236.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|178.29|293.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 5||293.86|178.29|<0.0001
90876370|NCT02246673|181614988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|146.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|90.4|202.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 5||202.01|90.40|<0.0001
90876371|NCT02246673|181614988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|176.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|120.77|232.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 5||232.38|120.77|<0.0001
90876372|NCT02246673|181614989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|135.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.33|178.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 1||178.32|93.33|<0.0001
90876373|NCT02246673|181614989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|178.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|129.25|227.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 1||227.90|129.25|<0.0001
90876374|NCT02246673|181614989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|163.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|120.8|207.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 2||207.16|120.80|<0.0001
90876375|NCT02246673|181614989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|169.93|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|122.82|217.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 2||217.03|122.82|<0.0001
90876376|NCT02246673|181614989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|59.6||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.85|90.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 3||90.34|28.85|0.0007
90876377|NCT02246673|181614989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|73.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.79|104.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 3||104.28|42.79|<0.0001
90876378|NCT02246673|181614989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|33.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.21|46.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 4||46.20|21.21|<0.0001
90876379|NCT02246673|181614989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|27.08||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.58|39.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 4||39.58|14.58|0.0001
90876380|NCT02246673|181614989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|188.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|152.55|225.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 5||225.10|152.55|<0.0001
90876381|NCT02246673|181614989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|116.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|81.76|151.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 5||151.90|81.76|<0.0001
90876382|NCT02246673|181614989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|151.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|116.59|186.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 5||186.73|116.59|<0.0001
90876383|NCT05413369|181614996|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was assessed using the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI). Non-inferiority p-value was calculated from a non-inferiority margin of 0.3%.|Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|-0.07|||ANCOVA|Treatment groups and randomization stratum of previous oral anti-diabetic drug(OADs) as fixed effects,and baseline HbA1c continuous value as covariate||Statistical analysis for change from baseline in HbA1c||-0.07|-0.33|<0.001
90876384|NCT05413369|181614997|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.003|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.35|-0.05|||ANCOVA|Treatment groups and randomization stratum of previous as fixed effects, and baseline HbA1c continuous value as covariate||Statistical analysis for change from baseline in HbA1c||-0.05|-0.35|0.003
90876385|NCT05413369|181614998|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.32|-0.66|||ANCOVA|Treatment groups, randomization stratums of HbA1c and previous OADs as fixed effects, and baseline body weight continuous value as covariate.||Statistical analysis for change from baseline in body weight||-0.66|-2.32|<0.001
90876386|NCT05413369|181614999|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.25|2.85|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for treatment group, randomization stratum of previous OADs, and continuous baseline value of HbA1c||Statistical analysis for percentage of participants reaching HbA1c value \<7% at Week 24||2.85|1.25|<0.001
90876387|NCT05413369|181615000|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.79|3.76|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for treatment group, randomization stratum of previous OADs, and continuous baseline value of HbA1c and body weight.||Statistical analysis for percentage of participants reaching HbA1c value \<7% with no body weight gain at Week 24||3.76|1.79|<0.001
90876388|NCT05413369|181615001|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|3.6|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for treatment group, randomization stratum of previous OADs, and continuous baseline value of HbA1c and body weight.||Statistical analysis for percentage of participants reaching HbA1c value \<7% with no body weight gain at Week 24 and no hypoglycemia during treatment||3.60|1.52|<0.001
90876389|NCT00189228|181615092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||This is not a drug study.||||<0.01
90876390|NCT00455429|181615093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.600
90876391|NCT00455429|181615093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.822|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.822
90876392|NCT00455429|181615093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.656|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.656
90915567|NCT04714320|181701716|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.504||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg and DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 43||||=0.504
90876393|NCT00455429|181615094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.63||0.427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|2.9|||Dunnett-Hsu|||||2.90|-9.70|0.427
90876394|NCT00455429|181615094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.55||0.922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.37|4.82|||Dunnett-Hsu|||||4.82|-7.37|0.922
90876395|NCT00455429|181615094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.24||0.919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.49|4.21|||Dunnett-Hsu|||||4.21|-6.49|0.919
90876396|NCT00455429|181615095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.15||0.941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.83|23.18|||Dunnett-Hsu|||||23.18|-15.83|0.941
90876397|NCT00455429|181615095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|14.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.07||0.196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.12|33.52|||Dunnett-Hsu|||||33.52|-5.12|0.196
90876398|NCT00455429|181615095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|14.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.08||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|31.86|||Dunnett-Hsu|||||31.86|-2.00|0.096
90876399|NCT00455429|181615096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.460
90876400|NCT00455429|181615096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.479|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.479
90876401|NCT00455429|181615096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.462|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.462
90876402|NCT00455429|181615097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.363|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.363
90876403|NCT00455429|181615097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.968|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.968
90876404|NCT00455429|181615097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.501|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.501
90876405|NCT00455429|181615098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.333|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.333
90876406|NCT00455429|181615098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.527|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.527
90876407|NCT00455429|181615098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.353|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.353
90876408|NCT00455429|181615099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.631|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.631
90876409|NCT00455429|181615099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.523|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.523
90876410|NCT00455429|181615099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.101|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.101
90876411|NCT00455429|181615100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.429|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.429
90876412|NCT00455429|181615100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.206|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.206
90876413|NCT00455429|181615100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.107|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.107
90876414|NCT00455429|181615101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.097|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.097
90876415|NCT00455429|181615101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.077|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.077
90876416|NCT00455429|181615101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.489|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.489
90876417|NCT00455429|181615102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.566|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.566
90876418|NCT00455429|181615102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.382|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.382
90876419|NCT00455429|181615102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.282|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.282
90876420|NCT00455429|181615103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.206|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.206
90876421|NCT00455429|181615103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.433|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.433
90876422|NCT00455429|181615103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.290
90876423|NCT00455429|181615104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.484|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.484
90876424|NCT00455429|181615104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.952|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.952
90876425|NCT00455429|181615104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.350
90876426|NCT04351087|181615106|EQUIVALENCE|Power analysis based on (MCID) for the KOOS-Pain, alpha 0.05 \& SD 15 points, 88 patients (44/group) would be required to detect a 9-point difference between treatment groups with 80% power. Due to change in regulatory requirements during accrual, enrollment was halted at 79 patients with 71 meeting inclusion criteria. A repeated power calculation demonstrated that the study achieved 56% power to detect a between-group difference in excess of the 9-point MCID for the KOOS-Pain.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.17||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.57|12.92|||t-test, 2 sided|||||12.92|-8.57|0.69
90876427|NCT01412021|181615121|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|redundancy is not taken into consideration||||||< 0.0001
90876428|NCT01412021|181615122|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|redundancy is not taken into consideration||||||< 0.0001
90876429|NCT01412021|181615123|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|redundancy is not taken into consideration||||||< 0.0001
90876430|NCT01412021|181615124|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|redundancy is not taken into consideration||||||< 0.0001
90876431|NCT01412021|181615125|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|redundancy is not taken into consideration||||||< 0.0001
90876432|NCT01412021|181615127|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|redundancy is not taken into consideration||||||< 0.0001
90876433|NCT01412021|181615129|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|redundancy is not taken into consideration||||||< 0.0001
90876434|NCT01412021|181615130|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|redundancy is not taken into consideration||||||< 0.0001
90876435|NCT01412021|181615131|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
90876436|NCT01412021|181615132|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
90876437|NCT01412021|181615133|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
90876438|NCT01412021|181615134|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
90876439|NCT01412021|181615135|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
90876440|NCT01412021|181615136|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
90876441|NCT01412021|181615137|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
90876442|NCT01412021|181615138|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
90876443|NCT01412021|181615139|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
90876444|NCT01412021|181615141|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0132|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.0132
90876445|NCT01412021|181615142|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
90876446|NCT01412021|181615143|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
90876447|NCT01412021|181615144|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
90876448|NCT01412021|181615145|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
90876449|NCT01412021|181615146|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
90876450|NCT01412021|181615147|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
90876451|NCT01412021|181615148|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
91033540|NCT01054586|181952941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.26||||0.15||95.0|0.74|6.97|||Regression, Cox||"Confidence Interval and Hazard Ratio for  FPV, other. LPV is the reference group."|Only variables showing an imbalance between treatment groups were included: gender, mode of HIV transmission, ART naive, use of non-ARV drug, baseline bilirubin.||6.97|0.74|0.15
90876452|NCT01412021|181615149|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
90876453|NCT01412021|181615150|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
90876454|NCT02448654|181615153|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.18
90876455|NCT02448654|181615154|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.03
90876456|NCT02448654|181615155|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.037||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.037
91033541|NCT01054586|181952947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.77||||0.1||95.0|0.79|18.05|||Regression, Cox||"Confidence Interval and Hazard Ratio for  FPV 700 mg BID/RTV 100 mg BID. LPV is the reference group."|||18.05|0.79|0.10
91033542|NCT01054586|181952948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.53||||0.02||95.0|1.16|5.54||Only variables showing an imbalance between the treatment groups were included, but p \> .05: gender, mode of HIV transmission, ART naive, APRI score, baseline use of non-ARV drug, and baseline values of CD4, platelets and bilirubin.|Regression, Cox||"Confidence Interval and Hazard Ratio for  FPV 700 mg BID/RTV 100 mg BID. LPV is the reference group."|||5.54|1.16|0.02
91033543|NCT01054586|181952948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.17||||0.05||95.0|1.54|11.27||Only variables showing an imbalance between the treatment groups were included, but p \> .05: gender, mode of HIV transmission, ART naive, APRI score, baseline use of non-ARV drug, and baseline values of CD4, platelets and bilirubin.|Regression, Cox||"Confidence Interval and Hazard Ratio for  FPV 700 mg BID/RTV 100 mg QD. LPV is the reference group."|||11.27|1.54|0.05
91033544|NCT01054586|181952948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.67||||0.06||95.0|0.97|13.9||Only variables showing an imbalance between the treatment groups were included, but p \> .05: gender, mode of HIV transmission, ART naive, APRI score, baseline use of non-ARV drug, and baseline values of CD4, platelets and bilirubin.|Regression, Cox||"Confidence Interval and Hazard Ratio for  FPV, other. LPV is the reference group."|||13.90|0.97|0.06
91033545|NCT01054586|181952949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.68||||0.01||95.0|1.21|5.9||Only variables showing an imbalance between the treatment groups were included: gender, mode of HIV transmission, ART naive, baseline use of non-ARV drug, and baseline values of CD4, platelets and bilirubin.|Regression, Cox||"Confidence Interval and Hazard Ratio for  FPV 700 mg BID/RTV 100 mg BID. LPV is the reference group."|||5.9|1.21|0.01
91033546|NCT01054586|181952949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.42||||0.0004||95.0|1.61|12.08||Only variables showing an imbalance between the treatment groups were included: gender, mode of HIV transmission, ART naive, baseline use of non-ARV drug, and baseline values of CD4, platelets and bilirubin.|Regression, Cox||"Confidence Interval and Hazard Ratio for  FPV 700 mg BID/RTV 100 mg QD. LPV is the reference group."|||12.08|1.61|0.0004
91033547|NCT01054586|181952949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.07||||0.11||95.0|0.78|12.03||Only variables showing an imbalance between the treatment groups were included: gender, mode of HIV transmission, ART naive, baseline use of non-ARV drug, and baseline values of CD4, platelets and bilirubin.|Regression, Cox||"Confidence Interval and Hazard Ratio for  FPV, other. LPV is the reference group."|||12.03|0.78|0.11
91033548|NCT01054586|181952950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.09||||0.03||95.0|1.06|4.15||Only variables showing an imbalance between the treatment groups were included: gender, mode of HIV transmission, ART naive, APRI-score, baseline use of non-ARV drug and baseline bilirubin.|Regression, Cox||"Confidence Interval and Hazard Ratio for  FPV 700 mg BID/RTV 100 mg BID. LPV is the reference group."|||4.15|1.06|0.03
91033549|NCT01054586|181952950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.61||||0.05||95.0|1.48|8.81||Only variables showing an imbalance between the treatment groups were included: gender, mode of HIV transmission, ART naive, APRI-score, baseline use of non-ARV drug and baseline bilirubin.|Regression, Cox||"Confidence Interval and Hazard Ratio for  FPV 700 mg BID/RTV 100 mg QD. LPV is the reference group."|||8.81|1.48|0.05
91033550|NCT01054586|181952950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.31||||0.1||95.0|0.85|6.32||Only variables showing an imbalance between the treatment groups were included: gender, mode of HIV transmission, ART naive, APRI-score, baseline use of non-ARV drug and baseline bilirubin.|Regression, Cox||"Confidence Interval and Hazard Ratio for  FPV, other. LPV is the reference group."|||6.32|0.85|0.10
91033551|NCT01054586|181952951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|5.12||||0.03||95.0|1.19|22.02|||Regression, Cox||"Confidence Interval and Hazard Ratio for  FPV 700 mg BID/RTV 100 mg BID. LPV is the reference group."|||22.02|1.19|0.03
90876457|NCT00484939|181615156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.001
90876458|NCT00484939|181615157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029|||||||Fisher Exact|||This statistical analysis compared the number of responders in the 2 treatment groups. A responder was defined as any participant with a best overall response of complete response or partial response. There were 28 responders in the bevacizumab + capecitabine group and 14 responders in the capecitabine group.||||0.029
90876459|NCT00484939|181615160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.130
90876460|NCT02404285|181615167|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
90876461|NCT02404285|181615169|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90876462|NCT03760146|181615196|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.9||||||Serotype 1: Geometric mean ratio (20vPnC/Saline vs 13vPnC/PPSV23) and the 2-sided 95% CI||0.90|0.71|
90876463|NCT03760146|181615196|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|0.93||||||Serotype 3: Geometric mean ratio (20vPnC/Saline vs 13vPnC/PPSV23) and the 2-sided 95% CI||0.93|0.78|
90876464|NCT03760146|181615196|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.93||||||Serotype 4: Geometric mean ratio (20vPnC/Saline vs 13vPnC/PPSV23) and the 2-sided 95% CI||0.93|0.71|
90876465|NCT03760146|181615196|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.94||||||Serotype 5: Geometric mean ratio (20vPnC/Saline vs 13vPnC/PPSV23) and the 2-sided 95% CI||0.94|0.74|
90915568|NCT04714320|181701716|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.531||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg and DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 43||||=0.531
90876466|NCT03760146|181615196|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.88||||||Serotype 6A: Geometric mean ratio (20vPnC/Saline vs 13vPnC/PPSV23) and the 2-sided 95% CI||0.88|0.66|
90915569|NCT04714320|181701716|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.6||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg and DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 50||||=0.600
90915570|NCT04714320|181701716|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.83||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg and DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 50||||=0.830
90915571|NCT04714320|181701716|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.209||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg and DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 57||||=0.209
90915572|NCT04714320|181701716|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.809||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg and DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 57||||=0.809
90915573|NCT04714320|181701716|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.045||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg and DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 64||||=0.045
91077969|NCT01172808|182041207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.081|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.022|0.139|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R2.5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.139|0.022|0.0069
91077970|NCT01172808|182041207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.052|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.006|0.111|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.111|-0.006|0.0810
91077971|NCT01172808|182041208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.065|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031||0.0363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|0.126|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R2.5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.126|0.004|0.0363
91077972|NCT01172808|182041208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.039|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031||0.2077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.022|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.100|-0.022|0.2077
91077973|NCT01172808|182041209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.162|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.2447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.436|0.111|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R2.5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.111|-0.436|0.2447
91077974|NCT01172808|182041209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.144|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.3046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.131|0.419|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.419|-0.131|0.3046
91077975|NCT01172808|182041210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029||0.1178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.011|0.102|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R2.5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.102|-0.011|0.1178
91077976|NCT01172808|182041210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029||0.888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.061|0.053|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.053|-0.061|0.8880
91077977|NCT01172808|182041211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.0308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.72||Calculated as 2\*one-sided-p-value in the direction corresponding to testing the null hypothesis|Fisher Exact||Tio R2.5 / Placebo|||1.72|1.03|0.0308
90876467|NCT03760146|181615196|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.95||||||Serotype 6B: Geometric mean ratio (20vPnC/Saline vs 13vPnC/PPSV23) and the 2-sided 95% CI||0.95|0.73|
91033552|NCT04459585|181952959|OTHER|Least squares (LS) means were calculated from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on log-transformed scale. The LS means for each treatment were back transformed from the log scale to provide estimates of the geometric means (GMS). The ratio (%) of GMS was calculated and 90% Confidence Intervals (CIs) for the ratio (%) of GMS were presented.|Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Mean|111.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.57|161.35|||||For the comparison, the Dabigatran Etexilate + Quizartinib (Period 2) represents the numerator and Dabigatran Etexilate (Period 1) represents the denominator.|Statistical comparison was analyzed for Total Dabigatran.||161.35|77.57|
91033553|NCT04459585|181952959|OTHER|Least squares (LS) means were calculated from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on log-transformed scale. The LS means for each treatment were back transformed from the log scale to provide estimates of the geometric means (GMS). The ratio (%) of GMS was calculated and 90% CIs for the ratio (%) of GMS were presented.|Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Mean|112.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.2|165.34|||||For the comparison, the Dabigatran Etexilate + Quizartinib (Period 2) represents the numerator and Dabigatran Etexilate (Period 1) represents the denominator.|Statistical comparison was analyzed for Free Dabigatran.||165.34|77.20|
90876468|NCT03760146|181615196|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.96||||||Serotype 7F: Geometric mean ratio (20vPnC/Saline vs 13vPnC/PPSV23) and the 2-sided 95% CI||0.96|0.77|
90876469|NCT03760146|181615196|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.05||||||Serotype 9V: Geometric mean ratio (20vPnC/Saline vs 13vPnC/PPSV23) and the 2-sided 95% CI||1.05|0.82|
90876470|NCT03760146|181615196|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.13||||||Serotype 14: Geometric mean ratio (20vPnC/Saline vs 13vPnC/PPSV23) and the 2-sided 95% CI||1.13|0.89|
90876471|NCT03760146|181615196|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.97||||||Serotype 18C: Geometric mean ratio (20vPnC/Saline vs 13vPnC/PPSV23) and the 2-sided 95% CI||0.97|0.74|
90876472|NCT03760146|181615196|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.9||||||Serotype 19A: Geometric mean ratio (20vPnC/Saline vs 13vPnC/PPSV23) and the 2-sided 95% CI||0.90|0.71|
90876473|NCT03760146|181615196|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.91||||||Serotype 19F: Geometric mean ratio (20vPnC/Saline vs 13vPnC/PPSV23) and the 2-sided 95% CI||0.91|0.70|
90876474|NCT03760146|181615196|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.97||||||Serotype 23F: Geometric mean ratio (20vPnC/Saline vs 13vPnC/PPSV23) and the 2-sided 95% CI||0.97|0.70|
90876475|NCT03760146|181615197|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.62||||||Serotype 8: Geometric mean ratio (20vPnC/Saline vs 13vPnC/PPSV23) and the 2-sided 95% CI||0.62|0.49|
90876476|NCT03760146|181615197|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|1.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.63|2.12||||||Serotype 10A: Geometric mean ratio (20vPnC/Saline vs 13vPnC/PPSV23) and the 2-sided 95% CI||2.12|1.63|
90876477|NCT03760146|181615197|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|1.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|2.01||||||Serotype 11A: Geometric mean ratio (20vPnC/Saline vs 13vPnC/PPSV23) and the 2-sided 95% CI||2.01|1.52|
90876478|NCT03760146|181615197|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|1.72||||||Serotype 12F: Geometric mean ratio (20vPnC/Saline vs 13vPnC/PPSV23) and the 2-sided 95% CI||1.72|1.27|
90876479|NCT03760146|181615197|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|3.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.62|3.71||||||Serotype 15B: Geometric mean ratio (20vPnC/Saline vs 13vPnC/PPSV23) and the 2-sided 95% CI||3.71|2.62|
90876480|NCT03760146|181615197|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|1.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|2.32||||||Serotype 22F: Geometric mean ratio (20vPnC/Saline vs 13vPnC/PPSV23) and the 2-sided 95% CI||2.32|1.70|
90876481|NCT03760146|181615197|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|1.57||||||Serotype 33F: Geometric mean ratio (20vPnC/Saline vs 13vPnC/PPSV23) and the 2-sided 95% CI||1.57|1.21|
90876482|NCT03760146|181615198|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.26||||||Serotype 1: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 2 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||1.26|0.84|
90876483|NCT03760146|181615198|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.22||||||Serotype 3: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 2 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||1.22|0.92|
90876484|NCT03760146|181615198|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.38||||||Serotype 4: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 2 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||1.38|0.87|
90876485|NCT03760146|181615198|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.07||||||Serotype 5: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 2 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||1.07|0.72|
90876486|NCT03760146|181615198|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.53||||||Serotype 6A: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 2 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||1.53|0.95|
90876487|NCT03760146|181615198|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.56||||||Serotype 6B: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 2 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||1.56|1.00|
90876488|NCT03760146|181615198|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.07||||||Serotype 7F: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 2 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||1.07|0.74|
90876489|NCT03760146|181615198|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.26||||||Serotype 9V: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 2 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||1.26|0.83|
90915574|NCT04714320|181701716|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.104||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg and DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 64||||=0.104
90876490|NCT03760146|181615198|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.54||||||Serotype 14: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 2 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||1.54|1.01|
90876491|NCT03760146|181615198|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.68||||||Serotype 18C: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 2 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||1.68|1.06|
90876492|NCT03760146|181615198|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.25||||||Serotype 19A: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 2 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||1.25|0.85|
90876493|NCT03760146|181615198|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.22||||||Serotype 19F: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 2 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||1.22|0.80|
90876494|NCT03760146|181615198|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|1.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|2.22||||||Serotype 23F: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 2 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||2.22|1.27|
90876495|NCT03760146|181615198|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.2||||||Serotype 8: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 2 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||1.20|0.78|
90876496|NCT03760146|181615198|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.28||||||Serotype 10A: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 2 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||1.28|0.84|
90876497|NCT03760146|181615198|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.56||||||Serotype 11A: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 2 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||1.56|0.96|
90876498|NCT03760146|181615198|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.39||||||Serotype 12F: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 2 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||1.39|0.88|
90876499|NCT03760146|181615198|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.56||||||Serotype 15B: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 2 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||1.56|0.88|
90876500|NCT03760146|181615198|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.17||||||Serotype 22F: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 2 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||1.17|0.69|
90876501|NCT03760146|181615198|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.3||||||Serotype 33F: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 2 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||1.30|0.81|
90915575|NCT04714320|181701716|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.69||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg and DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 71||||=0.690
91077978|NCT01172808|182041211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.0348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.71||Calculated as 2\*one-sided-p-value in the direction corresponding to testing the null hypothesis|Fisher Exact||Tio R5 / Placebo|||1.71|1.02|0.0348
90876502|NCT03760146|181615199|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.5||||||Serotype 1: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 3 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||1.50|1.01|
90876503|NCT03760146|181615199|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.16||||||Serotype 3: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 3 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||1.16|0.87|
91033554|NCT04459585|181952960|OTHER|Least squares (LS) means were calculated from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on log-transformed scale. The LS means for each treatment were back transformed from the log scale to provide estimates of the geometric means (GMS). The ratio (%) of GMS was calculated and 90% CIs for the ratio (%) of GMS were presented.|Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Mean|111.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.51|157.97|||||For the comparison, the Dabigatran Etexilate + Quizartinib (Period 2) represents the numerator and Dabigatran Etexilate (Period 1) represents the denominator.|Statistical comparison was analyzed for Total Dabigatran.||157.97|78.51|
91033555|NCT04459585|181952960|OTHER|Least squares (LS) means were calculated from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on log-transformed scale. The LS means for each treatment were back transformed from the log scale to provide estimates of the geometric means (GMS). The ratio (%) of GMS was calculated and 90% CIs for the ratio (%) of GMS were presented.|Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Mean|111.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.35|159.51|||||For the comparison, the Dabigatran Etexilate + Quizartinib (Period 2) represents the numerator and Dabigatran Etexilate (Period 1) represents the denominator.|Statistical comparison was analyzed for Free Dabigatran.||159.51|77.35|
90876504|NCT03760146|181615199|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|3.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.65|4.13||||||Serotype 4: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 3 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||4.13|2.65|
90876505|NCT03760146|181615199|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.36||||||Serotype 5: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 3 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||1.36|0.91|
90876506|NCT03760146|181615199|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|3.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.06|4.83||||||Serotype 6A: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 3 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||4.83|3.06|
90876507|NCT03760146|181615199|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|3.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.73|4.26||||||Serotype 6B: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 3 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||4.26|2.73|
90876508|NCT03760146|181615199|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|1.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|1.91||||||Serotype 7F: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 3 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||1.91|1.30|
90876509|NCT03760146|181615199|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.83|4.33||||||Serotype 9V: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 3 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||4.33|2.83|
90876510|NCT03760146|181615199|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|2.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.93|2.96||||||Serotype 14: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 3 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||2.96|1.93|
90876511|NCT03760146|181615199|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.53|4.04||||||Serotype 18C: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 3 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||4.04|2.53|
90876512|NCT03760146|181615199|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|2.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.91|2.81||||||Serotype 19A: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 3 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||2.81|1.91|
90876513|NCT03760146|181615199|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|2.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.76|2.68||||||Serotype 19F: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 3 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||2.68|1.76|
90876514|NCT03760146|181615199|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.65|6.32||||||Serotype 23F: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 3 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||6.32|3.65|
90876515|NCT03760146|181615199|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|1.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|2.12||||||Serotype 8: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 3 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||2.12|1.38|
90876516|NCT03760146|181615199|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|1.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|2.0||||||Serotype 10A: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 3 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||2.00|1.31|
91077979|NCT00981058|182041253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.842||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.736|0.962|||Log Rank|||||0.962|0.736|0.0120
91077980|NCT00981058|182041254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.851||||0.0201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.743|0.975|||Log Rank|||||0.975|0.743|0.0201
91077981|NCT00981058|182041255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.3997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.45|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.45|0.86|0.3997
91077982|NCT00981058|182041256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.844||||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.747|0.953|||Log Rank|||||0.953|0.747|0.0061
91077983|NCT02667587|182041262|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.25||||||||1.25|0.90|
90915576|NCT04714320|181701716|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.59||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg and DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 71||||=0.590
90915577|NCT04714320|181701716|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.538||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg and DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 78||||=0.538
90915578|NCT04714320|181701716|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.407||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg and DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 78||||=0.407
90915579|NCT04714320|181701716|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.398||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg and DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 85||||=0.398
90915580|NCT04714320|181701716|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.93||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg and DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 85||||=0.930
90915581|NCT04714320|181701716|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.111||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg and DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 92||||=0.111
90915582|NCT04714320|181701716|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.196||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg and DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 92||||=0.196
90915583|NCT04714320|181701716|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.816||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg and DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 106||||=0.816
90915584|NCT04714320|181701716|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.473||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg and DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 106||||=0.473
90915585|NCT04714320|181701716|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.615||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg and DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 120||||=0.615
90915586|NCT04714320|181701716|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.214||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg and DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 120||||=0.214
90915587|NCT04714320|181701716|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.575||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg and DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 148||||=0.575
90915588|NCT04714320|181701716|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.276||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg and DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 148||||=0.276
90915589|NCT04714320|181701716|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.573||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg and DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 169||||=0.573
90915590|NCT04714320|181701716|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.706||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg and DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 169||||=0.706
90876517|NCT03760146|181615199|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.68||||||Serotype 11A: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 3 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||1.68|1.04|
90876518|NCT03760146|181615199|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|1.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|2.41||||||Serotype 12F: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 3 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||2.41|1.51|
90876519|NCT03760146|181615199|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|1.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|2.05||||||Serotype 15B: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 3 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||2.05|1.13|
90876520|NCT03760146|181615199|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|1.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.2||||||Serotype 22F: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 3 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||2.20|1.30|
90876521|NCT03760146|181615199|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.79||||||Serotype 33F: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 3 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||1.79|1.10|
90876522|NCT00449644|181615209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|11.77||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.26|61.23|||Cox proportional hazards model|Treatment, lung cavitation and pooled center were used as covaritates.||||61.23|2.26|0.0034
90876523|NCT00449644|181615210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|3.8|||Cox proportional hazards model|Treatment, lung cavitation and pooled center were used as covaritates.||||3.80|1.57|<0.0001
90876524|NCT00449644|181615211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.14||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|6.53|||Cox-proportional hazards model|Treatment, lung cavitation and pooled center were used as covaritates.||||6.53|1.51|0.0022
90876525|NCT00449644|181615212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.65||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|2.59|||Cox proportional hazards model|Treatment, lung cavitation and pooled center were used as covaritates.||MGIT negative (Responders)||2.59|1.05|0.0290
90876526|NCT00449644|181615213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|38.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.38||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.97|63.88|||Regression, Logistic|Treatment as covariate||Week 8||63.88|13.97|0.003
90876527|NCT00449644|181615213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|15.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.12||0.237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|42.17|||Regression, Logistic|Treatment as covariate||Week 24||42.17|-10.70|0.237
90876528|NCT00449644|181615213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|8.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.02||0.5564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.37|39.18|||Regression, Logistic|Treatment as covariate||Week 104 (Stage 1 Trial End)||39.18|-21.37|0.5564
90876529|NCT00449644|181615214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|21.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.9||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.59|36.83|||Regression, Logistic|Treatment as covariate||Week 24||36.83|5.59|0.008
90876530|NCT00449644|181615214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|15.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.27||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|31.51|||Regression, Logistic|Treatment as covariate||Week 72||31.51|-1.21|0.069
90876531|NCT00449644|181615214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|18.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.54||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|35.08|||Regression, Logistic|Treatment as covariate||Week 120||35.08|1.28|0.035
90915591|NCT04714320|181701717|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.853||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 8||||=0.853
91077984|NCT02667587|182041263|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.12||||0.3402|TWO_SIDED|96.39|0.87|1.43|||Log Rank|||All Randomized No Baseline Corticosteroids Participants||1.43|0.87|0.3402
91077985|NCT02667587|182041263|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.33||||||All Randomized Participants||1.33|0.91|
91077986|NCT02667587|182041267|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.4||||||||1.40|0.99|
91077987|NCT02667587|182041268|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.26|||Log Rank|||||1.26|0.89|
91077988|NCT02542293|182041269|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.0808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.485|1.045||The 2-sided p-value was calculated using an unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||The HR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using an unstratified Cox proportional hazards model, with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab versus (Vs) Global: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy to be associated with a longer OS than SoC."||1.045|0.485|0.0808
91077989|NCT02542293|182041270|OTHER|The study was not designed or powered to show statistical significance for efficacy endpoints in the China cohort, so all statistical analyses for the China cohort were considered exploratory.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.322|1.109|||||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"China: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs China: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy to be associated with a longer OS than SoC."||1.109|0.322|
91077990|NCT02542293|182041271|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.629|1.201|||||The HR and CI were calculated using an unstratified Cox proportional hazards model, with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"bTMB ≥16 mut/Mb analysis set: Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy to be associated with a longer OS than SoC."||1.201|0.629|
90876532|NCT00529542|181615215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.0||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|5.3||All hypotheses tests were two-sided.|Linear mixed-effects models|Linear mixed-effects models were fit to continuous outcomes to assess the change from baseline to 6 weeks between groups.|This analysis revealed that the required sample size was 235 subjects per group for 80% power to detect an absolute 2% increase in FMD with Atorvastatin vs. Placebo. We stopped the trial because we had insufficient funds for the required sample size.|This study was initiated as a pilot study with the goal of enrolling 19 women in each group, which we hypothesized would provide 80% power to detect an absolute difference in the change in FMD from baseline between the two groups (Atorvastatin vs. Placebo) of 3.75%, assuming a common standard deviation (SD) of 4%, using a two-sided, two-sample t-test with α=0.05. Recruitment was slow due to strict inclusion/ exclusion criteria so we analyzed our data after the first 20 women completed the study.||5.3|-9.3|0.58
90915592|NCT04714320|181701717|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.542||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 8||||=0.542
90915593|NCT04714320|181701717|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.43||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 15||||=0.430
91077991|NCT02542293|182041271|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.726|1.213|||||The HR and CI were calculated using an unstratified Cox proportional hazards model, with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"bTMB ≥12 mut/Mb analysis set: Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy to be associated with a longer OS than SoC."||1.213|0.726|
91077992|NCT02542293|182041271|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.786|1.464|||||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for smoking status (never smoker Vs ever smoker) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"PD-L1 negative analysis set:~Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy to be associated with a longer OS than SoC."||1.464|0.786|
90876533|NCT00529542|181615216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.7||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|2.3|||Linear mixed-effects models|||"What is being compared for this analysis is the change from baseline for Atorvastatin to the change from baseline for Placebo."||2.3|-0.9|0.39
90876534|NCT00529542|181615217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-70.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-95.2|-46.4|||Linear mixed-effects models|||"What is being compared for this analysis is the change from baseline for Atorvastatin to the change from baseline for Placebo."||-46.4|-95.2|<0.001
90876535|NCT00529542|181615218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-57.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-79.3|-35.9|||Linear mixed-effects models|||"What is being compared for this analysis is the change from baseline for Atorvastatin to the change from baseline for Placebo."||-35.9|-79.3|<0.001
90876536|NCT00529542|181615219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.4||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|9.5|||Linear mixed-effects models|||"What is being compared for this analysis is the change from baseline for Atorvastatin to the change from baseline for Placebo."||9.5|-2.7|0.26
90876537|NCT00529542|181615220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-82.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-126.2|-38.1|||Linear mixed-effects models|||"What is being compared for this analysis is the change from baseline for Atorvastatin to the change from baseline for Placebo."||-38.1|-126.2|<0.001
90876538|NCT00529542|181615221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.3||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|5.8|||Linear mixed-effects models|||"What is being compared for this analysis is the change from baseline for Atorvastatin to the change from baseline for Placebo."||5.8|-12.4|0.45
90876539|NCT00529542|181615222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.5||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|7.9|||Linear mixed-effects models|||"What is being compared for this analysis is the change from baseline for Atorvastatin to the change from baseline for Placebo."||7.9|-2.8|0.33
90876540|NCT00529542|181615223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|586.0||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1811.0|2983.0|||Linear mixed-effects models|||"What is being compared for this analysis is the change from baseline for Atorvastatin to the change from baseline for Placebo."||2983|-1811|0.61
90876541|NCT00529542|181615224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3385.0||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-287.0|7056.0|||Linear mixed-effects models|||"What is being compared for this analysis is the change from baseline for Atorvastatin to the change from baseline for Placebo."||7056|-287|0.07
90876542|NCT00529542|181615225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.8||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.1|27.8|||Linear mixed-effects models|||"What is being compared for this analysis is the change from baseline for Atorvastatin to the change from baseline for Placebo."||27.8|-24.1|0.88
90876543|NCT00529542|181615226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.5|||Linear mixed-effects models|||"What is being compared for this analysis is the change from baseline for Atorvastatin to the change from baseline for Placebo."||-0.5|-1.6|<0.001
90876544|NCT00529542|181615227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-364.3||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-655.3|-73.2|||Linear mixed-effects models|||"What is being compared for this analysis is the change from baseline for Atorvastatin to the change from baseline for Placebo."||-73.2|-655.3|0.02
90876545|NCT00529542|181615228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.4||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|1.5|||Linear mixed-effects models|||"What is being compared for this analysis is the change from baseline for Atorvastatin to the change from baseline for Placebo."||1.5|-6.4|0.21
90876546|NCT00529542|181615229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.9||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.9|5.0|||Linear mixed-effects models|||"What is being compared for this analysis is the change from baseline for Atorvastatin to the change from baseline for Placebo."||5.0|-16.9|0.27
90876547|NCT00529542|181615230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.8||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.8|0.1|||Linear mixed-effects models|||"What is being compared for this analysis is the change from baseline for Atorvastatin to the change from baseline for Placebo."||0.1|-15.8|0.05
90876548|NCT00529542|181615231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.5||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|13.7|||Linear mixed-effects models|||"What is being compared for this analysis is the change from baseline for Atorvastatin to the change from baseline for Placebo."||13.7|-6.8|0.48
90876549|NCT00529542|181615232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.0|||Linear mixed-effects models|||"What is being compared for this analysis is the change from baseline for Atorvastatin to the change from baseline for Placebo."||1.0|-0.6|0.63
90876550|NCT01566461|181615233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||z-test|||||||<0.001
90876551|NCT01566461|181615234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
90876552|NCT01566461|181615235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
90876553|NCT01566461|181615236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.926|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.926
90876554|NCT01566461|181615237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
90876555|NCT01566461|181615238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
90876556|NCT01566461|181615239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.859|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.859
90876557|NCT01566461|181615240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.999
90915594|NCT04714320|181701717|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.587||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 15||||=0.587
90876558|NCT01566461|181615241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.096|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.096
90876559|NCT01566461|181615242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
90876560|NCT01566461|181615243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.121|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.121
90876561|NCT01566461|181615244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.001
90876562|NCT01566461|181615245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
90876563|NCT01566461|181615246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.095|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.095
90876564|NCT01566461|181615247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.878|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.878
90876565|NCT01566461|181615248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.590
90876566|NCT01566461|181615249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.302|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.302
90876567|NCT01566461|181615250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.111|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.111
90876568|NCT01566461|181615251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.103|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.103
90876569|NCT01566461|181615252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.049
90876570|NCT00697515|181615371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
90876571|NCT00697515|181615372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0017||95.0|||||ANOVA|||2.0 hours post-dose||||0.0017
90876572|NCT00697515|181615372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||4.0 hours post-dose||||<0.0001
90876573|NCT00697515|181615372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||8.0 hours post-dose||||<0.0001
90876574|NCT00697515|181615372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||10.0 hours post-dose||||<0.0001
90876575|NCT00697515|181615372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||12.0 hours post-dose||||<0.0001
90876576|NCT00697515|181615372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||14.0 hours post-dose||||<0.0001
90876577|NCT00697515|181615373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Average over the treatment day||||<0.0001
90876578|NCT00697515|181615373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||2.0 hours post-dose||||0.0010
90876579|NCT00697515|181615373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||4.0 hours post-dose||||<0.0001
90876580|NCT00697515|181615373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||8.0 hours post-dose||||<0.0001
90876581|NCT00697515|181615373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||10.0 hours post-dose||||<0.0001
90876582|NCT00697515|181615373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||12.0 hours post-dose||||<0.0001
90876583|NCT00697515|181615373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||14.0 hours post-dose||||<0.0001
90876584|NCT00697515|181615374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Over the treatment day||||<0.0001
90876585|NCT00697515|181615374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0031||95.0|||||ANOVA|||2.0 hours post-dose||||0.0031
90876586|NCT00697515|181615374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||4.0 hours post-dose||||<0.0001
90876587|NCT00697515|181615374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||8.0 hours post-dose||||<0.0001
90876588|NCT00697515|181615374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||10.0 hours post-dose||||<0.0001
90876589|NCT00697515|181615374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||12.0 hours post-dose||||<0.0001
90876590|NCT00697515|181615374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||14.0 hours post-dose||||<0.0001
90876591|NCT00697515|181615375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90876592|NCT00697515|181615376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
90876593|NCT00697515|181615379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Prescott's Test|||||||<0.0001
90876594|NCT00697515|181615380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90876595|NCT00697515|181615382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90876596|NCT00697515|181615383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90876597|NCT05954052|181615388|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.0||0.1807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.24|14.24|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the analysis of (ABC) scores at baseline and 12 weeks in this single-arm, open-label pilot study (n=6 participants, all with paired data including the early dropout), we use superiority test, This aligns with the study's hypothesis that oral glutathione supplementation would lead to an improvement (i.e., a decrease in ABC scores, indicating reduced irritability). Superiority testing evaluates whether the post-treatment mean (or median) is significantly lower than the baseline||14.24|-6.24|0.1807
90876598|NCT05517382|181615438|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||At baseline||||0.20
90876599|NCT05517382|181615438|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||At Post game||||0.59
90876600|NCT05517382|181615438|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||At 3 month||||0.94
90876601|NCT05517382|181615438|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||GEE|Controlling for baseline thriving status, this reflects the interaction between the intervention group and time.||||||0.55
90876602|NCT05517382|181615439|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09||||0.1759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis||Group effect.|At post game.||0.04|-0.23|0.1759
90876603|NCT05517382|181615439|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.16||||0.0857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis||Group effect.|At 3 month||0.02|-0.35|0.0857
90876604|NCT03886220|181615448|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.22||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.086|9.546||P-value for test of difference between elagolix dose group and placebo is by pooling the results from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline MBL volume as a covariate in each dataset from multiple imputation.|Regression, Logistic|||||9.546|1.086|0.035
90876605|NCT03526458|181615493|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.6||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|28.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||||28.9|4.4|0.012
90876606|NCT03526458|181615494|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.3||0.132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|26.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||26.3|-3.6|0.132
90876607|NCT03526458|181615495|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7||0.654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|6.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||||6.9|-4.4|0.654
90876608|NCT03526458|181615496|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.299|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.299
90876609|NCT03526458|181615497|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.076|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.076
90876610|NCT03526458|181615498|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|143.9||0.943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-286.0|306.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||||306.8|-286|0.943
90876611|NCT03526458|181615499|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.185|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.185
90876612|NCT02461225|181615500|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0005|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<.0005
90876613|NCT02461225|181615501|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
90876614|NCT00651755|181615512|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The absence of pharmacokinetic drug interactions can be determined if the 90% CI of the geometric mean AUC ratio between 2 groups is within 0.80 to 1.25.|Ratio Geometric Mean AUC|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.08|1.33|||90% CI||Ratio Geometric Mean AUC (Area Under Curve) of Analyte,CP, between Aprepitant treatment to control Group.|||1.33|1.08|
90876615|NCT00651755|181615513|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The absence of pharmacokinetic drug interactions can be determined if the 90% CI of the geometric mean AUC ratio between 2 groups is within 0.80 to 1.25.|ratio Geometric mean AUC|0.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.29|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.86|||equivalence analysis||The geometric mean AUC ratio is the ratio of geometric mean AUC between aprepitant treatment and the control group|||0.86|0.65|
90876616|NCT00651755|181615514|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The absence of pharmacokinetic drug interactions can be determined if the 90% CI of the geometric mean AUC ratio between 2 groups is within 0.80 to 1.25.|Ratio Geometric Mean AUC|0.97|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.35|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|1.13|||equivalence analysis|The geometric mean AUC ratio is the ratio of geometric mean AUC between aprepitant treatment to the control group|Ratio Geometric Mean AUC of Analyte, 4-OHCP, between Aprepitant treatment to control Group|||1.13|0.83|
90876617|NCT00651755|181615515|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The absence of pharmacokinetic drug interactions can be determined if the 90% CI of the geometric mean AUC ratio between 2 groups is within 0.80 to 1.25.|Ratio Geometric Mean AUC|1.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.68|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.82|1.33|||equivalence analysis||Ratio Geometric Mean AUC (Area Under Curve) of Analyte, VC, Between Aprepitant treatment to control Group.|||1.33|0.82|
90876618|NCT00651755|181615516|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The absence of pharmacokinetic drug interactions can be determined if the 90% CI of the geometric mean AUC ratio between 2 groups is within 0.80 to 1.25.|Ratio Geometric Mean AUC|1.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.17||||90.0|1.02|1.15|||equivalence analysis||The geometric mean AUC ratio is the ratio of geometric mean AUC between aprepitant treatment and the control group.|||1.15|1.02|
90876619|NCT00651755|181615517|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The absence of pharmacokinetic drug interactions can be determined if the 90% CI of the geometric mean AUC ratio between 2 groups is within 0.80 to 1.25.|Ratio Geometric Mean AUC|1.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.47|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.01|1.32|||equivalence analysis||Ratio Geometric Mean AUC (Area Under Curve) of Analyte,PL, Between Aprepitant treatment to control Group.|||1.32|1.01|
90876620|NCT03642717|181615549|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Paired t-test was applied comparing the difference in mean of change in Glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) at Last Visit versus at Baseline.|Paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
90876621|NCT03642717|181615552|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Paired t-test was applied comparing the difference in mean of change in Fasting Plasma Glucose (FPG) at Last Visit versus at Baseline.|Paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
90876622|NCT03642717|181615553|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Paired t-test was applied comparing the difference in mean of change in body weight at Last Visit versus at Baseline.|Paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
90876623|NCT03642717|181615554|OTHER|||||||0.0076||||||Paired t-test was applied comparing the difference in mean of change in systolic blood pressure (SBP) at Last Visit versus at Baseline.|Paired t-test|||||||0.0076
90915595|NCT04714320|181701717|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.91||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 22||||=0.910
90915596|NCT04714320|181701717|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.846||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 22||||=0.846
90915597|NCT04714320|181701717|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.634||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 29||||0.634
90915598|NCT04714320|181701717|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.767||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 29||||=0.767
90915599|NCT04714320|181701717|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.399||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 36||||=0.399
90915600|NCT04714320|181701717|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.323||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 36||||=0.323
90915601|NCT04714320|181701717|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.115||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 43||||=0.115
90915602|NCT04714320|181701717|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.982||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 43||||=0.982
90915603|NCT04714320|181701717|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.859||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 50||||=0.859
91077993|NCT02542293|182041271|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.835|1.302|||||The HR and CI were calculated using an unstratified Cox proportional hazards model, with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"bTMB \<20 mut/Mb analysis set: Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy to be associated with a longer OS than SoC."||1.302|0.835|
90915604|NCT04714320|181701717|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.344||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 50||||=0.344
90915605|NCT04714320|181701717|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.633||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 57||||=0.633
90915606|NCT04714320|181701717|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.889||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 57||||=0.889
90915607|NCT04714320|181701717|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.241||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 64||||=0.241
90915608|NCT04714320|181701717|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.367||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 64||||=0.367
90915609|NCT04714320|181701717|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.716||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 71||||=0.716
91077994|NCT02542293|182041271|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.758|1.353|||||The HR and CI were calculated using an unstratified Cox proportional hazards model, with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"bTMB non-evaluable analysis set: Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy to be associated with a longer OS than SoC."||1.353|0.758|
91077995|NCT02542293|182041271|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.309|1.008|||||The HR and CI were calculated using an unstratified Cox proportional hazards model, with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"tTMB ≥14 mut/Mb analysis set: Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy to be associated with a longer OS than SoC."||1.008|0.309|
91077996|NCT02542293|182041271|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.35|||||The HR and CI were calculated using an unstratified Cox proportional hazards model, with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"tTMB ≥12 mut/Mb analysis set: Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy to be associated with a longer OS than SoC."||1.350|0.560|
90876624|NCT03642717|181615555|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Paired t-test was applied comparing the difference in mean of change in diastolic blood pressure (DBP) at Last Visit versus at Baseline.|Paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
90876625|NCT02587065|181615557|OTHER||Spearman's correlation coefficient|-0.85||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.72|2.02|||Mixed-effects REML regression|||Adjusted change of convenience satisfaction domain of TSQM-9.||2.02|-3.72|0.56
90876626|NCT01559012|181615568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.7||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|3.32||A sample size modeling (MGH Mallinckrodt General Clinical Research Center) showed that a total of 12 patients were needed in order to detect a difference of 2 points of PUQE score between the two groups at P \< 0.01 and a beta \> 0.90.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Statistical signiﬁcance was assessed by the use of Mann-Whitney U test. P \< 0.05 was deﬁned as statistically signiﬁcant||This is an analysis between groups of intervention clonidine versus placebo. Statistical signiﬁcance was assessed by the use of Mann-Whitney U test P \< 0.05 was deﬁned as statistically signiﬁcant . Data are presented as mean + SD.||3.32|1.05|0.001
90876627|NCT01559012|181615568|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A sample size modeling (MGH Mallinckrodt General Clinical Research Center) showed that a total of 12 patients were needed in order to detect a difference of 2 points of PUQE score between the two groups at P \< 0.01|within patient variation|1.83|||<|0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|3.24|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This is a within patient variation between clonidine and placebo. Statistical signiﬁcance was assessed by the use of Mann-Whitney U test P \< 0.05 was deﬁned as statistically signiﬁcant . Data are presented as mean +/- Standard Deviation (SD).||3.24|0.43|<0.02
90876628|NCT01559012|181615569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.0||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|11.5|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis within groups clonidine versus placebo. Statistical signiﬁcance was assessed by the use of Mann-Whitney U test P \< 0.05 was deﬁned as statistically signiﬁcant . Data are presented as mean + SD. .||11.5|1.78|0.009
90876629|NCT01559012|181615569|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A sample size modeling for crossover studies (MGH Mallinckrodt General Clinical Research Center) showed that a total of 12 patients were needed in order to detect a difference of 2 points of PUQE score between the two groups at P \< 0.01|within patient variation|7.5|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.17|12.83|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis within-patient. Statistical signiﬁcance was assessed by the use of Mann-Whitney U test P \< 0.05 was deﬁned as statistically signiﬁcant . Data are presented as mean + SD.||12.83|2.17|<0.01
90876630|NCT01559012|181615570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of percentage of positivity|0.3||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.47|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"All patients were treated with TD clonidine for 5 days and switched to placebo for 5 days, or the other way round~Allocation order randomized"||0.47|0.04|0.000
90876631|NCT01559012|181615571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mean values|0.8||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.57|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Statistical signiﬁcance was assessed by the use of Mann-Whitney U test P \< 0.05 was deﬁned as statistically signiﬁcant . Data are presented as mean + SD. .||1.57|0.13|0.013
90876632|NCT01559012|181615572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||days off-therapy %|29.0||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Statistical signiﬁcance was assessed by the use of Mann-Whitney U test P \< 0.05 was deﬁned as statistically signiﬁcant . Data are presented as mean + SD. .||||0.051
90876633|NCT01559012|181615573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||proportion|0.0||||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0089
90876634|NCT01559012|181615576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.0||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|10.9|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||10.9|0.9|0.01
90915610|NCT04714320|181701717|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.21||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 71||||=0.210
90876635|NCT01559012|181615577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|6.3|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||6.3|0.3|0.055
90876636|NCT04665050|181615578|OTHER|Estimated difference and confidence interval (CI) are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|12.7|||||V116 minus PNEUMOVAX™23|Injection Site Erythema||12.7|-12.7|
90876637|NCT04665050|181615578|OTHER|Estimated difference and CI are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in percentage|-11.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.0|7.3|||||V116 minus PNEUMOVAX™23|Injection Site Pain||7.3|-30.0|
90876638|NCT04665050|181615578|OTHER|Estimated difference and CI are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|14.1|||||V116 minus PNEUMOVAX™23|Injection Site Swelling||14.1|-14.1|
90876639|NCT04665050|181615579|OTHER|Estimated difference and CI are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in percentage|3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|17.5|||||V116 minus PNEUMOVAX™23|Fatigue||17.5|-9.4|
90876640|NCT04665050|181615579|OTHER|Estimated difference and CI are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|9.9|||||V116 minus PNEUMOVAX™23|Arthralgia||9.9|-9.9|
90876641|NCT04665050|181615579|OTHER|Estimated difference and CI are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in percentage|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|13.6|||||V116 minus PNEUMOVAX™23|Myalgia||13.6|-17.5|
90915611|NCT04714320|181701717|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.363||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 78||||=0.363
90915612|NCT04714320|181701717|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.193||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 78||||=0.193
90876642|NCT04665050|181615579|OTHER|Estimated difference and CI are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|12.7|||||V116 minus PNEUMOVAX™23|Headache||12.7|-12.7|
90876643|NCT04665050|181615580|OTHER|Estimated difference and CI are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|7.1|||||V116 minus PNEUMOVAX™23|||7.1|-7.1|
90876644|NCT04665050|181615581|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% confidence interval CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|2.4|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 3||2.40|1.07|
90876645|NCT04665050|181615581|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% confidence interval CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|2.11|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 7F||2.11|0.69|
90876646|NCT04665050|181615581|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% confidence interval CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|3.24|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 19A||3.24|1.24|
90876647|NCT04665050|181615581|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% confidence interval CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|1.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|3.57|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 22F||3.57|1.04|
91033556|NCT04459585|181952961|OTHER|Least squares (LS) means were calculated from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on log-transformed scale. The LS means for each treatment were back transformed from the log scale to provide estimates of the geometric means (GMS). The ratio (%) of GMS was calculated and 90% CIs for the ratio (%) of GMS were presented.|Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Mean|112.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.38|160.79|||||For the comparison, the Dabigatran Etexilate + Quizartinib (Period 2) represents the numerator and Dabigatran Etexilate (Period 1) represents the denominator.|Statistical comparison was analyzed for Total Dabigatran.||160.79|79.38|
90876648|NCT04665050|181615581|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% confidence interval CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.86|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 33F||1.86|0.71|
90876649|NCT04665050|181615581|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% confidence interval CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|1.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|2.58|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 8||2.58|1.24|
90876650|NCT04665050|181615581|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% confidence interval CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|1.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|3.0|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 9N||3.00|1.19|
90876651|NCT04665050|181615581|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% confidence interval CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|2.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|5.0|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 10A||5.00|1.47|
90915613|NCT04714320|181701717|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.135||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 85||||=0.135
90876652|NCT04665050|181615581|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% confidence interval CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|2.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|3.89|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 11A||3.89|1.52|
90876653|NCT04665050|181615581|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% confidence interval CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|4.83|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 12F||4.83|1.20|
90876654|NCT04665050|181615581|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% confidence interval CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|2.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|4.17|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 17F||4.17|1.59|
90876655|NCT04665050|181615581|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% confidence interval CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|2.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|3.56|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 20A||3.56|1.46|
90876656|NCT04665050|181615582|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|2.21|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 3||2.21|1.08|
90876657|NCT04665050|181615582|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|2.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|3.6|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 7F||3.60|1.36|
90876658|NCT04665050|181615582|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|2.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|3.23|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 19A||3.23|1.45|
90876659|NCT04665050|181615582|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|2.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|3.99|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 22F||3.99|1.36|
90876660|NCT04665050|181615582|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|2.37|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 33F||2.37|0.97|
90876661|NCT04665050|181615582|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|2.68|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 8||2.68|1.32|
90876662|NCT04665050|181615582|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|2.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.49|3.74|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 9N||3.74|1.49|
90876663|NCT04665050|181615582|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|2.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|3.65|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 10A||3.65|1.28|
90876664|NCT04665050|181615582|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|2.89|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 11A||2.89|1.28|
90876665|NCT04665050|181615582|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|3.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.94|6.27|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 12F||6.27|1.94|
90876666|NCT04665050|181615582|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|2.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.92|4.31|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 17F||4.31|1.92|
91033557|NCT04459585|181952961|OTHER|Least squares (LS) means were calculated from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on log-transformed scale. The LS means for each treatment were back transformed from the log scale to provide estimates of the geometric means (GMS). The ratio (%) of GMS was calculated and 90% CIs for the ratio (%) of GMS were presented.|Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Mean|110.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.77|159.68|||||For the comparison, the Dabigatran Etexilate + Quizartinib (Period 2) represents the numerator and Dabigatran Etexilate (Period 1) represents the denominator.|Statistical comparison was analyzed for Free Dabigatran.||159.68|76.77|
91033558|NCT01061866|181952988|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p less than or equal to 0.05, repeated measures ANOVA|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|||<|0.02||||||p-value is non-adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|Was adjusted the degrees of freedom for the averaged test of significance.|The frequency of seizures at the beginning of the study and after treatment with thalidomide was contrasted in the same group patients.|Power=0.02||||<0.02
91033559|NCT02459951|181952991|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.059||||||"refer to cylinder A (.5 diameter)"|Regression, Logistic|||||||.059
91033560|NCT02459951|181952991|SUPERIORITY||geometric mean ratio B|||||0.465|||||||Regression, Logistic|"refer to cylinder B(1 diameter)"||||||0.465
90876667|NCT04665050|181615582|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|2.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|3.25|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 20A||3.25|1.30|
90876668|NCT04665050|181615583|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|3.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.86|6.88|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 6A||6.88|1.86|
90876669|NCT04665050|181615583|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|6.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.54|10.98|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 15A||10.98|3.54|
91033561|NCT02459951|181952991|SUPERIORITY||geometric mean ratio C|||||0.022||||||"refer to cylinder C (1.5 diameter)"|Regression, Logistic|||||||.022
91033562|NCT02459951|181952991|SUPERIORITY||geometric mean ratio D|||||0.004||||||"refer to cylinder D (2 diameter)"|Regression, Logistic|||||||.004
90876670|NCT04665050|181615583|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|2.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|4.39|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 15C||4.39|1.23|
90876671|NCT04665050|181615583|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|10.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.39|18.78|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 16F||18.78|5.39|
90876672|NCT04665050|181615583|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|42.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.67|90.03|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 23A||90.03|19.67|
90876673|NCT04665050|181615583|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|12.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.97|21.94|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 23B||21.94|6.97|
90876674|NCT04665050|181615583|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|24.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.65|52.86|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 24F||52.86|11.65|
90876675|NCT04665050|181615583|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|25.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.65|44.93|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 31||44.93|14.65|
90876676|NCT04665050|181615583|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|14.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.72|23.47|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 35B||23.47|8.72|
90876677|NCT04665050|181615584|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.73|5.19|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 6A||5.19|1.73|
90876678|NCT04665050|181615584|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|8.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.61|13.98|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 15A||13.98|4.61|
90876679|NCT04665050|181615584|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|3.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|5.58|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 15C||5.58|1.77|
90876680|NCT04665050|181615584|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|13.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.45|20.19|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 16F||20.19|8.45|
90876681|NCT04665050|181615584|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|8.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.19|14.09|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 23A||14.09|5.19|
90876682|NCT04665050|181615584|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|4.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.72|6.36|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 23B||6.36|2.72|
90876683|NCT04665050|181615584|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|28.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.59|49.58|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 24F||49.58|16.59|
90876684|NCT04665050|181615584|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|10.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.71|15.73|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 31||15.73|6.71|
90876685|NCT04665050|181615584|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|15.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.62|21.9|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 35B||21.90|11.62|
90876686|NCT00946712|181615588|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.04|||Log Rank|A stratified log rank test was used.||||1.04|0.83|0.22
90876687|NCT00946712|181615589|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.12|||Log Rank|A stratified log rank test was used.||||1.12|0.75|0.40
90876688|NCT00946712|181615590|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.0|||Log Rank|A stratified log rank test was used.||||1.00|0.66|0.054
90876689|NCT00946712|181615592|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.1|||Log Rank|A stratified log rank test was used.||||1.10|0.88|0.83
90876690|NCT00946712|181615594|OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|A stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was conducted.||||||0.48
90876691|NCT00946712|181615595|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|A stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was conducted.||||||0.060
90876692|NCT00853723|181615624|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|An equivalence test of means for the percentage change in PINP and CTX using two one-sided tests applied to data from the parallel group design with a sample size of 31 in the PTH(1-34) group and 62 in the combined PTHrP(1-36) group achieved 80% power at 2.5% significant level for two-sided hypothesis testing (adjusted for the hypothesis testing at two key endpoints).|||||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value corresponds with percent change from baseline by day 15 in all three arms.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.0005
90876693|NCT00853723|181615625|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations for this study were determined considering the expected effects of PTHrP (1-36) relative to PTH (1-34) on the primary endpoints of P1NP and CTX after 3 months of treatment relative to baseline using previously published data as weel as anticipated attrition rate. See primary outcomes.|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value corresponds with percent change from baseline in all Arms/groups.|Kruskal-Wallis|The threshold for stasistical significance was p=0.05||||||<0.05
90876694|NCT00853723|181615626|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|An equivalence test of means for the percentage change in PINP and CTX using two one-sided tests applied to data from the parallel group design with a sample size of 31 in the PTH(1-34) group and 62 in the combined PTHrP(1-36) group achieved 80% power at 2.5% significant level for two-sided hypothesis testing (adjusted for the hypothesis testing at two key endpoints).|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value corresponds with percent change from baseline at Day 60 and at Day 90 for the PTH group and at day 90 for the PTHrP 400 and PTHrP 600 groups .|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.05
90876695|NCT00853723|181615627|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations for this study were determined considering the expected effects of PTHrP (1-36) relative to PTH (1-34) on the primary endpoints of P1NP and CTX after 3 months of treatment relative to baseline using previously published data as weel as anticipated attrition rate. See primary outcomes.|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value corresponds with percent change from baseline in PTHrP 400 and 600 groups.|Kruskal-Wallis|The threshold for stastistical significance was p=0.05||||||<0.05
90876696|NCT00853723|181615628|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations for this study were determined considering the expected effects of PTHrP (1-36) relative to PTH (1-34) on the primary endpoints of P1NP and CTX after 3 months of treatment relative to baseline using previously published data as weel as anticipated attrition rate. See primary outcomes.|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value corresponds with percent change from baseline in the PTHrP 400 group|Kruskal-Wallis|The threshold for stastistical significance was p=0.05||||||<0.05
90876697|NCT00853723|181615629|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations for this study were determined considering the expected effects of PTHrP (1-36) relative to PTH (1-34) on the primary endpoints of P1NP and CTX after 3 months of treatment relative to baseline using previously published data as weel as anticipated attrition rate. See primary outcomes.|||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value corresponds with percent change from baseline in all Arms/groups|Kruskal-Wallis|The threshold for statistical signifcance was p=0.05||||||>0.05
90876698|NCT00853723|181615630|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations for this study were determined considering the expected effects of PTHrP (1-36) relative to PTH (1-34) on the primary endpoints of P1NP and CTX after 3 months of treatment relative to baseline using previously published data as weel as anticipated attrition rate. See primary outcomes.|||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value corresponds with percent change from baseline in all Arms/groups|Kruskal-Wallis|The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05||||||>0.05
90876699|NCT00853723|181615631|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations for this study were determined considering the expected effects of PTHrP (1-36) relative to PTH (1-34) on the primary endpoints of P1NP and CTX after 3 months of treatment relative to baseline using previously published data as weel as anticipated attrition rate. See primary outcomes.|||||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value corresponds to change from baseline at Day 15 and 30 in the PTHrP 400 group and at Day 15 in the PTHrP 600 group|F-test, one way analysis of variance|The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05||||||<0.0005
90876700|NCT00853723|181615632|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations for this study were determined considering the expected effects of PTHrP (1-36) relative to PTH (1-34) on the primary endpoints of P1NP and CTX after 3 months of treatment relative to baseline using previously published data as weel as anticipated attrition rate. See primary outcomes.|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value corresponds to PTH group on Day 60 compared to the PTHrP 400|F-test, one way analysis of variance|The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05||||||<0.05
90876701|NCT00853723|181615632|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations for this study were determined considering the expected effects of PTHrP (1-36) relative to PTH (1-34) on the primary endpoints of P1NP and CTX after 3 months of treatment relative to baseline using previously published data as weel as anticipated attrition rate. See primary outcomes.|||||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value corresponds to the PTH group on Day 30 compared to the PTHrP 400 group and Day 60 compared to the PTHRp 600 group|Kruskal-Wallis|The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05||||||<0.005
90876702|NCT00853723|181615632|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations for this study were determined considering the expected effects of PTHrP (1-36) relative to PTH (1-34) on the primary endpoints of P1NP and CTX after 3 months of treatment relative to baseline using previously published data as weel as anticipated attrition rate. See primary outcomes.|||||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value correspond to the PTH group on Day 15 compared to the PTHrP 400 group and Day 15 and 30 compared to the PTHrP 600 group.|Kruskal-Wallis|The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05||||||<0.0005
90915614|NCT04714320|181701717|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.867||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 85||||=0.867
91033563|NCT02459951|181952991|SUPERIORITY||geometric mean ratio E|||||0.002||||||"refer to cylinder E (2.5 diameter)"|Regression, Logistic|||||||.002
90876703|NCT00853723|181615633|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations for this study were determined considering the expected effects of PTHrP (1-36) relative to PTH (1-34) on the primary endpoints of P1NP and CTX after 3 months of treatment relative to baseline using previously published data as weel as anticipated attrition rate. See primary outcomes.|||||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value corresponds to the increase from baseline to D90 in the PTHrP 400 group.|F-test, one way analysis of variance|the threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05||||||<0.005
90915615|NCT04714320|181701717|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.761||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 92||||=0.761
91033564|NCT02255097|181952995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||exact binomial distribution|null hypothesis (H0): p ≤ 0.05 versus alternate hypothesis (H1): p \> 0.05||Analysis comparing the ORR for pembrolizumab to a fixed efficacy target of 5% using an exact test of binomial distribution||||<0.001
91033565|NCT02255097|181952996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||exact binomial distribution|H0: p ≤ 0.05 versus H1: p \> 0.05||Analysis comparing the ORR for pembrolizumab to a fixed efficacy target of 5% using an exact test of binomial distribution||||<0.001
90876704|NCT00853723|181615634|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations for this study were determined considering the expected effects of PTHrP (1-36) relative to PTH (1-34) on the primary endpoints of P1NP and CTX after 3 months of treatment relative to baseline using previously published data as weel as anticipated attrition rate. See primary outcomes.|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p value corresponds to an increased from baseline at all time points in all Arms/groups as well as to the increase in the in the PTHrP 400 group at Day 60 and 90 compared to the PTHrP 600 and PTH groups .|F-test, one way analysis of variance|the threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05||||||<0.05
90876705|NCT00853723|181615634|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations for this study were determined considering the expected effects of PTHrP (1-36) relative to PTH (1-34) on the primary endpoints of P1NP and CTX after 3 months of treatment relative to baseline using previously published data as weel as anticipated attrition rate. See primary outcomes|||||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value corresponds to the comparison of the PTHrP 400 group at Day 15 to the PTHrP 600 and PTH groups|Kruskal-Wallis|The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05||||||<0.005
91033566|NCT02255097|181952999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||exact binomial distribution|H0: p ≤ 0.05 versus H1: p \> 0.05||Analysis comparing the ORR for pembrolizumab to a fixed efficacy target of 5% using an exact test of binomial distribution||||<0.001
91033567|NCT02255097|181953000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0027|||||||exact binomial distribution|H0: p ≤ 0.05 versus H1: p \> 0.05||Analysis comparing the ORR for pembrolizumab to a fixed efficacy target of 5% using an exact test of binomial distribution||||0.0027
91033568|NCT02255097|181953001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||exact binomial distribution|H0: p ≤ 0.05 versus H1: p \> 0.05||Analysis comparing the ORR for pembrolizumab to a fixed efficacy target of 5% using an exact test of binomial distribution||||<0.001
91033569|NCT02255097|181953002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||exact binomial distribution|H0: p ≤ 0.05 versus H1: p \> 0.05||Analysis comparing the ORR for pembrolizumab to a fixed efficacy target of 5% using an exact test of binomial distribution||||<0.001
91033570|NCT02255097|181953003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||exact binomial distribution|H0: p ≤ 0.05 versus H1: p \> 0.05||Analysis comparing the ORR for pembrolizumab to a fixed efficacy target of 5% using an exact test of binomial distribution||||<0.001
91033571|NCT04239872|181953013|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.00778||||0.8412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09209|0.07653||The threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was used; there were 11 pairs of data, DF=10|Treatment difference of transformed (log10) data = Calcium mouthwash before fluoride mouthwash - Fluoride mouthwash|A paired t-test was used to compare the two groups. To obtain normal distribution, data used in the statistical analysis were transformed to the log10.||0.07653|-0.09209|0.8412
91033572|NCT04239872|181953014|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06907||||0.6504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3955|0.2573||The threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was used; there were 12 pairs of data, DF=11|Treatment difference of transformed (log10) data = Calcium mouthwash before fluoride mouthwash - Fluoride mouthwash|A paired t-test was used to compare the two groups. To obtain normal distribution, data used in the statistical analysis were transformed to the log10.||0.2573|-0.3955|0.6504
91033573|NCT04239872|181953015|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5307||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2372|0.8243||The threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was used; there were 11 pairs of data, DF=10|Treatment difference of transformed (log10) data = Calcium mouthwash before fluoride mouthwash - Fluoride mouthwash|A paired t-test was used to compare the two groups. To obtain normal distribution, data used in the statistical analysis were transformed to the log10.||0.8243|0.2372|0.0024
91033574|NCT04239872|181953016|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5643||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2938|0.8348||The threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was used; there were 9 pairs of data, DF=8|Treatment difference of transformed (log10) data = Calcium mouthwash before fluoride mouthwash - Fluoride mouthwash|A paired t-test was used to compare the two groups. To obtain normal distribution, data used in the statistical analysis were transformed to the log10.||0.8348|0.2938|0.0013
91033575|NCT04239872|181953017|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1135||||0.2041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2964|0.06929||The threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was used; there were 15 pairs of data, DF=14|Treatment difference of transformed (log10) data = Calcium mouthwash before fluoride mouthwash - Fluoride mouthwash|A paired t-test was used to compare the two groups. To obtain normal distribution, data used in the statistical analysis were transformed to the log10.||0.06929|-0.2964|0.2041
91033576|NCT04239872|181953018|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.095|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7736|1.416||The threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was used; there were 13 pairs of data, DF=12|Treatment difference of transformed (log10) data = Calcium mouthwash before fluoride mouthwash - Fluoride mouthwash|A paired t-test was used to compare the two groups. To obtain normal distribution, data used in the statistical analysis were transformed to the log10.||1.416|0.7736|<0.0001
91033577|NCT04239872|181953019|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.469|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.112|1.825||The threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was used; there were 13 pairs of data, DF=12|Treatment difference of transformed (log10) data = Calcium mouthwash before fluoride mouthwash - Fluoride mouthwash|A paired t-test was used to compare the two groups. To obtain normal distribution, data used in the statistical analysis were transformed to the log10.||1.825|1.112|<0.0001
91033578|NCT04239872|181953020|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.549|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.081|2.017||The threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was used; there were 14 pairs of data, DF=13|Treatment difference of transformed (log10) data = Calcium mouthwash before fluoride mouthwash - Fluoride mouthwash|A paired t-test was used to compare the two groups. To obtain normal distribution, data used in the statistical analysis were transformed to the log10.||2.017|1.081|<0.0001
90876706|NCT00853723|181615635|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations for this study were determined considering the expected effects of PTHrP (1-36) relative to PTH (1-34) on the primary endpoints of P1NP and CTX after 3 months of treatment relative to baseline using previously published data as weel as anticipated attrition rate.|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value corresponds to an increase compared to baseline in the PTHrP 600 group at D15 and D30|F-test, one way analysis of variance|The threshold for stastistical significance was p=0.05||||||<0.05
90876707|NCT00853723|181615635|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations for this study were determined considering the expected effects of PTHrP (1-36) relative to PTH (1-34) on the primary endpoints of P1NP and CTX after 3 months of treatment relative to baseline using previously published data as weel as anticipated attrition rate.|||||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|||||the reported p-value corresponds to change from baseline in the PTHrP 400 group at Day 15,30, 60 and 90 and the PTH group at day 90.|Kruskal-Wallis|the threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05||||||<0.005
90876708|NCT00853723|181615636|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations for this study were determined considering the expected effects of PTHrP (1-36) relative to PTH (1-34) on the primary endpoints of P1NP and CTX after 3 months of treatment relative to baseline using previously published data as weel as anticipated attrition rate. See primary outcomes.|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value corresponds the PTH group on Day 15 compared to the PTHrP 400 group and to the PTHrP 600 group at Day 30 and Day 60|Kruskal-Wallis|The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05||||||<0.05
90876709|NCT00853723|181615636|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations for this study were determined considering the expected effects of PTHrP (1-36) relative to PTH (1-34) on the primary endpoints of P1NP and CTX after 3 months of treatment relative to baseline using previously published data as weel as anticipated attrition rate.|||||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|||||Thre reported p-value correspond to the PTH group compared to the PTHrp 600 group at day 15|Kruskal-Wallis|the threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05||||||<0.0005
90876710|NCT05778786|181615665|SUPERIORITY|A superiority margin of 0.0 logMAR was used.|Least-Square Mean|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|||ONE_SIDED|95.0||-0.1|||Linear Mixed Model|||It was calculated using a 1-sided one sample mean t-test with a type I error rate of 0.025 that 9 subjects provide at least 99% statistical power to test for superiority.||-0.10||
90876711|NCT05778786|181615666|SUPERIORITY|A superiority margin of 62 points was used.|Least-quares mean|69.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.13|||ONE_SIDED|95.0|65.2||||Linear Mixed Model|||It was calculated using a 1-sided one sample mean t-test with a type I error rate of 0.025 that 165 subjects provide at least 99% statistical power to test for superiority.|||65.2|
91033579|NCT04239872|181953021|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-115.6||||0.5543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-584.8|353.6||The threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was used; there were 6 pairs of data, DF=5|Treatment difference = Calcium mouthwash before fluoride mouthwash - Fluoride mouthwash|A paired t-test was used to compare the two groups.||353.6|-584.8|0.5543
91033580|NCT04239872|181953022|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.328||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.842|1.814||The threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was used; there were 8 pairs of data, DF=7|Treatment difference of transformed (log10) data = Calcium mouthwash before fluoride mouthwash - Fluoride mouthwash|A paired t-test was used to compare the two groups. To obtain normal distribution, data used in the statistical analysis were transformed to the log10.||1.814|0.8420|0.0003
91033581|NCT04239872|181953023|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09023||||0.2824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2613|0.08082||The threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was used; there were 19 pairs of data, DF=18|Treatment difference of transformed (log10) data = Calcium mouthwash before fluoride mouthwash - Fluoride mouthwash|A paired t-test was used to compare the two groups. To obtain normal distribution, data used in the statistical analysis were transformed to the log10.||0.08082|-0.2613|0.2824
91033582|NCT04239872|181953024|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6269||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3488|0.905||The threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was used; there were 17 pairs of data, DF=16|Treatment difference of transformed (log10) data = Calcium mouthwash before fluoride mouthwash - Fluoride mouthwash|A paired t-test was used to compare the two groups. To obtain normal distribution, data used in the statistical analysis were transformed to the log10.||0.9050|0.3488|0.0002
90876712|NCT05778786|181615667|SUPERIORITY|A superiority margin of 0.80 was used|Mean Central Posterior Proportion|0.974|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.01|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|0.989|||Bayesian beta- binomial model|Method used is Bayesian beta- binomial model for correlated binary data||It was calculated using a Bayesian beta-binomial model for correlated data with a reference rate of 0.99 and an intraclass correlation of 0.70, that 100 subjects were required to test for superiority to achieve a minimum statistical power of 99% with 95% central posterior credible interval.||0.989|0.950|
90876713|NCT05778786|181615668|SUPERIORITY|A superiority margin of 0.80 was used|Mean Central Posterior Proportion|0.989|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0054|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.976|0.997|||Bayesian beta-binomial model|Method used is Bayesian beta- binomial model for correlated binary data||It was calculated using a Bayesian beta-binomial model for correlated data with a reference rate of 0.99 and an intraclass correlation of 0.70, that 100 subjects were required to test for superiority to achieve a minimum statistical power of 99% with 95% central posterior credible interval.||0.997|0.976|
90876714|NCT05778786|181615669|SUPERIORITY|A superiority margin of 0.80 was used|Mean Central Posterior Proportion|0.989|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0053|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.977|0.997|||Bayesian beta- binomial model|Method used is Bayesian beta- binomial model for correlated binary data||It was calculated using a Bayesian beta-binomial model for correlated data with a reference rate of 0.99 and an intraclass correlation of 0.70, that 100 subjects were required to test for superiority to achieve a minimum statistical power of 99% with 95% central posterior credible interval.||0.997|0.977|
90876715|NCT05778786|181615670|SUPERIORITY|A superiority margin of 0.05 was used.|Mean Central Posterior Proportion|0.003|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0028|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.01|||Bayesian beta-binomial model|Bayesian beta- binomial model for correlated binary data||It was calculated using a Bayesian beta-binomial model for correlated data with a reference rate of 0.01 and an intraclass correlation of 0.70, that 100 subjects were required to test for superiority to achieve a minimum statistical power of 99% with 95% central posterior credible Interval.||0.010|0.000|
90915616|NCT04714320|181701717|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.618||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 92||||=0.618
90915617|NCT04714320|181701717|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.363||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2)) and treatment received are included in the Van Elteren model as independent variables.|Van Elteren|||Change from Baseline at Day 106||||=0.363
90915618|NCT04714320|181701717|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.125||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2)) and treatment received are included in the Van Elteren model as independent variables.|Van Elteren|||Change from Baseline at Day 106||||=0.125
90915619|NCT04714320|181701717|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.435||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 120||||=0.435
90915620|NCT04714320|181701717|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.413||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 120||||=0.413
90915621|NCT04714320|181701717|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.658||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 148||||=0.658
90915622|NCT04714320|181701717|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.275||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 148||||=0.275
90915623|NCT04714320|181701717|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.578||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 169||||=0.578
90915624|NCT04714320|181701717|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.114||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 169||||=0.114
90915625|NCT04714320|181701718|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.378||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 8||||=0.378
90915626|NCT04714320|181701718|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.648||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 8||||=0.648
90915627|NCT04714320|181701718|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.961||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 15||||=0.961
90915628|NCT04714320|181701718|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.817||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 15||||=0.817
90915629|NCT04714320|181701718|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.823||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 22||||=0.823
90915630|NCT04714320|181701718|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.362||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 22||||=0.362
90915631|NCT04714320|181701718|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.66||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 29||||=0.660
90915632|NCT04714320|181701718|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.539||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 29||||=0.539
90876716|NCT05778786|181615671|SUPERIORITY|A superiority margin of 58 points was used.|Least-squares Mean|66.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.48|||ONE_SIDED|95.0|61.2||||Linear Mixed Model|||It was calculated using a 1-sided one sample mean t-test with a type I error rate of 0.025 that 135 subjects provide at least 97% statistical power to test for superiority.|||61.2|
90876717|NCT05778786|181615672|SUPERIORITY|A superiority margin of 61 points was used.|Least-squares Mean|69.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.66|||ONE_SIDED|95.0|66.6||||Linear Mixed Model|||It was calculated using a 1-sided one sample mean t-test with a type I error rate of 0.025 that 135 subjects provide at least 97% statistical power to test for superiority.|||66.6|
90876718|NCT01787175|181615673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in time to complete A&P|-17.73||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.24|-0.23|||Mixed-effects linear model|||Null hypothesis: Participants will require the same amount of time to complete assessments and plans using either IMM or CPRS. Power calculation: With 2 replications per subject, and assuming an ICC of 0.15, a two-sided alpha 0.05 comparison adjusted for 5 multiple comparisons (adjusted alpha = 0.01), and power of 80%, an N of 32 clinicians was required for each group (32 using IMM, and 32 using CPRS).||-0.23|-35.24|0.047
90876719|NCT01787175|181615674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Value of problem scores for A&P complete|0.04||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.09|||Mixed-effects linear model|||Null hypothesis: Participants will receive the same scores for assessments and plans completed using either IMM or CPRS. Power calculation: With 2 replications per subject, and assuming an ICC of 0.15, a two-sided alpha 0.05 comparison adjusted for 5 multiple comparisons (adjusted alpha = 0.01), and power of 80%, an N of 32 clinicians was required for each group (32 using IMM, and 32 using CPRS).||0.09|-0.01|0.15
90876720|NCT01787175|181615675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|2.98|||Regression, Logistic|||Null hypothesis: Participants will receive the same proportion of acceptable scores for assessments and plans completed using either IMM or CPRS. Power calculation: With 2 replications per subject, and assuming an ICC of 0.15, a two-sided alpha 0.05 comparison adjusted for 5 multiple comparisons (adjusted alpha = 0.01), and power of 80%, an N of 32 clinicians was required for each group (32 using IMM, and 32 using CPRS).||2.98|1.22|0.005
90876721|NCT02867709|181615676|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.0285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|2.22||P-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons across primary and secondary endpoints and multiple doses.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, historical triptan response, medication use for migraine prevention, baseline headache severity were explanatory variables in model.||||2.22|1.09|0.0285
90876722|NCT02867709|181615676|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.62||||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|2.29||P-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons across primary and secondary endpoints and multiple doses.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, historical triptan response, medication use for migraine prevention, baseline headache severity were explanatory variables in model.||||2.29|1.14|0.0129
90876723|NCT02867709|181615677|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.0711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.83||P-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons across primary and secondary endpoints and multiple doses.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, historical triptan response, migraine prevention medication, baseline headache severity, underlying symptom as explanatory variables.||||1.83|1.02|0.0711
90876724|NCT02867709|181615677|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.65||||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|2.2||P-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons across primary and secondary endpoints and multiple doses.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, historical triptan response, migraine prevention medication, baseline headache severity, underlying symptom as explanatory variables.||||2.20|1.25|0.0129
90876725|NCT02867709|181615678|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.65||||0.0711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|2.17||P-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons across primary and secondary endpoints and multiple doses.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, historical triptan response, medication use for migraine prevention, baseline headache severity were explanatory variables in model.||||2.17|1.25|0.0711
91033583|NCT04239872|181953025|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8946|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6671|1.122||The threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was used; there were 17 pairs of data, DF=16|Treatment difference of transformed (log10) data = Calcium mouthwash before fluoride mouthwash - Fluoride mouthwash|A paired t-test was used to compare the two groups. To obtain normal distribution, data used in the statistical analysis were transformed to the log10.||1.122|0.6671|<0.0001
90876726|NCT02867709|181615678|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77||||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|2.32||P-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons across primary and secondary endpoints and multiple doses.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, historical triptan response, medication use for migraine prevention, baseline headache severity were explanatory variables in model.||||2.32|1.35|0.0129
90876727|NCT02867709|181615679|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.82||||0.0711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|2.48||P-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons across primary and secondary endpoints and multiple doses.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, historical triptan response, medication use for migraine prevention, baseline headache severity were explanatory variables in model.||||2.48|1.33|0.0711
90876728|NCT02867709|181615679|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.16||||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|2.92||P-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons across primary and secondary endpoints and multiple doses.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, historical triptan response, medication use for migraine prevention, baseline headache severity were explanatory variables in model.||||2.92|1.59|0.0129
90876729|NCT02867709|181615680|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.62||||0.0711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|2.53||P-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons across primary and secondary endpoints and multiple doses.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, historical triptan response, medication use for migraine prevention, baseline headache severity were explanatory variables in model.||||2.53|1.04|0.0711
90876730|NCT02867709|181615680|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.85||||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.83||P-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons across primary and secondary endpoints and multiple doses.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, historical triptan response, medication use for migraine prevention, baseline headache severity were explanatory variables in model.||||2.83|1.20|0.0129
90876731|NCT02867709|181615681|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28||||0.1833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.72||P-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons across primary and secondary endpoints and multiple doses.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, historical triptan response, migraine prevention medication, baseline headache severity, photophobia were explanatory variables.||||1.72|0.96|0.1833
90876732|NCT02867709|181615681|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.52||||0.0167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|2.02||P-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons across primary and secondary endpoints and multiple doses.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, historical triptan response, migraine prevention medication, baseline headache severity, photophobia were explanatory variables.||||2.02|1.14|0.0167
90876733|NCT02867709|181615682|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.1066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.83||P-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons across primary and secondary endpoints and multiple doses.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, historical triptan response, migraine prevention medication, baseline headache severity, phonophobia were explanatory variables.||||1.83|1.04|0.1066
90876734|NCT02867709|181615682|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.84||P-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons across primary and secondary endpoints and multiple doses.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, historical triptan response, migraine prevention medication, baseline headache severity, phonophobia were explanatory variables.||||1.84|1.05|0.0440
90876735|NCT02867709|181615683|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.9522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.49||P-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons across primary and secondary endpoints and multiple doses.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, historical triptan response, migraine prevention medication, baseline headache severity, nausea were explanatory variables.||||1.49|0.81|0.9522
90876736|NCT02867709|181615683|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.9522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.51||P-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons across primary and secondary endpoints and multiple doses.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, historical triptan response, migraine prevention medication, baseline headache severity, nausea were explanatory variables.||||1.51|0.83|0.9522
90876737|NCT01252940|181615723|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference between treatment groups in the percentages of virologic success was constructed using normal approximation. Noninferiority was assessed using a conventional 95% CI approach, with a noninferiority margin of 12%. It would be concluded that the FTC/RPV/TDF STR group was not inferior to the SBR group if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference (FTC/RPV/TDF STR - SBR) in the response rate was greater than -12%.|Mean Difference (Net)|3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|9.1||||||||9.1|-1.6|
90876738|NCT03939897|181615768|OTHER|This test is used to compare the survival distributions of different groups in a survival analysis. It's a nonparametric test.||||||0.506|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.5060
90876739|NCT03939897|181615771|OTHER|This test is used to compare the survival distributions of different groups in a survival analysis. It's a nonparametric test.||||||0.2989|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.2989
90876740|NCT03971695|181615816|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio(%)|100.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.18|111.48|||||Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variance (gCV) = 14.2. Ratio is T1/R.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects nested within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'. Confidence intervals were calculated based on the residual error from the ANOVA.||111.48|90.18|
91033584|NCT04239872|181953026|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.973|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7597|1.186||The threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was used; there were 18 pairs of data, DF=17|Treatment difference of transformed (log10) data = Calcium mouthwash before fluoride mouthwash - Fluoride mouthwash|A paired t-test was used to compare the two groups. To obtain normal distribution, data used in the statistical analysis were transformed to the log10.||1.186|0.7597|<0.0001
90876741|NCT03971695|181615816|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio(%)|91.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.37|98.35|||||Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variance (gCV) = 9.5. Ratio is T2/T1.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects nested within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'. Confidence intervals were calculated based on the residual error from the ANOVA.||98.35|85.37|
90876742|NCT03971695|181615817|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio(%)|98.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.2|114.08|||||Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variance (gCV) = 20.5. Ratio is T1/R.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects nested within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'. Confidence intervals were calculated based on the residual error from the ANOVA.||114.08|84.20|
90915633|NCT04714320|181701718|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.43||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 36||||=0.430
90915634|NCT04714320|181701718|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.594||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 36||||=0.594
90915635|NCT04714320|181701718|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.783||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 43||||=0.783
90915636|NCT04714320|181701718|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.599||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 43||||=0.599
90915637|NCT04714320|181701718|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.454||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 50||||=0.454
90915638|NCT04714320|181701718|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.394||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 50||||=0.394
90915639|NCT04714320|181701718|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.93||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 57||||=0.930
90915640|NCT04714320|181701718|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.313||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 57||||=0.313
90915641|NCT04714320|181701718|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.276||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 64||||=0.276
90915642|NCT04714320|181701718|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.168||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 64||||=0.168
90961266|NCT02021292|181803528|SUPERIORITY||ratio of geometric means|0.84||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.99|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on log-transformed % of baseline PVR at Week 16 adjusted by treatment as a factor and log transformed PVR at baseline as a covariate.||The null hypothesis (change of PVR at rest in Week 16 in percent of baseline PVR in subjects treated with placebo or macitentan is the same) is tested on the primary endpoint by means of an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the log(e) transformed % of baseline PVR at rest at Week 16.||0.99|0.70|0.0410
90961267|NCT02021292|181803529|SUPERIORITY||least squares (LS) mean difference|34.04||||0.0326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|65.2||To control multiplicity across all endpoints, secondary endpoints were analyzed in sequence using hierarchical approach based on order and significance as pre-specified in protocol eliminating further adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline in 6MWD at Week 24 is the same in the placebo and the macitentan group. Statistical model is ANCOVA including 6MWD at baseline as a covariate, with treatment as factor in the model.||65.2|2.9|0.0326
91033585|NCT04239872|181953027|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9827|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7758|1.19||The threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was used; there were 18 pairs of data, DF=17|Treatment difference of transformed (log10) data = Calcium mouthwash before fluoride mouthwash - Fluoride mouthwash|A paired t-test was used to compare the two groups. To obtain normal distribution, data used in the statistical analysis were transformed to the log10.||1.19|0.7758|<0.0001
91033586|NCT04239872|181953028|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9181|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6573|1.179||The threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was used; there were 19 pairs of data, DF=18|Treatment difference of transformed (log10) data = Calcium mouthwash before fluoride mouthwash - Fluoride mouthwash|A paired t-test was used to compare the two groups. To obtain normal distribution, data used in the statistical analysis were transformed to the log10.||1.179|0.6573|<0.0001
91033587|NCT04239872|181953033|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05652||||0.3283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1762|0.06829||The threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was used; there were 15 pairs of data, DF=14|Treatment difference of transformed (log10) data = Calcium mouthwash before fluoride mouthwash - Fluoride mouthwash|A paired t-test was used to compare the two groups. To obtain normal distribution, data used in the statistical analysis were transformed to the log10.||0.06829|-0.1762|0.3283
91033588|NCT04239872|181953034|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3411||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1189|0.5633||The threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was used; there were 13 pairs of data, DF=12|Treatment difference of transformed (log10) data = Calcium mouthwash before fluoride mouthwash - Fluoride mouthwash|A paired t-test was used to compare the two groups. To obtain normal distribution, data used in the statistical analysis were transformed to the log10.||0.5633|0.1189|0.0058
90915643|NCT04714320|181701718|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.199||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 71||||=0.199
91077997|NCT02542293|182041271|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.614|1.251|||||The HR and CI were calculated using an unstratified Cox proportional hazards model, with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"tTMB ≥10 mut/Mb analysis set: Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy to be associated with a longer OS than SoC."||1.251|0.614|
91077998|NCT02542293|182041271|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.564|1.08|||||The HR and CI were calculated using an unstratified Cox proportional hazards model, with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"tTMB ≥8 mut/Mb analysis set: Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy to be associated with a longer OS than SoC."||1.080|0.564|
90876743|NCT03971695|181615817|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio(%)|77.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|68.11|88.22|||||Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variance (gCV) = 17.4. Ratio is T2/T1.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects nested within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'. Confidence intervals were calculated based on the residual error from the ANOVA.||88.22|68.11|
90876744|NCT03971695|181615821|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio(%)|96.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.96|106.9|||||Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variance (gCV) = 13.9. Ratio is T1/R.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects nested within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'. Confidence intervals were calculated based on the residual error from the ANOVA.||106.90|86.96|
90876745|NCT03971695|181615821|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio(%)|91.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.4|97.54|||||Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variance (gCV) = 8.9. Ratio is T2/T1.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects nested within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'. Confidence intervals were calculated based on the residual error from the ANOVA.||97.54|85.40|
90876746|NCT01881230|181615824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.692||||0.0183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.089|2.629|||Log Rank|||For stratified analysis, the stratified log-rank test and stratified Cox proportional hazards model were used, where the stratification factor is the disease free interval (\<= 1 year; \> 1 year).||2.629|1.089|0.0183
90876747|NCT01881230|181615824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.581||||0.0152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.373|0.904|||Log Rank|||For stratified analysis, the stratified log-rank test and stratified Cox proportional hazards model were used, where the stratification factor is the disease free interval (\<= 1 year; \> 1 year).||0.904|0.373|0.0152
90876748|NCT01881230|181615824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.039||||0.8599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.676|1.597|||Log Rank|||For stratified analysis, the stratified log-rank test and stratified Cox proportional hazards model were used, where the stratification factor is the disease free interval (\<= 1 year; \> 1 year).||1.597|0.676|0.8599
90876749|NCT01881230|181615827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.375||||0.1579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.882|2.143|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratios and associated two-sided 95% confidence intervals were estimated using stratified Cox proportional hazard model. The stratification factor is the disease free interval (≤ 1 year; \> 1 year).||2.143|0.882|0.1579
91033589|NCT04239872|181953035|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2976||||0.0213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05266|0.5426||The threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was used; there were 13 pairs of data, DF=12|Treatment difference of transformed (log10) data = Calcium mouthwash before fluoride mouthwash - Fluoride mouthwash|A paired t-test was used to compare the two groups. To obtain normal distribution, data used in the statistical analysis were transformed to the log10.||0.5426|0.05266|0.0213
91033590|NCT04239872|181953036|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.312||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07454|0.5495||The threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was used; there were 14 pairs of data, DF=13|Treatment difference of transformed (log10) data = Calcium mouthwash before fluoride mouthwash - Fluoride mouthwash|A paired t-test was used to compare the two groups. To obtain normal distribution, data used in the statistical analysis were transformed to the log10.||0.5495|0.07454|0.014
90876750|NCT01881230|181615827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.796||||0.2945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.221|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratios and associated two-sided 95% confidence intervals were estimated using stratified Cox proportional hazard model. The stratification factor is the disease free interval (≤ 1 year; \> 1 year).||1.221|0.520|0.2945
90876751|NCT01881230|181615827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.101||||0.6691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.708|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratios and associated two-sided 95% confidence intervals were estimated using stratified Cox proportional hazard model. The stratification factor is the disease free interval (≤ 1 year; \> 1 year).||1.708|0.710|0.6691
90876752|NCT01925404|181615837|SUPERIORITY|We fitted difference-in-differences (DID) models between the two measurement waves and four study arms. The effect of the intervention was modeled as the wave by study arm interaction. All models used random effects to account for intra-class correlation within each park as well as fixed effects to account for observation times (time of day, weekend versus weekdays).||||||0.0063||||||Significance threshold. p=0.05|negative binomial distribution|||Comparison of change from baseline;||||.0063
90876753|NCT00706641|181615841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Tumor samples from 20 patients were analyzed for expression of pSFK. A paired t-Test was used to calculate the significance of the difference in expression levels before and after treatment.||||0.003
90876754|NCT00706641|181615844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||||||0.20
90876755|NCT00706641|181615845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||||||0.42
90876756|NCT01327300|181615872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.72||||0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The GIS scoring system is from 1-7 with one being a worse outcome and 7 the better outcome.~Comparisons below list the p values for comparison of difference in GIS between baseline and mesalamine."||||.001
90876757|NCT01327300|181615872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.22||||0.008||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparisons of mean difference in GIS scores between baseline and placebo is made below.||||0.008
91033591|NCT04239872|181953037|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2524||||0.1393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09153|0.5962||The threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was used; there were 17 pairs of data, DF=16|Treatment difference = Calcium mouthwash before fluoride mouthwash - Fluoride mouthwash|A paired t-test was used to compare the two groups.||0.5962|-0.09153|0.1393
90876758|NCT01327300|181615873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.873|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Correlation coefficients were used for each of three biomarkers in relation to other biomarkers and to the questionnaires and patient's symptoms.||||0.873
90915644|NCT04714320|181701718|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.506||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 71||||=0.506
90876759|NCT01327300|181615873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Pearson's linear coefficient||The study tested three biomarkers and symptom domains at baseline and the end of 12 weeks of placebo using the Mann-Whitney test, as well as correlations between domains with Pearson's linear correlation coefficient.||||0.810
90876760|NCT01327300|181615874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.5||||0.67|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Two-tailed P values are listed for baseline versus 12 weeks of mesalamine||"The FBDSI score is based on the severity of abdominal pian. Severity is rated as the following:~None= 0 points Mild= (1-36) Moderate =(37-110) Severe= (\>110 points)"||||0.67
90876761|NCT01327300|181615874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.0||||0.77|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||See prior description of the FBDSI score. Change in the FBDSI after 12 weeks of intervention is made using a two sided t-test.||||0.77
90876762|NCT01327300|181615875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.0||||0.61|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||For the IBS QOL we compared the change in IBS-Quality of Life (IBS-QOL) after 12 weeks of mesalamine.||||0.61
90876763|NCT01327300|181615875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.2||||0.33|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of change in IBS-Quality of Life (IBS-QOL)from baseline after 12 weeks of intervention was made.||||0.33
90876764|NCT01327300|181615876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.71||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of the change in HADS score of baseline to 12 weeks of mesalamine is made.||||0.71
90876765|NCT01327300|181615876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4||||0.57||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of change in HADS score between baseline and after 12 weeks of placebo is made.||||0.57
90876766|NCT01327300|181615877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of the lactulose/mannitol ratio is made after a 12 week intervention with mesalamine to 12 weeks of placebo.||||0.55
90876767|NCT02603432|181615878|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.556|0.863||One-sided log-rank test was used.|Log Rank|Analysis was performed using a Cox's Proportional Hazard model.||||0.863|0.556|0.0005
90876768|NCT02603432|181615901|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.26||||0.913|ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.901||||Log Rank||||||0.901|0.9130
90876769|NCT02666183|181615904|OTHER||Estimated marginal mean difference|-2.251||||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.051|0.55|||ANCOVA|Covariates: DCG age, gender, race, income||||0.550|-5.051|0.162
90876770|NCT02666183|181615904|OTHER||Estimated marginal mean difference|-3.663||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.538|-0.789|||ANCOVA|Covariates: DCG age, gender, race, income||||-0.789|-6.538|0.007
90915645|NCT04714320|181701718|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.32||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 78||||=0.320
90915646|NCT04714320|181701718|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.25||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 78||||=0.250
90915647|NCT04714320|181701718|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.373||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 85||||=0.373
90915648|NCT04714320|181701718|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.597||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 85||||=0.597
90876771|NCT02666183|181615904|OTHER||Estimated marginal mean difference|-1.413||||0.714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.29|1.464|||ANCOVA|Covariates: DCG age, gender, race, income||||1.464|-4.290|0.714
90876772|NCT02666183|181615905|OTHER||Estimated marginal mean difference|-0.531||||0.173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.297|0.234|||ANCOVA|Covariates: DCG age, gender, race, income||||0.234|-1.297|0.173
90876773|NCT02666183|181615905|OTHER||Estimated marginal mean difference|-1.456||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.241|-0.671|||ANCOVA|Covariates: DCG age, gender, race, income||||-0.671|-2.241|0.001
90876774|NCT02666183|181615905|OTHER||Estimated marginal mean difference|-0.925||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.711|-0.139|||ANCOVA|Covariates: DCG age, gender, race, income||||-0.139|-1.711|0.021
90876775|NCT02666183|181615906|OTHER||Estimated marginal mean difference|-0.984||||0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.939|0.971|||ANCOVA|Covariates: DCG age, gender, race, income||||0.971|-2.939|0.323
91033592|NCT04239872|181953038|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2921||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1414|0.4427||The threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was used; there were 16 pairs of data, DF=15|Treatment difference of transformed (log10) data = Calcium mouthwash before fluoride mouthwash - Fluoride mouthwash|A paired t-test was used to compare the two groups. To obtain normal distribution, data used in the statistical analysis were transformed to the log10.||0.4427|0.1414|0.0009
90876776|NCT02666183|181615906|OTHER||Estimated marginal mean difference|-1.768||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.785|0.249|||ANCOVA|Covariates: DCG age, gender, race, income||||0.249|-3.785|0.086
90876777|NCT02666183|181615906|OTHER||Estimated marginal mean difference|-0.784||||0.443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.794|1.226|||ANCOVA|Covariates: DCG age, gender, race, income||||1.226|-2.794|0.443
90876778|NCT00666757|181615907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Categorical, pseudo-likelihood-based repeated measures approach (MMRM-CAT). The analysis will contrast the remission rates at 12 week endpoint between treatment groups.||||0.26
90915649|NCT04714320|181701718|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.867||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 92||||=0.867
90915650|NCT04714320|181701718|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 92||||=0.500
90915651|NCT04714320|181701718|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.863||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 106||||=0.863
90915652|NCT04714320|181701718|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.681||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 106||||=0.681
90915653|NCT04714320|181701718|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.262||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 120||||=0.262
90915654|NCT04714320|181701718|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.645||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 120||||=0.645
90915655|NCT04714320|181701718|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.947||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 148||||=0.947
90915656|NCT04714320|181701718|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.665||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 148||||=0.665
90876779|NCT00666757|181615908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Repeated Measures Analysis.Treatment comparisons will include the contrast between treatment groups at 12-week endpoint.||||0.07
90876780|NCT00666757|181615909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Categorical, pseudo-likelihood-based repeated measures approach (MMRM-CAT). Repeated Measures Analysis. The analysis will contrast the remission remission rates at 12-week endpoint.||||0.03
91033593|NCT04239872|181953039|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2433||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1195|0.3671||The threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was used; there were 16 pairs of data, DF=15|Treatment difference of transformed (log10) data = Calcium mouthwash before fluoride mouthwash - Fluoride mouthwash|A paired t-test was used to compare the two groups. To obtain normal distribution, data used in the statistical analysis were transformed to the log10.||0.3671|0.1195|0.0008
90876781|NCT00666757|181615910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Categorical, pseudo-likelihood-based repeated measures approach (MMRM-CAT). The analysis will contrast the response rates at 12-week endpoint.||||0.09
90876782|NCT00666757|181615911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Categorical, pseudo-likelihood-based repeated measures approach (MMRM-CAT). The analysis will contrast the response rates at 12-week endpoint.||||0.001
90876783|NCT00666757|181615912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Repeated Measures Analysis. Treatment comparisons will include the contrast between treatment groups at 12-Week endpoint.||||0.002
90876784|NCT00666757|181615913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Repeated Measures Analysis. Treatment comparisons will include the contrast between treatment groups at 12-Week endpoint.||||0.001
90876785|NCT00666757|181615914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Repeated Measures Analysis. Treatment comparisons will include the contrast between treatment groups at 12-Week endpoint.||||0.003
90876786|NCT00666757|181615915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Repeated Measures Analysis.Treatment comparisons will include the contrast between treatment groups at 12-Week endpoint.||||0.01
90876787|NCT00666757|181615916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Repeated Measures Analysis. Treatment comparisons will include the contrast between treatment groups at 12-Week endpoint.||||0.02
90876788|NCT00666757|181615917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Repeated Measures Analysis. Treatment comparisons will include the contrast between treatment groups at 12-Week endpoint.||||0.20
90876789|NCT00666757|181615918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Only those patients who had at least moderate pain at baseline (defined as baseline BPI Average 24-Hour Pain Score greater than or equal to 3). Repeated Measures Analysis. Treatment comparisons will include the contrast between treatment groups at 12-Week endpoint.||||0.03
90876790|NCT00666757|181615919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Repeated Measures Analysis. Treatment comparisons will include the contrast between treatment groups at 12-Week endpoint.||||0.03
90876791|NCT00666757|181615920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Repeated Measures Analysis. Treatment comparisons will include the contrast between treatment groups at 12-Week endpoint.||||0.002
90876792|NCT00666757|181615921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Repeated Measures Analysis. Treatment comparisons will include the contrast between treatment groups at endpoint.||||0.01
90876793|NCT00666757|181615922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07||95.0||||Between group P-value|ANCOVA|||||||0.07
91033594|NCT04239872|181953040|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3306||||0.1515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1356|0.7969||The threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was used; there were 16 pairs of data, DF=15|Treatment difference = Calcium mouthwash before fluoride mouthwash - Fluoride mouthwash|A paired t-test was used to compare the two groups.||0.7969|-0.1356|0.1515
91033595|NCT04239872|181953041|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04851||||0.1712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02327|0.1203||The threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was used; there were 17 pairs of data, DF=16|Treatment difference of transformed (log10) data = Calcium mouthwash before fluoride mouthwash - Fluoride mouthwash|A paired t-test was used to compare the two groups. To obtain normal distribution, data used in the statistical analysis were transformed to the log10.||0.1203|-0.02327|0.1712
90876794|NCT00666757|181615923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34||95.0||||Between group P-value|ANCOVA|||||||0.34
90876795|NCT00666757|181615924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Repeated Measures Analysis. Treatment comparisons will include the contrast between treatment groups at endpoint.||||0.02
90876796|NCT00666757|181615925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Repeated Measures Analysis. Treatment comparisons will include the contrast between treatment groups at endpoint.||||0.01
90876797|NCT00666757|181615926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Repeated Measures Analysis. Treatment comparisons will include the contrast between treatment groups at endpoint.||||0.97
90876798|NCT00666757|181615927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Repeated Measures Analysis. Treatment comparisons will include the contrast between treatment groups at endpoint.||||0.32
90876799|NCT00666757|181615928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12||95.0||||Between group P-value|ANCOVA|||Transformed absolute score||||0.12
90876800|NCT00666757|181615929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16||95.0||||Between group P-value|ANCOVA|||Transformed Absolute Score||||0.16
91033596|NCT04239872|181953042|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2789||||0.1188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07934|0.6371||The threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was used; there were 18 pairs of data, DF=17|Treatment difference = Calcium mouthwash before fluoride mouthwash - Fluoride mouthwash|A paired t-test was used to compare the two groups.||0.6371|-0.07934|0.1188
90876801|NCT00666757|181615930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Repeated Measures Analysis. Treatment comparisons will include the contrast between treatment groups at endpoint.||||0.002
90876802|NCT00666757|181615931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Repeated Measures Analysis. Treatment comparisons will include the contrast between treatment groups at endpoint.||||0.53
90876803|NCT01231581|181615932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.32|||Log Rank||Hazard ratios are estimated using a Pike estimator.|||1.32|0.66|0.352
90876804|NCT01649375|181615957|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.82||||0.0967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|3.67|||Regression, Logistic|Missing ASAS responses considered nonresponders||||3.67|0.90|0.0967
90876805|NCT01649375|181615957|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.14|8.96|||Regression, Logistic|Missing ASAS responses considered nonresponders||||8.96|2.14|<.0001
91033597|NCT04239872|181953043|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8956|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7205|1.071||The threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was used; there were 14 pairs of data, DF=13|Treatment difference of transformed (log10) data = Calcium mouthwash before fluoride mouthwash - Fluoride mouthwash|A paired t-test was used to compare the two groups. To obtain normal distribution, data used in the statistical analysis were transformed to the log10.||1.071|0.7205|<0.0001
90876806|NCT01649375|181615958|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.99||||0.0194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|7.48|||Regression, Logistic|Missing ASAS responses considered nonresponders||||7.48|1.19|0.0194
90876807|NCT01649375|181615958|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.07|||<|0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.06|12.44|||Regression, Logistic|Missing ASAS responses considered nonresponders||||12.44|2.06|<.0004
90876808|NCT01649375|181615959|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.71|0.41|<0.0001
90876809|NCT01649375|181615959|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.64|0.37|<0.0001
90876810|NCT01649375|181615960|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.13||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.31|16.26|||Regression, Logistic|Missing ASAS responses considered nonresponders||||16.26|2.31|0.0003
90876811|NCT01649375|181615960|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.47|24.12|||Regression, Logistic|Missing ASAS responses considered nonresponders||||24.12|3.47|<.0001
90876812|NCT01649375|181615961|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.353|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|-0.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.37|-1.77|<0.0001
90876813|NCT01649375|181615961|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.353||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|-0.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.65|-2.04|0.0002
90876814|NCT01649375|181615962|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.108||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|5.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.03|0.66|0.0110
90876815|NCT01649375|181615962|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.105||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.96|6.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.32|1.96|0.0002
90876816|NCT01649375|181615963|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.748||0.0096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.43|-0.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.48|-3.43|0.0096
90876817|NCT01649375|181615963|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.743||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.09|-1.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.16|-4.09|0.0005
91033598|NCT04239872|181953045|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3199||||0.0475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004686|0.6351||The threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was used; there were 8 pairs of data, DF=7|Treatment difference of transformed (log10) data = Calcium mouthwash before fluoride mouthwash - Fluoride mouthwash|A paired t-test was used to compare the two groups. To obtain normal distribution, data used in the statistical analysis were transformed to the log10.||0.6351|0.004686|0.0475
91033599|NCT04239872|181953046|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|50.38||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.46|73.3||The threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was used; there were 13 pairs of data, DF=12|Treatment difference = Calcium mouthwash before fluoride mouthwash - Fluoride mouthwash|A paired t-test was used to compare the two groups.||73.30|27.46|0.0004
90876818|NCT01649375|181615964|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.28||||0.0325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|16.21|||Regression, Logistic|Missing ASAS responses considered nonresponders||||16.21|1.13|0.0325
90876819|NCT01649375|181615964|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.91||||0.0471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|15.01|||Regression, Logistic|Missing ASAS responses considered nonresponders||||15.01|1.02|0.0471
90876820|NCT01856790|181615965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Matched Pairs signed rank tests|||||||0.05
90876821|NCT01856790|181615966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon Matched Pairs signed rank tests|||||||0.002
90876822|NCT01856790|181615968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.97|||||||Wilcoxon Matched Pairs signed rank tests|||||||0.97
90876823|NCT01856790|181615972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon Matched Pairs signed rank tests|||||||.001
90876824|NCT01856790|181615973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon Matched Pairs signed rank tests|||||||0.005
90876825|NCT04091646|181615979|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.95|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.51|9.76|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification by pooled study site and baseline IGA per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data|Common OR stratified by pooled study site and baseline IGA per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|IGA Success at Week 8 Odds Ratio||9.76|2.51|<0.0001
90876826|NCT04091646|181615980|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.31||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|7.52|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification by pooled study site and baseline IGA per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data|Common OR stratified by pooled study site and baseline IGA per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|IGA Success at Week 2 Odds Ratio||7.52|1.46|0.0033
90876827|NCT04091646|181615980|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.78||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.94|7.38|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification by pooled study site and baseline IGA per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data|Common OR stratified by pooled study site and baseline IGA per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|IGA Success at Week 4 Odds Ratio||7.38|1.94|0.0002
90876828|NCT04091646|181615981|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 2 Erythema Score||||<0.0001
90876829|NCT04091646|181615981|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 4 Erythema Score||||<0.0001
90876830|NCT04091646|181615981|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 8 Erythema Score||||<0.0001
90876831|NCT04091646|181615982|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.05||||0.0065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.49|17.13|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification by pooled study site and baseline IGA per randomization with no imputation of missing data||Erythema Success at Week 2||17.13|1.49|0.0065
91033600|NCT03956862|181953051|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.9499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|7.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||GB001 vs. Placebo|||7.1|-7.6|0.9499
91033601|NCT03956862|181953052|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.6778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.2|||ANCOVA||GB001 vs. Placebo|||1.2|-1.8|0.6778
91033602|NCT03956862|181953053|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.7914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||GB001 vs. Placebo|||0.9|-0.7|0.7914
91033603|NCT03956862|181953054|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.944||||0.8916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|2.173|||Regression, Cox||GB001 vs Placebo|||2.173|0.410|0.8916
91033604|NCT03956862|181953055|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.191||||0.1635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.077|0.459|||Mixed Models Analysis||GB001 vs. Placebo|||0.459|-0.077|0.1635
91033605|NCT03956862|181953056|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.632||||0.1742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|1.544|||Mixed Models Analysis||GB001 vs. Placebo|||1.544|-0.280|0.1742
90876832|NCT04091646|181615982|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.36||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.15|13.38|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification by pooled study site and baseline IGA per randomization with no imputation of missing data||Erythema Success at Week 4||13.38|2.15|0.0002
90876833|NCT04091646|181615982|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.15||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|6.63|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification by pooled study site and baseline IGA per randomization with no imputation of missing data||Erythema Success at Week 8||6.63|1.50|0.0021
90876834|NCT04091646|181615983|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 2 Scaling Score||||<0.0001
90876835|NCT04091646|181615983|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 4 Scaling Score||||<0.0001
90876836|NCT04091646|181615983|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 8 Scaling Score||||<0.0001
90876837|NCT04091646|181615984|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.98||||0.0759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|4.33|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification by pooled study site and baseline IGA per randomization with no imputation of missing data|Common OR stratified by pooled study site and baseline IGA per randomization with no imputation of missing data.|Scaling Success at Week 2||4.33|0.90|0.0759
90876838|NCT04091646|181615984|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.33||||0.0122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|4.61|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification by pooled study site and baseline IGA per randomization with no imputation of missing data|Common OR stratified by pooled study site and baseline IGA per randomization with no imputation of missing data.|Scaling Success at Week 4||4.61|1.18|0.0122
90876839|NCT04091646|181615984|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.37||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.74|6.55|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification by pooled study site and baseline IGA per randomization with no imputation of missing data|Common OR stratified by pooled study site and baseline IGA per randomization with no imputation of missing data.|Scaling Success at Week 8||6.55|1.74|0.0003
91033606|NCT03956862|181953057|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9||||0.4851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|3.4|||ANCOVA||GB001 vs. Placebo|||3.4|-1.6|0.4851
91033607|NCT03956862|181953058|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.544||||0.3898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.136|2.178|||Regression, Cox||GB001 vs Placebo|||2.178|0.136|0.3898
90876840|NCT04091646|181615986|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.62||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|7.63|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification by pooled study site and baseline IGA per randomization with no imputation of missing data|Common OR stratified by pooled study site and baseline IGA per randomization with no imputation of missing data.|WI-NRS Success at Week 2||7.63|1.72|0.0007
90876841|NCT04091646|181615986|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.3||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.63|6.68|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification by pooled study site and baseline IGA per randomization with no imputation of missing data|Common OR stratified by pooled study site and baseline IGA per randomization with no imputation of missing data.|WI-NRS Success at Week 4||6.68|1.63|0.0009
90876842|NCT04091646|181615986|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.19||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|6.35|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification by pooled study site and baseline IGA per randomization with no imputation of missing data|Common OR stratified by pooled study site and baseline IGA per randomization with no imputation of missing data.|WI-NRS Success at Week 8||6.35|1.60|0.0007
90876843|NCT01921829|181615987|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
90876844|NCT01921829|181615988|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.29
90876845|NCT01921829|181615990|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.95|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.95
90876846|NCT01921829|181615991|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.58
90876847|NCT01921829|181615992|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.86
90876848|NCT01921829|181615993|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.40
90876849|NCT01921829|181615994|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.95|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.95
90876850|NCT01921829|181615995|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.08
90876851|NCT01921829|181615996|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.95|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.95
90876852|NCT01921829|181615997|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.52
90876853|NCT01921829|181615998|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.95|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.95
90876854|NCT01921829|181615999|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.95|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.95
90876855|NCT01921829|181616000|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.52
90876856|NCT01921829|181616001|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.17
90876857|NCT01921829|181616002|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.17
91033608|NCT03965091|181953068|OTHER||Least square (LS) mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.7963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was performed using a Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) model with change from baseline in the weekly average of the daily average PI-NRS score over the past 24 hours at weeks 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 as the dependent variable, sex, age group at FM onset, week, treatment, and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed factors, and baseline average of the daily average PI-NRS score as a covariate.||0.60|-0.46|0.7963
91033609|NCT03965091|181953068|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.8629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was performed using an MMRM model with change from baseline in the weekly average of the daily average PI-NRS score over the past 24 hours at weeks 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 as the dependent variable, sex, age group at FM onset, week, treatment, and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed factors, and baseline average of the daily average PI-NRS score as a covariate.||0.58|-0.48|0.8629
91033610|NCT02008565|181953139|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.092||||||significance assessed at type 1 error alpha=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|The models were adjusted for baseline Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS) status and clinical site.||||||0.092
91033611|NCT00617305|181953152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-248.93|STANDARD_DEVIATION|241.978|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-337.7|-160.2||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 24||-160.2|-337.7|
90876858|NCT01921829|181616003|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.40
90876859|NCT01921829|181616004|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.95|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.95
90876860|NCT01921829|181616005|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.55
90876861|NCT01921829|181616006|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.95|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.95
90876862|NCT01921829|181616007|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.95|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.95
90876863|NCT05394025|181616013|SUPERIORITY||Interaction|0.02||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.18|||likelihood ratio test||Beta for time by COVID-19 status|Null hypothesis no difference in trends of I/ADL scores between Veterans with COVID-19 and comparators. We used adjusted linear mixed model (LMM) to model ADL scores over time (i.e., survey cycles) and by COVID-19 status. The LMM included an interaction term for time and COVID-19 status. LMM models were fitted with random intercepts (i.e., patient ID) and slopes (i.e., survey cycle). LMMs included fixed effects for patient baseline age, sex, and care assessment needs score.||0.18|-0.13|0.77
90876864|NCT05394025|181616013|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.67|||likelihood ratio test||Beta coefficient for mean difference in mean longitudinal I/ADL score|Null hypothesis no difference in trends of I/ADL scores between Veterans with COVID-19 and comparators. We used adjusted linear mixed model (LMM) to model I/ADL scores over time (i.e., survey cycles) and by COVID-19 status. The LMM included an interaction term for time and COVID-19 status. LMM models were fitted with random intercepts (i.e., patient ID) and slopes (i.e., survey cycle). LMMs included fixed effects for patient baseline age, sex, and care assessment needs score.||0.67|-0.44|0.60
90876865|NCT00464568|181616077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratios|1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.1351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.35|||ANOVA|||CREM; Placebo vs GSK256066 1 mcg||1.35|0.96|0.1351
90876866|NCT00464568|181616077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratios|1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.0383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.41|||ANOVA|||CREM; Placebo vs GSK256066 10 mcg||1.41|1.01|0.0383
90915657|NCT04714320|181701718|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.498||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 169||||=0.498
91033612|NCT00617305|181953152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-291.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|205.864|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-619.4|35.78||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 24||35.78|-619.4|
90876867|NCT00464568|181616077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratios|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.0325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.43|||ANOVA|||CREM; Placebo vs GSK256066 50 mcg||1.43|1.02|0.0325
90876868|NCT00464568|181616077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratios|1.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|1.68|||ANOVA|||CREM; Placebo vs GSK256066 200 mcg||1.68|1.20|<0.0001
90876869|NCT00464568|181616077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratios|1.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|1.82|||ANOVA|||DUSP1; Placebo vs GSK256066 1 mcg||1.82|1.16|0.0015
90876870|NCT00464568|181616077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratios|1.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|1.93|||ANOVA|||DUSP1; Placebo vs GSK256066 10 mcg||1.93|1.24|0.0002
90876871|NCT00464568|181616077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratios|1.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|2.17|||ANOVA|||DUSP1; Placebo vs GSK256066 50 mcg||2.17|1.38|<0.0001
90876872|NCT00464568|181616077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratios|1.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|2.18|||ANOVA|||DUSP1; Placebo vs GSK256066 200 mcg||2.18|1.40|<0.0001
90876873|NCT00464568|181616077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratios|1.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|1.81|||ANOVA|||FOSL2; Placebo vs GSK256066 1 mcg||1.81|1.22|0.0001
90876874|NCT00464568|181616077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratios|1.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|1.85|||ANOVA|||FOSL2; Placebo vs GSK256066 10 mcg||1.85|1.25|<0.0001
90876875|NCT00464568|181616077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratios|1.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|2.05|||ANOVA|||FOSL2; Placebo vs GSK256066 50 mcg||2.05|1.38|<0.0001
90876876|NCT00464568|181616077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratios|1.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|1.89|||ANOVA|||FOSL2; Placebo vs GSK256066 200 mcg||1.89|1.28|<0.0001
90876877|NCT00464568|181616077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratios|1.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.064||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|2.07|||ANOVA|||IRS2; Placebo vs GSK256066 1 mcg||2.07|1.16|0.0034
90876878|NCT00464568|181616077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratios|1.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|2.07|||ANOVA|||IRS2; Placebo vs GSK256066 10 mcg||2.07|1.17|0.0029
90876879|NCT00464568|181616077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratios|1.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.064||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.33|||ANOVA|||IRS2; Placebo vs GSK256066 50 mcg||2.33|1.30|0.0003
90876880|NCT00464568|181616077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratios|1.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|2.08|||ANOVA|||IRS2; Placebo vs GSK256066 200 mcg||2.08|1.17|0.0027
90876881|NCT00464568|181616077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratios|1.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.092||0.0448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|2.34|||ANOVA|||NR4A2; Placebo vs GSK256066 1 mcg||2.34|1.01|0.0448
90876882|NCT00464568|181616077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratios|1.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.091||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|2.83|||ANOVA|||NR4A2; Placebo vs GSK256066 10 mcg||2.83|1.24|0.0033
91033613|NCT00617305|181953152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-253.83|STANDARD_DEVIATION|235.787|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-334.8|-172.8||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 24||-172.8|-334.8|
91033614|NCT00617305|181953152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-291.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|205.864|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-619.4|35.78||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 24||35.78|-619.4|
91033615|NCT00617305|181953153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.38|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.954|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.29|-2.46||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 24||-2.46|-8.29|
91033616|NCT00617305|181953153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-15.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.732|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.64|-1.86||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 24||-1.86|-29.64|
90876883|NCT00464568|181616077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratios|2.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.092||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|3.3|||ANOVA|||NR4A2; Placebo vs GSK256066 50 mcg||3.30|1.42|0.0004
90876884|NCT00464568|181616077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratios|2.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.091||0.001||95.0|1.34|3.08|||ANOVA|||NR4A2; Placebo vs GSK256066 200 mcg||3.08|1.34|0.0010
90876885|NCT00464568|181616077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratios|1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.072||0.8718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.43|||ANOVA|||PDE4A; Placebo vs GSK256066 1 mcg||1.43|0.74|0.8718
90876886|NCT00464568|181616077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratios|1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.071||0.3078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.63|||ANOVA|||PDE4A; Placebo vs GSK256066 10 mcg||1.63|0.86|0.3078
90876887|NCT00464568|181616077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratios|1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.072||0.2909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.66|||ANOVA|||PDE4A; Placebo vs GSK256066 50 mcg||1.66|0.86|0.2909
90876888|NCT00464568|181616077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratios|1.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.071||0.0539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.91|||ANOVA|||PDE4A; Placebo vs GSK256066 200 mcg||1.91|0.99|0.0539
91033617|NCT00617305|181953153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.56|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.589|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.51|-3.61||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 24||-3.61|-9.51|
91033618|NCT00617305|181953153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-15.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.732|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.64|-1.86||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 24||-1.86|-29.64|
90876889|NCT00464568|181616077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratios|1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.081||0.7393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.54|||ANOVA|||RGS1; Placebo vs GSK256066 1 mcg||1.54|0.74|0.7393
90876890|NCT00464568|181616077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratios|1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.2967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.74|||ANOVA|||RGS1; Placebo vs GSK256066 10 mcg||1.74|0.84|0.2967
90876891|NCT00464568|181616077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratios|1.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.081||0.0934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.98|||ANOVA|||RGS1; Placebo vs GSK256066 50 mcg||1.98|0.95|0.0934
90876892|NCT00464568|181616077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratios|1.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.0919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.97|||ANOVA|||RGS1; Placebo vs GSK256066 200 mcg||1.97|0.95|0.0919
90876893|NCT00464568|181616077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratios|2.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.11|3.51|||ANOVA|||SNF1LK; Placebo vs GSK256066 1 mcg||3.51|2.11|<0.0001
90876894|NCT00464568|181616077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratios|3.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.37|3.9|||ANOVA|||SNF1LK; Placebo vs GSK256066 10 mcg||3.90|2.37|<0.0001
90876895|NCT00464568|181616077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratios|3.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.54|4.23|||ANOVA|||RGS1; Placebo vs GSK256066 50 mcg||4.23|2.54|<0.0001
90876896|NCT00464568|181616077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratios|3.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.59|4.27|||ANOVA|||RGS1; Placebo vs GSK256066 200 mcg||4.27|2.59|<0.0001
90876897|NCT00464568|181616092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean treatment difference|-0.5545|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.79598||0.647226|||||||Mixed effects analysis of variance model|||Placebo vs GSK256066 1 mcg: VASP||||0.647226
90876898|NCT00464568|181616092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean treatment difference|-0.3816|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.00754||0.95084|||||||Mixed effects analysis of variance model||The mean treatment difference was calculated as treatment minus placebo|Placebo vs GSK256066 10 mcg: VASP||||0.95084
90876899|NCT00464568|181616092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean treatment difference|0.0256|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.24118||0.53499|||||||Mixed effects analysis of variance model||The mean treatment difference was calculated as treatment minus placebo|Placebo Vs GSK256066 50 mcg: VASP||||0.53499
90876900|NCT00464568|181616092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean treatment difference|-1.3371|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.5459||0.81527|||||||Mixed effects analysis of variance model||The mean treatment difference was calculated as treatment minus placebo|Placebo vs GSK256066 200 mcg: VASP||||0.81527
90876901|NCT00464568|181616092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean treatment difference|-2.8053|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.88217||0.32998|||||||Mixed effects analysis of variance model||The mean treatment difference was calculated as treatment minus placebo|Placebo Vs GSK256066 1 mcg: pVASP||||0.32998
90876902|NCT00464568|181616092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean treatment difference|-1.6602|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.30724||0.65729|||||||Mixed effects analysis of variance model||The mean treatment difference was calculated as treatment minus placebo|Placebo vs GSK256066 10 mcg: pVASP||||0.65729
91033619|NCT00617305|181953154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.442|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|1.56||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 24||1.56|-1.69|
91033620|NCT00617305|181953154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.082|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|2.5||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 24||2.50|-10.50|
91033621|NCT00617305|181953154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.51|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.527|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|1.04||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 24||1.04|-2.07|
91033622|NCT00617305|181953154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.082|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|2.5||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 24||2.50|-10.50|
91033623|NCT00617305|181953155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.84|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.053|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.25||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 24||1.25|0.43|
90876903|NCT00464568|181616092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean treatment difference|0.156|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.73976||0.89831|||||||Mixed effects analysis of variance model||The mean treatment difference was calculated as treatment minus placebo|Placebo vs GSK256066 50 mcg: pVASP||||0.89831
90876904|NCT00464568|181616092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean treatment difference|-1.5165|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.70748||0.84479|||||||Mixed effects analysis of variance model||The mean treatment difference was calculated as treatment minus placebo|Placebo vs GSK256066 200 mcg: pVASP||||0.84479
90876905|NCT03538158|181616094|SUPERIORITY||Slope|5.7||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-287.7|299.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|F(2,131)=.07||||299.1|-287.7|.82
90876906|NCT03538158|181616095|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.5||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|4.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|F(2,75)=.03||||4.4|-3.5|.97
90876907|NCT02255981|181616109|OTHER|Non-inferiority could be considered if the outcomes were comparable to the most known studies yet published or, in the case of non-treatable disorder, if the acupuncture treatment got to maintain the VA and prevent the losses. There are many known studies with conventional treatment and estimations of the worsening of vision in this pathologies on the time without treatment.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.392|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"Using the SPSS program and the non-parametrical technic of Wilcoxon it was determined the p-value.~It should be noted that the null hypothesis is that all these eyes should have a zero gain or perhaps a loss in VA at two years of follow-up."|t-test, 1 sided|From this estimation, it is induced that there are differences in results before and after the treatment.|The datum corresponds to the difference in letters seen between exams at the start and the final examination for all participants. Calculi were made by a Microsoft Excel Descriptive Statistics program.|"Besides that it is of interest to compare with the published studies outcomes, realized with anti-VEGF treatments, and with the known expectations of AV lost without treatment, the data were converted in letters ETDRS chart and here are registered the mean number of letters gained or lost in each group.~Ho: Differences between mean measurements before and after are similar H1: Differences between mean measurements before and after are different."|The null hypothesis was no gain or loss in VA. The alternative hypothesis was stabilization or some gain in letters seen over the baseline count.The published studies report a small gain in VA in about a third of participants and only in cases of NV-AMD with conventional treatment, and an expectancy of loss of vision in the other non treated or non-treatable macular diseases. Some of the participants in this trial had had ocular injections without positive change. Non-inferiority in this trial means outcomes of similar magnitude to the known studies.|||<0.05
90876908|NCT01232920|181616119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.09
90876909|NCT00885755|181616124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.109|1.535||||||Univariate Cox regression Hazard ratio (Positive / Negative) for the biomarker p95.||1.535|0.109|
90876910|NCT00885755|181616124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|3.282||||||Univariate Cox regression: Hazard ratio (Membrane H-Score: \<median / ≥median) for the biomarker IGF1R.||3.282|0.430|
91033624|NCT00617305|181953155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.33|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.685|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|1.42||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 24||1.42|-0.77|
90876911|NCT00885755|181616124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.306|2.425||||||Univariate Cox regression Hazard ratio (Membrane H-Score: \<median / ≥median) for the biomarker c-MET.||2.425|0.306|
90876912|NCT00885755|181616124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.164|1.453||||||Univariate Cox regression Hazard ratio (Cytoplasm H-Score: \<median / ≥median) for the biomarker PTEN.||1.453|0.164|
90876913|NCT00885755|181616124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.377|3.16||||||Univariate Cox regression Hazard ratio (Membrane H-Score: \< median / ≥median) for the biomarker HER2.||3.160|0.377|
91033625|NCT00617305|181953155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.78|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.021|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.15||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 24||1.15|0.41|
91033626|NCT00617305|181953155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.33|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.685|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|1.42||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 24||1.42|-0.77|
91033627|NCT00617305|181953156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|12.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|44.84|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|28.4||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 4 (LOCF)||28.4|-3.9|
91033628|NCT00617305|181953156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|21.19|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.0|41.5||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 4 (LOCF)||41.5|-26.0|
91033629|NCT00617305|181953156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|107.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0||||||||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 4 (LOCF)||||
91033630|NCT00617305|181953156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|11.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|42.68|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|26.2||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 4 (LOCF)||26.2|-2.7|
91033631|NCT00617305|181953156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|27.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|48.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.0|87.2||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 4 (LOCF)||87.2|-32.0|
91033632|NCT00617305|181953156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|13.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|41.46|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|28.5||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 12 (LOCF)||28.5|-1.4|
90876914|NCT00885755|181616124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.409|4.132||||||Univariate Cox regression Hazard ratio (Mutation Status: Wild type / Mutation) for the biomarker PI3K amino acids.||4.132|0.409|
91033633|NCT00617305|181953156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|59.09|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-91.5|96.5||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 12 (LOCF)||96.5|-91.5|
91033634|NCT00617305|181953156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|87.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0||||||||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 12 (LOCF)||||
91033635|NCT00617305|181953156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|12.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|42.83|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|26.9||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 12 (LOCF)||26.9|-2.1|
90876915|NCT00885755|181616124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.183|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.226|6.197||||||Univariate Cox regression Hazard ratio (Phenotype: FF / VF) for the biomarker FC Gamma Receptor IIIa F176V.||6.197|0.226|
90876916|NCT00885755|181616124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.989|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.378|10.47||||||Univariate Cox regression Hazard ratio (Phenotype: FF / VV) for the biomarker FC Gamma Receptor IIIa F176V.||10.470|0.378|
90876917|NCT00885755|181616124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.732|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.235|12.783||||||Univariate Cox regression Hazard ratio (Phenotype: VF / VV) for the biomarker FC Gamma Receptor IIIa F176V.||12.783|0.235|
90876918|NCT00885755|181616124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.576|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.067|4.968||||||Univariate Cox regression Hazard ratio (Phenotype: HH / HR) for the biomarker FC Gamma Receptor IIa R166H.||4.968|0.067|
90876919|NCT00885755|181616124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.743|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.082|6.72||||||Univariate Cox regression Hazard ratio (Phenotype: HH / RR) for the biomarker FC Gamma Receptor IIa R166H.||6.720|0.082|
90876920|NCT00885755|181616124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.073|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.274|4.199||||||Univariate Cox regression Hazard ratio (Phenotype: HR / RR) for the biomarker FC Gamma Receptor IIa R166H.||4.199|0.274|
90876921|NCT00885755|181616127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|1.79||||||Univariate Cox regression Hazard ratio (Positive / Negative) for the biomarker p95 HER2.||1.790|0.120|
90876922|NCT00885755|181616127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.394|3.518||||||Univariate Cox regressionHazard ratio (Membrane H-Score: \<median / ≥median) for the biomarker IGF1R.||3.518|0.394|
91033636|NCT00617305|181953156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|19.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|63.61|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.6|98.4||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 12 (LOCF)||98.4|-59.6|
91033637|NCT00617305|181953156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|18.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|48.67|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|35.6||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 24 (LOCF)||35.6|0.5|
90876923|NCT00885755|181616127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.268|2.514||||||Univariate Cox regression Hazard ratio (Membrane H-Score: \< median / ≥median) for the biomarker c-met.||2.514|0.268|
90876924|NCT00885755|181616127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.183|1.768||||||Univariate Cox regression Hazard ratio (Cytoplasm H-Score: \< median / ≥median) for the marker PTEN.||1.768|0.183|
90876925|NCT00885755|181616127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.242|2.733||||||Univariate Cox regression Hazard ratio (Membrane H-Score: \< median / ≥median) for the biomarker HER2.||2.733|0.242|
90876926|NCT00885755|181616127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.337|3.632||||||Univariate Cox regressionHazard ratio (Mutation Status: Wild type / Mutation) for the biomarker PI3K amino acids.||3.632|0.337|
90876927|NCT00885755|181616127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.957|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.172|5.336||||||Hazard ratio (Phenotype: FF / VF) for the biomarker FC Gamma Receptor IIIa F176V.||5.336|0.172|
90876928|NCT00885755|181616127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.666|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.298|9.305||||||Hazard ratio (Phenotype: FF / VV) for the biomarker FC Gamma Receptor IIIa F176V.||9.305|0.298|
90876929|NCT00885755|181616127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.732|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.235|12.783||||||Hazard ratio (Phenotype: VF / VV) for the biomarker FC Gamma Receptor IIIa F176V.||12.783|0.235|
90876930|NCT00885755|181616127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.576|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.067|4.968||||||Univariate Cox regression Hazard ratio (Phenotype: HH / HR) for the biomarker FC Gamma Receptor IIa R166H.||4.968|0.067|
90876931|NCT00885755|181616127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.956|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.098|9.319||||||Univariate Cox regression Hazard ratio (Phenotype: HH / RR) for the biomarker FC Gamma Receptor IIa R166H.||9.319|0.098|
90876932|NCT00885755|181616127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.292|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.296|5.64||||||Univariate Cox regression Hazard ratio (Phenotype: HR / RR) for the biomarker FC Gamma Receptor IIa R166H.||5.640|0.296|
90876933|NCT00885755|181616135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.641||||||Univariate logistic regression Odds ratio (Positive / Negative) for the biomarker p95 HER 2.||0.641|0.001|
90876934|NCT00885755|181616135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.208|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.017|2.6||||||Univariate logistic regression Odds ratio (Membrane H-Score: ≥median /\<median) for the biomarker IGF1R.||2.600|0.017|
90876935|NCT00885755|181616135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.143|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.169|27.103||||||Univariate logistic regression Odds ratio (Membrane H-Score: ≥ median /\<median) for the biomarker c-MET.||27.103|0.169|
90876936|NCT00885755|181616135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.875|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|23.396||||||Univariate logistic regression Odds ratio (Cytoplasm H-Score: ≥ median /\< median) for the biomarker PTEN.||23.396|0.150|
90876937|NCT00885755|181616135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.857|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.091|8.075||||||Univariate logistic regression Odds ratio (Membrane H-Score: ≥median /\< median) for the biomarker HER2.||8.075|0.091|
90876938|NCT00885755|181616135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.148|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.012|1.9||||||Univariate logistic regression Odds ratio (PI3K mutation status: WT versus M) for the biomarker PI3K Amino Acids.||1.900|0.012|
90876939|NCT00885755|181616135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.053|18.915||||||Univariate logistic regressionOdds ratio (Phenotype: FF / VF) for the biomarker FC Gamma Receptor IIIa F176V.||18.915|0.053|
90876940|NCT00885755|181616135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.083|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|1.945||||||Univariate logistic regression Odds ratio (Phenotype: HR / RR) for the biomarker FC Gamma Receptor IIa R166H||1.945|0.004|
90876941|NCT04649164|181616138|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-tests comparing peer mentors' baseline and 16-week scores, and caregiver mentees' baseline and 16-week scores, respectively||||0.36
90876942|NCT04649164|181616140|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.30
90876943|NCT04649164|181616141|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1
90876944|NCT04649164|181616142|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.78||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04
90876945|NCT04649164|181616145|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.13
90876946|NCT00499096|181616149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.05
90876947|NCT02245841|181616156|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Analysis performed was two-sided Wilcoxon signed rank test. Median differences with interquartile range are reported in outcome measure data.||||< .001
90876948|NCT02245841|181616157|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Analysis performed was two-sided Wilcoxon signed rank test. Median differences with interquartile range are reported in outcome measure data.||||<0.001
90876949|NCT02245841|181616158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Analysis performed was two-sided Wilcoxon signed rank test. Median differences with interquartile range are reported in outcome measure data.||||0.002
90876950|NCT02245841|181616159|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Analysis performed was two-sided Wilcoxon signed rank test. Median differences with interquartile range are reported in outcome measure data.||||0.050
90876951|NCT02245841|181616160|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Analysis performed was two-sided Wilcoxon signed rank test. Median differences with interquartile range are reported in outcome measure data.||||<0.001
90915658|NCT04714320|181701718|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.173||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 169||||=0.173
90915659|NCT04928001|181701758|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|31.0||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|60.0|||t-test, 1 sided|||||60|0|.01
90915660|NCT02566902|181701779|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04
90915661|NCT02566902|181701780|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.29
90915662|NCT02566902|181701781|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.97
90915663|NCT02566902|181701782|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.96
90915664|NCT02566902|181701783|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.99
91033638|NCT00617305|181953156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|29.56|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.5|37.5||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 24 (LOCF)||37.5|-56.5|
90915665|NCT02566902|181701784|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
90915666|NCT01622868|181701795|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97||||||One-sided significance level = 0.10|Z-test|||The study was designed to see if there is a signal in the 12-week CR rate with the addition of lapatinib to warrant a future phase III trial. Null hypothesis: the 12-week post-WBRT/SRS CR rate is ≤ 5%; alternative hypothesis: the addition of lapatinib will increase that CR rate to at least 20%. 114 eligible participants provide 86% power to detect a 15% absolute increase in CR rate at a significance level of 0.10, using a 1-sided Z-test for the difference of 2 proportions.||||0.97
90915667|NCT01622868|181701796|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78||||||One-sided significance level = 0.10|Z-test|||||||0.78
90915668|NCT01622868|181701797|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78||||||One-sided significance level = 0.10|Z-test|||4 weeks post-RT||||0.78
91033639|NCT00617305|181953156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|87.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0||||||||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 24 (LOCF)||||
90915669|NCT01622868|181701797|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97||||||One-sided significance level = 0.10|Z-test|||12 weeks post-RT||||0.97
90915670|NCT01622868|181701803|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||One-sided significance level = 0.10|z-test|||||||1.00
90915671|NCT01622868|181701805|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.36||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Log Rank|||||1.36|0.62|0.67
90915672|NCT02374463|181701830|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||P value not adjusted for multiple comparisons|t-test, 2 sided|||within group change was assessed||||<0.05
91033640|NCT00617305|181953156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|15.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|47.44|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|31.1||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 24 (LOCF)||31.1|-1.0|
90915673|NCT02374463|181701831|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.08||||||p value not adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|||||||=0.08
90915674|NCT02374463|181701832|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.6|||||||ANOVA|not adjusted for multiple comparisons||||||=0.6
90915675|NCT02374463|181701833|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Chi-squared|exploratory aim prespecified.||||||0.84
90915676|NCT02374463|181701833|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.4|||||||Chi-squared|||||||=0.4
90915677|NCT02374463|181701834|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3||||||not adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|||||||=0.3
90915678|NCT02374463|181701835|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
90915679|NCT01305252|181701836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
90915680|NCT01305252|181701836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.17
90915681|NCT01305252|181701839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
90915682|NCT01305252|181701839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.33
90915683|NCT02574455|181701859|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.387|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.305|0.492||Stratified log-rank test and stratified Cox regression adjusted for stratification factors: number of prior chemotherapies, presence of known brain metastases at study entry, and region.|Log Rank|||||0.492|0.305|<0.0001
90915684|NCT02574455|181701860|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.413|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.517||Stratified log-rank test and stratified Cox regression adjusted for stratification factors: number of prior chemotherapies, presence of known brain metastases at study entry, and region.|Log Rank|||||0.517|0.330|<0.0001
90915685|NCT02574455|181701861|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.481|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.592||Stratified log-rank test and stratified Cox regression adjusted for stratification factors: number of prior chemotherapies and region.|Log Rank|||||0.592|0.390|<0.0001
90915686|NCT02574455|181701862|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.514|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.422|0.625||Stratified log-rank test and stratified Cox regression adjusted for stratification factors: number of prior chemotherapies and region.|Log Rank|||||0.625|0.422|<0.0001
90915687|NCT02574455|181701863|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.859|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.59|21.095|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||ORR by IRC Assessment||21.095|5.590|<0.0001
90915688|NCT02574455|181701863|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.363|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.063|13.341|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||ORR by Investigator Assessment||13.341|4.063|<0.0001
90915689|NCT02574455|181701866|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.407||||0.0683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.107||Stratified log-rank test and stratified Cox regression adjusted for stratification factors: number of prior chemotherapies, and region.|Log Rank|||DOR by IRC Assessment||1.107|0.150|0.0683
90915690|NCT02574455|181701866|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.212|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.103|0.435||Stratified log-rank test and stratified Cox regression adjusted for stratification factors: number of prior chemotherapies, and region.|Log Rank|||DOR by Investigator Assessment||0.435|0.103|<0.0001
91033641|NCT00617305|181953156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|50.18|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.5|72.1||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 24 (LOCF)||72.1|-52.5|
91033642|NCT00617305|181953156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|77.24|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.6|30.1||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 36 (LOCF)||30.1|-25.6|
90876952|NCT02876900|181616164|SUPERIORITY|Assuming an effect size of 0.35 on the change in PANSS total score from baseline to Week 6 for the 2 pairwise comparisons between each active asenapine maleate transdermal patch treatment arm and placebo, the power for detecting a statistically significant HP-3070 advantage was approximately 0.90, having 204 evaluable participants per each treatment arm using a 2-sided alpha level of 0.025 for each comparison.|Least Square Mean Difference|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.634||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.06|-1.64||Adjusted p-value was calculated according to the truncated Hochberg procedure with a truncation factor y=0.9. Adjustment for multiple comparisons uses a parallel gatekeeping procedure.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||The mixed model for repeated measures includes treatment, country, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value as covariates, and participant as random effect. The correlation of repeated measures within a participant is estimated with an unstructured covariance matrix. The Kenward-Rogers method is used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||-1.64|-8.06|0.003
90876953|NCT02876900|181616164|SUPERIORITY|Assuming an effect size of 0.35 on the change in PANSS total score from baseline to Week 6 for the 2 pairwise comparisons between each active asenapine maleate transdermal patch treatment arm and placebo, the power for detecting a statistically significant HP-3070 advantage was approximately 0.90, having 204 evaluable participants per each treatment arm using a 2-sided alpha level of 0.025 for each comparison.|Least Square Mean Difference|-6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.81|-3.4||Adjusted p-value was calculated according to the truncated Hochberg procedure with a truncation factor y=0.9. Adjustment for multiple comparisons uses a parallel gatekeeping procedure.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||The mixed model for repeated measures includes treatment, country, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value as covariates, and participant as random effect. The correlation of repeated measures within a participant is estimated with an unstructured covariance matrix. The Kenward-Rogers method is used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||-3.4|-9.81|<0.001
90876954|NCT02876900|181616165|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.16||Adjusted p-value was calculated according to the Hochberg procedure. Adjustment for multiple comparisons uses a parallel gatekeeping procedure.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||The mixed model for repeated measures includes treatment, country, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value as covariates, and participant as random effect. The correlation of repeated measures within a participant is estimated with an unstructured covariance matrix. The Kenward-Rogers method is used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||-0.16|-0.55|<0.001
90876955|NCT02876900|181616165|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|-0.25||Adjusted p-value was calculated according to the Hochberg procedure. Adjustment for multiple comparisons uses a parallel gatekeeping procedure.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||The mixed model for repeated measures includes treatment, country, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value as covariates, and participant as random effect. The correlation of repeated measures within a participant is estimated with an unstructured covariance matrix. The Kenward-Rogers method is used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||-0.25|-0.64|<0.001
90876956|NCT00117559|181616179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<.05
90876957|NCT00791518|181616191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.2||||||95.0|0.1|0.4|||||Least squares mean differences are calculated as \<80% group minus \>=80% group and are adjusted for Investigator.|||0.4|0.1|
90876958|NCT00791518|181616192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.3||||||95.0|0.2|0.4|||||Least squares mean differences are calculated as \<50% group minus \>=50% group and was adjusted for Investigator.|||0.4|0.2|
90876959|NCT00791518|181616197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.7||||||95.0|-0.4|1.7|||||Least squares mean differences are calculated as \<80% group minus \>=80% group and was adjusted for Investigator.|||1.7|-0.4|
90876960|NCT00791518|181616198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.9||||||95.0|-0.2|2.1|||||Least squares mean differences are calculated as \<50% group minus \>=50% group and was adjusted for Investigator.|||2.1|-0.2|
90876961|NCT00720057|181616201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The treatment differences between the two groups were tested each at the 5% two-sided significant level using a hierarchal testing procedure to control the overall type 1 error. SPID16-24 was eligible for testing only after a statistically significant difference between the two arms with respect to SPID0-24 was observed. The SPIDs were analyzed via ANCOVA model with treatment and trial site as fixed effects and baseline pain intensity score as the covariate.||||<0.001
90876962|NCT00720057|181616202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90876963|NCT00720057|181616203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90876964|NCT00720057|181616204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||The statistics are from the Kaplan-Meier method. The median for naproxen treatment arm was not estimable from Kaplan-Meier method, therefore it is presented as the maximum value from the full range.||||<0.001
90876965|NCT00720057|181616205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91033643|NCT00617305|181953156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-34.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|93.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-182.2|114.2||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 36 (LOCF)||114.2|-182.2|
90876966|NCT00720057|181616206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||<0.001
90876967|NCT03341533|181616237|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in NPIS between the two groups.|difference in medians|0.0||||0.39|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.39
90876968|NCT03341533|181616238|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in MME use on the hospital floor between groups.|Difference of medians|-4.5||||0.88|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis||Ice packs - Usual care|||||0.88
90876969|NCT03341533|181616239|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is that the outpatient MME consumption will be the same across the two groups.|difference in medians|-7.5||||0.75|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis||Ice packs - Usual Care|||||0.75
90876970|NCT03341533|181616240|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is that the postoperative BPI pain severity score will be the same between groups|difference in medians|-0.3||||0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis||Ice Packs - Usual Care|||||0.80
90876971|NCT01082965|181616288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Leasts Square (LS) Mean|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.265||0.9742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.58||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, Apolipoprotein E (ApoE) genotype, site as covariates.||0.58|-0.60|0.9742
90876972|NCT01082965|181616289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.232||0.9638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.49||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.49|-0.51|0.9638
90876973|NCT01082965|181616290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.153||0.2548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.16||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.16|-0.53|0.2548
90876974|NCT01082965|181616291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057||0.6316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.12||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 4 on Day 1, Whole Brain Gray: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.12|-0.18|0.6316
90876975|NCT01082965|181616291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063||0.6256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.19||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 0 on Day 8, Whole Brain Gray: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.19|-0.12|0.6256
90876976|NCT01082965|181616291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059||0.5847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.19||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 4 on Day 8, Whole Brain Gray: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.19|-0.12|0.5847
90876977|NCT01082965|181616291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.123||0.1555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.09||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 4 on Day 1, Superior Temporal Cortex: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.09|-0.46|0.1555
90876978|NCT01082965|181616291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.151||0.2416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.14||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 0 on Day 8, Superior Temporal Cortex: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.14|-0.51|0.2416
90876979|NCT01082965|181616291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.134||0.807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.26||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 4 on Day 8, Superior Temporal Cortex: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.26|-0.33|0.8070
90876980|NCT01082965|181616291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.189||0.6828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.43||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 4 on Day 1, Medial Temporal Cortex: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.43|-0.59|0.6828
91033644|NCT00617305|181953156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|67.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0||||||||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 36 (LOCF)||||
90876981|NCT01082965|181616291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.109||0.8987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.29||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 0 on Day 8, Medial Temporal Cortex: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.29|-0.26|0.8987
90876982|NCT01082965|181616291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.117||0.8922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.25||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 4 on Day 8, Medial Temporal Cortex: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.25|-0.28|0.8922
91033645|NCT00617305|181953156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|78.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.4|24.8||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 36 (LOCF)||24.8|-28.4|
90876983|NCT01082965|181616291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.203||0.7555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.52||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 4 on Day 1, Inferior Temporal Cortex: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.52|-0.39|0.7555
90876984|NCT01082965|181616291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.218||0.1928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.79||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 0 on Day 8, Inferior Temporal Cortex: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.79|-0.18|0.1928
90876985|NCT01082965|181616291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.161||0.4946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.49||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 4 on Day 8, Inferior Temporal Cortex: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.49|-0.26|0.4946
90876986|NCT01082965|181616291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.196||0.7029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.4||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 4 on Day 1, Medial Prefrontal Cortex: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.40|-0.56|0.7029
90876987|NCT01082965|181616291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.171||0.1085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.08||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 0 on Day 8, Medial Prefrontal Cortex: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.08|-0.68|0.1085
90876988|NCT01082965|181616291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.132||0.3588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.18||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 4 on Day 8, Medial Prefrontal Cortex: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.18|-0.44|0.3588
90876989|NCT01082965|181616291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.151||0.3053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.53||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 4 on Day 1, Inferior Prefrontal Cortex: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.53|-0.20|0.3053
90876990|NCT01082965|181616291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.9861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.36||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 0 on Day 8, Inferior Prefrontal Cortex: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.36|-0.36|0.9861
90876991|NCT01082965|181616291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.6558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.28||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 4 on Day 8, Inferior Prefrontal Cortex: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.28|-0.41|0.6558
90876992|NCT01082965|181616291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145||0.9471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.51||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 4 on Day 1, Superior Prefrontal Cortex: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.51|-0.53|0.9471
90915691|NCT02574455|181701867|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.317|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.248|0.404||Stratified log-rank test and stratified Cox regression adjusted for stratification factors: number of prior chemotherapies and region.|Log Rank|||TTP by Investigator Assessment||0.404|0.248|<0.0001
90915692|NCT02574455|181701868|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.406|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.315|0.525||Stratified log-rank test and stratified Cox regression adjusted for stratification factors: number of prior chemotherapies and region.|Log Rank|||TTP by IRC Assessment||0.525|0.315|<0.0001
90915693|NCT02574455|181701869|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.543|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.055|14.437|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CBR by IRC Assessment||14.437|5.055|<0.0001
90876993|NCT01082965|181616291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.186||0.2136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.23||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 0 on Day 8, Superior Prefrontal Cortex: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.23|-0.77|0.2136
90915694|NCT02574455|181701869|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.492|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.54|12.364|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CBR by Investigator Assessment||12.364|4.540|<0.0001
90915695|NCT06243796|181701875|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.005|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.005
90915696|NCT06243796|181701876|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
90915697|NCT01395758|181701924|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5017|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.5017
90915698|NCT01395758|181701925|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4356|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.4356
90915699|NCT03631550|181701938|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.018
90915700|NCT03631550|181701939|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0466|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0466
90915701|NCT03631550|181701940|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0677|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0677
90915702|NCT03631550|181701941|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<.0001
90915703|NCT03631550|181701942|OTHER|||||||0.0968|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0968
90915704|NCT03631550|181701943|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0121|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0121
90876994|NCT01082965|181616291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.189||0.6435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.67||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 4 on Day 8, Superior Prefrontal Cortex: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.67|-0.47|0.6435
90876995|NCT01082965|181616291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.086||0.0659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.02||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 4 on Day 1, Inferior Parietal Cortex: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.02|-0.41|0.0659
90876996|NCT01082965|181616291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.158||0.7687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.31||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 0 on Day 8, Inferior Parietal Cortex: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.31|-0.41|0.7687
90915705|NCT04515641|181701950|OTHER||GMR|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.58|0.96|||||Participants with Moderate Hepatic Impairment / Healthy Matched Control Participants|Geometric least-squares mean ratio (GMR)|GMR calculated using the mean square error referencing a t-distribution. Confidence limits exponentiated to obtain the 90% confidence interval.|0.96|0.58|
90915706|NCT04515641|181701951|OTHER||GMR|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.58|0.98|||||Participants with Moderate Hepatic Impairment / Healthy Matched Control Participants|Geometric least-squares mean ratio (GMR)|GMR calculated using the mean square error referencing a t-distribution. Confidence limits exponentiated to obtain the 90% confidence interval.|0.98|0.58|
90915707|NCT04515641|181701952|OTHER||GMR|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.38|1.14|||||Participants with Moderate Hepatic Impairment / Healthy Matched Control Participants|Geometric least-squares mean ratio (GMR)|GMR calculated using the mean square error referencing a t-distribution. Confidence limits exponentiated to obtain the 90% confidence interval.|1.14|0.38|
90915708|NCT04515641|181701959|OTHER||GMR|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.57|1.0|||||Participants with Moderate Hepatic Impairment / Healthy Matched Control Participants|Geometric least-squares mean ratio (GMR)|GMR calculated using the mean square error referencing a t-distribution. Confidence limits exponentiated to obtain the 90% confidence interval.|1.00|0.57|
90915709|NCT04515641|181701960|OTHER||GMR|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.58|1.03|||||Participants with Moderate Hepatic Impairment / Healthy Matched Control Participants|Geometric least-squares mean ratio (GMR)|GMR calculated using the mean square error referencing a t-distribution. Confidence limits exponentiated to obtain the 90% confidence interval.|1.03|0.58|
90876997|NCT01082965|181616291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.163||0.1061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.1||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 4 on Day 8, Inferior Parietal Cortex: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.10|-0.73|0.1061
90915710|NCT04515641|181701961|OTHER||GMR|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.63|1.46|||||Participants with Moderate Hepatic Impairment / Healthy Matched Control Participants|Geometric least-squares mean ratio (GMR)|GMR calculated using the mean square error referencing a t-distribution. Confidence limits exponentiated to obtain the 90% confidence interval.|1.46|0.63|
90915711|NCT04515641|181701962|OTHER||GMR|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.65|1.71|||||Participants with Moderate Hepatic Impairment / Healthy Matched Control Participants|Geometric least-squares mean ratio (GMR)|GMR calculated using the mean square error referencing a t-distribution. Confidence limits exponentiated to obtain the 90% confidence interval.|1.71|0.65|
90915712|NCT04515641|181701963|OTHER||GMR|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.59|1.26|||||Participants with Moderate Hepatic Impairment / Healthy Matched Control Participants|Geometric least-squares mean ratio (GMR)|GMR calculated using the mean square error referencing a t-distribution. Confidence limits exponentiated to obtain the 90% confidence interval.|1.26|0.59|
90915713|NCT04515641|181701964|OTHER||GMR|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.42|1.01|||||Participants with Moderate Hepatic Impairment / Healthy Matched Control Participants|Geometric least-squares mean ratio (GMR)|GMR calculated using the mean square error referencing a t-distribution. Confidence limits exponentiated to obtain the 90% confidence interval.|1.01|0.42|
90915714|NCT01415349|181701969|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals were assessed against the currently accepted bioequivalence criteria for log-transformed data (0.80, 1.25).|Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.966|1.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.09|0.966|
90876998|NCT01082965|181616291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.124||0.3925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.19||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 4 on Day 1, Insula: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.19|-0.41|0.3925
90915715|NCT01415349|181701970|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals were assessed against the currently accepted bioequivalence criteria for log-transformed data (0.80, 1.25).|Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.998|1.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.08|0.998|
90915716|NCT02918071|181701994|OTHER||percentage|97.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|92.63|99.46|||Clopper-pearson Exact CI|One sample Confidence Interval (Week 12)|Percentage of patients successfully administered benralizumab with an AI at home (Week 12)|||99.46|92.63|
90915717|NCT02918071|181701994|OTHER||Percentage|96.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.41|99.05|||Clopper-pearson Exact CI|One sample Confidence Interval (Week 16)|Percentage of patients who successfully administered benralizumab with an AI at home (Week 16)|||99.05|91.41|
90915718|NCT02918071|181701994|OTHER||Percentage|93.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.86|96.98|||Clopper-pearson Exact CI|One sample Confidence Interval (Week 12 and 16)|Percentage of patients who successfully administered benralizumab with an AI at home (Week 12 and 16)|||96.98|86.86|
90915719|NCT02918071|181701995|OTHER||Percentage|97.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|92.69|99.47|||Clopper-pearson Exact CI|One sample Confidence Interval (Week 12)|Percentage of patients returned functional AI administered at home (Week 12)|||99.47|92.69|
90915720|NCT02918071|181701995|OTHER||Percentage|96.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.48|99.06|||Clopper Pearson Exact CI|One sample confidence interval (Week 16)|Percentage of patients returned functional AI administered at home (Week 16)|||99.06|91.48|
90915721|NCT02918071|181701996|OTHER||Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.0|||Clopper-pearson Exact CI|One sample Confidence Interval (Week 0)|Percentage of mulfunctioning AI used to administer benralizumab at home or clinic (Week 0)|||3.00|0.00|
90915722|NCT02918071|181701996|OTHER||Percentage|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|4.52|||Clopper-pearson Exact CI|One sample Confidence Interval (Week 4)|Percentage of malfunctioning AI used to administer benralizumab at home or clinic (Week 4)|||4.52|0.02|
90915723|NCT02918071|181701996|OTHER||Percentage|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|4.59|||Clopper-pearson Exact CI|One sample Confidence Interval (Week 8)|Percentage of malfunctioning AI used to administer benralizumab at home or clinic (Week 8)|||4.59|0.02|
91033646|NCT00617305|181953156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|92.46|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-128.6|101.0||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 36 (LOCF)||101.0|-128.6|
90915724|NCT02918071|181701996|OTHER||Percentage|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|7.31|||Clopper-pearson Exact CI|One sample Confidence Interval (Week 12)|Percentage of malfunctioning AI used to administer benralizumab at home or clinic (Week 12)|||7.31|0.53|
90915725|NCT02918071|181701996|OTHER||Percentage|3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|8.52|||Clopper-pearson Exact CI|One sample Confidence Interval (Week 16)|Percentage of malfunctioning AI used to administer benralizumab at home or clinic (Week 16)|||8.52|0.94|
90915726|NCT02918071|181701996|OTHER||Percentage|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.99|||Clopper-pearson Exact CI|One sample Confidence Interval (Week 0 to 8)|Percentage of malfunctioning AI used to administer benralizumab at home or clinic (Week 0 to 8)|||1.99|0.07|
90915727|NCT02918071|181701996|OTHER||Percentage|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|6.07|||Clopper-pearson Exact CI|One sample Confidence Interval (Week 12 to 16)|Percentage of malfunctioning AI used to administer benralizumab at home or clinic (Week 12 to 16)|||6.07|1.21|
90915728|NCT02918071|181701996|OTHER||Percentage|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|2.85|||Clopper-pearson Exact CI|One sample Confidence Interval (Week 0 to 16)|Percentage of malfunctioning AI used to administer benralizumab at home or clinic (Week 0 to 16)|||2.85|0.69|
90915729|NCT06336629|181702037|SUPERIORITY||two-sided|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
90915730|NCT06336629|181702038|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.008
90915731|NCT06336629|181702039|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.007
90915732|NCT06336629|181702040|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.009
90915733|NCT06336629|181702041|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.037||||||P-value from Baseline at Week 16|Wilcoxon signed rank|P-value from Baseline at Week 16||||||0.037
90915734|NCT06336629|181702043|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value from Baseline at Week 16|Wilcoxon signed rank|||||||1
90915735|NCT06336629|181702044|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value from Baseline at Week 16|Wilcoxon signed rank|||||||1
90915736|NCT03422276|181702053|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.78||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|t-test for independent samples, two-tailed, allocation ratio=1|Intervention mean minus control mean|It was calculated that 500 to 900 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the two arms would have practically 100% power to detect an effect size of 0.5, and even a small sample size of 300 would have 80% power to detect a small effect size of 0.3 (800 to 900 would be 100% power).||||0.44
90915737|NCT03422276|181702054|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.63||||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.10
90915738|NCT04922021|181702067|SUPERIORITY|Two-sided hypotheses were tested based on the pre-specified primary analysis for the primary estimand. The primary estimand used a hypothetical strategy evaluating the treatment difference as if all subjects adhered to the treatment regimen, i.e. they did not discontinue IMP permanently, did not initiate rescue treatment, or did not have more than one missed treatment dose related to COVID-19.|Mean Difference (Net)|-11.8||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.6|-4.1||The type I error rate of the two-sided hypothesis test was controlled at the 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: Change in EASI = Treatment + Region + Baseline EASI. Missing values and data 'treated as missing' were imputed using MI assuming MAR.|Estimates of difference in LS-means and associated standard errors from the analyses were combined using Rubin's rule to provide the overall pooled estimate and associated standard error. LS-means was estimated using the observed margins for the FAS.|||-4.1|-19.6|0.003
91033647|NCT00617305|181953156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|14.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|82.07|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|44.2||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 48 (LOCF)||44.2|-15.0|
90940536|NCT02630706|181760826|SUPERIORITY|cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, anti-hyperglycemic medication status at Screening (metformin alone, metformin + another AHA), Country (China, other), baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|Difference in the LS Means vs. Placebo|-1.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28|-1.28|||cLDA|||||-1.28|-2.28|<0.001
90876999|NCT01082965|181616291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.161||0.1991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.14||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 0 on Day 8, Insula: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.14|-0.58|0.1991
90877000|NCT01082965|181616291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.151||0.5176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.24||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 4 on Day 8, Insula: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.24|-0.45|0.5176
90877001|NCT01082965|181616291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.143||0.314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.18||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 4 on Day 1, Precuneus: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.18|-0.50|0.3140
90877002|NCT01082965|181616291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.171||0.6348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.29||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 0 on Day 8, Precuneus: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.29|-0.46|0.6348
90877003|NCT01082965|181616291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.165||0.1491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.12||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 4 on Day 8, Precuneus: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.12|-0.64|0.1491
90877004|NCT01082965|181616291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.192||0.4226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.27||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 4 on Day 1, Anterior Cingulate Cortex: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.27|-0.59|0.4226
90877005|NCT01082965|181616291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.228||0.9778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.5||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 0 on Day 8, Anterior Cingulate Cortex: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.50|-0.49|0.9778
90877006|NCT01082965|181616291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.179||0.9456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.43||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 4 on Day 8, Anterior Cingulate Cortex: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.43|-0.40|0.9456
90961268|NCT02021292|181803530|SUPERIORITY||least squares (LS) mean difference|-0.39||||0.3492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|0.43||To control multiplicity across all endpoints, secondary endpoints were analyzed in sequence using hierarchical approach based on order and significance as pre-specified in protocol eliminating further adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is the same in the placebo and the macitentan group. Statistical model is Analysis of Covariance including Borg dyspnea index at baseline as a covariate, with Treatment as factor in the model.||0.43|-1.21|0.3492
90961269|NCT02021292|181803531|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.212||||0.0962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|1.464||To control multiplicity across all endpoints, secondary endpoints were analyzed in sequence using hierarchical approach based on order and significance as pre-specified in protocol eliminating further adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis is the odds of worsening are the same in the placebo and the macitentan group. Logistic regression is used for Treatment Group vs. Placebo comparison to generate odds ratio, confidence levels, and p-values with treatment and WHO functional class at baseline as factors in the model.||1.464|0.001|0.0962
91033648|NCT00617305|181953156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-49.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|126.75|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-251.4|151.9||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 48 (LOCF)||151.9|-251.4|
90877007|NCT01082965|181616291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.162||0.2299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.15||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 4 on Day 1, Amygdala: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.15|-0.55|0.2299
90877008|NCT01082965|181616291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.188||0.5069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.28||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 0 on Day 8, Amygdala: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.28|-0.54|0.5069
90877009|NCT01082965|181616291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.143||0.3524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.17||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 4 on Day 8, Amygdala: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.17|-0.45|0.3524
90877010|NCT01082965|181616291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.358||0.4182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.47||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 4 on Day 1, Thalamus: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||1.47|-0.80|0.4182
90877011|NCT01082965|181616291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.31|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.326||0.363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|1.04||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 0 on Day 8, Thalamus: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||1.04|-0.42|0.3630
90877012|NCT01082965|181616291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.263||0.9837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.74||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 4 on Day 8, Thalamus: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.74|-0.73|0.9837
90877013|NCT01082965|181616291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.102||0.0974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.42||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 4 on Day 1, Basal Ganglia: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.42|-0.04|0.0974
90877014|NCT01082965|181616291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067||0.1246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.27||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 0 on Day 8, Basal Ganglia: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.27|-0.04|0.1246
90877015|NCT01082965|181616291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.119||0.619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.32||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 4 on Day 8, Basal Ganglia: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.32|-0.20|0.6190
90877016|NCT01082965|181616291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.25||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 4 on Day 1, Hippocampus: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.25|-0.39|0.6350
90877017|NCT01082965|181616291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.164||0.8205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.32||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 0 on Day 8, Hippocampus: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.32|-0.40|0.8205
90877018|NCT01082965|181616291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.123||0.2959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.14||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 4 on Day 8, Hippocampus: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.14|-0.42|0.2959
90877019|NCT01082965|181616291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.194||0.552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.32||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 4 on Day 1, Landau: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.32|-0.56|0.5520
91033649|NCT00617305|181953156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|67.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0||||||||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 48 (LOCF)||||
91033650|NCT00617305|181953156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|88.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.4|37.3||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 48 (LOCF)||37.3|-22.4|
90877020|NCT01082965|181616291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.9046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.45||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 0 on Day 8, Landau: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.45|-0.50|0.9046
90877021|NCT01082965|181616291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.125||0.0402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.02||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 4 on Day 8, Landau: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||-0.02|-0.62|0.0402
90877022|NCT01082965|181616292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.11||0.688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.82|31.82||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 5 on Day 1: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||31.82|-21.82|0.6880
90877023|NCT01082965|181616292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|9.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.143||0.3157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|30.87||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 0 on Day 8: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||30.87|-11.30|0.3157
90877024|NCT01082965|181616292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|9.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.921||0.3228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.56|33.28||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 5 on Day 8: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||33.28|-13.56|0.3228
90877025|NCT01082965|181616293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.479||0.254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|4.12||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Total IR: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||4.12|-12.90|0.2540
90915739|NCT01998984|181702091|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk|2.97||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|14.74||P-value was adjusted for analysis site using Rubin's pooling methodology after log transformation of RR (relative risk) of each imputation. Complete clearance relative to vehicle group and 2-day group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Relative risk and confidence interval were adjusted for analysis site using Rubin's pooling methodology after log transformation of RR of each imputation. Complete clearance relative to vehicle group and 2-day group.|"Treatment comparison based on 1000 imputations of AK count at week 8 using a negative binomial regression model with factors treatment and analysis site and with log of baseline AK count as offset.~Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel logit estimators were used for comparisons with vehicle due to absence of cleared participant in the vehicle group."||14.74|0.60|0.18
90915740|NCT01998984|181702091|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk|3.51||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|12.41||P-value was adjusted for analysis site using Rubin's pooling methodology after log transformation of RR (relative risk) of each imputation. Complete clearance relative to vehicle group and 2-day group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Relative risk and confidence interval were adjusted for analysis site using Rubin's pooling methodology after log transformation of RR of each imputation. Complete clearance relative to vehicle group and 2-day group.|"Treatment comparison based on 1000 imputations of AK count at week 8 using a negative binomial regression model with factors treatment and analysis site and with log of baseline AK count as offset.~Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel logit estimators were used for comparisons with vehicle due to absence of cleared subject in the vehicle group.~Type I error not controlled."||12.41|1.00|0.051
91033651|NCT00617305|181953156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-26.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|121.55|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-177.3|124.5||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 48 (LOCF)||124.5|-177.3|
91033652|NCT00617305|181953157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.0||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 4 (LOCF)||0.0|-1.1|
90877026|NCT01082965|181616293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.95||0.7684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.17|5.37||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Total DR: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||5.37|-4.17|0.7684
90877027|NCT01082965|181616294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059||0.494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.17||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 5 on Day 1, Detection Task: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.17|-0.09|0.4940
90877028|NCT01082965|181616294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057||0.1031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.22||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 0 on Day 8, Detection Task: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.22|-0.02|0.1031
90877029|NCT01082965|181616294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.3277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.16||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 5 on Day 8, Detection Task: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.16|-0.06|0.3277
90877030|NCT01082965|181616294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029||0.6585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.08||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 5 on Day 1, Identification Task: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.08|-0.05|0.6585
90877031|NCT01082965|181616294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033||0.8863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.08||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 0 on Day 8, Identification Task: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.08|-0.07|0.8863
90877032|NCT01082965|181616294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044||0.4388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.13||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 5 on Day 8, Identification Task: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.13|-0.06|0.4388
90877033|NCT02515942|181616305|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal), baseline lesion size as covariates after multiple imputations.|Treatment Effect|-0.35||||0.0636|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.64|-0.06|||ANCOVA|||||-0.06|-0.64|0.0636
90877034|NCT02515942|181616305|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-0.29||||0.1019|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.59|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Least squares mean for change from baseline from ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal), baseline lesion size as covariates after multiple imputations.||0.00|-0.59|0.1019
90877035|NCT02515942|181616305|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|0.06||||0.5987|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.24|0.35|||ANCOVA|||Least squares mean for change from baseline from ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal), baseline lesion size as covariates after multiple imputations.||0.35|-0.24|0.5987
90877036|NCT02515942|181616306|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|0.0||||0.5029|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.11|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 85||0.11|-0.11|0.5029
90877037|NCT02515942|181616306|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|0.04||||0.682|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.07|0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 85||0.14|-0.07|0.6820
90877038|NCT02515942|181616306|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|0.04||||0.6826|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.07|0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 85||0.14|-0.07|0.6826
90877039|NCT02515942|181616306|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-0.12||||0.1545|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.28|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 169||0.03|-0.28|0.1545
90877040|NCT02515942|181616306|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-0.13||||0.1398|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.29|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 169||0.02|-0.29|0.1398
90877041|NCT02515942|181616306|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-0.01||||0.4717|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.16|0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 169||0.14|-0.16|0.4717
90877042|NCT02515942|181616306|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-0.25||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.45|-0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 253||-0.05|-0.45|0.0530
90877043|NCT02515942|181616306|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-0.17||||0.1386|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.37|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 253||0.03|-0.37|0.1386
90915741|NCT01998984|181702091|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk|0.47||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.68||P-value was adjusted for analysis site using Rubin's pooling methodology after log transformation of RR (relative risk) of each imputation. Complete clearance relative to vehicle group and 2-day group.|Mantel Haenszel||Relative risk and confidence interval were adjusted for analysis site using Rubin's pooling methodology after log transformation of RR of each imputation. Complete clearance relative to vehicle group and 2-day group.|"Treatment comparison based on 1000 imputations of AK count at week 8 using a negative binomial regression model with factors treatment and analysis site and with log of baseline AK count as offset.~Type I error not controlled. Mantel-Haenszel estimators were used."||1.68|0.13|0.25
90915742|NCT01998984|181702092|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of adjusted mean|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.51||P-value was from negative binomial regression model with factors treatment and analysis site and with log of baseline AK count as offset with 1000 Imputations.|Negative binomial regression||Estimation parameter and confidence interval were from negative binomial regression model with factors treatment and analysis site and with log of baseline AK count as offset with 1000 Imputations.|||0.51|0.32|<0.001
90915743|NCT01998984|181702092|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of adjusted mean|0.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.45||P-value was from negative binomial regression model with factors treatment and analysis site and with log of baseline AK count as offset with 1000 Imputations.|Negative binomial regression||Estimation parameter and confidence interval were from negative binomial regression model with factors treatment and analysis site and with log of baseline AK count as offset with 1000 Imputations.|||0.45|0.29|<0.001
90961270|NCT02021292|181803532|SUPERIORITY||Model-adjusted geometric mean ratio|0.81||||0.0098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.95||This is the post-hoc analysis and p-value is an exploratory p-value.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on log-transformed % of baseline PVR at Week 16 adjusted by treatment as a factor and log transformed PVR at baseline as a covariate.||The same statistical model as for the predefined analysis (ANCOVA) was applied, including 13 subjects with corrected hemodynamic values.||0.95|0.70|0.0098
90961271|NCT02021292|181803533|SUPERIORITY||Model-adjusted geometric mean ratio|0.79||||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.93||This is the post-hoc analysis and p-value is an exploratory p-value.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on log-transformed % of baseline PVR at Week 16 adjusted by treatment as a factor and log transformed PVR at baseline as a covariate.||||0.93|0.68|0.0061
90961272|NCT02021292|181803534|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.85||||0.0414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.99||This is the post-hoc analysis and p-value is an exploratory p-value.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on log-transformed % of baseline PVR at Week 16 adjusted by treatment as a factor and log transformed PVR at baseline as a covariate.||||0.99|0.73|0.0414
90877044|NCT02515942|181616306|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|0.08||||0.7087|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.11|0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 253||0.27|-0.11|0.7087
90877045|NCT02515942|181616308|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-2.72||||0.9243|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.15|-0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 2||-0.29|-5.15|0.9243
90877046|NCT02515942|181616308|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|0.51||||0.3929|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.89|2.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 2||2.91|-1.89|0.3929
90877047|NCT02515942|181616308|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|3.23||||0.0418|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.85|5.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 2||5.61|0.85|0.0418
90877048|NCT02515942|181616308|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-0.32||||0.5632|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.91|2.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 8||2.27|-2.91|0.5632
90961273|NCT02021292|181803535|SUPERIORITY||least squares (LS) mean difference|37.19||||0.0468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|73.83||This is the post-hoc analysis and p-value is an exploratory p-value.|ANCOVA|Statistical model is ANCOVA including 6MWD at baseline as a covariate, with treatment as factor in the model.||||73.83|0.54|0.0468
90961274|NCT04356183|181803536|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
90961275|NCT04356183|181803537|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
90961276|NCT04356183|181803538|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
90961277|NCT01177787|181803547|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.669|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.03||0.503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.503
91033653|NCT00617305|181953157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|3.1||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 4 (LOCF)||3.1|-1.6|
91033654|NCT00617305|181953157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0||||||||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 4 (LOCF)||||
90877049|NCT02515942|181616308|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|1.29||||0.2575|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.25|3.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 8||3.83|-1.25|0.2575
90877050|NCT02515942|181616308|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|1.61||||0.2058|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.91|4.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 8||4.12|-0.91|0.2058
90877051|NCT02515942|181616308|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-1.94||||0.8392|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.44|0.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 15||0.57|-4.44|0.8392
90877052|NCT02515942|181616308|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effecgt|-0.12||||0.5255|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.59|2.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 15||2.35|-2.59|0.5255
90877053|NCT02515942|181616308|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|1.81||||0.1685|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.61|4.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 15||4.24|-0.61|0.1685
90877054|NCT02515942|181616308|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment|-2.01||||0.8544|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.45|0.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 29||0.43|-4.45|0.8544
90877055|NCT02515942|181616308|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|2.03||||0.1402|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.38|4.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 29||4.44|-0.38|0.1402
90877056|NCT02515942|181616308|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|4.03||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.67|6.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 29||6.40|1.67|0.0150
90877057|NCT02515942|181616308|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|0.14||||0.4682|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.11|2.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 30||2.39|-2.11|0.4682
90877058|NCT02515942|181616308|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|0.38||||0.4125|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.84|2.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 30||2.60|-1.84|0.4125
90877059|NCT02515942|181616308|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|0.24||||0.4431|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.94|2.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 30||2.42|-1.94|0.4431
90877060|NCT02515942|181616308|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-1.04||||0.6924|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.72|1.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 57||1.63|-3.72|0.6924
91033655|NCT00617305|181953157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.54|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.1||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 4 (LOCF)||0.1|-0.9|
90915744|NCT01998984|181702092|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of adjusted mean|0.89||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.14||P-value was from negative binomial regression model with factors treatment and analysis site and with log of baseline AK count as offset with 1000 Imputations.|Negative binomial regression||Estimation parameter and confidence interval were from negative binomial regression model with factors treatment and analysis site and with log of baseline AK count as offset with 1000 Imputations.|||1.14|0.70|0.36
90915745|NCT01998984|181702093|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk|32.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.39|236.8||P value adjusted for analysis site.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Relative risk and confidence interval were adjusted for analysis site and were Mantel-Haenszel estimators. Relative risk of partial clearance relative to vehicle group.|The treatment comparison was based on 1000 imputations of AK count at week 8 using a negative binomial regression model with factors treatment and analysis site and with log of baseline AK count as offset.||236.8|4.39|<0.001
90915746|NCT01998984|181702093|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk|25.2||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.39|187.4||Adjusted for analysis site. Relative risk of partial clearance relative to vehicle group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Relative risk and confidence interval were adjusted for analysis site and were Mantel-Haenszel estimators. Relative risk of partial clearance relative to vehicle group.|The treatment comparison was based on 1000 imputations of AK count at week 8 using a negative binomial regression model with factors treatment and analysis site and with log of baseline AK count as offset.||187.4|3.39|0.002
90915747|NCT01998984|181702093|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk|1.2||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.65||Adjusted for analysis site. Relative risk of partial clearance relative to 2-day group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Relative risk and confidence interval were adjusted for analysis site and were Mantel-Haenszel estimators. Relative risk of partial clearance relative to vehicle group.|The treatment comparison was based on 1000 imputations of AK count at week 8 using a negative binomial regression model with factors treatment and analysis site and with log of baseline AK count as offset.||1.65|0.86|0.28
90915748|NCT04425629|181702167|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|=|0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.14|||ANCOVA|||||-0.14|-0.52|= 0.0006
90961278|NCT01570036|181803562|OTHER|Kaplan-Meier Survival Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.25|||Kaplan-Meier Survival Analysis|||||1.25|.31|0.18
90915749|NCT04425629|181702167|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.19|||ANCOVA|||||-0.19|-0.56|< 0.0001
90915750|NCT04425629|181702168|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0024|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||= 0.0024
90915751|NCT04425629|181702169|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||< 0.0001
90915752|NCT04425629|181702175|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1903|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||= 0.1903
91033656|NCT00617305|181953157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.52|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.3||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 4 (LOCF)||2.3|-1.5|
90915753|NCT04425629|181702175|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.8431|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||= 0.8431
90915754|NCT04425629|181702231|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|16.12||||||||16.12|0.06|
90915755|NCT04425629|181702232|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|3.13||||||||3.13|0.03|
90915756|NCT03538717|181702312|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.113|||||||Chi-squared|||Statistics analysis (P value) was performed compositely for all the categories reported.||||0.113
90915757|NCT03538717|181702313|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.228|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistics analysis (P value) was performed compositely for all the categories reported.||||0.228
90915758|NCT03538717|181702314|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Chi-squared|||Statistics analysis (P value) was performed compositely for all the categories reported.||||0.020
90961279|NCT01570036|181803564|OTHER|||||||0.02||||||Comparison of the mean LVEF from baseline to 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months; this time period includes the therapy period of trastuzumab.|ANOVA|||||||0.02
90961280|NCT01570036|181803564|OTHER|||||||0.58||||||The mean LVEF compared at baseline to 3 months, 6 months, 12 months and 24 months; this time period includes the duration of trastuzumab therapy and 1 year after completion of trastuzumab therapy.|ANOVA|||||||0.58
90961281|NCT01570036|181803564|OTHER|||||||0.65||||||Evaluating LVEF at all time points with a linear mixed regression model, this analysis compared cardiac ejection fraction over time.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.65
90915759|NCT03538717|181702315|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.138|||||||Chi-squared|||Statistics analysis (P value) was performed compositely for all the categories reported.||||0.138
90915760|NCT03538717|181702316|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.524|||||||Chi-squared|||Statistics analysis (P value) was performed compositely for all the categories reported.||||0.524
90915761|NCT03538717|181702317|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.265|||||||Chi-squared|||Statistics analysis (P value) was performed compositely for all the categories reported.||||0.265
90915762|NCT03538717|181702318|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035|||||||Chi-squared|||Statistics analysis (P value) was performed compositely for all the categories reported.||||0.035
90915763|NCT03538717|181702319|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.123|||||||Chi-squared|||Statistics analysis (P value) was performed compositely for all the categories reported.||||0.123
90915764|NCT03538717|181702320|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.327|||||||Chi-squared|||Statistics analysis (P value) was performed compositely for all the categories reported.||||0.327
90915765|NCT03538717|181702321|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.419|||||||Chi-squared|||Statistics analysis (P value) was performed compositely for all the categories reported.||||0.419
90877061|NCT02515942|181616308|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-0.61||||0.616|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.26|2.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 57||2.04|-3.26|0.6160
91033657|NCT00617305|181953157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.45|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.0||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 12 (LOCF)||0.0|-1.1|
90877062|NCT02515942|181616308|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|0.44||||0.4149|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.18|3.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 57||3.06|-2.18|0.4149
90877063|NCT02515942|181616308|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|1.29||||0.2582|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.27|3.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 85||3.85|-1.27|0.2582
90877064|NCT02515942|181616308|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|0.81||||0.3402|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.72|3.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 85||3.34|-1.72|0.3402
90877065|NCT02515942|181616308|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-0.48||||0.5976|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.99|2.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 85||2.03|-2.99|0.5976
90877066|NCT02515942|181616308|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-0.5||||0.5916|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.3|2.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 113||2.29|-3.30|0.5916
90877067|NCT02515942|181616308|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-0.3||||0.5564|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.05|2.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 113||2.45|-3.05|0.5564
90915766|NCT03538717|181702322|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistics analysis (P value) was performed compositely for all the categories reported.||||0.010
90915767|NCT03538717|181702323|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.446|||||||Chi-squared|||100% clear cells||||0.446
90915768|NCT03538717|181702323|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.596|||||||Chi-squared|||100% non-clear cells||||0.596
90915769|NCT03538717|181702323|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.578|||||||Chi-squared|||Majority component of clear cells||||0.578
90915770|NCT03538717|181702323|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.706|||||||Fisher Exact|||Majority component of non-clear cells||||0.706
90915771|NCT03538717|181702324|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.074|||||||Chi-squared|||Statistics analysis (P value) was performed compositely for all the categories reported.||||0.074
90915772|NCT03538717|181702325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Chi-squared|||Statistics analysis (P value) was performed compositely for all the categories reported.||||0.070
90915773|NCT03538717|181702326|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.091|||||||Chi-squared|||Statistics analysis (P value) was performed compositely for all the categories reported.||||0.091
90915774|NCT03538717|181702327|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046|||||||Chi-squared|||Lymph nodes||||0.046
90915775|NCT03538717|181702327|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||CNS||||>0.999
90915776|NCT03538717|181702327|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.026|||||||Chi-squared|||Hepatic||||0.026
90915777|NCT03538717|181702327|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.327|||||||Chi-squared|||Pulmonary||||0.327
90915778|NCT03538717|181702327|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024|||||||Chi-squared|||Bone||||0.024
90877068|NCT02515942|181616308|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|0.2||||0.4625|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.53|2.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 113||2.93|-2.53|0.4625
90877069|NCT02515942|181616308|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-1.94||||0.8221|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.64|0.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 141||0.76|-4.64|0.8221
90877070|NCT02515942|181616308|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|0.98||||0.3179|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.68|3.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 141||3.64|-1.68|0.3179
90877071|NCT02515942|181616308|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|2.92||||0.0773|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.29|5.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 141||5.55|0.29|0.0773
90877072|NCT02515942|181616308|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-0.95||||0.6708|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.71|1.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 169||1.81|-3.71|0.6708
90877073|NCT02515942|181616308|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-0.99||||0.679|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.71|1.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 169||1.74|-3.71|0.6790
90877074|NCT02515942|181616308|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-0.04||||0.507|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.72|2.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 169||2.64|-2.72|0.5070
90877075|NCT02515942|181616308|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-0.3||||0.5487|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.44|2.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 197||2.84|-3.44|0.5487
90877076|NCT02515942|181616308|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-1.25||||0.6973|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.35|1.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 197||1.85|-4.35|0.6973
90877077|NCT02515942|181616308|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-0.95||||0.6548|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.0|2.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 197||2.11|-4.00|0.6548
90877078|NCT02515942|181616308|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-0.35||||0.5533|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.76|3.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 225||3.05|-3.76|0.5533
90915779|NCT03538717|181702327|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.045|||||||Chi-squared|||Another site of metastasis||||0.045
90915780|NCT03538717|181702328|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.555|||||||Chi-squared|||LDH level \>1.5\*ULN||||0.555
90915781|NCT03538717|181702328|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||Hgb levels \<=LLN||||<0.001
90915782|NCT03538717|181702328|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.344|||||||Chi-squared|||Corrected Ca levels \>10 mg/dL||||0.344
90915783|NCT03538717|181702328|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Chi-squared|||Neutrophil levels \>ULN||||>0.999
90915784|NCT03538717|181702328|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.795|||||||Chi-squared|||Platelet levels \>ULN||||0.795
90915785|NCT03538717|181702328|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.184|||||||Chi-squared|||Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio \<=3||||0.184
90915786|NCT03538717|181702329|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.235|||||||Chi-squared|||Statistics analysis (P value) was performed compositely for all the categories reported.||||0.235
90915787|NCT03628885|181702351|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.02||||||Adjusted for mother's educational level, which differed across groups. A priori threshold for statistical significance = P\<.05|ANOVA|||||||<.02
90915788|NCT03628885|181702351|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.07||||||Adjusted for mother's educational level, which differed across groups. A priori threshold for statistical significance = P\<.05|ANOVA|||||||=.07
90915789|NCT03628885|181702351|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||Adjusted for mother's educational level, which differed across groups. A priori threshold for statistical significance = P\<.05|ANOVA|||Adjusted for mother's educational level, which differed across groups. A priori threshold for statistical significance = P\<.05||||<.01
90915790|NCT00253890|181702352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|35.7||||0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in sleep quality was assessed by calculating gain scores. We used a 2-sided t-test to report mean change.||||.05
90915791|NCT02765100|181702355|EQUIVALENCE|Unless specified otherwise, each of the statistical tests above will use a two-tailed alpha-level of 0.05.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.4|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This is a pilot proof of concept study and does not require formal sample size calculations. High and low CRP groups will be compared on demographic, clinical and biological variables using two-sample t-tests or analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests for continuous variables (for nonparametric continuous variables, either Mann-Whitney tests or Kruskal-Wallis tests will be used) and chi-square tests or Fisher's exact tests for categorical variables.||||<0.05
90915792|NCT00106080|181702371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference between groups after adjust|5.7||||0.03||||||No multiple comparisons, a priori threshold \< 0.05|GEE regression|Generalized estimating equations (GEE) regression, clustering for provider.||Power calculation: With 60 providers in each group, maintaining the probability of a type I error of 0.05, power of 0.90, provider level mean QOC score of 54.5 and provider level standard deviation in QOC score of 12.0, the minimal detectable difference in QOC score would be 7.5.||||0.03
90915793|NCT01839331|181702373|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||Adjusted for injection volume (4 mL or 10 mL) and baseline WOMAC score.|ANOVA|||||||0.004
90915794|NCT01839331|181702373|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017||||||Adjusted for injection volume and baseline WOMAC score.|ANOVA|||||||0.017
90915795|NCT01839331|181702373|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.093||||||Adjusted for injection volume and baseline WOMAC score.|ANOVA|||||||0.093
90915796|NCT01839331|181702374|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for injection volume (4 mL or 10 mL) and baseline WOMAC score.||||||0.0442|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0442
90915797|NCT01839331|181702375|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4133||||||Adjusted for injection volume (4 mL or 10 mL) and baseline WOMAC score.|ANOVA|||||||0.4133
90961282|NCT01570036|181803564|OTHER|||||||0.91||||||This analysis evaluated LVEF at all time points with a linear mixed regression model between randomization arms.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.91
90915798|NCT01839331|181702376|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0122||||||Adjusted for injection volume (4 mL or 10 mL) and baseline PGA|ANOVA|||||||0.0122
90915799|NCT03074331|181702385|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||2-sided exact 1-sample binomial test|||The SVR12 rate was compared to the pre-specified performance goal of 85% by using a two-sided exact one-sample binomial test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.009
90915800|NCT03283371|181702399|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean logarithmic difference|-0.16||||0.5053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.31|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Analysis is based on MMRM and adjusted for natural log-transformed baseline seizure frequency, high seizure frequency category (\>=24 seizures and \<24 seizures), structural etiology category (yes and no), visit, treatment and treatment by visit interaction. An unstructured variance-covariance matrix is used in the model.||0.31|-0.62|0.5053
90915801|NCT03283371|181702400|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.09||||0.2231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|6.85|||Regression, Logistic|||Based on logistic regression with a term for treatment group and with adjustment for natural log-transformed baseline seizure frequency, high seizure frequency category (\>=24 seizures and \<24 seizures) and structural etiology category (yes and no).||6.85|0.64|0.2231
90915802|NCT03283371|181702403|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67||||0.6854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|4.57|||Regression, Logistic|||Based on the logistic regression model with a term for treatment group and with adjustment for log-transformed baseline seizure frequency, high seizure frequency category (\>=24 seizures and \<24 seizures) and structural etiology category (yes and no) are considered as covariates.||4.57|0.10|0.6854
90915803|NCT01290341|181702407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||p-value|0.001|||<|0.025||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH test statistic after stratification by site was used to compare subjects with complete cure between NAFT-600 and Placebo.||"In order to compare complete cure rate in the NAFT-600 group with that of the Placebo group, the following one-sided hypothesis test was carried out:~H0 (null): p1\<=p0 versus Ha (alternate): p1\>p0, where p0 and p1 are the proportions of subjects with complete cure in the placebo and NAFT-600 treatment groups respectively."||||<0.025
90940537|NCT02630706|181760827|SUPERIORITY|cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, anti-hyperglycemic medication status at Screening (metformin alone, metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|Difference in LS Means vs. Placebo|-2.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.63|-1.21|||cLDA|||||-1.21|-2.63|<0.001
90940538|NCT02630706|181760827|SUPERIORITY|cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, anti-hyperglycemic medication status at Screening (metformin alone, metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|Difference in the LS Means vs. Placebo|-1.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.36|-1.21|||cLDA|||||-1.21|-2.36|<0.001
90915804|NCT00174382|181702421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.182||95.0|-0.21|1.09||Baseline value, center, and week as fixed effects; subject was included as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12 Null hypothesis; change from baseline to the final visit = 0. Alternative hypothesis; change from baseline to final visit not = to 0. Sample of 260 participants was required for study to have 85% power to detect change from baseline to final visit of 0.73 in SMMSE total score, with a SD of 3.5. Fewer than 260 patients were enrolled, due to this loss in power the number of analyses specified in the protocol has been reduced and any analyses carried out will be exploratory in nature.||1.09|-0.21|0.182
90915805|NCT00174382|181702421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.067||95.0|-0.05|1.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24 Null hypothesis; change from baseline to the final visit = 0. Alternative hypothesis; change from baseline to final visit not = to 0. Sample of 260 participants was required for study to have 85% power to detect change from baseline to final visit of 0.73 in SMMSE total score, with a SD of 3.5. Fewer than 260 patients were enrolled, due to this loss in power the number of analyses specified in the protocol has been reduced and any analyses carried out will be exploratory in nature.||1.36|-0.05|0.067
90915806|NCT00174382|181702421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.085||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24 LOCF Null hypothesis; change from baseline to the final visit = 0. Alternative hypothesis; change from baseline to final visit not = to 0. Sample of 260 participants was required for study to have 85% power to detect change from baseline to final visit of 0.73 in SMMSE total score, with a SD of 3.5. Fewer than 260 patients were enrolled, due to this loss in power the number of analyses specified in the protocol has been reduced and any analyses carried out will be exploratory in nature.||||0.085
90915807|NCT00174382|181702422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16||0.218||95.0|-1.2|5.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.19|-1.20|0.218
90915808|NCT00174382|181702422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-1.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.12||0.385||95.0|-6.03|2.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.34|-6.03|0.385
90915809|NCT00174382|181702422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.228||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.228
90915810|NCT00174382|181702423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.19||0.404||95.0|-2.51|6.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.18|-2.51|0.404
90915811|NCT00174382|181702423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.56||0.826||95.0|-4.51|5.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.64|-4.51|0.826
90915812|NCT00174382|181702423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.494||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.494
90915813|NCT00174382|181702424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.61||0.272||95.0|-1.42|4.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.99|-1.42|0.272
90915814|NCT00174382|181702424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.894||95.0|-4.21|3.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.68|-4.21|0.894
90915815|NCT00174382|181702424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.906||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.906
90915816|NCT00174382|181702425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.719||95.0|-0.56|0.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.82|-0.56|0.719
90915817|NCT00174382|181702425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.006||95.0|0.29|1.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.71|0.29|0.006
90961283|NCT01570036|181803564|OTHER|||||||0.81||||||This analysis evaluated LVEF at all time points with a linear mixed regression model between the arms over time.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.81
90915818|NCT00174382|181702425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.007
90915819|NCT00174382|181702426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.368||95.0|-0.38|1.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.01|-0.38|0.368
90915820|NCT00174382|181702426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.03||95.0|0.07|1.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.37|0.07|0.030
90915821|NCT00174382|181702426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.060
90915822|NCT00174382|181702427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.516||95.0|-0.44|0.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.86|-0.44|0.516
90915823|NCT00174382|181702427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.297||95.0|-0.97|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.30|-0.97|0.297
90915824|NCT00174382|181702427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.133||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.133
90915825|NCT00174382|181702428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.02||95.0|0.13|1.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.45|0.13|0.020
90915826|NCT00174382|181702428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.018||95.0|0.16|1.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.59|0.16|0.018
90961284|NCT01570036|181803565|OTHER|||||||0.149|||||||Chi-squared|Comparison of the maximum related local toxicity experienced per patient and compared between treatment arms.||The safety group consisted of any patients who received NPS with GM-CSF or placebo with GM-CSF inoculations.||||0.149
90915827|NCT00174382|181702428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.004
90877079|NCT02515942|181616308|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|1.11||||0.3358|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.25|4.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 225||4.46|-2.25|0.3358
90877080|NCT02515942|181616308|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|1.46||||0.285|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.85|4.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 225||4.77|-1.85|0.2850
90877081|NCT02515942|181616308|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-0.55||||0.5778|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.14|3.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 253||3.04|-4.14|0.5778
90877082|NCT02515942|181616308|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|2.3||||0.2018|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.24|5.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 253||5.85|-1.24|0.2018
90877083|NCT02515942|181616308|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|2.85||||0.1457|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.62|6.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 253||6.32|-0.62|0.1457
90877084|NCT02515942|181616308|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-0.56||||0.5758|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.29|3.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 281||3.18|-4.29|0.5758
90877085|NCT02515942|181616308|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|0.85||||0.3833|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.84|4.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 281||4.55|-2.84|0.3833
90877086|NCT02515942|181616308|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|1.41||||0.3083|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.21|5.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 281||5.02|-2.21|0.3083
90877087|NCT02515942|181616308|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-1.54||||0.7063|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.19|2.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 309||2.11|-5.19|0.7063
90877088|NCT02515942|181616308|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|2.14||||0.2227|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.46|5.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 309||5.74|-1.46|0.2227
90877089|NCT02515942|181616308|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|3.68||||0.0907|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.15|7.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 309||7.21|0.15|0.0907
90877090|NCT02515942|181616308|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|0.17||||0.4799|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.23|4.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 337||4.57|-4.23|0.4799
90915828|NCT00174382|181702429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.01||95.0|-1.93|-0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.27|-1.93|0.010
90915829|NCT00174382|181702429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.018||95.0|-2.05|-0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.19|-2.05|0.018
90877091|NCT02515942|181616308|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-0.2||||0.5237|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.54|4.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 337||4.14|-4.54|0.5237
90877092|NCT02515942|181616308|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-0.37||||0.5451|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.62|3.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 337||3.87|-4.62|0.5451
90877093|NCT02515942|181616309|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|0.15||||0.4609|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.79|2.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 2||2.09|-1.79|0.4609
90877094|NCT02515942|181616309|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|0.46||||0.3771|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.44|2.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 2||2.37|-1.44|0.3771
90877095|NCT02515942|181616309|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|0.32||||0.4161|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.6|2.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 2||2.24|-1.60|0.4161
90915830|NCT00174382|181702429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.018
90915831|NCT00174382|181702430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.182||95.0|-2.06|0.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.39|-2.06|0.182
90915832|NCT00174382|181702430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.114||95.0|-2.44|0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.26|-2.44|0.114
90915833|NCT00174382|181702430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.038
90915834|NCT03903822|181702435|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) mean difference|-13.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.04||0.104|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-32.1|4.3|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) contained fixed factors of treatment and baseline value.||4.3|-32.1|0.1040
90915835|NCT03903822|181702435|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-20.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.0||0.0334|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-38.3|-2.1|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA contained fixed factors of treatment and baseline value.||-2.1|-38.3|0.0334
90915836|NCT03903822|181702435|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-25.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.75||0.0086|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-43.3|-8.0|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA contained fixed factors of treatment and baseline value.||-8.0|-43.3|0.0086
90915837|NCT03903822|181702435|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-23.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.93||0.0158|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-41.5|-5.5|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA contained fixed factors of treatment and baseline value.||-5.5|-41.5|0.0158
91033658|NCT00617305|181953157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.38|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|5.3||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 12 (LOCF)||5.3|-2.3|
90877096|NCT02515942|181616309|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-2.88||||0.9385|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.26|-0.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 29||-0.49|-5.26|0.9385
90877097|NCT02515942|181616309|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-0.4||||0.5862|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.76|1.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 29||1.96|-2.76|0.5862
90915838|NCT03903822|181702435|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-11.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.11||0.0879|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-24.3|2.4|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA contained fixed factors of treatment and baseline value.||2.4|-24.3|0.0879
90915839|NCT03903822|181702435|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-27.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.11||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-40.7|-14.1|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA contained fixed factors of treatment and baseline value.||-14.1|-40.7|0.0004
90915840|NCT03903822|181702436|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.9||||0.0244|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.4|34.7|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||34.7|2.4|0.0244
90915841|NCT03903822|181702436|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|22.5||||0.0113|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.8|38.6|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||38.6|4.8|0.0113
90915842|NCT03903822|181702436|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|29.7||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|90.0|11.0|45.7|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||45.7|11.0|0.0018
90915843|NCT03903822|181702436|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|33.6||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|13.7|49.9|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||49.9|13.7|0.0007
90915844|NCT03903822|181702436|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|19.4||||0.0289|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.8|36.5|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||36.5|1.8|0.0289
90915845|NCT03903822|181702436|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.1||||0.1145|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.9|29.6|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||29.6|-2.9|0.1145
90915846|NCT03903822|181702437|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.0488|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.61|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA contained fixed factors of treatment and baseline value.||-0.01|-2.61|0.0488
90915847|NCT03903822|181702437|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.788||0.0413|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.66|-0.07|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA contained fixed factors of treatment and baseline value.||-0.07|-2.66|0.0413
90915848|NCT03903822|181702437|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.773||0.02|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.86|-0.32|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA contained fixed factors of treatment and baseline value.||-0.32|-2.86|0.0200
90915849|NCT03903822|181702437|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.758||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.58|-1.08|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA contained fixed factors of treatment and baseline value.||-1.08|-3.58|0.0011
90915850|NCT03903822|181702437|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.535||0.0727|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.66|0.1|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA contained fixed factors of treatment and baseline value.||0.10|-1.66|0.0727
90915851|NCT03903822|181702437|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.534||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.52|-0.77|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA contained fixed factors of treatment and baseline value.||-0.77|-2.52|0.0010
90915852|NCT03903822|181702438|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.5||||0.5246|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.7|16.4|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 1: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||16.4|-14.7|0.5246
90915853|NCT03903822|181702438|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.8||||0.3906|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.5|19.9|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 1: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||19.9|-12.5|0.3906
90915854|NCT03903822|181702438|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.5||||0.1193|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.2|30.6|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 1: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||30.6|-3.2|0.1193
90915855|NCT03903822|181702438|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|28.2||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.8|45.5|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 1: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||45.5|8.8|0.0048
90915856|NCT03903822|181702438|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.7||||0.0777|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.0|31.1|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 1: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||31.1|-2.0|0.0777
90915857|NCT03903822|181702438|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.8||||0.1245|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.3|28.0|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 1: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||28.0|-4.3|0.1245
90915858|NCT03903822|181702438|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.2||||0.3322|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.2|24.4|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 2: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||24.4|-12.2|0.3322
91033659|NCT00617305|181953157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0||||||||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 12 (LOCF)||||
91033660|NCT00617305|181953157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.67|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.2||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 12 (LOCF)||0.2|-0.9|
90915859|NCT03903822|181702438|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.5||||0.0535|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|36.5|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 2: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||36.5|-0.3|0.0535
90915860|NCT03903822|181702438|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|24.3||||0.0159|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.5|41.9|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 2: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||41.9|4.5|0.0159
90915861|NCT03903822|181702438|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|36.8||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|90.0|15.4|54.0|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 2: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||54.0|15.4|0.0008
90915862|NCT03903822|181702438|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.7||||0.0386|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.5|38.8|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 2: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||38.8|1.5|0.0386
90915863|NCT03903822|181702438|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.1||||0.1485|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.4|30.3|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 2: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||30.3|-6.4|0.1485
90915864|NCT03903822|181702438|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.3||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8|34.8|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 3: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||34.8|-0.8|0.0620
90915865|NCT03903822|181702438|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|26.9||||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.5|44.4|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 3: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||44.4|6.5|0.0089
90915866|NCT03903822|181702438|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|37.8||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|17.5|54.7|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 3: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||54.7|17.5|0.0005
90915867|NCT03903822|181702438|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|36.7||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|15.4|54.0|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 3: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||54.0|15.4|0.0007
90915868|NCT03903822|181702438|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.1||||0.0711|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.0|37.5|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 3: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||37.5|-2.0|0.0711
90915869|NCT03903822|181702438|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|23.8||||0.0266|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.7|42.5|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 3: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||42.5|2.7|0.0266
90915870|NCT03903822|181702438|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.8||||0.4173|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.3|23.1|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At week 4: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||23.1|-15.3|0.4173
90915871|NCT03903822|181702438|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.3||||0.1096|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.3|35.6|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 4: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||35.6|-4.3|0.1096
90915872|NCT03903822|181702438|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|27.0||||0.0133|TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.1|45.7|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 4: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||45.7|6.1|0.0133
90877098|NCT02515942|181616309|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|2.48||||0.0875|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.14|4.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 29||4.82|0.14|0.0875
90877099|NCT02515942|181616309|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|0.53||||0.4059|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.32|3.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 57||3.37|-2.32|0.4059
90877100|NCT02515942|181616309|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|1.24||||0.286|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.58|4.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 57||4.05|-1.58|0.2860
90877101|NCT02515942|181616309|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|0.71||||0.3727|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.1|3.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 57||3.52|-2.10|0.3727
90877102|NCT02515942|181616309|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|0.91||||0.336|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.85|3.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 85||3.66|-1.85|0.3360
90877103|NCT02515942|181616309|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|3.95||||0.0316|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.24|6.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 85||6.66|1.24|0.0316
90915873|NCT03903822|181702438|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|23.2||||0.0304|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.6|41.7|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 4: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||41.7|2.6|0.0304
90877104|NCT02515942|181616309|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|3.04||||0.0762|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.32|5.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 85||5.76|0.32|0.0762
90877105|NCT02515942|181616309|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|3.68||||0.0544|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.75|6.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 113||6.61|0.75|0.0544
90877106|NCT02515942|181616309|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|1.91||||0.1955|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.95|4.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 113||4.77|-0.95|0.1955
90915874|NCT03903822|181702438|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|29.4||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.2|47.6|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 4: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||47.6|7.2|0.0078
90915875|NCT03903822|181702438|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|29.4||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.2|47.6|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 4: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||47.6|7.2|0.0078
90915876|NCT03903822|181702438|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.1||||0.4966|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.4|20.4|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 6: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||20.4|-18.4|0.4966
90915877|NCT03903822|181702438|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.9||||0.2753|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.3|30.1|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 6: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||30.1|-9.3|0.2753
90915878|NCT03903822|181702438|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.2||||0.1036|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.2|35.7|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 6: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||35.7|-4.2|0.1036
90915879|NCT03903822|181702438|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.6||||0.0457|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|39.6|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 6: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||39.6|0.4|0.0457
90915880|NCT03903822|181702438|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|29.4||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.2|47.6|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 6: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||47.6|7.2|0.0078
90915881|NCT03903822|181702438|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|29.4||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.2|47.6|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 6: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||47.6|7.2|0.0078
90915882|NCT03903822|181702439|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.3||||0.245|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.4|14.9|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 1: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||14.9|-5.4|0.2450
90915883|NCT03903822|181702439|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.1||||0.2575|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.3|14.0|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 1: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||14.0|-5.3|0.2575
90915884|NCT03903822|181702439|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.1||||0.0087|TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.7|31.0|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 1: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||31.0|5.7|0.0087
90915885|NCT03903822|181702439|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.7||||0.0392|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|25.4|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 1: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||25.4|0.8|0.0392
90915886|NCT03903822|181702439|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.2|11.2|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 1: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||11.2|-11.2|1.0000
90915887|NCT03903822|181702439|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.8||||0.1528|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.9|22.5|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 1: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||22.5|-4.9|0.1528
90915888|NCT03903822|181702439|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.9||||0.4989|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.7|15.2|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 2: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||15.2|-12.7|0.4989
90915889|NCT03903822|181702439|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.3||||0.5419|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.6|14.2|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 2: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||14.2|-13.6|0.5419
90915890|NCT03903822|181702439|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.3||||0.1362|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.0|26.2|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 2: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||26.2|-5.0|0.1362
90915891|NCT03903822|181702439|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.9||||0.0541|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|33.9|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 2: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||33.9|-0.4|0.0541
90915892|NCT03903822|181702439|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.3||||0.3945|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.0|19.5|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 2: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||19.5|-12.0|0.3945
90915893|NCT03903822|181702439|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|23.3||||0.0201|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.9|41.8|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 2: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||41.8|3.9|0.0201
90915894|NCT03903822|181702439|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.2||||0.1372|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.4|28.2|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 3: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||28.2|-5.4|0.1372
90915895|NCT03903822|181702439|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.5||||0.3924|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.6|19.1|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 3: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||19.1|-11.6|0.3924
90915896|NCT03903822|181702439|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.1||||0.0311|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.4|38.3|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 3: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||38.3|2.4|0.0311
90915897|NCT03903822|181702439|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.0||||0.0392|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|38.1|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 3: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||38.1|0.8|0.0392
90915898|NCT03903822|181702439|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.0||||0.1541|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.2|26.4|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 3: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||26.4|-6.2|0.1541
90915899|NCT03903822|181702439|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|27.0||||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.8|45.4|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 3: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||45.4|6.8|0.0091
91033661|NCT00617305|181953157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.17|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|3.9||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 12 (LOCF)||3.9|-1.5|
90915900|NCT03903822|181702439|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.5||||0.2835|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.5|27.0|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 4: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||27.0|-9.5|0.2835
90915901|NCT03903822|181702439|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.9||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.7|27.8|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 4: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||27.8|-8.7|0.2700
90915902|NCT03903822|181702439|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.3||||0.0662|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.4|36.2|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 4: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||36.2|-1.4|0.0662
90877107|NCT02515942|181616309|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-1.77||||0.7844|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.65|1.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 113||1.12|-4.65|0.7844
90877108|NCT02515942|181616309|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|1.49||||0.2973|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.11|5.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 141||5.08|-2.11|0.2973
90877109|NCT02515942|181616309|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|1.33||||0.3127|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.18|4.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 141||4.84|-2.18|0.3127
90877110|NCT02515942|181616309|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-0.16||||0.5227|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.67|3.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 141||3.36|-3.67|0.5227
90877111|NCT02515942|181616309|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-1.63||||0.7643|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.54|1.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 169||1.28|-4.54|0.7643
90877112|NCT02515942|181616309|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-1.38||||0.7331|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.25|1.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 169||1.48|-4.25|0.7331
90877113|NCT02515942|181616309|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|0.25||||0.4557|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.59|3.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 169||3.09|-2.59|0.4557
90877114|NCT02515942|181616309|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|0.29||||0.4549|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.97|3.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 197||3.55|-2.97|0.4549
90877115|NCT02515942|181616309|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|0.93||||0.3535|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.26|4.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 197||4.13|-2.26|0.3535
90877116|NCT02515942|181616309|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|0.65||||0.397|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.54|3.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 197||3.84|-2.54|0.3970
90877117|NCT02515942|181616309|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|1.78||||0.2714|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.99|5.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 225||5.55|-1.99|0.2714
90915903|NCT03903822|181702439|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|31.8||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.2|50.4|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 4: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||50.4|9.2|0.0050
90915904|NCT03903822|181702439|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.0||||0.0302|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.2|38.3|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 4: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||38.3|2.2|0.0302
90915905|NCT03903822|181702439|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|27.0||||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.8|45.4|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 4: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||45.4|6.8|0.0091
90915906|NCT03903822|181702439|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.8||||0.1561|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.5|30.2|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 6: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||30.2|-6.5|0.1561
90915907|NCT03903822|181702439|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.2||||0.0753|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.7|34.8|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 6: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||34.8|-2.7|0.0753
90915908|NCT03903822|181702439|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|27.0||||0.0108|TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.7|46.0|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 6: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||46.0|5.7|0.0108
90915909|NCT03903822|181702439|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|31.8||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.2|50.4|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 6: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||50.4|9.2|0.0050
90915910|NCT03903822|181702439|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.7||||0.0775|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.9|35.7|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 6: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||35.7|-2.9|0.0775
90915911|NCT03903822|181702439|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|24.1||||0.0243|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.4|43.4|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 6: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||43.4|3.4|0.0243
90915912|NCT03903822|181702439|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.9||||0.0234|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.5|38.8|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At follow-up visit: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||38.8|3.5|0.0234
90915913|NCT03903822|181702439|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.8||||0.1134|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.8|29.3|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At follow-up visit: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||29.3|-2.8|0.1134
90915914|NCT03903822|181702439|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.3||||0.1362|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.0|26.2|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At follow-up visit: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||26.2|-5.0|0.1362
90915915|NCT03903822|181702439|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.3||||0.1029|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.4|29.8|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At follow-up visit: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||29.8|-3.4|0.1029
90915916|NCT03903822|181702439|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.9|17.9|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At follow-up visit: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||17.9|-17.9|1.0000
90915917|NCT03903822|181702439|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-12.6||||0.8972|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-28.8|3.5|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At follow-up visit: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||3.5|-28.8|0.8972
90915918|NCT03903822|181702440|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.33||0.4781|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.2|13.3|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||At Week 1: Mixed Model Repeated Measure (MMRM) contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value.||13.3|-14.2|0.4781
91033662|NCT00617305|181953157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.81|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.2||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 24 (LOCF)||-0.2|-1.5|
90915919|NCT03903822|181702440|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-13.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.47||0.0522|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.8|0.2|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||At Week 1: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value.||0.2|-27.8|0.0522
90915920|NCT03903822|181702440|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-17.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.37||0.0187|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-31.4|-3.7|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||At Week 1: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value.||-3.7|-31.4|0.0187
90915921|NCT03903822|181702440|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-20.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.45||0.008|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-34.5|-6.6|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||At Week 1: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value.||-6.6|-34.5|0.0080
90915922|NCT03903822|181702440|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-25.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.17||0.0401|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-48.6|-1.5|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||At Week 1: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value.||-1.5|-48.6|0.0401
90915923|NCT03903822|181702440|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-25.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.25||0.0379|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-49.2|-1.9|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||At Week 1: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value.||-1.9|-49.2|0.0379
90915924|NCT03903822|181702440|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|8.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.01||0.7678|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.1|26.3|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||At Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit(Weeks 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and follow up), treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value.||26.3|-10.1|0.7678
91033663|NCT00617305|181953157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.75|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.6||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 24 (LOCF)||0.6|-1.8|
90915925|NCT03903822|181702440|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-22.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.94||0.0193|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-40.9|-4.7|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||At Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value.||-4.7|-40.9|0.0193
90915926|NCT03903822|181702440|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-28.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.95||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-46.5|-10.2|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||At Week 2:MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value.||-10.2|-46.5|0.0052
91033664|NCT00617305|181953157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0||||||||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 24 (LOCF)||||
90877118|NCT02515942|181616309|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|1.72||||0.2741|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.97|5.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 225||5.41|-1.97|0.2741
90877119|NCT02515942|181616309|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-0.06||||0.5084|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.74|3.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 225||3.62|-3.74|0.5084
90877120|NCT02515942|181616309|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|2.82||||0.1537|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.73|6.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 253||6.37|-0.73|0.1537
90877121|NCT02515942|181616309|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|1.79||||0.2542|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.69|5.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 253||5.27|-1.69|0.2542
90877122|NCT02515942|181616309|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-1.03||||0.6504|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.46|2.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 253||2.40|-4.46|0.6504
90877123|NCT02515942|181616309|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|1.3||||0.3405|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.78|5.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 281||5.38|-2.78|0.3405
90877124|NCT02515942|181616309|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|2.41||||0.2194|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.59|6.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 281||6.42|-1.59|0.2194
90877125|NCT02515942|181616309|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|1.11||||0.3596|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.87|5.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 281||5.09|-2.87|0.3596
90877126|NCT02515942|181616309|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-0.07||||0.5086|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.04|3.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 309||3.90|-4.04|0.5086
90877127|NCT02515942|181616309|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|2.33||||0.2211|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.57|6.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 309||6.23|-1.57|0.2211
90877128|NCT02515942|181616309|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|2.4||||0.2126|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.47|6.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 309||6.26|-1.47|0.2126
90915927|NCT03903822|181702440|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-23.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.03||0.0164|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-42.0|-5.5|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||At Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value.||-5.5|-42.0|0.0164
90915928|NCT03903822|181702440|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-31.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.72||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-47.8|-15.6|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||At Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value.||-15.6|-47.8|0.0008
90915929|NCT03903822|181702440|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-40.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.86|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-57.0|-24.3|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||At Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value.||-24.3|-57.0|<0.0001
90961285|NCT01570036|181803565|OTHER|||||||0.901|||||||Chi-squared|Comparison of the maximum related systemic toxicity experienced per patient and compared between treatment arms.||||||0.901
91033665|NCT00617305|181953157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.72|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.3||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 24 (LOCF)||-0.3|-1.4|
91033666|NCT00617305|181953157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.71|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.4||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 24 (LOCF)||0.4|-1.4|
91033667|NCT00617305|181953157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.79|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.1||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 36 (LOCF)||0.1|-1.2|
90877129|NCT02515942|181616309|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|2.56||||0.2053|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.44|6.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 337||6.55|-1.44|0.2053
90877130|NCT02515942|181616309|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|2.2||||0.2353|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.72|6.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 337||6.12|-1.72|0.2353
90877131|NCT02515942|181616309|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-0.36||||0.5471|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.24|3.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 337||3.53|-4.24|0.5471
90877132|NCT02515942|181616310|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-2.74||||0.0913|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.38|-0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 2||-0.11|-5.38|0.0913
90877133|NCT02515942|181616310|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-0.28||||0.4454|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.89|2.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 2||2.33|-2.89|0.4454
90915930|NCT03903822|181702440|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.09||0.6269|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.1|23.9|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||At Week 3: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value.||23.9|-16.1|0.6269
90877134|NCT02515942|181616310|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|2.46||||0.8861|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.16|5.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 2||5.08|-0.16|0.8861
90877135|NCT02515942|181616310|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|1.16||||0.713|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.49|3.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 29||3.80|-1.49|0.7130
90877136|NCT02515942|181616310|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|2.37||||0.8759|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.26|5.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 29||5.01|-0.26|0.8759
90877137|NCT02515942|181616310|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|1.22||||0.7256|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.39|3.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 29||3.82|-1.39|0.7256
90877138|NCT02515942|181616310|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-1.17||||0.3111|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.22|1.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 57||1.88|-4.22|0.3111
90915931|NCT03903822|181702440|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-33.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.87||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-53.1|-13.8|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||At Week 3: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value.||-13.8|-53.1|0.0027
90915932|NCT03903822|181702440|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-38.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.89||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-58.5|-19.2|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||At Week 3: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value.||-19.2|-58.5|0.0007
90915933|NCT03903822|181702440|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-32.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.0||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-51.9|-12.3|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||At Week 3: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value.||-12.3|-51.9|0.0041
90915934|NCT03903822|181702440|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-14.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.61||0.1054|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-33.9|4.6|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||At Week 3: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value.||4.6|-33.9|0.1054
90915935|NCT03903822|181702440|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-18.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.62||0.0542|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-38.1|0.5|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||At Week 3: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value.||0.5|-38.1|0.0542
90915936|NCT03903822|181702440|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.12||0.6847|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.2|25.9|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||At Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value.||25.9|-14.2|0.6847
90915937|NCT03903822|181702440|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-29.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.82||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-49.4|-10.3|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||At Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value.||-10.3|-49.4|0.0062
90915938|NCT03903822|181702440|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-32.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.89||0.004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-51.6|-12.3|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||At Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value.||-12.3|-51.6|0.0040
90915939|NCT03903822|181702440|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-30.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.97||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-50.6|-11.0|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||At Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value.||-11.0|-50.6|0.0054
90915940|NCT03903822|181702440|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-11.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.35||0.1076|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.2|3.9|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||At Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value.||3.9|-27.2|0.1076
90915941|NCT03903822|181702440|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-23.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.42||0.0082|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-38.6|-7.3|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||At Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value.||-7.3|-38.6|0.0082
90915942|NCT03903822|181702440|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-17.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.14||0.1051|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-41.2|5.6|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||At Week 6: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value.||5.6|-41.2|0.1051
90915943|NCT03903822|181702440|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-37.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.8||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-60.6|-15.0|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||At Week 6: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value.||-15.0|-60.6|0.0034
90915944|NCT03903822|181702440|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-41.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.83||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-64.8|-19.0|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||At Week 6: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value.||-19.0|-64.8|0.0014
90915945|NCT03903822|181702440|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-38.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.9||0.003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-61.6|-15.6|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||At Week 6: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value.||-15.6|-61.6|0.0030
90915946|NCT03903822|181702440|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-17.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.22||0.0289|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-33.0|-2.4|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||At Week 6: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit(Weeks 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and follow up), treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value.||-2.4|-33.0|0.0289
90915947|NCT03903822|181702440|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-33.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.27||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-49.2|-18.4|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||At Week 6: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value.||-18.4|-49.2|0.0002
90915948|NCT03903822|181702440|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.88||0.4739|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.9|22.0|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||At follow-up visit: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value.||22.0|-23.9|0.4739
90915949|NCT03903822|181702440|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-19.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.43||0.0789|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-41.3|3.2|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||At follow-up visit: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value.||3.2|-41.3|0.0789
90915950|NCT03903822|181702440|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-13.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.5||0.1611|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-35.7|8.9|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||At follow-up visit: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value.||8.9|-35.7|0.1611
90915951|NCT03903822|181702440|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-31.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.94||0.0124|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-54.7|-8.5|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||At follow-up visit: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value.||-8.5|-54.7|0.0124
90915952|NCT03903822|181702440|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.68||0.3828|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-34.7|24.1|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||At follow-up visit: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value.||24.1|-34.7|0.3828
90961286|NCT00568321|181803575|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.687|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|0.92|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Least square (LS) mean difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.92|-0.50|0.687
90877139|NCT02515942|181616310|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-1.7||||0.236|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.73|1.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 57||1.34|-4.73|0.2360
90877140|NCT02515942|181616310|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-0.53||||0.411|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.55|2.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 57||2.49|-3.55|0.4110
90877141|NCT02515942|181616310|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|0.13||||0.5247|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.57|2.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 85||2.83|-2.57|0.5247
90877142|NCT02515942|181616310|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-3.37||||0.0534|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.04|-0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 85||-0.70|-6.04|0.0534
90877143|NCT02515942|181616310|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-3.5||||0.0475|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.18|-0.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 85||-0.82|-6.18|0.0475
90877144|NCT02515942|181616310|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-3.92||||0.0575|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-7.11|-0.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 113||-0.74|-7.11|0.0575
90915953|NCT03903822|181702440|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.8||0.5383|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.9|31.3|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||At follow-up visit: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value.||31.3|-27.9|0.5383
90915954|NCT03903822|181702441|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.4||||0.8964|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.1|2.0|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 1: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||2.0|-16.1|0.8964
90915955|NCT03903822|181702441|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.0||||0.0391|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|28.2|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 1: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||28.2|1.0|0.0391
90877145|NCT02515942|181616310|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-2.16||||0.1876|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.29|0.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 113||0.97|-5.29|0.1876
90877146|NCT02515942|181616310|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|1.76||||0.7644|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.38|4.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 113||4.91|-1.38|0.7644
90877147|NCT02515942|181616310|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-3.85||||0.0838|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-7.42|-0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 141||-0.28|-7.42|0.0838
90877148|NCT02515942|181616310|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-0.38||||0.4444|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.89|3.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 141||3.13|-3.89|0.4444
90877149|NCT02515942|181616310|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|3.47||||0.8977|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.04|6.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 141||6.97|-0.04|0.8977
90877150|NCT02515942|181616310|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-0.05||||0.4917|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.92|2.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 169||2.82|-2.92|0.4917
90915956|NCT03903822|181702441|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.8|10.8|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 1: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||10.8|-10.8|1.0000
90915957|NCT03903822|181702441|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.3||||0.0708|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.4|25.0|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 1: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||25.0|-1.4|0.0708
90915958|NCT03903822|181702441|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.9||||0.0122|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.7|27.0|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 1: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||27.0|4.7|0.0122
90915959|NCT03903822|181702441|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.6||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|90.0|11.0|35.6|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 1: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||35.6|11.0|0.0016
90915960|NCT03903822|181702441|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.7||||0.395|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.8|16.1|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 2: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||16.1|-9.8|0.3950
90915961|NCT03903822|181702441|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|19.7||||0.0173|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.2|35.6|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 2: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||35.6|4.2|0.0173
90915962|NCT03903822|181702441|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.2||||0.0327|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.4|31.0|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 2: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||31.0|1.4|0.0327
90915963|NCT03903822|181702441|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|30.8||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|90.0|13.2|46.6|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 2: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||46.6|13.2|0.0011
90915964|NCT03903822|181702441|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.1||||0.1348|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.0|27.2|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 2: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||27.2|-5.0|0.1348
90915965|NCT03903822|181702441|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.5||||0.0328|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.5|34.8|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 2: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||34.8|1.5|0.0328
90915966|NCT03903822|181702441|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.8||||0.0769|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.8|24.4|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 3: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||24.4|-1.8|0.0769
90915967|NCT03903822|181702441|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|30.7||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|13.2|46.0|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 3: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||46.0|13.2|0.0005
90915968|NCT03903822|181702441|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|37.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|22.1|53.1|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 3: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||53.1|22.1|<0.0001
90915969|NCT03903822|181702441|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|36.3||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|19.7|51.8|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 3: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||51.8|19.7|0.0001
90915970|NCT03903822|181702441|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.5|16.5|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 3: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||16.5|-16.5|1.0000
90915971|NCT03903822|181702441|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|23.8||||0.0173|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.5|41.5|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 3: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||41.5|4.5|0.0173
90915972|NCT03903822|181702441|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.7||||0.5663|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-19.9|14.2|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 4: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||14.2|-19.9|0.5663
90915973|NCT03903822|181702441|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.6||||0.1243|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.8|32.6|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 4: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||32.6|-3.8|0.1243
91033668|NCT00617305|181953157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|4.2||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 36 (LOCF)||4.2|-2.2|
90915974|NCT03903822|181702441|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.9||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|36.6|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 4: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||36.6|-0.5|0.0460
90915975|NCT03903822|181702441|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|25.7||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.8|43.3|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 4: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||43.3|4.8|0.0130
90915976|NCT03903822|181702441|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.9||||0.1194|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.2|31.4|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 4: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||31.4|-4.2|0.1194
90915977|NCT03903822|181702441|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|26.4||||0.0097|TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.5|44.4|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 4: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||44.4|6.5|0.0097
90915978|NCT03903822|181702441|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.7||||0.5556|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.0|16.1|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 6: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||16.1|-21.0|0.5556
90915979|NCT03903822|181702441|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.6||||0.0761|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.5|36.5|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 6: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||36.5|-2.5|0.0761
90915980|NCT03903822|181702441|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.9||||0.0583|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8|37.6|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 6: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||37.6|-0.8|0.0583
90915981|NCT03903822|181702441|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.9||||0.1245|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.0|33.7|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 6: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||33.7|-5.0|0.1245
90915982|NCT03903822|181702441|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|19.4||||0.0382|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.5|36.5|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 6: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||36.5|1.5|0.0382
90915983|NCT03903822|181702441|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|34.7||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|90.0|13.2|51.4|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 6: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||51.4|13.2|0.0011
90915984|NCT00296036|181702462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.768|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.768
90915985|NCT01796236|181702467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.12
90915986|NCT01796236|181702468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||"Combined Endpoint is calculated as the sum of the following four events from 3 weeks to 3 years:~Holgers Index \>=2. Any Overgrowth \>=2. Pain (scar/neuropathic) \>=3. Any numbness \>=2.~Each event is counted only once"||||0.45
90915987|NCT01796236|181702469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mann-Whitney U test|||||||<0.0001
90915988|NCT01796236|181702470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 10||||0.020
90915989|NCT01796236|181702470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 3||||0.4
90915990|NCT01796236|181702470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 6||||1.00
90915991|NCT01796236|181702470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 12||||0.97
90915992|NCT01796236|181702470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 24||||1.00
90915993|NCT01796236|181702471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||Maximum of Holgers at 12 Months||||0.40
90915994|NCT01796236|181702471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||Maximum of Holgers at 36 Months||||0.14
90915995|NCT01796236|181702472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||Holgers Index Day 10||||0.38
90915996|NCT01796236|181702472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||Holgers Index Week 3||||0.17
90915997|NCT01796236|181702472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||Holgers Index Week 6||||0.37
90915998|NCT01796236|181702472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||Holgers Index Week 12||||0.73
90915999|NCT01796236|181702472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||Holgers Index Week 24||||0.47
91033669|NCT00617305|181953157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0||||||||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 36 (LOCF)||||
90916000|NCT01796236|181702472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||Holgers Index Month 12||||0.73
90916001|NCT01796236|181702472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||Holgers Index Month 24||||0.37
90916002|NCT01796236|181702472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||Holgers Index Month 36||||0.75
90916003|NCT01796236|181702473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||maximum numbness at 12 months||||<0.0001
90916004|NCT01796236|181702473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||maximum numbness at 36 months||||<0.0001
90916005|NCT01796236|181702474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 10, Neuropathic pain||||0.74
90916006|NCT01796236|181702474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 10, Scar pain||||0.36
90916007|NCT01796236|181702474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 3, Neuropathic pain||||0.030
90916008|NCT01796236|181702474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 3, Scar pain||||0.92
90916009|NCT01796236|181702474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 6, Neuropathic pain||||0.15
90916010|NCT01796236|181702474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 6, Scar pain||||0.38
90916011|NCT01796236|181702474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 12, Neuropathic pain||||0.015
90916012|NCT01796236|181702474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 12, Scar pain||||0.72
90916013|NCT01796236|181702474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24, Neuropathic pain||||0.44
90916014|NCT01796236|181702474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24, Scar pain||||0.43
90916015|NCT01796236|181702474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12, Neuropathic pain||||0.21
90916016|NCT01796236|181702474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12, Scar pain||||0.97
90916017|NCT01796236|181702474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36, Neuropathic pain||||0.19
90916018|NCT01796236|181702474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36, Scar pain||||0.77
90916019|NCT01796236|181702475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.076|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||Neuropathic Categorical Max Pain||||0.076
90916020|NCT01796236|181702475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||Scar Categorical Max Pain||||0.49
90916021|NCT01796236|181702476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.076|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||Neuropathic Categorical Max Pain 36 months||||0.076
90916022|NCT01796236|181702476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||Scar Categorical Max Pain 36 months||||0.71
90916023|NCT01796236|181702477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 10: Neuropathic pain||||0.52
90916024|NCT01796236|181702477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 10: Scar pain||||0.44
90916025|NCT01796236|181702477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 3: Neuropathic pain||||0.14
90916026|NCT01796236|181702477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 3: Scar pain||||0.59
90916027|NCT01796236|181702477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6: Neuropathic pain||||0.17
90916028|NCT01796236|181702477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6: Scar pain||||0.44
90916029|NCT01796236|181702477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0087|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: Neuropathic pain||||0.0087
90916030|NCT01796236|181702477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: Scar pain||||0.84
90916031|NCT01796236|181702477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24: Neuropathic pain||||0.43
90916032|NCT01796236|181702477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24: Scar pain||||0.33
90877151|NCT02515942|181616310|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-0.05||||0.4909|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.89|2.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 169||2.79|-2.89|0.4909
90877152|NCT02515942|181616310|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|0.0||||0.4992|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.82|2.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 169||2.81|-2.82|0.4992
90877153|NCT02515942|181616310|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-1.09||||0.3285|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.25|2.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 197||2.07|-4.25|0.3285
90916033|NCT01796236|181702477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Month 12 Neuropathic pain||||0.21
90916034|NCT01796236|181702477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Month 12 Scar pain||||0.82
90916035|NCT01796236|181702477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Month 36 Neuropathic pain||||0.19
90916036|NCT01796236|181702477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Month 36 Scar pain||||0.77
90916037|NCT01796236|181702478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||Day 10 Soft tissue thickening/overgrowth||||0.12
90916038|NCT01796236|181702478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||Week 3 Soft tissue thickening/overgrowth||||0.016
90916039|NCT01796236|181702478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||Week 6 Soft tissue thickening/overgrowth||||0.84
90916040|NCT01796236|181702478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||Week 12 Soft tissue thickening/overgrowth||||0.53
90916041|NCT01796236|181702478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||Week 24 Soft tissue thickening/overgrowth||||0.18
90916042|NCT01796236|181702478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||Month 12 Soft tissue thickening/overgrowth||||0.63
90916043|NCT01796236|181702478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||Month 24 Soft tissue thickening/overgrowth||||0.81
90916044|NCT01796236|181702478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||Month 36 Soft tissue thickening/overgrowth||||1.00
90916045|NCT01796236|181702479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0009|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Visible Abutment Length Day 10||||0.0009
90916046|NCT01796236|181702479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Visible Abutment Length Week 3||||0.0080
90916047|NCT01796236|181702479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Visible Abutment Length Week 6||||0.46
90916048|NCT01796236|181702479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Visible Abutment Length Week 12||||0.45
90916049|NCT01796236|181702479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Visible Abutment Length Week 24||||0.18
90916050|NCT01796236|181702479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Visible Abutment Length Month 12||||0.017
90916051|NCT01796236|181702479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Visible Abutment Length Month 24||||0.15
90916052|NCT01796236|181702479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Visible Abutment Length Month 36||||0.32
90916053|NCT01796236|181702479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74|||||||Sign test|||Change in Visible Test Abutment - Week 3 change from day 10||||0.74
90916054|NCT01796236|181702479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Sign test|||Change in Visible Test Abutment - Week 6 change from day 10||||<0.0001
90916055|NCT01796236|181702479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.041|||||||Sign test|||Change in Visible Test Abutment - Week 12 change from day 10||||0.041
90916056|NCT01796236|181702479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0065|||||||Sign test|||Change in Visible Test Abutment - Week 24 change from day 10||||0.0065
90916057|NCT01796236|181702479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|||||||Sign test|||Change in Visible Test Abutment - Month 12 change from day 10||||0.0003
90877154|NCT02515942|181616310|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-2.45||||0.1568|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.57|0.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 197||0.67|-5.57|0.1568
90877155|NCT02515942|181616310|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-1.36||||0.2867|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.46|1.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 197||1.74|-4.46|0.2867
90877156|NCT02515942|181616310|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-3.93||||0.0798|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-7.51|-0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 225||-0.35|-7.51|0.0798
90877157|NCT02515942|181616310|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-1.47||||0.2962|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.0|2.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 225||2.06|-5.00|0.2962
90877158|NCT02515942|181616310|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|2.46||||0.8163|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.05|5.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 225||5.98|-1.05|0.8163
90877159|NCT02515942|181616310|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-3.64||||0.0708|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.81|-0.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 253||-0.47|-6.81|0.0708
90877160|NCT02515942|181616310|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|0.46||||0.575|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.67|3.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 253||3.59|-2.67|0.5750
90877161|NCT02515942|181616310|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|4.1||||0.956|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.03|7.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 253||7.17|1.03|0.9560
90877162|NCT02515942|181616310|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-3.22||||0.1283|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.86|0.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 281||0.42|-6.86|0.1283
90877163|NCT02515942|181616310|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-2.28||||0.2085|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.88|1.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 281||1.33|-5.88|0.2085
90916058|NCT01796236|181702479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028|||||||Sign test|||Change in Visible Test Abutment - Month 24 change from day 10||||0.028
90916059|NCT01796236|181702479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.037|||||||Sign test|||Change in Visible Test Abutment - Month 36 change from day 10||||0.037
90916060|NCT01796236|181702479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.072|||||||Sign test|||Change in Visible Control Abutment - Week 3 change from day 10||||0.072
90916061|NCT01796236|181702479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034|||||||Sign test|||Change in Visible Control Abutment - Week 6 change from day 10||||0.034
90877164|NCT02515942|181616310|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|0.94||||0.6335|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.61|4.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 281||4.49|-2.61|0.6335
90916062|NCT01796236|181702479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Sign test|||Change in Visible Control Abutment - Week 12 change from day 10||||<0.0001
90916063|NCT01796236|181702479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Sign test|||Change in Visible Control Abutment - Week 24 change from day 10||||0.010
90916064|NCT01796236|181702479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0086|||||||Sign test|||Change in Visible Control Abutment - Month 12 change from day 10||||0.0086
90916065|NCT01796236|181702479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0021|||||||Sign test|||Change in Visible Control Abutment - Month 24 change from day 10||||0.0021
90877165|NCT02515942|181616310|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-2.64||||0.1778|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.31|1.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 309||1.03|-6.31|0.1778
90877166|NCT02515942|181616310|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-0.7||||0.4027|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.33|2.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 309||2.94|-4.33|0.4027
90877167|NCT02515942|181616310|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|1.94||||0.757|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.64|5.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 309||5.53|-1.64|0.7570
90877168|NCT02515942|181616310|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-3.9||||0.1132|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-8.03|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 337||0.23|-8.03|0.1132
90877169|NCT02515942|181616310|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-2.71||||0.1965|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.8|1.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 337||1.37|-6.80|0.1965
90877170|NCT02515942|181616310|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|1.18||||0.6471|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.85|5.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 337||5.21|-2.85|0.6471
90877171|NCT00277212|181616328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.552||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.296|1.03||stratified Log-Rank test, controlling for type of index mood episode|Log Rank||Cox's proportional hazards model, with type of index modd episode as stratification factor, and randomized treatment group as covariate.|||1.030|0.296|0.058
90877172|NCT00277212|181616329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.671||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.446|1.011||p-value for equality of survival curves|Log Rank|stratified log-rank test, controlling for type of index mood episode|aripiprazole/placebo; Cox's proportional hazards model, with type of index mood episode as stratification facto, and randomized treatment group as covariate.|||1.011|0.446|0.055
90916066|NCT01796236|181702479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005|||||||Sign test|||Change in Visible Control Abutment - Month 36 change from day 10||||0.0005
90877173|NCT00277212|181616330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.784||||0.381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.454|1.354||p-value for equality of survival curves|Log Rank|stratified log-rank test, conrolling for type of index mood episode|aripiprazole/placebo; Cox's proportional hazards model, with type of index mood episode as stratification facto, and randomized treatment group as covariate.|||1.354|0.454|0.381
90877174|NCT00277212|181616331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.871||||0.295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.672|1.128||p-value for equality of survival curves|Log Rank|stratified Log-Rank Test, controlling for type of index mood episode|aripiprazole/placebo; Cox's proportional hazards model, with type of index mood episode as stratification facto, and randomized treatment group as covariate.|||1.128|0.672|0.295
90916067|NCT01796236|181702480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 12: Vascularity (observer)||||0.026
90916068|NCT01796236|181702480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Vascularity (observer)||||0.33
90916069|NCT01796236|181702480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.094|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Vascularity (observer)||||0.094
90916070|NCT01796236|181702480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 12: Pigmentation (observer)||||0.30
90916071|NCT01796236|181702480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Pigmentation (observer)||||0.23
90877175|NCT00277212|181616333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatement Difference|2.24||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|3.57||ANOVA (main effects=double-blind treatment, covariate=index mood episode) used for baseline comparisons. ANCOVA (main effects=double-blind treatment, covariates=index mood episode \& baseline assessment) used for mean change from baseline comparisons|ANCOVA||Aripiprazole vs. placebo|Week 52 LOCF||3.57|0.91|0.001
90877176|NCT00277212|181616334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.56||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.07|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||aripiprazole/placebo|Week 52 LOCF||1.07|0.29|0.073
90877177|NCT00277212|181616334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.194||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At Any Time||||0.194
90877178|NCT00277212|181616335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||relative risk|3.41||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|8.94|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52 LOCF||8.94|1.30|0.007
90877179|NCT00277212|181616335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.001
90877180|NCT00277212|181616336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.64||||0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.37|1.09||Means, treatment differences between aripiprazole and placebo, 95% confidence intervals for the differences and the p-values for treatment comparisons are based on ANOVA/ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model, with double-blind treatment as main effects and index mood episode as covariate, is used for Baseline comparisons.|aripiprazole - placebo|Baseline||1.09|-2.37|0.467
90877181|NCT00277212|181616336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.78||Means, treatment differences between aripiprazole and placebo, 95% confidence intervals for the differences and the p-values for treatment comparisons are based on ANOVA/ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA (main effects=double-blind treatment, covariates=index mood episode \& baseline assessment) used for mean change from baseline comparisons.|aripiprazole - placebo|Change from Baseline at Week 12||0.78|-0.06|
90877182|NCT00277212|181616336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.3||Means, treatment differences between aripiprazole and placebo, 95% confidence intervals for the differences and the p-values for treatment comparisons are based on ANOVA/ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA (main effects=double-blind treatment, covariates=index mood episode \& baseline assessment) used for mean change from baseline comparisons.|aripiprazole - placebo|Change from baseline at Week 24||1.30|0.19|
90877183|NCT00277212|181616336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|1.86||Means, treatment differences between aripiprazole and placebo, 95% confidence intervals for the differences and the p-values for treatment comparisons are based on ANOVA/ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA (main effects=double-blind treatment, covariates=index mood episode \& baseline assessment) used for mean change from baseline comparisons.|aripiprazole - placebo|Change from baseline at Week 36||1.86|0.08|
90877184|NCT00277212|181616336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|1.92||Means, treatment differences between aripiprazole and placebo, 95% confidence intervals for the differences and the p-values for treatment comparisons are based on ANOVA/ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA (main effects=double-blind treatment, covariates=index mood episode \& baseline assessment) used for mean change from baseline comparisons.|aripiprazole - placebo|Change from baseline at Week 52||1.92|-0.08|
90877185|NCT00277212|181616336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.79||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.26||Means, treatment differences between aripiprazole and placebo, 95% confidence intervals for the differences and the p-values for treatment comparisons are based on ANOVA/ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA (main effects=double-blind treatment, covariates=index mood episode \& baseline assessment) used for mean change from baseline comparisons.|aripiprazole - placebo|Change from baseline at Week 52 (LOCF)||1.26|0.31|0.001
90877186|NCT00277212|181616336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.63||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.04||Means, treatment differences between aripiprazole and placebo, 95% confidence intervals for the differences and the p-values for treatment comparisons are based on ANOVA/ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA (main effects=double-blind treatment, covariates=index mood episode \& baseline assessment) used for mean change from baseline comparisons.|aripiprazole - placebo|Highest Change from baseline||1.04|0.23|0.002
90877187|NCT00277212|181616342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.34||Means, treatment differences between aripiprazole and placebo, 95% confidence intervals for the differences and the p-values for treatment comparisons are based on ANOVA/ANCOVA model.|ANOVA|ANOVA model, with double-blind treatment as main effects, is used for Baseline comparisons.|aripiprazole - placebo|Baseline||0.34|-0.35|0.971
90877188|NCT00277212|181616342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.51||Means, treatment differences between aripiprazole and placebo, 95% confidence intervals for the differences and the p-values for treatment comparisons are based on ANOVA/ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA (main effects=double-blind treatment, covariate=baseline assessment) used for mean change from baseline comparisons.|aripiprazole - placebo|Change from baseline at Week 8||0.51|-0.03|
90877189|NCT00277212|181616342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.6||Means, treatment differences between aripiprazole and placebo, 95% confidence intervals for the differences and the p-values for treatment comparisons are based on ANOVA/ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA (main effects=double-blind treatment, covariate=baseline assessment) used for mean change from baseline comparisons.|aripiprazole - placebo|Change from baseline at Week 24||0.60|-0.13|
90877190|NCT00277212|181616342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.55||Means, treatment differences between aripiprazole and placebo, 95% confidence intervals for the differences and the p-values for treatment comparisons are based on ANOVA/ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA (main effects=double-blind treatment, covariate=baseline assessment) used for mean change from baseline comparisons.|aripiprazole - placebo|Change from Baseline at Week 36||0.55|-0.06|
90877191|NCT00277212|181616342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.65||Means, treatment differences between aripiprazole and placebo, 95% confidence intervals for the differences and the p-values for treatment comparisons are based on ANOVA/ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA (main effects=double-blind treatment, covariate=baseline assessment) used for mean change from baseline comparisons.|aripiprazole - placebo|Change from baseline at Week 52||0.65|-0.06|
90877192|NCT00277212|181616342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.52||Means, treatment differences between aripiprazole and placebo, 95% confidence intervals for the differences and the p-values for treatment comparisons are based on ANOVA/ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA (main effects=double-blind treatment, covariate=baseline assessment) used for mean change from baseline comparisons.|aripiprazole - placebo|Change from Baseline at Week 52 (LOCF)||0.52|-0.04|0.095
90877193|NCT00277212|181616342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.63||Means, treatment differences between aripiprazole and placebo, 95% confidence intervals for the differences and the p-values for treatment comparisons are based on ANOVA/ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA (main effects=double-blind treatment, covariate=baseline assessment) used for mean change from baseline comparisons.|aripirazole - placebo|Highest change from Baseline||0.63|-0.01|0.061
90877194|NCT00277212|181616343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.458||95.0|-0.25|0.11||Means, treatment differences between aripiprazole and placebo, 95% confidence intervals for the differences and the p-values for treatment comparisons are based on ANOVA/ANCOVA model.|ANOVA|ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, is used for baseline estimates.|aripiprazole - placebo|Baseline||0.11|-0.25|0.458
90877195|NCT00277212|181616343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.26||Means, treatment differences between aripiprazole and placebo, 95% confidence intervals for the differences and the p-values for treatment comparisons are based on ANOVA/ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA (main effects=double-blind treatment, covariate=baseline assessment) used for mean change from baseline comparisons.|aripiprazole - placebo|Change from Baseline at Week 8||0.26|-0.05|
90877196|NCT00277212|181616343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.2||Means, treatment differences between aripiprazole and placebo, 95% confidence intervals for the differences and the p-values for treatment comparisons are based on ANOVA/ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA (main effects=double-blind treatment, covariate=baseline assessment) used for mean change from baseline comparisons.|aripiprazole - placebo|Change from baseline at Week 24||0.20|-0.11|
90877197|NCT00277212|181616343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.42||Means, treatment differences between aripiprazole and placebo, 95% confidence intervals for the differences and the p-values for treatment comparisons are based on ANOVA/ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA (main effects=double-blind treatment, covariate=baseline assessment) used for mean change from baseline comparisons.|aripiprazole - placebo|Change from Baseline at Week 36||0.42|0.00|
90877198|NCT00277212|181616343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.16||Means, treatment differences between aripiprazole and placebo, 95% confidence intervals for the differences and the p-values for treatment comparisons are based on ANOVA/ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA (main effects=double-blind treatment, covariate=baseline assessment) used for mean change from baseline comparisons.|aripiprazole - placebo|Change from Baseline at week 52||0.16|-0.05|
90877199|NCT00277212|181616343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.11||Means, treatment differences between aripiprazole and placebo, 95% confidence intervals for the differences and the p-values for treatment comparisons are based on ANOVA/ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA (main effects=double-blind treatment, covariate=baseline assessment) used for mean change from baseline comparisons.|aripiprazole - placebo|Change from baseline at Week 52 (LOCF)||0.11|-0.22|0.515
90877200|NCT00277212|181616343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.23||Means, treatment differences between aripiprazole and placebo, 95% confidence intervals for the differences and the p-values for treatment comparisons are based on ANOVA/ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA (main effects=double-blind treatment, covariate=baseline assessment) used for mean change from baseline comparisons.|aripiprazole - placebo|Highest Change from Baseline||0.23|-0.16|0.730
90877201|NCT00277212|181616344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.2||Means, mean differences, 95% confidence intervals for the differences, and the p-values are based on ANOVA/ANCOVA model.|ANOVA|ANOVA, controlling for treatment, used for baseline estimates.|aripiprazole - placebo|Baseline||0.20|-0.08|0.435
90916072|NCT01796236|181702480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Pigmentation (observer)||||0.48
90916073|NCT01796236|181702480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 12: Thickness (observer)||||0.0003
90877202|NCT00277212|181616344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.3||Means, treatment differences between aripiprazole and placebo, 95% confidence intervals for the differences and the p-values for treatment comparisons are based on ANOVA/ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA (main effects=double-blind treatment, covariate=baseline assessment) used for mean change from baseline comparisons.|aripiprazole - placebo|Change from Baseline at Week 8||0.30|0.04|
90877203|NCT00277212|181616344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.17||Means, treatment differences between aripiprazole and placebo, 95% confidence intervals for the differences and the p-values for treatment comparisons are based on ANOVA/ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA (main effects=double-blind treatment, covariate=baseline assessment) used for mean change from baseline comparisons.|aripiprazole - placebo|Change from Baseline at Week 24||0.17|-0.11|
90877204|NCT00277212|181616344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.13||Means, treatment differences between aripiprazole and placebo, 95% confidence intervals for the differences and the p-values for treatment comparisons are based on ANOVA/ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA (main effects=double-blind treatment, covariate=baseline assessment) used for mean change from baseline comparisons.|aripiprazole - placebo|Change from baseline at Week 36||0.13|-0.13|
90916074|NCT01796236|181702480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.062|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Thickness (observer)||||0.062
90916075|NCT01796236|181702480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Thickness (observer)||||0.11
90916076|NCT01796236|181702480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 12: Relief (observer)||||0.0003
90916077|NCT01796236|181702480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.079|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Relief (observer)||||0.079
90916078|NCT01796236|181702480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Relief (observer)||||0.025
90916079|NCT01796236|181702480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 12: Pliability (observer)||||0.0020
90916080|NCT01796236|181702480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Pliability (observer)||||0.14
90916081|NCT01796236|181702480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0014|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Pliability (observer)||||0.0014
90916082|NCT01796236|181702480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 12: Surface Area (observer)||||0.0001
90916083|NCT01796236|181702480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Surface Area (observer)||||0.023
90916084|NCT01796236|181702480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.045|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Surface Area (observer)||||0.045
90916085|NCT01796236|181702480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 12: Total Score (observer)||||0.0005
90916086|NCT01796236|181702480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.085|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Total Score (observer)||||0.085
90916087|NCT01796236|181702480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Total Score (observer)||||0.030
90916088|NCT01796236|181702480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0015|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 12: Overall Opinion (observer)||||0.0015
90916089|NCT01796236|181702480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.076|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Overall Opinion (observer)||||0.076
90916090|NCT01796236|181702480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Overall Opinion (observer)||||0.15
90916091|NCT01796236|181702480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 12: Painful (patient)||||0.72
90916092|NCT01796236|181702480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Painful (patient)||||0.97
90916093|NCT01796236|181702480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Painful (patient)||||0.82
90916094|NCT01796236|181702480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 12: Itching (patient)||||0.86
90916095|NCT01796236|181702480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Itching (patient)||||0.84
90916096|NCT01796236|181702480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Itching (patient)||||0.76
90916097|NCT01796236|181702480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 12: Color (patient)||||0.41
90916098|NCT01796236|181702480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Color (patient)||||0.98
90916099|NCT01796236|181702480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Color (patient)||||0.76
90916100|NCT01796236|181702480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 12: Stiffness (patient)||||0.43
90916101|NCT01796236|181702480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Stiffness (patient)||||0.25
90916102|NCT01796236|181702480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Stiffness (patient)||||0.017
90916103|NCT01796236|181702480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 12: Thickness (patient)||||0.13
90916104|NCT01796236|181702480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Thickness (patient)||||0.33
90916105|NCT01796236|181702480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Thickness (patient)||||0.65
90916106|NCT01796236|181702480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 12: Irregularity (patient)||||0.18
90916107|NCT01796236|181702480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Irregularity (patient)||||0.38
90916108|NCT01796236|181702480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Irregularity (patient)||||0.080
90916109|NCT01796236|181702480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 12: Total Score (patient)||||0.28
90916110|NCT01796236|181702480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Total Score (patient)||||0.44
90916111|NCT01796236|181702480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Total Score (patient)||||0.19
90916112|NCT01796236|181702480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 12: Overall Opinion (patient)||||0.16
90916113|NCT01796236|181702480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 12: Overall Opinion (patient)||||0.23
90916114|NCT01796236|181702480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.079|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Overall Opinion (patient)||||0.079
90916115|NCT01796236|181702480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0018|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 12: Pain not within Scar (patient)||||0.0018
90916116|NCT01796236|181702480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.053|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Pain not within Scar (patient)||||0.053
90916117|NCT01796236|181702480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.068|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Pain not within Scar (patient)||||0.068
90916118|NCT01796236|181702481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline: Comprehensive Health State (HUI3)||||0.90
90916119|NCT01796236|181702481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24: Comprehensive Health State (HUI3)||||0.43
90916120|NCT01796236|181702481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Comprehensive Health State (HUI3)||||0.23
90916121|NCT01796236|181702481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Comprehensive Health State (HUI3)||||0.019
90916122|NCT01796236|181702481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.079|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline: Vision (HUI3)||||0.079
90916123|NCT01796236|181702481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24: Vision (HUI3)||||0.96
90916124|NCT01796236|181702481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Vision (HUI3)||||0.55
90916125|NCT01796236|181702481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Vision (HUI3)||||0.64
90916126|NCT01796236|181702481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline: Hearing (HUI3)||||0.76
90916127|NCT01796236|181702481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.059|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24: Hearing (HUI3)||||0.059
90916128|NCT01796236|181702481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Hearing (HUI3)||||0.38
90916129|NCT01796236|181702481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Hearing (HUI3)||||0.14
90916130|NCT01796236|181702481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline: Speech (HUI3)||||0.73
90916131|NCT01796236|181702481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24: Speech (HUI3)||||0.65
90916132|NCT01796236|181702481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Speech (HUI3)||||1.00
90916133|NCT01796236|181702481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Speech (HUI3)||||0.35
90916134|NCT01796236|181702481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline: Ambulation (HUI3)||||0.50
90916135|NCT01796236|181702481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24: Ambulation (HUI3)||||0.40
90916136|NCT01796236|181702481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Ambulation (HUI3)||||0.21
90916137|NCT01796236|181702481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Ambulation (HUI3)||||0.0010
90916138|NCT01796236|181702481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline: Emotion (HUI3)||||0.13
90916139|NCT01796236|181702481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24: Emotion (HUI3)||||0.96
90916140|NCT01796236|181702481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Emotion (HUI3)||||0.75
90916141|NCT01796236|181702481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Emotion (HUI3)||||0.20
90916142|NCT01796236|181702481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline: Cognition (HUI3)||||0.95
90916143|NCT01796236|181702481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24: Cognition (HUI3)||||0.31
90916144|NCT01796236|181702481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Cognition (HUI3)||||0.15
90916145|NCT01796236|181702481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Cognition (HUI3)||||0.19
90916146|NCT01796236|181702481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline: Pain (HUI3)||||0.41
90916147|NCT01796236|181702481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24: Pain (HUI3)||||0.30
90916148|NCT01796236|181702481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Pain (HUI3)||||0.42
90916149|NCT01796236|181702481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Pain (HUI3)||||0.040
90916150|NCT01796236|181702481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline: Comprehensive Health State (HUI2)||||0.99
90916151|NCT01796236|181702481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24: Comprehensive Health State (HUI2)||||0.88
90916152|NCT01796236|181702481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Comprehensive Health State (HUI2)||||0.32
90916153|NCT01796236|181702481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0084|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Comprehensive Health State (HUI2)||||0.0084
90916154|NCT01796236|181702481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline: Sensation (HUI2)||||0.77
90916155|NCT01796236|181702481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24: Sensation (HUI2)||||0.95
90916156|NCT01796236|181702481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Sensation (HUI2)||||0.60
90916157|NCT01796236|181702481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Sensation (HUI2)||||0.48
90916158|NCT01796236|181702481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline: Mobility (HUI2)||||0.51
90916159|NCT01796236|181702481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24: Mobility (HUI2)||||0.42
90916160|NCT01796236|181702481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Mobility (HUI2)||||0.22
90916161|NCT01796236|181702481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0018|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Mobility (HUI2)||||0.0018
90916162|NCT01796236|181702481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline: Emotion (HUI2)||||0.30
90916163|NCT01796236|181702481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24: Emotion (HUI2)||||0.52
90916164|NCT01796236|181702481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Emotion (HUI2)||||0.47
90916165|NCT01796236|181702481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Emotion (HUI2)||||0.18
90916166|NCT01796236|181702481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline: Cognition (HUI2)||||0.82
90916167|NCT01796236|181702481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24: Cognition (HUI2)||||0.41
90916168|NCT01796236|181702481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Cognition (HUI2)||||0.14
90916169|NCT01796236|181702481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Cognition (HUI2)||||0.25
90916170|NCT01796236|181702481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline: Self Care (HUI2)||||0.59
90877205|NCT00277212|181616344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.14||Means, treatment differences between aripiprazole and placebo, 95% confidence intervals for the differences and the p-values for treatment comparisons are based on ANOVA/ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA (main effects=double-blind treatment, covariate=baseline assessment) used for mean change from baseline comparisons.|aripiprazole - placebo|Change from baseline at Week 52||0.14|-0.08|
90877206|NCT00277212|181616344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.17||Means, treatment differences between aripiprazole and placebo, 95% confidence intervals for the differences and the p-values for treatment comparisons are based on ANOVA/ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA (main effects=double-blind treatment, covariate=baseline assessment) used for mean change from baseline comparisons.|aripiprazole - placebo|Change from Baseline at Week 52 (LOCF)||0.17|-0.06|0.358
90877207|NCT00277212|181616344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.31||Means, treatment differences between aripiprazole and placebo, 95% confidence intervals for the differences and the p-values for treatment comparisons are based on ANOVA/ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA (main effects=double-blind treatment, covariate=baseline assessment) used for mean change from baseline comparisons.|aripiprazole - placebo|Highest Change from Baseline||0.31|0.03|0.021
90877208|NCT05620576|181616345|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.82|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.82|-0.61|
90877209|NCT05620576|181616346|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.99|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.99|-0.47|
90877210|NCT05620576|181616347|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.78|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.78|-0.11|
90877211|NCT05620576|181616348|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.96|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.96|-0.56|
90877212|NCT05620576|181616349|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.41|7.75|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||7.75|-9.41|
90877213|NCT05620576|181616350|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.24|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.24|-0.51|
90877214|NCT05620576|181616351|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.08|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.08|-0.11|
90916171|NCT01796236|181702481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24: Self Care (HUI2)||||1.00
90877215|NCT05620576|181616352|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|23.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-108.05|152.33|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||152.33|-108.05|
90877216|NCT03336216|181616353|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.47|||||TWO_SIDED|60.0|1.19|1.82||||||||1.82|1.19|
90877217|NCT03336216|181616353|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|60.0|0.77|1.3||||||||1.30|0.77|
90877218|NCT03336216|181616353|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|60.0|0.6|1.03||||||||1.03|0.60|
90877219|NCT03336216|181616354|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.64|||||TWO_SIDED|60.0|1.33|2.02||||||||2.02|1.33|
90877220|NCT03336216|181616354|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||||60.0|0.87|1.46||||||||1.46|0.87|
90877221|NCT03336216|181616354|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||||60.0|0.55|0.94||||||||0.94|0.55|
90877222|NCT03336216|181616357|SUPERIORITY||Strata adjusted difference|1.8||||0.6537||95.0|-5.5|9.0||Stratified CMH test stratified by ECOG and prior chemotherapy|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method of weighting|||9.0|-5.5|0.6537
90877223|NCT03336216|181616357|SUPERIORITY||Strata adjusted difference|12.5||||0.0951||95.0|3.1|21.9||Stratified CMH test stratified by ECOG and prior chemotherapy|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method of weighting|||21.9|3.1|0.0951
90877224|NCT03336216|181616357|SUPERIORITY||Strata adjusted difference|5.0||||0.5171||95.0|-8.0|18.1||Stratified CMH test stratified by ECOG and prior chemotherapy|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method of weighting|||18.1|-8.0|0.5171
90877225|NCT03336216|181616358|SUPERIORITY||Strata adjusted difference|-0.8||||0.8505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|7.7||Stratified CMH test stratified by ECOG and prior chemotherapy|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method of weighting|||7.7|-9.4|0.8505
90877226|NCT03336216|181616358|SUPERIORITY||Strata adjusted difference|1.5||||0.8144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|12.8||Stratified CMH test stratified by ECOG and prior chemotherapy|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method of weighting|||12.8|-9.9|0.8144
90877227|NCT03336216|181616358|SUPERIORITY||Strata adjusted difference|0.7||||0.9087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|12.1||Stratified CMH test stratified by ECOG and prior chemotherapy.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method of weighting|||12.1|-10.7|0.9087
90877228|NCT03336216|181616361|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.96|||||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model by ECOG and type of prior chemotherapy|||1.96|0.76|
90916172|NCT01796236|181702481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Self Care (HUI2)||||0.55
90916173|NCT01796236|181702481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Self Care (HUI2)||||0.14
90916174|NCT01796236|181702481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline: Pain (HUI2)||||0.75
90916175|NCT01796236|181702481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24: Pain (HUI2)||||0.63
90877229|NCT03336216|181616361|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.86|||||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model by ECOG and type of prior chemotherapy|||1.86|0.59|
90877230|NCT03336216|181616361|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.46|||||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model by ECOG and type of prior chemotherapy|||1.46|0.45|
90877231|NCT03616912|181616383|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.57||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|2.27|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.27|1.09|0.016
90877232|NCT03616912|181616384|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.65|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.65|0.79|0.470
90877233|NCT03616912|181616385|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.45|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.45|0.63|0.839
90877234|NCT03616912|181616385|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.79|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.79|0.80|0.391
90877235|NCT03616912|181616387|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.66|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.66|0.53|0.820
90877236|NCT03616912|181616387|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|2.08|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.08|0.67|0.565
90877237|NCT03616912|181616388|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference Final Values|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.30|-0.52|0.598
90877238|NCT03616912|181616388|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference Final Values|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.32|-0.50|0.674
90877239|NCT03616912|181616389|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference Final Values|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.70|-1.65|0.979
90916176|NCT01796236|181702481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Pain (HUI2)||||0.57
90916177|NCT01796236|181702481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Pain (HUI2)||||0.019
90877240|NCT03616912|181616389|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference Final Values|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86||0.678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.03|1.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.32|-2.03|0.678
90877241|NCT03616912|181616390|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|2.42|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.42|0.43|0.965
90877242|NCT03616912|181616390|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|2.92|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.92|0.51|0.661
90877243|NCT03616912|181616391|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference Final Values|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|1.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.08|-0.61|0.578
90877244|NCT03616912|181616391|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference Final Values|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.433||0.309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.41|-1.29|0.309
90877245|NCT03616912|181616392|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference Final Values|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.277||0.287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.25|-0.84|0.287
90877246|NCT03616912|181616392|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference Final Values|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.278||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.11|-0.99|0.113
90877247|NCT01124604|181616395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||||95.0|-1.04|0.8|||||Test for no difference between treatments was derived from Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with factors treatment, disease and Baseline pain intensity as covariate.|||0.80|-1.04|
90877248|NCT01762943|181616414|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||repeated measures ANOVA|F=1.40, df=2,26||||||.27
90877249|NCT01762943|181616415|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018|||||||repeated measures ANOVA|F=6.29, df=1,28||||||.018
90877250|NCT03090100|181616453|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of 10%|Difference in percentage|14.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.2|19.2|||z-test|||||19.2|9.2|<0.001
90877251|NCT03090100|181616453|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90877252|NCT03090100|181616454|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of 10%|Difference in percentage|4.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|8.9|||z-test|||||8.9|-0.2|<0.001
90877253|NCT03090100|181616454|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.062|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.062
90877254|NCT03090100|181616455|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|-1.7||||||||-1.7|-12.2|
90877255|NCT03090100|181616456|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|1.2||||||||1.2|-6.0|
90877256|NCT03090100|181616457|OTHER||Difference in percentage|9.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|15.5||||||||15.5|3.8|
90877257|NCT03090100|181616458|OTHER||Difference in percentage|11.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.8|17.4||||||||17.4|5.8|
90877258|NCT03090100|181616459|OTHER||Difference in percentage|9.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|14.5||||||||14.5|4.9|
90877259|NCT03090100|181616460|OTHER||Difference in percentage|7.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|13.2||||||||13.2|2.3|
90877260|NCT03090100|181616461|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|3.1||||||||3.1|-3.5|
90877261|NCT03090100|181616462|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|3.4||||||||3.4|-6.2|
90877262|NCT03090100|181616463|OTHER||Difference in percentage|9.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|15.3||||||||15.3|4.2|
90877263|NCT03090100|181616464|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|3.9||||||||3.9|-4.2|
90877264|NCT03090100|181616465|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|3.3||||||||3.3|-5.0|
90877265|NCT00159588|181616474|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.056||||||Between-group analysis|Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test||||0.056
90877266|NCT00159588|181616475|SUPERIORITY|Between-group analysis||||||0.012||||||Between-group analysis|t-test, 2 sided|Kruskal-Wallis test||Kruskal-Wallis test||||0.012
90877267|NCT00456521|181616476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.21|||<|0.001||95.0|-5.56|-2.86|||ANCOVA|||||-2.86|-5.56|<0.001
90877268|NCT00456521|181616477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.89|||<|0.001||95.0|2.02|4.13|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.13|2.02|<0.001
90877269|NCT00456521|181616478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.95|4.37|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.37|1.95|<0.001
90877270|NCT00456521|181616479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.82|-1.6|||ANCOVA|||||-1.60|-4.82|<0.001
90877271|NCT00456521|181616480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.11||||0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.004
90916178|NCT01796236|181702482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline: Ease of Communication (Aided)||||0.047
90916179|NCT01796236|181702482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline: Background Noise (Aided)||||0.23
90916180|NCT01796236|181702482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline: Reverberation (Aided)||||0.015
90877272|NCT00456521|181616481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.53||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.003
90877273|NCT00456521|181616482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|4.95|||ANCOVA|||||4.95|1.52|<0.001
90877274|NCT00456521|181616483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.14||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|5.04|||ANCOVA|||||5.04|1.23|0.001
90916181|NCT01796236|181702482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline: Aversiveness (Aided)||||0.13
90916182|NCT01796236|181702482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.041|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline: Global (Aided)||||0.041
90916183|NCT01796236|181702482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.071|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline: Ease of Communication (Unaided)||||0.071
90916184|NCT01796236|181702482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline: Background Noise (Unaided)||||0.75
90916185|NCT01796236|181702482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline: Reverberation (Unaided)||||0.32
90916186|NCT01796236|181702482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline: Aversiveness (Unaided)||||0.24
90916187|NCT01796236|181702482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline: Global (Unaided)||||0.24
90916188|NCT01796236|181702482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline: Ease of Communication (Benefit)||||0.12
90916189|NCT01796236|181702482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline: Background Noise (Benefit)||||0.19
90877275|NCT00456521|181616484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.37||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.003
90916190|NCT01796236|181702482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.055|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline: Reverberation (Benefit)||||0.055
90916191|NCT01796236|181702482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline: Aversiveness (Benefit)||||0.24
90877276|NCT00456521|181616485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.98||||0.165|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.165
90916192|NCT01796236|181702482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.042|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline: Global (Benefit)||||0.042
90916193|NCT01796236|181702482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24: Ease of Communication (Aided)||||0.19
90916194|NCT01796236|181702482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24: Background Noise (Aided)||||0.99
90877277|NCT00456521|181616486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.34|0.79||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||0.79|-3.34|
90877278|NCT00456521|181616487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.26|1.86||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||1.86|-7.26|
90877279|NCT00456521|181616488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|4.14||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||4.14|0.97|
90877280|NCT00456521|181616489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|2.49||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||2.49|0.25|
90877281|NCT00456521|181616490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.87||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||0.87|-0.70|
90877282|NCT00456521|181616491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.63||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||0.63|-0.85|
90916195|NCT01796236|181702482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24: Reverberation (Aided)||||0.24
90916196|NCT01796236|181702482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24: Aversiveness (Aided)||||0.73
90916197|NCT01796236|181702482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24: Global (Aided)||||0.39
90916198|NCT01796236|181702482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24: Ease of Communication (Unaided)||||0.24
90916199|NCT01796236|181702482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24: Background Noise (Unaided)||||0.81
90916200|NCT01796236|181702482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24: Reverberation (Unaided)||||0.34
90916201|NCT01796236|181702482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24: Aversiveness (Unaided)||||0.038
90916202|NCT01796236|181702482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24: Global (Unaided)||||0.53
90916203|NCT01796236|181702482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24: Ease of Communication (Benefit)||||0.63
90916204|NCT01796236|181702482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24: Background Noise (Benefit)||||0.83
90916205|NCT01796236|181702482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24: Reverberation (Benefit)||||0.71
90916206|NCT01796236|181702482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24: Aversiveness (Benefit)||||0.16
90916207|NCT01796236|181702482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24: Global (Benefit)||||0.81
90916208|NCT01796236|181702482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Ease of Communication (Aided)||||0.51
90916209|NCT01796236|181702482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Background Noise (Aided)||||0.47
90916210|NCT01796236|181702482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Reverberation (Aided)||||0.93
90916211|NCT01796236|181702482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Aversiveness (Aided)||||0.62
90916212|NCT01796236|181702482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Global (Aided)||||0.63
90916213|NCT01796236|181702482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Ease of Communication (Unaided)||||0.18
90916214|NCT01796236|181702482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Background Noise (Unaided)||||0.76
90916215|NCT01796236|181702482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Reverberation (Unaided)||||0.17
90916216|NCT01796236|181702482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Aversiveness (Unaided)||||0.29
90916217|NCT01796236|181702482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Global (Unaided)||||0.40
90916218|NCT01796236|181702482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Ease of Communication (Benefit)||||0.29
90877283|NCT00456521|181616492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.6||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||0.60|-0.78|
90916219|NCT01796236|181702482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Background Noise (Benefit)||||0.90
90877284|NCT00456521|181616493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.16|-1.42||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||-1.42|-9.16|
90877285|NCT02596854|181616494|NON_INFERIORITY|α=0.025 with a margin of Δ=0.5 were used for non-inferiority testing|Median Difference (Net)|-0.428|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3522|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.428|-0.269||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Notably, no separate comparative statistical analysis was performed for the 1.5T and 3.0T subgroups, which were pooled for analysis. All patients underwent both synthetic MR and commercial conventional MR in a single arm.|Non-inferiority of synthetic MR versus conventional commercial MR the hypothesis can be stated as H0: S ≤ -Δ and HA: S \> -Δ.|To mitigate possible bias, the hypothesis test was executed via pre-programmed SAS module, which does not show the data for individual synthetic and conventional group values. The data for these individual groups is thus not currently available as part of the study report held by the sponsor or submitted to FDA. Thus, this data cannot be presented without additional analysis (re-programming) of the original SAS used to perform the study. Data were only reported as the difference between synthetic - conventional to determine non-inferiority, and data for individual crossovers (synthetic vs. conventional) were not calculated.The raw conventional scan images and those post-processed with the research software were combined as pre-specified in the study protocol|-0.269|-0.428|<0.001
90877286|NCT01334723|181616585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.38||||||95.0|0.35|0.412|||||A time-to-event analysis was used to evaluate the likelihood of AUR or prostate surgery.|||0.412|0.350|
90916220|NCT01796236|181702482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Reverberation (Benefit)||||0.24
90916221|NCT01796236|181702482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Aversiveness (Benefit)||||0.45
90916222|NCT01796236|181702482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Global (Benefit)||||0.37
90916223|NCT01796236|181702482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Ease of Communication (Aided)||||0.84
90916224|NCT01796236|181702482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Background Noise (Aided)||||0.57
90877287|NCT01334723|181616585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.294||||||95.0|0.235|0.368|||||A time-to-event analysis was used to evaluate the likelihood of AUR or prostate surgery.|||0.368|0.235|
90877288|NCT01334723|181616586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.613||||||95.0|0.562|0.668|||||A time-to-event analysis was used to evaluate the likelihood of AUR or prostate surgery.|||0.668|0.562|
90877289|NCT01334723|181616586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.542||||||95.0|0.427|0.689|||||A time-to-event analysis was used to evaluate the likelihood of AUR or prostate surgery.|||0.689|0.427|
90877290|NCT01334723|181616587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.519||||||95.0|0.472|0.57|||||A time-to-event analysis was used to evaluate the likelihood of AUR or prostate surgery.|||0.570|0.472|
90877291|NCT01334723|181616587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.436||||||95.0|0.333|0.57|||||A time-to-event analysis was used to evaluate the likelihood of AUR or prostate surgery.|||0.570|0.333|
90877292|NCT01549964|181616650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.108|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.34||MMRM model with treatment, country, schedule, visit and visit by treatment interaction as fixed factors and with baseline value and baseline value by visit interaction as covariates with an unstructured covariance structure.|Mixed model for repeated measurements|||||-0.34|-0.77|<0.001
90916225|NCT01796236|181702482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Reverberation (Aided)||||0.71
90916226|NCT01796236|181702482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Aversiveness (Aided)||||0.99
90916227|NCT01796236|181702482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Global (Aided)||||0.78
90916228|NCT01796236|181702482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Ease of Communication (Unaided)||||0.50
90916229|NCT01796236|181702482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Background Noise (Unaided)||||0.48
90916230|NCT01796236|181702482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Reverberation (Unaided)||||0.64
90916231|NCT01796236|181702482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.041|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Aversiveness (Unaided)||||0.041
90916232|NCT01796236|181702482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Global (Unaided)||||0.89
90916233|NCT01796236|181702482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Ease of Communication (Benefit)||||0.14
90916234|NCT01796236|181702482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Background Noise (Benefit)||||0.48
90916235|NCT01796236|181702482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Reverberation (Benefit)||||0.23
90916236|NCT01796236|181702482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Aversiveness (Benefit)||||0.57
90916237|NCT01796236|181702482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Global (Benefit)||||0.21
90916238|NCT01796236|181702483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Sound Processor Usage: Week 6||||0.46
90916239|NCT01796236|181702483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Use of Sound Processor: Week 12||||0.75
90961287|NCT00568321|181803575|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.111|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.25|0.19|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||LS mean difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.19|-1.25|0.111
90961288|NCT00568321|181803576|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.399|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.79|0.58|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 1: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.58|-0.79|0.399
91033670|NCT00617305|181953157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.85|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.2||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 36 (LOCF)||0.2|-1.0|
91033671|NCT00617305|181953157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.79|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|3.0||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 36 (LOCF)||3.0|-1.4|
90877293|NCT01549964|181616650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.087|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.49||MMRM model with treatment, country, schedule, visit and visit by treatment interaction as fixed factors and with baseline value and baseline value by visit interaction as covariates with an unstructured covariance structure.|Mixed model for repeated measurements|||||0.49|0.15|<0.001
90877294|NCT01549964|181616650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.109|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.6||MMRM model with treatment, country, schedule, visit and visit by treatment interaction as fixed factors and with baseline value and baseline value by visit interaction as covariates with an unstructured covariance structure.|Mixed model for repeated measurements|||||-0.60|-1.03|<0.001
90877295|NCT01549964|181616650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.087||0.524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.23||MMRM model with treatment, country, schedule, visit and visit by treatment interaction as fixed factors and with baseline value and baseline value by visit interaction as covariates with an unstructured covariance structure.|Mixed model for repeated measurements|||||0.23|-0.12|0.524
90877296|NCT01549964|181616651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.25||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|5.08||P-Value was obtained from a logistic model with treatment, schedule, baseline HbA1c as explanatory variables.|Regression, Logistic|||||5.08|1.00|0.050
90877297|NCT01549964|181616651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.67||P-Value was obtained from a logistic model with treatment, schedule, baseline HbA1c as explanatory variables.|Regression, Logistic|||||0.67|0.23|<0.001
91033672|NCT00617305|181953157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.1||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 48 (LOCF)||0.1|-1.4|
91033673|NCT00617305|181953157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.46|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|6.5||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 48 (LOCF)||6.5|-4.5|
90877298|NCT01549964|181616651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.24|11.42||P-Value was obtained from a logistic model with treatment, schedule, baseline HbA1c as explanatory variables.|Regression, Logistic|||||11.42|2.24|<0.001
91033674|NCT00617305|181953157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0||||||||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 48 (LOCF)||||
90877299|NCT01549964|181616651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.39||P-Value was obtained from a logistic model with treatment, schedule, baseline HbA1c as explanatory variables.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.39|0.50|0.493
90877300|NCT01549964|181616652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-25.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.36|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.8|-16.6||MMRM model with treatment, country, schedule, visit and visit by treatment interaction as fixed factors and with baseline value and baseline value by visit interaction as covariates with an unstructured covariance structure.|Mixed model for repeated measurements|||||-16.6|-33.8|<0.001
90877301|NCT01549964|181616652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.49||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|1.7||MMRM model with treatment, country, schedule, visit and visit by treatment interaction as fixed factors and with baseline value and baseline value by visit interaction as covariates with an unstructured covariance structure.|Mixed model for repeated measurements|||||1.7|-12.0|0.142
90877302|NCT01549964|181616652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-31.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.9|-22.6||MMRM model with treatment, country, schedule, visit and visit by treatment interaction as fixed factors and with baseline value and baseline value by visit interaction as covariates with an unstructured covariance structure.|Mixed model for repeated measurements|||||-22.6|-39.9|<0.001
90916240|NCT01796236|181702483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Use of Sound Processor: Week 24||||0.83
90916241|NCT01796236|181702483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Use of Sound Processor: Month 12||||0.52
90916242|NCT01796236|181702483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Use of Sound Processor: Month 24||||0.67
90916243|NCT01796236|181702483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Use of Sound Processor: Month 36||||0.71
90916244|NCT01796236|181702485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.91|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||Baseline: Smoking and Wet Snuff habits||||0.91
90916245|NCT01796236|181702485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||Week 3: Smoking and Wet Snuff habits||||0.70
90916246|NCT01796236|181702485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||Week 12: Smoking and Wet Snuff habits||||0.95
90916247|NCT01796236|181702485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||Month 12: Smoking and Wet Snuff habits||||0.22
90916248|NCT01796236|181702485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||Month 24: Smoking and Wet Snuff habits||||0.19
90961289|NCT00568321|181803576|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.189|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.06|0.32|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 1: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.32|-1.06|0.189
90961290|NCT00568321|181803576|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.802|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.33|1.04|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 2: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.04|-0.33|0.802
90877303|NCT01549964|181616652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean difference|-11.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.53||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.1|-4.2||MMRM model with treatment, country, schedule, visit and visit by treatment interaction as fixed factors and with baseline value and baseline value by visit interaction as covariates with an unstructured covariance structure.|Mixed model for repeated measurements|||||-4.2|-18.1|0.002
90877304|NCT02438722|181616700|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.36|||Log Rank|||||1.36|0.50|0.44
90877305|NCT02438722|181616701|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.43|||Log Rank|||||1.43|0.72|0.94
90877306|NCT02438722|181616703|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.26|||Log Rank|||||1.26|0.64|0.54
90877307|NCT02438722|181616704|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.39|||Log Rank|||||1.39|0.73|0.95
91033675|NCT00617305|181953157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.3||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 48 (LOCF)||0.3|-1.3|
91033676|NCT00617305|181953157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|4.6||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 48 (LOCF)||4.6|-3.0|
90877308|NCT03343483|181616712|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.138|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06||0.896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|1.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.93|-2.21|.896
90877309|NCT03343483|181616713|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44||||0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.80
90877310|NCT03343483|181616714|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.59||||0.33|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.33
90877311|NCT03343483|181616715|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.58|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.58
90877312|NCT03343483|181616716|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.73|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.73
90877313|NCT03343483|181616717|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.57|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.57
90877314|NCT01835743|181616718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|5e-05|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.00005
90877315|NCT01835743|181616719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test for two independent samples to compare the change in VAS scores across the evaluation period between the two procedure administration groups||||||<0.0001
90877316|NCT02449174|181616737|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8958|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.8958
90877317|NCT02449174|181616738|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2059|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.2059
90877318|NCT04949165|181616739|NON_INFERIORITY|The study employed a non-inferiority design with a non-inferiority margin of 1 g/dL for haemoglobin levels at 4 months, a 1-sided alpha level of 0.025, at least 85% power and under the assumption that the true difference in the means was 0.3 g/dL. The estimated sample size also allowed for up to 10% loss to follow- up or iron supplementation for those initially not requiring supplements, thus the sample size was 292.||||||0.025||||||Non-inferiority threshold of -1 g/dL for the lower bound of the 97.5% CI.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.025
90877319|NCT00579826|181616783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.92|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.92
91033677|NCT00617305|181953158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|0.4||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 12 (LOCF)||0.4|-2.7|
91033678|NCT00617305|181953158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.86|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|9.0||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 12 (LOCF)||9.0|-6.5|
90877320|NCT00579826|181616784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.96|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.96
90877321|NCT00579826|181616785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.73|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.73
90877322|NCT00579826|181616786|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.64
90877323|NCT00579826|181616787|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.73
90877324|NCT04191382|181616788|OTHER|Other descriptive analysis|Ratio of Geometric Means|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.63||||||Geometric LS-means ratio of proportional change was the ratio of geometric LS-means of the proportional change between groups (Amcenestrant 400 mg versus Letrozole 2.5 mg).||1.63|0.72|
90877325|NCT04191382|181616788|OTHER|Other descriptive analysis|Ratio of Geometric Means|1.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.12||||||Geometric LS-means ratio of proportional change was the ratio of geometric LS-means of the proportional change between groups (Amcenestrant 200 mg versus Letrozole 2.5 mg).||2.12|0.95|
90877326|NCT01748643|181616793|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.16
90877327|NCT01748643|181616794|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.69
90877328|NCT01748643|181616795|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.07
90877329|NCT01748643|181616796|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.97
91033679|NCT00617305|181953158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0||||||||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 12 (LOCF)||||
91033680|NCT00617305|181953158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.09|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.6||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 12 (LOCF)||0.6|-2.3|
91033681|NCT00617305|181953158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.45|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|6.1||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 12 (LOCF)||6.1|-4.9|
90877330|NCT01748643|181616797|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.64
90877331|NCT01748643|181616798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.58
90877332|NCT03054870|181616836|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin was determined from a separate study where 6 blinded readers read and re-read 75 Xe-133 planar ventilation imaging studies in 2 read sessions separated by a minimum of 4 weeks. The readers scored the 6 regions of the lung using the same ventilation scoring metric used in this study. Based on analysis of the read/re-read results, 60% was established as a suitable margin for establishing the non-inferiority of Technegas compared to Xe-133.|||||<|0.0141||||||P-value is one-sided; for testing non-inferiority the associated critical value for PA is provided by lower bound of the 97.18% confidence interval.|Mixed Models Analysis|Binary agreement scores between Technegas and Xe-133 ventilation scores by subject-lung region served as the dependent variable in the model.||PA between Technegas and Xe-133 from analysis of each of the 3 blinded readers' ventilation scores was subjected to the following test of null (H0) versus alternate hypotheses (HA): H0: PA \<= 60% versus HA: PA \> 60%. The original sample size of 240 subjects was based on 90% power and one-sided alpha=0.025. For the unplanned interim analysis of 200 subjects, testing for non-inferiority used one-sided alpha=0.0141 (critical value provided by lower bound of the 97.18% confidence interval).|Binary agreement scores were analyzed for each reader separately using a generalized linear model with SAS® PROC GENMOD. The logit function (log odds ratio) was specified as the link function, and subject was specified as a repeated measure to allow for correlations between lung regions within a subject. The estimate of the intercept of the model using generalized estimating equation (GEE) methodology provided an overall estimate of the agreement and corresponding confidence interval in terms of the log odds ratio. Simple algebra was used to obtain the corresponding estimates and confidence intervals in terms of percent agreement (PA). For the study to be considered a success, the null hypothesis had to be rejected for at least 2 of the 3 blinded readers for the primary efficacy endpoint.|||<0.0141
90877333|NCT03054870|181616837|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin was determined from a separate study where 6 blinded readers read and re-read 75 Xe-133 planar ventilation imaging studies in 2 read sessions separated by a minimum of 4 weeks. The readers scored the 6 regions of the lung using the same ventilation scoring metric used in this study. Based on analysis of the read/re-read results, 60% was established as a suitable margin for establishing the non-inferiority of Technegas compared to Xe-133.|||||<|0.0141||||||P-value is one-sided; for testing non-inferiority the associated critical value for PA is provided by lower bound of the 97.18% confidence interval.|Mixed Models Analysis|Binary agreement scores between Technegas and Xe-133 ventilation scores by subject-lung region served as the dependent variable in the model.||PA between Technegas and Xe-133 from analysis of each of the 3 blinded readers' ventilation scores was subjected to the following test of null (H0) versus alternate hypotheses (HA): H0: PA \<= 60% versus HA: PA \> 60%. The original sample size of 240 subjects was based on 90% power and one-sided alpha=0.025. For the unplanned interim analysis of 200 subjects, testing for non-inferiority used one-sided alpha=0.0141 (critical value provided by lower bound of the 97.18% confidence interval).|Binary agreement scores were analyzed for each reader separately using a generalized linear model with SAS® PROC GENMOD. The logit function (log odds ratio) was specified as the link function, and subject was specified as a repeated measure to allow for correlations between lung regions within a subject. The estimate of the intercept of the model using generalized estimating equation (GEE) methodology provided an overall estimate of the agreement and corresponding confidence interval in terms of the log odds ratio. Simple algebra was used to obtain the corresponding estimates and confidence intervals in terms of percent agreement (PA). For the study to be considered a success, the null hypothesis had to be rejected for at least 2 of the 3 blinded readers for the primary efficacy endpoint.|||<0.0141
90877334|NCT03054870|181616838|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Estimates of inter-observer percent agreement were obtained as follows. For each reader-pair, binary agreement scores by subject and lung region were analyzed using a generalized linear model with SAS® PROC GENMOD. The logit function (log odds ratio) was specified as the link function, and subject was specified as a repeated measure to allow for correlations between lung regions within a subject. The estimate of the intercept of the model using generalized estimating equation (GEE) methodology provided an overall estimate of the agreement and corresponding confidence interval in terms of the log odds ratio. Simple algebra was used to obtain the corresponding estimates and confidence intervals in terms of percent agreement.|||
90877335|NCT03054870|181616839|OTHER||||||||||||||||||For each pair of readers, by lung region estimates of kappa statistics and their corresponding 95% confidence intervals were generated from cross-tabulation frequencies of the readers' ventilation scores using SAS® PROC FREQ and the AGREE option.|||
90877336|NCT02009046|181616840|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.6|||Regression, Logistic|Multilevel model to account for classroom/school clusters. Adjusted for student/classroom gender, student/classroom sexual experience, pretest score.||||1.60|0.75|0.6430
90916249|NCT01796236|181702485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||Month 36: Smoking and Wet Snuff habits||||0.45
90877337|NCT02009046|181616840|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.3718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.44|||Regression, Logistic|Multilevel model to account for classroom/school clusters. Adjusted for student/classroom gender, student/classroom sexual experience, pretest score.||||1.44|0.39|0.3718
90877338|NCT02009046|181616841|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.8083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.37|||Regression, Logistic|Multilevel model to account for classroom/school clusters. Adjusted for student/classroom gender, student/classroom sexual experience, pretest score.||||1.37|0.67|0.8083
90877339|NCT02009046|181616841|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.1083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.13|||Regression, Logistic|Multilevel model to account for classroom/school clusters. Adjusted for student/classroom gender, student/classroom sexual experience, pretest score.||||1.13|0.32|0.1083
90877340|NCT02009046|181616842|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.62||||0.1006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.1|||Regression, Logistic|Multilevel model to account for classroom/school clusters. Adjusted for student/classroom gender, student/classroom sexual experience, pretest score.||||1.10|0.35|0.1006
90877341|NCT02009046|181616842|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.49||||0.2117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.53|||Regression, Logistic|Multilevel model to account for classroom/school clusters. Adjusted for student/classroom gender, student/classroom sexual experience, pretest score.||||1.53|0.16|0.2117
90877342|NCT02009046|181616843|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.0218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.78|||Regression, Logistic|Multilevel model to account for classroom/school clusters. Adjusted for student/classroom gender, student/classroom sexual experience, pretest score.||||1.78|1.05|0.0218
90877343|NCT02009046|181616843|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73||||0.0211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|2.75|||Regression, Logistic|Multilevel model to account for classroom/school clusters. Adjusted for student/classroom gender, student/classroom sexual experience, pretest score.||||2.75|1.09|0.0211
90877344|NCT02009046|181616844|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.1763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.73|||Regression, Logistic|Multilevel model to account for classroom/school clusters. Adjusted for student/classroom gender, student/classroom sexual experience, pretest score.||||1.73|0.90|0.1763
90877345|NCT02009046|181616844|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.5869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.58|||Regression, Logistic|Multilevel model to account for classroom/school clusters. Adjusted for student/classroom gender, student/classroom sexual experience, pretest score.||||1.58|0.45|0.5869
90877346|NCT02009046|181616845|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.8102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.44|||Regression, Logistic|Multilevel model to account for classroom/school clusters. Adjusted for student/classroom gender, student/classroom sexual experience, pretest score.||||1.44|0.75|0.8102
90916250|NCT01796236|181702486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||Loss of Implant (safety population)||||0.989
90916251|NCT01943799|181702490|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.001||||0.976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.061|0.059|||MMRM|||Each null hypothesis was tested against the 2-sided alternative that the mean change from baseline in serum HBsAg (log10 IU/mL) titers in the respective GS-4774 group was not equal to that of the OAV group. Estimated least squares means (LSM) of treatment effects and estimated differences in treatment effects between GS-4774 treatment groups and the OAV group at Week 24 were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and unadjusted p-values.||0.059|-0.061|0.976
90916252|NCT01943799|181702490|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.007||||0.828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.067|0.053|||MMRM|||Each null hypothesis was tested against the 2-sided alternative that the mean change from baseline in serum HBsAg (log10 IU/mL) titers in the respective GS-4774 group was not equal to that of the OAV group. Estimated least squares means (LSM) of treatment effects and estimated differences in treatment effects between GS-4774 treatment groups and the OAV group at Week 24 were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and unadjusted p-values.||0.053|-0.067|0.828
91033682|NCT00617305|181953158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|1.1||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 24 (LOCF)||1.1|-2.7|
90877347|NCT02009046|181616845|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72||||0.2956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.34|||Regression, Logistic|Multilevel model to account for classroom/school clusters. Adjusted for student/classroom gender, student/classroom sexual experience, pretest score.||||1.34|0.39|0.2956
90877348|NCT02009046|181616846|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.4645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.56|||Regression, Logistic|Multilevel model to account for classroom/school clusters. Adjusted for student/classroom gender, student/classroom sexual experience, pretest score.||||1.56|0.82|0.4645
90877349|NCT02009046|181616846|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77||||0.3809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.4|||Regression, Logistic|Multilevel model to account for classroom/school clusters. Adjusted for student/classroom gender, student/classroom sexual experience, pretest score.||||1.40|0.43|0.3809
90877350|NCT02009046|181616847|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.1335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.09|||Regression, Logistic|Multilevel model to account for classroom/school clusters. Adjusted for student/classroom gender, student/classroom sexual experience, pretest score.||||1.09|0.52|0.1335
90877351|NCT02009046|181616847|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.56||||0.0741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.06|||Regression, Logistic|Multilevel model to account for classroom/school clusters. Adjusted for student/classroom gender, student/classroom sexual experience, pretest score.||||1.06|0.29|0.0741
90877352|NCT02009046|181616848|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.9085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|2.01|||Regression, Logistic|Multilevel model to account for classroom/school clusters. Adjusted for student/classroom gender, student/classroom sexual experience, pretest score.||||2.01|0.54|0.9085
90877353|NCT02009046|181616848|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.8059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|3.62|||Regression, Logistic|Multilevel model to account for classroom/school clusters. Adjusted for student/classroom gender, student/classroom sexual experience, pretest score.||||3.62|0.36|0.8059
90877354|NCT02009046|181616849|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.6861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.71|||Regression, Logistic|Multilevel model to account for classroom/school clusters. Adjusted for student/classroom gender, student/classroom sexual experience, pretest score.||||1.71|0.44|0.6861
90877355|NCT02009046|181616849|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||0.9973|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|Multilevel model to account for classroom/school clusters. Adjusted for student/classroom gender, student/classroom sexual experience, pretest score.|No results provided, as model would not converge.|||||0.9973
90877356|NCT02009046|181616850|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.97||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|2.8|||Regression, Logistic|Multilevel model to account for classroom/school clusters. Adjusted for student/classroom gender, student/classroom sexual experience, pretest score.||||2.80|1.39|0.0002
91033683|NCT00617305|181953158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|5.2||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 24 (LOCF)||5.2|-7.7|
90877357|NCT02009046|181616850|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.71||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|5.09|||Regression, Logistic|Multilevel model to account for classroom/school clusters. Adjusted for student/classroom gender, student/classroom sexual experience, pretest score.||||5.09|1.44|0.0030
90877358|NCT00620828|181616851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Patient cohort was inclusive of patient undergoing single TKA from June 2007 to July 2008. Effect size was calculated for the numeric pain rating scale at the immediate post-operative period, 4-hour, 8-hour , 12-hour, and 24-hour time periods as a means to assess post-operative pain control.||||<0.05
90877359|NCT00620828|181616852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Significant differences in Fentanyl PCA pump usage across study arms were assessed for the 4-8h,8-12h,and 12h-24h time frames.||||.05
90877360|NCT00620828|181616853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||This analysis was performed on data collected 24-hours post-operatively for patient cohort.||||.05
90877361|NCT00620828|181616854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||Knee extension and knee flexion measured at 24-hours post-operatively for patient cohort.||||.05
90877362|NCT00620828|181616855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Straight leg raise data collected at 4-hours, 8-hours, 12-hours and 24-hours post-operatively for patient cohort.||||.05
90877363|NCT00973479|181616859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90877364|NCT00973479|181616860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90877365|NCT00973479|181616861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA of van der Waerden scores|||||||<0.001
90877366|NCT00973479|181616862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90877367|NCT00973479|181616863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA of van der Waerden scores|||||||<0.001
90877368|NCT00362115|181616876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.9||||0.0631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.96|0.16||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||0.16|-5.96|0.0631
90877369|NCT00362115|181616876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.3||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.33|-2.2||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-2.20|-8.33|0.0008
90877370|NCT00362115|181616876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.7||||0.0188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.73|-0.61||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.61|-6.73|0.0188
90877371|NCT00362115|181616876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.7||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|-2.63||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-2.63|-8.80|0.0003
90877372|NCT00362115|181616876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.7||||0.0177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.77|-0.65||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.65|-6.77|0.0177
90877373|NCT00362115|181616876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.855||95.0|-2.72|3.27||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||3.27|-2.72|0.8550
90877374|NCT00362115|181616876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1||||0.1719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.08|0.91||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||0.91|-5.08|0.1719
90877375|NCT00362115|181616876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.7469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.49|2.5||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||2.50|-3.49|0.7469
90877376|NCT00362115|181616876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5||||0.1001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.55|0.49||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||0.49|-5.55|0.1001
90877377|NCT00362115|181616876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.7294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.52|2.47||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||2.47|-3.52|0.7294
90877378|NCT00362115|181616877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.1||||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.84|-1.41||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.41|-10.84|0.0111
90877379|NCT00362115|181616877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.51|-6.08||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-6.08|-15.51|< 0.0001
90916253|NCT01943799|181702490|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.029||||0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.089|0.031|||MMRM|||Each null hypothesis was tested against the 2-sided alternative that the mean change from baseline in serum HBsAg (log10 IU/mL) titers in the respective GS-4774 group was not equal to that of the OAV group. Estimated least squares means (LSM) of treatment effects and estimated differences in treatment effects between GS-4774 treatment groups and the OAV group at Week 24 were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and unadjusted p-values.||0.031|-0.089|0.343
90916254|NCT05113771|181702528|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.4||||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|-1.3|||MMRM|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with imputation based on the missing at random (MAR) assumption was used.||||-1.3|-7.6|0.0056
90916255|NCT05113771|181702529|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0189|||||||MMRM|||||||0.0189
90916256|NCT05113771|181702530|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0026|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0026
90916257|NCT00933400|181702555|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence margin = 0|Percent Difference|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|5.7||||||Difference in AMI rate. NULL: equal rates of AMI in both Groups.||5.7|-5.6|
90877380|NCT00362115|181616877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.53|-5.1||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-5.10|-14.53|< 0.0001
90877381|NCT00362115|181616877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.02|-7.52||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-7.52|-17.02|< 0.0001
90916258|NCT00933400|181702556|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence margin = 0|Difference (rates)|26.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.4|32.2||||||Difference in Discharge rates. H0: equal rates of Discharge in both Groups.||32.2|21.4|
90916259|NCT00933400|181702556|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence margin = 0|Difference (percents)|5.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|11.2|||||exact procedures were used to estimate and compare rates of detection for significant coronary disease|Difference in diagnosis rate of Significant coronary disease at index visit. H0: equal rates in both Groups.||11.2|0.0|
90916260|NCT00933400|181702558|SUPERIORITY||binomial proportion|26.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.4|32.2|||||Exact confidence intervals for the difference in proportions|H0: no difference in Patient disposition (Discharge) rates between arms||32.2|21.4|
90916261|NCT00933400|181702560|EQUIVALENCE|The trial was powered to test the principal hypothesis that the major adverse cardiac event (MACE, including myocardial infarction and cardiac death) rate among patients found not to have significant CAD on CCTA exceeds 1%|binomial proportion|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|5.2|||||Exact confidence intervals for the difference in proportions|Compare all cause mortality between groups||5.2|-6.0|
91033684|NCT00617305|181953158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0||||||||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 24 (LOCF)||||
90877382|NCT00362115|181616877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.5||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.19|-3.76||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-3.76|-13.19|0.0005
90877383|NCT00362115|181616877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.6||||0.2768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|7.17||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||7.17|-2.06|0.2768
90877384|NCT00362115|181616877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1||||0.3688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.74|2.51||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||2.51|-6.74|0.3688
90877385|NCT00362115|181616877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.6293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.75|3.48||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||3.48|-5.75|0.6293
90877386|NCT00362115|181616877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.6||||0.1298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.25|1.06||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.06|-8.25|0.1298
90877387|NCT00362115|181616877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.9315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.41|4.82||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||4.82|-4.41|0.9315
90916262|NCT00933400|181702560|EQUIVALENCE|The trial was powered to test the principal hypothesis that the major adverse cardiac event (MACE, including myocardial infarction and cardiac death) rate among patients found not to have significant CAD on CCTA exceeds 1%|binomial proportion|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|5.7|||||Exact confidence intervals for the difference in proportions|Compare Cardiac Death between groups||5.7|-5.5|
90877388|NCT00362115|181616878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.1||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.17|-3.09||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-3.09|-13.17|0.0016
90877389|NCT00362115|181616878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.17|-5.09||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-5.09|-15.17|< 0.0001
90877390|NCT00362115|181616878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|-7.72||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-7.72|-17.80|< 0.0001
90916263|NCT00933400|181702560|EQUIVALENCE|The trial was powered to test the principal hypothesis that the major adverse cardiac event (MACE, including myocardial infarction and cardiac death) rate among patients found not to have significant CAD on CCTA exceeds 1%|binomial proportion|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|5.9|||||Exact confidence intervals for the difference in proportions|Compare AMI between groups||5.9|-5.6|
90916264|NCT00933400|181702560|EQUIVALENCE|The trial was powered to test the principal hypothesis that the major adverse cardiac event (MACE, including myocardial infarction and cardiac death) rate among patients found not to have significant CAD on CCTA exceeds 1%|binomial proportion|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|6.0|||||Exact confidence intervals for the difference in proportions|Compare MACE between groups||6.0|-5.5|
90916265|NCT00933400|181702560|EQUIVALENCE|The trial was powered to test the principal hypothesis that the major adverse cardiac event (MACE, including myocardial infarction and cardiac death) rate among patients found not to have significant CAD on CCTA exceeds 1%|binomial proportion|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|7.0|||||Exact confidence intervals for the difference in proportions|Compare Revascularization between groups||7.0|-4.4|
90916266|NCT01849055|181702565|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.98|2.54||||||SBP||2.54|-4.98|
90916267|NCT01849055|181702565|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.7|2.53||||||SBP||2.53|-4.70|
90916268|NCT01849055|181702565|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.54|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.3|2.22||||||SBP||2.22|-5.30|
90916269|NCT01849055|181702565|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.53|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.16|2.1||||||SBP||2.10|-5.16|
90916270|NCT01849055|181702565|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.74|0.07||||||SBP||0.07|-7.74|
90916271|NCT01849055|181702565|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.95|2.18||||||DBP||2.18|-2.95|
90877391|NCT00362115|181616878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.36|-6.2||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-6.20|-16.36|< 0.0001
90877392|NCT00362115|181616878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.75|-5.63||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-5.63|-15.75|< 0.0001
90877393|NCT00362115|181616878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.9909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.96|4.91||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||4.91|-4.96|0.9909
90877394|NCT00362115|181616878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.4213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.96|2.92||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||2.92|-6.96|0.4213
90916272|NCT01849055|181702565|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.69|1.48||||||DBP||1.48|-3.69|
90916273|NCT01849055|181702565|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.75|1.85||||||DBP||1.85|-3.75|
90916274|NCT01849055|181702565|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.09|1.1||||||DBP||1.10|-4.09|
90916275|NCT01849055|181702565|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.23|0.2||||||DBP||0.20|-5.23|
90916276|NCT04043455|181702569|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.407|=|0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment comparison between Olorinab 10 mg and placebo using least square mean difference and 95% confidence interval (CI) has been presented.||0.62|-0.99|=0.650
90877395|NCT00362115|181616878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.7||||0.0646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.59|0.28||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||0.28|-9.59|0.0646
90877396|NCT00362115|181616878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.2||||0.2107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.15|1.8||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.80|-8.15|0.2107
90877397|NCT00362115|181616878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.6||||0.3059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.54|2.37||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||2.37|-7.54|0.3059
90877398|NCT00362115|181616879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4||||0.1653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.69|0.98||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||0.98|-5.69|0.1653
90877399|NCT00362115|181616879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.2||||0.0151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|-0.81||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.81|-7.50|0.0151
90877400|NCT00362115|181616879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.4||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|-0.03||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.03|-6.70|0.0480
90877401|NCT00362115|181616879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.4||||0.0098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.81|-1.08||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.08|-7.81|0.0098
90877402|NCT00362115|181616879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.3||||0.0113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.68|-0.98||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.98|-7.68|0.0113
90877403|NCT00362115|181616879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6||||0.3416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|4.84||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||4.84|-1.68|0.3416
90877404|NCT00362115|181616879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.8973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.49|3.06||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||3.06|-3.49|0.8973
90961291|NCT00568321|181803576|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.582|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.61|0.78|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 2: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.78|-0.61|0.582
90877405|NCT00362115|181616879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.7292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.69|3.84||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||3.84|-2.69|0.7292
90877406|NCT00362115|181616879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.7646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.79|2.79||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||2.79|-3.79|0.7646
90877407|NCT00362115|181616879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.8133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.67|2.88||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||2.88|-3.67|0.8133
90877408|NCT00362115|181616880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.51|-4.51||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-4.51|-12.51|< 0.0001
90877409|NCT00362115|181616880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.31|-8.9||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-8.90|-17.31|< 0.0001
90877410|NCT00362115|181616880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.27|-7.95||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-7.95|-16.27|< 0.0001
90877411|NCT00362115|181616880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.07|-12.46||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-12.46|-21.07|< 0.0001
90877412|NCT00362115|181616880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.58|-9.17||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-9.17|-17.58|< 0.0001
90877413|NCT00362115|181616880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7||||0.3735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|5.58||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||5.58|-2.10|0.3735
90877414|NCT00362115|181616880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.9||||0.1668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.91|1.2||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.20|-6.91|0.1668
91033685|NCT00617305|181953158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.84|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.9||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 24 (LOCF)||0.9|-2.6|
91033686|NCT00617305|181953158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.51|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|3.0||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 24 (LOCF)||3.0|-5.8|
90877415|NCT00362115|181616880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||0.3629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.86|2.15||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||2.15|-5.86|0.3629
90877416|NCT00362115|181616880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.5||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.67|-2.36||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-2.36|-10.67|0.0022
90877417|NCT00362115|181616880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.1||||0.1303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.18|0.93||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||0.93|-7.18|0.1303
90877418|NCT00362115|181616881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.12|-2.72||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-2.72|-8.12|< 0.0001
90877419|NCT00362115|181616881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.33|-5.65||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-5.65|-11.33|< 0.0001
90877420|NCT00362115|181616881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.52|-5.9||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-5.90|-11.52|< 0.0001
91033687|NCT00617305|181953158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.7||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 36 (LOCF)||1.7|-2.3|
90877421|NCT00362115|181616881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.73|-7.91||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-7.91|-13.73|< 0.0001
90877422|NCT00362115|181616881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.31|-6.64||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-6.64|-12.31|< 0.0001
90877423|NCT00362115|181616881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.1249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|4.61||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||4.61|-0.56|0.1249
90877424|NCT00362115|181616881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.4542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.79|1.7||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.70|-3.79|0.4542
90877425|NCT00362115|181616881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.3574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.97|1.44||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.44|-3.97|0.3574
90877426|NCT00362115|181616881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.4||||0.0184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.18|-0.57||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.57|-6.18|0.0184
90877427|NCT00362115|181616881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.77|0.7||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||0.70|-4.77|0.1450
90877428|NCT00362115|181616882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.9||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.46|-3.26||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-3.26|-12.46|0.0009
90877429|NCT00362115|181616882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.46|-8.77||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-8.77|-18.46|< 0.0001
90877430|NCT00362115|181616882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.21|-7.63||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-7.63|-17.21|< 0.0001
91033688|NCT00617305|181953158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.65|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|6.6||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 36 (LOCF)||6.6|-8.1|
91033689|NCT00617305|181953158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0||||||||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 36 (LOCF)||||
91033690|NCT00617305|181953158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.07|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.5||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 36 (LOCF)||1.5|-2.2|
90877431|NCT00362115|181616882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.83|-12.92||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-12.92|-22.83|< 0.0001
90877432|NCT00362115|181616882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.52|-8.84||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-8.84|-18.52|< 0.0001
90877433|NCT00362115|181616882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.9424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.25|4.58||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||4.58|-4.25|0.9424
90877434|NCT00362115|181616882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.6||||0.0189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.26|-0.93||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.93|-10.26|0.0189
90916277|NCT04043455|181702569|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.409|=|0.439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|0.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment comparison between Olorinab 25 mg and placebo using least square mean difference and 95% CI has been presented.||0.49|-1.12|=0.439
90916278|NCT04043455|181702569|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.401|=|0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment comparison between Olorinab 50 mg and placebo using least square mean difference and 95% CI has been presented.||0.24|-1.34|=0.172
90877435|NCT00362115|181616882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.4||||0.0612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.01|0.21||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||0.21|-9.01|0.0612
90916279|NCT04043455|181702576|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.156||||0.659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.019|2.331|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment comparison between Olorinab 10 mg and placebo using Odds ratio and 95% CI has been presented.||2.331|-0.019|0.659
90877436|NCT00362115|181616882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.63|-5.07||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-5.07|-14.63|< 0.0001
90916280|NCT04043455|181702576|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.248||||0.557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|2.535|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment comparison between Olorinab 25 mg and placebo using Odds ratio and 95% CI has been presented.||2.535|-0.040|0.557
90916281|NCT04043455|181702576|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.245||||0.541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.027|2.462|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment comparison between Olorinab 50 mg and placebo using Odds ratio and 95% CI has been presented.||2.462|0.027|0.541
90877437|NCT00362115|181616882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.7||||0.0175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.33|-1.0||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.00|-10.33|0.0175
90877438|NCT00362115|181616883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.1||||0.0108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.26|-0.95||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.95|-7.26|0.0108
90916282|NCT04043455|181702577|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.234||||0.529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|2.468|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment comparison between Olorinab 10 mg and placebo using Odd's ratio and 95% CI has been presented.||2.468|-0.001|0.529
90877439|NCT00362115|181616883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.16|-4.55||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-4.55|-11.16|< 0.0001
90877440|NCT00362115|181616883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.82|-5.26||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-5.26|-11.82|< 0.0001
90877441|NCT00362115|181616883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.98|-7.2||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-7.20|-13.98|< 0.0001
90877442|NCT00362115|181616883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.52|-5.9||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-5.90|-12.52|< 0.0001
90877443|NCT00362115|181616883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6||||0.306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|4.59||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||4.59|-1.45|0.3060
90877444|NCT00362115|181616883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2||||0.1823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.37|1.02||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.02|-5.37|0.1823
90961292|NCT00568321|181803576|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.789|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.36|1.04|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 4: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.04|-0.36|0.789
90877445|NCT00362115|181616883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.9||||0.0751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.01|0.29||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||0.29|-6.01|0.0751
90877446|NCT00362115|181616883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.9||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.18|-1.64||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.64|-8.18|0.0034
90877447|NCT00362115|181616883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.5||||0.0306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.72|-0.33||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.33|-6.72|0.0306
90877448|NCT00362115|181616884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.1||||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|-2.33||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-2.33|-13.90|0.0061
90877449|NCT00362115|181616884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.5||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.56|-5.44||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-5.44|-17.56|0.0002
90961293|NCT00568321|181803576|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.29|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.94|0.47|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 4: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.47|-0.94|0.290
90877450|NCT00362115|181616884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.34|-6.28||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-6.28|-18.34|< 0.0001
90877451|NCT00362115|181616884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.75|-11.34||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-11.34|-23.75|< 0.0001
91033691|NCT00617305|181953158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|4.2||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 36 (LOCF)||4.2|-5.8|
90877452|NCT00362115|181616884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.86|-7.8||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-7.80|-19.86|< 0.0001
90877453|NCT00362115|181616884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.9355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.74|5.28||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||5.28|-5.74|0.9355
90877454|NCT00362115|181616884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.6||||0.2223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.41|2.2||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||2.20|-9.41|0.2223
90877455|NCT00362115|181616884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.4||||0.1328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.19|1.35||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.35|-10.19|0.1328
90877456|NCT00362115|181616884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.7||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.61|-3.7||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-3.70|-15.61|0.0016
90877457|NCT00362115|181616884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.9||||0.0437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|-0.17||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.17|-11.70|0.0437
90877458|NCT00362115|181616885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.3||||0.0417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.39|-0.16||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.16|-8.39|0.0417
90877459|NCT00362115|181616885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.1||||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.44|-1.84||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.84|-10.44|0.0053
90877460|NCT00362115|181616885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.8||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.12|-3.56||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-3.56|-12.12|0.0004
91033692|NCT00617305|181953158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.33|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|2.1||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 48 (LOCF)||2.1|-2.8|
91033693|NCT00617305|181953158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.86|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|10.4||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 48 (LOCF)||10.4|-11.4|
91033694|NCT00617305|181953158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0||||||||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 48 (LOCF)||||
91033695|NCT00617305|181953158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.28|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|1.9||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 48 (LOCF)||1.9|-2.7|
90877461|NCT00362115|181616885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.97|-5.16||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-5.16|-13.97|< 0.0001
90877462|NCT00362115|181616885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|-5.03||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-5.03|-13.60|< 0.0001
90877463|NCT00362115|181616885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.6372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.97|4.85||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||4.85|-2.97|0.6372
90877464|NCT00362115|181616885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.6588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.05|3.2||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||3.20|-5.05|0.6588
90877465|NCT00362115|181616885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.6||||0.2082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.72|1.47||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.47|-6.72|0.2082
90877466|NCT00362115|181616885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.3||||0.0437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.57|-0.12||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.12|-8.57|0.0437
90877467|NCT00362115|181616885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.1||||0.0495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.19|-0.01||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.01|-8.19|0.0495
90877468|NCT00362115|181616886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.4||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.74|-3.97||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-3.97|-14.74|0.0007
90877469|NCT00362115|181616886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.02|-7.73||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-7.73|-19.02|< 0.0001
90877470|NCT00362115|181616886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.4||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|-4.83||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-4.83|-16.00|0.0003
90916283|NCT04043455|181702577|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.123||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.015|2.232|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment comparison between Olorinab 25 mg and placebo using Odd's ratio and 95% CI has been presented.||2.232|0.015|0.730
91033696|NCT00617305|181953158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.94|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|6.8||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 48 (LOCF)||6.8|-8.0|
90916284|NCT04043455|181702577|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.226||||0.548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.025|2.428|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment comparison between Olorinab 50 mg and placebo using Odd's ratio and 95% CI has been presented.||2.428|0.025|0.548
90916285|NCT04043455|181702578|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-2.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.189||0.696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.61|9.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment comparison between Olorinab 10 mg and placebo using least square mean difference and 95% CI has been presented.||9.76|-14.61|0.696
90877471|NCT00362115|181616886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.11|-11.47||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-11.47|-23.11|< 0.0001
90877472|NCT00362115|181616886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.01|-6.78||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-6.78|-18.01|< 0.0001
90877473|NCT00362115|181616886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.9||||0.2594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.17|8.01||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||8.01|-2.17|0.2594
90877474|NCT00362115|181616886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.6859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.46|4.26||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||4.26|-6.46|0.6859
90877475|NCT00362115|181616886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9||||0.4898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.43|7.15||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||7.15|-3.43|0.4898
90877476|NCT00362115|181616886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.0||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.55|0.53||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||0.53|-10.55|0.0760
90877477|NCT00362115|181616886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.9647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.44|5.21||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||5.21|-5.44|0.9647
90877478|NCT00362115|181616887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.3||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.13|-3.43||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-3.43|-11.13|0.0002
90877479|NCT00362115|181616887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.01|-6.97||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-6.97|-15.01|< 0.0001
90877480|NCT00362115|181616887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.59|-4.64||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-4.64|-12.59|< 0.0001
91033697|NCT00617305|181953160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.5||||||||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 4 (LOCF)||||
91033698|NCT00617305|181953160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.28||||||||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 4 (LOCF)||||
91033699|NCT00617305|181953160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.49||||||||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 4 (LOCF)||||
90877481|NCT00362115|181616887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.79|-9.5||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-9.50|-17.79|< 0.0001
90877482|NCT00362115|181616887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.69|-4.7||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-4.70|-12.69|< 0.0001
90877483|NCT00362115|181616887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|5.62||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||5.62|-1.63|0.2790
90877484|NCT00362115|181616887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.3772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.53|2.1||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||2.10|-5.53|0.3772
90877485|NCT00362115|181616887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.7302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.11|4.43||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||4.43|-3.11|0.7302
90877486|NCT00362115|181616887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.4||||0.0302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.31|-0.42||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.42|-8.31|0.0302
90877487|NCT00362115|181616887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.7644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.22|4.38||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||4.38|-3.22|0.7644
90877488|NCT00362115|181616888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.4||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|-4.19||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-4.19|-12.70|0.0001
90916286|NCT04043455|181702578|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-3.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.222||0.602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.51|9.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment comparison between Olorinab 25 mg and placebo using least square mean difference and 95% CI has been presented.||9.00|-15.51|0.602
90877489|NCT00362115|181616888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.19|-9.24||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-9.24|-18.19|< 0.0001
90916287|NCT04043455|181702578|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-3.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.088||0.516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.95|8.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment comparison between Olorinab 50 mg and placebo using least square mean difference and 95% CI has been presented.||8.03|-15.95|0.516
90877490|NCT00362115|181616888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.66|-7.8||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-7.80|-16.66|< 0.0001
90877491|NCT00362115|181616888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.51|-13.35||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-13.35|-22.51|< 0.0001
90916288|NCT04043455|181702579|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.305||0.804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment comparison between Olorinab 10 mg and placebo using least square mean difference and 95% CI has been presented.||0.68|-0.53|0.804
90916289|NCT04043455|181702579|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.308||0.618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment comparison between Olorinab 25 mg and placebo using least square mean difference and 95% CI has been presented.||0.45|-0.76|0.618
90916290|NCT04043455|181702579|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.301||0.687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment comparison between Olorinab 50 mg and placebo using least square mean difference and 95% CI has been presented.||0.71|-0.47|0.687
90916291|NCT02652260|181702583|OTHER|The Immediate Switch group will be considered statistically significantly smaller than the Delayed Switch group if the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval for the treatment difference is less than 0.|Estimated Difference|4.65||||0.331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.92|24.85|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Treatment Difference: Immediate Switch minus Delayed Switch|The 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated by the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|24.85|-15.92|0.331
90916292|NCT02652260|181702584|OTHER|The Immediate Switch group will be considered statistically significantly smaller than the Delayed Switch group if the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval for the treatment difference is less than 0.|Estimated Difference|-18.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.14|2.51||||||Treatment Difference: Immediate Switch minus Delayed Switch|The 95% CI was calculated by the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|2.51|-38.14|
90916293|NCT02652260|181702585|OTHER||Estimated Difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|6.5||||||Treatment Difference: Immediate Switch minus Delayed Switch|The 95% CI was based on a t-distribution.|6.5|-10.5|
91033700|NCT00617305|181953160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.28||||||||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 4 (LOCF)||||
91033701|NCT00617305|181953160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.63||||||||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 12 (LOCF)||||
90877492|NCT00362115|181616888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.21|-9.25||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-9.25|-18.21|< 0.0001
90877493|NCT00362115|181616888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.6905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.26|4.91||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||4.91|-3.26|0.6905
90877494|NCT00362115|181616888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.4||||0.0433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.76|-0.13||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.13|-8.76|0.0433
90877495|NCT00362115|181616888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0||||0.1736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.22|1.31||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.31|-7.22|0.1736
90877496|NCT00362115|181616888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.7||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.08|-4.23||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-4.23|-13.08|0.0001
90877497|NCT00362115|181616888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.5||||0.0429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.77|-0.14||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANOVA|||||-0.14|-8.77|0.0429
90877498|NCT00362115|181616889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.9||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.77|-2.04||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-2.04|-7.77|0.0009
90877499|NCT00362115|181616889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.33|-5.32||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-5.32|-11.33|< 0.0001
90877500|NCT00362115|181616889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.63|-5.67||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-5.67|-11.63|< 0.0001
90877501|NCT00362115|181616889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.34|-8.18||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-8.18|-14.34|< 0.0001
90877502|NCT00362115|181616889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.37|-6.36||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-6.36|-12.37|< 0.0001
90877503|NCT00362115|181616889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8||||0.2068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|4.5||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||4.50|-0.98|0.2068
90916294|NCT02652260|181702586|OTHER||Estimated Difference|3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|11.3||||||Treatment Difference: Immediate Switch minus Delayed Switch|The 95% CI was calculated by the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|11.3|-4.1|
90916295|NCT02652260|181702587|OTHER|The 95% CI was calculated by the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|Difference in Percentage|-38.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.2|-23.8||||||Change from time of switch to 24 weeks post-switch: Treatment difference in percent response|Week 24 Post-switch minus Time of switch|-23.8|-51.2|
90916296|NCT02652260|181702588|OTHER|The 95% CI was based on a t-distribution.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.8|-10.1||||||Change from time of switch to 24 weeks post-switch: Treatment difference in score|Week 24 Post-switch minus Time of switch|-10.1|-16.8|
90916297|NCT02652260|181702589|OTHER|The 95% CI for treatment difference was calculated from an ANCOVA model with terms for baseline lipid level, use of lipid lowering therapy at study Day 1 and treatment|Difference Estimate|-9.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.69|-2.35||||||Difference Estimate: LDL Cholesterol|ISG minus DSG|-2.35|-15.69|
90877504|NCT00362115|181616889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.2622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.56|1.25||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.25|-4.56|0.2622
90877505|NCT00362115|181616889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.85|0.88||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||0.88|-4.85|0.1730
90877506|NCT00362115|181616889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.6||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.56|-1.62||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.62|-7.56|0.0025
90877507|NCT00362115|181616889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7||||0.0681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|0.2||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||0.20|-5.60|0.0681
90877508|NCT00362115|181616890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.6||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.28|-3.87||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-3.87|-13.28|0.0004
90877509|NCT00362115|181616890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.26|-7.42||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-7.42|-17.26|< 0.0001
91033702|NCT00617305|181953160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.07||||||||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 12 (LOCF)||||
91033703|NCT00617305|181953160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.64||||||||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 12 (LOCF)||||
91033704|NCT00617305|181953160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.07||||||||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 12 (LOCF)||||
90877510|NCT00362115|181616890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.51|-6.78||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-6.78|-16.51|< 0.0001
90877511|NCT00362115|181616890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.38|-9.25||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-9.25|-19.38|< 0.0001
90877512|NCT00362115|181616890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.53|-7.7||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-7.70|-17.53|< 0.0001
90877513|NCT00362115|181616890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.3||||0.1479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|7.72||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||7.72|-1.17|0.1479
90877514|NCT00362115|181616890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.8382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.16|4.19||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||4.19|-5.16|0.8382
90877515|NCT00362115|181616890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.9317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.42|4.82||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||4.82|-4.42|0.9317
90877516|NCT00362115|181616890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5||||0.3169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.29|2.37||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||2.37|-7.29|0.3169
90877517|NCT00362115|181616890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.7488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.44|3.91||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||3.91|-5.44|0.7488
90877518|NCT00362115|181616891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.98|-3.4||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-3.40|-9.98|< 0.0001
90916298|NCT02652260|181702589|OTHER|The 95% CI for treatment difference was calculated from an ANCOVA model with terms for baseline lipid level, use of lipid lowering therapy at study Day 1 and treatment|Difference Estimate|-13.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.79|-6.35||||||Difference Estimate: Non-HDL Cholesterol|ISG minus DSG|-6.35|-20.79|
90916299|NCT02652260|181702589|OTHER|The 95% CI for treatment difference was calculated from an ANCOVA model with terms for baseline lipid level, use of lipid lowering therapy at study Day 1 and treatment|Difference Estimate|-21.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.63|-13.21||||||Difference Estimate: Cholesterol|ISG minus DSG|-13.21|-29.63|
90916300|NCT02652260|181702589|OTHER|The 95% CI for treatment difference was calculated from an ANCOVA model with terms for baseline lipid level, use of lipid lowering therapy at study Day 1 and treatment|Difference Estimate|-8.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.76|-4.6||||||Difference Estimate: HDL Cholesterol|ISG minus DSG|-4.60|-11.76|
90877519|NCT00362115|181616891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.76|-5.86||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-5.86|-12.76|< 0.0001
90877520|NCT00362115|181616891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.05|-5.22||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-5.22|-12.05|< 0.0001
90877521|NCT00362115|181616891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.92|-6.79||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-6.79|-13.92|< 0.0001
90877522|NCT00362115|181616891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.11|-6.2||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-6.20|-13.11|< 0.0001
90877523|NCT00362115|181616891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.4188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|4.4||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||4.40|-1.83|0.4188
90916301|NCT02652260|181702589|OTHER|The 95% CI for treatment difference was calculated from an ANCOVA model with terms for baseline lipid level, use of lipid lowering therapy at study Day 1 and treatment|Difference Estimate|-22.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.52|-5.84||||||Difference Estimate: Triglyceride|ISG minus DSG|-5.84|-38.52|
90916302|NCT01631214|181702671|SUPERIORITY|The primary endpoints were tested at the 5% level (2-sided), accounting for multiplicity using the Hochberg procedure. If the larger of the 2 p-values was significant at the 0.05 level (2-sided), the statistical testing continued to the secondary endpoint in the testing sequence.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.64|||Regression, Logistic|Based on a logistic regression model adjusted for age strata, baseline total hip BMD T-score and presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline.|Values \< 1 for odds ratio favor romosozumab. The standard error (SE) represents the standard error of log(odds ratio).|||0.64|0.36|<0.001
90877524|NCT00362115|181616891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.4255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.62|1.95||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.95|-4.62|0.4255
90877525|NCT00362115|181616891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.6869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.91|2.58||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||2.58|-3.91|0.6869
90877526|NCT00362115|181616891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4||||0.1678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.77|1.01||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.01|-5.77|0.1678
90877527|NCT00362115|181616891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.3132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.96|1.6||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.60|-4.96|0.3132
90877528|NCT00362115|181616892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.0||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.48|-3.52||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-3.52|-12.48|0.0005
91033705|NCT00617305|181953160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.83||||||||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 24 (LOCF)||||
91033706|NCT00617305|181953160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.34||||||||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 24 (LOCF)||||
90877529|NCT00362115|181616892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.24|-5.93||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-5.93|-15.24|< 0.0001
91033707|NCT00617305|181953160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.81||||||||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 24 (LOCF)||||
91033708|NCT00617305|181953160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.34||||||||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 24 (LOCF)||||
91033709|NCT00617305|181953160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.92||||||||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 36 (LOCF)||||
90961294|NCT00568321|181803576|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.568|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.65|0.81|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 8: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.81|-0.65|0.568
90961295|NCT00568321|181803576|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.116|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.27|0.2|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 8: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.20|-1.27|0.116
91033710|NCT00617305|181953160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.9||||||||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 36 (LOCF)||||
91033711|NCT00617305|181953160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.91||||||||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 36 (LOCF)||||
90877530|NCT00362115|181616892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|-5.44||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-5.44|-14.70|< 0.0001
90877531|NCT00362115|181616892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.95|-8.42||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-8.42|-17.95|< 0.0001
90877532|NCT00362115|181616892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.74|-7.48||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-7.48|-16.74|< 0.0001
90877533|NCT00362115|181616892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.8103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.79|3.75||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||3.75|-4.79|0.8103
90877534|NCT00362115|181616892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.1||||0.1702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.57|1.34||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.34|-7.57|0.1702
90877535|NCT00362115|181616892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.6||||0.2504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.02|1.84||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.84|-7.02|0.2504
90961296|NCT00568321|181803576|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.218|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.11|0.4|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 12: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.40|-1.11|0.218
90961297|NCT00568321|181803576|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.261|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.06|0.47|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 12: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.47|-1.06|0.261
91033712|NCT00617305|181953160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.9||||||||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 36 (LOCF)||||
91033713|NCT00617305|181953160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.91||||||||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 48 (LOCF)||||
91033714|NCT00617305|181953160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.77||||||||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 48 (LOCF)||||
91033715|NCT00617305|181953160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.88||||||||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 48 (LOCF)||||
91033716|NCT00617305|181953160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.77||||||||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 48 (LOCF)||||
90877536|NCT00362115|181616892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.7||||0.0144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.28|-1.14||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.14|-10.28|0.0144
90877537|NCT00362115|181616892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.6||||0.0402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.06|-0.21||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.21|-9.06|0.0402
90877538|NCT00362115|181616893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.2||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.41|-2.04||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-2.04|-8.41|0.0014
90877539|NCT00362115|181616893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.82|-4.22||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-4.22|-10.82|< 0.0001
90877540|NCT00362115|181616893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.51|-4.93||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-4.93|-11.51|< 0.0001
90877541|NCT00362115|181616893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.49|-5.72||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-5.72|-12.49|< 0.0001
90877542|NCT00362115|181616893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.87|-4.3||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-4.30|-10.87|< 0.0001
90877543|NCT00362115|181616893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.5519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|3.95||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||3.95|-2.11|0.5519
90877544|NCT00362115|181616893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0.3938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.54|1.79||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.79|-4.54|0.3938
90877545|NCT00362115|181616893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1||||0.1949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.21|1.07||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.07|-5.21|0.1949
90877546|NCT00362115|181616893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0||||0.0732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.21|0.28||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||0.28|-6.21|0.0732
90877547|NCT00362115|181616893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0.3669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.59|1.7||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.70|-4.59|0.3669
90877548|NCT00362115|181616894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.2||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.94|-3.41||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-3.41|-14.94|0.0019
90916303|NCT01631214|181702671|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.66|||||SE represents the standard error of log (risk ratio).|"The risk ratio (ratio of percentages, Romosozumab:Alendronate) was based on the Mantel Haenszel method, adjusted for age strata (\<75 vs. ≥75 years), the presence or absence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline, and baseline bone mineral density T-score at the total hip (≤ -2.5, \> -2.5).~Values \< 1 for risk ratio favor romosozumab."||0.66|0.38|
90916304|NCT01631214|181702671|SUPERIORITY||Absolute risk reduction|4.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|5.57||||||"The absolute risk reduction (difference in percentages, Alendronate - Romosozumab) was based on the Mantel-Haenszel method adjusted for age strata, baseline total hip BMD T-score (≤ -2.5, \> -2.5), and presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline.~Positive values for absolute risk reduction favor romosozumab."||5.57|2.50|
90940539|NCT02630706|181760828|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted odds ratio based on a logistic regression model fitted with fixed effects for treatment anti-hyperglycemic medication status at screening (metformin alone, metformin + another AHA), Country (China, other), baseline eGFR (continuous) and baseline A1C (continuous). Missing data imputed using the cLDA model fitted with fixed effects as in the primary analysis.|Adjusted Odds Ratio relative to placebo|4.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.49|8.35|||Logistic regression model|||||8.35|2.49|<0.001
90877549|NCT00362115|181616894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.2||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.15|-4.26||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-4.26|-16.15|0.0008
90877550|NCT00362115|181616894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.9||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.88|-2.85||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-2.85|-14.88|0.0040
90877551|NCT00362115|181616894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.6||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.96|-6.22||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-6.22|-18.96|0.0001
90877552|NCT00362115|181616894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.9||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.85|-4.89||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-4.89|-16.85|0.0004
90877553|NCT00362115|181616894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7||||0.3499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.39|2.98||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||2.98|-8.39|0.3499
90877554|NCT00362115|181616894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.7||||0.2115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.61|2.14||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||2.14|-9.61|0.2115
90916305|NCT01631214|181702672|SUPERIORITY|The primary endpoints were tested at the 5% level (2-sided), accounting for multiplicity using the Hochberg procedure. If the larger of the 2 p-values was significant at the 0.05 level (2-sided), the statistical testing continued to the secondary endpoint in the testing sequence.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.88|||Regression, Cox|Model adjusted for age strata, baseline total hip BMD T-score, and presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline.|Hazard ratio \< 1 favors romosozumab; SE represents the standard error of log (hazard ratio)|||0.88|0.61|<0.001
90877555|NCT00362115|181616894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4||||0.4279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.34|3.54||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||3.54|-8.34|0.4279
90877556|NCT00362115|181616894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.1||||0.0566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.41|0.17||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||0.17|-12.41|0.0566
90877557|NCT00362115|181616894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.4||||0.1435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|1.5||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.50|-10.30|0.1435
90961298|NCT00568321|181803576|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.252|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.11|0.47|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 16: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.47|-1.11|0.252
90877558|NCT00362115|181616895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7||||0.1162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.16|0.68||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||0.68|-6.16|0.1162
90877559|NCT00362115|181616895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1||||0.2494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.69|1.48||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.48|-5.69|0.2494
90961299|NCT00568321|181803576|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.182|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.26|0.36|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 16: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.36|-1.26|0.182
90961300|NCT00568321|181803577|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.683|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.46|0.84|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Weeks 1 to 4: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.84|-0.46|0.683
90961301|NCT00568321|181803577|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.31|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.85|0.46|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Weeks 1 to 4: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.46|-0.85|0.310
90961302|NCT00568321|181803577|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.668|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.46|0.78|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Weeks 1 to 8: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.78|-0.46|0.668
90877560|NCT00362115|181616895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0.4247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.01|2.12||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||2.12|-5.01|0.4247
90877561|NCT00362115|181616895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.3007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.79|1.8||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.80|-5.79|0.3007
90877562|NCT00362115|181616895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0||||0.1195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.67|0.77||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||0.77|-6.67|0.1195
90877563|NCT00362115|181616895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3||||0.2032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.76|1.23||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.23|-5.76|0.2032
90877564|NCT00362115|181616895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6||||0.3787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.27|2.01||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||2.01|-5.27|0.3787
90877565|NCT00362115|181616895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.5967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.59|2.64||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||2.64|-4.59|0.5967
90877566|NCT00362115|181616895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.4345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.36|2.31||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||2.31|-5.36|0.4345
91033717|NCT04544787|181953203|OTHER|||||||0.7209|||||||Fisher Exact|||The number of participants with severe solicited adverse events in the OPV-vaccinated groups who received nOPV-c1 (combined Groups 1 and 2) was compared with the corresponding endpoint from the historical monovalent OPV2 control study (UAM1, EudraCT # 2015-003325-33) using the two-sided Fisher's exact test. In the UAM1 study, the number of participants with severe solicited adverse events was 5 out of 100.||||0.7209
90877567|NCT00362115|181616895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5||||0.1954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.24|1.28||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.28|-6.24|0.1954
90877568|NCT02188589|181616901|EQUIVALENCE|The difference between the mean baseline and mean follow-up NOSE scores was evaluated by paired t-test with significance indicated by p\<0.05.|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90877569|NCT00003641|181616903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.964|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|stratified on the stratification factors used for randomization||||||0.964
90877570|NCT00003641|181616904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.558|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|Stratified on the stratification factors used for randomization||||||0.558
90877571|NCT00878709|181616919|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.9|||Log Rank|The Log-rank test is stratified by prior trastuzumab (concurrent or sequential), nodal status (\<= 3 or \>= 4) and ER/PgR status (positive or negative).|The hazard ratio is estimated by stratified Cox model. The Cox model is stratified by prior trastuzumab (concurrent or sequential), nodal status (\<= 3 or \>= 4) and ER/PgR status (positive or negative).|Invasive disease-free survival (iDFS) in neratinib arm compared to placebo arm.||0.90|0.49|0.008
90877572|NCT00878709|181616921|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.952||||0.6914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.747|1.212|||Log Rank|||The 2-sided P-value was based on stratified log-rank test (stratification factors: prior Trastuzumab (concurrent or sequential), nodal status (\<=3 or \>=4) and ER/PgR status (positive or negative). The hazard ratio and corresponding 95% CI from the stratified cox proportional hazard model were also presented.||1.212|0.747|0.6914
90916306|NCT01631214|181702673|SUPERIORITY|If the 2 primary endpoints and the specified BMD secondary endpoints were all significant, the nonvertebral fracture at the primary analysis was evaluated based on a 1-sided test (overall α=0.025) determined by the Lan-DeMets alpha spending function that approximates a Pocock boundary, 0.0233 (1-sided).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.99||The adjusted 2-sided p-value is reported.|Regression, Cox|Model adjusted for age strata, baseline total hip BMD T-score, and presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline.|"Based on Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for age strata, baseline total hip BMD T-score, and presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline.~Hazard ratio \< 1 favors romosozumab; SE represents the standard error of log (hazard ratio)."|||0.99|0.66|0.040
90877573|NCT00878709|181616922|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.83|||||The hazard ratio is estimated by stratified Cox model. The Cox model is stratified by prior trastuzumab (concurrent or sequential), nodal status (\<= 3 or \>= 4) and ER/PgR status (positive or negative).|Disease-free survival including ductal carcinoma in situ (DFS-DCIS) in neratinib arm compared to placebo arm.||0.83|0.45|
90916307|NCT01631214|181702674|SUPERIORITY|This endpoint was not included in the sequential testing procedure and was analyzed without multiplicity adjustment at a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.76|||Regression, Cox|Model adjusted for age strata, baseline total hip BMD T-score, and presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline.|"Based on Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for age strata, baseline total hip BMD T-score, and presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline.~Hazard ratio \< 1 favors romosozumab; SE represents the standard error of log (hazard ratio)."|||0.76|0.56|<0.001
90877574|NCT00878709|181616924|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.05|||||The hazard ratio is estimated by stratified Cox model. The Cox model is stratified by prior trastuzumab (concurrent or sequential), nodal status (\<= 3 or \>= 4) and ER/PgR status (positive or negative).|Distant disease free survival (DDFS) in neratinib arm compared to placebo arm.||1.05|0.52|
90877575|NCT00878709|181616926|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.04|||||The hazard ratio is estimated by stratified Cox model. The Cox model is stratified by prior trastuzumab (concurrent or sequential), nodal status (\<= 3 or \>= 4) and ER/PgR status (positive or negative).|Time to distant recurrence (TTDR) in neratinib arm compared to placebo arm.||1.04|0.51|
90877576|NCT00878709|181616930|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.92||The Log-rank test is stratified by prior trastuzumab (concurrent or sequential), nodal status (\<= 3 or \>= 4) and ER/PgR status (positive or negative).|Log Rank||The hazard ratio is estimated by stratified Cox model. The Cox model is stratified by prior trastuzumab (concurrent or sequential), nodal status (\<= 3 or \>= 4) and ER/PgR status (positive or negative).|Invasive disease-free survival (iDFS) in neratinib arm compared to placebo arm.||0.92|0.57|0.008
90877577|NCT00878709|181616932|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.89|||||The hazard ratio is estimated by stratified Cox model. The Cox model is stratified by prior trastuzumab (concurrent or sequential), nodal status (\<= 3 or \>= 4) and ER/PgR status (positive or negative).|||0.89|0.56|
90877578|NCT00878709|181616933|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.01|||||The hazard ratio is estimated by stratified Cox model. The Cox model is stratified by prior trastuzumab (concurrent or sequential), nodal status (\<= 3 or \>= 4) and ER/PgR status (positive or negative).|||1.01|0.6|
90877579|NCT00878709|181616934|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.03|||||The hazard ratio is estimated by stratified Cox model. The Cox model is stratified by prior trastuzumab (concurrent or sequential), nodal status (\<= 3 or \>= 4) and ER/PgR status (positive or negative).|||1.03|0.60|
90877580|NCT00768300|181616936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.74||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|2.66||P-value was based on a stratified log-rank test with strata of baseline presence of pulmonary hypertension and whether a surgical lung biopsy was performed with definite or probable usual interstitial pneumonia (UIP) based on core pathology review.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio was based on a stratified Cox proportional hazards model with strata of baseline presence of pulmonary hypertension and whether a surgical lung biopsy was performed with definite or probable UIP based on core pathology review.|||2.66|1.14|0.010
90877581|NCT00768300|181616938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate|4.29||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.805|9.376||P-value was calculated using the Van Elteren test with strata of baseline presence of PH and whether a SLB was performed with definite or probable UIP based on core pathology review.|Van Elteren test||The point estimate and 95% confidence interval (CI) were based on the Hodges-Lehmann Estimate of treatment effect for percent change from baseline.|||9.376|-0.805|0.086
90877582|NCT00768300|181616939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate|2.85||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|7.9||P-value was calculated using the Van Elteren test with strata of baseline presence of PH and whether a SLB was performed with definite or probable UIP based on core pathology review.|Van Elteren test||The point estimate and its 95% CI were based on the Hodges-Lehmann Estimate of treatment effect for percent change from baseline.|||7.90|-2.20|0.250
90877583|NCT00768300|181616940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate|16.0||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|37.0||P-value was calculated using the Van Elteren test with strata of baseline presence of PH and whether a SLB was performed with definite or probable UIP based on core pathology review.|Van Elteren test||The point estimate and 95% CI were based on the Hodges-Lehmann Estimate of treatment effect for percent change from baseline.|||37.00|-5.00|0.150
90877584|NCT00768300|181616943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate|0.5||||0.793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.0||The p-value was based on a Wilcoxon rank sum test stratified by baseline pulmonary hypertension (Yes/No) and surgical lung biopsy was performed with definite or probable UIP based on core pathology review (Yes/No).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The point estimate and 95% confidence interval were based on the Hodges-Lehmann Estimate of treatment effect|||1.00|0.00|0.793
90916308|NCT01631214|181702675|SUPERIORITY|This endpoint was not included in the sequential testing procedure and was analyzed without multiplicity adjustment at a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.64|||Regression, Logistic|Based on logistic regression model adjusted for age strata, baseline total hip BMD T-score and presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline.|Values \< 1 for odds ratio favor romosozumab. The standard error (SE) represents the standard error of log(odds ratio).|||0.64|0.37|<0.001
90916309|NCT01631214|181702675|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.66|||||SE represents the standard error of log (risk ratio).|"The risk ratio (ratio of percentages, Romosozumab:Alendronate) was based on the Mantel Haenszel method, adjusted for age strata (\<75 vs. ≥75 years), the presence or absence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline, and baseline bone mineral density T-score at the total hip (≤ -2.5, \> -2.5).~Values \< 1 for risk ratio favor romosozumab."||0.66|0.40|
91033718|NCT04544787|181953203|OTHER|||||||0.7209|||||||Fisher Exact|||The number of participants with severe solicited adverse events in the OPV-vaccinated groups who received nOPV-c2 (combined Groups 3 and 4) was compared with the corresponding endpoint from the historical monovalent OPV2 control study (UAM1, EudraCT # 2015-003325-33) using the two-sided Fisher's exact test. In the UAM1 study, the number of participants with severe solicited adverse events was 5 out of 100.||||0.7209
90916310|NCT01631214|181702675|SUPERIORITY||Absolute risk reduction|4.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|6.08||||||"The absolute risk reduction (difference in percentages, Alendronate - Romosozumab) was based on the Mantel-Haenszel method adjusted for age strata, baseline total hip BMD T-score (≤ -2.5, \> -2.5), and presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline.~Positive values for absolute risk reduction favor romosozumab."||6.08|2.80|
90916311|NCT01631214|181702676|SUPERIORITY|This endpoint was not included in the sequential testing procedure and was analyzed without multiplicity adjustment at a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.9|||Regression, Cox|Model adjusted for age strata, baseline total hip BMD T-score, and presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline.|"Based on Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for age strata, baseline total hip BMD T-score, and presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline.~Hazard ratio \< 1 favors romosozumab; SE represents the standard error of log (hazard ratio)."|||0.90|0.59|0.004
90916312|NCT01631214|181702677|SUPERIORITY|This endpoint was not included in the sequential testing procedure and was analyzed without multiplicity adjustment at a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.92|||Regression, Cox|Model adjusted for age strata, baseline total hip BMD T-score, and presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline.|"Based on Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for age strata, baseline total hip BMD T-score, and presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline.~Hazard ratio \< 1 favors romosozumab; SE represents the standard error of log (hazard ratio)."|||0.92|0.42|0.015
91033719|NCT04544787|181953203|OTHER|||||||0.3769|||||||Fisher Exact|||The number of participants with severe unsolicited adverse events in the OPV-vaccinated groups who received nOPV-c1 (combined Groups 1 and 2) was compared with the corresponding endpoint from the historical monovalent OPV2 control study (UAM1, EudraCT # 2015-003325-33) using the two-sided Fisher's exact test. In the UAM1 study, the number of participants with severe unsolicited adverse events was 17 out of 100.||||0.3769
90877585|NCT03011307|181616958|SUPERIORITY|A likelihood-ratio test for change in pain was conducted for each outcome comparing a model with and without oxytocin treatment group. A statistically significant result is interpreted as evidence to support that the oxytocin treatment impacts some element of change after surgery (i.e, intercept or slope).|Intercept Difference in score on a scale|0.1||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.2||P value not adjusted for multiple comparisons, with threshold of statistical significance set at \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||The estimates were conducted using a linear mixed effects model contrasting differences in the oxytocin group versus placebo. In all cases, these differences are adjusted for prognostic variables including baseline pain, baseline opioid use, age, sex, baseline PROMIS depression and number of other painful conditions.||.2|0|0.75
90877586|NCT03011307|181616959|SUPERIORITY|A likelihood-ratio test for change in pain was conducted for each outcome comparing a model with and without oxytocin treatment group. A statistically significant result is interpreted as evidence to support that the oxytocin treatment impacts some element of change after surgery (i.e, intercept or slope).|Slope Difference|0.1||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.2||P value not adjusted for multiple comparisons, with threshold of statistical significance set at \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||The estimates were conducted using a linear mixed effects model contrasting differences in the oxytocin group versus placebo. In all cases, these differences are adjusted for prognostic variables including baseline pain, baseline opioid use, age, sex, baseline PROMIS depression and number of other painful conditions.||0.2|0.0|0.057
90877587|NCT03011307|181616960|SUPERIORITY|A likelihood-ratio test for change in pain was conducted for each outcome comparing a model with and without oxytocin treatment group. A statistically significant result is interpreted as evidence to support that the oxytocin treatment impacts some element of change after surgery (i.e, intercept or slope).|Intercept Difference in Daily Steps|-402.0||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1358.0|553.0||P value not adjusted for multiple comparisons, with threshold of statistical significance set at \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||The estimates were conducted using a linear mixed effects model contrasting differences in the oxytocin group versus placebo. In all cases, these differences are adjusted for prognostic variables including baseline pain, baseline opioid use, age, sex, baseline PROMIS depression and number of other painful conditions.||553|-1358|0.41
90877588|NCT03011307|181616961|SUPERIORITY|A likelihood-ratio test for change in pain was conducted for each outcome comparing a model with and without oxytocin treatment group. A statistically significant result is interpreted as evidence to support that the oxytocin treatment impacts some element of change after surgery (i.e, intercept or slope).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|344.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|173.0|515.0||P value not adjusted for multiple comparisons, with threshold of statistical significance set at \<0.05|Slope Difference|||"The estimates were conducted using a linear mixed effects model contrasting differences in the oxytocin group versus placebo. In all cases, these differences are adjusted for prognostic variables including baseline pain, baseline opioid use, age, sex, baseline PROMIS depression and number of other painful conditions.~The slope is the number of daily steps divided by the natural log of time in days."||515|173|<0.001
90877589|NCT03011307|181616962|SUPERIORITY|A likelihood-ratio test for change in World Health Organization Disability Assessment Score 2.0 value was conducted for each outcome comparing a model with and without oxytocin treatment group. A statistically significant result is interpreted as evidence to support that the oxytocin treatment impacts some element of change after surgery (i.e, intercept or slope).|Intercept Difference: score on a scale|-5.9||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|-2.3||P value not adjusted for multiple comparisons, with threshold of statistical significance set at \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||The estimates were conducted using a linear mixed effects model contrasting differences in the oxytocin group versus placebo. In all cases, these differences are adjusted for prognostic variables including baseline World Health Organization Disability Assessment Score 2.0 value, baseline opioid use, age, sex, baseline PROMIS depression and number of other painful conditions.||-2.3|-9.5|0.002
90877590|NCT03011307|181616963|SUPERIORITY|A likelihood-ratio test for change in pain was conducted for each outcome comparing a model with and without oxytocin treatment group. A statistically significant result is interpreted as evidence to support that the oxytocin treatment impacts some element of change after surgery (i.e, intercept or slope).|Slope Difference|1.5||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.4||P value not adjusted for multiple comparisons, with threshold of statistical significance set at \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||The estimates were conducted using a linear mixed effects model contrasting differences in the oxytocin group versus placebo. In all cases, these differences are adjusted for prognostic variables including baseline pain, baseline opioid use, age, sex, baseline PROMIS depression and number of other painful conditions.||2.4|0.6|0.001
90877591|NCT03011307|181616964|SUPERIORITY|A likelihood-ratio test for change in pain was conducted for each outcome comparing a model with and without oxytocin treatment group. A statistically significant result is interpreted as evidence to support that the oxytocin treatment impacts some element of change after surgery (i.e, intercept or slope).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.00035||||0.537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00085|0.0015||P value not adjusted for multiple comparisons, with threshold of statistical significance set at \<0.05|Intercept difference: Opioid probability|||The estimates were conducted using a linear mixed effects model contrasting differences in the oxytocin group versus placebo. In all cases, these differences are adjusted for prognostic variables including baseline opioid use, age, sex, baseline PROMIS depression and number of other painful conditions.||.0015|-.00085|0.537
90916313|NCT01631214|181702678|SUPERIORITY|This endpoint was not included in the sequential testing procedure and was analyzed without multiplicity adjustment at a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.85|||Regression, Logistic|Based on logistic regression model adjusted for age strata, baseline total hip BMD T-score and presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline.|Values \< 1 for odds ratio favor romosozumab. The standard error (SE) represents the standard error of log(odds ratio).|||0.85|0.31|0.008
90916314|NCT01631214|181702678|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.85|||||SE represents the standard error of log (risk ratio).|"The risk ratio (ratio of percentages, Romosozumab:Alendronate) was based on the Mantel Haenszel method, adjusted for age strata (\<75 vs. ≥75 years), the presence or absence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline, and baseline bone mineral density T-score at the total hip (≤ -2.5, \> -2.5).~Values \< 1 for risk ratio favor romosozumab."||0.85|0.32|
90877592|NCT03011307|181616965|SUPERIORITY|A likelihood-ratio test for change in pain was conducted for each outcome comparing a model with and without oxytocin treatment group. A statistically significant result is interpreted as evidence to support that the oxytocin treatment impacts some element of change after surgery (i.e, intercept or slope).|Slope Difference: Opioid probability|-0.166||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.172|-0.16||P value not adjusted for multiple comparisons, with threshold of statistical significance set at \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||The estimates were conducted using a linear mixed effects model contrasting differences in the oxytocin group versus placebo. In all cases, these differences are adjusted for prognostic variables including baseline pain, baseline opioid use, age, sex, baseline PROMIS depression and number of other painful conditions.||-0.160|-0.172|0.010
90877593|NCT03011307|181616966|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.0||0.55|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Scores were compared statistically at baseline and 2 months between groups using a generalized linear model with time as a fixed factor.||||.55
90877594|NCT03011307|181616967|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.2||0.46|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Groups were compared over time from baseline to 2 months using a generalized linear model with time as a fixed factor.||||0.46
90877595|NCT03011307|181616968|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.84||0.38|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Groups were compared between preoperative and 2 month postoperative sessions using linear regression with time as a fixed factor.||||0.38
90877596|NCT03722017|181616971|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.91||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Analysis 1 applies to the Hospital Discharge Timepoint||||0.006
90877597|NCT03722017|181616971|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.93||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Analysis 2 applies to the SNF Discharge Timepoint||||0.110
90877598|NCT03722017|181616971|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.92||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Analysis 3 applies to the 90 Day Follow-Up Timepoint||||0.060
90916315|NCT01631214|181702678|SUPERIORITY||Absolute risk reduction|1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|2.1||||||"The absolute risk reduction (difference in percentages, Alendronate - Romosozumab) was based on the Mantel-Haenszel method adjusted for age strata, baseline total hip BMD T-score (≤ -2.5, \> -2.5), and presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline.~Positive values for absolute risk reduction favor romosozumab."||2.10|0.33|
90940540|NCT02630706|181760828|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted odds ratio based on a logistic regression model fitted with fixed effects for treatment anti-hyperglycemic medication status at screening (metformin alone, metformin + another AHA), Country (China, other), baseline eGFR (continuous) and baseline A1C (continuous). Missing data imputed using the cLDA model fitted with fixed effects as in the primary analysis.|Adjusted Odds Ratio relative to placebo|4.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.52|8.36|||Logistic regression model|||||8.36|2.52|<0.001
90877599|NCT03722017|181616972|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.049||||0.738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Analysis 1 applies to the Hospital Discharge Timepoint||||0.738
90877600|NCT03722017|181616972|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.001||||0.995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Analysis 2 applies to the SNF Discharge Timepoint||||0.995
90877601|NCT03722017|181616972|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.058||||0.721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Analysis 3 applies to the 90 Day Follow Up Timepoint||||0.721
90877602|NCT00525174|181616980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression was performed comparing the proportions of patients in each treatment group who had no improvement or worsening in amblyopic eye visual acuity from baseline to 24 weeks (change from baseline \<= +4 letters for E-ETDRS testing).||||0.02
90877603|NCT00525174|181616981|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The trial was designed as a non-inferiority study. The sample size was computed to be 170 subjects to have 90% power and a type I error rate of 5% for a noninferiority limit of 0.075 logarithm of minimum angle of resolution (logMAR), based on assumed standard deviation of 24-week visual acuity scores of 0.16 logMAR, a correlation between baseline and final acuities of 0.20, and 10% noncompletion of the study primary outcome examination.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.38|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.76|||ANCOVA|The logMAR visual acuity scores were adjusted for baseline amblyopic eye acuity.||The trial was designed as a non-inferiority study. The sample size was computed to be 170 subjects to have 90% power and a type I error rate of 5% for a noninferiority limit of 0.075 logarithm of minimum angle of resolution (logMAR), based on assumed standard deviation of 24-week visual acuity scores of 0.16 logMAR, a correlation between baseline and final acuities of 0.20, and 10% noncompletion of the study primary outcome examination.||0.76||
90877604|NCT00525174|181616981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.38||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.83|||ANCOVA|The logMAR visual acuity scores were adjusted for baseline amblyopic eye acuity.||In addition to the test of non-inferiority, an efficacy test of Patching over Bangerter filters was also completed.||0.83|-0.06|0.09
90877605|NCT00525174|181616981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment group difference in rate of improvement was evaluated using a population averaged linear mixed model after performing an inverse transformation of time to obtain linearity.||||0.20
90877606|NCT00525174|181616981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The relationship between the fellow eye blur from the Bangerter filter at baseline and amblyopic improvement at the 24-week outcome was evaluated with an ANCOVA model with acuity in the fellow eye being categorized as better than versus equal to or worse than acuity in the amblyopic eye.||||0.49
90877607|NCT00525174|181616981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The association of fixation preference while the Bangerter filter was over the fellow eye at baseline (amblyopic eye, fellow eye, alternates) with 24-week amblyopic eye acuity was evaluated in an ANCOVA model.||||0.21
90877608|NCT00525174|181616983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression was used to compare the proportion of patients in each treatment group with amblyopic eye visual acuity within 1 line of the fellow eye or better.||||0.27
90877609|NCT00525174|181616984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression was used to compare the proportion of patients in each treatment group with amblyopic visual acuity 20/25 or better at 24 weeks.||||0.86
90877610|NCT00525174|181616984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28||95.0|||||Regression, Cox|||The time to first achieve amblyopic eye visual acuity of 20/25 or better was evaluated using a Cox proportional hazard model.||||0.28
90877611|NCT00525174|181616985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression was used to compare the proportion of patients with 3 or more lines of amblyopic eye visual acuity improvement from baseline to 24 weeks.||||0.61
90877612|NCT00525174|181616988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank-sum|||A Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to evaluate change in Randot Preschool stereoacuity levels from baseline to 24 weeks by treatment group.||||0.90
90877613|NCT00525174|181616989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank-sum|||A Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to evaluate change in Randot Preschool stereoacuity levels from baseline to 24 weeks by treatment group.||||0.88
90877614|NCT00525174|181616991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||A treatment group difference in the fellow eye visual acuity at 24 weeks was evaluated in an ANCOVA model adjusted for the baseline fellow eye acuity.||||0.07
90877615|NCT00525174|181616991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||The Fisher exact test was used to compare the proportion of subjects in each treatment group who tested 2 or more logMAR lines worse in the fellow eye at 24 weeks compared with baseline.||||0.21
90877616|NCT00525174|181616992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||A t-test was used to evaluate treatment group difference of impact of treatment at 6 weeks.||||0.03
90877617|NCT00525174|181616993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||A t-test was used to evaluate treatment group difference of impact of treatment at 24 weeks.||||<0.001
90877618|NCT00525174|181616994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||A t-test was used to evaluate treatment group difference of the adverse effects subscale at 6 weeks.||||0.90
90877619|NCT00525174|181616995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||A t-test was used to evaluate treatment group difference of the adverse effects subscale at 24 weeks.||||0.01
90877620|NCT00525174|181616996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||A t-test was used to evaluate treatment group difference of the compliance subscale at 6 weeks.||||0.12
90877621|NCT00525174|181616997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||A t-test was used to evaluate treatment group difference of the compliance subscale at 24 weeks.||||0.001
90877622|NCT00525174|181616998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||A t-test was used to evaluate treatment group difference of social stigma at 6 weeks.||||<0.001
90877623|NCT00525174|181616999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||A t-test was used to evaluate treatment group difference of social stigma at 24 weeks.||||<0.001
90877624|NCT04254978|181617006|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Exact binomial distribution|||Comparison of the true response rate of bomedemstat to a fixed efficacy target of 5%: Null hypothesis (H0): p ≤ 0.05 versus alternate hypothesis (H1): p \> 0.05||||<.0001
90877625|NCT03244865|181617014|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority will be verified if the RMSE between the two systems is within 7 BPM. A complete power analysis was not included as this is a pilot study.|||||<|0.1||||||Pilot Study|t-test, 2 sided|||There is only one ARM in the study. Standard monitoring and LaborView monitoring will be collected simultaneously and analyzed.||||<.1
90877626|NCT02404311|181617054|OTHER||Proportion Difference (Net)|-0.015||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|McNemar||Difference = Month 12.5 (5th vaccination) - Month 6.5 (4th vaccination)|IgG Ab binding to 1086C\_D7gp120.avi/293F after the fourth (month 6.5) versus the fifth vaccination (month 12.5)||||1.0000
90877627|NCT02404311|181617054|OTHER||Proportion Difference (Net)|-0.015||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|McNemar||Difference = Month 12.5 (5th vaccination) - Month 6.5 (4th vaccination)|IgG Ab binding to 96ZM651.D11gp120.avi after the fourth (month 6.5) versus the fifth vaccination (month 12.5)||||1.0000
90877628|NCT02404311|181617054|OTHER||Proportion Difference (Net)|-0.015||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|McNemar||Difference = Month 12.5 (5th vaccination) - Month 6.5 (4th vaccination)|IgG Ab binding to TV1c8\_D11gp120.avi/293F after the fourth (month 6.5) versus the fifth vaccination (month 12.5)||||1.0000
90877629|NCT02404311|181617055|OTHER||Geometric Mean difference (Net)|0.914|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank||Difference = Month 12.5 (5th vaccination) - Month 6.5 (4th vaccination)|IgG Ab binding to 1086C\_D7gp120.avi/293F after the fourth (month 6.5) versus the fifth vaccination (month 12.5)||||<.0001
90877630|NCT02404311|181617055|OTHER||Geometric Mean difference (Net)|0.945|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank||Difference = Month 12.5 (5th vaccination) - Month 6.5 (4th vaccination)|IgG Ab binding to 96ZM651.D11gp120.avi after the fourth (month 6.5) versus the fifth vaccination (month 12.5)||||<.0001
90877631|NCT02404311|181617055|OTHER||Geometric Mean difference (Net)|0.895|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank||Difference = Month 12.5 (5th vaccination) - Month 6.5 (4th vaccination)|IgG Ab binding to TV1c8\_D11gp120.avi/293F after the fourth (month 6.5) versus the fifth vaccination (month 12.5)||||<.0001
90916316|NCT01631214|181702679|SUPERIORITY|This endpoint was not included in the sequential testing procedure and was analyzed without multiplicity adjustment at a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.91|||Regression, Cox|Model adjusted for age strata, baseline total hip BMD T-score, and presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline.|"Based on Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for age strata, baseline total hip BMD T-score, and presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline.~Hazard ratio \< 1 favors romosozumab; SE represents the standard error of log (hazard ratio)."|||0.91|0.59|0.005
90940541|NCT02630706|181760829|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted odds ratio based on a logistic regression model fitted with fixed effects for treatment anti-hyperglycemic medication status at screening (metformin alone, metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous) and baseline A1C (continuous). Missing data imputed using the cLDA model fitted with fixed effects as in the primary analysis.|Adjusted Odds Ratio relative to placebo|4.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.32|8.68|||Logistic regression model|||||8.68|2.32|<0.001
90877632|NCT02404311|181617056|OTHER||Proportion Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.0215|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|McNemar||Difference = Month 12.5 (5th vaccination) - Month 6.5 (4th vaccination)|IgG Ab binding to C.1086C\_V1\_V2 Tags after the fourth (month 6.5) versus the fifth vaccination (month 12.5)||||0.0215
90877633|NCT02404311|181617056|OTHER||Proportion Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|McNemar||Difference = Month 12.5 (5th vaccination) - Month 6.5 (4th vaccination)|IgG Ab binding to gp70-96ZM651.02 V1v2 after the fourth (month 6.5) versus the fifth vaccination (month 12.5)||||0.0003
90940542|NCT02630706|181760829|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted odds ratio based on a logistic regression model fitted with fixed effects for treatment anti-hyperglycemic medication status at screening (metformin alone, metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous) and baseline A1C (continuous). Missing data imputed using the cLDA model fitted with fixed effects as in the primary analysis.|Adjusted Odds Ratio relative to placebo|3.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|6.8|||Logistic regression model|||||6.80|1.77|<0.001
90877634|NCT02404311|181617056|OTHER||Proportion Difference (Net)|0.228||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|McNemar||Difference = Month 12.5 (5th vaccination) - Month 6.5 (4th vaccination)|IgG Ab binding to gp70-TV1.GSKvacV1V2/293F after the fourth (month 6.5) versus the fifth vaccination (month 12.5)||||0.0010
90877635|NCT02404311|181617057|OTHER||Geometric Mean difference (Net)|0.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank||Difference = Month 12.5 (5th vaccination) - Month 6.5 (4th vaccination)|IgG Ab binding to C.1086C\_V1\_V2 Tags after the fourth (month 6.5) versus the fifth vaccination (month 12.5)||||<.0001
90877636|NCT02404311|181617057|OTHER||Geometric Mean difference (Net)|0.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank||Difference = Month 12.5 (5th vaccination) - Month 6.5 (4th vaccination)|IgG Ab binding to gp70-96ZM651.02 V1v2 after the fourth (month 6.5) versus the fifth vaccination (month 12.5)||||<.0001
90877637|NCT02404311|181617057|OTHER||Geometric Mean difference (Net)|6.099||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank||Difference = Month 12.5 (5th vaccination) - Month 6.5 (4th vaccination)|IgG Ab binding to gp70-TV1.GSKvacV1V2/293F after the fourth (month 6.5) versus the fifth vaccination (month 12.5)||||0.0002
90877638|NCT02404311|181617058|OTHER||Proportion Difference (Net)|0.018||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|McNemar||Difference = Month 12.5 (5th vaccination) - Month 6.5 (4th vaccination)|CD4+ T Cell Responses to 1086 gp120 after the fourth (month 6.5) versus the fifth vaccination (month 12.5)||||1.0000
90877639|NCT02404311|181617058|OTHER||Proportion Difference (Net)|0.036||||0.6698|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|McNemar||Difference = Month 12.5 (5th vaccination) - Month 6.5 (4th vaccination)|CD4+ T Cell Responses to TV1 gp120 after the fourth (month 6.5) versus the fifth vaccination (month 12.5)||||0.6698
90877640|NCT02404311|181617058|OTHER||Proportion Difference (Net)|0.125||||0.1435|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|McNemar||Difference = Month 12.5 (5th vaccination) - Month 6.5 (4th vaccination)|CD4+ T Cell Responses to ZM96 gp120 after the fourth (month 6.5) versus the fifth vaccination (month 12.5)||||0.1435
90877641|NCT02404311|181617059|OTHER||Geometric Mean difference (Net)|0.965||||0.9661|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank||Difference = Month 12.5 (5th vaccination) - Month 6.5 (4th vaccination)|CD4+ T Cell Responses to 1086 gp120 after the fourth (month 6.5) versus the fifth vaccination (month 12.5)||||0.9661
90916317|NCT01631214|181702680|SUPERIORITY|This endpoint was not included in the sequential testing procedure and was analyzed without multiplicity adjustment at a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.02|||Regression, Cox|Model adjusted for age strata, baseline total hip BMD T-score, and presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline.|"Based on Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for age strata, baseline total hip BMD T-score, and presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline.~Hazard ratio \< 1 favors romosozumab; SE represents the standard error of log (hazard ratio)."|||1.02|0.64|0.074
90877642|NCT02404311|181617059|OTHER||Geometric Mean difference (Net)|1.118||||0.8593|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank||Difference = Month 12.5 (5th vaccination) - Month 6.5 (4th vaccination)|CD4+ T Cell Responses to TV1 gp120 after the fourth (month 6.5) versus the fifth vaccination (month 12.5)||||0.8593
90877643|NCT02404311|181617059|OTHER||Geometric Mean difference (Net)|1.138||||0.4396|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank||Difference = Month 12.5 (5th vaccination) - Month 6.5 (4th vaccination)|CD4+ T Cell Responses to ZM96 gp120 after the fourth (month 6.5) versus the fifth vaccination (month 12.5)||||0.4396
90877644|NCT03314584|181617073|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|F=21.662, df = 1||||||<0.000
90877645|NCT03314584|181617074|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|F=5.624, df=1||||||0.004
90877646|NCT03314584|181617075|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|F=3.092, df=1||||||0.046
90916318|NCT01631214|181702681|SUPERIORITY|This endpoint was not included in the sequential testing procedure and was analyzed without multiplicity adjustment at a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.15|||Regression, Cox|Model adjusted for age strata, baseline total hip BMD T-score, and presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline.|"Based on Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for age strata, baseline total hip BMD T-score, and presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline.~Hazard ratio \< 1 favors romosozumab; SE represents the standard error of log (hazard ratio)."|||1.15|0.46|0.17
90877647|NCT03314584|181617076|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|F=4.022, df=1||||||0.018
90877648|NCT03314584|181617077|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.598|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|F=0.279, df=1||||||0.598
90877649|NCT03314584|181617078|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.296|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|F=1.101, df=1||||||0.296
90877650|NCT03314584|181617079|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.033|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|F=4.672, df = 1||||||0.033
90877651|NCT03314584|181617080|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.606|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|F=0.268, df=1||||||0.606
90877652|NCT03314584|181617081|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.287|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|F=1.142, df=1||||||0.287
90877653|NCT03314584|181617082|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.049|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|F=4.039, df=1||||||0.049
90877654|NCT03314584|181617083|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.338|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|F=1.084, df=1||||||0.338
90877655|NCT00930579|181617121|OTHER|This study used two-sided t-tests to compare changes within group- before and after metformin treatment.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.006||||0.98|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Null hypothesis: there will be no statistically significant change between the amount of Ki-67 (protein involved in cell proliferation) in participants' tumor cells before and after taking the prescribed dose of Metformin, as measured at the 5% significance level.||||0.98
90961303|NCT00568321|181803577|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.165|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.99|0.26|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Weeks 1 to 8: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.26|-0.99|0.165
90961304|NCT00568321|181803577|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.546|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.55|0.64|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Weeks 1 to 12: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.64|-0.55|0.546
90961305|NCT00568321|181803577|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.19|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.92|0.28|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Weeks 1 to 12: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.28|-0.92|0.190
91033720|NCT04544787|181953203|OTHER|||||||0.3083|||||||Fisher Exact|||The number of participants with severe unsolicited adverse events in the OPV-vaccinated groups who received nOPV-c2 (combined Groups 3 and 4) was compared with the corresponding endpoint from the historical monovalent OPV2 control study (UAM1, EudraCT # 2015-003325-33) using the two-sided Fisher's exact test. In the UAM1 study, the number of participants with severe unsolicited adverse events was 17 out of 100.||||0.3083
90877656|NCT01046682|181617178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Using data from a different population, ie, patients with peripheral artery disease, and a different intervention, ie, omega-3 fatty acids, 15 participants were needed per group to achieve 80% power to detect a difference in means of -3.6% (the difference between the control group mean of -0.3% and a treatment group mean of 3.3%) assuming a common standard deviation of 3.3 using a two group t-test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level. 5 patients added to each arm in case nonparametric.||||<0.05
90877657|NCT01520363|181617321|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.182|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.294||0.211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.086|0.722|||t-test, 2 sided|df=21|||t= -1.291; p=.211|.722|-3.086|.211
90877658|NCT01520363|181617321|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.043|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67||0.949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.345|1.432|||t-test, 2 sided|df=22||||1.432|-1.345|.949
90877659|NCT01520363|181617322|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.333|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.456||0.541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.785|1.451||df=20|t-test, 2 sided|df=20|||t=0.622; p=.541|1.451|-0.785|.541
90877660|NCT01520363|181617322|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.042|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.956||0.946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|1.206||df=23|t-test, 2 sided||||t=-.069; p=0.946|1.206|-1.290|.946
90877661|NCT01520363|181617323|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.227|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.116||0.736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.609|1.154|||t-test, 2 sided|df=21|||t=-0.342; p=0.736|1.154|-1.609|.736
90877662|NCT01520363|181617323|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.409|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.5||0.589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.143|1.961|||t-test, 2 sided||||t=0.548; p=0.589|1.961|-1.143|.589
90877663|NCT01520363|181617324|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.429|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.203||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.886|0.029|||t-test, 2 sided|df=20|||t=-2.044; p=0.05|0.029|-2.886|.05
90940543|NCT02630706|181760830|SUPERIORITY|cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, anti-hyperglycemic medication status at Screening (metformin alone, metformin + another AHA), Country (China, other), baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|Difference in the LS Means vs. Placebo|-4.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.48|-1.69|||cLDA|||||-1.69|-6.48|<0.001
90877664|NCT01520363|181617324|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.042|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.862||0.958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.589|1.672|||t-test, 2 sided||||t=0.053; p=0.958|1.672|-1.589|0.958
90877665|NCT01520363|181617325|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.227|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.51||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.442|0.897|||t-test, 2 sided|df=21|||t=0.706; p=0.488|0.897|-0.442|0.488
90877666|NCT01520363|181617325|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.24|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.535||0.442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.394|0.874|||t-test, 2 sided|df=24|||t=0.782; p=0.442|0.874|-0.394|0.442
90877667|NCT01520363|181617326|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.682|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.317||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.346|1.709|||t-test, 2 sided|df=21|||t=1.380; p=0.182|1.709|-0.346|0.182
90877668|NCT01520363|181617326|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.864|<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.391|1.929|||t-test, 2 sided|df=24|||t=3.112; p=0.005|1.929|0.391|<0.005
90877669|NCT01520363|181617327|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.091|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.504||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.463|1.644|||t-test, 2 sided||||t=0.122; p=0.90|1.644|-1.463|0.90
90877670|NCT01520363|181617327|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.48|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.551||0.356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.573|1.533|||t-test, 2 sided|df=24|||t=0.941; p=0.356|1.533|-0.573|0.356
90877671|NCT01520363|181617328|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.136|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.06||0.836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|1.493|||t-test, 2 sided||||t=0.209; p=0.836|1.493|-1.220|0.836
90877672|NCT01520363|181617328|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.698||0.826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.993|1.233|||t-test, 2 sided|df=24|||t=0.222; p=0.826|1.233|-0.993|0.826
90877673|NCT01520363|181617329|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.18||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|5.05|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.05|-11.80|0.42
90877674|NCT01520363|181617330|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.97|<|0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.02|4.96|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.96|-7.02|<0.73
90877675|NCT01520363|181617331|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|8.4615|STANDARD_DEVIATION|32.8016||0.371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3603|28.2834|||t-test, 2 sided|df=12|||t=0.903; p=0.371|28.2834|-11.3603|0.371
90877676|NCT01520363|181617331|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.9917|STANDARD_DEVIATION|18.0163||0.358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4553|16.4387|||t-test, 2 sided|df=11|t=0.960; p=0.358|||16.4387|-6.4553|0.358
90877677|NCT01520363|181617332|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.09412|STANDARD_DEVIATION|24.06228||0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.27756|15.4658|||t-test, 2 sided|df=16|t=0.530; p=0.603|||15.46580|-9.27756|0.603
90916319|NCT01631214|181702682|SUPERIORITY|This endpoint was not included in the sequential testing procedure and was analyzed without multiplicity adjustment at a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.71|||Regression, Cox|Model adjusted for age strata, baseline total hip BMD T-score, and presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline.|"Based on Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for age strata, baseline total hip BMD T-score, and presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline.~Hazard ratio \< 1 favors romosozumab; SE represents the standard error of log (hazard ratio)."|||0.71|0.24|<0.001
90916320|NCT01631214|181702683|SUPERIORITY|This endpoint was not included in the sequential testing procedure and was analyzed without multiplicity adjustment at a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.96|||Regression, Cox|Model adjusted for age strata, baseline total hip BMD T-score, and presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline.|"Based on Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for age strata, baseline total hip BMD T-score, and presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline.~Hazard ratio \< 1 favors romosozumab; SE represents the standard error of log (hazard ratio)."|||0.96|0.54|0.027
90940544|NCT02630706|181760830|SUPERIORITY|cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, anti-hyperglycemic medication status at Screening (metformin alone, metformin + another AHA), Country (China, other), baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|Difference in the LS Means vs. Placebo|-5.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.68|-2.92|||cLDA|||||-2.92|-7.68|<0.001
90877678|NCT01520363|181617332|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.42857|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.21479||0.432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.04665|8.9038|||t-test, 2 sided|df=13|t=0.810; p=0.432|||8.90380|-4.04665|0.432
90877679|NCT01520363|181617333|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|11.765|STANDARD_DEVIATION|26.276||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.745|25.275|||t-test, 2 sided|df=16|||t=1.846; p=0.083|25.275|-1.745|0.083
90877680|NCT01520363|181617333|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|7.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.378||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.802|15.802|||t-test, 2 sided|df=13|||t=1.952; p=0.073|15.802|-0.802|0.073
90877681|NCT01520363|181617334|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.7474|STANDARD_DEVIATION|26.711||0.549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1269|16.6217|||t-test, 2 sided|df=18|t=0.612; p=0.549|||16.6217|-9.1269|0.549
90877682|NCT01520363|181617334|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.7143|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.5084||0.874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8174|10.246|||t-test, 2 sided|df=13|t=0.162; p=0.874|||10.2460|-8.8174|0.874
90877683|NCT01520363|181617335|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.8167|STANDARD_DEVIATION|40.2609||0.693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2046|23.8379|||t-test, 2 sided|df=17|t=0.402; p=0.693|||23.8379|-16.2046|0.693
90877684|NCT01520363|181617335|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.84|STANDARD_DEVIATION|27.8994||0.909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6102|16.2902|||t-test, 2 sided|df=14|t=0.117; p=0.909|||16.2902|-14.6102|0.909
90877685|NCT01520363|181617336|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.17|0.52|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.52|-2.17|0.21
90877686|NCT01520363|181617337|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|2.15|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.15|-0.66|0.28
90877687|NCT01265849|181617364|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4051||||||For the primary efficacy measure a two-sided p-value of 0.05 or less is considered to be statistically significant in comparing the LI+CIZ+SOC treatment vs. SOC alone for superiority.|Log Rank|Log Rank statistic is based on an unstratified analysis.||The primary objective was to compare overall survival in the LI + CIZ + SOC group to that in the SOC alone group for superiority of the former.||||0.4051
90877688|NCT01265849|181617364|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5402|||||||Log Rank|This Log Rank statistic is based on a stratified analysis.||||||0.5402
90877689|NCT01265849|181617364|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.4128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.32|||Regression, Cox|The Cox Proportional Hazards Model included terms for treatment, tumor stage, tumor location, and geographic region.|A Hazard Ratio \< 1.0 would favor LI + CIZ + SOC.|||1.32|0.89|0.4128
90877690|NCT01265849|181617364|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7181|||||||Log Rank|This Log Rank statistic is based on an unstratified analysis.||||||0.7181
90877691|NCT01265849|181617364|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.948|||||||Log Rank|This log Rank p-value is based on a stratified analysis.||||||0.9480
90877692|NCT01265849|181617364|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.6101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.42|||Regression, Cox|The Cox Proportional Hazards Model included terms for treatment, tumor stage, tumor location, and geographic region.|A hazard Ratio \< 1.0 would favor LI + SOC.|||1.42|0.81|0.6101
90961306|NCT00568321|181803577|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.467|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|0.55|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Weeks 1 to 16: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.55|-0.60|0.467
90877693|NCT01265849|181617365|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0478|||||||Log Rank|This Log Rank statistic is based on an unstratified analysis.||||||0.0478
90877694|NCT01265849|181617365|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0137|||||||Log Rank|This Log Rank statistic is based on a stratified analysis.||||||0.0137
90877695|NCT01265849|181617365|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.0236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.95|||Regression, Cox|The Cox Proportional Hazards Model included terms for treatment, tumor stage, tumor location, and geographic region.|A Hazard Ratio \< 1.0 would favor LI + CIZ + SOC.|||0.95|0.48|0.0236
90877696|NCT01265849|181617365|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4115|||||||Log Rank|This Log Rank statistic is based on an unstratified analysis.||||||0.4115
90877697|NCT01265849|181617365|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2862|||||||Log Rank|This Log Rank statistic is based on a stratified analysis.|||This HR is presented as (LI + SOC) / SOC. A HR \< 1.0 favors LI+SOC. Wald p-value for this HR is 0.3859.|||0.2862
91033721|NCT04544787|181953203|OTHER|||||||0.4975|||||||Fisher Exact|||The number of participants with serious unsolicited adverse events in the OPV-vaccinated groups who received nOPV-c1 (combined Groups 1 and 2) was compared with the corresponding endpoint from the historical monovalent OPV2 control study (UAM1, EudraCT # 2015-003325-33) using the two-sided Fisher's exact test. In the UAM1 study, the number of participants with serious unsolicited adverse events was 0 out of 100.||||0.4975
90877698|NCT01265849|181617365|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.3859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.29|||Regression, Cox|The Cox Proportional Hazards Model included terms for treatment, tumor stage, tumor location, and geographic region.|A Hazard Ratio \< 1.0 would favor LI + SOC.|||1.29|0.52|0.3859
90877699|NCT01265849|181617366|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7304||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|This Log Rank P-value is based on an unstratified analysis.||The secondary endpoint LRC failure is analyzed similar to the primary OS endpoint. The primary comparison is LI+CIZ+SOC vs SOC; LI+SOC vs SOC results are also reported.||||0.7304
90877700|NCT01265849|181617366|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7171||||||P-values are reported unadjusted for multiplicity.|Log Rank|The Log Rank statistic is based on a stratified analysis.||||||0.7171
90877701|NCT01265849|181617366|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.36|||Regression, Cox|The Cox Proportional Hazards Model included terms for treatment, tumor stage, tumor location, and geographic region.|A Hazard Ratio \< 1.0 would favor LI + CIZ + SOC.|||1.36|0.79|0.8020
90877702|NCT01265849|181617366|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4231|||||||Log Rank|The Log Rank statistic is based on an unstratified analysis.||||||0.4231
90877703|NCT01265849|181617366|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6998|||||||Log Rank|This Log Rank statistic is based on a stratified analysis.||||||0.6998
90877704|NCT01265849|181617366|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.3944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.69|||Regression, Cox|The Cox Proportional Hazards Model included terms for treatment, tumor stage, tumor location, and geographic region.|A Hazard Ratio \< 1.0 would favor LI + SOC.|||1.69|0.81|0.3944
90877705|NCT01265849|181617367|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6142|||||||Log Rank|The Log Rank statistic is based on an unstratified analysis.||||||0.6142
90877706|NCT01265849|181617367|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3024|||||||Log Rank|This Log Rank statistic is based on a stratified analysis.||||||0.3024
90877707|NCT01265849|181617367|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.42082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.28|||Regression, Cox||A Hazard Ratio \< 1.0 would favor LI + CIZ + SOC.|||1.28|0.55|0.42082
90961307|NCT00568321|181803577|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.153|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.94|0.22|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Weeks 1 to 16: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.22|-0.94|0.153
90877708|NCT01265849|181617367|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9784|||||||Log Rank|The Log Rank statistic is based on an unstratified analysis.||||||0.9784
90877709|NCT01265849|181617367|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8461||||||This Log Rank statistic is based on a stratified analysis.|Log Rank|||||||0.8461
90877710|NCT01265849|181617367|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.8131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.65|||Regression, Cox||A Hazard Ratio of \< 1.0 would favor LI + SOC.|||1.65|0.53|0.8131
90877711|NCT01265849|181617368|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3303|||||||Log Rank|This Log Rank statistic is from an unstratified analysis.||This secondary endpoint PFS is analyzed similar to OS and LRC.||||0.3303
90877712|NCT01265849|181617368|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6669|||||||Log Rank|This Log Rank statistic is based on a stratified analysis.||||||0.6669
90877713|NCT01265849|181617368|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.3728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.31|||Regression, Cox|The Cox Proportional Hazards Model included terms for treatment, tumor stage, tumor location, and geographic region.|A Hazard Ratio \< 1.0 would favor LI + CIZ + SOC.|||1.31|0.90|0.3728
90877714|NCT01265849|181617368|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5739|||||||Log Rank|This Log Rank statistic is based on an unstratified analysis.||||||0.5739
90877715|NCT01265849|181617368|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8162|||||||Log Rank|This Log Rank statistic is based on a stratified analysis.||||||0.8162
90877716|NCT01265849|181617368|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.4728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.43|||Regression, Cox|The Cox Proportional Hazards Model included terms for treatment, tumor stage, tumor location, and geographic region.|A Hazard Ratio \< 1.0 would favor LI + SOC.|||1.43|0.84|0.4728
90877717|NCT01265849|181617369|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1797|||||||Log Rank|This Log Rank statistic is based on an unstratified analysis.||||||0.1797
90877718|NCT01265849|181617369|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0159|||||||Log Rank|This Log Rank statistic is based on a stratified analysis.||||||0.0159
90877719|NCT01265849|181617369|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.0896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.04|||Regression, Cox|The Cox Proportional Hazards Model included terms for treatment, tumor stage, tumor location, and geographic region.|A Hazard Ratio of \< 1.0 would favor LI + CIZ + SOC.|||1.04|0.55|0.0896
90877720|NCT01265849|181617369|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5175|||||||Log Rank|This Log Rank statistic is based on an unstratified analysis.||||||0.5175
90877721|NCT01265849|181617369|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.453|||||||Log Rank|This Log Rank statistic is based on a stratified analysis.||||||0.4530
90877722|NCT01265849|181617369|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.4376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.3|||Regression, Cox|The Cox Proportional Hazards Model included terms for treatment, tumor stage, tumor location, and geographic region.|A Hazard Ratio \< 1.0 would favor LI + SOC.|||1.30|0.54|0.4376
90877723|NCT01265849|181617370|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.395||0.21|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value for Long Term Follow-up at Month 2 is not adjusted for multiplicity.|Repeated Measures ANCOVA (RMANCOVA)|RMANCOVA with fixed stratification factors, trt, visit, trt\*visit, and baseline, with a compound symmetry correlation structure.|Positive value for the difference (Mean Difference (Net)) favors LI + CIZ + SOC.|Approximately 30% of participants completed the QOL instrument at first administration (Month2), thus the study did not have the power for QoL comparisons. These completer analyses are descriptive only.||||0.2100
90877724|NCT01265849|181617370|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.401||0.1701|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value for Long Term Follow-up at Month 2 is not adjusted for multiplicity.|Repeated Measures ANCOVA (RMANCOVA)|RMANCOVA with fixed stratification factors, trt, visit, trt\*visit, and baseline, with a compound symmetry correlation structure.|Positive value for the difference (Mean Difference (Net)) favors LI + SOC.|Approximately 30% of participants completed the QOL instrument at last administration (Month 36), thus the study did not have power for QoL comparisons. These completer analyses are descriptive only.||||0.1701
90877725|NCT01265849|181617371|SUPERIORITY|This p-value for Long Term Follow-up at Month 36 is not adjusted for multiplicity.|Median Difference (Net)|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.397||0.5871|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value for Long Term Follow-up at Month 36 is not adjusted for multiplicity.|Repeated Measures ANCOVA (RMANCOVA)|RMANCOVA with fixed stratification factors, trt, visit, trt\*visit, and baseline, with a compound symmetry correlation structure.|Positive value for the difference (Mean Difference (Net)) favors LI + CIZ + SOC.|LI + CIZ + SOC, Standard of Care (SOC)||||0.5871
90877726|NCT01265849|181617371|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.247||0.17|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value for Long Term Follow-up at Month 36 is not adjusted for multiplicity.|Repeated Measures ANCOVA (RMANCOVA)|RMANCOVA with fixed stratification factors, trt, visit, trt\*visit, and baseline, with a compound symmetry correlation structure.|Positive value for the difference (Mean Difference (Net)) favors LI + SOC.|||||0.1700
90940545|NCT02630706|181760831|SUPERIORITY|cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, anti-hyperglycemic medication status at Screening (metformin alone, metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|Difference in the LS Means vs. Placebo|-2.64||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.36|0.09|||cLDA|||||0.09|-5.36|0.058
90877727|NCT01265849|181617372|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.183||0.6296|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value for head and neck pain at Long Term Follow-up Month 2 is not adjusted for multiplicity.|Repeated Measures ANCOVA (RMANCOVA)|RMANCOVA with fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit, tumor location \& stage, geographic region, and baseline with compound symmetry.|Negative value for the difference (Mean Difference (Net)) favors LI + CIZ + SOC.|||||0.6296
90877728|NCT01265849|181617372|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.103||0.7454|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value for head and neck pain at Long Term Follow-up Month 2 is not adjusted for multiplicity.|Repeated Measures ANCOVA (RMANCOVA)|RMANCOVA with fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit, tumor location \& stage, geographic region, and baseline with compound symmetry.|Negative value for the difference (Mean Difference (Net)) favors LI + SOC.|||||0.7454
90877729|NCT01265849|181617372|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.465||0.7452|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value for Long Term Follow-up for swallowing at month 2 is not adjusted for multiplicity.|Repeated Measures ANCOVA (RMANCOVA)|RMANCOVA with fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit, tumor location \& stage, geographic region, and baseline with compound symmetry.|Negative value for the difference (Mean Difference (Net)) favors LI + CIZ + SOC.|||||0.7452
90877730|NCT01265849|181617372|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.496||0.771|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value for Long Term Follow-up for swallowing at Month 2 is not adjusted for multiplicity.|Repeated Measures ANCOVA (RMANCOVA)|RMANCOVA with fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit, and baseline with compound symmetry.|Negative value for the difference (Mean Difference (Net)) favors LI + SOC.|||||0.7710
90877731|NCT01265849|181617373|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.185||0.6337|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value for Long Term Follow-up for head and neck pain at Month 36 is not adjusted for multiplicity|Repeated Measures ANCOVA (RMANCOVA)|RMANCOVA with fixed stratification factors, trt, visit, trt\*visit, and baseline, with a compound symmetry correlation structure.|Negative value for the difference (Mean Difference (Net)) favors LI + CIZ + SOC.|||||0.6337
90877732|NCT01265849|181617373|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.962||0.945|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value for Long Term Follow-up for head and neck pain at Month 36 is not adjusted for multiplicity.|Repeated Measures ANCOVA (RMANCOVA)|RMANCOVA with fixed stratification factors, trt, visit, trt\*visit, and baseline, with a compound symmetry correlation structure.|Negative value for the difference (Mean Difference (Net)) favors LI + SOC.|||||0.9450
90877733|NCT01265849|181617373|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.465||0.4071|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value for Long Term Follow-up for Swallowing at Month 36 is not adjusted for multiplicity.|Repeated Measures ANCOVA (RMANCOVA)|RMANCOVA with fixed stratification factors, trt, visit, trt\*visit, and baseline, with a compound symmetry correlation structure.|Negative value for the difference (Mean Difference (Net)) favors LI+ CIZ + SOC.|||||0.4071
90877734|NCT01265849|181617373|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.347||0.0296|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value for Long Term Follow-up for Swallowing at Month 36 is not adjusted for multiplicity.|Repeated Measures ANCOVA (RMANCOVA)|RMANCOVA with fixed stratification factors, trt, visit, trt\*visit, and baseline, with a compound symmetry correlation structure.|Negative value for the difference (Mean Difference (Net)) favors LI + SOC.|||||0.0296
90877735|NCT01265849|181617374|SUPERIORITY|Statistical tests were for a significant treatment effect in the Cox Proportional Hazards model including treatment, disease stage, tumor location, and geographical region.|% of significant test results|21.6|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.0|26.9||"Under the null hypothesis of no effect the expected number of significant test results would be balanced between treatments.~The expected number (%) of statistically significant results would be approximately 14 (5%) of 282."|Regression, Cox|||"Treatment comparisons of LI+CIZ+SOC v. SOC were repeated at all levels of HP, HP ratios, and HP combinations for endpoints OS, PFS, and LRC.~Significant outcomes for the treatment term in the model (two-sided p\<0.05) were accumulated."||26.9|17.0|<0.05
90877736|NCT01265849|181617375|SUPERIORITY||Percent (%) of Participants|8.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.6|11.2|||Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis is that percent (%) of participants with an objective response (CR+PR) is the same for LI + CIZ + SOC and SOC.||11.2|5.6|<.0001
90877737|NCT01265849|181617375|SUPERIORITY||Percent (%) of Participants|9.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|14.7|||Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis is that percent (%) of participants with an objective response (CR+PR) is the same for LI + SOC and SOC.||14.7|4.7|<0.0001
90877738|NCT01265849|181617376|SUPERIORITY||Percent (%) of Participants|15.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.6|20.8|||Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis is that percent (%) of participants with an objective response (CR+PR) is the same for LI + CIZ + SOC and SOC.||20.8|9.6|<0.0001
90961308|NCT00568321|181803577|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.632|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.54|0.81|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Weeks 5 to 8: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.81|-0.54|0.632
90877739|NCT01265849|181617376|SUPERIORITY||Percent (%) of Participants|18.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.2|28.9|||Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis is that percent (%) of participants with an objective response (CR+PR) is the same for LI + SOC and SOC.||28.9|8.2|<0.0001
90877740|NCT01265849|181617377|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0007|||||||Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis that survival is unrelated to objective response versus the alternative hypothesis that objective response is predictive of increased survival for participants receiving LI + CIZ + SOC.||||0.0007
90961309|NCT00568321|181803577|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.094|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.22|0.14|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Weeks 5 to 8: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.14|-1.22|0.094
90877741|NCT01265849|181617377|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0434|||||||Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that survival is unrelated to objective response versus the alternative that response is predictive of increased survival in subjects receiving LI + SOC.||||0.0434
90877742|NCT01265849|181617377|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that survival is unrelated to objective response versus the alternative hypothesis that objective response is predictive of increased survival for participants receiving LI, considering both treatment groups combined.||||<0.0001
90877743|NCT01265849|181617378|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0101|||||||Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis that survival is unrelated to objective response versus the alternative hypothesis that objective response is predictive of increased survival for low risk participants receiving LI + CIZ + SOC.||||0.0101
90877744|NCT01265849|181617378|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4843|||||||Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis that survival is unrelated to objective response versus the alternative hypothesis that objective response is predictive of increased survival for low risk participants receiving LI + SOC.||||0.4843
90877745|NCT01265849|181617378|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0067||||||The null hypothesis is that survival is unrelated to objective response versus the alternative hypothesis that objective response is predictive of increased survival for participants receiving LI, considering both treatment groups combined.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0067
90877746|NCT01265849|181617379|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.348||||0.0131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.152|0.801|||Regression, Cox|||Null hypothesis is that the Hazard Ratio (HR) for low risk subjects responding to LI (combined arms LI + CIZ + SOC, LI + SOC) is \>=1.0 versus the alternative hypothesis that subjects responding to LI are at reduced risk of death (HR \< 1.0).||0.801|0.152|0.0131
90961310|NCT00568321|181803577|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.468|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.68|0.61|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Weeks 5 to 12: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.61|-0.68|0.468
90877747|NCT01265849|181617379|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.246||||0.0181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.077|0.787|||Regression, Cox|||Null hypothesis is that the Hazard Ratio (HR) for low risk subjects responding to LI + CIZ + SOC is \>=1.0 versus the alternative hypothesis that subjects responding to LI + CIZ + SOC are at reduced risk of death (HR \< 1.0).||0.787|0.077|0.0181
90877748|NCT01154218|181617380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|99.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.49|108.33||||||Natural log transformed AUC (0-∞) of crizotinib was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||108.33|91.49|
90877749|NCT01154218|181617380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted means|106.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.26|116.35||||||Natural log transformed AUC (0-∞) of crizotinib was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||116.35|98.26|
90877750|NCT01154218|181617380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|85.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.88|93.25||||||Natural log transformed AUC (0-∞) of crizotinib was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||93.25|78.88|
90961311|NCT00568321|181803577|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.167|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.03|0.27|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Weeks 5 to 12: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.27|-1.03|0.167
90877751|NCT01154218|181617381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted means|99.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.3|108.66||||||Natural log transformed AUClast of crizotinib was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||108.66|91.30|
90877752|NCT01154218|181617381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted means|107.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.58|117.35||||||Natural log transformed AUClast of crizotinib was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||117.35|98.58|
90877753|NCT01154218|181617381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted means|85.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.45|93.22||||||Natural log transformed AUClast of crizotinib was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||93.22|78.45|
90877754|NCT01154218|181617384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|106.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.55|118.51||||||Natural log transformed Cmax of crizotinib was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||118.51|96.55|
90877755|NCT01154218|181617384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|111.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.47|123.33||||||Natural log transformed Cmax of crizotinib was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||123.33|100.47|
90877756|NCT01154218|181617384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|86.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.89|95.43||||||Natural log transformed Cmax of crizotinib was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||95.43|77.89|
90877757|NCT01154218|181617387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted means|100.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.16|110.97||||||Natural log transformed AUClast of PF-06260182 was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||110.97|90.16|
90877758|NCT01154218|181617387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted means|108.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.11|120.77||||||Natural log transformed AUClast of PF-06260182 was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||120.77|98.11|
90877759|NCT01154218|181617387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted means|74.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|67.55|82.98||||||Natural log transformed AUClast of PF-06260182 was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||82.98|67.55|
90877760|NCT01154218|181617388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted means|100.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.46|110.73||||||Natural log transformed AUC (0-∞) of PF-06260182 was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||110.73|90.46|
90877761|NCT01154218|181617388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted means|108.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.03|120.02||||||Natural log transformed AUC (0-∞) of PF-06260182 was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||120.02|98.03|
90877762|NCT01154218|181617388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted means|76.59|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|69.23|84.74||||||Natural log transformed AUC (0-∞) of PF-06260182 was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||84.74|69.23|
90877763|NCT01154218|181617389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted means|102.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.84|112.31||||||Natural log transformed Cmax of PF-06260182 was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||112.31|92.84|
90877764|NCT01154218|181617389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted means|108.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.98|119.75||||||Natural log transformed Cmax of PF-06260182 was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||119.75|98.98|
90877765|NCT01154218|181617389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted means|71.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|65.46|79.05||||||Natural log transformed Cmax of PF-06260182 was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||79.05|65.46|
90916321|NCT01631214|181702684|SUPERIORITY|This endpoint was not included in the sequential testing procedure and was analyzed without multiplicity adjustment at a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.89|||Regression, Logistic|Based on a logistic regression model adjusted for age strata, baseline total hip BMD T-score and presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline.|Values \< 1 for odds ratio favor romosozumab. The standard error (SE) represents the standard error of log(odds ratio).|||0.89|0.44|0.008
90916322|NCT01631214|181702684|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.89|||||SE represents the standard error of log (risk ratio).|"The risk ratio (ratio of percentages, Romosozumab:Alendronate) was based on the Mantel Haenszel method, adjusted for age strata (\<75 vs. ≥75 years), the presence or absence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline, and baseline bone mineral density T-score at the total hip (≤ -2.5, \> -2.5).~Values \< 1 for risk ratio favor romosozumab."||0.89|0.46|
90961312|NCT00568321|181803577|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.394|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.72|0.52|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Weeks 5 to 16: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.52|-0.72|0.394
90877766|NCT00877058|181617401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.27|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.48|||Chi-squared|||||0.48|0.15|<0.05
90877767|NCT00877058|181617401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|0.05|0.24|0.68|||Chi-squared|||||0.68|0.24|0.001
90877768|NCT00877058|181617402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|2.52|||Chi-squared|||||2.52|0.96|<0.05
90877769|NCT00877058|181617402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.08|||Chi-squared|||||2.08|0.79|<0.05
90916323|NCT01631214|181702684|SUPERIORITY||Absolute risk reduction|1.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|3.17||||||"The absolute risk reduction (difference in percentages, Alendronate - Romosozumab) was based on the Mantel-Haenszel method adjusted for age strata, baseline total hip BMD T-score (≤ -2.5, \> -2.5), and presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline.~Positive values for absolute risk reduction favor romosozumab."||3.17|0.51|
90916324|NCT01631214|181702685|SUPERIORITY|This endpoint was not included in the sequential testing procedure and was analyzed without multiplicity adjustment at a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.88|||Regression, Cox|Model adjusted for age strata, baseline total hip BMD T-score, and presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline.|"Based on Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for age strata, baseline total hip BMD T-score, and presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline.~Hazard ratio \< 1 favors romosozumab; SE represents the standard error of log (hazard ratio)."|||0.88|0.57|0.002
90916325|NCT01631214|181702686|SUPERIORITY|This endpoint was not included in the sequential testing procedure and was analyzed without multiplicity adjustment at a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.01|||Regression, Cox|Model adjusted for age strata, baseline total hip BMD T-score, and presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline.|"Based on Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for age strata, baseline total hip BMD T-score, and presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline.~Hazard ratio \< 1 favors romosozumab; SE represents the standard error of log (hazard ratio)."|||1.01|0.54|0.057
90916326|NCT01631214|181702687|SUPERIORITY|This endpoint was not included in the sequential testing procedure and was analyzed without multiplicity adjustment at a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.26|||Regression, Cox|Model adjusted for age strata, baseline total hip BMD T-score, and presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline.|"Based on Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for age strata, baseline total hip BMD T-score, and presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline.~Hazard ratio \< 1 favors romosozumab; SE represents the standard error of log (hazard ratio)."|||1.26|0.33|0.19
90961313|NCT00568321|181803577|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.138|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.04|0.21|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Weeks 5 to 16: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.21|-1.04|0.138
90961314|NCT00568321|181803578|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.764|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.51|1.3|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 1 (Worst pain): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.30|-0.51|0.764
90916327|NCT01631214|181702688|SUPERIORITY|This endpoint was not included in the sequential testing procedure and was analyzed without multiplicity adjustment at a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.01|||Regression, Cox|Model adjusted for age strata, baseline total hip BMD T-score, and presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline.|"Based on Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for age strata, baseline total hip BMD T-score, and presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline.~Hazard ratio \< 1 favors romosozumab; SE represents the standard error of log (hazard ratio)."|||1.01|0.52|0.053
90916328|NCT01631214|181702689|SUPERIORITY|This endpoint was not included in the sequential testing procedure and was analyzed without multiplicity adjustment at a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.22|||Regression, Cox|Model adjusted for age strata, baseline total hip BMD T-score, and presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline.|"Based on Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for age strata, baseline total hip BMD T-score, and presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline.~Hazard ratio \< 1 favors romosozumab; SE represents the standard error of log (hazard ratio)."|||1.22|0.26|0.14
90961315|NCT00568321|181803578|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.75|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.54|1.28|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 1 (Worst pain): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.28|-0.54|0.750
90961316|NCT00568321|181803578|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.734|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.46|1.03|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 1 (Average pain): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.03|-0.46|0.734
90916329|NCT01631214|181702690|SUPERIORITY|If the differences in both primary end points were significant with the use of the Hochberg procedure, a fixed-sequence testing procedure was used for bone mineral density and the key secondary end point of nonvertebral fracture to adjust for multiple comparisons and to maintain an overall significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean Difference|8.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.58|8.57|||ANCOVA|||Between-group comparisons of the percent change from baseline in bone mineral density were analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model adjusted for treatment, age strata, presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline, baseline BMD value, machine type, and baseline BMD value-by-machine type interaction.||8.57|7.58|<0.001
90916330|NCT01631214|181702691|SUPERIORITY|If the differences in both primary end points were significant with the use of the Hochberg procedure, a fixed-sequence testing procedure was used for bone mineral density and the key secondary end point of nonvertebral fracture to adjust for multiple comparisons and to maintain an overall significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean Difference|3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.42|4.1|||ANCOVA|||Between-group comparisons of the percent change from baseline in bone mineral density were analyzed using an ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, age strata, presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline, baseline BMD value, machine type, and baseline BMD value-by-machine type interaction.||4.10|3.42|<0.001
90916331|NCT01631214|181702692|SUPERIORITY|If the differences in both primary end points were significant with the use of the Hochberg procedure, a fixed-sequence testing procedure was used for bone mineral density and the key secondary end point of nonvertebral fracture to adjust for multiple comparisons and to maintain an overall significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean Difference|3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|4.14|||ANCOVA|||Between-group comparisons of the percent change from baseline in bone mineral density were analyzed using an ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, age strata, presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline, baseline BMD value, machine type, and baseline BMD value-by-machine type interaction.||4.14|3.40|<0.001
90916332|NCT01631214|181702693|SUPERIORITY|If the differences in both primary end points were significant with the use of the Hochberg procedure, a fixed-sequence testing procedure was used for bone mineral density and the key secondary end point of nonvertebral fracture to adjust for multiple comparisons and to maintain an overall significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean Difference|8.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.31|9.09|||ANCOVA|||Between-group comparisons of the percent change from baseline in bone mineral density were analyzed using an ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, age strata, presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline, baseline BMD value, machine type, and baseline BMD value-by-machine type interaction.||9.09|8.31|<0.001
90916333|NCT01631214|181702694|SUPERIORITY|If the differences in both primary end points were significant with the use of the Hochberg procedure, a fixed-sequence testing procedure was used for bone mineral density and the key secondary end point of nonvertebral fracture to adjust for multiple comparisons and to maintain an overall significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean Difference|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.03|3.6|||ANCOVA|||Between-group comparisons of the percent change from baseline in bone mineral density were analyzed using an ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, age strata, presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline, baseline BMD value, machine type, and baseline BMD value-by-machine type interaction.||3.60|3.03|<0.001
90916334|NCT01631214|181702695|SUPERIORITY|If the differences in both primary end points were significant with the use of the Hochberg procedure, a fixed-sequence testing procedure was used for bone mineral density and the key secondary end point of nonvertebral fracture to adjust for multiple comparisons and to maintain an overall significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean Difference|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|3.54|||ANCOVA|||Between-group comparisons of the percent change from baseline in bone mineral density were analyzed using an ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, age strata, presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline, baseline BMD value, machine type, and baseline BMD value-by-machine type interaction.||3.54|2.90|<0.001
90916335|NCT01631214|181702696|SUPERIORITY|This endpoint was not included in the sequential testing procedure and was analyzed without multiplicity adjustment at a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).|LS Mean Difference|7.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.84|7.89|||ANCOVA|||Between-group comparisons of the percent change from baseline in bone mineral density were analyzed using an ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, age strata, presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline, baseline BMD value, machine type, and baseline BMD value-by-machine type interaction.||7.89|6.84|<0.001
90916336|NCT01631214|181702697|SUPERIORITY|This endpoint was not included in the sequential testing procedure and was analyzed without multiplicity adjustment at a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).|LS Mean Difference|3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.29|4.02|||ANCOVA|||Between-group comparisons of the percent change from baseline in bone mineral density were analyzed using an ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, age strata, presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline, baseline BMD value, machine type, and baseline BMD value-by-machine type interaction.||4.02|3.29|<0.001
90916337|NCT01631214|181702698|SUPERIORITY|This endpoint was not included in the sequential testing procedure and was analyzed without multiplicity adjustment at a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).|LS Mean Difference|3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.18|3.97|||ANCOVA|||Between-group comparisons of the percent change from baseline in bone mineral density were analyzed using an ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, age strata, presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline, baseline BMD value, machine type, and baseline BMD value-by-machine type interaction.||3.97|3.18|<0.001
90916338|NCT03112174|181702739|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.629||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.465|0.85||P value is from stratified log-rank test.|Log Rank|||||0.850|0.465|0.0024
90961317|NCT00568321|181803578|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.514|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.73|0.77|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 1 (Average pain): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.77|-0.73|0.514
90877770|NCT00877058|181617403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.55|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.97|||Chi-squared|||||0.97|0.31|<0.05
90877771|NCT00877058|181617403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.58|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.02|||Chi-squared|||||1.02|0.33|<0.05
90877772|NCT00567892|181617404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|4.0||All statistical tests were two-sided and were evaluated at the α = 0.05 level of significance.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|Since the assumptions of parametric tests were not met we used non-parametric tests for the analysis.||The null hypothesis for this study was the difference between the change in THI score due to active rTMS treatment and the change in THI score due to rTMS sham was not different from 0.||4|-6|0.944
90877773|NCT00567892|181617404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-4.0||||0.674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|10.0|||Wilcoxon signed rank test|The assumptions of parametric tests were not met.|All statistical tests were two-sided and were evaluated at the α = 0.05 level of significance.|The null hypothesis for this study was the difference between the change in THI score due to 4 weeks active rTMS treatment and the change in THI score due to 4 weeks rTMS sham was not different from 0.||10|-9|0.674
90877774|NCT01344161|181617407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used to adjust mean differences on all variables.||||||0.001
90877775|NCT02310919|181617490|NON_INFERIORITY|For the non-inferiority hypothesis testing of the primary outcome, a one-sided 95% CI was constructed for the relative risk. The alternative trigger will be considered non-inferior to the standard trigger if the lower bound of the one-sided CI of the relative risk is not less than 0.8 (i.e. risk reduction limit of 20%).|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.91|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.83|||Using the standard trigger as the reference, the relative risk (i.e. risk ratio) (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) for the probability of the outcome was calculated using log-binomial regression models with application of GEE.|log-binomial regression with GEE||The numerator was the probability of the outcome with the alternative trigger, and the denominator was the probability of the outcome with the standard trigger.|The alternative trigger will be considered non-inferior to the standard hCG trigger if it is at least 80% as effective at inducing oocyte competence. Considering a cluster size of 15 oocytes and an estimated intra-cluster correlation of 0.1, we calculated that approximately 50 participants were needed in each study arm when the non-inferiority difference is -0.1 (i.e. 20% of 0.5 total competent proportion) with a power of 0.8 and a one-sided alpha of 0.05.|||0.83|
90916339|NCT03112174|181702745|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|1.658||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|2.218||Estimate and p-value for rate ratio are based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for two randomization stratification factors: number of prior lines of therapy (1-2 vs \>=3) and TLS category (low risk vs increased risk) at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||For rate ratio, numerator is Ibrutinib + Venetoclax arm and denominator is Ibrutinib + Placebo arm.|||2.218|1.240|0.0004
90916340|NCT03112174|181702746|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|1.101||||0.1279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.973|1.247||Estimate and p-value for rate ratio are based on CMH test adjusted for two randomization stratification factors: number of prior lines of therapy (1-2 vs \>=3) and TLS category (low risk vs increased risk) at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||For rate ratio, numerator is Ibrutinib + Venetoclax arm and denominator is Ibrutinib + Placebo arm.|||1.247|0.973|0.1279
90916341|NCT03112174|181702747|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2028|||||||Fisher Exact|||Bone marrow aspirate||||0.2028
90877776|NCT02310919|181617491|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.85||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.01||The statistical significance was based on a two-sided alpha of 0.05.|generalized linear model with log link|Comparison was done using generalized linear modeling with log link function|The numerator was the outcome with the alternative trigger, and the denominator was the outcome with the standard trigger.|The null hypothesis was that there would be no difference in number of oocytes retrieved between the patients triggered with low dose hCG plus FSH co-trigger and the standard hCG trigger.||1.01|0.71|0.06
90877777|NCT02310919|181617492|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.87||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.04||The statistical significance was based on a two-sided alpha of 0.05.|generalized linear model with log link|Comparison was done using generalized linear modeling with log link function.|The numerator was the outcome with the alternative trigger, and the denominator was the outcome with the standard trigger.|The null hypothesis was that there would be no difference in the number of MII oocytes retrieved between the patients triggered with low dose hCG plus FSH co-trigger and the standard hCG trigger.||1.04|0.72|0.13
90877778|NCT02310919|181617493|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.97||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.05||The statistical significance was based on a two-sided alpha of 0.05.|log-binomial regression with GEE||The numerator was the probability of the outcome with the alternative trigger, and the denominator was the probability of the outcome with the standard trigger.|The null hypothesis was that there would be no difference in oocyte maturity rate retrieved between the patients triggered with low dose hCG plus FSH co-trigger and the standard hCG trigger.||1.05|0.90|0.47
90916342|NCT03112174|181702747|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0014|||||||Fisher Exact|||Peripheral blood||||0.0014
90916343|NCT03112174|181702748|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.832||||0.2669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.602|1.151||P value is from stratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio is estimated using stratified Cox regression model with treatment as the only covariate.|||1.151|0.602|0.2669
90916344|NCT03112174|181702750|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.541||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.369|0.792||P value is from stratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio is estimated using stratified Cox regression model with treatment as the only covariate.|||0.792|0.369|0.0013
90877779|NCT02310919|181617494|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.88||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.97||The statistical significance was based on a two-sided alpha of 0.05.|log-binomial regression with GEE||The numerator was the probability of the outcome with the alternative trigger, and the denominator was the probability of the outcome with the standard trigger.|||0.97|0.76|0.01
90916345|NCT03112174|181702765|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.169||||0.2861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.879|1.554||P value is from stratified log-rank test.|Log Rank|||||1.554|0.879|0.2861
90940546|NCT02630706|181760831|SUPERIORITY|cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, anti-hyperglycemic medication status at Screening (metformin alone, metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|Difference in the LS Means vs. Placebo|-4.08||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.78|-1.39|||cLDA|||||-1.39|-6.78|0.003
90877780|NCT02310919|181617495|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.1||The statistical significance was based on a two-sided alpha of 0.05.|log-binomial regression with GEE||The numerator was the probability of the outcome with the alternative trigger, and the denominator was the probability of the outcome with the standard trigger.|The null hypothesis was that there would be no difference in ICSI fertilization rate retrieved between the patients triggered with low dose hCG plus FSH co-trigger and the standard hCG trigger.||1.10|0.90|0.95
90877781|NCT02310919|181617496|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.95||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.12||The statistical significance was based on a two-sided alpha of 0.05.|log-binomial regression with GEE||The numerator was the probability of the outcome with the alternative trigger, and the denominator was the probability of the outcome with the standard trigger.|The null hypothesis was that there would be no difference in the percentage of high quality cleavage-stage embryos between the patients triggered with low dose hCG plus FSH co-trigger and the standard hCG trigger.||1.12|0.81|0.52
90877782|NCT02310919|181617497|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.16||The statistical significance was based on a two-sided alpha of 0.05.|log-binomial regression with GEE||The numerator was the probability of the outcome with the alternative trigger, and the denominator was the probability of the outcome with the standard trigger.|||1.16|0.84|0.87
90877783|NCT02310919|181617498|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.74||The statistical significance was based on a two-sided alpha of 0.05.|Fisher Exact||The numerator was the probability of the outcome with the alternative trigger, and the denominator was the probability of the outcome with the standard trigger.|The null hypothesis was that there would be no difference in livebirths in fresh transfers between the patients triggered with low dose hCG plus FSH co-trigger and the standard hCG trigger.||1.74|0.59|1.0
90877784|NCT02310919|181617499|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis was that there would be no difference in the change in bloating scores from day of baseline ultrasound to post-trigger day 5 between the patients triggered with low dose hCG plus FSH co-trigger and the standard hCG trigger.||||0.98
90877785|NCT02310919|181617500|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis was that there would be no difference in the change in abdominal circumference from day of baseline ultrasound to post-trigger day 5 between the patients triggered with low dose hCG plus FSH co-trigger and the standard hCG trigger.||||0.39
90877786|NCT02310919|181617501|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis was that there would be no difference in the change in body weight from day of baseline ultrasound to post-trigger day 5 between the patients triggered with low dose hCG plus FSH co-trigger and the standard hCG trigger.||||0.41
90877787|NCT02310919|181617502|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The statistical significance was based on a two-sided alpha of 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90877788|NCT02310919|181617503|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The statistical significance was based on a two-sided alpha of 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90877789|NCT02310919|181617504|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08||||||The statistical significance was based on a two-sided alpha of 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.08
90877790|NCT02310919|181617505|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The statistical significance was based on a two-sided alpha of 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90877791|NCT02310919|181617506|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67||||||The statistical significance was based on a two-sided alpha of 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.67
90877792|NCT02310919|181617507|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The statistical significance was based on a two-sided alpha of 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90877793|NCT02310919|181617508|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The statistical significance was based on a two-sided alpha of 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90877794|NCT02310919|181617509|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49||||||The statistical significance was based on a two-sided alpha of 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.49
90877795|NCT02310919|181617510|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The statistical significance was based on a two-sided alpha of 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90877796|NCT02310919|181617511|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The statistical significance was based on a two-sided alpha of 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90877797|NCT02310919|181617512|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The statistical significance was based on a two-sided alpha of 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90877798|NCT02310919|181617513|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16||||||The statistical significance was based on a two-sided alpha of 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.16
90877799|NCT02310919|181617514|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The statistical significance was based on a two-sided alpha of 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90877800|NCT02310919|181617515|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The statistical significance was based on a two-sided alpha of 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90877801|NCT02310919|181617516|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95||||||The statistical significance was based on a two-sided alpha of 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.95
90877802|NCT02310919|181617517|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07||||||The statistical significance was based on a two-sided alpha of 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.07
90877803|NCT02310919|181617518|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66||||||The statistical significance was based on a two-sided alpha of 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.66
90877804|NCT01023581|181617532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.37||For each set of comparisons in the primary analysis, the null hypothesis was rejected only if both comparisons between a combination and its constituent doses were statistically significant at the 2-sided 2.5% level.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||The primary efficacy analysis consisted of 2 separate sets of comparisons between each BID combination of alogliptin and metformin (alogliptin/metformin 12.5/500 mg BID and 12.5/1000 mg BID) and its constituent doses of alogliptin and metformin. The null hypothesis was that the combination of alogliptin and metformin had no additional effect on glycemic control at Week 26 either when compared with the constituent dose of alogliptin or with the constituent dose of metformin.||-0.37|-0.96|<0.001
90877805|NCT01023581|181617532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.27|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as a covariate||||-0.27|-0.87|<0.001
90916346|NCT01643616|181702768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|33.0|||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact||For success rate without supplementation the difference between group US (94.9%) and group NS (61.9%) is 33%.|For sample size calculation we assumed a significance level of 0.05 and a success rate derived from clinical data of 75% in the nerve stimulation group and of 90% in the ultrasound group. With a group ratio of 1:1 and a power of 0.8, the required sample size was at least 226. For statistical analysis we used the exact Fisher test as a distribution-free, non-parametric test method.||||< 0.05
90877806|NCT01023581|181617532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|-0.71|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||||-0.71|-1.29|<0.001
90877807|NCT01023581|181617532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.16|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||||-0.16|-0.73|<0.001
90877808|NCT02864251|181617596|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.0528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.0||Log-rank test stratified by PD-L1 expression (\>= 1% vs \<1%/indeterminate/not evaluable), brain metastases (presence vs absence), smoking history (current/former vs never smoker), and prior osimertinib use (yes vs no) from IRT.|Log Rank||Arm A over Arm C Stratified Cox proportional hazard model.|||1.00|0.56|0.0528
90877809|NCT02864251|181617596|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|2.99|||||Arm B over Arm C Stratified Cox proportional hazard model.|||2.99|1.43|
90877810|NCT02864251|181617597|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.12|||Log Rank||Hazard Ratio (Arm A over Arm C) is based on a stratified Cox proportional hazard model|||1.12|0.62|0.2180
90877811|NCT02864251|181617597|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.52|||||Hazard Ratio (Arm B over Arm C) is based on a stratified Cox proportional hazard model.|||1.52|0.75|
90877812|NCT02864251|181617598|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.16|||||Strata adjusted odds ratio (Arm A over Arm C) using Mantel-Haenszel method.|||2.16|0.75|
90877813|NCT00755131|181617624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Sample size determination was based on a t-test assuming a normal distribution with non-equal variance with the mean and standard deviation for the experimental group (postinfarction patients) of HMGB1 levels equal to 15 ± 7 and 2 ± 1 ng/dl for the control group derived from a previous study, respectively. The required sample size was calculated to be 30 subjects per group to detect on the size of one SD with α value of 0.05 (two-sided) and power (1 - β) of 0.8.||||<0.05
90877814|NCT00755131|181617625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
90916347|NCT01643616|181702769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.9|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.6|31.1|||Log Rank|||We used the log-rank test to compare the onset times. The significance level was defined with p\<0.05.||31.1|13.6|< 0.05
90877815|NCT00755131|181617626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
90877816|NCT01480076|181617635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||within group p-value|mixed effect model|||Month 3: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline PCS score, baseline Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90877817|NCT01480076|181617635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||within group p-value|mixed effect model|||Month 6: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline PCS score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90877818|NCT01480076|181617635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0007|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Difference of Month 3 versus Month 6: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline PCS score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0007
90877819|NCT01480076|181617635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||within-group p-value|mixed effect model|||Month 9: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline PCS score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90877820|NCT01480076|181617635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.2531|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Difference of Month 6 versus Month 9: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline PCS score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2531
90961318|NCT00568321|181803578|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.89||0.765|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.76|4.5|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 1 (Pain severity): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||4.50|-1.76|0.765
90877821|NCT01480076|181617635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||within group p-value|mixed effect model|||Month 12: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline PCS score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90916348|NCT01643616|181702770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|26.2||||0.05|||||||Fisher Exact||For success rate with supplementation the difference between group US (98.2%) and group NS (72%) is 26.2%.|For sample size calculation we assumed a significance level of 0.05 and a success rate derived from clinical data of 75% in the nerve stimulation group and of 90% in the ultrasound group. With a group ratio of 1:1 and a power of 0.8, the required sample size was at least 226. For statistical analysis we used the exact Fisher test as a distribution-free, non-parametric test method.||||0.05
90916349|NCT04512482|181702771|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.044|||||||ANOVA|||A power analysis determined that a sample size of forty-five (45) subjects would possess 90% power to detect an effect size of 0.5 between the intervention and control legs of the crossover design. With 43 total subjects the study had between 85 and 90% power.||||.044
90916350|NCT05119855|181702772|OTHER|Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) Ratio with corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated using an analysis of variance model (ANOVA) with a response of log individual anti-HPV titers and a fixed effect for the vaccination groups, Concomitant Group versus Non-concomitant Group. GMT Ratio is reported for Concomitant Group/Non-concomitant Group.|Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) Ratio|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.61|||||GMT Ratio is between Concomitant Group/Non-concomitant Group.|Anti-HPV 6||1.61|0.92|
90916351|NCT05119855|181702772|OTHER|Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) Ratio with corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated using an analysis of variance model (ANOVA) with a response of log individual anti-HPV titers and a fixed effect for the vaccination groups, Concomitant Group versus Non-Concomitant Group. GMT Ratio is between Concomitant Group/Non-concomitant Group.|Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) Ratio|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.75|||||GMT Ratio is between Concomitant Group/Non-concomitant Group.|Anti-HPV 11||1.75|1.01|
90916352|NCT05119855|181702772|OTHER|Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) Ratio with corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated using an analysis of variance model (ANOVA) with a response of log individual anti-HPV titers and a fixed effect for the vaccination groups, Concomitant Group versus Non-Concomitant Group. GMT Ratio is between Concomitant Group/Non-concomitant Group.|Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) Ratio|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.82|||||GMT Ratio is between Concomitant Group/Non-concomitant Group.|Anti-HPV 16||1.82|1.02|
90916353|NCT05119855|181702772|OTHER|Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) Ratio with corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated using an analysis of variance model (ANOVA) with a response of log individual anti-HPV titers and a fixed effect for the vaccination groups, Concomitant Group versus Non-Concomitant Group. Group. GMT Ratio is between Concomitant Group/Non-concomitant Group.|Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) Ratio|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.7|||||GMT Ratio is between Concomitant Group/Non-concomitant Group.|Anti-HPV 18||1.70|0.92|
90916354|NCT05119855|181702772|OTHER|Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) Ratio with corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated using an analysis of variance model (ANOVA) with a response of log individual anti-HPV titers and a fixed effect for the vaccination groups, Concomitant Group versus Non-Concomitant Group. Group. GMT Ratio is between Concomitant Group/Non-concomitant Group.|Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) Ratio|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.61|||||GMT Ratio is between Concomitant Group/Non-concomitant Group.|Anti-HPV 31||1.61|0.91|
90916355|NCT05119855|181702772|OTHER|Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) Ratio with corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated using an analysis of variance model (ANOVA) with a response of log individual anti-HPV titers and a fixed effect for the vaccination groups, Concomitant Group versus Non-Concomitant Group. GMT Ratio is between Concomitant Group/Non-concomitant Group.|Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) Ratio|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.77|||||GMT Ratio is between Concomitant Group/Non-concomitant Group.|Anti-HPV 33||1.77|0.98|
90877822|NCT01480076|181617635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.2299|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Difference of Month 9 versus Month 12: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline PCS score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2299
90877823|NCT01480076|181617636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline PCS score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90877824|NCT01480076|181617636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5405|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline PCS score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.5405
90877825|NCT01480076|181617636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline PCS score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90877826|NCT01480076|181617636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline PCS score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90877827|NCT01480076|181617636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7272|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline PCS score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.7272
90877828|NCT01480076|181617636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline PCS score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90916356|NCT05119855|181702772|OTHER|Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) Ratio with corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated using an analysis of variance model (ANOVA) with a response of log individual anti-HPV titers and a fixed effect for the vaccination groups, Concomitant Group versus Non-Concomitant Group. GMT Ratio is between Concomitant Group/Non-concomitant Group.|Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) Ratio|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.93|||||GMT Ratio is between Concomitant Group/Non-concomitant Group.|Anti-HPV 45||1.93|1.01|
90916357|NCT05119855|181702772|OTHER|Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) Ratio with corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated using an analysis of variance model (ANOVA) with a response of log individual anti-HPV titers and a fixed effect for the vaccination groups, Concomitant Group versus Non-Concomitant Group. GMT Ratio is between Concomitant Group/Non-concomitant Group.|Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) Ratio|1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|1.87|||||GMT Ratio is between Concomitant Group/Non-concomitant Group.|Anti-HPV 52||1.87|1.13|
90916358|NCT05119855|181702772|OTHER|Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) Ratio with corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated using an analysis of variance model (ANOVA) with a response of log individual anti-HPV titers and a fixed effect for the vaccination groups, Concomitant Group versus Non-Concomitant Group. GMT Ratio is between Concomitant Group/Non-concomitant Group.|Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) Ratio|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.58|||||GMT Ratio is between Concomitant Group/Non-concomitant Group.|Anti-HPV 58||1.58|0.91|
90916359|NCT05119855|181702773|OTHER|Geometric Mean Concentration (GMC) Ratio with corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated using an analysis of variance model (ANOVA) with a response of log individual anti-SARS-CoV-2 concentrations and a fixed effect for the vaccination groups, Concomitant Group versus Non-Concomitant Group. GMC Ratio is between Concomitant Group/Non-concomitant Group.|Geometric Mean Concentration (GMC) Ratio|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.4|||||GMC Ratio is between Concomitant Group/Non-concomitant Group.|Geometric Mean Concentration (GMC) Ratio||1.40|0.99|
90916360|NCT05489484|181702805|OTHER|Paired-sample t-test was used to assess the change in Constant-Murley Score from baseline to 3 months.|Mean Difference (Net)|10.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.124||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.63|16.0|||t-test, 2 sided||Mean change from baseline in CMS at 3 months. Higher scores represent better shoulder function. Positive difference indicates clinical improvement.|Statistical analysis was performed on 23 participants with valid Constant-Murley Score (CMS) data at both baseline and 3-month follow-up.||16.00|3.63|0.001
90916361|NCT00444600|181702829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in mean change|-55.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.0|-32.0||Confidence intervals are adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline retinal thickness and visual acuity and correlation between two study eyes.||Difference in central subfield thickness mean change from sham+prompt laser||-32|-78|<0.001
90916362|NCT00444600|181702829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in mean change|-49.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.0|-26.0||Confidence intervals are adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline retinal thickness and visual acuity and correlation between two study eyes.||Difference in optical coherence tomography central subfield thickness mean change from sham+prompt laser||-26|-72|<0.001
90877829|NCT01480076|181617636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline PCS score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90877830|NCT01480076|181617636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7484|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline PCS score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.7484
90877831|NCT01480076|181617636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline PCS score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90877832|NCT01480076|181617636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline PCS score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90916363|NCT00444600|181702829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in mean change|-52.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.0|-29.0||Confidence interval is adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline retinal thickness and visual acuity and correlation between two study eyes.||Difference in optical coherence tomography central subfield thickness mean change from sham+prompt laser||-29|-75|<0.001
90916364|NCT00444600|181702831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|8.5||Adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline visual acuity and correlation between 2 study eyes.||||8.5|3.2|<0.001
90916365|NCT00444600|181702831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|8.6||Adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline visual acuity and correlation between 2 study eyes.||||8.6|3.4|<0.001
90916366|NCT00444600|181702831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|3.7||Adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline visual acuity and correlation between 2 study eyes.||||3.7|-1.5|0.31
90916367|NCT00444600|181702832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Proportion|23.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.0|34.0||Confidence intervals are adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Binomial regression|Adjusted for correlation between 2 study eyes and multiple comparisons.||Difference in proportion with ≥10 letter improvement for sham+prompt laser at 1 year||34|13|
90916368|NCT00444600|181702832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Proportion|19.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.0|29.0||Confidence intervals adjusted for multiple comparisons|Binomial regression|Adjusted for correlation between 2 study eyes and multiple comparisons.||Difference in proportion with ≥10 letter improvement from sham+prompt laser at 1 year||29|9|
90916369|NCT00444600|181702832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Proportion|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|16.0||Confidence intervals adjusted for multiple comparisons|Binomial regression|Adjusted for correlation between 2 study eyes and multiple comparisons.||Difference in proportion with ≥10 letter improvement from sham+prompt laser at 1 year||16|-4|
90916370|NCT00444600|181702832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|2.42||Confidence intervals are adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Log-Binomial Regression|Adjusted for correlation between 2 study eyes and multiple comparisons.||Relative risk for ≥10 letter improvement comparison with sham+prompt laser at 1 year||2.42|1.40|<0.001
90916371|NCT00444600|181702832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|2.21||Confidence intervals are adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Log-Binomial Regression|Adjusted for correlation between 2 study eyes and multiple comparisons.||Relative risk for ≥10 letter improvement comparison with sham+prompt laser at 1 year||2.21|1.27|<0.001
90916372|NCT00444600|181702832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.21||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.66||Confidence intervals are adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Log-Binomial Regression|Adjusted for correlation between 2 study eyes and multiple comparisons.|Eyes were analyzed.|Relative risk for ≥10 letter improvement comparison with sham+prompt laser at 1 year||1.66|0.88|0.16
90916373|NCT00444600|181702832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Proportion|-10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|-5.0||Confidence intervals are adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Binomial Regression|Adjusted for correlation between 2 study eyes and multiple comparisons.||Difference in proportion with ≥10 letter worsening from sham+prompt laser at 1 year||-5|-16|
90916374|NCT00444600|181702832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Proportion|-10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|-4.0||Confidence intervals are adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Binomial Regression|Adjusted for correlation between 2 study eyes and multiple comparisons.||Difference in proportion with ≥10 letter worsening from sham+prompt laser at 1 year||-4|-16|
90916375|NCT00444600|181702832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Proportion|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|9.0||Confidence intervals are adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Binomial Regression|Adjusted for correlation between 2 study eyes and multiple comparisons.||Difference in proportion with ≥10 letter worsening from sham+prompt laser at 1 year||9|-7|
90916376|NCT00444600|181702832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.65||Confidence intervals are adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Log-Binomial Regression|Adjusted for correlation between 2 study eyes and multiple comparisons.||Relative risk for ≥10 letter worsening comparison with sham+prompt laser at 1 year||0.65|0.09|<0.001
90916377|NCT00444600|181702832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.24||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.68||Confidence intervals are adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Log-Binomial Regression|Adjusted for correlation between 2 study eyes and multiple comparisons.||Relative risk for ≥10 letter worsening comparison with sham+prompt laser at 1 year||0.68|0.08|0.001
90877833|NCT01480076|181617636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1877|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline PCS score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1877
90877834|NCT01480076|181617636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline PCS score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90877835|NCT01480076|181617636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline PCS score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90877836|NCT01480076|181617636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.546|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline PCS score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.5460
90877837|NCT01480076|181617636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline PCS score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90877838|NCT01480076|181617637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MCS score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90877839|NCT01480076|181617637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9073|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MCS score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.9073
90916378|NCT00444600|181702832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.08||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.87||Confidence intervals are adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Log-Binomial Regression|Adjusted for correlation between 2 study eyes and multiple comparisons.||Relative risk for ≥10 letter worsening comparison with sham+prompt laser at 1 year||1.87|0.62|0.75
90916379|NCT00444600|181702832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Proportion|16.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|26.0||Confidence intervals are adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Binomial Regression|Adjusted for correlation between to study eyes.||Difference in proportion with ≥15 letter improvement from sham+prompt laser at 1 year||26|6|
90916380|NCT00444600|181702832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Proportion|13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|22.0||Confidence intervals are adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Binomial Regression|Adjusted for correlation between 2 study eyes and multiple comparisons.||Difference in proportion with ≥15 letter improvement from sham+prompt laser at 1 year||22|4|
90916381|NCT00444600|181702832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Proportion|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|15.0||Confidence intervals are adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Binomial Regression|Adjusted for correlation between 2 study eyes and multiple comparisons.||Difference in proportion with ≥15 letter improvement from sham+prompt laser at 1 year||15|-2|
90916382|NCT00444600|181702832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|3.22|||Log-Binomial Regression|Adjusted for correlation between 2 study eyes and multiple comparisons.||Relative risk for ≥15 letter improvement comparison with sham+prompt laser at 1 year||3.22|1.35|<0.001
90877840|NCT01480076|181617637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89||0.0009|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MCS score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0009
90916383|NCT00444600|181702832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|2.87||Confidence intervals are adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Log-Binomial Regression|Adjusted for correlation between 2 study eyes and multiple comparisons.||Relative risk for ≥15 letter improvement comparison with sham+prompt laser at 1 year||2.87|1.25|<0.001
90916384|NCT00444600|181702832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.43||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.29||Confidence intervals are adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Log-Binomial Regression|Adjusted for correlation between 2 study eyes and multiple comparisons.||Relative risk for ≥15 letter improvement comparison with sham+prompt laser at 1 year||2.29|0.90|0.07
90916385|NCT00444600|181702832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Proportion|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|-2.0||Confidence intervals are adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Binomial Regression|Adjusted for correlation between 2 study eyes and multiple comparisons.||Difference in proportion with ≥15 letter worsening from sham+prompt laser at 1 year||-2|-11|
90916386|NCT00444600|181702832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Proportion|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|-1.0||Confidence intervals are adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Binomial Regression|Adjusted for correlation between 2 study eyes and multiple comparisons.||Difference in proportion with ≥15 letter worsening from sham+prompt laser at 1 year||-1|-10|
90916387|NCT00444600|181702832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Proportion|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|6.0||Confidence intervals are adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Binomial Regression|Adjusted for correlation between 2 study eyes and multiple comparisons.||Difference in proportion with ≥15 letter worsening from sham+prompt laser at 1 year||6|-6|
90916388|NCT00444600|181702832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.21||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.87|||Log-Binomial Regression|Adjusted for correlation between 2 study eyes and multiple comparisons.||Relative risk for ≥15 letter worsening comparison with sham+prompt laser at 1 year||0.87|0.05|0.009
90916389|NCT00444600|181702832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.28||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.97|||Log-Binomial Regression|Adjusted for correlation between 2 study eyes and multiple comparisons.||Relative risk for ≥15 letter worsening comparison with sham+prompt laser at 1 year||0.97|0.08|0.01
90916390|NCT00444600|181702832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.02||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|2.2|||Log-Binomial Regression|Adjusted for correlation between 2 study eyes and multiple comparisons.||Relative risk for ≥15 letter worsening comparison with sham+prompt laser at 1 year||2.20|0.47|0.95
90916391|NCT00444600|181702833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|2.64||Confidence intervals are adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for correlation between 2 study eyes and multiple comparisons.||Relative risk for comparison with sham+prompt laser||2.64|1.52|<0.001
90916392|NCT00444600|181702833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.55||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|2.13||Confidence intervals adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for correlation between 2 study eyes and multiple comparisons.||Relative risk for comparison with sham+prompt laser||2.13|1.13|0.001
90916393|NCT00444600|181702833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.76|||<|0.001||95.0|1.31|2.36||Confidence intervals adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for correlation between 2 study eyes and multiple comparisons.||Relative risk for comparison with sham+prompt laser||2.36|1.31|<0.001
90916394|NCT00444600|181702843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.08||95.0|||||GEE repeated measures|||P value for comparison with sham||||0.08
90916395|NCT00444600|181702843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.17||95.0|||||GEE repeated measures|||P value for comparison with sham||||0.17
90916396|NCT00444600|181702844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.03||95.0|||||GEE repeated measures|||P value for comparison with sham||||0.03
90916397|NCT00444600|181702844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.17||95.0|||||GEE repeated measures|||P value for comparison with sham||||0.17
90916398|NCT00444600|181702848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.44||Confidence intervals are adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline optical coherence tomography (OCT) retinal volume, OCT retinal thickness and visual acuity and correlation between 2 study eyes.||Difference in mean change from sham+prompt laser||-0.44|-1.01|<0.001
90916399|NCT00444600|181702848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.41||Confidence intervals adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline optical coherence tomography (OCT) retinal volume, OCT retinal thickness and visual acuity and correlation between 2 study eyes.||Difference in mean change from sham+prompt laser||-0.41|-0.96|<0.001
90916400|NCT00444600|181702848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.34||Confidence intervals are adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline optical coherence tomography (OCT) retinal volume, OCT retinal thickness and visual acuity and correlation between 2 study eyes.||Difference in mean change from sham+prompt laser||-0.34|-0.91|<0.001
90916401|NCT05132478|181702850|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.720
90916402|NCT05132478|181702851|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.743|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.743
90916403|NCT05132478|181702852|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.228|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||baseline||||0.228
90877841|NCT01480076|181617637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MCS score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90877842|NCT01480076|181617637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5542|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MCS score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.5542
90877843|NCT01480076|181617637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MCS score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90877844|NCT01480076|181617637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MCS score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90877845|NCT01480076|181617637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.581|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MCS score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.5810
90877846|NCT01480076|181617637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08||0.014|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MCS score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0140
90877847|NCT01480076|181617637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MCS score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90877848|NCT01480076|181617637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4138|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MCS score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.4138
90877849|NCT01480076|181617637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.19||0.274|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MCS score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2740
90877850|NCT01480076|181617637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MCS score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90877851|NCT01480076|181617637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6453|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MCS score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.6453
90877852|NCT01480076|181617637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18||0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MCS score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0090
90877853|NCT01480076|181617638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90916404|NCT05132478|181702852|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.176|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Post-Intervention||||0.176
90916405|NCT05132478|181702853|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||baseline||||0.410
90916406|NCT05132478|181702853|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.351|||||||ANOVA|||Post-Intervention||||0.351
90877854|NCT01480076|181617638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2475|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2475
90877855|NCT01480076|181617638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|-8.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.66|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90877856|NCT01480076|181617638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90877857|NCT01480076|181617638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2422|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2422
90877858|NCT01480076|181617638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|-10.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.72|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90877859|NCT01480076|181617638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90877860|NCT01480076|181617638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1262|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1262
90877861|NCT01480076|181617638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|-7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90877862|NCT01480076|181617638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90877863|NCT01480076|181617638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8858|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.8858
90877864|NCT01480076|181617638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|-8.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90916407|NCT05132478|181702854|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||calculated p-value|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90916408|NCT05132478|181702855|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||calculated p-value|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90916409|NCT02549170|181702856|SUPERIORITY||Newcombe confidence interval|-21.8|||=|0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.45|-7.94|||Chi-squared|||||-7.94|-34.45|=0.0045
90877865|NCT01480076|181617638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90877866|NCT01480076|181617638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2111|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2111
90916410|NCT02549170|181702858|SUPERIORITY||Newcombe confidence interval|-16.9|||=|0.0896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.02|0.69||The treatment groups were compared using a continuity-corrected chi-square test.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||||0.69|-33.02|=0.0896
90916411|NCT02549170|181702859|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.002|||||||Wilcoxon Survival Test|||||||=0.002
90916412|NCT02549170|181702860|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean|5.2|||=|0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|9.9|||ANCOVA|||||9.9|0.5|=0.030
90916413|NCT03684044|181702958|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-2.7||||0.4666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.4|25.9|||Gehan Wilcoxon|The Gehan Wilcoxon test was used to analyze the TTCI data because the proportional hazards assumption was violated||||25.9|-53.4|0.4666
90877867|NCT01480076|181617638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|-5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.16||0.0072|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0072
90877868|NCT01480076|181617639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90877869|NCT01480076|181617639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5577|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.5577
90877870|NCT01480076|181617639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|-6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.64|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90877871|NCT01480076|181617639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90877872|NCT01480076|181617639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9365|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.9365
90877873|NCT01480076|181617639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|-9.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.82|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90877874|NCT01480076|181617639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90877875|NCT01480076|181617639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2008|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2008
90877876|NCT01480076|181617639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|-5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.98||0.0102|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0102
90877877|NCT01480076|181617639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90916414|NCT03684044|181702959|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6326|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Statistic was stratified by region, NEWS2 at baseline (≤7, \>7), and time from symptom onset to study treatment (≤48 hours, \>48 hours)||||||0.6326
90916415|NCT03684044|181702960|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.8||||0.3272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.9|17.7|||Gehan Wilcoxon|The Gehan Wilcoxon test was used to analyze the TTCI data because the proportional hazards assumption was violated||||17.7|-50.9|0.3272
90916416|NCT03703336|181702987|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the ratio of GMCs between the ROTAVIN and ROTAVIN-M1 groups were to be larger than 1/2, ROTAVIN was considered to be non-inferior to the licensed frozen formulation of the vaccine (ROTAVIN-M1).|GMC Ratio|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.86|||||Log10-transformed IgA concentrations were used to construct a 2-sided 95% CI for the mean difference between the arms using t-distribution. The mean difference and 95% CI were exponentiated to obtain the GMC ratio and corresponding 95% CI.|||1.86|1.02|
91033722|NCT04544787|181953203|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||The number of participants with serious unsolicited adverse events in the OPV-vaccinated groups who received nOPV-c2 (combined Groups 3 and 4) was compared with the corresponding endpoint from the historical monovalent OPV2 control study (UAM1, EudraCT # 2015-003325-33) using the two-sided Fisher's exact test. In the UAM1 study, the number of participants with serious unsolicited adverse events was 0 out of 100.||||1.0000
90877878|NCT01480076|181617639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7134|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.7134
90916417|NCT03703336|181702989|OTHER||Percentage Difference|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.57|15.87||||||||15.87|-3.57|
91033723|NCT04544787|181953203|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of severe solicited adverse events||||1.0000
91033724|NCT04544787|181953203|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of severe solicited adverse events||||1.0000
91033725|NCT04544787|181953203|OTHER|||||||0.1571|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of severe unsolicited adverse events||||0.1571
91033726|NCT04544787|181953203|OTHER|||||||0.296|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of severe unsolicited adverse events||||0.2960
90916418|NCT03703336|181702990|OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|2.09||||||Percentage Difference on Day 1||2.09|-2.40|
90916419|NCT03703336|181702990|OTHER||Percentage Difference|6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.19|16.23||||||Percentage Difference on Day 85||16.23|-3.19|
90916420|NCT04629950|181703007|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.395||||||P value not adjusted for multiple comparisons,|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.395
90877879|NCT01480076|181617639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2||0.0066|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0066
90877880|NCT01480076|181617639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90877881|NCT01480076|181617639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8202|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.8202
90877882|NCT01480076|181617639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|-6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.28||0.0049|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0049
90877883|NCT01480076|181617640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of the total activity limitation score of PRIMUS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90877884|NCT01480076|181617640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1324|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of the total activity limitation score of PRIMUS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1324
90916421|NCT04629950|181703007|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41||||||P values not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.410
90877885|NCT01480076|181617640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of the total activity limitation score of PRIMUS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90916422|NCT04629950|181703008|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.691|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.691
90877886|NCT01480076|181617640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of the total activity limitation score of PRIMUS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90877887|NCT01480076|181617640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4759|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of the total activity limitation score of PRIMUS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.4759
90877888|NCT01480076|181617640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.0016|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of the total activity limitation score of PRIMUS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0016
90916423|NCT04629950|181703008|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P values not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||1
90877889|NCT01480076|181617640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of the total activity limitation score of PRIMUS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error||||<0.0001
90877890|NCT01480076|181617640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2489|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of the total activity limitation score of PRIMUS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2489
90877891|NCT01480076|181617640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.0017|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of the total activity limitation score of PRIMUS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0017
90877892|NCT01480076|181617640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of the total activity limitation score of PRIMUS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90877893|NCT01480076|181617640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0126|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of the total activity limitation score of PRIMUS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0126
90877894|NCT01480076|181617640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of the total activity limitation score of PRIMUS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90877895|NCT01480076|181617640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0033|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of the total activity limitation score of PRIMUS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0033
90877896|NCT01480076|181617640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1758|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of the total activity limitation score of PRIMUS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1758
90877897|NCT01480076|181617640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.0246|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of the total activity limitation score of PRIMUS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0246
90877898|NCT01480076|181617641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90877899|NCT01480076|181617641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0111|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0111
90877900|NCT01480076|181617641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|11.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.61|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder Versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90877901|NCT01480076|181617641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90877902|NCT01480076|181617641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.097|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0970
90916424|NCT04629950|181703009|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.758|||||||t-test, 2 sided|P value not adjusted for multiple comparisons,||||||0.758
90916425|NCT04629950|181703009|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.247||||||P values not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Data represent change values.||||0.247
90916426|NCT04629950|181703010|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.316||||||P values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.316
90877903|NCT01480076|181617641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|11.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.82|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder Versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90877904|NCT01480076|181617641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90916427|NCT04629950|181703010|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.605||||||P values not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||Data represent change values.||||0.605
90916428|NCT04629950|181703011|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.192||||||P value not adjusted for multiple comparisons,|t-test, 2 sided|||Mean Reduction in Average Itch||||0.192
90916429|NCT04629950|181703011|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.392||||||P value not adjusted for multiple comparisons,|t-test, 2 sided|||Mean Reduction in Average Itch. Data represent change values.||||0.392
90877905|NCT01480076|181617641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0789|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0789
90877906|NCT01480076|181617641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|9.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder Versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90877907|NCT01480076|181617641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90877908|NCT01480076|181617641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0284|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0284
90877909|NCT01480076|181617641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|11.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder Versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90877910|NCT01480076|181617641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90877911|NCT01480076|181617641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0108|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0108
90877912|NCT01480076|181617641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|12.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.29|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder Versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90877913|NCT01480076|181617642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of current health state of EQ-5D scores, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90877914|NCT01480076|181617642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8392|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of current health state of EQ-5D scores, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.8392
90916430|NCT04629950|181703011|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.347||||||P values not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||Mean Reduction in Maximum Itch||||0.347
90916431|NCT04629950|181703011|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.572||||||P value not adjusted for multiple comparisons,|t-test, 2 sided|||Mean Reduction in Maximum Itch. Data represent change values.||||0.572
90916432|NCT04629950|181703012|OTHER|||||||0.359|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.359
90916433|NCT04629950|181703013|OTHER|||||||0.141|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.141
90916434|NCT04629950|181703014|OTHER|||||||0.582|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.582
90916435|NCT04629950|181703015|OTHER|||||||0.713|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.713
90916436|NCT04629950|181703016|OTHER|||||||0.346|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.346
90916437|NCT04629950|181703017|OTHER|||||||0.149|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.149
90916438|NCT04629950|181703018|OTHER|||||||0.221|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis for Average Itch Over the Preceding 3 Days||||0.221
90916439|NCT04629950|181703018|OTHER|||||||0.286|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis is for the Maximum Itch of the Preceding 7 Days||||0.286
90916440|NCT04629950|181703019|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis for Average Itch Over the Preceding 3 Days||||1
90877915|NCT01480076|181617642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.0162|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of current health state of EQ-5D scores, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0162
90877916|NCT01480076|181617642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of current health state of EQ-5D scores, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90877917|NCT01480076|181617642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6956|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of current health state of EQ-5D scores, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.6956
90877918|NCT01480076|181617642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.0042|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of current health state of EQ-5D scores, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0042
90877919|NCT01480076|181617642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of current health state of EQ-5D scores, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90877920|NCT01480076|181617642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7949|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of current health state of EQ-5D scores, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.7949
90916441|NCT04629950|181703019|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis is for the Maximum Itch of the Preceding 7 Days||||1
90916442|NCT02708108|181703027|OTHER|Multivariable analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.3||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.92||Reported as 1-sided p-value.|Regression, Logistic||Multivariable model includes age, BMI category, cytogenetic risk, ethnicity, sex|||0.92|0.09|0.02
90916443|NCT00891436|181703041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|>|0.1||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t-test was used for the data analysis||||>0.1
90916444|NCT00891436|181703041|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|t-test showed no different between the 2 groups.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|>|0.1||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.1
90916445|NCT03887650|181703133|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.127|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.127
90916446|NCT03887650|181703134|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.975|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.975
90916447|NCT03887650|181703135|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.852||||||PACU pain scores|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.852
90916448|NCT03887650|181703135|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.661||||||For (PACU-24) minimum pain scores|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.661
90916449|NCT03887650|181703135|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.747||||||For (PACU-24 hr.) maximum pain score|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.747
90916450|NCT03887650|181703135|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.604||||||For (PACU-24 hr) average pain scores|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.604
90916451|NCT03887650|181703135|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||(24-48 hr) minimum pain scores|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.002
90916452|NCT03887650|181703135|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||For (24-48 hr) maximum pain scores|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
90916453|NCT03887650|181703135|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||For (24-48 hr) average pain scores|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
90916454|NCT03887650|181703135|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011||||||(48-72 hr) minimum pain scores|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.011
90877921|NCT01480076|181617642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.0679|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of current health state of EQ-5D scores, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0679
90877922|NCT01480076|181617642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0027|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of current health state of EQ-5D scores, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0027
91033727|NCT04544787|181953204|NON_INFERIORITY|The primary immunogenicity endpoint, seroprotection on Day 28 after a single dose of each vaccine candidate, was formally compared with the corresponding endpoint from UAM1 via a non-inferiority test of the difference of each of the novel candidates to the monovalent OPV2 control, mOPV2, each using one-sided α=0.025 and a non-inferiority margin of 10%, computed using two-sided α=0·05 Miettinen and Nurminen score-based CIs for inference.|Difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|7.0||||||The primary immunogenicity endpoint, the seroprotection rate after one dose of either vaccine candidate in the OPV-vaccinated groups (nOPV2 combined groups 1 and 2, and combined groups 3 and 4), was compared with the corresponding endpoint from the historical monovalent OPV2 (mOPV2) control study (UAM1, EudraCT # 2015-003325-33). In the UAM1 study, the observed seroprotection rate after a single dose of mOPV2 was 98% (98 out of 100 participants), with a 95% confidence interval (CI) of 93-100%.||7.0|-1.9|
91033728|NCT04544787|181953204|NON_INFERIORITY|The primary immunogenicity endpoint, seroprotection on Day 28 after a single dose of each vaccine candidate, was formally compared with the corresponding endpoint from UAM1 via a non-inferiority test of the difference of each of the novel candidates to the monovalent OPV2 control, mOPV2, each using one-sided α=0.025 and a non-inferiority margin of 10%, computed using two-sided α=0·05 Miettinen and Nurminen score-based CIs for inference.|Difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|7.0||||||The primary immunogenicity endpoint, the seroprotection rate after one dose of either vaccine candidate in the OPV-vaccinated groups (nOPV2 combined groups 1 and 2, and combined groups 3 and 4), was compared with the corresponding endpoint from the historical monovalent OPV2 control study (UAM1, EudraCT # 2015-003325-33). In the UAM1 study, the observed seroprotection rate after a single dose of mOPV2 was 98% (98 out of 100 participants), with a 95% confidence interval (CI) of 93-100%.||7.0|-1.8|
91033729|NCT02298322|181953245|OTHER||sucess proportion|91.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.2|95.1|||t-test, 1 sided|||||95.1|86.2|<0.0001
91033730|NCT03880266|181953296|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.58||||0.244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.76|0.6|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.60|-3.76|0.244
91033731|NCT03880266|181953296|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.39||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|3.43|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||3.43|-0.65|0.168
91033732|NCT03880266|181953296|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33||||0.699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.39|1.72|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.72|-2.39|0.699
90916455|NCT03887650|181703135|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||(48-72 hr) maximum pain scores|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.001
90916456|NCT03887650|181703135|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||(48-72 hr) average pain scores|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.003
90916457|NCT03887650|181703135|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23||||||For (72-96 hr) minimum pain scores|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.230
91033733|NCT03880266|181953296|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|2.02|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||2.02|-1.94|0.833
91033734|NCT03880266|181953297|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
91033735|NCT03880266|181953297|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.589|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.589
91033736|NCT03880266|181953297|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.154|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.154
91033737|NCT03880266|181953297|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.646|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.646
91033738|NCT03880266|181953298|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-206.5||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-451.9|38.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||||38.9|-451.9|0.093
91033739|NCT03880266|181953298|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|144.1||||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.6|366.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||||366.7|-78.6|0.186
91033740|NCT03880266|181953298|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-151.7||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-309.0|5.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.7|-309.0|0.058
91033741|NCT03880266|181953298|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|160.6||||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-611.2|290.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||290.1|-611.2|0.186
91033742|NCT03880266|181953299|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-33.62||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.42|11.17|||t-test, 2 sided|||||11.17|-78.42|0.130
91033743|NCT03880266|181953299|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.26||||0.518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.62|103.13|||t-test, 2 sided|||||103.13|-54.62|0.518
90877923|NCT01480076|181617642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8053|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of current health state of EQ-5D scores, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.8053
90916458|NCT03887650|181703135|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007||||||For (72-96 hr) maximum pain scores|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.007
90916459|NCT03887650|181703135|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011||||||For (72-96 hr) average pain scores|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.011
90916460|NCT03887650|181703135|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.378||||||For (postoperative day 60) minimum pain scores|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.378
90916461|NCT03887650|181703135|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||For (postoperative day 60) maximum pain scores|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.001
90916462|NCT03887650|181703135|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.403||||||For (postoperative day 60) average pain scores|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.403
90916463|NCT03887650|181703136|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.112|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.112
90916464|NCT03887650|181703137|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.096||||||P-Value for POD4|Fisher Exact|Fisher's Exact for POD4||||||0.096
90916465|NCT03887650|181703137|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||For POD60|Chi-squared|Chi-squared for POD60||||||1.0
90916466|NCT03887650|181703138|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Any distress on PACU|Chi-squared|||||||1.0
90877924|NCT01480076|181617642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.2638|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of current health state of EQ-5D scores, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2638
90877925|NCT01480076|181617642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0007|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of current health state of EQ-5D scores, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0007
90877926|NCT01480076|181617642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8502|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of current health state of EQ-5D scores, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.8502
90877927|NCT01480076|181617642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0917|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of current health state of EQ-5D scores, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0917
90877928|NCT01480076|181617643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1795|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage of work time missed due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1795
90877929|NCT01480076|181617643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0715|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage of work time missed due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0715
90877930|NCT01480076|181617643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.6||0.2065|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage of work time missed due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2065
90877931|NCT01480076|181617643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1649|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage of work time missed due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1649
90877932|NCT01480076|181617643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4894|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage of work time missed due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.4894
90877933|NCT01480076|181617643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.89||0.8611|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage of work time missed due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.8611
90877934|NCT01480076|181617643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0073|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage of work time missed due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0073
90877935|NCT01480076|181617643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1343|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage of work time missed due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1343
90916467|NCT03887650|181703138|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.947||||||Postoperative day 2|Chi-squared|||||||.947
90916468|NCT03887650|181703139|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.441||||||Full sensation|Fishers Freeman Halton|||||||.441
90916469|NCT03887650|181703139|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.691||||||First sensation|Fishers Freeman Halton|||||||.691
90916470|NCT03887650|181703140|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.876|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.876
90916471|NCT03887650|181703141|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011||||||Any movement|Fisher' Freeman Halton|||||||.011
90916472|NCT03887650|181703141|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.536||||||Full movement|Fishers Freeman Halton|||||||.536
90916473|NCT03887650|181703142|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.648||||||MME 0-24|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.648
90916474|NCT03887650|181703142|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.285||||||MME24-48|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.285
90877936|NCT01480076|181617643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.09||0.6468|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage of work time missed due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.6468
90877937|NCT01480076|181617643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6441|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage of work time missed due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.6441
90877938|NCT01480076|181617643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2176|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage of work time missed due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2176
90916475|NCT03887650|181703142|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.122||||||MME48-72|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.122
90916476|NCT03887650|181703142|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.367||||||MME 72-120|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.367
90916477|NCT01199705|181703174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Annualized Rate|0.0|||||ONE_SIDED|99.0||1.39||||||||1.390||
90877939|NCT01480076|181617643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|8.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.91||0.2814|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage of work time missed due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2814
90877940|NCT01480076|181617643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7533|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage of work time missed due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.7533
90916478|NCT01199705|181703174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Annualized Rate|0.0|||||ONE_SIDED|99.0||0.953||||||||0.953||
90916479|NCT01199705|181703174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Annualized Rate|0.0|||||ONE_SIDED|99.0||0.914||||||||0.914||
90916480|NCT01199705|181703176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Annualized Rate|0.0|||||ONE_SIDED|99.0||1.204||||||||1.204||
90916481|NCT01199705|181703176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Annualized Rate|0.0|||||ONE_SIDED|99.0||0.834||||||||0.834||
90916482|NCT01199705|181703176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Annualized Rate|0.0|||||ONE_SIDED|99.0||0.802||||||||0.802||
90916483|NCT00704184|181703196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted difference in %|69.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.3|86.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen method||Adjusted difference subtracts the percentage of placebo responders (5.3%) and stratifies by HCV genotype (1a vs. non-1a).|||86.7|40.3|<0.001
90916484|NCT00704184|181703196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted difference in %|73.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.0|88.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen method||Adjusted difference subtracts the percentage of placebo responders (5.3%) and stratifies by HCV genotype (1a vs. non-1a).|||88.6|46.0|<0.001
90916485|NCT00704184|181703196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted difference in %|63.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.8|82.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen method||Adjusted difference subtracts the percentage of placebo responders (5.3%) and stratifies by HCV genotype (1a vs. non-1a).|||82.7|32.8|<0.001
90916486|NCT00704184|181703196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted difference in %|77.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.2|91.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen method||Adjusted difference subtracts the percentage of placebo responders (5.3) and stratifies by HCV genotype (1a vs. non-1a).|||91.3|49.2|<0.001
90916487|NCT00704184|181703199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted difference|11.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|33.8|||||Adjusted difference subtracts the percentage of placebo responders (88.9%) and stratifies by HCV genotype (1a vs. non-1a).|||33.8|-9.7|
90916488|NCT00704184|181703199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|33.2|||||Adjusted difference subtracts the percentage of placebo responders (88.9%) and stratifies by HCV genotype (1a vs. non-1a).|||33.2|-7.6|
90916489|NCT00704184|181703199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted difference|11.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|33.8|||||Adjusted difference subtracts the percentage of placebo responders (88.9%) and stratifies by HCV genotype (1a vs. non-1a).|||33.8|-9.7|
90916490|NCT00704184|181703199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|28.4|||||Adjusted difference subtracts the percentage of placebo responders (88.9%) and stratifies by HCV genotype (1a vs. non-1a).|||28.4|-16.5|
91033744|NCT03880266|181953299|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-38.14||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.32|2.03|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.03|-78.32|0.061
90877941|NCT01480076|181617643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0653|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage of work time missed due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0653
91033745|NCT03880266|181953299|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-39.34||||0.366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-128.4|49.72|||t-test, 2 sided|||||49.72|-128.40|0.366
91033746|NCT03880266|181953300|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.515|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.515
91033747|NCT03880266|181953300|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.560
91033748|NCT03880266|181953300|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.245|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.245
90916491|NCT00704184|181703200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted difference|16.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|40.2|||||Adjusted difference subtracts the percentage of placebo responders (83.3%) and stratifies by HCV genotype (1a vs. non-1a).|||40.2|-4.0|
90916492|NCT00704184|181703200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|39.5|||||Adjusted difference subtracts the percentage of placebo responders (83.3%) and stratifies by HCV genotype (1a vs. non-1a).|||39.5|-2.2|
90916493|NCT00704184|181703200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted difference|16.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|40.2|||||Adjusted difference subtracts the percentage of placebo responders (83.3%) and stratifies by HCV genotype (1a vs. non-1a).|||40.2|-4.0|
90916494|NCT00704184|181703200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted difference|10.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|34.6|||||Adjusted difference subtracts the percentage of placebo responders (83.3%) and stratifies by HCV genotype (1a vs. non-1a).|||34.6|-11.4|
90916495|NCT00704184|181703201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares (LC) Means|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-1.8|||||The difference in LS Means reflects the mean decrease from baseline in HCV RNA between vaniprevir and placebo at Week 4.|||-1.8|-3.2|
90916496|NCT00704184|181703201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-2.0|||||The difference in LS Means reflects the mean decrease from baseline in HCV RNA between vaniprevir and placebo at Week 4.|||-2.0|-3.4|
91033749|NCT03880266|181953300|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.290
91033750|NCT00486863|181953304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.988||||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.988
91033751|NCT00486863|181953305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999||||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||>0.999
91033752|NCT00486863|181953306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.926||||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.926
91033753|NCT00486863|181953307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.502||||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.502
91033754|NCT00486863|181953308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.439||||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.439
91033755|NCT00486863|181953309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.704||||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.704
91033756|NCT00486863|181953310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.517||||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.517
91033757|NCT00486863|181953311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.524||||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis included the transferrin receptor: ferritin ratio from the cord blood.||||0.524
91033758|NCT00486863|181953311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07||||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis included the transferrin receptor: ferritin ratio from the heel stick.||||0.070
91033759|NCT00486863|181953312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91033760|NCT00486863|181953317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.991||||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.991
90877942|NCT01480076|181617643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|11.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.65||0.0876|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage of work time missed due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0876
90877943|NCT01480076|181617644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0281|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage impairment while working due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0281
90877944|NCT01480076|181617644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0654|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage impairment while working due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0654
90877945|NCT01480076|181617644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.47||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage impairment while working due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.3400
90877946|NCT01480076|181617644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0012|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage impairment while working due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0012
90877947|NCT01480076|181617644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.749|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage impairment while working due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.7490
90877948|NCT01480076|181617644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|-5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.53||0.3592|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage impairment while working due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.3592
90916497|NCT00704184|181703201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-2.0|||||The difference in LS Means reflects the mean decrease from baseline in HCV RNA between vaniprevir and placebo at Week 4.|||-2.0|-3.4|
90877949|NCT01480076|181617644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0015|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage impairment while working due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0015
90877950|NCT01480076|181617644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2967|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage impairment while working due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2967
90916498|NCT00704184|181703201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-2.0|||||The difference in LS Means reflects the mean decrease from baseline in HCV RNA between vaniprevir and placebo at Week 4.|||-2.0|-3.3|
90961319|NCT00568321|181803578|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.646|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.43|3.86|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 1 (Pain severity): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||3.86|-2.43|0.646
90877951|NCT01480076|181617644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.34||0.8735|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage impairment while working due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.8735
90877952|NCT01480076|181617644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1696|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage impairment while working due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1696
90877953|NCT01480076|181617644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0089|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage impairment while working due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0089
90877954|NCT01480076|181617644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|14.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.83||0.0297|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage impairment while working due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0297
90877955|NCT01480076|181617644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8806|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage impairment while working due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.8806
90877956|NCT01480076|181617644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.217|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage impairment while working due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2170
90877957|NCT01480076|181617644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|8.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.86||0.2392|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage impairment while working due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2392
90877958|NCT01480076|181617645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0219|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage overall work impairment due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0219
90877959|NCT01480076|181617645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1259|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage overall work impairment due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1259
90877960|NCT01480076|181617645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.68||0.5312|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage overall work impairment due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.5312
90877961|NCT01480076|181617645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0022|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage overall work impairment due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0022
90877962|NCT01480076|181617645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4968|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage overall work impairment due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.4968
90877963|NCT01480076|181617645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.64||0.6283|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage overall work impairment due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.6283
90877964|NCT01480076|181617645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0016|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage overall work impairment due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0016
90877965|NCT01480076|181617645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6631|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage overall work impairment due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.6631
90877966|NCT01480076|181617645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.77||0.477|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage overall work impairment due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.4770
90877967|NCT01480076|181617645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4027|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage overall work impairment due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.4027
90877968|NCT01480076|181617645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1077|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage overall work impairment due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1077
90877969|NCT01480076|181617645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|13.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.98||0.1781|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage overall work impairment due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1781
90877970|NCT01480076|181617645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2422|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage overall work impairment due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2422
90877971|NCT01480076|181617645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0994|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage overall work impairment due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0994
90877972|NCT01480076|181617645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|8.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.13||0.2194|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage overall work impairment due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2194
90877973|NCT01480076|181617646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of regular activity productivity loss due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90877974|NCT01480076|181617646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.086|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of regular activity productivity loss due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0860
90877975|NCT01480076|181617646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|-7.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of regular activity productivity loss due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0010
90877976|NCT01480076|181617646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of regular activity productivity loss due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90877977|NCT01480076|181617646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2777|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of regular activity productivity loss due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2777
90877978|NCT01480076|181617646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|-10.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.76||0.0002|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of regular activity productivity loss due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0002
90877979|NCT01480076|181617646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of regular activity productivity loss due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90877980|NCT01480076|181617646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1078|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of regular activity productivity loss due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1078
90877981|NCT01480076|181617646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|-7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.87||0.0082|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of regular activity productivity loss due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0082
90916499|NCT00716859|181703206|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|If lower limit of 95% Confidence Interval (CI) for treatment difference is above non-inferiority margin, then non-inferiority concluded. If lower limit of 95% CI for treatment difference is above non-inferiority margin and above zero, then superiority concluded. The difference and 95% CI of the difference in IOP reduction (Week 12) was computed from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment and baseline diagnosis as factors and baseline IOP as covariate.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|3.74||||||Null hypothesis: latanoprost inferior to timolol (0.5 percent \[%\] optionally 0.25% for participants younger than 3 years). Power calculation: assuming common standard deviation (7 mmHg), 110 participants have 84% power to demonstrate latanoprost not inferior to timolol within 3 mmHg margin, assuming latanoprost has 1 mmHg reduction more than timolol in mean change from baseline IOP.||3.74|-0.81|
90916500|NCT00716859|181703207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|3.02||||||||3.02|-1.66|
90916501|NCT00716859|181703208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|4.25||||||||4.25|-1.00|
90916502|NCT00716859|181703209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4085|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.67||||||||2.67|-1.10|
90916503|NCT00716859|181703214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3315|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by baseline diagnosis (PCG vs non-PCG).||||||0.3315
90877982|NCT01480076|181617646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of regular activity productivity loss due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90877983|NCT01480076|181617646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1838|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of regular activity productivity loss due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1838
90877984|NCT01480076|181617646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|-6.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.02||0.0364|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of regular activity productivity loss due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0364
90877985|NCT01480076|181617646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of regular activity productivity loss due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90877986|NCT01480076|181617646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1714|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of regular activity productivity loss due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1714
90877987|NCT01480076|181617646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.14||0.1259|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of regular activity productivity loss due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1259
90877988|NCT01480076|181617647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline PCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
90877989|NCT01480076|181617647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline PCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
90877990|NCT01480076|181617647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline PCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
90916504|NCT02178098|181703216|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-24.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.33|-18.15|||ANCOVA||The least squares mean difference was calculated as the value for the ETC-1002 180 mg arm minus the value for the placebo arm.|||-18.15|-30.33|<0.0001
90916505|NCT02178098|181703217|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-1.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.511||0.2808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.62|1.35|||ANCOVA||The least squares mean difference was calculated as the value for the ETC-1002 180 mg arm minus the value for the placebo arm.|||1.35|-4.62|0.2808
90916506|NCT02178098|181703218|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.111||0.3461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.25|1.15|||ANCOVA||The least squares mean difference was calculated as the value for the ETC-1002 180 mg arm minus the value for the placebo arm.|||1.15|-3.25|0.3461
90916507|NCT02178098|181703219|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-2.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.734||0.1852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.74|1.12|||ANCOVA||The least squares mean difference was calculated as the value for the ETC-1002 180 mg arm minus the value for the placebo arm.|||1.12|-5.74|0.1852
90916508|NCT02178098|181703220|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-1.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.253||0.2481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.93|1.03|||ANCOVA||The least squares mean difference was calculated as the value for the ETC-1002 180 mg arm minus the value for the placebo arm.|||1.03|-3.93|0.2481
90916509|NCT02178098|181703221|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.684||0.8181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.72|2.94|||ANCOVA||The least squares mean difference was calculated as the value for the ETC-1002 180 mg arm minus the value for the placebo arm.|||2.94|-3.72|0.8181
90916510|NCT02178098|181703222|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.274||0.8817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|2.71|||ANCOVA||The least squares mean difference was calculated as the value for the ETC-1002 180 mg arm minus the value for the placebo arm.|||2.71|-2.33|0.8817
90916511|NCT02178098|181703223|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.829||0.404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|5.15|||ANCOVA||The least squares mean difference was calculated as the value for the ETC-1002 180 mg arm minus the value for the placebo arm.|||5.15|-2.09|0.4040
90916512|NCT02178098|181703224|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.178||0.5061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|3.11|||ANCOVA||The least squares mean difference was calculated as the value for the ETC-1002 180 mg arm minus the value for the placebo arm.|||3.11|-1.54|0.5061
90916513|NCT02178098|181703225|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-43.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.8|-25.21|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test||The 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated using Hodges-Lehmann analysis.|||-25.21|-62.80|<0.0001
90916514|NCT02178098|181703226|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-16.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.006|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.63|-12.7|||ANCOVA||The least squares mean difference was calculated as the value for the ETC-1002 180 mg arm minus the value for the placebo arm.|||-12.70|-20.63|<0.0001
90916515|NCT02178098|181703227|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-18.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.624|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.09|-13.71|||ANCOVA||The least squares mean difference was calculated as the value for the ETC-1002 180 mg arm minus the value for the placebo arm.|||-13.71|-24.09|<0.0001
90916516|NCT02178098|181703228|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-18.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.49|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.62|-13.77|||ANCOVA||The least squares mean difference was calculated as the value for the ETC-1002 180 mg arm minus the value for the placebo arm.|||-13.77|-23.62|<0.0001
90916517|NCT02178098|181703229|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|5.25||||0.3689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.78|16.42|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test||The 95% CI was calculated using Hodges-Lehmann analysis.|||16.42|-6.78|0.3689
90916518|NCT02178098|181703230|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-8.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.319||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.76|-3.59|||ANCOVA||The least squares mean difference was calculated as the value for the ETC-1002 180 mg arm minus the value for the placebo arm.|||-3.59|-12.76|0.0006
90916519|NCT02178098|181703231|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|7.6||||0.3093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.21|24.02|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test||The 95% CI was calculated using Hodges-Lehmann analysis.|||24.02|-8.21|0.3093
90877991|NCT01480076|181617647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline PCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0004
90877992|NCT01480076|181617647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline PCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
90877993|NCT01480076|181617647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline PCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
90877994|NCT01480076|181617647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline PCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
90877995|NCT01480076|181617647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0069|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline PCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0069
90877996|NCT01480076|181617647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline PCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
90877997|NCT01480076|181617647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline PCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
90877998|NCT01480076|181617647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline PCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0001
90877999|NCT01480076|181617647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline PCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0006
90878000|NCT01480076|181617647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline PCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
90878001|NCT01480076|181617647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline PCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
90878002|NCT01480076|181617647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline PCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
90878003|NCT01480076|181617647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline PCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0040
90878004|NCT01480076|181617647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline PCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
90916520|NCT02409667|181703277|NON_INFERIORITY|The statistical null-hypothesis to be rejected in the primary analysis was that the odds ratio of maintaining a PASI 90 response for patients with secukinumab 4-weekly dosing versus patients on secukinumab 6-weekly dosing exceeds the non-inferiority margin of 1+δ.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.91||||0.1499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|2.55|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.55|1.44|0.1499
90878005|NCT01480076|181617647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline PCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
90878006|NCT01480076|181617647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0047|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline PCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0047
90916521|NCT02409667|181703278|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.62||||0.1013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.1|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.10|0.35|0.1013
90916522|NCT02409667|181703281|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean (LSM) estimate|-0.09||||0.0489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Week 28||-0.00|-0.18|0.0489
90916523|NCT02409667|181703281|SUPERIORITY||LSM estimate|-0.09||||0.1073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Week 32||0.02|-0.19|0.1073
90916524|NCT02409667|181703281|SUPERIORITY||LSM estimate|-0.24||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.12|||ANCOVA|||Week 36||-0.12|-0.37|0.0001
90916525|NCT02409667|181703281|SUPERIORITY||LSM estimate|-0.25||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||Week 40||-0.11|-0.38|0.0005
90916526|NCT02409667|181703281|SUPERIORITY||LSM estimate|-0.3||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.15|||ANCOVA|||Week 44||-0.15|-0.45|0.0001
90916527|NCT02409667|181703281|SUPERIORITY||LSM estimate|-0.49||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.27|||ANCOVA|||Week 48||-0.27|-0.70|0.0000
90916528|NCT02409667|181703281|SUPERIORITY||LSM mean|-0.59||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.36|||ANCOVA|||||-0.36|-0.81|0.0000
90916529|NCT02409667|181703282|SUPERIORITY||LSM estimate|0.4||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.99|||ANCOVA|||Week 28||0.99|-0.18|0.1740
90916530|NCT02409667|181703282|SUPERIORITY||LSM estimate|0.79||||0.0287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|1.5|||ANCOVA|||Week 32||1.50|0.08|0.0287
90916531|NCT02409667|181703282|SUPERIORITY||LSM estimate|0.62||||0.1202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|1.41|||ANCOVA|||Week 36||1.41|-0.16|0.1202
90916532|NCT02409667|181703282|SUPERIORITY||LSM estimate|0.75||||0.1157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|1.68|||ANCOVA|||Week 40||1.68|-0.19|0.1157
90916533|NCT02409667|181703282|SUPERIORITY||LSM estimate|0.54||||0.3189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|1.59|||ANCOVA|||Week 44||1.59|-0.52|0.3189
90916534|NCT02409667|181703282|SUPERIORITY||LSM estimate|1.17||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|2.18|||ANCOVA|||Week 48||2.18|0.16|0.0240
90916535|NCT02409667|181703282|SUPERIORITY||LSM estimate|1.47||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|2.57|||ANCOVA|||Week 52||2.57|0.37|0.0090
90916536|NCT02409667|181703283|SUPERIORITY||LSM estimate|-0.62||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|-0.31|||ANCOVA|||||-0.31|-0.93|0.0001
90916537|NCT02409667|181703284|SUPERIORITY||LSM estimate|1.17||||0.0675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|2.42|||ANCOVA|||||2.42|-0.09|0.0675
90916538|NCT02409667|181703285|SUPERIORITY||LSM estimate|-0.97||||0.2101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|0.55|||ANCOVA|||Absenteeism||0.55|-2.48|0.2101
90916539|NCT02409667|181703285|SUPERIORITY||LSM estimate|-0.67||||0.2971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|0.59|||ANCOVA|||Presenteeism||0.59|-1.93|0.2971
90916540|NCT02409667|181703285|SUPERIORITY||LSM estimate|-0.61||||0.5499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.59|1.38|||ANCOVA|||Total activity impairment||1.38|-2.59|0.5499
90916541|NCT02409667|181703285|SUPERIORITY||LSM estimate|-1.08||||0.0758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28|0.11|||ANCOVA|||||0.11|-2.28|0.0758
90916542|NCT02409667|181703286|SUPERIORITY||LSM estimate|1.2||||0.4156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|4.11|||ANCOVA|||Absenteeism||4.11|-1.71|0.4156
90916543|NCT02409667|181703286|SUPERIORITY||LSM estimate|0.63||||0.8619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.59|7.85|||ANCOVA|||Presenteeism||7.85|-6.59|0.8619
90916544|NCT02409667|181703286|SUPERIORITY||LSM estimate|-0.61||||0.6139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.31|10.61|||ANCOVA|||Total activity impairment||10.61|-6.31|0.6139
90916545|NCT02409667|181703286|SUPERIORITY||LSM estimate|1.7||||0.5674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.16|7.56|||ANCOVA|||Work productivity loss||7.56|-4.16|0.5674
90916546|NCT02409667|181703287|SUPERIORITY||LSM estimate|-0.13||||0.1219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.04|||ANCOVA|||Pain||0.04|-0.30|0.1219
90916547|NCT02409667|181703287|SUPERIORITY||LSM estimate|-0.38||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.18|||ANCOVA|||Itching||-0.18|-0.57|0.0001
90916548|NCT02409667|181703287|SUPERIORITY||LSM estimate|-0.31||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.14|||ANCOVA|||Scaling||-0.14|-0.48|0.0003
90916549|NCT02409667|181703288|SUPERIORITY||LSM estimate|0.17||||0.6457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.92|||ANCOVA|||Pain||0.92|-0.57|0.6457
90916550|NCT02409667|181703288|SUPERIORITY||LSM estimate|0.19||||0.6136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.94|||ANCOVA|||Itching||0.94|-0.56|0.6136
90916551|NCT02409667|181703288|SUPERIORITY||LSM estimate|0.75||||0.0203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|1.39|||ANCOVA|||Scaling||1.39|0.12|0.0203
90916552|NCT02409667|181703289|SUPERIORITY||LSM estimate|2.22||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|3.68|||ANCOVA|||||3.68|0.77|0.0027
90916553|NCT02409667|181703290|SUPERIORITY||LSM estimate|-2.31||||0.2823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.55|1.92|||ANCOVA|||||1.92|-6.55|0.2823
90916554|NCT02409667|181703291|SUPERIORITY||LSM estimate|0.01||||0.0861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Germany||0.02|-0.00|0.0861
90916555|NCT02409667|181703291|SUPERIORITY||LSM estimate|0.02||||0.0117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.04|||ANCOVA|||UK||0.04|0.00|0.0117
90916556|NCT02409667|181703292|SUPERIORITY||LSM estimate|-0.02||||0.1852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Germany||0.01|-0.05|0.1852
90916557|NCT02409667|181703292|SUPERIORITY||LSM estimate|-0.03||||0.2203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.02|||ANCOVA|||UK||0.02|-0.07|0.2203
90916558|NCT02515305|181703295|EQUIVALENCE|provides 85% power of success|equivalence ratio|97.54|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.6|104.7||No p-value calculated, just a T/R ratio and 90% confidence interval for the bioequivalence analysis|Fieller's method|||||104.7|94.6|
90878007|NCT01480076|181617647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0118|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline PCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0118
90878008|NCT01480076|181617648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
90878009|NCT01480076|181617648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
90878010|NCT01480076|181617648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
90878011|NCT01480076|181617648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1398|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.1398
90878012|NCT01480076|181617648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
90878013|NCT01480076|181617648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
90916559|NCT02515305|181703296|EQUIVALENCE|provides 85% power of success|Equivalence ratio|100.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.0|109.3|||Fieller's method|||||109.3|96|
90916560|NCT02769858|181703304|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.001
90916561|NCT02769858|181703305|OTHER|||||||0.019|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.019
90916562|NCT02769858|181703306|OTHER|||||||0.502|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.502
90916563|NCT05505045|181703368|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|1.05||||||||1.05|-.16|
90916564|NCT05505045|181703369|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|1.03||||||||1.03|-.19|
90916565|NCT05505045|181703370|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.93||||||||0.93|-.30|
90916566|NCT05505045|181703371|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|-0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|96.0|-1.04|0.21||||||||0.21|-1.04|
90916567|NCT05505045|181703376|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.64||||||||.64|-.61|
90916568|NCT01643070|181703377|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.346|6.501|||t-test, 1 sided|||||6.501|0.346|0.719
90916569|NCT02975505|181703383|SUPERIORITY||beta|11.7|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.5|16.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||16|7.5|<0.05
90916570|NCT02975505|181703386|SUPERIORITY||beta|12.5||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|16.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||16|8|0.05
90916571|NCT04201834|181703399|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||Paired T-Test|||||||0.27
90916572|NCT04201834|181703400|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||Paired T-Test|||||||0.92
90916573|NCT04201834|181703401|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||Paired T-Test|||||||0.36
90916574|NCT04201834|181703402|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||Paired T-Test|||||||0.62
90916575|NCT04201834|181703405|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Paired T-Test|||||||0.11
90916576|NCT04201834|181703406|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Paired T-Test|||||||0.02
90916577|NCT04201834|181703408|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||Paired T-Test|||||||0.86
90916578|NCT04201834|181703409|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||Paired T-Test|||||||0.27
90916579|NCT04201834|181703410|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||Paired T-Test|||||||0.61
90916580|NCT04201834|181703411|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||Paired T-Test|||||||0.37
90916581|NCT04201834|181703412|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Paired T-Test|||||||0.30
90916582|NCT04201834|181703413|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.82
90878014|NCT01480076|181617648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
90961320|NCT00568321|181803578|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.895|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.22|1.6|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 2 (Worst pain): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.60|-0.22|0.895
90878015|NCT01480076|181617648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0935|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0935
90878016|NCT01480076|181617648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
90878017|NCT01480076|181617648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
90916583|NCT05540535|181703414|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used for a within-group comparison.||||||<0.05
90916584|NCT05540535|181703415|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
90916585|NCT05540535|181703416|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used for a within-group comparison.||||||<0.05
90916586|NCT05540535|181703417|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
90916587|NCT05540535|181703418|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.05
90916588|NCT05540535|181703419|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.05
90961321|NCT00568321|181803578|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.776|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|1.34|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 2 (Worst pain): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.34|-0.50|0.776
90916589|NCT05540535|181703420|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.05
90916590|NCT02980276|181703430|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed risk difference to zero.|Risk Difference (RD)|-6.9||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.1|1.4||The primary analysis, as per sample size calculation, was a two-sample comparison of reduction in the proportion of women needing insulin between treatment and control arms using an exact test for a binomial response.|Risk difference||Units are %|The primary analysis, as per sample size calculation, was a two-sample comparison of reduction in the proportion of women needing insulin between treatment and control arms using an exact test for a binomial response.||1.4|-15.1|0.13
90878018|NCT01480076|181617648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
90878019|NCT01480076|181617648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.076|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0760
90916591|NCT02980276|181703431|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed risk difference to zero.|Risk Difference (RD)|-12.7||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.2|-4.3|||Risk difference||Units are %|||-4.3|-21.2|0.004
90916592|NCT02980276|181703432|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Log Rank|Median survival times could not be calculated; time to insulin initiation would be censored at delivery in \>50% of participants in treatment group.||||||0.001
90916593|NCT02980276|181703433|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed odds ratio to 1.|Odds Ratio, log|0.61||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.86|||Regression, Logistic|Unadjusted|Unadjusted|||0.86|0.43|0.005
90916594|NCT02980276|181703433|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed odds ratio to 1.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.56||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.82|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted|Adjusted|||0.82|0.38|0.003
90916595|NCT02980276|181703434|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed odds ratio to 1.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78||||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.12|||Regression, Logistic||Unadjusted|||1.12|0.55|0.178
90916596|NCT02980276|181703434|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed odds ratio to 1.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.07||Two-sided test comparing observed odds ratio to 1.|Regression, Logistic||Adjusted|||1.07|0.48|0.105
90916597|NCT02980276|181703435|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed mean difference to zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.7||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|1.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.7|-9.3|0.17
90916598|NCT02980276|181703436|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed mean difference ratio to zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|-0.42|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.42|-1.99|0.003
90916599|NCT02980276|181703437|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed odds ratio to 1.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.55|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.55|0.65|0.99
90916600|NCT02980276|181703438|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed odds ratio to 1.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|2.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||2|0.46|0.911
90916601|NCT02980276|181703439|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed odds ratio to 1.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.51|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.51|0.44|0.519
90916602|NCT02980276|181703440|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed mean difference to zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.2|-0.3|0.66
90916603|NCT02980276|181703441|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed odds ratio to 1.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.85|||Regression, Logistic|Unadjusted|Unadjusted|||1.85|0.8|0.367
90961322|NCT00568321|181803578|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.944|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.03|1.47|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 2 (Average pain): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.47|-0.03|0.944
90916604|NCT02980276|181703441|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed odds ratio to 1.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.87|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted|Adjusted|||1.87|0.8|0.359
90916605|NCT02980276|181703442|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed risk difference to zero.|Risk Difference (RD)|-6.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|12.9|||Risk difference||Units are %|||12.9|-13.9|1.0
90916606|NCT02980276|181703443|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed odds ratio to 1.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.39|||Regression, Logistic|Unadjusted|Unadjusted|||1.39|0.56|0.603
90916607|NCT02980276|181703443|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed odds ratio to 1.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.4|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted|Adjusted|||1.4|0.57|0.621
90878020|NCT01480076|181617648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
90878021|NCT01480076|181617648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0019|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0019
90878022|NCT01480076|181617648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0037|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0037
90878023|NCT01480076|181617648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2489|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.2489
90878024|NCT01480076|181617648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
90878025|NCT01480076|181617648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0001
90878026|NCT01480076|181617648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0052|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0052
90878027|NCT01480076|181617648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7714|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.7714
90878028|NCT01480076|181617649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
90878029|NCT01480076|181617649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
90878030|NCT01480076|181617649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
90916608|NCT02980276|181703444|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed odds ratio to 1.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.76|||Regression, Logistic|Unadjusted|Unadjusted|||1.76|0.45|0.739
90916609|NCT02980276|181703444|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed odds ratio to 1.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.84|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted|Adjusted|||1.84|0.46|0.812
90916610|NCT02980276|181703445|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed odds ratio to 1.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.84||||0.282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|6.04|||Regression, Logistic|Unadjusted|Unadjusted|Unadjusted||6.04|0.63|0.282
90916611|NCT02980276|181703445|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed odds ratio to 1.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.14||||0.196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|7.38|||Regression, Logistic||Adjusted|||7.38|0.7|0.196
90878031|NCT01480076|181617649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
90878032|NCT01480076|181617649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
90916612|NCT02980276|181703446|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed odds ratio to 1.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.53||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.01|||Regression, Logistic|Unadjusted||||1.01|0.27|0.058
90916613|NCT02980276|181703446|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed odds ratio to 1.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.53||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.02|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted||||1.02|0.27|0.061
90878033|NCT01480076|181617649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
90878034|NCT01480076|181617649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
90878035|NCT01480076|181617649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
90878036|NCT01480076|181617649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
90878037|NCT01480076|181617649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
90878038|NCT01480076|181617649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
90878039|NCT01480076|181617649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
90878040|NCT01480076|181617649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
90878041|NCT01480076|181617649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
90878042|NCT01480076|181617649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
90878043|NCT01480076|181617649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0009|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0009
90878044|NCT01480076|181617649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
90916614|NCT02980276|181703447|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed risk difference to zero.|Risk Difference (RD)|-4.5||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|2.5|||Risk difference||Units are %|||2.5|-11.6|0.24
90916615|NCT02980276|181703447|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed risk difference to zero.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.81||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.12|||Regression, Logistic||Units are %|||1.12|0.59|0.24
90916616|NCT02980276|181703448|EQUIVALENCE|Regression model that adjusts for the infant's sex and maternal height and weight at randomization.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-113.0||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-201.0|-24.0|||Regression, Linear|P value was derived from a statistical model that adjusts for the infant's sex and maternal height and weight at randomization.||||-24|-201|0.005
90878045|NCT01480076|181617649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
90878046|NCT01480076|181617649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0002
90878047|NCT01480076|181617649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0002
90878048|NCT01480076|181617650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
90878049|NCT01480076|181617650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
90878050|NCT01480076|181617650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
90878051|NCT01480076|181617650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0032|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0032
90878052|NCT01480076|181617650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
90878053|NCT01480076|181617650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
90878054|NCT01480076|181617650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
90916617|NCT02980276|181703449|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed mean difference to zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.3|-0.3|0.82
90916618|NCT02980276|181703450|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed mean difference to zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.2|-1.3|0.02
90916619|NCT02980276|181703451|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed mean difference to zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.7|-0.5|0.72
90916620|NCT02980276|181703452|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed mean difference to zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.1|-0.1|0.68
90916621|NCT02980276|181703453|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed risk difference to zero.|Risk Difference (RD)|-7.2||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|-1.8|||Regression, Logistic|P value derived from a statistical model that adjusts for the infant's sex, gestational age at birth, and maternal height and weight at randomization.|P value derived from a statistical model that adjusts for the infant's sex, gestational age at birth, and maternal height and weight at randomization.|||-1.8|-12.6|0.02
90916622|NCT02980276|181703454|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed risk difference to zero.|Risk Difference (RD)|-8.4||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|-3.2|||Risk difference|P value derived from a statistical model that adjusts for the infant's sex and maternal height and weight at randomization|Units are %|||-3.2|-13.7|0.003
90961323|NCT00568321|181803578|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.835|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.31|1.21|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 2 (Average pain): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.21|-0.31|0.835
90961324|NCT00568321|181803578|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.955|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.09|6.37|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 2 (Pain severity): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||6.37|0.09|0.955
90961325|NCT00568321|181803578|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93||0.884|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.88|5.49|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 2 (Pain severity): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||5.49|-0.88|0.884
90961326|NCT00568321|181803578|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.737|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.57|1.28|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 4 (Worst pain): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.28|-0.57|0.737
90961327|NCT00568321|181803578|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.628|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.74|1.11|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 4 (Worst pain): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.11|-0.74|0.628
90961328|NCT00568321|181803578|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.925|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|1.43|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 4 (Average pain): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.43|-0.10|0.925
90961329|NCT00568321|181803578|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.518|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.75|0.79|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 4 (Average pain): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.79|-0.75|0.518
90961330|NCT00568321|181803578|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93||0.81|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.49|4.88|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 4 (Pain severity): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||4.88|-1.49|0.810
90961331|NCT00568321|181803578|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.94||0.6|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.72|3.7|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 4 (Pain severity): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||3.70|-2.72|0.600
90961332|NCT00568321|181803578|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.651|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.73|1.18|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 6 (Worst pain): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.18|-0.73|0.651
90961333|NCT00568321|181803578|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.342|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.21|0.73|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 6 (Worst pain): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.73|-1.21|0.342
90961334|NCT00568321|181803578|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.768|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.44|1.14|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 6 (Average pain): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.14|-0.44|0.768
90961335|NCT00568321|181803578|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.211|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.19|0.41|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 6 (Average pain): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.41|-1.19|0.211
90961336|NCT00568321|181803578|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.99||0.61|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.73|3.85|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 6 (Pain severity): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||3.85|-2.73|0.610
90878055|NCT01480076|181617650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0021|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0021
90916623|NCT02980276|181703455|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed risk difference to zero.|Risk Difference (RD)|2.7||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|6.3|||Risk difference|Units are %. P value derived from model adjusting for the gestational age at birth, sex and maternal height and weight at randomization.|Units are %. P value was derived from a statistical model that adjusts for the infant's gestational age at birth, sex and maternal height and weight at randomization.|||6.3|-1|.012
90878056|NCT01480076|181617650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
90878057|NCT01480076|181617650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
90878058|NCT01480076|181617650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
90878059|NCT01480076|181617650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0097|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0097
90878060|NCT01480076|181617650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
90878061|NCT01480076|181617650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
90878062|NCT01480076|181617650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
90878063|NCT01480076|181617650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0103|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0103
90878064|NCT01480076|181617650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
90878065|NCT01480076|181617650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
90878066|NCT01480076|181617650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
90916624|NCT02980276|181703456|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed risk difference to zero.|Risk Difference (RD)|3.0||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|6.5||Units are %. P value was derived from a statistical model that adjusts for the infant's gestational age at birth, sex and maternal height and weight at randomization.|Regression, Logistic||Units are %. P value was derived from a statistical model that adjusts for the infant's gestational age at birth, sex and maternal height and weight at randomization.|||6.5|-0.4|0.13
90916625|NCT02980276|181703457|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed risk difference to zero.|Risk Difference (RD)|3.0||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|9.0|||Risk difference||Units are %.|||9|-2.9|0.38
90916626|NCT02980276|181703458|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed risk difference to zero.|Risk Difference (RD)|2.8||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|7.3|||Risk difference||Units are %|||7.3|-2.0|0.33
90916627|NCT02980276|181703459|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed risk difference to zero.|Risk Difference (RD)|2.3||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|6.9|||Risk difference||Units are %|||6.9|-2.4|0.42
90916628|NCT02980276|181703460|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed risk difference to zero.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.4|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.1|||Risk difference||Units are %.|||1.1|-0.4|>0.99
90916629|NCT02980276|181703461|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed risk difference to zero.|Risk Difference (RD)|1.1||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|4.2|||Risk difference||Units are %|||4.2|-1.9|0.62
90916630|NCT02980276|181703462|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed risk difference to zero.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.0|||Risk difference||Units are %|||1|-1|>0.99
90878067|NCT01480076|181617650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1227|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.1227
90878068|NCT01480076|181617651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the total ALS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90916631|NCT02980276|181703463|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed risk difference to zero.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.7||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|6.6|||Risk difference||Units are %|||6.6|-5.1|0.9
90916632|NCT05057897|181703544|OTHER|Descriptive only. Analysis conducted at request of clinicaltrials.gov.|GMT Ratio|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|3.01|||||The GMT ratio was calculated as the ratio of the titer levels in the immunocompromised cohort to the immunocompetent cohort.|Day 57 (28 days post Dose 2)||3.01|0.18|
90916633|NCT05057897|181703545|OTHER|Descriptive only. Analysis conducted at request of clinicaltrials.gov.|Difference in Seroresponse|-30.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.82|3.69||||The 2-sided 95% CI was calculated using the Newcombe score without continuity correction.|The difference in seroresponse 28 days post Dose 2 of AZD1222 was calculated as (seroresponse rate of immunocompromised cohort) - (seroresponse rate of immunocompetent cohort).|Day 57 (28 days post Dose 2)||3.69|-62.82|
90916634|NCT05057897|181703546|OTHER|Descriptive only. Analysis conducted at request of clinicaltrials.gov.|GMT Ratio|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|3.86|||||The GMT ratio was calculated as the ratio of the titer levels in the immunocompromised cohort to the immunocompetent cohort.|Day 57 (28 days post Dose 2)||3.86|0.06|
90916635|NCT05057897|181703547|OTHER|Descriptive only. Analysis conducted at request of clinicaltrials.gov.|Difference in Seroresponse|-25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.07|2.97||||The 2-sided 95% CI was calculated using the Newcombe score without continuity correction.|The difference in seroresponse 28 days post Dose 2 of AZD1222 was calculated as (seroresponse rate of immunocompromised cohort) - (seroresponse rate of immunocompetent cohort).|Day 57 (28 days post Dose 2)||2.97|-59.07|
90916636|NCT05057897|181703548|OTHER|Descriptive only. Analysis conducted at request of clinicaltrials.gov.|GMT Ratio|0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.8|||||The GMT ratio was calculated as the ratio of the titer levels in the immunocompromised cohort to the immunocompetent cohort.|Day 85 Immunocompromised / Day 211 Immunocompetent (28 days post Dose 3)||0.80|0.12|
90916637|NCT05057897|181703549|OTHER|Descriptive only. Analysis conducted at request of clinicaltrials.gov.|Difference in Seroresponse|0.0||||||||||||Due to everyone in both cohorts being a seroresponder, the confidence interval (CI) around the difference is not estimable.|The difference in seroresponse 28 days post Dose 3 of AZD1222 was calculated as (seroresponse rate of immunocompromised cohort) - (seroresponse rate of immunocompetent cohort).|Day 85 Immunocompromised / Day 211 Immunocompetent (28 days post Dose 3)||||
90916638|NCT05057897|181703550|OTHER|Descriptive only. Analysis conducted at request of clinicaltrials.gov.|GMT Ratio|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.25|||||The GMT ratio was calculated as the ratio of the titer levels in the immunocompromised cohort to the immunocompetent cohort.|Day 85 Immunocompromised / Day 211 Immunocompetent (28 days post Dose 3)||1.25|0.25|
90916639|NCT05057897|181703551|OTHER|Descriptive only. Analysis conducted at request of clinicaltrials.gov.|Difference in Seroresponse|0.0||||||||||||Due to everyone in both cohorts being a seroresponder, the confidence interval (CI) around the difference is not estimable.|The difference in seroresponse 28 days post Dose 3 of AZD1222 was calculated as (seroresponse rate of immunocompromised cohort) - (seroresponse rate of immunocompetent cohort).|Day 85 Immunocompromised / Day 211 Immunocompetent (28 days post Dose 3)||||
90916640|NCT05857644|181703552|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|84.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|50.94|139.59|||||Mild Hepatic Impairment versus No Hepatic Impairment|||139.59|50.94|
90916641|NCT05857644|181703552|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|90.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|54.91|150.45|||||Moderate Hepatic Impairment versus No Hepatic Impairment|||150.45|54.91|
90916642|NCT05857644|181703552|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|157.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.81|291.49|||||Severe Hepatic Impairment versus No Hepatic Impairment|||291.49|84.81|
90916643|NCT05857644|181703553|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|82.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|49.24|137.11|||||Mild Hepatic Impairment versus No Hepatic Impairment|||137.11|49.24|
90916644|NCT05857644|181703553|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|130.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.4|218.3|||||Moderate Hepatic Impairment versus No Hepatic Impairment|||218.30|78.40|
90916645|NCT05857644|181703553|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|385.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|205.92|721.77|||||Severe Hepatic Impairment versus No Hepatic Impairment|||721.77|205.92|
90916646|NCT05857644|181703554|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|82.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|50.53|136.28|||||Mild Hepatic Impairment versus No Hepatic Impairment|||136.28|50.53|
90916647|NCT05857644|181703554|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|131.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.09|215.99|||||Moderate Hepatic Impairment versus No Hepatic Impairment|||215.99|80.09|
90916648|NCT05857644|181703554|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|392.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|213.57|719.85|||||Severe Hepatic Impairment versus No Hepatic Impairment|||719.85|213.57|
90916649|NCT04188379|181703617|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.884||||0.0316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.007|43.591|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||43.591|1.007|0.0316
90916650|NCT04188379|181703618|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|1.0||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|4.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||4.000|0.000|0.0009
90916651|NCT04188379|181703619|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.224||||0.0108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.268|26.268|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||26.268|1.268|0.0108
90916652|NCT04188379|181703620|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.958||||0.8287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.651|1.41|||Wald Test|||||1.41|0.651|0.8287
90916653|NCT04188379|181703621|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.354||||0.0265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.048|22.865|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||22.865|1.0480|0.0265
90916654|NCT00818246|181703634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.68|<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used to assess statistical differences between the LED-treated and untreated sides taking into account Age.||Sample sizes and power calculations were generated according to the primary outcome measures of the study. In order to have a 98% chance of detecting as significant (at the two sided 5% level) a 10% difference between the treated and untreated/control sides in the Ra and Rz post-treatment improvement, with an assumed standard deviation of 10, 33 subjects were required. To account for an 80% per protocol completion rate, the planned number of patients to be enrolled was 40.||||<0.0001
90878069|NCT01480076|181617651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the total ALS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90878070|NCT01480076|181617651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1754|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the total ALS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1754
90878071|NCT01480076|181617651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0192|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the total ALS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0192
90878072|NCT01480076|181617651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the total ALS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90878073|NCT01480076|181617651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the total ALS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90878074|NCT01480076|181617651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the total ALS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0001
90916655|NCT00818246|181703635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.605|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90916656|NCT00818246|181703636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8|<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used to assess statistical differences between the LED-treated and untreated sides taking into account Age.||Sample sizes and power calculations were generated according to the primary outcome measures of the study. In order to have a 98% chance of detecting as significant (at the two sided 5% level) a 10% difference between the treated and untreated/control sides in the Ra and Rz post-treatment improvement, with an assumed standard deviation of 10, 33 subjects were required. To account for an 80% per protocol completion rate, the planned number of patients to be enrolled was 40.||||<0.0001
90916657|NCT02590432|181703645|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|5.5|||Fisher's Exact Test|||LINZESS® 145 μg versus (vs) LINZESS® 290 μg||5.5|0.3|1.0000
90916658|NCT02590432|181703645|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.2||||0.0844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.1|||Fisher's Exact Test|||LINZESS® 72 μg vs LINZESS® 290 μg||1.1|0.1|0.0844
90916659|NCT02590432|181703645|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.5|||Fisher's Exact Test|||LINZESS® 72 μg vs LINZESS® 145 μg||2.5|0.3|1.0000
90878075|NCT01480076|181617651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0157|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the total ALS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0157
90878076|NCT01480076|181617651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the total ALS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90878077|NCT01480076|181617651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the total ALS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0002
90878078|NCT01480076|181617651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1012|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the total ALS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1012
90916660|NCT02590432|181703646|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|5.1|||Fisher's Exact Test|||LINZESS® 145 μg vs LINZESS® 290 μg||5.1|0.3|1.0000
90878079|NCT01480076|181617651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0749|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the total ALS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0749
90878080|NCT01480076|181617651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the total ALS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90878081|NCT01480076|181617651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0455|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the total ALS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0455
90878082|NCT01480076|181617651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4699|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the total ALS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.4699
90878083|NCT01480076|181617651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0235|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the total ALS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0235
90878084|NCT01480076|181617651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the total ALS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90878085|NCT01480076|181617651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1978|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the total ALS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1978
90878086|NCT01480076|181617651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1977|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the total ALS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1977
90878087|NCT01480076|181617651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.225|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the total ALS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2250
90878088|NCT01480076|181617652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90878089|NCT01480076|181617652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90878090|NCT01480076|181617652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90878091|NCT01480076|181617652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0649|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0649
90916661|NCT02590432|181703646|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.2||||0.0799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.0|||Fisher's Exact Test|||LINZESS® 72 μg vs LINZESS® 290 μg||1.0|0.1|0.0799
90916662|NCT02590432|181703646|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.7871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.2|||Fisher's Exact Test|||LINZESS® 72 μg vs LINZESS® 145 μg||2.2|0.3|0.7871
90916663|NCT02590432|181703648|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|2.19|||Log-Rank Test|||LINZESS® 145 μg vs LINZESS® 290 μg||2.19|0.42|0.9930
91033761|NCT01993030|181953335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|||||Values of p \< 0.05 were considered to be significantly different.|Fisher Exact|||"Two-sided Fisher's exact test was performed to assess statistically significant differences of the data of the Number of Participants with Growth of Granulation Tissue between the group treated with the HQ® Matrix Medical Wound Dressing and that treated with the Sidaiyi® wound dressing.~This Statistical Analysis applies to the Participants with healthy granulation tissue and the Participants with unhealthy granulation tissue category."||||0.49
90878092|NCT01480076|181617652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90878093|NCT01480076|181617652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90878094|NCT01480076|181617652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90878095|NCT01480076|181617652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1138|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1138
90878096|NCT01480076|181617652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90878097|NCT01480076|181617652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90878098|NCT01480076|181617652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0003
90878099|NCT01480076|181617652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.185|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1850
90878100|NCT01480076|181617652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90878101|NCT01480076|181617652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90878102|NCT01480076|181617652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90878103|NCT01480076|181617652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0887|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0887
90878104|NCT01480076|181617652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90878105|NCT01480076|181617652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90878106|NCT01480076|181617652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0011|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0011
90916664|NCT02590432|181703648|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.31||||0.0247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.89|||Log-Rank Test|||LINZESS® 72 μg vs LINZESS® 290 μg||0.89|0.11|0.0247
90916665|NCT02590432|181703648|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.5149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.5|||Log-Rank Test|||LINZESS® 72 μg vs LINZESS® 145 μg||1.50|0.41|0.5149
90916666|NCT02590432|181703649|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.9519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|2.18|||Log-Rank Test|||LINZESS® 145 μg vs LINZESS® 290 μg||2.18|0.39|0.9519
90916667|NCT02590432|181703649|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.27||||0.0234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.87|||Log-Rank Test|||LINZESS® 72 μg vs LINZESS® 290 μg||0.87|0.08|0.0234
90916668|NCT02590432|181703649|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.4518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.47|||Log-Rank Test|||LINZESS® 72 μg vs LINZESS® 145 μg||1.47|0.39|0.4518
90916669|NCT04788641|181703678|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio (%)|71.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|65.44|77.24|||||Result based on a mixed effect following a natural logarithmic transformation of the individual PK parameters, with period, treatment, and sequence as fixed effects, and participant nested within sequence as random effects.|Tacrolimus||77.24|65.44|
90916670|NCT04788641|181703678|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio (%)|102.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.11|110.1|||||Result based on a mixed effect following a natural logarithmic transformation of the individual PK parameters, with period, treatment, and sequence as fixed effects, and participant nested within sequence as random effects.|Cyclosporin||110.1|96.11|
90916671|NCT04788641|181703679|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio (%)|62.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|55.64|71.13|||||Result based on a mixed effect following a natural logarithmic transformation of the individual PK parameters, with period, treatment, and sequence as fixed effects, and participant nested within sequence as random effects.|Tacrolimus||71.13|55.64|
90916672|NCT04788641|181703679|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio (%)|97.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.93|101.7|||||Result based on a mixed effect following a natural logarithmic transformation of the individual PK parameters, with period, treatment, and sequence as fixed effects, and participant nested within sequence as random effects.|Cyclosporin||101.7|92.93|
90916673|NCT04788641|181703680|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio (%)|65.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|58.69|73.24|||||Result based on a mixed effect following a natural logarithmic transformation of the individual PK parameters, with period, treatment, and sequence as fixed effects, and participant nested within sequence as random effects.|Tacrolimus||73.24|58.69|
90916674|NCT04788641|181703680|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio (%)|97.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.7|101.6|||||Result based on a mixed effect following a natural logarithmic transformation of the individual PK parameters, with period, treatment, and sequence as fixed effects, and participant nested within sequence as random effects.|Cyclosporin||101.6|92.70|
90916675|NCT04788641|181703681|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio (%)|83.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|73.38|95.84|||||Result based on a mixed effect following a natural logarithmic transformation of the individual PK parameters, with period, treatment, and sequence as fixed effects, and participant nested within sequence as random effects.|Tacrolimus||95.84|73.38|
90916676|NCT04788641|181703681|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio (%)|97.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.16|109.2|||||Result based on a mixed effect following a natural logarithmic transformation of the individual PK parameters, with period, treatment, and sequence as fixed effects, and participant nested within sequence as random effects.|Cyclosporin||109.2|87.16|
90916677|NCT04788641|181703682|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio (%)|98.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.62|102.4|||||Result based on a mixed effect following a natural logarithmic transformation of the individual PK parameters, with period, treatment, and sequence as fixed effects, and participant nested within sequence as random effects.|Tacrolimus||102.4|94.62|
90916678|NCT04788641|181703682|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio (%)|94.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.74|103.3|||||Result based on a mixed effect following a natural logarithmic transformation of the individual PK parameters, with period, treatment, and sequence as fixed effects, and participant nested within sequence as random effects.|Cyclosporin||103.3|85.74|
90916679|NCT01985334|181703690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018|||||||linear mixed model|||||||0.0180
90916680|NCT01985334|181703691|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"H0: Glycopyrronium (50 μg o.d.) \[randomized group B2\] was inferior to LABA or LAMA (random group B1) with respect to mean trough FEV1 after 12 weeks of treatment.~H0: μFEV1, NVA237 - μFEV1, LABA and/or LAMA \< -40 mL Ha: Glycopyrronium (50 μg o.d.) \[randomized group B2\] is non-inferior to LABA or LAMA (random group B1) with respect to mean trough FEV1 after 12 weeks of treatment.~Ha: μFEV1, NVA237 - μFEV1, LABA and/or LAMA ≥ -40 mL"|||||<|0.0001|||||||linear mixed model|||||||<0.0001
90916681|NCT01985334|181703692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||linear mixed model|||||||<0.0001
90916682|NCT01985334|181703693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||linear mixed model|||||||<0.0001
90916683|NCT01985334|181703694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||linear mixed model|||||||<0.0001
90916684|NCT01985334|181703695|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A difference of 0.6 points in TDI was adopted as boundary for non-inferiority|||||<|0.0001|||||||linear mixed model|||||||<0.0001
90916685|NCT01985334|181703696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||linear mixed model|||||||<0.0001
90916686|NCT01985334|181703697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||linear mixed model|||||||<0.0001
90916687|NCT00093015|181703706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.05||||0.41||95.0|0.94|1.17||Nominal p-value from a 2-sided log rank test is presented. The primary cardiovascular composite endpoint was tested at the 0.04056 significance level at final analysis after accounting for 4 planned interim analyses (overall alpha = 0.048).|Log Rank|A 2-sided log-rank test comparing the survival functions of the 2 groups stratified by baseline proteinuria and CV disease (CVD) history.|Treatment effect was estimated using a hazards ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by baseline proteinuria and CVD history. Hazard ratio (darbepoetin alfa / placebo)|||1.17|0.94|0.41
90940547|NCT02630706|181760832|SUPERIORITY|cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, anti-hyperglycemic medication status at Screening (metformin alone, metformin + another AHA), Country (China, other), baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|Difference in the LS Means vs. Placebo|-1.4||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|0.2|||cLDA|||||0.20|-3.00|0.086
90916688|NCT00093015|181703707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.06||||0.29||95.0|0.95|1.19||Nominal p-value from a 2-sided log rank test is presented. The primary renal composite endpoint was tested at the 0.002 significance level at final analysis.|Log Rank|A 2-sided log-rank test comparing the survival functions of the 2 groups stratified by baseline proteinuria and CV disease (CVD) history.|Treatment effect was estimated using a hazards ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by baseline proteinuria and CVD history. Hazard ratio (darbepoetin alfa / placebo)|||1.19|0.95|0.29
90916689|NCT00093015|181703708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.05||||0.48||95.0|0.92|1.21||Nominal p-value from a 2-sided log rank test is presented.|Log Rank|A 2-sided log-rank test comparing the survival functions of the 2 groups stratified by baseline proteinuria and CV disease (CVD) history.|Treatment effect was estimated using a hazards ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by baseline proteinuria and CVD history. Hazard ratio (darbepoetin alfa / placebo)|||1.21|0.92|0.48
90916690|NCT00093015|181703709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.05||||0.61||95.0|0.88|1.25||Nominal p-value from a 2-sided log rank test is presented.|Log Rank|A 2-sided log-rank test comparing the survival functions of the 2 groups stratified by baseline proteinuria and CV disease (CVD) history.|Treatment effect was estimated using a hazards ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by baseline proteinuria and CVD history. Hazard ratio (darbepoetin alfa / placebo)|||1.25|0.88|0.61
90916691|NCT00093015|181703710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.96||||0.73||95.0|0.75|1.23||Nominal p-value from a 2-sided log rank test is presented.|Log Rank|A 2-sided log-rank test comparing the survival functions of the 2 groups stratified by baseline proteinuria and CV disease (CVD) history.|Treatment effect was estimated using a hazards ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by baseline proteinuria and CVD history. Hazard ratio (darbepoetin alfa / placebo)|||1.23|0.75|0.73
90916692|NCT00093015|181703711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.92|||<|0.001||95.0|1.38|2.68||Nominal p-value from a 2-sided log rank test is presented.|Log Rank|A 2-sided log-rank test comparing the survival functions of the 2 groups stratified by baseline proteinuria and CV disease (CVD) history.|Treatment effect was estimated using a hazards ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by baseline proteinuria and CVD history. Hazard ratio (darbepoetin alfa / placebo)|||2.68|1.38|<0.001
90916693|NCT00093015|181703712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.89||||0.24||95.0|0.74|1.08||Nominal p-value from a 2-sided log rank test is presented.|Log Rank|A 2-sided log-rank test comparing the survival functions of the 2 groups stratified by baseline proteinuria and CV disease (CVD) history.|Treatment effect was estimated using a hazards ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by baseline proteinuria and CVD history. Hazard ratio (darbepoetin alfa / placebo)|||1.08|0.74|0.24
90916694|NCT00093015|181703713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.02||||0.83||95.0|0.87|1.18||Nominal p-value from a 2-sided log rank test is presented.|Log Rank|A 2-sided log-rank test comparing the survival functions of the 2 groups stratified by baseline proteinuria and CV disease (CVD) history.|Treatment effect was estimated using a hazards ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by baseline proteinuria and CVD history. Hazard ratio (darbepoetin alfa / placebo)|||1.18|0.87|0.83
90916695|NCT00093015|181703714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|-0.12||||0.54||95.0|-0.51|0.26||Nominal p-value is from the term treatment group\*visit in the mixed model.|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline eGFR and the stratification factors of proteinuria and CVD history.|Estimated difference in rate of decline in eGFR per year between darbepoetin alfa and placebo.|||0.26|-0.51|0.54
90916696|NCT00093015|181703715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.33|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.35|<|0.001||95.0|0.64|2.02||Nominal p-value is presented.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference (darbepoetin alfa - placebo)|||2.02|0.64|<0.001
90916697|NCT00093015|181703716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.84||||0.4||95.0|0.55|1.27||Nominal p-value from a 2-sided log rank test is presented.|Log Rank|A 2-sided log-rank test comparing the survival functions of the 2 groups stratified by baseline proteinuria and CV disease (CVD) history.|Treatment effect was estimated using a hazards ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by baseline proteinuria and CVD history. Hazard ratio (darbepoetin alfa / placebo)|||1.27|0.55|0.40
90916698|NCT04247074|181703717|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90916699|NCT04247074|181703718|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90916700|NCT04247074|181703719|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90916701|NCT04247074|181703720|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90916702|NCT03951805|181703721|OTHER||Treatment difference|0.76||||0.7675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.28|5.8|||ANCOVA|||The response and change from baseline in response during the last two weeks of treatment (week 15 and 16) are analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment and SGLT2i use as fixed factors, and baseline response as covariate. Missing endpoint values are imputed using multiple imputation based on own treatment arm with baseline response as a covariate. Each imputed dataset is analysed separately and estimates are combined using Rubin's rules.||5.80|-4.28|0.7675
90916703|NCT03951805|181703721|OTHER||Treatment difference|7.08||||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.12|12.04|||ANCOVA|||The response and change from baseline in response during the last two weeks of treatment (week 15 and 16) are analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment and SGLT2i use as fixed factors, and baseline response as covariate. Missing endpoint values are imputed using multiple imputation based on own treatment arm with baseline response as a covariate. Each imputed dataset is analysed separately and estimates are combined using Rubin's rules.||12.04|2.12|0.0051
90916704|NCT03951805|181703721|OTHER||Treatment difference|5.01||||0.0519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|10.05|||ANCOVA|||The response and change from baseline in response during the last two weeks of treatment (week 15 and 16) are analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment and SGLT2i use as fixed factors, and baseline response as covariate. Missing endpoint values are imputed using multiple imputation based on own treatment arm with baseline response as a covariate. Each imputed dataset is analysed separately and estimates are combined using Rubin's rules.||10.05|-0.04|0.0519
90878107|NCT01480076|181617652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1853|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1853
90878108|NCT01480076|181617653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90878109|NCT01480076|181617653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0005
90878110|NCT01480076|181617653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0027|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0027
90878111|NCT01480076|181617653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0167|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0167
90878112|NCT01480076|181617653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90878113|NCT01480076|181617653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90878114|NCT01480076|181617653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0024|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0024
90878115|NCT01480076|181617653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0669|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0669
90878116|NCT01480076|181617653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0018|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0018
90878117|NCT01480076|181617653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0004
90916705|NCT03337399|181703730|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of stepped PC was established if the lower one-sided 95% confidence limit for the estimated difference in means was greater than the pre-specified margin of -4.5 points, which corresponds to the one-sided 5% significance level test against this margin.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.9|||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.01||||Regression, Linear|||The difference in week 24 means between groups was estimated using a linear regression model adjusted for baseline FACT-L score.|||-.01|<0.05
90916706|NCT03337399|181703731|NON_INFERIORITY|Pre-specified margin of -10%.|Estimated Proportions|-2.6|||<|0.15|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|||We used a false discovery rate (FDR) control approach to interpret the results of significance tests of the three secondary outcomes with an FDR of 0.15.|Regression, Linear|||Non-inferiority of stepped PC in the proportion reporting patient-clinician communication about end-of-life care at each patient's final follow-up assessment was evaluated using a binomial generalized linear model with identity link and a one-sided test against the pre-specified margin of -10%.|||-10.4|<0.15
90878118|NCT01480076|181617653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0190
90916707|NCT03337399|181703732|NON_INFERIORITY|Pre-specified margin of -7 days|Median Difference (Final Values)|-15.2||||0.15|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-25.1|||We used a false discovery rate (FDR) control approach to interpret the results of significance tests of the three secondary outcomes with an FDR of 0.15.|Regression, Linear|||Among patients who died, non-inferiority of stepped PC in the mean length of stay in hospice was assessed using linear regression and a one-sided test against the pre-specified margin of -7 days, based upon published quality metrics.|||-25.1|0.15
90916708|NCT03337399|181703733|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.3||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-1.8||We used a false discovery rate (FDR) control approach to interpret the results of significance tests of the three secondary outcomes with an FDR of 0.15|Regression, Linear|||The difference between groups in the mean number of outpatient PC visits per patient by week 24 was assessed using linear regression and a two-sided superiority test.||-1.8|-2.7|0.15
90916709|NCT01198145|181703737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.41|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.41
90916710|NCT01198145|181703738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.23|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparing Tenesmus During RT||||0.23
90916711|NCT01198145|181703738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.64|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparing Tenesmus after RT||||0.64
90878119|NCT01480076|181617653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0106|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0106
90916712|NCT01198145|181703738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparing abdominal pain during RT.||||0.30
90916713|NCT01198145|181703738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.02|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparing abdominal pain after RT||||0.02
90916714|NCT01198145|181703738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparing constipation during RT||||0.70
90916715|NCT01198145|181703738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.63|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparing constipation after RT||||0.63
90916716|NCT01198145|181703738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.44|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparing diarrhea during RT||||0.44
90916717|NCT01198145|181703738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.48|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparing diarrhea after RT||||0.48
90916718|NCT01198145|181703738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.38|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparing rectal bleeding during RT||||0.38
90916719|NCT01198145|181703738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.15|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.15
90916720|NCT01198145|181703739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.56|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Result comparing Arm I and Arm II during RT.||||0.56
90916721|NCT01198145|181703739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.74|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Result comparing Arm I and Arm II after RT.||||0.74
90916722|NCT00603954|181703745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.508|||||||Multivariate Cox models|||||||0.508
90916723|NCT00603954|181703745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||At day 180||||0.02
90916724|NCT00603954|181703745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||At Day 365||||0.002
90916725|NCT00603954|181703746|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||At day 100||||0.09
90916726|NCT00603954|181703746|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||At Day 40||||0.03
90916727|NCT00603954|181703746|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||At Day 180||||0.01
90916728|NCT00603954|181703747|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0165|||||||Multivariate Cox models|||||||0.0165
90916729|NCT00603954|181703747|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.3||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mutivariate|||||||0.010
90916730|NCT00603954|181703747|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5||||0.0495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Multivariate|||||||0.0495
90916731|NCT00603954|181703747|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.8||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Multivariate|||||||0.001
90916732|NCT00603954|181703748|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Fisher Exact|||19 of 49 Flu-TBI patients (39%) versus 25 of 45 TLI ATG patients (56%) had a least one episode of bacterial infection the first 100 days after transplantation (P = 0.15).||||0.15
90916733|NCT00603954|181703748|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Fisher Exact|||For fungal infections, the figures were 3 of 45 (6%) and 7 of 45 (16%), respectively (P = 0.19)||||0.19
90916734|NCT00603954|181703748|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Fisher Exact|||Among CMV-seropositive patients and/or donors, the 100-day cumulative incidence of CMV reactivation was 31% in Flu-TBI patients versus 47% in TLI-ATG patient||||0.12
90916735|NCT00603954|181703749|SUPERIORITY||Multivariate Cox models|2.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.02||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|4.7|||Cumulative incidence curves|||Four-year cumulative incidences of relapse/progression were 22% and 50% in Flu-TBI and TLI-ATG patients, respectively||4.7|1.1|0.017
90916736|NCT00603954|181703750|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||This statistical analysis applies to median ATG serum levels at day 0||||
90916737|NCT00603954|181703750|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||This statistical analysis applies to median ATG serum levels at day 3||||
90916738|NCT00603954|181703750|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||This statistical analysis applies to median ATG serum levels at day 10||||
90916739|NCT00603954|181703751|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Cumulative incidence curve|||||||0.5
90916740|NCT00603954|181703752|SUPERIORITY||multivariate analyses|2.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.07||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|4.1|||Kaplan-Meier method|||||4.1|1|0.14
90916741|NCT00603954|181703754|SUPERIORITY||multivariate analyses|1.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.02||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.4|||Kaplan-Meier method|||||1.4|1|0.9
90916742|NCT00603954|181703755|SUPERIORITY||multivariate analyses|1.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.02||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.4|||Kaplan-Meier method|||||1.4|1|0.96
90916743|NCT02528188|181703756|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.39||||0.0123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|4.68|||Exact methods for risk difference|||||4.68|0.58|0.0123
90916744|NCT02528188|181703756|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.55|8.14|||Exact methods for risk difference|||||8.14|3.55|<0.0001
90916745|NCT02528188|181703757|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|23.5||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.3|37.7|||Poisson model for rate difference|||||37.7|9.3|0.0012
90916746|NCT02528188|181703757|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|56.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.4|74.9|||Poisson model for rate difference|||||74.9|38.4|<0.0001
90916747|NCT02528188|181703758|SUPERIORITY|A graphical testing procedure was applied to maintain Type I error. Tanezumab 5 mg versus NSAID was tested first and if all primary endpoints were found significant, then the testing was continued for Tanezumab 2.5 mg versus NSAID and the key secondary endpoint (\>=50% reduction from baseline in WOMAC Pain at Week 16). Primary endpoints were tested sequentially within a dose in order of WOMAC pain, WOMAC physical function, and PGA.|LS Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.05||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.05|-0.46|0.0148
90916748|NCT02528188|181703758|SUPERIORITY|A graphical testing procedure was applied to maintain Type I error. Tanezumab 5 mg versus NSAID was tested first and if all primary endpoints were found significant, then the testing was continued for Tanezumab 2.5 mg versus NSAID and the key secondary endpoint (\>=50% reduction from baseline in WOMAC Pain at Week 16). Primary endpoints were tested sequentially within a dose in order of WOMAC pain, WOMAC physical function, and PGA.|LS Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.1597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.06||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.06|-0.36|0.1597
90916749|NCT02528188|181703759|SUPERIORITY|A graphical testing procedure was applied to maintain Type I error. Tanezumab 5 mg versus NSAID was tested first and if all primary endpoints were found significant, then the testing was continued for Tanezumab 2.5 mg versus NSAID and the key secondary endpoint (\>=50% reduction from baseline in WOMAC Pain at Week 16). Primary endpoints were tested sequentially within a dose in order of WOMAC pain, WOMAC physical function, and PGA.|LS Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.11||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.11|-0.52|0.0030
90916750|NCT02528188|181703759|SUPERIORITY|A graphical testing procedure was applied to maintain Type I error. Tanezumab 5 mg versus NSAID was tested first and if all primary endpoints were found significant, then the testing was continued for Tanezumab 2.5 mg versus NSAID and the key secondary endpoint (\>=50% reduction from baseline in WOMAC Pain at Week 16). Primary endpoints were tested sequentially within a dose in order of WOMAC pain, WOMAC physical function, and PGA.|LS Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.02||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.02|-0.40|0.0691
90878120|NCT01480076|181617653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0009|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0009
90878121|NCT01480076|181617653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1937|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1937
90878122|NCT01480076|181617653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0445|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0445
90878123|NCT01480076|181617653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6475|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.6475
90878124|NCT01480076|181617653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0097|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0097
90878125|NCT01480076|181617653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0386|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0386
90878126|NCT01480076|181617653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0219|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0219
90940548|NCT02630706|181760832|SUPERIORITY|cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, anti-hyperglycemic medication status at Screening (metformin alone, metformin + another AHA), Country (China, other), baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|Difference in the LS Means vs. Placebo|-1.42||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.01|0.17|||cLDA|||||0.17|-3.01|0.081
90878127|NCT01480076|181617653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0076|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0076
90878128|NCT01480076|181617654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1471|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of work time missed due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.1471
90878129|NCT01480076|181617654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5503|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of work time missed due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.5503
90878130|NCT01480076|181617654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3854|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of work time missed due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.3854
90878131|NCT01480076|181617654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4893|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of work time missed due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.4893
90916751|NCT02528188|181703760|SUPERIORITY|A graphical testing procedure was applied to maintain Type I error. Tanezumab 5 mg versus NSAID was tested first and if all primary endpoints were found significant, then the testing was continued for Tanezumab 2.5 mg versus NSAID and the key secondary endpoint (\>=50% reduction from baseline in WOMAC Pain at Week 16). Primary endpoints were tested sequentially within a dose in order of WOMAC pain, WOMAC physical function, and PGA.|LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.3431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.04||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline PGA and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.04|-0.11|0.3431
90916752|NCT02528188|181703760|SUPERIORITY|A graphical testing procedure was applied to maintain Type I error. Tanezumab 5 mg versus NSAID was tested first and if all primary endpoints were found significant, then the testing was continued for Tanezumab 2.5 mg versus NSAID and the key secondary endpoint (\>=50% reduction from baseline in WOMAC Pain at Week 16). Primary endpoints were tested sequentially within a dose in order of WOMAC pain, WOMAC physical function, and PGA.|LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.6332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.06||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline PGA and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.06|-0.09|0.6332
90916753|NCT02528188|181703761|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.5||||0.4082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|2.28|||Exact methods for risk difference|||||2.28|-0.75|0.4082
90916754|NCT02528188|181703761|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.7||||0.0238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|3.63|||Exact methods for risk difference|||||3.63|0.31|0.0238
90916755|NCT02528188|181703762|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|4.8||||0.2035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|12.2|||Poisson model for rate difference|||||12.2|-2.6|0.2035
90916756|NCT02528188|181703762|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|16.9||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|27.0|||Poisson model for rate difference|||||27.0|6.8|0.0010
90916757|NCT02528188|181703763|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference|1.99||||0.0248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|4.17|||Exact methods for risk difference|||Rapidly progressive OA Type 1 or 2||4.17|0.31|0.0248
90916758|NCT02528188|181703763|SUPERIORITY||Risk difference|5.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.16|7.54|||Exact methods for risk difference|||Rapidly Progressive OA Type 1 or 2||7.54|3.16|<0.0001
90916759|NCT02528188|181703763|SUPERIORITY||Risk difference|1.79||||0.0366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|3.92|||Exact methods for risk difference|||Rapidly Progressive OA Type 1||3.92|0.16|0.0366
90916760|NCT02528188|181703763|SUPERIORITY||Risk difference|3.81||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.99|6.12|||Exact methods for risk difference|||Rapidly Progressive OA Type 1||6.12|1.99|0.0001
90916761|NCT02528188|181703763|SUPERIORITY||Risk difference|0.2||||0.6168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|1.71|||Exact methods for risk difference|||Rapidly Progressive OA Type 2||1.71|-0.76|0.6168
90916762|NCT02528188|181703763|SUPERIORITY||Risk difference|1.3||||0.0388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|2.97|||Exact methods for risk difference|||Rapidly Progressive OA Type 2||2.97|0.17|0.0388
90916763|NCT02528188|181703763|SUPERIORITY||Risk difference|0.1||||0.7245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|1.51|||Exact methods for risk difference|||Primary osteonecrosis||1.51|-0.74|0.7245
90916764|NCT02528188|181703763|SUPERIORITY||Risk difference|0.1||||0.7182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|1.52|||Exact methods for risk difference|||Primary osteonecrosis||1.52|-0.74|0.7182
90961337|NCT00568321|181803578|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.02||0.241|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.76|1.91|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 6 (Pain severity): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.91|-4.76|0.241
90916765|NCT02528188|181703763|SUPERIORITY||Risk difference|0.2||||0.6824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|1.9|||Exact methods for risk difference|||Subchondral insufficiency fracture||1.90|-0.96|0.6824
90916766|NCT02528188|181703763|SUPERIORITY||Risk difference|0.3||||0.5632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|2.03|||Exact methods for risk difference|||Subchondral insufficiency fracture||2.03|-0.86|0.5632
90916767|NCT02528188|181703764|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|19.56||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.78|32.35|||Poisson model for rate difference|||Rapidly Progressive OA Type 1 or 2||32.35|6.78|0.0027
90916768|NCT02528188|181703764|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|51.48|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.47|68.5|||Poisson model for rate difference|||Rapidly Progressive OA Type 1 or 2||68.50|34.47|<0.0001
90916769|NCT02528188|181703764|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|17.58||||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.39|29.76|||Poisson model for rate difference|||Rapidly Progressive OA Type 1||29.76|5.39|0.0047
90916770|NCT02528188|181703764|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|38.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.05|53.4|||Poisson model for rate difference|||Rapidly Progressive OA Type 1||53.40|23.05|<0.0001
90916771|NCT02528188|181703764|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|1.94||||0.3214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|5.76|||Poisson model for rate difference|||Rapidly Progressive OA Type 2||5.76|-1.89|0.3214
90916772|NCT02528188|181703764|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|12.88||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.36|20.39|||Poisson model for rate difference|||Rapidly Progressive OA Type 2||20.39|5.36|0.0008
90878132|NCT01480076|181617654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2166|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of work time missed due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.2166
90878133|NCT01480076|181617654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4149|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of work time missed due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.4149
90878134|NCT01480076|181617654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3849|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of work time missed due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.3849
90878135|NCT01480076|181617654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.898|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of work time missed due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.8980
90878136|NCT01480076|181617654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0046|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of work time missed due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0046
90878137|NCT01480076|181617654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0594|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of work time missed due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0594
90878138|NCT01480076|181617654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2975|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of work time missed due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.2975
90916773|NCT02528188|181703764|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|1.9||||0.5394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.17|7.96|||Poisson model for rate difference|||Subchondral Insufficiency Fracture||7.96|-4.17|0.5394
90916774|NCT02528188|181703764|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|2.98||||0.3636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.44|9.39|||Poisson model for rate difference|||Subchondral Insufficiency Fracture||9.39|-3.44|0.3636
90916775|NCT02528188|181703764|SUPERIORITY||Poisson model for rate difference|1.0|||||||||||||95% CI was not estimable since there were less number of participants with events.|Primary osteonecrosis||||
90878139|NCT01480076|181617654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7155|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of work time missed due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.7155
90878140|NCT01480076|181617654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.507|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of work time missed due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.5070
90878141|NCT01480076|181617654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5848|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of work time missed due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.5848
90878142|NCT01480076|181617654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.802|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of work time missed due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.8020
90878143|NCT01480076|181617654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.254|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of work time missed due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.2540
90916776|NCT02528188|181703764|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|1.0|||||||||||||95% CI was not estimable since there were less number of participants with events.|Primary osteonecrosis||||
90916777|NCT02528188|181703765|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.87||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.43|7.74||The event of adjudicated primary osteonecrosis in the tanezumab 2.5 mg treatment group is not included in this analysis. Conclusions for this analysis do not change as the comparison to NSAID is already statistically significant in favor of NSAID.|Exact methods for risk difference|||||7.74|2.43|0.0002
90878144|NCT01480076|181617654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9057|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of work time missed due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.9057
90878145|NCT01480076|181617654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9679|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of work time missed due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.9679
90878146|NCT01480076|181617654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5875|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of work time missed due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.5875
90878147|NCT01480076|181617654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.744|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of work time missed due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.7440
90916778|NCT02528188|181703765|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.73|12.52|||Exact methods for risk difference|||||12.52|6.73|<0.0001
90916779|NCT02528188|181703766|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|48.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.76|69.74||The event of adjudicated primary osteonecrosis in the tanezumab 2.5 mg treatment group is not included in this analysis. Conclusions for this analysis do not change as the comparison to NSAID is already statistically significant in favor of NSAID.|Poisson model for rate difference|||||69.74|26.76|<0.0001
90916780|NCT02528188|181703766|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|95.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|70.25|121.42|||Poisson model for rate difference|||||121.42|70.25|<0.0001
90916781|NCT02528188|181703767|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Change in medial JSW width at Week 56: ANCOVA model included treatment, baseline JSW as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.01|-0.15|0.0979
90878148|NCT01480076|181617655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0032|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of impairment while working due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0032
90878149|NCT01480076|181617655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0828|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of impairment while working due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0828
90878150|NCT01480076|181617655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7756|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of impairment while working due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.7756
90878151|NCT01480076|181617655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of impairment while working due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.2200
90878152|NCT01480076|181617655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of impairment while working due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0002
90878153|NCT01480076|181617655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0061|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of impairment while working due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0061
90878154|NCT01480076|181617655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6258|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of impairment while working due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.6258
90878155|NCT01480076|181617655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6987|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of impairment while working due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.6987
90916782|NCT02528188|181703767|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|-0.08|||ANCOVA|||Change in medial JSW at Week 56: ANCOVA model included treatment, baseline JSW as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.08|-0.24|<0.0001
90916783|NCT02528188|181703767|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.1162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Change in medial JSW at Week 80: ANCOVA model included treatment, baseline JSW as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.02|-0.17|0.1162
90916784|NCT02528188|181703767|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.0128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||Change in medial JSW at Week 80: ANCOVA model included treatment, baseline JSW as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.03|-0.22|0.0128
90916785|NCT02528188|181703767|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.8885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Change in lateral JSW at Week 56: ANCOVA model included treatment, baseline JSW as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.20|-0.17|0.8885
90916786|NCT02528188|181703767|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.6345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.15|||ANCOVA|||Change in lateral JSW at Week 56: ANCOVA model included treatment, baseline JSW as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.15|-0.24|0.6345
90916787|NCT02528188|181703767|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.4406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.14|||ANCOVA|||Change in lateral JSW at Week 80: ANCOVA model included treatment, baseline JSW as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.14|-0.32|0.4406
90878156|NCT01480076|181617655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0025|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of impairment while working due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0025
90878157|NCT01480076|181617655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0021|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of impairment while working due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0021
90916788|NCT02528188|181703767|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.7109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.28|||ANCOVA|||Change in lateral JSW at Week 80: ANCOVA model included treatment, baseline JSW as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.28|-0.19|0.7109
90878158|NCT01480076|181617655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4385|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of impairment while working due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.4385
90916789|NCT02528188|181703768|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 56: ANCOVA model included treatment, baseline JSW as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.03|-0.30|0.1020
90916790|NCT02528188|181703768|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 56: ANCOVA model included treatment, baseline JSW as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.03|-0.35|0.0230
90916791|NCT02528188|181703768|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 80: ANCOVA model included treatment, baseline JSW as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.01|-0.37|0.0645
90916792|NCT02528188|181703768|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.5005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.13|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 80: ANCOVA model included treatment, baseline JSW as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.13|-0.26|0.5005
91033762|NCT01993030|181953336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|||||Values of p \< 0.05 were considered to be significantly different.|Fisher Exact|||"Two-sided Fisher's exact test was performed to assess statistically significant differences of the data of the Number of Participants with Inflammatory Reaction between the group treated with the HQ® Matrix Medical Wound Dressing and that treated with the Sidaiyi® wound dressing.~This Statistical Analysis applies to the Participants with Inflammatory Reaction and the Participants without Inflammatory Reaction category."||||0.36
90916793|NCT02528188|181703769|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.85||||0.0358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|3.29|||Regression, Logistic|||Decrease in medial JSW at Week 56: Logistic regression model included treatment, and baseline JSW as covariate.||3.29|1.04|0.0358
90916794|NCT02528188|181703769|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.37||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|4.12|||Regression, Logistic|||Decrease in medial JSW at Week 56: Logistic regression model included treatment, and baseline JSW as covariate.||4.12|1.37|0.0021
90916795|NCT02528188|181703769|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.01||||0.0301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|3.77|||Regression, Logistic|||Decrease in medial JSW at Week 80: Logistic regression model included treatment, and baseline JSW as covariate.||3.77|1.07|0.0301
90916796|NCT02528188|181703769|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.65||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|4.85|||Regression, Logistic|||Decrease in medial JSW at Week 80: Logistic regression model included treatment, and baseline JSW as covariate.||4.85|1.45|0.0016
90916797|NCT02528188|181703769|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.55||||0.3002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.7|||Regression, Logistic|||Decrease in lateral JSW at Week 56: Logistic regression model included treatment, and baseline JSW as covariate.||1.70|0.18|0.3002
90916798|NCT02528188|181703769|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.8997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|2.89|||Regression, Logistic|||Decrease in lateral JSW at Week 56: Logistic regression model included treatment, and baseline JSW as covariate.||2.89|0.39|0.8997
90916799|NCT02528188|181703769|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.4559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|4.18|||Regression, Logistic|||Decrease in lateral JSW at Week 80: Logistic regression model included treatment, and baseline JSW as covariate.||4.18|0.53|0.4559
90916800|NCT02528188|181703769|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71||||0.5996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.54|||Regression, Logistic|||Decrease in lateral JSW at Week 80: Logistic regression model included treatment, and baseline JSW as covariate.||2.54|0.20|0.5996
90916801|NCT02528188|181703770|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.37||||0.0714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|12.65|||Regression, Logistic|||Decrease at Week 56: Logistic regression model included treatment, and baseline JSW as covariate||12.65|0.90|0.0714
90916802|NCT02528188|181703770|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.42||||0.0681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|12.84|||Regression, Logistic|||Decrease at Week 56: Logistic regression model included treatment, and baseline JSW as covariate||12.84|0.91|0.0681
90916803|NCT02528188|181703770|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.12||||0.0967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|11.95|||Regression, Logistic|||Decrease at Week 80: Logistic regression model included treatment, and baseline JSW as covariate||11.95|0.81|0.0967
90916804|NCT02528188|181703770|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.11||||0.0976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|11.9|||Regression, Logistic|||Decrease at Week 80: Logistic regression model included treatment, and baseline JSW as covariate||11.90|0.81|0.0976
90916805|NCT02528188|181703771|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.2212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.06|-0.27|0.2212
90916806|NCT02528188|181703771|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.4557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.23|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.23|-0.10|0.4557
90916807|NCT02528188|181703771|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.09|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.09|-0.45|0.0029
90916808|NCT02528188|181703771|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.14|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.14|-0.50|0.0005
90916809|NCT02528188|181703771|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.1273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.04|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.04|-0.33|0.1273
90940549|NCT02630706|181760833|SUPERIORITY|cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, anti-hyperglycemic medication status at Screening (metformin alone, metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|Difference in the LS Means vs. Placebo|-0.95||||0.315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|0.9|||cLDA|||||0.90|-2.80|0.315
90878159|NCT01480076|181617655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2275|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of impairment while working due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.2275
90878160|NCT01480076|181617655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0446|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of impairment while working due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0446
90878161|NCT01480076|181617655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5757|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of impairment while working due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.5757
90916810|NCT02528188|181703771|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.20|-0.57|<0.0001
90916811|NCT02528188|181703771|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.6349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.19|-0.31|0.6349
90916812|NCT02528188|181703771|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.1339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.06|-0.44|0.1339
90916813|NCT02528188|181703771|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.6237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.20|-0.33|0.6237
90916814|NCT02528188|181703771|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.4224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.16|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.16|-0.37|0.4224
90916815|NCT02528188|181703771|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.7526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.22|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.22|-0.31|0.7526
90916816|NCT02528188|181703771|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.7328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.22|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.22|-0.31|0.7328
90916817|NCT02528188|181703771|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.5888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.19|-0.33|0.5888
90878162|NCT01480076|181617655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8936|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of impairment while working due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.8936
90878163|NCT01480076|181617655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5675|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of impairment while working due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.5675
90878164|NCT01480076|181617655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2539|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of impairment while working due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.2539
90916818|NCT02528188|181703771|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.9345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.26|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.26|-0.28|0.9345
90916819|NCT02528188|181703771|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.8782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.25|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.25|-0.29|0.8782
90916820|NCT02528188|181703771|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.7076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.32|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.32|-0.22|0.7076
90916821|NCT02528188|181703773|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.04|-0.37|0.0150
90916822|NCT02528188|181703773|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.3286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.08|-0.25|0.3286
90961338|NCT00568321|181803578|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.789|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|1.45|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 8 (Worst pain): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.45|-0.50|0.789
90916823|NCT02528188|181703773|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.15|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.15|-0.50|0.0004
90940550|NCT02630706|181760833|SUPERIORITY|cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, anti-hyperglycemic medication status at Screening (metformin alone, metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|Difference in the LS Means vs. Placebo|-1.0||||0.282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.83|0.83|||cLDA|||||0.83|-2.83|0.282
90940551|NCT02630706|181760834|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted odds ratio based on a logistic regression model fitted with fixed effects for treatment anti-hyperglycemic medication status at screening (metformin alone, metformin + another AHA), Country (China, other), baseline eGFR (continuous) and baseline A1C (continuous). Missing data imputed using the cLDA model fitted with fixed effects as in the primary analysis.|Adjusted Odds Ratio relative to placebo|8.9||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.46|32.22||Nominal p-values were provided.|Logistic regression model|||||32.22|2.46|0.001
90878165|NCT01480076|181617655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6673|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of impairment while working due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.6673
90878166|NCT01480076|181617655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0849|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of impairment while working due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0849
90878167|NCT01480076|181617655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1187|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of impairment while working due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.1187
90878168|NCT01480076|181617656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0022|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of overall work impairment due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0022
90878169|NCT01480076|181617656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0299|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of overall work impairment due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0299
90878170|NCT01480076|181617656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8135|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of overall work impairment due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.8135
90878171|NCT01480076|181617656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3526|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of overall work impairment due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.3526
90878172|NCT01480076|181617656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of overall work impairment due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0001
90878173|NCT01480076|181617656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0039|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of overall work impairment due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0039
90878174|NCT01480076|181617656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6924|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of overall work impairment due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.6924
90878175|NCT01480076|181617656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7639|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of overall work impairment due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.7639
90878176|NCT01480076|181617656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0013|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of overall work impairment due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0013
90878177|NCT01480076|181617656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0011|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of overall work impairment due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0011
90878178|NCT01480076|181617656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.434|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of overall work impairment due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.4340
90916824|NCT02528188|181703773|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.17|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.17|-0.53|0.0001
91033763|NCT01993030|181953337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|||||Values of p \< 0.05 were considered to be significantly different.|t-test, 2 sided|||Two-sided t-test was performed to assess statistically significant differences of the data of the VAS score between the group treated with the HQ® Matrix Medical Wound Dressing and that treated with the Sidaiyi® wound dressing.||||0.11
90878179|NCT01480076|181617656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4224|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of overall work impairment due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.4224
90878180|NCT01480076|181617656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1628|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of overall work impairment due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.1628
90878181|NCT01480076|181617656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5666|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of overall work impairment due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.5666
90878182|NCT01480076|181617656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8315|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of overall work impairment due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.8315
90878183|NCT01480076|181617656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3852|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of overall work impairment due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.3852
90878184|NCT01480076|181617656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0652|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of overall work impairment due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0652
90878185|NCT01480076|181617656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5719|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of overall work impairment due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.5719
90878186|NCT01480076|181617656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9237|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of overall work impairment due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.9237
90878187|NCT01480076|181617656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.131|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of overall work impairment due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.1310
90878188|NCT01480076|181617657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of regular activity productivity loss, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
90878189|NCT01480076|181617657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of regular activity productivity loss, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
90878190|NCT01480076|181617657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of regular activity productivity loss, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0001
90916825|NCT02528188|181703773|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.00|-0.37|0.0517
90916826|NCT02528188|181703773|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.23|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.23|-0.61|<0.0001
91033764|NCT01993030|181953338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|||||Values of p \< 0.05 were considered to be significantly different.|Fisher Exact|||"Two-sided Fisher's exact test was performed to assess statistically significant differences of the data of the Number of Participants with Exudation between the group treated with the HQ® Matrix Medical Wound Dressing and that treated with the Sidaiyi® wound dressing.~This Statistical Analysis applies to No exudation and Little exudation category."||||0.11
90916827|NCT02528188|181703773|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.3621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.13|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.13|-0.37|0.3621
90916828|NCT02528188|181703773|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.03|-0.47|0.0832
90916829|NCT02528188|181703773|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.4072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.15|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.15|-0.38|0.4072
90916830|NCT02528188|181703773|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.3404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.13|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.13|-0.39|0.3404
90916831|NCT02528188|181703773|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.6344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.20|-0.34|0.6344
90916832|NCT02528188|181703773|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.5756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.19|-0.35|0.5756
90916833|NCT02528188|181703773|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.4394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.16|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.16|-0.38|0.4394
90916834|NCT02528188|181703773|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.7747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.23|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.23|-0.31|0.7747
90916835|NCT02528188|181703773|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.7305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.22|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.22|-0.32|0.7305
91033765|NCT01993030|181953339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||Values of p \< 0.05 were considered to be significantly different.|t-test, 2 sided|||Two-sided t-test was performed to assess statistically significant differences of the data of the Time to Wound Healing between the group treated with the HQ® Matrix Medical Wound Dressing and that treated with the Sidaiyi® wound dressing.||||0.02
90916836|NCT02528188|181703773|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.32|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.32|-0.22|0.7330
90916837|NCT02528188|181703775|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.2159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline PGA and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.02|-0.10|0.2159
90961339|NCT00568321|181803578|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.57|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.88|1.09|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 8 (Worst pain): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.09|-0.88|0.570
91033766|NCT01832259|181953340|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.345|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.345
91033767|NCT01832259|181953342|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.46
90878191|NCT01480076|181617657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of regular activity productivity loss, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0003
90916838|NCT02528188|181703775|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.2049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline PGA and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.02|-0.10|0.2049
90878192|NCT01480076|181617657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of regular activity productivity loss, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
90961340|NCT00568321|181803578|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.782|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.43|1.19|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 8 (Average pain): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.19|-0.43|0.782
90878193|NCT01480076|181617657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of regular activity productivity loss, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
90878194|NCT01480076|181617657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of regular activity productivity loss, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0002
90878195|NCT01480076|181617657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0102|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of regular activity productivity loss, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0102
90878196|NCT01480076|181617657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of regular activity productivity loss, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
90878197|NCT01480076|181617657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of regular activity productivity loss, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
90878198|NCT01480076|181617657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of regular activity productivity loss, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0001
90878199|NCT01480076|181617657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0012|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of regular activity productivity loss, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0012
90916839|NCT02528188|181703775|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|-0.06|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline PGA and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.06|-0.19|0.0002
90916840|NCT02528188|181703775|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|-0.08|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline PGA and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.08|-0.21|<0.0001
90961341|NCT00568321|181803578|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.295|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.08|0.55|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 8 (Average pain): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.55|-1.08|0.295
90961342|NCT00568321|181803578|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04||0.804|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.62|5.11|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 8 (Pain severity): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||5.11|-1.62|0.804
90878200|NCT01480076|181617657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of regular activity productivity loss, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
90878201|NCT01480076|181617657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of regular activity productivity loss, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
90878202|NCT01480076|181617657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0026|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of regular activity productivity loss, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0026
90878203|NCT01480076|181617657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0161|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of regular activity productivity loss, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0161
90916841|NCT02528188|181703775|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.7799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline PGA and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.06|-0.08|0.7799
90916842|NCT02528188|181703775|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline PGA and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.03|-0.16|0.0061
90916843|NCT02528188|181703775|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.9718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline PGA and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.10|-0.10|0.9718
90916844|NCT02528188|181703775|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.3292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline PGA and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.05|-0.14|0.3292
91033768|NCT00829790|181953367|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|114.49||||||90.0|109.25|119.98|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||119.98|109.25|
90878204|NCT01480076|181617657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of regular activity productivity loss, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
90878205|NCT01480076|181617657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of regular activity productivity loss, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
90878206|NCT01480076|181617657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1151|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of regular activity productivity loss, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.1151
90878207|NCT01480076|181617657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of regular activity productivity loss, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0040
90878208|NCT01480076|181617658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline PCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90878209|NCT01480076|181617658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6769|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline PCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.6769
90878210|NCT01480076|181617658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline PCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90878211|NCT01480076|181617658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.578|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline PCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.5780
90916845|NCT02528188|181703775|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline PGA and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.10|-0.10|0.9830
90878212|NCT01480076|181617658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline PCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90878213|NCT01480076|181617658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline PCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90878214|NCT01480076|181617658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline PCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90878215|NCT01480076|181617658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8886|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline PCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.8886
90878216|NCT01480076|181617658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline PCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90878217|NCT01480076|181617658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3221|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline PCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.3221
90878218|NCT01480076|181617658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline PCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90878219|NCT01480076|181617658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.23|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline PCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90878220|NCT01480076|181617658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline PCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90878221|NCT01480076|181617658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4668|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline PCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.4668
90878222|NCT01480076|181617658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline PCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90916846|NCT02528188|181703775|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.9137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline PGA and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.11|-0.09|0.9137
90878223|NCT01480076|181617658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5695|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline PCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.5695
90878224|NCT01480076|181617658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88||0.0058|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline PCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0058
90916847|NCT02528188|181703775|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.8784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.09|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline PGA and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.09|-0.11|0.8784
90916848|NCT02528188|181703775|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.9995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline PGA and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.10|-0.10|0.9995
90916849|NCT02528188|181703775|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.6648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline PGA and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.08|-0.13|0.6648
90916850|NCT02528188|181703775|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.12|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline PGA and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.12|-0.09|0.7280
90916851|NCT02528188|181703775|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.8856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline PGA and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.11|-0.09|0.8856
90916852|NCT02528188|181703775|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.2814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.16|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline PGA and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.16|-0.05|0.2814
90916853|NCT02528188|181703777|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.4691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.28|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 2||1.28|0.89|0.4691
90916854|NCT02528188|181703777|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.5451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.13|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 2||1.13|0.79|0.5451
90916855|NCT02528188|181703777|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.54|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 4||1.54|1.08|0.0059
90916856|NCT02528188|181703777|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.55|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 4||1.55|1.08|0.0057
90916857|NCT02528188|181703777|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.1584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.38|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 8||1.38|0.95|0.1584
90916858|NCT02528188|181703777|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.006||95.0|1.08|1.58|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 8||1.58|1.08|0.0060
90916859|NCT02528188|181703777|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.1117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.46|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 16||1.46|0.96|0.1117
90916860|NCT02528188|181703777|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.1004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.47|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 16||1.47|0.97|0.1004
90916861|NCT02528188|181703777|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.6258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.25|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 24||1.25|0.87|0.6258
90916862|NCT02528188|181703777|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.1154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.39|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 24||1.39|0.96|0.1154
90916863|NCT02528188|181703777|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.8018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.22|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 32||1.22|0.86|0.8018
90916864|NCT02528188|181703777|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.5697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.26|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 32||1.26|0.88|0.5697
90916865|NCT02528188|181703777|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.9557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.2|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 40||1.20|0.84|0.9557
90961343|NCT00568321|181803578|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.06||0.655|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.58|4.22|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 8 (Pain severity): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||4.22|-2.58|0.655
90961344|NCT00568321|181803578|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.409|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.13|0.86|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 12 (Worst pain): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.86|-1.13|0.409
90961345|NCT00568321|181803578|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.482|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.03|0.97|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 12 (Worst pain): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.97|-1.03|0.482
90961346|NCT00568321|181803578|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.592|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.71|0.94|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 12 (Average pain): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.94|-0.71|0.592
90961347|NCT00568321|181803578|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.368|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|0.66|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 12 (Average pain): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.66|-1.00|0.368
91033769|NCT00829790|181953368|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|117.16||||||90.0|110.44|124.28|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||124.28|110.44|
91033770|NCT00829790|181953369|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|116.7||||||90.0|109.89|123.92|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||123.92|109.89|
90916866|NCT02528188|181703777|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.8553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.22|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 40||1.22|0.85|0.8553
90916867|NCT02528188|181703777|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.9901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.2|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 48||1.20|0.84|0.9901
90916868|NCT02528188|181703777|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.14|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 48||1.14|0.80|0.5870
90916869|NCT02528188|181703777|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.8302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.22|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 56||1.22|0.85|0.8302
90916870|NCT02528188|181703777|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.4823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.12|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 56||1.12|0.79|0.4823
90878225|NCT01480076|181617658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline PCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0010
90878226|NCT01480076|181617658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline PCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90878227|NCT01480076|181617658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.204|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline PCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2040
90878228|NCT01480076|181617658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline PCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90878229|NCT01480076|181617658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6306|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline PCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.6306
90878230|NCT01480076|181617658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non- responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline PCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90878231|NCT01480076|181617658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.51||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline PCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0020
90878232|NCT01480076|181617658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline PCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90878233|NCT01480076|181617658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4052|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline PCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.4052
90878234|NCT01480076|181617658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline PCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90878235|NCT01480076|181617658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8626|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline PCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.8626
90878236|NCT01480076|181617658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93||0.0004|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline PCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0004
90916871|NCT02528188|181703778|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.2938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.33|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 2: \>=30% reduction||1.33|0.92|0.2938
90916872|NCT02528188|181703778|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.3146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.1|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 2: \>=30% reduction||1.10|0.75|0.3146
90916873|NCT02528188|181703778|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.0748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.58|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 2: \>=50% reduction||1.58|0.98|0.0748
90961348|NCT00568321|181803578|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.08||0.396|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.98|2.88|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 12 (Pain severity): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||2.88|-3.98|0.396
90961349|NCT00568321|181803578|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.09||0.545|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.21|3.69|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 12 (Pain severity): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||3.69|-3.21|0.545
90961350|NCT00568321|181803578|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.486|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.04|1.0|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 16 (Worst pain): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.00|-1.04|0.486
90961351|NCT00568321|181803578|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.324|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.33|0.75|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 16 (Worst pain): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.75|-1.33|0.324
90961352|NCT00568321|181803578|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.563|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.76|0.92|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 16 (Average pain): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.92|-0.76|0.563
90961353|NCT00568321|181803578|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.282|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.16|0.56|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 16 (Average pain): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.56|-1.16|0.282
90878237|NCT01480076|181617658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.49||0.0263|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline PCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0263
90878238|NCT01480076|181617659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline MCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90878239|NCT01480076|181617659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8999|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline MCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.8999
90878240|NCT01480076|181617659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline MCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90878241|NCT01480076|181617659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7156|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline MCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.7156
90878242|NCT01480076|181617659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline MCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0050
90878243|NCT01480076|181617659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.68||0.049|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline MCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0490
90878244|NCT01480076|181617659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline MCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90916874|NCT02528188|181703778|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.45|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 2: \>=50% reduction||1.45|0.89|0.3000
90916875|NCT02528188|181703778|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.74|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 2: \>=70% reduction||1.74|0.86|0.2550
90916876|NCT02528188|181703778|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.62|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 2: \>=70% reduction||1.62|0.80|0.4780
90916877|NCT02528188|181703778|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.4006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.42|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 2: \>=90% reduction||2.42|0.70|0.4006
90916878|NCT02528188|181703778|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.3089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|2.54|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 2: \>=90% reduction||2.54|0.74|0.3089
90916879|NCT02528188|181703778|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.0114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.5|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 4: \>=30% reduction||1.50|1.05|0.0114
90916880|NCT02528188|181703778|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.0239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.47|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 4: \>=30% reduction||1.47|1.03|0.0239
90916881|NCT02528188|181703778|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.0079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.6|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 4: \>=50% reduction||1.60|1.07|0.0079
90916882|NCT02528188|181703778|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.0068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.6|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 4: \>=50% reduction||1.60|1.08|0.0068
90916883|NCT02528188|181703778|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.1037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.62|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 4: \>=70% reduction||1.62|0.96|0.1037
90916884|NCT02528188|181703778|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.88|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 4: \>=70% reduction||1.88|1.12|0.0046
90961354|NCT00568321|181803578|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.12||0.409|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.99|3.01||P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.|Repeated Measures Model|||Week 16 (Pain severity): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||3.01|-3.99|0.409
90916885|NCT02528188|181703778|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.1971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|2.19|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 4: \>=90% reduction||2.19|0.85|0.1971
90916886|NCT02528188|181703778|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.59||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.52|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 4: \>=90% reduction||2.52|1.00|0.0480
90961355|NCT00568321|181803578|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.17||0.293|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.76|2.39||P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.|Repeated Measures Model|||Week 16 (Pain severity): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||2.39|-4.76|0.293
91033771|NCT00102440|181953393|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of febuxostat 80 mg to allopurinol was declared if the value of the lower bound of the 97.5% confidence interval is \> -10%.|Difference in percentage|32.0||||||97.5|23.1|41.3||||||||41.3|23.1|
90878245|NCT01480076|181617659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.274|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline MCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2740
90878246|NCT01480076|181617659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline MCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90878247|NCT01480076|181617659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5556|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline MCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.5556
90878248|NCT01480076|181617659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline MCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90878249|NCT01480076|181617659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.88||0.0476|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline MCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0476
90878250|NCT01480076|181617659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline MCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90878251|NCT01480076|181617659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8627|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline MCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.8627
90878252|NCT01480076|181617659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline MCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90878253|NCT01480076|181617659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4312|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline MCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.4312
90878254|NCT01480076|181617659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.27||0.0305|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline MCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0305
90878255|NCT01480076|181617659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.03||0.2059|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline MCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2059
90878256|NCT01480076|181617659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0008|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline MCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0008
91033772|NCT00102440|181953393|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of febuxostat 120 mg to allopurinol was declared if the value of the lower bound of the 97.5% confidence interval is \> -10%.|Difference in percentage|41.0||||||97.5|31.5|49.5||||||||49.5|31.5|
91033773|NCT00102440|181953393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Comparisons of each febuxostat dose to allopurinol were adjusted to control the overall 0.05 level of significance for superiority by using Hochberg's method for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
90916887|NCT02528188|181703778|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.4744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.28|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 8: \>=30% reduction||1.28|0.89|0.4744
90916888|NCT02528188|181703778|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.0336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.45|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 8: \>=30% reduction||1.45|1.02|0.0336
90916889|NCT02528188|181703778|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.0559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.44|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 8: \>=50% reduction||1.44|1.00|0.0559
90916890|NCT02528188|181703778|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|1.61|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 8: \>=50% reduction||1.61|1.11|0.0021
90916891|NCT02528188|181703778|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.0535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.59|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 8: \>=70% reduction||1.59|1.00|0.0535
90916892|NCT02528188|181703778|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|1.92|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 8: \>=70% reduction||1.92|1.22|0.0003
90916893|NCT02528188|181703778|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.6421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.7|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 8: \>=90% reduction||1.70|0.72|0.6421
90916894|NCT02528188|181703778|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6||||0.0207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|2.38|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 8: \>=90% reduction||2.38|1.07|0.0207
90916895|NCT02528188|181703778|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.1635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.39|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 16: \>=30% reduction||1.39|0.95|0.1635
90916896|NCT02528188|181703778|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.0529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.47|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 16: \>=30% reduction||1.47|1.00|0.0529
90916897|NCT02528188|181703778|SUPERIORITY|The two key secondary comparisons for 'Participants with \>=50% reduction from baseline in WOMAC Pain at Week 16' (tanezumab 2.5 mg treatment group versus NSAID and tanezumab 5 mg treatment group versus NSAID) could not be considered significant since preceding tests in the graphical testing procedure were not significant.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.1322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.37|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 16: \>=50% reduction||1.37|0.96|0.1322
90916898|NCT02528188|181703778|SUPERIORITY|The two key secondary comparisons for 'Participants with \>=50% reduction from baseline in WOMAC Pain at Week 16' (tanezumab 2.5 mg treatment group versus NSAID and tanezumab 5 mg treatment group versus NSAID) could not be considered significant since preceding tests in the graphical testing procedure were not significant.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.0262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.46|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 16: \>=50% reduction||1.46|1.02|0.0262
90916899|NCT02528188|181703778|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.9805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.22|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 16: \>=70% reduction||1.22|0.83|0.9805
90916900|NCT02528188|181703778|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.61|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 16: \>=70% reduction||1.61|1.10|0.0033
90916901|NCT02528188|181703778|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.69|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 16: \>=90% reduction||1.69|0.92|0.1590
90916902|NCT02528188|181703778|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.57||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|2.11|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 16: \>=90% reduction||2.11|1.17|0.0024
91033774|NCT00102440|181953393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Comparisons of each febuxostat dose to allopurinol were adjusted to control the overall 0.05 level of significance for superiority by using Hochberg's method for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
90961356|NCT00568321|181803585|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.343|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.03|0.62|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 1 (CS): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.62|-1.03|0.343
90961357|NCT00568321|181803585|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.576|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.75|0.94|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 1 (CS): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.94|-0.75|0.576
90961358|NCT00568321|181803585|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.46|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.1|0.98|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 1 (GA): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.98|-1.10|0.460
90916903|NCT02528188|181703778|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.9932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.2|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 24: \>=30% reduction||1.20|0.83|0.9932
90916904|NCT02528188|181703778|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.4374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.29|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 24: \>=30% reduction||1.29|0.90|0.4374
90916905|NCT02528188|181703778|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.4406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.28|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 24: \>=50% reduction||1.28|0.90|0.4406
90961359|NCT00568321|181803585|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.435|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.15|0.94|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 1 (GA): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.94|-1.15|0.435
90961360|NCT00568321|181803585|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.104|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.62|0.22|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 1 (NW): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.22|-1.62|0.104
90961361|NCT00568321|181803585|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.204|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.42|0.47|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 1 (NW): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.47|-1.42|0.204
90961362|NCT00568321|181803585|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.931|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.08|1.58|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 2 (CS): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.58|-0.08|0.931
90961363|NCT00568321|181803585|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.941|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.04|1.67|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 2 (CS): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.67|-0.04|0.941
90916906|NCT02528188|181703778|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.4078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.29|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 24: \>=50% reduction||1.29|0.90|0.4078
90961364|NCT00568321|181803585|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.936|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.08|2.01|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 2 (GA): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||2.01|-0.08|0.936
91033775|NCT00102440|181953393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.072||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.072
91033776|NCT00102440|181953394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
90916907|NCT02528188|181703778|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.4071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.31|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 24: \>=70% reduction||1.31|0.89|0.4071
91033777|NCT00102440|181953394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91033778|NCT00102440|181953394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.031
90916908|NCT02528188|181703778|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.0248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.5|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 24: \>=70% reduction||1.50|1.03|0.0248
90878257|NCT01480076|181617659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3685|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline MCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.3685
90878258|NCT01480076|181617659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0016|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline MCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0016
90878259|NCT01480076|181617659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9862|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline MCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.9862
90878260|NCT01480076|181617659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38||0.5561|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline MCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.5561
90878261|NCT01480076|181617659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.32||0.2281|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline MCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2281
90878262|NCT01480076|181617659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline MCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0006
90878263|NCT01480076|181617659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6004|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline MCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.6004
90878264|NCT01480076|181617659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline MCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90878265|NCT01480076|181617659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.904|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline MCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.9040
90916909|NCT02528188|181703778|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.3641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.16|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 24: \>=90% reduction||1.16|0.66|0.3641
90916910|NCT02528188|181703778|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.2497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.53|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 24: \>=90% reduction||1.53|0.89|0.2497
90878266|NCT01480076|181617659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38||0.0401|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline MCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0401
90878267|NCT01480076|181617659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.23||0.0651|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline MCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0651
90878268|NCT01480076|181617660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90878269|NCT01480076|181617660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.454|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.4540
90878270|NCT01480076|181617660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90878271|NCT01480076|181617660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2949|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2949
90878272|NCT01480076|181617660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-8.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90916911|NCT02528188|181703778|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.8682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.21|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 32: \>=30% reduction||1.21|0.85|0.8682
90916912|NCT02528188|181703778|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.7317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.16|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 32: \>=30% reduction||1.16|0.81|0.7317
90916913|NCT02528188|181703778|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.6493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.24|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 32: \>=50% reduction||1.24|0.87|0.6493
90878273|NCT01480076|181617660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.16||0.0046|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0046
90878274|NCT01480076|181617660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-12.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90916914|NCT02528188|181703778|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.7973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.17|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 32: \>=50% reduction||1.17|0.82|0.7973
90916915|NCT02528188|181703778|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.0757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.45|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 32: \>=70% reduction||1.45|0.98|0.0757
90916916|NCT02528188|181703778|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.0578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.47|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 32: \>=70% reduction||1.47|0.99|0.0578
90916917|NCT02528188|181703778|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.37|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 32: \>=90% reduction||1.37|0.76|0.9010
90916918|NCT02528188|181703778|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.0548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.74|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 32: \>=90% reduction||1.74|0.99|0.0548
90878275|NCT01480076|181617660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.502|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.5020
90878276|NCT01480076|181617660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90916919|NCT02528188|181703778|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.7331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.23|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 40: \>=30% reduction||1.23|0.86|0.7331
90916920|NCT02528188|181703778|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.8632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.18|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 40: \>=30% reduction||1.18|0.82|0.8632
90916921|NCT02528188|181703778|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.6262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.25|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 40: \>=50% reduction||1.25|0.88|0.6262
90916922|NCT02528188|181703778|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.6817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.15|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 40: \>=50% reduction||1.15|0.81|0.6817
90916923|NCT02528188|181703778|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.24|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 40: \>=70% reduction||1.24|0.85|0.7990
90916924|NCT02528188|181703778|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.6786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.26|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 40: \>=70% reduction||1.26|0.86|0.6786
90961365|NCT00568321|181803585|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.965|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.11|2.23|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 2 (GA): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||2.23|0.11|0.965
90878277|NCT01480076|181617660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2157|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2157
90916925|NCT02528188|181703778|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.8069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.38|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 40: \>=90% reduction||1.38|0.78|0.8069
91033779|NCT00102440|181953395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91033780|NCT00102440|181953395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
90878278|NCT01480076|181617660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-11.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91033781|NCT00102440|181953395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.883||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.883
91033782|NCT00102440|181953396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
90878279|NCT01480076|181617660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-10.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3||0.0026|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0026
90878280|NCT01480076|181617660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90878281|NCT01480076|181617660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3435|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.3435
90916926|NCT02528188|181703778|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.2951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.54|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 40: \>=90% reduction||1.54|0.88|0.2951
90916927|NCT02528188|181703778|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.9093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.21|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 48: \>=30% reduction||1.21|0.85|0.9093
90916928|NCT02528188|181703778|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.5032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.12|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 48: \>=30% reduction||1.12|0.79|0.5032
90916929|NCT02528188|181703778|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.4382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.28|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 48: \>=50% reduction||1.28|0.90|0.4382
90916930|NCT02528188|181703778|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.5638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.13|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 48: \>=50% reduction||1.13|0.79|0.5638
90916931|NCT02528188|181703778|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.6436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.27|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 48: \>=70% reduction||1.27|0.86|0.6436
91033783|NCT00102440|181953396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91033784|NCT00102440|181953396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.164||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.164
91033785|NCT00102440|181953397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from contrast within the framework of the one-way ANOVA model with treatment as a factor. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91033786|NCT00102440|181953397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from contrast within the framework of the one-way ANOVA model with treatment as a factor. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91033787|NCT00102440|181953397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from contrast within the framework of the one-way ANOVA model with treatment as a factor. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90961366|NCT00568321|181803585|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.855|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.33|1.51|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 2 (NW): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.51|-0.33|0.855
90878282|NCT01480076|181617660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90878283|NCT01480076|181617660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1357|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1357
90878284|NCT01480076|181617660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-7.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.22||0.0004|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0004
90878285|NCT01480076|181617660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.58||0.0511|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0511
90878286|NCT01480076|181617660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90878287|NCT01480076|181617660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8703|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.8703
90878288|NCT01480076|181617660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90878289|NCT01480076|181617660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9049|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.9049
90878290|NCT01480076|181617660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.44||0.0019|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0019
90878291|NCT01480076|181617660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-12.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.15||0.0033|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0033
90916932|NCT02528188|181703778|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.26|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 48: \>=70% reduction||1.26|0.85|0.7060
90916933|NCT02528188|181703778|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.7729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.28|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 48: \>=90% reduction||1.28|0.72|0.7729
90916934|NCT02528188|181703778|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.6405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.42|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 48: \>=90% reduction||1.42|0.81|0.6405
91033788|NCT00102440|181953398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from contrast within the framework of the one-way ANOVA model with treatment as a factor. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91033789|NCT00102440|181953398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from contrast within the framework of the one-way ANOVA model with treatment as a factor. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90878292|NCT01480076|181617660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90878293|NCT01480076|181617660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4087|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.4087
90878294|NCT01480076|181617660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90878295|NCT01480076|181617660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2755|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2755
90878296|NCT01480076|181617660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.52||0.0251|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0251
90878297|NCT01480076|181617660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.08||0.0989|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0989
90916935|NCT02528188|181703778|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.9046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.21|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 56: \>=30% reduction||1.21|0.85|0.9046
90916936|NCT02528188|181703778|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.4491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.11|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 56: \>=30% reduction||1.11|0.78|0.4491
90916937|NCT02528188|181703778|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.7429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.23|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 56: \>=50% reduction||1.23|0.86|0.7429
90916938|NCT02528188|181703778|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.3467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.1|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 56: \>=50% reduction||1.10|0.77|0.3467
90916939|NCT02528188|181703778|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.7624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.26|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 56: \>=70% reduction||1.26|0.85|0.7624
90916940|NCT02528188|181703778|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.7686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.18|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 56: \>=70% reduction||1.18|0.80|0.7686
91033790|NCT00102440|181953398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from contrast within the framework of the one-way ANOVA model with treatment as a factor. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||0.006
90878298|NCT01480076|181617661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
91033791|NCT00102440|181953399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from contrast within the framework of the one-way ANOVA model with treatment as a factor. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90878299|NCT01480076|181617661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8767|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.8767
90878300|NCT01480076|181617661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90878301|NCT01480076|181617661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3673|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.3673
90878302|NCT01480076|181617661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91||0.0004|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0004
90878303|NCT01480076|181617661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-6.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.12||0.0273|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0273
90878304|NCT01480076|181617661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90878305|NCT01480076|181617661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9091|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.9091
90878306|NCT01480076|181617661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90878307|NCT01480076|181617661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7718|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.7718
90878308|NCT01480076|181617661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-9.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90878309|NCT01480076|181617661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-10.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5||0.0038|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0038
90878310|NCT01480076|181617661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90916941|NCT02528188|181703778|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.9384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.33|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 56: \>=90% reduction||1.33|0.74|0.9384
91033792|NCT00102440|181953399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from contrast within the framework of the one-way ANOVA model with treatment as a factor. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90878311|NCT01480076|181617661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.272|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2720
90878312|NCT01480076|181617661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90878313|NCT01480076|181617661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4767|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.4767
90878314|NCT01480076|181617661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.32||0.0553|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0553
90878315|NCT01480076|181617661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-6.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.73||0.0632|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0632
90878316|NCT01480076|181617661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90878317|NCT01480076|181617661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9398|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.9398
90878318|NCT01480076|181617661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90878319|NCT01480076|181617661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5655|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.5655
90878320|NCT01480076|181617661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.54||0.0204|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0204
90878321|NCT01480076|181617661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.37||0.1414|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1414
90878322|NCT01480076|181617661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90916942|NCT02528188|181703778|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.8495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.38|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 56: \>=90% reduction||1.38|0.77|0.8495
91033793|NCT00102440|181953399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from contrast within the framework of the one-way ANOVA model with treatment as a factor. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90878323|NCT01480076|181617661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6279|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.6279
90878324|NCT01480076|181617661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90878325|NCT01480076|181617661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2239|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2239
90878326|NCT01480076|181617661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-7.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.67||0.0049|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0049
90878327|NCT01480076|181617661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.32||0.3457|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.3457
90878328|NCT01480076|181617662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the total ALS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90878329|NCT01480076|181617662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2087|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the total ALS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2087
90878330|NCT01480076|181617662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the total ALS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90878331|NCT01480076|181617662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4487|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the total ALS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.4487
90878332|NCT01480076|181617662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.0013|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the total ALS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0013
90878333|NCT01480076|181617662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15||0.0188|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the total ALS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0188
90878334|NCT01480076|181617662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the total ALS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90878335|NCT01480076|181617662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4243|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the total ALS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.4243
90916943|NCT02528188|181703780|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.0651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.44|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 2: \>=30% reduction||1.44|0.99|0.0651
90916944|NCT02528188|181703780|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.9032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.22|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 2: \>=30% reduction||1.22|0.84|0.9032
90916945|NCT02528188|181703780|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.72|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 2: \>=50% reduction||1.72|1.08|0.0100
90916946|NCT02528188|181703780|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.3728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.42|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 2: \>=50% reduction||1.42|0.88|0.3728
90916947|NCT02528188|181703780|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.0434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|2.04|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 2: \>=70% reduction||2.04|1.01|0.0434
90916948|NCT02528188|181703780|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.0425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|2.04|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 2: \>=70% reduction||2.04|1.01|0.0425
90916949|NCT02528188|181703780|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.5442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|2.34|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 2: \>=90% reduction||2.34|0.64|0.5442
91033794|NCT00102440|181953400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.999
90878336|NCT01480076|181617662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the total ALS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90878337|NCT01480076|181617662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9989|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the total ALS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.9989
90878338|NCT01480076|181617662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.0207|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the total ALS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0207
90878339|NCT01480076|181617662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18||0.0161|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the total ALS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0161
90878340|NCT01480076|181617662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the total ALS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90878341|NCT01480076|181617662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4256|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the total ALS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.4256
90878342|NCT01480076|181617662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the total ALS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90916950|NCT02528188|181703780|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.0349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|3.45|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 2: \>=90% reduction||3.45|1.05|0.0349
90916951|NCT02528188|181703780|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.0108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.51|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 4: \>=30% reduction||1.51|1.05|0.0108
90916952|NCT02528188|181703780|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.52|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 4: \>=30% reduction||1.52|1.07|0.0080
90916953|NCT02528188|181703780|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|1.83|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 4: \>=50% reduction||1.83|1.22|<0.0001
90916954|NCT02528188|181703780|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|1.85|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 4: \>=50% reduction||1.85|1.24|<0.0001
90916955|NCT02528188|181703780|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|1.88|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 4: \>=70% reduction||1.88|1.11|0.0060
90916956|NCT02528188|181703780|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.93|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 4: \>=70% reduction||1.93|1.14|0.0031
90916957|NCT02528188|181703780|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76||||0.0235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|2.88|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 4: \>=90% reduction||2.88|1.08|0.0235
90916958|NCT02528188|181703780|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.12||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|3.42|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 4: \>=90% reduction||3.42|1.31|0.0021
90916959|NCT02528188|181703780|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.7613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.23|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 8: \>=30% reduction||1.23|0.86|0.7613
90916960|NCT02528188|181703780|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.0548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.43|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 8: \>=30% reduction||1.43|1.00|0.0548
91033795|NCT00102440|181953400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.011
90916961|NCT02528188|181703780|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.0196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.51|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 8: \>=50% reduction||1.51|1.04|0.0196
90916962|NCT02528188|181703780|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|1.75|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 8: \>=50% reduction||1.75|1.20|<0.0001
90916963|NCT02528188|181703780|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.0077||95.0|1.09|1.77|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 8: \>=70% reduction||1.77|1.09|0.0077
90916964|NCT02528188|181703780|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.09|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 8: \>=70% reduction||2.09|1.30|<0.0001
90916965|NCT02528188|181703780|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.1942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.96|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 8: \>=90% reduction||1.96|0.87|0.1942
90916966|NCT02528188|181703780|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.64||||0.0122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|2.43|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 8: \>=90% reduction||2.43|1.11|0.0122
90916967|NCT02528188|181703780|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.0977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.43|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 16: \>=30% reduction||1.43|0.97|0.0977
90916968|NCT02528188|181703780|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.0806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.44|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 16: \>=30% reduction||1.44|0.98|0.0806
90961367|NCT00568321|181803585|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.765|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.54|1.38|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 2 (NW): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.38|-0.54|0.765
90961368|NCT00568321|181803585|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.504|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.84|0.85|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 4 (CS): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.85|-0.84|0.504
90961369|NCT00568321|181803585|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.643|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.67|1.06|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 4 (CS): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.06|-0.67|0.643
90961370|NCT00568321|181803585|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.486|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.09|1.04|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 4 (GA): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.04|-1.09|0.486
90961371|NCT00568321|181803585|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.6|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.91|1.24|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 4 (GA): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.24|-0.91|0.600
90961372|NCT00568321|181803585|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.418|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.05|0.82|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 4 (NW): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.82|-1.05|0.418
90961373|NCT00568321|181803585|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.515|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.95|0.99|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 4 (NW): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.99|-0.95|0.515
90961374|NCT00568321|181803585|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.456|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.93|0.81|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 6 (CS): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.81|-0.93|0.456
90961375|NCT00568321|181803585|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.556|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.82|0.97|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 6 (CS): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.97|-0.82|0.556
91033796|NCT00102440|181953400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.024
91033797|NCT00102440|181953401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.083||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.083
90916969|NCT02528188|181703780|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.2097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.34|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 16: \>=50% reduction||1.34|0.94|0.2097
90916970|NCT02528188|181703780|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.0135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.49|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 16: \>=50% reduction||1.49|1.05|0.0135
90878343|NCT01480076|181617662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3313|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the total ALS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.3313
90878344|NCT01480076|181617662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.0238|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the total ALS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0238
90878345|NCT01480076|181617662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.39||0.015|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the total ALS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0150
90878346|NCT01480076|181617662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the total ALS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90878347|NCT01480076|181617662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0171|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the total ALS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0171
90878348|NCT01480076|181617662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0007|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the total ALS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0007
90878349|NCT01480076|181617662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5146|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the total ALS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.5146
90878350|NCT01480076|181617662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.0003|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the total ALS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0003
90878351|NCT01480076|181617662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.72||0.1224|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the total ALS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1224
90878352|NCT01480076|181617662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0168|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the total ALS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0168
90878353|NCT01480076|181617662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2272|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the total ALS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2272
90916971|NCT02528188|181703780|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.3571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.33|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 16: \>=70% reduction||1.33|0.90|0.3571
90916972|NCT02528188|181703780|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|1.63|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 16: \>=70% reduction||1.63|1.11|0.0025
91033798|NCT00102440|181953401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.164||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.164
91033799|NCT00102440|181953401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.619||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.619
90878354|NCT01480076|181617662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.057|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the total ALS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0570
90878355|NCT01480076|181617662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5832|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the total ALS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.5832
90878356|NCT01480076|181617662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94||0.0561|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the total ALS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0561
90878357|NCT01480076|181617662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86||0.2971|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the total ALS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2971
90878358|NCT01480076|181617663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90878359|NCT01480076|181617663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0029|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0029
90878360|NCT01480076|181617663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90878361|NCT01480076|181617663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8041|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.8041
90878362|NCT01480076|181617663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|11.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.85|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90878363|NCT01480076|181617663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|9.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1||0.0026|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0026
90961376|NCT00568321|181803585|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67||0.448|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.19|1.02|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 6 (GA): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.02|-1.19|0.448
91033800|NCT00102440|181953402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.080
90878364|NCT01480076|181617663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90878365|NCT01480076|181617663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0689|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0689
90878366|NCT01480076|181617663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90878367|NCT01480076|181617663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7182|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.7182
90878368|NCT01480076|181617663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|11.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90878369|NCT01480076|181617663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|9.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.57||0.0061|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0061
90878370|NCT01480076|181617663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90878371|NCT01480076|181617663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0179|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0179
90878372|NCT01480076|181617663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90961377|NCT00568321|181803585|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.6|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.95|1.3|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 6 (GA): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.30|-0.95|0.600
90916973|NCT02528188|181703780|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.4658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.49|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 16: \>=90% reduction||1.49|0.83|0.4658
90961378|NCT00568321|181803585|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.225|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.41|0.52|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 6 (NW): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.52|-1.41|0.225
90961379|NCT00568321|181803585|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.387|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.18|0.83|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 6 (NW): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.83|-1.18|0.387
90961380|NCT00568321|181803585|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.657|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.67|1.11|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 8 (CS): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.11|-0.67|0.657
90878373|NCT01480076|181617663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6911|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.6911
90878374|NCT01480076|181617663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|10.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.31|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90961381|NCT00568321|181803585|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.808|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.43|1.4|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 8 (CS): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.40|-0.43|0.808
90878375|NCT01480076|181617663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.85||0.0666|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0666
90878376|NCT01480076|181617663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90961382|NCT00568321|181803585|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.742|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.68|1.57|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 8 (GA): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.57|-0.68|0.742
90961383|NCT00568321|181803585|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.923|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.16|2.14|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 8 (GA): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||2.14|-0.16|0.923
90961384|NCT00568321|181803585|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.49|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.01|0.98|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 8 (NW): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.98|-1.01|0.490
90878377|NCT01480076|181617663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0158|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0158
91033801|NCT00102440|181953402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.372||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.372
90878378|NCT01480076|181617663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90878379|NCT01480076|181617663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6684|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.6684
90878380|NCT01480076|181617663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|11.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.49|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90878381|NCT01480076|181617663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|10.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.28||0.0141|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0141
90878382|NCT01480076|181617663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90878383|NCT01480076|181617663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0042|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0042
90878384|NCT01480076|181617663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90878385|NCT01480076|181617663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7329|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.7329
90878386|NCT01480076|181617663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|13.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.65|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90878387|NCT01480076|181617663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|10.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.49||0.0242|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0242
90878388|NCT01480076|181617664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D index scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0001
90916974|NCT02528188|181703780|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.0108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.9|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 16: \>=90% reduction||1.90|1.09|0.0108
90916975|NCT02528188|181703780|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.8393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.22|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 24: \>=30% reduction||1.22|0.85|0.8393
90916976|NCT02528188|181703780|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.2977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.32|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 24: \>=30% reduction||1.32|0.92|0.2977
90916977|NCT02528188|181703780|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.1944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.34|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 24: \>=50% reduction||1.34|0.94|0.1944
90916978|NCT02528188|181703780|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.5714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.26|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 24: \>=50% reduction||1.26|0.88|0.5714
90916979|NCT02528188|181703780|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.2472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.36|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 24: \>=70% reduction||1.36|0.92|0.2472
90916980|NCT02528188|181703780|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.0235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.51|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 24: \>=70% reduction||1.51|1.03|0.0235
90878389|NCT01480076|181617664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9151|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D index scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.9151
90878390|NCT01480076|181617664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D index scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90878391|NCT01480076|181617664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6128|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D index scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.6128
90878392|NCT01480076|181617664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.0331|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D index scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0331
90878393|NCT01480076|181617664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.1919|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D index scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1919
90878394|NCT01480076|181617664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D index scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90878395|NCT01480076|181617664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4481|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D index scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.4481
90878396|NCT01480076|181617664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D index scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90916981|NCT02528188|181703780|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.4074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.51|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 24: \>=90% reduction||1.51|0.85|0.4074
91033802|NCT00102440|181953402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.246||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.246
90916982|NCT02528188|181703780|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.0296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.81|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 24: \>=90% reduction||1.81|1.03|0.0296
90878397|NCT01480076|181617664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5454|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D index scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.5454
90878398|NCT01480076|181617664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.0516|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D index scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0516
90878399|NCT01480076|181617664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0175|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D index scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0175
90878400|NCT01480076|181617664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D index scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0001
90878401|NCT01480076|181617664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9371|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D index scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.9371
90878402|NCT01480076|181617664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0056|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D index scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0056
90878403|NCT01480076|181617664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5475|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D index scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.5475
90878404|NCT01480076|181617664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0699|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D index scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0699
90878405|NCT01480076|181617664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.587|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D index scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.5870
90878406|NCT01480076|181617664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0245|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D index scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0245
90878407|NCT01480076|181617664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9926|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D index scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.9926
90878408|NCT01480076|181617664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0027|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D index scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0027
90878409|NCT01480076|181617664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6368|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D index scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.6368
91033803|NCT00102440|181953403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.674||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.674
90878410|NCT01480076|181617664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.3358|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D index scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.3358
90878411|NCT01480076|181617664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.5089|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D index scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.5089
90878412|NCT01480076|181617664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0141|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D index scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0141
90878413|NCT01480076|181617664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.428|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D index scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.4280
90878414|NCT01480076|181617664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D index scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0002
90878415|NCT01480076|181617664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3827|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D index scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.3827
90878416|NCT01480076|181617664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0748|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D index scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0748
90878417|NCT01480076|181617664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.5663|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D index scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.5663
90916983|NCT02528188|181703780|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.7607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.23|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 32: \>=30% reduction||1.23|0.86|0.7607
90916984|NCT02528188|181703780|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.7979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.22|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 32: \>=30% reduction||1.22|0.86|0.7979
90916985|NCT02528188|181703780|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.2964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.31|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 32: \>=50% reduction||1.31|0.92|0.2964
90916986|NCT02528188|181703780|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.24|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 32: \>=50% reduction||1.24|0.87|0.6950
90916987|NCT02528188|181703780|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.1985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.38|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 32: \>=70% reduction||1.38|0.93|0.1985
91033804|NCT00102440|181953403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.320
91033805|NCT00102440|181953403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.411||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.411
90916988|NCT02528188|181703780|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.1239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.42|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 32: \>=70% reduction||1.42|0.96|0.1239
90916989|NCT02528188|181703780|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.2762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.58|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 32: \>=90% reduction||1.58|0.88|0.2762
90916990|NCT02528188|181703780|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.0121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.91|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 32: \>=90% reduction||1.91|1.08|0.0121
90916991|NCT02528188|181703780|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.8443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.22|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 40: \>=30% reduction||1.22|0.85|0.8443
90916992|NCT02528188|181703780|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.8472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.22|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 40: \>=30% reduction||1.22|0.85|0.8472
90916993|NCT02528188|181703780|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.21|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 40: \>=50% reduction||1.21|0.85|0.8980
90916994|NCT02528188|181703780|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.9385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.19|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 40: \>=50% reduction||1.19|0.83|0.9385
90916995|NCT02528188|181703780|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.4261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.32|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 40: \>=70% reduction||1.32|0.89|0.4261
90916996|NCT02528188|181703780|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.3|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 40: \>=70% reduction||1.30|0.88|0.5250
90916997|NCT02528188|181703780|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.6273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.45|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 40: \>=90% reduction||1.45|0.80|0.6273
90961385|NCT00568321|181803585|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.609|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.86|1.2|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 8 (NW): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.20|-0.86|0.609
90961386|NCT00568321|181803585|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.362|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.1|0.71|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 12 (CS): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.71|-1.10|0.362
90961387|NCT00568321|181803585|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.61|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.77|1.09|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 12 (CS): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.09|-0.77|0.610
90916998|NCT02528188|181703780|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.0132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.9|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 40: \>=90% reduction||1.90|1.08|0.0132
90916999|NCT02528188|181703780|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.9095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.18|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 48: \>=30% reduction||1.18|0.83|0.9095
90917000|NCT02528188|181703780|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.5098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.12|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 48: \>=30% reduction||1.12|0.79|0.5098
90917001|NCT02528188|181703780|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.4488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.28|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 48: \>=50% reduction||1.28|0.90|0.4488
90917002|NCT02528188|181703780|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.9757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.19|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 48: \>=50% reduction||1.19|0.83|0.9757
90917003|NCT02528188|181703780|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.1843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.39|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 48: \>=70% reduction||1.39|0.94|0.1843
90917004|NCT02528188|181703780|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.4356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.32|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 48: \>=70% reduction||1.32|0.89|0.4356
90917005|NCT02528188|181703780|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.6342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.45|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 48: \>=90% reduction||1.45|0.80|0.6342
90917006|NCT02528188|181703780|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.73|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 48: \>=90% reduction||1.73|0.97|0.0810
90917007|NCT02528188|181703780|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.6527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.15|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 56: \>=30% reduction||1.15|0.80|0.6527
90917008|NCT02528188|181703780|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.3857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.1|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 56: \>=30% reduction||1.10|0.77|0.3857
90917009|NCT02528188|181703780|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|1.06||||0.528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.27|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 56: \>=50% reduction||1.27|0.89|0.5280
90917010|NCT02528188|181703780|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.5355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.13|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 56: \>=50% reduction||1.13|0.79|0.5355
90917011|NCT02528188|181703780|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.7732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.26|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 56: \>=70% reduction||1.26|0.84|0.7732
90961388|NCT00568321|181803585|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.376|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.37|0.93|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 12 (GA): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.93|-1.37|0.376
90961389|NCT00568321|181803585|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.733|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.73|1.6|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 12 (GA): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.60|-0.73|0.733
90917012|NCT02528188|181703780|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.9397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.23|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 56: \>=70% reduction||1.23|0.82|0.9397
90917013|NCT02528188|181703780|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.9044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.39|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 56: \>=90% reduction||1.39|0.75|0.9044
90917014|NCT02528188|181703780|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.3193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.57|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 56: \>=90% reduction||1.57|0.86|0.3193
90917015|NCT02528188|181703782|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.1772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.62|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of OA scale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.||1.62|0.91|0.1772
91033806|NCT00102440|181953404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.507||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.507
90917016|NCT02528188|181703782|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.0154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.89|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of OA scale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.||1.89|1.07|0.0154
90917017|NCT02528188|181703782|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.0105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.81|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of OA scale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.||1.81|1.08|0.0105
90917018|NCT02528188|181703782|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|2.1|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of OA scale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.||2.10|1.26|0.0002
90917019|NCT02528188|181703782|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.4007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.43|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of OA scale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.||1.43|0.87|0.4007
90917020|NCT02528188|181703782|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.0116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.75|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of OA scale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.||1.75|1.07|0.0116
90917021|NCT02528188|181703782|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.6279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.18|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of OA scale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.||1.18|0.76|0.6279
90917022|NCT02528188|181703782|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.4674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.35|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of OA scale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.||1.35|0.87|0.4674
90917023|NCT02528188|181703782|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.3135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.12|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of OA scale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.||1.12|0.71|0.3135
90917024|NCT02528188|181703782|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.7581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.3|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of OA scale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.||1.30|0.83|0.7581
90917025|NCT02528188|181703782|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.4504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.15|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 32: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of OA scale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.||1.15|0.73|0.4504
90917026|NCT02528188|181703782|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.2629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.1|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 32: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of OA scale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.||1.10|0.70|0.2629
90917027|NCT02528188|181703782|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.6763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.2|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 40: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of OA scale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.||1.20|0.75|0.6763
90917028|NCT02528188|181703782|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.9456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.27|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 40: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of OA scale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.||1.27|0.80|0.9456
90917029|NCT02528188|181703782|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.22|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of OA scale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.||1.22|0.76|0.7520
90917030|NCT02528188|181703782|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.9981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.26|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of OA scale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.||1.26|0.79|0.9981
90917031|NCT02528188|181703782|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.5284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.17|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 56: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of OA scale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.||1.17|0.74|0.5284
90917032|NCT02528188|181703782|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.12|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 56: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of OA scale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.||1.12|0.70|0.3220
91033807|NCT00102440|181953404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.188||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.188
90961390|NCT00568321|181803585|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.303|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.33|0.69|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 12 (NW): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.69|-1.33|0.303
90961391|NCT00568321|181803585|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.548|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.97|1.12|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 12 (NW): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.12|-0.97|0.548
90961392|NCT00568321|181803585|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.609|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.77|1.08|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 16 (CS): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.08|-0.77|0.609
91033808|NCT00102440|181953404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.362||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.362
90878418|NCT01480076|181617665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1544|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % work time missed due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1544
90878419|NCT01480076|181617665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0167|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % work time missed due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0167
90878420|NCT01480076|181617665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3868|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % work time missed due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.3868
90878421|NCT01480076|181617665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2214|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % work time missed due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2214
90878422|NCT01480076|181617665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|8.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.96||0.0743|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % work time missed due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0743
90878423|NCT01480076|181617665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-17.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.22||0.1601|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % work time missed due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1601
90878424|NCT01480076|181617665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1251|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % work time missed due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1251
90878425|NCT01480076|181617665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1764|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % work time missed due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1764
90878426|NCT01480076|181617665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5528|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % work time missed due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.5528
90961393|NCT00568321|181803585|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.59|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.83|1.1|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 16 (CS): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.10|-0.83|0.590
91033809|NCT00102440|181953405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.657||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.657
91033810|NCT00102440|181953405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.444||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.444
90878427|NCT01480076|181617665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.108|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % work time missed due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1080
90878428|NCT01480076|181617665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.27||0.4644|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % work time missed due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.4644
90878429|NCT01480076|181617665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-30.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.91||0.0887|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % work time missed due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0887
90878430|NCT01480076|181617665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0071|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % work time missed due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0071
90917033|NCT02528188|181703783|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.20|-0.02|0.1120
90917034|NCT02528188|181703783|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.9686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.11|-0.11|0.9686
90917035|NCT02528188|181703783|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.1589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.04|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.04|-0.25|0.1589
90917036|NCT02528188|181703783|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.09|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.09|-0.20|0.4720
90917037|NCT02528188|181703783|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||Week 3: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.01|-0.33|0.0320
90917038|NCT02528188|181703783|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.3336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Week 3: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.08|-0.24|0.3336
90917039|NCT02528188|181703783|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.13|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.13|-0.47|0.0005
90878431|NCT01480076|181617665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.064|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % work time missed due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0640
90878432|NCT01480076|181617665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1552|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % work time missed due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1552
90878433|NCT01480076|181617665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5979|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % work time missed due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.5979
90878434|NCT01480076|181617665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.58||0.4444|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % work time missed due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.4444
90878435|NCT01480076|181617665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-10.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.27||0.3863|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % work time missed due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.3863
90878436|NCT01480076|181617665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6352|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % work time missed due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.6352
90878437|NCT01480076|181617665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1265|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % work time missed due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1265
90878438|NCT01480076|181617665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6161|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % work time missed due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.6161
90878439|NCT01480076|181617665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.528|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % work time missed due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.5280
90878440|NCT01480076|181617665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|11.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.51||0.1769|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % work time missed due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1769
90878441|NCT01480076|181617665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-16.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.24||0.4743|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % work time missed due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.4743
90917040|NCT02528188|181703783|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.16|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.16|-0.50|0.0001
90961394|NCT00568321|181803585|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.556|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.07|1.27|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 16 (GA): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.27|-1.07|0.556
90878442|NCT01480076|181617665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6901|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % work time missed due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.6901
90878443|NCT01480076|181617665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0245|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % work time missed due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0245
90878444|NCT01480076|181617665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7707|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % work time missed due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.7707
90878445|NCT01480076|181617665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4989|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % work time missed due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.4989
90878446|NCT01480076|181617665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|15.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.31||0.0387|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % work time missed due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0387
90878447|NCT01480076|181617665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-11.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.88||0.4635|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % work time missed due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.4635
90878448|NCT01480076|181617666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1392|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % impairment while working due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1392
90878449|NCT01480076|181617666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1448|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % impairment while working due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1448
90878450|NCT01480076|181617666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0187|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % impairment while working due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0187
90878451|NCT01480076|181617666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.292|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % impairment while working due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2920
90878452|NCT01480076|181617666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.95||0.3968|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % impairment while working due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.3968
90917041|NCT02528188|181703783|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.18|||ANCOVA|||Week 6: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.18|-0.55|<0.0001
90917042|NCT02528188|181703783|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||Week 6: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.30|-0.66|<0.0001
90961395|NCT00568321|181803585|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.443|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.32|1.11|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 16 (GA): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.11|-1.32|0.443
90961396|NCT00568321|181803585|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.527|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.99|1.07|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 16 (NW): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.07|-0.99|0.527
90961397|NCT00568321|181803585|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.583|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.95|1.22|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 16 (NW): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.22|-0.95|0.583
90961398|NCT00568321|181803588|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.111|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.81|0.27|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 1: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.27|-1.81|0.111
90878453|NCT01480076|181617666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.95||0.642|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % impairment while working due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.6420
90878454|NCT01480076|181617666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % impairment while working due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0100
90878455|NCT01480076|181617666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8634|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % impairment while working due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.8634
90878456|NCT01480076|181617666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0134|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % impairment while working due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0134
90878457|NCT01480076|181617666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8147|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % impairment while working due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.8147
90878458|NCT01480076|181617666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.06||0.4035|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % impairment while working due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.4035
90878459|NCT01480076|181617666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.25||0.7385|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % impairment while working due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.7385
90917043|NCT02528188|181703783|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.05|-0.42|0.0115
90917044|NCT02528188|181703783|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.26|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.26|-0.63|<0.0001
90961399|NCT00568321|181803588|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.523|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.02|1.09|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 1: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.09|-1.02|0.523
90961400|NCT00568321|181803588|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.887|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.28|1.81|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 2: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.81|-0.28|0.887
90961401|NCT00568321|181803588|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.903|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.23|1.92|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 2: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.92|-0.23|0.903
90878460|NCT01480076|181617666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0139|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % impairment while working due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0139
90878461|NCT01480076|181617666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5207|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % impairment while working due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.5207
90878462|NCT01480076|181617666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0091|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % impairment while working due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0091
90878463|NCT01480076|181617666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2312|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % impairment while working due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2312
90878464|NCT01480076|181617666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.89||0.7578|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % impairment while working due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.7578
90878465|NCT01480076|181617666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|7.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.42||0.5575|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % impairment while working due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.5575
90878466|NCT01480076|181617666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4486|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % impairment while working due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.4486
90878467|NCT01480076|181617666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0102|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % impairment while working due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0102
90878468|NCT01480076|181617666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1185|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % impairment while working due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1185
90878469|NCT01480076|181617666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7523|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % impairment while working due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.7523
90917045|NCT02528188|181703783|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.17|||ANCOVA|||Week 10: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.17|-0.56|0.0002
90917046|NCT02528188|181703783|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.28|||ANCOVA|||Week 10: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.28|-0.67|<0.0001
90917047|NCT02528188|181703783|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.18|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.18|-0.57|0.0002
90917048|NCT02528188|181703783|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|-0.25|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.25|-0.64|<0.0001
90917049|NCT02528188|181703783|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.03|-0.44|0.0238
90917050|NCT02528188|181703783|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.14|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.14|-0.55|0.0011
90917051|NCT02528188|181703783|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.08|||ANCOVA|||Week 20: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.08|-0.51|0.0064
90961402|NCT00568321|181803588|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.472|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.11|1.02|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 4: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.02|-1.11|0.472
90878470|NCT01480076|181617666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|17.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.38||0.0214|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % impairment while working due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0214
90878471|NCT01480076|181617666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.12||0.9826|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % impairment while working due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.9826
90878472|NCT01480076|181617666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6627|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % impairment while working due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.6627
91033811|NCT00102440|181953405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.719||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.719
91033812|NCT00102440|181953406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
91033813|NCT00102440|181953406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.229||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.229
90878473|NCT01480076|181617666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4674|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % impairment while working due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.4674
90878474|NCT01480076|181617666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2965|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % impairment while working due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2965
90878475|NCT01480076|181617666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1778|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % impairment while working due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1778
90878476|NCT01480076|181617666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.65||0.3903|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % impairment while working due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.3903
90878477|NCT01480076|181617666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|16.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.53||0.2794|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % impairment while working due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2794
90878478|NCT01480076|181617667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0628|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % overall work impairment due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0628
90878479|NCT01480076|181617667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1166|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % overall work impairment due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1166
91033814|NCT00102440|181953406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.266||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.266
91033815|NCT02819323|181953479|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin = 10%||||||0.003|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.003
91033816|NCT02819323|181953479|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin = 10%||||||0.003|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.003
91033817|NCT02819323|181953479|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.046
91033818|NCT02819323|181953479|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.089|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.089
91033819|NCT00473330|181953506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage at Month 24|24.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.8|34.8||An adjustment was made for multiple treatment comparisons of the ranibizumab dose groups with the control group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was stratified by baseline BCVA score (≤55, \>55 letters), baseline HbA1c (≤8%, \>8%), and prior therapy for ME in the study eye (yes, no).|The percentage for each group and the difference in percentage between groups were estimated using the weighted average of the observed percentages and the differences in observed percentages over the strata using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|||34.8|13.8|<0.0001
90878480|NCT01480076|181617667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0451|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % overall work impairment due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0451
90878481|NCT01480076|181617667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9327|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % overall work impairment due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.9327
90961403|NCT00568321|181803588|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.628|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.87|1.3|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 4: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.30|-0.87|0.628
90961404|NCT00568321|181803588|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67||0.243|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.58|0.64|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 6: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.64|-1.58|0.243
90961405|NCT00568321|181803588|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.346|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.42|0.87|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 6: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.87|-1.42|0.346
90961406|NCT00568321|181803588|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.467|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.19|1.08|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 8: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.08|-1.19|0.467
90961407|NCT00568321|181803588|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.67|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.85|1.47|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 8: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.47|-0.85|0.670
90961408|NCT00568321|181803588|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.286|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.55|0.76|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 12: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.76|-1.55|0.286
90961409|NCT00568321|181803588|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.598|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|1.35|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 12: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.35|-1.00|0.598
90961410|NCT00568321|181803588|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.453|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.26|1.09|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 16: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.09|-1.26|0.453
90961411|NCT00568321|181803588|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.472|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.28|1.17|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 16: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.17|-1.28|0.472
91033820|NCT00473330|181953506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage at Month 24|20.9||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.7|31.1||An adjustment was made for multiple treatment comparisons of the ranibizumab dose groups with the control group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was stratified by baseline BCVA score (≤55, \>55 letters), baseline HbA1c (≤8%, \>8%), and prior therapy for ME in the study eye (yes, no).|The percentage for each group and the difference in percentage between groups were estimated using the weighted average of the observed percentages and the differences in observed percentages over the strata using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|||31.1|10.7|0.0002
90878482|NCT01480076|181617667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.28||0.4177|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % overall work impairment due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.4177
90961412|NCT00568321|181803602|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02||0.548|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.81|1.56|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 2 (Learning): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.56|-1.81|0.548
90961413|NCT00568321|181803602|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.117|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.48|2.96|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 2 (Learning): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||2.96|-0.48|0.117
90961414|NCT00568321|181803602|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.779|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.69|0.98|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 6 (Learning): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.98|-2.69|0.779
90878483|NCT01480076|181617667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-7.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.64||0.5885|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % overall work impairment due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.5885
90878484|NCT01480076|181617667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0059|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % overall work impairment due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0059
90878485|NCT01480076|181617667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3467|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % overall work impairment due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.3467
90878486|NCT01480076|181617667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0654|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % overall work impairment due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0654
90878487|NCT01480076|181617667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3965|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % overall work impairment due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.3965
90878488|NCT01480076|181617667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.11||0.8548|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % overall work impairment due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.8548
90878489|NCT01480076|181617667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-25.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.35||0.2405|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % overall work impairment due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2405
90878490|NCT01480076|181617667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0056|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % overall work impairment due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0056
90878491|NCT01480076|181617667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8105|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % overall work impairment due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.8105
90961415|NCT00568321|181803602|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14||0.375|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.52|2.25|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 6 (Learning): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||2.25|-1.52|0.375
90878492|NCT01480076|181617667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % overall work impairment due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0470
90878493|NCT01480076|181617667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6067|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % overall work impairment due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.6067
90878494|NCT01480076|181617667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.56||0.4309|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % overall work impairment due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.4309
90878495|NCT01480076|181617667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.09||0.9761|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % overall work impairment due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.9761
90878496|NCT01480076|181617667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6261|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % overall work impairment due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.6261
90878497|NCT01480076|181617667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.086|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % overall work impairment due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0860
90917052|NCT02528188|181703783|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.12|||ANCOVA|||Week 20: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.12|-0.54|0.0025
90917053|NCT02528188|181703783|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.01|-0.48|0.0589
90917054|NCT02528188|181703783|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.05|-0.53|0.0180
90917055|NCT02528188|181703783|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.04|||ANCOVA|||Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.04|-0.47|0.0944
90917056|NCT02528188|181703783|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.1198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.05|-0.45|0.1198
90917057|NCT02528188|181703783|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.1837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.08|-0.43|0.1837
90917058|NCT02528188|181703783|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.13|||ANCOVA|||Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.13|-0.39|0.3170
90917059|NCT02528188|181703783|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.1873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.08|-0.43|0.1873
90917060|NCT02528188|181703783|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.5719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.18|||ANCOVA|||Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.18|-0.33|0.5719
90917061|NCT02528188|181703783|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.3571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.14|||ANCOVA|||Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.14|-0.39|0.3571
90917062|NCT02528188|181703783|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.9072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.28|||ANCOVA|||Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.28|-0.25|0.9072
90917063|NCT02528188|181703785|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|-0.14|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC stiffness subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.14|-0.49|0.0004
90961416|NCT00568321|181803602|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15||0.881|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.26|0.54|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 12 (Learning): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.54|-3.26|0.881
90961417|NCT00568321|181803602|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17||0.636|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.33|1.52|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 12 (Learning): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.52|-2.33|0.636
90917064|NCT02528188|181703785|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC stiffness subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.05|-0.40|0.0134
90917065|NCT02528188|181703785|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.19|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC stiffness subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.19|-0.56|<0.0001
90917066|NCT02528188|181703785|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.29|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC stiffness subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.29|-0.67|<0.0001
90917067|NCT02528188|181703785|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC stiffness subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.10|-0.49|0.0031
90917068|NCT02528188|181703785|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.43|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC stiffness subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.43|-0.82|<0.0001
90917069|NCT02528188|181703785|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC stiffness subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.01|-0.43|0.0425
90917070|NCT02528188|181703785|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.23|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC stiffness subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.23|-0.65|<0.0001
90917071|NCT02528188|181703785|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.12|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC stiffness subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.12|-0.40|0.2980
90917072|NCT02528188|181703785|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC stiffness subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.05|-0.58|0.0179
90917073|NCT02528188|181703785|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.2328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC stiffness subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.10|-0.42|0.2328
90917074|NCT02528188|181703785|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.1019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.04|||ANCOVA|||Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC stiffness subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.04|-0.49|0.1019
90917075|NCT02528188|181703785|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.4002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.15|||ANCOVA|||Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC stiffness subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.15|-0.38|0.4002
90917076|NCT02528188|181703785|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.2149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC stiffness subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.10|-0.45|0.2149
90917077|NCT02528188|181703785|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.2442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC stiffness subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.11|-0.43|0.2442
90878498|NCT01480076|181617667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2884|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % overall work impairment due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2884
90878499|NCT01480076|181617667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8854|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % overall work impairment due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.8854
90878500|NCT01480076|181617667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|16.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.88||0.1226|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % overall work impairment due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1226
90878501|NCT01480076|181617667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-9.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|26.07||0.7249|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % overall work impairment due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.7249
90878502|NCT01480076|181617667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5129|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % overall work impairment due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.5129
90878503|NCT01480076|181617667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1138|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % overall work impairment due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1138
90878504|NCT01480076|181617667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1086|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % overall work impairment due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1086
90878505|NCT01480076|181617667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5746|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % overall work impairment due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.5746
90878506|NCT01480076|181617667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|10.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.07||0.1831|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % overall work impairment due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1831
90878507|NCT01480076|181617667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.54||0.8917|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % overall work impairment due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.8917
90878508|NCT01480076|181617668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the regular activity productivity loss, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90878509|NCT01480076|181617668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1152|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the regular activity productivity loss, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1152
90878510|NCT01480076|181617668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the regular activity productivity loss, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90878511|NCT01480076|181617668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4578|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the regular activity productivity loss, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.4578
90878512|NCT01480076|181617668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.56||0.0125|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the regular activity productivity loss, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0125
90878513|NCT01480076|181617668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-10.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.23||0.0158|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the regular activity productivity loss, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0158
90878514|NCT01480076|181617668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the regular activity productivity loss, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90878515|NCT01480076|181617668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2894|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the regular activity productivity loss, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2894
90878516|NCT01480076|181617668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the regular activity productivity loss, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90878517|NCT01480076|181617668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.723|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the regular activity productivity loss, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.7230
90878518|NCT01480076|181617668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-9.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2||0.0038|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the regular activity productivity loss, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0038
90878519|NCT01480076|181617668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-13.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.37||0.0097|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the regular activity productivity loss, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0097
90878520|NCT01480076|181617668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the regular activity productivity loss, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90961418|NCT00568321|181803602|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17||0.905|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.46|0.39|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 16 (Learning): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.39|-3.46|0.905
90878521|NCT01480076|181617668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0628|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the regular activity productivity loss, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0628
90878522|NCT01480076|181617668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the regular activity productivity loss, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90878523|NCT01480076|181617668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9232|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the regular activity productivity loss, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.9232
90878524|NCT01480076|181617668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.37||0.1249|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the regular activity productivity loss, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1249
90878525|NCT01480076|181617668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-14.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.42||0.0093|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the regular activity productivity loss, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0093
90878526|NCT01480076|181617668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the regular activity productivity loss, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90878527|NCT01480076|181617668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0937|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the regular activity productivity loss, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0937
90878528|NCT01480076|181617668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the regular activity productivity loss, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90878529|NCT01480076|181617668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7814|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the regular activity productivity loss, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.7814
90878530|NCT01480076|181617668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.47||0.2561|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the regular activity productivity loss, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2561
90878531|NCT01480076|181617668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-13.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.07||0.0255|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the regular activity productivity loss, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0255
90878532|NCT01480076|181617668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the regular activity productivity loss, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90878533|NCT01480076|181617668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7241|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the regular activity productivity loss, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.7241
90878534|NCT01480076|181617668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the regular activity productivity loss, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
90917078|NCT02528188|181703785|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.4609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC stiffness subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.17|-0.37|0.4609
90917079|NCT02528188|181703785|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.8129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.24|||ANCOVA|||Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC stiffness subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.24|-0.31|0.8129
90917080|NCT02528188|181703785|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.7883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.24|||ANCOVA|||Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC stiffness subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.24|-0.32|0.7883
90917081|NCT02528188|181703787|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.0119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.05|-0.37|0.0119
90917082|NCT02528188|181703787|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.3073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.08|-0.24|0.3073
90917083|NCT02528188|181703787|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.15|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.15|-0.50|0.0002
90917084|NCT02528188|181703787|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.22|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.22|-0.56|<0.0001
90917085|NCT02528188|181703787|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.03|-0.39|0.0251
90917086|NCT02528188|181703787|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.30|-0.66|<0.0001
90917087|NCT02528188|181703787|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.01|-0.39|0.0625
90917088|NCT02528188|181703787|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.14|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.14|-0.54|0.0010
90917089|NCT02528188|181703787|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.4005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.14|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.14|-0.36|0.4005
90917090|NCT02528188|181703787|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.00|-0.50|0.0530
90917091|NCT02528188|181703787|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.4074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.15|||ANCOVA|||Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.15|-0.37|0.4074
90917092|NCT02528188|181703787|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.2629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.11|-0.41|0.2629
90917093|NCT02528188|181703787|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.5582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.18|||ANCOVA|||Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.18|-0.34|0.5582
90917094|NCT02528188|181703787|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.4907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.17|-0.35|0.4907
90917095|NCT02528188|181703787|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.4043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.15|||ANCOVA|||Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.15|-0.38|0.4043
90917096|NCT02528188|181703787|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.7663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.23|||ANCOVA|||Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.23|-0.31|0.7663
90917097|NCT02528188|181703787|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.7415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.22|||ANCOVA|||Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.22|-0.31|0.7415
90917098|NCT02528188|181703787|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.8688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.29|||ANCOVA|||Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.29|-0.24|0.8688
90961419|NCT00568321|181803602|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21||0.499|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.0|2.0|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 16 (Learning): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||2.00|-2.00|0.499
90878535|NCT01480076|181617668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0427|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the regular activity productivity loss, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0427
90878536|NCT01480076|181617668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-7.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.67||0.0498|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the regular activity productivity loss, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0498
90878537|NCT01480076|181617668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.95||0.9078|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the regular activity productivity loss, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.9078
90878538|NCT02120950|181617687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|1.6|||ANCOVA|||||1.6|-2.9|0.5480
90878539|NCT02120950|181617688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||treatment difference in %|0.6||||0.7402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|4.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.3|-3.1|0.7402
90878540|NCT02120950|181617690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.1||||0.0682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.2|||ANCOVA||Point estimate, 95% CI and p-value are based on treatment difference (AFL-sham - AFL-PDT) of the LS mean changes using an ANOVA model with treatment group and ethnicity and qualification for rescue therapy at Week 12 as fixed effects.|||0.2|0.0|0.0682
90878541|NCT02120950|181617691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.1||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.3|||ANCOVA||Point estimate, 95% CI and p-value are based on treatment difference (AFL-sham - AFL-PDT) of the LS mean changes using an ANOVA model with treatment group and ethnicity and qualification for rescue therapy at Week 12 as fixed effects.|||0.3|-0.1|0.1640
90878542|NCT02120950|181617694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||treatment difference in %|-5.6||||0.2348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|3.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The p-value is calculated from the 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted by ethnicity and qualification for rescue therapy at Week 12|CI is based on the treatment difference in % (AFL-sham - AFL-PDT) using the Mantel-Haenszel weighting scheme adjusted by ethnicity and qualification for rescue therapy at Week 12|Category of Gained ≥ 5||3.7|-14.9|0.2348
90878543|NCT02120950|181617694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||treatment difference in %|-2.2||||0.6877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|8.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The p-value is calculated from the 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted by ethnicity and qualification for rescue therapy at Week 12|CI is based on the treatment difference in % (AFL-sham - AFL-PDT) using the Mantel-Haenszel weighting scheme adjusted by ethnicity and qualification for rescue therapy at Week 12|Category of Gained ≥ 10||8.6|-13.1|0.6877
90878544|NCT02120950|181617694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||treatment difference in %|-4.0||||0.4556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|6.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The p-value is calculated from the 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted by ethnicity and qualification for rescue therapy at Week 12|CI is based on the treatment difference in % (AFL-sham - AFL-PDT) using the Mantel-Haenszel weighting scheme adjusted by ethnicity and qualification for rescue therapy at Week 12|Category of Gained ≥ 15||6.5|-14.5|0.4556
90878545|NCT02120950|181617695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||treatment difference in %|1.7||||0.5372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|7.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The p-value is calculated from the 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted by ethnicity and qualification for rescue therapy at Week 12|CI is based on the treatment difference in % (AFL-sham - AFL-PDT) using the Mantel-Haenszel weighting scheme adjusted by ethnicity and qualification for rescue therapy at Week 12|Category of Lost ≥ 5||7.2|-3.7|0.5372
90878546|NCT02120950|181617695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||treatment difference in %|0.6||||0.7569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|4.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The p-value is calculated from the 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted by ethnicity and qualification for rescue therapy at Week 12|CI is based on the treatment difference in % (AFL-sham - AFL-PDT) using the Mantel-Haenszel weighting scheme adjusted by ethnicity and qualification for rescue therapy at Week 12|Category of Lost ≥ 10||4.7|-3.4|0.7569
90878547|NCT02120950|181617695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||treatment difference in %|-0.6||||0.7402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|3.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The p-value is calculated from the 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted by ethnicity and qualification for rescue therapy at Week 12|CI is based on the treatment difference in % (AFL-sham - AFL-PDT) using the Mantel-Haenszel weighting scheme adjusted by ethnicity and qualification for rescue therapy at Week 12|Category of Lost ≥ 15||3.1|-4.3|0.7402
90878548|NCT02120950|181617696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||treatment difference in %|-6.0||||0.3244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|5.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The p-value is calculated from the 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted by ethnicity and qualification for rescue therapy at Week 12|CI is based on the treatment difference in % (AFL-sham - AFL-PDT) using the Mantel-Haenszel weighting scheme adjusted by ethnicity and qualification for rescue therapy at Week 12|||5.9|-17.8|0.3244
90878549|NCT02120950|181617697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.1||||0.7109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.6|||ANCOVA||Point estimate, 95% CI and p-value are based on difference (AFL-sham - AFL-PDT) of LS mean changes using an ANCOVA model with treatment group and ethnicity and qualification for rescue therapy at Week 12 as fixed effects, baseline value as covariate.|The analysis population included only subjects with leakage in FA at baseline and Week 52. Baseline values were not carried forward.||0.6|-0.9|0.7109
90878550|NCT02120950|181617698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.1||||0.8355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|11.3|||ANCOVA||Point estimate, 95% CI and p-value are based on difference (AFL-sham - AFL-PDT) of LS mean changes using an ANCOVA model with treatment group and ethnicity and qualification for rescue therapy at Week 12 as fixed effects, baseline value as covariate.|The analysis population included only subjects with values for CST at baseline and Week 52. Baseline values were not carried forward.||11.3|-9.2|0.8355
90878551|NCT02120950|181617699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.7||||0.5069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|1.4|||ANCOVA||Point estimate, 95% CI and p-value are based on difference (AFL-sham - AFL-PDT) of LS mean changes using an ANCOVA model with treatment group and ethnicity and qualification for rescue therapy at Week 12 as fixed effects, baseline value as covariate.|The analysis population included only subjects with values for NEI VFQ-25 score at baseline and Week 52.||1.4|-2.9|0.5069
90917099|NCT02528188|181703789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.3622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.09|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.09|-0.25|0.3622
90878552|NCT02120950|181617700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference %|-0.6||||0.8423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|5.1||The p-value is calculated from the 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted by ethnicity and qualification for rescue therapy at Week 12.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||CI is based on the treatment difference in % (AFL-sham - AFL-PDT) using the Mantel-Haenszel weighting scheme adjusted by ethnicity and qualification for rescue therapy at Week 12.|||5.1|-6.3|0.8423
90878553|NCT02424383|181617701|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Freedom from Target LesionRevascularization (TLR) were reported through 12 months with frequency counts, percentages and 95% confidence intervals from exact binomial test. In addition, Kaplan-Meier tables and curves were created.|||
90961420|NCT00568321|181803602|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.297|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.56|1.09|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 2 (Delayed): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.09|-0.56|0.297
90961421|NCT00568321|181803602|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.035|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.09|1.74|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 2 (Delayed): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.74|0.09|0.035
91033821|NCT00473330|181953507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.1|13.0||To manage the type I error rate while testing multiple secondary efficacy endpoints for statistical significance, a type I error management plan was implemented. Secondary endpoints were prioritized and tested using a hierarchical testing procedure.|ANOVA|The analysis was stratified by baseline BCVA score (≤55, \>55 letters), baseline HbA1c (≤8%, \>8%), and prior therapy for ME in the study eye (yes, no).||The analysis summarized in this section is for the Month 24 time point, comparing the outcome for patients randomized to ranibizumab versus sham injections during the controlled treatment period. The statistical analysis for the Outcome Measure at Month 36 is not shown here. The statistical analysis was not performed at Month 48.||13.0|6.1|<0.0001
90878554|NCT02424383|181617702|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Freedom from composite of safety events from the time following the index procedure through 30 days post procedure were reported with frequency counts, percentages and 95% confidence intervals from exact binomial test. Kaplan-Meier tables and curves were also calculated.|||
90878555|NCT01928862|181617725|OTHER||Treatment difference|-31.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-58.8|0.8||||||Confidence interval (CI) of the difference in proportions between each Prepopik® group and PEG within each age group was calculated using the Clopper-Pearson method.||0.8|-58.8|
90878556|NCT01928862|181617725|OTHER||Treatment Difference|6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-25.3|36.9||||||CI of the difference in proportions between each Prepopik® group and PEG within each age group was calculated using the Clopper-Pearson method.||36.9|-25.3|
90878557|NCT01928862|181617725|OTHER||Treatment Difference|-4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-33.5|26.3||||||CI of the difference in proportions between each Prepopik® group and PEG within each age group was calculated using the Clopper-Pearson method.||26.3|-33.5|
90878558|NCT02053753|181617748|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 2 treatments were considered bioequivalent if the 90% CIs for the ratio of the geometric means were between 0.80 and 1.25.|Ratio of Geometrc Means (CP4:CP2)|1.084|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.995|1.181|||||The ratio and confidence interval of the geometric means are based on natural log scale data converted back to the original scale.|||1.181|0.995|
90878559|NCT02053753|181617749|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 2 treatments were considered bioequivalent if the 90% CIs for the ratio of the geometric means were between 0.80 and 1.25.|Ratio of Geometric Means (CP4:CP2)|1.028|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.934|1.131|||||The ratio and confidence interval of the geometric means are based on natural log scale data converted back to the original scale.|||1.131|0.934|
90878560|NCT02439320|181617757|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|3.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.0|1.6|<0.001
90878561|NCT02439320|181617757|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|3.6|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.6|2.0|<0.001
90878562|NCT02439320|181617758|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.2|1.3|<0.001
90878563|NCT02439320|181617758|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|1.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.1|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.1|1.3|<0.001
90878564|NCT02439320|181617759|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|2.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|3.1|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.1|1.8|<0.001
90878565|NCT02439320|181617759|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|3.3|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.3|1.9|<0.001
90878566|NCT02439320|181617760|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7|||=|0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.8|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.8|1.1|=0.029
90878567|NCT02439320|181617760|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1|||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|3.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.4|1.3|=0.002
90878568|NCT02439320|181617761|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.5|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.5|0.3|<0.001
90878569|NCT02439320|181617761|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.4|0.2|<0.001
90878570|NCT02439320|181617762|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.7||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.1|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.1|0.5|0.120
90878571|NCT02439320|181617762|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.0|0.4|0.035
90878572|NCT02439320|181617764|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.4|||Regression, Linear|||||1.4|0.9|0.386
90878573|NCT02439320|181617764|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.4|||Regression, Linear|||||1.4|0.9|0.470
90878574|NCT02439320|181617765|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.8|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.8|1.1|0.006
90878575|NCT02439320|181617765|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.6|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.6|1.0|0.037
90878576|NCT02439320|181617766|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|2.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.4|1.5|<0.001
90878577|NCT02439320|181617766|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|2.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||02.2|1.4|<0.001
90878578|NCT02404350|181617816|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.78|5.79|||Regression, Logistic|||Statistical values were calculated from a logistic regression model with treatment and randomization stratum (TNF-a status -naive or Incidence Rate) as factors and baseline weight as a covariate.||5.79|2.78|<0.0001
90878579|NCT02404350|181617816|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.35|4.87|||Regression, Logistic|||Statistical values were calculated from a logistic regression model with treatment and randomization stratum (TNF-a status -naive or Incidence Rate) as factors and baseline weight as a covariate.||4.87|2.35|<0.0001
90878580|NCT02404350|181617816|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.16|6.63|||Regression, Logistic|||Statistical values were calculated from a logistic regression model with treatment and randomization stratum (TNF-a status -naive or Incidence Rate) as factors and baseline weight as a covariate.||6.63|3.16|<0.0001
91033822|NCT00473330|181953507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.2|12.6||To manage the type I error rate while testing multiple secondary efficacy endpoints for statistical significance, a type I error management plan was implemented. Secondary endpoints were prioritized and tested using a hierarchical testing procedure.|ANOVA|The analysis was stratified by baseline BCVA score (≤55, \>55 letters), baseline HbA1c (≤8%, \>8%), and prior therapy for ME in the study eye (yes, no).||The analysis summarized in this section is for the Month 24 time point, comparing the outcome for patients randomized to ranibizumab versus sham injections during the controlled treatment period. The statistical analysis for the Outcome Measure at Month 36 is not shown here. The statistical analysis was not performed at Month 48.||12.6|6.2|<0.0001
91035866|NCT02558491|181958305|OTHER|||||||0.78||||||No a priori sample size was determined due to the feasibility/pilot nature of the trial. Significance level was set at P-value \<0.05.|ANOVA|||Secondary analysis followed the same format unless variables could not be considered normally distributed; in that case a related samples Wilcoxon signed-rank test is used. Data were first binned (to ensure minimum count of five per bins) and the w2 statistics was used with the expected counts given by SoC. Based on achieved recruitment, a moderate effect size (0.3) is detectable with 80% power, or a large effect size (0.4) with 95% power (G-Power 3.1.9.2). Outcome measurement was for overall.||||0.78
90878581|NCT02404350|181617817|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Mean|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0061|TWO_SIDED||||||Non-parametric ANCOVA model||\*For the Statistical Test of the Hypothesis for the Secondary Outcome, The Estimation Parameter is the Standard Error of the Difference in Mean and not Standard Error of the Mean|Secukinumab 300 mg With Load compared to Placebo Estimate (for the difference in mean), SE and p-value are from a non-parametric ANCOVA model (Koch, 1998) with the change from baseline van der Heijde total modified Sharp score (or Erosion Score or Joint Space Narrowing Score) as the dependent variable, treatment and randomization stratum (TNFa status -naive or IR ) as factors, and weight and baseline van der Heijde total modified Sharp score as covariates.||||0.0061
90878582|NCT02404350|181617817|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Mean|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0048|TWO_SIDED||||||Non-parametric ANCOVA model||\*For the Statistical Test of the Hypothesis for the Secondary Outcome, The Estimation Parameter is the Standard Error of the Difference in Mean and not Standard Error of the Mean|Secukinumab 300 mg With Load compared to Placebo Estimate (for the difference in mean), SE and p-value are from a non-parametric ANCOVA model (Koch, 1998) with the change from baseline van der Heijde total modified Sharp score (or Erosion Score or Joint Space Narrowing Score) as the dependent variable, treatment and randomization stratum (TNFa status -naive or IR ) as factors, and weight and baseline van der Heijde total modified Sharp score as covariates.||||0.0048
90878583|NCT02404350|181617817|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Mean|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0003|||||||Non-parametric ANCOVA model||For the Statistical Test of the Hypothesis for the Secondary Outcome, The Estimation Parameter is the Standard Error of the Difference in Mean and not Standard Error of the Mean|Secukinumab 300 mg With Load compared to Placebo Estimate (for the difference in mean), SE and p-value are from a non-parametric ANCOVA model (Koch, 1998) with the change from baseline van der Heijde total modified Sharp score (or Erosion Score or Joint Space Narrowing Score) as the dependent variable, treatment and randomization stratum (TNFa status -naive or IR ) as factors, and weight and baseline van der Heijde total modified Sharp score as covariates.||||0.0003
90878584|NCT02404350|181617818|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.52|18.63|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value are from a logistic regression model with treatment and randomization stratum (TNF-alpha status -naïve or IR) as factors and baseline weight as a covariate.||18.63|5.52|<0.0001
90878585|NCT02404350|181617818|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.37|21.37|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value are from a logistic regression model with treatment and randomization stratum (TNF-alpha status -naïve or IR) as factors and baseline weight as a covariate.||21.37|6.37|<0.0001
90878586|NCT02404350|181617818|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|18.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.56|34.12|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value are from a logistic regression model with treatment and randomization stratum (TNF-alpha status -naïve or IR) as factors and baseline weight as a covariate.||34.12|9.56|<0.0001
90917100|NCT02528188|181703789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.3894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.24|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.24|-0.09|0.3894
90878587|NCT02404350|181617819|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.31|8.83|||Regression, Logistic|||"Odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value are from a logistic regression model with treatment and randomization stratum (TNF-alpha status -naïve or IR) as factors and baseline weight as a covariate.~Missing responses are imputed as non-responders."||8.83|2.31|<0.0001
90878588|NCT02404350|181617819|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.18|11.87|||Regression, Logistic|||"Odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value are from a logistic regression model with treatment and randomization stratum (TNF-alpha status -naïve or IR) as factors and baseline weight as a covariate.~Missing responses are imputed as non-responders."||11.87|3.18|<0.0001
90917101|NCT02528188|181703789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.05|-0.42|0.0137
90917102|NCT02528188|181703789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.06|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.06|-0.43|0.0106
90917103|NCT02528188|181703789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.7179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.16|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.16|-0.23|0.7179
90917104|NCT02528188|181703789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.05|-0.44|0.0120
90917105|NCT02528188|181703789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.5372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.15|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.15|-0.28|0.5372
90917106|NCT02528188|181703789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.03|-0.40|0.0899
90917107|NCT02528188|181703789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.7646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.22|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.22|-0.30|0.7646
90917108|NCT02528188|181703789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.2547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.11|-0.41|0.2547
90917109|NCT02528188|181703789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.8806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.25|||ANCOVA|||Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.25|-0.29|0.8806
90917110|NCT02528188|181703789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.8416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.24|||ANCOVA|||Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.24|-0.30|0.8416
90917111|NCT02528188|181703789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.9981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.28|||ANCOVA|||Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.28|-0.28|0.9981
91033823|NCT00473330|181953508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage at Month 24|24.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.4|35.4||To manage the type I error rate while testing multiple secondary efficacy endpoints for statistical significance, a type I error management plan was implemented. Secondary endpoints were prioritized and tested using a hierarchical testing procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was stratified by baseline BCVA score (≤55, \>55 letters), baseline HbA1c (≤8%, \>8%), and prior therapy for ME in the study eye (yes, no).|The percentage for each group and the difference in percentage between groups were estimated using the weighted average of the observed percentages and the differences in observed percentages over the strata using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|The analysis summarized in this section is for the Month 24 time point, comparing the outcome for patients randomized to ranibizumab versus sham injections during the controlled treatment period. The statistical analysis for the Outcome Measure at Month 36 is not shown here. The statistical analysis was not performed at Month 48.||35.4|13.4|<0.0001
91033824|NCT00473330|181953508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage at Month 24|25.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.0|36.3||To manage the type I error rate while testing multiple secondary efficacy endpoints for statistical significance, a type I error management plan was implemented. Secondary endpoints were prioritized and tested using a hierarchical testing procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was stratified by baseline BCVA score (≤55, \>55 letters), baseline HbA1c (≤8%, \>8%), and prior therapy for ME in the study eye (yes, no).|The percentage for each group and the difference in percentage between groups were estimated using the weighted average of the observed percentages and the differences in observed percentages over the strata using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|The analysis summarized in this section is for the Month 24 time point, comparing the outcome for patients randomized to ranibizumab versus sham injections during the controlled treatment period. The statistical analysis for the Outcome Measure at Month 36 is not shown here. The statistical analysis was not performed at Month 48.||36.3|14.0|<0.0001
91035867|NCT02558491|181958305|OTHER|||||||0.399||||||No a priori sample size was determined due to the feasibility/pilot nature of the trial. Significance level was set at P-value \<0.05.|ANOVA|||Secondary analysis followed the same format unless variables could not be considered normally distributed; in that case a related samples Wilcoxon signed-rank test is used. Data were first binned (to ensure minimum count of five per bins) and the w2 statistics was used with the expected counts given by SoC. Based on achieved recruitment, a moderate effect size (0.3) is detectable with 80% power, or a large effect size (0.4) with 95% power (G-Power 3.1.9.2). Outcome measurement was for mealtime.||||0.399
90878589|NCT02404350|181617819|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.43|24.48|||Regression, Logistic|||"Odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value are from a logistic regression model with treatment and randomization stratum (TNF-alpha status -naïve or IR) as factors and baseline weight as a covariate.~Missing responses are imputed as non-responders."||24.48|6.43|<0.0001
90878590|NCT02404350|181617820|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|5.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|8.73|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value are from a logistic regression model with treatment and randomization stratum (TNF-alpha status -naïve or IR) as factors and baseline weight as a covariate.||8.73|3.30|<0.0001
90878591|NCT02404350|181617820|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.93|10.32|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value are from a logistic regression model with treatment and randomization stratum (TNF-alpha status -naïve or IR) as factors and baseline weight as a covariate.||10.32|3.93|<0.0001
90878592|NCT02404350|181617820|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.43|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.61|12.0|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value are from a logistic regression model with treatment and randomization stratum (TNF-alpha status -naïve or IR) as factors and baseline weight as a covariate.||12.00|4.61|<0.0001
90878593|NCT02404350|181617821|SUPERIORITY|Mixed model with treatment regimen, analysis visit and randomization stratum (TNF-alpha status -naïve or IR) as factors, weight and baseline score as continuous covariates, and treatment by analysis visit and baseline score by analysis visit as interaction terms, using an unstructured covariance structure|Treatment contrast in LS mean (Change)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|-0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|LS Mean, 95% confidence interval, and p-value are from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||||-0.15|-0.32|<0.0001
90878594|NCT02404350|181617821|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Contrast in LS mean (Change)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|-0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|LS Mean, 95% confidence interval, and p-value are from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||||-0.14|-0.32|<0.0001
90917112|NCT02528188|181703789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.6485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.34|||ANCOVA|||Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.34|-0.21|0.6485
90917113|NCT02528188|181703789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.8317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.24|||ANCOVA|||Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.24|-0.30|0.8317
90917114|NCT02528188|181703789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.5819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.35|||ANCOVA|||Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.35|-0.19|0.5819
90917115|NCT02528188|181703789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.8538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.31|||ANCOVA|||Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.31|-0.26|0.8538
90917116|NCT02528188|181703789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.1981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.47|||ANCOVA|||Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.47|-0.10|0.1981
90878595|NCT02404350|181617821|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Contrast inj LS mean (Change)|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|LS Mean, 95% confidence interval, and p-value are from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||||-0.24|-0.42|<0.0001
90917117|NCT02528188|181703791|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.02|-0.33|0.0846
90878596|NCT02404350|181617822|SUPERIORITY||Treatment contrast in LS mean (Change)|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.096|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|LS Mean, 95% CI, and p-value are from a mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)||Mixed model with treatment regimen, analysis visit and randomization stratum (TNF-alpha status -naïve or IR) as factors, weight and baseline score as continuous covariates, and treatment by analysis visit and baseline score by analysis visit as interaction terms, using an unstructured covariance structure||-0.47|-0.85|<0.0001
90878597|NCT02404350|181617822|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Contrast in LS Mean (Change)|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.096|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|LS Mean, 95% CI, and p-value are from a mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)||Mixed model with treatment regimen, analysis visit and randomization stratum (TNF-alpha status -naïve or IR) as factors, weight and baseline score as continuous covariates, and treatment by analysis visit and baseline score by analysis visit as interaction terms, using an unstructured covariance structure||-0.47|-0.85|<0.0001
90878598|NCT02404350|181617822|SUPERIORITY||Treatment contrast in LS mean (Change)|-0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.096|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|LS Mean, 95% CI, and p-value are from a mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)||Mixed model with treatment regimen, analysis visit and randomization stratum (TNF-alpha status -naïve or IR) as factors, weight and baseline score as continuous covariates, and treatment by analysis visit and baseline score by analysis visit as interaction terms, using an unstructured covariance structure||-0.67|-1.05|<0.0001
90878599|NCT02404350|181617823|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.19|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.19|0.47|0.2250
90878600|NCT02404350|181617823|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.45||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.7|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.70|0.29|0.0004
90878601|NCT02404350|181617823|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.44||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.69|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.69|0.28|0.0004
90917118|NCT02528188|181703791|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.9749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.17|-0.18|0.9749
90917119|NCT02528188|181703791|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.07|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.07|-0.45|0.0076
90917120|NCT02528188|181703791|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.16|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.16|-0.54|0.0003
90917121|NCT02528188|181703791|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.4402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.12|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.12|-0.27|0.4402
90878602|NCT02404350|181617824|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.37||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.65|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.65|0.22|0.0004
90878603|NCT02404350|181617824|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.34||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.6|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.60|0.19|0.0003
90917122|NCT02528188|181703791|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.21|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.21|-0.61|<0.0001
90917123|NCT02528188|181703791|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.1543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.06|-0.38|0.1543
90961422|NCT00568321|181803602|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.222|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.48|1.31|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 6 (Delayed): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.31|-0.48|0.222
90961423|NCT00568321|181803602|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.069|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.09|1.7|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 6 (Delayed): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.70|-0.09|0.069
90878604|NCT02404350|181617824|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.24|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.44|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.44|0.13|<0.0001
90878605|NCT05389657|181617825|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.617||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.167|2.283|||Regression, Logistic|multilevel logistic regression||We used logistic multilevel models to examine the impact of training assignment (reference = live training) on training completion, with a random intercept at the agency level. Covariates included prior level of training and/or experience in FBT, attitudes towards evidence-based practice (MPAS), perceived importance of eating disorder treatment to organization, and training preference.||2.283|0.167|0.47
90878606|NCT05389657|181617826|SUPERIORITY||adjusted group difference unstandardized|-1.268||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.618|1.083|||Regression, Linear|multilevel linear regression with restricted maximum likelihood (REML) estimation||We used linear multilevel models with restricted maximum likelihood (REML) estimation to examine the impact of training assignment (reference = live training) on knowledge acquisition at post-training, with a random intercept at the agency level. Covariates included baseline FBT-KA score, prior level of training and/or experience in FBT, attitudes towards evidence-based practice (MPAS), perceived importance of eating disorder treatment to organization, and training preference.||1.083|-3.618|.29
90878607|NCT05389657|181617827|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|19.293|||Regression, Logistic|multilevel logistic regression||We used logistic multilevel models to examine the impact of training assignment (reference = live training) on engagement in FBT consultation at 12 months, with a random intercept at the agency level. Covariates included baseline intent to seek FBT consultation, prior level of training and/or experience in FBT, attitudes towards evidence-based practice (MPAS), perceived importance of eating disorder treatment to organization, and training preference.||19.293|0.070|0.92
90878608|NCT03969992|181617849|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1924||||||A closed test procedure is used to protect the type I error rate; the order of testing was: AeroFact high dose compared to control and if significant (p-value \<0.05), the AeroFact low dose was compared to the control.|Generalized estimating equation method|||||||0.1924
90878609|NCT00944450|181617864|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Pre-specified equivalence bounds = (0.80, 1.25) for AUC geometric mean ratio (B/A)|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.05||||||90.0|1.02|1.07||||||100 mg MK0431 monohydrate (Phase III/FMI formulation) (B) vs. 100 mg MK0431 anhydrous (Phase IIB formulation) (A)||1.07|1.02|
90878610|NCT00944450|181617865|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Pre-specified equivalence bounds = (0.80, 1.25) for Cmax geometric mean ratio (B/A)|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.07||||||90.0|0.94|1.22||||||100 mg MK0431 monohydrate (Phase III/FMI formulation) (B) vs. 100 mg MK0431 anhydrous (Phase IIB formulation) (A)||1.22|0.94|
90878611|NCT02530450|181617896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Testing the change between two time points within each group using Wilcoxon signed rank test.||||< 0.05
90878612|NCT02932904|181617920|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) Mean Difference|2.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|4.78||The comparisons were between each vortioxetine dose (10 or 20 mg) and paroxetine, and the Holm-Bonferroni method was used to adjust for multiplicity and control the familywise type I error rate at a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA with LOCF|||ANCOVA with last observation carried forward (LOCF) model was used for p-value with treatment, pooled center, and gender as fixed factors and with baseline CSFQ-14 total score as a covariate.||4.78|0.69|0.009
90878613|NCT02932904|181617920|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.017||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|3.05||The comparisons were between each vortioxetine dose (10 or 20 mg) and paroxetine, and the Holm-Bonferroni method was used to adjust for multiplicity and control the familywise type I error rate at a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA with LOCF|||ANCOVA model with the LOCF method was used for p-value with treatment, pooled center, and gender as fixed factors and with baseline CSFQ-14 total score as a covariate.||3.05|-0.95|0.303
91033825|NCT00473330|181953509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage at Month 24|8.2||||0.0086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|14.1||To manage the type I error rate while testing multiple secondary efficacy endpoints for statistical significance, a type I error management plan was implemented. Secondary endpoints were prioritized and tested using a hierarchical testing procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was stratified by baseline BCVA score (≤55, \>55 letters), baseline HbA1c (≤8%, \>8%), and prior therapy for ME in the study eye (yes, no).|The percentage for each group and the difference in percentage between groups were estimated using the weighted average of the observed percentages and the differences in observed percentages over the strata using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|The analysis summarized in this section is for the Month 24 time point, comparing the outcome for patients randomized to ranibizumab versus sham injections during the controlled treatment period. The statistical analysis for the Outcome Measure at Month 36 is not shown here. The statistical analysis was not performed at Month 48.||14.1|2.4|0.0086
90961424|NCT00568321|181803602|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.338|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.68|1.15|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 12 (Delayed): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.15|-0.68|0.338
90878614|NCT02932904|181617921|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.627||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|2.37|||ANCOVA with LOCF|||Week 1, ANCOVA model with the LOCF method was used for p-value with treatment, pooled center, and gender as fixed factors and with baseline CSFQ-14 total score as a covariate.||2.37|-0.10|0.072
90961425|NCT00568321|181803602|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.381|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.75|1.09|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 12 (Delayed): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.09|-0.75|0.381
90961426|NCT00568321|181803602|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.306|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.64|1.21|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 16 (Delayed): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.21|-0.64|0.306
90961427|NCT00568321|181803602|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.44|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.87|1.04|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 16 (Delayed): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.04|-0.87|0.440
91033826|NCT00473330|181953509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage at Month 24|7.8||||0.0126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|13.6||To manage the type I error rate while testing multiple secondary efficacy endpoints for statistical significance, a type I error management plan was implemented. Secondary endpoints were prioritized and tested using a hierarchical testing procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was stratified by baseline BCVA score (≤55, \>55 letters), baseline HbA1c (≤8%, \>8%), and prior therapy for ME in the study eye (yes, no).|The percentage for each group and the difference in percentage between groups were estimated using the weighted average of the observed percentages and the differences in observed percentages over the strata using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|The analysis summarized in this section is for the Month 24 time point, comparing the outcome for patients randomized to ranibizumab versus sham injections during the controlled treatment period. The statistical analysis for the Outcome Measure at Month 36 is not shown here. The statistical analysis was not performed at Month 48.||13.6|2.0|0.0126
91033827|NCT00473330|181953510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.7||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|15.1||To manage the type I error rate while testing multiple secondary efficacy endpoints for statistical significance, a type I error management plan was implemented. Secondary endpoints were prioritized and tested using a hierarchical testing procedure.|ANOVA|The analysis was stratified by baseline BCVA score (≤55, \>55 letters), baseline HbA1c (≤8%, \>8%), and prior therapy for ME in the study eye (yes, no).||The analysis summarized in this section is for the Month 24 time point, comparing the outcome for patients randomized to ranibizumab versus sham injections during the controlled treatment period. The statistical analysis for the Outcome Measure at Month 36 is not shown here.||15.1|4.3|0.0005
91033828|NCT00473330|181953510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.2||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|13.0||To manage the type I error rate while testing multiple secondary efficacy endpoints for statistical significance, a type I error management plan was implemented. Secondary endpoints were prioritized and tested using a hierarchical testing procedure.|ANOVA|The analysis was stratified by baseline BCVA score (≤55, \>55 letters), baseline HbA1c (≤8%, \>8%), and prior therapy for ME in the study eye (yes, no).||The analysis summarized in this section is for the Month 24 time point, comparing the outcome for patients randomized to ranibizumab versus sham injections during the controlled treatment period. The statistical analysis for the Outcome Measure at Month 36 is not shown here.||13.0|3.3|0.0011
90878615|NCT02932904|181617921|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.612||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|2.5|||ANCOVA with LOCF|||Week 1, ANCOVA model with the LOCF method was used for p-value with treatment, pooled center, and gender as fixed factors and with baseline CSFQ-14 total score as a covariate.||2.50|0.09|0.035
90878616|NCT02932904|181617921|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.846||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|2.89|||ANCOVA with LOCF|||Week 2, ANCOVA model with the LOCF method was used for p-value with treatment, pooled center, and gender as fixed factors and with baseline CSFQ-14 total score as a covariate.||2.89|-0.44|0.149
90878617|NCT02932904|181617921|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.828||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|2.48|||ANCOVA with LOCF|||Week 2, ANCOVA model with the LOCF method was used for p-value with treatment, pooled center, and gender as fixed factors and with baseline CSFQ-14 total score as a covariate.||2.48|-0.78|0.303
90961428|NCT01676909|181803614|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.362|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||To test hypothesis 1, regarding the three SF-12 subscales, a linear mixed effects models was used. All available data were used from all three assessment time points. Group, time, and group-by-time terms were included in the model. To test for a group difference in mean change from baseline to post-intervention, the significance test of the group-by-post-intervention coefficient was performed. A logistic mixed model for change in proportion with an ED visit was used to test hypothesis 2.||||0.362
90878618|NCT02932904|181617921|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.906||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|3.78|||ANCOVA with LOCF|||Week 3, ANCOVA model with the LOCF method was used for p-value with treatment, pooled center, and gender as fixed factors and with baseline CSFQ-14 total score as a covariate.||3.78|0.22|0.028
90878619|NCT02932904|181617921|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.886||0.645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|2.15|||ANCOVA with LOCF|||Week 3, ANCOVA model with the LOCF method was used for p-value with treatment, pooled center, and gender as fixed factors and with baseline CSFQ-14 total score as a covariate.||2.15|-1.33|0.645
90878620|NCT02932904|181617921|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.943||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|3.77|||ANCOVA with LOCF|||Week 4, ANCOVA model with the LOCF method was used for p-value with treatment, pooled center, and gender as fixed factors and with baseline CSFQ-14 total score as a covariate.||3.77|0.06|0.043
90878621|NCT02932904|181617921|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.923||0.465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|2.49|||ANCOVA with LOCF|||Week 4, ANCOVA model with the LOCF method was used for p-value with treatment, pooled center, and gender as fixed factors and with baseline CSFQ-14 total score as a covariate.||2.49|-1.14|0.465
90878622|NCT02932904|181617922|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.616||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.84|-0.41|||ANCOVA with LOCF|||Week 1, ANCOVA model with the LOCF method was used for p-value with treatment, pooled center, and gender as fixed factors and with baseline CSFQ-14 total score as a covariate.||-0.41|-2.84|0.009
90878623|NCT02932904|181617922|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.834||0.123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.93|0.35|||ANCOVA with LOCF|||Week 2, ANCOVA model with the LOCF method was used for p-value with treatment, pooled center, and gender as fixed factors and with baseline CSFQ-14 total score as a covariate.||0.35|-2.93|0.123
90878624|NCT02932904|181617922|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.892||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.61|-0.1|||ANCOVA with LOCF|||Week 3, ANCOVA model with the LOCF method was used for p-value with treatment, pooled center, and gender as fixed factors and with baseline CSFQ-14 total score as a covariate.||-0.10|-3.61|0.039
90878625|NCT02932904|181617922|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.929||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.32|-0.66|||ANCOVA with LOCF|||Week 4, ANCOVA model with the LOCF method was used for p-value with treatment, pooled center, and gender as fixed factors and with baseline CSFQ-14 total score as a covariate.||-0.66|-4.32|0.008
90878626|NCT02932904|181617922|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.024||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.78|-0.75|||ANCOVA with LOCF|||Week 5, ANCOVA model with the LOCF method was used for p-value with treatment, pooled center, and gender as fixed factors and with baseline CSFQ-14 total score as a covariate.||-0.75|-4.78|0.007
90878627|NCT02932904|181617923|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.612||0.419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.71|||ANCOVA with LOCF|||Week 1, ANCOVA model with the LOCF method was used for p-value with treatment, pooled center, and gender as fixed factors and with baseline CSFQ-14 total score as a covariate.||0.71|-1.70|0.419
90878628|NCT02932904|181617923|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|0.85|||ANCOVA with LOCF|||Week 1, ANCOVA model with the LOCF method was used for p-value with treatment, pooled center, and gender as fixed factors and with baseline CSFQ-14 total score as a covariate.||0.85|-1.51|0.581
90878629|NCT02932904|181617923|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.828||0.938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|1.56|||ANCOVA with LOCF|||Week 2, ANCOVA model with the LOCF method was used for p-value with treatment, pooled center, and gender as fixed factors and with baseline CSFQ-14 total score as a covariate.||1.56|-1.69|0.938
90878630|NCT02932904|181617923|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.814||0.592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|1.17|||ANCOVA with LOCF|||Week 2, ANCOVA model with the LOCF method was used for p-value with treatment, pooled center, and gender as fixed factors and with baseline CSFQ-14 total score as a covariate.||1.17|-2.04|0.592
90878631|NCT02932904|181617923|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.886||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.89|||ANCOVA with LOCF|||Week 3, ANCOVA model with the LOCF method was used for p-value with treatment, pooled center, and gender as fixed factors and with baseline CSFQ-14 total score as a covariate.||1.89|-1.60|0.870
90878632|NCT02932904|181617923|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.871||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.16|0.27|||ANCOVA with LOCF|||Week 3, ANCOVA model with the LOCF method was used for p-value with treatment, pooled center, and gender as fixed factors and with baseline CSFQ-14 total score as a covariate.||0.27|-3.16|0.098
90878633|NCT02932904|181617923|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.923||0.532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.39|1.24|||ANCOVA with LOCF|||Week 4, ANCOVA model with the LOCF method was used for p-value with treatment, pooled center, and gender as fixed factors and with baseline CSFQ-14 total score as a covariate.||1.24|-2.39|0.532
90878634|NCT02932904|181617923|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.907||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|-0.03|||ANCOVA with LOCF|||Week 4, ANCOVA model with the LOCF method was used for p-value with treatment, pooled center, and gender as fixed factors and with baseline CSFQ-14 total score as a covariate.||-0.03|-3.60|0.046
90878635|NCT02932904|181617923|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.018||0.977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.03|1.97|||ANCOVA with LOCF|||Week 5, ANCOVA model with the LOCF method was used for p-value with treatment, pooled center, and gender as fixed factors and with baseline CSFQ-14 total score as a covariate.||1.97|-2.03|0.977
90878636|NCT02932904|181617923|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.68|0.25|||ANCOVA with LOCF|||Week 5, ANCOVA model with the LOCF method was used for p-value with treatment, pooled center, and gender as fixed factors and with baseline CSFQ-14 total score as a covariate.||0.25|-3.68|0.087
90878637|NCT02932904|181617924|SUPERIORITY|Odds ratio, 95% confidence intervals and p-values are from logistic regression model using the rate of subjects that shifted from normal at baseline to abnormal after baseline as the response and explanatory variables for treatment, baseline CSFQ-14 total score, and gender.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.44||||0.515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.037|5.201|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||5.201|0.037|0.515
90878638|NCT02932904|181617924|SUPERIORITY|Odds ratio, 95% confidence intervals and p-values are from logistic regression model using the rate of subjects that shifted from normal at baseline to abnormal after baseline as the response and explanatory variables for treatment, baseline CSFQ-14 total score, and gender.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59||||0.677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.049|7.051|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||7.051|0.049|0.677
90878639|NCT02932904|181617924|SUPERIORITY|Odds ratio, 95% confidence intervals and p-values are from logistic regression model using the rate of subjects that shifted from normal at baseline to abnormal after baseline as the response and explanatory variables for treatment, baseline CSFQ-14 total score, and gender.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.181|11.912|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||11.912|0.181|0.720
90878640|NCT02932904|181617924|SUPERIORITY|Odds ratio, 95% confidence intervals and p-values are from logistic regression model using the rate of subjects that shifted from normal at baseline to abnormal after baseline as the response and explanatory variables for treatment, baseline CSFQ-14 total score, and gender.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65||||0.732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.053|7.861|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||7.861|0.053|0.732
90878641|NCT02932904|181617924|SUPERIORITY|Odds ratio, 95% confidence intervals and p-values are from logistic regression model using the rate of subjects that shifted from normal at baseline to abnormal after baseline as the response and explanatory variables for treatment, baseline CSFQ-14 total score, and gender.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.066|11.303|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||11.303|0.066|0.913
90917124|NCT02528188|181703791|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.09|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.09|-0.53|0.0053
90917125|NCT02528188|181703791|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.6445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.20|-0.33|0.6445
90961429|NCT01676909|181803615|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.026|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||To test hypothesis 1, regarding the three SF-12 subscales, a linear mixed effects models was used. All available data were used from all three assessment time points. Group, time, and group-by-time terms were included in the model. To test for a group difference in mean change from baseline to post-intervention, the significance test of the group-by-post-intervention coefficient was performed. A logistic mixed model for change in proportion with an ED visit was used to test hypothesis 2.||||0.026
90961430|NCT01676909|181803616|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.032|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||To test hypothesis 1, regarding the three SF-12 subscales, a linear mixed effects models was used. All available data were used from all three assessment time points. Group, time, and group-by-time terms were included in the model. To test for a group difference in mean change from baseline to post-intervention, the significance test of the group-by-post-intervention coefficient was performed. A logistic mixed model for change in proportion with an ED visit was used to test hypothesis 2.||||0.032
91033829|NCT00473330|181953511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-107.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-149.2|-66.6||To manage the type I error rate while testing multiple secondary efficacy endpoints for statistical significance, a type I error management plan was implemented. Secondary endpoints were prioritized and tested using a hierarchical testing procedure.|ANCOVA|The analysis was stratified by baseline BCVA score (≤55, \>55 letters), baseline HbA1c (≤8%, \>8%), and prior therapy for ME in the study eye (yes, no).||The analysis summarized in this section is for the Month 24 time point, comparing the outcome for patients randomized to ranibizumab versus sham injections during the controlled treatment period. The statistical analysis for the Outcome Measure at Month 36 is not shown here. The statistical analysis was not performed at Month 48.||-66.6|-149.2|<0.0001
91033830|NCT00473330|181953511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-119.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-159.6|-78.5||To manage the type I error rate while testing multiple secondary efficacy endpoints for statistical significance, a type I error management plan was implemented. Secondary endpoints were prioritized and tested using a hierarchical testing procedure.|ANCOVA|The analysis was stratified by baseline BCVA score (≤55, \>55 letters), baseline HbA1c (≤8%, \>8%), and prior therapy for ME in the study eye (yes, no).||The analysis summarized in this section is for the Month 24 time point, comparing the outcome for patients randomized to ranibizumab versus sham injections during the controlled treatment period. The statistical analysis for the Outcome Measure at Month 36 is not shown here. The statistical analysis was not performed at Month 48.||-78.5|-159.6|<0.0001
91077999|NCT02542293|182041272|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.871|1.186|||||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for PD-L1 status (≥25% Vs \<25%), smoking status (never smoker Vs ever smoker) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by Efron approach.|"FAS:~Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy to be associated with a longer OS than SoC."||1.186|0.871|
90878642|NCT02932904|181617924|SUPERIORITY|Odds ratio, 95% confidence intervals and p-values are from logistic regression model using the rate of subjects that shifted from normal at baseline to abnormal after baseline as the response and explanatory variables for treatment, baseline CSFQ-14 total score, and gender.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.37||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.507|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||1.507|0.090|0.164
90878643|NCT02932904|181617924|SUPERIORITY|Odds ratio, 95% confidence intervals and p-values are from logistic regression model using the rate of subjects that shifted from normal at baseline to abnormal after baseline as the response and explanatory variables for treatment, baseline CSFQ-14 total score, and gender.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.25||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|1.287|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||1.287|0.050|0.098
90878644|NCT02932904|181617924|SUPERIORITY|Odds ratio, 95% confidence intervals and p-values are from logistic regression model using the rate of subjects that shifted from normal at baseline to abnormal after baseline as the response and explanatory variables for treatment, baseline CSFQ-14 total score, and gender.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.383|3.731|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||3.731|0.383|0.758
90878645|NCT02932904|181617924|SUPERIORITY|Odds ratio, 95% confidence intervals and p-values are from logistic regression model using the rate of subjects that shifted from normal at baseline to abnormal after baseline as the response and explanatory variables for treatment, baseline CSFQ-14 total score, and gender.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.44||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.107|1.814|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||1.814|0.107|0.256
90878646|NCT02932904|181617924|SUPERIORITY|Odds ratio, 95% confidence intervals and p-values are from logistic regression model using the rate of subjects that shifted from normal at baseline to abnormal after baseline as the response and explanatory variables for treatment, baseline CSFQ-14 total score, and gender.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.3||||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.059|1.561|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||1.561|0.059|0.154
90878647|NCT02932904|181617924|SUPERIORITY|Odds ratio, 95% confidence intervals and p-values are from logistic regression model using the rate of subjects that shifted from normal at baseline to abnormal after baseline as the response and explanatory variables for treatment, baseline CSFQ-14 total score, and gender.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.36||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.087|1.497|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||1.497|0.087|0.160
91033831|NCT00473330|181953512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage at Month 24|-3.0||||0.159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|0.7||To manage the type I error rate while testing multiple secondary efficacy endpoints for statistical significance, a type I error management plan was implemented. Secondary endpoints were prioritized and tested using a hierarchical testing procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was stratified by baseline BCVA score (≤55, \>55 letters), baseline HbA1c (≤8%, \>8%), and prior therapy for ME in the study eye (yes, no).|The percentage for each group and the difference in percentage between groups were estimated using the weighted average of the observed percentages and the differences in observed percentages over the strata using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|The analysis summarized in this section is for the Month 24 time point, comparing the outcome for patients randomized to ranibizumab versus sham injections during the controlled treatment period. The statistical analysis for the Outcome Measure at Month 36 is not shown here.||0.7|-6.7|0.1590
90878648|NCT02932904|181617924|SUPERIORITY|Odds ratio, 95% confidence intervals and p-values are from logistic regression model using the rate of subjects that shifted from normal at baseline to abnormal after baseline as the response and explanatory variables for treatment, baseline CSFQ-14 total score, and gender.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.252|2.679|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||2.679|0.252|0.744
90878649|NCT02932904|181617924|SUPERIORITY|Odds ratio, 95% confidence intervals and p-values are from logistic regression model using the rate of subjects that shifted from normal at baseline to abnormal after baseline as the response and explanatory variables for treatment, baseline CSFQ-14 total score, and gender.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.43||||0.194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.636|9.317|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||9.317|0.636|0.194
90878650|NCT02932904|181617924|SUPERIORITY|Odds ratio, 95% confidence intervals and p-values are from logistic regression model using the rate of subjects that shifted from normal at baseline to abnormal after baseline as the response and explanatory variables for treatment, baseline CSFQ-14 total score, and gender.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.181|4.261|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||4.261|0.181|0.871
90878651|NCT02932904|181617924|SUPERIORITY|Odds ratio, 95% confidence intervals and p-values are from logistic regression model using the rate of subjects that shifted from normal at baseline to abnormal after baseline as the response and explanatory variables for treatment, baseline CSFQ-14 total score, and gender.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.497|8.037|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||8.037|0.497|0.329
90878652|NCT02932904|181617924|SUPERIORITY|Odds ratio, 95% confidence intervals and p-values are from logistic regression model using the rate of subjects that shifted from normal at baseline to abnormal after baseline as the response and explanatory variables for treatment, baseline CSFQ-14 total score, and gender.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.42||||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.119|1.514|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||1.514|0.119|0.187
90878653|NCT02932904|181617924|SUPERIORITY|Odds ratio, 95% confidence intervals and p-values are from logistic regression model using the rate of subjects that shifted from normal at baseline to abnormal after baseline as the response and explanatory variables for treatment, baseline CSFQ-14 total score, and gender.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.273|2.476|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||2.476|0.273|0.729
90878654|NCT02932904|181617924|SUPERIORITY|Odds ratio, 95% confidence intervals and p-values are from logistic regression model using the rate of subjects that shifted from normal at baseline to abnormal after baseline as the response and explanatory variables for treatment, baseline CSFQ-14 total score, and gender.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.71||||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.739|9.917|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||9.917|0.739|0.133
90878655|NCT02932904|181617924|SUPERIORITY|Odds ratio, 95% confidence intervals and p-values are from logistic regression model using the rate of subjects that shifted from normal at baseline to abnormal after baseline as the response and explanatory variables for treatment, baseline CSFQ-14 total score, and gender.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.266|4.961|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||4.961|0.266|0.852
90878656|NCT02932904|181617924|SUPERIORITY|Odds ratio, 95% confidence intervals and p-values are from logistic regression model using the rate of subjects that shifted from normal at baseline to abnormal after baseline as the response and explanatory variables for treatment, baseline CSFQ-14 total score, and gender.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.23||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.585|8.472|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||8.472|0.585|0.240
90917126|NCT02528188|181703791|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.1439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.07|-0.47|0.1439
90917127|NCT02528188|181703791|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.8402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.25|||ANCOVA|||Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.25|-0.30|0.8402
90917128|NCT02528188|181703791|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.4439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.17|-0.38|0.4439
90917129|NCT02528188|181703791|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.9376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.29|||ANCOVA|||Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.29|-0.27|0.9376
91033832|NCT00473330|181953512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage at Month 24|-2.5||||0.2721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|1.4||To manage the type I error rate while testing multiple secondary efficacy endpoints for statistical significance, a type I error management plan was implemented. Secondary endpoints were prioritized and tested using a hierarchical testing procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was stratified by baseline BCVA score (≤55, \>55 letters), baseline HbA1c (≤8%, \>8%), and prior therapy for ME in the study eye (yes, no).|The percentage for each group and the difference in percentage between groups were estimated using the weighted average of the observed percentages and the differences in observed percentages over the strata using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|The analysis summarized in this section is for the Month 24 time point, comparing the outcome for patients randomized to ranibizumab versus sham injections during the controlled treatment period. The statistical analysis for the Outcome Measure at Month 36 is not shown here.||1.4|-6.5|0.2721
91033833|NCT00473330|181953513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage at Month 24|29.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.1|38.0||To manage the type I error rate while testing multiple secondary efficacy endpoints for statistical significance, a type I error management plan was implemented. Secondary endpoints were prioritized and tested using a hierarchical testing procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was stratified by baseline BCVA score (≤55, \>55 letters), baseline HbA1c (≤8%, \>8%), and prior therapy for ME in the study eye (yes, no).|The percentage for each group and the difference in percentage between groups were estimated using the weighted average of the observed percentages and the differences in observed percentages over the strata using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|||38.0|21.1|<0.0001
90917130|NCT02528188|181703791|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.7614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.24|||ANCOVA|||Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.24|-0.33|0.7614
90917131|NCT02528188|181703791|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.8081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.25|||ANCOVA|||Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.25|-0.32|0.8081
90917132|NCT02528188|181703791|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.8078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.33|||ANCOVA|||Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.33|-0.25|0.8078
90878657|NCT02932904|181617924|SUPERIORITY|Odds ratio, 95% confidence intervals and p-values are from logistic regression model using rate of subjects that shifted from normal at baseline to abnormal after baseline as response and explanatory variables for treatment, baseline CSFQ-14 total score, and gender.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.55||||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.166|1.789|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||1.789|0.166|0.317
90878658|NCT02932904|181617924|SUPERIORITY|Odds ratio, 95% confidence intervals and p-values are from logistic regression model using the rate of subjects that shifted from normal at baseline to abnormal after baseline as the response and explanatory variables for treatment, baseline CSFQ-14 total score, and gender.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|3.233|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||3.233|0.410|0.790
90878659|NCT02932904|181617924|SUPERIORITY|Odds ratio, 95% confidence intervals and p-values are from logistic regression model using rate of subjects that shifted from normal at baseline to abnormal after baseline as response and explanatory variables for treatment, baseline CSFQ-14 total score, and gender.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.64||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.888|14.911|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||14.911|0.888|0.073
90878660|NCT02932904|181617924|SUPERIORITY|Odds ratio, 95% confidence intervals and p-values are from logistic regression model using rate of subjects that shifted from normal at baseline to abnormal after baseline as response and explanatory variables for treatment, baseline CSFQ-14 total score, and gender.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.98||||0.371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.442|8.902|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||8.902|0.442|0.371
90878661|NCT02932904|181617924|SUPERIORITY|Odds ratio, 95% confidence intervals and p-values are from logistic regression model using rate of subjects that shifted from normal at baseline to abnormal after baseline as response and explanatory variables for treatment, baseline CSFQ-14 total score, and gender.|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.19||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.027|17.063|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||17.063|1.027|0.046
90878662|NCT02932904|181617927|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.082||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|5.51||The comparisons were between each vortioxetine dose (10 or 20 mg) and paroxetine, and the Holm-Bonferroni method was used to adjust for multiplicity and control the familywise type I error rate at a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA with LOCF|||ANCOVA model with the LOCF method was used for p-value with treatment, pooled center, and gender as fixed factors and with baseline CSFQ-14 total score as a covariate.||5.51|1.25|0.002
90878663|NCT02932904|181617927|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.068||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|3.73||The comparisons were between each vortioxetine dose (10 or 20 mg) and paroxetine, and the Holm-Bonferroni method was used to adjust for multiplicity and control the familywise type I error rate at a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA with LOCF|||ANCOVA model with the LOCF method was used for p-value with treatment, pooled center, and gender as fixed factors and with baseline CSFQ-14 total score as a covariate.||3.73|-0.47|0.129
90917133|NCT02528188|181703791|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.9705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.29|||ANCOVA|||Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.29|-0.28|0.9705
90878664|NCT02932904|181617928|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.078|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.19|6.43||The comparisons were between each vortioxetine dose (10 or 20 mg) and paroxetine, and the Holm-Bonferroni method was used to adjust for multiplicity and control the familywise type I error rate at a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA with LOCF|||ANCOVA model with the LOCF method was used for p-value with treatment, pooled center, and gender as fixed factors and with baseline CSFQ-14 total score as a covariate.||6.43|2.19|<0.001
90878665|NCT02932904|181617928|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.072||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|5.17||The comparisons were between each vortioxetine dose (10 or 20 mg) and paroxetine, and the Holm-Bonferroni method was used to adjust for multiplicity and control the familywise type I error rate at a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA with LOCF|||ANCOVA model with the LOCF method was used for p-value with treatment, pooled center, and gender as fixed factors and with baseline CSFQ-14 total score as a covariate.||5.17|0.95|0.005
90878666|NCT03144180|181617937|EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided two-sample t-test with 80% power, an alpha of 0.05, and a common standard deviation of 14 seconds was used to determine the sample size.|Confidence Interval for a mean|49.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|47.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.459|82.571||||||||82.571|15.459|
90878667|NCT03144180|181617938|EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided two-sample t-test with 80% power, an alpha of 0.05, and a common standard deviation of 14 seconds was used to determine the sample size.||||||0.0295||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.0295
90878668|NCT03144180|181617939|EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided two-sample t-test with 80% power, an alpha of 0.05, and a common standard deviation of 14 seconds was used to determine the sample size.||||||0.403||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.403
90878669|NCT01272830|181617941|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0063||||||Significance threshold p\<0.05|paired t-test|||Change from baseline data.||||0.0063
90878670|NCT01272830|181617941|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Significant threshold p\<0.05|paired t-test|||Changes from baseline data||||>0.05
90878671|NCT01272830|181617942|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0226||||||Significance threshold p\<0.5|paired|||Change from baseline data (HSS pain walking)||||0.0226
90878672|NCT01272830|181617942|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0375||||||Significance threshold P\<0.05|paired t-test|||Change from baseline data (HSS total score)||||0.0375
90878673|NCT01272830|181617942|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0391||||||Significance threshold p\<0.05|paired t-test|||Change from baseline data (KSS knee pain)||||0.0391
90878674|NCT01272830|181617942|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2137|||||||paired t-test|||Changes from baseline data (HSS pain walking)||||0.2137
90878675|NCT01272830|181617942|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1312|||||||paired t-test|||Change from baseline data (HSS total score)||||0.1312
90878676|NCT01272830|181617942|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1578|||||||paired t-test|||Change from baseline data (KSS knee pain)||||0.1578
90961431|NCT01676909|181803617|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A logistic mixed effects model over two 6-month time periods (prior to baseline and between baseline and the 6-month follow-up visit) was used. Terms in the model included group, binary time (pre-f/u versus pre-baseline), and group by time interaction. Two-sided alpha = .05 level tests were used. The hypothesis that the proportion with ER visits would decrease in the Living Well group versus the control group was tests by test of the interaction term.||||.64
90878677|NCT01272830|181617943|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0083||||||Significance threshold p\<0.05|t-test|||Changes from baseline data||||0.0083
90878678|NCT01272830|181617943|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Significant threshold p\<0.05|paired t-test|||Change from baseline data||||>0.05
90878679|NCT01272830|181617944|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||Significance threshold p\<0.05|ANOVA|||Change from baseline data||||0.01
90878680|NCT01272830|181617944|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||paired t-test|Significant threshold p\<0.05||Changes from baseline data||||>0.05
90878681|NCT00751348|181617945|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of non-inferiority: the lower limit (LL) of the two-sided standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for the group difference (Priorix-Tetra Group minus Priorix+Varilrix Group) in seroconversion rate for anti-measles was above -10%.|Difference in percentage|-1.36|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.77|1.66||The P-value for all reactogenicity comparisons was below (\<) 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Non-inferiority of Priorix-Tetra® vaccine vs Priorix™ and Varilrix™ administered as concomitant vaccine 42-56 days after vaccination at Day 0 in terms of anti-measles seroconversion rates.||1.66|-3.77|<0.05
90878682|NCT00751348|181617945|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of non-inferiority: the lower limit (LL) of the two-sided standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for the group difference (Priorix-Tetra Group minus Priorix+Varilrix Group) in seroconversion rate for anti-mumps was above -10%.|Difference in percentage|-5.34|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|0.38||The P-value for all reactogenicity comparisons was below (\<) 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Non-inferiority of Priorix-Tetra® vaccine vs Priorix™ and Varilrix™ administered as concomitant vaccine 42-56 days after vaccination at Day 0 in terms of anti-mumps seroconversion rates.||0.38|-10.4|<0.05
90878683|NCT00751348|181617945|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of non-inferiority: the lower limit (LL) of the two-sided standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for the group difference (Priorix-Tetra Group minus Priorix+Varilrix Group) in seroconversion rate for anti-rubella was above -10%.|Difference in percentage|-0.34|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|2.06||The P-value for all reactogenicity comparisons was below (\<) 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Non-inferiority of Priorix-Tetra® vaccine vs Priorix™ and Varilrix™ administered as concomitant vaccine 42-56 days after vaccination at Day 0 in terms of anti-rubella seroconversion rates.||2.06|-1.88|<0.05
90878684|NCT00751348|181617945|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of non-inferiority: the lower limit (LL) of the two-sided standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for the group difference (Priorix-Tetra Group minus Priorix+Varilrix Group) in seroconversion rate for anti-VZV was above -10%.|Difference in percentage|-1.06|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.07|1.44||The P-value for all reactogenicity comparisons was below (\<) 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Non-inferiority of Priorix-Tetra® vaccine vs Priorix™ and Varilrix™ administered as concomitant vaccine 42-56 days after vaccination at Day 0 in terms of anti-varicella zoster virus (anti-VZV) seroconversion rates.||1.44|-3.07|<0.05
90878685|NCT03583996|181617960|OTHER||Negative Likelihood Ratio (NLR)|0.293|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.097|0.882||||||The performance goal for validation of DSI ≤18.3 was the upper limit of the confidence interval (CI) for negative likelihood ratio (NLR) to rule out an NLR of \>0.52. For the null and alternate hypotheses, the upper limit of the 95% CI was NLR \>0.52 and the upper limit of the 95% CI was NLR \<=0.52, respectively. The confidence level for the CI was adjusted to maintain a 1-sided type I error rate of 0.025.||0.882|0.097|
90917134|NCT02528188|181703791|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.5785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.38|||ANCOVA|||Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.38|-0.21|0.5785
91033834|NCT00473330|181953513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage at Month 24|24.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.7|31.7||To manage the type I error rate while testing multiple secondary efficacy endpoints for statistical significance, a type I error management plan was implemented. Secondary endpoints were prioritized and tested using a hierarchical testing procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was stratified by baseline BCVA score (≤55, \>55 letters), baseline HbA1c (≤8%, \>8%), and prior therapy for ME in the study eye (yes, no).|The percentage for each group and the difference in percentage between groups were estimated using the weighted average of the observed percentages and the differences in observed percentages over the strata using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|||31.7|16.7|<0.0001
90878686|NCT03583996|181617960|OTHER||Sensitivity|0.917|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.775|0.982||||||The performance goal for validation of DSI \<= 18.3 was the observed sensitivity must have been \>0.85. The confidence level for the confidence interval (CI) was adjusted to maintain a 1-sided type I error rate of 0.025.||0.982|0.775|
90878687|NCT03583996|181617961|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.094|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.047|1.143||The odds ratio was for a 1-unit increase in DSI based on continuous DSI.|Regression, Logistic|Unadjusted (no covariates)||||1.143|1.047|<0.0001
90878688|NCT03583996|181617961|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.109|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.058|1.163|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for demographic covariates, including age, race, sex, BMI, and ethnicity.||||1.163|1.058|<0.0001
90878689|NCT03583996|181617961|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.092|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.041|1.145|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for severity of liver disease covariates, compensated cirrhosis (CP class A)||||1.145|1.041|<0.001
90878690|NCT03583996|181617961|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.089|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.038|1.142|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for severity of liver disease covariates, decompensated cirrhosis (CP class B)||||1.142|1.038|<0.001
90878691|NCT02063737|181618003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.3882||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8272|0.0508|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusting for shift length|Adjusted difference between intervention groups (intervention - control) from the linear mixed model adjusting for shift length and repeated measures within individuals.|||0.0508|-0.8272|0.0830
90878692|NCT02063737|181618004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0114|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|adjusting for baseline measure||||||0.0114
90878693|NCT02063737|181618005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|adjusting for the baseline measure||||||.99
90878694|NCT02063737|181618006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0927|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|adjusted for baseline measure||||||0.0927
90878695|NCT02063737|181618007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0578|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|adjusting for the baseline measure||||||0.0578
90878696|NCT02063737|181618008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|adjusting for baseline measure||||||0.69
90878697|NCT02063737|181618009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|adjusting for baseline measure||||||0.65
90878698|NCT02063737|181618010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|adjusting for baseline measure||||||0.95
90878699|NCT02063737|181618011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|adjusting for baseline measure||||||0.21
90878700|NCT02063737|181618012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|adjusting for baseline measure||||||0.51
90878701|NCT02063737|181618013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|adjusting for baseline measure||||||0.28
90878702|NCT02063737|181618014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.093|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|adjusting for baseline measure||||||0.0930
90878703|NCT02063737|181618015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.56|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|adjusting for baseline measure||||||0.56
90878704|NCT02063737|181618016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|adjusting for baseline measure||||||0.20
90878705|NCT06049043|181618031|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.02|3.84|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.84|-14.02|0.26
90878706|NCT06049043|181618032|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.84||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.43|5.85|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.85|-13.43|0.44
90878707|NCT06049043|181618033|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|1.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.10|-0.66|0.62
90878708|NCT06049043|181618034|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|15.18|||t-test, 2 sided|||||15.18|-2.50|0.16
90878709|NCT06049043|181618034|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.04|||Regression, Linear|Controlled for participant characteristics at baseline.||||0.04|-0.13|0.28
90878710|NCT06049043|181618035|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.67||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.31|11.28|||t-test, 2 sided|||||11.28|-7.31|0.67
90878711|NCT06049043|181618035|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.08|||Regression, Linear|Controlled for participant characteristics at baseline.||||0.08|-0.12|0.69
90878712|NCT06049043|181618036|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|1.18|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.18|-0.09|0.09
90878713|NCT06049043|181618036|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.59|||Regression, Linear|Controlled for participant characteristics at baseline.||||0.59|-0.86|0.71
90878714|NCT06049043|181618037|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|1.27|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.27|-0.07|0.08
90878715|NCT06049043|181618037|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|0.48|||Regression, Linear|Controlled for participant characteristics at baseline.||||0.48|-1.21|0.39
90878716|NCT06049043|181618039|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.82|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.82|-0.95|0.89
90878717|NCT03089606|181618117|OTHER|2-tailed Fisher's exact test||||||0.08|||||||2-tailed Fisher's exact test|||Null hypothesis. No association between baseline C11-AMT PET SUVmax value and antitumor response to pembrolizumab.||||0.08
90878718|NCT00335972|181618123|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size was based on being able to detect noninferiority on both analgesia (pain score and opioids) and hemodynamic responses, and superiority on at least one of them with 90% power and significance level of 0.025 for each of noninferiority and superiority. For MAP with a noninferiority delta of 7.5 mmHg and expected the SD of 12, we needed a maximum of N= 65 per group. Incorporating the two interim and one final analyses, we thus planned a maximum sample size of N=71/group (N=142 total).|Mean Difference (Net)|-9.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|-5.0||Noninferiority confidence intervals are 95% (alpha of 0.05/2=0.025 in direction of interest). Bonferroni correction was used for superiority testing and 97.5% CI were reported.|repeated measures ANOVA||mean difference: Dexmedetomidine arm - Remifentanil arm|||-5|-13|<0.001
90878719|NCT00335972|181618123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-13.0|-4.0||Bonferroni correction was used for superiority testing since superiority on either hemodynamics or pain control would be interpreted as Dex better than Remi (alpha=0.0125 = 0.025/2, 97.5% CI).|repeated measures ANOVA model||mean difference: dexmedetomidine arm - remifentanil arm|superiority test||-4|-13|<0.001
90878720|NCT00335972|181618124|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size was based on being able to detect noninferiority on both analgesia (pain score and opioids) and hemodynamic responses, and superiority on at least one of them with 90% power and significance level of 0.025 for each of noninferiority and superiority. For VRS pain, the standard deviation (SD) was expected to be about 1.75, such that with a noninferiority delta of 1, we needed a maximum of N= 66 per group|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-1.1||noninferiority confidence intervals are 95% (alpha of 0.05/2=0.025 in direction of interest).|repeated measures ANOVA model||mean difference: Dexmedetomidine arm - Remifentanil arm|||-1.1|-2.7|<0.001
90878721|NCT00335972|181618124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.8|-0.9||Bonferroni correction was used for superiority testing since superiority on either hemodynamics or pain control would be interpreted as Dex better than Remi (alpha=0.0125 = 0.025/2, 97.5% CI).|repeated measures ANOVA model||mean difference: dexmedetomidine arm - remifentanil arm|superiority test||-0.9|-2.8|<0.001
90917135|NCT02528188|181703793|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.4303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|2.04|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Percent Work Time Missed: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||2.04|-0.87|0.4303
90917136|NCT02528188|181703793|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.5656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.04|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Percent Work Time Missed: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||1.04|-1.90|0.5656
90917137|NCT02528188|181703793|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.92||0.976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|1.83|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Percent Work Time Missed: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||1.83|-1.78|0.9760
90917138|NCT02528188|181703793|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93||0.5678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|2.36|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Percent Work Time Missed: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||2.36|-1.30|0.5678
90917139|NCT02528188|181703793|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.76||0.6974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.77|4.14|||ANCOVA|||Week 56: Percent Work Time Missed: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||4.14|-2.77|0.6974
90917140|NCT02528188|181703793|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.72||0.1261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|6.04|||ANCOVA|||Week 56: Percent Work Time Missed: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||6.04|-0.75|0.1261
90917141|NCT02528188|181703793|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.78||0.406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.96|2.01|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Percent Impairment While Working: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||2.01|-4.96|0.4060
90917142|NCT02528188|181703793|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.78||0.848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.84|3.15|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Percent Impairment While Working: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||3.15|-3.84|0.8480
90917143|NCT02528188|181703793|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.94||0.923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|3.63|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Percent Impairment While Working: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||3.63|-4.00|0.9230
90917144|NCT02528188|181703793|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.96||0.4421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.36|2.34|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Percent Impairment While Working: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||2.34|-5.36|0.4421
90917145|NCT02528188|181703793|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.44||0.2049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|7.91|||ANCOVA|||Week 56: Percent Impairment While Working: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||7.91|-1.70|0.2049
90878722|NCT00335972|181618125|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size was based on being able to detect noninferiority on both analgesia (pain score and opioids) and hemodynamic responses, and superiority on at least one of them with 90% power and significance level of 0.025 for each of noninferiority and superiority.we needed a maximum of N= 65 per group. We assumed for opioids that the coefficient of variation (SD/mean) was about 0.4, resulting in a similar sample size (64/group) with noninferiority deltas of 20% of the observed mean|Mean Difference (Net)|-5.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|-5.0||noninferiority confidence intervals are 95% (alpha of 0.05/2=0.025 in direction of interest)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean difference: Dexmedetomidine arm - Remifentanil|||-5|-10|<0.001
90878723|NCT00335972|181618125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-10.0|-3.0||Bonferroni correction was used for superiority testing since superiority on either hemodynamics or pain control would be interpreted as Dex better than Remi (alpha=0.0125 = 0.025/2, 97.5% CI)|repeated measures ANOVA model||mean difference: dexmedetomidine arm - remifentanil arm|superiority||-3|-10|<0.001
90878724|NCT03965962|181618127|NON_INFERIORITY|The two-sided 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) was calculated based on the Wilson score method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI of the difference of the percentages between the test group (Group 1) and control group (Group 2) was greater than (\>) -5% at Day 28.|Difference in Percentage|-0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|4.35||||||||4.35|-2.33|
90878725|NCT03965962|181618127|NON_INFERIORITY|The two-sided 95 % CI was calculated based on the Wilson score method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI of the difference of the percentages between the test group (Group 1) and control group (Group 3) was \> -5% at Day 28.|Difference in Percentage|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|6.5||||||||6.50|-1.32|
90878726|NCT00867451|181618154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<.05
90878727|NCT02039674|181618171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages|26.3||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.9|42.1|||Miettinen & Nurminen Method|||||42.1|8.9|0.0016
90878728|NCT02039674|181618172|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0858|||||||Exact binomial distribution for testing|HO: ORR ≤20% versus H1: ORR \>20%||||||0.0858
90878729|NCT02039674|181618174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54||||0.00252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.83|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test||||0.83|0.35|0.00252
90878730|NCT02039674|181618175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.06762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.12|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test||||1.12|0.45|0.06762
90878731|NCT01358357|181618177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||<|0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.04||A hazard ratio of time to recurrence and its corresponding 95% Wald CI were estimated for the lurasidone arm vs.placebo arm, using a Cox proportional hazards model.Cox model included treatment effect as fixed effect, and stratified by pooled country.|Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||It was assumed that the recurrence event rates during the double-blind phase were to be 24% and 39% for subjects treated with lurasidone and placebo, respectively. A total of 120 recurrence events were required to achieve 90% power to detect the 15% difference in subjects who had a recurrence event during the double-blind phase between the treatment groups using a log-rank test with two sided alpha level of 0.05.||1.04|0.49|<0.078
90878732|NCT01358357|181618178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.72|||<|0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.98||A HR of time to discontinuation and corresponding 95% Wald CI were est. for lurasidone arm vs.the placebo arm, using a Cox proportional hazards model. Model included treatment effect including treatment as a fixed effect,stratified by pooled country.|Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||||0.98|0.54|<0.034
90878733|NCT01358357|181618179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.72||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.08||A HR of time to recurrence and its corresponding 95% Wald CI were estimated for lurasidone arm vs. placebo arm,using a Cox proportional hazards model. Model included treatment effect including treatment as a fixed effect stratified by pooled country.|Cox Proportional hazard Model|||||1.08|0.48|0.113
90878734|NCT01358357|181618181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference lurasidone vs.Placebo|-0.09||||0.406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.12||analysis of ANCOVA model contains treatment ,pooled country, and mood stabilizer (lithium or divalproex) as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.12|-0.29|0.406
90878735|NCT01358357|181618182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference lurasidone vs.Placebo|-0.11||||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.04||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model contains treatment, and pooled country, and mood stabilizer (lithium or divalproex) as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.04|-0.26|0.162
90878736|NCT01358357|181618183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference lurasidone vs.Placebo|-0.07||||0.496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.13||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model contains treatment, and pooled country, and mood stabilizer (lithium or divalproex) as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.13|-0.27|0.496
90878737|NCT01358357|181618184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.8||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.2||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model contains treatment, and pool country, and mood stabilizer (lithium or divalproex) as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.2|-1.8|0.128
90878738|NCT01358357|181618185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference lurasdione vs.Placebo|-0.5||||0.485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.9||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model contains treatment, and pooled country, and mood stabilizer (lithium or divalproex) as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.9|-1.9|0.485
90878739|NCT01358357|181618186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.2||||0.582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.5||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model contains treatment, and pooled country, and mood stabilizer (lithium or divalproex) as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.5|-0.8|0.582
90878740|NCT01358357|181618187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference lurasidone vs.Placebo|-0.01||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.2||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model contains treatment, and pooled country, and mood stabilizer (lithium or divalproex) as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.2|-0.5|0.420
90878741|NCT01358357|181618188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference lurasidone vs.Placebo|-0.2||||0.788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.2||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model contains treatment, and pooled country, and mood stabilizer (lithium or divalproex) as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||1.2|-1.6|0.788
90878742|NCT01358357|181618189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference lurasidone vs.Placebo|-0.1||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model contains treatment, and pooled country, and mood stabilizer (lithium or divalproex) as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.3|0.380
90917146|NCT02528188|181703793|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.0527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|9.41|||ANCOVA|||Week 56: Percent Impairment While Working: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||9.41|-0.05|0.0527
90917147|NCT02528188|181703793|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.82||0.3699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.21|1.94|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Percent Overall Work Impairment: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||1.94|-5.21|0.3699
90917148|NCT02528188|181703793|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.83||0.7945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.06|3.11|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Percent Overall Work Impairment: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||3.11|-4.06|0.7945
90917149|NCT02528188|181703793|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.03||0.941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.13|3.83|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Percent Overall Work Impairment: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||3.83|-4.13|0.9410
90917150|NCT02528188|181703793|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.05||0.486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.44|2.59|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Percent Overall Work Impairment: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||2.59|-5.44|0.4860
90917151|NCT02528188|181703793|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.62||0.2448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|8.2|||ANCOVA|||Week 56: Percent Overall Work Impairment: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||8.20|-2.10|0.2448
90917152|NCT02528188|181703793|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.58||0.0551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|10.04|||ANCOVA|||Week 56: Percent Overall Work Impairment: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||10.04|-0.11|0.0551
90917153|NCT02528188|181703793|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.26|0.84|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Percent Activity Impairment: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.84|-3.26|0.2470
90917154|NCT02528188|181703793|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.01|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Percent Activity Impairment: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.06|-4.01|0.0570
90917155|NCT02528188|181703793|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14||0.917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.36|2.12|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Percent Activity Impairment: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||2.12|-2.36|0.9170
90917156|NCT02528188|181703793|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14||0.4991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|1.46|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Percent Activity Impairment: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||1.46|-3.00|0.4991
90917157|NCT02528188|181703793|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.44||0.2377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|4.52|||ANCOVA|||Week 56: Percent Activity Impairment: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||4.52|-1.12|0.2377
90917158|NCT02528188|181703793|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.44||0.0238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|6.08|||ANCOVA|||Week 56: Percent Activity Impairment: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||6.08|0.43|0.0238
90917159|NCT02528188|181703801|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08||0.0142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|4.78|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Effectiveness; Week 16: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||4.78|0.53|0.0142
90917160|NCT02528188|181703801|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.56|6.78|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Effectiveness; Week 16: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||6.78|2.56|<0.0001
90917161|NCT02528188|181703801|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45||0.1371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|4.99|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Effectiveness; Week 56: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||4.99|-0.69|0.1371
90917162|NCT02528188|181703801|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.46||0.8524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|3.14|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Effectiveness; Week 56: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||3.14|-2.60|0.8524
90917163|NCT02528188|181703801|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8||0.5253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.93|5.09|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Side Effects; Week 16: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||5.09|-9.93|0.5253
90917164|NCT02528188|181703801|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.71||0.5381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.04|9.62|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Side Effects; Week 16: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||9.62|-5.04|0.5381
90961432|NCT01676909|181803618|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The same mixed model used for testing hypothesis 1 was used to test treatment effects on secondary scale outcomes (Hypothesis 3: health-related self-efficacy, patient activation; Hypothesis 4: six subscales of the Measure of Self-Management Behaviors) and several other pre-specified outcomes. To test for a group difference in mean change from baseline to follow-up (hypothesis 5) on all primary and secondary outcomes, the significance test of the group-by-follow-up coefficient was performed.||||<.0001
90961433|NCT01676909|181803619|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The same mixed model used for testing hypothesis 1 was used to test treatment effects on secondary scale outcomes (Hypothesis 3: health-related self-efficacy, patient activation; Hypothesis 4: six subscales of the Measure of Self-Management Behaviors) and several other pre-specified outcomes. To test for a group difference in mean change from baseline to follow-up (hypothesis 5) on all primary and secondary outcomes, the significance test of the group-by-follow-up coefficient was performed.||||0.038
90961434|NCT01676909|181803620|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.544|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The same mixed model used for testing hypothesis 1 was used to test treatment effects on secondary scale outcomes (Hypothesis 3: health-related self-efficacy, patient activation; Hypothesis 4: six subscales of the Measure of Self-Management Behaviors) and several other pre-specified outcomes. To test for a group difference in mean change from baseline to follow-up (hypothesis 5) on all primary and secondary outcomes, the significance test of the group-by-follow-up coefficient was performed.||||0.544
90878743|NCT01358357|181618190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference lurasidone vs.Placebo|0.37||||0.772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.14|2.88||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model contains treatment, and pooled country, and mood stabilizer (lithium or divalproex) as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||2.88|-2.14|0.772
90878744|NCT02590939|181618191|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
90878745|NCT02590939|181618192|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
90878746|NCT02590939|181618193|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.666||||||Statistical significance threshold set to 0.05|Fisher Exact|||||||0.666
90878747|NCT02590939|181618194|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.026||||||Statistical significance threshold set to 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.026
90878748|NCT02590939|181618195|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Statistical significance threshold set to 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1
90878749|NCT02590939|181618196|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.037||||||Statistical significance threshold set to 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.037
90878750|NCT02590939|181618197|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028||||||Statistical significance threshold set to 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.028
90878751|NCT02590939|181618198|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.062||||||Statistical significance threshold set to 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.062
90878752|NCT00108160|181618203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.356||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Chi-squared|||Our null hypothesis was that no significant effect of mupirocin ointment (treatment) on S. aureus re-infection would be seen at 18 months compared with placebo ointment. Based on prior studies, we estimated that 198 participants would need to be enrolled assuming a 20% dropout rate; 84 participants per arm would be required to detect a 66% decrease in re-infection from 30% to 10% with a significance level alpha of 0.05 and a power of 0.9.||||0.356
90878753|NCT00323492|181618253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.42||||0.034||95.0|-0.86|-0.03||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|No adjustments were applied.|Difference is for Truvada minus Maintain Baseline Regimen. The non-parametric estimate of the difference between groups (Hodges-Lehmann) and its 95% confidence intervals (Moses) are provided.|Null Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are equal. Alternative Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are different (two sided).||-0.03|-0.86|0.034
90878754|NCT00323492|181618254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.36||||0.031||95.0|-0.67|-0.03||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum text|No adjustments were made.|Difference is for Truvada minus Maintain Baseline Regimen. The non-parametric estimate of the difference between groups (Hodges-Lehmann) and its 95% confidence intervals (Moses) are provided.|Null Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are equal. Alternative Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are different (two sided).||-0.03|-0.67|0.031
90878755|NCT00323492|181618255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.009||95.0|-0.18|-0.02||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|No adjustments were made.|Difference is for Truvada minus Maintain Baseline Regimen. The non-parametric estimate of the difference between groups (Hodges-Lehmann) and its 95% confidence intervals (Moses) are provided.|Null Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are equal. Alternative Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are different (two sided).||-0.02|-0.18|0.009
90878756|NCT00323492|181618256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.64|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.01|-0.27||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Wicoxon Rank Sum test|no adjustments were made.|Difference is for Truvada minus Maintain Baseline Regimen. The non-parametric estimate of the difference between groups (Hodges-Lehmann) and its 95% confidence intervals (Moses) are provided.|Null Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are equal. Alternative Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are different (two sided).||-0.27|-1.01|< 0.001
90878757|NCT00323492|181618257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.51||95.0|-0.44|0.19||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|No adjustments were made.|Difference is for Truvada minus Maintain Baseline Regimen. The non-parametric estimate of the difference between groups (Hodges-Lehmann) and its 95% confidence intervals (Moses) are provided.|Null Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are equal. Alternative Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are different (two sided).||0.19|-0.44|0.51
91033835|NCT00473330|181953514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.7||To manage the type I error rate while testing multiple secondary efficacy endpoints for statistical significance, a type I error management plan was implemented. Secondary endpoints were prioritized and tested using a hierarchical testing procedure.|ANOVA|The analysis was stratified by baseline BCVA score (≤55, \>55 letters), baseline HbA1c (≤8%, \>8%), and prior therapy for ME in the study eye (yes, no).||The analysis summarized in this section is for the Month 24 time point, comparing the outcome for patients randomized to ranibizumab versus sham injections during the controlled treatment period. The statistical analysis for the Outcome Measure at Month 36 is not shown here.||-0.7|-1.4|<0.0001
90917165|NCT02528188|181703801|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|7.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.44||0.2694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.99|20.54|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Side Effects; Week 56: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||20.54|-5.99|0.2694
90917166|NCT02528188|181703801|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.05||0.1349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.8|3.11|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Side Effects; Week 56: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||3.11|-21.80|0.1349
90917167|NCT02528188|181703801|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.0264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|3.38|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Convenience; Week 16: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||3.38|0.21|0.0264
90917168|NCT02528188|181703801|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.0098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.65|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Convenience; Week 16: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||3.65|0.50|0.0098
90917169|NCT02528188|181703801|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.0937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|4.01|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Convenience; Week 56: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||4.01|-0.31|0.0937
90917170|NCT02528188|181703801|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.1838|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|3.67|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Convenience; Week 56: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||3.67|-0.70|0.1838
90917171|NCT02528188|181703801|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|5.25|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Global Satisfaction; Week 16: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||5.25|1.12|0.0025
90917172|NCT02528188|181703801|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|5.6|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Global Satisfaction; Week 16: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||5.60|1.51|0.0007
90917173|NCT02528188|181703801|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.31||0.1373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|4.51|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Global Satisfaction; Week 56: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||4.51|-0.62|0.1373
90917174|NCT02528188|181703801|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32||0.996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.59|2.6|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Global Satisfaction; Week 56: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||2.60|-2.59|0.9960
90917175|NCT02528188|181703803|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0823|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for row mean scores differ, stratified by the combinations of the three stratification factors (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID)||||0.0823
90917176|NCT02528188|181703803|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0049|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for row mean scores differ, stratified by the combinations of the three stratification factors (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID)||||0.0049
90917177|NCT02528188|181703803|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0718|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 56: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for row mean scores differ, stratified by the combinations of the three stratification factors (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID)||||0.0718
90878758|NCT00323492|181618258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.79||95.0|-0.03|0.02||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|No adjustments were made.|Difference is for Truvada minus Maintain Baseline Regimen. The non-parametric estimate of the difference between groups (Hodges-Lehmann) and its 95% confidence intervals (Moses) are provided.|Null Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are equal. Alternative Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are different (two sided).||0.02|-0.03|0.79
90878759|NCT00323492|181618259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|No adjustments were made.||Null Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are equal. Alternative Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are different (two sided).||||0.86
90878760|NCT00323492|181618261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|No adjustments were made.||Null Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are equal. Alternative Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are different (two sided).||||0.65
90878761|NCT00323492|181618262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11||95.0||||No adjustments were made.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|No adjustments were made.||Null Hypothesis: no indication of shift from 0 in distribution of change from baseline. Alternative Hypothesis: shift from 0 is observed in distribution of change from baseline.||||0.11
90878762|NCT00323492|181618262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34||95.0||||No adjustments were made.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|No adjustments were made.||Null Hypothesis: no indication of shift from 0 in distribution of change from baseline. Alternative Hypothesis: shift from 0 is observed in distribution of change from baseline.||||0.34
90878763|NCT00323492|181618263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||No adjustments were made.|Fisher Exact|No adjustments were made.||Null Hypothesis: treatment is not associated with the observed virologic response. Alternative Hypothesis: treatment is associated with the observed virologic response||||1.00
90878764|NCT02486042|181618266|OTHER|T-test for equality in means. The p-value threshold for significance was p \< 0.05.||||||0.22|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: there was no difference in the average dCt values for relative gene expression of STAT-3 in T0 blood samples in the Standard of Care versus Omegaven group||||0.22
90878765|NCT02486042|181618266|OTHER|T-test for equality of means. The p-value threshold for significance was p \< 0.05.||||||0.15|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: there was no difference in the average dCt values for relative gene expression of PPAR-gamma in T0 blood samples in the Standard of Care versus Omegaven group||||0.15
90878766|NCT02486042|181618266|OTHER|T-test for equality of means. The p-value threshold for significance was p \< 0.05.||||||0.78|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: there was no difference in the average dCt values for relative gene expression of STC-1 in T0 blood samples in the Standard of Care versus Omegaven group||||0.78
90878767|NCT02486042|181618270|OTHER|T-test for equality of means. The p-value threshold for significance was p \< 0.05.||||||0.43|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: there was no difference in the average dCt values for relative gene expression of STAT-3 in T1 blood samples in the Standard of Care versus Omegaven group||||0.43
90878768|NCT02486042|181618270|OTHER|T-test for equality of means. The p-value threshold for significance was p \< 0.05.||||||0.44|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: there was no difference in the average dCt values for relative gene expression of PPAR-gamma in T1 blood samples in the Standard of Care versus Omegaven group||||0.44
90878769|NCT02486042|181618270|OTHER|T-test for equality of means. The p-value threshold for significance was p \< 0.05.||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: there was no difference in the average dCt values for relative gene expression of STC-1 in T1 blood samples in the Standard of Care versus Omegaven group||||0.50
90878770|NCT02486042|181618271|OTHER|T-test for equality of means. The p-value threshold for significance was p \< 0.05.||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: there was no difference in the average dCt values for relative gene expression of STAT-3 in T2 blood samples in the Standard of Care versus Omegaven group||||0.001
90878771|NCT02486042|181618271|OTHER|T-test for equality of means. The p-value threshold for significance was p \< 0.05.||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: there was no difference in the average dCt values for relative gene expression of PPAR-gamma in T2 blood samples in the Standard of Care versus Omegaven group||||0.001
90878772|NCT02486042|181618271|OTHER|T-test for equality of means. The p-value threshold for significance was p \< 0.05.||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: there was no difference in the average dCt values for relative gene expression of STC-1 in T2 blood samples in the Standard of Care versus Omegaven group||||0.01
90878773|NCT03706794|181618277|SUPERIORITY||Mann-Whitney U|43.0||||0.829|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.829
90878774|NCT03706794|181618278|SUPERIORITY||Mann-Whitney U|45.5||||0.633|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.633
90878775|NCT03706794|181618279|SUPERIORITY||Mann-Whitney U|45.5||||0.633|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.633
90878776|NCT03706794|181618280|SUPERIORITY||Mann-Whitney U|46.0||||0.633|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.633
90878777|NCT03706794|181618281|SUPERIORITY||Mann-Whitney U|52.0||||0.315|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.315
90878778|NCT01466387|181618282|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|GMC TF+YF+MenACWY-CRM/GMC TF+YF.|Ratio of GMC|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.6||The testing was done by assessing the confidence interval of the ratio.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included vaccine group and center as factors, age as covariate and was adjusted for baseline.||The primary criterion for immunogenicity (postvaccination, day 29) was that the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval around the observed ratio of geometric mean concentrations between one dose of typhoid Vi polysaccharide and yellow fever vaccines given concomitantly with MenACWY-CRM197 to typhoid Vi polysaccharide and yellow fever vaccines given alone was greater than 0.5.||1.6|0.81|
90878779|NCT01466387|181618283|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|GMT TF+YF+MenACWY/GMT TF+YF.|Ratio of GMT.|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.41||The testing was done by assessing the confidence interval of the ratio.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included vaccine group and center as factors, age as covariate and was adjusted for baseline.||The primary criterion for immunogenicity (postvaccination, day 29) was that the lower limit of the two sided 95% CI around the observed ratio of geometric mean titers between one dose of typhoid Vi polysaccharide and yellow fever vaccines given concomitantly with MenACWY-CRM197 to typhoid Vi polysaccharide and yellow fever vaccines given alone was greater than 0.5.||1.41|0.65|
90878780|NCT01466387|181618284|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|GMT JE + Rab + MenACWY-CRM/GMT JE + Rab.|Ratio of GMT|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.16||The testing was done by assessing the confidence interval of the ratio.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included vaccine group and centers as factors, age as covariate and was adjusted for baseline.||The primary criterion for immunogenicity (postvaccination, day 57) was that the lower limit of the two sided 95% CI around the observed ratio of geometric mean titers between the second dose of Japanese Encephalitis and third dose of rabies virus vaccines given concomitantly with MenACWY-CRM197 to Japanese Encephalitis and rabies virus vaccines given alone was greater than 0.5.||1.16|0.7|
90917178|NCT02528188|181703803|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1947|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 56: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for row mean scores differ, stratified by the combinations of the three stratification factors (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID)||||0.1947
90878781|NCT01466387|181618285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|GMC JE + Rab + MenACWY-CRM/GMC JE + Rab.|Ratio of GMC|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.17||The testing was done by assessing the confidence interval of the ratio.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included vaccine group and center as factors, age as covariate and was adjusted for baseline.||The primary criterion for immunogenicity (postvaccination, day 57) was that the lower limit of the two sided 95% CI around the observed ratio of geometric mean concentrations between the second dose of Japanese encephalitis and third dose of rabies virus vaccines given concomitantly with MenACWY-CRM197 to Japanese encephalitis and rabies virus vaccines given alone was greater than 0.5.||1.17|0.71|
90878782|NCT01527682|181618325|OTHER||Proportion|76.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.1|89.4|||||||The statistical analysis was performed according to study design. Using a Fleming single stage design (A'Hern approach) setting the probability of erroneously concluding that the responders rate is greater than 35% at 5% (one-sided alpha=0.05) and the probability of correctly concluding that the responders rate is at least 50% at 80% (beta error = 0.20), the minimum number of responder eyes was set at 31 out of 68, since this result is associated with a lower limit of the 90% exact confidence interval of 35.2%.|89.4|64.1|
90878783|NCT03979638|181618336|SUPERIORITY||Estimated percent change|-10.8||||0.1424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.5|4.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Intention To Treat (ITT), statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model which uses log-transformation|Percent change difference between BLU-5937 and placebo was estimated by 100 x \[e\^diff - 1\] where 'e' = exponent of difference; and 'diff' = the treatment mean difference from mixed model of change from baseline based on log-transformed data.|||4.0|-23.5|0.1424
90917179|NCT02528188|181703804|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0229|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for row mean scores differ, stratified by the combinations of the three stratification factors (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID)||||0.0229
90917180|NCT02528188|181703804|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0029|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for row mean scores differ, stratified by the combinations of the three stratification factors (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID)||||0.0029
90917181|NCT02528188|181703804|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0266|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 56: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for row mean scores differ, stratified by the combinations of the three stratification factors (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID)||||0.0266
90917182|NCT02528188|181703804|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1835|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 56: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for row mean scores differ, stratified by the combinations of the three stratification factors (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID)||||0.1835
90917183|NCT02528188|181703805|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.63||||0.0076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.88|||Regression, Logistic|||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline diary average pain, baseline WOMAC pain score, classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.||0.88|0.45|0.0076
90917184|NCT02528188|181703805|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67||||0.0187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.94|||Regression, Logistic|||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline diary average pain, baseline WOMAC pain score, classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.||0.94|0.48|0.0187
90917185|NCT02528188|181703806|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0074|||||||Log Rank|||Missing data for the selected percentile(s) was due to the Kaplan-Meier estimate not reaching the level for discontinuation due to lack of efficacy.||||0.0074
90917186|NCT02528188|181703806|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0162|||||||Log Rank|||Missing data for the selected percentile(s) was due to the Kaplan-Meier estimate not reaching the level for discontinuation due to lack of efficacy.||||0.0162
90917187|NCT02528188|181703807|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.1136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.38|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.||1.38|0.97|0.1136
90917188|NCT02528188|181703807|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.29|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.||1.29|0.90|0.3910
90917189|NCT02528188|181703807|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.7691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.22|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.||1.22|0.86|0.7691
90917190|NCT02528188|181703807|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.05|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.||1.05|0.73|0.1430
90917191|NCT02528188|181703807|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.6454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.25|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.||1.25|0.87|0.6454
90917192|NCT02528188|181703807|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.0561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.0|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.||1.00|0.70|0.0561
90917193|NCT02528188|181703807|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.9056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.19|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.||1.19|0.82|0.9056
90917194|NCT02528188|181703807|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.2919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.09|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.||1.09|0.75|0.2919
90917195|NCT02528188|181703807|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.4976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.13|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.||1.13|0.78|0.4976
90878784|NCT03979638|181618336|SUPERIORITY||Estimated percent change|-6.1||||0.4602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.8|11.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Intention To Treat (ITT), statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model which uses log-transformation|Percent change difference between BLU-5937 and placebo was estimated by 100 x \[e\^diff - 1\] where 'e' = exponent of difference; and 'diff' = the treatment mean difference from mixed model of change from baseline based on log-transformed data.|||11.2|-20.8|0.4602
90878785|NCT03979638|181618336|SUPERIORITY||Estimated percent change|-7.8||||0.4181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.4|12.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Intention To Treat (ITT), statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model which uses log-transformation|Percent change difference between BLU-5937 and placebo was estimated by 100 x \[e\^diff - 1\] where 'e' = exponent of difference; and 'diff' = the treatment mean difference from mixed model of change from baseline based on log-transformed data.|||12.5|-24.4|0.4181
90878786|NCT03979638|181618336|SUPERIORITY||Estimated percent change|-16.7||||0.0855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.3|2.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|Intention To Treat (ITT), statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model which uses log-transformation|Percent change difference between BLU-5937 and placebo was estimated by 100 x \[e\^diff - 1\] where 'e' = exponent of difference; and 'diff' = the treatment mean difference from mixed model of change from baseline based on log-transformed data.|||2.6|-32.3|0.0855
90878787|NCT03979638|181618337|SUPERIORITY||Estimated percent change|-20.3||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.9|-9.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Intention To Treat (ITT), statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model which uses log-transformation|Percent change difference between BLU-5937 and placebo was estimated by 100 x \[e\^diff - 1\] where 'e' = exponent of difference; and 'diff' = the treatment mean difference from mixed model of change from baseline based on log-transformed data.|||-9.5|-29.9|0.0010
90878788|NCT03979638|181618337|SUPERIORITY||Estimated percent change|-17.7||||0.0186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.9|-3.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Intention To Treat (ITT), statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model which uses log-transformation|Percent change difference between BLU-5937 and placebo was estimated by 100 x \[e\^diff - 1\] where 'e' = exponent of difference; and 'diff' = the treatment mean difference from mixed model of change from baseline based on log-transformed data.|||-3.3|-29.9|0.0186
90878789|NCT03979638|181618337|SUPERIORITY||Estimated percent change|-19.4||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.9|-1.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|Intention To Treat (ITT), statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model which uses log-transformation|Percent change difference between BLU-5937 and placebo was estimated by 100 x \[e\^diff - 1\] where 'e' = exponent of difference; and 'diff' = the treatment mean difference from mixed model of change from baseline based on log-transformed data.|||-1.9|-33.9|0.0320
90878790|NCT03979638|181618337|SUPERIORITY||Estimated percent change|-27.0||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.3|-10.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|Intention To Treat (ITT), statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model which uses log-transformation|Percent change difference between BLU-5937 and placebo was estimated by 100 x \[e\^diff - 1\] where 'e' = exponent of difference; and 'diff' = the treatment mean difference from mixed model of change from baseline based on log-transformed data.|||-10.8|-40.3|0.0026
90878791|NCT03979638|181618338|SUPERIORITY||Estimated percent change|-28.1||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.5|-14.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Intention To Treat (ITT), statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model which uses log-transformation|Percent change difference between BLU-5937 and placebo was estimated by 100 x \[e\^diff - 1\] where 'e' = exponent of difference; and 'diff' = the treatment mean difference from mixed model of change from baseline based on log-transformed data.|||-14.5|-39.5|0.0005
90878792|NCT03979638|181618338|SUPERIORITY||Estimated percent change|-28.4||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.7|-15.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Intention To Treat (ITT), statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model which uses log-transformation|Percent change difference between BLU-5937 and placebo was estimated by 100 x \[e\^diff - 1\] where 'e' = exponent of difference; and 'diff' = the treatment mean difference from mixed model of change from baseline based on log-transformed data.|||-15.0|-39.7|0.0003
90878793|NCT03979638|181618338|SUPERIORITY||Estimated percent change|-29.5||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.7|-13.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Intention To Treat (ITT), statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model which uses log-transformation|Percent change difference between BLU-5937 and placebo was estimated by 100 x \[e\^diff - 1\] where 'e' = exponent of difference; and 'diff' = the treatment mean difference from mixed model of change from baseline based on log-transformed data.|||-13.2|-42.7|0.0014
90878794|NCT03979638|181618338|SUPERIORITY||Estimated percent change|-32.4||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.3|-16.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Intention To Treat (ITT), statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model which uses log-transformation|Percent change difference between BLU-5937 and placebo was estimated by 100 x \[e\^diff - 1\] where 'e' = exponent of difference; and 'diff' = the treatment mean difference from mixed model of change from baseline based on log-transformed data.|||-16.4|-45.3|0.0006
90878795|NCT02586896|181618348|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.29
90878796|NCT02586896|181618350|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.91
90878797|NCT02586896|181618351|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.09
90878798|NCT02586896|181618352|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.54
90878799|NCT02678676|181618383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.3444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.04||No adjustment to the p-value|Regression, Cox|||Test for statistical difference between pioglitazone and placebo with respect to time of first occurrence of the primary composite outcome event.||1.04|0.88|0.3444
90878800|NCT02678676|181618384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.16||||||Test for statistical difference between pioglitazone and placebo with respect to time of first occurrence of the primary composite outcome event.||1.16|0.83|
90917196|NCT02528188|181703807|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.2425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.08|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.||1.08|0.75|0.2425
90917197|NCT02528188|181703807|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.9242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.19|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 32: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.||1.19|0.83|0.9242
90878801|NCT01400516|181618387|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|9.5||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|||||A p-value \< 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Linear mixed model||control-teriparatide|||||0.28
90878802|NCT01412866|181618395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Chi-squared|df=1||||||0.08
90917198|NCT02528188|181703807|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.6621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.15|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 32: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.||1.15|0.80|0.6621
90917199|NCT02528188|181703807|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.9977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.2|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 40: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.||1.20|0.83|0.9977
90917200|NCT02528188|181703807|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.9762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.2|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 40: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.||1.20|0.84|0.9762
90917201|NCT02528188|181703807|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.9718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.19|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.||1.19|0.83|0.9718
90917202|NCT02528188|181703807|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.8219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.22|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.||1.22|0.85|0.8219
90917203|NCT02528188|181703807|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.6936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.16|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 56: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.||1.16|0.80|0.6936
90917204|NCT02528188|181703807|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.5769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.26|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 56: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.||1.26|0.88|0.5769
90878803|NCT00403273|181618407|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons; the a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
90878804|NCT00403273|181618408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||comparison of proportions|0.65|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made, since we analyzed only one primary outcome. 19 patients per group were needed for 80% power and 24 patients per group for 90% power to detect a difference of 43% in proportion with primary outcome|comparison of proportions|compare proportion of patients with clinically meaningful change in 0-10 VAS pain (at least 2-point reduction on VAS pain) at 2-mths \& all timepoints|we hypothesized a greater proportion with meaningful reduction in pain on 0-10 scale in intervention versus placebo group.|For primary outcome analysis, we compared the proportion of responders with clinically meaningful change \[improvement\] in 0-10 VAS Pain, i.e. those with 2-point reduction in 0-10 VAS pain score at 2-mths, in the 2 groups using comparison of proportions. Proportion of responders were also analyzed at all efficacy timepoints using generalized estimating equation (GEE) modeling. We used GEE for between-group comparisons in secondary outcomes at all efficacy endpoints, adjusted for baseline scores.||||<0.05
90917205|NCT02528188|181703809|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.7746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.16|||Negative binomial model|||Week 2: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment group.||1.16|0.89|0.7746
90917206|NCT02528188|181703809|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.8441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.16|||Negative binomial model|||Week 2: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment group.||1.16|0.89|0.8441
91035868|NCT02558491|181958305|OTHER|||||||0.824||||||No a priori sample size was determined due to the feasibility/pilot nature of the trial. Significance level was set at P-value \<0.05.|ANOVA|||Secondary analysis followed the same format unless variables could not be considered normally distributed; in that case a related samples Wilcoxon signed-rank test is used. Data were first binned (to ensure minimum count of five per bins) and the w2 statistics was used with the expected counts given by SoC. Based on achieved recruitment, a moderate effect size (0.3) is detectable with 80% power, or a large effect size (0.4) with 95% power (G-Power 3.1.9.2). Outcome measurement was for overnight.||||0.824
90917207|NCT02528188|181703809|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.13|||Negative binomial model|||Week 4: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment group.||1.13|0.83|0.6580
90917208|NCT02528188|181703809|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.2279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.06|||Negative binomial model|||Week 4: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment group.||1.06|0.78|0.2279
90961435|NCT01676909|181803621|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.699|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The same mixed model used for testing hypothesis 1 was used to test treatment effects on secondary scale outcomes (Hypothesis 3: health-related self-efficacy, patient activation; Hypothesis 4: six subscales of the Measure of Self-Management Behaviors) and several other pre-specified outcomes. To test for a group difference in mean change from baseline to follow-up (hypothesis 5) on all primary and secondary outcomes, the significance test of the group-by-follow-up coefficient was performed.||||0.699
90961436|NCT01676909|181803622|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The same mixed model used for testing hypothesis 1 was used to test treatment effects on secondary scale outcomes (Hypothesis 3: health-related self-efficacy, patient activation; Hypothesis 4: six subscales of the Measure of Self-Management Behaviors) and several other pre-specified outcomes. To test for a group difference in mean change from baseline to follow-up (hypothesis 5) on all primary and secondary outcomes, the significance test of the group-by-follow-up coefficient was performed.||||0.006
90961437|NCT01676909|181803623|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.762|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The same mixed model used for testing hypothesis 1 was used to test treatment effects on secondary scale outcomes (Hypothesis 3: health-related self-efficacy, patient activation; Hypothesis 4: six subscales of the Measure of Self-Management Behaviors) and several other pre-specified outcomes. To test for a group difference in mean change from baseline to follow-up (hypothesis 5) on all primary and secondary outcomes, the significance test of the group-by-follow-up coefficient was performed.||||0.762
90961438|NCT01676909|181803624|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.326|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The same mixed model used for testing hypothesis 1 was used to test treatment effects on secondary scale outcomes (Hypothesis 3: health-related self-efficacy, patient activation; Hypothesis 4: six subscales of the Measure of Self-Management Behaviors) and several other pre-specified outcomes. To test for a group difference in mean change from baseline to follow-up (hypothesis 5) on all primary and secondary outcomes, the significance test of the group-by-follow-up coefficient was performed.||||0.326
90961439|NCT01676909|181803625|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.667|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The same mixed model used for testing hypothesis 1 was used to test treatment effects on secondary scale outcomes (Hypothesis 3: health-related self-efficacy, patient activation; Hypothesis 4: six subscales of the Measure of Self-Management Behaviors) and several other pre-specified outcomes. To test for a group difference in mean change from baseline to follow-up (hypothesis 5) on all primary and secondary outcomes, the significance test of the group-by-follow-up coefficient was performed.||||0.667
90961440|NCT01676909|181803626|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.142|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The same mixed model used for testing hypothesis 1 was used to test treatment effects on secondary scale outcomes (Hypothesis 3: health-related self-efficacy, patient activation; Hypothesis 4: six subscales of the Measure of Self-Management Behaviors) and several other pre-specified outcomes. To test for a group difference in mean change from baseline to follow-up (hypothesis 5) on all primary and secondary outcomes, the significance test of the group-by-follow-up coefficient was performed.||||0.142
90961441|NCT01676909|181803627|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.342|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The same mixed model used for testing hypothesis 1 was used to test treatment effects on secondary scale outcomes (Hypothesis 3: health-related self-efficacy, patient activation; Hypothesis 4: six subscales of the Measure of Self-Management Behaviors) and several other pre-specified outcomes. To test for a group difference in mean change from baseline to follow-up (hypothesis 5) on all primary and secondary outcomes, the significance test of the group-by-follow-up coefficient was performed.||||0.342
90961442|NCT01676909|181803628|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.563|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The same mixed model used for testing hypothesis 1 was used to test treatment effects on secondary scale outcomes (Hypothesis 3: health-related self-efficacy, patient activation; Hypothesis 4: six subscales of the Measure of Self-Management Behaviors) and several other pre-specified outcomes. To test for a group difference in mean change from baseline to follow-up (hypothesis 5) on all primary and secondary outcomes, the significance test of the group-by-follow-up coefficient was performed.||||0.563
90961443|NCT01676909|181803629|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The same mixed model used for testing hypothesis 1 was used to test treatment effects on secondary scale outcomes (Hypothesis 3: health-related self-efficacy, patient activation; Hypothesis 4: six subscales of the Measure of Self-Management Behaviors) and several other pre-specified outcomes. To test for a group difference in mean change from baseline to follow-up (hypothesis 5) on all primary and secondary outcomes, the significance test of the group-by-follow-up coefficient was performed.||||0.004
90961444|NCT01676909|181803630|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.727|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The same mixed model used for testing hypothesis 1 was used to test treatment effects on secondary scale outcomes (Hypothesis 3: health-related self-efficacy, patient activation; Hypothesis 4: six subscales of the Measure of Self-Management Behaviors) and several other pre-specified outcomes. To test for a group difference in mean change from baseline to follow-up (hypothesis 5) on all primary and secondary outcomes, the significance test of the group-by-follow-up coefficient was performed.||||0.727
90961445|NCT01676909|181803631|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.446|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The same mixed model used for testing hypothesis 1 was used to test treatment effects on secondary scale outcomes (Hypothesis 3: health-related self-efficacy, patient activation; Hypothesis 4: six subscales of the Measure of Self-Management Behaviors) and several other pre-specified outcomes. To test for a group difference in mean change from baseline to follow-up (hypothesis 5) on all primary and secondary outcomes, the significance test of the group-by-follow-up coefficient was performed.||||0.446
90878805|NCT00403273|181618409|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
90878806|NCT00403273|181618410|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004
90878807|NCT00403273|181618411|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.046
90878808|NCT00403273|181618412|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
90878809|NCT00403273|181618413|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
90878810|NCT00502697|181618426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The original proposed sample size for this study was 300. This sample size was based on previous evidence that indicated that a reduction of 15% in the rate of preterm birth would be detectable with groups of 150. Because of concerns with systemic changes in the study's health care delivery environment, an interim analysis was conducted after 200 women had delivered. As a result of that analysis a decision was made to stop recruitment.||||.64
90878811|NCT01713868|181618488|SUPERIORITY|GEE logistic regression accounted for within-hospital clustering, individual-level \& hospital-level covariates. We converted aORs to aRDs (95% CI) using the BF/BF group as the control group prevalence and reported separate effects of the 2 interventions. We fit multiplicative interaction models with indicator variables for education, mHealth, and their interaction. As the interaction between interventions was significant, we presented results from the interaction model.||||||0.03||||||Adjusted education effect p=0.34. Adjusted mHealth effect p\<0.001. Test for interaction p=0.01. Adjusted education only effect p=0.74. Adjusted mHealth only effect p=0.02. Adjusted mHealth and education effect: p=0.03|Regression, Logistic|||Sample size provided power of detecting the effect of an individual intervention in the presence of interaction.We assumed pre-study prevalence of a safe sleep practice ranging from 50% to 60% across hospitals. We powered the study to detect a 10 percentage point difference between two study groups, and determined that an analysis sample of n=1280 (320 per treatment group) was needed for 80% power (testing at two-sided p\<0.05). Allowing for 20% loss to follow-up, this led to a sample of n=1600.||||0.03
90878812|NCT01713868|181618489|SUPERIORITY|GEE logistic regression accounted for within-hospital clustering, individual-level \& hospital-level covariates. We converted aORs to aRDs (95% CI) using the BF/BF group as the control group prevalence and reported separate effects of the 2 interventions. We fit multiplicative interaction models with indicator variables for education, mHealth, and their interaction. As the interaction between interventions was not significant, we only presented main effects model.|||||<|0.001||||||Adjusted education effect: p=0.22. Adjusted mHealth effect p\<0.001. Test for interaction p=0.08.|Regression, Logistic|||Sample size provided power of detecting the effect of an individual intervention in the presence of interaction. We assumed pre-study prevalence of a safe sleep practice ranging from 50% to 60% across hospitals. We powered the study to detect a 10 percentage point difference between two study groups, and determined that an analysis sample of n=1280 (320 per treatment group) was needed for 80% power (testing at two-sided p\<0.05). Allowing for 20% loss to follow-up,this led to a sample of n=1600.||||<0.001
90878813|NCT01713868|181618490|SUPERIORITY|GEE logistic regression accounted for within-hospital clustering, individual-level \& hospital-level covariates. We converted aORs to aRDs (95% CI) using the BF/BF group as the control group prevalence and reported separate effects of the 2 interventions. We fit multiplicative interaction models with indicator variables for education, mHealth, and their interaction. As the interaction between interventions was not significant, we only presented main effects model.|||||<|0.001||||||Adjusted education effect p=0.07. Adjusted mHealth effect p\<0.001. Test for interaction p=0.54|Regression, Logistic|||Sample size provided power of detecting the effect of an individual intervention in the presence of interaction. We assumed pre-study prevalence of a safe sleep practice ranging from 50% to 60% across hospitals. We powered the study to detect a 10 percentage point difference between two study groups, and determined that an analysis sample of n=1280 (320 per treatment group) was needed for 80% power (testing at two-sided p\<0.05). Allowing for 20% loss to follow-up, this led to a sample of n=1600.||||<0.001
90878814|NCT01713868|181618491|SUPERIORITY|GEE logistic regression accounted for within-hospital clustering, individual-level \& hospital-level covariates. We converted aORs to aRDs (95% CI) using the BF/BF group as the control group prevalence and reported separate effects of the 2 interventions. We fit multiplicative interaction models with indicator variables for education, mHealth, and their interaction. As the interaction between interventions was not significant, we only presented main effects model.|||||<|0.001||||||Adjusted education effect p=0.33. Adjusted mHealth effect p\<0.001. Test for interaction p=0.29.|Regression, Logistic|||Sample size provided power of detecting the effect of an individual intervention in the presence of interaction. We assumed pre-study prevalence of a safe sleep practice ranging from 50% to 60% across hospitals. We powered the study to detect a 10 percentage point difference between two study groups, and determined that an analysis sample of n=1280 (320 per treatment group) was needed for 80% power (testing at two-sided p\<0.05). Allowing for 20% loss to follow-up, this led to a sample of n=1600.||||<0.001
90878815|NCT01713868|181618492|OTHER|Causal mediation analysis|Difference in proportions|0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||||We performed causal mediation analyses to estimate the Total Effect of intervention on a categorical outcome as the difference in the proportion with the outcome for those who received the intervention and were positive on the mediator vs. those who received the control and were negative on the mediator. Significance is determined through 95% confidence intervals (CIs), with CIs not including 0.0 indicating significant effects.|||
90917209|NCT02528188|181703809|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.9986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.18|||Negative binomial model|||Week 8: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment group.||1.18|0.84|0.9986
90917210|NCT02528188|181703809|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.0771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.02|||Negative binomial model|||Week 8: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment group.||1.02|0.72|0.0771
90917211|NCT02528188|181703809|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.4485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.13|||Negative binomial model|||Week 16: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment group.||1.13|0.77|0.4485
90878816|NCT01713868|181618493|OTHER|Causal mediation analysis|Difference in proportions|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||||We performed causal mediation analyses to estimate the Total Effect of intervention on a categorical outcome as the difference in the proportion with the outcome for those who received the intervention and were positive on the mediator vs. those who received the control and were negative on the mediator. Significance is determined through 95% confidence intervals (CIs), with CIs not including 0.0 indicating significant effects.|||
90878817|NCT01713868|181618494|OTHER|Causal mediation analysis|Difference in proportions|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||||We performed causal mediation analyses to estimate the Total Effect of intervention on a categorical outcome as the difference in the proportion with the outcome for those who received the intervention and were positive on the mediator vs. those who received the control and were negative on the mediator. Significance is determined through 95% confidence intervals (CIs), with CIs not including 0.0 indicating significant effects.|||
90878818|NCT01713868|181618495|OTHER|Causal mediation analysis|Difference in proportions|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||||We performed causal mediation analyses to estimate the Total Effect of intervention on a categorical outcome as the difference in the proportion with the outcome for those who received the intervention and were positive on the mediator vs. those who received the control and were negative on the mediator. Significance is determined through 95% confidence intervals (CIs), with CIs not including 0.0 indicating significant effects.|||
90917212|NCT02528188|181703809|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.2817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.09|||Negative binomial model|||Week 16: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment group.||1.09|0.74|0.2817
90917213|NCT02528188|181703809|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.5426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.13|||Negative binomial model|||Week 24: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment group.||1.13|0.79|0.5426
90917214|NCT02528188|181703809|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.5385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.13|||Negative binomial model|||Week 24: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment group.||1.13|0.79|0.5385
90917215|NCT02528188|181703809|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.5041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.12|||Negative binomial model|||Week 32: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment group.||1.12|0.79|0.5041
90917216|NCT02528188|181703809|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.11|||Negative binomial model|||Week 32: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment group.||1.11|0.78|0.4410
90917217|NCT02528188|181703809|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.7426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.16|||Negative binomial model|||Week 40: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment group.||1.16|0.81|0.7426
90917218|NCT02528188|181703809|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.7469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.16|||Negative binomial model|||Week 40: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment group.||1.16|0.81|0.7469
90917219|NCT02528188|181703809|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.6784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.15|||Negative binomial model|||Week 48: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment group.||1.15|0.81|0.6784
90878819|NCT03265249|181618601|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|5.7||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|29.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||29|-17.5|0.80
90878820|NCT00380393|181618635|OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|52.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.1|69.1|||Regression, Cox||Point estimate of VE was adjusted for site, age, bednet use, area and distance from health center.|Vaccine efficacy against P. falciparum||69.1|28.1|<0.001
90878821|NCT00380393|181618635|OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|55.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.4|70.4|||Regression, Cox||Point estimate of VE was not adjusted for site, age, bednet use, area or distance from health center.|Vaccine efficacy against P. falciparum||70.4|31.4|<0.001
90878822|NCT00380393|181618636|OTHER||Vaccine efficacy|54.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.2|70.0|||Regression, Cox||Point estimate of VE was adjusted for site, age, bednet use, area and distance from health center.|Vaccine efficacy against P. falciparum.||70.0|31.2|<0.001
90878823|NCT00380393|181618636|OTHER||Vaccine efficacy|56.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.2|71.2|||Regression, Cox||Point estimate of VE was not adjusted for site, age, bednet use, area or distance from health center.|Vaccine efficacy against P. falciparum.||71.2|34.2|<0.001
90878824|NCT00380393|181618637|OTHER||Vaccine efficacy|55.8||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.0|71.7|||Regression, Cox||Point estimate of VE was adjusted for site, age, bednet use, area and distance from health center.|Vaccine efficacy against P. falciparum.||71.7|31.0|0.0003
90878825|NCT00380393|181618637|OTHER||Vaccine efficacy|57.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.3|73.0|||Regression, Cox||Point estimate of VE was not adjusted for site, age, bednet use, area and distance from health center.|Vaccine efficacy against P. falciparum.||73.0|34.3|<0.001
90917220|NCT02528188|181703809|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.8822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.21|||Negative binomial model|||Week 48: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment group.||1.21|0.85|0.8822
90917221|NCT02528188|181703809|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.9119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.18|||Negative binomial model|||Week 56: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment group.||1.18|0.83|0.9119
90917222|NCT02528188|181703809|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.5148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.26|||Negative binomial model|||Week 56: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment group.||1.26|0.89|0.5148
90917223|NCT02528188|181703811|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.3348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.15|||Negative binomial model|||Week 2: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment group.||1.15|0.66|0.3348
90917224|NCT02528188|181703811|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.3595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.16|||Negative binomial model|||Week 2: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment group.||1.16|0.66|0.3595
90917225|NCT02528188|181703811|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.04|||Negative binomial model|||Week 4: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment group.||1.04|0.54|0.0854
90917226|NCT02528188|181703811|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.96|||Negative binomial model|||Week 4: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment group.||0.96|0.50|0.0281
90917227|NCT02528188|181703811|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.01|||Negative binomial model|||Week 8: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment group.||1.01|0.49|0.0595
90917228|NCT02528188|181703811|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.83|||Negative binomial model|||Week 8: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment group.||0.83|0.40|0.0030
90917229|NCT02528188|181703811|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.1389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.11|||Negative binomial model|||Week 16: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment group.||1.11|0.48|0.1389
90917230|NCT02528188|181703811|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.03|||Negative binomial model|||Week 16: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment group.||1.03|0.45|0.0709
90961446|NCT01676909|181803632|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.459|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The same mixed model used for testing hypothesis 1 was used to test treatment effects on secondary scale outcomes (Hypothesis 3: health-related self-efficacy, patient activation; Hypothesis 4: six subscales of the Measure of Self-Management Behaviors) and several other pre-specified outcomes. To test for a group difference in mean change from baseline to follow-up (hypothesis 5) on all primary and secondary outcomes, the significance test of the group-by-follow-up coefficient was performed.||||0.459
90917231|NCT02528188|181703820|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6037|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for row mean scores differ, stratified by the combinations of the three stratification factors (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID)||||0.6037
90961447|NCT01676909|181803633|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The same mixed model used for testing hypothesis 1 was used to test treatment effects on secondary scale outcomes (Hypothesis 3: health-related self-efficacy, patient activation; Hypothesis 4: six subscales of the Measure of Self-Management Behaviors) and several other pre-specified outcomes. To test for a group difference in mean change from baseline to follow-up (hypothesis 5) on all primary and secondary outcomes, the significance test of the group-by-follow-up coefficient was performed.||||0.038
90917232|NCT02528188|181703820|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1928|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for row mean scores differ, stratified by the combinations of the three stratification factors (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID)||||0.1928
90917233|NCT02528188|181703820|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7204|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for row mean scores differ, stratified by the combinations of the three stratification factors (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID)||||0.7204
90917234|NCT02528188|181703820|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7969|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for row mean scores differ, stratified by the combinations of the three stratification factors (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID)||||0.7969
90917235|NCT02528188|181703820|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7857|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for row mean scores differ, stratified by the combinations of the three stratification factors (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID)||||0.7857
90917236|NCT02528188|181703820|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6627|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for row mean scores differ, stratified by the combinations of the three stratification factors (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID)||||0.6627
90917237|NCT02528188|181703820|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9867|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for row mean scores differ, stratified by the combinations of the three stratification factors (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID)||||0.9867
91033836|NCT00473330|181953514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.7||To manage the type I error rate while testing multiple secondary efficacy endpoints for statistical significance, a type I error management plan was implemented. Secondary endpoints were prioritized and tested using a hierarchical testing procedure.|ANOVA|The analysis was stratified by baseline BCVA score (≤55, \>55 letters), baseline HbA1c (≤8%, \>8%), and prior therapy for ME in the study eye (yes, no).||The analysis summarized in this section is for the Month 24 time point, comparing the outcome for patients randomized to ranibizumab versus sham injections during the controlled treatment period. The statistical analysis for the Outcome Measure at Month 36 is not shown here.||-0.7|-1.5|<0.0001
90878826|NCT00380393|181618638|OTHER||Vaccine efficacy|58.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.8|73.0|||Regression, Cox||Point estimate of VE was adjusted for site, age, bednet use, area and distance from health center.|Vaccine efficacy against P. falciparum.||73.0|34.8|<0.001
90878827|NCT00380393|181618638|OTHER||Vaccine efficacy|59.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.1|73.9|||Regression, Cox||Point estimate of VE was not adjusted for site, age, bednet use, area and distance from health center.|Vaccine efficacy against P. falciparum.||73.9|37.1|<0.001
90878828|NCT01536496|181618657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-square test||||0.04
90878829|NCT03865329|181618676|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.13
90878830|NCT03865329|181618677|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
90878831|NCT03865329|181618679|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.10
90878832|NCT03865329|181618680|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.25
90917238|NCT02528188|181703820|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.819|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for row mean scores differ, stratified by the combinations of the three stratification factors (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID)||||0.8190
90917239|NCT02528188|181703820|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7284|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 56: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for row mean scores differ, stratified by the combinations of the three stratification factors (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID)||||0.7284
90917240|NCT02528188|181703820|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1545|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 56: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for row mean scores differ, stratified by the combinations of the three stratification factors (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID)||||0.1545
90878833|NCT00265616|181618681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
90878834|NCT00265616|181618682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.67
90878835|NCT00265616|181618683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
90878836|NCT00265616|181618685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4
90878837|NCT00265616|181618686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
90878838|NCT00278954|181618697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||SABI per subject per year|0.0||||0.01||99.0|0.0|0.101|||Poisson regression with log link||Mean SABI rate = 0 per subject per year. 1-sided 99% upper confidence bound could not be calculated.|The estimated serious acute bacterial infection (SABI) rate was calculated by dividing no. of infections by no.of subject years. The exponential of the upper limit of the 98% 2-sided Confidence Interval (CI) gave the upper, 1-sided, 99% confidence bound, estimated using Poisson regression. The equivalent upper bound per subject year was obtained by dividing this figure by total subject years.||0.101|0|0.01
90878839|NCT03760796|181618703|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.48||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.88||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Regression, Cox|Adjusting for hospital site and a propensity score inclusive of individual level baseline characteristics.||||0.88|0.26|0.018
90878840|NCT03760796|181618704|OTHER|A Markov Model of cost-effectiveness, based on 30-day readmission rates, was built to assess the Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) of adopting the Corrie Platform compared to standard of care for post AMI patients; taking into account the estimated cost of Corrie ($2,750 per patient for a 1-year use term). The reported value is a ratio of the relative cost of intervention compared to the standard of care divided by the change in the outcome, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs).|Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio|-7.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||A negative ICER means the intervention cost is lower than the cost of standard of care, while the denominator was positive. A positive ICER means the intervention cost is greater than the cost of standard of care, while the denominator was positive.|||||
90878841|NCT03760796|181618718|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.45||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|2.98||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Regression, Cox|Adjusting for hospital site and a propensity score inclusive of individual level baseline characteristics.||||2.98|0.69|0.33
90878842|NCT02211131|181618723|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.58|0.96||Unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank||Unstratified Hazard Ratio (T-VEC + Surgery / Surgery)|||0.96|0.58|0.070
90878843|NCT02211131|181618724|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.6|0.97||Unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank||Unstratified Hazard Ratio (T-VEC + Surgery / Surgery)|||0.97|0.60|0.092
90878844|NCT02211131|181618726|OTHER||Treatment Difference|4.3||||0.594|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.9|15.3||The two-sided p-value is based on the Pearson's Chi-square test.|Chi-squared||An 80% approximate exact CI for between-arm differences in binary rate is calculated using Wilson's score method with continuity correction.|||15.3|-6.9|0.594
90878845|NCT02211131|181618727|OTHER||Treatment Difference|14.4||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|80.0|7.4|21.6||The two-sided p-value is based on the Pearson's Chi-square test.|Chi-squared||80% exact CI for binary rate of each arm is calculated using the Clopper Pearson method.|||21.6|7.4|0.003
90878846|NCT02211131|181618732|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.36|0.81||Unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank||Unstratified Hazard Ratio (T-VEC + Surgery / Surgery)|||0.81|0.36|0.050
90878847|NCT05664490|181618738|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.88||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.22||The threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Poisson regression|We used Poisson regression with a log-link and robust standard errors to assess the effect of our intervention on PrEP adherence at Week 12|The Standard of Care Mental Health Services arm was the reference category for the risk ratio.|||1.22|0.64|0.44
90917241|NCT00475501|181703859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|12.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.57|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.86|18.0||The difference in means and p value are for 12 months (using data from all time points to make the calculation). We tested the effect of testosterone (\[T-placebo plus T-finasteride\] vs. \[vehicle-placebo plus vehicle-finasteride\]).|Mixed Models Analysis||mean difference is for subjects reveiving testosterone (groups T and T/F) vs. subjects not receiving testosterone (F and Placebo)|The studies was powered for 1-RM strength based on a 1.18-alpha increase reported in the literature||18.0|7.86|<0.001
90878848|NCT05664490|181618739|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.42||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Poisson regression|We used Poisson regression with a log-link and robust standard errors to assess the effect of our intervention on reduced CMD symptoms at Week 12.|The reference category for the risk ratio presented is the Standard of Care Mental Health Services arm.|||1.42|0.71|0.99
90878849|NCT05664490|181618740|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.4||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.89||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|Poisson regression|We used Poisson regression with a log-link to estimate to assess the effect of our intervention on PrEP adherence at Week 4.|The Standard of Care Mental Health Services arm was the reference category for the risk ratio.|||1.89|1.03|0.03
90878850|NCT05664490|181618741|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.81||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.29||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|Poisson regression|We used Poisson regression with a log-link to assess the effect of the intervention on common mental disorders at Week 4.|The Standard of Care Mental Health Services arm was the reference category.|||1.29|0.50|0.37
90917242|NCT00475501|181703860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.77|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.311||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.31||The difference in means and p value are for 12 months (using data from all time points to make the calculation). We tested the effect of testosterone (\[T-placebo plus T-finasteride\] vs. \[vehicle-placebo plus vehicle-finasteride\]).|Mixed Models Analysis|||The study was not powered on grip strength. We employed 2x2 analysis to determine effects of testosterone, finasteride and interaction.||1.31|0.16|0.015
90917243|NCT00475501|181703861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.19|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.142|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.95|6.43||The difference in means and p value are for 12 months (using data from all time points to make the calculation). We tested the effect of testosterone (\[T-placebo plus T-finasteride\] vs. \[vehicle-placebo plus vehicle-finasteride\]).|Mixed Models Analysis|||The study was not powered on lumbar spine bone mineral density. We employed a 2x2 analysis for effects ot testosterone, finasteride and interaction||6.43|1.95|<0.001
90917244|NCT00475501|181703862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.737|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.343||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|-0.064||The difference in means and p value are for 12 months (using data from all time points to make the calculation). We tested the effect of testosterone (\[T-placebo plus T-finasteride\] vs. \[vehicle-placebo plus vehicle-finasteride\]).|Mixed Models Analysis|||The study is was not powered for score on Geriatric Depression Scale||-0.064|-1.41|0.037
90917245|NCT00475501|181703863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.871|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.108||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.699|5.04||The difference in means and p value are for 12 months (using data from all time points to make the calculation). We tested the effect of testosterone (\[T-placebo plus T-finasteride\] vs. \[vehicle-placebo plus vehicle-finasteride\]).|Mixed Models Analysis|||The study was not powered for 30-minute recall on Rey figure test||5.04|0.699|0.012
90961448|NCT01676909|181803634|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.238|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The same mixed model used for testing hypothesis 1 was used to test treatment effects on secondary scale outcomes (Hypothesis 3: health-related self-efficacy, patient activation; Hypothesis 4: six subscales of the Measure of Self-Management Behaviors) and several other pre-specified outcomes. To test for a group difference in mean change from baseline to follow-up (hypothesis 5) on all primary and secondary outcomes, the significance test of the group-by-follow-up coefficient was performed.||||0.238
90878851|NCT01589445|181618754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|39.47|<|0.161||95.0|-88.0|118.0||Category: Univariate \& Multivariate analysis. (ANOVA, Pair t tests, MLR, OR, Pearson Correlation)|ANOVA|||TC||118|-88.0|<0.161
90878852|NCT01589445|181618754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|10.66|STANDARD_DEVIATION|143.22|<|0.913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-397.0|976.0||Category: Univariate \& Multivariate analysis. (ANOVA, Pair t tests, MLR, OR, Pearson Correlation)|ANOVA|||TG||976|-397.0|<0.913
90878853|NCT01589445|181618754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.47|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.59|<|0.322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.0|19.0||Category: Univariate \& Multivariate analysis. (ANOVA, Pair t tests, MLR, OR, Pearson Correlation)|ANOVA|||HDL||19.0|-35.0|<0.322
90878854|NCT01589445|181618754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.62|STANDARD_DEVIATION|32.05|<|0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-113.8|76.2||Category: Univariate \& Multivariate analysis. (ANOVA, Pair t tests, MLR, OR, Pearson Correlation)|ANOVA|||LDL||76.2|-113.8|<0.210
90878855|NCT01589445|181618755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.74|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.41|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|8.0||Category: Univariate \& Multivariate analysis. (ANOVA, Pair t tests, Multiple Logistic Regression (MLR), OR, Pearson Correlation)|ANOVA||The group 001 was divided according to Pro12Pro and Pro12Ala groups.There was no Ala12Ala group.These two groups were compared also in accordance with all parameters (glycemic levels, insulin levels, lipid profiles, BMI).|Change from Baseline in FSG at 3rd month||8.0|-7.9|<0.05
90878856|NCT01589445|181618756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.64|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.07|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|2.4||Category: Univariate \& Multivariate analysis. (ANOVA, Pair t tests, MLR, OR, Pearson Correlation)|ANOVA|||||2.4|-4.4|>0.05
90917246|NCT00475501|181703864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.642|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.272||0.779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.095|3.811||The difference in means and p value are for 12 months (using data from all time points to make the calculation). We tested the effect of testosterone (\[T-placebo plus T-finasteride\] vs. \[vehicle-placebo plus vehicle-finasteride\]).|Mixed Models Analysis|||The study was not powered for score on Trials A test||3.811|-5.095|0.779
90917247|NCT00475501|181703865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.587|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.743||0.433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.869|2.043||The difference in means and p value are for 12 months (using data from all time points to make the calculation). We tested the effect of testosterone (\[T-placebo plus T-finasteride\] vs. \[vehicle-placebo plus vehicle-finasteride\]).|Mixed Models Analysis|||The study was not powered for score on Benton test||2.043|-0.869|0.433
90917248|NCT00475501|181703866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.54|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.07|5.18||The difference in means and p value are for 12 months (using data from all time points to make the calculation). We tested the effect of testosterone (\[T-placebo plus T-finasteride\] vs. \[vehicle-placebo plus vehicle-finasteride\]).|Mixed Models Analysis|||This study was powered for hematocrit based on literature report that testosterone \> 2 alpha increase in hematocrit||5.18|3.07|<0.001
90917249|NCT00475501|181703867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1419|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2529||0.6219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.353|6.37||The difference in means and p value are for 12 months (using data from all time points to make the calculation). We tested the effect of testosterone (\[T-placebo plus T-finasteride\] vs. \[vehicle-placebo plus vehicle-finasteride\]).|Mixed Models Analysis|||The study was not powered for dietary protein intake||6.37|-0.353|0.6219
90961449|NCT01676909|181803635|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The same mixed model used for testing hypothesis 1 was used to test treatment effects on secondary scale outcomes (Hypothesis 3: health-related self-efficacy, patient activation; Hypothesis 4: six subscales of the Measure of Self-Management Behaviors) and several other pre-specified outcomes. To test for a group difference in mean change from baseline to follow-up (hypothesis 5) on all primary and secondary outcomes, the significance test of the group-by-follow-up coefficient was performed.||||0.011
90878857|NCT01589445|181618757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.27||Category: Univariate \& Multivariate analysis. (ANOVA, Pair t tests, MLR, OR, Pearson Correlation)|ANOVA|||||0.27|-0.40|<0.001
90878858|NCT01589445|181618757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.25|<|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.12|15.52||Category: Univariate \& Multivariate analysis. (ANOVA, Pair t tests, MLR, OR, Pearson Correlation)|ANOVA|||HOMA IR||15.52|-14.12|<0.004
90878859|NCT01589445|181618758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.79|STANDARD_DEVIATION|84.46|<|0.808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-346.4|328.1||Category: Univariate \& Multivariate analysis. (ANOVA, Pair t tests, MLR, OR, Pearson Correlation)|ANOVA|||HOMA B||328.10|-346.40|<0.808
90878860|NCT01589445|181618758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.53|STANDARD_DEVIATION|54.0|<|0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-148.7|180.0||Category: Univariate \& Multivariate analysis. (ANOVA, Pair t tests, MLR, OR, Pearson Correlation)|ANOVA|||HOMA S||180|-148.70|<0.025
90878861|NCT01589445|181618759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.2|<|0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.04|26.52||Category: Univariate \& Multivariate analysis. (ANOVA, Pair t tests, MLR, OR, Pearson Correlation)|ANOVA|||FSI||26.52|-27.04|<0.039
90878862|NCT01420289|181618760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.0||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|80.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||80|10|0.086
90878863|NCT01420289|181618761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|30.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|100.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||100|10|<0.05
90878864|NCT04064294|181618772|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63||||||the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 78||||||0.63
90878865|NCT04064294|181618773|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09||||||the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 78||||||0.09
90878866|NCT04064294|181618774|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||Chi-squared|threshold for significance is 0.05, degrees of freedom = 2||||||0.011
90878867|NCT04064294|181618775|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.033|||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 75||||||0.033
91033837|NCT01975948|181953526|OTHER|||||||0.047||||||Adjusted for baseline depressive symptoms and unemployment as covariates (p=.016), and non-completers (missing one or more points of follow up data).|Mixed Models Analysis|||One hundred evaluable patients per arm were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a PHQ-9 between-group difference in mean change of 2 points, significance level (α) .05, a two-sided test, and a standard deviation of 5 points. An intra cluster correlation of 0.05 for patient outcomes was used (Murphey et al), and an average cluster size: 3 patients/practice resulted in compensatory increase to 110 patients per arm. Under the assumption that attrition would be 33 % we needed 166 patients per arm.||||.047
90878868|NCT00481195|181618776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0439||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) with treatment ands concurrent treatment for bipolar disorders as factors. A significant treatment-by baseline interaction was observed in the total score that violates the assumption of parallelism on which an ANCOVA is based, so the data was analyzed using ANOVA without baseline as a covariate rather than ANCOVA.||||0.0439
90878869|NCT00481195|181618777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0795||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an ANCOVA with treatment and concurrent treatment for bipolar disorder as factors, and the baseline value as covariate.||||0.0795
90878870|NCT00481195|181618778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0272||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an ANCOVA with treatment and concurrent treatment for bipolar disorder as factors, and the baseline value as covariate.||||0.0272
90878871|NCT00481195|181618779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0802||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an ANCOVA with treatment and concurrent treatment for bipolar disorder as factors, and the baseline value as covariate.||||0.0802
90878872|NCT00481195|181618780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2407||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an ANCOVA with treatment and concurrent treatment for bipolar disorder as factors, and the baseline value as covariate.||||0.2407
90878873|NCT00481195|181618781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0502||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an ANCOVA with treatment and concurrent treatment for bipolar disorder as factors, and the baseline value as covariate.||||0.0502
90878874|NCT00481195|181618782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0612||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an ANCOVA with treatment and concurrent treatment for bipolar disorder as factors, and the baseline value as covariate.||||0.0612
90878875|NCT00481195|181618783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.198||95.0||||P-value is from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenzel chi-square test adjusted for concurrent treatment for bipolar disorder|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1980
90878876|NCT00481195|181618784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.896||95.0||||P-value is from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenzel chi-square test adjusted for concurrent treatment for bipolar disorder|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.8960
90878877|NCT00481195|181618785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2575||95.0||||P-value is from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenzel chi-square test adjusted for concurrent treatment for bipolar disorder|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2575
90878878|NCT00481195|181618786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3129||95.0||||P-value is from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenzel chi-square test adjusted for concurrent treatment for bipolar disorder|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3129
90878879|NCT00481195|181618787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1565||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an ANCOVA with treatment and concurrent treatment for bipolar disorder as factors, and the baseline value as covariate.||||0.1565
91033838|NCT01975948|181953527|OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Our calculations indicated that 50 physicians in each of the two groups will provide \>80% power to detect clinically significant reductions in stigma as assessed by OMS-HC change scores. Clinically meaningful was defined as a change of 3 points, derived on the basis of this being slightly better than what is usually seen in brief interventions.||||0.15
90878880|NCT00481195|181618788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6737||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an ANCOVA with treatment and concurrent treatment for bipolar disorder as factors, and the baseline value as covariate.||||0.6737
90878881|NCT00481195|181618789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2249||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an ANCOVA with treatment and concurrent treatment for bipolar disorder as factors, and the baseline value as covariate.||||0.2249
90878882|NCT00481195|181618790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0862||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an ANCOVA with treatment and concurrent treatment for bipolar disorder as factors, and the baseline value as covariate.||||0.0862
90878883|NCT00481195|181618791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9281||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an ANCOVA with treatment and concurrent treatment for bipolar disorder as factors, and the baseline value as covariate.||||0.9281
90961450|NCT01676909|181803636|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.709|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The same mixed model used for testing hypothesis 1 was used to test treatment effects on secondary scale outcomes (Hypothesis 3: health-related self-efficacy, patient activation; Hypothesis 4: six subscales of the Measure of Self-Management Behaviors) and several other pre-specified outcomes. To test for a group difference in mean change from baseline to follow-up (hypothesis 5) on all primary and secondary outcomes, the significance test of the group-by-follow-up coefficient was performed.||||0.709
90917250|NCT00475501|181703868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.33|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.83||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.73|8.94||The difference in means and p value are for 12 months (using data from all time points to make the calculation). We tested the effect of testosterone (\[T-placebo plus T-finasteride\] vs. \[vehicle-placebo plus vehicle-finasteride\]).|Mixed Models Analysis|||The study was powered for prostate volume based on a literature report that testosterone increases prostate volume 1.85 alpha per year. We employed a 2x2 analysis for effects of testosterone, finasteride and interaction.||8.94|1.73|0.0051
90917251|NCT00475501|181703869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.868|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.668||0.196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.434|1.698||The difference in means and p value are for 12 months (using data from all time points to make the calculation). We tested the effect of testosterone (\[T-placebo plus T-finasteride\] vs. \[vehicle-placebo plus vehicle-finasteride\]).|Mixed Models Analysis|||The study was not powered for score on Lif Satisfaction A test||1.698|-3.434|0.196
90917252|NCT02299375|181703903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted median|1.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.28|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.73|||||Data presented above are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals. The estimated posterior probability that the true ratio losmapimod/placebo is \<1 assuming noninformative priors is 0.44.The estimated posterior probability that the true ratio losmapi|||1.73|0.63|
90917253|NCT02299375|181703906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.026||||0.371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.031|0.084||Analysis performed using a Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FEV1 pre-dose, Week 2|||0.084|-0.031|0.371
90917254|NCT02299375|181703906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.035||||0.244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.024|0.093||Analysis performed using a Mixed-effect Repeated Measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FEV1 pre-dose, Week 4|||0.093|-0.024|0.244
90917255|NCT02299375|181703906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.059||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.119||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FEV1 pre-dose, Week 8|||0.119|-0.000|0.050
90961451|NCT01676909|181803637|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.134|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The same mixed model used for testing hypothesis 1 was used to test treatment effects on secondary scale outcomes (Hypothesis 3: health-related self-efficacy, patient activation; Hypothesis 4: six subscales of the Measure of Self-Management Behaviors) and several other pre-specified outcomes. To test for a group difference in mean change from baseline to follow-up (hypothesis 5) on all primary and secondary outcomes, the significance test of the group-by-follow-up coefficient was performed.||||0.134
90961452|NCT01676909|181803638|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.045|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The same mixed model used for testing hypothesis 1 was used to test treatment effects on secondary scale outcomes (Hypothesis 3: health-related self-efficacy, patient activation; Hypothesis 4: six subscales of the Measure of Self-Management Behaviors) and several other pre-specified outcomes. To test for a group difference in mean change from baseline to follow-up (hypothesis 5) on all primary and secondary outcomes, the significance test of the group-by-follow-up coefficient was performed.||||0.045
90878884|NCT00481195|181618792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4428||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an ANCOVA with treatment and concurrent treatment for bipolar disorder as factors, and the baseline value as covariate.||||0.4428
90878885|NCT00481195|181618793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0965||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an ANCOVA with treatment and concurrent treatment for bipolar disorder as factors, and the baseline value as covariate.||||0.0965
90878886|NCT00481195|181618794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5389||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an ANCOVA with treatment and concurrent treatment for bipolar disorder as factors, and the baseline value as covariate.||||0.5389
90878887|NCT00481195|181618795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0793||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an ANCOVA with treatment and concurrent treatment for bipolar disorder as factors, and the baseline value as covariate.||||0.0793
90878888|NCT00481195|181618796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3814||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an ANCOVA with treatment and concurrent treatment for bipolar disorder as factors, and the baseline value as covariate.||||0.3814
90878889|NCT00481195|181618797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8099||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an ANCOVA with treatment and concurrent treatment for bipolar disorder as factors, and the baseline value as covariate.||||0.8099
90878890|NCT00481195|181618798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0968||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an ANCOVA with treatment and concurrent treatment for bipolar disorder as factors, and the baseline value as covariate.||||0.0968
90878891|NCT00481195|181618799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1605||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an ANCOVA with treatment and concurrent treatment for bipolar disorder as factors, and the baseline value as covariate.||||0.1605
90878892|NCT00481195|181618800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1869||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an ANCOVA with treatment and concurrent treatment for bipolar disorder as factors, and the baseline value as covariate.||||0.1869
90961453|NCT01676909|181803639|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.099|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The same mixed model used for testing hypothesis 1 was used to test treatment effects on secondary scale outcomes (Hypothesis 3: health-related self-efficacy, patient activation; Hypothesis 4: six subscales of the Measure of Self-Management Behaviors) and several other pre-specified outcomes. To test for a group difference in mean change from baseline to follow-up (hypothesis 5) on all primary and secondary outcomes, the significance test of the group-by-follow-up coefficient was performed.||||0.099
90961454|NCT01676909|181803640|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.852|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The same mixed model used for testing hypothesis 1 was used to test treatment effects on secondary scale outcomes (Hypothesis 3: health-related self-efficacy, patient activation; Hypothesis 4: six subscales of the Measure of Self-Management Behaviors) and several other pre-specified outcomes. To test for a group difference in mean change from baseline to follow-up (hypothesis 5) on all primary and secondary outcomes, the significance test of the group-by-follow-up coefficient was performed.||||0.852
90961455|NCT01676909|181803641|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.285|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The same mixed model used for testing hypothesis 1 was used to test treatment effects on secondary scale outcomes (Hypothesis 3: health-related self-efficacy, patient activation; Hypothesis 4: six subscales of the Measure of Self-Management Behaviors) and several other pre-specified outcomes. To test for a group difference in mean change from baseline to follow-up (hypothesis 5) on all primary and secondary outcomes, the significance test of the group-by-follow-up coefficient was performed.||||0.285
90961456|NCT01676909|181803642|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.222|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The same mixed model used for testing hypothesis 1 was used to test treatment effects on secondary scale outcomes (Hypothesis 3: health-related self-efficacy, patient activation; Hypothesis 4: six subscales of the Measure of Self-Management Behaviors) and several other pre-specified outcomes. To test for a group difference in mean change from baseline to follow-up (hypothesis 5) on all primary and secondary outcomes, the significance test of the group-by-follow-up coefficient was performed.||||0.222
90961457|NCT00823901|181803663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.15
90961458|NCT01369511|181803664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.527|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values are from type 3 tests.|Mixed Models Analysis|||at Week 12||||0.527
90878893|NCT00481195|181618801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0817||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an ANCOVA with treatment and concurrent treatment for bipolar disorder as factors, and the baseline value as covariate.||||0.0817
90961459|NCT01369511|181803664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.291|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values are from type 3 tests.|Mixed Models Analysis|||at Week 12||||0.291
90961460|NCT01369511|181803664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.129|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values are from type 3 tests.|Mixed Models Analysis|||at Week 12||||0.129
90961461|NCT01369511|181803665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.751|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values are from type 3 tests.|Mixed Models Analysis|||at Week 8||||0.751
90961462|NCT01369511|181803665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values are from type 3 tests.|Mixed Models Analysis|||at Week 8||||0.066
90961463|NCT01369511|181803665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values are from type 3 tests.|Mixed Models Analysis|||at Week 8||||0.031
90961464|NCT01369511|181803665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.315|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values are from type 3 tests.|Mixed Models Analysis|||at Week 16||||0.315
90961465|NCT01369511|181803665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values are from type 3 tests.|Mixed Models Analysis|||at Week 16||||0.002
90961466|NCT01369511|181803665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values are from type 3 tests.|Mixed Models Analysis|||at Week 16||||0.007
90961467|NCT01376349|181803666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.08
90961468|NCT01376349|181803666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.48
90961469|NCT00819286|181803679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||3 Month CT Scores (Plates vs Wires)||||0.003
90961470|NCT00819286|181803679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||6 Month CT Scores (Plates vs Wires)||||0.01
90961471|NCT00819286|181803680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.93||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||Plates vs Wires||||0.93
90961472|NCT05193500|181803681|OTHER|||||||0.085||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|one-sample t-test, compared to 0.5 (chance)||||||0.085
90961473|NCT05193500|181803681|OTHER|||||||0.049||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.049
90961474|NCT05193500|181803682|OTHER|||||||0.015||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.015
90961475|NCT01294683|181803710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-0.206||||0.654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.434|0.936|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Periods I/II||0.936|-1.434|0.654
90961476|NCT01294683|181803710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|1.304||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.427|3.768|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Period III||3.768|-0.427|0.090
90961477|NCT01294683|181803711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-0.206||||0.563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.303|0.779|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Periods I/II||0.779|-1.303|0.563
90961478|NCT01294683|181803711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.87||||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.858|3.118|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Period III||3.118|-0.858|0.166
90961479|NCT01294683|181803713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.87||||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.858|3.118|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Period III||3.118|-0.858|0.166
90961480|NCT01294683|181803716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.617||||0.255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.575|2.023|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Periods I/II||2.023|-0.575|0.255
90961481|NCT01294683|181803716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.395||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.091|2.966|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Period III||2.966|-2.091|0.690
90961482|NCT01294683|181803717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.967|0.967|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Periods I/II||0.967|-0.967|>0.999
90917256|NCT02299375|181703906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.002||||0.942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.063|0.058||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FEV1 pre-dose, Week 12|||0.058|-0.063|0.942
90917257|NCT02299375|181703906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.014|0.114||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FEV1 pre-dose, Week 18|||0.114|-0.014|0.127
90917258|NCT02299375|181703906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.079||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.011|0.148||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FEV1 pre-dose, Week 26|||0.148|0.011|0.024
90917259|NCT02299375|181703906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.086||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.003|0.174||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FEV1 pre-dose, Week 39|||0.174|-0.003|0.057
90917260|NCT02299375|181703906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.191||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FEV1 pre-dose, Week 52|||0.191|-0.090|0.481
90878894|NCT00481195|181618802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3712||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an ANCOVA with treatment and concurrent treatment for bipolar disorder as factors, and the baseline value as covariate.||||0.3712
90878895|NCT00481195|181618803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5427||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an ANCOVA with treatment and concurrent treatment for bipolar disorder as factors, and the baseline value as covariate.||||0.5427
90878896|NCT00481195|181618804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3463||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an ANCOVA with treatment and concurrent treatment for bipolar disorder as factors, and the baseline value as covariate.||||0.3463
90878897|NCT00481195|181618805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.273||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an ANCOVA with treatment and concurrent treatment for bipolar disorder as factors, and the baseline value as covariate.||||0.2730
90878898|NCT00481195|181618806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7791||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an ANCOVA with treatment and concurrent treatment for bipolar disorder as factors, and the baseline value as covariate.||||0.7791
90878899|NCT00481195|181618807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9007||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an ANCOVA with treatment and concurrent treatment for bipolar disorder as factors, and the baseline value as covariate.||||0.9007
90878900|NCT00481195|181618808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6431||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an ANCOVA with treatment and concurrent treatment for bipolar disorder as factors, and the baseline value as covariate.||||0.6431
90878901|NCT00481195|181618809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6631||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for concurrent treatment for bipolar disorder.||||||0.6631
90878902|NCT00481195|181618810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9768||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for concurrent treatment for bipolar disorder||||||0.9768
90878903|NCT00481195|181618811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9873||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for concurrent treatment fro bipolar disorder||||||0.9873
90878904|NCT00481195|181618812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4567||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for concurrent treatment for bipolar disorder||||||0.4567
90878905|NCT00481195|181618813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6475||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for concurrent treatment for bipolar disorder||||||0.6475
90878906|NCT00481195|181618814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5066||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for concurrent treatment for bipolar disorder||||||0.5066
90878907|NCT00481195|181618815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4438||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for concurrent treatment for bipolar disorder||||||0.4438
90878908|NCT00566150|181618838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Unadjusted. Statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical effects: group (as a between-subjects factor), time (as a within-subjects factor), group x time interaction.||Comparison of changes in outcome between treatment groups at week 6.||||0.29
90878909|NCT00566150|181618839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Unadjusted. Statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical effects: group (as a between-subjects factor), time (as a within-subjects factor), group x time interaction.||Comparison of changes in outcome between treatment groups at week 6.||||0.07
90878910|NCT00566150|181618840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.038||95.0||||Statistical significance was p\<0.05|Fisher Exact|Fisher's exact test was used to test for significance between groups.||Week 6||||.038
90878911|NCT00566150|181618841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.79||95.0||||Unadjusted. Statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical effects: group (as a between-subjects factor), time (as a within-subjects factor), group x time interaction.||Comparison of changes in outcome between treatment groups.||||0.79
90878912|NCT03200899|181618892|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.926|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.926
90878913|NCT03200899|181618893|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.750
90917261|NCT02299375|181703906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.014||||0.521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.059||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FEV1 post-dose, Week 2|||0.059|-0.030|0.521
91033839|NCT01975948|181953527|OTHER||Cohen'd|0.45||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|||||OMS-HC analysis adjusted for practice size: P value applies to between group physicians reduction in one stigma domaine: preference for social distance|Mixed Models Analysis|||Between Group Changes in subscale of the Opening Minds Scale for Health Care Providers (OMS-HC) measures three different dimensions of stigma: attitudes towards people with a mental illness (6 items); health care professionals' attitudes about disclosure of a mental illness/willingness to seek help for a mental illness (4 items), and preference for social distance (5 items). Items are rated on a 5-point scale. Mean scores can range from one to five with lower scores indicating less stigma.||||.03
91033840|NCT01975948|181953528|OTHER|||||||0.993|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.993
91033841|NCT01975948|181953529|OTHER||Cohen'd|1.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.001
91033842|NCT01975948|181953529|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Generalized estimating equations (GEE)|We used the slope of a regression line fit using generalized estimating equations (GEE) with an exchangeable correlation structure.||Correlation between increases in Physician Comfort and Confidence in managing mental illness and Stigma Score.||||.03
91033843|NCT01975948|181953530|OTHER||Cohen'd|1.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.001
91033844|NCT01975948|181953530|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.476||||||We used the slope of a regression line fit using generalized estimating equations (GEE) with an exchangeable correlation structure.|Generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||Correlation between increases in Physician Comfort and Confidence with non-program specific tools and Stigma Score.||||.476
90878914|NCT03200899|181618894|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.129|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.129
90878915|NCT03200899|181618895|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.152|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.152
90878916|NCT03200899|181618896|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.037|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.037
90878917|NCT03200899|181618897|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.297|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.297
90878918|NCT03200899|181618898|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.293|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.293
90878919|NCT03200899|181618899|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.045|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.045
90878920|NCT04646499|181618902|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Sign test|||||||0.34
90878921|NCT04646499|181618903|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024|||||||Sign test|||||||0.024
90878922|NCT04646499|181618904|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.083|||||||Sign test|||||||0.083
90878923|NCT04646499|181618905|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.049|||||||Sign test|||||||0.049
90878924|NCT04646499|181618906|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||Sign test|||||||0.31
90878925|NCT01538862|181618917|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.82
90878926|NCT02496533|181618955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||No multiple comparisons were conducted in this analysis. P-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. No interim analyses performed.|ANOVA|||H0: No difference in reported anxiety as self-reported change of VAS between Baseline and After Imaging time points between the Massage and No Massage groups After Imaging.||||<0.001
90878927|NCT02496533|181618956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.02||||||No multiple comparisons were conducted in this analysis. P-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. No interim analyses performed.|ANOVA|||H0: No difference in reported systolic blood pressure measurements between Baseline and After Imaging time points between the Massage and No Massage groups After Imaging.||||<0.02
90878928|NCT02496533|181618956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.09||||||No multiple comparisons were conducted in this analysis. P-Value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. No interim analyses were performed.|ANOVA|||H0: No difference in reported diastolic blood pressure between Baseline and After Imaging time points between the Massage and No Massage groups After Imaging.||||<0.09
90878929|NCT02496533|181618957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.009||||||No multiple comparisons were conducted in this analysis. P-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. No interim analyses performed.|ANOVA|||H0: No difference in reported respiration rate between Baseline and After Imaging time points between the Massage and No Massage groups After Imaging.||||<0.009
90878930|NCT02496533|181618958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.45||||||No multiple comparisons were conducted in this analysis. P-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. No interim analyses performed.|ANOVA|||H0: No difference in reported pulse rate between Baseline and After Imaging time points between the Massage and No Massage groups After Imaging.||||<0.45
90878931|NCT00589108|181618971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64||95.0|||||ANOVA|||P-value for the difference between the mean maximum flexion between the three groups at 2 years post-surgery.||||0.64
90878932|NCT00589108|181618971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8||95.0|||||ANOVA|||P-value for the difference between the mean maximum flexion between the three groups at 5 years post-surgery.||||0.80
90878933|NCT00589108|181618972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0|||||ANOVA|||P-value for the difference for the Knee Society Function Score between the three groups at 5 years post-surgery.||||0.06
90878934|NCT00589108|181618973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87||95.0|||||ANOVA|||P-value for the difference for the Knee Society Pain Score between the three groups at 5 years post-surgery.||||0.87
91033845|NCT01975948|181953531|SUPERIORITY||Cohen'd|3.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.001
91033846|NCT01975948|181953531|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.945||||||We used the Spearman's correlation coefficient using the slope of a regression line fit using generalized estimating equations (GEE) with an exchangeable correlation structure.|Generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||Correlation between increases in Physician Comfort and Confidence with program specific tools and Stigma Score.||||.945
90878935|NCT00589108|181618974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44||95.0|||||ANOVA|||P-value for the difference between the Knee Society Stair Climbing Score between the three groups at 2 years post-surgery.||||0.44
90878936|NCT00589108|181618974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08||95.0|||||ANOVA|||P-value for the difference between the Knee Society Stair Climbing Score between the three groups at 5 years post-surgery.||||0.08
90878937|NCT00589108|181618975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92||95.0|||||ANOVA|||P-value for the difference between the percentage of knees surviving between the three groups at 5 years post-surgery.||||0.92
90878938|NCT03026257|181618979|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||General Linear Model|||||||<0.0001
90878939|NCT03026257|181618979|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||General Linear Model|||||||<0.0001
90878940|NCT03026257|181618979|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||General Linear Model|||||||<0.0001
90878941|NCT03026257|181618979|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||General Linear Model|||||||<0.0001
90878942|NCT03026257|181618979|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||General Linear Model|||||||<0.0001
90878943|NCT03026257|181618979|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||General Linear Model|||||||<0.0001
90878944|NCT03026257|181618979|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||General Linear Model|||||||<0.0001
90878945|NCT03026257|181618979|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||General Linear Model|||||||<0.0001
90878946|NCT00004888|181619008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Overall Response Rate|0.474|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.642||||||||0.642|0.31|
90878947|NCT00004888|181619008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Overall Response Rate|0.457|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.309|0.61||||||||0.61|0.309|
90878948|NCT00136084|181619013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.624||||0.1559||95.0|0.832|3.205||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.041 so that the overall level of the study is maintained at 0.05 across the 4 interim analyses and the final analysis.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The p-value was computed using a Monte Carlo approximation (10000 permutations) to an exact, risk-group stratified, test.|The odds ratio is defined as the ratio of the odds that a LDAC patient is MRD positive to the odds that a HDAC patient is MRD positive.|The study was designed to test the null hypothesis that HDAC and LDAC result in the same proportion of patients with positive MRD after 22 days. Power calculations indicate that enrollment of a total of 186 MRD-evaluable patients in a 5-stage O'Brien-Fleming group sequential design gives 80% power at the 5% level to detect a change in the MRD-positive proportion from 0.50 to 0.30. The design was developed using East statistical software.||3.205|.832|.1559
90878949|NCT00136084|181619014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Binomial proportion|0.733||||||95.0|0.449|0.922|||Binomial proportion|||Estimate of the proportion of negative minimal residual disease.||.922|.449|
90878950|NCT00136084|181619015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Binomial proportion|0.931||||||95.0|0.772|0.992|||Binomial proportion|||||.992|.772|
90878951|NCT00136084|181619016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Binomial proportion|0.9||||||95.0|0.735|0.979|||Binomial proportion|||||.979|.735|
90878952|NCT00136084|181619018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.60
90878953|NCT00136084|181619019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|-0.0139||||0.2287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0365|0.00873|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.00873|-0.0365|0.2287
90878954|NCT02174848|181619021|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This comparison is for the initial study, during which patients in the placebo-DFP group received placebo and patients in the DFP-DFP group received deferiprone.||||0.0500
90878955|NCT02174848|181619021|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9781|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This comparison is for the extension study, during which patients in both groups received deferiprone.||||0.9781
90878956|NCT02174848|181619022|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0206|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.0206
90878957|NCT02174848|181619023|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2684|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.2684
90878958|NCT02174848|181619024|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0821|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This comparison is for the initial study, during which patients in the placebo-DFP group received placebo and patients in the DFP-DFP group received deferiprone||||0.0821
90878959|NCT02174848|181619024|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5885|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||For the placebo-DFP group, the comparison is of the scores at the start vs. the end of the extension study; for the DFP-DFP group, the comparison is of the scores at the start vs. the end of the initial study||||0.5885
90878960|NCT02174848|181619025|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3306|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3306
90878961|NCT00644969|181619047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.74||||0.0457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|21.78|||Regression, Logistic|||||21.78|1.03|0.0457
90878962|NCT00644969|181619048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.18||||0.0901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|50.71|||Regression, Logistic|||||50.71|0.75|0.0901
90878963|NCT00644969|181619049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73||||0.1524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|3.68|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||3.68|0.82|0.1524
90878964|NCT00644969|181619049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.9235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.05|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24||2.05|0.45|0.9235
90878965|NCT00644969|181619050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.65||||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.32|-0.99|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference|Week 12 treatment difference||-0.99|-6.32|0.0077
90878966|NCT00644969|181619050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0.9022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.99|3.52|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference|Week 24 treatment difference||3.52|-3.99|0.9022
90878967|NCT01933048|181619089|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|non-inferiority||||||0.43|||||||Farrington-Manning Method|based on margin of 0.05||A/H1N1||||0.43
90878968|NCT01933048|181619089|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|non-inferiority||||||0.8|||||||Farrington-Manning Method|based on margin of 0.05||A/H3N2||||0.80
90917262|NCT02299375|181703906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|0.086||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FEV1 post-dose, Week 4|||0.086|-0.005|0.084
90917263|NCT02299375|181703906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.033||||0.266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.025|0.09||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FEV1 post-dose, Week 8|||0.090|-0.025|0.266
90917264|NCT02299375|181703906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.012||||0.665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.066|0.042||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FEV1 post-dose, Week 12|||0.042|-0.066|0.665
90917265|NCT02299375|181703906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.023||||0.489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.043|0.09||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FEV1 post-dose, Week 18|||0.090|-0.043|0.489
90917266|NCT02299375|181703906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.099||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.028|0.17||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FEV1 post-dose, Week 26|||0.170|0.028|0.007
90917267|NCT02299375|181703906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.055||||0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.039|0.148||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FEV1 post-dose, Week 39|||0.148|-0.039|0.248
90917268|NCT02299375|181703906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.043||||0.506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.087|0.172||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FEV1 post-dose, Week 52|||0.172|-0.087|0.506
90917269|NCT02299375|181703906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.051||||0.223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.032|0.134||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FEV6 pre-dose, Week 2|||0.134|-0.032|0.223
90917270|NCT02299375|181703906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.046||||0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.037|0.129||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FEV6 pre-dose, Week 4|||0.129|-0.037|0.276
90917271|NCT02299375|181703906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.075||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.023|0.173||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FEV6 pre-dose, Week 8|||0.173|-0.023|0.131
90917272|NCT02299375|181703906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.003||||0.949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.084|0.09||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FEV6 pre-dose, Week 12|||0.090|-0.084|0.949
91033847|NCT01975948|181953532|OTHER|||||||0.742|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.742
90917273|NCT02299375|181703906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.059||||0.259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.044|0.163||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FEV6 pre-dose, Week 18|||0.163|-0.044|0.259
90961483|NCT01294683|181803718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-1.029|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.301|5.252|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Miettinen and Nurminen Method|Periods I/II||5.252|-7.301|
90917274|NCT02299375|181703906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.073||||0.152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.027|0.172||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FEV6 pre-dose, Week 26|||0.172|-0.027|0.152
90917275|NCT02299375|181703906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.114||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.012|0.241||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FEV6 pre-dose, Week 39|||0.241|-0.012|0.076
90961484|NCT01294683|181803718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.889|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.599|9.338|||||Miettinen and Nurminen Method|Period III||9.338|-7.599|
91033848|NCT01975948|181953533|OTHER|||||||0.543|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.543
91033849|NCT01975948|181953534|OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.009
91033850|NCT01975948|181953535|OTHER|||||||0.213|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.213
90878969|NCT01933048|181619089|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|non-inferiority||||||0.55|||||||Farrington-Manning Method|based on margin of 0.05||B/Yamagata||||0.55
90917276|NCT02299375|181703906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.171||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.038|0.381||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FEV6 pre-dose, Week 52|||0.381|-0.038|0.107
90917277|NCT02299375|181703906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.025||||0.484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.046|0.097||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FEV6 post-dose, Week 2|||0.097|-0.046|0.484
90878970|NCT01933048|181619089|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|non-inferiority||||||0.16|||||||Farrington-Manning Method|based on margin of 0.05||B/Brisbane||||0.16
90878971|NCT01714310|181619130|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58||||||Group: F=.31, df=1/140|Mixed Models Analysis|Partial linear regression using mixed model, assessing outcome variable over time (baseline to study week 12) and time2 (study weeks 4-12).||||||.58
90878972|NCT01714310|181619130|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85||||||Partial linear regression using mixed model, assessing outcome variable over time (baseline to study week 12) and time2 (study weeks 4-12).|Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F=.03, df=1/140||||||.85
90878973|NCT01714310|181619130|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26||||||Partial linear regression using mixed model, assessing outcome variable over time (baseline to study week 12) and time2 (study weeks 4-12).|Mixed Models Analysis|Time2: F=1.28, df=1/140||||||.26
90878974|NCT01714310|181619131|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97||||||Group: F=0.00, df=1/44|Mixed Models Analysis|Partial linear regression using mixed model, assessing outcome variable over time (baseline through week 12) and time2 (weeks 4-12).||||||.97
90878975|NCT01714310|181619131|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0002||||||Partial linear regression using mixed model, assessing outcome variable over time (baseline to study week 12) and time2 (study weeks 4-12).|Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F=136.22, df=1/44||||||<.0002
90878976|NCT01714310|181619131|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Partial linear regression using mixed model, assessing outcome variable over time (baseline to study week 12) and time2 (study weeks 4-12).|Mixed Models Analysis|Time2: F=64.90, df=1/44||||||<.0001
90878977|NCT01714310|181619132|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Time: F=41.85, df=1/89, p\<.0001.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear regression of outcome change over time within single group.||||||<0.0001
90961485|NCT01294683|181803719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-0.412|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.28|3.45||||||Periods I/II||3.450|-4.280|
90878978|NCT01714310|181619133|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Time: F=26.65, df=1/92, p \<.0001.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear regression of outcome change over time within single group.||||||<0.0001
90878979|NCT01714310|181619134|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Time: F=40.35, df=1/89, p \< .0001.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear regression of outcome change over time within single group.||||||<0.0001
90878980|NCT01714310|181619135|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Time: F=26.36, df=1/29, p \<.0001.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear regression of outcome change over time within single group.||||||<0.0001
90878981|NCT01714310|181619136|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44||||||Group: F=.60, df=1/157|Mixed Models Analysis|Partial linear regression using mixed model, assessing outcome variable over time (baseline to study week 12) and time2 (study weeks 4-12).||||||.44
90878982|NCT01714310|181619136|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Partial linear regression using mixed model, assessing outcome variable over time (baseline to study week 12) and time2 (study weeks 4-12).|Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F=22.39, df=1/157||||||<.0001
90878983|NCT01714310|181619136|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||Partial linear regression using mixed model, assessing outcome variable over time (baseline to study week 12) and time2 (study weeks 4-12).|Mixed Models Analysis|Time2: F=4.40, df=1/157||||||.04
90878984|NCT01714310|181619137|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||Group: F=3.81, df=1/145|Mixed Models Analysis|Partial linear regression using mixed model, assessing outcome variable over time (baseline to study week 12) and time2 (study weeks 4-12).|||No significant group\*time interactions. Group trend likely due to baseline differences.|||.05
90878985|NCT01714310|181619137|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001||||||Partial linear regression using mixed model, assessing outcome variable over time (baseline to study week 12) and time2 (study weeks 4-12).|Mixed Models Analysis|Tie: F=15.28, df=1/145||||||.0001
90878986|NCT01714310|181619137|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||Partial linear regression using mixed model, assessing outcome variable over time (baseline to study week 12) and time2 (study weeks 4-12).|Mixed Models Analysis|Time2: F=5.42, df=1/145||||||.02
90878987|NCT01714310|181619138|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||Chi-squared|Chi Square = .10, df=1, p=.76||||||.76
90878988|NCT01714310|181619139|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38||||||Group: F=.78, df=1/220|Mixed Models Analysis|Partial linear regression using mixed model, assessing outcome variable over time (baseline through week 12) and time2 (weeks 4-12).||||||.38
90878989|NCT01714310|181619139|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42||||||Partial linear regression using mixed model, assessing outcome variable over time (baseline to study week 12) and time2 (study weeks 4-12).|Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F=.66, df=1/220||||||.42
90878990|NCT01714310|181619139|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13||||||Partial linear regression using mixed model, assessing outcome variable over time (baseline to study week 12) and time2 (study weeks 4-12).|Mixed Models Analysis|Time2: F=.66, df=1/220||||||.13
90878991|NCT01714310|181619140|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21||||||Group: F=1.56, df=1/222|Mixed Models Analysis|Partial linear regression using mixed model, assessing outcome variable over time (baseline to study week 12) and time2 (study weeks 4-12).||||||.21
90878992|NCT01714310|181619140|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Partial linear regression using mixed model, assessing outcome variable over time (baseline to study week 12) and time2 (study weeks 4-12).|Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F=63.11, df=1/222||||||<.0001
90878993|NCT01714310|181619140|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004||||||Partial linear regression using mixed model, assessing outcome variable over time (baseline to study week 12) and time2 (study weeks 4-12).|Mixed Models Analysis|Time2: F=12.86, df=1/222||||||.0004
90878994|NCT01714310|181619141|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||Group: F=5.42, df=1/223|Mixed Models Analysis|Partial linear regression using mixed model, assessing outcome variable over time (baseline to study week 12) and time2 (study weeks 4-12).||||||.02
90878995|NCT01714310|181619141|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18||||||Partial linear regression using mixed model, assessing outcome variable over time (baseline to study week 12) and time2 (study weeks 4-12).|Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F=1.77, df=1/223||||||.18
90878996|NCT01714310|181619141|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49||||||Partial linear regression using mixed model, assessing outcome variable over time (baseline to study week 12) and time2 (study weeks 4-12).|Mixed Models Analysis|Time2: F=.47, df=1/223||||||.49
90878997|NCT01714310|181619142|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9||||||Group: F=.02, df=1/223|Mixed Models Analysis|Partial linear regression using mixed model, assessing outcome variable over time (baseline to study week 12) and time2 (study weeks 4-12).||||||.90
90878998|NCT01714310|181619142|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21||||||Partial linear regression using mixed model, assessing outcome variable over time (baseline to study week 12) and time2 (study weeks 4-12).|Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F=1.60, df=1/223||||||.21
90878999|NCT01714310|181619142|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73||||||Partial linear regression using mixed model, assessing outcome variable over time (baseline to study week 12) and time2 (study weeks 4-12).|Mixed Models Analysis|Time2: F=.12, df=1/223||||||.73
90879000|NCT01714310|181619143|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15||||||Group: F=2.05, df=1/223|Mixed Models Analysis|Partial linear regression using mixed model, assessing outcome variable over time (baseline to study week 12) and time2 (study weeks 4-12).||||||.15
90879001|NCT01714310|181619143|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59||||||Partial linear regression using mixed model, assessing outcome variable over time (baseline to study week 12) and time2 (study weeks 4-12).|Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F=.29, df=1/223||||||.59
90879002|NCT01714310|181619143|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14||||||Partial linear regression using mixed model, assessing outcome variable over time (baseline to study week 12) and time2 (study weeks 4-12).|Mixed Models Analysis|Time2: F=2.15, df=1/223||||||.14
90879003|NCT01289847|181619148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||one-sample Poisson rate|||For the primary efficacy analysis, the SABI rate for GAMMAPLEX and the upper bound of its one-sided 99% confidence interval (CI) were estimated by using the exact method for a one-sample Poisson rate.||||0.01
90879004|NCT01289847|181619149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|ONE_SIDED|99.0|||||one-sample Poisson method|||||||0.01
90879005|NCT03441633|181619154|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.82|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Non-smoker)||0.82|0.68|0.000
90879006|NCT03441633|181619154|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.52|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Ex-smoker)||1.52|1.14|0.000
90879007|NCT03441633|181619154|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.17|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Smoker)||1.17|0.93|0.000
90879008|NCT03441633|181619154|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.13|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Non-smoker)||1.13|0.80|0.755
90879009|NCT03441633|181619154|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.83|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Ex-smoker)||1.83|0.95|0.426
90879010|NCT03441633|181619154|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.12|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Smoker)||1.12|0.77|0.930
90879011|NCT03441633|181619154|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.84|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Non-smoker)||0.84|0.72|0.000
90879012|NCT03441633|181619154|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.42|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Ex-smoker)||1.42|1.10|0.000
90879013|NCT03441633|181619154|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.19|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Smoker)||1.19|0.98|0.000
90879014|NCT03441633|181619154|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.14|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Non-smoker)||1.14|0.84|0.755
90879015|NCT03441633|181619154|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.52|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Ex-smoker)||1.52|0.84|0.426
90879016|NCT03441633|181619154|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.12|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Smoker)||1.12|0.81|0.930
90879017|NCT03441633|181619154|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.84|||Chi-squared|||Acenocoumarol vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Non-smoker)||0.84|0.74|0.000
90879018|NCT03441633|181619154|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.32|||Chi-squared|||Acenocoumarol vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Ex-smoker)||1.32|1.08|0.000
90879019|NCT03441633|181619154|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.26|||Chi-squared|||Acenocoumarol vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Smoker)||1.26|1.08|0.000
90879020|NCT03441633|181619154|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.13|||Chi-squared|||Acenocoumarol vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Non-smoker)||1.13|0.60|0.755
90879021|NCT03441633|181619154|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|2.52|||Chi-squared|||Acenocoumarol vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Ex-smoker)||2.52|0.82|0.426
90879022|NCT03441633|181619154|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.4|||Chi-squared|||Acenocoumarol vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Smoker)||1.40|0.70|0.930
90879023|NCT03441633|181619154|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.54||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.6|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Non-smoker)||0.60|0.49|0.000
90879024|NCT03441633|181619154|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|1.76|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Ex-smoker)||1.76|1.29|0.000
90879025|NCT03441633|181619154|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|1.93|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Smoker)||1.93|1.54|0.000
90879026|NCT03441633|181619154|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.17|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Non-smoker)||1.17|0.72|0.755
90879027|NCT03441633|181619154|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.95|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Ex-smoker)||1.95|0.78|0.426
90879028|NCT03441633|181619154|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.2|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Smoker)||1.20|0.70|0.930
90879029|NCT03441633|181619155|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.09|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in naive participants (No intake)||1.09|0.90|0.000
90879030|NCT03441633|181619155|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.25|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Moderate intake)||1.25|0.98|0.000
90879031|NCT03441633|181619155|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.52||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|2.45|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Risk consumption)||2.45|0.94|0.164
90879032|NCT03441633|181619155|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.22|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (No intake)||1.22|0.87|0.826
90917278|NCT02299375|181703906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.037||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.027|0.1||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FEV6 post-dose, Week 4|||0.100|-0.027|0.256
90879033|NCT03441633|181619155|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.43|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Moderate intake)||1.43|0.94|0.190
90879034|NCT03441633|181619155|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.58||||0.526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.57|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Risk consumption)||1.57|0.18|0.526
90879035|NCT03441633|181619155|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.91|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in naive participants (No intake)||0.91|0.77|0.000
90879036|NCT03441633|181619155|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.24|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Moderate intake)||1.24|1.01|0.000
90879037|NCT03441633|181619155|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.83|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Risk consumption)||1.83|0.76|0.164
90917279|NCT02299375|181703906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.052||||0.184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.025|0.128||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FEV6 post-dose, Week 8|||0.128|-0.025|0.184
90961486|NCT01294683|181803719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-0.533|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.916|2.619|||||Miettinen and Nurminen Method|Period III||2.619|-3.916|
90879038|NCT03441633|181619155|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.26|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (No intake)||1.26|0.95|0.826
90879039|NCT03441633|181619155|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.13|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Moderate intake)||1.13|0.77|0.190
90879040|NCT03441633|181619155|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.65|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Risk consumption)||2.65|0.62|0.526
90879041|NCT03441633|181619155|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|1.45|||Chi-squared|||Acenocoumarol vs. Apixaban in naive participants (No intake)||1.45|1.28|0.000
90879042|NCT03441633|181619155|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.35|||Chi-squared|||Acenocoumarol vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Moderate intake)||1.35|1.14|0.000
90879043|NCT03441633|181619155|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.95|||Chi-squared|||Acenocoumarol vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Risk consumption)||1.95|0.98|0.164
90879044|NCT03441633|181619155|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.41|||Chi-squared|||Acenocoumarol vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (No intake)||1.41|0.76|0.826
90879045|NCT03441633|181619155|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.76|||Chi-squared|||Acenocoumarol vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Moderate intake)||1.76|0.82|0.190
90879046|NCT03441633|181619155|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|4.5|||Chi-squared|||Acenocoumarol vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Risk consumption)||4.50|0.17|0.526
90879047|NCT03441633|181619155|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|1.42|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in naive participants (No intake)||1.42|1.16|0.000
90879048|NCT03441633|181619155|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.43|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Moderate intake)||1.43|1.10|0.000
90879049|NCT03441633|181619155|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.64|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Risk consumption)||1.64|0.49|0.164
90879050|NCT03441633|181619155|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.34|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (No intake)||1.34|0.84|0.826
90879051|NCT03441633|181619155|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.23|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Moderate intake)||1.23|0.66|0.190
90879052|NCT03441633|181619155|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.64||||0.526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|2.36|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Risk consumption)||2.36|0.09|0.526
90879053|NCT03441633|181619156|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|1.53|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Quintile 1 - Urban area)||1.53|1.20|0.000
90879054|NCT03441633|181619156|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.15|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Quintile 2 - Urban area)||1.15|0.89|0.014
90879055|NCT03441633|181619156|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.99|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Quintile 3 - Urban area)||0.99|0.77|0.000
90879056|NCT03441633|181619156|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|0.97|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Quintile 4 - Urban area)||0.97|0.75|0.000
90879057|NCT03441633|181619156|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.97|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Quintile 5 - Urban area)||0.97|0.74|0.013
90879058|NCT03441633|181619156|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.31|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Quintile 1 - Urban area)||1.31|0.84|0.157
90879059|NCT03441633|181619156|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.29|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Quintile 2 - Urban area)||1.29|0.82|0.124
90879060|NCT03441633|181619156|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.96|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Quintile 3 - Urban area)||0.96|0.61|0.062
90879061|NCT03441633|181619156|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.22|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Quintile 4 - Urban area)||1.22|0.78|0.079
90879062|NCT03441633|181619156|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.38|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Quintile 5 - Urban area)||1.38|0.86|0.140
90879063|NCT03441633|181619156|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|1.45|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Quintile 1 - Urban area)||1.45|1.17|0.000
90879064|NCT03441633|181619156|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.09|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Quintile 2 - Urban area)||1.09|0.87|0.014
90879065|NCT03441633|181619156|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.12|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Quintile 3 - Urban area)||1.12|0.91|0.000
90879066|NCT03441633|181619156|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.05|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Quintile 4 - Urban area)||1.05|0.85|0.000
90879067|NCT03441633|181619156|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.93|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Quintile 5 - Urban area)||0.93|0.74|0.013
90879068|NCT03441633|181619156|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.13|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Quintile 1 - Urban area)||1.13|0.76|0.157
90879069|NCT03441633|181619156|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.2|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Quintile 2 - Urban area)||1.20|0.81|0.124
90879070|NCT03441633|181619156|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.96|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Quintile 3 - Urban area)||0.96|0.65|0.062
90879071|NCT03441633|181619156|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.48|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Quintile 4 - Urban area)||1.48|1.02|0.079
90879072|NCT03441633|181619156|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.49|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Quintile 5 - Urban area)||1.49|0.99|0.140
90879073|NCT03441633|181619156|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.05|||Chi-squared|||Acenocoumarol vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Quintile 1 - Urban area)||1.05|0.88|0.000
90879074|NCT03441633|181619156|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|0.99|||Chi-squared|||Acenocoumarol vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Quintile 2 - Urban area)||0.99|0.84|0.014
90879075|NCT03441633|181619156|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.9|||Chi-squared|||Acenocoumarol vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Quintile 3 - Urban area)||0.90|0.76|0.000
90879076|NCT03441633|181619156|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.91|||Chi-squared|||Acenocoumarol vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Quintile 4 - Urban area)||0.91|0.77|0.000
90879077|NCT03441633|181619156|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.0|||Chi-squared|||Acenocoumarol vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Quintile 5 - Urban area)||1.00|0.85|0.013
90879078|NCT03441633|181619156|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.54|||Chi-squared|||Acenocoumarol vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Quintile 1 - Urban area)||1.54|0.68|0.157
90961487|NCT01794923|181803720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Analysis was performed using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating (PSR), sex, and baseline muscle soreness with movement (MSM) terms.||||0.200
90879079|NCT03441633|181619156|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.29|||Chi-squared|||Acenocoumarol vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Quintile 2 - Urban area)||1.29|0.53|0.124
90879080|NCT03441633|181619156|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.13|||Chi-squared|||Acenocoumarol vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Quintile 3 - Urban area)||1.13|0.48|0.062
90879081|NCT03441633|181619156|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.33|||Chi-squared|||Acenocoumarol vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Quintile 4 - Urban area)||1.33|0.57|0.079
90879082|NCT03441633|181619156|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.59|||Chi-squared|||Acenocoumarol vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Quintile 5 - Urban area)||1.59|0.67|0.140
90879083|NCT03441633|181619156|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.39||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.47|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Quintile 1 - Urban area)||0.47|0.32|0.000
90879084|NCT03441633|181619156|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.97|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Quintile 2 - Urban area)||0.97|0.73|0.014
90879085|NCT03441633|181619156|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|1.91|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Quintile 3 - Urban area)||1.91|1.51|0.000
90879086|NCT03441633|181619156|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.86||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|2.1|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Quintile 4 - Urban area)||2.10|1.65|0.000
90879087|NCT03441633|181619156|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.08|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Quintile 5 - Urban area)||1.08|0.82|0.013
90879088|NCT03441633|181619156|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.8|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Quintile 1 - Urban area)||1.80|1.00|0.157
90879089|NCT03441633|181619156|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.88|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Quintile 2 - Urban area)||1.88|1.04|0.124
90879090|NCT03441633|181619156|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.05|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Quintile 3 - Urban area)||1.05|0.55|0.062
90879091|NCT03441633|181619156|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.26|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Quintile 4 - Urban area)||1.26|0.67|0.079
90879092|NCT03441633|181619156|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.15|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Quintile 5 - Urban area)||1.15|0.56|0.140
90879093|NCT03441633|181619157|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.25|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in naive participants (18.5 - 25 kg per m\^2 Normal)||1.25|0.91|0.000
90879094|NCT03441633|181619157|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|3.23|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in naive participants (\<18.5 kg per m\^2 Underweight)||3.23|0.58|0.202
90879095|NCT03441633|181619157|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.09|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in naive participants (25 - 30 kg per m\^2 Overweight)||1.09|0.88|0.000
90879096|NCT03441633|181619157|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.93|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in naive participants (\>30 kg per m\^2 Obese)||0.93|0.76|0.003
90879097|NCT03441633|181619157|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.03|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (18.5 - 25 kg per m\^2 Normal)||1.03|0.66|0.083
90879098|NCT03441633|181619157|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.99||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|6.18|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (\<18.5 kg per m\^2 Underweight)||6.18|0.68|0.011
90879099|NCT03441633|181619157|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.06|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (25 - 30 kg per m\^2 Overweight)||1.06|0.75|0.227
90879100|NCT03441633|181619157|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.47|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (\>30 kg per m\^2 Obese)||1.47|1.03|0.000
90879101|NCT03441633|181619157|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.16|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in naive participants (18.5 - 25 kg per m\^2 Normal)||1.16|0.88|0.000
90879102|NCT03441633|181619157|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.66|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in naive participants (\<18.5 kg per m\^2 Underweight)||2.66|0.58|0.202
90879103|NCT03441633|181619157|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.04|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in naive participants (25 - 30 kg per m\^2 Overweight)||1.04|0.87|0.000
90961488|NCT01794923|181803720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|7.6||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.81|19.92|||ANOVA|||Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating (PSR), sex, and baseline muscle soreness with movement (MSM) terms.||19.92|-4.81|0.230
90879104|NCT03441633|181619157|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.95|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in naive participants (\>30 kg per m\^2 Obese)||0.95|0.80|0.003
90879105|NCT03441633|181619157|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.17|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (18.5 - 25 kg per m\^2 Normal)||1.17|0.80|0.083
90879106|NCT03441633|181619157|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.06||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|1.05|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (\<18.5 kg per m\^2 Underweight)||1.05|0.02|0.011
90879107|NCT03441633|181619157|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.98|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (25 - 30 kg per m\^2 Overweight)||0.98|0.72|0.227
90879108|NCT03441633|181619157|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.35|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (\>30 kg per m\^2 Obese)||1.35|0.99|0.000
90879109|NCT03441633|181619157|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|1.82|||Chi-squared|||Acenocoumarol vs. Apixaban in naive participants (18.5 - 25 kg per m\^2 Normal)||1.82|1.47|0.000
90879110|NCT03441633|181619157|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|3.25|||Chi-squared|||Acenocoumarol vs. Apixaban in naive participants (\<18.5 kg per m\^2 Underweight)||3.25|0.98|0.202
90879111|NCT03441633|181619157|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|1.38|||Chi-squared|||Acenocoumarol vs. Apixaban in naive participants (25 - 30 kg per m\^2 Overweight)||1.38|1.20|0.000
90879112|NCT03441633|181619157|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.0|||Chi-squared|||Acenocoumarol vs. Apixaban in naive participants (\>30 kg per m\^2 Obese)||1.00|0.88|0.003
90879113|NCT03441633|181619157|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.28|||Chi-squared|||Acenocoumarol vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (18.5 - 25 kg per m\^2 Normal)||1.28|0.56|0.083
90879114|NCT03441633|181619157|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.49||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|8.58|||Chi-squared|||Acenocoumarol vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (\<18.5 kg per m\^2 Underweight)||8.58|0.13|0.011
90879115|NCT03441633|181619157|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.42|||Chi-squared|||Acenocoumarol vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (25 - 30 kg per m\^2 Overweight)||1.42|0.75|0.227
90879116|NCT03441633|181619157|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.55|||Chi-squared|||Acenocoumarol vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (\>30 kg per m\^2 Obese)||1.55|0.81|0.000
90879117|NCT03441633|181619157|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|1.76|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in naive participants (18.5 - 25 kg per m\^2 Normal)||1.76|1.28|0.000
90879118|NCT03441633|181619157|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|2.73|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in naive participants (\<18.5 kg per m\^2 Underweight)||2.73|0.36|0.202
90879119|NCT03441633|181619157|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|1.43|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in naive participants (25 - 30 kg per m\^2 Overweight)||1.43|1.15|0.000
90879120|NCT03441633|181619157|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.06|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in naive participants (\>30 kg per m\^2 Obese)||1.06|0.86|0.003
90879121|NCT03441633|181619157|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.68|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (18.5 - 25 kg per m\^2 Normal)||1.68|0.95|0.083
90879122|NCT03441633|181619157|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|6.21|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (\<18.5 kg per m\^2 Underweight)||6.21|0.18|0.011
90879123|NCT03441633|181619157|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.17|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (25 - 30 kg per m\^2 Overweight)||1.17|0.72|0.227
90879124|NCT03441633|181619157|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.87|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (\>30 kg per m\^2 Obese)||0.87|0.50|0.000
90879125|NCT03441633|181619158|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.68||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.75|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in naive participants||0.75|0.61|0.000
90879126|NCT03441633|181619158|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.15|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants||1.15|0.63|0.052
90879127|NCT03441633|181619158|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.8|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in naive participants||0.80|0.67|0.000
90879128|NCT03441633|181619158|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.03|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants||1.03|0.61|0.052
90879129|NCT03441633|181619158|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|1.36|||Chi-squared|||Acenocumarol vs. Apixaban in naive participants||1.36|1.17|0.000
90879130|NCT03441633|181619158|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.27|||Chi-squared|||Acenocumarol vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants||1.27|0.45|0.052
90879131|NCT03441633|181619158|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.21|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in naive participants||1.21|0.95|0.000
90879132|NCT03441633|181619158|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.57||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.84|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants||0.84|0.40|0.052
90879133|NCT03441633|181619159|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|-0.17|||ANOVA|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in naive participants (HAS - BLED)||-0.17|-0.26|0.000
91033851|NCT00336479|181953547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.985||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.525|5.842|||Regression, Logistic|Treatment, weight, race and baseline HCV RNA as factors||||5.842|1.525|0.0014
90879134|NCT03441633|181619159|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|-0.01|||ANOVA|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (HAS - BLED)||-0.01|-0.18|0.001
90879135|NCT03441633|181619159|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|-0.15|||ANOVA|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in naive participants (HAS - BLED)||-0.15|-0.23|0.000
90879136|NCT03441633|181619159|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|-0.04|||ANOVA|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (HAS - BLED)||-0.04|-0.19|0.001
90879137|NCT03441633|181619159|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.53|||ANOVA|||Acenocumarol vs. Apixaban in naive participants (HAS - BLED)||0.53|0.47|0.000
90879138|NCT03441633|181619159|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|-0.02|||ANOVA|||Acenocumarol vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (HAS - BLED)||-0.02|-0.32|0.001
90879139|NCT03441633|181619159|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.23|||ANOVA|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in naive participants (HAS - BLED)||0.23|0.12|0.000
90879140|NCT03441633|181619159|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.1|||ANOVA|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (HAS - BLED)||-0.10|-0.37|0.001
90879141|NCT03441633|181619160|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|-0.12|||ANOVA|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in naive participants (CHADS2)||-0.12|-0.24|0.000
90879142|NCT03441633|181619160|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.12|||ANOVA|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (CHADS2)||-0.12|-0.35|0.000
90917280|NCT02299375|181703906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.001||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.077|0.074||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FEV6 post-dose, Week 12|||0.074|-0.077|0.970
90879143|NCT03441633|181619160|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|-0.18|||ANOVA|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in naive participants (CHADS2)||-0.18|-0.28|0.000
90879144|NCT03441633|181619160|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|-0.11|||ANOVA|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (CHADS2)||-0.11|-0.31|0.000
90879145|NCT03441633|181619160|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.25|||ANOVA|||Acenocumarol vs. Apixaban in naive participants (CHADS2)||0.25|0.17|0.000
90879146|NCT03441633|181619160|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.3|||ANOVA|||Acenocumarol vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (CHADS2)||-0.30|-0.70|0.000
90879147|NCT03441633|181619160|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.14|||ANOVA|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in naive participants (CHADS2)||0.14|0.01|0.000
90879148|NCT03441633|181619160|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.2|||ANOVA|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (CHADS2)||-0.20|-0.54|0.000
90879149|NCT03441633|181619161|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.26|||ANOVA|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in naive participants (CHA2DS2Vasc)||-0.26|-0.42|0.000
90879150|NCT03441633|181619161|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.19|||ANOVA|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (CHA2DS2Vasc)||-0.19|-0.46|0.000
90879151|NCT03441633|181619161|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.32|||ANOVA|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in naive participants (CHA2DS2Vasc)||-0.32|-0.45|0.000
90879152|NCT03441633|181619161|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|-0.15|||ANOVA|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (CHA2DS2Vasc)||-0.15|-0.39|0.000
90879153|NCT03441633|181619161|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.24|||ANOVA|||Acenocumarol vs. Apixaban in naive participants (CHA2DS2Vasc)||0.24|0.14|0.000
90879154|NCT03441633|181619161|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|-0.37|||ANOVA|||Acenocumarol vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (CHA2DS2Vasc)||-0.37|-0.86|0.000
90879155|NCT03441633|181619161|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|-0.01|||ANOVA|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in naive participants (CHA2DS2Vasc)||-0.01|-0.18|0.000
90879156|NCT03441633|181619161|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|-0.21|||ANOVA|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (CHA2DS2Vasc)||-0.21|-0.64|0.000
90879157|NCT03441633|181619162|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.88||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|5.3|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants||5.30|0.77|0.008
90879158|NCT03441633|181619162|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.62||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.12|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants||1.12|0.33|0.008
90879159|NCT03441633|181619162|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.55||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.99|||Chi-squared|||Acenocumarol vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants||1.99|0.20|0.008
90879160|NCT03441633|181619162|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.39||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.86|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants||0.86|0.18|0.008
90879161|NCT03441633|181619163|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.75|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Poor adherence)||1.75|1.14|0.000
90917281|NCT02299375|181703906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.025||||0.608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.12||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FEV6 post-dose, Week 18|||0.120|-0.070|0.608
90879162|NCT03441633|181619163|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.82|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Good adherence)||0.82|0.55|0.000
90879163|NCT03441633|181619163|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.1||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|2.01|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Over adherence)||2.01|0.03|0.000
91033852|NCT00336479|181953547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.17||||0.0204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.127|4.178|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.178|1.127|0.0204
91033853|NCT00336479|181953548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.586||||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.331|5.025|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.025|1.331|0.0051
90879164|NCT03441633|181619163|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.58||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|2.04|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Poor adherence)||2.04|1.23|0.000
90879165|NCT03441633|181619163|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.44||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.57|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Good adherence)||0.57|0.34|0.000
90879166|NCT03441633|181619163|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.43||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|3.73|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Over adherence)||3.73|0.02|0.000
90879167|NCT03441633|181619163|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.66||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.84|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Poor adherence)||0.84|0.52|0.000
90879168|NCT03441633|181619163|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.36|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Good adherence)||1.36|0.95|0.000
90879169|NCT03441633|181619163|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.52||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|3.41|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Over adherence)||3.41|0.06|0.000
90879170|NCT03441633|181619163|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.85|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Poor adherence)||0.85|0.50|0.000
90879171|NCT03441633|181619163|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.37|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Good adherence)||1.37|0.90|0.000
90879172|NCT03441633|181619163|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|5.85|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Over adherence)||5.85|0.22|0.000
90879173|NCT03441633|181619163|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.37||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.86|3.99|||Chi-squared|||Acenocumarol vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Poor adherence)||3.99|2.86|0.000
90879174|NCT03441633|181619163|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.11||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.13|||Chi-squared|||Acenocumarol vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Good adherence)||0.13|0.09|0.000
90879175|NCT03441633|181619163|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.34||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|1.52|||Chi-squared|||Acenocumarol vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Over adherence)||1.52|0.11|0.000
90879176|NCT03441633|181619163|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.91|||Chi-squared|||Acenocumarol vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Poor adherence)||1.91|0.78|0.000
90879177|NCT03441633|181619163|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.01||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.09|||Chi-squared|||Acenocumarol vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Good adherence)||0.09|0.00|0.000
90879178|NCT03441633|181619163|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.07||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|18.0|||Chi-squared|||Acenocumarol vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Over adherence)||18.00|0.07|0.000
90879179|NCT03441633|181619163|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.58||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.75|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Poor adherence)||0.75|0.45|0.000
90879180|NCT03441633|181619163|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.51||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.63|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Good adherence)||0.63|0.41|0.000
90879181|NCT03441633|181619163|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|29.4||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.01|123.8|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Over adherence)||123.80|11.01|0.000
90879182|NCT03441633|181619163|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.86|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Poor adherence)||1.86|0.91|0.000
90879183|NCT03441633|181619163|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.1||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.17|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Good adherence)||0.17|0.05|0.000
90879184|NCT03441633|181619163|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.73||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.81|46.5|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Over adherence)||46.50|2.81|0.000
90879185|NCT03441633|181619164|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.27|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Discontinuation first year)||1.27|0.92|0.000
90879186|NCT03441633|181619164|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|1.83|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Discontinuation first year)||1.83|1.15|0.000
90879187|NCT03441633|181619164|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.27|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Discontinuation first year)||1.27|0.93|0.000
90879188|NCT03441633|181619164|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.47|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Discontinuation first year)||1.47|0.96|0.000
90917282|NCT02299375|181703906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.084||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.007|0.175||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FEV6 post-dose, Week 26|||0.175|-0.007|0.071
90917283|NCT02299375|181703906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.028||||0.622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.085|0.141||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FEV6 post-dose, Week 39|||0.141|-0.085|0.622
90917284|NCT02299375|181703906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.102||||0.277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.086|0.291||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FEV6 post-dose, Week 52|||0.291|-0.086|0.277
90917285|NCT02299375|181703906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.056||||0.241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.038|0.15||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FVC Pre-dose, Week 2|||0.150|-0.038|0.241
90917286|NCT02299375|181703906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.045||||0.348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.049|0.14|||MMRM||FVC Pre-dose, Week 4|||0.140|-0.049|0.348
90917287|NCT02299375|181703906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.073||||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.024|0.169||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FVC Pre-dose, Week 8|||0.169|-0.024|0.138
90917288|NCT02299375|181703906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.012||||0.813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.111|0.087||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FVC Pre-dose, Week 12|||0.087|-0.111|0.813
90917289|NCT02299375|181703906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.073||||0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.032|0.177||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FVC Pre-dose, Week 18|||0.177|-0.032|0.172
90917290|NCT02299375|181703906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.067||||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.045|0.18||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FVC Pre-dose, Week 26|||0.180|-0.045|0.242
90917291|NCT02299375|181703906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.082||||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.063|0.228||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FVC Pre-dose, Week 39|||0.228|-0.063|0.267
90917292|NCT02299375|181703906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.083||||0.471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.143|0.309||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FVC Pre-dose, Week 52|||0.309|-0.143|0.471
90917293|NCT02299375|181703906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.045||||0.315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.043|0.132||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FVC Post-dose, Week 2|||0.132|-0.043|0.315
90917294|NCT02299375|181703906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.054||||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.018|0.126||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FVC Post-dose, Week 4|||0.126|-0.018|0.143
90917295|NCT02299375|181703906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.072||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.017|0.16||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FVC Post-dose, Week 8|||0.160|-0.017|0.111
90917296|NCT02299375|181703906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.012||||0.783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.075|0.1||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FVC Post-dose, Week 12|||0.100|-0.075|0.783
90917297|NCT02299375|181703906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.059||||0.283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.049|0.167||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FVC Post-dose, Week 18|||0.167|-0.049|0.283
90917298|NCT02299375|181703906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.138||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.008|0.267||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FVC Post-dose, Week 26|||0.267|0.008|0.038
90917299|NCT02299375|181703906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.048||||0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.083|0.18||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FVC Post-dose, Week 39|||0.180|-0.083|0.467
91033854|NCT00336479|181953548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.976||||0.0418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.026|3.807|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.807|1.026|0.0418
91033855|NCT01265056|181953562|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
90917300|NCT02299375|181703906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.042||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.138|0.222||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FVC Post-dose, Week 52|||0.222|-0.138|0.640
90917301|NCT02299375|181703907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6||||0.661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.08|3.27||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||PP FVC, Week 2|||3.27|-2.08|0.661
90961489|NCT01794923|181803720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-4.4||||0.484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.81|7.99|||ANOVA|||Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating (PSR), sex, and baseline muscle soreness with movement (MSM) terms.||7.99|-16.81|0.484
90961490|NCT01794923|181803720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|12.0||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|25.25|||ANOVA|||Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating (PSR), sex, and baseline muscle soreness with movement (MSM) terms.||25.25|-1.32|0.077
90961491|NCT01794923|181803721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.86|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||24-48 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||||0.860
91033856|NCT01265056|181953562|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.04|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.04
90917302|NCT02299375|181703907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.44||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|5.12||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||PP FVC, Week 6|||5.12|-0.24|0.074
90917303|NCT02299375|181703907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.52||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|6.46||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||PP FVC, Week 8|||6.46|-1.43|0.210
90961492|NCT01794923|181803721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|7.0||||0.584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.3|32.38|||ANOVA|||24-48 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||32.38|-18.30|0.584
90961493|NCT01794923|181803721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|2.6||||0.838|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.77|28.06|||ANOVA|||24-48 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||28.06|-22.77|0.838
90961494|NCT01794923|181803721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|4.4||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.81|31.61|||ANOVA|||24-48 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||31.61|-22.81|0.750
90961495|NCT01794923|181803721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.533|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||48-72 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||||0.533
90961496|NCT01794923|181803721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-13.9||||0.326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.81|13.95|||ANOVA|||48-72 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||13.95|-41.81|0.326
90961497|NCT01794923|181803721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.0||||0.945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.98|28.94|||ANOVA|||48-72 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||28.94|-26.98|0.945
90961498|NCT01794923|181803721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-14.9||||0.327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.85|15.03|||ANOVA|||48-72 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||15.03|-44.85|0.327
90961499|NCT01794923|181803721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.988|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||0-72 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||||0.988
90961500|NCT01794923|181803721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-3.2||||0.887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.31|41.81|||ANOVA|||0-72 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||41.81|-48.31|0.887
91033857|NCT01265056|181953563|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.8|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.8
91033858|NCT01265056|181953564|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.8
91033859|NCT01416584|181953565|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|4.83|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||4.83|0.40|0.60
91033860|NCT01416584|181953565|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|3.73|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||3.73|0.32|0.88
90961501|NCT01794923|181803721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-2.7||||0.907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.88|42.5|||ANOVA|||0-72 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||42.50|-47.88|0.907
90961502|NCT01794923|181803721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.95|47.83|||ANOVA|||0-72 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||47.83|-48.95|0.982
90879189|NCT03441633|181619164|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.01|||Chi-squared|||Acenocumarol vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Discontinuation first year)||1.01|0.79|0.000
90879190|NCT03441633|181619164|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.82||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.14|7.55|||Chi-squared|||Acenocumarol vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Discontinuation first year)||7.55|3.14|0.000
90879191|NCT03441633|181619164|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|1.67|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Discontinuation first year)||1.67|1.19|0.000
90879192|NCT03441633|181619164|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.92||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.12|4.05|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Discontinuation first year)||4.05|2.12|0.000
90879193|NCT03441633|181619165|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.63||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.02|4.24|||ANOVA|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in naive participants (NDDDs)||4.24|3.02|0.000
90879194|NCT03441633|181619165|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.98|||ANOVA|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (NDDDs)||0.98|-0.77|0.000
90879195|NCT03441633|181619165|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.51||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.17|||ANOVA|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in naive participants (NDDDs)||2.17|0.84|0.000
90879196|NCT03441633|181619165|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.98||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|2.8|||ANOVA|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (NDDDs)||2.80|1.16|0.000
90879197|NCT03441633|181619165|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.39|||ANOVA|||Acenocumarol vs. Apixaban in naive participants (NDDDs)||1.39|0.41|0.000
90879198|NCT03441633|181619165|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.25||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.32|-0.18|||ANOVA|||Acenocumarol vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (NDDDs)||-0.18|-4.32|0.000
90879199|NCT03441633|181619165|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.52||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.56|29.48|||ANOVA|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in naive participants (NDDDs)||29.48|27.56|0.000
90879200|NCT03441633|181619165|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.93||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|4.9|||ANOVA|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (NDDDs)||4.90|-1.05|0.000
90879201|NCT03161483|181619172|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference|11.4||||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.57|29.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||29.00|-6.57|0.214
90879202|NCT03161483|181619172|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference|5.0||||0.512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.77|19.48|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||19.48|-9.77|0.512
90879203|NCT03161483|181619172|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference|19.4||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.12|33.42|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||33.42|4.12|0.011
90961503|NCT01794923|181803722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.63|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||1 Hour: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||||0.630
90879204|NCT03161483|181619173|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference|10.3||||0.264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.66|27.97|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||27.97|-7.66|0.264
90879205|NCT03161483|181619173|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference|6.5||||0.399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.45|21.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.00|-8.45|0.399
90879206|NCT03161483|181619173|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference|19.3||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.01|33.36|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||33.36|4.01|0.012
90879207|NCT03161483|181619174|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference|24.0||||0.446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.38|53.11|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||53.11|-12.38|0.446
90879208|NCT03161483|181619174|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference|5.3|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.64|39.38|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||39.38|-27.64|>0.999
90879209|NCT03161483|181619174|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference|14.2||||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.54|44.48|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||44.48|-19.54|0.488
90879210|NCT03161483|181619175|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference|12.4||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.74|24.07|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||24.07|-2.74|0.092
90879211|NCT03161483|181619175|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference|-5.3||||0.434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.43|8.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||8.06|-18.43|0.434
90879212|NCT03161483|181619175|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference|8.0||||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.88|19.65|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||19.65|-3.88|0.182
90879213|NCT03161483|181619176|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference|12.1||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.98|23.78|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||23.78|-2.98|0.098
90879214|NCT03161483|181619176|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference|-4.3||||0.521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.36|8.92|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||8.92|-17.36|0.521
90879215|NCT03161483|181619176|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference|6.8||||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.24|18.55|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||18.55|-5.24|0.267
90879216|NCT03161483|181619177|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted mean|0.7||||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.5|||longitudinal data analysis model|||||1.5|-0.2|0.116
90879217|NCT03161483|181619177|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted mean|0.7||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.6|||longitudinal data analysis model|||||1.6|-0.1|0.094
90879218|NCT03161483|181619177|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted mean|0.1||||0.881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.8|||longitudinal data analysis model|||||0.8|-0.6|0.881
90879219|NCT03161483|181619178|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted mean|1.1||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|2.6|||longitudinal data analysis model|||||2.6|-0.4|0.160
90879220|NCT03161483|181619178|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted mean|1.3||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.6|||longitudinal data analysis model|||||2.6|0.0|0.056
90879221|NCT03161483|181619178|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted mean|0.3||||0.621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.6|||longitudinal data analysis model|||||1.6|-1.0|0.621
90961504|NCT01794923|181803722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.14|||ANOVA|||1 Hour: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.14|-0.39|0.342
90961505|NCT01794923|181803722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.19|||ANOVA|||1 Hour: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.19|-0.34|0.600
90879222|NCT03161483|181619180|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted mean|-1.1||||0.546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|2.5|||longitudinal data analysis model|||||2.5|-4.7|0.546
90879223|NCT03161483|181619180|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted mean|-0.6||||0.681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|2.4|||longitudinal data analysis model|||||2.4|-3.7|0.681
90879224|NCT03161483|181619180|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted mean|1.4||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|4.4|||longitudinal data analysis model|||||4.4|-1.6|0.350
90879225|NCT03161483|181619181|SUPERIORITY|\<= 7.5 mg/day|Stratified difference|0.2|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.13|15.91|||longitudinal data analysis model|||||15.91|-15.13|>0.999
90879226|NCT03161483|181619181|SUPERIORITY|\< 10 mg/day|Stratified difference|-3.2|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.74|13.0|||longitudinal data analysis model|||||13.00|-17.74|>0.999
90879227|NCT03161483|181619182|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted means|2.8||||0.535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|11.6|||longitudinal data analysis model|||||11.6|-6.0|0.535
90879228|NCT03161483|181619182|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted means|4.2||||0.309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|12.2|||longitudinal data analysis model|||||12.2|-3.9|0.309
90879229|NCT03161483|181619182|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted means|6.5||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|14.1|||longitudinal data analysis model|||||14.1|-1.0|0.091
90879230|NCT02767427|181619185|EQUIVALENCE|An equivalence test on data from a parallel-group design with sample sizes of 18 in the reference group and 18 in the treatment group achieves 80% power. The significance was set at 5%. The standard deviation was 1.00, and the equivalence limits were set at -1.00 and 1.00.|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Two one-sided t-tests were conducted with 18 in each group.||||||<0.05
90879231|NCT04753164|181619217|OTHER|Mixed effects model for Repeated Measures: Change from baseline in the number of BE days per week = baseline number of BE days per week + sex (Male; Female) + BMI group (\< 30 ; ≥ 30 kg/m2) + treatment + visit + treatment × visit + baseline × visit.|LS Mean Difference to Placebo|0.0||||0.9992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.69|||Mixed effects model f. repeated measures|||||0.69|-0.69|0.9992
90879232|NCT00694369|181619218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||0.05 critical level was used.|ANOVA|"Step-down manner was used (p-value for 90-mg dose comparison was reported only if the p-value~for 120-mg dose comparison is significant)."||||||<0.001
90879233|NCT00694369|181619218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||0.05 critical level was used.|ANOVA|Step-down manner was used (p-value for 90-mg dose comparison was reported only if the p-value for 120-mg dose comparison is significant)||||||<0.001
90879234|NCT00694369|181619218|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority bound (etoricoxib minus ibuprofen) is -4.45.|Difference in LS Means|0.06||||||95.0|-1.37|1.48|||||Difference in Least squares means (LS Means) (etoricoxib minus ibuprofen)|||1.48|-1.37|
90879235|NCT00694369|181619218|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority bound (etoricoxib minus ibuprofen) is -4.45.|Difference in LS Means|0.43||||||95.0|-0.73|1.6|||||Difference in LS Means (etoricoxib minus ibuprofen)|||1.60|-0.73|
90879236|NCT00694369|181619218|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority bound (etoricoxib minus cetaminophen/codeine) is -2.41.|Difference in LS Means|3.9||||||95.0|2.04|5.76|||||Difference in LS Means (etoricoxib minus acetaminophen/codeine)|||5.76|2.04|
90879237|NCT00694369|181619218|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority bound (etoricoxib minus acetaminophen/codeine) is -2.41.|Difference in LS Means|4.27||||||95.0|2.61|5.94|||||Difference in LS Means (etoricoxib minus acetaminophen/codeine)|||5.94|2.61|
90879238|NCT00694369|181619218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.38||||||95.0|-1.8|1.05|||||Difference in LS Means (etoricoxib 120 mg minus etoricoxib 90 mg)|||1.05|-1.80|
90879239|NCT00694369|181619218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|10.59||||||95.0|8.72|12.47|||||Difference in LS Means (ibuprofen 2400 mg minus placebo)|||12.47|8.72|
90879240|NCT00694369|181619218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|6.75||||||95.0|4.53|8.97|||||Difference in LS Means (acetaminophen 2400 mg/codeine 240 mg minus placebo)|||8.97|4.53|
90879241|NCT00694369|181619219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||0.05 critical level was used.|stratified Wilcoxon rank sum test|Step-down manner was used (p-value for 90-mg dose comparison was reported only if the p-value for 120-mg dose comparison is significant).||||||<0.001
90879242|NCT00694369|181619219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||0.05 critical level was used.|stratified Wilcoxon rank sum test|Step-down manner was used (p-value for 90-mg dose comparison was reported only if the p-value for 120-mg dose comparison is significant)||||||<0.001
90879243|NCT00694369|181619219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.161||95.0||||0.05 critical level was used.|stratified Wilcoxon rank sum test|Nominal p-value was provided in lieu of the 95% CI. Step-down manner was used, and the nominal p-value for 90-mg dose comparison was not reported.||||||0.161
90879244|NCT00694369|181619219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.014||95.0||||0.05 critical level was used.|stratified Wilcoxon rank sum test|Nominal p-value was provided in lieu of the 95% CI. Step-down manner was used.||||||0.014
90879245|NCT00694369|181619219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.007||95.0||||0.05 critical level was used.|stratified Wilcoxon rank sum test|Nominal p-value was provided in lieu of the 95% CI. Step-down manner was used.||||||0.007
90879246|NCT01405963|181619239|OTHER||Treatment Difference|7.65||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|16.6|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and Day -14 value as covariate.|Treatment difference estimate (tezepelumab minus placebo) is mean estimate based on ANCOVA.|Treatment difference in late asthmatic response at day 42 was evaluated using a repeated-measures analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) that included study treatment and study visit as independent variables, treatment by study visit as an interaction term, and the corresponding baseline value (as measured 14 days before the first dose of a study drug) as a model covariate.||16.60|-1.30|0.09
90879247|NCT01405963|181619239|OTHER||Treatment Difference|9.91||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|18.23|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and Day -14 value as covariate.|Treatment difference estimate (tezepelumab minus placebo) is mean estimate based on ANCOVA.|Treatment difference in late asthmatic response at day 84 was evaluated using a repeated-measures ANCOVA that included study treatment and study visit as independent variables, treatment by study visit as an interaction term, and the corresponding baseline value (as measured 14 days before the first dose of a study drug) as a model covariate.||18.23|1.59|0.02
90879248|NCT01405963|181619240|OTHER||Treatment Difference|-4.35||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|1.1|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and day -14 value as covariate.|Treatment difference estimate (tezepelumab minus placebo) is mean estimate based on ANCOVA.|Treatment difference in late asthmatic response at day 42 was evaluated using a repeated-measures analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) that included study treatment and study visit as independent variables, treatment by study visit as an interaction term, and the corresponding baseline value (as measured 14 days before the first dose of a study drug) as a model covariate.||1.10|-9.80|0.11
90879249|NCT01405963|181619240|OTHER||Treatment Difference|-4.66||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.71|0.39|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and day -14 value as covariate.|Treatment difference estimate (tezepelumab minus placebo) is mean estimate based on ANCOVA.|Treatment difference in late asthmatic response at day 84 was evaluated using a repeated-measures ANCOVA that included study treatment and study visit as independent variables, treatment by study visit as an interaction term, and the corresponding baseline value (as measured 14 days before the first dose of a study drug) as a model covariate.||0.39|-9.71|0.07
90879250|NCT01405963|181619244|OTHER||Treatment Difference|8.57||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|17.13|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and Day -14 value as covariate.|Treatment difference estimate (tezepelumab minus placebo) is mean estimate based on ANCOVA.|Treatment difference in early asthmatic response at day 42 was evaluated using a repeated-measures ANCOVA that included study treatment and study visit as independent variables, treatment by study visit as an interaction term, and the corresponding baseline value (as measured 14 days before the first dose of a study drug) as a model covariate.||17.13|0.01|0.05
90879251|NCT01405963|181619244|OTHER||Treatment Difference|10.27||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|21.0|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and Day -14 value as covariate.|Treatment difference estimate (tezepelumab minus placebo) is mean estimate based on ANCOVA.|Treatment difference in early asthmatic response at day 84 was evaluated using a repeated-measures ANCOVA that included study treatment and study visit as independent variables, treatment by study visit as an interaction term, and the corresponding baseline value (as measured 14 days before the first dose of a study drug) as a model covariate.||21.00|-0.46|0.06
90879252|NCT01405963|181619245|OTHER||Treatment Difference|-6.08||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.56|-0.6|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and day -14 value as covariate.|Treatment difference estimate (tezepelumab minus placebo) is mean estimate based on ANCOVA.|Treatment difference in early asthmatic response at day 42 was evaluated using a repeated-measures ANCOVA that included study treatment and study visit as independent variables, treatment by study visit as an interaction term, and the corresponding baseline value (as measured 14 days before the first dose of a study drug) as a model covariate.||-0.60|-11.56|0.03
90879253|NCT01405963|181619245|OTHER||Treatment Difference|-7.44||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.22|-0.66|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and day -14 value as covariate.|Treatment difference estimate (tezepelumab minus placebo) is mean estimate based on ANCOVA.|Treatment difference in early asthmatic response at day 84 was evaluated using a repeated-measures ANCOVA that included study treatment and study visit as independent variables, treatment by study visit as an interaction term, and the corresponding baseline value (as measured 14 days before the first dose of a study drug) as a model covariate.||-0.66|-14.22|0.03
90917304|NCT02299375|181703907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14||||0.933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|3.12||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||PP FVC, Week 12|||3.12|-3.40|0.933
90917305|NCT02299375|181703907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.7||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|5.82||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||PP FVC, Week 18|||5.82|-0.43|0.091
90917306|NCT02299375|181703907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.69||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|8.56||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||PP FVC, Week 26|||8.56|0.82|0.018
90917307|NCT02299375|181703907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.3||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|7.29||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||PP FVC, Week 39|||7.29|-0.69|0.103
91033861|NCT01416584|181953565|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|4.46|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||4.46|0.36|0.64
90879254|NCT01405963|181619246|OTHER||Treatment Difference|0.33||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.68|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and Day -14 value as covariate.|Treatment difference estimate (tezepelumab minus placebo) is mean estimate based on ANCOVA.|Treatment difference in early asthmatic response at day 42 was evaluated using a repeated-measures ANCOVA that included study treatment and study visit as independent variables, treatment by study visit as an interaction term, and the corresponding baseline value (as measured 14 days before the first dose of a study drug) as a model covariate.||0.68|-0.01|0.05
90879255|NCT01405963|181619246|OTHER||Treatment Difference|0.39||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.84|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and Day -14 value as covariate.|Treatment difference estimate (tezepelumab minus placebo) is mean estimate based on ANCOVA.|Treatment difference in early asthmatic response at day 84 was evaluated using a repeated-measures ANCOVA that included study treatment and study visit as independent variables, treatment by study visit as an interaction term, and the corresponding baseline value (as measured 14 days before the first dose of a study drug) as a model covariate.||0.84|-0.06|0.08
90879256|NCT01405963|181619247|OTHER||Treatment Difference|0.28||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.53|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and day -14 value as covariate.|Treatment difference estimate (tezepelumab minus placebo) is mean estimate based on ANCOVA.|Treatment difference in early asthmatic response at day 42 was evaluated using a repeated-measures ANCOVA that included study treatment and study visit as independent variables, treatment by study visit as an interaction term, and the corresponding baseline value (as measured 14 days before the first dose of a study drug) as a model covariate.||0.53|0.03|0.03
90879257|NCT01405963|181619247|OTHER||Treatment Difference|0.33||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.66|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and day -14 value as covariate.|Treatment difference estimate (tezepelumab minus placebo) is mean estimate based on ANCOVA.|Treatment difference in early asthmatic response at day 84 was evaluated using a repeated-measures ANCOVA that included study treatment and study visit as independent variables, treatment by study visit as an interaction term, and the corresponding baseline value (as measured 14 days before the first dose of a study drug) as a model covariate.||0.66|-0.01|0.06
90879258|NCT01405963|181619248|OTHER||Treatment Difference|0.41||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.7|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and Day -14 value as covariate.|Treatment difference estimate (tezepelumab minus placebo) is mean estimate based on ANCOVA.|Treatment difference in late asthmatic response at day 42 was evaluated using a repeated-measures ANCOVA that included study treatment and study visit as independent variables, treatment by study visit as an interaction term, and the corresponding baseline value (as measured 14 days before the first dose of a study drug) as a model covariate.||0.70|0.12|0.01
90879259|NCT01405963|181619248|OTHER||Treatment Difference|0.42||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.72|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and Day -14 value as covariate.|Treatment difference estimate (tezepelumab minus placebo) is mean estimate based on ANCOVA.|Treatment difference in late asthmatic response at day 84 was evaluated using a repeated-measures ANCOVA that included study treatment and study visit as independent variables, treatment by study visit as an interaction term, and the corresponding baseline value (as measured 14 days before the first dose of a study drug) as a model covariate.||0.72|0.11|0.01
90879260|NCT01405963|181619249|OTHER||Treatment Difference|0.24||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.45|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and day -14 value as covariate.|Treatment difference estimate (tezepelumab minus placebo) is mean estimate based on ANCOVA.|Treatment difference in late asthmatic response at day 42 was evaluated using a repeated-measures ANCOVA that included study treatment and study visit as independent variables, treatment by study visit as an interaction term, and the corresponding baseline value (as measured 14 days before the first dose of a study drug) as a model covariate.||0.45|0.04|0.02
90879261|NCT01405963|181619249|OTHER||Treatment Difference|0.18||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.44|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and day -14 value as covariate.|Treatment difference estimate (tezepelumab minus placebo) is mean estimate based on ANCOVA.|Treatment difference in late asthmatic response at day 84 was evaluated using a repeated-measures ANCOVA that included study treatment and study visit as independent variables, treatment by study visit as an interaction term, and the corresponding baseline value (as measured 14 days before the first dose of a study drug) as a model covariate.||0.44|-0.07|0.15
90879262|NCT04007523|181619279|OTHER|Fisher's Exact Test||||||0.653|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.653
90879263|NCT04007523|181619279|OTHER|Fisher's Exact Test||||||0.614|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.614
90917308|NCT02299375|181703907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.16||||0.448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|7.82||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||PP FVC, Week 52|||7.82|-3.50|0.448
90879264|NCT04007523|181619279|OTHER|Fisher's Exact Test||||||0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.999
90917309|NCT02299375|181703907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.75||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|3.77||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||PP FEV1, Week 2|||3.77|-0.27|0.089
90961506|NCT01794923|181803722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.23|||ANOVA|||1 Hour: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.23|-0.34|0.691
91033862|NCT01416584|181953566|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.39||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.41|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||0.41|0.38|0.02
91033863|NCT01416584|181953566|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.57|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||1.57|0.34|0.39
91033864|NCT01416584|181953566|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.86||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|2.26|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||2.26|1.53|0.10
90879265|NCT01826487|181619301|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.415||0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.44|33.39||Threshold for significance at 0.05. Secondary endpoints were tested for significance, only if the primary endpoint was statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was performed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) method including stratification factors for age (less than \[\<\] 9 years versus \[vs.\] greater than or equal to \[\>=\] 9 years), duration of use of corticosteroids at baseline (approx. \>=6 to \<12 months vs. \>=12 months), and baseline 6MWD category (\>=350 meters vs \<350 meters), as well as baseline 6MWD as covariate.||33.39|-7.44|0.213
90879266|NCT01408030|181619312|OTHER|Two sided testing was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||||0.97|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.97
90879267|NCT01408030|181619313|OTHER|Two sided testing was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||||0.47|||||||ANOVA|||||||.47
90879268|NCT01408030|181619314|OTHER|Two sided testing was performed with a significance level of 0.05.|||||<|0.001||||||"A mixed-model repeated-measures ANOVA was used to analyze ESS for drug and time (baseline, week 12) effects.~Listed P value is for time effect."|Mixed Models Analysis|Clinical site and patient were included in the model as random effects.||||||<0.001
90879269|NCT01408030|181619315|OTHER|Two sided testing was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||||0.43|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline values and random effect of clinic site.||||||0.43
90879270|NCT01408030|181619316|OTHER|Two sided testing was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||||0.42|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.42
90879271|NCT01408030|181619317|OTHER|Two sided testing was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||||0.08|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.08
90917310|NCT02299375|181703907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.76||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|3.84||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||PP FEV1, Week 4|||3.84|-0.31|0.095
90917311|NCT02299375|181703907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.19||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|4.58||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||PP FEV1, Week 8|||4.58|-0.20|0.073
90917312|NCT02299375|181703907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.22||||0.853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.08|2.51||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||PP FEV1, Week 12|||2.51|-2.08|0.853
90917313|NCT02299375|181703907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.37||||0.334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|4.17||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||PP FEV1, Week 18|||4.17|-1.43|0.334
90917314|NCT02299375|181703907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.33||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|6.05||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||PP FEV1, Week 26|||6.05|0.61|0.017
90917315|NCT02299375|181703907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.13||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|6.59||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||PP FEV1, Week 39|||6.59|-0.34|0.077
90917316|NCT02299375|181703907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.34||||0.355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|7.38||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||PP FEV1, Week 52|||7.38|-2.70|0.355
90917317|NCT02299375|181703907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.82||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|5.55||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||PP FEV6, Week 2|||5.55|0.08|0.044
90879272|NCT00788827|181619327|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Each participants Hba1c (%) lab result was analysed pre and post stem cell infusion to achieve 2 mean readings per participant.||||<0.05
90917318|NCT02299375|181703907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.87||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|5.49||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||PP FEV6, Week 4|||5.49|0.25|0.032
90879273|NCT03608774|181619331|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.36||Protocol pre-specified an interim analysis of the primary outcome using O'Brien-Fleming bounds to maintain an overall 5% alpha level. The trial was stopped at the interim analysis. P-value was derived using stage-wise ordering of the sample space.|Chi-squared||Protocol pre-specified an interim analysis of the primary outcome using O'Brien-Fleming bounds to maintain an overall 5% alpha level. The trial was stopped at the interim analysis. Estimates were derived using stage-wise ordering of the sample space.|||0.36|0.16|<0.001
90879274|NCT03608774|181619332|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.22||||||||0.22|0.00|
90917319|NCT02299375|181703907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.75||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|7.01||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||PP FEV6, Week 8|||7.01|0.49|0.025
90917320|NCT02299375|181703907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4||||0.785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|3.29||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||PP FEV6, Week 12|||3.29|-2.50|0.785
90961507|NCT01794923|181803722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.091|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||||0.091
90879275|NCT03608774|181619333|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.21||||||||0.21|-0.01|
91033865|NCT01416584|181953567|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.37||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.38|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||0.38|0.36|0.02
91033866|NCT01416584|181953567|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.39||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.41|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||0.41|0.38|0.02
91033867|NCT01416584|181953567|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|5.66|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||5.66|0.20|0.85
90879276|NCT03608774|181619334|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.38||||||||0.38|0.15|
90879277|NCT03608774|181619335|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.7||||||||0.70|-0.28|
90879278|NCT03608774|181619336|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.7||||||||0.70|-0.28|
90879279|NCT01586819|181619337|SUPERIORITY||Z score|-3.3902||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis was that subjects receiving Botox A as an added pre-treatment would have lower scores on the facial wrinkle severity scale post-treatment.||||.002
90879280|NCT01586819|181619338|SUPERIORITY||Z score|3.6115||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis was that subjects receiving Botox A as an added pre-treatment would have higher difference scores, pre- to post-treatment, on the facial wrinkle severity scale suggesting a more pronounced effect of the chemical peel in combination with the Botox A therapy.||||.001
90879281|NCT00851799|181619374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in annual rate of change|-4.7||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-8.9|-0.4||Inference was assessed against a type I error of 2.5% to account for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference in the rate of CIMT change (Cohort A: ATV/RTV + FTC/TDF - Cohort C: DRV/RTV + FTC/TDF) was estimated by mixed effects linear regression model that adjusted for screening HIV-1 RNA level and Framingham risk score stratification factors.|The primary hypothesis was that rate of change of CIMT would be faster over 144 weeks in participants initiating a RTV-boosted protease inhibitor-containing regimen (the pooled ATV/RTV and DRV/RTV groups) compared with a RAL-containing regimen. However, In the event of a significant difference between ATV/RTV and DRV/RTV groups, the study was designed to make all pairwise treatment group comparisons.||-0.4|-8.9|0.013
90879282|NCT00851799|181619374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in annual rate of change|-2.8||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-7.0|1.5||Inference was assessed against a type I error of 2.5% to account for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference in the rate of CIMT change (Cohort A: ATV/RTV + FTC/TDF - Cohort B: RAL + FTC/TDF) was estimated by mixed effects linear regression model that adjusted for screening HIV-1 RNA level and Framingham risk score stratification factors.|The primary hypothesis was that rate of change of CIMT would be faster over 144 weeks in participants initiating a RTV-boosted protease inhibitor-containing regimen (the pooled ATV/RTV and DRV/RTV groups) compared with a RAL-containing regimen. However, In the event of a significant difference between ATV/RTV and DRV/RTV groups, the study was designed to make all pairwise treatment group comparisons.||1.5|-7.0|0.15
90879283|NCT00851799|181619374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in annual rate of change|1.9||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.4|6.2||Inference was assessed against a type I error of 2.5% to account for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference in the rate of CIMT change (Cohort C: DRV/RTV + FTC/TDF - Cohort B: RAL + FTC/TDF) was estimated by mixed effects linear regression model that adjusted for screening HIV-1 RNA level and Framingham risk score stratification factors.|The primary hypothesis was that rate of change of CIMT would be faster over 144 weeks in participants initiating a RTV-boosted protease inhibitor-containing regimen (the pooled ATV/RTV and DRV/RTV groups) compared with a RAL-containing regimen. However, In the event of a significant difference between ATV/RTV and DRV/RTV groups, the study was designed to make all pairwise treatment group comparisons.||6.2|-2.4|0.31
90879284|NCT00851799|181619375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Change|0.24||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.63|1.11||Inference was assessed against a type I error of 2.5% to account for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear||The difference in change in relative FMD (Cohort A: ATV/RTV+FTC/TDF - Cohort C: DRV/RTV+FTC/TDF); estimated by linear regression that adjusted for study entry BA diameter and screening HIV-1 RNA level and Framingham risk score stratification factors.|The study was designed to compare change from study entry to week 24 in brachial artery (BA) flow mediated dilation (FMD) between a RTV-boosted protease inhibitor-containing regimen (the pooled ATV/RTV and DRV/RTV groups) and a RAL-containing regimen. However, in the event of a significant difference between ATV/RTV and DRV/RTV groups, the study was designed to make all pairwise treatment group comparisons.||1.11|-0.63|0.53
90879285|NCT00851799|181619375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Change (%)|-0.21||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.98|0.55||Inference was assessed against a type I error of 2.5% to account for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear||The difference in change in relative FMD (Cohort B - Cohort A and C); estimated by linear regression that adjusted for study entry BA diameter and screening HIV-1 RNA level and Framingham risk score stratification factors.|The study was designed to compare change from study entry to week 24 in brachial artery (BA) flow mediated dilation (FMD) between a RTV-boosted protease inhibitor-containing regimen (the pooled ATV/RTV and DRV/RTV groups) and a RAL-containing regimen. However, in the event of a significant difference between ATV/RTV and DRV/RTV groups, the study was designed to make all pairwise treatment group comparisons.||0.55|-0.98|0.53
90879286|NCT04365556|181619405|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<.05|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90879287|NCT04365556|181619406|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.69
90879288|NCT04920123|181619500|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.997||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|t-test, 1 sided|||Null hypothesis: no improvement or worse with intervention Alternative hypothesis: improvement with intervention||||0.997
90879289|NCT04920123|181619501|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|t-test, 1 sided|||Null hypothesis: no improvement or worse with intervention Alternative hypothesis: improvement with intervention||||0.500
90879290|NCT04920123|181619502|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.821||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|t-test, 1 sided|||Null hypothesis: no improvement or worse with intervention Alternative hypothesis: improvement with intervention||||0.821
90879291|NCT04920123|181619503|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.995||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|t-test, 1 sided|||Null hypothesis: no improvement or worse with intervention Alternative hypothesis: improvement with intervention||||0.995
90879292|NCT04920123|181619504|NON_INFERIORITY|Higher scores indicate more severe depression.||||||0.076|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Null hypothesis: no improvement or worse with intervention Alternative hypothesis: improvement with intervention||||0.076
90879293|NCT04920123|181619505|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.432|||||||t-test, 1 sided|The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05||Null hypothesis: no improvement or worse with intervention Alternative hypothesis: improvement with intervention||||0.432
90879294|NCT04920123|181619506|SUPERIORITY|Null hypothesis: no improvement or worse with intervention Alternative hypothesis: improvement with intervention||||||0.75|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.750
90879295|NCT00218296|181619510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.51||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.99|||Chi-squared|There were no adjustments in the analysis.|The reference group for the odds ratio estimate is the usual care condition, i.e., the immediate cessation condition.|The null hypothesis was that the Usual Care Group (i.e. the immediate cessation group) and the Reduction Group had the same cessation rate. The alternative hypothesis was that they had different cessation rates. Two-sided test with a type I error of 0.05 was used.||0.99|0.26|0.04
90879296|NCT00218296|181619511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.28||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.83|||Chi-squared|There were no adjustments in the analysis.|The reference group for the odds ratio estimate is the Usual Care condition, i.e., the immediate cessation condition.|The null hypothesis was that the Usual Care Group (i.e. the immediate cessation group) and the Reduction Group had the same cessation rate. The alternative hypothesis was that they had different cessation rates. Two-sided test with a type I error of 0.05 was used.||0.83|0.07|0.019
90879297|NCT00218296|181619512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.42||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.94|||Chi-squared|There were no adjustments in the analysis.|The reference group for the odds ratio estimate is the usual care condition, i.e., the immediate cessation condition.|The null hypothesis was that the Usual Care Group (i.e. the immediate cessation group) and the Reduction Group had the same cessation rate. The alternative hypothesis was that they had different cessation rates. Two-sided test with a type I error of 0.05 was used.||0.94|0.18|0.03
90879298|NCT00218296|181619513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.09||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|0.48|||Chi-squared|There were no adjustments in the analysis.|The reference group for the odds ratio estimate is the Usual Care Condition, i.e., the immediate cessation condition.|The null hypothesis was that the Usual Care Group (i.e. the immediate cessation group) and the Reduction Group had the same cessation rate. The alternative hypothesis was that they had different cessation rates. Two-sided test with a type I error of 0.05 was used.||0.48|0.004|.002
90879299|NCT00218296|181619514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.47||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.03|||Chi-squared|There were no adjustments in the analysis.|The reference group for the odds ratio estimate is the Usual Care Condition, i.e., the immediate cessation condition.|The null hypothesis was that the Usual Care Group (i.e. the immediate cessation group) and the Reduction Group had the same cessation rate. The alternative hypothesis was that they had different cessation rates. Two-sided test with a type I error of 0.05 was used.||1.03|0.20|0.056
90879300|NCT00218296|181619515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.09||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|0.48||There were no adjustments in the analysis.|Chi-squared||The reference group for the odds ratio estimate is the Usual Care Condition, i.e., the immediate cessation condition.|The null hypothesis was that the Usual Care Group (i.e. the immediate cessation group) and the Reduction Group had the same cessation rate. The alternative hypothesis was that they had different cessation rates. Two-sided test with a type I error of 0.05 was used.||0.48|0.004|0.002
90879301|NCT02623803|181619516|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1459|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1459
90879302|NCT02623803|181619517|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.205|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2050
90879303|NCT02623803|181619518|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3989|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3989
90879304|NCT02623803|181619519|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5285|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5285
90879305|NCT02623803|181619520|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0697|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0697
90917321|NCT02299375|181703907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.34||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|6.7||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||PP FEV6, Week 18|||6.70|-0.03|0.052
90961508|NCT01794923|181803722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.16|||ANOVA|||2 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.16|-0.44|0.351
90879306|NCT02623803|181619521|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1029|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1029
90879307|NCT02623803|181619522|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3136|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3136
90879308|NCT02623803|181619523|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2196|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2196
90879309|NCT02623803|181619524|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3057|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3057
90879310|NCT02623803|181619525|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0404|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0404
90879311|NCT02623803|181619526|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5314|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5314
90879312|NCT02623803|181619527|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3166|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3166
90879313|NCT02623803|181619528|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2363|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2363
90879314|NCT02623803|181619529|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9171|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.9171
90879315|NCT02623803|181619530|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4194|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4194
90879316|NCT02623803|181619531|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7073|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7073
90879317|NCT02623803|181619532|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5107|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5107
90917322|NCT02299375|181703907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.53||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|6.92||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||PP FEV6, Week 26|||6.92|0.14|0.041
91033868|NCT01416584|181953568|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.35||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.35|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||0.35|0.34|0.01
91033869|NCT01416584|181953568|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.41||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.44|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||0.44|0.39|0.03
91033870|NCT01416584|181953568|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.69|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||1.69|0.42|0.63
90879318|NCT02623803|181619533|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8339|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8339
90879319|NCT02623803|181619534|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8927|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8927
90879320|NCT03249779|181619557|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0396|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0396
90961509|NCT01794923|181803722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|-0.04|||ANOVA|||2 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||-0.04|-0.64|0.029
90961510|NCT01794923|181803722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.52|||ANOVA|||2 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.52|-0.13|0.238
90961511|NCT01794923|181803722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.305|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||3 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||||0.305
90961512|NCT01794923|181803722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.2|||ANOVA|||3 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.20|-0.54|0.370
90961513|NCT01794923|181803722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.09|||ANOVA|||3 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.09|-0.66|0.130
90961514|NCT01794923|181803722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.51|||ANOVA|||3 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.51|-0.28|0.561
90879321|NCT03249779|181619558|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.133|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1330
90879322|NCT01604343|181619566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|28.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.8|33.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||33.8|22.8|< 0.001
90961515|NCT01794923|181803722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.209|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||4 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||||0.209
90961516|NCT01794923|181803722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.19|||ANOVA|||4 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.19|-0.68|0.277
91033871|NCT01416584|181953569|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.4|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||0.40|0.39|0.01
91033872|NCT01416584|181953569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.55|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||1.55|0.36|0.37
91033873|NCT01416584|181953569|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.53||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.0|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||1.00|0.28|0.05
90879323|NCT01604343|181619566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|27.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.6|32.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||32.6|21.6|< 0.001
90879324|NCT01604343|181619567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||van der waerden ANOVA|||||||< 0.001
90879325|NCT01604343|181619567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||van der waerden ANOVA|||||||< 0.001
90879326|NCT01604343|181619568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|-0.226|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|-0.17|||ANCOVA|||||-0.17|-0.29|<0.001
90879327|NCT01604343|181619568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.256|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||||-0.20|-0.32|<0.001
90879328|NCT01604343|181619569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|17.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.1|22.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||22.4|13.1|< 0.001
90879329|NCT01604343|181619569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|20.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.1|25.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||25.6|16.1|< 0.001
90961517|NCT01794923|181803722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.05|||ANOVA|||4 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.05|-0.82|0.085
90961518|NCT01794923|181803722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.61|||ANOVA|||4 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.61|-0.32|0.546
90961519|NCT01794923|181803722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.185|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||5 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||||0.185
90961520|NCT01794923|181803722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.26|||ANOVA|||5 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.26|-0.64|0.400
90961521|NCT01794923|181803722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.03|||ANOVA|||5 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.03|-0.88|0.067
90961522|NCT01794923|181803722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.71|||ANOVA|||5 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.71|-0.25|0.350
90961523|NCT01794923|181803722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.493|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||6 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||||0.493
90961524|NCT01794923|181803722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.48|||ANOVA|||6 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.48|-0.53|0.922
90961525|NCT01794923|181803722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.22|||ANOVA|||6 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.22|-0.80|0.265
90961526|NCT01794923|181803722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.81|||ANOVA|||6 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.81|-0.28|0.342
90917323|NCT02299375|181703907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.19||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|8.25||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||PP FEV6, Week 39|||8.25|0.13|0.043
90917324|NCT02299375|181703907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.67||||0.562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.58|11.92||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||PP FEV6, Week 52|||11.92|-6.58|0.562
90917325|NCT02299375|181703907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.21||||0.746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|1.52||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||Pre-dose FEV1/FVC, Week 2|||1.52|-1.09|0.746
90917326|NCT02299375|181703907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.13||||0.878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|1.79||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||Pre-dose FEV1/FVC, Week 4|||1.79|-1.53|0.878
90917327|NCT02299375|181703907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.35||||0.644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|1.85||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||Pre-dose FEV1/FVC, Week 8|||1.85|-1.15|0.644
90917328|NCT02299375|181703907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.29||||0.715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|1.28||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||Pre-dose FEV1/FVC, Week 12|||1.28|-1.86|0.715
90917329|NCT02299375|181703907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.24||||0.803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|2.1||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||Pre-dose FEV1/FVC, Week 18|||2.10|-1.62|0.803
90917330|NCT02299375|181703907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.32||||0.184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|3.27||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||Pre-dose FEV1/FVC, Week 26|||3.27|-0.63|0.184
90917331|NCT02299375|181703907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.05||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|4.52||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||Pre-dose FEV1/FVC, Week 39|||4.52|-0.42|0.102
90961527|NCT01794923|181803722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.311|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||7 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||||0.311
90961528|NCT01794923|181803722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.58|||ANOVA|||7 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.58|-0.49|0.865
90917332|NCT02299375|181703907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.44||||0.383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|4.73||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||Pre-dose FEV1/FVC, Week 52|||4.73|-1.85|0.383
90917333|NCT02299375|181703907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.43||||0.607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|2.06||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||Post-dose FEV1/FVC, Week 2|||2.06|-1.20|0.607
90961529|NCT01794923|181803722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.18|||ANOVA|||7 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.18|-0.89|0.193
90917334|NCT02299375|181703907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.67||||0.348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|2.08||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||Post-dose FEV1/FVC, Week 4|||2.08|-0.74|0.348
90917335|NCT02299375|181703907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17||||0.826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|1.65||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||Post-dose FEV1/FVC, Week 8|||1.65|-1.32|0.826
90961530|NCT01794923|181803722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.97|||ANOVA|||7 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.97|-0.17|0.170
90961531|NCT01794923|181803722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.383|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||8 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||||0.383
90961532|NCT01794923|181803722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.62|||ANOVA|||8 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.62|-0.48|0.802
90961533|NCT01794923|181803722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.24|||ANOVA|||8 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.24|-0.87|0.260
90879330|NCT01604343|181619570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|20.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.4|24.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||24.6|16.4|< 0.001
90879331|NCT01604343|181619570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|19.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.8|24.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||24.0|15.8|< 0.001
90879332|NCT01604343|181619571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|3.6||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|5.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.8|1.4|0.001
90879333|NCT01604343|181619571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|7.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.6|9.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||9.8|4.6|< 0.001
90879334|NCT04452331|181619621|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for clinical site||Diastolic BP||||0.06
90879335|NCT04452331|181619621|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Regression, Linear|||Systolic BP||||0.90
90879336|NCT04452331|181619623|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.29
90879337|NCT04452331|181619624|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||.10
90879338|NCT04452331|181619625|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.44
90879339|NCT04452331|181619626|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.01
90879340|NCT04452331|181619627|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.01
90879341|NCT04452331|181619628|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Regression, negative binomial|||||||0.54
90879342|NCT04452331|181619629|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||Regression, negative binomial|||||||0.74
90879343|NCT04452331|181619630|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.03
90879344|NCT04452331|181619630|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.06
90879345|NCT04452331|181619631|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, negative binomial|||||||<0.001
90879346|NCT04452331|181619631|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Regression, negative binomial|||||||0.03
90879347|NCT04452331|181619632|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, poisson|||||||<0.001
90879348|NCT04452331|181619632|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Regression, poisson|||||||0.08
90879349|NCT04452331|181619633|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects logistic regression including random effect of visit, to incorporate clustering of prescriptions within visits.||||||<.001
90879350|NCT04452331|181619633|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects logistic regression including random effect of visit, to incorporate clustering of prescriptions within visits.||||||0.98
90879351|NCT04452331|181619634|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Regression, Linear|||Systolic BP||||0.20
90879352|NCT04452331|181619634|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||Regression, Linear|||Systolic BP||||0.82
90879353|NCT04452331|181619634|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Regression, Linear|||Diastolic BP||||0.12
90879354|NCT04452331|181619634|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Regression, Linear|||Diastolic BP||||0.10
90879355|NCT00449956|181619645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68||||||95.0|-1.3|-0.06|||||An analysis of covariance model with a factor for treatment and time-matched baseline as a covariate was used to compute 95% confidence intervals.|||-0.06|-1.30|
90879356|NCT00449956|181619645|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin = 1.2 mmHg|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28||||||95.0|-0.22|0.78|||||An analysis of covariance model with a factor for treatment and time-matched baseline as a covariate was used to compute 95% confidence intervals.|||0.78|-0.22|
90879357|NCT01988571|181619650|SUPERIORITY|Power described in protocol.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.1608|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7787||0.84|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for multiple imputation of missing data||Linear models adjusting for baseline values and utilized multiple imputation for missing data.||||0.84
90879358|NCT05876273|181619675|OTHER|The statistical analysis included general linear models (GLM), with repeated measures (NAP vs UMPC) and a covariate the 1-hour average CGM level prior to initiating either controller. This covariate was used to compute the adjusted performance differences between NAP and UMPC. The data was analyzed using the GLM procedures of IBM SPSS 28.0.||||||0.2||||||1-hour average CGM level prior to initiating either controller was included as a covariate in the analysis. This covariate was used to compute the adjusted performance differences between NAP and UMPC.|GLM with Repeated Measures|General linear models (GLM), with repeated measures (NAP vs UMPC)||||||0.2
90879359|NCT04534764|181619680|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority of the Test lens relative to the Control will be concluded if the upper confidence limit of LSM difference is below the non-inferiority margin 0.05 logMAR.|Least Square Mean Difference|-0.016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0114|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.039|0.006|||Mixed Models Analysis||LS Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control.|High Luminance Low Contrast||0.006|-0.039|
90879360|NCT04534764|181619680|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority of the Test lens relative to the Control will be concluded if the upper confidence limit of LSM difference is below the non-inferiority margin 0.05 logMAR.|Least Square Mean Difference|0.009|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0114|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.014|0.031|||Mixed Models Analysis||LS Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control.|Low Luminance High Contrast||0.031|-0.014|
90879361|NCT00176592|181619771|SUPERIORITY|This includes p value for rank sum test treatment comparison. This includes p value for rank sum test treatment comparison of intention to treat study population.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||This includes p value for rank sum test treatment comparison. This includes p value for rank sum test treatment comparison of intention to treat study population.||||<0.05
90879362|NCT02180412|181619776|OTHER||Slope|7.76||||0.0434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.14|13.37|||ANCOVA|||ALA Day 1 vs Day 2||13.37|2.14|.0434
90879363|NCT02180412|181619776|OTHER||Slope|16.29||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.32|21.25|||ANCOVA|||ALA Day 1 vs Day 3||21.25|11.32|.0003
90879364|NCT02180412|181619776|OTHER||Slope|15.98||||0.0198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.7|25.26|||ANCOVA|||ALA Day 1 vs Day 4||25.26|6.7|.0198
90879365|NCT02180412|181619776|OTHER||Slope|10.69||||0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|22.49|||ANCOVA|||PBG Day 1 vs Day 2||22.49|-1.67|.158
90879366|NCT02180412|181619776|OTHER||Slope|24.52||||0.0127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.3|37.74|||ANCOVA|||PGB Day 1 vs Day 3||37.74|11.3|.0127
90879367|NCT02180412|181619776|OTHER||Slope|28.45||||0.0328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.64|47.27|||ANCOVA|||PBG Day 1 vs Day 4||47.27|9.64|.0328
90879368|NCT02180412|181619776|OTHER||Slope|12.2||||0.9993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-465.4|489.8|||ANCOVA|||Total Porphyrins Day 1 vs Day 2||489.8|-465.4|.9993
90879369|NCT02180412|181619776|OTHER||Slope|454.5||||0.2915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-200.87|1109.86|||ANCOVA|||Total Porphyrins Day 1 vs Day 3||1109.86|-200.87|.2915
90917336|NCT02299375|181703907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.46||||0.588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|1.21||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||Post-dose FEV1/FVC, Week 12|||1.21|-2.13|0.588
90917337|NCT02299375|181703907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.41||||0.585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|1.91||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||Post-dose FEV1/FVC, Week 18|||1.91|-1.08|0.585
91033874|NCT01059903|181953590|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CI for the ratio of geometric LS-Means is included within 0.8-1.25, the patches are considered bioequivalent.|Ratio of geometric LS-Means|0.9028|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8411|0.969|||ANOVA|ANOVA for log-transformed values has been used as the basis for calculation of point estimates (LS-Means) and Confidence Intervals (CIs).|Bioequivalence is concluded if the 90% CIs for the ratio Treatment A/ Treatment B are fully included in the acceptance range from 0.8- 1.25 for AUC(0-tz), AUC(0-inf) and Cmax.|Bioequivalence testing by using the 90% Confidence Interval (CI).||0.9690|0.8411|
90879370|NCT02180412|181619776|OTHER||Slope|326.12||||0.4382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-292.0|944.25|||ANCOVA|||Total Porphyrins Day 1 vs Day 4||944.25|-292|.4382
90879371|NCT01774786|181619872|SUPERIORITY|The study was designed to have 80% power to show a significant difference with respect to the primary endpoint.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.0565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.0||The actual p-value significance threshold required for OS was 0.0455, after alpha spent at the interim analysis was taken into account.|Stratified Log-Rank|Stratified analysis by geographic region, HER2 status, and prior gastrectomy.|HR was calculated as pertuzumab arm vs. placebo arm.|Primary Analysis. The null hypothesis is that the survival distribution of OS is the same in the two treatment arms.||1.00|0.71|0.0565
90879372|NCT01774786|181619872|OTHER|Exploratory|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.99|||||HR was calculated as pertuzumab arm vs. placebo arm. Stratified analysis by geographic region, HER2 status, and prior gastrectomy.|Final Analysis||0.99|0.72|
90879373|NCT01774786|181619873|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.86||As pre-specified in the protocol, a p-value was only to be calculated for PFS if OS was statistically significant.|||A stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model was used to estimate the HR between the pertuzumab arm vs. the placebo arm.|Primary Analysis||0.86|0.62|
90879374|NCT01774786|181619873|OTHER|Exploratory|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.85|||||A stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model was used to estimate the HR between the pertuzumab arm vs. the placebo arm.|Final Analysis||0.85|0.62|
90879375|NCT01774786|181619874|OTHER|Exploratory|Difference in Objective Response|8.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|15.91|||||Difference in objective response was calculated as the pertuzumab arm minus placebo arm.|Primary Analysis of Objective Response Rate||15.91|0.89|
90879376|NCT01774786|181619874|OTHER|Exploratory|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.89|||||Odds ratio was calculated as the pertuzumab arm vs. placebo arm.|Primary Analysis of Objective Response Rate||1.89|1.04|
90879377|NCT01774786|181619875|OTHER|Exploratory|Difference in Objective Response|8.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|15.91|||||Difference in objective response was calculated as the pertuzumab arm minus placebo arm.|Final Analysis of Objective Response Rate||15.91|0.89|
90879378|NCT01774786|181619875|OTHER|Exploratory|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.89|||||Odds ratio was calculated as the pertuzumab arm vs. placebo arm.|Final Analysis of Objective Response Rate||1.89|1.04|
90879379|NCT01774786|181619876|OTHER|Exploratory|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.06|||||HR was calculated as pertuzumab arm vs. placebo arm. Stratified analysis by geographic region, HER2 status, and prior gastrectomy.|Primary Analysis||1.06|0.64|
90879380|NCT01774786|181619876|OTHER|Exploratory|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.98|||||HR was calculated as pertuzumab arm vs. placebo arm. Stratified analysis by geographic region, HER2 status, and prior gastrectomy.|Final Analysis||0.98|0.62|
90879381|NCT01774786|181619877|OTHER|Exploratory|Difference in Clinical Benefit Rate|3.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|9.07|||||Difference in clinical benefit rate was calculated as the pertuzumab arm minus placebo arm.|||9.07|-2.34|
90879382|NCT01774786|181619877|OTHER|Exploratory|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.88|||||Odds ratio was calculated as the pertuzumab arm vs. placebo arm.|||1.88|0.86|
90879383|NCT04544293|181619886|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.0||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|9.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Modelled using MMRM adjusted for baseline % predicted DLCOadj, treatment, visit, region, severity stratification and treatment-visit interaction.|Difference from placebo|||9.4|2.5|0.0007
90879384|NCT04544293|181619887|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.9||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|10.9||Modelled using MMRM adjusted for baseline % predicted DLCOadj, treatment, visit, region, severity stratification and treatment-visit interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis||Difference from Placebo|||10.9|2.9|0.0008
90879385|NCT04544293|181619888|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.59||||0.0072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|-1.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.79|-11.40|0.0072
90879386|NCT04544293|181619889|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.81||||0.0149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|-1.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.52|-14.10|0.0149
90879387|NCT04544293|181619890|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41||||0.0845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.89|-0.06|0.0845
90879388|NCT04544293|181619891|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.87||||0.1046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.76|1.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.01|-10.76|0.1046
90879389|NCT04544293|181619892|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.99||||0.1216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.57|1.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.59|-13.57|0.1216
90879390|NCT04544293|181619893|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.55||||0.0234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.03|||Mixed Models Analysis||Change from baseline compared to placebo.|||1.03|0.07|0.0234
90879391|NCT04544293|181619894|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.01||||0.1043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.84|0.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.83|-8.84|0.1043
90917338|NCT02299375|181703907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.82||||0.231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|10.12||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||Post-dose FEV1/FVC, Week 26|||10.12|-2.48|0.231
90917339|NCT02299375|181703907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.45||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|3.89||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||Post-dose FEV1/FVC, Week 39|||3.89|-0.99|0.240
90917340|NCT02299375|181703907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.17||||0.517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.49|4.84||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||Post-dose FEV1/FVC, Week 52|||4.84|-2.49|0.517
90917341|NCT02299375|181703914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.67||||0.706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|2.85||Analysis was performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|Mixed Models Analysis||SGRQ Total, Week 12|||2.85|-4.20|0.706
90917342|NCT02299375|181703914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.89||||0.694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.58|5.36||Analysis was performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|Mixed Models Analysis||SGRQ Total, Week 26|||5.36|-3.58|0.694
90917343|NCT02299375|181703914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.83||||0.382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.23|3.58||Analysis was performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|Mixed Models Analysis||SGRQ Total, Week 39|||3.58|-9.23|0.382
90961534|NCT01794923|181803722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.98|||ANOVA|||8 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.98|-0.21|0.199
90961535|NCT01794923|181803722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.139|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||9 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||||0.139
90917344|NCT02299375|181703914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.49||||0.903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.54|7.57||Analysis was performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|Mixed Models Analysis||SGRQ Total, Week 52|||7.57|-8.54|0.903
90961536|NCT01794923|181803722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.8|||ANOVA|||9 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.80|-0.35|0.441
90917345|NCT02299375|181703914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.67||||0.481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.33|2.99||Analysis was performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|Mixed Models Analysis||SGRQ Symptoms, Week 12|||2.99|-6.33|0.481
90917346|NCT02299375|181703914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.73||||0.793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.79|6.25||Analysis was performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|Mixed Models Analysis||SGRQ Symptoms, Week 26|||6.25|-4.79|0.793
90961537|NCT01794923|181803722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.18|||ANOVA|||9 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.18|-0.96|0.183
90961538|NCT01794923|181803722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.6||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.23|||ANOVA|||9 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||1.23|-0.00|0.050
90961539|NCT01794923|181803722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.221|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||10 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||||0.221
90961540|NCT01794923|181803722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.79|||ANOVA|||10 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.79|-0.40|0.526
90879392|NCT03556579|181619900|SUPERIORITY|"Superiority was concluded if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval was below 0.~No sample size calculation was performed for this study since historical data was not available for either study lens for any of the primary endpoints."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.162|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.36|||Linear Mixed Model|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|Without Distance Filter||-0.36|-1.01|
90879393|NCT03556579|181619900|SUPERIORITY|"Superiority was concluded if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval was below 0.~No sample size calculation was performed for this study since historical data was not available for either study lens for any of the primary endpoints."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.162|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|-0.81|||Linear Mixed Model Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|Without Distance Filter||-0.81|-1.45|
90879394|NCT03556579|181619901|SUPERIORITY|"Superiority was concluded if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval was below 0.~No sample size calculation was performed for this study since historical data was not available for either study lens for any of the primary endpoints."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.173|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.16|-4.55|||Linear Mixed Model|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|||-4.55|-13.16|
90917347|NCT02299375|181703914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.6||||0.421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.45|5.26||Analysis was performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|Mixed Models Analysis||SGRQ Symptoms, Week 39|||5.26|-12.45|0.421
90917348|NCT02299375|181703914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.98||||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.35|3.4||Analysis was performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|Mixed Models Analysis||SGRQ Symptoms, Week 52|||3.40|-19.35|0.162
90917349|NCT02299375|181703914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.23||||0.592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.31|5.78||Analysis was performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|Mixed Models Analysis||SGRQ Activity, Week 12|||5.78|-3.31|0.592
90917350|NCT02299375|181703914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.03||||0.704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.31|6.36||Analysis was performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|Mixed Models Analysis||SGRQ Activity, Week 26|||6.36|-4.31|0.704
90879395|NCT03556579|181619901|SUPERIORITY|"Superiority was concluded if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval was below 0.~No sample size calculation was performed for this study since historical data was not available for either study lens for any of the primary endpoints."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.173|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.24|-20.62|||Linear Mixed Model Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|||-20.62|-29.24|
90879396|NCT03556579|181619902|SUPERIORITY|"Superiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval was above 0.~No sample size calculation was performed for this study since historical data was not available for either study lens for any of the primary endpoints."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.23|||Linear Mixed Model Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean Difference was calculated as Test minus Control|||0.23|0.15|
90879397|NCT03556579|181619903|SUPERIORITY|"Superiority was concluded if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval was below 0.~No sample size calculation was performed for this study since historical data was not available for either study lens for any of the primary endpoints."|Mean Ratio|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.65|||Generalized linear mixed model|Generalized Linear mixed model with a lognormal distribution using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.||||0.65|0.46|
90879398|NCT03556579|181619904|SUPERIORITY|"Superiority was concluded if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval was below 0.~No sample size calculation was performed for this study since historical data was not available for either study lens for any of the primary endpoints."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.15|||Linear Mixed Model|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean Difference was calculated as Test minus Control|||-0.15|-1.07|
90879399|NCT03556579|181619905|SUPERIORITY|"Superiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval was above 0.~No sample size calculation was performed for this study since historical data was not available for either study lens for any of the primary endpoints."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.23|||Linear Mixed Model Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean Difference was calculated as Test minus Control|||0.23|0.14|
90917351|NCT02299375|181703914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.41||||0.546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.32|5.5||Analysis was performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|Mixed Models Analysis||SGRQ Activity, Week 39|||5.50|-10.32|0.546
90961541|NCT01794923|181803722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean Difference|-0.4||||0.232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.23|||ANOVA|||10 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.23|-0.96|0.232
90917352|NCT02299375|181703914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.39||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.06|13.84||Analysis was performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|Mixed Models Analysis||SGRQ Activity, Week 52|||13.84|-5.06|0.350
90917353|NCT02299375|181703914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.69||||0.411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.75|2.37||Analysis was performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|Mixed Models Analysis||SGRQ Impact, Week 12|||2.37|-5.75|0.411
90917354|NCT02299375|181703914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.35||||0.896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.67|4.97||Analysis was performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|Mixed Models Analysis||SGRQ Impact, Week 26|||4.97|-5.67|0.896
90917355|NCT02299375|181703914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.21||||0.559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.73|5.3||Analysis was performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|Mixed Models Analysis||SGRQ Impact, Week 39|||5.30|-9.73|0.559
90917356|NCT02299375|181703914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.29||||0.809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.19|9.6||Analysis was performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|Mixed Models Analysis||SGRQ Impact, Week 52|||9.60|-12.19|0.809
90917357|NCT03087708|181703947|OTHER||||||<|1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Hematologic 3+ vs Hematologic \<3||||<1
90917358|NCT03087708|181703947|OTHER||||||<|0.7051|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Non-Hematologic 3+ vs Non-Hematologic \<3||||<0.7051
90917359|NCT03087708|181703947|OTHER||||||<|0.6546|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Hematologic 3+ vs Hematologic \<3||||<0.6546
90917360|NCT03087708|181703947|OTHER||||||<|0.7051|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Non-Hematologic 3+ vs Non-Hematologic \<3||||<0.7051
90917361|NCT03087708|181703947|OTHER||||||<|0.2262|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Non-Hematologic 3+ vs Non-Hematologic \<3||||<0.2262
90917362|NCT03087708|181703947|OTHER||||||<|1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Hematologic 3+ vs Hematologic \<3||||<1
90917363|NCT03087708|181703947|OTHER||||||<|1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Non-Hematologic 3+ vs Non-Hematologic \<3||||<1
90917364|NCT03087708|181703951|OTHER||||||<|0.68182|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.68182
90917365|NCT03087708|181703951|OTHER||||||<|0.1091|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.1091
90917366|NCT03087708|181703952|OTHER||||||<|1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<1.0
90917367|NCT03087708|181703952|OTHER||||||<|0.3339|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.3339
90917368|NCT03087708|181703953|OTHER||||||<|0.593|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.5930
90917369|NCT03087708|181703953|OTHER||||||<|0.3105|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.3105
90917370|NCT03087708|181703954|OTHER|||||||0.6024|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Average Pain Scores at Baseline||||0.6024
90917371|NCT03087708|181703954|OTHER||||||<|0.3116|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Average Pain Scores at Baseline||||<0.3116
90917372|NCT03087708|181703954|OTHER||||||<|0.7712|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Average Pain Scores at 6 Months||||<0.7712
90917373|NCT03087708|181703954|OTHER||||||<|1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Average Pain Scores at 6 Months||||<1.0
90917374|NCT03087708|181703955|OTHER||||||<|1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Analgesic Use at 6 Months||||<1.0000
90917375|NCT03087708|181703955|OTHER||||||<|0.5758|||||||Fisher Exact|||Analgesic Use at 6 Months||||<0.5758
90917376|NCT03087708|181703955|OTHER||||||<|1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Analgesic use at Baseline||||<1.0000
90917377|NCT03087708|181703955|OTHER|||||||0.593|||||||Fisher Exact|||Analgesic use at Baseline||||0.5930
90917378|NCT01996605|181703981|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||T|ANOVA|A one-way ANOVA was performed on the single primary outcome datapoint comparing the three groups.||The null hypothesis was that there would be no difference in area of hyperalgesia 105 minutes after study drug injection among the three groups.||||<0.05
90917379|NCT03546608|181703982|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Mean (%)|94.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|64.75|139.35||||||||139.35|64.75|
90917380|NCT03546608|181703982|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Mean (%)|87.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|59.93|128.98||||||||128.98|59.93|
90917381|NCT03546608|181703983|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Mean (%)|94.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|64.09|140.26||||||||140.26|64.09|
90917382|NCT03546608|181703983|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Mean (%)|87.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|58.94|129.0||||||||129.00|58.94|
90917383|NCT03546608|181703984|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Mean (%)|102.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.9|129.73||||||||129.73|80.90|
90917384|NCT03546608|181703984|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Mean (%)|71.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|56.08|89.93||||||||89.93|56.08|
90917385|NCT03546608|181703995|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Mean (%)|82.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|45.67|149.47|||||For MSC2571109|||149.47|45.67|
90917386|NCT03546608|181703995|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Mean (%)|136.59|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.5|247.12|||||For MSC2571109|||247.12|75.50|
90879400|NCT03556579|181619906|SUPERIORITY|"Superiority was concluded if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval was below 0.~No sample size calculation was performed for this study since historical data was not available for either study lens for any of the primary endpoints."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-30.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.555|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.66|-25.46|||Linear Mixed Model|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as Test minus Control.|||-25.46|-31.66|
90879401|NCT03556579|181619906|SUPERIORITY|"Superiority was concluded if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval was below 0.~No sample size calculation was performed for this study since historical data was not available for either study lens for any of the primary endpoints."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.555|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.48|-10.27|||Linear Mixed Model|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as Test Minus Control.|||-10.27|-20.48|
90879402|NCT04448210|181619917|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.25|||||||ANOVA|||||||<.25
90879403|NCT04448210|181619918|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||ANOVA|||||||.72
90879404|NCT04448210|181619919|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||ANOVA|||||||.16
90879405|NCT04448210|181619920|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||ANOVA|||||||.43
90879406|NCT04448210|181619921|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||ANOVA|||||||.69
90879407|NCT04448210|181619922|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||ANOVA|||||||.38
90879408|NCT04448210|181619923|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||ANOVA|||||||.94
90879409|NCT04448210|181619924|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||ANOVA|||||||.94
90879410|NCT04448210|181619925|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||ANOVA|||||||.30
90879411|NCT01324349|181619951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.0|||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank||Median difference equals control median minus Hemostatic Patch median in minutes.|The primary effectiveness endpoint was time to hemostasis. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate the survival distribution and to obtain the estimated median time to hemostasis for each treatment. Subjects who did not achieve hemostasis by 10 minutes were to be censored as of that time point. For each treatment, 95% Brookmeyer-Crowley confidence intervals for the median were computed based upon the sign test.||||<0.0001
90879412|NCT01324349|181619952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|23.2||||0.0339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|47.3|||Suissa and Shuster test||Risk difference equals percentage hemostasis for Hemostatic Patch minus percentage hemostasis for control.|The secondary effectiveness endpoint was hemostasis within 3 minutes. The number and percentage of subjects who achieved hemostasis within 3 minutes are presented for each treatment group. The proportions of subjects who achieved hemostasis within 3 minutes were compared between treatments using the Suissa and Shuster test. Additionally, a 95% Blyth-Still-Casella confidence interval for the true proportion was computed for each treatment.||47.3|1.9|0.0339
90879413|NCT01324349|181619953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|10.5||||0.5029|||||||Fisher Exact||Risk difference equals percent of subjects with any treatment emergent adverse events in control group minus percent of subjects with any treatment emergent adverse events in Hemostatic Patch group.|The incidence of subjects experiencing treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) (defined under this protocol as Adverse Events) was summarized by MedDRA system organ class (SOC) and preferred term (PT) for each treatment group for the safety population. Tests for differences between the two treatments in the proportion of subjects experiencing any adverse event were made using Fisher's Exact Test.||||0.5029
90879414|NCT00436748|181619978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Exact|||The null hypothesis for the Darbepoetin Alfa QW group was that the correction proportion (p) ≤ 0.8 ; Th alternative hypothesis was that p \> 0.8. The correction proportion was compared with 0.8 using the exact method to test the null hypothesis at a 1-sided overall significance level of 0.025.||||<0.001
90879415|NCT00436748|181619978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.293|||||||Exact|||The null hypothesis for the Darbepoetin Alfa Q2W group was that the correction proportion (p) ≤ 0.8 ; Th alternative hypothesis was that p \> 0.8. The correction proportion was compared with 0.8 using the exact method to test the null hypothesis at a 1-sided overall significance level of 0.025.||||0.293
90879416|NCT03754959|181620033|OTHER||Ratio|97.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.2|106.2|||||Ratio is calculated with Placebo+Midazolam on day 1 in the nominator and the Midazolam on day -1 in the denominator|The statistical model used for the analysis of the secondary endpoints was an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including 'treatment' ('midazolam' and 'midazolam + Placebo/BI') as fixed effect and 'subject' as random effect. The analysis was performed separately for Day 1 and Day 14.||106.2|90.2|
90879417|NCT03754959|181620033|OTHER||Ratio|95.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.9|102.4|||||Ratio is calculated with BI 1358894 10 mg+Midazolam on day 1 in the nominator and the Midazolam on day -1 in the denominator.|||102.4|89.9|
90879418|NCT03754959|181620033|OTHER||Ratio|101.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.3|106.1|||||Ratio is calculated with BI 1358894 25 mg+Midazolam on day 1 in the nominator and the Midazolam on day -1 in the denominator.|The statistical model used for the analysis of the secondary endpoints was an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including 'treatment' ('midazolam' and 'midazolam + Placebo/BI') as fixed effect and 'subject' as random effect. The analysis was performed separately for Day 1 and Day 14.||106.1|96.3|
90879419|NCT03754959|181620033|OTHER||Ratio|93.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.8|101.1|||||Ratio is calculated with BI 1358894 50 mg+Midazolam on day 1 in the nominator and the Midazolam on day -1 in the denominator.|The statistical model used for the analysis of the secondary endpoints was an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including 'treatment' ('midazolam' and 'midazolam + Placebo/BI') as fixed effect and 'subject' as random effect. The analysis was performed separately for Day 1 and Day 14.||101.1|86.8|
90917387|NCT03546608|181703995|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Mean (%)|100.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|54.53|185.1|||||For MSC2571107|||185.10|54.53|
90917388|NCT03546608|181703995|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Mean (%)|94.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|51.28|174.07|||||For MSC2571107|||174.07|51.28|
90917389|NCT03546608|181703996|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Mean (%)|82.35|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|45.56|148.84|||||For MSC2571109|||148.84|45.56|
90917390|NCT03546608|181703996|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Mean (%)|137.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.08|248.54|||||For MSC2571109|||248.54|76.08|
90917391|NCT03546608|181703996|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Mean (%)|100.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|55.16|184.23|||||For MSC2571107|||184.23|55.16|
90917392|NCT03546608|181703996|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Mean (%)|96.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|52.63|175.78|||||For MSC2571107|||175.78|52.63|
90917393|NCT03546608|181703997|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Mean (%)|92.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|62.52|136.26|||||For MSC2571109|||136.26|62.52|
90917394|NCT03546608|181703997|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Mean (%)|114.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.76|169.48|||||For MSC2571109|||169.48|77.76|
90917395|NCT03546608|181703997|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Mean (%)|106.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.25|161.49|||||For MSC2571107|||161.49|70.25|
90917396|NCT03546608|181703997|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Mean (%)|72.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|47.87|110.04|||||For MSC2571107|||110.04|47.87|
90917397|NCT04992390|181704005|SUPERIORITY|Poisson regression was performed with baseline measure and binary arm status included as fixed effect covariates. Various regression models for count data were compared to find the best fitting model. Visual exploratory data and model evaluation showed that the Zero Inflated Negative Binomial (ZINB) regression model provided the best fit and was used as the model for the ITT analysis of the primary outcome.|Incidence Rate Ratio|0.31|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.48||No multiplicity adjustments were applied as there was only one primary outcome, and secondary outcomes aimed to support the primary analyses. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Poisson|||For more information on analysis models see Iyadurai et al 2023, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-023-02578-0|See also Iyadurai et al 2023, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-023-02578-0|0.48|0.20|<= 0.001
90917398|NCT04992390|181704006|SUPERIORITY|Single level general Poisson regression was used to quantify within arm changes of number of intrusive memories in the delayed intervention arm, comparing pre-intervention (week 4) to post-intervention (week 8).|Incidence Rate Ratio|0.31|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.45||No multiplicity adjustments were applied as there was only one primary outcome, and secondary outcomes aimed to support the primary analyses. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Poisson|Single level general Poisson regression was used to quantify within arm changes of number of intrusive memories pre- to post-intervention.||Within the comparator arm, where participants had delayed access to the intervention (i.e., delayed arm crossover), the number of intrusive memories in week 8 was compared to week 4. For full information about statistical analysis see Iyadurai et al 2023, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-023-02578-0|For full results see Iyadurai et al 2023, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-023-02578-0|0.45|0.21|<= 0.001
90917399|NCT04992390|181704006|SUPERIORITY|Single level general Poisson regression was used to quantify within arm changes of number of intrusive memories in the immediate intervention arm, comparing pre-intervention (run-in/screening week) to post-intervention (week 4).|Incidence Rate Ratio|0.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.45||No multiplicity adjustments were applied as there was only one primary outcome, and secondary outcomes aimed to support the primary analyses. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Poisson|Single level general Poisson regression was used to quantify within arm changes of number of intrusive memories pre- to post-intervention.||Within the immediate intervention arm, where participants had immediate access to the intervention, the number of intrusive memories in Week 4 was compared to the run-in/screening week. For full information about statistical analysis see Iyadurai et al 2023, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-023-02578-0||0.45|0.10|<0.001
90961542|NCT01794923|181803722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.6||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|1.19|||ANOVA|||10 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||1.19|-0.08|0.089
90917400|NCT04992390|181704007|SUPERIORITY|Multilevel modelling (MLM) was performed with baseline measure, binary arm status, follow-up time and arm-by-time interaction included as fixed-effect covariates. Individual participant was also included as a level-two analytical unit, to quantify: (a) between-group treatment effect estimates and (b) within-group changes between each follow-up time for secondary outcome measures.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.63|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.72|-1.54||No multiplicity adjustments were applied as there was only one primary outcome, and secondary outcomes aimed to support the primary analyses. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Multilevel Linear|||ITT analysis for Intrusive memory ratings, 'How distressing were your intrusive memories?' (treatment effects for between-arm comparisons) at week 4. For full information on statistical analysis see Iyadurai et al 2023, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-023-02578-0|Please see Iyadurai et al., 2023 Supplementary Tables for within-subjects comparisons (Iyadurai, et al. Transl Psychiatry 13, 290 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-023-02578-0)|-1.54|-3.72|<= 0.001
90940552|NCT02630706|181760834|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted odds ratio based on a logistic regression model fitted with fixed effects for treatment anti-hyperglycemic medication status at screening (metformin alone, metformin + another AHA), Country (China, other), baseline eGFR (continuous) and baseline A1C (continuous). Missing data imputed using the cLDA model fitted with fixed effects as in the primary analysis.|Adjusted Odds Ratio relative to placebo|10.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.95|38.71||Nominal p-values were provided.|Logistic regression model|||||38.71|2.95|<0.001
90961543|NCT01794923|181803722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.19|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||11 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||||0.190
90961544|NCT01794923|181803722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.85|||ANOVA|||11 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.85|-0.31|0.365
90879420|NCT03754959|181620033|OTHER||Ratio|93.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.3|99.3|||||Ratio is calculated with BI 1358894 100 mg+Midazolam on day 1 in the nominator and the Midazolam on day -1 in the denominator.|The statistical model used for the analysis of the secondary endpoints was an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including 'treatment' ('midazolam' and 'midazolam + Placebo/BI') as fixed effect and 'subject' as random effect. The analysis was performed separately for Day 1 and Day 14.||99.3|87.3|
90879421|NCT03754959|181620033|OTHER||Ratio|90.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.8|96.7|||||Ratio is calculated with BI 1358894 200 mg+Midazolam on day 1 in the nominator and the Midazolam on day -1 in the denominator.|The statistical model used for the analysis of the secondary endpoints was an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including 'treatment' ('midazolam' and 'midazolam + Placebo/BI') as fixed effect and 'subject' as random effect. The analysis was performed separately for Day 1 and Day 14.||96.7|83.8|
90879422|NCT03754959|181620034|OTHER||Ratio|105.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.6|116.9|||||Ratio is calculated with Placebo+Midazolam on day 14 in the nominator and the Midazolam on day -1 in the denominator|The statistical model used for the analysis of the secondary endpoints was an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including 'treatment' ('midazolam' and 'midazolam + Placebo/BI') as fixed effect and 'subject' as random effect. The analysis was performed separately for Day 1 and Day 14.||116.9|95.6|
90879423|NCT03754959|181620034|OTHER||Ratio|117.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|106.5|129.6|||||Ratio is calculated with BI 1358894 10 mg+Midazolam on day 14 in the nominator and the Midazolam on day -1 in the denominator.|The statistical model used for the analysis of the secondary endpoints was an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including 'treatment' ('midazolam' and 'midazolam + Placebo/BI') as fixed effect and 'subject' as random effect. The analysis was performed separately for Day 1 and Day 14.||129.6|106.5|
90879424|NCT03754959|181620034|OTHER||Ratio|112.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.9|123.1|||||Ratio is calculated with BI 1358894 25 mg+Midazolam on day 14 in the nominator and the Midazolam on day -1 in the denominator.|The statistical model used for the analysis of the secondary endpoints was an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including 'treatment' ('midazolam' and 'midazolam + Placebo/BI') as fixed effect and 'subject' as random effect. The analysis was performed separately for Day 1 and Day 14.||123.1|102.9|
90879425|NCT03754959|181620034|OTHER||Ratio|110.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.1|135.1|||||Ratio is calculated with BI 1358894 50 mg+Midazolam on day 14 in the nominator and the Midazolam on day -1 in the denominator.|The statistical model used for the analysis of the secondary endpoints was an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including 'treatment' ('midazolam' and 'midazolam + Placebo/BI') as fixed effect and 'subject' as random effect. The analysis was performed separately for Day 1 and Day 14.||135.1|90.1|
90879426|NCT03754959|181620034|OTHER||Ratio|96.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.5|110.1|||||Ratio is calculated with BI 1358894 100 mg+Midazolam on day 14 in the nominator and the Midazolam on day -1 in the denominator.|The statistical model used for the analysis of the secondary endpoints was an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including 'treatment' ('midazolam' and 'midazolam + Placebo/BI') as fixed effect and 'subject' as random effect. The analysis was performed separately for Day 1 and Day 14.||110.1|84.5|
90879427|NCT03754959|181620034|OTHER||Ratio|89.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.9|106.4|||||Ratio is calculated with BI 1358894 200 mg+Midazolam on day 14 in the nominator and the Midazolam on day -1 in the denominator.|The statistical model used for the analysis of the secondary endpoints was an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including 'treatment' ('midazolam' and 'midazolam + Placebo/BI') as fixed effect and 'subject' as random effect. The analysis was performed separately for Day 1 and Day 14.||106.4|74.9|
90879428|NCT03754959|181620035|OTHER||Ratio|98.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.2|114.8|||||Ratio is calculated with Placebo+Midazolam on day 1 in the nominator and the Midazolam on day -1 in the denominator.|The statistical model used for the analysis of the secondary endpoints was an ANOVA mode lon the logarithmic scale including 'treatment' ('midazolam' and 'midazolam + Placebo/BI') as fixed effect and 'subject' as random effect. The analysis was performed separately for Day 1 and Day 14.||114.8|84.2|
90879429|NCT03754959|181620035|OTHER||Ratio|98.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.9|109.3|||||Ratio is calculated with BI 1358894 10mg +Midazolam on day 1 in the nominator and the Midazolam on day -1 in the denominator.|The statistical model used for the analysis of the secondary endpoints was an ANOVA mode lon the logarithmic scale including 'treatment' ('midazolam' and 'midazolam + Placebo/BI') as fixed effect and 'subject' as random effect. The analysis was performed separately for Day 1 and Day 14.||109.3|87.9|
90879430|NCT03754959|181620035|OTHER||Ratio|117.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.6|134.6|||||Ratio is calculated with BI 1358894 25 mg+Midazolam on day 1 in the nominator and the Midazolam on day -1 in the denominator.|The statistical model used for the analysis of the secondary endpoints was an ANOVA mode lon the logarithmic scale including 'treatment' ('midazolam' and 'midazolam + Placebo/BI') as fixed effect and 'subject' as random effect. The analysis was performed separately for Day 1 and Day 14.||134.6|102.6|
90879431|NCT03754959|181620035|OTHER||Ratio|94.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.5|104.4|||||Ratio is calculated with BI 1358894 50 mg+Midazolam on day 1 in the nominator and the Midazolam on day -1 in the denominator.|The statistical model used for the analysis of the secondary endpoints was an ANOVA mode lon the logarithmic scale including 'treatment' ('midazolam' and 'midazolam + Placebo/BI') as fixed effect and 'subject' as random effect. The analysis was performed separately for Day 1 and Day 14.||104.4|85.5|
90961545|NCT01794923|181803722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.27|||ANOVA|||11 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.27|-0.89|0.295
90879432|NCT03754959|181620035|OTHER||Ratio|98.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.3|99.3|||||Ratio is calculated with BI 1358894 100 mg+Midazolam on day 1 in the nominator and the Midazolam on day -1 in the denominator.|The statistical model used for the analysis of the secondary endpoints was an ANOVA mode lon the logarithmic scale including 'treatment' ('midazolam' and 'midazolam + Placebo/BI') as fixed effect and 'subject' as random effect. The analysis was performed separately for Day 1 and Day 14.||99.3|87.3|
90879433|NCT03754959|181620035|OTHER||Ratio|98.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.3|114.0|||||Ratio is calculated with BI 1358894 200 mg+Midazolam on day 1 in the nominator and the Midazolam on day -1 in the denominator.|The statistical model used for the analysis of the secondary endpoints was an ANOVA mode lon the logarithmic scale including 'treatment' ('midazolam' and 'midazolam + Placebo/BI') as fixed effect and 'subject' as random effect. The analysis was performed separately for Day 1 and Day 14.||114.0|84.3|
90879434|NCT03754959|181620036|OTHER||Ratio|95.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.3|112.1|||||Ratio is calculated with Placebo+Midazolam on day 14 in the nominator and the Midazolam on day -1 in the denominator.|The statistical model used for the analysis of the secondary endpoints was an ANOVA mode lon the logarithmic scale including 'treatment' ('midazolam' and 'midazolam + Placebo/BI') as fixed effect and 'subject' as random effect. The analysis was performed separately for Day 1 and Day 14.||112.1|81.3|
90879435|NCT03754959|181620036|OTHER||Ratio|105.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.5|122.0|||||Ratio is calculated with BI 1358894 10mg +Midazolam on day 14 in the nominator and the Midazolam on day -1 in the denominator.|The statistical model used for the analysis of the secondary endpoints was an ANOVA mode lon the logarithmic scale including 'treatment' ('midazolam' and 'midazolam + Placebo/BI') as fixed effect and 'subject' as random effect. The analysis was performed separately for Day 1 and Day 14.||122.0|91.5|
90879436|NCT03754959|181620036|OTHER||Ratio|116.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.9|148.7|||||Ratio is calculated with BI 1358894 25 mg+Midazolam on day 14 in the nominator and the Midazolam on day -1 in the denominator.|The statistical model used for the analysis of the secondary endpoints was an ANOVA mode lon the logarithmic scale including 'treatment' ('midazolam' and 'midazolam + Placebo/BI') as fixed effect and 'subject' as random effect. The analysis was performed separately for Day 1 and Day 14.||148.7|90.9|
90879437|NCT03754959|181620036|OTHER||Ratio|106.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.4|123.4|||||Ratio is calculated with BI 1358894 50 mg+Midazolam on day 14 in the nominator and the Midazolam on day -1 in the denominator.|The statistical model used for the analysis of the secondary endpoints was an ANOVA mode lon the logarithmic scale including 'treatment' ('midazolam' and 'midazolam + Placebo/BI') as fixed effect and 'subject' as random effect. The analysis was performed separately for Day 1 and Day 14.||123.4|92.4|
90879438|NCT03754959|181620036|OTHER||Ratio|83.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|71.2|98.9|||||Ratio is calculated with BI 1358894 100 mg+Midazolam on day 14 in the nominator and the Midazolam on day -1 in the denominator.|The statistical model used for the analysis of the secondary endpoints was an ANOVA mode lon the logarithmic scale including 'treatment' ('midazolam' and 'midazolam + Placebo/BI') as fixed effect and 'subject' as random effect. The analysis was performed separately for Day 1 and Day 14.||98.9|71.2|
90879439|NCT03754959|181620036|OTHER||Ratio|87.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|73.5|103.5|||||Ratio is calculated with BI 1358894 200 mg+Midazolam on day 14 in the nominator and the Midazolam on day -1 in the denominator.|The statistical model used for the analysis of the secondary endpoints was an ANOVA mode lon the logarithmic scale including 'treatment' ('midazolam' and 'midazolam + Placebo/BI') as fixed effect and 'subject' as random effect. The analysis was performed separately for Day 1 and Day 14.||103.5|73.5|
90879440|NCT03167879|181620042|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.79|40.49||||||||40.49|2.79|
90879441|NCT03167879|181620043|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|2.09||||||||2.09|0.25|
90879442|NCT03167879|181620044|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|257.6||||||||257.6|0.02|
90879443|NCT01067768|181620046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.3|||||The primary outcome analysis was performed using relative risk (RR) between the rate of urinary tract infection per 1,000 days of exposure of the test subjects to intervention and that of patients undergoing routine care.|The sample size was calculated for the primary outcome. An infection rate 15 per 1,000 urinary catheter days in the control group and an expected reduction in the intervention group 40% clinically important effect. Mapping one to one, 5% alpha error and beta error 20%.||1.3|0.50|
90879444|NCT01067768|181620047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016||95.0||||The difference between groups was evaluated with a U test Mann Whitney. The difference was statistically significant with p values less than 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: On average catheterization are the same in patients with daily review of the indication and control group patients||||0.016
90879445|NCT02972632|181620049|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change at Week 6 relative to baseline||||<0.001
90879446|NCT02972632|181620049|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change at Week 12 relative to baseline||||<0.001
90879447|NCT02972632|181620050|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change at Week 6 relative to baseline||||<0.001
90879448|NCT02972632|181620050|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change at Week 12 relative to baseline||||<0.001
90879449|NCT02972632|181620051|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change at Week 6 relative to baseline||||<0.001
90879450|NCT02972632|181620051|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change at Week 12 relative to baseline||||<0.001
90879451|NCT02972632|181620052|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change at Week 12 relative to baseline||||<0.001
90879452|NCT02972632|181620053|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change at Week 12 relative to baseline||||<0.001
90879453|NCT02972632|181620054|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change at Week 12 relative to baseline||||<0.001
90961546|NCT01794923|181803722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.6||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|1.2|||ANOVA|||11 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||1.20|-0.05|0.069
90917401|NCT04992390|181704007|SUPERIORITY|Multilevel modelling (MLM) was performed with baseline measure, binary arm status, follow-up time and arm-by-time interaction included as fixed-effect covariates. Individual participant was also included as a level-two analytical unit, to quantify: (a) between-group treatment effect estimates and (b) within-group changes between each follow-up time for secondary outcome measures.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.21|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.28|-2.15||No multiplicity adjustments were applied as there was only one primary outcome, and secondary outcomes aimed to support the primary analyses. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Multilevel Linear|||ITT analysis for Intrusive memory ratings, 'How much did they disrupt your concentration?' (treatment effects for between-arm comparisons) at week 4. For full information on statistical analysis see Iyadurai et al 2023, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-023-02578-0|Please see Iyadurai et al., 2023 Supplementary Tables for within-subjects comparisons (Iyadurai, et al. Transl Psychiatry 13, 290 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-023-02578-0)|-2.15|-4.28|<= 0.001
90917402|NCT04992390|181704007|SUPERIORITY|Multilevel modelling (MLM) was performed with baseline measure, binary arm status, follow-up time and arm-by-time interaction included as fixed-effect covariates. Individual participant was also included as a level-two analytical unit, to quantify: (a) between-group treatment effect estimates and (b) within-group changes between each follow-up time for secondary outcome measures.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.92|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|-1.95||No multiplicity adjustments were applied as there was only one primary outcome, and secondary outcomes aimed to support the primary analyses. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Multilevel Linear|||ITT analysis for Intrusive memory ratings, 'How much did they interfere with what you were doing?' (treatment effects for between-arm comparisons) at week 4. For full information on statistical analysis see Iyadurai et al 2023, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-023-02578-0|Please see Iyadurai et al., 2023 Supplementary Tables for within-subjects comparisons. (Iyadurai, et al. Transl Psychiatry 13, 290 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-023-02578-0)|-1.95|-3.90|<= 0.001
90917403|NCT04992390|181704007|SUPERIORITY|Multilevel modelling (MLM) was performed with baseline measure, binary arm status, follow-up time and arm-by-time interaction included as fixed-effect covariates. Individual participant was also included as a level-two analytical unit, to quantify: (a) between-group treatment effect estimates and (b) within-group changes between each follow-up time for secondary outcome measures.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.15|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.22|-1.08||No multiplicity adjustments were applied as there was only one primary outcome, and secondary outcomes aimed to support the primary analyses. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Multilevel Linear|||ITT analysis for Intrusive memory ratings, 'How much did your intrusive memories affect your work functioning?' (treatment effects for between-arm comparisons) at week 4. For full information on statistical analysis see Iyadurai et al 2023, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-023-02578-0|Please see Iyadurai et al., 2023 Supplementary Tables for within-subjects comparisons. (Iyadurai, et al. Transl Psychiatry 13, 290 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-023-02578-0)|-1.08|-3.22|<= 0.001
90917404|NCT04992390|181704007|SUPERIORITY|Multilevel modelling (MLM) was performed with baseline measure, binary arm status, follow-up time and arm-by-time interaction included as fixed-effect covariates. Individual participant was also included as a level-two analytical unit, to quantify: (a) between-group treatment effect estimates and (b) within-group changes between each follow-up time for secondary outcome measures.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.59|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.67|-1.51||No multiplicity adjustments were applied as there was only one primary outcome, and secondary outcomes aimed to support the primary analyses. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Multilevel Linear|||ITT analysis for Intrusive memory ratings, 'How much did your intrusive memories affect your functioning in other areas of your life?' (treatment effects for between-arm comparisons) at week 4. For full information on statistical analysis see Iyadurai et al 2023, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-023-02578-0|Please see Iyadurai et al., 2023 Supplementary Tables for within-subjects comparisons. (Iyadurai, et al. Transl Psychiatry 13, 290 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-023-02578-0)|-1.51|-3.67|<= 0.001
90917405|NCT04992390|181704010|SUPERIORITY|Multilevel modelling (MLM) was performed with baseline measure, binary arm status, follow-up time and arm-by-time interaction included as fixed-effect covariates. Individual participant was also included as a level-two analytical unit, to quantify: (a) between-group treatment effect estimates and (b) within-group changes between each follow-up time for secondary outcome measures.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.53||No multiplicity adjustments were applied as there was only one primary outcome, and secondary outcomes aimed to support the primary analyses. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Multilevel Linear|||ITT analysis for Impact of Event Scale-Revised Total Score (treatment effects for between-arm comparisons) at week 4.|Please see Iyadurai et al., 2023 Supplementary Materials for within-subjects comparisons. (Iyadurai, et al. Transl Psychiatry 13, 290 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-023-02578-0)|-0.53|-1.08|<= 0.001
90961547|NCT01794923|181803722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.197|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||12 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||||0.197
90961548|NCT01794923|181803722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.92|||ANOVA|||12 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.92|-0.29|0.309
90961549|NCT01794923|181803722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.33|||ANOVA|||12 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.33|-0.89|0.359
90961550|NCT01794923|181803722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.6||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|1.25|||ANOVA|||12 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||1.25|-0.05|0.072
90961551|NCT01794923|181803722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.151|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||24 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||||0.151
90879454|NCT03450707|181620083|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|2.5||"Mixed model controlling for repeated measures within patients used to get a mean difference in lactate between the thiamine and placebo groups at 24 hours.~Lactate imputed using a penalty (20pc increase) for patients who expired."|Mixed Models Analysis|P-value is for the comparison at 24 hours from the mixed model (i.e, not a global p-value)||||2.50|-1.82|0.72
90917406|NCT04992390|181704010|SUPERIORITY|Multilevel modelling (MLM) was performed with baseline measure, binary arm status, follow-up time and arm-by-time interaction included as fixed-effect covariates. Individual participant was also included as a level-two analytical unit, to quantify: (a) between-group treatment effect estimates and (b) within-group changes between each follow-up time for secondary outcome measures.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.95|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|-0.62||No multiplicity adjustments were applied as there was only one primary outcome, and secondary outcomes aimed to support the primary analyses. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Multilevel Linear|||ITT analysis for Impact of Event Scale-Revised Intrusion Subscale (treatment effects for between-arm comparisons) at week 4.|Please see Iyadurai et al., 2023 Supplementary Tables for within-subjects comparisons. (Iyadurai, et al. Transl Psychiatry 13, 290 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-023-02578-0)|-0.62|-1.27|<= 0.001
90940553|NCT02630706|181760835|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted Odds Ratio based on a logistic regression model fitted with fixed effects for treatment anti-hyperglycemic medication status at screening (metformin alone, metformin + another AHA), Country (China, other), baseline eGFR (continuous) and baseline A1C (continuous). Missing data imputed using the cLDA model fitted with fixed effects as in the primary analysis.|Adjusted Odds Ratio relative to placebo|8.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.52|27.6||Nominal p-values were provided.|Logistic regression model|||||27.60|2.52|<0.001
90961552|NCT01794923|181803722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.6||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.32|||ANOVA|||24 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||1.32|-0.10|0.090
90879455|NCT03450707|181620084|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|0.58|||Regression, Linear|||As AUC-VO2s turned out to be normally distributed, we used a linear regression model to compare mean AUC-VO2s between treatment groups controlling for average temperature.||0.58|-1.34|0.43
90879456|NCT03450707|181620085|OTHER|||||||0.88|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test, testing the null hypothesis that there is no difference in the distribution of 72-hour lactates between thiamine and placebo groups.|No parameter estimated other than p-value = 0.88 from Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|||0.88
90879457|NCT03450707|181620086|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.8||Mixed model controlling for repeated measures within patients used to get a mean difference in PDH specific activity between the thiamine and placebo groups at 72 hours.|Mixed Models Analysis|P-value is the global p-value from the mixed model. P-value is obtained from a model that uses a log-transformed version of the variable.||||0.80|0.01|0.072
90879458|NCT03450707|181620087|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|4.7||Mixed model controlling for repeated measures within patients used to get a mean difference in PDH activity between the thiamine and placebo groups at 72 hours.|Mixed Models Analysis|P-value is the global p-value from the mixed model. P-value is obtained from a model that uses a log-transformed version of the variable.||||4.7|0.1|0.044
90917407|NCT04992390|181704010|SUPERIORITY|Multilevel modelling (MLM) was performed with baseline measure, binary arm status, follow-up time and arm-by-time interaction included as fixed-effect covariates. Individual participant was also included as a level-two analytical unit, to quantify: (a) between-group treatment effect estimates and (b) within-group changes between each follow-up time for secondary outcome measures.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.75|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|-0.42||No multiplicity adjustments were applied as there was only one primary outcome, and secondary outcomes aimed to support the primary analyses. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Multilevel Linear|||ITT analysis for Impact of Event Scale-Revised Avoidance Subscale (treatment effects for between-arm comparisons) at week 4.|Please see Iyadurai et al., 2023 Supplementary Tables for within-subjects comparisons. (Iyadurai, et al. Transl Psychiatry 13, 290 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-023-02578-0)|-0.42|-1.09|<= 0.001
90917408|NCT04992390|181704010|SUPERIORITY|Multilevel modelling (MLM) was performed with baseline measure, binary arm status, follow-up time and arm-by-time interaction included as fixed-effect covariates. Individual participant was also included as a level-two analytical unit, to quantify: (a) between-group treatment effect estimates and (b) within-group changes between each follow-up time for secondary outcome measures.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.44||No multiplicity adjustments were applied as there was only one primary outcome, and secondary outcomes aimed to support the primary analyses. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Multilevel Linear|||ITT analysis for Impact of Event Scale-Revised Hyperarousal Subscale (treatment effects for between-arm comparisons) at week 4.|Please see Iyadurai et al., 2023 Supplementary Tables for within-subjects comparisons. (Iyadurai, et al. Transl Psychiatry 13, 290 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-023-02578-0)|-0.44|-0.97|<= 0.001
90879459|NCT03450707|181620088|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-48.5||||0.828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-297.0|200.0||Mixed model controlling for repeated measures within patients used to get a mean difference in PDH quantity between the thiamine and placebo groups at 72 hours.|Mixed Models Analysis|P-value is the global p-value from the mixed model. P-value is obtained from a model that uses a log-transformed version of the variable.||||200.0|-297.0|0.828
90879460|NCT03450707|181620091|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.34||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|4.22||Mixed model controlling for repeated measures within patients used to get a mean difference in SOFA scores between the thiamine and placebo groups at 72 hours.|Mixed Models Analysis|P-value is the global p-value from the mixed model.||||4.22|0.47|0.10
90879461|NCT03450707|181620093|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|1.6||Mixed model controlling for repeated measures within patients used to get a mean difference in Basal Respiration between the thiamine and placebo groups at 24 hours.|Mixed Models Analysis|P-value is the global p-value from the mixed model. P-value is obtained from a model that uses a log-transformed version of the variable.|Mean difference uses a non-logged version of the variable.|||1.6|-3.6|0.43
90879462|NCT03450707|181620094|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.76||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|1.78||Mixed model controlling for repeated measures within patients used to get a mean difference in creatinine between the thiamine and placebo groups at 72 hours.|Mixed Models Analysis|P-value is the global p-value from the mixed model. P-value is obtained from a model that uses a log-transformed version of the variable.||||1.78|-0.27|0.02
90879463|NCT00004412|181620099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of ulcers undergoing partial and complete healing compared at 12 weeks. Mean Ulcer areas were calculated utilizing computerized planimetry, ulcer area tracings, and photography for baseline and 12 weeks and compared between the two study Arms.||||0.05
90879464|NCT03917420|181620121|OTHER|Correlation|Spearman's Rho|-0.455|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90879465|NCT03917420|181620122|OTHER|Correlation|Spearman's Rho|0.152|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90879466|NCT03917420|181620123|OTHER|Correlation|Spearman's Rho|0.564|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90879467|NCT03917420|181620124|OTHER|Correlation|Spearman's Rho|0.285|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90879468|NCT00591942|181620132|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI were used|KM Survival Curves|0.5637||||0.5637|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|df=1||||||0.5637
90879469|NCT03373383|181620144|SUPERIORITY||Percent reduction|17.2|||=|0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|33.9||Adjusted p-values were from the Hochberg step-up procedure within SAS® Proc Multtest to control Type I error.|ANCOVA|||Percent reduction over placebo was calculated as 100\*(1-exp(diff)), where diff was the model estimate of the log ratio between each PSL group and placebo group.||33.9|-3.8|=0.102
90879470|NCT03373383|181620144|SUPERIORITY||Percent reduction|19.1|||=|0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|35.4||Adjusted p-values were from the Hochberg step-up procedure within SAS® Proc Multtest to control Type I error.|ANCOVA|||Percent reduction over placebo was calculated as 100\*(1-exp(diff)), where diff was the model estimate of the log ratio between each PSL group and placebo group.||35.4|-1.2|=0.064
90879471|NCT03373383|181620144|SUPERIORITY||Percent reduction|19.2|||=|0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|35.5||Adjusted p-values were from the Hochberg step-up procedure within SAS® Proc Multtest to control Type I error.|ANCOVA|||Percent reduction over placebo was calculated as 100\*(1-exp(diff)), where diff was the model estimate of the log ratio between each PSL group and placebo group.||35.5|-1.2|=0.063
90917409|NCT04992390|181704011|SUPERIORITY|Multilevel modelling (MLM) was performed with baseline measure, binary arm status, follow-up time and arm-by-time interaction included as fixed-effect covariates. Individual participant was also included as a level-two analytical unit, to quantify: (a) between-group treatment effect estimates and (b) within-group changes between each follow-up time for secondary outcome measures.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.29|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.52|-1.07||No multiplicity adjustments were applied as there was only one primary outcome, and secondary outcomes aimed to support the primary analyses. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Multilevel Linear|||ITT analysis for PTSD Checklist for DSM-5 (PCL-5) 4-item version (treatment effects for between-arm comparisons) at week 4.|Please see Iyadurai et al., 2023 Supplementary Materials for within-subjects comparisons.(Iyadurai, et al. Transl Psychiatry 13, 290 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-023-02578-0)|-1.07|-3.52|<= 0.001
90879472|NCT03373383|181620144|SUPERIORITY||Percent reduction|12.4|||=|0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|30.1||Adjusted p-values were from the Hochberg step-up procedure within SAS® Proc Multtest to control Type I error.|ANCOVA|||Percent reduction over placebo was calculated as 100\*(1-exp\[diff\]), where diff was the model estimate of the log ratio between each PSL group and placebo group.||30.1|-9.7|=0.248
90879473|NCT03373383|181620145|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.72|||=|0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|8.39||Nominal p-values were not adjusted for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||PSL dose/Placebo was calculated using logistic regression with categorical factors for treatment group, Region (Europe, Non-Europe), Baseline SV2A use (0, 1) and log-transformed Baseline seizure frequency as a continuous covariate.||8.39|0.88|=0.081
90879474|NCT03373383|181620145|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.37|||=|0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|7.41||Nominal p-values were not adjusted for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||PSL dose/Placebo was calculated using logistic regression with categorical factors for treatment group, Region (Europe, Non-Europe), Baseline SV2A use (0, 1) and log-transformed Baseline seizure frequency as a continuous covariate.||7.41|0.76|=0.137
90879475|NCT03373383|181620145|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.16|||=|0.192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|6.89||Nominal p-values were not adjusted for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||PSL dose/Placebo was calculated using logistic regression with categorical factors for treatment group, Region (Europe, Non-Europe), Baseline SV2A use (0, 1) and log-transformed Baseline seizure frequency as a continuous covariate.||6.89|0.68|=0.192
90879476|NCT03373383|181620145|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.14|||=|0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|9.42||Nominal p-values were not adjusted for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||PSL dose/Placebo was calculated using logistic regression with categorical factors for treatment group, Region (Europe, Non-Europe), Baseline SV2A use (0, 1) and log-transformed Baseline seizure frequency as a continuous covariate.||9.42|1.05|=0.041
90879477|NCT03373383|181620149|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.09|||=|0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|4.3||Nominal p-values were not adjusted for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||PSL dose/placebo calculated using logistic regression with categorical factors for treatment group (each PSL dose group referenced to the placebo group), region (Europe, Non-Europe), Baseline SV2A use (0, 1) and log-transformed Baseline seizure frequency as a continuous covariate.||4.30|1.02|=0.045
90879478|NCT03373383|181620149|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.91|||=|0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|3.93||Nominal p-values were not adjusted for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||PSL dose/placebo calculated using logistic regression with categorical factors for treatment group (each PSL dose group referenced to the placebo group), region (Europe, Non-Europe), Baseline SV2A use (0, 1) and log-transformed Baseline seizure frequency as a continuous covariate.||3.93|0.93|=0.079
90879479|NCT03373383|181620149|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44|||=|0.338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|3.02||Nominal p-values were not adjusted for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||PSL dose/placebo calculated using logistic regression with categorical factors for treatment group (each PSL dose group referenced to the placebo group), region (Europe, Non-Europe), Baseline SV2A use (0, 1) and log-transformed Baseline seizure frequency as a continuous covariate.||3.02|0.68|=0.338
90879480|NCT03373383|181620149|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.88|||=|0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|3.87||Nominal p-values were not adjusted for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||PSL dose/Placebo calculated using logistic regression with categorical factors for treatment group, Region (Europe, Non-Europe), Baseline SV2A use (0, 1) and log-transformed Baseline seizure frequency as a continuous covariate.||3.87|0.91|=0.087
90879481|NCT03373383|181620150|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|7.4|||=|0.316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.59|21.89||Nominal p-values were not adjusted for multiplicity.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Dose group comparisons to Placebo p-value were based on the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test. The Hodges-Lehmann nonparametric estimator was used to estimate the median difference between each PSL dose group versus placebo, along with the corresponding 95% CI of the estimate.||21.89|-6.59|=0.316
91033875|NCT01059903|181953591|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CI for the ratio of geometric LS-Means is included within 0.8-1.25, the patches are considered bioequivalent.|Ratio of geometric LS-Means|0.9506|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8833|1.0231|||ANOVA|ANOVA for log-transformed values has been used as the basis for calculation of point estimates (LS-Means) and Confidence Intervals (CIs).|Bioequivalence is concluded if the 90% CIs for the ratio Treatment A/ Treatment B are fully included in the acceptance range from 0.8- 1.25 for AUC(0-tz), AUC(0-inf) and Cmax.|Bioequivalence testing by using the 90% Confidence Interval (CI).||1.0231|0.8833|
90879482|NCT03373383|181620150|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|9.99|||=|0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.15|23.26||Nominal p-values were not adjusted for multiplicity.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Dose group comparisons to Placebo p-value were based on the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test. The Hodges-Lehmann nonparametric estimator was used to estimate the median difference between each PSL dose group versus placebo, along with the corresponding 95% CI of the estimate.||23.26|-3.15|=0.133
90879483|NCT03373383|181620150|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|8.19|||=|0.203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.95|21.37||Nominal p-values were not adjusted for multiplicity.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Dose group comparisons to Placebo p-value were based on the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test. The Hodges-Lehmann nonparametric estimator was used to estimate the median difference between each PSL dose group versus placebo, along with the corresponding 95% CI of the estimate.||21.37|-3.95|=0.203
90917410|NCT04992390|181704012|SUPERIORITY|Multilevel modelling (MLM) was performed with baseline measure, binary arm status, follow-up time and arm-by-time interaction included as fixed-effect covariates. Individual participant was also included as a level-two analytical unit, to quantify: (a) between-group treatment effect estimates and (b) within-group changes between each follow-up time for secondary outcome measures.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.38|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.56|8.2||No multiplicity adjustments were applied as there was only one primary outcome, and secondary outcomes aimed to support the primary analyses. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Multilevel Linear|||ITT analysis for Sleep Condition Indicator (SCI) (treatment effects for between-arm comparisons) at week 4.|Please see Iyadurai et al., 2023 Supplementary Materials for within-subjects comparisons. (Iyadurai, et al. Transl Psychiatry 13, 290 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-023-02578-0)|8.20|2.56|<= 0.001
90917411|NCT04992390|181704013|SUPERIORITY|Multilevel modelling (MLM) was performed with baseline measure, binary arm status, follow-up time and arm-by-time interaction included as fixed-effect covariates. Individual participant was also included as a level-two analytical unit, to quantify: (a) between-group treatment effect estimates and (b) within-group changes between each follow-up time for secondary outcome measures.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.93|||<=|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|-0.17||No multiplicity adjustments were applied as there was only one primary outcome, and secondary outcomes aimed to support the primary analyses. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Multilevel Linear|||ITT analysis for Generalised Anxiety Disorder 2-item scale (GAD-2) (treatment effects for between-arm comparisons) at week 4.|Please see Iyadurai et al., 2023 Supplementary Materials for within-subjects comparisons. (Iyadurai, et al. Transl Psychiatry 13, 290 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-023-02578-0)|-0.17|-1.68|<=0.05
90917412|NCT04992390|181704014|SUPERIORITY|Multilevel modelling (MLM) was performed with baseline measure, binary arm status, follow-up time and arm-by-time interaction included as fixed-effect covariates. Individual participant was also included as a level-two analytical unit, to quantify: (a) between-group treatment effect estimates and (b) within-group changes between each follow-up time for secondary outcome measures.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|0.19||No multiplicity adjustments were applied as there was only one primary outcome, and secondary outcomes aimed to support the primary analyses. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Multilevel Linear|||ITT analysis for Patient Health Questionnaire 2-item version (PHQ-2) (treatment effects for between-arm comparisons) at week 4.|Please see Iyadurai et al., 2023 Supplementary Materials for within-subjects comparisons.(Iyadurai, et al. Transl Psychiatry 13, 290 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-023-02578-0)|0.19|-1.23|> .05
90961553|NCT01794923|181803722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.66|||ANOVA|||24 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.66|-0.76|0.889
91033876|NCT01059903|181953592|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CI for the ratio of geometric LS-Means is included within 0.8-1.25, the patches are considered bioequivalent.|Ratio of geometric LS-Means|0.9046|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8437|0.9699|||ANOVA|ANOVA for log-transformed values has been used as the basis for calculation of point estimates (LS-Means) and Confidence Intervals (CIs).|Bioequivalence is concluded if the 90% CIs for the ratio Treatment A/ Treatment B are fully included in the acceptance range from 0.8- 1.25 for AUC(0-tz), AUC(0-inf) and Cmax.|Bioequivalence testing by using the 90% Confidence Interval (CI).||0.9699|0.8437|
90879484|NCT03373383|181620150|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|2.39|||=|0.784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.65|17.79||Nominal p-values were not adjusted for multiplicity.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Dose group comparisons to Placebo p-value were based on the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test. The Hodges-Lehmann nonparametric estimator was used to estimate the median difference between each PSL dose group versus placebo, along with the corresponding 95% CI of the estimate.||17.79|-13.65|=0.784
90879485|NCT03317431|181620154|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Regression, Linear|||Analysis the relationship between the duration of mechanical ventilation with DRD1 expression.||||<0.01
90879486|NCT03317431|181620155|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.01|||||||Regression, Linear|||Analysis the relationship between the duration of mechanical ventilation with DRD2 expression.||||>0.01
90879487|NCT03317431|181620156|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.01|||||||Regression, Linear|||Analysis the relationship between the duration of mechanical ventilation with TH expression.||||>0.01
90879488|NCT03317431|181620157|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.01|||||||Regression, Linear|||Analysis the relationship between the duration of mechanical ventilation with DDC expression.||||>0.01
90879489|NCT03317431|181620158|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Regression, Linear|||Analysis the relationship between the duration of mechanical ventilation with Ac-a-tubulin expression.||||<0.01
90879490|NCT00544076|181620176|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin that would be possible to detect (had the protocol reached intended accrual) was 20%,|||||>|0.1||||||no adjustments were made.|Fisher Exact|||||||>0.1
90879491|NCT00544076|181620177|OTHER||||||>|0.1||||||no adjustments done|Chi-squared|no adjustments||compare percentage of patients potent at 6 and 18 months across pairs of treatment arms (arm I vs arm II, arm I vs arm III, arm II vs arm III)||||>0.1
90879492|NCT00544076|181620178|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||no adjustments done.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
90879493|NCT00544076|181620179|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|||||no adjustments|ANOVA|no adjustments for df||"ANOVA test to compare difference of penile length (from baseline to month 18) across arms.~calculations are underpowered, as study did not accrue or retain patients as intended, and many patients declined to have measurements taken."||||0.08
90879494|NCT02907359|181620180|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.6063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.19||OS between Guadecitabine vs Treatment Choice using stratified log-rank test. Due to pre-specified hierarchical testing plan, other endpoints were not evaluated for statistical significance.|Stratified Log-rank test|||||1.19|0.74|0.6063
90879495|NCT00746941|181620232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7132|||||||Student's t-test|||||||0.7132
90879496|NCT00746941|181620233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9086|||||||Student's t-test|||||||0.9086
90879497|NCT04654117|181620252|SUPERIORITY|Multilevel model predicting the effect of the overall consultation model on manual adherence, averaged across clinicians.|unstandardized beta|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.85|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||multilevel model|||||||<.05
90879498|NCT04654117|181620253|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||multilevel model|||||||<.05
90879499|NCT04654117|181620254|OTHER|multilevel modeling|multilevel modeling|2.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||multilevel modeling|||||||<.05
90879500|NCT04654117|181620255|SUPERIORITY||ANOVA|17.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<.05
90879501|NCT04654117|181620256|OTHER|multilevel model|multilevel model|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||multilevel model|||||||<.05
90879502|NCT04654117|181620257|OTHER|multilevel model|multilevel model (beta)|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||multilevel model|||||||<.05
90879503|NCT01354496|181620258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares means|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.897|1.18|||||AUC0-∞ was log-transformed and analyzed using a linear mixed effects model with fixed factors for formulation, sequence, and period, and random factor for participant.|||1.18|0.897|
90879504|NCT01354496|181620259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares means|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.922|1.22|||||Cmax was log-transformed and analyzed using a linear mixed effects model with fixed factors for formulation, sequence, and period, and random factor for participant.|||1.22|0.922|
90879505|NCT01354496|181620260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares means|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.896|1.16|||||AUC0-∞ was log-transformed and analyzed using a linear mixed effects model with fixed factors for formulation, sequence, and period, and random factor for participant.|||1.16|0.896|
90879506|NCT01354496|181620261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares means|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.882|1.15|||||Cmax was log-transformed and analyzed using a linear mixed effects model with fixed factors for formulation, sequence, and period, and random factor for participant.|||1.15|0.882|
90879507|NCT01354496|181620263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares means|0.993|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.951|1.04|||||AUC0-∞ was log-transformed and analyzed using a linear mixed effects model with fixed factors for formulation, sequence, and period, and random factor for participant.|||1.04|0.951|
90879508|NCT01354496|181620263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares means|0.943|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.905|0.983|||||AUC0-∞ was log-transformed and analyzed using a linear mixed effects model with fixed factors for formulation, sequence, and period, and random factor for participant.|||0.983|0.905|
90879509|NCT01354496|181620264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares means|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.926|1.04|||||Cmax was log-transformed and analyzed using a linear mixed effects model with fixed factors for formulation, sequence, and period, and random factor for participant.|||1.04|0.926|
90879510|NCT01354496|181620264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares means|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.891|0.993|||||Cmax was log-transformed and analyzed using a linear mixed effects model with fixed factors for formulation, sequence, and period, and random factor for participant.|||0.993|0.891|
90879511|NCT05045144|181620282|OTHER|The lot-to-lot consistency is demonstrated only if two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the 3 pair-wise geometric mean ratios of RSV MAT IgG ELISA concentration falls within 0.67 and 1.5.|GMC Ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.13|||GMC ratio|||To demonstrate lot-to-lot consistency of the immune responses of Lot 1 and Lot 2 of the RSV MAT vaccine, as measured by ELISA in terms of IgG GMCs at Day 31.||1.13|0.92|
90879512|NCT05045144|181620282|OTHER|The lot-to-lot consistency is demonstrated only if two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the 3 pair-wise geometric mean ratios of RSV MAT IgG ELISA concentration falls within 0.67 and 1.5.|GMC ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.05|||GMC ratio|||To demonstrate lot-to-lot consistency of the immune responses of Lot 1 and Lot 3 of the RSV MAT vaccine, as measured by ELISA in terms of IgG GMCs at Day 31.||1.05|0.85|
90961554|NCT01794923|181803722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.7||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.42|||ANOVA|||24 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||1.42|-0.10|0.088
90879513|NCT05045144|181620282|OTHER|The lot-to-lot consistency is demonstrated only if two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the 3 pair-wise geometric mean ratios of RSV MAT IgG ELISA concentration falls within 0.67 and 1.5.|GMC ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.03|||GMC ratio|||To demonstrate lot-to-lot consistency of the immune responses of Lot 2 and Lot 3 of the RSV MAT vaccine, as measured by ELISA in terms of IgG GMCs at Day 31.||1.03|0.83|
90879514|NCT05045144|181620283|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority of Flu D-QIV vaccine is demonstrated for the A/Tasmania/503/2020 (H3N2) IVR-221 strain, if the lower limit (LL) of the 95% CI on the GMT ratio (RSV MAT + Flu D-QIV vaccine divided by Flu D-QIV vaccine) is greater than 0.67 at Day 31 post vaccination.|GMC ratio|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.82|||GMC ratio|||To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of the Flu D-QIV vaccine when co-administered with RSV MAT vaccine compared to Flu D-QIV vaccine given alone as measured by the ratio of HI GMTs of Flu D-QIV antibody titers against A/Tasmania/503/2020 (H3N2) IVR-221 strain at 30 days post administration (Day 31).||0.82|0.63|
90917413|NCT04992390|181704015|SUPERIORITY|Multilevel modelling (MLM) was performed with baseline measure, binary arm status, follow-up time and arm-by-time interaction included as fixed-effect covariates. Individual participant was also included as a level-two analytical unit, to quantify: (a) between-group treatment effect estimates and (b) within-group changes between each follow-up time for secondary outcome measures.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.49|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.48|-4.51||No multiplicity adjustments were applied as there was only one primary outcome, and secondary outcomes aimed to support the primary analyses. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Multilevel Linear|||ITT analysis for Psychological Outcome Profiles (PSYCHLOPS) (treatment effects for between-arm comparisons) at week 4.|Please see Iyadurai et al., 2023 Supplementary Materials for within-subjects comparisons. (Iyadurai, et al. Transl Psychiatry 13, 290 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-023-02578-0)|-4.51|-8.48|<= 0.001
90917414|NCT04992390|181704016|SUPERIORITY|Multilevel modelling (MLM) was performed with baseline measure, binary arm status, follow-up time and arm-by-time interaction included as fixed-effect covariates. Individual participant was also included as a level-two analytical unit, to quantify: (a) between-group treatment effect estimates and (b) within-group changes between each follow-up time for secondary outcome measures.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.78|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.06|-4.5||No multiplicity adjustments were applied as there was only one primary outcome, and secondary outcomes aimed to support the primary analyses. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Multilevel Linear|||ITT analysis for World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 12-item version (WHODAS 2.0) (treatment effects for between-arm comparisons) at week 4.|Please see Iyadurai et al., 2023 Supplementary Materials for within-subjects comparisons. (Iyadurai, et al. Transl Psychiatry 13, 290 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-023-02578-0)|-4.50|-15.06|<= 0.001
90917415|NCT04992390|181704017|SUPERIORITY|Multilevel modelling (MLM) was performed with baseline measure, binary arm status, follow-up time and arm-by-time interaction included as fixed-effect covariates. Individual participant was also included as a level-two analytical unit, to quantify: (a) between-group treatment effect estimates and (b) within-group changes between each follow-up time for secondary outcome measures.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.32|||<=|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.61|20.04||No multiplicity adjustments were applied as there was only one primary outcome, and secondary outcomes aimed to support the primary analyses. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Multilevel Linear|||ITT analysis for 5-level European Quality of Life 5 Dimension (EQ-5D-5L) (treatment effects for between-arm comparisons) at week 4.|Please see Iyadurai et al., 2023 for EQ-5D-5L subscale comparisons and Iyadurai et al., 2023 Supplementary Materials for within-subjects comparisons. (Iyadurai, et al. Transl Psychiatry 13, 290 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-023-02578-0)|20.04|4.61|<= 0.01
90917416|NCT04992390|181704018|SUPERIORITY|Multilevel modelling (MLM) was performed with baseline measure, binary arm status, follow-up time and arm-by-time interaction included as fixed-effect covariates. Individual participant was also included as a level-two analytical unit, to quantify: (a) between-group treatment effect estimates and (b) within-group changes between each follow-up time for secondary outcome measures.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.46|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.71||No multiplicity adjustments were applied as there was only one primary outcome, and secondary outcomes aimed to support the primary analyses. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Multilevel Linear|||ITT analysis for Scale of Work Engagement and Burnout (SWEBO) - Work Engagement Subscale (treatment effects for between-arm comparisons) at week 4.|Please see Iyadurai et al., 2023 Supplementary Tables for within-subjects comparisons. (Iyadurai, et al. Transl Psychiatry 13, 290 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-023-02578-0)|0.71|0.20|<= 0.001
90961555|NCT01794923|181803722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.673|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||30 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||||0.673
90961556|NCT01794923|181803722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|1.04|||ANOVA|||30 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||1.04|-0.41|0.393
90879515|NCT05045144|181620283|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority of Flu D-QIV vaccine is demonstrated for B/Washington/02/2019 strain, if the lower limit (LL) of the 95% CI on the GMT ratio (RSV MAT + Flu D-QIV vaccine divided by Flu D-QIV vaccine) is greater than 0.67 at Day 31 post vaccination.|GMC ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.1|||GMC ratio|||To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of the Flu D-QIV vaccine when co-administered with RSV MAT vaccine compared to Flu D-QIV vaccine given alone as measured by the ratio of HI GMTs of Flu D-QIV antibody titers against B/Washington/02/2019 strain at 30 days post administration (Day 31).||1.10|0.79|
90879516|NCT05045144|181620283|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority of Flu D-QIV vaccine is demonstrated for B/Phuket/3073/2013 strain, if the lower limit (LL) of the 95% CI on the GMT ratio (RSV MAT + Flu D-QIV vaccine divided by Flu D-QIV vaccine) is greater than 0.67 at Day 31 post vaccination.|GMC ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.93|||GMC ratio|||To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of the Flu D-QIV vaccine when co-administered with RSV MAT vaccine compared to Flu D-QIV vaccine given alone as measured by the ratio of HI GMTs of Flu D-QIV antibody titers against B/Phuket/3073/2013 strain at 30 days post administration (Day 31).||0.93|0.69|
90879517|NCT05045144|181620284|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority of RSV MAT vaccine is demonstrated for RSV A neutralizing antibody titers, if the LL of the 95% CI on the GMT ratio (RSV MAT + Flu D-QIV vaccine divided by RSV MAT vaccine) is greater than 0.67 at Day 31 post vaccination.|GMC ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|0.97|||GMC ratio|||To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of the RSV MAT vaccine when co-administered with Flu D-QIV vaccine, compared to RSV MAT vaccine given alone as measured by the ratio of GMTs of RSV A neutralizing antibody titers at 30 days post administration (Day 31).||0.97|0.78|
90879518|NCT05045144|181620285|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority of Flu D-QIV vaccine is demonstrated with respect to the SCR difference for Flu D-QIV antibody titers against A/Tasmania/503/2020 (H3N2) IVR-221 strain, if the upper limit (UL) of the 95% CI on the SCR difference (Flu D-QIV vaccine minus RSV MAT + Flu D-QIV vaccine) is less than or equal to the pre-defined clinical limit of 10% at Day 31 post vaccination.|Difference of Proportion|3.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.44|10.29|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of the Flu D-QIV vaccine when co-administered with RSV MAT vaccine compared to Flu D-QIV vaccine given alone as measured by the difference of proportion of participants achieving seroconversion for HI antibody titers against A/Tasmania/503/2020 (H3N2) IVR-221 strain at 30 days post administration (Day 31).||10.29|-3.44|
90879519|NCT05045144|181620285|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority of Flu D-QIV vaccine is demonstrated with respect to the SCR difference for Flu D-QIV antibody titers against B/Washington/02/2019 strain, if the upper limit (UL) of the 95% CI on the SCR difference (Flu D-QIV vaccine minus RSV MAT + Flu D-QIV vaccine) is less than or equal to the pre-defined clinical limit of 10% at Day 31 post vaccination.|Difference of Proportion|4.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|10.32|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of the Flu D-QIV vaccine when co-administered with RSV MAT vaccine compared to Flu D-QIV vaccine given alone as measured by the difference of proportion of participants achieving seroconversion for HI antibody titers against B/Washington/02/2019 strain at 30 days post administration (Day 31).||10.32|-2.04|
90879520|NCT05045144|181620285|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority of Flu D-QIV vaccine is demonstrated with respect to the SCR difference for Flu D-QIV antibody titers against B/Phuket/3073/2013 strain, if the upper limit (UL) of the 95% CI on the SCR difference (Flu D-QIV vaccine minus RSV MAT + Flu D-QIV vaccine) is less than or equal to the pre-defined clinical limit of 10% at Day 31 post vaccination.|Difference of Proportion|4.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.46|10.58|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of the Flu D-QIV vaccine when co-administered with RSV MAT vaccine compared to Flu D-QIV vaccine given alone as measured by the difference of proportion of participants achieving seroconversion for HI antibody titers against B/Phuket/3073/2013 strain at 30 days post administration (Day 31).||10.58|-2.46|
90917417|NCT04992390|181704018|SUPERIORITY|Multilevel modelling (MLM) was performed with baseline measure, binary arm status, follow-up time and arm-by-time interaction included as fixed-effect covariates. Individual participant was also included as a level-two analytical unit, to quantify: (a) between-group treatment effect estimates and (b) within-group changes between each follow-up time for secondary outcome measures.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.34||No multiplicity adjustments were applied as there was only one primary outcome, and secondary outcomes aimed to support the primary analyses. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Multilevel Linear|||ITT analysis for Scale of Work Engagement and Burnout (SWEBO) - Work Burnout Subscale (treatment effects for between-arm comparisons) at week 4.|Please see Iyadurai et al., 2023 Supplementary Tables for within-subjects comparisons. (Iyadurai, et al. Transl Psychiatry 13, 290 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-023-02578-0)|-0.34|-0.87|<= 0.001
91033877|NCT02100228|181953627|SUPERIORITY|This was a descriptive study, and there was no formal pre-defined hypothesis testing.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.0||||0.0151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.6425||nominal p-value|Fisher Exact|||Display exact confidence limits for relative risk and Fisher's exact test for comparisons of two proportions.||0.6425|0.0000|0.0151
90879521|NCT00744627|181620296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.981|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.74|-1.88||Pre-specified sequential statistical testing procedure indicates that when p-value \<0.05, hierarchical testing continues.|Mixed model for repeated measurements|P-values were from a MMRM with Baseline-by-week, center, week and week-by-treatment as factors in the analysis.||P-values were tested at the 5% level of significance (ie, statistical significance if P\<0.05). To control for multiplicity, a pre-specified sequential testing procedure was applied to compare 5 mg vortioxetine to placebo; as soon as an endpoint was non-significant at 0.05, the testing procedure stopped for all subsequent endpoints.||-1.88|-5.74|<0.001
90879522|NCT00744627|181620297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.555|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.39|-1.2||Pre-specified sequential statistical testing procedure indicates that when p-value \<0.05, hierarchical testing continues.|Mixed model for repeated measurements|P-values were from a MMRM with Baseline-by-week, center, week and week-by-treatment as factors in the analysis||||-1.20|-3.39|<0.001
90879523|NCT00744627|181620298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.138|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.19||Pre-specified sequential statistical testing procedure indicates that when p-value \<0.05, hierarchical testing continues.|Mixed model for repeated measurements|P-values were from a MMRM with Baseline-by-week, center, week and week-by-treatment as factors in the analysis.||||-0.19|-0.73|<0.001
90879524|NCT00744627|181620299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.901||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.74|-0.18||Pre-specified sequential statistical testing procedure indicates that when p-value \<0.05, hierarchical testing continues.|Mixed model for repeated measurements|P-values were from a MMRM with Baseline-by-week, center, week and week-by-treatment as factors in the analysis.||||-0.18|-3.74|0.031
90879525|NCT00744627|181620300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.393|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.496|3.83||Pre-specified sequential statistical testing procedure indicates that when p-value \<0.05, hierarchical testing continues.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with explanatory variables for treatment and Baseline HAM-A score.||||3.830|1.496|<0.001
90879526|NCT00744627|181620301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.267|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.61|-2.6||Pre-specified sequential statistical testing procedure indicates that when p-value \<0.05, hierarchical testing continues.|Mixed model for repeated measurements|P-values were from a MMRM with Baseline-by-week, center, week and week-by-treatment as factors in the analysis.||||-2.60|-7.61|<0.001
90917418|NCT04992390|181704019|SUPERIORITY|Multilevel modelling (MLM) was performed with baseline measure, binary arm status, follow-up time and arm-by-time interaction included as fixed-effect covariates. Individual participant was also included as a level-two analytical unit, to quantify: (a) between-group treatment effect estimates and (b) within-group changes between each follow-up time for secondary outcome measures.|Incidence Rate Ratio|1.5|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|3.51||No multiplicity adjustments were applied as there was only one primary outcome, and secondary outcomes aimed to support the primary analyses. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Multilevel Poisson|||ITT analysis for Sickness absence (treatment effects for between-arm comparisons) at week 4.|Please see Iyadurai et al., 2023 Supplementary Materials for within-subjects comparisons. (Iyadurai, et al. Transl Psychiatry 13, 290 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-023-02578-0)|3.51|0.64|> .05
90917419|NCT04992390|181704020|SUPERIORITY|Multilevel modelling (MLM) was performed with baseline measure, binary arm status, follow-up time and arm-by-time interaction included as fixed-effect covariates. Individual participant was also included as a level-two analytical unit, to quantify: (a) between-group treatment effect estimates and (b) within-group changes between each follow-up time for secondary outcome measures.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.86|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.49||No multiplicity adjustments were applied as there was only one primary outcome, and secondary outcomes aimed to support the primary analyses. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Multilevel Linear|||ITT analysis for Intention to leave job (treatment effects for between-arm comparisons) at week 4.|Please see Iyadurai et al., 2023 Supplementary Tables for within-subjects comparisons. (Iyadurai, et al. Transl Psychiatry 13, 290 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-023-02578-0)|0.49|-2.20|> .05
90879527|NCT00744627|181620302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|8.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.774||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.32|14.25||SF-36 social functioning subscore was the last endpoint to be tested in the hierarchical testing sequence.|Mixed model for repeated measurements|P-values were from a MMRM with Baseline-by-week, center, week and week-by-treatment as factors in the analysis.||Results presented are for the number of participants at week 8 only.||14.25|3.32|0.002
90879528|NCT04809220|181620323|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.14|-0.43|<.001
90879529|NCT04809220|181620324|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.15|-0.47|<.001
90879530|NCT04809220|181620325|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.87|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLM)|||For HbA1c ≤6.5%||1.87|0.71|0.560
90879531|NCT04809220|181620325|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.61||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|2.45|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLM)|||For HbA1c \< 7%||2.45|1.05|0.028
90879532|NCT04809220|181620326|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|-4.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.3|-14.4|<.001
90879533|NCT04809220|181620327|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.2||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|-2.7|||ANCOVA|||Morning premeal-fasting||-2.7|-11.7|0.002
90879534|NCT04809220|181620327|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-10.1||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.3|-1.9|||ANCOVA|||Morning 2-hour post meal||-1.9|-18.3|0.016
90879535|NCT04809220|181620327|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-8.3||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.2|-2.3|||ANCOVA|||Midday premeal||-2.3|-14.2|0.007
90879536|NCT04809220|181620327|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-12.5||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.5|-4.5|||ANCOVA|||Midday 2-hour post meal||-4.5|-20.5|0.002
90940554|NCT02630706|181760835|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted odds ratio based on a logistic regression model fitted with fixed effects for treatment, anti-hyperglycemic medication status at screening (metformin alone, metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous) and baseline A1C (continuous). Missing data imputed using the cLDA model fitted with fixed effects as in the primary analysis.|Adjusted Odds Ratio relative to placebo|8.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.44|28.11||Nominal p-values were provided.|Logistic regression model|||||28.11|2.44|<0.001
90940555|NCT02630706|181760836|OTHER||Difference in % (Ert. 15 mg. - placebo)|-9.0|||<|0.001||95.0|-14.5|-5.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by country ('China' or 'other') for the overall population.||||-5.0|-14.5|<0.001
90879537|NCT04809220|181620327|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.9||||0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|1.5|||ANCOVA|||Evening premeal||1.5|-9.3|0.158
90879538|NCT04809220|181620327|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-11.3||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|-3.7|||ANCOVA|||Evening 2-hour post meal||-3.7|-19.0|0.004
90879539|NCT04809220|181620328|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.2|-0.8|0.213
90879540|NCT02968979|181620353|OTHER|||||||0.0032|||||||likelihood-ratio test|||Statistical analysis applies to all rows and columns.||||0.0032
90879541|NCT02968979|181620353|OTHER|||||||0.0008|||||||Chi-squared|||"Statistical Analysis 2 for Frequency of the Different Stages of Cachexia, excluding the refractory cachexia stage, in the General NSCLC Population According to Molecular Abnormalities Associated With NSCLC.~Statistical analysis applies to all rows and columns."||||0.0008
90879542|NCT02968979|181620363|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Statistical analysis compares all cachexia stages.||||<0.0001
90879543|NCT02968979|181620363|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Without refractory cachexia|Kruskal-Wallis|Without refractory cachexia||Statistical analysis compares all cachexia stages.||||<0.0001
90879544|NCT02968979|181620363|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Statistical analysis compares all cachexia stages.||||<0.0001
90879545|NCT02968979|181620363|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Without refractory cachexia|Kruskal-Wallis|Without refractory cachexia||Statistical analysis compares all cachexia stages.||||<0.0001
90879546|NCT02968979|181620363|OTHER|||||||0.1085|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Statistical analysis compares all cachexia stages.||||0.1085
90879547|NCT02968979|181620363|OTHER|||||||0.0482||||||Without refractory cachexia|Kruskal-Wallis|Without refractory cachexia||Statistical analysis compares all cachexia stages.||||0.0482
90879548|NCT02968979|181620363|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Statistical analysis compares all cachexia stages.||||<0.0001
90879549|NCT02968979|181620363|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Without refractory cachexia|Kruskal-Wallis|Without refractory cachexia||Statistical analysis compares all cachexia stages.||||<0.0001
90879550|NCT02968979|181620363|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Statistical analysis compares all cachexia stages.||||<0.0001
90879551|NCT02968979|181620363|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Without refractory cachexia|Kruskal-Wallis|Without refractory cachexia||Statistical analysis compares all cachexia stages.||||<0.0001
90917420|NCT04992390|181704021|SUPERIORITY|Multilevel modelling (MLM) was performed with baseline measure, binary arm status, follow-up time and arm-by-time interaction included as fixed-effect covariates. Individual participant was also included as a level-two analytical unit, to quantify: (a) between-group treatment effect estimates and (b) within-group changes between each follow-up time for secondary outcome measures.|Incidence Rate Ratio|0.8|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.07||No multiplicity adjustments were applied as there was only one primary outcome, and secondary outcomes aimed to support the primary analyses. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Multilevel Poisson|||ITT analysis for number of days worked (treatment effects for between-arm comparisons) at week 4.|Please see Iyadurai et al., 2023 Supplementary Materials for within-subjects comparisons. (Iyadurai, et al. Transl Psychiatry 13, 290 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-023-02578-0)|1.07|0.60|>.05
90917421|NCT04992390|181704022|SUPERIORITY|Multilevel modelling (MLM) was performed with baseline measure, binary arm status, follow-up time and arm-by-time interaction included as fixed-effect covariates. Individual participant was also included as a level-two analytical unit, to quantify: (a) between-group treatment effect estimates and (b) within-group changes between each follow-up time for secondary outcome measures.|Incidence Rate Ratio|1.09|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|2.09||No multiplicity adjustments were applied as there was only one primary outcome, and secondary outcomes aimed to support the primary analyses. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Multilevel Poisson|||ITT analysis for number of nights worked (treatment effects for between-arm comparisons) at week 4.|Please see Iyadurai et al., 2023 Supplementary Materials for within-subjects comparisons. (Iyadurai, et al. Transl Psychiatry 13, 290 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-023-02578-0)|2.09|0.57|<.05
90917422|NCT01827787|181704029|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||Fisher Exact|||"Using a one sample binomial design, with 45 patients there was 90% power to detect a null hypothesis 30% overall response rate (historical control) versus an alternative hypothesis of 53% overall response rate assuming a two-sided 10% alpha.~Of note, cohort 2: TNBC did not fully accrue 45 patients so a testing was not done."||||0.42
90917423|NCT00130117|181704038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.024
90879552|NCT00729183|181620377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|3.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.66|4.32|||Longitudinal Data Analysis (LDA) Model|||A longitudinal ANCOVA was used to obtain an estimate of the between-treatment difference in aBMD together with its 95% confidence interval (CI). The model, applied on all time points during treatment (Screening Visit \[BL\], Month 6, Month 12, Month 24), included treatment, region, time and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects, and BL value as covariate. The weighted Least Squares (LS) mean is based on the described model. Difference in LS Means = Odancatib 50 mg minus Placebo.||4.32|2.66|<0.001
90879553|NCT00729183|181620378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|7.9||||||Estimated difference (versus Placebo) and CI were based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.||7.9|-12.3|
90879554|NCT00729183|181620379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|12.3||||||Estimated difference (versus Placebo) and CI were based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.||12.3|-3.2|
90879555|NCT00729183|181620380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|5.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.36|6.42|||LDA|||A longitudinal ANCOVA model was used to obtain an estimate of the between-treatment difference in aBMD together with its 95% CI. The model, applied on all time points during treatment (Screening Visit \[Baseline\], Month 6, Month 12, Month 24), included treatment, region, time and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects, and BL value as covariate. The weighted LS mean is based on the described model. Difference in LS Means = Odancatib 50 mg minus Placebo.||6.42|4.36|<0.001
90917424|NCT00130117|181704038|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.049|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.049
90917425|NCT00130117|181704039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||"p value reflects treatment of leptin for on-treatment, n=4"|ANOVA|||||||0.02
90917426|NCT01853748|181704057|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0012|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.0012
90961557|NCT01794923|181803722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.78|||ANOVA|||30 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.78|-0.67|0.887
90917427|NCT01853748|181704062|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.0001
90917428|NCT01853748|181704065|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0001
90961558|NCT01794923|181803722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|1.04|||ANOVA|||30 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||1.04|-0.51|0.507
91033878|NCT02100228|181953629|SUPERIORITY|This was a descriptive study, and there was no formal pre-defined hypothesis testing.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.4905||||0.3378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1046|2.0678||nominal p-value|Fisher Exact|||Display exact confidence limits for relative risk and Fisher's exact test for comparisons of two proportions.||2.0678|0.1046|0.3378
90917429|NCT03088813|181704170|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.3094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.37|||Stratified log-rank test|From stratified log-rank test, stratified by corrected region and corrected platinum sensitivity.|The associated HR and two-sided 95% Confidence Interval (CI) were estimated using stratified Cox proportional hazards model, stratified by corrected region and corrected platinum sensitivity.|||1.37|0.90|0.3094
90917430|NCT03088813|181704174|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.7053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.2||From stratified log-rank test, stratified by corrected region and corrected platinum sensitivity|Stratified log-rank test||The associated HR and two-sided 95% CI were estimated using stratified Cox proportional hazards model, stratified by corrected region and corrected platinum sensitivity.|||1.20|0.77|0.7053
90917431|NCT03088813|181704175|OTHER||Difference in ORR|22.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.97|30.61||ORR difference, 95% CI and P-value are obtained from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by corrected region and corrected platinum sensitivity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||30.61|13.97|<0.0001
90961559|NCT01794923|181803722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.873|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||36 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||||0.873
90961560|NCT01794923|181803722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|1.0|||ANOVA|||36 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||1.00|-0.58|0.605
90961561|NCT01794923|181803722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.86|||ANOVA|||26 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.86|-0.72|0.860
90961562|NCT01794923|181803722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.98|||ANOVA|||36 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.98|-0.71|0.751
90961563|NCT01794923|181803722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.528|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||48 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||||0.528
90961564|NCT01794923|181803722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|0.52|||ANOVA|||48 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.52|-1.09|0.486
90961565|NCT01794923|181803722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.02|||ANOVA|||48 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||1.02|-0.60|0.610
90961566|NCT01794923|181803722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|0.37|||ANOVA|||48 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.37|-1.36|0.261
90879556|NCT00729183|181620381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.25|||LDA|||MONTH 12: A longitudinal ANCOVA model was used to obtain an estimate of the between-treatment difference in aBMD together with its 95% CI. The model, applied on all time points during treatment (Screening Visit \[Baseline\], Month 6, Month 12, Month 24), included treatment, region, time and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects, and baseline value as covariate. The weighted LS mean is based on the described model. Difference in LS Means at Month 12 = Odancatib 50 mg minus Placebo||2.25|0.88|<0.001
90879557|NCT00729183|181620381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|3.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.39|4.26|||LDA|||MONTH 24: A longitudinal ANCOVA model was used to obtain an estimate of the between-treatment difference in aBMD together with its 95% CI. The model, applied on all time points during treatment (Screening Visit \[Baseline\], Month 6, Month 12, Month 24), included treatment, region, time and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects, and baseline value as covariate. The weighted LS mean is based on the described model. Difference in LS Means at Month 24 = Odancatib 50 mg minus Placebo||4.26|2.39|<0.001
90879558|NCT00729183|181620382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.48||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.35|||LDA|||MONTH 12: A longitudinal ANCOVA model was used to obtain an estimate of the between-treatment difference in aBMD together with its 95% CI. The model, applied on all time points during treatment (Screening Visit \[Baseline\], Month 6, Month 12, Month 24), included treatment, region, time and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects, and baseline value as covariate. The weighted LS mean is based on the described model. Difference in LS Means at Month 12 = Odancatib 50 mg minus Placebo||2.35|0.60|0.001
90879559|NCT00729183|181620382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|3.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.69|4.93|||LDA|||MONTH 24: A longitudinal ANCOVA model was used to obtain an estimate of the between-treatment difference in aBMD together with its 95% CI. The model, applied on all time points during treatment (Screening Visit \[Baseline\], Month 6, Month 12, Month 24), included treatment, region, time and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects, and baseline value as covariate. The weighted LS mean is based on the described model. Difference in LS Means at Month 24 = Odancatib 50 mg minus Placebo||4.93|2.69|<0.001
90879560|NCT00729183|181620383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|2.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|3.29|||LDA|||MONTH 12: A longitudinal ANCOVA model was used to obtain an estimate of the between-treatment difference in aBMD together with its 95% CI. The model, applied on all time points during treatment (Screening Visit \[Baseline\], Month 6, Month 12, Month 24), included treatment, region, time and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects, and baseline value as covariate. The weighted LS mean is based on the described model. Difference in LS Means at Month 12 = Odancatib 50 mg minus Placebo||3.29|1.09|<0.001
90879561|NCT00729183|181620383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|5.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.08|6.89|||LDA|||MONTH 24: A longitudinal ANCOVA model was used to obtain an estimate of the between-treatment difference in aBMD together with its 95% CI. The model, applied on all time points during treatment (Screening Visit \[Baseline\], Month 6, Month 12, Month 24), included treatment, region, time and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects, and baseline value as covariate. The weighted LS mean is based on the described model. Difference in LS Means at Month 24 = Odancatib 50 mg minus Placebo||6.89|4.08|<0.001
90961567|NCT01794923|181803722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.943|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||54 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||||0.943
90961568|NCT01794923|181803722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.68|||ANOVA|||54 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.68|-0.96|0.733
90961569|NCT01794923|181803722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.77|||ANOVA|||54 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.77|-0.87|0.902
90961570|NCT01794923|181803722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|0.79|||ANOVA|||54 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.79|-0.97|0.840
90961571|NCT01794923|181803722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.758|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||60 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||||0.758
90879562|NCT00729183|181620384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.71||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.35|||LDA|||MONTH 12: A longitudinal ANCOVA model was used to obtain an estimate of the between-treatment difference in aBMD together with its 95% CI. The model, applied on all time points during treatment (Screening Visit \[Baseline\], Month 6, Month 12, Month 24), included treatment, region, time and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects, and baseline value as covariate. The weighted LS mean is based on the described model. Difference in LS Means at Month 12 = Odancatib 50 mg minus Placebo||1.35|0.07|0.030
90879563|NCT00729183|181620384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|2.43|||LDA|||MONTH 24: A longitudinal ANCOVA model was used to obtain an estimate of the between-treatment difference in aBMD together with its 95% CI. The model, applied on all time points during treatment (Screening Visit \[Baseline\], Month 6, Month 12, Month 24), included treatment, region, time and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects, and baseline value as covariate. The weighted LS mean is based on the described model. Difference in LS Means at Month 24 = Odancatib 50 mg minus Placebo||2.43|0.97|<0.001
90879564|NCT00729183|181620385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.71||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|2.73|||LDA|||MONTH 12: A longitudinal ANCOVA model was used to obtain an estimate of the between-treatment difference in aBMD together with its 95% CI. The model, applied on all time points during treatment (Screening Visit \[Baseline\], Month 6, Month 12, Month 24), included treatment, region, time and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects, and baseline value as covariate. The weighted LS mean is based on the described model. Difference in LS Means at Month 12 = Odancatib 50 mg minus Placebo||2.73|0.69|0.001
90917432|NCT04878354|181704180|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.29||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo SLIT-tablet vs. tree SLIT-tablet|Multiple imputation was used to impute missing data under the hypothetical strategy. The square root transformed endpoint was analysed in a linear mixed effects (LME) model with treatment, cohort, and age group as fixed effects, and pollen station within cohort as a random effect with different residual errors specified for each treatment group. Back-transformation was used to estimate the absolute difference. Adjusted p-value.||2.00|0.58|0.0004
90917433|NCT04878354|181704181|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.85||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.35|||Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo SLIT-tablet vs. tree SLIT-tablet|Multiple imputation was used to impute missing data under the hypothetical strategy. The square root transformed endpoint was analysed in a linear mixed effects (LME) model with treatment, cohort, and age group as fixed effects, and pollen station within cohort as a random effect with different residual errors specified for each treatment group. Back-transformation was used to estimate the absolute difference. Adjusted p-value.||1.35|0.34|0.0010
90917434|NCT04878354|181704182|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37||||0.0354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.71|||Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo SLIT-tablet vs. tree SLIT-tablet|Multiple imputation was used to impute missing data under the hypothetical strategy. The square root transformed endpoint was analysed in a linear mixed effects (LME) model with treatment, cohort, and age group as fixed effects, and pollen station within cohort as a random effect with different residual errors specified for each treatment group. Back-transformation was used to estimate the absolute difference. Adjusted p-value.||0.71|0.03|0.0354
90917435|NCT04878354|181704183|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24||||0.0734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo SLIT-tablet vs. tree SLIT-tablet|Multiple imputation was used to impute missing data under the hypothetical strategy. The square root transformed endpoint was analysed in a linear mixed effects (LME) model with treatment, cohort, and age group as fixed effects, and pollen station within cohort as a random effect with different residual errors specified for each treatment group. Back-transformation was used to estimate the absolute difference. Adjusted p-value.||0.50|-0.02|0.0734
90917436|NCT04878354|181704184|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.28|||Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo SLIT-tablet vs. tree SLIT-tablet|Multiple imputation was used to impute missing data under the hypothetical strategy. The square root transformed endpoint was analysed in a linear mixed effects (LME) model with treatment, cohort, and age group as fixed effects, and pollen station within cohort as a random effect with different residual errors specified for each treatment group. Back-transformation was used to estimate the absolute difference. Observed p-value.||1.28|0.45|<0.0001
90917437|NCT04878354|181704185|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.54||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.82|||Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo SLIT-tablet vs. tree SLIT-tablet|Multiple imputation was used to impute missing data under the hypothetical strategy. The square root transformed endpoint was analysed in a linear mixed effects (LME) model with treatment, cohort, and age group as fixed effects, and pollen station within cohort as a random effect with different residual errors specified for each treatment group. Back-transformation was used to estimate the absolute difference. Observed p-value.||0.82|0.26|0.0002
90917438|NCT04878354|181704186|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32||||0.1516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.76|||Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo SLIT-tablet vs. tree SLIT-tablet|Multiple imputation was used to impute missing data under the hypothetical strategy. The square root transformed endpoint was analysed in a linear mixed effects (LME) model with treatment, cohort, and age group as fixed effects, and pollen station within cohort as a random effect with different residual errors specified for each treatment group. Back-transformation was used to estimate the absolute difference. Observed p-value.||0.76|-0.11|0.1516
90961572|NCT01794923|181803722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|0.54|||ANOVA|||60 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.54|-1.12|0.493
90879565|NCT00729183|181620385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|2.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.62|3.78|||LDA|||MONTH 24: A longitudinal ANCOVA model was used to obtain an estimate of the between-treatment difference in aBMD together with its 95% CI. The model, applied on all time points during treatment (Screening Visit \[Baseline\], Month 6, Month 12, Month 24), included treatment, region, time and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects, and baseline value as covariate. The weighted LS mean is based on the described model. Difference in LS Means at Month 24 = Odancatib 50 mg minus Placebo||3.78|1.62|<0.001
90879566|NCT00729183|181620386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.16||||0.697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.95|||LDA|||MONTH 12: A longitudinal ANCOVA model was used to obtain an estimate of the between-treatment difference in aBMD together with its 95% CI. The model, applied on all time points during treatment (Screening Visit \[Baseline\], Month 6, Month 12, Month 24), included treatment, region, time and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects, and baseline value as covariate. The weighted LS mean is based on the described model. Difference in LS Means at Month 12 = Odancatib 50 mg minus Placebo||0.95|-0.63|0.697
90879567|NCT00729183|181620386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.22||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|2.18|||LDA|||MONTH 24: A longitudinal ANCOVA model was used to obtain an estimate of the between-treatment difference in aBMD together with its 95% CI. The model, applied on all time points during treatment (Screening Visit \[Baseline\], Month 6, Month 12, Month 24), included treatment, region, time and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects, and baseline value as covariate. The weighted LS mean is based on the described model. Difference in LS Means at Month 24 = Odancatib 50 mg minus Placebo||2.18|0.27|0.013
90879568|NCT00729183|181620387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|8.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.03|9.99|||LDA|||MONTH 12: A longitudinal ANCOVA model was used to obtain an estimate of the between-treatment difference in aBMD together with its 95% CI. The model, applied on all time points during treatment (Screening Visit \[Baseline\], Month 6, Month 12, Month 24), included treatment, region, time and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects, and baseline value as covariate. The weighted LS mean is based on the described model. Difference in LS Means at Month 12 = Odancatib 50 mg minus Placebo||9.99|6.03|<0.001
90879569|NCT00729183|181620387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|11.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.96|13.97|||LDA|||MONTH 24: A longitudinal ANCOVA model was used to obtain an estimate of the between-treatment difference in aBMD together with its 95% CI. The model, applied on all time points during treatment (Screening Visit \[Baseline\], Month 6, Month 12, Month 24), included treatment, region, time and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects, and baseline value as covariate. The weighted LS mean is based on the described model. Difference in LS Means at Month 24 = Odancatib 50 mg minus Placebo||13.97|8.96|<0.001
90879570|NCT00729183|181620388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|5.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.77|7.58|||LDA|||MONTH 12: A longitudinal ANCOVA model was used to obtain an estimate of the between-treatment difference in aBMD together with its 95% CI. The model, applied on all time points during treatment (Screening Visit \[Baseline\], Month 6, Month 12, Month 24), included treatment, region, time and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects, and baseline value as covariate. The weighted LS mean is based on the described model. Difference in LS Means at Month 12 = Odancatib 50 mg minus Placebo||7.58|3.77|<0.001
90879571|NCT00729183|181620388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|9.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.98|11.77|||LDA|||MONTH 24: A longitudinal ANCOVA model was used to obtain an estimate of the between-treatment difference in aBMD together with its 95% CI. The model, applied on all time points during treatment (Screening Visit \[Baseline\], Month 6, Month 12, Month 24), included treatment, region, time and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects, and baseline value as covariate. The weighted LS mean is based on the described model. Difference in LS Means at Month 24 = Odancatib 50 mg minus Placebo||11.77|6.98|<0.001
90879572|NCT00729183|181620389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-54.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.81|-43.26|||LDA|||MONTH 12: A longitudinal ANCOVA model was used to obtain geometric LS mean percent change from BL in s-CTx (back-transformation of the log-transformed fraction from BL) and its 95% CI. The model, applied on all time points during treatment (Baseline \[Randomization\], Month 6, Month 12, Month 18, Month 24), included treatment, region, time and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects, and baseline value as covariate. Difference in LS Means at Month 12 = Odancatib 50 mg minus Placebo||-43.26|-64.81|<0.001
90879573|NCT00729183|181620389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-45.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.22|-28.96|||LDA|||MONTH 24: A longitudinal ANCOVA model was used to obtain geometric LS mean percent change from BL in s-CTx (back-transformation of the log-transformed fraction from BL) and its 95% CI. The model, applied on all time points during treatment (Baseline \[Randomization\], Month 6, Month 12, Month 18, Month 24), included treatment, region, time and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects, and baseline value as covariate. Difference in LS Means at Month 12 = Odancatib 50 mg minus Placebo||-28.96|-62.22|<0.001
90879574|NCT00729183|181620390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-25.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.77|-12.92|||LDA|||MONTH 12: A longitudinal ANCOVA model was used to obtain geometric LS mean percent change from BL in s-P1NP (back-transformation of the log-transformed fraction from BL) and its 95% CI. The model, applied on all time points during treatment (Baseline \[Randomization\], Month 6, Month 12, Month 18, Month 24), included treatment, region, time and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects, and BL value as covariate. Difference in LS Means at Month 12 = Odancatib 50 mg minus Placebo.||-12.92|-37.77|<0.001
90879575|NCT00729183|181620390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-9.07||||0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.69|5.56|||LDA|||MONTH 24: A longitudinal ANCOVA model was used to obtain geometric LS mean percent change from BL in s-P1NP (back-transformation of the log-transformed fraction from BL) and its 95% CI. The model, applied on all time points during treatment (Baseline \[Randomization\], Month 6, Month 12, Month 18, Month 24), included treatment, region, time and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects, and BL value as covariate. Difference in LS Means at Month 24 = Odancatib 50 mg minus Placebo.||5.56|-23.69|0.225
90879576|NCT04681482|181620417|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.7|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model was used to compare the risk of MB between cohorts.||0.70|0.54|<0.001
90961573|NCT01794923|181803722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.82|||ANOVA|||60 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.82|-0.84|0.974
90879577|NCT04681482|181620419|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.03|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model was used to compare the risk of stroke/SE between cohorts.||1.03|0.66|0.088
90879578|NCT04681482|181620421|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.76|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model was used to compare the risk of net clinical benefit between cohorts.||0.76|0.60|<0.001
90879579|NCT00896337|181620430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||9-month major adverse event rate|3.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|8.5||A one-sided exact-test was used to test the hypothesis that the primary endpoint rate in the Epic-treated cohort is less than the predefined performance goal of 17.0%.|One-sided exact-test|||MAE rate was compared to a predefined performance goal of 17.0%, based on literature-derived expected rate of 8.0% for iliac stenting plus a 9.0% margin. Study had 87% statistical power to show the MAE rate (accounting for 9-month attrition of \<=15%) is less than the performance goal, assuming a 9-month MAE rate of 8.0%. If the exact one-sided 95% upper confidence bound of the observed rate is lower than the performance goal, the Epic stent would be considered to have acceptable performance.||8.5|0.9|<0.0001
90879580|NCT02531321|181620494|OTHER|Unpaired t test with Welch's correction|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.05
90879581|NCT02818218|181620502|SUPERIORITY||correlation coefficient|0.0005||||0.944|TWO_SIDED|98.3|-0.161|0.17|||Repeated measures correlation (rmcorr)||The repeated measures correlation coefficient (r\_rm) was calculated to assess the association between SVC and CVP. It ranges from -1 to +1, with values closer to +1 indicating that increases in SVC are associated with increases in CVP, and vice versa|||0.170|-0.161|0.944
90879582|NCT02818218|181620503|SUPERIORITY||correlation coefficient|0.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.11|0.42|||Repeated measures correlation (rmcorr)||The repeated measures correlation coefficient (r\_rm) was calculated to assess the association between SVC and CVP. It ranges from -1 to +1, with values closer to +1 indicating that increases in SVC are associated with increases in CVP, and vice versa|||0.42|0.11|<0.001
91033879|NCT02100228|181953630|SUPERIORITY|This was a descriptive study, and there was no formal pre-defined hypothesis testing.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.83||||0.6851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3433|1.8916||nominal p-value|Fisher Exact|||Display exact confidence limits for relative risk and Fisher's exact test for comparisons of two proportions.||1.8916|0.3433|0.6851
90879583|NCT02818218|181620504|SUPERIORITY||correlation coefficient|0.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.19|0.48|||Repeated measures correlation (rmcorr)||The repeated measures correlation coefficient (r\_rm) was calculated to assess the association between SVC and CVP. It ranges from -1 to +1, with values closer to +1 indicating that increases in SVC are associated with increases in CVP, and vice versa|||0.48|0.19|<0.001
90879584|NCT02818218|181620506|SUPERIORITY||correlation coefficient|0.07||||0.298|TWO_SIDED|98.3|-0.1|0.24|||Repeated measures correlation (rmcorr)||The repeated measures correlation coefficient (r\_rm) was calculated to assess the association between SVC and CI. It ranges from -1 to +1, with values closer to +1 indicating that increases in SVC are associated with increases in CI, and vice versa|||0.24|-0.10|0.298
90879585|NCT02818218|181620507|SUPERIORITY||correlation coefficient|0.22||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.05|0.37|||Repeated measures correlation (rmcorr)||The repeated measures correlation coefficient (r\_rm) was calculated to assess the association between SVC and CI. It ranges from -1 to +1, with values closer to +1 indicating that increases in SVC are associated with increases in CI, and vice versa|||0.37|0.05|0.002
90879586|NCT02818218|181620508|SUPERIORITY||correlation coefficient|0.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.17|0.47|||Repeated measures correlation (rmcorr)||The repeated measures correlation coefficient (r\_rm) was calculated to assess the association between SVC and CI. It ranges from -1 to +1, with values closer to +1 indicating that increases in SVC are associated with increases in CI, and vice versa|||0.47|0.17|<0.001
90879587|NCT00483223|181620510|OTHER|||||||0.54|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||H0: no association between expression ratio and response rate Ha: Participants with expression ratio greater than 2 would have higher response rate||||0.54
90879588|NCT05083442|181620520|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.9|||ANCOVA||Estimated difference between groups from analysis of covariance with baseline fat mass included as the covariate.|Groups were compared using analysis of covariance with baseline included as the covariate.||1.9|-0.4|0.19
90879589|NCT05083442|181620521|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.1|||ANCOVA||Estimated difference between groups from analysis of covariance with baseline fat mass included as the covariate.|Groups were compared using analysis of covariance with baseline included as the covariate.||2.1|-1.5|0.745
90879590|NCT04865354|181620545|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority to be concluded if least squares means difference upper confidence limit is less than 0.05.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0034|||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.009||Since a noninferiority hypothesis is being tested, a p-value is not applicable. Confidence limit is being reported and compared to the noninferiority margin.||LSM results based on general linear mixed effects model with terms for lens, period and sequence as fixed effects, subject as a random effect|Difference = PRECISION1 minus Clariti 1-Day|||0.009||
90879591|NCT00110812|181620554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|134.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|70.0|198.0||Adjusted for 3 pairwise comparisons.|ANOVA|stratified by geographic region and adjusted for baseline CD4.||||198|70|<.001
90879592|NCT00110812|181620554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|133.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.0|199.0||Adjusted for 3 pairwise comparisons.|ANOVA|stratified by geographic region and adjusted for baseline CD4.||||199|68|<.001
90879593|NCT00110812|181620556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.31||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.54|||ANOVA|stratified by region and adjusted for baseline HIV-RNA.||||.54|.08|.01
90879594|NCT00110812|181620556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.36||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.6|||ANOVA|stratified by region and adjusted for baseline HIV-RNA.||||.60|.12|.003
90879595|NCT00110812|181620557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|65.8||||0.009||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA with stratification by region and adjustment for baseline CD4||||||.009
90879596|NCT00110812|181620557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|58.2||||0.02||95.0|||||ANOVA|stratified by region and adjusted for baseline CD4||||||.02
90879597|NCT00110812|181620560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|5.08||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|43.6|||Regression, Cox|Unadjusted, stratified by region.|Patients taking IL-2 alone compared to patients not taking IL-2.|||43.6|0.59|.14
90940556|NCT02630706|181760836|OTHER||Difference in % (Ert. 5 mg. - placebo)|-8.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|-4.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by country ('China' or 'other') for the overall population.||||-4.4|-14.0|<0.001
91033880|NCT02100228|181953631|SUPERIORITY|This was a descriptive study, and there was no formal pre-defined hypothesis testing.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.9841|||>|0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1866|53.9968||nominal p-value|Fisher Exact|||Display exact confidence limits for relative risk and Fisher's exact test for comparisons of two proportions.||53.9968|0.1866|>0.9999
90879598|NCT00110812|181620560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|6.56||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|53.6|||Regression, Cox|Unadjusted, stratified by region.|Patients taking IL-2 plus pericycle HAART compared to patients not receiving IL-2|||53.6|0.80|.08
90879599|NCT00110812|181620561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.99|||Regression, Cox||IL-2 without ART vs control group|||.99|.34|.048
90879600|NCT00110812|181620561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.62|||Regression, Cox||IL-2 with pericycle HAART compared to control|||.62|.17|<.001
90879601|NCT00110812|181620562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.34||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.64|||ANOVA|Stratified by region and adjusted for baseline HIV-RNA||||0.64|0.03|.03
90879602|NCT00110812|181620562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.85|||ANOVA|Stratified by region and adjusted for baseline HIV-RNA||||0.85|0.24|<.001
90879603|NCT00110812|181620565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.45||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|5.45|||Regression, Cox|Stratification by region.|IL-2 group compared to control group|||5.45|0.38|.59
90879604|NCT00110812|181620566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-55.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|28.4||0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|Last measured CD4 is imputed if month 24 CD4 count is missing. Analysis is adjusted for baseline CD4.|IL-2 group minus control group CD4.|||||.05
90879605|NCT00110812|181620568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.97|||Regression, Cox||IL-2 groups vs. control|||.97|.52|.03
90879606|NCT04476030|181620581|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-0.9|||MMRM||Model used was the MMRM with treatment, baseline HAMD-17 total score, antidepressant use (SSRI/SNRI), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects with unstructured covariance structure.|||-0.9|-3.0|0.0004
90879607|NCT04476030|181620582|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.5|||MMRM||Model used was the MMRM with treatment, baseline HAMD-17 total score, antidepressant use (SSRI/SNRI), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects with unstructured covariance structure.|||-0.5|-2.7|0.0054
90879608|NCT04476030|181620583|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.2477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.6|||MMRM||Model used was the MMRM with treatment, baseline HAMD-17 total score, antidepressant use (SSRI/SNRI), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects with unstructured covariance structure.|Day 15||0.6|-2.2|0.2477
90879609|NCT04476030|181620583|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.9248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.5|||MMRM||Model used was the MMRM with treatment, baseline HAMD-17 total score, antidepressant use (SSRI/SNRI), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects with unstructured covariance structure.|Day 42||1.5|-1.6|0.9248
90879610|NCT04476030|181620584|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.4458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.8|||MMRM||Model used was the MMRM with treatment, baseline HAMD-17 total score, antidepressant use (SSRI/SNRI), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects with unstructured covariance structure.|||0.8|-1.8|0.4458
90879611|NCT04476030|181620585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.4946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.69|||Binary Response Model||GEE for binary response model was used with factors for treatment, baseline HAMD-17 total score, antidepressant use (SSRI/SNRI), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction with unstructured covariance structure.|Day 15|Generalized estimating equation is abbreviated as GEE in the method of estimation section.|1.69|0.78|0.4946
90879612|NCT04476030|181620585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.3579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.24|||Binary Response Model||GEE for binary response model was used with factors for treatment, baseline HAMD-17 total score, antidepressant use (SSRI/SNRI), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction with unstructured covariance structure.|Day 42||1.24|0.55|0.3579
90879613|NCT04476030|181620586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.1417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|2.24|||Binary Response Model||GEE for binary response model was used with factors for treatment, baseline HAMD-17 total score, antidepressant use (SSRI/SNRI), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction with unstructured covariance structure.|Day 15||2.24|0.89|0.1417
90879614|NCT04476030|181620586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.7872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.44|||Binary Response Model||GEE for binary response model was used with factors for treatment, baseline HAMD-17 total score, antidepressant use (SSRI/SNRI), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction with unstructured covariance structure.|Day 42||1.44|0.62|0.7872
90879615|NCT04476030|181620587|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.1993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1|||MMRM||Model used was the MMRM with treatment, baseline CGI-S score, antidepressant use (SSRI/SNRI), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects with unstructured covariance structure.|||0.1|-0.4|0.1993
90879616|NCT04476030|181620588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.05||||0.0079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|3.47|||Binary Response Model||GEE for binary response model was used with factors for treatment, baseline CGI-S score, antidepressant use (SSRI/SNRI), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction with unstructured covariance structure.|Day 3||3.47|1.21|0.0079
90879617|NCT04476030|181620588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.6588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.62|||Binary Response Model||GEE for binary response model was used with factors for treatment, baseline CGI-S score, antidepressant use (SSRI/SNRI), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction with unstructured covariance structure.|Day 15||1.62|0.74|0.6588
90879618|NCT04476030|181620589|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06||0.2322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|0.8|||MMRM||Model used was the MMRM with treatment, baseline MADRS total score, antidepressant use (SSRI/SNRI), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects with unstructured covariance structure.|||0.8|-3.4|0.2322
90879619|NCT04476030|181620590|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.5439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.68|||Binary Response Model||GEE for binary response model was used with factors for treatment, baseline MADRS total score, antidepressant use (SSRI/SNRI), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction with unstructured covariance structure.|||1.68|0.76|0.5439
90879620|NCT04476030|181620591|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.7054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.69|||Binary Response Model||GEE for binary response model was used with factors for treatment, baseline MADRS total score, antidepressant use (SSRI/SNRI), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction with unstructured covariance structure.|||1.69|0.70|0.7054
90879621|NCT04476030|181620592|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.4188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.7|||MMRM||Model used was the MMRM with treatment, baseline HAM-A total score, antidepressant use (SSRI/SNRI), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects with unstructured covariance structure.|||0.7|-1.7|0.4188
90879622|NCT04476030|181620594|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.7758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.0|||MMRM||Model used was the MMRM with treatment, baseline PHQ-9 total score, antidepressant use (SSRI/SNRI), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects with unstructured covariance structure.|||1.0|-1.4|0.7758
90879623|NCT02342704|181620598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.126|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|p-value is based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test between the 2 treatment groups||Week 4||||0.1260
90940557|NCT02630706|181760837|OTHER||Difference in % (Ert. 15 mg. - placebo)|-8.9||||0.001||95.0|-15.1|-4.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||-4.2|-15.1|0.001
90879624|NCT02342704|181620598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3525|||||||negative binomial regression|p-value is based on negative binomial regression model, adjusted for baseline GD lesion count||Week 4||||0.3525
90879625|NCT02342704|181620598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0127|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|p-value is based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test between the 2 treatment groups||Week 12||||0.0127
90879626|NCT02342704|181620598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0299|||||||negative binomial regression|p-value is based on negative binomial regression model, adjusted for baseline GD lesion count||Week 12||||0.0299
90879627|NCT02342704|181620598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0123|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|p-value is based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test between the 2 treatment groups||Week 24||||0.0123
90879628|NCT02342704|181620598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0076|||||||negative binomial regression|p-value is based on negative binomial regression model, adjusted for baseline GD lesion count||Week 24||||0.0076
90879629|NCT02342704|181620599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5318|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|p-value is based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test between the 2 treatment groups||T1 Lesion Volume Change||||0.5318
90879630|NCT02342704|181620599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0528|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|p-value is based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test between the 2 treatment groups||T2 Lesion Volume Change||||0.0528
90940558|NCT02630706|181760837|OTHER||Difference in % (Ert. 5 mg. - placebo)|-9.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.8|-5.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||-5.7|-15.8|<0.001
90917439|NCT04878354|181704187|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.9709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo SLIT-tablet vs. tree SLIT-tablet|Multiple imputation was used to impute missing data under the hypothetical strategy. The square root transformed endpoint was analysed in a linear mixed effects (LME) model with treatment, cohort, and age group as fixed effects, and pollen station within cohort as a random effect with different residual errors specified for each treatment group. Back-transformation was used to estimate the absolute difference. Observed p-value.||0.25|-0.24|0.9709
90879631|NCT02342704|181620601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2632|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|p-value is based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test between the 2 treatment groups||||||0.2632
90917440|NCT04878354|181704188|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||0.0499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo SLIT-tablet vs. tree SLIT-tablet|Multiple imputation was used to impute missing data under the hypothetical strategy. The square root transformed endpoint was analysed in a linear mixed effects (LME) model with treatment, cohort, and age group as fixed effects, and pollen station within cohort as a random effect with different residual errors specified for each treatment group. Back-transformation was used to estimate the absolute difference. Observed p-value.||0.41|0.00|0.0499
90917441|NCT04878354|181704189|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.18|||Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo SLIT-tablet vs. tree SLIT-tablet|Multiple imputation was used to impute missing data under the hypothetical strategy. The square root transformed endpoint was analysed in a linear mixed effects (LME) model with treatment, cohort, and age group as fixed effects, and pollen station within cohort as a random effect with different residual errors specified for each treatment group. Back-transformation was used to estimate the absolute difference. Observed p-value.||2.18|0.73|<0.0001
90917442|NCT04878354|181704190|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.48||||0.0075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.83|||Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo SLIT-tablet vs. tree SLIT-tablet|Multiple imputation was used to impute missing data under the hypothetical strategy. The square root transformed endpoint was analysed in a linear mixed effects (LME) model with treatment, cohort, and age group as fixed effects, and pollen station within cohort as a random effect with different residual errors specified for each treatment group. Back-transformation was used to estimate the absolute difference. Observed p-value.||0.83|0.13|0.0075
90917443|NCT04878354|181704191|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.29|||Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo SLIT-tablet vs. tree SLIT-tablet|Multiple imputation was used to impute missing data under the hypothetical strategy. The square root transformed endpoint was analysed in a linear mixed effects (LME) model with treatment, cohort, and age group as fixed effects, and pollen station within cohort as a random effect with different residual errors specified for each treatment group. Back-transformation was used to estimate the absolute difference. Observed p-value.||1.29|0.44|<0.0001
90917444|NCT04878354|181704192|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.32|||Generalised linear mixed model (GLMM)||Odds ratio is (odds placebo SLIT-tablet / odds tree SLIT-tablet)|The odds of having a severe day was analysed using a generalised linear mixed model (GLMM) with a logit link function. The model includes proportion of severe days as the response variable and treatment, cohort, and age group as fixed effects and pollen station as random effect. Observed p-value.||1.32|1.10|<0.0001
90917445|NCT04878354|181704193|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.9124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.08|||Generalised linear mixed model (GLMM)||Odds ration is (odds placebo SLIT-tablet / odds tree SLIT-tablet)|The odds of having a severe day was analysed using a generalised linear mixed model (GLMM) with a logit link function. The model includes proportion of severe days as the response variable and treatment, cohort, and age group as fixed effects and pollen station as random effect. Observed p-value.||1.08|0.93|0.9124
90917446|NCT04878354|181704194|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.81|||Generalised linear fixed model (GLMM)||Odds ratio is (odds placebo SLIT-tablet / odds tree SLIT-tablet)|The odds of having a well day was analysed using a generalised linear mixed model (GLMM) with a logit link function. The model includes proportion of well days as the response variable and treatment, cohort, and age group as fixed effects and pollen station as random effect. Observed p-value.||0.81|0.71|<0.0001
90917447|NCT04878354|181704195|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|0.93|||Generalised linear mixed model (GLMM)||Odds ratio is (odds placebo SLIT-tablet / odds tree SLIT-tablet)|The odds of having a well day was analysed using a generalised linear mixed model (GLMM) with a logit link function. The model includes proportion of well days as the response variable and treatment, cohort, and age group as fixed effects and pollen station as random effect. Observed p-value.||0.93|0.85|<0.0001
90917448|NCT04878354|181704196|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.84|||Generalised linear mixed model (GLMM)||Odds ratio is (odds placebo SLIT-tablet / odds tree SLIT-tablet)|The odds of having a symptom-free day was analysed using a generalised linear mixed model (GLMM) with a logit link function. The model includes proportion of symptom-free days as the response variable and treatment, cohort, and age group as fixed effects and pollen station as random effect. Observed p-value.||0.84|0.72|<0.0001
90879632|NCT00526058|181620666|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of the Futura system to the Secura system would be demonstrated if the upper bound of the 90% confidence interval (CI) for the difference between the two systems (Secura-Futura) in percent change of LDL-C measurements from pre- to post-treatment is less than the noninferiority margin 5.7%.||||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.005
90879633|NCT01675882|181620669|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk|1.81||||0.0292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|3.11|||Fisher Exact|||The three pair-wise comparisons of viaskin peanut versus placebo were analyzed using the Bonferroni stepwise procedure, keeping the overall false-positive (alpha) risk below 5%. The comparison of viaskin peanut 250 µg versus placebo is statistically significant at p\<0.05. The subsequent comparison of viaskin peanut 100 µg versus placebo is not statistically significant at p\<0.05. Thus, no conclusion can be made on the comparison of viaskin peanut 50 µg vs placebo.||3.11|1.05|0.0292
90917449|NCT04878354|181704197|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|0.95|||Generalised linear mixed model (GLMM)||Odds ratio is (odds placebo SLIT-tablet / odds tree SLIT-tablet)|The odds of having a symptom-free day was analysed using a generalised linear mixed model (GLMM) with a logit link function. The model includes proportion of symptom-free days as the response variable and treatment, cohort, and age group as fixed effects and pollen station as random effect. Observed p-value.||0.95|0.86|0.0001
90917450|NCT04878354|181704200|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo SLIT-tablet vs tree SLIT-tablet|Multiple imputation was used to impute missing data under the hypothetical strategy. The square root transformed endpoint was analysed in an LME model with treatment, cohort, and age group as fixed effects, and pollen station within cohort as a random effect with different residual errors specified for each treatment group. Back-transformation was used to estimate the absolute difference. Observed p-value.||0.29|0.07|0.0015
90917451|NCT04878354|181704201|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo SLIT-tablet vs tree SLIT-tablet|Multiple imputation was used to impute missing data under the hypothetical strategy. The square root transformed endpoint was analysed in a linear mixed effects (LME) model with treatment, cohort, and age group as fixed effects, and pollen station within cohort as a random effect with different residual errors specified for each treatment group. Back-transformation was used to estimate the absolute difference. Observed p-value.||0.20|0.04|0.0032
90879634|NCT01675882|181620669|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk|1.64||||0.1074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.85|||Fisher Exact|||The three pair-wise comparisons of viaskin peanut versus placebo were analyzed using the Bonferroni stepwise procedure, keeping the overall false-positive (alpha) risk below 5%. The comparison of viaskin peanut 250 µg versus placebo is statistically significant at p\<0.05. The subsequent comparison of viaskin peanut 100 µg versus placebo is not statistically significant at p\<0.05.||2.85|0.95|0.1074
90879635|NCT01675882|181620669|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk|2.0||||0.0108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|3.38|||Fisher Exact|||The three pair-wise comparisons of viaskin peanut versus placebo were analyzed using the Bonferroni stepwise procedure, keeping the overall false-positive (alpha) risk below 5%. The comparison of viaskin peanut 250 µg versus placebo is statistically significant at p\<0.05.||3.38|1.18|0.0108
90917452|NCT04878354|181704202|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.9277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo SLIT-tablet vs tree SLIT-tablet|Multiple imputation was used to impute missing data under the hypothetical strategy. The endpoint was analysed in each dataset in a linear mixed effects (LME) model with treatment and cohort as fixed effects, and pollen station within cohort as a random effect. Each treatment group was allowed different residual errors. Observed p-value.||0.23|-0.21|0.9277
90917453|NCT04878354|181704203|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.9643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo SLIT-tablet vs tree SLIT-tablet|Multiple imputation was used to impute missing data under the hypothetical strategy. The endpoint was analysed in each dataset in a linear mixed effect (LME) model with treatment and cohort as fixed effects, and pollen station within cohort as a random effect. Each treatment group was allowed different residual errors. Observed p-value.||0.18|-0.19|0.9643
90879636|NCT01675882|181620670|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk|2.95||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|6.49|||Fisher Exact|||||6.49|1.34|0.0035
90879637|NCT01675882|181620670|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk|2.38||||0.0453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|5.47|||Fisher Exact|||||5.47|1.04|0.0453
90879638|NCT01675882|181620670|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk|2.77||||0.0076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|6.14|||Fisher Exact|||||6.14|1.25|0.0076
90879639|NCT01675882|181620671|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk|1.5||||0.7112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|4.43|||Fisher Exact|||||4.43|0.51|0.7112
90879640|NCT01675882|181620671|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk|0.47||||0.4048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.28|||Fisher Exact|||||2.28|0.10|0.4048
90879641|NCT01675882|181620671|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk|1.75||||0.4705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|4.95|||Fisher Exact|||||4.95|0.62|0.4705
90879642|NCT01675882|181620672|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk|0.5||||0.5921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.9|||Fisher Exact|||||1.90|0.13|0.5921
90879643|NCT01675882|181620672|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk|1.43||||0.326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.88|||Fisher Exact|||||2.88|0.71|0.3260
90879644|NCT01675882|181620672|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk|1.05||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|2.38|||Fisher Exact|||||2.38|0.46|1.0000
90879645|NCT01675882|181620673|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|70.2||||0.0607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|193.69||P-value was based on type III sum of squares from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on log transformed values for peanut protein eliciting dose at Month 12, including treatment group, baseline eliciting dose, age-strata and country as covariates.|ANCOVA|||The least squares (LS) mean for any given treatment group is the estimated mean peanut protein eliciting dose for a participant in that treatment group with the mean value for all baseline covariates in the analysis set.||193.69|-2.41|0.0607
90879646|NCT01675882|181620673|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|97.5||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.45|237.82||P-value was based on type III sum of squares from an ANCOVA model on log transformed values for the peanut protein eliciting dose at Month 12, including treatment group, baseline eliciting dose, age-strata and country as covariates.|ANCOVA|||The LS mean for any given treatment group is the estimated mean peanut protein eliciting dose for a participant in that treatment group with the mean value for all baseline covariates in the analysis set.||237.82|14.45|0.0150
90879647|NCT01675882|181620673|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|242.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|100.03|482.65||P-value was based on type III sum of squares from an ANCOVA model on log transformed values for the peanut protein eliciting dose at Month 12, including treatment group, baseline eliciting dose, age-strata and country as covariates.|ANCOVA|||The LS mean for any given treatment group is the estimated mean peanut protein eliciting dose for a participant in that treatment group with the mean value for all baseline covariates in the analysis set.||482.65|100.03|<0.0001
90917454|NCT04878354|181704204|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.0287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo SLIT-tablet vs. tree SLIT-tablet|Multiple imputation was used to impute missing data under the hypothetical strategy. The endpoint was analysed in each dataset in a linear mixed effect (LME) model with treatment and cohort as fixed effects, and pollen station within cohort as a random effect. Each treatment group was allowed different residual errors. Observed p-value.||0.34|0.02|0.0287
90917455|NCT04878354|181704206|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.58|||Generalized linear mixed model (GLMM)||Odds ratio is (odds placebo SLIT-tablet/ odds tree SLIT-tablet)|"Multiple imputation was used to impute missing data under the hypothetical strategy.~The odds of having an improved treatment efficacy according to patient-rated global evaluation was analysed using a generalised linear mixed model with a logit link function. The model includes patient-rated global evaluation of treatment efficacy (improvement/no improvement) as the response variable and treatment, cohort and age group as fixed effects and pollen station as random effects. Observed p-value."||0.58|0.30|<0.0001
90917456|NCT04878354|181704207|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.43|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.48|||Mixed Models Analysis||Tree SLIT-tablet vs placebo SLIT-tablet, visit 4|Change from baseline (screening) to visit 4 (pre-TPS). Change from baseline of log transformed concentrations is analyzed in a mixed effects linear model including treatment, visit, and treatment-visit-interaction as fixed effects, log(baseline concentration) as a covariate and subject as random effect. Observed p-value.||0.48|0.38|<0.0001
90917457|NCT04878354|181704207|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.1038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis||Tree SLIT-tablet vs. placebo SLIT-tablet, visit 6|Change from baseline (screening) to visit 6 (end of treatment). Change from baseline of log transformed concentrations is analysed in a mixed effects linear model including treatment, visit, and treatment-visit-interaction as fixed effects, log(baseline concentration) as a covariate and subject as random effect. Observed p-value.||0.01|-0.09|0.1038
90961574|NCT01794923|181803722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.61|||ANOVA|||60 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.61|-1.16|0.543
90879648|NCT01675882|181620674|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|73.9||||0.0372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.96|225.85||P-value was based on type III sum of squares from an ANCOVA model on log transformed values for the peanut protein eliciting dose at Month 12, including treatment group, baseline eliciting dose, age-strata and country as covariates.|ANCOVA|||The LS mean for any given treatment group is the estimated mean peanut protein eliciting dose for a participant in that treatment group with the mean value for all baseline covariates in the analysis set.||225.85|2.96|0.0372
90879649|NCT01675882|181620674|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|96.7||||0.0143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.92|278.11||P-value was based on type III sum of squares from an ANCOVA model on log transformed values for the peanut protein eliciting dose at Month 12, including treatment group, baseline eliciting dose, age-strata and country as covariates.|ANCOVA|||The LS mean for any given treatment group is the estimated mean peanut protein eliciting dose for a participant in that treatment group with the mean value for all baseline covariates in the analysis set.||278.11|12.92|0.0143
90879650|NCT01675882|181620674|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|260.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.83|625.95||P-value was based on type III sum of squares from an ANCOVA model on log transformed values for the peanut protein eliciting dose at Month 12, including treatment group, baseline eliciting dose, age-strata and country as covariates.|ANCOVA|||The LS mean for any given treatment group is the estimated mean peanut protein eliciting dose for a participant in that treatment group with the mean value for all baseline covariates in the analysis set.||625.95|89.83|<0.0001
90879651|NCT01675882|181620675|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|26.1||||0.6596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.58|236.0||P-value was based on type III sum of squares from an ANCOVA model on log transformed values for the peanut protein eliciting dose at Month 12, including treatment group, baseline eliciting dose, age-strata and country as covariates.|ANCOVA|||The LS mean for any given treatment group is the estimated mean peanut protein eliciting dose for a participant in that treatment group with the mean value for all baseline covariates in the analysis set.||236.00|-59.58|0.6596
90879652|NCT01675882|181620675|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|8.9||||0.8702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.9|189.96||P-value was based on type III sum of squares from an ANCOVA model on log transformed values for the peanut protein eliciting dose at Month 12, including treatment group, baseline eliciting dose, age-strata and country as covariates.|ANCOVA|||The LS mean for any given treatment group is the estimated mean peanut protein eliciting dose for a participant in that treatment group with the mean value for all baseline covariates in the analysis set.||189.96|-65.90|0.8702
90879653|NCT01675882|181620675|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|158.9||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|562.31||P-value was based on type III sum of squares from an ANCOVA model on log transformed values for the peanut protein eliciting dose at Month 12, including treatment group, baseline eliciting dose, age-strata and country as covariates.|ANCOVA|||The LS mean for any given treatment group is the estimated mean peanut protein eliciting dose for a participant in that treatment group with the mean value for all baseline covariates in the analysis set.||562.31|-5.50|0.0630
90917458|NCT04878354|181704208|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.57|||Mixed Models Analysis||Tree SLIT-tablet vs. placebo SLIT-tablet, visit 4|Change from baseline (screening) to visit 4 (pre-TPS). Change from baseline of log transformed concentrations is analysed in a mixed effects linear model including treatment, visit, and treatment-visit-interaction as fixed effects, log(baseline concentration) as a covariate and subject as random effect. Observed p-value.||0.57|0.48|<0.0001
90961575|NCT01794923|181803722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.238|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||72 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||||0.238
90961576|NCT01794923|181803722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|0.14|||ANOVA|||72 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.14|-1.46|0.106
90879654|NCT01675882|181620676|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-80.2||||0.6776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-237.22|782.24||P-value was based on type III sum of squares from an ANCOVA model on log transformed values for the peanut protein eliciting dose at Month 12, including treatment group, baseline eliciting dose, age-strata and country as covariates.|ANCOVA|||The LS mean for any given treatment group is the estimated mean peanut protein eliciting dose for a participant in that treatment group with the mean value for all baseline covariates in the analysis set.||782.24|-237.22|0.6776
90879655|NCT01675882|181620676|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|158.8||||0.5068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-166.1|1478.83||P-value was based on type III sum of squares from an ANCOVA model on log transformed values for the peanut protein eliciting dose at Month 12, including treatment group, baseline eliciting dose, age-strata and country as covariates.|ANCOVA|||The LS mean for any given treatment group is the estimated mean peanut protein eliciting dose for a participant in that treatment group with the mean value for all baseline covariates in the analysis set.||1478.83|-166.10|0.5068
90879656|NCT01675882|181620676|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|53.8||||0.7972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-193.9|1085.38||P-value was based on type III sum of squares from an ANCOVA model on log transformed values for the peanut protein eliciting dose at Month 12, including treatment group, baseline eliciting dose, age-strata and country as covariates.|ANCOVA|||The LS mean for any given treatment group is the estimated mean peanut protein eliciting dose for a participant in that treatment group with the mean value for all baseline covariates in the analysis set.||1085.38|-193.90|0.7972
90879657|NCT01675882|181620677|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|120.0||||0.0444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|321.8||P-value was based on type III sum of squares from an ANCOVA model on log transformed values for cumulative reactive dose at Month 12, including treatment group, baseline cumulative reactive dose, age-strata and country as covariates.|ANCOVA|||The LS mean for any given treatment group was the estimated mean peanut protein cumulative reactive dose for a participant in that treatment group with the mean value for all baseline covariates in the analysis set.||321.80|2.30|0.0444
90879658|NCT01675882|181620677|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|147.6||||0.0175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.67|365.51||P-value was based on type III sum of squares from an ANCOVA model on log transformed values for the cumulative reactive dose at Month 12, including treatment group, baseline cumulative reactive dose, age-strata and country as covariates.|ANCOVA|||The LS mean for any given treatment group was the estimated mean peanut protein cumulative reactive dose for a participant in that treatment group with the mean value for all baseline covariates in the analysis set.||365.51|19.67|0.0175
90879659|NCT01675882|181620677|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|386.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|159.67|771.16||P-value was based on type III sum of squares from an ANCOVA model on log transformed values for the cumulative reactive dose at Month 12, including treatment group, baseline cumulative reactive dose, age-strata and country as covariates.|ANCOVA|||The LS mean for any given treatment group was the estimated mean peanut protein cumulative reactive dose for a participant in that treatment group with the mean value for all baseline covariates in the analysis set.||771.16|159.67|<0.0001
90917459|NCT04878354|181704208|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.53|||Mixed Models Analysis||Tree SLIT-tablet vs placebo SLIT-tablet, visit 6|Change from baseline (screening) to visit 6 (end of treatment). Change from baseline of log transformed concentrations is analysed in a mixed effects linear model including treatment, visit, and treatment-visit-interaction as fixed effects, log(baseline concentration) as a covariate and subject as random effect. Observed p-value.||0.53|0.45|<0.0001
90917460|NCT04878354|181704209|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis||Tree SLIT-tablet vs. placebo SLIT-tablet, visit 4|Change from baseline (screening) to visit 4 (pre-TPS). Change from baseline of log transformed concentrations is analyzed in a mixed effects linear model including treatment, visit, and treatment-visit-interaction as fixed effects, log(baseline concentration) as a covariate and subject as random effect. Observed p-value.||0.33|0.24|<0.0001
90879660|NCT01675882|181620678|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.6||||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|0.52||P-value was based on type III sum of squares from an ANCOVA model on log transformed values for the OFC symptom scores at Month 12, including treatment group, Baseline OFC symptom scores, age-strata and country as covariates.|ANCOVA|||The LS mean for any given treatment group is the estimated mean OFC score for a participant in that treatment group with the mean value for all baseline covariates in the analysis set.||0.52|-1.55|0.2510
90917461|NCT04878354|181704209|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.36|||Mixed Models Analysis||Tree SLIT-tablet vs. placebo SLIT-tablet, visit 6|Change from baseline (screening) to visit 6 (end of treatment). Change from baseline of log transformed concentrations is analysed in a mixed effects linear model including treatment, visit, and treatment-visit-interaction as fixed effects, log(baseline concentration) as a covariate and subject as random effect. Observed p-value.||0.36|0.26|<0.0001
90940559|NCT00702273|181760907|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority margin of -8%|Risk Difference (RD)|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|7.4||||||Treatment groups were compared with a generalized linear model including covariates treatment group, age class and region.||7.4|-2.6|
90940560|NCT01894256|181760914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares means ratio|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.04|1.27|||||GLS mean for Mild Renal Impairment group vs GLS mean for Normal Renal Function|Null hypothesis: There are no clinically significant differences in the PK of olaparib when administered to patients with moderate or mild renal impairment compared to patients with normal renal function.||1.27|1.04|
90940561|NCT01894256|181760914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares means ratio|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.06|1.48|||||GLS mean for Moderate Renal Impairment group vs GLS mean for Normal Renal Function|Null hypothesis: There are no clinically significant differences in the PK of olaparib when administered to patients with moderate or mild renal impairment compared to patients with normal renal function.||1.48|1.06|
90940562|NCT01894256|181760915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares means ratio|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.06|1.47|||||GLS mean for Mild Renal Impairment group vs GLS mean for Normal Renal Function|Null hypothesis: There are no clinically significant differences in the PK of olaparib when administered to patients with moderate or mild renal impairment compared to patients with normal renal function.||1.47|1.06|
90879661|NCT01675882|181620678|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.2||||0.682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|1.05||P-value was based on type III sum of squares from an ANCOVA model on log transformed values for the OFC symptom scores at Month 12, including treatment group, Baseline OFC symptom scores, age-strata and country as covariates.|ANCOVA|||The LS mean for any given treatment group is the estimated mean OFC score for a participant in that treatment group with the mean value for all baseline covariates in the analysis set.||1.05|-1.24|0.6820
90879662|NCT01675882|181620678|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.8||||0.2117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|2.47||P-value was based on type III sum of squares from an ANCOVA model on log transformed values for the OFC symptom scores at Month 12, including treatment group, Baseline OFC symptom scores, age-strata and country as covariates.|ANCOVA|||The LS mean for any given treatment group is the estimated mean OFC score for a participant in that treatment group with the mean value for all baseline covariates in the analysis set.||2.47|-0.42|0.2117
90879663|NCT01675882|181620680|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|17.4||||0.0337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|38.82||P-value was based on type III sum of squares from an ANCOVA model on log transformed values for the immunological marker at Month 12, including treatment group, Baseline marker, age-strata and country as covariates.|ANCOVA|||The LS mean for any given treatment group was the estimated mean for a participant in that treatment group with the mean value for all Baseline covariates in the analysis set.||38.82|1.17|0.0337
90879664|NCT01675882|181620680|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|26.2||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.38|49.45||P-value was based on type III sum of squares from an ANCOVA model on log transformed values for the immunological marker at Month 12, including treatment group, Baseline marker, age-strata and country as covariates.|ANCOVA|||The LS mean for any given treatment group was the estimated mean for a participant in that treatment group with the mean value for all Baseline covariates in the analysis set.||49.45|8.38|0.0020
90879665|NCT01675882|181620680|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|20.0||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.85|40.91||P-value was based on type III sum of squares from an ANCOVA model on log transformed values for the immunological marker at Month 12, including treatment group, Baseline marker, age-strata and country as covariates.|ANCOVA|||The LS mean for any given treatment group was the estimated mean for a participant in that treatment group with the mean value for all Baseline covariates in the analysis set.||40.91|3.85|0.0120
90917462|NCT02217904|181704213|SUPERIORITY||Posterior mean difference|-1.64|||||||||||||Posterior Probability (PP) of true mean difference in the plasma HIV-1 RNA change from baseline between islatravir and placebo at least 0.5 log10 copies/mL was \>99%.|Adjusted by Placebo data pooled from historical placebo data from recent monotherapy studies in HIV-1 infected participants (NCT00100048, NCT01466985, NCT01152255, and NCT01353898) and fitted with a longitudinal data analysis (LDA) model containing fixed effects for study and time, and a random effect for participants. LS mean of pooled historical placebo data was -0.03 log10 copies/mL (95% CI -014, 0.09) change from baseline at 168 hours post dose.||||
90917463|NCT02217904|181704213|SUPERIORITY||Posterior mean difference|-1.32|||||||||||||Posterior Probability (PP) of true mean difference in the plasma HIV-1 RNA change from baseline between islatravir and placebo at least 0.5 log10 copies/mL was \>99%.|Adjusted by Placebo data pooled from historical placebo data from recent monotherapy studies in HIV-1 infected participants (NCT00100048, NCT01466985, NCT01152255, and NCT01353898) and fitted with a longitudinal data analysis (LDA) model containing fixed effects for study and time, and a random effect for participants. LS mean of pooled historical placebo data was -0.03 log10 copies/mL (95% CI -014, 0.09) change from baseline at 168 hours post dose.||||
90940563|NCT01894256|181760915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares means ratio|1.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1|1.89|||||GLS mean for Moderate Renal Impairment group vs GLS mean for Normal Renal Function|Null hypothesis: There are no clinically significant differences in the PK of olaparib when administered to patients with moderate or mild renal impairment compared to patients with normal renal function.||1.89|1.10|
91033881|NCT02612337|181953644|SUPERIORITY|The target sample size for each was 160 randomized subjects: 80 in each treatment group stratified by gender. The sample size estimate was chosen to achieve more than 90% power with a significance level of 0.05 2-sided to reject the null hypothesis of no treatment difference for the primary endpoint of DVD.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.907||||0.623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.615|1.339|||Regression, Linear|||The primary efficacy endpoint was compared between OTO-104 and placebo at the 2-tailed 0.05 alpha level using a generalized Poisson linear mixed model. The model included fixed effects for randomized treatment group, sex, study week, a treatment group by study week interaction, and the count of lead-in period DVD standardized to 28 days as a covariate.||1.339|0.615|0.623
90879666|NCT01675882|181620684|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|1.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.9||P-value was based on type III sum of squares from an ANCOVA model on log transformed values for the immunological marker at Month 12, including treatment group, Baseline marker, age-strata and country as covariates.|ANCOVA|||The LS mean for any given treatment group was the estimated mean for a participant in that treatment group with the mean value for all baseline covariates in the analysis set.||1.90|0.72|<0.0001
90879667|NCT01675882|181620684|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|1.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.01||P-value was based on type III sum of squares from an ANCOVA model on log transformed values for the immunological marker at Month 12, including treatment group, Baseline marker, age-strata and country as covariates.|ANCOVA|||The LS mean for any given treatment group was the estimated mean for a participant in that treatment group with the mean value for all baseline covariates in the analysis set.||2.01|0.79|<0.0001
90879668|NCT01675882|181620684|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|2.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|3.11||P-value was based on type III sum of squares from an ANCOVA model on log transformed values for the immunological marker at Month 12, including treatment group, Baseline marker, age-strata and country as covariates.|ANCOVA|||The LS mean for any given treatment group was the estimated mean for a participant in that treatment group with the mean value for all baseline covariates in the analysis set.||3.11|1.39|<0.0001
90879669|NCT00735371|181620688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0056||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0056
90879670|NCT00735371|181620688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
90879671|NCT00735371|181620688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
90879672|NCT00735371|181620689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0235||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0235
90879673|NCT00735371|181620689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
90879674|NCT00735371|181620689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
90961577|NCT01794923|181803722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.71|||ANOVA|||72 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.71|-0.90|0.817
90961578|NCT01794923|181803722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|0.3|||ANOVA|||72 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.30|-1.43|0.197
90961579|NCT01794923|181803723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.702|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||0-24 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline spontaneous muscle soreness (SMS) terms.||||0.702
90961580|NCT01794923|181803723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|2.8||||0.664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.91|15.53|||ANOVA|||0-24 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline spontaneous muscle soreness (SMS) terms.||15.53|-9.91|0.664
90961581|NCT01794923|181803723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-3.0||||0.637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.77|9.68|||ANOVA|||0-24 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline spontaneous muscle soreness (SMS) terms.||9.68|-15.77|0.637
90961582|NCT01794923|181803723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|5.9||||0.401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.85|19.57|||ANOVA|||0-24 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||19.57|-7.85|0.401
90961583|NCT01794923|181803723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.926|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||24-48 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline spontaneous muscle soreness (SMS) terms.||||0.926
90961584|NCT01794923|181803723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-4.2||||0.743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.51|21.1|||ANOVA|||24-48 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline spontaneous muscle soreness (SMS) terms.||21.10|-29.51|0.743
90879675|NCT01451775|181620709|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioavailability study with standard bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%. Ratio calculated as empa 25mg fed divided by empa 25mg fasted.|Geometric mean ratio|84.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.856|87.344|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation.|||87.344|80.856|
90879676|NCT01451775|181620709|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This is an analysis of dose proportionality|Slope|0.9367|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0178|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8988|0.9746||Does proportionality would be assumed if the 95% confidence interval includes one.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with logarithm of the dose fitted as a continuous covariate and sequence, subjects within sequence, period included as categorical variables.||||0.9746|0.8988|
90879677|NCT01451775|181620710|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioavailability study with standard bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%. Ratio calculated as empa 25mg fed divided by empa 25mg fasted.|Geometric mean ratio|63.22|STANDARD_DEVIATION|18.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|56.736|70.439|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation.|||70.439|56.736|
90879678|NCT01451775|181620710|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This is an analysis of dose proportionality|Slope|0.9065|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0495|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8011|1.012||Does proportionality would be assumed if the 95% confidence interval includes one.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with logarithm of the dose fitted as a continuous covariate and sequence, subjects within sequence, period included as categorical variables.||||1.0120|0.8011|
90879679|NCT02016482|181620712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|43.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.8|53.6||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If zero frequency occurred, strata were dropped and p-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or adjusted chi-square test based on Campbell \[2007\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For US regulatory purposes, ranked first secondary endpoint.||53.6|32.8|< 0.001
90879680|NCT02016482|181620713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|42.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.8|53.2||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If zero frequency occurred, strata were dropped and p-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or adjusted chi-square test based on Campbell \[2007\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Ranked sixth secondary endpoint. For US regulatory purposes, this was the primary endpoint.||53.2|30.8|< 0.001
90961585|NCT01794923|181803723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.8||||0.952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.55|26.08|||ANOVA|||24-48 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline spontaneous muscle soreness (SMS) terms.||26.08|-24.55|0.952
90961586|NCT01794923|181803723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-5.0||||0.719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.25|22.3|||ANOVA|||24-48 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline spontaneous muscle soreness (SMS) terms.||22.30|-32.25|0.719
90961587|NCT01794923|181803723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.284|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||48-72 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline spontaneous muscle soreness (SMS) terms.||||0.284
90961588|NCT01794923|181803723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-19.0||||0.171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.21|8.28|||ANOVA|||48-72 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline spontaneous muscle soreness (SMS) terms.||8.28|-46.21|0.171
90961589|NCT01794923|181803723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|2.2||||0.875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.08|29.42|||ANOVA|||48-72 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline spontaneous muscle soreness (SMS) terms.||29.42|-25.08|0.875
90961590|NCT01794923|181803723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-21.1||||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.5|8.23|||ANOVA|||48-72 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||8.23|-50.50|0.157
90961591|NCT01794923|181803723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.699|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||0-72 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline spontaneous muscle soreness (SMS) terms.||||0.699
90961592|NCT01794923|181803723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-17.8||||0.433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.58|26.9|||ANOVA|||0-72 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline spontaneous muscle soreness (SMS) terms.||26.90|-62.58|0.433
90961593|NCT01794923|181803723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0||||0.966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.73|43.78|||ANOVA|||0-72 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline spontaneous muscle soreness (SMS) terms.||43.78|-45.73|0.966
90879681|NCT02016482|181620714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean|-44.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.5|-36.0||P values were calculated from ANCOVA with treatment center stratum, Baseline value, and treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||Ranked first secondary endpoint. For US regulatory purposes, ranked second secondary endpoint.||-36.0|-53.5|< 0.001
90879682|NCT02016482|181620715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|6.6||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|11.3||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If zero frequency occurred, strata were dropped and p-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or adjusted chi-square test based on Campbell \[2007\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Ranked second secondary endpoint. For US regulatory purposes, ranked third secondary endpoint.||11.3|1.8|0.008
90879683|NCT02016482|181620716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Percent Change|-2.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-2.0||P values were calculated from ANCOVA with treatment center stratum, Baseline value, and treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||Ranked third secondary endpoint. For US regulatory purposes, ranked fourth secondary endpoint.||-2.0|-3.3|< 0.001
90879684|NCT02016482|181620717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|-2.2||P values were calculated from ANCOVA with treatment center stratum, Baseline value, and treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||Ranked fourth secondary endpoint. For US regulatory purposes, ranked fifth secondary endpoint.||-2.2|-3.6|< 0.001
90879685|NCT02016482|181620718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|57.9||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.8|82.0||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If zero frequency occurred, strata were dropped and p-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or adjusted chi-square test based on Campbell \[2007\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Ranked fifth secondary endpoint. For US regulatory purposes, ranked sixth secondary endpoint.||82.0|33.8|0.002
90879686|NCT02016482|181620719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|43.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.3|55.2||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If zero frequency occurred, strata were dropped and p-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or adjusted chi-square test based on Campbell \[2007\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||55.2|31.3|< 0.001
90879687|NCT02016482|181620720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|44.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.2|56.5||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If zero frequency occurred, strata were dropped and p-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or adjusted chi-square test based on Campbell \[2007\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||56.5|33.2|< 0.001
90879688|NCT02016482|181620721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|18.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.6|26.6||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If zero frequency occurred, strata were dropped and p-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or adjusted chi-square test based on Campbell \[2007\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||26.6|10.6|< 0.001
90879689|NCT02016482|181620722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|36.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.0|46.9||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If zero frequency occurred, strata were dropped and p-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or adjusted chi-square test based on Campbell \[2007\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||46.9|25.0|< 0.001
90879690|NCT02016482|181620723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|13.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|20.0||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If zero frequency occurred, strata were dropped and p-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or adjusted chi-square test based on Campbell \[2007\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||20.0|6.5|<0.001
90879691|NCT02016482|181620724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|-2.8||Across all strata, P values were calculated from ANCOVA with treatment center stratum, Baseline value, and treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||||-2.8|-4.3|< 0.001
90879692|NCT02016482|181620725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-38.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.9|-30.8||Across all strata, P values were calculated from ANCOVA with treatment center stratum, Baseline value, and treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||||-30.8|-46.9|< 0.001
90961594|NCT01794923|181803723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-16.9||||0.491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.08|31.36|||ANOVA|||0-72 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline spontaneous muscle soreness (SMS) terms.||31.36|-65.08|0.491
90961595|NCT01794923|181803724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.219|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||1 Hour: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||||0.219
90961596|NCT01794923|181803724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.08|||ANOVA|||1 Hour: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.08|-0.37|0.214
90961597|NCT01794923|181803724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.29|||ANOVA|||1 Hour: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.29|-0.16|0.555
90961598|NCT01794923|181803724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.03|||ANOVA|||1 Hour: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.03|-0.45|0.090
90879693|NCT02016482|181620726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-28.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.5|-23.7||Across all strata, P values were calculated from ANCOVA with treatment center stratum, Baseline value, and treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||||-23.7|-33.5|< 0.001
90879694|NCT02016482|181620727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-50.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.3|-41.9||Across all strata, P values were calculated from ANCOVA with treatment center stratum, Baseline value, and treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||||-41.9|-58.3|< 0.001
90961599|NCT01794923|181803724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.161|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||||0.161
90961600|NCT01794923|181803724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.01|||ANOVA|||2 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.01|-0.55|0.056
90961601|NCT01794923|181803724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.16|||ANOVA|||2 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.16|-0.40|0.395
90961602|NCT01794923|181803724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.15|||ANOVA|||2 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.15|-0.45|0.324
90961603|NCT01794923|181803724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.246|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||3 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||||0.246
90961604|NCT01794923|181803724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.05|||ANOVA|||3 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.05|-0.68|0.094
90961605|NCT01794923|181803724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.24|||ANOVA|||3 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.24|-0.50|0.491
90961606|NCT01794923|181803724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.21|||ANOVA|||3 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.21|-0.58|0.359
90879695|NCT02016482|181620728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|7.4||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|12.4||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If zero frequency occurred, strata were dropped and p-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or adjusted chi-square test based on Campbell \[2007\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||12.4|2.4|0.004
90879696|NCT02016482|181620729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|18.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.1|26.8||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If zero frequency occurred, strata were dropped and p-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or adjusted chi-square test based on Campbell \[2007\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||26.8|10.1|< 0.001
90879697|NCT02016482|181620730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-1.9||Across all strata, P values were calculated from ANCOVA with treatment center stratum, Baseline value, and treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||||-1.9|-3.1|< 0.001
90879698|NCT02016482|181620731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-40.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.0|-30.4||Across all strata, P values were calculated from ANCOVA with treatment center stratum, Baseline value, and treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||||-30.4|-50.0|< 0.001
90879699|NCT02016482|181620732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-19.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.6|-15.3||Across all strata, P values were calculated from ANCOVA with stratum, Baseline value, and treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||||-15.3|-23.6|< 0.001
90879700|NCT02016482|181620733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-8.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|-6.1||Across all strata, P values were calculated from ANCOVA with treatment center stratum, Baseline value, and treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||||-6.1|-10.0|< 0.001
90879701|NCT02016482|181620734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-71.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-87.3|-55.0||Across all strata, P values were calculated from ANCOVA with treatment center stratum, Baseline value, and treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||||-55.0|-87.3|< 0.001
90879702|NCT02016482|181620735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|51.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.6|63.5||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If zero frequency occurred, strata were dropped and p-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or adjusted chi-square test based on Campbell \[2007\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||PASI 75||63.5|38.6|< 0.001
90879703|NCT02016482|181620735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|52.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.9|65.0||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If zero frequency occurred, strata were dropped and p-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or adjusted chi-square test based on Campbell \[2007\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||PASI 50||65.0|39.9|< 0.001
90879704|NCT02016482|181620735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|40.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.0|52.9||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If zero frequency occurred, strata were dropped and p-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or adjusted chi-square test based on Campbell \[2007\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||PASI 90||52.9|29.0|< 0.001
90961607|NCT01794923|181803724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.294|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||4 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||||0.294
90961608|NCT01794923|181803724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.1|||ANOVA|||4 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.10|-0.74|0.136
90961609|NCT01794923|181803724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.2|||ANOVA|||4 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.20|-0.65|0.293
90961610|NCT01794923|181803724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.36|||ANOVA|||4 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.36|-0.55|0.682
90961611|NCT01794923|181803724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.747|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||5 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||||0.747
90917464|NCT02217904|181704213|SUPERIORITY||Posterior mean difference|-1.57|||||||||||||Posterior Probability (PP) of true mean difference in the plasma HIV-1 RNA change from baseline between islatravir and placebo at least 0.5 log10 copies/mL was \>99%.|Adjusted by Placebo data pooled from historical placebo data from recent monotherapy studies in HIV-1 infected participants (NCT00100048, NCT01466985, NCT01152255, and NCT01353898) and fitted with a longitudinal data analysis (LDA) model containing fixed effects for study and time, and a random effect for participants. LS mean of pooled historical placebo data was -0.03 log10 copies/mL (95% CI -014, 0.09) change from baseline at 168 hours post dose.||||
90917465|NCT02217904|181704213|SUPERIORITY||Posterior mean difference|-1.28|||||||||||||Posterior Probability (PP) of true mean difference in the plasma HIV-1 RNA change from baseline between islatravir and placebo at least 0.5 log10 copies/mL was \>99%.|Adjusted by Placebo data pooled from historical placebo data from recent monotherapy studies in HIV-1 infected participants (NCT00100048, NCT01466985, NCT01152255, and NCT01353898) and fitted with a longitudinal data analysis (LDA) model containing fixed effects for study and time, and a random effect for participants. LS mean of pooled historical placebo data was -0.03 log10 copies/mL (95% CI -014, 0.09) change from baseline at 168 hours post dose.||||
90917466|NCT02217904|181704213|SUPERIORITY||Posterior mean difference|-1.18|||||||||||||Posterior Probability (PP) of true mean difference in the plasma HIV-1 RNA change from baseline between islatravir and placebo at least 0.5 log10 copies/mL was \>99%.|Adjusted by Placebo data pooled from historical placebo data from recent monotherapy studies in HIV-1 infected participants (NCT00100048, NCT01466985, NCT01152255, and NCT01353898) and fitted with a longitudinal data analysis (LDA) model containing fixed effects for study and time, and a random effect for participants. LS mean of pooled historical placebo data was -0.03 log10 copies/mL (95% CI -014, 0.09) change from baseline at 168 hours post dose.||||
90917467|NCT01903811|181704224|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.061||||0.384|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.821|1.37||Stratified by pre-specified randomization stratification factors: 1 - 3 prior therapies vs. 4-6 prior therapies and refractory to bortezomib vs. not refractory to bortezomib.|Log Rank|One-sided stratified log rank test||||1.370|0.821|0.384
90917468|NCT01903811|181704225|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.149||||0.284|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.841|1.571||Stratified by pre-specified randomization stratification factors: 1 - 3 prior therapies vs. 4-6 prior therapies and refractory to bortezomib vs. not refractory to bortezomib.|Log Rank|One-sided stratified log rank test||||1.571|0.841|0.284
90917469|NCT01903811|181704226|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.113|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Compare the rate of confirmed PR or better between treatment arms.||||0.1130
90917470|NCT01164098|181704320|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Using Natural Log Transformed Data||T-test of the natural logarithmic transformed data||||0.18
90917471|NCT01164098|181704321|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test of Natural Log Transformed Data.||||0.49
90917472|NCT01164098|181704322|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test||||0.37
90917473|NCT03990649|181704329|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54||||||The p-values were estimated using a two-sample t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.540
90917474|NCT05773313|181704331|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Food Insecurity||||>0.999
90917475|NCT05773313|181704331|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Financial Insecurity||||0.250
90917476|NCT05773313|181704331|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Social Isolation||||>0.999
90917477|NCT05773313|181704331|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Physical Inactivity||||>0.999
90917478|NCT05773313|181704331|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Disability||||>0.999
90917479|NCT05773313|181704332|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.461|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.461
90917480|NCT05773313|181704333|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.999
90917481|NCT05773313|181704334|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.438|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.438
90917482|NCT05773313|181704335|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.080
90917483|NCT03050814|181704336|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.061||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|2.966|||Kaplan Meier|Kaplan-Meier curves and a two-tailed log-rank test||||2.966|0.380|0.91
90917484|NCT01534494|181704359|OTHER|Paired t-test||||||0.008|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test for significance of change. t(8) = 3.477. P(2-sided) = 0.008||Single-group pre-post contrast||||0.008
90917485|NCT00802464|181704360|OTHER||Fold increase|5.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.89|6.98||||||Fold increase in frequency of gE-specific CD4+ T-cells secreting at least 2 different immunological activation markers among IFN-γ, IL-2, TNF-α and CD40L for GSK1437173A Formulation 1 over GSK1437173A Formulation 3 Group.||6.98|3.89|
90917486|NCT00802464|181704360|OTHER||Fold increase|4.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|5.4||||||Fold increase in frequency of gE-specific CD4+ T-cells secreting at least 2 different immunological activation markers among IFN-γ, IL-2, TNF-α and CD40L for GSK1437173A Formulation 2 over GSK1437173A Formulation 3 Group.||5.4|3|
90917487|NCT00802464|181704360|OTHER||Fold increase|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.58||||||Fold increase in frequency of gE-specific CD4+ T-cells secreting at least 2 different immunological activation markers among IFN-γ, IL-2, TNF-α and CD40L for GSK1437173A Formulation 1 over GSK1437173A Formulation 2 Group.||1.58|1.07|
90917488|NCT00802464|181704361|OTHER||Fold increase|2.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.67|2.69||||||Fold increase in frequency of gE-specific CD4+ T-cells secreting at least 2 different immunological activation markers among IFN-γ, IL-2, TNF-α and CD40L for GSK1437173A Formulation 1 over GSK1437173A Formulation 3 Group.||2.69|1.67|
90917489|NCT00802464|181704361|OTHER||Fold increase|1.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|2.07||||||Fold increase in frequency of gE-specific CD4+ T-cells secreting at least 2 different immunological activation markers among IFN-γ, IL-2, TNF-α and CD40L for GSK1437173A Formulation 2 over GSK1437173A Formulation 3 Group.||2.07|1.28|
90917490|NCT00802464|181704361|OTHER||Fold increase|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.56||||||Fold increase in frequency of gE-specific CD4+ T-cells secreting at least 2 different immunological activation markers among IFN-γ, IL-2, TNF-α and CD40L for GSK1437173A Formulation 1 over GSK1437173A Formulation 2 Group.||1.56|1.09|
90917491|NCT00802464|181704362|OTHER||Fold increase|4.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.81|5.85||||||Fold increase in anti-gE antibody concentrations for GSK1437173A Formulation 1 Group over GSK1437173A Formulation 3 Group.||5.85|3.81|
90917492|NCT00802464|181704362|OTHER||Fold increase|3.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.72|4.17||||||Fold increase in anti-gE antibody concentrations for GSK1437173A Formulation 2 Group over GSK1437173A Formulation 3 Group.||4.17|2.72|
90917493|NCT00802464|181704362|OTHER||Fold increase|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|1.68||||||Fold increase in anti-gE antibody concentrations for GSK1437173A Formulation 1 Group over GSK1437173A Formulation 2 Group.||1.68|1.17|
90917494|NCT00802464|181704363|OTHER||Fold increase|3.21|||||TWO_SIDED|36.0|2.64|3.9||||||Fold increase in anti-gE antibody concentrations for GSK1437173A Formulation 1 Group over GSK1437173A Formulation 3 Group.||3.9|2.64|
90917495|NCT00802464|181704363|OTHER||Fold increase|2.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|2.97||||||Fold increase in anti-gE antibody concentrations for GSK1437173A Formulation 2 Group over GSK1437173A Formulation 3 Group.||2.97|2.02|
90917496|NCT00802464|181704363|OTHER||Fold increase|1.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.54||||||Fold increase in anti-gE antibody concentrations for GSK1437173A Formulation 1 Group over GSK1437173A Formulation 2 Group.||1.54|1.12|
90917497|NCT00402246|181704380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|17.4|||<|0.001||95.0||||The a priori threshold for significance was an alpha level of 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis is that the time from a clinical event to a clinical decision for patients followed through the remote management system is greater than and equal to that of patients receiving only in-office care.||||<0.001
90917498|NCT00402246|181704381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.524|ONE_SIDED|95.0||1.21||Model was fit with device group (CRT-D vs. DR-ICD) as a stratifying variable.|Andersen-Gill model|An Andersen-Gill model was utilized to account for multiple hospitalization events per subject.||An Andersen-Gill proportional hazards regression model was fit to test the hypothesis that the CV hospitalization hazard rates for patients in the remote arm is equal to that of similar patients in the in-office arm.||1.21||0.524
90917499|NCT00402246|181704381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.325|ONE_SIDED|95.0||1.43||Model was fit with device group (CRT-D vs. DR-ICD) as a stratifying variable.|Andersen-Gill model|An Andersen-Gill model was utilized to account for multiple ED visits per subject.||An Andersen-Gill proportional hazards regression model was fit to test the hypothesis that the ED hazard rates for patients in the remote arm is equal to that of similar patients in the in-office arm.||1.43||0.325
90917500|NCT00402246|181704381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.099|ONE_SIDED|95.0||1.31||Model was fit with device group (CRT-D vs. DR-ICD) as a stratifying variable.|Andersen-Gill model|An Andersen-Gill model was utilized to account for multiple unscheduled clinic visits per subject.||An Andersen-Gill proportional hazards regression model was fit to test the hypothesis that the hazard rates of the CV unscheduled clinic or urgent care visits for patients in the remote arm is equal to that of similar patients in the in-office arm.||1.31||0.099
90917501|NCT00402246|181704382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.45||||0.29|ONE_SIDED|95.0||2.56||Model was fit with device group (CRT-D vs. DR-ICD) as a stratifying variable.|Andersen-Gill model|||An Andersen-Gill proportional hazards regression model was fit to test the hypothesis that the hazard rate of transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) taken for patients in the remote arm is equal to that of similar patients in the in-office arm.||2.56||0.29
90917502|NCT00402246|181704385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||probability|0.23||||||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|A GEE model was utilized to account for multiple events within same patient in estimating the probability of an AT/AF alert event being symptomatic.||||||
90917503|NCT00402246|181704387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.3||0.779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.0||The a priori threshold for significance was an alpha level of 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the time from event onset to clinical decision for symptom-driven device interrogations for patients followed through the remote management system is greater than and equal to that of patients receiving only in-office care.||1.0|-0.8|0.779
90917504|NCT00402246|181704388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|-6.9||The a priori threshold for significance was an alpha level of 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is the time from event onset to clinical decision for both device events and symptom-driven device interrogations for patients followed through the remote management system is greater than and equal to that of patients receiving only in-office care.||-6.9|-13.1|<0.001
90917505|NCT00402246|181704389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.82||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.9||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. The threshold was met, and the null hypothesis was rejected.|negative binomial model|||The null hypothesis was that the mean LOS per hospitalization visit for patients in the remote arm was equal to that for similar patients in the in-office arm.||0.9|0.7|0.002
90917506|NCT00402246|181704390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||compliance rate|0.761|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.737||||Binomial Exact Test|||3-month compliance rate|||0.737|
90917507|NCT00402246|181704390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||compliance rate|0.815|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.793||||Binomial Exact Test|||6-month compliance rate|||0.793|
90917508|NCT00402246|181704390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||compliance rate|0.815|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.792||||Binomial Exact Test|||9-month compliance rate|||0.792|
90917509|NCT00402246|181704390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||compliance rate|0.814|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.79||||Binomial Exact Test|||12-month compliance rate|||0.79|
90917510|NCT00402246|181704392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.217||95.0||||The a prior threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model was fit with randomization arm, device group (CRT-D vs. DR-ICD), and follow-up visit as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect.||A mixed model was fit to test whether patients followed through the remote management system will experience less anxiety than patients followed through in-office care.||||0.217
90961612|NCT01794923|181803724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.34|||ANOVA|||5 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.34|-0.60|0.592
90961613|NCT01794923|181803724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.3|||ANOVA|||5 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.30|-0.64|0.473
90917511|NCT00402246|181704393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.154||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance for was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model was fit with randomization arm, device group (CRT-D vs. DR-ICD), and follow-up visit as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect.||A mixed model was fit to test whether patients followed through the remote management system will experience less anxiety than patients followed through in-office care.||||0.154
90917512|NCT02622568|181704427|NON_INFERIORITY|Veregen alone has efficacy compared to Veregen + cryotherapy|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.556||||0.383|TWO_SIDED|||||Comparison at week 12|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.383
90917513|NCT02622568|181704427|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison at week 0|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.222||||0.81|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.81
90917514|NCT00324350|181704439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.27||Analyses were by intention to treat. All analyses adjusted for baseline cardiovascular disease, assignment to blood pressure (BP) trial or lipid trial, assignment to intensive BP intervention in BP trial, and assignment to fibrate in lipid trial.|Regression, Cox|||The BONE ancillary study was designed to have 80% power to detect a relative reduction in risk of non-spine clinical fractures of 22-29%. This was based on an estimated total number of fractures between 259-494, calculated with the following assumptions: rate of clinical non-spine fracture among women in the standard glycemia therapy group between 15 and 25/1000 person yrs, fracture rates for men between 35-40% of the rates for women of the same age, and an avg follow-up time of 4.6 yrs.||1.27|0.86|0.678
90917515|NCT00324350|181704440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.43|||Regression, Cox|||Number of participants with falls reported at each annual visit were compared by treatment assignment using a repeated-measures negative binomial model, with robust standard errors to account for clustering of the repeated outcomes within participants; the log of the length of the reporting period varied slightly and was included as an offset||1.43|0.84|0.490
90917516|NCT00324350|181704441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.11|||Mixed Models Analysis||The rate of height loss did not differ between groups (p = 0.573). Height loss of \>2 cm during ACCORD was experienced by 678 (19.5%) participants in the intensive and 686 (19.6%) in the standard glycemia group (OR 0.99; 95% CI 0.88, 1.11).|Height loss was compared by treatment assignment using linear mixed models with random intercepts and slopes. The proportions losing \>2 cm of height during follow-up were compared using logistic models. Based on previous research by Siminoski et al., this degree of height loss is associated with incident vertebral fracture with 94% specificity but only 28% sensitivity.(Siminoski K, Jiang G, Adachi JD, et al. Osteoporos Int 2005;16:403-410)||1.11|0.88|0.854
90917517|NCT02015520|181704444|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.38
90961614|NCT01794923|181803724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.55|||ANOVA|||5 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.55|-0.46|0.866
90961615|NCT01794923|181803724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.776|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||6 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||||0.776
90961616|NCT01794923|181803724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.43|||ANOVA|||6 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.43|-0.59|0.761
90961617|NCT01794923|181803724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.33|||ANOVA|||6 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.33|-0.69|0.477
90917518|NCT02015520|181704444|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
90917519|NCT02015520|181704444|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
90917520|NCT01854385|181704456|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.079|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.079
90917521|NCT02932579|181704460|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.0||||0.098|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.098
90917522|NCT02932579|181704461|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.38||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|4.21|||Fisher Exact|||||4.21|0.45|0.740
90917523|NCT04059042|181704462|EQUIVALENCE|Between-session pain measures were assessed with related-samples Wilcoxon signed-rank tests (Audio minus Silence). Data were not normally distributed so nonparametric tests were used.|Z score|39.0||||0.0051|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.0051
90961618|NCT01794923|181803724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.65|||ANOVA|||6 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.65|-0.44|0.705
90917524|NCT04059042|181704462|EQUIVALENCE|Between-session change scores were calculated per participant as Audio minus Silence and compared between groups with independent samples Mann-Whitney U-tests. Data were not normally distributed so nonparametric tests were used.|Z score|19.0||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
90917525|NCT04059042|181704463|EQUIVALENCE|Between-session pain measures were assessed with related-samples Wilcoxon signed-rank tests (Audio minus Silence). Data were not normally distributed so nonparametric tests were used.|Z score|18.0||||0.59|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.59
90961619|NCT01794923|181803724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||7 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||||0.600
90961620|NCT01794923|181803724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.56|||ANOVA|||7 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.56|-0.52|0.931
90879705|NCT02016482|181620735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|26.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.8|36.9||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If zero frequency occurred, strata were dropped and p-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or adjusted chi-square test based on Campbell \[2007\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||PASI 100||36.9|15.8|< 0.001
90879706|NCT02016482|181620736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|52.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.8|63.7||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If zero frequency occurred, strata were dropped and p-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or adjusted chi-square test based on Campbell \[2007\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||63.7|40.8|< 0.001
90879707|NCT02016482|181620737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|24.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.3|34.3||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If zero frequency occurred, strata were dropped and p-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or adjusted chi-square test based on Campbell \[2007\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||34.3|15.3|< 0.001
90879708|NCT02016482|181620738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|90.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|72.5|108.3||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If zero frequency occurred, strata were dropped and p-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or adjusted chi-square test based on Campbell \[2007\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||108.3|72.5|< 0.001
90917526|NCT04059042|181704463|EQUIVALENCE|Between-session change scores were calculated per participant as Audio minus Silence and compared between groups with independent samples Mann-Whitney U-tests. Data were not normally distributed so nonparametric tests were used.|Z score|14.0||||0.41|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.41
90917527|NCT02706717|181704498|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-51.3||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-246.0|143.9|||t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Visbiome ES mean minus placebo mean.|||143.9|-246|0.60
90917528|NCT02706717|181704504|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.042||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.17|||t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Visbiome ES mean minus placebo mean.|||0.17|-0.09|0.51
90917529|NCT02706717|181704505|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|28.4||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|71.0|||t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance|"The estimation parameter is the percent difference between the geometric mean fold changes.~With d-dimer data log10 transformed, this is (exp(Visbiome ES mean minus placebo mean) - 1)\*100."|||71.0|-3.6|0.09
90961621|NCT01794923|181803724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.3|||ANOVA|||7 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.30|-0.78|0.381
90879709|NCT02016482|181620739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-11.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|-8.4||Across all strata, P values were calculated from ANCOVA with treatment center stratum, Baseline value, and treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||||-8.4|-13.9|< 0.001
90879710|NCT02016482|181620740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-80.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-97.9|-63.3||Across all strata, P values were calculated from ANCOVA with treatment center stratum, Baseline value, and treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||||-63.3|-97.9|< 0.001
90879711|NCT02016482|181620741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-50.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.0|-37.8||Across all strata, P values were calculated from ANCOVA with treatment center stratum, Baseline value, and treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||||-37.8|-64.0|< 0.001
90879712|NCT02016482|181620742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-57.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.1|-42.4||Across all strata, P values were calculated from ANCOVA with treatment center stratum, Baseline value, and treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||||-42.4|-73.1|< 0.001
90879713|NCT02016482|181620743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.7||Across all strata, P values were calculated from ANCOVA with treatment center stratum, Baseline value, and treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||||-0.7|-1.1|< 0.001
90879714|NCT02016482|181620744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-27.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.9|-21.6||Across all strata, P values were calculated from ANCOVA with treatment center stratum, Baseline value, and treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||||-21.6|-33.9|< 0.001
90879715|NCT02016482|181620745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|-4.5||Across all strata, P values were calculated from ANCOVA with treatment center stratum, Baseline value, and treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||||-4.5|-7.8|< 0.001
90879716|NCT02016482|181620746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|15.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.1|24.3||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If zero frequency occurred, strata were dropped and p-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or adjusted chi-square test based on Campbell \[2007\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||DLQI = 0||24.3|7.1|< 0.001
90879717|NCT02016482|181620746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|27.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.7|37.4||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If zero frequency occurred, strata were dropped and p-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or adjusted chi-square test based on Campbell \[2007\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||DLQI = 0/1||37.4|16.7|< 0.001
90879718|NCT02016482|181620747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.7||||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.5||Across all strata, P values were calculated from ANCOVA with treatment center stratum, Baseline value, and treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||Absenteeism||2.5|-1.0|0.416
90917530|NCT02706717|181704508|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-32.7||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-93.5|28.2|||t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Visbiome ES mean minus placebo mean.|||28.2|-93.5|0.29
90961622|NCT01794923|181803724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.85|||ANOVA|||7 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.85|-0.32|0.371
91033882|NCT00322465|181953659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.91||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio has been adjusted for other independent variables included in the model, which are found in the other Statistical Analysis sections.||The null hypothesis is that the odds ratio for age (per 5 years) is 1 versus the alternative that it is greater than or less than 1. This was tested in a multivariable logistic regression model.||0.91|0.60|0.005
91033883|NCT00322465|181953659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|2.3||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio has been adjusted for other independent variables included in the model, which are found in the other Statistical Analysis sections.||The null hypothesis is that the odds ratio for scant discharge (reference category is no discharge) is 1 versus the alternative that it is greater than or less than 1. This was tested in a multivariable logistic regression model.||2.30|0.33|0.780
91033884|NCT00322465|181953659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|5.33||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio has been adjusted for other independent variables included in the model, which are found in the other Statistical Analysis sections.||The null hypothesis is that the odds ratio for moderate discharge amount (reference category is no discharge) is 1 versus the alternative that it is greater than or less than 1. This was tested in a multivariable logistic regression model.||5.33|0.75|0.164
91033885|NCT00322465|181953659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|5.17||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio has been adjusted for other independent variables included in the model, which are found in the other Statistical Analysis sections.||The null hypothesis is that the odds ratio for large amount of discharge (reference category is no discharge) is 1 versus the alternative that it is greater than or less than 1. This was tested in a multvariable logistic regression model.||5.17|0.23|0.919
90917531|NCT02706717|181704509|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.04|||t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Visbiome ES mean minus placebo mean.|||0.04|-0.08|0.41
90917532|NCT02706717|181704526|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.15
90917533|NCT06375421|181704585|SUPERIORITY|For preliminary efficacy, we used paired-samples t-tests within each group to compare free recall at the 1-week assessment between the two schedules.|Mean Difference (Net)|5.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|degrees of freedom: 17|Preliminary Intervention Effect = MEMI Free Recall - Blocked Free Recall|||||<0.001
90917534|NCT06375421|181704585|SUPERIORITY|For preliminary efficacy, we used paired-samples t-tests within each group to compare free recall at the 1-week assessment between the two schedules.|Mean Difference (Net)|6.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|degrees of freedom: 19|Preliminary Intervention Effect = MEMI Free Recall - Blocked Free Recall|||||<0.001
90917535|NCT06375421|181704586|SUPERIORITY|We used paired-samples t-tests within each group to compare cued word recall at the 1-week assessment between the two schedules.|Mean Difference (Net)|5.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|degrees of freedom: 17|Preliminary Intervention Effect = MEMI Cued Word Recall - Blocked Cued Word Recall|||||<0.001
90961623|NCT01794923|181803724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.67|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||8 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||||0.670
91033886|NCT00322465|181953659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.81||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|3.3||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio has been adjusted for other independent variables included in the model, which are found in the other Statistical Analysis sections.||The null hypothesis is that the odds ratio for 2 or more sex partners in the last 3 months (reference category is 0-1 partners) is 1 versus the alternative that it is greater than or less than 1.||3.30|1.00|0.051
91033887|NCT00322465|181953659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.42||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|22.74||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio has been adjusted for other independent variables included in the model, which are found in the other Statistical Analysis sections.||The null hypothesis is that the odds ratio for 1 or more new sex partners in the last 30 days (reference category is 0) is 1 versus the alternative that it is greater than or less than 1.||22.74|0.86|0.076
90879719|NCT02016482|181620747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-17.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.9|-11.6||Across all strata, P values were calculated from ANCOVA with treatment center stratum, Baseline value, and treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||Presenteeism||-11.6|-22.9|< 0.001
90917536|NCT06375421|181704586|SUPERIORITY|We used paired-samples t-tests within each group to compare cued word recall at the 1-week assessment between the two schedules.|Mean Difference (Net)|5.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|degrees of freedom: 19|Preliminary Intervention Effect = MEMI Cued Word Recall - Blocked Cued Word Recall|||||<0.001
90917537|NCT06375421|181704587|SUPERIORITY|We used paired-samples t-tests within each group to compare cued definition recall at the 1-week assessment between the two schedules.|Mean Difference (Net)|3.6||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|degrees of freedom: 17|Preliminary Intervention Effect = MEMI Cued Definition Recall - Blocked Cued Definition Recall|||||0.003
90917538|NCT06375421|181704587|SUPERIORITY|We used paired-samples t-tests within each group to compare cued definition recall at the 1-week assessment between the two schedules.|Mean Difference (Net)|3.3||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|degrees of freedom: 19|Preliminary Intervention Effect = MEMI Cued Definition Recall - Blocked Cued Definition Recall|||||0.002
90917539|NCT03702725|181704589|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Estimate value DL 3|||
90917540|NCT00956007|181704601|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.0747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.08||One-sided significance level = 0.0183|Log Rank|Stratified by EGFR and site/p16 status|Stratified by EGFR and site/p16 status. Reference level = IMRT.|This trial was designed to detect a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.74 with 80% statistical power and overall one-sided alpha of 0.025 (372 deaths) using a stratified log-rank test, assuming a control arm 3-year survival rate of 60.1%. The amended protocol based on ≥ 5 years potential follow-up projected 169 events, providing 55%, 66%, and 79% power to detect HRs of 0.71, 0.68, and 0.64, respectively, using the original one-sided alpha of 0.0183 the final analysis.||1.08|0.60|0.0747
90917541|NCT00956007|181704602|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0075|||||||Fisher Exact|||Dysphagia||||0.0075
90917542|NCT00956007|181704602|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2955|||||||Fisher Exact|||Dry mouth||||0.2955
90917543|NCT00956007|181704602|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||Dermatitis radiation||||0.0001
90917544|NCT00956007|181704602|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||Rach acneiform||||<0.0001
90917545|NCT00956007|181704603|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
90917546|NCT00956007|181704604|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1641|||||||Fisher Exact|||Dysphagia||||0.1641
90879720|NCT02016482|181620747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-15.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|-9.3||Across all strata, P values were calculated from ANCOVA with treatment center stratum, Baseline value, and treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||Overall work impairment||-9.3|-21.0|< 0.001
90917547|NCT00956007|181704604|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2623|||||||Fisher Exact|||Dry mouth||||0.2623
90917548|NCT00956007|181704604|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5378|||||||Fisher Exact|||Dermatitis radiation||||0.5378
90917549|NCT00956007|181704604|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.057|||||||Fisher Exact|||Rash acneiform||||0.0570
90917550|NCT00956007|181704605|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1575|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1575
90917551|NCT00956007|181704606|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.0168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.98||One-sided|Log Rank|Stratified by EGFR and site/p16 status|Stratified by EGFR and site/p16 status. Reference level = IMRT.|||0.98|0.57|0.0168
90917552|NCT05228470|181704616|OTHER|Null hypothesis of ORR by BICR was 30%.||||||0.0076|||||||Exact binomial test|||||||0.0076
90917553|NCT06511076|181704674|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was concluded if the 90% CIs for the ratio of the geometric means of Treatment ZLP-AI (test \[T\]) / Treatment ZLP-PFS (Reference \[R\]) were included in the range from 0.80 - 1.25.|GLSM ratio|0.9809||||||90.0|0.9529|1.0097|||Mixed Effects model||The GLSM ratio was calculated: ZLP-AI/ZLP-PFS|||1.0097|0.9529|
90917554|NCT06511076|181704675|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was concluded if the 90% CIs for the ratio of the geometric means of Treatment ZLP-AI (test \[T\]) / Treatment ZLP-PFS (Reference \[R\]) were included in the range from 0.80 - 1.25.|GLSM Ratio|0.9819|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9543|1.0102|||Mixed Effects model||The GLSM ratio was calculated: ZLP-AI/ZLP-PFS|||1.0102|0.9543|
90917555|NCT06511076|181704676|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was concluded if the 90% CIs for the ratio of the geometric means of Treatment ZLP-AI (test \[T\]) / Treatment ZLP-PFS (Reference \[R\]) were included in the range from 0.80 - 1.25.|GLSM ratio|0.9996|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9594|1.0416|||Mixed Effects model||The GLSM ratio was calculated: ZLP-AI/ZLP-PFS|||1.0416|0.9594|
90917556|NCT00431834|181704681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||binomial proportions|37.7|||<|0.0041|ONE_SIDED|97.5|25.6|||The percent of patients off Class I and III AADs and successfully converted out of AF following treatment (ptest) will exceed the percenter of patients off Class I and III AADs and convereted out of AF, as reported in literature (pcontrol=22.1%)|Fisher Exact|||"The specific test hypothesis is as follows:~H0: ptest ≤ 22.1% Ha: ptest \> 22.1%"|||25.6|<0.0041
90917557|NCT00431834|181704684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||binomial proportions|5.3|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|97.5||13.1||The percent of subjects following treatment, p, who experience any of the MAEs during the first 30 days following surgery, or hospital discharge, whichever is longer will be less than 23.6%.|Fisher Exact|||"The specific test hypothesis is as follows:~H0: p ≥ 23.6% Ha: p \< 23.6%"||13.1||<0.0001
90879721|NCT02016482|181620747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-21.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.3|-15.4||Across all strata, P values were calculated from ANCOVA with treatment center stratum, Baseline value, and treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||Activity impairment||-15.4|-27.3|< 0.001
90879722|NCT02016482|181620748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.2||P values were calculated from ANCOVA with treatment center stratum, Baseline value, and treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||||0.2|0.1|< 0.001
90879723|NCT02016482|181620749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.5||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|9.8||P values were calculated from ANCOVA with treatment center stratum, Baseline value, and treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||||9.8|1.2|0.012
90879724|NCT02016482|181620750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.1||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.1||P values were calculated from ANCOVA with treatment center stratum, Baseline value, and treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||HADS anxiety score||-0.1|-2.0|0.025
90961624|NCT01794923|181803724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.58|||ANOVA|||8 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.58|-0.54|0.941
90879725|NCT02016482|181620750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.3||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.4||P values were calculated from ANCOVA with treatment center stratum, Baseline value, and treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||HADS depression score||-0.4|-2.3|0.005
90879726|NCT02016482|181620751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|2.5||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|6.0||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If zero frequency occurred, strata were dropped and p-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or adjusted chi-square test based on Campbell \[2007\]).|Chi-squared|||||6|-0.9|0.164
90879727|NCT02016482|181620752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-2.1||P values were calculated from ANCOVA with treatment center stratum, Baseline value, and treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||||-2.1|-3.4|< 0.001
90879728|NCT03387813|181620753|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.1624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.05|||Anderson-Gill model (robust sandwich)|||||1.05|0.74|0.1624
90879729|NCT03387813|181620757|EQUIVALENCE|Clinical equivalence was met if the lower limit of the confidence interval (CI) of ln(HR) for the primary endpoint in Elevated NT-proBNP/BNP only vs. prior HFH only subjects is \> -0.2877 and the upper limit is \< 0.2877.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.44|0.6||||||||0.60|0.44|
90879730|NCT03387813|181620761|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.0958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.03|||Anderson-Gill model (robust sandwich)|||||1.03|0.70|0.0958
90879731|NCT03387813|181620765|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.0644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.01|||Anderson-Gill model (robust sandwich)|||||1.01|0.68|0.0644
90879732|NCT03387813|181620769|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.8867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.77|||Anderson-Gill model (robust sandwich)|||||1.77|0.61|0.8867
90879733|NCT03387813|181620773|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.7119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.7|||Anderson-Gill model (robust sandwich)|||||1.70|0.70|0.7119
90879734|NCT03387813|181620777|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.44||0.3484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.16|1.47|||t-test, 1 sided|||||1.47|-4.16|0.3484
90879735|NCT03387813|181620777|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.47||0.6684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.51|2.26|||t-test, 1 sided|||||2.26|-3.51|0.6684
90879736|NCT03387813|181620779|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.37||0.9901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.68|2.71|||t-test, 1 sided|||||2.71|-2.68|0.9901
90879737|NCT03387813|181620779|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.41||0.2947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|4.24|||t-test, 1 sided|||||4.24|-1.29|0.2947
90879738|NCT03387813|181620781|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.36||0.5741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.32|18.6|||t-test, 1 sided|||||18.60|-10.32|0.5741
90879739|NCT03387813|181620781|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.81||0.7077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.41|18.27|||t-test, 1 sided|||||18.27|-12.41|0.7077
90879740|NCT03387813|181620784|EQUIVALENCE|Clinical equivalence was met if the lower limit of the CI of ln(HR) for the primary endpoint in Elevated NT-proBNP/BNP only vs. prior HFH only subjects is \> -0.2877 and the upper limit is \< 0.2877.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.38|0.55||||||||0.55|0.38|
90879741|NCT03387813|181620788|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
90917558|NCT04191499|181704698|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.43|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.59|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratios were estimated by Cox regression. Hazard ratios and log-rank p-values are using stratified methods by stratifying Visceral Disease, Endocrine Resistance, and Region.||0.59|0.32|<0.0001
90879742|NCT03387813|181620792|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
90879743|NCT03387813|181620796|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0001
90879744|NCT03387813|181620802|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.46|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.54|||Anderson-Gill model (robust sandwich)|||||0.54|0.39|<0.0001
90879745|NCT03387813|181620803|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.76|||Anderson-Gill model (robust sandwich)|||||0.76|0.53|<0.001
90879746|NCT03387813|181620808|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means Difference (T vs C)|1.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|2.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparisons of PA Systolic Pressure at 6 months between Treatment vs Control group||2.78|0.29|0.0160
90879747|NCT03387813|181620808|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means Difference (T vs C)|0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.0427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|1.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparisons of PA Diastolic Pressure at 6 months between Treatment vs Control group.||1.56|0.03|0.0427
90879748|NCT03387813|181620808|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means Difference (T vs C)|1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.0188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|2.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparisons of PA Mean Pressure at 6 months between Treatment vs Control group.||2.08|0.19|0.0188
90879749|NCT03387813|181620808|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means Difference (T vs C)|0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.3405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|1.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparisons of PA Systolic Pressure at 12 months between Treatment vs Control group.||1.92|-0.66|0.3405
90879750|NCT03387813|181620808|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means Difference (T vs C)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.6174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparisons of PA Diastolic Pressure at 12 months between Treatment vs Control group.||0.99|-0.59|0.6174
90879751|NCT03387813|181620808|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means Difference (T vs C)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.4231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|1.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparisons of PA Mean Pressure at 12 months between Treatment vs Control group.||1.38|-0.58|0.4231
90879752|NCT03387813|181620809|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0214|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of PA Systolic Pressure AUC between Treatment and Control group.||||0.0214
90879753|NCT03387813|181620809|OTHER|||||||0.1002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of PA Diastolic Pressure AUC between Treatment and Control group.||||0.1002
90879754|NCT03387813|181620809|OTHER|||||||0.0402|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of PA Mean Pressure AUC between Treatment and Control group.||||0.0402
90879755|NCT03387813|181620810|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means Difference (T vs C)|37.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|75.52||0.6227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-111.38|185.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparisons of change from baseline in BNP levels at 6 months between Treatment vs Control group||185.77|-111.38|0.6227
90917559|NCT00895531|181704712|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.95
90917560|NCT02253537|181704729|EQUIVALENCE|2 x 2 contingency table with 95% CI.|2 x 2 contingency table|86.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.1|96.3||||||||96.3|62.1|
90879756|NCT03387813|181620811|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means Difference (T vs C)|59.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|76.87||0.4373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-91.44|211.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparisons of change from baseline in BNP levels at 12 months between Treatment vs Control group||211.01|-91.44|0.4373
90879757|NCT03387813|181620812|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means Difference (T vs C)|468.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|256.65||0.0692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.09|973.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparisons of change from baseline in NT-proBNP levels at 6months between Treatment vs Control group||973.30|-37.09|0.0692
90879758|NCT03387813|181620813|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means Difference (T vs C)|284.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|268.72||0.2903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-244.27|813.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparisons of change from baseline in NT-proBNP levels at 12 months between Treatment vs Control group||813.60|-244.27|0.2903
90879759|NCT03387813|181620814|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.78|||Anderson-Gill model (robust sandwich)|||||0.78|0.53|<0.0001
90917561|NCT05999435|181704733|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.4463|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons, alpha set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Null hypothesis of no difference; statistical results of observed PCS and change from baseline PCS are identical."||||0.4463
90917562|NCT05999435|181704733|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.8707|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons, alpha set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Null hypothesis of no difference; statistical results of observed PCS and change from baseline PCS are identical."||||0.8707
90917563|NCT05999435|181704733|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.36|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons, alpha set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Null hypothesis of no difference; statistical results of observed PCS and change from baseline PCS are identical."||||0.3600
90961625|NCT01794923|181803724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.34|||ANOVA|||8 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.34|-0.78|0.437
90879760|NCT03387813|181620815|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.81|||Anderson-Gill model (robust sandwich)|||||0.81|0.57|<0.0001
90879761|NCT00606892|181620831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0||||Significant treatment or treatment-by-time interactions were followed up by post hoc comparisons of placebo vs. varenicline for time (Pre- vs. Post-Nicotine infusion) and testing block (Smoking Block vs. Negative Affect Block).|Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed-effect repeated-measures crossover model with fixed main effect terms of treatment (placebo or varenicline) and time of measurement (Pre-Nicotine or Post-Nicotine) was utilized. Interactions between main effect terms were also analyzed.||||<0.05
90879762|NCT00606892|181620832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|40.0|<|0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|F(1,10)=1.1||||||<0.3
90879763|NCT00606892|181620833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Values of p\<0.05 were considered statistically significant, based on 2-tailed tests. Significant treatment, or treatment-by-time interactions were followed by post hoc comparisons. To account for multiple testing, significance was set at p\<0.016.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed-effect repeated-measures crossover model including fixed main effects for treatment condition (placebo or varenicline), time of measurement and interactions between treatment and time, was utilized. Because multiple measurements were collected before and after each nicotine dose, a change score (maximum post dose score - pre dose baseline) was used in the analysis.||||<0.05
90879764|NCT00606892|181620834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Post hoc comparisons of effects of varenicline versus placebo for different nicotine doses were performed and significance was adjusted for multiple testing using a p value of P\<0.016|ANOVA|Two-tailed tests were applied for main effects with P\<0.05||A mixed-effect, repeated-measures, crossover model was used with fixed main effects for treatment (placebo or varenicline), and time after treatment. Interactions between main effects were also analyzed.||||<0.05
90879765|NCT04630093|181620859|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline vs. 6 months after receiving panel-based pharmacogenetic testing||||0.001
90879766|NCT02739269|181620919|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.479|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.479
90879767|NCT02739269|181620920|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.002
90917564|NCT05999435|181704736|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1618||||||Alpha set at 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Week 4 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.1618
90917565|NCT05999435|181704736|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 4 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||1.000
90917566|NCT05999435|181704736|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1027|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 4 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.1027
90917567|NCT05999435|181704736|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0229|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 8 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.0229
90917568|NCT05999435|181704736|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 8 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||1.000
90917569|NCT05999435|181704736|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0296|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 8 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.0296
90917570|NCT05999435|181704736|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8448|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 12 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.8448
90917571|NCT05999435|181704736|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0307|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 12 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.0307
90917572|NCT05999435|181704736|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0105|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 12 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.0105
90917573|NCT05999435|181704737|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.2217|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons, alpha set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.2217
90917574|NCT05999435|181704737|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.6834|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons, alpha set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.6834
90961626|NCT01794923|181803724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.84|||ANOVA|||8 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.84|-0.36|0.429
90917575|NCT05999435|181704737|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.31||0.1061|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons, alpha set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.1061
90917576|NCT05999435|181704737|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.0854|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons, alpha set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.0854
90879768|NCT00828191|181620921|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis (H0) was tested against the alternative by calculating a two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in ongoing pregnancy rates. If the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval was greater than the non-inferiority limit (-10.0%), the null hypothesis was rejected and the test group considered not inferior to the control treatment.|Difference in pregnancy rates|-2.5||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|4.4|||Fisher Exact|||"The non -inferiority hypothesis to be tested for the primary endpoint was that the ongoing pregnancy rate (oPR) in the test group (Pe)was lower than the oPR in the control group (Pc)against the alternative one that the oPR in the test group was equal to or higher than the oPR in the control group.~H0 : Pc\>= Pe + d(-10%) H1 : Pc\< Pe + d(-10%)"||4.4|-9.4|0.52
90879769|NCT00828191|181620922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.48||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|4.0|||ANOVA|||||4.0|-7.6|0.54
90879770|NCT00828191|181620923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.0||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|4.8|||Fisher Exact|||||4.8|-8.8|0.62
90879771|NCT02013167|181620927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.93|||Stratified Log Rank|Stratified by age (\< 35 years; ≥ 35 years), prior salvage therapy (yes vs. no), and prior allogeneic HSCT (yes vs. no).|Hazard ratio obtained from the Cox Proportional Hazard Model. A hazard ratio \< 1.0 indicated a lower average event rate and longer survival time for blinatumomab relative to SOC chemotherapy.|||0.93|0.55|0.012
90879772|NCT02013167|181620928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment difference|17.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.6|26.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for the stratification factors: age (\< 35 vs. ≥ 35), prior salvage therapy (yes vs. no), and prior allogeneic HSCT (yes vs. no).||||26.2|9.6|< 0.001
90879773|NCT02013167|181620929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment difference|19.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.9|28.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for the stratification factors: age (\< 35 vs. ≥ 35), prior salvage therapy (yes vs. no), and prior allogeneic HSCT (yes vs. no).||||28.7|9.9|< 0.001
90917577|NCT05999435|181704737|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.6686|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons, alpha set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.6686
90917578|NCT05999435|181704737|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.31||0.0331|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons, alpha set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.0331
90917579|NCT05999435|181704737|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29||0.4327|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons, alpha set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.4327
90961627|NCT01794923|181803724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.484|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||9 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||||0.484
90917580|NCT05999435|181704737|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29||0.1247|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons, alpha set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.1247
90917581|NCT05999435|181704737|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.31||0.4606|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons, alpha set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.4606
90917582|NCT05999435|181704738|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7807||||||Alpha set at 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Baseline comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.7807
90917583|NCT05999435|181704738|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4965||||||Alpha set at 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Baseline comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.4965
90917584|NCT05999435|181704738|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2093||||||Alpha set at 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Baseline comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.2093
90879774|NCT02013167|181620930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.71|||||The hazard ratio estimates were obtained from the Cox Proportional Hazard Model. A hazard ratio \< 1.0 indicates a lower average event rate and a longer survival for Blinatumomab relative to SOC Chemotherapy.|||0.71|0.43|
90879775|NCT01113879|181620947|OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|85.0|||||Weighted Tau U|||Weighted Tau U effect size mean values in Block 1 of treatment (no aerobic exercise or stretching) were compared to weighted Tau U mean values in Block 2 of treatment (aerobic exercise or stretching adjuvant).||||< 0.001
90879776|NCT00082433|181620979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.0005||95.0|0.69|0.9|||Log Rank|||The analysis was conducted when 903 progressions or deaths (446 in combination:457 in capecitabine) were observed in 960 participants.||.90|.69|.0005
90879777|NCT00082433|181620980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.89|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.44|2.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.50|1.44|<.0001
90879778|NCT00082433|181620984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wei-Lachin|||There was a statistically significant difference between groups in change from baseline FBSI score favoring capecitabine. A mean change from baseline of 2.5 was considered a clinically meaningful difference (minimally important difference or MID). On-treatment mean changes in the FBSI did not reach the MID in either group.||||<0.0001
90879779|NCT00082433|181620985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.1162||95.0|0.78|1.03||The test was stratified by (taxane resistance \[yes/no\], measurable disease versus non-measurable disease, prior chemotherapy for metastatic disease \[yes/no\], and anthracycline resistance \[yes/no\]).|Log Rank|The analysis was conducted at the 0.05 level and no adjustments were performed||This primary analysis was a comparison between the 2 treatment arms using a 2-sided, α=0.05 level log-rank test (to reject the null hypothesis of equality of survival). The analysis was conducted when 880 deaths (430 in combination:450 in capecitabine) were observed from the 1221 randomized participants.||1.03|.78|.1162
90917585|NCT05999435|181704738|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Alpha set at 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Week 12 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||1.000
90879780|NCT00082433|181620985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.0231||95.0|0.75|0.98|||Regression, Cox|||This prespecified secondary analysis was a Cox model adjusted for age, Karnofsky performance status, number of organ sites, estrogen receptor status, hepatic impairment, time from diagnosis, liver/lung metastases.||.98|.75|.0231
90879781|NCT01796197|181620988|SUPERIORITY||Pathelogic Complete Response Rate|40.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Two stage design, exact method||Decision Rule: If the percentage of participants experiencing pathologic complete response (pCR) is ≤ 15% then the preoperative regimen is considered minimally effective. If the proportion of pCR ≥ 40% then the regimen is worthy of further study.|Null Hypothesis: pCR rate is less than or equal to 15% Alternative Hypothesis: pCR rate is greater than or equal to 40% Hypothesized False Positive Rate (alpha) : 3.9% Hypothesized False Negative Rate (1-beta) : 9.9%||||
90879782|NCT00244712|181621021|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of the ABC/3TC to the TDF/FTC would be declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval on the difference in the percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \<50 copies/mL at Week 48 \[ABC/3TC minus TDF/FTC\] was -12% or greater.|difference in response percentage|0.39||||0.913||95.0|-6.63|7.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in response percentage = percentage in Arm 1 minus percentage in Arm 2|||7.40|-6.63|0.913
90879783|NCT04041869|181621077|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||In order to test the effect of the intervention on physical activity, linear mixed models examined changes in steps per day from study baseline (week 0) to the end of the active intervention (week 8).||||<0.01
90879784|NCT01336738|181621087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.164||0.6803|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.13|0.29||One-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment difference and 80% confidence interval (CI) were based on LS mean. A mixed model repeated measure (MMRM) analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||0.29|-0.13|0.6803
90879785|NCT01336738|181621087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.166||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.71|-0.28||One-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||-0.28|-0.71|0.0017
90879786|NCT01336738|181621087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.168||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.8|-0.36||One-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||-0.36|-0.80|0.0003
90917586|NCT05999435|181704738|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Alpha set at 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Week 12 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||1.000
90917587|NCT05999435|181704738|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Alpha set at 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Week 12 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||1.000
90917588|NCT05999435|181704739|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.7052|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons, alpha set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.7052
90917589|NCT05999435|181704739|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.115|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons, alpha set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.1150
90917590|NCT05999435|181704739|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.2296|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons, alpha set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.2296
90961628|NCT01794923|181803724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.78|||ANOVA|||9 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.78|-0.38|0.504
90879787|NCT01336738|181621087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.162|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.91|-0.5||One-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||-0.50|-0.91|<0.0001
90879788|NCT01336738|181621088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.292||0.4757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.64|14.2||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||14.20|-6.64|0.4757
90879789|NCT01336738|181621088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.296||0.8031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.11|11.75||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||11.75|-9.11|0.8031
90879790|NCT01336738|181621088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.364||0.549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.78|7.34||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||7.34|-13.78|0.5490
90917591|NCT05999435|181704739|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.7761|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons, alpha set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.7761
90917592|NCT05999435|181704739|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.8544|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons, alpha set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.8544
90917593|NCT05999435|181704739|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.9197|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons, alpha set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.9197
90879791|NCT01336738|181621088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-15.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.34||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.58|-4.55||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-4.55|-25.58|0.0051
90879792|NCT01336738|181621088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.02||0.6291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.31|7.46||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||7.46|-12.31|0.6291
90879793|NCT01336738|181621088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.001||0.4396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.98|13.72||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||13.72|-5.98|0.4396
90879794|NCT01336738|181621088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.03||0.1934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.46|3.34||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||3.34|-16.46|0.1934
90879795|NCT01336738|181621088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-17.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.039||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.24|-7.4||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-7.40|-27.24|0.0007
90879796|NCT01336738|181621088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.201||0.5479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.11|13.37||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||13.37|-7.11|0.5479
90879797|NCT01336738|181621088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.209||0.4276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.39|6.12||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||6.12|-14.39|0.4276
90879798|NCT01336738|181621088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.235||0.1596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.69|2.92||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||2.92|-17.69|0.1596
90917594|NCT05999435|181704740|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.6269|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Vitality domain, Week 12 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.6269
90917595|NCT05999435|181704740|SUPERIORITY||Leat Square Means difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.4427|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Vitality domain, Week 12 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.4427
90917596|NCT05999435|181704740|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.52||0.7783|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Vitality domain, Week 12 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.7783
90879799|NCT01336738|181621088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-22.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.198|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.06|-12.6||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-12.60|-33.06|<0.0001
90879800|NCT01336738|181621088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.855||0.8509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.63|10.43||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||10.43|-12.63|0.8509
90879801|NCT01336738|181621088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-8.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.913||0.1505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.17|3.12||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||3.12|-20.17|0.1505
90879802|NCT01336738|181621088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.94||0.2662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.31|5.08||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||5.08|-18.31|0.2662
90879803|NCT01336738|181621088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-21.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.818||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.97|-10.07||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-10.07|-32.97|0.0003
90917597|NCT05999435|181704740|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.19||0.7488|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Physical Functioning domain, Week 12 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.7488
90917598|NCT05999435|181704740|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.18||0.5557|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Physical Functioning domain, Week 12 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.5557
90917599|NCT05999435|181704740|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.22||0.3679|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Physical Functioning domain, Week 12 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.3679
90879804|NCT01336738|181621088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.94||0.7724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.68|11.66||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||11.66|-15.68|0.7724
90879805|NCT01336738|181621088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.986||0.9202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.47|13.07||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||13.07|-14.47|0.9202
90879806|NCT01336738|181621088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.998||0.8183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|12.18||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||12.18|-15.40|0.8183
90879807|NCT01336738|181621088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-24.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.821||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.4|-11.53||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-11.53|-38.40|0.0003
90879808|NCT01336738|181621089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.2327|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.1|0.03||One-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||0.03|-0.10|0.2327
90879809|NCT01336738|181621089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.358|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.08|0.04||One-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||0.04|-0.08|0.3580
90917600|NCT05999435|181704740|SUPERIORITY||Least Squre Means difference|-8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.78||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bodily Pain domain, Week 12 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.0044
90917601|NCT05999435|181704740|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|-6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.79||0.0158|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bodily Pain domain, Week 12 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.0158
90961629|NCT01794923|181803724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.4|||ANOVA|||9 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.40|-0.77|0.528
90961630|NCT01794923|181803724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|1.01|||ANOVA|||9 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||1.01|-0.24|0.229
90879810|NCT01336738|181621089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.2|-0.07||One-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||-0.07|-0.20|0.0036
90879811|NCT01336738|181621089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049||0.1251|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.12|0.01||One-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||0.01|-0.12|0.1251
90879812|NCT01336738|181621089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066||0.3466|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.11|0.06||One-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||0.06|-0.11|0.3466
90879813|NCT01336738|181621089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066||0.0439|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.2|-0.03||One-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||-0.03|-0.20|0.0439
90879814|NCT01336738|181621089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067||0.004|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.27|-0.09||One-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||-0.09|-0.27|0.0040
90917602|NCT05999435|181704740|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.81||0.6682|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bodily Pain domain, Week 12 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.6682
90917603|NCT05999435|181704740|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.2448|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||General Health domain, Week 12 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.2448
90879815|NCT01336738|181621089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.065||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.29|-0.12||One-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||-0.12|-0.29|0.0009
90879816|NCT01336738|181621089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.096||0.1405|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.23|0.02||One-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||0.02|-0.23|0.1405
90879817|NCT01336738|181621089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.097||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.36|-0.12||One-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||-0.12|-0.36|0.0067
90879818|NCT01336738|181621089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.098||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.5|-0.24||One-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||-0.24|-0.50|0.0001
90917604|NCT05999435|181704740|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.4702|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||General Health domain, Week 12 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.4702
90917605|NCT05999435|181704740|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.92||0.6627|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||General Health domain, Week 12 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.6627
90917606|NCT05999435|181704740|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.85||0.2774|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Role Physical Functioning domain, Week 12 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.2774
90917607|NCT05999435|181704740|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.85||0.1537|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Role Physical Functioning domain, Week 12 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.1537
90917608|NCT05999435|181704740|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.87||0.7355|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Role Physical Functioning domain, Week 12 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.7355
90917609|NCT05999435|181704740|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|-8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.9||0.1757|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Role Emotional Functioning domain, Week 12 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.1757
90917610|NCT05999435|181704740|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|-10.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.89||0.0649|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Rome Emotional Functioning domain, Week 12 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.0649
90917611|NCT05999435|181704740|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.93||0.6262|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Role Emotional Functioning domain, Week 12 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.6262
90879819|NCT01336738|181621089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.46|-0.22||One-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||-0.22|-0.46|0.0002
90879820|NCT01336738|181621089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.135||0.4887|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.18|0.17||One-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||0.17|-0.18|0.4887
90879821|NCT01336738|181621089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.002|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.57|-0.22||One-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||-0.22|-0.57|0.0020
90879822|NCT01336738|181621089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.138|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.76|-0.41||One-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||-0.41|-0.76|<0.0001
90879823|NCT01336738|181621089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.133|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.76|-0.42||One-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||-0.42|-0.76|<0.0001
90917612|NCT05999435|181704740|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.92||0.9709|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Social Role Functioning domain, Week 12 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.9709
90879824|NCT01336738|181621091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.225||0.2067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.73||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.73|-0.16|0.2067
90879825|NCT01336738|181621091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.224||0.8602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.48||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.48|-0.40|0.8602
90879826|NCT01336738|181621091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.225||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.42||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.42|-0.47|0.9200
90879827|NCT01336738|181621091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.223||0.0399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.9||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.90|0.02|0.0399
90879828|NCT01336738|181621091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.242||0.2266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.77||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.77|-0.18|0.2266
90879829|NCT01336738|181621091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.241||0.8493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.52||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.52|-0.43|0.8493
90879830|NCT01336738|181621091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.242||0.9511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.46||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.46|-0.49|0.9511
90879831|NCT01336738|181621091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.241||0.1369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.83||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.83|-0.11|0.1369
90879832|NCT01336738|181621091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.272||0.1562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.92||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.92|-0.15|0.1562
90879833|NCT01336738|181621091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.272||0.4913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.35||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.35|-0.72|0.4913
90879834|NCT01336738|181621091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.272||0.513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.71||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.71|-0.36|0.5130
90879835|NCT01336738|181621091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.269||0.0298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|1.12||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||1.12|0.06|0.0298
90879836|NCT01336738|181621091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.363||0.3196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|1.08||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||1.08|-0.35|0.3196
90879837|NCT01336738|181621091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.367||0.8884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.67||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.67|-0.77|0.8884
90917613|NCT05999435|181704740|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.92||0.3201|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Social Role Functioning domain, Week 12 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.3201
90917614|NCT05999435|181704740|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.95||0.3065|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Social Role Functioning domain, Week 12 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.3065
90917615|NCT05999435|181704740|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.2891|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mental Health domain, Week 12 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.2891
90917616|NCT05999435|181704740|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.8714|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mental Health domain, Week 12 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.8714
90917617|NCT05999435|181704740|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96||0.226|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mental Health domain, Week 12 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.2260
90879838|NCT01336738|181621091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.365||0.7325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.84||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.84|-0.59|0.7325
90879839|NCT01336738|181621091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.357||0.3395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|1.04||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||1.04|-0.36|0.3395
90879840|NCT01336738|181621091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.7514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.94||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.94|-0.68|0.7514
90879841|NCT01336738|181621091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.413||0.7529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.94||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.94|-0.68|0.7529
90879842|NCT01336738|181621091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.411||0.9638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.83||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.83|-0.79|0.9638
90879843|NCT01336738|181621091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.404||0.0962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|1.47||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||1.47|-0.12|0.0962
90879844|NCT02970968|181621101|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0099|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.0099
90879845|NCT02970968|181621102|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.0160
90879846|NCT02970968|181621103|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.039|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.039
90879847|NCT02970968|181621104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0223|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.0223
90879848|NCT02970968|181621105|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0497|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.0497
90879849|NCT02970968|181621106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0207|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.0207
90879850|NCT02970968|181621107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0429|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.0429
90879851|NCT02970968|181621108|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.0001
90879852|NCT02970968|181621109|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.0003
90917618|NCT05999435|181704741|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||Week 4 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference|No comparison possible since zero count in both groups|||
90879853|NCT02970968|181621110|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.023|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.023
90879854|NCT02970968|181621111|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0078|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.0078
90879855|NCT02970968|181621112|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0294|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.0294
90879856|NCT02970968|181621113|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0229|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.0229
90879857|NCT02970968|181621114|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0018|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.0018
90879858|NCT02970968|181621115|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0013|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.0013
90879859|NCT02970968|181621116|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.0001
90879860|NCT02970968|181621117|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.018
90879861|NCT02970968|181621118|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0164|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.0164
90879862|NCT02970968|181621119|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0053|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.0053
90879863|NCT02970968|181621120|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.0020
90879864|NCT03003520|181621123|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99||||||Significance defined as 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||>0.99
90879865|NCT03003520|181621123|SUPERIORITY||AUC-ROC|0.477||||0.872|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance defined as 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The Area Under the Receiver Operator Characteristic Curve (AUC-ROC) is the estimated parameter. Responders were compared to non-responders by ranking them according to their CD8 density.||||0.872
90879866|NCT03003520|181621124|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0403||||||Significance defined as 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.0403
90879867|NCT03003520|181621124|SUPERIORITY||AUC-ROC|0.583||||0.523|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance defined as 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The Area Under the Receiver Operator Characteristic Curve (AUC-ROC) is the estimated parameter. Responders were compared to non-responders by ranking them according to their PDL1 % of total cells.||||0.523
90879868|NCT03003520|181621125|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99||||||Significance defined as 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||>0.99
90917619|NCT05999435|181704741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2459||||||Alpha set at 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Week 4 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.2459
90917620|NCT05999435|181704741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2459||||||Alpha set at 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Week 4 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.2459
90917621|NCT05999435|181704741|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Alpha set at 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Week 8 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||1.000
90879869|NCT03003520|181621125|SUPERIORITY||AUC-ROC|0.583||||0.557|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance defined as 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The Area Under the Receiver Operator Characteristic Curve (AUC-ROC) is the estimated parameter. Responders were compared to non-responders by ranking them according to their PDL1 % of tumor cells.||||0.557
90879870|NCT03003520|181621126|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.662||||||Significance defined as 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.662
90879871|NCT03003520|181621126|SUPERIORITY||AUC-ROC|0.6||||0.399|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance defined as 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The Area Under the Receiver Operator Characteristic Curve (AUC-ROC) is the estimated parameter. Responders were compared to non-responders by ranking them according to their IFNG-Score.||||0.399
90879872|NCT01332149|181621129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.148||0.0559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.01||Primary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment and study center as factors and the corresponding baseline score as a covariate in the model.||||0.01|-0.58|0.0559
90879873|NCT01332149|181621130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.0||All analyses were two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||Week 1 Modelled Results. The model used was a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center, and treatment by week interaction as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.||0.00|-0.47|0.0527
90879874|NCT01332149|181621130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121||0.0279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.03||All analyses were two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||Week 2 Modelled Results. The model used was a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center, and treatment by week interaction as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.||-0.03|-0.50|0.0279
90879875|NCT01332149|181621130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121||0.0508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.0||All analyses were two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||Week 3 Modelled Results. The model used was a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center, and treatment by week interaction as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.||0.00|-0.48|0.0508
90879876|NCT01332149|181621130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121||0.0349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|-0.02||All analyses were two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||Week 4 Modelled Results. The model used was a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center, and treatment by week interaction as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.||-0.02|-0.49|0.0349
90879877|NCT01332149|181621130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.122||0.0672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.02||All analyses were two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||Week 5 Modelled Results. The model used was a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center, and treatment by week interaction as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.||0.02|-0.46|0.0672
90879878|NCT01332149|181621130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.122||0.0469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.0||All analyses were two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||Week 6 Modelled Results. The model used was a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center, and treatment by week interaction as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.||-0.00|-0.48|0.0469
90879879|NCT01332149|181621130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.122||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.03||All analyses were two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||Week 7 Modelled Results. The model used was a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center, and treatment by week interaction as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.||-0.03|-0.51|0.0280
90879880|NCT01332149|181621130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.122||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.06||All analyses were two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||Week 8 Modelled Results. The model used was a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center, and treatment by week interaction as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.||-0.06|-0.54|0.0140
90879881|NCT01332149|181621130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.122||0.0375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|-0.01||All analyses were two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||Week 9 Modelled Results. The model used was a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center, and treatment by week interaction as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.||-0.01|-0.49|0.0375
90879882|NCT01332149|181621130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.105||0.0164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.05||All analyses were two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Overall change was estimated from the mixed effect model treatment main effect.|Overall change from baseline analysis. The model used was a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center, and treatment by week interaction as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.||-0.05|-0.46|0.0164
90879883|NCT01332149|181621132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.143||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.07||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment and study center as factors and the corresponding baseline score as a covariate in the model.||||0.07|-0.49|0.1340
90917622|NCT05999435|181704741|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 8 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||1.000
90917623|NCT05999435|181704741|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||Week 8 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference|No comparison possible since zero count in both groups|||
90917624|NCT05999435|181704741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4972||||||Alpha set to 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Week 12 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.4972
90917625|NCT05999435|181704741|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Alpha set at 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Week 12 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||1.000
90917626|NCT05999435|181704741|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 12 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||1.000
90879884|NCT01332149|181621133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.127||0.3438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.13||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||Week 1 Modelled Results. The model used was a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center, and treatment by week interaction as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.||0.13|-0.37|0.3438
90879885|NCT01332149|181621133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.128||0.2482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||Week 2 Modelled Results. The model used was a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center, and treatment by week interaction as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.||0.10|-0.40|0.2482
90917627|NCT05999435|181704742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3081||||||Alpha set at 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Week 4 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.3081
90917628|NCT05999435|181704742|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Alpha set at 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Week 4 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||1.000
90917629|NCT05999435|181704742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3081|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 4 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.3081
90917630|NCT05999435|181704742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.066||||||Alpha set at 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Week 8 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.066
90917631|NCT05999435|181704742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0297||||||Alpha set at 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Week 8 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.0297
90917632|NCT05999435|181704742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8471||||||Alpha set at 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Week 8 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.8471
90917633|NCT05999435|181704742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7009||||||Alpha set at 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Week 12 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.7009
90917634|NCT05999435|181704742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7064||||||Alpha set at 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Week 12 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.7064
90917635|NCT05999435|181704742|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Alpha set at 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Week 12 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||1.000
90917636|NCT05999435|181704743|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1686|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 4 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.1686
90917637|NCT05999435|181704743|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 4 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||1.000
90917638|NCT05999435|181704743|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0643||||||Alpha set at 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Week 4 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.0643
90917639|NCT05999435|181704743|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1531|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 8 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.1531
90917640|NCT05999435|181704743|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7187|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 8 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.7187
90917641|NCT05999435|181704743|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.072||||||Alpha set at 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Week 8 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.0720
90961631|NCT01794923|181803724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.536|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||10 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||||0.536
90917642|NCT05999435|181704743|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6117||||||Alpha set at 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Week 12 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.6117
90917643|NCT05999435|181704743|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0479||||||Alpha set at 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Week 12 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.0479
90917644|NCT05999435|181704743|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2042||||||Alpha set at 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Week 12 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.2042
90917645|NCT05999435|181704744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2458||||||Alpha set at 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Week 4 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.2458
90917646|NCT05999435|181704744|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||Week 4 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference|Comparison not possible since zero counts in both groups|||
90917647|NCT05999435|181704744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2458|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 4 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.2458
90917648|NCT05999435|181704744|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Alpha set at 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Week 8 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||1.000
90917649|NCT05999435|181704744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4944||||||Alpha set at 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Week 8 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.4944
90917650|NCT05999435|181704744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4798|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 8 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.4798
90917651|NCT05999435|181704744|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Alpha set at 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Week 12 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||1.000
90917652|NCT05999435|181704744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4972||||||Alpha set at 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Week 12 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.4972
90917653|NCT05999435|181704744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4885||||||Alpha set at 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Week 12 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.4885
90917654|NCT05999435|181704745|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.4156|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons, alpha set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.4156
90917655|NCT05999435|181704745|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.7088|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons, alpha set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.7088
90917656|NCT05999435|181704745|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.661|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons, alpha set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.6610
90917657|NCT05999435|181704745|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.758|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons, alpha set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.7580
90917658|NCT05999435|181704745|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.4974|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons, alpha set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.4974
90917659|NCT05999435|181704745|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.3289|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons, alpha set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.3289
90917660|NCT05999435|181704745|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.17|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons, alpha set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.1700
91033888|NCT00322465|181953659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.38||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.1||A priori threshold fors tatistical significance was p\<0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio has been adjusted for other independent variables included in the model, which are found in the other Statistical Analysis sections.||The null hypothesis is that the odds ratio for ever having sex with a prostitute or sex for money, drugs, or other things (reference category is no) is 1 versus the alternative that it is greater than or less than 1.||1.10|0.13|0.075
90879886|NCT01332149|181621133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129||0.2249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.1||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||Week 3 Modelled Results. The model used was a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center, and treatment by week interaction as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.||0.10|-0.41|0.2249
90879887|NCT01332149|181621133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129||0.1094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.05||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||Week 4 Modelled Results. The model used was a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center, and treatment by week interaction as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.||0.05|-0.46|0.1094
90879888|NCT01332149|181621133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129||0.2095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.09||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||Week 5 Modelled Results. The model used was a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center, and treatment by week interaction as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.||0.09|-0.41|0.2095
90879889|NCT01332149|181621133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129||0.0531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.0||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||Week 6 Modelled Results. The model used was a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center, and treatment by week interaction as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.||0.00|-0.50|0.0531
90879890|NCT01332149|181621133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.1628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.07||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||Week 7 Modelled Results. The model used was a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center, and treatment by week interaction as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.||0.07|-0.44|0.1628
90879891|NCT01332149|181621133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.02||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||Week 8 Modelled Results. The model used was a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center, and treatment by week interaction as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.||0.02|-0.48|0.0770
90879892|NCT01332149|181621133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.1651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.07||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||Week 9 Modelled Results. The model used was a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center, and treatment by week interaction as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.||0.07|-0.43|0.1651
90917661|NCT05999435|181704745|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.0557|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons, alpha set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.0557
90917662|NCT05999435|181704745|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.6008|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons, alpha set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.6008
90917663|NCT05999435|181704746|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8046||||||Alpha set at 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis of no difference||||0.8046
90917664|NCT05999435|181704746|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Alpha set at 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis of no difference||||1.000
90917665|NCT05999435|181704746|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Alpha set at 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis of no difference||||1.000
90917666|NCT05999435|181704748|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||Null hypothesis of no difference|Sustained recovery was not achieved in any participant, no possible statistical analysis|||
90917667|NCT05999435|181704749|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7699||||||Treatment group effect, alpha set at 0.05|ANOVA|||Week 4 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.7699
90879893|NCT01332149|181621133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.1006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.04||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||Overall change from baseline analysis. The model used was a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center, and treatment by week interaction as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.||0.04|-0.40|0.1006
90879894|NCT01332149|181621134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.1309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.74||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test comparing pregabalin to placebo adjusted for center.||||1.74|0.93|0.1309
90917668|NCT05999435|181704749|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9928||||||Treatment group effect, alpha set at 0.05|ANOVA|||Week 8 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.9928
90917669|NCT05999435|181704749|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8363||||||Treatment group effect, alpha set at 0.05|ANOVA|||Week 12 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.8363
90917670|NCT05999435|181704749|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.693||||||Treatment group effect, alpha set at 0.05|ANOVA|||Week 24 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.6930
90917671|NCT05999435|181704750|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.278||||||Alpha set at 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis of no difference||||0.2780
90917672|NCT05999435|181704750|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4967||||||Alpha set at 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis of no difference||||0.4967
90917673|NCT05999435|181704750|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Alpha set at 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis of no difference||||1.000
90917674|NCT04982315|181704812|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.1|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||||-0.1|-1.9|.024
90879895|NCT01332149|181621137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-3.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.628||0.0463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.45|-0.05||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment and study center as factors and the corresponding baseline score as a covariate in the model.||||-0.05|-6.45|0.0463
90879896|NCT01332149|181621138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061||0.2748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.05||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment and study center as factors and the corresponding baseline score as a covariate in the model.||||0.05|-0.19|0.2748
90879897|NCT01332149|181621140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.577||0.4758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.22|1.97||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment and study center as factors and the corresponding baseline score as a covariate in the model.||||1.97|-4.22|0.4758
90879898|NCT01332149|181621141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|3.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.22||0.1363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|7.67||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment and study center as factors and the corresponding baseline score as a covariate in the model.||||7.67|-1.05|0.1363
90879899|NCT01332149|181621142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.371||0.8808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.49|2.9||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment and study center as factors and the corresponding baseline score as a covariate in the model.||||2.90|-2.49|0.8808
90879900|NCT01332149|181621143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.4||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment and study center as factors and the corresponding baseline score as a covariate in the model.||||0.40|-0.03|0.0887
90879901|NCT01332149|181621144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.7929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.53||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||Analysis performed using a logistic regression model with treatment and center as factors, and baseline value as a covariate.||1.53|0.72|0.7929
90917675|NCT04982315|181704812|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-0.6|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||||-0.6|-2.5|.001
90917676|NCT04982315|181704812|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.5|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||||0.5|-1.5|.286
90917677|NCT04982315|181704813|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.7|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 3 months; SA \& EA are pooled because 3 months is considered standard acupuncture regardless of acupuncture treatment arm.||-0.7|-2.1|0
90961632|NCT01794923|181803724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.7|||ANOVA|||10 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.70|-0.49|0.728
90879902|NCT01332149|181621145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.973||0.596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.83|4.92||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment and study center as factors and the corresponding baseline score as a covariate in the model.||||4.92|-2.83|0.5960
90879903|NCT01332149|181621146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.536||0.8216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.36|2.67||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment and study center as factors and the corresponding baseline score as a covariate in the model.||||2.67|-3.36|0.8216
90879904|NCT01332149|181621147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.177||0.4829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.14|1.49||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment and study center as factors and the corresponding baseline score as a covariate in the model.||||1.49|-3.14|0.4829
90879905|NCT01332149|181621148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.073||0.0431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.0||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|ANOVA|||Analysis performed using a general linear model with treatment and center as factors.||-0.00|-0.29|0.0431
90879906|NCT01332149|181621149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.074||0.0602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.01||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|ANOVA|||Analysis performed using a general linear model with treatment and center as factors.||0.01|-0.28|0.0602
90879907|NCT01332149|181621151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.207||0.4172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.24||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment and study center as factors and the corresponding baseline score as a covariate in the model.||||0.24|-0.57|0.4172
90879908|NCT01332149|181621152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.218||0.3724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.23||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment and study center as factors and the corresponding baseline score as a covariate in the model.||||0.23|-0.62|0.3724
90879909|NCT01852292|181621210|OTHER|Double Criteria for PFS|Cox Proportional Hazard|0.646|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.94||||||||0.94|0.44|
90879910|NCT01852292|181621211|OTHER|Double criteria for OS|Cox Proportional Hazard|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.04||||||||1.04|0.49|
90917678|NCT04982315|181704813|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.3|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 12 months||-0.3|-2.1|.008
90879911|NCT00071812|181621269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference from placebo|18.8||||0.0097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.8|32.8||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|Likelihood ratio chi-squared|||Patients who required rescue RA medications were declared nonresponders, as were patients who dropped out or were missing Week 24 data.||32.8|4.8|0.0097
90879912|NCT00071812|181621269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference from placebo|9.4||||0.1677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|22.7||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|Likelihood ratio chi-squared|||Patients who required rescue RA medications were declared nonresponders, as were patients who dropped out or were missing Week 24 data.||22.7|-3.9|0.1677
90879913|NCT00071812|181621269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference from placebo|12.2||||0.0796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|25.8||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|Likelihood ratio chi-squared|||Patients who required rescue RA medications were declared nonresponders, as were patients who dropped out or were missing Week 24 data.||25.8|-1.3|0.0796
90879914|NCT00071812|181621270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference from placebo|5.4||||0.2074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|13.7||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|Likelihood ratio chi-squared|||Patients who required rescue RA medications were declared nonresponders, as were patients who dropped out or were missing Week 24 data.||13.7|-3.0|0.2074
90879915|NCT00071812|181621270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference from placebo|4.1||||0.3177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|12.2||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|Likelihood ratio chi-squared|||Patients who required rescue RA medications were declared nonresponders, as were patients who dropped out or were missing Week 24 data.||12.2|-4.0|0.3177
90879916|NCT00071812|181621270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference from placebo|9.7||||0.0418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|19.2||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|Likelihood ratio chi-squared|||Patients who required rescue RA medications were declared nonresponders, as were patients who dropped out or were missing Week 24 data.||19.2|0.3|0.0418
90879917|NCT00071812|181621271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference from placebo|2.7||||0.4299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|9.3||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|Likelihood ratio chi-squared|||Patients who required rescue RA medications were declared nonresponders, as were patients who dropped out or were missing Week 24 data.||9.3|-4.0|0.4299
90917679|NCT04982315|181704813|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-0.7|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 12 months||-0.7|-2.6|0
90917680|NCT04982315|181704813|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.4|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 12 months||.4|-1.4|.27
90879918|NCT00071812|181621271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference from placebo|-1.5||||0.5393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|3.3||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|Likelihood ratio chi-squared|||Patients who required rescue RA medications were declared nonresponders, as were patients who dropped out or were missing Week 24 data.||3.3|-6.3|0.5393
90879919|NCT00071812|181621271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference from placebo|-0.1||||0.9769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|5.4||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|Likelihood ratio chi-squared|||Patients who required rescue RA medications were declared nonresponders, as were patients who dropped out or were missing Week 24 data.||5.4|-5.6|0.9769
90879920|NCT00071812|181621272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1752||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|Log Rank|||Patients who required rescue RA medications were declared nonresponders, as were patients who dropped out or were missing Week 24 data. Patients who did not have any ACR response were censored at the last visit or exit visit, whichever occurred first. Patients who did not have an ACR response and discontinued from the study prior to study completion were censored at the last date on study.||||0.1752
90879921|NCT00071812|181621272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.344||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|Log Rank|||Patients who required rescue RA medications were declared nonresponders, as were patients who dropped out or were missing Week 24 data. Patients who did not have any ACR response were censored at the last visit or exit visit, whichever occurred first. Patients who did not have an ACR response and discontinued from the study prior to study completion were censored at the last date on study.||||0.3440
90879922|NCT00071812|181621272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4308||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|Log Rank|||Patients who required rescue RA medications were declared nonresponders, as were patients who dropped out or were missing Week 24 data. Patients who did not have any ACR response were censored at the last visit or exit visit, whichever occurred first. Patients who did not have an ACR response and discontinued from the study prior to study completion were censored at the last date on study.||||0.4308
90879923|NCT00071812|181621275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0958||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|t-test, 2 sided|||Missing data was handled by using last observation carried forward (LOCF) imputation.||||0.0958
90879924|NCT00071812|181621275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7864||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|t-test, 2 sided|||Missing data was handled by using LOCF imputation.||||0.7864
90879925|NCT00071812|181621275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0051||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|t-test, 2 sided|||Missing data was handled by using LOCF imputation.||||0.0051
90917681|NCT04982315|181704814|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|1.72|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Estimation performed with adjusted modified Poisson regression model with binary outcome, 30% improvement from baseline, fit with GEE.||Difference in change from baseline at 3 months; SA \& EA are pooled because 3 months is considered standard acupuncture regardless of acupuncture treatment arm.||1.72|1.15|<.001
90917682|NCT04982315|181704814|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.33||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.7|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Estimation performed with adjusted modified Poisson regression model with binary outcome, 30% improvement from baseline, fit with GEE.||Difference in change from baseline at 6 months||1.70|1.04|.022
90917683|NCT04982315|181704814|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|1.86|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Estimation performed with adjusted modified Poisson regression model with binary outcome, 30% improvement from baseline, fit with GEE.||Difference in change from baseline at 6 months||1.86|1.19|<.001
90917684|NCT04982315|181704814|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.12||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.43|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Estimation performed with adjusted modified Poisson regression model with binary outcome, 30% improvement from baseline, fit with GEE.||Difference in change from baseline at 6 months||1.43|.88|.36
90961633|NCT01794923|181803724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.35|||ANOVA|||10 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.35|-0.84|0.414
90961634|NCT01794923|181803724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.99|||ANOVA|||10 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.99|-0.29|0.280
90917685|NCT04982315|181704814|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.33||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.66|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Estimation performed with adjusted modified Poisson regression model with binary outcome, 30% improvement from baseline, fit with GEE.||Difference in change from baseline at 12 months||1.66|1.06|.012
90961635|NCT01794923|181803724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.402|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||11 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||||0.402
90917686|NCT04982315|181704814|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|1.91|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Estimation performed with adjusted modified Poisson regression model with binary outcome, 30% improvement from baseline, fit with GEE.||Difference in change from baseline at 12 months||1.91|1.25|<.001
90961636|NCT01794923|181803724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.81|||ANOVA|||11 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.81|-0.41|0.513
90961637|NCT01794923|181803724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.36|||ANOVA|||11 hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.36|-0.86|0.424
90961638|NCT01794923|181803724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|1.1|||ANOVA|||11 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||1.10|-0.21|0.178
90961639|NCT01794923|181803724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.442|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||12 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||||0.442
90961640|NCT01794923|181803724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.91|||ANOVA|||12 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.91|-0.33|0.357
90961641|NCT01794923|181803724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.49|||ANOVA|||12 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.49|-0.75|0.675
90917687|NCT04982315|181704814|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.16||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.37|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Estimation performed with adjusted modified Poisson regression model with binary outcome, 30% improvement from baseline, fit with GEE.||Difference in change from baseline at 12 months||1.37|.98|.076
90917688|NCT04982315|181704815|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.5|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 3 months; SA \& EA are pooled because 3 months is considered standard acupuncture regardless of acupuncture treatment arm.||-0.5|-1.1|0
90961642|NCT01794923|181803724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|1.09|||ANOVA|||12 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||1.09|-0.25|0.215
90961643|NCT01794923|181803724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.643|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||24 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||||0.643
90961644|NCT01794923|181803724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.99|||ANOVA|||24 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.99|-0.46|0.466
90961645|NCT01794923|181803724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.64|||ANOVA|||24 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.64|-0.81|0.818
90961646|NCT01794923|181803724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|1.13|||ANOVA|||24 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||1.13|-0.43|0.373
90961647|NCT01794923|181803724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.984|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||30 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||||0.984
90879926|NCT00071812|181621276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.096||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|Log Rank|||Patients who required rescue RA medications were declared nonresponders, as were patients who dropped out or were missing Week 24 data. Patients who did not have good or moderate improvement in DAS28 were censored at the last visit or exit visit, whichever occurred first. Patients who did not have good or moderate improvement in DAS28 and discontinued from the study prior to study completion were censored at the last date on study.||||0.0960
90879927|NCT00071812|181621276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2859||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|Log Rank|||Patients who required rescue RA medications were declared nonresponders, as were patients who dropped out or were missing Week 24 data. Patients who did not have good or moderate improvement in DAS28 were censored at the last visit or exit visit, whichever occurred first. Patients who did not have good or moderate improvement in DAS28 and discontinued from the study prior to study completion were censored at the last date on study.||||0.2859
90879928|NCT00071812|181621276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0109||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|Log Rank|||Patients who required rescue RA medications were declared nonresponders, as were patients who dropped out or were missing Week 24 data. Patients who did not have good or moderate improvement in DAS28 were censored at the last visit or exit visit, whichever occurred first. Patients who did not have good or moderate improvement in DAS28 and discontinued from the study prior to study completion were censored at the last date on study.||||0.0109
90879929|NCT00071812|181621277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.194||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|t-test, 2 sided|||Missing data was handled by using LOCF imputation.||||0.1940
90879930|NCT00071812|181621277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2561||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|t-test, 2 sided|||Missing data was handled by using LOCF imputation.||||0.2561
90879931|NCT00071812|181621277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8707||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|t-test, 2 sided|||Missing data was handled by using LOCF imputation.||||0.8707
90879932|NCT03711162|181621435|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) mean difference|22.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|38.12||0.5525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.3|97.6||P-value: based on random coefficient regression model (linear slope model) on FVC values.|Coefficient Regression Model|Treatment effect determined by using estimated slopes for each treatment group on basis of time-by-treatment interaction term from the mixed model.||||97.6|-52.3|0.5525
90917689|NCT04982315|181704815|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.1|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 6 months||-0.1|-0.8|.019
90917690|NCT04982315|181704815|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.6|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 6 months||-0.6|-1.3|0
90917691|NCT04982315|181704815|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.1|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 6 months||-0.1|-0.9|.02
90917692|NCT04982315|181704815|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.1|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 12 months||-0.1|-0.8|.02
90917693|NCT04982315|181704815|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.3|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 12 months||-0.3|-1|0
90961648|NCT01794923|181803724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.68|||ANOVA|||30 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.68|-0.79|0.874
90961649|NCT01794923|181803724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.74|||ANOVA|||30 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.74|-0.73|0.990
90879933|NCT03711162|181621435|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-26.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|37.53||0.4776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.5|47.1||P-value: based on random coefficient regression model (linear slope model) on FVC values.|Coefficient Regression Model|Treatment effect was determined by using estimated slopes for each treatment group on basis of time-by-treatment interaction term from mixed model.||||47.1|-100.5|0.4776
90879934|NCT03711162|181621436|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.9648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.74|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.74|0.56|0.9648
90879935|NCT03711162|181621436|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.84|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.84|0.60|0.8530
90879936|NCT03711162|181621437|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.05|||||Hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval originated from a Cox proportional hazards for time to respiratory-related hospitalization.|||2.05|0.50|
90879937|NCT03711162|181621437|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.88|||||Hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval originated from a Cox proportional hazards for time to respiratory-related hospitalization.|||1.88|0.47|
90879938|NCT03711162|181621438|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.5||||0.785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|3.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference (95% CI) per treatment group with treatment, time (categorical), treatment-by-time interaction, stratum and baseline SGRQ total score as fixed effects and participant as random effect.|||3.3|-4.4|0.7850
90917694|NCT04982315|181704815|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.1|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 12 months||0.1|-0.6|.22
90961650|NCT01794923|181803724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.73|||ANOVA|||30 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.73|-0.85|0.875
90961651|NCT01794923|181803724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.841|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||36 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||||0.841
90879939|NCT03711162|181621438|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.3||||0.8617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|4.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference (95% CI) per treatment group with treatment, time (categorical), treatment-by-time interaction, stratum and baseline SGRQ total score as fixed effects and participant as random effect.|||4.1|-3.4|0.8617
90879940|NCT03711162|181621439|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|19.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|33.68|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.9|85.7|||||The treatment effect was determined by using estimated slopes for each study group on the basis of the time-by-treatment interaction term from the mixed model.|||85.7|-46.9|
90879941|NCT03711162|181621439|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-29.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|32.95|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-93.9|35.8|||||The treatment effect was determined by using estimated slopes for each study group on the basis of the time-by-treatment interaction term from the mixed model.|||35.8|-93.9|
90917695|NCT04982315|181704816|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.76||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|2.24|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Estimation performed with adjusted modified Poisson regression model with binary outcome, 30% improvement from baseline, fit with GEE.||Difference in change from baseline at 3 months; SA \& EA are pooled because 3 months is considered standard acupuncture regardless of acupuncture treatment arm.||2.24|1.39|0
90917696|NCT04982315|181704816|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.19||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.5|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Estimation performed with adjusted modified Poisson regression model with binary outcome, 30% improvement from baseline, fit with GEE.||Difference in change from baseline at 6 months||1.50|.94|.14
90917697|NCT04982315|181704816|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.38||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.73|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Estimation performed with adjusted modified Poisson regression model with binary outcome, 30% improvement from baseline, fit with GEE.||Difference in change from baseline at 6 months||1.73|1.10|.006
90917698|NCT04982315|181704816|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.16||||0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.42|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Estimation performed with adjusted modified Poisson regression model with binary outcome, 30% improvement from baseline, fit with GEE.||Difference in change from baseline at 6 months||1.42|.94|.167
90917699|NCT04982315|181704816|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.22||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.52|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Estimation performed with adjusted modified Poisson regression model with binary outcome, 30% improvement from baseline, fit with GEE.||Difference in change from baseline at 12 months||1.52|.97|.089
90917700|NCT04982315|181704816|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.21||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.55|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Estimation performed with adjusted modified Poisson regression model with binary outcome, 30% improvement from baseline, fit with GEE.||Difference in change from baseline at 12 months||1.55|.95|.12
90917701|NCT04982315|181704816|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.25|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Estimation performed with adjusted modified Poisson regression model with binary outcome, 30% improvement from baseline, fit with GEE.||Difference in change from baseline at 12 months||1.25|.80|.99
90917702|NCT04982315|181704817|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.7|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 3 months; SA \& EA are pooled because 3 months is considered standard acupuncture regardless of acupuncture treatment arm.||1.7|.1|.025
90917703|NCT04982315|181704817|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.1|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 6 months||1.1|-0.8|.747
90879942|NCT03711162|181621440|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.95|||||Odds ratio and 95% confidence interval originated from a logistic regression.|||1.95|0.68|
90879943|NCT03711162|181621440|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|2.09|||||Odds ratio and 95% confidence interval originated from a logistic regression.|||2.09|0.74|
90879944|NCT03711162|181621441|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|19.0|||||The treatment effect was determined by using estimated least square mean difference between each active treatment group and placebo from the mixed model.|||19.0|-11.5|
90879945|NCT03711162|181621441|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|16.8|||||The treatment effect was determined by using estimated least square mean difference between each active treatment group and placebo from the mixed model.|||16.8|-11.1|
90917704|NCT04982315|181704817|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.7|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 6 months||1.7|-.1|.1
90917705|NCT04982315|181704817|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.6|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 6 months||1.6|-.4|.22
90879946|NCT03711162|181621442|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.78|||||Hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval originated from a Cox proportional hazards model for time to first all cause hospitalization.|||1.78|0.65|
90879947|NCT03711162|181621442|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.98|||||Hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval originated from a Cox proportional hazards model for time to first all cause hospitalization.|||1.98|0.76|
90879948|NCT03711162|181621445|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|3.81|||||Hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval originated from a Cox proportional hazards model for time to first acute IPF exacerbation.|||3.81|0.44|
90879949|NCT03711162|181621445|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|3.5|||||Hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval originated from a Cox proportional hazards model for time to first acute IPF exacerbation.|||3.50|0.42|
90879950|NCT03711162|181621446|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|4.08|||||Hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval originated from a Cox proportional hazards model for time to first all cause mortality or hospitalization for non-elective lung transplant.|||4.08|0.66|
90879951|NCT03711162|181621446|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|2.61|||||Hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval originated from a Cox proportional hazards model for time to first all cause mortality or hospitalization for non-elective lung transplant.|||2.61|0.36|
90879952|NCT03711162|181621447|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|4.08|||||Hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval originated from a Cox proportional hazards model for time to first all cause mortality, hospitalization for non-elective lung transplant or hospitalization for qualifying for lung transplant.|||4.08|0.66|
90917706|NCT04982315|181704817|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.6|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 12 months||1.6|-.3|.162
90917707|NCT04982315|181704817|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.4|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 12 months||1.4|-.4|.277
90917708|NCT04982315|181704817|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.7|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 12 months||.7|-1|.68
90917709|NCT04982315|181704818|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.4|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 3 months; SA \& EA are pooled because 3 months is considered standard acupuncture regardless of acupuncture treatment arm.||1.4|0.9|0
90917710|NCT04982315|181704818|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.0|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 6 months||1|.4|0
90917711|NCT04982315|181704818|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.5|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 6 months||1.5|1|0
90879953|NCT03711162|181621447|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|2.61|||||Hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval originated from a Cox proportional hazards model for time to first all cause mortality, hospitalization for non-elective lung transplant or hospitalization for qualifying for lung transplant.|||2.61|0.36|
90879954|NCT03711162|181621448|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.91|||||Hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval originated from a Cox proportional hazards model for time to first all-cause mortality or hospitalization that meets \>=10% absolute decline in %FVC or respiratory-related hospitalization.|||1.91|0.59|
90879955|NCT03711162|181621448|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.46|||||Hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval originated from a Cox proportional hazards model for time to first all-cause mortality or hospitalization that meets \>=10% absolute decline in %FVC or respiratory-related hospitalization.|||1.46|0.43|
90879956|NCT03711162|181621449|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.91|||||Hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval originated from a Cox proportional hazards model for time to all-cause mortality or respiratory-related hospitalizations.|||1.91|0.59|
90917712|NCT04982315|181704818|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.9|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 6 months||.9|.3|0
90879957|NCT03711162|181621449|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.46|||||Hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval originated from a Cox proportional hazards model for time to all-cause mortality or respiratory-related hospitalizations.|||1.46|0.43|
90879958|NCT02431754|181621470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0937|||||||Normal approximation (Z-test)|||||||0.0937
90879959|NCT02431754|181621471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.1485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.26|-1.69|0.1485
90879960|NCT01275066|181621477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.35||0.0174||95.0||||Hochberg multiplicity adjustment - results considered statistically significant if both of p-values are p\<0.05 or either of p-values is p\<0.025.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA of change from baseline with treatment, age group, baseline 6MWT category as covariates.||||||0.0174
90879961|NCT01275066|181621477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.29||0.9542||||||Hochberg multiplicity adjustment - results considered statistically significant if both of p-values are p\<0.05 or either of p-values is p\<0.025.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA of change from baseline with treatment, age group, baseline 6MWT category as covariates.||||||0.9542
90961652|NCT01794923|181803724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|0.57|||ANOVA|||36 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.57|-1.01|0.580
90961653|NCT01794923|181803724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.77|||ANOVA|||36 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.77|-0.81|0.958
90961654|NCT01794923|181803724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|0.65|||ANOVA|||36 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.65|-1.05|0.643
90879962|NCT01275066|181621478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.66||0.4935||||||Hochberg multiplicity adjustment - results considered statistically significant if both of p-values are p\<0.05 or either of p-values is p\<0.025.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA of change from baseline with treatment, age group, baseline 6MWT category, and baseline 3MSCT as covariates.||||||0.4935
90879963|NCT01275066|181621478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.66||0.7783||||||Hochberg multiplicity adjustment - results considered statistically significant if both of p-values are p\<0.05 or either of p-values is p\<0.025.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA of change from baseline with treatment, age group, baseline 6MWT category, and baseline 3MSCT as covariates.||||||0.7783
90879964|NCT01275066|181621479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-40.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.2|<|0.0001||||||Hochberg multiplicity adjustment - results considered statistically significant if both of p-values are p\<0.05 or either of p-values is p\<0.025.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA of change from baseline with treatment, age group, baseline 6MWT category, and baseline uKS normalized for creatinine, as covariates.||||||<0.0001
90879965|NCT01275066|181621479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-30.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.19|<|0.0001||||||Hochberg multiplicity adjustment - results considered statistically significant if both of p-values are p\<0.05 or either of p-values is p\<0.025.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA of change from baseline with treatment, age group, baseline 6MWT category, and baseline uKS normalized for creatinine, as covariates.||||||<0.0001
90879966|NCT03240133|181621480|SUPERIORITY|Comparisons were performed separately at each time point using a mixed effect linear model including treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, subject within sequence as a random effect, and predose 3-symptom composite VAS score as a covariate.|Difference in Least Square Means|-6.98||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.37|-2.6|||Mixed effect linear model|||Change in HAE attack symptoms from pre-dose to 4 hours post-dose was assessed following treatment with either 750mg berotralstat or placebo.||-2.6|-11.37|0.0024
90879967|NCT03240133|181621480|SUPERIORITY|Comparisons were performed separately at each time point using a mixed effect linear model including treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, subject within sequence as a random effect, and predose 3-symptom composite VAS score as a covariate.|Difference in Least Square Means|-2.1||||0.6424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.49|7.29|||Mixed effect linear model|||Change in HAE attack symptoms from pre-dose to 4 hours post-dose was assessed following treatment with either 500mg berotralstat or placebo.||7.29|-11.49|0.6424
90879968|NCT03240133|181621480|SUPERIORITY|Comparisons were performed separately at each time point using a mixed effect linear model including treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, subject within sequence as a random effect, and predose 3-symptom composite VAS score as a covariate.|Difference in Least Square Means|0.57||||0.8283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|6.03|||Mixed effect linear model|||Change in HAE attack symptoms from pre-dose to 4 hours post-dose was assessed following treatment with either 250mg berotralstat or placebo.||6.03|-4.9|0.8283
90879969|NCT03240133|181621481|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.196||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.069|0.559|||logistic mixed effect model|||Analyses were performed using a generalized logistic model including treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, and subject within sequence as a random effect. The odds of a berotralstat 750 mg-treated-attack requiring SOC-Rx was 0.196 that of a placebo attack.||0.559|0.069|0.0029
90879970|NCT03240133|181621481|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.472||||0.4048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.074|2.988|||logistic mixed effect model|||Analyses were performed using a generalized logistic model including treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, and subject within sequence as a random effect. The odds of a berotralstat 500 mg-treated-attack requiring SOC-Rx was 0.472 that of a placebo attack.||2.988|0.074|0.4048
90879971|NCT03240133|181621481|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.587||||0.5984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.073|4.733|||logistic mixed effect model|||Analyses were performed using a generalized logistic model including treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, and subject within sequence as a random effect. The odds of a berotralstat 250 mg-treated-attack requiring SOC-Rx was 0.587 that of a placebo attack.||4.733|0.073|0.5984
90879972|NCT00116831|181621490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean diff (RSG-GLP) for atheroma volume|-4.58||||||95.0||||||||||||
90879973|NCT00116831|181621491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean diff (RSG-GLP) for lumen volume|0.32||||||95.0||||||||||||
90879974|NCT00116831|181621492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean diff (RSG-GLP) for vessel volume|-3.56||||||95.0||||||||||||
90879975|NCT00116831|181621494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean diff (RSG-GLP) for atheroma area|-0.13||||||95.0||||||||||||
90879976|NCT00116831|181621495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean diff (RSG-GLP) for lumen area|0.02||||||95.0||||||||||||
90879977|NCT00116831|181621496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean diff (RSG-GLP) for vessel area|-0.11||||||95.0||||||||||||
90879978|NCT00116831|181621499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Model adjusted mean diff. (RSG-GLP)|-0.64||||0.1221||95.0|-1.457|0.173|||ANCOVA|||||0.173|-1.457|0.1221
90879979|NCT00116831|181621500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Model adjusted mean diff. (RSG-GLP)|-5.12||||||95.0||||||||||||
90961655|NCT01794923|181803724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.299|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||48 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||||0.299
90961656|NCT01794923|181803724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean Difference|-0.5||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|0.31|||ANOVA|||48 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.31|-1.26|0.230
90961657|NCT01794923|181803724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.94|||ANOVA|||48 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.94|-0.63|0.694
90879980|NCT00116831|181621502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Model adjusted mean diff. (RSG-GLP)|-1.72||||||95.0||||||||||||
90917713|NCT04982315|181704818|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.8|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 12 months||.8|.2|0
90917714|NCT04982315|181704818|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.1|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 12 months||1.1|.5|0
90917715|NCT04982315|181704818|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.5|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 12 months||0.5|0|.06
90917716|NCT04982315|181704820|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||-0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.08|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 6 months||.08|-1.7|-.06
90879981|NCT00116831|181621504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Model adjusted mean diff. (RSG-GLP)|-0.11||||||95.0||||||||||||
90879982|NCT00116831|181621505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference (RSG-GLP)|-0.1||||||95.0||||||||||||
90879983|NCT00116831|181621506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference (RSG-GLP)|-0.88||||||95.0||||||||||||
90879984|NCT00116831|181621507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference (RSG-GLP)|-47.23||||||95.0||||||||||||
90879985|NCT00116831|181621508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference (RSG-GLP)|-16.9||||||95.0||||||||||||
90879986|NCT00116831|181621510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio to GLP as % difference from GLP|30.591||||||95.0||||||||||||
90879987|NCT00116831|181621511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference (RSG-GLP)|7.642||||||95.0||||||||||||
90917717|NCT04982315|181704820|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||-0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.3|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 6 months||.3|-2.4|-.15
90917718|NCT04982315|181704820|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.7|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 12 months||.7|-1.9|.387
90917719|NCT04982315|181704821|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.02|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 3 months; SA \& EA are pooled because 3 months is considered standard acupuncture regardless of acupuncture treatment arm.||.02|-.02|.967
90879988|NCT00116831|181621512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference (RSG-GLP)|7.316||||||95.0||||||||||||
90879989|NCT00116831|181621513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference (RSG-GLP)|15.731||||||95.0||||||||||||
90879990|NCT00116831|181621514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference (RSG-GLP)|3.998||||||95.0||||||||||||
90879991|NCT00116831|181621515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference (RSG-GLP)|11.728||||||95.0||||||||||||
90879992|NCT00116831|181621516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference (RSG-GLP)|-6.768||||||95.0||||||||||||
90879993|NCT00116831|181621517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference (RSG-GLP)|-14.478||||||95.0||||||||||||
90879994|NCT00116831|181621518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference (RSG-GLP)|-0.462||||||95.0||||||||||||
90879995|NCT00116831|181621519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference (RSG-GLP)|0.0164||||||95.0||||||||||||
90879996|NCT00116831|181621520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference (RSG-GLP)|0.118||||||95.0||||||||||||
90879997|NCT00116831|181621521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference (RSG-GLP)|0.14||||||95.0||||||||||||
90879998|NCT01344369|181621541|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|102.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.08|112.75|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||112.75|93.08|
90879999|NCT01344369|181621542|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|100.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.66|104.66|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||104.66|96.66|
90917720|NCT04982315|181704821|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.3|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 6 months||.3|-.1|.272
90917721|NCT04982315|181704821|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.4|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 6 months||0.4|0|.049
90917722|NCT04982315|181704821|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.3|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 6 months||.3|-.1|.409
90917723|NCT04982315|181704821|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 12 months||.2|-.1|.62
90917724|NCT04982315|181704821|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.3|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 12 months||.3|0|.121
90917725|NCT04982315|181704821|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 12 months||.2|-.1|.27
90880000|NCT01344369|181621543|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|100.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.43|105.48|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||105.48|96.43|
90880001|NCT01344369|181621544|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|100.59|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.69|108.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||108.00|93.69|
90880002|NCT01344369|181621545|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|96.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.76|100.77|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||100.77|92.76|
90917726|NCT04982315|181704822|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.02|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 3 months; SA \& EA are pooled because 3 months is considered standard acupuncture regardless of acupuncture treatment arm.||.02|-.4|.069
90917727|NCT04982315|181704822|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.1|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 6 months||-.1|-.6|.013
90880003|NCT01344369|181621546|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|96.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.22|100.84|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||100.84|92.22|
90880004|NCT04120610|181621574|OTHER||Correlation|0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.41||||||Descriptive analysis of endpoint with no hypothesis.||0.41|0.10|
90917728|NCT04982315|181704822|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.1|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 6 months||-.1|-.5|.043
90917729|NCT04982315|181704822|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.3|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 6 months||.3|-.2|.629
90917730|NCT04982315|181704822|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.2|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 12 months||-.2|-.6|.001
90917731|NCT04982315|181704822|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.05|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 12 months||-.05|-.5|.019
90917732|NCT04982315|181704822|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.3|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 12 months||.3|-.1|.271
90917733|NCT04982315|181704823|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 3 months; SA \& EA are pooled because 3 months is considered standard acupuncture regardless of acupuncture treatment arm.||.1|-.3|.191
90917734|NCT04982315|181704823|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.01|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 6 months||-.01|-.5|.038
90917735|NCT04982315|181704823|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.05|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 6 months||-.05|-.5|.019
90880005|NCT04120610|181621575|OTHER||Correlation|-0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.03||||||Correlation of change in acceleration time and ABI. Descriptive analysis of endpoint with no hypothesis.||-0.03|-0.46|
90917736|NCT04982315|181704823|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 6 months||.2|-.2|.803
90917737|NCT04982315|181704823|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 12 months||.1|-.4|.163
90917738|NCT04982315|181704823|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 12 months||.1|-.2|.625
90880006|NCT04120610|181621575|OTHER||Correlation|-0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.12||||||Correlation of change in acceleration time and ABI. Descriptive analysis of endpoint with no hypothesis.||-0.12|-0.51|
90880007|NCT04120610|181621575|OTHER||Correlation|-0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.14||||||Correlation of change in acceleration time and ABI. Descriptive analysis of endpoint with no hypothesis.||0.14|-0.38|
90880008|NCT04120610|181621576|OTHER||Correlation|-0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.12||||||Correlation of change in acceleration time and TBI. Descriptive analysis of endpoint with no hypothesis.||-0.12|-0.52|
90917739|NCT04982315|181704823|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.3|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 12 months||.3|-.1|.198
90917740|NCT04982315|181704824|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.4|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 3 months; SA \& EA are pooled because 3 months is considered standard acupuncture regardless of acupuncture treatment arm.||.4|-2.1|.194
90917741|NCT04982315|181704824|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.0|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 6 months||1|-2|.51
90917742|NCT04982315|181704824|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.6|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 6 months||.6|-2.5|.218
90917743|NCT04982315|181704824|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.4|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 6 months||1.4|-2.3|.62
90961658|NCT01794923|181803724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|0.21|||ANOVA|||48 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.21|-1.48|0.140
90961659|NCT01794923|181803724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.503|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||54 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||||0.503
90961660|NCT01794923|181803724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|0.35|||ANOVA|||54 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.35|-1.28|0.262
90961661|NCT01794923|181803724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.75|||ANOVA|||54 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.75|-0.88|0.871
91033889|NCT00322465|181953659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.93|7.98||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio has been adjusted for other independent variables included in the model, which are found in the other Statistical Analysis sections.||The null hypothesis is that the odds ratio for visit due to sexually transmitted disease contact (reference category is no) is 1 versus the alternative that it is greater than or less than 1.||7.98|1.93|<0.001
90880009|NCT04120610|181621576|OTHER||Correlation|-0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.15||||||Correlation of change in acceleration time and TBI. Descriptive analysis of endpoint with no hypothesis.||-0.15|-0.52|
90880010|NCT04120610|181621576|OTHER||Correlation|-0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.02||||||Correlation of change in acceleration time and TBI. Descriptive analysis of endpoint with no hypothesis.||0.02|-0.47|
90880011|NCT04120610|181621577|OTHER||Correlation|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.36||||||Correlation of change in acceleration time and Rutherford Classification. Descriptive analysis of endpoint with no hypothesis.||0.36|-0.08|
90880012|NCT04120610|181621577|OTHER||Correlation|0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.39||||||Correlation of change in acceleration time and Rutherford Classification. Descriptive analysis of endpoint with no hypothesis.||0.39|-0.02|
90880013|NCT04120610|181621577|OTHER||Correlation|0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.47||||||Correlation of change in acceleration time and Rutherford Classification. Descriptive analysis of endpoint with no hypothesis.||0.47|-0.02|
90880014|NCT03712410|181621578|OTHER|Group Comparisons||||||0.186||||||p-value for Difference (FollowUp-Baseline) Generalised Anxiety Disorder Assessment (GAD-7)|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.1860
90880015|NCT03712410|181621578|OTHER|Group Comparisons||||||0.2752||||||p-value for Difference (FollowUp-Baseline) Patient Health Questionnaire 9 (PHQ9)|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.2752
90880016|NCT03712410|181621578|OTHER|Group Comparisons||||||0.6233||||||p-value for Difference (FollowUp-Baseline) Caregiver Quality of Life Index (CQLI-R)|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.6233
90880017|NCT03712410|181621579|OTHER|Group Comparison||||||0.5638||||||p-value for Difference (FollowUp-Baseline) Generalised Anxiety Disorder Assessment (GAD-7)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5638
90880018|NCT03712410|181621579|OTHER|Group Comparisons||||||0.9848||||||p-value for Difference (FollowUp-Baseline) Patient Health Questionnaire 9 (PHQ9)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.9848
90880019|NCT03712410|181621579|OTHER|Group Comparisons||||||0.9169||||||p-value for Difference (FollowUp-Baseline) Caregiver Quality of Life Index (CQLI-R)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.9169
90880020|NCT03712410|181621580|OTHER|Group Comparisons|||||<|0.0001||||||p-value for Generalised Anxiety Disorder Assessment (GAD-7) for arm Traditional PISCES|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||<0.0001
90880021|NCT03712410|181621580|OTHER|Group Comparisons|||||<|0.0001||||||p-value for Patient Health Questionnaire 9 (PHQ9) for arm Traditional PISCES|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||<0.0001
90880022|NCT03712410|181621580|OTHER|Group Comparisons||||||0.0155||||||p-value for Caregiver Quality of Life Index (CQLI-R) for arm Traditional PISCES|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.0155
90880023|NCT03712410|181621580|OTHER|Group Comparisons|||||<|0.0001||||||p-value for Generalised Anxiety Disorder Assessment (GAD-7) for arm Online PISCES|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||<0.0001
90880024|NCT03712410|181621580|OTHER|Group Comparisons|||||<|0.0001||||||p-value for Patient Health Questionnaire 9 (PHQ9) for arm Online PISCES|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||<0.0001
90880025|NCT03712410|181621580|OTHER|Group Comparisons||||||0.0504||||||p-value for Caregiver Quality of Life Index (CQLI-R) for arm Online PISCES|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.0504
90880026|NCT00314236|181621581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.011
90880027|NCT00314236|181621582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.033
90880028|NCT01465464|181621585|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.878|1.352|||Log Rank|||||1.352|0.878|0.435
90880029|NCT02244580|181621627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.423||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.246|0.726|||Regression, Cox|||||0.726|0.246|0.0018
90961662|NCT01794923|181803724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|0.48|||ANOVA|||54 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.48|-1.27|0.373
90961663|NCT01794923|181803724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.413|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||60 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||||0.413
90961664|NCT01794923|181803724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|0.4|||ANOVA|||60 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.40|-1.22|0.317
90917744|NCT04982315|181704824|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|0.1|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 12 months||.1|-2.7|.07
90917745|NCT04982315|181704824|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|-1.0|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 12 months||-1|-3.6|0
90917746|NCT04982315|181704824|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.1|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 12 months||.1|-2.2|.086
90917747|NCT04982315|181704825|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.3|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 3 months; SA \& EA are pooled because 3 months is considered standard acupuncture regardless of acupuncture treatment arm.||2.3|.2|.023
90917748|NCT04982315|181704825|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|2.0|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 6 months||2|-.4|.186
90917749|NCT04982315|181704825|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|2.5|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 6 months||2.5|-.2|.107
90917750|NCT04982315|181704825|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.7|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 6 months||1.7|-1|.651
90917751|NCT04982315|181704825|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.9|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 12 months||2.9|.7|.001
90917752|NCT04982315|181704825|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.7|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 12 months||2.7|.4|.007
90917753|NCT04982315|181704825|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.8|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 12 months||.8|-1.2|.656
90917754|NCT03811535|181704833|NON_INFERIORITY|The pre-specified non-inferiority margin was -1.8 cm/year.|Treatment difference|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Height velocity at week 52 was analyzed using an analysis of covariance model with treatment, gender, age group, region, growth hormone (GH) peak group and gender by age group by region interaction term as factors, and baseline height as covariate.||0.2|-1.1|
90917755|NCT03811535|181704834|NON_INFERIORITY|The pre-specified non-inferiority margin was -1.8 cm/year.|Treatment difference|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Height velocity at 52 weeks was analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measurements, with treatment, gender, age group, region, GH peak group and gender by age group by region interaction terms as factors and baseline height as a covariate, all nested within week as a factor.||0.2|-1.1|
90917756|NCT05364684|181704862|OTHER|||||||0.4||||||Change in IHL over 6-months in absolute % IHL: Ibutamoren open-label 3.9 ± 6.7% versus historical placebo group 6.6 ± 6.1%, p=0.4.|t-test, 2 sided|||Subjects treated with open-label ibutamoren (n=7) were compared to historical placebo control subjects studied under identical inclusion criteria and procedures (n=10). The hypothesis is that open-label ibutamoren treatment would lead to a significant decrease in intrahepatic lipid content (IHL) as assessed by proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy (1H-MRS, absolute %IHL).||||0.4
90917757|NCT05364684|181704863|OTHER|||||||0.9||||||Change in cT1 over 6-months (ms): Ibutamoren open-label 39 ± 44 ms versus historical placebo group 44 ± 31 ms, p=0.9.|t-test, 2 sided|||Subjects treated with open-label ibutamoren (n=7) were compared to historical placebo control subjects studied under identical inclusion criteria and procedures (n=10). The hypothesis is that open-label ibutamoren treatment would lead to a significant decrease in hepatic inflammation and fibrosis as assessed by LiverMultiScan corrected T1 (cT1) score. There was no power calculation for this small pilot study.||||0.9
90917758|NCT05364684|181704864|OTHER|||||||0.6||||||Change in ALT over 6-months (U/L): Ibutamoren open-label 8 ± 18 U/L versus historical placebo group 4 ± 8 U/L, p=0.6.|t-test, 2 sided|||Subjects treated with open-label ibutamoren (n=7) were compared to historical placebo control subjects studied under identical inclusion criteria and procedures (n=10). The hypothesis is that open-label ibutamoren treatment would lead to a significant decrease in alanine aminotransferase (ALT). There was no power calculation for this small pilot study.||||0.6
90917759|NCT04705480|181704875|OTHER|The study sought to assess if adding multiple doses of pregabalin or gabapentin upon admission will reduce opioid usage in trauma patients. No specific assessment of inferiority or superiority was done.||||||0.687|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.687
90917760|NCT04705480|181704875|OTHER|The study sought to assess if adding multiple doses of pregabalin or gabapentin upon admission will reduce opioid usage in trauma patients. No specific assessment of inferiority or superiority was done.||||||0.557|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.557
90917761|NCT04705480|181704875|OTHER|The study sought to assess if adding multiple doses of pregabalin or gabapentin upon admission will reduce opioid usage in trauma patients. No specific assessment of inferiority or superiority was done.||||||0.601|||||||ANCOVA|Rank transformation was applied to account this for nonparametric outcome while adjusting for significantly different psychiatric comorbidities.||||||0.601
90917762|NCT04705480|181704876|OTHER|||||||0.346|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.346
90917763|NCT04705480|181704876|OTHER|||||||0.233|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.233
90917764|NCT04705480|181704876|OTHER|||||||0.145|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.145
90917765|NCT04705480|181704877|OTHER|No specific assessment of inferiority or superiority was done.|||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
90961665|NCT01794923|181803724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.97|||ANOVA|||60 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.97|-0.66|0.708
90961666|NCT01794923|181803724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|0.31|||ANOVA|||60 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.31|-1.44|0.202
90880030|NCT02244580|181621628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.42||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.71|||Regression, Cox|||||0.71|0.25|0.001
90880031|NCT02136576|181621634|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72||||||"This p-value is for the Air Schiff comparison.~The threshold of significance was 0.05 and no multiple comparisons were necessary."|Kruskal-Wallis|||Assuming the control group may exhibit a modest improvement in dentinal hypersensitivity (\~5%) whereas the two test groups should demonstrate a more significant improvement (\~30%). Assuming a common standard deviation of 25%, we will have 58% power to detect a difference between the 3 groups using one way analysis of variance, with 10 subjects per group, and setting alpha to 0.05 (nQuery Advisor, Version 7.0). Up to 13 subjects per group will be recruited, to allow for a 20% dropout rate.||||0.72
90880032|NCT02136576|181621634|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93||||||"This p-value is for the Air VAS comparison.~The threshold of significance was 0.05 and no multiple comparisons were necessary."|Kruskal-Wallis|||Assuming the control group may exhibit a modest improvement in dentinal hypersensitivity (\~5%) whereas the two test groups should demonstrate a more significant improvement (\~30%). Assuming a common standard deviation of 25%, we will have 58% power to detect a difference between the 3 groups using one way analysis of variance, with 10 subjects per group, and setting alpha to 0.05 (nQuery Advisor, Version 7.0). Up to 13 subjects per group will be recruited, to allow for a 20% dropout rate.||||.93
90880033|NCT02136576|181621634|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77||||||"This p-value is for the WaterSchiff comparison.~The threshold of significance was 0.05 and no multiple comparisons were necessary."|Kruskal-Wallis|||Assuming the control group may exhibit a modest improvement in dentinal hypersensitivity (\~5%) whereas the two test groups should demonstrate a more significant improvement (\~30%). Assuming a common standard deviation of 25%, we will have 58% power to detect a difference between the 3 groups using one way analysis of variance, with 10 subjects per group, and setting alpha to 0.05 (nQuery Advisor, Version 7.0). Up to 13 subjects per group will be recruited, to allow for a 20% dropout rate.||||.77
90917766|NCT04705480|181704877|OTHER|No specific assessment of inferiority or superiority was done.|||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
90917767|NCT04705480|181704877|OTHER|No specific assessment of inferiority or superiority was done.|||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Logistic|This was applied to adjust for significantly different psychiatric comorbidities.||||||<0.05
90917768|NCT04705480|181704878|OTHER|No specific assessment of inferiority or superiority was done.|||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91033890|NCT00322465|181953660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.2||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.66||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio has been adjusted for other independent variables included in the model, which are found in the other Statistical Analysis sections.||The null hypothesis is that the odds ratio for 2 or more sex partners in the last 3 months (reference category is 0-1 partners) is 1 versus the alternative that it is greater than or less than 1. This was tested in a multivariable logistic regression model.||0.66|0.06|0.009
90917769|NCT04705480|181704878|OTHER|No specific assessment of inferiority or superiority was done.|||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
90917770|NCT04705480|181704878|OTHER|No specific assessment of inferiority or superiority was done.|||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|Rank transformation was applied to account this for nonparametric outcome while adjusting for significantly different psychiatric comorbidities.||||||<0.05
90917771|NCT04705480|181704879|OTHER|No specific assessment of inferiority or superiority was done.|||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
90917772|NCT04705480|181704879|OTHER|No specific assessment of inferiority or superiority was done.|||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
90917773|NCT04705480|181704879|OTHER|No specific assessment of inferiority or superiority was done.|||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|Rank transformation was applied to account this for nonparametric outcome while adjusting for significantly different psychiatric comorbidities.||||||<0.05
90917774|NCT04705480|181704880|OTHER|No specific assessment of inferiority or superiority was done.|||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
90917775|NCT04705480|181704880|OTHER|No specific assessment of inferiority or superiority was done.|||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
90917776|NCT04705480|181704880|OTHER|No specific assessment of inferiority or superiority was done.|||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Logistic|This was applied to adjust for significantly different psychiatric comorbidities.||||||<0.05
90961667|NCT01794923|181803724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.19|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||72 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||||0.190
90961668|NCT01794923|181803724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|0.11|||ANOVA|||72 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.11|-1.44|0.094
90961669|NCT01794923|181803724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.76|||ANOVA|||72 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.76|-0.80|0.960
90917777|NCT04970654|181704893|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was considered confirmed if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval was higher than the margin of -2.0 cm/year.|Treatment difference|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.3||||||Hypothetical strategy estimand. Height velocity at 52 weeks was analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measurements, with treatment, gender, age group, growth hormone (GH) peak group and gender by age group interaction term as factors and baseline height as a covariate, all nested within week as a factor.||1.3|-0.2|
90917778|NCT04929483|181704901|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|34.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.04|59.26|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel with missing outcome measures handled by multiple imputation method.||||59.26|10.04|<0.0001
90917779|NCT04929483|181704901|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|20.89||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.05|32.72|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel with missing outcome measures handled by multiple imputation method.||||32.72|9.05|0.0009
90917780|NCT04929483|181704901|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|23.61||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.04|37.18|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel with missing outcome measures handled by multiple imputation method.||||37.18|10.04|0.0005
90917781|NCT04929483|181704902|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|14.45||||0.1039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.71|37.62|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||37.62|-8.71|0.1039
90917782|NCT04929483|181704902|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|18.87||||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.24|32.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||32.50|5.24|0.0085
90917783|NCT04929483|181704902|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|20.33||||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.26|35.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||35.40|5.26|0.0077
90917784|NCT04083781|181704932|SUPERIORITY|Analyses of count endpoints were analysed using a negative binomial regression model with the logarithm of the length of the observation period included (in years) as an offset with randomised treatment regimen, type of haemophilia (HAwI or HBwI) and bleeding frequency (less than 9 or greater than or equal to 9 bleeding episodes during the past 24 weeks prior to screening) as factors comparing arm 1 (on-demand treatment) and arm 2.|Annualised bleeding rate ratio|0.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.29|||Two-sided test of no difference from 1|||||0.29|0.07|<0.001
90917785|NCT02468128|181704963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-42.2|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.68|-12.71|||ANOVA|||||-12.71|-71.68|<0.01
90917786|NCT02468128|181704964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
90917787|NCT02468128|181704965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
90917788|NCT02468128|181704966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Log-rank tests|Log-rank tests were used to compare SDE and placebo with respect to the distribution of time to first post-surgical usage of ketorolac medication.||||||<0.05
90917789|NCT02468128|181704967|SUPERIORITY|ANOVA with Treatment, Center effect (and Treatment\*Center effect if p-value ≤ 0.1 in non-reduced model)|||||<|0.05||||||ANOVA with Treatment, Center effect (and Treatment\*Center effect if p-value ≤ 0.1 in non-reduced model)|ANOVA|ANOVA with Treatment, Center effect (and Treatment\*Center effect if p-value ≤ 0.1 in non-reduced model)||ANOVA with Treatment, Center effect (and Treatment\*Center effect if p-value ≤ 0.1 in non-reduced model)||||<0.05
90917790|NCT02468128|181704968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
90917791|NCT02468128|181704969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|At the final visit, each subject was asked the questions for evaluation of satisfaction and a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was used in comparison of subjects' satisfaction with post-surgical analgesic between treatment groups.|||||>|0.05||||||Satisfaction was evaluated using a patient-reported rating scale to assess the subject's overall satisfaction with postoperative analgesia. More participants indicate greater satisfaction with that treatment.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At the final visit, each subject was asked the questions for evaluation of satisfaction and a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was used in comparison of subjects' satisfaction with post-surgical analgesic between treatment groups.||||>0.05
90917792|NCT02468128|181704970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-115.2|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-209.153|-21.26|||ANOVA|||||-21.26|-209.153|<0.05
90917793|NCT00440011|181704971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.024
90917794|NCT01503749|181704974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
90880034|NCT02136576|181621634|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93||||||"This p-value is for the WaterVAS comparison.~The threshold of significance was 0.05 and no multiple comparisons were necessary."|Kruskal-Wallis|||Assuming the control group may exhibit a modest improvement in dentinal hypersensitivity (\~5%) whereas the two test groups should demonstrate a more significant improvement (\~30%). Assuming a common standard deviation of 25%, we will have 58% power to detect a difference between the 3 groups using one way analysis of variance, with 10 subjects per group, and setting alpha to 0.05 (nQuery Advisor, Version 7.0). Up to 13 subjects per group will be recruited, to allow for a 20% dropout rate.||||.93
90880035|NCT00680901|181621636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.3492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.12||Stratified log-rank test was conducted stratifying for prior adjuvant/neo-adjuvant treatment use and region.|Log Rank||Pike estimator of HR was based on the stratified log rank test.|Primary Analysis: OS (PE population)||1.12|0.73|0.3492
90880036|NCT00680901|181621637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.3244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.1||Stratified log-rank test was conducted stratifying for prior adjuvant/neo-adjuvant treatment use and region.|Log Rank||Pike estimator of HR was based on the stratified log rank test.|Primary Analysis: OS (ITT population)||1.10|0.74|0.3244
90880037|NCT00537381|181621653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.728||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.112|2.686|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval was estimated from a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as the only explanatory factor.|||2.686|1.112|0.014
90880038|NCT00537381|181621654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.795|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.795
90880039|NCT00537381|181621655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.018
90880040|NCT00537381|181621656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.476||||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.853|2.522|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval was estimated from a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as the only explanatory factor.|||2.522|0.853|0.163
90880041|NCT00923559|181621667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.04||0.006||95.0|2.64|14.74||Null hypothesis MIP and CHC care should yield equal outcomes. A priori threshold p\<.05.|Regression, Linear|Degrees of freedom (df) = 68.3||Null hypothesis: MIP and CHC care should yield equal outcomes. For power calculations, studies on the EPDS and the SPSQ were used. An estimated power of .80 and a two-tailed significance of .05 would necessitate between 29 and 60 participants. Forty dyads per group were chosen.||14.74|2.64|.006
90880042|NCT00923559|181621668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|4.68||p-value unadjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold p\<.05.|Regression, Linear|Degrees of freedom (df) = 69.3||Null hypothesis: MIP and CHC care should yield equal outcomes. For power calculations, studies on the EPDS and the SPSQ were used. An estimated power of .80 and a two-tailed significance of .05 would necessitate between 29 and 60 participants. Forty dyads per group were chosen.||4.68|0.46|.018
90880043|NCT00923559|181621669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.75||p-value unadjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold p\<.05.|Regression, Linear|Degrees of freedom = 73.4||Null hypothesis: MIP and CHC care should yield equal outcomes. For power calculations, studies on the EPDS and the SPSQ were used. An estimated power of .80 and a two-tailed significance of .05 would necessitate between 29 and 60 participants. Forty dyads per group were chosen.||0.75|-0.21|.266
90880044|NCT00923559|181621670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.32||p-value unadjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold p\<.05.|Regression, Linear|||Null hypothesis: MIP and CHC care should yield equal outcomes. For power calculations, studies on the EPDS and the SPSQ were used. An estimated power of .80 and a two-tailed significance of .05 would necessitate between 29 and 60 participants. Forty dyads per group were chosen.||0.32|0.00|.052
90880045|NCT00923559|181621671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|-0.08|||Regression, Linear|Degrees of freedom (df) = 61.2||see under the PIR-GAS||-0.08|-1.61|.031
90880046|NCT00923559|181621672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom (df) = 71.2||Null hypothesis: MIP and CHC care should yield equal outcomes. For power calculations, studies on the EPDS and the SPSQ were used. An estimated power of .80 and a two-tailed significance of .05 would necessitate between 29 and 60 participants. Forty dyads per group were chosen.||0.31|-0.05|.158
90880047|NCT04903249|181621691|OTHER|||||||0.137|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.137
90880048|NCT04903249|181621692|OTHER|||||||0.293|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.293
90880049|NCT04903249|181621693|OTHER|||||||0.609|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.609
90880050|NCT04903249|181621699|OTHER|||||||0.025|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.025
90880051|NCT04903249|181621700|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90880052|NCT04903249|181621701|OTHER|||||||0.327|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.327
90880053|NCT04903249|181621702|OTHER|||||||0.479|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.479
90880054|NCT04903249|181621703|OTHER|||||||0.424|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.424
90880055|NCT04903249|181621704|OTHER|||||||0.279|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.279
90880056|NCT04903249|181621705|OTHER|||||||0.052|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.052
90880057|NCT01951157|181621706|SUPERIORITY||The exact binomial estimator|29.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.2|48.4||||||The exact binomial estimator and its 95%CI was used. A pre-planned Bayesian supportive analysis test comparing PFS4 was performed.||48.4|13.2|
90880058|NCT01951157|181621706|SUPERIORITY||The exact binomial estimator|19.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|37.9||||||The exact binomial estimator and its 95%CI was used. A pre-planned Bayesian supportive analysis test comparing PFS4 was performed||37.9|5.7|
90880059|NCT01951157|181621706|SUPERIORITY||The exact binomial estimator|28.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.6|46.7||||||The exact binomial estimator and its 95%CI was used. A pre-planned Bayesian supportive analysis test comparing PFS4 was performed||46.7|12.6|
90880060|NCT01951157|181621707|SUPERIORITY|Pre-specified|||||=|0.3873|||||||Log Rank|||||||= 0.3873
90880061|NCT01951157|181621711|SUPERIORITY|Pre-specified|||||=|0.0177|||||||Log Rank|||||||= 0.0177
90880062|NCT01951157|181621712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Pre-specified||||||0.3526|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.3526
90917795|NCT02998528|181704977|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.63||||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|97.38|0.43|0.91|||Log Rank|Stratified by PD-L1 (≥ 1% vs \<1%/unevaluable/indeterminate), disease stage (IB/II vs IIIA), and sex (male vs female)||||0.91|0.43|0.0052
90917796|NCT02998528|181704978|SUPERIORITY||% Difference|21.6|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|13.0|30.3|||||Strata adjusted difference (Arm C - Concurrent Arm B) based on the CMH method of weighting. Stratified by PD-L1 (≥ 1% vs \<1%/unevaluable/indeterminate), disease stage (IB/II vs IIIA), and sex (male vs female)|||30.3|13.0|
90917797|NCT02998528|181704978|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.94|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|3.49|55.75|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Strata adjusted odds ratio (Arm C over Concurrent Arm B) the Mantel-Haenszel method. Stratified by PD-L1 (≥ 1% vs \<1%/unevaluable/indeterminate), disease stage (IB/II vs IIIA), and sex (male vs female)|||55.75|3.49|<0.0001
90917798|NCT02998528|181704979|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.91||||Stratified by PD-L1 (≥ 1% vs \<1%/unevaluable/indeterminate), disease stage (IB/II vs IIIA), and sex (male vs female)||||0.91|0.51|
90917799|NCT02998528|181704980|SUPERIORITY||% Difference|27.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.6|36.1|||||Strata adjusted difference (Arm C - Concurrent Arm B) based on the CMH method of weighting. Stratified by PD-L1 (≥ 1% vs \<1%/unevaluable/indeterminate), disease stage (IB/II vs IIIA), and sex (male vs female)|||36.1|19.6|
90917800|NCT02998528|181704980|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.16|10.26|||||Stratified by PD-L1 (≥ 1% vs \<1%/unevaluable/indeterminate), disease stage (IB/II vs IIIA), and sex (male vs female)|||10.26|3.16|
90917801|NCT02998528|181704982|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.9|||||Stratified by: PD-L1 status (≥ 1% vs \<1%/not evaluable/indeterminate), disease stage (IB/II vs IIIA), and sex (male vs female)|||0.90|0.49|
90917802|NCT03671811|181705017|SUPERIORITY|The planned sample size was 36 evaluable participants, with 18 per treatment arm. Based on a one-sided t-test at α = 0.05, the study was designed to provide 90% power to detect a difference of at least 10 percentage points in the mean reduction of Ki-67 between arms, assuming a standard deviation of 10%. The difference was expected to favor the Pterostilbene + Megestrol Acetate arm.||||||0.9|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.9
90917803|NCT03671811|181705022|SUPERIORITY|This was a one-sided t-test at α = 0.05. The difference was expected to favor the Pterostilbene + Megestrol Acetate arm.||||||0.6|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.6
90917804|NCT03671811|181705023|SUPERIORITY|This was a one-sided t-test at α = 0.05. The difference was expected to favor the Pterostilbene + Megestrol Acetate arm.||||||0.2|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.2
90917805|NCT03358875|181705034|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.527|0.778||OS in the ITT population was tested at one-sided p value boundary of 0.0120.|1-sided Log Rank Test|Stratified by stratification factors: histology (squamous vs non-squamous), line of therapy (second vs third), and PDL1 expression (≥25% vs \<25% TC).|A stratified Cox proportional hazards model with Efron's method of tie handling was used to determine hazard ratio (HR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI).|||0.778|0.527|<0.0001
90917806|NCT03358875|181705035|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.407|0.702||OS in the PD-L1 positive analysis set was tested at the one-sided p-value boundary of 0.025.|1-sided Log Rank Test|Stratified by stratification factors: histology (squamous vs non-squamous) and line of therapy (second vs third).||||0.702|0.407|<0.0001
90917807|NCT03358875|181705036|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.336|6.393|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi-square test stratified by histology, line of therapy, and PDL1 expression.||||6.393|2.336|<0.0001
90917808|NCT03358875|181705037|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.721|17.379|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi-square test stratified by histology and line of therapy.||||17.379|3.721|<0.0001
90917809|NCT03358875|181705038|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.176|0.536|||Log Rank|Stratified by stratification factors: histology (squamous vs non-squamous), line of therapy (second vs third), and PDL1 expression (≥25% vs \<25% TC).|A stratified Cox proportional hazards model with Efron's method of tie handling was used to determine hazard ratio (HR) and its 95% CI.|||0.536|0.176|<0.0001
90917810|NCT03358875|181705039|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.066|0.37|||Log Rank|Stratified by stratification factors: histology (squamous vs non-squamous) and line of therapy (second vs third).|A stratified Cox proportional hazards model with Efron's method of tie handling was used to determine hazard ratio (HR) and its 95% CI.|||0.370|0.066|<0.0001
90917811|NCT03358875|181705040|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.528|0.745|||Log Rank|Stratified by stratification factors: histology (squamous vs non-squamous), line of therapy (second vs third), and PDL1 expression (≥25% vs \<25% TC).|A stratified Cox proportional hazards model with Efron's method of tie handling was used to determine hazard ratio (HR) and its 95% CI.|||0.745|0.528|<0.0001
90917812|NCT03358875|181705041|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.285|0.494|||Log Rank|Stratified by stratification factors: histology (squamous vs non-squamous) and line of therapy (second vs third).|A stratified Cox proportional hazards model with Efron's method of tie handling was used to determine hazard ratio (HR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI).|||0.494|0.285|<0.0001
90917813|NCT03358875|181705042|OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|5.7||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.38|9.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The linear mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) includes baseline score, stratification factors, treatment arm, visit, and treatment arm by visit interaction as fixed effects and visit as a repeated measure.||9.07|2.38|0.0008
90917814|NCT03358875|181705043|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-8.3||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.02|-3.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of Change from Baseline in Coughing Scale. The linear mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) includes baseline score, stratification factors, treatment arm, visit, and treatment arm by visit interaction as fixed effects and visit as a repeated measure.||-3.51|-13.02|0.0007
90917815|NCT03358875|181705043|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.2||||0.0579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.52|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of Change from Baseline in Dyspnoea Scale. The linear mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) includes baseline score, stratification factors, treatment arm, visit, and treatment arm by visit interaction as fixed effects and visit as a repeated measure.||0.11|-6.52|0.0579
90917816|NCT03358875|181705043|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.2||||0.2472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.05|1.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of Change from Baseline in Chest Pain Scale. The linear mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) includes baseline score, stratification factors, treatment arm, visit, and treatment arm by visit interaction as fixed effects and visit as a repeated measure.||1.56|-6.05|0.2472
90917817|NCT03599648|181705046|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.361||||||baseline versus immediately after 16-week BPT-E intervention|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.361
90917818|NCT03599648|181705046|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.126||||||baseline versus 6 months after BPT-E intervention|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.126
90917819|NCT03599648|181705046|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||baseline versus 12 months after BPT-E intervention|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.000
90917820|NCT03599648|181705046|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||baseline versus immediately after 16 week BPT-M intervention|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.000
90917821|NCT03599648|181705046|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||baseline versus 6 months after BPT-M intervention|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.000
90917822|NCT03599648|181705046|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||baseline versus 12 months after BPT-M intervention|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.000
90961670|NCT01794923|181803724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|0.2|||ANOVA|||72 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.20|-1.48|0.132
90961671|NCT01794923|181803725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.163|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||0-24 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||||0.163
90961672|NCT01794923|181803725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|4.6||||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|11.02|||ANOVA|||0-24 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||11.02|-1.86|0.162
90917823|NCT03599648|181705047|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035||||||Baseline versus immediately following 16-week BPT-E intervention|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.035
90917824|NCT03599648|181705047|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||Baseline versus 6-months after BPT-E intervention|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.001
90917825|NCT03599648|181705047|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||Baseline versus 12 months after BPT-E intervention|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.000
90961673|NCT01794923|181803725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.9||||0.559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.42|4.57|||ANOVA|||0-24 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||4.57|-8.42|0.559
90961674|NCT01794923|181803725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|6.5||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|13.45|||ANOVA|||0-24 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||13.45|-0.44|0.066
90917826|NCT03599648|181705047|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||Baseline versus immediately after 16-week BPT-M intervention|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.000
90917827|NCT03599648|181705047|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||Baseline versus 6 months after BPT-M intervention|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.000
90917828|NCT03599648|181705047|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||Baseline versus 12 months after BPT-M intervention|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.000
90917829|NCT03599648|181705048|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||Baseline versus immediately after 16-week BPT-E intervention|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.000
90917830|NCT03599648|181705048|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||Baseline versus 6 months after BPT-E intervention|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.000
90917831|NCT03599648|181705048|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||Baseline versus 12 months after BPT-E intervention|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.000
90917832|NCT03599648|181705048|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||Baseline versus immediately after 16-week BPT-M intervention|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.000
90917833|NCT03599648|181705048|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||Baseline versus 6 months after BPT-M intervention|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.000
90917834|NCT03599648|181705048|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||baseline versus 12 months after BPT-M intervention|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.000
90917835|NCT03363854|181705049|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.4||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|21.9||The primary endpoints were tested sequentially at a 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was conducted using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity.||Participants who achieved IGA 0 or 1 at Week 16 were defined as responders. Participants with missing data at Week 16 or who received rescue medication prior to Week 16 were defined as non-responders, independently of their IGA value at Week 16. The null hypothesis of no difference in response rates between tralokinumab Q2W+TCS and placebo+TCS was tested against the 2-sided alternative that there was a difference.||21.9|2.9|0.015
90917836|NCT03363854|181705050|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.8|30.6||The primary endpoints were tested sequentially at a 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was conducted using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity.||Participants who achieved at least 75% reduction in EASI at Week 16 were defined as responders. Participants with missing data at Week 16 or who received rescue medication prior to Week 16 were defined as non-responders, independently of their EASI value at Week 16. The null hypothesis of no difference in response rates between tralokinumab Q2W+TCS and placebo+TCS was tested against the 2-sided alternative that there was a difference.||30.6|9.8|<0.001
90961675|NCT01794923|181803725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.957|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||24-48 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||||0.957
90961676|NCT01794923|181803725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.1||||0.864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|13.33|||ANOVA|||24-48 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||13.33|-11.20|0.864
90961677|NCT01794923|181803725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9||||0.883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|11.45|||ANOVA|||24-48 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||11.45|-13.30|0.883
90961678|NCT01794923|181803725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|2.0||||0.767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.24|15.22|||ANOVA|||24-48 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||15.22|-11.24|0.767
90961679|NCT01794923|181803725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.243|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||48-72 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||||0.243
90917837|NCT03363854|181705051|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.3||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|21.6||This secondary endpoint was tested after the sequential testing of the primary endpoints, if these showed statistical significance.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was conducted using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity.||Participants meeting the endpoint were defined as responders. Participants with missing data at Week 16 or who received rescue medication prior to Week 16 were defined as non-responders, independently of their Worst daily Pruritus NRS value at Week 16.||21.6|0.9|0.037
90917838|NCT03363854|181705052|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-10.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|-6.6||This secondary endpoint was tested sequentially using the Holm method for multiplicity adjustment at a 5% significance level after the sequential testing of the primary endpoints and first secondary endpoint, if these showed statistical significance.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of investigational medicinal product or initiation of rescue medication were not included.||-6.6|-15.2|<0.001
90917839|NCT03363854|181705053|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-2.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|-1.6||This secondary endpoint was tested sequentially using the Holm method for multiplicity adjustment at a 5% significance level after sequential testing of the primary endpoints and the first secondary endpoint, if these showed statistical significance.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of investigational medicinal product or initiation of rescue medication were not included.||-1.6|-4.3|<0.001
90917840|NCT03363854|181705055|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-3.5||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|4.9||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of investigational medicinal product or initiation of rescue medication were not included. Results of Week 1-2 are reported below.||4.9|-11.9|0.41
90917841|NCT03363854|181705055|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-6.9||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|-0.6||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of investigational medicinal product or initiation of rescue medication were not included. Results of Week 3-4 are reported below.||-0.6|-13.3|0.033
90917842|NCT03363854|181705055|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-4.7||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|1.2||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of investigational medicinal product or initiation of rescue medication were not included. Results of Week 5-6 are reported below.||1.2|-10.6|0.12
90917843|NCT03363854|181705055|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-7.3||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|-0.2||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of investigational medicinal product or initiation of rescue medication were not included. Results of Week 7-8 are reported below.||-0.2|-14.3|0.043
90880063|NCT01951157|181621713|SUPERIORITY|Pre-specified||||||0.9026|||||||Wilcoxon signed ranks test repeat analys|||Changes in QoL scores over time were calculated and tested for statistical significance by means of wilcoxon signed ranks test repeat-measure analyses of variance.||||0.9026
90880064|NCT01951157|181621713|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9862|||||||Wilcoxon signed ranks test repeat analys|||Changes in QoL scores over time were calculated and tested for statistical significance by means of wilcoxon signed ranks test repeat-measure analyses of variance.||||0.9862
90880065|NCT01951157|181621713|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8057|||||||Wilcoxon signed ranks test repeat analys|||Changes in QoL scores over time were calculated and tested for statistical significance by means of ilcoxon signed ranks test repeat-measure analyses of variance.||||0.8057
90880066|NCT05218018|181621719|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.002
90917844|NCT03363854|181705055|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-9.1||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|-3.4||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of investigational medicinal product or initiation of rescue medication were not included. Results of Week 9-10 are reported below.||-3.4|-14.8|0.002
90917845|NCT03363854|181705055|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-8.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|-3.2||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of investigational medicinal product or initiation of rescue medication were not included. Results of Week 11-12 are reported below.||-3.2|-12.8|0.001
90961680|NCT01794923|181803725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-8.2||||0.176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.12|3.7|||ANOVA|||48-72 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||3.70|-20.12|0.176
90880067|NCT01883427|181621750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Not significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Too few included to reach power||||>0.05
90880068|NCT03240575|181621816|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.052|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.0543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|0.105|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects, and baseline as well as baseline by visit interaction as covariates.||||0.105|-0.001|0.0543
90880069|NCT03240575|181621817|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.037|0.144|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects, and baseline as well as baseline by visit interaction as covariates.||||0.144|0.037|0.0011
90917846|NCT03363854|181705055|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-10.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.8|-4.7||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of investigational medicinal product or initiation of rescue medication were not included. Results of Week 13-14 are reported below.||-4.7|-15.8|<0.001
90917847|NCT03363854|181705055|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-8.6||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|-3.2||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of investigational medicinal product or initiation of rescue medication were not included. Results of Week 15-16 are reported below.||-3.2|-14.1|0.002
90917848|NCT03363854|181705056|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|11.0||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of investigational medicinal product or initiation of rescue medication were not included. Results of Week 1-2 are reported below.||11.0|-11.0|1.00
90961681|NCT01794923|181803725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|2.0||||0.741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|14.03|||ANOVA|||48-72 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||14.03|-10.00|0.741
90961682|NCT01794923|181803725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-10.2||||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.07|2.62|||ANOVA|||48-72 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||2.62|-23.07|0.118
90917849|NCT03363854|181705056|SUPERIORITY||Difference|1.1||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|11.4||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of investigational medicinal product or initiation of rescue medication were not included. Results of Week 3-4 are reported below.||11.4|-9.1|0.83
90917850|NCT03363854|181705056|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-1.4||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|8.5||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of investigational medicinal product or initiation of rescue medication were not included. Results of Week 5-6 are reported below.||8.5|-11.3|0.78
90917851|NCT03363854|181705056|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-4.8||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|5.1||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of investigational medicinal product or initiation of rescue medication were not included. Results of Week 7-8 are reported below.||5.1|-14.8|0.34
90917852|NCT03363854|181705056|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-4.4||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|4.6||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of investigational medicinal product or initiation of rescue medication were not included. Results of Week 9-10 are reported below.||4.6|-13.4|0.34
90917853|NCT03363854|181705056|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-6.2||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|1.5||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of investigational medicinal product or initiation of rescue medication were not included. Results of Week 11-12 are reported below.||1.5|-13.9|0.11
90917854|NCT03363854|181705056|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-8.9||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|-1.2||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of investigational medicinal product or initiation of rescue medication were not included. Results of Week 13-14 are reported below.||-1.2|-16.6|0.024
90961683|NCT01794923|181803725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.92|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||0-72 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||||0.920
90961684|NCT01794923|181803725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-4.2||||0.685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.64|16.23|||ANOVA|||0-72 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||16.23|-24.64|0.685
90961685|NCT01794923|181803725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.4||||0.892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.04|19.19|||ANOVA|||0-72 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||19.19|-22.04|0.892
90961686|NCT01794923|181803725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-2.8||||0.804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.82|19.25|||ANOVA|||0-72 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||19.25|-24.82|0.804
90961687|NCT01794923|181803726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.533|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMSM terms.||||0.533
90961688|NCT01794923|181803726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.5||||0.266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|1.38|||ANOVA|||Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMSM terms.||1.38|-0.38|0.266
90961689|NCT01794923|181803726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|1.05|||ANOVA|||Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMSM terms.||1.05|-0.74|0.730
90917855|NCT03363854|181705056|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-9.5||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|-1.7||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of investigational medicinal product or initiation of rescue medication were not included. Results of Week 15-16 are reported below.||-1.7|-17.3|0.017
90961690|NCT01794923|181803726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|1.3|||ANOVA|||Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMSM terms.||1.30|-0.61|0.479
90917856|NCT03363854|181705058|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.1||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.7||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of investigational medicinal product or initiation of rescue medication were not included. Results of Week 1 are reported below.||0.7|-0.5|0.64
90961691|NCT01794923|181803727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.189|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||1 Hour: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||||0.189
90961692|NCT01794923|181803727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.07|||ANOVA|||1 Hour: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.07|-0.17|0.389
90961693|NCT01794923|181803727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.19|||ANOVA|||1 Hour: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.19|-0.05|0.273
90961694|NCT01794923|181803727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.01|||ANOVA|||1 Hour: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.01|-0.25|0.069
90961695|NCT01794923|181803727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.716|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||||0.716
90961696|NCT01794923|181803727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.11|||ANOVA|||2 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.11|-0.15|0.735
90961697|NCT01794923|181803727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.08|||ANOVA|||2 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.08|-0.19|0.414
90961698|NCT01794923|181803727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.652|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.17|||ANOVA|||2 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.17|-0.11|0.652
90880070|NCT03240575|181621818|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.8593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.048|0.058|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects, and baseline as well as baseline by visit interaction as covariates.||||0.058|-0.048|0.8593
90880071|NCT03240575|181621819|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.098|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.156|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects, and baseline as well as baseline by visit interaction as covariates.||||0.156|0.040|0.0010
90880072|NCT04482179|181621820|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<.05
90880073|NCT04482179|181621821|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<.05
90880074|NCT03034954|181621822|OTHER|||||||0.3||||||Reported p-value represents Time (baseline to post-tDCS) x Condition (Active or Sham) interaction for all OLTT Accuracy Measures. If the multivariate statistic is not significant no univariate statistical analyses are completed.|Repeated Measures ANOVA|repeated measures (OLTT baseline and post-tDCS); between-subjects (active vs. sham)||We used a multivariate statistic to compare OLTT means (Free Recall Total Error, Free Recall Average Error, Cued Recall Total Error, Cued Recall Average Error, Recognition Total Correct) at baseline (Version B) to post HD-tDCS OLTT means (Version C), by groups (active vs. sham). The overall statistic represents the simultaneous comparison of baseline OLTT measures to post HD-tDCS OLTT measures.||||.300
90880075|NCT03034954|181621824|OTHER|||||||0.044||||||Statistic represents the interaction between Time (baseline to post-tDCS) by Condition (Active vs. Sham).|Repeated Measures ANOVA|||A Repeated Measures ANOVA was used to compare baseline OLTT (Version B) to post-tDCS OLTT (Version C) across the treatment groups (Active vs. Sham). The multivariate analyses included OLTT Response Times (i.e., Free Recall Average Response Time, Cued Recall Average Response Time, Recognition Average Response Time)||||.044
90880076|NCT03034954|181621824|OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|||Univariate analysis of the OLTT Free Recall Average Time to Respond following significant multivariate repeated measures ANOVA comparing baseline OLTT (Version B) to post-tDCS OLTT (Version C) across the treatment groups (Active vs. Sham).||||.006
90880077|NCT03034954|181621827|OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|||Univariate analysis of the OLTT Cued Recall Average Time to Respond following significant multivariate repeated measures ANOVA comparing baseline OLTT (Version B) to post-tDCS OLTT (Version C) across the treatment groups (Active vs. Sham).||||.15
90880078|NCT03034954|181621829|OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|||Univariate analysis of the OLTT Recognition Average Time to Respond following significant multivariate repeated measures ANOVA comparing baseline OLTT (Version B) to post-tDCS OLTT (Version C) across the treatment groups (Active vs. Sham).||||.3
90880079|NCT03034954|181621834|OTHER|||||||0.45|||||||MANOVA|||A Multivariate ANOVA was used to compare Active vs. Sham groups on discriminability measures (i.e. 0-back d', 2-back d', semantic 2-back d') and calculated working memory measures (i.e., 2-back d' minus 0-back d', semantic 2-back d' minus 0-back d').||||.450
90880080|NCT03034954|181621835|OTHER|||||||0.078|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-squared tests were conducted to determine group differences in actual condition assignment vs. estimated/perceived condition||||.078
90880081|NCT03034954|181621836|OTHER|||||||0.233|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.233
90880082|NCT03034954|181621838|OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.600
90880083|NCT03034954|181621839|OTHER|||||||0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.999
90880084|NCT03034954|181621840|OTHER|||||||0.281|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.281
90880085|NCT03034954|181621841|OTHER|||||||0.082|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.082
90880086|NCT03034954|181621842|OTHER|||||||0.49|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.490
90880087|NCT03034954|181621843|OTHER|||||||0.488|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.488
90880088|NCT03034954|181621844|OTHER|||||||0.219|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.219
90961699|NCT01794923|181803727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.622|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||3 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||||0.622
90880089|NCT02904057|181621905|SUPERIORITY||Difference between proportion|92.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|73.4|98.8|||Fisher Exact|||Imputed Data: Difference between proportion of treatment responders and control responders (P\[treatment\] - P\[control\] with confidence interval (CI) was calculated using an exact approach.||98.8|73.4|<0.0001
90880090|NCT02904057|181621905|SUPERIORITY||Difference between proportion|92.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|73.4|98.8|||Fisher Exact|||Observed Data: Difference between proportion of treatment responders and control responders (P\[treatment\] - P\[control\] with CI was calculated using an exact approach.||98.8|73.4|<0.0001
90880091|NCT00913744|181621925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|12.3||||0.262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|28.4|||Fisher Exact|P-value is from Fisher's exact test, comparing sham and ocriplasmin.||||28.4|-3.7|0.262
90880092|NCT00805935|181621926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
90880093|NCT00805935|181621926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
90880094|NCT00805935|181621926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.481||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparing Progesterone vaginal insert to Progesterone in oil within the menotropin treatments arms.||||0.481
90880095|NCT00805935|181621926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparing Progesterone vaginal insert to Progesterone in oil within the follitropin beta treatment group.||||0.483
90961700|NCT01794923|181803727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.21|||ANOVA|||3 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.21|-0.17|0.830
91033891|NCT00322465|181953660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.39||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|6.22||A priori threshold for statistical signficance was p\<0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio has been adjusted for other independent variables included in the model, which are found in the other Statistical Analysis sections.||The null hypothesis is that the odds ratio for ever having sex with a prostitute or for money, drugs, or other things(reference category is no) is 1 versus the alternative that it is greater than or less than 1. This was tested in a multivariable logistic regression model.||6.22|0.92|0.074
91033892|NCT00322465|181953661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.98||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Regression, Logistic|No other independent variables were included in the model.||The null hypothesis is that the odds ratio for age (per 5 years) is 1 versus the alternative that the odds ratio is greater than or less than 1.||0.98|0.66|0.032
90880096|NCT01218516|181621940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.23||||0.3519|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.92|1.63||Per Primary Analysis Cut-Off Date|Log Rank|||||1.63|0.92|0.3519
90880097|NCT01218516|181621940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.34||||0.1555|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.03|1.74||Per Final Analysis Cut-Off Date|Log Rank|||||1.74|1.03|0.1555
90880098|NCT00283439|181621953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9654||||||One-sided test|Satterhwaite t-test|||||||0.9654
90880099|NCT00283439|181621953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.869||||||One-sided test|Satterhwaite t-test|||||||0.8690
90880100|NCT00283439|181621953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7133||||||One-sided test|Satterhwaite t-test|||||||0.7133
90880101|NCT00283439|181621954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.294|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.294
90880102|NCT00283439|181621954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.608|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.608
90880103|NCT00283439|181621954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.603|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.603
90880104|NCT00283439|181621955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.091|||||||Satterhwaite t-test|||||||0.091
90880105|NCT00283439|181621955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||Satterhwaite t-test|||||||0.300
90917857|NCT03363854|181705058|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.4||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.0||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of investigational medicinal product or initiation of rescue medication were not included. Results of Week 2 are reported below.||1.0|-0.3|0.26
90917858|NCT03363854|181705058|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.2||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.8||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of investigational medicinal product or initiation of rescue medication were not included. Results of Week 3 are reported below.||0.8|-0.4|0.46
91033893|NCT01073657|181953667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|18.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|33.9||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.0|38.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||38|14|0.0059
90880106|NCT00283439|181621955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.881|||||||Satterhwaite t-test|||||||0.881
90880107|NCT00283439|181621956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.576|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.576
90880108|NCT00283439|181621956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.588|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.588
90880109|NCT00283439|181621956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.421|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.421
90880110|NCT01632891|181621957|SUPERIORITY|Test used alpha level of 0.05||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Compare proportions of Pf SCP clearance between treatment arms||||1.00
90880111|NCT02633956|181621999|OTHER|Estimation|Least Square Mean Difference|13.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.75|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.28|25.3||||||||25.30|2.28|
90880112|NCT02633956|181621999|OTHER|Estimation|Least Square Mean Difference|9.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.61|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|20.3||||||||20.30|-2.18|
90880113|NCT02633956|181621999|OTHER|Estimation|Least Square Mean Difference|20.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.39|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.33|32.92||||||||32.92|7.33|
90880114|NCT02633956|181622000|OTHER|Estimation|Least Square Mean Difference|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.75||||||||0.75|0.07|
90880115|NCT02633956|181622000|OTHER|Estimation|Least Square Mean Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.42||||||||0.42|-0.25|
90880116|NCT02633956|181622000|OTHER|Estimation|Least Square Mean Difference|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.89||||||||0.89|0.14|
90880117|NCT02633956|181622001|OTHER|Estimation|Least Square Mean Difference|103.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|69.51|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.58|242.81||||||||242.81|-35.58|
90880118|NCT02633956|181622001|OTHER|Estimation|Least Square Mean Difference|114.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|68.08|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.53|251.13||||||||251.13|-21.53|
90880119|NCT02633956|181622001|OTHER|Estimation|Least Square Mean Difference|215.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|79.51|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.84|374.26||||||||374.26|55.84|
90880120|NCT04206293|181622007|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.0736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|3.6|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Change from Baseline to Day 28||3.6|-0.2|0.0736
90880121|NCT04206293|181622007|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.5259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.8|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Change from Baseline to Day 84||2.8|-1.5|0.5259
90880122|NCT04206293|181622008|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.8848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|2.4|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Change from Baseline to Day 28||2.4|-2.8|0.8848
90880123|NCT04206293|181622008|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.9505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.7|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Change from Baseline to Day 84||1.7|-1.8|0.9505
90880124|NCT04206293|181622009|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|4.0|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Change from Baseline to Day 28||4.0|1.4|0.0007
90880125|NCT04206293|181622009|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|3.9|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Change from Baseline to Day 84||3.9|0.9|0.0033
90917859|NCT03363854|181705058|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.4||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.0||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of investigational medicinal product or initiation of rescue medication were not included. Results of Week 4 are reported below.||1.0|-0.2|0.16
90917860|NCT03363854|181705058|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.5||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.1||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of investigational medicinal product or initiation of rescue medication were not included. Results of Week 5 are reported below.||1.1|-0.1|0.13
90917861|NCT03363854|181705058|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.3||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.9||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of investigational medicinal product or initiation of rescue medication were not included. Results of Week 6 are reported below.||0.9|-0.3|0.38
90917862|NCT03363854|181705058|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.6||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.2||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of investigational medicinal product or initiation of rescue medication were not included. Results of Week 7 are reported below.||1.2|0.0|0.040
90917863|NCT03363854|181705058|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.3||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.0||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of investigational medicinal product or initiation of rescue medication were not included. Results of Week 8 are reported below.||1.0|-0.3|0.31
90917864|NCT03363854|181705058|SUPERIORITY||Difference|1.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.6||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of investigational medicinal product or initiation of rescue medication were not included. Results of Week 9 are reported below.||1.6|0.4|0.001
90917865|NCT03363854|181705058|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.7||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.3||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of investigational medicinal product or initiation of rescue medication were not included. Results of Week 10 are reported below.||1.3|0.1|0.026
91033894|NCT00854100|181953668|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.5||||0.746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|3.4|||ANCOVA|||||3.4|-2.4|0.746
91033895|NCT00854100|181953668|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.8||||0.227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|1.1|||ANCOVA|||||1.1|-4.8|0.227
90917866|NCT03363854|181705058|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.9||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.5||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Repeated measurements model]|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of investigational medicinal product or initiation of rescue medication were not included. Results of Week 11 are reported below.||1.5|0.2|0.006
90917867|NCT03363854|181705058|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.6||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.3||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of investigational medicinal product or initiation of rescue medication were not included. Results of Week 12 are reported below.||1.3|0.0|0.043
90917868|NCT03363854|181705058|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.8||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.4||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of investigational medicinal product or initiation of rescue medication were not included. Results of Week 13 are reported below.||1.4|0.2|0.010
90917869|NCT03363854|181705058|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.7||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.3||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of investigational medicinal product or initiation of rescue medication were not included. Results of Week 14 are reported below.||1.3|0.0|0.037
90917870|NCT03363854|181705058|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.6||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.3||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of investigational medicinal product or initiation of rescue medication were not included. Results of Week 15 are reported below.||1.3|0.0|0.045
90917871|NCT03363854|181705058|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.5||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.1||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of investigational medicinal product or initiation of rescue medication were not included. Results of Week 16 are reported below.||1.1|-0.2|0.17
90961701|NCT01794923|181803727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.11|||ANOVA|||3 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.11|-0.26|0.442
90961702|NCT01794923|181803727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.29|||ANOVA|||3 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.29|-0.11|0.358
90917872|NCT03363854|181705059|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.3|31.3||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was conducted using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity.||Participants meeting the endpoint were defined as responders. Participants with missing data at Week 16 or who received rescue medication prior to Week 16 were defined as non-responders, independently of their EASI value at Week 16.||31.3|11.3|<0.001
90917873|NCT03363854|181705060|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.4||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|20.7||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was conducted using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity.||Participants meeting the endpoint were defined as responders. Participants with missing data at Week 16 or who received rescue medication prior to Week 16 were defined as non-responders, independently of their EASI value at Week 16.||20.7|2.1|0.022
90961703|NCT01794923|181803727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.714|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||4 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||||0.714
90961704|NCT01794923|181803727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.19|||ANOVA|||4 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.19|-0.29|0.683
90961705|NCT01794923|181803727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.14|||ANOVA|||4 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.14|-0.34|0.413
90961706|NCT01794923|181803727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.31|||ANOVA|||4 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.31|-0.21|0.699
90961707|NCT01794923|181803727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.244|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||5 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||||0.244
90961708|NCT01794923|181803727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.26|||ANOVA|||5 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.26|-0.21|0.833
90961709|NCT01794923|181803727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.07|||ANOVA|||5 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.07|-0.41|0.156
90961710|NCT01794923|181803727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.46|||ANOVA|||5 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.46|-0.06|0.128
90961711|NCT01794923|181803727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.359|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||6 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||||0.359
90961712|NCT01794923|181803727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.43|||ANOVA|||6 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.43|-0.12|0.278
90961713|NCT01794923|181803727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.22|||ANOVA|||6 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.22|-0.33|0.699
90961714|NCT01794923|181803727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.5|||ANOVA|||6 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.50|-0.09|0.172
90961715|NCT01794923|181803727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.515|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||7 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||||0.515
90961716|NCT01794923|181803727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.37|||ANOVA|||7 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.37|-0.19|0.527
90961717|NCT01794923|181803727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.19|||ANOVA|||7 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.19|-0.37|0.545
90961718|NCT01794923|181803727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.47|||ANOVA|||7 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.47|-0.12|0.250
90961719|NCT01794923|181803727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.568|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||8 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||||0.568
90961720|NCT01794923|181803727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.41|||ANOVA|||8 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.41|-0.16|0.381
90880126|NCT04206293|181622010|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.095|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.119|-0.07|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Uf: Change from Baseline to Day 28||-0.070|-0.119|<0.0001
90880127|NCT04206293|181622010|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.071|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.094|-0.048|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Uf: Change from Baseline to Day 84||-0.048|-0.094|<0.0001
90880128|NCT04206293|181622010|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.089|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.116|-0.061|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Ue: Change from Baseline to Day 28||-0.061|-0.116|<0.0001
90917874|NCT03363854|181705061|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-5.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|-3.1||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Repeated measurement model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of investigational medicinal product or initiation of rescue medication were not included.||-3.1|-7.7|<0.001
90880129|NCT04206293|181622010|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.081|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.009|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.102|-0.061|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Ue: Change from Baseline to Day 84||-0.061|-0.102|<0.0001
90880130|NCT04206293|181622010|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.079|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018||0.0003||95.0|-0.116|-0.041|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Ur: Change from Baseline to Day 28||-0.041|-0.116|0.0003
90880131|NCT04206293|181622010|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.074|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.103|-0.044|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Ur: Change from Baseline to Day 84||-0.044|-0.103|0.0001
90961721|NCT01794923|181803727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.26|||ANOVA|||8 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.26|-0.31|0.863
90961722|NCT01794923|181803727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.46|||ANOVA|||8 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.46|-0.16|0.330
90961723|NCT01794923|181803727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.167|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||9 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||||0.167
91033896|NCT00854100|181953669|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0||||0.918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3|||ANCOVA|||||0.3|-0.3|0.918
90880132|NCT04206293|181622010|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.081|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.117|-0.045|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Ua: Change from Baseline to Day 28||-0.045|-0.117|0.0002
90917875|NCT03363854|181705062|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|22.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.4|33.3||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was conducted using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity.||Partcipants meeting the endpoint were defined as responders. Participants with missing data at Week 16 or who received rescue medication prior to Week 16 were defined as non-responders, independently of their SCORAD value at Week 16.||33.3|12.4|<0.001
90961724|NCT01794923|181803727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.5|||ANOVA|||9 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.50|-0.09|0.165
90961725|NCT01794923|181803727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.21|||ANOVA|||9 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.21|-0.39|0.564
90961726|NCT01794923|181803727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.62|||ANOVA|||9 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.62|-0.02|0.068
90961727|NCT01794923|181803727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.131|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||10 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||||0.131
90961728|NCT01794923|181803727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.56|||ANOVA|||10 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.56|-0.06|0.119
91033897|NCT00854100|181953669|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.6|0.167
91033898|NCT02242201|181953677|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.033|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.033
90917876|NCT03363854|181705063|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.1||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|19.0||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was conducted using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity.||Participants meeting the endpoint were defined as responders. Participants with missing data at Week 16 or who received rescue medication prior to Week 16 were defined as non-responders, independently of their SCORAD value at Week 16.||19.0|3.2|0.012
90917877|NCT03363854|181705064|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-1.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.7||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of investigational medicinal product or initiation of rescue medication were not included.||-0.7|-1.7|<0.001
90917878|NCT03363854|181705065|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|27.1||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was conducted using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity.||Participants meeting the endpoint were defined as responders. Participants with missing data at Week 16 or who received rescue medication prior to Week 16 were defined as non-responders, independently of their DLQI value at Week 16.||27.1|8.0|<0.001
90917879|NCT03494504|181705103|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|3.84||||||||3.84|1.46|
90917880|NCT03494504|181705103|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|2.94||||||||2.94|1.11|
90917881|NCT05332340|181705115|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.683|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.683
90917882|NCT02088853|181705138|SUPERIORITY|Wilcoxon test|||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
90917883|NCT02088853|181705139|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
90961729|NCT01794923|181803727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.23|||ANOVA|||10 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.23|-0.39|0.616
90961730|NCT01794923|181803727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.66|||ANOVA|||10 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.66|-0.01|0.056
90961731|NCT01794923|181803727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.255|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||11 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||||0.255
90961732|NCT01794923|181803727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.57|||ANOVA|||11 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.57|-0.08|0.144
90917884|NCT02088853|181705140|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
90917885|NCT00957242|181705154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.32||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.47|||Regression, Cox|Prespecified covariates in the model included an indicator variable for the treatment group and the DLCO measurement from the baseline assessment.|Warfarin vs. Placebo|The study was designed to have 90% power to detect a difference in 48-week event free rates of 70% for the warfarin group versus 50% for the placebo group. A total of at least 95 adjudicated primary endpoints were required to achieve 90% power with 2-sided, type I error rate of 0.05 and a 1:1 randomization ratio. These calculations yielded a requisite total sample size of 256.||2.47|0.70|0.27
90917886|NCT00957242|181705155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|5.03||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|17.54|||Cox Proportional|||||17.54|1.44|0.005
90917887|NCT00957242|181705156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||t-value|0.08||||0.083||95.0|-0.01|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.17|-0.01|0.083
90961733|NCT01794923|181803727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.31|||ANOVA|||11 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.31|-0.34|0.935
90961734|NCT01794923|181803727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.61|||ANOVA|||11 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.61|-0.10|0.153
90917888|NCT00957242|181705157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.06||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|4.31|||Cox Proportional|||||4.31|0.99|0.054
90917889|NCT00957242|181705158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.47||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|9.56|||Cox Proportional|||||9.56|0.64|0.19
90917890|NCT00957242|181705159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.25||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|12.34|||Cox Proportional|||||12.34|0.41|0.35
90917891|NCT00957242|181705160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.24||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|16.1|||Cox Proportional|||||16.10|0.65|0.15
90917892|NCT00957242|181705161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|3.39|||Cox Proportional|||||3.39|0.24|0.88
90917893|NCT00957242|181705162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||t-value|10.88||||0.7222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.57|71.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||71.34|-49.57|0.7222
90917894|NCT00957242|181705163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||t-value|-1.78||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.04|3048.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3048|-7.04|0.27
90917895|NCT00957242|181705164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||t-value|0.05||||0.957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|1076.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1076|-1.67|0.957
90917896|NCT00957242|181705165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||t-value|-0.48||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.12|-0.84|0.009
90961735|NCT01794923|181803727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.128|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||12 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||||0.128
90961736|NCT01794923|181803727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.63|||ANOVA|||12 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.63|-0.02|0.067
90961737|NCT01794923|181803727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.33|||ANOVA|||12 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.33|-0.33|0.999
90961738|NCT01794923|181803727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.66|||ANOVA|||12 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.66|-0.05|0.088
90961739|NCT01794923|181803727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.195|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||24 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||||0.195
91033899|NCT02242201|181953677|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.662|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.662
90880133|NCT04206293|181622010|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.077|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.103|-0.052|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Ua: Change from Baseline to Day 84||-0.052|-0.103|<0.0001
90880134|NCT04206293|181622011|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014||0.5786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.038|0.022|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Q1: Change from Baseline to Day 28||0.022|-0.038|0.5786
90880135|NCT04206293|181622011|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.023|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.049|0.002|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Q1: Change from Baseline to Day 84||0.002|-0.049|0.0690
90880136|NCT04206293|181622011|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016||0.1934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.054|0.012|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Q2: Change from Baseline to Day 28||0.012|-0.054|0.1934
90880137|NCT04206293|181622011|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.034|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.0194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.062|-0.006|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Q2: Change from Baseline to Day 84||-0.006|-0.062|0.0194
90917897|NCT01381406|181705173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.772||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.641|0.93||COPD-Related Adjusted Multivariate Outcomes in the Follow-Up Period by Cohort (reference cohort = TIO) for Any COPD Exacerbation|Regression, Logistic|||||0.930|0.641|0.007
90917898|NCT01381406|181705173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.622||||0.146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.328|1.18||COPD-Related Adjusted Multivariate Outcomes in the Follow-Up Period by Cohort (reference cohort = TIO) for Severe COPD Exacerbations|Regression, Logistic|||||1.180|0.328|0.146
90917899|NCT01381406|181705173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.763||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.646|0.949||COPD-Related Adjusted Multivariate Outcomes in the Follow-Up Period by Cohort (reference cohort = TIO) for Moderate COPD Exacerbations|Regression, Logistic|||||0.949|0.646|0.013
90917900|NCT01061671|181705176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54|TWO_SIDED||||||negative binomial regression|Adjustments of confidence intervals for between-participant variation (overdispersion).||||||0.54
90917901|NCT01061671|181705177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.34
90917902|NCT01061671|181705178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1461|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.1461
90961740|NCT01794923|181803727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.67|||ANOVA|||24 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.67|-0.12|0.175
90917903|NCT02570022|181705180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||This analysis corresponds to the visual analog scale and morphine equivalent data.|Our hypothesis was that in patients undergoing shoulder arthroplasty, treatment with LB would lead to no significant differences in average daily pain scores. A power analysis was performed prior to the study to assess the primary hypothesis that a significant difference in average daily pain of 13mm on VAS will not be found between the INB and LB groups. With a power of 80% (beta level = 0.80, alpha level = 0.05), a sample size of 25 patients per group was obtained||||<0.05
90917904|NCT00262730|181705186|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|study design has 85% power to detect 25% deduction in hazard rate compared to EORTC Phase 3 results.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.025|>|0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.85|||Log Rank|||||0.85|0.8|>.1
90917905|NCT01172418|181705188|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.78
90880138|NCT04206293|181622011|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.013|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.007||0.0652|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|0.028|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Q3: Change from Baseline to Day 28||0.028|-0.001|0.0652
90880139|NCT04206293|181622011|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.006||0.0756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|0.024|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Q3: Change from Baseline to Day 84||0.024|-0.001|0.0756
90880140|NCT04206293|181622012|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.68||0.8409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.19|5.1|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Change from Baseline to Day 28||5.10|-6.19|0.8409
90880141|NCT04206293|181622012|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.98||0.9183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.18|8.35|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Change from Baseline to Day 84||8.35|-9.18|0.9183
90917906|NCT01172418|181705189|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.37
90880142|NCT04206293|181622013|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|70.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|77.0||0.4128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-142.0|282.0|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Change from Baseline to Day 28||282|-142|0.4128
90880143|NCT04206293|181622013|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-82.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|79.0||0.3851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-355.0|191.0|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Change from Baseline to Day 84||191|-355|0.3851
90917907|NCT01172418|181705190|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.99
90917908|NCT01172418|181705191|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.25
90917909|NCT00419341|181705205|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of SCIG:IVIG treatment was concluded if the lower GMR confidence limit was 0.8 or more. With 18 evaluable subjects, the power to show this non-inferiority was calculated to be 85% based on the assumptions of an intra-individual variability with a coefficient of variation (CV) = 25% and a GMR equal to or greater than 1.|Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.002|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.951|1.055||No P-value is provided as non-inferiority was assessed by the CI of the GMR.|t-test, 2 sided|Based on log-transformed individual differences.|Geometric mean ratio SCIG:IVIG non-inferiority was concluded if the lower GMR confidence limit was 0.8 or more|Individual sAUC values (standardized to a 7-day period) of the IV and adjusted SC sampling periods in each individual subject were log transformed and a parametric 2-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) for the mean of the individual differences was obtained. Back-transformation of the mean and its CI produced the geometric mean ratio (GMR) and its respective 90% CI.||1.055|0.951|
90880144|NCT04206293|181622014|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|6.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.44||0.0798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|13.93|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Change from Baseline to Day 28||13.93|-0.89|0.0798
90880145|NCT04206293|181622014|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.27||0.1142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|12.67|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Change from Baseline to Day 84||12.67|-1.55|0.1142
90917910|NCT03570892|181705264|SUPERIORITY||Unadjusted stratified cox model hazard r|1.07|||=|0.694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.4|||Stratified log-rank test one-sided|||||1.40|0.82|= 0.694
90917911|NCT04310735|181705377|OTHER|Independent-samples t-tests were conducted to compare the mean contrast of parameter estimate (COPE) values, derived from the contrast of smoking-related versus neutral cue activation, between the Expect-Yes and Expect-No groups in the ventromedial prefrontal cortex region of interest.||||||0.13||||||Statistical significance was defined a priori as p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis was that there is no difference in the population means of the two groups.||||0.13
90917912|NCT04310735|181705377|OTHER|Independent-samples t-tests were conducted to compare the mean contrast of parameter estimate (COPE) values, derived from the contrast of smoking-related versus neutral cue activation, between the Expect-Yes and Expect-No groups in the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex region of interest.||||||0.25||||||Statistical significance was defined a priori as p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis was that there is no difference in the population means of the two groups.||||.25
90917913|NCT04310735|181705378|OTHER|Independent-samples t-tests were conducted to compare mean valence values during smoking-related cues between the Expect-Yes and Expect-No groups.||||||0.8|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Statistical significance was defined a priori as p\<0.05.||The null hypothesis was that there is no difference in the population means of the two groups.||||.80
90917914|NCT04310735|181705378|OTHER|Independent-samples t-tests were conducted to compare mean valence values during neutral cues between the Expect-Yes and Expect-No groups.||||||0.87||||||Statistical significance was defined a priori as p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis was that there is no difference in the population means of the two groups.||||.87
91033900|NCT02242201|181953677|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.103|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.103
90880146|NCT04206293|181622015|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.2592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|2.71|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Ra: Change from Baseline to Day 28||2.71|-0.78|0.2592
90880147|NCT04206293|181622015|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.1341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|2.57|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Ra: Change from Baseline to Day 84||2.57|-0.38|0.1341
90880148|NCT04206293|181622015|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.55||0.2138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.79|15.61|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Rz: Change from Baseline to Day 28||15.61|-3.79|0.2138
90880149|NCT04206293|181622015|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|8.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.2||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|17.2|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Rz: Change from Baseline to Day 84||17.20|-0.77|0.0700
90880150|NCT04206293|181622016|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.17||0.9608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|4.91|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Change from Baseline to Day 28||4.91|-4.70|0.9608
90880151|NCT04206293|181622016|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.79||0.6192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.48|4.64|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Change from Baseline to Day 84||4.64|-7.48|0.6192
90880152|NCT04206293|181622017|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.8322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.16|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Change from Baseline to Day 28||0.16|-0.20|0.8322
90880153|NCT04206293|181622017|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.1334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.04|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Change from Baseline to Day 84||0.04|-0.25|0.1334
90880154|NCT04206293|181622018|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.78||0.5221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.56|11.38|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Change from Baseline to Day 28||11.38|-21.56|0.5221
90880155|NCT04206293|181622018|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|6.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.07||0.4174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.55|24.03|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Change from Baseline to Day 84||24.03|-10.55|0.4174
90880156|NCT04206293|181622019|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.58||0.3052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|8.44|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Change from Baseline to Day 28||8.44|-2.90|0.3052
90880157|NCT04206293|181622019|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|9.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.57||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.48|15.5|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Change from Baseline to Day 84||15.50|4.48|0.0016
90880158|NCT04206293|181622020|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.1672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|1.73|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Change from Baseline to Day 28||1.73|-0.33|0.1672
90880159|NCT04206293|181622020|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.0881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.21|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Change from Baseline to Day 84||1.21|-0.10|0.0881
90880160|NCT04206293|181622021|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.0577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|1.17|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Change from Baseline to Day 28||1.17|-0.02|0.0577
90880161|NCT04206293|181622021|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.5224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.45|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Change from Baseline to Day 84||0.45|-0.85|0.5224
90880162|NCT04206293|181622022|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.2666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.2|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Change from Baseline to Day 28||0.2|-0.6|0.2666
90880163|NCT04206293|181622022|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.4366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.7|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Change from Baseline to Day 84||0.7|-0.3|0.4366
91033901|NCT02242201|181953678|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.948|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Preoperative||||0.948
91033902|NCT02242201|181953678|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Preoperative||||0.880
90880164|NCT04206293|181622023|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.4197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.3|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||a\*: Change from Baseline to Day 28||0.3|-0.6|0.4197
90880165|NCT04206293|181622023|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.5|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||a\*: Change from Baseline to Day 84||0.5|-0.6|0.9140
90880166|NCT04206293|181622023|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.7604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.4|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||b\*: Change from Baseline to Day 28||0.4|-0.6|0.7604
90880167|NCT04206293|181622023|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.5936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.6|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||b\*: Change from Baseline to Day 84||0.6|-1.0|0.5936
90880168|NCT04206293|181622023|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.1|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||L\*: Change from Baseline to Day 28||0.1|-0.9|0.0808
90880169|NCT04206293|181622023|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.1633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.2|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||L\*: Change from Baseline to Day 84||0.2|-1.0|0.1633
90880170|NCT04206293|181622024|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.1977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.4|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Change from Baseline to Day 28||0.4|-1.6|0.1977
90880171|NCT04206293|181622024|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.7535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.7|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Change from Baseline to Day 84||1.7|-2.2|0.7535
90880172|NCT04206293|181622025|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.95||0.2905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.16|12.85|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Change from Baseline to Day 28||12.85|-4.16|0.2905
90880173|NCT04206293|181622025|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|17.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.37||0.0241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.84|31.69|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Change from Baseline to Day 84||31.69|2.84|0.0241
90880174|NCT01610791|181622049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in ALT from Baseline to Week 24||||<0.001
90880175|NCT01610791|181622049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in AST from Baseline to Week 24||||<0.001
90880176|NCT01610791|181622050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Diffrence in total cholesterol from baseline to Week 24||||<0.001
90880177|NCT01610791|181622050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in LDL cholesterol from baseline to Week 24||||<0.001
90880178|NCT04304001|181622066|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||For each arm, the proportion of participants who receive colorectal cancer screening by 12 months was computed. The chi-square test was used to compare the two treatment arms for screening receipt. If the proportion of participants receiving colorectal cancer screening in the intervention arm is at least 15% higher than that in the control arm, the intervention was determined to be effective.||||<0.05
90880179|NCT04304001|181622067|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Bivariate analyses was conducted for the knowledge scale to compare differences between the intervention and control arms. Since knowledge was a continuous variable,the values between study arms were compared using two-sample independent t-tests.||||<0.05
90880180|NCT04304001|181622068|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Bivariate analyses was conducted for the self-efficacy scale to compare differences between the intervention and control arms. Since self-efficacy was a continuous variable, the values between study arms were compared using two-sample independent t-tests.||||<0.05
90880181|NCT04164901|181622069|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.39|||<|1e-07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.56|||Kaplan-Meier|||||0.56|0.27|<0.0000001
90917915|NCT03012841|181705386|SUPERIORITY|The formal alternative hypothesis test for the primary effectiveness objective was that the Kaplan-Meier estimator of treatment success at 12 months (365 days) was greater than 40%, against the null hypothesis that it was less than or equal to 40%.|Kaplan-Meier (product-limit) estimator|54.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.7|62.1|||Exact binomial|Exact binomial p-value is shown, but the confidence intervals reported are calculated from Greenwood's approximation of the standard error.||||62.1|46.7|<0.001
90917916|NCT03012841|181705387|SUPERIORITY|The formal alternative hypothesis tested for the primary safety objective was that the Kaplan-Meier estimator of the proportion of subjects with primary safety events at 12 months (365 days) was less than 13%, against the null hypothesis that it was greater than or equal to 13%.|Kaplan-Meier (product-limit) estimator|0.6||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|4.4|||Exact binomial|Exact binomial p-value is shown, but the confidence intervals reported are calculated from Greenwood's approximation of the standard error.||||4.4|0.1|0.002
90961741|NCT01794923|181803727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.3|||ANOVA|||24 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.30|-0.50|0.610
91033903|NCT02242201|181953678|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.802|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Preoperative||||0.802
90880182|NCT04164901|181622072|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.88||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|15.25|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio was calculated with placebo as the control (denominator).|||15.25|1.56|0.003
90880183|NCT04164901|181622079|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.35||||2.4e-07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.54|||Kaplan-Meier|||||0.54|0.23|0.00000024
90917917|NCT03012841|181705388|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|25.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.1|29.5||A Hommel multiple testing procedure was utilized to maintain overall alpha of 0.025 for the 3 hypotheses tested for the secondary objective.|t-test, 1 sided|||The formal alternative hypothesis tested was that the mean 12-month change in AFEQT composite scores was greater than 0, against the null the hypothesis that it was equal to 0.||29.5|22.1|<0.001
90917918|NCT03012841|181705389|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|6.5||A Hommel multiple testing procedure was utilized to maintain overall alpha of 0.025 for the 3 hypotheses tested for the secondary objective.|t-test, 1 sided|||The formal alternative hypothesis tested was that the mean 12-month change in SF-12 physical composite scores was greater than 0, against the null the hypothesis that it was equal to 0.||6.5|3.5|<0.001
90917919|NCT03012841|181705390|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|6.6||A Hommel multiple testing procedure was utilized to maintain overall alpha of 0.025 for the 3 hypotheses tested for the secondary objective.|t-test, 1 sided|||The formal alternative hypothesis tested was that the mean 12-month change in SF-12 mental composite scores was greater than 0, against the null the hypothesis that it was equal to 0.||6.6|3.2|<0.001
90917920|NCT03398200|181705400|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|||||||Regression, Cox|1- degree of freedom (1-df) likelihood ratio test (LRT) in a cell dose stratified Cox model||||||0.89
90917921|NCT03398200|181705401|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Regression, Cox|1- degree of freedom (1-df) likelihood ratio test (LRT) in a cell dose stratified Cox model||||||0.03
90917922|NCT03398200|181705402|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||Regression, Cox|1- degree of freedom (1-df) likelihood ratio test (LRT) in a cell dose stratified Cox model||||||0.35
90917923|NCT03398200|181705403|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||Regression, Cox|1- degree of freedom (1-df) likelihood ratio test (LRT) in a cell dose stratified Cox model||||||0.77
90917924|NCT03398200|181705404|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Regression, Cox|1- degree of freedom (1-df) likelihood ratio test (LRT) in a cell dose stratified Cox model||||||0.50
90917925|NCT03398200|181705405|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||Regression, Cox|1- degree of freedom (1-df) likelihood ratio test (LRT) in a cell dose stratified Cox model||||||0.76
90917926|NCT04065048|181705406|OTHER|||||||0.469|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.469
90917927|NCT04065048|181705407|OTHER|||||||0.0093|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0093
90917928|NCT04065048|181705409|OTHER|||||||0.2487|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2487
90917929|NCT03397108|181705410|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89||||||The a priori threshold of significance was set at 0.05. Not adjusted for multiple comparison.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Milk TNF levels at EARLY LACTATION PERIOD were compared between non-IBD control and women with IBD. Our hypothesis was that women with IBD have higher TNF in milk due to the underlying inflammatory condition (IBD).||||0.89
91033904|NCT02242201|181953678|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.179|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Intraoperative||||0.179
91033905|NCT02242201|181953678|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.837|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Intraoperative||||0.837
90880184|NCT05358821|181622087|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|3.3657|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2539|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8566|3.8749|||T-test||Difference was calculated as HP - HD.|||3.8749|2.8566|<0.0001
90880185|NCT04609020|181622093|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|46.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|23.61|<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|40.58|||P-value is calculated based on 1-sided t-test or Wilcoxon signed-rank test (if the normality assumption is not met) at 0.025 significance level.|t-test, 1 sided||||||40.58|<0.0001
90917930|NCT03397108|181705410|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||"Milk TNF at the EARLY LACTATION PERIOD was compared among the 3 groups: non-IBD control, IBD subgroup On TNFmAb and IBD subgroup Off TNFmAb. We hypothesized that the use of TNFmAb decreases milk TNF. Nonparametric comparison of 3 groups was done with one-way ANOVA on ranks (Kruskal-Wallis test), followed by multiplicity-adjusted pairwise comparisons with Dunn's test."||||0.024
91033906|NCT02242201|181953678|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.142|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Intraoperative||||0.142
90917931|NCT03397108|181705410|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7||||||The a priori threshold of significance was set at 0.05. Not adjusted for multiple comparison.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Milk MCP1 levels (TNF dependent chemokine) at the EARLY LACTATION PERIOD were compared between non-IBD control and IBD group to see if there is a difference.||||0.70
90917932|NCT03397108|181705410|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparison.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Milk levels of MIP-1 beta (TNF dependent chemokine) at the EARLY LACTATION PERIOD were compared between non-IBD control and IBD group to see if there is a difference.||||0.93
90917933|NCT03397108|181705410|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12||||||The a priori threshold of significance was set at 0.05. Not adjusted for multiple comparison.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Milk IP10 levels (one of the TNF dependent chemokines) at EARLY LACTATION PERIOD were compared between non-IBD control and IBD group to see if there is a difference.||||0.12
90917934|NCT03397108|181705410|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Milk levels of TNF-dependent chemokine, MCP1, at the EARLY LACTATION PERIOD was compared among the 3 groups: non-IBD control and the 2 IBD subgroups. We hypothesized that the use of TNFmAb decreases milk TNF and TNF-dependent chemokine including MCP1. Nonparametric comparison of the 3 groups was done with one-way ANOVA on ranks (Kruskal-Wallis test), followed by multiplicity-adjusted pairwise comparisons with Dunn's test.||||0.12
91033907|NCT02242201|181953678|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PACU||||0.010
91033908|NCT02242201|181953678|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.516|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PACU||||0.516
91033909|NCT02242201|181953678|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.052|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PACU||||0.052
91033910|NCT02242201|181953678|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||POD 0 post PACU||||0.840
91033911|NCT02242201|181953678|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.744|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||POD 0 post PACU||||0.744
90880186|NCT04609020|181622094|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|35.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.36|<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|29.61|||P-value is calculated based on 1-sided t-test or Wilcoxon signed-rank test (if the normality assumption is not met) at 0.025 significance level.|t-test, 1 sided||||||29.61|<0.0001
91033912|NCT02242201|181953678|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.501|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||POD 0 post PACU||||0.501
91033913|NCT02242201|181953678|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.358|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||POD 1||||0.358
90880187|NCT04609020|181622095|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|23.23|<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|21.5|||P-value is calculated based on 1-sided t-test or Wilcoxon signed-rank test (if the normality assumption is not met) at 0.025 significance level.|t-test, 1 sided||||||21.50|<0.0001
91033914|NCT02242201|181953678|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.536|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||POD 1||||0.536
90880188|NCT04609020|181622096|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|20.56|<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|17.65|||P-value is calculated based on 1-sided t-test or Wilcoxon signed-rank test (if the normality assumption is not met) at 0.025 significance level.|t-test, 1 sided||||||17.65|<0.0001
90880189|NCT04609020|181622097|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|43.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.25|<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|37.48|||P-value is calculated based on 1-sided t-test or Wilcoxon signed-rank test (if the normality assumption is not met) at 0.025 significance level.|t-test, 1 sided||||||37.48|<0.0001
90880190|NCT02121483|181622112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.949|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1075|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7276|1.1704|||||Dose proportionality was assessed based on a power model that describes the functional relationship between the dose and AUC0-inf. Based on the estimate for the slope parameter β, a 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the slope was computed.|||1.1704|0.7276|
90880191|NCT02121483|181622113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.9597|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1088|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7356|1.1838|||||Dose proportionality was assessed based on a power model that describes the functional relationship between the dose and AUC0-tz. Based on the estimate for the slope parameter β, a 2-sided 95% CI for the slope was computed.|||1.1838|0.7356|
90880192|NCT02121483|181622114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.8554|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1481|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5504|1.1603|||||Dose proportionality was assessed based on a power model that describes the functional relationship between the dose and Cmax. Based on the estimate for the slope parameter β, a 2-sided 95% CI for the slope was computed.|||1.1603|0.5504|
90880193|NCT02107599|181622120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Asymptotic Z-test|||||||0.0001
90880194|NCT02107599|181622121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||Monte Carlo test|||Evaluate whether the VisQ interpretation significantly improves the reliability of Amyvid Scan interpretation.||||0.0060
90880195|NCT02107599|181622121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1229|TWO_SIDED||||||Monte Carlo test|||Evaluate whether the VisQ interpretation significantly improves the reliability of Amyvid Scan interpretation.||||0.1229
90880196|NCT02107599|181622121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026|TWO_SIDED||||||Monte Carlo test|||Evaluate whether the VisQ interpretation significantly improves the reliability of Amyvid Scan interpretation.||||0.0260
90880197|NCT02462967|181622136|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||ANCOVA|||||||1.000
90880198|NCT02462967|181622136|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||ANCOVA|||||||1.000
90880199|NCT02462967|181622137|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.447|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.447
90880200|NCT02462967|181622137|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.921|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.921
90880201|NCT02462967|181622138|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.522|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.522
90880202|NCT02462967|181622138|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||ANCOVA|||||||1.000
90880203|NCT02462967|181622139|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.943|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.943
90880204|NCT02462967|181622139|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.492|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.492
90880205|NCT02462967|181622140|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.832|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.832
90880206|NCT02462967|181622140|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.558|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.558
90880207|NCT02462967|181622141|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.362|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.362
90880208|NCT02462967|181622141|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.602|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.602
90880209|NCT02462967|181622142|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.633|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.633
90880210|NCT02462967|181622142|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.814|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.814
90880211|NCT02272413|181622143|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was to be rejected in favor of equivalence if the 2-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) for the ratio in best ORR between the treatments was entirely contained within the equivalence margins of 0.736 to 1.359.|Ratio of best ORR|0.855|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7697|0.9506|||Log-binomial regression|||Analysis was based on a log-binomial regression model with subsequent transformation of the estimated parameter (ratio of best ORR) respective CIs to the ratio scale. The model included the following explanatory variables: treatment, sex (male versus female), smoking status (never smoked versus current/ex-smoker), NSCLC stage (recurrent versus Stage IV) and ethnicity (East Asian origin versus Non-East Asian).||0.9506|0.7697|
90880212|NCT02272413|181622143|EQUIVALENCE|Additional analysis of the primary endpoint was performed for Japan according to a local protocol amendment Japan. For the submission in Japan, to conclude on equivalence, the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of best ORR between the treatments had to be entirely contained within the equivalence margins of 0.736 to 1.359.|Ratio of best ORR|0.855|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7543|0.97|||Log-binomial regression|||Analysis was based on a log-binomial regression model with subsequent transformation of the estimated parameter (ratio of best ORR) respective CIs to the ratio scale. The model included the following explanatory variables: treatment, sex (male versus female), smoking status (never smoked versus current/ex-smoker), NSCLC stage (recurrent versus Stage IV) and ethnicity (East Asian origin versus Non-East Asian).||0.9700|0.7543|
90880213|NCT02272413|181622144|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.37|||Score exact method|||At least 1 AE selected for comparability assessment, risk ratio X (BI 695502) versus Y (US-licensed Avastin®) was defined as (a/(a+b))/(c/(c+d)), where 'a' was the number of patients with TEAEs selected for comparability within treatment group X, 'a+b' was the total number of patients in treatment group X, 'c' was the number of patients with TEAEs selected for comparability within treatment group Y and 'c+d' was the total number of patients in treatment group Y.||1.37|0.99|
90917935|NCT03397108|181705410|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.051|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||"Milk MIP-1beta at the EARLY LACTATION PERIOD was compared among the 3 groups: non-IBD control, IBD subgroup On TNFmAb and IBD subgroup Off TNFmAb. We hypothesized that the use of TNFmAb decreases milk TNF and TNF-dependent chemokine including MIP-1beta. Nonparametric comparison of 3 groups was done with one-way ANOVA on ranks (Kruskal-Wallis test), followed by multiplicity-adjusted pairwise comparisons with Dunn's test."||||0.051
91033915|NCT02242201|181953678|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||POD 1||||0.110
91033916|NCT02242201|181953678|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.313|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||POD 2||||0.313
91033917|NCT02242201|181953678|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.893|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||POD 2||||0.893
91033918|NCT02242201|181953678|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.232|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||POD 2||||0.232
91033919|NCT02242201|181953679|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.772|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.772
91033920|NCT02242201|181953680|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.251|||||||Regression, Cox|||Baseline||||0.251
91033921|NCT02242201|181953680|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Regression, Cox|||3 month follow-up||||0.300
90917936|NCT03397108|181705410|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0046|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||"Milk IP10 at the EARLY LACTATION PERIOD was compared among the 3 groups: non-IBD control, IBD subgroup On TNFmAb and IBD subgroup Off TNFmAb. We hypothesized that the use of TNFmAb decreases milk TNF and TNF-dependent chemokine including IP10. Nonparametric comparison of 3 groups was done with one-way ANOVA on ranks (Kruskal-Wallis test), followed by multiplicity-adjusted pairwise comparisons with Dunn's test."||||0.0046
90917937|NCT03397108|181705410|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparison.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of milk TNF level at the MID LACTATION POINT between non-IBD control and IBD group. The same analytical framework as the early lactation, but this is based on data at the mid-lactation point (13-14 postpartum weeks). Our hypothesis is the same as for the early-lactation point.||||0.35
90917938|NCT03397108|181705410|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||"Milk TNF at MID LACTATION POINT was compared among the 3 groups: non-IBD control, IBD subgroup On TNFmAb and IBD subgroup Off TNFmAb. Hypothesis is the same as for the early lactation point. Nonparametric comparison of 3 groups was done with one-way ANOVA on ranks (Kruskal-Wallis test), followed by multiplicity-adjusted pairwise comparisons with Dunn's test."||||0.11
90917939|NCT03397108|181705410|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparison.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Milk MCP1 level comparison between non-IBD control and IBD group at the MID LACTATION POINT(13-14 postpartum weeks). Our hypothesis is the same as for the early-lactation point.||||0.26
90917940|NCT03397108|181705410|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparison.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Milk MIP-1beta level comparison between non-IBD control and IBD group at the MID LACTATION POINT (13-14 postpartum weeks). Our hypothesis is the same as for the early-lactation point.||||0.15
90917941|NCT03397108|181705410|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparison.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Milk IP10 level comparison between non-IBD control and IBD group at the MID LACTATION POINT (13-14 postpartum weeks). Our hypothesis is the same as for the early-lactation point.||||0.31
90917942|NCT03397108|181705410|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||"Milk MCP-1 at the MID LACTATION PERIOD was compared among the 3 groups: non-IBD control, IBD subgroup On TNFmAb and IBD subgroup Off TNFmAb. The hypothesis is the same as that for the early-lactation period. Nonparametric comparison of 3 groups was done with one-way ANOVA on ranks (Kruskal-Wallis test), followed by multiplicity-adjusted pairwise comparisons with Dunn's test."||||0.21
90917943|NCT03397108|181705410|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||"Milk MIP-1beta at the MID LACTATION POINT was compared among the 3 groups: non-IBD control, IBD subgroup On TNFmAb and IBD subgroup Off TNFmAb. The hypothesis is the same as that for the early-lactation period. Nonparametric comparison of 3 groups was done with one-way ANOVA on ranks (Kruskal-Wallis test), followed by multiplicity-adjusted pairwise comparisons with Dunn's test."||||0.12
90917944|NCT03397108|181705410|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||"Milk IP10 at the MID LACTATION POINT was compared among the 3 groups: non-IBD control, IBD subgroup On TNFmAb and IBD subgroup Off TNFmAb. The same hypothesis as that for the early-lactation period. Nonparametric comparison of 3 groups was done with one-way ANOVA on ranks (Kruskal-Wallis test), followed by multiplicity-adjusted pairwise comparisons with Dunn's test."||||0.29
90917945|NCT03397108|181705410|OTHER|Correlation analysis|Spearman rank correlation|0.7232|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5647|0.8303||Not adjusted for multiple comparison|Spearman rank correlation|||Using the pooled data of all participants at the EARLY LACTATION, we analyzed correlation between milk TNF and chemokine MCP1 to see if they are positively correlated. This is to show supportive evidence for TNF dependency of chemokine MCP1.||0.8303|0.5647|<0.0001
90917946|NCT03397108|181705410|OTHER|Correlation analysis|Spearman rank correlation|0.6835|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5088|0.8042||Not adjusted for multiple comparison|Spearman rank correlation|||Using the pooled data of all participants at the EARLY LACTATION, we analyzed correlation between milk TNF and chemokine MIP-1beta to see if they are positively correlated. This is to show supportive evidence for TNF dependency of chemokine MIP-1beta.||0.8042|0.5088|<0.0001
90917947|NCT03397108|181705410|OTHER|Correlation analysis|Spearman rank correlation|0.6316|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4377|0.7693||Not adjusted for multiple comparison|Spearman rank correlation|||Using the pooled data of all participants at the EARLY LACTATION, we analyzed correlation between milk TNF and chemokine IP10 to see if they are positively correlated. This is to show supportive evidence for TNF dependency of chemokine IP10.||0.7693|0.4377|<0.0001
90961742|NCT01794923|181803727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.81|||ANOVA|||24 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.81|-0.05|0.083
90917948|NCT03397108|181705410|OTHER|Correlation analysis|Spearman rank correlation|0.572|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3445|0.736||Not adjusted for multiple comparison|Spearman rank correlation|||Using the pooled data of all participants at the MID LACTATION POINT, we analyzed correlation between milk TNF and MCP1 to see of they are positively correlated.||0.7360|0.3445|<0.0001
90961743|NCT01794923|181803727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.884|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||30 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||||0.884
90961744|NCT01794923|181803727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.35|||ANOVA|||30 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.35|-0.43|0.833
90961745|NCT01794923|181803727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.29|||ANOVA|||30 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.29|-0.49|0.620
90961746|NCT01794923|181803727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.48|||ANOVA|||30 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.48|-0.36|0.788
90961747|NCT01794923|181803727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.755|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||36 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||||0.755
90961748|NCT01794923|181803727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.34|||ANOVA|||36 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.34|-0.45|0.787
90961749|NCT01794923|181803727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.25|||ANOVA|||36 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.25|-0.56|0.455
90880214|NCT02272413|181622144|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.88|||Score exact method|||Infusion reactions, risk ratio X (BI 695502) versus Y (US-licensed Avastin®) was defined as (a/(a+b))/(c/(c+d)), where 'a' was the number of patients with TEAEs selected for comparability within treatment group X, 'a+b' was the total number of patients in treatment group X, 'c' was the number of patients with TEAEs selected for comparability within treatment group Y and 'c+d' was the total number of patients in treatment group Y.||1.88|0.88|
90961750|NCT01794923|181803727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.53|||ANOVA|||36 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.53|-0.33|0.654
90961751|NCT01794923|181803727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.37|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||48 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||||0.370
90961752|NCT01794923|181803727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.24|||ANOVA|||48 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.24|-0.51|0.472
90961753|NCT01794923|181803727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.53|||ANOVA|||48 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.53|-0.23|0.427
90961754|NCT01794923|181803727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.11|||ANOVA|||48 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.11|-0.69|0.159
90961755|NCT01794923|181803727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.48|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||54 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||||0.480
91033922|NCT02242201|181953680|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.113|||||||Regression, Cox|||Baseline vs 3 months||||0.113
90961756|NCT01794923|181803727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.15|||ANOVA|||54 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.15|-0.59|0.238
90961757|NCT01794923|181803727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.32|||ANOVA|||54 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.32|-0.42|0.794
90961758|NCT01794923|181803727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.23|||ANOVA|||54 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.23|-0.57|0.395
90961759|NCT01794923|181803727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||60 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||||0.400
90961760|NCT01794923|181803727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.11|||ANOVA|||60 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.11|-0.61|0.176
90961761|NCT01794923|181803727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.26|||ANOVA|||60 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.26|-0.47|0.573
90961762|NCT01794923|181803727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.24|||ANOVA|||60 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.24|-0.53|0.466
90880215|NCT02272413|181622144|OTHER||Risk Ratio|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|2.32|||Score exact method|||Thromboembolic events, risk ratio X (BI 695502) versus Y (US-licensed Avastin®) was defined as (a/(a+b))/(c/(c+d)), where 'a' was the number of patients with TEAEs selected for comparability within treatment group X, 'a+b' was the total number of patients in treatment group X, 'c' was the number of patients with TEAEs selected for comparability within treatment group Y and 'c+d' was the total number of patients in treatment group Y.||2.32|0.64|
90880216|NCT02272413|181622144|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|2.76|||Score exact method|||Febrile neutropenia, risk ratio X (BI 695502) versus Y (US-licensed Avastin®) was defined as (a/(a+b))/(c/(c+d)), where 'a' was the number of patients with TEAEs selected for comparability within treatment group X, 'a+b' was the total number of patients in treatment group X, 'c' was the number of patients with TEAEs selected for comparability within treatment group Y and 'c+d' was the total number of patients in treatment group Y.||2.76|0.51|
90880217|NCT02272413|181622144|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|3.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|32.82|||Score exact method|||Gastrointestinal perforations, risk ratio X (BI 695502) versus Y (US-licensed Avastin®) was defined as (a/(a+b))/(c/(c+d)), where 'a' was the number of patients with TEAEs selected for comparability within treatment group X, 'a+b' was the total number of patients in treatment group X, 'c' was the number of patients with TEAEs selected for comparability within treatment group Y and 'c+d' was the total number of patients in treatment group Y.||32.82|0.79|
90880218|NCT02272413|181622144|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.39|||Score exact method|||Hypertension, risk ratio X (BI 695502) versus Y (US-licensed Avastin®) was defined as (a/(a+b))/(c/(c+d)), where 'a' was the number of patients with TEAEs selected for comparability within treatment group X, 'a+b' was the total number of patients in treatment group X, 'c' was the number of patients with TEAEs selected for comparability within treatment group Y and 'c+d' was the total number of patients in treatment group Y.||1.39|0.66|
90917949|NCT03397108|181705410|OTHER|Correlation analysis|Spearman rank correlation|0.7564|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6022|0.8562||Not adjusted for multiple comparison|Spearman rank correlation|||Using the pooled data of all participants at the MID LACTATION POINT, we analyzed correlation between milk TNF and MIP-1beta to see of they are positively correlated.||0.8562|0.6022|<0.0001
90917950|NCT03397108|181705410|OTHER|Correlation analysis|Spearman rank correlation|0.32||||0.0227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03869|0.552||Not adjusted for multiple comparison|Spearman rank correlation|||Using the pooled data of all participants at the MID LACTATION POINT, we analyzed correlation between milk TNF and IP10 to see of they are positively correlated.||0.5520|0.03869|0.0227
90917951|NCT03397108|181705410|OTHER|Correlation analysis|Spearman rank correlation|0.52||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2727|0.6975||Not adjusted for multiple comparison|Spearman rank correlation|||Using the pooled data of all participants, we assessed temporal tracking of milk TNF between early and mid-lactation points.||0.6975|0.2727|0.0001
90917952|NCT03397108|181705410|OTHER|Correlation analysis|Spearman rank correlation|0.4722||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2181|0.6664||Not adjusted for multiple comparison.|Spearman rank correlation|||Using the pooled data of all participants, we assessed temporal tracking of milk MCP1 between early and mid-lactation points.||0.6664|0.2181|0.0005
90917953|NCT03397108|181705410|OTHER|Correlation analysis|Spearman rank correlation|0.36||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0802|0.5803||Not adjusted for multiple comparison|Spearman rank correlation|||Using the pooled data of all participants, we assessed temporal tracking of milk MIP-1beta between early and mid-lactation points.||0.5803|0.0802|0.01
90880219|NCT02272413|181622144|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.57|||Score exact method|||Proteinuria, risk ratio X (BI 695502) versus Y (US-licensed Avastin®) was defined as (a/(a+b))/(c/(c+d)), where 'a' was the number of patients with TEAEs selected for comparability within treatment group X, 'a+b' was the total number of patients in treatment group X, 'c' was the number of patients with TEAEs selected for comparability within treatment group Y and 'c+d' was the total number of patients in treatment group Y.||1.57|0.74|
90880220|NCT02272413|181622144|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|10.79|||Score exact method|||Pulmonary haemorrhage, risk ratio X (BI 695502) versus Y (US-licensed Avastin®) was defined as (a/(a+b))/(c/(c+d)), where 'a' was the number of patients with TEAEs selected for comparability within treatment group X, 'a+b' was the total number of patients in treatment group X, 'c' was the number of patients with TEAEs selected for comparability within treatment group Y and 'c+d' was the total number of patients in treatment group Y.||10.79|0.28|
90917954|NCT03397108|181705410|OTHER|Correlation analysis|Spearman rank correlation|0.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.467|0.7964||Not adjusted for multiple comparison|Spearman rank correlation|Spearman r = 0.66 (95%CI: 0.4670 - 0.7964). Number of XY pairs: 51||Using the pooled data of all participants, we assessed temporal tracking of milk IP10 between early and mid-lactation points.||0.7964|0.4670|<0.0001
90917955|NCT03397108|181705411|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Cognitive development at 12 months of age. Animal data suggested that pups receiving milk with lower TNF and TNF-dependent chemokines showed enhanced cognitive development. Because there was no guiding information in humans regarding milk TNF level differences between women with and without IBD, our main goal was to measure milk TNF levels. The infant cognitive/language assessment, therefore, had to be designed as a pilot and exploratory in nature.||||0.12
90917956|NCT03397108|181705411|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Language development at 12 months of age.||||0.56
90917957|NCT03397108|181705411|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Cognitive development at 18 months of age.||||0.16
90917958|NCT03397108|181705411|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Language development at 18 months of age||||0.75
90917959|NCT03397108|181705411|OTHER|Correlation analysis|Spearman rank correlation|0.2655||||0.0853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.047|0.5307|||Spearman rank correlation|||Using pooled data of all participants at the early-lactation sample point, correlation between milk TNF levels and 12 month cognitive development was examined to investigate if they were inversely correlated.||0.5307|-0.047|0.0853
90917960|NCT03397108|181705411|OTHER|Correlation analysis|Spearman rank correlation|0.3705||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07385|0.6921|||Spearman rank correlation|||Using the pooled data of all participants, correlation analysis between milk TNF at early lactation and 12 month language score was done to see if they were inversely correlated.||0.6921|-0.07385|0.090
90917961|NCT03397108|181705413|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparison.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This is to confirm that the 2 groups are not different for their sampling time points in the early lactation period.||||0.97
90917962|NCT03397108|181705413|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.96
90917963|NCT03397108|181705414|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56||||||No adjustment for multiple comparison.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This is to confirm that there is no difference in the second sampling time points in the mid-lactation period between the groups.||||0.56
90917964|NCT03397108|181705414|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.51
90961763|NCT01794923|181803727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.092|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||72 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||||0.092
90917965|NCT04337372|181705436|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.002||||||F(2, 58) = 7.19|MANOVA|||To examine the impact of infant age and label condition on the proportion of infant's attention to the book, a 3 (infant age: 6, 9, or 12 months) x 3 (label condition: individual, categorical, or no label) MANOVA was run. Age was measured between subjects, label condition was within subjects, and infant's proportion of attention to the book was the dependent variable. The main effect of age is reported here.||||=.002
90917966|NCT04337372|181705436|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.09||||||F(1.78, 103.37) = 2.48|MANOVA|||To examine the impact of infant age and label condition on the proportion of infant's attention to the book, a 3 (infant age: 6, 9, or 12 months) x 3 (label condition: individual, categorical, or no label) MANOVA was run. Age was measured between subjects, label condition was within subjects, and infant's proportion of attention to the book was the dependent variable. The main effect of condition is reported here.||||=.09
90917967|NCT04337372|181705436|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||F(3.56, 103.37) = 2.55|MANOVA|||To examine the impact of infant age and label condition on the proportion of infant's attention to the book, a 3 (infant age: 6, 9, or 12 months) x 3 (label condition: individual, categorical, or no label) MANOVA was run. Age was measured between subjects, label condition was within subjects, and infant's proportion of attention to the book was the dependent variable. The interaction between age and condition is reported here.||||<.05
90961764|NCT01794923|181803727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.04|||ANOVA|||72 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.04|-0.67|0.086
90961765|NCT01794923|181803727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.45|||ANOVA|||72 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.45|-0.27|0.616
91033923|NCT02242201|181953680|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.147|||||||Regression, Cox|||Baseline vs 3 months||||0.147
90917968|NCT04337372|181705437|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.557||||||F(2,47) = .592|MANOVA|||EEG power, as measured by the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) was modulated by label condition across age, data were extracted from a mid-occipital cluster of Oz and its 6 nearest neighbors (channels 70, 71, 74, 75, 76, 82, 83) for each of the conditions. SNR data were then submitted to a two-factor MANOVA with Label (Individual, Category, Control/No Label) as a within-subjects factor and Age (6 months, 9 months, 12 months) as a between-subjects factor. The main effect of age is reported here.||||=.557
90880221|NCT02272413|181622144|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.74|||Score exact method|||Other hemorrhages, risk ratio X (BI 695502) versus Y (US-licensed Avastin®) was defined as (a/(a+b))/(c/(c+d)), where 'a' was the number of patients with TEAEs selected for comparability within treatment group X, 'a+b' was the total number of patients in treatment group X, 'c' was the number of patients with TEAEs selected for comparability within treatment group Y and 'c+d' was the total number of patients in treatment group Y.||1.74|0.88|
90880222|NCT02272413|181622144|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|3.57|||Score excat method|||Wound healing complications/ abscesses/ fistulas, risk ratio X (BI 695502) versus Y (US-licensed Avastin®) was defined as (a/(a+b))/(c/(c+d)), where 'a' was the number of patients with TEAEs selected for comparability within treatment group X, 'a+b' was the total number of patients in treatment group X, 'c' was the number of patients with TEAEs selected for comparability within treatment group Y and 'c+d' was the total number of patients in treatment group Y.||3.57|0.47|
90880223|NCT02272413|181622145|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.45|||Cox-proportional hazards regression|||Analysis based on a Cox-proportional hazards regression model. The model included the following explanatory variables: treatment, sex (male versus female), smoking status (never smoked versus current/ex-smoker), NSCLC stage (recurrent versus Stage IV) and ethnicity (East Asian origin versus non East Asian).||1.45|1.02|
90961766|NCT01794923|181803727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.02|||ANOVA|||72 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||-0.02|-0.79|0.040
91033924|NCT02242201|181953680|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.216|||||||Regression, Cox|||Baseline vs 3 months||||0.216
90917969|NCT04337372|181705437|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.47||||||F(2,47) = .767|MANOVA|||EEG power, as measured by the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) was modulated by label condition across age, data were extracted from a mid-occipital cluster of Oz and its 6 nearest neighbors (channels 70, 71, 74, 75, 76, 82, 83) for each of the conditions. SNR data were then submitted to a two-factor MANOVA with Label (Individual, Category, Control/No Label) as a within-subjects factor and Age (6 months, 9 months, 12 months) as a between-subjects factor. The main effect of condition is reported here.||||=.470
90917970|NCT04337372|181705437|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.046||||||F(4,94) = 2.524|MANOVA|||EEG power, as measured by signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) was modulated by label condition across age, data were extracted from a mid-occipital cluster of Oz and its 6 nearest neighbors (channels 70, 71, 74, 75, 76, 82, 83) for each condition. SNR data were then submitted to a two-factor MANOVA with Label (Individual, Category, Control/No Label) as a within-subjects factor and Age (6 months, 9 months, 12 months) as a between-subjects factor. The interaction of age and condition is reported here.||||=.046
90917971|NCT04337372|181705438|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.664||||||F(2,45) = .413|MANOVA|||EEG Data were extracted from a mid-occipital cluster for each conditions for parents \& infants. Data were entered into a 2-factor MANOVA with Label (Individual, Category, No Label) as a within-subjects factor and Age (6 mo, 9 mo, 12 mo) as a between-subjects factor. The phase-locking index measures the extent to which the parent \& infant oscillatory response is in the same phase across time (bounded between 0 and 1, 1 being perfect synchrony. The main effect of age is reported here.||||=.664
90917972|NCT04337372|181705438|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.768||||||F(2,45) = .266|MANOVA|||EEG Data were extracted from a mid-occipital cluster for each conditions for parents \& infants. Data were entered into a 2-factor MANOVA with Label (Individual, Category, No Label) as a within-subjects factor and Age (6 mo, 9 mo, 12 mo) as a between-subjects factor. The phase-locking index measures the extent to which the parent \& infant oscillatory response is in the same phase across time (bounded between 0 and 1, 1 being perfect synchrony. The main effect of condition is reported here.||||=.768
90961767|NCT01794923|181803728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.751|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with modified ridit scores, controlling for baseline categorical PSR (BLPSR) and sex.||||0.751
90961768|NCT01794923|181803728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Weighted Gamma Statistic|0.0||||0.696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with modified ridit scores, controlling for baseline categorical PSR (BLPSR) and sex.||0.20|-0.28|0.696
90917973|NCT04337372|181705438|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2||||||F(4,90) = 1.531|MANOVA|||EEG Data were extracted from a mid-occipital cluster for each conditions for parents \& infants. Data were entered into a 2-factor MANOVA with Label (Individual, Category, No Label) as a within-subjects factor and Age (6 mo, 9 mo, 12 mo) as a between-subjects factor. The phase-locking index measures the extent to which the parent \& infant oscillatory response is in the same phase across time (bounded between 0 and 1, 1 being perfect synchrony. The interaction of age and condition is reported.||||=.200
90917974|NCT04337372|181705439|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.022||||||F(2, 57) = 4.11|MANOVA|||To examine the impact of infant age and label condition on the proportion of joint attention to the book, a 3 (infant age: 6, 9, or 12 months) x 3 (label condition: individual, categorical, or no label) MANOVA was run. Age was measured between subjects, label condition was within subjects, and the proportion of joint attention to the book was the dependent variable. The main effect of age is reported here.||||=.022
90917975|NCT04337372|181705439|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.004||||||F(2, 114) = 5.69|MANOVA|||To examine the impact of infant age and label condition on the proportion of joint attention to the book, a 3 (infant age: 6, 9, or 12 months) x 3 (label condition: individual, categorical, or no label) MANOVA was run. Age was measured between subjects, label condition was within subjects, and the proportion of joint attention to the book was the dependent variable. The main effect of condition is reported here.||||=.004
90961769|NCT01794923|181803728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Weighted Gamma Statistic|0.0||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.29|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with modified ridit scores, controlling for baseline categorical PSR (BLPSR) and sex.||0.29|-0.21|0.760
90961770|NCT01794923|181803728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Weighted Gamma Statistic|-0.1||||0.463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.16|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with modified ridit scores, controlling for baseline categorical PSR (BLPSR) and sex.||0.16|-0.36|0.463
90961771|NCT01881750|181803732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||Mixed Effects Regression Model|||Group X Time Interaction Cohen's d||||0.42
90961772|NCT00051363|181803739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0074||||||"2M E/F Function- SWMT-OMD; P\<0.0307 indicates statistical significance for raw P values (after adjustment for O'Brien-Fleming spending across 3 interim analyses).~After correction for multiple comparisons (sequential Bonferroni) P Value=0.0444 (NS)"|Regression, Linear|Generalized Linear Models (GLM) were run by visit (2M and 6M).||Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for 2M E/F Function- SWMT-OMD.||||0.0074
90961773|NCT00051363|181803739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2254||||||6M E/F Function- SWMT-OMD; P\<0.0307 indicates statistical significance for raw P values (after adjustment for O'Brien-Fleming spending across 3 interim analyses).|Regression, Linear|Generalized Linear Models (GLM) were run by visit (2M and 6M).||Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for 6M E/F Function- SWMT-OMD.||||0.2254
90917976|NCT04337372|181705439|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.168||||||F(4, 114) = 1.64|MANOVA|||To examine the impact of infant age and label condition on the proportion of joint attention to the book, a 3 (infant age: 6, 9, or 12 months) x 3 (label condition: individual, categorical, or no label) MANOVA was run. Age was measured between subjects, label condition was within subjects, and the proportion of joint attention to the book was the dependent variable. The interaction of age and condition is reported here.||||=.168
90917977|NCT04869982|181705467|OTHER|VE was defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR was defined as the ratio of the incidence rates of the RZV Group over the Placebo Group. The VE of RZV against HZ was to be demonstrated if the lower limit (LL) of the two-sided 95% CI of VE was above 25%.|VE (1-RR)|100.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.82|100.0||All p-values reported were related to the null hypothesis test VE = 0.|Poisson|The CI for VE is derived from the exact CI from RR.||To demonstrate the vaccine efficacy (VE) of RZV against HZ, the analysis considered the exact inference on the relative risk adjusted for age strata conditionally to the total number of confirmed HZ cases observed and time at risk. This method computed an exact confidence interval (CI) around the rate ratio (ratio of the event rates in the RZV Group versus Placebo Group) and accounted for the sum of the time at risk of the participants within each group.||100|89.82|<0.0001
90917978|NCT02488863|181705499|OTHER|ANOVA||||||0.0561|||||||ANOVA|||H0: mean(SPPB\_older\_pain) = mean(SPPB\_older\_no pain) = mean(SPPB\_younger)||||0.0561
90917979|NCT01704079|181705500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
90917980|NCT01704079|181705501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
90917981|NCT01704079|181705502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
90917982|NCT01704079|181705503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
90917983|NCT04500301|181705567|OTHER|No statistical test was performed.|Proportion|0.136|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.054|0.219|||||The Wald 95% confidence interval for the binomial proportion was estimated.|No hypothesis was tested with regard to the primary outcome. The study planned to enroll 80 eligible subjects such that at least 65 would be evaluable for the primary outcome and the width of the 95% Clopper-Pearson confidence interval for the proportion would be less than or equal to .25.||0.219|0.054|
90917984|NCT01443845|181705573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063||0.1634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.04|||negative binomial regression||p-values are based on a negative binomial regression with factors Treatment and LAMA use.|Rate ratio (Roflumilast/Placebo). A rate ratio \< 1 represents a favorable outcome for the test treatment.||1.04|0.81|0.1634
90917985|NCT01443845|181705573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.0195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.97|||negative binomial regression|||Subgroup Analysis - By Sex - Male||0.97|0.71|0.0195
90961774|NCT00051363|181803740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4538||||||DX A/P Function- PFN-TOTL; P\<0.0307 indicates statistical significance for raw P values (after adjustment for O'Brien-Fleming spending across 3 interim analyses).|Parametric survival analysis|Parametric survival analyses were conducted using by-visit comparisons for A/P Function- PFN-TOTL since these data were right censored at 60.||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for DX A/P Function- PFN-TOTL.~Data were reciprocal transformed for analysis and back-transformed for reporting."||||0.4538
90917986|NCT01443845|181705573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.101||0.3164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.35|||negative binomial regression|||Subgroup Analysis - By Sex - Female||1.35|0.91|0.3164
90917987|NCT01443845|181705573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.076||0.0385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.99|||negative binomial regression|||Subgroup analysis between patients taking Advair verses patients taking Symbicort as LABA/ICS therapy.||0.99|0.74|0.0385
90917988|NCT01443845|181705573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.114||0.6475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.32|||negative binomial regression|||Subgroup analysis between patients taking Advair verses patients taking Symbicort as LABA/ICS therapy.||1.32|0.84|0.6475
90917989|NCT01443845|181705574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.118||0.6354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.19|||negative binomial regression|||||1.19|0.75|0.6354
90917990|NCT01443845|181705575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.0884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.02|||negative binomial regression|||||1.02|0.8|0.0884
90917991|NCT01443845|181705576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0532|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0067|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.0664||The MMRM analysis is based on all postbaseline observed data using a mixed model with terms for treatment, baseline, visit, LAMA use, treatment-by-visit and baseline-by-visit interactions.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||0.0664|0.04|< 0.0001
90917992|NCT01808339|181705590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.077|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.001|0.152|||||The estimated value represents the difference in Least Squares Means between FF 100 µg AM and Placebo (FF 100 µg AM minus Placebo).|||0.152|0.001|
90917993|NCT01808339|181705590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.105|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.029|0.18|||||The estimated value represents the difference in Least Squares Means between FF 100 µg PM and Placebo (FF 100 µg PM minus Placebo).|||0.180|0.029|
90917994|NCT01808339|181705590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.028|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.102|0.045|||||The estimated value represents the difference in Least Squares Means between FF 100 µg AM and FF 100 µg PM (FF 100 µg AM minus FF 100 µg PM).|||0.045|-0.102|
90917995|NCT00520546|181705653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||sensitivity|97.0||||0.0526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.0|100.0|||Fisher Exact|||"results from FEC-PET as compared with histological results on a patient based analysis~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||100|86|0.0526
90917996|NCT00520546|181705653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||specificity|0.0||||0.0526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|98.0|||Fisher Exact|||"results from FEC-PET as compared with histological results on a patient based analysis~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||98|0|0.0526
90961775|NCT00051363|181803740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.086||||||2M A/P Function- PFN-TOTL; P\<0.0307 indicates statistical significance for raw P values (after adjustment for O'Brien-Fleming spending across 3 interim analyses).|Parametric survival analysis|Parametric survival analyses were conducted using by-visit comparisons for A/P Function- PFN-TOTL since these data were right censored at 60.||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for 2M A/P Function- PFN-TOTL.~Data were reciprocal transformed for analysis and back-transformed for reporting."||||0.0860
90917997|NCT00520546|181705653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||accuracy|95.0||||0.0526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|82.0|99.0|||Fisher Exact|||"results from FEC-PET as compared with histological results on a patient based analysis~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||99|82|0.0526
90917998|NCT00520546|181705653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||sensitivity|70.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.0|84.0|||Fisher Exact|||"results from MRI as compared with histological results on a patient based analysis~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||84|53|<0.0001
90917999|NCT00520546|181705653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||specificity|0.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|98.0|||Fisher Exact|||"results from MRI as compared with histological results on a patient based analysis~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||98|0|<0.0001
90918000|NCT00520546|181705653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||accuracy|68.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.0|83.0|||Fisher Exact|||"results from MRI as compared with histological results on a patient based analysis~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||83|51|<0.0001
90918001|NCT00520546|181705653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||sensitivity|95.0||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|82.0|99.0|||Fisher Exact|||"results from PET/MRI as compared with histological results on a patient based analysis~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||99|82|0.0043
90918002|NCT00520546|181705653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||specificity|100.0||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|100.0|||Fisher Exact|||"results from PET/MRI as compared with histological results on a patient based analysis~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||100|3|0.0043
90918003|NCT00520546|181705653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||accuracy|95.0||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|82.0|99.0|||Fisher Exact|||"results from PET/MRI as compared with histological results on a patient based analysis~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||99|82|0.0043
90918004|NCT00520546|181705654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||positive prediction|69.0||||0.09||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"lesion based (all lesions = 128) results from FEC-PET as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||0.09
90918005|NCT00520546|181705654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||negative prediction|44.0||||0.09||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"lesion based (all lesions = 128) results from FEC-PET as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||0.09
90918006|NCT00520546|181705654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||sensitivity|71.0||||0.09||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"lesion based (all lesions = 128) results from FEC-PET as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||0.09
90918007|NCT00520546|181705654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||specificity|42.0||||0.09||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"lesion based (all lesions = 128) results from FEC-PET as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||0.09
90918008|NCT00520546|181705654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||accuracy|61.0||||0.09||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"lesion based (all lesions = 128) results from FEC-PET as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||0.09
90918009|NCT00520546|181705654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||positive prediction|60.0||||0.27||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"lesion based (all lesions = 128) results from MRI as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||0.27
90918010|NCT00520546|181705654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||negative prediction|30.0||||0.27||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"lesion based (all lesions = 128) results from MRI as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||0.27
90961776|NCT00051363|181803740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2103||||||6M A/P Function- PFN-TOTL; P\<0.0307 indicates statistical significance for raw P values (after adjustment for O'Brien-Fleming spending across 3 interim analyses).|Parametric survival analysis|Parametric survival analyses were conducted using by-visit comparisons for A/P Function- PFN-TOTL since these data were right censored at 60.||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for 6M A/P Function- PFN-TOTL.~Data were reciprocal transformed for analysis and back-transformed for reporting."||||0.2103
90961777|NCT00051363|181803741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7936||||||DX L/M Function- BSRT-SR; P\<0.0307 indicates statistical significance for raw P values (after adjustment for O'Brien-Fleming spending across 3 interim analyses).|Regression, Linear|Generalized Linear Models (GLM) were run by visit (2M and 6M).||Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for DX L/M Function- BSRT-SR.||||0.7936
90918011|NCT00520546|181705654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||sensitivity|48.0||||0.27||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"lesion based (all lesions = 128) results from MRI as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||0.27
90918012|NCT00520546|181705654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||specificity|40.0||||0.27||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"lesion based (all lesions = 128) results from MRI as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||0.27
90918013|NCT00520546|181705654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||accuracy|45.0||||0.27||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"lesion based (all lesions = 128) results from MRI as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||0.27
90961778|NCT00051363|181803741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5444||||||2M L/M Function- BSRT-SR; P\<0.0307 indicates statistical significance for raw P values (after adjustment for O'Brien-Fleming spending across 3 interim analyses).|Regression, Linear|Generalized Linear Models (GLM) were run by visit (2M and 6M).||Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for 2M L/M Function- BSRT-SR.||||0.5444
90961779|NCT00051363|181803741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7569||||||6M L/M Function- BSRT-SR; P\<0.0307 indicates statistical significance for raw P values (after adjustment for O'Brien-Fleming spending across 3 interim analyses).|Regression, Linear|Generalized Linear Models (GLM) were run by visit (2M and 6M).||Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for 6M L/M Function- BSRT-SR.||||0.7569
90918014|NCT00520546|181705654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||positive prediction|87.0|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"lesion based (all lesions = 128) results from PET/MRI as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||<0.001
90918015|NCT00520546|181705654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||negative prediction|57.0|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"lesion based (all lesions = 128) results from PET/MRI as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||<0.001
90918016|NCT00520546|181705654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||sensitivity|66.0|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"lesion based (all lesions = 128) results from PET/MRI as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||<0.001
91033925|NCT02242201|181953680|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.968|||||||Regression, Cox|||Baseline vs 3 months||||0.968
91033926|NCT02242201|181953681|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.776|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Pain at rest||||0.776
90918017|NCT00520546|181705654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||specificity|82.0|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"lesion based (all lesions = 128) results from PET/MRI as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||<0.001
90918018|NCT00520546|181705654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||accuracy|72.0|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"lesion based (all lesions = 128) results from PET/MRI as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||<0.001
90918019|NCT00520546|181705655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||positive prediction|84.0|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"Lesion based analysis of FEC-PET, endorectal MRI and combined FEC-PET/eMRI in patients with Gleason Score \>6 (n=43) as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||<0.001
90918020|NCT00520546|181705655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||negative prediction|73.0|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"Lesion based analysis of FEC-PET, endorectal MRI and combined FEC-PET/eMRI in patients with Gleason Score \>6 (n=43) as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (n=38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||<0.001
90918021|NCT00520546|181705655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||sensitivity|90.0|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"Lesion based analysis of FEC-PET, endorectal MRI and combined FEC-PET/eMRI in patients with Gleason Score \>6 (n=43) as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (n=38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||<0.001
90961780|NCT00051363|181803742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5606||||||"2M L/M Function- PN-RT (Mild OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.~Data were reciprocal transformed for analysis and back-transformed for reporting."|Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized Linear Mixed Models (GLMM) were utilized to account for repeated measures (DX, 2M, 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 2M L/M Function- PN-RT.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ. A pre-randomization baseline PN-RT and months since randomization were also included as covariates."||||0.5606
90961781|NCT00051363|181803742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6487||||||"2M L/M Function- PN-RT (Moderate OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.~Data were reciprocal transformed for analysis and back-transformed for reporting."|Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized Linear Mixed Models (GLMM) were utilized to account for repeated measures (DX, 2M, 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 2M L/M Function- PN-RT.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ. A pre-randomization baseline PN-RT and months since randomization were also included as covariates."||||0.6487
90918022|NCT00520546|181705655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||specificity|84.0|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"Lesion based analysis of FEC-PET, endorectal MRI and combined FEC-PET/eMRI in patients with Gleason Score \>6 (n=43) as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (n=38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||<0.001
91033927|NCT02242201|181953681|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.447|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Pain with movement||||0.447
91033928|NCT02242201|181953682|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.986|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.986
90918023|NCT00520546|181705655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||accuracy|82.0|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"Lesion based analysis of FEC-PET, endorectal MRI and combined FEC-PET/eMRI in patients with Gleason Score \>6 (n=43) as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (n=38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||<0.001
90918024|NCT00520546|181705655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||positive prediction|71.0||||0.53||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"Lesion based analysis of FEC-PET, endorectal MRI and combined FEC-PET/eMRI in patients with Gleason Score \>6 (n=43) as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (n=38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||0.53
90918025|NCT00520546|181705655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||negative prediction|33.0||||0.53||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"Lesion based analysis of FEC-PET, endorectal MRI and combined FEC-PET/eMRI in patients with Gleason Score \>6 (n=43) as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (n=38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||0.53
90918026|NCT00520546|181705655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||sensitivity|73.0||||0.53||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"Lesion based analysis of FEC-PET, endorectal MRI and combined FEC-PET/eMRI in patients with Gleason Score \>6 (n=43) as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (n=38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||0.53
91033929|NCT02242201|181953682|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline vs 3 months||||<0.001
90880224|NCT02272413|181622146|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.51|||Cox-proportional hazards regression|||Analysis based on a Cox-proportional hazards regression model. The model included the following explanatory variables: treatment, sex (male versus female), smoking status (never smoked versus current/ex-smoker), NSCLC stage (recurrent versus Stage IV) and ethnicity (East Asian origin versus non East Asian).||1.51|1.00|
90880225|NCT02272413|181622147|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.48|||Cox-proportional hazards regression|||Analysis based on a Cox-proportional hazards regression model. The model included the following explanatory variables: treatment, sex (male versus female), smoking status (never smoked versus current/ex-smoker), NSCLC stage (recurrent versus Stage IV) and ethnicity (East Asian origin versus non East Asian).||1.48|0.88|
90880226|NCT05583903|181622148|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
90880227|NCT05583903|181622149|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.26
90918027|NCT00520546|181705655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||specificity|31.0||||0.53||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"Lesion based analysis of FEC-PET, endorectal MRI and combined FEC-PET/eMRI in patients with Gleason Score \>6 (n=43) as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (n=38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||0.53
90918028|NCT00520546|181705655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||accuracy|60.0||||0.53||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"Lesion based analysis of FEC-PET, endorectal MRI and combined FEC-PET/eMRI in patients with Gleason Score \>6 (n=43) as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (n=38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||0.53
90918029|NCT00520546|181705655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||positive prediction|96.0|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"Lesion based analysis of FEC-PET, endorectal MRI and combined FEC-PET/eMRI in patients with Gleason Score \>6 (n=43) as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (n=38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||<0.001
90918030|NCT00520546|181705655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||negative prediction|73.0|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"Lesion based analysis of FEC-PET, endorectal MRI and combined FEC-PET/eMRI in patients with Gleason Score \>6 (n=43) as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (n=38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||<0.001
90918031|NCT00520546|181705655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||sensitivity|87.0|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"Lesion based analysis of FEC-PET, endorectal MRI and combined FEC-PET/eMRI in patients with Gleason Score \>6 (n=43) as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (n=38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||<0.001
90880228|NCT05583903|181622150|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.57
90880229|NCT05583903|181622151|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2
90880230|NCT05583903|181622152|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
90880231|NCT05583903|181622153|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.21
90880232|NCT05583903|181622154|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.66
90880233|NCT05583903|181622155|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.77
90880234|NCT05583903|181622156|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.71
90880235|NCT05583903|181622157|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.36
90880236|NCT05583903|181622158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.43
90880237|NCT05583903|181622159|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.23
90880238|NCT05583903|181622160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.63
90880239|NCT05583903|181622161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.52
90880240|NCT05583903|181622162|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4
90880241|NCT02872116|181622198|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.4|0.59|0.86|||Log Rank|||||0.86|0.59|<0.0001
90880242|NCT02872116|181622199|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.0|0.56|0.81|||Log Rank|||||0.81|0.56|<0.0001
90880243|NCT03552575|181622211|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|1.0|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for randomized treatment, baseline value of the outcome, use of diuretics at baseline and time from randomization to cardiac MRI||||1.0|-4.8|0.19
90880244|NCT03552575|181622212|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|0.85||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.16|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for randomized treatment, baseline value of the outcome, and use of diuretics at baseline||||1.16|0.63|0.31
90918032|NCT00520546|181705655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||specificity|92.0|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"Lesion based analysis of FEC-PET, endorectal MRI and combined FEC-PET/eMRI in patients with Gleason Score \>6 (n=43) as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (n=38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||<0.001
90918033|NCT00520546|181705655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||accuracy|88.0|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"Lesion based analysis of FEC-PET, endorectal MRI and combined FEC-PET/eMRI in patients with Gleason Score \>6 (n=43) as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (n=38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||<0.001
90918034|NCT00520546|181705656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||positive prediction|67.0||||0.002||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"Lesion based analysis of FEC-PET, endorectal MRI and combined FEC-PET/eMRI in patients with malign lesions \>5mm (n=98) as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (n=38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||0.002
90880245|NCT03552575|181622213|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|0.87||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.22|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for randomized treatment, baseline value of the outcome, and use of diuretics at baseline||||1.22|0.62|0.41
90918035|NCT00520546|181705656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||negative prediction|69.0||||0.002||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"Lesion based analysis of FEC-PET, endorectal MRI and combined FEC-PET/eMRI in patients with malign lesions \>5mm (n=98) as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (n=38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||0.002
90918036|NCT00520546|181705656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||sensitivity|86.0||||0.002||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"Lesion based analysis of FEC-PET, endorectal MRI and combined FEC-PET/eMRI in patients with malign lesions \>5mm (n=98) as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (n=38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||0.002
90918037|NCT00520546|181705656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||specificity|43.0||||0.002||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"Lesion based analysis of FEC-PET, endorectal MRI and combined FEC-PET/eMRI in patients with malign lesions \>5mm (n=98) as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (n=38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||0.002
90880246|NCT03552575|181622214|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.1||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|0.6|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for randomized treatment, baseline value of the outcome, use of diuretics at baseline and time from randomization to cardiac MRI||||0.6|-6.8|0.10
90918038|NCT00520546|181705656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||accuracy|67.0||||0.002||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"Lesion based analysis of FEC-PET, endorectal MRI and combined FEC-PET/eMRI in patients with malign lesions \>5mm (n=98) as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (n=38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||0.002
90918039|NCT00520546|181705656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||positive prediction|59.0||||0.41||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"Lesion based analysis of FEC-PET, endorectal MRI and combined FEC-PET/eMRI in patients with malign lesions \>5mm (n=98) as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (n=38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||0.41
90918040|NCT00520546|181705656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||negative prediction|46.0||||0.41||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"Lesion based analysis of FEC-PET, endorectal MRI and combined FEC-PET/eMRI in patients with malign lesions \>5mm (n=98) as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (n=38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||0.41
90918041|NCT00520546|181705656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||sensitivity|66.0||||0.41||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"Lesion based analysis of FEC-PET, endorectal MRI and combined FEC-PET/eMRI in patients with malign lesions \>5mm (n=98) as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (n=38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||0.41
90918042|NCT00520546|181705656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||specificity|38.0||||0.41||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"Lesion based analysis of FEC-PET, endorectal MRI and combined FEC-PET/eMRI in patients with malign lesions \>5mm (n=98) as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (n=38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||0.41
90961782|NCT00051363|181803742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5667||||||"2M L/M Function- PN-RT (Severe OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.~Data were reciprocal transformed for analysis and back-transformed for reporting."|Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized Linear Mixed Models (GLMM) were utilized to account for repeated measures (DX, 2M, 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 2M L/M Function- PN-RT.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ. A pre-randomization baseline PN-RT and months since randomization were also included as covariates."||||0.5667
90961783|NCT00051363|181803742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3972||||||"6M L/M Function- PN-RT (Mild OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.~Data were reciprocal transformed for analysis and back-transformed for reporting."|Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized Linear Mixed Models (GLMM) were utilized to account for repeated measures (DX, 2M, 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 6M L/M Function- PN-RT.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ. A pre-randomization baseline PN-RT and months since randomization were also included as covariates."||||0.3972
90961784|NCT00051363|181803742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3973||||||"6M L/M Function- PN-RT (Moderate OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.~Data were reciprocal transformed for analysis and back-transformed for reporting."|Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized Linear Mixed Models (GLMM) were utilized to account for repeated measures (DX, 2M, 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 6M L/M Function- PN-RT.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ. A pre-randomization baseline PN-RT and months since randomization were also included as covariates."||||0.3973
90961785|NCT00051363|181803742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3055||||||"6M L/M Function- PN-RT (Moderate OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.~Data were reciprocal transformed for analysis and back-transformed for reporting."|Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized Linear Mixed Models (GLMM) were utilized to account for repeated measures (DX, 2M, 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 6M L/M Function- PN-RT.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ. A pre-randomization baseline PN-RT and months since randomization were also included as covariates."||||0.3055
91033930|NCT02242201|181953682|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline vs 3 months||||<0.001
91033931|NCT02242201|181953682|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline vs 3 months||||<0.001
91033932|NCT02242201|181953683|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.898|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.898
90918043|NCT00520546|181705656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||accuracy|54.0||||0.41||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"Lesion based analysis of FEC-PET, endorectal MRI and combined FEC-PET/eMRI in patients with malign lesions \>5mm (n=98) as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (n=38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||0.41
90918044|NCT00520546|181705656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||positive prediction|86.0|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"Lesion based analysis of FEC-PET, endorectal MRI and combined FEC-PET/eMRI in patients with malign lesions \>5mm (n=98) as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (n=38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||<0.001
90918045|NCT00520546|181705656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||negative prediction|76.0|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"Lesion based analysis of FEC-PET, endorectal MRI and combined FEC-PET/eMRI in patients with malign lesions \>5mm (n=98) as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (n=38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||<0.001
90918046|NCT00520546|181705656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||sensitivity|83.0|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"Lesion based analysis of FEC-PET, endorectal MRI and combined FEC-PET/eMRI in patients with malign lesions \>5mm (n=98) as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (n=38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||<0.001
90918047|NCT00520546|181705656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||specificity|80.0|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"Lesion based analysis of FEC-PET, endorectal MRI and combined FEC-PET/eMRI in patients with malign lesions \>5mm (n=98) as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (n=38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||<0.001
90918048|NCT00520546|181705656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||accuracy|82.0|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"Lesion based analysis of FEC-PET, endorectal MRI and combined FEC-PET/eMRI in patients with malign lesions \>5mm (n=98) as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (n=38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||<0.001
90918049|NCT03988023|181705659|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||MMRM|||||||0.32
90918050|NCT03988023|181705660|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||MMRM|||||||0.30
90918051|NCT02554786|181705765|SUPERIORITY||Least Square mean (LS Mean)|0.132|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0223|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.088|0.176|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||0.176|0.088|<0.001
90918052|NCT02554786|181705765|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.211|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0224|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.167|0.255|||MMRM|||||0.255|0.167|<0.001
90961786|NCT00051363|181803743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3699||||||"2M A/P Function- PVT-MedRT (Mild OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.~Data were reciprocal transformed for analysis and back-transformed for reporting."|Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized Linear Mixed Models (GLMM) were utilized to account for repeated measures (DX, 2M, 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 2M A/P Function- PVT-MedRT.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ. Months since randomization were also included as covariate."||||0.3699
91033933|NCT02242201|181953683|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.112|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline vs 3 months||||0.112
91033934|NCT02242201|181953683|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline vs 3 months||||0.046
90918053|NCT02554786|181705766|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.172|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0415|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.254|-0.091|||MMRM|||Week 4||-0.091|-0.254|<0.001
90918054|NCT02554786|181705766|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.196|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0416|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.278|-0.115|||MMRM|||Week 4||-0.115|-0.278|<0.001
90918055|NCT02554786|181705766|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.055|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0414||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.136|0.026|||MMRM|||Week 4||0.026|-0.136|0.186
90918056|NCT02554786|181705766|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.184|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0294|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.242|-0.127|||MMRM|||Week 4: The comparison of QMF149 vs. MF was based on combined effects of QMF149 150/160 \& 150/320 μg and MF 400 \& 800 μg derived by weighting treatment groups equally.||-0.127|-0.242|<0.001
90918057|NCT02554786|181705766|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.129|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0431||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.214|-0.044|||MMRM|||Week 12||-0.044|-0.214|0.003
90918058|NCT02554786|181705766|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.248|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0435|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.333|-0.162|||MMRM|||Week 12||-0.162|-0.333|<0.001
90918059|NCT02554786|181705766|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.052|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0431||0.232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.136|0.033|||MMRM|||Week 12||0.033|-0.136|0.232
90918060|NCT02554786|181705766|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.188|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0307|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.248|-0.128|||MMRM|||Week 12: The comparison of QMF149 vs. MF was based on combined effects of QMF149 150/160 \& 150/320 μg and MF 400 \& 800 μg derived by weighting treatment groups equally.||-0.128|-0.248|<0.001
90918061|NCT02554786|181705766|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.171|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0437|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.257|-0.086|||MMRM|||Week 26||-0.086|-0.257|<0.001
90918062|NCT02554786|181705766|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.248|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0439|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.334|-0.162|||MMRM|||Week 26||-0.162|-0.334|<0.001
90918063|NCT02554786|181705766|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.054|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0437||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.031|||MMRM|||Week 26||0.031|-0.140|0.214
90918064|NCT02554786|181705766|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.209|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|-0.149|||MMRM|||Week 26: The comparison of QMF149 vs. MF was based on combined effects of QMF149 150/160 \& 150/320 μg and MF 400 \& 800 μg derived by weighting treatment groups equally.||-0.149|-0.270|<0.001
90918065|NCT02554786|181705766|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.141|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0449||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.229|-0.053|||MMRM|||Week 52||-0.053|-0.229|0.002
91033935|NCT02242201|181953683|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.026|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline vs 3 months||||0.026
91033936|NCT02242201|181953684|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.843|||||||Fisher Exact|||Operative extremity neurologic changes||||0.843
91033937|NCT02242201|181953684|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Wound infection||||1.00
90918066|NCT02554786|181705766|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.266|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.354|-0.177|||MMRM|||Week 52||-0.177|-0.354|<0.001
90918067|NCT02554786|181705766|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0447||0.824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.078|0.098|||MMRM|||Week 52||0.098|-0.078|0.824
90918068|NCT02554786|181705766|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.203|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0318|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.266|-0.141|||MMRM|||Week 52: The comparison of QMF149 vs. MF was based on combined effects of QMF149 150/160 \& 150/320 μg and MF 400 \& 800 μg derived by weighting treatment groups equally.||-0.141|-0.266|<0.001
90918069|NCT02554786|181705767|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.136|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0235|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.183|||MMRM|||||0.183|0.090|<0.001
90918070|NCT02554786|181705767|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.209|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0235|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.163|0.255|||MMRM|||||0.255|0.163|<0.001
90918071|NCT02554786|181705767|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0234||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.002|0.094|||MMRM|||||0.094|0.002|0.04
90918072|NCT02554786|181705768|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.132|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0193|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.094|0.17|||MMRM|||Day 30||0.170|0.094|<0.001
90918073|NCT02554786|181705768|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.196|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0194|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.158|0.234|||MMRM|||Day 30||0.234|0.158|<0.001
90961787|NCT00051363|181803743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9673||||||"2M A/P Function- PVT-MedRT (Moderate OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.~Data were reciprocal transformed for analysis and back-transformed for reporting."|Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized Linear Mixed Models (GLMM) were utilized to account for repeated measures (DX, 2M, 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 2M A/P Function- PVT-MedRT.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ. Months since randomization were also included as covariate."||||0.9673
90961788|NCT00051363|181803743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3426||||||"2M A/P Function- PVT-MedRT (Severe OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.~Data were reciprocal transformed for analysis and back-transformed for reporting."|Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized Linear Mixed Models (GLMM) were utilized to account for repeated measures (DX, 2M, 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 2M A/P Function- PVT-MedRT.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ. Months since randomization were also included as covariate."||||0.3426
90961789|NCT00051363|181803743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3901||||||"6M A/P Function- PVT-MedRT (Mild OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.~Data were reciprocal transformed for analysis and back-transformed for reporting."|Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized Linear Mixed Models (GLMM) were utilized to account for repeated measures (DX, 2M, 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 2M A/P Function- PVT-MedRT.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ. Months since randomization were also included as covariate."||||0.3901
91033938|NCT02242201|181953684|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Fall requiring medical attention||||1.00
91033939|NCT02242201|181953685|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Pain at rest||||1.00
91033940|NCT02242201|181953685|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.167|||||||Fisher Exact|||Pain with movement||||0.167
90918074|NCT02554786|181705768|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.035|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0192||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.002|0.073|||MMRM|||Day 30||0.073|-0.002|0.064
90918075|NCT02554786|181705768|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.122|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0201|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.083|0.162|||MMRM|||Day 86||0.162|0.083|<0.001
90918076|NCT02554786|181705768|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.184|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0202|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.144|0.224|||MMRM|||Day 86||0.224|0.144|<0.001
90918077|NCT02554786|181705768|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.037|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.002|0.076|||MMRM|||Day 86||0.076|-0.002|0.063
90918078|NCT02554786|181705769|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.142|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0116|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.119|0.164|||MMRM|||Day 1: 5 minutes||0.164|0.119|<0.001
90918079|NCT02554786|181705769|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.152|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0116|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.129|0.175|||MMRM|||Day 1: 5 minutes||0.175|0.129|<0.001
90918080|NCT02554786|181705769|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.055|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0116|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.032|0.078|||MMRM|||Day 1: 5 minutes||0.078|0.032|<0.001
90918081|NCT02554786|181705769|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.162|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0122|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.138|0.186|||MMRM|||Day 1: 15 minutes||0.186|0.138|<0.001
90918082|NCT02554786|181705769|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|0.174|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0123|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.198|||MMRM|||Day 1: 15 minutes||0.198|0.150|<.001
90918083|NCT02554786|181705769|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.044|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0122|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.068|||MMRM|||Day1: 15 minutes||0.068|0.02|<0.001
90918084|NCT02554786|181705769|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.175|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0132|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.149|0.201|||MMRM|||Day 1: 30 minutes||0.201|0.149|<0.001
90918085|NCT02554786|181705769|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.185|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0132|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.159|0.211|||MMRM|||Day 1: 30 minutes||0.211|0.159|<0.001
90918086|NCT02554786|181705769|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.027|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0132||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.053|||MMRM|||Day 1: 30 minutes||0.053|0.001|0.038
90918087|NCT02554786|181705769|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.178|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0139|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.205|||MMRM|||Day 1: 1 hour||0.205|0.150|<0.001
90918088|NCT02554786|181705769|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.205|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0139|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.177|0.232|||MMRM|||Day 1: 1hour||0.232|0.177|<0.001
90918089|NCT02554786|181705769|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0139||0.632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.021|0.034|||MMRM|||Day 1: 1hour||0.034|-0.021|0.632
90918090|NCT02554786|181705769|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.189|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0192|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.151|0.226|||MMRM|||Day 30: 5 minutes||0.226|0.151|<0.001
91033941|NCT01379664|181953697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Means|1.06||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.16|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.16|0.97|0.24
91033942|NCT01379664|181953698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.19|||Generalized estimating equation model|Generalized estimating equation model weighted by inverse propensity score||||0.19|-0.23|0.87
91033943|NCT01379664|181953699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|3.3|||Generalized estimating equation model|Generalized estimating equation model weighted by propensity score||||3.3|-4.7|0.74
91033944|NCT03616106|181953709|OTHER||Slope|-15.103||||0.859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-184.574|154.369||This p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||154.369|-184.574|0.859
91033945|NCT03616106|181953710|OTHER||Slope|28.243||||0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.694|73.179||This p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||73.179|-16.694|0.213
91033946|NCT03616106|181953711|OTHER||Slope|58.993||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.713|112.274||This p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||112.274|5.713|0.031
91033947|NCT03616106|181953712|OTHER||Slope|-0.0651||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.313|0.01||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||Viral load variables were log transformed for regression analyses.||0.010|-1.313|0.053
91033948|NCT03616106|181953713|OTHER||Slope|-1.601||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.761|-0.442||This p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||-0.442|-2.761|0.008
90880247|NCT03552575|181622215|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|2.0|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for randomized treatment, baseline value of the outcome, use of diuretics at baseline and time from randomization to cardiac MRI||||2.0|-6.6|0.29
90880248|NCT03552575|181622216|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.9|||Regression, Linear|adjusted for randomized treatment, baseline value of the outcome, use of diuretics at baseline and time from randomization to cardiac MRI||||0.9|-2.0|0.46
90880249|NCT03552575|181622217|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|0.6|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for randomized treatment, baseline value of the outcome, use of diuretics at baseline and time from randomization to cardiac MRI||||0.6|-3.5|0.16
90918091|NCT02554786|181705769|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.232|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0194|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.194|0.27|||MMRM|||Day 30: 5 minutes||0.270|0.194|<0.001
90918092|NCT02554786|181705769|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.053|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0191||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.016|0.091|||MMRM|||Day 30: 5 minutes||0.091|0.016|0.005
90880250|NCT03552575|181622218|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.56
90880251|NCT01052545|181622220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive statistics were used to estimate the incidence rates per 1,000 bed-days and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for urine cultures ordered, ASB overtreatment and CAUTI under-treatment in each study period.|Regression, Logistic|to test whether there was a significant difference in monthly urine cultures ordered between the two study sites over time.||||||<0.05
90880252|NCT01052545|181622226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||We used χ2 test, Fisher's exact test and one-way ANOVA to determine if patient-level covariates differed between the baseline, intervention and maintenance periods at each study site.|Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.05
90918093|NCT02554786|181705769|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.194|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0194|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.156|0.232|||MMRM|||Day 30: 30 minutes||0.232|0.156|<0.001
90918094|NCT02554786|181705769|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.253|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0196|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.214|0.291|||MMRM|||Day 30: 30 minutes||0.291|0.214|<0.001
90918095|NCT02554786|181705769|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.043|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0192||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.005|0.08|||MMRM|||Day 30: 30 minutes||0.08|0.005|0.026
90918096|NCT02554786|181705769|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0196|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.152|0.229|||MMRM|||Day 30: 1 hour||0.229|0.152|<0.001
90880253|NCT01094548|181622227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
90880254|NCT01094548|181622231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.431||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.157|1.185|||Log Rank|||||1.185|0.157|0.0940
90880255|NCT01094548|181622232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.666||||0.3919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.261|1.698|||Log Rank|||||1.698|0.261|0.3919
90918097|NCT02554786|181705769|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.258|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0198|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.219|0.296|||MMRM|||Day 30: 1 hour||0.296|0.219|<0.001
90918098|NCT02554786|181705769|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.037|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0194||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|0.075|||MMRM|||Day 30: 1 hour||0.075|-0.001|0.059
90918099|NCT02554786|181705769|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.163|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0204|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.123|0.203|||MMRM|||Day 86: 5 minutes||0.203|0.123|<0.001
90918100|NCT02554786|181705769|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.231|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0206|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.191|0.271|||MMRM|||Day 86: 5 minutes||0.271|0.191|<0.001
90918101|NCT02554786|181705769|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.055|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0203||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.015|0.095|||MMRM|||Day 86: 5minutes||0.095|0.015|0.007
90918102|NCT02554786|181705769|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0203|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.219|||MMRM|||Day 86: 30 minutes||0.219|0.140|<0.001
90918103|NCT02554786|181705769|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.252|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0205|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.211|0.292|||MMRM|||Day 86: 30 minutes||0.292|0.211|<0.001
90918104|NCT02554786|181705769|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.038|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0202||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|0.078|||MMRM|||Day 86: 30 minutes||0.078|-0.001|0.057
90918105|NCT02554786|181705769|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.187|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0205|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.147|0.227|||MMRM|||Day 86: 1 hour||0.227|0.147|<0.001
90918106|NCT02554786|181705769|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.249|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0208|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.208|0.289|||MMRM|||Day 86: 1 hour||0.289|0.208|<0.001
90918107|NCT02554786|181705769|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.043|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0205||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.003|0.083|||MMRM|||Day 86: 1hour||0.083|0.003|0.037
90918108|NCT02554786|181705769|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.163|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0217|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.121|0.206|||MMRM|||Day 183: 5 minutes||0.206|0.121|<0.001
90918109|NCT02554786|181705769|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.243|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0219|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.286|||MMRM|||Day 183: 5 minutes||0.286|0.200|<0.001
91033949|NCT03616106|181953714|OTHER||Slope|-2.674||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.934|-1.415||This p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||-1.415|-3.934|0.000
90961790|NCT00051363|181803743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9464||||||"6M A/P Function- PVT-MedRT (Moderate OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.~Data were reciprocal transformed for analysis and back-transformed for reporting."|Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized Linear Mixed Models (GLMM) were utilized to account for repeated measures (DX, 2M, 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 2M A/P Function- PVT-MedRT.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ. Months since randomization were also included as covariate."||||0.9464
90961791|NCT00051363|181803743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4372||||||"6M A/P Function- PVT-MedRT (Severe OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.~Data were reciprocal transformed for analysis and back-transformed for reporting."|Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized Linear Mixed Models (GLMM) were utilized to account for repeated measures (DX, 2M, 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 2M A/P Function- PVT-MedRT.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ. Months since randomization were also included as covariate."||||0.4372
90961792|NCT00051363|181803744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9656||||||"2M A/P Function- PVT-Slo10%RT (Mild OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.~Data were reciprocal transformed for analysis and back-transformed for reporting."|Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized Linear Mixed Models (GLMM) were utilized to account for repeated measures (DX, 2M, 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 2M A/P Function- PVT-Slo10%RT.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ. Months since randomization were also included as covariate."||||0.9656
90961793|NCT00051363|181803744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6765||||||"2M A/P Function- PVT-Slo10%RT (Moderate OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.~Data were reciprocal transformed for analysis and back-transformed for reporting."|Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized Linear Mixed Models (GLMM) were utilized to account for repeated measures (DX, 2M, 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 2M A/P Function- PVT-Slo10%RT.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ. Months since randomization were also included as covariate."||||0.6765
90918110|NCT02554786|181705769|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.044|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0216||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.002|0.087|||MMRM|||Day 183: 5 minutes||0.087|0.002|0.041
90918111|NCT02554786|181705769|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.176|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0222|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.133|0.22|||MMRM|||Day 183: 30 minutes||0.220|0.133|<0.001
90961794|NCT00051363|181803744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5288||||||"2M A/P Function- PVT-Slo10%RT (Severe OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.~Data were reciprocal transformed for analysis and back-transformed for reporting."|Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized Linear Mixed Models (GLMM) were utilized to account for repeated measures (DX, 2M, 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 2M A/P Function- PVT-Slo10%RT.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ. Months since randomization were also included as covariate."||||0.5288
90880256|NCT03792672|181622242|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean (LSM) difference|115.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|144.0||0.4278|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-128.0|359.0||Based on mixed model analysis, with treatment, period, sequence, treatment-by-period interaction as fixed factors, participant within sequence as a random factor, baseline as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||359|-128|0.4278
90880257|NCT03792672|181622242|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|338.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|147.0||0.0269|TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.5|585.0||Based on mixed model analysis, with treatment, period, sequence, treatment-by-period interaction as fixed factors, participant within sequence as a random factor, baseline as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||585|90.5|0.0269
90880258|NCT03792672|181622243|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.388|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.582||0.5089|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.37|0.595||Based on mixed model analysis, with treatment, period, sequence, treatment-by-period interaction as fixed factors, participant within sequence as a random factor, baseline as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.595|-1.37|0.5089
90880259|NCT03792672|181622243|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.209|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.581||0.7208|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.19|0.773||Based on mixed model analysis, with treatment, period, sequence, treatment-by-period interaction as fixed factors, participant within sequence as a random factor, baseline as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.773|-1.19|0.7208
90880260|NCT03792672|181622244|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|14.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.1||0.4174|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.8|42.8||Based on mixed model analysis, with treatment, period, sequence, treatment-by-period interaction as fixed factors, participant within sequence as a random factor, baseline as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||LICI 50 ms peak-to-peak amplitude||42.8|-14.8|0.4174
90918112|NCT02554786|181705769|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.259|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0224|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.215|0.303|||MMRM|||Day 183: 30 minutes||0.303|0.215|<0.001
90918113|NCT02554786|181705769|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0221||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.003|0.083|||MMRM|||Day 183: 30 minutes||0.083|-0.003|0.071
90918114|NCT02554786|181705769|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0219|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.137|0.223|||MMRM|||Day 183: 1 hour||0.223|0.137|<0.001
90918115|NCT02554786|181705769|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.259|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0222|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.215|0.302|||MMRM|||Day 183: 1 hour||0.302|0.215|<0.001
91033950|NCT03616106|181953728|OTHER||Slope|2.172||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.448|2.895||This p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||2.895|1.448|0.000
91033951|NCT03616106|181953729|OTHER||Slope|2.872||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|3.643||This p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||3.643|2.100|0.000
90880261|NCT03792672|181622244|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|15.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.1||0.3832|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-25.3|31.5||Based on mixed model analysis, with treatment, period, sequence, treatment-by-period interaction as fixed factors, participant within sequence as a random factor, baseline as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||LICI 50 ms peak-to-peak amplitude||31.5|-25.3|0.3832
90880262|NCT03792672|181622244|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.326|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.09||0.9368|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.23|6.58||Based on mixed model analysis, with treatment, period, sequence, treatment-by-period interaction as fixed factors, participant within sequence as a random factor, baseline as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||LICI 100 ms peak-to-peak amplitude||6.58|-7.23|0.9368
90880263|NCT03792672|181622244|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|3.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.16||0.379|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.32|10.7||Based on mixed model analysis, with treatment, period, sequence, treatment-by-period interaction as fixed factors, participant within sequence as a random factor, baseline as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||LICI 100 ms peak-to-peak amplitude||10.7|-3.32|0.3790
90880264|NCT03792672|181622244|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|7.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.41||0.258|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.44|18.2||Based on mixed model analysis, with treatment, period, sequence, treatment-by-period interaction as fixed factors, participant within sequence as a random factor, baseline as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||LICI 200 ms peak-to-peak amplitude||18.2|-3.44|0.2580
90880265|NCT03792672|181622244|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|9.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.41||0.1524|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.45|20.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LICI 200 ms peak-to-peak amplitude||20.2|-1.45|0.1524
90880266|NCT03792672|181622244|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|17.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.21||0.022|TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.06|29.4||Based on mixed model analysis, with treatment, period, sequence, treatment-by-period interaction as fixed factors, participant within sequence as a random factor, baseline as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||LICI 300 ms peak-to-peak amplitude||29.4|5.06|0.0220
90880267|NCT03792672|181622244|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|9.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.23||0.1927|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.59|21.8||Based on mixed model analysis, with treatment, period, sequence, treatment-by-period interaction as fixed factors, participant within sequence as a random factor, baseline as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||LICI 300 ms peak-to-peak amplitude||21.8|-2.59|0.1927
90880268|NCT03792672|181622245|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-5.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.59||0.559|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.8|10.5||Based on mixed model analysis, with treatment, period, sequence, treatment-by-period interaction as fixed factors, participant within sequence as a random factor, baseline as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||SICI 2 ms peak-to-peak amplitude||10.5|-21.8|0.5590
90880269|NCT03792672|181622245|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-16.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.72||0.1049|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-32.5|0.242|||Mixed Models Analysis|||SICI 2 ms peak-to-peak amplitude||0.242|-32.5|0.1049
90880270|NCT03792672|181622245|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-16.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.5||0.2238|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-39.4|6.06||Based on mixed model analysis, with treatment, period, sequence, treatment-by-period interaction as fixed factors, participant within sequence as a random factor, baseline as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||SICI 5 ms peak-to-peak amplitude||6.06|-39.4|0.2238
90880271|NCT03792672|181622245|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-18.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.6||0.1847|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-41.3|4.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||SICI 5 ms peak-to-peak amplitude||4.56|-41.3|0.1847
90918116|NCT02554786|181705769|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.039|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0218||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.003|0.082|||MMRM|||Day 183: 1 hour||0.082|-0.003|0.071
90918117|NCT02554786|181705769|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.139|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0229|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.094|0.184|||MMRM|||Day 364: 5 minutes||0.184|0.094|<0.001
90918118|NCT02554786|181705769|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.249|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0228|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.205|0.294|||MMRM|||Day 364: 5 minutes||0.294|0.205|<0.001
90918119|NCT02554786|181705769|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.026|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0227||0.244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.018|0.071|||MMRM|||Day 364: 5 minutes||0.071|-0.018|0.244
90918120|NCT02554786|181705769|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.155|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0228|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.2|||MMRM|||Day 364: 30 minutes||0.200|0.110|<0.001
90918121|NCT02554786|181705769|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.264|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0227|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.219|0.308|||MMRM|||Day 364: 30 minutes||0.308|0.219|<0.001
90918122|NCT02554786|181705769|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.032|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0226||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.013|0.076|||MMRM|||Day 364: 30 minutes||0.076|-0.013|0.162
90918123|NCT02554786|181705769|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.163|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0234|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.117|0.209|||MMRM|||Day 364: 1 hour||0.209|0.117|<0.001
90918124|NCT02554786|181705769|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.262|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0232|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.216|0.308|||MMRM|||Day 364: 1 hour||0.308|0.216|<0.001
90918125|NCT02554786|181705769|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.031|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0231||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.014|0.076|||MMRM|||Day 364: 1 hour||0.076|-0.014|0.182
90918126|NCT02554786|181705770|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.086|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0237|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.133|||MMRM|||Day 2||0.133|0.040|<0.001
90918127|NCT02554786|181705770|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.139|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0235|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.093|0.185|||MMRM|||Day 2||0.185|0.093|<0.001
90918128|NCT02554786|181705770|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0237||0.927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.049|0.044|||MMRM|||Day 2||0.044|-0.049|0.927
90918129|NCT02554786|181705770|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0246||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.098|||MMRM|||Day 184||0.098|0.001|0.044
90918130|NCT02554786|181705770|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.141|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0246|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.093|0.19|||MMRM|||Day 184||0.190|0.093|<0.001
90918131|NCT02554786|181705770|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.017|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0244||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.031|0.065|||MMRM|||Day 184||0.065|-0.031|0.490
90918132|NCT02554786|181705770|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.076|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0249||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.027|0.125|||MMRM|||Day 365||0.125|0.027|0.002
90880272|NCT01073865|181622285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The lower limit of the CI of the difference is greater than or equal to -17.5%. This non-inferiority margin was pre-defined in the study protocol.|Risk Difference (RD)|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|13.9|||||%PFS at 24 weeks for Zoladex 10.8mg - %PFS at 24 weeks for Zoladex 3.6mg|CI for the difference (10.8 mg-3.6 mg) in %PFS at 24 weeks calculated using the score method recommended by Newcombe et al||13.90|-11.40|
90880273|NCT01073865|181622286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.47|9.67|||||ORR at 24 weeks for Zoladex 10.8mg - ORR at 24 weeks for Zoladex 3.6mg|CI for the difference (10.8 mg-3.6 mg) in ORR at 24 weeks calculated using the score method recommended by Newcombe et al||9.67|-15.47|
90880274|NCT04414553|181622297|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29||||||Threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||This compares pre/post data.||||0.29
91033952|NCT03616106|181953730|OTHER||Slope|3.166||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.487|3.846||This p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||3.846|2.487|0.000
90880275|NCT04414553|181622298|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.35
90880276|NCT04414553|181622299|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.21
90880277|NCT04414553|181622300|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.018
90880278|NCT04414553|181622301|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.062|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.062
90880279|NCT05544786|181622350|OTHER|The analysis used a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within a sequence as a random effect for comparison: powder mixed with water (fasted) group versus tablets group.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Mean|113.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.77|124.53|||||The ratios (and 90% confidence Intervals \[CIs\]) are expressed as percentages.|Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg tablets (fasted) Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with water (fasted)||124.53|102.77|
90918133|NCT02554786|181705770|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.146|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0248|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.098|0.195|||MMRM|||Day 365||0.195|0.098|<0.001
90918134|NCT02554786|181705770|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.036|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0248||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.012|0.085|||MMRM|||Day 365||0.085|-0.012|0.143
90918135|NCT02554786|181705771|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.189|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0253|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.139|0.238|||MMRM|||Day 2||0.238|0.139|<0.001
90918136|NCT02554786|181705771|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.161|0.259|||MMRM|||Day 2||0.259|0.161|<0.001
90918137|NCT02554786|181705771|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.018|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0252||0.475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.067|0.031|||MMRM|||Day 2||0.031|-0.067|0.475
90918138|NCT02554786|181705771|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.228|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0345|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.161|0.296|||MMRM|||Day 184||0.296|0.161|<0.001
90918139|NCT02554786|181705771|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.265|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0346|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.197|0.333|||MMRM|||Day 184||0.333|0.197|<0.001
90918140|NCT02554786|181705771|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.083|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0343||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.016|0.151|||MMRM|||Day 184||0.151|0.016|0.015
90918141|NCT02554786|181705771|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.215|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0358|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.145|0.285|||MMRM|||Day 365||0.285|0.145|<0.001
90918142|NCT02554786|181705771|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.246|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0357|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.176|0.316|||MMRM|||Day 365||0.316|0.176|<0.001
90918143|NCT02554786|181705771|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.053|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0356||0.139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.017|0.122|||MMRM|||Day 365||0.122|-0.017|0.139
90918144|NCT02554786|181705772|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|29.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.96|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.8|35.4|||Linear Mixed Model (LMM)|||Week 26: Mean morning PEF||35.4|23.8|<0.001
90918145|NCT02554786|181705772|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|32.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.97|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.4|38.1|||LMM|||Week 26: Mean morning PEF||38.1|26.4|<0.001
90918146|NCT02554786|181705772|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|13.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.97|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.5|19.1|||LMM|||Week 26: Mean morning PEF||19.1|7.5|<0.001
90918147|NCT02554786|181705772|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|24.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.82|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.3|30.3|||LMM|||Week 26: Mean evening PEF||30.3|19.3|<0.001
90918148|NCT02554786|181705772|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|30.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.83|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.8|35.9|||LMM|||Week 26: Mean evening PEF||35.9|24.8|<0.001
90918149|NCT02554786|181705772|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|8.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.83||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|14.2|||LMM|||Week 26: Mean evening PEF||14.2|3.1|0.002
90918150|NCT02554786|181705772|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|28.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.7|34.8|||LMM|||Week 52: Mean morning PEF||34.8|22.7|<0.001
90918151|NCT02554786|181705772|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|30.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.2|36.3|||LMM|||Week 52: Mean morning PEF||36.3|24.2|<0.001
90918152|NCT02554786|181705772|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|13.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|19.8|||LMM|||Week 52: Mean morning PEF||19.8|7.7|<0.001
90918153|NCT02554786|181705772|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|23.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.94|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.0|29.5|||LMM|||Week 52: Mean evening PEF||29.5|18.0|<0.001
90918154|NCT02554786|181705772|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|29.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.94|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.3|34.8|||LMM|||Week 52: Mean evening PEF||34.8|23.3|<0.001
90918155|NCT02554786|181705772|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|9.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.95||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|14.9|||LMM|||Week 52: Mean evening PEF||14.9|3.3|0.002
90918156|NCT02554786|181705773|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.81|||Logistic regression model|||Day 183||1.81|0.95|0.094
90918157|NCT02554786|181705773|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|2.37|||Logistic regression model|||Day 183||2.37|1.26|<0.001
91033953|NCT03616106|181953731|OTHER||Z Score|3.25||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni correction. Therefore, the threshold for statistical significance was p≤0.05/3 = .017. Please see statistical analysis plan for further details.|Wilcoxon signed rank|||||||0.0011
90880280|NCT05544786|181622350|OTHER|The analysis used a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within a sequence as a random effect for comparison: powder mixed with infant formula (fasted) group versus tablets group.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Mean|121.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|110.75|134.2|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg tablets (fasted) Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with infant formula (fasted)||134.20|110.75|
90880281|NCT05544786|181622350|OTHER|The analysis used a mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect for comparison: powder mixed with vanilla pudding (fasted) group versus tablets group.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Mean|125.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|114.43|137.61|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg tablets (fasted) Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with vanilla pudding (fasted)||137.61|114.43|
90880282|NCT05544786|181622350|OTHER|The analysis used a mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect for comparison: powder mixed with vanilla pudding (fed) group versus tablets group.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Mean|121.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|110.42|132.79|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg tablets (fasted) Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with vanilla pudding (fed)||132.79|110.42|
90880283|NCT05544786|181622351|OTHER|The analysis used a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within a sequence as a random effect for comparison: powder mixed with water (fasted) group versus tablets group.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Mean|113.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.96|125.4|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg tablets (fasted) Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with water (fasted)||125.40|102.96|
90880284|NCT05544786|181622351|OTHER|The analysis used a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within a sequence as a random effect for comparison: powder mixed with infant formula (fasted) group versus tablets group.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Mean|122.53|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|111.02|135.22|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg tablets (fasted) Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with infant formula (fasted)||135.22|111.02|
90880285|NCT05544786|181622351|OTHER|The analysis used a mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect for comparison: powder mixed with vanilla pudding (fasted) group versus tablets group.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Mean|126.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|115.0|139.27|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg tablets (fasted) Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with vanilla pudding (fasted)||139.27|115.00|
90880286|NCT05544786|181622351|OTHER|The analysis used a mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect for comparison: powder mixed with vanilla pudding (fed) group versus tablets group.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Mean|122.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|111.11|134.57|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg tablets (fasted) Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with vanilla pudding (fed)||134.57|111.11|
90918158|NCT02554786|181705773|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.46|||Logistic regression model|||Day 183||1.46|0.76|0.746
90918159|NCT02554786|181705773|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.87|||Logistic regression model|||Day 364||1.87|0.96|0.088
90918160|NCT02554786|181705773|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|3.17|||Logistic regression model|||Day 364||3.17|1.58|<0.001
90918161|NCT02554786|181705773|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.49|||Logistic regression model|||Day 364||1.49|0.75|0.771
90918162|NCT02554786|181705774|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.29||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|10.2|||Linear Mixed Model (LMM)|||||10.2|1.3|0.012
90918163|NCT02554786|181705774|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|9.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.6|13.6|||LMM|||||13.6|4.6|<0.001
90918164|NCT02554786|181705774|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.29||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|7.9|||LMM|||||7.9|-1.1|0.135
90880287|NCT05544786|181622352|OTHER|The analysis used a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within a sequence as a random effect for comparison: powder mixed with water (fasted) group versus tablets group.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Mean|110.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.01|122.82|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg tablets (fasted) Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with water (fasted)||122.82|99.01|
90880288|NCT05544786|181622352|OTHER|The analysis used a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within a sequence as a random effect for comparison: powder mixed with infant formula (fasted) group versus tablets group.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Mean|140.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|126.57|157.01|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg tablets (fasted) Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with infant formula (fasted)||157.01|126.57|
90880289|NCT05544786|181622352|OTHER|The analysis used a mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect for comparison: powder mixed with vanilla pudding (fasted) group versus tablets group.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Mean|149.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|132.86|168.96|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg tablets (fasted) Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with vanilla pudding (fasted)||168.96|132.86|
90880290|NCT05544786|181622352|OTHER|The analysis used a mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect for comparison: powder mixed with vanilla pudding (fed) group versus tablets group.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Mean|147.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|130.4|165.83|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg tablets (fasted) Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with vanilla pudding (fed)||165.83|130.40|
90880291|NCT05544786|181622353|OTHER|The analysis used a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within a sequence as a random effect for comparison: powder mixed with water (fasted) group versus tablets group.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Mean|96.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.31|107.23|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg tablets (fasted) Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with water (fasted)||107.23|87.31|
90880292|NCT05544786|181622353|OTHER|The analysis used a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within a sequence as a random effect for comparison: powder mixed with infant formula (fasted) group versus tablets group.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Mean|86.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.38|96.26|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg tablets (fasted) Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with infant formula (fasted)||96.26|78.38|
90880293|NCT05544786|181622353|OTHER|The analysis used a mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect for comparison: powder mixed with vanilla pudding (fasted) group versus tablets group.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Mean|99.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.39|112.8|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg tablets (fasted) Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with vanilla pudding (fasted)||112.80|87.39|
90880294|NCT05544786|181622353|OTHER|The analysis used a mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect for comparison: powder mixed with vanilla pudding (fed) group versus tablets group.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Mean|79.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.07|89.73|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg tablets (fasted) Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with vanilla pudding (fed)||89.73|70.07|
90880295|NCT05544786|181622354|OTHER|The analysis used a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within a sequence as a random effect for comparison: powder mixed with water (fasted) group versus tablets group.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Mean|95.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.45|106.44|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg tablets (fasted) Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with water (fasted)||106.44|86.45|
90880296|NCT05544786|181622354|OTHER|The analysis used a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within a sequence as a random effect for comparison: powder mixed with infant formula (fasted) group versus tablets group.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Mean|86.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.96|95.98|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg tablets (fasted) Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with infant formula (fasted)||95.98|77.96|
90880297|NCT05544786|181622354|OTHER|The analysis used a mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect for comparison: powder mixed with vanilla pudding (fasted) group versus tablets group.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Mean|88.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|72.97|106.83|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg tablets (fasted) Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with vanilla pudding (fasted)||106.83|72.97|
90918165|NCT02554786|181705775|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.25||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|9.4|||LMM|||||9.4|0.6|0.026
90918166|NCT02554786|181705775|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|8.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.25|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|12.5|||LMM|||||12.5|3.7|<0.001
90918167|NCT02554786|181705775|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.25||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|7.7|||LMM|||||7.7|-1.2|0.151
90918168|NCT02554786|181705776|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.72||0.104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|6.2|||LMM|||||6.2|-0.6|0.104
90918169|NCT02554786|181705776|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.72||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|7.3|||LMM|||||7.3|0.5|0.024
90918170|NCT02554786|181705776|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.73||0.588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|4.3|||LMM|||||4.3|-2.5|0.588
90918171|NCT02554786|181705777|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.19||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|10.7|||LMM|||||10.7|2.1|0.003
90918172|NCT02554786|181705777|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|8.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.6|13.2|||LMM|||||13.2|4.6|<0.001
90880298|NCT05544786|181622354|OTHER|The analysis used a mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect for comparison: powder mixed with vanilla pudding (fed) group versus tablets group.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Mean|77.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|64.04|93.76|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg tablets (fasted) Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with vanilla pudding (fed)||93.76|64.04|
90918173|NCT02554786|181705777|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|9.1|||LMM|||||9.1|0.5|0.029
90918174|NCT02554786|181705778|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|-0.05|||LMM|||Week1-26 Mean night-time number of puffs||-0.05|-0.2|0.001
90918175|NCT02554786|181705778|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|-0.01|||LMM|||Week 1-26 Mean night-time number of puffs||-0.01|-0.16|0.035
90918176|NCT02554786|181705778|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.03|||LMM|||Week 1-26 Mean night-time number of puffs||0.03|-0.12|0.261
90961795|NCT00051363|181803744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7807||||||"6M A/P Function- PVT-Slo10%RT (Mild OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.~Data were reciprocal transformed for analysis and back-transformed for reporting."|Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized Linear Mixed Models (GLMM) were utilized to account for repeated measures (DX, 2M, 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 2M A/P Function- PVT-Slo10%RT.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ. Months since randomization were also included as covariate."||||0.7807
90961796|NCT00051363|181803744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9603||||||"6M A/P Function- PVT-Slo10%RT (Moderate OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.~Data were reciprocal transformed for analysis and back-transformed for reporting."|Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized Linear Mixed Models (GLMM) were utilized to account for repeated measures (DX, 2M, 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 2M A/P Function- PVT-Slo10%RT.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ. Months since randomization were also included as covariate."||||0.9603
90961797|NCT00051363|181803744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3075||||||"6M A/P Function- PVT-Slo10%RT (Severe OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.~Data were reciprocal transformed for analysis and back-transformed for reporting."|Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized Linear Mixed Models (GLMM) were utilized to account for repeated measures (DX, 2M, 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 2M A/P Function- PVT-Slo10%RT.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ. Months since randomization were also included as covariate."||||0.3075
90961798|NCT00051363|181803745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4262||||||2M L/M Function- BSRTDR-TotRec (Mild OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Regression, Linear|Generalized Linear Models (GLM) were run by visit (2M and 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 2M L/M Function- BSRTDR-TotRec.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ. A pre-randomization baseline BSRTDR-TotRec was also included as a covariate."||||0.4262
90880299|NCT05544786|181622355|OTHER|The analysis used a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within a sequence as a random effect for comparison: powder mixed with water (fasted) group versus tablets group.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Mean|101.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.71|118.44|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg tablets (fasted) Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with water (fasted)||118.44|87.71|
90918177|NCT02554786|181705778|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|-0.09|||LMM|||Week 1-26 Mean daytime number of puffs||-0.09|-0.28|<0.001
90918178|NCT02554786|181705778|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|-0.03|||LMM|||Week 1-26 Mean daytime number of puffs||-0.03|-0.21|0.011
90918179|NCT02554786|181705778|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.047||0.425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.06|||LMM|||Week 1-26 Mean daytime number of puffs||0.06|-0.13|0.425
90918180|NCT02554786|181705778|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.081|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.15|||LMM|||Week 1-26 Mean daily number of puffs||-0.15|-0.46|<0.001
90918181|NCT02554786|181705778|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.081||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.03|||LMM|||Week 1-26 Mean daily number of puffs||-0.03|-0.35|0.017
90918182|NCT02554786|181705778|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.081||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|-0.07|||LMM|||Week 1-26 Mean daily number of puffs||-0.07|-0.24|0.29
90880300|NCT05544786|181622355|OTHER|The analysis used a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within a sequence as a random effect for comparison: powder mixed with infant formula (fasted) group versus tablets group.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Mean|92.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.52|107.38|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg tablets (fasted) Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with infant formula (fasted)||107.38|79.52|
90880301|NCT05544786|181622355|OTHER|The analysis used a mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect for comparison: powder mixed with vanilla pudding (fasted) group versus tablets group.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Mean|97.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.4|120.1|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg tablets (fasted) Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with vanilla pudding (fasted)||120.10|78.40|
90880302|NCT05544786|181622355|OTHER|The analysis used a mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect for comparison: powder mixed with vanilla pudding (fed) group versus tablets group.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Mean|70.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|56.92|87.19|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg tablets (fasted) Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with vanilla pudding (fed)||87.19|56.92|
90918183|NCT02554786|181705778|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|-0.04|||LMM|||Week 1-52 Mean night-time number of puffs||-0.04|-0.19|0.004
90961799|NCT00051363|181803745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3161||||||2M L/M Function- BSRTDR-TotRec (Moderate OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Regression, Linear|Generalized Linear Models (GLM) were run by visit (2M and 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 2M L/M Function- BSRTDR-TotRec.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ. A pre-randomization baseline BSRTDR-TotRec was also included as a covariate."||||0.3161
90961800|NCT00051363|181803745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1835||||||2M L/M Function- BSRTDR-TotRec (Severe OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Regression, Linear|Generalized Linear Models (GLM) were run by visit (2M and 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 2M L/M Function- BSRTDR-TotRec.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ. A pre-randomization baseline BSRTDR-TotRec was also included as a covariate."||||0.1835
90961801|NCT00051363|181803745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2462||||||6M L/M Function- BSRTDR-TotRec (Mild OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Regression, Linear|Generalized Linear Models (GLM) were run by visit (2M and 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 2M L/M Function- BSRTDR-TotRec.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ. A pre-randomization baseline BSRTDR-TotRec was also included as a covariate."||||0.2462
91033954|NCT03616106|181953732|OTHER||Z score|3.94||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni correction. Therefore, the threshold for statistical significance was p≤0.05/3 = .017. Please see statistical analysis plan for further details.|Wilcoxon signed rank|||||||0.0001
90880303|NCT05544786|181622356|OTHER|The analysis used a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within a sequence as a random effect.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Mean|96.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.08|103.37|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with vanilla pudding (fasted) Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with vanilla pudding (fed)||103.37|90.08|
90918184|NCT02554786|181705778|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|-0.02|||LMM|||Week 1-52 Mean night-time number of puffs||-0.02|-0.17|0.019
90918185|NCT02554786|181705778|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.03|||LMM|||Week 1-52 Mean night-time number of puffs||0.03|-0.12|0.226
91033955|NCT03616106|181953733|OTHER||Z score|4.12||||0|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni correction. Therefore, the threshold for statistical significance was p≤0.05/3 = .017. Please see statistical analysis plan for further details.|Wilcoxon signed rank|||||||0.000
91033956|NCT03616106|181953734|OTHER||Slope|1.935||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.055|2.815||This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The p-value threshold for statistical significance was, therefore, 0.05|Regression, Linear|||||2.815|1.055|0.000
90918186|NCT02554786|181705778|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|-0.07|||LMM|||Week 1-52 Mean daytime number of puffs||-0.07|-0.26|<0.001
90918187|NCT02554786|181705778|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|-0.05|||LMM|||Week 1-52 Mean daytime number of puffs||-0.05|-0.24|0.002
90918188|NCT02554786|181705778|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.05|||LMM|||Week 1-52 Mean daytime number of puffs||0.05|-0.14|0.384
90918189|NCT02554786|181705778|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.081|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.12|||LMM|||Week 1-52 Mean daily number of puffs||-0.12|-0.44|< 0.001
90918190|NCT02554786|181705778|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.081||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|-0.07|||LMM|||Week 1-52 Mean daily number of puffs||-0.07|-0.39|0.004
90880304|NCT05544786|181622357|OTHER|The analysis used a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within a sequence as a random effect.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Mean|96.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.13|103.59|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with vanilla pudding (fasted) Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with vanilla pudding (fed)||103.59|90.13|
90918191|NCT02554786|181705778|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.081||0.245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.06|||LMM|||Week 1-52 Mean daily number of puffs||0.06|-0.25|0.245
90918192|NCT02554786|181705779|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.72|||Regression, Cox|||Moderate or severe asthma exacerbation||0.72|0.39|<0.001
90918193|NCT02554786|181705779|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.6|||Regression, Cox|||Moderate or severe asthma exacerbation||0.6|0.34|<0.001
90918194|NCT02554786|181705779|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.12|||Regression, Cox|||Moderate or severe asthma exacerbation||1.12|0.59|0.209
90918195|NCT02554786|181705779|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.81|||Regression, Cox|||Severe asthma exacerbation||0.81|0.36|0.003
90918196|NCT02554786|181705779|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.63|||Regression, Cox|||Severe asthma exacerbation||0.63|0.3|<0.001
90918197|NCT02554786|181705779|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.09|||Regression, Cox|||Severe asthma exacerbation||1.09|0.47|0.115
90918198|NCT02554786|181705779|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.82|||Regression, Cox|||All asthma exacerbation||0.82|0.51|<0.001
90880305|NCT05544786|181622358|OTHER|The analysis used a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within a sequence as a random effect.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Mean|98.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.28|110.36|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with vanilla pudding (fasted) Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with vanilla pudding (fed)||110.36|87.28|
90880306|NCT05544786|181622359|OTHER|The analysis used a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within a sequence as a random effect.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Mean|78.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|72.42|85.07|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with vanilla pudding (fasted) Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with vanilla pudding (fed)||85.07|72.42|
90918199|NCT02554786|181705779|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.6|||Regression, Cox|||All asthma exacerbation||0.6|0.38|<0.001
90918200|NCT02554786|181705779|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.08|||Regression, Cox|||All asthma exacerbation||1.08|0.66|0.185
90918201|NCT02554786|181705780|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51||||0.337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|2.03|||Regression, Cox|||||2.03|0.13|0.337
90918202|NCT02554786|181705780|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.14||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|1.11|||Regression, Cox|||||1.11|0.02|0.063
90918203|NCT02554786|181705780|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.62||||0.599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|9.7|||Regression, Cox|||||9.7|0.27|0.599
90918204|NCT02554786|181705781|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.65||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.89|||Generalized linear model|||Moderate or severe asthma exacerbation||0.89|0.48|0.008
90918205|NCT02554786|181705781|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.64|||Generalized linear model|||Moderate or severe asthma exacerbation||0.64|0.35|<0.001
90918206|NCT02554786|181705781|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.93||||0.669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.29|||Generalized linear model|||Moderate or severe asthma exacerbation||1.29|0.67|0.669
90918207|NCT02554786|181705781|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.71||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.08|||Generalized linear model|||Severe asthma exacerbation||1.08|0.47|0.108
90918208|NCT02554786|181705781|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.67|||Generalized linear model|||Severe asthma exacerbation||0.67|0.31|<0.001
90918209|NCT02554786|181705781|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.89||||0.597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.37|||Generalized linear model|||Severe asthma exacerbation||1.37|0.58|0.597
90918210|NCT02554786|181705781|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.67||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.87|||Generalized linear model|||All (mild, moderate, severe) asthma exacerbation||0.87|0.52|0.002
90918211|NCT02554786|181705781|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.59|||Generalized linear model|||All (mild, moderate, severe) asthma exacerbation||0.59|0.36|<0.001
90918212|NCT02554786|181705781|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.95||||0.681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.23|||Generalized linear model|||All (mild, moderate, severe) asthma exacerbation||1.23|0.72|0.681
90918213|NCT02554786|181705782|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||van Elteren test|||Moderate or severe asthma exacerbation||||<0.001
90918214|NCT02554786|181705782|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||van Elteren test|||Moderate or severe asthma exacerbation||||<0.001
90918215|NCT02554786|181705782|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.059|||||||van Elteren test|||Moderate or severe asthma exacerbation||||0.059
90918216|NCT02554786|181705782|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Van Elteren Test|||Severe Asthma Exacerbation||||0.004
90918217|NCT02554786|181705782|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Van Elteren Test|||Severe Asthma Exacerbation||||<0.001
90918218|NCT02554786|181705782|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.025|||||||van Elteren test|||Severe asthma exacerbation||||0.025
90918219|NCT02554786|181705782|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Van Elteren Test|||All(mild, moderate, severe) Asthma Exacerbation||||0.002
90918220|NCT02554786|181705782|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Van Elteren Test|||All (mild, moderate, severe) Asthma Exacerbation||||<0.001
90918221|NCT02554786|181705782|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.074|||||||van Elteren test|||All (mild, moderate, severe) asthma exacerbation||||0.074
90918222|NCT02554786|181705784|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.26||||0.222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|2.29|||Regression, Cox|||||2.29|0.03|0.222
90880307|NCT05544786|181622360|OTHER|The analysis used a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within a sequence as a random effect.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Mean|87.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|69.45|110.92|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with vanilla pudding (fasted) Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with vanilla pudding (fed)||110.92|69.45|
90880308|NCT05544786|181622361|OTHER|The analysis used a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within a sequence as a random effect.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Mean|72.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|56.87|92.68|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with vanilla pudding (fasted) Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with vanilla pudding (fed)||92.68|56.87|
90880309|NCT00847288|181622372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.5||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.0||Cox proportional hazard model was fitted with the group effect and other key baseline variables. The p-value for the main group effect is 0.0043, with an estimated hazard ratio of 1.5, monthly vs quarterly.|Regression, Cox|||"Let TM and TQ denote the median survival time to initiation of clinical action in monthly and quarterly review groups respectively. Null Hypothesis (HO): The time to initiation of clinical action is not affected by review frequency (monthly versus quarterly): TM=TQ Alternative Hypothesis (HA): The time to initiation of clinical action is affected by review frequency (monthly versus quarterly): TM≠TQ~Cox proportional hazard model will be fitted to estimate the hazard ratio."||2.0|1.1|0.0043
90880310|NCT00847288|181622374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|1.74|||logistic GEE for repeated observations|||The probability of action taken in three months interval is evaluated using the generalized estimating equations (GEE) method under a logistic regression model. Univariate analysis is performed first for potential predictors and only those with a p-value less than 0.10 through univariate analysis are included in the multivariate model. Here we report the odds ratio of monthly arm against quarterly arm, adjusting for OptiVol crossing, new or chronic device, and AF or no AF.||1.74|1.20|0.0001
90880311|NCT02120794|181622377|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority test with an A1C margin of 0.4% and a significance level of 0.025 (one-sided).|Mean Difference (Net)|0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.125|0.395||||||||0.395|0.125|
90880312|NCT00500370|181622441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Analysis pertains to change at endpoint (Week 24)||||<0.0001
90880313|NCT00500370|181622442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Analysis pertains to change at endpoint (Week 24)||||<0.0001
90880314|NCT00500370|181622443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6766||95.0|||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Analysis pertains to change at endpoint (Week 24)||||0.6766
90880315|NCT00500370|181622444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0393||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0393
90880316|NCT00500370|181622445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1808||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Analysis pertains to change at endpoint (Week 24)||||0.1808
90880317|NCT00500370|181622446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1204||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Analysis pertains to change at endpoint (Week 24)||||0.1204
90880318|NCT00500370|181622447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6651||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.6651
90880319|NCT00500370|181622448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1204||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Analysis pertains to change at endpoint (Week 24)||||0.1204
90880320|NCT00500370|181622449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8479||95.0|||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Analysis pertains to change at endpoint (Week 24)||||0.8479
90880321|NCT00500370|181622450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2151||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Analysis pertains to change at endpoint (Week 24)||||0.2151
90880322|NCT00500370|181622451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7619||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.7619
90880323|NCT00500370|181622452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8973||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.8973
90880324|NCT00500370|181622453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6507||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.6507
90918223|NCT02554786|181705784|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.0||||0.992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0||The upper limit of CI could not be calculated due to low number of participants with asthma exacerbation.||Regression, Cox||||||0|0.992
90918224|NCT02554786|181705784|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54||||0.618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|6.01|||Regression, Cox|||||6.01|0.05|0.618
90918225|NCT02554786|181705787|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|10.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.02|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.2|14.1|||LMM|||Weeks 1-26||14.1|6.2|< 0.001
90918226|NCT02554786|181705787|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|8.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.02|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|12.3|||LMM|||Weeks 1-26||12.3|4.3|<0.001
90880325|NCT00500370|181622454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2593||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2593
90880326|NCT00500370|181622455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2919||95.0|||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Analysis pertains to change at endpoint (Week 24)||||0.2919
90880327|NCT00500370|181622456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0293||95.0|||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Analysis pertains to change at endpoint (Week 24)||||0.0293
90880328|NCT02586012|181622464|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
90880329|NCT02586012|181622465|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
90880330|NCT02586012|181622466|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
90880331|NCT01888497|181622482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehman estimate|13.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.85|17.4||Statistical comparison was performed at a two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test||Hodges-Lehman estimate of treatment difference was reported.|For primary endpoint sequential order of testing: triazolam versus (vs) placebo; gabapentin vs placebo; diphenhydramine citrate vs gabapentin; diphenhydramine citrate vs placebo. If comparison at preceding step was significant, only then subsequent comparisons were considered significant.||17.40|10.85|<0.001
90880332|NCT01888497|181622482|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|For gabapentin versus placebo comparison, the non-inferiority margin for upper limit of 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) was 2.4 cm.|Hodges-Lehman estimate|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|2.33|||||Hodges-Lehman estimate of treatment difference was reported.|For primary endpoint sequential order of testing: triazolam vs placebo; gabapentin vs placebo; diphenhydramine citrate vs gabapentin; diphenhydramine citrate vs placebo. If comparison at preceding step was significant, only then subsequent comparisons were considered significant.||2.33|-0.66|
90880333|NCT01888497|181622482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehman estimate|1.02||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|2.51||Statistical comparison was performed at a two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test||Hodges-Lehman estimate of treatment difference was reported.|For primary endpoint sequential order of testing: triazolam vs placebo; gabapentin vs placebo; diphenhydramine citrate vs gabapentin; diphenhydramine citrate vs placebo. If comparison at preceding step was significant, only then subsequent comparisons were considered significant.||2.51|-0.39|0.134
90918227|NCT02554786|181705787|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.02||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|8.0|||LMM|||Weeks 1-26||8|0.1|0.045
90918228|NCT02554786|181705787|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|9.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.03|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|13.6|||LMM|||Weeks 1-52||13.6|5.7|<0.001
90880334|NCT01888497|181622482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehman estimate|2.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|3.98||Statistical comparison was performed at a two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test||Hodges-Lehman estimate of treatment difference was reported.|For primary endpoint sequential order of testing: triazolam vs placebo; gabapentin vs placebo; diphenhydramine citrate vs gabapentin; diphenhydramine citrate vs placebo. If comparison at preceding step was significant, only then subsequent comparisons were considered significant.||3.98|1.01|<0.001
90880335|NCT01888497|181622483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehman estimate|0.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.47||Statistical comparison was performed at a two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test||Hodges-Lehman estimate of treatment difference was reported.|For secondary endpoint sequential order of testing: triazolam vs placebo; gabapentin vs placebo; diphenhydramine citrate vs gabapentin; diphenhydramine citrate vs placebo. If comparison at preceding step was significant, only then subsequent comparisons were considered significant.||0.47|0.26|<0.001
90880336|NCT01888497|181622483|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|For gabapentin versus placebo comparison, the non-inferiority margin for upper limit of 95% CI was 0.1 m/sec.|Hodges-Lehman estimate|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.05|||||Hodges-Lehman estimate of treatment difference was reported.|For secondary endpoint sequential order of testing: triazolam vs placebo; gabapentin vs placebo; diphenhydramine citrate vs gabapentin; diphenhydramine citrate vs placebo. If comparison at preceding step was significant, only then subsequent comparisons were considered significant.||0.05|-0.07|
90918229|NCT02554786|181705787|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|8.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.03|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|12.6|||LMM|||Weeks 1-52||12.6|4.7|<0.001
90918230|NCT02554786|181705787|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|8.3|||LMM|||Weeks 1-52||8.3|0.3|0.034
90880337|NCT01888497|181622483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehman estimate|0.07||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.12||Statistical comparison was performed at a two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test||Hodges-Lehman estimate of treatment difference was reported.|For secondary endpoint sequential order of testing: triazolam vs placebo; gabapentin vs placebo; diphenhydramine citrate vs gabapentin; diphenhydramine citrate vs placebo. If comparison at preceding step was significant, only then subsequent comparisons were considered significant.||0.12|0.02|0.012
90880338|NCT01888497|181622483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehman estimate|0.06||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.12||Statistical comparison was performed at a two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test||Hodges-Lehman estimate of treatment difference was reported.|For secondary endpoint sequential order of testing: triazolam vs placebo; gabapentin vs placebo; diphenhydramine citrate vs gabapentin; diphenhydramine citrate vs placebo. If comparison at preceding step was significant, only then subsequent comparisons were considered significant.||0.12|0.01|0.014
90880339|NCT01888497|181622484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehman estimate|103.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|72.0|130.5||Statistical comparison was performed at a two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test||Hodges-Lehman estimate of treatment difference was reported.|For secondary endpoint sequential order of testing: triazolam vs placebo; gabapentin vs placebo; diphenhydramine citrate vs gabapentin; diphenhydramine citrate vs placebo. If comparison at preceding step was significant, only then subsequent comparisons were considered significant.||130.50|72.00|<0.001
90918231|NCT02554786|181705788|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.147|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0462||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.056|0.237|||MMRM|||Day 30||0.237|0.056|0.002
90880340|NCT01888497|181622484|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|For gabapentin versus placebo comparison, the non-inferiority margin for upper limit of 95% CI was 8 lanes.|Hodges-Lehman estimate|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|16.5|||||Hodges-Lehman estimate of treatment difference was reported.|For secondary endpoint sequential order of testing: triazolam vs placebo; gabapentin vs placebo; diphenhydramine citrate vs gabapentin; diphenhydramine citrate vs placebo. If comparison at preceding step was significant, only then subsequent comparisons were considered significant.||16.50|-4.00|
90880341|NCT01888497|181622484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehman estimate|3.0||||0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|9.0||Statistical comparison was performed at a two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test||Hodges-Lehman estimate of treatment difference was reported.|For secondary endpoint sequential order of testing: triazolam vs placebo; gabapentin vs placebo; diphenhydramine citrate vs gabapentin; diphenhydramine citrate vs placebo. If comparison at preceding step was significant, only then subsequent comparisons were considered significant.||9.00|-3.00|0.213
90880342|NCT01888497|181622484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehman estimate|11.0||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|20.5||Statistical comparison was performed at a two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test||Hodges-Lehman estimate of treatment difference was reported.|For secondary endpoint sequential order of testing: triazolam vs placebo; gabapentin vs placebo; diphenhydramine citrate vs gabapentin; diphenhydramine citrate vs placebo. If comparison at preceding step was significant, only then subsequent comparisons were considered significant.||20.50|4.00|0.003
90880343|NCT04127786|181622537|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) of the difference of the percentages between the test group (Group 1) and control groups (Group 2, Group 3) was greater than (\>) -5% at Day 42.|Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|4.3||||||Primary Series: Cohort-I Group 1: VRVg-2 versus Primary Series: Cohort-I Group 2: Verorab®: Pediatric (\< 18 years)||4.3|-1.4|
90880344|NCT04127786|181622537|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI of the difference of the percentages between the test group (Group 1) and control groups (Group 2, Group 3) was \> -5% at Day 42.|Percentage Difference|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|6.4||||||Primary Series: Cohort-I Group 1: VRVg-2 versus Primary Series: Cohort-I Group 2: Verorab®: Adult (\>=18 years)||6.4|-0.6|
90880345|NCT04127786|181622537|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI of the difference of the percentages between the test group (Group 1) and control groups (Group 2, Group 3) was \> -5% at Day 42.|Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|4.4||||||Primary Series: Cohort-I Group 1: VRVg-2 versus Primary Series: Cohort-I Group 3: Imovax Rabies: Pediatric (\< 18 years)||4.4|-1.4|
90918232|NCT02554786|181705788|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.123|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0464||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.032|0.214|||MMRM|||Day 30||0.214|0.032|0.008
90918233|NCT02554786|181705788|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.046||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.045|0.135|||MMRM|||Day 30||0.135|-0.045|0.33
90880346|NCT04127786|181622537|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI of the difference of the percentages between the test group (Group 1) and control groups (Group 2, Group 3) was \> -5% at Day 42.|Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|4.6||||||Primary Series: Cohort-I Group 1: VRVg-2 versus Primary Series: Cohort-I Group 3: Imovax Rabies: Adult (\>= 18 years)||4.6|-1.5|
90918234|NCT02554786|181705788|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.054|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0503||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.044|0.153|||MMRM|||Day 86||0.153|-0.044|0.28
90918235|NCT02554786|181705788|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0507||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.019|0.217|||MMRM|||Day 86||0.217|0.019|0.02
90918236|NCT02554786|181705788|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.026|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0501||0.598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.072|0.125|||MMRM|||Day 86||0.125|-0.072|0.598
90918237|NCT02554786|181705788|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.127|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0526||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.023|0.23|||MMRM|||Day 183||0.23|0.023|0.016
90880347|NCT04127786|181622538|SUPERIORITY|If the non-inferiority for VRVg-2 versus comparator vaccines was reached at Day 42, then superiority was demonstrated if the overall observed percentage of participants with an RVNA titer \>= 0.5 IU/mL at Day 42 was at least 99% in the VRVg-2 Group, with the lower limit of the 95% CI at least 97%.|Percentage Difference|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.3|100.0||||||The secondary immunogenicity outcome measures were evaluated sequentially following a fixed-sequence method.||100|99.3|
90880348|NCT04127786|181622539|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI of the difference of the percentage between the test groups (Groups 1+4) and control groups (Groups 2+5, Groups 3+6) was \> -5% at Day 28.|Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|4.3||||||Pooled Groups 1 and 4: VRVg-2 versus Pooled Groups 2 and 5: Verorab®: Pediatric (\< 18 years)||4.3|-1.4|
90880349|NCT04127786|181622539|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI of the difference of the percentage between the test groups (Groups 1+4) and control groups (Groups 2+5, Groups 3+6) was \> -5% at Day 28.|Percentage Difference|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|2.7||||||Pooled Groups 1 and 4: VRVg-2 versus Pooled Groups 2 and 5: Verorab®: Adult (\>=18 years)||2.7|-1.9|
90918238|NCT02554786|181705788|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.156|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0529||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.053|0.26|||MMRM|||Day 183||0.26|0.053|0.003
90918239|NCT02554786|181705788|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.085|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0525||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.017|0.188|||MMRM|||Day 183||0.188|-0.017|0.103
90918240|NCT02554786|181705788|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.071|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0542||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.035|0.178|||MMRM|||Day 254||0.178|-0.035|0.188
90918241|NCT02554786|181705788|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.168|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0543||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.061|0.274|||MMRM|||Day 254||0.274|0.061|0.002
90918242|NCT02554786|181705788|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.061|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0538||0.258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.045|0.166|||MMRM|||Day 254||0.166|-0.045|0.258
90880350|NCT04127786|181622539|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI of the difference of the percentage between the test groups (Groups 1+4) and control groups (Groups 2+5, Groups 3+6) was \> -5% at Day 28.|Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|4.5||||||Pooled Groups 1 and 4: VRVg-2 versus Pooled Groups 3 and 6: Imovax Rabies®: Pediatric (\< 18 years)||4.5|-1.4|
90880351|NCT04127786|181622539|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI of the difference of the percentage between the test groups (Groups 1+4) and control groups (Groups 2+5, Groups 3+6) was \> -5% at Day 28.|Percentage Difference|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|5.3||||||Pooled Groups 1 and 4: VRVg-2 versus Pooled Groups 3 and 6: Imovax Rabies®: Adult (\>= 18 years)||5.3|-0.5|
90880352|NCT04127786|181622540|NON_INFERIORITY|If the non-inferiority objective for VRVg-2 versus comparator vaccines at Day 28 was demonstrated, the overall non-inferiority of 2-dose VRVg-2 at Day 28 versus 3-dose Imovax Rabies® at Day 42 was demonstrated if the non-inferiority between pooled Groups 1+4 and Group 3 were both demonstrated in each age group.|Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|4.4|||||Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI of the difference of the percentage between 2-dose VRVg-2 at Day 28 and 3-dose Imovax Rabies® at Day 42 was \> -10%.|Pooled Groups 1 and 4: VRVg-2 at Day 28 versus Primary Series: Cohort-1 Group 3: Imovax Rabies® at Day 42: Pediatric (\< 18 years)||4.4|-1.4|
90880353|NCT04127786|181622540|NON_INFERIORITY|If the non-inferiority objective for VRVg-2 versus comparator vaccines at Day 28 was demonstrated, the overall non-inferiority of 2-dose VRVg-2 at Day 28 versus 3-dose Imovax Rabies® at Day 42 was demonstrated if the non-inferiority between pooled Groups 1+4 and Group 3 were both demonstrated in each age group.|Percentage Difference|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|3.0|||||Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI of the difference of the percentage between 2-dose VRVg-2 at Day 28 and 3-dose Imovax Rabies® at Day 42 was \> -10%.|Pooled Groups 1 and 4: VRVg-2 at Day 28 versus Primary Series: Cohort-1 Group 3: Imovax Rabies® at Day 42: Adult (\>= 18 years)||3.0|-3.1|
90880354|NCT04127786|181622542|NON_INFERIORITY|If the superiority objective of VRVg-2 was reached at Day 28, the non-inferiority of 2-dose Imovax Rabies® at Day 28 versus 3-dose Imovax Rabies® at Day 42 was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI of the difference of the percentage between the 2-dose Imovax Rabies® at Day 28 and 3-dose Imovax Rabies® at Day 42 was \> -10%.|Percentage Difference|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|1.3||||||Imovax Rabies® at Day 28 versus Imovax Rabies® at Day 42||1.3|-4.4|
90918243|NCT02554786|181705788|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.079|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0552||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.187|||MMRM|||Day 364||0.187|-0.030|0.154
90880355|NCT01904604|181622567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|33.8||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|33.8|10.2|57.5||A one-sided test was used with the a priori threshold for statistical significance of 0.0125. No adjustments were made to the p-value.|Barnard's statistic|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between treatment groups. Subjects who did not complete the Week 52 oral food challenge were counted as treatment failures.||57.5|10.2|0.005
90918244|NCT02554786|181705788|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.191|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0553|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.082|0.299|||MMRM|||Day 364||0.299|0.082|<0.001
90918245|NCT02554786|181705788|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.041|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0548||0.455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.067|0.148|||MMRM|||Day 364||0.148|-0.067|0.455
90918246|NCT02554786|181705789|NON_INFERIORITY|QMF 150/320 was considered non-inferior to S/F 50/500 if the lower bound of the 95% CI was above the non-inferiority margin of -90 mL and was considered superior if the lower bound of the 95% CI was \> 0. The p-value is for null-hypothesis testing.|LS Mean|0.036|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0222||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.007|0.08|||MMRM|||||0.080|-0.007|0.101
91033957|NCT03616106|181953735|OTHER||Slope|2.123||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.184|3.062||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparison, therefore, the threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||3.062|1.184|0.000
90880356|NCT01904604|181622567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|36.0||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|36.0|12.6|59.4||A one-sided test was used with the a priori threshold for statistical significance of 0.0125. No adjustments were made to the p-value.|Barnard's statistic|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between treatment groups. Subjects who did not complete the Week 52 oral food challenge were counted as treatment failures.||59.4|12.6|0.003
90880357|NCT01904604|181622567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.2||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|2.2|-25.8|30.1||A one-sided test was used with the a priori threshold for statistical significance of 0.0125. No adjustments were made to the p-value.|Barnard's statistic|||||30.1|-25.8|0.48
90880358|NCT01904604|181622571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8||||||No adjustments were made to the p-value.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|The two-sided t approximation was used.||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between treatment groups.||||0.80
90880359|NCT01904604|181622571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||||||No adjustments were made to the p-value.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|The two-sided t approximation was used.||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between treatment groups.||||0.008
90880360|NCT01904604|181622571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||||||No adjustments were made to the p-value.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|The two-sided t approximation was used.||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between treatment groups.||||0.01
90880361|NCT05124665|181622575|EQUIVALENCE|Hypothesis is that proportion of contacts accepting HIV testing between two study arms is equivalent.|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.6||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|12.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|Cluster adjusted for household.||||12.9|1.6|0.004
90880362|NCT05124665|181622575|EQUIVALENCE|Hypothesis is proportion of contacts accepting HIV testing is equivalent between the two study arms|Mean Difference (Net)|6.0||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|10.0|||t-test, 2 sided||Estimated value and confidence interval reflects the values multiplied by 100 (converting decimal to percentage).|||10|2|0.006
90880363|NCT05124665|181622576|EQUIVALENCE|Hypothesis is that the change in stigma score is equivalent between the two study arms.|Slope|2.2||||0.358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|6.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Van Rie Perceived TB and HIV Stigma scales adapted and validated in the Ugandan context are used. Scores range from 0 to 100 (standardized scale)||6.9|-2.5|0.358
90880364|NCT05124665|181622577|EQUIVALENCE|Hypothesis is that the difference in stigma score is equivalent between the two study arms|Slope|2.61||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|6.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.59|-1.38|0.199
90918247|NCT05052996|181705795|OTHER||Difference in percentage|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|11.6|||||The difference in percentages between treatment groups and their 95% CI were calculated based on unconditional exact method using 2 inverted 1-sided tests.|||11.6|-6.8|
90880365|NCT05124665|181622578|EQUIVALENCE|Hypothesis is no effect from perceived HIV Stigma on HIV Test Uptake|Coefficient from Structural Equation|0.00087||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.00007|0.00167|||Structural Equation Modeling|||||0.00167|0.00007|0.03
90880366|NCT05124665|181622579|EQUIVALENCE|Hypothesis is that TB stigma has no effect of HIV test uptake|Coefficient Structural Equation Model|0.0002||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0007|0.0011|||Structural Equation Modeling|||||0.0011|-0.0007|0.64
90880367|NCT05124665|181622580|EQUIVALENCE|Hypothesis is that proportion of index patient nominated household contacts accepting HIV testing is equivalent between two study arms||||||0.452|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.452
90880368|NCT05124665|181622581|NON_INFERIORITY|Hypothesis is that the first tester's decision to test does not impact subsequent household contacts decision to test for HIV.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.23||||0.264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.76|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.76|0.86|0.264
90880369|NCT05124665|181622582|EQUIVALENCE|Hypothesis is that the index patient and contact nominations will match equally regardless of study arm.|||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
90880370|NCT01633944|181622616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.67||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.26|||ANCOVA|||||-0.26|-1.07|0.0012
90880371|NCT01633944|181622617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by stratum (dose level)||Responders with ≥30% pain reduction||||0.0012
90880372|NCT01633944|181622617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0754|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by stratum (dose level)||Responders with ≥50% pain reduction||||0.0754
90880373|NCT03354429|181622632|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.96||The hypothesis was tested at the 4.996% two-sided significance level to account for the planned interim analysis with the overall type I error preserved at 5%. A hierarchical test sequence was used to address the issue of multiple testing|Regression, Cox||Placebo is the reference group (denominator)|||0.96|0.71|0.015
90918248|NCT05052996|181705796|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|8.6|||||The difference in percentages between treatment groups and their 95% CI were calculated based on unconditional exact method using 2 inverted 1-sided tests.|||8.6|-12.4|
90918249|NCT05052996|181705797|OTHER||Difference in percentage|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|12.4|||||The difference in percentages between treatment groups and their 95% CI were calculated based on unconditional exact method using 2 inverted 1-sided tests.|||12.4|-8.6|
90880374|NCT03354429|181622633|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.93||The hypothesis was tested at the 4.996% two-sided significance level to account for the planned interim analysis with the overall type I error preserved at 5%. A hierarchical test sequence was used to address the issue of multiple testing|Regression, Cox||Placebo is the reference group (denominator)|||0.93|0.68|0.004
90918250|NCT05052996|181705798|OTHER||difference in least squares means|-68.0||||0.3859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-226.0|91.0|||ANOVA||P-value, difference in least squares means (Diff in LSM), and its 95% confidence interval (CI) were from ANOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect in the model.|||91|-226|0.3859
90880375|NCT03354429|181622634|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.07||The hypothesis was tested at the 4.996% two-sided significance level to account for the planned interim analysis with the overall type I error preserved at 5%. A hierarchical test sequence was used to address the issue of multiple testing|Regression, Logistic|NIHSS (National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale) score and history of stroke (yes/no) included as covariates|Placebo is the reference group (denominator)|||1.07|0.89|0.613
90880376|NCT03354429|181622635|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.99||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.74|9.14|||Regression, Cox||Placebo is the reference group (denominator)|||9.14|1.74|0.001
90880377|NCT03354429|181622636|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.66||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|9.02|||Regression, Cox||Placebo is the reference group (denominator)|||9.02|1.48|0.005
90880378|NCT03354429|181622637|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.67|6.43|||Regression, Cox||Placebo is the reference group (denominator)|||6.43|1.67|<0.001
90918251|NCT05052996|181705798|OTHER||difference in least squares means|13.0||||0.7085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.0|82.0|||ANCOVA||P-value, difference in least squares means (Diff in LSM), and its 95% CI were from ANCOVA model with baseline value as a covariate and treatment as a fixed effect in the model.|||82|-56|0.7085
90918252|NCT05052996|181705799|OTHER||difference in least squares means|33.0||||0.3477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.0|103.0|||ANCOVA||P-value, difference in least squares means (Diff in LSM), and its 95% CI were from ANCOVA model with baseline value as a covariate and treatment as a fixed effect in the model.|||103|-37|0.3477
90961802|NCT00051363|181803745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2069||||||6M L/M Function- BSRTDR-TotRec (Moderate OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Regression, Linear|Generalized Linear Models (GLM) were run by visit (2M and 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 2M L/M Function- BSRTDR-TotRec.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ. A pre-randomization baseline BSRTDR-TotRec was also included as a covariate."||||0.2069
90880379|NCT03354429|181622638|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.28|7.02|||Regression, Cox||Placebo is the reference group (denominator)|||7.02|3.28|<0.001
90880380|NCT00782210|181622641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.172|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.135|0.209|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.209|0.135|<0.0001
90880381|NCT00782210|181622641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.176|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.139|0.214|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.214|0.139|<0.0001
90880382|NCT00782210|181622642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.091|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.054|0.128|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.128|0.054|<0.0001
91033958|NCT03616106|181953736|OTHER||Slope|2.552||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.612|3.492||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparison, therefore, the threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||3.492|1.612|0.000
90880383|NCT00782210|181622642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.101|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.064|0.137|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.137|0.064|<0.0001
90880384|NCT00782210|181622643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.173|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031|<|0.0001||95.0|0.113|0.233|||ANCOVA|Treatment, tiotropium stratum and baseline as fixed effects|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.233|0.113|<0.0001
90880385|NCT00782210|181622643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.169|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031|<|0.0001||95.0|0.108|0.229|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, tiotropium stratum and baseline as fixed effects|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.229|0.108|<0.0001
90880386|NCT00782210|181622644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.165|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.128|0.201|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.201|0.128|<0.0001
90880387|NCT00782210|181622644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.175|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.139|0.212|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.212|0.139|<0.0001
90880388|NCT00782210|181622645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.181|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.144|0.217|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.217|0.144|<0.0001
90880389|NCT00782210|181622645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.192|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.156|0.229|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.229|0.156|<0.0001
90880390|NCT00782210|181622646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.133|0.207|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.207|0.133|<0.0001
90880391|NCT00782210|181622646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.167|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.13|0.204|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.204|0.130|<0.0001
90880392|NCT00782210|181622647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.174|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.136|0.212|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.212|0.136|<0.0001
90880393|NCT00782210|181622647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.161|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.123|0.199|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.199|0.123|<0.0001
90880394|NCT00782210|181622648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.173|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.134|0.211|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.211|0.134|<0.0001
90880395|NCT00782210|181622648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.169|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.131|0.208|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.208|0.131|<0.0001
90880396|NCT00782210|181622649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.095|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|0.059|0.131|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.131|0.059|<0.0001
90880397|NCT00782210|181622649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.111|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|0.075|0.147|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.147|0.075|<0.0001
90880398|NCT00782210|181622650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.095|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.059|0.131|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.131|0.059|<0.0001
90880399|NCT00782210|181622650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.091|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.054|0.127|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.127|0.054|<0.0001
90880400|NCT00782210|181622651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.098|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.061|0.135|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.135|0.061|<0.0001
90880401|NCT00782210|181622651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.101|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.064|0.138|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.138|0.064|<0.0001
90880402|NCT00782210|181622652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.086|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.049|0.123|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.123|0.049|<0.0001
90880403|NCT00782210|181622652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.089|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.051|0.126|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.126|0.051|<0.0001
90880404|NCT00782210|181622653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.092|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.054|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.130|0.054|<0.0001
90880405|NCT00782210|181622653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.085|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.048|0.123|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.123|0.048|<0.0001
91033959|NCT03616106|181953737|OTHER||Z score|-1.57||||0.1167|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni correction. Therefore, the a priori threshold for statistical significance was p≤0.05/3 = .017. For more details please see the statistical plan.|Wilcoxon signed rank|||||||0.1167
90880406|NCT00782210|181622654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.107|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.069|0.145|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.145|0.069|<0.0001
90880407|NCT00782210|181622654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.105|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.068|0.143|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.143|0.068|<0.0001
90880408|NCT00782210|181622655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.092|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.055|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.130|0.055|<0.0001
90880409|NCT00782210|181622655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.091|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.053|0.129|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.129|0.053|<0.0001
90880410|NCT00782210|181622656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.155|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.115|0.194|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.194|0.115|<0.0001
90880411|NCT00782210|181622656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.171|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.131|0.211|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.211|0.131|<0.0001
90880412|NCT00782210|181622657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.177|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.137|0.217|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.217|0.137|<0.0001
90880413|NCT00782210|181622657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.15|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.230|0.150|<0.0001
90880414|NCT00782210|181622658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.172|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001||95.0|0.132|0.212|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.212|0.132|<0.0001
90880415|NCT00782210|181622658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.172|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001||95.0|0.132|0.212|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.212|0.132|<0.0001
90880416|NCT00782210|181622659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.164|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001||95.0|0.123|0.204|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.204|0.123|<0.0001
90880417|NCT00782210|181622659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.165|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001||95.0|0.124|0.206|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.206|0.124|<0.0001
90880418|NCT00782210|181622660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.175|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001||95.0|0.134|0.216|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.216|0.134|<0.0001
90880419|NCT00782210|181622660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.151|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001||95.0|0.11|0.192|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.192|0.110|<0.0001
90880420|NCT00782210|181622661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.169|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001||95.0|0.128|0.211|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.211|0.128|<0.0001
90880421|NCT00782210|181622661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.163|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001||95.0|0.121|0.205|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.205|0.121|<0.0001
90880422|NCT00782210|181622662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.288|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.0001||95.0|0.216|0.359|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.359|0.216|<0.0001
90880423|NCT00782210|181622662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.0001||95.0|0.258|0.401|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.401|0.258|<0.0001
90880424|NCT00782210|181622663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.296|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.0001||95.0|0.224|0.368|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.368|0.224|<0.0001
90918253|NCT05052996|181705800|OTHER||difference in least squares means|-5.0||||0.8849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.0|66.0|||ANCOVA||P-value, difference in least squares means (Diff in LSM), and its 95% CI were from ANCOVA model with baseline value as a covariate and treatment as a fixed effect in the model.|||66|-76|0.8849
90918254|NCT03351699|181705818|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted by Placebo data pooled from historical placebo data from recent monotherapy studies in HIV-1 infected participants (NCT00100048, NCT01466985, NCT01152255, and NCT01353898) and fitted with a longitudinal data analysis (LDA) model containing fixed effects for study and time, and a random effect for participants. LS mean (95% confidence interval) for change from baseline at 168 hours post dose of pooled historical placebo was -0.03 log10 copies/mL (-0.14, 0.09).|Posterior Mean Difference|-1.53|||||||||||||Posterior Probability (PP) of true mean difference in the plasma HIV-1 RNA change from baseline between MK-4250 and placebo at least 1.4 log10 copies/mL was 78%.|||||
90918255|NCT03351699|181705818|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted by Placebo data pooled from historical placebo data from recent monotherapy studies in HIV-1 infected participants (NCT00100048, NCT01466985, NCT01152255, and NCT01353898) and fitted with a longitudinal data analysis (LDA) model containing fixed effects for study and time, and a random effect for participants. LS mean (95% confidence interval) for change from baseline at 168 hours post dose of pooled historical placebo was -0.03 log10 copies/mL (-0.14, 0.09).|Posterior Mean Difference|-1.73|||||||||||||Posterior Probability (PP) of true mean difference in the plasma HIV-1 RNA change from baseline between MK-4250 and placebo at least 1.4 log10 copies/mL was 95%.|||||
90918256|NCT03351699|181705818|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted by Placebo data pooled from historical placebo data from recent monotherapy studies in HIV-1 infected participants (NCT00100048, NCT01466985, NCT01152255, and NCT01353898) and fitted with a longitudinal data analysis (LDA) model containing fixed effects for study and time, and a random effect for participants. LS mean (95% confidence interval) for change from baseline at 168 hours post dose of pooled historical placebo was -0.03 log10 copies/mL (-0.14, 0.09).|Posterior Mean Difference|-1.52|||||||||||||Posterior Probability (PP) of true mean difference in the plasma HIV-1 RNA change from baseline between MK-4250 and placebo at least 1.4 log10 copies/mL was 75%.|||||
90918257|NCT03351699|181705818|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted by Placebo data pooled from historical placebo data from recent monotherapy studies in HIV-1 infected participants (NCT00100048, NCT01466985, NCT01152255, and NCT01353898) and fitted with a longitudinal data analysis (LDA) model containing fixed effects for study and time, and a random effect for participants. LS mean (95% confidence interval) for change from baseline at 168 hours post dose of pooled historical placebo was -0.03 log10 copies/mL (-0.14, 0.09).|Posterior Mean Difference|-1.75|||||||||||||Posterior Probability (PP) of true mean difference in the plasma HIV-1 RNA change from baseline between MK-4250 and placebo at least 1.4 log10 copies/mL was 96%.|||||
90918258|NCT00567489|181705851|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.9|||ANOVA|||Month 3||0.9|0.2|<0.001
91033960|NCT03616106|181953738|OTHER||Z score|-2.91||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni correction. Therefore, the a priori threshold for statistical significance was p≤0.05/3 = .017. For more details please see the statistical plan.|Wilcoxon signed rank|||||||0.0036
91033961|NCT03616106|181953739|OTHER||Z score|-3.54||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni correction. Therefore, the a priori threshold for statistical significance was p≤0.05/3 = .017. For more details please see the statistical plan.|Wilcoxon signed rank|||||||0.0004
91033962|NCT02779543|181953747|EQUIVALENCE|this trial compared the 2 devices to the polysomnography, which is the gold standard|Mean value|368.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA||compared to gold standard|||||<0.001
90918259|NCT00567489|181705851|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.8|||ANOVA|||Month 6||0.8|0.1|0.006
90918260|NCT00567489|181705852|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.0||||0.312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|14.7|||ANOVA|||Insulin-Month 3||14.7|-4.7|0.312
90918261|NCT00567489|181705852|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.7||||0.342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|14.4|||ANOVA|||Insulin-Month 6||14.4|-5.0|0.342
90918262|NCT00567489|181705854|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.9|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Cholesterol-Month 3||0.9|0.1|0.010
90918263|NCT00567489|181705854|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.7|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Cholesterol-Month 6||0.7|0|0.073
90918264|NCT00567489|181705854|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.5|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for LDLC-Month 3||0.5|-0.1|0.181
90918265|NCT00567489|181705854|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.4|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for LDLC-Month 6||0.4|-0.2|0.593
90918266|NCT00567489|181705854|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.0|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for HDLC-Month 3||0|-0.2|0.198
90918267|NCT00567489|181705854|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.0|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for HDLC-Month 6||0|-0.1|0.298
90918268|NCT00567489|181705854|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.6|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for VLDL-Month 3||0.6|0.2|<0.001
90918269|NCT00567489|181705854|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.5|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for VLDL-Month 6||0.5|0.1|0.003
90918270|NCT00567489|181705854|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.3|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Triglycerides-Month 3||1.3|0.4|<0.001
90918271|NCT00567489|181705854|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.1|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Triglycerides-Month 6||1.1|0.3|0.002
90918272|NCT00567489|181705855|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3||||0.485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|4.1|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Lp(a)-Month 3||4.1|-8.6|0.485
91033963|NCT02779543|181953748|EQUIVALENCE|This trial compared those 2 devices with the gold standard (polysomnography)|Mean value|13.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA||compared to gold standard|||||<0.001
91033964|NCT02779543|181953749|EQUIVALENCE|This trial compared those 2 devices with the gold standard (polysomnography)|Mean value|106.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA||compared to gold standard|||||<0.001
90880425|NCT00782210|181622663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.327|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.0001||95.0|0.255|0.399|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.399|0.255|<0.0001
90880426|NCT00782210|181622664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.254|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.0001||95.0|0.181|0.327|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.327|0.181|<0.0001
90880427|NCT00782210|181622664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.293|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.0001||95.0|0.22|0.366|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.366|0.220|<0.0001
90880428|NCT00782210|181622665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.275|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.0001||95.0|0.201|0.348|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.348|0.201|<0.0001
90880429|NCT00782210|181622665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.292|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.0001||95.0|0.219|0.366|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.366|0.219|<0.0001
90918273|NCT00567489|181705855|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|4.4|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Lp(a)-Month 6||4.4|-8.2|0.556
90880430|NCT00782210|181622666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.235|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038|<|0.0001||95.0|0.161|0.309|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.309|0.161|<0.0001
90880431|NCT00782210|181622666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.254|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038|<|0.0001||95.0|0.18|0.329|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.329|0.180|<0.0001
90918274|NCT00567489|181705855|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.6||||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|12.2|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Apo A1-Month 3||12.2|-1.1|0.101
90918275|NCT00567489|181705855|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.0||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|11.5|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Apo A1-Month 6||11.5|-1.5|0.134
90918276|NCT00567489|181705855|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.4||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.6|19.2|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Apo B-Month 3||19.2|3.6|0.004
90918277|NCT00567489|181705855|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.4||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|15.9|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Apo B-Month 6||15.9|0.8|0.030
90918278|NCT00567489|181705856|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-56.5||||0.655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-304.6|191.7|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Insulin-Month 3||191.7|-304.6|0.655
90918279|NCT00567489|181705856|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.2||||0.811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-268.9|210.5|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Insulin-Month 6||210.5|-268.9|0.811
90918280|NCT00567489|181705856|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|441.3||||0.419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-630.4|1513.1|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for C-Peptide-Month 3||1513.1|-630.4|0.419
90918281|NCT00567489|181705856|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|121.8||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-927.9|1171.5|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for C-Peptide-Month 6||1171.5|-927.9|0.820
90918282|NCT00567489|181705857|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.2||||0.721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.5|19.0|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Pro-Insulin-Month 3||19|-27.5|0.721
90918283|NCT00567489|181705857|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.5||||0.247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|36.4|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Pro-Insulin-Month 6||36.4|-9.4|0.247
90918284|NCT00567489|181705858|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.89||||0.624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.43|||ANOVA|||Estimates of Ratio-Month 6||1.43|0.55|0.624
90918285|NCT00567489|181705859|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.8|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Albumin-Month 3||1.8|-0.6|0.338
90880432|NCT00782210|181622667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.244|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038|<|0.0001||95.0|0.169|0.319|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.319|0.169|<0.0001
90961803|NCT00051363|181803745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5235||||||6M L/M Function- BSRTDR-TotRec (Severe OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Regression, Linear|Generalized Linear Models (GLM) were run by visit (2M and 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 2M L/M Function- BSRTDR-TotRec.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ. A pre-randomization baseline BSRTDR-TotRec was also included as a covariate."||||0.5235
90961804|NCT00051363|181803746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5419||||||2M E/F Function- SWMT-BehMD (Mild OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Regression, Linear|Generalized Linear Models (GLM) were run by visit (2M and 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 2M E/F Function- SWMT-BehMD.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ."||||0.5419
90961805|NCT00051363|181803746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89||||||2M E/F Function- SWMT-BehMD (Moderate OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Regression, Linear|Generalized Linear Models (GLM) were run by visit (2M and 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 2M E/F Function- SWMT-BehMD.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ."||||0.8900
90880433|NCT00782210|181622667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.271|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038|<|0.0001||95.0|0.196|0.346|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.346|0.196|<0.0001
91033965|NCT02779543|181953750|EQUIVALENCE|This trial compared those 2 devices with the gold standard (polysomnography)|Mean value|74.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA||compared to gold standard|||||<0.001
91033966|NCT00939003|181953762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
90880434|NCT00782210|181622668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.147|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036|<|0.0001||95.0|0.076|0.218|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.218|0.076|<0.0001
90918286|NCT00567489|181705859|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.5|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Albumin-Month 6||2.5|0.1|0.029
90918287|NCT00567489|181705859|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.5|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Total Protein-Month 3||1.5|-1.9|0.817
90918288|NCT00567489|181705859|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|2.9|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Total Protein-Month 6||2.9|-0.2|0.091
90918289|NCT00567489|181705860|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.2||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.3|2.9|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for PNA-Month 3||2.9|-23.3|0.127
90918290|NCT00567489|181705860|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|-4.3|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for PNA-Month 6||-4.3|-16.4|<0.001
90918291|NCT00567489|181705860|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.1|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for nPNA-Month 3||-0.1|-0.4|0.012
90918292|NCT00567489|181705860|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.1|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for nPNA-Month 6||-0.1|-0.3|<0.001
90918293|NCT00567489|181705861|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.2||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|5.8|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Pre-Albumin-Month 3||5.8|0.5|0.019
90918294|NCT00567489|181705861|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|5.6|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Pre-Albumin-Month 6||5.6|0.5|0.019
90918295|NCT00567489|181705862|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|3.4|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Drained Fat-Month 3||3.4|-3.9|0.884
90918296|NCT00567489|181705862|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|4.3|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Drained Fat-Month 6||4.3|-3|0.716
90918297|NCT00567489|181705863|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.1|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for BMI-Month 3||1.1|-1.2|0.961
90918298|NCT00567489|181705863|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.5|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for BMI-Month 6||1.5|-0.8|0.581
90918299|NCT00567489|181705864|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|3.1|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Waist Circumference-Month 6||3.1|-3.7|0.871
90918300|NCT00567489|181705865|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.2||||0.608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|25.0|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Protein-Month 3||25|-14.7|0.608
90918301|NCT00567489|181705865|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|8.1|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Protein-Month 6||8.1|-11.5|0.731
90918302|NCT00567489|181705865|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|185.3||||0.377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-227.5|598.1|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Calories-Month 3||598.1|-227.5|0.377
91033967|NCT00939003|181953763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.004
91033968|NCT00939003|181953764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.001
90961806|NCT00051363|181803746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0031||||||2M E/F Function- SWMT-BehMD (Severe OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Regression, Linear|Generalized Linear Models (GLM) were run by visit (2M and 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 2M E/F Function- SWMT-BehMD.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ."||||0.0031
90961807|NCT00051363|181803746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8703||||||6M E/F Function- SWMT-BehMD (Mild OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Regression, Linear|Generalized Linear Models (GLM) were run by visit (2M and 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 6M E/F Function- SWMT-BehMD.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ."||||0.8703
90961808|NCT00051363|181803746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1838||||||6M E/F Function- SWMT-BehMD (Moderate OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Regression, Linear|Generalized Linear Models (GLM) were run by visit (2M and 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 6M E/F Function- SWMT-BehMD.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ."||||0.1838
90961809|NCT00051363|181803746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0739||||||6M E/F Function- SWMT-BehMD (Severe OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Regression, Linear|Generalized Linear Models (GLM) were run by visit (2M and 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 6M E/F Function- SWMT-BehMD.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ."||||0.0739
90961810|NCT00051363|181803747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.045||||||2M E/F Function- SWMT-ActMD (Mild OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Regression, Linear|Generalized Linear Models (GLM) were run by visit (2M and 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 2M E/F Function- SWMT-ActMD.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ."||||0.0450
90961811|NCT00051363|181803747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4512||||||2M E/F Function- SWMT-ActMD (Moderate OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Regression, Linear|Generalized Linear Models (GLM) were run by visit (2M and 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 2M E/F Function- SWMT-ActMD.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ."||||0.4512
90961812|NCT00051363|181803747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6672||||||2M E/F Function- SWMT-ActMD (Severe OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Regression, Linear|Generalized Linear Models (GLM) were run by visit (2M and 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 2M E/F Function- SWMT-ActMD.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ."||||0.6672
91033969|NCT00939003|181953765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusting for Baseline value with treatment as a factor.||||||0.001
91033970|NCT00939003|181953766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.014
91033971|NCT00939003|181953769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91033972|NCT00939003|181953770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusting for Baseline value with treatment as a factor.||||||0.027
91033973|NCT00939003|181953771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusting for Baseline value with treatment as a factor.||||||<0.001
91033974|NCT00939003|181953772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusting for Baseline value with treatment as a factor.||||||0.003
91033975|NCT00939003|181953773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusting for Baseline value with treatment as a factor.||||||0.001
91033976|NCT05472038|181953810|SUPERIORITY|Superiority based on GMR was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR was greater than 1.|Model-Based GMR|2.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.45|3.44||||||||3.44|2.45|
91033977|NCT05472038|181953811|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority based on seroresponse was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages of participants with seroresponse is \>-5%.|Adjusted Difference in Percentages|26.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.59|33.95|||||Adjusted difference and 2-Sided CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by baseline NT category (\< median,\>= median) for difference in proportions. The median of baseline NT was calculated based on pooled data in 2 comparator groups.|||33.95|19.59|
90961813|NCT00051363|181803747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8197||||||6M E/F Function- SWMT-ActMD (Mild OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Regression, Linear|Generalized Linear Models (GLM) were run by visit (2M and 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 6M E/F Function- SWMT-ActMD.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ."||||0.8197
90961814|NCT00051363|181803747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.989||||||6M E/F Function- SWMT-ActMD (Moderate OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Regression, Linear|Generalized Linear Models (GLM) were run by visit (2M and 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 6M E/F Function- SWMT-ActMD.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ."||||0.9890
90961815|NCT00051363|181803747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5029||||||6M E/F Function- SWMT-ActMD (Severe OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Regression, Linear|Generalized Linear Models (GLM) were run by visit (2M and 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 6M E/F Function- SWMT-ActMD.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ."||||0.5029
90961816|NCT00051363|181803748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9518||||||2M E/F Function- SAT-D-NumRuCh (Mild OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values. Outcome formulated as dichotomized variable (\<=2 vs. \>=3) based on a 5th percentile cut-off used in pilot studies per test developer suggestion.|Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized Linear Mixed Models (GLMM) were utilized to account for repeated measures (DX, 2M, 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 2M E/F Function- SAT-D-NumRuCh.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ."||||0.9518
90961817|NCT00051363|181803748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4108||||||2M E/F Function- SAT-D-NumRuCh (Moderate OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values. Outcome formulated as dichotomized variable (\<=2 vs. \>=3) based on a 5th percentile cut-off used in pilot studies per test developer suggestion.|Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized Linear Mixed Models (GLMM) were utilized to account for repeated measures (DX, 2M, 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 2M E/F Function- SAT-D-NumRuCh.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ."||||0.4108
90961818|NCT00051363|181803748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4528||||||2M E/F Function- SAT-D-NumRuCh (Severe OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values. Outcome formulated as dichotomized variable (\<=2 vs. \>=3) based on a 5th percentile cut-off used in pilot studies per test developer suggestion.|Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized Linear Mixed Models (GLMM) were utilized to account for repeated measures (DX, 2M, 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 2M E/F Function- SAT-D-NumRuCh.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ."||||0.4528
90961819|NCT00051363|181803748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8391||||||6M E/F Function- SAT-D-NumRuCh (Mild OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values. Outcome formulated as dichotomized variable (\<=2 vs. \>=3) based on a 5th percentile cut-off used in pilot studies per test developer suggestion.|Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized Linear Mixed Models (GLMM) were utilized to account for repeated measures (DX, 2M, 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 2M E/F Function- SAT-D-NumRuCh.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ."||||0.8391
90961820|NCT00051363|181803748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2771||||||6M E/F Function- SAT-D-NumRuCh (Moderate OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values. Outcome formulated as dichotomized variable (\<=2 vs. \>=3) based on a 5th percentile cut-off used in pilot studies per test developer suggestion.|Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized Linear Mixed Models (GLMM) were utilized to account for repeated measures (DX, 2M, 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 2M E/F Function- SAT-D-NumRuCh.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ."||||0.2771
90880435|NCT00782210|181622668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.184|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036|<|0.0001||95.0|0.113|0.255|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.255|0.113|<0.0001
90880436|NCT00782210|181622669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.131|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.0003||95.0|0.059|0.203|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.203|0.059|0.0003
90880437|NCT00782210|181622669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.141|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||0.0001||95.0|0.069|0.213|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.213|0.069|0.0001
90918303|NCT00567489|181705865|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.3||||0.854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-214.4|177.8|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Calories-Month 6||177.8|-214.4|0.854
90918304|NCT00567489|181705866|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.07|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for EQ 5D Questionnaire Index-Month 3||0.07|-0.03|0.412
90918305|NCT00567489|181705866|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.03|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for EQ 5D Questionnaire Index-Month 6||0.03|-0.07|0.485
90918306|NCT00567489|181705867|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.18||||0.525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.56|8.93|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for EQ 5D Quest Health Status-Month 3||8.93|-4.56|0.525
90918307|NCT00567489|181705867|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.79|6.83|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for EQ 5D Quest Health Status-Month 6||6.83|-6.79|0.995
90918308|NCT00567489|181705868|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.87||||0.526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.64|3.91|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Psychology Fatigue-Month 3||3.91|-7.64|0.526
90918309|NCT00567489|181705868|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.83||||0.779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.01|6.68|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Psychology Fatigue-Month 6||6.68|-5.01|0.779
90918310|NCT00567489|181705868|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.95||||0.246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.95|2.04|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Psychology Cognitive-Month 3||2.04|-7.95|0.246
90918311|NCT00567489|181705868|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.72||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.78|4.34|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Psychology Cognitive-Month 6||4.34|-5.78|0.780
90918312|NCT00567489|181705868|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41||||0.885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.22|6.04|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Neurology Pain-Month 3||6.04|-5.22|0.885
90961821|NCT00051363|181803748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8961||||||6M E/F Function- SAT-D-NumRuCh (Severe OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values. Outcome formulated as dichotomized variable (\<=2 vs. \>=3) based on a 5th percentile cut-off used in pilot studies per test developer suggestion.|Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized Linear Mixed Models (GLMM) were utilized to account for repeated measures (DX, 2M, 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 2M E/F Function- SAT-D-NumRuCh.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ."||||0.8961
90918313|NCT00567489|181705868|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.41||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|10.1|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Neurology Pain-Month 6||10.10|-1.28|0.128
90961822|NCT00051363|181803749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.654||||||DX- MWT-MSL; Comparison of means by visit only; P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Chop-lump Wilcoxon|Chop-lump test was selected due to a high frequency of scores at the twenty-minute ceiling.||Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for DX Objective Sleepiness/Alertness- MWT-MSL.||||0.6540
90961823|NCT00051363|181803749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9778||||||DX- MWT-MSL (Mild OSA); Comparison of means by visit and Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA) severity; P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Chop-lump Wilcoxon|Chop-lump test was selected due to a high frequency of scores at the twenty-minute ceiling.||Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for DX Objective Sleepiness/Alertness- MWT-MSL.||||0.9778
90961824|NCT00051363|181803749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8314||||||DX- MWT-MSL (Moderate OSA); Comparison of means by visit and Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA) severity; P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Chop-lump Wilcoxon|Chop-lump test was selected due to a high frequency of scores at the twenty-minute ceiling.||Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for DX Objective Sleepiness/Alertness- MWT-MSL.||||0.8314
90961825|NCT00051363|181803749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5018||||||DX- MWT-MSL (Severe OSA); Comparison of means by visit and Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA) severity; P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Chop-lump Wilcoxon|Chop-lump test was selected due to a high frequency of scores at the twenty-minute ceiling.||Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for DX Objective Sleepiness/Alertness- MWT-MSL.||||0.5018
90961826|NCT00051363|181803749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0052||||||2M- MWT-MSL; Comparison of means by visit only; P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Chop-lump Wilcoxon|Chop-lump test was selected due to a high frequency of scores at the twenty-minute ceiling.||Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for 2M Objective Sleepiness/Alertness- MWT-MSL.||||0.0052
90961827|NCT00051363|181803749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2476||||||2M- MWT-MSL (Mild OSA); Comparison of means by visit and Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA) severity; P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Chop-lump Wilcoxon|Chop-lump test was selected due to a high frequency of scores at the twenty-minute ceiling.||Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for 2M Objective Sleepiness/Alertness- MWT-MSL.||||0.2476
90961828|NCT00051363|181803749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.752||||||2M- MWT-MSL (Moderate OSA); Comparison of means by visit and Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA) severity; P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Chop-lump Wilcoxon|Chop-lump test was selected due to a high frequency of scores at the twenty-minute ceiling.||Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for 2M Objective Sleepiness/Alertness- MWT-MSL.||||0.7520
90961829|NCT00051363|181803749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||||||2M- MWT-MSL (Severe OSA); Comparison of means by visit and Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA) severity; P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Chop-lump Wilcoxon|Chop-lump test was selected due to a high frequency of scores at the twenty-minute ceiling.||Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for 2M Objective Sleepiness/Alertness- MWT-MSL.||||0.0002
90961830|NCT00051363|181803749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0022||||||6M- MWT-MSL; Comparison of means by visit only; P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Chop-lump Wilcoxon|Chop-lump test was selected due to a high frequency of scores at the twenty-minute ceiling.||Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for 6M Objective Sleepiness/Alertness- MWT-MSL.||||0.0022
90961831|NCT00051363|181803749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.763||||||6M- MWT-MSL (Mild OSA); Comparison of means by visit and Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA) severity; P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Chop-lump Wilcoxon|Chop-lump test was selected due to a high frequency of scores at the twenty-minute ceiling.||Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for 6M Objective Sleepiness/Alertness- MWT-MSL.||||0.7630
90961832|NCT00051363|181803749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.517||||||6M- MWT-MSL (Moderate OSA); Comparison of means by visit and Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA) severity; P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Chop-lump Wilcoxon|Chop-lump test was selected due to a high frequency of scores at the twenty-minute ceiling.||Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for 6M Objective Sleepiness/Alertness- MWT-MSL.||||0.5170
90918314|NCT00567489|181705868|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.07||||0.701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|6.54|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Neurology Sensory-Month 3||6.54|-4.40|0.701
90961833|NCT00051363|181803749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||||||6M- MWT-MSL (Severe OSA); Comparison of means by visit and Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA) severity; P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Chop-lump Wilcoxon|Chop-lump test was selected due to a high frequency of scores at the twenty-minute ceiling.||Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for 6M Objective Sleepiness/Alertness- MWT-MSL.||||0.0002
90918315|NCT00567489|181705868|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.21||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|12.73|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Neurology Sensory-Month 6||12.73|1.70|0.010
90918316|NCT00567489|181705868|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.63|5.03|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Cardiology-Month 3||5.03|-4.63|0.934
90961834|NCT00051363|181803750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9291||||||DX- ESS-TS; Comparison of means by visit only; P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Regression, Linear|Regression analyses for the ESS used Generalized Linear Models (GLM) for an over-dispersed binomial distribution.||Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for DX Subjective Sleepiness/Alertness- ESS-TS.||||0.9291
91033978|NCT05472038|181953812|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority based on the GMR was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR is greater than 0.67 (1.5-fold criterion) and the point estimate of the GMR was \>=0.8.|Model-Based GMR|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.16|||||GMR and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference of LS means and corresponding CIs based on the regression model included terms for baseline neutralizing titer and comparison group.|||1.16|0.83|
90918317|NCT00567489|181705868|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.13||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|8.01|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Cardiology-Month 6||8.01|-1.75|0.209
90918318|NCT00567489|181705868|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.89||||0.585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|8.68|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Ophthalmology-Month 3||8.68|-4.90|0.585
90918319|NCT00567489|181705868|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.62||||0.641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.22|8.47|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Ophthalmology-Month 6||8.47|-5.22|0.641
90918320|NCT00567489|181705868|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.89|3.9|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Hypoglycemia-Month 3||3.90|-6.89|0.586
90918321|NCT00567489|181705868|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33||||0.906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.79|5.14|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Hypoglycemia-Month 6||5.14|-5.79|0.906
90918322|NCT00567489|181705868|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.93|4.75|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Hyperglycemia-Month 3||4.75|-4.93|0.970
90918323|NCT00567489|181705868|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.38||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|7.28|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Hyperglycemia-Month 6||7.28|-2.52|0.340
90918324|NCT00567489|181705869|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.6||||0.495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.9|96.0|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Abdominal Subcutaneous Fat Volume-Month 6||96|-46.9|0.495
90918325|NCT00567489|181705869|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|55.4||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|117.8|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Abdominal Visceral Fat Volume-Month 6||117.8|-7|0.081
90918326|NCT00567489|181705870|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.3||||0.626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.3|31.9|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for LV End Diastolic Volume-Month 6||31.9|-19.3|0.626
90918327|NCT00567489|181705870|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.8||||0.486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|30.1|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for LV End Systolic Volume-Month 6||30.1|-14.5|0.486
90918328|NCT00567489|181705871|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3||||0.832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9|23.4|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for LV Mass with Pap Muscles-Month 6||23.4|-18.9|0.832
90918329|NCT00567489|181705871|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.3|23.1|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for LV Mass without Pap Muscles-Month 6||23.1|-18.3|0.820
90918330|NCT00567489|181705872|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|6.5|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for LV Ejection Fraction-Month 6||6.5|-6.9|0.955
90918331|NCT02692417|181705880|OTHER|||||||0.109|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon signed rank test comparing FSFI score from baseline to time point.||||0.109
90918332|NCT02692417|181705880|OTHER|||||||0.225|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon signed rank test comparing FSFI score from baseline to time point.||||0.225
90918333|NCT02692417|181705881|OTHER|||||||0.109|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon signed rank test comparing FSFI score from baseline to time point.||||0.109
90918334|NCT02692417|181705881|OTHER|||||||0.046|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon signed rank test comparing FSFI score from baseline to time point.||||0.046
90918335|NCT02692417|181705882|OTHER|||||||0.109|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon signed rank test comparing FSFI score from baseline to time point.||||0.109
90918336|NCT02692417|181705882|OTHER|||||||0.028|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.028
90918337|NCT02020252|181705883|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.307||||||This is for the receptivity sub-scale, and the comparison between pre and post-test scores.|t-test, 2 sided|This was a paired t-test.||||||.307
90918338|NCT02020252|181705883|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009||||||This is for the willingness sub-scale, and the comparison between pre and posttest scores.|t-test, 2 sided|This was a paired t-test.||||||.009
90918339|NCT02020252|181705883|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||This is for knowledge sub scale, and the comparison between pre and posttest scores.|t-test, 2 sided|A paired t-test.||||||<.001
90918340|NCT02020252|181705883|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||This is for the positive attitudes sub scale, and the comparison between pre and posttest scores.|t-test, 2 sided|This was a paired t-test.||||||.004
90918341|NCT02020252|181705883|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||This was for the self-efficacy sub scale, and the comparison between pre and posttest scores.|t-test, 2 sided|This was a paired t-test.||||||<.001
90961835|NCT00051363|181803750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6152||||||DX- ESS-TS (Mild OSA); Comparison of means by visit and Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA) severity; P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Regression, Linear|Regression analyses for the ESS used Generalized Linear Models (GLM) for an over-dispersed binomial distribution.||Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for DX Subjective Sleepiness/Alertness- ESS-TS.||||0.6152
90918342|NCT04690556|181705937|EQUIVALENCE|Therapeutic equivalence was assessed based on the two-sided 90% Confidence Interval (CI) of the difference in least squares mean changes in BCVA from baseline at month 12 between LUBT010 and Lucentis for the pre-defined equivalence margin of (-4 letters, 4 letters).|Least squares mean difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.945|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.52|1.58|||||Therapeutic equivalence met|LUBT010 (Proposed Ranibizumab Biosimilar) - Lucentis||1.58|-1.52|
90918343|NCT05028582|181705955|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|5.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|2.9|9.31|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline S-IGA, and baseline B-IGA with multiple imputation to handle missing data|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline S-IGA, and baseline B-IGA with multiple imputation to handle missing data|S-IGA Success at Week 8||9.31|2.90|<0.0001
90918344|NCT05028582|181705956|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.75|5.73|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline S-IGA, and baseline B-IGA with multiple imputation to handle missing data|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline S-IGA, and baseline B-IGA with multiple imputation to handle missing data|B-IGA Success at Week 8||5.73|1.75|<0.0001
91033979|NCT05472038|181953813|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority based on seroresponse was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages of participants with seroresponse is \>-10%.|Adjusted Difference in Percentages|-3.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.68|3.63|||||2-Sided CI based on Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by baseline NT category(\< median,\>= median)for difference in percentage(seroresponse rate).Median of baseline neutralizing titers was calculated based on pooled data in 2 comparator groups.|||3.63|-9.68|
90880438|NCT00782210|181622670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.115|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.0019||95.0|0.043|0.187|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.187|0.043|0.0019
90918345|NCT05028582|181705957|OTHER|SI-NRS Success at Week 4|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.67||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.6|13.62|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline S IGA, and baseline B-IGA with multiple imputation to handle missing data|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline S IGA, and baseline B-IGA with multiple imputation to handle missing data|||13.62|1.60|0.0005
90880439|NCT00782210|181622670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.0001||95.0|0.088|0.233|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.233|0.088|<0.0001
90880440|NCT00782210|181622671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.0005||95.0|0.057|0.203|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.203|0.057|0.0005
90880441|NCT00782210|181622671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.162|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.0001||95.0|0.089|0.235|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.235|0.089|<0.0001
90880442|NCT00782210|181622672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.083|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.0261||95.0|0.01|0.156|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.156|0.010|0.0261
90880443|NCT00782210|181622672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.123|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.001||95.0|0.05|0.197|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.197|0.050|0.0010
90880444|NCT00782210|181622673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.091|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038||0.0154||95.0|0.018|0.165|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.165|0.018|0.0154
90880445|NCT00782210|181622673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.123|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038||0.0011||95.0|0.049|0.197|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.197|0.049|0.0011
90880446|NCT00782210|181622674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.131|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038||0.0006||95.0|0.057|0.205|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.205|0.057|0.0006
90880447|NCT00782210|181622674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.154|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038|<|0.0001||95.0|0.08|0.229|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.229|0.080|<0.0001
90880448|NCT00782210|181622675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.094|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038||0.0134||95.0|0.019|0.168|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.168|0.019|0.0134
90880449|NCT00782210|181622675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.115|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038||0.0025||95.0|0.04|0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.190|0.040|0.0025
90880450|NCT00782210|181622676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.263|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|<|0.0001||95.0|0.187|0.339|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.339|0.187|<0.0001
90880451|NCT00782210|181622676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|<|0.0001||95.0|0.225|0.376|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.376|0.225|<0.0001
90880452|NCT00782210|181622677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.264|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|<|0.0001||95.0|0.188|0.341|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.341|0.188|<0.0001
90880453|NCT00782210|181622677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.292|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|<|0.0001||95.0|0.216|0.368|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.368|0.216|<0.0001
90880454|NCT00782210|181622678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.251|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|<|0.0001||95.0|0.174|0.328|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.328|0.174|<0.0001
90880455|NCT00782210|181622678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|<|0.0001||95.0|0.203|0.358|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.358|0.203|<0.0001
91033980|NCT05472038|181953818|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority based on the GMR was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR is greater than 0.67 (1.5-fold criterion) and the point estimate of the GMR was \>=0.8.|Model-Based GMR|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|1.56|||||GMR and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference of LS means and corresponding CIs based on the regression model included terms for baseline neutralizing titer and comparison group.|||1.56|1.22|
91033981|NCT03235739|181953830|SUPERIORITY|multiple imputation for longitudinal data was conducted to impute the missing data for the primary outcome. The final results were obtained from pooling results from 10 imputed complete case data set.|geometric mean ratio|0.9||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|2.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.55|0.32|0.84
91033982|NCT03235739|181953830|SUPERIORITY|A sensitivity analysis using complete case analysis|geometric mean ratio|0.82||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|2.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.56|0.26|0.73
90880456|NCT00782210|181622679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.251|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001||95.0|0.174|0.329|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.329|0.174|<0.0001
90880457|NCT00782210|181622679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001||95.0|0.183|0.338|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.338|0.183|<0.0001
91033983|NCT03235739|181953831|SUPERIORITY||geometric mean ratio|1.02||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.63|1.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.67|0.63|0.91
91033984|NCT03235739|181953832|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.58||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.98|6.8|||Chi-squared|||||6.80|0.98|0.012
91033985|NCT03235739|181953833|SUPERIORITY||median of differences|-5.0||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|98.3|-12.0|2.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||2|-12|0.08
91033986|NCT01591785|181953868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.035|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.035
91033987|NCT01591785|181953869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.28|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.28
91033988|NCT01591785|181953870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0495|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0495
91033989|NCT01591785|181953871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.27|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.27
91033990|NCT01049334|181953872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|-151.5||||0.0201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-278.9|-24.0||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05. No adjustments for statistical multiplicity were required.|ANOVA|Treatment as a fixed effect and baseline STPIS as a covariate.||||-24.0|-278.9|0.0201
91033991|NCT01049334|181953873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|-19.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.2|-9.9||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05. Closed-sequential approach to control type I error: analyses through secondary outcomes #2-13 in the order listed will proceed until a p-value \>0.05 occurs.|ANOVA|Treatment as a fixed effect and baseline of the variable predicted as a covariate||||-9.9|-29.2|<.0001
90961836|NCT00051363|181803750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.704||||||DX- ESS-TS (Moderate OSA); Comparison of means by visit and Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA) severity; P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Regression, Linear|Regression analyses for the ESS used Generalized Linear Models (GLM) for an over-dispersed binomial distribution.||Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for DX Subjective Sleepiness/Alertness- ESS-TS.||||0.7040
90961837|NCT00051363|181803750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9537||||||DX- ESS-TS (Severe OSA); Comparison of means by visit and Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA) severity; P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Regression, Linear|Regression analyses for the ESS used Generalized Linear Models (GLM) for an over-dispersed binomial distribution.||Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for DX Subjective Sleepiness/Alertness- ESS-TS.||||0.9537
90961838|NCT00051363|181803750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004||||||2M- ESS-TS; Comparison of means by visit only; P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Regression, Linear|Regression analyses for the ESS used Generalized Linear Models (GLM) for an over-dispersed binomial distribution.||Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for 2M Subjective Sleepiness/Alertness- ESS-TS.||||0.0004
90961839|NCT00051363|181803750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3886||||||2M- ESS-TS (Mild OSA); Comparison of means by visit and Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA) severity; P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Regression, Linear|Regression analyses for the ESS used Generalized Linear Models (GLM) for an over-dispersed binomial distribution.||Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for 2M Subjective Sleepiness/Alertness- ESS-TS.||||0.3886
90961840|NCT00051363|181803750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0236||||||2M- ESS-TS (Moderate OSA); Comparison of means by visit and Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA) severity; P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Regression, Linear|Regression analyses for the ESS used Generalized Linear Models (GLM) for an over-dispersed binomial distribution.||Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for 2M Subjective Sleepiness/Alertness- ESS-TS.||||0.0236
90961841|NCT00051363|181803750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005||||||2M- ESS-TS (Severe OSA); Comparison of means by visit and Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA) severity; P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Regression, Linear|Regression analyses for the ESS used Generalized Linear Models (GLM) for an over-dispersed binomial distribution.||Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for 2M Subjective Sleepiness/Alertness- ESS-TS.||||0.0005
90961842|NCT00051363|181803750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005||||||6M- ESS-TS; Comparison of means by visit only; P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Regression, Linear|Regression analyses for the ESS used Generalized Linear Models (GLM) for an over-dispersed binomial distribution.||Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for 6M Subjective Sleepiness/Alertness- ESS-TS.||||0.0005
90961843|NCT00051363|181803750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3796||||||6M- ESS-TS (Mild OSA); Comparison of means by visit and Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA) severity; P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Regression, Linear|Regression analyses for the ESS used Generalized Linear Models (GLM) for an over-dispersed binomial distribution.||Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for 6M Subjective Sleepiness/Alertness- ESS-TS.||||0.3796
90961844|NCT00051363|181803750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0106||||||6M- ESS-TS (Moderate OSA); Comparison of means by visit and Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA) severity; P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Regression, Linear|Regression analyses for the ESS used Generalized Linear Models (GLM) for an over-dispersed binomial distribution.||Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for 6M Subjective Sleepiness/Alertness- ESS-TS.||||0.0106
90961845|NCT00051363|181803750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||||||6M- ESS-TS (Severe OSA); Comparison of means by visit and Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA) severity; P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Regression, Linear|Regression analyses for the ESS used Generalized Linear Models (GLM) for an over-dispersed binomial distribution.||Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for 6M Subjective Sleepiness/Alertness- ESS-TS.||||0.0010
90961846|NCT04668586|181803754|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.006|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.006
90961847|NCT04668586|181803755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Adjusted for four-category stratification group.||||||0.008
90961848|NCT04668586|181803757|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1
90961849|NCT04668586|181803758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|Adjusted for four-category stratification group.||||||0.09
90961850|NCT03282240|181803774|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of GMTs was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs between groups is \> 0.667 for each of the comparisons.|GMT Ratio (QIV-HD/TIV-HDs)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.958|1.224||||||B Victoria: The 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was based on the Student t-distribution of logarithmic transformation of the individual titers. Antilog transformations were applied to the results.||1.224|0.958|
90961851|NCT03282240|181803774|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of GMTs was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs between groups is \> 0.667 for each of the comparisons.|GMT Ratio (QIV-HD/TIV-HDs)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.881|1.129||||||B Yamagata: The 2-sided 95% CI was based on the Student t-distribution of logarithmic transformation of the individual titers. Antilog transformations were applied to the results.||1.129|0.881|
90961852|NCT03282240|181803774|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of GMTs was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs between groups is \> 0.667 for each of the comparisons.|GMT Ratio (QIV-HD/TIV-HDs)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.744|0.932||||||A/H1N1: The 2-sided 95% CI was based on the Student t-distribution of logarithmic transformation of the individual titers. Antilog transformations were applied to the results.||0.932|0.744|
90880458|NCT00782210|181622680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.232|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001||95.0|0.153|0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.310|0.153|<0.0001
90880459|NCT00782210|181622680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.232|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001||95.0|0.154|0.311|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.311|0.154|<0.0001
90880460|NCT00782210|181622681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.247|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001||95.0|0.168|0.327|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.327|0.168|<0.0001
90880461|NCT00782210|181622681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041|<|0.0001||95.0|0.181|0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.340|0.181|<0.0001
90880462|NCT00782210|181622682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.302|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061|<|0.0001||95.0|0.181|0.422|||ANCOVA|Treatment, tiotropium stratum and baseline as fixed effects|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.422|0.181|<0.0001
90880463|NCT00782210|181622682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.249|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061|<|0.0001||95.0|0.128|0.37|||ANCOVA|Treatment, tiotropium stratum and baseline as fixed effects|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.370|0.128|<0.0001
90880464|NCT00782210|181622683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.357|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.253||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.005|21.709|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models by week, with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||||21.709|5.005|0.0018
90880465|NCT00782210|181622683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.457|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.248||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.114|23.8|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models by week, with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||||23.800|7.114|0.0003
90880466|NCT00782210|181622684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.186|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.245|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.849|25.523|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models by week, with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||||25.523|8.849|<0.0001
90880467|NCT00782210|181622684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.226||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.259|22.86|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models by week, with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||||22.860|6.259|0.0006
90880468|NCT00782210|181622685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.182||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.878|-0.162|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||||-0.162|-0.878|0.0045
90880469|NCT00782210|181622685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.648|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.182||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.005|-0.291|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||||-0.291|-1.005|0.0004
90880470|NCT00782210|181622686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.582|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.202||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.979|-0.185|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||||-0.185|-0.979|0.0041
90880471|NCT00782210|181622686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.792|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.202||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.189|-0.394|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||||-0.394|-1.189|0.0001
90880472|NCT00782210|181622687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.104|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.354||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.799|-0.409|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||||-0.409|-1.799|0.0019
90880473|NCT00782210|181622687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.435|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.354|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|-0.74|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||||-0.740|-2.130|<0.0001
90880474|NCT00782210|181622688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.7|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model included treatment, tiotropium stratum, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, patient as random.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.3|-0.7|<0.0001
90880475|NCT00782210|181622688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.7|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model included treatment, tiotropium stratum, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, patient as random.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.3|-0.7|<0.0001
90880476|NCT00782210|181622689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.7|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model included treatment, tiotropium stratum, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, patient as random.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.2|-0.7|<0.0001
90880477|NCT00782210|181622689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.6|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model included treatment, tiotropium stratum, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, patient as random.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.2|-0.6|<0.0001
90961853|NCT03282240|181803774|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of GMTs was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs between groups is \> 0.667 for each of the comparisons.|GMT Ratio (QIV-HD/TIV-HDs)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.842|1.066||||||A/H3N2: The 2-sided 95% CI was based on the Student t-distribution of logarithmic transformation of the individual titers. Antilog transformations were applied to the results.||1.066|0.842|
90961854|NCT03282240|181803775|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority in seroconversion was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the differences of seroconversion rates between groups is \> -10%.|Difference in Percentage|-2.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.66|2.7||||||B Victoria: The 2-sided 95% CI for the difference is based on the Wilson score method without continuity correction.||2.70|-7.66|
90961855|NCT03282240|181803775|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority in seroconversion was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the differences of seroconversion rates between groups is \> -10%.|Difference in Percentage|-1.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.04|3.53||||||B Yamagata: The 2-sided 95% CI for the difference is based on the Wilson score method without continuity correction.||3.53|-7.04|
91033992|NCT01049334|181953874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|-22.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.7|-12.9||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05. Closed-sequential approach to control type I error: analyses through secondary outcomes #2-13 in the order listed will proceed until a p-value \>0.05 occurs.|ANOVA|Treatment as a fixed effect and baseline of the variable predicted as a covariate||||-12.9|-31.7|<0.0001
90880478|NCT00782210|181622690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.7|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model included treatment, tiotropium stratum, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, patient as random.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.2|-0.7|<0.0001
90880479|NCT00782210|181622690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.7|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model included treatment, tiotropium stratum, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, patient as random.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.2|-0.7|<0.0001
90880480|NCT00782210|181622691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0109||95.0|-0.5|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model included treatment, tiotropium stratum,visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, patient as random.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.1|-0.5|0.0109
90880481|NCT00782210|181622691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0031||95.0|-0.6|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model included treatment, tiotropium stratum visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, patient as random.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.1|-0.6|0.0031
90880482|NCT00782210|181622692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.728|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.124||0.0658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.522|1.016|||Regression, Cox|Model included a stratification factor for tiotropium use stratum and a covariate for treatment group|Comparison of Olo 5 mcg qd to placebo across stratum|||1.016|0.522|0.0658
90880483|NCT00782210|181622692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.799|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.133||0.1701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.576|1.107|||Regression, Cox|Model included a stratification factor for tiotropium use stratum and a covariate for treatment group|Comparison of Olo 10 mcg qd to placebo across stratum|||1.107|0.576|0.1701
90880484|NCT00782210|181622693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.656|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.247||0.2754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.313|1.374|||Regression, Cox|Model included a stratification factor for tiotropium use stratum and a covariate for treatment group|Comparison of Olo 5 mcg qd to placebo across stratum|||1.374|0.313|0.2754
90880485|NCT00782210|181622693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.342||0.9792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.521|1.961|||Regression, Cox|Model included a stratification factor for tiotropium use stratum and a covariate for treatment group|Comparison of Olo 10 mcg qd to placebo across stratum|||1.961|0.521|0.9792
90880486|NCT00782210|181622694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.739|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.142||0.1194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.506|1.078|||Regression, Cox|Model included a stratification factor for tiotropium use stratum and a covariate for treatment group|Comparison of Olo 5 mcg qd to placebo across stratum|||1.078|0.506|0.1194
90880487|NCT00782210|181622694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.811|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.153||0.257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.561|1.174|||Regression, Cox|Model included a stratification factor for tiotropium use stratum and a covariate for treatment group|Comparison of Olo 10 mcg qd to placebo across stratum|||1.174|0.561|0.2570
90880488|NCT00782210|181622695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|0.7815|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.138||0.1631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5524|1.1054|||Negative binomial regression|Regression of treatment effect using tiotropium strata as a covariate, a log link function and log(exposure) as offset.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.1054|0.5524|0.1631
90880489|NCT00782210|181622695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|0.8456|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1467||0.3342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6015|1.1889|||Negative binomial regression|Regression of treatment effect using tiotropium strata as a covariate, a log link function and log(exposure) as offset.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.1889|0.6015|0.3342
90880490|NCT00782210|181622696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|0.655|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2664||0.2985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2947|1.4556|||Negative binomial regression|Regression of treatment effect using tiotropium strata as a covariate, a log link function and log(exposure) as offset.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.4556|0.2947|0.2985
90880491|NCT00782210|181622696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|1.1211|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4103||0.755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5464|2.3003|||Negative binomial regression|Regression of treatment effect using tiotropium strata as a covariate, a log link function and log(exposure) as offset.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||2.3003|0.5464|0.7550
90880492|NCT00782210|181622697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|0.8081|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.163||0.2911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5438|1.2008|||Negative binomial regression|Regression of treatment effect using tiotropium strata as a covariate, a log link function and log(exposure) as offset.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.2008|0.5438|0.2911
90961856|NCT03282240|181803775|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority in seroconversion was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the differences of seroconversion rates between groups is \> -10%.|Difference in Percentage|-0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.83|3.42||||||A/H3N2: The 2-sided 95% CI for the difference is based on the Wilson score method without continuity correction.||3.42|-4.83|
90961857|NCT03282240|181803775|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority in seroconversion was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the differences of seroconversion rates between groups is \> -10%.|Difference in Percentage|-3.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.37|0.86||||||A/H1N1: The 2-sided 95% CI for the difference is based on the Wilson score method without continuity correction.||0.86|-7.37|
90961858|NCT03282240|181803776|SUPERIORITY|Superiority in GMTs was observed if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs between groups was \> 1.5 for comparison group.|GMT Ratio (QIV-HD/TIV-HDs)|2.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.804|2.315||||||The 2-sided 95% CI is based on the Student t-distribution of logarithmic transformation of the individual titers. Antilog transformations were applied to the results.||2.315|1.804|
90961859|NCT03282240|181803776|SUPERIORITY|Superiority in GMTs was observed if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs between groups was \> 1.5 for comparison group.|GMT Ratio (QIV-HD/TIV-HDs)|2.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.802|2.288||||||The 2-sided 95% CI is based on the Student t-distribution of logarithmic transformation of the individual titers. Antilog transformations were applied to the results.||2.288|1.802|
90961860|NCT03282240|181803778|SUPERIORITY|Superiority in seroconversion was observed if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference of seroconversion rates between groups is \> 10% for each applicable comparison.|Difference in Percentage|29.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.78|33.29||||||B Yamagata: The 2-sided 95% CI for the difference was based on the Wilson score method without continuity correction.||33.29|24.78|
90961861|NCT03282240|181803778|SUPERIORITY|Superiority in seroconversion was observed if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference of seroconversion rates between groups is \> 10% for each applicable comparison.|Difference in Percentage|20.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.5|24.61||||||B Victoria: The 2-sided 95% CI for the difference was based on the Wilson score method without continuity correction.||24.61|16.5|
90961862|NCT02910739|181803791|OTHER|The pharmacokinetic condition to initiate Part 2 of the study would be met if the point estimate for the AUC0-∞ ratio of geometric means (participants with moderate HI / healthy matched control participants) exceeds 1.5.|Geometric least-squares mean ratio (GMR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|1.3|||||GMR = geometric least squares mean (GLSM) for moderate HI participants / GLSM for healthy participants.|Per study protocol, the purpose of this analysis is only to estimate the effect of moderate HI on AUC0-∞; no hypothesis testing was planned for this outcome measure.||1.30|0.83|
90961863|NCT02910739|181803792|OTHER||GMR|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.77|1.5|||||GMR = GLSM for moderate HI participants / GLSM for healthy participants.|Per study protocol, the purpose of this analysis is only to estimate the effect of moderate HI on Cmax; no hypothesis testing was planned for this outcome measure.||1.50|0.77|
90961864|NCT02910739|181803793|OTHER||GMR|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.82|1.31|||||GMR = GLSM for moderate HI participants / GLSM for healthy participants.|Per study protocol, the purpose of this analysis is only to estimate the effect of moderate HI on AUC0-last; no hypothesis testing was planned for this outcome measure.||1.31|0.82|
90961865|NCT02910739|181803794|OTHER||GMR|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|1.27|||||GMR = GLSM for moderate HI participants / GLSM for healthy participants.|Per study protocol, the purpose of this analysis is only to estimate the effect of moderate HI on AUC0-24hr; no hypothesis testing was planned for this outcome measure.||1.27|0.80|
90961866|NCT02910739|181803795|OTHER||GMR|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.3|||||GMR = GLSM for moderate HI participants / GLSM for healthy participants.|Per study protocol, the purpose of this analysis is only to estimate the effect of moderate HI on C24hr; no hypothesis testing was planned for this outcome measure.||1.30|0.90|
90961867|NCT02087748|181803926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0324|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0324
90961868|NCT02087748|181803927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3688|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3688
90961869|NCT02087748|181803928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0275|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0275
90961870|NCT03219320|181803933|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.004
90961871|NCT03078907|181803934|OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean|13.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.695|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.366|40.944|||ANCOVA|||Daily time spent in non-sedentary activity (minutes), Freedson '98||40.944|13.366|
90961872|NCT03078907|181803934|OTHER||LS means|2.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.601|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.782|15.396|||ANCOVA|||Daily time spent in MVPA (minutes), Freedson '98||15.396|-10.782|
90961873|NCT03078907|181803934|OTHER||LS mean|17.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.008|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.003|41.619|||ANCOVA|||Daily time spent in non-sedentary activity (minutes), Koster '16||41.619|-6.003|
90961874|NCT03078907|181803935|OTHER||LS mean|0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.204|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.713|3.06|||ANCOVA|||Percentage of daily time spent in non-sedentary activity (%), Freedson '98||3.060|-1.713|
90961875|NCT03078907|181803935|OTHER||LS mean|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.658|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.351|1.258|||ANCOVA|||Percentage of daily time spent in MVPA (%), Freedson '98||1.258|-1.351|
91033993|NCT01049334|181953875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|-181.7||||0.0071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-313.7|-50.0||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05. Closed-sequential approach to control type I error: analyses through secondary outcomes #2-13 in the order listed will proceed until a p-value \>0.05 occurs.|ANOVA|Treatment as a fixed effect and baseline of the variable predicted as a covariate||||-50.0|-313.7|0.0071
90961876|NCT03078907|181803935|OTHER||LS mean|1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.191|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.104|3.618|||ANCOVA|||Percentage of daily time spent in non-sedentary activity (%), Koster '16||3.618|-1.104|
90961877|NCT03078907|181803936|OTHER||LS mean|20.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|63.695|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-105.632|146.958|||ANCOVA|||Volume of total daily activities (counts / minute)||146.958|-105.632|
90961878|NCT03078907|181803936|OTHER||LS means|27.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|65.291|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-101.945|156.976|||ANCOVA|||Volume of non-sedentary activity (counts/minute), Koster '16||156.976|-101.945|
90961879|NCT03078907|181803937|OTHER||LS means|58409.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|64985.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70444.0|187263.0|||ANCOVA|||||187263|-70444|
90961880|NCT03078907|181803938|OTHER||LS means|201.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|224.212|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-242.977|646.163|||ANCOVA|||||646.163|-242.977|
90961881|NCT03078907|181803939|OTHER||LS means|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.221|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.366|0.51|||ANCOVA|||||0.510|-0.366|
90880493|NCT00782210|181622697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|0.8485|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1686||0.4086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5743|1.2535|||Negative binomial regression|Regression of treatment effect using tiotropium strata as a covariate, a log link function and log(exposure) as offset.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.2535|0.5743|0.4086
90880494|NCT02704364|181622772|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimate|-14.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.4||0.434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.0|28.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||28.0|-68.0|0.434
90880495|NCT02704364|181622772|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimate|13.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|25.0||0.646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.0|71.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||71.0|-41.0|0.646
90880496|NCT03663283|181622811|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0197|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.0197
90880497|NCT03663283|181622812|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.584|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||72 hours||||0.584
90918346|NCT05028582|181705958|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|2.01|9.55|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline S IGA, and baseline B-IGA with multiple imputation to handle missing data|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline S IGA, and baseline B-IGA with multiple imputation to handle missing data|SI-NRS Success at Week 4||9.55|2.01|<0.0001
90918347|NCT05028582|181705959|OTHER|SI-NRS Success at Week 8|Odds Ratio (OR)|5.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|2.49|11.78|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline S IGA, and baseline B-IGA with multiple imputation to handle missing data|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline S IGA, and baseline B-IGA with multiple imputation to handle missing data|||11.78|2.49|<0.0001
90918348|NCT05028582|181705960|SUPERIORITY|SI-NRS Change from Baseline Day 1|LS Mean Difference|-0.35||||0.0164|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.68|-0.02|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA terms of treatment, pooled study site, baseline S-IGA, baseline B-IGA, and baseline SI-NRS score|ANCOVA terms of treatment, pooled study site, baseline S-IGA, baseline B-IGA, and baseline SI-NRS score|||-0.02|-0.68|0.0164
90961882|NCT01672788|181803956|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Considered characteristic is empa 12.5mg fixed-dose divided by empa 12.5mg free dose|Geometric Mean Ratio|101.31|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.89|105.93|||ANOVA|Based on an ANOVA including the random effect subjects within sequences and the fixed effects sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV)|||105.93|96.89|
90880498|NCT03663283|181622812|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||3 weeks||||.5800
90880499|NCT03663283|181622813|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.11
90880500|NCT03663283|181622814|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7018|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||72 hours||||.7018
90880501|NCT03663283|181622814|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5327|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 3||||.5327
90880502|NCT00453999|181622815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.306|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|Differences between groups by log-rank statistic stratified by oxygen saturation and duration of illness at randomization, and flu season.||||||0.306
90880503|NCT00453999|181622816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Sore Throat: change from Baseline at Days 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 14||||>0.05
90880504|NCT00453999|181622816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Nasal Congestion: change from Baseline at Days 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 14||||>0.05
90880505|NCT00453999|181622816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cough: change from Baseline at Days 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 14||||>0.05
90880506|NCT00453999|181622816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Aches and Pains: change from Baseline at Days 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 14||||>0.05
90880507|NCT00453999|181622816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Fatigue: change from Baseline at Days 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 14||||>0.05
90918349|NCT05028582|181705961|SUPERIORITY|SI-NRS Change from Baseline Day 1|LS Mean Difference|-0.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.12|-0.39|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA terms of treatment, pooled study site, baseline S-IGA, baseline B-IGA, and baseline SI-NRS score|ANCOVA terms of treatment, pooled study site, baseline S-IGA, baseline B-IGA, and baseline SI-NRS score|||-0.39|-1.12|<0.0001
90918350|NCT05028582|181705962|SUPERIORITY|Change from Baseline in Weekly SI-NRS at Week 1|LS Mean Difference|-0.55||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.87|-0.22|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA terms of treatment, pooled study site, baseline S-IGA, baseline B-IGA, and baseline SI-NRS score|ANCOVA terms of treatment, pooled study site, baseline S-IGA, baseline B-IGA, and baseline SI-NRS score|||-0.22|-0.87|0.0002
90918351|NCT05028582|181705963|OTHER|WI-NRS Success at Week 8|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|2.01|8.52|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline S-IGA, and baseline B-IGA|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline S-IGA, and baseline B-IGA|||8.52|2.01|<0.0001
90918352|NCT05028582|181705964|SUPERIORITY|PASI-75 at Week 8|Odds Ratio (OR)|5.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|2.73|10.75|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline S-IGA, and baseline B-IGA with multiple imputation to handle missing data|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline S-IGA, and baseline B-IGA with multiple imputation to handle missing data|||10.75|2.73|<0.0001
90918353|NCT05028582|181705965|SUPERIORITY|PSD Aggregate Score Change at Week 8|LS Mean Difference|-5.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-6.64|-3.6|||ANCOVA|Covariate terms of treatment, pooled study site, baseline S-IGA, baseline B-IGA and baseline PSD aggregate score \& multiple imputation of missing data|Covariate terms of treatment, pooled study site, baseline S-IGA, baseline B-IGA and baseline PSD aggregate score \& multiple imputation of missing data|||-3.60|-6.64|<0.0001
90918354|NCT05028582|181705966|SUPERIORITY|PSD Itching Week 8|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|2.1|10.04|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline S-IGA, and baseline B-IGA with multiple imputation to handle missing data|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline S-IGA, and baseline B-IGA with multiple imputation to handle missing data|||10.04|2.10|<0.0001
90918355|NCT05028582|181705967|SUPERIORITY|PSD Pain Week 8|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.83|5.68|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline S-IGA, and baseline B-IGA with multiple imputation to handle missing data|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline S-IGA, and baseline B-IGA with multiple imputation to handle missing data|||5.68|1.83|<0.0001
91033994|NCT01049334|181953876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|-20.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.2|-11.2||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05. Closed-sequential approach to control type I error: analyses through secondary outcomes #2-13 in the order listed will proceed until a p-value \>0.05 occurs.|ANOVA|Treatment as a fixed effect and baseline of the variable predicted as a covariate||||-11.2|-30.2|<0.0001
90961883|NCT01672788|181803956|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Considered characteristic is empa 5mg fixed-dose divided by empa 5mg free dose|Geometric Mean Ratio|100.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.4|103.29|||ANOVA|Based on an ANOVA including the random effect subjects within sequences and the fixed effects sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV)|||103.29|97.40|
90961884|NCT01672788|181803957|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Considered characteristic is empa 12.5mg fixed-dose divided by empa 12.5mg free dose.|Geometric Mean Ratio|101.61|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.8|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.94|105.41|||ANOVA|Based on an ANOVA including the random effect subjects within sequences and the fixed effects sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the gCV|||105.41|97.94|
90961885|NCT01672788|181803957|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Considered characteristic is empa 5mg fixed-dose divided by empa 5mg free dose.|Geometric Mean Ratio|98.56|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.8|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.24|103.08|||ANOVA|Based on an ANOVA including the random effect subjects within sequences and the fixed effects sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the gCV|||103.08|94.24|
90961886|NCT01672788|181803958|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Considered characteristic is empa 12.5mg fixed-dose divided by empa 12.5mg free dose|Geometric Mean Ratio|101.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.89|105.71|||ANOVA|Based on an ANOVA including the random effect subjects within sequences and the fixed effects sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV)|||105.71|96.89|
90961887|NCT01672788|181803958|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Considered characteristic is empa 5mg fixed-dose divided by empa 5mg free dose|Geometric Mean Ratio|100.31|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.41|103.3|||ANOVA|Based on an ANOVA including the random effect subjects within sequences and the fixed effects sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the gCV|||103.30|97.41|
90961888|NCT01672788|181803959|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Considered characteristic is empa 12.5mg fixed-dose divided by empa 12.5mg free dose|Geometric Mean Ratio|102.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.75|106.81|||ANOVA|Based on an ANOVA including the random effect subjects within sequences and the fixed effects sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV)|||106.81|98.75|
90918356|NCT05028582|181705968|SUPERIORITY|PSD Scaling Week 8|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|2.28|9.08|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline S-IGA, and baseline B-IGA with multiple imputation to handle missing data|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline S-IGA, and baseline B-IGA with multiple imputation to handle missing data|||9.08|2.28|<0.0001
90918357|NCT05028582|181705969|OTHER|PSD Total Score 0 at Week 8|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.27||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.39|7.68|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline S-IGA, and baseline B-IGA|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline S-IGA, and baseline B-IGA|||7.68|1.39|0.0012
90918358|NCT05028582|181705970|SUPERIORITY|PSSI-75 at Week 8|Odds Ratio (OR)|5.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|2.98|9.77|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline S IGA, and baseline B IGA with multiple imputation to handle missing data|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline S IGA, and baseline B IGA with multiple imputation to handle missing data|||9.77|2.98|<0.0001
90961889|NCT01672788|181803959|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Considered characteristic is empa 5mg fixed-dose divided by empa 5mg free dose|Geometric Mean Ratio|100.97|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.94|106.27|||ANOVA|Based on an ANOVA including the random effect subjects within sequences and the fixed effects sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the gCV|||106.27|95.94|
90918359|NCT05028582|181705971|SUPERIORITY|S-IGA Clear at Week 8|Odds Ratio (OR)|6.77|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|3.04|15.05|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline S-IGA, and baseline B-IGA with multiple imputation to handle missing data|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline S-IGA, and baseline B-IGA with multiple imputation to handle missing data|||15.05|3.04|<0.0001
90961890|NCT01672788|181803960|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Considered characteristic is empa 12.5mg fixed-dose divided by empa 12.5mg free dose .|Geometric Mean Ratio|99.64|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.39|104.09|||ANOVA|Based on an ANOVA including the random effect subjects within sequences and the fixed effects sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV)|||104.09|95.39|
90880508|NCT00453999|181622816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Headache: change from Baseline at Days 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 14||||>0.05
90880509|NCT00453999|181622816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Feeling Feverish: change from Baseline at Days 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 14||||>0.05
90880510|NCT00453999|181622817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.276|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.276
90880511|NCT00453999|181622819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.994|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.994
90880512|NCT00453999|181622820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Change from Baseline at 12 hours||||>0.05
90880513|NCT00453999|181622820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Change from Baseline at 24 hours||||>0.05
90880514|NCT00453999|181622820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Change from Baseline at 36 hours||||>0.05
90880515|NCT00453999|181622820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Change from Baseline at 48 hours||||>0.05
90880516|NCT00453999|181622820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Change from Baseline at 72 hours||||>0.05
90880517|NCT00453999|181622820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Change from Baseline at 96 hours||||>0.05
90880518|NCT00802412|181622822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|6.5|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.5|0.4|0.51
90880519|NCT00802412|181622822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.55|||Regression, Cox|||||2.55|0.66|.45
90880520|NCT01907828|181622856|OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||Log Rank|||Kaplan-Meier analysis performed to provide freedom from atrial fibrillation rates at one year for each randomization arm using date of ablation procedure to date of first event.||||0.22
90880521|NCT01907828|181622860|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2766|||||||Paired Student's t-test|||||||0.2766
90880522|NCT01907828|181622861|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7663|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.7663
90880523|NCT01907828|181622864|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.86|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.21||0.0849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.61|0.88|||Paired Student's t-test|||Change in ASBP at 12 months||0.88|-12.61|0.0849
90880524|NCT01907828|181622864|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.82|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.45||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.12|-2.52|||Paired Student's t-test|||Change in ADBP at 12 months||-2.52|-9.12|0.0014
90880525|NCT01907828|181622864|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.21||0.5599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.16|8.02|||Paired Student's t-test|||Change in ASBP at 12 months.||8.02|-14.16|0.5599
90880526|NCT01907828|181622864|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.43|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.42||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.87|-2.99|||Paired Student's t-test|||Change in ADBP at 12 months||-2.99|-13.87|0.0052
90880527|NCT01907828|181622865|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.71|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.84||0.1326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.34|1.93|||Paired Student's t-test|||Change in ASBP at 24 months||1.93|-13.34|0.1326
90880528|NCT01907828|181622865|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.94|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.06||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.06|-3.83|||Paired Student's t-test|||Change in ADBP at 24 months||-3.83|-10.06|0.0002
90880529|NCT01907828|181622865|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.58|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.41||0.0354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.47|-0.7|||Paired Student's t-test|||Change in ASBP at 24 months||-0.70|-16.47|0.0354
90880530|NCT01907828|181622865|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.33|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.53||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.75|-4.91|||Paired Student's t-test|||Change in ADBP at 24 months||-4.91|-15.75|0.0015
90880531|NCT01907828|181622866|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|24.4||0.5399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|11.3|||Paired Student's t-test|||Change in OSBP at 12 months.||11.3|-6.0|0.5399
90880532|NCT01907828|181622866|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.8||0.8489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|3.8|||Paired Student's t-test|||Change in Office Diastolic Blood Pressure (ODBP) at 12 months||3.8|-4.6|0.8489
90961891|NCT01672788|181803960|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Considered characteristic is empa 5mg fixed-dose divided by empa 5mg free dose.|Geometric Mean Ratio|97.89|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.82|102.15|||ANOVA|Based on an ANOVA including the random effect subjects within sequences and the fixed effects sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the gCV|||102.15|93.82|
91033995|NCT01049334|181953877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|-137.6||||0.0393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-268.5|-6.8||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05. Closed-sequential approach to control type I error: analyses through secondary outcomes #2-13 in the order listed will proceed until a p-value \>0.05 occurs.|ANOVA|Treatment as a fixed effect and baseline of the variable predicted as a covariate||||-6.8|-268.5|0.0393
90961892|NCT01672788|181803961|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Considered characteristic is empa 12.5mg fixed-dose divided by empa 12.5mg free dose .|Geometric Mean Ratio|101.51|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.95|105.21|||ANOVA|Based on an ANOVA including the random effect subjects within sequences and the fixed effects sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV)|||105.21|97.95|
90961893|NCT01672788|181803961|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Considered characteristic is empa 5mg fixed-dose divided by empa 5mg free dose .|Geometric Mean Ratio|98.57|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.5|102.81|||ANOVA|Based on an ANOVA including the random effect subjects within sequences and the fixed effects sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the gCV|||102.81|94.50|
90961894|NCT02445196|181803962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.57||||0.035|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Repeated measures ANOVAs assessed the condition by time (baseline to posttreatment) interaction effects covarying PTSD treatment. Following the ITT principle, data from all randomized participants were analyzed and multiple imputation replaced missing values. A power analysis indicated that to achieve 80% power to detect an effect size in the magnitude (i.e., d = 0.25 to .33) with alpha of .05 and a correlation between repeated measures of .5, 60 participants per condition would be needed.||||.035
90961895|NCT02445196|181803963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.87||||0.086|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.086
90961896|NCT02445196|181803964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.75||||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.007
90961897|NCT02445196|181803965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.72||||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.005
90961898|NCT02445196|181803966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.78||||0.113|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.113
90961899|NCT02464228|181803971|OTHER|||||||0|||||||Wilson approximation|||Null hypothesis H0: PORR = 10% versus HA: PORR \> 10% will be tested at a = 0.05 significance level using a two-sided binomial test. The choice of test statistics was driven by the method used for interval estimation.||||0.000
90961900|NCT02464228|181803971|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilson approximation|||Null hypothesis H0: PORR = 10% versus HA: PORR \> 10% will be tested at a = 0.05 significance level using a two-sided binomial test. The choice of test statistics was driven by the method used for interval estimation.||||1.000
90961901|NCT02464228|181803971|OTHER|||||||0.026|||||||Wilson approximation|||Null hypothesis H0: PORR = 10% versus HA: PORR \> 10% will be tested at a = 0.05 significance level using a two-sided binomial test. The choice of test statistics was driven by the method used for interval estimation.||||0.026
90961902|NCT02464228|181803971|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Clopper-Pearson method|||Null hypothesis H0: PORR = 10% versus HA: PORR \> 10% will be tested at a = 0.05 significance level using a two-sided binomial test. The choice of test statistics was driven by the method used for interval estimation.||||1.000
91033996|NCT01049334|181953878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0459||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05. Closed-sequential approach to control type I error: analyses through secondary outcomes #2-13 in the order listed will proceed until a p-value \>0.05 occurs.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0459
91033997|NCT01049334|181953879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8383||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05. Closed-sequential approach to control type I error: analyses through secondary outcomes #2-13 in the order listed will proceed until a p-value \>0.05 occurs.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8383
90961903|NCT04658186|181804005|SUPERIORITY||Difference in RMET|0.31||||0.647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.61|||Wald Chi-square||Results were obtained from a generalized linear model for the restricted mean event time (RMET), with gender and age at baseline as covariates and treatment group as the effect of interest.|||1.61|-1.00|0.647
90961904|NCT04658186|181804005|SUPERIORITY||Difference in RMET|0.81||||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|2.09|||Wald Chi-square||Results obtained from generalized linear model for RMET, with gender and age at baseline as covariates and treatment group as effect of interest.|||2.09|-0.47|0.214
90961905|NCT04658186|181804008|SUPERIORITY||Difference in RMET|1.0||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|2.27|||Wald Chi-square||Results were obtained from a generalized linear model for the RMET, with gender and age at baseline as covariates and treatment group as the effect of interest.|||2.27|-0.27|0.124
90961906|NCT04658186|181804008|SUPERIORITY||Difference in RMET|1.22||||0.064||95.0|-0.07|2.51|||Wald Chi-sqaure||Results were obtained from a generalized linear model for the RMET, with gender and age at baseline as covariates and treatment group as the effect of interest.|||2.51|-0.07|0.064
90961907|NCT02993523|181804028|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.465|0.723||Stratified log-rank test stratified by age (18 - \< 75, ≥ 75) and cytogenetic risk (intermediate, poor).|Log Rank||HR from Cox proportional hazards model stratified by age (18 - \< 75, ≥ 75) and cytogenetic risk (intermediate, poor).|||0.723|0.465|<0.001
91033998|NCT01049334|181953880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05. Closed-sequential approach to control type I error: analyses through secondary outcomes #2-13 in the order listed will proceed until a p-value \>0.05 occurs.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0005
91033999|NCT01049334|181953881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05. Closed-sequential approach to control type I error: analyses through secondary outcomes #2-13 in the order listed will proceed until a p-value \>0.05 occurs.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0005
91034000|NCT01049334|181953882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05. Closed-sequential approach to control type I error: analyses through secondary outcomes #2-13 in the order listed will proceed until a p-value \>0.05 occurs.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0002
91034001|NCT01049334|181953883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|-156.3||||0.0435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-307.9|-4.6||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05. Closed-sequential approach to control type I error: analyses through secondary outcomes #2-13 in the order listed will proceed until a p-value \>0.05 occurs.|ANOVA|||||-4.6|-307.9|0.0435
90880533|NCT01907828|181622866|SUPERIORITY|Change in Office Systolic Blood Pressure (OSBP) at 12 months.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|30.0||0.7999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|18.6|||Paired Student's t-test|||||18.6|-14.6|0.7999
90880534|NCT01907828|181622866|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.8||0.2076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.2|3.4|||Paired Student's t-test|||Change in ODBP at 12 months||3.4|-14.2|0.2076
90918360|NCT05028582|181705972|SUPERIORITY|S-IGA Success Week 2|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.84|9.13|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline S-IGA, and baseline B-IGA with multiple imputation to handle missing data|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline S-IGA, and baseline B-IGA with multiple imputation to handle missing data|||9.13|1.84|<0.0001
90961908|NCT02993523|181804029|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by age (18 - \< 75, ≥ 75) and cytogenetic risk (intermediate, poor).||||||<0.001
91034002|NCT01049334|181953884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05. Closed-sequential approach to control type I error: analyses through secondary outcomes #2-13 in the order listed will proceed until a p-value \>0.05 occurs.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<.0001
90880535|NCT01907828|181622867|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.3||0.882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|9.1|||Paired Student's t-test|||Change in OSBP at 24 months||9.1|-7.9|0.8820
90961909|NCT03694418|181804037|OTHER||Incident Rate Ratio|1.73|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.35|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|2.95|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||2.95|1.02|<0.05
90961910|NCT01806129|181804046|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.29|3.31|||||Odds ratio represents the odds of adopting the appropriate reproductive health management for patients with intervention compared to the odds among patients without intervention. Odds ratio was calculated by GEE analysis.|||3.31|1.29|
90961911|NCT00784693|181804118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.87|1.69||||||Week 8: Analysis was based on analysis of co-variance (ANCOVA) model with main effects of treatment, contraceptive use and baseline severity of pain.||1.69|-0.87|
90961912|NCT02982187|181804138|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|29.114|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.047||The upper bound of the 95% CI could not be calculated due to the low number of events and is therefore displayed as NA.||stratified exact logistic model||Odds ratio, 95% CI and P-value obtained from a stratified exact logistic model. Participant is included in the model as fixed strata, treatment option in the exact statement and period included as a fixed effect.|Sub study 1: DISKUS + HandiHaler vs ELLIPTA|||11.047|<0.001
90961913|NCT02982187|181804138|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|27.744|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.512||The upper bound of the 95% CI could not be calculated due to the low number of events and is therefore displayed as NA.||stratified exact logistic model||Odds ratio, 95% CI and P-value obtained from a stratified exact logistic model. Participant is included in the model as fixed strata, treatment option in the exact statement and period included as a fixed effect.|Sub study 2:Turbuhaler + HandiHaler vs ELLIPTA|||10.512|<0.001
91034003|NCT01049334|181953885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|0.1||||0.1448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.1|||ANOVA|Baseline STPIS fitted as a covariate||Minutes post dose: 2||0.1|-0.0|0.1448
91034004|NCT01049334|181953885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|0.1||||0.1538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.3|||ANOVA|Baseline STPIS fitted as a covariate||Minutes post dose: 4||0.3|-0.0|0.1538
90961914|NCT02982187|181804139|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.248||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.416||The upper bound of the 95% CI could not be calculated due to the low number of events and is therefore displayed as NA.||stratified exact logistic model||Odds ratio, 95% CI and P-value obtained from a stratified exact logistic model. Participant is included in the model as fixed strata, treatment option in the exact statement and period included as a fixed effect.|Sub study 1:DISKUS + HandiHaler vs ELLIPTA|||1.416|0.029
90961915|NCT02982187|181804139|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.855||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.394||The upper bound of the 95% CI could not be calculated due to the low number of events and is therefore displayed as NA.||stratified exact logistic model||Odds ratio, 95% CI and P-value obtained from a stratified exact logistic model. Participant is included in the model as fixed strata, treatment option in the exact statement and period included as a fixed effect.|Sub study 2:Turbuhaler + HandiHaler vs ELLIPTA|||1.394|0.026
90961916|NCT02982187|181804140|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.459||The upper bound of the 95% CI could not be calculated due to the low number of events and is therefore displayed as NA.||stratified exact logistic model||Odds ratio, 95% CI and P-value obtained from a stratified exact logistic model. Participant is included in the model as fixed strata, treatment option in the exact statement and period included as a fixed effect.|Sub study 1:DISKUS + HandiHaler vs ELLIPTA|||0.459|0.400
90961917|NCT02982187|181804140|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.732||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.397||The upper bound of the 95% CI could not be calculated due to the low number of events and is therefore displayed as NA.||stratified exact logistic model||Odds ratio, 95% CI and P-value obtained from a stratified exact logistic model. Participant is included in the model as fixed strata, treatment option in the exact statement and period included as a fixed effect.|Sub study 2:Turbuhaler + HandiHaler vs ELLIPTA|||0.397|0.500
90961918|NCT02982187|181804141|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|24.539|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.268||The upper bound of the 95% CI could not be calculated due to the low number of events and is therefore displayed as NA.||stratified exact logistic model||Odds ratio, 95% CI and P-value obtained from a stratified exact logistic model. Participant is included in the model as fixed strata, treatment option in the exact statement and period included as a fixed effect.|Sub study 1:DISKUS + HandiHaler vs ELLIPTA|||9.268|<0.001
90961919|NCT02982187|181804141|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|17.974|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.239||The upper bound of the 95% CI could not be calculated due to the low number of events and is therefore displayed as NA.||stratified exact logistic model||Odds ratio, 95% CI and P-value obtained from a stratified exact logistic model. Participant is included in the model as fixed strata, treatment option in the exact statement and period included as a fixed effect.|Sub study 2:Turbuhaler + HandiHaler vs ELLIPTA|||7.239|<0.001
91034005|NCT01049334|181953885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|0.2||||0.1407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.5|||ANOVA|Baseline STPIS fitted as a covariate||Minutes post dose: 6||0.5|-0.1|0.1407
91034006|NCT01049334|181953885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|0.2||||0.2906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.7|||ANOVA|Baseline STPIS fitted as a covariate||Minutes post dose: 8||0.7|-0.2|0.2906
91034007|NCT01049334|181953885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|0.2||||0.4758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.8|||ANOVA|Baseline STPIS fitted as a covariate||Minutes post dose: 10||0.8|-0.4|0.4758
91034008|NCT01049334|181953885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|0.1||||0.6975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.9|||ANOVA|Baseline STPIS fitted as a covariate||Minutes post dose: 12||0.9|-0.6|0.6975
91034009|NCT01049334|181953885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|0.0||||0.937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.9|||ANOVA|Baseline STPIS fitted as a covariate||Minutes post dose: 14||0.9|-0.8|0.9370
91034010|NCT01049334|181953885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|-0.1||||0.8493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.9|||ANOVA|Baseline STPIS fitted as a covariate||Minutes post dose: 16||0.9|-1.1|0.8493
91034011|NCT01049334|181953885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|-0.3||||0.6732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.9|||ANOVA|Baseline STPIS fitted as a covariate||Minutes post dose: 18||0.9|-1.4|0.6732
91034012|NCT01049334|181953885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|-0.4||||0.5414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.9|||ANOVA|Baseline STPIS fitted as a covariate||Minutes post dose: 20||0.9|-1.8|0.5414
91034013|NCT01049334|181953885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|-0.6||||0.4313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.9|||ANOVA|Baseline STPIS fitted as a covariate||Minutes post dose: 22||0.9|-2.1|0.4313
90961920|NCT02982187|181804142|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.237||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.124||The upper bound of the 95% CI could not be calculated due to the low number of events and is therefore displayed as NA.||stratified exact logistic model||Odds ratio, 95% CI and P-value obtained from a stratified exact logistic model. Participant is included in the model as fixed strata, treatment option in the exact statement and period included as a fixed effect.|Sub study 1:DISKUS + HandiHaler vs ELLIPTA|||1.124|0.067
90880536|NCT01907828|181622867|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.0||0.8019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|4.7|||Paired Student's t-test|||Change in ODBP at 24 months||4.7|-3.7|0.8019
90880537|NCT01907828|181622867|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.9||0.2177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|19.6|||Paired Student's t-test|||Change in OSBP at 24 months||19.6|-4.8|0.2177
90880538|NCT01907828|181622867|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.5||0.4502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|5.2|||Paired Student's t-test|||Change in ODBP at 24 months||5.2|-11.2|0.4502
90880539|NCT01874262|181622868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.025
90880540|NCT00915798|181622871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||F|0.56||||0.46|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05||Frontal BOLD during abstinence in smokers and nonsmokers||||0.46
90880541|NCT00915798|181622871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||F|6.64||||0.012|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05|Diagnosis by smoking status interaction.|Parietal BOLD during abstinence in smokers and nonsmokers||||0.012
90880542|NCT00915798|181622871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||F|211.2||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05|Main effect for smoking status.|Occipital BOLD during abstinence in smokers and nonsmokers.||||0.04
90880543|NCT00915798|181622871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||F|1.6||||0.22|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05||Frontal BOLD smoking versus nonsmoking in smokers with ADHD compared to control smokers.||||0.22
90880544|NCT00915798|181622871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||F|0.43||||0.51|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05||Parietal BOLD smoking versus nonsmoking in smokers with ADHD compared to control smokers.||||0.51
91034014|NCT01049334|181953885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|-0.8||||0.3501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.9|||ANOVA|Baseline STPIS fitted as a covariate||Minutes post dose: 24||0.9|-2.4|0.3501
90880545|NCT00915798|181622871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||F|0.16||||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05||Occipital BOLD smoking versus nonsmoking in smokers with ADHD compared to control smokers.||||0.69
90880546|NCT00167934|181622921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.0001
90880547|NCT00167934|181622922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.04
90880548|NCT04180020|181622925|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.94
90880549|NCT01228747|181622957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-56.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.24|-44.02||Statistical testing was 2-sided, and was performed using a significance (α) level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|||"The statistical hypotheses, null hypothesis (H0) and alternate hypothesis (H1), are stated below:~H0: μLEV = μPBO vs. H1: μLEV ≠ μPBO~ANCOVA on the endpoint percentage change from Combined Baseline of GTC seizures per week using treatment and country as factors (categorical predictors) and Combined Baseline GTC seizure frequency per week as a covariate (a continuous predictor) where μLEV and μPBO are adjusted means for LEV and PBO, respectively."||-44.02|-68.24|<0.0001
90880550|NCT04258605|181622980|OTHER|P-values account for preoperative versus postoperative mean values at 1 and 2 years|||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"The small sample size of arm ASHCOM Shoulder System subjects - Fracture humeral stem of 2 cases is too low for a statistical analysis."||||<.0001
90880551|NCT04258605|181622981|OTHER|P-values account for preoperative versus postoperative mean values at 3-6 months, 1 year, 2 and 3 years|||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"The small sample size of arm ASHCOM Shoulder System subjects - Fracture humeral stem of 2 cases is too low for a statistical analysis."||||<0.001
90880552|NCT04258605|181622982|OTHER|P-values account for preoperative versus postoperative mean values at 3-6 months, 1, 2 and 3 years|||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"The small sample size of arm ASHCOM Shoulder System subjects - Fracture humeral stem of 2 cases is too low for a statistical analysis."||||<0.001
90880553|NCT04258605|181622983|OTHER|P-values account for preoperative versus postoperative mean values at 3-6 months, 1 year, 2 and 3 years|||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"The small sample size of arm ASHCOM Shoulder System subjects - Fracture humeral stem of 2 cases is too low for a statistical analysis."||||<0.001
90880554|NCT00181961|181622990|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.016
90880555|NCT04013191|181623044|OTHER||Point Estimate|0.928|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.725|1.19|||ANOVA|||The analysis of variance (ANOVA) model included the fixed effects of age group. The natural logs were taken of the dependent variables and back-transformed after the analysis.||1.19|0.725|
90880556|NCT04013191|181623045|OTHER||Point Estimate|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.894|1.67|||ANOVA|||The ANOVA model included the fixed effects of age group. The natural logs were taken of the dependent variables and back-transformed after the analysis.||1.67|0.894|
90880557|NCT04013191|181623046|OTHER||Point Estimate|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.893|1.68|||ANOVA|||The ANOVA model included the fixed effects of age group. The natural logs were taken of the dependent variables and back-transformed after the analysis.||1.68|0.893|
90880558|NCT04013191|181623047|OTHER||Point Estimate|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.829|1.26|||ANOVA|||The ANOVA model included the fixed effects of age group. The natural logs were taken of the dependent variables and back-transformed after the analysis.||1.26|0.829|
90880559|NCT04013191|181623048|OTHER||Point Estimate|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.908|1.53|||ANOVA|||The ANOVA model included the fixed effects of age group. The natural logs were taken of the dependent variables and back-transformed after the analysis.||1.53|0.908|
90880560|NCT00394212|181623061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.066||95.0||||P-value from non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon test comparing treatments.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Based on a 2-group test of means for unequal variance and unequal sample size (2:1 randomization ratio) with alpha = 0.05 and a power of 80%, the sample size required was 132; 88 subjects in the Transoral Suturing arm and 44 in the Sham Endoscopy arm. The study was prematurely discontinued due to reasons unrelated to safety and effectiveness and therefore was underpowered for evaluation of the primary and secondary hypotheses.||||0.066
90918361|NCT05028582|181705973|SUPERIORITY|S-IGA Success at Week 4|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|2.62|8.84|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline S-IGA, and baseline B-IGA with multiple imputation to handle missing data|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline S-IGA, and baseline B-IGA with multiple imputation to handle missing data|||8.84|2.62|<0.0001
90918362|NCT05028582|181705974|SUPERIORITY|Change from Baseline in PASI Week 2|LS Mean Difference|-1.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.71|-0.85|||ANCOVA|Covariate terms of treatment, pooled study site, baseline S-IGA, baseline B-IGA, and baseline PASI score \& multiple imputation to handle missing data|Covariate terms of treatment, pooled study site, baseline S-IGA, baseline B-IGA, and baseline PASI score \& multiple imputation to handle missing data|||-0.85|-1.71|<0.0001
90918363|NCT06546657|181706021|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.74||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|4.0||a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||Medium GI vs low GI breakfast meals||4.0|-0.6|0.14
90918364|NCT06546657|181706021|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.4||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|7.5|||Linear Mixed Model|||Medium vs high GI breakfast meals||7.5|1.2|0.01
90918365|NCT06546657|181706021|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.63||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|0.7||a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||High GI vs low GI breakfast meals||0.7|-6.0|0.12
90918366|NCT06546657|181706022|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1815||||0.65|TWO_SIDED||||||Linear Mixed Model|||High GI breakfast meals vs low and medium GI breakfast meals||||0.65
90918367|NCT06546657|181706023|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.431||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.2|||Linear Mixed Model|||High glycaemic load breakfast meals vs low and medium glycaemic load meals||1.2|-0.3|0.25
90918368|NCT06546657|181706024|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.0||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|44.0|||Linear Mixed Model|||High glycaemic load breakfast meals vs low and medium glycaemic load meals||44|0.6|0.04
90918369|NCT06546657|181706025|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.1|||Linear Mixed Model|||Breakfast cereals meals vs added protein meals||2.1|0.4|0.01
90918370|NCT06546657|181706027|OTHER|Comparison of diurnal and nocturnal glucose variability (CV%)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90918371|NCT02728557|181706064|OTHER|MLM models||||||0.016|||||||MLM|MLM||A model with two three-way interactions of time by treatment condition by attachment orientation (Time Å\~ Treatment condition Å\~ Attachment anxiety, Time Å\~ Treatment condition Å\~ Attachment avoidance) along the lower-level effects to predict differences in the slope of change in outcome. The threshold for statistical significance was p\>0.05.||||.016
90918372|NCT03416010|181706070|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||two-way ANOVA|||Null Hypothesis: There was no significant difference in Health Beliefs across those 4 time points.||||<0.001
90918373|NCT03416010|181706070|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||two-way ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: There was no significant difference between the full intervention group, COPE-P, and the attention-control group, Preg+, in Health Beliefs, as measured by the Healthy Lifestyle Beliefs measure, at T0 baseline, as well as at time points 1, immediately following the intervention, 2, 6 weeks after the infants' birth, and 3, 6 months after the infants' birth||||<0.001
90918374|NCT03416010|181706070|OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||two-way ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: There was no statistically significant interaction between the intervention group and time.||||0.009
90918375|NCT03416010|181706071|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Threshold for significance: p \<0.01|two-way ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: there was no significant difference in anxiety across the 4 time points.||||<0.001
90918376|NCT03416010|181706071|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||two-way ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: There was no significant difference between the two groups in anxiety at T0 baseline, as well as at timepoint 1(immediately following the intervention), timepoint 2 (6 weeks after the infants' birth), and timepoint 3 (6 months after the infants' birth).||||<0.001
90918377|NCT03416010|181706071|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||two-way ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: There was no statistically significant interaction between the intervention group and time.||||<0.001
90918378|NCT03416010|181706072|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||two-way ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: There was no significant difference in health behaviors across those 4 time points.||||<0.001
90918379|NCT03416010|181706072|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||two-way ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90918380|NCT03416010|181706072|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||two-way ANOVA|||Null Hypothesis: There was no statistically significant interaction between the intervention group and time.||||<0.001
90918381|NCT03416010|181706073|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||two-way ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: There was no significant difference in depressive symptoms across those 4 timepoints.||||<0.001
90918382|NCT03416010|181706073|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||two-way ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: There was no significant difference between the two groups in depressive symptoms at T0 baseline, as well as at time points 1, immediately following the intervention, 2, 6 weeks after the infants' birth, and 3, 6 months after the infants' birth.||||<0.001
90918383|NCT03416010|181706073|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||two-way ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: There was no statistically significant interaction between the intervention group and time.||||<0.001
90918384|NCT03416010|181706074|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||two-way ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: There was no significant difference in stress across those 4 time points.||||<0.001
90918385|NCT03416010|181706074|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||two-way ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: There was no significant difference between the two groups in stress, as measured by the GAD-7, at T0 baseline, as well as at timepoint 1 (immediately following the intervention), timepoint 2 (6 weeks after the infants' birth) and timepoint 3 (6 months after the infants' birth).||||<0.001
90918386|NCT03416010|181706074|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||two-way ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: There was no statistically significant interaction between the intervention group and time.||||<0.001
90918387|NCT06023082|181706127|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Baseline to Week 12 comparison.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
90918388|NCT06023082|181706128|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
90918389|NCT06023082|181706129|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Baseline to Week 12 comparison.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
90918390|NCT06023082|181706130|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Baseline to Week 12 comparison.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
90918391|NCT06023082|181706131|OTHER|||||||0.4907||||||Baseline to Week 12 comparison.|ANOVA|||||||0.4907
90918392|NCT06023082|181706132|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Baseline to Week 12 comparison.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
90918393|NCT06023082|181706133|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Baseline to Week 12 comparison.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
90918394|NCT06023082|181706134|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Baseline to Week 12 comparison.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
90880561|NCT00394212|181623062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.317||95.0||||P-value from two-sided Fisher's exact test comparing percents achieving 15% EWL at 6 months for the two treatments.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.317
90880562|NCT00394212|181623063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019||95.0||||P-value from two-sided Fisher's exact test comparing percents achieved for the two treatments.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.019
90880563|NCT00394212|181623064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.174||95.0||||P-value from two-sided Fisher's exact test comparing percents achieved for the two treatments.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.174
90880564|NCT04144166|181623073|OTHER||||||||||||||See above|||"Mean value for visual CRT and median value for device CRI were calculated for each participant. 3 values were measured (each) for CRT and CRI. Mean value is equal to SUM(m1,m2,m3)/3.~Median value was then calculated for the set (57) of calculated mean visual CRT and mean device CRI. Median value is equal to the middle value of the series of mean values. All measurements are in units of seconds."|See above|||
91034015|NCT01049334|181953885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|-1.0||||0.2679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|0.8|||ANOVA|Baseline STPIS fitted as a covariate||Minutes post dose: 26||0.8|-2.8|0.2679
90880565|NCT01481116|181623142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.18||The testing procedure at 2-sided significance level of 0.025 was as follows: 1) TAK-875 25 mg vs. glimepiride, 2) TAK-875 50 mg plus metformin vs. glimepiride. If P-value was not greater than 0.025 at Step 1, then Step 2 was carried out.|Regression, Logistic|||Day 1 up to Week 78: Odds Ratios, corresponding confidence interval, and p-values were calculated using logistic regression with factors for treatment, country, schedule and baseline HbA1c value.||0.18|0.09|<0.001
90880566|NCT01481116|181623142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.18||The testing procedure at 2-sided significance level of 0.025 was as follows: 1) TAK-875 25 mg vs. glimepiride, 2) TAK-875 50 mg plus metformin vs. glimepiride. If P-value was not greater than 0.025 at Step 1, then Step 2 was carried out.|Regression, Logistic|||Day 1 up to Week 78: Odds Ratios, corresponding confidence interval, and p-values were calculated using logistic regression with factors for treatment, country, schedule and baseline HbA1c value.||0.18|0.09|<0.001
90918395|NCT06023082|181706135|OTHER|||||||0.0016||||||Baseline to Week 12 comparison.|ANOVA|||||||0.0016
90918396|NCT06023082|181706136|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Baseline to Week 12 comparison.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
90918397|NCT06023082|181706137|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Baseline to Week 12 comparison.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
90918398|NCT06023082|181706138|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Baseline to Week 12 comparison.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
90918399|NCT06023082|181706139|OTHER|||||||0.0002||||||Baseline to Week 12 comparison.|ANOVA|||||||0.0002
90918400|NCT06023082|181706140|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||Baseline to Week 12 comparison.|ANOVA|||||||0.001
90918401|NCT06023082|181706141|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Baseline to Week 12 comparison.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
90918402|NCT06023082|181706142|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Baseline to Week 12 comparison.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
90918403|NCT06023082|181706143|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Baseline to Week 12 comparison.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91034016|NCT01049334|181953885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|-1.2||||0.2137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|0.7|||ANOVA|Baseline STPIS fitted as a covariate||Minutes post dose: 28||0.7|-3.2|0.2137
91034017|NCT01049334|181953885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|-1.5||||0.1715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|0.6|||ANOVA|Baseline STPIS fitted as a covariate||Minutes post dose: 30||0.6|-3.6|0.1715
91034018|NCT01049334|181953885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|-1.8||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|0.5|||ANOVA|Baseline STPIS fitted as a covariate||Minutes post dose: 32||0.5|-4.1|0.1340
90880567|NCT01481116|181623142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.18||The testing procedure at 2-sided significance level of 0.025 was as follows: 1) TAK-875 25 mg vs. glimepiride, 2) TAK-875 50 mg plus metformin vs. glimepiride. If P-value was not greater than 0.025 at Step 1, then Step 2 was carried out.|Regression, Logistic|||Day 1 up to Week 104: Odds Ratios, corresponding confidence interval, and p-values were calculated using logistic regression with factors for treatment, country, schedule and baseline HbA1c value.||0.18|0.09|<0.001
90880568|NCT01481116|181623142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.18||The testing procedure at 2-sided significance level of 0.025 was as follows: 1) TAK-875 25 mg vs. glimepiride, 2) TAK-875 50 mg plus metformin vs. glimepiride. If P-value was not greater than 0.025 at Step 1, then Step 2 was carried out.|Regression, Logistic|||Day 1 up to Week 104: Odds Ratios, corresponding confidence interval, and p-values were calculated using logistic regression with factors for treatment, country, schedule and baseline HbA1c value.||0.18|0.09|<0.001
90918404|NCT06023082|181706144|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline to Week 12 comparison.||||<0.0001
90918405|NCT06023082|181706145|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Baseline to Week 10 comparison.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
90918406|NCT06023082|181706146|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Baseline to Week 12 comparison.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
90918407|NCT06023082|181706147|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Baseline to Week 12 comparison.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
90918408|NCT06023082|181706148|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Baseline to Week 12 comparison.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
90918409|NCT06023082|181706149|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Baseline to Week 12 comparison.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
90918410|NCT05986565|181706151|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.587|||||||RMANOVA|1||||||0.587
90918411|NCT05986565|181706152|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.874|||||||RMANOVA|1||||||0.874
90918412|NCT05986565|181706153|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.946|||||||RMANOVA|1||||||0.946
90918413|NCT05986565|181706154|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.267|||||||t-test, 2 sided|24||||||0.267
90918414|NCT05986565|181706155|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.187|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df=25||||||0.187
90918415|NCT05986565|181706156|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.765|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df=24||||||0.765
90918416|NCT05986565|181706157|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df=25||||||0.060
90918417|NCT05986565|181706158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.608|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df=24||||||0.608
90918418|NCT05986565|181706159|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.638|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df=25||||||0.638
91034019|NCT01049334|181953885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|-2.0||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|0.4|||ANOVA|Baseline STPIS fitted as a covariate||Minutes post dose: 34||0.4|-4.5|0.1030
90918419|NCT06459401|181706210|OTHER|Single group test of difference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.07||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Effect Size (Cohen's D) = 0.525|Difference = Preferred Timing - Non-Preferred Timing|An a priori power analysis (G\*Power 3.1.9.7) determined that a sample size of 10 participants could detect an effect size (Cohen's D) of 1.0 with 80% power and alpha = 0.05.||0.07|-0.01|0.131
90918420|NCT06459401|181706211|OTHER|Single group test of difference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|2.56||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Effect Size (Cohen's D) = 1.623|Difference = Preferred Timing - Non-Preferred Timing|An a priori power analysis (G\*Power 3.1.9.7) determined that a sample size of 10 participants could detect an effect size (Cohen's D) of 1.0 with 80% power and alpha = 0.05.||2.56|0.99|0.001
90918421|NCT06459401|181706212|OTHER|Single group test of difference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|5.89||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Effect Size (Cohen's D) = 0.923|Difference = Preferred Timing - Non-Preferred Timing|An a priori power analysis (G\*Power 3.1.9.7) determined that a sample size of 10 participants could detect an effect size (Cohen's D) of 1.0 with 80% power and alpha = 0.05.||5.89|0.75|0.017
90918422|NCT06459401|181706213|OTHER|Single group test of difference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016||0.874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.034|0.039||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Effect Size (Cohen's D) = 0.052|Difference = Assisted - Unassisted|An a priori power analysis (G\*Power 3.1.9.7) determined that a sample size of 10 participants could detect an effect size (Cohen's D) of 1.0 with 80% power and alpha = 0.05.||0.039|-0.034|0.874
90918423|NCT06459401|181706214|OTHER|Single group test of difference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|0.46||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Effect Size (Cohen's D) = -0.315|Difference = Assisted - Unassisted|An a priori power analysis (G\*Power 3.1.9.7) determined that a sample size of 10 participants could detect an effect size (Cohen's D) of 1.0 with 80% power and alpha = 0.05.||0.46|-1.18|0.345
90918424|NCT06459401|181706215|OTHER|Single group test of difference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|-0.36||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Effect Size (Cohen's D) = -0.859|Difference = Assisted - Unassisted|An a priori power analysis (G\*Power 3.1.9.7) determined that a sample size of 10 participants could detect an effect size (Cohen's D) of 1.0 with 80% power and alpha = 0.05.||-0.36|-3.90|0.024
90918425|NCT06459401|181706216|OTHER|Single group test of difference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.06||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Effect Size (Cohen's D) = 0.739|Difference = Assisted - Unassisted|An a priori power analysis (G\*Power 3.1.9.7) determined that a sample size of 10 participants could detect an effect size (Cohen's D) of 1.0 with 80% power and alpha = 0.05.||0.06|0.00|0.044
90918426|NCT06459401|181706217|OTHER|Single group test of difference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|2.5||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Effect Size (Cohen's D) = 0.928|Difference = Assisted - Unassisted|An a priori power analysis (G\*Power 3.1.9.7) determined that a sample size of 10 participants could detect an effect size (Cohen's D) of 1.0 with 80% power and alpha = 0.05.||2.50|0.32|0.017
90918427|NCT06459401|181706218|OTHER|Single group test of difference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26||0.372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|4.04||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Effect Size (Cohen's D) = 0.297|Difference = Assisted - Unassisted|An a priori power analysis (G\*Power 3.1.9.7) determined that a sample size of 10 participants could detect an effect size (Cohen's D) of 1.0 with 80% power and alpha = 0.05.||4.04|-1.67|0.372
90918428|NCT06459401|181706219|OTHER|Single group test of difference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.2||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Effect Size (Cohen's D) = 1.508|Difference = Post-Session - Pre-Session|An a priori power analysis (G\*Power 3.1.9.7) determined that a sample size of 10 participants could detect an effect size (Cohen's D) of 1.0 with 80% power and alpha = 0.05.||0.20|0.07|0.001
90918429|NCT06459401|181706220|OTHER|Single group test of difference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|4.39||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Effect Size (Cohen's D) = 0.746|Difference = Post-Session - Pre-Session|An a priori power analysis (G\*Power 3.1.9.7) determined that a sample size of 10 participants could detect an effect size (Cohen's D) of 1.0 with 80% power and alpha = 0.05.||4.39|0.09|0.043
90918430|NCT06459401|181706221|OTHER|Single group test of difference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|8.83||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Effect Size (Cohen's D) = 0.752|Difference = Post-Session - Pre-Session|An a priori power analysis (G\*Power 3.1.9.7) determined that a sample size of 10 participants could detect an effect size (Cohen's D) of 1.0 with 80% power and alpha = 0.05.||8.83|0.22|0.041
90918431|NCT06459401|181706222|OTHER|Single group test of difference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.21||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Effect Size (Cohen's D) = 0.983|Difference = Post-Session - Pre-Session|An a priori power analysis (G\*Power 3.1.9.7) determined that a sample size of 10 participants could detect an effect size (Cohen's D) of 1.0 with 80% power and alpha = 0.05.||0.21|0.03|0.013
90918432|NCT06459401|181706223|OTHER|Single group test of difference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|2.78||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Effect Size (Cohen's D) = 0.985|Difference = Post-Session - Pre-Session|An a priori power analysis (G\*Power 3.1.9.7) determined that a sample size of 10 participants could detect an effect size (Cohen's D) of 1.0 with 80% power and alpha = 0.05.||2.78|0.44|0.012
90880569|NCT01481116|181623143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.707||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|0.08||The testing procedure at 2-sided significance level of 0.025 was as follows: 1) TAK-875 25 mg vs. glimepiride, 2) TAK-875 50 mg plus metformin vs. glimepiride. If P-value was not greater than 0.025 at Step 1, then Step 2 was carried out.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Treatment, schedule and visit-by-treatment interaction as fixed factors and with baseline value and baseline value by visit interaction as covariates.||Change at Week 78||0.08|-2.70|0.065
90880570|NCT01481116|181623143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.678||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|-0.11||The testing procedure at 2-sided significance level of 0.025 was as follows: 1) TAK-875 25 mg vs. glimepiride, 2) TAK-875 50 mg plus metformin vs. glimepiride. If P-value was not greater than 0.025 at Step 1, then Step 2 was carried out.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Treatment, schedule and visit-by-treatment interaction as fixed factors and with baseline value and baseline value by visit interaction as covariates.||Change at Week 78||-0.11|-2.78|0.034
90880571|NCT00934544|181623247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Kaplan-Meir estimate|28.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.123|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.3|36.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||36.6|21.3|<0.0001
90880572|NCT02643251|181623258|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3361|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.3361
90880573|NCT01956110|181623308|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower bound of the 95% CI was well above the pre-specified non-inferiority limit of -8.0%. Thus, non-inferiority of FE 999049 to GONAL-F with regard to ongoing pregnancy rate was demonstrated.|Treatment difference|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|4.1||||||The pre-specified non-inferiority margin was -8.0% (absolute). Non-inferiority was evaluated based on a two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) derived based on the asymptotic normal distribution. The treatment comparison was adjusted for age (\<35, 35-37 and 38-40 years) by using the Mantel-Haenszel method to combine results across age-strata.||4.1|-5.9|
90880574|NCT01956110|181623309|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower bound of the 95% CI was well above the pre-specified non-inferiority limit of -8.0%. Thus, non-inferiority of FE 999049 to GONAL-F with regard to ongoing implantation rate was demonstrated.|Treatment difference|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|4.8||||||The pre-specified non-inferiority margin was -8.0% (absolute). Non-inferiority was evaluated based on a two-sided 95% CI derived based on the asymptotic normal distribution. The treatment comparison was adjusted for age (\<35, 35-37 and 38-40 years) by using the Mantel-Haenszel method to combine results across age-strata.||4.8|-6.1|
90880575|NCT01956110|181623310|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower bound of the 95% CI was well above -8.0% (pre-specified non-inferiority limit for the co-primary endpoints). Thus, the result was supportive of the co-primary endpoint analyses.|Treatment difference|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|3.4||||||Treatment groups were compared using a two-sided 95% CI derived based on the asymptotic normal distribution. The treatment comparison was adjusted for age (\<35, 35-37 and 38-40 years) by using the Mantel-Haenszel method to combine results across age-strata.||3.4|-6.7|
90880576|NCT01956110|181623311|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower bound of the 95% CI was well above -8.0% (pre-specified non-inferiority limit for the co-primary endpoints). Thus, the result was supportive of the co-primary endpoint analyses.|Treatment difference|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|4.2||||||Treatment groups were compared using a two-sided 95% CI derived based on the asymptotic normal distribution. The treatment comparison was adjusted for age (\<35, 35-37 and 38-40 years) by using the Mantel-Haenszel method to combine results across age-strata.||4.2|-7.0|
90880577|NCT01956110|181623312|OTHER|A logistic regression model was fitted to the data including AMH, log(AMH)\^2, treatment group and interactions between treatment group and AMH and treatment group and log(AMH)\^2 in the linear predictor. A second logistic regression model (nested within the first model) was fitted including AMH and log(AMH)\^2 in the linear predictor.|||||=|0.001||||||Inclusion of treatment provides a better fit to the data.|Likelihood ratio test|Likelihood ratio test comparing the reduced model including only AMH to the full model including AMH, treatment group and interactions.||Treatment comparison: \<4 or \>=15 oocytes retrieved||||=0.001
90880578|NCT01956110|181623312|OTHER|A logistic regression model was fitted to the data including AMH, log(AMH)2, treatment group and interactions between treatment group and AMH and treatment group and log(AMH)\^2 in the linear predictor. A second logistic regression model (nested within the first model) was fitted including AMH and log(AMH)\^2 in the linear predictor.|||||=|0.002||||||Inclusion of treatment provides a better fit to the data.|Likelihood ratio test|Likelihood ratio test comparing the reduced model including only AMH to the full model including AMH, treatment group and interactions.||Treatment comparison: \<4 or \>=20 oocytes retrieved||||=0.002
90918433|NCT06459401|181706224|OTHER|Single group test of difference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|9.11||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Effect Size (Cohen's D) = 0.779|Difference = Post-Session - Pre-Session|An a priori power analysis (G\*Power 3.1.9.7) determined that a sample size of 10 participants could detect an effect size (Cohen's D) of 1.0 with 80% power and alpha = 0.05.||9.11|0.39|0.036
90918434|NCT06459401|181706229|OTHER|Single group test of difference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|1.19||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Effect Size (Cohen's D) = -0.015|Difference = Preferred Timing - Non-Preferred Timing|An a priori power analysis (G\*Power 3.1.9.7) determined that a sample size of 10 participants could detect an effect size (Cohen's D) of 1.0 with 80% power and alpha = 0.05.||1.19|-1.24|0.962
91034020|NCT01049334|181953885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|-2.4||||0.0788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|0.3|||ANOVA|Baseline STPIS fitted as a covariate||Minutes post dose: 36||0.3|-5.0|0.0788
90880579|NCT01956110|181623313|OTHER|Nested logistic regression models were compared using the likelihood ratio test. The full logistic regression model included treatment as factor, log(AMH) as covariate and the interaction term. The nested model did not include treatment and the interaction term.|||||=|0.291||||||Inclusion of treatment does not provide a better fit to the data.|Likelihood ratio test|Likelihood ratio test comparing the reduced model including only AMH to the full model including AMH, treatment group and interactions.||Treatment comparison: Early OHSS (any grade)||||=0.291
90880580|NCT01956110|181623313|OTHER|Nested logistic regression models were compared using the likelihood ratio test. The full logistic regression model included treatment as factor, log(AMH) as covariate and the interaction term. The nested model did not include treatment and the interaction term.|||||=|0.644||||||Inclusion of treatment does not provide a better fit to the data.|Likelihood ratio test|Likelihood ratio test comparing the reduced model including only AMH to the full model including AMH, treatment group and interactions.||Treatment comparison: Early OHSS (moderate/severe)||||=0.644
90880581|NCT01956110|181623313|OTHER|Nested logistic regression models were compared using the likelihood ratio test. The full logistic regression model included treatment as factor, log(AMH) as covariate and the interaction term. The nested model did not include treatment and the interaction term.|||||=|0.005||||||Inclusion of treatment does not provide a better fit to the data.|Likelihood ratio test|Likelihood ratio test comparing the reduced model including only AMH to the full model including AMH, treatment group and interactions.||Treatment comparison: Preventive interventions||||=0.005
90880582|NCT01956110|181623313|OTHER|Nested logistic regression models were compared using the likelihood ratio test. The full logistic regression model included treatment as factor, log(AMH) as covariate and the interaction term. The nested model did not include treatment and the interaction term.|||||=|0.046||||||Inclusion of treatment does not provide a better fit to the data.|Likelihood ratio test|Likelihood ratio test comparing the reduced model including only AMH to the full model including AMH, treatment group and interactions.||Treatment comparison: Early OHSS (any grade) and/or preventive interventions||||=0.046
90880583|NCT01956110|181623313|OTHER|Nested logistic regression models were compared using the likelihood ratio test. The full logistic regression model included treatment as factor, log(AMH) as covariate and the interaction term. The nested model did not include treatment and the interaction term.|||||=|0.019||||||Inclusion of treatment does not provide a better fit to the data.|Likelihood ratio test|Likelihood ratio test comparing the reduced model including only AMH to the full model including AMH, treatment group and interactions.||Treatment comparison: Early OHSS (moderate/severe) and/or preventive interventions||||=0.019
90880584|NCT01956110|181623314|EQUIVALENCE|Treatment groups were compared using a logistic regression model with treatment and age (\<35, 35- 37, and 38-40 years) as factors.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38|||=|0.302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|2.57||P-value corresponds to test for treatment difference.|Likelihood ratio test|||Treatment comparison: Cycle cancelled due to poor response||2.57|0.74|=0.302
90961921|NCT02982187|181804142|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.357||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.219||The upper bound of the 95% CI could not be calculated due to the low number of events and is therefore displayed as NA.||stratified exact logistic model||Odds ratio, 95% CI and P-value obtained from a stratified exact logistic model. Participant is included in the model as fixed strata, treatment option in the exact statement and period included as a fixed effect.|Sub study 2:Turbuhaler + HandiHaler vs ELLIPTA|||2.219|0.003
90961922|NCT02982187|181804143|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||stratified exact logistic model|||Sub study 1: DISKUS + HandiHaler vs ELLIPTA|These statistics were only presented when the model successfully converged. A stratified exact logistic model was used with participant included in the model as fixed strata, treatment option in the exact statement and period included as a fixed effect.|||
90961923|NCT02982187|181804143|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.732||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.397||The upper bound of the 95% CI could not be calculated due to the low number of events and is therefore displayed as NA.||stratified exact logistic model||Odds ratio, 95% CI and P-value obtained from a stratified exact logistic model. Participant is included in the model as fixed strata, treatment option in the exact statement and period included as a fixed effect.|Sub study 2:Turbuhaler + HandiHaler vs ELLIPTA|||0.397|0.500
90880585|NCT01956110|181623314|EQUIVALENCE|Treatment groups were compared using a logistic regression model with treatment and age (\<35, 35-37, and 38-40 years) as factors.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.42||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.9||P-value corresponds to test for treatment difference.|Likelihood ratio test|||Treatment comparison:Triggering with GnRH agonist||0.9|0.2|0.019
90880586|NCT01956110|181623315|EQUIVALENCE|Treatment groups were compared using the van Elteren test adjusted for age (\<35, 35-37, and 38-40 years).|||||=|0.692|||||||van Elteren|||Treatment comparison: Number of oocytes retrieved||||=0.692
90880587|NCT01956110|181623316|OTHER|"A logistic regression model was fitted to the data including AMH, log(AMH)\^2, treatment group and interactions between treatment group and AMH and treatment group and log(AMH)\^2 in the linear predictor.~A second logistic regression model (nested within the first model) was fitted including AMH and log(AMH)\^2 in the linear predictor."|||||=|0.019||||||Inclusion of treatment provides a better fit to the data|Likelihood ratio test|Likelihood ratio test comparing the reduced model including only AMH to the full model including AMH, treatment group and interactions.||The relation between ovarian response potential (AMH at screening) and probability of achieving the targeted response was modelled using logistic regression models.||||=0.019
90961924|NCT02982187|181804144|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|This method of analysis does not take sequence of treatment option into account||Sub study 1:DISKUS + HandiHaler vs ELLIPTA||||<0.001
90961925|NCT02982187|181804144|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|This method of analysis does not take sequence of treatment option into account||Sub study 2:Turbuhaler + HandiHaler vs ELLIPTA||||<0.001
90880588|NCT01956110|181623317|EQUIVALENCE|Treatment groups were compared using the van Elteren test adjusted for age (\<35, 35-37, and 38-40 years).|||||=|0.909|||||||van Elteren|||Treatment comparison: Number of metaphase II oocytes||||=0.909
90961926|NCT02982187|181804148|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90961927|NCT02982187|181804148|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90961928|NCT02982187|181804149|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90918435|NCT06459401|181706230|OTHER|Single group test of difference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.35||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Effect Size (Cohen's D) = 0.504|Difference = Preferred Timing - Non-Preferred Timing|An a priori power analysis (G\*Power 3.1.9.7) determined that a sample size of 10 participants could detect an effect size (Cohen's D) of 1.0 with 80% power and alpha = 0.05.||0.35|-0.06|0.146
90918436|NCT06459401|181706231|OTHER|Single group test of difference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|3.63||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Effect Size (Cohen's D) = 0.495|Difference = Assisted - Unassisted|An a priori power analysis (G\*Power 3.1.9.7) determined that a sample size of 10 participants could detect an effect size (Cohen's D) of 1.0 with 80% power and alpha = 0.05.||3.63|-0.66|0.152
90918437|NCT06459401|181706232|OTHER|Single group test of difference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.31||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Effect Size (Cohen's D) = 0.494|Difference = Assisted - Unassisted|An a priori power analysis (G\*Power 3.1.9.7) determined that a sample size of 10 participants could detect an effect size (Cohen's D) of 1.0 with 80% power and alpha = 0.05.||0.31|-0.06|0.153
90918438|NCT06459401|181706233|OTHER|Single group test of difference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|3.58||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Effect Size (Cohen's D) = 0.491|Difference = Assisted - Unassisted|An a priori power analysis (G\*Power 3.1.9.7) determined that a sample size of 10 participants could detect an effect size (Cohen's D) of 1.0 with 80% power and alpha = 0.05.||3.58|-0.67|0.155
90918439|NCT06459401|181706234|OTHER|Single group test of difference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.43||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Effect Size (Cohen's D) = 1.199|Difference = Assisted - Unassisted|An a priori power analysis (G\*Power 3.1.9.7) determined that a sample size of 10 participants could detect an effect size (Cohen's D) of 1.0 with 80% power and alpha = 0.05.||0.43|0.11|0.004
90918440|NCT06459401|181706235|OTHER|Single group test of difference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.82|-0.56||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Effect Size (Cohen's D) = -0.962|Difference = Post-Session - Pre-Session|An a priori power analysis (G\*Power 3.1.9.7) determined that a sample size of 10 participants could detect an effect size (Cohen's D) of 1.0 with 80% power and alpha = 0.05.||-0.56|-3.82|0.014
90918441|NCT06459401|181706236|OTHER|Single group test of difference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.66||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Effect Size (Cohen's D) = 0.312|Difference = Post-Session - Pre-Session|An a priori power analysis (G\*Power 3.1.9.7) determined that a sample size of 10 participants could detect an effect size (Cohen's D) of 1.0 with 80% power and alpha = 0.05.||0.66|-0.26|0.350
90961929|NCT02982187|181804149|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90961930|NCT02888665|181804151|OTHER||see above|||||||||||see above. target ORR was not met.|||see above. target ORR was not met.|The primary objective of the phase II design compared ORR with historical rates (Judson et al. Lancet Onc., 2014). A 2-stage design with null hypothesis of 15% using a 1-sided 0.05 α level test has 85% power to detect an increase to 35%. This required up to 35 patients. After 2 responses in stage 1 (20 pts), the study moved to stage 2 (15 pts). If 10 responses were seen (29%), this would have ruled out an ORR of 15%. The study was closed when it became clear we would not meet this benchmark.|see above. target ORR was not met.|||
90918442|NCT06459401|181706237|OTHER|Single group test of difference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.63|0.02||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Effect Size (Cohen's D) = -0.706|Difference = Post-Session - Pre-Session|An a priori power analysis (G\*Power 3.1.9.7) determined that a sample size of 10 participants could detect an effect size (Cohen's D) of 1.0 with 80% power and alpha = 0.05.||0.02|-3.63|0.052
90918443|NCT06459401|181706238|OTHER|Single group test of difference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.39||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Effect Size (Cohen's D) = 0.416|Difference = Post-Session - Pre-Session|An a priori power analysis (G\*Power 3.1.9.7) determined that a sample size of 10 participants could detect an effect size (Cohen's D) of 1.0 with 80% power and alpha = 0.05.||0.39|-0.10|0.221
90918444|NCT02740231|181706267|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-9.49|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.38||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.21|3.23||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|ANCOVA||Difference between groups JTA-004 100 (2mL) minus Reference - adjusted mean change|The primary endpoint is the WOMAC® VA3.1 Pain Subscale (subscale A): the individual changes in WOMAC® VA3.1 Pain Subscale Score between Baseline and Month 6 were calculated and compared by analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), adjusted for baseline value, to the Reference group.||3.23|-22.21|0.141
90918445|NCT02740231|181706268|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-11.63|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.5||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.6|-0.66||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|ANCOVA||Difference between groups JTA-004 100 (2mL) minus Reference|||-0.66|-22.60|0.038
90918446|NCT02740231|181706269|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-1.48|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.35||0.997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|9.74||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.74|-12.70|0.997
90918447|NCT02740231|181706270|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-2.94|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.3||0.972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.52|10.65||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||10.65|-16.52|0.972
90918448|NCT02740231|181706271|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-7.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.96||0.599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.28|7.94||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.94|-22.28|0.599
90918449|NCT02740231|181706272|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-6.62|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.3||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|ANCOVA|||||||0.126
90918450|NCT02740231|181706273|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-8.88|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.76||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|ANCOVA|||||||0.064
90918451|NCT02740231|181706274|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-10.79|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.35||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.014
90918452|NCT02740231|181706275|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-10.57|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.81||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|ANCOVA|||||||0.030
91034021|NCT01049334|181953885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|-2.7||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|0.1|||ANOVA|Baseline STPIS fitted as a covariate||Minutes post dose: 38||0.1|-5.5|0.0620
90961931|NCT02349451|181804156|SUPERIORITY||response rate difference|39.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.2|57.7||P-value is calculated by one-sided Fisher's exact test to test whether ABT-122 treatment group is superior to placebo group. The a priori statistical significance threshold is P = 0.025.|Fisher Exact|||||57.7|17.2|<0.001
90961932|NCT02349451|181804156|SUPERIORITY||response rate difference|50.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.1|67.4||P-value is calculated by one-sided Fisher's exact test to test whether ABT-122 treatment group is superior to placebo group. The a priori statistical significance threshold is P = 0.025.|Fisher Exact|||||67.4|28.1|<0.001
90918453|NCT00914589|181706276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0482||||0.8648||95.0|0.6095|1.8029||P values less than 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.8029|0.6095|0.8648
90918454|NCT00914589|181706276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9871||||0.9634||95.0|0.5673|1.7176||P values less than 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.7176|0.5673|0.9634
90918455|NCT01828554|181706281|OTHER|||||||0.4882||||||A paired t-test will be used to compare the PK parameters between the full weight and limited weight based dosing.|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis that the AUC from cycle 1 day 1 (based on ideal body weight) is equal to the AUC from cycle 1 day 9 (based on actual body weight) was tested against the alternative hypothesis that the AUCs are not equal. A linear mixed effect model with patient specific random effects was conducted||||0.4882
90918456|NCT01828554|181706282|OTHER|||||||0.7497||||||A paired t-test will be used to compare the PK parameters between the full weight and limited weight based dosing.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7497
90918457|NCT01736215|181706286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.343||||0.266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.052|2.261||The binary logistic regression analysis was performed using a crude model between predictor variable endogenous EPO (EPO less than or equal to 45.2 and EPO greater than 45.3)|Regression, Logistic|||||2.261|0.052|0.266
90918458|NCT01736215|181706287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.125||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.016|0.999||The binary logistic regression analysis was performed using a crude model between predictor variable CRP (CRP less than or equal to 10.3 and CRP greater than 10.4)|Regression, Logistic|||||0.999|0.016|0.05
90918459|NCT03447249|181706316|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|14.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.4|15.7|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||The data presented for Primary endpoint was based on interim analysis at Week 4.||15.7|12.4|<0.0001
90918460|NCT03447249|181706317|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|14.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.6|15.7|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||15.7|12.6|<0.0001
90918461|NCT03447249|181706318|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.24|||Negative binomial regression model|||||0.24|0.09|<0.0001
90918462|NCT03447249|181706319|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-44.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.2|-41.9|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||-41.9|-47.2|<0.0001
90918463|NCT03447249|181706320|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|20.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.2|23.0|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||23.0|17.2|<0.0001
90918464|NCT03447249|181706321|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.31|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||1.31|0.91|<0.0001
90918465|NCT03447249|181706322|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-43.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.3|-40.5|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||-40.5|-46.3|<0.0001
90918466|NCT03447249|181706323|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|17.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.5|21.3|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||21.3|14.5|<0.0001
90961933|NCT02349451|181804157|SUPERIORITY||response rate difference|-3.3||||0.723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.5|12.1||P-value is calculated by one-sided Fisher's exact test to test whether ABT-122 treatment group is superior to adalimumab group.|Fisher Exact|||||12.1|-18.5|0.723
90961934|NCT02349451|181804157|SUPERIORITY||response rate difference|7.3||||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|21.6||P-value is calculated by one-sided Fisher's exact test to test whether ABT-122 treatment group is superior to adalimumab group.|Fisher Exact|||||21.6|-7.4|0.215
90918467|NCT03447249|181706325|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.54||||||||0.54|0.24|
90918468|NCT03447249|181706326|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|3.8||||||||3.8|2.7|
90918469|NCT03201562|181706347|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|38.436||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.262|235.936|||Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)|GEE model includes 3-line improvement as response variable with sequence, period, treatment as fixed effect, subject within sequence as random effect.||||235.936|6.262|0.0009
90918470|NCT03201562|181706347|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|36.893||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.936|229.31|||Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)|GEE model includes 3-line improvement as response variable with sequence, period, treatment as fixed effect, subject within sequence as random effect.||||229.310|5.936|0.0012
90918471|NCT03201562|181706347|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.042||||0.9298|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.485|2.239|||Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)|GEE model includes 3-line improvement as response variable with sequence, period, treatment as fixed effect, subject within sequence as random effect||||2.239|0.485|0.9298
90918472|NCT00393484|181706348|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The difference in proportion along with its standard error and 90% confidence interval was computed. If the lower limit of the confidence interval (CI) was great than -10%, noninferiority was established. Provided that noninferiority was established, a test for superiority was planned to check that the lower limit of the 90% CI was greater than zero.|Difference in proportion|25.67||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|14.48|36.86||There was no adjustment for the prior test of noninferiority because the test for superiority could succeed only if noninferiority was first established.|Chi-squared|||A sample size of 60 per group provides 80% power for testing superiority of entecavir compared to lamivudine, assuming a response rate of 62% for lamivudine and 83% for entecavir.||36.86|14.48|0.0006
90961935|NCT02349451|181804158|SUPERIORITY||response rate difference|24.1||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|39.3||P-value is calculated by one-sided Fisher's exact test to test whether ABT-122 treatment group is superior to placebo group.|Fisher Exact|||||39.3|3.9|0.021
90961936|NCT02349451|181804158|SUPERIORITY||response rate difference|-0.9||||0.611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|14.8||P-value is calculated by one-sided Fisher's exact test to test whether ABT-122 treatment group is superior to adalimumab group.|Fisher Exact|||||14.8|-16.5|0.611
90880589|NCT01956110|181623318|EQUIVALENCE|Treatment groups were compared using the van Elteren test adjusted for age (\<35, 35-37, and 38-40 years).||||||0.53|||||||van Elteren|||Treatment comparison: Fertilisation rate||||0.53
90880590|NCT01956110|181623319|EQUIVALENCE|Treatment groups were compared using the van Elteren test adjusted for age (\<35, 35-37, and 38-40 years).|||||=|0.59|||||||van Elteren|||Treatment comparison: Number of embryos||||=0.59
90961937|NCT02349451|181804158|SUPERIORITY||response rate difference|40.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.1|55.8||P-value is calculated by one-sided Fisher's exact test to test whether ABT-122 treatment group is superior to placebo group.|Fisher Exact|||||55.8|20.1|<0.001
90961938|NCT02349451|181804158|SUPERIORITY||response rate difference|15.9||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|31.3||P-value is calculated by one-sided Fisher's exact test to test whether ABT-122 treatment group is superior to adalimumab group.|Fisher Exact|||||31.3|-0.3|0.039
90880591|NCT01956110|181623319|EQUIVALENCE|Treatment groups were compared using the van Elteren test adjusted for age (\<35, 35-37, and 38-40 years).|||||=|0.414|||||||van Elteren|||Treatment comparison: Good quality embryos||||=0.414
90880592|NCT01956110|181623320|EQUIVALENCE|Treatment groups were compared using the van Elteren test adjusted for age (\<35, 35-37, and 38-40 years).|||||=|0.344|||||||van Elteren|||Treatment comparison: Number of blastocysts||||= 0.344
90880593|NCT01956110|181623320|EQUIVALENCE|Treatment groups were compared using the van Elteren test adjusted for age (\<35, 35-37, and 38-40 years).|||||=|0.58|||||||van Elteren|||Treatment comparison: Good-quality blastocysts||||= 0.58
90880594|NCT01956110|181623321|EQUIVALENCE|Treatment groups were compared using the van Elteren test adjusted for age (\<35, 35-37, and 38-40 years).|||||<|0.001|||||||van Elteren|||Treatment comparison: Total gonadotropin dose||||<0.001
90880595|NCT01956110|181623322|EQUIVALENCE|Treatment groups were compared using the van Elteren test adjusted for age (\<35, 35-37, and 38-40 years).|||||=|0.062|||||||van Elteren|||Treatment comparison: Number of stimulation days||||=0.062
90880596|NCT01956110|181623323|EQUIVALENCE|Treatment groups were compared using a chi-square test.|||||=|0.178|||||||Chi-squared|||Treatment comparison: Investigator-requested gonadotropin dose adjustments||||=0.178
90880597|NCT01956110|181623329|OTHER|Nested logistic regression models were compared using the likelihood ratio test. The full logistic regression model included treatment as factor, log(AMH) as covariate and the interaction term. The nested model did not include treatment and the interaction term.||||||0.32||||||Inclusion of treatment does not provide a better fit to the data.|Likelihood ratio test|Likelihood ratio test comparing the reduced model including only AMH to the full model including AMH, treatment group and interactions.||Treatment comparison: Late OHSS (any grade)||||0.320
90880598|NCT01956110|181623329|OTHER|Nested logistic regression models were compared using the likelihood ratio test. The full logistic regression model included treatment as factor, log(AMH) as covariate and the interaction term. The nested model did not include treatment and the interaction term.||||||0.39||||||Inclusion of treatment does not provide a better fit to the data.|Likelihood ratio test|Likelihood ratio test comparing the reduced model including only AMH to the full model including AMH, treatment group and interactions.||Treatment comparison: Late OHSS (moderate/severe)||||0.390
90880599|NCT00430092|181623331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
90880600|NCT01166594|181623340|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
90880601|NCT02822508|181623418|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.034|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.034
90880602|NCT00386256|181623435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analyses included descriptive statistics to assess demographic and medical characteristics, safety, text messaging or phone adherence, exercise adherence, and patient satisfaction. T-tests were used to determine significant differences between the HB text messaging and telephone groups (with inpatients and outpatients combined within each group). All analyses were conducted using SPSS version 14.0 for Windows.||||<.05
90880603|NCT00386256|181623436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analyses included descriptive statistics to assess demographic and medical characteristics, safety, text messaging or phone adherence, exercise adherence, and patient satisfaction. T-tests were used to determine significant differences between the HB text messaging and telephone groups (with inpatients and outpatients combined within each group). All analyses were conducted using SPSS version 14.0 for Windows.||||<.05
90880604|NCT00654381|181623437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|-0.7|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment,baseline HbA1c, and number of previous antidiabetic medication||Linagliptin 5 mg vs placebo at week 12||-0.7|-1.04|<0.0001
90880605|NCT00654381|181623437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.71|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment,baseline HbA1c, and number of previous antidiabetic medication||Linagliptin 10 mg vs placebo at week 12||-0.71|-1.05|<0.0001
90880606|NCT00654381|181623438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|-0.15|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment,baseline HbA1c, and number of previous antidiabetic medication||||-0.15|-0.49|0.0003
90880607|NCT00654381|181623438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.21|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment,baseline HbA1c, and number of previous antidiabetic medication||Linagliptin 10 mg vs voglibose at week 26||-0.21|-0.56|<0.0001
90880608|NCT00654381|181623442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-19.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.4|-14.0|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment,baseline FPG, and number of previous antidiabetic medication||Linagliptin 5 mg vs placebo at week 12||-14.0|-25.4|<0.0001
90880609|NCT00654381|181623442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-20.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.2|-14.7|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment,baseline FPG, and number of previous antidiabetic medication||Linagliptin 10 mg vs placebo at week 12||-14.7|-26.2|<0.0001
90880610|NCT00654381|181623443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1||0.0239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|-0.9|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment,baseline FPG, and number of previous antidiabetic medication||Linagliptin 5 mg vs Voglibose at week 26||-0.9|-13.0|0.0239
90961939|NCT02349451|181804159|SUPERIORITY||response rate difference|18.4||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|29.7||P-value is calculated by one-sided Fisher's exact test to test whether ABT-122 treatment group is superior to placebo group.|Fisher Exact|||||29.7|1.5|0.034
90880611|NCT00654381|181623443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.8|-3.8|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment,baseline FPG, and number of previous antidiabetic medication||Linagliptin 10 mg vs voglibose at week 26||-3.8|-15.8|0.0015
90880612|NCT00994448|181623454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|16.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.6||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|34.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||t test for mean of days retained in the bupropion versus placebo groups||34.3|1.8|0.08
90880613|NCT01479621|181623541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||||||The study was considered positive if the trend test was positive and the test involving the highest Fp MDPI dose (100 mcg twice daily) indicated significantly greater time averaged FEV1 mean than placebo.|Regression, Linear|||A linear in log-dose trend contrast evaluated the time-averaged dose-response trend, where the logarithm of dose was defined as log(dose+1) to accommodate the case of a zero dose (placebo). A fixed-sequence testing procedure was employed to control the overall Type I error rate at the 0.05 level. Specifically, the 2-sided linear in log-dose time-averaged trend test was first performed followed by pairwise comparisons of each Fp MDPI dose versus placebo.||||0.0001
90880614|NCT01479621|181623541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|0.149||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.066|0.233||The study was considered positive if the trend test was positive and the test involving the highest Fp MDPI dose (100 mcg twice daily) indicated significantly greater time averaged FEV1 mean than placebo.|mixed model for repeated measures|||This is the second analysis in the fixed-sequence testing procedure employed to control the overall Type I error rate at the 0.05 level.||0.233|0.066|0.0005
90880615|NCT01479621|181623541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|0.126||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.044|0.208|||mixed model for repeated measures|||This is the third analysis in the fixed-sequence testing procedure employed to control the overall Type I error rate at the 0.05 level.||0.208|0.044|0.0027
90880616|NCT01479621|181623541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|0.111||||0.0086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.028|0.194|||mixed model for repeated measures|||This is the fourth analysis in the fixed-sequence testing procedure employed to control the overall Type I error rate at the 0.05 level.||0.194|0.028|0.0086
90880617|NCT01479621|181623541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|0.052||||0.2227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.032|0.136|||mixed model for repeated measures|||This is the fifth analysis in the fixed-sequence testing procedure employed to control the overall Type I error rate at the 0.05 level.||0.136|-0.032|0.2227
90880618|NCT01479621|181623542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0017||||||Significance at 0.05|Regression, Linear|||A linear in log-dose trend contrast evaluated the time-averaged dose-response trend, where the logarithm of dose was defined as log(dose+1) to accommodate the case of a zero dose (placebo).||||0.0017
90880619|NCT01479621|181623542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|18.29||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.28|31.29||Significance at 0.05|mixed model for repeated measures|||||31.29|5.28|0.0060
90880620|NCT01479621|181623542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|20.32||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.61|33.03||Significance at 0.05|mixed model for repeated measures|||||33.03|7.61|0.0018
90880621|NCT01479621|181623542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|11.75||||0.0741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|24.64||Significance at 0.05|mixed model for repeated measures|||||24.64|-1.15|0.0741
90880622|NCT01479621|181623542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|21.72||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.73|34.72||Significance at 0.05|mixed model for repeated measures|||||34.72|8.73|0.0011
90880623|NCT01479621|181623543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0434||||||Significance at 0.05|Regression, Linear|||A linear in log-dose trend contrast evaluated the time-averaged dose-response trend, where the logarithm of dose was defined as log(dose+1) to accommodate the case of a zero dose (placebo).||||0.0434
90880624|NCT01479621|181623543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|11.06||||0.0852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|23.66||Significance at 0.05|mixed model for repeated measures|||||23.66|-1.54|0.0852
90880625|NCT01479621|181623543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|12.78||||0.0411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|25.04||Significance at 0.05|mixed model for repeated measures|||||25.04|0.52|0.0411
90880626|NCT01479621|181623543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|9.28||||0.1428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.14|21.69||Significance at 0.05|mixed model for repeated measures|||||21.69|-3.14|0.1428
90880627|NCT01479621|181623543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|18.23||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.64|30.82||Significance at 0.05|mixed model for repeated measures|||||30.82|5.64|0.0046
90880628|NCT01479621|181623544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||estimated mean difference from placebo|2.76||||0.66685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.07|15.6|||GEE|The model contained covariates for sex, age, and treatment. The baseline level was estimated for all subjects combined, adjusted for covariates.||The generalized estimating equation (GEE) algorithm was used to fit the model, using a robust estimator for the variance which provided a proper adjustment for possible correlation between the 2 measurements on each subject. This model was used to obtain 2-sided 95% confidence limits for the difference in treatment effects of Fp MDPI versus placebo.||15.60|-10.07|0.66685
90880629|NCT01479621|181623544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||estimated mean difference from placebo|6.76||||0.26741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.43|18.94||The model contained covariates for sex, age, and treatment. The baseline level was estimated for all subjects combined, adjusted for covariates.|GEE|||The generalized estimating equation (GEE) algorithm was used to fit the model, using a robust estimator for the variance which provided a proper adjustment for possible correlation between the 2 measurements on each subject. This model was used to obtain 2-sided 95% confidence limits for the difference in treatment effects of Fp MDPI versus placebo.||18.94|-5.43|0.26741
90880630|NCT01479621|181623544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||estimated mean difference from placebo|10.45||||0.09964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.24|23.15||The model contained covariates for sex, age, and treatment. The baseline level was estimated for all subjects combined, adjusted for covariates.|GEE|||The generalized estimating equation (GEE) algorithm was used to fit the model, using a robust estimator for the variance which provided a proper adjustment for possible correlation between the 2 measurements on each subject. This model was used to obtain 2-sided 95% confidence limits for the difference in treatment effects of Fp MDPI versus placebo.||23.15|-2.24|0.09964
90880631|NCT01479621|181623544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|12.78||||0.03825|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|25.11||The model contained covariates for sex, age, and treatment. The baseline level was estimated for all subjects combined, adjusted for covariates.|GEE|||The generalized estimating equation (GEE) algorithm was used to fit the model, using a robust estimator for the variance which provided a proper adjustment for possible correlation between the 2 measurements on each subject. This model was used to obtain 2-sided 95% confidence limits for the difference in treatment effects of Fp MDPI versus placebo.||25.11|0.44|0.03825
90961940|NCT02349451|181804159|SUPERIORITY||response rate difference|7.3||||0.185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|19.9||P-value is calculated by one-sided Fisher's exact test to test whether ABT-122 treatment group is superior to adalimumab group.|Fisher Exact|||||19.9|-5.8|0.185
90961941|NCT02349451|181804159|SUPERIORITY||response rate difference|27.3||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.6|39.0||P-value is calculated by one-sided Fisher's exact test to test whether ABT-122 treatment group is superior to placebo group.|Fisher Exact|||||39.0|9.6|0.004
90961942|NCT02349451|181804159|SUPERIORITY||response rate difference|16.2||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|29.3||P-value is calculated by one-sided Fisher's exact test to test whether ABT-122 treatment group is superior to adalimumab group.|Fisher Exact|||||29.3|2.3|0.017
90961943|NCT02349451|181804160|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Kolmogorov-Smirnov test based on the empirical distribution function is applied to get the p-value of comparing the ABT-122 treatment group with placebo group.|Kolmogorov-Smirnov test|||||||<0.001
90961944|NCT02349451|181804160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.561||||||Kolmogorov-Smirnov test based on the empirical distribution function is applied to get the p-value of comparing the ABT-122 treatment group with adalimumab group.|Kolmogorov-Smirnov test|||||||0.561
90961945|NCT02349451|181804160|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Kolmogorov-Smirnov test based on the empirical distribution function is applied to get the p-value of comparing the ABT-122 treatment group with placebo group.|Kolmogorov-Smirnov test|||||||<0.001
90961946|NCT02349451|181804160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.106||||||Kolmogorov-Smirnov test based on the empirical distribution function is applied to get the p-value of comparing the ABT-122 treatment group with adalimumab group.|Kolmogorov-Smirnov test|||||||0.106
90961947|NCT02349451|181804161|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-1.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|-0.57||Two-sided p-value is calculated from ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed factor and baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-0.57|-1.58|<0.001
90880632|NCT01479621|181623545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2841||||||Significance at 0.05|Log Rank|||Comparison of survival curve to placebo||||0.2841
90880633|NCT01479621|181623545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Significance at 0.05|Log Rank|||Comparison of survival curve to placebo||||<0.0001
90880634|NCT01479621|181623545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0008||||||Significance at 0.05|Log Rank|||Comparison of survival curve to placebo||||0.0008
90880635|NCT01479621|181623545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||||||Significance at 0.05|Log Rank|||Comparison of survival curve to placebo||||0.0010
90880636|NCT01479621|181623551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|-0.114||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.195|-0.033||Significance at 0.05|mixed model for repeated measures|||||-0.033|-0.195|0.0058
90880637|NCT01479621|181623551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|0.034||||0.4083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.046|0.114||Significance at 0.05|mixed model for repeated measures|||||0.114|-0.046|0.4083
90880638|NCT01479621|181623551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|0.011||||0.7882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.068|0.089||Significance at 0.05|mixed model for repeated measures|||||0.089|-0.068|0.7882
90880639|NCT01479621|181623551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|-0.002||||0.9586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.082|0.078||Significance at 0.05|mixed model for repeated measures|||||0.078|-0.082|0.9586
90880640|NCT01479621|181623551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|-0.062||||0.1306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.143|0.018||Significance at 0.05|mixed model for repeated measures|||||0.018|-0.143|0.1306
90880641|NCT01479621|181623552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|-17.66||||0.0068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.43|-4.89||Significance at 0.05|mixed model for repeated measures|||||-4.89|-30.43|0.0068
90880642|NCT01479621|181623552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|0.69||||0.9135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.84|13.23||Significance at 0.05|mixed model for repeated measures|||||13.23|-11.84|0.9135
90880643|NCT01479621|181623552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|2.67||||0.6689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.58|14.92||Significance at 0.05|mixed model for repeated measures|||||14.92|-9.58|0.6689
90880644|NCT01479621|181623552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|-5.69||||0.3691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.12|6.74||Significance at 0.05|mixed model for repeated measures|||||6.74|-18.12|0.3691
90880645|NCT01479621|181623552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|4.24||||0.5072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.31|16.78||Significance at 0.05|mixed model for repeated measures|||||16.78|-8.31|0.5072
90880646|NCT01479621|181623553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|-15.26||||0.0158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.63|-2.88||Significance at 0.05|mixed model for repeated measures|||||-2.88|-27.63|0.0158
90880647|NCT01479621|181623553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|-4.48||||0.4709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.69|7.721||Significance at 0.05|mixed model for repeated measures|||||7.721|-16.69|0.4709
90880648|NCT01479621|181623553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|-2.68||||0.6572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.55|9.19||Significance at 0.05|mixed model for repeated measures|||||9.19|-14.55|0.6572
90880649|NCT01479621|181623553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|-5.98||||0.3292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.01|6.05||Significance at 0.05|mixed model for repeated measures|||||6.05|-18.01|0.3292
90880650|NCT01479621|181623553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|3.05||||0.6237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.16|15.26||Significance at 0.05|mixed model for repeated measures|||||15.26|-9.16|0.6237
90880651|NCT01417481|181623556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|Due to the cross-over, a paired analysis was done. The hypothesis was that glycine will improve variables, and thus significance was set at one-tail.||||||>0.05
90961948|NCT02349451|181804161|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.13||||0.479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.23||Two-sided p-value is calculated from ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed factor and baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.23|-0.48|0.479
90961949|NCT02349451|181804161|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-1.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.89||Two-sided p-value is calculated from ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed factor and baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-0.89|-1.90|<0.001
90961950|NCT02349451|181804161|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.45||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.1||Two-sided p-value is calculated from ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed factor and baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-0.10|-0.81|0.012
90961951|NCT02349451|181804162|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-1.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|-0.53||Two-sided p-value is calculated from ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed factor and baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-0.53|-1.81|<0.001
90961952|NCT02349451|181804162|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.09||||0.696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.36||Two-sided p-value is calculated from ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed factor and baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.36|-0.54|0.696
90880652|NCT01417481|181623557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|The hypothesis was that glycine will improve inflammatory biomarkers, and thus statistical significance was set at one-tail.||||||>0.05
90880653|NCT01417481|181623558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|The hypothesis was that glycine will improve inflammatory biomarkers, and thus statistical significance was set at one-tail.||||||>0.05
90880654|NCT01417481|181623559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.061|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|The hypothesis was that glycine will improve inflammatory biomarkers, and thus statistical significance was set at one-tail.||||||=0.061
90880655|NCT01417481|181623560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.068|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|The hypothesis was that glycine will improve inflammatory biomarkers, and thus statistical significance was set at one-tail.||||||=0.068
90880656|NCT01417481|181623561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|The hypothesis was that glycine will improve inflammatory biomarkers, and thus statistical significance was set at one-tail.||||||=0.040
90880657|NCT01417481|181623562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|Due to the cross-over, a paired analysis was done. The hypothesis was that glycine will improve variables, and thus significance was set at one-tail.||||||<0.05
90880658|NCT01417481|181623563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|Due to the cross-over, paired analysis was done. The hypothesis was that glycine will improve variables, thus significance was set at one-tail.||||||<0.05
90880659|NCT01417481|181623564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|Due to the cross-over, a paired analysis was done. The hypothesis was that glycine will improve variables, and thus significance was set at one-tail.||||||<0.01
90880660|NCT01417481|181623565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|Due to the cross-over, a paired analysis was done. The hypothesis was that glycine will improve variables, and thus significance was set at one-tail.||||||>0.05
90880661|NCT02614547|181623566|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-12.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.081||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.77|-3.67|||MMRM|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure (MMRM) used an unstructured covariance model time points within participant. Fixed effects were treatment, baseline total score, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment.||-3.67|-20.77|0.008
90880662|NCT02614547|181623567|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.08||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|37.67|||Fisher Exact|||60 Hours||37.67|0.49|0.198
90880663|NCT02614547|181623567|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.0||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|239.57|||Fisher Exact|||Day 7||239.57|1.31|0.023
90880664|NCT02614547|181623567|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.22||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|62.08|||Fisher Exact|||Day 30||62.08|0.70|0.086
90880665|NCT02614547|181623568|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|23.33||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|1152.71|||Fisher Exact|||60 Hours||1152.71|1.56|0.008
90880666|NCT02614547|181623568|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 7||||0.003
90880667|NCT02614547|181623568|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.5||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|140.57|||Fisher Exact|||Day 30||140.57|1.01|0.030
90880668|NCT02614547|181623569|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-15.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.536||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.5|-4.22|||MMRM|||60 Hours: MMRM used an unstructured covariance model for time points within participant. Fixed effects were treatment, baseline total score, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment||-4.22|-27.50|0.010
90880669|NCT02614547|181623569|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-15.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.448||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.43|-4.5|||MMRM|||Day 7: MMRM used an unstructured covariance model for time points within participant. Fixed effects were treatment, baseline total score, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment||-4.50|-27.43|0.009
90880670|NCT02614547|181623569|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-15.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.213||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.05|-4.09|||MMRM|||Day 30: MMRM used an unstructured covariance model for time points within participant. Fixed effects were treatment, baseline total score, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment||-4.09|-26.05|0.010
90880671|NCT02614547|181623570|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.0||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|90.81|||Fisher Exact|||60 Hours||90.81|0.73|0.080
90880672|NCT02614547|181623570|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.0||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|239.57|||Fisher Exact|||Day 7||239.57|1.31|0.023
90880673|NCT02614547|181623570|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.67||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|142.2|||Fisher Exact|||Day 30||142.20|1.04|0.030
90880674|NCT02614547|181623571|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.466||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.24|-0.86|||MMRM|||60 Hours: MMRM used an unstructured covariance model for time points within participant. Fixed effects were treatment, baseline total score, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment.||-0.86|-11.24|0.025
90880675|NCT02614547|181623571|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.427||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.57|-1.34|||MMRM|||Day 7: MMRM used an unstructured covariance model for time points within participant. Fixed effects were treatment, baseline total score, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment.||-1.34|-11.57|0.016
90918473|NCT00393484|181706349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|24.55||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|14.45|34.66||Treatment comparisons were assessed using the same method used in the primary endpoint.|Chi-squared|||HBV DNA \<10\^3 copies/mL at 24 Weeks||34.66|14.45|0.0003
90918474|NCT00393484|181706349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|13.62||||0.0167|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.85|22.38||Treatment comparisons were assessed using the same method as the primary endpoint.|Chi-squared|||HBV DNA \<10\^4 copies/mL at 24 Weeks||22.38|4.85|0.0167
90918475|NCT00393484|181706349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.24||||0.4467|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.62|11.1|||Chi-squared|||HBV DNA \<10\^5 at 24 Weeks||11.10|-2.62|0.4467
90961953|NCT02349451|181804162|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-1.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|-0.77||Two-sided p-value is calculated from ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed factor and baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-0.77|-2.04|<0.001
90961954|NCT02349451|181804162|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.33||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.12||Two-sided p-value is calculated from ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed factor and baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.12|-0.77|0.151
90961955|NCT02349451|181804163|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-3.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.14|-2.19||Two-sided p-value is calculated from ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed factor and baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-2.19|-4.14|<0.001
90961956|NCT02349451|181804163|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.81||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|-0.12||Two-sided p-value is calculated from ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed factor and baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-0.12|-1.51|0.021
90961957|NCT02349451|181804163|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-2.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|-1.75||Two-sided p-value is calculated from ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed factor and baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-1.75|-3.70|<0.001
90961958|NCT02349451|181804163|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.37||||0.288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|0.32||Two-sided p-value is calculated from ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed factor and baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.32|-1.06|0.288
90961959|NCT02168842|181804180|EQUIVALENCE|Comparison of the risk of need for antiparkinsonian therapy in Isradipine group to the risk in placebo group.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.03|||Log Rank|||||1.03|0.61|0.073
90961960|NCT02168842|181804181|EQUIVALENCE|Comparison the risk of need for dyskinesia in Isradipine group to the risk in a placebo group.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.53||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|3.01|||Log Rank|||||3.01|0.78|0.21
91034022|NCT01049334|181953885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|-3.0||||0.0476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|0.0|||ANOVA|Baseline STPIS fitted as a covariate||Minutes post dose: 40||-0.0|-6.0|0.0476
90880676|NCT02614547|181623571|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.568||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.25|-1.35|||MMRM|||Day 30: MMRM used an unstructured covariance model for time points within participant. Fixed effects were treatment, baseline total score, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment.||-1.35|-12.25|0.018
90880677|NCT02614547|181623573|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.461||0.457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|7.04|||ANCOVA|||60 Hours||7.04|-3.30|0.457
90880678|NCT02614547|181623573|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean|-1.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|-1.47||0.613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|4.55|||ANCOVA|||Day 7||4.55|-7.50|0.613
90880679|NCT02614547|181623573|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.871||0.474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.13|3.93|||ANCOVA|||Day 30||3.93|-8.13|0.474
90880680|NCT03778931|181623631|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.546||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.387|0.768|||Log Rank|The p-value was generated by using a two-sided stratified log-rank test.||The analysis was performed using a stratified Cox Proportional Hazards model with ties=Efron and the stratification factors: prior treatment with fulvestrant (yes vs no) and presence of visceral metastases (yes vs no); the CI calculated using a profile likelihood approach.||0.768|0.387|0.0005
90961961|NCT02168842|181804182|EQUIVALENCE|Comparison of the risk of need for antiparkinsonian therapy in Isradipine group to the risk in placebo group.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.22|||Log Rank|||||1.22|0.56|0.35
90961962|NCT00186069|181804217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.2||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.86|||Fisher Exact|||||1.86|0.77|0.68
90961963|NCT00186069|181804218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.52
90961964|NCT00186069|181804219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.95
90961965|NCT00696761|181804232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.05
90961966|NCT00696761|181804233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The Kruskal-Wallis test, analysis of variance, and the Wilcoxon signed rank-sum test were used to compare changes from baseline to endpoint after treatment.||||<0.05
90961967|NCT03318809|181804286|OTHER|Analysis of Variance|Ratio (Group 1/Group 2)|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.73|2.1|||||The ratio and confidence interval (CI) are based on natural log scale data converted back to the original scale.|||2.10|0.73|
90961968|NCT03318809|181804287|OTHER|Analysis of Variance|Ratio (Group 1/Group 2)|1.41|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|2.27|||||The ratio and CI are based on natural log scale data converted back to the original scale.|||2.27|0.88|
90961969|NCT03318809|181804290|OTHER|Analysis of Variance|Ratio (Group 1/Group 2)|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.73|2.1|||||The ratio and CI are based on natural log scale data converted back to the original scale.|||2.10|0.73|
90961970|NCT00752622|181804383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Infliximab from Induction baseline to evaluation Week 10.||||<.0001
91034023|NCT01049334|181953886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0273||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.0273
91034024|NCT01049334|181953887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0098||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0098
91035869|NCT02558491|181958306|OTHER|||||||0.863||||||No a priori sample size was determined due to the feasibility/pilot nature of the trial. Significance level was set at P-value \<0.05.|ANOVA|||Secondary analysis followed the same format unless variables could not be considered normally distributed; in that case a related samples Wilcoxon signed-rank test is used. Data were first binned (to ensure minimum count of five per bins) and the w2 statistics was used with the expected counts given by SoC. Based on achieved recruitment, a moderate effect size (0.3) is detectable with 80% power, or a large effect size (0.4) with 95% power (G-Power 3.1.9.2). Outcome measurement was for overall.||||0.863
90880681|NCT03778931|181623632|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.697||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.552|0.88|||Log Rank|The p-value was generated by using a two-sided stratified log-rank test.||The analysis was performed using a stratified Cox Proportional Hazards model with ties=Efron and the stratification factors: prior treatment with fulvestrant (yes vs no) and presence of visceral metastases (yes vs no); the CI calculated using a profile likelihood approach.||0.880|0.552|0.0018
90880682|NCT03778931|181623633|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.592||||0.0325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.361|0.958||The p-value was generated by using a two-sided stratified log-rank test.|Log Rank|||The analysis was performed using a stratified Cox Proportional Hazards model with ties=Efron and the stratification factors: prior treatment with fulvestrant (yes vs no) and presence of visceral metastases (yes vs no); the CI calculated using a profile likelihood approach.||0.958|0.361|0.0325
90880683|NCT03778931|181623634|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.742||||0.0697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.536|1.025|||Log Rank|The p-value was generated by using a two-sided stratified log-rank test.|Applied a stratified Cox Proportional Hazards model with ties=Efron and the stratification factors: ESR1-mutational status (ESR1-mut vs ESR1-wt), prior treatment with fulvestrant (yes vs no) and presence of visceral metastases (yes vs no).|||1.025|0.536|0.0697
90880684|NCT02442778|181623698|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|0.4||||0.789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|3.5||MMRM included fixed effect treatment,visit,treatment-by-visit,baseline,baseline-by-visit,baseline Neuropsychiatric Inventory Agitation/Aggression(NPI AA)(≤6 vs. \>6),falls risk assessment,baseline concomitant use of antipsychotic medications,cohorts.|MMRM|||||3.5|-2.7|0.789
90880685|NCT02442778|181623698|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.0||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|1.0||MMRM included fixed effect treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline, baseline-by-visit, baseline NPI AA (≤ 6 vs. \> 6), risk assessment for falls, baseline concomitant use of antipsychotic medications and cohorts.|MMRM|||||1.0|-5.0|0.200
90880686|NCT02442778|181623699|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.4||MMRM included fixed effect treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline, baseline-by-visit, baseline NPI AA (≤ 6 vs. \> 6), risk assessment for falls, baseline concomitant use of antipsychotic medications and cohorts.|MMRM|||||0.4|-0.2|0.484
90961971|NCT00752622|181804383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Infliximab from Induction baseline to Week 30 of the Observational Phase.||||<.0001
90880687|NCT02442778|181623699|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.2||MMRM included fixed effect treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline, baseline-by-visit, baseline NPI AA (≤ 6 vs. \> 6), risk assessment for falls, baseline concomitant use of antipsychotic medications and cohorts.|MMRM|||||0.2|-0.3|0.704
90880688|NCT02442778|181623700|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.4||MMRM included fixed effect treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline, baseline-by-visit, baseline NPI AA (≤ 6 vs. \> 6), risk assessment for falls, baseline concomitant use of antipsychotic medications and cohorts.|MMRM|||||0.4|-0.9|0.416
90880689|NCT02442778|181623700|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.0||MMRM included fixed effect treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline, baseline-by-visit, baseline NPI AA (≤ 6 vs. \> 6), risk assessment for falls, baseline concomitant use of antipsychotic medications and cohorts.|MMRM|||||0.0|-1.3|0.066
90880690|NCT02442778|181623701|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1||MMRM included fixed effect treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline, baseline-by-visit, baseline NPI AA (≤ 6 vs. \> 6), risk assessment for falls, baseline concomitant use of antipsychotic medications and cohorts.|MMRM|||||0.1|-0.5|0.249
90880691|NCT02442778|181623701|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1||MMRM included fixed effect treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline, baseline-by-visit, baseline NPI AA (≤ 6 vs. \> 6), risk assessment for falls, baseline concomitant use of antipsychotic medications and cohorts.|MMRM|||||0.1|-0.5|0.199
90880692|NCT02442778|181623702|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.7||MMRM included fixed effect treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline, baseline-by-visit, baseline NPI AA (≤ 6 vs. \> 6), risk assessment for falls, baseline concomitant use of antipsychotic medications and cohorts.|MMRM|||||0.7|-0.7|0.975
90880693|NCT02442778|181623702|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.3||MMRM included fixed effect treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline, baseline-by-visit, baseline NPI AA (≤ 6 vs. \> 6), risk assessment for falls, baseline concomitant use of antipsychotic medications and cohorts.|MMRM|||||0.3|-1.0|0.334
90880694|NCT02442778|181623703|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|2.2||MMRM included fixed effect treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline, baseline-by-visit, baseline NPI AA (≤ 6 vs. \> 6), risk assessment for falls, baseline concomitant use of antipsychotic medications and cohorts.|MMRM|||||2.2|-2.4|0.934
90880695|NCT02442778|181623703|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.1||||0.342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|3.4||MMRM included fixed effect treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline, baseline-by-visit, baseline NPI AA (≤ 6 vs. \> 6), risk assessment for falls, baseline concomitant use of antipsychotic medications and cohorts.|MMRM|||||3.4|-1.2|0.342
90880696|NCT02442778|181623704|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.6||MMRM included fixed effect treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline, baseline-by-visit, baseline NPI AA (≤ 6 vs. \> 6), risk assessment for falls, baseline concomitant use of antipsychotic medications and cohorts.|MMRM|||||0.6|-0.7|0.888
90880697|NCT02442778|181623704|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.1||MMRM included fixed effect treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline, baseline-by-visit, baseline NPI AA (≤ 6 vs. \> 6), risk assessment for falls, baseline concomitant use of antipsychotic medications and cohorts.|MMRM|||||-0.1|-1.3|0.019
90961972|NCT00752622|181804383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Infliximab from Induction baseline to Week 54 of the Observational Phase.||||<.0001
90961973|NCT00178126|181804463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.04
90961974|NCT01323634|181804465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.037|0.124|||ANCOVA|||||0.124|0.037|<0.001
90880698|NCT02442778|181623705|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.6||||0.756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|4.0||MMRM included fixed effect treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline, baseline-by-visit, baseline NPI AA (≤ 6 vs. \> 6), risk assessment for falls, baseline concomitant use of antipsychotic medications and cohorts.|MMRM|||||4.0|-2.9|0.756
90880699|NCT02442778|181623705|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.6||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|-0.2||MMRM included fixed effect treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline, baseline-by-visit, baseline NPI AA (≤ 6 vs. \> 6), risk assessment for falls, baseline concomitant use of antipsychotic medications and cohorts.|MMRM|||||-0.2|-7.0|0.038
90918476|NCT00393484|181706349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|26.12||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|15.87|36.36|||Chi-squared|||HBV DNA \<10\^3 copies/mL at 48 Weeks||36.36|15.87|0.0002
90918477|NCT00393484|181706349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|20.09||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|90.0|11.1|29.07|||Chi-squared|||HBV DNA \<10\^4 copies/mL at 48 Weeks||29.07|11.10|0.0009
90918478|NCT00393484|181706349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|16.96||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.43|25.5|||Chi-squared|||HBV DNA \<10\^5 at 48 Weeks||25.50|8.43|0.0029
90918479|NCT00393484|181706349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|35.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|24.02|46.51|||Chi-squared|||HBV DNA \<10\^3 copies/mL at 96 Weeks||46.51|24.02|<0.0001
90918480|NCT00393484|181706349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|29.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|18.07|39.97|||Chi-squared|||HBV DNA \<10\^4 copies/mL at 96 Weeks||39.97|18.07|<0.0001
90918481|NCT00393484|181706349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|24.33||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|13.71|34.95|||Chi-squared|||HBV DNA \<10\^5 copies/mL at 96 Weeks||34.95|13.71|0.0006
90918482|NCT00393484|181706350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Treatment comparisons were based on 2-sided t-test for treatment difference (entecavir: lamivudine) estimated from the linear regression model with covariates of treatment and baseline hepatitis B DNA by PCR.|unpaired t-test|||Changes from baseline were based on patients with measurements at both Baseline and Week 24.||||<0.0001
90918483|NCT00393484|181706350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Treatment comparisons were based on 2-sided t-test for treatment difference (entecavir: lamivudine) estimated from the linear regression model with covariants of treatment and Baseline hepatitis B DNA by PCR.|unpaired t-test|||Changes from Baseline were based on patients with measurements at both Baseline and at Week 48.||||<0.0001
90918484|NCT00393484|181706350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Treatment comparisons were based on 2-sided t-test for treatment difference (entecavir: lamivudine) estimated from the linear regression model with covariants of treatment and Baseline hepatitis B DNA by PCR.|unpaired t-test|||Changes from Baseline were based on patients with measurements at both Baseline and at 96 Weeks.||||<0.0001
90961975|NCT01182194|181804468|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|92.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.53|100.03|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||100.03|85.53|
90880700|NCT02442778|181623706|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1||MMRM included fixed effect treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline, baseline-by-visit, baseline NPI AA (≤ 6 vs. \> 6), risk assessment for falls, baseline concomitant use of antipsychotic medications and cohorts.|MMRM|||||0.1|-0.3|0.468
90880701|NCT02442778|181623706|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1||MMRM included fixed effect treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline, baseline-by-visit, baseline NPI AA (≤ 6 vs. \> 6), risk assessment for falls, baseline concomitant use of antipsychotic medications and cohorts.|MMRM|||||0.1|-0.3|0.158
90918485|NCT00393484|181706350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Treatment comparisons were based on 2-sided t-test for treatment difference (entecavir: lamivudine) estimated from the linear regression model with covariants of treatment and Baseline hepatitis B DNA by PCR.|unpaired t-test|||Changes from Baseline were based on patients with measurements at both Baseline and at Week 144.||||<0.0001
90918486|NCT00393484|181706350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Treatment comparisons were based on 2-sided t-test for treatment difference (entecavir: lamivudine) estimated from the linear regression model with covariants of treatment and Baseline hepatitis B DNA by PCR.|unpaired t-test|||Changes from Baseline were based on patients with measurements at both Baseline and at Week 192.||||<0.0001
90918487|NCT00393484|181706350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Treatment comparisons were based on 2-sided t-test for treatment difference (entecavir: lamivudine) estimated from the linear regression model with covariants of treatment and Baseline hepatitis B DNA by PCR.|unpaired t-test|||Changes from Baseline were based on patients with measurements at both Baseline and at Week 240.||||<0.0001
90918488|NCT00393484|181706352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|18.97||||0.0278|TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.22|32.73|||Chi-squared||At 24 Weeks|||32.73|5.22|0.0278
90918489|NCT00393484|181706352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|26.34||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|90.0|13.65|39.03|||Chi-squared||At 48 Weeks|||39.03|13.65|0.0014
90918490|NCT00393484|181706352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|35.94|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|23.35|48.52|||Chi-squared||At 96 Weeks|||48.52|23.35|<0.0001
90918491|NCT00393484|181706358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|33.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|22.52|44.89|||Chi-squared||At 48 Weeks|||44.89|22.52|<0.0001
90918492|NCT00393484|181706358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|46.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|34.8|57.61|||Chi-squared||At 96 Weeks|||57.61|34.80|<0.0001
90918493|NCT00393484|181706358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|33.48||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|19.31|47.65|||Chi-squared||At 144 Weeks|||47.65|19.31|0.0003
90918494|NCT00393484|181706358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|44.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|31.17|58.11|||Chi-squared||At 192 Weeks|||58.11|31.17|<0.0001
90880702|NCT02442778|181623707|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.4||MMRM included fixed effect treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline, baseline-by-visit, baseline NPI AA (≤ 6 vs. \> 6), risk assessment for falls, baseline concomitant use of antipsychotic medications and cohorts.|MMRM|||||0.4|-0.2|0.400
90880703|NCT02442778|181623707|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.2||MMRM included fixed effect treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline, baseline-by-visit, baseline NPI AA (≤ 6 vs. \> 6), risk assessment for falls, baseline concomitant use of antipsychotic medications and cohorts.|MMRM|||||0.2|-0.3|0.566
90880704|NCT02442778|181623708|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.3||MMRM included fixed effect treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline, baseline-by-visit, baseline NPI AA (≤ 6 vs. \> 6), risk assessment for falls, baseline concomitant use of antipsychotic medications and cohorts.|MMRM|||||0.3|-0.2|0.751
90880705|NCT02442778|181623708|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1||MMRM included fixed effect treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline, baseline-by-visit, baseline NPI AA (≤ 6 vs. \> 6), risk assessment for falls, baseline concomitant use of antipsychotic medications and cohorts.|MMRM|||||0.1|-0.3|0.320
90880706|NCT02442778|181623709|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|2.4||MMRM included fixed effect treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline, baseline-by-visit, baseline NPI AA (≤ 6 vs. \> 6), risk assessment for falls, baseline concomitant use of antipsychotic medications and cohorts.|MMRM|||||2.4|-1.8|0.782
90880707|NCT02442778|181623709|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.0||MMRM included fixed effect treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline, baseline-by-visit, baseline NPI AA (≤ 6 vs. \> 6), risk assessment for falls, baseline concomitant use of antipsychotic medications and cohorts.|MMRM|||||2.0|-2.1|0.991
90880708|NCT02442778|181623710|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.6||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.2||MMRM included fixed effect treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline, baseline-by-visit, baseline NPI AA (≤ 6 vs. \> 6), risk assessment for falls, baseline concomitant use of antipsychotic medications and cohorts.|MMRM|||||1.2|0.0|0.038
90880709|NCT02442778|181623710|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.5||MMRM included fixed effect treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline, baseline-by-visit, baseline NPI AA (≤ 6 vs. \> 6), risk assessment for falls, baseline concomitant use of antipsychotic medications and cohorts.|MMRM|||||0.5|-0.6|0.911
90880710|NCT02442778|181623712|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.0||||0.236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|2.6||MMRM included fixed effect treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline, baseline-by-visit, baseline NPI AA (≤ 6 vs. \> 6), risk assessment for falls, baseline concomitant use of antipsychotic medications and cohorts.|MMRM|||||2.6|-0.6|0.236
90880711|NCT02442778|181623712|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.9||MMRM included fixed effect treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline, baseline-by-visit, baseline NPI AA (≤ 6 vs. \> 6), risk assessment for falls, baseline concomitant use of antipsychotic medications and cohorts.|MMRM|||||1.9|-1.3|0.684
90880712|NCT02641379|181623718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1002|||||||Chi-squared|||For Genotype I, Week 4 response \< 600 U/ml: Comparison of Group A versus Group B was carried out using the Chi-Square test.||||0.1002
90880713|NCT02641379|181623718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0184|||||||Chi-squared|||For Genotype I, Week 4 response \>= 600 U/ml: Comparison of Group A versus Group B was carried out using the Chi-Square test.||||0.0184
90880714|NCT02641379|181623718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.091|||||||Chi-squared|||For Genotype IV, Week 4 response \< 600 U/ml: Comparison of Group A versus Group B was carried out using the Chi-Square test.||||0.0910
90880715|NCT02641379|181623718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||For Genotype IV, Week 4 response \>= 600 U/ml: Comparison of Group A versus Group B was carried out using the Chi-Square test.||||1.0000
90880716|NCT02641379|181623719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0021||||||The SVR rate i.e., 32.1% participants with genotype I who achieved SVR with 95 % confidence interval of 20.3 to 46.0 in groups A1+B1 was compared with SVR rate in group E using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method .|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of Groups A1+B1 versus group E stratified by genotype I.||||0.0021
90880717|NCT02641379|181623719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3031||||||The SVR rate i.e., 20.0% participants with genotype IV who achieved SVR with 95 % confidence interval of 0.5 to 71.6 in groups A1+B1 was compared with SVR rate in group E using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method .|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of Groups A1+B1 versus group E stratified by genotype IV||||0.3031
90880718|NCT01165138|181623733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.136||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.051|0.222|||ANCOVA|||||0.222|0.051|0.002
90880719|NCT01165138|181623733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.172|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.087|0.258|||ANCOVA|||||0.258|0.087|<0.001
90880720|NCT01165138|181623733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.036||||0.405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.048|0.12|||ANCOVA|||||0.120|-0.048|0.405
90880721|NCT01165138|181623734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.186||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.062|0.31|||ANCOVA|||||0.310|0.062|0.003
90880722|NCT01165138|181623734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.302|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.178|0.426|||ANCOVA|||||0.426|0.178|<0.001
90918495|NCT00393484|181706358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|52.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|39.54|64.93|||Chi-squared||At 240 Weeks|||64.93|39.54|<0.0001
90880723|NCT01165138|181623734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.116||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|0.236|||ANCOVA|||||0.236|-0.005|0.060
90880724|NCT01644175|181623752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-45.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.5|-39.3||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. placebo|Alirocumab group was compared to placebo group using an appropriate contrast statement.||-39.3|-52.5|<0.0001
90918496|NCT00393484|181706359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||Viral rebound at 96 weeks||||<0.0001
90880725|NCT01644175|181623753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-49.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.2|-43.6||Threshold for significance was ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. placebo|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||-43.6|-56.2|<0.0001
90880726|NCT01644175|181623754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-47.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.6|-41.3||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-41.3|-53.6|<0.0001
90880727|NCT01644175|181623755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-49.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.3|-43.3||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-43.3|-55.3|<0.0001
90880728|NCT01644175|181623756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-35.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.3|-30.3||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-30.3|-41.3|<0.0001
90880729|NCT01644175|181623757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-37.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.0|-32.0||Threshold for significance ≤0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-32.0|-43.0|<0.0001
90880730|NCT01644175|181623758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-37.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.5|-31.4||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-31.4|-43.5|<0.0001
90880731|NCT01644175|181623759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-40.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.4|-34.4||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-34.4|-46.4|<0.0001
90880732|NCT01644175|181623760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-25.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.3|-20.7||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-20.7|-29.3|<0.0001
90880733|NCT01644175|181623761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-38.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.7|-32.7||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-32.7|-43.7|<0.0001
90880734|NCT01644175|181623762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-40.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.2|-33.9||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-33.9|-46.2|<0.0001
90880735|NCT01644175|181623763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-26.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.1|-21.7||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-21.7|-31.1|<0.0001
90880736|NCT01644175|181623764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-43.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.6|-34.3||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-34.3|-51.6|<0.0001
90880737|NCT01644175|181623765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|38.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.5|89.8||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model.|Alirocumab vs. placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||89.8|16.5|<0.0001
90880738|NCT01644175|181623766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|50.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.6|121.0||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05|Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model|Alirocumab vs. placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||121.0|20.6|<0.0001
90880739|NCT01644175|181623767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-14.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.3|-7.9||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Robust|Multiple imputation approach followed by a robust regression model.|Alirocumab vs. placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-7.9|-21.3|<0.0001
90880740|NCT01644175|181623768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.3||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.6|11.0||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||11.0|3.6|0.0001
90880741|NCT01644175|181623769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.8699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|7.0||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Robust|Multiple imputation approach followed by a robust regression model.|Alirocumab vs. placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||7.0|-8.3|0.8699
90880742|NCT01495585|181623775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Student t-test was used on the change in serum log HDV RNA after 28 days of therapy with lonafarnib.||||0.03
90880743|NCT01495585|181623775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Student t-test was used on the change in serum log HDV RNA after 28 days of therapy with lonafarnib.||||<0.0001
90880744|NCT01495585|181623776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.96
90880745|NCT01495585|181623776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6
90880746|NCT01667978|181623794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
90880747|NCT00962104|181623945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.66|-3.91||Statistical significance was assessed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with term for treatment, country, and baseline CAARS-Inv:SV 18-Item Total ADHD Symptom score .|ANCOVA|||||-3.91|-7.66|<0.001
90880748|NCT00962104|181623946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|4.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.97|7.56||First gated secondary outcome measure. A gatekeeper strategy (Westfall and Krishen 2001) controlled experiment-wise type I error for 2 QoL measures. Treatments were compared stepwise until an outcome failed to be significant (p\>0.05).|ANCOVA|Statistical significance was assessed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with term for treatment, country, and baseline AAQoL total score.||||7.56|1.97|<0.001
90880749|NCT00962104|181623947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.82||||0.289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|1.56||Second gated secondary outcome measure. A gatekeeper strategy (Westfall and Krishen 2001) controlled experiment-wise type I error for 2 QoL measures. Treatments were compared stepwise until an outcome failed to be significant (p\>0.05).|ANCOVA|Least Squares Mean difference between 2 treatment groups from Type III sum of squares analysis of covariance model:Change=treatment+country+baseline.||||1.56|-5.20|0.289
90880750|NCT00962104|181623948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.13|-4.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.22|-8.13|<0.001
90880751|NCT00962104|181623949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.21|-4.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.14|-8.21|<0.001
90918497|NCT01803555|181706362|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority of BF Spiromax to Symbicort Turbohaler was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the treatment difference was greater than -15 L/min.|Least Square (LS) mean difference|-2.957||||0.3387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.02|3.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis included effects due to baseline weekly average of daily trough AM PEF, gender, age, treatment, time, and treatment-by-time interaction.||||3.11|-9.02|0.3387
90918498|NCT00780234|181706371|OTHER||Regression model parameter (α1)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|0.89|||Regression, Linear|The estimates of treatment effect were adjusted for baseline histology values.||"The hypotheses tested were:~H0: α1 = 0 vs H1: α1 \~= 0"|The hypothesis test was a 2-sided t-test of the effect of group (i.e. the difference between the pioglitazone and placebo groups). The general form of the model is Y = α0 + α1GROUP + α2BASELINE. Y represents the 6-month value of the dependent variable (summary of the histology), GROUP represents a classification variable for the treatment group (1=pioglitazone, 2=placebo), BASELINE represents the value of the outcome measure at baseline, and α0, α1 and α2 represent the parameter estimates from the general linear model. The test of the difference between groups will be the formal test of significance of the α1 parameter.|0.89|-1.68|0.53
90918499|NCT02382744|181706376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between proportions (%)|10.0||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|31.9||One-sided P-value based on the lack of plausibility that additional nerve stimulation would worsen sensory blockade rates.|Fisher Exact|||We sought to detect an increase in the rate of complete absence of sensation to pinprick 30 min following ultrasound-guided subsartorial saphenous nerve blockade to 90% from an assumed baseline of 64% as extrapolated from our previous study (cf. Head SJ et al. 2015) at β = 0.2. The required minimum sample size at α = 0.05 (one-sided) was 30 patients in each group. To be conservative, we aimed to enroll a total of 80 patients.||31.9|-11.9|0.25
90961976|NCT01182194|181804469|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|98.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.66|101.96|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||101.96|95.66|
90961977|NCT01182194|181804470|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|98.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.35|101.7|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||101.70|95.35|
91035870|NCT02558491|181958306|OTHER|||||||0.965||||||No a priori sample size was determined due to the feasibility/pilot nature of the trial. Significance level was set at P-value \<0.05.|ANOVA|||Secondary analysis followed the same format unless variables could not be considered normally distributed; in that case a related samples Wilcoxon signed-rank test is used. Data were first binned (to ensure minimum count of five per bins) and the w2 statistics was used with the expected counts given by SoC. Based on achieved recruitment, a moderate effect size (0.3) is detectable with 80% power, or a large effect size (0.4) with 95% power (G-Power 3.1.9.2). Outcome measurement was for mealtime.||||0.965
90880752|NCT00962104|181623950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.59||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.73|-1.45||This is the p-value for the Raw Behavioral Regulation Index score. Statistical significance was assessed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with term for treatment, country, and baseline value.|ANCOVA|||||-1.45|-5.73|0.001
90880753|NCT00962104|181623950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.28|-3.31||This is the p-value for the Raw MI score. Statistical significance was assessed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with term for treatment, country, and baseline value.|ANCOVA|||||-3.31|-9.28|<0.001
90918500|NCT02382744|181706377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62||||||Two-sided P-value|Fisher Exact|||"This contingency-table type analysis (Fisher Exact test) compares the two groups, Ultrasound Guidance and Ultrasound Guidance and Nerve Stimulation, as far as the two categorical outcomes are concerned, block failure at 30 minutes post nerve block versus no block failure at 30 minutes post nerve block."||||0.62
90918501|NCT02382744|181706378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.62
90880754|NCT00962104|181623950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.75|-4.78||This is the p-value for the Global Executive Composite Index score. Statistical significance was assessed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with term for treatment, country, and baseline value.|ANCOVA|||||-4.78|-14.75|<0.001
90880755|NCT00962104|181623951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.93||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.18|0.32||This is the p-value for the Raw Behavioral Regulation Index score. Statistical significance was assessed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with term for treatment, country, and baseline value.|ANCOVA|||||0.32|-4.18|0.092
90880756|NCT00962104|181623951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.62||||0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.52|1.28||This is the p-value for the Raw MI Index score. Statistical significance was assessed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with term for treatment, country, and baseline value.|ANCOVA|||||1.28|-4.52|0.272
90880757|NCT00962104|181623951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.55||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.43|1.32||This is the p-value for the Raw Global Executive Composite Index score. Statistical significance was assessed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with term for treatment, country, and baseline value.|ANCOVA|||||1.32|-8.43|0.153
90880758|NCT00962104|181623952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.27||Statistical significance was assessed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with term for treatment, country, and baseline value.|ANCOVA|||||-0.27|-0.67|<0.001
90880759|NCT00962104|181623953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) with term for treatment and country.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90880760|NCT00962104|181623954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.05||||0.869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.6||Statistical significance was assessed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with term for treatment, country, and baseline value.|ANCOVA|||||0.60|-0.71|0.869
90880761|NCT00962104|181623955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.05||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.5||Statistical significance was assessed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with term for treatment, country, and baseline value.|ANCOVA|||||0.50|-0.59|0.870
90880762|NCT03274986|181623956|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.164|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0168|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.197|-0.131||2-sided p-value reported. A hypothesis test was based on a two sample t-test, with a type I error rate of 0.025, 1-sided.|t-test, 2 sided||Least squares mean difference (DFT015 - SN60WF)|||-0.131|-0.197|<0.001
90880763|NCT03274986|181623957|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-Inferiority margin was 0.1 logMAR.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.052|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0127|||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.073||The hypothesis test was based on a two-sample t-test, with a type I error rate of 0.05, 1-sided.|t-test, 2 sided||Least squares mean difference (DFT015 - SN60WF). The 1-sided 95% Upper Confidence Limit is presented.|||0.073||
90880764|NCT03274986|181623958|OTHER||Difference in depth of focus|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|||||Hypothesis testing was not pre-specified.|||Difference in depth of focus (DFT015 - SN60WF)|||||
90880765|NCT03274986|181623962|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.156|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0206|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.197|-0.115||2-sided p-value reported. A hypothesis test was based on a two sample t-test, with a type I error rate of 0.025, 1-sided.|t-test, 2 sided||Least squares mean difference (DFT015 - SN60WF)|||-0.115|-0.197|<0.001
90880766|NCT03274986|181623963|OTHER||Difference in percentage|18.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.65|27.37|||||95% CI for the difference (DFT015 - SN60WF) is estimated using Miettinen-Nurminen method (1985).|||27.37|9.65|
90880767|NCT00603746|181623967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.275|||<|0.001||95.0|0.18|0.37|||ANCOVA|||||0.370|0.180|<0.001
90880768|NCT00603746|181623967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.272|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.178|0.367|||ANCOVA|||||0.367|0.178|<0.001
90880769|NCT00603746|181623967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.264|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.171|0.357|||ANCOVA|||||0.357|0.171|<0.001
90880770|NCT00603746|181623967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.225|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.131|0.32|||ANCOVA|||||0.320|0.131|<0.001
90880771|NCT00603746|181623967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.198|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.105|0.291|||ANCOVA|||||0.291|0.105|<0.001
90880772|NCT01524627|181623996|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0004
90880773|NCT01524627|181623996|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1
90880774|NCT00615056|181624002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.273||||0.8268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.769|2.108||One-sided log-rank test at alpha = 0.15 significance level was used.|Log Rank|||Differences in PFS between treatment arms was analyzed by 1-sided log rank test, stratified for Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (0 versus 1) and prior treatment with bevacizumab (yes versus no).||2.108|0.769|0.8268
90880775|NCT00615056|181624002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.041||||0.5498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.553|1.041||One-sided log-rank test at alpha = 0.15 significance level was used.|Log Rank|||Differences in PFS between treatment arms was analyzed by 1-sided log rank test, stratified for ECOG performance status (0 versus 1) and prior treatment with bevacizumab (yes versus no).||1.041|0.553|0.5498
90880776|NCT00615056|181624003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.355||||0.8828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|2.238||One-sided log-rank test at alpha = 0.15 significance level was used.|Log Rank|||Differences in OS between treatment arms was analyzed by 1-sided log rank test, stratified for ECOG performance status (0 versus 1) and prior treatment with bevacizumab (yes versus no).||2.238|0.820|0.8828
90918502|NCT02382744|181706379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26||||||Two-sided P-value|Fisher Exact|||"This contingency-table type analysis (Fisher Exact test) compares the two groups, Ultrasound Guidance and Ultrasound Guidance and Nerve Stimulation, as far as the two categorical outcomes are concerned, incomplete block at 30 minutes post nerve block versus no incomplete block at 30 minutes post nerve block."||||0.26
90918503|NCT02382744|181706380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||"Median survival ratio"|0.7||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.31|||Log Rank||"Numerator, group Ultrasound Guidance; denominator, group, Ultrasound Guidance + Nerve Stimulation"|"To assess speed of onset, sensation to pinprick in the distribution of the saphenous nerve was assessed for each patient every 5 min until complete sensory loss was noted, or until 30 min had elapsed. To compare the two groups in speed of onset on the basis of these data, we constructed Kaplan-Meyer survival curves for the times to onset of sensory blockade and compared the underlying time-to-event data with the log-rank test."||1.31|0.38|0.12
90918504|NCT02382744|181706384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between means (s)|107.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.0|153.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||153|61|<0.0001
90918505|NCT02382744|181706387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||"Median survival ratio"|0.58||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.93|||Log Rank||"Numerator, group Ultrasound Guidance; denominator, group, Ultrasound Guidance + Nerve Stimulation"|||0.93|0.37|0.02
90918506|NCT02382744|181706390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0057|||||||Fisher Exact|||"This contingency-table type analysis (Fisher Exact test) compares the two arms, Patients with response to nerve stimulation and Patients with lack response to nerve stimulation, as far as the two categorical outcomes are concerned, block failure at 30 minutes post nerve block versus no block failure at 30 minutes post nerve block."||||0.0057
90918507|NCT01551355|181706417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.64|6.16|||t-test, 2 sided|The intervention was evaluated using generalized estimating equation models, controlling for cluster effect, sex, age, weight, and education level.||||6.16|1.64|<.001
90918508|NCT01551355|181706418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.03|6.12|||t-test, 2 sided|||||6.12|2.03|<.001
90918509|NCT01551355|181706419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.36|||=|0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|11.01|||t-test, 2 sided|||||11.01|-0.29|=.06
90918510|NCT03010631|181706425|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.441|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.166|1.782||||||||1.782|1.166|
90918511|NCT03010631|181706426|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|2.045|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.615|2.589||||||||2.589|1.615|
90918512|NCT03010631|181706427|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|0.888|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.675|1.168||||||||1.168|0.675|
90918513|NCT03010631|181706428|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|0.413|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.339|0.502||||||||0.502|0.339|
90918514|NCT01255670|181706434|OTHER|Mann-Whitney U-test and Fisher's exact test||||||0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.05
90918515|NCT01255670|181706435|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mann-Whitney U-test and Fisher's exact test||||0.05
90918516|NCT03481660|181706503|NON_INFERIORITY|(4-letter margin) (1-sided)|LS mean difference|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|3.1|||ANOVA|||BCVA at Week 52||3.1|-0.6|<0.001
90918517|NCT03481660|181706504|NON_INFERIORITY|(4-letter margin) (1-sided)|LS mean difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|2.6|||ANOVA|||BCVA over period Week 40 through Week 52||2.6|-0.9|<0.001
90918518|NCT03481660|181706504|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.164|||||||ANOVA|||BCVA over period Week 40 through Week 52||||0.164
90918519|NCT03481660|181706511|OTHER|Treatment Difference|LS mean difference|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|3.1||||||BCVA at Week 52||3.1|-0.6|
90918520|NCT03481660|181706511|OTHER|Treatment Difference|LS mean difference|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|4.9||||||BCVA at Week 100||4.9|0.2|
90918521|NCT03481660|181706512|OTHER|Treatment difference|LS mean difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|2.1||||||BCVA over period Week 4 through Week 52||2.1|-0.6|
90918522|NCT03481660|181706512|OTHER|Treatment difference|LS mean difference|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|2.6||||||BCVA over period Week 4 through Week 100||2.6|-0.4|
90918523|NCT03481660|181706513|OTHER|Treatment difference|LS mean difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|2.4||||||BCVA over period Week 20 through Week 52||2.4|-0.9|
90918524|NCT03481660|181706513|OTHER|Treatment difference|LS mean difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|2.5||||||BCVA over period Week 28 through Week 52||2.5|-0.9|
90918525|NCT03481660|181706513|OTHER|Treatment difference|LS mean difference|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|2.9||||||BCVA over period Week 20 through Week 100||2.9|-0.5|
90918526|NCT03481660|181706513|OTHER|Treatment difference|LS mean difference|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|3.0||||||BCVA over period Week 28 through Week 100||3.0|-0.5|
90918527|NCT03481660|181706514|OTHER|Treatment difference|LS mean difference|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|4.3||||||BCVA over period Week 88 through Week 100||4.3|-0.1|
90918528|NCT03481660|181706515|OTHER|Treatment difference|Clopper-Pearson exact method|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|8.9||||||Gain of \>= 5 letters in BCVA at Week 52||8.9|-7.6|
90918529|NCT03481660|181706515|OTHER|Treatment difference|Clopper-Pearson exact method|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|14.5||||||Gain of \>= 5 letters in BCVA at Week 100||14.5|-3.9|
90918530|NCT03481660|181706516|OTHER|Treatment difference|Clopper-Pearson exact method|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|14.7||||||Gain of \>= 10 letters in BCVA at Week 52||14.7|-3.9|
90918531|NCT03481660|181706516|OTHER|Treatment difference|Clopper-Pearson exact method|9.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|19.4||||||Gain of \>= 10 letters in BCVA at Week 100||19.4|-0.4|
90918532|NCT03481660|181706517|OTHER|Treatment difference|Clopper-Pearson exact method|9.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|20.2||||||Gain of \>= 15 letters in BCVA at Week 52||20.2|-0.4|
90918533|NCT03481660|181706517|OTHER|Treatment difference|Clopper-Pearson exact method|13.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|23.5||||||Gain of \>= 15 letters in BCVA at Week 100||23.5|3.3|
90918534|NCT03481660|181706518|OTHER|Treatment difference|Clopper-Pearson exact method|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|2.9||||||Loss of \>= 5 letters in BCVA at Week 52||2.9|-4.2|
90918535|NCT03481660|181706518|OTHER|Treatment difference|Clopper-Pearson exact method|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|-1.7||||||Loss of \>= 5 letters in BCVA at Week 100||-1.7|-10.8|
90918536|NCT03481660|181706519|OTHER|Treatment difference|Clopper-Pearson exact method|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|2.4||||||Loss of \>= 10 letters in BCVA at Week 52||2.4|-3.2|
90918537|NCT03481660|181706519|OTHER|Treatment difference|Clopper-Pearson exact method|-4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|-0.1||||||Loss of \>= 10 letters in BCVA at Week 100||-0.1|-8.4|
90918538|NCT03481660|181706520|OTHER|Treatment difference|Clopper-Pearson exact method|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|1.6||||||Loss of \>= 15 letters in BCVA at Week 52||1.6|-3.2|
90918539|NCT03481660|181706520|OTHER|Treatment difference|Clopper-Pearson exact method|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|2.0||||||Loss of \>= 15 letters in BCVA at Week 100||2.0|-4.8|
90918540|NCT03481660|181706521|OTHER|Treatment difference|Clopper-Pearson exact method|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|12.0||||||Absolute BCVA \>= 73 letters at Week 52||12.0|-4.9|
90918541|NCT03481660|181706521|OTHER|Treatment difference|Clopper-Pearson exact method|3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|12.6||||||Absolute BCVA \>= 73 letters at Week 100||12.6|-5.4|
90918542|NCT03481660|181706523|OTHER|Treatment difference|LS mean difference|-29.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.76|<|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.6|-10.2|||ANOVA|||CSFT over period Week 40 through Week 52||-10.2|-48.6|<0.003
90918543|NCT03481660|181706523|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||ANOVA|||CSFT over period Week 40 through Week 52||||0.001
90918544|NCT03481660|181706523|OTHER|Treatment difference|LS mean difference|-23.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.28|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.5|-3.0||||||CSFT over period Week 88 through Week 100||-3.0|-43.5|
90918545|NCT03481660|181706524|OTHER|Treatment difference|LS mean difference|-27.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.35|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.8|-9.0||||||CSFT over period Week 4 through Week 52||-9.0|-45.8|
91034025|NCT02883452|181953889|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority of CT-P13 SC to CT-P13 IV was to be concluded if the lower bound of two-sided 90% CI for the ratio of geometric least square means was higher than 80%.|Ratio of Geometric LS means|1154.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|786.37|1694.0|||||The geometric lease square (LS) means, ratio of geometric LS means (CT-P13 SC 120/240 mg to CT-P13 IV 5 mg/kg), and 2-sided 90% CI were obtained from the ANCOVA model.|Primary PK analysis was analyzed using an ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and current use of treatment with azathioprine (AZA) or 6-mercaptopurine (6-MP) or methotrexate (MTX) (used or not used), disease (CD or UC), clinical response at Week 6 (responder or non-responder by Clinical Disease Activity Index \[CDAI\]-70 for CD or partial Mayo score for UC), body weight at Week 6 (\<80 kg or ≥80 kg) fitted as covariates.||1694.00|786.37|
90918546|NCT03481660|181706524|OTHER|Treatment difference|LS mean difference|-25.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.29|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.0|-7.5||||||CSFT over period Week 4 through Week 100||-7.5|-44.0|
90918547|NCT03481660|181706525|OTHER|Treatment difference|Clopper-Pearson exact method|16.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|25.9||||||CSFT thickness (\<280 micrometers) at Week 52||25.9|5.7|
90918548|NCT03481660|181706525|OTHER|Treatment difference|Clopper-Pearson exact method|14.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|24.9||||||CSFT thickness (\<280 micrometers) at Week 100||24.9|4.2|
90918549|NCT03481660|181706526|OTHER||Clopper-Pearson exact method|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|2.1||||||Subretinal Fluid (SRF) at Week 52||2.1|-4.5|
90918550|NCT03481660|181706526|OTHER|Treatment Difference|Clopper-Pearson exact method|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|3.4||||||Subretinal Fluid (SRF) at Week 100||3.4|-3.4|
90918551|NCT03481660|181706527|OTHER|Treatment Difference|Clopper-Pearson exact method|-19.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.9|-9.2||||||Intraretinal Fluid (IRF) at Week 52||-9.2|-28.9|
90918552|NCT03481660|181706527|OTHER|Treatment Difference|Clopper-Pearson exact method|-16.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.3|-5.7||||||Intraretinal Fluid (IRF) at Week 100||-5.7|-26.3|
90918553|NCT03481660|181706528|OTHER|Treatment Difference|Clopper-Pearson exact method|-18.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.5|-8.3||||||Subretinal Fluid (SRF) and/or Intraretinal Fluid (IRF) at Week 52||-8.3|-28.5|
90918554|NCT03481660|181706528|OTHER|Treatment difference|Clopper-Pearson exact method|-16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.4|-5.9||||||Subretinal Fluid (SRF) and/or Intraretinal Fluid (IRF) at Week 100||-5.9|-26.4|
90918555|NCT03481660|181706529|OTHER|Treatment difference|Clopper-Pearson exact method|-25.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.4|-16.3||||||Fluorescein Angiography (FA) at Week 52||-16.3|-34.4|
90918556|NCT03481660|181706529|OTHER|Treatment difference|Clopper-Pearson exact method|-19.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.1|-8.2||||||Fluorescein Angiography (FA) at Week 100||-8.2|-29.1|
90918557|NCT03481660|181706530|OTHER|Treatment difference|Clopper-Pearson exact method|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|7.8||||||\>=2-step improvement in ETDRS-DRSS at Week 52||7.8|-5.6|
90918558|NCT03481660|181706530|OTHER|Treatment difference|Clopper-Pearson exact method|4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|10.8||||||\>=2-step improvement in ETDRS-DRSS at Week 100||10.8|-1.7|
90918559|NCT03481660|181706531|OTHER|Treatment difference|Clopper-Pearson exact method|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|5.7||||||\>=3-step improvement in ETDRS-DRSS at Week 52||5.7|-7.1|
90918560|NCT03481660|181706531|OTHER|Treatment difference|Clopper-Pearson exact method|3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|10.0||||||\>=3-step improvement in ETDRS-DRSS at Week 100||10.0|-2.3|
90918561|NCT03481660|181706532|OTHER|Treatment difference|Clopper-Pearson exact method|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|3.6||||||\>=2-step worsening in ETDRS-DRSS at Week 52||3.6|-1.0|
90918562|NCT03481660|181706532|OTHER|Treatment difference|Clopper-Pearson exact method|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|6.9||||||\>=2-step worsening in ETDRS-DRSS at Week 100||6.9|-0.5|
90918563|NCT03481660|181706533|OTHER|Treatment difference|Clopper-Pearson exact method|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.1||||||\>=3-step worsening in ETDRS-DRSS at Week 52||2.1|0.5|
90918564|NCT03481660|181706533|OTHER|Treatment difference|Clopper-Pearson exact method|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|1.3||||||\>=3-step worsening in ETDRS-DRSS at Week 100||1.3|-2.6|
90918565|NCT03481660|181706534|OTHER|Treatment difference|Clopper-Pearson exact method|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.9||||||Proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) of at least 61 by Week 100||1.9|-2.1|
91034026|NCT01281501|181953896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.0||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|7.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis is that the treatment with pantoprazole arm is not different in immediate relief of acute, severe dyspeptic pain compared with conventional arm.||7.4|-12.7|0.6
90880777|NCT00615056|181624003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.689||||0.1159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.373|1.273||One-sided log-rank test at alpha = 0.15 significance level was used.|Log Rank|||Differences in OS between treatment arms was analyzed by 1-sided log rank test, stratified for ECOG performance status (0 versus 1) and prior treatment with bevacizumab (yes versus no).||1.273|0.373|0.1159
90961978|NCT01182194|181804471|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|101.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.36|109.08|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||109.08|94.36|
90961979|NCT01182194|181804472|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|98.54|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.55|102.71|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||102.71|94.55|
91034027|NCT02393417|181953901|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.5706||||0.0329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0184|2.4223|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.4223|1.0184|0.0329
90880778|NCT00615056|181624004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.4552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.8|17.7|||Chi-squared|||One-sided Pearson chi square test at alpha = 0.15 significance level was used.||17.7|-15.8|0.4552
90880779|NCT00615056|181624004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.5235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.1|18.0|||Chi-squared|||One-sided Pearson chi square test at alpha = 0.15 significance level was used.||18.0|-19.1|0.5235
90880780|NCT05627518|181624008|OTHER||Ratio|1.9954|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8399|2.1641|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment B (1x100 mg test formulation) divided by treatment A (4x25 mg reference formulation)|The Ratio of geometric mean AUCinf comparing test formulation fasted (treatment B) vs. reference formulation fasted ( treatment A). This is a relative comparison, thus there is no unit. The ratio is given under the Estimated value.||2.1641|1.8399|<0.0001
90880781|NCT05627518|181624008|OTHER||Ratio|2.125|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9664|2.2963|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment B (1x100 mg test formulation) divided by treatment A (4x25 mg reference formulation)|AUClast: Ratio of geometric mean AUClast comparing test formulation fasted (treatment B) vs. reference formulation fasted (treatment A). This is a relative comparison, thus there is no unit. The ratio is given under the Estimated value.||2.2963|1.9664|<0.0001
90880782|NCT05627518|181624009|OTHER|Ratio|Ratio|2.3167|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0922|2.5652|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment B (1x100 mg test formulation) divided by treatment A (4x25 mg reference formulation)|Ratio of geometric mean Cmax comparing test formulation fasted (treatment B) vs. reference formulation fasted (treatment A). This is a relative comparison, thus there is no unit. The ratio is given under the Estimated value.||2.5652|2.0922|<0.0001
90880783|NCT05627518|181624010|OTHER|Ratio|Ratio|0.757|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7009|0.8177|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment C (1x100 mg test formulation fed) divided by treament B (100 mg test formulation fasted)|Ratio of geometric mean AUCinf comparing treatment C (fed) versus treatment B (fasted). This is a relative comparison, thus there is no unit. The ratio is given under the Estimated value.||0.8177|0.7009|<0.0001
90880784|NCT05627518|181624010|OTHER|Ratio|Ratio|0.7684|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7102|0.8313|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment C (1x100 mg test formulation fed) divided by treament B (100 mg test formulation fasted)|Ratio of geometric mean AUClast comparing treatment C (fed) versus treatment B (fasted). This is a relative comparison, thus there is no unit. The ratio is given under the Estimated value.||0.8313|0.7102|<0.0001
90880785|NCT05627518|181624011|OTHER|Ratio|Ratio|0.2548|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1999|0.3247|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment C (1x100 mg test formulation fed) divided by treament B (100 mg test formulation fasted)|Ratio of geometric mean Cmax comparing treatment C (fed) versus treatment B (fasted). This is a relative comparison, thus there is no unit. The ratio is given under the Estimated value.||0.3247|0.1999|<0.0001
90880786|NCT05627518|181624012|OTHER|Ratio|Ratio|3.0245|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5098|3.6446|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment B (1x100 mg test formulation) divided by treament A (4x25 mg reference formulation)|Ratio of geometric mean AUCinf comparing test formulation fasted (treatment B) vs. reference formulation fasted ( treatment A). This is a relative comparison, thus there is no unit. The ratio is given under the Estimated value.||3.6446|2.5098|<0.0001
90880787|NCT05627518|181624012|OTHER|Ratio|Ratio|3.5277|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9076|4.2799|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment B (1x100 mg test formulation) divided by treament A (4x25 mg reference formulation)|Ratio of geometric mean AUClast comparing test formulation fasted (treatment B) vs. reference formulation fasted (treatment A). This is a relative comparison, thus there is no unit. The ratio is given under the Estimated value.||4.2799|2.9076|<0.0001
90880788|NCT05627518|181624013|OTHER|Ratio|Ratio|3.0245|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5098|3.6446|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment B (1x100 mg test formulation) divided by treament A (4x25 mg reference formulation)|Ratio of geometric mean Cmax comparing test formulation fasted (treatment B) vs. reference formulation fasted ( treatment A). This is a relative comparison, thus there is no unit. The ratio is given under the Estimated value.||3.6446|2.5098|<0.0001
90880789|NCT05627518|181624014|OTHER|Ratio|Ratio|0.4923|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4131|0.5867|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment C (1x100 mg test formulation fed) divided by treament B (100 mg test formulation fasted)|Ratio of geometric mean AUCinf comparing treatment C (fed) versus treatment B (fasted). This is a relative comparison, thus there is no unit. The ratio is given under the Estimated value.||0.5867|0.4131|<0.0001
90880790|NCT05627518|181624014|OTHER|Ratio|Ratio|0.4923|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4047|0.5989|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment C (1x100 mg test formulation fed) divided by treament B (100 mg test formulation fasted)|Ratio of geometric mean AUClast comparing treatment C (fed) versus treatment B (fasted). This is a relative comparison, thus there is no unit. The ratio is given under the Estimated value.||0.5989|0.4047|<0.0001
90961980|NCT01182194|181804473|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|99.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.07|103.46|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||103.46|96.07|
90961981|NCT01585987|181804477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.439||||0.0972|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.085|1.908||Significance level used: 0.2|Log Rank||The hazard ratio and its associated two-sided 80% confidence interval (CI) was estimated via a stratified Cox model with treatment arm as the only covariate in the model|||1.908|1.085|0.0972
90918566|NCT04605198|181706554|SUPERIORITY|A multilevel model was constructed. Participants were entered as random effects to nest observations within participants. Group assignment (i.e., MBSR vs. Health Promotion Control), time (i.e., Time 1 \[baseline\], Time 2 \[immediate post-intervention, primary endpoint\], and Time 3 \[6-month follow-up\]), and group-by-time interactions were entered as fixed effects. Site was also included as a fixed-effect. An independent covariance pattern was specified as final models were random-intercept only.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.58||||0.846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.46|5.29|||Mixed Models Analysis||The estimate represents the interaction term for group by time interaction for the immediate follow-up, with the control group coded 0 and the intervention group coded as 1.|||5.29|-6.46|.846
90918567|NCT04605198|181706555|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.88||||0.139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.36|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||The estimate represents the interaction term for group by time interaction for the immediate follow-up, with the control group coded 0 and the intervention group coded as 1.|A multilevel model was constructed. Participants were entered as random effects to nest observations within participants. Group assignment (i.e., MBSR vs. Health Promotion Control), time (i.e., Time 1 \[baseline\], Time 2 \[immediate post-intervention, primary endpoint\], and Time 3 \[6-month follow-up\]), and group-by-time interactions were entered as fixed effects. Site was also included as a fixed-effect. An independent covariance pattern was specified as final models were random-intercept only.||0.60|-4.36|.139
90918568|NCT04605198|181706556|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12||||0.222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|0.97|||Mixed Models Analysis||The estimate represents the interaction term for group by time interaction for the immediate follow-up, with the control group coded 0 and the intervention group coded as 1.|A multilevel model was constructed. Participants were entered as random effects to nest observations within participants. Group assignment (i.e., MBSR vs. Health Promotion Control), time (i.e., Time 1 \[baseline\], Time 2 \[immediate post-intervention, primary endpoint\], and Time 3 \[6-month follow-up\]), and group-by-time interactions were entered as fixed effects. Site was also included as a fixed-effect. An independent covariance pattern was specified as final models were random-intercept only.||0.97|-1.21|.222
90918569|NCT04605198|181706557|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|-1.76||||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.26|0.73|||Mixed Models Analysis||The estimate represents the interaction term for group by time interaction for the immediate follow-up, with the control group coded 0 and the intervention group coded as 1.|A multilevel model was constructed using a logit distribution. Participants were entered as random effects to nest observations within participants. Group assignment (i.e., MBSR vs. Health Promotion Control), time (i.e., Time 1 \[baseline\], Time 2 \[immediate post-intervention\], and Time 3 \[6-month follow-up\]), and group-by-time interactions were entered as fixed effects. Site was included as a fixed-effect. An independent covariance pattern was specified. Final models were random-intercept only.||0.73|-4.26|0.166
90918570|NCT04605198|181706558|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.52||||0.737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.57|2.53|||Mixed Models Analysis||The estimate represents the interaction term for group by time interaction for the immediate follow-up, with the control group coded 0 and the intervention group coded as 1.|A multilevel model was constructed. Participants were entered as random effects to nest observations within participants. Group assignment (i.e., MBSR vs. Health Promotion Control), time (i.e., Time 1 \[baseline\], Time 2 \[immediate post-intervention, primary endpoint\], and Time 3 \[6-month follow-up\]), and group-by-time interactions were entered as fixed effects. Site was also included as a fixed-effect. An independent covariance pattern was specified as final models were random-intercept only.||2.53|-3.57|.737
90918571|NCT04605198|181706559|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2391.98||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4471.46|-312.49|||Mixed Models Analysis||The estimate represents the interaction term for group by time interaction for the immediate follow-up, with the control group coded 0 and the intervention group coded as 1.|A multilevel model was constructed. Participants were entered as random effects to nest observations within participants. Group assignment (i.e., MBSR vs. Health Promotion Control), time (i.e., Time 1 \[baseline\], Time 2 \[immediate post-intervention, primary endpoint\], and Time 3 \[6-month follow-up\]), and group-by-time interactions were entered as fixed effects. Site was also included as a fixed-effect. An independent covariance pattern was specified as final models were random-intercept only.||-312.49|-4471.46|.024
90918572|NCT05215847|181706561|OTHER|Adverse event subject incidence and event frequency.|||||||||||||||||Adverse event subject incidence and event frequency.|||
90961982|NCT01585987|181804478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.588||||0.0336|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.199|2.103||Significance level used: 0.2|Log Rank|||||2.103|1.199|0.0336
90961983|NCT01585987|181804479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.874||||0.6433|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.602|1.269||Significance level used: 0.2|Log Rank||HR was based on a stratified Cox proportional hazards model with treatment arm as the only covariate in the model.|||1.269|0.602|0.6433
90961984|NCT01585987|181804481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.0549||||0.3686|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.7009|47.6447||Significance level used: 0.2|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||47.6447|0.7009|0.3686
90971069|NCT00385255|181824668|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was defined as the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference between the two groups (Boostrix+Fluarix 19-64 YOA Group minus Fluarix Boostrix 19-64 YOA Group), in terms of percentage of subjects with anti-H3N2 antibody titers ≥ 1:40 being ≥ -10%.|Difference in percentage|-0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|0.96||||||Difference in percentage of subjects with anti-H3N2 antibody titers ≥ 1:40: To demonstrate that the immunogenicity of Boostrix® vaccine co-administered with Fluarix® vaccine (Boostrix+Fluarix 19-64 YOA Group) at Day 0, was non-inferior to that of Fluarix® vaccine administered alone at Day 0 (Fluarix Boostrix 19-64 YOA Group), in terms of percentage of subjects with anti-H3N2 antibody titers ≥ 1:40, one month post-Fluarix® vaccination.||0.96|-2.22|
90961985|NCT03291587|181804482|SUPERIORITY|With 418 analyzable participants across 13 clinics per group, we have 80% power to detect a group difference in primary outcome (7-day abstinence). This assumes control abstinence rate will be 10% versus 20% intervention rate using a 2-sided Z-test for proportions with alpha=0.05 (2-sided). To account for the clustering we used an intra-class correlation value of 0.03. We plan to enroll 1114-1300 patients (or approximately 42-50 per site) to conservatively allow for 25%- 35.5% loss to follow-up.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.967||||0.865|TWO_SIDED|96.0|0.652|1.433|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A generalized estimating equation marginal model was used in an intent-to-treat analysis to predict the 7-day tobacco use binary outcome. A binomial distribution with logit link was specified with group, time, and the interaction of group by time included as covariates while allowing intercept and time to vary by participants within site with an exchangeable working correlation matrix designation.||1.433|0.652|0.865
90961986|NCT02197767|181804491|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.072|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.072
90961987|NCT02197767|181804492|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.068|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.068
90918573|NCT02879448|181706599|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin was developed based on reported rates for other devices. Therefore, the expected rate of the safety endpoint was assumed to be 15%. A non-inferiority margin of 5.8% represents a relative risk of 1.39.||||||0.0002|||||||Kaplan-Meier estimate|||"The following hypothesis was tested:~H0: p1(Amulet) - p1 (Watchman) ≥ Δ1~H1: p1(Amulet) - p1(Watchman) \< Δ1;~where Δ1 is the absolute value of the non-inferiority margin for the safety endpoint and p1 is the probability of a primary safety endpoint event."||||0.0002
90918574|NCT02879448|181706600|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin for this endpoint was developed based on the reported rates of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism for the Watchman. The 18-month rate of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism for the Watchman device has been reported in the literature as 4.2%. A non-inferiority margin of 3.2%, which represents a relative risk of 1.76, ensured that the rate observed was at most twice the rate expected with oral anticoagulant therapy.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Kaplan-Meier estimate|||"The following hypothesis was tested:~H0: p2(Amulet) - p2(Watchman) ≥ Δ2~H1: p2(Amulet) - p2(Watchman) \< Δ2;~where Δ2 is the absolute value of the non-inferiority margin for the effectiveness endpoint and p2 is the probability of a subject experiencing a primary effectiveness endpoint event."||||<0.0001
90918575|NCT02879448|181706601|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin for this endpoint was developed based on the reported closure rate for the Watchman device. The rate of device closure for the Watchman device has been reported in the literature as 95% (i.e., 5% had a residual jet \> 5mm). A non-inferiority margin of -3%, which represents a relative risk of 1.60, allows for trial to trial variability and implanter learning associated with implantation of a new device (Amulet).|||||<|0.0001|||||||Farrington Manning test|||"The following hypothesis was tested:~H0: p3(Amulet) - p3(Watchman) ≤ -Δ3~H1: p3(Amulet) - p3(Watchman) \> -Δ3;~where Δ3 is the absolute value of the non-inferiority margin and p3 is the 45-day closure probability."||||<0.0001
90918576|NCT02879448|181706602|NON_INFERIORITY|"The following hypothesis was tested:~H1: p4(Amulet) - p4(Watchman) \< 4.5%"|||||<|0.0001|||||||Kaplan-Meier estimate|||||||<0.0001
90918577|NCT02879448|181706603|SUPERIORITY|"The following hypothesis was tested:~H1: p5(Amulet) - p5(Watchman) \< 0"||||||0.3229|||||||Kaplan-Meier estimate|||||||0.3229
90918578|NCT02879448|181706604|SUPERIORITY|"The following hypothesis was tested:~H1: p1(Amulet) - p1(Watchman) \< 0"||||||0.466|||||||Kaplan-Meier estimate|||||||0.4660
90918579|NCT02879448|181706605|SUPERIORITY|"The following hypothesis was tested:~H1: p2(Amulet) - p2(Watchman) \< 0"||||||0.5017|||||||Kaplan-Meier estimate|||||||0.5017
90918580|NCT02879448|181706606|SUPERIORITY|"The following hypothesis was tested:~H1: p3(Amulet) - p3(Watchman) \> 0"||||||0.0025|||||||Farrington Manning test|||||||0.0025
90918581|NCT03830177|181706610|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
90961988|NCT03662139|181804554|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Between group difference||||<0.01
90961989|NCT03662139|181804554|SUPERIORITY||ICC|0.97|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.915|0.99|||Intraclass Correlation Coefficient(ICC)|Two-way random-effect model|Reliability estimates were interpreted as follows: \>0.90=excellent; 0.75-0.90=good; 0.50-0.75=medium; \<0.50=low|Test - Retest Reliability (Difference between 1st and 2nd assessments in Cerebral Palsy group)||0.99|0.915|<0.05
91034028|NCT02393417|181953901|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.8926||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2722|2.8156|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.8156|1.2722|0.0007
90918582|NCT03830177|181706611|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
90918583|NCT03830177|181706612|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
90918584|NCT03830177|181706613|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
90918585|NCT03830177|181706615|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
90918586|NCT04732494|181706635|SUPERIORITY|The primary endpoint ORR was tested at a 2-sided alpha of 0.05.|Risk Difference (RD)|9.9||||0.2114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|25.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method stratified by the stratification factors (ECOG PS score \[0 vs 1\] and number of organs with metastases \[≤ 1 vs ≥ 2\]).|Mantel-Haenszel common risk difference stratified by the stratification factors (ECOG PS score \[0 vs 1\] and number of organs with metastases \[≤ 1 vs ≥ 2\]).|||25.3|-5.4|0.2114
90918587|NCT04732494|181706636|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.45|||||Hazard ratio and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using a Cox regression model stratified by the selected stratification factors (ECOG PS score \[0 vs 1\] and the number of organs with metastases \[≤ 1 vs ≥ 2\]).|||1.45|0.58|
90918588|NCT04732494|181706637|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|6.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|22.5|||||Mantel-Haenszel common risk difference stratified by the stratification factors (ECOG PS score \[0 vs 1\] and number of organs with metastases \[≤ 1 vs ≥ 2\]).|||22.5|-9.2|
90918589|NCT04732494|181706638|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.59|||||Hazard ratio and 95% CIs were estimated using a Cox regression model stratified by the selected stratification factors (ECOG PS score \[0 vs 1\] and the number of organs with metastases \[≤ 1 vs ≥ 2\]).|||1.59|0.64|
90918590|NCT04732494|181706639|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.61|||||Hazard ratio and 95% CIs were estimated using a Cox regression model stratified by the selected stratification factors (ECOG PS score \[0 vs 1\] and the number of organs with metastases \[≤ 1 vs ≥ 2\]).|||1.61|0.71|
90918591|NCT04732494|181706642|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|19.9|||||Mantel-Haenszel common risk difference stratified by the stratification factors (ECOG PS score \[0 vs 1\] and number of organs with metastases \[≤ 1 vs ≥ 2\]).|Analysis of Disease Control Rate Assessed by the Investigator||19.9|-14.4|
90918592|NCT04732494|181706642|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|21.8|||||Mantel-Haenszel common risk difference stratified by the stratification factors (ECOG PS score \[0 vs 1\] and number of organs with metastases \[≤ 1 vs ≥ 2\]).|Analysis of Disease Control Rate Assessed by the Independent Review Committee||21.8|-11.7|
90918593|NCT04732494|181706643|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|20.4|||||Mantel-Haenszel common risk difference stratified by the stratification factors (ECOG PS score \[0 vs 1\] and number of organs with metastases \[≤ 1 vs ≥ 2\]).|Analysis of Clinical Benefit Rate Assessed by the Investigator||20.4|-12.7|
90918594|NCT04732494|181706643|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|21.0|||||Mantel-Haenszel common risk difference stratified by the stratification factors (ECOG PS score \[0 vs 1\] and number of organs with metastases \[≤ 1 vs ≥ 2\]).|Analysis of Clinical Benefit Rate Assessed by the Independent Review Committee||21.0|-11.0|
90918595|NCT04732494|181706644|OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|11.9||||||Analysis of Change from Baseline in Global Health Status/QoL at Cycle 5. The mixed effect model analysis included the questionnaire score as dependent variable; baseline score, stratification factors, treatment arm, visit, and treatment arm by visit interaction as fixed effects; and visit as a repeated measure, with an unstructured covariance structure.||11.9|-8.4|
90918596|NCT04732494|181706644|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|11.2||||||Analysis of Change from Baseline in Global Health Status/QoL at Cycle 7. The mixed effect model analysis included the questionnaire score as dependent variable; baseline score, stratification factors, treatment arm, visit, and treatment arm by visit interaction as fixed effects; and visit as a repeated measure, with an unstructured covariance structure.||11.2|-5.0|
90918597|NCT04732494|181706644|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|3.7||||||Analysis of Change from Baseline in Physical Functioning at Cycle 5. The mixed effect model analysis included the questionnaire score as dependent variable; baseline score, stratification factors, treatment arm, visit, and treatment arm by visit interaction as fixed effects; and visit as a repeated measure, with an unstructured covariance structure.||3.7|-7.1|
90961990|NCT03662139|181804554|SUPERIORITY||ICC|0.983|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.882|0.998|||Intraclass Correlation Coefficient(ICC)|Two-way random-effect model|Reliability estimates were interpreted as follows: \>0.90=excellent; 0.75-0.90=good; 0.50-0.75=medium; \<0.50=low|Interrater Reliability (Difference between 1st and 2nd evaluators in Cerebral Palsy group)||0.998|0.882|<0.01
91034029|NCT02393417|181953901|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.7319||||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1602|2.5854|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.5854|1.1602|0.0052
90961991|NCT03662139|181804555|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Between group difference||||<0.01
90961992|NCT03662139|181804555|SUPERIORITY||Spearman's correlation coefficient (rs)|0.724|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman's Correlation Test|The level of relationship was classified as follows \<0.30=small/negligible; 0.30-0.50=low; 0.50-0.70=moderate; 0.70-0.90=high; \>0.90=very high.||Correlation between Dynamic Gait Index (DGI) and Pediatric Balance Scale (PBS) scores in Cerebral Palsy group||||<0.05
90961993|NCT03662139|181804556|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Between group difference||||<0.01
90918598|NCT04732494|181706644|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|9.3||||||Analysis of Change from Baseline in Physical Functioning at Cycle 7. The mixed effect model analysis included the questionnaire score as dependent variable; baseline score, stratification factors, treatment arm, visit, and treatment arm by visit interaction as fixed effects; and visit as a repeated measure, with an unstructured covariance structure.||9.3|-10.3|
91034030|NCT02393417|181953902|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.3828||||0.4307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6191|3.0883|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.0883|0.6191|0.4307
91034031|NCT02393417|181953902|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.8908||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4169|5.8978|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.8978|1.4169|0.0014
90918599|NCT04732494|181706645|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-9.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.5|1.6||||||Analysis of Change from Baseline in Dysphagia at Cycle 5. The mixed effect model analysis included the questionnaire score as dependent variable; baseline score, stratification factors, treatment arm, visit, and treatment arm by visit interaction as fixed effects; and visit as a repeated measure, with an unstructured covariance structure.||1.6|-21.5|
90918600|NCT04732494|181706645|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.8|6.3||||||Analysis of Change from Baseline in Dysphagia at Cycle 7. The mixed effect model analysis included the questionnaire score as dependent variable; baseline score, stratification factors, treatment arm, visit, and treatment arm by visit interaction as fixed effects; and visit as a repeated measure, with an unstructured covariance structure.||6.3|-27.8|
90918601|NCT04732494|181706645|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|6.6||||||Analysis of Change from Baseline in Eating at Cycle 5. The mixed effect model analysis included the questionnaire score as dependent variable; baseline score, stratification factors, treatment arm, visit, and treatment arm by visit interaction as fixed effects; and visit as a repeated measure, with an unstructured covariance structure.||6.6|-7.3|
90918602|NCT04732494|181706645|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-9.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.5|-0.3||||||Analysis of Change from Baseline in Eating at Cycle 7. The mixed effect model analysis included the questionnaire score as dependent variable; baseline score, stratification factors, treatment arm, visit, and treatment arm by visit interaction as fixed effects; and visit as a repeated measure, with an unstructured covariance structure.||-0.3|-18.5|
91034032|NCT02393417|181953902|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|3.0||||0.0451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9281|9.6975|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||9.6975|0.9281|0.0451
91034033|NCT02393417|181953904|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|2.7553||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4211|5.3419|||Regression, Cox|||||5.3419|1.4211|0.0027
90918603|NCT04732494|181706645|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|11.2||||||Analysis of Change from Baseline in Reflux at Cycle 5. The mixed effect model analysis included the questionnaire score as dependent variable; baseline score, stratification factors, treatment arm, visit, and treatment arm by visit interaction as fixed effects; and visit as a repeated measure, with an unstructured covariance structure.||11.2|-6.7|
90918604|NCT04732494|181706645|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|9.0||||||Analysis of Change from Baseline in Reflux at Cycle 7. The mixed effect model analysis included the questionnaire score as dependent variable; baseline score, stratification factors, treatment arm, visit, and treatment arm by visit interaction as fixed effects; and visit as a repeated measure, with an unstructured covariance structure.||9.0|-11.8|
90918605|NCT04732494|181706645|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|8.5||||||Analysis of Change from Baseline in Pain at Cycle 5. The mixed effect model analysis included the questionnaire score as dependent variable; baseline score, stratification factors, treatment arm, visit, and treatment arm by visit interaction as fixed effects; and visit as a repeated measure, with an unstructured covariance structure.||8.5|-7.0|
90918606|NCT04732494|181706645|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|1.7||||||Analysis of Change from Baseline in Pain at Cycle 7. The mixed effect model analysis included the questionnaire score as dependent variable; baseline score, stratification factors, treatment arm, visit, and treatment arm by visit interaction as fixed effects; and visit as a repeated measure, with an unstructured covariance structure.||1.7|-12.3|
90918607|NCT05136404|181706656|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Mean|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.937|1.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.08|0.937|
90918608|NCT05136404|181706656|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Mean|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.968|1.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.11|0.968|
90918609|NCT05136404|181706657|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Mean|0.989|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.953|1.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.03|0.953|
90918610|NCT05136404|181706657|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Mean|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.982|1.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.06|0.982|
90918611|NCT05136404|181706658|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Mean|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.972|1.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.06|0.972|
90918612|NCT05136404|181706658|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Mean|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.992|1.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.08|0.992|
90918613|NCT05136404|181706659|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.4728|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|0.0|||Sign test|||||0.00|-0.50|0.4728
91034034|NCT02393417|181953904|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|3.1516||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6148|6.1509|||Regression, Cox|||||6.1509|1.6148|0.0008
90918614|NCT05136404|181706659|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.0142|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|0.0|||Sign test|||||0.00|-0.50|0.0142
90918615|NCT05568004|181706665|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||A p-value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant for all analyses.Two-tailed testing was used in nature of hypothesis testing.|ANOVA|p value for change over time within the group, Friedman 2-way ANOVA test was applied.|||Statistical analysis was conducted by a researcher using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 26.0. The Shapiro-Wilk test and histograms evaluated the data for normal distribution, and the Levene test confirmed homogeneous variances between groups (p \> 0.05). Continuous data following a normal distribution are presented as mean ± standard deviation (SD). The independent samples t test or Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare independent continuous data between groups, while the chi-square or Fisher's exact test was used to compare categorical data. Friedman two-way ANOVA was used to analyze dependent variables, while the two-way mixed ANOVA was used to examine the changes between groups over time. Before the two-way mixed ANOVA, boxplot evaluation confirmed no outliers. Mauchly's sphericity test showed that the assumption of sphericity for two-way interaction was met. Tukey's correction was used for pairwise subgroup comparisons.|||0.001
90918616|NCT05568004|181706665|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||ANOVA|p value for change over time within the group, Friedman 2-way ANOVA test was applied.||A p-value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant for all analyses.Two-tailed testing was used in nature of hypothesis testing.||||0.001
90918617|NCT05568004|181706665|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.166||||||A p-value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant for all analyses.Two-tailed testing was used in nature of hypothesis testing.|ANOVA|p value for change over time within the group, Friedman 2-way ANOVA test was applied.||||||0.166
90918618|NCT05568004|181706666|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.074||||||A p-value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant for all analyses.Two-tailed testing was used in nature of hypothesis testing.|ANOVA|p value for change over time within the group, Friedman 2-way ANOVA test was applied.||Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) 26.0 package program was used to analyze the data. The suitability of normal distribution of the data was evaluated with Shapiro Wilk and histograms. Numerical data complying with normal distribution are presented as mean±standard deviation (SD). . Friedman 2-way ANOVA was used to analyze dependent variables. Two-way mixed ANOVA test was used to examine the changes between groups over time||||0.074
90918619|NCT05568004|181706666|SUPERIORITY|A p-value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant for all analyses.Two-tailed testing was used in nature of hypothesis testing.||||||0.074|||||||ANOVA|p value for change over time within the group, Friedman 2-way ANOVA test was applied.||||||0.074
90918620|NCT05568004|181706666|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.311||||||A p-value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant for all analyses.|ANOVA|p value for change over time within the group, Friedman 2-way ANOVA test was applied.||||||0.311
90918621|NCT05568004|181706667|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018||||||A p-value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant for all analyses.|ANOVA|\*p-value for changes over time within the group; Friedman's two-way ANOVA test was applied.||Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) 26.0 package program was used to analyze the data. The suitability of normal distribution of the data was evaluated with Shapiro Wilk and histograms. Numerical data complying with normal distribution are presented as mean±standard deviation (SD). . Friedman 2-way ANOVA was used to analyze dependent variables. Two-way mixed ANOVA test was used to examine the changes between groups over time||||0.018
90918622|NCT05568004|181706667|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.152||||||A p-value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant for all analyses.|ANOVA|\*p-value for changes over time within the group; Friedman's two-way ANOVA test was applied.||||||0.152
90918623|NCT05568004|181706667|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.438||||||A p-value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant for all analyses.|ANOVA|\*p-value for changes over time within the group; Friedman's two-way ANOVA test was applied||||||0.438
90880791|NCT05627518|181624015|OTHER|Ratio|Ratio|0.2522|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.198|0.3211|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment C (1x100 mg test formulation fed) divided by treament B (100 mg test formulation fasted)|Ratio of geometric mean Cmax comparing test formulation fed (treatment C) vs. reference formulation fasted (treatment B). This is a relative comparison, thus there is no unit. The ratio is given under the Estimated value.||0.3211|0.1980|<0.0001
90880792|NCT01101841|181624031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 4 frequency|Rank transformed ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
90880793|NCT01101841|181624031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||||||Week 12 frequency|Rank transformed ANCOVA|||||||0.0001
90880794|NCT01101841|181624032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0066||||||Week 24 persistence of effect|Logit model|||||||0.0066
90880795|NCT01101841|181624047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0368||||||Week 4 severity|Rank transformed ANCOVA|||||||0.0368
90880796|NCT01101841|181624047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0064||||||Week 12 severity|Rank transformed ANCOVA|||||||0.0064
90880797|NCT00653224|181624053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.89|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.33|-0.45||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean T5SS is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the mean of T5SS including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis for the primary endpoint is expressed as follows: 'The mean 24-hr reflective T5SS over the total treatment period is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.45|-1.33|<0.001
90880798|NCT00653224|181624054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.52|-0.17||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in overall RQLQ score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the change from baseline in overall RQLQ score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in overall RQLQ score at endpoint visit is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.17|-0.52|<0.001
90880799|NCT00653224|181624055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.47|-0.15||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in overall RQLQ score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the change from baseline in overall RQLQ score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in overall RQLQ score at visit 3 (week 1) is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.15|-0.47|<0.001
90918624|NCT05568004|181706668|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.135||||||A p-value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant for all analyses.|ANOVA|\*p-value for changes over time within the group; Friedman's two-way ANOVA test was applied||Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) 26.0 package program was used to analyze the data. The suitability of normal distribution of the data was evaluated with Shapiro Wilk and histograms. Numerical data complying with normal distribution are presented as mean±standard deviation (SD). . Friedman 2-way ANOVA was used to analyze dependent variables. Two-way mixed ANOVA test was used to examine the changes between groups over time||||0.135
91034035|NCT02393417|181953904|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|3.3257||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7263|6.407|||Regression, Cox|||||6.4070|1.7263|0.0003
90880800|NCT00653224|181624056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.52|-0.17||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in overall RQLQ score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the change from baseline in overall RQLQ score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in overall RQLQ score at visit 4 (week 2) is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.17|-0.52|<0.001
90880801|NCT00653224|181624057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||0.042||95.0|-0.49|-0.01||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in RQLQ activities score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the change from baseline in RQLQ activities score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in RQLQ activities score at endpoint visit is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.01|-0.49|0.042
90880802|NCT00653224|181624058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29||||0.014||95.0|-0.52|-0.06||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in RQLQ activities score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the change from baseline in RQLQ activities score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in RQLQ activities score at visit 3 (week 1) is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.06|-0.52|0.014
90880803|NCT00653224|181624059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26||||0.036||95.0|-0.51|-0.02||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in RQLQ activities score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the change from baseline in RQLQ activities score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in RQLQ activities score at visit 4 (week 2) is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.02|-0.51|0.036
90918625|NCT05568004|181706668|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.203||||||A p-value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant for all analyses.|ANOVA|\*p-value for changes over time within the group; Friedman's two-way ANOVA test was applied||||||0.203
90918626|NCT05568004|181706668|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.593||||||A p-value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant for all analyses.|ANOVA|\*p-value for changes over time within the group; Friedman's two-way ANOVA test was applied||||||0.593
90918627|NCT05568004|181706669|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||A p-value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant for all analyses.|ANOVA|\*p-value for changes over time within the group; Friedman's two-way ANOVA test was applied.||Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) 26.0 package program was used to analyze the data. The suitability of normal distribution of the data was evaluated with Shapiro Wilk and histograms. Numerical data complying with normal distribution are presented as mean±standard deviation (SD). . Friedman 2-way ANOVA was used to analyze dependent variables. Two-way mixed ANOVA test was used to examine the changes between groups over time||||0.001
90961994|NCT03662139|181804556|SUPERIORITY||Spearman's correlation coefficient (rs)|-0.828|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman's Correlation Test||The level of relationship was classified as follows \<0.30=small/negligible; 0.30-0.50=low; 0.50-0.70=moderate; 0.70-0.90=high; \>0.90=very high.|Correlation between Dynamic Gait Index (DGI) and Timed Up and Go Test (TUG) scores in Cerebral Palsy group||||<0.01
90961995|NCT03662139|181804557|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Between group difference||||<0.01
90961996|NCT03662139|181804557|SUPERIORITY||Spearman's correlation coefficient (rs)|-0.673|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman's Correlation Test||The level of relationship was classified as follows \<0.30=small/negligible; 0.30-0.50=low; 0.50-0.70=moderate; 0.70-0.90=high; \>0.90=very high.|Correlation between Dynamic Gait Index (DGI) and Four Square Step Test (FSST) scores in Cerebral Palsy group.||||<0.05
90961997|NCT00323297|181804608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.722||0.5802|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.843|17.087||A sequential closed-testing procedure was implemented for all secondary endpoints. If no statistically significant treatment effect was found for the primary endpoint then statistical tests were not to be performed on the secondary endpoints.|ANCOVA|The mean difference in method of estimation is the difference between Sildenafil - placebo.||"The estimated sample size was based upon the primary endpoint. A sample size of 51 subjects per treatment group was required to detect a difference of 30 meters between treatments with 80% power at a one-sided significance level of 0.05, assuming a standard deviation of 60 meters.~This primary statistical analysis was carried for Week 12 data."||17.087|-21.843|0.5802
90961998|NCT01498289|181804628|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.91||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|2.05|||Regression, Cox|||||2.05|0.41|0.83
90961999|NCT01498289|181804629|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.93|||Regression, Cox|||||0.93|0.50|0.02
90962000|NCT01498289|181804630|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.11|||Regression, Cox|||||1.11|0.61|0.20
90962001|NCT01498289|181804631|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.10
90962002|NCT01498289|181804632|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.4|||Regression, Cox|||Statistical analysis for Q1 ERCC1||1.40|0.44|0.41
90962003|NCT01498289|181804632|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.02|||Regression, Cox|||Statistical analysis for Q2 ERCC1||1.02|0.32|0.06
90962004|NCT01498289|181804632|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.58|||Regression, Cox|||Statistical analysis for Q3 ERCC1||1.58|0.49|0.66
90962005|NCT01498289|181804632|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.31|||Regression, Cox|||Statistical analysis for Q4 ERCC1||1.31|0.42|0.30
90962006|NCT04526197|181804658|OTHER|Confidence Interval|Ratio of geometric LS means|0.881|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.776|1.001||||||||1.001|0.776|
90962007|NCT04526197|181804659|OTHER|Confidence Interval|Ratio of geometric LS means|1.016|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.959|1.077||||||||1.077|0.959|
90962008|NCT04526197|181804660|OTHER|Confidence Interval|Ratio of geometric LS means|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.954|1.07||||||||1.070|0.954|
90962009|NCT00381303|181804668|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Test for non-inferiority (Delta=15%)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.85|0.68||P-Value for difference (Female - Male): Test for non-inferiority (Delta=15%)|Regression, Logistic|Estimates from logistic regression analysis include baseline log10 viral load and baseline CD4 cell count as covariates and gender as a factor.||"Confidence interval of the difference in proportion of response between two sexes estimated by:~* Application of delta method to be obtained Standard Error (SE)~* Calculation of lower and upper bound using normal approximation to the difference in response rates"||0.68|-19.85|0.30
90962010|NCT03933774|181804726|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||P value \< 0.05 was considered significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: The degree of hyperpigmentation is the same between the tretinoin applied side and placebo applied side.||||0.002
90962011|NCT03933774|181804727|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.479||||||P value \< 0.05 was considered significant.|McNemar|||Null hypothesis: The number of participants who showed ≥75% repigmentation is the same between the tretinoin applied side and placebo applied side.||||0.479
90962012|NCT01777269|181804744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-8.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.22|-5.79|||mixed-model repeated-measures|||||-5.79|-10.22|<0.001
90962013|NCT01777269|181804745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-4.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.01|-2.21|||mixed-model repeated-measures||Month 1|||-2.21|-6.01|<0.001
90918628|NCT05568004|181706669|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.021||||||A p-value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant for all analyses.|ANOVA|\*p-value for changes over time within the group; Friedman's two-way ANOVA test was applied.||||||0.021
90918629|NCT05568004|181706669|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.081||||||A p-value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant for all analyses.|ANOVA|\*p-value for changes over time within the group; Friedman's two-way ANOVA test was applied.||||||0.081
90962014|NCT01777269|181804745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-6.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.45|-4.41|||Adjusted mean difference||Month 3|||-4.41|-8.45|<0.001
90962015|NCT01777269|181804745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-9.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.31|-6.77|||mixed-model repeated-measures||Month 6|||-6.77|-11.31|<0.001
90880804|NCT00653224|181624060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27||||0.01||95.0|-0.48|-0.07||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in RQLQ sleep score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the change from baseline in RQLQ sleep score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in RQLQ sleep score at endpoint visit is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.07|-0.48|0.010
90880805|NCT00653224|181624061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0.026||95.0|-0.43|-0.03||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in RQLQ sleep score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the change from baseline in RQLQ sleep score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in RQLQ sleep score at visit 3 (week 1) is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.03|-0.43|0.026
90918630|NCT05568004|181706670|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||A p-value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant for all analyses.|ANOVA|\*p-value for changes over time within the group; Friedman's two-way ANOVA test was applied.||Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) 26.0 package program was used to analyze the data. The suitability of normal distribution of the data was evaluated with Shapiro Wilk and histograms. Numerical data complying with normal distribution are presented as mean±standard deviation (SD). . Friedman 2-way ANOVA was used to analyze dependent variables. Two-way mixed ANOVA test was used to examine the changes between groups over time||||<0.001
90918631|NCT05568004|181706670|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||A p-value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant for all analyses.|ANOVA|\*p-value for changes over time within the group; Friedman's two-way ANOVA test was applied.||||||<0.001
90918632|NCT05568004|181706670|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.747||||||A p-value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant for all analyses.|ANOVA|\*p-value for changes over time within the group; Friedman's two-way ANOVA test was applied.||||||0.747
90918633|NCT05568004|181706671|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||A p-value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant for all analyses.|ANOVA|\*p-value for changes over time within the group; Friedman's two-way ANOVA test was applied.||Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) 26.0 package program was used to analyze the data. The suitability of normal distribution of the data was evaluated with Shapiro Wilk and histograms. Numerical data complying with normal distribution are presented as mean±standard deviation (SD). . Friedman 2-way ANOVA was used to analyze dependent variables. Two-way mixed ANOVA test was used to examine the changes between groups over time||||0.001
90918634|NCT05568004|181706671|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||A p-value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant for all analyses.|ANOVA|p-value for changes over time within the group; Friedman's two-way ANOVA test was applied.||||||<0.001
90918635|NCT05568004|181706671|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||A p-value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant for all analyses.|ANOVA|p-value for changes over time within the group; Friedman's two-way ANOVA test was applied.||||||0.05
90918636|NCT01820260|181706719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|||||To account for multiple testing, the 4 pairwise tests with corresponding vehicle group were performed using Bonferroni method testing at a 1.25% significance level, securing that the overall significance level did not exceed 5%|Fisher Exact|||Complete clearance of AKs at Week 8 was to be analysed by log binomial regression with factors treatment group, anatomical location (face/chest or scalp) and analysis site. Due to the low numbers of subjects obtaining complete clearance in the vehicle groups,the proposed model did not converge and Fisher's exact test was used instead to compare active treatments with the respective vehicle arm.||||0.0002
90918637|NCT01820260|181706719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|||||see comments in analysis 1|Fisher Exact|||See comment in analysis 1||||0.0037
90918638|NCT01820260|181706719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0171|TWO_SIDED|||||See comments in analysis 1|Fisher Exact|||See comments in analysis 1||||0.0171
90918639|NCT01820260|181706719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0001
90918640|NCT01820260|181706720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||z-test|||To account for multiple testing among the secondary endpoints, a hierarchical order of testing was determined, where the following evaluation was done separately for each of the four active groups: Provided the primary endpoint was significant at a 1.25% level, the comparison to vehicle in terms of reduction in AK count from baseline to week 8 was tested at a 1.25% level. Provided this test was significant, the second secondary endpoint,partial clearance, was tested(vs. vehicle) at a 1.25% level||||< 0.001
90962016|NCT01777269|181804745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-8.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.96|-6.67|||mixed-model repeated-measures||Month 9|||-6.67|-10.96|<0.001
90918641|NCT01820260|181706720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||z-test|||See comment in analysis 1||||< 0.001
90918642|NCT01820260|181706720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||z-test|||See comment analysis 1||||< 0.001
90918643|NCT01820260|181706720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||z-test|||See comment in analysis 1||||< 0.001
90918644|NCT01820260|181706721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||Analysis of partial clearance of AK's at Week 8 was done in the same way as for the primary outcome (endpoint)||||<0.001
90918645|NCT01820260|181706721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
90918646|NCT01820260|181706721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
90918647|NCT01820260|181706721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
90918648|NCT04424927|181706740|OTHER||Least square (LS) mean difference|0.04||||0.8543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.52|||MMRM|||Estimates/p-value are from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects; continuous baseline CeD PRO Abdominal Symptoms domain score and baseline VH:CD ratio as covariates, and participant as a random effect.||0.52|-0.43|0.8543
90918649|NCT04424927|181706740|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.11||||0.6552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.59|||MMRM|||Estimates/p-value are from a MMRM with treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects; continuous baseline CeD PRO Abdominal Symptoms domain score and baseline VH:CD ratio as covariates, and participant as a random effect.||0.59|-0.37|0.6552
90918650|NCT04424927|181706740|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.04||||0.8705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.53|||MMRM|||Estimates/p-value are from a MMRM with treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects; continuous baseline CeD PRO Abdominal Symptoms domain score and baseline VH:CD ratio as covariates, and participant as a random effect.||0.53|-0.45|0.8705
90918651|NCT04424927|181706741|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.11||||0.6757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.65|||MMRM|||Estimates/p-value are from a MMRM with treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects; continuous baseline CeD PRO Abdominal Symptoms domain score and baseline VH:CD ratio as covariates, and participant as a random effect.||0.65|-0.42|0.6757
90918652|NCT04424927|181706741|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.25||||0.3645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.29|||MMRM|||Estimates/p-value are from a MMRM with treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects; continuous baseline CeD PRO Abdominal Symptoms domain score and baseline VH:CD ratio as covariates, and participant as a random effect.||0.29|-0.78|0.3645
90918653|NCT04424927|181706741|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.3||||0.2791|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.24|||MMRM|||Estimates/p-value are from a MMRM with treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects; continuous baseline CeD PRO Abdominal Symptoms domain score and baseline VH:CD ratio as covariates, and participant as a random effect.||0.24|-0.84|0.2791
90918654|NCT04424927|181706742|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.05||||0.7829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.42|||MMRM|||Estimates/p-value are from a MMRM with treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects; continuous baseline CeD PRO Abdominal Symptoms domain score and baseline VH:CD ratio as covariates, and participant as a random effect.||0.42|-0.32|0.7829
90918655|NCT04424927|181706742|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.01||||0.9503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.38|||MMRM|||Estimates/p-value are from a MMRM with treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects; continuous baseline CeD PRO Abdominal Symptoms domain score and baseline VH:CD ratio as covariates, and participant as a random effect.||0.38|-0.36|0.9503
90918656|NCT04424927|181706742|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.16||||0.4107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.22|||MMRM|||Estimates/p-value are from a MMRM with treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects; continuous baseline CeD PRO Abdominal Symptoms domain score and baseline VH:CD ratio as covariates, and participant as a random effect.||0.22|-0.54|0.4107
90918657|NCT04424927|181706743|OTHER||LS mean difference|1.94||||0.4397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|6.87|||ANCOVA|||Estimates/p-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect. Continuous baseline CeD PRO Abdominal Symptoms domain score and baseline VH:CD ratio are included as covariates.||6.87|-3.00|0.4397
90918658|NCT04424927|181706743|OTHER||LS mean difference|-3.72||||0.1337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.58|1.15|||ANCOVA|||Estimates/p-value are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect. Continuous baseline CeD PRO Abdominal Symptoms domain score and baseline VH:CD ratio are included as covariates.||1.15|-8.58|0.1337
90918659|NCT04424927|181706743|OTHER||LS mean difference|-4.14||||0.1021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.11|0.83|||ANCOVA|||Estimates/p-value are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect. Continuous baseline CeD PRO Abdominal Symptoms domain score and baseline VH:CD ratio are included as covariates.||0.83|-9.11|0.1021
90918660|NCT04110054|181706761|EQUIVALENCE|Placebo (N = 102) vs S-600918 50 mg, 150 mg, 300 mg||||||0.9334||||||P-value was evaluated at the 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|||The null hypotheses of equality between the treatment and placebo effects were tested using a mixed model, containing treatment group, week, and interaction between treatment groups and week as fixed effects; participant as random effect; and region and the common logarithm of the frequency of coughs per hour at baseline as covariates. Covariance structure was given as unstructured.||||0.9334
90918661|NCT01000480|181706773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0645||95.0||||P-value for H0 which compared the investigational regimen to historical data.|maximum likelihood estimate|||Null hypothesis (H0): 1-year PFS ≤45% and the alternative hypothesis (H1): 1-year PFS ≥60%, at a 2-sided alpha level of 5%, assuming that PFS time followed an exponential distribution.||||0.0645
90918662|NCT00595790|181706776|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assessment of non-inferiority of IC51 1x12 mcg vs. IC51 2x6 mcg at Day 56 based on the difference (IC51 1x12 mcg - IC51 2x6 mcg) in SCRs in the PP population. Non-inferiority of IC51 1 x 12 mcg compared to IC51 2 x 6 mcg was accepted if the lower limit of the 95% CI of the adjusted for center SCR difference (IC51 1 x 12 mcg - IC51 2 x 6 mcg) was higher than the noninferiority margin at -10%.|||||>|0.99|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||>0.99
90918663|NCT02885636|181706788|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.003
90918664|NCT02885636|181706789|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3
90962017|NCT01777269|181804747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.2||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.23|||mixed-model repeated-measures||Month 1|||0.23|-0.62|0.37
90918665|NCT02885636|181706790|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7
90918666|NCT02885636|181706791|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9
90918667|NCT02885636|181706792|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
90918668|NCT02885636|181706793|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2
90918669|NCT02885636|181706794|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0002
90918670|NCT02885636|181706795|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.08
90918671|NCT02885636|181706796|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0007
90918672|NCT02885636|181706797|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
90918673|NCT02885636|181706798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004
90918674|NCT02885636|181706799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7
90918675|NCT02885636|181706800|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004
90918676|NCT02885636|181706801|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.09
90918677|NCT02395978|181706810|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.393|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.393
90918678|NCT04583423|181706833|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|10.4||||0.3504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|35.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen's method|Stratified by concurrent diagnosis of T2DM at the time of randomization and fibrosis score and using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting scheme|Difference=% 50-mg MK-3655 minus % placebo|||35.1|-13.4|0.3504
90918679|NCT04583423|181706833|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|9.2||||0.373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.6|32.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen's method|Stratified by concurrent diagnosis of T2DM at the time of randomization and fibrosis score and using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting scheme|Difference=% 100-mg MK-3655 minus % placebo|||32.1|-15.6|0.3730
90962018|NCT01777269|181804747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.24||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.24|||mixed-model repeated-measures||Month 3|||0.24|-0.71|0.33
90918680|NCT04583423|181706833|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|15.4||||0.1428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|42.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen's method|Stratified by concurrent diagnosis of T2DM at the time of randomization and fibrosis score and using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting scheme|Difference=% 300-mg MK-3655 minus % placebo|||42.3|-8.5|0.1428
90918681|NCT04583423|181706836|OTHER||Difference in Least Square (LS) Means|19.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|36.4|||||Difference=LS Mean 50 mg minus LS Mean Placebo|||36.4|1.7|
90918682|NCT04583423|181706836|OTHER||Difference in LS Means|19.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|35.8|||||Difference=LS Mean 100 mg minus LS Mean Placebo|||35.8|2.2|
90918683|NCT04583423|181706836|OTHER||Difference in LS Means|26.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.5|42.8|||||Difference=LS Mean 300 mg minus LS Mean Placebo|||42.8|9.5|
90918684|NCT04583423|181706837|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|1.6||||0.8978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.5|30.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen's method|Stratified by concurrent diagnosis of T2DM at the time of randomization and fibrosis score and using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting scheme|Difference=% 50 mg minus % Placebo|||30.3|-26.5|0.8978
90918685|NCT04583423|181706837|OTHER||Difference in Parentages|20.0||||0.1869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|46.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen's method|Stratified by concurrent diagnosis of T2DM at the time of randomization and fibrosis score and using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting scheme|Difference=% 100 mg minus % Placebo|||46.4|-10.6|0.1869
90918686|NCT04583423|181706837|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|8.5||||0.5636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.1|38.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen's method|Stratified by concurrent diagnosis of T2DM at the time of randomization and fibrosis score and using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting scheme|Difference=% 300 mg minus % Placebo|||38.5|-22.1|0.5636
90918687|NCT04583423|181706838|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|1.6||||0.9174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.6|32.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen's method|Stratified by concurrent diagnosis of T2DM at the time of randomization and fibrosis score and using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting scheme|Difference=% 50 mg minus % Placebo|||32.6|-28.6|0.9174
90918688|NCT04583423|181706838|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|18.5||||0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|47.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen's method|Stratified by concurrent diagnosis of T2DM at the time of randomization and fibrosis score and using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting scheme|Difference=% 100 mg minus % Placebo|||47.1|-14.5|0.2720
90880806|NCT00653224|181624062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||0.018||95.0|-0.45|-0.04||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in RQLQ sleep score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the change from baseline in RQLQ sleep score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in RQLQ sleep score at visit 4 (week 2) is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.04|-0.45|0.018
91034036|NCT02393417|181953910|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.999||||0.4824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.997|1.001|||Regression, Logistic||An odds ratio \< 1 indicates that the age of the wart is negatively correlated with positive treatment outcome and vice versa.|Using a logistic regression model for complete resolution status of largest primary injected wart (yes vs no) with wart age as a covariate.||1.001|0.997|0.4824
90918689|NCT04583423|181706838|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|5.3||||0.7586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.7|37.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen's method|Stratified by concurrent diagnosis of T2DM at the time of randomization and fibrosis score and using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting scheme|Difference= % 300 mg minus % Placebo|||37.3|-26.7|0.7586
90962019|NCT01777269|181804747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.37||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.15|||mixed-model repeated-measures||Month 6|||0.15|-0.88|0.16
90880807|NCT00653224|181624063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29||||0.002||95.0|-0.47|-0.1||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in RQLQ non-nose/eye symptoms score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the change from baseline in RQLQ N-N/E symptoms score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as: 'The mean change from baseline in RQLQ non-nose/eye symptoms score at endpoint visit is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.10|-0.47|0.002
90918690|NCT02214550|181706883|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05 and p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons given a priori orthogonal contrasts.|Mixed Models Analysis||Parameter reported indicates time x group interaction (OCP vs. No OCP). PBS participants are included in the OCP group|A linear mixed-effects model was estimated predicting bladder pain at first urge ratings (0-100 visual analog scale) as a function of time (0, 6, 12 month visits), group, and their interaction. Random intercepts were estimated for each participant. The following three orthogonal contrasts were estimated: 1) OCP vs. No OCP, 2) cyclic vs. continuous microgestin, and 3) PBS-continuous microgestin vs. D+COS-continuous microgestin.||||.02
90918691|NCT02214550|181706883|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.4597|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8245||0.08|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05 and p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons given a priori orthogonal contrasts.|Mixed Models Analysis||Parameter estimated indicates the time x group (Continuous vs. Cyclic OCP) interaction. PBS participants are included in the continuous OCP group.|A linear mixed-effects model was estimated predicting bladder pain at first urge ratings (0-100 visual analog scale) as a function of time (0, 6, 12 month visits), group, and their interaction. Random intercepts were estimated for each participant. The following three orthogonal contrasts were estimated: 1) OCP vs. No OCP, 2) cyclic vs. continuous microgestin, and 3) PBS-continuous microgestin vs. D+COS-continuous microgestin.||||.08
90880808|NCT00653224|181624064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.006||95.0|-0.41|-0.07||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in RQLQ non-nose/eye symptoms score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the change from baseline in RQLQ N-N/E symptoms score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in RQLQ non-nose/eye symptoms score at visit 3 (week 1) is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.07|-0.41|0.006
90880809|NCT00653224|181624065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28||||0.003||95.0|-0.47|-0.1||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in RQLQ non-nose/eye symptoms score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the change from baseline in RQLQ N-N/E symptoms score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in RQLQ non-nose/eye symptoms score at visit 4 (week 2) is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.10|-0.47|0.003
90880810|NCT00653224|181624066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.61|-0.18||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in RQLQ practical problems score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the change from baseline in RQLQ practical pbs. score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in RQLQ practical problems score at endpoint visit is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.18|-0.61|<0.001
90880811|NCT00653224|181624067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.57|-0.16||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in RQLQ practical problems score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the change from baseline in RQLQ practical pbs. score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in RQLQ practical problems score at visit 3 (week 1) is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.16|-0.57|<0.001
90880812|NCT00653224|181624068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.61|-0.18||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in RQLQ practical problems score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the change from baseline in RQLQ practical pbs. score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in RQLQ practical problems score at visit 4 (week 2) is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.18|-0.61|<0.001
90880813|NCT00653224|181624069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.59|-0.18||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in RQLQ nasal symptoms score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the change from baseline in RQLQ nasal symptoms score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in RQLQ nasal symptoms score at endpoint visit is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.18|-0.59|<0.001
90880814|NCT00653224|181624070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.55|-0.16||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in RQLQ nasal symptoms score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the change from baseline in RQLQ nasal symptoms score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in RQLQ nasal symptoms score at visit 3 (week 1) is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.16|-0.55|<0.001
90880815|NCT00653224|181624071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.59|-0.17||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in RQLQ nasal symptoms score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the change from baseline in RQLQ nasal symptoms score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in RQLQ nasal symptoms score at visit 4 (week 2) is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.17|-0.59|<0.001
90918692|NCT02214550|181706883|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.9186|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8121||0.023|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05 and p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons given a priori orthogonal contrasts.|Mixed Models Analysis||Parameter reported indicates a time x group interaction (D+COS-continuous microgestin vs. PBS-continuous microgestin).|A linear mixed-effects model was estimated predicting bladder pain at first urge ratings (0-100 visual analog scale) as a function of time (0, 6, 12 month visits), group, and their interaction. Random intercepts were estimated for each participant. The following three orthogonal contrasts were estimated: 1) OCP vs. No OCP, 2) cyclic vs. continuous microgestin, and 3) PBS-continuous microgestin vs. D+COS-continuous microgestin.||||.023
90880816|NCT00653224|181624072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.63|-0.21||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in RQLQ eye symptoms score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the change from baseline in RQLQ eye symptoms score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in RQLQ eye symptoms score at endpoint visit is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.21|-0.63|<0.001
90880817|NCT00653224|181624073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.56|-0.17||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in RQLQ eye symptoms score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the change from baseline in RQLQ eye symptoms score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in RQLQ eye symptoms score at visit 3 (week 1) is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.17|-0.56|<0.001
90880818|NCT00653224|181624074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.63|-0.22||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in RQLQ eye symptoms score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the change from baseline in RQLQ eye symptoms score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in RQLQ eye symptoms score at visit 4 (week 2) is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.22|-0.63|<0.001
90880819|NCT00653224|181624075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.53|-0.13||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in RQLQ emotional score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the change from baseline in RQLQ emotional score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in RQLQ emotional score at endpoint visit is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.13|-0.53|<0.001
90880820|NCT00653224|181624076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.52|-0.15||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in RQLQ emotional score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the change from baseline in RQLQ emotional score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in RQLQ emotional score at visit 3 (week 1) is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.15|-0.52|<0.001
90880821|NCT00653224|181624077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.53|-0.14||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in RQLQ emotional score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the change from baseline in RQLQ emotional score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in RQLQ emotional score at visit 4 (week 2) is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.14|-0.53|<0.001
90880822|NCT00653224|181624078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.89|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.32|-0.45||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean T5SS is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the mean of T5SS including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean T5SS over week 1 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.45|-1.32|<0.001
90880823|NCT00653224|181624079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.88|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.39|-0.36||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean T5SS is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the mean of T5SS including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean T5SS over week 2 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.36|-1.39|<0.001
90880824|NCT00653224|181624080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.84|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.2|-0.49||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean T4SS is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the Mean T4SS including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean T4SS over Week 1 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.49|-1.20|<0.001
90880825|NCT00653224|181624081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.76|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.18|-0.35||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean T4SS is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the Mean T4SS including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean T4SS over Week 2 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.35|-1.18|<0.001
90962020|NCT01777269|181804747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.68||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|-0.17|||mixed-model repeated-measures||Month 9|||-0.17|-1.19|0.009
90962021|NCT01777269|181804747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.46||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.07|||mixed-model repeated-measures||Month 12|||0.07|-0.99|0.091
90880826|NCT00653224|181624082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.81|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.17|-0.45||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean T4SS is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the Mean T4SS including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean T4SS over the total treatment period is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.45|-1.17|<0.001
90880827|NCT00653224|181624083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.74|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.17|-0.31||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean TNSS is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the Mean TNSS including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean TNSS over Week 1 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.31|-1.17|<0.001
90880828|NCT00653224|181624084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.74||||0.005||95.0|-1.26|-0.22||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean TNSS is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the Mean TNSS including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean TNSS over Week 2 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.22|-1.26|0.005
90880829|NCT00653224|181624085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.74|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.18|-0.3||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean TNSS is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the Mean TNSS including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean TNSS over the total treatment period is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.30|-1.18|<0.001
90880830|NCT00653224|181624086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.87|-0.3||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean TOSS is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the Mean TOSS including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean TOSS over Week 1 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.30|-0.87|<0.001
90880831|NCT00653224|181624087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.91|-0.24||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean TOSS is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the Mean TOSS including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean TOSS over Week 2 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.24|-0.91|<0.001
90880832|NCT00653224|181624088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.86|-0.28||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean TOSS is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the Mean TOSS including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean TOSS over the total treatment period is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.28|-0.86|<0.001
90880833|NCT00653224|181624089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.34|-0.13||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the sneezing mean score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the Sneezing Mean Score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The sneezing mean score over Week 1 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.13|-0.34|<0.001
90880834|NCT00653224|181624090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.34|-0.09||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the sneezing mean score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the Sneezing Mean Score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The sneezing mean score over week 2 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.09|-0.34|<0.001
90918693|NCT02214550|181706884|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.3716|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3056||0.2315|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05 and p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons given a priori orthogonal contrasts.|Mixed Models Analysis||Parameter reported indicates time\*group interaction (OCP vs. No OCP). PBS participants are included in the OCP group|A linear mixed-effects model was estimated predicting pressure pain thresholds (in Newtons of force transvaginally measured anteriorly against the bladder) as a function of time (0, 6, 12 month visits), group, and their interaction. Random intercepts were estimated for each participant. The following three orthogonal contrasts were estimated: 1) OCP vs. No OCP, 2) cyclic vs. continuous microgestin, and 3) PBS-continuous microgestin vs. D+COS-continuous microgestin.||||0.2315
90880835|NCT00653224|181624091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.33|-0.12||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the sneezing mean score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the Sneezing Mean Score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The sneezing mean score over the total treatment period is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.12|-0.33|<0.001
90962022|NCT01777269|181804748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.07|-1.7|||mixed-model repeated-measures||Month 1|||-1.70|-4.07|<0.001
90962023|NCT01777269|181804748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-5.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.59|-3.9|||mixed-model repeated-measures||Month 3|||-3.90|-6.59|<0.001
90880836|NCT00653224|181624092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.32|-0.11||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the rhinorrhea mean score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the Rhinorrhea Mean Score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The rhinorrhea mean score over Week 1 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.11|-0.32|<0.001
90880837|NCT00653224|181624093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.008||95.0|-0.3|-0.05||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the rhinorrhea mean score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the Rhinorrhea Mean Score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The rhinorrhea mean score over week 2 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.05|-0.30|0.008
90880838|NCT00653224|181624094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.3|-0.09||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the rhinorrhea mean score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the Rhinorrhea Mean Score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The rhinorrhea mean score over the total treatment period is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.09|-0.30|<0.001
90880839|NCT00653224|181624095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.384||95.0|-0.15|0.06||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the nasal congestion mean score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the Nasal Congestion Mean Score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The nasal congestion mean score over week 1 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||0.06|-0.15|0.384
90880840|NCT00653224|181624096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.063||95.0|-0.24|0.01||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the nasal congestion mean score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the Nasal Congestion Mean Score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The nasal congestion mean score over week 2 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||0.01|-0.24|0.063
90880841|NCT00653224|181624097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.124||95.0|-0.19|0.02||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the nasal congestion mean score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the Nasal Congestion Mean Score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The nasal congestion mean score over the total treatment period is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||0.02|-0.19|0.124
90880842|NCT00653224|181624098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.002||95.0|-0.28|-0.06||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the nasal pruritus mean score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the Nasal Pruritus Mean Score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The nasal pruritus mean score over week 1 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.06|-0.28|0.002
90880843|NCT00653224|181624099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.016||95.0|-0.28|-0.03||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the nasal pruritus mean score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the Nasal Pruritus Mean Score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The nasal pruritus mean score over week 2 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.03|-0.28|0.016
90918694|NCT02214550|181706884|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.2703|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3244||0.4097|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05 and p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons given a priori orthogonal contrasts.|Mixed Models Analysis||Parameter estimated indicates the time x group (Continuous vs. Cyclic OCP) interaction. PBS participants are included in the continuous OCP group.|A linear mixed-effects model was estimated predicting pressure pain thresholds (in Newtons of force transvaginally measured anteriorly against the bladder) as a function of time (0, 6, 12 month visits), group, and their interaction. Random intercepts were estimated for each participant. The following three orthogonal contrasts were estimated: 1) OCP vs. No OCP, 2) cyclic vs. continuous microgestin, and 3) PBS-continuous microgestin vs. D+COS-continuous microgestin.||||0.4097
90940564|NCT00645099|181760926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|This test was interpreted at the 5% significance level (2-tailed).||Based on available data it was estimated that in the paliperidone ER group the TG:HDL ratio would decrease with 0.15 and that the TG:HDL ratio would increase with 0.25 in the olanzapine group. The common SD of the change was estimated to be 1.4. A sample size of 205 patients in each treatment arm had 80% power to detect a difference of 0.4 in change of TG:HDL ratio after 6 months of treatment in favor of paliperidone ER treatment (Wilcoxon two-sample test with 0.05 two-sided significance level).||||< 0.0001
91034037|NCT02393417|181953910|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.001||||0.5007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.998|1.004|||Regression, Logistic||An odds ratio \< 1 indicates that the age of the wart is negatively correlated with positive treatment outcome and vice versa.|Using a logistic regression model for complete resolution status of largest primary injected wart (yes vs no) with wart age as a covariate.||1.004|0.998|0.5007
91034038|NCT02393417|181953910|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.993||||0.0219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.987|0.999|||Regression, Logistic||An odds ratio \< 1 indicates that the age of the wart is negatively correlated with positive treatment outcome and vice versa.|Using a logistic regression model for complete resolution status of largest primary injected wart (yes vs no) with wart age as a covariate.||0.999|0.987|0.0219
90880844|NCT00653224|181624100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16||||0.003||95.0|-0.27|-0.06||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the nasal pruritus mean score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the Nasal Pruritus Mean Score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The nasal pruritus mean score over the total treatment period is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.06|-0.27|0.003
90880845|NCT00653224|181624101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.088||95.0|-0.2|0.01||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the post-nasal drip mean score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the Post-Nasal Drip Mean Score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The post-nasal drip mean score over week 1 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||0.01|-0.20|0.088
90880846|NCT00653224|181624102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.117||95.0|-0.23|0.03||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the post-nasal drip mean score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the Post-Nasal Drip Mean Score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The post-nasal drip mean score over Week 2 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||0.03|-0.23|0.117
90880847|NCT00653224|181624103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.065||95.0|-0.21|0.01||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the post-nasal drip mean score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the Post-Nasal Drip Mean Score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The post-nasal drip mean score over the total treatment period is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||0.01|-0.21|0.065
90880848|NCT00653224|181624104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.32|-0.1||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the ocular pruritus mean score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the Ocular Pruritus Mean Score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The ocular pruritus mean score over week 1 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.10|-0.32|<0.001
90880849|NCT00653224|181624105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.002||95.0|-0.33|-0.08||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the ocular pruritus mean score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the Ocular Pruritus Mean Score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The ocular pruritus mean score over week 2 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.08|-0.33|0.002
90880850|NCT00653224|181624106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.32|-0.1||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the ocular pruritus mean score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the Ocular Pruritus Mean Score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The ocular pruritus mean score over the total treatment period is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.10|-0.32|<0.001
90880851|NCT00653224|181624107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.3|-0.08||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the ocular itching/burning mean score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the Ocular Itching/Burning Mean Score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The ocular itching/burning mean score over Week 1 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.08|-0.30|<0.001
90880852|NCT00653224|181624108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.006||95.0|-0.29|-0.05||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the ocular itching/burning mean score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the Ocular Itching/Burning Mean Score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The ocular itching/burning mean score over Week 2 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.05|-0.29|0.006
90918695|NCT02214550|181706884|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.1574|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3283||0.6341|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05 and p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons given a priori orthogonal contrasts.|Mixed Models Analysis||Parameter estimated indicates the time x group (continuous microgestin: D+COS-vs. PBS) interaction.|A linear mixed-effects model was estimated predicting pressure pain thresholds (in Newtons of force transvaginally measured anteriorly against the bladder) as a function of time (0, 6, 12 month visits), group, and their interaction. Random intercepts were estimated for each participant. The following three orthogonal contrasts were estimated: 1) OCP vs. No OCP, 2) cyclic vs. continuous microgestin, and 3) PBS-continuous microgestin vs. D+COS-continuous microgestin.||||0.6341
90962024|NCT01777269|181804748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-6.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|-5.34|||mixed-model repeated-measures||Month 6|||-5.34|-8.30|<0.001
90962025|NCT01777269|181804748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-7.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.51|-5.59|||mixed-model repeated-measures||Month 9|||-5.59|-8.51|<0.001
90918696|NCT02214550|181706885|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.086|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.393|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05 and p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons given a priori orthogonal contrasts.|Mixed Models Analysis||Parameter reported indicates time x group interaction (OCP vs. No OCP). PBS participants are included in the OCP group.|A linear mixed-effects model was estimated for parieto-occipital peak alpha (Hz) as a function of time (0, 6, 12 month visits), group, and their interaction. Random intercepts were estimated for each participant. The OCP vs No OCP contrast was estimated here:||||.393
90880853|NCT00653224|181624109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.29|-0.08||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the ocular itching/burning mean score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the Ocular Itching/Burning Mean Score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The ocular itching/burning mean score over the total treatment period is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.08|-0.29|<0.001
90918697|NCT02214550|181706885|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.941|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05 and p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons given a priori orthogonal contrasts.|Mixed Models Analysis||Parameters reported indicates time x group (Continuous vs. Cyclic OCP) interaction. PBS participants are included in the continuous OCP group.|A linear mixed-effects model was estimated for parieto-occipital peak alpha (Hz) as a function of time (0, 6, 12 month visits), group, and their interaction. Random intercepts were estimated for each participant. The cyclic vs. continuous microgestin contrast was run here||||0.941
90918698|NCT02214550|181706885|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.005|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05 and p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons given a priori orthogonal contrasts.|Mixed Models Analysis||Parameter reported indicates time x group interaction (D+COS-continuous microgestin vs. PBS-continuous microgestin).|A linear mixed-effects model was estimated for parieto-occipital peak alpha (Hz) as a function of time (0, 6, 12 month visits), group, and their interaction. Random intercepts were estimated for each participant. The PBS-continuous microgestin vs. D+COS-continuous microgestin contrast was evaluated here||||0.005
90918699|NCT02376790|181706886|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|13.9||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.8|22.0||Adjusted p-value was obtained by applying a Bonferroni-based testing procedure for multiplicity adjustment to control the family-wise, two-sided type one error rate at 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with baseline body mass index (≤ 30 kg/m² or \> 30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD treatment as stratification factors|The risk difference was estimated using the Mantel-Haenszel estimate of common risk difference using the stratification factors described above.|The primary hypothesis of this study is that etanercept plus methotrexate therapy and etanercept monotherapy are more efficacious than methotrexate monotherapy as measured by the percentage of participants with psoriatic arthritis achieving ACR 20 response at week 24.||22.0|5.8|0.005
90918700|NCT02376790|181706886|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|9.2||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|17.3||Adjusted p-value was obtained by applying a Bonferroni-based testing procedure for multiplicity adjustment to control the family-wise, two-sided type one error rate at 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with baseline body mass index (≤ 30 kg/m² or \> 30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD treatment as stratification factors|The risk difference was estimated using the Mantel-Haenszel estimate of common risk difference using the stratification factors described above.|The primary hypothesis of this study is that etanercept plus methotrexate therapy and etanercept monotherapy are more efficacious than methotrexate monotherapy as measured by the percentage of participants with psoriatic arthritis achieving ACR 20 response at week 24.||17.3|1.0|0.029
90918701|NCT02376790|181706887|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|12.2||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|19.6||Adjusted p-value was obtained by applying a Bonferroni-based testing procedure for multiplicity adjustment to control the family-wise, two-sided type one error rate at 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with baseline body mass index (≤ 30 kg/m² or \> 30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD treatment as stratification factors|The risk difference was estimated using the Mantel-Haenszel estimate of common risk difference using the stratification factors described above.|The secondary hypothesis of this study was that etanercept plus methotrexate therapy and etanercept monotherapy are more efficacious than methotrexate monotherapy as measured by the percentage of participants with PsA achieving MDA response at week 24.||19.6|4.9|0.005
90940565|NCT00645099|181760926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4718||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|This test was interpreted at the 5% significance level (2-tailed).||Within-group comparison of the change from baseline at end point.||||0.4718
90940566|NCT00645099|181760926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|This test was interpreted at the 5% significance level (2-tailed).||Within-group change from baseline at end point.||||< 0.0001
90940567|NCT00645099|181760927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|This test was interpreted at the 5% significance level (2-tailed).||||||<0.0001
90940568|NCT00645099|181760927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9143||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|This test was interpreted at the 5% significance level (2-tailed).||Within-group change from baseline to end point.||||0.9143
90940569|NCT00645099|181760927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|This test was interpreted at the 5% significance level (2-tailed).||Within-group change from baseline to end point.||||<0.0001
90940570|NCT00645099|181760928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|This test was interpreted at the 5% significance level (2-tailed).||||||0.0050
90880854|NCT00653224|181624110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.31|-0.1||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the ocular tearing/watering mean score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the Ocular Tearing/Watering Mean Score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The ocular tearing/watering mean score over week 1 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.10|-0.31|<0.001
90918702|NCT02376790|181706887|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|11.6||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|18.9||Adjusted p-value was obtained by applying a Bonferroni-based testing procedure for multiplicity adjustment to control the family-wise, two-sided type one error rate at 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with baseline body mass index (≤ 30 kg/m² or \> 30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD treatment as stratification factors|The risk difference was estimated using the Mantel-Haenszel estimate of common risk difference using the stratification factors described above.|The secondary hypothesis of this study was that etanercept plus methotrexate therapy and etanercept monotherapy are more efficacious than methotrexate monotherapy as measured by the percentage of participants with PsA achieving MDA response at week 24.||18.9|4.2|0.005
90918703|NCT02376790|181706889|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|14.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.4|23.0||P-value is unadjusted and considered descriptive.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with baseline body mass index (≤ 30 kg/m² or \> 30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD treatment as stratification factors|The risk difference was estimated using the Mantel-Haenszel estimate of common risk difference using the stratification factors described above.|Analysis of the percentage of participants with an ACR50 response at week 24.||23.0|6.4|<0.001
90918704|NCT02376790|181706889|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|11.8||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|20.2||P-value is unadjusted and considered descriptive.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with baseline body mass index (≤ 30 kg/m² or \> 30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD treatment as stratification factors|The risk difference was estimated using the Mantel-Haenszel estimate of common risk difference using the stratification factors described above.|Analysis of the percentage of participants with an ACR50 response at week 24.||20.2|3.4|0.006
90918705|NCT02376790|181706890|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|13.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|20.4||P-value is unadjusted and considered descriptive.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with baseline body mass index (≤ 30 kg/m² or \> 30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD treatment as stratification factors|The risk difference was estimated using the Mantel-Haenszel estimate of common risk difference using the stratification factors described above.|Analysis of the percentage of participants with an ACR70 response at week 24.||20.4|6.5|<0.001
90918706|NCT02376790|181706890|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|13.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.7|20.7||P-value is unadjusted and considered descriptive.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with baseline body mass index (≤ 30 kg/m² or \> 30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD treatment as stratification factors|The risk difference was estimated using the Mantel-Haenszel estimate of common risk difference using the stratification factors described above.|Analysis of the percentage of participants with an ACR70 response at week 24.||20.7|6.7|<0.001
90918707|NCT02376790|181706899|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.34||P-value is unadjusted and considered descriptive.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline BMI status (≤ 30 kg/m² or \> 30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD use.|Methotrexate Monotherapy is the reference|Analysis of change from baseline in PASDAS at week 24||-0.34|-0.91|<0.001
90918708|NCT02376790|181706899|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|-0.34||P-value is unadjusted and considered descriptive|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline BMI status (≤ 30 kg/m² or \>30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD use.|Methotrexate Monotherapy is the reference|Analysis of change from baseline in PASDAS at week 24||-0.34|-0.92|<0.001
90918709|NCT02376790|181706900|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.93|1.68||P-value is unadjusted and considered descriptive|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline BMI status (≤ 30 kg/m² or \> 30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD use.|Methotrexate Monotherapy is the reference|Analysis of change from baseline in CDAI at week 24||1.68|-2.93|0.59
90918710|NCT02376790|181706900|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-1.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.63|0.99||P-value is unadjusted and considered descriptive.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline BMI status (≤ 30 kg/m² or \> 30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD use.|Methotrexate Monotherapy is the reference|Analysis of change from baseline in CDAI at week 24||0.99|-3.63|0.26
90918711|NCT02376790|181706901|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.35|1.38||P-value is unadjusted and considered descriptive|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline BMI status (≤ 30 kg/m² or \> 30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD use.|Methotrexate Monotherapy is the reference|Analysis of change from baseline in SDAI at week 24||1.38|-3.35|0.41
90940571|NCT00645099|181760928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4454||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|This test was interpreted at the 5% significance level (2-tailed).||Within-group change from baseline to end point.||||0.4454
90880855|NCT00653224|181624111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16||||0.011||95.0|-0.29|-0.04||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the ocular tearing/watering mean score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the Ocular Tearing/Watering Mean Score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The ocular tearing/watering mean score over week 2 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.04|-0.29|0.011
90880856|NCT00653224|181624112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.29|-0.08||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the ocular tearing/watering mean score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the Ocular Tearing/Watering Mean Score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The ocular tearing/watering mean score over the total treatment period is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.08|-0.29|<0.001
90880857|NCT00653224|181624113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16||||0.004||95.0|-0.27|-0.05||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the ocular redness mean score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the Ocular Redness Mean Score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The ocular redness mean score over week 1 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.05|-0.27|0.004
90880858|NCT00653224|181624114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.34|-0.1||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the ocular redness mean score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the Ocular Redness Mean Score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The ocular redness mean score over week 2 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.10|-0.34|<0.001
90880859|NCT00653224|181624115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.29|-0.08||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the ocular redness mean score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the Ocular Redness Mean Score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The ocular redness mean score over the total treatment period is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.08|-0.29|<0.001
90880860|NCT00653224|181624116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||If the p-value is lower than 5% the distribution is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney, or Wilcoxon rank-sum test is generally used to detect 'shift alternatives'. That is, the two distributions have the same general shape, but one of them is shifted relative to the other by a constant amount under the alternative hypothesis.||||<0.001
90880861|NCT00653224|181624117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||If the p-value is lower than 5% the distribution is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney, or Wilcoxon rank-sum test (Lehmann, 1975 page 23) is generally used to detect 'shift alternatives'. That is, the two distributions have the same general shape, but one of them is shifted relative to the other by a constant amount under the alternative hypothesis.||||<0.001
90880862|NCT00653224|181624118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.36||||0.027||95.0|-2.56|-0.16||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 1) is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on change from baseline in the WPAI:AS score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 1) at endpoint visit is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.16|-2.56|0.027
90918712|NCT02376790|181706901|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-1.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.09|0.65||P-value is unadjusted and considered descriptive.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline BMI status (≤ 30 kg/m² or \> 30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD use.|Methotrexate Monotherapy is the reference|Analysis of change from baseline in SDAI at week 24||0.65|-4.09|0.15
90918713|NCT02376790|181706902|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.07||P-value is unadjusted and considered descriptive.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline BMI status (≤ 30 kg/m² or \>30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD use.|Methotrexate Monotherapy is the reference|Analysis of change from baseline in DAS28 at week 24||-0.07|-0.52|0.010
90918714|NCT02376790|181706902|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.17||P-value is unadjusted and considered descriptive.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline BMI status (≤ 30 kg/m² or \>30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD use.|Methotrexate Monotherapy is the reference|Analysis of change from baseline in DAS28 at week 24||-0.17|-0.62|<0.001
90918715|NCT02376790|181706903|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.05||P-value is unadjusted and considered descriptive.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline BMI status (≤ 30 kg/m² or \>30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD use.|Methotrexate Monotherapy is the reference|||0.05|-0.15|0.34
90940572|NCT00645099|181760928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0018||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|This test was interpreted at the 5% significance level (2-tailed).||Within-group change from baseline to end point.||||0.0018
90918716|NCT02376790|181706903|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.08||P-value is unadjusted and considered descriptive.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline BMI status (≤ 30 kg/m² or \> 30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD use.|Methotrexate Monotherapy is the reference|||0.08|-0.12|0.67
90918717|NCT02376790|181706904|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|1.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|3.51||P-value is unadjusted and considered descriptive.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline BMI status (≤ 30 kg/m² or \>30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD use.|Methotrexate Monotherapy is the reference|Analysis of change from baseline in Physical Component Summary at week 24||3.51|0.37|0.015
90918718|NCT02376790|181706904|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|1.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|3.28||P-value is unadjusted and considered descriptive.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline BMI status (≤ 30 kg/m² or \> 30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD use.|Methotrexate Monotherapy is the reference|Analysis of change from baseline in Physical Component Summary at week 24||3.28|0.13|0.033
91034039|NCT02393417|181953910|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.8267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.995|1.004|||Regression, Logistic||An odds ratio \< 1 indicates that the age of the wart is negatively correlated with positive treatment outcome and vice versa.|Using a logistic regression model for complete resolution status of largest primary injected wart (yes vs no) with wart age as a covariate.||1.004|0.995|0.8267
90880863|NCT00653224|181624119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36||||0.554||95.0|-1.56|0.84||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 1) is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on change from baseline in the WPAI:AS score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 1) at week 1 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||0.84|-1.56|0.554
90880864|NCT00653224|181624120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.015||95.0|-2.72|-0.29||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 1) is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on change from baseline in the WPAI:AS score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 1) at week 2 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.29|-2.72|0.015
90918719|NCT02376790|181706904|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|1.63||P-value is unadjusted and considered descriptive.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline BMI status (≤ 30 kg/m² or \> 30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD use.|Methotrexate Monotherapy is the reference|Analysis of change from baseline in Mental Component Summary at week 24||1.63|-1.69|0.97
90918720|NCT02376790|181706904|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|1.16||P-value is unadjusted and considered descriptive.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline BMI status (≤ 30 kg/m² or \> 30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD use.|Methotrexate Monotherapy is the reference|Analysis of change from baseline in Mental Component Summary at week 24||1.16|-2.16|0.56
90918721|NCT02376790|181706905|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.09||P-value is unadjusted and considered descriptive.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline BMI status (≤ 30 kg/m² or \>30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD use.|Methotrexate Monotherapy is the reference|||-0.09|-1.03|0.020
90940573|NCT00645099|181760929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|This test was interpreted at the 5% significance level (2-tailed).||||||<0.0001
91034040|NCT02393417|181953911|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.964||||0.1657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.915|1.015|||Regression, Logistic||An odds ratio \> 1 indicates that the age of the largest primary injected wart is positively correlated with the recurrence of any resolved wart and vice versa.|Using a logistic regression model for recurrence status of any resolved wart (yes vs no) with age of the largest primary injected wart as a covariate.||1.015|0.915|0.1657
91034041|NCT02393417|181953911|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.8168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.997|1.003|||Regression, Logistic||An odds ratio \> 1 indicates that the age of the largest primary injected wart is positively correlated with the recurrence of any resolved wart and vice versa.|Using a logistic regression model for recurrence status of any resolved wart (yes vs no) with age of the largest primary injected wart as a covariate.||1.003|0.997|0.8168
90940574|NCT00645099|181760930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|This test was interpreted at the 5% significance level (2-tailed).||||||0.0004
90940575|NCT00645099|181760931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0272||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|This test was interpreted at the 5% significance level (2-tailed).||||||0.0272
90940576|NCT00645099|181760932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1892||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|This test was interpreted at the 5% significance level (2-tailed).||||||0.1892
90940577|NCT00645099|181760933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0325||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|This test was interpreted at the 5% significance level (2-tailed).||||||0.0325
90940578|NCT00645099|181760934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1117||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|This test was interpreted at the 5% significance level (2-tailed).||||||0.1117
90940579|NCT00645099|181760935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6346||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|This test was interpreted at the 5% significance level (2-tailed).||||||0.6346
90880865|NCT00653224|181624121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.6||||0.016||95.0|-8.34|-0.86||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 2) is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on change from baseline in the WPAI:AS score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 2) at endpoint visit is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.86|-8.34|0.016
90880866|NCT00653224|181624122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.33||||0.017||95.0|-7.88|-0.79||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 2) is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on change from baseline in the WPAI:AS score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 2) at week 1 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.79|-7.88|0.017
90918722|NCT02376790|181706905|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.08||P-value is unadjusted and considered descriptive.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline BMI status (≤ 30 kg/m² or \> 30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD use.|Methotrexate Monotherapy is the reference|||0.08|-0.88|0.10
90918723|NCT02376790|181706907|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|13.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|33.23||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.52|79.36||P-value is unadjusted and considered descriptive.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline BMI status (≤ 30 kg/m² or \>30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD use.|Methotrexate Monotherapy is the reference|||79.36|-51.52|0.68
90918724|NCT02376790|181706907|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|6.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|33.05||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.75|71.42||P-value is unadjusted and considered descriptive.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline BMI status (≤ 30 kg/m² or \> 30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD use.|Methotrexate Monotherapy is the reference|||71.42|-58.75|0.85
90918725|NCT02376790|181706908|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|12.9||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|26.2||P-value is unadjusted and considered descriptive.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with baseline body mass index (≤ 30 kg/m² or \> 30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD treatment as stratification factors|The risk difference was estimated using the Mantel-Haenszel estimate of common risk difference using the stratification factors described above.|||26.2|-0.4|0.057
90918726|NCT02376790|181706908|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|10.9||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|24.4||P-value is unadjusted and considered descriptive.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with baseline body mass index (≤ 30 kg/m² or \> 30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD treatment as stratification factors|The risk difference was estimated using the Mantel-Haenszel estimate of common risk difference using the stratification factors described above.|||24.4|-2.5|0.12
90962026|NCT01777269|181804748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-6.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.47|-5.38|||mixed-model repeated-measures||Month 12|||-5.38|-8.47|<0.001
90962027|NCT01777269|181804749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.94||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|-0.21|||mixed-model repeated-measures||Month 1|||-0.21|-1.67|0.012
90962028|NCT01777269|181804749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.93||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|-0.17|||mixed-model repeated-measures||Month 3|||-0.17|-1.69|0.017
90918727|NCT02376790|181706909|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.98||P-value is unadjusted and considered descriptive.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline BMI status (≤ 30 kg/m² or \>30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD use.|Methotrexate Monotherapy is the reference|||0.98|-0.66|0.70
90918728|NCT02376790|181706909|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.86||P-value is unadjusted and considered descriptive.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline BMI status (≤ 30 kg/m² or \> 30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD use.|Methotrexate Monotherapy is the reference|||0.86|-0.79|0.93
90962029|NCT01777269|181804749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.57|-0.88|||mixed-model repeated-measures||Month 6|||-0.88|-2.57|<0.001
90962030|NCT01777269|181804749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.15||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.01|-0.3|||mixed-model repeated-measures||Month 9|||-0.30|-2.01|0.009
90962031|NCT01777269|181804749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.83||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|-0.01|||mixed-model repeated-measures||Month 12|||-0.01|-1.65|0.047
90962032|NCT01777269|181804750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.45|-0.85|||mixed-model repeated-measures||Week 2|||-0.85|-2.45|<0.001
90962033|NCT01777269|181804750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.55||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|0.37|||mixed-model repeated-measures||Month 1|||0.37|-1.47|0.24
90962034|NCT01777269|181804750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.27||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.19|-0.36|||mixed-model repeated-measures||Month 3|||-0.36|-2.19|0.006
90962035|NCT01777269|181804750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.74|-0.72|||mixed-model repeated-measures||Month 6|||-0.72|-2.74|<0.001
90962036|NCT01777269|181804750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.34||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.28|||mixed-model repeated-measures||Month 9|||-0.28|-2.40|0.013
90962037|NCT01777269|181804750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.12|-0.83|||mixed-model repeated-measures||Month 12|||-0.83|-3.12|<0.001
90962038|NCT01777269|181804751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.4||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.03|||mixed-model repeated-measures||Week 2|||-0.03|-0.78|0.036
90962039|NCT01777269|181804751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.37|||mixed-model repeated-measures||Month 1|||0.37|-0.37|1.00
90962040|NCT01777269|181804751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.26||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.15|||mixed-model repeated-measures||Month 3|||0.15|-0.67|0.21
90962041|NCT01777269|181804751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.62||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|-0.15|||mixed-model repeated-measures||Month 6|||-0.15|-1.09|0.009
90962042|NCT01777269|181804751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.45||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.01|||mixed-model repeated-measures||Month 9|||0.01|-0.91|0.056
90962043|NCT01777269|181804751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.58||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.08|||mixed-model repeated-measures||Month 12|||-0.08|-1.08|0.023
90962044|NCT01777269|181804752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-3.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.89|-2.1|||mixed-model repeated-measures||Week 2|||-2.10|-3.89|<0.001
90880867|NCT00653224|181624123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.25||||0.027||95.0|-8.02|-0.47||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 2) is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on change from baseline in the WPAI:AS score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 2) at week 2 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.47|-8.02|0.027
90880868|NCT00653224|181624124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.44||||0.023||95.0|-8.25|-0.63||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 3) is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on change from baseline in the WPAI:AS score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 3) at endpoint visit is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.63|-8.25|0.023
90880869|NCT00653224|181624125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.56||||0.015||95.0|-8.23|-0.89||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 3) is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on change from baseline in the WPAI:AS score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 3) at week 1 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.89|-8.23|0.015
90880870|NCT00653224|181624126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.11||||0.036||95.0|-7.95|-0.27||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 3) is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on change from baseline in the WPAI:AS score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 3) at week 2 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.27|-7.95|0.036
90880871|NCT00653224|181624127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.51||||0.102||95.0|-9.95|0.93||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 4) is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on change from baseline in the WPAI:AS score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 4) at endpoint visit is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||0.93|-9.95|0.102
90880872|NCT00653224|181624128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.44||||0.493||95.0|-5.66|2.78||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 4) is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on change from baseline in the WPAI:AS score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 4) at week 1 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||2.78|-5.66|0.493
90962045|NCT01777269|181804752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.15|-1.06|||mixed-model repeated-measures||Month 1|||-1.06|-3.15|<0.001
90962046|NCT01777269|181804752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.25|-0.98|||mixed-model repeated-measures||Month 3|||-0.98|-3.25|<0.001
90962047|NCT01777269|181804752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.76|-1.3|||mixed-model repeated-measures||Month 6|||-1.30|-3.76|<0.001
90962048|NCT01777269|181804752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.3||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.56|-0.05|||mixed-model repeated-measures||Month 9|||-0.05|-2.56|0.042
90880873|NCT00653224|181624129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.38||||0.117||95.0|-9.91|1.15||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 4) is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on change from baseline in the WPAI:AS score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 4) at week 2 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||1.15|-9.91|0.117
90880874|NCT00653224|181624130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.58||||0.409||95.0|-15.65|6.49||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 5) is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on change from baseline in the WPAI:AS score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 5) at endpoint visit is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||6.49|-15.65|0.409
90880875|NCT00653224|181624131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.54||||0.432||95.0|-16.1|7.01||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 5) is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on change from baseline in the WPAI:AS score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 5) at week 1 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||7.01|-16.10|0.432
90880876|NCT00653224|181624132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-4.24||||0.45||95.0|-15.46|6.99||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 5) is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on change from baseline in the WPAI:AS score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 5) at week 2 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||6.99|-15.46|0.450
90880877|NCT00653224|181624133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.37||||0.251||95.0|-17.4|4.67||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 6) is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on change from baseline in the WPAI:AS score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 6) at endpoint visit is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||4.67|-17.40|0.251
90880878|NCT00653224|181624134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.06||||0.258||95.0|-19.48|5.36||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 6) is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on change from baseline in the WPAI:AS score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 6) at week 1 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||5.36|-19.48|0.258
90918729|NCT02376790|181706910|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|3.2||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|13.7||P-value is unadjusted and considered descriptive.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with baseline body mass index (≤ 30 kg/m² or \> 30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD treatment as stratification factors|The risk difference was estimated using the Mantel-Haenszel estimate of common risk difference using the stratification factors described above.|||13.7|-7.3|0.55
90918730|NCT02376790|181706910|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|8.8||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|19.4||P-value is unadjusted and considered descriptive.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with baseline body mass index (≤ 30 kg/m² or \> 30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD treatment as stratification factors|The risk difference was estimated using the Mantel-Haenszel estimate of common risk difference using the stratification factors described above.|||19.4|-1.9|0.11
90918731|NCT02376790|181706911|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|9.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.33||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|17.87||P-value is unadjusted and considered descriptive.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline BMI status (≤ 30 kg/m² or \>30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD use.|Methotrexate Monotherapy is the reference|||17.87|0.85|0.031
90918732|NCT02376790|181706911|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|3.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.33||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.49|11.54||P-value is unadjusted and considered descriptive.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline BMI status (≤ 30 kg/m² or \> 30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD use.|Methotrexate Monotherapy is the reference|||11.54|-5.49|0.49
90918733|NCT02376790|181706912|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|15.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.55|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.99|24.9||P-value is unadjusted and considered descriptive.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline BMI status (≤ 30 kg/m² or \> 30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD use.|Methotrexate Monotherapy is the reference|Analysis of percent improvement from baseline in the percentage of BSA involved in psoriasis in the subgroup of participants with ≥ 10% BSA involvement at baseline.||24.90|6.99|<0.001
90880879|NCT00653224|181624135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.96||||0.288||95.0|-17.13|5.22||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 6) is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on change from baseline in the WPAI:AS score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 6) at week 2 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||5.22|-17.13|0.288
90880880|NCT00653224|181624136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.91|||<|0.001||95.0|-9.34|-2.47||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 7) is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on change from baseline in the WPAI:AS score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 7) at endpoint visit is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-2.47|-9.34|<0.001
90880881|NCT00653224|181624137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.62|||<|0.001||95.0|-9.88|-3.35||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 7) is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on change from baseline in the WPAI:AS score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 7) at week 1 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-3.35|-9.88|<0.001
90880882|NCT00653224|181624138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.69||||0.001||95.0|-9.16|-2.21||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 7) is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on change from baseline in the WPAI:AS score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 7) at week 2 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-2.21|-9.16|0.001
90880883|NCT00653224|181624139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68||||0.027||95.0|-1.29|-0.08||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in ESS score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on change from baseline in ESS score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in ESS score at endpoint visit is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.08|-1.29|0.027
90880884|NCT00653224|181624140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.535||95.0|-0.7|0.37||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in ESS score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on change from baseline in ESS score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in ESS score at week 1 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||0.37|-0.70|0.535
90880885|NCT00653224|181624141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.64||||0.042||95.0|-1.26|-0.02||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in ESS score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on change from baseline in ESS score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in ESS score at week 2 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.02|-1.26|0.042
90880886|NCT00653224|181624142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.171||95.0||||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the change from baseline is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|Repeated measure analysis (CATMOD)|||The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The change from baseline to endpoint visit in score category (ESS score \< 8 or \>= 8) is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||||0.171
90880887|NCT02453113|181624156|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||The statistical end point of the study will be the changes in density of CD11c+ dermal dendritic cells between two biopsies from a study subject where one sample is subjected to laser irradiation and the other is the control. For assessment of statistical significance, we will apply a paired sample t-test.|||
90880888|NCT02223767|181624197|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.025|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.025
90880889|NCT02223767|181624198|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.08
90880890|NCT01461096|181624228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.1|0.47|1.31||P-value was unadjusted for multiple comparisons and a P-value less than 5% was the threshold for statistical significance.|generalized log-rank test (Sun 1996)|The generalized log-rank test (Sun 1996) was performed to evaluate whether participants in the two arms had the same survival rate.|qHPV group represented the numerator for the hazard ratio and Placebo group represented the denominator.|||1.31|0.47|0.350
90880891|NCT04889625|181624242|NON_INFERIORITY|This study was powered to demonstrate non-inferiority of the Test lens relative to the Control lens with respect to binocular HLHC distance, intermediate and near visual acuity. A non-inferiority margin of 0.05 logMAR was used; (0.05) logMAR is approximately half a line on an ETDRS chart.|least-square mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0085|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.017|0.017|||Mixed Model Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as senofilcon A - delefilcon A|Distance (4m)||0.017|-0.017|
90940580|NCT00645099|181760936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|This test was interpreted at the 5% significance level (2-tailed).||||||1.0000
90940581|NCT00645099|181760937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.677||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|This test was interpreted at the 5% significance level (2-tailed).||||||0.6770
90880892|NCT04889625|181624242|NON_INFERIORITY|This study was powered to demonstrate non-inferiority of the Test lens relative to the Control lens with respect to binocular HLHC distance, intermediate and near visual acuity. A non-inferiority margin of 0.05 logMAR was used; (0.05) logMAR is approximately half a line on an ETDRS chart.|least-square mean difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0108|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.051|-0.008|||Mixed Model Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as senofilcon A - delefilcon A|Intermediate (64cm)||-0.008|-0.051|
90918734|NCT02376790|181706912|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|6.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|15.83||P-value is unadjusted and considered descriptive.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline BMI status (≤ 30 kg/m² or \> 30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD use.|Methotrexate Monotherapy is the reference|Analysis of percent improvement from baseline in the percentage of BSA involved in psoriasis in the subgroup of participants with ≥ 10% BSA involvement at baseline.||15.83|-1.89|0.12
90918735|NCT02376790|181706917|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|11.4||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|20.8||P-value is unadjusted and considered descriptive.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with baseline body mass index (≤ 30 kg/m² or \> 30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD treatment as stratification factors|The risk difference was estimated using the Mantel-Haenszel estimate of common risk difference using the stratification factors described above.|||20.8|2.0|0.019
90918736|NCT02376790|181706917|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|4.2||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|14.0||P-value is unadjusted and considered descriptive.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with baseline body mass index (≤ 30 kg/m² or \> 30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD treatment as stratification factors|The risk difference was estimated using the Mantel-Haenszel estimate of common risk difference using the stratification factors described above.|||14.0|-5.6|0.40
90918737|NCT02376790|181706918|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|20.1||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|33.3||P-value is unadjusted and considered descriptive.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with baseline body mass index (≤ 30 kg/m² or \> 30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD treatment as stratification factors|The risk difference was estimated using the Mantel-Haenszel estimate of common risk difference using the stratification factors described above.|Analysis of percentage of participants with an sPGA of 0 or 1 at Week 24 in participants with baseline BSA involvement with psoriasis ≥ 10%.||33.3|6.8|0.004
90918738|NCT02376790|181706918|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|17.1||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|30.2||P-value is unadjusted and considered descriptive.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with baseline body mass index (≤ 30 kg/m² or \> 30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD treatment as stratification factors|The risk difference was estimated using the Mantel-Haenszel estimate of common risk difference using the stratification factors described above.|Analysis of percentage of participants with an sPGA of 0 or 1 at Week 24 in participants with baseline BSA involvement with psoriasis ≥ 10%.||30.2|4.0|0.012
91034042|NCT02393417|181953911|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.998||||0.4183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.993|1.003|||Regression, Logistic||An odds ratio \> 1 indicates that the age of the largest primary injected wart is positively correlated with the recurrence of any resolved wart and vice versa.|Using a logistic regression model for recurrence status of any resolved wart (yes vs no) with age of the largest primary injected wart as a covariate.||1.003|0.993|0.4183
90880893|NCT04889625|181624242|NON_INFERIORITY|This study was powered to demonstrate non-inferiority of the Test lens relative to the Control lens with respect to binocular HLHC distance, intermediate and near visual acuity. A non-inferiority margin of 0.05 logMAR was used; (0.05) logMAR is approximately half a line on an ETDRS chart.|least-square mean difference|-0.036|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0129|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.062|-0.011|||Mixed Model Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as senofilcon A - delefilcon A|Near (40cm)||-0.011|-0.062|
90880894|NCT04889625|181624243|NON_INFERIORITY|This study was powered to demonstrate the primary hypotheses. However, the final sample size calculation was deemed large enough to test for Non-inferiority of the Test relative to the Control. A non-inferiority margin of -5 points was used.|least-square mean difference|6.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|10.5|||Mixed Model Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as senofilcon A (C3)- delefilcon A|||10.5|2.0|
90918739|NCT02238483|181706933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.39||||0.2371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.4|||Regression, Cox||A hazard ratio greater than 1 indicates a higher rate of incidence in the AZD7624 group.|H0: Hazard Ratio (AZD7624/placebo) equals 1 vs. H1: Hazard Ratio does not equal 1.||2.40|0.81|0.2371
90918740|NCT02238483|181706934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|2.16|||regression, negative binomial||A hazard ratio greater than 1 indicates a higher rate of incidence in the AZD7624 group.|||2.16|0.82|0.249
90918741|NCT02238483|181706935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.49||||0.1261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|2.5|||Regression, Cox||A hazard ratio greater than 1 indicates a higher rate of incidence in the AZD7624 group.|||2.50|0.89|0.1261
90918742|NCT02238483|181706936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.21|||regression, negative binomial|||||2.21|0.88|0.157
90918743|NCT02238483|181706937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.53||||0.1529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|2.76|||Regression, Cox|||||2.76|0.85|0.1529
90962049|NCT01777269|181804752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-3.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.87|-2.14|||mixed-model repeated-measures||Month 12|||-2.14|-4.87|<0.001
90962050|NCT01777269|181804753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-7.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.07|-5.49|||mixed-model repeated-measures||Par. with IPSS change from baseline \>=2 points improvement at any time post-baseline visit|||-5.49|-10.07|<0.001
90880895|NCT00404352|181624244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|Log-rank test was stratified for controlling randomization stratification factors.||||||<0.001
90880896|NCT00404352|181624244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||Log Rank|Log-rank test was stratified for controlling randomization stratification factors.||||||0.008
90918744|NCT02238483|181706938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||rate ratio|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|2.52|||regression, negative binomial|||||2.52|0.89|0.129
90918745|NCT02238483|181706939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.8543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|2.01|||Regression, Cox||A hazard ratio greater than 1 indicates a higher rate of incidence in the AZD7624 group.|||2.01|0.43|0.8543
90918746|NCT02238483|181706940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||rate ratio|1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|2.29|||regression, negative binomial|||||2.29|0.55|0.751
90880897|NCT00404352|181624244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||Log Rank|Log-rank test was stratified for controlling randomization stratification factors.||||||0.009
90880898|NCT00404352|181624245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|Log-rank test was stratified for controlling randomization stratification factors.||||||<0.001
90918747|NCT02238483|181706941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.5381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.38|||Regression, Cox||A hazard ratio greater than 1 indicates a higher rate of incidence in the AZD7624 group.|||1.38|0.54|0.5381
90918748|NCT02238483|181706942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||rate ratio|0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.3|||regression, negative binomial|||||1.30|0.55|0.440
90918749|NCT02238483|181706943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.37||||0.5474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.85|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSMean difference for overall treatment effect. Negative values for a difference show AZD7624 to have a favourable outcome compared to Placebo|||0.85|-1.60|0.5474
90918750|NCT02238483|181706944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.83||||0.6352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.62|4.29|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSMean difference for overall treatment effect. Positive values for a difference show AZD7624 to have a favourable outcome compared to Placebo|||4.29|-2.62|0.6352
90918751|NCT02238483|181706945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12||||0.2694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSMean difference for overall treatment effect. Positive values for a difference show AZD7624 to have a favourable outcome compared to Placebo|||0.10|-0.34|0.2694
90918752|NCT02238483|181706946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02||||0.5144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSMean difference for overall treatment effect. Positive values for a difference show AZD7624 to have a favourable outcome compared to Placebo|||0.07|-0.03|0.5144
90918753|NCT02238483|181706947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.5416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSMean difference for overall treatment effect. Positive values for a difference show AZD7624 to have a favourable outcome compared to Placebo|||0.05|-0.10|0.5416
90918754|NCT02238483|181706948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.1965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSMean difference for overall treatment effect. Positive values for a difference show AZD7624 to have a favourable outcome compared to Placebo|||0.02|0.00|0.1965
90918755|NCT02538341|181706951|OTHER|||||||0.0023||||||p values, from a generalized linear model on the rank order of the week 6 - baseline change using normal distribution and reciprocal link.|a generalized linear model|p value,from a generalized linear model on the rank order of the week 6 - baseline change using normal distribution and reciprocal link.||Study protocol defined measure for immunogenicity samples. Participants must have at least 1 post vaccine immunogenicity measure to determine the GMFR (a priori analysis)||||0.0023
90918756|NCT02538341|181706952|OTHER|||||||0.31||||||p values, from a generalized linear model on the rank order of the week 6 - baseline change using normal distribution and reciprocal link.|a generalized linear model|p values, from a generalized linear model on the rank order of the week 6 - baseline change using normal distribution and reciprocal link.||Study protocol defined measure for immunogenicity samples. Participants must have at least 1 post vaccine immunogenicity measure to determine the GMFR (a priori analysis)||||0.31
90918757|NCT02539225|181706966|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.698|||||||Stratified Log Rank|||||||0.698
90918758|NCT02539225|181706967|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.549|||||||Log Rank Stratified|||||||0.549
90918759|NCT02539225|181706968|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.548|||||||Log Rank Stratified|||||||0.548
90918760|NCT02539225|181706969|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.374||||0.402|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.844|2.236|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.236|0.844|0.402
90918761|NCT02539225|181706970|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.527||||0.501|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.68|3.433|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.433|0.680|0.501
90880899|NCT00404352|181624245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Log Rank|Log-rank test was stratified for controlling randomization stratification factors.||||||0.002
90880900|NCT00404352|181624245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.774|||||||Log Rank|Log-rank test was stratified for controlling randomization stratification factors.||||||0.774
90880901|NCT02346136|181624252|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.37||Tested as two-tailed p\<0.025 to accommodate two co-primary outcomes|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.37|-0.62|0.62
90880902|NCT02346136|181624253|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.535||||0.194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.182|1.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model Poisson reg with fixed effects of age, baseline SPPB, baseline CES-D, and falls in prev year and random intercept and trt by site pair|Numerator of risk ratio is the rate among participants at sites receiving Tai Chi. Denominator of risk ratio is the rate among participants at sites receiving Health Education.|||1.57|0.182|0.194
90918762|NCT00212134|181706974|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.19
90918763|NCT00212134|181706975|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.54
90918764|NCT00212134|181706976|OTHER|||||||0.82|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.82
90918765|NCT00212134|181706977|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.03
90918766|NCT00212134|181706978|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.008
90918767|NCT00212134|181706979|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.7|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||ITT analyses comparing parents of children randomized to receive an IOL to those left aphakic.||||<0.05
90918768|NCT00212134|181706981|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.295|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||ITT comparison of mean PSI scores||||>0.05
90918769|NCT01553058|181706982|OTHER|Difference of Differences||||||0.795|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.795
90918770|NCT01553058|181706982|OTHER|Difference of differences||||||0.647|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.647
90918771|NCT01553058|181706983|OTHER|Difference of differences||||||0.386|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.386
90918772|NCT01553058|181706983|OTHER|Difference of Differences||||||0.28|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.280
90880903|NCT02346136|181624254|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.53|1.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.24|-2.53|.50
90880904|NCT02346136|181624255|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Gait NW velocity variable||.05|-.04|.85
90880905|NCT02346136|181624255|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Gait DT velocity variable||.06|-.02|.26
90880906|NCT02346136|181624256|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.03|-0.04|0.84
90880907|NCT02346136|181624257|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|2.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.22|-0.61|.26
90880908|NCT02346136|181624258|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.29||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|15.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||15.3|-13.9|.92
90880909|NCT02346136|181624259|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.28||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.2|19.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||19.9|-17.2|.88
90880910|NCT02346136|181624260|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.43||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|3.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Physical component score||3.71|-2.00|.55
90918773|NCT01553058|181706990|OTHER|Difference of Differences||||||0.357|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.357
90880911|NCT02346136|181624260|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.66||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.41|2.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mental component score||2.21|-4.41|.51
90880912|NCT02346136|181624261|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.41|-1.60|.69
90880913|NCT02346136|181624262|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.56||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.98|7.26||to accommodate two co-primary outcomes|Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.26|-2.98|0.41
90880914|NCT02346136|181624264|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.476||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.216|1.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model Poisson reg with fixed effects of age, baseline SPPB, baseline CES-D, and falls in prev year and random intercept and trt by site pair|Numerator of risk ratio is the rate among participants at sites receiving Tai Chi. Denominator of risk ratio is the rate among participants at sites receiving Health Education.|||1.05|0.216|0.060
90880915|NCT02346136|181624265|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|2.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.94|-0.40|0.13
90880916|NCT03316885|181624295|OTHER|The performance target in support of the primary effectiveness was percentage of eyes achieving objective monocular BCDVA at 1 year postoperative (Visit 5A) compared to the a priori SPE percentage of 92.5%. This is for the All Implanted Analysis Set (AAS) (as reported in EN ISO 11979-7:2014).|Comparison|100.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||100.0||||||||100.0||
90880917|NCT03316885|181624296|OTHER|The performance target in support of the primary effectiveness was percentage of eyes achieving objective monocular BCDVA at 1 year postoperative (Visit 5A) compared to the a priori SPE percentage of 92.5%. This is for the All Implanted Analysis Set (AAS) (as reported in EN ISO 11979-7:2014).|Comparison|100.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||100.0||||||||100.0||
90880918|NCT00409292|181624317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||binomial hypothesis test|||||||0.10
90880919|NCT00405548|181624379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90880920|NCT00405548|181624380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
90880921|NCT00405548|181624381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90880922|NCT00405548|181624382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|A p-value of less 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant.||Mean LV filling pressure was compared from baseline to 12 weeks within the BNP group.||||0.004
90880923|NCT00405548|181624382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|A p-value of less 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant.||Mean LV filling pressure was compared from baseline to 12 weeks within the Placebo group.||||0.43
90880924|NCT04652479|181624392|OTHER|||||||0.0028||||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant|Mixed effects model|||Within-group analysis||||0.0028
90880925|NCT04652479|181624392|OTHER|||||||0.0005||||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant|Mixed effects model|||Within-group analysis||||0.0005
90880926|NCT04652479|181624393|OTHER|||||||0.0027||||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant|Mixed effects model|||Within-group analysis||||0.0027
90880927|NCT04652479|181624393|OTHER|||||||0.0043||||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant|Mixed effects model|||Within-group analysis||||0.0043
90880928|NCT04652479|181624394|OTHER|||||||0.0003||||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant|Mixed effects model|||Within-group analysis||||0.0003
90880929|NCT04652479|181624394|OTHER|||||||0.0003||||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant|Mixed effects model|||Within-group analysis||||0.0003
90918774|NCT01553058|181706990|OTHER|Difference of Differences||||||0.496|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.496
90880930|NCT04652479|181624395|OTHER|||||||0.161||||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant|t-test, 2 sided|||Between-group analysis of change from baseline||||0.161
90880931|NCT04652479|181624395|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-35.66||||0.201|TWO_SIDED|||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant|t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group analysis of change from baseline||||0.201
90880932|NCT04652479|181624395|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-67.65||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant|t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group analysis of change from baseline||||0.001
90880933|NCT04652479|181624396|OTHER|||||||0.145||||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant|t-test, 2 sided|||Between-group analysis of change from baseline||||0.145
90880934|NCT04652479|181624396|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-31.88||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant|t-test, 2 sided||Change in percentage|Within-group analysis of change from baseline||||0.111
90918775|NCT01553058|181706991|OTHER|Difference of Differences||||||0.897|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.897
90880935|NCT04652479|181624396|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-53.37||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant|t-test, 2 sided||Change in percentage|Within-group analysis of change from baseline||||0.001
90880936|NCT00811577|181624400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||For this early phase study, multiple comparisons adjustments were not used.|Wilcoxon (signed rank)|||Using serial gate-keeping to preserve the 5% overall type I error of 1-4 two-sided tests, 2-sided Wilcoxon Signed Rank tests were used. Computer graphics were used to display outcomes at Month 12, compare paired differences of outcomes between the 2 dosages and placebo, and show time trends in mean outcomes. Repeated measures regression models (GEE models in SAS/STAT PROC GENMOD) were used to examine longitudinal outcomes with terms for treatment and trocar location adjusted for key covariates.||||0.57
90880937|NCT00811577|181624400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.56||95.0||||For this early phase study, multiple comparisons adjustments were not used.|Wilcoxon (signed rank)|||Using serial gate-keeping to preserve the 5% overall type I error of 1-4 two-sided tests, 2-sided Wilcoxon Signed Rank tests were used. Computer graphics were used to display outcomes at Month 12, compare paired differences of outcomes between the 2 dosages and placebo, and show time trends in mean outcomes. Repeated measures regression models (GEE models in SAS/STAT PROC GENMOD) were used to examine longitudinal outcomes with terms for treatment and trocar location adjusted for key covariates.||||0.56
90880938|NCT00811577|181624400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61||95.0||||For this early phase study, multiple comparisons adjustments were not used.|Wilcoxon (signed rank)|||Using serial gate-keeping to preserve the 5% overall type I error of 1-4 two-sided tests, 2-sided Wilcoxon Signed Rank tests were used. Computer graphics were used to display outcomes at Month 12, compare paired differences of outcomes between the 2 dosages and placebo, and show time trends in mean outcomes. Repeated measures regression models (GEE models in SAS/STAT PROC GENMOD) were used to examine longitudinal outcomes with terms for treatment and trocar location adjusted for key covariates.||||0.61
90880939|NCT00811577|181624400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8||95.0||||For this early phase study, multiple comparisons adjustments were not used.|Wilcoxon (signed rank)|||Using serial gate-keeping to preserve the 5% overall type I error of 1-4 two-sided tests, 2-sided Wilcoxon Signed Rank tests were used. Computer graphics were used to display outcomes at Month 12, compare paired differences of outcomes between the 2 dosages and placebo, and show time trends in mean outcomes. Repeated measures regression models (GEE models in SAS/STAT PROC GENMOD) were used to examine longitudinal outcomes with terms for treatment and trocar location adjusted for key covariates.||||0.80
90880940|NCT00811577|181624401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47||95.0||||For this early phase study, multiple comparisons adjustments were not used.|Wilcoxon (signed rank)|||Using a 100 mm VAS scale, each photograph was assessed by two raters, who, in an end-of-study session, were presented with photographs in their longitudinal sequence, but blinded as to dosage group. These data were used for an inter-rater concordance analysis and also to compare the placebo, 3 and 10 mg dosages.||||0.47
90918776|NCT01553058|181706991|OTHER|Difference of differences||||||0.467|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.467
90918777|NCT01553058|181706992|OTHER|Difference of differences||||||0.089|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.089
90918778|NCT01553058|181706992|OTHER|Difference of differences||||||0.03|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.030
90918779|NCT01553058|181706993|OTHER|Difference of differences||||||0.934|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.934
90918780|NCT01553058|181706993|OTHER|Difference of differences||||||0.679|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.679
90918781|NCT01553058|181706994|OTHER|Difference of differences||||||0.672|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.672
90918782|NCT01553058|181706994|OTHER|Difference of differences||||||0.655|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.655
90918783|NCT01553058|181706995|OTHER|Difference of differences||||||0.504|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.504
90918784|NCT01553058|181706995|OTHER|Difference of differences||||||0.695|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.695
91034043|NCT02393417|181953911|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.001||||0.5572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.997|1.006|||Regression, Logistic||An odds ratio \> 1 indicates that the age of the largest primary injected wart is positively correlated with the recurrence of any resolved wart and vice versa.|Using a logistic regression model for recurrence status of any resolved wart (yes vs no) with age of the largest primary injected wart as a covariate.||1.006|0.997|0.5572
90880941|NCT00811577|181624401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08||95.0||||For this early phase study, multiple comparisons adjustments were not used.|Wilcoxon (signed rank)|||Using a 100 mm VAS scale, each photograph was assessed by two raters, who, in an end-of-study session, were presented with photographs in their longitudinal sequence, but blinded as to dosage group. These data were used for an inter-rater concordance analysis and also to compare the placebo, 3 and 10 mg dosages.||||0.080
90880942|NCT00811577|181624401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96||95.0||||For this early phase study, multiple comparisons adjustments were not used.|Wilcoxon (signed rank)|||Using a 100 mm VAS scale, each photograph was assessed by two raters, who, in an end-of-study session, were presented with photographs in their longitudinal sequence, but blinded as to dosage group. These data were used for an inter-rater concordance analysis and also to compare the placebo, 3 and 10 mg dosages.||||0.96
90918785|NCT01553058|181706996|OTHER|Difference of differences||||||0.002|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.002
90918786|NCT01553058|181706996|OTHER|Difference of differences||||||0.009|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.009
90918787|NCT01553058|181706997|OTHER|Difference of Differences|||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.001
90918788|NCT01553058|181706997|OTHER|Difference of differences||||||0.065|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.065
90918789|NCT01553058|181706998|OTHER|Difference of differences||||||0.007|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.007
90918790|NCT01553058|181706998|OTHER|Difference of differences||||||0.019|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.019
90918791|NCT01553058|181706999|OTHER|Difference of differences||||||0.006|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.006
90962051|NCT01777269|181804753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-7.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.79|-4.99|||mixed-model repeated-measures||Par. with IPSS change from baseline \>=3 points improvement at any time post-baseline visit|||-4.99|-9.79|<0.001
91034044|NCT02996591|181953930|OTHER||generalized estimating equations method|45.0||||0.038|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||.038
90880943|NCT00811577|181624401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22||95.0||||For this early phase study, multiple comparisons adjustments were not used.|Wilcoxon (signed rank)|||Using a 100 mm VAS scale, each photograph was assessed by two raters, who, in an end-of-study session, were presented with photographs in their longitudinal sequence, but blinded as to dosage group. These data were used for an inter-rater concordance analysis and also to compare the placebo, 3 and 10 mg dosages.||||0.22
90918792|NCT01553058|181706999|OTHER|Difference of differences||||||0.628|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.628
90918793|NCT01976312|181707151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90918794|NCT02807779|181707167|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22||||||Threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||"Power calculations were performed based on an expected reproducibility variance of 8% and an effect size of 7% was assumed based on data from pilot studies. It was estimated that 22 subjects/treatment assignment were needed to detect a 7% difference in PWV at a power level of 80%. Assigning a 20% attrition rate due to loss to follow up or index lesion revascularization, the goal enrollment was 27 subjects per arm.~No subjects in the plain balloon angioplasty group had MRI data for analysis."||||0.22
90918795|NCT02807779|181707168|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64||||||Threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||No subjects in the plain balloon angioplasty group had MRI data for analysis.||||0.64
90918796|NCT02807779|181707169|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95||||||Threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||No subjects in the plain balloon angioplasty group had complete MCP-1 data for analysis.||||0.95
90918797|NCT02807779|181707170|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88||||||Threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||No subjects in the plain balloon angioplasty group had complete CRP data for analysis.||||0.88
90918798|NCT02807779|181707172|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.055||||||Threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||No subjects in the plain balloon angioplasty group had MRI data for analysis.||||.055
90918799|NCT02807779|181707173|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22||||||Threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||No subjects in the plain balloon angioplasty group had MRI data for analysis.||||.22
90918800|NCT02807779|181707174|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81||||||Threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.81
90918801|NCT02576509|181707176|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.0752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.02||A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.0419|Log Rank|Log-rank Test stratified by the stratification factors as entered into the IVRS|Nivolumab over Sorafenib; Stratified Cox proportional hazard model||95.81% CI ADJUSTED FOR MULTIPLICITY: (0.72 to 1.02)|1.02|0.71|0.0752
90918802|NCT02576509|181707177|OTHER|no test was performed due to OS p-value result above the prior threshold|Difference of ORRs|8.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|12.7|||||Estimate of (Nivolumab - Sorafenib) is based on CMH method of weighting, stratified by stratification factors|||12.7|3.9|
90918803|NCT02576509|181707177|OTHER|no test was performed due to OS p-value result above the prior threshold|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|3.92|||||Nivolumab over Sorafenib; Mantel-Haenszel estimator|||3.92|1.48|
90918804|NCT02576509|181707178|OTHER|no test was performed due to OS p-value result above the prior threshold|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.1|||||Nivolumab over Sorafenib; Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|||1.10|0.79|
90918805|NCT02576509|181707179|OTHER|PD-L1 \>= 1%, OS; no test was performed|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.19|||||Nivolumab over Sorafenib|||1.19|0.54|
90880944|NCT00811577|181624402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87||95.0||||For this early phase study, multiple comparisons adjustments were not used.|Wilcoxon (signed rank)|||Statistical analysis included line plots of paired differences vs. time, univariate p-values from Wilcoxon signed rank tests, and repeated measures regression models in SAS/STAT PROC GENMOD.||||0.87
90918806|NCT02576509|181707179|OTHER|PD-L1 \>=1%, PFS; no test was performed|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.03|||||Nivolumab over Sorafenib|||1.03|0.48|
90918807|NCT02576509|181707179|OTHER|PD-L1 \<1%, OS; no test was performed|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.02|||||Nivolumab over Sorafenib|||1.02|0.69|
90880945|NCT00811577|181624402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15||95.0||||For this early phase study, multiple comparisons adjustments were not used.|Wilcoxon (signed rank)|||Statistical analysis included line plots of paired differences vs. time, univariate p-values from Wilcoxon signed rank tests, and repeated measures regression models in SAS/STAT PROC GENMOD.||||0.15
90918808|NCT02576509|181707179|OTHER|PD-L1 \<1%, PFS; no test was performed|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.17|||||Nivolumab over Sorafenib|||1.17|0.81|
90918809|NCT02576509|181707179|OTHER|without PD-L1 quantifiable, OS; no test was performed|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|4.74|||||Nivolumab over Sorafenib|||4.74|0.34|
90918810|NCT02576509|181707179|OTHER|without PD-L1 quantifiable, PFS; no test was performed|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|3.52|||||Nivolumab over Sorafenib|||3.52|0.27|
90918811|NCT02576509|181707180|OTHER|PD-L1 \>=1%, ORR; no test was performed|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|10.17|||||Odds ratio (Nivolumab over Sorafenib) and associated unstratified 95% exact CI.|||10.17|1.41|
90918812|NCT02576509|181707180|OTHER|PD-L1 \<1%, ORR; no test was performed|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|3.45|||||Odds ratio (Nivolumab over Sorafenib) and associated unstratified 95% exact CI|||3.45|1.10|
90918813|NCT05769595|181707194|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|2.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.24|2.82|||||Geometric mean ratio is MK-2060/placebo|||2.82|2.24|
90918814|NCT03661359|181707195|OTHER|||||||0.727||||||correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2 tailed)|pearson correlation|||Correlation between patient satisfaction and domains at risk.||||.727
90918815|NCT03661359|181707197|OTHER|||||||0.002||||||correlation is significant at the 0.01 level 2 tailed|pearson correlation|||correlation between physical quality of life and mental of life||||0.002
90918816|NCT03661359|181707199|OTHER|||||||0.727|TWO_SIDED|0.05|||||pearson correlation|||||||0.727
90918817|NCT03089125|181707200|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.05||Bonferroni-adjusted P-value|ANCOVA|ANCOVA models control for cancer type, study site, and baseline scores of outcome variable.||||-0.05|-0.61|0.038
90918818|NCT03089125|181707201|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.1||Bonferroni-adjusted P-value|ANCOVA|ANCOVA models control for cancer type, study site, and baseline scores of outcome variable.||||1.10|-2.20|>0.99
90918819|NCT03089125|181707202|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|5.18|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA models control for cancer type, study site, and baseline scores of outcome variable.||||5.18|-1.98|0.380
90962052|NCT01777269|181804754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-7.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.22|-5.35|||mixed-model repeated-measures||Par. with IPSS change from baseline \>=25 points improvement at any time post-baseline visit|||-5.35|-10.22|<0.001
90918820|NCT03089125|181707203|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.82|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA models control for cancer type, study site, and baseline scores of outcome variable.||||0.82|-0.83|0.990
90918821|NCT03089125|181707204|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49||||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|0.35|||ANCOVA|||||0.35|-1.34|0.251
90918822|NCT03089125|181707205|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.49||||0.647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|4.92|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA models control for cancer type, study site, and baseline scores of outcome variable.||||4.92|-7.90|0.647
90918823|NCT03089125|181707206|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.63||||0.431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.45|5.71||ANCOVA models control for cancer type, study site, and baseline scores of outcome variable.|ANCOVA|||||5.71|-2.45|0.431
90918824|NCT03089125|181707207|SUPERIORITY||Between-group diff in change per 8 weeks|-0.06||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|Estimated between-group difference in change in scores per every 8 weeks from baseline through week 24, controlling for cancer type and study site.||||0.26|-0.38|0.710
90918825|NCT03089125|181707208|SUPERIORITY||Between-group diff in change per 8 weeks|0.38||||0.677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|2.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|Estimated between-group difference in change in scores per every 8 weeks from baseline through week 24, controlling for cancer type and study site.||||2.16|-1.40|0.677
90918826|NCT03089125|181707209|SUPERIORITY||Between-group diff in change per 8 weeks|-1.95||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.87|1.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|Estimated between-group difference in change in scores per every 8 weeks from baseline through week 24, controlling for cancer type and study site.||||1.97|-5.87|0.330
90918827|NCT03089125|181707210|SUPERIORITY||Between-group diff in change per 8 weeks|0.73||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|1.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|Estimated between-group difference in change in scores per every 8 weeks from baseline through week 24, controlling for cancer type and study site.||||1.59|-0.13|0.098
90918828|NCT03089125|181707211|SUPERIORITY||Between-group diff in change per 8 weeks|0.08||||0.845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|Estimated between-group difference in change in scores per every 8 weeks from baseline through week 24, controlling for cancer type and study site.||||0.93|-0.76|0.845
90918829|NCT03089125|181707212|SUPERIORITY||Between-group diff in change per 8 weeks|0.74||||0.837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.33|7.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|Estimated between-group difference in change in scores per every 8 weeks from baseline through week 24, controlling for cancer type and study site.||||7.77|-6.33|0.837
90918830|NCT03913195|181707225|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence limits for the 90% confidence interval are 0.80 to 1.25. If the 90% CIs were within the equivalence limits (0.8, 1.25), it demonstrated a PK bridge between the two routes of administration.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8299|1.2049||H0: P1 is not different from P2.|Fisher Exact|||The proportion of subjects with an average Ctrough ≥ 300 ng/mL is compared between the 30-second IV push and the 15-minute IV infusion.||1.2049|0.8299|1.0
90918831|NCT03913195|181707226|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence limits for the 90% confidence interval (CI) are 0.80 to 1.25. If the 90% CIs were within the equivalence limits (0.8, 1.25), it demonstrated a PK bridge between the two routes of administration.|mean geometric ratio|1.0315||||0.5389|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9478|1.1226|||SAS PROC MIXED|||The log transform of the ratio of the geometric means of the Area Under the Curve (AUC) for 30 second IV Push and 15 minute IV infusion is compared.||1.1226|0.9478|0.5389
90918832|NCT03913195|181707228|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence limits for the 90% confidence interval are 0.80 to 1.25. If the 90% CIs were within the equivalence limits (0.8, 1.25), it demonstrated a PK bridge between the two routes of administration.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.89||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|1.08|||Fisher Exact|||The proportion of subjects with an average Ctrough ≥ 300 ng/mL is compared between IM and IV infusion.||1.08|0.69|0.34
90918833|NCT05307978|181707245|SUPERIORITY||Ratio (%)|68.729|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.74|89.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed effect model was performed to the ln-transformed PK parameter and the independent variables.||||89.56|52.74|
90918834|NCT05307978|181707246|SUPERIORITY||Ratio (%)|120.043|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.2|214.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed effect model was performed with ethnicity as fixed effect and participant as random effect.||||214.43|67.20|
90918835|NCT05307978|181707247|SUPERIORITY||Ratio (%)|118.142|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|73.93|188.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed effect model was performed with ethnicity as fixed effect and participant as random effect.||||188.80|73.93|
90918836|NCT05307978|181707248|SUPERIORITY||Ratio (%)|93.891|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.17|139.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed effect model was performed with ethnicity as fixed effect and participant as random effect.||||139.56|63.17|
90918837|NCT02380612|181707280|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.4575|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90918838|NCT05687903|181707348|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of LS Mean Difference|13.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.983|=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.74|19.57||The analysis used a linear MMRM with fixed effects for Baseline, age, prior use of narcolepsy medications, treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as covariates. Reported p-value is adjusted for multiplicity.|MMRM|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.|LS in LS Mean Difference denotes least squares.|||19.57|7.74|=0.001
90962053|NCT00504881|181804756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Reduction over Placebo|7.3|||=|0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|15.9|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA on log-transformed partial seizure frequency per week over the treatment period, with log-transformed baseline seizure frequency per week as covariate, and including terms for treatment and stratification factors.||15.9|-2.2|=0.125
90962054|NCT01783041|181804790|OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||These are calculated p values.|ANOVA|Differences in continuous and categorical variables were compared using ANOVA and either Chi square test or Fisher's exact test, respectively.||||||<0.05
91034045|NCT02996591|181953930|OTHER|Bang blinding index|||||<|0.001|||||||Bang Blinding Index|95% confidence interval||||||<.001
90918839|NCT05687903|181707348|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of LS Mean Difference|24.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.921|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.87|30.46||The analysis used a linear MMRM with fixed effects for Baseline, age, prior use of narcolepsy medications, treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as covariates. Reported p-value is adjusted for multiplicity.|MMRM|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||||30.46|18.87|<0.001
90918840|NCT05687903|181707348|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of LS Mean Difference|26.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.91|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.81|32.35||The analysis used a linear MMRM with fixed effects for Baseline, age, prior use of narcolepsy medications, treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as covariates. Reported p-value is adjusted for multiplicity.|MMRM|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||||32.35|20.81|<0.001
90918841|NCT05687903|181707348|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of LS Mean Difference|16.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.842|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.49|21.76||The analysis used a linear MMRM with fixed effects for Baseline, age, prior use of narcolepsy medications, treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as covariates. Reported p-value is adjusted for multiplicity.|MMRM|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||||21.76|10.49|<0.001
90918842|NCT05687903|181707349|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of LS Mean Difference|-6.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.564|=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.53|-3.32||The analysis used a linear MMRM with fixed effects for Baseline, age, prior use of narcolepsy medications, treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as covariates. Reported p-value is adjusted for multiplicity.|MMRM|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||||-3.32|-9.53|=0.004
90918843|NCT05687903|181707349|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of LS Mean Difference|-11.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.581|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.44|-8.16||The analysis used a linear MMRM with fixed effects for Baseline, age, prior use of narcolepsy medications, treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as covariates. Reported p-value is adjusted for multiplicity.|MMRM|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||||-8.16|-14.44|<0.001
90918844|NCT05687903|181707349|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of LS Mean Difference|-10.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.53|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.35|-7.27||The analysis used a linear MMRM with fixed effects for Baseline, age, prior use of narcolepsy medications, treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as covariates. Reported p-value is adjusted for multiplicity.|MMRM|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||||-7.27|-13.35|<0.001
90918845|NCT05687903|181707349|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of LS Mean Difference|-8.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.535|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.84|-5.75||The analysis used a linear MMRM with fixed effects for Baseline, age, prior use of narcolepsy medications, treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as covariates. Reported p-value is adjusted for multiplicity.|MMRM|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||||-5.75|-11.84|<0.001
90918846|NCT05687903|181707350|SUPERIORITY||IRR|0.48|||=|0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.93||GEE model featuring a negative binomial distribution was used for analysis where incidence rate was exponentiated LS mean \& incidence rate ratio (IRR) was exponentiated LS mean difference from placebo. Reported p-value is adjusted for multiplicity.|GEE|||The GEE model was used for analysis with fixed effects for visit, treatment, treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline WCR, age, and prior use of narcolepsy medications.||0.93|0.25|=0.250
90918847|NCT05687903|181707350|SUPERIORITY||IRR|0.36|||=|0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.79||The GEE model featuring a negative binomial distribution was used for analysis where the incidence rate was the exponentiated LS mean and the IRR was the exponentiated LS mean difference from placebo. Reported p-value is adjusted for multiplicity.|GEE|||The GEE model was used for analysis with fixed effects for visit, treatment, treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline WCR, age, and prior use of narcolepsy medications.||0.79|0.16|=0.034
90918848|NCT05687903|181707350|SUPERIORITY||IRR|0.28|||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.6||The GEE model featuring a negative binomial distribution was used for analysis where the incidence rate was the exponentiated LS mean and the IRR was the exponentiated LS mean difference from placebo. Reported p-value is adjusted for multiplicity.|GEE|||The GEE model was used for analysis with fixed effects for visit, treatment, treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline WCR, age, and prior use of narcolepsy medications.||0.60|0.13|=0.003
90918849|NCT05687903|181707350|SUPERIORITY||IRR|0.67|||=|0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.29||The GEE model featuring a negative binomial distribution was used for analysis where the incidence rate was the exponentiated LS mean and the IRR was the exponentiated LS mean difference from placebo. Reported p-value is adjusted for multiplicity.|GEE|||The GEE model was used for analysis with fixed effects for visit, treatment, treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline WCR, age, and prior use of narcolepsy medications.||1.29|0.35|=0.250
90918850|NCT03433339|181707355|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.04||||||p-value threshold for statistical significance \<0.05|ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model considering all available data.||||||=0.040
90918851|NCT04970407|181707372|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-1.16||||0.8769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.25|13.93|||MMRM model|||The adjusted mean, standard error (SE) and 95% confidence interval (CI) of the adjusted mean as well as difference in % relative to baseline and p-value were obtained from a MMRM with Fisher scoring with treatment, time (corresponding to all study visits when CMAP was measured), treatment by time interaction and baseline CMAP amplitude as factors and an unstructured variance covariance matrix.||13.93|-16.25|0.8769
90940582|NCT00645099|181760938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1308||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|This test was interpreted at the 5% significance level (2-tailed).||||||0.1308
90880946|NCT00811577|181624402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77||95.0||||For this early phase study, multiple comparisons adjustments were not used.|Wilcoxon (signed rank)|||Statistical analysis included line plots of paired differences vs. time, univariate p-values from Wilcoxon signed rank tests, and repeated measures regression models in SAS/STAT PROC GENMOD.||||0.77
90880947|NCT00811577|181624402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75||95.0||||For this early phase study, multiple comparisons adjustments were not used.|Wilcoxon (signed rank)|||Statistical analysis included line plots of paired differences vs. time, univariate p-values from Wilcoxon signed rank tests, and repeated measures regression models in SAS/STAT PROC GENMOD.||||0.75
90880948|NCT00811577|181624402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0||||For this early phase study, multiple comparisons adjustments were not used.|Wilcoxon (signed rank)|||Statistical analysis included line plots of paired differences vs. time, univariate p-values from Wilcoxon signed rank tests, and repeated measures regression models in SAS/STAT PROC GENMOD.||||0.050
90880949|NCT00811577|181624402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83||95.0||||For this early phase study, multiple comparisons adjustments were not used.|Wilcoxon (signed rank)|||Statistical analysis included line plots of paired differences vs. time, univariate p-values from Wilcoxon signed rank tests, and repeated measures regression models in SAS/STAT PROC GENMOD.||||0.83
90918852|NCT04970407|181707372|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-10.61||||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.69|4.47|||MMRM model|||The adjusted mean, SE and 95% CI of the adjusted mean as well as difference in % relative to baseline and p-value were obtained from a MMRM with Fisher scoring with treatment, time (corresponding to all study visits when CMAP was measured), treatment by time interaction and baseline CMAP amplitude as factors and an unstructured variance covariance matrix.||4.47|-25.69|0.1620
90918853|NCT05145257|181707392|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Baseline versus endline comparison.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90918854|NCT05145257|181707393|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Baseline versus endline comparison.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90918855|NCT05145257|181707394|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Baseline versus endline comparison.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90918856|NCT05145257|181707395|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Baseline versus endline comparison.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90918857|NCT05145257|181707396|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Baseline versus endline comparison.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90918858|NCT05145257|181707397|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Baseline versus endline comparison.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90918859|NCT05145257|181707398|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Baseline versus endline comparison.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90918860|NCT05145257|181707399|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Baseline versus endline comparison.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90918861|NCT05145257|181707400|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Baseline versus endline comparison.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90962055|NCT01783041|181804791|OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||These are calculated p values.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|This analysis applies to all sub-scales that were compared between the 2 study groups.||||||<0.05
90880950|NCT00811577|181624402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37||95.0||||For this early phase study, multiple comparisons adjustments were not used.|Wilcoxon (signed rank)|||Statistical analysis included line plots of paired differences vs. time, univariate p-values from Wilcoxon signed rank tests, and repeated measures regression models in SAS/STAT PROC GENMOD.||||0.37
90880951|NCT00811577|181624402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43||95.0||||For this early phase study, multiple comparisons adjustments were not used.|Wilcoxon (signed rank)|||Statistical analysis included line plots of paired differences vs. time, univariate p-values from Wilcoxon signed rank tests, and repeated measures regression models in SAS/STAT PROC GENMOD.||||0.43
90918862|NCT05145257|181707401|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Baseline versus endline comparison.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90918863|NCT05145257|181707402|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Baseline versus endline comparison.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90918864|NCT05145257|181707403|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Baseline versus endline comparison.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90918865|NCT05145257|181707404|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Baseline versus endline comparison.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90918866|NCT05145257|181707405|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Baseline versus endline comparison.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90918867|NCT05145257|181707406|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Baseline versus endline comparison.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90918868|NCT05145257|181707407|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Baseline versus endline comparison.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90918869|NCT04995484|181707408|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|2.43|||||Moderate Hepatic Impairment/Healthy|||2.43|0.95|
90918870|NCT04995484|181707409|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|1.42|||||Moderate Hepatic Impairment/Healthy|||1.42|0.84|
90918871|NCT04995484|181707410|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.76|1.26|||||Moderate Hepatic Impairment/Healthy|||1.26|0.76|
90918872|NCT01046136|181707454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0096|||||||Regression, Logistic|p-value is from a logistic regression model with terms for treatment group and center||Investigator's End-of-Study Assessment NOTE: All assessments of efficacy were considered exploratory and were given equal consideration, and were carried out on both the MITT and PP populations. LOCF method was applied to missing post baseline measurements in analyses of the MITT population.||||0.0096
90918873|NCT01046136|181707456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0293|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-value is from a Wilcoxon rank sum test comparing the two treatment groups.||||||0.0293
90918874|NCT02058108|181707457|OTHER|Missing assessment imputed using the closest available assessment|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.03|36.75|||Fisher Exact|||HBV DNA level of \<300 copies/mL (51 IU/mL) at Week 24|Exact confidence interval for the difference in percentage|36.75|-37.03|1.0000
90918875|NCT02058108|181707459|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|32.43||||0.2984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.62|74.6|||Fisher Exact||Exact confidence interval for the difference in percentage. P-value from Fishers exact test comparing proportions in Initial LdT and Initial Placebo groups.|ALT levels at Week 24||74.60|-14.62|0.2984
90918876|NCT02058108|181707460|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.7|60.2|||Fisher Exact||Exact confidence interval for the difference in percentage. P-value from Fishers exact test comparing proportions in Initial LdT and Initial Placebo groups.|HBeAg loss at Week 24||60.20|-53.70|1.0000
90918877|NCT02058108|181707460|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.7|60.2|||Fisher Exact||Exact confidence interval for the difference in percentage. P-value from Fishers exact test comparing proportions in Initial LdT and Initial Placebo groups.|HBeAg seroconversion at Week 24||60.20|-53.70|1.0000
90962056|NCT01783041|181804792|OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||Reported p values have been calculated.|t-test, 2 sided|Differences between the groups were analyzed using a two sided t-test.||||||<0.05
91034046|NCT01980771|181953958|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.58||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.43|1.03|0.04
90880952|NCT00811577|181624403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16||95.0||||For this early phase study, multiple comparisons adjustments were not used.|Wilcoxon (signed rank)|||Statistical analysis included line plots of paired differences vs. time, univariate p-values from Wilcoxon signed rank tests, and repeated measures regression models in SAS/STAT PROC GENMOD.||||0.16
90880953|NCT00811577|181624403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14||95.0||||For this early phase study, multiple comparisons adjustments were not used.|Wilcoxon (signed rank)|||Statistical analysis included line plots of paired differences vs. time, univariate p-values from Wilcoxon signed rank tests, and repeated measures regression models in SAS/STAT PROC GENMOD.||||0.14
90880954|NCT00811577|181624403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69||95.0||||For this early phase study, multiple comparisons adjustments were not used.|Wilcoxon (signed rank)|||Statistical analysis included line plots of paired differences vs. time, univariate p-values from Wilcoxon signed rank tests, and repeated measures regression models in SAS/STAT PROC GENMOD.||||0.69
90880955|NCT00811577|181624403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89||95.0||||For this early phase study, multiple comparisons adjustments were not used.|Wilcoxon (signed rank)|||Statistical analysis included line plots of paired differences vs. time, univariate p-values from Wilcoxon signed rank tests, and repeated measures regression models in SAS/STAT PROC GENMOD.||||0.89
90880956|NCT00811577|181624403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3||95.0||||For this early phase study, multiple comparisons adjustments were not used.|Wilcoxon (signed rank)|||Statistical analysis included line plots of paired differences vs. time, univariate p-values from Wilcoxon signed rank tests, and repeated measures regression models in SAS/STAT PROC GENMOD.||||0.30
90880957|NCT00811577|181624403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46||95.0||||For this early phase study, multiple comparisons adjustments were not used.|Wilcoxon (signed rank)|||Statistical analysis included line plots of paired differences vs. time, univariate p-values from Wilcoxon signed rank tests, and repeated measures regression models in SAS/STAT PROC GENMOD.||||0.46
90880958|NCT00811577|181624404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.086||95.0||||For this early phase study, multiple comparisons adjustments were not used.|Wilcoxon (signed rank)|||Agreement between the two rater evaluations was assessed by tabulating the difference of the two ratings. Statistical methods for paired data were used to compare the two dosages of AZX100 to placebo.||||0.086
90880959|NCT00811577|181624404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66||95.0||||For this early phase study, multiple comparisons adjustments were not used.|Wilcoxon (signed rank)|||Agreement between the two rater evaluations was assessed by tabulating the difference of the two ratings. Statistical methods for paired data were used to compare the two dosages of AZX100 to placebo.||||0.66
90880960|NCT00811577|181624404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.069||95.0||||For this early phase study, multiple comparisons adjustments were not used.|Wilcoxon (signed rank)|||Agreement between the two rater evaluations was assessed by tabulating the difference of the two ratings. Statistical methods for paired data were used to compare the two dosages of AZX100 to placebo.||||0.069
90880961|NCT00811577|181624404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68||95.0||||For this early phase study, multiple comparisons adjustments were not used.|Wilcoxon (signed rank)|||Agreement between the two rater evaluations was assessed by tabulating the difference of the two ratings. Statistical methods for paired data were used to compare the two dosages of AZX100 to placebo.||||0.68
90918878|NCT02058108|181707461|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.44||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.54|42.17|||Fisher Exact||Exact confidence interval for the difference in percentage. P-value from Fishers exact test comparing proportions in Initial LdT and Initial Placebo groups.|HBsAg loss at Week 24||42.17|-37.54|1.0000
90918879|NCT02058108|181707464|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.05|41.83|||Fisher Exact||Exact confidence interval for the difference in percentage. P-value from Fishers exact test comparing proportions in Initial LdT and Initial Placebo groups.|Treatment emergent genotypic resistance at Week 24||41.83|-37.05|1.0000
90918880|NCT05623345|181707537|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|36.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.43||0.0377|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0377
90918881|NCT05623345|181707537|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|27.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.68|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<.0001
90918882|NCT05623345|181707537|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|24.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.65|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<.0001
90918883|NCT05623345|181707538|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|43.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.14||0.0483|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0483
90918884|NCT05623345|181707538|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|46.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.62|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<.0001
90918885|NCT05623345|181707538|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|52.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.56|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<.0001
91034047|NCT03450057|181953965|OTHER|The PFS function was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier product-limit method, a non-parametric statistic.|||||||||||||||||The PFS function was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier product-limit method. Median and two-sided confidence intervals (CIs) for PFS were computed and Kaplan-Meier plots of PFS were developed.|||
90918886|NCT05623345|181707539|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|32.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.93||0.0883|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0883
90918887|NCT05623345|181707539|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.35||0.2713|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2713
90918888|NCT05623345|181707539|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.44||0.8872|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.8872
90918889|NCT05623345|181707540|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|23.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.9||0.1654|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1654
90918890|NCT05623345|181707540|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|26.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.53|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<.0001
90918891|NCT05623345|181707540|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|25.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.55|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<.0001
90918892|NCT05623345|181707541|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|43.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.85||0.0106|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0106
90918893|NCT05623345|181707541|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|28.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.22|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<.0001
90918894|NCT05623345|181707541|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|23.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.4||0.0002|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0002
90880962|NCT00811577|181624404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.095||95.0||||For this early phase study, multiple comparisons adjustments were not used.|Wilcoxon (signed rank)|||Agreement between the two rater evaluations was assessed by tabulating the difference of the two ratings. Statistical methods for paired data were used to compare the two dosages of AZX100 to placebo.||||0.095
90880963|NCT00811577|181624404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62||95.0||||For this early phase study, multiple comparisons adjustments were not used.|Wilcoxon (signed rank)|||Agreement between the two rater evaluations was assessed by tabulating the difference of the two ratings. Statistical methods for paired data were used to compare the two dosages of AZX100 to placebo.||||0.62
90918895|NCT05623345|181707542|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|30.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.11||0.1147|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1147
90918896|NCT05623345|181707542|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|29.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.92|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<.0001
90918897|NCT05623345|181707542|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|24.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.81|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<.0001
90918898|NCT05623345|181707543|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.166||0.514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.44|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||0.44|-0.22|0.514
90918899|NCT05623345|181707543|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|-0.04|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||-0.04|-0.28|0.010
90918900|NCT05623345|181707543|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|-0.05|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||-0.05|-0.29|0.006
90918901|NCT05384730|181707551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||ANOVA|||Light physical activity compared overtime||||0.10
90918902|NCT05384730|181707551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||ANOVA|||Moderate-vigorous physical activity compared overtime||||0.30
90918903|NCT05384730|181707551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||ANOVA|||Inactive/sedentary time compared overtime||||0.18
90918904|NCT05384730|181707552|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.14
90918905|NCT05384730|181707553|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.01
90918906|NCT05384730|181707554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.50
90918907|NCT05384730|181707555|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparing depression scores overtime||||0.03
90918908|NCT05384730|181707555|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparing anxiety scores overtime||||0.96
90918909|NCT05384730|181707556|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.04
90918910|NCT05384730|181707557|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.13
90918911|NCT05384730|181707558|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||PASE analysis over time||||0.01
90918912|NCT01619410|181707561|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
90918913|NCT02252172|181707727|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.73|||Log Rank|||||0.73|0.43|<0.0001
90918914|NCT02252172|181707728|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|3.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.30|1.80|<0.0001
90918915|NCT02252172|181707729|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.42|4.77|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.77|2.42|<0.0001
90918916|NCT02252172|181707730|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.55|5.59|||Fisher Exact|||||5.59|2.55|<0.0001
90918917|NCT02252172|181707731|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.09|4.24|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.24|2.09|<0.0001
90918918|NCT02252172|181707732|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.85|4.86|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.86|1.85|<0.0001
90918919|NCT02252172|181707733|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.82|||Log Rank|||||0.82|0.55|<0.0001
90918920|NCT02252172|181707734|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.62|||Log Rank|||||0.62|0.39|<0.0001
90918921|NCT02252172|181707737|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.63|||Log Rank|||||0.63|0.41|<0.0001
90918922|NCT02252172|181707738|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.76|||Log Rank|||||0.76|0.49|<0.0001
90918923|NCT02252172|181707739|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|2.4|||=|0.0986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|5.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Cycle 3 Day 1||5.2|-0.4|=0.0986
90918924|NCT02252172|181707739|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|1.5|||=|0.3042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|4.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 6 Day 1||4.4|-1.4|=0.3042
90918925|NCT02252172|181707739|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|1.8|||=|0.2339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|4.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 9 Day 1||4.9|-1.2|=0.2339
90918926|NCT02252172|181707739|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|3.3|||=|0.0365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|6.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 12 Day 1||6.3|0.2|=0.0365
90918927|NCT02252172|181707739|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|1.7|||=|0.3093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|4.9||Cycle 24 Day 1|Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 18 Day 1||4.9|-1.6|=0.3093
90918928|NCT02252172|181707739|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|1.6|||=|0.3481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|5.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 24 Day 1||5|-1.8|=0.3481
90918929|NCT02252172|181707739|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|1.0|||=|0.5825|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|4.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 30 Day 1||4.6|-2.6|=0.5825
90918930|NCT02252172|181707739|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|2.7|||=|0.1566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|6.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 36 Day 1||6.4|-1|=0.1566
90918931|NCT02252172|181707739|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|1.8|||=|0.3858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|5.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 42 Day 1||5.7|-2.2|=0.3858
90918932|NCT02252172|181707739|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean|0.8|||=|0.7296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|5.0|||Least Square Mean Difference|||Cycle 48 Day 1||5|-3.5|=0.7296
90918933|NCT02252172|181707739|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.3|||=|0.5793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|3.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 54 Day 1||3.3|-6|=0.5793
90962057|NCT01783041|181804793|OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||These are calculated p values.|ANOVA|Differences in continuous and categorical variables were compared using ANOVA and either Chi square test or Fisher's exact test, respectively.||||||<0.05
90962058|NCT00803270|181804826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of proportions|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.44|||Fisher Exact|||||0.44|-0.28|0.99
90880964|NCT00811577|181624405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (signed rank)|||A regression analysis was run to compare alpha-SMA between 3 mg and 10 mg AZX100 and placebo, adjusted for the subject's gender and age. GEE regression in SAS/STAT PROC GENMOD was used because it properly handled the correlations among the three observations for each subject.||||0.44
90880965|NCT00811577|181624405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (signed rank)|||A regression analysis was run to compare alpha-SMA between 3 mg and 10 mg AZX100 and placebo, adjusted for the subject's gender and age. GEE regression in SAS/STAT PROC GENMOD was used because it properly handled the correlations among the three observations for each subject.||||0.41
90962059|NCT00803270|181804827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of proportions|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.87||Fisher's Exact Test of equality of percent meeting optimal outcome.|Fisher Exact|||||0.87|0.03|0.08
90962060|NCT01966471|181804828|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.827||95.0|0.71|1.32|||Log Rank|||||1.32|0.71|0.8270
90962061|NCT01966471|181804829|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.9291||95.0|0.77|1.34|||Log Rank|||||1.34|0.77|0.9291
90962062|NCT01966471|181804830|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.8756||95.0|0.74|1.3|||Log Rank|||||1.30|0.74|0.8756
90880966|NCT01455012|181624414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-160.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|26.46|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-213.23|-107.45||The analysis of this primary efficacy variable was performed using a two-sided alpha level of 5 %.|ANCOVA||The treatment effect was estimated on the basis of the Least Square Mean (LSM) of the difference as well as on the 95 % Confidence Interval and the p-value for that difference. Difference to Placebo was calculated as Rotigotine-Placebo.|The 95 % Confidence Interval (CI) and the p-value for the mean difference between Rotigotine and Placebo was obtained from a linear Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with fixed effects for treatment and Baseline antihypertensive use and a covariate for the Baseline number of nocturnal elevations of Systolic Blood Pressure that are associated with Periodic Limb Movements (PLMs).||-107.45|-213.23|<0.0001
90880967|NCT00717769|181624501|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.519|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Day 8||||0.519
90880968|NCT00717769|181624501|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.032|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Day 15||||0.032
90962063|NCT01966471|181804831|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.9341||95.0|0.75|1.31|||Log Rank|||||1.31|0.75|0.9341
90962064|NCT01966471|181804832|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.4577||95.0|0.61|1.25|||Log Rank|||||1.25|0.61|0.4577
90880969|NCT00717769|181624501|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Day 22||||0.008
90880970|NCT00717769|181624501|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Day 29||||0.006
90880971|NCT00717769|181624503|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.533|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Day 8||||0.533
90880972|NCT00717769|181624503|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Day 15||||0.009
90880973|NCT00717769|181624503|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Day 22||||0.002
90880974|NCT00717769|181624503|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Day 29||||0.003
90880975|NCT02196324|181624533|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|=|0.0111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.2|-1.5|= 0.0111
90880976|NCT02196324|181624534|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|=|0.0248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.1|-1.8|= 0.0248
90880977|NCT02196324|181624535|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.7|-2.6|0.0005
90880978|NCT02196324|181624541|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.0||||||Week 2||-0.0|-1.4|
90880979|NCT02196324|181624541|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.1||||||Week 4||-0.1|-1.7|
90880980|NCT02196324|181624541|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.0175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.2||p-value assume equal variance|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 8||-0.2|-2.0|0.0175
90880981|NCT02196324|181624542|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|1.6||||||Week 2||1.6|-3.1|
90880982|NCT02196324|181624542|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|2.3||||||Week 4||2.3|-2.7|
90880983|NCT02196324|181624542|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|2.1||||||Week 8||2.1|-3.6|
90880984|NCT02196324|181624543|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1||||||Week 2||0.1|-0.4|
90880985|NCT02196324|181624543|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2||||||Week 4||0.2|-0.4|
90962065|NCT01966471|181804833|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.24||||0.2864||95.0|0.83|1.84|||Log Rank|||||1.84|0.83|0.2864
90962066|NCT02092220|181804849|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.28|STANDARD_DEVIATION|24.59|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.0|-12.56||Repeated measures model.|t-test, 2 sided||Bionic Pancreas Arm - Usual Care Arm|||-12.56|-28.00|<0.0001
90962067|NCT02092220|181804850|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.8||Repeated measures model.|t-test, 2 sided|||||1.8|0.8|<0.0001
90962068|NCT00593957|181804882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.4|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.40
90962069|NCT00593957|181804882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.62||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.62
90962070|NCT00593957|181804882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.38||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.38
90962071|NCT00593957|181804884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.38|||<|0.1|||||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there would be no significant difference in social abilities as measured by the SSI score in this treatment group baseline to 6 months post-treatment.||||<0.10
90962072|NCT00593957|181804884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.5|||<|0.5|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.50
90962073|NCT00593957|181804884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.0|||<|0.48|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.48
90962074|NCT00593957|181804885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.947|||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91034048|NCT03450057|181953966|OTHER|The PFS function was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier product-limit method, a non-parametric statistic.|||||||||||||||||The PFS function was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier product-limit method. Median and two-sided confidence intervals (CIs) for PFS were computed and Kaplan-Meier plots of PFS were developed.|||
91034049|NCT03450057|181953967|OTHER|The PFS function was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier product-limit method, a non-parametric statistic.|||||||||||||||||The PFS function was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier product-limit method. Median and two-sided confidence intervals (CIs) for PFS were computed and Kaplan-Meier plots of PFS were developed.|||
90880986|NCT02196324|181624543|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.1||||||Week 8||0.1|-0.6|
91034050|NCT03450057|181953968|OTHER|The PFS function was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier product-limit method, a non-parametric statistic.|||||||||||||||||The PFS function was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier product-limit method. Median and one-sided confidence intervals (CIs) for PFS were computed and Kaplan-Meier plots of PFS were developed.|||
90880987|NCT02196324|181624544|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.35||||0.0625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.72||p-value assume equal variance.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.72|-0.02|0.0625
90880988|NCT02896400|181624644|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.8|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for gender, age, race/ethnicity, baseline daily cigarette consumption||8 arms including BNI (BNI only, BNI+NRT, BNI+QL, BNI+Text, BNI+NRT+QL, BNI+NRT+Text, BNI+QL+Text, BNI+NRT+QL+Text) compared to the 8 arms that do not include BNI (Control, NRT only, QL only, Text only, NRT+QL, NRT+Text, QL+Text, NRT+QL+Text)||2.8|1.1|.01
90880989|NCT02896400|181624644|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|3.2|||Regression, Logistic|adjusted for gender, age, race/ethnicity, baseline daily cigarette consumption||8 arms that include NRT (NRT only, BNI+NRT, NRT+QL, NRT+Text, BNI+NRT+QL, BNI+NRT+Text, NRT+QL+Text, BNI+NRT+QL+Text) compared to 8 arms that do not include NRT (Control, BNI only, QL only, Text only, BNI+QL, BNI+Text, QL+Text, BNI+QL+Text)||3.2|1.3|.001
90880990|NCT02896400|181624644|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.2|||Regression, Logistic|adjusted for gender, age, race/ethnicity, baseline daily cigarette consumption||8 arms including QL intervention (QL only, BNI+QL, NRT+QL, QL+Text, BNI+NRT+QL, BNI+QL+Text, NRT+QL+Text, BNI+NRT+QL+Text) compared to all 8 arms that did not include QL (Control, BNI only, NRT only, Text only, BNI+NRT, BNI+Text, NRT+Text, BNI+NRT+Text)||2.2|0.9|0.14
90880991|NCT02896400|181624644|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.7|||Regression, Logistic|adjusted for gender, age, race/ethnicity, baseline daily cigarette consumption||8 arms including Text (Text only, BNI+Text, NRT+Text, QL+Text, BNI+NRT+Text, BNI+QL+Text, NRT+QL+Text, BNI+NRT+QL+Text) compared to 8 arms that do not include Text (Control, BNI only, NRT only, QL only, BNI+NRT, BNI+QL, NRT+QL, BNI+NRT+QL)||1.7|0.7|0.64
90918934|NCT02252172|181707739|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.8|||=|0.7756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|4.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 60 Day 1||4.5|-6.1|=0.7756
91034051|NCT03450057|181953969|OTHER|The PFS function was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier product-limit method, a non-parametric statistic.|||||||||||||||||The PFS function was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier product-limit method. Median and one-sided confidence intervals (CIs) for PFS were computed and Kaplan-Meier plots of PFS were developed.|||
91034052|NCT03450057|181953970|OTHER|The PFS function was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier product-limit method, a non-parametric statistic.|||||||||||||||||The PFS function was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier product-limit method. Median and one-sided confidence intervals (CIs) for PFS were computed and Kaplan-Meier plots of PFS were developed.|||
90880992|NCT02984020|181624655|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.69|0.86|||Regression, Logistic|Multiple logistic regression including total treatment duration of Xeljanz as factor||||0.86|0.69|<0.0001
90880993|NCT02984020|181624655|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.43|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.64|3.59|||Regression, Logistic|Multiple logistic regression including other past/present disease as factor||||3.59|1.64|<0.0001
90880994|NCT02984020|181624666|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|1.82|||Regression, Logistic|Multiple logistic regression including total duration of treatment with Xeljanz as factor||||1.82|1.11|0.0053
90880995|NCT01896895|181624667|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.2|||=|0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.6|||ANCOVA|||The difference in change of JRS severity subscore between treatment groups was analyzed by an ANCOVA according to a hierarchical test procedure. First step of hierarchy is hypothesis of superiority of 50 unit dose group NT 201 compared to placebo. This was tested confirmatory (α=0.05, 2-sided) by an ANCOVA with treatment group, pooled site, and gender as fixed factors and baseline JRS severity subscore and age as covariates based on LS means comparison. Missing values were imputed by LOCF.||-0.6|-1.9|=0.0004
90880996|NCT01896895|181624667|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.5|||=|0.1452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.2|||ANCOVA|||The difference in change of JRS severity subscore between treatment groups was analyzed by an ANCOVA according to a hierarchical test procedure. Second step of hierarchy is hypothesis of superiority of 25 unit dose group NT 201 compared to placebo. This was tested confirmatory (α=0.05, 2-sided) by an ANCOVA with treatment group, pooled site, and gender as fixed factors and baseline JRS severity subscore and age as covariates based on LS means comparison. Missing values were imputed by LOCF.||0.2|-1.1|=0.1452
90880997|NCT00773175|181624702|NON_INFERIORITY|Subcutaneous administration would not be deemed as inferior if the volume infused subcutaneous is ≥85% of the volume infused intravenously.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-67.5||||0.5064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-221.2|86.2||P-value for the test of the null hypothesis that the volume delivered via a hylenex-facilitated subcutaneous infusion was ≤85% of the volume delivered intravenously.|ANOVA|Emergency department plus hospital stay|Treatment difference: subcutaneous minus intravenous|||86.2|-221.2|0.5064
90880998|NCT00773175|181624702|NON_INFERIORITY|Subcutaneous administration would not be deemed as inferior if the volume infused subcutaneous is ≥85% of the volume infused intravenously.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.0||||0.0325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.6|102.7||P-value for the test of the null hypothesis that the volume delivered via a hylenex-facilitated subcutaneous infusion was ≤85% of the volume delivered intravenously.|ANOVA|Emergency department stay only|Treatment difference: subcutaneous minus intravenous|||102.7|-54.6|0.0325
90918935|NCT02252172|181707739|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.7|||=|0.8458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|7.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 66 Day 1||7.4|-6|=0.8458
90880999|NCT00773175|181624703|NON_INFERIORITY|Subcutaneous administration would not be deemed as inferior if the volume infused subcutaneous is ≥85% of the volume infused intravenously.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-174.7||||0.8915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-340.3|-9.1||P-value for the test of the null hypothesis that the volume delivered via a hylenex-facilitated subcutaneous infusion was ≤85% of the volume delivered intravenously.|ANOVA|Emergency department plus hospital stay|Treatment difference: subcutaneous minus intravenous|||-9.1|-340.3|0.8915
90962075|NCT02411578|181804889|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99||||||Proportions of successes in each arm were compared using a generalized linear mixed model with a logistic link function, random participant effect to account for correlated data from some pts having multiple events, and adjustment for baseline BG.|Mixed Models Analysis|||For the crossover trial primary analysis, analyzed events were study treatment events meeting the following criteria: a) a survey was completed in the smart phone application, b) the initial BG measurement was 40 to 69 mg/dL, c) BG measurements were performed at both the 15-minute (in a window of 13 to 20 minutes) and 30-minute (28 to 40 minutes) time points, and d) appropriate treatment including dose was taken both at the initial and 15-minute time points.||||0.99
90962076|NCT02411578|181804890|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyzed with generalized linear mixed model with an identity link. Due to violations of normality, rank transformations were used in model.||||||0.34
90962077|NCT02411578|181804891|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyzed with generalized linear mixed model with an identity link. Due to violations of normality, rank transformations were used in model.||||||0.01
90962078|NCT02411578|181804892|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyzed with generalized linear mixed model with an identity link. Due to violations of normality, rank transformations were used in model.||||||0.02
90881000|NCT00773175|181624703|NON_INFERIORITY|Subcutaneous administration would not be deemed as inferior if the volume infused subcutaneous is ≥85% of the volume infused intravenously.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-58.6||||0.5469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-137.5|20.3||P-value for the test of the null hypothesis that the volume delivered via a hylenex-facilitated subcutaneous infusion was ≤85% of the volume delivered intravenously.|ANOVA|Emergency department stay only|Treatment difference: subcutaneous minus intravenous|||20.3|-137.5|0.5469
90881001|NCT00773175|181624705|NON_INFERIORITY|Subcutaneous administration would not be deemed as inferior if the volume infused subcutaneous is ≥85% of the volume infused intravenously.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-67.0||||0.5035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-220.6|86.7||P-value for the test of the null hypothesis that the volume delivered via a hylenex-facilitated subcutaneous infusion was ≤85% of the volume delivered intravenously.|ANOVA|Emergency department plus hospital stay|Treatment difference: subcutaneous minus intravenous|||86.7|-220.6|0.5035
90881002|NCT00773175|181624705|NON_INFERIORITY|Subcutaneous administration would not be deemed as inferior if the volume infused subcutaneous is ≥85% of the volume infused intravenously.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.6||||0.0314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.0|103.2||P-value for the test of the null hypothesis that the volume delivered via a hylenex-facilitated subcutaneous infusion was ≤85% of the volume delivered intravenously.|ANOVA|Emergency department stay only|Treatment difference: subcutaneous minus intravenous|||103.2|-54.0|0.0314
90881003|NCT00773175|181624709|NON_INFERIORITY|Subcutaneous administration would not be deemed as inferior if the volume infused subcutaneous is ≥85% of the volume infused intravenously.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-30.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.5|9.4|||||Treatment difference: subcutaneous minus intravenous; Emergency department plus hospital stay|||9.4|-69.5|
90881004|NCT00773175|181624709|NON_INFERIORITY|Subcutaneous administration would not be deemed as inferior if the volume infused subcutaneous is ≥85% of the volume infused intravenously.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-40.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.3|-3.1|||||Treatment difference: subcutaneous minus intravenous; Emergency department stay only|||-3.1|-77.3|
90881005|NCT00773175|181624710|NON_INFERIORITY|Subcutaneous administration would not be deemed as inferior if the volume infused subcutaneous is ≥85% of the volume infused intravenously.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-30.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.5|9.4|||||Treatment difference: subcutaneous minus intravenous; Emergency department plus hospital stay|||9.4|-69.5|
90881006|NCT00773175|181624710|NON_INFERIORITY|Subcutaneous administration would not be deemed as inferior if the volume infused subcutaneous is ≥85% of the volume infused intravenously.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-40.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.3|-3.1|||||Treatment difference: subcutaneous minus intravenous; Emergency department stay only|||-3.1|-77.3|
90881007|NCT00773175|181624712|NON_INFERIORITY|Subcutaneous administration would not be deemed as inferior if the volume infused subcutaneous is ≥85% of the volume infused intravenously.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|5.5|||||Treatment difference: subcutaneous minus intravenous; Emergency department plus hospital stay|||5.5|0.3|
90881008|NCT00773175|181624712|NON_INFERIORITY|Subcutaneous administration would not be deemed as inferior if the volume infused subcutaneous is ≥85% of the volume infused intravenously.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|4.7|||||Treatment difference: subcutaneous minus intravenous; Emergency department stay only|||4.7|-0.2|
90881009|NCT00773175|181624713|NON_INFERIORITY|Subcutaneous administration would not be deemed as inferior if the volume infused subcutaneous is ≥85% of the volume infused intravenously.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|1.9|||||Treatment difference: subcutaneous minus intravenous; Emergency department plus hospital stay|||1.9|-2.8|
90881010|NCT00773175|181624713|NON_INFERIORITY|Subcutaneous administration would not be deemed as inferior if the volume infused subcutaneous is ≥85% of the volume infused intravenously.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|0.8|||||Treatment difference: subcutaneous minus intravenous; Emergency department stay only|||0.8|-3.4|
90881011|NCT00773175|181624724|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.3|||||Treatment difference = SC minus IV|||0.3|0.1|
90881012|NCT00773175|181624725|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.0658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.0|||ANOVA|From Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model with center and treatment as factors.|Treatment difference = SC minus IV.|||0.0|-0.9|0.0658
90962079|NCT02411578|181804893|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyzed with generalized linear mixed model with an identity link. Due to violations of normality, rank transformations were used in model.||||||0.86
90962080|NCT02411578|181804894|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyzed with generalized linear mixed model with an identity link. Due to violations of normality, rank transformations were used in model.||||||0.95
90962081|NCT02411578|181804895|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyzed with generalized linear mixed model with an identity link. Due to violations of normality, rank transformations were used in model.||||||0.78
90962082|NCT02411578|181804896|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyzed with generalized linear mixed model with an identity link. Due to violations of normality, rank transformations were used in model.||||||0.21
90962083|NCT02411578|181804897|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyzed with generalized linear mixed model with an identity link. Due to violations of normality, rank transformations were used in model.||||||0.09
90918936|NCT02252172|181707740|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|2.0|||=|0.1176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|4.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 3 Day 1||4.5|-0.5|=0.1176
90918937|NCT02252172|181707740|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|2.8|||=|0.0336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|5.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 6 Day 1||5.4|0.2|=0.0336
90918938|NCT02252172|181707740|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|2.6|||=|0.0653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|5.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 9 Day 1||5.3|-0.2|=0.0653
90918939|NCT02252172|181707740|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|5.8|||=|0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|8.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 12 Day 1||8.5|3|=0.0000
90962084|NCT02411578|181804898|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyzed with generalized linear mixed model with an identity link. Due to violations of normality, rank transformations were used in model.||||||0.49
90962085|NCT02411578|181804899|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyzed with generalized linear mixed model with an identity link. Due to violations of normality, rank transformations were used in model.||||||0.63
90962086|NCT02411578|181804900|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyzed with generalized linear mixed model with an identity link. Due to violations of normality, rank transformations were used in model.||||||0.41
90962087|NCT02411578|181804901|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyzed with generalized linear mixed model with an identity link. Due to violations of normality, rank transformations were used in model.||||||0.80
90962088|NCT02411578|181804902|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyzed with generalized linear mixed model with an identity link. Due to violations of normality, rank transformations were used in model.||||||0.13
90918940|NCT02252172|181707740|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|2.0|||=|0.1805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|4.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 18 Day 1||4.8|-0.9|=0.1805
90918941|NCT02252172|181707740|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|2.7|||=|0.0783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|5.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 24 Day 1||5.7|-0.3|=0.0783
90918942|NCT02252172|181707740|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|2.4|||=|0.1422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|5.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 30 Day 1||5.5|-0.8|=0.1422
90918943|NCT02252172|181707740|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean|3.2|||=|0.0575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|6.5|||Least Square Mean Difference|||Cycle 36 Day 1||6.5|-0.1|=0.0575
90918944|NCT02252172|181707740|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|1.1|||=|0.5339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|4.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 42 Day 1||4.5|-2.4|=0.5339
90962089|NCT02411578|181804903|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyzed with generalized linear mixed model with an identity link. Due to violations of normality, rank transformations were used in model.||||||0.70
90962090|NCT02411578|181804904|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93||||||Proportions of successes in each arm were compared using a generalized linear mixed model with a logistic link function, random participant effect to account for correlated data from some pts having multiple events, and adjustment for baseline BG.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.93
90962091|NCT02411578|181804905|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66||||||Proportions of successes in each arm were compared using a generalized linear mixed model with a logistic link function, random participant effect to account for correlated data from some pts having multiple events, and adjustment for baseline BG.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.66
90962092|NCT02411578|181804906|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08||||||Proportions of successes in each arm were compared using a generalized linear mixed model with a logistic link function, random participant effect to account for correlated data from some pts having multiple events, and adjustment for baseline BG.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.08
90962093|NCT01231516|181804931|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority of DTG 50 mg and RAL at Week 48 can be concluded if the lower bound of a two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in percentages (DTG - RAL) is greater than -12%. If non-inferiority were established, superiority would be tested at the nominal 5% level based on a pre-specified testing procedure.|Difference in percentage|7.4||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|14.2||P-value is for test of superiority.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted difference in proportion which is based on the difference in percentage, adjusted for Baseline (BL) stratification factors.|Analysis was adjusted for BL stratification factors: HIV-1 RNA (\<=50000 versus \[vs\]\>50000 c/mL), darunavir-ritonavir use without primary protease inhibitor mutations (yes vs no), and phenotypic susceptibility score (2 vs \<2) to background regimen.|||14.2|0.7|0.030
90918945|NCT02252172|181707740|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|1.3|||=|0.5015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|5.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 48 Day 1||5|-2.4|=0.5015
90918946|NCT02252172|181707740|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|2.3|||=|0.2512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|6.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 54 Day 1||6.3|-1.7|=0.2512
90918947|NCT02252172|181707740|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.5|||=|0.8246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|4.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 60 Day 1||4.1|-5.1|=0.8246
90962094|NCT02460666|181804947|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.3
90962095|NCT02460666|181804948|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2
90962096|NCT02460666|181804949|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.5
90881013|NCT00773175|181624726|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.6208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|2.9|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with center and treatment as factors|Treatment difference = SC minus IV|||2.9|-4.8|0.6208
90881014|NCT00773175|181624728|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0685||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test controlling for center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Question 1||||||0.0685
90881015|NCT00773175|181624728|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004||||||CMH test controlling for center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Question 2||||||0.0004
90881016|NCT00773175|181624728|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6861||||||CMH test controlling for center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Question 3||||||0.6861
90881017|NCT00773175|181624728|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2323||||||CMH test controlling for center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Question 4||||||0.2323
90881018|NCT00773175|181624729|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0033||||||CMH test controlling for center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Effectiveness||||||0.0033
90881019|NCT00773175|181624729|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||CMH test controlling for center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Degree of difficulty||||||< 0.0001
90881020|NCT00773175|181624730|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2012||||||CMH test controlling for Center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Question 1||||||0.2012
90881021|NCT00773175|181624730|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||CMH test controlling for center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Question 2||||||< 0.0001
90881022|NCT00773175|181624730|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1302||||||CMH test controlling for center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Question 4||||||0.1302
90881023|NCT00773175|181624730|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0852||||||CMH test controlling for center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Question 5||||||0.0852
90881024|NCT00773175|181624730|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0275||||||CMH test controlling for center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Question 6||||||0.0275
90881025|NCT00773175|181624736|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0247|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0247
90881026|NCT00773175|181624737|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0007||||||CMH test controlling for center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0007
90881027|NCT02347527|181624753|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.038
90881028|NCT02347527|181624753|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.036
90881029|NCT02347527|181624754|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.010
90881030|NCT02347527|181624755|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Pearson's correlation|||Relationship between change in high-calorie food ratings and subsequent food intake (kcals).||||0.040
90881031|NCT02347527|181624755|OTHER|||||||0.92|||||||Pearson's correlation|||Relationship between change in high-calorie food ratings and subsequent food intake (kcals).||||0.92
90881032|NCT01276314|181624756|OTHER|||||||0.01||||||The p-value was analyzed for SJS/TEN participants with \>10% body surface area detachment.|Kaplan-Meier analysis|||For evaluating the time taken to heal skin erosion, the Kaplan-Meier product-limit estimates method was performed. Differences were considered statistically significant at P values of less than 0.05.||||0.01
90881033|NCT01276314|181624756|OTHER|||||||0.06||||||This p-value was analyzed for DRESS participants.|Kaplan-Meier analysis|||For evaluating the time taken to heal skin erosion, the Kaplan-Meier product-limit estimates method was performed. Differences were considered statistically significant at P values of less than 0.05.||||0.06
90881034|NCT00749775|181624779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|A one-sided paired t-test was performed to test the hypothesis.||The null hypothesis is that the mean systolic blood pressure at 4 weeks does not differ from that at baseline.||||<0.001
90881035|NCT00749775|181624779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|A one-sided paired t-test was performed to test the hypothesis.||The null hypothesis is that the mean systolic blood pressure at 8 weeks does not differ from that at baseline.||||<0.001
90881036|NCT00749775|181624779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|A one-sided paired t-test was performed to test the hypothesis.||The null hypothesis is that the mean systolic blood pressure at 12 weeks does not differ from that at baseline.||||<0.001
90881037|NCT00749775|181624779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|A one-sided paired t-test was performed to test the hypothesis.||The null hypothesis is that the mean systolic blood pressure at last evaluation date does not differ from that at baseline.||||<0.001
90881038|NCT00749775|181624780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|A one-sided paired t-test was performed to test the hypothesis.||The null hypothesis is that the mean diastolic blood pressure at 4 weeks does not differ from that at baseline.||||<0.001
90881039|NCT00749775|181624780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|A one-sided paired t-test was performed to test the hypothesis.||The null hypothesis is that the mean diastolic blood pressure at 8 weeks does not differ from that at baseline.||||<0.001
90881040|NCT00749775|181624780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|A one-sided paired t-test was performed to test the hypothesis.||The null hypothesis is that the mean diastolic blood pressure at 12 weeks does not differ from that at baseline.||||<0.001
90881041|NCT00749775|181624780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|A one-sided paired t-test was performed to test the hypothesis.||The null hypothesis is that the mean diastolic blood pressure at last evaluation date does not differ from that at baseline.||||<0.001
90881042|NCT03064126|181624836|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.166||||0.0017|ONE_SIDED|97.5|0.0553||||Chi-squared||||||0.0553|0.0017
90881043|NCT03064126|181624837|NON_INFERIORITY|A Chi-Square Test was used to assess the hypothesis for the difference in 12-month MAE-free rate with non-inferiority margin (-10%).|Risk Difference (RD)|0.106|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|0.0248||||Chi-squared||||||0.0248|<0.0001
90881044|NCT04649151|181624857|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority of Geometric Mean value (based on geometric least squares means \[GLSM\]) was considered demonstrated if: The lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \>0.667 based on the noninferiority margin of 1.5, and the GMR point estimate ≥0.8 (minimum threshold).|GMR|1.078|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.237|||||GMR of P203 vs P301|||1.237|0.940|
90881045|NCT04649151|181624858|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority margin of 10%. Lower bound of the 95% CI of the SRR difference \>-10%. and a point estimator \>-5% (minimum threshold)|percentage difference|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.9|||||SRR difference of P203 vs P301|||1.9|-2.1|
90881046|NCT04649151|181624859|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower bound of the 95% CI of noninferiority margin of 1.5. GMR point estimate \>=0.8 (minimum threshold).|GMR|5.071|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.477|5.745|||||GMR of GMC at BD-Day 29 P203 vs GMC at Day 57 P301|||5.745|4.477|
90881047|NCT04649151|181624860|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority margin of 10%. Lower bound of the 95% CI of the SRR difference \>-10%.|SRR Difference|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|2.4|||||SRR difference of P203 BD-Day 29 vs P301 Day 57|||2.4|-0.8|
90881048|NCT04649151|181624861|SUPERIORITY|The superiority of GMC (based on GLSM\] was considered demonstrated if: The lower bound of the 95% CI of the GMR was \>1|GMR|48.191|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.765|53.065|||||GMR of P203 vs P301|||53.065|43.765|
90881049|NCT04649151|181624864|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority of Geometric Mean value (based on GLSM) was considered demonstrated if: The lower bound of the 95% CI of the GMR was \>0.667 based on the noninferiority margin of 1.5, and the GMR point estimate ≥0.8 (minimum threshold).|GMR|4.493|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.972|5.083|||||GMR of GMC at BD-Day 29 P203 vs GMC at Day 57 P301|||5.083|3.972|
90881050|NCT04649151|181624867|OTHER|The 95% CI of the ratio was calculated using the exact method conditional upon the total number of cases, adjusting for person-years.|VE|60.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.6|78.6|||VE|Vaccine efficacy (VE, percent), was defined as 1 - ratio of incidence rate (mRNA-1273 vs. placebo).||||78.6|26.6|
90881051|NCT04649151|181624868|OTHER|The 95% CI of the ratio was calculated using the exact method conditional upon the total number of cases, adjusting for person-years.|VE|43.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|72.2|||VE|VE (percent), was defined as 1 - ratio of incidence rate (mRNA-1273 vs. placebo).||||72.2|-16.5|
90881052|NCT04649151|181624869|OTHER||VE|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.2||NA = not estimable (not reached).||VE|VE (percent), was defined as 1 - ratio of incidence rate (mRNA-1273 vs. placebo).|The 95% CI of the ratio was calculated using the exact method conditional upon the total number of cases, adjusting for person-years.||||61.2|
90881053|NCT04649151|181624870|OTHER|The 95% CI of the ratio was calculated using the exact method conditional upon the total number of cases, adjusting for person-years.|VE|89.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.0|98.9|||VE|VE (percent), was defined as 1 - ratio of incidence rate (mRNA-1273 vs. placebo).||||98.9|51.0|
90881054|NCT03907683|181624900|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16412|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0098|0.3185|||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis was that the mean steady state response to weekday move more messages would not differ from zero||0.3185|.0098|0.037
90881055|NCT03907683|181624900|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12538|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07674||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0274|0.2781|||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis was that the mean steady state response to weekday sit less messages would not differ from zero||0.2781|-0.0274|.106
90881056|NCT03907683|181624900|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.24738|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13746||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0262|0.521|||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis was that the mean steady state response to weekday inspirational quote messages would not differ from zero||.5210|-.0262|.076
90881057|NCT03907683|181624900|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.30563|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16136||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0156|0.6268|||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis was that the mean steady state response to weekend move more messages would not differ from zero||.6268|-.0156|.062
90881058|NCT03907683|181624900|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.277|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.10676||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0645|0.4895|||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis was that the mean steady state response to weekend sit less messages would not differ from zero||.4895|.0645|0.11
90881059|NCT03907683|181624900|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.10837|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16895||0.523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2279|0.4447|||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis was that the mean steady state response to weekend inspirational quote messages would not differ from zero||0.4447|-0.2279|.523
90881060|NCT03400332|181624924|OTHER||Hazard Ratio, log|0.94||||0.7416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.45|||Log Rank|||||1.45|0.61|0.7416
90881061|NCT00048542|181624930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031||95.0|||||Chi-square test|||The study was sized to detect a difference in the proportion of subjects (40%) between placebo and the active adalimumab dose group who would experience disease flare assuming a placebo rate of 70% vs. a rate of 30% in the active group. Assuming a binomial distribution, an alpha of 0.05, 80% power, two-sided test, and an initial monotherapy responder rate of 70%, a minimum of 29 subjects were needed per treatment group within the appropriate strata.||||0.031
90881062|NCT00048542|181624932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015||95.0|||||Chi-square test|||||||0.015
90881063|NCT00048542|181624933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.029
90881064|NCT00048542|181624934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.031
90881065|NCT00048542|181624935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.061||95.0|||||Pearson's Chi-square test|||||||0.061
90881066|NCT00048542|181624935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028||95.0|||||Pearson's Chi-square test|||||||0.028
90881067|NCT00048542|181624936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.103||95.0|||||Pearson's Chi-square test|||||||0.103
90881068|NCT00048542|181624936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028||95.0|||||Pearson's Chi-square test|||||||0.028
90881069|NCT00048542|181624937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.156||95.0|||||Pearson's Chi-square test|||||||0.156
90881070|NCT00048542|181624937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Pearson's Chi-square test|||||||0.002
90881071|NCT04521166|181624999|OTHER|A linear mixed model was used to assess whether there was a difference between Settings 1 and 2.|Slope|-0.0099|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01572||0.5291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04075|0.02095||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. P-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni correction.|Mixed Models Analysis||Setting 2 was considered as the reference and the estimate reflects whether the slope for Setting 1 is significantly different from the slope for Setting 2|||0.02095|-0.04075|0.5291
90881072|NCT04521166|181624999|OTHER|A linear mixed model was used to assess whether there was a difference between Setting 2 and Setting 3.|Slope|0.1329|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0174|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0988|0.1671||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. P-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni correction.|Mixed Models Analysis||Setting 2 was considered as the reference and the estimate reflects whether the slope for Setting 3 is significantly different from the slope for Setting 2|||0.1671|0.09880|<0.001
90881073|NCT04521166|181624999|OTHER|A linear mixed model was used to assess whether there was a difference between Setting 2 and Setting 4.|Slope|0.2016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01812|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.166|0.2371||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. P-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni correction.|Mixed Models Analysis||Setting 2 was considered as the reference and the estimate reflects whether the slope for Setting 4 is significantly different from the slope for Setting|||0.2371|0.1660|<.0001
90918948|NCT02252172|181707740|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.3|||=|0.664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|4.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 66 Day 1||4.5|-7|=0.6640
91034053|NCT02246166|181953999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.9473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.83|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model with factors for treatment group and study site and baseline TSS score as a covariate|Difference is first named treatment minus the second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment|||0.83|-0.77|0.9473
90881074|NCT04521166|181624999|OTHER|A linear mixed model was used to assess whether there was an effect of working memory on the primary outcome measure (speech intelligibility) after controlling for age and degree of hearing loss (decibel hearing level)|Slope|0.002||||0.242|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A linear mixed model was used to assess whether there was an effect of working memory on the primary outcome measure (speech intelligibility) after controlling for age and degree of hearing loss (decibel hearing level)||||0.242
90881075|NCT04521166|181624999|OTHER|A linear mixed model was used to assess whether there was an effect of working memory on the primary outcome measure (speech intelligibility) after controlling for age and degree of hearing loss (decibel hearing level)|Slope|0.002||||0.242|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A linear mixed model was used to assess whether there was an effect of working memory on the primary outcome measure (speech intelligibility) after controlling for age and degree of hearing loss (decibel hearing level)||||0.242
90881076|NCT04521166|181624999|OTHER|A linear mixed model was used to assess whether there was an effect of working memory on the primary outcome measure (speech intelligibility) after accounting for age and degree of hearing loss (decibel hearing level).|Slope|0.002||||0.242|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A linear mixed model was used to assess whether there was an effect of working memory on the primary outcome measure (speech intelligibility) after accounting for age and degree of hearing loss (decibel hearing level).||||0.242
90881077|NCT04521166|181624999|OTHER|A linear mixed model was used to assess whether there was an effect of working memory on the primary outcome measure (speech intelligibility) after accounting for age and degree of hearing loss (decibel hearing level).|Slope|0.002||||0.242|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A linear mixed model was used to assess whether there was an effect of working memory on the primary outcome measure (speech intelligibility) after accounting for age and degree of hearing loss (decibel hearing level).||||0.242
90881078|NCT05619692|181625025|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.1642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|3.73||The p-value was obtained using MMRM model which included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction as categorical covariates, and WAIS-IV at baseline as continuous covariates.|MRMM||Difference was calculated as SAGE-718 - placebo.|||3.73|-0.64|0.1642
90881079|NCT02703636|181625062|OTHER|The MMRM model contained visit as a fixed effect, baseline MMSE score as a covariate and patient as a random effect.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.259||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.16|||t-test, 2 sided||change at week 24|||0.16|-0.87|0.1750
90881080|NCT00087633|181625087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.2||||0.725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.8|14.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||14.4|-20.8|0.725
90881081|NCT01110915|181625091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|0.0|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|97.5||2.5||A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.025|exact test of binomial proportions|||Null Hypothesis: MRI-related complication rate between the MRI scan and one-month post-MRI \>=10%.||2.5||<0.0001
90881082|NCT01110915|181625092|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was 10%.|Difference in percentages|0.0|||||||||||Farrington-Manning test|A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.025. Because there were no failures in either group, a p-value could not be calculated.||Null hypothesis: % successes MRI group ≤ % successes Control group -10%.||||
90881083|NCT01110915|181625093|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was 10%.|Difference in percentages|0.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|5.9||A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|Farrington-Manning test|||Null hypothesis: % successes MRI group ≤ % successes Control group -10%.||5.9|-5.0|<0.0001
90881084|NCT01110915|181625094|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was 10%.|Difference in percentages|1.5||||0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|||A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Farrington-Manning test|||Null hypothesis: % successes MRI group ≤ % successes Control group - 10%.|||-6.1|0.0010
90881085|NCT01110915|181625095|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was 10%.|Difference in percentages|0.1||||0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|||A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Farrington-Manning test|||Null hypothesis: % successes MRI group ≤ % successes Control group - 10%.|||-4.6|0.0001
90881086|NCT01110915|181625096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|0.0|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||1.9||A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|exact test of binomial proportions|||Null hypothesis: the proportion of subjects with sustained ventricular arrhythmias and asystole during MRI scans \>= 10%.||1.9||<0.0001
90881087|NCT01110915|181625097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Complication rate at 4 months|7.7|||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0||10.9||A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Kaplan-Meier method|||Null hypothesis: the system-related complication rate between the implant procedure and the 4-months visit \>= 20%.||10.9||<0.05
90881088|NCT03985813|181625098|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.083||||||Threshold for significance P\<0.05|Chi-squared|||||||0.083
90881089|NCT03985813|181625099|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99||||||Threshold for statistical significance P\<0.05|Chi-squared|||||||>0.99
90881090|NCT00692770|181625118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94|||=|0.258329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.134||One sided P-value was stratified by region, risk of recurrence and previous curative treatment.|Log Rank|||||1.134|0.78|=0.258329
90881091|NCT00692770|181625119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.891|||=|0.121383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.735|1.081||One sided P-value was stratified by region, risk of recurrence and previous curative treatment.|Log Rank|||||1.081|0.735|=0.121383
90881092|NCT00692770|181625120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.995|||=|0.484742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.761|1.3||One-sided P-value was stratified by region, risk of recurrence and previous curative treatment.|Log Rank|||||1.3|0.761|=0.484742
90918949|NCT02252172|181707741|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.016|||=|0.3069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.015|0.046|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 3 Day 1||0.046|-0.015|=0.3069
90918950|NCT02252172|181707741|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.019|||=|0.2472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.013|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 6 Day 1||0.05|-0.013|=0.2472
90881093|NCT00692770|181625121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.039|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.025|0.052|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used to estimate the mean difference in the timeadjusted Area Under Curve (AUC) between the two treatment groups, with covariates for baseline scores and stratification factors. To test the treatment effect, a mixed linear model (random coefficient model) was used for the EQ-5D index score. Statistical tests were performed with a 2 sided type I error of 5%.||0.052|0.025|<0.0001
90881094|NCT00692770|181625122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.978|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.797|4.159|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used to estimate the mean difference in the timeadjusted Area Under Curve (AUC) between the two treatment groups, with covariates for baseline scores and stratification factors. To test the treatment effect, a mixed linear model (random coefficient model) was used for the EQ-5D VAS score. Statistical tests were performed with a 2 sided type I error of 5%.||4.159|1.797|<0.0001
90881095|NCT00692770|181625123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|6.7|||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model was used to estimate the mean difference in the timeadjusted AUC between the two treatment groups, with covariates for baseline scores and stratification factors. To test the treatment effect, a mixed linear model (random coefficient model) was used for the FACT-HEP score. Statistical tests were performed with a 2 sided type I error of 5%.||6.7|3.5|<0.0001
90881096|NCT00692770|181625124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|3.6|||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model was used to estimate the mean difference in the timeadjusted AUC between the two treatment groups, with covariates for baseline scores and stratification factors. To test the treatment effect, a mixed linear model (random coefficient model) was used for the FACT-G score. Statistical tests were performed with a 2 sided type I error of 5%.||3.6|1.4|<0.0001
90881097|NCT00692770|181625125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.562|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.241|1.965|||||Significance of the biomarker main effect (RFS) and its corresponding hazard ratio estimate (HR) with 95% CI were reported. HR was expressed as high/low biomarker levels.|||1.965|1.241|
90881098|NCT00692770|181625126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.747|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.407|2.17|||||Significance of the biomarker main effect (RFS) and its corresponding hazard ratio estimate (HR) with 95% CI were reported. HR was expressed as high/low biomarker levels.|||2.170|1.407|
90881099|NCT00692770|181625127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.206|2.018|||||Significance of the biomarker main effect (RFS) and its corresponding hazard ratio estimate (HR) with 95% CI were reported. HR was expressed as high/low biomarker levels.|||2.018|1.206|
90881100|NCT01399593|181625131|SUPERIORITY||Proportion difference|-3.9||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.9|16.3|||Fisher Exact|||||16.3|-23.9|0.76
90881101|NCT02103478|181625204|EQUIVALENCE|The 95% confidence intervals for the difference (oral - IV) were generated using an ANOVA model separately for Course 1 and Course 2.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.144|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.165|2.876|||||Course 1|||2.876|-3.165|
90881102|NCT02103478|181625204|EQUIVALENCE|The 95% confidence intervals for the difference (oral - IV) were generated using an ANOVA model separately for Course 1 and Course 2.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.087|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.463|3.288|||||Course 2|||3.288|-3.463|
90881103|NCT02103478|181625204|EQUIVALENCE|The 95% confidence intervals for the difference (oral - IV) were generated using an ANOVA model separately for Course 1 and Course 2.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.588|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.074|0.899|||||Course 1|||0.899|-6.074|
90881104|NCT02103478|181625204|EQUIVALENCE|The 95% confidence intervals for the difference (oral - IV) were generated using an ANOVA model separately for Course 1 and Course 2.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.096|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.08|4.888|||||Course 2|||4.888|-5.080|
90918951|NCT02252172|181707741|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.011|||=|0.4972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.021|0.044|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 9 Day 1||0.044|-0.021|=0.4972
90918952|NCT02252172|181707741|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.029|||=|0.0841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.062|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 12 Day 1||0.062|-0.004|=0.0841
90918953|NCT02252172|181707741|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.027|||=|0.1296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.008|0.062|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 18 Day 1||0.062|-0.008|=0.1296
90918954|NCT02252172|181707741|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.033|||=|0.0762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.003|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 24 Day 1||0.07|-0.003|=0.0762
90918955|NCT02252172|181707741|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.014|||=|0.4859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.025|0.052|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 30 Day 1||0.052|-0.025|=0.4859
90918956|NCT02252172|181707741|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.011|||=|0.6031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.029|0.051|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 36 Day 1||0.051|-0.029|=0.6031
90918957|NCT02252172|181707741|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.051|||=|0.0178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.009|0.093|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 42 Day 1||0.093|0.009|=0.0178
90918958|NCT02252172|181707741|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.007|||=|0.746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.038|0.053|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 48 Day 1||0.053|-0.038|=0.7460
90918959|NCT02252172|181707741|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.037|||=|0.1394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.012|0.086|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 54 Day 1||0.086|-0.012|=0.1394
90918960|NCT02252172|181707741|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.011|||=|0.6982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.045|0.068|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 60 Day 1||0.068|-0.045|=0.6982
90918961|NCT02252172|181707741|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.069|||=|0.0543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 66 Day 1||0.14|-0.001|=0.0543
90918962|NCT03830866|181707744|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.08|||Log Rank|||||1.08|0.65|0.174
90918963|NCT03830866|181707745|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.1|||Log Rank|||||1.10|0.64|0.203
90918964|NCT03830866|181707747|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.04|||Log Rank|||||1.04|0.60|0.091
90918965|NCT03830866|181707748|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.794|1.657|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.657|0.794|0.465
90918966|NCT03830866|181707749|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.833|1.487|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.487|0.833|0.469
90940583|NCT00645099|181760939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3358||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|This test was interpreted at the 5% significance level (2-tailed).||||||0.3358
90940584|NCT00645099|181760940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|This test was interpreted at the 5% significance level (2-tailed).||||||<0.0001
90881105|NCT02566759|181625254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|0.6662|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5969|0.7355||||||Dose proportionality was evaluated using the following power model: ln (PK Parameter) is equal to (=) a+b\*ln (dose), where a and b are the intercept and slope of the line, respectively. Dose proportionality was declared when the 90 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) of the slope lies entirely within the critical region (0.9483, 1.0517) for the dose range of 10 mg to 750 mg.||0.7355|0.5969|
90918967|NCT00041938|181707756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.1||The primary null hypotheses was tested at two-tailed alpha=0.05. A Haybittle-Peto interim monitoring procedure was performed with stopping boundaries for the interim analyses corresponding to a nominal two-tailed P value of 0.001.|Regression, Cox|Cox models stratified by site, New York Heart Association class (I vs. II-IV), and status w/ respect to recent stroke or Transient Ischemic Attack.|Hazard ratio is for comparison of warfarin vs. aspirin. Warfarin represents the numerator and aspirin represents the denominator of the hazard ratio.|The primary null hypothesis: time to first event in the composite primary endpoint does not differ significantly between warfarin and aspirin. The original target sample size was 2860, providing 89% power for a log-rank test with two-sided alpha .05, assuming a hazard rate reduction of 17.82% in either group compared with the other, after adjustment for use of beta-blockers and allowance for discontinuation of therapy, dropout, and crossover. The final sample of 2305 patients yielded 69% power.||1.10|0.79|0.40
90918968|NCT00041938|181707757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.23||Secondary null hypothesis was tested at two-tailed alpha = 0.05.|Regression, Cox|Cox models stratified by site, New York Heart Association class (I vs. II-IV), and status w/ respect to recent stroke or Transient Ischemic Attack.|Hazard ratio is for comparison of warfarin vs. aspirin. Warfarin represents the numerator and aspirin represents the denominator of the hazard ratio.|Secondary null hypothesis: time to first event in the composite secondary endpoint does not differ significantly between warfarin and aspirin. This was tested at prespecified alpha = 0.05 level, two-tailed.||1.23|0.93|0.33
90918969|NCT00041938|181707758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.82|||Regression, Cox|Cause-specific Cox model, stratified by site, NYHA class (I vs. II, III, or IV), and prior stroke or TIA status.|Hazard ratio is for comparison of warfarin vs. aspirin. Warfarin represents the numerator and aspirin represents the denominator of the hazard ratio.|Null hypothesis: there is no difference between warfarin and aspirin in time to ischemic stroke, adjusting for competing risks of death and intracerebral hemorrhage.||0.82|0.33|0.005
90918970|NCT00041938|181707759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.22||||0.35||95.0|0.43|11.66|||Regression, Cox|Cause-specific Cox model, stratified by site, NYHA class (I vs. II, III, or IV), and prior stroke or TIA status.||Null hypothesis: there is no difference between warfarin and aspirin in time to intracerebral hemorrhage, adjusting for competing risks of death and ischemic stroke.||11.66|0.43|0.35
90918971|NCT00041938|181707760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.2|||Regression, Cox|Cause-specific Cox model, stratified by site, NYHA class (I vs. II, III, or IV), and prior stroke or TIA status.|Hazard ratio is for comparison of warfarin vs. aspirin. Warfarin represents the numerator and aspirin represents the denominator of the hazard ratio.|||1.20|0.85|0.91
90918972|NCT00041938|181707761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.64|||Regression, Cox|Cause-specific Cox model, stratified by site, NYHA class (I vs. II, III, or IV), and prior stroke or TIA status.|Hazard ratio is for comparison of warfarin vs. aspirin. Warfarin represents the numerator and aspirin represents the denominator of the hazard ratio.|Null hypothesis: there is no difference between warfarin and aspirin in time to myocardial infarction, adjusting for competing risks of heart failure hospitalization, ischemic stroke, intracerebral hemorrhage, and death.||1.64|0.58|0.93
90918973|NCT00041938|181707762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.21||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.998|1.47|||Regression, Cox|Cause-specific Cox model, stratified by site, NYHA class (I vs. II, III, or IV), and prior stroke or TIA status.||Null hypothesis: there is no difference between warfarin and aspirin in time to heart failure hospitalization, adjusting for competing risks of myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, intracerebral hemorrhage, and death.||1.47|0.998|0.053
90918974|NCT00041938|181707763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.55||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.96|||Regression, Cox|Cause-specific Cox model, stratified by site, NYHA class (I vs. II, III, or IV), and prior stroke or TIA status.||Null hypothesis: there is no difference between warfarin and aspirin in time to ischemic stroke, adjusting for competing risks of myocardial infarction, heart failure hospitalization, death and intracerebral hemorrhage.||0.96|0.32|0.03
90918975|NCT00041938|181707764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.77||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|9.88|||Regression, Cox|Cause-specific Cox model, stratified by site, NYHA class (I vs. II, III, or IV), and prior stroke or TIA status.|Hazard ratio is for comparison of warfarin vs. aspirin. Warfarin represents the numerator and aspirin represents the denominator of the hazard ratio.|Null hypothesis: there is no difference between warfarin and aspirin in time to intracerebral hemorrhage, adjusting for competing risks of myocardial infarction, heart failure hospitalization, ischemic stroke, and death.||9.88|0.32|0.51
90918976|NCT00041938|181707765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.83||95.0|0.81|1.3|||Regression, Cox|Cause-specific Cox model, stratified by site, NYHA class (I vs. II, III, or IV), and prior stroke or TIA status.||||1.30|0.81|0.83
90918977|NCT00041938|181707766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|2.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|3.12|||Regression, Poisson||The warfarin arm represents the numerator and the aspirin arm represents the denominator of the rate ratio.|||3.12|1.36|<0.001
90918978|NCT00041938|181707767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|1.56|||<|0.001||95.0|1.34|1.81|||Regression, Poisson||Warfarin group represents the numerator and aspirin group represents denominator of rate ratio.|||1.81|1.34|<0.001
90918979|NCT00262301|181707768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.003
90918980|NCT00262301|181707769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.005
90918981|NCT00976495|181707770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7177|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.34|-2.49|||||ANCOVA was applied. Given that this was a pilot study designed for exploratory analysis, formal statistical hypothesis testing was not performed.|||-2.49|-13.34|
90918982|NCT00976495|181707770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7068|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.87|-2.06|||||ANCOVA was applied. Given that this was a pilot study designed for exploratory analysis, formal statistical hypothesis testing was not performed.|||-2.06|-12.87|
90962097|NCT02460666|181804950|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.09
90962098|NCT05266586|181804952|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-58.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.138|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.59|-48.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-48.18|-68.59|<.0001
90962099|NCT05266586|181804953|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-58.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.138|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.59|-48.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-48.18|-68.59|<.0001
90962100|NCT05266586|181804954|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-58.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.138|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.59|-48.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-48.18|-68.59|<.0001
90962101|NCT05266586|181804955|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-58.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.195|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.47|-47.83|||ANCOVA|||||-47.83|-68.47|<.0001
90962102|NCT05266586|181804956|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-58.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.195|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.47|-47.83|||ANCOVA|||||-47.83|-68.47|<.0001
90962103|NCT05266586|181804957|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-58.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.195|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.47|-47.83|||ANCOVA|||||-47.83|-68.47|<.0001
90962104|NCT05266586|181804958|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-38.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.397|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.07|-27.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-27.63|-49.07|<.0001
90962105|NCT05266586|181804959|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-38.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.397|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.07|-27.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-27.63|-49.07|<.0001
90962106|NCT05266586|181804960|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-38.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.397|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.07|-27.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-27.63|-49.07|<.0001
90962107|NCT05266586|181804961|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-37.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.465|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.07|-26.35|||ANCOVA|||||-26.35|-48.07|<.0001
90881106|NCT02566759|181625254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|0.7795|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6597|0.8993|||Power model|||Dose proportionality was evaluated using the following power model: ln (PK Parameter) = a+b\*ln (dose), where a and b were the intercept and slope of the line, respectively. Dose proportionality was declared when the 90% CI of the slope lies entirely within the critical region (0.9139, 1.0861) for the dose range of 30 mg to 400 mg.||0.8993|0.6597|
90881107|NCT02566759|181625254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square (LS) Mean Ratio|0.362|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.3043|0.4301||||||The point estimate and CI were obtained by taking the antilog of the difference in the log transformed lease square (LS) Means.||0.4301|0.3043|
90881108|NCT02566759|181625254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Ratio|1.799|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.4625|2.2116||||||The point estimate and CI were obtained by taking the antilog of the difference in the log transformed LS Means.||2.2116|1.4625|
90881109|NCT02566759|181625257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|0.872|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8145|0.9296||||||Dose proportionality was evaluated using the following power model: ln (PK Parameter) = a+b\*ln (dose), where a and b are the intercept and slope of the line, respectively. Dose proportionality was declared when the 90 % CI of the slope lies entirely within the critical region (0.9483, 1.0517) for the dose range of 10 mg to 750 mg.||0.9296|0.8145|
90881110|NCT02566759|181625257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|0.9135|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8062|1.0209|||Power model|||Dose proportionality was evaluated using the following power model: ln (PK Parameter) = a+b\*ln (dose), where a and b were the intercept and slope of the line, respectively. Dose proportionality was declared when the 90% CI of the slope lies entirely within the critical region (0.9139, 1.0861) for the dose range of 30 mg to 400 mg.||1.0209|0.8062|
90881111|NCT02566759|181625257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Ratio|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4324|0.5777||||||The point estimate and CI were obtained by taking the antilog of the difference in the log transformed LS Means.||0.5777|0.4324|
90962108|NCT05266586|181804962|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-37.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.465|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.07|-26.35|||ANCOVA|||||-26.35|-48.07|<.0001
90962109|NCT05266586|181804963|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-37.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.465|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.07|-26.35|||ANCOVA|||||-26.35|-48.07|<.0001
90962110|NCT05266586|181804964|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-35.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.23|-28.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-28.13|-43.23|<.0001
90962111|NCT05266586|181804965|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-35.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.23|-28.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-28.13|-43.23|<.0001
90962112|NCT05266586|181804966|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-35.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.23|-28.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-28.13|-43.23|<.0001
90962113|NCT05266586|181804967|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-22.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.991|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.21|-14.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-14.36|-30.21|<.0001
90962114|NCT05266586|181804968|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-22.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.991|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.21|-14.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-14.36|-30.21|<.0001
90962115|NCT05266586|181804969|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-22.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.991|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.21|-14.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-14.36|-30.21|<.0001
90962116|NCT01323621|181804989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.029||||0.267||95.0|-0.022|0.08|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA analysis was conducted with covariates for country, smoking status, reversibility, and Baseline FEV1.|||0.080|-0.022|0.267
90962117|NCT00954421|181804991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-17.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.4||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.61|-4.65|||two-sided sign-rank test||p-value assessed via sign-rank test (pre-planned method)|The null hypothesis is that the mean change in Tremor Rating Scale score from baseline to six months post-implant (with VIM and VO stimulators turned ON) will be zero||-4.65|-30.61|.026
90918983|NCT00976495|181707771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3613|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.11|2.31|||||ANCOVA was applied. Given that this was a pilot study designed for exploratory analysis, formal statistical hypothesis testing was not performed.|||2.31|-7.11|
90918984|NCT00976495|181707771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4112|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|8.08|||||ANCOVA was applied. Given that this was a pilot study designed for exploratory analysis, formal statistical hypothesis testing was not performed.|||8.08|-1.55|
90918985|NCT00976495|181707772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5072|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.38|0.63|||||ANCOVA was applied. Given that this was a pilot study designed for exploratory analysis, formal statistical hypothesis testing was not performed.|||0.63|-9.38|
90918986|NCT00976495|181707772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5474|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.18|5.99|||||ANCOVA was applied. Given that this was a pilot study designed for exploratory analysis, formal statistical hypothesis testing was not performed.|||5.99|-4.18|
90918987|NCT00976495|181707773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7812|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.39|5.71|||||ANCOVA was applied. Given that this was a pilot study designed for exploratory analysis, formal statistical hypothesis testing was not performed.|||5.71|-5.39|
90918988|NCT00976495|181707773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8135|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|12.93|||||ANCOVA was applied. Given that this was a pilot study designed for exploratory analysis, formal statistical hypothesis testing was not performed.|||12.93|1.70|
90918989|NCT04154384|181707775|SUPERIORITY|A comparison of the proportion of participants in each arm reporting an improvement in average pain score on the Numeric Rating Scale from baseline to 3 months follow-up.||||||0.035||||||A comparison of the proportion of participants in each arm reporting an improvement in average pain score on the Numeric Rating Scale from baseline to 12 weeks follow-up.|Chi-squared|||||||0.035
90918990|NCT02891915|181707826|SUPERIORITY|DOOR is a composite endpoint created using clinical outcomes from the first 5 days and at Outcome Assessment Visit #1 (OAV #1). It is based on adequate clinical response at OAV #1, solicited symptoms from first 5 days and number of days of antibiotics use for worsening pneumonia from the first 5 days of the study.|Pr (Higher DOOR in Short-Course)|0.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.75||Missing DOOR values at OAV #1 were first imputed using linear regression using baseline covariates and available DOOR components as covariates.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|The Mann-Whitney test was run on the multiple imputed datasets to generate estimates of DOOR probability and p-value||Null: the sum of the probability that a subject assigned to the 5-day arm will have a higher DOOR (higher DOOR is a lower value and is superior) than if assigned to the 10-day arm plus one-half the probability of equal DOORs is 50% (i.e., no difference in DOOR).||0.75|0.63|<0.001
90918991|NCT02891915|181707827|SUPERIORITY|Testing whether Short course is superior to Standard course based on DOOR at OAV #2|Pr (Higher DOOR in Short-Course)|0.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.69||Missing DOOR values at OAV #2 were first imputed using linear regression using baseline covariates and available DOOR components as covariates|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|The Mann-Whitney test was run on the multiple imputed datasets to generate estimates of DOOR probability and p-value.||Null: the sum of the probability that a subject assigned to the 5-day arm will have a higher DOOR (higher DOOR is a lower numerical value and is superior) than if assigned to the 10-day arm plus one-half the probability of equal DOORs is 50% (i.e., no difference in DOOR).||0.69|0.57|<0.001
90918992|NCT03725722|181707882|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||"P-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons. Models with adjusted p-value of \<0.025 were stat. sign. diff. from a flat dose-response model.~Model selected: Sigmoid Emax model"|Multiple contrast test|||The primary endpoint was evaluated by determining if there was a dose-response relationship between the change from baseline to Week 8 in EASI score and the dose administered using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) methodology. Several candidate parametric models were assumed and multiple comparison techniques were used to choose the model(s) likely to present the true underlying dose-response curve.||||<0.0001
90918993|NCT03725722|181707882|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.1|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|-1.3||The stat. test was not controlled for multiplicity. Data at visits following premature discont. of IMP or initiation of rescue med. were excluded from the analysis. Likewise for missing data due to COVID-19 pandemic.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Least square (LS) means were calculated using a mixed model response model (MMRM) on post-baseline responses up to Week 8 with an unstructured covariance matrix, Kenward-Roger approximation to estimate denominator degrees of freedom and the mean modelled as follows:~Change from baseline in EASI = treatment x visit + baseline EASI x visit + region + baseline vIGA-AD.~The primary comparison between each active delgocitinib dose and delgocitinib cream vehicle was at Week 8."||-1.3|-5.0|<0.01
90918994|NCT03725722|181707882|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|-1.2||The stat. test was not controlled for multiplicity. Data at visits following premature discont. of IMP or initiation of rescue med. were excluded from the analysis. Likewise for missing data due to COVID-19 pandemic.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Least square (LS) means were calculated using a mixed model response model (MMRM) on post-baseline responses up to Week 8 with an unstructured covariance matrix, Kenward-Roger approximation to estimate denominator degrees of freedom and the mean modelled as follows:~Change from baseline in EASI = treatment x visit + baseline EASI x visit + region + baseline vIGA-AD.~The primary comparison between each active delgocitinib dose and delgocitinib cream vehicle was at Week 8."||-1.2|-4.8|<0.05
90918995|NCT03725722|181707882|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|-2.1||The stat. test was not controlled for multiplicity. Data at visits following premature discont. of IMP or initiation of rescue med. were excluded from the analysis. Likewise for missing data due to COVID-19 pandemic.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Least square (LS) means were calculated using a mixed model response model (MMRM) on post-baseline responses up to Week 8 with an unstructured covariance matrix, Kenward-Roger approximation to estimate denominator degrees of freedom and the mean modelled as follows:~Change from baseline in EASI = treatment x visit + baseline EASI x visit + region + baseline vIGA-AD.~The primary comparison between each active delgocitinib dose and delgocitinib cream vehicle was at Week 8."||-2.1|-5.8|<0.0001
90940585|NCT00645099|181760940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|This test was interpreted at the 5% significance level (2-tailed).||Within-group change from baseline to end point.||||0.0001
90962118|NCT00954421|181804992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.1||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|14.5||Sign rank test was pre-planned for P-value|Sign-Rank test||p-value assessed using sign rank test|The null hypothesis is that difference in change in Tremor Rating Scale (TRS) score from baseline to 6 months when both stimulators are on (VIM and VO), versus when both stimulators are off, will be zero (i.e., that there will be no difference in effect between having both stimulators on versus both stimulators off)||14.5|2.2|0.011
90881112|NCT02566759|181625257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Ratio|2.563|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.1|3.1275||||||The point estimate and CI were obtained by taking the antilog of the difference in the log transformed LS Means.||3.1275|2.1000|
90881113|NCT02566759|181625258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|0.8505|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7925|0.9084|||Power model|||Dose proportionality was evaluated using the following power model: ln (PK Parameter) = a+b\*ln (dose), where a and b are the intercept and slope of the line, respectively. Dose proportionality was declared when the 90 % CI of the slope lies entirely within the critical region (0.9483, 1.0517) for the dose range of 10 mg to 750 mg.||0.9084|0.7925|<0.001
90881114|NCT02566759|181625258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|0.8415|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7618|0.9212|||Power model|||Dose proportionality was evaluated using the following power model: ln (PK Parameter) = a+b\*ln (dose), where a and b were the intercept and slope of the line, respectively. Dose proportionality was declared when the 90% CI of the slope lies entirely within the critical region (0.9139, 1.0861) for the dose range of 30 mg to 400 mg.||0.9212|0.7618|<0.001
90881115|NCT02566759|181625258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Ratio|0.543|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4797|0.6149||||||The point estimate and CI were obtained by taking the antilog of the difference in the log transformed LS Means.||0.6149|0.4797|
90881116|NCT02566759|181625258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Ratio|2.336|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.9592|2.7854||||||The point estimate and CI were obtained by taking the antilog of the difference in the log transformed LS Means.||2.7854|1.9592|
90881117|NCT01096784|181625260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0642||95.0|||||CMH Row Mean Score Test|||||||0.0642
90881118|NCT05107128|181625274|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square (LS) Means|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.1675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|0.5||The p-value was obtained from Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) model which includes treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction as categorical covariates, and SDMT score at baseline as a continuous covariate.|MMRM||Difference was calculated as SAGE-718 - placebo.|||0.5|-2.7|0.1675
90881119|NCT05107128|181625275|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.4872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.1||The p-value was obtained from MMRM model which includes treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction as categorical covariates, and UHDRS - Independence Scale at baseline as a continuous covariate.|MMRM||Difference was calculated as SAGE-718 - placebo.|||1.1|-2.4|0.4872
90881120|NCT05107128|181625276|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.04||0.4089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|6.9||The p-value was obtained from MMRM model which includes treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction as categorical covariates, and SDMT score at baseline as a continuous covariate.|MMRM||Difference was calculated as SAGE-718 - placebo.|||6.9|-17.0|0.4089
90881121|NCT05107128|181625277|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26||0.5766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|3.19||The p-value was obtained from MMRM model which includes treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction as categorical covariates, and a baseline value as a continuous covariate.|MMRM||Difference was calculated as SAGE-718 - placebo.|||3.19|-1.78|0.5766
90881122|NCT05107128|181625278|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.1777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|0.39||The p-value was obtained from MMRM model which includes treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction as categorical covariates, and baseline value as a continuous covariate.|MMRM||Difference was calculated as SAGE-718 - placebo.|||0.39|-2.13|0.1777
90881123|NCT05107128|181625279|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.76||0.0291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|7.3||The p-value was obtained from MMRM model which includes treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction as categorical covariates, and Hi-DEF at baseline as a continuous covariate.|MMRM||Difference was calculated as SAGE-718 - placebo.|||7.3|0.4|0.0291
90881124|NCT05107128|181625280|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.2923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1||The p-value was obtained from MMRM model which includes treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction as categorical covariates, and CGI at baseline as a continuous covariate.|MMRM||Difference was calculated as SAGE-718 - placebo.|||0.1|-0.3|0.2923
90881125|NCT03761628|181625282|OTHER|The clinical performance endpoint - Clinical cure rate on Day 7 - was calculated and presented together with a one-sided 95% CI based on the exact binomial distribution (Clopper-Pearson).|Clinical cure rate|40.9|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|23.3|||||||"It was assumed that the true cure rate was equal to 70%, therefore 22 patients were needed to obtain 90% chance (90% power) to show that the one-sided 95% CI for the observed cure rate was above 40%.~Hypotheses for the primary clinical performance endpoint:~* Null hypothesis: Clinical cure rate is less than or equal to 40%.~* Alternative hypothesis (one-sided): Clinical cure rate is above 40%."|||23.3|
90881126|NCT03761628|181625283|OTHER|Results are based on the exact binomial distribution (Clopper-Pearson).|Proportion with reduction|72.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.8|89.3||||||||89.3|49.8|
90881127|NCT03761628|181625285|OTHER|Results are based on the exact binomial distribution (Clopper-Pearson).|Recurrence rate Day 14|12.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|52.7||||||||52.7|0.3|
90881128|NCT03761628|181625285|OTHER|Results are based on the exact binomial distribution (Clopper-Pearson).|Recurrence rate Day 35|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|45.9||||||||45.9|0|
90881129|NCT05459129|181625297|SUPERIORITY||Difference in pCR Rates|33.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.23|99.9||||||||99.90|-33.23|
90881130|NCT05459129|181625298|SUPERIORITY||Difference in pRR|33.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.05|87.72||||||||87.72|-21.05|
90940586|NCT00645099|181760940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|This test was interpreted at the 5% significance level (2-tailed).||Within-group change from baseline to end point.||||< 0.0001
90940587|NCT00645099|181760941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|This test was interpreted at the 5% significance level (2-tailed).||||||<0.0001
90940588|NCT00645099|181760942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|This test was interpreted at the 5% significance level (2-tailed).||||||<0.0001
90940589|NCT00645099|181760943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|This test was interpreted at the 5% significance level (2-tailed).||||||0.0230
90918996|NCT03725722|181707882|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-5.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|-3.9||The stat. test was not controlled for multiplicity. Data at visits following premature discont. of IMP or initiation of rescue med. were excluded from the analysis. Likewise for missing data due to COVID-19 pandemic.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Least square (LS) means were calculated using a mixed model response model (MMRM) on post-baseline responses up to Week 8 with an unstructured covariance matrix, Kenward-Roger approximation to estimate denominator degrees of freedom and the mean modelled as follows:~Change from baseline in EASI = treatment x visit + baseline EASI x visit + region + baseline vIGA-AD.~The primary comparison between each active delgocitinib dose and delgocitinib cream vehicle was at Week 8."||-3.9|-7.5|<0.0001
90918997|NCT03725722|181707883|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Data collected after premature discont. of IMP due to COVID-19 were set to missing Week 8. Data collected after premature discont. of IMP due to reasons unrelated to COVID-19 or due to initiation of rescue med. were imputed as non-responders.|Multiple contrast test|"P-values adj. for multiple comparisons. Models with adj. p-value \<0.025 were stat. sign. diff. from a flat dose-response model.~Model: Linear model"||This endpoint was evaluated by determining if there was a dose-response relationship between the vIGA-AD response rate at Week 8 and the dose administered using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) methodology. Several candidate parametric models were assumed and multiple comparison techniques were used to choose the model(s) most likely to represent the true underlying dose-response.||||<0.0001
90881131|NCT05459129|181625299|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|3.91|||||HR was estimated by Cox regression. Due to the early termination of the study, the limited sample size and follow-up time no meaningful conclusions can be made in terms of median EFS per arm or HR between the arms.|||3.91|0.11|
90881132|NCT05459129|181625300|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|6.43|||||HR was estimated by Cox regression. Due to the early termination of the study, the limited sample size and follow-up time no meaningful conclusions can be made in terms of media RFS per arm or HR between the arms.|||6.43|0.13|
90881133|NCT05459129|181625302|SUPERIORITY||Difference in ORR|16.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.99|88.32||||||||88.32|-54.99|
90881134|NCT05459129|181625303|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|16.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.42|64.75|||||Due to the early termination of the study, the limited sample size and follow-up time no meaningful conclusions can be made.|3 Months Analysis||64.75|-31.42|
90881135|NCT05459129|181625303|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.34|53.34|||||Due to the early termination of the study, the limited sample size and follow-up time no meaningful conclusions can be made.|6 Months Analysis||53.34|-53.34|
90881136|NCT05459129|181625304|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|-13.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.83|38.16|||||Due to the early termination of the study, the limited sample size and follow-up time no meaningful conclusions can be made|3 Months Analysis||38.16|-64.83|
90881137|NCT05459129|181625304|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|6.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.49|63.82|||||Due to the early termination of the study, the limited sample size and follow-up time no meaningful conclusions can be made|6 Months Analysis||63.82|-50.49|
90881138|NCT02775344|181625356|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.0||||0.198|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.198
90881139|NCT02775344|181625357|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.393|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.393
90881140|NCT03909165|181625372|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.56|1.21||||||2 mg/kg AUC0-inf Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR) = Birth to 27 days AUC0-inf Geometric Mean (GM) / 28 days to \< 3 months AUC0-inf GM.||1.21|0.56|
90881141|NCT03909165|181625372|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.41|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.98||||||2 mg/kg AUC0-inf GMR = 28 days to \< 3 months AUC0-inf GM / 3 to \< 6 months AUC0-inf GM.||1.98|1.00|
90881142|NCT03909165|181625372|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6|1.11||||||2 mg/kg AUC0-inf GMR = 3 to \< 6 months AUC0-inf GM / 6 months to \< 2 years AUC0-inf GM.||1.11|0.60|
90881143|NCT03909165|181625372|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.56||||||4 mg/kg AUC0-inf GMR = Birth to 27 days AUC0-inf GM / 28 days to \< 3 months AUC0-inf GM.||1.56|0.96|
90881144|NCT03909165|181625372|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.03|1.62||||||4 mg/kg AUC0-inf GMR = 28 days to \< 3 months AUC0-inf GM / 3 to \< 6 months AUC0-inf GM.||1.62|1.03|
90881145|NCT03909165|181625372|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7|1.13||||||4 mg/kg AUC0-inf GMR = 3 to \< 6 months AUC0-inf GM / 6 months to \< 2 years AUC0-inf GM.||1.13|0.70|
90881146|NCT03909165|181625373|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.67|1.23||||||2 mg/kg AUC0-1hr GMR = Birth to 27 days AUC0-1hr GM / 28 days to \< 3 months AUC0-1hr GM.||1.23|0.67|
90881147|NCT03909165|181625373|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.69||||||2 mg/kg AUC0-1hr GMR = 28 days to \< 3 months AUC0-1hr GM / 3 to \< 6 months AUC0-1hr GM.||1.69|0.92|
90881148|NCT03909165|181625373|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.64|1.08||||||2 mg/kg AUC0-1hr GMR = 3 to \< 6 months AUC0-1hr GM / 6 months to \< 2 years AUC0-1hr GM.||1.08|0.64|
90881149|NCT03909165|181625373|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7|1.06||||||4 mg/kg AUC0-1hr GMR = Birth to 27 days AUC0-1hr GM / 28 days to \< 3 months AUC0-1hr GM.||1.06|0.70|
90881150|NCT03909165|181625373|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.89|1.29||||||4 mg/kg AUC0-1hr GMR = 28 days to \< 3 months AUC0-1hr GM / 3 to \< 6 months AUC0-1hr GM.||1.29|0.89|
90881151|NCT03909165|181625373|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|1.17||||||4 mg/kg AUC0-1hr GMR = 3 to \< 6 months AUC0-1hr GM / 6 months to \< 2 years AUC0-1hr GM.||1.17|0.80|
90918998|NCT03725722|181707883|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.2|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|21.9||Data collected after premature discont. of IMP due to COVID-19 were set to missing Week 8. Data collected after premature discont. of IMP due to reasons unrelated to COVID-19 or due to initiation of rescue med. were imputed as non-responders.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The difference in response rates between the active delgocitinib cream doses and delgocitinib cream vehicle was analysed separately for each of the active dose groups using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and disease severity (baseline vIGA-AD score). The null hypothesis of no difference in response rates between the delgocitinib cream active doses and delgocitinib cream vehicle was tested against the 2-sided alternative test that there is a difference.||21.9|-5.6|>0.05
90918999|NCT03725722|181707883|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|19.3|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|34.6||Data collected after premature discont. of IMP due to COVID-19 were set to missing Week 8. Data collected after premature discont. of IMP due to reasons unrelated to COVID-19 or due to initiation of rescue med. were imputed as non-responders.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The difference in response rates between the active delgocitinib cream doses and delgocitinib cream vehicle was analysed separately for each of the active dose groups using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and disease severity (baseline vIGA-AD score). The null hypothesis of no difference in response rates between the delgocitinib cream active doses and delgocitinib cream vehicle was tested against the 2-sided alternative test that there is a difference.||34.6|3.9|<0.05
90919000|NCT03725722|181707883|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.3|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.4|35.2||Data collected after premature discont. of IMP due to COVID-19 were set to missing Week 8. Data collected after premature discont. of IMP due to reasons unrelated to COVID-19 or due to initiation of rescue med. were imputed as non-responders.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The difference in response rates between the active delgocitinib cream doses and delgocitinib cream vehicle was analysed separately for each of the active dose groups using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and disease severity (baseline vIGA-AD score). The null hypothesis of no difference in response rates between the delgocitinib cream active doses and delgocitinib cream vehicle was tested against the 2-sided alternative test that there is a difference||35.2|5.4|<0.05
90881152|NCT03909165|181625375|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.61|1.4||||||2 mg/kg Cmax GMR = Birth to 27 days Cmax GM / 28 days to \< 3 months Cmax GM.||1.40|0.61|
90881153|NCT03909165|181625375|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7|1.7||||||2 mg/kg Cmax GMR = 28 days to \< 3 months Cmax GM / 3 to \< 6 months Cmax GM.||1.70|0.70|
90881154|NCT03909165|181625375|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.63|1.36||||||2 mg/kg Cmax GMR = 3 to \< 6 months Cmax GM / 6 months to \< 2 years Cmax GM.||1.36|0.63|
90881155|NCT03909165|181625375|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7|1.26||||||4 mg/kg Cmax GMR = Birth to 27 days Cmax GM / 28 days to \< 3 months Cmax GM.||1.26|0.70|
90881156|NCT03909165|181625375|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.52|0.89||||||4 mg/kg Cmax GMR = 28 days to \< 3 months Cmax GM / 3 to \< 6 months Cmax GM.||0.89|0.52|
90881157|NCT03909165|181625375|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|1.43||||||4 mg/kg AUC0-1hr GMR = 3 to \< 6 months Cmax GM / 6 months to \< 2 years Cmax GM.||1.43|0.83|
90881158|NCT03909165|181625380|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.4|||=|0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|4.18||Two-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by neuromuscular blocking agent and age groups.|Log Rank|||The Hazard Ratio (HR) for the pairwise comparison of Sugammadex 2 mg/kg vs. Neostigmine + (Glycopyrrolate or Atropine) was based on a Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with covariates of treatment, age (continuous) and stratified by neuromuscular blocking agent.||4.18|1.37|= 0.0002
90881159|NCT03909165|181625381|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|7.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.2|29.5||||||The difference in percentage of participants with an AE in sugammadex 2 mg/kg group versus the Neostigmine + (Glycopyrrolate or Atropine) group was based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by neuromuscular blocking agent and age group.||29.5|-14.2|
90881160|NCT03909165|181625381|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|26.7||||||The difference in percentage of participants with an AE in sugammadex 4 mg/kg group versus the Neostigmine + (Glycopyrrolate or Atropine) group was based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by neuromuscular blocking agent and age group.||26.7|-13.5|
90881161|NCT06034496|181625383|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012||||||CES main effect|ANOVA|||||||.012
90881162|NCT06034496|181625383|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33||||||Session main effect|ANOVA|||||||.33
90881163|NCT06034496|181625383|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85||||||Session (baseline, follow-up) x CES|ANOVA|||||||.85
90881164|NCT06034496|181625384|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6||||||CES main effect|ANOVA|||||||.6
90881165|NCT06034496|181625384|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9||||||Session main effect|ANOVA|||||||.9
90881166|NCT06034496|181625384|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||CES x Session interaction|ANOVA|||||||.05
90881167|NCT06034496|181625385|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26||||||CES main effect|ANOVA|||||||.26
90881168|NCT06034496|181625385|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17||||||Session main effect|ANOVA|||||||.17
90881169|NCT06034496|181625385|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73||||||CES x Session main effect|ANOVA|||||||.73
90881170|NCT06034496|181625386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18||||||CES main effect|ANOVA|||||||.18
90881171|NCT06034496|181625386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||Time main effect|ANOVA|||||||.00
90881172|NCT06034496|181625386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53||||||CES main effect|ANOVA|||||||.53
90881173|NCT06034496|181625386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07||||||CES x Time interaction|ANOVA|||||||.07
90881174|NCT06034496|181625386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46||||||CES x Session|ANOVA|||||||.46
90881175|NCT06034496|181625386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||Time x Session interaction|ANOVA|||||||.01
90881176|NCT06034496|181625386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29||||||CES x Time x Session interaction|ANOVA|||||||.29
90881177|NCT06034496|181625387|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1||||||CES main effect|ANOVA|||||||.10
90881178|NCT06034496|181625387|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||Time main effect|ANOVA|||||||.00
90881179|NCT06034496|181625387|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81||||||Session main effect|ANOVA|||||||.81
90881180|NCT06034496|181625387|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4||||||CES x Time interaction|ANOVA|||||||.40
90919001|NCT03725722|181707883|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|38.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.3|54.3||Data collected after premature discont. of IMP due to COVID-19 were set to missing Week 8. Data collected after premature discont. of IMP due to reasons unrelated to COVID-19 or due to initiation of rescue med. were imputed as non-responders.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The difference in response rates between the active delgocitinib cream doses and delgocitinib cream vehicle was analysed separately for each of the active dose groups using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and disease severity (baseline vIGA-AD score). The null hypothesis of no difference in response rates between the delgocitinib cream active doses and delgocitinib cream vehicle was tested against the 2-sided alternative test that there is a difference||54.3|22.3|<0.0001
90919002|NCT03725722|181707884|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Data collected after premature discont. of IMP due to COVID-19 were set to missing Week 8. Data collected after premature discont. of IMP due to reasons unrelated to COVID-19 or due to initiation of rescue med. were imputed as non-responders.|Multiple contrast test|"P-values were adj. for multiple comparisons. Models with adj. p-value \<0.025 were stat. sign. diff. from a flat dose-response model.~Model:Emax model"||This endpoint was evaluated by determining if there was a dose-response relationship between EASI75 at Week 8 and the dose administered using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) methodology. Several candidate parametric models were assumed and multiple comparison techniques were used to choose the model(s) most likely to represent the true underlying dose-response||||<0.0001
90919003|NCT03725722|181707884|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|19.7|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|37.6||Data collected after premature discont. of IMP due to COVID-19 were set to missing Week 8. Data collected after premature discont. of IMP due to reasons unrelated to COVID-19 or due to initiation of rescue med. were imputed as non-responders.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The difference in response rates between the active delgocitinib cream doses and delgocitinib cream vehicle was analysed separately for each of the active dose groups using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and disease severity (baseline vIGA-AD score). The null hypothesis of no difference in response rates between the delgocitinib cream active doses and delgocitinib cream vehicle was tested against the 2-sided alternative test that there is a difference||37.6|1.8|<0.05
90962119|NCT00954421|181804992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.73|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.49||0.68||95.0|-4.96|6.42|||two-sided sign rank test|two sided sign rank test as pre-planned||The null hypothesis is that difference in change in Tremor Rating Scale (TRS) score from baseline to 6 months when VO is on and VIM is off, versus when VIM is on and VO is off, will be zero (i.e., that there will be no difference in effect between having exclusively VIM versus VO on)||6.42|-4.96|.68
90962120|NCT02979925|181804993|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.246|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.246
90962121|NCT02979925|181804994|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.651|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.651
90962122|NCT02979925|181804995|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.902|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.902
90962123|NCT00883051|181805009|OTHER|A hierarchical test procedure was applied only for analysis of the primary efficacy endpoint.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Armitage test for trend|||||||<0.0001
90962124|NCT00883051|181805010|OTHER|A hierarchical test procedure was applied only for analysis of the primary efficacy endpoint.|||||=|0.0006|||||||Cochran-Armitage test for trend]|||||||=0.0006
90962125|NCT04223856|181805035|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.45|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.377|0.538||P value was calculated using stratified log-rank test. The p-value threshold for statistical significance is 0.005.|Log Rank||HR was calculated using stratified Cox proportional hazards model.|||0.538|0.377|<0.00001
90962126|NCT04223856|181805036|SUPERIORITY|P value was calculated using stratified log-rank test. The p-value threshold for statistical significance is 0.01548.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.468|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.376|0.582|||Log Rank||HR was calculated using stratified Cox proportional hazards model.|||0.582|0.376|<0.00001
90962127|NCT03454828|181805058|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.118||||0.399|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.399
90962128|NCT06515483|181805059|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.079||||0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.095|0.254||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Comparing baseline PLI between groups|Due to non-normally distributed data, differences in each index between the experimental and control groups at baseline were compared using non-parametric Wilcoxon Rank Sum tests.||0.254|-0.095|0.323
90962129|NCT06515483|181805059|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.036||||0.371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.156|0.084||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Comparing 30-day PLI between groups|Due to non-normally distributed data, differences in each index between the experimental and control groups at 30 days were compared using non-parametric Wilcoxon Rank Sum tests.||0.084|-0.156|0.371
90962130|NCT06515483|181805059|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.115||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.262|0.031||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Comparing the mean difference in PLI from baseline to 30 days between groups|||0.031|-0.262|0.120
90962131|NCT06515483|181805060|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.078||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.048|0.204||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Comparing baseline MGI between groups|Due to non-normally distributed data, differences in each index between the experimental and control groups at baseline were compared using non-parametric Wilcoxon Rank Sum tests.||0.204|-0.048|0.270
90962132|NCT06515483|181805060|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.085||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.203|0.033||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Comparing 30-day MGI between groups|Due to non-normally distributed data, differences in each index between the experimental and control groups at 30 days were compared using non-parametric Wilcoxon Rank Sum tests.||0.033|-0.203|0.071
90962133|NCT06515483|181805060|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.163|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.249|-0.077|||t-test, 2 sided||Comparing the mean difference in MGI from baseline to 30 days between groups|||-0.077|-0.249|<0.001
90962134|NCT06515483|181805061|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31||||0.902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.23|6.85||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Comparing baseline BOMP between groups|Due to non-normally distributed data, differences in each index between the experimental and control groups at baseline were compared using non-parametric Wilcoxon Rank Sum tests.||6.85|-6.23|0.902
90962135|NCT06515483|181805061|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.22||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.46|0.02||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Comparing 30-day BOMP between groups|Due to non-normally distributed data, differences in each index between the experimental and control groups at 30 days were compared using non-parametric Wilcoxon Rank Sum tests.||0.02|-16.46|0.006
90962136|NCT06515483|181805061|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.53||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.31|-0.75||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Comparing the mean difference in BOMP from baseline to 30 days between groups|||-0.75|-16.31|0.032
90962137|NCT05104476|181805073|SUPERIORITY||Bayesian Progression Model|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.13|||||Reported here is the estimated effect parameter from the Bayesian Progression Model and the associated Credibility Interval for the active arm.|||1.13|0.56|
90962138|NCT03865940|181805092|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.374|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||P-values less than 0.05 considered significant.|Regression, Cox|Testing null hypothesis that guanfacine has no effect on time from injection to return to baseline.||||||0.374
90962139|NCT03865940|181805093|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-values less than 0.05 considered significant.|Regression, Logistic|Analysis adjusted for pre-injection score and accounted for repeated measures. Effect of study drug was tested using a four degree-of-freedom test.||||||<0.001
90962140|NCT03865940|181805094|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.775|||||||Regression, Linear|The analysis adjusted for pre-injection score and accounted for repeat measures.The results of the analyses tested using a two degree-of-freedom test.||||||0.775
90881181|NCT06034496|181625387|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35||||||CES x Session interaction|ANOVA|||||||.35
90881182|NCT06034496|181625387|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||Time x Session interaction|ANOVA|||||||.00
90881183|NCT06034496|181625387|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4||||||CES x Time x Session interaction|ANOVA|||||||.40
90881184|NCT06034496|181625388|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23||||||STAI-T CES main effect|ANOVA|||||||.23
90881185|NCT06034496|181625388|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45||||||STAI-T Session main effect|ANOVA|||||||.45
90881186|NCT06034496|181625388|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38||||||STAI-T CES x Session interaction|ANOVA|||||||.38
90881187|NCT06034496|181625388|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4||||||STAI-S CES main effect|ANOVA|||||||.40
90881188|NCT06034496|181625388|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||STAI-S Time main effect|ANOVA|||||||.00
90881189|NCT06034496|181625388|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||STAI-S Session main effect|ANOVA|||||||.00
90881190|NCT06034496|181625388|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2||||||STAI-S CES x Time interaction|ANOVA|||||||.20
90881191|NCT06034496|181625388|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39||||||STAI-S CES x Session interaction|ANOVA|||||||.39
90881192|NCT06034496|181625388|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||STAI-S Session x Time interaction|ANOVA|||||||.00
90881193|NCT06034496|181625388|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38||||||STAI-S CES x Time x Session interaction|ANOVA|||||||.38
90881194|NCT06034496|181625389|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85||||||CES main effect|ANOVA|||||||.85
90881195|NCT06034496|181625389|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69||||||Session main effect|ANOVA|||||||.69
90881196|NCT06034496|181625389|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4||||||CES x Session interaction|ANOVA|||||||.4
90881197|NCT06034496|181625390|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13||||||CES main effect|ANOVA|||||||.13
90881198|NCT06034496|181625390|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26||||||Session main effect|ANOVA|||||||.26
90881199|NCT06034496|181625390|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44||||||CES x Session interaction|ANOVA|||||||.44
90881200|NCT06034496|181625391|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36||||||CES main effect|ANOVA|||||||.36
90881201|NCT06034496|181625391|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||Session main effect|ANOVA|||||||.00
90881202|NCT06034496|181625391|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96||||||CES x Session interaction|ANOVA|||||||.96
90881203|NCT03277261|181625420|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio (Ublituximab/Teriflunomide)|0.406|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.268|0.615||GEE (Generalized Estimating Equation) model for the relapse count per participant with logarithmic link function, treatment, region, and baseline Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) strata as covariates and log (years of treatment) as offset.|Negative Binomial Model|||||0.615|0.268|<0.0001
90881204|NCT03277261|181625421|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio (Ublituximab/Teriflunomide)|0.033|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.019|0.058||GEE model for the relapse count per participant with logarithmic link function, treatment, region, and baseline EDSS strata as covariates and log (years of treatment) as offset.|Negative Binomial Model|||||0.058|0.019|<0.0001
90881205|NCT03277261|181625422|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio (Ublituximab/Teriflunomide)|0.076|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.056|0.104||GEE model for the relapse count per participant with logarithmic link function, treatment, region, and baseline EDSS strata as covariates and log (years of treatment) as offset.|Negative Binomial Model|||||0.104|0.056|<0.0001
90881206|NCT03277261|181625424|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (Ublituximab/Teriflunomide)|5.442|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.536|8.375||Logistic regression model with treatment, region, baseline EDSS strata and log transformed baseline MRI lesion counts (T1 unenhancing, T2, Gd enhancing) as covariates.|Regression, Logistic|||||8.375|3.536|<0.0001
90881207|NCT03277261|181625425|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (Ublituximab/Teriflunomide)|0.872|||=|0.4669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.603|1.261||Logistic regression model with treatment, region, baseline EDSS strata, and log-transformed baseline MRI counts (T1 unenhancing, T2, Gd enhancing) as covariates.|Logistic Regression|||||1.261|0.603|=0.4669
90881208|NCT03277261|181625426|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.072|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.107|-0.036||The model includes treatment, region, baseline EDSS strata, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline volume (cube root transformed) as covariates and an unstructured covariance matrix.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||-0.036|-0.107|<0.0001
90962141|NCT03865940|181805095|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.099|||||||Regression, Linear|The analysis adjusted for pre-injection score and accounted for repeat measures.The results of the analyses tested using a two degree-of-freedom test.||||||0.099
90962142|NCT03865940|181805096|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.907|||||||Proportional Odds Regression|The analysis was not adjusted for baseline factors.||||||0.907
90962143|NCT03865940|181805097|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.373|||||||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for use of pain medication at baseline||||||0.373
90962144|NCT00992511|181805100|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for non-inferiority: upper limit (UL) of the two-sided 95% Confidence Interval (CI) for the ratio of GMT between the initial process-manufactured vaccine (GSK2340272A INI 2D Group) and (over) new process-manufactured vaccine (GSK2340272A NEW 2D Group) was less than or equal to (≤) 2.|Adjusted GMT ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.46||||||To evaluate the immunological non-inferiority (in terms of vaccine-homologous virus H1N1 Haemagglutinin Inhibition \[HI\] antibody geometric mean titres \[GMTs\]) of the new process-manufactured A/California/7/2009 (H1N1)v-like antigen compared to the initial process-manufactured A/California/7/2009 (H1N1)v-like antigen, 21 days after first vaccination in healthy subjects aged 18 to 60 years.||1.46|0.77|
90881209|NCT03762083|181625428|OTHER|The clinical performance endpoint - Clinical cure rate on Day 7 - was calculated and presented together with a one-sided 95% CI based on the exact binomial distribution (Clopper-Pearson).|Clinical cure rate|81.9|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|63.1|||||||"It was assumed that the true cure rate was equal to 70%, therefore 22 patients were needed to obtain 90% chance (90% power) to show that the one-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the observed cure rate was above 40%.~Hypotheses for the primary clinical performance endpoint:~* Null hypothesis: Clinical cure rate is less than or equal to 40%.~* Alternative hypothesis (one-sided): Clinical cure rate is above 40%."|||63.1|
90881210|NCT03762083|181625429|OTHER|Results are based on the exact binomial distribution (Clopper-Pearson).|Prop. negative for Amsel criterion 1.|85.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.7|97.0||||||||97.0|63.7|
90881211|NCT03762083|181625430|OTHER|Results are based on the exact binomial distribution (Clopper-Pearson).|Prop. negative for Amsel criterion 2.|90.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.3|98.8||||||||98.8|68.3|
90881212|NCT03762083|181625431|OTHER|Results are based on the exact binomial distribution (Clopper-Pearson).|Prop. negative for Amsel criterion 3.|86.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.1|97.1||||||||97.1|65.1|
90881213|NCT03762083|181625433|OTHER|Results are based on the exact binomial distribution (Clopper-Pearson).|Recurrence rate Day 14|5.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|27.3||||||||27.3|0.1|
90881214|NCT03762083|181625433|OTHER|Results are based on the exact binomial distribution (Clopper-Pearson).|Recurrence rate Day 35|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|20.6||||||||20.6|0|
90881215|NCT01203072|181625434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Significance level for Cochran-Armitage test and comparison using Shirley-Williams method was set at one-sided, 0.025. For other tests, significance level and confidence coefficient were set at two-sided, 0.05 and 0.95, respectively, unless specified|Cochran-Armitage|||As the primary analysis, the dose-response relationship in the incidence of thromboembolic event was verified using the Cochran-Armitage test.||||<0.001
90881216|NCT00559962|181625561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|7.07|||ANOVA|||One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) to compare the absolute change from baseline to Week 12 in percent hepatic fat between AEGR-755 5 mg and placebo.||7.07|2.30|<0.001
90881217|NCT00559962|181625562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.27|7.57||(All comparisons)|ANOVA|||One-way ANOVA to compare the absolute change from baseline to Week 12 in percent hepatic fat between active treatment groups and placebo||7.57|2.27|<0.001
90881218|NCT00559962|181625562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|7.07||(All comparisons)|ANOVA|||||7.07|2.30|<0.001
90881219|NCT00559962|181625562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.73|6.1||(All comparisons)|ANOVA|||One-way ANOVA to compare the absolute change from baseline to Week 12 in percent hepatic fat between active treatment groups and placebo||6.10|1.73|<0.001
90881220|NCT00559962|181625562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.31|11.33||(All comparisons)|ANOVA|||||11.33|4.31|<0.001
90881221|NCT00559962|181625562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|5.72||(All comparisons)|ANOVA|||One-way ANOVA to compare the absolute change from baseline to Week 12 in percent hepatic fat between active treatment groups and placebo||5.72|1.58|<0.001
90881222|NCT00559962|181625562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.22|11.11||(All comparisons)|ANOVA|||One-way ANOVA to compare the absolute change from baseline to Week 12 in percent hepatic fat between active treatment groups and placebo||11.11|4.22|<0.001
90881223|NCT00559962|181625562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.16|9.86||(All comparisons)|ANOVA|||One-way ANOVA to compare the absolute change from baseline to Week 12 in percent hepatic fat between active treatment groups and placebo||9.86|5.16|<0.001
90881224|NCT04382911|181625596|EQUIVALENCE|A 2x2 table was constructed among all patients with histopathologically identified endometriosis (true positive) to compare sensitivity for FES PET/MRI versus sensitivity of conventional MRI.||||||0.317|||||||McNemar|||||||0.317
90881225|NCT04382911|181625599|OTHER|A random effects linear regression model, modeling SUV-max as a function of the pain rating, while controlling for patient-level covariates (BMI, race, age) was performed. The investigators included physician as a random effect to account for physician-level correlation.|Slope|0.748||||0.24|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's Correlation Coefficient|||||||0.24
90881226|NCT04382911|181625599|OTHER|The investigators will implement a random effects linear regression model, modeling SUV-max as a function of EHP-30, while controlling for patient-level covariates (BMI, race, age). The investigators will include physician as a random effect to account for physician-level correlation.|Slope|0.406||||0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.13
90881227|NCT02161718|181625603|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.251||0.746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.56|||Log Rank|||||1.56|0.53|0.746
90881228|NCT02161718|181625604|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.37|||Andersen-Gill Recurrent-Event Cox Model|||||1.37|0.43|0.372
90881229|NCT02161718|181625605|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.73|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.73|0.56|0.963
90881230|NCT02350309|181625632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.15||||0.0262|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|||The mixed model included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline (predose) measurement as a covariate, and participant nested within treatment sequence as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis||||||-2.12|0.0262
91034054|NCT02246166|181954000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|0.86|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model with factors for treatment group and study site and baseline TSS score as a covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus the second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatme|||0.86|-1.23|0.7210
90919004|NCT03725722|181707884|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|23.5|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.8|41.2||Data collected after premature discont. of IMP due to COVID-19 were set to missing Week 8. Data collected after premature discont. of IMP due to reasons unrelated to COVID-19 or due to initiation of rescue med. were imputed as non-responders.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The difference in response rates between the active delgocitinib cream doses and delgocitinib cream vehicle was analysed separately for each of the active dose groups using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and disease severity (baseline vIGA-AD score). The null hypothesis of no difference in response rates between the delgocitinib cream active doses and delgocitinib cream vehicle was tested against the 2-sided alternative test that there is a difference||41.2|5.8|<0.05
90919005|NCT03725722|181707884|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|35.3|||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.5|53.2||Data collected after premature discont. of IMP due to COVID-19 were set to missing Week 8. Data collected after premature discont. of IMP due to reasons unrelated to COVID-19 or due to initiation of rescue med. were imputed as non-responders.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The difference in response rates between the active delgocitinib cream doses and delgocitinib cream vehicle was analysed separately for each of the active dose groups using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and disease severity (baseline vIGA-AD score). The null hypothesis of no difference in response rates between the delgocitinib cream active doses and delgocitinib cream vehicle was tested against the 2-sided alternative test that there is a difference||53.2|17.5|<0.0005
90962145|NCT00992511|181805100|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for non-inferiority: upper limit (UL) of the two-sided 95% Confidence Interval (CI) for the ratio of GMT between the initial process-manufactured vaccine (GSK2340272A INI 2D Group) and (over) new process-manufactured vaccine (GSK2340272A NEW 2D Group) was less than or equal to (≤) 2.|Adjusted GMT ratio|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.61||||||To evaluate the immunological non-inferiority (in terms of vaccine-homologous virus H1N1 Haemagglutinin Inhibition \[HI\] antibody geometric mean titres \[GMTs\]) of the new process-manufactured A/California/7/2009 (H1N1)v-like antigen compared to the initial process-manufactured A/California/7/2009 (H1N1)v-like antigen, 21 days after first vaccination in healthy subjects aged 18 to 60 years.||1.61|0.86|
90962146|NCT01176968|181805121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.581|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.446|0.756||All analyses for primary endpoint were tested at two-sided, α-level of 0.05, without adjusting for multiplicity.|Regression, Cox|||Hazard ratio, 95% confidence interval (CI) of hazard ratio, and p-value for the Primary Analysis based on a Cox proportional hazard model with treatment as the major factor, adjusted for baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), with/without previous MI, time of first dose administered post onset of index symptom, and location of index MI anterior or non-anterior.||0.756|0.446|< 0.0001
90962147|NCT01176968|181805122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.562||||0.6406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|6.308|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard ratio, 95% CI of hazard ratio, p-value for all secondary endpoints based on Cox proportional hazard model with treatment as the major factor, adjusted for baseline eGFR, with/without previous MI, index MI location, time of first dose administered post onset of index symptom.||6.308|0.050|0.6406
90962148|NCT01176968|181805123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.726||||0.5338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.265|1.99|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard ratio, 95% CI of hazard ratio, p-value for all secondary endpoints based on Cox proportional hazard model with treatment as a factor, adjusted for baseline eGFR, with/without previous MI, index MI location, time of first dose administered post onset of index symptom.||1.990|0.265|0.5338
90962149|NCT01176968|181805125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.083||||0.8042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.575|2.04|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard ratio, 95% CI of hazard ratio, p-value for all secondary endpoints based on Cox proportional hazard model with treatment as the major factor, adjusted for baseline eGFR, with/without previous MI, index MI location, time of first dose administered post onset of index symptom.||2.040|0.575|0.8042
91034055|NCT02246166|181954001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||0.7445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|1.49|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model with factors for treatment group and study site and baseline TSS score as a covariate.||||1.49|-1.07|0.7445
90962150|NCT01176968|181805126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.598||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.452|0.791|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard ratio, 95% CI of hazard ratio, p-value for all secondary endpoints based on Cox proportional hazard model with treatment as a factor, adjusted for baseline eGFR, with/without previous MI, index MI location, time of first dose administered post onset of index symptom.||0.791|0.452|0.0003
90962151|NCT01176968|181805127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.069||||0.9353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.213|5.371|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard ratio, 95% CI of hazard ratio, p-value for all secondary endpoints based on Cox proportional hazard model with treatment as a factor, adjusted for baseline eGFR, with/without previous MI, index MI location, time of first dose administered post onset of index symptom.||5.371|0.213|0.9353
90962152|NCT01176968|181805128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.6||||0.3757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.566|4.525|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard ratio, 95% CI of hazard ratio, p-value for all secondary endpoints based on Cox proportional hazard model with treatment as the major factor, adjusted for baseline eGFR, with/without previous MI, index MI location, time of first dose administered post onset of index symptom.||4.525|0.566|0.3757
91034056|NCT02246166|181954002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23||||0.7662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|1.78|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model with factors for treatment group and study site and baseline TSS score as a covariate||||1.78|-1.32|0.7662
90881231|NCT02350309|181625632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.48|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-4.46|||The mixed model included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline (predose) measurement as a covariate, and participant nested within treatment sequence as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis||||||-4.46|<0.0001
90919006|NCT03725722|181707884|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|45.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.1|62.8||Data collected after premature discont. of IMP due to COVID-19 were set to missing Week 8. Data collected after premature discont. of IMP due to reasons unrelated to COVID-19 or due to initiation of rescue med. were imputed as non-responders.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The difference in response rates between the active delgocitinib cream doses and delgocitinib cream vehicle was analysed separately for each of the active dose groups using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and disease severity (baseline vIGA-AD score). The null hypothesis of no difference in response rates between the delgocitinib cream active doses and delgocitinib cream vehicle was tested against the 2-sided alternative test that there is a difference||62.8|28.1|<0.0001
90919007|NCT03725722|181707885|OTHER|Treatment groups were compared using a 2-sided log-rank test stratified by region and baseline vIGA-AD score. An event was defined as the first time achieving vIGA-AD.|||||>|0.05||||||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Log Rank|||Time to vIGA-AD TS was def. as time from date of first IMP applic. to first assess. of vIGA-AD TS. Subjects without baseline observation were censored at date of first IMP applic. Subjects with baseline observation not achieving vIGA-AD TS during treatment period were censored at date of last visit with a valid post-baseline assess. on or prior to date of discont. of IMP or initiation of rescue med, whichever occurred first. Subjects affected by COVID-19 pandemic were handled in the same manner.||||>0.05
90919008|NCT03725722|181707885|OTHER|Treatment groups were compared using a 2-sided log-rank test stratified by region and baseline vIGA-AD score. An event was defined as the first time achieving vIGA-AD.|||||>|0.05||||||"vIGA-AD was reached in less than 50% of participants, therefore the median time was not estimable.~The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity."|Log Rank|||Time to vIGA-AD TS was def. as time from date of first IMP applic. to first assess. of vIGA-AD TS. Subjects without baseline observation were censored at date of first IMP applic. Subjects with baseline observation not achieving vIGA-AD TS during treatment period were censored at date of last visit with a valid post-baseline assess. on or prior to date of discont. of IMP or initiation of rescue med, whichever occurred first. Subjects affected by COVID-19 pandemic were handled in the same manner.||||>0.05
90962153|NCT01176968|181805129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.45||||0.1744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.55|0.65|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model was used with observed value as the dependent variable, treatment as a major factor, and baseline QRS duration, baseline eGFR, with/without previous MI, time (in hours) of first dose administered post onset of index symptom, and location of index MI (anterior versus all other locations) as covariates.||0.65|-3.55|0.1744
90962154|NCT01176968|181805130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.7123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.14||ANCOVA was used for between-treatment comparisons of the LSMeans, 95% CI of LSMEANS, LSMeans difference, 95% CI of LSMeans difference, and p-value with observed value at the given time point as variable.|ANCOVA|||For the Between-Treatment difference for Eplerenone and Placebo groups of observed value taken at Month 6 visit, ANCOVA model was performed for LAD based on the LOCF method including treatment groups with/without adjustments for baseline eGFR (in mL/min/1.73 m2), previous MI (yes/no), time (in hours) of first dose administered post-onset of symptom, index MI location (anterior versus all others) as covariates.||0.14|-0.10|0.7123
90962155|NCT01176968|181805130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.4105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.13||ANCOVA was used for between-treatment comparisons of the LSMeans, 95% CI of LSMEANS, LSMeans difference, 95% CI of LSMeans difference, and p-value with observed value at the given time point as variable.|ANCOVA|||For the Between-Treatment difference for Eplerenone and Placebo groups of observed value taken at Month 6 visit, ANCOVA model was performed for LAD based on the LOCF method including treatment groups with/without adjustments for baseline eGFR (in mL/min/1.73 m2), previous MI (yes/no), time (in hours) of first dose administered post-onset of symptom, index MI location (anterior versus all others) as covariates.||0.13|-0.05|0.4105
90962156|NCT01176968|181805131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|||For Biomarker- Aldosterone, signed rank test for change from baseline at Month 6 within treatment difference was used to derive p-value.||||< 0.0001
90962157|NCT01176968|181805131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.5552|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|||For Biomarker- Aldosterone, signed rank test for change from baseline at Month 6 within treatment difference was used to derive p-value.||||< 0.5552
90962158|NCT01176968|181805131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test|||For Biomarker- Aldosterone, Wilconxon rank-sum test for between treatment difference at Month 6 was used to derive p-value.||||< 0.0001
90962159|NCT01176968|181805131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|||For Biomarker- Serum Cortisol, signed rank test for change from baseline at Month 6 within treatment difference was used to derive p-value.||||< 0.0001
90962160|NCT01176968|181805131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|||For Biomarker- Serum Cortisol, signed rank test for change from baseline at Month 6 within treatment difference was used to derive p-value.||||< 0.0001
90881232|NCT02350309|181625633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0215||||||P-value was calculated based on non-missing two-way contingency table between placebo and study treatment.|McNemar|||||||0.0215
90881233|NCT02350309|181625633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated based on non-missing two-way contingency table between placebo and study treatment.|McNemar|||||||<0.0001
90962161|NCT01176968|181805131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3347|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test|||For Biomarker- Serum Cortisol, Wilconxon rank-sum test for between treatment difference at Month 6 was used to derive p-value.||||0.3347
90962162|NCT01176968|181805132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|||For Biomarker- PIIINP, signed rank test for change from baseline at Month 6 within treatment difference was used to derive p-value.||||0.0005
90919009|NCT03725722|181707885|OTHER|Treatment groups were compared using a 2-sided log-rank test stratified by region and baseline vIGA-AD score. An event was defined as the first time achieving vIGA-AD.|||||>|0.05||||||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity|Log Rank|||Time to vIGA-AD TS was def. as time from date of first IMP applic. to first assess. of vIGA-AD TS. Subjects without baseline observation were censored at date of first IMP applic. Subjects with baseline observation not achieving vIGA-AD TS during treatment period were censored at date of last visit with a valid post-baseline assess. on or prior to date of discont. of IMP or initiation of rescue med, whichever occurred first. Subjects affected by COVID-19 pandemic were handled in the same manner||||>0.05
90919010|NCT03725722|181707885|OTHER|Treatment groups were compared using a 2-sided log-rank test stratified by region and baseline vIGA-AD score. An event was defined as the first time achieving vIGA-AD|||||<|0.001||||||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity|Log Rank|||Time to vIGA-AD TS was def. as time from date of first IMP applic. to first assess. of vIGA-AD TS. Subjects without baseline observation were censored at date of first IMP applic. Subjects with baseline observation not achieving vIGA-AD TS during treatment period were censored at date of last visit with a valid post-baseline assess. on or prior to date of discont. of IMP or initiation of rescue med, whichever occurred first. Subjects affected by COVID-19 pandemic were handled in the same manner||||<0.001
90919011|NCT01600014|181707886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.44||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|4.51||Chi-square test for stratified data with a significance level of 5%. No adjustment for multiple tests was needed, due to the analyses were based on distinct subject groups|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel ratio of clearance rates (Ingenol mebutate relative to Vehicle) adjusted for anatomical location and country||The analysis type was superiority between groups. In total 141 subjects were included||4.51|1.32|0.001
90919012|NCT01600014|181707886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.37||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|5.25||Chi-square test for stratified data with a significance level of 5%. No adjustment for multiple tests was needed, due to the analyses were based on distinct subject groups|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel ratio of clearance rates (Ingenol mebutate relative to Vehicle) adjusted for anatomical location and week of randomisation||The analysis type was superiority between groups. In total 62 subjects were included||5.25|1.07|0.013
90919013|NCT01600014|181707887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|4.41||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|17.62||A closed test procedure was chosen where the evaluation process stopped when the first non-significant results were observed thus securing that the overall significance level did not exceed 5% for multiple testing|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel ratio of clearance rates (Ingenol mebutate relative to Vehicle) adjusted for anatomical location and country||The analysis type was superiority between groups. In total 141 subjects were included||17.62|1.10|0.016
90919014|NCT01600014|181707887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.24||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|6.47||A closed test procedure was chosen where the evaluation process stopped when the first non-significant results were observed thus securing that the overall significance level did not exceed 5% for multiple testing|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel ratio of clearance rates (Ingenol mebutate relative to Vehicle) adjusted for anatomical location and country||The analysis type was superiority between groups. In total 62 subjects were included||6.47|0.78|0.10
90919015|NCT01600014|181707887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent cleared subjects|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.0|56.1|||||Estimation based on completers only.|Subjects randomised to vehicle were not included in the estimate of the overall clearance rate for the repeat-use regimen, from last treatment throught to Month 12. Instead, the subjects randomised to ingenol mebutate were given higher weights to reflect the hypothetical scenario where all randomised subjects were given active treatment during the repeat use cycle||56.1|44.0|
90919016|NCT01600014|181707888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|-0.38||A closed test procedure was chosen where the evaluation process stopped when the first non-significant results were observed thus securing that the overall significance level did not exceed 5% for multiple testing|ANCOVA|Analysed using ANCOVA adjusted for anatomical location, country and AK count at randomisation|Using baseline observation carried forward (BOCF) as the imputation method.|The analysis type was superiority between groups. In total 141 subjects were included||-0.38|-1.38|<0.001
90962163|NCT01176968|181805132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|||For Biomarker- PIIINP, signed rank test for change from baseline at Month 6 within treatment difference was used to derive p-value.||||< 0.0001
90962164|NCT01176968|181805132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1558|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon-Rank Sum test|||For Biomarker- PIIINP, Wilconxon rank-sum test for between treatment difference at Month 6 was used to derive p-value.||||0.1558
90919017|NCT01600014|181707888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|-0.51||A closed test procedure was chosen where the evaluation process stopped when the first non-significant results were observed thus securing that the overall significance level did not exceed 5% for multiple testing|ANCOVA|Sensitivity analysis using complete cases|Sensitivity analysis using complete cases|The analysis type was superiority between groups. In total 141 subjects were included||-0.51|-1.52|<0.001
90919018|NCT01600014|181707888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.69||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|-0.19||Formal statistical significance could not be established because of the closed test procedure where the first secondary endpoint tested (12 months clearance) did not reach statistical significance in the recurrent subgroup|ANCOVA|Analysed using ANCOVA adjusted for anatomical location, country and AK count at randomisation|Using BOCF as the imputation method, the difference in the adjusted mean AK count between the ingenol mebutate and vehicle groups|The analysis type was superiority between groups. In total 62 subjects were included||-0.19|-1.19|0.008
90962165|NCT01176968|181805132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|||For Biomarker- Galecting 3, signed rank test for change from baseline at Month 6 within treatment difference was used to derive p-value.||||0.0008
90962166|NCT01176968|181805132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|||For Biomarker- Galecting 3, signed rank test for change from baseline at Month 6 within treatment difference was used to derive p-value.||||< 0.0001
90919019|NCT03398148|181707890|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|9.6||||0.0324|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.2|17.0||P-value ≤ 0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by baseline corticosteroid use (yes, no) and baseline adapted mayo score (≤ 7, \> 7).|Risk difference = (risankizumab - Placebo)|||17.0|2.2|0.0324
90919020|NCT03398148|181707890|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|8.4||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.5|15.3||P-value ≤ 0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by baseline corticosteroid use (yes, no) and baseline adapted mayo score (≤ 7, \> 7).|Risk difference = (risankizumab - Placebo)|||15.3|1.5|0.0460
90919021|NCT03398148|181707890|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|8.7||||0.0397|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.7|15.6||P-value ≤ 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by baseline corticosteroid use (yes, no) and baseline adapted mayo score (≤ 7, \> 7).|Risk difference = (risankizumab - Placebo).|||15.6|1.7|0.0397
90919022|NCT03398148|181707891|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|14.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|18.0||Type I error rate control.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Advanced Therapy-IR status (yes vs no), Baseline steroid use (yes vs. no) and Baseline Adapted Mayo Score (≤ 7, \> 7).||||18.0|10.0|<0.0001
90919023|NCT03398148|181707892|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|18.7||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.4|29.0||P-value ≤ 0.01|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline corticosteroid use (yes, no) and baseline adapted mayo score (\<= 7, \> 7).|Risk difference = (risankizumab - Placebo).|||29.0|8.4|0.0028
90919024|NCT03398148|181707892|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|8.4||||0.0968|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.1|16.7||P-value ≤ 0.1|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline corticosteroid use (yes, no) and baseline adapted mayo score (\<= 7, \> 7).|Risk difference = (risankizumab - Placebo).|||16.7|0.1|0.0968
90919025|NCT03398148|181707892|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|10.5||||0.0512|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.6|19.3||P-value ≤ 0.1|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline corticosteroid use (yes, no) and baseline adapted mayo score (\<= 7, \> 7).|Risk difference = (risankizumab - Placebo).|||19.3|1.6|0.0512
90962167|NCT01176968|181805132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0293|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test|||For Biomarker- Galecting 3, Wilconxon rank-sum test for between treatment difference at Month 6 was used to derive p-value.||||0.0293
90962168|NCT01176968|181805132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1723|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|||For Biomarker- PINP, signed rank test for change from baseline at Month 6 within treatment difference was used to derive p-value.||||0.1723
90962169|NCT01176968|181805132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0295|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|||For Biomarker- PINP, signed rank test for change from baseline at Month 6 within treatment difference was used to derive p-value.||||0.0295
90962170|NCT01176968|181805132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0865|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test|||For Biomarker- PINP, Wilconxon rank-sum test for between treatment difference at Month 6 was used to derive p-value.||||0.0865
90919026|NCT03398148|181707894|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|23.9||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|90.0|11.0|36.7||P-value ≤ 0.01|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline corticosteroid use (yes, no) and baseline adapted mayo score (\<= 7, \> 7).|Risk difference = (risankizumab - Placebo).|||36.7|11.0|0.0022
90919027|NCT03398148|181707894|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|28.4||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|15.7|41.1||P-value ≤ 0.001|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline corticosteroid use (yes, no) and baseline adapted mayo score (\<= 7, \> 7).|Risk difference = (risankizumab - Placebo).|||41.1|15.7|0.0002
90919028|NCT03398148|181707894|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|33.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|20.7|46.9||P-value ≤ 0.001|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline corticosteroid use (yes, no) and baseline adapted mayo score (\<= 7, \> 7).|Risk difference = (risankizumab - Placebo).|||46.9|20.7|<0.0001
90919029|NCT03398148|181707895|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|10.2||||0.1842|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.4|22.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline corticosteroid use (yes, no) and baseline adapted mayo score (\<= 7, \> 7).|Risk difference = (risankizumab - Placebo).|||22.9|-2.4|0.1842
90919030|NCT03398148|181707895|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|23.2||||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.9|36.4||P-value ≤ 0.01|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline corticosteroid use (yes, no) and baseline adapted mayo score (\<= 7, \> 7).|Risk difference = (risankizumab - Placebo).|||36.4|9.9|0.0041
91034057|NCT02246166|181954003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.56||||0.5208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|2.29|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model with factors for treatment group and study site and baseline TSS score as a covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus the second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment|||2.29|-1.18|0.5208
90919031|NCT03398148|181707895|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|13.1||||0.1117|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|26.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline corticosteroid use (yes, no) and baseline adapted mayo score (\<= 7, \> 7).|Risk difference = (risankizumab - Placebo).|||26.6|-0.4|0.1117
90962171|NCT01176968|181805133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0944|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|||For Biomarker- ICTP, signed rank test for change from baseline at Month 6 within treatment difference was used to derive p-value.||||0.0944
90962172|NCT01176968|181805133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.036|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|||For Biomarker- ICTP, signed rank test for change from baseline at Month 6 within treatment difference was used to derive p-value.||||0.0360
90962173|NCT01176968|181805133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6459|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test|||For Biomarker- ICTP, Wilconxon rank-sum test for between treatment difference at Month 6 was used to derive p-value.||||0.6459
90962174|NCT01176968|181805134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|||For Biomarker- Interleukin-6, signed rank test for change from baseline at Month 6 within treatment difference was used to derive p-value.||||< 0.0001
90962175|NCT01176968|181805134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|||For Biomarker- Interleukin-6, signed rank test for change from baseline at Month 6 within treatment difference was used to derive p-value.||||< 0.0001
90962176|NCT01176968|181805134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0801|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test|||For Biomarker- Interleukin-6, Wilconxon rank-sum test for between treatment difference at Month 6 was used to derive p-value.||||0.0801
90962177|NCT00744523|181805159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||proportion of the primary endpoint|2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0|<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0||5.2|||t-test, 1 sided||"Parameter Dispersion Type of Standard Error of the mean is meant to state that 'mean is the mean of proportions in the sense of a central-limit theorem"|The ARMOUR trial tested the null hypothesis that the MACCE rate was greater than or equal to the Performance Goal (PG) of 13% versus the alternative hypothesis that the true MACCE rate was less than the PG. The sample size was calculated based on 90% power and a Type I error rate of 0.05 (one-sided). The Performance Goal was calculated from results of carotid artery stenting trials that utilized embolic protection devices (EPD).||5.2||<0.05
90962178|NCT03588728|181805191|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.781|||||||ANOVA|P value indicates the interaction term.||Test of between-subjects effects||||.781
90962179|NCT03588728|181805192|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.409|||||||ANOVA|P value indicates the interaction term.||Test of between-subjects effects||||.409
90962180|NCT03588728|181805193|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.697|||||||ANOVA|P value indicates the interaction term.||Test of between-subjects effects||||.697
90881234|NCT02350309|181625633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated based on non-missing two-way contingency table between placebo and study treatment.|McNemar|||||||<0.0001
90881235|NCT00207142|181625643|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Efficacy at Week 48 on the Switch Arm was considered to be non-inferior to the Continuation Arm if the lower limit of the 95% Confidence Interval was greater than -15%.|Difference in proportions|2.9||||||95.0|-9.8|15.5|||Normal approximation|||The planned sample size of 178 randomized subjects (89 on each regimen) provides at least 80% power to demonstrate that the response rate on ATV is within a 15% margin of the response rate on ATV/RTV assuming: a 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in response rate between treatment regimens (switch-continuation); a response rate of 85% in both the Continuation and Switch regimens; a margin of -15% for the difference in response rates between treatment regimens.||15.5|-9.8|
90881236|NCT00207142|181625644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|5.0||||||95.0|-6.0|16.1|||Normal Approximation|||||16.1|-6.0|
90881237|NCT00207142|181625645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.97||||||95.0|0.5|1.88|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||Covariate in the model: treatment regimen.||1.88|0.50|
90881238|NCT00207142|181625646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.84||||||95.0|0.37|1.9|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||Covariate in the model: treatment regimen||1.90|0.37|
90881239|NCT00207142|181625647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in means at Week 48|7.0||||||95.0|-38.0|53.0|||Normal approximation|||||53|-38|
90881240|NCT01554618|181625660|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|-0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis||Exenatide versus Placebo|Adjusted LS mean and treatment group difference in the change from baseline at Week 24 were modeled using a MMRM including treatment group, region, visit, and treatment group by visit interaction, baseline HbA1c value (continuous) and baseline HbA1c by visit interaction as fixed effects, using an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.19|-1.51|0.012
90881241|NCT01554618|181625663|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-21.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.7||0.119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.0|5.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||Exenatide versus Placebo|Adjusted LS mean and treatment group difference in the change from baseline at Week 24 were modeled using a MMRM including treatment group, region, visit, and treatment group by visit interaction, baseline fasting plasma glucose value, screening HbA1c (\< 9.0% or ≥ 9.0%), and baseline fasting plasma glucose by visit interaction as fixed effects, using an unstructured covariance matrix.||5.7|-49.0|0.119
90881242|NCT01554618|181625664|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.189||0.307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.59|1.15|||Mixed Models Analysis||Exenatide versus Placebo|Adjusted LS mean and treatment group difference in the change from baseline at Week 24 were modeled using a MMRM including treatment group, region, visit, and treatment group by visit interaction, baseline body weight, screening HbA1c (\< 9.0% or ≥ 9.0%), and baseline body weight by visit interaction as fixed effects, using an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.15|-3.59|0.307
90881243|NCT01554618|181625665|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|94.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|95.26||0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-95.6|285.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||Exenatide versus Placebo|Adjusted LS mean and treatment group difference in the change from baseline at Week 24 were modeled using a MMRM including treatment group, region, visit, treatment group by visit interaction, baseline fasting insulin, screening HbA1c (\< 9.0% or ≥ 9.0%), and baseline fasting insulin by visit interaction as fixed effects, using an unstructured covariance matrix.||285.5|-95.6|0.323
90881244|NCT01554618|181625666|SUPERIORITY||Difference|14.8||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|27.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Exenatide versus Placebo. Difference was the risk difference of the 2 proportions.|"Treatment difference in HbA1c \< 6.5%:~Treatment group comparison was based on CMH test stratified by screening HbA1c (\<9.0% or \>=9.0%). P-value was from the general association statistic."||27.7|1.9|0.077
90881245|NCT01554618|181625666|SUPERIORITY||Difference|14.8||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|27.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Exenatide versus Placebo. Difference was the risk difference of the 2 proportions.|"Treatment difference in HbA1c ≤ 6.5%:~Treatment group comparison was based on CMH test stratified by screening HbA1c (\<9.0% or \>=9.0%). P-value was from the general association statistic."||27.7|1.9|0.077
90881246|NCT01554618|181625666|SUPERIORITY||Difference|22.7||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|39.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Exenatide versus Placebo. Difference was the risk difference of the 2 proportions.|"Treatment difference in HbA1c \< 7.0%:~Treatment group comparison was based on CMH test stratified by screening HbA1c (\<9.0% or \>=9.0%). P-value was from the general association statistic."||39.0|6.5|0.020
90881247|NCT01554618|181625668|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.61||0.284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|2.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||Exenatide versus Placebo|"Treatment difference in SBP:~Adjusted LS mean and treatment group difference in the change from baseline at Week 24 were modeled using a MMRM including treatment group, region, visit, treatment group by visit interaction, baseline SBP, screening HbA1c (\< 9.0% or ≥ 9.0%), and baseline SBP by visit interaction as fixed effects, using an unstructured covariance matrix."||2.4|-8.0|0.284
91034058|NCT02246166|181954004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.8993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|1.94|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model with factors for treatment group and study site and baseline TSS score as a covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus the second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment|||1.94|-1.71|0.8993
90919032|NCT03398148|181707896|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|8.3||||0.0192|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.5|14.1||P-value ≤ 0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline corticosteroid use (yes, no) and baseline adapted mayo score (\<= 7, \> 7).|Risk difference = (risankizumab - Placebo).|||14.1|2.5|0.0192
90919033|NCT03398148|181707896|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|4.8||||0.0706|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|9.1||P-value ≤ 0.1|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline corticosteroid use (yes, no) and baseline adapted mayo score (\<= 7, \> 7).|Risk difference = (risankizumab - Placebo).|||9.1|0.4|0.0706
90919034|NCT03398148|181707896|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|8.7||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.7|14.6||P-value ≤ 0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline corticosteroid use (yes, no) and baseline adapted mayo score (\<= 7, \> 7).|Risk difference = (risankizumab - Placebo).|||14.6|2.7|0.0170
90919035|NCT03398148|181707897|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7737|||||||Chi-squared|P value for comparisons between treatment groups and placebo group using chi-square test or Fisher's exact test.||||||0.7737
90919036|NCT03398148|181707897|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7432|||||||Fisher Exact|P value for comparisons between treatment groups and placebo group using chi-square test or Fisher's exact test.||||||0.7432
90919037|NCT03398148|181707897|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7172|||||||Fisher Exact|P value for comparisons between treatment groups and placebo group using chi-square test or Fisher's exact test.||||||0.7172
90919038|NCT03398148|181707898|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|4.7||||0.0722|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|9.0||P-value ≤ 0.1|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline corticosteroid use (yes, no) and baseline adapted mayo score (\<= 7, \> 7).|Risk difference = (risankizumab - Placebo).|||9.0|0.4|0.0722
90919039|NCT03398148|181707898|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|3.1||||0.148|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|6.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline corticosteroid use (yes, no) and baseline adapted mayo score (\<= 7, \> 7).|Risk difference = (risankizumab - Placebo).|||6.6|-0.4|0.1480
90919040|NCT03398148|181707898|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|1.7||||0.3042|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|4.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline corticosteroid use (yes, no) and baseline adapted mayo score (\<= 7, \> 7).|Risk difference = (risankizumab - Placebo).|||4.5|-1.0|0.3042
90919041|NCT03398148|181707899|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.13||0.003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.94|-2.89||P-value ≤ 0.01|Mixed-effect model repeated measurement|||||-2.89|-9.94|0.0030
91034059|NCT05025345|181954041|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority margin equals -0.1|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.013|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.036|0.011||Success criteria was evaluated using lower confidence interval. No P-Value was calculated.||||||0.011|-0.036|
90919042|NCT03398148|181707899|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-8.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.11||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.67|-4.71||P-value ≤ 0.001|Mixed-effect model repeated measurement|||||-4.71|-11.67|0.0001
90919043|NCT03398148|181707899|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-7.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.14||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.27|-4.19||P-value ≤ 0.001|Mixed-effect model repeated measurement|||||-4.19|-11.27|0.0004
90919044|NCT03398148|181707900|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|17.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.47||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.61|28.0||P-value ≤ 0.01|Mixed-effect model repeated measurement|||||28|6.61|0.0081
90919045|NCT03398148|181707900|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|20.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.37||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.74|30.79||P-value ≤ 0.01|Mixed-effect model repeated measurement|||||30.79|9.74|0.0017
90919046|NCT03398148|181707900|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|19.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.49||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.22|30.67||P-value ≤ 0.01|Mixed-effect model repeated measurement|||||30.67|9.22|0.0024
90919047|NCT03398148|181707901|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|1.208||||0.3315|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8429|3.2596|||Mixed-effect model repeated measurement|||||3.2596|-0.8429|0.3315
90919048|NCT03398148|181707901|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|2.447||||0.0451|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4415|4.4519||P-value ≤ 0.05|Mixed-effect model repeated measurement|||||4.4519|0.4415|0.0451
90919049|NCT03398148|181707901|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|2.392||||0.0543|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.3498|4.4352||P-value ≤ 0.1|Mixed-effect model repeated measurement|||||4.4352|0.3498|0.0543
90919050|NCT03398148|181707902|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|3.662||||0.0367|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7841|6.5402||P-value \<= 0.1|Mixed-effect model repeated measurement||P-value for test of difference between each Risankizumab dose group and placebo for mean change from baseline using the mixed-effect repeated measure model The unstructured covariance structure was used to estimate within subject errors.|||6.5402|0.7841|0.0367
90919051|NCT03398148|181707902|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|4.19||||0.0151|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.3656|7.0144||P-value \<= 0.05|Mixed-effect model repeated measurement||P-value for test of difference between each Risankizumab dose group and placebo for mean change from baseline using the mixed-effect repeated measure model The unstructured covariance structure was used to estimate within subject errors.|||7.0144|1.3656|0.0151
90919052|NCT03398148|181707902|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|2.348||||0.1795|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5322|5.2281|||Mixed-effect model repeated measurement||P-value for test of difference between each Risankizumab dose group and placebo for mean change from baseline using the mixed-effect repeated measure model The unstructured covariance structure was used to estimate within subject errors.|||5.2281|-0.5322|0.1795
90919053|NCT03398148|181707903|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91||0.0422|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.75|7.06||P-value ≤ 0.05|Mixed-effect model repeated measurement|||||7.06|0.75|0.0422
90962181|NCT03588728|181805194|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.193|||||||ANOVA|P value indicates interaction term.||Test of between subjects effects||||.193
91034060|NCT05025345|181954042|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
91034061|NCT00984022|181954051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||The percentages achieving 30% or greater reduction in the surface area of the abscess were compared with Fisher's exact test.||||.0003
90919054|NCT03398148|181707903|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.87||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.23|8.42||P-value ≤ 0.01|Mixed-effect model repeated measurement|||||8.42|2.23|0.0049
90919055|NCT03398148|181707903|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91||0.0156|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.5|7.8||P-value ≤ 0.05|Mixed-effect model repeated measurement|||||7.80|1.50|0.0156
90919056|NCT03398148|181707904|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-Value for comparisons between treatment groups and placebo group using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Note: ITT1A includes all randomized subjects who received at least one dose of study drug during Induction Period 1 from Sub-Study 1.||||1
90919057|NCT03398148|181707905|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|28.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.3|34.8||Statistical significance is determined via the graphical multiple testing procedure controlling the overall type I error rate of primary and key secondary endpoints at the 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Between-group diff. and 95% CI calculated using Mantel-Haenszel common rate difference.|||34.8|22.3|<0.0001
90919058|NCT03398148|181707906|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|24.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.3|29.4||Statistical significance is determined via the graphical multiple testing procedure controlling the overall type I error rate of primary and key secondary endpoints at the 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Between-group diff. and 95% CI calculated using Mantel-Haenszel common rate difference. (Greenland and Robins (1985)).|||29.4|19.3|<0.0001
90919059|NCT03398148|181707907|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|16.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.3|21.0||Statistical significance is determined via the graphical multiple testing procedure controlling the overall type I error rate of primary and key secondary endpoints at the 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Between-group diff. and 95% CI calculated using Mantel-Haenszel common rate difference. (Greenland and Robins (1985)).|||21.0|12.3|<0.0001
90962182|NCT03588728|181805195|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.185|||||||ANOVA|P value indicates the interaction term||Test of between-subjects effects||||.185
90962183|NCT03588728|181805196|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.198|||||||ANOVA|P value indicates the interaction term||Test of between-measures effects||||.198
90962184|NCT03588728|181805197|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.638|||||||ANOVA|||Test of between-subjects effects||||.638
90962185|NCT03588728|181805198|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.574|||||||ANOVA|p-value indicates the interaction term||Test of between-subjects effectd||||.574
90962186|NCT03588728|181805199|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.564|||||||ANOVA|P-value indicates the interaction term||Test of between-subjects effects||||.564
91034062|NCT00984022|181954052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.043||95.0||||Main effect for type of dressing.|ANOVA|||Repeated measures ANOVA using 2 X 2 factorial design, with one between-subjects factor (Group) and one within-subjects factor (Time). Null hypothesis is: The type of dressing does not affect patient pain ratings.||||.043
90919060|NCT03398148|181707908|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|7.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|10.2||Statistical significance is determined via the graphical multiple testing procedure controlling the overall type I error rate of primary and key secondary endpoints at the 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Between-group diff. and 95% CI calculated using Mantel-Haenszel common rate difference. (Greenland and Robins (1985)).|||10.2|4.2|<0.0001
90919061|NCT03398148|181707909|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|21.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.6|28.1||Statistical significance is determined via the graphical multiple testing procedure controlling the overall type I error rate of primary and key secondary endpoints at the 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Between-group diff. and 95% CI calculated using Mantel-Haenszel common rate difference. (Greenland and Robins (1985)).|||28.1|15.6|<0.0001
90919062|NCT03398148|181707910|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|16.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.3|22.4||Statistical significance is determined via the graphical multiple testing procedure controlling the overall type I error rate of primary and key secondary endpoints at the 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Between-group diff. and 95% CI calculated using Mantel-Haenszel common rate difference. (Greenland and Robins (1985)).|||22.4|10.3|<0.0001
90962187|NCT03588728|181805200|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.998|||||||ANOVA|p-value indicates the interaction term||Tests of between-subjects effects||||.998
90962188|NCT03588728|181805201|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.348|||||||ANOVA|P-value indicates the interaction term||Tests of between-subjecs effects||||.348
90962189|NCT03153137|181805204|SUPERIORITY|For each stage, the p-value from the ANCOVA model including randomized treatment, geographical region, and baseline peak VO2 was used to construct the final adjusted p-value.|Median unbiased estimate and repeated CI|0.62|||=|0.193|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-0.62|1.85||Final adjusted p-value (from weighted inverse normal combination test)|ANCOVA|||Due to adaptive nature of the design, the main analysis was conducted on FAS using the inverse normal combination method with pre-specified weights to combine first and second stage p-values.||1.85|-0.62|= 0.1930
90962190|NCT00195507|181805231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.53|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.64|-0.43|||ANCOVA|Treatment and center as main effects, and baseline score as a covariant.||||-0.43|-0.64|<0.001
90962191|NCT00195507|181805232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90962192|NCT00195507|181805234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.143|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.143
90962193|NCT01067326|181805293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in EPCs from baseline to 4 months||||0.02
90962194|NCT01067326|181805294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in systolic blood pressure from baseline to 4 months.||||.006
90962195|NCT01067326|181805295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in diastolic blood pressure from baseline to 4 months.||||0.04
90962196|NCT01067326|181805296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.94||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-value for intergroup comparison of change from baseline to month 4||||0.94
90962197|NCT00078754|181805301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.622|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.622
91034063|NCT00984022|181954053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.847||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to compare the percentage of individuals achieving a 30% or greater reduction in cellulitis surface area between the Iodoform and Aquacel groups.||||.847
90962198|NCT00078754|181805302|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029||||||LHA score main effect.|ANCOVA|The LHA Score F\[1,83\] = 4.91, p = 0.029; Condition F\[2,83\] = 0.20, p = 0.815; Condition x LHA Score F\[2,83\] = 0.255, p = 0.799.||The hypothesis was that subjects with LHA Scores = 18 or more would respond better to divalproex (than fluoxetine) while those with LHA scores = or \< 17 would respond better to fluoxetine (than divalproex).||||0.029
90919063|NCT03398148|181707911|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|9.3||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|15.3||Statistical significance is determined via the graphical multiple testing procedure controlling the overall type I error rate of primary and key secondary endpoints at the 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Between-group diff. and 95% CI calculated using Mantel-Haenszel common rate difference. (Greenland and Robins (1985)).|||15.3|3.4|0.0021
90919064|NCT03398148|181707912|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|5.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|7.7||Statistical significance is determined via the graphical multiple testing procedure controlling the overall type I error rate of primary and key secondary endpoints at the 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Between-group diff. and 95% CI calculated using Mantel-Haenszel common rate difference. (Greenland and Robins (1985)).|||7.7|3.5|<0.0001
90962199|NCT00078754|181805302|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7||0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Baseline OAS-M Aggression score as covariate.||ANCOVA at endpoint with baseline OAS-M AGG score as covariate.||||0.80
90962200|NCT00809523|181805304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Data were analyzed at the follow up timepoint (4 weeks) to test for differences between the experimental groups.||||0.007
90962201|NCT00809523|181805305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.014
90962202|NCT00986440|181805334|SUPERIORITY||Z statistic for difference|3.92|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||2-sided P value for z test|||||||<0.0001
90881248|NCT01554618|181625668|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.77||0.376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|5.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Exenatide versus Placebo|"Treatment difference in DBP:~Adjusted LS mean and treatment group difference in the change from baseline at Week 24 were modeled using a MMRM including treatment group, region, visit, treatment group by visit interaction, baseline DBP, screening HbA1c (\< 9.0% or ≥ 9.0%), and baseline DBP by visit interaction as fixed effects, using an unstructured covariance matrix."||5.1|-2.0|0.376
90881249|NCT01554618|181625670|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|90.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|69.207||0.211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.27|238.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Exenatide versus Placebo|"Treatment difference in HOMA-B:~Adjusted LS mean and treatment group difference in the change from baseline at Week 24 were modeled using a MMRM including treatment group, region, visit, treatment group by visit interaction, baseline HOMA-B, screening HbA1c (\< 9.0% or ≥ 9.0%), and baseline HOMA-B by visit interaction as fixed effects, using an unstructured covariance matrix."||238.00|-57.27|0.211
90881250|NCT01554618|181625670|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.173||0.289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.8|6.29|||Mixed Models Analysis||Exenatide versus Placebo|"Treatment difference in HOMA-S:~Adjusted LS mean and treatment group difference in the change from baseline at Week 24 were modeled using a MMRM including treatment group, region, visit, treatment group by visit interaction, baseline HOMA-S, screening HbA1c (\< 9.0% or ≥ 9.0%), and baseline HOMA-S by visit interaction as fixed effects, using an unstructured covariance matrix."||6.29|-19.80|0.289
90919065|NCT03398148|181707913|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|4.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.13|5.97||Statistical significance is determined via the graphical multiple testing procedure controlling the overall type I error rate of primary and key secondary endpoints at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA||Between-group diff. and 95% CI calculated using ANCOVA/MMRM with RTB-MI for continuous endpoints.|||5.97|3.13|<0.0001
90919066|NCT03398148|181707914|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|18.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.38|23.25||Statistical significance is determined via the graphical multiple testing procedure controlling the overall type I error rate of primary and key secondary endpoints at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA||Between-group diff. and 95% CI calculated using ANCOVA/MMRM with RTB-MI for continuous endpoints.|||23.25|13.38|<0.0001
90962203|NCT00986440|181805334|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio, log|-0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90962204|NCT00986440|181805335|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0380
90962205|NCT00986440|181805335|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1773|||||||Peto-Peto-Prentice|||||||0.1773
90962206|NCT00986440|181805335|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2844|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2844
90962207|NCT00986440|181805335|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.114|||||||Tarone-Ware|||||||0.1140
90962208|NCT00986440|181805336|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1213|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.1213
90962209|NCT00267631|181805355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||.026
90962210|NCT02876835|181805385|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was achieved if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the hazard ratio was below the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 1.25.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.19|||||Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment group, current ESA use at randomization, and region as covariates.|||1.19|0.89|
90962211|NCT02876835|181805386|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be established if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference was greater than -0.75 g/dL.|Least square (LS) mean difference|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.13||||||||0.13|0.03|
90919067|NCT03398148|181707915|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|-2.2||Statistical significance is determined via the graphical multiple testing procedure controlling the overall type I error rate of primary and key secondary endpoints at the 0.05 level.|Chi-squared||95% CI for treatment differences is based on normal approximation of the binomial proportions.|||-2.2|-7.3|<0.0001
90919068|NCT03398148|181707916|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|24.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.9|30.5||Statistical significance is determined via the graphical multiple testing procedure controlling the overall type I error rate of primary and key secondary endpoints at the 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Between-group diff. and 95% CI calculated using Mantel-Haenszel common rate difference. (Greenland and Robins (1985)).|||30.5|17.9|<0.0001
90919069|NCT03398148|181707917|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|18.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.4|24.8||Statistical significance is determined via the graphical multiple testing procedure controlling the overall type I error rate of primary and key secondary endpoints at the 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Between-group diff. and 95% CI calculated using Mantel-Haenszel common rate difference.|||24.8|12.4|<0.0001
90919070|NCT03398148|181707918|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-1.627|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3846|-0.8689||Statistical significance is determined via the graphical multiple testing procedure controlling the overall type I error rate of primary and key secondary endpoints at the 0.05 level.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measures||Between-group diff. and 95% CI calculated using ANCOVA/MMRM with RTB-MI for continuous endpoints.|||-0.8689|-2.3846|<0.0001
90962212|NCT02876835|181805387|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.670884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.19||The p-value was compared against 0.008333 based on the Holm-Bonferonni adjustment.|Wald test||Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment group, current ESA use at randomization, and region as covariates.|||1.19|0.89|0.670884
90962213|NCT02876835|181805388|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.800813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.22||The p-value was compared against 0.012500 based on the Holm-Bonferonni adjustment.|Wald test||Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment group, current ESA use at randomization, and region as covariates.|||1.22|0.93|0.800813
90962214|NCT02876835|181805389|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.886195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.24||The p-value was compared against 0.025000 based on the Holm-Bonferonni adjustment.|Wald test||Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment group, current ESA use at randomization, and region as covariates.|||1.24|0.95|0.886195
90962215|NCT02876835|181805390|SUPERIORITY||Subdistribution hazard ratio|0.98||||0.36947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.13|||Wald test||Subdistribution hazard ratio was estimated using Fine and Gray's proportional subdistribution hazard regression model with treatment group, Baseline ESA use, and region as covariates.|||1.13|0.84|0.369470
90962216|NCT02876835|181805391|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.6197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.2|||Wald test||Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment group, current ESA use at randomization, and region as covariates.|||1.20|0.87|0.6197
90962217|NCT02876835|181805392|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.8976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.58|||Wald test||Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment group, current ESA use at randomization, and region as covariates.|||1.58|0.91|0.8976
90919071|NCT03398148|181707919|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.981|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3285|-0.6326||Statistical significance is determined via the graphical multiple testing procedure controlling the overall type I error rate of primary and key secondary endpoints at the 0.05 level.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measures||Between-group diff. and 95% CI calculated using ANCOVA/MMRM with RTB-MI for continuous endpoints.|||-0.6326|-1.3285|<0.0001
90919072|NCT02791230|181707920|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6202||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4865|0.7906|||Cox proportional hazards model||Hazard ratio from a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment, Transthyretin (TTR) genotype (variant and wild-type) and New York Heart Association (NYHA) baseline classification (NYHA Classes I and II combined and NYHA Class III) in the model.|||0.7906|0.4865|0.0001
90919073|NCT02791230|181707923|SUPERIORITY||Hazard ratio|0.6133||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4666|0.8062|||Cox Proportional Hazards model||Hazard ratio from a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment, TTR genotype (variant and wild-type) and NYHA baseline classification (NYHA Classes I and II combined and NYHA Class III) in the model.|||0.8062|0.4666|0.0005
90919074|NCT03683069|181707940|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.823|||||||Regression, Linear|||adjusted to medication dose, sex, age, race||||0.823
90919075|NCT03683069|181707940|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.839|||||||Regression, Linear|||diastolic bp adjusted for medication dose sex,age, race||||.8390
90919076|NCT03683069|181707941|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0101|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.0101
90919077|NCT03683069|181707942|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.59
90919078|NCT03683069|181707943|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio, log|0.7022||||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||Kaplan-Meier using Gehan-Breslow-Wilcoxo|||||||.09
90940590|NCT00645099|181760944|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Testing non-inferiority of the paliperidone ER treatment group compared to the olanzapine treatment group, with regard to change versus baseline at end point of the total PANSS was done by means of Schuirmann's test. A difference of 6 points in change versus baseline on the total PANSS was considered to be a minimum clinically relevant difference.The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between paliperidone and olanzapine in change in TG:HDL ratio from baseline to endpoint.||||||0.0242||95.0|||||Schuirmann|The null hypothesis of non-equivalence was rejected and equivalence to within the specified equivalence bounds could be claimed.||||||0.0242
90962218|NCT02876835|181805393|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.6581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.4|||Wald test||Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment group, current ESA use at randomization, and region as covariates.|||1.40|0.80|0.6581
90962219|NCT02876835|181805394|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.33||||0.894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|2.07|||Wald test||Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment group, current ESA use at randomization, and region as covariates.|||2.07|0.85|0.8940
90962220|NCT02876835|181805395|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.9422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.23|||Chi-squared||Overall HR is presented using Model 1. Model 1 assumed a common treatment effect, regardless of number of events experienced. HR was estimated using a Prentice, Williams and Peterson(PWP) model, with treatment, dialysis type and region as covariates.|||1.23|0.98|0.9422
90919079|NCT03821844|181707944|SUPERIORITY||marginal interaction effect|1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|4.03|||Differences-in-Differences regression||||"Fixed effects: age, sex, race, activities of daily living score, cognitive function score, psychotic disorder, bipolar disease, depression, anxiety, dementia, antidepressant use, antianxietal use, antipsychotic use, corporation, time from Minimum Data Set (MDS) collection to Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory (CMAI) score (exclusive to CMAI model), baseline Agitation and Reactive Behavior Scale (ARBS) (exclusive to CMAI model), baseline CMAI (exclusive to ARBS and ARBS-CMAI model), indicator of baseline/follow-up score, treatment group, interaction of baseline/follow-up measure, and treatment group.~Random effects: random intercept for nursing home, random intercept for the interaction of baseline/follow-up measure and nursing home, random intercept for data collector (exclusive to CMAI model), and random intercept for individual."|4.03|-1.37|< 0.05
90919080|NCT03821844|181707945|SUPERIORITY||marginal interaction effect|0.06|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.09|||Differences-in-Differences regression||Reported estimation details pertain to the None category.||"The intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis used Bayesian multi-level multinomial logit models. All models adjust for resident baseline covariates, an individual-level effect to account for multiple observations for the same resident, and a facility level effect to account for variability in the outcomes for individuals residing in the same nursing homes. The reference category for the multinomial model for each outcome is None. To address baseline differences in the proportion of individuals at each level of the ordinal outcomes between treatment and control groups, we report the marginal time by intervention interaction."|0.09|0.03|< 0.05
90919081|NCT03821844|181707946|SUPERIORITY||Marginal Interaction Effect|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.08|||Differences-in-Differences regression||||"Fixed effect covariates: age, sex, race, activities of daily living score, cognitive function score, psychotic disorder, bipolar disease, depression, anxiety, dementia, antidepressant use, antianxietal use, antipsychotic use, nursing home corporation, time from Minimum Data Set (MDS) collection to Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory (CMAI) score (exclusive to CMAI model), baseline Agitation and Reactive Behavior Score (ARBS) (exclusive to CMAI model), baseline CMAI (exclusive to ARBS and ARBS-CMAI model), indicator of baseline/follow-up score, treatment group, interaction of baseline/follow-up measure, and treatment group.~Random effects: random intercept for nursing home, random intercept for the interaction of baseline/follow-up measure and nursing home, random intercept for data collector (exclusive to CMAI model), and random intercept for individual."|0.08|-0.30|< 0.05
90919082|NCT03821844|181707947|SUPERIORITY||average marginal effect|-3.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.85|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.22|0.0|||Differences-in-Differences regression||||Variables included in the model: baseline medication use, age, sex, race, activities of daily living score, cognitive function score, psychotic diagnosis, depression, anxiety, dementia, asthma, agitation and reactive behavior (ARBS) score, date of assessment, treatment group, and facility-level random effect.|0.00|-7.22|< 0.05
90919083|NCT03821844|181707948|SUPERIORITY||average marginal effect|-3.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.08|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.55|0.06|||Differences-in-Differences regression||||Variables included in the model: baseline medication use, age, sex, race, activities of daily living score, cognitive function score, psychotic diagnosis, depression, anxiety, dementia, asthma, agitation and reactive behavior (ARBS) score, date of assessment, treatment group, and facility-level random effect.|0.06|-7.55|< 0.05
90962221|NCT02876835|181805395|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.8862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.24|||Chi-squared||First Event Hazard ratio is presented using Model 2. Model 2 assumed treatment effect differs by number of events experienced. Hazard Ratio (HR) was estimated using a PWP model, with treatment, dialysis type and region as covariates.|||1.24|0.95|0.8862
90962222|NCT02876835|181805395|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.6789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.39|||Chi-squared||Second Event Hazard ratio is presented using Model 2. Model 2 assumed treatment effect differs by number of events experienced. HR was estimated using a PWP model, with treatment, dialysis type and region as covariates.|||1.39|0.82|0.6789
90962223|NCT02876835|181805395|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.37||||0.9016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|2.19|||Chi-squared||Third Event Hazard ratio is presented using Model 2. Model 2 assumed treatment effect differs by number of events experienced. HR was estimated using a PWP model, with treatment, dialysis type and region as covariates.|||2.19|0.85|0.9016
90962224|NCT02876835|181805395|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.8862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.24|||Chi-squared||First Event Hazard ratio is presented using Model 3. Model 3 assumed treatment effect for first event differs from a common effect for subsequent events. HR was estimated using a PWP model, with treatment, dialysis type and region as covariates.|||1.24|0.95|0.8862
90962225|NCT02876835|181805395|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||0.8989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.46|||Chi-squared||Subsequent Event Hazard ratio is presented using Model 3. Model 3 assumed treatment effect for first event differs from a common effect for subsequent events. HR was estimated using a PWP model, with treatment, dialysis type and region as covariates.|||1.46|0.92|0.8989
90919084|NCT03821844|181707949|SUPERIORITY||average marginal effect|-1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.05|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.28|2.76|||Differences-in-Differences regression||||Variables included in the model: baseline medication use, age, sex, race, activities of daily living score, cognitive function score, psychotic diagnosis, depression, anxiety, dementia, asthma, agitation and reactive behavior (ARBS) score, date of assessment, treatment group, and facility-level random effect.|2.76|-5.28|< 0.05
90919085|NCT03821844|181707951|SUPERIORITY||average marginal effect|-0.22|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|0.7|||Differences-in-Differences regression||||Multilevel regression with covariates' adjustments was used to estimate the impact of the resident being in a treatment versus control nursing home on depressive symptoms.|0.70|-1.14|< 0.05
90919086|NCT03821844|181707952|SUPERIORITY||marginal interaction effect|0.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.02|||Differences-in-Differences regression||Reported estimation details pertain to the None category.||The intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis used Bayesian multi-level multinomial logit models to analyze the effect that being in a treatment versus control nursing home had on the behaviors of nursing home residents. All models adjust for resident baseline covariates and the activity status of a resident during an observation. In addition, they include an individual-level effect to account for multiple observations for the same resident, and a facility level effect to account for variability in the outcomes for individuals residing in the same nursing homes. To address baseline differences in the proportion of individuals at each level of the ordinal outcomes between treatment and control groups, we report the marginal time by intervention interaction.|0.02|-0.03|< 0.05
90962226|NCT02876835|181805396|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.7673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.33|||Wald test||Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment group, current ESA use at randomization, and region as covariates.|||1.33|0.88|0.7673
90962227|NCT02876835|181805397|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.8601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.15|||Wald test||Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment group, current ESA use at randomization, and region as covariates.|||1.15|0.96|0.8601
90962228|NCT02876835|181805398|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.6207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.22|||Wald test||Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment group, current ESA use at randomization, and region as covariates.|||1.22|0.86|0.6207
90962229|NCT02876835|181805399|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.9393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.26|||Wald test||Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment group, current ESA use at randomization, and region as covariates.|||1.26|0.97|0.9393
90962230|NCT02876835|181805400|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.22||||0.9412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.56|||Wald test||Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment group, current ESA use at randomization, and region as covariates.|||1.56|0.95|0.9412
90962231|NCT02876835|181805401|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.27||||0.8994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.84|||Wald test||Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment group, current ESA use at randomization, and region as covariates.|||1.84|0.88|0.8994
90962232|NCT02876835|181805402|SUPERIORITY||Subdistribution hazard ratio|0.92||||0.2073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.13|||Wald test||Subdistribution hazard ratio was estimated using Fine \& Gray's proportional subdistribution hazard regression model with treatment group, Baseline ESA use, and region as covariates.|||1.13|0.75|0.2073
90962233|NCT02876835|181805403|SUPERIORITY||Subdistribution hazard ratio|1.0||||0.5068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.19|||Wald test||Subdistribution hazard ratio was estimated using Fine \& Gray's proportional subdistribution hazard regression model with treatment group, Baseline ESA use, and region as covariates.|||1.19|0.84|0.5068
91034064|NCT00573443|181954054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of episode-rate reduction ratios|0.5312|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4939|0.5714|||Regression, Longitudinal neg. binomial|||Analysis of PBA episode rates used longitudinal negative binomial regression with treatment, period, diagnosis and study site to estimate pre-post changes in log mean episode rate for each treatment group. Null hypothesis of equal pre-post episode rate reductions were tested: AVP-923-30/placebo = 1.||0.5714|0.4939|<0.0001
90962234|NCT02876835|181805404|SUPERIORITY||Subdistribution hazard ratio|0.88||||0.3285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.54|||Wald test||Subdistribution hazard ratio was estimated using Fine \& Gray's proportional subdistribution hazard regression model with treatment group, Baseline ESA use, and region as covariates.|||1.54|0.51|0.3285
90962235|NCT02876835|181805405|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be established if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference was greater than the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of -0.75 g/dL.|LS mean difference|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.11||||||||0.11|-0.05|
90962236|NCT02876835|181805406|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rate|8.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.2|11.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for current ESA use and region was used to compare the number of responders between the treatment groups.|||11.4|5.2|<0.0001
90962237|NCT02876835|181805407|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be established if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the treatment difference was greater than non-inferiority margin of -15%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.04|7.11|||||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of the treatment difference (daprodustat-darbepoetin alfa) and associated two-sided asymptotic 95% CI is presented.|||7.11|2.04|
90962238|NCT02876835|181805408|SUPERIORITY||Probability|0.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.57|||van Elteren test||Mann-Whitney estimate (Probability) of the treatment effect has been presented.|||0.57|0.53|<0.0001
90962239|NCT02876835|181805409|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be established if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the treatment difference was greater than non-inferiority margin of -15%.|Median Difference (Final Values)|3.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|5.91|||||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of the treatment difference (daprodustat-darbepoetin alfa) and associated two-sided asymptotic 95% CI is presented.|||5.91|1.90|
90962240|NCT02876835|181805410|SUPERIORITY||Probability|0.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.56|||van Elteren test||Mann-Whitney estimate (Probability) of the treatment effect has been presented.|||0.56|0.52|<0.0001
90919087|NCT03821844|181707953|SUPERIORITY||marginal interaction effect|0.05|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.07|||Differences-in-Differences regression||||The intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis used Bayesian multi-level multinomial logit models to analyze the effect that being in a treatment versus control nursing home had on the moods of nursing home residents. All models adjust for resident baseline covariates and the activity status of a resident during an observation. In addition, they include an individual-level effect to account for multiple observations for the same resident, and a facility level effect to account for variability in the outcomes for individuals residing in the same nursing homes. We report the marginal time by intervention interaction.|0.07|0.02|< 0.05
90919088|NCT03821844|181707954|SUPERIORITY||marginal interaction effect|-0.01|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.01|||Differences-in-Differences regression||||The intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis used Bayesian multi-level multinomial logit models to analyze the effect that being in a treatment versus control nursing home had on the moods of nursing home residents. All models adjust for resident baseline covariates and the activity status of a resident during an observation. In addition, they include an individual-level effect to account for multiple observations for the same resident, and a facility level effect to account for variability in the outcomes for individuals residing in the same nursing homes. We report the marginal time by intervention interaction.|0.01|-0.03|< 0.05
90919089|NCT03821844|181707955|SUPERIORITY||average marginal effect|-0.01|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.01|||Differences-in-Differences regression||||The intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis used Bayesian multi-level multinomial logit models to analyze the effect that being in a treatment versus control nursing home had on the moods of nursing home residents. All models adjust for resident baseline covariates and the activity status of a resident during an observation. In addition, they include an individual-level effect to account for multiple observations for the same resident, and a facility level effect to account for variability in the outcomes for individuals residing in the same nursing homes. We report the marginal time by intervention interaction.|0.01|-0.04|< 0.05
90919090|NCT03821844|181707956|SUPERIORITY||marginal interaction effect|0.01|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.03|||Differences-in-Differences regression||||The intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis used Bayesian multi-level multinomial logit models to analyze the effect that being in a treatment versus control nursing home had on the moods of nursing home residents. All models adjust for resident baseline covariates and the activity status of a resident during an observation. In addition, they include an individual-level effect to account for multiple observations for the same resident, and a facility level effect to account for variability in the outcomes for individuals residing in the same nursing homes. We report the marginal time by intervention interaction.|0.03|-0.02|< 0.05
90919091|NCT03821844|181707957|SUPERIORITY||marginal interaction effect|-0.02|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.01|||Differences-in-Differences regression||||The intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis used Bayesian multi-level multinomial logit models to analyze the effect that being in a treatment vs. control NH had on the behaviors and moods of NH residents. The models were implemented separately for each mood. All models adjust for resident baseline covariates and the activity status of a resident during an observation. In addition, they include an individual-level effect to account for multiple observations for the same resident, and a facility level effect to account for variability in the outcomes for individuals residing in the same nursing homes. To address baseline differences in the proportion of individuals at each level of the ordinal outcomes between treatment and control groups, we report the marginal time by intervention interaction. We will refer to this estimand as the marginal interaction effect (MIE), which is sometimes known as the Difference in Differences estimand.|0.01|-0.05|< 0.05
90919092|NCT03899961|181707958|SUPERIORITY|Median regression model for the change from baseline, model was adjusted for treatment, bootstrap was used for the confidence interval|Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|1.09||Median regression model for the change from baseline, model was adjusted for treatment, bootstrap was used for the confidence interval|Median regression model for the change f|||Median regression model for the change from baseline, model was adjusted for treatment, bootstrap was used for the confidence interval||1.09|-1.09|0.05
90919093|NCT05075408|181707962|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was performed using hierarchical testing procedure. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.025.|Strata adjusted percentage difference|7.0||||0.3696|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-10.6|24.6||Threshold of significance at 0.025.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Nemolizumab 30 mg versus Placebo||24.6|-10.6|0.3696
90919094|NCT05075408|181707962|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was performed using hierarchical testing procedure. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.025.|Strata adjusted percentage difference|14.5||||0.0686|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.1|32.2||Threshold of significance at 0.025.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Nemolizumab 60 mg versus Placebo||32.2|-3.1|0.0686
90919095|NCT05075408|181707963|SUPERIORITY||Strata adjusted percentage difference|4.3||||0.5909|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-13.8|22.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis was performed using hierarchical testing procedure. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.025.||22.3|-13.8|0.5909
90919096|NCT05075408|181707963|SUPERIORITY||Strata adjusted percentage difference|12.9||||0.1112|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-5.5|31.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis was performed using hierarchical testing procedure. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.025.||31.4|-5.5|0.1112
90881251|NCT01857063|181625683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares (LS) Means|-0.01||||0.913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.1||Longitudinal Data Analysis (LDA) model with baseline TNSS as a covariate, sequence, treatment and period as fixed effects and participant as a random effect.|Longitudinal Data Analysis (LDA)|||||0.10|-0.11|0.913
90881252|NCT01857063|181625685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.0||||0.953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.16||Longitudinal Data Analysis (LDA) model with baseline Weighted TNSS as a covariate, sequence, treatment and period as fixed effects and participant as a random effect.|LDA|||||0.16|-0.17|0.953
90881253|NCT01857063|181625686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.0||||0.974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.07||Longitudinal Data Analysis (LDA) model with baseline nasal congestion score as a covariate, sequence, treatment and period as fixed effects and participant as a random effect.|LDA|||||0.07|-0.07|0.974
90881254|NCT01857063|181625687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.03||||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.01||Longitudinal Data Analysis (LDA) model with baseline nasal discharge score as a covariate, sequence, treatment and period as fixed effects and participant as a random effect.|LDA|||||0.01|-0.06|0.182
90881255|NCT01857063|181625688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.02||||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.05||Longitudinal Data Analysis (LDA) model with baseline sneezing score as a covariate, sequence, treatment and period as fixed effects and participant as a random effect.|LDA|||||0.05|-0.01|0.161
90881256|NCT01205165|181625707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0||95.0||||P-value is calculated from Wilcoxon signed rank test to compare difference between baseline and week12|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Baseline and Week 12||||0.00000
90881257|NCT00329407|181625731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.58|-3.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Dunnett-Hsu adjustment was used to correct for multiple comparisons.||This was a within subject analysis. The null hypothesis was that there would be no significant difference in least squares means values obtained for the baseline and week 10 assessment weeks.||-3.14|-6.58|<0.0001
90919097|NCT05075408|181707964|SUPERIORITY||Strata adjusted percentage difference|17.3||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|97.5|4.3|30.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis was performed using hierarchical testing procedure. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.025.||30.4|4.3|0.0034
90919098|NCT05075408|181707964|SUPERIORITY||Strata adjusted percentage difference|17.1||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|4.5|29.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis was performed using hierarchical testing procedure. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.025.||29.8|4.5|0.0025
90919099|NCT05075408|181707965|SUPERIORITY||Strata adjusted percentage difference|3.7||||0.5788|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-12.5|19.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis was performed using hierarchical testing procedure. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.025.||19.8|-12.5|0.5788
90919100|NCT05075408|181707965|SUPERIORITY||Strata adjusted percentage difference|16.5||||0.0303|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.8|33.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis was performed using hierarchical testing procedure. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.025.||33.9|-0.8|0.0303
90919101|NCT05075408|181707966|SUPERIORITY||Strata adjusted percentage difference|24.2||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|97.5|8.8|39.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis was performed using hierarchical testing procedure. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.025.||39.6|8.8|0.0006
90919102|NCT05075408|181707966|SUPERIORITY||Strata adjusted percentage difference|20.8||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|97.5|6.0|35.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis was performed using hierarchical testing procedure. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.025.||35.7|6.0|0.0021
90919103|NCT05075408|181707967|SUPERIORITY||Strata adjusted percentage difference|14.0||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|97.5|3.8|24.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis was performed using hierarchical testing procedure. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.025.||24.1|3.8|0.0028
90881258|NCT00329407|181625732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7||0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||||There would a significant reduction in COWAT scores between baseline and Week 10.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Dunnett-Hsu adjustment was used to correct for multiple comparisons.||This is a within subject comparison of COWAT scores botained for the baseline session and the Week 10 session. The null hypothesis is that there would be no difference between these scores.||||0.001
90881259|NCT00978068|181625733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio|0.59||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.97|||Negative Binomial Regression||Group 1 represents the numerator for the rate ratio. Group 2 represents the denominator for the rate ratio.|We assumed that the incidence of malaria in Group 2 would be 0.70 episodes per person-year and estimated that we would need a sample of 300 participants for the study to have 80% power to show a 35% reduction in the incidence of malaria in Group 1, at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05. We then observed an incidence of malaria in Group 2 that was higher than anticipated (2.19 episodes/person-yr) and revised the sample size to 150 participants, who would be followed for at least 6 months.||0.97|0.36|0.04
90881260|NCT00978068|181625734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||Cox Proportional-Hazards|||||||0.13
90881261|NCT00978068|181625735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio|0.8||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|11.16|||Negative Binomial Regression||Group 1 represents the numerator for the rate ratio. Group 2 represents the denominator for the rate ratio.|We assumed that the incidence of malaria in Group 2 would be 0.70 episodes per person-year and estimated that we would need a sample of 300 participants for the study to have 80% power to show a 35% reduction in the incidence of malaria in Group 1, at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05. We then observed an incidence of malaria in Group 2 that was higher than anticipated (2.19 episodes/person-yr) and revised the sample size to 150 participants, who would be followed for at least 6 months.||11.16|0.06|0.87
90919104|NCT05075408|181707967|SUPERIORITY||Strata adjusted percentage difference|19.0||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|97.5|7.6|30.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis was performed using hierarchical testing procedure. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.025.||30.5|7.6|0.0003
90919105|NCT05107401|181708009|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||The statistical values presented are the Estimated Value of Mean Difference between study arms from baseline to the three-month follow-up.|Separate multilevel linear mixed models were calculated for the overall stigma score and then for each of the stigma subscale scores. The multilevel linear mixed models incorporated fixed effects for time (categorical), study arm, and their interaction and included intercept as a random effect. Models were also adjusted for pre-intervention stigma levels, whether the participant had submitted content to the study contest, prior HIV testing, age, sex at birth, and sexual orientation.||0.30|-4.90|0.083
90919106|NCT05107401|181708010|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.67||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|-0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis||The statistical values presented are the Estimated Value of Mean Difference between study arms from baseline to the three-month follow-up.|Separate multilevel linear mixed models were calculated for the overall stigma score and then for each of the stigma subscale scores. The multilevel linear mixed models incorporated random fixed effects for time (categorical), study arm, and their interaction and included intercept as a random effect. Models were also adjusted for pre-intervention stigma levels, whether the participant had submitted content to the study contest, age, sex at birth, and sexual orientation.||-0.18|-1.16|0.032
90919107|NCT05107401|181708011|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis||The statistical values presented are the Estimated Value of Mean Difference between study arms from baseline to the three-month follow-up.|Separate multilevel linear mixed models were calculated for the overall stigma score and then for each of the stigma subscale scores. The multilevel linear mixed models incorporated random fixed effects for time (categorical), study arm, and their interaction and included intercept as a random effect. Models were also adjusted for pre-intervention stigma levels, whether the participant had submitted content to the study contest, prior HIV testing, age, sex at birth, and sexual orientation.||0.29|-0.72|0.48
90919108|NCT05107401|181708012|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis||The statistical values presented are the Estimated Value of Mean Difference between study arms from baseline to the three-month follow-up.|Separate multilevel linear mixed models were calculated for the overall stigma score and then for each of the stigma subscale scores. The multilevel linear mixed models incorporated random fixed effects for time (categorical), study arm, and their interaction and included intercept as a random effect. Models were also adjusted for pre-intervention stigma levels, whether the participant had submitted content to the study contest, prior HIV testing, age, sex at birth, and sexual orientation.||0.29|-1.49|0.48
90919109|NCT05107401|181708013|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.05||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.51|||Mixed Models Analysis||The statistical values presented are the Estimated Value of Mean Difference between study arms from baseline to the three-month follow-up.|Separate multilevel linear mixed models were calculated for the overall stigma score and then for each of the stigma subscale scores. The multilevel linear mixed models incorporated random fixed effects for time (categorical), study arm, and their interaction and included intercept as a random effect. Models were also adjusted for pre-intervention stigma levels, whether the participant had submitted content to the study contest, prior HIV testing, age, sex at birth, and sexual orientation.||0.51|-2.60|0.37
90919110|NCT05107401|181708014|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.13||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.32|||Regression, Logistic||The statistical values presented are the relative risk between study arms at the three-month follow-up.|We used a generalized linear model using a binomial distribution to examine whether the intervention was associated with increased HIV self-testing uptake in the follow-up period. The model was adjusted for history of HIV testing (pre-intervention testing and testing prior to the study), whether the participant had submitted content to the JasSpark contest, and if the participant had a main intimate partner (e.g., girlfriend/boyfriend, spouse).||1.32|0.98|0.099
90919111|NCT05107401|181708015|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.09||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.59|-1.58||To account for multiple comparisons arising from analyses of moderating effects, the false discovery rate (FDR) was controlled using Benjamini-Hochberg procedures in a tiered approach.|Mixed Models Analysis||The statistical values presented are the Estimated Value of Mean Difference in females between study arms from baseline to the three-month follow-up.|Sex was marginally significant in the initial multilevel mixed models, therefore, we examined potential moderation effects of sex on stigma changes. Fixed effects corresponding to the two-way interactions involving sex, time, and/or arm, as well as the three-way interaction of sex, time, and arm, were added to the models.||-1.58|-8.59|0.012
90919112|NCT05107401|181708015|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.58||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|5.42||To account for multiple comparisons arising from analyses of moderating effects, the false discovery rate (FDR) was controlled using Benjamini-Hochberg procedures in a tiered approach.|Mixed Models Analysis||The statistical values presented are the Estimated Value of Mean Difference in males between study arms from baseline to the three-month follow-up.|Sex was marginally significant in the initial multilevel mixed models, therefore, we examined potential moderation effects of sex on stigma changes. Fixed effects corresponding to the two-way interactions involving sex, time, and/or arm, as well as the three-way interaction of sex, time, and arm, were added to the models.||5.42|-2.26|0.56
90881262|NCT00978068|181625736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.12|||Cox Proportional-Hazards|Adjustment for repeated measures in the same patient|Group 1 represents the numerator for the hazard ratio. Group 2 represents the denominator for the hazard ratio.|||1.12|0.45|0.14
90881263|NCT00978068|181625737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.31||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.68|||Cox Proportional-Hazards|Adjustment for repeated measures in same participant.|Group 1 represents the numerator for the hazard ratio. Group 2 represents the denominator for the hazard ratio.|||0.68|0.14|0.004
90881264|NCT00978068|181625738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.41||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.76|||Cox Proportional-Hazards|Adjustment for repeated measures in the same patient.|Group 1 represents the numerator in the hazard ratio. Group 2 represents the denominator in the hazard ratio.|||0.76|0.22|0.004
90881265|NCT01434290|181625747|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||One sample z-test|One-sided 0.025 significance level||≤35% was considered acceptable, ≥55% unacceptable. Each arm analyzed separately. Average score and standard error of each arm calculated and one-sample z-test for proportion with significance level of 0.025 was used. For a given arm, if the null hypothesis of p ≤ 0.35 is rejected, then conclude that the regimen given on that arm is unacceptable. However if it not rejected for both bowel \& urinary domains, then that regimen will be considered acceptable for further use in a Phase III study.||||0.19
90881266|NCT01434290|181625747|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||One sample z-test|one-sided 0.025 significance level||≤35% was considered acceptable, ≥55% unacceptable. Each arm analyzed separately. Average score and standard error of each arm calculated and one-sample z-test for proportion with significance level of 0.025 was used. For a given arm, if the null hypothesis of p ≤ 0.35 is rejected, then conclude that the regimen given on that arm is unacceptable. However if it not rejected for both bowel \& urinary domains, then that regimen will be considered acceptable for further use in a Phase III study.||||0.08
90881267|NCT01434290|181625748|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||One sample z-test|One-sided 0.025 significance level||≤40% was considered acceptable, ≥60% unacceptable. Each arm analyzed separately. Average score and standard error of each arm calculated and one-sample z-test for proportion with significance level of 0.025 was used. For a given arm, if the null hypothesis of p ≤ 0.40 is rejected, then conclude that the regimen given on that arm is unacceptable. However if it not rejected for both bowel \& urinary domains, then that regimen will be considered acceptable for further use in a Phase III study.||||0.18
90881268|NCT01434290|181625748|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||One sample z-test|One-sided 0.025 significance level||≤40% was considered acceptable, ≥60% unacceptable. Each arm analyzed separately. Average score and standard error of each arm calculated and one-sample z-test for proportion with significance level of 0.025 was used. For a given arm, if the null hypothesis of p ≤ 0.40 is rejected, then conclude that the regimen given on that arm is unacceptable. However if it not rejected for both bowel \& urinary domains, then that regimen will be considered acceptable for further use in a Phase III study.||||0.38
90881269|NCT01434290|181625753|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Two-sided significance level of 0.017.||\[Bowel one-year results\] Originally the t-test was planned to test if the change in each arm is different from 0. Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney was used instead due to the normality of the data.||||0.03
90881270|NCT01434290|181625753|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Two-sided significance level of 0.017.||\[Bowel one-year results\] Originally the t-test was planned to test if the change in each arm is different from 0. Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney was used instead due to the normality of the data.||||0.03
90919113|NCT02721381|181708016|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The effect of group assignment was examined using MLM, with a significant time X group interaction indicative of an effect of group assignment. Data from T1, T2, and T3 were both used in same analysis.||||<.001
90881271|NCT01434290|181625753|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Two-sided significance level of 0.017||\[Urinary one-year results\] Originally the t-test was planned to test if the change in each arm is different from 0. Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney was used instead due to the normality of the data.||||0.09
90881272|NCT01434290|181625753|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Two-side significance level of 0.017||\[Urinary one-year results\] Originally the t-test was planned to test if the change in each arm is different from 0. Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney was used instead due to the normality of the data.||||0.43
90881273|NCT01434290|181625754|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||One-sample z-test|One-sided 0.025 significance level||≤35% was considered acceptable, ≥55% unacceptable. Each arm analyzed separately. Average score and standard error of each arm calculated and one-sample z-test for proportion with significance level of 0.025 was used.||||0.39
90881274|NCT01434290|181625754|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||One sample z-test|One-side significance level of 0.025||≤35% was considered acceptable, ≥55% unacceptable. Each arm analyzed separately. Average score and standard error of each arm calculated and one-sample z-test for proportion with significance level of 0.025 was used.||||0.21
90881275|NCT01434290|181625755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||one sampe z-test|One-sided significance level of 0.025||≤38% was considered acceptable, ≥58% unacceptable. Each arm analyzed separately. Average score and standard error of each arm calculated and one-sample z-test for proportion with significance level of 0.025 was used.||||0.44
90881276|NCT01434290|181625755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53|||||||One sample z-test|One-sided significance level of 0.025||≤38% was considered acceptable, ≥58% unacceptable. Each arm analyzed separately. Average score and standard error of each arm calculated and one-sample z-test for proportion with significance level of 0.025 was used.||||0.53
90881277|NCT01434290|181625756|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Two-sided significance level of 0.017.||\[One-year Index Score\] Originally the t-test was planned to test if the change in each arm is different from 0. Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney was used instead due to the non-normality of the data. Each arm analyzed separately.||||0.16
90881278|NCT01434290|181625756|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Two-sided significance level of 0.017.||\[One-year Index Score\] Originally the t-test was planned to test if the change in each arm is different from 0. Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney was used instead due to the non-normality of the data. Each arm analyzed separately.||||0.03
90881279|NCT01434290|181625756|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Two-sided significance level of 0.017.||\[One-year VAS Score\] Originally the t-test was planned to test if the change in each arm is different from 0. Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney was used instead due to the non-normality of the data. Each arm analyzed separately.||||0.83
90881280|NCT01434290|181625756|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Two-sided significance level of 0.017.||\[One-year VAS Score\] Originally the t-test was planned to test if the change in each arm is different from 0. Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney was used instead due to the non-normality of the data. Each arm analyzed separately.||||0.86
90919114|NCT02721381|181708017|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The effect of group assignment was examined using MLM, with a significant time X group interaction indicative of an effect of group assignment. Data from T1, T2, and T3 were both used in same analysis.||||<.001
90919115|NCT02721381|181708018|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The effect of group assignment was examined using MLM, with a significant time X group interaction indicative of an effect of group assignment. Data from T1, T2, and T3 were both used in same analysis.||||.85
90919116|NCT02721381|181708019|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The effect of group assignment was examined using MLM, with a significant time X group interaction indicative of an effect of group assignment. Data from T1, T2, and T3 were both used in same analysis.||||.85
90919117|NCT02721381|181708020|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.98
90919118|NCT02721381|181708021|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.69
90919119|NCT02721381|181708022|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The effect of group assignment was examined using MLM, with a significant time X group interaction indicative of an effect of group assignment. Data from T1, T2, and T3 were both used in same analysis.||||.038
90919120|NCT02721381|181708023|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The effect of group assignment was examined using MLM, with a significant time X group interaction indicative of an effect of group assignment. Data from T1, T2, and T3 were both used in same analysis.||||.45
90919121|NCT02721381|181708024|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA controlling for T1 measure||||.92
90919122|NCT02721381|181708025|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA controlling for T1 measure||||.42
90919123|NCT02721381|181708026|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA controlling for T1 measure||||.65
90919124|NCT02721381|181708027|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Independent samples t-test||||.001
90919125|NCT04840199|181708068|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.031||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.018||No adjustment for multiple comparisons|Regression, Linear||Treatment effect was estimated as the difference in mean change in log10 sTNFRII with randomized letermovir compared to no anti-CMV treatment from a linear regression model (0 reflects no difference between arms).|||0.018|-0.080|0.20
90919126|NCT04840199|181708069|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.172||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.073|0.438||No adjustment for multiple comparisons|Chan/Zhang exact test diff. proportions||An exact 95% confidence interval around the observed difference in proportions (and the associated p-value) was constructed based on the standardized statistic and inverting two 1-sided tests (Chan-Zhang method).|||0.438|-0.073|0.19
90919127|NCT04840199|181708071|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.03||No adjustment for multiple comparisons|GEE model for repeated binary outcomes|P-value is from the time and treatment group interaction in the early treatment phase.|Treatment effect was estimated as the odds ratio of weekly rate of change (slope) in odds of CMV DNA detection with randomized letermovir compared to no anti-CMV treatment from a GEE model with linear splines (1 reflects no difference between arms).|Early treatment phase comparison||1.03|0.80|0.12
90919128|NCT04840199|181708071|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|0.98||No adjustment for multiple comparisons|GEE model for repeated binary outcomes|P-value is from the time and treatment group interaction in the late treatment phase.|Treatment effect was estimated as the odds ratio of weekly rate of change (slope) in odds of CMV DNA detection with randomized letermovir compared to no anti-CMV treatment from a GEE model with linear splines (1 reflects no difference between arms).|Late treatment phase comparison||0.98|0.87|0.009
90919129|NCT04840199|181708071|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.53||No adjustment for multiple comparisons|GEE model for repeated binary outcomes|P-value is from the time and treatment group interaction in the post treatment phase.|Treatment effect was estimated as the odds ratio of weekly rate of change (slope) in odds of CMV DNA detection with randomized letermovir compared to no anti-CMV treatment from a GEE model with linear splines (1 reflects no difference between arms).|Post treatment phase comparison||1.53|0.90|0.24
90919130|NCT04840199|181708074|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0002||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0062|0.0066||No adjustment for multiple comparisons|GEE model for repeated outcomes|P-value is from the time and treatment group interaction in the early treatment phase.|Treatment effect was estimated as the difference in weekly rate of change (slope) in log10 sCD163 with randomized letermovir compared to no anti-CMV treatment from a GEE model with linear splines (1 reflects no difference between treatment groups).|Early treatment phase comparison||0.0066|-0.0062|0.95
90919131|NCT04840199|181708074|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0007||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0019|0.0005||No adjustment for multiple comparisons|GEE model for repeated outcomes|P-value is from the time and treatment group interaction in the late treatment phase.|Treatment effect was estimated as the difference in weekly rate of change (slope) in log10 sCD163 with randomized letermovir compared to no anti-CMV treatment from a GEE model with linear splines (1 reflects no difference between treatment groups).|Late treatment phase comparison||0.0005|-0.0019|0.28
90919132|NCT04840199|181708074|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0056||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0006|0.0118||No adjustment for multiple comparisons|GEE model for repeated outcomes|P-value is from the time and treatment group interaction in the post treatment phase.|Treatment effect was estimated as the difference in weekly rate of change (slope) in log10 sCD163 with randomized letermovir compared to no anti-CMV treatment from a GEE model with linear splines (1 reflects no difference between treatment groups).|Post treatment phase comparison||0.0118|-0.0006|0.077
90919133|NCT04840199|181708075|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0009||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.0058||No adjustment for multiple comparisons|GEE model for repeated outcomes|P-value is from the time and treatment group interaction in the early treatment phase.|Treatment effect was estimated as the difference in weekly rate of change (slope) in log10 sTNFRII with randomized letermovir compared to no anti-CMV treatment from a GEE model with linear splines (1 reflects no difference between arms).|Early treatment phase comparison||0.0058|-0.0040|0.72
90940591|NCT00645099|181760944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|This test was interpreted at the 5% significance level (2-tailed).||Within-group change from baseline to end point.||||<0.0001
90940592|NCT00645099|181760944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|This test was interpreted at the 5% significance level (2-tailed).||Within-group change from baseline to end point.||||<0.0001
90919134|NCT04840199|181708075|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0009||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0022|0.0003||No adjustment for multiple comparisons|GEE model for repeated outcomes|P-value is from the time and treatment group interaction in the late treatment phase.|Treatment effect was estimated as the difference in weekly rate of change (slope) in log10 sTNFRII with randomized letermovir compared to no anti-CMV treatment from a GEE model with linear splines (1 reflects no difference between arms).|Late treatment phase comparison||0.0003|-0.0022|0.13
90919135|NCT04840199|181708075|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0023||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|0.0055||No adjustment for multiple comparisons|GEE model for repeated outcomes|P-value is from the time and treatment group interaction in the post treatment phase.|Treatment effect was estimated as the difference in weekly rate of change (slope) in log10 sTNFRII with randomized letermovir compared to no anti-CMV treatment from a GEE model with linear splines (1 reflects no difference between arms).|Post treatment phase comparison||0.0055|-0.0010|0.17
90919136|NCT03857620|181708085|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed effects model (w/ Gaussian link) w/ random practice effect to account for clustering by site \& bsl CHAMPS score as covariate||Combined Arm II (OPTI-Surg) \& Arm III (OPTI-Surg plus Coach) vs. Arm I (Usual Care)||0.45|-0.85|0.53
90919137|NCT03857620|181708085|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed effects model (w/ Gaussian link) w/ random practice effect to account for clustering by site \& bsl CHAMPS score as covariate||||0.81|-0.67|0.84
90919138|NCT03857620|181708085|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed effects model (w/ Gaussian link) w/ random practice effect to account for clustering by site \& bsl CHAMPS score as covariate||||0.26|-1.21|0.19
90919139|NCT03857620|181708085|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.55||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|1.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed effects model (w/ Gaussian link) w/ random practice effect to account for clustering by site \& bsl CHAMPS score as covariate||||1.29|-0.19|0.14
90919140|NCT03857620|181708086|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|2.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed effects model (with logit link function) with a random practice effect to account for clustering within practice||Combined Arm II (OPTI-Surg) \& Arm III (OPTI-Surg plus Coach) vs. Arm I (Usual Care)||2.09|0.23|0.50
90919141|NCT03857620|181708086|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.46||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed effects model (with logit link function) with a random practice effect to account for clustering within practice||||1.62|0.13|0.21
90962241|NCT02876835|181805411|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.56||||0.7916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|1.9|||MMRM||The difference in change from Baseline in SBP at Week 52 was analyzed with a MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms.|||1.90|-0.79|0.7916
90919142|NCT03857620|181708086|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed effects model (with logit link function) with a random practice effect to account for clustering within practice||||3.54|0.30|0.96
90919143|NCT03857620|181708086|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.45||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed effects model (with logit link function) with a random practice effect to account for clustering within practice||||1.54|0.13|0.19
90919144|NCT05952076|181708088|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.11||||0.6863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|See Estimation Comments|The mixed model included treatment and visit as factors, including the interaction term, and was adjusted by baseline WAZ and baseline age (days). A random intercept for participant was included.|||0.67|-0.44|0.6863
90919145|NCT05952076|181708089|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|109.3||||0.5567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-259.76|478.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|See Estimation Comments|The mixed model included treatment and visit as factors, including the interaction term, and was adjusted by baseline weight (grams) and baseline age (days). A random intercept for participant was included.|||478.36|-259.76|0.5567
90919146|NCT05952076|181708090|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.1||||0.7275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|See Estimation Comments|The mixed model included treatment and visit as factors, including the interaction term, and was adjusted by baseline WAZ, baseline age (days) and study intervention compliance. A random intercept for participant was included.|||0.66|-0.46|0.7275
90919147|NCT04899115|181708116|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.13
90919148|NCT04899115|181708117|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon was used because data was not normal.||||||0.48
90919149|NCT00894543|181708123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P values from comparison of Escitalopram vs placebo in a linear model of the outcome as a function of intervention group and adjusted for race, clinical center, baseline outcome, and visit (week 4 or week 8).|Regression, Linear|Natural log transformations applied to hot flash frequencies for modeling assumptions.||Based on data from the Herbal Alternatives for Menopause (HALT) study, MsFLASH estimated that 90 women in each treatment group provide 90% power to detect a difference between drug and placebo with a 2-sided alpha of 0.025 to account for two primary outcomes of hot flash frequency and severity.||||<0.001
90919150|NCT00894543|181708127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P values from comparison of Escitalopram vs placebo in a linear model of the outcome as a function of intervention group and adjusted for race, clinical center, baseline outcome, and visit (week 4 or week 8).|Regression, Linear|Natural log transformations applied to hot flash frequencies for modeling assumptions.||Based on data from the Herbal Alternatives for Menopause (HALT) study, MsFLASH estimated that 90 women in each treatment group provide 90% power to detect a difference between drug and placebo with a 2-sided alpha of 0.025 to account for two primary outcomes of hot flash frequency and severity.||||<0.001
90919151|NCT00894543|181708128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.001
90919152|NCT04452318|181708173|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.332|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.332|0.090|< 0.0001
90919153|NCT04452318|181708174|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.54|||=|0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.298|0.966|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.966|0.298|= 0.0380
90919154|NCT04452318|181708176|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.069|0.236|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.236|0.069|< 0.0001
90919155|NCT04452318|181708176|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.41|||=|0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.228|0.728|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.728|0.228|= 0.0024
90919156|NCT04452318|181708177|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Stratified Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||< 0.0001
90919157|NCT04452318|181708178|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Stratified Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||< 0.0001
90919158|NCT04452318|181708178|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.001|||||||Stratified Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||= 0.0010
90919159|NCT04452318|181708179|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Stratified Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||< 0.0001
90919160|NCT04452318|181708180|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.208|0.456|||Multiple Imputation, Logistic Regression|||||0.456|0.208|< 0.0001
90919161|NCT04452318|181708182|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.051|0.286|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.286|0.051|< 0.0001
90919162|NCT04452318|181708183|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Stratified Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||< 0.0001
90919163|NCT04452318|181708184|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.09|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.37|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.370|0.020|= 0.0010
90919164|NCT04452318|181708185|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Stratified Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||< 0.0001
90919165|NCT04452318|181708188|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-2.123|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.295|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.707|-1.539|||ANOVA|||||-1.539|-2.707|< 0.0001
90919166|NCT04452318|181708189|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-2.483|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.342|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.161|-1.806|||ANOVA|||||-1.806|-3.161|< 0.0001
90919167|NCT04452318|181708190|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|-2.428|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.389|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.196|-1.659|||ANOVA|||||-1.659|-3.196|< 0.0001
90919168|NCT04452318|181708191|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|-2.441|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.381|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.194|-1.688|||ANOVA|||||-1.688|-3.194|< 0.0001
90919169|NCT04452318|181708194|OTHER||||||=|0.0621|||||||Fisher Exact|||Testing if there is an association between the observed results and treatment received||||= 0.0621
90919170|NCT04452318|181708195|OTHER||||||=|0.0038|||||||Fisher Exact|||Testing if there is an association between the observed results and treatment received'||||= 0.0038
90919171|NCT04452318|181708198|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Stratified Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||< 0.0001
90919172|NCT04452318|181708206|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0273|||||||Stratified Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||= 0.0273
90919173|NCT04452318|181708207|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.54|||=|0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.299|0.989|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.989|0.299|= 0.0460
90919174|NCT04452318|181708208|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.47|||=|0.0721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.207|1.07|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.070|0.207|= 0.0721
90919175|NCT04452318|181708209|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.026|||||||Stratified Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||= 0.0260
90919176|NCT04452318|181708210|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0614|||||||Stratified Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||= 0.0614
90919177|NCT04452318|181708211|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.461|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.337|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.127|-0.795|||ANCOVA|||||-0.795|-2.127|< 0.0001
90919178|NCT04452318|181708212|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.279|=|0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||||-0.300|-1.400|= 0.0026
90919179|NCT04452318|181708213|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.193|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.321|-0.559|||ANCOVA|||||-0.559|-1.321|< 0.0001
90919180|NCT04452318|181708214|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|-26.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.041|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.973|-14.117|||ANCOVA|||||-14.117|-37.973|< 0.0001
90919181|NCT04452318|181708215|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|-1.395|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.338|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.063|-0.727|||ANCOVA|||||-0.727|-2.063|< 0.0001
90919182|NCT04452318|181708216|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0138|||||||Stratified Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||= 0.0138
90919183|NCT04452318|181708217|OTHER||||||=|0.0292|||||||Fisher Exact|||Testing if there is an association between the observed results and treatment received||||= 0.0292
90919184|NCT04452318|181708218|OTHER||||||=|0.2466|||||||Fisher Exact|||Testing if there is an association between the observed results and treatment received||||= 0.2466
90919185|NCT04452318|181708219|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.7861|||||||Stratified Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|||||||= 0.7861
90919186|NCT04452318|181708220|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0842|||||||Stratified Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|||||||= 0.0842
90919187|NCT01066026|181708239|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|pilot study.|descritive variables|50.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|95.0|||McNemar||50 was the percentage of hematomas expected for standard needle group.|||95|5|<0.0001
90919188|NCT01017146|181708250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The p-value indicates treatment differences between tazarotene foam and vehicle foam for ILs|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90919189|NCT01017146|181708250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The p-value indicates treatment differences between tazarotene foam and vehicle foam for NILs|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90919190|NCT01017146|181708250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The p-value indicates treatment differences between tazarotene foam and vehicle foam for TLs|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90919191|NCT01017146|181708251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|35.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.7|40.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants receiving tazarotene foam with a minimum 2 G improvement in the ISGA score from Baseline at Week 12.|||40.5|30.7|<0.001
90919192|NCT01017146|181708251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|23.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.6|28.3|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants receiving vehicle foam with a minimum 2 G improvement in the ISGA score from Baseline at Week 12.|||28.3|19.6|
90919193|NCT01017146|181708252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|28.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.2|33.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants receiving tazarotene foam with an ISGA score of 0 or 1 at Week 12.|||33.5|24.2|<0.001
90919194|NCT01017146|181708252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|16.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.4|19.9|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants receiving vehicle foam with an ISGA score of 0 or 1 at Week 12.|||19.9|12.4|
90919195|NCT02272816|181708279|OTHER||Percentage|95.6|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||98.6||||||||98.6||
90919196|NCT02272816|181708280|OTHER||Percentage|45.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.2|59.9||||||||59.9|30.2|
90919197|NCT02272816|181708281|OTHER||Percentage|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|92.6|100.0||||||||100|92.6|
90919198|NCT00879060|181708332|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||An a priori threshold for statistical significance was determined at an alpha level of 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sample T-test was used to compare continuous variable PINP (serum marker of collagen formation/degradation) between spironolactone treated and placebo groups at baseline.||||1.0
90919199|NCT00879060|181708332|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|||||An a priori threshold for statistical significance was determined at an alpha level of 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sample T-test was used to compare continuous variable PIIINP (serum marker of collagen formation/degradation) between spironolactone treated and placebo groups at baseline.||||0.8
90962242|NCT02876835|181805411|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.65||||0.9581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|1.38|||MMRM||The difference in change from Baseline in DBP at Week 52 was analyzed with a MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms.|||1.38|-0.09|0.9581
90962243|NCT02876835|181805411|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.6||||0.9241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|1.43|||MMRM||The difference in change from Baseline in MAP at Week 52 was analyzed with a MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms.|||1.43|-0.22|0.9241
90962244|NCT02876835|181805412|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.08||||0.442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|1.02|||ANCOVA||For SBP: Treatment group comparisons were based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, current ESA use at randomization, region and Baseline value.|||1.02|-1.18|0.4420
90962245|NCT02876835|181805412|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.11||||0.6369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.75|||ANCOVA||For DBP: Treatment group comparisons were based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, current ESA use at randomization, region and Baseline value.|||0.75|-0.52|0.6369
90962246|NCT02876835|181805412|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.04||||0.549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.74|||ANCOVA||For MAP: Treatment group comparisons were based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, current ESA use at randomization, region and Baseline value.|||0.74|-0.65|0.5490
90919200|NCT00879060|181708332|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|||||An a priori threshold for statistical significance was determined at an alpha level of 0.05.aseline.|t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sample T-test was used to compare continuous variable ICTP (serum marker of collagen formation/degradation) between spironolactone treated and placebo groups at baseline.||||0.3
90919201|NCT00879060|181708332|OTHER||Absolute difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||An a priori threshold for statistical significance was determined at an alpha level of 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sample T-test was used to compare the absolute differences in change from baseline to 12 months in continuous variable PINP (serum marker of collagen formation/degradation) between spironolactone treated and placebo groups.||||1.0
90919202|NCT00879060|181708333|OTHER||Absolute difference|1.2||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|||||An a priori threshold for statistical significance was determined at an alpha level of 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sample T-test was used to compare the absolute differences in change from baseline to 12 months in continuous variable peak oxygen consumption with exercise (peak VO2) between spironolactone treated and placebo groups.||||0.7
90919203|NCT00879060|181708334|OTHER||Absolute difference|0.0||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|||||An a priori threshold for statistical significance was determined at an alpha level of 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sample T-test was used to compare the absolute differences in change from baseline to 12 months in continuous variable New York Heart Association (NYHA) Functional Class between spironolactone treated and placebo groups.||||0.8
90919204|NCT00879060|181708335|OTHER||Absolute difference|1.4||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||An a priori threshold for statistical significance was determined at an alpha level of 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sample T-test was used to compare the absolute differences in change from baseline to 12 months in continuous variable Septal E/e' between spironolactone treated and placebo groups.||||1.0
90919205|NCT00879060|181708336|OTHER||Absolute difference|0.2||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|||||An a priori threshold for statistical significance was determined at an alpha level of 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sample T-test was used to compare the absolute differences in change from baseline to 12 months in continuous variable percentage of left ventricular mass (%LV) between spironolactone treated and placebo groups.||||0.7
90962247|NCT02876835|181805413|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of exacerbation rate|0.88||||0.0074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.98|||Negative binomial model||Ratio of model estimated exacerbation rates and CIs estimated using negative binomial model with treatment,current ESA use at randomization and region as covariates and logarithm of time on treatment as offset variable for treatment group comparison.|||0.98|0.79|0.0074
90962248|NCT02876835|181805415|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63||||0.0113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.94|||Wald test||Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model adjusted for treatment group, current ESA use and region.|||0.94|0.42|0.0113
90962249|NCT02876835|181805416|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.36||||0.932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.11|||MMRM||Week8:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week8 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time,current ESA use at randomization, region,Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions|||0.11|-0.83|0.9320
90919206|NCT00879060|181708337|OTHER||Absolute difference|0.9||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|||||An a priori threshold for statistical significance was determined at an alpha level of 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sample T-test was used to compare the absolute differences in change from baseline to 12 months in continuous variable maximum left ventricular wall thickness (Max LV) between spironolactone treated and placebo groups.||||0.4
90919207|NCT00879060|181708338|OTHER||Absolute difference|5.7||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|||||An a priori threshold for statistical significance was determined at an alpha level of 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sample T-test was used to compare the absolute differences in change from baseline to 12 months in continuous variable left ventricular end-diastolic (LVED) cavity size between spironolactone treated and placebo groups.||||0.7
90881281|NCT02281552|181625759|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of tofacitinib MR 11 mg QD to IR 5 mg BID was concluded if the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of differences between the treatment groups (MR 11 mg QD - IR 5 mg BID) at Week 12 was less than the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 0.6.|Least Square (LS) mean difference|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.69||||||Analysis was conducted using a linear mixed effect model with repeated measures (MMRM), which included treatment (tofacitinib MR 11 mg QD and IR 5 mg BID), visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and participants as a random effect.||0.69|0.17|
90881282|NCT00293384|181625821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||proportion|0.57||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|||||85% statistical power|Simon optimal design|||Optimal Simon design for phase II study. p0=45% p1=65%.||||0.10
90881283|NCT00293384|181625822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||proportion|0.63||||||||||||||||||
90881284|NCT00293384|181625824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||proportion|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90881285|NCT00326612|181625836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||||95.0||||||||||||
90881286|NCT00326612|181625837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||||95.0|0.2|3.9||||||||3.9|0.2|
90881287|NCT00326612|181625838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||||95.0|0.4|2.7||||||||2.7|0.4|
90881288|NCT00326612|181625839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||||95.0|0.2|8.2||||||||8.2|0.2|
90881289|NCT00326612|181625840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||||95.0|0.0|67.3||||||||67.3|0.0|
90881290|NCT00326612|181625841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.6||||||95.0|0.2|140.7||||||||140.7|0.2|
90881291|NCT02365636|181625845|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|0.32||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.094|0.726||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||The Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) model with change from baseline in the weekly average of the daily average NRS scores at week 4 as the dependent variable; week, pooled study center, treatment, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, baseline weekly average of the daily average NRS scores as covariate; and patient as a random effect.||0.726|-0.094|0.130
90881292|NCT02365636|181625845|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|0.24||||0.245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.167|0.652||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||The Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) model with change from baseline in the weekly average of the daily average NRS scores at week 4 as the dependent variable; week, pooled study center, treatment, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, baseline weekly average of the daily average NRS scores as covariate; and patient as a random effect.||0.652|-0.167|0.245
90881293|NCT02365636|181625846|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|0.32||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.093|0.735||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||The Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) model with change from baseline in the weekly average of the average NRS pain scores recorded in the evening at week 4 as the dependent variable; week, pooled study center, treatment, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, baseline weekly average of the average NRS pain scores recorded in the evening as covariate; and patient as a random effect.||0.735|-0.093|0.128
90881294|NCT02365636|181625846|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|0.27||||0.194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.688||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||The Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) model with change from baseline in the weekly average of the average NRS pain scores recorded in the evening at week 4 as the dependent variable; week, pooled study center, treatment, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, baseline weekly average of the average NRS pain scores recorded in the evening as covariate; and patient as a random effect.||0.688|-0.140|0.194
90881295|NCT02365636|181625847|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|0.28||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.128|0.691||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||The Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) model with change from baseline in the weekly average of the average NRS pain scores recorded in the morning at week 4 as the dependent variable; week, pooled study center, treatment, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, baseline weekly average of the average NRS pain scores recorded in the morning as covariate; and patient as a random effect.||0.691|-0.128|0.177
90881296|NCT02365636|181625847|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|0.2||||0.325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.204|0.614||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||The Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) model with change from baseline in the weekly average of the average NRS pain scores recorded in the morning at week 4 as the dependent variable; week, pooled study center, treatment, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, baseline weekly average of the average NRS pain scores recorded in the morning as covariate; and patient as a random effect.||0.614|-0.204|0.325
90881297|NCT02365636|181625848|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|0.29||||0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.158|0.741||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||The Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) model with change from baseline in the weekly average of the worst NRS pain scores recorded in the evening at week 4 as the dependent variable; week, pooled study center, treatment, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, baseline weekly average of the worst NRS pain scores recorded in the evening as covariate; and patient as a random effect.||0.741|-0.158|0.202
90881298|NCT02365636|181625848|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|0.457||||0.457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.621||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||The Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) model with change from baseline in the weekly average of the worst NRS pain scores recorded in the evening at week 4 as the dependent variable; week, pooled study center, treatment, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, baseline weekly average of the worst NRS pain scores recorded in the evening as covariate; and patient as a random effect.||0.621|-0.280|0.457
90881299|NCT02365636|181625849|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.456|1.856||5% level of significance|Regression, Logistic|||\>=30% improvement. P-value, odds ratio and CI for odds ratio are calculated using logistic model including response (yes/no) as dependent variable, treatment group and pooled study sites as factors.||1.856|0.456|0.815
90940593|NCT01201915|181760945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8463|||||||1-sided exact binomial test|||The null hypothesis was that percentage of participants with complete histologic clearance was 50% or less.||||0.8463
90940594|NCT01201915|181760945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9668|||||||1-sided exact binomial test|||The null hypothesis was that percentage of participants with complete histologic clearance was 30% or less.||||0.9668
90940595|NCT01201915|181760945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7878|||||||1-sided exact binomial test|||The null hypothesis was that percentage of participants with complete histologic clearance was 50% or less.||||0.7878
90881300|NCT02365636|181625849|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|2.117||5% level of significance|Regression, Logistic|||\>=30% improvement. P-value, odds ratio and CI for odds ratio are calculated using logistic model including response (yes/no) as dependent variable, treatment group and pooled study sites as factors.||2.117|0.520|0.893
90881301|NCT02365636|181625849|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.357|1.55||5% level of significance|Regression, Logistic|||\>=50% improvement. P-value, odds ratio and CI for odds ratio are calculated using logistic model including response (yes/no) as dependent variable, treatment group and pooled study sites as factors.||1.550|0.357|0.430
90881302|NCT02365636|181625849|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.494|2.088||5% level of significance|Regression, Logistic|||\>=50% improvement. P-value, odds ratio and CI for odds ratio are calculated using logistic model including response (yes/no) as dependent variable, treatment group and pooled study sites as factors.||2.088|0.494|0.967
90881303|NCT02365636|181625850|SUPERIORITY||LSM of difference with placebo|2.2||||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|5.92||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||Change from baseline at Week 2 The MMRM used pooled study center, week, treatment, and treatment by week interaction as fixed factors and patient as a random factor. The unstructured covariance matrix for repeated observations within patients was used.||5.92|-1.55|0.251
90881304|NCT02365636|181625850|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|1.3||||0.495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.46|5.07||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||Change from baseline at Week 2. The MMRM used pooled study center, week, treatment, and treatment by week interaction as fixed factors and patient as a random factor. The unstructured covariance matrix for repeated observations within patients was used.||5.07|-2.46|0.495
90881305|NCT02365636|181625850|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|3.1||||0.123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|7.06||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||Change from baseline at Week 4. The MMRM used pooled study center, week, treatment, and treatment by week interaction as fixed factors and patient as a random factor. The unstructured covariance matrix for repeated observations within patients was used.||7.06|-0.84|0.123
90881306|NCT02365636|181625850|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|2.8||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|6.77||5% level of significance.|miex model for repeated measures|||Change from baseline at Week 4. The MMRM used pooled study center, week, treatment, and treatment by week interaction as fixed factors and patient as a random factor. The unstructured covariance matrix for repeated observations within patients was used.||6.77|-1.12|0.160
90881307|NCT02365636|181625851|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|1.3||||0.609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.81|6.48||5% level of significance|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes study center, treatment, and baseline.||||6.48|-3.81|0.609
90881308|NCT02365636|181625851|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference with placebo|2.1||||0.427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.05|7.19||5% level of significance|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes study center, treatment, and baseline.||||7.19|-3.05|0.427
90881309|NCT02365636|181625852|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|0.2||||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.43||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||Week 2 Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with pooled study center, week, treatment, and treatment by week interaction as fixed factors and patient as a random factor. The unstructured covariance matrix for repeated observations within patients was used.||0.43|-0.07|0.166
90881310|NCT02365636|181625852|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|0.3||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.51||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||Week 2 Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with pooled study center, week, treatment, and treatment by week interaction as fixed factors and patient as a random factor. The unstructured covariance matrix for repeated observations within patients was used.||0.51|0.00|0.046
90881311|NCT02365636|181625852|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|0.2||||0.152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.53||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||Week 4 Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with pooled study center, week, treatment, and treatment by week interaction as fixed factors and patient as a random factor. The unstructured covariance matrix for repeated observations within patients was used.||0.53|-0.08|0.152
90881312|NCT02365636|181625852|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|0.1||||0.342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.46||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||Week 4 Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with pooled study center, week, treatment, and treatment by week interaction as fixed factors and patient as a random factor. The unstructured covariance matrix for repeated observations within patients was used.||0.46|-0.16|0.342
90881313|NCT02365636|181625853|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|0.2||||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.7||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||Change from baseline at Week 2 The inferential model includes study center, week, treatment, and treatment by week interaction as the fixed factors; baseline as a covariate and unstructured variance-covariance structure in the initial model.||0.70|-0.22|0.311
90881314|NCT02365636|181625853|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|0.3||||0.262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.73||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||Change from baseline at week 2 The inferential model includes study center, week, treatment, and treatment by week interaction as the fixed factors; baseline as a covariate and unstructured variance-covariance structure in the initial model.||0.73|-0.20|0.262
90881315|NCT02365636|181625853|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|0.5||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.97||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||Change from baseline at week 4 The inferential model includes study center, week, treatment, and treatment by week interaction as the fixed factors; baseline as a covariate and unstructured variance-covariance structure in the initial model.||0.97|-0.03|0.065
90881316|NCT02365636|181625853|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|0.3||||0.296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.76||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||Change from baseline at week 4 The inferential model includes study center, week, treatment, and treatment by week interaction as the fixed factors; baseline as a covariate and unstructured variance-covariance structure in the initial model.||0.76|-0.23|0.296
90881317|NCT02365636|181625854|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.245||||||5% level of significance|Regression, Cox|||||||0.245
90881318|NCT02365636|181625854|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.304||||||5% level of significance|Regression, Cox|||||||0.304
90881319|NCT02365636|181625855|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|-0.1||||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.33||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||Change from baseline at week 2 The inferential model includes study center, week, treatment, and treatment by week interaction as the fixed factors; baseline as a covariate and unstructured variance-covariance structure in the initial model.||0.33|-0.61|0.556
90881320|NCT02365636|181625855|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|-0.2||||0.482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.31||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||Change from baseline at week 2 The inferential model includes study center, week, treatment, and treatment by week interaction as the fixed factors; baseline as a covariate and unstructured variance-covariance structure in the initial model.||0.31|-0.65|0.482
90881321|NCT02365636|181625855|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|-0.3||||0.333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.28||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||Change from baseline at week 4. The inferential model includes study center, week, treatment, and treatment by week interaction as the fixed factors; baseline as a covariate and unstructured variance-covariance structure in the initial model.||0.28|-0.81|0.333
90881322|NCT02365636|181625855|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|-0.1||||0.833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.5||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||Change from baseline at week 4 The inferential model includes study center, week, treatment, and treatment by week interaction as the fixed factors; baseline as a covariate and unstructured variance-covariance structure in the initial model.||0.50|-0.62|0.833
90881323|NCT02365636|181625856|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|-0.2||||0.563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.41||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||Change from baseline at week 2 The inferential model includes study center, week, treatment, and treatment by week interaction as the fixed factors; baseline as a covariate and unstructured variance-covariance structure in the initial model.||0.41|-0.75|0.563
90881324|NCT02365636|181625856|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|-0.1||||0.804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.5||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||Change from baseline at week 2. The inferential model includes study center, week, treatment, and treatment by week interaction as the fixed factors; baseline as a covariate and unstructured variance-covariance structure in the initial model.||0.50|-0.64|0.804
90881325|NCT02365636|181625856|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|0.1||||0.714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.71||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||Change from baseline at week 4 The inferential model includes study center, week, treatment, and treatment by week interaction as the fixed factors; baseline as a covariate and unstructured variance-covariance structure in the initial model.||0.71|-0.49|0.714
90881326|NCT02365636|181625856|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|0.0||||0.871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.55||5% level of siignificance|mixed model for repeated measures|||Change from baseline at week 4. The inferential model includes study center, week, treatment, and treatment by week interaction as the fixed factors; baseline as a covariate and unstructured variance-covariance structure in the initial model.||0.55|-0.64|0.871
90881327|NCT01454934|181625868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||0.1343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.41||P-value was calculated from a 2-sided long-rank test stratified by histology, TPC option, and geographic region.|Log Rank||Hazard Ratio was based on a Cox regression model including treatment as covariate, and histology, TPC option and geographic region as strata.|OS was compared between eribulin and TPC testing the following null hypothesis: H0: OS in Arm A (eribulin) is equal to OS in Arm B (TPC) against the alternative: H1: OS in Arm A (eribulin) is not equal to OS in Arm B (TPC).||1.41|0.95|0.1343
90881328|NCT01454934|181625869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.3946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.32||P-value was calculated from a 2-sided long-rank test stratified by histology, TPC option, and geographic region.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio was based on a Cox regression model including treatment as covariate, and histology, TPC option, and geographic region as strata.|OS was compared between eribulin and TPC testing the following null hypothesis: H0: OS in Arm A (eribulin) is equal to OS in Arm B (TPC) against the alternative: H1: OS in Arm A (eribulin) is not equal to OS in Arm B (TPC).||1.32|0.90|0.3946
90881329|NCT01454934|181625870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3034||||||The P-value was stratified by histology, TPC option, and geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||OS was compared between eribulin and TPC testing the following null hypothesis: H0: OS in Arm A (eribulin) is equal to OS in Arm B (TPC) against the alternative: H1: OS in Arm A (eribulin) is not equal to OS in Arm B (TPC).||||0.3034
90881330|NCT02583256|181625883|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower bound of two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of aQIV-aQIV/aQIV-QIV HI GMT should not fall below 0.667.|GMT ratio|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.3||||||Comparison performed for strain A/H1N1.||1.3|1.1|
90881331|NCT02583256|181625883|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower bound of two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of aQIV-aQIV/aQIV-QIV HI GMT should not fall below 0.667.|GMT ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.0||||||Comparison performed for strain A/H3N2.||1.0|0.9|
90881332|NCT02583256|181625883|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower bound of two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of aQIV-aQIV/aQIV-QIV HI GMT should not fall below 0.667.|GMT ratio|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.3||||||Comparison performed for strain B/Yamagata.||1.3|1.1|
90881333|NCT02583256|181625883|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower bound of two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of aQIV-aQIV/aQIV-QIV HI GMT should not fall below 0.667.|GMT ratio|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.3||||||Comparison performed for strain B/Victoria.||1.3|1.1|
90881334|NCT02583256|181625884|SUPERIORITY|Superiority criterion for the GMT ratio: Lower bound of two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of aQIV-aQIV/aQIV-QIV HI GMT should exceed 1.|GMT ratio|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.3||||||Comparison performed for strain A/H1N1.||1.3|1.1|
90881335|NCT02583256|181625884|SUPERIORITY|Lower bound of two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of aQIV-aQIV/aQIV-QIV HI GMT should exceed 1.|GMT ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.0||||||Comparison performed for strain A/H3N2.||1.0|0.9|
91034065|NCT00573443|181954054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of episode-rate reduction ratios|0.5103|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4755|0.5477|||Regression, Longitudinal neg. binomial|||Analysis of PBA episode rates used longitudinal negative binomial regression with treatment, period, diagnosis and study site to estimate pre-post changes in log mean episode rate for each treatment group. Null hypothesis of equal pre-post episode rate reductions were tested: AVP-923-20/placebo = 1.||0.5477|0.4755|<0.0001
90881336|NCT02583256|181625884|SUPERIORITY|Lower bound of two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of aQIV-aQIV/aQIV-QIV HI GMT should exceed 1.|GMT ratio|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.3||||||Comparison performed for strain B/Yamagata.||1.3|1.1|
90919208|NCT00879060|181708339|OTHER||Absolute difference|0.1||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|||||An a priori threshold for statistical significance was determined at an alpha level of 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sample T-test was used to compare the absolute differences in change from baseline to 12 months in continuous variable left atrial dimension between spironolactone treated and placebo groups.||||0.8
90919209|NCT04048382|181708346|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.88|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||.88
90919210|NCT04048382|181708347|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||.49
90919211|NCT04048382|181708348|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.91|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||.91
90919212|NCT04048382|181708349|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.65|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||.65
90919213|NCT04048382|181708350|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.29||||0.17|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||.17
90919214|NCT04048382|181708351|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.29||||0.19|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||.19
90919215|NCT02119650|181708380|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.877||||0.7562|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.509|1.51|||Log Rank|The 2-sided p-value was calculated based on the log-rank test and stratified by modified Glasgow Prognostic Score (mGPS).||||1.51|0.509|0.7562
90919216|NCT02269475|181708385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine efficacy (%)|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1875.3|100.0||"No statistical tests were used, instead the confidence interval was used for showing superiority.~If lower bound of the 95% CI is greater than 0%, the efficacy of MEDI3250 is demonstrated."|Exact conditional method|Estimated by an exact conditional method in total number of cases which follows a Poisson assumption.|Vaccine efficacy (%) = (1-RR)\*100 where RR = Risk Reduction.|||100.0|-1875.3|
90919217|NCT02269475|181708386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine efficacy (%)|27.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|43.0||"No statistical tests were used, instead the confidence interval was used for showing superiority.~If lower bound of the 95% CI is greater than 0%, the efficacy of MEDI3250 is demonstrated."|Exact conditional method|Estimated by an exact conditional method in total number of cases which follows a Poisson assumption.|Vaccine efficacy (%) = (1-RR)\*100 where RR = Risk Reduction.|||43.0|7.4|
90919218|NCT01037985|181708398|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.3||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|1.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||Within participant treatment difference was assessed between the treatment regimens each participant received (EXC 001 minus placebo).||1.9|-10.4|0.168
91034066|NCT04567186|181954066|SUPERIORITY|The superiority of the Test lens was concluded if the upper 95% confidence limit of the mean was below the pre-defined threshold +0.00 logMAR.|Least-square mean|-0.078|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0105|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.099|-0.057|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger Method was used for denominator degrees of freedom|Distance (4 meter)|It was calculated that 70 participants would have at least 90% power to for the mean visual performance at each distance to be below the hypothesis threshold at the 1-week follow-up. Sample size was determined using one sample means test for equivalence||-0.057|-0.099|
90919219|NCT01037985|181708399|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|4.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||Within participant treatment difference was assessed between the treatment regimens each participant received (EXC 001 minus placebo).||4.2|-3.5|0.858
90919220|NCT01037985|181708400|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12, Vascularity: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||-0.4|-1.6|0.003
90919221|NCT01037985|181708400|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12, Pigmentation: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||0.0|-1.1|0.067
90919222|NCT01037985|181708400|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12, Thickness: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||-0.7|-2.1|<0.001
90919223|NCT01037985|181708400|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12, Relief: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||-0.4|-1.4|0.002
90919224|NCT01037985|181708400|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12, Pliability: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||-0.2|-1.3|0.007
90919225|NCT01037985|181708400|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12, Surface Area: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||0.3|-1.1|0.214
90919226|NCT01037985|181708400|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12, Overall Opinion: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||-0.3|-1.5|0.003
90919227|NCT01037985|181708400|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|-2.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12, Composite Score: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||-2.2|-7.8|<0.001
90919228|NCT01037985|181708400|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24, Vascularity: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||0.7|-0.5|0.673
90919229|NCT01037985|181708400|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24, Pigmentation: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||1.1|-0.3|0.276
90919230|NCT01037985|181708400|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24, Thickness: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||0.5|-0.7|0.670
90919231|NCT01037985|181708400|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24, Relief: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||0.5|-0.5|1.000
90919232|NCT01037985|181708400|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24, Pliability: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||0.6|-0.5|0.909
90919233|NCT01037985|181708400|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24, Surface Area: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||0.8|-0.6|0.852
90919234|NCT01037985|181708400|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24, Overall Opinion: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||0.6|-0.5|0.906
90919235|NCT01037985|181708400|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|3.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24, Composite Score: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||3.8|-2.8|0.768
90919236|NCT01037985|181708401|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12 Pain: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||0.5|-0.4|0.773
90919237|NCT01037985|181708401|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12, Itching: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||0.4|-0.4|1.000
90919238|NCT01037985|181708401|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12, Color: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||0.1|-1.4|0.072
90919239|NCT01037985|181708401|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12, Stiffness: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||0.6|-0.7|0.851
90919240|NCT01037985|181708401|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12, Thickness: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||0.2|-1.2|0.184
90919241|NCT01037985|181708401|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12, Irregular: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||0.0|-1.3|0.059
90919242|NCT01037985|181708401|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12, Overall Opinion: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||-0.0|-1.5|0.040
90962250|NCT02876835|181805416|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.11||||0.6761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.36|||MMRM||Week12:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week12 data has been presented,with factors for treatment, time,current ESA use at randomization, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time \& treatment by time interactions|||0.36|-0.59|0.6761
90962251|NCT02876835|181805416|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.12||||0.3335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.67|||MMRM||Week28:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week28 data has been presented,with factors for treatment, time,current ESA use at randomization, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time \& treatment by time interactions|||0.67|-0.43|0.3335
90962252|NCT02876835|181805416|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2||||0.7423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.41|||MMRM||Week52:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week52 data has been presented,with factors for treatment, time,current ESA use at randomization, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time \& treatment by time interactions|||0.41|-0.81|0.7423
91034067|NCT04567186|181954066|SUPERIORITY|The superiority of the Test lens was concluded if the upper 95% confidence limit of the mean was below the pre-defined threshold + 0.17 logMAR.|Least-square mean|-0.059|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.079|-0.039|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger Method was used for denominator degrees of freedom|Intermediate (64cm)|It was calculated that 70 participants would have at least 90% power to for the mean visual performance at each distance to be below the hypothesis threshold at the 1-week follow-up. Sample size was determined using one sample means test for equivalence||-0.039|-0.079|
90919243|NCT01037985|181708401|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|0.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12, Composite Score: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||0.5|-4.1|0.120
90919244|NCT01037985|181708401|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|0.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12, Scar Appearance Composite Score: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||0.3|-4.0|0.094
90919245|NCT01037985|181708401|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.6|||t-test, 1 sided|||Week 24, Pain: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||0.6|-0.2|0.243
90919246|NCT01037985|181708401|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24, Itching: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||0.6|-0.2|0.339
90919247|NCT01037985|181708401|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24, Color: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||1.2|-0.3|0.250
90919248|NCT01037985|181708401|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24, Stiffness: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||0.2|-1.3|0.164
90919249|NCT01037985|181708401|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24, Thickness: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||0.8|-0.8|1.000
90919250|NCT01037985|181708401|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24, Irregular: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||0.7|-0.8|0.928
90919251|NCT01037985|181708401|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24, Overall Opinion: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||0.7|-0.8|0.865
90919252|NCT01037985|181708401|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|3.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24, Composite Score: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||3.0|-2.3|0.804
90919253|NCT01037985|181708401|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|2.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24, Scar Appearance Composite Score: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||2.4|-2.6|0.937
90919254|NCT02730871|181708410|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.342|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-1.5|||ANCOVA|||||-1.5|-2.8|<0.001
90919255|NCT02730871|181708411|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.342|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-1.5|||ANCOVA|||||-1.5|-2.8|<0.001
90919256|NCT02730871|181708412|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.572|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|-6.9|||ANCOVA|||||-6.9|-13.1|<0.001
90919257|NCT02730871|181708413|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.576||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-0.2|||Repeated measures model|||Change from Baseline in IOP at 9:00||-0.2|-2.5|0.022
90919258|NCT02730871|181708413|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.506|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|-1.9|||Repeated measures model|||Change from Baseline in IOP at 11:00||-1.9|-3.9|<0.001
90919259|NCT02730871|181708414|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.567||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|-1.1|||Repeated measures model|||Percentage Change from Baseline in IOP at 09:00||-1.1|-11.2|0.018
90881337|NCT02583256|181625884|SUPERIORITY|Lower bound of two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of aQIV-aQIV/aQIV-QIV HI GMT should exceed 1.|GMT ratio|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.3||||||Comparison performed for strain B/Victoria.||1.3|1.1|
90881338|NCT02583256|181625885|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower bound of two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of QIV-aQIV/QIV-QIV HI GMT should not fall below 0.667.|GMT ratio|1.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|1.51||||||Comparison performed for strain A/H1N1.||1.51|1.28|
90919260|NCT02730871|181708414|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.34|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|-8.6|||Repeated measures model|||Percentage Change from Baseline in IOP at 11:00||-8.6|-17.8|<0.001
90919261|NCT05368558|181708423|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|23.1||||||||23.1|-4.0|
90919262|NCT05368558|181708423|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.7|-1.4||||||||-1.4|-28.7|
90919263|NCT05368558|181708424|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.2||||||||1.2|-0.7|
90919264|NCT05368558|181708424|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.3||||||||0.3|-1.7|
90881339|NCT02583256|181625885|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower bound of two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of QIV-aQIV/QIV-QIV HI GMT should not fall below 0.667.|GMT ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.14||||||Comparison performed for strain A/H3N2||1.14|0.99|
90881340|NCT02583256|181625885|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower bound of two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of QIV-aQIV/QIV-QIV HI GMT should not fall below 0.667.|GMT ratio|1.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|1.58||||||Comparison performed for strain B/Yamagata.||1.58|1.27|
90881341|NCT02583256|181625885|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower bound of two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of QIV-aQIV/QIV-QIV HI GMT should not fall below 0.667.|GMT ratio|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|1.51||||||Comparison performed for strain B/Victoria.||1.51|1.22|
90881342|NCT02583256|181625886|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower bound of two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of aQIV-aQIV/aQIV-QIV HI GMT should not fall below 0.667.|GMT ratio|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.32||||||Comparison performed for strain A/H1N1.||1.32|1.07|
90919265|NCT05368558|181708425|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.5||||||||7.5|-2.5|
90919266|NCT05368558|181708425|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|0.0||||||||0.0|-8.0|
90919267|NCT05368558|181708426|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|9.7||||||||9.7|-8.9|
90919268|NCT05368558|181708426|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.5|-4.1||||||||-4.1|-18.5|
90919269|NCT05368558|181708427|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|7.5||||||||7.5|-1.0|
90919270|NCT05368558|181708427|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|-0.4||||||||-0.4|-8.9|
90881343|NCT02583256|181625886|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower bound of two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of aQIV-aQIV/aQIV-QIV HI GMT should not fall below 0.667.|GMT ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.09||||||Comparison performed for strain A/H3N2.||1.09|0.90|
90881344|NCT02583256|181625886|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower bound of two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of aQIV-aQIV/aQIV-QIV HI GMT should not fall below 0.667.|GMT ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.25||||||Comparison performed for strain B/Yamagata.||1.25|1.01|
90881345|NCT02583256|181625886|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower bound of two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of aQIV-aQIV/aQIV-QIV HI GMT should not fall below 0.667.|GMT ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.27||||||Comparison performed for strain B/Victoria.||1.27|0.98|
90881346|NCT02583256|181625886|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower bound of two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of QIV-aQIV/QIV-QIV HI GMT should not fall below 0.667.|GMT ratio|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|1.5||||||Comparison performed for strain A/H1N1.||1.5|1.3|
90919271|NCT05368558|181708428|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|7.7||||||||7.7|-0.9|
90919272|NCT05368558|181708428|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|-0.3||||||||-0.3|-10.2|
90919273|NCT01303445|181708437|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was established if the 90% confidence interval of the mean ratio fell within the 80 to 125% target range.|Percent Mean Ratio|92.03||||||90.0|86.95|97.4||||||Comparison of Aggrenox + Omeprazole following Omeprazole versus Aggrenox alone||97.40|86.95|
90919274|NCT01303445|181708437|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was established if the 90% confidence interval of the mean ratio fell within the 80 to 125% target range.|Percent Mean Ratio|92.3||||||90.0|87.76|97.08||||||Comparison of Aggrenox + Omeprazole following Aggrenox versus Aggrenox alone||97.08|87.76|
90919275|NCT01303445|181708438|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was established if the 90% confidence interval of the mean ratio fell within the 80 to 125% target range.|Percent Mean Ratio|96.38||||||90.0|90.96|102.13||||||Comparison of Aggrenox + Omeprazole following Omeprazole versus Aggrenox alone||102.13|90.96|
90919276|NCT01303445|181708438|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was established if the 90% confidence interval of the mean ratio fell within the 80 to 125% target range.|Percent Mean Ratio|97.03||||||95.0|93.26|100.95||||||Comparison of Aggrenox + Omeprazole following Aggrenox versus Aggrenox alone||100.95|93.26|
90919277|NCT01303445|181708439|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was established if the 90% confidence interval of the mean ratio fell within the 80 to 125% target range.|Percent Mean Ratio|99.02||||||90.0|98.32|99.72||||||Comparison of Aggrenox + Omeprazole following Omeprazole versus Aggrenox alone||99.72|98.32|
90919278|NCT01303445|181708439|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was established if the 90% confidence interval of the mean ratio fell within the 80 to 125% target range.|Percent Mean Ratio|98.42||||||90.0|97.66|99.18||||||Comparison of Aggrenox + Omeprazole following Aggrenox versus Aggrenox alone||99.18|97.66|
90919279|NCT01303445|181708440|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was established if the 90% confidence interval of the mean ratio fell within the 80 to 125% target range.|Percent Mean Ratio|105.55||||||90.0|97.09|114.74||||||Comparison of Aggrenox + Omeprazole following Omeprazole versus Aggrenox alone||114.74|97.09|
90919280|NCT01303445|181708440|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was established if the 90% confidence interval of the mean ratio fell within the 80 to 125% target range.|Percent Mean Ratio|106.09||||||90.0|98.64|114.09||||||Comparison of Aggrenox + Omeprazole following Aggrenox versus Aggrenox alone||114.09|98.64|
90919281|NCT01303445|181708441|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was established if the 90% confidence interval of the mean ratio fell within the 80 to 125% target range.|Percent Mean Ratio|99.38||||||90.0|98.8|99.95||||||Comparison of Aggrenox + Omeprazole following Omeprazole versus Aggrenox alone||99.95|98.80|
90919282|NCT01303445|181708441|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was established if the 90% confidence interval of the mean ratio fell within the 80 to 125% target range.|Percent Mean Ratio|99.02||||||90.0|98.46|99.59||||||Comparison of Aggrenox + Omeprazole following Aggrenox versus Aggrenox alone||99.59|98.46|
90919283|NCT04870645|181708443|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Statistical Significance|||||||< 0.05
90919284|NCT01259401|181708460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||.04
90919285|NCT01259401|181708461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.061|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||.061
90919286|NCT05768373|181708462|NON_INFERIORITY|This study used a non-inferiority margin of 15 mm.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|4.0|||||The difference is 3M Clinpro minus 3M Vanish.|||4.0|-3.4|
90919287|NCT05768373|181708463|NON_INFERIORITY|This study used a non-inferiority margin of 15 mm.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|5.3|||||The difference is 3M Clinpro minus 3M Vanish.|||5.3|-2.6|
90919288|NCT05768373|181708464|NON_INFERIORITY|This study used a non-inferiority margin of 15 mm.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|6.7|||||The difference is 3M Clinpro minus 3M Vanish.|||6.7|-3.2|
90919289|NCT05768373|181708465|NON_INFERIORITY|This study used a non-inferiority margin of 15 mm.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|7.4|||||The difference is 3M Clinpro minus 3M Vanish.|||7.4|-3.0|
90919290|NCT05768373|181708466|NON_INFERIORITY|This study used a non-inferiority margin of 15 mm.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|8.2|||||The difference is 3M Clinpro minus 3M Vanish.|||8.2|-4.4|
90919291|NCT05478525|181708468|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-35.05||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.35|-15.75|||ANCOVA|||Analysis at Week 2||-15.75|-54.35|0.0007
90919292|NCT05478525|181708468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-23.14||||0.0193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.32|-3.97|||ANCOVA|||Analysis at Week 2||-3.97|-42.32|0.0193
90919293|NCT05478525|181708468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-21.64||||0.0243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.33|-2.96|||ANCOVA|||Analysis at Week 2||-2.96|-40.33|0.0243
90919294|NCT05478525|181708470|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-155.68||||0.0298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-295.35|-16.01|||ANCOVA|||Analysis at Day 14||-16.01|-295.35|0.0298
90919295|NCT05478525|181708470|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-143.74||||0.0433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-282.92|-4.55|||ANCOVA|||Analysis at Day 14||-4.55|-282.92|0.0433
90919296|NCT05478525|181708470|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-178.33||||0.0201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-327.16|-29.5|||ANCOVA|||Analysis at Day 14||-29.50|-327.16|0.0201
90919297|NCT05478525|181708471|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-47.07||||0.1992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-119.94|25.81|||ANCOVA|||Analysis at Day 14||25.81|-119.94|0.1992
90919298|NCT05478525|181708471|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-70.32||||0.0617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-144.26|3.61|||ANCOVA|||Analysis at Day 14||3.61|-144.26|0.0617
90919299|NCT05478525|181708471|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-39.84||||0.2981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-116.22|36.53|||ANCOVA|||Analysis at Day 14||36.53|-116.22|0.2981
90919300|NCT05644002|181708479|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.06||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.09|13.21||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Levene's test for equal variances was used. If significance is \<.05, equal variances are not assumed and reported results are adjusted accordingly.||An independent-samples t-test was conducted to examine differences in post-stress-induction Omax between the PTBT and Control conditions.||13.21|-9.09|.71
90919301|NCT05644002|181708479|OTHER||t-statistic|0.369|||||TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|degrees freedom = 66||An independent-samples t-test was conducted to examine differences in post-stress induction Omax between the PTBT and Control conditions.||||
90919302|NCT05644002|181708479|OTHER||Hedge's g|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||An independent-samples t-test was conducted to examine differences in post-stress-induction Omax between the PTBT and Control conditions.||||
90919303|NCT05644002|181708480|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.251||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.543|1.046||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Levene's test for equal variances was used. If significance is \<.05, equal variances are not assumed and reported results are adjusted accordingly.||An independent-samples t-test was conducted to examine differences in post-stress induction mCEQ cigarette satisfaction between the PTBT and Control conditions.||1.046|-.543|.530
90919304|NCT05644002|181708480|OTHER||t-statistic|0.631|||||TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|degrees freedom = 73||An independent-samples t-test was conducted to examine differences in post-stress induction mCEQ cigarette satisfaction between the PTBT and Control conditions.||||
90919305|NCT05644002|181708480|OTHER||Hedge's g|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||An independent-samples t-test was conducted to examine differences in post-stress-induction mCEQ cigarette satisfaction between the PTBT and Control conditions.||||
90919306|NCT05644002|181708481|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.889||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.149|4.927||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Levene's test for equal variances was used. If significance is \<.05, equal variances are not assumed and reported results are adjusted accordingly.||An independent-samples t-test was conducted to examine differences in post-stress intensity between the PTBT and Control conditions.||4.927|-3.149|.66
90919307|NCT05644002|181708481|OTHER||t-statistic|0.439|||||TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|degrees of freedom = 66||An independent-samples t-test was conducted to examine differences in post-stress induction intensity between the PTBT and Control conditions.||||
90919308|NCT05644002|181708481|OTHER||Hedge's g|-0.11|||||TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||An independent-samples t-test was conducted to examine differences in post-stress-induction intensity between the PTBT and Control conditions.||||
90940596|NCT00663923|181760958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.1|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.001||two - tailed p value \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|in this study degrees of freedom is sample size - 1||||-.001|-.62|<0.05
90881347|NCT02583256|181625886|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower bound of two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of QIV-aQIV/QIV-QIV HI GMT should not fall below 0.667.|GMT ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.1||||||Comparison performed for strain A/H3N2.||1.1|0.9|
90881348|NCT02583256|181625886|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower bound of two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of QIV-aQIV/QIV-QIV HI GMT should not fall below 0.667.|GMT ratio|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|1.4||||||Comparison performed for strain B/Yamagata.||1.4|1.2|
90881349|NCT02583256|181625886|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower bound of two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of QIV-aQIV/QIV-QIV HI GMT should not fall below 0.667.|GMT ratio|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|1.5||||||Comparison performed for strain B/Victoria.||1.5|1.2|
90881350|NCT02583256|181625887|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower bound of two-sided 95% CI on the difference between SCR should not be below -10%.|SCR difference|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|8.6||||||Comparison performed for strain A/H1N1.||8.6|-4.9|
90881351|NCT02583256|181625887|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower bound of two-sided 95% CI on the difference between SCR should not be below -10%.|SCR difference|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|7.3||||||Comparison performed for strain A/H3N2.||7.3|-5.6|
90881352|NCT02583256|181625887|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower bound of two-sided 95% CI on the difference between SCR should not be below -10%.|SCR difference|4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|10.4||||||Comparison performed for strain B/Yamagata.||10.4|-1.8|
90881353|NCT02583256|181625887|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower bound of two-sided 95% CI on the difference between SCR should not be below -10%.|SCR difference|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|8.5||||||Comparison performed for strain B/Victoria.||8.5|-3.3|
90881354|NCT02583256|181625887|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower bound of two-sided 95% CI on the difference between SCR should not be below -10%.|SCR difference|9.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.11|16.17||||||Comparison performed for strain A/H1N1.||16.17|3.11|
90881355|NCT02583256|181625887|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower bound of two-sided 95% CI on the difference between SCR should not be below -10%.|SCR difference|-3.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.02|2.15||||||Comparison performed for strain A/H3N2.||2.15|-10.02|
90881356|NCT02583256|181625887|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower bound of two-sided 95% CI on the difference between SCR should not be below -10%.|SCR difference|12.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.73|19.12||||||Comparison performed for strain B/Yamagata.||19.12|6.73|
90881357|NCT02583256|181625887|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower bound of two-sided 95% CI on the difference between SCR should not be below -10%.|SCR difference|8.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.17|14.54||||||Comparison performed for strain B/Victoria.||14.54|2.17|
90881358|NCT02530294|181625905|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||< 0.001
90881359|NCT02530294|181625906|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|Ranked ANCOVA||||||<0.001
90881360|NCT02530294|181625907|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|Ranked ANCOVA||||||< 0.001
90881361|NCT02530294|181625908|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||< 0.001
90881362|NCT02530294|181625909|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||< 0.001
90881363|NCT01948375|181625910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
90881364|NCT01948375|181625912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.35||||0.007||95.0|1.26|4.4||For the comparison of direct effect of placebo needle and real needle, p=0.007|Generalized Estimating Equation|||||4.40|1.26|0.007
90881365|NCT01948375|181625913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.006||||||"for the comparison of difference of acupuncture pain in two periods between the two groups,t=-2.88, p=0.006.~t=-2.88 refers to the t value of t test."|t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.006
90881366|NCT01948375|181625914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63|||=|0.048||95.0|1.01|2.64||For the comparison of direct effect of placebo needle and real needle, p=0.048|Generalized Estimating Equation|||||2.64|1.01|=0.048
90881367|NCT04537806|181625925|SUPERIORITY||Proc Genmod|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.8|31.8|||Chi-squared||Estimates for treatment, and the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) were estimated using Proc Genmod method, with treatment as a factor and age groups as a covariate variable.|||31.8|-31.8|1.0000
90881368|NCT03019627|181625928|SUPERIORITY||difference in least square means|-3.83|||=|0.428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.34|5.68|||ANCOVA|||Frequency statistical analysis||5.68|-13.34|=0.428
90881369|NCT03019627|181625928|SUPERIORITY||difference in least square means|0.16|||=|0.974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.45|9.76|||ANCOVA|||Severity statistical analysis||9.76|-9.45|=0.974
90881370|NCT03019627|181625929|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square means|-1.12|||=|0.783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.14|6.91|||ANCOVA|||frequency statistical analysis - week 4||6.91|-9.14|=0.783
90881371|NCT03019627|181625929|SUPERIORITY||difference in least square means|-3.82|||=|0.461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|6.41|||ANCOVA|||Frequency statistical analysis - week 8||6.41|-14.1|=0.461
90881372|NCT03019627|181625929|SUPERIORITY||difference in least square means|-15.3|||=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.6|-4.97|||ANCOVA|||Frequency statistical analysis - week 12||-4.97|-25.6|=0.004
90881373|NCT03019627|181625929|SUPERIORITY||difference in least square means|2.55|||=|0.544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.72|10.82|||ANCOVA|||Severity statistical analysis - week 4||10.82|-5.72|=0.544
90881374|NCT03019627|181625929|SUPERIORITY||difference in least square means|1.06|||=|0.837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.12|11.24|||ANCOVA|||Severity statistical analysis - week 8||11.24|-9.12|=0.837
90881375|NCT03019627|181625929|SUPERIORITY||difference in least square means|-13.8|||=|0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.7|3.88|||ANCOVA|||Severity statistical analysis - week 12||3.88|-23.7|=0.007
90881376|NCT03019627|181625930|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square means|-0.7|||=|0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||week 4||-0.01|-1.38|=0.046
90881377|NCT03019627|181625930|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square means|-0.3|||=|0.425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|0.44|||ANCOVA|||week 8||0.44|-1.05|=0.425
90881378|NCT03019627|181625930|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square means|-0.09|||=|0.788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.58|||ANCOVA|||week 12||0.58|-0.76|=0.788
90881379|NCT03019627|181625931|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square means|-0.71|||=|0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|0.54|||ANCOVA|||week 4||0.54|-1.95|=0.265
90881380|NCT03019627|181625931|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square means|-1.38|||=|0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.59|-0.17|||ANCOVA|||week 8||-0.17|-2.59|=0.026
90919309|NCT05644002|181708482|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.698||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.443|4.046||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Levene's test for equal variances was used. If significance is \<.05, equal variances are not assumed and reported results are adjusted accordingly.||An independent-samples t-test was conducted to examine differences in post-stress-induction Pmax between the PTBT and Control conditions.||4.046|-5.443|.77
90919310|NCT05644002|181708482|OTHER||t-statistic|-0.294|||||TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|degrees freedom = 66||An independent-samples t-test was conducted to examine differences in post-stress induction Pmax between the PTBT and Control conditions.||||
90919311|NCT05644002|181708482|OTHER||Hedge's g|-0.071|||||TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||An independent-samples t-test was conducted to examine differences in post-stress-induction Pmax between the PTBT and Control conditions.||||
90919312|NCT05644002|181708483|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.354||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.009|5.3||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Levene's test for equal variances was used. If significance is \<.05, equal variances are not assumed and reported results are adjusted accordingly.||An independent-samples t-test was conducted to examine differences in post-stress-induction breakpoint between the PTBT and Control conditions.||5.300|-6.009|.90
90919313|NCT05644002|181708483|OTHER||t-statistic|-0.125|||||TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|degrees of freedom = 66||An independent-samples t-test was conducted to examine differences in post-stress induction breakpoint between the PTBT and Control conditions.||||
90919314|NCT05644002|181708483|OTHER||Hedge's g|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||An independent-samples t-test was conducted to examine differences in post-stress-induction breakpoint between the PTBT and Control conditions.||||
90919315|NCT05644002|181708484|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.748||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.601|0.105||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Levene's test for equal variances was used. If significance is \<.05, equal variances are not assumed and reported results are adjusted accordingly.||An independent-samples t-test was conducted to examine differences in post-stress induction mCEQ craving reduction between the PTBT and Control conditions.||.105|-1.601|.09
90919316|NCT05644002|181708484|OTHER||t-statistic|-1.75|||||TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|degrees freedom = 65.261||An independent-samples t-test was conducted to examine differences in post-stress induction mCEQ craving reduction between the PTBT and Control conditions.||||
91034068|NCT04567186|181954066|SUPERIORITY|The superiority of the Test lens was concluded if the upper 95% confidence limit of the mean was below the pre-defined threshold +0.17 logMAR.|Least-square Mean|0.062|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0111|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.084|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger Method was used for the denominator degrees of freedom|Near (40cm)|It was calculated that 70 participants would have at least 90% power to for the mean visual performance at each distance to be below the hypothesis threshold at the 1-week follow-up. Sample size was determined using one sample means test for equivalence||0.084|0.040|
91034069|NCT04567186|181954067|SUPERIORITY|The superiority of the Test lens was concluded if the lower confidence limit of the least-square mean was above the threshold of 32 points.|Least-square Mean|55.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9027|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.25|62.61|||Linear Mixed Model|The Kenward and Roger method was used for the denominator degrees of freedom||This study was powered to only test primary hypotheses.||62.61|49.25|
90919317|NCT05644002|181708484|OTHER||Hedge's g|-0.405|||||TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||An independent-samples t-test was conducted to examine differences in post-stress-induction mCEQ craving reduction between the PTBT and Control conditions.||||
90919318|NCT05644002|181708485|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.184||||0.666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.663|1.031||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<.05|t-test, 2 sided|Levene's test for equal variances was used. If significance is \<.05, equal variances are not assumed and reported results are adjusted accordingly.||An independent-samples t-test was conducted to examine differences in post-stress induction mCEQ psychological reward between the PTBT and Control conditions.||1.031|-.663|.666
90919319|NCT05644002|181708485|OTHER||t-statistic|0.184|||||TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|degrees freedom = 73||An independent-samples t-test was conducted to examine differences in post-stress induction mCEQ psychological reward between the PTBT and Control conditions.||||
90919320|NCT05644002|181708485|OTHER||Hedge's g|0.099|||||TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||An independent-samples t-test was conducted to examine differences in post-stress-induction mCEQ psychological reward between the PTBT and Control conditions.||||
90919321|NCT05644002|181708486|OTHER||β|0.026||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.358|0.507||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<.05.|Regression, Linear|Coding: Control=0, PTBT=1.||A multiple linear regression test was conducted to examine whether the PTBT intervention (versus control) significantly predicted post-stress-induction respiratory sinus arrhythmia during smoking, while controlling for average baseline respiratory sinus arrhythmia at step 1 of the model.||.507|-.358|.73
90919322|NCT05644002|181708486|OTHER||t-statistic|0.345|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|degrees freedom = (2, 73)|Condition (0=control; 1=PTBT)|A multiple linear regression test was conducted to examine whether the PTBT intervention (versus control) significantly predicted post-stress induction respiratory sinus arrhythmia during smoking, while controlling for average baseline respiratory sinus arrythmia at step 1 of the model.||||
90919323|NCT05644002|181708487|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.543||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.772|-0.314||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Levene's test for equal variances was used. If significance is \< .05, equal variances are not assumed and reported results are adjusted accordingly.||An independent samples t-test was conducted to examine differences in post-stress-induction average puff duration between PTBT and Control conditions.||-.314|-.772|.001
90919324|NCT05644002|181708487|OTHER||t-statistic|-4.739|||||TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|degrees freedom = 66.03||An independent samples t-test was conducted to examine differences in post-stress-induction average puff duration between PTBT and Control conditions.||||
90919325|NCT05644002|181708487|OTHER||Hedge's g|-1.05|||||TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||An independent-samples t-test was conducted to examine differences in post-stress-induction average puff duration between the PTBT and Control conditions.||||
90919326|NCT04038957|181708565|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0072||||||A p-value of p\<0.05 will be considered as significant.|Repeated Measures ANOVA|||To examine the primary outcome, the effects of SEP-363856 on the striatum, a repeated measures ANOVA model will be build using the baseline and on-treatment kicer values of each striatal subregion.||||0.0072
91034070|NCT04567186|181954067|NON_INFERIORITY|A Non-Inferiority margin of 5 points was used.|Least-square mean difference|-2.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4708|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.893|-0.073|||Linear Mixed Model|The Kenward and Roger Method was used for the denominator degrees of freedom|mean difference was calculated as Test minus Control|This study was powered for only the primary hypotheses.||-0.073|-5.893|
91034071|NCT02924883|181954068|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.3332||95.0|0.55|1.23|||Log Rank|The 2-sided log-rank test, was stratified by world region (Western Europe vs U.S. vs Rest of World) and PD-L1 status (IC 0 vs IC 1/2/3).||||1.23|0.55|0.3332
91034072|NCT02924883|181954070|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.2934||95.0|0.42|1.3|||Log Rank|The 2-sided log-rank test was stratified by world region (Western Europe vs U.S. vs Rest of World) and PD-L1 status (IC 0 vs IC 1/2/3).||||1.30|0.42|0.2934
91034073|NCT02924883|181954072|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.26||||0.6099||95.0|0.52|3.03|||Log Rank|Stratified Cox proportional hazards model was stratified by world region (Western Europe, U.S., Rest of World) and PD-L1 status (IC 0, IC 1/2/3).||||3.03|0.52|0.6099
91034074|NCT02865850|181954081|NON_INFERIORITY|Establishment of non-inferiority was based on a margin of -0.75 g/dL applied to the difference in mean change: Vadadustat minus Darbepoetin alfa.|Least squares mean difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.1||||||Treatment comparison: Vadadustat minus Darbepoetin Alfa||-0.10|-0.53|
91034075|NCT02865850|181954082|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per Food and Drug Administration \[FDA\]) and 1.30 (per European Medicines Agency \[EMA\]).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97|||=|0.995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.536|1.761|||Log Rank|Based on non-parametric analysis.||Statistical analysis from study AKB-6548-CI-0016 has been reported in this section.||1.761|0.536|=0.9950
91034076|NCT02865850|181954082|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per FDA) and 1.30 (per EMA).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96|||=|0.4877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.833|1.113|||Log Rank|Based on non-parametric analysis.||MACE analysis was performed on pooled data from studies AKB-6548-CI-0016 (NCT02865850) and AKB-6548-CI-0017 (NCT02892149). Time to first MACE for the Vadadustat and Darbepoetin alfa treatment groups was as follows: participants with events = 355 and 377 respectively; median time to first event (Q1, Q3) = 46.14 (24.71, 77.14) weeks versus 47.00 (22.43, 74.43) weeks, respectively. Statistical analysis from the pooled data has been reported in this section.||1.113|0.833|=0.4877
91034077|NCT02865850|181954083|NON_INFERIORITY|Establishment of non-inferiority was based on a margin of -0.75 g/dL applied to the difference in mean change: Vadadustat minus Darbepoetin alfa.|Least squares mean difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.134|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.19||||||Treatment comparison: Vadadustat minus Darbepoetin Alfa||0.19|-0.34|
91034078|NCT02865850|181954084|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per FDA) and 1.30 (per EMA).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04|||=|0.8871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.618|1.743|||Log Rank|Based on non-parametric analysis.||Statistical analysis from study AKB-6548-CI-0016 has been reported in this section.||1.743|0.618|=0.8871
91034079|NCT02865850|181954084|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per FDA) and 1.30 (per EMA).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96|||=|0.4096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.096|||Log Rank|Based on non-parametric analysis.||MACE analysis was performed on pooled data from studies AKB-6548-CI-0016 (NCT02865850) and AKB-6548-CI-0017 (NCT02892149). Time to first MACE plus hospitalization for heart failure or thromboembolic event Excluding vascular access thrombosis for the Vadadustat and Darbepoetin alfa treatment groups was as follows: participants with events = 420 and 449 respectively; median time to first event (Q1, Q3) = 42.07 (21.50, 71.14) weeks versus 45.29 (22.29, 72.43) weeks, respectively.||1.096|0.840|=0.4096
90881381|NCT03019627|181625931|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square means|-0.6|||=|0.361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.7|||ANCOVA|||week 12||0.70|-1.90|=0.361
90881382|NCT03019627|181625932|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square means|-0.25|||=|0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.25|||ANCOVA|||week 4||0.25|-0.76|=0.323
90881383|NCT03019627|181625932|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square means|0.03|||=|0.908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.62|||ANCOVA|||week 8||0.62|-0.55|=0.908
90881384|NCT03019627|181625932|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square means|-0.12|||=|0.702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.52|||ANCOVA|||week 12||0.52|-0.76|=0.702
90881385|NCT03019627|181625933|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square means|5.75|||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|9.48|||ANCOVA|||||9.48|2.02|=0.003
90881386|NCT01236196|181625934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.11
90881387|NCT01236196|181625935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.80
90881388|NCT01236196|181625936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.01
90881389|NCT01236196|181625937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.09
90881390|NCT01802775|181625939|OTHER||Treatment Difference|-3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|9.5||||||Treatment difference was edoxaban - clopidogrel. For the treatment difference, 95% Confidence interval was calculated using a normal approximation to the binomial distribution.||9.5|-17.3|
90881391|NCT01103934|181625955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.09
90881392|NCT01103934|181625956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.04
90881393|NCT01120210|181625971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27||||0.0595|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.016|0.564|||ANCOVA|one-sided p-value and one-sided alpha=0.05||90% confidence intervals and p values represent the placebo-subtracted LS mean change from baseline in cardiac index (CI) at the end of the 5 ng/kg/min dose.||0.564|-0.016|0.0595
90881394|NCT01120210|181625971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33||||0.0215|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.064|0.595||one-sided p-value and one-sided alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||90% confidence intervals and p values represent the placebo-subtracted LS mean change from baseline in cardiac index (CI) at the end of the 15 ng/kg/min dose.||0.595|0.064|0.0215
90881395|NCT01120210|181625971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.57||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.214|0.921||one-sided p-value and one-sided alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||90% confidence intervals and p values represent the placebo-subtracted LS mean change from baseline in cardiac index (CI) at the end of the 30 ng/kg/min dose.||0.921|0.214|0.0049
90881396|NCT01120210|181625972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.4729|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.312|2.131||one-sided p-value and one-sided alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||90% confidence intervals and p values represent the placebo-subtracted LS mean change from baseline in pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP) at the end of the 5 ng/kg/min dose.||2.131|-2.312|0.4729
90881397|NCT01120210|181625972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.35||||0.2123|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.164|1.464||one-sided p-value and one-sided alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||90% confidence intervals and p values represent the placebo-subtracted LS mean change from baseline in pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP) at the end of the 15 ng/kg/min dose.||1.464|-4.164|0.2123
90881398|NCT01120210|181625972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.58||||0.0821|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.639|0.483||one-sided p-value and one-sided alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||90% confidence intervals and p values represent the placebo-subtracted LS mean change from baseline in pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP) at the end of the 30 ng/kg/min dose.||0.483|-5.639|0.0821
90881399|NCT01120210|181625973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32||||0.7682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.527|1.879||two-sided p-value and two-sided alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||95% confidence intervals and p values represent the placebo-subtracted LS mean change from baseline in heart rate (HR) at the end of the 5 ng/kg/min dose.||1.879|-2.527|0.7682
90881400|NCT01120210|181625973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.24||||0.4107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.764|4.235||two-sided p-value and two-sided alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||95% confidence intervals and p values represent the placebo-subtracted LS mean change from baseline in heart rate (HR) at the end of the 15 ng/kg/min dose.||4.235|-1.764|0.4107
90881401|NCT01120210|181625973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.16||||0.1811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.046|5.372||two-sided p-value and two-sided alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||95% confidence intervals and p values represent the placebo-subtracted LS mean change from baseline in heart rate (HR) at the end of the 30 ng/kg/min dose.||5.372|-1.046|0.1811
90881402|NCT01120210|181625974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.67||||0.803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.06|4.718||two-sided p-value and two-sided alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||95% confidence intervals and p values represent the placebo-subtracted LS mean change from baseline in systolic blood pressure (SBP) at the end of the 5 ng/kg/min dose.||4.718|-6.060|0.8030
90881403|NCT01120210|181625974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.99||||0.4923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.781|3.801||two-sided p-value and two-sided alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||95% confidence intervals and p values represent the placebo-subtracted LS mean change from baseline in systolic blood pressure (SBP) at the end of the 15 ng/kg/min dose.||3.801|-7.781|0.4923
90881404|NCT01120210|181625974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.77||||0.3152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.251|3.708||two-sided p-value and two-sided alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||95% confidence intervals and p values represent the placebo-subtracted LS mean change from baseline in systolic blood pressure (SBP) at the end of the 30 ng/kg/min dose.||3.708|-11.251|0.3152
90881405|NCT01120210|181625975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.36||||0.1561||95.0|-8.047|1.331||two-sided p-value and two-sided alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||95% confidence intervals and p values represent the placebo-subtracted LS mean change from baseline in diastolic blood pressure (DBP) at the end of the 5 ng/kg/min dose.||1.331|-8.047|0.1561
90881406|NCT01120210|181625975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.55||||0.0282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.482|-0.622||two-sided p-value and two-sided alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||95% confidence intervals and p values represent the placebo-subtracted LS mean change from baseline in diastolic blood pressure (DBP) at the end of the 15 ng/kg/min dose.||-0.622|-10.482|0.0282
90881407|NCT01120210|181625975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.08||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.818|-2.332||two-sided p-value and two-sided alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||95% confidence intervals and p values represent the placebo-subtracted LS mean change from baseline in diastolic blood pressure (DBP) at the end of the 30 ng/kg/min dose.||-2.332|-11.818|0.0043
90919327|NCT02605837|181708567|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion of responders|0.52|||<|0.001||95.0|0.433|0.591|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) adjusted difference in proportion with corresponding Newcombe confidence interval (CI) and odds ratio with corresponding CI were based on CMH test stratified by age group and diet restriction.||0.591|0.433|<0.001
90919328|NCT02605837|181708568|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion of responders|0.13||||0.024||95.0|0.016|0.243|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The CMH adjusted difference in proportion with corresponding Newcombe confidence interval (CI) and odds ratio with corresponding CI were based on CMH test stratified by age group and diet restriction.||0.243|0.016|0.024
90919329|NCT02605837|181708569|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least square mean|-3.92||||0.015||95.0|-7.073|-0.774|||ANCOVA|||This analysis was from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and age group as factors and the baseline DSQ combined score as a continuous covariate.||-0.774|-7.073|0.015
90919330|NCT02605837|181708570|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least square mean|-1.8|||<|0.001||95.0|-2.6|-1.1|||ANCOVA|||This analysis was from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and age group as factors and the baseline. Total EREFS (endoscopy score) as a continuous covariate.||-1.1|-2.6|<0.001
90919331|NCT02605837|181708571|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|169.74|||<|0.001||95.0|23.235|1239.979|||Regression, Logistic|||Peak eosinophil count (\<15/HPF) was performed based on logistic regression model adjusted for age group and diet restriction.||1239.979|23.235|<0.001
90919332|NCT02605837|181708571|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|100.69||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.294|1610.749|||Firth logistic regression|||Peak eosinophil count (\<=1/HPF) was performed based on firth logistic regression model adjusted for age group and diet restriction.||1610.749|6.294|0.001
90919333|NCT02605837|181708572|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least square mean|-28.4|||<|0.001||95.0|-35.0|-21.8|||ANCOVA|||This analysis of proximal eosinophil count was from the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and age group as factors and the baseline Peak Eosinophil Count as a continuous covariate.||-21.8|-35.0|<0.001
90919334|NCT02605837|181708572|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least square mean|-30.4|||<|0.001||95.0|-38.1|-22.7|||ANCOVA|||This analysis of mid eosinophil count was from the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and age group as factors and the baseline Peak Eosinophil Count as a continuous covariate.||-22.7|-38.1|<0.001
90881408|NCT01120210|181625976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24||||0.9769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.347|16.823||two-sided p-value and two-sided alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||95% confidence intervals and p values represent the placebo-subtracted LS mean change from baseline in left ventricular end systolic volume (LVESV) at the end of the 30 ng/kg/min dose.||16.823|-16.347|0.9769
90919335|NCT02605837|181708572|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least square mean|-33.1|||<|0.001||95.0|-40.7|-25.5|||ANCOVA|||This analysis of distal eosinophil count was from the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and age group as factors and the baseline Peak Eosinophil Count as a continuous covariate||-25.5|-40.7|<0.001
90962253|NCT02876835|181805417|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.29||||0.8268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.32|||MMRM||Week8:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week8 data has been presented,with factors for treatment, time,current ESA use at randomization, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time \& treatment by time interactions.|||0.32|-0.90|0.8268
90919336|NCT02605837|181708572|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-47.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.4|-38.8|||ANCOVA|||This analysis of maximum eosinophil count was from the ANCOVA model with treatment group and age group as factors and the baseline Peak eosinophil count as a continuous covariate.||-38.8|-56.4|<0.001
90919337|NCT02605837|181708573|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least square mean|-0.19|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.22|-0.16|||ANCOVA|||This analysis of histopathologic epithelial features combined grade TSR was from the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and age group as factors and the baseline Peak Eosinophil Count as a continuous covariate.||-0.16|-0.22|<0.001
90919338|NCT02605837|181708573|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least square mean|-0.2|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.2|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||This analysis of histopathologic epithelial features combined stage TSR was from the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and age group as factors and the baseline Peak Eosinophil Count as a continuous covariate.||-0.2|-0.2|<0.001
90919339|NCT02605837|181708574|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.866|2.333|||Regression, Logistic|||Dysphagia symptom response (binary response) at the final treatment period was performed based on logistic regression model adjusted for age group and diet restriction.||2.333|0.866|0.164
90962254|NCT02876835|181805417|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.15||||0.6851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.47|||MMRM||Week12:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week12 data has been presented,with factors for treatment, time,current ESA use at randomization, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time \& treatment by time interactions|||0.47|-0.77|0.6851
90962255|NCT02876835|181805417|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.33||||0.8316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|0.35|||MMRM||Week28:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week28 data has been presented,with factors for treatment, time,current ESA use at randomization, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time \& treatment by time interactions|||0.35|-1.01|0.8316
90962256|NCT02876835|181805417|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.35||||0.8032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.46|||MMRM||Week52:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week52 data has been presented,with factors for treatment, time,current ESA use at randomization, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time \& treatment by time interactions|||0.46|-1.16|0.8032
90962257|NCT02876835|181805418|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.34||||0.8562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.28|||MMRM||B pain,Week8:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week8 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use at randomization, region, BL value and BL value by time \& treatment by time interactions.|||0.28|-0.95|0.8562
90919340|NCT02605837|181708575|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|91.86||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.687|1483.68|||Firth logistic regression|||Overall binary response I at the final treatment period was performed based on firth logistic regression model adjusted for age group and diet restriction.||1483.680|5.687|0.001
90919341|NCT02605837|181708576|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|61.68||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.836|991.858|||Firth logistic regression|||Overall binary response II at the final treatment period was perfomed based on based on firth logistic regression model adjusted for age group and diet restriction.||991.858|3.836|0.004
90919342|NCT02605837|181708577|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least square mean|-6.41||||0.004||95.0|-10.757|-2.063|||ANCOVA|||This analysis was from the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and age group as factors and the baseline DSQ + Pain score as a continuous covariate.||-2.063|-10.757|0.004
90919343|NCT02605837|181708578|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least square mean|-2.46||||0.002||95.0|-4.018|-0.909|||ANCOVA|||This analysis was from the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and age group as factors and the baseline DSQ Pain score as a continuous covariate.||-0.909|-4.018|0.002
90919344|NCT04491968|181708587|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.9|||proportional hazard regression|||||.90|.37|.02
90919345|NCT04491968|181708588|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.41||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.96|||proportional hazard regression|||||.96|.18|.04
90919346|NCT05656911|181708596|OTHER|Bayesian analysis according to estimand|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.0|18.0|||||Posterior probability is 34.0%|Median of posterior distribution of difference between Zabedosertib and Placebo including credible interval. Posterior probability is presented that the responder rate after treatment with zabedosertib is higher than after placebo given the data observed in the study.||18.0|-29.0|
90919347|NCT05656911|181708597|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.31||||0.257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.26|30.87||two-sided. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||LS mean (%)|The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model includes treatment group as fixed effect and the EASI baseline value as covariate.||30.87|-8.26|0.257
90962258|NCT02876835|181805418|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.15||||0.6849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.47|||MMRM||B pain,Week12:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week12 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use at randomization, region, BL value and BL value by time \& treatment by time interactions|||0.47|-0.77|0.6849
90962259|NCT02876835|181805418|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.49||||0.9074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|0.24|||MMRM||B pain,Week28:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week28 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use at randomization, region, BL value and BL value by time \& treatment by time interactions|||0.24|-1.22|0.9074
90962260|NCT02876835|181805418|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.47||||0.8765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|0.32|||MMRM||B pain,Week52:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week52 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use at randomization, region, BL value and BL value by time \& treatment by time interactions|||0.32|-1.26|0.8765
90962261|NCT02876835|181805418|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.08||||0.6252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.4|||MMRM||GH,Week8:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week8 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use at randomization, region, BL value and BL value by time \& treatment by time interactions|||0.40|-0.56|0.6252
90919348|NCT05656911|181708598|OTHER|Bayesian analysis according to estimand|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.0|22.1|||||Posterior probability is 41.7%|Median of posterior distribution of difference between Zabedosertib and Placebo including credible interval. Posterior probability is presented that the responder rate after treatment with zabedosertib is higher than after placebo given the data observed in the study.||22.1|-27.0|
90919349|NCT05656911|181708599|OTHER|Bayesian analysis according to estimand|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.6|13.4|||||Posterior probability is 31.5%|Median of posterior distribution of difference between Zabedosertib and Placebo including credible interval. Posterior probability is presented that the responder rate after treatment with zabedosertib is higher than after placebo given the data observed in the study.||13.4|-25.6|
90919350|NCT05656911|181708600|OTHER|Bayesian analysis according to estimand|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.1|7.0|||||Posterior probability is 10.8%|Median of posterior distribution of difference between Zabedosertib and Placebo including credible interval. Posterior probability is presented that the responder rate after treatment with zabedosertib is higher than after placebo given the data observed in the study.||7.0|-34.1|
90919351|NCT05656911|181708601|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.06||||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.92|17.03||two-sided. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model includes treatment group as fixed effect and the EASI baseline value as covariate.||17.03|-2.92|0.166
90919352|NCT05656911|181708602|OTHER|Bayesian analysis according to estimand|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.4|11.0|||||Posterior probability is 20.5%|Median of posterior distribution of difference between Zabedosertib and Placebo including credible interval. Posterior probability is presented that the responder rate after treatment with zabedosertib is higher than after placebo given the data observed in the study.||11.0|-30.4|
90919353|NCT05656911|181708604|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.68||||0.396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.75|22.11||two-sided. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model includes treatment group as fixed effect and the EASI baseline value as covariate.||22.11|-8.75|0.396
90919354|NCT02201108|181708612|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.657||||0.2949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.388|1.113||Threshold for significance was \< 0.05.|Stratified Log-Rank test|P-value derived from log-rank test with stratification of region and pubertal status.|Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox proportional-hazards model with factors for treatment group, region, pubertal status, age, and number of relapses in the year prior to randomization as covariates and with robust variance estimation.|||1.113|0.388|0.2949
90919355|NCT02201108|181708614|OTHER||Relative risk ratio|0.511|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.343|0.762||||||||0.762|0.343|
90919356|NCT02201108|181708615|OTHER||Relative risk ratio|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.331|0.983||||||||0.983|0.331|
90919357|NCT02201108|181708618|OTHER||Relative risk ratio|0.498|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.296|0.836||||||||0.836|0.296|
90919358|NCT02201108|181708632|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.693|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.296|||||Hazard ratio estimated using a Cox proportional-hazards model using treatment group, region, pubertal status, age, and number of relapses in the year prior to randomisation as covariates and with robust variance estimation.|||1.296|0.37|
90919359|NCT04143061|181708635|NON_INFERIORITY|The overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was \>-10% for all 4 serogroups. 95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score method without continuity correction.|Difference in percentage of participants|6.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.03|11.08||||||Statistical analysis for Serogroup A||11.08|2.03|
90919360|NCT04143061|181708635|NON_INFERIORITY|The overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was \>-10% for all 4 serogroups. 95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score method without continuity correction.|Difference in percentage of participants|21.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.82|25.8||||||Statistical analysis for Serogroup C||25.80|17.82|
90919361|NCT04143061|181708635|NON_INFERIORITY|The overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was \>-10% for all 4 serogroups. 95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score method without continuity correction.|Difference in percentage of participants|11.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.43|14.89||||||Statistical analysis for Serogroup Y||14.89|7.43|
90919362|NCT04143061|181708635|NON_INFERIORITY|The overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was \>-10% for all 4 serogroups. 95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score method without continuity correction.|Difference in percentage of participants|11.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.86|14.47||||||Statistical analysis for Serogroup W||14.47|7.86|
90919363|NCT03289039|181708645|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|4.12|||Log Rank|||||4.12|0.27|0.98
90919364|NCT03289039|181708646|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|2.81|||Log Rank|||||2.81|0.24|0.89
90919365|NCT02991534|181708656|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.152|||Non-linear model with Logit|Non-linear model with Logit Link Function with Robust Standard Errors||||1.152|1.030|.003
90919366|NCT02991534|181708657|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.976|1.022|||Non-linear model with Logit|Non-linear model with Logit Link Function with Robust Standard Errors||||1.022|0.976|0.91
90919367|NCT02991534|181708658|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.959|1.165|||Non-linear model with Logit|Non-linear model with Logit Link Function with Robust Standard Errors||||1.165|.959|.265
90919368|NCT02991534|181708659|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.002|1.022|||Non-linear model with Logit|Non-linear model with Logit Link Function with Robust Standard Errors||||1.022|1.002|0.015
90919369|NCT03144518|181708664|SUPERIORITY||Partial Eta Squared|0.079||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.014|0.173||ANCOVA, controlling for pre-intervention levels|ANCOVA|ANCOVA, controlling for pre-intervention levels||VAS-Valence Scores||.173|.014|.005
90919370|NCT03144518|181708664|SUPERIORITY||Partial Eta-Squared|0.04||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.12|||ANCOVA|Controlling for pre-intervention scores||VAS-Arousal Scores||.120|.000|.047
90919371|NCT03144518|181708664|SUPERIORITY||Partial Eta Squared|0.096||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.022|0.196|||ANCOVA|Controlling for pre-intervention levels||Pictorial Scale||.196|.022|.002
90919372|NCT03144518|181708664|SUPERIORITY||Partial Eta Squared|0.002||||0.697|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.036|||ANCOVA|Controlling for baseline levels||PANAS Positive Affect Scores||.036|.000|.697
90919373|NCT03144518|181708664|SUPERIORITY||Partial Eta Squared|0.005||||0.462|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.053|||ANCOVA|||PANAS Negative Affect Scores||.053|.000|.462
90919374|NCT03144518|181708667|SUPERIORITY||Partial Eta Squared|0.001||||0.806|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.031|||ANCOVA|Controlling for pre-intervention levels||||.031|.000|.806
90919375|NCT03144518|181708668|SUPERIORITY|Note: The study was not powered a priori to detect significant differences in these outcomes.|Partial Eta Squared|0.006||||0.438|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.055|||ANCOVA|Controlling for Pre-Vaccination levels||4 Weeks A/Hong-Kong||.055|.000|.438
90919376|NCT03144518|181708668|SUPERIORITY|Note: The study was not powered a priori to detect significant differences in these outcomes.|Partial Eta Squared|0.004||||0.516|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.051|||ANCOVA|controlling for pre-vaccination levels||A/Hong-Kong 16 Weeks Post-Vaccination||.051|.000|.516
90919377|NCT03144518|181708668|SUPERIORITY|Note: The study was not powered a priori to detect significant differences in these outcomes.|Partial Eta Squared|0.002||||0.671|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.038|||ANCOVA|controlling for pre-vaccination levels||A/Michigan 4 weeks post-vaccination||.038|.000|.671
90881409|NCT01120210|181625977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.98||||0.8297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.592|20.551||two-sided p-value and two-sided alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||95% confidence intervals and p values represent the placebo-subtracted LS mean change from baseline in LVEDV at the end of the 30 ng/kg/min dose.||20.551|-16.592|0.8297
90881410|NCT01120210|181625978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31||||0.865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.352|3.968||two-sided p-value and two-sided alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||95% confidence intervals and p values represent the placebo-subtracted LS mean change from baseline in LVEF at the end of the 30 ng/kg/min dose.||3.968|-3.352|0.8650
90881411|NCT01120210|181625979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.95||||0.3748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.204|3.102||two-sided p-value and two-sided alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||95% confidence intervals and p values represent the placebo-subtracted LS mean change from baseline in FS at the end of the 30 ng/kg/min dose.||3.102|-1.204|0.3748
90881412|NCT01120210|181625980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.08||||0.2123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.198|18.359||two-sided p-value and two-sided alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||95% confidence intervals and p values represent the placebo-subtracted LS mean change from baseline in SV at the end of the 5 ng/kg/min dose.||18.359|-4.198|0.2123
90881413|NCT01120210|181625980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.78||||0.1083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.016|19.575||two-sided p-value and two-sided alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||95% confidence intervals and p values represent the placebo-subtracted LS mean change from baseline in SV at the end of the 15 ng/kg/min dose.||19.575|-2.016|0.1083
90881414|NCT01120210|181625980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.16||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.557|25.771||two-sided p-value and two-sided alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||95% confidence intervals and p values represent the placebo-subtracted LS mean change from baseline in SV at the end of the 30 ng/kg/min dose.||25.771|2.557|0.0180
90881415|NCT01120210|181625981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.38||||0.4841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.308|2.554||two-sided p-value and two-sided alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||95% confidence intervals and p values represent the placebo-subtracted LS mean change from baseline in PASP at the end of the 5 ng/kg/min dose.||2.554|-5.308|0.4841
90881416|NCT01120210|181625981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.99||||0.6665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.567|3.594||two-sided p-value and two-sided alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||95% confidence intervals and p values represent the placebo-subtracted LS mean change from baseline in SV at the end of the 15 ng/kg/min dose.||3.594|-5.567|0.6665
90881417|NCT01120210|181625981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.02||||0.6904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.107|6.148||two-sided p-value and two-sided alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||95% confidence intervals and p values represent the placebo-subtracted LS mean change from baseline in PASP at the end of the 30 ng/kg/min dose.||6.148|-4.107|0.6904
90881418|NCT01120210|181625982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.6304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.197|3.588||two-sided p-value and two-sided alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||95% confidence intervals and p values represent the placebo-subtracted LS mean change from baseline in PADP at the end of the 5 ng/kg/min dose.||3.588|-2.197|0.6304
90881419|NCT01120210|181625982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35||||0.842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.851|3.153||two-sided p-value and two-sided alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||95% confidence intervals and p values represent the placebo-subtracted LS mean change from baseline in PADP at the end of the 15 ng/kg/min dose.||3.153|-3.851|0.8420
90881420|NCT01120210|181625982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.73||||0.6658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.138|2.669||two-sided p-value and two-sided alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||95% confidence intervals and p values represent the placebo-subtracted LS mean change from baseline in PADP at the end of the 30 ng/kg/min dose.||2.669|-4.138|0.6658
90881421|NCT01120210|181625983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-264.36||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-529.875|1.147||two-sided p-value and two-sided alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||95% confidence intervals and p values represent the placebo-subtracted LS mean change from baseline in SVR at the end of the 5 ng/kg/min dose.||1.147|-529.875|0.0510
90881422|NCT01120210|181625983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-383.32||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-592.781|-173.867||two-sided p-value and two-sided alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||95% confidence intervals and p values represent the placebo-subtracted LS mean change from baseline in SVR at the end of the 15 ng/kg/min dose.||-173.867|-592.781|0.0006
90919378|NCT03144518|181708668|SUPERIORITY|Note: The study was not powered a priori to detect significant differences in these outcomes.|Partial Eta Squared|0.0||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.0|||ANCOVA|Controlling for pre-vaccination levels||A/Michigan 16 weeks post-vaccination||.000|.000|.980
90919379|NCT03144518|181708668|SUPERIORITY|Note: The study was not powered a priori to detect significant differences in these outcomes.|Partial Eta Squared|0.007||||0.409|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.057|||ANCOVA|Controlling for pre-vaccination levels||B/Brisbane 4 weeks post-vaccination||.057|.000|.409
90919380|NCT03144518|181708668|SUPERIORITY|Note: The study was not powered a priori to detect significant differences in these outcomes.|Partial Eta Squared|0.008||||0.377|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.062|||ANCOVA|Controlling for pre-vaccination levels||B/Brisbane 16 weeks post-vaccination||.062|.000|.377
90919381|NCT03144518|181708668|SUPERIORITY||Partial Eta Squared|0.0||||0.892|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.008|||ANCOVA|Controlling for pre-vaccination levels||B/Phuket 4 weeks post-vaccination||.008|.000|.892
90919382|NCT03144518|181708668|SUPERIORITY|Note: The study was not powered a priori to detect significant differences in these outcomes.|Partial Eta Squared|0.007||||0.426|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.058|||ANCOVA|Controlling for pre-vaccination levels||||.058|.000|.426
90919383|NCT01989455|181708688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent ratio|73.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|68.83|77.56||||||||77.56|68.83|
90919384|NCT00632203|181708690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6995|||||||2-sided Exact Pearson Chi-square Test|||||||0.6995
90919385|NCT00448669|181708698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||Safety analyses were performed in the intention-to-treat cohort. Primary safety end points included the frequency of adverse clinical or laboratory events.||||0.003
90881423|NCT01120210|181625983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-527.77||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-764.07|-291.478||two-sided p-value and two-sided alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||95% confidence intervals and p values represent the placebo-subtracted LS mean change from baseline in SVR at the end of the 30 ng/kg/min dose.||-291.478|-764.070|0.0001
90919386|NCT00448669|181708699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Efficacy|62.2||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.5|83.4|||Regression, Cox|||The primary efficacy end point was the difference in the rates of HIV infection between participants assigned to receive TDF-FTC and those assigned to receive placebo. The primary hypothesis was that TDF-FTC, as compared with placebo, would reduce the rate of HIV infection by at least 65%, with a predefined lower boundary for the 95% confidence interval of 10%.||83.4|21.5|0.03
90919387|NCT00448669|181708700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.28|||Regression, Logistic|In this univariate model with the analysis of number of condomless sex acts, our model estimates the odds of reporting no condomless sex acts.||"A logistic regression was used to estimate the odds of reporting zero condomless sex acts. The longitudinal dependent variable (number of condomless sex acts) was defined as:~Number of condomless vaginal sexual acts with both casual and main partners among those who reported having had at least one sexual partner in the previous 30 days."||1.28|1.05|0.004
90919388|NCT00448669|181708701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.79|||||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's Exact Test was performed to test for differences between the treatment groups in terms of adherence based on pill count.||||0.79
90919389|NCT02638337|181708725|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-21.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.7|-18.0|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|MMRM model with treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and study center as fixed effects; and baseline value modeled as a covariate.||For the percentage of parabasal cells a mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) approach was used, with repeated measurements of the change from baseline as the response variable; treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and study center as fixed effects; and baseline value modeled as a covariate.||-18.0|-25.7|<0.0001
90919390|NCT02638337|181708726|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|7.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.2|9.1|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|MMRM model with treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and study center as fixed effects; and baseline value modeled as a covariate.||||9.1|5.2|<0.0001
90919391|NCT02638337|181708727|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.59|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|MMRM model with treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and study center as fixed effects; and baseline value modeled as a covariate.||||-0.59|-0.84|<0.0001
90919392|NCT02638337|181708728|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.62|3.06|||Generalized estimating equations model|GEE model with treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and study center as fixed effects and baseline severity of dryness as a covariate.|Odds ratio is the exponential of the mean of cumulative log odds ratio.|For the MBS of vaginal dryness a generalized estimating equations (GEE) model was used to fit a marginal proportional odds model to the longitudinal ordered categorical data, with repeated measurements of the change from baseline as the response variable; treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and study center as fixed effects; and baseline severity of dryness modeled as a covariate.||3.06|1.62|<0.0001
90919393|NCT02638337|181708730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-21.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.2|-18.0|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|MMRM model with treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and study center as fixed effects; and baseline value modeled as a covariate.||Week 4||-18.0|-25.2|<0.0001
90919394|NCT02638337|181708730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-21.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.4|-18.1|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|MMRM model with treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and study center as fixed effects; and baseline value modeled as a covariate.||Week 8||-18.1|-25.4|<0.0001
90919395|NCT02638337|181708731|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|7.3|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|MMRM model with treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and study center as fixed effects; and baseline value modeled as a covariate.||Week 4||7.3|4.2|<0.0001
90919396|NCT02638337|181708731|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|7.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.5|9.0|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|MMRM model with treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and study center as fixed effects; and baseline value modeled as a covariate.||Week 8||9.0|5.5|<0.0001
90919397|NCT02638337|181708732|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.46|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|MMRM model with treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and study center as fixed effects; and baseline value modeled as a covariate.||Week 4||-0.46|-0.69|<0.0001
90919398|NCT02638337|181708732|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.51|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|MMRM model with treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and study center as fixed effects; and baseline value modeled as a covariate.||Week 8||-0.51|-0.75|<0.0001
90919399|NCT02638337|181708733|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|2.36|||Generalized estimating equations model|GEE model with treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and study center as fixed effects and baseline severity of dryness as a covariate.|Odds ratio is the exponential of the mean of cumulative log odds ratio.|Week 4||2.36|1.27|0.0005
90919400|NCT02638337|181708733|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|2.74|||Generalized estimating equations model|GEE model with treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and study center as fixed effects and baseline severity of dryness as a covariate.|Odds ratio is the exponential of the mean of cumulative log odds ratio.|Week 8||2.74|1.47|<0.0001
90962262|NCT02876835|181805418|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2||||0.7852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.29|||MMRM||GH,Week12:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week12 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use at randomization, region, BL value and BL value by time \& treatment by time interactions|||0.29|-0.68|0.7852
90919401|NCT02638337|181708734|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.6263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.43|||Generalized estimating equations model|GEE model with treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and study center as fixed effects and baseline severity of dryness as a covariate.|Odds ratio is the exponential of the mean of cumulative log odds ratio.|Week 4||1.43|0.55|0.6263
90919402|NCT02638337|181708734|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.7869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.75|||Generalized estimating equations model|GEE model with treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and study center as fixed effects and baseline severity of dryness as a covariate.|Odds ratio is the exponential of the mean of cumulative log odds ratio.|Week 8||1.75|0.66|0.7869
90919403|NCT02638337|181708734|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.8894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.64|||Generalized estimating equations model|GEE model with treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and study center as fixed effects and baseline severity of dryness as a covariate.|Odds ratio is the exponential of the mean of cumulative log odds ratio.|Week 12||1.64|0.65|0.8894
91034080|NCT02865850|181954085|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per FDA) and 1.30 (per EMA).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.36|||=|0.521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|2.771|||Gray's test|Based on non-parametric analysis.||Statistical analysis from study AKB-6548-CI-0016 has been reported in this section.||2.771|0.670|=0.5210
90919404|NCT02638337|181708735|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.8369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.1|||Generalized estimating equations model|GEE model with treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and study center as fixed effects and baseline severity of dryness as a covariate.|Odds ratio is the exponential of the mean of cumulative log odds ratio.|Week 4||2.10|0.40|0.8369
90919405|NCT02638337|181708735|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|3.95|||Generalized estimating equations model|GEE model with treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and study center as fixed effects and baseline severity of dryness as a covariate.|Odds ratio is the exponential of the mean of cumulative log odds ratio.|Week 8||3.95|0.58|0.3970
90919406|NCT02638337|181708735|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.5391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|3.26|||Generalized estimating equations model|GEE model with treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and study center as fixed effects and baseline severity of dryness as a covariate.|Odds ratio is the exponential of the mean of cumulative log odds ratio.|Week 12||3.26|0.54|0.5391
90919407|NCT02638337|181708736|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.65||||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|2.4|||Generalized estimating equations model|GEE model with treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and study center as fixed effects and baseline severity of dryness as a covariate.|Odds ratio is the exponential of the mean of cumulative log odds ratio.|Week 4||2.40|1.13|0.0095
90919408|NCT02638337|181708736|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.0542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|2.11|||Generalized estimating equations model|GEE model with treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and study center as fixed effects and baseline severity of dryness as a covariate.|Odds ratio is the exponential of the mean of cumulative log odds ratio.|Week 8||2.11|0.99|0.0542
90919409|NCT02638337|181708736|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.97||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|2.88|||Generalized estimating equations model|GEE model with treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and study center as fixed effects and baseline severity of dryness as a covariate.|Odds ratio is the exponential of the mean of cumulative log odds ratio.|Week 12||2.88|1.35|0.0004
90919410|NCT02638337|181708737|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71||||0.4336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.67|||Generalized estimating equations model|GEE model with treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and study center as fixed effects and baseline severity of dryness as a covariate.|Odds ratio is the exponential of the mean of cumulative log odds ratio.|Week 4||1.67|0.30|0.4336
90919411|NCT02638337|181708737|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.7672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|2.08|||Generalized estimating equations model|GEE model with treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and study center as fixed effects and baseline severity of dryness as a covariate.|Odds ratio is the exponential of the mean of cumulative log odds ratio.|Week 8||2.08|0.37|0.7672
90919412|NCT02638337|181708737|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.7101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.89|||Generalized estimating equations model|GEE model with treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and study center as fixed effects and baseline severity of dryness as a covariate.|Odds ratio is the exponential of the mean of cumulative log odds ratio.|Week 12||1.89|0.39|0.7101
90919413|NCT02638337|181708738|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|13.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.85|16.12|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.||Week 4||16.12|11.85|<0.0001
90919414|NCT02638337|181708738|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|14.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.5|16.96|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.||Week 8||16.96|12.50|<0.0001
90919415|NCT02638337|181708738|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|14.91|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.55|17.28|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.||Week 12||17.28|12.55|<0.0001
90919416|NCT02638337|181708739|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 4||||<0.0001
90919417|NCT02638337|181708739|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 8||||<0.0001
90919418|NCT02638337|181708739|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 12||||<0.0001
90919419|NCT02638337|181708740|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|3.0|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.||Week 4||3.0|2.0|<0.0001
90881424|NCT04296396|181625984|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority design assumed a noninferiority margin of 5%. For 90% power and 0.025 significance level 1-sided, a total sample size of 4,300 participants was required to state that the IOPP is not inferior to the fixed amount of 20 tablets. Given the short window to assess pain at 1-week post-discharge, a 20% missing rate was incorporated which gives a final sample size of 5,500 (2,750 per group).|Risk Difference (RD)|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.03|3.37|||||The risk difference is the rate in the fixed group minus the rate in the IOPP group. IOPP was to be determined as non-inferior if the lower 95% confidence limit for the risk difference is -5 percentage points or greater (i.e., closer to zero).|||3.37|-2.03|
90881425|NCT04296396|181625985|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.22||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|96.25|0.99|1.51|||Chi-squared||Confidence interval is 96.25% due to false discovery rate adjustment|||1.51|0.99|0.046
90881426|NCT04296396|181625986|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
90881427|NCT04296396|181625987|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-5.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-6.6|-3.5|||quantile regression||Confidence interval is 97.5% due to false discovery rate adjustment|||-3.5|-6.6|<0.001
90881428|NCT04296396|181625988|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-15.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|98.75|-19.2|-10.8|||quartile regression||Confidence interval is 98.75% due to false discovery rate adjustment|||-10.8|-19.2|<0.001
90881429|NCT04296396|181625989|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||quantile regression|||||0|0|1.0
90881430|NCT04296396|181625990|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.96||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.09|||Chi-squared|||||1.09|0.85|0.52
90881431|NCT04296396|181625991|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.0|||Regression, Linear|||||1.00|0.98|0.15
90881432|NCT05320029|181625998|NON_INFERIORITY|If the two-side 95%CI limit of the difference between the two groups is greater than the non-inferiority margin of -10%, the non-inferiority hypothesis of this study is valid|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0458|0.0458|||Newcombe-Wilson|||||0.0458|-0.0458|<0.05
90881433|NCT02388997|181626055|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||2-sample t-test with unequal variences|||||||0.59
90881434|NCT02388997|181626056|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||2-sample t-test with unequal variances|||||||0.58
90881435|NCT02388997|181626057|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||2-sample t-test with unequal variances|||||||0.87
90881436|NCT02388997|181626058|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||2-sample t-test with unequal variances|||||||0.55
90919420|NCT02638337|181708740|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|3.4|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.||Week 8||3.4|2.4|<0.0001
90919421|NCT02638337|181708740|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|3.4|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.||Week 12||3.4|2.2|<0.0001
90919422|NCT02638337|181708741|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.8||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.4|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.||Week 4||-0.4|-1.3|0.0002
90919423|NCT02638337|181708741|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.6|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.||Week 8||-0.6|-1.5|<0.0001
90881437|NCT02388997|181626059|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||2-sample t-test with unequal variances|||||||0.6
90881438|NCT02388997|181626061|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.037||||||The p value is based on the fold change (ratio) of the geometric means of the time (days) to peak symptoms among asthmatics in the omalizumab/placebo treatment groups.|2-sample t-test on the log scale|||||||0.037
90881439|NCT00384813|181626062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||regression coefficient|0.33||||0.23||||||For both baseline to 4 month analyses (see above p value) and baseline to 10 month analyses, the variable of intervention group did not contribute significant additional variance.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.23
90881440|NCT03925727|181626095|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.4||||0.5533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|6.0|||ANCOVA|||||6|-3.2|0.5533
90881441|NCT03925727|181626096|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.0192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||||-0.1|-1.1|0.0192
90881442|NCT02321462|181626105|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority would be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence intervals (CI) of the difference was higher than the predefined noninferiority margin (-15%).|Adjusted difference|-0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.22|3.29|||||To investigate noninferiority of Eziclen compared to Fortrans®, the adjusted difference between these 2 groups was calculated with 95% CI of the adjusted difference.|A multivariate logistic regression model, adjusted on centre, age class (≤65; \>65), gender and IBD status (No IBD, IBD) was used.||3.29|-4.22|
90881443|NCT02321462|181626106|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference|0.15|||=|0.0249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.28|||ANOVA|A 2-way analysis of variance model (ANOVA) with covariates for centre, age group (≤65; \>65), gender and IBD status was used.||Treatment difference for Right Colon BBPS Score.||0.28|0.02|=0.0249
90881444|NCT02321462|181626106|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference|0.11|||=|0.0382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.22|||ANOVA|A 2-way ANOVA with covariates for centre, age group (≤65; \>65), gender and IBD status was used.||Treatment difference for Transverse Colon BBPS Score.||0.22|0.01|=0.0382
90881445|NCT02321462|181626106|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference|0.06|||=|0.2538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.16|||ANOVA|A 2-way ANOVA with covariates for centre, age group (≤65; \>65), gender and IBD status was used.||Treatment difference for Left Colon BBPS Score.||0.16|-0.04|=0.2538
90919424|NCT02638337|181708741|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.7|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.||Week 12||-0.7|-1.6|<0.0001
90919425|NCT02638337|181708742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0||||0.0118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.2|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.||||-0.2|-1.8|0.0118
90919426|NCT02638337|181708743|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.02||||0.9748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|1.2|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.||Week 4||1.20|-1.17|0.9748
90919427|NCT02638337|181708743|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.19||||0.7865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|1.56|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.||Week 8||1.56|-1.18|0.7865
90919428|NCT02638337|181708743|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.59||||0.0392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|3.09|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.||Week 12||3.09|0.08|0.0392
90919429|NCT02638337|181708744|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.16||||0.0752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.34|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.||Desire||0.34|-0.02|0.0752
90919430|NCT02638337|181708744|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.1867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.49|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.||Arousal||0.49|-0.10|0.1867
90919431|NCT02638337|181708744|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.0161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.73|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.||Lubrication||0.73|0.07|0.0161
90919432|NCT02638337|181708744|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.16||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.48|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.||Orgasm||0.48|-0.16|0.3400
90919433|NCT02638337|181708744|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.16||||0.2195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.41|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.||Satisfaction||0.41|-0.10|0.2195
90919434|NCT02638337|181708744|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.45||||0.0103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.8|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.||Pain||0.80|0.11|0.0103
90919435|NCT02638337|181708745|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.6|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.||Week 4||0.6|-0.4|0.7230
90919436|NCT02638337|181708745|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.1104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.9|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.||Week 8||0.9|-0.1|0.1104
90919437|NCT02638337|181708745|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.2448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.9|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.||Week 12||0.9|-0.2|0.2448
90919438|NCT02638337|181708746|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4388.3||||0.4263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15214.8|6438.3|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.||||6438.3|-15214.8|0.4263
90919439|NCT02638337|181708747|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.049|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.071|-0.027|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.||||-0.027|-0.071|<0.0001
90919440|NCT02638337|181708748|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14||||0.5159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.29|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.||||0.29|-0.58|0.5159
90919441|NCT02638337|181708749|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.75||||0.0227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|-0.1|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.||||-0.10|-1.39|0.0227
90919442|NCT02638337|181708750|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|-0.1|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.||||-0.10|-0.34|0.0003
90919443|NCT02638337|181708751|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|-4.3|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.||||-4.3|-8.1|<0.0001
90919444|NCT02638337|181708752|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.35||||0.0084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|-0.35|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.||||-0.35|-2.35|0.0084
90919445|NCT02638337|181708753|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.92|-1.19|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.||||-1.19|-2.92|<0.0001
90919446|NCT02638337|181708754|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.64|-2.89|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.||||-2.89|-7.64|<0.0001
90919447|NCT02638337|181708755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9575|||||||Welch's t-test|||||||0.9575
90919448|NCT02638337|181708756|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8772|||||||Welch's t-test|||||||0.8772
90919449|NCT02638337|181708757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0007|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.0007
90919450|NCT04315181|181708767|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical significance is 2-sided and accepted at a P value of ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|F=6.89, df=8, 72||Peak scores were calculated for individual participants within each dose condition and analyzed in a one-factor model (drug condition) with a compound symmetry covariance structure.||||<0.0001
90919451|NCT04315181|181708768|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical significance is 2-sided and accepted at a P value of ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|F=5.51, df=8, 72||Peak scores were calculated for individual participants within each dose condition and analyzed in a one-factor model (drug condition) with a compound symmetry covariance structure.||||<0.0001
90919452|NCT04315181|181708769|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.138||||||Statistical significance is 2-sided and accepted at a P value of ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|F=1.61, df=8, 72||Trough scores were calculated for individual participants within each dose condition and analyzed in a one-factor model (drug condition) with a compound symmetry covariance structure.||||0.138
90919453|NCT04315181|181708770|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical significance is 2-sided and accepted at a P value of ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|F=8.15, df=8, 72||Peak scores were calculated for individual participants within each dose condition and analyzed in a one-factor model (drug condition) with a compound symmetry covariance structure.||||<0.0001
90881446|NCT02321462|181626106|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference|0.33|||=|0.0256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.62|||ANOVA|A 2-way ANOVA with covariates for centre, age group (≤65; \>65), gender and IBD status was used.||Treatment difference for Global BBPS Score.||0.62|0.04|=0.0256
90881447|NCT02321462|181626107|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference|0.11|||=|0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.24|||ANOVA|A 2-way ANOVA with covariates for centre, age group (≤65; \>65), gender and IBD status was used.||Treatment difference for Right Colon BBPS Score (per protocol population).||0.24|-0.02|=0.0840
90881448|NCT02321462|181626107|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|0.08|||=|0.132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.18|||ANOVA|A 2-way ANOVA with covariates for centre, age group (≤65; \>65), gender and IBD status was used.||Treatment difference for Transverse Colon BBPS Score (per protocol population).||0.18|-0.02|=0.1320
90881449|NCT02321462|181626108|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference|-6.94|||=|0.2199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.53|3.64|||Regression, Logistic|A multivariate logistic regression model, adjusted on centre, age class (≤65; \>65), gender and IBD status was used.||Treatment difference for detection of polyps.||3.64|-17.53|=0.2199
90881450|NCT02321462|181626108|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference|1.87|||=|0.6325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.25|9.99|||Regression, Logistic|A multivariate logistic regression model, adjusted on centre, age class (≤65; \>65), gender and IBD status was used.||Treatment difference for detection of adenomas.||9.99|-6.25|=0.6325
90881451|NCT02321462|181626108|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference|-1.55|||=|0.7086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.64|6.54|||Regression, Logistic|A multivariate logistic regression model, adjusted on centre, age class (≤65; \>65), gender and IBD status was used.||Treatment difference for detection of other lesions.||6.54|-9.64|=0.7086
90881452|NCT02321462|181626109|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference|0.01|||=|0.9927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.12|3.14|||Regression, Logistic|A multivariate logistic regression model, adjusted on centre, age class (≤65; \>65), gender and IBD status was used.||||3.14|-3.12|=0.9927
90881453|NCT02321462|181626110|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference|-0.3|||=|0.7039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|1.27|||ANOVA|A 2-way ANOVA with covariates for centre, age group (≤65; \>65), gender and IBD status was used.||||1.27|-1.88|=0.7039
90881454|NCT02321462|181626111|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference|0.1|||=|0.1891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.25|||ANOVA|A 2-way ANOVA with covariates for centre, age group (≤65; \>65), gender and IBD status was used.||||0.25|-0.05|=0.1891
90881455|NCT02321462|181626112|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference|13.35|||=|0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.37|20.32|||Regression, Logistic|A multivariate logistic regression model, adjusted on centre, age class (≤65; \>65), gender and IBD status was used.||||20.32|6.37|=0.0011
90881456|NCT01153581|181626132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.16|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
90881457|NCT00249470|181626133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.8||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.03|16.56|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||16.56|2.03|.004
90881458|NCT00249470|181626134|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91|||=|0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.08|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||2.08|0.40|=0.82
90881459|NCT00249470|181626135|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.37||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|9.37|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||9.37|1.21|0.04
90881460|NCT02741115|181626152|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.377||0.092|TWO_SIDED|||||LS mean was the estimated treatment difference from the analysis model.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA fixed factors: ventricular morphology and treatment group with a continuous covariate of Baseline maximal VO2. LOCF imputation used.||It was estimated that a sample size of 198 participants per group would provide 90% power to detect a mean treatment group difference in change from baseline to Week 26 in maximal VO2 scores of 10% (ie, an improvement of 2.8 mL/kg/min in the udenafil group compared to 0 in the control group, assuming a Type I error of 0.05 and standard deviation of 7.235). A difference of 2.8, equivalent to a 10% increase from a baseline of 28 mL/kg/min, represents approximately 0.4 standard deviations.||||0.092
90881461|NCT02741115|181626153|SUPERIORITY|LS mean differences between treatment groups were analyzed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014||0.024|TWO_SIDED|||||LS mean was the estimated treatment difference from the analytical model.|ANCOVA|Fixed factors: ventricular morphology and treatment group with a continuous covariate of Baseline maximal VO2.||||||0.024
90919454|NCT04315181|181708771|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002||||||Statistical significance is 2-sided and accepted at a P value of ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|F=4.58, df=8, 72||Trough scores were calculated for individual participants within each dose condition and analyzed in a one-factor model (drug condition) with a compound symmetry covariance structure.||||0.0002
90919455|NCT00522951|181708791|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|non-inferiority margin = -1|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.58||||||95.0|-0.87|-0.29|||||Averaged blinded reader (primary analysis)|H01: μG1 - μPr ≤ -1||-0.29|-0.87|
90919456|NCT00522951|181708791|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|non-inferiority margin = -1|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||||95.0|-0.23|0.36|||||Averaged blinded reader (primary analysis)|H02: μG2 - μPr ≤ -1||0.36|-0.23|
90881462|NCT02741115|181626154|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.591||0.591|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.591
90881463|NCT02741115|181626155|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094||0.169|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.169
90881464|NCT02741115|181626156|SUPERIORITY|LS mean differences between treatment groups were analyzed.|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.308||0.012|TWO_SIDED|||||LS mean was the estimated treatment mean difference from the analysis model.|ANCOVA|Fixed factors: ventricular morphology and treatment group, with a continuous covariate of Baseline maximal VO2. LOCF imputation.||||||0.012
90881465|NCT02741115|181626157|SUPERIORITY|LS mean differences between treatment groups were analyzed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.46||0.029|TWO_SIDED|||||LS mean was the estimated treatment difference in the analysis model.|ANCOVA|Fixed factors: ventricular morphology and treatment group, with a continuous covariate of Baseline maximal VO2. LOCF imputation.||||||0.029
90881466|NCT02741115|181626158|SUPERIORITY|LS mean differences between treatment groups were analyzed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.321||0.011|TWO_SIDED|||||LS mean was the estimated treatment difference from the analysis model.|ANCOVA|Fixed factors: ventricular morphology and treatment group with a continuous covariate of Baseline maximal VO2. LOCF imputation.||||||0.011
90919457|NCT00522951|181708791|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|non-inferiority margin = -1|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||||95.0|-0.5|-0.1|||||Investigator (secondary analysis)|H01: μG1 - μPr ≤ -1||-0.1|-0.5|
90919458|NCT00522951|181708791|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|non-inferiority margin = -1|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||||95.0|0.02|0.41|||||Investigator (secondary analysis)|H02: μG2 - μPr ≤ -1||0.41|0.02|
90919459|NCT06647238|181708808|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
90919460|NCT00390299|181708818|OTHER||Maximum Tolerated Dose (x 10^7 TCID50)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90919461|NCT00390299|181708818|OTHER||Maximum Tolerated Dose (x 10^7 TCID50)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90919462|NCT00390299|181708822|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.66||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|4.11|||Log Rank|||||4.11|0.67|0.28
90919463|NCT00539734|181708832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparing pre-operative data with postoperative data in terms of changes in amplitude height and implicit time.||||<0.05
90919464|NCT02814838|181708843|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.3303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.42|||Student's t test for unpaired samples|||Transformed AUC was analyzed with Student t-test for unpaired data using PROC TTEST within SAS® to compare Ladarixin and placebo groups. The estimated treatment difference between Ladarixin and placebo was also presented together with the corresponding 95% confidence interval.||0.42|-0.14|0.3303
90919465|NCT02814838|181708844|SUPERIORITY|The comparisons between groups on 2-hour AUC C-peptide efficacy endpoint was carried-out using a mixed linear model where the log(x+1) transformed 2-hour AUC C-peptide was the dependent variable, while treatment group, visit, treatment by visit interaction were the fixed factors of the model and patient will be the random effect. An unstructured covariance matrix for each patient is considered and the Kenward-Roger adjustment is used for the degrees of freedom.|adjusted mean difference|0.0984||||0.517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2028|0.3995|||Mixed Models Analysis|||at FUP week 26||0.3995|-0.2028|0.517
90919466|NCT02814838|181708844|SUPERIORITY|The comparisons between groups on 2-hour AUC C-peptide efficacy endpoint was carried-out using a mixed linear model where the log(x+1) transformed 2-hour AUC C-peptide was the dependent variable, while treatment group, visit, treatment by visit interaction were the fixed factors of the model and patient will be the random effect. An unstructured covariance matrix for each patient is considered and the Kenward-Roger adjustment is used for the degrees of freedom.|adjusted mean difference|-0.0486||||0.7999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4294|0.3322|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At FUP week 52||0.3322|-0.4294|0.7999
90962263|NCT02876835|181805418|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.1||||0.3614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.66|||MMRM||GH,Week28:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week28 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use at randomization, region, BL value and BL value by time \& treatment by time interactions|||0.66|-0.46|0.3614
90919467|NCT02814838|181708845|SUPERIORITY||adjusted mean difference|12.0411||||0.2224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3823|31.4644|||Mixed Models Analysis|||at week 13||31.4644|-7.3823|0.2224
90919468|NCT02814838|181708845|SUPERIORITY||adjusted mean difference|8.4803||||0.3931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0935|28.0541|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At week 26||28.0541|-11.0935|0.3931
90919469|NCT02814838|181708845|SUPERIORITY||adjusted mean difference|-2.9502||||0.7664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.5476|16.6473|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At week 52||16.6473|-22.5476|0.7664
90919470|NCT02814838|181708846|SUPERIORITY|Analysis is based on a linear mixed model for repeated measures with Daily Insulin Requirement (IU/kg/day) as dependent variable, treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and patient as random effect.|adjusted mean difference|-0.048||||0.2225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1257|0.0298|||Mixed Models Analysis|||at week 13||0.0298|-0.1257|0.2225
90919471|NCT02814838|181708846|SUPERIORITY|Analysis is based on a linear mixed model for repeated measures with Daily Insulin Requirement (IU/kg/day) as dependent variable, treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and patient as random effect.|adjusted mean difference|-0.0369||||0.551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1596|0.0858|||Mixed Models Analysis|||at week 26||0.0858|-0.1596|0.551
90919472|NCT02814838|181708846|SUPERIORITY|Analysis is based on a linear mixed model for repeated measures with Daily Insulin Requirement (IU/kg/day) as dependent variable, treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and patient as random effect.|adjusted mean difference|-0.063||||0.2501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1712|0.0453|||Mixed Models Analysis|||at week 52||0.0453|-0.1712|0.2501
90919473|NCT02814838|181708847|SUPERIORITY|Analysis is based on a linear mixed model for repeated measures with HbA1c (%) as dependent variable, treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and patient as random effect.|adjusted mean difference|-0.1494||||0.6252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7514|0.4526|||Mixed Models Analysis|||at FU week 13||0.4526|-0.7514|0.6252
90919474|NCT02814838|181708847|SUPERIORITY|Analysis is based on a linear mixed model for repeated measures with HbA1c (%) as dependent variable, treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and patient as random effect.|adjusted mean difference|-0.2804||||0.366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8904|0.3297|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At FU week 26||0.3297|-0.8904|0.366
90919475|NCT02814838|181708847|SUPERIORITY|Analysis is based on a linear mixed model for repeated measures with HbA1c (%) as dependent variable, treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and patient as random effect.|adjusted mean difference|-0.2063||||0.5026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3992|0.8118|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At FU week 52||0.8118|-0.3992|0.5026
90919476|NCT02814838|181708848|SUPERIORITY|Analysis is based on a linear mixed model for repeated measures with C-peptide (nmol/L) actual value as dependent variable, treatment, visit, time, treatment by visit interaction, time by visit interaction, treatment by visit by time interaction as fixed effects and time by visit interaction is specified in repeated statement.|adjusted mean difference|0.0242||||0.2527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0174|0.0658|||Mixed Models Analysis|||at week 13||0.0658|-0.0174|0.2527
90919477|NCT02814838|181708848|SUPERIORITY|Analysis is based on a linear mixed model for repeated measures with C-peptide (nmol/L) actual value as dependent variable, treatment, visit, time, treatment by visit interaction, time by visit interaction, treatment by visit by time interaction as fixed effects and time by visit interaction is specified in repeated statement.|adjusted mean difference|0.0236||||0.2743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0188|0.066|||Mixed Models Analysis|||at week 26||0.066|-0.0188|0.2743
90919478|NCT02814838|181708848|SUPERIORITY|Analysis is based on a linear mixed model for repeated measures with C-peptide (nmol/L) actual value as dependent variable, treatment, visit, time, treatment by visit interaction, time by visit interaction, treatment by visit by time interaction as fixed effects and time by visit interaction is specified in repeated statement.|adjusted mean difference|-0.0059||||0.7856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0485|0.0367|||Mixed Models Analysis|||at week 52||0.0367|-0.0485|0.7856
90919479|NCT02814838|181708849|SUPERIORITY|Analysis is based on a linear mixed model for repeated measures with Glucose (mmol/L) actual value as dependent variable, treatment, visit, time, treatment by visit interaction, time by visit interaction, treatment by visit by time interaction as fixed effects and time by visit interaction is specified in repeated statement.|adjusted mean difference|-0.0253||||0.9307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5986|0.548|||Mixed Models Analysis|||at week 13||0.548|-0.5986|0.9307
90919480|NCT02814838|181708849|SUPERIORITY|Analysis is based on a linear mixed model for repeated measures with Glucose (mmol/L) actual value as dependent variable, treatment, visit, time, treatment by visit interaction, time by visit interaction, treatment by visit by time interaction as fixed effects and time by visit interaction is specified in repeated statement.|adjusted mean difference|-0.7236||||0.0139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2989|-0.1483|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At week 26||-0.1483|-1.2989|0.0139
90962264|NCT02876835|181805418|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.08||||0.5991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.54|||MMRM||GH,Week52:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week52 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use at randomization, region, BL value and BL value by time \& treatment by time interactions|||0.54|-0.70|0.5991
90962265|NCT02876835|181805418|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.31||||0.8526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.27|||MMRM||MH,Week8:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week8 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use at randomization, region, BL value and BL value by time \& treatment by time interactions|||0.27|-0.88|0.8526
90962266|NCT02876835|181805418|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.02||||0.4673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.61|||MMRM||MH,Week12:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week12 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use at randomization, region, BL value and BL value by time \& treatment by time interactions|||0.61|-0.56|0.4673
90919481|NCT02814838|181708849|SUPERIORITY|Analysis is based on a linear mixed model for repeated measures with Glucose (mmol/L) actual value as dependent variable, treatment, visit, time, treatment by visit interaction, time by visit interaction, treatment by visit by time interaction as fixed effects and time by visit interaction is specified in repeated statement.|adjusted mean difference|-0.5979||||0.0432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1775|-0.0184|||Mixed Models Analysis|||at week 52||-0.0184|-1.1775|0.0432
90962267|NCT02876835|181805418|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.31||||0.8262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.33|||MMRM||MH,Week28:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week28 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use at randomization, region, BL value and BL value by time \& treatment by time interactions|||0.33|-0.95|0.8262
90962268|NCT02876835|181805418|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.25||||0.738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.51|||MMRM||MH,Week52:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week52 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use at randomization, region, BL value and BL value by time \& treatment by time interactions|||0.51|-1.00|0.7380
90962269|NCT02876835|181805418|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.09||||0.5997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.62|||MMRM||RE,Week8:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week8 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use at randomization, region, BL value and BL value by time \& treatment by time interactions|||0.62|-0.80|0.5997
90962270|NCT02876835|181805418|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.26||||0.7649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.45|||MMRM||RE,Week12:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week12 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use at randomization, region, BL value and BL value by time \& treatment by time interactions|||0.45|-0.98|0.7649
90962271|NCT02876835|181805418|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.37||||0.8175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|0.43|||MMRM||RE,Week28:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week28 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use at randomization, region, BL value and BL value by time \& treatment by time interactions|||0.43|-1.18|0.8175
90919482|NCT02814838|181708851|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1171|||||||Fisher Exact|||at week 13||||0.1171
90919483|NCT02814838|181708851|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6586|||||||Fisher Exact|||At week 26||||0.6586
90919484|NCT02814838|181708851|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5056|||||||Fisher Exact|||At week 52||||0.5056
90919485|NCT02814838|181708852|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0779|||||||Fisher Exact|||at week 13||||0.0779
90962272|NCT02876835|181805418|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.52||||0.8591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|0.43|||MMRM||RE,Week52:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week52 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use at randomization, region, BL value and BL value by time \& treatment by time interactions|||0.43|-1.47|0.8591
90962273|NCT02876835|181805418|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.5||||0.9588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|0.06|||MMRM||RP,Week8:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week8 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use at randomization, region, BL value and BL value by time \& treatment by time interactions|||0.06|-1.06|0.9588
90962274|NCT02876835|181805418|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.33||||0.8761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.23|||MMRM||RP,Week12:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week12 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use at randomization, region, BL value and BL value by time \& treatment by time interactions|||0.23|-0.90|0.8761
90962275|NCT02876835|181805418|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.06||||0.4293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.7|||MMRM||RP,Week28:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week28 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use at randomization, region, BL value and BL value by time \& treatment by time interactions|||0.70|-0.58|0.4293
90919486|NCT02814838|181708852|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0248|||||||Fisher Exact|||At week 26||||0.0248
90919487|NCT02814838|181708852|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4504|||||||Fisher Exact|||At week 52||||0.4504
90919488|NCT02814838|181708853|SUPERIORITY|Analysis is based on a linear mixed model for repeated measures with log(AUC(15-120 minutes)+1) of C-peptide above fasting value as dependent variable, treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and patient as random effect.|adjusted mean difference|0.1402||||0.4163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2015|0.4819|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At week 13||0.4819|-0.2015|0.4163
90919489|NCT02814838|181708853|SUPERIORITY|Analysis is based on a linear mixed model for repeated measures with log(AUC(15-120 minutes)+1) of C-peptide above fasting value as dependent variable, treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and patient as random effect.|adjusted mean difference|0.177||||0.3575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2039|0.558|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At week 26||0.558|-0.2039|0.3575
90919490|NCT02814838|181708853|SUPERIORITY|Analysis is based on a linear mixed model for repeated measures with log(AUC(15-120 minutes)+1) of C-peptide above fasting value as dependent variable, treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and patient as random effect.|adjusted mean difference|0.0451||||0.8386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3948|0.4851|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At week 52||0.4851|-0.3948|0.8386
90919491|NCT02814838|181708854|SUPERIORITY|Transformed AUC was analyzed with Student t-test for unpaired data using PROC TTEST within SAS® to compare Ladarixin and placebo groups. The estimated treatment difference between Ladarixin and placebo was also presented together with the corresponding 95% confidence interval.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.354|||=|0.1114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.75|||t-test, 2 sided|||At week 13||0.75|-0.09|= 0.1114
90962276|NCT02876835|181805418|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.19||||0.6983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.53|||MMRM||RP,Week52:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week52 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use at randomization, region, BL value and BL value by time \& treatment by time interactions|||0.53|-0.92|0.6983
90881467|NCT02741115|181626159|SUPERIORITY|LS mean differences between treatment groups were analyzed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.903||0.696|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Fixed factors: ventricular morphology and treatment group with a continuous covariate of Baseline VO2. LOCF imputation.||||||0.696
90881468|NCT02741115|181626160|SUPERIORITY|LS mean differences between treatment groups were analyzed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.319||0.915|TWO_SIDED|||||LS mean was the estimated treatment difference from the analysis model.|ANCOVA|Fixed factors: ventricular morphology and treatment group with a continuous covariate of Baseline maximal VO2. LOCF imputation.||||||0.915
90881469|NCT02741115|181626161|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.363||0.891|TWO_SIDED|||||LS mean was the estimated treatment difference from the analysis model.|ANCOVA|Fixed factors: ventricular morphology and treatment group with a continuous covariate of Baseline maximal VO2. LOCF imputation.||LS mean differences between treatment groups were analyzed.||||0.891
90881470|NCT02741115|181626162|SUPERIORITY|LS mean differences between treatment groups were analyzed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.691|TWO_SIDED|||||LS mean was the estimated treatment difference from the analysis model.|ANCOVA|Fixed factors: ventricular morphology and treatment group, with a continuous covariate of Baseline physical functioning (child reported)||||||0.691
90881471|NCT02741115|181626163|SUPERIORITY|LS mean differences between treatment groups were analyzed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.544||0.985|TWO_SIDED|||||LS mean was the estimated treatment difference from the analysis model.|ANCOVA|Fixed factors: ventricular morphology and treatment group with a continuous covariate of Baseline physical functioning (parent reported).||||||0.985
90881472|NCT02741115|181626164|SUPERIORITY|LS mean differences between treatment groups were analyzed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.039||0.273|TWO_SIDED|||||LS mean was the estimated treatment difference from the analysis model.|ANCOVA|Fixed factors: ventricular morphology and treatment group with a continuous covariate of Baseline psychosocial health summary score (child reported).||||||0.273
90919492|NCT02814838|181708854|SUPERIORITY|Transformed AUC was analyzed with Student t-test for unpaired data using PROC TTEST within SAS® to compare Ladarixin and placebo groups. The estimated treatment difference between Ladarixin and placebo was also presented together with the corresponding 95% confidence interval.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.502|||=|0.0411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.98|||t-test, 2 sided|||At week 26||0.98|0.02|= 0.0411
90919493|NCT02814838|181708854|SUPERIORITY|Transformed AUC was analyzed with Student t-test for unpaired data using PROC TTEST within SAS® to compare Ladarixin and placebo groups. The estimated treatment difference between Ladarixin and placebo was also presented together with the corresponding 95% confidence interval.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.223|||=|0.4506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.82|||t-test, 2 sided|||At week 52||0.82|-0.37|= 0.4506
90919494|NCT02814838|181708855|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.3631||||0.1847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1817|0.908|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 13 Analysis is based on a linear mixed model for repeated measures with log(AUC(15-120 minutes)+1) of C-peptide above fasting value as dependent variable, treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction||0.908|-0.1817|0.1847
90919495|NCT02814838|181708855|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.6304||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0609|1.1998|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 26 Analysis is based on a linear mixed model for repeated measures with log(AUC(15-120 minutes)+1) of C-peptide above fasting value as dependent variable, treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction||1.1998|0.0609|0.031
90919496|NCT02814838|181708855|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.1639||||0.6299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5202|0.8479|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52 Analysis is based on a linear mixed model for repeated measures with log(AUC(15-120 minutes)+1) of C-peptide above fasting value as dependent variable, treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction||0.8479|-0.5202|0.6299
90881473|NCT02741115|181626165|SUPERIORITY|LS mean differences between treatment groups were analyzed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.327||0.966|TWO_SIDED|||||LS mean was the estimated treatment difference from the analysis model.|ANCOVA|Fixed factors: ventricular morphology and treatment group with a continuous covariate of Baseline psychosocial health summary score (parent reported).||||||0.966
90919497|NCT02814838|181708856|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.163|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 13||||0.163
90919498|NCT02814838|181708856|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0074|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 26||||0.0074
90919499|NCT02814838|181708856|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4437|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 52||||0.4437
90962277|NCT02876835|181805418|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.62||||0.9743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|0.0|||MMRM||SF,Week8:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week8 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use at randomization, region, BL value and BL value by time \& treatment by time interactions|||0.00|-1.25|0.9743
90962278|NCT02876835|181805418|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.32||||0.8405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.31|||MMRM||SF,Week12:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week12 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time,current ESA use at randomization, region, BL value and BL value by time \& treatment by time interactions|||0.31|-0.94|0.8405
90962279|NCT02876835|181805418|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.13||||0.6459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.56|||MMRM||SF,Week28:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week28 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use at randomization, region, BL value and BL value by time \& treatment by time interactions|||0.56|-0.82|0.6459
90962280|NCT02876835|181805418|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.38||||0.8272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|0.41|||MMRM||SF,Week52:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week52 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use at randomization, region, BL value and BL value by time \& treatment by time interactions|||0.41|-1.17|0.8272
90962281|NCT02876835|181805419|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.56||||0.9786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|-0.02|||MMRM||Week 8: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 and model adjusted Week 8 data has been presented,with factors for treatment, time,current ESA use at randomization, region, BL value and BL value by time \& treatment by time interactions.|||-0.02|-1.09|0.9786
90962282|NCT02876835|181805419|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.12||||0.6642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.44|||MMRM||Week 12: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 and model adjusted Week 12 data has been presented,with factors for treatment, time,current ESA use at randomization, region, BL value and BL value by time \& treatment by time interactions.|||0.44|-0.68|0.6642
90881474|NCT02741115|181626166|SUPERIORITY|LS mean differences between treatment groups were analyzed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.011||0.706|TWO_SIDED|||||LS mean was the estimated treatment difference from the analysis model.|ANCOVA|Fixed factors: ventricular morphology and treatment group with a continuous covariate of Baseline cardiac module scale (Treatment II).||||||0.706
90881475|NCT02741115|181626167|SUPERIORITY|LS mean differences between treatment groups were analyzed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.707||0.382|TWO_SIDED|||||LS mean was the estimated treatment difference from the analysis model.|ANCOVA|Fixed factors: ventricular morphology and treatment group with a continuous covariate of Baseline cardiac module scale (perceived physical appearance)||||||0.382
90881476|NCT02741115|181626168|SUPERIORITY|LS mean differences between treatment groups were analyzed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.611||0.236|TWO_SIDED|||||LS mean was the estimated treatment difference from the analysis model.|ANCOVA|Fixed factors: ventricular morphology and treatment group with a continuous covariate of Baseline cardiac module scale (treatment anxiety).||||||0.236
90881477|NCT02741115|181626169|SUPERIORITY|LS mean differences between treatment groups were analyzed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.622||0.543|TWO_SIDED|||||LS mean was the estimated treatment difference from the analysis model.|ANCOVA|Fixed factors: ventricular morphology and treatment group with a continuous covariate of Baseline cardiac module scale (cognitive problems).||||||0.543
90881478|NCT02741115|181626170|SUPERIORITY|LS mean differences between treatment groups were analyzed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.78||0.352|TWO_SIDED|||||LS mean was the estimated treatment difference from the analysis model.|ANCOVA|Fixed factors: ventricular morphology and treatment group with a continuous covariate of Baseline cardiac module scale (communication problems).||||||0.352
90881479|NCT02741115|181626171|SUPERIORITY|LS mean differences between treatment groups were analyzed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.684||0.533|TWO_SIDED|||||LS mean was the estimated treatment difference from the analysis model.|ANCOVA|Fixed factors of ventricular morphology and treatment group with a continuous covariate of Baseline total score (age 8-12, child reported).||||||0.533
90881480|NCT02741115|181626172|SUPERIORITY|LS mean differences between treatment groups were analyzed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.057||0.654|TWO_SIDED|||||LS mean was the estimated treatment difference from the analysis model.|ANCOVA|Fixed factors: ventricular morphology and treatment group with a continuous covariate of Baseline total score (age 8-12, parent reported).||||||0.654
90881481|NCT02741115|181626173|SUPERIORITY|LS mean differences between treatment groups were analyzed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.069||0.963|TWO_SIDED|||||LS mean was the estimated treatment difference from the analysis model.|ANCOVA|Fixed factors: ventricular morphology and treatment group with a continuous covariate of Baseline total score (ages 13-18, child reported)||||||0.963
90881482|NCT02741115|181626174|SUPERIORITY|LS mean differences between treatment group were analyzed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.171||0.246|TWO_SIDED|||||LS mean was the estimated treatment difference from the analysis model.|ANCOVA|Fixed factors of ventricular morphology and treatment group with a continuous covariate of Baseline total score (ages 13-18, parent reported).||||||0.246
90881483|NCT03750903|181626193|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.05
90881484|NCT03548584|181626222|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.32||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.77|-1.87||MMRM method with model terms of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline-by-visit interaction were used for analysis.|MMRM|||||-1.87|-8.77|0.0026
90881485|NCT03548584|181626223|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.07||MMRM method with model terms of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline-by-visit interaction were used for analysis.|MMRM|||||-0.07|-0.47|0.0078
90962283|NCT02876835|181805419|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.1||||0.6261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.52|||MMRM||Week 28: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 and model adjusted Week 28 data has been presented,with factors for treatment, time,current ESA use at randomization, region, BL value and BL value by time \& treatment by time interactions.|||0.52|-0.72|0.6261
90881486|NCT03548584|181626224|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.95||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.28|-0.63||MMRM method with model terms of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline-by-visit interaction were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Aggressive Behavior||-0.63|-3.28|0.0040
90881487|NCT03548584|181626224|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.41||||0.0296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.68|-0.14||MMRM method with model terms of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline-by-visit interaction were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Physically Nonaggressive Behavior||-0.14|-2.68|0.0296
90881488|NCT03548584|181626224|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.24||||0.0113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|-0.28||MMRM method with model terms of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline-by-visit interaction were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Verbally Agitated Behavior||-0.28|-2.21|0.0113
90881489|NCT03548584|181626224|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.36||||0.1941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.18||MMRM method with model terms of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline-by-visit interaction were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Hiding and Hoarding||0.18|-0.90|0.1941
90881490|NCT03548584|181626225|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.85||||0.4242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|2.93||MMRM method with model terms of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline-by-visit interaction were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 2||2.93|-1.24|0.4242
90881491|NCT03548584|181626225|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.14||||0.3665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.63|1.34||MMRM method with model terms of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline-by-visit interaction were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 4||1.34|-3.63|0.3665
90881492|NCT03548584|181626225|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.32||||0.1065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.15|0.5||MMRM method with model terms of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline-by-visit interaction were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 6||0.50|-5.15|0.1065
90881493|NCT03548584|181626225|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.08||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.12|-2.05||MMRM method with model terms of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline-by-visit interaction were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 8||-2.05|-8.12|0.0011
90919500|NCT05321069|181708900|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|44.89||||0.0222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.44|83.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger method estimated denominator degrees of freedom and adjusted standard errors; tests used two-sided α per multiple testing strategy.|Adjusted mean difference in FVC change from baseline at Week 52 between the Nera 9 mg bid group and the Placebo group.|Based on a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), which included fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit, baseline use of antifibrotic therapy at each visit, and fixed continuous effects of baseline forced vital capacity (FVC) in milliliters at each visit. Patients were treated as a random effect. Visit was treated as the repeated measure, and an unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within-patient measurements.||83.33|6.44|0.0222
90919501|NCT05321069|181708900|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|68.83||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.26|107.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger method estimated denominator degrees of freedom and adjusted standard errors; tests used two-sided α per multiple testing strategy.|Adjusted mean difference in FVC change from baseline at Week 52 between the Nera 18 mg bid group and the Placebo group.|Based on a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), which included fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit, baseline use of antifibrotic therapy at each visit, and fixed continuous effects of baseline forced vital capacity (FVC) in milliliters at each visit. Patients were treated as a random effect. Visit was treated as the repeated measure, and an unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within-patient measurements.||107.39|30.26|0.0005
90919502|NCT05321069|181708901|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.5443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.22|||Regression, Cox|||The hazard ratio (HR) was estimated using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment group, baseline antifibrotic therapy use, age (continuous), baseline FVC % predicted, and baseline DLCO % predicted (hemoglobin-corrected) as covariates. Breslow's method was applied for tied event times. A two-sided p-value from the Wald test assessed the treatment effect. P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity.||1.22|0.69|0.5443
90881494|NCT03548584|181626225|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.54|-3.4||MMRM method with model terms of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline-by-visit interaction were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 10||-3.40|-9.54|<.0001
90919503|NCT05321069|181708901|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.9512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.31|||Regression, Cox|||Based on Cox proportional hazards model including treatment, baseline antifibrotic therapy, age, baseline Forced Vital Capacity (FVC) percent predicted, and baseline Diffusing Capacity of the Lungs for Carbon Monoxide (DLCO) percent predicted (corrected for haemoglobin) as covariates. p-values not adjusted for multiplicity.||1.31|0.75|0.9512
90940597|NCT03859622|181760967|OTHER|Frequencies and percentages for categorical data.||||||||||||Standard methods are used for the description of data (frequencies and percentages for categorical data)||||Standard methods are used for the description of data (frequencies and percentages for categorical data)|Standard methods are used for the description of data (frequencies and percentages for categorical data)|||
90881495|NCT03548584|181626225|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.32||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.77|-1.87||MMRM method with model terms of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline-by-visit interaction were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||-1.87|-8.77|0.0026
90881496|NCT03548584|181626226|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.05||||0.3048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.16||MMRM method with model terms of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline-by-visit interaction were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 2||0.16|-0.05|0.3048
90881497|NCT03548584|181626226|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.03||||0.7058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.12||MMRM method with model terms of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline-by-visit interaction were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 4||0.12|-0.17|0.7058
90881498|NCT03548584|181626226|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.06||||0.4516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.1||MMRM method with model terms of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline-by-visit interaction were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 6||0.10|-0.23|0.4516
90881499|NCT03548584|181626226|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27||||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.08||MMRM method with model terms of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline-by-visit interaction were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 8||-0.08|-0.46|0.0052
90881500|NCT03548584|181626226|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.08||MMRM method with model terms of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline-by-visit interaction were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 10||-0.08|-0.47|0.0060
90962284|NCT02876835|181805419|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.49||||0.9161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|0.21|||MMRM||Week 52: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 and model adjusted Week 52 data has been presented,with factors for treatment, time,current ESA use at randomization, region, BL value and BL value by time \& treatment by time interactions.|||0.21|-1.19|0.9161
90962285|NCT02876835|181805420|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.32||||0.8703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.24|||MMRM||Week 8: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 and model adjusted Week 8 data has been presented,with factors for treatment, time,current ESA use at randomization, region, BL value and BL value by time \& treatment by time interactions.|||0.24|-0.88|0.8703
91034081|NCT02865850|181954085|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per FDA) and 1.30 (per EMA).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95|||=|0.5007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.795|1.144|||Gray's test|Based on non-parametric analysis.||MACE analysis was performed on pooled data from studies AKB-6548-CI-0016 (NCT02865850) and AKB-6548-CI-0017 (NCT02892149). Time to first cardiovascular MACE for the Vadadustat and Darbepoetin alfa treatment groups was as follows: participants with events = 225 and 242 respectively; median time to first event (Q1, Q3) = 43.29 (21.71, 77.14) weeks versus 45.79 (21.14, 73.86) weeks, respectively. Statistical analysis from the pooled data has been reported in this section.||1.144|0.795|=0.5007
90881501|NCT03548584|181626226|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.07||MMRM method with model terms of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline-by-visit interaction were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||-0.07|-0.47|0.0078
90881502|NCT03548584|181626227|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.1975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.26|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||0.26|-0.05|0.1975
90881503|NCT03548584|181626227|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||0.0084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||-0.06|-0.44|0.0084
90881504|NCT03548584|181626227|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26||||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6||-0.06|-0.46|0.0101
90881505|NCT03548584|181626227|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.15|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||-0.15|-0.59|0.0008
90881506|NCT03548584|181626227|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.12|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 10||-0.12|-0.55|0.0023
90881507|NCT03548584|181626227|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||-0.09|-0.57|0.0070
90881508|NCT03548584|181626228|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|1.1||||0.729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.91|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||\>/= 20%: Week 2||1.91|0.64|0.7290
90881509|NCT03548584|181626228|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|1.09||||0.6196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.52|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||\>/=20%: Week 4||1.52|0.78|0.6196
90881510|NCT03548584|181626228|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|1.16||||0.2718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.53|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||\>/=20%: Week 6||1.53|0.88|0.2718
90881511|NCT03548584|181626228|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|1.52||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|1.93|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||\>/=20%: Week 8||1.93|1.19|0.0004
90881512|NCT03548584|181626228|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|1.42||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|1.76|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||\>/=20%: Week 10||1.76|1.15|0.0006
90881513|NCT03548584|181626228|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|1.41||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|1.72|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||\>/=20%: Week 12||1.72|1.15|0.0004
90881514|NCT03548584|181626228|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|1.22||||0.7211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|3.85|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||\>/=30%: Week 2||3.85|0.39|0.7211
90881515|NCT03548584|181626228|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|1.11||||0.7606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|2.14|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||\>/=30%: Week 4||2.14|0.57|0.7606
90881516|NCT03548584|181626228|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|1.12||||0.5902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.68|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||\>/=30%: Week 6||1.68|0.74|0.5902
90881517|NCT03548584|181626228|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|1.7||||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|2.54|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||\>/=30%: Week 8||2.54|1.14|0.0054
90881518|NCT03548584|181626228|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|1.59||||0.0066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|2.26|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||\>/=30%: Week 10||2.26|1.11|0.0066
90881519|NCT03548584|181626228|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|1.62||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|2.23|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||\>/=30%: Week 12||2.23|1.18|0.0017
90881520|NCT03548584|181626228|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|1.11||||0.9074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|5.97|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||\>/=40%: Week 2||5.97|0.20|0.9074
90881521|NCT03548584|181626228|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|0.98||||0.9625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|2.64|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||\>/=40%: Week 4||2.64|0.36|0.9625
90881522|NCT03548584|181626228|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|1.26||||0.512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.53|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||\>/=40%: Week 6||2.53|0.63|0.5120
90881523|NCT03548584|181626228|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|1.98||||0.0244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|3.79|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||\>/=40%: Week 8||3.79|1.03|0.0244
90881524|NCT03548584|181626228|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|1.86||||0.0161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|3.18|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||\>/=40%: Week 10||3.18|1.08|0.0161
90881525|NCT03548584|181626228|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|1.62||||0.0347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.61|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||\>/=40%: Week 12||2.61|1.00|0.0347
90881526|NCT03548584|181626229|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|0.64||||0.1503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.16|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||1.16|0.35|0.1503
90881527|NCT03548584|181626229|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|1.07||||0.7559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.67|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||1.67|0.69|0.7559
90881528|NCT03548584|181626229|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|1.23||||0.2246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.72|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6||1.72|0.88|0.2246
90881529|NCT03548584|181626229|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|1.38||||0.0276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.87|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||1.87|1.02|0.0276
90881530|NCT03548584|181626229|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|1.46||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.89|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 10||1.89|1.12|0.0031
90881531|NCT03548584|181626229|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|1.47||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.89|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||1.89|1.14|0.0017
90881532|NCT03548584|181626230|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|1.1||||0.8549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.03|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||3.03|0.40|0.8549
90881533|NCT03548584|181626230|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|1.95||||0.0093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|3.32|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||3.32|1.14|0.0093
90962286|NCT02876835|181805420|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.13||||0.3167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.67|||MMRM||Week 12: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 and model adjusted Week 12 data has been presented,with factors for treatment, time,current ESA use at randomization, region, BL value and BL value by time \& treatment by time interactions.|||0.67|-0.41|0.3167
90962287|NCT02876835|181805420|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.15||||0.3155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.78|||MMRM||Week 28: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 and model adjusted Week 28 data has been presented,with factors for treatment, time,current ESA use at randomization, region, BL value and BL value by time \& treatment by time interactions.|||0.78|-0.47|0.3155
90962288|NCT02876835|181805420|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.32||||0.8069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|0.41|||MMRM||Week 52: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 and model adjusted Week 52 data has been presented,with factors for treatment, time,current ESA use at randomization, region, BL value and BL value by time \& treatment by time interactions.|||0.41|-1.06|0.8069
90962289|NCT02876835|181805421|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.0234||||0.9724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0474|0.0005|||MMRM||MMRM model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.0005|-0.0474|0.9724
90881534|NCT03548584|181626230|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|1.56||||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.22|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6||2.22|1.10|0.0083
91034082|NCT02865850|181954086|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per FDA) and 1.30 (per EMA).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1|||=|0.9527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.452|2.666|||Gray's test|Based on non-parametric analysis.||Statistical analysis from study AKB-6548-CI-0016 has been reported in this section.||2.666|0.452|=0.9527
90881535|NCT03548584|181626230|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|1.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|2.58|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||2.58|1.32|<.0001
90881536|NCT03548584|181626230|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|1.57||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|2.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 10||2.09|1.18|0.0005
90881537|NCT03548584|181626230|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|1.32||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.69|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||1.69|1.03|0.0160
90881538|NCT02215070|181626243|OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.12
90881539|NCT02215070|181626245|OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.006
90881540|NCT02215070|181626246|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.002
90881541|NCT02096835|181626255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.021
90881542|NCT02096835|181626256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.021
90881543|NCT02096835|181626257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.503|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.503
90962290|NCT02876835|181805422|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.7||||0.2687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.9|||MMRM||MMRM model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||2.9|-1.5|0.2687
90962291|NCT02876835|181805423|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.22||||0.978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.03|||MMRM||Tired/LE/Weak domain,Week8:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week8 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use, region, BL value and BL value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||-0.03|-2.40|0.9780
91035871|NCT02558491|181958306|OTHER|||||||0.742||||||No a priori sample size was determined due to the feasibility/pilot nature of the trial. Significance level was set at P-value \<0.05.|ANOVA|||Secondary analysis followed the same format unless variables could not be considered normally distributed; in that case a related samples Wilcoxon signed-rank test is used. Data were first binned (to ensure minimum count of five per bins) and the w2 statistics was used with the expected counts given by SoC. Based on achieved recruitment, a moderate effect size (0.3) is detectable with 80% power, or a large effect size (0.4) with 95% power (G-Power 3.1.9.2). Outcome measurement was for overnight.||||0.742
90881544|NCT02096835|181626258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.571|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.571
90881545|NCT04368429|181626260|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% Confidence Interval (CI) of the difference in percentage was greater than (\>) -10% for the serogroup A.|Difference in percentage|20.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.38|28.75|||||95% CI of the difference in percentage was calculated from the Wilson Score method without continuity correction.|Serogroup A||28.75|11.38|
90881546|NCT04368429|181626260|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference in percentage was \>-10% for the serogroup C.|Difference in percentage|33.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.2|41.5|||||95% CI of the difference in percentage was calculated from the Wilson Score method without continuity correction.|Serogroup C||41.50|26.20|
90881547|NCT04368429|181626260|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference in percentage was \>-10% for the serogroup Y.|Difference in percentage|34.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.66|41.64|||||95% CI of the difference in percentage was calculated from the Wilson Score method without continuity correction.|Serogroup Y||41.64|26.66|
90881548|NCT04368429|181626260|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference in percentage was \>-10% for the serogroup W.|Difference in percentage|38.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.93|46.53|||||95% CI of the difference in percentage was calculated from the Wilson Score method without continuity correction.|Serogroup W||46.53|28.93|
90881549|NCT03633396|181626285|OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.98||0.944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.05|3.77|||Mixed-model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|MMRM including fixed effects of treatment, history of plaque psoriasis, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and Baseline PPPASI score as covariate.|Least-squares mean difference = Imsidolimab - Placebo|The change from Baseline in PPPASI at Week 16 was analyzed using a a general linear mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM). The model included fixed effects for treatment, history of plaque psoriasis (Yes/No), visit, treatment by visit interaction, and Baseline PPPASI score as covariate.||3.77|-4.05|0.944
90881550|NCT03633396|181626287|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.879|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.288|2.686|||||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment as fixed effect, history of plaque psoriasis and Baseline PPPASI score as covariates and using multiple imputation for missing data.|||2.686|0.288|
90881551|NCT03633396|181626288|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|13.9|||||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment as fixed effect, history of plaque psoriasis and Baseline PPPIGA score as covariates and using multiple imputation for missing data.|||13.9|0.5|
90919504|NCT05321069|181708902|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.5583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.67|||Regression, Cox|||Analysis was performed using a Cox proportional hazards regression model that included baseline use of antifibrotic therapy (antifibrotic group vs non-antifibrotic group), age, baseline forced vital capacity (FVC) percentage predicted, baseline diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide (DLCO) percentage predicted (corrected for hemoglobin levels), and treatment group as covariates.||1.67|0.76|0.5583
90919505|NCT05321069|181708902|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.5896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.65|||Regression, Cox|||Analysis was performed using a Cox proportional hazards regression model that included baseline use of antifibrotic therapy (antifibrotic group vs non-antifibrotic group), age, baseline forced vital capacity (FVC) percentage predicted, baseline diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide (DLCO) percentage predicted (corrected for hemoglobin levels), and treatment group as covariates.||1.65|0.75|0.5896
90919506|NCT05321069|181708903|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.9038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.36|||Regression, Cox|||Analysis was performed using a Cox proportional hazards regression model that included baseline use of antifibrotic therapy (antifibrotic group vs non-antifibrotic group), age, baseline forced vital capacity (FVC) percentage predicted, baseline diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide (DLCO) percentage predicted (corrected for hemoglobin levels), and treatment group as covariates.||1.36|0.70|0.9038
90919507|NCT05321069|181708903|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.4687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.56|||Regression, Cox|||Analysis was performed using a Cox proportional hazards regression model that included baseline use of antifibrotic therapy (antifibrotic group vs non-antifibrotic group), age, baseline forced vital capacity (FVC) percentage predicted, baseline diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide (DLCO) percentage predicted (corrected for hemoglobin levels), and treatment group as covariates.||1.56|0.82|0.4687
90919508|NCT05321069|181708904|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.7695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.25|||Regression, Cox|||Analysis was performed using a Cox proportional hazards regression model that included baseline use of antifibrotic therapy (antifibrotic group vs non-antifibrotic group), age, baseline forced vital capacity (FVC) percentage predicted, baseline diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide (DLCO) percentage predicted (corrected for hemoglobin levels), and treatment group as covariates.||1.25|0.74|0.7695
90919509|NCT05321069|181708904|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.2068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.1|||Regression, Cox|||Analysis was performed using a Cox proportional hazards regression model that included baseline use of antifibrotic therapy (antifibrotic group vs non-antifibrotic group), age, baseline forced vital capacity (FVC) percentage predicted, baseline diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide (DLCO) percentage predicted (corrected for hemoglobin levels), and treatment group as covariates.||1.10|0.64|0.2068
90919510|NCT05321069|181708905|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.9251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.41|||Regression, Cox|||Analysis was performed using a Cox proportional hazards regression model that included baseline use of antifibrotic therapy (antifibrotic group vs non-antifibrotic group), age, baseline forced vital capacity (FVC) percentage predicted, baseline diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide (DLCO) percentage predicted (corrected for hemoglobin levels), and treatment group as covariates.||1.41|0.69|0.9251
90919511|NCT05321069|181708905|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.4988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.26|||Regression, Cox|||Analysis was performed using a Cox proportional hazards regression model that included baseline use of antifibrotic therapy (antifibrotic group vs non-antifibrotic group), age, baseline forced vital capacity (FVC) percentage predicted, baseline diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide (DLCO) percentage predicted (corrected for hemoglobin levels), and treatment group as covariates.||1.26|0.62|0.4988
90962292|NCT02876835|181805423|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.97||||0.943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|0.23|||MMRM||Tired/LE/Weak domain,Week12:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week12 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use, region, BL value and BL value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.23|-2.18|0.9430
90962293|NCT02876835|181805423|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.6||||0.8042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|0.77|||MMRM||Tired/LE/Weak domain,Week28:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week28 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use, region, BL value and BL value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.77|-1.98|0.8042
90962294|NCT02876835|181805423|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.57||||0.977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.11|-0.03|||MMRM||Tired/LE/Weak domain,Week52:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week52 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use, region, BL value and BL value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||-0.03|-3.11|0.9770
91034083|NCT02865850|181954086|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per FDA) and 1.30 (per EMA).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96|||=|0.6284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.766|1.195|||Gray's test|Based on non-parametric analysis.||MACE analysis was performed on pooled data from studies AKB-6548-CI-0016 (NCT02865850) and AKB-6548-CI-0017 (NCT02892149). Time to first cardiovascular death for the Vadadustat and Darbepoetin alfa treatment groups was as follows: participants with events = 150 and 160 respectively; median time to first event (Q1, Q3) = 43.71 (27.43, 77.14) weeks versus 49.29 (24.43, 74.07) weeks, respectively. Statistical analysis from the pooled data has been reported in this section.||1.195|0.766|=0.6284
90919512|NCT05321069|181708906|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.9084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.76|||Regression, Cox|||Analysis was performed using a Cox proportional hazards regression model that included baseline use of antifibrotic therapy (antifibrotic group vs non-antifibrotic group), age, baseline forced vital capacity (FVC) percentage predicted, baseline diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide (DLCO) percentage predicted (corrected for hemoglobin levels), and treatment group as covariates.||1.76|0.60|0.9084
90919513|NCT05321069|181708906|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.4682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.43|||Regression, Cox|||Analysis was performed using a Cox proportional hazards regression model that included baseline use of antifibrotic therapy (antifibrotic group vs non-antifibrotic group), age, baseline forced vital capacity (FVC) percentage predicted, baseline diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide (DLCO) percentage predicted (corrected for hemoglobin levels), and treatment group as covariates.||1.43|0.46|0.4682
90962295|NCT02876835|181805423|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.2||||0.9905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.2|||MMRM||CP/SOB,Week8:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week8 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use, region, BL value and BL value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||-0.20|-2.20|0.9905
91034084|NCT02865850|181954087|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per FDA) and 1.30 (per EMA).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|||=|0.5115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.388|1.555|||Log Rank|Based on non-parametric analysis.||Statistical analysis from study AKB-6548-CI-0016 has been reported in this section.||1.555|0.388|=0.5115
90881552|NCT00023673|181626292|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2-sided significance level = 0.05||Lung toxicity (\<Grade 3 vs. \>= Grade 3): Lung V20||||0.62
90881553|NCT00023673|181626292|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2-sided significance level = 0.05||Esophagitis toxicity (\<Grade 2 vs. \>= Grade 2): Lung V20||||0.22
90881554|NCT00023673|181626293|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||t-test, 2 sided|2-sided significance level = 0.05||Lung toxicity (\<Grade 3 vs. \>= Grade 3): Mean Lung Dose||||0.30
90881555|NCT00023673|181626293|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 2 sided|2-sided significance level = 0.05||Esophagitis toxicity (\<Grade 2 vs. \>= Grade 2): Mean Lung Dose||||0.17
90881556|NCT00023673|181626293|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|2-sided significance level = 0.05||Esophagitis toxicity (\<Grade 2 vs. \>= Grade 2): Mean Esophageal Dose||||0.08
90881557|NCT00667342|181626319|OTHER|The association between response and Ktrans at Week 10 was evaluated.||||||0.0863|||||||Logistic Regression|||||||0.0863
90881558|NCT00667342|181626320|OTHER|The association between response and Vp at Week 10 was evaluated.||||||0.0573|||||||Logistic Regression|||||||0.0573
90881559|NCT00667342|181626321|OTHER|The association between response and Ve at Week 10 was evaluated.||||||0.0863|||||||Logistic Regression|||||||0.0863
90881560|NCT01018264|181626399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Effect size|0.2||||0.53|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline value|This represents the effect size between solifenacin and placebo.|||||0.53
90881561|NCT01018264|181626400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Effect size|0.53||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.01
90881562|NCT01018264|181626401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Effect size|0.35||||0.22|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.22
90919514|NCT05321069|181708907|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.3697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|1.19|||Mixed Models Analysis||The adjusted mean difference represents the model-estimated difference in symptom change (L-PF Dyspnea score) between the Nera 9mg BID group and the Placebo group at Week 52.|The analysis used a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) with fixed categorical effects for treatment group and baseline antifibrotic therapy at each visit, and fixed continuous effects of baseline Living with Pulmonary Fibrosis (L-PF) Dyspnea domain score. An unstructured covariance structure accounted for within-patient correlations. Baseline antifibrotic use, as recorded in the concomitant medication case report form (CRF), was included as a covariate.||1.19|-3.20|0.3697
90919515|NCT05321069|181708907|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.63||||0.5734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.83|1.57|||Mixed Models Analysis||The adjusted mean difference represents the model-estimated difference in symptom change (L-PF Dyspnea score) between the Nera 18mg BID group and the Placebo group at Week 52.|The analysis used a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) with fixed categorical effects for treatment group and baseline antifibrotic therapy at each visit, and fixed continuous effects of baseline Living with Pulmonary Fibrosis (L-PF) Dyspnea domain score. An unstructured covariance structure accounted for within-patient correlations. Baseline antifibrotic use, as recorded in the concomitant medication case report form (CRF), was included as a covariate.||1.57|-2.83|0.5734
90919516|NCT05321069|181708908|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.9442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.98|2.77|||Mixed Models Analysis||The adjusted mean difference represents the model-estimated difference in symptom change (L-PF Cough score) between the Nera 9 mg BID group and the Placebo group at Week 52.|The analysis was based on a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), which included fixed categorical effects for treatment group at each visit, baseline use of antifibrotic therapy at each visit, and fixed continuous effects of the baseline Living with Pulmonary Fibrosis (L-PF) Cough domain score at each visit. An unstructured covariance structure modeled repeated measures. Baseline antifibrotic use, recorded in the concomitant medication case report form (CRF), was included as a covariate.||2.77|-2.98|0.9442
90940598|NCT00092521|181761002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent relative risk reduction|100.0||||||95.0|95.1|100.0|||||Confidence Interval (CI) based on binomial tail probabilities and not from a dispersion parameter|||100|95.1|
90940599|NCT00092521|181761003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent relative risk reduction|100.0||||||95.0|94.9|100.0|||||CI based on binomial tail probabilities and not from a dispersion parameter|||100|94.9|
90881563|NCT01018264|181626402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Effect size|0.27||||0.47|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.47
90881564|NCT01018264|181626403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Effect size|0.11||||0.94|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.94
90881565|NCT02075840|181626404|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio, stratified|0.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.65|||Log Rank|||Stratified hazard ratio and p-value are stratified for covariates Race (Asian vs Non-Asian) and CNS metastases at baseline by IRC.||0.65|0.34|<0.0001
90881566|NCT02075840|181626406|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.7|||Log Rank|Stratified hazard ratio and p-value are stratified for covariates Race (Asian vs Non-Asian) and CNS metastases at baseline by IRC.||||0.70|0.36|<0.0001
90881567|NCT02075840|181626408|SUPERIORITY|IRC, RECIST v1.1 Stratified Analysis (by race (Asian vs non-Asian) and CNS metastases at baseline by IRC)|Cause-Specific Hazard Ratio|0.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.28|||Log Rank|||||0.28|0.10|<0.0001
90881568|NCT02075840|181626410|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Overall Response Rates|7.4||||0.0936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|16.5||Stratified analysis|Mantel Haenszel|||||16.50|-1.71|0.0936
90881569|NCT02075840|181626412|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.2405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.2||Stratified analysis|Log Rank|||||1.20|0.48|0.2405
90881570|NCT02075840|181626423|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.2079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.19|||Log Rank|Stratified analysis||Fatigue||1.19|0.46|0.2079
90881571|NCT02075840|181626423|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.66||||0.1137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|3.15||Stratified analysis|Log Rank|||Dyspnea||3.15|0.88|0.1137
90881572|NCT02075840|181626425|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.7042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.74||Stratified analysis|Log Rank|||Coughing||1.74|0.44|0.7042
90881573|NCT02075840|181626425|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.76||||0.0285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|2.92||Stratified analysis|Log Rank|||Dyspnea||2.92|1.05|0.0285
90919517|NCT05321069|181708908|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.59||||0.6862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.47|2.28|||Mixed Models Analysis||The adjusted mean difference represents the model-estimated difference in symptom change (L-PF Cough score) between the Nera 18 mg BID group and the Placebo group at Week 52.|The analysis was based on a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), which included fixed categorical effects for treatment group at each visit, baseline use of antifibrotic therapy at each visit, and fixed continuous effects of the baseline Living with Pulmonary Fibrosis (L-PF) Cough domain score at each visit. An unstructured covariance structure modeled repeated measures. Baseline antifibrotic use, recorded in the concomitant medication case report form (CRF), was included as a covariate.||2.28|-3.47|0.6862
90919518|NCT05321069|181708909|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.19||||0.8759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|2.63|||Mixed Models Analysis||The adjusted mean difference represents the model-estimated difference in symptom change (L-PF Fatigue score) between the Nera 9 mg BID group and the Placebo group at Week 52.|The analysis was based on a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), which included fixed categorical effects for treatment group at each visit, baseline use of antifibrotic therapy at each visit, and fixed continuous effects of the baseline Living with Pulmonary Fibrosis (L-PF) Fatigue domain score at each visit. An unstructured covariance structure modeled repeated measures. Baseline antifibrotic use, recorded in the concomitant medication case report form (CRF), was included as a covariate.||2.63|-2.25|0.8759
90919519|NCT05321069|181708909|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.43||||0.732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|2.87|||Mixed Models Analysis||The adjusted mean difference represents the model-estimated difference in symptom change (L-PF Fatigue score) between the Nera 18 mg BID group and the Placebo group at Week 52.|The analysis was based on a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), which included fixed categorical effects for treatment group at each visit, baseline use of antifibrotic therapy at each visit, and fixed continuous effects of the baseline Living with Pulmonary Fibrosis (L-PF) Fatigue domain score at each visit. An unstructured covariance structure modeled repeated measures. Baseline antifibrotic use, recorded in the concomitant medication case report form (CRF), was included as a covariate.||2.87|-2.02|0.7320
90919520|NCT05321069|181708910|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.17||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|2.22|||Mixed Models Analysis||The adjusted mean difference represents the model-estimated difference in percent predicted Forced Vital Capacity between the Nera 9 mg BID group and the placebo group at Week 52.|"Analysis was based on a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), which included fixed, categorical effects of treatment, baseline use of antifibrotic therapy, and the fixed continuous effects of baseline forced vital capacity (FVC) percentage predicted at each visit. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model repeated measures within patients.~Baseline use of antifibrotic therapy, as recorded in the concomitant medication case report form (CRF) page, was included as a covariate."||2.22|0.13|0.0280
90940600|NCT00113269|181761028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||differences in event rates|-3.3||||0.4889|TWO_SIDED|95.305|-12.7|6.1|||Normal approximation|Analysis based on normal approximation using Greenwood's formula for standard error.|95.305% Confidence Interval is reported, as adjusted for interim analysis based on normal approximation using Greenwood's formula for standard error.|||6.1|-12.7|0.4889
90940601|NCT00113269|181761028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||differences in event rates|-15.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.305|-21.9|-9.4|||normal approximation|Analysis based on normal approximation using Greenwood's formula for standard error.|95.305% Confidence Interval is reported, as adjusted for interim analysis based on normal approximation using Greenwood's formula for standard error.|||-9.4|-21.9|<0.0001
90940602|NCT00113269|181761029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||differences in event rates|2.7||||0.6533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|14.3|||normal approximation|||||14.3|-9.0|0.6533
90940603|NCT00113269|181761029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||differences in event rates|-11.9||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.5|-4.2|||normal approximation|||||-4.2|-19.5|0.0024
90940604|NCT00113269|181761030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||differences in event rates|-6.1||||0.4087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.7|8.4|||normal approximation|||||8.4|-20.7|0.4087
90940605|NCT00113269|181761030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||differences in event rates|-8.7||||0.0456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.2|-0.2|||normal approximation|||||-0.2|-17.2|0.0456
90940606|NCT00113269|181761031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||differences in event rates|1.1||||0.8742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|15.0|||normal approximation|||||15.0|-12.7|0.8742
90940607|NCT00113269|181761031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||differences in event rates|-14.1||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.5|-5.7|||normal approximation|||||-5.7|-22.5|0.0010
90940608|NCT00113269|181761033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||differences in event rates|3.5||||0.4134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|11.7|||normal approximation|Analysis based on normal approximation using Greenwood's formula for standard error.||||11.7|-4.8|0.4134
90940609|NCT00113269|181761033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||differences in event rates|2.4||||0.2459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|6.5|||normal approximation|Analysis based on normal approximation using Greenwood's formula for standard error.||||6.5|-1.7|0.2459
90940610|NCT00113269|181761034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||differences in event rates|6.0||||0.3155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|17.6|||normal approximation|||||17.6|-5.7|0.3155
90940611|NCT00113269|181761034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||differences in event rates|-0.4||||0.9045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|5.7|||normal approximation|||||5.7|-6.5|0.9045
90940612|NCT00113269|181761035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||differences in event rates|1.6||||0.5265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|6.7|||normal approximation|Analysis based on normal approximation using Greenwood's formula for standard error.||||6.7|-3.4|0.5265
90940613|NCT00113269|181761035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||differences in event rates|-0.6||||0.682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|2.2|||normal approximation|Analysis based on normal approximation using Greenwood's formula for standard error.||||2.2|-3.4|0.6820
90940614|NCT00113269|181761036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||differences in event rates|5.9||||0.1797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|14.4|||normal approximation|||||14.4|-2.7|0.1797
90940615|NCT00113269|181761036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||differences in event rates|-1.4||||0.5655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|3.4|||normal approximation|||||3.4|-6.3|0.5655
90940616|NCT00113269|181761037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4735||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis tests the difference between treatment groups for the mean change from month 1 with the month 1 value as covariate.||P-Value applies to 'Change from Month 1'||||0.4735
90962296|NCT02876835|181805423|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.65||||0.8939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|0.37|||LS mean difference||CP/SOB,Week12:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week12 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use, region, BL value and BL value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.37|-1.67|0.8939
90962297|NCT02876835|181805423|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.52||||0.807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.66|||MMRM||CP/SOB,Week28:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week28 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use, region, BL value and BL value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.66|-1.70|0.8070
90881574|NCT02075840|181626425|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.43||||0.2377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.61||Stratified analysis|Log Rank|||Pain in arm and shoulder||2.61|0.79|0.2377
90962298|NCT02876835|181805423|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.18||||0.9615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.49|0.13|||MMRM||CP/SOB,Week52:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week52 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use, region, BL value and BL value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.13|-2.49|0.9615
90962299|NCT02876835|181805423|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.76||||0.9015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|0.39|||MMRM||Cog domain,Week8:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week8 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use, region, BL value and BL value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.39|-1.91|0.9015
91034085|NCT02865850|181954087|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per FDA) and 1.30 (per EMA).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95|||=|0.4878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.812|1.118|||Log Rank|Based on non-parametric analysis.||MACE analysis was performed on pooled data from studies AKB-6548-CI-0016 (NCT02865850) and AKB-6548-CI-0017 (NCT02892149). Time to first all-cause mortality for the Vadadustat and Darbepoetin alfa treatment groups was as follows: participants with events = 291 and 310 respectively; median time to first event (Q1, Q3) = 50.00 (29.71, 79.00) weeks versus 49.57 (25.86, 77.29) weeks, respectively. Statistical analysis from the pooled data has been reported in this section.||1.118|0.812|=0.4878
91034086|NCT00552669|181954098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||We used One way annalysis of a variance for means and standard deviation.||||<0.05
91034087|NCT00552669|181954099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Based on our previous data the incidence of relevant clinical events was similar in both groups (ERACI III and ORAR II)||||0.05
91034088|NCT00552669|181954100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||"power calculation 80% Hypothesis: No significant diferences between Target Vessel Revascularization (TVR) between both groups.~All events will be recorded and an independent blind for groups clinical events committee will adjudicate each one."||||<0.05
90881575|NCT02075840|181626425|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51||||0.0796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|1.1||Stratified analysis|Log Rank|||Pain in chest||1.10|0.24|0.0796
90881576|NCT02075840|181626425|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.6435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.68||Stratified analysis|Log Rank|||Composite score||1.68|0.72|0.6435
90881577|NCT02402452|181626434|OTHER||Geometric Least-Square Mean(GLSM)Ratio %|172.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.93|305.33||||||An analysis of variance (ANOVA) appropriate for a parallel design was fitted to the natural logarithmic transformation of voxilaprevir AUClast. A 90% confidence interval (CI) was constructed for the geometric least squares mean (GLSM) ratio of AUClast for the comparison groups using two 1-sided tests.||305.33|97.93|
90881578|NCT02402452|181626435|OTHER||GLSM Ratio (%)|171.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.65|300.38||||||An ANOVA appropriate for parallel design was fitted to the natural logarithmic transformation of voxilaprevir AUCinf. A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio of AUCinf for the comparison groups using two 1-sided tests.||300.38|97.65|
90881579|NCT02402452|181626436|OTHER||GLSM Ratio (%)|145.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.77|252.48||||||An ANOVA appropriate for parallel design was fitted to the natural logarithmic transformation of voxilaprevir Cmax. A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio of Cmax for the comparison groups using two 1-sided tests.||252.48|83.77|
90881580|NCT02644967|181626438|OTHER|Estimation||||||0.0158||||||P-value of the overall response tested against the null rate of 11% based on 1-sided exact (Clopper-Pearson) test.|One-sided Clopper-Pearson test|||Testing the best overall confirmed response rate against the historical control rate of 0.11 (extracted from the literature review).||||0.0158
90881581|NCT02644967|181626439|OTHER|Estimation|Kaplan-Meier|5.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.65|7.0|||||Kaplan-Meier estimate of median PFS in months.|||7.00|3.65|
90881582|NCT02644967|181626440|OTHER|Landmark analysis of overall survival at six (6) months.|Kaplan-Meier|87.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|74.3|94.2|||||Kaplan-Meier estimate of percentage of participants surviving at six (6) months.|||94.2|74.3|
90881583|NCT02644967|181626441|OTHER|Landmark analysis of overall survival at twelve (12) months.|Kaplan-Meier|60.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.7|72.4|||||Kaplan-Meier estimate of percentage of participants surviving at twelve (12) months.|||72.4|44.7|
90962300|NCT02876835|181805423|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.18||||0.9781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.32|-0.03|||MMRM||Cog domain,Week12:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week12 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use, region, BL value and BL value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||-0.03|-2.32|0.9781
90962301|NCT02876835|181805423|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.77||||0.8778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|0.53|||MMRM||Cog domain,Week28:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week28 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use, region, BL value and BL value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.53|-2.07|0.8778
90962302|NCT02876835|181805423|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.65||||0.9864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.11|-0.19|||MMRM||Cog domain,Week52:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week52 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use, region, BL value and BL value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||-0.19|-3.11|0.9864
90962303|NCT02876835|181805423|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.1||||0.9725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.0|||MMRM||SOB, no activity,Week8:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week8 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use, region, BL value and BL value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.0|-2.3|0.9725
90881584|NCT05179421|181626449|OTHER|NONMEM applies nonlinear mixed effects modeling to evaluate the relationship between predicted drug concentration after administration from known pharmacokinetics and a pharmacodynamic effect, in this case being a reduction in pain from sustained heat application.|||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pain scores over time will first be modeled using NONMEM with derived parameters of maximum effect (Emax) and doses to produce a 50% and 90% maximum drug effect (C50 and C90, respectively), the steepness of the dose response curve (γ), and the time to peak effect. Inter-subject variability (e.g., biological variability) will evaluate additive, proportional, and exponential models. Residual intrasubject variability (e.g., noise) will typically require an additive and multiplicative error model.||||<0.05
90919521|NCT05321069|181708910|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.73||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|2.78|||Mixed Models Analysis||The adjusted mean difference represents the model-estimated difference in percent predicted Forced Vital Capacity between the Nera 18 mg BID group and the placebo group at Week 52.|"Analysis was based on a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), which included fixed, categorical effects of treatment, baseline use of antifibrotic therapy, and the fixed continuous effects of baseline forced vital capacity (FVC) percentage predicted at each visit. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model repeated measures within patients.~Baseline use of antifibrotic therapy, as recorded in the concomitant medication case report form (CRF) page, was included as a covariate."||2.78|0.68|0.0013
90919522|NCT05321069|181708911|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.49||||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|4.19|||Mixed Models Analysis||The adjusted mean difference represents the model-estimated difference in percent predicted DLCO between the Nera 9 mg BID group and the placebo group at Week 52.|"Based on a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), which included fixed, categorical effects of treatment, baseline use of antifibrotic therapy, and the fixed continuous effects of baseline diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide (DLCO) percentage predicted at each visit. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model repeated measures within patients.~Baseline use of antifibrotic therapy, as recorded in the concomitant medication CRF page, was included as a covariate."||4.19|0.79|0.0042
90919523|NCT05321069|181708911|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.67||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|3.37|||Mixed Models Analysis||The adjusted mean difference represents the model-estimated difference in percent predicted DLCO between the Nera 18 mg BID group and the placebo group at Week 52.|"Based on a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), which included fixed, categorical effects of treatment, baseline use of antifibrotic therapy, and the fixed continuous effects of baseline diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide (DLCO) percentage predicted at each visit. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model repeated measures within patients.~Baseline use of antifibrotic therapy, as recorded in the concomitant medication CRF page, was included as a covariate."||3.37|-0.02|0.0530
90919524|NCT05048186|181708919|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.116|0.236|||t-test, 2 sided|||we tested to see whether SDM Process scores were different between patients who received the Decision Aid Arm vs the control arm||0.236|-0.116|0.503
90919525|NCT02412748|181708928|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.962|||||||ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using a 3 × 2 repeated measures analysis of covariance (RM-ANCOVA) with 3 assessments crossed with two treatment conditions (BBTF and FLP). Five variables were included as covariates: father's age, father's highest level of education, number of members in father's social network, number of adults in the household, and sex of the target child. The effect of interest was the condition x time interaction.||||.962
90919526|NCT02412748|181708929|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.982|||||||ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using a 3 × 2 repeated measures analysis of covariance (RM-ANCOVA) with 3 assessments crossed with two treatment conditions (BBTF and FLP). Five variables were included as covariates: father's age, father's highest level of education, number of members in father's social network, number of adults in the household, and sex of the target child. The effect of interest was the condition x time interaction.||||.982
90919527|NCT02412748|181708930|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.534|||||||ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using a 3 × 2 repeated measures analysis of covariance (RM-ANCOVA) with 3 assessments crossed with two treatment conditions (BBTF and FLP). Five variables were included as covariates: father's age, father's highest level of education, number of members in father's social network, number of adults in the household, and sex of the target child. The effect of interest was the condition x time interaction.||||.534
90919528|NCT02412748|181708931|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using a 3 × 2 repeated measures analysis of covariance (RM-ANCOVA) with 3 assessments crossed with two treatment conditions (BBTF and FLP). Five variables were included as covariates: father's age, father's highest level of education, number of members in father's social network, number of adults in the household, and sex of the target child. The effect of interest was the condition x time interaction.||||.730
90919529|NCT02412748|181708932|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.927|||||||ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using a 3 × 2 repeated measures analysis of covariance (RM-ANCOVA) with 3 assessments crossed with two treatment conditions (BBTF and FLP). Five variables were included as covariates: father's age, father's highest level of education, number of members in father's social network, number of adults in the household, and sex of the target child. The effect of interest was the condition x time interaction.||||.927
90919530|NCT02412748|181708933|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.841|||||||ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using a 3 × 2 repeated measures analysis of covariance (RM-ANCOVA) with 3 assessments crossed with two treatment conditions (BBTF and FLP). Five variables were included as covariates: father's age, father's highest level of education, number of members in father's social network, number of adults in the household, and sex of the target child. The effect of interest was the condition x time interaction.||||.841
90919531|NCT02412748|181708934|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.722|||||||ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using a 3 × 2 repeated measures analysis of covariance (RM-ANCOVA) with 3 assessments crossed with two treatment conditions (BBTF and FLP). Five variables were included as covariates: father's age, father's highest level of education, number of members in father's social network, number of adults in the household, and sex of the target child. The effect of interest was the condition x time interaction.||||.722
90919532|NCT02412748|181708935|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.715|||||||ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using a 3 × 2 repeated measures analysis of covariance (RM-ANCOVA) with 3 assessments crossed with two treatment conditions (BBTF and FLP). Five variables were included as covariates: father's age, father's highest level of education, number of members in father's social network, number of adults in the household, and sex of the target child. The effect of interest was the condition x time interaction.||||.715
90919533|NCT02412748|181708936|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using a 3 × 2 repeated measures analysis of covariance (RM-ANCOVA) with 3 assessments crossed with two treatment conditions (BBTF and FLP). Five variables were included as covariates: father's age, father's highest level of education, number of members in father's social network, number of adults in the household, and sex of the target child. The effect of interest was the condition x time interaction.||||.900
90919534|NCT02412748|181708937|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.271|||||||ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using a 3 × 2 repeated measures analysis of covariance (RM-ANCOVA) with 3 assessments crossed with two treatment conditions (BBTF and FLP). Five variables were included as covariates: father's age, father's highest level of education, number of members in father's social network, number of adults in the household, and sex of the target child. The effect of interest was the condition x time interaction.||||.271
90919535|NCT02412748|181708938|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.987|||||||ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using a 3 × 2 repeated measures analysis of covariance (RM-ANCOVA) with 3 assessments crossed with two treatment conditions (BBTF and FLP). Five variables were included as covariates: father's age, father's highest level of education, number of members in father's social network, number of adults in the household, and sex of the target child. The effect of interest was the condition x time interaction.||||.987
90919536|NCT02412748|181708939|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.967|||||||ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using a 3 × 2 repeated measures analysis of covariance (RM-ANCOVA) with 3 assessments crossed with two treatment conditions (BBTF and FLP). Five variables were included as covariates: father's age, father's highest level of education, number of members in father's social network, number of adults in the household, and sex of the target child. The effect of interest was the condition x time interaction.||||.967
90919537|NCT02412748|181708940|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.693|||||||ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using a 3 × 2 repeated measures analysis of covariance (RM-ANCOVA) with 3 assessments crossed with two treatment conditions (BBTF and FLP). Five variables were included as covariates: father's age, father's highest level of education, number of members in father's social network, number of adults in the household, and sex of the target child. The effect of interest was the condition x time interaction.||||.693
90919538|NCT02412748|181708941|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.557|||||||ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using a 3 × 2 repeated measures analysis of covariance (RM-ANCOVA) with 3 assessments crossed with two treatment conditions (BBTF and FLP). Five variables were included as covariates: father's age, father's highest level of education, number of members in father's social network, number of adults in the household, and sex of the target child. The effect of interest was the condition x time interaction.||||.557
90919539|NCT02412748|181708942|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.681|||||||ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using a 3 × 2 repeated measures analysis of covariance (RM-ANCOVA) with 3 assessments crossed with two treatment conditions (BBTF and FLP). Five variables were included as covariates: father's age, father's highest level of education, number of members in father's social network, number of adults in the household, and sex of the target child. The effect of interest was the condition x time interaction.||||.681
90919540|NCT02412748|181708943|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.389|||||||ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using a 3 × 2 repeated measures analysis of covariance (RM-ANCOVA) with 3 assessments crossed with two treatment conditions (BBTF and FLP). Five variables were included as covariates: father's age, father's highest level of education, number of members in father's social network, number of adults in the household, and sex of the target child. The effect of interest was the condition x time interaction.||||.389
90919541|NCT02412748|181708944|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.846|||||||ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using a 3 × 2 repeated measures analysis of covariance (RM-ANCOVA) with 3 assessments crossed with two treatment conditions (BBTF and FLP). Five variables were included as covariates: father's age, father's highest level of education, number of members in father's social network, number of adults in the household, and sex of the target child. The effect of interest was the condition x time interaction.||||.846
90919542|NCT02412748|181708945|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.871|||||||ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using a 3 × 2 repeated measures analysis of covariance (RM-ANCOVA) with 3 assessments crossed with two treatment conditions (BBTF and FLP). Five variables were included as covariates: father's age, father's highest level of education, number of members in father's social network, number of adults in the household, and sex of the target child. The effect of interest was the condition x time interaction.||||.871
90919543|NCT02412748|181708946|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.986|||||||ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using a 3 × 2 repeated measures analysis of covariance (RM-ANCOVA) with 3 assessments crossed with two treatment conditions (BBTF and FLP). Five variables were included as covariates: father's age, father's highest level of education, number of members in father's social network, number of adults in the household, and sex of the target child. The effect of interest was the condition x time interaction.||||.986
90919544|NCT02412748|181708947|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.791|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.791
90919545|NCT02412748|181708948|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.583|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.583
90919546|NCT02412748|181708949|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.851|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.851
90919547|NCT04218266|181708951|OTHER||Crude incidence ratio|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.26|0.67||||||Comparison of the Asundexian pooled group (Asundexian 20 mg group and Asundexian 50 mg group) versus Apixaban group in all bleeding||0.67|0.26|
90919548|NCT04218266|181708953|OTHER||Crude incidence ratio|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.09|0.97||||||Comparison of the Asundexian pooled group (Asundexian 20 mg group and Asundexian 50 mg group) versus Apixaban group in ISTH CRNM bleeding||0.97|0.09|
90919549|NCT04218266|181708954|OTHER||Crude incidence ratio|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.28|0.83||||||Comparison of the Asundexian pooled group (Asundexian 20 mg group and Asundexian 50 mg group) versus Apixaban group in ISTH minor bleeding||0.83|0.28|
90919550|NCT04218266|181708955|OTHER||Crude incidence ratio|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.09|0.97|||Other|||Comparison of the Asundexian pooled group (Asundexian 20 mg group and Asundexian 50 mg group) versus Apixaban group in ISTH major bleeding or CRNM bleeding||0.97|0.09|
90919551|NCT01424670|181708973|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0562||||||For testing the null hypothesis, the distribution of the time to SCC within the 6-month Intensive Period were compared between the 2 treatment groups using the stratified modified Peto-Peto modification of Gehan's Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Modified Peto-Peto test|||Comparison of distributions of time to SCC using the MGIT culture system during the 6-month (26-week) Intensive Period.||||0.0562
90940617|NCT00113269|181761037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1186||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis tests the difference between treatment groups for the mean change from month 1 with the month 1 value as covariate.||P-Value applies to 'Change from Month 1'||||0.1186
90881585|NCT00792610|181626450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.05|<|0.05||95.0|0.05|0.15|||t-test, 2 sided|||Chi-square analysis and Fischer's exact test were used for comparing group proportions between seropositive and seronegative participants. GMT and their 95% confidence intervals were also calculated using the software developed by Kirkman, T.W. (18) An ANOVA test was performed to compare the difference of the three groups at one, six and seven months categorized by the anti-HBs titers at 7-10 days after the booster.||.15|.05|<0.05
90881586|NCT03746522|181626451|OTHER|||||||0.0006||||||P-value was one-sided and compared with alpha = 0.025.|Rubin's Rule|||||||0.0006
90919552|NCT01424670|181708974|SUPERIORITY|For testing the homogeneity of proportions, 2 samples were compared using the stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test.|Ratio of Probability|1.096||||0.3818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.889|1.352|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test statistics were used for estimation.|Statistical comparison of proportion of participants with SCC at 2 months.||1.352|0.889|0.3818
90919553|NCT01424670|181708974|SUPERIORITY|For testing the homogeneity of proportions, 2 samples were compared using the stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test.|Ratio of Probability|1.017||||0.7131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.927|1.115|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test statistics were used for estimation.|Statistical comparison of proportion of participants with SCC at 6 months.||1.115|0.927|0.7131
90919554|NCT01424670|181708975|SUPERIORITY||Relative Ratio of Probability|0.969||||0.5945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.866|1.084|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical comparison of proportion with sustained SCC at Month 18.||1.084|0.866|0.5945
90919555|NCT01424670|181708975|SUPERIORITY||Relative Ratio of Probability|0.97||||0.6164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.864|1.089|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical comparison of proportion with sustained SCC at Month 24.||1.089|0.864|0.6164
90919556|NCT01424670|181708975|SUPERIORITY||Relative Ratio of Probability|0.991||||0.8951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.872|1.127|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical comparison of proportion with sustained SCC at Month 30.||1.127|0.872|0.8951
90919557|NCT01424670|181708976|SUPERIORITY||Relative Ratio of Probability|0.965||||0.5269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.869|1.073|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical comparison of proportions with favorable treatment outcomes assessed by the Principal Investigator.||1.073|0.869|0.5269
90919558|NCT01424670|181708978|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.6986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.3|||ANCOVA|||Statistical comparison of mean AUC of change from Baseline.||1.3|-1.9|0.6986
90919559|NCT01424670|181708979|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6825|||||||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis for Week 1.||||0.6825
90919560|NCT01424670|181708979|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.807|||||||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis for Week 2.||||0.807
90919561|NCT01424670|181708979|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.269|||||||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis for Week 3.||||0.269
90919562|NCT01424670|181708979|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2333|||||||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis for Week 24.||||0.2333
90919563|NCT01424670|181708979|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9397|||||||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis for Month 6.||||0.9397
90919564|NCT01424670|181708980|SUPERIORITY||Relative Ratio of Probability|0.991||||0.8951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.872|1.127|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical comparison of proportion with treatment success at Month 30.||1.127|0.872|0.8951
90919565|NCT00709098|181709033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean group difference|-5.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|-3.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-3.1|-7.0|<0.0001
90919566|NCT00774852|181709034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85|||||||Chi-squared|Two-sided Pearson's chi-square test||||||0.85
90919567|NCT00774852|181709035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||Chi-squared|Two-sided Pearson's chi-square test||||||0.99
90919568|NCT00774852|181709036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Two-sided Pearson's chi-square test||||||0.54
90919569|NCT00774852|181709036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Two-sided Pearson's chi-square test||||||0.72
90919570|NCT00774852|181709037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Two-sided Pearson's chi-square test||||||0.54
90919571|NCT00774852|181709042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Two-sided Pearson's chi-squared test||Comparison of Participants across groups who had negative anti-dsDNA at Week 104. Baseline is defined as the last measurement taken on or prior to the first day of dosing. Analysis is performed on participants with available data.||||>0.99
90919572|NCT00774852|181709043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Two-sided Pearson's chi-squared test||Comparison of Participants across groups who had negative anti-dsDNA at Week 104. Baseline is defined as the last measurement taken on or prior to the first day of dosing. Analysis is performed on participants with available data.||||>0.99
90919573|NCT00774852|181709045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Pearson's||Comparison of groups with renal flare||||0.23
90919574|NCT00774852|181709045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Pearson's||Comparison of groups with renal flare||||0.61
90919575|NCT00774852|181709045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Pearson's||Comparison of groups with at least one non-renal flare||||>0.99
90919576|NCT00774852|181709045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Pearson's||Comparison of groups with at least one non-renal flare||||>0.99
90919577|NCT00774852|181709050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value compares actual values between experimental and control groups at Week 52 and is derived from two-sided t-test from and ANCOVA model that adjusts for baseline values.|ANCOVA|||||||0.79
90919578|NCT00774852|181709050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value compares actual values between experimental and control groups at Week 52 and is derived from two-sided t-test from and ANCOVA model that adjusts for baseline values.|ANCOVA|||||||0.74
90919579|NCT00774852|181709051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Pearson's||Comparison of groups for Pneumococcal vaccines||||0.43
90919580|NCT00774852|181709051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Pearson's||Comparison of groups for Tetanus Toxoid vaccines||||0.99
90919581|NCT04994509|181709073|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.042||p-value for rate ratio vs bHIV is from likelihood ratio test.|Likelihood ratio test||Confidence Interval (CI) for rate ratio vs bHIV is from a likelihood-based method.|Null Hypothesis 01: LEN/bHIV\>= 1; Null hypothesis was to be rejected if HIV-1 incidence in LEN was significantly lower than bHIV.||0.042|0.000|<0.0001
90919582|NCT04994509|181709073|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.042||p-value for rate ratio vs bHIV is from likelihood ratio test.|Likelihood ratio test||CI for rate ratio vs bHIV is based on a likelihood-based method.|Null Hypothesis 02: LEN/bHIV\>= 0.8; Null hypothesis was to be rejected if HIV-1 incidence in LEN was significantly and at least 20% lower than bHIV.||0.042|0.000|<0.0001
90919583|NCT04994509|181709073|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.839||||0.20697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.279||p-value for rate ratio vs bHIV is from Wald test.|Wald test||CI for rate ratio vs bHIV is based on the delta method.|Null Hypothesis 03: F/TAF/bHIV\>= 1; Null hypothesis was to be rejected if HIV-1 incidence in F/TAF was significantly lower than bHIV.||1.279|0.550|0.20697
90919584|NCT04994509|181709073|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.839||||0.58674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.279||p-value for rate ratio vs bHIV is from Wald test.|Wald test||CI for rate ratio vs bHIV is based on the delta method.|Null Hypothesis 04: F/TAF/bHIV\>= 0.8; Null hypothesis was to be rejected if HIV-1 incidence in F/TAF was significantly and at least 20% lower than bHIV.||1.279|0.550|0.58674
90881587|NCT03746522|181626452|OTHER|||||||0.0005||||||p-value was one-sided and compared with alpha = 0.025|Rubin's Rule|||||||0.0005
90881588|NCT03746522|181626453|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||p-value was one-sided and compared with alpha=0.025.|Rubin's Rule|||||||<0.0001
90881589|NCT03746522|181626454|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||p-value was one-sided and compared with alpha = 0.025.|Rubin's Rule|||||||<0.0001
90881590|NCT05422053|181626471|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||End of Control-IQ Use (13 Weeks) compared to Control-IQ Start||||<0.001
90881591|NCT02659020|181626501|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.945||||0.775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.639|1.397||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG PS) (0 vs1).|Log Rank||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|||1.397|0.639|0.775
90881592|NCT02659020|181626511|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.667||||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.385|1.158||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Log Rank||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|||1.158|0.385|0.148
90881593|NCT02659020|181626512|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.692||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.476|1.007||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Log Rank||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|||1.007|0.476|0.055
90881594|NCT02659020|181626512|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.828||||0.482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.398||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Log Rank|||||1.398|0.490|0.482
90881595|NCT02659020|181626513|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.589||||0.1891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.794|3.179||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Exact Mantel-Haenszel test||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|||3.179|0.794|0.1891
90881596|NCT02659020|181626513|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.668||||0.0642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.923|7.71||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Exact Mantel-Haenszel test||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|||7.710|0.923|0.0642
90881597|NCT02659020|181626514|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.106||||0.7724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.558|2.194||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Exact Mantel-Haenszel test||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|||2.194|0.558|0.7724
90881598|NCT02659020|181626514|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.222||||0.6508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.513|2.911||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Exact Mantel-Haenszel test||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|||2.911|0.513|0.6508
90881599|NCT02659020|181626515|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.661||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.419|1.041||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Log Rank||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|||1.041|0.419|0.073
90881600|NCT02659020|181626515|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.703||||0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.395|1.253||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Log Rank||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|||1.253|0.395|0.225
90881601|NCT02659020|181626516|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.213||||0.332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.834|1.764||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Log Rank||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Fatigue||1.764|0.834|0.332
91034089|NCT00904345|181954105|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Estimates of proportion event-free at 1 and 2 years calculated using Kaplan-Meier methods, and the 2-sided, 95% confidence intervals were calculated by the Greenwood method. All analyses were performed using SAS v9.4 software and R version 3.5.2.|||
90919585|NCT04994509|181709074|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.101||p-value for rate ratio vs F/TDF is from an exact conditional Poisson model.|Poisson model||CI is from an exact conditional Poisson model.|||0.101|0.000|< 0.0001
90919586|NCT04994509|181709074|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|1.198||||0.7282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.669|2.143||p-value for rate ratio vs F/TDF is from a Poisson model.|Poisson model||CI is from a Poisson model.|||2.143|0.669|0.72820
90919587|NCT04994509|181709074|OTHER|Comparability to F/TDF is defined as the HIV-1 incidence in the LEN group at most 0.8/100 PY higher than in the F/TDF group.|Rate Difference|-1.685|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.737|-0.939||p-value for rate difference vs F/TDF is based on a hybrid approach.|Hybrid approach||Exact CI is based on a hybrid approach.|||-0.939|-2.737|<0.0001
90919588|NCT04994509|181709074|OTHER|Comparability to F/TDF is defined as the HIV-1 incidence in the F/TAF group at most 0.8/100 PY higher than in the F/TDF group.|Rate Difference|0.333||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.869|1.367||p-value for rate difference vs F/TDF is based on a hybrid approach.|Hybrid approach||Exact CI is based on a hybrid approach.|||1.367|-0.869|0.20900
90919589|NCT04994509|181709076|SUPERIORITY||Exact Odds Ratio|9.0||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.06|83.36||p-value is from exact conditional logistic regression model.|ExactConditionalLogisticRegressionModel||Exact odds ratio and and CI are from exact conditional logistic regression model.|||83.36|2.06|0.0006
90919590|NCT04402294|181709083|OTHER|Parametric inferential statistical test|Group mean difference|0.71||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was set to p = 0.05|ANOVA|||ANOVA (Optimal vs Suboptimal vs No Stimulation)||||0.50
90919591|NCT04402294|181709084|OTHER|Parametric inferential statistical test|Group mean difference|0.03||||0.975|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was set to p = 0.05|ANOVA|||ANOVA (Optimal vs Suboptimal vs No Stimulation)||||0.975
90919592|NCT04402294|181709085|OTHER|Parametric inferential statistical test|Group mean difference|2.05||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|ANOVA|||ANOVA, with neuromodulation stimulation type (optimal vs. suboptimal), stimulation days (1 to 3), and delay (0, 4, or 12 seconds) as within-subject variables.||||0.097
90919593|NCT04402294|181709086|OTHER|Parametric Inferential Statistical Test|Group mean difference|0.63||||0.644|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|ANOVA|||ANOVA, with neuromodulation stimulation type (optimal vs. suboptimal), stimulation days (1 to 3), and delay (0, 4, or 12 seconds) as within-subject variables.||||0.644
91034090|NCT00904345|181954106|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Survival proportion estimates at 1 and 2 years were calculated using Kaplan-Meier methods, and the 2-sided, 95% confidence intervals calculated by the Greenwood method. All analyses were performed using SAS v9.4 software and R version 3.5.2.|||
91034091|NCT00904345|181954110|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Estimates of proportion LRP event-free at 1 and 2 years were calculated using Kaplan-Meier methods, and the 2-sided, 95% confidence intervals calculated by the Greenwood method. All analyses were performed using SAS v9.4 software and R version 3.5.2.|||
90919594|NCT04402294|181709087|OTHER|Parametric inferential statistical test|Group mean difference|0.84||||0.439|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|ANOVA|||ANOVA, with neuromodulation stimulation type (optimal vs. suboptimal), and stimulation days (1 to 3) as within-subject variables.||||0.439
90919595|NCT04402294|181709088|OTHER|Parametric inferential statistical test|Group mean difference|0.59||||0.563|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|ANOVA|||Optimal Neuromodulation Day-1, Optimal Neuromodulation Day-2, Optimal Neuromodulation Day-3, Suboptimal Neuromodulation Day-1, Suboptimal Neuromodulation Day-2, Suboptimal Neuromodulation Day-3||||0.563
90919596|NCT04924062|181709089|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.08|||||HR=Arm A/Arm B|||1.08|0.51|
90919597|NCT04924062|181709090|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.19|||||HR=Arm A/Arm B|||1.19|0.58|
90919598|NCT04924062|181709091|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|21.6|||||Difference=Arm A minus Arm B|||21.6|-7.5|
90919599|NCT03547908|181709112|NON_INFERIORITY|A sample size of 240 participants randomized in a 1:1 ratio to 2 treatment groups, achieved 90% power to detect a non-inferiority margin of 12% between the 2 treatment groups. For the sample size and power computation, it is assumed that both treatment groups have a response rate of 91% (based on Gilead Studies GS-US-380-1489 and GS-US-380-1490), that the non-inferiority margin is 12%, and that the significance level of the test is at a one-sided 0.025 level.|Difference in Percentages|4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.001|-2.5|10.8|||||The difference in percentages of participants between groups and their 95.001% confidence intervals (CI)s were calculated based on Mantel-Haenszel (MH) proportions adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||10.8|-2.5|
90919600|NCT03547908|181709112|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2113|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The p-value was calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL).||||||0.2113
90919601|NCT03547908|181709113|NON_INFERIORITY|A sample size of 240 participants provided 81% power to detect a non-inferiority margin of 12% between the 2 treatment groups. This assumed that both treatment groups have a response rate of 88% (based on Gilead Studies GS-US-320-0108 and GS-US-320-0110), that the non-inferiority margin is 12%, and that the significance level of the test is at a one-sided 0.025 level.|Difference in Percentages|16.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.001|5.9|27.3|||||||The difference in percentages of participants with HBV DNA \< 29 IU/mL between treatment groups and its 95.001% CI were calculated based on the MH proportions adjusted by baseline HBeAg status (positive vs negative) and baseline HBV DNA category (\< 8 log10 IU/mL vs ≥ 8 log10 IU/mL).|27.3|5.9|
90919602|NCT03547908|181709113|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0023|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The p-value was from CMH test stratified by baseline HBeAg status (positive vs negative) and HBV DNA category (\< 8 log10 IU/mL vs ≥ 8 log10 IU/mL).||||||0.0023
91034092|NCT00252720|181954111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.024||||0.8487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.312|||Log Rank|Generalized||||1.312|0.800|0.8487
90962304|NCT02876835|181805423|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.3||||0.7188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.8|||MMRM||SOB, no activity,Week12:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week12 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use, region, BL value and BL value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.8|-1.5|0.7188
90919603|NCT03547908|181709114|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|-0.3||||0.9427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|8.3||P-value for the superiority test comparing the percentages of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL between treatment groups was from the CMH test stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs \> 100,000 copies/mL).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference in percentages of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL between treatment groups and its 95% CI were calculated based on the MH proportions adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||8.3|-8.9|0.9427
90962305|NCT02876835|181805423|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.9||||0.8903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.5|||MMRM||SOB, no activity,Week28:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week28 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use, region, BL value and BL value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.5|-2.3|0.8903
90962306|NCT02876835|181805423|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.0||||0.5011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.6|||MMRM||SOB, no activity,Week52:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week52 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use, region, BL value and BL value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||1.6|-1.6|0.5011
90919604|NCT03547908|181709115|OTHER||Difference in least squares mean (LSM)|24.0||||0.1701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|58.0|||ANOVA|The p-value was calculated using ANOVA model adjusted by the baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL).|The difference in least squares means and its 95% CI were calculated using ANOVA model adjusted by the baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||58|-10|0.1701
90919605|NCT03547908|181709116|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|30.0||||0.1853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|74.0||P-value was from ANOVA model adjusted by the baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (\<= 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL).|ANOVA||Difference in least squares means (Diff in LSM), and its 95% CI were from ANOVA model adjusted by the baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (\<= 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||74|-14|0.1853
90962307|NCT02876835|181805423|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.1||||0.9716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.0|||MMRM||S-SB,Resting, Week8:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week8 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use, region, BL value and BL value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.0|-2.2|0.9716
90962308|NCT02876835|181805423|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.3||||0.6908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.9|||MMRM||S-SB,Resting, Week12:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week12 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use, region, BL value and BL value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.9|-1.4|0.6908
90962309|NCT02876835|181805423|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.5||||0.7462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.9|||MMRM||S-SB,Resting, Week28:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week28 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use, region, BL value and BL value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.9|-1.8|0.7462
90962310|NCT02876835|181805423|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.5||||0.977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|0.0|||MMRM||S-SB,Resting, Week52:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week52 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use, region, BL value and BL value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.0|-2.9|0.9770
91034093|NCT02481830|181954117|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.1144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.04|||Log Rank||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model. Hazard Ratio is Nivolumab over Topotecan/Amrubicin|||1.04|0.72|0.1144
90919606|NCT03547908|181709117|OTHER||Difference in least squares mean (LSM)|0.59||||0.2839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|1.67|||ANOVA|The p-value was calculated using ANOVA model adjusted by the baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL).|The difference in least squares means and its 95% CI were calculated using ANOVA model adjusted by the baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||1.67|-0.49|0.2839
90962311|NCT02876835|181805423|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.4||||0.9471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|0.3|||MMRM||Diff std for LT, Week8:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week8 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use, region, BL value and BL value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.3|-3.2|0.9471
90962312|NCT02876835|181805423|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.9||||0.833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.9|||MMRM||Diff std for LT, Week12:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week12 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use, region, BL value and BL value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.9|-2.6|0.8330
90962313|NCT02876835|181805423|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.2||||0.8918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|0.7|||MMRM||Diff std for LT, Week28:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week28 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use, region, BL value and BL value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.7|-3.2|0.8918
90962314|NCT02876835|181805423|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.2||||0.9986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|-1.1|||MMRM||Diff std for LT, Week52:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week52 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use, region, BL value and BL value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||-1.1|-5.4|0.9986
90962315|NCT02876835|181805423|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.4||||0.3035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|2.1|||MMRM||Diff sleep, Week8:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week8 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use, region, BL value and BL value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||2.1|-1.2|0.3035
90962316|NCT02876835|181805423|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.4||||0.9563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|0.2|||MMRM||Diff sleep, Week12:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week12 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use, region, BL value and BL value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.2|-3.1|0.9563
90962317|NCT02876835|181805423|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.4||||0.6548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.5|||MMRM||Diff sleep, Week28:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week28 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use, region, BL value and BL value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||1.5|-2.3|0.6548
91034094|NCT02481830|181954118|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|1.66|||||Hazard Ratio is Nivolumab over Topotecan/Amrubicin using Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|||1.66|1.16|
90881602|NCT02659020|181626516|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.813||||0.389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.514|1.287||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Log Rank||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Nausea and vomiting||1.287|0.514|0.389
90881603|NCT02659020|181626516|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.598||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.386|0.926||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Log Rank||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Pain||0.926|0.386|0.020
90881604|NCT02659020|181626516|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.947||||0.821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.622|1.442||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Log Rank||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Dyspnoea||1.442|0.622|0.821
90881605|NCT02659020|181626516|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.931||||0.812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.574|1.509||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Log Rank||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Insomnia||1.509|0.574|0.812
90881606|NCT02659020|181626516|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.355||||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.893|2.055||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Log Rank||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Appetite loss||2.055|0.893|0.162
90881607|NCT02659020|181626516|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.881||||0.619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.413||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Log Rank||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Constipation||1.413|0.550|0.619
90881608|NCT02659020|181626516|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.134||||0.597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.746|1.724||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Log Rank||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Diarrhoea||1.724|0.746|0.597
90881609|NCT02659020|181626516|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.766||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.425|1.381||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Log Rank||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Financial difficulties||1.381|0.425|0.380
90881610|NCT02659020|181626516|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.046||||0.877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.635|1.723||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Log Rank||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Fatigue||1.723|0.635|0.877
90881611|NCT02659020|181626516|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.102||||0.791|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.568|2.139||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Log Rank||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Nausea and vomiting||2.139|0.568|0.791
90881612|NCT02659020|181626516|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.454|1.443||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Log Rank||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Pain||1.443|0.454|0.487
90881613|NCT02659020|181626516|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.014||||0.976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.556|1.85||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Log Rank||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Dyspnoea||1.850|0.556|0.976
90962318|NCT02876835|181805423|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.4||||0.9832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|-0.2|||MMRM||Diff sleep, Week52:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week52 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use, region, BL value and BL value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||-0.2|-4.5|0.9832
90881614|NCT02659020|181626516|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.694||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.882|3.25||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Log Rank||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Insomnia||3.250|0.882|0.111
90881615|NCT02659020|181626516|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.108||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.979||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Log Rank||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Appetite loss||1.979|0.620|0.760
90881616|NCT02659020|181626516|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.119||||0.747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.586|2.135||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Log Rank||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Constipation||2.135|0.586|0.747
90881617|NCT02659020|181626516|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.367||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.726|2.576||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Log Rank||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Diarrhoea||2.576|0.726|0.330
90881618|NCT02659020|181626516|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.373||||0.411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.636|2.965||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Log Rank||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Financial difficulties||2.965|0.636|0.411
90881619|NCT01077960|181626590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90881620|NCT01077960|181626591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90881621|NCT01077960|181626592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90881622|NCT01077960|181626593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90881623|NCT01077960|181626594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.007
90881624|NCT01077960|181626595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.015
90881625|NCT00393939|181626668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9222||||0.2651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7156|1.1885||1-sided stratified log-rank test adjusted for baseline stratification factors (number of metastatic sites, estrogen receptor status, and disease-free interval from prior adjuvant treatment)|Log Rank|||Independent radiology assessment||1.1885|0.7156|0.2651
90919607|NCT03547908|181709118|OTHER||Difference in LSM|0.13||||0.8456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.46||P-value was from ANOVA model adjusted by the baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (\<= 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL).|ANOVA||Difference in LSM and its 95% CI were from ANOVA model adjusted by the baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (\<= 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||1.46|-1.20|0.8456
90919608|NCT03547908|181709119|SUPERIORITY|P-value for the superiority test comparing the percentages of participants with HBV DNA \< 29 IU/mL between treatment groups was from the CMH test stratified by baseline HBeAg status (positive vs negative) and baseline HBV DNA category (\< 8 log10 IU/mL vs ≥ 8 log10 IU/mL).|Difference in Percentages|2.6||||0.6367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|13.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The difference in percentages of participants with HBV DNA \< 29 IU/mL between treatment groups and its 95% CI were calculated based on the MH proportions adjusted by baseline HBeAg status (positive vs negative) and baseline HBV DNA category (\< 8 log10 IU/mL vs ≥ 8 log10 IU/mL).||13.4|-8.3|0.6367
90962319|NCT02876835|181805424|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.02||||0.6917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.08|||MMRM||Week 8: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week 8 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.08|-0.05|0.6917
90881626|NCT00393939|181626668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.856||||0.0753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6921|1.0589||1-sided stratified log-rank test adjusted for baseline stratification factors (number of metastatic sites, estrogen receptor status, and disease-free interval from prior adjuvant treatment)|Log Rank|||Investigator's assessment||1.0589|0.6921|0.0753
90881627|NCT00393939|181626669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.65||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|2.33||1-sided stratified log-rank test adjusted for baseline stratification factors (number of metastatic sites, estrogen receptor status, and disease-free interval from prior adjuvant treatment)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Independent radiology assessment||2.33|1.17|0.0018
90881628|NCT00393939|181626669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.0172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.02||1-sided stratified log-rank test adjusted for baseline stratification factors (number of metastatic sites, estrogen receptor status, and disease-free interval from prior adjuvant treatment)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Investigator's assessment||2.02|1.03|0.0172
90881629|NCT00393939|181626671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1539||||0.8933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9209|1.4458||1-sided stratified log-rank test adjusted for baseline stratification factors (number of metastatic sites, estrogen receptor status, and disease-free interval from prior adjuvant treatment)|Log Rank|||||1.4458|0.9209|0.8933
90940618|NCT00113269|181761038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5231||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis tests the difference between treatment groups for the mean change from month 1 with the month 1 value as covariate.||P-Value applies to 'Change from Month 1'||||0.5231
90940619|NCT00113269|181761038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.122||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis tests the difference between treatment groups for the mean change from month 1 with the month 1 value as covariate.||P-Value applies to 'Change from Month 1'||||0.1220
90940620|NCT01580995|181761090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.05
90881630|NCT01494610|181626675|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Estimates of within-par. coefficient of variation for AUC(0-tau) of FP and weighted mean (0-12 h) serum cortisol from previous studies showed that a sample size of 52 par. would have approximately 90% power to demonstrate biocomparability with respect to the two co-primary endpoints. The study was powered on the analysis of asthma and COPD par. as a combined group. A two one-sided t-test procedure with α=0.05 for each one-sided test was used. Biocomparability limits of 0.8 and 1.25 were used.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|1.508|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.366|1.665|||||Data reflect Asthma + COPD participants. The ratio of adjusted geometric means is a comparision of treatment administered by the capsule-based inhaler and the MDPI.|||1.665|1.366|
90881631|NCT01494610|181626675|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Estimates of within-par. coefficient of variation for AUC(0-tau) of FP and weighted mean (0-12 h) serum cortisol from previous studies showed that a sample size of 52 par. would have approximately 90% power to demonstrate biocomparability with respect to the two co-primary endpoints. The study was powered on the analysis of asthma and COPD par. as a combined group. Biocomparability limits of 0.8 and 1.25 were used.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|1.598|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.369|1.864|||||Data reflect participants with asthma only. The ratio of adjusted geometric means is a comparision of treatment administered by the capsule-based inhaler and the MDPI.|||1.864|1.369|
90919609|NCT03547908|181709120|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|17.1||||0.0655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|35.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was calculated from CMH tests stratified by baseline HBeAg status (positive vs negative) and HBV DNA (\< 8 log10 IU/mL vs ≥ 8 log10 IU/mL).|The difference in percentages of participants between groups and their 95% CIs were calculated based on MH proportions adjusted by baseline HBeAg status (positive vs negative) and baseline HBV DNA (\< 8 log10 IU/mL vs ≥ 8 log10 IU/mL).|||35.7|-1.5|0.0655
90919610|NCT03547908|181709121|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|14.1||||0.1253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|32.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was from the CMH tests stratified by baseline HBeAg status (positive vs negative) and baseline HBV DNA (\< 8 log10 IU/mL vs \>= 8 log10 IU/mL).|Difference in the proportion between treatment groups and its 95% CI were calculated based on the MH proportions adjusted by baseline HBeAg status (positive vs negative) and baseline HBV DNA (\< 8 log10 IU/mL vs \>= 8 log10 IU/mL).|||32.6|-4.3|0.1253
90919611|NCT03547908|181709122|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|7.1||||0.0591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|15.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was from the CMH tests stratified by baseline HBeAg status (positive vs negative)and baseline HBV DNA (\< 8 log10 IU/mL vs ≥ 8 log10 IU/mL).|Difference in the percentages between treatment groups and its 95% CI were calculated based on the MH proportions adjusted by baseline HBeAg status (positive vs negative) and baseline HBV DNA (\< 8 log10 IU/mL vs ≥ 8 log10 IU/mL).|||15.0|-0.8|0.0591
90919612|NCT03547908|181709123|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|9.3||||0.0655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|19.2||P value was from the CMH test stratified by baseline HBeAg status (positive vs negative) and baseline HBV DNA (\< 8 log10 IU/mL vs ≥ 8 log10 IU/mL). Statistically significant values are shown in bold.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Differences in percentages between treatment groups and their 95% CI were calculated based on MH proportions adjusted by baseline HBeAg status (positive vs negative) and baseline HBV DNA (\< 8 log10 IU/mL vs ≥ 8 log10 IU/mL).|||19.2|-0.7|0.0655
90919613|NCT02349412|181709137|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.23||||0.104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|7.13|||ANCOVA|Statistical Method: Available Case ANCOVA Model adjusting for baseline FACT-G score||||7.13|-0.67|0.104
90919614|NCT02349412|181709138|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.12||||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|7.77|||ANCOVA|Statistical Method: Available Case ANCOVA Model adjusting for baseline FACT-G score||||7.77|-1.54|0.188
90919615|NCT02349412|181709139|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|2.09|||ANCOVA|Statistical Method: Available Case ANCOVA Model adjusting for baseline HADS-Depression score||||2.09|-0.94|0.884
90919616|NCT02349412|181709140|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.81||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|-0.07|||ANCOVA|Statistical Method: Available Case ANCOVA Model adjusting for baseline HADS-Anxiety score||||-0.07|-1.54|0.033
90919617|NCT02349412|181709141|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.006
90919618|NCT03611153|181709149|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.040
90919619|NCT03611153|181709151|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.777|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.777
90919620|NCT03611153|181709152|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.805|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Right atrial pressure||||0.805
90919621|NCT03611153|181709152|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.148|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||pulmonary artery systolic pressure||||0.148
90919622|NCT03611153|181709152|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Mean pulmonary artery pressure||||0.090
90919623|NCT03611153|181709153|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.786|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Right atrial pressure||||0.786
90919624|NCT03611153|181709153|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.796|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pulmonary artery systolic pressure||||0.796
90919625|NCT03611153|181709153|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.703|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Mean pulmonary artery pressure||||0.703
90919626|NCT03611153|181709154|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.418|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.418
90919627|NCT03611153|181709155|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.669|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.669
90919628|NCT05338086|181709156|EQUIVALENCE|The estimated mean difference in %CfB lumbar spine BMD at Month 12 was presented with 95% CI and equivalence was concluded if this fell within the predefined equivalence margin of \[-1.45%, 1.45%\].|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.91||Mixed-model for repeated measures (MMRM)|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM included treatment, with stratification variables as classification factors and baseline BMD as a continuous covariate.||||0.91|-0.51|
90919629|NCT05338086|181709157|EQUIVALENCE|The estimated mean difference in %CfB lumbar spine BMD at Month 12 was presented with 95% CI and equivalence was concluded if this fell within the predefined equivalence margin of \[-1.45%, 1.45%\].|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.74|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA included terms for treatment, with stratification variables as classification factors and baseline BMD included as a continuous covariate.|The estimated mean difference in %CfB lumbar spine BMD results was pooled using Rubin's methods and presented with 95% CI.|||0.74|-0.69|
90919630|NCT05338086|181709160|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence criteria (analysis set mFAS): 95% CI for ratio of geometric LS mean ratios contained in acceptance limits (80.00%, 125.00%).|Ratio of Geometric means|99.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.99|108.52|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including log-transformed baseline sCTX as a continuous covariate with treatment and stratification variables as fixed effects.||||108.52|91.99|
90919631|NCT05338086|181709161|EQUIVALENCE|Biosimilarity with respect to PD was concluded if the 95% CI for the test (MB09) to reference (EU-Prolia) ratios of the geometric LS means was contained within the \[80.00%, 125.00%\] interval.|Ratio of Geometric means|99.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.31|102.02|||ANCOVA|||||102.02|96.31|
90919632|NCT05338086|181709162|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence criteria (on Pharmacokinetic Parameter Analysis Set): the 95% CIs around the geometric LS mean contained in the acceptance limits (80.00%, 125.00%)|LS Geometric Mean Ratio|104.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.83|109.71|||ANCOVA|Cmax was analysed on the log scale by ANCOVA. The model included treatment and stratification variables as fixed effects.||||109.71|98.83|
90919633|NCT05338086|181709163|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence criteria (on Pharmacokinetic Parameter Analysis Set): the 95% CIs around the geometric LS mean contained in the acceptance limits (80.00%, 125.00%)|LS Geometric Mean Ratio|106.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.84|112.66|||ANCOVA|AUC0-6 months was analysed on the log scale by ANCOVA. The model included treatment and stratification variables as fixed effects.||||112.66|99.84|
90919634|NCT00567398|181709182|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.9|||ANOVA|||Month 3||0.9|0.2|<0.001
90919635|NCT00567398|181709182|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.8|||ANOVA|||Month 6||0.8|0.1|0.006
90919636|NCT00567398|181709183|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.0||||0.312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|14.7|||ANOVA|||Insulin-Month 3||14.7|-4.7|0.312
90919637|NCT00567398|181709183|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.7||||0.342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|14.4|||ANOVA|||Insulin-Month 6||14.4|-5.0|0.342
90919638|NCT00567398|181709185|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.9|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Cholesterol-Month 3||0.9|0.1|0.010
90919639|NCT00567398|181709185|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.7|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Cholesterol-Month 6||0.7|0|0.073
90919640|NCT00567398|181709185|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.5|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for LDLC-Month 3||0.5|-0.1|0.181
90919641|NCT00567398|181709185|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.4|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for LDLC-Month 6||0.4|-0.2|0.593
90919642|NCT00567398|181709185|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.0|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for HDLC-Month 3||0|-0.2|0.198
90919643|NCT00567398|181709185|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.0|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for HDLC-Month 6||0|-0.1|0.298
91034095|NCT02481830|181954119|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.24|||||Strata adjusted odds ratio (Nivolumab over Topotecan/Amrubicin) using Mantel-Haenszel method|||1.24|0.49|
90919644|NCT00567398|181709185|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.6|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for VLDL-Month 3||0.6|0.2|<0.001
90919645|NCT00567398|181709185|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.5|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for VLDL-Month 6||0.5|0.1|0.003
90919646|NCT00567398|181709185|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.3|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Triglycerides-Month 3||1.3|0.4|<0.001
90919647|NCT00567398|181709185|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.1|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Triglycerides-Month 6||1.1|0.3|0.002
90919648|NCT00567398|181709186|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3||||0.485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|4.1|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Lp(a)-Month 3||4.1|-8.6|0.485
90919649|NCT00567398|181709186|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|4.4|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Lp(a)-Month 6||4.4|-8.2|0.556
90919650|NCT00567398|181709186|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.6||||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|12.2|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Apo A1-Month 3||12.2|-1.1|0.101
90919651|NCT00567398|181709186|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.0||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|11.5|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Apo A1-Month 6||11.5|-1.5|0.134
90919652|NCT00567398|181709186|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.4||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.6|19.2|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Apo B-Month 3||19.2|3.6|0.004
90919653|NCT00567398|181709186|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.4||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|15.9|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Apo B-Month 6||15.9|0.8|0.030
90919654|NCT00567398|181709187|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-56.5||||0.655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-304.6|191.7|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Insulin-Month 3||191.7|-304.6|0.655
90919655|NCT00567398|181709187|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.2||||0.811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-268.9|210.5|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Insulin-Month 6||210.5|-268.9|0.811
90919656|NCT00567398|181709187|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|441.3||||0.419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-630.4|1513.1|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for C-Peptide-Month 3||1513.1|-630.4|0.419
90919657|NCT00567398|181709187|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|121.8||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-927.9|1171.5|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for C-Peptide-Month 6||1171.5|-927.9|0.820
90919658|NCT00567398|181709188|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.2||||0.721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.5|19.0|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Pro-Insulin-Month 3||19|-27.5|0.721
91034096|NCT02481830|181954120|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.04|||||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model. Hazard Ratio is Nivolumab over Topotecan/Amrubicin|||1.04|0.73|
90919659|NCT00567398|181709188|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.5||||0.247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|36.4|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Pro-Insulin-Month 6||36.4|-9.4|0.247
90919660|NCT00567398|181709189|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.89||||0.624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.43|||ANOVA|||Estimates of Ratio-Month 6||1.43|0.55|0.624
90919661|NCT00567398|181709190|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.8|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Albumin-Month 3||1.8|-0.6|0.338
90919662|NCT00567398|181709190|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.5|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Albumin-Month 6||2.5|0.1|0.029
90919663|NCT00567398|181709190|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.5|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Total Protein-Month 3||1.5|-1.9|0.817
90919664|NCT00567398|181709190|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|2.9|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Total Protein-Month 6||2.9|-0.2|0.091
90919665|NCT00567398|181709191|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.2||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.3|2.9|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for PNA-Month 3||2.9|-23.3|0.127
90919666|NCT00567398|181709191|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|-4.3|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for PNA-Month 6||-4.3|-16.4|<0.001
90919667|NCT00567398|181709191|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.1|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for nPNA-Month 3||-0.1|-0.4|0.012
90919668|NCT00567398|181709191|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.1|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for nPNA-Month 6||-0.1|-0.3|<0.001
90919669|NCT00567398|181709192|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.2||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|5.8|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Pre-Albumin-Month 3||5.8|0.5|0.019
90919670|NCT00567398|181709192|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|5.6|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Pre-Albumin-Month 6||5.6|0.5|0.019
90919671|NCT00567398|181709193|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|3.4|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Drained Fat-Month 3||3.4|-3.9|0.884
90919672|NCT00567398|181709193|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|4.3|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Drained Fat-Month 6||4.3|-3|0.716
90919673|NCT00567398|181709194|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.1|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for BMI-Month 3||1.1|-1.2|0.961
90919674|NCT00567398|181709194|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.5|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for BMI-Month 6||1.5|-0.8|0.581
90919675|NCT00567398|181709195|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|3.1|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Waist Circumference-Month 6||3.1|-3.7|0.871
90919676|NCT00567398|181709196|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.2||||0.608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|25.0|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Protein-Month 3||25|-14.7|0.608
91034097|NCT00772941|181954121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was Gender. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between Male and Female in the frequency of Treatment Related Adverse Events."||||<0.001
90919677|NCT00567398|181709196|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|8.1|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Protein-Month 6||8.1|-11.5|0.731
90919678|NCT00567398|181709196|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|185.3||||0.377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-227.5|598.1|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Calories-Month 3||598.1|-227.5|0.377
90919679|NCT00567398|181709196|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.3||||0.854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-214.4|177.8|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Calories-Month 6||177.8|-214.4|0.854
90919680|NCT00567398|181709197|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.07|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for EQ 5D Questionnaire Index-Month 3||0.07|-0.03|0.412
90919681|NCT00567398|181709197|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.03|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for EQ 5D Questionnaire Index-Month 6||0.03|-0.07|0.485
90919682|NCT00567398|181709198|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.18||||0.525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.56|8.93|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for EQ 5D Quest Health Status-Month 3||8.93|-4.56|0.525
90919683|NCT00567398|181709198|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.79|6.83|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for EQ 5D Quest Health Status-Month 6||6.83|-6.79|0.995
90919684|NCT00567398|181709199|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.87||||0.526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.64|3.91|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Psychology Fatigue-Month 3||3.91|-7.64|0.526
90919685|NCT00567398|181709199|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.83||||0.779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.01|6.68|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Psychology Fatigue-Month 6||6.68|-5.01|0.779
90919686|NCT00567398|181709199|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.95||||0.246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.95|2.04|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Psychology Cognitive-Month 3||2.04|-7.95|0.246
90919687|NCT00567398|181709199|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.72||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.78|4.34|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Psychology Cognitive-Month 6||4.34|-5.78|0.780
90919688|NCT00567398|181709199|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41||||0.885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.22|6.04|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Neurology Pain-Month 3||6.04|-5.22|0.885
90919689|NCT00567398|181709199|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.41||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|10.1|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Neurology Pain-Month 6||10.10|-1.28|0.128
90919690|NCT00567398|181709199|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.07||||0.701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|6.54|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Neurology Sensory-Month 3||6.54|-4.40|0.701
90919691|NCT00567398|181709199|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.21||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|12.73|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Neurology Sensory-Month 6||12.73|1.70|0.010
90919692|NCT00567398|181709199|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.63|5.03|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Cardiology-Month 3||5.03|-4.63|0.934
90919693|NCT00567398|181709199|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.13||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|8.01|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Cardiology-Month 6||8.01|-1.75|0.209
90919694|NCT00567398|181709199|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.89||||0.585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|8.68|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Ophthalmology-Month 3||8.68|-4.90|0.585
90919695|NCT00567398|181709199|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.62||||0.641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.22|8.47|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Ophthalmology-Month 6||8.47|-5.22|0.641
90919696|NCT00567398|181709199|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.89|3.9|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Hypoglycemia-Month 3||3.90|-6.89|0.586
90962320|NCT02876835|181805424|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.05||||0.951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.11|||MMRM||Week 12: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week 12 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.11|-0.01|0.9510
90919697|NCT00567398|181709199|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33||||0.906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.79|5.14|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Hypoglycemia-Month 6||5.14|-5.79|0.906
90962321|NCT02876835|181805424|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.04||||0.1136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.03|||MMRM||Week 28: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week 28 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.03|-0.11|0.1136
90962322|NCT02876835|181805424|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.05||||0.8859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.13|||MMRM||Week 52: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week 52 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.13|-0.03|0.8859
90962323|NCT02876835|181805425|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2||||0.7716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.33|||MMRM||MMRM model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use at randomization, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.33|-0.74|0.7716
90962324|NCT05245097|181805432|OTHER|For the multiple imputation, a total of 50 imputed datasets will be calculated (Graham et al.). Fully conditional specification (FCS) discriminant function method will be used to impute missing primary endpoint using the baseline covariates of age, sex, race, ethnicity, mobility level, and BIMS Score. The FCS logistic method was replaced with the FCS discriminant function method due to a quasi-separation caused by only one observed primary endpoint event in the treatment group.||||||0.004||||||The null hypothesis was tested at a one-sided 0.025 level of significance using a logistic regression analysis to compare treatment groups while controlling for propensity score.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.004
91034098|NCT00772941|181954122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was Age. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between \<65 years and \>=65 years in the frequency of Treatment Related Adverse Events."||||<0.001
91034099|NCT00772941|181954123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease as a complication. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between Varenicline with and without Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease as a complication in the frequency of Treatment Related Adverse Events."||||<0.001
90962325|NCT05245097|181805433|OTHER|||||||0.003||||||The hip fracture due to fall rate was compared between treatment groups using firth logistic regression while controlling for propensity score. A one-sided 0.025 level of significance was used.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.003
90962326|NCT05245097|181805433|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.003
90962327|NCT05245097|181805434|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||The emergency department visit due to fall rate was compared between treatment groups using firth logistic regression while controlling for propensity score. A one-sided 0.025 level of significance was used.|Regression, Logistic|Subjects with multiple ED visits due to falls are only counted once.||||||0.001
90962328|NCT05245097|181805435|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||The hospitalization due to fall rate was compared between treatment groups using firth logistic regression while controlling for propensity score. A one-sided 0.025 level of significance was used.|Regression, Logistic|Subjects with multiple hospitalizations due to falls are only counted once.||||||0.003
90962329|NCT00692978|181805447|EQUIVALENCE|Log transformed parametric ANOVA|||||<|0.05||||||calculated|ANOVA|||||||<0.05
90962330|NCT00458341|181805452|OTHER|||||||0.133||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline of Cycle 1 versus Day 14 of Cycle 1||||0.133
90919698|NCT00567398|181709199|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.93|4.75|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Hyperglycemia-Month 3||4.75|-4.93|0.970
90919699|NCT00567398|181709199|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.38||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|7.28|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Hyperglycemia-Month 6||7.28|-2.52|0.340
90919700|NCT00567398|181709200|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.6||||0.495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.9|96.0|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Abdominal Subcutaneous Fat Volume-Month 6||96|-46.9|0.495
90919701|NCT00567398|181709200|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|55.4||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|117.8|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Abdominal Visceral Fat Volume-Month 6||117.8|-7|0.081
90919702|NCT00567398|181709201|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.3||||0.626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.3|31.9|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for LV End Diastolic Volume-Month 6||31.9|-19.3|0.626
90919703|NCT00567398|181709201|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.8||||0.486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|30.1|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for LV End Systolic Volume-Month 6||30.1|-14.5|0.486
90919704|NCT00567398|181709202|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3||||0.832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9|23.4|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for LV Mass with Pap Muscles-Month 6||23.4|-18.9|0.832
90919705|NCT00567398|181709202|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.3|23.1|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for LV Mass without Pap Muscles-Month 6||23.1|-18.3|0.820
90919706|NCT00567398|181709203|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|6.5|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for LV Ejection Fraction-Month 6||6.5|-6.9|0.955
90919707|NCT03517553|181709204|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999||||||Threshold for statistical significance is P\<0.05|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.999
90919708|NCT03517553|181709204|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.768|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.768
90919709|NCT03517553|181709205|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.869|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.869
90919710|NCT03517553|181709205|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.813|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.813
91034100|NCT00772941|181954124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was concomitant drugs. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between Varenicline with and without concomitant drugs in the frequency of Treatment Related Adverse Events."||||<0.001
90919711|NCT03517553|181709205|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.978|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.978
90919712|NCT03517553|181709205|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.731|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.731
90919713|NCT03517553|181709205|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.703|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.703
90919714|NCT03517553|181709205|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.909|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.909
90919715|NCT04761302|181709229|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.215||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.215
90919716|NCT04761302|181709229|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.445||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.445
90919717|NCT04761302|181709230|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.041||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.041
90919718|NCT04761302|181709230|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.300
90919719|NCT04761302|181709231|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.12
90919720|NCT04761302|181709231|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.359||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.359
90919721|NCT04761302|181709232|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.083||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.083
90919722|NCT04761302|181709232|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.152||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.152
90919723|NCT04761302|181709233|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.002
90919724|NCT04761302|181709233|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90919725|NCT04761302|181709234|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.002
90919726|NCT04761302|181709234|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90919727|NCT04761302|181709235|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004
90919728|NCT04761302|181709235|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90919729|NCT04761302|181709236|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.006
90919730|NCT04761302|181709236|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90919731|NCT04761302|181709237|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.354||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.354
90919732|NCT04761302|181709237|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.455||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.455
90919733|NCT03467542|181709238|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The total number evaluated, the percent, and the Clopper-Pearson two-sided 95% confidence limits on the percent.|||
90919734|NCT03732820|181709338|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.81||A multiple testing procedure is employed across primary (rPFS) and key secondary endpoints (OS) to strongly control overall type 1 error at 2.5% one-sided.|Log Rank|Log rank test stratified by Metastases and Docetaxel at metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer stage using a pre-specified pooling strategy.|HR and CI calculated using Cox Proportional Hazards model, where a HR \< 1 favours olaparib+abiraterone. Stratification factors are the same as those used in the stratified log-rank test.|||0.81|0.54|<0.0001
90962331|NCT00458341|181805452|OTHER|||||||0.19||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline of Cycle 1 versus Day 14 of Cycle 1||||0.190
90962332|NCT00458341|181805452|OTHER|||||||0.123||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline of Cycle 2 versus Day 14 of Cycle 2||||0.123
91034101|NCT00772941|181954125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was concomitant therapies. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between Varenicline with and without concomitant therapies in the frequency of Treatment Related Adverse Events."||||<0.001
90919735|NCT03732820|181709339|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.0544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.0||A multiple testing procedure is employed across primary (rPFS) and key secondary endpoints (OS) to strongly control overall type 1 error at 2.5% one-sided. Alpha spend for OS will not exceed 0.02135.|Log Rank|Log rank test stratified by Metastases and Docetaxel at metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer stage using a pre-specified pooling strategy.|HR and CI calculated using Cox Proportional Hazards model, where a HR \< 1 favours olaparib+abiraterone. Stratification factors are the same as those used in the stratified log-rank test.|||1.00|0.67|0.0544
90919736|NCT03732820|181709340|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.9|||Log Rank|Log rank test stratified by Metastases and Docetaxel at metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer stage using a pre-specified pooling strategy.|HR and CI calculated using Cox Proportional Hazards model, where a HR \< 1 favours olaparib+abiraterone. Stratification factors are the same as those used in the stratified log-rank test.|||0.90|0.64|0.0025
90919737|NCT03732820|181709341|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.7456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.5|||Log Rank|Log rank test stratified by Metastases and Docetaxel at metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer stage using a pre-specified pooling strategy.|HR and CI calculated using Cox Proportional Hazards model, where a HR \< 1 favours olaparib+abiraterone. Stratification factors are the same as those used in the stratified log-rank test.|||1.50|0.75|0.7456
90919738|NCT03732820|181709342|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.21||||0.3099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.79|||Log Rank|Log rank test stratified by Metastases and Docetaxel at metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer stage using a pre-specified pooling strategy.|HR and CI calculated using Cox Proportional Hazards model, where a HR \< 1 favours olaparib+abiraterone. Stratification factors are the same as those used in the stratified log-rank test.|||1.79|0.82|0.3099
90919739|NCT03732820|181709343|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.3212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.22|||Log Rank|Log rank test stratified by Metastases and Docetaxel at metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer stage using a pre-specified pooling strategy.|HR and CI calculated using Cox Proportional Hazards model, where a HR \< 1 favours olaparib+abiraterone. Stratification factors are the same as those used in the stratified log-rank test.|||1.22|0.55|0.3212
90919740|NCT03732820|181709344|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.0534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.99|||Log Rank|Log rank test stratified by Metastases and Docetaxel at metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer stage using a pre-specified pooling strategy.|HR and CI calculated using Cox Proportional Hazards model, where a HR \< 1 favours olaparib+abiraterone. Stratification factors are the same as those used in the stratified log-rank test.|||0.99|0.59|0.0534
90919741|NCT01095796|181709389|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A total of 700 HIV-1 infected participants, randomized in a 1:1 ratio to 2 groups would achieve at least 95% power to establish noninferiority in Week 48 response (HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL per the FDA-defined snapshot analysis) rate difference between the 2 groups. For sample size and power computation, it was assumed that both treatment groups have a response rate of 0.795, a noninferiority margin of 0.12, and that the significance level of the test is at a one-sided, 0.025 level.|Difference in response rates|3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.2|-1.6|8.8|||||To preserve the overall alpha level: 0.05, accounting for 2 interim analyses for Independent Data Monitoring Committee meetings, the 95.2% CI was computed using normal approximation stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA (≤ 100,000 or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|The null hypothesis was that the percentage of participants achieving HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL (as defined by the snapshot analysis algorithm) at Week 48 in the Stribild group is at least 12% worse than the response rate in the Atripla group; the alternative hypothesis was that the response rate in the Stribild group is less than 12% worse than that in the Atripla Group.||8.8|-1.6|
90919742|NCT00999167|181709423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Poisson regression adjusting for country|||||||0.0354
90919743|NCT00999167|181709424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0214||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0214
90919744|NCT00999167|181709425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56||||0.047||95.0|||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.047
90919745|NCT00999167|181709426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Changes in the Total Index Score from Baseline and Day 56.||||0.0713
90919746|NCT00999167|181709426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Changes in the Total Index Score from Baseline and the Final Visit.||||0.2520
90919747|NCT02641912|181709427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least sqaure (LS) mean difference|0.63||||0.0084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.1|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with factors for treatment and confirmed Sjögren's syndrome status stratification using Observed Margins option.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favours the first named treatment.|||1.10|0.17|0.0084
90919748|NCT01340066|181709509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.92|ONE_SIDED|80.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||.92
90962333|NCT00458341|181805452|OTHER|||||||0.592||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline of Cycle 2 versus Day 14 of Cycle 2||||0.592
90962334|NCT00458341|181805453|OTHER|||||||0.021|||||||Chi-squared|||Analysis of Cycle 1 data. Analysis was to compare the observed rate with the null hypothesis response rate of 10%.||||0.021
90919749|NCT04349072|181709514|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference|58.93|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.989|73.868|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||73.868|43.989|<0.0001
90962335|NCT00458341|181805453|OTHER|||||||0.021|||||||Chi-squared|||Analysis of Cycle 1 data. Analysis was to compare the observed rate with the null hypothesis response rate of 10%.||||0.021
90962336|NCT00458341|181805453|OTHER|||||||0.021|||||||Chi-squared|||Analysis of Cycle 2 data. Analysis was to compare the observed rate with the null hypothesis response rate of 10%.||||0.021
91034102|NCT00772941|181954126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was Weight at Baseline. The null hypothesis is that there is no association between Weight at Baseline and the frequency of Treatment Related Adverse Events."||||<0.001
90962337|NCT00458341|181805453|OTHER|||||||0.518|||||||Chi-squared|||Analysis of Cycle 2 data. Analysis was to compare the observed rate with the null hypothesis response rate of 10%.||||0.518
90962338|NCT05461794|181805469|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|23.9|||||The crude odds ratio was estimated along with exact unconditional 95% CIs constructed by the tail method based on the score statistics.|||23.9|0.3|
91034103|NCT00772941|181954126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Armitage|||"The risk factor tested was Weight at Baseline. The null hypothesis is that there is no linear trend in the frequency of Treatment Related Adverse Events across increasing levels of Weight at Baseline."||||<0.001
90919750|NCT04349072|181709515|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference|41.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.481|57.662|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||57.662|24.481|<0.0001
90919751|NCT04349072|181709516|SUPERIORITY||Leat Square Mean of Treatment Difference|9.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.868|14.041|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model with repeated measure (MMRM)||||14.041|4.868|<0.0001
90919752|NCT04349072|181709517|SUPERIORITY||Mean Ratio|0.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.266|0.421|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model with repeated measure (MMRM)||||0.421|0.266|<0.0001
90919753|NCT04349072|181709518|SUPERIORITY||Mean Ratio|0.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.406|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model with repeated measure (MMRM)||||0.700|0.406|<0.0001
90919754|NCT04349072|181709519|SUPERIORITY||Leat Square Mean of Treatment Difference|-37.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.08|-26.24|||ANCOVA|||||-26.24|-48.08|<0.0001
90919755|NCT03338816|181709525|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.41||P=6.040E-09|Negative binomial regression model|||Negative binomial regression model with treatment group and stratification factors (prior hemin prophylaxis status and historical attack rates) as fixed effects and the logarithm of the follow-up time as an offset variable.||0.41|0.16|<0.0001
90919756|NCT04238247|181709558|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.876119||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.193531|2.949084||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|We conducted logistic regression adjusted for randomization strata (recommended CRS and reason for eligibility).||We hypothesized the intervention group would have greater child passenger safety guideline adherence at 6 months compared with enhanced usual care group. In planning the trial, we assumed 75% of TCBD caregivers would be re-randomized. Baseline randomization was stratified by recommended CRS (rear-facing seat, forward-facing seat, booster seat) and reason for eligibility (not using the recommended CRS at baseline or planning a premature transition in the next 6 months).||2.949084|1.193531|0.006
90919757|NCT04238247|181709559|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8686678||||0.671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4535589|1.663695||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||This analysis is limited to the Phase 2 participants who were re-randomized at 6 months to test the hypothesis that the enhanced intervention (with booster MI session) would have greater guideline adherent child passenger safety behaviors at 12 month follow-up than the group that continued in the basic intervention (mHealth components).||1.663695|0.4535589|0.671
90919758|NCT04238247|181709559|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.859599|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.173121|14.82896|||Regression, Logistic|||||14.82896|3.173121|<0.001
90919759|NCT04238247|181709562|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74029||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.049169|2.886676||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.886676|1.049169|0.032
90962339|NCT05461794|181805469|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|19.5|||||The risk difference was estimated along with their exact unconditional 95% CIs constructed by the tail method based on the score statistics.|||19.5|-9.3|
90962340|NCT05461794|181805471|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.61|||||Hazard ratio and 95% CIs were estimated using a Cox regression model stratified by PD-L1 tumor area positivity score (\>=10% versus \< 10%)|||1.61|0.45|
90962341|NCT05461794|181805472|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|6.8|||||The crude odds ratio was estimated along with exact unconditional 95% CIs constructed by the tail method based on the score statistics|||6.8|0.9|
90962342|NCT05461794|181805472|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.7|||||The odds ratio was estimated along with their exact unconditional 95% CIs constructed by the tail method based on the score statistics.|||3.7|0.3|
91034104|NCT00772941|181954127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was Tobacco consumption per day. The null hypothesis is that there is no association between Tobacco consumption per day and the efficacy of Varenicline."||||<0.001
90919760|NCT04238247|181709563|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.112874||||0.752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5735782|2.159233||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.159233|0.5735782|0.752
90919761|NCT04238247|181709563|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.959981|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.321933|19.07362|||Regression, Logistic|||||19.07362|3.321933|<0.001
90919762|NCT04950127|181709570|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.72||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|-0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||The mixed model repeated measures analysis includes Treatment Group, Visit, Visit\*Treatment Group interaction, Baseline Monthly Itch score (MIS), Visit\*Baseline MIS interaction, Baseline Concomitant Itch Medication.||-0.28|-1.15|0.001
90919763|NCT04950127|181709571|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.34||Adjusted for multiplicity as per Statistical Analysis Plan (SAP)|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||The mixed model repeated measures analysis includes Treatment Group, Week, Week\*Treatment Group interaction, Baseline Weekly Itch score (WIS), Visit\*Baseline WIS interaction, Baseline Concomitant Itch Medication.||-0.34|-1.07|<0.001
90962343|NCT05461794|181805472|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|22.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|43.3|||||The risk difference was estimated along with their exact unconditional 95% CIs constructed by the tail method based on the score statistics.|||43.3|-1.5|
90962344|NCT05461794|181805472|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.5|28.4|||||The risk difference was estimated along with their exact unconditional 95% CIs constructed by the tail method based on the score statistics.|||28.4|-24.5|
90962345|NCT05461794|181805473|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|40.8|||||The crude odds ratio was estimated along with exact unconditional 95% CIs constructed by the tail method based on the score statistics.|||40.8|0.7|
90962346|NCT05461794|181805473|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.9|||||The odds ratio was estimated along with their exact unconditional 95% CIs constructed by the tail method based on the score statistics.|||2.9|0.1|
90962347|NCT05461794|181805473|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|12.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|29.5|||||The risk difference was estimated along with their exact unconditional 95% CIs constructed by the tail method based on the score statistics.|||29.5|-2.3|
90962348|NCT05461794|181805473|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.7|13.8|||||The risk difference was estimated along with their exact unconditional 95% CIs constructed by the tail method based on the score statistics.|||13.8|-34.7|
91034105|NCT00772941|181954127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Armitage|||"The risk factor tested was Tobacco consumption per day. The null hypothesis is that there is no linear trend in the efficacy of Varenicline across increasing levels of tobacco consumption per day."||||<0.001
90919764|NCT04950127|181709572|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.53||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.07||Adjusted for multiplicity as per Statistical Analysis Plan (SAP)|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||The mixed model repeated measures analysis includes Treatment Group, Visit, Visit\*Treatment Group interaction, Baseline Monthly sleep score (MSS), Visit\*Baseline MSS interaction, Baseline Concomitant Itch Medication.||-0.07|-0.98|0.024
90919765|NCT04950127|181709573|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|4.0||||0.539||95.0|-9.0|17.0||Adjusted for multiplicity as per Statistical Analysis Plan (SAP)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) stratified analysis adjusted for baseline factors: Baseline Itch Severity (Moderate: \>=4 and less than \[\<\]7, Severe: \>=7); Concomitant cholestatic pruritus treatment regimen (Regimen contains Bile Acid Binding Resin \[BABR\], Regimen does not contain BABR, No defined treatment). Multiple imputation of missing Monthly itch scores was done before deriving responder definitions. Imputed datasets were analyzed using the CMH method and combined.||17.0|-9.0|0.539
90919766|NCT04950127|181709574|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|13.0||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|27.0||Adjusted for multiplicity; two-sided p-values \<0.05 were considered to be nominally significant as per SAP.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) stratified analysis adjusted for baseline factors: Baseline Itch Severity (Moderate: \>=4 and \<7, Severe: \>=7); Concomitant cholestatic pruritus treatment regimen (Regimen contains BABR, Regimen does not contain BABR, No defined treatment). Multiple imputation of missing Monthly itch scores was done before deriving responder definitions. Imputed datasets were analyzed using the CMH method and combined.||27.0|0.0|0.043
90919767|NCT04950127|181709575|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|12.0||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|24.0||Adjusted for multiplicity; two-sided p-values \<0.05 were considered to be nominally significant as per SAP.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) stratified analysis adjusted for baseline factors: Baseline Itch Severity (Moderate: \>=4 and \<7, Severe: \>=7); Concomitant cholestatic pruritus treatment regimen (Regimen contains BABR, Regimen does not contain BABR, No defined treatment). Multiple imputation of missing Monthly itch scores was done before deriving responder definitions. Imputed datasets were analyzed using the CMH method and combined.||24.0|-0.0|0.058
90919768|NCT04950127|181709576|SUPERIORITY|Cognitive|Mean Difference (Net)|0.76||||0.176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|1.86||Not adjusted for multiplicity; two-sided p- values \<0.05 were considered to be nominally significant as per SAP.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||The mixed model repeated measures analysis includes Treatment Group, Visit, Visit\*Treatment Group interaction, Baseline PBC-40 domain scores, Visit\*Baseline PBC-40 domain scores interaction, Baseline Concomitant Itch Medication.||1.86|-0.34|0.176
90919769|NCT04950127|181709576|SUPERIORITY|Emotional|Mean Difference (Net)|0.27||||0.403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.89||Not adjusted for multiplicity; two-sided p- values \<0.05 were considered to be nominally significant as per SAP.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||The mixed model repeated measures analysis includes Treatment Group, Visit, Visit\*Treatment Group interaction, Baseline PBC-40 domain scores, Visit\*Baseline PBC-40 domain scores interaction, Baseline Concomitant Itch Medication.||0.89|-0.36|0.403
90919770|NCT04950127|181709576|SUPERIORITY|Fatigue|Mean Difference (Net)|1.59||||0.132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|3.67||Not adjusted for multiplicity; two-sided p- values \<0.05 were considered to be nominally significant as per SAP.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||The mixed model repeated measures analysis includes Treatment Group, Visit, Visit\*Treatment Group interaction, Baseline PBC-40 domain scores, Visit\*Baseline PBC-40 domain scores interaction, Baseline Concomitant Itch Medication.||3.67|-0.48|0.132
90919771|NCT04950127|181709576|SUPERIORITY|Itch|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.58||||0.132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|0.18||Not adjusted for multiplicity; two-sided p- values \<0.05 were considered to be nominally significant as per SAP.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||The mixed model repeated measures analysis includes Treatment Group, Visit, Visit\*Treatment Group interaction, Baseline PBC-40 domain scores, Visit\*Baseline PBC-40 domain scores interaction, Baseline Concomitant Itch Medication.||0.18|-1.34|0.132
90919772|NCT04950127|181709576|SUPERIORITY|Social|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15||||0.836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|1.27||Not adjusted for multiplicity; two-sided p- values \<0.05 were considered to be nominally significant as per SAP.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||The mixed model repeated measures analysis includes Treatment Group, Visit, Visit\*Treatment Group interaction, Baseline PBC-40 domain scores, Visit\*Baseline PBC-40 domain scores interaction, Baseline Concomitant Itch Medication.||1.27|-1.57|0.836
90919773|NCT04950127|181709576|SUPERIORITY|Symptoms|Mean Difference (Net)|0.45||||0.318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|1.34||Not adjusted for multiplicity; two-sided p- values \<0.05 were considered to be nominally significant as per SAP.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||The mixed model repeated measures analysis includes Treatment Group, Visit, Visit\*Treatment Group interaction, Baseline PBC-40 domain scores, Visit\*Baseline PBC-40 domain scores interaction, Baseline Concomitant Itch Medication.||1.34|-0.44|0.318
91034106|NCT00772941|181954128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was prolonged administration after 12 weeks. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between administration prolonged after 12 weeks and administration not prolonged after 12 weeks in the efficacy of Varenicline."||||<0.001
90919774|NCT04950127|181709577|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.2||Not adjusted for multiplicity; two-sided p- values \<0.05 were considered to be nominally significant as per SAP.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||The mixed model repeated measures analysis includes Treatment Group, Visit, Visit\*Treatment Group interaction, Baseline PGI-S score, Visit\*Baseline PGI-S score interaction, Baseline Concomitant Itch Medication.||-0.20|-0.55|<0.001
91034107|NCT00772941|181954129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was antipsychotics as a concomitant drug. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between Varenicline with and without antipsychotics as a concomitant drug in the efficacy of Varenicline."||||<0.001
90962349|NCT05461794|181805474|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.96|||||Hazard ratio and 95% CIs were estimated using a Cox regression model stratified by the selected stratification factors PD-L1 tumor area positivity score (\>=10% versus \< 10%)|||0.96|0.29|
91034108|NCT04627038|181954133|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.67|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.67|-0.51|
91034109|NCT04627038|181954134|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|1.96|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||1.96|-0.07|
90919775|NCT04950127|181709578|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.21||Not adjusted for multiplicity; two-sided p- values \<0.05 were considered to be nominally significant as per SAP.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||The mixed model repeated measures analysis includes Treatment Group, Visit, Visit\*Treatment Group interaction, Baseline Concomitant Itch Medication.||-0.21|-0.76|<0.001
90919776|NCT02713126|181709592|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.770
90919777|NCT02713126|181709593|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.087|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.087
90919778|NCT02713126|181709594|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.538|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.538
90919779|NCT02713126|181709595|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.708|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.708
90919780|NCT02713126|181709596|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.496|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.496
90919781|NCT01101451|181709597|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6976||||0.0927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.408|1.192||the pre\_specified nominal significance level was 0.0451 (one sided).|Log Rank||The RFS hazard ratio estimate is for reporting group 2 vs reporting group 1.|||1.192|0.408|0.0927
90919782|NCT01101451|181709598|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.586|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.286|1.199|||||The OS hazard ratio estimate is for reporting group 2 vs reporting group 1.|||1.199|0.286|
90919783|NCT02794480|181709625|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||ELLIPTA versus GSK MDI|Mainland-Gart test||||Mainland-Gart test is favorable over the McNemar test for matched pairs as the latter is only valid in case of no period effects.|||<0.001
90919784|NCT02794480|181709625|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007||||||ELLIPTA versus AZ MDI|Mainland-Gart test||||Mainland-Gart test is favorable over the McNemar test for matched pairs as the latter is only valid in case of no period effects.|||0.007
91034110|NCT04627038|181954135|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.72|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.72|-0.24|
90919785|NCT02794480|181709630|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.42||The upper limit is infinity.|Exact odds ratio calculated using exact conditional logistic regression adjusted for treatment and treatment period.|Conditional Logistic Regression||ELLIPTA versus GSK MDI||||2.42|<0.001
90919786|NCT02794480|181709630|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.16||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59||The upper limit is infinity.|Exact odds ratio calculated using exact conditional logistic regression adjusted for treatment and treatment period.|Conditional Logistic Regression||ELLIPTA versus AZ MDI||||1.59|0.011
90919787|NCT00976937|181709699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response rate difference|4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.28||0.1696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|11.0||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by randomization strata of screening HbA1c (\<8.0 or \>=8.0%) and randomization strata of screening BMI (\<35 or \>=35 kg/m\^2) was used.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||To demonstrate the superiority of lixisenatide over sitagliptin, 150 patients in each arm would provide a power of 90% with a 2-sided test at the 5% significance level, assuming the percentage of patients defined as responders on HbA1c (\<7%) and weight (at least 5% loss) is 25% with lixisenatide and 10% with sitagliptin.||11.00|-1.84|0.1696
90919788|NCT01227265|181709725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Estimated Means|-0.2||||0.4933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.35|||cLDA|||||0.35|-0.72|0.4933
90919789|NCT01227265|181709725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Estimated Means|-0.3||||0.2364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.21|||cLDA|||||0.21|-0.86|0.2364
90919790|NCT01227265|181709726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Difference in Percentage|7.0||||0.244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.17|18.05||p-value is for the estimated Odds Ratio based on a generalized linear mixed model with baseline average OFF time (hours/day) as a covariate and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effect and participant as random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||18.05|-4.17|0.244
90919791|NCT01227265|181709726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Difference in Percentage|6.5||||0.262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.63|17.61||p-value is for the estimated Odds Ratio based on a generalized linear mixed model with baseline average OFF time (hours/day) as a covariate and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effect and participant as random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||17.61|-4.63|0.262
90919792|NCT01227265|181709727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Estimated Means|0.1||||0.776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.63|||cLDA|||||0.63|-0.47|0.776
90919793|NCT01227265|181709727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Estimated Means|0.1||||0.683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.67|||cLDA|||||0.67|-0.44|0.683
90919794|NCT01227265|181709731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Estimated Means|-0.2||||0.6968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.61|||cLDA|||||0.61|-0.92|0.6968
90919795|NCT01227265|181709731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Estimated Means|0.2||||0.6142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.97|||cLDA|||||0.97|-0.57|0.6142
90919796|NCT05161715|181709805|OTHER|||||||0.425||||||No multiple testing correction was performed|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.425
90919797|NCT05161715|181709806|OTHER|||||||0.0002||||||No multiple testing correction was performed|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0002
90919798|NCT05161715|181709807|OTHER|||||||0.0424||||||No multiple testing correction was performed|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0424
90919799|NCT05161715|181709808|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||No multiple testing correction was performed|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
90919800|NCT05161715|181709813|OTHER|||||||0.556||||||No multiple testing correction was performed|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.556
90919801|NCT04690673|181709814|EQUIVALENCE|Based on previous reports on the pharmacokinetics of oral paracetamol, the standard deviation of the within-subject difference in the Cmax for paracetamol was estimated to be 35% of the mean Cmax. Using this standard deviation, 10 participants were estimated to be sufficient, with a power of at least 80% (at 5% significance level). We recruited 12 volunteers to account for potential protocol violations or dropouts.|Geometric mean ratio|1.03||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|1.13||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons as the analysis was exploratory|t-test, 2 sided||Adhering|Highest paracetamol concentrations (Cmax) measured from capillary with the electrochemical method compared with measurements with mass-spectrometry.||1.13|0.94|0.05
90919802|NCT03743636|181709819|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.57||||0.0775|ONE_SIDED|90.0|1.77||||Mixed Models Analysis||||||1.77|0.0775
90919803|NCT03743636|181709820|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.65||||0.3762|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-11.24||||Mixed Models Analysis||||||-11.24|0.3762
90919804|NCT03743636|181709821|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.42||||0.0294|ONE_SIDED|90.0|7.31||||Mixed Models Analysis||||||7.31|0.0294
91034111|NCT04627038|181954136|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|3.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|7.2|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||7.20|0.39|
91034112|NCT04627038|181954137|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.28|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.28|-0.48|
90919805|NCT03743636|181709822|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.63||||0.0336|ONE_SIDED|90.0|6.26||||Mixed Models Analysis||||||6.26|0.0336
90919806|NCT03743636|181709823|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.78||||0.562|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-16.51||||Mixed Models Analysis||||||-16.51|0.5620
90919807|NCT03743636|181709824|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.93||||0.8797|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-29.15||||Mixed Models Analysis||||||-29.15|0.8797
90919808|NCT03743636|181709825|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.06||||0.0752|ONE_SIDED|90.0|0.24||||ANCOVA||||||0.24|0.0752
90919809|NCT03743636|181709826|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.1||||0.8703|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-15.19||||ANCOVA||||||-15.19|0.8703
90919810|NCT03743636|181709827|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10995.0||||0.1402|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-2078.0||||ANCOVA||||||-2078|0.1402
90919811|NCT03743636|181709828|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.74||||0.1249|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-0.21||||ANCOVA||||||-0.21|0.1249
90919812|NCT03743636|181709829|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.05||||0.8039|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-12.62||||ANCOVA||||||-12.62|0.8039
90962350|NCT05461794|181805474|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|4.82|||||Hazard ratio and 95% CIs were estimated using a Cox regression model stratified by the selected stratification factors PD-L1 tumor area positivity score (\>=10% versus \< 10%)|||4.82|0.79|
90962351|NCT05461794|181805475|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.7|||||The crude odds ratio was estimated along with exact unconditional 95% CIs constructed by the tail method based on the score statistics|||2.7|0.1|
90962352|NCT02083705|181805477|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"We hypothesised that during neonatal CPR, CC+SI will reduce the time needed to achieve ROSC. Our aim was to examine if CC+SI reduces ROSC compared with 3:1 C:V CPR in preterm infants \<33 weeks of gestation.~For this pilot study, based on the local incidence of CPR in preterm neonates, a convenient sample size of five patients per group was enrolled. Our primary outcome was time to achieve ROSC measured using ECG."||||0.05
90919813|NCT03743636|181709830|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-842.0||||0.5352|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-13125.0||||ANCOVA||||||-13125|0.5352
90919814|NCT03743636|181709831|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32||||0.5777|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-2.46||||ANCOVA||||||-2.46|0.5777
90919815|NCT03743636|181709832|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.06||||0.3662|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-5.69||||ANCOVA||||||-5.69|0.3662
90919816|NCT03743636|181709833|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11837.0||||0.8866|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-24396.0||||ANCOVA||||||-24396|0.8866
90919817|NCT03743636|181709834|SUPERIORITY|Mixed model for repeated measures is applied to Placebo vs. 2 NR groups combined. The reported results of within group change and between group difference are Least Squares Mean (Standard Error) from the model adjusted for baseline six-minute walk + age + sex + race + resveratrol usage.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.25||||0.0153|ONE_SIDED|90.0|10.43|||The a priori statistical analysis plan defined a one-sided P value of \< 0.10 to define statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models for repeated measures were used to compare 3-month change in 6MW distance between the NR/resveratrol vs placebo groups and between the NR alone vs placebo groups using baseline, 3-month, and 6-month values, adjusted for age, sex, race, and baseline 6MW.|||10.43|0.0153
90919818|NCT03743636|181709835|SUPERIORITY|Mixed model for repeated measures is applied to Placebo vs. 2 NR groups combined. The reported results of within group change and between group difference are Least Squares Mean (Standard Error) from the model adjusted for baseline six-minute walk + age + sex + race + resveratrol usage.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.05||||0.1195|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-1.25||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models for repeated measures were used to compare 6-month change in 6MW distance between the NR/resveratrol vs placebo groups and between the NR alone vs placebo groups using baseline, 3-month, and 6-month values, adjusted for age, sex, race, and baseline 6MW.|||-1.25|0.1195
90919819|NCT03743636|181709836|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.06||||0.0752|ONE_SIDED|90.0|0.24|||The a priori statistical analysis plan defined a one-sided P value of \< 0.10 to define statistical significance.|ANCOVA|||Mixed model for repeated measures is applied to Placebo vs. 2 NR groups combined. The reported results of within group change and between group difference are Least Squares Mean (Standard Error) from the model adjusted for baseline six-minute walk + age + sex + race + resveratrol usage.|||0.24|0.0752
90919820|NCT03743636|181709837|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.1||||0.8703|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-15.19||||ANCOVA|||Mixed model for repeated measures is applied to Placebo vs. 2 NR groups combined. The reported results of within group change and between group difference are Least Squares Mean (Standard Error) from the model adjusted for baseline six-minute walk + age + sex + race + resveratrol usage.|||-15.19|0.8703
90919821|NCT03743636|181709838|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10995.0||||0.1402|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-2078.0||||ANCOVA|||Mixed model for repeated measures is applied to Placebo vs. 2 NR groups combined. The reported results of within group change and between group difference are Least Squares Mean (Standard Error) from the model adjusted for baseline six-minute walk + age + sex + race + resveratrol usage.|||-2078|0.1402
90919822|NCT03743636|181709839|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-35.13||||0.8401|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-81.2||||ANCOVA||||||-81.20|0.8401
90919823|NCT03743636|181709840|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.14||||0.0602|ONE_SIDED|90.0|2.16||||ANCOVA|||Mixed model for repeated measures is applied to Placebo vs. 2 NR groups combined. The reported results of within group change and between group difference are Least Squares Mean (Standard Error) from the model adjusted for baseline six-minute walk + age + sex + race + resveratrol usage.|||2.16|0.0602
90919824|NCT03743636|181709841|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.21||||0.2378|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-4.47||||ANCOVA||||||-4.47|0.2378
90962353|NCT00467285|181805493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparison of changes in BMD at 6months compared to baseline||||<0.05
90962354|NCT03891524|181805528|OTHER|||||||0.0004|||||||MCP-mod analysis|||||||0.0004
90962355|NCT03891524|181805529|OTHER|||||||0.7188|||||||MCP-MOD analysis|||||||0.7188
90962356|NCT03019796|181805541|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||ANOVA|repeated measures||||||0.040
90962357|NCT03019796|181805542|OTHER|||||||0.054|||||||ANOVA|repeated measures||||||0.054
90962358|NCT03019796|181805543|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||ANOVA|REPEATED MEASURES||||||0.040
90962359|NCT03019796|181805544|OTHER|||||||0.321|||||||ANOVA|REPEATED MEASURES||||||0.321
90962360|NCT03019796|181805545|OTHER|||||||0.401|||||||ANOVA|REPEATED MEASURES||||||0.401
90962361|NCT03019796|181805546|OTHER|||||||0.021|||||||ANOVA|REPEATED MEASURES||||||0.021
90919825|NCT03743636|181709842|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.05||||0.1589|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-1.86||||ANCOVA|||Mixed model for repeated measures is applied to 3 groups comparisons. The reported results of within group change and between group difference are Least Squares Mean (Standard Error) from the model adjusted for baseline six-minute walk + age + sex + race + resveratrol usage.|||-1.86|0.1589
90919826|NCT03743636|181709842|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.14||||0.0602|ONE_SIDED|90.0|2.16||||ANCOVA|||Mixed model for repeated measures is applied to 3 groups comparisons. The reported results of within group change and between group difference are Least Squares Mean (Standard Error) from the model adjusted for baseline six-minute walk + age + sex + race + resveratrol usage.|||2.16|0.0602
90919827|NCT03743636|181709843|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.25||||0.3724|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-31.79||||ANCOVA|||Mixed model for repeated measures is applied to 3 groups comparisons. The reported results of within group change and between group difference are Least Squares Mean (Standard Error) from the model adjusted for baseline six-minute walk + age + sex + race + resveratrol usage.|||-31.79|0.3724
90919828|NCT03743636|181709843|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-35.13||||0.8401|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-81.2||||ANCOVA|||Mixed model for repeated measures is applied to 3 groups comparisons. The reported results of within group change and between group difference are Least Squares Mean (Standard Error) from the model adjusted for baseline six-minute walk + age + sex + race + resveratrol usage.|||-81.20|0.8401
90919829|NCT03743636|181709844|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.5558|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-9.52||||ANCOVA|||Mixed model for repeated measures is applied to 3 groups comparisons. The reported results of within group change and between group difference are Least Squares Mean (Standard Error) from the model adjusted for baseline six-minute walk + age + sex + race + resveratrol usage.|||-9.52|0.5558
90919830|NCT03743636|181709844|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.21||||0.2378|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-4.47||||ANCOVA|||Mixed model for repeated measures is applied to 3 groups comparisons. The reported results of within group change and between group difference are Least Squares Mean (Standard Error) from the model adjusted for baseline six-minute walk + age + sex + race + resveratrol usage.|||-4.47|0.2378
90919831|NCT03743636|181709845|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.71||||0.7112|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-8.97||||ANCOVA||||||-8.97|0.7112
90919832|NCT03743636|181709846|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.4||||0.9449|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-13.31||||ANCOVA||||||-13.31|0.9449
90919833|NCT03743636|181709847|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48||||0.5409|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-6.57||||ANCOVA||||||-6.57|0.5409
90919834|NCT03743636|181709848|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.35||||0.7814|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-8.89||||ANCOVA||||||-8.89|0.7814
90919835|NCT03743636|181709849|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.04||||0.5884|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-7.07||||ANCOVA||||||-7.07|0.5884
90919836|NCT03743636|181709850|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.05||||0.1787|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-1.6||||ANCOVA||||||-1.60|0.1787
90962362|NCT00475033|181805592|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 treatment groups was \> -10%.|Difference|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|-0.1|||||Exact 2-sided CI for the difference in proportions (13vPnC, 7vPnC) expressed as a percentage.|Meningococcal C: Difference in proportions (13vPnC, 7vPnC) expressed as a percentage.||-0.1|-5.3|
90919837|NCT03743636|181709851|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.71||||0.7112|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-8.97||||ANCOVA|||Mixed model for repeated measures is applied to Placebo vs. 2 NR groups combined. The reported results of within group change and between group difference are Least Squares Mean (Standard Error) from the model adjusted for baseline six-minute walk + age + sex + race + resveratrol usage.|||-8.97|0.7112
90919838|NCT03743636|181709852|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.4||||0.9449|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-13.31||||ANCOVA|||Mixed model for repeated measures is applied to Placebo vs. 2 NR groups combined. The reported results of within group change and between group difference are Least Squares Mean (Standard Error) from the model adjusted for baseline six-minute walk + age + sex + race + resveratrol usage.|||-13.31|0.9449
90919839|NCT05485922|181709874|SUPERIORITY|Number of flow-stop episodes will be analysed, in a generalized linier mixed model, with subject included as a random component. Evidence of superior effect will be concluded, if the lower 95% confidence limit of the risk ratio between comparator and investigational device, is more than 1.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.16|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.44|0.05|<0.05
90919840|NCT05485922|181709875|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|34.3||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.69|53.91||The pass criteria were based on results analysing the 2 primary endpoints in a hierarchical fashion: rejecting the H0 on the first endpoint (Residual urine at first flow-stop) before continuing to the second (Number of flow-stop episodes).|Mixed Models Analysis|||This was a superiority investigation in which the null hypothesis of the primary endpoints was to be rejected, at a 5% significance (alpha 0.05), to demonstrate the superiority of the investigational device.||53.91|14.69|0.05
90919841|NCT05485922|181709876|SUPERIORITY|The pass criteria were based on the results analysing the two primary endpoints in a hierarchical fashion: rejecting the null hypothesis on the first endpoint (Residual urine at first flow-stop) before continuing to the second (Number of flow-stop episodes).|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.16||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This was a superiority investigation in which the null hypothesis of the primary endpoints was to be rejected, at a 5% significance (alpha 0.05), to demonstrate the superiority of the investigational device.||0.44|0.05|0.05
90919842|NCT05485922|181709877|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-95.69||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-137.69|-53.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The intra-catheter pressure at flow stop was analysed in a general linear mixed model with subject included as a random component.||-53.70|-137.69|0.05
90919843|NCT05485922|181709878|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.21||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|13.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||13.51|-11.10|0.05
90962363|NCT00475033|181805593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.48|||||CI for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC, 7vPnC).|Ratio of GMs (13vPnC, 7vPnC)||1.48|0.96|
91034113|NCT04627038|181954138|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.95|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.95|-0.32|
90919844|NCT05485922|181709879|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.26||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analyzed using a generalized linear mixed model, modelling the probability of a positive outcome. Evidence of effect in favour of the MHZC was concluded if the upper 95% confidence limit (CL) of the odds ratio, O.R. was less than 1.||0.96|0.07|0.05
90919845|NCT05387447|181709914|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Z score|||||||.05
90919846|NCT05387447|181709915|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Z score|||||||.05
90919847|NCT05387447|181709917|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Z score|||||||.05
90919848|NCT05387447|181709918|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Z score|||||||.05
90919849|NCT03655132|181709927|OTHER|Regression of baseline score on intrinsic motivation to use VACT-CP online program on actual VACT-CP use (i.e., number of modules completed.)|Pearson's correlation coefficient|0.12||||0.62|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.62
90919850|NCT03655132|181709927|OTHER|Regression of baseline score on perceived ease of use of the VACT-CP online program on actual VACT-CP use (i.e., number of modules completed.)|Pearson's correlation coefficient|0.19||||0.45|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.45
90919851|NCT03655132|181709927|OTHER|Regression of baseline score on perceived usefulness of the VACT-CP online program on actual VACT-CP use (i.e., number of modules completed.)|Pearson's correlation coefficient|0.02||||0.93|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.93
90919852|NCT03655132|181709927|OTHER|Regression of post-intervention score of intrinsic motivation to use VACT-CP online program on actual VACT-CP use (i.e., number of modules completed.)|Pearson's correlation coefficient|0.51||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.04
90919853|NCT03655132|181709927|OTHER|Regression of post-intervention score of perceived ease of use of the VACT-CP online program on actual VACT-CP use (i.e., number of modules completed.)|Pearson's correlation coefficient|0.54||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.03
90962364|NCT00475033|181805594|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 treatment groups was \> -10%.|Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.7|||||Exact 2-sided CI for the difference in proportions (13vPnC, 7vPnC) expressed as a percentage.|PT: Difference in proportions (13vPnC, 7vPnC) expressed as a percentage.||1.7|-1.6|
90919854|NCT03655132|181709927|OTHER|Regression of post-intervention score of perceived usefulness of VACT-CP online program on actual VACT-CP use (i.e., number of modules completed.)|Pearson's correlation coefficient|0.58||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.01
90919855|NCT03655132|181709928|OTHER|Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test comparing baseline score to post-score (approximately Week 8) for waitlist control group participants only (n=22).|Median Difference (Net)|-5.0||||0.54|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.54
90919856|NCT03655132|181709928|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-1.5||||0.59|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test comparing baseline score to post-score (approximately Week 8) for VACT-CP group.||||.59
90919857|NCT03655132|181709929|OTHER|Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test comparing baseline score to post-score (approximately Week 8).|Median Difference (Net)|2.0||||0.78|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.78
90919858|NCT03655132|181709929|OTHER|Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test comparing baseline score to post-score (approximately Week 8).|Median Difference (Net)|14.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<.001
90919859|NCT03655132|181709930|OTHER|Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test comparing baseline score to post-score (approximately Week 8).|Median Difference (Net)|0.5||||0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.13
90919860|NCT03655132|181709930|OTHER|Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test comparing baseline score to post-score (approximately Week 8).|Median Difference (Net)|3.0||||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.07
90919861|NCT03655132|181709931|OTHER|Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test comparing baseline score to post-score (approximately Week 8).|Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.64|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.64
90919862|NCT03655132|181709931|OTHER|Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test comparing baseline score to post-score (approximately Week 8).|Median Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.30
90919863|NCT03655132|181709932|OTHER|Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test comparing baseline score to post-score (approximately Week 8).|Median Difference (Net)|0.5||||0.75|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.75
90919864|NCT03655132|181709932|OTHER|Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test comparing baseline score to post-score (approximately Week 8).|Median Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.60
90919865|NCT05919082|181709943|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.0438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.99|||Regression, Logistic||The odds ratio and p-value are obtained by logistic regression model, adjusted for baseline PGA. Wald CI was presented.|||1.99|1.01|0.0438
90919866|NCT05919082|181709944|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.0108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.12|||Regression, Logistic||The odds ratio and p-value were obtained by logistic regression model, adjusted for baseline PGA and baseline mPASI score. Wald CI was presented.|||2.12|1.10|0.0108
90919867|NCT05919082|181709945|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.0199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|2.19|||Regression, Logistic||The odds ratio and p-value were obtained by logistic regression model, adjusted for baseline PGA and baseline mPASI score. Wald CI was presented.|||2.19|1.07|0.0199
90919868|NCT03854578|181709955|OTHER|ANOVA model with treatment (BI 1358894 versus placebo) and severity of depression (MontgomeryÅsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) ≥20 versus \<20) as fixed effects. The Citalopram treatment arm was used as a positive control group. It was not planned to compare pharmacodynamic effects between Citalopram and BI 1358894.|Mean change|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0105|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.14|-0.03|||ANOVA||Mean change calculated as: BI - Placebo.|Mean BOLD signal % change/ Amygdala Left||-0.03|-0.14|0.0105
90919869|NCT03854578|181709955|OTHER|ANOVA model with treatment (BI 1358894 versus placebo) and severity of depression (MADRS ≥20 versus \<20) as fixed effects. The Citalopram treatment arm was used as a positive control group. It was not planned to compare pharmacodynamic effects between Citalopram and BI 1358894.|Mean change|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0134|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.14|-0.03|||ANOVA||Mean change calculated as: BI - Placebo.|Mean BOLD signal % change/ Amygdala Right||-0.03|-0.14|0.0134
90962365|NCT00475033|181805594|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 treatment groups was \> -10%.|Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.3|||||Exact 2-sided CI for the difference in proportions (13vPnC, 7vPnC) expressed as a percentage.|FHA: Difference in proportions (13vPnC, 7vPnC) expressed as a percentage.||1.3|-1.3|
90919870|NCT03854578|181709955|OTHER|ANOVA model with treatment (BI 1358894 versus placebo) and severity of depression (MADRS ≥20 versus \<20) as fixed effects. The Citalopram treatment arm was used as a positive control group. It was not planned to compare pharmacodynamic effects between Citalopram and BI 1358894.|Mean change|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.3495|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.08|0.02|||ANOVA||Mean change calculated as: BI - Placebo.|Mean BOLD signal % change/ Anterior Cingulate Cortex Left||0.02|-0.08|0.3495
90919871|NCT03854578|181709955|OTHER|ANOVA model with treatment (BI 1358894 versus placebo) and severity of depression (MADRS ≥20 versus \<20) as fixed effects. The Citalopram treatment arm was used as a positive control group. It was not planned to compare pharmacodynamic effects between Citalopram and BI 1358894.|Mean change|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.7008|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.07|0.04|||ANOVA||Mean change calculated as: BI - Placebo.|Mean BOLD signal % change/ Anterior Cingulate Cortex right||0.04|-0.07|0.7008
90919872|NCT03854578|181709955|OTHER|ANOVA model with treatment (BI 1358894 versus placebo) and severity of depression (MADRS ≥20 versus \<20) as fixed effects. The Citalopram treatment arm was used as a positive control group. It was not planned to compare pharmacodynamic effects between Citalopram and BI 1358894.|Mean change|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.6635|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.08|0.05|||ANOVA||Mean change calculated as: BI - Placebo.|Mean BOLD signal % change/ Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Left||0.05|-0.08|0.6635
90919873|NCT03854578|181709955|OTHER|ANOVA model with treatment (BI 1358894 versus placebo) and severity of depression (MADRS ≥20 versus \<20) as fixed effects. The Citalopram treatment arm was used as a positive control group. It was not planned to compare pharmacodynamic effects between Citalopram and BI 1358894.|Mean change|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.8792|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.09|0.07|||ANOVA||Mean change calculated as: BI - Placebo.|Mean BOLD signal % change/ Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Right||0.07|-0.09|0.8792
90919874|NCT03854578|181709955|OTHER|ANOVA model with treatment (BI 1358894 versus placebo) and severity of depression (MADRS ≥20 versus \<20) as fixed effects. The Citalopram treatment arm was used as a positive control group. It was not planned to compare pharmacodynamic effects between Citalopram and BI 1358894.|Mean change|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0419|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.15|-0.02|||ANOVA||Mean change calculated as: BI - Placebo.|Mean BOLD signal % change/ Insula Left||-0.02|-0.15|0.0419
90919875|NCT03854578|181709955|OTHER|ANOVA model with treatment (BI 1358894 versus placebo) and severity of depression (MADRS ≥20 versus \<20) as fixed effects. The Citalopram treatment arm was used as a positive control group. It was not planned to compare pharmacodynamic effects between Citalopram and BI 1358894.|Mean change|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.1658|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.12|0.01|||ANOVA||Mean change calculated as: BI - Placebo.|Mean BOLD signal % change/ Insula Right||0.01|-0.12|0.1658
90962366|NCT00475033|181805594|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 treatment groups was \> -10%.|Difference|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|4.2|||||Exact 2-sided CI for the difference in proportions (13vPnC, 7vPnC) expressed as a percentage.|PRN: Difference in proportions (13vPnC, 7vPnC) expressed as a percentage.||4.2|-1.7|
90919876|NCT03854578|181709955|OTHER|ANOVA model with treatment (Citalopram versus placebo) and severity of depression (MADRS ≥20 versus \<20) as fixed effects. The Citalopram treatment arm was used as a positive control group. It was not planned to compare pharmacodynamic effects between Citalopram and BI 1358894.|Mean change|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.6673|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.08|0.05|||ANOVA||Mean change calculated as: BI - Placebo.|Mean BOLD Signal % change/ Amygdala Left||0.05|-0.08|0.6673
90919877|NCT03854578|181709955|OTHER|ANOVA model with treatment (Citalopram versus placebo) and severity of depression (MADRS ≥20 versus \<20) as fixed effects. The Citalopram treatment arm was used as a positive control group. It was not planned to compare pharmacodynamic effects between Citalopram and BI 1358894.|Mean change|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0778|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.14|-0.01|||ANOVA||Mean change calculated as: BI - Placebo.|Mean BOLD Signal % Change/ Amygdala Right||-0.01|-0.14|0.0778
90919878|NCT03854578|181709955|OTHER|ANOVA model with treatment (BI 1358894 versus placebo) and severity of depression (MADRS ≥20 versus \<20) as fixed effects. The Citalopram treatment arm was used as a positive control group. It was not planned to compare pharmacodynamic effects between Citalopram and BI 1358894.|Mean change|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.3258|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.08|0.02|||ANOVA||Mean change calculated as: BI - Placebo.|Mean BOLD signal % change/ Anterior Cingulate Cortex Left||0.02|-0.08|0.3258
90919879|NCT03854578|181709955|OTHER|ANOVA model with treatment (Citalopram versus placebo) and severity of depression (MADRS ≥20 versus \<20) as fixed effects. The Citalopram treatment arm was used as a positive control group. It was not planned to compare pharmacodynamic effects between Citalopram and BI 1358894.|Mean change|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.5954|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.07|0.04|||ANOVA||Mean change calculated as: BI - Placebo.|Mean BOLD signal % change/ Anterior Cingulate Cortex Right||0.04|-0.07|0.5954
90919880|NCT03854578|181709955|OTHER|ANOVA model with treatment (Citalopram versus placebo) and severity of depression (MADRS ≥20 versus \<20) as fixed effects. The Citalopram treatment arm was used as a positive control group. It was not planned to compare pharmacodynamic effects between Citalopram and BI 1358894.|Mean change|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.5911|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.08|0.04|||ANOVA||Mean change calculated as: BI - Placebo.|Mean BOLD signal % change/ Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Left||0.04|-0.08|0.5911
90919881|NCT03854578|181709955|OTHER|ANOVA model with treatment (Citalopram versus placebo) and severity of depression (MADRS ≥20 versus \<20) as fixed effects. The Citalopram treatment arm was used as a positive control group. It was not planned to compare pharmacodynamic effects between Citalopram and BI 1358894.|Mean change|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.8283|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.11|0.08|||ANOVA||Mean change calculated as: BI - Placebo.|Mean BOLD signal % change/ Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Right||0.08|-0.11|0.8283
91034114|NCT04627038|181954139|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|6.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|13.56|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||13.56|-1.05|
91034115|NCT04627038|181954140|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.46|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.46|-0.14|
91034116|NCT04627038|181954141|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-166.74|165.52|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||165.52|-166.74|
90919882|NCT03854578|181709955|OTHER|ANOVA model with treatment (Citalopram versus placebo) and severity of depression (MADRS ≥20 versus \<20) as fixed effects. The Citalopram treatment arm was used as a positive control group. It was not planned to compare pharmacodynamic effects between Citalopram and BI 1358894.|Mean change|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.1797|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.12|0.01|||ANOVA||Mean change calculated as: BI - Placebo.|Mean BOLD signal % change/ Insula Left||0.01|-0.12|0.1797
90919883|NCT03854578|181709955|OTHER|ANOVA model with treatment (Citalopram versus placebo) and severity of depression (MADRS ≥20 versus \<20) as fixed effects. The Citalopram treatment arm was used as a positive control group. It was not planned to compare pharmacodynamic effects between Citalopram and BI 1358894.|Mean change|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.5772|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.08|0.04|||ANOVA||Mean change calculated as: BI - Placebo.|Mean BOLD signal % change/ Insula Right||0.04|-0.08|0.5772
90919884|NCT03854578|181709956|OTHER|ANOVA model with treatment (BI 1358894 versus placebo) and severity of depression (MADRS ≥20 versus \<20) as fixed effects. The Citalopram treatment arm was used as a positive control group. It was not planned to compare pharmacodynamic effects between Citalopram and BI 1358894.|Mean change|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0147|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.14|-0.03|||ANOVA||Mean change calculated as: BI - Placebo.|Mean BOLD signal % change/ Amygdala Left||-0.03|-0.14|0.0147
90919885|NCT03854578|181709956|OTHER|ANOVA model with treatment (BI 1358894 versus placebo) and severity of depression (MADRS ≥20 versus \<20) as fixed effects. The Citalopram treatment arm was used as a positive control group. It was not planned to compare pharmacodynamic effects between Citalopram and BI 1358894.|Mean change|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.048|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.13|-0.01|||ANOVA||Mean change calculated as: BI - Placebo.|Mean BOLD signal % change/ Amygdala Right||-0.01|-0.13|0.0480
90919886|NCT03854578|181709956|OTHER|ANOVA model with treatment (BI 1358894 versus placebo) and severity of depression (MADRS ≥20 versus \<20) as fixed effects. The Citalopram treatment arm was used as a positive control group. It was not planned to compare pharmacodynamic effects between Citalopram and BI 1358894.|Mean change|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0294|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.12|-0.02|||ANOVA||Mean change calculated as: BI - Placebo.|Mean BOLD signal % change/ Anterior Cingulate Cortex Left||-0.02|-0.12|0.0294
90919887|NCT03854578|181709956|OTHER|ANOVA model with treatment (BI 1358894 versus placebo) and severity of depression (MADRS ≥20 versus \<20) as fixed effects. The Citalopram treatment arm was used as a positive control group. It was not planned to compare pharmacodynamic effects between Citalopram and BI 1358894.|Mean change|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0359|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.13|-0.02|||ANOVA||Mean change calculated as: BI - Placebo.|Mean BOLD signal % change/ Anterior Cingulate Cortex Right||-0.02|-0.13|0.0359
90919888|NCT03854578|181709956|OTHER|ANOVA model with treatment (BI 1358894 versus placebo) and severity of depression (MADRS ≥20 versus \<20) as fixed effects. The Citalopram treatment arm was used as a positive control group. It was not planned to compare pharmacodynamic effects between Citalopram and BI 1358894.|Mean change|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.19|-0.06|||ANOVA||Mean change calculated as: BI - Placebo.|Mean BOLD signal % change/ Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Left||-0.06|-0.19|0.0022
90919889|NCT03854578|181709956|OTHER|ANOVA model with treatment (BI 1358894 versus placebo) and severity of depression (MADRS ≥20 versus \<20) as fixed effects. The Citalopram treatment arm was used as a positive control group. It was not planned to compare pharmacodynamic effects between Citalopram and BI 1358894.|Mean change|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.104|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.15|0.0|||ANOVA||Mean change calculated as: BI - Placebo.|Mean BOLD signal % change/ Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Right||0.00|-0.15|0.1040
90919890|NCT03854578|181709956|OTHER|ANOVA model with treatment (BI 1358894 versus placebo) and severity of depression (MADRS ≥20 versus \<20) as fixed effects. The Citalopram treatment arm was used as a positive control group. It was not planned to compare pharmacodynamic effects between Citalopram and BI 1358894.|Mean change|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.18|-0.06|||ANOVA||Mean change calculated as: BI - Placebo.|Mean BOLD signal % change/ Insula Left||-0.06|-0.18|0.0022
90962367|NCT00475033|181805594|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 treatment groups was \> -10%.|Difference|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|1.2|||||Exact 2-sided CI for the difference in proportions (13vPnC, 7vPnC) expressed as a percentage.|FIM: Difference in proportions (13vPnC, 7vPnC) expressed as a percentage||1.2|-5.5|
91034117|NCT04627038|181954142|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.06|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.06|-0.09|
91034118|NCT00467363|181954166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1||||0.0984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.22||Only one outcome for primary outcome, so no adjustment of p-value for multiple comparisons was done. A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Fisher Exact|No adjustments were done. Treatment groups were similar with respect to the assessed demographic and baseline characteristics||The study was designed to detect a 10% absolute difference in livebirth rate with 80% power and a type I error rate of 5%, on the assumption that participants taking placebo who achieved pregnancy would have a livebirth rate of 75%.||1.22|0.98|0.0984
91034119|NCT00467363|181954167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1||||0.0165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.19|||Fisher Exact|||||1.19|1.02|.0165
90919891|NCT03854578|181709956|OTHER|ANOVA model with treatment (BI 1358894 versus placebo) and severity of depression (MADRS ≥20 versus \<20) as fixed effects. The Citalopram treatment arm was used as a positive control group. It was not planned to compare pharmacodynamic effects between Citalopram and BI 1358894.|Mean change|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0331|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.14|-0.02|||ANOVA||Mean change calculated as: BI - Placebo.|Mean BOLD signal % change/ Insula Right||-0.02|-0.14|0.0331
90962368|NCT00475033|181805595|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 treatment groups was \> -10%.|Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.4|||||Exact 2-sided CI for the difference in proportions (13vPnC, 7vPnC) expressed as a percentage.|Meningococcal C: Difference in proportions (13vPnC, 7vPnC) expressed as a percentage.||1.4|-1.4|
91034120|NCT00467363|181954168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1||||0.0329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.19|||Fisher Exact|||||1.19|1.01|.0329
91034121|NCT00467363|181954169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.06||||0.8902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.78|||Fisher Exact|||||1.78|.64|.8902
91034122|NCT00467363|181954170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.08||||0.6869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.55|||Fisher Exact|||||1.55|.76|.6869
91034123|NCT00467363|181954171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.68||||0.753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|2.41|||Fisher Exact|||||2.41|.19|.7530
90919892|NCT03854578|181709956|OTHER|ANOVA model with treatment (Citalopram versus placebo) and severity of depression (MADRS ≥20 versus \<20) as fixed effects. The Citalopram treatment arm was used as a positive control group. It was not planned to compare pharmacodynamic effects between Citalopram and BI 1358894.|Mean change|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.2149|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.11|0.02|||ANOVA||Mean change calculated as: BI - Placebo.|Mean BOLD signal % change/ Amygdala Left||0.02|-0.11|0.2149
90919893|NCT03854578|181709956|OTHER|ANOVA model with treatment (Citalopram versus placebo) and severity of depression (MADRS ≥20 versus \<20) as fixed effects. The Citalopram treatment arm was used as a positive control group. It was not planned to compare pharmacodynamic effects between Citalopram and BI 1358894.|Mean change|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.6896|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.08|0.05|||ANOVA||Mean change calculated as: BI - Placebo.|Mean BOLD signal % change/ Amygdala Right||0.05|-0.08|0.6896
90919894|NCT03854578|181709956|OTHER|ANOVA model with treatment (Citalopram versus placebo) and severity of depression (MADRS ≥20 versus \<20) as fixed effects. The Citalopram treatment arm was used as a positive control group. It was not planned to compare pharmacodynamic effects between Citalopram and BI 1358894.|Mean change|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.4769|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.06|0.02|||ANOVA||Mean change calculated as: BI - Placebo.|Mean BOLD signal % change/ Anterior Cingulate Cortex Left||0.02|-0.06|0.4769
90919895|NCT03854578|181709956|OTHER|ANOVA model with treatment (Citalopram versus placebo) and severity of depression (MADRS ≥20 versus \<20) as fixed effects. The Citalopram treatment arm was used as a positive control group. It was not planned to compare pharmacodynamic effects between Citalopram and BI 1358894.|Mean change|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.768|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.07|0.05|||ANOVA||Mean change calculated as: BI - Placebo.|Mean BOLD signal % change/ Anterior Cingulate Cortex Right||0.05|-0.07|0.7680
90919896|NCT03854578|181709956|OTHER|ANOVA model with treatment (BI 1358894 versus placebo) and severity of depression (MADRS ≥20 versus \<20) as fixed effects. The Citalopram treatment arm was used as a positive control group. It was not planned to compare pharmacodynamic effects between Citalopram and BI 1358894.|Mean change|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.7997|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.08|0.06|||ANOVA||Mean change calculated as: BI - Placebo.|Mean BOLD signal % change/ Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Left||0.06|-0.08|0.7997
90919897|NCT03854578|181709956|OTHER|ANOVA model with treatment (Citalopram versus placebo) and severity of depression (MADRS ≥20 versus \<20) as fixed effects. The Citalopram treatment arm was used as a positive control group. It was not planned to compare pharmacodynamic effects between Citalopram and BI 1358894.|Mean change|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.8334|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.08|0.06|||ANOVA||Mean change calculated as: BI - Placebo.|Mean BOLD signal % change/ Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Right||0.06|-0.08|0.8334
90919898|NCT03854578|181709956|OTHER|ANOVA model with treatment (Citalopram versus placebo) and severity of depression (MADRS ≥20 versus \<20) as fixed effects. The Citalopram treatment arm was used as a positive control group. It was not planned to compare pharmacodynamic effects between Citalopram and BI 1358894.|Mean change|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.7402|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.07|0.05|||ANOVA||Mean change calculated as: BI - Placebo.|Mean BOLD signal % change/ Insula Left||0.05|-0.07|0.7402
90919899|NCT03854578|181709956|OTHER|ANOVA model with treatment (Citalopram versus placebo) and severity of depression (MADRS ≥20 versus \<20) as fixed effects. The Citalopram treatment arm was used as a positive control group. It was not planned to compare pharmacodynamic effects between Citalopram and BI 1358894.|Mean change|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.812|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.06|0.08|||ANOVA||Mean change calculated as: BI - Placebo.|Mean BOLD signal % change/ Insula Right||0.08|-0.06|0.8120
90919900|NCT00274469|181710094|NON_INFERIORITY|Study is powered basing on 20% deficiency in benefit rate for Fulvestrant compared to Anastrozole.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.302||||0.386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.717|2.38||Null hypothesis: Fulvestrant has no difference with Anastrozole|Regression, Logistic||OR\>1 favours Fulvestrant|||2.380|0.717|0.386
90962369|NCT00475033|181805596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.5|||||CI for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC, 7vPnC).|Meningococcal C: Ratio of geometric means (13vPnC, 7vPnC)||1.50|1.08|
90919901|NCT00274469|181710095|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.021||||0.947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.556|1.874|||Regression, Logistic||OR\>1 favours Fulvestrant|||1.874|0.556|0.947
90919902|NCT00274469|181710096|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6266||||0.0496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3929|0.9991|||Log Rank||HR\<1 favours Fulvestrant|||0.9991|0.3929|0.0496
90919903|NCT00274469|181710097|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.0|||Log Rank||HR\<1 favours Fulvestrant|||1.00|0.54|0.05
90919904|NCT00274469|181710097|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.98|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression analysis of TTTF controlling for baseline covariates.|HR\<1 favours Fulvestrant|||0.98|0.52|0.04
90919905|NCT00274469|181710098|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.92|||Log Rank||HR\<1 favours Fulvestrant|||0.92|0.47|0.01
90919906|NCT00274469|181710098|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.9|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression analysis of TTP (investigator assessed) controlling for baseline covariates.|HR\<1 favours Fulvestrant|||0.90|0.46|0.01
90919907|NCT00274469|181710099|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.98|||Log Rank|||||0.98|0.50|0.041
90962370|NCT00475033|181805601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.27|||||CI for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC, 7vPnC).|PT: Ratio of geometric means (13vPnC, 7vPnC)||1.27|1.02|
90962371|NCT00475033|181805601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.25|||||CI for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC, 7vPnC).|FHA: Ratio of geometric means (13vPnC, 7vPnC)||1.25|1.01|
91034124|NCT00467363|181954172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|7.26|||Fisher Exact|||||7.26|.15|1.000
91034125|NCT00467363|181954173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|5.06|||Fisher Exact|||||5.06|.21|1.000
91034126|NCT00467363|181954174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|5.06|||Fisher Exact|||||5.06|.21|1.000
91034127|NCT00467363|181954175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.08||||0.7943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.76|||Fisher Exact|||||1.76|.67|.7943
91034128|NCT00467363|181954176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7802|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.7802
90962372|NCT00475033|181805601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.24|||||CI for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC, 7vPnC).|PRN: Ratio of geometric means (13vPnC, 7vPnC)||1.24|0.89|
90919908|NCT00274469|181710099|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.08|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression analysis of OS controlling for baseline covariates|HR\<1 favours Fulvestrant|||1.08|0.54|0.126
90919909|NCT00100698|181710125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-22.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.0||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.0|-0.5|||repeated measures mixed effects ANCOVA|||||-0.5|-38|0.049
90919910|NCT02140645|181710143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||C-statistics|0.624|||||||||||||The C-statistics can be between 0.5 and 1 and a value of 0.5 indicates that the model is no better than chance at making a prediction and a value of 1.0 indicates that the model perfectly identifies those within a group and those not.|||||
90919911|NCT02140645|181710144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||C-statistcs|0.597|||||||||||||The C-statistics can be between 0.5 and 1 and a value of 0.5 indicates that the model is no better than chance at making a prediction and a value of 1.0 indicates that the model perfectly identifies those within a group and those not.|||||
90919912|NCT02140645|181710145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-squared|0.0858|||||||||||||The R-squared can be between 0 and 1 and a value of 0 indicates that the model is no better than chance at making a prediction and a value of 1.0 indicates that the model perfectly identifies those within a group and those not.|||||
90919913|NCT02140645|181710146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||C-statistics|0.623|||||||||||||The C-statistics can be between 0.5 and 1 and a value of 0.5 indicates that the model is no better than chance at making a prediction and a value of 1.0 indicates that the model perfectly identifies those within a group and those not.|||||
90919914|NCT02140645|181710147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-squared|0.1753|||||||||||||The R-squared can be between 0 and 1 and a value of 0 indicates that the model is no better than chance at making a prediction and a value of 1.0 indicates that the model perfectly identifies those within a group and those not.|||||
90962373|NCT00475033|181805601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.02|||||CI for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC, 7vPnC).|FIM: Ratio of geometric means (13vPnC, 7vPnC)||1.02|0.78|
90962374|NCT00475033|181805602|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 treatment groups was \> -10%.|Difference|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|0.1|||||Exact 2-sided CI for the difference in proportions (13vPnC, 7vPnC) expressed as a percentage.|Difference in proportions (13vPnC, 7vPnC) expressed as a percentage.||0.1|-4.4|
90919915|NCT02140645|181710148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||C-statistics|0.699|||||||||||||The C-statistics can be between 0.5 and 1 and a value of 0.5 indicates that the model is no better than chance at making a prediction and a value of 1.0 indicates that the model perfectly identifies those within a group and those not.|||||
90919916|NCT02140645|181710149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||C-statistics|0.683|||||||||||||The C-statistics can be between 0.5 and 1 and a value of 0.5 indicates that the model is no better than chance at making a prediction and a value of 1.0 indicates that the model perfectly identifies those within a group and those not.|||||
90919917|NCT02140645|181710150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||C-statistics|0.757|||||||||||||The C-statistics can be between 0.5 and 1 and a value of 0.5 indicates that the model is no better than chance at making a prediction and a value of 1.0 indicates that the model perfectly identifies those within a group and those not.|||||
90919918|NCT02140645|181710151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||C-statistics|0.618|||||||||||||The C-statistics can be between 0.5 and 1 and a value of 0.5 indicates that the model is no better than chance at making a prediction and a value of 1.0 indicates that the model perfectly identifies those within a group and those not.|||||
90919919|NCT02140645|181710152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||C-statistics|0.618|||||||||||||The C-statistics can be between 0.5 and 1 and a value of 0.5 indicates that the model is no better than chance at making a prediction and a value of 1.0 indicates that the model perfectly identifies those within a group and those not.|||||
91034129|NCT00467363|181954177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.72||||0.2603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.23|||Fisher Exact|||||1.23|.42|.2603
90919920|NCT02140645|181710153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||C-statistics|0.733|||||||||||||The C-statistics can be between 0.5 and 1 and a value of 0.5 indicates that the model is no better than chance at making a prediction and a value of 1.0 indicates that the model perfectly identifies those within a group and those not.|||||
90919921|NCT02140645|181710154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||C-statistics|0.827|||||||||||||The C-statistics can be between 0.5 and 1 and a value of 0.5 indicates that the model is no better than chance at making a prediction and a value of 1.0 indicates that the model perfectly identifies those within a group and those not.|||||
90919922|NCT02140645|181710155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||C-statistics|0.801|||||||||||||The C-statistics can be between 0.5 and 1 and a value of 0.5 indicates that the model is no better than chance at making a prediction and a value of 1.0 indicates that the model perfectly identifies those within a group and those not.|||||
90962375|NCT00475033|181805603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.12|||||CI for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC, 7vPnC).|PRP in Hib: Ratio of geometric means (13vPnC, 7vPnC)||1.12|0.75|
91034130|NCT00467363|181954180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.3||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.4|||Fisher Exact|||||1.4|-0.8|0.77
90919923|NCT02140645|181710156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||C-statistics|0.836|||||||||||||The C-statistics can be between 0.5 and 1 and a value of 0.5 indicates that the model is no better than chance at making a prediction and a value of 1.0 indicates that the model perfectly identifies those within a group and those not.|||||
90919924|NCT05450458|181710157|OTHER|This study assessed longitudinal effects within a single patient group. Statistical power was calculated using a significance level of 0.05, 80% power, and 60 patients, accounting for KOOS score variability over time. The Friedman test was applied with post hoc analyses (Conover and Bonferroni). Since treatments were not compared, no non-inferiority or equivalence margin was defined|Median Change Baseline to month 6|0.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.23||P-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni method, and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Friedman Test|Post hoc pairwise comparisons were adjusted using the Bonferroni method, and the a priori significance level was set at 0.05|The value represents the intra-individual median KOOS improvement from baseline to month 6 after treatment. Changes were evaluated across time points within a single cohort.|The statistical analysis will use the Friedman test, as the Shapiro-Wilk test confirmed a non-normal distribution. Conover's post hoc test with Bonferroni correction will adjust for multiple comparisons. The null hypothesis states that hyaluronic acid injections with sorbitol do not significantly improve KOOS function and pain scores over time. A power analysis was performed to ensure an adequate sample size for detecting clinically meaningful differences.||0.23|0.15|<0.001
90919925|NCT05450458|181710158|OTHER|This study assessed longitudinal effects within a single patient group. Statistical power was calculated using a significance level of 0.05, 80% power, and 60 patients, accounting for IKDC score variability over time. The Friedman test was applied with post hoc analyses (Conover and Bonferroni). Since treatments were not compared, no non-inferiority or equivalence margin was defined|Median Baseline to Month 6|0.18||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.24||P-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni method, and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Friedman Test|The overall p-value is unadjusted. The a priori significance level was set at 0.05 to robustly control the Type I error|This value represents the intra-individual median IKDC improvement from baseline to 6 months after treatment. The analysis was conducted within a single cohort without comparator arms.|The statistical analysis will use the Friedman test, as the Shapiro-Wilk test confirmed a non-normal distribution. Conover's post hoc test with Bonferroni correction will adjust for multiple comparisons. The null hypothesis states that hyaluronic acid injections with sorbitol do not significantly improve IKDC function and pain scores over time. A power analysis was performed to ensure an adequate sample size for detecting clinically meaningful differences.||0.24|0.12|0.01
90919926|NCT05450458|181710160|SUPERIORITY|This is a superiority analysis. Data normality was first assessed with the Shapiro-Wilk test, and due to non-normal distributions, a Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test was applied to compare paired baseline and six-month IKDC score|Baseline to month 6|0.18||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.21||P-values from pairwise comparisons were adjusted using the Bonferroni method to control for multiple testing. The global p-value from the Friedman test was not adjusted. An a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|Friedman test conducted with 3 degrees of freedom. Bonferroni correction applied in pairwise Wilcoxon post hoc comparisons.|Median IKDC improvement from baseline to 6 months in 22 athletes with elevated BMI (≥25). No comparator group was used. Confidence interval calculated via bootstrap (resampling with 1,000 iterations).|The analysis was conducted under the null hypothesis of no change in knee function across time. Data normality was assessed using the Shapiro-Wilk test. Changes across the four time points (baseline, 15 days, 3 months, and 6 months) were evaluated using the Friedman test. Pairwise comparisons were performed post hoc using the Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test with Bonferroni correction at a 5% significance threshold.||0.21|0.14|0.001
90919927|NCT05450458|181710160|SUPERIORITY|This is a superiority analysis. Data normality was first assessed with the Shapiro-Wilk test, and due to non-normal distributions, a Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test was applied to compare paired baseline and six-month KOOS score|Baseline to Month 6|18.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.0|22.0||The p-values reported were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|Friedman test conducted with 3 degrees of freedom. Bonferroni correction applied in pairwise Wilcoxon post hoc comparisons.|Median KOOS improvement from baseline to 6 months in 22 athletes with elevated BMI. CI calculated via bootstrap resampling (1,000 iterations). No comparator group was involved.|The analysis was conducted under the null hypothesis of no change in knee function between baseline and six months. The study was designed with sufficient power to detect clinically meaningful improvements, with significance determined at a conventional level||22|13|<0.001
90919928|NCT05480943|181710162|OTHER|chi-square tested correlation between CRP and thiamine deficiency.||||||0.6097||||||P\<=0.05 considered significant|Chi-squared|||For the subset of 123 participants with both C-reactive protein level and plasma thiamine levels (125 had C-reactive protein results but 2 were missing plasma thiamine levels), we used Chi-Square to test for association between those who were thiamine deficient and had elevated C-reactive protein (CRP) levels. A priori hypothesis was that inflammation would cause thiamine deficiency due to increased metabolic demands.||||0.6097
90919929|NCT02910713|181710224|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-13.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.999|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.31|-9.4||One-sided p-value for the difference between Intranasal and Extranasal.|ANOVA|||||-9.40|-17.31|<0.0001
90919930|NCT02910713|181710225|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.101|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.4||One-sided p-value for the difference between Intranasal and Extranasal.|ANOVA|||||-0.40|-0.80|<0.0001
90919931|NCT04623775|181710252|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|3.0||||||||3.0|-16.0|
90919932|NCT04623775|181710253|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|2.05|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.05|0.94|
90919933|NCT02396199|181710285|SUPERIORITY||Proportion of participants|0.917||||0.006|ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.827|||One-sided test|Fisher Exact||Exact test, One-sided 95%, with lower limit (0.827)||||0.827|0.006
90919934|NCT04788537|181710369|SUPERIORITY|Linear mixed model regression|Slope|-1.58||||0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Slope reported is for Time x Group Interaction|||||.006
91034131|NCT03181594|181954181|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis was that the mean change from baseline for the rTNSS would be 0 (no effect). Assumptions included an alpha level of 0.5 (2-tailed), 90% power, and a standard deviation of 2.5 for the mean change from baseline. A total of 68 participants was deemed adequate to test the hypothesis.||||<0.001
91034132|NCT03181594|181954183|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91034133|NCT03181594|181954184|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p\<0.001 at all time periods. p\<0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Wilcoxon signed rank|||||||<0.001
91034134|NCT02834663|181954186|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.76|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.521|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.928|-3.592||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Patients were evaluated for changes in BCVA of the treated eye, from the start of the study till 6 months, until trial completion. After administration of each injection, measurements of BCVA were compared to their respective baseline results. The paired t-test and repeated measures ANOVA was performed for comparative analysis, as all showed normality.||-3.592|-13.928|<0.0001
90919935|NCT04850807|181710398|SUPERIORITY||average marginal effect|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|6.0|||Differences-in-Differences regression||||"Fixed effect covariates: age, sex, race, activities of daily living score, cognitive function score, psychotic disorder, bipolar disease, depression, anxiety, dementia, alzheimer's diagnosis, antidepressant use, antianxietal use, antipsychotic use, history of heart failure, baseline ARBS (exclusive to CMAI model), baseline CMAI (exclusive to ARBS model), indicator of baseline/follow-up score, treatment group, interaction of treatment group and baseline/follow-up score.~Random effects: random intercept for nursing home, random intercept for the interaction of baseline/follow-up measure and nursing home, and random intercept for individual.~Imputed Outcomes: 37 Control Follow-Up (Both CMAI and ARBS), 37 Treatment Follow-Up (ABRS), 35 Treatment Follow-Up (CMAI)"|6.0|-6.9|<0.05
90919936|NCT04850807|181710399|SUPERIORITY||Average Marginal Effect|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.26|||Differences-in-Differences regression||||"Fixed effect covariates: age, sex, race, activities of daily living score, cognitive function score, psychotic disorder, bipolar disease, depression, anxiety, dementia, alzheimer's diagnosis, antidepressant use, antianxietal use, antipsychotic use, history of heart failure, baseline ARBS (exclusive to CMAI model), baseline CMAI (exclusive to ARBS model), indicator of baseline/follow-up score, treatment group, interaction of treatment group and baseline/follow-up score.~Random effects: random intercept for nursing home, random intercept for the interaction of baseline/follow-up measure and nursing home, and random intercept for individual.~Imputed Outcomes: 37 Control Follow-Up (Both CMAI and ARBS), 37 Treatment Follow-Up (ABRS), 35 Treatment Follow-Up (CMAI)"|0.26|-0.06|<0.05
90919937|NCT04850807|181710400|SUPERIORITY||average marginal effect|4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|10.2|||Differences-in-Differences regression||||"Fixed effect covariates: baseline medication use, age, sex, race, activities of daily living score, cognitive function score, psychotic diagnosis, depression, anxiety, dementia, asthma, ARBS score, treatment group.~Random effects: random intercept for nursing home Imputed Outcomes: 37 Control Follow-Up , 35 Treatment Follow-Up"|10.2|-2.3|<0.05
90919938|NCT04850807|181710401|SUPERIORITY||average marginal effect|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|5.6|||Differences-in-Differences regression||||"Results are adjusted for baseline medication use, age, sex, race, activities of daily living score, cognitive function score, psychotic diagnosis, depression, anxiety, dementia, asthma, ARBS score, treatment group.~The model includes a random intercept for nursing home."|5.6|-8.5|<0.05
90919939|NCT04850807|181710402|SUPERIORITY||average marginal effect|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|0.1|||Differences-in-Differences regression||||"Fixed effect covariates: baseline medication use, age, sex, race, activities of daily living score, cognitive function score, psychotic diagnosis, depression, anxiety, dementia, asthma, ARBS score, treatment group.~Random effects: random intercept for nursing home Imputed Outcomes: 37 Control Follow-Up , 35 Treatment Follow-Up"|0.1|-9.8|<0.05
90919940|NCT04850807|181710404|SUPERIORITY||average marginal effect|-0.31|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|0.41|||Differences-in-Differences regression||||"Fixed effect covariates: age, sex, race, activities of daily living score, cognitive function score, psychotic disorder, bipolar disease, depression, anxiety, dementia, alzheimer's diagnosis, antidepressant use, antianxietal use, antipsychotic use, history of heart failure, baseline ARBS (exclusive to CMAI/PHQ-9 model), baseline CMAI (exclusive to ARBS/PHQ-9 model), indicator of baseline/follow-up score, treatment group, interaction of treatment group and baseline/follow-up score.~Random effects: random intercept for nursing home, random intercept for the interaction of baseline/follow-up measure and nursing home, and random intercept for individual.~Imputed Outcomes: 37 Control Follow-Up (Both CMAI and ARBS), 37 Treatment Follow-Up (ABRS), 35 Treatment Follow-Up (CMAI)"|0.41|-1.03|<0.05
90919941|NCT05141903|181710420|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||(Dose group \* Time)|Mixed Models Analysis|Dfn, Dfd = 11, 369 F Value = 24.31||Dose Group 2 B. infantis levels compared to control group (antibiotic only) with changes over time||||<0.0001
91034135|NCT02834663|181954187|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|110.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|65.919||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|82.79|137.21||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||137.210|82.790|0.0001
91034136|NCT02834663|181954188|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.92|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.932||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.884|5.956||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||5.956|1.884|0.001
90919942|NCT05141903|181710420|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Dose group \* Time|Mixed Models Analysis|Dfn, Dfd = 11, 370 F value = 14.87||Dose Group 3 B. infantis levels compared to control group (antibiotic only) with changes over time||||<0.0001
90919943|NCT05141903|181710420|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Dose Group \* Time|Mixed Models Analysis|Dfn, Dfd = 11, 351 F value = 8.606||Dose Group 2 (with HMO) B. infantis levels compared to dose Group 3 (without HMO) with changes over time||||<0.0001
90919944|NCT04549168|181710440|SUPERIORITY||LS geometric mean ratio|0.795||||0.0585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.627|1.008||Data was analyzed using mixed effect model repeated measurement analysis (MMRM), and the missing values were imputed using multiple imputation and assumed to be missing not at random (MNAR).|MMRM|||||1.008|0.627|0.0585
90919945|NCT04549168|181710441|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|7.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.39|9.81||Data was analyzed using MMRM, and the missing values were imputed using multiple imputation and assumed to be MNAR.|MMRM|||||9.81|4.39|<0.0001
91034137|NCT02834663|181954189|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.23|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.24||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|3.15||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||3.15|1.30|0.0001
91034138|NCT02834663|181954190|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.64|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.21||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.67|8.62||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||8.62|2.67|0.0001
90919946|NCT04549168|181710442|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-17.84||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.16|-8.51||Data was analyzed using MMRM, and the missing values were imputed using multiple imputation and assumed to be MNAR.|MMRM|||||-8.51|-27.16|0.0002
90919947|NCT04549168|181710443|SUPERIORITY||LS geometric mean ratio|0.776||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.647|0.93||Data was analyzed using MMRM, and the missing values were imputed using multiple imputation and assumed to be MNAR.|MMRM|||||0.930|0.647|0.0063
90919948|NCT04549168|181710444|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|4.49||||0.0242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|8.39||Data was analyzed using MMRM, and the missing values were imputed using multiple imputation and assumed to be MNAR.|MMRM|||||8.39|0.59|0.0242
90919949|NCT04549168|181710445|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-10.36||||0.1625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.95|4.22||Data was analyzed using MMRM, and the missing values were imputed using multiple imputation and assumed to be MNAR.|MMRM|||||4.22|-24.95|0.1625
90919950|NCT04549168|181710446|SUPERIORITY||LS geometric mean ratio|0.815||||0.0515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.663|1.001||Data was analyzed using MMRM, and the missing values were imputed using multiple imputation and assumed to be MNAR.|MMRM|||||1.001|0.663|0.0515
90919951|NCT04549168|181710447|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|7.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.61|9.86||Data was analyzed using MMRM, and the missing values were imputed using multiple imputation and assumed to be MNAR.|MMRM|||||9.86|5.61|<0.0001
91034139|NCT02834663|181954191|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.64|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.21||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.67|8.62||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||8.62|2.67|0.0001
90919952|NCT04549168|181710448|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-21.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.15|-14.35||Data was analyzed using MMRM, and the missing values were imputed using multiple imputation and assumed to be MNAR.|MMRM|||||-14.35|-28.15|<0.0001
90919953|NCT04549168|181710450|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-2.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.811||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.45|-1.25||Based on Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with factors of age group, site, treatment, and the baseline ISI as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-1.25|-4.45|0.0006
90919954|NCT04549168|181710451|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.488||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.78||Based on ANCOVA model with factors of age group, site, treatment, and the baseline ISI as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-0.78|-2.70|0.0005
90919955|NCT04549168|181710453|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.34||||0.0312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.65||Data was analyzed using MMRM, and the missing values were imputed using multiple imputation and assumed to be MNAR.|MMRM||First 7 mornings of treatment period|||0.65|0.03|0.0312
91034140|NCT02834663|181954192|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.021|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.87||0.221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.751|0.795||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.795|-0.751|0.221
91034141|NCT00904215|181954200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Student Paired t-test|||||||<0.0001
90919956|NCT04549168|181710453|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.32||||0.146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.76||Data was analyzed using MMRM, and the missing values were imputed using multiple imputation and assumed to be MNAR.|MMRM||Last 7 mornings of treatment period|||0.76|-0.11|0.1460
90919957|NCT04549168|181710453|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.29||||0.1613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.7||Data was analyzed using MMRM, and the missing values were imputed using multiple imputation and assumed to be MNAR.|MMRM||First 7 mornings of follow-up period|||0.70|-0.12|0.1613
90919958|NCT04549168|181710453|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.23||||0.2852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.65||Data was analyzed using MMRM, and the missing values were imputed using multiple imputation and assumed to be MNAR.|MMRM||Last 7 mornings of follow-up period|||0.65|-0.19|0.2852
90919959|NCT02549339|181710460|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of clearance rates|7.57||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.26|25.31|||Mantel Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel estimate (0.018% relative to vehicle), adjusted for pooled sites.|||25.31|2.26|0.001
90919960|NCT02549339|181710461|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of clearance rates|5.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|10.54|||Mantel Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel estimate (0.018% relative to vehicle), adjusted for pooled sites.|The p-values for secondary endpoints have been corrected by the Holm-Bonferroni method to account for multiplicity. The prespecified multiplicity adjustment by the Holm-Bonferroni method requires the ordering of the p-values for the secondary endpoints by size.||10.54|3.30|<0.001
90919961|NCT02549339|181710462|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of clearance rates|5.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.24|10.2|||Mantel Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel estimate (0.018% relative to vehicle), adjusted for pooled sites.|The p-values for secondary endpoints have been corrected by the Holm-Bonferroni method to account for multiplicity. The prespecified multiplicity adjustment by the Holm-Bonferroni method requires the ordering of the p-values for the secondary endpoints by size.||10.20|3.24|<0.001
90919962|NCT02549339|181710463|SUPERIORITY||Week 8 AK count ratio|0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.35||Negative binominal regression with treatment group and pooled site as factors and log baseline count as offset variable.|Mantel Haenszel||0.018% relative to vehicle.|The p-values for secondary endpoints have been corrected by the Holm-Bonferroni method to account for multiplicity. The prespecified multiplicity adjustment by the Holm-Bonferroni method requires the ordering of the p-values for the secondary endpoints by size.||0.35|0.25|<0.001
90919963|NCT00792636|181710519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-squares mean|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-0.3|||||Systolic Blood Pressure. The following covariates were used in this analysis: Age, Gender, Baseline migraines per month, Baseline blood pressure|||-0.3|-3.2|
90919964|NCT00792636|181710519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-squares mean|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.3|||||Diastolic Blood Pressure. The following covariates were used in this analysis: Age, Gender, Baseline migraines per month, Baseline blood pressure|||0.3|-2.2|
90919965|NCT00792636|181710519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-squares mean|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-0.4|||||Systolic Blood Pressure. The following covariates were used in this analysis: Age, Gender, Baseline migraines per month, Baseline blood pressure|||-0.4|-3.4|
91034142|NCT00904215|181954201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Student Paired t-test|||||||<0.0001
91034143|NCT00904215|181954202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Student Paired t-test|||||||<0.0001
91034144|NCT00904215|181954203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Student Paired t-test|||||||<0.0001
91034145|NCT00982397|181954207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|98.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|97.9|99.0|||||Therapy rates were analyzed using competing risks survival analysis methods, accounting for death as a competing risk.Therapy incidence rates were estimated using cumulative incidence functions and reported with 95% confidence interval.|The study was designed to include at least 1,131 patients with DR/CRT-D ICD devices in order to estimate the inappropriate shock free rate at 1 year post-implant with 1% precision.||99.0|97.9|
90919966|NCT00792636|181710519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-squares mean|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.6|||||Diastolic blood pressure. The following covariates were used in this analysis: Age, Gender, Baseline migraines per month, Baseline blood pressure|||0.6|-2.0|
90919967|NCT00792636|181710520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-squares mean|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-0.8|||||Systolic blood pressure. The following covariates were used in this analysis: Age, Gender, Baseline migraines per month, Baseline blood pressure|||-0.8|-3.4|
90919968|NCT00792636|181710520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-squares mean|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-0.3|||||Diastolic blood pressure. The following covariates were used in this analysis: Age, Gender, Baseline migraines per month, Baseline blood pressure|||-0.3|-2.6|
90919969|NCT00792636|181710521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-squares mean|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.4|||||Systolic Blood Pressure. The following covariates were used in this analysis: Age, Gender, Baseline migraines per month, Baseline blood pressure|||2.4|-1.6|
90919970|NCT00792636|181710521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-squares mean|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|2.2|||||Diastolic blood pressure. The following covariates were used in this analysis: Age, Gender, Baseline migraines per month, Baseline blood pressure|||2.2|-1.2|
90919971|NCT00792636|181710522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-squares mean|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|2.2|||||Systolic Blood Pressure. The following covariates were used in this analysis: Age, Gender, Baseline migraines per month, Baseline blood pressure|||2.2|-1.7|
90919972|NCT00792636|181710522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-squares mean|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|2.5|||||Diastolic blood pressure. The following covariates were used in this analysis: Age, Gender, Baseline migraines per month, Baseline blood pressure|||2.5|-0.9|
90919973|NCT00792636|181710527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.6||||||||2.6|0.9|
90919974|NCT00792636|181710527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.6||||||||2.6|0.9|
90919975|NCT00792636|181710528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.7||||||||1.7|0.6|
90919976|NCT00792636|181710528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.2||||||||2.2|0.7|
90919977|NCT00792636|181710529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|13.6||||||||13.6|0.1|
90919978|NCT00792636|181710529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|25.6||||||||25.6|0.3|
90919979|NCT00792636|181710530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.7||||||||3.7|0.5|
90919980|NCT00792636|181710530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|4.2||||||||4.2|0.6|
90919981|NCT00792636|181710531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.54||||||||1.54|0.84|
90919982|NCT00792636|181710531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.83||||||||1.83|1.01|
90919983|NCT00792636|181710532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.21||||||||1.21|0.65|
90919984|NCT00792636|181710532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.6||||||||1.60|0.88|
90919985|NCT03069313|181710534|OTHER|Paired t-test|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
90919986|NCT03069313|181710535|OTHER|||||||0.0003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0003
90919987|NCT03069313|181710536|OTHER|This analysis is comparing SWB before and after treatment.||||||0.133|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.133
90919988|NCT03069313|181710536|OTHER|||||||0.056|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This analysis is comparing EWB before and after treatment.||||0.056
90919989|NCT03069313|181710536|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This analysis is comparing PWB before and after treatment.||||<0.0001
90919990|NCT03069313|181710536|OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This analysis is comparing FWB before and after treatment.||||0.09
90919991|NCT03069313|181710536|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This analysis is comparing ESS before and after treatment.||||<0.0001
90919992|NCT03580369|181710554|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-8.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.313|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.576|-5.428|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with repeated measures (MMRM)||Treatment contrast in LS mean (change), Adults||-5.428|-10.576|<.0001
90919993|NCT03580369|181710554|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|0.672|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.939||0.7628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.169|2.513|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with repeated measures (MMRM)||Treatment contrast in LS mean (change), Adults||2.513|-1.169|0.7628
90919994|NCT03580369|181710554|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-7.964|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.305|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.522|-5.047|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with repeated measures (MMRM)||Treatment contrast in LS mean (change), Adults||-5.047|-10.522|<.0001
90919995|NCT03580369|181710554|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.933||0.7768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.118|2.538|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with repeated measures (MMRM)||Treatment contrast in LS mean (change), Adults||2.538|-1.118|0.7768
90919996|NCT03580369|181710556|SUPERIORITY|Wald chi-square test based on logistic regression|Odds Ratio (OR)|5.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.667|12.095|||Regression, Logistic|95% confidence interval for the odds ratio||Adults||12.095|2.667|<.0001
90919997|NCT03580369|181710556|SUPERIORITY|Wald chi-square test based on logistic regression|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.598|1.18|||Regression, Logistic|95% confidence interval for the odds ratio||Adults||1.180|0.598|0.8430
90919998|NCT03580369|181710556|SUPERIORITY|Wald chi-square test based on logistic regression|Odds Ratio (OR)|5.734|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.694|12.207|||Regression, Logistic|95% confidence interval for the odds ratio||Adults||12.207|2.694|<.0001
90919999|NCT03580369|181710556|SUPERIORITY|Wald chi-square test based on logistic regression|Odds Ratio, log|0.848||||0.8312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.605|1.188|||Regression, Logistic|95% confidence interval for the odds ratio||Adults||1.188|0.605|0.8312
90920000|NCT03580369|181710557|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.597|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.271|-1.929|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with repeated measures (MMRM)||Adults||-1.929|-4.271|<.0001
90920001|NCT03580369|181710557|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.419|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.428||0.8366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.419|1.258|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with repeated measures (MMRM)||Adults||1.258|-0.419|0.8366
91034146|NCT00982397|181954207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|97.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.1|98.5|||||Therapy rates were analyzed using competing risks survival analysis methods, accounting for death as a competing risk.Therapy incidence rates were estimated using cumulative incidence functions and reported with 95% confidence interval.|This study was designed to include at least 610 patients with VR-ICD devices in order to estimate the inappropriate shock free rate at 1 year post-implant with a precision of 2%.||98.5|96.1|
90881632|NCT01494610|181626675|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Estimates of within-par. coefficient of variation for AUC(0-tau) of FP and weighted mean (0-12 h) serum cortisol from previous studies showed that a sample size of 52 par. would have approximately 90% power to demonstrate biocomparability with respect to the two co-primary endpoints. The study was powered on the analysis of asthma and COPD par. as a combined group. A two one-sided t-test procedure with α=0.05 for each one-sided test was used. Biocomparability limits of 0.8 and 1.25 were used.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|1.421|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.274|1.584|||||Data reflect participants with COPD only. The ratio of adjusted geometric means is the comparision of treatment administered by the capsule-based inhaler and the MDPI.|||1.584|1.274|
90881633|NCT01494610|181626676|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Estimates of within-par. coefficient of variation for AUC(0-tau) of FP and weighted mean (0-12 h) serum cortisol from previous studies showed that a sample size of 52 par. would have approximately 90% power to demonstrate biocomparability with respect to the two co-primary endpoints. The study was powered on the analysis of asthma and COPD par. as a combined group. A two one-sided t-test procedure with α=0.05 for each one-sided test was used. Biocomparability limits of 0.8 and 1.25 were used.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|0.928|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.886|0.971|||||Data reflect Asthma + COPD participants. The ratio of adjusted geometric means is the comparision of treatment administered by the capsule-based inhaler and the MDPI.|||0.971|0.886|
90881634|NCT01494610|181626676|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Estimates of within-par. coefficient of variation for AUC(0-tau) of FP and weighted mean (0-12 h) serum cortisol from previous studies showed that a sample size of 52 par. would have approximately 90% power to demonstrate biocomparability with respect to the two co-primary endpoints. The study was powered on the analysis of asthma and COPD par. as a combined group. A two one-sided t-test procedure with α=0.05 for each one-sided test was used. Biocomparability limits of 0.8 and 1.25 were used.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|0.892|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.848|0.939|||||Data reflect participants with asthma only. The ratio of adjusted geometric means is the comparision of treatment administered by the capsule-based inhaler and the MDPI.|||0.939|0.848|
90881635|NCT01494610|181626676|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Estimates of within-par. coefficient of variation for AUC(0-tau) of FP and weighted mean (0-12 h) serum cortisol from previous studies showed that a sample size of 52 par. would have approximately 90% power to demonstrate biocomparability with respect to the two co-primary endpoints. The study was powered on the analysis of asthma and COPD par. as a combined group. A two one-sided t-test procedure with α=0.05 for each one-sided test was used. Biocomparability limits of 0.8 and 1.25 were used.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|0.966|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.889|1.049|||||Data reflect participants with COPD only. The ratio of adjusted geometric means is the comparision of treatment administered by the capsule-based inhaler and the MDPI.|||1.049|0.889|
90881636|NCT02346240|181626728|SUPERIORITY||Estimated difference in responder rate|61.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.1|71.2|||Regression, Logistic|Estimated responder rate, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.|Estimate and 95 % CI for difference in proportion of responders for CZP 400 mg Q2W (RS) versus Placebo Q2W (RS).|The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||71.2|52.1|
90881637|NCT02346240|181626728|SUPERIORITY||Estimated difference in responder rate|56.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.4|66.0|||Regression, Logistic|Estimated responder rate, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.|Estimate and 95 % CI for difference in proportion of responders for CZP 200 mg Q2W (RS) versus Placebo Q2W (RS).|The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||66.0|46.4|
90881638|NCT02346240|181626728|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|37.988|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.312|127.576||The p-value is evaluated at a 2-sided significance level for CZP 400 mg vs. PBO.|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.||The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||127.576|11.312|<0.0001
90881639|NCT02346240|181626728|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|30.023|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.971|100.481||The p-value is evaluated at a 2-sided significance level for CZP 200 mg vs. PBO.|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.||The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||100.481|8.971|<0.0001
90881640|NCT02346240|181626728|SUPERIORITY||Estimated difference in responder rate|13.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|24.1|||Regression, Logistic|Estimated responder rate, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure|Estimate and 95 % CI for difference in proportion of responders for CZP 400 mg Q2W (RS) versus Etanercept Q2W (RS).|The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||24.1|2.7|
90920002|NCT03580369|181710557|SUPERIORITY|Adults|LS Mean|-3.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.594|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.295|-1.966|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with repeated measures (MMRM)||||-1.966|-4.295|<.0001
90920003|NCT03580369|181710557|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.389|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.425||0.8201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.444|1.222|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with repeated measures (MMRM)||Adults||1.222|-0.444|0.8201
90920004|NCT03580369|181710559|SUPERIORITY|Wald chi-square test based on logistic regression|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.747|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.621|4.656|||Regression, Logistic|95% confidence interval for the odds ratio||Adults||4.656|1.621|<.0001
90920005|NCT03580369|181710559|SUPERIORITY|Wald chi-square test based on logistic regression|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.836||||0.8586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.603|1.159|||Regression, Logistic|95% confidence interval for the odds ratio||Adults||1.159|0.603|0.8586
90920006|NCT03580369|181710559|SUPERIORITY|Wald chi-square test based on logistic regression|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.261|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.929|5.513|||Regression, Logistic|95% confidence interval for the odds ratio||Adults||5.513|1.929|<.0001
90920007|NCT03580369|181710559|SUPERIORITY|Wald chi-square test based on logistic regression|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.992||||0.519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.717|1.373|||Regression, Logistic|95% confidence interval for the odds ratio||Adults||1.373|0.717|0.5190
90920008|NCT03580369|181710560|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.323|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.183|1.48|||Negative binomial regression model|95% confidence interval for the relative risk ratio||Adults||1.480|1.183|<.0001
90920009|NCT03580369|181710560|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.975||||0.7469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.904|1.051|||Negative binomial regression model|95% confidence interval for the relative risk ratio||Adults||1.051|0.904|0.7469
90920010|NCT03580369|181710560|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.376|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|1.54|||Negative binomial regression model|95% confidence interval for the relative risk ratio||Adults||1.540|1.230|<.0001
90920011|NCT03580369|181710560|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.014||||0.3586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.941|1.092|||Negative binomial regression model|95% confidence interval for the relative risk ratio||Adults||1.092|0.941|0.3586
90920012|NCT04455035|181710590|OTHER|ttest||||||0.0088|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0088
90920013|NCT04455035|181710591|OTHER|ttest||||||1e-05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.00001
90920014|NCT03897686|181710595|SUPERIORITY|\[Not specified\]|LS-means difference|-179.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|48.38||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-274.96|-83.65||The threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05.|ANCOVA|"Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) adjusted for the baseline value with fixed factors of treatment group and radiological stage"||"It was determined that 144 participants randomized into 2 groups (1:1) would have at least 80% power to detect an effect size of 0.25. Sample size was calculated based on analysis of covariance adjusted for baseline value with fixed factors of group assuming α = 0.05 and 10% discontinuation rate.~The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between treatment groups in mean change from baseline to Week 25 in the total WOMAC score."||-83.65|-274.96|0.00030
90920015|NCT03897686|181710595|SUPERIORITY|\[Not specified\]|LS-means difference|-179.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|48.38||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-305.11|-53.5||Difference between Least-square means was tested at a level of p \<0.05 via Tukey's multiple comparison test|Tukey's HSD|||"After the analysis of covariance were performed pairwise comparisons of NOLTREX and placebo groups for each stage of OA:~1\) Group A (NOLTREX™) OA grade II versus Group B (Placebo) ОА grade II"||-53.50|-305.11|0.0017
90920016|NCT03897686|181710595|SUPERIORITY||LS-means difference|-37.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|61.85||0.9324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-197.83|123.82||Difference between Least-square means was tested at a level of p \<0.05 via Tukey's multiple comparison test|Tukey's HSD|||"After the analysis of covariance were performed pairwise comparisons of NOLTREX and placebo groups for each stage of OA:~2\) Group A (NOLTREX™) OA grade II versus Group A (NOLTREX™) ОА grade III"||123.82|-197.83|0.9324
90920017|NCT03897686|181710595|SUPERIORITY||LS-means difference|-216.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|75.01||0.0233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-411.37|-21.25||Difference between Least-square means was tested at a level of p \<0.05 via Tukey's multiple comparison test.|Tukey's HSD|||"After the analysis of covariance were performed pairwise comparisons of NOLTREX and placebo groups for each stage of OA:~3\) Group A (NOLTREX™) OA grade II versus Group B (Placebo) ОА grade III"||-21.25|-411.37|0.0233
90920018|NCT03897686|181710595|SUPERIORITY||LS-means difference|142.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|81.89||0.3082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.63|355.22||Difference between Least-square means was tested at a level of p \<0.05 via Tukey's multiple comparison test.|Tukey's HSD|||"After the analysis of covariance were performed pairwise comparisons of NOLTREX and placebo groups for each stage of OA:~4\) Group A (NOLTREX™) OA grade III versus Group B (Placebo) ОА grade II"||355.22|-70.63|0.3082
90920019|NCT03897686|181710595|SUPERIORITY||LS-means difference|-37.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|61.85||0.9324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-197.83|123.82||Difference between Least-square means was tested at a level of p \<0.05 via Tukey's multiple comparison test.|Tukey's HSD|||"After the analysis of covariance were performed pairwise comparisons of NOLTREX and placebo groups for each stage of OA:~5\) versus Group B (Placebo) OA grade II versus Group B (Placebo) ОА grade III"||123.82|-197.83|0.9324
90920020|NCT03897686|181710595|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-179.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|48.38||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-305.11|-53.5||Difference between Least-square means was tested at a level of p \<0.05 via Tukey's multiple comparison test.|Tukey's HSD|||"After the analysis of covariance were performed pairwise comparisons of NOLTREX and placebo groups for each stage of OA:~6\) Group A (NOLTREX™) OA grade III versus Group B (Placebo) ОА grade III"||-53.50|-305.11|0.0017
90920021|NCT03897686|181710596|SUPERIORITY|\[Not specified\]|S-means difference|-143.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|46.88||0.00267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-236.09|-50.69||The threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05.|ANCOVA|"Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) adjusted for the baseline value with fixed factors of treatment group and radiological stage"||It was determined that 144 participants randomized into 2 groups (1:1) would have at least 80% power to detect an effect size of 0.25. Sample size was calculated based on analysis of covariance adjusted for baseline value with fixed factors of group assuming α = 0.05 and 10% discontinuation rate.||-50.69|-236.09|0.00267
90920022|NCT03897686|181710597|SUPERIORITY||LS-means difference|-13.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.995||0.16786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.096|5.638||The threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05.|ANCOVA|"Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) adjusted for the baseline value with fixed factors of treatment group and radiological stage"||Contrasts for changes in pain WOMAC score at visit 3 (week 6)||5.638|-32.096|0.16786
90881641|NCT02346240|181626728|SUPERIORITY||Estimated difference in responder rate|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|18.9|||Regression, Logistic|Estimated responder rate, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure|Estimate and 95 % CI for difference in proportion of responders for CZP 200 mg Q2W (RS) versus Etanercept Q2W (RS).|The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||18.9|-2.9|
90920023|NCT03897686|181710597|SUPERIORITY||LS-means difference|-26.695|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.995||0.00847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.46|-6.93||The threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05.|ANCOVA|"Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) adjusted for the baseline value with fixed factors of treatment group and radiological stage"||Contrasts for changes in pain WOMAC score at visit 4 (week 13)||-6.93|-46.46|0.00847
90920024|NCT03897686|181710597|SUPERIORITY||LS-means difference|-33.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.29||0.00123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.31|-13.62||The threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05.|ANCOVA|"Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) adjusted for the baseline value with fixed factors of treatment group and radiological stage"||Contrasts for changes in pain WOMAC score at visit 5 (week 25)||-13.62|-54.31|0.00123
90881642|NCT02346240|181626728|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.756|||=|0.0152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.114|2.768||The p-value is evaluated at a 2-sided significance level for CZP 400 mg vs. ETN.|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.||The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||2.768|1.114|=0.0152
90881643|NCT02346240|181626728|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.388|||=|0.1523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.886|2.175||The p-value is evaluated at a 2-sided significance level for CZP 200 mg vs. ETN|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.||The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||2.175|0.886|=0.1523
90881644|NCT02346240|181626729|SUPERIORITY||Estimated difference in responder rate|48.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.33|57.63|||Regression, Logistic|Estimated responder rate, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.|Estimate and 95 % CI for difference in proportion of responders for CZP 400 mg Q2W (RS) versus Placebo Q2W (RS).|The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||57.63|39.33|
90881645|NCT02346240|181626729|SUPERIORITY||Estimated difference in responder rate|37.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.88|46.96|||Regression, Logistic|Estimated responder rate, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.|Estimate and 95 % CI for difference in proportion of responders for CZP 200 mg Q2W (RS) versus Placebo Q2W (RS).|The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||46.96|28.88|
90881646|NCT02346240|181626729|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|56.129|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.787|404.555||The p-value is evaluated at a 2-sided significance level for CZP 400 mg vs. PBO|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.||The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||404.555|7.787|<0.0001
90881647|NCT02346240|181626729|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|36.566|||=|0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.061|264.196||The p-value is evaluated at a 2-sided significance level for CZP 200 mg vs. PBO|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.||The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||264.196|5.061|=0.0004
90881648|NCT02346240|181626730|SUPERIORITY||Estimated difference in responder rate|33.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.68|46.98|||Regression, Logistic|Estimated responder rate, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.|Estimate and 95 % CI for difference in proportion of responders for CZP 400 mg Q2W (RS) versus Placebo Q2W (RS).|The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||46.98|20.68|
90881649|NCT02346240|181626730|SUPERIORITY||Estimated difference in responder rate|31.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.18|43.8|||Regression, Logistic|Estimated responder rate, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.|Estimate and 95 % CI for difference in proportion of responders for CZP 200 mg Q2W (RS) versus Placebo Q2W (RS).|The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||43.80|18.18|
90881650|NCT02346240|181626730|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|39.949|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.407|189.828||The p-value is evaluated at a 2-sided significance level for CZP 400 mg vs. PBO|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.||The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||189.828|8.407|<0.0001
90881651|NCT02346240|181626730|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|35.084|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.363|167.179||The p-value is evaluated at a 2-sided significance level for CZP 200 mg vs. PBO|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.||The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||167.179|7.363|<0.0001
90881652|NCT02346240|181626731|SUPERIORITY||Estimated difference in responder rate|70.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.15|79.59|||Regression, Logistic|Estimated responder rate, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.|Estimate and 95 % CI for difference in proportion of responders for CZP 200 mg Q2W (RS) versus Placebo Q2W (RS).|The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||79.59|62.15|
90881653|NCT02346240|181626731|SUPERIORITY||Estimated difference in responder rate|64.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.12|73.63|||Regression, Logistic|Estimated responder rate, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.|Estimate and 95 % CI for difference in proportion of responders for CZP 200 mg Q2W (RS) versus Placebo Q2W (RS).|The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||73.63|55.12|
90920025|NCT03897686|181710598|SUPERIORITY||LS-means difference|-0.146|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.121||0.97733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.271|9.98||The threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05.|ANCOVA|"Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) adjusted for the baseline value with fixed factors of treatment group and radiological stage"||Contrasts for changes in stiffness WOMAC score, visit 3||9.980|-10.271|0.97733
90920026|NCT03897686|181710598|SUPERIORITY||LS-means difference|-14.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.29||0.00693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.95|-4.04||The threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05.|ANCOVA|"Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) adjusted for the baseline value with fixed factors of treatment group and radiological stage"||Contrasts for changes in stiffness WOMAC score, visit 4||-4.04|-24.95|0.00693
91034147|NCT00982397|181954208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value is for comparison against a performance criterion of 10%.|Exact Binomial|||Using the one-sided one proportion Exact Test in PASS sample size software, a sample size of 76 subjects with 1-month follow-up was calculated to be required for the evaluation of this objective. To ensure adequate testing of the Protecta XT CRT-D device, the 76 subjects must have included at least 34 CRT-D subjects. Assuming an attrition rate of 10%, a sample size of 85 subjects enrolled was calculated to be required.||||<0.0001
91034148|NCT00982397|181954209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value is for comparison of the observed proportion of successes against a protocol-specified performance criterion of 95%.|Confidence interval and hypothesis test|||P, the expected proportion of successes under the null hypothesis, was 95%. α, the Type I error rate, is 0.025. Power is 90%. Pa, the assumed true proportion of successes, is 99%. Based on the above assumptions, at least 173 subjects with a useable time to VF detection testing were required for this objective. Assuming a 5% rate for the potential non-adherence to the testing protocol, the required enrollment sample size was 183.||||<0.0001
91034149|NCT00982397|181954210|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ho: p1 ≤ p2 - 0.05 Ha: p1 \> p2 - 0.05 Where p1 was the syncopal event free rate at one year post implant by programming VF NID 30/40 and p2 for NID = 18/24. If the null-hypothesis was rejected it was concluded that NID = 30/40 did not decrease the syncope free rate by more than 5% compared to NID = 18/24 and hence was non-inferior.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.7|2.7||P-Value is for non-inferiority|Farrington-Manning||The 90% Confidence Interval is for the difference (p1-p2), where p1=syncope free rate 30/40 arm and p2=syncope free rate 18/24 arm. Estimated value and confidence interval reflect percentages.|The expected syncopal event free rate was 0.984 in both programming groups. alpha, Type I error was 0.05. Power, 1-beta, was 80%. Non-inferiority margin 5% Based on the above assumptions and Farrington-Manning test, a total of 230 subjects was required. By further assuming 15% attrition rate and 5 % of crossover rate, a total of 300 subjects were needed.||2.7|-2.7|0.0013
91034150|NCT03707912|181954290|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.032|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.032
91034151|NCT03707912|181954291|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.11
91034152|NCT03707912|181954292|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0012|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0012
90920027|NCT03897686|181710598|SUPERIORITY||LS-means difference|-16.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.68||0.00073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.44|-6.92||The threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05.|ANCOVA|"Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) adjusted for the baseline value with fixed factors of treatment group and radiological stage"||Contrasts for changes in pain WOMAC score at visit 5 (week 25)||-6.92|-25.44|0.00073
90920028|NCT03897686|181710598|SUPERIORITY||LS-means difference|-57.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|32.1||0.07725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-120.62|6.33||The threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05.|ANCOVA|"Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) adjusted for the baseline value with fixed factors of treatment group and radiological stage"||Contrasts for changes in functionality WOMAC score, visit 3||6.33|-120.62|0.07725
90962376|NCT00475033|181805604|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 treatment groups was \> -10%.|Difference|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|3.4|||||Exact 2-sided CI for the difference in proportions (13vPnC, 7vPnC) expressed as a percentage.|PRP: Difference in proportions (13vPnC, 7vPnC) expressed as a percentage.||3.4|-9.4|
91034153|NCT03707912|181954292|OTHER|Test for assessing the homogeneity of the odds ratio in several 2 × 2 contingency tables.||||||0.98|||||||Breslow-Day test|||||||0.98
91034154|NCT03707912|181954293|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.007
90920029|NCT03897686|181710598|SUPERIORITY||LS-means difference|-103.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|33.92||0.00279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-170.35|-36.2||The threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05.|ANCOVA|"Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) adjusted for the baseline value with fixed factors of treatment group and radiological stage"||Contrasts for changes in functionality WOMAC score, visit 4||-36.20|-170.35|0.00279
90962377|NCT01389765|181805613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyzed was a ratio of geometric LS means between the 2 treatment states (fed/fasted), and the 90% confidence interval for the ratio.||||1.05|0.97|
91034155|NCT03707912|181954294|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91034156|NCT03707912|181954294|OTHER|Test for assessing the homogeneity of the odds ratio in several 2 × 2 contingency tables.||||||0.75|||||||Breslow-Day test|||||||0.75
91034157|NCT03707912|181954295|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 1 comparison.||||0.89
91034158|NCT03707912|181954295|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 2 comparison.||||0.75
91034159|NCT03707912|181954295|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 3 comparison.||||0.34
91034160|NCT03707912|181954296|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.75
91034161|NCT02934347|181954297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Grades analysed were 1, 2 and then 3 and 4 combined because of low frequencies in the latter two grades|Chi-squared, Corrected|Chi-squared for trend||Null hypothesis: no difference in frequency of grade of glottic view between the supine and back-up positions||||>0.05
91034162|NCT02934347|181954298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Chi-squared|df=3||||||<0.01
91034163|NCT02934347|181954299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
91034164|NCT02934347|181954300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91034165|NCT00467896|181954324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|49.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.55|60.15|||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of the change in inhalation-times rate from Period I (PD-6) to Period II (PD-15)||60.15|39.55|<0.0001
90881654|NCT02346240|181626731|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|76.277|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.952|324.094||The p-value is evaluated at a 2-sided significance level for CZP 400 mg vs. PBO|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.||The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||324.094|17.952|<0.0001
90881655|NCT02346240|181626731|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|55.413|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.135|233.782||The p-value is evaluated at a 2-sided significance level for CZP 200 mg vs. PBO|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.||The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||233.782|13.135|<0.0001
90881656|NCT02346240|181626732|SUPERIORITY||Estimated difference in responder rate|55.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.59|64.35|||Regression, Logistic|Estimated responder rate, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.|Estimate and 95 % CI for difference in proportion of responders for CZP 400 mg Q2W (RS) versus Placebo Q2W (RS).|The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||64.35|45.59|
90881657|NCT02346240|181626732|SUPERIORITY||Estimated difference in responder rate|44.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.39|54.49|||Regression, Logistic|Estimated responder rate, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.|Estimate and 95 % CI for difference in proportion of responders for CZP 200 mg Q2W (RS) versus Placebo Q2W (RS).|The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||54.49|35.39|
90881658|NCT02346240|181626732|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|40.717|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.741|170.198||The p-value is evaluated at a 2-sided significance level for CZP 400 mg vs. PBO|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.||The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||170.198|9.741|<0.0001
90881659|NCT02346240|181626732|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|27.165|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.504|113.453||The p-value is evaluated at a 2-sided significance level for CZP 200 mg vs. PBO|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure||The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||113.453|6.504|<0.0001
90881660|NCT02346240|181626733|SUPERIORITY||Estimated difference in responder rate|48.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.22|63.41|||Regression, Logistic|Estimated responder rate, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.|Estimate and 95 % CI for difference in proportion of responders for CZP 400 mg Q2W (RS) versus Placebo Q2W (RS).|The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||63.41|34.22|
90881661|NCT02346240|181626733|SUPERIORITY||Estimated difference in responder rate|39.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.58|53.38|||Regression, Logistic|Estimated responder rate, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.|Estimate and 95 % CI for difference in proportion of responders for CZP 200 mg Q2W (RS) versus Placebo Q2W (RS).|The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||53.38|25.58|
90881662|NCT02346240|181626733|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|72.278|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.65|356.602||The p-value is evaluated at a 2-sided significance level for CZP 400 mg vs. PBO|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.||The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||356.602|14.650|<0.0001
90881663|NCT02346240|181626733|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|49.527|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.002|245.256||The p-value is evaluated at a 2-sided significance level for CZP 200 mg vs. PBO|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.||The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||245.256|10.002|<0.0001
90881664|NCT02942017|181626736|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.019||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.52|-0.48|||MMRM|||Mixed effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.48|-4.52|0.0160
90881665|NCT02942017|181626737|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.271||0.671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|3.07|||MMRM|||MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||3.07|-1.98|0.6710
90881666|NCT02942017|181626738|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.738||0.4216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|0.87|||MMRM|||Change at Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.87|-2.06|0.4216
90920030|NCT03897686|181710598|SUPERIORITY||LS-means difference|-133.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|35.26||0.00023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-203.03|-63.55||The threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05.|ANCOVA|"Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) adjusted for the baseline value with fixed factors of treatment group and radiological stage"||Contrasts for changes in functionality WOMAC score, visit 5||-63.55|-203.03|0.00023
90920031|NCT03897686|181710599|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.005||||||The level of significance was set to p \<0.05.|Chi-squared|P-value generated by Chi-squared test was ≤0.005 for each time point.||The Chi-Square test was used to determine whether there was a statistically significant difference in disposition of results between two groups.||||<0.005
90920032|NCT03897686|181710600|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.005||||||The level of significance was set to p \<0.05.|Chi-squared|P-value generated by Chi-squared test was ≤0.005 for each time point.||The Chi-Square test was used to determine whether there was a statistically significant difference in disposition of results between two groups.||||<0.005
90920033|NCT03897686|181710602|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05.|ANCOVA|||The mean number of paracetamol tablets was calculated taking into account only patients who had received paracetamol. ANCOVA was used to detect a difference in means of 2 groups at visit 3 (week 6).||||0.050
90920034|NCT03897686|181710602|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05.|ANCOVA|||The mean number of paracetamol tablets was calculated taking into account only patients who had received paracetamol. ANCOVA was used to detect a difference in means of 2 groups at visit 4 (week 13).||||0.004
90920035|NCT04505774|181710607|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6778|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.6778
90920036|NCT04505774|181710607|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6292|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.6292
90920037|NCT04505774|181710607|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6858|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.6858
90881667|NCT02942017|181626738|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.905||0.3947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.57|1.02|||MMRM|||Change at Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||1.02|-2.57|0.3947
90881668|NCT02942017|181626738|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.962||0.328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.86|0.96|||MMRM|||Change at Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.96|-2.86|0.3280
90881669|NCT02942017|181626738|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.994||0.2522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.12|0.83|||MMRM|||Change at Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.83|-3.12|0.2522
90881670|NCT02942017|181626738|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.091||0.1431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.78|0.55|||MMRM|||Change at Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.55|-3.78|0.1431
90881671|NCT02942017|181626738|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.113||0.0991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.06|0.36|||MMRM|||Change at Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.36|-4.06|0.0991
90881672|NCT02942017|181626738|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.155||0.0389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.71|-0.13|||MMRM|||Change at Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.13|-4.71|0.0389
90881673|NCT02942017|181626738|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.108||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.67|-1.28|||MMRM|||Change at Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-1.28|-5.67|0.0022
90920038|NCT04505774|181710607|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1351|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.1351
90920039|NCT04505774|181710608|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1959|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.1959
90920040|NCT04505774|181710608|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9496|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.9496
90920041|NCT04505774|181710608|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9902|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.9902
90920042|NCT04505774|181710608|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0814|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.0814
90920043|NCT04505774|181710609|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.0
90920044|NCT04505774|181710609|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1
90920045|NCT04505774|181710609|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1
90920046|NCT04505774|181710610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0577|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.0577
90920047|NCT04505774|181710610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5015|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.5015
90920048|NCT04505774|181710610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5892|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.5892
90920049|NCT04505774|181710610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1714|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.1714
90920050|NCT04505774|181710611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0732|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.0732
90920051|NCT04505774|181710611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9018|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.9018
90920052|NCT04505774|181710611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5075|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.5075
90920053|NCT04505774|181710611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.145|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.1450
90920054|NCT04505774|181710612|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8837|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.8837
90920055|NCT04505774|181710612|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1
90920056|NCT04505774|181710612|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1
90881674|NCT02942017|181626738|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.429||0.0255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.08|-0.4|||MMRM|||Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.40|-6.08|0.0255
90881675|NCT02942017|181626738|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.356||0.1375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.73|0.66|||MMRM|||Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.66|-4.73|0.1375
90881676|NCT02942017|181626738|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.11|2.46|||MMRM|||Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||2.46|-3.11|0.8170
90881677|NCT02942017|181626739|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.9||||0.0168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|6.7|||GEE method|||Hour 60: Generalized estimating equation (GEE) method was used for analysis. The HAM-D response at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model.||6.7|1.2|0.0168
90881678|NCT02942017|181626739|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.6||||0.0482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|6.6|||GEE method|||Day 7: GEE method was used for analysis. The HAM-D response at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model.||6.6|1.0|0.0482
90881679|NCT02942017|181626739|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.5857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.0|||GEE method|||Day 30: GEE method was used for analysis. The HAM-D response at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. An exchangeable working correlation structure is assumed for the model parameters estimation.||2.0|0.3|0.5857
90881680|NCT02942017|181626740|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.4||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|7.9||Hour 60:|GEE method|||Hour 60: GEE method was used for analysis. The HAM-D remission at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model.||7.9|1.5|0.0033
90881681|NCT02942017|181626740|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.7||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|9.3|||GEE method|||Day 7: GEE method was used for analysis. The HAM-D remission at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model.||9.3|1.5|0.0046
90881682|NCT02942017|181626740|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.3085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.5|||GEE method|||Day 30: GEE method was used for analysis. The HAM-D remission at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model.||1.5|0.3|0.3085
90881683|NCT02942017|181626741|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-8.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.989||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.29|-2.42|||MMRM|||Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D subscales at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D subscales, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-2.42|-14.29|0.0063
90881684|NCT02942017|181626741|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-9.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.566||0.0074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.83|-2.68|||MMRM|||Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D subscales at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D subscales, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-2.68|-16.83|0.0074
90881685|NCT02942017|181626741|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.149||0.6637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.88|7.63|||MMRM|||Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D subscales at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D subscales, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||7.63|-4.88|0.6637
90920057|NCT04505774|181710612|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5343|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.5343
90920058|NCT04505774|181710613|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6636|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.6636
90920059|NCT04505774|181710613|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5878|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.5878
90920060|NCT04505774|181710613|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7148|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.7148
90920061|NCT04505774|181710613|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1117|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.1117
90920062|NCT04505774|181710614|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.678|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.6780
90920063|NCT04505774|181710614|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6638|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.6638
90920064|NCT04505774|181710614|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7645|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.7645
90920065|NCT04505774|181710614|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0987|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0987
90920066|NCT04505774|181710615|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4016|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.4016
90920067|NCT04505774|181710615|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5815|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.5815
90920068|NCT04505774|181710615|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9085|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.9085
90920069|NCT04505774|181710615|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.082|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.0820
90920070|NCT04505774|181710616|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3135|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.3135
90881686|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.154||0.5132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.21|||MMRM|||Depressed Mood, Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.21|-0.41|0.5132
90881687|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.181||0.1672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.11|||MMRM|||Depressed Mood, Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.11|-0.61|0.1672
90881688|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.178||0.0963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.05|||MMRM|||Depressed Mood, Hour 8:MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.05|-0.65|0.0963
90881689|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.183||0.4803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.23|||MMRM|||Depressed Mood, Hour 12:MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.23|-0.49|0.4803
90920071|NCT04505774|181710616|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9581|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.9581
90920072|NCT04505774|181710616|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9661|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.9661
90920073|NCT04505774|181710616|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1073|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.1073
90920074|NCT04505774|181710617|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3575|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.3575
90920075|NCT04505774|181710617|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.591|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.5910
90920076|NCT04505774|181710617|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.867|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.8670
90920077|NCT04505774|181710617|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0645|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.0645
90920078|NCT05386355|181710618|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|5.35|||||The General Health App is the reference group.|A mixed-effect Poisson regression with robust variance estimation was used report the adjusted RR with 95% CI accounting for the clinic-specific random intercepts. Given the small number of COVID-19 vaccination completion, we were unable to account for children nested with parent/caregiver or adjusting for covariates.||5.35|0.59|
90920079|NCT05386355|181710619|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.65|||||The General Health App is the reference group.|A mixed-effect Poisson regression with robust variance estimation was used report the adjusted RR with 95% CI accounting for the clinic-specific random intercepts. Given the small number of COVID-19 vaccination completion, we were unable to account for children nested with parent/caregiver or adjusting for covariates.||1.65|0.42|
90920080|NCT05386355|181710620|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0.638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|0.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|The analytical method was based on a linear mixed model adjusting for baseline SAGE vaccine hesitancy composite scores and random clinic effect.||||0.73|-1.19|0.638
90920081|NCT03775109|181710638|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|16.7||||0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|44.5||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Chi-squared||Difference = Canakinumab - Placebo|It is estimated that improvement of histological alcoholic steatohepatitis will occur in 40% of patients treated with placebo and 80% of patients treated with Canakinumab. A trial with 80% power to detect a difference at the P \< 0.05 threshold would require 23 patients in each arm, 46 in total. Assuming a drop-out rate of 10%, we will recruit 52 patients in total (26 patients per group).||44.5|-11.2|0.248
90920082|NCT03775109|181710639|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.043|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.235|0.322|||||Difference = Canakinumab - Placebo|||0.322|-0.235|
90920083|NCT03775109|181710640|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.133|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.121|81.004||||||||81.004|0.121|
90920084|NCT03775109|181710641|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.887|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.357|9.965||||||||9.965|0.357|
90920085|NCT03775109|181710644|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||ANCOVA|Change in log-transformed serum bilirubin from baseline to day 28. 49 participants were included in this analysis.||||||0.270
90920086|NCT03775109|181710645|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0349|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: MELD score at Day 28 = intercept + treatment group indicator + baseline MELD score. 49 patients have data at Day 28 and baseline.||||||0.03490
90920087|NCT03775109|181710646|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.088|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.558|16.624|||||Ordinal logistic regression (proportional odds) model. GAHS at day 28 = intercept + treatment group indicator + baseline GAHS measurement. 48 participants have GAHS data at baseline and day 28.|||16.624|1.558|
90920088|NCT03775109|181710647|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.343|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: mDF score at day 28 = intercept + treatment group indicator + baseline mDF score.||Natural log transformation used for both baseline and day 28 measurements. 49 participants have mDF measurements at baseline and day 28.||||0.343
90920089|NCT03775109|181710648|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.083|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.529|0.696|||||difference = canakinumab - placebo. natural log transformation used.|||0.696|-0.529|
90920090|NCT03775109|181710649|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
90920091|NCT03775109|181710650|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
90920092|NCT03775109|181710651|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.046|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.147|7.424||||||||7.424|0.147|
90920093|NCT03775109|181710659|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.043|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.235|0.322|||||Difference = Canakinumab - Placebo|||0.322|-0.235|
90920094|NCT03775109|181710660|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.388|0.127|||||Difference = Canakinumab - Placebo|||0.127|-0.388|
90920095|NCT03775109|181710661|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.012|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.693|23.219||||||||23.219|0.693|
90920096|NCT03775109|181710662|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.543|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.543|38.043||||||||38.043|0.543|
90920097|NCT03775109|181710663|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.745|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.456|6.558||||||||6.558|0.456|
90920098|NCT03775109|181710664|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.977|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.281|3.397||||||||3.397|0.281|
90920099|NCT03775109|181710665|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.768|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.238|2.479||||||||2.479|0.238|
90920100|NCT05691452|181710671|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|20.05||||0.578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.68|90.78||Generalized linear models generated estimated mean differences in the post-intervention values controlling for the baseline assessments.|Regression, Linear|||||90.78|-50.68|0.578
90920101|NCT05691452|181710672|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-21.2||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-101.9|59.5|||Regression, Linear|||||59.5|-101.9|0.61
90920102|NCT05691452|181710673|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.55||||0.674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.68|8.78|||Regression, Linear|||||8.78|-5.68|0.674
90920103|NCT05691452|181710674|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-21.6||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.5|-4.59|||Regression, Linear|||||-4.59|-38.5|.013
90920104|NCT05691452|181710675|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.387||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.335|1.109|||Regression, Linear|||||1.109|-0.335|0.29
90920105|NCT05691452|181710676|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.203||||0.701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|0.833|||Regression, Linear|||||0.833|-1.24|0.701
90920106|NCT05691452|181710677|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-21.45||||0.376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.99|26.08|||Regression, Linear|||||26.08|-68.99|0.376
90920107|NCT05343390|181710713|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.1|25.1|||Regression, Linear|A linear model fit using generalized estimating equations to account for correlated observations within clusters.||||25.1|16.1|<0.001
90920108|NCT05343390|181710714|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.9|16.4|||Regression, Linear|A linear model fit using generalized estimating equations to account for correlated observations within clusters.||||16.4|5.9|<0.001
90920109|NCT05343390|181710715|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|1.22||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|Negative binomial mixed-effect model||||1.60|0.93|0.14
90920110|NCT05343390|181710716|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|1.37||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|Negative binomial mixed-effect model||||1.71|1.10|0.006
90920111|NCT05343390|181710717|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|2.29||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|4.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Negative binomial mixed-effect model||||4.40|1.19|0.013
90920112|NCT05343390|181710718|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|1.45||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|Negative binomial mixed-effect model||||1.92|1.10|0.01
90920113|NCT05343390|181710719|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|1.28||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|Negative binomial mixed-effect model||||1.76|0.94|0.12
90920114|NCT00739648|181710740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.7282|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.86|1.39|||Regression, Linear|negative binomial regression model||||1.39|0.86|0.7282
90920115|NCT00739648|181710742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-15.2||||0.9768|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.8|-2.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.66|-27.8|0.9768
90920116|NCT00739648|181710743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.3||||0.9464|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-24.9|0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.26|-24.9|0.9464
90920117|NCT02278562|181710776|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37||||||0.05 is the a priori threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon Rank-Sum|||Prior data indicate that LDR is normally distributed with standard deviation ranging from 0.16 to 0.23 in hemodialysis and control patients, respectively. If the true difference in the experimental and control means is 0.21, we will be able to reject the null hypothesis that the population means of the experimental and control groups are equal with probability (power) 0.933. The Type I error probability associated with this test of this null hypothesis is 0.05.||||0.37
90920118|NCT02278562|181710776|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.955||||||0.05 is the a priori threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon Rank-Sum|||Prior data indicate that LDR is normally distributed with standard deviation ranging from 0.16 to 0.23 in hemodialysis and control patients, respectively. If the true difference in the experimental and control means is 0.21, we will be able to reject the null hypothesis that the population means of the experimental and control groups are equal with probability (power) 0.933.||||0.955
90920119|NCT05418296|181710784|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.46|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.46
90920120|NCT05418296|181710785|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.00314|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.00314
90920121|NCT05418296|181710786|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.066|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.066
90920122|NCT05418296|181710787|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.085|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0850
90920123|NCT05418296|181710788|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0716|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0716
90920124|NCT04419168|181710819|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.54||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|2.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.37|-1.30|.57
90920125|NCT04419168|181710820|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.61|-0.46|0.79
90920126|NCT04419168|181710821|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|1.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.12|-1.55|0.75
90920127|NCT04419168|181710822|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.64||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.87|-0.60|0.31
90920128|NCT04419168|181710823|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|1.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||These results correspond to ASCQ-Me Social Functioning Impact only.||1.99|-1.77|0.91
90920129|NCT04419168|181710823|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.72||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|3.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||These results correspond to ASCQ-Me Emotional Impact only.||3.46|-0.03|0.05
90920130|NCT04419168|181710824|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.13||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|2.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.56|-0.31|0.12
90920131|NCT04419168|181710825|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0024||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0443|0.0395|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.0395|-0.0443|0.91
90920132|NCT04419168|181710826|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.43||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|2.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.48|-1.61|0.68
90920133|NCT04419168|181710827|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.63|-0.46|0.75
90920134|NCT04419168|181710828|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.56|0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.35|-2.56|0.14
90920135|NCT04419168|181710829|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|1.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.21|-1.69|0.75
90881690|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.191||0.0844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.05|||MMRM|||Depressed Mood, Hour 24:MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.05|-0.71|0.0844
90881691|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.193||0.1325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.09|||MMRM|||Depressed Mood, Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.09|-0.68|0.1325
90881692|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.192||0.0332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.03|||MMRM|||Depressed Mood, Hour 48:MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.03|-0.79|0.0332
90881693|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.189||0.1273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.08|||MMRM|||Depressed Mood, Hour 60:MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.08|-0.67|0.1273
90881694|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.182||0.1059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.06|||MMRM|||Depressed Mood, Hour 72:MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.06|-0.66|0.1059
90881695|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.215||0.0683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.03|||MMRM|||Depressed Mood, Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.03|-0.82|0.0683
90881696|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.232||0.4458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.28|||MMRM|||Depressed Mood, Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.28|-0.64|0.4458
90881697|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.228||0.2905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.7|||MMRM|||Depressed Mood, Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.70|-0.21|0.2905
90881698|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.182||0.3096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.55|||MMRM|||Depressed Mood, Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.55|-0.18|0.3096
90881699|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.165||0.1925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.11|||MMRM|||Feeling of Guilt, Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.11|-0.55|0.1925
90920136|NCT04419168|181710830|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.71||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|2.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||These results correspond to ASCQ-Me Social Functioning Impact only.||2.71|-1.30|0.49
90920137|NCT04419168|181710830|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|3.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||These results correspond to ASCQ-Me Emotional Impact only.||3.88|0.12|0.037
90920138|NCT04419168|181710831|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.13||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|3.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.71|0.56|0.008
90881700|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.168||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.11|||MMRM|||Feeling of Guilt, Hour 4:MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.11|-0.77|0.0101
90881701|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.163||0.1546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.09|||MMRM|||Feeling of Guilt, Hour 8:MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.09|-0.56|0.1546
90881702|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.168||0.0901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.05|||MMRM|||Feeling of Guilt, Hour 12:MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.05|-0.62|0.0901
90920139|NCT04419168|181710832|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|0.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.82|-1.51|0.56
90920140|NCT04419168|181710833|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0013||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0464|0.0437|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.0437|-0.0464|0.95
90920141|NCT04419168|181710834|SUPERIORITY||Incidence Rate Ratio|1.11||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.48|||Negative Binomial Regression|Adjustments were made for clinic site, baseline depression (high vs low), and corresponding health care use in the 12 months prior to study entry.||||1.48|0.83|0.49
90920142|NCT04419168|181710835|SUPERIORITY||Incidence Rate Ratio|1.43||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|2.18|||Negative Binomial Regression|Adjustments were made for clinic site, baseline depression (high vs low), and corresponding health care use in the 12 months prior to study entry.||||2.18|0.93|0.10
90920143|NCT04419168|181710836|SUPERIORITY||Incidence Rate Ratio|1.31||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|2.03|||Negative Binomial Regression|Adjustments were made for clinic site, baseline depression (high vs low), and corresponding health care use in the 12 months prior to study entry.||||2.03|0.85|0.22
90920144|NCT04640961|181710843|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-Value was calculated|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
90920145|NCT04640961|181710844|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-Value was calculated|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
90881703|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.162||0.0717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.03|||MMRM|||Feeling of Guilt, Hour 24:MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.03|-0.62|0.0717
90920146|NCT04640961|181710845|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-Value was calculated|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
90881704|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.169||0.0468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.0|||MMRM|||Feeling of Guilt, Hour 36:MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.00|-0.68|0.0468
90881705|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.173||0.2222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.13|||MMRM|||Feeling of Guilt, Hour 48:MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.13|-0.56|0.2222
90881706|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.156||0.0682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.02|||MMRM|||Feeling of Guilt, Hour 60:MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.02|-0.60|0.0682
90881707|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.08|||MMRM|||Feeling of Guilt, Hour 72:MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.08|-0.72|0.0147
90920147|NCT05009251|181710868|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.054|||||||Regression, Linear|||This analysis compared groups that were informed they were high risk (High Risk Only, High Risk Based on Medical Records, High Risk Based on Algorithm) to Reminder Control patients who were sent messages that did not disclose their risk status. Null hypothesis: messages that inform patients they are high risk do not increase flu vaccination rate vs. messages that do not disclose risk status; Alternative hypothesis: messages that inform patients they are high risk increase flu vaccination rate.||||.054
90962378|NCT01389765|181805614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyzed was a ratio of geometric LS means between the 2 treatments states (fed/fasted), and the 90% confidence interval for the ratio.||||1.01|0.92|
90920148|NCT05009251|181710868|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|||This analysis compared groups that were informed they were high risk (High Risk Only, High Risk Based on Medical Records, High Risk Based on Algorithm) to No-Contact Control patients who were not sent messages. Null hypothesis: messages that inform patients they are high risk do not increase flu vaccination rate relative to no messages; Alternative hypothesis: messages that inform patients they are high risk increase flu vaccination rate.||||<.001
90920149|NCT05009251|181710868|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||Regression, Linear|||This analysis compared groups who received messages including risk reasons (High Risk Based on Medical Records, High Risk Based on Algorithm) to messages that mentioned patients' risk status but do not include reasons (High Risk Only). Null hypothesis: messages that include risk reasons do not increase flu vaccination rate relative to high-risk messages that do not include risk reasons; Alternative hypothesis: messages including risk reasons are more effective at increasing vaccination rates.||||.240
90920150|NCT05009251|181710868|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.047|||||||Regression, Linear|||Null hypothesis: flu-shot messages that do not mention high-risk status do not increase vaccination relative to no messages; Alternative hypothesis: flu shot messages that do not mention high-risk status increase flu shots relative to no messages.||||.047
90920151|NCT05009251|181710868|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.781||||||Pairwise comparisons between high-risk messages (Analyses 5, 6 and 7) were analyzed in the same regression. Reported p-values were adjusted using Tukey's HSD test.|Regression, Linear|||Null hypothesis: High Risk Only and High Risk Based on Medical Records messages are equally effective at promoting flu vaccinations; Alternative hypothesis: there is a difference in effectiveness between High Risk Only and High Risk Based on Medical Records.||||.781
90920152|NCT05009251|181710868|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.361||||||Pairwise comparisons between high-risk messages (Analyses 5, 6 and 7) were analyzed in the same regression. Reported p-values were adjusted using Tukey's HSD test.|Regression, Linear|||Null hypothesis: High Risk Only and High Risk Based on Algorithm messages are equally effective at promoting flu vaccinations; Alternative hypothesis: there is a difference in effectiveness between High Risk Only and High Risk Based on Algorithm.||||.361
90920153|NCT05009251|181710868|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77||||||Pairwise comparisons between high-risk messages (Analyses 5, 6 and 7) were analyzed in the same regression. Reported p-values were adjusted using Tukey's HSD test.|Regression, Linear|||Null hypothesis: High Risk Based on Medical Records and High Risk Based on Algorithm messages are equally effective at promoting flu vaccinations; Alternative hypothesis: there is a difference in effectiveness between High Risk Based on Medical Records and High Risk Based on Algorithm.||||.770
90920154|NCT04204278|181710876|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-Value was calculated|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
90920155|NCT04204278|181710877|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|P-Value was calculated||||||<0.0001
90920156|NCT04204278|181710878|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-Value was calculated|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
90920157|NCT05374837|181710897|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9585||||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4276|2.1485||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05. The p-value is for the intervention by time interaction.|Regression, Logistic||Odds of consuming a minimum acceptable diet in control group at endline.|||2.1485|0.4276|0.145
90920158|NCT05374837|181710897|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9669||||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|2.1742||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05. The p-value is for the intervention by time interaction.|Regression, Logistic||Odds of consuming a minimum acceptable diet in intervention group at endline.|||2.1742|0.43|0.145
90920159|NCT05374837|181710898|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.3084||||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1977|0.481||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05. The p-value is for the intervention by time interaction.|Regression, Logistic|||||0.481|0.1977|0.179
90920160|NCT05374837|181710898|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.438||||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2983|0.6431||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05. The p-value is for the intervention by time interaction.|Regression, Logistic|||||0.6431|0.2983|0.179
90920161|NCT05374837|181710904|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.054||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.054
90920162|NCT05374837|181710905|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05|Chi-squared|||||||0.65
90920163|NCT05406921|181710935|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.32|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||This was a feasibility study and not powered to detect significant differences pre-/post-intervention.||||<0.05
90920164|NCT04299009|181710937|OTHER|multilevel linear models with Epworth sleepiness score scores as the dependent variable; treatment block (BLT vs sBLT) as a fixed effect; treatment sequence as a covariate; and participant intercept as a random effect.|regression coefficient|2.45|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|5.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.19|-0.30|<0.05
90920165|NCT04838262|181710982|OTHER|||||||0.57|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.57
90920166|NCT04838262|181710982|OTHER|||||||0.85|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.85
90920167|NCT00593489|181711056|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.24|||Poisson Regression|||The IPR was analyzed using Poisson regression with the intervention group as a class effect and the mean HbA1c at baseline as a covariate||1.24|0.8|0.96
90920168|NCT04173663|181711087|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-3.27||||0.092|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Linear regression controlled for study site, cohort, and baseline value of the parental empowerment scale.||||||.092
90920169|NCT04173663|181711088|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.62||||1.54e-05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Linear regression controlled for study site, cohort, and baseline value of the measure.||||||.0000154
90920170|NCT04173663|181711089|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.19||||0.014|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Linear regression controlled for study site, cohort, and baseline value of the measure.||||||.014
90920171|NCT04173663|181711090|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.13||||0.883|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Linear regression controlled for study site, cohort, and baseline value of the measure.||||||0.883
90920172|NCT04173663|181711091|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.11||||0.308|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Linear regression controlled for study site, cohort, and baseline value of the measure.||Outcome Variable: Number of services family applied for (6 month post intervention)||||.308
90920173|NCT04173663|181711091|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.11||||0.355|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Linear regression controlled for study site, cohort, and baseline value of the measure.||Outcome Variable: Number of services family applied for (12 month post intervention)||||.355
90962379|NCT01389765|181805615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|1.5|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Analyzed were the median of paired differences between the 2 treatment states (fed versus fasted) and the 90% confidence interval.||||1.50|0.50|0.0031
91034166|NCT02847650|181954325|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26||0.0407|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.6|-1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.0|-8.6|0.0407
90920174|NCT04173663|181711092|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.06||||0.699|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Linear regression controlled for study site, cohort, and baseline value of the measure.||Outcome Variable: Number of government services family is receiving (6 month post intervention)||||.699
90920175|NCT04173663|181711092|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.1||||0.573|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Linear regression controlled for study site, cohort, and baseline value of the measure.||Outcome Variable: Number of government services the family is receiving (12 month post intervention)||||.573
90920176|NCT04173663|181711092|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.23||||0.43|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Linear regression controlled for study site, cohort, and baseline value of the measure.||Outcome Variable: Number of direct services the family is receiving (6 month post intervention)||||.430
90920177|NCT04173663|181711092|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.27||||0.391|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Linear regression controlled for study site, cohort, and baseline value of the measure.||Outcome Variable: Number of direct services the family is receiving (12 month post intervention)||||.391
90920178|NCT04173663|181711093|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.44||||0.51|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression controlled for study site, cohort, and baseline value of the measure.||Outcome Variable: Whether participants were engaged or not engaged in vocational/educational activities (6 month post intervention)||||.510
90920179|NCT04173663|181711093|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.64||||0.296|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression controlled for study site, cohort, and baseline value of the measure.||Outcome Variable: Whether participants were engaged or not engaged in vocational/educational activities (12 month post intervention)||||.296
90920180|NCT04173663|181711094|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.66||||0.361|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Linear regression controlled for study site, cohort, and baseline value of the measure.||||||.361
90920181|NCT04173663|181711095|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.08||||0.81|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Linear regression controlled for study site, cohort, and baseline value of the measure.||Outcome Variable: Number of unmet service needs (6 month post intervention)||||.810
90920182|NCT04173663|181711095|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.13||||0.678|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Linear regression controlled for study site, cohort, and baseline value of the measure.||Outcome Variable: Number of unmet service needs (12 month post intervention)||||.678
90920183|NCT04173663|181711096|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.03||||0.924|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Linear regression controlled for study site and cohort,||||||.924
90920184|NCT04833777|181711126|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
90920185|NCT04833777|181711127|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
90920186|NCT04833777|181711128|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
90920187|NCT04833777|181711129|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
90920188|NCT04833777|181711130|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
90920189|NCT04833777|181711131|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
90920190|NCT04833777|181711132|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
90920191|NCT04833777|181711133|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
90920192|NCT04833777|181711134|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
90920193|NCT04833777|181711135|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
90920194|NCT04833777|181711136|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
90920195|NCT04833777|181711137|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
90920196|NCT04833777|181711138|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
90920197|NCT04833777|181711139|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
90962380|NCT03645954|181805616|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||<0.01
90962381|NCT03645954|181805617|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91034167|NCT03818581|181954337|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||SPCD analysis|||||||0.15
90881708|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.182||0.0837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.04|||MMRM|||Feeling of Guilt, Day 7:MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.04|-0.68|0.0837
90881709|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.179||0.5828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.26|||MMRM|||Feeling of Guilt, Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.26|-0.46|0.5828
90881710|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.168||0.5674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.24|||MMRM|||Feeling of Guilt, Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.24|-0.43|0.5674
90881711|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145||0.4613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.4|||MMRM|||Feeling of Guilt, Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.40|-0.18|0.4613
90881712|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.082||0.324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.08|||MMRM|||Suicide, Hour 2:MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.08|-0.24|0.3240
90881713|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.082||0.3023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.08|||MMRM|||Suicide, Hour 4:MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.08|-0.24|0.3023
90881714|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.082||0.4127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.09|||MMRM|||Suicide, Hour 8:MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.09|-0.23|0.4127
90881715|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.082||0.2819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.07|||MMRM|||Suicide, Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.07|-0.25|0.2819
90881716|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.082||0.3884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.09|||MMRM|||Suicide, Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.09|-0.23|0.3884
90881717|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.082||0.275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.07|||MMRM|||Suicide, Hour 36:MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.07|-0.25|0.2750
90920198|NCT04833777|181711141|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
90920199|NCT04833777|181711142|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
90920200|NCT05249439|181711167|OTHER|Paired t-test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||I-SatPro starting weight Vs 52 week weight (kg)||||<0.0001
90962382|NCT03645954|181805618|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
90881718|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.082||0.1811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.05|||MMRM|||Suicide, Hour 48:MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.05|-0.27|0.1811
90920201|NCT00616967|181711176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Pathological complete response rate|0.274|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.169|0.402|||||The Estimation Parameter provided above is for overall pCR for both arms combined. We estimated pCR for each arm separately as well.|Patients were stratified by hormone receptor status and randomly assigned to either arm 1 or 2. This study was designed using Simon's two-stage design for each arm in parallel. Interim analysis of early stopping for futility was conducted for the first 32 patients (16 patients per arm) and the study proceeded as more than 2 patients achieved a pCR in each arm (31 patients per arm). This design had 80% power to detect a 25% pCR rate versus a null rate of 10% with a type I error rate of 0.10.||0.402|0.169|
90920202|NCT00616967|181711176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||pCR in placebo arm (arm 1)|0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.142|0.48||||||||0.48|0.142|
90920203|NCT00616967|181711176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||pCR in vorinostat arm (arm 2)|0.258|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.119|0.446||||||||0.446|0.119|
90920204|NCT00616967|181711179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.1||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|22.7|||Regression, Logistic|||The estimates provided are based upon a multivariate analysis using a logistic regression adjusting for hormone receptor status. Patients with ≥50% reduction in SULmax were more likely to achieve a pCR.||22.7|1.3|0.023
90920205|NCT02910583|181711188|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Rates|4.7||||0.1475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|10.9||P-value is from Z test for the difference of two proportions based on Kaplan-Meier estimates with standard error of each arm computed using Greenwood's formula.|Z test||comparison: ibrutininb vs. placebo|||10.9|-1.6|0.1475
90881719|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.082||0.3854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.09|||MMRM|||Suicide, Hour 60:MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.09|-0.23|0.3854
90920206|NCT02910583|181711189|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||One-sided P-value from asymptotic test for the binomial proportion (CRR \<= 37% vs CRR \> 37%).|asymptotic test for binomial proportion|||||||< 0.0001
90920207|NCT05059262|181711214|SUPERIORITY||Difference in ORR|39.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.4|49.6||Stratified by tumor location (lower limb/all other) and region (U.S./non-U.S.) based on Interactive Response Technology (IRT).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Stratified Mantel-Haenszel with stratification factors based on IRT|||49.6|28.4|<0.0001
90920208|NCT05059262|181711215|SUPERIORITY||Difference in ORR|67.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.0|77.3||Stratified by tumor location (lower limb/all other) and region (U.S./non-U.S.) based on IRT.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Stratified Mantel-Haenszel with stratification factors based on IRT.|||77.3|57.0|<0.0001
90881720|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.082||0.3822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.09|||MMRM|||Suicide, Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.09|-0.23|0.3822
90920209|NCT05059262|181711216|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|14.6||||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|25.3||Model included treatment+visit+treatment by visit interaction+stratification factor for region (U.S. versus non-U.S.)+joint type (knee, ankle, or other)+the most impaired ROM baseline value.|Mixed model repeated measures|||||25.3|4.0|0.0077
90920210|NCT05059262|181711217|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.3||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|5.2||Model included treatment+visit+treatment by visit interaction+stratification factor for region (U.S. versus non-U.S.) and tumor location (lower limb/all other) based on IRT+PROMIS-PF baseline value.|Mixed model repeated measures|||||5.2|1.4|0.0007
90920211|NCT05059262|181711218|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-1.1||Model included treatment+visit+treatment by visit interaction+stratification factor for region (U.S. versus non-U.S.) and tumor location (lower limb/all other) based on IRT+Worst Stiffness NRS baseline value.|Mixed model repeated measures|||||-1.1|-2.5|<0.0001
90920212|NCT05059262|181711219|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|7.4||||0.0155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|13.4||Model included treatment+visit+treatment by visit interaction+stratification factor for region (U.S. versus non-U.S.) and tumor location (lower limb/all other) based on IRT+VAS baseline value.|Mixed model repeated measures|||||13.4|1.4|0.0155
90920213|NCT05059262|181711220|SUPERIORITY||Difference in responder rate|26.2||||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.5|42.8||Stratified by tumor location (lower limb/all other) and region (U.S./non-U.S.) based on IRT.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Stratified Mantel-Haenszel with stratification factors based on IRT.|||42.8|9.5|0.0056
90920214|NCT03131648|181711260|SUPERIORITY|Primary endpoints tested sequentially at a 5% significance level.|Risk Difference (RD)|8.6||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|13.1||Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data or subjects who received rescue medication prior to Week 16 were considered non-responders.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Primary endpoints tested sequentially at a 5% significance level.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline disease severity.|Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity.The null hypothesis of no difference in response rates between tralokinumab and placebo were tested against the 2-sided alternative that there is a difference.||13.1|4.1|0.002
90962383|NCT03645954|181805619|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
90962384|NCT03645954|181805620|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
90962385|NCT03645954|181805621|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
91034168|NCT00355797|181954340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.9||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.24|15.11|||t-test, 2 sided|||The endpoint will compare the composite percent change in ADL performance for patients while their devices are programmed to CLS and accelerometer pacing modes, using the no rate adaptive pacing mode as the baseline. Null hypothesis: mean composite of percent change for patients with their device programmed to CLS is less than or equal to the mean composite of percent change for the same patients with their device in accelerometer.||15.11|3.24|0.004
90881721|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.082||0.9255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.15|||MMRM|||Suicide, Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.15|-0.17|0.9255
90881722|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.091||0.6714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.22|||MMRM|||Suicide, Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.22|-0.14|0.6714
90881723|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.091||0.9838|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.18|||MMRM|||Suicide, Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.18|-0.18|0.9838
90881724|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.083||0.8884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.15|||MMRM|||Suicide, Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.15|-0.17|0.8884
90881725|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.097||0.6996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.16|||MMRM|||Insomnia-Early, Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.16|-0.23|0.6996
90881726|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121||0.4426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.33|||MMRM|||Insomnia-Early, Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.33|-0.15|0.4426
90881727|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.8743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.24|||MMRM|||Insomnia-Early, Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.24|-0.20|0.8743
90881728|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.118||0.3498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.35|||MMRM|||Insomnia-Early, Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.35|-0.12|0.3498
90881729|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.151||0.0839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.04|||MMRM|||Insomnia-Early, Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.04|-0.56|0.0839
90881730|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.157||0.2595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.13|||MMRM|||Insomnia-Early, Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.13|-0.49|0.2595
90881731|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.168||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.01|||MMRM|||Insomnia-Early, Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.01|-0.66|0.0560
90962386|NCT01598311|181805631|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was declared when the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference in adjusted percentage of cured subjects was \> -10%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|7.6||||||||7.6|-4.9|
90881732|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.6187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.27|||MMRM|||Insomnia-Early, Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.27|-0.45|0.6187
90962387|NCT01598311|181805633|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was declared if the lower bound of the 95% CI of the adjusted difference in sustained response was \> 0.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|12.2||||||||12.2|-3.6|
90881733|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.163||0.0187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.07|||MMRM|||Insomnia-Early, Hour 72 MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.07|-0.72|0.0187
90881734|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.1531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.1|||MMRM|||Insomnia-Early, Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.10|-0.62|0.1531
90881735|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.197||0.3341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.2|||MMRM|||Insomnia-Early, Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.20|-0.58|0.3341
90881736|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.216||0.8969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.46|||MMRM|||Insomnia-Early, Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.46|-0.40|0.8969
90881737|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.174||0.5862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.44|||MMRM|||Insomnia-Early, Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.44|-0.25|0.5862
90881738|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.117||0.3776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.34|||MMRM|||Insomnia-Middle, Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.34|-0.13|0.3776
90881739|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121||0.9029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.23|||MMRM|||Insomnia-Middle, Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.23|-0.26|0.9029
90881740|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121||0.6173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.3|||MMRM|||Insomnia-Middle, Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.30|-0.18|0.6173
90881741|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.124||0.2433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.39|||MMRM|||Insomnia-Middle, Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.39|-0.10|0.2433
90881742|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.139||0.0234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.04|||MMRM|||Insomnia-Middle, Hour 24 MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.04|-0.59|0.0234
90962388|NCT00523718|181805636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.24|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||.24
90962389|NCT02217436|181805642|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.98
90962390|NCT02217436|181805643|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.01
91034169|NCT00355797|181954347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.42|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.74||0.552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.17|3.33|||t-test, 2 sided|||The purpose of endpoint was to evaluate the percent change in pulse pressure during test. The null hypothesis was the mean percent change for patients with their device programmed to CLS is greater or equal to the mean percent change for the same patients with their device in accelerometer.||3.33|-6.17|0.552
90881743|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.139||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.0|||MMRM|||Insomnia-Middle, Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.00|-0.55|0.0540
90881744|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.144||0.0406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|-0.01|||MMRM|||Insomnia-Middle, Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.01|-0.58|0.0406
90881745|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.132||0.0295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.03|||MMRM|||Insomnia-Middle, Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.03|-0.56|0.0295
90881746|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.135||0.0925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.04|||MMRM|||Insomnia-Middle, Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.04|-0.50|0.0925
90881747|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.152||0.1631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.09|||MMRM|||Insomnia-Middle, Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.09|-0.52|0.1631
90881748|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.185||0.2213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.14|||MMRM|||Insomnia-Middle, Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.14|-0.60|0.2213
90881749|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.189||0.9175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.39|||MMRM|||Insomnia-Middle, Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.39|-0.36|0.9175
90881750|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.165||0.6763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.26|||MMRM|||Insomnia-Middle, Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.26|-0.40|0.6763
90881751|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121||0.3805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.35|||MMRM|||Insomnia-Late, Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.35|-0.13|0.3805
90881752|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.127||0.6073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.32|||MMRM|||Insomnia-Late, Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.32|-0.19|0.6073
90920215|NCT03131648|181711261|SUPERIORITY|Primary endpoints tested sequentially at a 5% significance level.|Risk Difference (RD)|12.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|17.7||Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data or subjects who received rescue medication prior to Week 16 were considered non-responders.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Primary endpoints tested sequentially at a 5% significance level.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline disease severity.|Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity. The null hypothesis of no difference in response rates between tralokinumab and placebo were tested against the 2-sided alternative that there is a difference.||17.7|6.5|<0.001
90920216|NCT03131648|181711262|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.7||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|15.0||Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'Composite', subjects who received rescue medication prior to Week 16 or have missing data at Week 16 were considered as non-responders.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Tested sequentially at a 5% significance level.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline disease severity.|Reduction of Worst Daily Pruritus NRS weekly average ≥4 at Week 16 was tested after the sequential testing of IGA 0/1 and EASI75 if these tests showed statistical significance.||15|4.4|0.002
90962391|NCT02656420|181805644|EQUIVALENCE|Statistical significance of the treatment effect (p \< 0.01) for the lower doses compared to the high dose as the reference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|-1.57||Using a linear mixed effects model with random intercepts and slope, SF level (in the log scale) was regressed on categorical treatment group (medium dose and low dose; high as the reference) as well as day (continuous variable).|Mixed Models Analysis|||The null hypothesis is that the urinary sulforaphane levels are equal across treatment arms. Sulforaphane metabolite levels were measured daily for 10 days in each arm.||-1.57|-1.89|<0.001
90962392|NCT02656420|181805645|SUPERIORITY|To summarize first 12-hour SPMA levels over the study course by participant, the SPMA geometric mean (in the log scale) for each individual was calculated and used as the outcome. Treatment arms (placebo, fifth, half and full doses) were independent (categorical) variables in a linear regression model with placebo as the reference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|63.2|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.6|140.9|||Regression, Linear||This Estimation Parameter was based on the comparison between the full dose group and the placebo group.|All broccoli sprout arms were compared with the placebo arm.||140.9|10.6|<0.05
90881753|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.119||0.7848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.2|||MMRM|||Insomnia-Late, Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.20|-0.27|0.7848
90920217|NCT03131648|181711263|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity adjustment using the Holm method.|Difference of least square means|-10.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|-6.5||Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'hypothetical'. Repeated measurements model on post-baseline data. In case of no post-baseline assessments before initiation of rescue medication, the Week 2 change was imputed as 0.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of IMP or after initiation of rescue medication were not included in the analysis.||-6.5|-14.4|<0.001
90920218|NCT03131648|181711264|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity adjustment using Holm method.|Difference of least square means|-2.1||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-0.8||Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'hypothetical'. Repeated measurements model on post-baseline data. In case of no post-baseline assessments before initiation of rescue medication, the Week 2 change was imputed as 0.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of IMP or initiation of rescue medication not included.||-0.8|-3.4|0.002
90920219|NCT03131648|181711265|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.0||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.8|33.7||"Based on the primary analysis of the 'composite' estimand. Subjects who received rescue medication or were transferred to open-label treatment were considered non-responders.~P value was considered non-significant."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|This test was not statistically significant and hence next maintenance endpoint in the sequential testing procedure was not evaluated.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference compared to placebo, stratified by region.|"Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure in the order:~IGA 0/1 at Week 52 between Q2W vs Placebo, EASI75 at Week 52 between Q2W vs Placebo, IGA 0/1 at Week 52 between Q4W vs Placebo, and EASI75 at Week 52 between Q4W vs Placebo."||33.7|-21.8|0.68
90920220|NCT03131648|181711265|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-9.5||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.1|18.0||Test not evaluated for significance. Based on the primary analysis of the 'composite' estimand. Subjects who received rescue medication or were transferred to open-label treatment were considered non-responders.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel risk difference compared to placebo, stratified by region.|"Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure in the order:~IGA 0/1 at Week 52 between Q2W vs Placebo, EASI75 at Week 52 between Q2W vs Placebo, IGA 0/1 at Week 52 between Q4W vs Placebo, and EASI75 at Week 52 between Q4W vs Placebo."||18.0|-37.1|0.50
90920221|NCT03131648|181711266|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.2||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|42.6||Test not evaluated for significance. Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects who received rescue medication or were transferred to open-label treatment are considered non-responders.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel risk difference compared to placebo, stratified by region.|"Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure in the order:~IGA 0/1 at Week 52 between Q2W vs Placebo, EASI75 at Week 52 between Q2W vs Placebo, IGA 0/1 at Week 52 between Q4W vs Placebo, and EASI75 at Week 52 between Q4W vs Placebo."||42.6|-0.2|0.056
90920222|NCT03131648|181711266|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.7||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|32.0||Test not evaluated for significance. Based on the primary analysis of the 'composite' estimand. Subjects who received rescue medication or were transferred to open-label treatment were considered non-responders.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel risk difference compared to placebo, stratified by region.|"Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure in the order:~IGA 0/1 at Week 52 between Q2W vs Placebo, EASI75 at Week 52 between Q2W vs Placebo, IGA 0/1 at Week 52 between Q4W vs Placebo, and EASI75 at Week 52 between Q4W vs Placebo."||32.0|-8.7|0.27
90962393|NCT04533451|181805651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0385|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0385
90881754|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121||0.9038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.23|||MMRM|||Insomnia-Late, Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.23|-0.25|0.9038
90962394|NCT04533451|181805653|EQUIVALENCE|Relatively large sample size and groups are independent.||||||0.9829|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.9829
90962395|NCT05344092|181805655|OTHER|Wilcoxon signed rank test comparing baseline score to post-mobile app intervention score (approximately 4 week) for the VetEd Mobile Application user group.|Median Difference (Net)|-0.84||||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.40
90962396|NCT05344092|181805657|OTHER|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test comparing baseline score to post-mobile app use score (approximately Week 4) for users of the VetEd mobile app.|Median Difference (Net)|-0.11||||0.92|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.92
90881755|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.134|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.134||0.6869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.21|||MMRM|||Insomnia-Late, Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.21|-0.32|0.6869
90920223|NCT03131648|181711269|SUPERIORITY|"Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data or subjects who received rescue medication prior to Week 16 were considered non-responders.~The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity."|Risk Difference (RD)|20.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.3|26.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and disease severity.|||26.8|13.3|<0.001
90920224|NCT03131648|181711270|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.4|14.1||"Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data or subjects who received rescue medication prior to Week 16 were considered non-responders.~The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and disease severity.|||14.1|6.4|<0.001
90920225|NCT03131648|181711271|SUPERIORITY||Difference of least square means|-6.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|-4.1||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of IMP or initiation of rescue medication not included. In case of no post-baseline assessments before initiation of rescue medication, the Week 2 change will be imputed as 0.||-4.1|-8.8|<0.001
90920226|NCT03131648|181711272|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.7||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|8.9||"Based on the primary analysis of the 'composite' estimand. Subjects who received rescue medication prior to Week 16 or with missing data at Week 16 were considered nonresponders.~The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline disease severity.|||8.9|2.5|0.007
90920227|NCT03131648|181711273|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.6|19.6||"Based on the primary analysis of the 'composite' estimand. Subjects who received rescue medication prior to Week 16 or with missing data at Week 16 were considered non-responders.~The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel risk difference stratified by region and disease severity.|||19.6|8.6|<0.001
90920228|NCT03131648|181711274|SUPERIORITY||Difference of least square means|-0.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.4||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of IMP or initiation of rescue medication not included. In case of no post-baseline assessments before initiation of rescue medication, the Week 1 change will be imputed as 0.||-0.4|-1.4|<0.001
90920229|NCT03131648|181711275|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.2|21.3||"Subjects who received rescue medication prior to Week 16 or have missing data at Week 16 were considered as non-responders.~The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline disease severity.|||21.3|9.2|<0.001
90962397|NCT05344092|181805658|OTHER|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test comparing baseline score to post-mobile app use score (approximately Week 4) for users of the VetEd mobile app.|Median Difference (Net)|-0.42||||0.68|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.68
90962398|NCT02634346|181805659|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.83|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|-2.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures is based on observed data without imputation of missing data.||||-2.8|-10.0|<0.001
90881756|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.139||0.9272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.29|||MMRM|||Insomnia-Late, Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.29|-0.26|0.9272
90920230|NCT03131648|181711276|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.4|20.5||"Subjects who received rescue medication prior to Week 16 or have missing data at Week 16 were considered as non-responders.~The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline disease severity.|||20.5|5.4|0.001
90920231|NCT02724878|181711277|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate|33.0|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|25.0|42.0||||||A sample size of 60 would provide 95% power to distinguish the ORR rate of 25% from 10% (historical control) with 1-sided alpha of 0.07. The treatment would be considered effective if 10 or more responses are observed out of 60 patients.||42|25|
90920232|NCT02384317|181711300|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|141.77||0.965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-133.6|128.7|||Random coefficients regression|||||128.7|-133.6|0.965
90920233|NCT05873751|181711355|OTHER||Calibrated VE|2.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.35|15.59|||||VE = 1 - HR\*100. The HRs were estimated by exponentiating the coefficient for the vaccine variable in the model. VE was adjusted for the covariates age, gender, and US census region.|||15.59|-10.35|
90920234|NCT05873751|181711356|OTHER||Calibrated VE|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.5|13.85|||||VE = 1 - HR\*100. The HRs were estimated by exponentiating the coefficient for the vaccine variable in the model. VE was adjusted for the covariates age, gender, and US census region.|||13.85|-23.50|
90920235|NCT05873751|181711357|OTHER||Calibrated VE|2.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.35|15.59|||||VE = 1 - HR\*100. The HRs were estimated by exponentiating the coefficient for the vaccine variable in the model. VE was adjusted for the covariates age, gender, and US census region.|||15.59|-10.35|
90962399|NCT02634346|181805659|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.84||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|-1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures is based on observed data without imputation of missing data.||||-1.7|-8.9|0.004
90920236|NCT05873751|181711358|OTHER||Calibrated VE|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.5|13.85|||||VE = 1 - HR\*100. The HRs were estimated by exponentiating the coefficient for the vaccine variable in the model. VE was adjusted for the covariates age, gender, and US census region.|||13.85|-23.50|
90920237|NCT01772472|181711359|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.44|0.66|||Log Rank|||||0.66|0.44|<0.0001
90920238|NCT01772472|181711360|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.44|0.66|||Log Rank|||||0.66|0.44|<0.0001
90881757|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.131||0.6931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.21|||MMRM|||Insomnia-Late, Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.21|-0.31|0.6931
90881758|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.132||0.8262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.23|||MMRM|||Insomnia-Late, Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.23|-0.29|0.8262
90881759|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141||0.0749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.03|||MMRM|||Insomnia-Late, Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.03|-0.54|0.0749
90881760|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.135||0.1923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.09|||MMRM|||Insomnia-Late, Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.09|-0.45|0.1923
90920239|NCT01772472|181711361|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.66|||Log Rank|||||0.66|0.44|<.0001
90881761|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.176||0.0326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.03|||MMRM|||Insomnia-Late, Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.03|-0.73|0.0326
90881762|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.171||0.444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.21|||MMRM|||Insomnia-Late, Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.21|-0.47|0.4440
90881763|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.134||0.7057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.22|||MMRM|||Insomnia-Late, Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.22|-0.32|0.7057
90881764|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.2865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.13|||MMRM|||Work and Activities, Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.13|-0.42|0.2865
90920240|NCT01772472|181711362|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.69|||Log Rank|||||0.69|0.46|<.0001
90920241|NCT01772472|181711363|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.46|0.69|||Log Rank|||||0.69|0.46|<0.0001
90920242|NCT01772472|181711364|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.69|||Log Rank|||||0.69|0.46|<.0001
90920243|NCT01772472|181711365|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.48|0.7|||Log Rank|||||0.70|0.48|<0.0001
90920244|NCT01772472|181711366|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.48|0.7|||Log Rank|||||0.70|0.48|<0.0001
90920245|NCT01772472|181711367|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.7|||Log Rank|||||0.70|0.48|<.0001
90920246|NCT01772472|181711368|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.0082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.91|||Log Rank|||||0.91|0.53|0.0082
90920247|NCT01772472|181711369|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.0082||95.0|0.53|0.91|||Log Rank|||||0.91|0.53|0.0082
90920248|NCT01772472|181711370|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.0082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.91|||Log Rank|||||0.91|0.53|0.0082
90920249|NCT01772472|181711371|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.47|0.76|||Log Rank|||||0.76|0.47|<0.0001
90920250|NCT01772472|181711372|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.47|0.76|||Log Rank|||||0.76|0.47|<0.0001
90920251|NCT01772472|181711373|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.76|||Log Rank|||||0.76|0.47|<.0001
90962400|NCT02634346|181805660|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.118||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures is based on observed data without imputation of missing data.||||-0.14|-0.61|0.002
90920252|NCT02697136|181711388|OTHER|Linear mixed model to test for superiority and non-inferiority. Equivalence was defined as a difference of less than 6.7% in MVWA, based on a pilot study. Using an assumed standard deviation of 4.5% and a 2:1 randomization scheme to maximize exposure to active drug, 16 completing patients in the CER-001 group and 8 in the placebo group (24 total completers for mITT) would yield 90% power to detect a difference from baseline versus placebo of 6.7%, using two-tailed testing with α=0.05.|Difference in LS Means|-0.08||||0.185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.4|-1.9|0.185
90920253|NCT02697136|181711389|OTHER|Linear mixed model to test for superiority and non-inferiority. Equivalence was defined as a difference of less than 6.7% in MVWA, based on a pilot study.|Difference in LS Means|0.7||||0.217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.8|-0.4|0.217
90920254|NCT02697136|181711390|OTHER|Linear mixed model to test for superiority and non-inferiority. Equivalence was defined as a difference of less than 6.7% in MVWA, based on a pilot study.|Difference in LS Means|-0.2||||0.832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.3|-1.6|0.832
90920255|NCT04391894|181711393|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean (LS Mean)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.01||0.585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|2.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.8|-5.0|0.585
90920256|NCT04391894|181711393|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean (LS Mean)|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.01|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.7|-7.01|0.107
90920257|NCT04391894|181711393|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean (LS Mean)|4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.02||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|8.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.3|0.3|0.033
90920258|NCT04391894|181711394|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean (LS Mean)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.4|-0.8|0.605
90920259|NCT04391894|181711394|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean (LS Mean)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.5|-0.7|0.646
90920260|NCT04391894|181711394|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean (LS Mean)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.7|-0.5|0.847
90920261|NCT04391894|181711395|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2||||||||0.2|-0.2|
90920262|NCT04391894|181711395|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1||||||||0.1|-0.3|
90920263|NCT04391894|181711395|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2||||||||0.2|-0.2|
90920264|NCT04391894|181711396|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2||||||||0.2|-0.2|
90920265|NCT04391894|181711396|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1||||||||0.1|-0.3|
90920266|NCT04391894|181711396|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.6||||||||0.6|0.1|
90920267|NCT01889199|181711398|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.12||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Only PCOS women were randomized to flutamide versus placebo; controls were not randomized A sample size of 11 per group (PCOS women versus controls) provided adequate power (approximately 80%) to detect effect sizes as small as 1.25 using a two-sample t-test (alpha=0.05, 2 tailed). A sample size of 5 per group (flutamide-treated versus placebo-treated PCOS women) also gave adequate power (approximately 80%) to detect effect sizes as small as 2 using a two-sample t-test (alpha=0.05, 2 tailed).||||0.004
90920268|NCT01889199|181711399|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.024|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||6-month changes from baseline were compared between placebo- and flutamide-treated PCOS women using an unpaired Student's t-test to determine whether one group changed more than the other over this time interval.||||
90920269|NCT01889199|181711401|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||6-month changes from baseline were compared between placebo- and flutamide-treated PCOS women using an unpaired Student's t-test to determine whether one group changed more than the other over this time interval.||||0.040
90920270|NCT01889199|181711402|OTHER|||||||0.034|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||6-month changes from baseline were compared between placebo- and flutamide-treated PCOS women using an unpaired Student's t-test to determine whether one group changed more than the other over this time interval.||||0.034
90920271|NCT02323321|181711405|OTHER|The primary hypothesis for this study is that the true (success) proportion of transplanted patients meeting the primary effectiveness endpoint, patient survival at day 30 post-transplantation and absence of severe PGD (left or right ventricle) in the first 24 hours post-transplantation, is greater than the Performance Goal value of 0.65.|Proportion|88.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.4|94.4|||one-sided exact binomial test|||||94.4|78.4|<0.0001
90920272|NCT00446225|181711406|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.42||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.64|||Log Rank|||||0.64|0.27|0.0001
90920273|NCT00446225|181711408|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.99|||Log Rank|||||0.99|0.36|0.043
90920274|NCT00220740|181711426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||The primary efficacy endpoint was the comparison of the Responder rates in the ITT population. Treatment group differences were tested by a Chi-square test. Subjects who did not complete the 24 week Efficacy Period and entered Rescue treatment with the alternative treatment were counted as Nonresponders.||||<0.001
90920275|NCT00220740|181711427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.542|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.542
90920276|NCT00220740|181711428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Dominant hand||||<0.001
90920277|NCT00220740|181711428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Non-dominant hand||||0.005
90920278|NCT04757610|181711473|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.023||0.284421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|0.91|||MMRM|||||0.91|-3.10|0.284421
90920279|NCT04757610|181711473|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.025||0.066678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|0.13|||MMRM|||||0.13|-3.90|0.066678
90920280|NCT03690206|181711551|SUPERIORITY||Difference to Placebo|-2.28||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.83|-0.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.73|-3.83|0.0039
90920281|NCT03690206|181711551|SUPERIORITY||Difference to Placebo|-0.91||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|0.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.71|-2.52|0.2700
90920282|NCT03690206|181711552|SUPERIORITY||Difference to Placebo|26.6||||0.0243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|48.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||48.9|4.3|0.0243
90920283|NCT03690206|181711552|SUPERIORITY||Difference to Placebo|5.5||||0.6255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|27.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||27.1|-16.2|0.6255
90920284|NCT03690206|181711553|SUPERIORITY||Difference to Placebo|31.7||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.4|51.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||51.9|11.4|0.0043
90881765|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.9475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.35|||MMRM|||Work and Activities, Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.35|-0.33|0.9475
90881766|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.185||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.12|||MMRM|||Work and Activities, Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.12|-0.61|0.1880
90881767|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.203||0.595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.29|||MMRM|||Work and Activities, Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.29|-0.51|0.5950
90881768|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.9636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.41|||MMRM|||Work and Activities, Hour 24 : MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.41|-0.39|0.9636
90881769|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.196||0.5836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.28|||MMRM|||Work and Activities, Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.28|-0.50|0.5836
90920285|NCT03690206|181711553|SUPERIORITY||Difference to Placebo|13.3||||0.1675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|32.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||32.0|-5.4|0.1675
90920286|NCT03690206|181711555|SUPERIORITY||Difference to Placebo|14.1||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|25.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||25.6|2.5|0.0160
90920287|NCT03690206|181711555|SUPERIORITY||Difference to Placebo|11.2||||0.0424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|21.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.6|0.7|0.0424
90920288|NCT06143670|181711613|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 12 (Test for non-zero within group change from Baseline)||||<0.0001
90920289|NCT06143670|181711614|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-16.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.6|-14.1|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test product minus reference product.|Change from Baseline at Week 12||-14.1|-19.6|<0.0001
90881770|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.184||0.1568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.1|||MMRM|||Work and Activities, Hour 48 : MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.10|-0.63|0.1568
90881771|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.177||0.0155|TWO_SIDED|5.0|-0.79|-0.09|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Work and Activities, Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.09|-0.79|0.0155
90881772|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.192||0.0504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.0|||MMRM|||Work and Activities, Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.00|-0.76|0.0504
90881773|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.212||0.1865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.14|||MMRM|||Work and Activities, Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.14|-0.70|0.1865
90920290|NCT06143670|181711615|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-16.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.46|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9|-13.1|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test product minus reference product.|Change from Baseline at Week 3||-13.1|-18.9|<0.0001
90962401|NCT02634346|181805660|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.118|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures is based on observed data without imputation of missing data.||||-0.20|-0.67|<0.001
90881774|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.0|||MMRM|||Work and Activities, Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.00|-0.87|0.0518
90920291|NCT06143670|181711615|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-17.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.9|-15.3|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test product minus reference product.|Change from Baseline at Week 6||-15.3|-19.9|<0.0001
90920292|NCT06143670|181711616|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.2|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test product minus reference product.|Change from Baseline at Week 3||-0.20|-0.35|<0.0001
90920293|NCT06143670|181711616|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|-0.13|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test product minus reference product.|Change from Baseline at Week 6||-0.13|-0.26|<0.0001
90920294|NCT06143670|181711616|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.22|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test product minus reference product.|Change from Baseline at Week 12||-0.22|-0.36|<0.0001
90920295|NCT06143670|181711617|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|-0.16|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test product minus reference product.|Change from Baseline at Week 3||-0.16|-0.28|<0.0001
90920296|NCT06143670|181711617|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|-0.1|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test product minus reference product.|Change from Baseline at Week 6||-0.10|-0.21|<0.0001
90920297|NCT06143670|181711617|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.18|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test product minus reference product.|Change from Baseline at Week 12||-0.18|-0.30|<0.0001
90920298|NCT06143670|181711618|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|-0.1|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test product minus reference product.|Change from Baseline at Week 3||-0.10|-0.15|<0.0001
90920299|NCT06143670|181711618|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|-0.13|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test product minus reference product.|Change from Baseline at Week 6||-0.13|-0.17|<0.0001
90920300|NCT06143670|181711618|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|-0.11|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test product minus reference product.|Change from Baseline at Week 12||-0.11|-0.16|<0.0001
90920301|NCT06143670|181711619|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.53|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test product minus reference product.|Change from Baseline at Week 3||-0.53|-0.74|<0.0001
90920302|NCT06143670|181711619|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.56|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test product minus reference product.|Change from Baseline at Week 6||-0.56|-0.74|<0.0001
90920303|NCT06143670|181711619|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.58|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test product minus reference product.|Change from Baseline at Week 12||-0.58|-0.77|<0.0001
90920304|NCT00837369|181711625|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Compare the differences in sensitivity between myocardial perfusion and wall motion for detecting stenosis.|Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
90920305|NCT00837369|181711625|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Compare the sensitivity of myocardial perfusion in detecting stenosis within the first 4 minutes after regadenoson bolus injection to that of wall motion|Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
90920306|NCT02662062|181711693|OTHER|This is a single arm study looking at a binary value with the hypothesis suggesting it falls within a certain range.||||||||||||||||The null hypothesis is that the addition of pembrolizumab to chemoradiation is not unsafe (percentage of the population experiencing unacceptable toxicity is not \>50%)|A Clopper-Pearson method was used to determine the unacceptable toxicity rate and a 95% confidence interval for this binary outcome measure.|||
90920307|NCT02662062|181711694|OTHER|Single arm study with no comparator arm and assessment of a binary variable. Clopper-Pearson method used to calculate the 95% confidence interval relating to this proportion.|||||||||||||||||Single arm study with no comparator arm and assessment of a binary variable. Clopper-Pearson method used to calculate the 95% confidence interval relating to this proportion.|||
90920308|NCT02662062|181711695|OTHER|Single arm study with no comparator arm and assessment of a binary variable. Clopper-Pearson method used to calculate the 95% confidence interval relating to this proportion.|||||||||||||||||Single arm study with no comparator arm and assessment of a binary variable. Clopper-Pearson method used to calculate the 95% confidence interval relating to this proportion.|||
90920309|NCT02662062|181711696|OTHER|Non comparative trial with a single arm|Kaplan Meier Estimate|39.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.0||missing upper limit of 95% confidence interval on the survival estimate from Kaplan-Meier estimator due to small number events||||||||17|
90920310|NCT02662062|181711697|OTHER|Kaplan Meier Estimate performed for a 12 month timepoint in a single arm non comparative study|Kaplan Meier Estimate|92.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|72.0|98.0||||||||98|72|
90920311|NCT02662062|181711698|OTHER|Kaplan Meier Estimate of single arm non comparative study|Kaplan Meier Estimate|85.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.0|94.0||||||||94|64|
90920312|NCT02662062|181711699|OTHER|Kaplan Meier estimate at a 12 month timepoint for a single arm non comparative study|Kaplan Meier Estimate|88.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.0|98.0||||||||98|68|
90920313|NCT00676715|181711703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Van Elteren Test (stratified)|||Van Elteren test is stratified by region and presence of baseline gadolinium-enhancing lesions (absent or present).||||<0.0001
90920314|NCT00676715|181711703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Van Elteren Test (stratified)|||Van Elteren test is stratified by region and presence of baseline gadolinium-enhancing lesions (absent or present).||||<0.0001
90920315|NCT00676715|181711703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7496|||||||Van Elteren Test (stratified)|||Van Elteren test is stratified by region and presence of baseline gadolinium-enhancing lesions (absent or present).||||0.7496
90962402|NCT01821378|181805696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.1||||0.255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|2.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.2|-8.4|0.255
90881775|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.239||0.833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.53|||MMRM|||Work and Activities, Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.53|-0.42|0.8330
90881776|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.191||0.844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.42|||MMRM|||Work and Activities, Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.42|-0.34|0.8440
90881777|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121||0.4602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.33|||MMRM|||Retardation, Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.33|-0.15|0.4602
90881778|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.117||0.0891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.43|||MMRM|||Retardation, Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.43|-0.03|0.0891
90920316|NCT00676715|181711704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0019|||||||Poisson model|||Poisson model was fitted for adjusting for geographic region only.||||0.0019
90920317|NCT00676715|181711704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0136|||||||Poisson model|||Poisson model was fitted for adjusting for geographic region only.||||0.0136
90920318|NCT00676715|181711704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1814|||||||Poisson model|||Poisson model was fitted for adjusting for geographic region only.||||0.1814
90920319|NCT00676715|181711705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Relative risk (RR)|0.6||||0.1978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.34|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi-square test stratified by geographical region only.||||1.34|0.27|0.1978
90920320|NCT00676715|181711705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Relative risk (RR)|0.53||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.22|||CMH chi-square test|CMH chi-square test stratified by geographical region only.||||1.22|0.23|0.1310
90920321|NCT00676715|181711705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Relative risk (RR)|0.92||||0.8206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.84|||CMH chi-square tes|CMH chi-square test stratified by geographical region only.||||1.84|0.46|0.8206
90920322|NCT00676715|181711706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1391|||||||Van Elteren Test (stratified)|Van Elteren test is stratified by region only.||||||0.1391
90881779|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.117||0.3088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.35|||MMRM|||Retardation, Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.35|-0.11|0.3088
90881780|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.112||0.856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.2|||MMRM|||Retardation, Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.20|-0.24|0.8560
90881781|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.125||0.9702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.25|||MMRM|||Retardation, Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.25|-0.24|0.9702
90881782|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.114||0.8001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.2|||MMRM|||Retardation, Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.20|-0.25|0.8001
90920323|NCT00676715|181711706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1596|||||||Van Elteren Test (stratified)|Van Elteren test is stratified by region only.||||||0.1596
90920324|NCT00676715|181711706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.474|||||||Van Elteren Test (stratified)|Van Elteren test is stratified by region only.||||||0.4740
90920325|NCT00676715|181711707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Van Elteren Test (stratified)|Van Elteren test is stratified by region only.||||||<0.0001
90920326|NCT00676715|181711707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Van Elteren Test (stratified)|Van Elteren test is stratified by region only.||||||<0.0001
90920327|NCT00676715|181711707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4985|||||||Van Elteren Test (stratified)|Van Elteren test is stratified by region only.||||||0.4985
90920328|NCT00676715|181711708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0004|||||||Van Elteren Test (stratified)|Van Elteren test is stratified by region only.||||||0.0004
90920329|NCT00676715|181711708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Van Elteren Test (stratified)|Van Elteren test is stratified by region only.||||||<0.0001
90920330|NCT00676715|181711708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2725|||||||Van Elteren Test (stratified)|Van Elteren test is stratified by region only.||||||0.2725
90920331|NCT03526861|181711759|SUPERIORITY|Primary endpoint tested sequentially at a 5% significance level|Risk Difference (RD)|13.8||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|22.3||Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline disease severity.|Subjects with IGA score of 0 (clear) or 1 (almost clear) at Week 16 were considered responders. Subjects with missing data or subjects who received rescue medication from Week 2 to Week 16 were considered non-responders. Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity. The null hypothesis of no difference in response rate between tralokinumab 300 mg Q2W and placebo was tested against the 2-sided alternative that there is a difference.||22.3|5.3|0.002
90920332|NCT03526861|181711759|SUPERIORITY|Primary endpoint tested sequentially at a 5% significance level|Risk Difference (RD)|17.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.4|26.6||Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline disease severity.|Subjects with IGA score of 0 (clear) or 1 (almost clear) at Week 16 were considered responders. Subjects with missing data or subjects who received rescue medication from Week 2 to Week 16 were considered non-responders. Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity. The null hypothesis of no difference in response rate between tralokinumab 150 mg Q2W and placebo was tested against the 2-sided alternative that there is a difference.||26.6|8.4|<0.001
90920333|NCT03526861|181711760|SUPERIORITY|Primary endpoint tested sequentially at a 5% significance level|Risk Difference (RD)|22.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|32.0||Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline disease severity.|Subjects who achieved at least 75% reduction in EASI at Week 16 were considered responders. Subjects with missing data or subjects who received rescue medication from Week 2 to Week 16 were considered non-responders. Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity. The null hypothesis of no difference in response rate between tralokinumab 300 mg Q2W and placebo was tested against the 2-sided alternative that there is a difference.||32.0|12.0|<0.001
90920334|NCT03526861|181711760|SUPERIORITY|Primary endpoint tested sequentially at a 5% significance level|Risk Difference (RD)|22.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.4|32.6||Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline disease severity.|Subjects who achieved at least 75% reduction in EASI at Week 16 were considered responders. Subjects with missing data or subjects who received rescue medication from Week 2 to Week 16 were considered non-responders. Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity. The null hypothesis of no difference in response rate between tralokinumab 150 mg Q2W and placebo was tested against the 2-sided alternative that there is a difference.||32.6|12.4|<0.001
90920335|NCT03526861|181711761|SUPERIORITY|Secondary endpoint tested sequentially at a 2.5% significance level|Risk Difference (RD)|21.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.3|31.1||Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline disease severity.|Subjects with at least 4-point reduction in Adolescent Worst Pruritus NRS were considered responders. Subjects with missing data or who received rescue medication from Week 2 to Week 16 were considered non-responders. Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity. The null hypothesis of no difference in response rate between tralokinumab 300 mg Q2W and placebo was tested against the 2-sided alternative that there is a difference.||31.1|12.3|<0.001
90920336|NCT03526861|181711761|SUPERIORITY|Secondary endpoint tested sequentially at a 5% significance level|Risk Difference (RD)|19.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.6|29.2||Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline disease severity.|Subjects with at least 4-point reduction in Adolescent Worst Pruritus NRS were considered responders. Subjects with missing data or who received rescue medication from Week 2 to Week 16 were considered non-responders. Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity. The null hypothesis of no difference in response rate between tralokinumab 150 mg Q2W and placebo was tested against the 2-sided alternative that there is a difference.||29.2|10.6|<0.001
90920337|NCT03526861|181711762|SUPERIORITY|This secondary endpoint was tested sequentially using the Holm-Bonferroni method for multiplicity adjustment at a 2.5% significance level after the sequential testing of the primary endpoints and first secondary endpoint, if these showed statistical significance.|Difference of least square means|-19.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.1|-12.2||Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'hypothetical'.|Repeated measurements model|||Repeated measurements model on post-baseline data. In case of no post-baseline assessments before initiation of rescue medication, the Week 2 change was imputed as 0. Data collected after permanent discontinuation of IMP or after use of rescue treatment from Week 2 to Week 16 were not included in the analysis.||-12.2|-27.1|<0.001
90920338|NCT03526861|181711762|SUPERIORITY|This secondary endpoint was tested sequentially using the Holm-Bonferroni method for multiplicity adjustment at a 5% significance level after the sequential testing of the primary endpoints and first secondary endpoint, if these showed statistical significance.|Difference of least square means|-18.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.6|-10.4||Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'hypothetical'.|Repeated measurements model|||Repeated measurements model on post-baseline data. In case of no post-baseline assessments before initiation of rescue medication, the Week 2 change was imputed as 0. Data collected after permanent discontinuation of IMP or after use of rescue treatment from Week 2 to Week 16 were not included in the analysis.||-10.4|-25.6|<0.001
90962403|NCT01821378|181805696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-10.3|||<|-0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|-5.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.7|-14.9|<-0.001
90881783|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.109||0.3223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.32|||MMRM|||Retardation, Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects||0.32|-0.11|0.3223
91034170|NCT00355797|181954347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.91|STANDARD_DEVIATION|21.34||0.505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|7.63|||t-test, 2 sided|||The purpose of endpoint was to evaluate the percent change in pulse pressure during test. The null hypothesis was the mean percent change for patients with their device programmed to CLS is greater or equal to the mean percent change for the same patients with their device without rate adaptative pacing.||7.63|-3.80|0.505
90881784|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.089||0.3385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.09|||MMRM|||Retardation, Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects||0.09|-0.26|0.3385
90881785|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.7003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.24|||MMRM|||Retardation, Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects||0.24|-0.16|0.7003
90881786|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099||0.0311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.02|||MMRM|||Retardation, Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects||-0.02|-0.41|0.0311
90881787|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.079||0.1976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.06|||MMRM|||Retardation, Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects||0.06|-0.26|0.1976
90920339|NCT03526861|181711763|SUPERIORITY|This secondary endpoint was tested sequentially using the Holm-Bonferroni method for multiplicity adjustment at a 2.5% significance level after the sequential testing of the primary endpoints and first secondary endpoint, if these showed statistical significance.|Difference of least square means|-2.6||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|-0.7||Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'hypothetical'.|Repeated measurements model|||Repeated measurements model on post-baseline data. In case of no post-baseline assessments before initiation of rescue medication, the Week 2 change was imputed as 0. Data collected after permanent discontinuation of IMP or after use of rescue treatment from Week 2 to Week 16 were not included in the analysis.||-0.7|-4.5|0.007
90881788|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.092||0.5489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.13|||MMRM|||Retardation, Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects||0.13|-0.24|0.5489
90881789|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.075||0.7992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.13|||MMRM|||Retardation, Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects||0.13|-0.17|0.7992
90881790|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.103||0.0573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.01|||MMRM|||Agitation, Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.01|-0.40|0.0573
90881791|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.01|||MMRM|||Agitation, Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.01|-0.44|0.0431
90881792|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.108||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.09|||MMRM|||Agitation, Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.09|-0.52|0.0060
90962404|NCT01821378|181805697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.09|-0.49|0.169
90920340|NCT03526861|181711763|SUPERIORITY|This secondary endpoint was tested sequentially using the Holm-Bonferroni method for multiplicity adjustment at a 5% significance level after the sequential testing of the primary endpoints and first secondary endpoint, if these showed statistical significance.|Difference of least square means|-2.0||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|-0.1||Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'hypothetical'.|Repeated measurements model|||Repeated measurements model on post-baseline data. In case of no post-baseline assessments before initiation of rescue medication, the Week 2 change was imputed as 0. Data collected after permanent discontinuation of IMP or after use of rescue treatment from Week 2 to Week 16 were not included in the analysis.||-0.1|-3.9|0.040
90920341|NCT03526861|181711766|SUPERIORITY|The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Risk Difference (RD)|38.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.8|50.2||Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and disease severity.|Subjects who achieved at least 50% reduction in EASI at Week 16 were considered responders. Subjects with missing data or subjects who received rescue medication from Week 2 to Week 16 were considered non-responders. Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity. The null hypothesis of no difference in response rate between tralokinumab 300 mg Q2W and placebo was tested against the 2-sided alternative that there is a difference.||50.2|26.8|<0.001
90920342|NCT03526861|181711766|SUPERIORITY|The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Risk Difference (RD)|32.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.6|44.1||Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and disease severity.|Subjects who achieved at least 50% reduction in EASI at Week 16 were considered responders. Subjects with missing data or subjects who received rescue medication from Week 2 to Week 16 were considered non-responders. Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity. The null hypothesis of no difference in response rate between tralokinumab 150 mg Q2W and placebo was tested against the 2-sided alternative that there is a difference.||44.1|20.6|<0.001
90920343|NCT03526861|181711767|SUPERIORITY|The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Risk Difference (RD)|13.7||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.2|22.2||Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and disease severity.|Subjects who achieved at least 90% reduction in EASI at Week 16 were considered responders. Subjects with missing data or subjects who received rescue medication from Week 2 to Week 16 were considered non-responders. Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity. The null hypothesis of no difference in response rate between tralokinumab 300 mg Q2W and placebo was tested against the 2-sided alternative that there is a difference.||22.2|5.2|0.002
90920344|NCT03526861|181711767|SUPERIORITY|The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Risk Difference (RD)|15.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|24.1||Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and disease severity.|Subjects who achieved at least 90% reduction in EASI at Week 16 were considered responders. Subjects with missing data or subjects who received rescue medication from Week 2 to Week 16 were considered non-responders. Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity. The null hypothesis of no difference in response rate between tralokinumab 150 mg Q2W and placebo was tested against the 2-sided alternative that there is a difference.||24.1|6.5|<0.001
90920345|NCT03526861|181711768|SUPERIORITY|The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Difference of least square means|-9.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|-5.3||Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'hypothetical'.|Repeated measurements model|||Repeated measurements model on post-baseline data. In case of no post-baseline assessments before initiation of rescue medication, the Week 2 change was imputed as 0. Data collected after permanent discontinuation of IMP or after use of rescue treatment from Week 2 to Week 16 were not included in the analysis.||-5.3|-13.5|<0.001
90920346|NCT03526861|181711768|SUPERIORITY|The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Difference of least square means|-9.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|-5.3||Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'hypothetical'.|Repeated measurements model|||Repeated measurements model on post-baseline data. In case of no post-baseline assessments before initiation of rescue medication, the Week 2 change was imputed as 0. Data collected after permanent discontinuation of IMP or after use of rescue treatment from Week 2 to Week 16 were not included in the analysis.||-5.3|-13.6|<0.001
90962405|NCT01821378|181805697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.32|-0.83|<0.001
90962406|NCT01821378|181805698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.2|||ANCOVA|||||1.2|-1.8|0.706
91034171|NCT02262377|181954356|SUPERIORITY|The ITT analysis was done for 21 week average pain.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.15||Statistical significance was set at p\< 0.05.|Regression, Poisson|||Intention to Treat Analysis for average chronic pain.||1.15|0.92|0.68
90962407|NCT01821378|181805698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.0||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-0.7|||ANCOVA|||||-0.7|-3.3|0.003
90962408|NCT01821378|181805699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.5|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.5|0.8|0.173
90962409|NCT01821378|181805699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|5.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.2|2.0|<0.001
90962410|NCT01821378|181805700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-7.7||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|-1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.1|-14.3|0.023
90962411|NCT01821378|181805701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.8||||0.464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|1.3|||ANCOVA|||||1.3|-2.9|0.464
90962412|NCT01821378|181805701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.8||||0.122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|0.5|||ANCOVA|||||0.5|-4.1|0.122
91034172|NCT02262377|181954356|SUPERIORITY|The ITT analysis was done for 21 week BPI Interference.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.08||Statistical significance was set at p\< 0.05.|Regression, Poisson|||||1.08|0.88|0.36
90881793|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.127||0.0215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.04|||MMRM|||Agitation, Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.04|-0.55|0.0215
90881794|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.109||0.0422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.01|||MMRM|||Agitation, Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.01|-0.44|0.0422
90881795|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.126||0.0433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.01|||MMRM|||Agitation, Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.01|-0.51|0.0433
90881796|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.118||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.1|||MMRM|||Agitation, Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.10|-0.57|0.0051
90881797|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.133||0.0973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.04|||MMRM|||Agitation, Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.04|-0.48|0.0973
90920347|NCT03526861|181711769|SUPERIORITY|The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Risk Difference (RD)|11.5||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|18.4||Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and disease severity.|Subjects who achieved at least 75% reduction in SCORAD at Week 16 were considered responders. Subjects with missing data or subjects who received rescue medication from Week 2 to Week 16 were considered non-responders. Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity. The null hypothesis of no difference in response rate between tralokinumab 300 mg Q2W and placebo was tested against the 2-sided alternative that there is a difference.||18.4|4.5|0.002
90962413|NCT01821378|181805702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|2.3||||0.258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|6.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.2|-1.7|0.258
90881798|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.126||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.13|||MMRM|||Agitation, Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.13|-0.63|0.0036
90881799|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.131||0.0498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.0|||MMRM|||Agitation, Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.00|-0.52|0.0498
90881800|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.147||0.5111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.2|||MMRM|||Agitation, Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.20|-0.39|0.5111
90881801|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.155||0.5839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.22|||MMRM|||Agitation, Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.22|-0.39|0.5839
90881802|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.1905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.07|||MMRM|||Agitation, Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.07|-0.33|0.1905
90962414|NCT01821378|181805702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|6.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|10.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||10.1|3.2|<0.001
90962415|NCT01821378|181805703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.35||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.00|-0.70|0.052
90881803|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.162||0.1767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.1|||MMRM|||Anxiety Psychic, Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.10|-0.54|0.1767
90881804|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.5182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.24|||MMRM|||Anxiety Psychic, Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.24|-0.47|0.5182
90881805|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.185||0.393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.21|||MMRM|||Anxiety Psychic, Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.21|-0.53|0.3930
90920348|NCT03526861|181711769|SUPERIORITY|The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Risk Difference (RD)|15.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.8|23.3||Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and disease severity.|Subjects who achieved at least 75% reduction in SCORAD at Week 16 were considered responders. Subjects with missing data or subjects who received rescue medication from Week 2 to Week 16 were considered non-responders. Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity. The null hypothesis of no difference in response rate between tralokinumab 150 mg Q2W and placebo was tested against the 2-sided alternative that there is a difference.||23.3|7.8|<0.001
90920349|NCT03526861|181711770|SUPERIORITY|The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Risk Difference (RD)|26.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.1|36.3||Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and disease severity.|Subjects who achieved at least 50% reduction in SCORAD at Week 16 were considered responders. Subjects with missing data or subjects who received rescue medication from Week 2 to Week 16 were considered non-responders. Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity. The null hypothesis of no difference in response rate between tralokinumab 300 mg Q2W and placebo was tested against the 2-sided alternative that there is a difference.||36.3|16.1|<0.001
90920350|NCT03526861|181711770|SUPERIORITY|The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Risk Difference (RD)|25.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.3|35.7||Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and disease severity.|Subjects who achieved at least 50% reduction in SCORAD at Week 16 were considered responders. Subjects with missing data or subjects who received rescue medication from Week 2 to Week 16 were considered non-responders. Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity. The null hypothesis of no difference in response rate between tralokinumab 150 mg Q2W and placebo was tested against the 2-sided alternative that there is a difference.||35.7|15.3|<0.001
90920351|NCT03526861|181711771|SUPERIORITY|The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Difference of least square means|-1.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.6||Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'hypothetical'.|Repeated measurements model|||Repeated measurements model on post-baseline data. In case of no post-baseline assessments before initiation of rescue medication, the Week 2 change was imputed as 0. Data collected after permanent discontinuation of IMP or after use of rescue treatment from Week 2 to Week 16 were not included in the analysis.||-0.6|-2.4|<0.001
90920352|NCT03526861|181711771|SUPERIORITY|The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Difference of least square means|-1.2||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.3||Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'hypothetical'.|Repeated measurements model|||Repeated measurements model on post-baseline data. In case of no post-baseline assessments before initiation of rescue medication, the Week 2 change was imputed as 0. Data collected after permanent discontinuation of IMP or after use of rescue treatment from Week 2 to Week 16 were not included in the analysis.||-0.3|-2.1|0.007
90920353|NCT03526861|181711772|SUPERIORITY|The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Risk Difference (RD)|20.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.7|31.0||Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and disease severity.|Subjects with at least 3-point reduction in Adolescent Worst Pruritus NRS were considered responders. Subjects with missing data or who received rescue medication from Week 2 to Week 16 were considered non-responders. Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity. The null hypothesis of no difference in response rate between tralokinumab 300 mg Q2W and placebo was tested against the 2-sided alternative that there is a difference.||31.0|9.7|<0.001
90881806|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.189||0.5212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.25|||MMRM|||Anxiety Psychic, Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.25|-0.50|0.5212
90881807|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.184||0.4741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.23|||MMRM|||Anxiety Psychic, Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.23|-0.50|0.4741
90920354|NCT03526861|181711772|SUPERIORITY|The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Risk Difference (RD)|21.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.9|32.7||Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and disease severity.|Subjects with at least 3-point reduction in Adolescent Worst Pruritus NRS were considered responders. Subjects with missing data or who received rescue medication from Week 2 to Week 16 were considered non-responders. Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity. The null hypothesis of no difference in response rate between tralokinumab 150 mg Q2W and placebo was tested against the 2-sided alternative that there is a difference.||32.7|10.9|<0.001
90920355|NCT03526861|181711773|SUPERIORITY|The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Difference of least square means|-6.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|-3.6||Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'hypothetical'.|Repeated measurements model|||Repeated measurements model on post-baseline data. In case of no post-baseline assessments before initiation of rescue medication, the Week 2 change was imputed as 0. Data collected after permanent discontinuation of IMP or after use of rescue treatment from Week 2 to Week 16 were not included in the analysis.||-3.6|-8.4|<0.001
90920356|NCT03526861|181711773|SUPERIORITY|The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Difference of least square means|-5.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|-3.0||Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'hypothetical'.|Repeated measurements model|||Repeated measurements model on post-baseline data. In case of no post-baseline assessments before initiation of rescue medication, the Week 2 change was imputed as 0. Data collected after permanent discontinuation of IMP or after use of rescue treatment from Week 2 to Week 16 were not included in the analysis.||-3.0|-7.9|<0.001
90920357|NCT03940963|181711796|NON_INFERIORITY|The visual analog scale (VAS, 0-100 scale) pain score change from baseline value to 12 months was tested for non-inferiority of neurectomy with Axoguard Nerve Cap to standard neurectomy alone using closed testing procedures.||||||0.011||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.011
90920358|NCT03940963|181711799|EQUIVALENCE|A predefined equivalence margin was not considered.||||||0.485||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.485
90920359|NCT03940963|181711800|EQUIVALENCE|A predefined equivalence margin was not considered.||||||0.259||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.259
90920360|NCT03940963|181711801|EQUIVALENCE|A predefined equivalence margin was not considered.||||||0.14||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.140
90920361|NCT03940963|181711802|EQUIVALENCE|A predefined equivalence margin was not considered.||||||0.544||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.544
90962416|NCT01821378|181805704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|0.084||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.018|0.149|||ANCOVA|||||0.149|0.018|0.012
90962417|NCT01821378|181805704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|0.138|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.081|0.194|||ANCOVA|||||0.194|0.081|<0.001
90920362|NCT03940963|181711804|EQUIVALENCE|A predefined equivalence margin was not considered.||||||0.049||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.049
90920363|NCT03661840|181711832|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.0||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.0|39.0||Unadjusted model comparing the mean difference (change from 12 weeks - baseline) in outcome by intervention group.|Regression, Linear|||Sample size was estimated using d= 0.61, with power at 0.80 and α = .05, two-tailed. It is assumed that the correlation between pre and post-test measures will be high at .5. With these parameters and using repeated measures ANOVA to evaluate treatment difference, sample size is powered for clinical outcomes at 92 participants; with an estimated 30% attrition and conservatively including the possibility of screening failures, a maximum sample of 140 participants will be targeted for enrollment.||39|-31|0.82
90920364|NCT03661840|181711833|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.4||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|25.0||Unadjusted model comparing the change in outcome by intervention group|Regression, Linear|||||25|-0.7|0.06
90920365|NCT03661840|181711833|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.61||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Sample size was estimated using d= 0.61, with power at 0.80 and α = .05, two-tailed. It is assumed that the correlation between pre and post-test measures will be high at .5. With these parameters and using repeated measures ANOVA to evaluate treatment difference, sample size is powered for clinical outcomes at 92 participants; with an estimated 30% attrition and conservatively including the possibility of screening failures, a maximum sample of 140 participants will be targeted for enrollment.||||0.05
90920366|NCT04401800|181711837|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||Binomial exact test|||||||0.0002
90920367|NCT04401800|181711839|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Binomial exact test|||||||< 0.0001
90920368|NCT04401800|181711840|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Binomial exact test|||ORR as Assessed by the Investigator||||< 0.0001
90920369|NCT04401800|181711840|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Binomial exact test|||ORR as Assessed by Central Site Imaging Facility||||< 0.0001
90962418|NCT01821378|181805705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|0.0||||0.992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|6.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.6|-6.6|0.992
90962419|NCT01821378|181805705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-7.3||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.2|-14.4|0.044
90881808|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.186||0.4482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.23|||MMRM|||Anxiety Psychic, Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.23|-0.51|0.4482
90881809|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.187||0.0963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.06|||MMRM|||Anxiety Psychic, Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.06|-0.69|0.0963
90881810|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.171||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|-0.18|||MMRM|||Anxiety Psychic, Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.18|-0.86|0.0030
90881811|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.177||0.1116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.07|||MMRM|||Anxiety Psychic, Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.07|-0.63|0.1116
90881812|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.173||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|-0.17|||MMRM|||Anxiety Psychic, Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.17|-0.86|0.0040
90881813|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.244||0.8253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.43|||MMRM|||Anxiety Psychic, Day 14 : MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.43|-0.54|0.8253
90881814|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.209||0.5795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.53|||MMRM|||Anxiety Psychic, Day 21 : MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.53|-0.30|0.5795
90881815|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.182||0.4032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.51|||MMRM|||Anxiety Psychic, Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.51|-0.21|0.4032
90920370|NCT04401800|181711841|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Binomial exact test|||ORR as Assessed by the Investigator||||< 0.0001
90920371|NCT04401800|181711841|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||Binomial exact test|||ORR as Assessed by Central Site Imaging Facility||||0.0002
90920372|NCT04927065|181711860|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|3.0|||||Omicron BA.1 Variant (B.1.1.529) nAB: Part A.2 versus Part A.1|||3.0|2.0|
90920373|NCT04927065|181711860|OTHER||GMR|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|2.3|||||SARS-CoV-2 (D614G) nAb: Part A.2 versus Part A.1|||2.3|1.7|
90920374|NCT04927065|181711861|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|8.9|||||Omicron BA.1 Variant (B.1.1.529) nAb: Part A.2 versus Part A.1|||8.9|4.5|
90881816|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.133||0.6117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.2|||MMRM|||Anxiety Somatic, Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.20|-0.33|0.6117
90920375|NCT04927065|181711861|OTHER||GMR|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|3.6|||||SARS-CoV-2 (D614G) nAb: Part A.2 versus Part A.1|||3.6|2.1|
90920376|NCT04927065|181711862|OTHER||Percentage Difference|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|5.6|||||Omicron BA.1 Variant (B.1.1.529) nAb: Part A.2 versus Part A.1|||5.6|-3.1|
90920377|NCT04927065|181711862|OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||SARS-CoV-2 (D614G) nAb: Part A.2 versus Part A.1|||||
90920378|NCT04927065|181711863|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|4.3|||||Omicron variant (B.1.1.529) nAb: Part A.2 versus Part A.1|||4.3|-6.9|
90920379|NCT04927065|181711863|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|4.5|||||SARS-CoV-2 (D614G) nAb: Part A.2 versus Part A.1|||4.5|-9.6|
90920380|NCT04927065|181711864|OTHER||Percentage Difference|12.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|21.6|||||Omicron BA.1 variant (B.1.1.529) nAb: Part A.2 versus Part A.1|||21.6|4.1|
90920381|NCT04927065|181711864|OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||SARS-CoV-2 (D614G) nAb: Part A.2 versus Part A.1|||||
90920382|NCT04927065|181711865|OTHER||Percentage Difference|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|17.1|||||Omicron BA.1 variant (B.1.1.529) nAb: Part A.2 versus Part A.1|||17.1|-11.4|
90881817|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.4716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.16|||MMRM|||Anxiety Somatic, Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.16|-0.35|0.4716
90881818|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136||0.6041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.2|||MMRM|||Anxiety Somatic, Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.20|-0.34|0.6041
90920383|NCT04927065|181711865|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.6|7.3|||||SARS-CoV-2 (D614G) nAb: Part A.2 versus Part A.1|||7.3|-21.6|
90920384|NCT04927065|181711866|OTHER||GMR|1.777|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.523|2.073|||||Omicron BA.1 Variant (B.1.1.529) nAb - Part F (Cohort 2): mRNA-1273.529 50 μg versus Part F (Cohort 2): mRNA-1273 50 μg|||2.073|1.523|
90920385|NCT04927065|181711867|OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|3.0|||||Omicron BA.1 Variant (B.1.1.529) nAb - Part F (Cohort 2): mRNA-1273.529 50 μg versus Part F (Cohort 2): mRNA-1273 50 μg|||3.0|-1.7|
90881819|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.132||0.0424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.01|||MMRM|||Anxiety Somatic, Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.01|-0.53|0.0424
90881820|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.138||0.7622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.23|||MMRM|||Anxiety Somatic, Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.23|-0.32|0.7622
90920386|NCT04927065|181711868|OTHER||Percentage Difference|17.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.8|26.0|||||Omicron BA.1 Variant (B.1.1.529) nAb - Part F (Cohort 2): mRNA-1273.529 50 μg versus Part F (Cohort 2): mRNA-1273 50 μg|||26.0|9.8|
90920387|NCT04927065|181711869|OTHER||GMR|1.744|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.492|2.04|||||Omicron BA.1 Variant (B.1.1.529) nAb: Part G: mRNA-1273.214 50 μg versus Part F (Cohort 2): mRNA-1273 50 μg|||2.040|1.492|
90920388|NCT04927065|181711869|OTHER||GMR|1.211|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.074|1.366|||||SARS-CoV-2 (D614G) nAb: Part G: mRNA-1273.214 50 μg versus Part F (Cohort 2): mRNA-1273 50 μg|||1.366|1.074|
90920389|NCT04927065|181711870|OTHER||GMR|1.676|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.396|2.013|||||Omicron BA.1 Variant (B.1.1.529) nAb: Part G: mRNA-1273.214 50 μg versus Part F (Cohort 2): mRNA-1273 50 μg|||2.013|1.396|
90920390|NCT04927065|181711870|OTHER||GMR|1.105|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.97|1.26|||||SARS-CoV-2 (D614G) nAb: Part G: mRNA-1273.214 50 μg versus Part F (Cohort 2): mRNA-1273 50 μg|||1.260|0.970|
90920391|NCT04927065|181711871|OTHER||Percentage Difference|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.1|4.1|||||Omicron BA.1 Variant (B.1.1.529) nAb: Part G: mRNA-1273.214 50 μg versus Part F (Cohort 2): mRNA-1273 50 μg|||4.1|-1.1|
90920392|NCT04927065|181711872|OTHER||Percentage Difference|21.5|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|12.8|30.2|||||Omicron BA.1 Variant (B.1.1.529) nAb: Part G: mRNA-1273.214 50 μg versus Part F (Cohort 2): mRNA-1273 50 μg|||30.2|12.8|
90920393|NCT04927065|181711873|OTHER||Percentage Difference|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.9|5.6|||||Omicron BA.1 Variant (B.1.1.529) nAb: Part G: mRNA-1273.214 50 μg versus Part F (Cohort 2): mRNA-1273 50 μg|||5.6|-1.9|
90920394|NCT04927065|181711874|OTHER||Percentage Difference|20.6|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|12.4|28.7|||||Omicron BA.1 Variant (B.1.1.529) nAb: Part G: mRNA-1273.214 50 μg versus Part F (Cohort 2): mRNA-1273 50 μg|||28.7|12.4|
90920395|NCT04927065|181711875|OTHER||GMR|6.412|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.369|7.658|||||Omicron Variant (BA.4/BA.5) nAb: Part H mRNA-1273.222 50 μg versus Part F (Cohort 2): mRNA-1273 50 μg|||7.658|5.369|
90920396|NCT04927065|181711875|OTHER||GMR|1.967|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.708|2.265|||||SARS-CoV-2 (D614G) nAb: Part H mRNA-1273.222 50 μg versus Part F (Cohort 2): mRNA-1273 50 μg|||2.265|1.708|
90920397|NCT04927065|181711876|OTHER||Percentage Difference|12.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|17.4|||||Omicron Variant (BA.4/BA.5) nAb: Part H mRNA-1273.222 50 μg versus Part F (Cohort 2): mRNA-1273 50 μg|||17.4|6.9|
90920398|NCT04927065|181711876|OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||SARS-CoV-2 (D614G) nAb: Part H mRNA-1273.222 50 μg versus Part F (Cohort 2): mRNA-1273 50 μg|||||
90920399|NCT04927065|181711877|OTHER||Percentage Difference|54.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.5|61.8|||||Omicron Variant (BA.4/BA.5) nAb: Part H mRNA-1273.222 50 μg versus Part F (Cohort 2): mRNA-1273 50 μg|||61.8|47.5|
90920400|NCT04927065|181711877|OTHER||Percentage Difference|37.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.3|45.9|||||SARS-CoV-2 (D614G) nAb: Part H mRNA-1273.222 50 μg versus Part F (Cohort 2): mRNA-1273 50 μg|||45.9|29.3|
90920401|NCT04927065|181711886|OTHER||GMR|0.836|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.745|0.938|||||SARS-CoV-2 (D614G) nAb: Part F (Cohort 2): mRNA-1273.529 50 μg versus Part F (Cohort 2): mRNA-1273 50 μg|||0.938|0.745|
90920402|NCT04927065|181711887|OTHER||SRR Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||SARS-CoV-2 (D614G) nAb: Part F (Cohort 2): mRNA-1273.529 50 μg versus Part F (Cohort 2): mRNA-1273 50 μg 95% CI could not be calculated due to the SRR difference is 0.|||||
90920403|NCT04927065|181711888|OTHER||SRR Difference|-13.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.2|-5.0|||||SARS-CoV-2 (D614G) nAb: Part F (Cohort 2): mRNA-1273.529 50 μg versus Part F (Cohort 2): mRNA-1273 50 μg|||-5.0|-21.2|
90962420|NCT01821378|181805706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.25|-0.45|0.578
90920404|NCT04927065|181711889|OTHER||SRR Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|||||||SARS-CoV-2 (D614G) nAb at Day 29: Part G versus Part F (Cohort 2) mRNA-1273 95% CI could not be calculated due to the SRR difference is 0.|||||
90920405|NCT04927065|181711889|OTHER||SRR Difference|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.6|3.5|||||SARS-CoV-2 (D614G) nAb at Day 91: Part G versus Part F (Cohort 2) mRNA-1273|||3.5|-1.6|
90962421|NCT01821378|181805706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.58||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.20|-0.96|0.003
90962422|NCT00448435|181805731|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin + or - 15 L/min|Mean Difference (Net)|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.91||0.6383||95.0|-9.1|14.69||Confidence Interval|Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference between treatments \[(SLM + FP)- SFC\](SE) 2.8 (5.91)||14.69|-9.10|0.6383
90962423|NCT00412971|181805750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in recurrence rate|0.25||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.05
90881821|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.2689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.11|||MMRM|||Anxiety Somatic, Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.11|-0.40|0.2689
90881822|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.134||0.211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.1|||MMRM|||Anxiety Somatic, Hour 48 : MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.10|-0.44|0.2110
90881823|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.135||0.5873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.2|||MMRM|||Anxiety Somatic, Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.20|-0.34|0.5873
90881824|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.114||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.01|||MMRM|||Anxiety Somatic, Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.01|-0.46|0.0450
90881825|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.152||0.0847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.04|||MMRM|||Anxiety Somatic, Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.04|-0.57|0.0847
90881826|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.189||0.2522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.6|||MMRM|||Anxiety Somatic, Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.60|-0.16|0.2522
90920406|NCT04927065|181711889|OTHER||SRR Difference|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|2.1|||||SARS-CoV-2 (D614G) nAb at Day 181: Part G versus Part F (Cohort 2) mRNA-1273|||2.1|-2.3|
90881827|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.5026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.21|||MMRM|||Anxiety Somatic, day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.21|-0.43|0.5026
90920407|NCT04927065|181711889|OTHER||SRR Difference|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|1.5|||||SARS-CoV-2 (D614G) nAb at Day 366: Part G versus Part F (Cohort 2) mRNA-1273|||1.5|-5.3|
90920408|NCT04927065|181711890|OTHER||SRR Difference|10.9|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.7|20.1|||||SARS-CoV-2 (D614G) nAb at Day 29: Part G versus Part F (Cohort 2) mRNA-1273|||20.1|1.7|
90920409|NCT04927065|181711890|OTHER||SRR Difference|9.2|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.4|17.0|||||SARS-CoV-2 (D614G) nAb at Day 91: Part G versus Part F (Cohort 2) mRNA-1273|||17.0|1.4|
90962424|NCT01106404|181805753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||binomial proportion|0.865|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|0.765||||Fisher Exact||In this ITT analysis, the combined percentage of subjects with improved pain relief and/or convenience during the AdaptiveStim programming relative to the manual programming in both groups was reported.|"ITT analysis:~Hypothesis: The percentage of subjects who succeed must be greater than 25%. H0: p ≤ 0.25 HA: p \> 0.25"|||0.765|< 0.001
90962425|NCT01106404|181805753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||binomial proportion|0.901|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|0.807||||Fisher Exact||In this completed case analysis, the combined percentage of subjects with improved pain relief and/or convenience during the AdaptiveStim programming relative to the manual programming in both groups was reported.|Completed case analysis|||0.807|< 0.001
90962426|NCT01106404|181805754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||binomial proportion|0.028|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.003|0.098|||||The combined percentage of subjects with worsened pain relief was reported.|||0.098|0.003|
90881828|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.149||0.5911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.22|||MMRM|||Anxiety Somatic, Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.22|-0.38|0.5911
90920410|NCT04927065|181711890|OTHER||SRR Difference|10.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|17.2|||||SARS-CoV-2 (D614G) nAb at Day 181: Part G versus Part F (Cohort 2) mRNA-1273|||17.2|3.0|
90920411|NCT04927065|181711890|OTHER||SRR Difference|4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|13.6|||||SARS-CoV-2 (D614G) nAb at Day 366: Part G versus Part F (Cohort 2) mRNA-1273|||13.6|-5.0|
90881829|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.122||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.31|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms Gastrointestinal, Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.31|-0.18|0.5800
90881830|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129||0.6754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.2|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms Gastrointestinal, Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.20|-0.31|0.6754
90881831|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116||0.1006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.42|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms Gastrointestinal, Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.42|-0.04|0.1006
90881832|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.3588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.35|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms Gastrointestinal, Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.35|-0.13|0.3588
90881833|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.109||0.5807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.16|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms Gastrointestinal, Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.16|-0.28|0.5807
90881834|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.112||0.4241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.31|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms Gastrointestinal, Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.31|-0.13|0.4241
90881835|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.115||0.7984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.2|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms Gastrointestinal, Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.20|-0.26|0.7984
90881836|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.122||0.8732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.26|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms Gastrointestinal, Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.26|-0.22|0.8732
90881837|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.107||0.8621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.23|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms Gastrointestinal, Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.23|-0.19|0.8621
90881838|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.126||0.1087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.05|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms Gastrointestinal, Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.05|-0.45|0.1087
90920412|NCT04927065|181711892|OTHER||GMR|1.818|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.469|2.249|||||SARS-CoV-2 (D614G) nAb: Part H versus Part F (Cohort 2) mRNA-1273|||2.249|1.469|
90920413|NCT04927065|181711894|OTHER||SRR Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|2.5|||||SARS-CoV-2 (D614G) nAb: Part H versus Part F (Cohort 2) mRNA-1273|||2.5|-2.6|
90920414|NCT04927065|181711896|OTHER||SRR Difference|25.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.9|34.1|||||SARS-CoV-2 (D614G) nAb: Part H versus Part F (Cohort 2) mRNA-1273|||34.1|16.9|
90920415|NCT04927065|181711897|OTHER||SRR Difference|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|9.8|||||Omicron BA.1 Variant (B.1.1.529) nAb at Day 181: Part G versus Part F (Cohort 2) mRNA-1273|||9.8|0.3|
90920416|NCT04927065|181711897|OTHER||SRR Difference|5.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|11.5|||||Omicron BA.1 Variant (B.1.1.529) nAb at Day 366: Part G versus Part F (Cohort 2) mRNA-1273|||11.5|-0.3|
90920417|NCT04927065|181711898|OTHER||SRR Difference|14.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.7|22.3|||||Omicron BA.1 Variant (B.1.1.529) nAb at Day 181: Part G versus Part F (Cohort 2) mRNA-1273|||22.3|6.7|
90920418|NCT04927065|181711898|OTHER||SRR Difference|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|18.0|||||Omicron BA.1 Variant (B.1.1.529) nAb at Day 366: Part G versus Part F (Cohort 2) mRNA-1273|||18.0|-2.1|
90920419|NCT04927065|181711899|OTHER||GMR|1.637|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.243|2.155|||||SARS-CoV-2 (B.1.1.529) nAb at Day 181: Part G versus Part F (Cohort 2) mRNA-1273|||2.155|1.243|
90920420|NCT04927065|181711899|OTHER||GMR|1.373|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.953|1.976|||||SARS-CoV-2 (B.1.1.529) nAb at Day 366: Part G versus Part F (Cohort 2) mRNA-1273|||1.976|0.953|
90920421|NCT04927065|181711899|OTHER||GMR|1.271|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.051|1.537|||||SARS-CoV-2 (D614G) nAb at Day 181: Part G versus Part F (Cohort 2) mRNA-1273|||1.537|1.051|
90881839|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.125||0.2153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.09|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms Gastrointestinal, Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.09|-0.41|0.2153
90881840|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145||0.1422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.07|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms Gastrointestinal, Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.07|-0.51|0.1422
90881841|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.114||0.7211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.27|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms Gastrointestinal, Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.27|-0.19|0.7211
90881842|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.103||0.8224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.23|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms General, Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.23|-0.18|0.8224
90920422|NCT04927065|181711899|OTHER||GMR|1.101|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.461|||||SARS-CoV-2 (D614G) nAb at Day 366: Part G versus Part F (Cohort 2) mRNA-1273|||1.461|0.830|
90920423|NCT05767437|181711916|EQUIVALENCE|effect size of 0.02, α \< 0.05, power = 0.02|Mean Difference (Net)|1.63||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.79|59.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||59.05|-55.79|0.98
90920424|NCT05767437|181711917|EQUIVALENCE|an effect size of 0.00, α \< 0.05, power = 0.00|Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|1.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.24|-1.25|0.99
90920425|NCT05767437|181711918|EQUIVALENCE|an effect size of 0.56 , α \< 0.05, power = 32.5|Mean Difference (Net)|6.71||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.12|10.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||10.71|-24.12|0.68
90920426|NCT05767437|181711919|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis population description: patients were randomly assigned to either Group A or Group B|Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||an effect size of 0.24, α \< 0.05, power = 24.5||0.87|-0.48|0.56
90920427|NCT05767437|181711920|EQUIVALENCE|an effect size of 0.56, α \< 0.05, power = 57.9|Mean Difference (Net)|-250.35||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-614.88|114.18||Interaction of Assessment and Group|Mixed Models Analysis|||||114.18|-614.88|0.42
90920428|NCT05767437|181711921|EQUIVALENCE|an effect size of 0.29, α \< 0.05, power = 88.9|Mean Difference (Net)|12.25||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.67|43.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||43.17|-18.67|0.45
90920429|NCT05767437|181711922|EQUIVALENCE|an effect size of 0.18, α \< 0.05, power =6.5|mean rank (Z)|0.18||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.96||MAS of Biceps|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.96|-0.61|0.67
90920430|NCT05767437|181711923|EQUIVALENCE|an effect size of 0.39, α \< 0.05, power = 16.2|Mean Difference (Net)|-6.63||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.38|6.12|||t-test, 2 sided|||||6.12|-19.38|0.38
90920431|NCT05592418|181711937|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0288||||0.9851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0397|3.0972|||ANCOVA||LS Mean difference = LS Mean of Ampligen® - LS Mean of Placebo|||3.0972|-3.0397|0.9851
90920432|NCT05592418|181711938|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9076||||0.3095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6279|1.8128|||ANCOVA|||||1.8128|-5.6279|0.3095
90920433|NCT05592418|181711939|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6086||||0.7663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4656|4.6829|||ANCOVA||LS Mean difference = LS Mean of Ampligen® - LS Mean of Placebo|||4.6829|-3.4656|0.7663
90920434|NCT05592418|181711940|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.7749||||0.3162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.2463|70.7962|||ANCOVA||LS Mean difference = LS Mean of Ampligen® - LS Mean of Placebo|||70.7962|-23.2463|0.3162
90920435|NCT05592418|181711941|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||P-value is from The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (CMH) stratified by stratification factors|Since all patients analyzed achieved MCID, there are no comparison results|||
90920436|NCT05592418|181711942|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.2342||||0.4232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2586|4.7901|||ANCOVA||LS Mean difference = LS Mean of Ampligen® - LS Mean of Placebo|||4.7901|-11.2586|0.4232
90881843|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.126||0.6362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.19|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms General, Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.19|-0.31|0.6362
90920437|NCT05592418|181711943|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5161||||0.7823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2356|3.2035|||ANCOVA||LS Mean difference = LS Mean of Ampligen® - LS Mean of Placebo|||3.2035|-4.2356|0.7823
90920438|NCT05592418|181711945|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2779||||0.5185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5775|1.1333|||ANCOVA||LS Mean difference = LS Mean of Ampligen® - LS Mean of Placebo.|||1.1333|-0.5775|0.5185
90920439|NCT05592418|181711946|OTHER||||||||||||||||||No patients were hospitalized.|||
90920440|NCT05592418|181711948|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|169.389||||0.2175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-105.892|444.6702|||ANCOVA||LS Mean difference = LS Mean of Ampligen® - LS Mean of Placebo||LS Mean difference = LS Mean of Ampligen® - LS Mean of Placebo.|444.6702|-105.892|0.2175
90920441|NCT05592418|181711949|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-56.9984||||0.2086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-147.021|33.0241|||ANCOVA||LS Mean difference = LS Mean of Ampligen® - LS Mean of Placebo||LS Mean difference = LS Mean of Ampligen® - LS Mean of Placebo|33.0241|-147.021|0.2086
90920442|NCT05592418|181711950|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1733||||0.0975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0327|0.3792|||ANCOVA||LS Mean difference = LS Mean of Ampligen® - LS Mean of Placebo||LS Mean difference = LS Mean of Ampligen® - LS Mean of Placebo|0.3792|-0.0327|0.0975
90920443|NCT05592418|181711952|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.7131||||0.4545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.4079|75.8341|||ANCOVA||LS Mean Difference - LS Mean of Ampligen® - LS Mean of Placebo|||75.8341|-34.4079|0.4545
90920444|NCT05592418|181711953|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|44.1231||||0.0333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.6338|83.6123|||ANCOVA||LS Mean Difference - LS Mean of Ampligen® - LS Mean of Placebo|||83.6123|4.6338|0.0333
90920445|NCT05198310|181712033|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.281||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|-0.01||Analyzed using ANCOVA model with baseline value and stratification factor (≤1 vs. ≥2 classes of advanced targeted therapies) as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||-0.01|-1.13|0.0470
90920446|NCT05198310|181712033|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.282||0.2124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.21||Analyzed using ANCOVA model with baseline value and stratification factor (≤1 vs. ≥2 classes of advanced targeted therapies) as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||0.21|-0.92|0.2124
90920447|NCT05198310|181712033|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.352||0.1091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|0.13||Analyzed using ANCOVA model with baseline value and stratification factor (≤1 vs. ≥2 classes of advanced targeted therapies) as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||0.13|-1.28|0.1091
90920448|NCT05198310|181712034|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0312|||||||t-test|||||||0.0312
90962427|NCT01106404|181805755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|51.9|<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||< 0.001
90920449|NCT05198310|181712034|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0338|||||||t-test|||||||0.0338
90920450|NCT05198310|181712038|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0333|||||||Fisher exact test|||||||0.0333
90920451|NCT05198310|181712038|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1905|||||||Fisher exact test|||||||0.1905
90920452|NCT05198310|181712038|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.95||||0.0716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|9.65|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||9.65|0.90|0.0716
90920453|NCT05198310|181712038|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.52||||0.471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|4.67|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.67|0.50|0.4710
90920454|NCT05198310|181712038|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.09||||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.62|22.88|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||22.88|1.62|0.0057
90920455|NCT05198310|181712039|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0762|||||||Fisher exact test|||||||0.0762
90920456|NCT05198310|181712039|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher exact test|||||||1.000
90920457|NCT05198310|181712039|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67||||0.4172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|5.62|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.62|0.49|0.4172
90920458|NCT05198310|181712039|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.89||||0.3144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|6.45|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||6.45|0.55|0.3144
90920459|NCT05198310|181712039|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|3.39|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.39|0.28|0.9560
90920460|NCT05198310|181712040|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4667|||||||Fisher exact test|||||||0.4667
90920461|NCT05198310|181712040|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher exact test|||||||1.0000
90920462|NCT05198310|181712040|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.95||||0.5789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|22.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||22.30|0.17|0.5789
90920463|NCT05198310|181712040|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.12||||0.0799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|60.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||60.10|0.62|0.0799
90920464|NCT05198310|181712040|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.28||||0.1034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|1.35|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.35|0.06|0.1034
90920465|NCT04093752|181712150|NON_INFERIORITY|The study was powered for superiority in HbA1c. The sample size provided \>99% power to show noninferiority assuming a 0.4% noninferiority (NI) boundary, 0.45% greater mean reduction in tirzepatide doses compared to insulin glargine, 1:1:1:1 randomization, a common standard deviation (SD) of 1.2%, one-sided significance level of 0.0125 and a dropout rate of 25%.|LS Mean Difference|-1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|-1.29||||||||-1.29|-1.69|
90920466|NCT04093752|181712150|NON_INFERIORITY|The study was powered for superiority in HbA1c. The sample size provided \>99% power to show noninferiority assuming a 0.4% NI boundary, 0.45% greater mean reduction in tirzepatide doses compared to insulin glargine, 1:1:1:1 randomization, a common SD of 1.2%, one-sided significance level of 0.0125 and a dropout rate of 25%.|LS Mean Difference|-1.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|-1.34||||||||-1.34|-1.74|
90920467|NCT04093752|181712151|NON_INFERIORITY|The study was powered for superiority in HbA1c. The sample size provided \>99% power to show noninferiority assuming a 0.4% NI boundary, 0.45% greater mean reduction in tirzepatide doses compared to insulin glargine, 1:1:1:1 randomization, a common SD of 1.2%, one-sided significance level of 0.0125 and a dropout rate of 25%.|LS Mean Difference|-1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|-1.09||||||||-1.09|-1.49|
90962428|NCT01106404|181805756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.77|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.93|<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||< 0.001
90962429|NCT01106404|181805756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.04|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||< 0.001
90881844|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.123||0.6094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.18|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms General, Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.18|-0.31|0.6094
90920468|NCT04093752|181712152|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|-5.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.6|-7.4|<0.001
90920469|NCT04093752|181712152|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-8.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|-7.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-7.6|-9.5|<0.001
90920470|NCT04093752|181712152|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-8.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|-7.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-7.7|-9.6|<0.001
90920471|NCT04093752|181712153|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.94|23.64|||Regression, Logistic|||||23.64|8.94|<0.001
90920472|NCT04093752|181712153|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|28.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.72|49.49|||Regression, Logistic|||||49.49|16.72|<0.001
90920473|NCT04093752|181712153|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|25.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.88|42.95|||Regression, Logistic|||||42.95|14.88|<0.001
90920474|NCT04093752|181712154|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|82.54||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.13|1327.81|||Regression, Logistic|||||1327.81|5.13|0.002
90962430|NCT01387230|181805759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.127|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.052|0.202|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM)|Least squares mean difference=UMEC 62.5 µg minus Placebo.|||0.202|0.052|<0.001
90881845|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.123||0.0457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.0|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms General, Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.00|-0.49|0.0457
90920475|NCT04093752|181712154|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|124.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.79|1997.01|||Regression, Logistic|||||1997.01|7.79|<0.001
90920476|NCT04093752|181712154|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|184.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.59|2950.73|||Regression, Logistic|||||2950.73|11.59|<0.001
90920477|NCT04093752|181712155|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-12.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.3|-6.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-6.3|-18.3|<0.001
90962431|NCT01387230|181805759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.152|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.076|0.229|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM)|Least squares mean difference=UMEC 125 µg minus Placebo.|||0.229|0.076|<0.001
90920478|NCT04093752|181712155|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-20.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.1|-13.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-13.9|-26.1|<0.001
90920479|NCT04093752|181712155|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-18.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.6|-12.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-12.5|-24.6|<0.001
90920480|NCT04093752|181712156|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-34.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.1|-28.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-28.3|-40.1|<0.001
90920481|NCT04093752|181712156|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-40.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.7|-34.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-34.6|-46.7|<0.001
90920482|NCT04093752|181712156|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-41.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.9|-35.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-35.8|-47.9|<0.001
90920483|NCT04093752|181712157|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|21.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.63|41.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||41.20|11.63|<0.001
90920484|NCT04093752|181712157|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|43.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.96|83.5|||Regression, Logistic|||||83.50|22.96|<0.001
90920485|NCT04093752|181712157|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|48.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.34|92.49|||Regression, Logistic|||||92.49|25.34|<0.001
90920486|NCT04093752|181712158|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.47||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.13|||ANCOVA|||Hyperglycemia||-0.13|-0.81|0.007
90920487|NCT04093752|181712158|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.43|||ANCOVA|||Hyperglycemia||-0.43|-1.11|<0.001
90920488|NCT04093752|181712158|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.36|||ANCOVA|||Hyperglycemia||-0.36|-1.05|<0.001
90920489|NCT04093752|181712158|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14||||0.384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.18|||ANCOVA|||Hypoglycemia||0.18|-0.46|0.384
90920490|NCT04093752|181712158|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.17||||0.307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.16|||ANCOVA|||Hypoglycemia||0.16|-0.49|0.307
90920491|NCT04093752|181712158|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22||||0.184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Hypoglycemia||0.11|-0.55|0.184
90920492|NCT04093752|181712158|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.59|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Satisfaction Score||2.59|1.03|<0.001
90920493|NCT04093752|181712158|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.41|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Satisfaction Score||2.41|0.84|<0.001
90920494|NCT04093752|181712158|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|2.47|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Satisfaction Score||2.47|0.89|<0.001
90920495|NCT03811366|181712190|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||significance when p\<0;05|generalized estimated equation|generalized estimated equation with normal distribution and logarithmic link function||||||<0.001
90920496|NCT03811366|181712193|OTHER|||||||0.054||||||significance when p\<0.05|Fisher Exact|||Recurrence or worsening of cells in anterior chamber in ERG-stable and ERG worsening group.||||0.054
90962432|NCT03027557|181805771|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||ANOVA|||||||< 0.00001
90962433|NCT03027557|181805772|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||ANOVA|||||||< 0.00001
90962434|NCT03027557|181805773|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0019|||||||ANOVA|||||||= 0.0019
90962435|NCT03027557|181805774|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.096|||||||ANOVA|||||||= 0.096
90962436|NCT03027557|181805775|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||= 0.0001
90920497|NCT03811366|181712194|OTHER|||||||0.478||||||17 eyes presented dark dots fluctuation during follow up in stable ERG group when compared to 5 eyes in worsening ERG group.|generalized estimated equation|Generalized estimated equation with Poisson distribution and identity link function supposing an interchangeable correlation matrix between the eyes||||||0.478
90920498|NCT03811366|181712196|OTHER|9 (52.9%) eyes in ERG stable group x 4 (57.1%)eyes presented change in perivascular leakage during follow up (p=0.936).||||||0.936|||||||Generalized estimated equation|Generalized estimated equation with binomial distribution and logit link function, supposing an interchangeable correlation matrix between the eyes;||Change in perivascular leakage in ERG-stable and ERG- worsening groups.||||0.936
90920499|NCT03811366|181712197|OTHER|||||||0.853||||||significance when p\<0.05|Generalized estimated equation|Generalized estimated equation with binomial distribution and logit link function, supposing an interchangeable correlation matrix between the eyes;||||||0.853
90920500|NCT03811366|181712198|OTHER|||||||0.272||||||significance when p\<0.05|Fisher Exact|||||||0.272
90920501|NCT03811366|181712199|OTHER|||||||0.983||||||significance when p\<0.05|Generalized estimated equation with bino|Generalized estimated equation with binomial distribution and logit link function, supposing an interchangeable correlation matrix between the eyes||||||0.983
90920502|NCT00715884|181712200|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The null inferiority hypothesis was that the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval is equal or greater than the non-inferiority margin 5%. The alternative non-inferiority hypothesis for this study assumed that the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval would be less than the non-inferiority margin 5%.|Difference between TLF rates|2.58|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||5.55||In the CYPHER® ELITE™ arm the TLF rate was 5.36% (23/429) compared with 2.78% (6/216) in the CYPHER® Bx VELOCITY® arm, a difference in rates of 2.58%, upper limit of 95% two sided confidence interval of 5.55%.||||Sample sizes of 1,061 from the ELITE™ group and 531 from the CYPHER® group were planned to achieve 90 percent power at a 2.5 percent significance level using an one-sided equivalence test, assuming a 10 percent TLF rate in each group and the maximum allowable rate difference between the groups being 5 percent. The total sample size was increased to 1,770 patients to account for an approximately 90 percent compliance to clinical follow-up.||5.55||
90920503|NCT00715884|181712201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between event rates|-0.4||||0.549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.0|||Fisher Exact|||||1.0|-1.3|0.549
90920504|NCT00715884|181712202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between event rates|13.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.2|18.9|||Fisher Exact|||||18.9|9.2|<.001
90920505|NCT00715884|181712203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between event rates|0.7||||0.724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|4.2|||Fisher Exact|||||4.2|-2.2|0.724
90920506|NCT00715884|181712204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between event rates|-1.3||||0.407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|1.4|||Fisher Exact|||||1.4|-3.5|0.407
90920507|NCT00715884|181712205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between event rates|2.11||||0.203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|4.48|||Fisher Exact|||||4.48|-0.84|0.203
90920508|NCT00715884|181712206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between event rates|2.35||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|5.28|||Fisher Exact|||||5.28|-1.24|0.22
90920509|NCT00715884|181712207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between event rates|2.83||||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|6.26|||Fisher Exact|||||6.26|-1.28|0.166
90920510|NCT00715884|181712208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between event rates|2.59||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|5.85|||Fisher Exact|||||5.85|-1.35|0.200
90920511|NCT00715884|181712209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between event rates|11.56||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.73|24.64|||Fisher Exact|||||24.64|-3.73|0.140
90920512|NCT00715884|181712210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between event rates|5.17||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.03|10.83|||Fisher Exact|||||10.83|-2.03|0.170
90920513|NCT00715884|181712211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between event rates|0.24||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.61|5.43|||Fisher Exact|||||5.43|-5.61|1.0
90920514|NCT00715884|181712212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between event rates|0.24||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.92|1.63|||Fisher Exact|||||1.63|-1.92|1.0
90920515|NCT00715884|181712213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between event rates|0.49||||0.801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.73|2.91|||Fisher Exact|||||2.91|-2.73|0.801
90920516|NCT00715884|181712214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between event rates|-0.92||||0.341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.56|0.6|||Fisher Exact|||||0.60|-3.56|0.341
90920517|NCT00715884|181712215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between event rates|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.14|1.28|||Fisher Exact|||||1.28|-2.14|1.00
90920518|NCT00715884|181712216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between event rates|0.47||||0.668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|1.96|||Fisher Exact|||||1.96|-1.72|0.668
90920519|NCT03930342|181712219|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.07|||Regression, Logistic|Used marginal standardization to estimate relative risk from logistic regression||Results here reflect analysis of the relative risk for AEP that is a combination of risk from baseline to the 3 month timepoint and risk between the 3 month timepoint and 6 month timepoint. This reflects changes in AEP risk across the course of exposure to the intervention (baseline to 3 month) and enduring change post-exposure (3 months to 6 months)||1.07|0.83|
90920520|NCT02742519|181712223|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2121|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2121
90920521|NCT01872078|181712232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (%)|87.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.52|129.47||||||The null hypothesis is that the ratio of Active to Control in LH AUC(0-8) ratio to baseline at day 7= 100%||129.47|58.52|
90920522|NCT01872078|181712232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (%)|78.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.41|116.16||||||The null hypothesis is that the ratio of Active to Control in LH AUC(0-8) ratio to baseline at day 7= 100%||116.16|53.41|
90920523|NCT01872078|181712232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (%)|47.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.73|70.36||||||The null hypothesis is that the ratio of Active to Control in LH AUC(0-8) ratio to baseline at day 7= 100%||70.36|32.73|
90920524|NCT01091168|181712233|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.25|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Kaplan-Meier curves and life tables by treatment arm were provided. Confidence intervals on the median were calculated using the Brookmeyer and Crowley method. Hazard ratio and 95% confidence intervals were reported. A stratified Cox proportional model was performed to compare the two treatment arms taking into account the stratification factors (except centre) used at the time of randomisation.||1.25|0.86|0.673
91034173|NCT02262377|181954356|SUPERIORITY|The ITT analysis was done for 21 week BPI Severity.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||0.996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.16||Statistical significance was set at p\< 0.05.|Regression, Poisson|||||1.16|0.86|0.996
90881846|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.5691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.2|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms General, Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.20|-0.36|0.5691
90881847|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.2942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.12|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms General, Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.12|-0.40|0.2942
90881848|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136||0.5389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.19|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms General, Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.19|-0.35|0.5389
90881849|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141||0.4061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.16|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms General, Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.16|-0.40|0.4061
90881850|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.153||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.05|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms General, Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.05|-0.56|0.0990
90881851|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.138||0.0108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.08|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms General, Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.08|-0.63|0.0108
90881852|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.04|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms General, Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.04|-0.59|0.0889
90881853|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.169||0.3721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.49|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms General, Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.49|-0.18|0.3721
90881854|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141||0.5513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.2|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms General, Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.20|-0.36|0.5513
90920525|NCT01091168|181712234|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0424|||||||Log Rank|||The disease control rate (DCR) were compared in the ITT population and in the population evaluable for response between the 2 arms with a cochran Mantel Haenszel, stratified on WHO performance status at baseline, number of prior chemotherapy lines for the treatment of disease and disease measurability at Baseline.||||0.0424
90920526|NCT01091168|181712235|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.4927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.12|||Log Rank|||PFS was compared between the 2 treatment arms by the log-rank test procedure with the 5 % significant level, stratified on the stratification factors (except study site) as specified at the time of randomisation. Os was analysed using Kaplan-Meir method and summarized with median and 95% CI of the median||1.12|0.8|0.4927
90920527|NCT04052516|181712262|OTHER|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszal test|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.2991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|4.63|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.63|0.62|0.2991
90920528|NCT04052516|181712262|OTHER|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Test|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.01||||0.1386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|5.08|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.08|0.80|0.1386
90962437|NCT03027557|181805776|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||ANOVA|||||||< 0.00001
90962438|NCT03027557|181805777|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0027|||||||ANOVA|||||||= 0.0027
90962439|NCT03027557|181805778|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.081|||||||ANOVA|||||||= 0.081
91034174|NCT02262377|181954357|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.17||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.37|||Regression, Poisson|||||1.37|0.99|0.054
91034175|NCT02262377|181954358|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.13|||Regression, Poisson|||||1.13|0.89|0.98
91034176|NCT02262377|181954359|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.98|||Odds Ratio|||||0.98|0.18|
90920529|NCT04172441|181712305|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS means|-5.21||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.29|-2.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model was used, with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as random effect.|The comparison was in the direction of dasiglucagon minus placebo.|Null hypothesis: weighted mean IV GIR in the last 12 hours of treatment with dasiglucagon = weighted mean IV GIR in the last 12 hours of treatment with placebo||-2.13|-8.29|0.0037
90920530|NCT04172441|181712306|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS means|-30.93||||0.0238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.8|-5.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model was used, with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as random effect.|The comparison was in the direction of dasiglucagon minus placebo.|Null hypothesis: Total amount of carbohydrates administered (regardless of route) per day in patients treated with dasiglucagon = total amount of carbohydrates administered (regardless of route) per day in patients treated with placebo||-5.05|-56.80|0.0238
90920531|NCT04501861|181712400|EQUIVALENCE|Compare mPAP-to-MAP ratio between patients who received norepinephrine versus vasopressin intraoperatively. Post intervention measurements will be recorded after protamine administration until end of chest closure.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.043|0.022|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.022|-0.043|0.53
90920532|NCT04501861|181712400|EQUIVALENCE|Compare mPAP-to-MAP ratio between patients who with preop PH received norepinephrine versus vasopressin intraoperatively. Post intervention measurements will be recorded after protamine administration until end of chest closure. The number of patients in norepinephrine group is 52 and in vasopressin group is 40. The significance level was 0.05 for all analyses. All tests were 2-sided. Interactions were considered significant when the interaction P was \< 0.10.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.022||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.061|0.016|||Mixed Models Analysis|||mPAP-to-MAP ratio was compared between patients with pre-existing pulmonary hypertension of use of vasopressin and norepinephrine. Preoperative pulmonary arterial hypertension was defined by using the cut-off value of 25 mmHg for the time-weighted average mPAP, i.e., time weighted average mPAP \< 25 mmHg indicated absence of preoperative pulmonary arterial hypertension; otherwise, presence of preoperative pulmonary hypertension.||0.016|-0.061|0.26
90920533|NCT04501861|181712400|EQUIVALENCE|Compare mPAP-to-MAP ratio between patients who without preop PH received norepinephrine versus vasopressin intraoperatively. Post intervention measurements will be recorded after protamine administration until end of chest closure. The number of patients in norepinephrine group is 31 and in vasopressin group is 29. The significance level was 0.05 for all analyses. All tests were 2-sided. Interactions were considered significant when the interaction P was \< 0.10.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0035||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.043|||Mixed Models Analysis|||mPAP-to-MAP ratio was compared between patients without pre-existing pulmonary hypertension of use of vasopressin and norepinephrine. Preoperative pulmonary arterial hypertension was defined by using the cut-off value of 25 mmHg for the time-weighted average mPAP, i.e., time weighted average mPAP \< 25 mmHg indicated absence of preoperative pulmonary arterial hypertension; otherwise, presence of preoperative pulmonary hypertension.||0.043|-0.05|0.88
90920534|NCT04501861|181712401|EQUIVALENCE|Imbalanced confounders such as female, coronary artery disease, preoperative ejection fraction, surgery type, primary or repeat surgery, and bypass time were additionally adjusted. A different inverse probability of treatment weighting was fit for secondary analysis and a linear mixed regression model with random intercept to account for intra-week correlation to estimate the effect of norepinephrine on right ventricular free wall strain using the new obtained stabilized weights|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.3|-6.0|0.37
90920535|NCT04501861|181712401|EQUIVALENCE|We examined the effect of norepinephrine versus vasopressin on right ventricular free wall strain by considering patients who have preoperative pulmonary hypertension. The number of patients in norepinephrine group is 34 and in vasopressin group is 28. The significance level was 0.05 for all analyses. All tests were 2-sided. The significance levels of subgroup analyses were not corrected for multiple comparisons. Interactions were considered significant when the interaction P was \< 0.10.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|2.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||RV free wall strain compare between patients with pre-existing pulmonary hypertension of use of vasopressin and norepinephrine. Preoperative pulmonary arterial hypertension was defined by using the cut-off value of 25 mmHg for the time-weighted average mPAP, i.e., time weighted average mPAP \< 25 mmHg indicated absence of preoperative pulmonary arterial hypertension; otherwise, presence of preoperative pulmonary hypertension;||2.8|-7.1|0.39
90920536|NCT04501861|181712401|EQUIVALENCE|We're going to explore the interaction between preoperative pulmonary arterial hypertension status and treatment group by equivalence analysis. The number of patients in norepinephrine group is 22 and in vasopressin group is 18.The significance level was 0.05 for all analyses. All tests were 2-sided. The significance levels of subgroup analyses were not corrected for multiple comparisons. Interactions were considered significant when the interaction P was \< 0.10.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|4.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"We examined the effect of norepinephrine versus vasopressin on right ventricular free wall strain by separately considering patients who did not have preoperative pulmonary hypertension.~Preoperative pulmonary arterial hypertension was defined by using the cut-off value of 25 mmHg for the time-weighted average mPAP, i.e., time weighted average mPAP \< 25 mmHg indicated absence of preoperative pulmonary arterial hypertension; otherwise, presence of preoperative pulmonary hypertension."||4.6|-7.6|0.63
90920537|NCT03779204|181712413|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|1.0|||ANCOVA|||||1.0|-5.0|0.18
90920538|NCT03779204|181712414|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|2.3|||ANCOVA|||||2.3|-5.0|0.44
91034177|NCT02262377|181954360|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.14|||Odds Ratio|||||1.14|0.90|
91034178|NCT00838630|181954387|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) will be performed for the log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax parameters.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|98.27||||||90.0|92.32|104.61|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||104.61|92.32|
90881855|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067||0.0748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.26|||MMRM|||Genital Symptoms, Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.26|-0.01|0.0748
90881856|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.087||0.3545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.25|||MMRM|||Genital Symptoms, Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.25|-0.09|0.3545
90881857|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094||0.6531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.23|||MMRM|||Genital Symptoms, Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.23|-0.14|0.6531
90881858|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.115||0.752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.19|||MMRM|||Genital Symptoms, Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.19|-0.26|0.7520
90881859|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.123||0.8861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.23|||MMRM|||Genital Symptoms, Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.23|-0.26|0.8861
90881860|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.127||0.328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.13|||MMRM|||Genital Symptoms, Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.13|-0.38|0.3280
90881861|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.128||0.1123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.05|||MMRM|||Genital Symptoms, Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.05|-0.46|0.1123
90881862|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116||0.2541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.1|||MMRM|||Genital Symptoms, Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.10|-0.36|0.2541
90881863|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.143||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.09|||MMRM|||Genital Symptoms, Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.09|-0.66|0.0110
90881864|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.158||0.772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.27|||MMRM|||Genital Symptoms, Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.27|-0.36|0.7720
90881865|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.6311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.32|||MMRM|||Genital Symptoms, Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.32|-0.52|0.6311
90881866|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.207||0.6877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.33|||MMRM|||Genital Symptoms, Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.33|-0.50|0.6877
90920539|NCT03779204|181712415|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.3||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|24.4|||ANCOVA|||||24.4|-9.7|.38
90962440|NCT03027557|181805779|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0071|||||||ANOVA|||||||= 0.0071
90881867|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.186||0.2465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.58|||MMRM|||Genital Symptoms, Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.58|-0.15|0.2465
90881868|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.101||0.1279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.05|||MMRM|||Hypochondriasis, Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.05|-0.36|0.1279
90881869|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.093||0.3946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.1|||MMRM|||Hypochondriasis, Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.10|-0.26|0.3946
90881870|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.095||0.6694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.15|||MMRM|||Hypochondriasis, Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.15|-0.23|0.6694
90881871|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.1113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.04|||MMRM|||Hypochondriasis, Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.04|-0.36|0.1113
90881872|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.089||0.5811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.23|||MMRM|||Hypochondriasis, Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.23|-0.13|0.5811
90881873|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.106||0.6794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.17|||MMRM|||Hypochondriasis, Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.17|-0.25|0.6794
90881874|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099||0.6031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.25|||MMRM|||Hypochondriasis, Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.25|-0.14|0.6031
90881875|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099||0.6673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.15|||MMRM|||Hypochondriasis, Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.15|-0.24|0.6673
90881876|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.102||0.6472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.16|||MMRM|||Hypochondriasis, Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.16|-0.25|0.6472
90881877|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.119||0.8654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.22|||MMRM|||Hypochondriasis, Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.22|-0.26|0.8654
90881878|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.2101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.11|||MMRM|||Hypochondriasis, Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.11|-0.48|0.2101
90962441|NCT03027557|181805780|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||= 0.0001
90881879|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.126||0.7128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.21|||MMRM|||Hypochondriasis, Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.21|-0.30|0.7128
90881880|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.3297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.09|||MMRM|||Hypochondriasis, Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.09|-0.27|0.3297
90881881|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.069||0.4493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.19|||MMRM|||Loss of weight, Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.19|-0.08|0.4493
90881882|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.081||0.0717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.31|||MMRM|||Loss of weight, Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.31|-0.01|0.0717
90881883|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066||0.1054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.24|||MMRM|||Loss of Weight, Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.24|-0.02|0.1054
90881884|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.088||0.0408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.36|||MMRM|||Loss of Weight, Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.36|0.01|0.0408
90881885|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.088||0.0233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.38|||MMRM|||Loss of Weight, Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.38|0.03|0.0233
90881886|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.088||0.361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.26|||MMRM|||Loss of Weight, Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.26|-0.09|0.3610
90881887|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.2358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.32|||MMRM|||Loss of Weight, Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.32|-0.08|0.2358
90881888|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.085||0.9492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.17|||MMRM|||Loss of Weight, Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.17|-0.16|0.9492
90881889|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.102||0.4352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.12|||MMRM|||Loss of Weight, Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.12|-0.28|0.4352
90881890|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.125||0.1176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.44|||MMRM|||Loss of Weight, Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.44|-0.05|0.1176
90962442|NCT03027557|181805781|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||= 0.0001
90920540|NCT03779204|181712416|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|4.4|||ANCOVA|||||4.4|-3.3|0.76
90920541|NCT03779204|181712417|OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.68
90920542|NCT03779204|181712418|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.2||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|2.0|||ANCOVA|||||2.0|-16.4|0.12
90920543|NCT03779204|181712419|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.4||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|5.0|||ANCOVA|||||5.0|-13.7|0.34
90881891|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.174||0.7812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.4|||MMRM|||Loss of Weight, Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.40|-0.30|0.7812
90881892|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.182||0.5085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.24|||MMRM|||Loss of Weight, Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.24|-0.48|0.5085
90881893|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.156||0.8274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.34|||MMRM|||Loss of Weight, Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.34|-0.28|0.8274
90881894|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045||0.3675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.05|||MMRM|||Insight, Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.05|-0.13|0.3675
90920544|NCT03779204|181712421|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|4.0|||ANCOVA|||||4.0|-6.6|0.62
90920545|NCT04258709|181712424|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.1200
90881895|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045||0.1818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.03|||MMRM|||Insight, Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.03|-0.15|0.1818
90920546|NCT04258709|181712424|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.593||||0.0474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.352|0.9907|||Regression, Logistic||Adjusted for race, Iowa Infant Feeding Attitudes Score at baseline, infant gestational age, NICU admission, maternal age at enrollment, WIC enrollment at baseline, maternal pre-pregnancy BMI. This is an adjusted odds ratio.|||.9907|.352|.0474
90920547|NCT04258709|181712425|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5201|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||.5201
90920548|NCT04258709|181712425|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.1399||||0.9178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5299|2.8098|||Regression, Linear|||||2.8098|-2.5299|.9178
90920549|NCT04258709|181712426|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8614|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||.8614
90920550|NCT04258709|181712426|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0763||||0.7836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6364|1.8216|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.8216|.6364|.7836
90920551|NCT04258709|181712427|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9788|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.9788
90920552|NCT04258709|181712427|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0307||||0.9119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.603|1.7067|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.7067|.603|.9119
90920553|NCT04258709|181712428|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7157||||0.2173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4192|1.216|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.216|.4192|.2173
90920554|NCT04258709|181712429|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7157||||0.5209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4192|1.216|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.216|.4192|.5209
90920555|NCT04258709|181712432|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4258|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.4258
90920556|NCT04258709|181712432|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8882||||0.6246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5523|1.4283|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.4283|.5523|.6246
90920557|NCT04258709|181712433|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5613|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.5613
90920558|NCT04258709|181712433|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7157||||0.2173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4206|1.2178|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.2178|.4206|.2173
90920559|NCT04258709|181712434|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6291|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.6291
90920560|NCT04258709|181712434|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1955||||0.5426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8745|1.3931|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.3931|.8745|.5426
90920561|NCT04258709|181712435|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9071|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.9071
90920562|NCT04258709|181712435|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0233||||0.9328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7751|1.2084|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.2084|.7751|.9328
90920563|NCT04258709|181712436|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.8213||||0.5548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9161|3.5588|||Regression, Linear|||||3.5588|-1.9161|.5548
90920564|NCT04258709|181712437|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.2412||||0.3861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5771|4.0594|||Regression, Linear|||||4.0594|-1.5771|.3861
90920565|NCT04258709|181712438|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4779|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||.4779
90920566|NCT04258709|181712439|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1
90920567|NCT04258709|181712439|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9508||||0.9163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3669|2.4621|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.4621|.3669|.9163
90920568|NCT04258709|181712440|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1084||||0.8031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4937|2.4882|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.4882|.4937|.8031
90920569|NCT04258709|181712441|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1346||||0.8175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3882|3.3161|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.3161|.3882|.8175
90920570|NCT04258709|181712442|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6964||||0.434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2813|1.7241|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.7241|.2813|.434
90920571|NCT04258709|181712443|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2533||||0.4968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6534|2.4041|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.4041|.6534|.4968
90920572|NCT04258709|181712444|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0288||||0.9005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.659|1.6062|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.6062|.659|.9005
90920573|NCT04258709|181712445|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.4018||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2052|0.4015|||Regression, Linear|||||.4015|-3.2052|.127
90920574|NCT04258709|181712446|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.8958||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9475|0.1559|||Regression, Linear|||||.1559|-3.9475|.07
90920575|NCT04258709|181712447|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.506||||0.6299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.574|1.562|||Regression, Linear|||||1.562|-2.574|.6299
90920576|NCT04258709|181712448|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7573||||0.3835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4029|1.4138|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.4138|.4029|.3835
90920577|NCT04258709|181712449|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.784||||0.459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.409|1.4912|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.4912|.409|.459
90920578|NCT04258709|181712450|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9338||||0.8499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.458|1.9039|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.9039|.458|.8499
90920579|NCT03958955|181712455|SUPERIORITY||Attributable risk|-0.14||||0.4531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.09||Exact p-value of McNemar's test.|McNemar||Attributable risk is defined as the difference in estimated probability of treatment success of delgocitinib compared to vehicle. Exact p-value of McNemar's test. Success is defined as having an IGA score of 0 (clear) or 1 (almost clear) at Week 6.|||0.09|-0.37|0.4531
90920580|NCT03958955|181712458|SUPERIORITY||Attributable risk|0.07||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.17||Exact p-value of McNemar's test.|McNemar||Attributable risk is defined as the difference in estimated probability of treatment success (i.e. no lesion-specific treatment-related AEs) of delgocitinib compared to vehicle. Exact p-value of McNemar's test.|||0.17|-0.02|0.5000
90920581|NCT03958955|181712459|SUPERIORITY||Attributable risk|-0.14||||0.4531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.09||Exact p-value of McNemar's test.|McNemar||Attributable risk is defined as the difference in estimated probability of treatment success of delgocitinib vs vehicle. Exact p-value of McNemar's test. Success is defined as having at least a 2-point reduction in IGA score from baseline to Week 6.|||0.09|-0.37|0.4531
90920582|NCT03958955|181712460|SUPERIORITY||Attributable risk|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.22||Exact p-value of McNemar's test.|McNemar||||Attributable risk is defined as the difference in estimated probability of treatment success of delgocitinib compared to vehicle. Exact p-value of McNemar's test. Success is defined as having at least a 2-point reduction in IGA score from baseline to Week 6.|0.22|-0.22|1.0000
90920583|NCT03958955|181712461|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5797||||||P-value of the Wilcoxon signed rank test.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|Erythema is scored as 0=absent, 1=pink, faint, 2=red, 3=dark red, purple/violaceous/crusted/haemorrhagic. P-value of the Wilcoxon signed rank test.||||||0.5797
90920584|NCT03958955|181712462|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7862||||||P-value of the Wilcoxon signed rank test.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|P-value of the Wilcoxon signed rank test.||Total skin disease activity score is the sum of the scores for erythema, scaling/hyperkeratosis, and oedema/infiltration. Total skin disease activity score ranges from 0 to 7 with lower score indicating better state.||||0.7862
90920585|NCT02807636|181712463|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.0073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.96||inverse normal combination|Log Rank|||Stratification factors: Enrollment stage, PD-L1 status, Bajorin risk score/presence of liver metastases, and investigator choice of chemotherapy.||0.96|0.70|0.0073
90920586|NCT02807636|181712464|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.0||one-sided, inverse normal combination|Regression, Cox|||Stratification factors: Enrollment stage, PD-L1 status, Bajorin risk score/presence of liver metastases, and investigator choice of chemotherapy.||1.0|0.73|0.0230
90920587|NCT02807636|181712465|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.3968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.16|||Log Rank|one-sided||Stratification factors: PD-L1 status, Bajorin risk score/presence of liver metastases, and investigator choice of chemotherapy.||1.16|0.82|0.3968
90920588|NCT02807636|181712470|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.0373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.01||inverse normal combination|Regression, Cox|||Stratification factors: Enrollment stage, PD-L1 status, Bajorin risk score/presence of liver metastases, and investigator choice of chemotherapy.||1.01|0.73|0.0373
90920589|NCT02807636|181712471|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|5.0||||0.1509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|11.81|||Z-test|||Stratification factors: Enrollment stage, PD-L1 status, Bajorin risk score/presence of liver metastases, and investigator choice of chemotherapy.||11.81|-1.82|0.1509
90920590|NCT02807636|181712472|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|3.36||||0.3761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.08|10.79|||Z-test|||Stratification factors: Enrollment stage, PD-L1 status, Bajorin risk score/presence of liver metastases, and investigator choice of chemotherapy.||10.79|-4.08|0.3761
90920591|NCT02807636|181712473|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|-8.29||||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.45|-2.13|||Z-test|||Stratification factors: Enrollment stage, PD-L1 status, Bajorin risk score/presence of liver metastases, and investigator choice of chemotherapy.||-2.13|-14.45|0.0083
90920592|NCT02807636|181712474|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.0542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.0|||Log Rank|||Strata are: Enrollment Stage, PD-L1 Status, BAJORIN Risk Factor Score and Stratum 4 for all participants.||1.00|0.64|0.0542
90920593|NCT02807636|181712475|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.6139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.19|||Log Rank|||Strata are: PD-L1 Status, BAJORIN Risk Factor Score and Stratum 4 for all participants.||1.19|0.74|0.6139
90920594|NCT02807636|181712476|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.32|||Log Rank|||Strata are: Enrollment Stage, PD-L1 Status, BAJORIN Risk Factor Score and Stratum 4 for all participants.||1.32|0.86|0.5540
90920595|NCT02807636|181712477|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.29||||0.0241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.62|||Log Rank|||Strata are: Enrollment Stage, PD-L1 Status, BAJORIN Risk Factor Score and Stratum 4 for all participants.||1.62|1.03|0.0241
90920596|NCT02807636|181712481|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.42||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|1.69|||Log Rank|||Stratification factors: PD-L1 status and Bajorin risk score/presence of liver metastases and investigator choice of chemotherapy.||1.69|1.19|1.0000
90962443|NCT03027557|181805782|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.38|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||= 0.38
90962444|NCT03027557|181805787|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.83|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||= 0.83
90962445|NCT03027557|181805790|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
90962446|NCT03027557|181805791|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0077|||||||ANOVA|||||||= 0.0077
90962447|NCT03027557|181805792|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.011|||||||ANOVA|||||||= 0.011
90881896|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045||0.0826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.01|||MMRM|||Insight, Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.01|-0.17|0.0826
90881897|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045||0.6436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.07|||MMRM|||Insight, Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.07|-0.11|0.6436
90881898|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045||0.1827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.03|||MMRM|||Insight, Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.03|-0.15|0.1827
90881899|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045||0.9859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.09|||MMRM|||Insight, Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.09|-0.09|0.9859
90920597|NCT05493787|181712504|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||Comparisons between Passive Control and all other arms (Analyses 1-5) were analyzed in the same regression. The p-value reported is 2-tailed.|Regression, Linear|||Null hypothesis: Flu shot self-scheduling does not differ between those sent an Active Control message and those not sent a message (i.e., those in the Passive Control group); Alternative hypothesis: Sending an Active Control message increases self-scheduling compared with sending no message. Analysis combines across November and December send dates.||||.003
90920598|NCT05493787|181712504|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Comparisons between Passive Control and all other arms (Analyses 1-5) were analyzed in the same regression. The p-value reported is 2-tailed.|Regression, Linear|||Null hypothesis: Flu shot self-scheduling does not differ between those sent an Ease message and those not sent a message (i.e., those in the Passive Control group); Alternative hypothesis: Sending an Ease message increases self-scheduling compared with sending no message. Analysis combines across November and December send dates.||||<.001
90962448|NCT03027557|181805793|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.011|||||||ANOVA|||||||= 0.011
90962449|NCT03027557|181805794|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||= 0.0001
90962450|NCT03027557|181805795|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||ANOVA|||||||< 0.00001
90962451|NCT03027557|181805796|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||= 0.0001
90920599|NCT05493787|181712504|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Comparisons between Passive Control and all other arms (Analyses 1-5) were analyzed in the same regression.|Regression, Linear|||Null hypothesis: Flu shot self-scheduling does not differ between those sent an Waiting for You message message and those not sent a message (i.e., those in the Passive Control group); Alternative hypothesis: Sending a Waiting for You message increases self-scheduling compared with sending no message. Analysis combines across November and December send dates.||||<.001
90920600|NCT05493787|181712504|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||Comparisons between Passive Control and all other arms (Analyses 1-5) were analyzed in the same regression. The p-value reported is 2-tailed.|Regression, Linear|||Null hypothesis: Flu shot self-scheduling does not differ between those sent a Protect Yourself - Rare message and those not sent a message (i.e., those in the Passive Control group); Alternative hypothesis: Sending a Protect Yourself - Rare Message increases self-scheduling compared with sending no message. Analysis combines across November and December send dates.||||.003
90920601|NCT05493787|181712504|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035||||||Comparisons between Passive Control and all other arms (Analyses 1-5) were analyzed in the same regression. The p-value reported is 2-tailed.|Regression, Linear|||Null hypothesis: Flu shot self-scheduling does not differ between those sent a Protect Yourself - Frequent message and those not sent a message (i.e., those in the Passive Control group); Alternative hypothesis: Sending a Protect Yourself - Frequent message increases self-scheduling compared with sending no message. Analysis combines across November and December send dates.||||.035
90920602|NCT05493787|181712504|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.593||||||Comparisons between Active Control and all other arms (Analyses 6-9) were analyzed in the same regression. The p-value reported is 2-tailed.|Regression, Linear|||Null hypothesis: Active Control messages and Ease messages are equally effective at promoting flu shot self-scheduling; Alternative hypothesis: Ease messages are more effective at promoting flu shot self-scheduling than Active Control messages. Analysis combines across November and December send dates.||||.593
90920603|NCT05493787|181712504|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.052||||||Comparisons between Active Control and all other arms (Analyses 6-9) were analyzed in the same regression. The p-value reported is 2-tailed.|Regression, Linear|||Null hypothesis: Active Control messages and Waiting for You messages are equally effective at promoting flu shot self-scheduling; Alternative hypothesis: Waiting for You messages are more effective at promoting flu shot self-scheduling than Active Control messages. Analysis combines across November and December send dates.||||.052
90920604|NCT05493787|181712504|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.952||||||Comparisons between Active Control and all other arms (Analyses 6-9) were analyzed in the same regression. The p-value reported is 2-tailed.|Regression, Linear|||Null hypothesis: Active Control messages and Protect Yourself - Rare messages are equally effective at promoting flu shot self-scheduling; Alternative hypothesis: Protect Yourself - Rare messages are more effective at promoting flu shot self-scheduling than Active Control messages. Analysis combines across November and December send dates.||||.952
90962452|NCT03027557|181805797|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||= 0.0001
90962453|NCT03027557|181805798|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||= 0.0001
90920605|NCT05493787|181712504|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.386||||||Comparisons between Active Control and all other arms (Analyses 6-9) were analyzed in the same regression. The p-value reported is 2-tailed.|Regression, Linear|||Null hypothesis: Active Control messages and Protect Yourself - Frequent messages are equally effective at promoting flu shot self-scheduling; Alternative hypothesis: Protect Yourself - Frequent messages are more effective at promoting flu shot self-scheduling than Active Control messages. Analysis combines across November and December send dates.||||.386
90962454|NCT03027557|181805800|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||= 0.5
90962455|NCT03027557|181805801|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.85|||||||ANOVA|||||||= 0.85
90920606|NCT05493787|181712504|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.498||||||Pairwise comparisons between experimental arms (Analyses 10-15) were analyzed in the same regression. Reported p-values were 2-tailed and adjusted using Tukey's HSD test.|Regression, Linear|||Null hypothesis: Ease messages and Waiting for You messages are equally effective at promoting flu shot self-scheduling; Alternative hypothesis: There is a difference in effectiveness between Ease and Waiting for You messages. Analysis combines across November and December send dates.||||.498
90920607|NCT05493787|181712504|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.935||||||Pairwise comparisons between experimental arms (Analyses 10-15) were analyzed in the same regression. Reported p-values were 2-tailed and adjusted using Tukey's HSD test.|Regression, Linear|||Null hypothesis: Ease messages and Protect Yourself - Rare messages are equally effective at promoting flu shot self-scheduling; Alternative hypothesis: There is a difference in effectiveness between Ease and Protect Yourself - Rare messages. Analysis combines across November and December send dates.||||.935
90962456|NCT03027557|181805802|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.22|||||||ANOVA|||||||= 0.22
90962457|NCT03027557|181805803|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.18|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||= 0.18
90962458|NCT02430051|181805808|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Mixed-effects regression model|Adjusted for attained age and first or second clinic visit.||||||0.01
90962459|NCT02430051|181805809|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Mixed-effects regression model|Adjustment for attained age and first and second clinic visit.||||||0.25
90962460|NCT02430051|181805810|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.87
90962461|NCT02430051|181805811|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90962462|NCT02430051|181805812|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90962463|NCT02430051|181805813|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90962464|NCT02430051|181805814|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90962465|NCT02430051|181805815|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.92
90962466|NCT02430051|181805816|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.16
90962467|NCT02430051|181805817|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.76
90962468|NCT02430051|181805818|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.80
90962469|NCT02430051|181805819|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Multivariate linear regression|Adjusted for autism severity, IQ, dental fear and anxiety, sensory over-responsivity, general anxiety, expressive communication, gender, and age.||||||<0.0001
90962470|NCT02430051|181805820|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||General linear mixed model|||||||0.61
90920608|NCT05493787|181712504|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.504||||||Pairwise comparisons between experimental arms (Analyses 10-15) were analyzed in the same regression. Reported p-values were 2-tailed and adjusted using Tukey's HSD test.|Regression, Linear|||Null hypothesis: Ease messages and Protect Yourself - Frequent messages are equally effective at promoting flu shot self-scheduling; Alternative hypothesis: There is a difference in effectiveness between Ease and Protect Yourself - Frequent message messages. Analysis combines across November and December send dates.||||.504
90920609|NCT05493787|181712504|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19||||||Pairwise comparisons between experimental arms (Analyses 10-15) were analyzed in the same regression. Reported p-values were 2-tailed and adjusted using Tukey's HSD test.|Regression, Linear|||Null hypothesis: Protect Yourself - Rare and Waiting for You messages are equally effective at promoting flu shot self-scheduling; Alternative hypothesis: There is a difference in effectiveness between Protect Yourself - Rare and Waiting for You messages. Analysis combines across November and December send dates.||||.190
90920610|NCT05493787|181712504|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027||||||Pairwise comparisons between experimental arms (Analyses 10-15) were analyzed in the same regression. Reported p-values were 2-tailed and adjusted using Tukey's HSD test.|Regression, Linear|||Null hypothesis: Protect Yourself - Frequent messages and Waiting for You messages are equally effective at promoting flu shot self-scheduling; Alternative hypothesis: There is a difference in effectiveness between Protect Yourself - Frequent and Waiting for You messages. Analysis combines across November and December send dates.||||.027
90920611|NCT05493787|181712504|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.854||||||Pairwise comparisons between experimental arms (Analyses 10-15) were analyzed in the same regression. Reported p-values were 2-tailed and adjusted using Tukey's HSD test.|Regression, Linear|||Null hypothesis: Protect Yourself - Rare and Protect Yourself - Frequent messages are equally effective at promoting flu shot self-scheduling; Alternative hypothesis: There is a difference in effectiveness between Protect Yourself - Rare and Protect Yourself - Frequent messages. Analysis combines across November and December send dates.||||.854
90920612|NCT05493787|181712504|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.637||||||The reported p-value (2-tailed) is for the interaction term between message send date (November, December) and message (any message arm no message)|Regression, Linear|||"Null Hypothesis: Messages sent in November and December are equally effective at promoting flu-shot self-scheduling. Alternative hypothesis: Messages sent in November and December are differentially effective.~To test the alternative hypothesis, all message arms (Active control, Ease, Waiting for you, Protect yourself - rare, Protect yourself - frequent) were combined and compared with Passive control."||||.637
90920613|NCT04382898|181712535|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1041|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1041
90920614|NCT04382898|181712541|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0541|||||||Binomial test|||||||0.0541
90920615|NCT05229120|181712542|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.24||||0.124|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|No adjustments were made. DF = 10.||A single-sided paired-samples t-test comparing k-values at baseline to k-values at follow-up (approximately 4 weeks after baseline assessment) was examined. Given that k-values are typically skewed (and to be consistent with the existing literature) we used a log-k as our outcome variable.||||.124
90962471|NCT01009554|181805848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.126|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0905||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.054|0.306||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline tooth color parameter values (L, a, and b) and age (in years) as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.306|-0.054|0.168
91034179|NCT00838630|181954388|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) will be performed for log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf, and Cmax parameters.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|94.37||||||90.0|90.47|98.43|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||98.43|90.47|
90920616|NCT05229120|181712543|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.13||||0.219|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|No adjustments were made. DF = 14.||Changes in consideration of future consequences (parenting) was evaluated using one-sided paired samples t-tests.||||.219
90920617|NCT05229120|181712544|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|No adjustments were made. DF = 5||Performed a one-sided paired samples t-test examining changes in both positive parenting.||||.50
90920618|NCT05229120|181712544|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.187|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Used a one-sided paired samples t-test to examine changes in negative parenting.||||.187
90920619|NCT05229120|181712545|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.498|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Examined changes in parental involvement using a paired-samples t-test.||||.498
90920620|NCT05229120|181712545|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.301||||0.108|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Examined changes in positive parenting using paired samples t-tests||||.108
90920621|NCT05229120|181712545|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.01||||0.145|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Examined changes in parental monitoring using a paired samples t-test||||.145
90920622|NCT05229120|181712545|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.688||||0.252|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Examined changes in inconsistent parenting using a paired samples one-sided t-test||||.252
90920623|NCT05229120|181712545|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.306||||0.382|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Examined changes in corporal punishment using a paired samples one-tailed t-test||||.382
90920624|NCT03932682|181712554|OTHER|The primary objective would be achieved if efficacy was demonstrated for at least one of the two primary efficacy endpoints, that is, if the interim analysis-adjusted lower limit of the two-sided confidence interval (CI) for absolute vaccine efficacy (aVE) of QIVc versus the comparator vaccine was greater than 0%.|Cox Proportional Hazard|41.26|||||TWO_SIDED|97.98|21.55|56.02||||||||56.02|21.55|
90920625|NCT03932682|181712555|OTHER|The primary objective would be achieved if efficacy was demonstrated for at least one of the two primary efficacy endpoints, that is, if the interim analysis-adjusted lower limit of the two-sided CI for aVE of QIVc versus the comparator vaccine was greater than 0%.|Cox Proportional Hazard|46.9|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|19.19|65.11||||||||65.11|19.19|
90920626|NCT03932682|181712556|OTHER|The secondary efficacy objectives were not associated with any hypothesis testing|Cox Proportional Hazard|54.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.55|73.26||||||||73.26|22.55|
90881900|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045||0.6672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.11|||MMRM|||Insight, Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.11|-0.07|0.6672
90881901|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.046||0.2031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.15|||MMRM|||Insight, Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.15|-0.03|0.2031
90881902|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045||0.6664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.11|||MMRM|||Insight, Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.11|-0.07|0.6664
90881903|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045||0.3417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.05|||MMRM|||Insight, Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.05|-0.13|0.3417
90881904|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.051||0.6622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.08|||MMRM|||Insight, Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.08|-0.12|0.6622
90881905|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.051||0.9087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.09|||MMRM|||Insight, Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.09|-0.11|0.9087
90881906|NCT02942017|181626742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.046||0.8263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.1|||MMRM|||Insight, Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.10|-0.08|0.8263
90881907|NCT02942017|181626743|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-4.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.612||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.06|-1.66|||MMRM|||Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in MADRS total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline MADRS total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-1.66|-8.06|0.0033
90920627|NCT03932682|181712557|OTHER|The secondary efficacy objectives were not associated with any hypothesis testing|Cox Proportional Hazard|50.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.83|63.77||||||||63.77|32.83|
90920628|NCT03932682|181712558|OTHER|The secondary efficacy objectives were not associated with any hypothesis testing|Cox Proportional Hazard|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||"The 2-sided 95% confidence interval was calculated with a lower limit of not estimable and an upper limit of 100."|||||
90962472|NCT01009554|181805850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067||0.928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.127|0.139||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline tooth color parameter values (L, a, and b) and age (in years) as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.139|-0.127|0.928
90920629|NCT04321031|181712569|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.02|0.2|||||Reported values reflect a 90% Credible Interval rather than a 90% Confidence Interval.|The model was applied to the raw number of responders and non-responders utilizing a Bayesian methodology approach with non-informative priors as described in the statistical analysis plan (SAP).||0.20|-0.02|
90920630|NCT04321031|181712569|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.03|0.24|||||Reported values reflect a 90% Credible Interval rather than a 90% Confidence Interval.|The model was applied to the raw number of responders and non-responders utilizing a Bayesian methodology approach with non-informative priors as described in the SAP.||0.24|-0.03|
90920631|NCT04321031|181712569|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.03|0.26|||||Reported values reflect a 90% Credible Interval rather than a 90% Confidence Interval.|The model was applied to the raw number of responders and non-responders utilizing a Bayesian methodology approach with non-informative priors as described in the SAP.||0.26|-0.03|
90881908|NCT02942017|181626743|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.154||0.1017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.84|0.72|||MMRM|||Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in MADRS total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline MADRS total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.72|-7.84|0.1017
90920632|NCT04321031|181712569|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.04|0.28|||||Reported values reflect a 90% Credible Interval rather than a 90% Confidence Interval.|The model was applied to the raw number of responders and non-responders utilizing a Bayesian methodology approach with non-informative priors as described in the SAP.||0.28|-0.04|
90920633|NCT04321031|181712570|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.04|0.32||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.32|-0.04|
90920634|NCT04321031|181712570|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.11|0.27||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.27|-0.11|
90920635|NCT04321031|181712570|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.07|0.3||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.30|-0.07|
90920636|NCT04321031|181712570|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.07|0.43||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.43|0.07|
90920637|NCT04321031|181712570|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.12|0.27||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.27|-0.12|
90920638|NCT04321031|181712570|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.04|0.42||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.42|0.04|
90920639|NCT04321031|181712570|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|50.0|0.08|0.23||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 50% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.23|0.08|
91034180|NCT00838630|181954389|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) will be performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax parameters.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|95.7||||||90.0|91.52|100.08|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||100.08|91.52|
90920640|NCT04321031|181712570|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.03|0.31||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.31|-0.03|
90920641|NCT04321031|181712570|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|50.0|0.09|0.26||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 50% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.26|0.09|
90920642|NCT04321031|181712570|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.03|0.35||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.35|-0.03|
90920643|NCT04321031|181712571|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean|-25.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-58.42|-2.57||||||||-2.57|-58.42|
90920644|NCT04321031|181712571|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-35.41|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-69.41|-5.42||||||||-5.42|-69.41|
90920645|NCT04321031|181712571|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-40.54|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-75.55|-7.32||||||||-7.32|-75.55|
90920646|NCT04321031|181712571|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-44.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-81.72|-8.42||||||||-8.42|-81.72|
90920647|NCT04321031|181712572|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-41.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-62.57|-9.57||||||Log-transformed relative changes from baseline are modelled using an ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline fibrosis stage (F2/F3) as factors, and log-transformed baseline liver fat as a covariate.||-9.57|-62.57|
90920648|NCT04321031|181712572|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-43.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-62.37|-14.64||||||Log-transformed relative changes from baseline are modelled using an ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline fibrosis stage (F2/F3) as factors, and log-transformed baseline liver fat as a covariate.||-14.64|-62.37|
90920649|NCT04321031|181712572|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-59.35|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-73.95|-36.55||||||Log-transformed relative changes from baseline are modelled using an ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline fibrosis stage (F2/F3) as factors, and log-transformed baseline liver fat as a covariate.||-36.55|-73.95|
90920650|NCT04321031|181712572|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-68.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-79.72|-50.15||||||Log-transformed relative changes from baseline are modelled using an ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline fibrosis stage (F2/F3) as factors, and log-transformed baseline liver fat as a covariate.||-50.15|-79.72|
90920651|NCT04321031|181712572|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-50.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-69.53|-19.44||||||Log-transformed relative changes from baseline are modelled using an ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline fibrosis stage (F2/F3) as factors, and log-transformed baseline liver fat as a covariate.||-19.44|-69.53|
90920652|NCT04321031|181712572|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-69.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-81.08|-50.07||||||Log-transformed relative changes from baseline are modelled using an ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline fibrosis stage (F2/F3) as factors, and log-transformed baseline liver fat as a covariate.||-50.07|-81.08|
90920653|NCT04321031|181712572|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-21.8|||||TWO_SIDED|50.0|-34.02|-7.32||||||Log-transformed relative changes from baseline are modelled using an ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline fibrosis stage (F2/F3) as factors, and log-transformed baseline liver fat as a covariate.||-7.32|-34.02|
90920654|NCT04321031|181712572|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-21.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-48.51|18.76||||||Log-transformed relative changes from baseline are modelled using an ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline fibrosis stage (F2/F3) as factors, and log-transformed baseline liver fat as a covariate.||18.76|-48.51|
90881909|NCT02942017|181626743|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.884||0.9845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.72|3.79|||MMRM|||Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in MADRS total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline MADRS total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||3.79|-3.72|0.9845
90920655|NCT04321031|181712572|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-37.97|||||TWO_SIDED|50.0|-49.4|-23.95||||||Log-transformed relative changes from baseline are modelled using an ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline fibrosis stage (F2/F3) as factors, and log-transformed baseline liver fat as a covariate.||-23.95|-49.40|
90920656|NCT04321031|181712572|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-37.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-62.41|2.37||||||Log-transformed relative changes from baseline are modelled using an ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline fibrosis stage (F2/F3) as factors, and log-transformed baseline liver fat as a covariate.||2.37|-62.41|
90920657|NCT04321031|181712573|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.09|0.32|||||Reported values reflect a 90% Credible Interval rather than a 90% Confidence Interval.|The model was applied to the raw number of responders and non-responders utilizing a Bayesian methodology approach with non-informative priors as described in the SAP.||0.32|0.09|
90920658|NCT04321031|181712573|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.15|0.37|||||Reported values reflect a 90% Credible Interval rather than a 90% Confidence Interval.|The model was applied to the raw number of responders and non-responders utilizing a Bayesian methodology approach with non-informative priors as described in the SAP.||0.37|0.15|
90920659|NCT04321031|181712573|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.18|0.39|||||Reported values reflect a 90% Credible Interval rather than a 90% Confidence Interval.|The model was applied to the raw number of responders and non-responders utilizing a Bayesian methodology approach with non-informative priors as described in the SAP.||0.39|0.18|
90920660|NCT04321031|181712573|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.19|0.42|||||Reported values reflect a 90% Credible Interval rather than a 90% Confidence Interval.|The model was applied to the raw number of responders and non-responders utilizing a Bayesian methodology approach with non-informative priors as described in the SAP.||0.42|0.19|
90920661|NCT04321031|181712574|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.04|0.51||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.51|0.04|
90962473|NCT01009554|181805851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.235|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0718||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.092|0.378||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline tooth color parameter values (L, a, and b) and age (in years) as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.378|0.092|0.002
90881910|NCT02942017|181626744|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.0||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|12.5|||GEE method|||Hour 60: GEE method was used for analysis. CGI-I response at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline CGI-S score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model.||12.5|2.0|0.0005
90920662|NCT04321031|181712574|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.13|0.63||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.63|0.13|
90920663|NCT04321031|181712574|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.04|0.49||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.49|0.04|
90920664|NCT04321031|181712574|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.26|0.75||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.75|0.26|
90920665|NCT04321031|181712574|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.1|0.61||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.61|0.10|
90920666|NCT04321031|181712574|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.2|0.72||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.72|0.20|
90920667|NCT04321031|181712574|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|50.0|0.24|0.39||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 50% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.39|0.24|
90920668|NCT04321031|181712574|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.12|0.48||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.48|0.12|
90920669|NCT04321031|181712574|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|50.0|0.06|0.23||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 50% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.23|0.06|
90920670|NCT04321031|181712574|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.06|0.33||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.33|-0.06|
91034181|NCT00578552|181954394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|1-tailed||Data were compared between treatment groups using Fisher's exact test for binary outcomes.||||0.77
90962474|NCT01009554|181805852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.041|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1235||0.741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.205|0.286||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline tooth color parameter value L and age (in years) as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.286|-0.205|0.741
90962475|NCT01009554|181805853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.161|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1386||0.249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.437|0.115||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline tooth color parameter value L and age (in years) as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.115|-0.437|0.249
90962476|NCT01009554|181805854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.201|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1398||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.479|0.077||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline tooth color parameter value L and age (in years) as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.077|-0.479|0.154
90962477|NCT01009554|181805855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.195|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0746||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.343|-0.047||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline tooth color parameter value b and age (in years) as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-0.047|-0.343|0.011
90962478|NCT01009554|181805856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.334|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0703|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.474|-0.195||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline tooth color parameter value b and age (in years) as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-0.195|-0.474|<0.001
90962479|NCT01009554|181805857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.214|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0939||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.401|-0.027||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline tooth color parameter value b and age (in years) as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-0.027|-0.401|0.025
90962480|NCT01009554|181805858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.056|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0562||0.319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.055|0.168||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain score over all tooth sites and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.168|-0.055|0.319
90962481|NCT01009554|181805859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.272|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0668|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.139|0.405||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain score over all tooth sites and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.405|0.139|<0.001
90962482|NCT01009554|181805860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.398|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.084|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.231|0.565||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain score over all tooth sites and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.565|0.231|<0.001
90962483|NCT01009554|181805861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0271||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.024|0.084||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain intensity over all tooth sites and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.084|-0.024|0.270
90881911|NCT02942017|181626744|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.9||||0.0478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|8.4|||GEE method|||Day 7: GEE method was used for analysis. CGI-I response at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline CGI-S score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model.||8.4|1.0|0.0478
90881912|NCT02942017|181626744|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.4399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|4.6|||GEE method|||Day 30: GEE method was used for analysis. CGI-I response at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline CGI-S score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model.||4.6|0.5|0.4399
90881913|NCT02942017|181626745|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.041||0.2636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.24|0.9|||MMRM|||Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for the analysis. The change from baseline in GAD-7 total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline GAD-7 total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.90|-3.24|0.2636
90881914|NCT02942017|181626745|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.103||0.4897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.96|1.43|||MMRM|||Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for the analysis. The change from baseline in GAD-7 total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline GAD-7 total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||1.43|-2.96|0.4897
91034182|NCT00578552|181954394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|1-tailed||Data were compared between treatment groups using Fisher's exact test for binary outcomes.||||1.00
91034183|NCT05169710|181954420|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.857||0.1718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.64|1.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.75|-9.64|0.1718
91034184|NCT05169710|181954420|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.837||0.0286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.99|-0.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.68|-11.99|0.028600
90881915|NCT02942017|181626745|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.227||0.1341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|0.59|||MMRM|||Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for the analysis. The change from baseline in GAD-7 total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline GAD-7 total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.59|-4.30|0.1341
90881916|NCT02942017|181626745|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.408||0.1691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.76|0.85|||MMRM|||Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for the analysis. The change from baseline in GAD-7 total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline GAD-7 total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.85|-4.76|0.1691
90881917|NCT02942017|181626745|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.149||0.7852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|1.97|||MMRM|||Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for the analysis. The change from baseline in GAD-7 total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline GAD-7 total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||1.97|-2.60|0.7852
90881918|NCT00739752|181626812|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99|||=|0.885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.12|||Regression, Poisson|||The two gain-framed groups were compared to the two loss-framed groups using poisson regression.||1.12|.88|=.885
90881919|NCT00739752|181626812|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.17|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.31|||Regression, Poisson|||Groups receiving any framed interventions (gain-framed or loss-framed) were compared to those in the two non-framed control groups.||1.31|1.06|<.01
90881920|NCT00739752|181626812|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.16|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.28|||Regression, Poisson|||The 3 vaccine-recommended groups were compared with the 3 vaccine-offered groups using poisson regression.||1.28|1.05|<.01
90881921|NCT00245765|181626813|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|40.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.7|150.3|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with treatment and baseline severity of psoriasis as factors.|Confidence limits are based on likelihood ratio statistics.|||150.3|13.7|<0.001
90881922|NCT00245765|181626813|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|73.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.5|292.6|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with treatment and baseline severity of psoriasis as factors.|Confidence limits are based on likelihood ratio statistics.|||292.6|23.5|<0.001
90881923|NCT00245765|181626814|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|64.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.7|1169.1|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with treatment and baseline severity of psoriasis as factors. Confidence limits are based on likelihood ratio statistics.||||1169.1|12.7|<0.001
90881924|NCT00245765|181626814|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|162.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.4|2999.2|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with treatment and baseline severity of psoriasis as factors.|Confidence limits are based on likelihood ratio statistics.|||2999.2|31.4|<0.001
90881925|NCT06425458|181626828|OTHER|||||||0.0011||||||Threshold for statistical significance: P \<= 0.05. As this was an exploratory analysis only, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-tests were conducted to compare T1 and T2 Self-Esteem (MAPS20 subscale) scores. This analysis included participants who completed both T1 and T2 data collection (n = 18).||||0.0011
90881926|NCT06425458|181626828|OTHER|||||||0.0719||||||Threshold for statistical significance: P \<= .05. As this was an exploratory analysis only, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-tests were conducted to compare T1 and T2 Purpose in Life (MAPS20 subscale) scores. This analysis included participants who completed both T1 and T2 data collection (n = 18).||||0.0719
90881927|NCT06425458|181626828|OTHER|||||||0.7991||||||Threshold for statistical significance: P \<= .05. As this was an exploratory analysis only, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-tests were conducted to compare T1 and T2 Locus of Control (MAPS20 subscale) scores. This analysis included participants who completed both T1 and T2 data collection (n = 18).||||0.7991
90881928|NCT06425458|181626828|OTHER|||||||0.2208||||||Threshold for statistical significance: P \<= .05. As this was an exploratory analysis only, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-tests were conducted to compare T1 and T2 Self-Efficacy (MAPS20 subscale) scores. This analysis included participants who completed both T1 and T2 data collection (n = 18).||||0.2208
90881929|NCT06425458|181626828|OTHER||Spearman partial correlation coefficient|0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||We conducted an exploratory, descriptive analysis investigating the relationship between leadership program attendance and identity capital at T2, accounting for T1 scores (MAPS20 subscale: Self-Esteem). This analysis included participants who completed both T1 and T2 data collection (n = 18). We calculated the Spearman correlation coefficient only. Power calculation does not apply for this analysis.||||
90881930|NCT06425458|181626828|OTHER||Spearman partial correlation coefficient|-0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||We conducted an exploratory, descriptive analysis investigating the relationship between leadership program attendance and identity capital at T2, accounting for T1 scores (MAPS20 subscale: Purpose in Life). This analysis included participants who completed both T1 and T2 data collection (n = 18). We calculated the Spearman correlation coefficient only. Power calculation does not apply for this analysis.||||
90881931|NCT06425458|181626828|OTHER||Spearman partial correlation coefficient|-0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||We conducted an exploratory, descriptive analysis investigating the relationship between leadership program attendance and identity capital at T2, accounting for T1 scores (MAPS20 subscale: Locus of Control). This analysis included participants who completed both T1 and T2 data collection (n = 18). We calculated the Spearman correlation coefficient only. Power calculation does not apply for this analysis.||||
91034185|NCT05169710|181954421|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.308||0.7314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.51|-0.72|0.7314
91034186|NCT05169710|181954421|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.305||0.3169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.3|-0.91|0.3169
90881932|NCT06425458|181626828|OTHER||Spearman partial correlation coefficient|-0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||We conducted an exploratory, descriptive analysis investigating the relationship between leadership program attendance and identity capital at T2, accounting for T1 scores (MAPS20 subscale: Self-Efficacy). This analysis included participants who completed both T1 and T2 data collection (n = 18). We calculated the Spearman correlation coefficient only. Power calculation does not apply for this analysis.||||
90881933|NCT02917031|181626840|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.595||||0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.04|1.85|||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline, saxagliptin versus placebo.||1.850|-7.040|0.252
90881934|NCT02917031|181626841|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.631||||0.425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.635|2.373|||ANCOVA|||Saxagliptin: Change from baseline||2.373|-5.635|0.425
90881935|NCT02917031|181626842|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.996|2.197|||ANCOVA|||"Saxagliptin vs Placebo:~Change from baseline"||2.197|-1.996|0.925
90881936|NCT02917031|181626843|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.605||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.97|0.76|||ANCOVA|||Saxagliptin vs placebo: Change from baseline||0.760|-7.970|0.105
90881937|NCT02917031|181626844|SUPERIORITY||Ratio for relative change|0.971||||0.796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.777|1.214|||ANCOVA|||Saxagliptin vs placebo: Change from baseline||1.214|0.777|0.796
90881938|NCT02449356|181626846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
90881939|NCT02449356|181626847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
90881940|NCT00640510|181626854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.94||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||A sample size of at least 15 patients per group was necessary to verify that the decrease in PANSS-EC total score was significantly greater in the IM olanzapine group than the placebo group using Student's t-test with a power of 90% at a two-sided significance level of 5%.||||0.940
90881941|NCT00640510|181626855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline to 15 minutes. Change = Timepoint minus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||1.000
90881942|NCT00640510|181626855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline to 30 minutes. Change = Timepoint minus baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.620
90881943|NCT00640510|181626855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.784||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline to 60 minutes. Change = Timepoint minus baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.784
91034187|NCT00833937|181954469|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Ratio of Geometric Means|99.7||||||90.0|93.9|106.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||106|93.9|
90881944|NCT00640510|181626855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.756||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline to 90 minutes. Change = Timepoint minus baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.756
90881945|NCT00640510|181626856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
90881946|NCT00640510|181626857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||P-value for 30 Minutes.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
90881947|NCT00640510|181626857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||P-value for 60 Minutes.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
90881948|NCT00640510|181626857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||P-value for 90 Minutes.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
90881949|NCT00640510|181626857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||P-value for 2 Hours.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
90881950|NCT04300296|181626875|OTHER||Posterior median difference|-13.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.8|19.3|||||Bayesian model to obtain the posterior distribution of the treatment difference between AIN457 and placebo|||19.3|-44.8|
90881951|NCT04300296|181626875|OTHER||Posterior median difference|14.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|40.7|||||Bayesian model to obtain the posterior distribution of the treatment difference between AIN457 and placebo|||40.7|-17.0|
90881952|NCT04300296|181626875|OTHER||Posterior median difference|6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.4|35.4|||||Bayesian model to obtain the posterior distribution of the treatment difference between AIN457 and placebo|||35.4|-25.4|
90881953|NCT02624284|181626908|SUPERIORITY|Analysis: Multiple regression predicting main effects of dose on latency to smoke. Age, sex, race, nicotine dependence, and pre-session craving for negative affect relief (QSU-B Factor 2) were included as covariates.||||||0.94|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.94
90881954|NCT02624284|181626909|SUPERIORITY|Analysis: Multiple regression predicting main effects of dose on number of cigarettes smoked. Age, sex, race, nicotine dependence, and pre-session craving for negative affect relief (QSU-B Factor 2) were included as covariates.||||||0.53|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.53
90881955|NCT02624284|181626911|SUPERIORITY|Analysis: Multiple regression predicting main effects of dose on days of abstinence. Age, sex, race and nicotine dependence were included as covariates.||||||0.78|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.78
90881956|NCT02506816|181626924|OTHER|The P-valor Wilcoxon method is a non-parametric statistical hypothesis test used to evaluate changes from baseline H-score values of the three biomarkers.||||||0.033||||||In order to adjust the multiple comparisons made, Benjamini-Hochberg's false discovery rate (FDR) 10% method was used.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||After having analyzed the H-score for each of 3 biomarkers, we calculated the change from baseline subtracting post-treatment H-score from baseline H-score. Data were expressed as mean value and relative standard deviation.||||0.033
90881957|NCT02506816|181626925|OTHER|The differences in the change from baseline of different biomarkers were evaluated by the P-valor Wilcoxon method, a non-parametric statistical hypothesis test.||||||0.03||||||In order to adjust the multiple comparisons made, Benjamini-Hochberg's false discovery rate (FDR) 10% method was used.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||After having analyzed the H-score for each of several biomarkers, we calculated the change from baseline subtracting post-treatment H-score from baseline H-score. Data were expressed as mean value and relative standard deviation.||||0.03
90881958|NCT02477020|181626941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-5.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.442||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.26|1.35||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using MMRM|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. Baseline Positive and Negative Symptom Scale (PANSS) total score was used as covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline PANSS total score-by-week interaction.|||1.35|-12.26|0.115
91034188|NCT00833937|181954470|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Ratio of Geometric Means|97.8||||||90.0|92.6|103.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||103|92.6|
90920671|NCT04321031|181712575|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.16|0.02|||||Reported values reflect a 90% Credible Interval rather than a 90% Confidence Interval.|The model was applied to the raw number of responders and non-responders utilizing a Bayesian methodology approach with non-informative priors as described in the SAP.||0.02|-0.16|
90881959|NCT02477020|181626942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.508||0.602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.77|2.19||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. Baseline PANSS total score was used as covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline PANSS total score-by-week interaction.|Change at Week 1||2.19|-3.77|0.602
90881960|NCT02477020|181626942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-2.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.229||0.322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.62|2.19||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. Baseline PANSS total score was used as covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline PANSS total score-by-week interaction.|Change at Week 2||2.19|-6.62|0.322
90881961|NCT02477020|181626942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-3.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.813||0.221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.02|2.1||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. Baseline PANSS total score was used as covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline PANSS total score-by-week interaction.|Change at Week 3||2.10|-9.02|0.221
90881962|NCT02477020|181626942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-2.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.147||0.504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.33|4.11||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. Baseline PANSS total score was used as covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline PANSS total score-by-week interaction.|Change at Week 4||4.11|-8.33|0.504
90881963|NCT02477020|181626942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-3.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.231||0.229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|2.48||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. Baseline PANSS total score was used as covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline PANSS total score-by-week interaction.|Change at Week 5||2.48|-10.30|0.229
90881964|NCT02477020|181626943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.562||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|0.38||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS Marder five-factor score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction, and Baseline PANSS Marder five-factor score-by-week interaction.|Positive symptoms, Change at Week 1||0.38|-1.84|0.195
90920672|NCT04321031|181712575|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|0.03|||||Reported values reflect a 90% Credible Interval rather than a 90% Confidence Interval.|The model was applied to the raw number of responders and non-responders utilizing a Bayesian methodology approach with non-informative priors as described in the SAP.||0.03|-0.20|
90920673|NCT04321031|181712575|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.23|0.04|||||Reported values reflect a 90% Credible Interval rather than a 90% Confidence Interval.|The model was applied to the raw number of responders and non-responders utilizing a Bayesian methodology approach with non-informative priors as described in the SAP.||0.04|-0.23|
90920674|NCT04321031|181712575|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.26|0.05|||||Reported values reflect a 90% Credible Interval rather than a 90% Confidence Interval.|The model was applied to the raw number of responders and non-responders utilizing a Bayesian methodology approach with non-informative priors as described in the SAP.||0.05|-0.26|
90920675|NCT04321031|181712576|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.21|0.13||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.13|-0.21|
90920676|NCT04321031|181712576|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.25|0.02||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.02|-0.25|
90920677|NCT04321031|181712576|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.17|0.17||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.17|-0.17|
90920678|NCT04321031|181712576|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.15|0.22||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.22|-0.15|
90920679|NCT04321031|181712576|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|-0.05||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||-0.05|-0.30|
90920680|NCT04321031|181712576|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.13|0.26||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.26|-0.13|
90920681|NCT04321031|181712576|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|50.0|-0.03|0.12||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 50% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.12|-0.03|
90920682|NCT04321031|181712576|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.12|0.23||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.23|-0.12|
90920683|NCT04321031|181712576|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|50.0|0.17|0.38||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 50% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.38|0.17|
90920684|NCT04321031|181712576|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.06|0.53||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.53|0.06|
90920685|NCT04321031|181712577|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.01|0.08|||||Reported values reflect a 90% Credible Interval rather than a 90% Confidence Interval.|The model was applied to the raw number of responders and non-responders utilizing a Bayesian methodology approach with non-informative priors as described in the SAP.||0.08|-0.01|
90920686|NCT04321031|181712577|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.02|0.09|||||Reported values reflect a 90% Credible Interval rather than a 90% Confidence Interval.|The model was applied to the raw number of responders and non-responders utilizing a Bayesian methodology approach with non-informative priors as described in the SAP.||0.09|-0.02|
90920687|NCT04321031|181712577|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.02|0.11|||||Reported values reflect a 90% Credible Interval rather than a 90% Confidence Interval.|The model was applied to the raw number of responders and non-responders utilizing a Bayesian methodology approach with non-informative priors as described in the SAP.||0.11|-0.02|
90920688|NCT04321031|181712577|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.02|0.12|||||Reported values reflect a 90% Credible Interval rather than a 90% Confidence Interval.|The model was applied to the raw number of responders and non-responders utilizing a Bayesian methodology approach with non-informative priors as described in the SAP.||0.12|-0.02|
90920689|NCT04321031|181712578|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.01|0.43||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.43|-0.01|
90920690|NCT04321031|181712578|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.02|0.29||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.29|-0.02|
90920691|NCT04321031|181712578|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.01|0.43||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.43|-0.01|
90920692|NCT04321031|181712578|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.01|0.57||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.57|0.01|
91034189|NCT00833937|181954471|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Ratio of Geometric Means|97.9||||||90.0|92.7|103.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||103|92.7|
90920693|NCT04321031|181712578|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.02|0.33||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.33|-0.02|
90920694|NCT04321031|181712578|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.01|0.58||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.58|0.01|
90920695|NCT04321031|181712578|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|50.0|0.02|0.16||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 50% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.16|0.02|
90920696|NCT04321031|181712578|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.04|0.3||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.30|-0.04|
90920697|NCT04321031|181712578|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|50.0|0.06|0.24||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 50% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.24|0.06|
90920698|NCT04321031|181712578|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.01|0.44||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.44|-0.01|
90920699|NCT04321031|181712579|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.05|0.31|||||Reported values reflect a 90% Credible Interval rather than a 90% Confidence Interval.|The model was applied to the raw number of responders and non-responders utilizing a Bayesian methodology approach with non-informative priors as described in the SAP.||0.31|0.05|
90920700|NCT04321031|181712579|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.09|0.36|||||Reported values reflect a 90% Credible Interval rather than a 90% Confidence Interval.|The model was applied to the raw number of responders and non-responders utilizing a Bayesian methodology approach with non-informative priors as described in the SAP.||0.36|0.09|
90920701|NCT04321031|181712579|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.1|0.38|||||Reported values reflect a 90% Credible Interval rather than a 90% Confidence Interval.|The model was applied to the raw number of responders and non-responders utilizing a Bayesian methodology approach with non-informative priors as described in the SAP.||0.38|0.10|
90920702|NCT04321031|181712579|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.11|0.4|||||Reported values reflect a 90% Credible Interval rather than a 90% Confidence Interval.|The model was applied to the raw number of responders and non-responders utilizing a Bayesian methodology approach with non-informative priors as described in the SAP.||0.40|0.11|
90920703|NCT04321031|181712580|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.04|0.36||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.36|-0.04|
91034190|NCT01985308|181954472|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0002
91034191|NCT03273153|181954491|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||0.2954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.5|||Regression, Cox|||||1.50|0.88|0.2954
91034192|NCT05323396|181954527|OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||Student's unpaired t-test|||||||0.19
91034193|NCT05323396|181954528|OTHER|||||||0.85|||||||Student's unpaired t-test|||||||0.85
90920704|NCT04321031|181712580|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.15|0.53||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.53|0.15|
90920705|NCT04321031|181712580|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.06|0.46||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.46|0.06|
90920706|NCT04321031|181712580|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.27|0.63||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.63|0.27|
90920707|NCT04321031|181712580|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.03|0.38||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.38|-0.03|
90920708|NCT04321031|181712580|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.18|0.58||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.58|0.18|
90920709|NCT04321031|181712580|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|50.0|0.15|0.28||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 50% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.28|0.15|
91034194|NCT05323396|181954529|OTHER|||||||0.77|||||||Student's unpaired t-test|||||||0.77
90920710|NCT04321031|181712580|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.03|0.35||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.35|0.03|
90920711|NCT04321031|181712580|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|50.0|0.16|0.32||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 50% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.32|0.16|
90962484|NCT01009554|181805862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.137|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0324|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.073|0.202||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain intensity over all tooth sites and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.202|0.073|<0.001
90920712|NCT04321031|181712580|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.03|0.42||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.42|0.03|
90920713|NCT05285618|181712590|OTHER|A linear mixed model accounted for repeated measures ('subject\_id' as a random factor). No power calculation was performed, but the sample size (1,485 observations, 6 subjects) supports robust estimation.||||||0.002||||||P-values are unadjusted for multiple comparisons, as the analysis focused on a limited number of predictors. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The model tested whether stimulation delay ('abs\_delay'), retinal distance ('dist\_ret'), and their interaction ('abs\_delay:dist\_ret') affect the number of elicited phosphenes ('num\_phosphenes').|We hypothesize that the parameter 'dist\_ret' may influence the number of phosphenes perceived ('num\_phosphenes'), while the roles of 'abs\_delay' and its interaction with 'dist\_ret' may be less pronounced. Further evaluation of these parameters will be conducted in the Results section|||0.002
90920714|NCT04556656|181712597|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.162||0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In the mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM), change from baseline in TFC score was the dependent variable, and independent variables included treatment arm, baseline TFC, region, neuroleptic use or no use, baseline HD stage (HD1 and HD2), categorical week, and treatment by categorical week interaction, with Kenward-Roger approximation for degrees of freedom. The unstructured covariance matrix was used for repeated measurements at patient level.||0.09|-0.54|0.1670
90920715|NCT04556656|181712598|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.162||0.1598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In the mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM), change from baseline in TFC score was the dependent variable, and independent variables included treatment arm, baseline TFC, region, neuroleptic use or no use, baseline HD stage (HD1 and HD2), categorical week, and treatment by categorical week interaction, with Kenward-Roger approximation for degrees of freedom. The unstructured covariance matrix was used for repeated measurements at patient level.||0.09|-0.55|0.1598
90920716|NCT04556656|181712599|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.148||0.4544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In the MMRM, change in cUHDRS score from baseline was the dependent variable, while independent variables included treatment arm, baseline cUHDRS, region, neuroleptic use or no use, baseline HD stage (HD1 and HD2), categorical week, and treatment by categorical week interaction, with Kenward-Roger approximation for degrees of freedom. The unstructured covariance matrix was used for repeated measurements at patient level. No imputation was performed on missing data.||0.18|-0.4|0.4544
90962485|NCT01009554|181805863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.193|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0399|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.114|0.273||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain intensity over all tooth sites and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.273|0.114|<0.001
91034195|NCT05323396|181954530|OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||student's unpaired t-test|||||||0.12
91034196|NCT05323396|181954531|OTHER|||||||0.81|||||||student's unpaired t-test|||||||0.81
91034197|NCT05323396|181954532|OTHER|||||||0.65|||||||student's unpaired t-test|||||||0.65
91034198|NCT01790581|181954566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.904|TWO_SIDED||||||MANOVA|||This analysis examined the change in balance scores from baseline to 1-day post intervention for all three reach distances (Anterior, Posteriomedial, Posteriolateral) using a MANOVA.||||.904
91034199|NCT01790581|181954568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||MANOVA|||This analysis examined the change in disability scores from baseline to 1-day post intervention for both disability scores (FAAM, FAAM-S) using a MANOVA.||||.5
90881965|NCT02477020|181626943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.786||0.132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.74|0.36||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS Marder five-factor score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction, and Baseline PANSS Marder five-factor score-by-week interaction.|Positive symptoms, Change at Week 2||0.36|-2.74|0.132
90881966|NCT02477020|181626943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-1.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.959||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.84|-0.05||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS Marder five-factor score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction, and Baseline PANSS Marder five-factor score-by-week interaction.|Positive symptoms, Change at Week 3||-0.05|-3.84|0.045
90881967|NCT02477020|181626943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-1.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.025||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.56|0.49||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS Marder five-factor score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction, and Baseline PANSS Marder five-factor score-by-week interaction.|Positive symptoms, Change at Week 4||0.49|-3.56|0.135
90881968|NCT02477020|181626943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-2.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.17|0.14||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS Marder five-factor score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction, and Baseline PANSS Marder five-factor score-by-week interaction.|Positive symptoms, Change at Week 5||0.14|-4.17|0.067
90881969|NCT02477020|181626943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.119||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.11|0.31||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS Marder five-factor score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction, and Baseline PANSS Marder five-factor score-by-week interaction.|Positive symptoms, Change at Week 6||0.31|-4.11|0.092
90881970|NCT02477020|181626943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.566||0.548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|1.46||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS Marder five-factor score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction, and Baseline PANSS Marder five-factor score-by-week interaction.|Negative symptoms, Change at Week 1||1.46|-0.78|0.548
90881971|NCT02477020|181626943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.756||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|0.88||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS Marder five-factor score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction, and Baseline PANSS Marder five-factor score-by-week interaction.|Negative symptoms, Change at Week 2||0.88|-2.11|0.420
90881972|NCT02477020|181626943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.818||0.857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|1.76||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS Marder five-factor score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction, and Baseline PANSS Marder five-factor score-by-week interaction.|Negative symptoms, Change at Week 3||1.76|-1.47|0.857
90881973|NCT02477020|181626943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.936||0.527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|1.26||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS Marder five-factor score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction, and Baseline PANSS Marder five-factor score-by-week interaction.|Negative symptoms, Change at Week 4||1.26|-2.44|0.527
90881974|NCT02477020|181626943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94||0.875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.01|1.71||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS Marder five-factor score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction, and Baseline PANSS Marder five-factor score-by-week interaction.|Negative symptoms, Change at Week 5||1.71|-2.01|0.875
90881975|NCT02477020|181626943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94||0.441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.58|1.13||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS Marder five-factor score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction, and Baseline PANSS Marder five-factor score-by-week interaction.|Negative symptoms, Change at Week 6||1.13|-2.58|0.441
90881976|NCT02477020|181626943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.406||0.362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|0.43||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS Marder five-factor score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction, and Baseline PANSS Marder five-factor score-by-week interaction.|Disorganized thoughts, Change at Week 1||0.43|-1.17|0.362
91034200|NCT01424644|181954618|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response to diphtheria toxin for the MenACWY-CRM+Tdap+HPV group was considered non-inferior to that of the Placebo+Tdap+HPV group if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the difference in seroprotection rates \[(MenACWY-CRM+Tdap+HPV) minus (Placebo+Tdap + HPV)\] was greater than -10%, at 1 month after Tdap vaccination|Vaccine group difference|13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.0|17.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Non-inferiority of anti-diphtheria immune response following concomitant administration of Tdap with HPV and MenACWY-CRM as compared to concomitant administration of Tdap with HPV and placebo||17|9|
90881977|NCT02477020|181626943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|0.83||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS Marder five-factor score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction, and Baseline PANSS Marder five-factor score-by-week interaction.|Disorganized thoughts, Change at Week 2||0.83|-1.26|0.687
90881978|NCT02477020|181626943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.618||0.458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|0.76||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS Marder five-factor score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction, and Baseline PANSS Marder five-factor score-by-week interaction.|Disorganized thoughts, Change at Week 3||0.76|-1.68|0.458
90881979|NCT02477020|181626943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.704||0.991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|1.4||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS Marder five-factor score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction, and Baseline PANSS Marder five-factor score-by-week interaction.|Disorganized thoughts, Change at Week 4||1.40|-1.38|0.991
90881980|NCT02477020|181626943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.782||0.354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.27|0.82||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS Marder five-factor score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction, and Baseline PANSS Marder five-factor score-by-week interaction.|Disorganized thoughts, Change at Week 5||0.82|-2.27|0.354
90881981|NCT02477020|181626943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.804||0.119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.85|0.33||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS Marder five-factor score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction, and Baseline PANSS Marder five-factor score-by-week interaction.|Disorganized thoughts, Change at Week 6||0.33|-2.85|0.119
90881982|NCT02477020|181626943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.469||0.493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|0.6||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS Marder five-factor score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction, and Baseline PANSS Marder five-factor score-by-week interaction.|Hostility, Change at Week 1||0.60|-1.25|0.493
90881983|NCT02477020|181626943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.504||0.949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|1.03||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS Marder five-factor score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction, and Baseline PANSS Marder five-factor score-by-week interaction.|Hostility, Change at Week 2||1.03|-0.96|0.949
90881984|NCT02477020|181626943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.604||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|0.33||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS Marder five-factor score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction, and Baseline PANSS Marder five-factor score-by-week interaction.|Hostility, Change at Week 3||0.33|-2.06|0.153
90881985|NCT02477020|181626943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.681||0.994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|1.35||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS Marder five-factor score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction, and Baseline PANSS Marder five-factor score-by-week interaction.|Hostility, Change at Week 4||1.35|-1.34|0.994
90962486|NCT01009554|181805864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.034|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0273||0.217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.088||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain area over all tooth sites and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.088|-0.020|0.217
90920717|NCT04556656|181712600|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.156||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"From baseline to Week 26.~In the MMRM model, change in cUHDRS score from baseline was the dependent variable and independent variables included treatment group, baseline cUHDRS, region, categorical week, baseline HD stage (HD1 and HD2), and treatment by categorical week interaction, concomitant use of select medications and Treatment x Concomitant use of select medications, with Kenward-Roger approximation for degrees of freedom. No imputation was performed on missing data."||0.76|0.15|0.0038
90920718|NCT04556656|181712600|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.179||0.0135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From baseline to Week 39||0.80|0.09|0.0135
90962487|NCT01009554|181805865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.137|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.073|0.2||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain area over all tooth sites and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.200|0.073|<0.001
90962488|NCT01009554|181805866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.195|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0406|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.114|0.276||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain area over all tooth sites and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.276|0.114|<0.001
90881986|NCT02477020|181626943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.679||0.365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|0.73||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS Marder five-factor score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction, and Baseline PANSS Marder five-factor score-by-week interaction.|Hostility, Change at Week 5||0.73|-1.96|0.365
90881987|NCT02477020|181626943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.653||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|0.17||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS Marder five-factor score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction, and Baseline PANSS Marder five-factor score-by-week interaction.|Hostility, Change at Week 6||0.17|-2.41|0.088
90881988|NCT02477020|181626943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.397||0.535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|1.03||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS Marder five-factor score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction, and Baseline PANSS Marder five-factor score-by-week interaction.|Anxiety, Change at Week 1||1.03|-0.54|0.535
90881989|NCT02477020|181626943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.502||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.58||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS Marder five-factor score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction, and Baseline PANSS Marder five-factor score-by-week interaction.|Anxiety, Change at Week 2||0.58|-1.40|0.412
90881990|NCT02477020|181626943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.522||0.354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|0.55||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS Marder five-factor score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction, and Baseline PANSS Marder five-factor score-by-week interaction.|Anxiety, Change at Week 3||0.55|-1.52|0.354
90881991|NCT02477020|181626943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|0.85||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS Marder five-factor score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction, and Baseline PANSS Marder five-factor score-by-week interaction.|Anxiety, Change at Week 4||0.85|-1.49|0.589
90920719|NCT04556656|181712600|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.193||0.0351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From baseline to Week 52||0.79|0.03|0.0351
90920720|NCT04556656|181712600|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.197||0.1683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From baseline to Week 65.||0.66|-0.12|0.1683
90920721|NCT04556656|181712600|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.223||0.5315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From baseline to Week 78||0.58|-0.30|0.5315
90962489|NCT01009554|181805867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.055|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0716||0.444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.087|0.197||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain area score for interproximal (mesial and distal) sites and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.197|-0.087|0.444
90920722|NCT04556656|181712601|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.406||0.0253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.66|-2.64|||Mixed Models Analysis||Negative change = improvement.|From baseline to Week 26. In the MMRM model, change in Q-Motor Finger Tapping IOI Mean from baseline was the dependent variable and independent variables included treatment group, baseline Finger Tapping IOI Mean, region, categorical week, baseline HD stage (HD1 and HD2), and treatment by categorical week interaction, concomitant use of select medications and Treatment x Concomitant use of select medications, with Kenward-Roger approximation for degrees of freedom. No imputation was performed.||-2.64|-39.66|0.0253
90920723|NCT04556656|181712601|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.853||0.1474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.71|5.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From baseline to Week 52.||5.08|-33.71|0.1474
90920724|NCT04556656|181712601|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.185||0.0159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.76|-4.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From baseline to Week 65.||-4.67|-44.76|0.0159
90920725|NCT04556656|181712601|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.38||0.0283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.34|-2.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From baseline to Week 78.||-2.45|-43.34|0.0283
90920726|NCT04556656|181712602|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-38.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.999||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.74|-16.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From baseline to Week 26. In MMRM model, change in Q-Motor Pronation/Supination ITI Mean from baseline was the dependent variable and independent variables included treatment group, baseline Q-Motor Pronation/Supination ITI Mean, region, categorical week, baseline HD stage (HD1 and HD2), and treatment by categorical week interaction, with Kenward-Roger approximation for degrees of freedom. No imputation was performed on missing data.||-16.37|-59.74|0.0007
90920727|NCT04556656|181712602|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.547||0.1087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.95|4.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From baseline to Week 52.||4.53|-44.95|0.1087
90920728|NCT04556656|181712602|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.541||0.0395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.68|-1.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From baseline to Week 65.||-1.16|-46.68|0.0395
90920729|NCT04556656|181712602|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.587||0.1038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.08|4.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From baseline to Week 78.||4.61|-49.08|0.1038
90920730|NCT04556656|181712603|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-30.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.902||0.0193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.78|-4.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From baseline to Week 26. In the MMRM model, change in Pronation/Supination IOI Mean from BL was the dependent variable and independent variables included treatment group, BL Pronation/Supination IOI Mean, region, categorical week, baseline HD stage (HD1 and HD2), treatment by categorical week interaction, conc. use of select medications and Treatment x Concomitant use of select medications, with Kenward-Roger approximation for degrees of freedom. No imputation was performed on missing data.||-4.98|-55.78|0.0193
90920731|NCT04556656|181712603|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.17||0.268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.69|13.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From baseline to Week 52.||13.02|-46.69|0.2680
90920732|NCT04556656|181712603|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.829||0.1255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.97|6.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From baseline to Week 65.||6.4|-51.97|0.1255
90881992|NCT02477020|181626943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.569||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|0.6||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS Marder five-factor score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction, and Baseline PANSS Marder five-factor score-by-week interaction.|Anxiety, Change at Week 5||0.60|-1.65|0.360
90881993|NCT02477020|181626943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.635||0.288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|0.58||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS Marder five-factor score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction, and Baseline PANSS Marder five-factor score-by-week interaction.|Anxiety, Change at Week 6||0.58|-1.93|0.288
90881994|NCT02477020|181626944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|0.47||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS subscale score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline PANSS subscale score-by-week interaction.|PANSS Positive Score, Change at Week 1||0.47|-1.87|0.238
90881995|NCT02477020|181626944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.784||0.359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.27|0.83||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS subscale score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline PANSS subscale score-by-week interaction.|PANSS Positive Score, Change at Week 2||0.83|-2.27|0.359
90881996|NCT02477020|181626944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-1.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.943||0.119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.34|0.38||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS subscale score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline PANSS subscale score-by-week interaction.|PANSS Positive Score, Change at Week 3||0.38|-3.34|0.119
90920733|NCT04556656|181712603|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.777||0.2024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.72|12.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From baseline to Week 78.||12.28|-57.72|0.2024
90920734|NCT04556656|181712604|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.179||0.2088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"From baseline to Week 26.~In the MMRM model, change in UHDRS-TFC score from baseline was the dependent variable and independent variables included treatment group, Baseline UHDRS-TFC, region, categorical week, Baseline HD stage (HD1 and HD2), and treatment by categorical week interaction, concomitant use of select medications and Treatment x Concomitant use of select medications, with Kenward-Roger approximation for degrees of freedom. No imputation was performed on missing data."||0.58|-0.13|0.2088
90920735|NCT04556656|181712604|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.188||0.2991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From baseline to Week 39.||0.57|-0.17|0.2991
90920736|NCT04556656|181712604|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.205||0.2116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From baseline to Week 52.||0.66|-0.15|0.2116
90920737|NCT04556656|181712604|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.215||0.8242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From baseline to Week 65.||0.47|-0.38|0.8242
90920738|NCT04556656|181712604|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.231||0.5918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From baseline to Week 78.||0.58|-0.33|0.5918
90920739|NCT04556656|181712605|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.326||0.0178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|5.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From baseline to Week 26. In the MMRM model, change in SWR score from baseline was the dependent variable and independent variables included treatment group, baseline SWR, region, categorical week, baseline HD stage (HD1 and HD2), and treatment by categorical week interaction, concomitant use of select medications and Treatment x Concomitant use of select medications, with Kenward-Roger approximation for degrees of freedom. No imputation was performed on missing data.||5.77|0.55|0.0178
90920740|NCT04556656|181712605|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.518||0.0576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|5.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From baseline to Week 39.||5.88|-0.09|0.0576
90920741|NCT04556656|181712605|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.493||0.0418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|5.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From baseline to Week 52.||5.99|0.11|0.0418
91034201|NCT01424644|181954618|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response to tetanus toxin for the MenACWY-CRM+Tdap+HPV group was considered non-inferior to that of Placebo+Tdap+HPV group if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the difference in seroprotection rates \[(MenACWY-CRM+ Tdap+HPV) minus (Placebo+Tdap + HPV)\] was greater than -10%, at 1 month after Tdap vaccination.|Vaccine group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|2.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Non-inferiority of anti-tetanus immune response following concomitant administration of Tdap with HPV and MenACWY-CRM as compared to concomitant administration of Tdap with HPV and placebo.||2|-2|
90920742|NCT04556656|181712605|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.719||0.1775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|5.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From baseline to Week 65.||5.71|-1.06|0.1775
90920743|NCT04556656|181712605|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.772||0.2627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|5.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From baseline to Week 78.||5.48|-1.50|0.2627
90920744|NCT04556656|181712606|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.712||0.1586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|2.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From baseline to Week 26. In the MMRM model, change in SDMT score from baseline was the dependent variable and independent variables included treatment group, baseline SDMT, region, categorical week, baseline HD stage (HD1 and HD2), and treatment by categorical week interaction, with Kenward-Roger approximation for degrees of freedom. No imputation was performed on missing data.||2.41|-0.4|0.1586
90920745|NCT04556656|181712606|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.701||0.2144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|2.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From baseline to Week 39. In the MMRM model, change in SDMT score from baseline was the dependent variable and independent variables included treatment group, baseline SDMT, region, categorical week, baseline HD stage (HD1 and HD2), and treatment by categorical week interaction, with Kenward-Roger approximation for degrees of freedom. No imputation was performed on missing data.||2.25|-0.51|0.2144
90920746|NCT04556656|181712606|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.793||0.9119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|1.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From baseline to Week 52. In the MMRM model, change in SDMT score from baseline was the dependent variable and independent variables included treatment group, baseline SDMT, region, categorical week, baseline HD stage (HD1 and HD2), and treatment by categorical week interaction, with Kenward-Roger approximation for degrees of freedom. No imputation was performed on missing data.||1.48|-1.65|0.9119
90920747|NCT04556656|181712606|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.844||0.7339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|1.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From baseline to Week 65. In the MMRM model, change in SDMT score from baseline was the dependent variable and independent variables included treatment group, baseline SDMT, region, categorical week, baseline HD stage (HD1 and HD2), and treatment by categorical week interaction, with Kenward-Roger approximation for degrees of freedom. No imputation was performed on missing data.||1.95|-1.38|0.7339
90920748|NCT04556656|181712606|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.859||0.6213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|2.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From baseline to Week 78. In the MMRM model, change in SDMT score from baseline was the dependent variable and independent variables included treatment group, baseline SDMT, region, categorical week, baseline HD stage (HD1 and HD2), and treatment by categorical week interaction, with Kenward-Roger approximation for degrees of freedom. No imputation was performed on missing data.||2.12|-1.27|0.6213
90920749|NCT04556656|181712607|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.777||0.8205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|1.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From baseline to Week 26. In the MMRM model, change in TMS score from baseline was the dependent variable and independent variables included treatment group, baseline TMS, region, categorical week, baseline HD stage (HD1 and HD2), and treatment by categorical week interaction, with Kenward-Roger approximation for degrees of freedom. No imputation was performed on missing data.||1.36|-1.71|0.8205
90920750|NCT04556656|181712607|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.067||0.4028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|1.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From baseline to Week 39. In the MMRM model, change in TMS score from baseline was the dependent variable and independent variables included treatment group, baseline TMS, region, categorical week, baseline HD stage (HD1 and HD2), and treatment by categorical week interaction, with Kenward-Roger approximation for degrees of freedom. No imputation was performed on missing data.||1.21|-3.0|0.4028
90920751|NCT04556656|181712607|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.051||0.7577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From baseline to Week 52. In the MMRM model, change in TMS score from baseline was the dependent variable and independent variables included treatment group, baseline TMS, region, categorical week, baseline HD stage (HD1 and HD2), and treatment by categorical week interaction, with Kenward-Roger approximation for degrees of freedom. No imputation was performed on missing data.||1.75|-2.4|0.7577
90920752|NCT04556656|181712607|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.158||0.7605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.64|1.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From baseline to Week 65. In the MMRM model, change in TMS score from baseline was the dependent variable and independent variables included treatment group, baseline TMS, region, categorical week, baseline HD stage (HD1 and HD2), and treatment by categorical week interaction, with Kenward-Roger approximation for degrees of freedom. No imputation was performed on missing data.||1.93|-2.64|0.7605
90962490|NCT01009554|181805868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.349|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0843|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.182|0.517||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain score for interproximal (mesial and distal) sites and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.517|0.182|<0.001
90881997|NCT02477020|181626944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.014||0.238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.21|0.8||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS subscale score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline PANSS subscale score-by-week interaction.|PANSS Positive Score, Change at Week 4||0.80|-3.21|0.238
90881998|NCT02477020|181626944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-1.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.051||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.81|0.35||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS subscale score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline PANSS subscale score-by-week interaction.|PANSS Positive Score, Change at Week 5||0.35|-3.81|0.102
90881999|NCT02477020|181626944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.094||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.77|0.56||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS subscale score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline PANSS subscale score-by-week interaction.|PANSS Positive Score, Change at Week 6||0.56|-3.77|0.145
90882000|NCT02477020|181626944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.504||0.902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|1.06||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS subscale score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline PANSS subscale score-by-week interaction.|PANSS Negative Score, Change at Week 1||1.06|-0.93|0.902
90882001|NCT02477020|181626944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||MMRM|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.693||0.396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|0.78||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS subscale score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline PANSS subscale score-by-week interaction.|PANSS Negative Score, Change at Week 2||0.78|-1.96|0.396
90920753|NCT04556656|181712607|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.323||0.6694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|3.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From baseline to Week 78. In the MMRM model, change in TMS score from baseline was the dependent variable and independent variables included treatment group, baseline TMS, region, categorical week, baseline HD stage (HD1 and HD2), and treatment by categorical week interaction, with Kenward-Roger approximation for degrees of freedom. No imputation was performed on missing data.||3.18|-2.05|0.6694
90920754|NCT01566695|181712645|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|18.9||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.3|29.6||2 sided|Stratified Mantel-Haenszel Chi-squared|Stratified by average baseline (BL) RBC tfx needs: ≤4 vs \>4 units of RBC per 28 days; BL platelet tfx status: dependent or ind. \&ECOG PS: 0 to 1 vs 2||||29.6|8.3|0.0005
90920755|NCT01566695|181712649|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|21.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.9|31.3||2 sided|Stratified Mantel-Haenszel; Chi-squared|Stratified by average baseline (BL) RBC tfx needs: ≤4 vs \>4 units of RBC per 28 days; BL platelet tfx status: dependent or ind. \&ECOG PS: 0 to 1 vs 2||||31.3|11.9|<0.0001
90920756|NCT01566695|181712650|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4347|||||||Two-Sided Unstratified Log Rank Test|||||||0.4347
90920757|NCT01566695|181712652|SUPERIORITY|HI-E|Rate Difference|10.9||||0.1467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|23.7|||Stratified Mantel-Haenszel. Chi-squared|Stratified by average BL RBC tfx needs: ≤4 units versus \>4 units; BL platelet tfx status: dependent or independent and ECOG PS: 0 to 1 vs 2||||23.7|-2.0|0.1467
90920758|NCT01566695|181712652|SUPERIORITY|≥ 1.5 g/dL Hemoglobin Increase|Rate Diffrence|17.9||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.8|26.9|||Stratified Mantel-Haenszel. Chi-squared|Stratified by average BL RBC tfx needs: ≤4 units versus \>4 units; BL platelet tfx status: dependent or independent and ECOG PS: 0 to 1 vs 2||||26.9|8.8|0.0002
90920759|NCT01566695|181712652|SUPERIORITY|RBC Transfusion Reduction|Rate Difference|10.9||||0.1431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|23.6|||Stratified Mantel-Haenszel. Chi-squared|Stratified by average BL RBC tfx needs: ≤4 units versus \>4 units; BL platelet tfx status: dependent or independent and ECOG PS: 0 to 1 vs 2||||23.6|-1.9|0.1431
90920760|NCT01566695|181712653|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|17.0||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.5|26.4|||Stratified Mantel-Haenszel. Chi-squared|Stratified by average BL RBC tfx needs: ≤4 units versus \>4 units; BL platelet tfx status: dependent or independent and ECOG PS: 0 to 1 vs 2||||26.4|7.5|0.0007
90920761|NCT01566695|181712656|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.6257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.49|||Log Rank||||Cox proportional hazards model with stratifies factors|1.49|0.79|0.6257
90920762|NCT01566695|181712662|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.214|||||||t-test, 2 sided|The p-value was calculated based on a pooled 2-sample, 2-sided t-test for the difference in mean change from baseline between treatment groups.||||||0.214
90920763|NCT01566695|181712663|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.446|||||||t-test, 2 sided|The p-value was calculated based on a pooled 2-sample, 2-sided t-test for the difference in mean change from baseline between treatment groups.||||||0.446
90920764|NCT01566695|181712664|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.248|||||||t-test, 2 sided|The p-value was calculated based on a pooled 2-sample, 2-sided t-test for the difference in mean change from baseline between treatment groups.||||||0.248
90920765|NCT01566695|181712665|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.058|||||||t-test, 2 sided|The p-value was calculated based on a pooled 2-sample, 2-sided t-test for the difference in mean change from baseline between treatment groups.||||||0.058
90920766|NCT01566695|181712666|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||t-test, 2 sided|The p-value was calculated based on a pooled 2-sample, 2-sided t-test for the difference in mean change from baseline between treatment groups.||||||0.130
90920767|NCT01566695|181712667|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.123|||||||t-test, 2 sided|The p-value was calculated based on a pooled 2-sample, 2-sided t-test for the difference in mean change from baseline between treatment groups.||||||0.123
90920768|NCT01566695|181712668|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.069|||||||t-test, 2 sided|The p-value was calculated based on a pooled 2-sample, 2-sided t-test for the difference in mean change from baseline between treatment groups.||||||0.069
90920769|NCT01566695|181712669|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.078|||||||t-test, 2 sided|The p-value was calculated based on a pooled 2-sample, 2-sided t-test for the difference in mean change from baseline between treatment groups.||||||0.078
90920770|NCT01566695|181712670|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.073|||||||t-test, 2 sided|The p-value was calculated based on a pooled 2-sample, 2-sided t-test for the difference in mean change from baseline between treatment groups.||||||0.073
90920771|NCT01566695|181712671|SUPERIORITY||Common Odds Raatio|0.77||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The p-value was calculated based on the CMH tests for comparing the odds of experiencing CMI between CC-486 versus placebo.|||The common odds ratio and the 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using CMH tests, stratified by randomization stratification factors, to compare the odds of experiencing clinically meaningful improvement between CC-486 and placebo.|1.30|0.54|0.560
90920772|NCT01566695|181712672|SUPERIORITY||Common Odds Raatio|0.72||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.78|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The p-value was calculated based on the CMH tests for comparing the odds of experiencing CMI between CC-486 versus placebo.|||The common odds ratio and the 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using CMH tests, stratified by randomization stratification factors, to compare the odds of experiencing clinically meaningful improvement between CC-486 and placebo.|1.78|0.29|0.480
90920773|NCT01566695|181712673|SUPERIORITY||Common Odds Ratio|1.67||||0.197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|3.65|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The p-value was calculated based on the CMH tests for comparing the odds of experiencing CMI between CC-486 versus placebo.|||The common odds ratio and the 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using CMH tests, stratified by randomization stratification factors, to compare the odds of experiencing clinically meaningful improvement between CC-486 and placebo.|3.65|0.76|0.197
90920774|NCT01566695|181712674|SUPERIORITY||Common Odds Ratio|2.14||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|5.57|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The p-value was calculated based on the CMH tests for comparing the odds of experiencing CMI between CC-486 versus placebo.|||The common odds ratio and the 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using CMH tests, stratified by randomization stratification factors, to compare the odds of experiencing clinically meaningful improvement between CC-486 and placebo.|5.57|0.82|0.121
90920775|NCT01566695|181712675|SUPERIORITY||Common Odds Ratio|2.0||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|4.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The p-value was calculated based on the CMH tests for comparing the odds of experiencing CMI between CC-486 versus placebo.|||The common odds ratio and the 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using CMH tests, stratified by randomization stratification factors, to compare the odds of experiencing clinically meaningful improvement between CC-486 and placebo.|4.30|0.93|0.075
90920776|NCT01566695|181712676|SUPERIORITY||Common Odds Ratio|1.58||||0.222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|3.29|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The p-value was calculated based on the CMH tests for comparing the odds of experiencing CMI between CC-486 versus placebo.|||The common odds ratio and the 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using CMH tests, stratified by randomization stratification factors, to compare the odds of experiencing clinically meaningful improvement between CC-486 and placebo.|3.29|0.76|0.222
90920777|NCT01566695|181712677|SUPERIORITY||Common Odds Ratio|1.65||||0.249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|3.83|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The p-value was calculated based on the CMH tests for comparing the odds of experiencing CMI between CC-486 versus placebo.|||The common odds ratio and the 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using CMH tests, stratified by randomization stratification factors, to compare the odds of experiencing clinically meaningful improvement between CC-486 and placebo.|3.83|0.71|0.249
90920778|NCT01566695|181712678|SUPERIORITY||Common Odds Ratio|2.03||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|4.48|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The p-value was calculated based on the CMH tests for comparing the odds of experiencing CMI between CC-486 versus placebo.|||The common odds ratio and the 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using CMH tests, stratified by randomization stratification factors, to compare the odds of experiencing clinically meaningful improvement between CC-486 and placebo.|4.48|0.92|0.082
90920779|NCT01566695|181712679|SUPERIORITY||Common Odds Ratio|1.86||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|4.34|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The p-value was calculated based on the CMH tests for comparing the odds of experiencing CMI between CC-486 versus placebo.|||The common odds ratio and the 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using CMH tests, stratified by randomization stratification factors, to compare the odds of experiencing clinically meaningful improvement between CC-486 and placebo.|4.34|0.79|0.153
90920780|NCT01566695|181712680|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
90920781|NCT01566695|181712681|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.046
90920782|NCT01566695|181712682|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.134|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.134
90920783|NCT01566695|181712683|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.324|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.324
91034202|NCT01424644|181954619|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response to PT antigen for the MenACWY-CRM+Tdap+HPV group was considered non-inferior to that of the Placebo+Tdap+HPV group if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of the GMCs of the MenACWY-CRM +Tdap+HPV group to the Placebo+Tdap + HPV group was greater than 0.5, at 1 month after Tdap vaccination.|Vaccine group ratio-Geometric mean conc|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.14|||ANOVA|||Non-inferiority of anti-PT immune response following concomitant administration of Tdap with HPV and MenACWY-CRM as compared to concomitant administration of Tdap with HPV and placebo.||1.14|0.89|
90920784|NCT01566695|181712684|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.442|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.442
90920785|NCT01566695|181712685|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.063|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.063
90920786|NCT01566695|181712686|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.198|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.198
90920787|NCT01566695|181712687|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.972|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.972
90920788|NCT01566695|181712688|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.601|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.601
90920789|NCT01566695|181712689|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.070
90920790|NCT01566695|181712690|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.436|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.436
90920791|NCT01566695|181712691|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.683|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.683
90920792|NCT05956002|181712710|EQUIVALENCE|For bioequivalence, the 90% CIs of the adjusted geometric mean ratio of AUClast for etrasimod 2 mg mini tablets mixed with applesauce (tests) compared with etrasimod 2 mg clinical IR tablet (reference) were required to be within the 80 to 125% range.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|94.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.33|98.12|||||The ratio and 90% CIs are expressed as percentages.|Analysis was performed for etrasimod 2mg mini tablets in applesauce vs etrasimod 2mg clinical IR tablet mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within the sequence as a random effect.||98.12|91.33|
90920793|NCT05956002|181712710|EQUIVALENCE|For bioequivalence, the 90% CIs of the adjusted geometric mean ratio of AUClast for etrasimod 2 mg mini tablets mixed with chocolate pudding (tests) compared with etrasimod 2 mg clinical IR tablet (reference) were required to be within the 80 to 125% range.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|94.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.69|98.34|||||The ratio and 90% CIs are expressed as percentages.|Analysis was performed for etrasimod 2 mg mini tablets in chocolate pudding vs etrasimod 2 mg clinical IR tablet using mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within the sequence as a random effect.||98.34|91.69|
90920794|NCT05956002|181712710|EQUIVALENCE|For bioequivalence, the 90% CIs of the adjusted geometric mean ratio of AUClast for etrasimod 2 mg mini tablets mixed with water (tests) compared with etrasimod 2 mg clinical IR tablet (reference) were required to be within the 80 to 125% range.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|85.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.9|88.92|||||The ratio and 90% CIs are expressed as percentages.|Analysis was performed for etrasimod 2 mg mini tablets in water vs etrasimod 2 mg clinical IR tablet using mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within the sequence as a random effect.||88.92|82.90|
90920795|NCT05956002|181712710|EQUIVALENCE|For bioequivalence, the 90% CIs of the adjusted geometric mean ratio of AUClast for etrasimod 2 mg mini tablets mixed with yogurt (tests) compared with etrasimod 2 mg clinical IR tablet (reference) were required to be within the 80 to 125% range.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|93.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.76|96.84|||||The ratio and 90% CIs are expressed as percentages.|Analysis was performed for etrasimod 2 mg mini tablets in yogurt vs etrasimod 2 mg clinical IR tablet using mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within the sequence as a random effect.||96.84|89.76|
90962491|NCT01009554|181805869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.542|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1063|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.331|0.754||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain score for interproximal (mesial and distal) sites and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.754|0.331|<0.001
90920796|NCT05956002|181712711|EQUIVALENCE|For bioequivalence, the 90% CIs of the adjusted geometric mean ratio of AUCinf for etrasimod 2 mg mini tablets mixed with applesauce (tests) compared with etrasimod 2 mg clinical IR tablet (reference) were required to be within the 80 to 125% range.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|94.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.97|97.89|||||The ratio and 90% CIs are expressed as percentages.|Analysis was performed for etrasimod 2 mg mini tablets in applesauce vs etrasimod 2 mg clinical IR tablet using mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within the sequence as a random effect.||97.89|90.97|
90920797|NCT05956002|181712711|EQUIVALENCE|For bioequivalence, the 90% CIs of the adjusted geometric mean ratio of AUCinf for etrasimod 2 mg mini tablets mixed with chocolate pudding (tests) compared with etrasimod 2 mg clinical IR tablet (reference) were required to be within the 80 to 125% range.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|94.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.41|98.2|||||The ratio and 90% CIs are expressed as percentages.|Analysis was performed for etrasimod 2 mg mini tablets in chocolate pudding vs etrasimod 2 mg clinical IR tablet using mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within the sequence as a random effect.||98.20|91.41|
90920798|NCT05956002|181712711|EQUIVALENCE|For bioequivalence, the 90% CIs of the adjusted geometric mean ratio of AUCinf for etrasimod 2 mg mini tablets mixed with water (tests) compared with etrasimod 2 mg clinical IR tablet (reference) were required to be within the 80 to 125% range.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|85.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.43|88.55|||||The ratio and 90% CIs are expressed as percentages.|Analysis was performed for etrasimod 2 mg mini tablets in water vs etrasimod 2 mg clinical IR tablet using mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within the sequence as a random effect.||88.55|82.43|
90920799|NCT05956002|181712711|EQUIVALENCE|For bioequivalence, the 90% CIs of the adjusted geometric mean ratio of AUCinf for etrasimod 2 mg mini tablets mixed with yogurt (tests) compared with etrasimod 2 mg clinical IR tablet (reference) were required to be within the 80 to 125% range.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|93.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.61|97.1|||||The ratio and 90% CIs are expressed as percentages.|Analysis was performed for etrasimod 2 mg mini tablets in yogurt vs etrasimod 2 mg clinical IR tablet using mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within the sequence as a random effect.||97.10|89.61|
90920800|NCT05956002|181712712|EQUIVALENCE|For bioequivalence, the 90% CIs of the adjusted geometric mean ratio of Cmax for etrasimod 2 mg mini tablets mixed with applesauce (tests) compared with etrasimod 2 mg clinical IR tablet (reference) were required to be within the 80 to 125% range.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|94.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.38|99.22|||||The ratio and 90% CIs are expressed as percentages.|Analysis was performed for etrasimod 2 mg mini tablets in applesauce vs etrasimod 2 mg clinical IR tablet using mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within the sequence as a random effect.||99.22|90.38|
90920801|NCT05956002|181712712|EQUIVALENCE|For bioequivalence, the 90% CIs of the adjusted geometric mean ratio of Cmax for etrasimod 2 mg mini tablets mixed with chocolate pudding (tests) compared with etrasimod 2 mg clinical IR tablet (reference) were required to be within the 80 to 125% range.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|92.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.59|97.04|||||The ratio and 90% CIs are expressed as percentages.|Analysis was performed for etrasimod 2 mg mini tablets in chocolate pudding vs etrasimod 2 mg clinical IR tablet using mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within the sequence as a random effect.||97.04|88.59|
90962492|NCT01009554|181805870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.032|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0344||0.361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.037|0.1||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain intensity for interproximal (mesial and distal) sites and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.100|-0.037|0.361
90962493|NCT01009554|181805871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.174|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0414|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.092|0.256||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain intensity for interproximal (mesial and distal) sites and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.256|0.092|<0.001
90920802|NCT05956002|181712712|EQUIVALENCE|For bioequivalence, the 90% CIs of the adjusted geometric mean ratio of Cmax for etrasimod 2 mg mini tablets mixed with water (tests) compared with etrasimod 2 mg clinical IR tablet (reference) were required to be within the 80 to 125% range.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|87.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.35|91.31|||||The ratio and 90% CIs are expressed as percentages.|Analysis was performed for etrasimod 2 mg mini tablets in water vs etrasimod 2 mg clinical IR tablet using mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within the sequence as a random effect.||91.31|83.35|
90962494|NCT01009554|181805872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.264|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0504|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.164|0.364||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain intensity for interproximal (mesial and distal) sites and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.364|0.164|<0.001
91034203|NCT01424644|181954619|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response to FHA antigen for the MenACWY-CRM+Tdap+HPV group was considered non-inferior to that of Placebo+Tdap+HPV group if the lower limit of the 95% CI of the difference \[(MenACWY-CRM +Tdap+HPV) minus(Placebo+Tdap + HPV)\] was greater than 0.5, at 1 month after Tdap vaccination.|Vaccine group ratio- Geometric mean conc|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.93|||ANOVA|||Non-inferiority of anti-FHA immune response following concomitant administration of Tdap with HPV and MenACWY-CRM as compared to concomitant administration of Tdap with HPV and placebo.||0.93|0.76|
90920803|NCT05956002|181712712|EQUIVALENCE|For bioequivalence, the 90% CIs of the adjusted geometric mean ratio of Cmax for etrasimod 2 mg mini tablets mixed with yogurt (tests) compared with etrasimod 2 mg clinical IR tablet (reference) were required to be within the 80 to 125% range.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|92.59|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.24|97.17|||||The ratio and 90% CIs are expressed as percentages.|Analysis was performed for etrasimod 2 mg mini tablets in yogurt vs etrasimod 2 mg clinical IR tablet using mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within the sequence as a random effect.||97.17|88.24|
90920804|NCT04784559|181712723|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.8751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.727|1.53||Unadjusted 2-sided p-value, for multiplicity adjustment uses the Hochberg step-up procedure|Log Rank|Stratified log-rank test, including the fixed effect of the treatment group and levels of the randomisation stratification factors|Stratified Cox proportional-hazards regression model, including the fixed effect of the treatment group and levels of the randomisation stratification factors,|Plitidepsin 2.5 mg arm versus Control arm||1.53|0.727|0.8751
90920805|NCT04784559|181712723|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.37||||0.0625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.96||Unadjusted 2-sided p-value, for multiplicity adjustment uses the Hochberg step-up procedure|Log Rank|Stratified log-rank test, including the fixed effect of the treatment group and levels of the randomisation stratification factors|Stratified Cox proportional-hazards regression model, including the fixed effect of the treatment group and levels of the randomisation stratification factors|Plitidepsin 1.5 mg arm versus Control arm||1.96|0.960|0.0625
90962495|NCT01009554|181805873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.034|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0345||0.331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.035|0.102||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain area for interproximal (mesial and distal) sites and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.102|-0.035|0.331
90962496|NCT01009554|181805874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.177|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0414|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.095|0.259||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain area for interproximal (mesial and distal) sites and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.259|0.095|<0.001
90962497|NCT01009554|181805875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.265|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0519|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.162|0.368||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain area for interproximal (mesial and distal) sites and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.368|0.162|<0.001
90962498|NCT01009554|181805876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.138|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0726||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.006|0.282||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain score for the gingival region and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.282|-0.006|0.060
90962499|NCT01009554|181805877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.338|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.087|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.165|0.51||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain score for the gingival region and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.510|0.165|<0.001
90962500|NCT01009554|181805878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.394|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1095|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.176|0.612||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain score for the gingival region and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.612|0.176|<0.001
90962501|NCT01009554|181805879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.072|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0355||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.002|0.143||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain intensity for the gingival region and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.143|0.002|0.045
90962502|NCT01009554|181805880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.178|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0415|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.095|0.26||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain intensity for the gingival region and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.260|0.095|<0.001
90962503|NCT01009554|181805881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.197|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.094|0.3||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain intensity for the gingival region and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.300|0.094|<0.001
90962504|NCT01009554|181805882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.077|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0355||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.006|0.147||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain area for the gingival region and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.147|0.006|0.034
91034204|NCT01424644|181954619|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response to PRN antigen for the MenACWY-CRM+Tdap+HPV group was considered non-inferior to that of Placebo+Tdap+HPV group if the lower limit of the 95% CI of the difference \[(MenACWY-CRM+Tdap+HPV) minus(Placebo+Tdap + HPV)\] was greater than 0.5, at 1 month after vaccination.|Vaccine group ratio-Geometric mean conc|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.93|||ANOVA|||Non-inferiority of anti-PRN immune response following concomitant administration of Tdap with HPV and MenACWY-CRM as compared to concomitant administration of Tdap with HPV and placebo.||0.93|0.72|
90920806|NCT04784559|181712724|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.948||||0.5945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.655|1.37||Unadjusted 2-sided p-value, for multiplicity adjustment uses the Hochberg step-up procedure|Log Rank|Stratified log-rank test, including the fixed effect of the treatment group and levels of the randomisation stratification factors|Stratified Cox proportional-hazards regression model, including the fixed effect of the treatment group and levels of the randomisation stratification factors|Plitidepsin 2.5 mg arm versus Control arm||1.37|0.655|0.5945
90920807|NCT04784559|181712724|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18||||0.3358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.827|1.7||Unadjusted 2-sided p-value, for multiplicity adjustment uses the Hochberg step-up procedure|Log Rank|Stratified log-rank test, including the fixed effect of the treatment group and levels of the randomisation stratification factors|Stratified Cox proportional-hazards regression model, including the fixed effect of the treatment group and levels of the randomisation stratification factors|Plitidepsin 1.5 mg arm versus Control arm||1.70|0.827|0.3358
90920808|NCT04784559|181712725|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.7252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.604|2.06||2-sided|p-value based on proportional odds model|Proportional odds model with fixed effects of treatment group and randomisation stratification factors|Adjusted Odds Ratio and 95% CI based on a proportional odds model with fixed effects of treatment group and randomisation stratification factors|Plitidepsin 2.5 mg arm versus Control arm||2.06|0.604|0.7252
90920809|NCT04784559|181712725|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.69||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|3.11||2-sided|p-value based on proportional odds model|Proportional odds model with fixed effects of treatment group and randomisation stratification factors|Adjusted Odds Ratio and 95% CI based on a proportional odds model with fixed effects of treatment group and randomisation stratification factors|Plitidepsin 1.5 mg arm versus Control arm||3.11|0.920|0.0910
90920810|NCT03336333|181712796|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.63||One-sided|Log Rank|||||0.63|0.28|<0.0001
90920811|NCT05671029|181712832|NON_INFERIORITY|Null hypothesis: difference to placebo of change from baseline QTcF ≥ 10 ms.|Prediction @ mean max concentration|0.8|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.3|2.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.9|-1.3|<0.05
90920812|NCT03892616|181712839|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|97.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.3|115.3|||||The ratio was calculated as adjusted geometric mean of TF2a fasted (C) as numerator and adjusted geometric mean of TF1 fed (A) as denominator, \*100. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\]) = 25.44|Relative bioavailability: ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA). The model on logarithmic scale included random effect of 'subjects within sequences' and fixed effect of 'sequence or block', 'period', 'treatment'.||115.3|82.3|
90920813|NCT03892616|181712839|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|183.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|154.0|217.4|||||The ratio was calculated as adjusted geometric mean of TF2b fasted (E) as numerator and adjusted geometric mean of TF1 fed (A) as denominator, \*100. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\]) = 25.44|Relative bioavailability: ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA). The model on logarithmic scale included random effect of 'subjects within sequences' and fixed effect of 'sequence or block', 'period', 'treatment'.||217.4|154.0|
90920814|NCT03892616|181712839|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|114.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.5|136.6|||||The ratio was calculated as adjusted geometric mean of TF2a fed (B) as numerator and adjusted geometric mean of TF2a fasted (C) as denominator, \*100. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\]) = 25.44|Relative bioavailability: ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA). The model on logarithmic scale included random effect of 'subjects within sequences' and fixed effect of 'sequence or block', 'period', 'treatment'.||136.6|96.5|
90920815|NCT03892616|181712839|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|66.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|55.5|79.5|||||The ratio was calculated as adjusted geometric mean of TF2b fed (D) as numerator and adjusted geometric mean of TF2b fasted (E) as denominator, \*100. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\]) = 25.44|Relative bioavailability: ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA). The model on logarithmic scale included random effect of 'subjects within sequences' and fixed effect of 'sequence or block', 'period', 'treatment'.||79.5|55.5|
90920816|NCT03892616|181712840|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|60.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|55.3|65.5|||||The ratio was calculated as adjusted geometric mean of TF2a fasted (C) as numerator and adjusted geometric mean of TF1 fed (A) as denominator, \*100. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\]) = 12.65|Relative bioavailability: ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA). The model on logarithmic scale included random effect of 'subjects within sequences' and fixed effect of 'sequence or block', 'period', 'treatment'.||65.5|55.3|
90920817|NCT03892616|181712840|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|71.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|65.6|78.0|||||The ratio was calculated as adjusted geometric mean of TF2b fasted (E) as numerator and adjusted geometric mean of TF1 fed (A) as denominator, \*100. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\]) = 12.65|Relative bioavailability: ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA). The model on logarithmic scale included random effect of 'subjects within sequences' and fixed effect of 'sequence or block', 'period', 'treatment'.||78.0|65.6|
90920818|NCT03892616|181712840|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|177.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|162.8|194.3|||||The ratio was calculated as adjusted geometric mean of TF2a fed (B) as numerator and adjusted geometric mean of TF2a fasted (C) as denominator, \*100. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\]) = 12.65|Relative bioavailability: ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA). The model on logarithmic scale included random effect of 'subjects within sequences' and fixed effect of 'sequence or block', 'period', 'treatment'.||194.3|162.8|
90920819|NCT03892616|181712840|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|152.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|139.5|167.7|||||The ratio was calculated as adjusted geometric mean of TF2b fed (D) as numerator and adjusted geometric mean of TF2b fasted (E) as denominator, \*100. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\]) = 12.65|Relative bioavailability: ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA). The model on logarithmic scale included random effect of 'subjects within sequences' and fixed effect of 'sequence or block', 'period', 'treatment'.||167.7|139.5|
90920820|NCT03892616|181712841|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|60.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|55.4|65.7|||||The ratio was calculated as adjusted geometric mean of TF2a fasted (C) as numerator and adjusted geometric mean of TF1 fed (A) as denominator, \*100. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\]) = 12.70|Relative bioavailability: ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA). The model on logarithmic scale included random effect of 'subjects within sequences' and fixed effect of 'sequence or block', 'period', 'treatment'.||65.7|55.4|
90920821|NCT03892616|181712841|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|71.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|65.2|77.6|||||The ratio was calculated as adjusted geometric mean of TF2b fasted (E) as numerator and adjusted geometric mean of TF1 fed (A) as denominator, \*100. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\]) = 12.70|Relative bioavailability: ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA). The model on logarithmic scale included random effect of 'subjects within sequences' and fixed effect of 'sequence or block', 'period', 'treatment'.||77.6|65.2|
90920822|NCT03892616|181712841|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|175.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|160.8|192.2|||||The ratio was calculated as adjusted geometric mean of TF2a fed (B) as numerator and adjusted geometric mean of TF2a fasted (C) as denominator, \*100. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\]) = 12.70|Relative bioavailability: ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA). The model on logarithmic scale included random effect of 'subjects within sequences' and fixed effect of 'sequence or block', 'period', 'treatment'.||192.2|160.8|
90920823|NCT03892616|181712841|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|150.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|136.9|164.7|||||The ratio was calculated as adjusted geometric mean of TF2b fed (D) as numerator and adjusted geometric mean of TF2b fasted (E) as denominator, \*100. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\]) = 12.70|Relative bioavailability: ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA). The model on logarithmic scale included random effect of 'subjects within sequences' and fixed effect of 'sequence or block', 'period', 'treatment'.||164.7|136.9|
90920824|NCT03892616|181712842|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|56.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|51.8|61.7|||||The ratio was calculated as adjusted geometric mean of TF2a fasted (C) as numerator and adjusted geometric mean of TF1 fed (A) as denominator, \*100. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\]) = 13.02|Relative bioavailability: ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA). The model on logarithmic scale included random effect of 'subjects within sequences' and fixed effect of 'sequence or block', 'period', 'treatment'.||61.7|51.8|
90920825|NCT03892616|181712842|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|70.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|64.4|77.1|||||The ratio was calculated as adjusted geometric mean of TF2b fasted (E) as numerator and adjusted geometric mean of TF1 fed (A) as denominator, \*100. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\]) = 13.02|Relative bioavailability: ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA). The model on logarithmic scale included random effect of 'subjects within sequences' and fixed effect of 'sequence or block', 'period', 'treatment'.||77.1|64.4|
90920826|NCT03892616|181712842|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|185.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|169.4|202.8|||||The ratio was calculated as adjusted geometric mean of TF2a fed (B) as numerator and adjusted geometric mean of TF2a fasted (C) as denominator, \*100. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\]) = 13.02|Relative bioavailability: ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA). The model on logarithmic scale included random effect of 'subjects within sequences' and fixed effect of 'sequence or block', 'period', 'treatment'.||202.8|169.4|
90920827|NCT03892616|181712842|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|158.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|144.3|173.9|||||The ratio was calculated as adjusted geometric mean of TF2b fed (D) as numerator and adjusted geometric mean of TF2b fasted (E) as denominator, \*100. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\]) = 13.02|Relative bioavailability: ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA). The model on logarithmic scale included random effect of 'subjects within sequences' and fixed effect of 'sequence or block', 'period', 'treatment'.||173.9|144.3|
91034205|NCT00440297|181954629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of Seroprotected Participants|48.5||||||95.0|38.4|58.7|||||Exact binomial confidence interval.|No hypothesis is being tested. The purpose of the primary analysis is to estimate the seroprotection rate (percentage of subjects with anti-HBs \>=10mIU/mL) in each group at 1 month after the third dose among subjects who were seronegative at baseline||58.7|38.4|
91034206|NCT00440297|181954629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of Seroprotected Participants|57.7||||||95.0|47.9|67.0|||||Exact binomial confidence interval.|||67.0|47.9|
91034207|NCT00440297|181954630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of Seroprotected Participants|66.7||||||95.0|56.5|75.8|||||Exact binomial confidence interval|||75.8|56.5|
91034208|NCT00440297|181954630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of Seroprotected Participants|69.2||||||95.0|59.4|77.9|||||Exact binomial confidence interval|||77.9|59.4|
91034209|NCT02024932|181954651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geo-mean ratio|1.037||||0.0164|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.009|1.065|||ANCOVA|||||1.065|1.009|0.0164
90920828|NCT03665597|181712885|OTHER|Geometric Least-Square Mean Ratio (GMR) = GM of Pembrolizumab 130 mg/mL SC/GM of Pembrolizumab 200 mg IV|GMR|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.68|0.78||||||||0.78|0.68|
90920829|NCT03665597|181712885|OTHER|GMR = GM of Pembrolizumab 165 mg/mL SC/GM of Pembrolizumab 200 mg IV|GMR|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.64|0.74||||||||0.74|0.64|
90920830|NCT03665597|181712886|OTHER|GMR = GM of Pembrolizumab 130 mg/mL SC/GM of Pembrolizumab 200 mg IV|Geometric Least-Square Mean Ratio|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.36|0.44||||||||0.44|0.36|
90920831|NCT03665597|181712886|OTHER|GMR = GM of Pembrolizumab 165 mg/mL SC/GM of Pembrolizumab 200 mg IV|Geometric Least-Square Mean Ratio|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.34|0.41||||||||0.41|0.34|
90940621|NCT01268098|181761113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment difference|5.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.6|30.7||All hypothesis testings in this study were based on type I error of 0.05. Adjustment for multiplicity was not applied.|Fisher Exact|The 2-sided Fisher's Exact test was utilized to test for difference between the two dose arms.|The 2-sided asymptotic 95% confidence interval is based on normal approximation.|The null hypothesis corresponding to the primary efficacy endpoint is that the percentages of subjects who meet the endpoint criteria are the same for both dose arms. This sample size for this study was not based on the statistical considerations.||30.7|-20.6|>0.999
90940622|NCT01268098|181761114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.258|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|The 2-sided Fisher's Exact test was utilized to test for difference betweenthe two dose arms.||The null hypothesis corresponding to this endpoint is that the percentages of subjects who meet the endpoint criteria are the same for both dose arms.||||0.258
91034210|NCT03020641|181954677|OTHER|t-test|Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2347||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0||0.1276||the threshold for statistical significance was p\<=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Interleukin 1 (IL1)||0.1276|- 0.8077|0.058
91034211|NCT03020641|181954677|OTHER|Interleukin 6 (IL6)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.44|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.44|-1.60|0.001
90962505|NCT01009554|181805883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.168|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0398|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.089|0.247||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain area for the gingival region and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.247|0.089|<0.001
90920832|NCT02520063|181712908|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The primary analysis was of safety and included all patients who received at least one dose of the investigational regimen. The rate of adverse events was be estimated at the end of the study along with two-sided 95% exact CIs (Clopper-Pearson intervals).|||
90920833|NCT04521478|181712951|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2||0.7636|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.0|4.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = (adjusted mean 5 mg BI 1358894) - (adjusted mean Placebo)|Adjusted means and confidence intervals were estimated using REML-based MMRM including the fixed categorical effects of treatment, concomitant psychotherapy use (yes vs. no), and the fixed continuous effect of baseline MADRS total score. Visit was treated as a repeated measure with an unstructured covariance matrix. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors.||4.3|-3.0|0.7636
90920834|NCT04521478|181712951|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2||0.304|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.4|5.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = (adjusted mean 25 mg BI 1358894) - (adjusted mean Placebo)|Adjusted means and confidence intervals were estimated using REML-based MMRM including the fixed categorical effects of treatment, concomitant psychotherapy use (yes vs. no), and the fixed continuous effect of baseline MADRS total score. Visit was treated as a repeated measure with an unstructured covariance matrix. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors.||5.9|-1.4|0.3040
90920835|NCT04521478|181712951|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2||0.309|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.4|5.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = (adjusted mean 75 mg BI 1358894) - (adjusted mean Placebo)|Adjusted means and confidence intervals were estimated using REML-based MMRM including the fixed categorical effects of treatment, concomitant psychotherapy use (yes vs. no), and the fixed continuous effect of baseline MADRS total score. Visit was treated as a repeated measure with an unstructured covariance matrix. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors.||5.7|-1.4|0.3090
90920836|NCT04521478|181712951|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.3694|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.3|4.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = (adjusted mean 125 mg BI 1358894) - (adjusted mean Placebo)|Adjusted means and confidence intervals were estimated using REML-based MMRM including the fixed categorical effects of treatment, concomitant psychotherapy use (yes vs. no), and the fixed continuous effect of baseline MADRS total score. Visit was treated as a repeated measure with an unstructured covariance matrix. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors.||4.4|-1.3|0.3694
90962506|NCT01009554|181805884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.193|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0516|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.091|0.296||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain area for the gingival region and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.296|0.091|<0.001
90962507|NCT01009554|181805885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031||0.524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.082|0.042||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain score for the body region and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.042|-0.082|0.524
90962508|NCT01009554|181805886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.055|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0395||0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.024|0.133||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain score for the body region and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.133|-0.024|0.172
90962509|NCT01009554|181805887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.116|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0439||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.028|0.203||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain score for the body region and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.203|0.028|0.010
91034212|NCT03020641|181954677|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.211||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.81|||t-test, 2 sided|||Interleukin 10||0.81|-0.76|0.052
91034213|NCT03020641|181954677|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.181||0.815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.22|||t-test, 2 sided|||Vascular Endotelial Grow Factor A||0.22|-0.50|0.815
91034214|NCT03020641|181954677|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.36|||t-test, 2 sided|||TNF alfa||0.36|-0.42|0.742
90920837|NCT04521478|181712951|OTHER|||||||0.9158|||||||MCPMod Linear model|No parameter assumptions required. Corresponding dose response is linear||The Multiple Comparison Procedures and Modeling (MCPMod) procedure used the estimated values from an MMRM model as input and allowed for simultaneous evaluation of different potential dose response patterns (Linear, Exponential, Emax1, Emax2, Sigmoid Emax), while protecting the overall false positive rate (probability of Type I error) using a one-sided, nominal α level of 10 %.||||0.9158
90920838|NCT04521478|181712951|OTHER|||||||0.8676|||||||MCPMod Exponential model|Assumption: 5% of the maximum effect is achieved at 25 mg; corresponding to a drug effect achieved mainly at higher doses||The Multiple Comparison Procedures and Modeling (MCPMod) procedure used the estimated values from an MMRM model as input and allowed for simultaneous evaluation of different potential dose response patterns (Linear, Exponential, Emax1, Emax2, Sigmoid Emax), while protecting the overall false positive rate (probability of Type I error) using a one-sided, nominal α level of 10 %.||||0.8676
91034215|NCT03020641|181954677|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.44|||t-test, 2 sided|||Chemokine CXC ligand 2||0.44|-0.36|0.603
90920839|NCT04521478|181712951|OTHER|||||||0.9552|||||||MCPMod Emax1 model|Assumption: 50% of the maximum effect is achieved at 25 mg; corresponding to the assumed true median effective dose (ED50) = 25 mg||The Multiple Comparison Procedures and Modeling (MCPMod) procedure used the estimated values from an MMRM model as input and allowed for simultaneous evaluation of different potential dose response patterns (Linear, Exponential, Emax1, Emax2, Sigmoid Emax), while protecting the overall false positive rate (probability of Type I error) using a one-sided, nominal α level of 10 %.||||0.9552
90920840|NCT04521478|181712951|OTHER|||||||0.9619|||||||MCPMod Emax2 model|Assumption: 70% of the maximum effect is achieved at 5 mg; corresponding to a drug effect achieved mainly with low doses, ED50 = 2.14 mg||The Multiple Comparison Procedures and Modeling (MCPMod) procedure used the estimated values from an MMRM model as input and allowed for simultaneous evaluation of different potential dose response patterns (Linear, Exponential, Emax1, Emax2, Sigmoid Emax), while protecting the overall false positive rate (probability of Type I error) using a one-sided, nominal α level of 10 %.||||0.9619
90920841|NCT04521478|181712951|OTHER|||||||0.9507|||||||MCPMod Sigmoid Emax model|Assumption: 50% of the maximum effect is achieved at 25 mg, 90% 75 mg; corresponding to a more flexible model of the assumed true ED50 = 25 mg||The Multiple Comparison Procedures and Modeling (MCPMod) procedure used the estimated values from an MMRM model as input and allowed for simultaneous evaluation of different potential dose response patterns (Linear, Exponential, Emax1, Emax2, Sigmoid Emax), while protecting the overall false positive rate (probability of Type I error) using a one-sided, nominal α level of 10 %.||||0.9507
90920842|NCT04521478|181712952|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9427||||0.8889|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4709|1.8873|||Regression, Logistic||5 mg BI 1358894 vs Placebo|Logistic regression model, including the fixed categorical effects of treatment and baseline MDD severity.||1.8873|0.4709|0.8889
90920843|NCT04521478|181712952|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6581||||0.3284|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.3255|1.3307|||Regression, Logistic||25 mg BI 1358894 vs Placebo|Logistic regression model, including the fixed categorical effects of treatment and baseline MDD severity.||1.3307|0.3255|0.3284
90920844|NCT04521478|181712952|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1026||||0.8048|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5757|2.1114|||Regression, Logistic||75 mg BI 1358894 vs Placebo|Logistic regression model, including the fixed categorical effects of treatment and baseline MDD severity.||2.1114|0.5757|0.8048
90920845|NCT04521478|181712952|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0072||||0.982|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5968|1.6999|||Regression, Logistic||125 mg BI 1358894 vs Placebo|Logistic regression model, including the fixed categorical effects of treatment and baseline MDD severity.||1.6999|0.5968|0.9820
90920846|NCT04521478|181712953|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6||0.1013|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|8.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = (adjusted mean 5 mg BI 1358894) - (adjusted mean Placebo)|Adjusted means and confidence intervals were estimated using REML-based MMRM including the fixed categorical effects of treatment, concomitant psychotherapy use (yes vs. no), and the fixed continuous effect of baseline score (S-Anxiety scale). Visit was treated as a repeated measure with an unstructured covariance matrix. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors.||8.6|0.0|0.1013
90940623|NCT02416713|181761117|SUPERIORITY||relative change from baseline|0.66||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|1.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.51|-0.18|0.12
90940624|NCT02416713|181761117|SUPERIORITY||relative change from baseline|-0.3||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|0.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.57|-1.17|0.49
90940625|NCT02416713|181761117|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.16||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.69|-1.00|0.70
90940626|NCT00004146|181761143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.12|||t-test, 1 sided|||the study design is to detect 30% reduction in hazard of deaths with 78% power at one side alpha level of 0.10. Overall survial time was calculated from time of histological diagnosis until time of death from any event.||1.12|0.65|0.10
90940627|NCT02509312|181761192|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.34
90940628|NCT02509312|181761193|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.257|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.257
90940629|NCT02509312|181761194|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.085|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.085
90940630|NCT02509312|181761195|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.164|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.164
90940631|NCT02509312|181761196|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.000
90940632|NCT02509312|181761197|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.27||||0.0367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.03|||Chi-squared|||||-0.03|-0.52|0.0367
90940633|NCT02509312|181761198|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0231|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0231
90940634|NCT02509312|181761199|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.467|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.467
90940635|NCT02509312|181761200|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.273|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.273
90940636|NCT02509312|181761201|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0162||||||p-value for 12 hours post-op between-group comparison.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0162
90940637|NCT02509312|181761203|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.048||||||p-value for 6 hours post-op between-group comparison.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.048
90940638|NCT01309243|181761204|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: The FTC/RPV/TDF group was at least 12% worse than the EFV/FTC/TDF group with respect to the percentage of subjects achieving HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL (response rate, as defined by the snapshot analysis algorithm) at Week 48.~Alternative hypothesis: The FTC/RPV/TDF group was less than 12% worse than the EFV/FTC/TDF group with respect to the percentage of subjects achieving HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL at Week 48."|Difference in the response rates|4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|9.2|||||The baseline stratum-weighted (HIV-1 RNA ≤ 100,000 and \> 100,000 copies/mL) difference in virologic success rates and its 95% CI were from baseline HIV-1 RNA adjusted Mantel-Haenszel proportions.|"The analysis was to assess the noninferiority of FTC/RPV/TDF versus EFV/FTC/TDF using a 95% confidence interval (CI) approach, with a noninferiority margin of 12% (lower bound of CI \> -12%).~700 subjects allocated 1:1 to either treatment arm was predicted to give \> 95% power when the proportion of responders in both treatment groups for the primary endpoint is 80% at Week 48."||9.2|-1.1|
90940639|NCT01309243|181761205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the response rates|5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|11.5|||||The baseline stratum-weighted (HIV-1 RNA ≤ 100,000 and \> 100,000 copies/mL) difference in virologic success rates and its 95% CI were from baseline HIV-1 RNA adjusted Mantel-Haenszel proportions.|||11.5|-0.6|
90940640|NCT01309243|181761206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|11.0||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|32.0||The p-value, and difference in least square means (LSM) and its 95% CI are from analysis of variance (ANOVA) with treatment and baseline HIV-1 RNA levels (≤ 100,000, \> 100,000 copies/mL) as fixed effect.|ANOVA|||||32|-11|0.34
90920847|NCT04521478|181712953|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6||0.3596|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.9|6.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = (adjusted mean 25 mg BI 1358894) - (adjusted mean Placebo)|Adjusted means and confidence intervals were estimated using REML-based MMRM including the fixed categorical effects of treatment, concomitant psychotherapy use (yes vs. no), and the fixed continuous effect of baseline score (S-Anxiety scale). Visit was treated as a repeated measure with an unstructured covariance matrix. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors.||6.6|-1.9|0.3596
90920848|NCT04521478|181712953|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.6745|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.2|3.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = (adjusted mean 75 mg BI 1358894) - (adjusted mean Placebo)|Adjusted means and confidence intervals were estimated using REML-based MMRM including the fixed categorical effects of treatment, concomitant psychotherapy use (yes vs. no), and the fixed continuous effect of baseline score (S-Anxiety scale). Visit was treated as a repeated measure with an unstructured covariance matrix. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors.||3.1|-5.2|0.6745
90920849|NCT04521478|181712953|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.187|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|6.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = (adjusted mean 125 mg BI 1358894) - (adjusted mean Placebo)|Adjusted means and confidence intervals were estimated using REML-based MMRM including the fixed categorical effects of treatment, concomitant psychotherapy use (yes vs. no), and the fixed continuous effect of baseline score (S-Anxiety scale). Visit was treated as a repeated measure with an unstructured covariance matrix. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors.||6.0|-0.7|0.1870
90920850|NCT04521478|181712953|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.0921|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.1|8.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = (adjusted mean 5 mg BI 1358894) - (adjusted mean Placebo)|Adjusted means and confidence intervals were estimated using REML-based MMRM including the fixed categorical effects of treatment, concomitant psychotherapy use (yes vs. no), and the fixed continuous effect of baseline score (T-Anxiety scale). Visit was treated as a repeated measure with an unstructured covariance matrix. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors.||8.1|0.1|0.0921
90920851|NCT04521478|181712953|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.7395|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.2|4.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = (adjusted mean 25 mg BI 1358894) - (adjusted mean Placebo)|Adjusted means and confidence intervals were estimated using REML-based MMRM including the fixed categorical effects of treatment, concomitant psychotherapy use (yes vs. no), and the fixed continuous effect of baseline score (T-Anxiety scale). Visit was treated as a repeated measure with an unstructured covariance matrix. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors.||4.8|-3.2|0.7395
90920852|NCT04521478|181712953|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.6296|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.7|5.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = (adjusted mean 75 mg BI 1358894) - (adjusted mean Placebo)|Adjusted means and confidence intervals were estimated using REML-based MMRM including the fixed categorical effects of treatment, concomitant psychotherapy use (yes vs. no), and the fixed continuous effect of baseline score (T-Anxiety scale). Visit was treated as a repeated measure with an unstructured covariance matrix. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors.||5.0|-2.7|0.6296
90920853|NCT04521478|181712953|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.0429|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7|6.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = (adjusted mean 125 mg BI 1358894) - (adjusted mean Placebo)|Adjusted means and confidence intervals were estimated using REML-based MMRM including the fixed categorical effects of treatment, concomitant psychotherapy use (yes vs. no), and the fixed continuous effect of baseline score (T-Anxiety scale). Visit was treated as a repeated measure with an unstructured covariance matrix. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors.||6.9|0.7|0.0429
90920854|NCT04521478|181712954|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.6211|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = (adjusted mean 5 mg BI 1358894) - (adjusted mean Placebo)|Adjusted means and confidence intervals were estimated using REML-based MMRM including the fixed categorical effects of treatment, concomitant psychotherapy use (yes vs. no), and the fixed continuous effect of the baseline score. Visit was treated as a repeated measure with an unstructured covariance matrix. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors.||0.5|-0.3|0.6211
90920855|NCT04521478|181712954|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.5158|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = (adjusted mean 25 mg BI 1358894) - (adjusted mean Placebo)|Adjusted means and confidence intervals were estimated using REML-based MMRM including the fixed categorical effects of treatment, concomitant psychotherapy use (yes vs. no), and the fixed continuous effect of the baseline score. Visit was treated as a repeated measure with an unstructured covariance matrix. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors.||0.6|-0.2|0.5158
90962510|NCT01009554|181805888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.014|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0145||0.348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.043|0.015||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain intensity for the body region and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.015|-0.043|0.348
91034216|NCT03020641|181954678|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.65|||t-test, 2 sided|||Matrix metalloproteinase-9||0.65|-0.47|0.600
90920856|NCT04521478|181712954|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.4518|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = (adjusted mean 75 mg BI 1358894) - (adjusted mean Placebo)|Adjusted means and confidence intervals were estimated using REML-based MMRM including the fixed categorical effects of treatment, concomitant psychotherapy use (yes vs. no), and the fixed continuous effect of the baseline score. Visit was treated as a repeated measure with an unstructured covariance matrix. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors.||0.6|-0.2|0.4518
91034217|NCT03020641|181954678|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.97|||t-test, 2 sided|||Plasminogen activator inhibitor-1||0.97|0.030|0.028
90882002|NCT02477020|181626944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.722||0.612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.79|1.06||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS subscale score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline PANSS subscale score-by-week interaction.|PANSS Negative Score, Change at Week 3||1.06|-1.79|0.612
90940641|NCT01309243|181761207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|20.0||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|49.0||The p-value, and difference in LSM and its 95% CI are from ANOVA with treatment and baseline HIV-1 RNA levels (≤ 100,000, \> 100,000 copies/mL) as fixed effect.|ANOVA|||||49|-9|0.17
90882003|NCT02477020|181626944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.856||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|1.33||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS subscale score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline PANSS subscale score-by-week interaction.|PANSS Negative Score, Change at Week 4||1.33|-2.06|0.670
90882004|NCT02477020|181626944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.892||0.807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|1.55||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS subscale score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline PANSS subscale score-by-week interaction.|PANSS Negative Score, Change at Week 5||1.55|-1.98|0.807
90882005|NCT02477020|181626944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.853||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.83|0.54||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS subscale score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline PANSS subscale score-by-week interaction.|PANSS Negative Score, Change at Week 6||0.54|-2.83|0.182
90882006|NCT02477020|181626944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.801||0.933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|1.65||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS subscale score as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline PANSS subscale score-by-week interaction.|PANSS General Score, Change at Week 1||1.65|-1.52|0.933
90882007|NCT02477020|181626944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.151||0.596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.89|1.66||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS subscale score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline PANSS subscale score-by-week interaction.|PANSS General Score, Change at Week 2||1.66|-2.89|0.596
90882008|NCT02477020|181626944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.455||0.371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.18|1.57||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS subscale score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline PANSS subscale score-by-week interaction.|PANSS General Score, Change at Week 3||1.57|-4.18|0.371
90882009|NCT02477020|181626944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.625||0.821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.58|2.84||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS subscale score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline PANSS subscale score-by-week interaction.|PANSS General Score, Change at Week 4||2.84|-3.58|0.821
90882010|NCT02477020|181626944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.621||0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.81|1.6||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS subscale score as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline PANSS subscale score-by-week interaction.|PANSS General Score, Change at Week 5||1.60|-4.81|0.323
90940642|NCT01309243|181761208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value for the difference in change from baseline at Week 48 is from ANOVA with treatment as fixed effect.|ANOVA|||||||< 0.001
90920857|NCT04521478|181712954|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.2347|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = (adjusted mean 125 mg BI 1358894) - (adjusted mean Placebo)|Adjusted means and confidence intervals were estimated using REML-based MMRM including the fixed categorical effects of treatment, concomitant psychotherapy use (yes vs. no), and the fixed continuous effect of the baseline score. Visit was treated as a repeated measure with an unstructured covariance matrix. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors.||0.6|-0.1|0.2347
90920858|NCT04521478|181712955|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.1723|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|7.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = (adjusted mean 5 mg BI 1358894) - (adjusted mean Placebo)|Adjusted means and confidence intervals were estimated using REML-based MMRM including the fixed categorical effects of treatment, concomitant psychotherapy use (yes vs. no), and the fixed continuous effect of the baseline score. Visit was treated as a repeated measure with an unstructured covariance matrix. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors.||7.6|-0.7|0.1723
90920859|NCT04521478|181712955|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.0757|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.3|8.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = (adjusted mean 25 mg BI 1358894) - (adjusted mean Placebo)|Adjusted means and confidence intervals were estimated using REML-based MMRM including the fixed categorical effects of treatment, concomitant psychotherapy use (yes vs. no), and the fixed continuous effect of the baseline score. Visit was treated as a repeated measure with an unstructured covariance matrix. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors.||8.5|0.3|0.0757
90920860|NCT04521478|181712955|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.6864|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.0|5.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = (adjusted mean 75 mg BI 1358894) - (adjusted mean Placebo)|Adjusted means and confidence intervals were estimated using REML-based MMRM including the fixed categorical effects of treatment, concomitant psychotherapy use (yes vs. no), and the fixed continuous effect of the baseline score. Visit was treated as a repeated measure with an unstructured covariance matrix. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors.||5.0|-3.0|0.6864
90920861|NCT04521478|181712955|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.1585|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|6.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = (adjusted mean 125 mg BI 1358894) - (adjusted mean Placebo)|Adjusted means and confidence intervals were estimated using REML-based MMRM including the fixed categorical effects of treatment, concomitant psychotherapy use (yes vs. no), and the fixed continuous effect of the baseline score. Visit was treated as a repeated measure with an unstructured covariance matrix. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors.||6.0|-0.5|0.1585
90920862|NCT05902793|181712961|NON_INFERIORITY|the non-inferiority margin is 20%|least square means difference|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|16.07|||||To establish non-inferiority the lower limit of the least square mean difference had to be \> -20%.|||16.07|-14.30|
91034218|NCT03020641|181954678|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.82|||t-test, 2 sided|||E-selectin||0.82|-0.64|0.807
91034219|NCT03020641|181954680|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.44||0.862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.49|10.21|||t-test, 2 sided|||||10.21|-7.49|0.862
90920863|NCT05902793|181712963|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model had fixed effects of treatment arm, center and wound size||||||0.24
90920864|NCT03328702|181713020|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures ANOVA|Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Repeated measures ANOVA, N=4|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in total pharyngeal transit time with the use of CPAP||||<0.05
91034220|NCT03238781|181954688|SUPERIORITY||difference in least square mean|0.26||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|1.4||2-sided significance level of 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||An adjusted analysis is presented that utilized a generalized linear mixed model which included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, stratification factors of region and baseline migraine frequency (chronic migraine vs episodic migraine), and baseline value as covariates and assuming a first-order autoregressive covariance structure. The p-values for pairwise comparisons versus placebo are nominal p-values without multiplicity adjustment.||1.40|-0.88|0.66
90920865|NCT04674358|181713045|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.67|4.14||||||||4.14|1.67|
90920866|NCT03703700|181713047|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.23||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.5|||Chi-squared|||||1.50|1.01|0.042
90920867|NCT03703700|181713048|OTHER|||||||0.781|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.781
90920868|NCT03703700|181713049|OTHER|||||||0.609|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.609
90920869|NCT03703700|181713050|OTHER|||||||0.528|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.528
90920870|NCT03703700|181713051|OTHER|||||||0.88|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.880
90920871|NCT03703700|181713052|OTHER|||||||0.289|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.289
90920872|NCT03703700|181713053|OTHER|||||||0.86|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.860
90920873|NCT03703700|181713054|OTHER|||||||0.163|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.163
90920874|NCT03703700|181713055|OTHER|||||||0.197|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.197
90920875|NCT03703700|181713056|OTHER|||||||0.178|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.178
90920876|NCT03703700|181713057|OTHER|||||||0.549|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.549
90920877|NCT03703700|181713058|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.19||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.4|||Chi-squared|||||1.40|1.01|0.035
90920878|NCT03703700|181713059|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.18||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.37|||Chi-squared|||||1.37|1.01|0.034
90920879|NCT03703700|181713060|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.22||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.45|||Chi-squared|||||1.45|1.03|0.022
90920880|NCT03703700|181713061|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.94||||0.707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.3|||Chi-squared|||||1.30|0.68|0.707
90920881|NCT03703700|181713062|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.97||||0.878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.42|||Chi-squared|||||1.42|0.66|0.878
90920882|NCT03703700|181713063|OTHER|||||||0.564|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Singleton||||0.564
90920883|NCT03703700|181713063|OTHER|||||||0.417|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Twin||||0.417
90920884|NCT03703700|181713064|OTHER|||||||0.985|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Singleton||||0.985
90920885|NCT03703700|181713064|OTHER|||||||0.157|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Twin||||0.157
90920886|NCT03703700|181713065|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.07||||0.789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.78|||Chi-squared|||||1.78|0.65|0.789
90920887|NCT03703700|181713066|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.09||||0.769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.94|||Chi-squared|||||1.94|0.61|0.769
90920888|NCT03703700|181713067|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.41||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|4.45|||Fisher Exact|||||4.45|0.04|0.590
90920889|NCT03703700|181713068|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.04||||0.465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|10.39|||Fisher Exact|||||10.39|0.40|0.465
90920890|NCT01180634|181713111|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.33||||0.0715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.84||P-value is determined using a log-rank test stratified by region (US, non-US), age (12-18 years, \>18 years), and baseline FEV1 (\<55%, \>=55%).|Log Rank||Hazard ratio is obtained from a Cox proportional hazards regression model adjusting for region (US, non-US), age (12-18 years, \>18 years), and baseline FEV1 (\<55%, \>=55%).|||1.84|0.96|0.0715
90920891|NCT01180634|181713112|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|1.41||||0.0213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|2.6|||Repeared Measures Model||Estimates are determined from a repeated measures model with terms for treatment, visit, treatment\*visit, region (US, non-US), age (12-18 years, \>18 years), and baseline FEV1 (\<55%, \>=55%).|||2.60|0.21|0.0213
90920892|NCT01180634|181713113|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.63||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.3|||Repeated Measures Model||Estimates are determined from a repeated measures model with terms for treatment, visit, treatment\*visit, region (US, non-US), age (12-18 years, \>18 years), baseline FEV1 (\<55%, \>=55%), and baseline organism log density.|||-0.30|-0.95|0.0002
90920893|NCT01180634|181713114|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.28||||0.8335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|2.85|||Repeated Measures Model||Estimates were determined from a repeated measures model with terms for treatment, visit, treatment\*visit, region (US, non-US), age (12 to 18 years, \> 18 years), Baseline FEV1 (\<55%, ≥ 55%), and Baseline value.|||2.85|-2.30|0.8335
90920894|NCT01180634|181713115|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|2.42||||0.0122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|4.31|||Repeated Measures Model|||||4.31|0.53|0.0122
90920895|NCT01180634|181713116|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.82||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.12||P-value is determined using a log-rank test stratified by region (US, non-US), age (12-18 years, \>18 years), and baseline FEV1 (\<55%, \>=55%).|Log Rank||Hazard ratio is obtained from a Cox proportional hazards regression model adjusting for region (US, non-US), age (12-18 years, \>18 years), and baseline FEV1 (\<55%, \>=55%).|||1.12|0.60|0.3000
90920896|NCT01180634|181713117|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|2.04||P-value is determined using a log-rank test stratified by region (US, non-US), age (12-18 years, \>18 years), and baseline FEV1 (\<55%, \>=55%).|Log Rank||Hazard ratio is obtained from a Cox proportional hazards regression model adjusting for region (US, non-US), age (12-18 years, \>18 years), and baseline FEV1 (\<55%, \>=55%).|||2.04|0.47|0.8670
90920897|NCT06311084|181713130|OTHER|We used Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test for our non-normally distributed data to compare scores before and after the Imaginator intervention.||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
90920898|NCT06311084|181713131|OTHER|We used Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test for our non-normally distributed data to compare scores before and after the Imaginator intervention.||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
90920899|NCT06311084|181713132|OTHER|We used Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test for our non-normally distributed data to compare scores before and after the Imaginator intervention.||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
90920900|NCT06311084|181713133|OTHER|We used Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test for our non-normally distributed data to compare scores before and after the Imaginator intervention.||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
90920901|NCT06311084|181713134|OTHER|We used Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test for our non-normally distributed data to compare scores before and after the Imaginator intervention.||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
90920902|NCT06311084|181713135|OTHER|We used Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test for our non-normally distributed data to compare scores before and after the Imaginator intervention.||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
90920903|NCT06311084|181713136|OTHER|We used Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test for our non-normally distributed data to compare scores before and after the Imaginator intervention.||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
90920904|NCT06311084|181713137|OTHER|We used Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test for our non-normally distributed data to compare scores before and after the Imaginator intervention.||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
90920905|NCT06311084|181713138|OTHER|We used Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test for our non-normally distributed data to compare scores before and after the Imaginator intervention.||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
90920906|NCT06311084|181713139|OTHER|We used Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test for our non-normally distributed data to compare scores before and after the Imaginator intervention.||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
90920907|NCT06311084|181713140|OTHER|We used Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test for our non-normally distributed data to compare scores before and after the Imaginator intervention.||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
90920908|NCT06311084|181713141|OTHER|We used Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test for our non-normally distributed data to compare scores before and after the Imaginator intervention.||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
90920909|NCT06311084|181713142|OTHER|We used Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test for our non-normally distributed data to compare scores before and after the Imaginator intervention.||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
90920910|NCT06311084|181713143|OTHER|We used Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test for our non-normally distributed data to compare scores before and after the Imaginator intervention.||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
90920911|NCT06311084|181713144|OTHER|We used Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test for our non-normally distributed data to compare scores before and after the Imaginator intervention.||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
90920912|NCT03988634|181713145|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.8546||||0.0492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7307|0.9994|||ANCOVA||Geometric Mean Ratio: sac/val vs valsartan|||0.9994|0.7307|0.0492
90920913|NCT03988634|181713146|SUPERIORITY||Win Ratio|1.193||||0.1578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.934|1.524|||unmatched pairwise win-ratio||A win ratio greater than 1 was in favor of sacubitril/valsartan arm|||1.524|0.934|0.1578
90920914|NCT03988634|181713147|SUPERIORITY||rate ratio|0.8346||||0.3563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5684|1.2255|||LWYY model||A rate ratio \< 1 indicates an effect in favor of LCZ696|||1.2255|0.5684|0.3563
90882011|NCT02477020|181626944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-2.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.732||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.87|0.98||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS subscale score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline PANSS subscale score-by-week interaction.|PANSS General Score, Change at Week 6||0.98|-5.87|0.161
90920915|NCT03988634|181713148|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.6249||||0.3155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2496|1.5649|||negative binomial regression model|||||1.5649|0.2496|0.3155
90920916|NCT03988634|181713149|SUPERIORITY||ratio of the change|0.9316||||0.4766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7661|1.1329|||ANCOVA|||||1.1329|0.7661|0.4766
90920917|NCT03988634|181713150|SUPERIORITY||ratio of the change|0.8268|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.91|||ANCOVA|||Week 4||0.91|0.76|<.0001
90920918|NCT03988634|181713150|SUPERIORITY||ratio of the change|0.8103|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.89|||ANCOVA|||Week 8||0.89|0.74|<.0001
90920919|NCT04725240|181713153|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Threshold for significance at 0.001 level.|One-sided exact binomial test|||||||<0.0001
90920920|NCT04725240|181713154|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Threshold for significance at 0.001 level.|One-sided exact binomial test|||||||<0.0001
90920921|NCT04725240|181713155|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Threshold for significance at 0.001 level.|One-sided exact binomial test|||||||<0.0001
90920922|NCT04725240|181713156|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Threshold for significance at 0.001 level.|One-sided exact binomial test|||||||<0.0001
90920923|NCT03205800|181713185|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.05
90920924|NCT04083235|181713222|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.99|||Stratified log-rank test||The HR and 95% confidence interval (CI) was based on a stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model, stratified by baseline Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status, region and liver metastases as per IWRS.|||0.99|0.70|0.04
90920925|NCT04083235|181713223|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.83|||Stratified log-rank test||The HR and 95% CI was based on a stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model, stratified by baseline ECOG performance status, region and liver metastases as per IWRS.|||0.83|0.58|<0.0001
90920926|NCT04083235|181713224|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.69|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||OR, 95% CI and p-value were obtained from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting by baseline ECOG performance status, region and liver metastases as per IWRS.|||1.69|0.95|0.11
90920927|NCT01007591|181713225|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.02||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.7|31.7|||ANOVA|Treatment comparison using an ANOVA model with age group and treatment as design variables.||||31.7|-43.7|0.75
90920928|NCT04638829|181713276|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0001
90920929|NCT04638829|181713277|OTHER|||||||0.0093|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0093
90920930|NCT04638829|181713278|OTHER|||||||0.0003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0003
90920931|NCT04638829|181713279|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90920932|NCT04088630|181713289|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0427||||||p\<0.05 considered significant. Between group pairwise comparisons performed with Bonferroni correction.|Fisher Exact|||Difference in proportion of subjects with cardiac events up to 30 days post-ictus tested between three groups.||||0.0427
90882012|NCT02477020|181626945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.664||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.263|10.624|||Regression, Logistic||TAK-063 versus Placebo. The p-values were obtained using a logistic regression model adjusting for treatment and the Baseline PANSS total score.|Week 1||10.624|1.263|0.017
90882013|NCT02477020|181626945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.782||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.287|6.014|||Regression, Logistic||TAK-063 versus Placebo. The p-values were obtained using a logistic regression model adjusting for treatment and the Baseline PANSS total score.|Week 2||6.014|1.287|0.009
90882014|NCT02477020|181626945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.818||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.877|3.771|||Regression, Logistic||TAK-063 versus Placebo. The p-values were obtained using a logistic regression model adjusting for treatment and the Baseline PANSS total score.|Week 3||3.771|0.877|0.108
90882015|NCT02477020|181626945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.222||||0.596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.583|2.561|||Regression, Logistic||TAK-063 versus Placebo. The p-values were obtained using a logistic regression model adjusting for treatment and the Baseline PANSS total score.|Week 4||2.561|0.583|0.596
90920933|NCT04088630|181713290|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in proportion of subjects with nosocomial infections up to 90 days post-ictus tested between three groups. No pairwise comparisons performed.||||0.19
90920934|NCT04088630|181713291|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in proportion of subjects with neurologic decline up to 30 days post-ictus tested between three groups. No pairwise comparisons performed.||||0.30
90920935|NCT03175029|181713311|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.552|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.514|15.59|||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline vs. Week 12 for the mean BCI in the TAC-302 group||15.590|5.514|<0.001
90920936|NCT03175029|181713311|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.826||||0.819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.676|7.023|||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline vs. Week 12 for the mean BCI in the Placebo group||7.023|-8.676|0.819
90920937|NCT03175029|181713311|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.378|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.454||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.345|20.411|||t-test, 2 sided|||TAC-302 group vs. Placebo group for changes in the mean BCI from baseline to Week 12||20.411|2.345|0.015
90920938|NCT03175029|181713312|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.604|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.76|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.753|15.455|||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline vs. Week 12 for the mean PIP1 in the TAC-302 group||15.455|5.753|<0.001
90920939|NCT03175029|181713312|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.926|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.62||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.121|11.973|||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline vs. Week 12 for the mean PIP1 in the Placebo group||11.973|-2.121|0.138
90920940|NCT03175029|181713312|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.678|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.861||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.375|13.731|||t-test, 2 sided|||TAC-302 group vs. Placebo group for changes in the mean PIP1 from baseline to Week 12||13.731|-2.375|0.157
90920941|NCT03175029|181713313|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.91|STANDARD_DEVIATION|26.48||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.22|18.59|||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline vs. Week 12 for the mean BVE in the TAC-302 group||18.59|3.22|0.006
90920942|NCT03175029|181713313|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.42|STANDARD_DEVIATION|20.09||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.27|11.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline vs. Week 12 for the mean BVE in the Placebo group||11.10|-6.27|0.570
90920943|NCT03175029|181713313|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.24||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.96|20.95|||t-test, 2 sided|||TAC-302 group vs. Placebo group for changes in the mean BVE from baseline to Week 12||20.95|-3.96|0.178
90920944|NCT03175029|181713314|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.41|STANDARD_DEVIATION|24.39|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.13|27.69|||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline vs. Week 12 for the mean BVE in the TAC-302 group||27.69|9.13|<0.001
90920945|NCT03175029|181713314|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.88|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.7||0.489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.81|11.58|||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline vs. Week 12 for the mean BVE in the Placebo group||11.58|-5.81|0.489
90920946|NCT03175029|181713314|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.96||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|29.58|||t-test, 2 sided|||TAC-302 group vs. Placebo group for changes in the mean BVE from baseline to Week 12||29.58|1.48|0.031
90920947|NCT03175029|181713315|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.57|STANDARD_DEVIATION|25.54|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.26|35.88|||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline vs. Week 12 for the mean BVE in the TAC-302 group||35.88|11.26|<0.001
90920948|NCT03175029|181713315|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.18||0.708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.19|14.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline vs. Week 12 for the mean BVE in the Placebo group||14.40|-10.19|0.708
90920949|NCT03175029|181713315|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.02||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.96|39.98|||t-test, 2 sided|||TAC-302 group vs. Placebo group for changes in the mean BVE from baseline to Week 12||39.98|2.96|0.025
90920950|NCT03381261|181713325|OTHER|While descriptive statistics were presented in the original mRNA units using median and interquartile range (25th, 75th), statistical group comparison and effect sizes were reported as the ratio of the geometric means.|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90920951|NCT05634226|181713326|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1
90920952|NCT05634226|181713327|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.06
90920953|NCT03683719|181713365|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||"P-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons. Models with an adjusted p-value \<0.025 were statistically sign. different from a flat dose-response model. Model: IGA-CHE TS = Treatment + Region + Baseline IGA-CHE.~Model selected: Emax model"|Multiple contrast test|||The primary endpoint was evaluated by determining if there was a dose-response relationship between the IGA-CHE response rate at Week 16 and the dose administered, using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) methodology. Several candidate parametric models were assumed and multiple comparison techniques were used to choose the model(s) most likely to represent the true underlying dose-response curve.||||<0.001
90920954|NCT03683719|181713365|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.29|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|26.24||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity. Data at visits following premature discont. of IMP or initiation of rescue medication before Week 16 were considered missing and imputed as non-responders (as were any other missing data).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The difference in response rates between the active delgocitinib cream doses and delgocitinib cream vehicle was analysed separately for each of the active dose groups using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and disease severity (baseline IGA-CHE score). The null hypothesis of no difference in response rates between the delgocitinib cream active doses and delgocitinib cream vehicle was tested against the 2-sided alternative that there is a difference.||26.24|0.34|>0.05
90920955|NCT03683719|181713365|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.03|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.44|10.39||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity. Data at visits following premature discont. of IMP or initiation of rescue medication before Week 16 were considered missing and imputed as non-responders (as were any other missing data).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The difference in response rates between the active delgocitinib cream doses and delgocitinib cream vehicle was analysed separately for each of the active dose groups using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and disease severity (baseline IGA-CHE score). The null hypothesis of no difference in response rates between the delgocitinib cream active doses and delgocitinib cream vehicle was tested against the 2-sided alternative that there is a difference.||10.39|-10.44|>0.05
90940643|NCT01309243|181761209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value for the difference in change from baseline at Week 48 is from ANOVA with treatment as fixed effect.|ANOVA|||||||< 0.001
90920956|NCT03683719|181713365|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|28.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.8|42.64||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity. Data at visits following premature discont. of IMP or initiation of rescue medication before Week 16 were considered missing and imputed as non-responders (as were any other missing data).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The difference in response rates between the active delgocitinib cream doses and delgocitinib cream vehicle was analysed separately for each of the active dose groups using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and disease severity (baseline IGA-CHE score). The null hypothesis of no difference in response rates between the delgocitinib cream active doses and delgocitinib cream vehicle was tested against the 2-sided alternative that there is a difference.||42.64|13.8|<0.001
90920957|NCT03683719|181713365|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|29.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.56|44.67||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity. Data at visits following premature discont. of IMP or initiation of rescue medication before Week 16 were considered missing and imputed as non-responders (as were any other missing data).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The difference in response rates between the active delgocitinib cream doses and delgocitinib cream vehicle was analysed separately for each of the active dose groups using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and disease severity (baseline IGA-CHE score). The null hypothesis of no difference in response rates between the delgocitinib cream active doses and delgocitinib cream vehicle was tested against the 2-sided alternative that there is a difference.||44.67|14.56|<0.001
90920958|NCT03683719|181713366|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||"P-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons. Models with an adj. p-value \<0.025 were statistically sign. different from a flat dose-response model. Model: Change = Treatment + Baseline + Region + Baseline IGA-CHE.~Model selected: Emax model"|Multiple contrast test|||"The secondary endpoint Change from baseline to Week 16 in HECSI score was evaluated by determining if there was a dose-response relationship between the change from baseline in HECSI score at Week 16 and the dose administered, using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) methodology. Several candidate parametric models were assumed and multiple comparison techniques were used to choose the model(s) most likely to represent the true underlying dose-response curve."||||<0.0001
90920959|NCT03683719|181713366|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.41|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.82|-4.01||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity. Data at visits following premature discont. of IMP or initiation of rescue med. before Week 16 were considered missing and imputed with MMRM predicted values (as were any other missing data).|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Least Square (LS) Means were calculated using a mixed model for repeated measurements on the post-baseline responses up to Week 16 with an unstructured covariance matrix, Kenward-Roger approximation to estimate denominator degrees of freedom, and the mean modelled as follows:~Change from baseline in HECSI~= treatment × visit + baseline HECSI × visit + region + baseline IGA-CHE.~The primary comparison between each active delgocitinib dose and vehicle was at Week 16."||-4.01|-22.82|<0.01
90920960|NCT03683719|181713366|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.53|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.04|-0.02||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity. Data at visits following premature discont. of IMP or initiation of rescue med. before Week 16 were considered missing and imputed with MMRM predicted values (as were any other missing data).|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Least Square (LS) Means were calculated using a mixed model for repeated measurements on the post-baseline responses up to Week 16 with an unstructured covariance matrix, Kenward-Roger approximation to estimate denominator degrees of freedom, and the mean modelled as follows:~Change from baseline in HECSI~= treatment × visit + baseline HECSI × visit + region + baseline IGA-CHE.~The primary comparison between each active delgocitinib dose and vehicle was at Week 16."||-0.02|-19.04|<0.05
90920961|NCT03683719|181713366|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-20.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.56|-11.02||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity. Data at visits following premature discont. of IMP or initiation of rescue med. before Week 16 were considered missing and imputed with MMRM predicted values (as were any other missing data).|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Least Square (LS) Means were calculated using a mixed model for repeated measurements on the post-baseline responses up to Week 16 with an unstructured covariance matrix, Kenward-Roger approximation to estimate denominator degrees of freedom, and the mean modelled as follows:~Change from baseline in HECSI~= treatment × visit + baseline HECSI × visit + region + baseline IGA-CHE.~The primary comparison between each active delgocitinib dose and vehicle was at Week 16."||-11.02|-29.56|<0.0001
90940644|NCT01309243|181761210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value for the difference in change from baseline at Week 48 is from ANOVA with treatment as fixed effect.|ANOVA|||||||< 0.001
90940645|NCT01309243|181761211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value for the difference in change from baseline at Week 48 is from ANOVA with treatment as fixed effect.|ANOVA|||||||< 0.001
90940646|NCT01376050|181761218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.05
90940647|NCT01376050|181761219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
90940648|NCT01037413|181761225|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.3|-8.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||-8.1|-21.3|<0.001
90940649|NCT01037413|181761226|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.2|-8.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 8: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||-8.3|-21.2|<0.001
90940650|NCT01037413|181761226|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.3|-17.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||-17.7|-34.3|<0.001
90940651|NCT01037413|181761227|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12, Vascularity: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||-0.1|-2.3|0.033
90940652|NCT01037413|181761227|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12, Pigmentation: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||-0.4|-1.9|0.003
90940653|NCT01037413|181761227|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-0.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12, Thickness: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||-0.8|-2.5|<0.001
90920962|NCT03683719|181713366|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-15.59|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.82|-6.36||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity. Data at visits following premature discont. of IMP or initiation of rescue med. before Week 16 were considered missing and imputed with MMRM predicted values (as were any other missing data).|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Least Square (LS) Means were calculated using a mixed model for repeated measurements on the post-baseline responses up to Week 16 with an unstructured covariance matrix, Kenward-Roger approximation to estimate denominator degrees of freedom, and the mean modelled as follows:~Change from baseline in HECSI~= treatment × visit + baseline HECSI × visit + region + baseline IGA-CHE.~The primary comparison between each active delgocitinib dose and vehicle was at Week 16."||-6.36|-24.82|<0.01
90920963|NCT03683719|181713367|OTHER|Treatment groups were compared using a 2-sided log-rank test stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score. An event was defined as the first time achieving IGA-CHE TS.|||||<|0.05||||||"IGA-CHE TS was reached in less than 50% of participants, therefore the median time was not estimable.~The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity."|Log Rank|||Time to IGA-CHE TS was defined as the time from the date of the first IMP application to first assessment of IGA-CHE TS. Subjects without baseline observation were censored at the date of the first IMP application. Subjects with baseline observation not achieving IGA-CHE TS during the treatment period were censored at the date of the last visit with a valid post-baseline assessment on or prior to the date of discontinuation of IMP or initiation of rescue medication, whichever occurred first.||||<0.05
90920964|NCT03683719|181713367|OTHER|Treatment groups were compared using a 2-sided log-rank test stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score. An event was defined as the first time achieving IGA-CHE TS.|||||>|0.1||||||"IGA-CHE TS was reached in less than 50% of participants, therefore the median time was not estimable.~The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity."|Log Rank|||Time to IGA-CHE TS was defined as the time from the date of the first IMP application to first assessment of IGA-CHE TS. Subjects without baseline observation were censored at the date of the first IMP application. Subjects with baseline observation not achieving IGA-CHE TS during the treatment period were censored at the date of the last visit with a valid post-baseline assessment on or prior to the date of discontinuation of IMP or initiation of rescue medication, whichever occurred first.||||>0.1
90920965|NCT03683719|181713367|OTHER|Treatment groups were compared using a 2-sided log-rank test stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score. An event was defined as the first time achieving IGA-CHE TS.|||||<|0.0001||||||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Log Rank|||Time to IGA-CHE TS was defined as the time from the date of the first IMP application to first assessment of IGA-CHE TS. Subjects without baseline observation were censored at the date of the first IMP application. Subjects with baseline observation not achieving IGA-CHE TS during the treatment period were censored at the date of the last visit with a valid post-baseline assessment on or prior to the date of discontinuation of IMP or initiation of rescue medication, whichever occurred first.||||<0.0001
90920966|NCT03683719|181713367|OTHER|Treatment groups were compared using a 2-sided log-rank test stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score. An event was defined as the first time achieving IGA-CHE TS.|||||<|0.01||||||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Log Rank|||Time to IGA-CHE TS was defined as the time from the date of the first IMP application to first assessment of IGA-CHE TS. Subjects without baseline observation were censored at the date of the first IMP application. Subjects with baseline observation not achieving IGA-CHE TS during the treatment period were censored at the date of the last visit with a valid post-baseline assessment on or prior to the date of discontinuation of IMP or initiation of rescue medication, whichever occurred first.||||<0.01
90920967|NCT03924986|181713378|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.73|||||Estimated using a Cox proportional hazards model with Efron's method for tied events, with Arm B as the reference group. The analysis was stratified by gender and liver metastases status.|The null hypothesis to be tested is that progression-free survival (PFS) in Arm A is less than or equal to PFS in Arm B. This is compared against the alternative hypothesis, which posits that PFS in Arm A is greater than PFS in Arm B.||0.73|0.38|
90920968|NCT03924986|181713379|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|3.07|||||||Arm B was the reference group, and the odds ratio between arms was calculated using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test, stratified by gender and liver metastases status.|3.07|1.11|
90920969|NCT03924986|181713381|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.05|||||Estimated using a Cox proportional hazards model with Efron's method for tied events, with Arm B as the reference group. The analysis was stratified by gender and liver metastases status.|||1.05|0.51|
90920970|NCT03924986|181713382|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.76|||||Estimated using a Cox proportional hazards model with Efron's method for tied events, with Arm B as the reference group. The analysis was stratified by gender and liver metastases status.|The null hypothesis to be tested is that progression-free survival (PFS) in Arm A is less than or equal to PFS in Arm B. This is compared against the alternative hypothesis, which posits that PFS in Arm A is greater than PFS in Arm B.||0.76|0.38|
90920971|NCT05516147|181713395|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||A one-sample t-test was used to assess whether the mean was different from a known Constructive Engagement mean of 0.85 for standard programming.|t-test, 2 sided|||A one-sample t-test was used to assess whether the mean was different from a known Constructive Engagement mean of 0.85 for standard programming.||||<.01
90920972|NCT05516147|181713396|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||A one-sample t-test was used to assess whether the mean was different from a known Passive Engagement mean of 1.06 for standard programming.|t-test, 2 sided|A one-sample t-test was used to assess whether the mean was different from a known Passive Engagement mean of 1.06 for standard programming.||A one-sample t-test was used to assess whether the mean was different from a known Passive Engagement mean of 1.06 for standard programming.||||<.01
90920973|NCT05516147|181713397|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06||||||A one-sample t-test was used to assess whether the mean was different from a known Other Engagement mean of 0.42 for standard programming.|t-test, 2 sided|A one-sample t-test was used to assess whether the mean was different from a known Other Engagement mean of 0.42 for standard programming.||A one-sample t-test was used to assess whether the mean was different from a known Other Engagement mean of 0.42 for standard programming.||||0.06
90920974|NCT05516147|181713398|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A one-sample t-test was used to assess whether the mean was different from a known Non Engagement mean of 0.40 for standard programming.||||<.01
90920975|NCT05516147|181713400|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||baseline score vs. post-treatment, paired sample t-test||||0.81
90882016|NCT02477020|181626945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.542||||0.263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.722|3.292|||Regression, Logistic||TAK-063 versus Placebo. The p-values were obtained using a logistic regression model adjusting for treatment and the Baseline PANSS total score.|Week 5||3.292|0.722|0.263
90882017|NCT02477020|181626945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.567||||0.253||95.0|0.725|3.388|||Regression, Logistic||TAK-063 versus Placebo. The p-values were obtained using a logistic regression model adjusting for treatment and the Baseline PANSS total score.|Week 6||3.388|0.725|0.253
90882018|NCT02477020|181626946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.095||0.619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.14||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. Baseline CGI-S score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline CGI-S score-by-week interaction.|Change at Week 1||0.14|-0.23|0.619
90882019|NCT02477020|181626946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.05||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. Baseline CGI-S score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline CGI-S score-by-week interaction.|Change at Week 2||0.05|-0.48|0.116
90882020|NCT02477020|181626946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.166||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.11||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. Baseline CGI-S score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline CGI-S score-by-week interaction.|Change at Week 3||-0.11|-0.77|0.009
90920976|NCT05516147|181713401|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||baseline vs. post-treatment, paired sample t-test||||0.20
90920977|NCT05516147|181713402|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||baseline vs. post-treatment, paired sample t-test||||0.83
90920978|NCT05516147|181713403|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||baseline vs. post-treatment, paired sample t-test||||0.320
90920979|NCT01781468|181713404|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9601|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.9601
90920980|NCT01781468|181713405|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7877|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.7877
90920981|NCT01781468|181713406|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3272|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.3272
90920982|NCT01781468|181713407|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9122|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Baseline to Week 4||||0.9122
90920983|NCT01781468|181713407|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8559|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Baseline to Week 8||||0.8559
90920984|NCT04410042|181713441|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test at 0.05 level.||||||0.4|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.4000
90920985|NCT04410042|181713442|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test at 0.05 level.||||||0.4286|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.4286
90920986|NCT04410042|181713443|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test at 0.05 level.||||||0.9307|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.9307
90920987|NCT04410042|181713444|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test at 0.05 level.||||||0.0714|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.0714
90920988|NCT04410042|181713445|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test at 0.05 level.||||||0.9004|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.9004
90920989|NCT03526874|181713461|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.013
90920990|NCT03526874|181713462|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.031|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.031
90920991|NCT03526874|181713463|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0162|||||||ANOVA|Two-way Anova to test sex interaction with treatment effect. The study was not powered for subgroup analyses.||||||0.0162
90920992|NCT03526874|181713464|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||Two-way Anova to test sex interaction with treatment effect. The study was not powered for subgroup analyses.|ANOVA|||||||0.04
90920993|NCT03526874|181713465|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0098|||||||ANOVA|Two-way Anova to test ethnicity interaction with treatment effect. The study was not powered for subgroup analyses.||||||0.0098
90920994|NCT03526874|181713466|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||ANOVA|Two-way Anova to test ethnicity interaction with treatment effect. The study was not powered for subgroup analyses.||||||0.02
90920995|NCT03526874|181713467|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|Two-way Anova to test race interaction with treatment effect. The study was not powered for subgroup analyses.||||||0.01
90920996|NCT03526874|181713468|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0329|||||||ANOVA|Two-way Anova to test race interaction with treatment effect. The study was not powered for subgroup analyses.||||||0.0329
90920997|NCT03526874|181713469|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.294|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.294
90920998|NCT03526874|181713470|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.058|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.058
90920999|NCT03526874|181713471|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.182|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.182
90921000|NCT03526874|181713472|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.423|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.423
90921001|NCT03526874|181713473|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.030
90921002|NCT03526874|181713474|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.112|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.112
90921003|NCT03526874|181713475|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.052|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.052
90921004|NCT03526874|181713476|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.027
90940654|NCT01037413|181761227|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-1.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12, Relief: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||-1.0|-2.7|<0.001
90940655|NCT01037413|181761227|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12, Pliability: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||-0.3|-1.9|0.012
90940656|NCT01037413|181761227|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12, Surface Area: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||-0.5|-2.4|0.003
90940657|NCT01037413|181761227|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-1.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12, Overall Opinion: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||-1.1|-2.6|<0.001
90940658|NCT01037413|181761227|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|-4.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12, Composite Score: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||-4.0|-12.7|<0.001
90940659|NCT01037413|181761227|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-1.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24, Vascularity: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||-1.4|-3.2|<0.001
91034221|NCT03238781|181954688|SUPERIORITY||difference in least square mean|0.27||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|1.43||2-sided significance level of 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||An adjusted analysis is presented that utilized a generalized linear mixed model which included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, stratification factors of region and baseline migraine frequency (chronic migraine vs episodic migraine), and baseline value as covariates and assuming a first-order autoregressive covariance structure. The p-values for pairwise comparisons versus placebo are nominal p-values without multiplicity adjustment.||1.43|-0.89|0.65
91034222|NCT03238781|181954689|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.62||2-sided significance level of 0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The common odds ratios and p-values are obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by stratification factors of region and baseline migraine frequency (chronic migraine vs episodic migraine).||1.62|0.41|0.57
90921005|NCT02596126|181713499|NON_INFERIORITY|"Non-inferiority hypothesis will be tested using a univariable Cox PH regression model including treatment group as the only covariate and stratified by country.~One-sided non-inferiority test on the primary endpoint where the alpha level will be set to 2.5%.~All statistical analyses will use 95% confidence intervals (CI). If the non-inferiority hypothesis is confirmed, it will be followed with a test of superiority using a log-rank test."|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76|||<|0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.96|||Regression, Cox|||||0.96|0.6|< 0.025
90921006|NCT02596126|181713499|SUPERIORITY|If the non-inferiority hypothesis is confirmed, it will be followed with a test of superiority using a logrank test.|||||<|0.05|||||||Log Rank|||||||< 0.05
90921007|NCT02596126|181713500|EQUIVALENCE|Treatment adherence is measured at visit 1 (6 months) and visit 3 (24 months) using the Morisky-Medication Adherence Scale (8 item) Questionnaire (MMAS-8). The number and percentage of patients with low (0-5), medium (6-7) and high (8) adherence will be reported by treatment group. The distributions of the MMAS-8 score at 6 months and 24 months will be compared between treatment groups using an ordinal logistic regression model.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.13|||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.2|||Chi-squared|||Statistical analysis title - Treatment adherence at 6 months||1.2|1.06|< 0.005
90921008|NCT02596126|181713501|SUPERIORITY|Time to first event will be investigated using Cox proportional hazards regression. Hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals will be obtained from the Cox proportional hazards model. P-values will be obtained using the log-rank test.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.25|||Log Rank|||Statistical analysis title - All-cause death||1.25|0.75|< 0.05
90940660|NCT01037413|181761227|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-0.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24, Pigmentation: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||-0.9|-2.9|<0.001
90882021|NCT02477020|181626946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.0||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. Baseline CGI-S score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline CGI-S score-by-week interaction.|Change at Week 4||0.00|-0.72|0.049
90882022|NCT02477020|181626946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.191||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.09||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. Baseline CGI-S score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline CGI-S score-by-week interaction.|Change at Week 5||-0.09|-0.85|0.016
90882023|NCT02477020|181626946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.202||0.035||95.0|-0.83|-0.03||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. Baseline CGI-S score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline CGI-S score-by-week interaction.|Change at Week 6||-0.03|-0.83|0.035
90940661|NCT01037413|181761227|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-0.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24, Thickness: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||-0.8|-2.8|0.001
90940662|NCT01037413|181761227|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|-1.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24, Relief: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||-1.3|-3.6|<0.001
90940663|NCT01037413|181761227|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-0.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24, Pliability: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||-0.7|-3.2|0.005
91034223|NCT03238781|181954689|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.54||2-sided significance level of 0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The common odds ratios and p-values are obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by stratification factors of region and baseline migraine frequency (chronic migraine vs episodic migraine).||1.54|0.37|0.45
90921009|NCT02596126|181713502|EQUIVALENCE|Treatment adherence is measured at visit 1 (6 months) and visit 3 (24 months) using the Morisky- Medication Adherence Scale (8 item) Questionnaire (MMAS-8). The number and percentage of patients with low (0-5), medium (6-7) and high(8) adherence will be reported by treatment group. The distributions of the MMAS-8 score at 6 months and 24 months will be compared between treatment groups using an ordinal logistic regression model.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17|||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.25|||Chi-squared|||Statistical analysis title - Treatment adherence at 24 months||1.25|1.1|< 0.005
90921010|NCT02596126|181713503|EQUIVALENCE|The following three CV risk factors, systolic blood pressure(SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP) and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels are measured at baseline, visit 1 (6 months), visit 2 (12 months) and visit 3 (24 months).For each of the three risk factors the frequency, mean and standard deviation at each visit will be reported by treatment group. The difference in mean change from baseline between groups will be compared using ANCOVA.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.2||The difference in mean change from baseline between groups will be compared using ANCOVA (adjusting for baseline levels) at 6 months, 12 months and 24 months. The difference in mean change adjusting for baseline and 95% CI will be reported.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis title - SBP - 6 months||1.2|-1.8|< 0.05
90940664|NCT01037413|181761227|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-1.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24, Surface Area: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||-1.2|-3.1|<0.001
91034224|NCT03238781|181954690|SUPERIORITY||difference in least square mean|-0.03||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.81||2-sided significance level of 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Adjusted analysis utilizes a generalized linear mixed model which includes treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, stratification factors of region and baseline migraine frequency (CM versus EM), and baseline value as covariates and assuming a first-order autoregressive covariance structure. The p-values for pairwise comparisons versus placebo are nominal p-values without multiplicity adjustment.||0.81|-0.87|0.94
91034225|NCT03238781|181954690|SUPERIORITY||difference in least square mean|-0.09||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.77||2-sided significance level of 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.77|-0.94|0.84
90962511|NCT01009554|181805889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.025|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0186||0.185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.012|0.062||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain intensity for the body region and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.062|-0.012|0.185
90962512|NCT01009554|181805890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.049|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0196||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.088||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain intensity for the body region and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.088|0.010|0.014
90962513|NCT01009554|181805891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016||0.623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.024||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain area for the body region and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.024|-0.040|0.623
90962514|NCT01009554|181805892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0186||0.192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.013|0.061||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain area for the body region and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.061|-0.013|0.192
90962515|NCT01009554|181805893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.057|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0213||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.014|0.099||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain area for the body region and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.099|0.014|0.009
90962516|NCT01009554|181805894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0384||0.893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.081|0.071||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain score for the facial region and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.071|-0.081|0.893
90962517|NCT01009554|181805895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0476||0.655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.073|0.116||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain score for the facial region and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.116|-0.073|0.655
90962518|NCT01009554|181805896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.222|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0693||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.084|0.359||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain score for the facial region and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.359|0.084|0.002
90962519|NCT01009554|181805897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0187||0.914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.039|0.035||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain intensity for the facial region and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.035|-0.039|0.914
90962520|NCT01009554|181805898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0229||0.646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.035|0.056||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain intensity for the facial region and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.056|-0.035|0.646
90962521|NCT01009554|181805899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.102|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0309||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.163||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain intensity for the facial region and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.163|0.040|0.001
91034226|NCT03238781|181954691|SUPERIORITY||difference in least square mean|-0.28||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.56|2.01||2-sided significance level of 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||An adjusted analysis is presented that utilized a generalized linear mixed model which included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, stratification factors of region and baseline migraine frequency (chronic migraine vs episodic migraine), and baseline value as covariates and assuming a first-order autoregressive covariance structure. The p-values for pairwise comparisons versus placebo are nominal p-values without multiplicity adjustment.||2.01|-2.56|0.81
90921011|NCT02596126|181713504|EQUIVALENCE|The following three CV risk factors, systolic blood pressure(SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP) and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels are measured at baseline, visit 1 (6 months), visit 2 (12 months) and visit 3 (24 months).For each of the three risk factors the frequency, mean and standard deviation at each visit will be reported by treatment group. The difference in mean change from baseline between groups will be compared using ANCOVA.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|3.0||The difference in mean change from baseline between groups will be compared using ANCOVA (adjusting for baseline levels) at 6 months, 12 months and 24 months. The difference in mean change adjusting for baseline and 95% CI will be reported.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis title - SBP - 12 months||3|-0.1|< 0.05
90921012|NCT02596126|181713505|EQUIVALENCE|The following three CV risk factors, systolic blood pressure(SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP) and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels are measured at baseline, visit 1 (6 months), visit 2 (12 months) and visit 3 (24 months).For each of the three risk factors the frequency, mean and standard deviation at each visit will be reported by treatment group. The difference in mean change from baseline between groups will be compared using ANCOVA.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.4||The difference in mean change from baseline between groups will be compared using ANCOVA (adjusting for baseline levels) at 6 months, 12 months and 24 months. The difference in mean change adjusting for baseline and 95% CI will be reported.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis title - SBP - 24 months||1.4|-1.7|< 0.05
90921013|NCT02596126|181713506|EQUIVALENCE|The following three CV risk factors, systolic blood pressure(SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP) and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels are measured at baseline, visit 1 (6 months), visit 2 (12 months) and visit 3 (24 months).For each of the three risk factors the frequency, mean and standard deviation at each visit will be reported by treatment group. The difference in mean change from baseline between groups will be compared using ANCOVA.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.0||The difference in mean change from baseline between groups will be compared using ANCOVA (adjusting for baseline levels) at 6 months, 12 months and 24 months. The difference in mean change adjusting for baseline and 95% CI will be reported.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis title - DBP - 6 months||1|-0.7|< 0.05
90921014|NCT02596126|181713507|EQUIVALENCE|The following three CV risk factors, systolic blood pressure(SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP) and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels are measured at baseline, visit 1 (6 months), visit 2 (12 months) and visit 3 (24 months).For each of the three risk factors the frequency, mean and standard deviation at each visit will be reported by treatment group. The difference in mean change from baseline between groups will be compared using ANCOVA.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.6||The difference in mean change from baseline between groups will be compared using ANCOVA (adjusting for baseline levels) at 6 months, 12 months and 24 months. The difference in mean change adjusting for baseline and 95% CI will be reported.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis title - DBP - 12 months||1.6|-0.1|< 0.05
90921015|NCT02596126|181713508|EQUIVALENCE|The following three CV risk factors, systolic blood pressure(SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP) and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels are measured at baseline, visit 1 (6 months), visit 2 (12 months) and visit 3 (24 months).For each of the three risk factors the frequency, mean and standard deviation at each visit will be reported by treatment group. The difference in mean change from baseline between groups will be compared using ANCOVA.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.0||The difference in mean change from baseline between groups will be compared using ANCOVA (adjusting for baseline levels) at 6 months, 12 months and 24 months. The difference in mean change adjusting for baseline and 95% CI will be reported.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis title - DBP - 24 months||1|-0.9|< 0.05
90921016|NCT02596126|181713509|EQUIVALENCE|The following three CV risk factors, systolic blood pressure(SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP) and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels are measured at baseline, visit 1 (6 months), visit 2 (12 months) and visit 3 (24 months).For each of the three risk factors the frequency, mean and standard deviation at each visit will be reported by treatment group. The difference in mean change from baseline between groups will be compared using ANCOVA.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|4.4|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis title - LDL cholesterol - 12 months||4.4|-0.2|< 0.05
90921017|NCT02596126|181713510|EQUIVALENCE|The following three CV risk factors, systolic blood pressure(SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP) and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels are measured at baseline, visit 1 (6 months), visit 2 (12 months) and visit 3 (24 months).For each of the three risk factors the frequency, mean and standard deviation at each visit will be reported by treatment group. The difference in mean change from baseline between groups will be compared using ANCOVA.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|2.4|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis title - LDL cholesterol - 24 months||2.4|-2.5|< 0.05
90921018|NCT02596126|181713511|NON_INFERIORITY|"Non-inferiority hypothesis will be tested using a univariable Cox PH regression model including treatment group as the only covariate and stratified by country.~One-sided non-inferiority test on the primary endpoint where the alpha level will be set to 2.5%.~All statistical analyses will use 95% confidence intervals (CI).If the non-inferiority hypothesis is confirmed, it will be followed with a test of superiority using a log-rank test."|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7|||<|0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.9|||Regression, Cox|||||0.90|0.54|< 0.025
90921019|NCT02596126|181713511|SUPERIORITY|If the non-inferiority hypothesis is confirmed, it will be followed with a test of superiority using a logrank test.|||||<|0.05|||||||Log Rank|||||||< 0.05
90921020|NCT02596126|181713512|NON_INFERIORITY|"Non-inferiority hypothesis will be tested using a univariable Cox PH regression model including treatment group as the only covariate and stratified by country.~One-sided non-inferiority test on the primary endpoint where the alpha level will be set to 2.5%.~All statistical analyses will use 95% confidence intervals (CI).If the non-inferiority hypothesis is confirmed, it will be followed with a test of superiority using a log-rank test."|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67|||<|0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.97|||Regression, Cox|||||0.97|0.47|< 0.025
90921021|NCT02596126|181713512|SUPERIORITY|If the non-inferiority hypothesis is confirmed, it will be followed with a test of superiority using a logrank test.|||||<|0.05|||||||Log Rank|||||||< 0.05
90940665|NCT01037413|181761227|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-1.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24, Overall Opinion: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||-1.5|-3.3|<0.001
90921022|NCT02596126|181713513|NON_INFERIORITY|"Non-inferiority hypothesis will be tested using a univariable Cox PH regression model including treatment group as the only covariate and stratified by country.~One-sided non-inferiority test on the primary endpoint where the alpha level will be set to 2.5%.~All statistical analyses will use 95% confidence intervals (CI).If the non-inferiority hypothesis is confirmed, it will be followed with a test of superiority using a log-rank test."|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||<|0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.05|||Regression, Cox|||||1.05|0.48|< 0.025
90921023|NCT02596126|181713513|SUPERIORITY|If the non-inferiority hypothesis is confirmed, it will be followed with a test of superiority using a logrank test.|||||<|0.05|||||||Log Rank|||||||< 0.05
90921024|NCT02596126|181713514|NON_INFERIORITY|"Non-inferiority hypothesis will be tested using a univariable Cox PH regression model including treatment group as the only covariate and stratified by country.~One-sided non-inferiority test on the primary endpoint where the alpha level will be set to 2.5%.~All statistical analyses will use 95% confidence intervals (CI).If the non-inferiority hypothesis is confirmed, it will be followed with a test of superiority using a log-rank test."|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7|||<|0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.26|||Regression, Cox|||||1.26|0.39|< 0.025
90921025|NCT02596126|181713514|SUPERIORITY|If the non-inferiority hypothesis is confirmed, it will be followed with a test of superiority using a logrank test.|||||<|0.05|||||||Log Rank|||||||< 0.05
90921026|NCT02596126|181713515|NON_INFERIORITY|"Non-inferiority hypothesis will be tested using a univariable Cox PH regression model including treatment group as the only covariate and stratified by country.~One-sided non-inferiority test on the primary endpoint where the alpha level will be set to 2.5%.~All statistical analyses will use 95% confidence intervals (CI).If the non-inferiority hypothesis is confirmed, it will be followed with a test of superiority using a log-rank test."|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96|||<|0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.63|||Regression, Cox|||||1.63|0.57|< 0.025
90921027|NCT02596126|181713515|SUPERIORITY|If the non-inferiority hypothesis is confirmed, it will be followed with a test of superiority using a logrank test.|||||<|0.05|||||||Log Rank|||||||< 0.05
90921028|NCT02596126|181713516|EQUIVALENCE|Mean and standard devation for each score will be reported by treatment group at 6 months and 2 years. Comparison of mean scores between treatment groups at 6 months and 2 years will be made using a two-sample t-test. The difference in mean score and 95% CI will be reported.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.09|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|4.79|||t-test, 2 sided|||Patient satisfaction is measured at visit 1 (6 months) and visit 3 (2 years) using the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM) version 1.4 a 14-item psychometric instrument comprising of four domains: effectiveness (questions 1 to 3), side effects (questions 4 to 8), convenience (questions 9 to 11) and global satisfaction (questions 12 to 14).||4.79|1.38|< 0.05
90921029|NCT02596126|181713517|EQUIVALENCE|Mean and standard devation for each score will be reported by treatment group at 6 months and 2 years. Comparison of mean scores between treatment groups at 6 months and 2 years will be made using a two-sample t-test. The difference in mean score and 95% CI will be reported.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.19|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.73|2.35|||t-test, 2 sided|||Patient satisfaction is measured at visit 1 (6 months) and visit 3 (2 years) using the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM) version 1.4 a 14-item psychometric instrument comprising of four domains: effectiveness (questions 1 to 3), side effects (questions 4 to 8), convenience (questions 9 to 11) and global satisfaction (questions 12 to 14).||2.35|-12.73|< 0.05
90921030|NCT02596126|181713518|EQUIVALENCE|Mean and standard devation for each score will be reported by treatment group at 6 months and 2 years. Comparison of mean scores between treatment groups at 6 months and 2 years will be made using a two-sample t-test. The difference in mean score and 95% CI will be reported.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.09|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.57|8.62|||t-test, 2 sided|||Patient satisfaction is measured at visit 1 (6 months) and visit 3 (2 years) using the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM) version 1.4 a 14-item psychometric instrument comprising of four domains: effectiveness (questions 1 to 3), side effects (questions 4 to 8), convenience (questions 9 to 11) and global satisfaction (questions 12 to 14).||8.62|5.57|< 0.05
90921031|NCT02596126|181713519|EQUIVALENCE|Mean and standard devation for each score will be reported by treatment group at 6 months and 2 years. Comparison of mean scores between treatment groups at 6 months and 2 years will be made using a two-sample t-test. The difference in mean score and 95% CI will be reported.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.79|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.04|5.55|||t-test, 2 sided|||Patient satisfaction is measured at visit 1 (6 months) and visit 3 (2 years) using the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM) version 1.4 a 14-item psychometric instrument comprising of four domains: effectiveness (questions 1 to 3), side effects (questions 4 to 8), convenience (questions 9 to 11) and global satisfaction (questions 12 to 14).||5.55|2.04|< 0.05
90940666|NCT01037413|181761227|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|-7.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24, Composite Score: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||-7.4|-17.7|<0.001
90940667|NCT01037413|181761228|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12 Pain: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||0.0|-1.3|0.067
90921032|NCT02596126|181713520|EQUIVALENCE|Mean and standard devation for each score will be reported by treatment group at 6 months and 2 years. Comparison of mean scores between treatment groups at 6 months and 2 years will be made using a two-sample t-test. The difference in mean score and 95% CI will be reported.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.26|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.59|6.94|||t-test, 2 sided|||Patient satisfaction is measured at visit 1 (6 months) and visit 3 (2 years) using the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM) version 1.4 a 14-item psychometric instrument comprising of four domains: effectiveness (questions 1 to 3), side effects (questions 4 to 8), convenience (questions 9 to 11) and global satisfaction (questions 12 to 14).||6.94|3.59|< 0.05
90921033|NCT02596126|181713521|EQUIVALENCE|Mean and standard devation for each score will be reported by treatment group at 6 months and 2 years. Comparison of mean scores between treatment groups at 6 months and 2 years will be made using a two-sample t-test. The difference in mean score and 95% CI will be reported.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.55|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.35|13.46|||t-test, 2 sided|||Patient satisfaction is measured at visit 1 (6 months) and visit 3 (2 years) using the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM) version 1.4 a 14-item psychometric instrument comprising of four domains: effectiveness (questions 1 to 3), side effects (questions 4 to 8), convenience (questions 9 to 11) and global satisfaction (questions 12 to 14).||13.46|-4.35|< 0.05
90921034|NCT02596126|181713522|EQUIVALENCE|Mean and standard devation for each score will be reported by treatment group at 6 months and 2 years. Comparison of mean scores between treatment groups at 6 months and 2 years will be made using a two-sample t-test. The difference in mean score and 95% CI will be reported.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.11|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.55|8.67|||t-test, 2 sided|||Patient satisfaction is measured at visit 1 (6 months) and visit 3 (2 years) using the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM) version 1.4 a 14-item psychometric instrument comprising of four domains: effectiveness (questions 1 to 3), side effects (questions 4 to 8), convenience (questions 9 to 11) and global satisfaction (questions 12 to 14).||8.67|5.55|< 0.05
90921035|NCT02596126|181713523|EQUIVALENCE|Mean and standard devation for each score will be reported by treatment group at 6 months and 2 years. Comparison of mean scores between treatment groups at 6 months and 2 years will be made using a two-sample t-test. The difference in mean score and 95% CI will be reported.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.6|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.93|8.27|||t-test, 2 sided|||Patient satisfaction is measured at visit 1 (6 months) and visit 3 (2 years) using the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM) version 1.4 a 14-item psychometric instrument comprising of four domains: effectiveness (questions 1 to 3), side effects (questions 4 to 8), convenience (questions 9 to 11) and global satisfaction (questions 12 to 14).||8.27|4.93|< 0.05
90921036|NCT02596126|181713524|SUPERIORITY|Time to first event will be investigated using Cox proportional hazards regression. Hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals will be obtained from the Cox proportional hazards model. P-values will be obtained using the log-rank test.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.42|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|2.07|||Log Rank|||Statistical analysis title - Non-cardiovascular death||2.07|0.97|< 0.05
90921037|NCT02815813|181713525|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||GLMM|||||||<0.01
90921038|NCT02815813|181713526|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||GLMM|||||||<0.01
90921039|NCT04490915|181713542|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-17.022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.433|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.802|-10.243|||ANCOVA||LS Mean Difference of Crinecerfont - Placebo|||-10.243|-23.802|<0.0001
90921040|NCT03149315|181713554|SUPERIORITY|Values for grouped data were reported as mean ± SD and were calculated using Graphpad Prism 7 software (La Jolla, CA), which was also used for generating figures and for statistical analyses. Changes in skin test area (wheal and flare) were analyzed at each time point (after 2 doses, 4 doses, etc) using Friedman tests for grouped analysis and Wilcoxon signed rank tests between pairs.|||||<|0.0001||||||The above p value reflects the statistical analysis of skin test area between baseline and 2 doses of ibrutinib.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Changes in skin test area at each time point were analyzed using Friedman tests for grouped analysis and Wilcoxon signed rank tests between pairs.||||||<0.0001
90921041|NCT03149315|181713555|SUPERIORITY|Changes in BAT were analyzed at each time point (after 2 doses, 4 doses, etc) using repeated measures ANOVA for grouped analysis and paired Students t tests between pairs. A p value \< 0.05 was considered significant.|||||<|0.001||||||The above p value reflects the statistical analysis of BAT between baseline and 2 doses of ibrutinib.|ANOVA|Changes in BAT were analyzed at each time point using repeated measures ANOVA for grouped analysis and paired Students t tests between pairs.||||||<0.001
90921042|NCT05324124|181713592|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Mean|0.952|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.876|1.03||||||||1.03|0.876|
90921043|NCT05324124|181713593|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Mean|0.949|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.869|1.04||||||||1.04|0.869|
90921044|NCT05324124|181713594|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Mean|0.829|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.744|0.925||||||||0.925|0.744|
90921045|NCT03761537|181713629|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis of no difference between Tralokinumab+TCS and placebo+TCS was tested at a 5% significance level against the 2-sided alternative that there was a difference.|Risk Difference (RD)|14.1||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|25.7||This endpoint was the first endpoint in the sequential testing hierarchy.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel (MH) test stratified by prior CSA use and baseline disease severity. MH risk differences and standard errors combined by Rubin's rule.||Subjects who received rescue treatment or permanently discontinued IMP, without prior subject-onset of the COVID-19 pandemic (SOC19), were considered non-responders after the relevant event occurred. Any data from subjects who had SOC19 as their first prior intercurrent event (ICE) were multiple imputed (MI) assuming missing at random (MAR) following start of SOC19. Data missing prior to any ICE were handled as non-response, except data missing due to the pandemic, which was MI assuming MAR.||25.7|2.5|0.018
90940668|NCT01037413|181761228|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12, Itching: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||0.5|-1.2|0.413
90962522|NCT01009554|181805900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0179||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.034|0.037||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain area for the facial region and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.037|-0.034|0.930
90962523|NCT01009554|181805901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0224||0.486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.029|0.06||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain area for the facial region and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.060|-0.029|0.486
90962524|NCT01009554|181805902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.112|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0338||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.045|0.18||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain area for the facial region and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.180|0.045|0.001
90962525|NCT01009554|181805903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1006||0.237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.32||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain score for the lingual region and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.320|-0.080|0.237
90962526|NCT01009554|181805904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.521|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.112|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.298|0.743||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain score for the lingual region and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.743|0.298|<0.001
91034227|NCT03238781|181954691|SUPERIORITY||difference in least square mean|0.31||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.01|2.63||2-sided significance level of 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||An adjusted analysis is presented that utilized a generalized linear mixed model which included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, stratification factors of region and baseline migraine frequency (chronic migraine vs episodic migraine), and baseline value as covariates and assuming a first-order autoregressive covariance structure. The p-values for pairwise comparisons versus placebo are nominal p-values without multiplicity adjustment.||2.63|-2.01|0.79
90962527|NCT01009554|181805905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.567|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1367|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.295|0.839||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain score for the lingual region and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.839|0.295|<0.001
91034228|NCT03238781|181954692|SUPERIORITY||difference in least square mean|-0.86||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.15|1.44||2-sided significance level of 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||An adjusted analysis is presented that utilized a generalized linear mixed model which included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, stratification factors of region and baseline migraine frequency (chronic migraine vs episodic migraine), and baseline value as covariates and assuming a first-order autoregressive covariance structure. The p-values for pairwise comparisons versus placebo are nominal p-values without multiplicity adjustment.||1.44|-3.15|0.46
90921046|NCT03761537|181713630|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis of no difference between Tralokinumab+TCS and placebo+TCS was tested at a 5% significance level against the 2-sided alternative that there was a difference.|Risk Difference (RD)|9.7||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|21.4||This endpoint was the second endpoint in the sequential testing hierarchy. Acceptance of this endpoint depends on prior endpoints' acceptance.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel (MH) test stratified by prior CSA use and baseline disease severity. MH risk differences and standard errors combined by Rubin's rule.||Subjects who received rescue treatment or permanently discontinued IMP, without prior subject-onset of the COVID-19 pandemic (SOC19), were considered non-responders after the relevant event occurred. Any data from subjects who had SOC19 as their first prior intercurrent event (ICE) were multiple imputed (MI) assuming missing at random (MAR) following start of SOC19. Data missing prior to any ICE were handled as non-response, except data missing due to the pandemic, which was MI assuming MAR.||21.4|-2.0|0.106
90921047|NCT03761537|181713631|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis of no difference between Tralokinumab+TCS and placebo+TCS was tested at a 5% significance level against the 2-sided alternative that there was a difference.|Difference|-8.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|-4.2||This was the third endpoint in the sequential testing hierarchy. Acceptance of this endpoint depends on prior endpoints' acceptance.|Repeated measurements model|Treatment effect at each visit adjusted for baseline SCORAD interacting with each visit, prior CSA, and baseline disease severity (IGA 3 or 4).||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of IMP, after initiation of rescue treatment, or after subject-onset of the COVID-19 pandemic will not be included in the analysis.||-4.2|-13.0|<0.001
90921048|NCT03761537|181713632|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis of no difference between Tralokinumab+TCS and placebo+TCS was tested at a 5% significance level against the 2-sided alternative that there was a difference.|Difference|-1.5||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-0.4||This was the fourth endpoint in the sequential testing hierarchy. Acceptance of this endpoint depends on prior endpoints' acceptance.|Repeated measurements model|Treatment effect at each visit adjusted for baseline DLQI interacting with each visit, prior CSA, and baseline disease severity (IGA 3 or 4).||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of IMP, after initiation of rescue treatment, or after subject-onset of the COVID-19 pandemic will not be included in the analysis.||-0.4|-2.6|0.009
90921049|NCT03761537|181713633|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis of no difference between Tralokinumab+TCS and placebo+TCS was tested at a 5% significance level against the 2-sided alternative that there was a difference.|Risk Difference (RD)|15.6||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.8|26.3||This endpoint was the fifth endpoint in the sequential testing hierarchy. Acceptance of this endpoint depends on prior endpoints' acceptance.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel (MH) test stratified by prior CSA use and baseline disease severity. MH risk differences and standard errors combined by Rubin's rule.||Subjects who received rescue treatment or permanently discontinued IMP, without prior subject-onset of the COVID-19 pandemic (SOC19), were considered non-responders after the relevant event occurred. Any data from subjects who had SOC19 as their first prior intercurrent event (ICE) were multiple imputed (MI) assuming missing at random (MAR) following start of SOC19. Data missing prior to any ICE were handled as non-response, except data missing due to the pandemic, which was MI assuming MAR.||26.3|4.8|0.005
90921050|NCT03761537|181713634|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis of no difference between Tralokinumab+TCS and placebo+TCS was tested at a 5% significance level against the 2-sided alternative that there was a difference.|Risk Difference (RD)|14.1||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|25.3||This endpoint was the sixth endpoint in the sequential testing hierarchy. Acceptance of this endpoint depends on prior endpoints' acceptance.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel (MH) test stratified by prior CSA use and baseline disease severity. MH risk differences and standard errors combined by Rubin's rule.||Subjects who received rescue treatment or permanently discontinued IMP, without prior subject-onset of the COVID-19 pandemic (SOC19), were considered non-responders after the relevant event occurred. Any data from subjects who had SOC19 as their first prior intercurrent event (ICE) were multiple imputed (MI) assuming missing at random (MAR) following start of SOC19. Data missing prior to any ICE were handled as non-response, except data missing due to the pandemic, which was MI assuming MAR.||25.3|2.9|0.014
90921051|NCT03761537|181713635|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis of no difference between Tralokinumab+TCS and placebo+TCS was tested at a 5% significance level against the 2-sided alternative that there was a difference.|Risk Difference (RD)|7.3||||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|19.2||This endpoint was the seventh endpoint in the sequential testing hierarchy. Acceptance of this endpoint depends on prior endpoints' acceptance.|Mantel Haenszel|HaenszMantelel (MH) test stratified by prior CSA use and baseline disease severity. MH risk differences and standard errors combined by Rubin's rule.||Subjects who received rescue treatment or permanently discontinued IMP, without prior subject-onset of the COVID-19 pandemic (SOC19), were considered non-responders after the relevant event occurred. Any data from subjects who had SOC19 as their first prior intercurrent event (ICE) were multiple imputed (MI) assuming missing at random (MAR) following start of SOC19. Data missing prior to any ICE were handled as non-response, except data missing due to the pandemic, which was MI assuming MAR.||19.2|-4.6|0.228
90921052|NCT03761537|181713636|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis of no difference between Tralokinumab+TCS and placebo+TCS was tested at a 5% significance level against the 2-sided alternative that there was a difference.|Difference|-8.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|-4.6||This endpoint was the eighth endpoint in the sequential testing hierarchy. Acceptance of this endpoint depends on prior endpoints' acceptance.|Repeated measurements model|Unstructured covariance matrix. Adjusted for baseline SCORAD in interaction with each visit, prior CSA use, and baseline disease severity (IGA 3 or 4)||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of IMP, after initiation of rescue treatment, or after subject-onset of the COVID-19 pandemic will not be included in the analysis.||-4.6|-13.2|<0.001
90921053|NCT03761537|181713637|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis of no difference between Tralokinumab+TCS and placebo+TCS was tested at a 5% significance level against the 2-sided alternative that there was a difference.|Difference|-1.6||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.5||This endpoint was the ninth endpoint in the sequential testing hierarchy. Acceptance of this endpoint depends on prior endpoints' acceptance.|Repeated measurements model|Unstructured covariance matrix. Adjusted for baseline DLQI in interaction with each visit, prior CSA use, and baseline disease severity (IGA 3 or 4)||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of IMP, after initiation of rescue treatment, or after subject-onset of the COVID-19 pandemic will not be included in the analysis.||-0.5|-2.7|0.005
90940669|NCT01037413|181761228|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12, Color: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||0.7|-1.6|0.401
90940670|NCT01037413|181761228|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12, Stiffness: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||0.2|-2.4|0.083
90940671|NCT01037413|181761228|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12, Thickness: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||0.0|-2.3|0.052
90962528|NCT01009554|181805906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.062|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0491||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.036|0.16||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain intensity for the lingual region and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.160|-0.036|0.210
90940672|NCT01037413|181761228|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12, Irregular: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||-0.1|-2.3|0.036
90962529|NCT01009554|181805907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.262|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.153|0.372||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain intensity for the lingual region and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.372|0.153|<0.001
91034229|NCT03238781|181954692|SUPERIORITY||difference in least square mean|0.56||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|2.89||2-sided significance level of 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||An adjusted analysis is presented that utilized a generalized linear mixed model which included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, stratification factors of region and baseline migraine frequency (chronic migraine vs episodic migraine), and baseline value as covariates and assuming a first-order autoregressive covariance structure. The p-values for pairwise comparisons versus placebo are nominal p-values without multiplicity adjustment.||2.89|-1.77|0.64
91034230|NCT03161405|181954702|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.9827|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.6446|2.3904||||||A paired t-test on the natural log-transformed parameters was performed. The mean difference and its 90 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) for the log-transformed parameters were exponentiated to obtain the point estimates of the itraconazole effect and 90% CIs.||2.3904|1.6446|
91034231|NCT03161405|181954703|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.2914|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1199|1.4891||||||A paired t-test on the natural log-transformed parameters was performed. The mean difference and its 90% CI for the log-transformed parameters were exponentiated to obtain the point estimates of the itraconazole effect and 90% CIs.||1.4891|1.1199|
90921054|NCT03761537|181713638|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis of no difference between Tralokinumab+TCS and placebo+TCS was tested at a 5% significance level against the 2-sided alternative that there was a difference.|Risk Difference (RD)|14.3||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|25.6||This endpoint was the tenth endpoint in the sequential testing hierarchy. Acceptance of this endpoint depends on prior endpoints' acceptance.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel (MH) test stratified by prior CSA use and baseline disease severity. MH risk differences and standard errors combined by Rubin's rule.||Subjects who received rescue treatment or permanently discontinued IMP, without prior subject-onset of the COVID-19 pandemic (SOC19), were considered non-responders after the relevant event occurred. Any data from subjects who had SOC19 as their first prior intercurrent event (ICE) were multiple imputed (MI) assuming missing at random (MAR) following start of SOC19. Data missing prior to any ICE were handled as non-response, except data missing due to the pandemic, which was MI assuming MAR.||25.6|2.9|0.014
90921055|NCT02437318|181713660|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||0.00065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.85||(one-sided)|Log Rank|||||0.85|0.50|0.00065
90921056|NCT05493423|181713677|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis is that the difference between the rates of completed hemodialysis sessions for the test and control groups is less than or equal to the non-inferiority margin (indicating inferior success rate). Rejection of the null hypothesis indicates the data supports the alternative hypothesis that the difference between the rates of successfully completed HD sessions for the test and control groups is at least the non-inferiority margin (indicating non-inferior success rate).||||||0.008|||||||Farrington-Manning|non-inferiority margin = 0.08||||||.008
90921057|NCT05493423|181713677|EQUIVALENCE|non-inferiority margin = 0.08||||||0.002|||||||Equivalence Test with paired data|||||||.002
90921058|NCT05493423|181713678|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||The p-value was calculated, but was low enough to be rounded down to 0 by the statistical software.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0
90921059|NCT05493423|181713679|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84||||||P \< 0.05 is considered significant|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.84
90921060|NCT05493423|181713680|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.132|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.132
90921061|NCT05493423|181713681|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84||||||P \< 0.05 is considered significant|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.84
90921062|NCT05493423|181713682|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.197||||||P \< 0.05 is considered significant|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.197
90921063|NCT05493423|181713683|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.424|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.424
90921064|NCT05493423|181713684|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||The p-value was calculated, but was low enough to be rounded down to 0 by the statistical software.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0
90882024|NCT02477020|181626947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.128||0.746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.21||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. Baseline CGI-S score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline CGI-S score-by-week interaction.|Week 1||0.21|-0.29|0.746
90921065|NCT05493423|181713685|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||The p-value was calculated, but was low enough to be rounded down to as 0 by the statistical software.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0
90921066|NCT05493423|181713686|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57||||||P \< 0.05 is considered significant|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.57
90921067|NCT05493423|181713687|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||The p-value was calculated, but was low enough to be rounded down to 0 by the statistical software.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0
90921068|NCT05493423|181713688|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.211|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.211
90921069|NCT05493423|181713689|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.804||||||P \< 0.05 is considered significant|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.804
90921070|NCT05493423|181713690|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.307||||||P \< 0.05 is considered significant|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.307
90921071|NCT05493423|181713691|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.315||||||P \< 0.05 is considered significant|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.315
90921072|NCT06074523|181713713|EQUIVALENCE|Comparing three conditions in a basic science experiment in healthy adults.|partial eta squared|0.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Comparing Cued Suppression Task; Positive, Negative, and Neutral Cue condtions||||<.001
90921073|NCT06074523|181713714|EQUIVALENCE|P\<.05 criterion|cohen's d|0.24||||0.08|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparing performance on target absent and target present trials||||.08
90921074|NCT06074523|181713715|OTHER||Slope|-0.37||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5803|-0.1135|||correlation|||Relationship between Cued Attention Negative Cue Benefit (Neutral Cue RT- Negative Cue RT) and working memory capacity.||-0.1135|-0.5803|.007
90921075|NCT06074523|181713716|OTHER||Slope|-0.27||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5015|-0.002414|||correlation|||Correlation of Inattentive Traits subscale and learned suppression (difference in RT between target absent and target present trials)||-0.002414|-0.5015|.046
90921076|NCT01426425|181713717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Chronic effectiveness prob at 6 months|0.926|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.895|0.948|||Kaplan-Meier log-log 95% CI||The chronic effectiveness success probability at 6 months was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. The standard error was approximated using Greenwood's formula. A two-sided 95% log-log confidence interval for the probability was constructed.|"The following hypothesis was tested at a one-sided 0.025 significance level.~Ho: PE ≤ 0.83~Ha: PE \> 0.83~Where PE is the probability of a subject achieving chronic effectiveness success at the 6-month follow-up and 0.83 (83%) is the pre-specified performance goal."||0.948|0.895|<0.0001
90921077|NCT01426425|181713718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Safety failure probability at 6 months|0.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|0.027|||Kaplan-Meier log-log 95% CI||The chronic safety failure probability at 6 months was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. The standard error was approximated using Greenwood's formula. A two-sided 95% log-log confidence interval for the probability was constructed.|"The following hypothesis was tested at a one-sided 0.025 significance level.~Ho: Ps ≥ 0.07~Ha: Ps \< 0.07~Where Ps is the probability of a subject experiencing at least one safety event through 6 months with a 0.07 pre-specified performance goal."||0.027|0.004|<0.0001
90940673|NCT01037413|181761228|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12, Overall Opinion: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||-0.0|-2.1|0.045
91034232|NCT03161405|181954704|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.2783|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0965|1.4904||||||A paired t-test on the natural log-transformed parameters was performed. The mean difference and its 90% CI for the log-transformed parameters were exponentiated to obtain the point estimates of the itraconazole effect and 90% CIs.||1.4904|1.0965|
90921078|NCT01426425|181713719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Chronic effectiveness prob at 6 months|0.973|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|0.985|||Kaplan-Meier log-log 95% CI||The chronic effectiveness success probability at 6 months was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. The standard error was approximated using Greenwood's formula. A two-sided 95% log-log confidence interval for the probability was constructed.|"The following hypothesis was tested at a one-sided 0.025 significance level.~Ho: PE ≤ 0.80~Ha: PE \> 0.80~Where PE is the probability of a subject achieving chronic effectiveness success at 6-month follow-up, and 0.80 is the pre-specified performance goal. As pre-defined in the study protocol, this hypothesis is tested if the primary effectiveness objective null hypothesis (Ho) is rejected."||0.985|0.950|<0.0001
90921079|NCT03281291|181713726|OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|29.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.7|42.1|||Regression, Cox||VE = 1 minus the Hazard Ratio (HR). HR was defined as the ratio of relative risk of infection in the vaccinated group compared to the control group.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in the TVC against the first new genotypic infection, between enrollment and Month 20 visit, for R012-20 Group vs Control Group.||42.1|14.7|
90921080|NCT03281291|181713726|OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|31.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.4|43.3|||Regression, Cox||VE = 1 minus HR. HR was defined as the ratio of relative risk of infection in the vaccinated group compared to the control group.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy in the TVC against the first new genotypic infection, between enrollment and Month 20 visit, for R012-14-mD Group vs Control Group.||43.3|16.4|
90921081|NCT03281291|181713726|OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|24.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.0|37.6|||Regression, Cox||VE = 1 minus HR. HR was defined as the ratio of relative risk of infection in the vaccinated group compared to the control group.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy in the TVC against the first new genotypic infection, between enrollment and Month 20 visit, for Fx012-14-mFxD Group vs Control Group.||37.6|9.0|
90921082|NCT03281291|181713726|OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|28.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.9|41.1|||Regression, Cox||VE = 1 minus HR. HR was defined as the ratio of relative risk of infection in the vaccinated group compared to the control group.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy in the TVC against the first new genotypic infection, between enrollment and Month 20 visit, for Fx017-mFxD Group vs Control Group.||41.1|13.9|
90921083|NCT03281291|181713727|OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|42.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.7|52.8|||Regression, Cox||VE = 1 minus HR. HR was defined as the ratio of relative risk of infection in the vaccinated group compared to the control group.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy in the ATP cohort against the first new genotypic infection, between months 2.5 and 14, for R012-20 + R012-14-mD Pooled Group vs Control Group.||52.8|30.7|
90921084|NCT03281291|181713727|OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|36.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.2|49.2|||Regression, Cox||VE = 1 minus HR. HR was defined as the ratio of relative risk of infection in the vaccinated group compared to the control group.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy in the ATP cohort against the first new genotypic infection, between months 2.5 and 14, for Fx012-14-mFxD Group vs Control Group.||49.2|21.2|
90940674|NCT01037413|181761228|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.9||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|0.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12, Composite Score: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||0.1|-9.9|0.054
90940675|NCT01037413|181761228|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|0.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12, Scar Appearance Composite Score: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||0.3|-8.2|0.065
91034233|NCT01597245|181954744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91034234|NCT01597245|181954744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91034235|NCT01597245|181954744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91034236|NCT01597245|181954745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91034237|NCT01597245|181954745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91034238|NCT01597245|181954745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91034239|NCT01597245|181954746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.005
90921085|NCT03281291|181713727|OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|41.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.7|53.1|||Regression, Cox||VE = 1 minus HR. HR was defined as the ratio of relative risk of infection in the vaccinated group compared to the control group.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy in the ATP cohort against the first new genotypic infection, between months 7.5 and 19, for Fx017-mFxD Group vs Control Group.||53.1|26.7|
90921086|NCT03281291|181713728|OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|29.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.4|41.5|||Regression, Cox||VE = 1 minus HR. HR was defined as the ratio of relative risk of infection in the vaccinated group compared to the control group.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy in the TVC against the first new genotypic infection, between enrollment and Month 32 visit, for R012-20 Group vs Control Group.||41.5|15.4|
90921087|NCT03281291|181713728|OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|30.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.6|42.2|||Regression, Cox||VE = 1 minus HR. HR was defined as the ratio of relative risk of infection in the vaccinated group compared to the control group.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy in the TVC against the first new genotypic infection, between enrollment and Month 32 visit, for R012-14-mD Group vs Control Group.||42.2|16.6|
90921088|NCT03281291|181713728|OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|27.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.1|39.4|||Regression, Cox||VE = 1 minus HR. HR was defined as the ratio of relative risk of infection in the vaccinated group compared to the control group.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy in the TVC against the first new genotypic infection, between enrollment and Month 32 visit, for Fx012-14-mFxD Group vs Control Group.||39.4|13.1|
90921089|NCT03281291|181713728|OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|26.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.9|38.3|||Regression, Cox||VE = 1 minus HR. HR was defined as the ratio of relative risk of infection in the vaccinated group compared to the control group.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy in the TVC against the first new genotypic infection, between enrollment and Month 32 visit, for Fx017-mFxD Group vs Control Group.||38.3|11.9|
90921090|NCT03281291|181713729|OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|41.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.6|52.5|||Regression, Cox||VE = 1 minus HR. HR was defined as the ratio of relative risk of infection in the vaccinated group compared to the control group.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy in the ATP cohort against the first new genotypic infection, between months 2.5 and 26, for R012-20 Group vs Control Group.||52.5|28.6|
90921091|NCT03281291|181713729|OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|39.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.8|50.6|||Regression, Cox||VE = 1 minus HR. HR was defined as the ratio of relative risk of infection in the vaccinated group compared to the control group.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy in the ATP cohort against the first new genotypic infection, between months 2.5 and 26, for R012-14-mD Group vs Control Group.||50.6|26.8|
90921092|NCT03281291|181713729|OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|33.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.3|45.3|||Regression, Cox||VE = 1 minus HR. HR was defined as the ratio of relative risk of infection in the vaccinated group compared to the control group.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy in the ATP cohort against the first new genotypic infection, between months 2.5 and 26, for Fx012-14-mFxD Group vs Control Group.||45.3|19.3|
90921093|NCT03281291|181713729|OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|40.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.2|51.5|||Regression, Cox||VE = 1 minus HR. HR was defined as the ratio of relative risk of infection in the vaccinated group compared to the control group.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy in the ATP cohort against the first new genotypic infection, between months 7.5 and 31, for Fx017-mFxD Group vs Control Group.||51.5|27.2|
90921094|NCT03281291|181713730|OTHER||Additive difference|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.979|-1.022|||Wald Test|Wald tests were used to test for additive differences in VE differing from zero and to obtain a 95% confidence interval.|Additive difference was defined as the difference in the mean number of new molecularly confirmed malaria infections between each vaccine arm and the control arm.|To detect a significant difference in the mean number of new molecularly confirmed malaria infections in the TVC between enrollment and Month 20 visit, for R012-20 Group vs Control Group.||-1.022|-1.979|
90921095|NCT03281291|181713730|OTHER||Additive difference|-1.544|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.027|-1.061|||Wald test|Wald tests were used to test for additive differences in VE differing from zero and to obtain a 95% confidence interval.|Additive difference was defined as the difference in the mean number of new molecularly confirmed malaria infections between each vaccine arm and the control arm.|To detect a significant difference in the mean number of new molecularly confirmed malaria infections in the TVC between enrollment and Month 20 visit, for R012-14-mD Group vs Control Group.||-1.061|-2.027|
90921096|NCT03281291|181713730|OTHER||Additive difference|-1.575|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.065|-1.085|||Wald test|Wald tests were used to test for additive differences in VE differing from zero and to obtain a 95% confidence interval.|Additive difference was defined as the difference in the mean number of new molecularly confirmed malaria infections between each vaccine arm and the control arm.|To detect a significant difference in the mean number of new molecularly confirmed malaria infections in the TVC between enrollment and Month 20 visit, for Fx012-14-mFxD Group vs Control Group.||-1.085|-2.065|
91034240|NCT01597245|181954746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90921097|NCT03281291|181713730|OTHER||Additive difference|-1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.635|-0.586|||Wald test|Wald tests were used to test for additive differences in VE differing from zero and to obtain a 95% confidence interval.|Additive difference was defined as the difference in the mean number of new molecularly confirmed malaria infections between each vaccine arm and the control arm.|To detect a significant difference in the mean number of new molecularly confirmed malaria infections in the TVC between enrollment and Month 20 visit, for Fx017-mFxD Group vs Control Group.||-0.586|-1.635|
90940676|NCT01037413|181761228|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24, Pain: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||0.1|-2.0|0.079
90940677|NCT01037413|181761228|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24, Itching: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||0.3|-1.5|0.158
91034241|NCT01597245|181954746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90940678|NCT01037413|181761228|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-0.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24, Color: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||-0.5|-3.0|0.010
90940679|NCT01037413|181761228|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-0.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24, Stiffness: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||-0.8|-3.5|0.003
91034242|NCT01597245|181954747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91034243|NCT01597245|181954747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90921098|NCT03281291|181713731|OTHER||Additive difference|-0.769|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.068|-0.469|||Wald test|Wald tests were used to test for additive differences in VE differing from zero and to obtain a 95% confidence interval|Additive difference was defined as the difference in the mean number of new molecularly confirmed malaria infections between each vaccine arm and the control arm.|To detect a significant difference in the mean number of new molecularly confirmed malaria infections in the ATP cohort between months 2.5 to 14, for R012-20 + R012-14-mD Pooled Group vs Control Group.||-0.469|-1.068|
90921099|NCT03281291|181713731|OTHER||Additive difference|-0.786|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.133|-0.439|||Wald test|Wald tests were used to test for additive differences in VE differing from zero and to obtain a 95% confidence interval|Additive difference was defined as the difference in the mean number of new molecularly confirmed malaria infections between each vaccine arm and the control arm.|To detect a significant difference in the mean number of new molecularly confirmed malaria infections in the ATP cohort between months 2.5 to 14, for Fx012-14-mFxD groups vs Control Group.||-0.439|-1.133|
90921100|NCT03281291|181713731|OTHER||Additive difference|-1.275|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.592|-0.959|||Wald test|Wald tests were used to test for additive differences in VE differing from zero and to obtain a 95% confidence interval|Additive difference was defined as the difference in the mean number of new molecularly confirmed malaria infections between each vaccine arm and the control arm.|To detect a significant difference in the mean number of new molecularly confirmed malaria infections in the ATP cohort between months 7.5 to 19, for Fx017-mFxD groups vs Control Group.||-0.959|-1.592|
90921101|NCT03281291|181713732|OTHER||Additive difference|-2.686|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.448|-1.924|||Wald test|Wald tests were used to test for additive differences in VE differing from zero and to obtain a 95% confidence interval|Additive difference was defined as the difference in the mean number of new molecularly confirmed malaria infections between each vaccine arm and the control arm.|To detect a significant difference in the mean number of new molecularly confirmed malaria infections in the TVC between enrollment and Month 32 visit, for R012-20 Group vs Control Group.||-1.924|-3.448|
90921102|NCT03281291|181713732|OTHER||Additive difference|-2.452|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.217|-1.686|||Wald test|Wald tests were used to test for additive differences in VE differing from zero and to obtain a 95% confidence interval|Additive difference was defined as the difference in the mean number of new molecularly confirmed malaria infections between each vaccine arm and the control arm.|To detect a significant difference in the mean number of new molecularly confirmed malaria infections in the TVC between enrollment and Month 32 visit, for R012-14-mD Group vs Control Group.||-1.686|-3.217|
90921103|NCT03281291|181713732|OTHER||Additive difference|-2.585|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.345|-1.824|||Wald test|Wald tests were used to test for additive differences in VE differing from zero and to obtain a 95% confidence interval|Additive difference was defined as the difference in the mean number of new molecularly confirmed malaria infections between each vaccine arm and the control arm.|To detect a significant difference in the mean number of new molecularly confirmed malaria infections in the TVC between enrollment and Month 32 visit, for Fx012-14-mFxD Group vs Control Group.||-1.824|-3.345|
90921104|NCT03281291|181713732|OTHER||Additive difference|-1.897|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.726|-1.067|||Wald test|Wald tests were used to test for additive differences in VE differing from zero and to obtain a 95% confidence interval|Additive difference was defined as the difference in the mean number of new molecularly confirmed malaria infections between each vaccine arm and the control arm.|To detect a significant difference in the mean number of new molecularly confirmed malaria infections in the TVC between enrollment and Month 32 visit, for Fx017-mFxD Group vs Control Group.||-1.067|-2.726|
90921105|NCT03281291|181713733|OTHER||Additive difference|-1.633|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.252|-1.015|||Wald test|Wald tests were used to test for additive differences in VE differing from zero and to obtain a 95% confidence interval.|Additive difference was defined as the difference in the mean number of new molecularly confirmed malaria infections between each vaccine arm and the control arm.|To detect a significant difference in the mean number of new molecularly confirmed malaria infections in the ATP cohort between months 2.5 to 26, for R012-20 group vs Control Group.||-1.015|-2.252|
90921106|NCT03281291|181713733|OTHER||Additive difference|-1.997|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.601|-1.393|||Wald test|Wald tests were used to test for additive differences in VE differing from zero and to obtain a 95% confidence interval.|Additive difference was defined as the difference in the mean number of new molecularly confirmed malaria infections between each vaccine arm and the control arm.|To detect a significant difference in the mean number of new molecularly confirmed malaria infections in the ATP cohort between months 2.5 to 26, for R012-14 group vs Control Group.||-1.393|-2.601|
90921107|NCT03281291|181713733|OTHER||Additive difference|-1.776|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.399|-1.153|||Wald test|Wald tests were used to test for additive differences in VE differing from zero and to obtain a 95% confidence interval.|Additive difference was defined as the difference in the mean number of new molecularly confirmed malaria infections between each vaccine arm and the control arm.|To detect a significant difference in the mean number of new molecularly confirmed malaria infections in the ATP cohort between months 2.5 to 26, for Fx012-14-mFxD group vs Control Group.||-1.153|-2.399|
90962530|NCT01009554|181805908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.281|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0654|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.151|0.411||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain intensity for the lingual region and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.411|0.151|<0.001
91034244|NCT01597245|181954747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90921108|NCT03281291|181713733|OTHER||Additive difference|-1.843|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.527|-1.158|||Wald test|Wald tests were used to test for additive differences in VE differing from zero and to obtain a 95% confidence interval.|Additive difference was defined as the difference in the mean number of new molecularly confirmed malaria infections between each vaccine arm and the control arm.|To detect a significant difference in the mean number of new molecularly confirmed malaria infections in the ATP cohort between months 7.5 to 31, for Fx017-mFxD group vs Control Group.||-1.158|-2.527|
90921109|NCT05862870|181713759|OTHER|Frequency count|exact count|20.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0||0.05|TWO_SIDED|0.0|20.0|20.0|||count|||Frequency count of patients retained in treatment.|Threshold for frequency count|20|20|.05
90921110|NCT03143153|181713772|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|98.6|0.46|0.9||Log-rank test stratified by ECOG Performance Status (0 vs 1), number of organs with metastases (\<= 1 vs. \>= 2) as recorded in IRT.|Log Rank||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model.|Hazard Ratio is Arm A: Nivolumab + Ipilimumab over Arm C: Chemotherapy.||0.90|0.46|0.0010
90921111|NCT03143153|181713772|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.84||Log-rank test stratified by ECOG Performance Status (0 vs 1), number of organs with metastases (\<= 1 vs. \>= 2) as recorded in IRT.|Log Rank||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|Hazard Ratio is Arm A: Nivolumab + Ipilimumab over Arm C: Chemotherapy.||0.84|0.49|0.0010
90921112|NCT03143153|181713772|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.5|0.37|0.8||Log-rank test stratified by ECOG Performance Status (0 vs 1), number of organs with metastases (\<= 1 vs. \>= 2) as recorded in IRT.|Log Rank||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|Hazard Ratio is Arm B: Nivolumab + Chemotherapy over Arm C: Chemotherapy||0.80|0.37|<0.0001
90921113|NCT03143153|181713772|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.71||Log-rank test stratified by ECOG Performance Status (0 vs 1), number of organs with metastases (\<= 1 vs. \>= 2) as recorded in IRT.|Log Rank||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|Hazard Ratio is Arm B: Nivolumab + Chemotherapy over Arm C: Chemotherapy||0.71|0.41|<0.0001
90921114|NCT03143153|181713773|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.8958|TWO_SIDED|98.5|0.73|1.43||Log-rank test stratified by ECOG Performance Status (0 vs 1), number of organs with metastases (\<= 1 vs. \>= 2) as recorded in IRT|Log Rank||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|Hazard Ratio is Arm A: Nivolumab + Ipilimumab over Arm C: Chemotherapy||1.43|0.73|0.8958
90921115|NCT03143153|181713773|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.8958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.34||Log-rank test stratified by ECOG Performance Status (0 vs 1), number of organs with metastases (\<= 1 vs. \>= 2) as recorded in IRT|Log Rank||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|Hazard Ratio is Arm A: Nivolumab + Ipilimumab over Arm C: Chemotherapy||1.34|0.78|0.8958
90921116|NCT03143153|181713773|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|98.5|0.46|0.92||Log-rank test stratified by ECOG Performance Status (0 vs 1), number of organs with metastases (\<= 1 vs. \>= 2) as recorded in IRT|Log Rank||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|Hazard Ratio is Arm B: Nivolumab + Chemotherapy over Arm C: Chemotherapy||0.92|0.46|0.0023
90921117|NCT03143153|181713773|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.86||Log-rank test stratified by ECOG Performance Status (0 vs 1), number of organs with metastases (\<= 1 vs. \>= 2) as recorded in IRT|Log Rank||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|Hazard Ratio is Arm B: Nivolumab + Chemotherapy over Arm C: Chemotherapy||0.86|0.49|0.0023
90921118|NCT03143153|181713774|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.011||95.0|0.65|0.95||Log-rank test stratified by ECOG Performance Status (0 vs 1), number of organs with metastases (\<= 1 vs. \>= 2), PD-L1 status (\>= 1% vs. \< 1% or indeterminate) as recorded in IRT|Log Rank||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|Hazard Ratio is Arm A: Nivolumab + Ipilimumab over Arm C: Chemotherapy||0.95|0.65|0.0110
90921119|NCT03143153|181713774|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.011||98.2|0.62|0.98||Log-rank test stratified by ECOG Performance Status (0 vs 1), number of organs with metastases (\<= 1 vs. \>= 2), PD-L1 status (\>= 1% vs. \< 1% or indeterminate) as recorded in IRT.|Log Rank||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|Hazard Ratio is Arm A: Nivolumab + Ipilimumab over Arm C: Chemotherapy||0.98|0.62|0.0110
90921120|NCT03143153|181713774|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.0021||99.1|0.58|0.96||Log-rank test stratified by ECOG Performance Status (0 vs 1), number of organs with metastases (\<= 1 vs. \>= 2), PD-L1 status (\>= 1% vs. \< 1% or indeterminate) as recorded in IRT|Log Rank||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|Hazard Ratio is Arm B: Nivolumab + Chemotherapy over Arm C: Chemotherapy||0.96|0.58|0.0021
90921121|NCT03143153|181713774|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.9||Log-rank test stratified by ECOG Performance Status (0 vs 1), number of organs with metastases (\<= 1 vs. \>= 2), PD-L1 status (\>= 1% vs. \< 1% or indeterminate) as recorded in IRT|Log Rank||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|Hazard Ratio is Arm B: Nivolumab + Chemotherapy over Arm C: Chemotherapy||0.90|0.61|0.0021
90921122|NCT03143153|181713775|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.52|||||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|Hazard Ratio is Arm A: Nivolumab + Ipilimumab over Arm C: Chemotherapy||1.52|1.04|
90921123|NCT03143153|181713775|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.0355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.99||Log-rank test stratified by ECOG Performance Status (0 vs 1), number of organs with metastases (\<= 1 vs. \>= 2), PD-L1 status (\>= 1% vs. \< 1% or indeterminate) as recorded in IRT|Log Rank||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|Hazard Ratio is Arm B: Nivolumab + Chemotherapy over Arm C: Chemotherapy||0.99|0.67|0.0355
90921124|NCT03143153|181713775|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.0355|TWO_SIDED|98.5|0.64|1.04||Log-rank test stratified by ECOG Performance Status (0 vs 1), number of organs with metastases (\<= 1 vs. \>= 2), PD-L1 status (\>= 1% vs. \< 1% or indeterminate) as recorded in IRT|Log Rank||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|Hazard Ratio is Arm B: Nivolumab + Chemotherapy over Arm C: Chemotherapy||1.04|0.64|0.0355
90921125|NCT02736409|181713777|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion|-0.19||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.452|0.082|||Fisher Exact|||||0.082|-0.452|0.131
90921126|NCT02167867|181713841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||t=+7.76||||<0.0001
90921127|NCT04382404|181713856|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.63|1.15|||||The pregnant cohort was the numerator, and the non-pregnant cohort was the denominator.|Maximum concentration of Velpatasvir in plasma was compared between the 10 pregnant women in this study to 25 non-pregnant historical control women. The geometric mean concentration (percent coefficient of variation) for the non-pregnant cohort was 449.39 (77.12).||1.15|0.63|
90921128|NCT04382404|181713857|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.6|||||The pregnant cohort was the numerator, and the non-pregnant cohort was the denominator.|Maximum concentration of Sofosbuvir in plasma was compared between the 10 pregnant women in this study to 25 non-pregnant historical control women. The geometric mean concentration (percent coefficient of variation) for the non-pregnant cohort was 1226.16 (59.46).||1.60|0.88|
90921129|NCT04382404|181713858|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.49|0.67|||||The pregnant cohort was the numerator, and the non-pregnant cohort was the denominator.|Maximum concentration of GS-331007 in plasma was compared between the 10 pregnant women in this study to 25 non-pregnant historical control women. The geometric mean concentration (percent coefficient of variation) for the non-pregnant cohort was 1312.17 (32.55).||0.67|0.49|
90921130|NCT04382404|181713859|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.67|1.23|||||The pregnant cohort was the numerator, and the non-pregnant cohort was the denominator.|Area under the plasma concentration versus time curve tau of Velpatasvir was compared between the 10 pregnant women in this study to 25 non-pregnant historical control women. The geometric mean (percent coefficient of variation) for the non-pregnant cohort was 3570.65 (72.04).||1.23|0.67|
90921131|NCT04382404|181713860|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.06|1.78||||||Area under the plasma concentration versus time curve tau of Sofosbuvir was compared between the 10 pregnant women in this study to 25 non-pregnant historical control women. The geometric mean (percent coefficient of variation) for the non-pregnant cohort was 1483.83 (66.43).|The pregnant cohort was the numerator, and the non-pregnant cohort was the denominator.|1.78|1.06|
90921132|NCT04382404|181713861|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.55|0.71||||||Area under the plasma concentration versus time curve tau of Sofosbuvir was compared between the 10 pregnant women in this study to 25 non-pregnant historical control women. The geometric mean (percent coefficient of variation) for the non-pregnant cohort was 15361.31 (22.35).|The pregnant cohort was the numerator, and the non-pregnant cohort was the denominator.|0.71|0.55|
90921133|NCT04382404|181713862|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|2.25||||||The geometric mean (95 percent confidence interval) concentration of GS-461203 in peripheral blood mononuclear cells was compared between the pregnant cohort and 58 nonpregnant persons. The geometric mean (95 percent confidence interval) concentration of GS-461203 was 1474 (488, 4453) fmol /10\^6 cells in the nonpregnant cohort.|The pregnant cohort was the numerator, and the non-pregnant cohort was the denominator.|2.25|0.91|
90921134|NCT04382404|181713863|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|3.19|||||The pregnant cohort was the numerator, and the non-pregnant cohort was the denominator.|The geometric mean (95 percent confidence interval) concentration of GS-461203 in peripheral blood mononuclear cells was compared between the pregnant cohort and 58 nonpregnant persons. The geometric mean (95 percent confidence interval) concentration of GS-461203 was 1474 (488, 4453) fmol /10\^6 cells in the nonpregnant cohort.||3.19|1.14|
90962531|NCT01009554|181805909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.066|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0496||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.033|0.165||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain area for the lingual region and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.165|-0.033|0.187
90921135|NCT04382404|181713864|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|2.6|||||The pregnant cohort was the numerator, and the non-pregnant cohort was the denominator.|The geometric mean (95 percent confidence interval) concentration of GS-461203 in peripheral blood mononuclear cells was compared between the pregnant cohort and 58 nonpregnant persons. The geometric mean (95 percent confidence interval) concentration of GS-461203 was 1474 (488, 4453) fmol /10\^6 cells in the nonpregnant cohort.||2.60|0.87|
90921136|NCT04382404|181713865|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.56|||||The pregnant cohort was the numerator, and the non-pregnant cohort was the denominator.|The geometric mean (95 percent confidence interval) concentration of GS-461203 in dried blood spots was compared between the pregnant cohort and 58 nonpregnant persons. The geometric mean (95 percent confidence interval) concentration of GS-461203 was 647 (571, 723) fmol/punch in the nonpregnant cohort.||.56|.50|
90921137|NCT04382404|181713866|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.58|||||The pregnant cohort was the numerator, and the non-pregnant cohort was the denominator.|The geometric mean (95 percent confidence interval) concentration of GS-461203 in dried blood spots was compared between the pregnant cohort and 58 nonpregnant persons. The geometric mean (95 percent confidence interval) concentration of GS-461203 was 647 (571, 723) fmol/punch in the nonpregnant cohort.||.58|.49|
90921138|NCT04382404|181713867|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.64|||||The pregnant cohort was the numerator, and the non-pregnant cohort was the denominator.|The geometric mean (95 percent confidence interval) concentration of GS-461203 in dried blood spots was compared between the pregnant cohort and 58 nonpregnant persons. The geometric mean (95 percent confidence interval) concentration of GS-461203 was 647 (571, 723) fmol/punch in the nonpregnant cohort.||.64|.48|
90921139|NCT03420833|181713890|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0001
90921140|NCT03420833|181713890|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.009
90921141|NCT03420833|181713893|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.024
90921142|NCT03420833|181713895|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0001
90962532|NCT01009554|181805910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.256|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0544|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.148|0.364||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain area for the lingual region and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.364|0.148|<0.001
90921143|NCT03420833|181713895|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.011
90921144|NCT05687916|181713899|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference Estimate|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.277|=|0.989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.67|6.18||The analysis used a linear MMRM with fixed effects for Baseline, age, prior use of narcolepsy medications, treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as covariates. Reported p-value is adjusted for multiplicity.|MMRM|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||||6.18|-6.67|=0.989
90921145|NCT05687916|181713899|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference Estimate|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.227|=|0.916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.93|8.72||The analysis used a linear MMRM with fixed effects for Baseline, age, prior use of narcolepsy medications, treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as covariates. Reported p-value is adjusted for multiplicity.|MMRM|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||||8.72|-3.93|=0.916
90921146|NCT05687916|181713900|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference Estimate|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.656|=|0.989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.57|2.92||The analysis used a linear MMRM with fixed effects for Baseline, age, prior use of narcolepsy medications, treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as covariates. Reported p-value is adjusted for multiplicity.|MMRM|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.|LS in LS Mean Difference denotes least squares.|||2.92|-3.57|=0.989
91034245|NCT01597245|181954748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.008
91034246|NCT01597245|181954748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90921147|NCT05687916|181713900|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference Estimate|-3.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.59|=|0.216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.18|0.06||The analysis used a linear MMRM with fixed effects for Baseline, age, prior use of narcolepsy medications, treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as covariates. Reported p-value is adjusted for multiplicity.|MMRM|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||||0.06|-6.18|=0.216
90921148|NCT05081583|181713975|OTHER||AUC ratio (geometric mean)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.82|0.96||||||The predefined no effect range was 0.80-1.25; that is, if the geometric mean ratio lay outside this range, a pharmacokinetic interaction was evident.||0.96|0.82|
90921149|NCT05081583|181713976|OTHER|The predefined no effect range was 0.80-1.25; that is, if the geometric mean ratio lay outside this range, a pharmacokinetic interaction was evident.|Cmax ratio (geometric mean)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|1.01||||||||1.01|0.85|
90921150|NCT05081583|181713977|OTHER||Half-life ratio (geometric mean)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|1.07||||||||1.07|0.93|
90921151|NCT05081583|181713978|OTHER||Renal clearance ratio (geometric mean)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|1.12||||||||1.12|0.84|
90921152|NCT05081583|181713979|OTHER||AUC ratio (geometric mean)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|1.15||||||||1.15|0.81|
90921153|NCT03978871|181714005|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|degrees of freedom =1.||We are reporting the p-value for the group (Growth Mindset vs. Brain Education) by time effect (pre-manipulation and post-manipulation). This is a test of between by within-subjects interaction effect.||||<0.001
90921154|NCT03978871|181714006|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.||||||0.023|||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 1.||We are reporting the p-value for the group (Growth Mindset vs. Brain Education) by time effect (pre-manipulation and post-manipulation). This is a test of between by within-subjects interaction effect.||||0.023
90940680|NCT01037413|181761228|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-0.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24, Thickness: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||-0.8|-4.0|0.005
91034247|NCT01597245|181954748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91034248|NCT01597245|181954749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91034249|NCT01597245|181954749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91034250|NCT01597245|181954750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91034251|NCT01597245|181954750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91034252|NCT01597245|181954750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91034253|NCT01597245|181954751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91034254|NCT01597245|181954751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91034255|NCT01597245|181954751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91034256|NCT01597245|181954752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.002
90921155|NCT03978871|181714006|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.||||||0.034|||||||ANCOVA|degrees of freedom = 1.||We are reporting the p-value for the group (Growth Mindset vs. Brain Education) by time effect (pre-manipulation and post-manipulation). This is a test of between by within-subjects interaction effect. Clarity of the psycho-educational lessons was included as a covariate.||||0.034
90921156|NCT03978871|181714007|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.0.5|||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 1.||We are reporting the p-value for the group (Growth Mindset vs. Brain Education) by time effect (pre-manipulation and post-manipulation). This is a test of between by within-subjects interaction effect.||||<.001
90921157|NCT03978871|181714007|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.||||||0.002|||||||ANCOVA|degrees of freedom = 1.||We are reporting the p-value for the group (Growth Mindset vs. Brain Education) by time effect (pre-manipulation and post-manipulation). This is a test of between by within-subjects interaction effect. Clarity of the psycho-educational lessons was included as a covariate.||||0.002
90921158|NCT03978871|181714008|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.||||||0.227|||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 1.||We are reporting the p-value for the group effect (Growth Mindset vs. Brain Education). This is a test of between-subjects effect.||||0.227
90921159|NCT03978871|181714009|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.||||||0.272|||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 1.||We are reporting the p-value for the group effect for accuracy (Growth Mindset vs. Brain Education). This is a test of between-subjects effect.||||0.272
90921160|NCT03978871|181714010|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05||||||0.217|||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 1.||We are reporting the p-value for the group effect (Growth Mindset vs. Brain Education) for the ERS emotion regulation involuntary dysregulation subscale post psycho-educational lesson. This is a test of between-subjects effect.||||0.217
90921161|NCT03978871|181714010|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.||||||0.458|||||||ANCOVA|degrees of freedom = 1.||We are reporting the p-value for the group effect (Growth Mindset vs. Brain Education) for the ERS emotion regulation involuntary dysregulation subscale post psycho-educational lesson. This is a test of between-subjects effect. Clarity of the psycho-educational lessons was included as a covariate.||||0.458
91034257|NCT01597245|181954752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
90921162|NCT03978871|181714010|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05||||||0.037|||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 1.||We are reporting the p-value for the group effect (Growth Mindset vs. Brain Education) for the ERS emotion regulation proactive engagement subscale post psycho-educational lesson. This is a test of between-subjects effect.||||0.037
90921163|NCT03978871|181714010|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.||||||0.107|||||||ANCOVA|degrees of freedom = 1.||We are reporting the p-value for the group effect (Growth Mindset vs. Brain Education) for the ERS emotion regulation proactive engagement subscale post psycho-educational lesson. This is a test of between-subjects effect. Clarity of the psycho-educational lessons was included as a covariate.||||0.107
90921164|NCT03978871|181714010|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.||||||0.369|||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 1.||We are reporting the p-value for the group effect (Growth Mindset vs. Brain Education) for the ERS emotion regulation cognitive avoidance subscale post psycho-educational lesson. This is a test of between-subjects test.||||0.369
90921165|NCT03978871|181714011|SUPERIORITY|Data were collected using a Siemens Prisma MRI 3T scanner and preprocessed with fMRIprep. An ROI mask was generated from left and right amygdala of the AAL1.V4 atlas. First-level contrast estimates (negative immerse \> neutral immerse) for each voxel within the ROI were averaged with MarsBaR to produce a single value for each person. A two-sample t-test was conducted in R to test for differences across intervention groups (mindset vs control).||||||0.265||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|t(146) = -1.12||||||0.265
90940681|NCT01037413|181761228|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-0.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24, Irregular: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||-0.2|-3.5|0.032
90940682|NCT01037413|181761228|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|-0.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24, Overall Opinion: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||-0.9|-3.8|0.003
90940683|NCT01037413|181761228|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.8||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|-3.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24, Composite Score: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||-3.1|-16.4|0.006
90940684|NCT01037413|181761228|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.2||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|-3.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24, Scar Appearance Composite Score: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||-3.0|-13.4|0.004
90940685|NCT00619983|181761236|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||Due to failure of daily electronic diaries and exhaustion of funds, we were only able to recruit \< 30% of the number of subjects required in our power analysis.||||0.69
90940686|NCT01723514|181761248|SUPERIORITY||LS Geometric Mean Ratio|-79.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-87.54|-65.73|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Day 8: A repeated measures ANCOVA was performed for the ratio of blood flow measures at 30 minutes post capsaicin challenge to pre capsaicin challenge. The model included treatment, day, and the treatment by day interaction as independent variables, and both the 0 minute pre-capsaicin blood flow measure as well as the day 0, 30-minute post-capsaicin blood flow measures on day -1 .||-65.73|-87.54|< 0.001
90940687|NCT01723514|181761248|SUPERIORITY||LS Geometric Mean Ratio|-71.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-82.67|-52.0|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Day 8: A repeated measures ANCOVA was performed for the ratio of blood flow measures at 30 minutes post capsaicin challenge to pre capsaicin challenge. The model included treatment, day, and the treatment by day interaction as independent variables, and both the 0 minute pre-capsaicin blood flow measure as well as the day 0, 30-minute post-capsaicin blood flow measures on day -1 .||-52.00|-82.67|< 0.001
90940688|NCT01723514|181761248|SUPERIORITY||LS Geometric Mean Ratio|-79.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-88.29|-64.17|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Day 8: A repeated measures ANCOVA was performed for the ratio of blood flow measures at 30 minutes post capsaicin challenge to pre capsaicin challenge. The model included treatment, day, and the treatment by day interaction as independent variables, and both the 0 minute pre-capsaicin blood flow measure as well as the day 0, 30-minute post-capsaicin blood flow measures on day -1 .||-64.17|-88.29|< 0.001
90921166|NCT03978871|181714012|SUPERIORITY|Data were collected using a Siemens Prisma MRI 3T scanner and preprocessed with fMRIprep. An ROI mask was generated from left and right amygdala of the AAL1.V4 atlas. First-level contrast estimates (negative \> neutral) for each voxel within the ROI were averaged with MarsBaR to produce a single value for each person. A two-sample t-test was conducted in R to test for differences across intervention groups (mindset vs control).||||||0.96||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|t(145) = -0.53||||||0.96
90921167|NCT03978871|181714013|SUPERIORITY|Data were preprocessed in fMRIprep. Separate right/left amygdala seeds were defined with the AAL1 atlas. Interaction regressors were created between seeds and task conditions. Average contrast estimates for interaction terms of relevant trials (negative reframe \> negative immerse) were extracted with MarsBaR from 15 ROIs in the FPN of a modified Schaefer atlas and the 30 values averaged. A two-sample t-test was conducted in R to compare average connectivity between groups (mindset vs control).||||||0.76||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|t(146) = -.3047||||||0.76
90921168|NCT03978871|181714014|SUPERIORITY|Data were preprocessed in fMRIprep. Separate right/left amygdala seeds were defined with the AAL1 atlas. Interaction regressors were created between seeds and task conditions. Average contrast estimates for interaction terms of relevant trials (negative \> neutral) were extracted with MarsBaR from 15 ROIs in the FPN of a modified Schaefer atlas and the 30 values averaged. A two-sample t-test was conducted in R to compare average connectivity between groups (mindset vs control).||||||0.048||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|t(145) = 1.998, p = .048||||||.048
90921169|NCT03978871|181714015|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.||||||0.833|||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom =1.||We are reporting the p-value for the group (Growth Mindset vs. Brain Education) by time effect (pre-manipulation and post-manipulation). This is a test of between by within-subjects interaction effect.||||0.833
90921170|NCT03978871|181714016|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.||||||0.321|||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 1.||We are reporting the p-value for the group effect (Growth Mindset vs. Brain Education) across self-reported affect on the SET task. This is a test of between-subjects effect.||||0.321
90921171|NCT03978871|181714017|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05||||||0.002|||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 1.||We are reporting the p-value for the group (Growth Mindset vs. Brain Education) by time effect (pre-manipulation and post-manipulation) for fixed emotion mindset scores from time 1 to time 2. This is a test of between by within-subjects interaction effect.||||0.002
90921172|NCT03978871|181714017|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.||||||0.005|||||||ANCOVA|degrees of freedom = 1.||We are reporting the p-value for the group (Growth Mindset vs. Brain Education) by time effect (pre-manipulation and post-manipulation) on fixed emotion mindset scores from time 1 to time 2. This is a test of between by within-subjects interaction effect. Clarity of the psycho-educational lessons included as a covariate.||||0.005
90921173|NCT03978871|181714018|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.||||||0.033|||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 1.||We are reporting the p-value for the group (Growth Mindset vs. Brain Education) by time effect (pre-manipulation and post-manipulation) on fixed emotion mindset scores from time 1 to time 3. This is a test of between by within-subjects interaction effect.||||.033
90921174|NCT03978871|181714019|SUPERIORITY|Threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05||||||0.403|||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom =1.||We are reporting the p-value for the group (Growth Mindset vs. Brain Education) by time effect (pre-manipulation and post-manipulation) on emotional self-efficacy scores from time 1 to time 2. This is a test of between by within-subjects interaction effect.||||0.403
90921175|NCT03978871|181714019|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.||||||0.19|||||||ANCOVA|degrees of freedom = 1.||We are reporting the p-value for the group (Growth Mindset vs. Brain Education) by time effect (pre-manipulation and post-manipulation) on emotional self-efficacy scores from time 1 to time 2. This is a test of between by within-subjects interaction effect. Clarity of the psycho-educational lessons was included as a covariate.||||0.190
90921176|NCT03978871|181714020|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05||||||0.784||||||degrees of freedom = 1.|ANOVA|||We are reporting the p-value for the group (Growth Mindset vs. Brain Education) by time effect (pre-manipulation and post-manipulation) on emotional self-efficacy scores from time 1 to time 3. This is a test of between by within-subjects interaction effect.||||0.784
90921177|NCT03978871|181714020|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.||||||0.586|||||||ANCOVA|degrees of freedom =1.||We are reporting the p-value for the group (Growth Mindset vs. Brain Education) by time effect (pre-manipulation and post-manipulation) on emotional self-efficacy scores from time 1 to time 3. This is a test of between by within-subjects interaction effect. Clarity of the psycho-educational lessons was included as a covariate.||||0.586
90921178|NCT03978871|181714021|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.||||||0.916|||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 1.||We are reporting the p-value for the group (Growth Mindset vs. Brain Education) by time effect (pre-manipulation and post-manipulation) on emotional self-efficacy vignette scores from time 1 to time 2. This is a test of between by within-subjects interaction effect.||||0.916
90921179|NCT03978871|181714021|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.||||||0.343|||||||ANCOVA|degrees of freedom =1.||We are reporting the p-value for the group (Growth Mindset vs. Brain Education) by time effect (pre-manipulation and post-manipulation) on emotional self-efficacy vignette scores from time 1 to time 2. This is a test of between by within-subjects interaction effect. Clarity of the psycho-educational lessons was included as a covariate.||||0.343
90921180|NCT03978871|181714022|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05||||||0.048|||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 1.||We are reporting the p-value for the group (Growth Mindset vs. Brain Education) by time effect (pre-manipulation and post-manipulation) on emotional self-efficacy vignette scores from time 1 to time 3. This is a test of between by within-subjects interaction effect.||||0.048
90921181|NCT03978871|181714022|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.||||||0.153|||||||ANCOVA|degrees of freedom = 1.||We are reporting the p-value for the group (Growth Mindset vs. Brain Education) by time effect (pre-manipulation and post-manipulation) on emotional self-efficacy vignette scores from time 1 to time 3. This is a test of between by within-subjects interaction effect. Clarity of the psycho-educational lesson was included as a covariate.||||0.153
90921182|NCT03978871|181714023|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.||||||0.566|||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom =1.||We are reporting the p-value for the group (Growth Mindset vs. Brain Education) by time effect (pre-manipulation and post-manipulation) on ERD proactive engagement scores from time 1 to time 2. This is a test of between by within-subjects interaction effect.||||0.566
90921183|NCT03978871|181714023|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05||||||0.048|||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 1.||We are reporting the p-value for the group (Growth Mindset vs. Brain Education) by time effect (pre-manipulation and post-manipulation) on ERD involuntary dysregulation scores from time 1 to time 2. This is a test of between by within-subjects interaction effect.||||0.048
90921184|NCT03978871|181714023|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.||||||0.266|||||||ANCOVA|degrees of freedom =1.||We are reporting the p-value for the group (Growth Mindset vs. Brain Education) by time effect (pre-manipulation and post-manipulation) on ERD involuntary dysregulation scores from time 1 to time 2. This is a test of between by within-subjects interaction effect. Clarity of the psycho-educational lessons was included as a covariate.||||0.266
90921185|NCT03978871|181714023|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.||||||0.402|||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom =1.||We are reporting the p-value for the group (Growth Mindset vs. Brain Education) by time effect (pre-manipulation and post-manipulation) on ERD disengagement scores from time 1 to time 2. This is a test of between by within-subjects interaction effect.||||0.402
90921186|NCT03978871|181714024|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.||||||0.363|||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom =1.||We are reporting the p-value for the group (Growth Mindset vs. Brain Education) by time effect (pre-manipulation and post-manipulation) on ERD proactive engagement from time 1 to time 3. This is a test of between by within-subjects interaction effect.||||0.363
90921187|NCT03978871|181714024|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05||||||0.363|||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 1.||We are reporting the p-value for the group (Growth Mindset vs. Brain Education) by time effect (pre-manipulation and post-manipulation) on ERD involuntary dysregulation scores from time 1 to time 3. This is a test of between by within-subjects interaction effect.||||0.363
90962533|NCT01009554|181805911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.273|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0669|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.406||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain area for the lingual region and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.406|0.140|<0.001
90962534|NCT04427501|181805939|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.58||||||||0.58|0.15|
90962535|NCT04427501|181805939|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.31||||||||0.31|0.04|
90962536|NCT04427501|181805940|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.4||||||||0.40|0.13|
91034258|NCT01597245|181954752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
90921188|NCT03978871|181714024|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.||||||0.583|||||||ANCOVA|degrees of freedom = 1.||We are reporting the p-value for the group (Growth Mindset vs. Brain Education) by time effect (pre-manipulation and post-manipulation) on ERD involuntary dysregulation scores from time 1 to time 3. This is a test of between by within-subjects interaction effect. Clarity of the psycho-educational lessons was included as a covariate.||||0.583
90921189|NCT03978871|181714024|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.||||||0.379|||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 1.||We are reporting the p-value for the group (Growth Mindset vs. Brain Education) by time effect (pre-manipulation and post-manipulation) on ERD disengagement scores from time 1 to time 3. This is a test of between by within-subjects interaction effect.||||0.379
90962537|NCT04427501|181805941|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.221||0.6921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.52|-0.35|0.6921
90962538|NCT04427501|181805941|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.219||0.211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.16|-0.71|0.2110
90962539|NCT04427501|181805941|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.225||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.76|-0.13|0.1630
90962540|NCT04427501|181805941|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.14|-1.00|0.0099
90962541|NCT04427501|181805946|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|1.86||||||||1.86|1.13|
90962542|NCT04427501|181805946|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|1.95||||||||1.95|1.24|
90962543|NCT04427501|181805946|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.53||||||||2.53|1.06|
90962544|NCT04427501|181805947|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|1.93||||||||1.93|1.17|
90962545|NCT04427501|181805947|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|2.09||||||||2.09|1.33|
90962546|NCT04427501|181805947|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|2.9||||||||2.9|1.22|
90962547|NCT04427501|181805948|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.64||||||||0.64|0.18|
91034259|NCT01597245|181954753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91034260|NCT01597245|181954753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91034261|NCT01597245|181954753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91034262|NCT01597245|181954754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91034263|NCT01597245|181954754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
90882025|NCT02477020|181626947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least mean square difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.173||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.03||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. Baseline CGI-S score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline CGI-S score-by-week interaction.|Week 2||-0.03|-0.72|0.034
90882026|NCT02477020|181626947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.203||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.17||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. Baseline CGI-S score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline CGI-S score-by-week interaction.|Week 3||-0.17|-0.97|0.006
90882027|NCT02477020|181626947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.12||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. Baseline CGI-S score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline CGI-S score-by-week interaction.|Week 4||-0.12|-0.99|0.013
90882028|NCT02477020|181626947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least mean square difference|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.238||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.09||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. Baseline CGI-S score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline CGI-S score-by-week interaction.|Week 5||-0.09|-1.03|0.020
90962548|NCT04427501|181805948|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.38||||||||0.38|0.07|
90962549|NCT04427501|181805948|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|1.05||||||||1.05|0.06|
90962550|NCT04427501|181805949|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2|||<|0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|-0.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.94|-1.46|<0.0000000
91034264|NCT01597245|181954754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
90962551|NCT04427501|181805949|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.09|||<|0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|-0.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.85|-1.34|<0.0000000
91034265|NCT01597245|181954755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.15|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.150
91034266|NCT01597245|181954755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.002
90921190|NCT03978871|181714024|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.||||||0.246|||||||ANCOVA|degrees of freedom = 1.||We are reporting the p-value for the group (Growth Mindset vs. Brain Education) by time effect (pre-manipulation and post-manipulation) on ERD disengagement scores from time 1 to time 3. This is a test of between by within-subjects interaction effect. Clarity of the psycho-educational lessons was included as a covariate.||||0.246
90921191|NCT03978871|181714025|SUPERIORITY|Data were collected using a Siemens Prisma MRI 3T scanner and preprocessed with fMRIprep. 12 ROI masks were generated from the CON network of a modified Schaefer atlas. First-level contrast estimates (negative reframe \> negative immerse) for each voxel within each ROI were averaged with MarsBaR to produce 12 values for each person. These were then averaged to produce a single value each.A two-sample t-test was conducted in R to test for differences across intervention groups (mindset vs control)||||||0.455||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|t(146) = .75||||||0.455
90921192|NCT03978871|181714026|SUPERIORITY|Data were collected using a Siemens Prisma MRI 3T scanner and preprocessed with fMRIprep. 12 ROI masks were generated from the CON network of a modified Schaefer atlas. First-level contrast estimates (negative \> neutral) for each voxel within each ROI were averaged with MarsBaR to produce 12 values for each person. These were subsequently averaged to produce a single value per person. A two-sample t-test was conducted in R to test for differences across intervention groups (mindset vs control).||||||0.43||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|t(145) = 0.80||||||0.43
90921193|NCT03978871|181714027|SUPERIORITY|BOLD signals were spatially averaged within ROIs to produce a single time series for each ROI. Timeseries were averaged to produce a single value representing each ROI's mean activity. Values for each ROI were then averaged to produce a single value per person representing mean network activity. These values were then submitted to a two-sample t-test to test for differences across intervention groups (mindset vs control).||||||0.29||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|t(142) = -1.057||||||0.29
90921194|NCT03978871|181714028|SUPERIORITY|Data were preprocessed in fMRIprep. Separate right/left amygdala seeds were defined with the AAL1 atlas. Interaction regressors were created between seeds and task conditions. Average contrast estimates for interaction terms of relevant trials (negative reframe \> negative immerse) were extracted with MarsBaR from 12 ROIs in the CON of a modified Schaefer atlas and the 24 values averaged. A two-sample t-test was conducted in R to compare average connectivity between groups (mindset vs control).||||||0.88||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|t(146) = 0.148||||||0.88
90921195|NCT03978871|181714029|SUPERIORITY|Data were preprocessed in fMRIprep. Separate right/left amygdala seeds were defined with the AAL1 atlas. Interaction regressors were created between seeds and task conditions. Average contrast estimates for interaction terms of relevant trials (negative \> neutral) were extracted with MarsBaR from 12 ROIs in the CON of a modified Schaefer atlas and the 24 values averaged. A two-sample t-test was conducted in R to compare average connectivity between groups (mindset vs control).||||||0.11||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|t(145) = 1.631||||||.11
90921196|NCT03978871|181714030|SUPERIORITY|BOLD signals were spatially averaged within ROIs to produce a single time series for each ROI. Pearson correlations were calculated between each mean BOLD signal in the CON and each amygdala ROI to produce 24 connectivity values. These were averaged to produce a single value representing the strength of coupling of the CON network to the amygdala for each participant. These values were then submitted to a two-sample t-test to test for differences across intervention groups (mindset vs control).||||||0.92||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|t(142) = 0.101||A two-sample t-test was conducted to compare average connectivity (between the amygdala and the CON network) during resting state between the mindset and control groups.||||0.92
90921197|NCT03978871|181714031|OTHER|Data were preprocessed in fMRIprep. A first-level contrast estimate of interest (negative immerse \> neutral immerse) was submitted to a second-level t-test for group-level differences across experimental conditions (mindset \> control). Monte Carlo simulations using 3dClustSim in AFNI controlled cluster-level family-wise error rate at p \< 0.001 with a cluster-defining threshold of p \< 0.005. The WFU PickAtlas via xjview was used to determine anatomical localization for surviving clusters.||||||2.22e-05||||||Reported result for cluster localized in the Superior/Middle Temporal Gyrus (Right). FWE-corrected p-value is reported. pvoxel-level \< .005, pcluster-level \< .001. Cluster extent = 278 voxels.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.0000222
90921198|NCT03978871|181714031|SUPERIORITY|Data were preprocessed in fMRIprep. A first-level contrast estimate of interest (negative immerse \> neutral immerse) was submitted to a second-level t-test for group-level differences across experimental conditions (mindset \> control). Monte Carlo simulations using 3dClustSim in AFNI controlled cluster-level family-wise error rate at p \< 0.001 with a cluster-defining threshold of p \< 0.005. The WFU PickAtlas via xjview was used to determine anatomical localization for surviving clusters.||||||1.17e-05||||||Reported result for cluster localized in the Middle Temporal Gyrus (Left). FWE-corrected p-value is reported. pvoxel-level \< .005, pcluster-level \< .001. Cluster extent = 278 voxels.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.0000117
90921199|NCT03978871|181714031|SUPERIORITY|Data were preprocessed in fMRIprep. A first-level contrast estimate of interest (negative immerse \> neutral immerse) was submitted to a second-level t-test for group-level differences across experimental conditions (mindset \> control). Monte Carlo simulations using 3dClustSim in AFNI controlled cluster-level family-wise error rate at p \< 0.001 with a cluster-defining threshold of p \< 0.005. The WFU PickAtlas via xjview was used to determine anatomical localization for surviving clusters.||||||0||||||"Reported result for cluster localized in the Anterior Cingulate/Medial Frontal Gyrus.~FWE-corrected p-value is reported. pvoxel-level \< .005, pcluster-level \< .001. Cluster extent = 278 voxels."|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.000000000
90962552|NCT04427501|181805949|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.99||||3.777e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|-0.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.52|-1.45|0.00003777
90962553|NCT04427501|181805950|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.213||||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||Stratified Log-rank|||||||0.007
90962554|NCT04427501|181805950|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.111||||0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||Stratified Log-rank|||||||0.130
90921200|NCT03978871|181714031|SUPERIORITY|Data were preprocessed in fMRIprep. A first-level contrast estimate of interest (negative immerse \> neutral immerse) was submitted to a second-level t-test for group-level differences across experimental conditions (mindset \> control). Monte Carlo simulations using 3dClustSim in AFNI controlled cluster-level family-wise error rate at p \< 0.001 with a cluster-defining threshold of p \< 0.005. The WFU PickAtlas via xjview was used to determine anatomical localization for surviving clusters.||||||1.86e-05||||||Reported result for cluster localized in the Middle Frontal Gyrus (Right). FWE-corrected p-value is reported. pvoxel-level \< .005, pcluster-level \< .001. Cluster extent = 278 voxels.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.0000186
90921201|NCT03978871|181714031|SUPERIORITY|Data were preprocessed in fMRIprep. A first-level contrast estimate of interest (negative immerse \> neutral immerse) was submitted to a second-level t-test for group-level differences across experimental conditions (mindset \> control). Monte Carlo simulations using 3dClustSim in AFNI controlled cluster-level family-wise error rate at p \< 0.001 with a cluster-defining threshold of p \< 0.005. The WFU PickAtlas via xjview was used to determine anatomical localization for surviving clusters.||||||0||||||Reported result for cluster localized in the Middle Frontal Gyrus (Left). FWE-corrected p-value is reported. pvoxel-level \< .005, pcluster-level \< .001. Cluster extent = 278 voxels.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.000000000
90921202|NCT03978871|181714031|SUPERIORITY|Data were preprocessed in fMRIprep. A first-level contrast estimate of interest (negative immerse \> neutral immerse) was submitted to a second-level t-test for group-level differences across experimental conditions (mindset \> control). Monte Carlo simulations using 3dClustSim in AFNI controlled cluster-level family-wise error rate at p \< 0.001 with a cluster-defining threshold of p \< 0.005. The WFU PickAtlas via xjview was used to determine anatomical localization for surviving clusters.||||||1.61e-05||||||Reported result for cluster localized in the Posterior Cingulate/Cingulate. FWE-corrected p-value is reported. pvoxel-level \< .005, pcluster-level \< .001. Cluster extent = 278 voxels.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.0000161
90921203|NCT03978871|181714031|OTHER|Data were preprocessed in fMRIprep. A first-level contrast estimate of interest (negative reframe \> negative immerse) was submitted to a second-level t-test for group-level differences across experimental conditions (mindset \> control). Monte Carlo simulations using 3dClustSim in AFNI controlled cluster-level family-wise error rate at p \< 0.001 with a cluster-defining threshold of p \< 0.005.|||||>|0.001||||||pvoxel-level \< .005, pcluster-level \< .001. Cluster extent = 298 voxels.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>.001
90921204|NCT03978871|181714032|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.||||||0.56|||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 1.||We are reporting the p-value for the group (Growth Mindset vs. Brain Education) by time effect (baseline and follow-up) on depression levels from time 1 to time 2. This is a test of between by within-subjects interaction effect.||||0.560
90921205|NCT03978871|181714033|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.||||||0.327|||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 1.||We are reporting the p-value for the group (Growth Mindset vs. Brain Education) by time effect (baseline and follow-up) on depression levels from time 1 to time 3. This is a test of between by within-subjects interaction effect.||||0.327
90921206|NCT03978871|181714034|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.||||||0.439|||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 1.||We are reporting the p-value for the group (Growth Mindset vs. Brain Education) by time effect (baseline and follow-up) on anxiety levels from time 1 to time 2. This is a test of between by within-subjects interaction effect.||||0.439
90921207|NCT03978871|181714034|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.||||||0.545|||||||ANCOVA|degrees of freedom = 1.||We are reporting the p-value for the group (Growth Mindset vs. Brain Education) by time effect (baseline and follow-up) on anxiety levels from time 1 to time 2. This is a test of between by within-subjects interaction effect. Clarity of the psycho-educational lessons was included as a covariate.||||0.545
90921208|NCT03978871|181714035|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.||||||0.74|||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 1.||We are reporting the p-value for the group (Growth Mindset vs. Brain Education) by time effect (baseline and follow-up) on anxiety levels from time 1 to time 3. This is a test of between by within-subjects interaction effect.||||0.740
90921209|NCT04166773|181714043|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.27|24.44|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio, Confidence Interval (CI), and p-value for endpoint measures are from logistic regression model with baseline diabetes status, region, treatment as factors.|||24.44|2.27|<0.001
90921210|NCT04166773|181714043|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.59|39.11|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio, CI, and p-value for endpoint measures are from logistic regression model with baseline diabetes status, region, treatment as factors.|||39.11|3.59|<0.001
90921211|NCT04166773|181714043|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|19.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.73|67.25|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio, CI, and p-value for endpoint measures are from logistic regression model with baseline diabetes status, region, treatment as factors.|||67.25|5.73|<0.001
90921212|NCT04166773|181714044|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.01||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|7.9|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio, CI, and p-value for endpoint measures are from logistic regression model with baseline diabetes status, region, treatment as factors.|||7.90|1.15|0.025
90921213|NCT04166773|181714044|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.37||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|6.13|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio, CI, and p-value for endpoint measures are from logistic regression model with baseline diabetes status, region, treatment as factors|||6.13|0.92|0.074
90921214|NCT04166773|181714044|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.47||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|6.4|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio, CI, and p-value for endpoint measures are from logistic regression model with baseline diabetes status, region, treatment as factors.|||6.40|0.95|0.063
90921215|NCT04166773|181714045|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|3.4|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio, CI, and p-value for endpoint measures are from logistic regression model with baseline diabetes status, region, treatment as factors.|||3.40|0.25|0.893
90921216|NCT04166773|181714045|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73||||0.647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|2.87|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio, CI, and p-value for endpoint measures are from logistic regression model with baseline diabetes status, region, treatment as factors.|||2.87|0.18|0.647
90921217|NCT04166773|181714045|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.39||||0.246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|1.91|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio, CI, and p-value for endpoint measures are from logistic regression model with baseline diabetes status, region, treatment as factors.|||1.91|0.08|0.246
90921218|NCT04166773|181714046|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.41|20.0|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio, CI, and p-value for endpoint measures are from logistic regression model with baseline diabetes status, region, treatment as factors.|||20.00|2.41|<0.001
90921219|NCT04166773|181714046|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.36|32.61|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio, CI, and p-value for endpoint measures are from logistic regression model with baseline diabetes status, region, treatment as factors.|||32.61|3.36|<0.001
90921220|NCT04166773|181714046|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.87|42.65|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio, CI, and p-value for endpoint measures are from logistic regression model with baseline diabetes status, region, treatment as factors.|||42.65|3.87|<0.001
90921221|NCT04166773|181714047|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-8.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.632|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.04|-5.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.58|-12.04|<0.001
90921222|NCT04166773|181714047|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-8.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.566|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.93|-5.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.73|-11.93|<0.001
90921223|NCT04166773|181714047|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-10.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.591|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.17|-6.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-6.87|-13.17|<0.001
90921224|NCT04166773|181714048|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-10.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.976|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.32|-6.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-6.52|-14.32|<0.001
90921225|NCT04166773|181714048|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-13.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.96|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.05|-9.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-9.32|-17.05|<0.001
90921226|NCT04166773|181714048|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-16.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.957|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.71|-12.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-12.98|-20.71|<0.001
90962555|NCT04427501|181805950|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.38||||0.012|TWO_SIDED||||||Stratified Log-rank|||||||0.012
90962556|NCT04427501|181805951|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.355||||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||Stratified Log-rank|||||||0.007
90921227|NCT03033576|181714065|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.41|0.97||Pre-specified one-sided alpha=0.1|Log Rank|||The statistical design assumed exponential PFS with a median of 3.0 months on the ipilimumab group (null hypothesis). The study was powered to detect a change in median PFS to 6.0 months in the combination therapy group (corresponding to an HR of 0.50). A total of 84 participants (63 randomized to combination group and 21 to ipilimumab group) with 78 events (across both groups) would provide 89% power for a one-sided alpha of 10% using a log-rank test.||0.97|0.41|0.04
90921228|NCT03033576|181714068|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|1.39|||Log Rank|||||1.39|0.50|0.28
90921229|NCT05529966|181714150|OTHER|||||||0.45490734||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance after Bonferroni correction is \< 0.002083333|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.45490734
90921230|NCT05529966|181714151|OTHER|||||||0.9237611||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance after Bonferroni correction is \< 0.002083333|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.92376110
90921231|NCT05529966|181714152|OTHER|||||||0.94342221||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance after Bonferroni correction is \< 0.002083333|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.94342221
90921232|NCT05529966|181714153|OTHER|||||||0.38902793||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance after Bonferroni correction is \< 0.002083333|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.38902793
90962557|NCT04427501|181805951|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.237||||0.033|TWO_SIDED||||||Stratified Log-rank|||||||0.033
90921233|NCT05529966|181714154|OTHER|||||||0.0042494||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance after Bonferroni correction is \< 0.002083333|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of comfort score||||0.00424940
90921234|NCT05529966|181714154|OTHER|||||||0.00223547||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance after Bonferroni correction is \< 0.002083333|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of Visibility score||||.00223547
90921235|NCT05529966|181714154|OTHER|||||||1.858e-05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance after Bonferroni correction is \< 0.002083333|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of Image Quality score||||.00001858
90921236|NCT05529966|181714154|OTHER|||||||0.03003194||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance after Bonferroni correction is \< 0.002083333|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of Focus score||||.03003194
90921237|NCT05529966|181714154|OTHER|||||||2.8e-07||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance after Bonferroni correction is \< 0.002083333|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of Depth Perception score||||.00000028
90962558|NCT04427501|181805951|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.521||||0.017|TWO_SIDED||||||Stratified Log-rank|||||||0.017
90962559|NCT04427501|181805952|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.243||0.499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.64|-0.31|0.499
90962560|NCT04427501|181805952|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.241||0.492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.31|-0.64|0.492
90962561|NCT04427501|181805952|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.246||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.86|-0.11|0.125
90962562|NCT04427501|181805952|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.236||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.03|-0.89|0.069
90921238|NCT05529966|181714154|OTHER|||||||0.00112148||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance after Bonferroni correction is \< 0.002083333|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of Staff Engagement score||||.00112148
90921239|NCT05529966|181714154|OTHER|||||||951||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance after Bonferroni correction is \< 0.002083333|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of Teaching score||||00000951
90921240|NCT05529966|181714154|OTHER|||||||0.03493564||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance after Bonferroni correction is \< 0.002083333|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of En Face Confidence score||||.03493564
90921241|NCT05529966|181714154|OTHER|||||||0.12895248||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance after Bonferroni correction is \< 0.002083333|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of Hydrus Placement Confidence score||||.12895248
90921242|NCT05529966|181714154|OTHER|||||||0.00279611||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance after Bonferroni correction is \< 0.002083333|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of Scope Preference score||||.00279611
90921243|NCT05529966|181714155|OTHER|||||||0.959638658||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance after Bonferroni correction is \< 0.002083333|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of Comfort score||||.959638658
90921244|NCT05529966|181714155|OTHER|||||||0.213464715||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance after Bonferroni correction is \< 0.002083333|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of Visibility score||||.213464715
90921245|NCT05529966|181714155|OTHER|||||||0.213464715||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance after Bonferroni correction is \< 0.002083333|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of Image Quality score||||.213464715
90921246|NCT05529966|181714155|OTHER|||||||0.155899777||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance after Bonferroni correction is \< 0.002083333|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of Focus score||||.155899777
90921247|NCT05529966|181714155|OTHER|||||||0.055960023||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance after Bonferroni correction is \< 0.002083333|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of Depth Perception score||||.055960023
90921248|NCT05529966|181714155|OTHER|||||||0.000685499||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance after Bonferroni correction is \< 0.002083333|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of Staff Engagement score||||.000685499
90921249|NCT05529966|181714155|OTHER|||||||0.004526118||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance after Bonferroni correction is \< 0.002083333|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of Teaching score||||.004526118
90921250|NCT05529966|181714155|OTHER|||||||0.299921137||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance after Bonferroni correction is \< 0.002083333|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of En Face Confidence score||||.299921137
90921251|NCT05529966|181714155|OTHER|||||||0.368082084||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance after Bonferroni correction is \< 0.002083333|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of Hydrus Placement Confidence score||||.368082084
90921252|NCT05529966|181714155|OTHER|||||||0.015036417||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance after Bonferroni correction is \< 0.002083333|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of Scope Preference score||||.015036417
90921253|NCT02187003|181714156|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.7944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.22|||Log Rank|||A Cox proportional hazards regression model with age group and genotype group as stratification covariates was used to estimate the hazard ratio (Placebo/Rivipansel) and the corresponding 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI). A stratified log-rank test with age group and genotype group as stratification variables was performed to evaluate P value.||1.22|0.77|0.7944
90921254|NCT02187003|181714157|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.7156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.19|||Log Rank|||A Cox proportional hazards regression model with age group and genotype group as stratification covariates was used to estimate the hazard ratio (Placebo/Rivipansel) and the corresponding 95% CI. A stratified log-rank test with age group and genotype group as stratification variables was performed to evaluate P- value.||1.19|0.77|0.7156
90921255|NCT02187003|181714158|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06||||0.852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|0.88|||ANCOVA|||The difference in medians (Rivipansel- Placebo) was estimated by the difference of treatment medians from summary statistics. The corresponding 95% CI was estimated by a bootstrap method with stratification for age and genotype groups. P-value was from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model based on rank-transformed values using age group and genotype group as the stratification covariates.||0.88|-1.27|0.8520
90921256|NCT02187003|181714159|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.8593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.26|||Log Rank|||A Cox proportional hazards regression model with age group and genotype group as stratification covariates was used to estimate the hazard ratio (Placebo/Rivipansel) and the corresponding 95% CI. A stratified log-rank test with age group and genotype group as stratification variables was performed to evaluate P- value.||1.26|0.82|0.8593
90921257|NCT02187003|181714160|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.9332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.16|||ANCOVA|||The difference in medians (Rivipansel- Placebo) was estimated by the difference of treatment medians from summary statistics. The corresponding 95% CI was estimated by a bootstrap method with stratification for age and genotype groups. P value was from ANCOVA model based on rank-transformed values using age group and genotype group as the stratification covariates.||0.16|-0.13|0.9332
90921258|NCT02187003|181714161|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-1.17||||0.5349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.19|2.46|||Chan and Zhang|||P values and 95% CI for the difference in percentages were based on the exact method by Chan and Zhang.||2.46|-5.19|0.5349
90921259|NCT02187003|181714168|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.336||||0.302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.024|2.968|||Chan and Zhang|||||2.968|-10.024|0.3020
90921260|NCT02187003|181714169|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.203||||0.5429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.379|5.104|||Chan and Zhang|||||5.104|-2.379|0.5429
90921261|NCT03648840|181714187|OTHER||||||<|0.2|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||2-tailed, unpaired T-test||||<0.2
90921262|NCT05063994|181714191|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of Chronocort to Cortef was declared if the 95% CI for the difference in biochemical response rates between the 2 treatment arms (Chronocort minus Cortef) was wholly above minus 15 percentage points.|Treatment Difference|25.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.82||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|48.9||One-sided non-inferiority. The Ge et al (2011) method was used to calculate the estimate, standard error, confidence interval and P-value for the treatment difference from the results of a logistic regression analysis.|Regression, Logistic|||||48.9|2.5|0.0003
90962563|NCT04427501|181805953|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|2.9|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.90|1.04|0.034
90962564|NCT04427501|181805953|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.91|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.91|0.69|0.594
90962565|NCT04427501|181805953|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.20|0.79|0.291
90921263|NCT05063994|181714192|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of Chronocort to Cortef with respect to the dose response after 28 weeks of randomized treatment was declared if the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in response rates between the 2 treatment arms (Chronocort minus Cortef) was wholly above zero, provided that non-inferiority of Chronocort to Cortef with respect to the biochemical response had been declared under the primary efficacy objective.|Treatment Difference|25.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.24||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|47.3||One-sided superiority. The Ge et al (2011) method was used to calculate the estimate, standard error, confidence interval and P-value for the treatment difference from the results of a logistic regression analysis.|Regression, Logistic|||||47.3|3.3|0.012
90921264|NCT05063994|181714193|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of Chronocort to Cortef (with respect to the total daily dose after 28 weeks of randomized treatment) was declared if the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in means between the 2 treatment arms (Chronocort minus Cortef) was wholly below zero, provided that non-inferiority of Chronocort to Cortef in terms of biochemical response had been declared under the primary efficacy objective, and superiority of Chronocort to Cortef in terms of dose response has been declared.|Treatment Difference|-5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.66||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|-2.5||One-sided superiority.|MMRM|||||-2.5|-9.2|0.0005
90921265|NCT00667251|181714207|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.367||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.133|1.648|||Log Rank|||PFS at the time of Primary Analysis (IIT population)||1.648|1.133|0.0010
90921266|NCT00667251|181714207|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.484||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.204|1.829|||Log Rank|||PFS at the time of Primary Analysis (Central HER2+ population)||1.829|1.204|0.0002
90921267|NCT00667251|181714208|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3722|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1466|1.6422|||||Stratified HR for LTax/L versus TTax/T|PFS at the time of Final Analysis (IIT population)||1.6422|1.1466|
90921268|NCT00667251|181714208|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.4968|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2251|1.8288|||||Stratified HR for LTax/L versus TTax/T|PFS at the time of Final Analysis (Central HER2+ population)||1.8288|1.2251|
90921269|NCT00667251|181714209|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3786|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0246|1.8549|||||Stratified HR for LTax/L versus TTax/T|Overall Survival (OS) (IIT population)||1.8549|1.0246|
90921270|NCT00667251|181714210|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.5818|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1181|2.2379|||||Stratified HR for LTax/L versus TTax/T|Overall Survival (OS) (Central HER2+ population)||2.2379|1.1181|
90921271|NCT00667251|181714213|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0916|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7271|1.6389|||||Stratified HR for LTax/L versus TTax/T|Time to Central Nervous System (CNS) metastasis (IIT population)||1.6389|0.7271|
90921272|NCT00667251|181714214|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0951|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7144|1.6787|||||Stratified HR for LTax/L versus TTax/T|Time to Central Nervous System (CNS) metastasis (Central HER2+ population)||1.6787|0.7144|
90921273|NCT00667251|181714219|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0091|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.809|1.2586|||||Stratified HR for LTax/L versus TTax/T|Time to Response (TTR) (IIT population)||1.2586|0.8090|
90921274|NCT00667251|181714220|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9573|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7544|1.2148|||||Stratified HR for LTax/L versus TTax/T|Time to Response (TTR) (Central HER2+ population)||1.2148|0.7544|
90921275|NCT00667251|181714221|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.4866|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1479|1.9251|||||Stratified HR for LTax/L versus TTax/T|Duration of Response (DoR) (IIT population)||1.9251|1.1479|
90921276|NCT00667251|181714222|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.5594|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1767|2.0666|||||Stratified HR for LTax/L versus TTax/T|Duration of Response (DoR) (Central HER2+ population)||2.0666|1.1767|
90921277|NCT03400059|181714235|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.23||||0.0132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.11|-0.49||"analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model containing terms for treatment, baseline value and medication overuse.~Group-sequential analysis using updated boundaries from interim analysis"|ANCOVA|||||-0.49|-4.11|0.0132
90921278|NCT03400059|181714236|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.68||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.32|-1.04|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model containing terms for treatment, baseline value and medication overuse||||-1.04|-4.32|0.0014
91034267|NCT01597245|181954755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90921279|NCT03400059|181714237|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.06|-0.73|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model containing terms for treatment, baseline value and medication overuse||||-0.73|-4.06|0.0048
91034268|NCT01597245|181954756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.026|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Absenteeism Score||||0.026
90921280|NCT03400059|181714238|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.87||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.54|-1.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model containing terms for treatment, baseline value and medication overuse.||||-1.20|-4.54|0.0008
90921281|NCT03400059|181714239|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.53||||0.0598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.12|0.06|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model containing terms for treatment, baseline value and medication overuse.||||0.06|-3.12|0.0598
90921282|NCT03400059|181714240|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.63|-0.17|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model containing terms for treatment, baseline value and medication overuse.||||-0.17|-3.63|0.0310
90921283|NCT03400059|181714241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0102|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0102
90921284|NCT03400059|181714242|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1615|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1615
90921285|NCT03400059|181714243|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0798|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0798
90921286|NCT03400059|181714244|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1300
90921287|NCT03400059|181714245|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|||||posthoc|Van-Elteren|||||||0.0660
90921288|NCT03400059|181714246|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.0152|TWO_SIDED|||||posthoc|Van-Elteren|||||||0.0152
90921289|NCT05034952|181714253|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3914|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3914
90921290|NCT05034952|181714253|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1266|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1266
90921291|NCT05034952|181714253|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0097|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0097
90921292|NCT05034952|181714254|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5476|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.5476
90921293|NCT05034952|181714254|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0825|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0825
90921294|NCT05034952|181714254|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0036|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0036
91034269|NCT01597245|181954756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.076|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Absenteeism Score||||0.076
91034270|NCT01597245|181954756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.016|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Absenteeism Score||||0.016
91034271|NCT01597245|181954756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Activity Impairment Score||||<0.001
90962566|NCT04427501|181805953|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.40|0.88|0.143
90962567|NCT04427501|181805954|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.89||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|3.15|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.15|1.14|0.014
90962568|NCT04427501|181805954|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.74|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.74|0.64|0.828
90962569|NCT04427501|181805954|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.82||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|3.02|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.02|1.09|0.022
90962570|NCT04427501|181805954|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.43|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.43|0.90|0.119
90962571|NCT04427501|181805957|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.23||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|1.31|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.31|0.04|0.098
90962572|NCT04427501|181805957|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.37||||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.51|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.51|0.09|0.165
90962573|NCT04427501|181805957|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.39||||0.191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.6|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.60|0.10|0.191
90962574|NCT04427501|181805957|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.21||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|1.18|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.18|0.04|0.075
90962575|NCT04427501|181805958|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.616|||||||Stratified Log-rank|||||||0.616
90962576|NCT04427501|181805958|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.281|||||||Stratified Log-rank|||||||0.281
90962577|NCT04427501|181805958|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.815|||||||Stratified Log-rank|||||||0.815
90962578|NCT04427501|181805958|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.334|||||||Stratified Log-rank|||||||0.334
90962579|NCT03170154|181805965|OTHER||1-sided 95% Upper CL|99.99|||||ONE_SIDED||||||||Historical comparison to EN ISO 11979-7:2014: SPE rate of at least 92.5 for the AAS at 12 months.|||||
90962580|NCT03170154|181805966|OTHER||1-sided 95% Upper CL|99.98|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||||Historical comparison to EN ISO 11979-7:2014: SPE rate of at least 96.7 for the BAS at 12 months.|||||
90962581|NCT05629962|181806038|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.954|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.954
90962582|NCT03951220|181806046|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7343|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.7343
90962583|NCT03951220|181806047|OTHER|Correlation|Spearman (r)|0.39||||0.0445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.68|||Spearman's rank correlation coeffcieitn|||||0.68|0.00|0.0445
90962584|NCT03951220|181806048|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0079||||||Dunn's multiple comparisons test|Kruskal-Wallis|||For baseline P1NP||||0.0079
90962585|NCT03951220|181806048|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0482||||||Dunn's multiple comparison test|ANOVA|||For baseline sclerostin||||0.0482
90962586|NCT03951220|181806059|OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||Fisher-Freeman-Halton exact test|||||||0.015
90962587|NCT03951220|181806062|OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||Mann-Whitney test|||||||0.007
90962588|NCT05090995|181806071|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
90962589|NCT05090995|181806072|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
90962590|NCT05090995|181806073|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
90962591|NCT05090995|181806074|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
90962592|NCT05090995|181806075|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||For baseline consequences||||<.0001
90962593|NCT05090995|181806075|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||For effects with time||||<.0001
90962594|NCT05090995|181806076|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.0001
90962595|NCT05090995|181806077|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Effect of baseline sleep scores||||<.0001
90962596|NCT05090995|181806077|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||For effects with time||||0.04
90962597|NCT05090995|181806078|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||For interaction between treatment group and time||||0.02
90962598|NCT05090995|181806078|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Main effects of sex||||0.02
90962599|NCT05090995|181806078|OTHER|||||||0.0007|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Main effects of type of day of the week (weekday vs. weekend)||||0.0007
90962600|NCT05090995|181806078|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.02
90962601|NCT05090995|181806079|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Main effect of day of the week.||||0.0001
90962602|NCT05090995|181806080|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||For interaction between treatment condition and time||||0.04
90962603|NCT05090995|181806080|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Main effects of sex||||<.0001
90962604|NCT05090995|181806080|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Main effects of type of day of the week (weekday vs. weekend)||||<0.0001
90962605|NCT05090995|181806080|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.03
90921295|NCT05034952|181714255|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4712|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4712
90921296|NCT05034952|181714255|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1635|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1635
90921297|NCT05034952|181714255|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1158|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1158
90921298|NCT05034952|181714256|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2882|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2882
90921299|NCT05034952|181714256|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2344|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2344
90921300|NCT05034952|181714256|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1724|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1724
90921301|NCT05034952|181714257|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1343|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1343
90921302|NCT05034952|181714257|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4501|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4501
90921303|NCT05034952|181714257|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1009|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1009
90921304|NCT05722704|181714344|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.118|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.05||0.986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.986
90921305|NCT05722704|181714345|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.016|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.05|<|0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.118
90921306|NCT05722704|181714346|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|95.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.05||0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.225
90921307|NCT05722704|181714347|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|95.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.05||0.424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.424
90962606|NCT01005459|181806081|OTHER|unpaired t-test|||||>|0.05|||||||unpaired t-test compared between groups|||||||>0.05
90962607|NCT01005459|181806081|OTHER|unpaired t-test compared between groups|||||>|0.05|||||||unpaired t-test compared between groups|||||||>0.05
90962608|NCT00174265|181806086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0148||95.0||||The test of hypothesis was a 2-tailed test with alpha=0.05 (0.049 to adjust for one interim analysis).|Mixed Model for Repeated Measurements|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in change from Baseline in NSA Scale total score between asenapine and olanzapine at Day 365.||||0.0148
90962609|NCT00174265|181806087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.81||95.0||||Significant level adjusted for one interim analysis was set as 0.049 two-sided.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measurements|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in change from Baseline in QLS total score between asenapine and olanzapine at Week 52.||||0.8100
90962610|NCT03231943|181806144|OTHER||Power model|0.9476|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8982|0.9971|||||The statistical model (power model) is based on the PK parameters (AUC0-inf) from all active doses in Part 1|||0.9971|0.8982|
90962611|NCT03231943|181806145|OTHER||Power model|0.928|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8877|0.9683|||||The statistical model (power model) is based on the PK parameters (AUC0-24) from all active doses in Part 1|||0.9683|0.8877|
90962612|NCT03231943|181806146|OTHER||Power Model|0.9352|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.897|0.9734|||||The statistical model (power model) is based on the PK parameters (Cmax) from all active doses in Part 1|||0.9734|0.8970|
90962613|NCT03231943|181806147|OTHER||Power model|0.7968|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6424|0.9512|||||The statistical model (power model) is based on the PK parameters (AUC0-tau) from all active doses in Part 1|||0.9512|0.6424|
90962614|NCT03231943|181806148|OTHER||Power model|0.789|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6149|0.9631|||||The statistical model (power model) is based on the PK parameters (Ctrough) from all active doses in Part 2|||0.9631|0.6149|
90921308|NCT03498651|181714350|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|We compared the two groups in a piecewise linear multilevel model (one slope during treatment, one during follow-up), controlling for income and age.|From the model (run in Bayesian with non-informative priors), we report the between-group SMD (with empirical SD \& 95% bootstrap confidence interval) at Session 5 (at mean income \& age), adjusted for baseline differences \& using pooled baseline SD.|"Intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis of Stage 1 randomization to CBM-I vs. psychoeducation. To correct for sampling bias (i.e., CBM-I, high attrition, coach received coaching, whereas psychoeducation did not receive coaching), CBM-I, high attrition, coach participants were excluded and replaced with an equal number of CBM-I, high attrition, no coach participants (using bootstrap resampling). The corrected ITT analysis sample included 1,234 participants (980 in CBM-I, 254 in psychoeducation)."||1.16|1.04|
90921309|NCT03498651|181714350|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|We compared the two groups in a piecewise linear multilevel model (one slope during treatment, one during follow-up), controlling for income and age.|From the model (run in Bayesian with non-informative priors), we report the between-group SMD (with empirical SD \& 95% HPD credible interval) at Session 5 (at mean income \& age), adjusted for baseline differences \& using pooled baseline SD.|"Analysis of Stage 2 randomization of CBM-I participants classified as high risk for attrition to supplemental coaching vs. no coaching. The analysis sample included 544 participants (263 in CBM-I, high attrition, no coach; 281 in CBM-I, high attrition, coach)."||0.20|-0.43|
90921310|NCT03498651|181714351|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.63|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|We compared the two groups in a piecewise linear multilevel model (one slope during treatment, one during follow-up), controlling for income and age.|From the model (run in Bayesian with non-informative priors), we report the between-group SMD (with empirical SD \& 95% bootstrap confidence interval) at Session 5 (at mean income \& age), adjusted for baseline differences \& using pooled baseline SD.|"Intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis of Stage 1 randomization to CBM-I vs. psychoeducation. To correct for sampling bias (i.e., CBM-I, high attrition, coach received coaching, whereas psychoeducation did not receive coaching), CBM-I, high attrition, coach participants were excluded and replaced with an equal number of CBM-I, high attrition, no coach participants (using bootstrap resampling). The corrected ITT analysis sample included 1,234 participants (980 in CBM-I, 254 in psychoeducation)."||-0.57|-0.69|
90962615|NCT03231943|181806149|OTHER||Power model|0.7955|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6562|0.9349|||||The statistical model (power model) is based on the PK parameters (Cmax) from all active doses in Part 2|||0.9349|0.6562|
90962616|NCT03231943|181806154|OTHER||Power model|0.737|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5649|0.9091|||||The statistical model (power model) is based on the PK parameters (Cmax) from all active doses in Part 2|||0.9091|0.5649|
90962617|NCT03231943|181806155|OTHER||Power model|0.7397|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5576|0.9218|||||The statistical model (power model) is based on the PK parameters (AUC0-24) from all active doses in Part 2|||0.9218|0.5576|
91034272|NCT01597245|181954756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Activity Impairment Score||||<0.001
91034273|NCT01597245|181954756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Activity Impairment Score||||<0.001
90921311|NCT03498651|181714351|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.17|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|We compared the two groups in a piecewise linear multilevel model (one slope during treatment, one during follow-up), controlling for income and age.|From the model (run in Bayesian with non-informative priors), we report the between-group SMD (with empirical SD \& 95% HPD credible interval) at Session 5 (at mean income \& age), adjusted for baseline differences \& using pooled baseline SD.|"Analysis of Stage 2 randomization of CBM-I participants classified as high risk for attrition to supplemental coaching vs. no coaching. The analysis sample included 544 participants (263 in CBM-I, high attrition, no coach; 281 in CBM-I, high attrition, coach)."||0.39|-0.26|
90921312|NCT03498651|181714352|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.48|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|We compared the two groups in a piecewise linear multilevel model (one slope during treatment, one during follow-up), controlling for income and age.||"Intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis of Stage 1 randomization to CBM-I vs. psychoeducation. To correct for sampling bias (i.e., CBM-I, high attrition, coach received coaching, whereas psychoeducation did not receive coaching), CBM-I, high attrition, coach participants were excluded and replaced with an equal number of CBM-I, high attrition, no coach participants (using bootstrap resampling). The corrected ITT analysis sample included 1,234 participants (980 in CBM-I, 254 in psychoeducation)."|From the model (run in Bayesian with non-informative priors), we report the between-group SMD (with empirical SD \& 95% bootstrap confidence interval) at Session 5 (at mean income \& age), adjusted for baseline differences \& using pooled baseline SD.|0.54|0.42|
90921313|NCT03498651|181714352|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|We compared the two groups in a piecewise linear multilevel model (one slope during treatment, one during follow-up), controlling for income and age.|From the model (run in Bayesian with non-informative priors), we report the between-group SMD (with empirical SD \& 95% HPD credible interval) at Session 5 (at mean income \& age), adjusted for baseline differences \& using pooled baseline SD.|"Analysis of Stage 2 randomization of CBM-I participants classified as high risk for attrition to supplemental coaching vs. no coaching. The analysis sample included 544 participants (263 in CBM-I, high attrition, no coach; 281 in CBM-I, high attrition, coach)."||0.39|-0.23|
90921314|NCT03498651|181714353|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.55|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|We compared the two groups in a piecewise linear multilevel model (one slope during treatment, one during follow-up), controlling for income and age.|From the model (run in Bayesian with non-informative priors), we report the between-group SMD (with empirical SD \& 95% bootstrap confidence interval) at Session 5 (at mean income \& age), adjusted for baseline differences \& using pooled baseline SD.|"Intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis of Stage 1 randomization to CBM-I vs. psychoeducation. To correct for sampling bias (i.e., CBM-I, high attrition, coach received coaching, whereas psychoeducation did not receive coaching), CBM-I, high attrition, coach participants were excluded and replaced with an equal number of CBM-I, high attrition, no coach participants (using bootstrap resampling). The corrected ITT analysis sample included 1,234 participants (980 in CBM-I, 254 in psychoeducation)."||-0.51|-0.60|
90921315|NCT03498651|181714353|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|We compared the two groups in a piecewise linear multilevel model (one slope during treatment, one during follow-up), controlling for income and age.|From the model (run in Bayesian with non-informative priors), we report the between-group SMD (with empirical SD \& 95% HPD credible interval) at Session 5 (at mean income \& age), adjusted for baseline differences \& using pooled baseline SD.|"Analysis of Stage 2 randomization of CBM-I participants classified as high risk for attrition to supplemental coaching vs. no coaching. The analysis sample included 544 participants (263 in CBM-I, high attrition, no coach; 281 in CBM-I, high attrition, coach)."||0.27|-0.23|
90921316|NCT03498651|181714354|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.41|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|We compared the two groups in a piecewise linear multilevel model (one slope during treatment, one during follow-up), controlling for income and age.|From the model (run in Bayesian with non-informative priors), we report the between-group SMD (with empirical SD \& 95% bootstrap confidence interval) at Session 5 (at mean income \& age), adjusted for baseline differences \& using pooled baseline SD.|"Intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis of Stage 1 randomization to CBM-I vs. psychoeducation. To correct for sampling bias (i.e., CBM-I, high attrition, coach received coaching, whereas psychoeducation did not receive coaching), CBM-I, high attrition, coach participants were excluded and replaced with an equal number of CBM-I, high attrition, no coach participants (using bootstrap resampling). The corrected ITT analysis sample included 1,234 participants (980 in CBM-I, 254 in psychoeducation)."||-0.37|-0.46|
90962618|NCT03471871|181806162|OTHER||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-0.36||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.07||P-Value was at the 0.05 level of significance.|Mixed effect model|SPO2 was analyzed by mixed effect model, which included fixed effects for sequence, period, treatment a random effect for participant within sequence.||||0.07|-0.78|0.099
90962619|NCT03471871|181806162|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.29||||0.176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.14||P-Value was at the 0.05 level of significance.|Mixed effect model|SPO2 was analyzed by mixed effect model, which included fixed effects for sequence, period, treatment a random effect for participant within sequence.||||0.14|-0.72|0.176
90962620|NCT03471871|181806163|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.06||||0.948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|1.83||P-Value was at the 0.05 level of significance.|Mixed effect model|AHI was analyzed by mixed effect model, which included fixed effects for sequence, period, treatment a random effect for participant within sequence.||||1.83|-1.95|0.948
90962621|NCT03471871|181806164|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.52||||0.639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|2.76||P-Value was at the 0.05 level of significance.|Mixed effect model|AHI was analyzed by mixed effect model, which included fixed effects for sequence, period, treatment a random effect for participant within sequence.||||2.76|-1.72|0.639
91034274|NCT01597245|181954756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Presenteeism Score||||<0.001
90921317|NCT03498651|181714354|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|We compared the two groups in a piecewise linear multilevel model (one slope during treatment, one during follow-up), controlling for income and age.|From the model (run in Bayesian with non-informative priors), we report the between-group SMD (with empirical SD \& 95% HPD credible interval) at Session 5 (at mean income \& age), adjusted for baseline differences \& using pooled baseline SD.|"Analysis of Stage 2 randomization of CBM-I participants classified as high risk for attrition to supplemental coaching vs. no coaching. The analysis sample included 544 participants (263 in CBM-I, high attrition, no coach; 281 in CBM-I, high attrition, coach)."||0.32|-0.23|
90921318|NCT03498651|181714355|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.33|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|-0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|We compared the two groups in a piecewise linear multilevel model (one slope during treatment, one during follow-up), controlling for income and age.|From the model (run in Bayesian with non-informative priors), we report the between-group SMD (with empirical SD \& 95% bootstrap confidence interval) at Session 5 (at mean income \& age), adjusted for baseline differences \& using pooled baseline SD.|"Intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis of Stage 1 randomization to CBM-I vs. psychoeducation. To correct for sampling bias (i.e., CBM-I, high attrition, coach received coaching, whereas psychoeducation did not receive coaching), CBM-I, high attrition, coach participants were excluded and replaced with an equal number of CBM-I, high attrition, no coach participants (using bootstrap resampling). The corrected ITT analysis sample included 1,234 participants (980 in CBM-I, 254 in psychoeducation)."||-0.27|-0.39|
90921319|NCT03498651|181714355|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|We compared the two groups in a piecewise linear multilevel model (one slope during treatment, one during follow-up), controlling for income and age.|From the model (run in Bayesian with non-informative priors), we report the between-group SMD (with empirical SD \& 95% HPD credible interval) at Session 5 (at mean income \& age), adjusted for baseline differences \& using pooled baseline SD.|"Analysis of Stage 2 randomization of CBM-I participants classified as high risk for attrition to supplemental coaching vs. no coaching. The analysis sample included 544 participants (263 in CBM-I, high attrition, no coach; 281 in CBM-I, high attrition, coach)."||0.48|-0.14|
90921320|NCT04323137|181714367|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0035|||||||Regression, Logistic|||"This analysis compared all groups that were informed they were high risk (High risk only, High risk based on medical records, High risk based on algorithm) to control patients who were not sent a message.~Null hypothesis: informing patients they are high risk for flu and flu-related complications does not increase flu vaccination rate; Alternative hypothesis: informing patients they are high risk for flu and flu-related complications increases flu vaccination rate"||||0.0035
90921321|NCT04323137|181714367|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.613||||||The p-value reported is uncorrected, but the Holm method was used to determine whether the p-value reached statistical significance.|Regression, Logistic|||Null hypothesis: the High risk only and High risk based on medical records messages are equally effective at promoting ﬂu vaccinations; Alternative hypothesis: there is a difference in effectiveness between High risk only and High risk based on medical records. Separate regressions were run to assess pairwise differences between the high-risk arms (analyses 2, 3, and 4). The Holm method was used to test whether each comparison reached significance.||||.613
90921322|NCT04323137|181714367|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.889||||||The p-value reported is uncorrected, but the Holm method was used to determine whether the p-value reached statistical significance.|Regression, Logistic|||Null hypothesis: the High risk only and High risk based on algorithm messages are equally effective at promoting ﬂu vaccinations; Alternative hypothesis: there is a difference in effectiveness between High risk only and High risk based on algorithm messages. Separate regressions were run to assess pairwise differences between the high-risk arms (analyses 2, 3, and 4). The Holm method was used to test whether each comparison reached significance.||||0.889
90921323|NCT04323137|181714367|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.714||||||The p-value reported is uncorrected, but the Holm method was used to determine whether the p-value reached statistical significance.|Regression, Logistic|||Null hypothesis: the High risk based on medical records and High risk based on algorithm messages are equally effective at promoting ﬂu vaccinations; Alternative hypothesis: there is a difference in effectiveness between High risk based on medical records and High risk based on algorithm messages. Separate regressions were run to assess pairwise differences between the high-risk arms (analyses 2, 3, and 4). The Holm method was used to test whether each comparison reached significance.||||.714
90921324|NCT04323137|181714368|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.181||||||This p-value is from the same regression as the top 10% risk vs. top 3% risk contrast (analysis 2).|Regression, Logistic|||"This analysis tested whether vaccination differed in patients with the same risk level who were sent messages with a vague verbal (high risk) vs. specific numeric (top 10%) risk framing.~This analysis was limited to those informed they were high risk (High risk only, High risk based on medical records, High risk based on algorithm)."||||.181
90921325|NCT04323137|181714368|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.301||||||This p-value is from the same regression as the high risk vs. top 10% risk contrast (analysis 1).|Regression, Logistic|||"This analysis tested whether vaccination differed in patients with the same numeric risk phrasing are differentially affected due to different specific risk levels (3% vs. 10%).~This analysis was limited to those informed they were high risk (High risk only, High risk based on medical records, High risk based on algorithm)."||||.301
90921326|NCT05563246|181714385|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-47.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.68|-35.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-35.14|-57.68|<.001
90921327|NCT05563246|181714385|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-81.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.62|-78.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-78.13|-84.62|<.001
90921328|NCT05563246|181714385|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-85.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-88.03|-83.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-83.09|-88.03|<.001
90921329|NCT05563246|181714386|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-40.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.45|-28.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-28.27|-50.45|<.001
90921330|NCT05563246|181714386|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-69.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.23|-64.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-64.96|-74.23|<.001
90921331|NCT05563246|181714386|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-68.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.27|-63.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-63.81|-73.27|<.001
90921332|NCT05563246|181714387|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|58.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.3|75.99|||Regression, Logistic|||||75.99|40.30|<.001
90921333|NCT05563246|181714387|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|89.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|81.54|98.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||98.20|81.54|<.001
90921334|NCT05563246|181714387|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|90.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|82.8|98.62|||Regression, Logistic|||||98.62|82.80|<.001
90921335|NCT05563246|181714388|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|35.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.9|51.46|||Regression, Logistic|||||51.46|18.90|<.001
90921336|NCT05563246|181714388|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|78.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.7|88.65|||Regression, Logistic|||||88.65|67.70|<.001
90921337|NCT05563246|181714388|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|73.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.65|83.58|||Regression, Logistic|||||83.58|63.65|<.001
90921338|NCT05563246|181714389|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.94||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.84|2.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.17|-18.84|0.110
90921339|NCT05563246|181714389|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.05||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.92|-4.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.40|-20.92|0.004
90921340|NCT05563246|181714389|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.69|-7.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-7.84|-23.69|<.001
90921341|NCT05563246|181714390|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|35.27||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.63|100.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||100.27|-8.63|0.131
90921342|NCT05563246|181714390|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.32||||0.627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.62|49.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||49.70|-21.62|0.627
90921343|NCT05563246|181714390|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.08||||0.701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.89|29.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||29.51|-31.89|0.701
90921344|NCT03332017|181714397|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0017|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was stratified by rituximab-refractory status, number of prior lines of therapy, and geographic region per interactive response technology.||||||0.0017
90921345|NCT02243709|181714455|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>.05
90921346|NCT01748448|181714458|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.27|||=|0.324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.03|||Fisher Exact|||||2.03|0.79|= 0.324
90921347|NCT03562377|181714464|NON_INFERIORITY|The difference in response rates was calculated using the Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the risk difference stratified by baseline disease severity together with the 2-sided 95% CI. Non-inferiority of tralokinumab was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI was greater than -25%. Power calculation assumed 160 subjects in the per protocol analysis set, providing 98% power to establish non-inferiority, assuming response rates of 80% in both treatment groups and a non-inferiority margin of -25%|Risk Difference (RD)|-4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|3.1|||Mantel Haenszel|||||3.1|-11.3|
91034275|NCT01597245|181954756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Presenteeism Score||||<0.001
90921348|NCT03562377|181714465|NON_INFERIORITY|The difference in response rates was calculated using the Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the risk difference stratified by baseline disease severity together with the 2-sided 95% CI. Non-inferiority of tralokinumab was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI was greater than -25%. Power calculation assumed 160 subjects in the per protocol analysis set, providing 98% power to establish non-inferiority, assuming response rates of 80% in both treatment groups and a non-inferiority margin of -25%|Risk Difference (RD)|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|12.8|||Mantel Haenszel|||||12.8|-9.2|
90921349|NCT03562377|181714466|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.4||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|22.6||The p-value was adjusted for multiplicity by a pre-specified testing hierarchy. Subjects with missing data or subjects who received rescue medication prior to Week 16 were considered non-responders in the primary analysis of the primary estimand.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The difference in response rates was analysed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline disease severity (moderate or severe).||||22.6|0.2|0.049
90921350|NCT03562377|181714467|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.7||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|25.7||The p-value was adjusted for multiplicity by a pre-specified testing hierarchy. Subjects with missing data or subjects who received rescue medication prior to Week 16 were considered non-responders in the primary analysis of the primary estimand.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The difference in response rates was analysed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline disease severity (moderate or severe).||||25.7|-0.2|0.057
91034276|NCT01597245|181954756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Presenteeism Score||||<0.001
90921351|NCT02907099|181714480|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5
90921352|NCT02907099|181714481|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5
91034277|NCT01597245|181954756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Work Productivity Loss Score||||<0.001
91034278|NCT01597245|181954756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Work Productivity Loss Score||||<0.001
91034279|NCT01597245|181954756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Work Productivity Loss Score||||<0.001
90962622|NCT03471871|181806164|OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.16||||0.297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|1.08||P-Value was at the 0.05 level of significance.|mixed effect model|AHI was analyzed by mixed effect model, which included fixed effects for sequence, period, treatment a random effect for participant within sequence.||||1.08|-3.40|0.297
90962623|NCT03471871|181806165|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.03||||0.979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|2.17||P-Value was at the 0.05 level of significance.|Mixed effect model|AHI was analyzed by mixed effect model, which included fixed effects for sequence, period, treatment a random effect for participant within sequence.||||2.17|-2.22|0.979
90962624|NCT03471871|181806166|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.185||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.034|0.405||P-Value was at the 0.05 level of significance.|Mixed effect model|SPO2 was analyzed by mixed effect model, which included fixed effects for sequence, period, treatment a random effect for participant within sequence.||SpO2 is \<90%||0.405|-0.034|0.095
90962625|NCT03471871|181806166|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.245||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.025|0.464||P-Value was at the 0.05 level of significance.|Mixed effect model|SPO2 was analyzed by mixed effect model, which included fixed effects for sequence, period, treatment a random effect for participant within sequence.||When SpO2 is \<90%||0.464|0.025|0.030
90962626|NCT03471871|181806166|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.004||||0.885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.058|0.067||P-Value was at the 0.05 level of significance.|Mixed effect model|SPO2 was analyzed by mixed effect model, which included fixed effects for sequence, period, treatment a random effect for participant within sequence.||SpO2 is \<85%||0.067|-0.058|0.885
90962627|NCT03471871|181806166|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.044||||0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.018|0.107||P-Value was at the 0.05 level of significance.|Mixed effect model|SPO2 was analyzed by mixed effect model, which included fixed effects for sequence, period, treatment a random effect for participant within sequence.||SpO2 is \<85%||0.107|-0.018|0.158
91034280|NCT01597245|181954757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Physical Summary Score||||<0.001
91034281|NCT01597245|181954757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Physical Summary Score||||<0.001
90962628|NCT03471871|181806166|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.001||||0.462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.002|0.005||P-Value was at the 0.05 level of significance.|Mixed effect model|SPO2 was analyzed by mixed effect model, which included fixed effects for sequence, period, treatment a random effect for participant within sequence.||SpO2 is \<80%||0.005|-0.002|0.462
91034282|NCT01597245|181954757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Physical Summary Score||||<0.001
91034283|NCT01597245|181954757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Mental Summary Score||||<0.001
91034284|NCT01597245|181954757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Mental Summary Score||||<0.001
91034285|NCT01597245|181954757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Mental Summary Score||||<0.001
90962629|NCT03471871|181806166|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.002||||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|0.006||P-Value was at the 0.05 level of significance.|Mixed effect model|SPO2 was analyzed by mixed effect model, which included fixed effects for sequence, period, treatment a random effect for participant within sequence.||SpO2 is \<80%||0.006|-0.001|0.166
90962630|NCT03471871|181806168|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.07||||0.699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.46||P-Value was at the 0.05 level of significance.|mixed effect model|SPO2 was analyzed by mixed effect model, which included fixed effects for sequence, period, treatment a random effect for participant within sequence.||Day 1: Mean SpO2 during TST||0.46|-0.31|0.699
90962631|NCT03471871|181806168|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.25||||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.61||P-Value was at the 0.05 level of significance.|mixed effect model|SPO2 was analyzed by mixed effect model, which included fixed effects for sequence, period, treatment a random effect for participant within sequence.||Day 8: Mean SpO2 during TST||0.61|-0.11|0.169
90962632|NCT03471871|181806169|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.312||||0.472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.558|1.181||P-Value was at the 0.05 level of significance.|mixed effect model|SPO2 was analyzed by mixed effect model, which included fixed effects for sequence, period, treatment a random effect for participant within sequence.||Day 1: SpO2 is \<90%||1.181|-0.558|0.472
90962633|NCT03471871|181806169|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.067||||0.479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.124|0.258||P-Value was at the 0.05 level of significance.|mixed effect model|SPO2 was analyzed by mixed effect model, which included fixed effects for sequence, period, treatment a random effect for participant within sequence.||Day 1: SpO2 is \<85%||0.258|-0.124|0.479
90962634|NCT03471871|181806169|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.002||||0.852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.019|0.023||P-Value was at the 0.05 level of significance.|mixed effect model|SPO2 was analyzed by mixed effect model, which included fixed effects for sequence, period, treatment a random effect for participant within sequence.||Day 1: SpO2 is \<80%||0.023|-0.019|0.852
90962635|NCT03471871|181806169|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.088||||0.733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.431|0.607||P-Value was at the 0.05 level of significance.|mixed effect model|SPO2 was analyzed by mixed effect model, which included fixed effects for sequence, period, treatment a random effect for participant within sequence.||Day 8: SpO2 is \<90%||0.607|-0.431|0.733
90962636|NCT03471871|181806169|OTHER||LSM difference|0.056||||0.518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.117|0.228||P-Value was at the 0.05 level of significance.|mixed effect model|SPO2 was analyzed by mixed effect model, which included fixed effects for sequence, period, treatment a random effect for participant within sequence.||Day 8: When SpO2 is \<85%||0.228|-0.117|0.518
90962637|NCT03471871|181806169|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.006||||0.576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.015|0.026||P-Value was at the 0.05 level of significance.|mixed effect model|SPO2 was analyzed by mixed effect model, which included fixed effects for sequence, period, treatment a random effect for participant within sequence.||Day 8: SpO2 is \<80%||0.026|-0.015|0.576
90962638|NCT03040622|181806171|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.06
90962639|NCT03040622|181806172|OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.009
90962640|NCT03040622|181806173|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.001
90962641|NCT02673619|181806203|OTHER||Percentage difference|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.1|75.1||||||||75.1|-21.1|
90962642|NCT02673619|181806203|OTHER||Percentage difference|25.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.2|59.2||||||||59.2|-10.2|
90962643|NCT02673619|181806204|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-59.7|32.0||||||||32.0|-59.7|
90962644|NCT02673619|181806204|OTHER||Percentage Difference|18.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.8|52.1||||||||52.1|-18.8|
90962645|NCT02673619|181806208|OTHER||Percentage Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-32.0|59.7||||||||59.7|-32.0|
90962646|NCT02673619|181806208|OTHER||Percentage Difference|7.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.7|42.3||||||||42.3|-27.7|
90962647|NCT03444324|181806227|NON_INFERIORITY|The primary efficacy analysis of this endpoint was to test non-inferiority in the Per-protocol Set. The final analysis was performed using a two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). Non-inferiority was to be demonstrated if the upper confidence limit of the two-sided 95 % confidence interval (CI) for the difference in the least squares mean (LSM) was less than the non-inferiority margin (150 mL).|Difference in LSM|-279.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-552.38|-6.48||p-value from Van Elteren test, stratified by predictive blood loss (\> 1,000 mL to = 2,000 mL and \>2,000 mL)|Van Elteren test|||||-6.48|-552.38|<0.001
90962648|NCT03444324|181806228|OTHER||Difference in response rate|38.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.0|50.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value is from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel model stratified by predictive blood loss (\> 1,000 mL to ≤ 2,000 mL and \> 2,000 mL).||||50.3|26|<0.001
90962649|NCT03444324|181806229|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
90962650|NCT03444324|181806235|OTHER||Difference in LSM|-15.5|||<|0.831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-157.83|126.88|||ANOVA|||||126.88|-157.83|<0.831
90962651|NCT03444324|181806236|OTHER||Difference in LSM|12.4|||=|0.809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-88.84|113.66|||ANOVA|||||113.66|-88.84|=0.809
90962652|NCT03444324|181806237|OTHER||Difference in proportion|-4.8|||=|0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|-0.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-0.7|-8.9|=0.022
90962653|NCT01078220|181806257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.91|9.21|||unconditional logistic regression||Relative risk was approximated by odds ratio, obtained from conditional logistic regression.|||9.21|3.91|
90962654|NCT01078220|181806257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|2.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|7.08|||unconditional logistic regression||Relative risk was approximated by odds ratio, obtained from conditional logistic regression.|||7.08|1.18|
91034286|NCT01597245|181954758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
90921369|NCT03519581|181714542|OTHER|The primary statistical analysis was an intention-to-treat analysis. The primary outcome was analyzed by Kruskal-Wallis test because the data was non-parametric.||||||0.76|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The target sample size for the study was 30 eyes, based on power calculations to achieve 80% power assuming 40% of sham-treated eyes will reach the vision loss threshold within 2 years, while SML treatment will reduce that value to 15%, using a 2:1 ratio for randomization (2 treatment : 1 sham).||||.76
90921370|NCT03519581|181714543|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.16
90921371|NCT03519581|181714544|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.12
90921372|NCT03519581|181714545|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.68
90921373|NCT03519581|181714546|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.96
90962655|NCT01078220|181806261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|1.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|2.3|||unconditional logistic regression||Relative risk was approximated by odds ratio, obtained from conditional logistic regression.|Days 1-14 after vaccination.||2.3|1.17|
90962656|NCT01078220|181806261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.35|||unconditional logistic regression||Relative risk was approximated by odds ratio, obtained from conditional logistic regression.|Days 1-60 after vaccination.||1.35|0.82|
90962657|NCT01078220|181806261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.98|||unconditional logistic regression||Relative risk was approximated by odds ratio, obtained from conditional logistic regression.|Days 1-14 after vaccination.||1.98|0.53|
90962658|NCT01078220|181806261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.21|||unconditional logistic regression||Relative risk was approximated by odds ratio, obtained from conditional logistic regression.|Days 1-60 after vaccination.||1.21|0.5|
90962659|NCT03824639|181806262|OTHER|Cohen's d will be used to estimate the effect size for comparing change in outcome measurements over 6 months in the exercise group to the control group. This effect size will be used for sample size calculations.|Cohen's d|0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91034287|NCT01597245|181954758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
90921374|NCT03519581|181714547|SUPERIORITY|Two-tailed t-tests and mixed effects regression models||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.50
90921375|NCT05177848|181714548|OTHER|||||||0.9793||||||"A linear mixed effects model tested the interaction between group and condition on the rate of substitution~Results:~Condition: X2(6) = 4.30, p = 0.64 Group: X2(1) 0.22, p = 0.64 Condition:Group: X2(6) = 1.15, p = 0.98"|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.9793
90921376|NCT05177848|181714549|OTHER|||||||0.29||||||"A linear mixed effects model tested the interaction between group and condition on Q0 (derived intensity).~Results:~Condition: X2(6) = 6.59, p = 0.36 Group: X2(1) = 0.07, p = 0.79 Condition:Group: X2(6) = 7.38, p = 0.29"|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.29
90962660|NCT03824639|181806263|OTHER|Cohen's d will be used to estimate the effect size for comparing change in outcome measurements over 6 months in the exercise group to the control group. This effect size will be used for sample size calculations.|Cohen's d|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90921377|NCT05177848|181714549|OTHER|||||||0.46||||||"A linear mixed effects model tested the interaction between group and condition on Alpha (demand elasticity).~Results:~Condition: X2(6) = 0.0001, p = 1.00 Group: X2(1) = 0.00, p = 0.99 Condition:Group: X2(6) = 5.65, p = 0.46"|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.46
90921378|NCT05486078|181714573|OTHER|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Hip abduction strength was analyzed using repeated measures ANOVA. The assumption of sphericity was tested and Bonferroni correction was applied for pairwise comparisons. A p-value \< 0.001 was considered statistically significant.||||0.001
90962661|NCT02616614|181806317|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was established if the 90% CI for the difference was contained within the interval \[0.80,1.25\] for the PP population.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.03||||||||1.03|0.88|
90962662|NCT02616614|181806317|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0001
90962663|NCT02616614|181806317|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
90962664|NCT02616614|181806318|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was established if the 90% CI for the difference was contained within the interval \[0.80, 1.25\] for the PP population.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.11||||||||1.11|0.90|
90962665|NCT02616614|181806318|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0002
90962666|NCT02616614|181806318|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0006|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0006
91034288|NCT01597245|181954758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91034289|NCT01597245|181954759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||PPASI 50||||<0.001
90921379|NCT05486078|181714574|OTHER|McNemar Exact Test|||||<|0.0001||||||P-value derived from McNemar exact test comparing binary outcome (improved vs. unchanged). Statistical significance threshold set at p \< 0.05.|McNemar|McNemar Exact Test||MRI improvement was assessed using paired evaluation of inflammatory signs (edema) at baseline and Week 24. McNemar exact test was used for within-subject categorical comparison.||||< 0.0001
90921380|NCT05486078|181714575|OTHER|Friedman Test Within-group||||||0.992|||||||Friedman Test Within-group|||Analgesic use (units/week) was analyzed over time using the Friedman test for repeated measures. No significant variation across follow-up visits was found.||||0.992
90921381|NCT03649659|181714578|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.9|2.54|6.48|||Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation (25) of missing data, FCS methods. Group comparisons using GEE logistic model, exchangeable correlation, study site as covariate.||||6.48|2.54|<0.0001
90921382|NCT03649659|181714579|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.9|2.84|8.05||Multiple imputation (25) of missing data, FCS methods. Group comparisons using GEE logistic model, exchangeable correlation, study site as covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||8.05|2.84|<0.0001
90921383|NCT03649659|181714580|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.84|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.9|3.59|9.51||Multiple imputation (25) of missing data, FCS methods. Group comparisons using GEE logistic model, exchangeable correlation, study site as covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||9.51|3.59|<0.0001
90921384|NCT03649659|181714581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.8942|TWO_SIDED|99.9|0.25|3.54||Multiple imputation (25) of missing data, FCS methods. Group comparisons using GEE logistic model, exchangeable correlation, study site as covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||3.54|0.25|0.8942
90921385|NCT04856163|181714636|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.08
90921386|NCT04856163|181714637|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||discrete-time survival model|||||||0.21
90921387|NCT04856163|181714638|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.28
90921388|NCT04856163|181714639|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.05
90921389|NCT02132936|181714694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|4.46|||Mantel Haenszel|||"Mantel-Haenszel odds of treatment success in LEO 90100 group relative to calcipotriol BDP gel group, adjusted for pooled centre and baseline PGA.~Multiple imputation was used to handle missing PGA values."||4.46|1.46|<0.001
90921390|NCT02132936|181714695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.18|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|3.47|||Mantel Haenszel|||"Mantel-Haenszel odds of having PASI 75 in LEO 90100 group relative to calcipotriol BDP gel group, adjusted for pooled centre and baseline PGA.~Multiple imputation was used to handle missing data."||3.47|1.37|=0.001
90921391|NCT02132936|181714696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.001
90921392|NCT02132936|181714697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||Mean change in itch adjusted for pooled centre, baseline PGA and baseline itch. Multiple imputation used for missing data.||||<0.001
90921393|NCT02132936|181714698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.33|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Mean change in itch adjusted for pooled centre, baseline PGA and baseline itch. Multiple imputation used for missing data.||||=0.33
90921394|NCT02379156|181714736|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Between-group differences in the change in core body temperature (Tcore) from baseline (BL) values to after cold exposure (Cold) were analyzed using a Mixed Model ANOVA. We hypothesized that participants with tetraplegia would have a greater decrease in Tcore when exposed to cool ambient temperature than control participants exposed to the same cool ambient temperature.||||<0.001
90921395|NCT02379156|181714736|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||ANOVA|||Within-group differences in the change in (Tcore) in the participants with tetraplegia from BL values to Cold, with and without a dose of 10 mg of midodrine (two separate visits), were analyzed using a Repeated Measures ANOVA .||||0.006
90921396|NCT02379156|181714737|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.042|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Between-group differences in the percent change in total WAIS IV scores from BL to after cold ambient exposure were analyzed using an independent samples T-test. We hypothesized that participants with tetraplegia would have a greater percent change in total WAIS IV scores due to impaired cognitive function post cool ambient exposure.||||.042
90921397|NCT02379156|181714737|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.149|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Within-group differences in the percent change in total WAIS IV scores from BL to after cold ambient exposure were analyzed using a paired samples t-test. We hypothesized that participants with tetraplegia in the No Drug condition would have a greater percent change in total WAIS IV scores than the same participants in the With drug condition."||||0.149
90921398|NCT02379156|181714738|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Between-group differences in the change in distal skin temperature temperature (Tsk) from baseline (BL) values to after ambient cold exposure (Cold) were analyzed using a mixed-model ANOVA for the AB vs Tetra comparison. We hypothesized that participants with tetraplegia would have a smaller change in Tsk due to being in a constant state of vasodilation.||||<0.001
90921399|NCT02379156|181714738|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Within-group differences in the change in distal skin temperature temperature (Tsk) from baseline (BL) values to after ambient cold exposure (Cold) were analyzed using a repeated measures ANOVA for the within-group comparison of drug vs no drug in the tetraplegia group. We hypothesized that participants with tetraplegia with drug would have a larger decrease in Tsk due to enhanced peripheral vasoconstriction due to the drug's effects.||||<.001
90921400|NCT02379156|181714739|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Between-group differences in the percent change in microvascular perfusion from baseline to after cool ambient exposure were analyzed using independent samples T-test. We hypothesized that participants with tetraplegia would have a smaller percent change in microvascular perfusion due impaired vasomotor control which causes a constant state of vasodilation.||||<0.001
90921401|NCT02379156|181714739|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.066|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Within-group differences in the percent change in microvascular perfusion from baseline to after cool ambient exposure were analyzed using a paired samples t-test. We hypothesized that participants with tetraplegia in the No Drug condition would have a smaller percent change in microvascular perfusion due impaired vasomotor control which causes a constant state of vasodilation."||||0.066
91034290|NCT01597245|181954759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||PPASI 50||||<0.001
90921402|NCT02379156|181714740|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.127|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Between-group differences in the percent change in VO2 from baseline to after cool ambient exposure were analyzed using independent samples t-test. We hypothesized that participants with tetraplegia would have a smaller percent change in VO2 consumption.||||0.127
90921403|NCT02379156|181714740|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.964|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Within-group differences in the percent change in VO2 consumption from baseline to after cool ambient exposure were analyzed using a paired samples t-test. We hypothesized that participants with tetraplegia in the No Drug condition would have a greater percent change in VO2 consumption due to impaired vasoconstriction and greater heat loss compared to the With Drug condition, in response to cool ambient exposure."||||0.964
90921404|NCT02754882|181714767|EQUIVALENCE|Pre-defined equivalence margin was \[0.737, 1.357\]|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.975|1.269|||||SB8 vs. Avastin|||1.269|0.975|
90921405|NCT01212029|181714777|OTHER|One sample t-tests of standardized regression coefficients of RMSSD predicting O2Hb during baseline||||||0.008||||||t-test was performed 16 times for 16 fNIRS channels. The reported p-value is an uncorrected value for channel 10.|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: there is no significant correlation between RMSSD and O2Hb levels during baseline||||0.008
90921406|NCT01212029|181714778|OTHER|||||||0.0105|||||||Tukey method|||||||0.0105
90921407|NCT02671903|181714782|SUPERIORITY||Fixed Effect for Treatment|0.25||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in treatment effect taken from mixed-model output||0.73|-0.23|0.3
90921408|NCT02995434|181714804|EQUIVALENCE|As reliable estimates of expected effect size were unknown, the study was powered to detect a medium effect (0.5 SD change), considered a reasonable clinically meaningful impact to obtain 80% power based on a repeated measures analysis of variance (RM ANOVA) with 2-tailed alpha of .05 model.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.86|-0.3|||||Treatment effect = VR group - Control group; 95% confidence intervals estimated using the bootstrapping method|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the reported daily pain experiences of participants during, or after exposure to VR immersive environments, overall and within four different VR immersive environments, compared to the equivalent applications experienced on a 2D computer screen.||-0.30|-3.86|
90921409|NCT02995434|181714804|EQUIVALENCE|As reliable estimates of expected effect size were unknown, the study was powered to detect a medium effect (0.5 SD change), considered a reasonable clinically meaningful impact to obtain 80% power based on a repeated measures analysis of variance (RM ANOVA) with 2-tailed alpha of .05 model|Mean Difference (Net)|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|2.37|||||Treatment effect = VR group - Control group; 95% confidence intervals estimated using the bootstrapping method|||2.37|-1.24|
90921410|NCT02995434|181714805|EQUIVALENCE|See section for primary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|3.95|||||Treatment effect = VR group - Control group; 95% confidence intervals estimated using the bootstrapping method|||3.95|-1.59|
90921411|NCT02995434|181714805|EQUIVALENCE|See section on primary outcome|Mean Difference (Net)|2.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|5.08|||||Treatment effect = VR group - Control group; 95% confidence intervals estimated using the bootstrapping method|||5.08|-0.55|
90921412|NCT02995434|181714805|EQUIVALENCE|See section on primary outcome|Mean Difference (Net)|0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.64|3.42|||||Treatment effect = VR group - Control group; 95% confidence intervals estimated using the bootstrapping method|||3.42|-2.64|
90921413|NCT02995434|181714805|EQUIVALENCE|See section on primary outcome|Mean Difference (Net)|2.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|5.48|||||Treatment effect = VR group - Control group; 95% confidence intervals estimated using the bootstrapping method|||5.48|-0.08|
90921414|NCT02995434|181714806|EQUIVALENCE|See comment in primary outcome|Mean Difference (Net)|0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|1.5|||||Treatment effect = VR group - Control group; 95% confidence intervals estimated using the bootstrapping method|||1.5|-0.71|
90921415|NCT02995434|181714806|EQUIVALENCE|See comment in primary outcome|Mean Difference (Net)|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|1.89|||||Treatment effect = VR group - Control group; 95% confidence intervals estimated using the bootstrapping method|||1.89|-0.49|
90921416|NCT02995434|181714806|EQUIVALENCE|See comments in primary outcome|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|1.09|||||Treatment effect = VR group - Control group; 95% confidence intervals estimated using the bootstrapping method|||1.09|-1.19|
90921417|NCT02995434|181714806|EQUIVALENCE|See comment in primary outcome|Mean Difference (Net)|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|1.57|||||Treatment effect = VR group - Control group; 95% confidence intervals estimated using the bootstrapping method|||1.57|-0.88|
90921418|NCT02995434|181714807|EQUIVALENCE|See comment in primary outcome|Mean Difference (Net)|2.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|4.7|||||Treatment effect = VR group - Control group; 95% confidence intervals estimated using the bootstrapping method|||4.70|0.02|
90921419|NCT02995434|181714807|EQUIVALENCE|See comment in primary outcome|Mean Difference (Net)|2.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|4.39|||||Treatment effect = VR group - Control group; 95% confidence intervals estimated using the bootstrapping method|||4.39|-0.42|
90921420|NCT02995434|181714807|EQUIVALENCE|See comment in primary outcome|Mean Difference (Net)|3.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|6.08|||||Treatment effect = VR group - Control group; 95% confidence intervals estimated using the bootstrapping method|||6.08|1.02|
90921421|NCT02995434|181714807|EQUIVALENCE|See comment in primary outcome|Mean Difference (Net)|3.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|5.69|||||Treatment effect = VR group - Control group; 95% confidence intervals estimated using the bootstrapping method|||5.69|0.68|
90921422|NCT02995434|181714808|EQUIVALENCE|See comment in primary outcome|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.63|0.98|||||Treatment effect = VR group - Control group; 95% confidence intervals estimated using the bootstrapping method|||0.98|-5.63|
90921423|NCT02995434|181714808|EQUIVALENCE|See comment in primary outcome|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.35|-0.48|||||Treatment effect = VR group - Control group; 95% confidence intervals estimated using the bootstrapping method|||-0.48|-7.35|
90921424|NCT02995434|181714808|EQUIVALENCE|See comment in primary outcome|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.11|2.62|||||Treatment effect = VR group - Control group; 95% confidence intervals estimated using the bootstrapping method|||2.62|-4.11|
90921425|NCT02995434|181714808|EQUIVALENCE|See comments in primary outcome|Median Difference (Net)|-2.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|0.41|||||Treatment effect = VR group - Control group; 95% confidence intervals estimated using the bootstrapping method.|||0.41|-6.10|
90921426|NCT04150718|181714809|OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance set at \<0.05|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA, main effect of time, F(1,35) =4.73||||||<0.05
91034291|NCT01597245|181954759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||PPASI 50||||<0.001
90921427|NCT04150718|181714810|OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance set at p\<0.05.|ANOVA|Repeated Measures ANOVA, main effect of time, F(1,39) = 4.20||||||<0.05
90921428|NCT04150718|181714811|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance set at p \<0.05|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA interaction, F(1,48) = 61.849||||||<0.001
90921429|NCT02111798|181714821|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.889|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparisons were conducted as a function of medication condition, collapsed across abstinence initiation and relapse prevention groups, according to a priori-stated statistical analysis.||||0.889
90921430|NCT02111798|181714822|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.605|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparisons were conducted as a function of medication condition, collapsed across abstinence initiation and relapse prevention groups, according to a priori-stated statistical analysis.||||0.605
90921431|NCT04005716|181714870|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.93|||Log Rank|Stratified log rank test with ECOG performance status, and investigator chosen platinum as stratification factors.|The hazard ratio was estimated using a stratified Cox regression model with Efron's method for ties, stratified by ECOG performance status and investigator-selected platinum agents, with Arm B as the reference group.|The null hypothesis stated that the overall survival in Arm A (Tislelizumab + Chemotherapy) is less than or equal to that in Arm B (the placebo group), while the alternative hypothesis posits that the overall survival in Arm A is greater than that in Arm B.||0.93|0.61|0.0040
90921432|NCT04005716|181714871|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.78|||Log Rank|One-sided log-rank test p-value, stratified by ECOG performance status (1 vs 0) and type of platinum therapy (carboplatin vs cisplatin).|The hazard ratio was estimated using a stratified Cox regression model with Efron's method for ties, stratified by ECOG performance status and investigator-selected platinum agents, with Arm B as the reference group.|||0.78|0.52|<0.0001
90921433|NCT04005716|181714872|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.96|||||Odds ratio was calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel estimates and stratified by ECOG performance (1 vs 0) and platinum (Carboplatin vs Cisplatin)|||1.96|0.90|
90921434|NCT04005716|181714879|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.642|1.33|||||Hazard ratio was based on unstratified Cox regression model including treatment as covariate.|Analyses of Time to Deterioration of EORTC QLQ-C30 Physical Functioning Score||1.330|0.642|
90921435|NCT04005716|181714879|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.473|1.123|||||Hazard ratio was based on unstratified Cox regression model including treatment as covariate.|Analyses of Time to Deterioration of EORTC QLQ-LC13 Coughing Score||1.123|0.473|
90921436|NCT04005716|181714879|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.485|1.057|||||Hazard ratio was based on unstratified Cox regression model including treatment as covariate.|Analyses of Time to Deterioration of EORTC QLQ-LC13 Chest Pain Score||1.057|0.485|
90921437|NCT03843151|181714961|OTHER||Ratio|192.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|175.19|211.89|||||"The effect of itraconazole on BI 1358894 is estimated by the ratio of geometric mean (BI 1358894 + itraconazole / BI 1358894).~geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 14.9."|The statistical model used for the analysis of the primary endpoints was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. That is, the PK endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. This model included effects accounting for 'subject' and 'treatment'. The 'subject' effect was considered as random, whereas the 'treatment' effect was considered as fixed.||211.89|175.19|
90921438|NCT03843151|181714962|OTHER||Ratio|120.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|105.69|137.87|||||"The effect of itraconazole on BI 1358894 is estimated by the ratio of geometric mean (BI 1358894 + itraconazole / BI 1358894).~geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 21.7."|The statistical model used for the analysis of the primary endpoints was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. That is, the PK endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. This model included effects accounting for 'subject' and 'treatment'. The 'subject' effect was considered as random, whereas the 'treatment' effect was considered as fixed.||137.87|105.69|
90940689|NCT01723514|181761248|SUPERIORITY||LS Geometric Mean Ratio|-72.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.32|-54.13|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Day 57: A repeated measures ANCOVA was performed for the ratio of blood flow measures at 30 minutes post capsaicin challenge to pre capsaicin challenge. The model included treatment, day, and the treatment by day interaction as independent variables, and both the 0 minute pre-capsaicin blood flow measure as well as the day 0, 30-minute post-capsaicin blood flow measures on day -1 .||-54.13|-83.32|< 0.001
90921439|NCT03843151|181714963|OTHER||Ratio|120.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|105.69|137.87|||||"The effect of itraconazole on BI 1358894 is estimated by the ratio of geometric mean (BI 1358894 + itraconazole / BI 1358894).~geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 13.3."|The statistical model used for the analysis of the primary endpoints was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. That is, the PK endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. This model included effects accounting for 'subject' and 'treatment'. The 'subject' effect was considered as random, whereas the 'treatment' effect was considered as fixed.||137.87|105.69|
90921440|NCT04229992|181714969|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|P value was calculated using general linear mode adjusted for age, sex, BMI and baseline level||"1. GG genotype and magnesium treatment vs GG genotype and placebo;~2. GA/AA genotype and magnesium treatment vs GA/AA genotype and Placebo."||||<0.05
90921441|NCT04229992|181714970|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|P value was calculated using general linear mode adjusted for age, sex, BMI and baseline level||"1. GG genotype and magnesium treatment vs GG genotype and placebo;~2. GA/AA genotype and magnesium treatment vs GA/AA genotype and Placebo"||||<0.05
90921442|NCT05178316|181714971|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.175|=|0.8862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.98|4.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.60|-3.98|=0.8862
90921443|NCT05178316|181714971|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.817|=|0.6832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.32|2.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.84|-4.32|=0.6832
91034292|NCT01597245|181954759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||PPASI 75||||<0.001
90921444|NCT05178316|181714972|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.204|=|0.4522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.25|-0.55|=0.4522
90921445|NCT05178316|181714972|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.169|=|0.2032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.12|-0.55|=0.2032
90921446|NCT05178316|181714973|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.165|=|0.717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.26|-0.38|=0.7170
90921447|NCT05178316|181714973|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137|=|0.2423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.11|-0.43|=0.2423
90921448|NCT04169373|181714976|SUPERIORITY|To preserve the overall type I error rate at α = 0.05 level, a multiple testing procedure was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled secondary endpoints. Testing began with the primary endpoint using two-sided α = 0.05; significance could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoints in the sequence met the requirement of significance.|Response Rate Difference|26.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.9|34.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model adjusted by main stratification factor of screening hsCRP level (\> ULN vs ≤ ULN).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|Efficacy analyses and hypothesis testing including multiplicity adjustment were performed independently for Study 1 and Study 2.||34.9|17.9|<0.0001
90921449|NCT04169373|181714977|SUPERIORITY|To preserve the overall type I error rate at α = 0.05 level, a multiple testing procedure was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled secondary endpoints. Testing began with the primary endpoint using two-sided α = 0.05; significance could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoints in the sequence met the requirement of significance.|Response Rate Difference|22.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.1|32.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by main stratification factor of MRI and screening hsCRP status.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|"Efficacy analyses and hypothesis testing including multiplicity adjustment were performed independently for Study 1 and Study 2.~Binary endpoints in Study 2 were analyzed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the main stratification factor of positivity for MRI inflammation in the sacroiliac joints and screening hsCRP status (MRI-positive and hsCRP \> ULN vs MRI-positive and hsCRP ≤ ULN vs MRI-negative and hsCRP \> ULN)."||32.3|12.1|<0.0001
91034293|NCT01597245|181954759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||PPASI 75||||<0.001
91034294|NCT01597245|181954759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||PPASI 75||||<0.001
91034295|NCT01597245|181954759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||PPASI 100||||0.002
90921450|NCT04169373|181714977|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|4.5|||||Upadacitinib : Placebo|A post-hoc logistic regression adjusting for the main stratification factor of MRI and screening hsCRP status was conducted for the multiplicity-controlled binary endpoints assessed at Week 14.||4.5|1.7|
90921451|NCT04169373|181714978|SUPERIORITY|To preserve the overall type I error rate at α=0.05 level, a multiple testing procedure was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled secondary endpoints. Testing began with the primary endpoint using two-sided α = 0.05; significance could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoints in the sequence met the requirement of significance.|Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-1.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.85|||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM model includes treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction, screening hsCRP level (\> ULN vs ≤ ULN) and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-0.85|-1.20|<0.0001
90921452|NCT04169373|181714979|SUPERIORITY|To preserve the overall type I error rate at α=0.05 level, a multiple testing procedure was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled secondary endpoints. Testing began with the primary endpoint using two-sided α = 0.05; significance could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoints in the sequence met the requirement of significance.|LS Mean Difference|-3.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.47|-2.33|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including treatment and screening hsCRP level as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-2.33|-5.47|<0.0001
90921453|NCT04169373|181714980|SUPERIORITY|To preserve the overall type I error rate at α=0.05 level, a multiple testing procedure was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled secondary endpoints. Testing began with the primary endpoint using two-sided α = 0.05; significance could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoints in the sequence met the requirement of significance.|Response Rate Difference|26.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.0|34.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model adjusted by main stratification factor of screening hsCRP level (\> ULN vs ≤ ULN).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||34.8|18.0|<0.0001
90921454|NCT04169373|181714981|SUPERIORITY|To preserve the overall type I error rate at α = 0.05 level, a multiple testing procedure was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled secondary endpoints. Testing began with the primary endpoint using two-sided α = 0.05; significance could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoints in the sequence met the requirement of significance.|Response Rate Difference|27.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.9|36.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model adjusted by main stratification factor of screening hsCRP level (\> ULN vs ≤ ULN).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||36.3|17.9|<0.0001
90921455|NCT04169373|181714982|SUPERIORITY|To preserve the overall type I error rate at α = 0.05 level, a multiple testing procedure was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled secondary endpoints. Testing began with the primary endpoint using two-sided α = 0.05; significance could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoints in the sequence met the requirement of significance.|Response Rate Difference|10.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|15.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model adjusted by main stratification factor of screening hsCRP level (\> ULN vs ≤ ULN).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||15.8|6.0|<0.0001
90921456|NCT04169373|181714983|SUPERIORITY|To preserve the overall type I error rate at α=0.05 level, a multiple testing procedure was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled secondary endpoints. Testing began with the primary endpoint using two-sided α = 0.05; significance could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoints in the sequence met the requirement of significance.|LS Mean Difference|-1.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|-1.11|||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM model includes treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction, screening hsCRP level (\> ULN vs ≤ ULN) and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-1.11|-1.96|<0.0001
90921457|NCT04169373|181714984|SUPERIORITY|To preserve the overall type I error rate at α=0.05 level, a multiple testing procedure was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled secondary endpoints. Testing began with the primary endpoint using two-sided α = 0.05; significance could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoints in the sequence met the requirement of significance.|LS Mean Difference|-1.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.14|-1.24|||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM model includes treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction, screening hsCRP level (\> ULN vs ≤ ULN) and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-1.24|-2.14|<0.0001
90962667|NCT02616614|181806319|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was established if the 90% CI for the difference was contained within the interval (-0.20, +0.20).|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.022|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.087|0.043|||||Equivalence was based on difference in the number of subjects with success. Bioequivalence was established if the 90% CI for the difference was contained within the interval (-0.20, +0.20).|Bioequivalence was established if the 90% CI for the difference was contained within the interval (-0.20, +0.20).||0.043|-0.087|
90962668|NCT02748018|181806320|SUPERIORITY|Test of Treatment Effect on Change in A1C with Multiple Imputation|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5||-0.4||||||||-0.4||
90962669|NCT02748018|181806321|SUPERIORITY|Test of Treatment Effect on Time in Hypoglycemic Range (%)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.9|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5||-3.6||||||||-3.6||
90921458|NCT04169373|181714985|SUPERIORITY|To preserve the overall type I error rate at α=0.05 level, a multiple testing procedure was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled secondary endpoints. Testing began with the primary endpoint using two-sided α = 0.05; significance could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoints in the sequence met the requirement of significance.|Response Rate Difference|34.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.2|41.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model adjusted by main stratification factor of screening hsCRP level (\> ULN vs ≤ ULN).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||41.8|26.2|<0.0001
90962670|NCT02748018|181806322|SUPERIORITY|Test of Treatment Effect on Change in A1C with Multiple Imputation|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5||-0.3||||||||-0.3||
90962671|NCT02748018|181806323|SUPERIORITY|Test of Treatment Effect on Time in Hypoglycemic Range (%)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.8|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5||-3.1||||||||-3.1||
91034296|NCT01597245|181954759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||PPASI 100||||<0.001
90962672|NCT02748018|181806324|SUPERIORITY|Test of Treatment Effect on Change in A1C with Multiple Imputation|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5||0.3||||||||0.3||
90921459|NCT04169373|181714986|SUPERIORITY|To preserve the overall type I error rate at α=0.05 level, a multiple testing procedure was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled secondary endpoints. Testing began with the primary endpoint using two-sided α = 0.05; significance could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoints in the sequence met the requirement of significance.|LS Mean Difference|-1.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|-0.8|||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM model includes treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction, screening hsCRP level (\> ULN vs ≤ ULN) and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-0.80|-1.55|<0.0001
90921460|NCT04169373|181714987|SUPERIORITY|To preserve the overall type I error rate at α=0.05 level, a multiple testing procedure was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled secondary endpoints. Testing began with the primary endpoint using two-sided α = 0.05; significance could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoints in the sequence met the requirement of significance.|Response Rate Difference|13.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|19.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model adjusted by main stratification factor of screening hsCRP level (\> ULN vs ≤ ULN).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||19.0|7.4|<0.0001
90921461|NCT04169373|181714988|SUPERIORITY|To preserve the overall type I error rate at α=0.05 level, a multiple testing procedure was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled secondary endpoints. Testing began with the primary endpoint using two-sided α = 0.05; significance could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoints in the sequence met the requirement of significance.|LS Mean Difference|-3.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|-2.24|||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM model includes treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction, screening hsCRP level (\> ULN vs ≤ ULN) and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-2.24|-3.90|<0.0001
90921462|NCT04169373|181714989|SUPERIORITY|To preserve the overall type I error rate at α=0.05 level, a multiple testing procedure was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled secondary endpoints. Testing began with the primary endpoint using two-sided α = 0.05; significance could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoints in the sequence met the requirement of significance.|LS Mean Difference|-1.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.47|-1.24|||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM model includes treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction, screening hsCRP level (\> ULN vs ≤ ULN) and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-1.24|-2.47|<0.0001
90921463|NCT04169373|181714990|SUPERIORITY|To preserve the overall type I error rate at α=0.05 level, a multiple testing procedure was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled secondary endpoints. Testing began with the primary endpoint using two-sided α = 0.05; significance could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoints in the sequence met the requirement of significance.|LS Mean Difference|-0.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.18|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including treatment and screening hsCRP level as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-0.18|-0.46|<0.0001
90921464|NCT04169373|181714991|SUPERIORITY|To preserve the overall type I error rate at α=0.05 level, a multiple testing procedure was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled secondary endpoints. Testing began with the primary endpoint using two-sided α = 0.05; significance could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoints in the sequence met the requirement of significance.|LS Mean Difference|-1.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.9|||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM model includes treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction, screening hsCRP level (\> ULN vs ≤ ULN) and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-0.9|-2.0|<0.0001
90921465|NCT04169373|181714992|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|-2.12||This comparison was not part of the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including treatment and screening hsCRP level as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-2.12|-4.50|<0.0001
90921466|NCT04169373|181714993|SUPERIORITY|To preserve the overall type I error rate at α=0.05 level, a multiple testing procedure was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled secondary endpoints. Testing began with the primary endpoint using two-sided α = 0.05; significance could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoints in the sequence met the requirement of significance.|LS Mean Difference|-0.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.45|||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM model includes treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, main stratification factors MRI and screening hsCRP status, and Baseline value.|Treatment difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-0.45|-0.85|<0.0001
90921467|NCT04169373|181714994|SUPERIORITY|To preserve the overall type I error rate at α=0.05 level, a multiple testing procedure was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled secondary endpoints. Testing began with the primary endpoint using two-sided α = 0.05; significance could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoints in the sequence met the requirement of significance.|LS Mean Difference|-3.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.08|-2.04|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including treatment, main stratification factor, treatment and stratification factor interaction and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-2.04|-4.08|<0.0001
90921468|NCT04169373|181714995|SUPERIORITY|To preserve the overall type I error rate at α = 0.05 level, a multiple testing procedure was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled secondary endpoints. Testing began with the primary endpoint using two-sided α = 0.05; significance could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoints in the sequence met the requirement of significance.|Response Rate Difference|20.1||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.1|30.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by main stratification factor of MRI and screening hsCRP level status.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||30.1|10.1|0.0001
90962673|NCT02748018|181806325|SUPERIORITY|Test of Treatment Effect on Time in Hypoglycemic Range (%)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5||-0.2||||||||-0.2||
91034297|NCT01597245|181954759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||PPASI 100||||<0.001
90921469|NCT04169373|181714995|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|4.2|||||Upadacitinib : Placebo|A post-hoc logistic regression adjusting for the main stratification factor of MRI and screening hsCRP status was conducted for the multiplicity-controlled binary endpoints assessed at Week 14.||4.2|1.6|
90921470|NCT04169373|181714996|SUPERIORITY|To preserve the overall type I error rate at α = 0.05 level, a multiple testing procedure was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled secondary endpoints. Testing began with the primary endpoint using two-sided α = 0.05; significance could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoints in the sequence met the requirement of significance.|Response Rate Difference|8.8||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|15.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by main stratification factor of MRI and screening hsCRP level status.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||15.2|2.5|0.0063
90921471|NCT04169373|181714996|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|7.0|||||Upadacitinib : Placebo|A post-hoc logistic regression adjusting for the main stratification factor of MRI and screening hsCRP status was conducted for the multiplicity-controlled binary endpoints assessed at Week 14.||7.0|1.3|
90921472|NCT04169373|181714997|SUPERIORITY|To preserve the overall type I error rate at α=0.05 level, a multiple testing procedure was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled secondary endpoints. Testing began with the primary endpoint using two-sided α = 0.05; significance could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoints in the sequence met the requirement of significance.|LS Mean Difference|-0.92||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|-0.41|||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM model includes treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, main stratification factors MRI and screening hsCRP status, and Baseline value.|Treatment difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-0.41|-1.42|0.0004
90962674|NCT02748018|181806326|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin: 2%. Test of Treatment Effect on Time in Hypoglycemic Range (%)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5||-0.9||||||||-0.9||
90962675|NCT02748018|181806327|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin: 0.4%. Treatment Effect on Change in A1C with Multiple Imputation|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5||-0.1||||||||-0.1||
90962676|NCT02748018|181806328|SUPERIORITY|Test of Treatment Effect on Time in Hypoglycemic Range (%) During Night|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.4|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5||-3.7||||||||-3.7||
90962677|NCT02748018|181806329|SUPERIORITY|Test of Treatment Effect on Time in Target Range (%) During Night|Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.8|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|14.5||||||||||14.5|
90962678|NCT02748018|181806330|SUPERIORITY|Test of Treatment Effect on Time in Target Range (%)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.0|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|8.8||||||||||8.8|
90962679|NCT02748018|181806331|SUPERIORITY|Test of Treatment Effect on Time in Hypoglycemic Range (%)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.6|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5||-2.6||||||||-2.6||
90962680|NCT02748018|181806332|SUPERIORITY|Treatment Effect on Change in A1C with Multiple Imputation|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5||-0.3||||||||-0.3||
90962681|NCT02748018|181806333|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin: 2%. Test of Treatment Effect on Time in Hypoglycemic Range (%)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.6|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5||-1.9||||||||-1.9||
90962682|NCT02748018|181806334|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin: 0.4%. Treatment Effect on Change in A1C with Multiple Imputation|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5||0.3||||||||0.3||
90962683|NCT02748018|181806335|SUPERIORITY|Test of Treatment Effect on Time in Hypoglycemic Range (%) during Night|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.3|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5||-4.7||||||||-4.7||
90962684|NCT02748018|181806336|SUPERIORITY|Test of Treatment Effect on Time in Target Range (%) during Night|Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.9|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|11.1||||||||||11.1|
90962685|NCT02748018|181806337|SUPERIORITY|Test of Treatment Effect on Time in Target Range (%)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.6|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|9.9||||||||||9.9|
90962686|NCT02748018|181806338|SUPERIORITY|Test of Treatment Effect on Time in Hypoglycemic Range (%)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.3|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5||-3.1||||||||-3.1||
90962687|NCT02748018|181806339|SUPERIORITY|Treatment Effect on Change in A1C with Multiple Imputation|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5||0.0||||||||0.0||
90962688|NCT02748018|181806340|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin: 2%. Treatment Effect on Time in Hypoglycemic Range (%) with Multiple Imputation|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5||0.7||||||||0.7||
90921473|NCT04169373|181714998|SUPERIORITY|To preserve the overall type I error rate at α=0.05 level, a multiple testing procedure was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled secondary endpoints. Testing began with the primary endpoint using two-sided α = 0.05; significance could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoints in the sequence met the requirement of significance.|LS Mean Difference|-1.12||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|-0.55|||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM model includes treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, main stratification factors MRI and screening hsCRP status, and Baseline value.|Treatment difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-0.55|-1.68|0.0001
90962689|NCT02748018|181806341|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin: 0.4%. Treatment Effect on Change in A1C with Multiple Imputation|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5||0.1||||||||0.1||
90962690|NCT02748018|181806342|SUPERIORITY|Test of Treatment Effect on Time in Hypoglycemic Range (%) during Night|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5||0.2||||||||0.2||
90962691|NCT02748018|181806343|SUPERIORITY|Test of Treatment Effect on Time in Target Range (%) during Night|Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.2|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|8.3||||||||||8.3|
90962692|NCT02748018|181806344|SUPERIORITY|Test of Treatment Effect on Time in Target Range (%)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.3|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|3.3||||||||||3.3|
90962693|NCT02748018|181806345|SUPERIORITY|Test of Treatment Effect on Time in Hypoglycemic Range (%)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5||-0.1||||||||-0.1||
90962694|NCT02748018|181806346|SUPERIORITY|Treatment Effect on Change in A1C with Multiple Imputation|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5||0.1||||||||0.1||
91034298|NCT00731783|181954761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.97|||Fisher Exact|||||1.97|0.54|1.00
91034299|NCT00731783|181954762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.17||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|4.55|||Fisher Exact|||||4.55|1.03|0.05
91034300|NCT00731783|181954763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.52|||Fisher Exact|||||1.52|0.39|0.49
91034301|NCT00731783|181954764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.59||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|3.28|||Fisher Exact|||||3.28|0.77|0.28
90921474|NCT04169373|181714999|SUPERIORITY|To preserve the overall type I error rate at α = 0.05 level, a multiple testing procedure was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled secondary endpoints. Testing began with the primary endpoint using two-sided α = 0.05; significance could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoints in the sequence met the requirement of significance.|Response Rate Difference|23.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.2|33.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by main stratification factor of MRI and screening hsCRP level status.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||33.4|14.2|<0.0001
90921475|NCT04169373|181714999|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|5.4|||||Upadacitinib : Placebo|A post-hoc logistic regression adjusting for the main stratification factor of MRI and screening hsCRP status was conducted for the multiplicity-controlled binary endpoints assessed at Week 14.||5.4|1.9|
90921476|NCT04169373|181715000|SUPERIORITY|To preserve the overall type I error rate at α = 0.05 level, a multiple testing procedure was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled secondary endpoints. Testing began with the primary endpoint using two-sided α = 0.05; significance could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoints in the sequence met the requirement of significance.|Response Rate Difference|10.9||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.6|18.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by main stratification factor of MRI and screening hsCRP level status.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||18.3|3.6|0.0035
90921477|NCT04169373|181715000|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|5.6|||||Upadacitinib : Placebo|A post-hoc logistic regression adjusting for the main stratification factor of MRI and screening hsCRP status was conducted for the multiplicity-controlled binary endpoints assessed at Week 14.||5.6|1.3|
90921478|NCT04169373|181715001|SUPERIORITY|To preserve the overall type I error rate at α=0.05 level, a multiple testing procedure was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled secondary endpoints. Testing began with the primary endpoint using two-sided α = 0.05; significance could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoints in the sequence met the requirement of significance.|LS Mean Difference|-1.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.68|||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM model includes treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, main stratification factors MRI and screening hsCRP status, and Baseline value.|Treatment difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-0.68|-1.60|<0.0001
90921479|NCT04169373|181715002|SUPERIORITY|To preserve the overall type I error rate at α=0.05 level, a multiple testing procedure was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled secondary endpoints. Testing began with the primary endpoint using two-sided α = 0.05; significance could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoints in the sequence met the requirement of significance.|LS Mean Difference|-2.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.26|-1.21|||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM model includes treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, main stratification factors MRI and screening hsCRP status, and Baseline value.|Treatment difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-1.21|-3.26|<0.0001
90921480|NCT04169373|181715003|SUPERIORITY|To preserve the overall type I error rate at α=0.05 level, a multiple testing procedure was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled secondary endpoints. Testing began with the primary endpoint using two-sided α = 0.05; significance could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoints in the sequence met the requirement of significance.|LS Mean Difference|-1.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.56|-1.0|||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM model includes treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, main stratification factors MRI and screening hsCRP status, and Baseline value.|Treatment difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-1.00|-2.56|<0.0001
90921481|NCT04169373|181715004|SUPERIORITY|To preserve the overall type I error rate at α = 0.05 level, a multiple testing procedure was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled secondary endpoints. Testing began with the primary endpoint using two-sided α = 0.05; significance could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoints in the sequence met the requirement of significance.|Response Rate Difference|22.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.2|33.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by main stratification factor of MRI and screening hsCRP level status.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||33.4|12.2|<0.0001
91034302|NCT00731783|181954765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.52||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.16|||Fisher Exact|||||1.16|0.23|0.12
90921482|NCT04169373|181715004|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|4.0|||||Upadacitinib : Placebo|A post-hoc logistic regression adjusting for the main stratification factor of MRI and screening hsCRP status was conducted for the multiplicity-controlled binary endpoints assessed at Week 14.||4.0|1.6|
90921483|NCT04169373|181715005|SUPERIORITY|To preserve the overall type I error rate at α=0.05 level, a multiple testing procedure was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled secondary endpoints. Testing began with the primary endpoint using two-sided α = 0.05; significance could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoints in the sequence met the requirement of significance.|LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.1781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.05|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including treatment and main stratification factor MRI and hsCRP status as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||0.05|-0.25|0.1781
90921484|NCT04169373|181715006|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.7||||0.0193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.1|||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM model includes treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, main stratification factors MRI and screening hsCRP status, and Baseline value.|Treatment difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-0.1|-1.3|0.0193
90921485|NCT04169373|181715007|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|20.1||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.3|30.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by main stratification factor of MRI and screening hsCRP level status.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||30.9|9.3|0.0003
90921486|NCT04169373|181715008|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.13||||0.0206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.08|-0.17||This comparison was not part of the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including treatment and main stratification factors MRI and hsCRP status as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-0.17|-2.08|0.0206
90921487|NCT04169373|181715010|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|17.6||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.9|27.3||This comparison was not part of the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by main stratification factor of MRI and screening hsCRP level status.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||27.3|7.9|0.0004
90921488|NCT04169373|181715011|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|21.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.2|30.6||This comparison was not part of the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by main stratification factor of MRI and screening hsCRP level status.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||30.6|13.2|<0.0001
90921489|NCT04169373|181715012|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|23.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.4|33.7||This comparison was not part of the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by main stratification factor of MRI and screening hsCRP level status.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||33.7|12.4|<0.0001
90921490|NCT04610892|181715013|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean difference|-8.3797||||0.065||90.0|-17.498|0.7387||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|The treatment as a fixed effects and the baseline value and the geographic region and statin therapy intensity at screening as covariates.||||0.7387|-17.4980|0.065
90921491|NCT04610892|181715013|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean difference|2.3915||||0.747||90.0|-3.5338|8.3167||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|The treatment as a fixed effects and the baseline value and the geographic region and statin therapy intensity at screening as covariates.||||8.3167|-3.5338|0.747
91034303|NCT00731783|181954766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.42||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.85|||Fisher Exact|||||0.85|0.21|0.02
91034304|NCT00731783|181954767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.39||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.77|||Fisher Exact|||||0.77|0.20|0.008
90921492|NCT04610892|181715013|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean difference|0.5766||||0.563||90.0|-5.4389|6.5921||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|The treatment as a fixed effects and the baseline value and the geographic region and statin therapy intensity at screening as covariates.||||6.5921|-5.4389|0.563
90921493|NCT04610892|181715013|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean difference|1.5204||||0.685||90.0|-3.6657|6.7064||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|The treatment as a fixed effects and the baseline value and the geographic region and statin therapy intensity at screening as covariates.||||6.7064|-3.6657|0.685
90921494|NCT04610892|181715014|SUPERIORITY||Geometric LS mean ratio estimate|1.12||||0.854||90.0|0.94|1.33||One sided p-value|Mixed model with repeated measurements|The model was adjusted for the baseline value and the stratification factors (geographic region and statin therapy intensity at screening).||||1.33|0.94|0.854
90921495|NCT04610892|181715014|SUPERIORITY||Geometric LS mean ratio estimate|1.06||||0.79||90.0|0.94|1.18||One sided p-value|Mixed model with repeated measurements|The model was adjusted for the baseline value and the stratification factors (geographic region and statin therapy intensity at screening).||||1.18|0.94|0.790
90921496|NCT04610892|181715014|SUPERIORITY||Geometric LS mean ratio estimate|1.0||||0.498||90.0|0.89|1.12||One sided p-value|Mixed model with repeated measurements|The model was adjusted for the baseline value and the stratification factors (geographic region and statin therapy intensity at screening).||||1.12|0.89|0.498
90921497|NCT04610892|181715014|SUPERIORITY||Geometric LS mean ratio estimate|1.03||||0.678||90.0|0.93|1.13||One sided p-value|Mixed model with repeated measurements|The model was adjusted for the baseline value and the stratification factors (geographic region and statin therapy intensity at screening).||||1.13|0.93|0.678
91034305|NCT00731783|181954768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.43||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.86|||Fisher Exact|||||0.86|0.22|0.02
90962695|NCT03801902|181806364|OTHER||||||||||||||||||"If 0-1 of initial 6 evaluable patients on an arm have a safety event, then the regimen will be deemed safe and that arm will continue to the second part of the study to enroll 6 additional evaluable patients. However, if 2 or more of the 6 patients develop a safety event, then that arm is considered not safe and will not continue to second part. The probability of the treatment being judged to be too toxic when the true toxicity rate is ≥ 40% is at least 77%. If the true toxicity rate is ≤ 18%, then the probability that the treatment will be deemed to be safe is at least 70%.~If fewer than 4 of the total of 12 evaluable patients on an arm experience a safety event, then the treatment will be considered tolerable. With a cohort of 12 patients, the probability of the treatment being judged to be too toxic when the true toxicity rate is ≥ 40% at least 78%. If the true toxicity rate is ≤ 18%, the probability that the treatment will be deemed to be safe is 85%."|||
90962696|NCT03952585|181806370|NON_INFERIORITY|Estimated 9-month PFS = 96.5% and lower acceptable threshold = 91.8%, resulting in a non-inferiority margin of 4.7%. H0: HR = 2.4; alternative hypothesis (HA): HR=1.0. One-sided type I error rate of 10% (20% after Bonferroni adjustment for each experimental arm comparison), 80% power, 24 months of accrual with 1 year of additional follow-up, and 1% increasing yearly rate of drop-out up to 3%, a log rank test requires 22 events from 266 patients per comparison resulting in 133 patients per arm.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|7.42|||||ONE_SIDED|90.0||19.46|||||Reference level = Arm 1|The null hypothesis (H0) for each comparison in phase II will be rejected if the 90% upper confidence of the hazard ratio (HR) (experimental arm / standard arm) is less than HR=2.4.||19.46||
90921498|NCT04610892|181715015|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean difference|-1.44||||0.99||90.0|-2.44|-0.43||One sided p-value|ANCOVA|The model was adjusted for the baseline value and stratification factors (geographic region and statin therapy intensity at screening).||||-0.43|-2.44|0.990
90921499|NCT04610892|181715015|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean difference|-0.21||||0.697||90.0|-0.87|0.45||One sided p-value|ANCOVA|The model was adjusted for the baseline value and stratification factors (geographic region and statin therapy intensity at screening).||||0.45|-0.87|0.697
90921500|NCT04610892|181715015|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean difference|-0.42||||0.849||90.0|-1.08|0.25||One sided p-value|ANCOVA|The model was adjusted for the baseline value and stratification factors (geographic region and statin therapy intensity at screening).||||0.25|-1.08|0.849
90921501|NCT04610892|181715015|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean difference|-0.31||||0.811||90.0|-0.89|0.27||One sided p-value|ANCOVA|The model was adjusted for the baseline value and stratification factors (geographic region and statin therapy intensity at screening).||||0.27|-0.89|0.811
90921502|NCT04610892|181715016|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean difference|-3.5||||0.972||90.0|-6.49|-0.5||One sided p-value|ANCOVA|The model was adjusted for the baseline value and stratification factors (geographic region and statin therapy intensity at screening).||||-0.50|-6.49|0.972
90921503|NCT04610892|181715016|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean difference|-1.1||||0.777||90.0|-3.49|1.3||One sided p-value|ANCOVA|The model was adjusted for the baseline value and stratification factors (geographic region and statin therapy intensity at screening).||||1.30|-3.49|0.777
90921504|NCT04610892|181715016|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean difference|-0.32||||0.596||90.0|-2.54|1.89||One sided p-value|ANCOVA|The model was adjusted for the baseline value and stratification factors (geographic region and statin therapy intensity at screening).||||1.89|-2.54|0.596
90921505|NCT04610892|181715016|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean difference|-0.63||||0.698||90.0|-2.64|1.38||One sided p-value|ANCOVA|The model was adjusted for the baseline value and stratification factors (geographic region and statin therapy intensity at screening).||||1.38|-2.64|0.698
90921506|NCT04610892|181715017|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean difference|-1.29||||0.981||90.0|-2.32|-0.27||One sided p-value|ANCOVA|The model was adjusted for the baseline value and stratification factors (geographic region and statin therapy intensity at screening).||||-0.27|-2.32|0.981
90921507|NCT04610892|181715017|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean difference|-0.8||||0.974||90.0|-1.47|-0.12||One sided p-value|ANCOVA|The model was adjusted for the baseline value and stratification factors (geographic region and statin therapy intensity at screening).||||-0.12|-1.47|0.974
90921508|NCT04610892|181715017|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean difference|-0.86||||0.983||90.0|-1.53|-0.2||One sided p-value|ANCOVA|The model was adjusted for the baseline value and stratification factors (geographic region and statin therapy intensity at screening).||||-0.20|-1.53|0.983
90921509|NCT04610892|181715017|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean difference|-0.83||||0.99||90.0|-1.42|-0.25||One sided p-value|ANCOVA|The model was adjusted for the baseline value and stratification factors (geographic region and statin therapy intensity at screening).||||-0.25|-1.42|0.990
90921510|NCT04610892|181715018|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean difference|-2.14||||0.959||90.0|-4.16|-0.12||One sided p-value|ANCOVA|The model was adjusted for the baseline value and stratification factors (geographic region and statin therapy intensity at screening).||||-0.12|-4.16|0.959
90921511|NCT04610892|181715018|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean difference|-2.92||||0.998||90.0|-4.53|-1.31||One sided p-value|ANCOVA|The model was adjusted for the baseline value and stratification factors (geographic region and statin therapy intensity at screening).||||-1.31|-4.53|0.998
90921512|NCT04610892|181715018|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean difference|-1.35||||0.939||90.0|-2.79|0.09||One sided p-value|ANCOVA|The model was adjusted for the baseline value and stratification factors (geographic region and statin therapy intensity at screening).||||0.09|-2.79|0.939
90921513|NCT04610892|181715018|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean difference|-1.94||||0.991||90.0|-3.27|-0.62||One sided p-value|ANCOVA|The model was adjusted for the baseline value and stratification factors (geographic region and statin therapy intensity at screening).||||-0.62|-3.27|0.991
90921514|NCT04610892|181715019|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean difference|-16.137||||0.077||90.0|-34.7829|2.5089||One sided p-value|ANCOVA|The model was adjusted for the baseline value and stratification factors (geographic region and statin therapy intensity at screening).||||2.5089|-34.7829|0.077
90921515|NCT04610892|181715019|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean difference|-0.5927||||0.468||90.0|-12.7267|11.5413||One sided p-value|ANCOVA|The model was adjusted for the baseline value and stratification factors (geographic region and statin therapy intensity at screening).||||11.5413|-12.7267|0.468
90921516|NCT04610892|181715019|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean difference|-0.1767||||0.491||90.0|-12.4678|12.1144||One sided p-value|ANCOVA|The model was adjusted for the baseline value and stratification factors (geographic region and statin therapy intensity at screening).||||12.1144|-12.4678|0.491
90921517|NCT04610892|181715019|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean difference|-0.393||||0.476||90.0|-11.0022|10.2162||One sided p-value|ANCOVA|The model was adjusted for the baseline value and stratification factors (geographic region and statin therapy intensity at screening).||||10.2162|-11.0022|0.476
90921518|NCT04610892|181715020|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean difference|-4.3435||||0.136||90.0|-10.8637|2.1768||One sided p-value|ANCOVA|The model was adjusted for the baseline value and stratification factors (geographic region and statin therapy intensity at screening).||||2.1768|-10.8637|0.136
90921519|NCT04610892|181715020|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean difference|-1.2369||||0.316||90.0|-5.4796|3.0059||One sided p-value|ANCOVA|The model was adjusted for the baseline value and stratification factors (geographic region and statin therapy intensity at screening).||||3.0059|-5.4796|0.316
90921520|NCT04610892|181715020|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean difference|-0.7015||||0.394||90.0|-5.0096|3.6065||One sided p-value|ANCOVA|The model was adjusted for the baseline value and stratification factors (geographic region and statin therapy intensity at screening).||||3.6065|-5.0096|0.394
90921521|NCT04610892|181715020|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean difference|-0.9799||||0.332||90.0|-4.6927|2.7329||One sided p-value|ANCOVA|The model was adjusted for the baseline value and stratification factors (geographic region and statin therapy intensity at screening).||||2.7329|-4.6927|0.332
90921522|NCT04760678|181715112|OTHER|Fisher's exact test||||||0.107|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.107
90921523|NCT02226276|181715141|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
90921524|NCT02226276|181715142|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
90921525|NCT03001414|181715143|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.69||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.08|47.48|||ANOVA|Global test of difference between the arms analyzed as absolute change from baseline.||Due to sample size restriction, the primary analysis plan was modified to analyze change from baseline to each time point using repeated measures of ANOVA.||47.48|-20.08|0.42
90921526|NCT03001414|181715143|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.7||||0.57|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Calculation of raw change from baseline in meters using non-parametric Wilcoxon test.||||0.57
90921527|NCT03001414|181715143|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.55||||0.53|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Secondary analysis of primary outcome using non-parametric Wilcoxon test of percent change from baseline.||||||0.53
90921528|NCT03001414|181715144|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline calculated in meters using non-parametric analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|41.97||||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of these arms is in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.||||0.10
90921529|NCT03001414|181715145|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.6||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The selected arm for this outcome measure is in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.||||0.50
90921530|NCT03001414|181715146|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.92||||0.88|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Comparison of change from baseline in meters at 6 and 12 months.||Selection of the arm for analysis of this outcome measure is in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.||||0.88
90921531|NCT03001414|181715147|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.132||||0.81|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Selection of the arms for analysis of this outcome measure is in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.||||0.81
90921532|NCT03001414|181715148|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.06||||0.63|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Selection of the arms for analysis of this outcome measure is in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.||||0.63
90921533|NCT03001414|181715149|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.39||||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.25
90921534|NCT03001414|181715150|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.6||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|This analysis represents the results for the Physical Component score of the questionnaire.||Selection of the arms for analysis of this outcome measure is in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.||||1.0
90921535|NCT03001414|181715150|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.64|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||This analysis represents the difference in score for the mental component of the questionnaire.|Selection of the arms for analysis of this outcome measure is in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.||||0.64
90921536|NCT03001414|181715151|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.0||||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||This analysis represents the difference in score for the physical component of the questionnaire.|Selection of the arms for analysis of this outcome measure is in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.||||0.40
90921537|NCT03001414|181715151|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.4||||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||||This analysis represents the change in score for the mental component of the questionnaire.|||0.23
90921538|NCT05386758|181715155|OTHER||Gemetric Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|1.64||||||||1.64|0.94|
90921539|NCT05386758|181715156|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.62||||||||1.62|0.90|
90921540|NCT01573442|181715161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4952|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4952
90921541|NCT01573442|181715162|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2116|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2116
90921542|NCT01573442|181715163|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.676|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6760
90971245|NCT01087905|181825173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio|1290.0||||||95.0||||There is no p-value for the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).|Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio|Unit of measurement for ICER is U.S. dollars.||In this analysis, the Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) is computed. ICER is a measure of the added cost per added quit for two treatments. ICER was computed as the cost difference between the least intensive treatment group (2 weeks of nicotine patch only) and a more intensive comparison group divided by the difference in the quit rates of the two groups being compared; ICER for the group that received 6 weeks of nicotine patch and nicotine gum = (348-178)/(.516-.384) = $1290.||||
91034306|NCT04115293|181954769|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.24|-0.95|||MMRM ANCOVA|||||-0.95|-3.24|<0.001
91034307|NCT04115293|181954770|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.39|-1.49|||MMRM ANCOVA|||||-1.49|-4.39|<0.001
91034308|NCT04115293|181954771|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.2||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.24|-1.16|||MMRM ANCOVA|||||-1.16|-5.24|0.0023
90921543|NCT01573442|181715164|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||From baseline to month 1||||0.029
90921544|NCT01573442|181715164|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8214|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||From baseline to month 2||||0.8214
90921545|NCT01573442|181715164|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4952|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||From baseline to month 3||||0.4952
90921546|NCT01573442|181715164|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5232|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||From baseline to month 4||||0.5232
90921547|NCT01573442|181715164|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5522|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||From baseline to month 5||||0.5522
90921548|NCT01573442|181715164|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||From baseline to month 6||||0.7005
90921549|NCT01573442|181715168|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.139|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.139
90921550|NCT01573442|181715169|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8761|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8761
90921551|NCT01573442|181715170|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0176|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0176
90921552|NCT01573442|181715171|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7077|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7077
90921553|NCT01573442|181715172|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8748|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8748
90921554|NCT01573442|181715173|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4335|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4335
90921555|NCT01573442|181715174|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.286|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.286
90921556|NCT01573442|181715175|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7694|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7694
90921557|NCT01573442|181715176|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9609|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.9609
90921558|NCT05908344|181715191|OTHER|Effect size determination|Cohen's d|-0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Comparison for NREM1 minutes. Group Selection refers to study device Condition (Active/Sham); repeated-measures design||||
90921559|NCT05908344|181715191|OTHER|Effect size determination|Cohen's d|-0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Comparison for NREM2 minutes. Group Selection refers to study device Condition (Active/Sham); repeated-measures design.||||
90921560|NCT05908344|181715191|OTHER|Effect size determination|Cohen's d|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Comparison for NREM3 minutes. Group Selection refers to study device Condition (Active/Sham); repeated-measures design.||||
90921561|NCT05908344|181715191|OTHER|Effect size determination|Cohen's d|-0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Comparison for REM minutes. Group Selection refers to study device Condition (Active/Sham); repeated-measures design.||||
90921562|NCT05908344|181715192|OTHER|Effect size determination|Cohen's d|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Comparison for NREM1 percentage. Group Selection refers to study device Condition (Active/Sham); repeated-measures design.||||
90921563|NCT05908344|181715192|OTHER|Effect size determination|Cohen's d|0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Comparison for NREM2 percentage. Group Selection refers to study device Condition (Active/Sham); repeated-measures design.||||
90921564|NCT05908344|181715192|OTHER|Effect size determination|Cohen's d|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Comparison for NREM3 percentage. Group Selection refers to study device Condition (Active/Sham); repeated-measures design.||||
90921565|NCT05908344|181715192|OTHER|Effect size determination|Cohen's d|-0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Comparison for REM percentage. Group Selection refers to study device Condition (Active/Sham); repeated-measures design.||||
90921566|NCT05908344|181715193|OTHER|Effect size determination|Cohen's d|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Group Selection refers to study device Condition (Active/Sham); repeated-measures design.||||
90921567|NCT04359108|181715208|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||ANOVA|||Navigate to Destination Test - Significance of Navigation Mode: test for null hypothesis of equivalent performance among all navigation system modes||||0.02
90921568|NCT04359108|181715208|OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Navigate to Destination Test - Argus Vision vs. Depth Vision: test for null hypothesis of equivalent performance||||0.22
90921569|NCT04359108|181715208|OTHER|||||||0.017|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Navigate to Destination Test - Depth Vision vs. Depth Vision + Haptic/Audio: test for null hypothesis of equivalent performance||||0.017
90921570|NCT04359108|181715208|OTHER|||||||0.98|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Navigate to Destination Test - Haptic/Audio vs. Depth Vision + Haptic/Audio: test for null hypothesis of equivalent performance||||0.98
90921571|NCT04359108|181715208|OTHER|||||||0.014|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Navigate to Destination Test - Depth Vision vs. High Field-of-View Depth Vision: test for null hypothesis of equivalent performance||||0.014
90921572|NCT04359108|181715208|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Obstacle Avoidance Test - Significance of Navigation Mode: test for null hypothesis of equivalent performance among all navigation system modes||||<0.001
90921573|NCT04359108|181715208|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Obstacle Avoidance Test - Argus Vision vs. Depth Vision: test for null hypothesis of equivalent performance||||<0.01
90921574|NCT04359108|181715208|OTHER|||||||0.156|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Obstacle Avoidance Test - Depth Vision vs. Depth Vision + Haptic/Audio: test for null hypothesis of equivalent performance||||0.156
90921575|NCT04359108|181715208|OTHER|||||||0.541|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Obstacle Avoidance Test - Haptic/Audio vs. Depth Vision + Haptic/Audio: test for null hypothesis of equivalent performance||||0.541
90921576|NCT04359108|181715208|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Obstacle Avoidance Test - Depth Vision vs. High Field-of-View Depth Vision: test for null hypothesis of equivalent performance||||<0.01
90921577|NCT04359108|181715208|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Obstacle Avoidance Test - Argus Vision: test for null hypothesis that the single Argus participant in this arm has performance that lies in-distribution with performance statistics computed for the normally sighted subjects arm of the study.|"Test Method: Z-Score comparison of the performance of the single Argus participant to the performance distribution of normally sighted subjects.~Significance threshold: \|Z\| = 2.8 for p = 0.05, 2-tailed (reject null hypothesis above threshold) Result: Z-Score = -0.10"|||
90921578|NCT04359108|181715208|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Obstacle Avoidance Test - Depth Vision: test for null hypothesis that the single Argus participant in this arm has performance that lies in-distribution with performance statistics computed for the normally sighted subjects arm of the study.|"Test Method: Z-Score comparison of the performance of the single Argus participant to the performance distribution of normally sighted subjects.~Significance threshold: \|Z\| = 2.8 for p = 0.05, 2-tailed (reject null hypothesis above threshold) Result: Z-Score = 1.00"|||
90921579|NCT04359108|181715208|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Obstacle Avoidance Test - Depth Vision + Haptic/Audio: test for null hypothesis that the single Argus participant in this arm has performance that lies in-distribution with performance statistics computed for the normally sighted subjects arm of the study.|"Test Method: Z-Score comparison of the performance of the single Argus participant to the performance distribution of normally sighted subjects.~Significance threshold: \|Z\| = 2.8 for p = 0.05, 2-tailed (reject null hypothesis above threshold) Result: Z-Score = 0.88"|||
90921580|NCT04359108|181715208|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Obstacle Avoidance Test - Haptic/Audio: test for null hypothesis that the single Argus participant in this arm has performance that lies in-distribution with performance statistics computed for the normally sighted subjects arm of the study.|"Test Method: Z-Score comparison of the performance of the single Argus participant to the performance distribution of normally sighted subjects.~Significance threshold: \|Z\| = 2.8 for p = 0.05, 2-tailed (reject null hypothesis above threshold) Result: Z-Score = -1.6"|||
90921581|NCT04359108|181715208|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Navigate to Destination Test - Argus Vision: test for null hypothesis that the single Argus participant in this arm has performance that lies in-distribution with performance statistics computed for the normally sighted subjects arm of the study.|"Test Method: Z-Score comparison of the performance of the single Argus participant to the performance distribution of normally sighted subjects.~Significance threshold: \|Z\| = 2.8 for p = 0.05, 2-tailed (reject null hypothesis above threshold) Result: Z-Score = N/A \*~\* N/A for Argus Vision test because subject did not successfully reach intended destination for any trial using this mode."|||
90921582|NCT04359108|181715208|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Navigate to Destination Test - Depth Vision: test for null hypothesis that the single Argus participant in this arm has performance that lies in-distribution with performance statistics computed for the normally sighted subjects arm of the study.|"Test Method: Z-Score comparison of the performance of the single Argus participant to the performance distribution of normally sighted subjects.~Significance threshold: \|Z\| = 2.8 for p = 0.05, 2-tailed (reject null hypothesis above threshold) Result: Z-Score = -1.10"|||
90921583|NCT04359108|181715208|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Navigate to Destination Test - Depth Vision + Haptic/Audio: test for null hypothesis that the single Argus participant in this arm has performance that lies in-distribution with performance statistics computed for the normally sighted subjects arm of the study.|"Test Method: Z-Score comparison of the performance of the single Argus participant to the performance distribution of normally sighted subjects.~Significance threshold: \|Z\| = 2.8 for p = 0.05, 2-tailed (reject null hypothesis above threshold) Result: Z-Score = 0.45"|||
90921584|NCT04359108|181715208|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Navigate to Destination Test - Haptic/Audio: test for null hypothesis that the single Argus participant in this arm has performance that lies in-distribution with performance statistics computed for the normally sighted subjects arm of the study.|"Test Method: Z-Score comparison of the performance of the single Argus participant to the performance distribution of normally sighted subjects.~Significance threshold: \|Z\| = 2.8 for p = 0.05, 2-tailed (reject null hypothesis above threshold) Result: Z-Score = 1.02"|||
90921585|NCT04359108|181715209|OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||ANOVA|||Navigate to Destination Test - Significance of Navigation Mode: test for null hypothesis of equivalent performance among all navigation system modes||||0.30
90921586|NCT04359108|181715209|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Obstacle Avoidance Test - Significance of Navigation Mode: test for null hypothesis of equivalent performance among all navigation system modes||||<0.001
90921587|NCT04359108|181715209|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Obstacle Avoidance Test - Argus Vision vs. Depth Vision: test for null hypothesis of equivalent performance||||<0.01
90921588|NCT04359108|181715209|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Obstacle Avoidance Test - Depth Vision vs. Depth Vision + Haptic/Audio: test for null hypothesis of equivalent performance||||0.01
90921589|NCT04359108|181715209|OTHER|||||||0.93|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Obstacle Avoidance Test - Haptic/Audio vs. Depth Vision + Haptic/Audio: test for null hypothesis of equivalent performance||||0.93
90921590|NCT04359108|181715209|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Obstacle Avoidance Test - Depth Vision vs. High Field-of-View Depth Vision: test for null hypothesis of equivalent performance||||<0.01
90921591|NCT04359108|181715209|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Obstacle Avoidance Test - Argus Vision: test for null hypothesis that the single Argus participant in this arm has performance that lies in-distribution with performance statistics computed for the normally sighted subjects arm of the study.|"Test Method: Z-Score comparison of the performance of the single Argus participant to the performance distribution of normally sighted subjects.~Significance threshold: \|Z\| = 2.8 for p = 0.05, 2-tailed (reject null hypothesis above threshold) Result: Z-Score = -0.27"|||
90921592|NCT04359108|181715209|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Obstacle Avoidance Test - Depth Vision: test for null hypothesis that the single Argus participant in this arm has performance that lies in-distribution with performance statistics computed for the normally sighted subjects arm of the study.|"Test Method: Z-Score comparison of the performance of the single Argus participant to the performance distribution of normally sighted subjects.~Significance threshold: \|Z\| = 2.8 for p = 0.05, 2-tailed (reject null hypothesis above threshold) Result: Z-Score = 1.00"|||
90962697|NCT03952585|181806370|NON_INFERIORITY|Estimated 9-month PFS = 96.5% and lower acceptable threshold = 91.8%, resulting in a non-inferiority margin of 4.7%. H0: HR = 2.4; alternative hypothesis (HA): HR=1.0. One-sided type I error rate of 10% (20% after Bonferroni adjustment for each experimental arm comparison), 80% power, 24 months of accrual with 1 year of additional follow-up, and 1% increasing yearly rate of drop-out up to 3%, a log rank test requires 22 events from 266 patients per comparison resulting in 133 patients per arm.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|5.55|||||ONE_SIDED|90.0||14.85|||||Reference level = Arm 1|The null hypothesis (H0) for each comparison in phase II will be rejected if the 90% upper confidence of the hazard ratio (HR) (experimental arm / standard arm) is less than HR=2.4.||14.85||
90962698|NCT03952585|181806373|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|20.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|403.31|||||Cause-specific; reference level = Arm 1|||403.31|1.05|
90962699|NCT03952585|181806373|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|12.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|287.93|||||Reference level = Arm 1|||287.93|0.58|
90882029|NCT02477020|181626947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.244||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|-0.18||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. Baseline CGI-S score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline CGI-S score-by-week interaction.|Week 6||-0.18|-1.15|0.007
90962700|NCT03952585|181806374|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|9.46|||||Cause-specific; reference level = Arm 1|||9.46|0.34|
90962701|NCT03952585|181806374|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|8.45|||||Cause-specific; reference level = Arm 1|||8.45|0.24|
90962702|NCT03952585|181806375|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|5.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|46.41|||||Reference level = Arm 1|||46.41|0.67|
90962703|NCT03952585|181806375|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|41.74|||||Reference level = Arm 1|||41.74|0.57|
90962704|NCT02260882|181806405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Serotype 3. The statistical success criterion for demonstrating greater geometric mean antibody concentrations at 4 weeks postvaccination is that the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval in Geometric Mean Fold Rise will be greater than 1 for all 3 serotypes.||||<0.001
90962705|NCT02260882|181806405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Serotype 6B. The statistical success criterion for demonstrating greater geometric mean antibody concentrations at 4 weeks postvaccination is that the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval in Geometric Mean Fold Rise will be greater than 1 for all 3 serotypes.||||<0.001
90962706|NCT02260882|181806405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Serotype 23F. The statistical success criterion for demonstrating greater geometric mean antibody concentrations at 4 weeks postvaccination is that the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval in Geometric Mean Fold Rise will be greater than 1 for all 3 serotypes.||||<0.001
90971246|NCT00790907|181825174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.19|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.19|0.54|0.267
91034309|NCT04115293|181954772|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.49||||0.0128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.45|-0.54|||MMRM ANCOVA|||||-0.54|-4.45|0.0128
90921593|NCT04359108|181715209|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Obstacle Avoidance Test - Depth Vision + Haptic/Audio: test for null hypothesis that the single Argus participant in this arm has performance that lies in-distribution with performance statistics computed for the normally sighted subjects arm of the study.|"Test Method: Z-Score comparison of the performance of the single Argus participant to the performance distribution of normally sighted subjects.~Significance threshold: \|Z\| = 2.8 for p = 0.05, 2-tailed (reject null hypothesis above threshold) Result: Z-Score = 2.75"|||
90921594|NCT04359108|181715209|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Obstacle Avoidance Test - Haptic/Audio: test for null hypothesis that the single Argus participant in this arm has performance that lies in-distribution with performance statistics computed for the normally sighted subjects arm of the study.|"Test Method: Z-Score comparison of the performance of the single Argus participant to the performance distribution of normally sighted subjects.~Significance threshold: \|Z\| = 2.8 for p = 0.05, 2-tailed (reject null hypothesis above threshold) Result: Z-Score = 0.60"|||
90921595|NCT04359108|181715209|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Navigate to Destination Test - Argus Vision: test for null hypothesis that the single Argus participant in this arm has performance that lies in-distribution with performance statistics computed for the normally sighted subjects arm of the study.|"Test Method: Z-Score comparison of the performance of the single Argus participant to the performance distribution of normally sighted subjects.~Significance threshold: \|Z\| = 2.8 for p = 0.05, 2-tailed (reject null hypothesis above threshold) Result: Z-Score = N/A\*~\* N/A for Argus Vision test because subject did not successfully reach intended destination for any trial using this mode."|||
90921596|NCT04359108|181715209|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Navigate to Destination Test - Depth Vision: test for null hypothesis that the single Argus participant in this arm has performance that lies in-distribution with performance statistics computed for the normally sighted subjects arm of the study.|"Test Method: Z-Score comparison of the performance of the single Argus participant to the performance distribution of normally sighted subjects.~Significance threshold: \|Z\| = 2.8 for p = 0.05, 2-tailed (reject null hypothesis above threshold) Result: Z-Score = -0.72"|||
90921597|NCT04359108|181715209|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Navigate to Destination Test - Argus Vision: test for null hypothesis that the single Argus participant in this arm has performance that lies in-distribution with performance statistics computed for the normally sighted subjects arm of the study.|"Test Method: Z-Score comparison of the performance of the single Argus participant to the performance distribution of normally sighted subjects.~Significance threshold: \|Z\| = 2.8 for p = 0.05, 2-tailed (reject null hypothesis above threshold) Result: Z-Score = 2.47"|||
90921598|NCT04359108|181715209|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Navigate to Destination Test - Argus Vision: test for null hypothesis that the single Argus participant in this arm has performance that lies in-distribution with performance statistics computed for the normally sighted subjects arm of the study.|"Test Method: Z-Score comparison of the performance of the single Argus participant to the performance distribution of normally sighted subjects.~Significance threshold: \|Z\| = 2.8 for p = 0.05, 2-tailed (reject null hypothesis above threshold) Result: Z-Score = 3.81"|||
90921599|NCT04359108|181715210|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|navigation system mode and test block as factors||Navigate to Destination Test - Significance of Navigation Mode: test for null hypothesis of equivalent performance among all navigation system modes||||<0.001
91034310|NCT04115293|181954774|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.608||||0.0885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.866|7.86|||Regression, Logistic|||||7.860|0.866|0.0885
90921600|NCT04359108|181715210|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|within-participant, 2 sided t-test||Navigate to Destination Test - Argus Vision vs. Depth Vision: test for null hypothesis of equivalent performance||||<0.01
91034311|NCT04115293|181954775|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.184|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.662|6.101|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.101|1.662|<0.001
90921601|NCT04359108|181715210|OTHER|||||||0.037||||||within-participant, 2 sided t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||Navigate to Destination Test - Depth Vision vs. Depth Vision + Haptic/Audio: test for null hypothesis of equivalent performance||||0.037
90921602|NCT04359108|181715210|OTHER|||||||0.34|||||||t-test, 2 sided|within-participant, 2 sided t-test||Navigate to Destination Test - Haptic/Audio vs. Depth Vision + Haptic/Audio: test for null hypothesis of equivalent performance||||0.34
90921603|NCT04359108|181715210|OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|within-participant, 2 sided t-test||Navigate to Destination Test - Depth Vision vs. High Field-of-View Depth Vision: test for null hypothesis of equivalent performance||||0.10
90921604|NCT04359108|181715210|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Obstacle Avoidance Test - Significance of Navigation Mode: test for null hypothesis of equivalent performance among all navigation system modes||||<0.001
90921605|NCT04359108|181715210|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Obstacle Avoidance Test - Argus Vision vs. Depth Vision: test for null hypothesis of equivalent performance||||<0.01
90921606|NCT04359108|181715210|OTHER|||||||0.67|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Obstacle Avoidance Test - Depth Vision vs. Depth Vision + Haptic/Audio: test for null hypothesis of equivalent performance||||0.67
90921607|NCT04359108|181715210|OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Obstacle Avoidance Test - Haptic/Audio vs. Depth Vision + Haptic/Audio: test for null hypothesis of equivalent performance||||0.23
90921608|NCT04359108|181715210|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Obstacle Avoidance Test - Depth Vision vs. High Field-of-View Depth Vision: test for null hypothesis of equivalent performance||||<0.01
90921609|NCT04359108|181715210|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Obstacle Avoidance Test - Argus Vision: test for null hypothesis that the single Argus participant in this arm has performance that lies in-distribution with performance statistics computed for the normally sighted subjects arm of the study.|"Test Method: Z-Score comparison of the performance of the single Argus participant to the performance distribution of normally sighted subjects.~Significance threshold: \|Z\| = 2.8 for p = 0.05, 2-tailed (reject null hypothesis above threshold) Result: Z-Score = -0.79"|||
90921610|NCT04359108|181715210|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Obstacle Avoidance Test - Depth Vision: test for null hypothesis that the single Argus participant in this arm has performance that lies in-distribution with performance statistics computed for the normally sighted subjects arm of the study.|"Test Method: Z-Score comparison of the performance of the single Argus participant to the performance distribution of normally sighted subjects.~Significance threshold: \|Z\| = 2.8 for p = 0.05, 2-tailed (reject null hypothesis above threshold) Result: Z-Score = 1.38"|||
91034312|NCT04115293|181954776|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.865||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.518|5.409|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.409|1.518|0.0012
90962707|NCT02119325|181806415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Mean|-4.64||||0.0487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.26|-0.03||Statistical significance at the 5% level was required for both co-primary endpoints in order to progress to formal assessment of secondary endpoints.|ANOVA||Difference is test minus placebo such that a positive difference means the test has higher Cmax|"H0: There was no difference in the post prandial glucose peak for participants with IFG between the test and placebo.~The primary parameter was analysed using a mixed effects model with glucose as dependent variable, treatment and period as fixed effects and subject as random effect."||-0.03|-9.26|0.0487
90962708|NCT02119325|181806416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Mean|-6.79||||0.6116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.02|20.44||Statistical significance at the 5% level was required for both co-primary endpoints in order to progress to formal assessment of secondary endpoints.|ANOVA||Difference is test minus placebo such that a positive difference means the test has higher Cmax|"H0: There was no difference in the post prandial triglyceride peak for participants with IFG between the test and placebo.~The primary parameter was analysed using a mixed effects model with triglyceride as dependent variable, treatment and period as fixed effects and subject as random effect."||20.44|-34.02|0.6116
90962709|NCT01372410|181806541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Day 8 analysis.|Wald Test|||||||<0.0001
90962710|NCT01372410|181806541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Pooled Day 7 and 8 analysis.|Wald Test|||||||<0.0001
90882030|NCT02477020|181626948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.726||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.899|8.267||No multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Logistic||TAK-063 versus Placebo. The p-values were obtained using a logistic regression model adjusting for treatment and the Baseline CGI-S score.|Week 1||8.267|0.899|0.077
90882031|NCT02477020|181626948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.331||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.055|5.153||No multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Logistic||TAK-063 versus Placebo. The p-values were obtained using a logistic regression model adjusting for treatment and the Baseline CGI-S score.|Week 2||5.153|1.055|0.036
90882032|NCT02477020|181626948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.69||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.208|5.99||No multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Logistic||TAK-063 versus Placebo. The p-values were obtained using a logistic regression model adjusting for treatment and the Baseline CGI-S score.|Week 3||5.990|1.208|0.015
90882033|NCT02477020|181626948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.737||||0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.807|3.735||No multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Logistic||TAK-063 versus Placebo. The p-values were obtained using a logistic regression model adjusting for treatment and the Baseline CGI-S score.|Week 4||3.735|0.807|0.158
90882034|NCT02477020|181626948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.739||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.798|3.789||No multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Logistic||TAK-063 versus Placebo. The p-values were obtained using a logistic regression model adjusting for treatment and the Baseline CGI-S score.|Week 5||3.789|0.798|0.164
90882035|NCT02477020|181626948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.44||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.523|7.77||No multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Logistic||TAK-063 versus Placebo. The p-values were obtained using a logistic regression model adjusting for treatment and the Baseline CGI-S score.|Week 6||7.770|1.523|0.003
90921611|NCT04359108|181715210|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Obstacle Avoidance Test - Depth Vision + Haptic/Audio: test for null hypothesis that the single Argus participant in this arm has performance that lies in-distribution with performance statistics computed for the normally sighted subjects arm of the study.|"Test Method: Z-Score comparison of the performance of the single Argus participant to the performance distribution of normally sighted subjects.~Significance threshold: \|Z\| = 2.8 for p = 0.05, 2-tailed (reject null hypothesis above threshold) Result: Z-Score = 2.24"|||
90921612|NCT04359108|181715210|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Obstacle Avoidance Test - Haptic/Audio: test for null hypothesis that the single Argus participant in this arm has performance that lies in-distribution with performance statistics computed for the normally sighted subjects arm of the study.|"Test Method: Z-Score comparison of the performance of the single Argus participant to the performance distribution of normally sighted subjects.~Significance threshold: \|Z\| = 2.8 for p = 0.05, 2-tailed (reject null hypothesis above threshold) Result: Z-Score = -0.85"|||
90921613|NCT04359108|181715210|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Navigate to Destination Test - Argus Vision: test for null hypothesis that the single Argus participant in this arm has performance that lies in-distribution with performance statistics computed for the normally sighted subjects arm of the study.|"Test Method: Z-Score comparison of the performance of the single Argus participant to the performance distribution of normally sighted subjects.~Significance threshold: \|Z\| = 2.8 for p = 0.05, 2-tailed (reject null hypothesis above threshold) Result: Z-Score = N/A\*~\* N/A for Argus Vision test because subject did not successfully reach intended destination for any trial using this mode."|||
90921614|NCT04359108|181715210|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Navigate to Destination Test - Depth Vision: test for null hypothesis that the single Argus participant in this arm has performance that lies in-distribution with performance statistics computed for the normally sighted subjects arm of the study.|"Test Method: Z-Score comparison of the performance of the single Argus participant to the performance distribution of normally sighted subjects.~Significance threshold: \|Z\| = 2.8 for p = 0.05, 2-tailed (reject null hypothesis above threshold) Result: Z-Score = 0.18"|||
90921615|NCT04359108|181715210|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Navigate to Destination Test - Depth Vision + Haptic/Audio: test for null hypothesis that the single Argus participant in this arm has performance that lies in-distribution with performance statistics computed for the normally sighted subjects arm of the study.|"Test Method: Z-Score comparison of the performance of the single Argus participant to the performance distribution of normally sighted subjects.~Significance threshold: \|Z\| = 2.8 for p = 0.05, 2-tailed (reject null hypothesis above threshold) Result: Z-Score = -0.97"|||
90962711|NCT01372410|181806542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.113|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.058|0.168|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.168|0.058|<0.001
90962712|NCT01372410|181806542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.101|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.045|0.158|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.158|0.045|<0.001
90962713|NCT01372410|181806542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.124|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.068|0.179|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.179|0.068|<0.001
91034313|NCT02571907|181954783|OTHER||||||||||||||||||A Bayesian beta-binomial model with a Uniform(0, 1) prior was used to compute a 95% credible interval for the proportion of patients meeting the primary endpoint. The lower bound of this credible interval (2.5th percentile of the posterior distribution) was 91.2%, which was greater than the performance goal of 55%.|||
90882036|NCT02477020|181626949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.547||0.246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|4.86||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. Baseline BACS total score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline BACS total score-by-week interaction.|Change at Week 3||4.86|-1.26|0.246
90882037|NCT02477020|181626949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.767||0.216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|5.69||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|Least square mean difference||TAK-063 - Placebo. Baseline BACS total score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline BACS total score-by-week interaction|Change at Week 6||5.69|-1.30|0.216
90882038|NCT02477020|181626950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least mean square difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.664||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.67|2.91||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. Baseline BNSS total score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline BNSS total score-by-week interaction.|Change at Week 3||2.91|-3.67|0.820
90882039|NCT02477020|181626950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-2.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.05||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.93|1.18||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. Baseline BNSS total score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline BACS total score-by-week interaction.|Change at Week 6||1.18|-6.93|0.163
90882040|NCT02477020|181626951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|2.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.769||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|6.19||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. Baseline PSP score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline PSP score-by-week interaction.|Change at Week 3||6.19|-0.81|0.131
90882041|NCT02477020|181626951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|2.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.313||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|7.19||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. Baseline PSP score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline PSP score-by-week interaction.|Change at Week 6||7.19|-1.96|0.260
90882042|NCT02477020|181626952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.855||0.973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.61|3.73||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. Baseline UPSA-B composite score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline UPSA-B composite score-by-week interaction.|Change at Week 3||3.73|-3.61|0.973
90882043|NCT02477020|181626952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least mean square difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.255||0.812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|3.92||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. Baseline UPSA-B composite score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline UPSA-B composite score-by-week interaction.|Change at Week 6||3.92|-5.00|0.812
90882044|NCT01049919|181626953|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64||||0.224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.31|||Proportional Hazards Regression|||||1.31|0.31|0.224
90882045|NCT01049919|181626954|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.671||||||Treatment-by-week p-value is reported.|Repeated measures model|The statistical analysis model includes treatment group, week, treatment-by-week, and baseline pain measurement.||||||0.671
90882046|NCT01049919|181626955|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.714||||||Treatment-by-week p-value is reported.|Repeated measures model|The statistical analysis model includes treatment group, week, treatment-by-week, and baseline pain measurement.||||||0.714
90921616|NCT04359108|181715210|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Navigate to Destination Test - Argus Vision: test for null hypothesis that the single Argus participant in this arm has performance that lies in-distribution with performance statistics computed for the normally sighted subjects arm of the study.|"Test Method: Z-Score comparison of the performance of the single Argus participant to the performance distribution of normally sighted subjects.~Significance threshold: \|Z\| = 2.8 for p = 0.05, 2-tailed (reject null hypothesis above threshold) Result: Z-Score = -1.23"|||
90921617|NCT04359108|181715211|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|Single-factor test on navigation system mode||Navigate to Destination Test - Significance of Navigation Mode: test for null hypothesis of equivalent performance among all navigation system modes||||<0.001
90882047|NCT01049919|181626957|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.37||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.85|||Proportional Hazards Regression|||||0.85|0.16|0.018
90882048|NCT00812929|181626961|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.44|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|4.13||||||||4.13|-1.56|
90882049|NCT00812929|181626961|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.44|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.32|3.37||||||||3.37|-2.32|
90882050|NCT00812929|181626961|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.441|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|3.18||||||||3.18|-2.52|
90882051|NCT00812929|181626961|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.438|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|5.37||||||||5.37|-0.31|
90882052|NCT00812929|181626962|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.638|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|5.75||||||2 Hours||5.75|-0.72|
90882053|NCT00812929|181626962|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.247|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|2.58||||||9.5 Hours||2.58|-2.34|
90962714|NCT01372410|181806542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.183|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.127|0.239|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.239|0.127|<0.001
90882054|NCT00812929|181626962|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.637|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|5.84||||||2 Hours||5.84|-0.64|
90882055|NCT00812929|181626962|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.247|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|3.22||||||9.5 Hours||3.22|-1.70|
90882056|NCT00812929|181626962|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.639|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|6.03||||||2 Hours||6.03|-0.45|
90882057|NCT00812929|181626962|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.248|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|5.95||||||9.5 Hours||5.95|1.02|
90921618|NCT04359108|181715211|OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Navigate to Destination Test - Argus Vision vs. Depth Vision: test for null hypothesis of equivalent performance||||0.17
90921619|NCT04359108|181715211|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Navigate to Destination Test - Depth Vision vs. Depth Vision + Haptic/Audio: test for null hypothesis of equivalent performance||||<0.01
90921620|NCT04359108|181715211|OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Navigate to Destination Test - Haptic/Audio vs. Depth Vision + Haptic/Audio: test for null hypothesis of equivalent performance||||0.33
90921621|NCT04359108|181715211|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Navigate to Destination Test - Depth Vision vs. High Field-of-View Depth Vision: test for null hypothesis of equivalent performance||||<0.01
90882058|NCT00812929|181626962|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.637|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.06|9.54||||||2 Hours||9.54|3.06|
90921622|NCT04359108|181715212|OTHER|||||||0.023|||||||ANOVA|2X2 within-participant test with factors of resolution and field-of-view||Significance of Resolution: test for null hypothesis of equivalent performance between low and high resolution vision modes||||0.023
90882059|NCT00812929|181626962|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.245|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|4.73||||||9.5 Hours||4.73|-0.19|
90882060|NCT00812929|181626963|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|3.25|||||Estimates and 95% confidence intervals for treatment difference between each active dose and placebo for each challenge time point were calculated.|2 Hours||3.25|-1.37|
90882061|NCT00812929|181626963|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.878|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|1.8|||||Estimates and 95% confidence intervals for treatment difference between each active dose and placebo for each challenge time point were calculated.|9.5 Hours||1.80|-1.66|
90882062|NCT00812929|181626963|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.873|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|2.63|||||Estimates and 95% confidence intervals for treatment difference between each active dose and placebo for each challenge time point were calculated.|24 Hours||2.63|-0.82|
90882063|NCT00812929|181626963|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.169|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|3.43|||||Estimates and 95% confidence intervals for treatment difference between each active dose and placebo for each challenge time point were calculated.|2 Hours||3.43|-1.19|
90882064|NCT00812929|181626963|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.878|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|2.95|||||Estimates and 95% confidence intervals for treatment difference between each active dose and placebo for each challenge time point were calculated.|9.5 Hours||2.95|-0.51|
90882065|NCT00812929|181626963|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.873|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|1.9|||||Estimates and 95% confidence intervals for treatment difference between each active dose and placebo for each challenge time point were calculated.|24 Hours||1.90|-1.55|
90882066|NCT00812929|181626963|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.171|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|3.82|||||Estimates and 95% confidence intervals for treatment difference between each active dose and placebo for each challenge time point were calculated.|2 Hours||3.82|-0.80|
90921623|NCT04359108|181715212|OTHER|||||||0.039|||||||ANOVA|2X2 within-participant test with factors of resolution and field-of-view||Significance of Resolution: test for null hypothesis of equivalent performance between low and high field-of-view vision modes||||0.039
90921624|NCT04359108|181715212|OTHER|||||||0.801|||||||ANOVA|2x2 within-participant test with factors of resolution and field-of-view||Significance of Interaction between Resolution and Field-of-View: test for null hypothesis of no interaction||||.801
90921625|NCT02515773|181715213|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||This is a calculated p-value less than 0.001|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90921626|NCT02515773|181715214|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07||||0.044|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.044
90921627|NCT02515773|181715215|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||This is a calculated p-value less than 0.001|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90921628|NCT02515773|181715216|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.09||||0.041|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.041
90921629|NCT04176965|181715217|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority based on the observed 95% Upper Confidence Limit of the difference in means between the 2 groups (FINEVISION HP - AcrySof SN60AT). Non-inferiority margin = 0.10 logMAR.|Mean difference|0.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0084|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0316|0.0592|||t-test, 1 sided|||||0.0592|0.0316|<0.0001
90921630|NCT04176965|181715218|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90921631|NCT04176965|181715219|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority of FINEVISION HP compared to control in percentages of first operative eyes with secondary surgical interventions related to the optical properties of the IOL was evaluated using two-sided 90% Farrington method confidence intervals around the difference in percentages between the 2 groups. If the upper limit of the confidence interval is less than 1.4%, the FINEVISION HP IOL will be considered statistically non-inferior to the control IOL.|Difference in percentages|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.76|1.36||||||||1.36|-0.76|
90921632|NCT04176965|181715224|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90921633|NCT04176965|181715225|NON_INFERIORITY|Cumulative: Cystoid macular oedema. The observed AE rates in the FINEVISION HP group were compared to the SPE rates from ISO 11979-7 Table E.2. A p value of \>0.05 indicates that the rates were statistically not significant when compared to SPE rates.|||||>|0.05|||||||One-sided exact binomial test|||||||>0.05
90921634|NCT04176965|181715225|NON_INFERIORITY|Cumulative: Cystoid macular oedema. The observed AE rates in the control group were compared to the SPE rates from ISO 11979-7 Table E.2. A p value of \>0.05 indicates that the rates were statistically not significant when compared to SPE rates.|||||>|0.05|||||||One-sided exact binomial test|||||||>0.05
90962715|NCT01372410|181806542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.125|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.069|0.182|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.182|0.069|<0.001
90921635|NCT04176965|181715225|NON_INFERIORITY|Cumulative: Hypopyon. The observed AE rates in the FINEVISION HP group were compared to the SPE rates from ISO 11979-7 Table E.2. A p value of \>0.05 indicates that the rates were statistically not significant when compared to SPE rates.|||||>|0.05|||||||One-sided exact binomial test|||||||>0.05
90921636|NCT04176965|181715225|NON_INFERIORITY|Cumulative: Hypopyon. The observed AE rates in the control group were compared to the SPE rates from ISO 11979-7 Table E.2. A p value of \>0.05 indicates that the rates were statistically not significant when compared to SPE rates.|||||>|0.05|||||||One-sided exact binomial test|||||||>0.05
90921637|NCT04176965|181715225|NON_INFERIORITY|Cumulative: Endophthalmitis. The observed AE rates in the FINEVISION HP group were compared to the SPE rates from ISO 11979-7 Table E.2. A p value of \>0.05 indicates that the rates were statistically not significant when compared to SPE rates.|||||>|0.05|||||||One-sided exact binomial test|||||||>0.05
90921638|NCT04176965|181715225|NON_INFERIORITY|Cumulative: Endophthalmitis. The observed AE rates in the control group were compared to the SPE rates from ISO 11979-7 Table E.2. A p value of \>0.05 indicates that the rates were statistically not significant when compared to SPE rates.|||||>|0.05|||||||One-sided exact binomial test|||||||>0.05
90921639|NCT04176965|181715225|NON_INFERIORITY|Cumulative: Lens dislocated from posterior chamber. The observed AE rates in the FINEVISION HP group were compared to the SPE rates from ISO 11979-7 Table E.2. A p value of \>0.05 indicates that the rates were statistically not significant when compared to SPE rates.|||||>|0.05|||||||One-sided exact binomial test|||||||>0.05
90921640|NCT04176965|181715225|NON_INFERIORITY|Cumulative: Lens dislocated from posterior chamber. The observed AE rates in the control group were compared to the SPE rates from ISO 11979-7 Table E.2. A p value of \>0.05 indicates that the rates were statistically not significant when compared to SPE rates.|||||>|0.05|||||||One-sided exact binomial test|||||||>0.05
90921641|NCT04176965|181715225|NON_INFERIORITY|Cumulative: Pupillary block.The observed AE rates in the FINEVISION HP group were compared to the SPE rates from ISO 11979-7 Table E.2. A p value of \>0.05 indicates that the rates were statistically not significant when compared to SPE rates.|||||>|0.05|||||||One-sided exact binomial test|||||||>0.05
90921642|NCT04176965|181715225|NON_INFERIORITY|Cumulative: Pupillary block.The observed AE rates in the control group were compared to the SPE rates from ISO 11979-7 Table E.2. A p value of \>0.05 indicates that the rates were statistically not significant when compared to SPE rates.|||||>|0.05|||||||One-sided exact binomial test|||||||>0.05
90921643|NCT04176965|181715225|NON_INFERIORITY|Cumulative: Retinal detachment.The observed AE rates in the FINEVISION HP group were compared to the SPE rates from ISO 11979-7 Table E.2. A p value of \>0.05 indicates that the rates were statistically not significant when compared to SPE rates.|||||>|0.05|||||||One-sided exact binomial test|||||||>0.05
90921644|NCT04176965|181715225|NON_INFERIORITY|Cumulative: Retinal detachment.The observed AE rates in the control group were compared to the SPE rates from ISO 11979-7 Table E.2. A p value of \>0.05 indicates that the rates were statistically not significant when compared to SPE rates.|||||>|0.05|||||||One-sided exact binomial test|||||||>0.05
90921645|NCT04176965|181715225|NON_INFERIORITY|Cumulative: Secondary surgical intervention.The observed AE rates in the FINEVISION HP group were compared to the SPE rates from ISO 11979-7 Table E.2. A p value of \>0.05 indicates that the rates were statistically not significant when compared to SPE rates.|||||>|0.05|||||||One-sided exact binomial test|||||||>0.05
90921646|NCT04176965|181715225|NON_INFERIORITY|Cumulative: Secondary surgical intervention.The observed AE rates in the control group were compared to the SPE rates from ISO 11979-7 Table E.2. A p value of \>0.05 indicates that the rates were statistically not significant when compared to SPE rates.|||||>|0.05|||||||One-sided exact binomial test|||||||>0.05
90921647|NCT04176965|181715225|NON_INFERIORITY|Persistent: Corneal stroma oedema.The observed AE rates in the FINEVISION HP group were compared to the SPE rates from ISO 11979-7 Table E.2. A p value of \>0.05 indicates that the rates were statistically not significant when compared to SPE rates.|||||>|0.05|||||||One-sided exact binomial test|||||||>0.05
90921648|NCT04176965|181715225|NON_INFERIORITY|Persistent: Corneal stroma oedema.The observed AE rates in the control group were compared to the SPE rates from ISO 11979-7 Table E.2. A p value of \>0.05 indicates that the rates were statistically not significant when compared to SPE rates.|||||>|0.05|||||||One-sided exact binomial test|||||||>0.05
90921649|NCT04176965|181715225|NON_INFERIORITY|Persistent: Cystoid macular oedema.The observed AE rates in the FINEVISION HP group were compared to the SPE rates from ISO 11979-7 Table E.2. A p value of \>0.05 indicates that the rates were statistically not significant when compared to SPE rates.|||||>|0.05|||||||One-sided exact binomial test|||||||>0.05
90921650|NCT04176965|181715225|NON_INFERIORITY|Persistent: Cystoid macular oedema.The observed AE rates in the control group were compared to the SPE rates from ISO 11979-7 Table E.2. A p value of \>0.05 indicates that the rates were statistically not significant when compared to SPE rates.|||||>|0.05|||||||One-sided exact binomial test|||||||>0.05
90921651|NCT04176965|181715225|NON_INFERIORITY|Persistent: Iritis.The observed AE rates in the FINEVISION HP group were compared to the SPE rates from ISO 11979-7 Table E.2. A p value of \>0.05 indicates that the rates were statistically not significant when compared to SPE rates.|||||>|0.05|||||||One-sided exact binomial test|||||||>0.05
90921652|NCT04176965|181715225|NON_INFERIORITY|Persistent: Iritis.The observed AE rates in the control group were compared to the SPE rates from ISO 11979-7 Table E.2. A p value of \>0.05 indicates that the rates were statistically not significant when compared to SPE rates.|||||>|0.05|||||||One-sided exact binomial test|||||||>0.05
90921653|NCT04176965|181715225|NON_INFERIORITY|Persistent: Raised Intraocular Pressure (IOP) requiring treatment.The observed AE rates in the FINEVISION HP group were compared to the SPE rates from ISO 11979-7 Table E.2. A p value of \>0.05 indicates that the rates were statistically not significant when compared to SPE rates.|||||>|0.05|||||||One-sided exact binomial test|||||||>0.05
90921654|NCT04176965|181715225|NON_INFERIORITY|Persistent: Raised Intraocular Pressure (IOP) requiring treatment.The observed AE rates in the control group were compared to the SPE rates from ISO 11979-7 Table E.2. A p value of \>0.05 indicates that the rates were statistically not significant when compared to SPE rates.|||||>|0.05|||||||One-sided exact binomial test|||||||>0.05
90921655|NCT04072380|181715241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024||||||Threshold for statistical significance was p≤0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||||||0.024
90921656|NCT04072380|181715242|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009||||||Threshold for statistical significance was p≤0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||||||0.009
90962716|NCT01372410|181806542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.139|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.083|0.196|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.196|0.083|<0.001
90882067|NCT00812929|181626963|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.879|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|5.03|||||Estimates and 95% confidence intervals for treatment difference between each active dose and placebo for each challenge time point were calculated.|9.5 Hours||5.03|1.57|
90882068|NCT00812929|181626963|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.874|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|1.62|||||Estimates and 95% confidence intervals for treatment difference between each active dose and placebo for each challenge time point were calculated.|24 Hours||1.62|-1.83|
90882069|NCT00812929|181626963|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.169|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|5.48|||||Estimates and 95% confidence intervals for treatment difference between each active dose and placebo for each challenge time point were calculated.|2 Hours||5.48|0.86|
90882070|NCT00812929|181626963|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.877|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|3.84|||||Estimates and 95% confidence intervals for treatment difference between each active dose and placebo for each challenge time point were calculated.|9.5 Hours||3.84|0.38|
90882071|NCT00812929|181626963|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.872|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.44|||||Estimates and 95% confidence intervals for treatment difference between each active dose and placebo for each challenge time point were calculated.|24 Hours||3.44|-0.00|
90882072|NCT00812929|181626964|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.21|||||Hazard ratio = ratio of likelihood of recovery at any time on active treatment vs placebo|2 Hours||2.21|0.71|
90882073|NCT00812929|181626964|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.06|||||Hazard ratio = ratio of likelihood of recovery at any time on active treatment vs placebo|9.5 Hours||2.06|0.59|
90882074|NCT00812929|181626964|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|3.43|||||Hazard ratio = ratio of likelihood of recovery at any time on active treatment vs placebo|24 Hours||3.43|0.93|
90882075|NCT00812929|181626964|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.48|||||Hazard ratio = ratio of likelihood of recovery at any time on active treatment vs placebo|2 Hours||2.48|0.81|
90882076|NCT00812929|181626964|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|3.66|||||Hazard ratio = ratio of likelihood of recovery at any time on active treatment vs placebo|9.5 Hours||3.66|1.01|
90882077|NCT00812929|181626964|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|3.25|||||Hazard ratio = ratio of likelihood of recovery at any time on active treatment vs placebo|24 Hours||3.25|0.86|
90882078|NCT00812929|181626964|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|3.69|||||Hazard ratio = ratio of likelihood of recovery at any time on active treatment vs placebo|2 Hours||3.69|1.19|
90962717|NCT01372410|181806542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.101|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.045|0.157|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.157|0.045|<0.001
90882079|NCT00812929|181626964|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|5.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.75|10.94|||||Hazard ratio = ratio of likelihood of recovery at any time on active treatment vs placebo|9.5 Hours||10.94|2.75|
90882080|NCT00812929|181626964|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|3.64|||||Hazard ratio = ratio of likelihood of recovery at any time on active treatment vs placebo|24 Hours||3.64|1.00|
90882081|NCT00812929|181626964|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|6.48|||||Hazard ratio = ratio of likelihood of recovery at any time on active treatment vs placebo|2 Hours||6.48|2.00|
90882082|NCT00812929|181626964|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|3.87|||||Hazard ratio = ratio of likelihood of recovery at any time on active treatment vs placebo|9.5 Hours||3.87|1.07|
90882083|NCT00812929|181626964|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|6.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|12.71|||||Hazard ratio = ratio of likelihood of recovery at any time on active treatment vs placebo|24 Hours||12.71|2.90|
90882084|NCT02504372|181626985|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.96|||||HR and 95% confidence interval (95%CI) were based on multivariate Cox regression model with treatment adjusted by stage, PD-L1 status, adjuvant chemotherapy, region, histology, and smoking status.|||0.96|0.68|
90882085|NCT02504372|181626986|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.13499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.16|||Regression, Cox|One-sided p-value was based on the permutation test with multivariate Cox regression model.|HR and 95% confidence interval (95%CI) were based on multivariate Cox regression model with treatment adjusted by stage, PD-L1 status, adjuvant chemotherapy, region, histology, and smoking status.|||1.16|0.59|0.13499
90882086|NCT02504372|181626987|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.01327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.97|||Regression, Cox|One-sided p-value was based on the permutation test with multivariate Cox regression model.|HR and 95% confidence interval (95%CI) were based on multivariate Cox regression model with treatment adjusted by stage, PD-L1 status, adjuvant chemotherapy, region, histology, and smoking status.|||0.97|0.62|0.01327
90882087|NCT02504372|181626994|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.00143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.91|||Regression, Cox|One-sided p-value was based on the permutation test with multivariate Cox regression model.|HR and 95% confidence interval (95%CI) were based on multivariate Cox regression model with treatment adjusted by stage, PD-L1 status, adjuvant chemotherapy, region, histology, and smoking status.|||0.91|0.63|0.00143
90882088|NCT02975934|181626995|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.69|||Log Rank|||||0.69|0.36|<0.001
90882089|NCT02975934|181626996|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.8|||Log Rank|||||0.80|0.47|<0.001
91034314|NCT02571907|181954784|OTHER||||||||||||||||||A Bayesian beta-binomial model with a Uniform(0, 1) prior was used to compute a 95% credible interval for the proportion of patients meeting the secondary endpoint. The lower bound of this credible interval (2.5th percentile of the posterior distribution) was 70.8%, which was greater than the performance goal of 46%.|||
90882090|NCT02975934|181626997|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.5044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.2|||Log Rank|||||1.20|0.68|0.5044
90882091|NCT02975934|181626998|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.9368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.26|||Log Rank|||||1.26|0.78|0.9368
90882092|NCT05429203|181627015|OTHER|||||||0.8||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.8
90882093|NCT05429203|181627016|OTHER|||||||1||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||1
90882094|NCT05429203|181627017|OTHER|||||||0.7||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.7
90962718|NCT00852592|181806607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.005|||||||ANOVA|||||||=0.005
90962719|NCT00852592|181806608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.004|||||||ANOVA|||||||=0.004
90921657|NCT04072380|181715243|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.734||||||Threshold for statistical significance was p≤0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||||||0.734
90921658|NCT04072380|181715244|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
90921659|NCT04072380|181715245|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
90921660|NCT03652688|181715246|SUPERIORITY||F|14.463|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||The unit of analyses was the individual, nested within groups.||||<0.001
90921661|NCT03652688|181715247|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||.08
90921662|NCT03652688|181715248|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.954|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.954
90921663|NCT03652688|181715249|SUPERIORITY||Chi-Square|4.436||||0.035|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||.035
90921664|NCT03652688|181715250|SUPERIORITY||Chi-Square|2.615||||0.106|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||.106
90921665|NCT03652688|181715251|SUPERIORITY||Chi-Square|11.636|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||<0.001
90921666|NCT01552473|181715261|OTHER|This is a functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging analysis. We aimed to determine whether functional brain network connectivity was equivalent between the two intervention arms prior to the interventions beginning. This was computed in significant numbers of connections between the two groups.|pNBS|0.0001||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||This is a p-value that is used in Network Based Statistics analysis for resting-state functional brain network data.|Network Based Statistics analysis|This is a type of statistical analysis used to test for group differences among functional connectivity levels between two or more groups.|This analysis evaluated monotonic changes from time point 1 (pre-intervention) to time points 2 (immediate post-intervention) and 3 (12 weeks post-intervention) that may have occurred between the SMART and BHW groups.|A network-based statistics analysis was carried out to determine brain connectivity differences observed at time points two (initial post-intervention testing phase) and three (the final post-intervention phase) occurring three months post-intervention.||||0.01
90921667|NCT05026320|181715283|EQUIVALENCE|The primary efficacy hypothesis to be tested was the equality of tenderness (algometry) over the initial 72 hours (algometry AUC 0-72).||||||0.0221|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0221
90921668|NCT03640312|181715334|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.97||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.74|1.18||Adjusting for baseline systolic blood pressure.|Mixed Models Analysis|Difference in Least Squared Means (LSM). Random participant effect, fixed baseline, study arm, and time effects.||||1.18|-10.74|0.114
90921669|NCT03640312|181715335|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for baseline systolic blood pressure.|Mean Difference (Net)|-4.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.97||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.74|1.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.18|-10.74|0.114
90921670|NCT03640312|181715336|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.87||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.62|-1.11||Adjusted Least Squares Mean.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Adjusted for baseline diastolic blood pressure.||-1.11|-8.62|0.012
90921671|NCT03640312|181715337|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.87||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.62|-1.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.11|-8.62|0.012
90921672|NCT03640312|181715338|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.4||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|6.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized Linear Mixed Model (binomial distribution assumption with logit link).||||6.35|0.91|0.077
90921673|NCT03640312|181715339|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.13||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.48|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression model adjusting for baseline systolic and diastolic blood pressure.||0.48|0.03|0.003
90921674|NCT03640312|181715340|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|2.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Generalized linear mixed model adjusting for baseline systolic and diastolic blood pressure. Random participant effects. Fixed baseline systolic, diastolic, study arm, and time effects.||2.69|0.24|0.710
90921675|NCT03640312|181715341|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.64||||0.437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.98|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression model adjusting for baseline systolic and diastolic blood pressure.||1.98|0.21|0.437
90921676|NCT03640312|181715342|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.01||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.49|0.59||Adjusted for baseline T score|ANCOVA|||Statistical test for difference in Physical Health T Score||0.59|-7.49|0.09
90921677|NCT03640312|181715342|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.88||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.22|4.32||Adjusted for baseline mental health T score|ANCOVA|||Statistical test for difference in Mental Health T Score||4.32|-3.22|0.77
90921678|NCT03640312|181715343|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.97||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.74|1.182|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model. Random participant effects. Fixed baseline systolic, study arm, and time effects.||1.182|-10.74|0.114
90921679|NCT03640312|181715344|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.02|||Fisher Exact|||||0.02|-0.15|0.49
90921680|NCT03640312|181715345|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.03|||Chi-squared|||||0.03|-0.33|0.21
90921681|NCT03640312|181715346|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.08|||Chi-squared|||||0.08|-0.41|0.18
90921682|NCT03640312|181715347|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.13|-0.24|0.56
90921683|NCT03640312|181715348|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|0.19||Linear mixed model. Random participant effects. Fixed baseline systolic, study arm, and time effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.19|-1.61|0.12
90921684|NCT03640312|181715349|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|1.99||Linear mixed model. Random participant effects. Fixed baseline systolic, study arm, and time effects.|Mixed Models Analysis||The model estimated mean differences, adjusted for covariates, will not be equal to the raw mean differences observed.|||1.99|-1.84|0.94
90921685|NCT03640312|181715350|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.04||Linear mixed model. Random participant effects. Fixed baseline systolic, study arm, and time effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.04|-0.07|0.55
90962720|NCT01862640|181806612|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) mean difference|-3.77|||=|0.0404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.38|-0.17|||Mixed-effect model repeated measure|||||-0.17|-7.38|=0.0404
90962721|NCT01862640|181806612|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.23|||=|0.9015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|3.86|||Mixed-effect model repeated measure|||||3.86|-3.40|=0.9015
90962722|NCT01862640|181806613|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.16|||=|0.1566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.06|||Mixed-effect model repeated measure|||||0.06|-0.39|=0.1566
90962723|NCT01862640|181806613|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.09|||=|0.444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.32|||Mixed-effect model repeated measure|||||0.32|-0.14|=0.4440
90962724|NCT04884763|181806614|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|1.35||A two-sided 5% significance level was used for all tests without multiplicity adjustment between multiple endpoints.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model included factors for treatment group, time, and their interaction, with time repeated within subject. Gender as a covariate.|For difference calculation, Arm A - Arm B|Based on two-sided paired t-tests and two-sample t-tests, all conducted at a 5% significance level, this pilot study had 80% power to detect effect sizes of 1.2 for differences between groups. To account for dropout, the study enrolled 15 patients per group, for a total of 30 patients.||1.35|-0.76|0.567
90962725|NCT04884763|181806615|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|1.21||A two-sided 5% significance level was used for all tests without multiplicity adjustment between multiple endpoints.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model included factors for treatment group, time, and their interaction, with time repeated within subject. Gender as a covariate.|For difference calculation, Arm A - Arm B|Based on two-sided paired t-tests and two-sample t-tests, all conducted at a 5% significance level, this pilot study had 80% power to detect effect sizes of 1.2 for differences between groups. To account for dropout, the study enrolled 15 patients per group, for a total of 30 patients.||1.21|-0.91|0.778
90962726|NCT04884763|181806616|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.88||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.96||A two-sided 5% significance level was used for all tests without multiplicity adjustment between multiple endpoints.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model included factors for treatment group, time, and their interaction, with time repeated within subject. Gender as a covariate.|For difference calculation, Arm A - Arm B|Based on two-sided paired t-tests and two-sample t-tests, all conducted at a 5% significance level, this pilot study had 80% power to detect effect sizes of 0.9 for changes over time within groups and effect sizes of 1.2 for differences between groups. To account for dropout, the study enrolled 15 patients per group, for a total of 30 patients.||1.96|-0.20|0.105
90962727|NCT04884763|181806617|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.5||||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|42.7||A two-sided 5% significance level was used for all tests without multiplicity adjustment between multiple endpoints.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model included factors for treatment group, time, and their interaction, with time repeated within subject. Gender as a covariate.|For difference calculation, Arm A - Arm B|Based on two-sided paired t-tests and two-sample t-tests, all conducted at a 5% significance level, this pilot study had 80% power to detect effect sizes of 0.9 for changes over time within groups and effect sizes of 1.2 for differences between groups. To account for dropout, the study enrolled 15 patients per group, for a total of 30 patients.||42.7|-7.6|0.163
90882095|NCT05429203|181627018|OTHER|||||||0.4||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.4
90882096|NCT05429203|181627019|OTHER|||||||0.8||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.8
90882097|NCT05429203|181627020|OTHER|||||||0.8||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.8
90882098|NCT05429203|181627021|OTHER|||||||0.7||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.7
90882099|NCT05429203|181627022|OTHER|||||||0.6||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.6
90882100|NCT05429203|181627023|OTHER|||||||0.5||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.5
90882101|NCT05429203|181627024|OTHER|||||||0.9||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.9
90882102|NCT05429203|181627025|OTHER|||||||0.8||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.8
90882103|NCT05429203|181627026|OTHER|||||||0.9||||||the a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.9
90882104|NCT00079274|181627046|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.25||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.68|||Regression, Cox|HR and p-value reported from a multivariate Cox PH regression model, adjusted for number of nodes, histologic grade, and T stage.||||1.68|0.92|0.15
90882105|NCT00079274|181627047|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.27||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.92|||Regression, Cox|HR and p-value reported from a multivariate Cox PH regression model, adjusted for number of nodes, histologic grade, and T stage.||||1.92|0.85|0.25
90882106|NCT00079274|181627048|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|two-sided chi-squared test||||||<0.001
90882107|NCT00079274|181627049|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|Two-sided chi-squared test||||||<0.001
90882108|NCT00280566|181627050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0104|||||||Log Rank|alpha = 0.05 level of significance||Equality of Survival Curves across the treatment groups.||||0.0104
90971247|NCT00774345|181825182|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.15||The p-value is based on a stratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Based on the stratified cox proportional hazards model comparing the hazard functions associated with the treatment groups.|||1.15|0.61|0.276
90882109|NCT00280566|181627051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0047|||||||Log Rank|No adjustment made for multiple comparisons||alpha = 0.05 level of significance||||0.0047
90882110|NCT00280566|181627052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0205||||||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons|Log Rank|||alpha = 0.05 level of significance||||0.0205
90882111|NCT00280566|181627053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.1247|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 1: Difference in Change during Period 2 MMRM ANCOVA: center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.1247
90882112|NCT00280566|181627053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.7515|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 2 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.7515
90921686|NCT05492318|181715364|OTHER|please note that GMR corresponds to the ratio of the Geometric LSmeans of Midazolam IV Co-Administered with Givinostat (Day 6) and the Geometric LSmeans of Midazolam of IV Alone (Day 1)|ratio of the geometric least square mean|105.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.72|121.74||||||"Midazolam: Potential Inhibitory Effect of Givinostat on the Pharmacokinetics of Midazolam IV.~Cmax"||121.74|91.72|
90921687|NCT05492318|181715364|OTHER|please note that GMR corresponds to the ratio of the Geometric LSmeans of Midazolam IV Co-Administered with Givinostat (Day 6) and the Geometric LSmeans of Midazolam of IV Alone (Day 1)|ratio of the geometric least square mean|91.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.16|97.31||||||1-Hydroxymidazolam: Potential Inhibitory Effect of Givinostat on the Pharmacokinetics of Midazolam IV - Cmax||97.31|86.16|
90921688|NCT05492318|181715364|OTHER|please note that GMR corresponds to the ratio of the Geometric LSmeans of Midazolam IV Co-Administered with Givinostat (Day 17) and the Geometric LSmeans of Midazolam of IV Alone (Day 1)|ratio of the Geometric LSmeans|92.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.97|111.73||||||Midazolam: Potential Inducing Effect of Givinostat on the Pharmacokinetics of Midazolam IV - Cmax||111.73|75.97|
90921689|NCT05492318|181715364|OTHER|please note that GMR corresponds to the ratio of the Geometric LSmeans of Midazolam IV Co-Administered with Givinostat (Day 17) and the Geometric LSmeans of Midazolam of IV Alone (Day 1)|ratio of the Geometric LSmeans|93.59|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.72|104.63||||||1-Hydroxymidazolam: Potential Inducing Effect of Givinostat on the Pharmacokinetics of Midazolam IV - Cmax||104.63|83.72|
90921690|NCT05492318|181715364|OTHER|GMR corresponds to the ratio of the Geometric LSmeans of Oral Midazolam Co-Administered with Givinostat (Day 7) and the Geometric LSmeans of Oral Midazolam Alone (Day 2)|ratio of the Geometric LSmeans|124.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|114.38|134.47||||||Midazolam: Potential Inhibitory Effect of Givinostat on the Pharmacokinetics of Oral Midazolam - Cmax||134.47|114.38|
90921691|NCT05492318|181715364|OTHER|GMR corresponds to the ratio of the Geometric LSmeans of Oral Midazolam Co-Administered with Givinostat (Day 7) and the Geometric LSmeans of Oral Midazolam Alone (Day 2)|ratio of the Geometric LSmeans|117.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|104.78|131.69||||||1-Hydroxymidazolam: Potential Inhibitory Effect of Givinostat on the Pharmacokinetics of Oral Midazolam - Max||131.69|104.78|
90882113|NCT00280566|181627053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.3074|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 4 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.3074
90882114|NCT00280566|181627053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.0758|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 8 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.0758
90921692|NCT05492318|181715364|OTHER|GMR corresponds to the ratio of the Geometric LSmeans of Oral Midazolam Co-Administered with Givinostat (Day 18) and the Geometric LSmeans of Oral Midazolam Alone (Day 2)|ratio of geometric LS means|139.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|128.71|150.67||||||Midazolam: Potential Inducing Effect of Givinostat on the Pharmacokinetics of Oral Midazolam - Cmax||150.67|128.71|
90921693|NCT05492318|181715364|OTHER|GMR corresponds to the ratio of the Geometric LSmeans of Oral Midazolam Co-Administered with Givinostat (Day 18) and the Geometric LSmeans of Oral Midazolam Alone (Day 2)|ratio of geometric LS means|141.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|122.36|163.88||||||1-Hydroxymidazolam: Potential Inducing Effect of Givinostat on the Pharmacokinetics of Oral Midazolam - Cmax||163.88|122.36|
90921694|NCT05492318|181715365|OTHER|GMR corresponds to the ratio of the Geometric LSmeans of Dabigatran Etexilate Co-Administered with Givinostat (Day 6) and the Geometric LSmeans of Dabigatran Etexilate Alone (Day 1)|ratio of the Geometric LSmeans|73.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.77|89.33||||||Total Dabigatran: Potential Inhibitory Effect of Givinostat on the Pharmacokinetics of Dabigatran Etexilate - Cmax||89.33|60.77|
90921695|NCT05492318|181715365|OTHER|GMR corresponds to the ratio of the Geometric LSmeans of Dabigatran Etexilate Co-Administered with Givinostat (Day 6) and the Geometric LSmeans of Dabigatran Etexilate Alone (Day 1)|ratio of the Geometric LSmeans|70.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|57.94|85.5||||||Free Dabigatran: Potential Inhibitory Effect of Givinostat on the Pharmacokinetics of Dabigatran Etexilate - Cmax||85.50|57.94|
90921696|NCT05492318|181715365|OTHER|GMR corresponds to the ratio of the Geometric LSmeans of Dabigatran Etexilate Co-Administered with Givinostat (Day 17) and the Geometric LSmeans of Dabigatran Etexilate Alone (Day 1)|ratio of the Geometric LSmeans|65.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|53.33|79.98||||||Total Dabigatran: Potential Inducing Effect of Givinostat on the Pharmacokinetics of Dabigatran Etexilate - Cmax||79.98|53.33|
90921697|NCT05492318|181715365|OTHER|GMR corresponds to the ratio of the Geometric LSmeans of Dabigatran Etexilate Co-Administered with Givinostat (Day 17) and the Geometric Lsmeans of Dabigatran Etexilate Alone (Day 1)|ratio of the Geometric LSmeans|62.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|50.86|75.95||||||Free Dabigatran: Potential Induction Effect of Givinostat on the Pharmacokinetics of Dabigatran Etexilate. Cmax||75.95|50.86|
90921698|NCT05492318|181715370|OTHER|GMR corresponds to the ratio of the Geometric LSmeans of Midazolam IV Co-Administered with Givinostat (Day 6) and the Geometric LSmeans of Midazolam of IV Alone (Day 1)|ratio of the geometric LS means|107.35|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.35|111.49||||||Midazolam: Potential Inhibitory Effect of Givinostat on the Pharmacokinetics of Midazolam IV - AUC0-t||111.49|103.35|
91034315|NCT03772522|181954785|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d (effect size)|0.384||||0.428|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in score in the immediate intervention group (after receiving the intervention for 6 weeks) compared to that of the delayed intervention group (after receiving no intervention for 6 weeks).||||0.428
90882115|NCT00280566|181627053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.0162|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 12 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.0162
90882116|NCT00280566|181627053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.0003|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 16 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.0003
90882117|NCT00280566|181627053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98||0.0242|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 20 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.0242
90882118|NCT00280566|181627053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.0161|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 24 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.0161
90882119|NCT00280566|181627054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0088|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 1 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.0088
90882120|NCT00280566|181627054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.3677|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 2 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.3677
90882121|NCT00280566|181627054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0734|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 4 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.0734
90882122|NCT00280566|181627054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.9166|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 8 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.9166
90882123|NCT00280566|181627054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.2791|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 12 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.2791
90882124|NCT00280566|181627054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.146|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 16 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.1460
90882125|NCT00280566|181627054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.7301|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 20 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.7301
90882126|NCT00280566|181627054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.8162|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 24 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.8162
90921699|NCT05492318|181715370|OTHER|GMR corresponds to the ratio of the Geometric LSmeans of Midazolam IV Co-Administered with Givinostat (Day 6) and the Geometric LSmeans of Midazolam of IV Alone (Day 1)|ratio of the Geometric LSmeans|106.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.84|111.8||||||1-Hydroxymidazolam: Potential Inhibitory Effect of Givinostat on the Pharmacokinetics of Midazolam IV - AUC0-t||111.80|100.84|
90921700|NCT05492318|181715370|OTHER|GMR corresponds to the ratio of the Geometric LSmeans of Midazolam IV Co-Administered with Givinostat (Day 17) and the Geometric LSmeans of Midazolam of IV Alone (Day 1)|ratio of the Geometric LSmeans|121.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|117.56|126.12||||||Midazolam: Potential Inducing Effect of Givinostat on the Pharmacokinetics of Midazolam IV - AUC0-t||126.12|117.56|
90921701|NCT05492318|181715370|OTHER|GMR corresponds to the ratio of the Geometric LSmeans of Midazolam IV Co-Administered with Givinostat (Day 17) and the Geometric LSmeans of Midazolam of IV Alone (Day 1)|ratio of the Geometric LSmeans|122.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|115.08|131.41||||||1-Hydroxymidazolam: Potential Inducing Effect of Givinostat on the Pharmacokinetics of Midazolam IV - AUC0-t||131.41|115.08|
91034316|NCT03772522|181954785|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d (effect size)|-0.46||||0.058|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of scores at baseline (pre-intervention) and immediately post-intervention.||||0.058
90921702|NCT05492318|181715370|OTHER|GMR corresponds to the ratio of the Geometric LSmeans of Oral Midazolam Co-Administered with Givinostat (Day 7) and the Geometric LSmeans of Oral Midazolam Alone (Day 2)|ratio of the Geometric LSmeans|137.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|128.09|147.43||||||Midazolam: Potential Inhibitory Effect of Givinostat on the Pharmacokinetics of Oral Midazolam - AUC0-t||147.43|128.09|
90921703|NCT05492318|181715370|OTHER|GMR corresponds to the ratio of the Geometric LSmeans of Oral Midazolam Co-Administered with Givinostat (Day 7) and the Geometric LSmeans of Oral Midazolam Alone (Day 2)|ratio of the Geometric LSmeans|131.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|122.47|140.59||||||1-Hydroxymidazolam: Potential Inhibitory Effect of Givinostat on the Pharmacokinetics of Oral Midazolam - AUC0-t||140.59|122.47|
90921704|NCT05492318|181715370|OTHER|GMR corresponds to the ratio of the Geometric LSmeans of Oral Midazolam Co-Administered with Givinostat (Day 18) and the Geometric LSmeans of Oral Midazolam Alone (Day 2)|ratio of the Geometric LSmeans|157.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|147.49|168.76||||||Midazolam: Potential Inducing Effect of Givinostat on the Pharmacokinetics of Oral Midazolam. - AUC0-t||168.76|147.49|
90921705|NCT05492318|181715370|OTHER|GMR corresponds to the ratio of the Geometric LSmeans of Oral Midazolam Co-Administered with Givinostat (Day 18) and the Geometric LSmeans of Oral Midazolam Alone (Day 2)|ratio of the Geometric LSmeans|158.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|145.23|172.54||||||1-Hydroxymidazolam: Potential Inducing Effect of Givinostat on the Pharmacokinetics of Oral Midazolam: - AUC0-t||172.54|145.23|
90921706|NCT05492318|181715371|OTHER|GMR corresponds to the ratio of the Geometric LSmeans of Dabigatran Etexilate Co-Administered with Givinostat (Day 6) and the Geometric LSmeans of Dabigatran Etexilate Alone (Day 1)|ratio of the Geometric LSmeans|69.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|58.43|83.64||||||Total Dabigatran: Potential Inhibitory Effect of Givinostat on the Pharmacokinetics - AUC0-t||83.64|58.43|
90921707|NCT05492318|181715371|OTHER|GMR corresponds to the ratio of the Geometric LSmeans of Dabigatran Etexilate Co-Administered with Givinostat (Day 6) and the Geometric LSmeans of Dabigatran Etexilate Alone (Day 1)|ratio of the Geometric LSmeans|71.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|58.67|86.98||||||Free Dabigatran: Potential Inhibitory Effect of Givinostat on the Pharmacokinetics of Dabigatran Etexilate - AUC0-t||86.98|58.67|
90921708|NCT05492318|181715371|OTHER|GMR corresponds to the ratio of the Geometric LSmeans of Dabigatran Etexilate Co-Administered with Givinostat (Day 17) and the Geometric LSmeans of Dabigatran Etexilate Alone (Day 1)|ratio of the Geometric LSmeans|69.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|58.82|83.15||||||Total Dabigatran: Potential Inducing Effect of Givinostat on the Pharmacokinetics of Dabigatran Etexilate - AUC0-t||83.15|58.82|
90921709|NCT05492318|181715371|OTHER|GMR corresponds to the ratio of the Geometric LSmeans of Dabigatran Etexilate Co-Administered with Givinostat (Day 17) and the Geometric Lsmeans of Dabigatran Etexilate Alone (Day 1)|ratio of the Geometric LSmeans|72.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|59.92|87.25||||||Free Dabigatran: Potential Induction Effect of Givinostat on the Pharmacokinetics of Dabigatran Etexilate - AUC0-t||87.25|59.92|
90921710|NCT05492318|181715372|OTHER|GMR corresponds to the ratio of the Geometric LSmeans of Midazolam IV Co-Administered with Givinostat (Day 6) and the Geometric LSmeans of Midazolam of IV Alone (Day 1)|ratio of the Geometric LSmeans|107.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.35|111.49||||||Midazolam: Potential Inhibitory Effect of Givinostat on the Pharmacokinetics of Midazolam IV: AUC0-inf||111.49|103.35|
90921711|NCT05492318|181715372|OTHER|GMR corresponds to the ratio of the Geometric LSmeans of Midazolam IV Co-Administered with Givinostat (Day 6) and the Geometric LSmeans of Midazolam of IV Alone (Day 1)|ratio of the Geometric LSmeans|112.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|106.21|118.46||||||1-Hydroxymidazolam: Potential Inhibitory Effect of Givinostat on the Pharmacokinetics of Midazolam IV - AUC0-inf||118.46|106.21|
91034317|NCT03772522|181954785|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d (effect size)|-0.4||||0.095|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of scores at baseline (pre-intervention) and 3-month post-intervention.||||0.095
90921712|NCT05492318|181715372|OTHER|GMR corresponds to the ratio of the Geometric LSmeans of Midazolam IV Co-Administered with Givinostat (Day 17) and the Geometric LSmeans of Midazolam of IV Alone (Day 1)|ratio of the Geometric LSmeans|124.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|119.44|128.76||||||Midazolam: Potential Inducing Effect of Givinostat on the Pharmacokinetics of Midazolam IV - AUC0-inf||128.76|119.44|
90921713|NCT05492318|181715372|OTHER|GMR corresponds to the ratio of the Geometric LSmeans of Midazolam IV Co-Administered with Givinostat (Day 17) and the Geometric LSmeans of Midazolam of IV Alone (Day 1)|ratio of the Geometric LSmeans|134.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|126.15|142.96||||||1-Hydroxymidazolam: Potential Inducing Effect of Givinostat on the Pharmacokinetics of Midazolam IV. AUC0-inf||142.96|126.15|
90921714|NCT05492318|181715372|OTHER|GMR corresponds to the ratio of the Geometric LSmeans of Oral Midazolam Co-Administered with Givinostat (Day 7) and the Geometric LSmeans of Oral Midazolam Alone (Day 2)|ratio of the Geometric LSmeans|138.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|129.05|149.18||||||Midazolam: Potential Inhibitory Effect of Givinostat on the Pharmacokinetics of Oral Midazolam - AUC0-inf||149.18|129.05|
90921715|NCT05492318|181715372|OTHER||GMR corresponds to the ratio of the Geom|134.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|124.19|144.97||||||1-Hydroxymidazolam: Potential Inhibitory Effect of Givinostat on the Pharmacokinetics of Oral Midazolam: AUC0-inf||144.97|124.19|
90921716|NCT05492318|181715372|OTHER|GMR corresponds to the ratio of the Geometric LSmeans of Oral Midazolam Co-Administered with Givinostat (Day 18) and the Geometric LSmeans of Oral Midazolam Alone (Day 2)|ratio of the Geometric LSmeans|162.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|151.13|175.28||||||Midazolam: Potential Inducing Effect of Givinostat on the Pharmacokinetics of Oral Midazolam: AUC0-inf||175.28|151.13|
90921717|NCT05492318|181715372|OTHER|GMR corresponds to the ratio of the Geometric LSmeans of Oral Midazolam Co-Administered with Givinostat (Day 18) and the Geometric LSmeans of Oral Midazolam Alone (Day 2)|ratio of the Geometric LSmeans|161.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|147.8|175.82||||||1-Hydroxymidazolam: Potential Inducing Effect of Givinostat on the Pharmacokinetics of Oral Midazolam - AUC0-inf||175.82|147.80|
90921718|NCT05492318|181715373|OTHER|GMR corresponds to the ratio of the Geometric LSmeans of Dabigatran Etexilate Co-Administered with Givinostat (Day 6) and the Geometric LSmeans of Dabigatran Etexilate Alone (Day 1)|ratio of the Geometric LSmeans|69.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|58.83|83.2||||||Total Dabigatran: Potential Inhibitory Effect of Givinostat on the Pharmacokinetics of Dabigatran Etexilate - AUC0-inf||83.20|58.83|
91034318|NCT03772522|181954785|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d (effect size)|-0.73||||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of scores at baseline (pre-intervention) and 6-months post-intervention.||||0.005
91034319|NCT03772522|181954785|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d (effect size)|-0.6||||0.022|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of scores at baseline (pre-intervention) and 9-months post-intervention.||||0.022
90882127|NCT00280566|181627055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0013|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 1 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.0013
90882128|NCT00280566|181627055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.1167|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 2 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.1167
90882129|NCT00280566|181627055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0188|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 4 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.0188
90882130|NCT00280566|181627055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.3413|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 8 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.3413
90882131|NCT00280566|181627055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.276|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 12 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.2760
90882132|NCT00280566|181627055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0085|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 16 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.0085
90921719|NCT05492318|181715373|OTHER|GMR corresponds to the ratio of the Geometric LSmeans of Dabigatran Etexilate Co-Administered with Givinostat (Day 6) and the Geometric LSmeans of Dabigatran Etexilate Alone (Day 1)|ratio of the Geometric LSmeans|71.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|59.08|86.88||||||Free Dabigatran: Potential Inhibitory Effect of Givinostat on the Pharmacokinetics of Dabigatran Etexilate - AUC0-inf||86.88|59.08|
90921720|NCT05492318|181715373|OTHER|GMR corresponds to the ratio of the Geometric LSmeans of Dabigatran Etexilate Co-Administered with Givinostat (Day 17) and the Geometric LSmeans of Dabigatran Etexilate Alone (Day 1)|ratio of the Geometric LSmeans|70.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|59.64|83.03||||||Total Dabigatran: Potential Inducing Effect of Givinostat on the Pharmacokinetics of Dabigatran Etexilate - AUC0-inf||83.03|59.64|
90921721|NCT05492318|181715373|OTHER|GMR corresponds to the ratio of the Geometric LSmeans of Dabigatran Etexilate Co-Administered with Givinostat (Day 17) and the Geometric Lsmeans of Dabigatran Etexilate Alone (Day 1)|ratio of the Geometric LSmeans|73.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.79|88.75||||||Free Dabigatran: Potential Induction Effect of Givinostat on the Pharmacokinetics of Dabigatran Etexilate. AUC0-inf||88.75|60.79|
90921722|NCT05089734|181715383|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.0534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.04||Stratified log-rank test adjusted for stratification factors: histology and best response to last prior immune therapy received.|Log Rank|||||1.04|0.68|0.0534
90921723|NCT05089734|181715384|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.1938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.11||Stratified log-rank test adjusted for stratification factors: histology and best response to last prior immune therapy received.|Log Rank|||||1.11|0.77|0.1938
90921724|NCT05089734|181715385|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportions|-4.3||||0.9255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|1.5||The 1-sided p-value is calculated using Cochran Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for randomization stratification factors of histology, and best response to last prior immune therapy received.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.5|-10.1|0.9255
90921725|NCT05089734|181715390|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.91||Stratified log-rank test adjusted for stratification factors: histology and best response to last prior immune therapy received.|Log Rank|||||0.91|0.61|0.0020
90921726|NCT05089734|181715391|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.0125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.97||Stratified log-rank test adjusted for stratification factors: histology and best response to last prior immune therapy received.|Log Rank|||||0.97|0.66|0.0125
90921727|NCT03964350|181715392|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<.05
90921728|NCT05481216|181715418|OTHER|Unadjusted and adjusted hazard ratios (HR) will be calculated using a proportional Cox regression model. The adjusted variables were body mass index (BMI), dementia, peripheral vascular disease, history of pneumonia, connective tissue disease, liver disease, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, glucocorticoids, hydroxychloroquine, tocilizumab, and anti-IL6 inhibitors.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.29||||||||2.29|0.73|
90921729|NCT05481216|181715418|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.29||||||The adjusted variables were body mass index (BMI), dementia, peripheral vascular disease, history of pneumonia, connective tissue disease, liver disease, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, glucocorticoids, hydroxychloroquine, tocilizumab, and anti-IL6 inhibitors.||2.29|0.73|
90921730|NCT05481216|181715422|OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Conditional logistic regression models accounting for case-control matching will be used to identify risk factors for advanced immunodeficiency associated with COVID-19.||||0.009
90921731|NCT05481216|181715443|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.99|||Regression, Logistic|||Conditional logistic regression models accounting for case-control matching will be used to identify risk factors for advanced immunodeficiency associated with COVID-19. Odds ratio (OR), and the 95% confidence intervals of the OR will be calculated||0.99|0.74|0.033
90882133|NCT00280566|181627055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.1317|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 20 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.1317
90882134|NCT00280566|181627055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.1666|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 24 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.1666
90882135|NCT00280566|181627056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.0023|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 1 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.0023
90882136|NCT00280566|181627056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91||0.1412|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 2 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate||||0.1412
90882137|NCT00280566|181627056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.0861|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 4 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.0861
90882138|NCT00280566|181627056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.5992|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 8 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.5992
90882139|NCT00280566|181627056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.5873|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 12 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.5873
90882140|NCT00280566|181627056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.2116|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 16 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.2116
90882141|NCT00280566|181627056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.1847|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 20 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.1847
90882142|NCT00280566|181627056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.9972|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 24 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.9972
90882143|NCT00280566|181627057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93||0.5954|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 4 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.5954
90921732|NCT05481216|181715444|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.93||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|3.22|||Regression, Logistic|||Conditional logistic regression models accounting for case-control matching will be used to identify risk factors for advanced immunodeficiency associated with COVID-19. Odds ratio (OR), and the 95% confidence intervals of the OR will be calculated||3.22|1.16|0.012
90921733|NCT05481216|181715445|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.02|||Regression, Logistic|||Conditional logistic regression models accounting for case-control matching will be used to identify risk factors for advanced immunodeficiency associated with COVID-19. Odds ratio (OR), and the 95% confidence intervals of the OR will be calculated||1.02|0.95|0.458
90921734|NCT05481216|181715446|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.61|4.57|||Regression, Logistic|||Conditional logistic regression models accounting for case-control matching will be used to identify risk factors for advanced immunodeficiency associated with COVID-19. Odds ratio (OR), and the 95% confidence intervals of the OR will be calculated||4.57|1.61|<0.001
90921735|NCT05481216|181715447|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|2.25|||Regression, Logistic|||Conditional logistic regression models accounting for case-control matching will be used to identify risk factors for advanced immunodeficiency associated with COVID-19. Odds ratio (OR), and the 95% confidence intervals of the OR will be calculated||2.25|1.34|<0.001
90962728|NCT04884763|181806618|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|1.01||A two-sided 5% significance level was used for all tests without multiplicity adjustment between multiple endpoints.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model included factors for treatment group, time, and their interaction, with time repeated within subject. Gender as a covariate.|For difference calculation, Arm A - Arm B|Based on two-sided paired t-tests and two-sample t-tests, all conducted at a 5% significance level, this pilot study had 80% power to detect effect sizes of 0.9 for changes over time within groups and effect sizes of 1.2 for differences between groups. To account for dropout, the study enrolled 15 patients per group, for a total of 30 patients.||1.01|-1.13|0.910
90882144|NCT00280566|181627057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93||0.3414|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 8 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.3414
90921736|NCT01787383|181715450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.13
90921737|NCT01787383|181715451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.34
90921738|NCT01787383|181715452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.088|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.088
90962729|NCT04884763|181806619|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.8||A two-sided 5% significance level was used for all tests without multiplicity adjustment between multiple endpoints.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model included factors for treatment group, time, and their interaction, with time repeated within subject. Gender as a covariate.|For difference calculation, Arm A - Arm B|Based on two-sided paired t-tests and two-sample t-tests, all conducted at a 5% significance level, this pilot study had 80% power to detect effect sizes of 0.9 for changes over time within groups and effect sizes of 1.2 for differences between groups. To account for dropout, the study enrolled 15 patients per group, for a total of 30 patients.||0.80|-0.83|0.972
90962730|NCT04884763|181806620|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.81||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|5.43||A two-sided 5% significance level was used for all tests without multiplicity adjustment between multiple endpoints.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model included factors for treatment group, time, and their interaction, with time repeated within subject. Gender as a covariate.|For difference calculation, Arm A - Arm B|Based on two-sided paired t-tests and two-sample t-tests, all conducted at a 5% significance level, this pilot study had 80% power to detect effect sizes of 0.9 for changes over time within groups and effect sizes of 1.2 for differences between groups. To account for dropout, the study enrolled 15 patients per group, for a total of 30 patients.||5.43|0.18|0.037
90882145|NCT00280566|181627057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.23||0.9745|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 12 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate||||0.9745
90921739|NCT01787383|181715453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.20
90921740|NCT01787383|181715454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.38|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.38
90921741|NCT01787383|181715455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.033|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.033
90921742|NCT01787383|181715456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.37|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.37
90921743|NCT01787383|181715457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.66|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.66
90921744|NCT03675282|181715514|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.8||||0.66|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Parkinson Disease - Stage 1 (Baseline vs. 24 months)||||0.66
90921745|NCT03675282|181715514|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.3||||0.63|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Parkinson Disease - Stage 2 (Baseline vs. 24 months)||||0.63
90921746|NCT03675282|181715514|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.87||||0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||REM Sleep Behavior Disorder (Baseline vs. 24 months)||||0.99
90921747|NCT03675282|181715514|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.5||||0.67|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Healthy Controls (Baseline vs. 24 months)||||0.67
90921748|NCT03675282|181715515|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.625||||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Parkinson Disease - Stage 1 UPDRS Part I (Baseline vs. 24 months)||||0.40
90921749|NCT03675282|181715515|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.453||||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Parkinson Disease - Stage 1 UPDRS Part II (Baseline vs. 24 months)||||0.40
90921750|NCT03675282|181715515|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.15||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||Parkinson Disease - Stage 1 UPDRS Part III (Baseline vs. 24 months)|paired t-test|||||||0.04
90921751|NCT03675282|181715515|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.056||||0.94|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Parkinson Disease - Stage 1 UPDRS Part IV (Baseline vs. 24 months)||||0.94
90921752|NCT03675282|181715515|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.414||||0.53|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Parkinson Disease - Stage 2 UPDRS Part I (Baseline vs. 24 months)||||0.53
90921753|NCT03675282|181715515|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.779||||0.38|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Parkinson Disease - Stage 2 UPDRS Part II (Baseline vs. 24 months)||||0.38
90921754|NCT03675282|181715515|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.59||||0.24|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Parkinson Disease - Stage 2 UPDRS Part III (Baseline vs. 24 months)||||0.24
90921755|NCT03675282|181715515|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.376||||0.73|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Parkinson Disease - Stage 2 UPDRS Part IV (Baseline vs. 24 months)||||0.73
90921756|NCT03675282|181715515|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.187||||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||REM Sleep Behavior Disorder UPDRS Part I (Baseline vs. 24 months)||||0.16
90921757|NCT03675282|181715515|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.154||||0.75|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||REM Sleep Behavior Disorder UPDRS Part II (Baseline vs. 24 months)||||0.75
90921758|NCT03675282|181715515|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.829||||0.28|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||REM Sleep Behavior Disorder UPDRS Part III (Baseline vs. 24 months)||||0.28
90882146|NCT00280566|181627057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.47||0.5627|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 16 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.5627
90882147|NCT00280566|181627057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.741|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 20 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.7410
90882148|NCT00280566|181627057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88||0.9632|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 24 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.9632
90921759|NCT03675282|181715515|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.077||||0.85|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||REM Sleep Behavior Disorder UPDRS Part IV (Baseline vs. 24 months)||||0.85
90921760|NCT03675282|181715515|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.204||||0.78|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Healthy Controls UPDRS Part I (Baseline vs. 24 months)||||0.78
90921761|NCT03675282|181715515|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.381||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Healthy Controls UPDRS Part IV (Baseline vs. 24 months)||||0.03
90921762|NCT03675282|181715516|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Parkinson Disease - Stage 1 (Baseline vs. 24 months)||||0.30
90921763|NCT03675282|181715516|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.94|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Parkinson Disease - Stage 2 (Baseline vs. 24 months)||||0.94
90921764|NCT03675282|181715516|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.45|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||REM Sleep Behavior Disorder (Baseline vs. 24 months)||||0.45
90921765|NCT03675282|181715516|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Healthy Controls (Baseline vs. 24 months)||||0.80
90921766|NCT03056040|181715525|NON_INFERIORITY|A difference in percent change in LDH between the ravulizumab and eculizumab treatment groups at Day 183 along with a 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated. Noninferiority margin (NIM) was based on the upper bound of the 95% CI. NIM was 15%.|Treatment Difference|-9.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.84|0.42|||||Treatment difference was estimated for ravulizumab - eculizumab.|Adjusting for a possible 10% dropout rate, a minimum of 192 participants were estimated to provide 90% power to demonstrate noninferiority of ravulizumab to eculizumab.||0.42|-18.84|
90921767|NCT03056040|181715526|NON_INFERIORITY|NIM was based on the upper bound of the 95% CI. NIM was 20%.|Treatment Difference|-5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.99|8.89|||||Treatment difference was estimated for ravulizumab - eculizumab.|A difference in the percentages of participants with BTH was calculated between the ravulizumab and eculizumab treatment groups, along with a 95% CI for the difference using the stratified Newcombe CI method. The stratification factor observed was transfusion history within 1 year prior to first dose of study drug.||8.89|-18.99|
90921768|NCT03056040|181715527|NON_INFERIORITY|NIM was based on the lower bound of the 95% CI. NIM margin was -3.|Treatment Difference|1.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|3.15|||||Treatment difference was estimated for ravulizumab - eculizumab.|||3.15|-0.21|
90882149|NCT00280566|181627058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.9538|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 4 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.9538
90921769|NCT03056040|181715528|NON_INFERIORITY|NIM was based on the lower bound of the 95% CI. NIM was -20%.|Treatment Difference|5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.27|15.68|||||Treatment difference was estimated for ravulizumab - eculizumab.|A difference in the percentages of participants achieving transfusion avoidance was calculated between the ravulizumab and eculizumab treatment groups, along with a 95% CI for the difference using the stratified Newcombe CI method. The stratification factor observed was transfusion history within 1 year prior to first dose of study drug||15.68|-4.27|
90921770|NCT03056040|181715529|NON_INFERIORITY|NIM was based on the lower bound of the 95% CI. NIM was -20%.|Treatment Difference|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.41|13.31|||||Treatment difference was estimated for ravulizumab - eculizumab.|A difference in the percentages of participants with stabilized hemoglobin was calculated between the ravulizumab and eculizumab treatment groups, along with a 95% CI for the difference using the stratified Newcombe CI method. The stratification factor observed was transfusion history within 1 year prior to first dose of study drug.||13.31|-10.41|
90921771|NCT04650087|181715534|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.95||||||||1.95|0.44|
90921772|NCT04650087|181715535|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.31||||||||1.31|0.83|
90921773|NCT04650087|181715536|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.24||||||||1.24|0.78|
90921774|NCT04650087|181715537|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.74||||||||1.74|0.44|
90921775|NCT04650087|181715538|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.12||||||||2.12|0.58|
90921776|NCT04650087|181715539|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|3.42||||||||3.42|0.29|
90921777|NCT04650087|181715540|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|3.18||||||||3.18|0.03|
90921778|NCT04650087|181715541|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|2.28||||||||2.28|0.34|
90921779|NCT03232138|181715551|EQUIVALENCE|2-sided P-value in the analysis|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22||||0.452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.41||Hypothesis: sulforaphane treatment slows or reverse the progression of lung histological lesions or lower the dysplasia score.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes baseline average endobronchial histopathological scores,age,sex,cigarettes per day,years of smoking, years since quit smoking.||Derived from ANCOVA model with adjustment for baseline average endobronchial histopathological scores, age, sex, cigarettes per day, years of smoking, and years since quit smoking.||0.41|0.03|0.452
90921780|NCT03232138|181715551|EQUIVALENCE|2-sided P-value in the analysis|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.28||Hypothesis: sulforaphane treatment slows or reverse the progression of lung histological lesions or lower the dysplasia score.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes baseline average endobronchial histopathological scores,age,sex,cigarettes per day,years of smoking, years since quit smoking||Derived from ANCOVA model with adjustment for baseline average endobronchial histopathological scores, age, sex, cigarettes per day, years of smoking, and years since quit smoking.||0.28|-0.04|0.452
90882150|NCT00280566|181627058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.8541|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 8 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.8541
90882151|NCT00280566|181627058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.1084|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 12 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.1084
90921781|NCT03232138|181715552|EQUIVALENCE|2-sided P-value in the analysis||||||0.738||||||Hypothesis: Sulforaphane treatment inhibits or reduces number of Ki-67 positive nuclei in bronchial biopsy as compared with the placebo.|Analysis of Covariance|||All positive nuclei. Mean (95%CI) changes in baseline.||||0.738
90921782|NCT03232138|181715552|EQUIVALENCE|2-sided P-value in the analysis||||||0.78||||||Hypothesis: Sulforaphane treatment inhibits or reduces number of Ki-67 positive nuclei in bronchial biopsy as compared with the placebo.|Analysis of Covariance|||Weak-intensity positive nuclei. Mean (95%CI) baseline.||||0.780
90921783|NCT03232138|181715552|EQUIVALENCE|2-sided P-value in the analysis||||||0.733||||||Hypothesis: Sulforaphane treatment inhibits or reduces number of Ki-67 positive nuclei in bronchial biopsy as compared with the placebo.|Analysis of Covariance|||Moderate intensity positive nuclei. Mean (95%CI) changes in baseline.||||0.733
90921784|NCT03232138|181715552|EQUIVALENCE|2-sided P-value in the analysis||||||0.751||||||Hypothesis: Sulforaphane treatment inhibits or reduces number of Ki-67 positive nuclei in bronchial biopsy as compared with the placebo.|Analysis of Covariance|||Strong-Intensity positive nuclei. Mean (95%CI) changes in baseline.||||0.751
90921785|NCT03232138|181715552|EQUIVALENCE|2-sided P-value in the analysis||||||0.014||||||Hypothesis: Sulforaphane treatment inhibits or reduces number of Ki-67 positive nuclei in bronchial biopsy as compared with the placebo.|Analysis of Covariance|Analysis of Covariance with adjustment for age, sex, cigarettes/day, years of smoking, years of quit smoking, baseline values of Ki-67 positive nuclei||All positive nuclei. Mean (95%CI) changes from pre to pos treatment.||||0.014
90921786|NCT03232138|181715552|EQUIVALENCE|2-sided P-value in the analysis||||||0.056|||||||Covariance|Analysis of Covariance adjustment age, sex, cigarettes/day, years of smoking, years of quit smoking,baseline values of the same cellular biomarker||Week intensity positive nuclei. Mean (95%CI) changes from pre to pos treatment.||||0.056
90921787|NCT03232138|181715552|EQUIVALENCE|2-sided P-value in the analysis||||||0.028|||||||Analysis of Covariance|Analysis of Covariance adjustment for age, sex, cigarettes/day, years of smoking, years of quit smoking,baseline values of the same cellular biomarker||Moderate Intensity positive nuclei. Mean (95%CI) changes from pre to pos treatment.||||0.028
90921788|NCT03232138|181715552|EQUIVALENCE|2-sided P-value in the analysis||||||0.004|||||||Analysis of Covariance|Analysis of Covariance adjustment for age, sex, cigarettes/day, years of smoking, years of quit smoking,baseline values of the same cellular biomarker||Strong intensity positive nuclei. Mean (95%CI) changes from pre to pos treatment.||||0.004
90921789|NCT03232138|181715553|EQUIVALENCE|2-sided P-value in the analysis, Mean (95%CI) at baseline for positive cells. TUNEL positive nuclei (counts/µm2) From Analysis of Covariance with adjustment for age, sex, cigarettes/day, years of smoking, years of quit smoking and baseline values of the same cellular biomarker.||||||0.377||||||Hypothesis: Sulforaphane treatment has significant impact on number of TUNEL positive nuclei in bronchial biopsies compared with the place|Analysis of Covariance|Analysis of Covariance with adjustment for age, sex, cigarettes/day, years of smoking, years of quit smoking, baseline values of positive TUNEL nuclei||All positive nuclei. Mean (95%CI) baseline.||||0.377
90921790|NCT03232138|181715553|EQUIVALENCE|2-sided P-value in the analysis||||||0.413||||||Hypothesis: Sulforaphane treatment inhibits or reduces number of Ki-67 positive nuclei in bronchial biopsy as compared with the placebo.|Analysis of Covariance|||Weak-intensity positive nuclei. Mean (95%CI) baseline.||||0.413
90921791|NCT03232138|181715553|EQUIVALENCE|2-sided P-value in the analysis, Mean (95%CI) at baseline Moderate-intensity positive nuclei. TUNEL positive (counts/µm2) From Analysis of Covariance with adjustment for age, sex, cigarettes/day, years of smoking, years of quit smoking and baseline values of the same cellular biomarker.||||||0.338||||||Hypothesis: Sulforaphane treatment has significant impact on number of TUNEL positive nuclei in bronchial biopsies compared with the place|Analysis of Covariance|Analysis of Covariance with adjustment for age, sex, cigarettes/day, years of smoking, years of quit smoking, baseline values of positive TUNEL nuclei||Moderate Intensity positive nuclei. Mean (95%CI) at baseline.||||0.338
90921792|NCT03232138|181715553|EQUIVALENCE|2-sided P-value in the analysis, Mean (95%CI) at baseline for positive cells. TUNEL positive nuclei (counts/µm2) From Analysis of Covariance with adjustment for age, sex, cigarettes/day, years of smoking, years of quit smoking and baseline values of the same cellular biomarker.||||||0.547||||||Hypothesis: Sulforaphane treatment has significant impact on number of TUNEL positive nuclei in bronchial biopsies|Analysis of Covariance|Analysis of Covariance with adjustment for age, sex, cigarettes/day, years of smoking, years of quit smoking, baseline values of positive TUNEL nuclei||Strong-intensity positive nuclei. Mean (95%CI) baseline.||||0.547
90921793|NCT03232138|181715553|EQUIVALENCE|used 2-sided P-value in the analysis, Mean (95%CI) changes from pre to pos treatment for all positive cells. TUNEL all positive nuclei (counts/µm2) From Analysis of Covariance with adjustment for age, sex, cigarettes/day, years of smoking, years of quit smoking and baseline values of the same cellular biomarker.||||||0.291||||||Hypothesis: Sulforaphane treatment has significant impact on number of TUNEL positive nuclei in bronchial biopsies|Analysis of Covariance|Analysis of Covariance with adjustment for age, sex, cigarettes/day, years of smoking, years of quit smoking, baseline values of positive TUNEL nuclei||All positive nuclei. Mean (95%CI) changes from pre to pos treatment.||||0.291
90921794|NCT03232138|181715553|EQUIVALENCE|2-sided P-value in the analysis, Mean (95%CI) changes from pre to pos treatment for positive cells. TUNEL all positive nuclei (counts/µm2) From Analysis of Covariance with adjustment for age, sex, cigarettes/day, years of smoking, years of quit smoking and baseline values of the same cellular biomarker.||||||0.552||||||Hypothesis: Sulforaphane treatment has significant impact on number of TUNEL positive nuclei in bronchial biopsies|Analysis of Covariance|Analysis of Covariance with adjustment for age, sex, cigarettes/day, years of smoking, years of quit smoking, baseline values of positive TUNEL nuclei||Weak-intensity positive nuclei. Mean (95%CI) changes from pre to pos treatment.||||0.552
90921795|NCT03232138|181715553|EQUIVALENCE|2-sided P-value in the analysis, Mean (95%CI) changes from pre to pos treatment for positive cells. TUNEL all positive nuclei (counts/µm2) From Analysis of Covariance with adjustment for age, sex, cigarettes/day, years of smoking, years of quit smoking and baseline values of the same cellular biomarker.||||||0.205||||||Hypothesis: Sulforaphane treatment has significant impact on number of TUNEL positive nuclei in bronchial biopsies|Analysis of Covariance|Analysis of Covariance with adjustment for age, sex, cigarettes/day, years of smoking, years of quit smoking, baseline values of positive TUNEL nuclei||Moderate-intensity positive nuclei. Mean (95%CI) changes from pre to pos treatment.||||0.205
90921796|NCT03232138|181715553|EQUIVALENCE|2-sided P-value in the analysis, Mean (95%CI) changes from pre to pos treatment for positive cells. TUNEL all positive nuclei (counts/µm2) From Analysis of Covariance with adjustment for age, sex, cigarettes/day, years of smoking, years of quit smoking and baseline values of the same cellular biomarker.||||||0.295||||||Hypothesis: Sulforaphane treatment has significant impact on number of TUNEL positive nuclei in bronchial biopsies|Analysis of Covariance|Analysis of Covariance with adjustment for age, sex, cigarettes/day, years of smoking, years of quit smoking, baseline values of positive TUNEL nuclei||Strong-intensity positive nuclei. Mean (95%CI) changes from pre to pos treatment.||||0.295
90921797|NCT03232138|181715554|EQUIVALENCE|2-sided P-value in the analysis, Mean (95%CI) baseline positive cells. Caspase-3 positive nuclei (counts/µm2) From Analysis of Covariance with adjustment for age, sex, cigarettes/day, years of smoking, years of quit smoking and baseline values of the same cellular biomarker.||||||0.295||||||Hypothesis: Sulforaphane treatment has significant impact on the number of cells with positive Caspase-3 in bronchial biopsies than the placebo.|Analysis of Covariance|Analysis of Covariance adjustment for age,sex,cigarettes/day,years of smoking,years of quit smoking,baseline values of Caspase-3 positive cells||All positive nuclei. Mean (95%CI) at baseline.||||0.295
90921798|NCT03232138|181715554|EQUIVALENCE|2-sided P-value in the analysis, Mean (95%CI) baseline positive cells. Caspase-3 positive nuclei (counts/µm2) From Analysis of Covariance with adjustment for age, sex, cigarettes/day, years of smoking, years of quit smoking and baseline values of the same cellular biomarker.||||||0.242||||||Hypothesis: Sulforaphane treatment has significant impact on the number of cells with positive Caspase-3 in bronchial biopsies than the placebo.|Analysis of Covariance|Analysis of Covariance adjustment for age,sex,cigarettes/day,years of smoking,years of quit smoking,baseline values of Caspase-3 positive cells||weak intensity positive nuclei. Mean (95%CI) at baseline.||||0.242
90921799|NCT03232138|181715554|EQUIVALENCE|-sided P-value in the analysis, Mean (95%CI) baseline positive cells. Caspase-3 positive nuclei (counts/µm2) From Analysis of Covariance with adjustment for age, sex, cigarettes/day, years of smoking, years of quit smoking and baseline values of the same cellular biomarker.||||||0.985||||||Hypothesis: Sulforaphane treatment has significant impact on the number of cells with positive Caspase-3 in bronchial biopsies than the placebo.|Analysis of Covariance|Analysis of Covariance adjustment for age,sex,cigarettes/day,years of smoking,years of quit smoking,baseline values of Caspase-3 positive cells||Moderate intensity positive nuclei. Mean (95%CI) at baseline.||||0.985
90921800|NCT03232138|181715554|EQUIVALENCE|2-sided P-value in the analysis, Mean (95%CI) baseline positive cells. Caspase-3 positive nuclei (counts/µm2) From Analysis of Covariance with adjustment for age, sex, cigarettes/day, years of smoking, years of quit smoking and baseline values of the same cellular biomarker.||||||0.547||||||Hypothesis: Sulforaphane treatment has significant impact on the number of cells with positive Caspase-3 in bronchial biopsies than the placebo.|Analysis of Covariance|Analysis of Covariance adjustment for age,sex,cigarettes/day,years of smoking,years of quit smoking,baseline values of Caspase-3 positive cells||Strong intensity positive nuclei. Mean (95%CI) at baseline.||||0.547
90921801|NCT03232138|181715554|EQUIVALENCE|used 2-sided P-value in the analysis, Mean (95%CI) changes from pre to pos treatment for all positive cells. Caspase-3 all positive nuclei (counts/µm2) From Analysis of Covariance with adjustment for age, sex, cigarettes/day, years of smoking, years of quit smoking and baseline values of the same cellular biomarker.||||||0.778||||||Hypothesis: Sulforaphane treatment has significant impact on the number of cells with positive Caspase-3 in bronchial biopsies than the placebo.|Analysis of Covariance|Analysis of Covariance adjustment for age,sex,cigarettes/day,years of smoking,years of quit smoking,baseline values of Caspase-3 positive cells||All positive nuclei. Mean (95%CI) changes from pre to pos treatment.||||0.778
90921802|NCT03232138|181715554|EQUIVALENCE|2-sided P-value in the analysis, Mean (95%CI) changes from pre to pos treatment for positive cells. Caspase-3 all positive nuclei (counts/µm2) From Analysis of Covariance with adjustment for age, sex, cigarettes/day, years of smoking, years of quit smoking and baseline values of the same cellular biomarker||||||0.685||||||Hypothesis: Sulforaphane treatment has significant impact on the number of cells with positive Caspase-3 in bronchial biopsies than the placebo.|Analysis of Covariance|Analysis of Covariance adjustment for age,sex,cigarettes/day,years of smoking,years of quit smoking,baseline values of Caspase-3 positive cells||Weak intensity positive nuclei. Mean (95%CI) changes from pre to pos treatment.||||0.685
90940690|NCT01723514|181761248|SUPERIORITY||LS Geometric Mean Ratio|-73.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.79|-55.11|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Day 57: A repeated measures ANCOVA was performed for the ratio of blood flow measures at 30 minutes post capsaicin challenge to pre capsaicin challenge. The model included treatment, day, and the treatment by day interaction as independent variables, and both the 0 minute pre-capsaicin blood flow measure as well as the day 0, 30-minute post-capsaicin blood flow measures on day -1 .||-55.11|-83.79|< 0.001
91034320|NCT03772522|181954786|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d (effect size)|1.792||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in score in the immediate intervention group (after receiving the intervention for 6 weeks) compared to that of the delayed intervention group (after receiving no intervention for 6 weeks) for the physical component of the CIS.||||0.002
90962731|NCT04884763|181806621|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26||||0.885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.95|3.43||A two-sided 5% significance level was used for all tests without multiplicity adjustment between multiple endpoints.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model included factors for treatment group, time, and their interaction, with time repeated within subject. Gender as a covariate.|For difference calculation, Arm A - Arm B|Based on two-sided paired t-tests and two-sample t-tests, all conducted at a 5% significance level, this pilot study had 80% power to detect effect sizes of 0.9 for changes over time within groups and effect sizes of 1.2 for differences between groups. To account for dropout, the study enrolled 15 patients per group, for a total of 30 patients.||3.43|-3.95|0.885
90962732|NCT04884763|181806622|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47||||0.474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|1.81||A two-sided 5% significance level was used for all tests without multiplicity adjustment between multiple endpoints.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model included factors for treatment group, time, and their interaction, with time repeated within subject. Gender as a covariate.|For difference calculation, Arm A - Arm B|Based on two-sided paired t-tests and two-sample t-tests, all conducted at a 5% significance level, this pilot study had 80% power to detect effect sizes of 1.2 for differences between groups. To account for dropout, the study enrolled 15 patients per group, for a total of 30 patients.||1.81|-0.87|0.474
91034321|NCT03772522|181954786|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d (effect size)|0.047||||0.923|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in score in the immediate intervention group (after receiving the intervention for 6 weeks) compared to that of the delayed intervention group (after receiving no intervention for 6 weeks) for the psychological component of the CIS.||||0.923
91034322|NCT03772522|181954786|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d (effect size)|0.6||||0.18|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of CIS (physical component) scores at baseline (pre-intervention) and immediately post-intervention.||||0.18
90882152|NCT00280566|181627058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.038|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 16 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.0380
90882153|NCT00280566|181627058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.2649|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 20 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.2649
90882154|NCT00280566|181627058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.2394|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 24 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.2394
90882155|NCT00280566|181627059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.8117|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 4 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.8117
90882156|NCT00280566|181627059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.0443|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 8 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.0443
90882157|NCT00280566|181627059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.3039|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 12 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.3039
90882158|NCT00280566|181627059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.46||0.9953|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 16 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.9953
90882159|NCT00280566|181627059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.1653|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 20 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.1653
90882160|NCT00280566|181627059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.5771|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 24 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.5771
90882161|NCT01502644|181627060|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|18.0||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|32.2|||Linear Mixed Modeling|Group, group×week, average baseline pain, and opioid use at baseline were entered as fixed effects using an autoregressive covariance structure.||||32.2|3.7|0.01
90882162|NCT01302392|181627063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.975||||0.4172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.249||Based on 1-sided test.|Log Rank|Analysis was stratified by the number of previous therapies (3 vs 4 vs ≥ 5) and geographical region (Europe vs. non-Europe)||||1.249|0.760|0.4172
90921803|NCT03232138|181715554|EQUIVALENCE|-sided P-value in the analysis, Mean (95%CI) changes from pre to pos treatment for positive cells. Caspase-3 all positive nuclei (counts/µm2) From Analysis of Covariance with adjustment for age, sex, cigarettes/day, years of smoking, years of quit smoking and baseline values of the same cellular biomarker||||||0.469||||||Hypothesis: Sulforaphane treatment has significant impact on the number of cells with positive Caspase-3 in bronchial biopsies than the placebo.|Analysis of Covariance|Analysis of Covariance adjustment for age,sex,cigarettes/day,years of smoking,years of quit smoking,baseline values of Caspase-3 positive cells||Moderate intensity positive nuclei. Mean (95%CI) changes from pre to pos treatment.||||0.469
90921804|NCT03232138|181715554|EQUIVALENCE|2-sided P-value in the analysis, Mean (95%CI) changes from pre to pos treatment for positive cells. Caspase-3 all positive nuclei (counts/µm2) From Analysis of Covariance with adjustment for age, sex, cigarettes/day, years of smoking, years of quit smoking and baseline values of the same cellular biomarke||||||0.052||||||Hypothesis: Sulforaphane treatment has significant impact on the number of cells with positive Caspase-3 in bronchial biopsies than the placebo.|Analysis of Covariance|Analysis of Covariance adjustment for age,sex,cigarettes/day,years of smoking,years of quit smoking,baseline values of Caspase-3 positive cells||strong intensity positive nuclei. Mean (95%CI) changes from pre to pos treatment.||||0.052
90921805|NCT03232138|181715555|EQUIVALENCE|This analysis was focused on the gene set that were found to be upregulated in lung cancer. the objective was to examine if sulforaphane treatment for 12 months had any significant impact on the expression of these lung-cancer associated upregulated genes in bronchial brushing samples. A linear mixed model was used to evaluate the effect of sulforaphane treatment over time on GSVA enrichment score with adjustment for age at study entry, sex, and RNA integrity number or RIN.|Slope|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.82|TWO_SIDED|||||Hypothesis: Sulforaphane treatment downregulate these genes whose over-expressions are associated with risk of lung cancer.|Mixed Models Analysis|The model includes treatment, time, time\*treatment, age at study entry, sex, and RIN.|Changes (beta) of gene expression after 12-month sulforaphane treatment.|||||0.82
91034323|NCT03772522|181954786|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d (effect size)|0.2||||0.388|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of CIS (psychological component) scores at baseline (pre-intervention) and immediately post-intervention.||||0.388
90882163|NCT01702233|181627071|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|All statistical analyses were of exploratory nature. A one-sided test of non-inferiority of Traumeel®S with respect to dexamethasone at level 0.025 was computed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group as qualitative factor and the baseline value of the abduction rotation pain VAS for active external rotation as a covariate. The test decision was based on a one-sided 97.5% confidence interval . The non-inferiority margin was set to 13 mm on a 0-100 mm VAS scale.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.0|<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0||97.5|||ANCOVA|||||97.5||<0.05
90882164|NCT04399161|181627102|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.123|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison among Children||||0.123
90882165|NCT04399161|181627102|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.314|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison among Elderly||||0.314
90882166|NCT03417141|181627103|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 12||||0.014
90882167|NCT03417141|181627103|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24||||0.006
90882168|NCT03417141|181627104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.093|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.093
90882169|NCT03417141|181627105|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.57
90882170|NCT03417141|181627106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.55
90882171|NCT02800148|181627130|EQUIVALENCE|provides 85% power of success|equivalence ratio|107.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.1|115.5||No p-value as calculated for bioequivalence, just a T/R ratio and 90% confidence interval|Fieller's method|||||115.5|96.1|
90882172|NCT00613509|181627137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.9406
90882173|NCT00613509|181627137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Likelihood ratio test|||||||0.9179
90882174|NCT03465878|181627140|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric least squares means|0.999||||0.9813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.918|1.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.09|0.918|0.9813
90882175|NCT03465878|181627140|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric least squares means|1.06||||0.1638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.976|1.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.15|0.976|0.1638
90882176|NCT03465878|181627140|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric least squares means|1.01||||0.7623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.933|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.10|0.933|0.7623
90882177|NCT03465878|181627140|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric least squares means|1.04||||0.2952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.962|1.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.13|0.962|0.2952
90882178|NCT03465878|181627140|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric least squares means|0.97||||0.4052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.901|1.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.04|0.901|0.4052
90882179|NCT03465878|181627140|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric least squares means|1.02||||0.5314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.948|1.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.11|0.948|0.5314
90882180|NCT02540954|181627142|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin is 5 letters.|Least squares mean difference|0.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|1.96|||ANCOVA|||||1.96|-1.51|< 0.0001
90882181|NCT02540954|181627143|NON_INFERIORITY|Non inferiority margin is 7%.|Treatment difference in %|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|6.0||||||||6.0|-3.7|
90882182|NCT02540954|181627148|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.152|0.392||||||||0.392|-4.152|
90882183|NCT01723228|181627158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.8||||0.2204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|2.05|||repeated measures model|The statistical model is a repeated measures model with visit by treatment interaction, center, baseline score, and age as fixed effects.||||2.05|-0.48|0.2204
90882184|NCT01723228|181627159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.8428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.81|||Repeated Measures Model|The statistical model is a repeated measures model with visit by treatment interaction, center, baseline score, and age as fixed effects.||||0.81|-0.99|0.8428
90882185|NCT01723228|181627160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.7||||0.4796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.74|1.3|||ANCOVA|The statistical model is an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment, center, baseline score, and age as fixed effects.||||1.30|-2.74|0.4796
90882186|NCT01723228|181627161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.61||||0.1148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|2.93|||Proportional Odds Model|The statistical model is a proportional odds model with terms for treatment, center, and age.||CGIC||2.93|0.89|0.1148
90882187|NCT01723228|181627161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1052|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|For the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) p-value, the statistical model is a CMH test controlling for center with scores=modridit option.||CGIC||||0.1052
90921806|NCT03232138|181715556|EQUIVALENCE|This analysis was focused on the gene set that were found to be down-regulated in lung cancer. The objective was to examine if sulforaphane treatment for 12 months had any significant impact on the expression of these lung-cancer associated down-regulated genes in bronchial brushing samples. A linear mixed model was used to evaluate the effect of sulforaphane treatment over time on GSVA enrichment score with adjustment for age at study entry, sex, and RIN.|Slope|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.5|TWO_SIDED|||||Hypothesis: Sulforaphane treatment would upregulate these genes whose down-expressions are associated with lung cancer risk.|Mixed Models Analysis|The model includes treatment, time, time\*treatment, age at study entry, sex, and RIN.|Changes (beta) of gene expression after 12-month sulforaphane treatment.|||||0.50
90921807|NCT03232138|181715557|EQUIVALENCE|This analysis was focused on the gene set that were found to be upregulated in lung pre-malignant lesions. The objective was to examine if sulforaphane treatment for 12 months would have any significant impact on the expression of these pre-malignant lesions associated upregulated genes in bronchial brushing samples. A linear mixed model was used to evaluate the effect of sulforaphane treatment over time on GSVA enrichment score with adjustment for age at study entry, sex, and RIN.|Slope|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.32|TWO_SIDED|||||Hypothesis: Sulforaphane treatment would downregulate these genes whose over-expressions are associated with risk of lung pre-malignant lesions.|Mixed Models Analysis|The model includes treatment, time, time\*treatment, age at study entry, sex, and RIN.|Changes (beta) of gene expression after the 12-month sulforaphane treatment.|||||0.32
90921808|NCT03232138|181715558|EQUIVALENCE|This analysis was focused on the gene set that were found to be downregulated in lung pre-malignant lesions. The objective was to examine if sulforaphane treatment for 12 months would have any significant impact on the expression of these pre-malignant lesions associated downregulated genes in bronchial brushing samples. A linear mixed model was used to evaluate the effect of sulforaphane treatment over time on GSVA enrichment score with adjustment for age at study entry, sex, and RIN.|Slope|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.5|TWO_SIDED|||||Hypothesis: Sulforaphane treatment would upregulate these genes whose down-regulated expressions are associated with risk of lung pre-malignant lesions.|Mixed Models Analysis|The model includes treatment, time, time\*treatment, age at study entry, sex, and RIN.|Changes (beta) of gene expression after the 12-month sulforaphane treatment.|||||0.5
90921809|NCT03232138|181715559|EQUIVALENCE|This analysis was focused on the gene set that were found to be upregulated in lung cancer. The objective was to examine if sulforaphane treatment for 12 months had any significant impact on the expression of these lung-cancer associated upregulated genes in nasal brushing samples. A linear mixed model was used to evaluate the effect of sulforaphane treatment over time on GSVA enrichment score with adjustment for age at study entry, sex, and RIN.|Slope|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.012|TWO_SIDED|||||Sulforaphane treatment would downregulate the expression of these genes whose upregulated expressions in bronchial epithelial cells have been found to be associated with risk of lung cancer.|Mixed Models Analysis|The model includes treatment, time, time\*treatment, age at study entry, sex, and RIN.|Changes (beta) of gene expression after the 12-month sulforaphane treatment.|||||0.012
90921810|NCT03232138|181715560|EQUIVALENCE|This analysis was focused on the gene set that were found to be downregulated in lung cancer. The objective was to examine if sulforaphane treatment for 12 months had any significant impact on the expression of these lung-cancer associated upregulated genes in nasal brushing samples. A linear mixed model was used to evaluate the effect of sulforaphane treatment over time on GSVA enrichment score with adjustment for age at study entry, sex, and RIN.|Slope|0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|||||Hypothesis: Sulforaphane treatment would upregulate the expression of these genes whose downregulated expressions in nasal epithelial cells have been found to be associated with risk of lung cancer.|Mixed Models Analysis||Changes (beta) of gene expression after the 12-month sulforaphane treatment.|||||0.0045
90940691|NCT01723514|181761248|SUPERIORITY||LS Geometric Mean Ratio|-71.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.93|-50.82|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Day 57: A repeated measures ANCOVA was performed for the ratio of blood flow measures at 30 minutes post capsaicin challenge to pre capsaicin challenge. The model included treatment, day, and the treatment by day interaction as independent variables, and both the 0 minute pre-capsaicin blood flow measure as well as the day 0, 30-minute post-capsaicin blood flow measures on day -1 .||-50.82|-83.93|< 0.001
90962733|NCT04884763|181806623|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|1.56||A two-sided 5% significance level was used for all tests without multiplicity adjustment between multiple endpoints.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model included factors for treatment group, time, and their interaction, with time repeated within subject. Gender as a covariate.|For difference calculation, Arm A - Arm B|Based on two-sided paired t-tests and two-sample t-tests, all conducted at a 5% significance level, this pilot study had 80% power to detect effect sizes of 1.2 for differences between groups. To account for dropout, the study enrolled 15 patients per group, for a total of 30 patients.||1.56|-1.94|0.822
90962734|NCT04884763|181806624|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.51||||0.455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|1.91||A two-sided 5% significance level was used for all tests without multiplicity adjustment between multiple endpoints.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model included factors for treatment group, time, and their interaction, with time repeated within subject. Gender as a covariate.|For difference calculation, Arm A - Arm B|Based on two-sided paired t-tests and two-sample t-tests, all conducted at a 5% significance level, this pilot study had 80% power to detect effect sizes of 0.9 for changes over time within groups and effect sizes of 1.2 for differences between groups. To account for dropout, the study enrolled 15 patients per group, for a total of 30 patients.||1.91|-0.88|0.455
90962735|NCT04884763|181806625|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.1||||0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|27.0||A two-sided 5% significance level was used for all tests without multiplicity adjustment between multiple endpoints.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model included factors for treatment group, time, and their interaction, with time repeated within subject. Gender as a covariate.|For difference calculation, Arm A - Arm B|Based on two-sided paired t-tests and two-sample t-tests, all conducted at a 5% significance level, this pilot study had 80% power to detect effect sizes of 0.9 for changes over time within groups and effect sizes of 1.2 for differences between groups. To account for dropout, the study enrolled 15 patients per group, for a total of 30 patients.||27.0|-12.8|0.467
90882188|NCT01723228|181627161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.8857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.75|||Proportional Odds Model|The statistical model is a proportional odds model with terms for treatment, center, and age.||CGIC Cognition||1.75|0.52|0.8857
90882189|NCT01723228|181627161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9945|TWO_SIDED|||||For the CMH p-value, the statistical model is a CMH test controlling for center with scores=modridit option.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CGIC Cognition||||0.9945
90882190|NCT01723228|181627161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.6909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|2.43|||Proportional Odds Model|The statistical model is a proportional odds model with terms for treatment, center, and age.||CGIC Behavior||2.43|0.56|0.6909
90882191|NCT01723228|181627161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6639|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|For the CMH p-value, the statistical model is a CMH test controlling for center with scores=modridit option.||CGIC Behavior||||0.6639
90882192|NCT01723228|181627161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.3204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.68|||Proportional Odds Model|The statistical model is a proportional odds model with terms for treatment, center, and age.||CGIC Functional Abilities||2.68|0.72|0.3204
90882193|NCT01723228|181627161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3331|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|For the CMH p-value, the statistical model is a CMH test controlling for center with scores=modridit option.||CGIC Functional Abilities||||0.3331
90882194|NCT01723228|181627162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.5||||0.0151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.47|-0.49|||Repeated Measures Model|The statistical model is a repeated measures model with visit by treatment interaction, center, baseline score, and age as fixed effects.||||-0.49|-4.47|0.0151
90882195|NCT01723228|181627163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.3||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.53|-1.08|||Repeated Measures Model|The statistical model is a repeated measures model with visit by treatment interaction, center, baseline score, and age as fixed effects.||||-1.08|-3.53|0.0003
90882196|NCT01806896|181627176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.68||0.68|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.56|2.15||2-sided p-value|ANCOVA|Treatment differences are based on a mixed effect model including treatment as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender and CAG repeats as covariates.||PF-02545920 versus Placebo (Day 28)||2.15|-3.56|0.68
90882197|NCT01806896|181627178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.79|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.72|0.52||2-sided p-value|ANCOVA|Treatment differences are based on a mixed effect model including treatment as fixed effect and baseline, age, gender and CAG repeats as covariates.||PF-02545920 versus Placebo (Cue Rew\>Neut Left VS)||0.52|-0.72|0.79
90882198|NCT01806896|181627178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.7|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8|0.51||2-sided p-value|ANCOVA|Treatment differences are based on a mixed effect model including treatment as fixed effect and baseline, age, gender and CAG repeats as covariates.||PF-02545920 versus Placebo (Cue Rew\>Neut Right VS)||0.51|-0.80|0.70
90882199|NCT01806896|181627178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.51|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.89|0.4||2-sided p-value|ANCOVA|Treatment differences are based on a mixed effect model including treatment as fixed effect and baseline, age, gender and CAG repeats as covariates.||PF-02545920 versus Placebo (Out\_win\_Rew\>Out\_win N Left VS)||0.40|-0.89|0.51
90882200|NCT01806896|181627178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.13|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.1|0.04||2-sided p-value|ANCOVA|Treatment differences are based on a mixed effect model including treatment as fixed effect and baseline, age, gender and CAG repeats as covariates.||PF-02545920 versus Placebo (Out\_win\_Rew\>Out\_win N Right VS)||0.04|-1.10|0.13
90882201|NCT01806896|181627181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean|7.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.57||0.04|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.43|13.18||2-sided p-value|ANCOVA|Mixed effect model including treatment, incentive and treatment\*incentive as fixed effects; baseline, age, gender and CAG repeats as covariates.||PF-02545920 versus Placebo (Emotional Incentive-Neutral) Day 28||13.18|1.43|0.04
90882202|NCT01806896|181627181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean|7.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.57||0.03|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.69|13.45||2-sided p-value|ANCOVA|Mixed effect model including treatment, incentive and treatment\*incentive as fixed effects; baseline, age, gender and CAG repeats as covariates.||PF-02545920 versus Placebo (Emotional Incentive-Positive) Day 28||13.45|1.69|0.03
90882203|NCT01806896|181627181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean|7.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.56||0.04|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.41|13.15||2-sided p-value|ANCOVA|Mixed effect model including treatment, incentive and treatment\*incentive as fixed effects; baseline, age, gender and CAG repeats as covariates.||PF-02545920 versus Placebo (Emotional Incentive-Negative) Day 28||13.15|1.41|0.04
90882204|NCT01806896|181627181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean|0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.58||0.78|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.91|6.87||2-sided p-value|ANCOVA|Mixed effect model including treatment, incentive and treatment\*incentive as fixed effects; baseline, age, gender and CAG repeats as covariates.||PF-02545920 versus Placebo (Monetary Incentive-0.01 Euro) Day 28||6.87|-4.91|0.78
90882205|NCT01806896|181627181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean|4.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.58||0.18|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.11|10.67||2-sided p-value|ANCOVA|Mixed effect model including treatment, incentive and treatment\*incentive as fixed effects; baseline, age, gender and CAG repeats as covariates.||PF-02545920 versus Placebo (Monetary Incentive-0.1 Euro) Day 28||10.67|-1.11|0.18
90882206|NCT01806896|181627181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean|16.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.58|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|90.0|10.46|22.24||2-sided p-value|ANCOVA|Mixed effect model including treatment, incentive and treatment\*incentive as fixed effects; baseline, age, gender and CAG repeats as covariates.||PF-02545920 versus Placebo (Monetary Incentive-1 Euro) Day 28||22.24|10.46|<0.01
90940692|NCT01723514|181761248|SUPERIORITY||LS Geometric Mean Ratio|-68.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-81.01|-47.78|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Day 85: A repeated measures ANCOVA was performed for the ratio of blood flow measures at 30 minutes post capsaicin challenge to pre capsaicin challenge. The model included treatment, day, and the treatment by day interaction as independent variables, and both the 0 minute pre-capsaicin blood flow measure as well as the day 0, 30-minute post-capsaicin blood flow measures on day -1 .||-47.78|-81.01|< 0.001
91034324|NCT03772522|181954786|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d (effect size)|0.52||||0.037|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of CIS (physical component) scores at baseline (pre-intervention) and 3-months post-intervention.||||0.037
90921811|NCT03232138|181715561|EQUIVALENCE|This analysis was focused on the gene set that were found to be upregulated in lung premalignant lesions. The objective was to examine if sulforaphane treatment for 12 months had any significant impact on the expression of these premalignant lesion-associated upregulated genes in nasal brushing samples. A linear mixed model was used to evaluate the effect of sulforaphane treatment over time on GSVA enrichment score with adjustment for age at study entry, sex, and RIN.|Slope|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.32|TWO_SIDED|||||Hypothesis: Sulforaphane treatment would downregulate the expression of these genes whose upregulated expressions in bronchial epithelial cells have been found to be associated with risk of lung premalignant lesions.|Mixed Models Analysis|The model includes treatment, time, time\*treatment, age at study entry, sex, and RIN.|Changes (beta) of gene expression after the 12-month sulforaphane treatment.|||||0.32
90962736|NCT04884763|181806626|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|1.07||A two-sided 5% significance level was used for all tests without multiplicity adjustment between multiple endpoints.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model included factors for treatment group, time, and their interaction, with time repeated within subject. Gender as a covariate.|For difference calculation, Arm A - Arm B|Based on two-sided paired t-tests and two-sample t-tests, all conducted at a 5% significance level, this pilot study had 80% power to detect effect sizes of 0.9 for changes over time within groups and effect sizes of 1.2 for differences between groups. To account for dropout, the study enrolled 15 patients per group, for a total of 30 patients.||1.07|-0.79|0.755
90921812|NCT03232138|181715562|EQUIVALENCE|This analysis was focused on the gene set that were found to be downregulated in lung premalignant lesions. The objective was to examine if sulforaphane treatment for 12 months had any significant impact on the expression of these premalignant lesion-associated downregulated genes in nasal brushing samples. A linear mixed model was used to evaluate the effect of sulforaphane treatment over time on GSVA enrichment score with adjustment for age at study entry, sex, and RIN.|Slope|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.27|TWO_SIDED|||||Hypothesis: Sulforaphane treatment would upregulate the expression of these genes whose downregulated expressions in bronchial epithelial cells have been found to be associated with risk of lung premalignant lesions.|Mixed Models Analysis|The model includes treatment, time, time\*treatment, age at study entry, sex, and RIN.|Changes (beta) of gene expression after the 12-month sulforaphane treatment.|||||0.27
90921813|NCT03232138|181715563|EQUIVALENCE|Total number of adverse events by attrition and severity by treatment group during the study period, The Pittsburgh Clinical Trial of Sulforaphane (SFN) on Risk Markers of Lung Cancer||||||0.59||||||For severity by treatment group.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.590
90921814|NCT03232138|181715563|EQUIVALENCE|Total number of adverse events by attrition and severity by treatment group during the study period, The Pittsburgh Clinical Trial of Sulforaphane (SFN) on Risk Markers of Lung Cancer||||||0.131||||||For attribution by treatment group.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.131
90921815|NCT03850678|181715601|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.774|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis examined Q10 for those participants who completed the compression speed experiment (instant, fast, slow).||||.774
90962737|NCT04884763|181806627|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0.613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|0.71||A two-sided 5% significance level was used for all tests without multiplicity adjustment between multiple endpoints.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model included factors for treatment group, time, and their interaction, with time repeated within subject. Gender as a covariate.|For difference calculation, Arm A - Arm B|Based on two-sided paired t-tests and two-sample t-tests, all conducted at a 5% significance level, this pilot study had 80% power to detect effect sizes of 0.9 for changes over time within groups and effect sizes of 1.2 for differences between groups. To account for dropout, the study enrolled 15 patients per group, for a total of 30 patients.||0.71|-1.18|0.613
90962738|NCT04884763|181806628|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.58||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|4.22||A two-sided 5% significance level was used for all tests without multiplicity adjustment between multiple endpoints.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model included factors for treatment group, time, and their interaction, with time repeated within subject. Gender as a covariate.|For difference calculation, Arm A - Arm B|Based on two-sided paired t-tests and two-sample t-tests, all conducted at a 5% significance level, this pilot study had 80% power to detect effect sizes of 0.9 for changes over time within groups and effect sizes of 1.2 for differences between groups. To account for dropout, the study enrolled 15 patients per group, for a total of 30 patients.||4.22|0.94|0.003
90882207|NCT02434770|181627197|EQUIVALENCE|Primary efficacy objective 1 of this study was to demonstrate the equivalence of two lots of BBIBP bOPV in terms of post-vaccination anti-polio neutralizing antibody GMTs. The immune response of the two lots of BBIBP bOPV would be declared equivalent if the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the serotype-specific GMT ratio for both serotypes was contained within (0.5, 2.0).|Ratio of Geometric Mean Titers|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.08|||||Lot 1 / Lot 2|||1.08|0.65|
90882208|NCT02434770|181627197|NON_INFERIORITY|Secondary efficacy objective 2 of this study was to demonstrate the non-inferiority of the two lots of BBIBP bOPV combined to the WHO control in terms of post-vaccination anti-polio neutralizing antibody GMTs. The two Lots combined would be declared non-inferior to the WHO control if the lower limit of the 95% CI for the serotype-specific GMT ratio of BBIBP Lots 1+2 over WHO control for both serotypes was \> 0.5.|Ratio of Geometric Mean Titers|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.34|||||Lot 1 + Lot 2 / BioFarma bOPV|||1.34|0.87|
90921816|NCT03850678|181715601|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis examined Q10 for those participants who completed the compression channel conditions (4, 8, 16).||||<.001
90921817|NCT03850678|181715601|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.167|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compared Q10 for those participants who completed the unaided and aided conditions.||||.167
90921818|NCT03850678|181715602|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.741|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis of number of compression channels (unaided, 4 channel, 16 channels)||||.741
90921819|NCT03850678|181715602|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.062||||||Due to Levene's Test for Equality of Variances, equal variances were not assumed.|t-test, 1 sided|||Spatial Release from Masking, unaided.||||.062
91034325|NCT03772522|181954786|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d (effect size)|0.09||||0.688|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of CIS (psychological component) scores at baseline (pre-intervention) and 3-months post-intervention.||||0.688
91034326|NCT03772522|181954786|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d (effect size)|0.51||||0.038|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of CIS (physical component) scores at baseline (pre-intervention) and 6-months post-intervention.||||0.038
91034327|NCT03772522|181954786|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d (effect size)|0.01||||0.956|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of CIS (psychological component) scores at baseline (pre-intervention) and 6-months post-intervention.||||0.956
90921820|NCT03850678|181715603|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.805|||||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression of score for the reading span (independent variable) to Q10 (dependent variable, 16 channel compression condition) for the participants who completed the compression channel experiment.||||.805
90921821|NCT04640298|181715604|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-Value was calculated|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
90921822|NCT04640298|181715605|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-Value was calculated|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
90921823|NCT04640298|181715606|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-Value was calculated|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
90921824|NCT05071807|181715663|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|1.33|||Regression, Linear|adjusted for outcome baseline value, age (years), sex (male or female) and BMI (kg/m2)||To detect a 1.2 percentage point (standard deviation 2.4; effect size 0.5) between-group difference in the change in FMD with 80% power (α=0.05), it was estimated that a sample size of 128 participants was needed (64 per group)||1.33|-1.17|
90921825|NCT05071807|181715664|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|-2.1|||Regression, Linear|adjusted for outcome baseline value, age (years), sex (male or female) and baseline BMI (kg/m2)||||-2.1|-12.3|
90921826|NCT05071807|181715665|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|2.9|||Regression, Linear|adjusted for outcome baseline value, age (years), sex (male or female) and baseline BMI (kg/m2)||||2.9|-0.8|
90962739|NCT04884763|181806629|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.19||||0.536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|5.08||A two-sided 5% significance level was used for all tests without multiplicity adjustment between multiple endpoints.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model included factors for treatment group, time, and their interaction, with time repeated within subject. Gender as a covariate.|For difference calculation, Arm A - Arm B|Based on two-sided paired t-tests and two-sample t-tests, all conducted at a 5% significance level, this pilot study had 80% power to detect effect sizes of 0.9 for changes over time within groups and effect sizes of 1.2 for differences between groups. To account for dropout, the study enrolled 15 patients per group, for a total of 30 patients.||5.08|-2.70|0.536
90882209|NCT02434770|181627198|EQUIVALENCE|Primary efficacy objective 1 of this study was to demonstrate the equivalence of two lots of BBIBP bOPV in terms of post-vaccination anti-polio neutralizing antibody GMTs. The immune response of the two lots of BBIBP bOPV would be declared equivalent if the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the serotype-specific GMT ratio for both serotypes was contained within (0.5, 2.0).|Ratio of Geometric Mean Titers|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.15|||||Lot 1 / Lot 2|||1.15|0.73|
90882210|NCT02434770|181627198|NON_INFERIORITY|Secondary efficacy objective 2 of this study was to demonstrate the non-inferiority of the two lots of BBIBP bOPV combined to the WHO control in terms of post-vaccination anti-polio neutralizing antibody GMTs. The two Lots combined would be declared non-inferior to the WHO control if the lower limit of the 95% CI for the serotype-specific GMT ratio of BBIBP Lots 1+2 over WHO control for both serotypes was \> 0.5.|Ratio of Geometric Mean Titers|1.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|1.79|||||BBIBP bOPV Lot 1 + Lot 2 / BioFarma bOPV|||1.79|1.21|
90921827|NCT05071807|181715666|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.0|-2.9|||Regression, Linear|adjusted for outcome baseline value, age (years), sex (male or female) and baseline BMI (kg/m2)||||-2.9|-30.0|
90921828|NCT05071807|181715667|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-75.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-144.0|-6.93|||Regression, Linear|adjusted for outcome baseline value, age (years), sex (male or female) and baseline BMI (kg/m2)||Total LDL particle mean difference||-6.93|-144|
90921829|NCT05071807|181715667|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-27.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.3|13.4|||Regression, Linear|adjustment for the baseline value, age (years), sex (male or female) and body mass index (BMI) (kg/m2)||For Large LDL particle subclass||13.4|-69.3|
90962740|NCT02178553|181806630|NON_INFERIORITY|We determined that a difference of 1 unit between groups would be the bound for non-inferiorty.|Confidence Interval|1.0||||0.142|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|1.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.8|-0.1|0.142
91034328|NCT03772522|181954786|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d (effect size)|0.32||||0.197|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of CIS (physical component) scores at baseline (pre-intervention) and 9-months post-intervention.||||0.197
91034329|NCT03772522|181954786|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d (effect size)|-0.07||||0.762|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of CIS (psychological component) scores at baseline (pre-intervention) and 9-months post-intervention.||||0.762
90921830|NCT05071807|181715668|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.75|||Regression, Linear|adjusted for outcome baseline value, age (years), sex (male or female) and baseline BMI (kg/m2).||Results for total HDL particle count||0.75|-0.56|
90921831|NCT05071807|181715668|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.8||||Adjusted for baseline value, age, sex, and BMI||Results for Small HDL particles||0.80|-0.75|
90921832|NCT05071807|181715668|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.19|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline value, age, sex, and BMI||Results for Medium HDL||0.19|-0.85|
90921833|NCT05071807|181715669|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|3.13|||Regression, Linear|were adjusted for outcome baseline value, age (years), sex (male or female) and baseline BMI (kg/m2)||Results from brachial systolic blood pressure are reported below||3.13|-3.09|
90921834|NCT05071807|181715669|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|2.07|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline value, age, sex, BMI||Results for Brachial Diastolic Blood pressure||2.07|-1.67|
90921835|NCT05071807|181715670|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.24|2.28|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline value, age, sex, BMI||Results for central systolic blood pressure||2.28|-3.24|
90921836|NCT05071807|181715670|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|2.1|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline value, age, sex, BMI||Results for central diastolic blood pressure||2.10|-1.69|
90921837|NCT05071807|181715671|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.24|||Regression, Linear|were adjusted for outcome baseline value, age (years), sex (male or female) and baseline BMI (kg/m2)||||0.24|-0.26|
90921838|NCT05071807|181715672|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.25|0.95|||Regression, Linear|adjusted for outcome baseline value, age (years), sex (male or female) and baseline BMI (kg/m2)||||0.95|-4.25|
90921839|NCT05071807|181715673|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|3.0|||Regression, Linear|adjusted for outcome baseline value, age (years), sex (male or female) and baseline BMI (kg/m2)||||3.0|-0.6|
90921840|NCT05071807|181715674|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.6|||Regression, Linear|adjusted for outcome baseline value, age (years), sex (male or female) and baseline BMI (kg/m2).||||1.6|-2.3|
90882211|NCT02434770|181627199|NON_INFERIORITY|Primary efficacy objective 2 of this study was to demonstrate the non-inferiority of the two lots of BBIBP bOPV combined to the WHO control in terms of post-vaccination anti-polio neutralizing antibody seroconversion rates. The immune response of the combined lots of BBIBP bOPV would be declared non-inferior to the WHO control if the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference in percent responders is greater than negative 10, provided the two lots are declared equivalent.|Difference in seroconversion rate|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|4.6|||||BBIBP bOPV (Lot 1 + Lot 2) - BioFarma bOPV|For serotype 1||4.6|-0.5|
90882212|NCT02434770|181627199|NON_INFERIORITY|Primary efficacy objective 2 of this study was to demonstrate the non-inferiority of the two lots of BBIBP bOPV combined to the WHO control in terms of post-vaccination anti-polio neutralizing antibody seroconversion rates. The immune response of the combined lots of BBIBP bOPV would be declared non-inferior to the WHO control if the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference in percent responders is greater than negative 10, provided the two lots are declared equivalent.|Difference in seroconversion rate|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|5.6|||||BBIBP bOPV (Lot 1 + Lot 2) - BioFarma bOPV|For Serotype 3||5.6|-0.1|
90921841|NCT05071807|181715675|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.1|||Regression, Linear|adjusted for outcome baseline value, age (years), sex (male or female) and baseline BMI (kg/m2).||||0.1|0.0|
90921842|NCT05071807|181715676|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|9.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|13.7||When a significant group by time point interaction was detected, post hoc testing was conducted and the Tukey-Kramer method was used to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for outcome baseline value, age (years), sex (male or female) and baseline BMI (kg/m2).||||13.7|5.0|
90921843|NCT05071807|181715677|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|-1.7|||Regression, Linear|adjusted for outcome baseline value, age (years), sex (male or female) and baseline BMI (kg/m2)||||-1.7|-14.5|
90921844|NCT05071807|181715678|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-25.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-98.6|47.5|||Regression, Linear|adjusted for outcome baseline value, age (years), sex (male or female) and baseline BMI (kg/m2)||Results for medium subclass; Measure Description: LDL particle size classifications are as follows: 22-25.5 nm is small, 25.6-26.5 nm medium, and 26.6-28.5 nm large. Typically, smaller LDL is associated with increased cardiovascular risk compared to larger.||47.5|-98.6|
90921845|NCT05071807|181715678|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-91.8|95.5|||Regression, Linear|adjustment for the baseline value, age (years), sex (male or female) and body mass index (BMI) (kg/m2)||Results for Small LDL particles; Measure Description: LDL particle size classifications are as follows: 22-25.5 nm is small, 25.6-26.5 nm medium, and 26.6-28.5 nm large. Typically, smaller LDL is associated with increased cardiovascular risk compared to larger.||95.5|-91.8|
90921846|NCT05071807|181715679|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.63|||Regression, Linear|adjusted for outcome baseline value, age (years), sex (male or female) and baseline BMI (kg/m2).||||0.63|0.07|
90921847|NCT03158714|181715721|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.033||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Utilized multi-level modeling to account for nested data (individuals within couples), and accounted for time within individual.||||||.005
90921848|NCT03158714|181715721|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02||||0.101|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Utilized multi-level modeling to account for nested data (individuals within couples), and accounted for time within individual.||||||.101
90921849|NCT03158714|181715722|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Regression, Linear|Utilized multi-level modeling to account for nested data (individuals within couples), and controlled for baseline levels of outcome in regression.||||||< .001
90921850|NCT03158714|181715722|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Regression, Linear|Utilized multi-level modeling to account for nested data (individuals within couples), and controlled for baseline levels of outcome in regression.||||||< .001
90921851|NCT03158714|181715723|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.343||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Utilized multi-level modeling to account for nested data (individuals within couples), and accounted for time within individual.||||||.003
90921852|NCT03158714|181715723|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.172||||0.152|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Utilized multi-level modeling to account for nested data (individuals within couples), and accounted for time within individual.||||||.152
90921853|NCT03721952|181715814|SUPERIORITY||Avg. Intervention Effect (CON--INT)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.323||0.688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.505|0.764|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed-effects: 1-, 3-, 6-mo outcomes, intervention \& time predictors. Primary analysis: avg control-intervention effect over 3 time points.|Additional estimation information: Positive sign of estimate defined as lower average depression score \& negative sign of estimate defined as higher average depression score, over 3 follow-up points for the intervention group vs. the control group.|Superior outcome for Group2 (Facilitator-based INTERVENTION: Family)||0.764|-0.505|0.688
90921854|NCT03721952|181715814|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Average Intervention effect with time interaction (control-intervention)||||||0.510
90921855|NCT03721952|181715815|SUPERIORITY||Avg. Intervention Effect (CON--INT)|0.143|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.323||0.658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.491|0.777|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed-effects: 1-, 3-, 6-mo outcomes, intervention \& time predictors. Primary analysis: avg control-intervention effect over 3 time points.|Additional estimation information: Positive sign of estimate defined as lower average anxiety score \& negative sign of estimate defined as higher average anxiety score, over 3 follow-up points for the intervention group vs. the control group.|Superior outcome for Group2 (Facilitator-based INTERVENTION: Family)||0.777|-0.491|0.658
90921856|NCT03721952|181715815|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.268|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Average Intervention effect with time interaction (control-intervention)||||||0.268
90921857|NCT03721952|181715816|SUPERIORITY||Avg. Intervention Effect (CON--INT)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.077||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.353|-0.048|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed-effects: 1-, 3-, 6-mo outcomes, intervention \& time predictors. Primary analysis: avg control-intervention effect over 3 time points.|Additional information: Positive sign of estimate defined as lower average quality-of-relationship score \& negative sign of estimate defined as higher average quality-of-relationship score over 3 follow-up points for intervention vs control groups.|Superior outcome for Group 2 (Facilitator-based INTERVENTION: Family)||-0.048|-0.353|0.010
90921858|NCT03721952|181715816|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.175|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Average Intervention effect with time interaction (control-intervention)||||||0.175
90921859|NCT03721952|181715817|SUPERIORITY||Avg. Intervention Effect (CON--INT)|-0.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.092||0.817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.203|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed-effects: 1-, 3-, 6-mo outcomes, intervention \& time predictors. Primary analysis: avg control-intervention effect over 3 time points.|Additional information: Positive sign of estimate defined as lower average quality-of-relationship score \& negative sign of estimate defined as higher average quality-of-relationship score, over 3 follow-up points for intervention vs control group.|Superior outcome for Group 2 (Facilitator-based INTERVENTION: Family)||0.160|-0.203|0.817
91034330|NCT03772522|181954787|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d (effect size)|0.101||||0.834|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in score in the immediate intervention group (after receiving the intervention for 6 weeks) compared to that of the delayed intervention group (after receiving no intervention for 6 weeks).||||0.834
90882213|NCT02434770|181627199|OTHER|Secondary efficacy objective 1 of this study was to show consistency of the two lots in terms of post-vaccination anti-polio neutralizing antibody seroconversion rates. The two lots would be declared consistent if the upper and lower limits of the 95% CI for the difference in seroconversion rates is within 10 percentage points of the observed difference for both serotypes.|Difference in seroconversion rate|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|2.1|||||Lot 1 - Lot 2|For Serotype 1||2.1|-3.0|
90882214|NCT02434770|181627199|NON_INFERIORITY|Secondary efficacy objective 1 of this study was to show consistency of the two lots in terms of post-vaccination anti-polio neutralizing antibody seroconversion rates. The two lots would be declared consistent if the upper and lower limits of the 95% CI for the difference in seroconversion rates is within 10 percentage points of the observed difference for both serotypes.|Difference in seroconversion rate|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|2.8|||||Lot 1 - Lot 2|For Serotype 3||2.8|-2.6|
90882215|NCT02434770|181627200|NON_INFERIORITY|To show non-inferiority of Lots 1+2 combined versus BioFarma bOPV Control, the lower limit of the 95% CI must be \> 0.5.|Ratio of Geometric Mean Titers|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.63|||||Lot 1 + Lot 2 / BioFarma bOPV|||1.63|0.89|
90882216|NCT02434770|181627201|OTHER||Difference in seroprotection rate|-0.09||||0.5586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.86|4.48|||Fisher's exact 1-tailed test|Fisher's exact 1-tailed test of a lower rate in Lots 1+2|BBIBP bOPV (Lot 1 + Lot 2) - BioFarma bOPV|||4.48|-3.86|0.5586
90882217|NCT02434770|181627202|NON_INFERIORITY|To show non-inferiority of Lots 1+2 combined versus BioFarma bOPV Control, the lower limit of the 95% CI must be \> 0.5.|Ratio of Geometric Mean Titers|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.38|||||Lot 1 + Lot 2 / BioFarma bOPV|||1.38|0.71|
90882218|NCT01282424|181627210|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The null hypothesis is ≤ 20%.|Exact binomial test|||||||< 0.0001
90882219|NCT02239536|181627236|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.05
90882220|NCT02239536|181627237|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.05
90882221|NCT02239536|181627237|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.001
90882222|NCT04074317|181627238|EQUIVALENCE|Treatment groups were compared using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model, including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and patient within sequence as random effect.|||||<|0.0001||||||Least-squares geometric means for ln-transformed data.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
90882223|NCT04074317|181627238|EQUIVALENCE|Treatment groups were compared using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model, including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and patient within sequence as random effect.||||||0.694|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.694
90882224|NCT04074317|181627238|EQUIVALENCE|Treatment groups were compared using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model, including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and patient within sequence as random effect.|||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
90882225|NCT04074317|181627239|EQUIVALENCE|H0: Means are equal between treatment groups. Ha: Means are not equal across the treatment groups.|LS Mean Difference|-21.29||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.23|-1.36|||ANOVA|||Plasma Glucose Levels: \>180 mg/dL: 0 to 90 minutes||-1.36|-41.23|0.041
90882226|NCT04074317|181627239|EQUIVALENCE|H0: Means are equal between treatment groups. Ha: Means are not equal across the treatment groups.|LS Mean Difference|-7.45||||0.453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.43|16.54|||ANOVA|||Plasma Glucose Levels: \>180 mg/dL: 0 to 90 minutes||16.54|-31.43|0.453
90882227|NCT04074317|181627239|EQUIVALENCE|H0: Means are equal between treatment groups. Ha: means are not equal across the treatment groups.|LS Mean Difference|13.85||||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.46|36.15|||ANOVA|||Plasma Glucose Levels: \>180 mg/dL: 0 to 90 minutes||36.15|-8.46|0.161
90882228|NCT04074317|181627239|EQUIVALENCE|H0: Means are equal between treatment groups. Ha: means are not equal across the treatment groups.|LS Mean Difference|-23.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.37|-12.48|||ANOVA|||Plasma Glucose \>180 mg/dL: 0 to 180 minutes||-12.48|-35.37|<0.001
90921860|NCT03721952|181715817|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.949|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Average Intervention effect with time interaction (control-intervention)||||||0.949
90921861|NCT03721952|181715818|SUPERIORITY||Avg. Intervention Effect (CON--INT)|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.239||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.919|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed-effects: 1-, 3-, 6-mo outcomes, intervention \& time predictors. Primary analysis: avg control-intervention effect over 3 time points.|Additional information: Positive sign of estimate defined as lower average preparation score \& negative sign of estimate defined as higher average preparation score, over 3 follow-up points for intervention vs control group.|Superior outcome for Group 2 (Facilitator-based INTERVENTION: Family)||0.020|-0.919|0.060
90921862|NCT03721952|181715818|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.701|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Average Intervention effect with time interaction (control-intervention)||||||0.701
90962741|NCT02178553|181806631|NON_INFERIORITY|We determined that a difference of 1 unit between groups would be the bound for non-inferiorty.|Confidence Interval|1.0||||0.101|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|1.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.9|0.4|0.101
90921863|NCT03721952|181715819|SUPERIORITY||Avg. Intervention Effect (CON--INT)|-0.393||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.791|0.005|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed-effects: 1-, 3-, 6-mo outcomes, intervention \& time predictors. Primary analysis: avg control-intervention effect over 3 time points.|Additional estimation information: Positive sign of estimate defined as lower average goal-concordant care \& negative sign of estimate defined as higher average goal-concordant care, over 3 follow-up points for intervention group vs. control group.|Superior outcome for Group 2 (Facilitator-based INTERVENTION: Family)||0.005|-0.791|0.053
90921864|NCT03721952|181715819|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.039|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Average Intervention effect with time interaction (control-intervention)||||||0.039
90921865|NCT03721952|181715820|SUPERIORITY||Avg. Intervention Effect (CON--INT)|0.636||||0.239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.425|1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed-effects: 1-, 3-, 6-mo outcomes, intervention \& time predictors. Primary analysis: avg control-intervention effect over 3 time points.||Superior outcome for Group2 (Facilitator-based INTERVENTION: Family)||1.700|-0.425|0.239
90921866|NCT03721952|181715820|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Average Intervention effect with time interaction (control-intervention)||||||0.170
90921867|NCT03721952|181715821|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.089|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.009|0.169|||Regression, Linear|Linear regression of outcome on group (0=control, 1=interv), adjusted for hospital, w robust standard error estimate using bias correction 1/(1-h)\^2.|Additional estimation information: Positive sign of estimate defined as higher proportion of readmissions \& negative sign of estimate defined as lower proportion of readmissions, for the intervention group vs. the control group|Superior outcome for Group2 (Patient-Intervention)||0.169|0.009|0.029
90921868|NCT03721952|181715822|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.078|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.808||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.511|2.666|||Regression, Linear|Linear regression of outcome on group (0=control, 1=interv), adjusted for hospital, w robust standard error estimate using bias correction 1/(1-h)\^2.|Additional estimation information: Positive sign of estimate defined as higher number of hospital free days \& negative sign of estimate defined as lower number of hospital free days, for the intervention group vs. the control group.|Superior outcome for Group2 (Patient-Intervention)||2.666|-0.511|0.183
90921869|NCT03721952|181715823|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.687|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.157||0.593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.518|7.892|||Regression, Linear|Linear regression of outcome on group (0=control, 1=interv), adjusted for hospital, w robust standard error estimate using bias correction 1/(1-h)\^2.|Additional estimation information: Positive sign of estimate defined as higher number of hospital free days \& negative sign of estimate defined as lower number of hospital free days, for the intervention group vs. the control group.|Superior outcome for Group2 (Patient-Intervention)||7.892|-4.518|0.593
90921870|NCT03721952|181715824|SUPERIORITY||Slope|4.365|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.987||0.533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.367|18.097|||Regression, Linear|Linear regression of outcome on group (0=control, 1=interv), adjusted for hospital, w robust standard error estimate using bias correction 1/(1-h)\^2.|Additional estimation information: Positive sign of estimate defined as higher number of hospital free days \& negative sign of estimate defined as lower number of hospital free days, for the intervention group vs. the control group.|Superior outcome for Group2 (Patient-Intervention)||18.097|-9.367|0.533
90921871|NCT03721952|181715825|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.07||0.318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.032|3.173|||Regression, Linear|Linear regression of outcome on group (0=control, 1=interv), adjusted for hospital, w robust standard error estimate using bias correction 1/(1-h)\^2.|Additional estimation information: Positive sign of estimate defined as higher number of ICU free days \& negative sign of estimate defined as lower number of ICU free days, for the intervention group vs. the control group.|Superior outcome for Group2 (Patient-Intervention)||3.173|-1.032|0.318
90921872|NCT03721952|181715826|SUPERIORITY||Slope|4.117|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.506||0.241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.773|11.007|||Regression, Linear|Linear regression of outcome on group (0=control, 1=interv), adjusted for hospital, w robust standard error estimate using bias correction 1/(1-h)\^2.|Additional estimation information: Positive sign of estimate defined as higher number of ICU free days \& negative sign of estimate defined as lower number of ICU free days, for the intervention group vs. the control group.|Superior outcome for Group2 (Patient-Intervention)||11.007|-2.773|0.241
90921873|NCT03721952|181715827|SUPERIORITY||Slope|8.195|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.466||0.273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.479|22.868|||Regression, Linear|Linear regression of outcome on group (0=control, 1=interv), adjusted for hospital, w robust standard error estimate using bias correction 1/(1-h)\^2.|Additional estimation information: Positive sign of estimate defined as higher number of ICU free days \& negative sign of estimate defined as lower number of ICU free days, for the intervention group vs. the control group.|Superior outcome for Group2 (Patient-Intervention)||22.868|-6.479|0.273
90921874|NCT03721952|181715828|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.0000009|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00000248||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0000057|0.0000039|||other type of regression|Regression \[gamma family, link function g(u)=u-0.9\], outcome on random group (0=control, 1=intervention), adjusted for hospital, robust SEs.||Superior outcome for Group2 (Patient-Intervention)||0.0000039|-0.0000057|0.710
90921875|NCT03721952|181715829|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.00000113|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00000215||0.599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.000003|0.0000053|||other type of regression|Regression \[inverse Gaussian family, link function g(u)=u-0.9\], outcome on random group (0=control,1=intervention), adjusted for hospital, robust SEs.||Superior outcome for Group2 (Patient-Intervention)||0.0000053|-0.0000030|0.599
90921876|NCT03476460|181715844|NON_INFERIORITY|"We considered a priori a difference of no more than 5% in the incidence of CA-AKI in the oral compared to the intravenous arm (non-inferiority margin) to be acceptable.~The non-inferiority of oral hydration would be shown if the upper limit of the 95% CI of the absolute risk difference between the groups was less than 5% (non-inferiority margin, indicated by the black dashed line)"|Risk Difference (RD)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|7.0|||||The 95% confidence interval for the difference between the two independent proportions was calculated according to Wilson's method.|Sample size was calculated to assess the non-inferiority of oral compared to intravenous hydration. We expected a primary outcome rate of 7% in the intravenous arm. We considered a priori a difference of no more than 5% in the incidence of CA-AKI in the oral compared to the intravenous arm (non-inferiority margin) to be acceptable. Thus, 266 participants, 133 per arm, were required to ensure at least 80% power at a significance level of α = 2.5% (one-sided).||7.0|-4.8|
90921877|NCT03476460|181715845|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.299||||||A p-value \<0.05 (two-sided) was considered for statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between means of both arms at 24h from baseline||||0.299
90921878|NCT03476460|181715846|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.477||||||A p-value \<0.05 (two-sided) was considered for statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between means of both arms at 48h from baseline||||0.477
90882229|NCT04074317|181627239|EQUIVALENCE|H0: Means are equal between treatment groups. Ha: means are not equal across the treatment groups.|LS Mean Difference|3.1||||0.564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|14.0|||ANOVA|||Plasma Glucose \>180 mg/dL: 0 to 180 minutes||14.00|-7.80|0.564
90882230|NCT04074317|181627239|EQUIVALENCE|H0: Means are equal between treatment groups. Ha: means are not equal across the treatment groups.|LS Mean Difference|27.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.96|38.09|||ANOVA|||Plasma Glucose \>180 mg/dL: 0 to 180 minutes||38.09|15.96|<0.001
90882231|NCT04074317|181627239|EQUIVALENCE|H0: Means are equal between treatment groups. Ha: means are not equal across the treatment groups.|LS Mean Difference|-1.74||||0.813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.7|13.22|||ANOVA|||Plasma Glucose \>180 mg/dL: 0 to 360 minutes||13.22|-16.70|0.813
90882232|NCT04074317|181627239|EQUIVALENCE|H0: Means are equal between treatment groups. Ha: means are not equal across the treatment groups.|LS Mean Difference|2.35||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.47|16.17|||ANOVA|||Plasma Glucose \>180 mg/dL: 0 to 360 minutes||16.17|-11.47|0.730
90882233|NCT04074317|181627239|EQUIVALENCE|H0: Means are equal between treatment groups. Ha: means are not equal across the treatment groups.|LS Mean Difference|4.09||||0.582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.97|19.15|||ANOVA|||Plasma Glucose \>180 mg/dL: 0 to 360 minutes||19.15|-10.97|0.582
90882234|NCT04074317|181627245|EQUIVALENCE|"Bioequivalence would require 90% confidence intervals of the geometric mean ratio to be contained within the 80-125% range.~H0: Means are equal between treatment groups. Ha: Means are not equal across the treatment groups."|Ratio of geometric least-squares means|37.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|31.36|43.75||Results of the statistical evaluation of ANOVA (alpha=0.05) for the hypothesis of equal treatment effects.|ANOVA||"Ratio calculated as PRAM geometric least-squares mean divided by the Regular Insulin + Pramlintide geometric least-squares mean, expressed as a percentage.~Confidence interval on the ratio, expressed as a percentage."|The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the ln-transformed data with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||43.75|31.36|<0.0001
90882235|NCT04074317|181627246|OTHER||Ratio of least-square means|435.96|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Results of the statistical evaluation of ANOVA (alpha = 0.05) for the hypothesis of equal treatment effects.|ANOVA||Ratio calculated as PRAM least-squares mean divided by the Regular Insulin + Pramlintide least-squares mean, expressed as a percentage.|The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||||<0.0001
90882236|NCT04074317|181627247|EQUIVALENCE|"Bioequivalence would require the 90% confidence intervals of the geometric mean ratio to be contained within the 80 - 125% range.~H0: Means are equal between treatment groups. Ha: Means are not equal across the treatment groups."|Ratio of geometric least-squares means|60.44||||0.0075|TWO_SIDED|90.0|45.41|80.43||Results of the statistical evaluation of ANOVA (alpha=0.05) for the hypothesis of equal treatment effects.|ANOVA||"Ratio calculated as PRAM geometric least-squares mean divided by the Regular Insulin + Pramlintide geometric least-squares mean, expressed as a percentage.~Confidence interval on the ratio, expressed as a percentage."|AUC 0 to 90 The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the ln-transformed data with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||80.43|45.41|0.0075
90882237|NCT04074317|181627247|EQUIVALENCE|"Bioequivalence would require 90% confidence intervals of the geometric mean ratio to be contained within the 80 - 125% range.~H0: Means are equal between treatment groups. Ha: Means are not equal across the treatment groups."|Ratio of geometric least-squares means|93.32||||0.6773|TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.14|124.16||Results of the statistical evaluation of ANOVA (alpha=0.05) for the hypothesis of equal treatment effects.|ANOVA|Based on Least-Squares geometric means for ln-transformed data.|"Ratio calculated as PRAM geometric least-squares mean divided by the Regular Insulin + Pramlintide geometric least-squares mean, expressed as a percentage.~Confidence interval on the ratio, expressed as a percentage."|AUC 0 to 180 The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the ln-transformed data with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||124.16|70.14|0.6773
90882238|NCT04074317|181627247|EQUIVALENCE|"Bioequivalence would require the 90% confidence intervals of the geometric mean ratio to be contained within the 80 - 125% range.~H0: Means are equal between treatment groups. Ha: Means are not equal across the treatment groups."|Ratio of geometric least-squares means|97.43||||0.8768|TWO_SIDED|90.0|72.94|130.14||Results of the statistical evaluation of ANOVA (alpha=0.05) for the hypothesis of equal treatment effects.|ANOVA||"Ratio calculated as PRAM geometric least-squares mean divided by the Regular Insulin + Pramlintide geometric least-squares mean, expressed as a percentage.~Confidence interval on the ratio, expressed as a percentage."|AUC 0 to 360 The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the ln-transformed data with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||130.14|72.94|0.8768
90921879|NCT03476460|181715847|SUPERIORITY|Comparison between means of both arms at 24h from baseline||||||0.042||||||A p-value \<0.05 (two-sided) was considered for statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.042
90921880|NCT03476460|181715848|SUPERIORITY|Comparison between means of both arms at 48h from baseline||||||0.121||||||A p-value \<0.05 (two-sided) was considered for statistical significance|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.121
90921881|NCT03476460|181715849|SUPERIORITY|Comparison between means of both arms at 24h from baseline||||||0.418||||||A p-value \<0.05 (two-sided) was considered for statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.418
90921882|NCT03476460|181715850|SUPERIORITY|Comparison between means of both arms at 24h from baseline||||||0.901||||||A p-value \<0.05 (two-sided) was considered for statistical significance|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.901
90921883|NCT03476460|181715851|SUPERIORITY|Comparison between means of both arms at 24h from baseline||||||0.72||||||A p-value \<0.05 (two-sided) was considered for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.720
91034331|NCT03772522|181954787|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d (effect size)|0.19||||0.417|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of SCS scores at baseline (pre-intervention) and immediately post-intervention.||||0.417
91034332|NCT03772522|181954787|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d (effect size)|0.42||||0.087|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of SCS scores at baseline (pre-intervention) and 3-months post-intervention.||||0.087
90882239|NCT04074317|181627248|EQUIVALENCE|"Bioequivalence would require the 90% confidence intervals of the geometric mean ratio to be contained within the 80 - 125% range.~H0: Means are equal between treatment groups. Ha: Means are not equal across the treatment groups."|Ratio of geometric least-squares means|53.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|44.51|65.11||Bonferroni-adjusted p-value to maintain the overall Type 1 error rate at 0.05.|ANOVA||"Ratio calculated as PRAM geometric least-squares mean divided by the Regular Insulin geometric least-squares mean, expressed as a percentage.~Confidence interval on the ratio, expressed as a percentage."|The statistical model was ana analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the ln-transformed data with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||65.11|44.51|<0.0001
90882240|NCT04074317|181627248|EQUIVALENCE|"Bioequivalence would require the 90% confidence intervals of the geometric mean ratio to be contained within the 80 - 125% range.~H0: Means are equal between treatment groups. Ha: Means are not equal across the treatment groups."|Ratio of geometric least-squares means|73.16||||0.0192|TWO_SIDED|90.0|61.06|87.67||Bonferroni-adjusted p-value to maintain the overall Type 1 error rate at 0.05.|ANOVA||"Ratio calculated as PRAM geometric least-squares mean divided by the Regular Insulin + Pramlintide geometric least-squares mean, expressed as a percentage.~Confidence interval on the ratio, expressed as a percentage."|The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the ln-transformed data with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||87.67|61.06|0.0192
90882241|NCT04074317|181627248|EQUIVALENCE|"Bioequivalence would require the 90% confidence intervals of the geometric mean ratio to be contained within the 80 - 125% range.~H0: Means are equal between treatment groups. Ha: Means are not equal across the treatment groups."|Ratio of geometric least-squares means|135.91||||0.0244|TWO_SIDED|90.0|113.1|163.31||Bonferroni-adjusted p-value to maintain the overall Type 1 error rate at 0.05.|ANOVA||"Ratio calculated as Regular Insulin geometric least-squares mean divided by the Regular Insulin + Pramlintide geometric least-squares mean, expressed as a percentage.~Confidence interval on the ratio, expressed as a percentage."|The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the ln-transformed data with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||163.31|113.10|0.0244
90882242|NCT04074317|181627249|OTHER||Ratio of least-square means|73.53||||0.2541|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni-adjusted p-value to maintain the overall Type 1 error rate at 0.05|ANOVA||Ratio calculated as PRAM least-squares mean divided by the Regular Insulin least-squares mean, expressed as a percentage.|The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||||0.2541
90882243|NCT04074317|181627249|OTHER||Ratio of least-squares means|103.89|||>|0.9999|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni-adjusted p-value to maintain the overall Type 1 error rate at 0.05.|ANOVA||Ratio calculated as PRAM least-squares mean divided by the Regular Insulin + Pramlintide least-squares mean, expressed as a percentage.|The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||||>0.9999
90882244|NCT04074317|181627249|OTHER||Ratio of least-square means|141.29||||0.1747|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni-adjusted p-value to maintain the overall Type 1 error rate at 0.05.|ANOVA||Ratio calculated as Regular Insulin least-squares mean divided by the Regular Insulin + Pramlintide least-squares mean, expressed as a percentage.|The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||||0.1747
90882245|NCT04074317|181627250|EQUIVALENCE|"Bioequivalence would require the 90% confidence intervals of the geometric mean ratio to be contained within the 80 - 125% range.~H0: Means are equal between treatment groups. Ha: Means are not equal across the treatment groups."|Ratio of geometric least-squares means|53.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|43.59|64.83||Bonferroni-adjusted p-value to maintain the overall Type 1 error rate at 0.05.|ANOVA||"Ratio calculated as PRAM geometric least-squares mean divided by the Regular Insulin geometric least-squares mean, expressed as a percentage.~Confidence interval on the ratio, expressed as a percentage."|AUC 0 to 90 The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the ln-transformed data with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||64.83|43.59|<0.0001
90882246|NCT04074317|181627250|EQUIVALENCE|"Bioequivalence would require the 90% confidence intervals of the geometric mean ratio to be contained within the 80 - 125% range.~H0: Means are equal between treatment groups. Ha: Means are not equal across the treatment groups."|Ratio of geometric least-squares means|65.24||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|90.0|54.02|78.8||Bonferroni-adjusted p-value to maintain the overall Type 1 error rate at 0.05|ANOVA||"Ratio calculated as PRAM geometric least-squares mean divided by the Regular Insulin + Pramlintide geometric least-squares mean, expressed as a percentage.~Confidence interval on the ratio, expressed as a percentage."|AUC 0 to 90 The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the ln-transformed data with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||78.80|54.02|0.0018
90882247|NCT04074317|181627250|EQUIVALENCE|"Bioequivalence would require the 90% confidence intervals of the geometric mean ratio to be contained within the 80 - 125% range.~H0: Means are equal between treatment groups. Ha: Means are not equal across the treatment groups."|Ratio of geometric least-squares means|122.73||||0.2391|TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.33|148.66||Bonferroni-adjusted p-value to maintain the overall Type 1 error rate at 0.05|ANOVA||"Ratio calculated as Regular Insulin geometric least-squares mean divided by the Regular Insulin + Pramlintide geometric least-squares mean, expressed as a percentage.~Confidence interval on the ratio, expressed as a percentage."|AUC 0 to 90 The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the ln-transformed data with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||148.66|101.33|0.2391
90921884|NCT03476460|181715852|SUPERIORITY|Comparison between means of both arms at 48h from baseline||||||0.688||||||A p-value \<0.05 (two-sided) was considered for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.688
90921885|NCT03476460|181715853|SUPERIORITY|Comparison between means of both arms at 24h from baseline||||||0.535||||||A p-value \<0.05 (two-sided) was considered for statistical significance|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.535
90921886|NCT03476460|181715854|SUPERIORITY|Comparison between means of both arms at 48h from baseline||||||0.338||||||A p-value \<0.05 (two-sided) was considered for statistical significance|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.338
90882248|NCT04074317|181627250|EQUIVALENCE|"Bioequivalence would require the 90% confidence intervals of the geometric mean ratio to be contained within the 80 - 125% range.~H0: Means are equal between treatment groups. Ha: Means are not equal across the treatment groups."|Ratio of geometric least-squares means|54.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|47.58|61.73||Bonferroni-adjusted p-value to maintain the overall Type 1 error rate at 0.05.|ANOVA||"Ratio calculated as PRAM geometric least-squares mean divided by the Regular Insulin geometric least-squares mean, expressed as a percentage.~Confidence interval on the ratio, expressed as a percentage."|AUC 0 to 180 The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the ln-transformed data with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||61.73|47.58|<0.0001
90882249|NCT04074317|181627250|EQUIVALENCE|"Bioequivalence would require the 90% confidence intervals of the geometric mean ratio to be contained within the 80 - 125% range.~H0: Means are equal between treatment groups. Ha: Means are not equal across the treatment groups."|Ratio of geometric least-squares means|71.29||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|62.99|80.69||Bonferroni-adjusted p-value to maintain the overall Type 1 error rate at 0.05|ANOVA||"Ratio calculated as PRAM geometric least-squares mean divided by the Regular Insulin + Pramlintide geometric least-squares mean, expressed as a percentage.~Confidence interval on the ratio, expressed as a percentage."|AUC 0 to 180 The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the ln-transformed data with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||80.69|62.99|0.0002
90882250|NCT04074317|181627250|EQUIVALENCE|"Bioequivalence would require the 90% confidence intervals of the geometric mean ratio to be contained within the 80 - 125% range.~H0: Means are equal between treatment groups. Ha: Means are not equal across the treatment groups."|Ratio of geometric least-squares means|131.55||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|90.0|116.01|149.17||Bonferroni-adjusted p-value to maintain the overall Type 1 error rate at 0.05.|ANOVA||"Ratio calculated as Regular Insulin geometric least-squares mean divided by the Regular Insulin + Pramlintide geometric least-squares mean, expressed as a percentage.~Confidence interval on the ratio, expressed as a percentage."|AUC 0 to 180 The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the ln-transformed data with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||149.17|116.01|0.0026
90882251|NCT04074317|181627250|EQUIVALENCE|"Bioequivalence would require the 90% confidence intervals of the geometric mean ratio to be contained within the 80 - 125% range.~H0: Means are equal between treatment groups. Ha: Means are not equal across the treatment groups."|Ratio of geometric least-squares means|51.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|46.74|56.39||Bonferroni-adjusted p-value to maintain the overall Type 1 error rate at 0.05.|ANOVA||"Ratio calculated as PRAM geometric least-squares mean divided by the Regular Insulin geometric least-squares mean, expressed as a percentage.~Confidence interval on the ratio, expressed as a percentage."|AUC 0 to 360 The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the ln-transformed data with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||56.39|46.74|<0.0001
90882252|NCT04074317|181627250|EQUIVALENCE|"Bioequivalence would require the 90% confidence intervals of the geometric mean ratio to be contained within the 80 - 125% range.~H0: Means are equal between treatment groups. Ha: Means are not equal across the treatment groups."|Ratio of geometric least-squares means|78.24||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|71.39|85.76||Bonferroni-adjusted p-value to maintain the overall Type 1 error rate at 0.05.|ANOVA||"Ratio calculated as PRAM geometric least-squares mean divided by the Regular Insulin + Pramlintide geometric least-squares mean, expressed as a percentage.~Confidence interval on the ratio, expressed as a percentage."|AUC 0 to 360 The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the ln-transformed data with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||85.76|71.39|0.0003
90921887|NCT03476460|181715855|SUPERIORITY|Comparison between means of both arms at 24h from baseline||||||0.764||||||A p-value \<0.05 (two-sided) was considered for statistical significance|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.764
90921888|NCT03476460|181715856|SUPERIORITY|Comparison between means of both arms at 48h from baseline||||||0.458||||||A p-value \<0.05 (two-sided) was considered for statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.458
90921889|NCT03476460|181715857|SUPERIORITY|Comparison between means of both arms at 24h from baseline||||||0.893||||||A p-value \<0.05 (two-sided) was considered for statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.893
90921890|NCT03476460|181715858|SUPERIORITY|Comparison between means of both arms at 48h from baseline||||||0.645||||||A p-value \<0.05 (two-sided) was considered for statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.645
90921891|NCT05480124|181715875|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.609|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.609
90921892|NCT05480124|181715877|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.098|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.098
90921893|NCT05480124|181715878|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.204|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.204
90921894|NCT05480124|181715879|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.383|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.383
90921895|NCT05480124|181715880|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.201|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.201
90921896|NCT03536754|181715884|SUPERIORITY||LSM Ratio|1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.171||0.1924|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|1.6||≤ 0.1924|Mixed effects model for repeated measure|||||1.6|0.95|0.1924
90921897|NCT03536754|181715884|SUPERIORITY||LSM Ratio|1.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.172||0.0612|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.04|1.76||≤ 0.0612|Mixed effects model for repeated measure|||||1.76|1.04|0.0612
90921898|NCT03536754|181715884|SUPERIORITY||LSM Ratio|1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.169||0.7653|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|1.36||≤ 0.7653|Mixed effects model for repeated measure|||||1.36|0.81|0.7653
90921899|NCT03536754|181715884|SUPERIORITY||LSM Ratio|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.136||0.1537|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.48||≤ 0.1537|Mixed effects model for repeated measure|||||1.48|0.97|0.1537
90921900|NCT04222660|181715968|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90921901|NCT04222660|181715969|OTHER||||||<|0.0025|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0025
90921902|NCT04222660|181715970|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90921903|NCT04222660|181715971|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90921904|NCT04222660|181715972|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90921905|NCT04222660|181715973|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90962742|NCT02178553|181806632|NON_INFERIORITY|We determined that a difference of 1 unit between groups would be the bound for non-inferiorty.|Confidence Interval|1.0||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|1.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.9|0.4|0.014
90921906|NCT04222660|181715974|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
90921907|NCT04222660|181715975|OTHER||||||<|0.0017|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0017
90962743|NCT02178553|181806633|NON_INFERIORITY|We determined that a difference of 1 unit between groups would be the bound for non-inferiorty.|Confidence Interval|1.0||||0.375|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|1.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.0|-0.3|0.375
90882253|NCT04074317|181627250|EQUIVALENCE|"Bioequivalence would require the 90% confidence intervals of the geometric mean ratio to be contained within the 80 - 125% range.~H0: Means are equal between treatment groups. Ha: Means are not equal across the treatment groups."|Ratio of geometric least-squares means|152.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|138.91|167.22||Bonferroni-adjusted p-value to maintain the overall Type 1 error rate at 0.05.|ANOVA||"Ratio calculated as Regular Insulin geometric least-squares mean divided by the Regular Insulin + Pramlintide geometric least-squares mean, expressed as a percentage.~Confidence interval on the ratio, expressed as a percentage."|AUC 0 to 360 The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the ln-transformed data with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||167.22|138.91|<0.0001
90882254|NCT02742103|181627259|OTHER||Rate difference (CSL112 - placebo)|-0.124|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.296|-0.005|||Newcombe-Wilson|||||-0.005|-0.296|
90882255|NCT02742103|181627260|OTHER||Rate difference (CSL112 - placebo)|-0.103|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.277|0.025|||Newcombe-Wilson|||||0.025|-0.277|
90882256|NCT02533921|181627276|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6749||0.0272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1706|2.8338|||Mixed Models Analysis||Compares the palliative care plus usual care group to the usual care group.|Comparing the mean within group change from baseline to 6 months between groups. The null hypothesis is there is no mean difference between groups.||2.8338|0.1706|0.0272
90882257|NCT02533921|181627277|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1236|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8267||0.1761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7569|0.5097|||Mixed Models Analysis||Compares the palliative care plus usual care group to the usual care group.|Comparing the mean within group change from baseline to 6 months between groups. The null hypothesis is there is no mean difference between groups.||0.5097|-2.7569|0.1761
90882258|NCT02533921|181627278|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4616|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3889||0.2369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2291|0.3059|||Mixed Models Analysis||Compares the palliative care plus usual care group to the usual care group.|Comparing the mean within group change from baseline to 6 months between groups. The null hypothesis is there is no mean difference between groups.||0.3059|-1.2291|0.2369
90882259|NCT02533921|181627279|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1309||||0.7484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9349|0.673|||Mixed Models Analysis||Compares the palliative care plus usual care group to the usual care group.|||0.6730|-0.9349|0.7484
90962744|NCT00372385|181806645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.758||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.424|5.34|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.340|1.424|0.0026
90882260|NCT02533921|181627280|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6878|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4789||0.1529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6338|0.2581|||Mixed Models Analysis||Compares the palliative care plus usual care group to the usual care group.|Comparing the mean within group change from baseline to 6 months between groups. The null hypothesis is there is no mean difference between groups.||0.2581|-1.6338|0.1529
90882261|NCT02533921|181627281|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1608|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3934||0.6834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9382|0.6167|||Mixed Models Analysis||Compares the palliative care plus usual care group to the usual care group.|Comparing the mean within group change from baseline to 6 months between groups. The null hypothesis is there is no mean difference between groups.||0.6167|-0.9382|0.6834
90882262|NCT00533949|181627282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.38||||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.76|||Log Rank||Reference group = 60 gy|The trial was a two-by-two factorial design with radiation therapy dose as one treatment factor and cetuximab as the other. A log-rank test for each factor at one-sided α of 0.0125 (α of 0.0250 for both factors to account for multiple comparisons) would yield power of 80% to detect an improvement in median survival from 17.1 to 24 months after 339 deaths were reported out of 500 patients. For RT analysis, the comparison was arms 1 \& 3 vs arms 2 \& 4; for cetuximab, arms 1 \& 2 vs arms 3 \& 4.||1.76|1.09|0.0042
90882263|NCT00533949|181627282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.35|||Log Rank||Reference level = cetuximab|The trial was a two-by-two factorial design with radiation therapy dose as one treatment factor and cetuximab as the other. A log-rank test for each factor at one-sided α of 0.0125 (α of 0.0250 for both factors to account for multiple comparisons) would yield power of 80% to detect an improvement in median survival from 17.1 to 24 months after 339 deaths were reported out of 500 patients. For RT analysis, the comparison was arms 1 \& 3 vs arms 2 \& 4; for cetuximab, arms 1 \& 2 vs arms 3 \& 4.||1.35|0.84|0.29
90921908|NCT04222660|181715976|OTHER||||||<|0.0195|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0195
90921909|NCT03138512|181716003|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.95||||0.6676||95.0|0.75|1.2|||Log Rank|||||1.20|0.75|0.6676
90921910|NCT03138512|181716003|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.93||||0.6556||95.0|0.67|1.28|||Log Rank|||||1.28|0.67|0.6556
90921911|NCT03138512|181716004|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.26||||0.2436||95.0|0.85|1.85|||Log Rank|||Treatment Part A||1.85|0.85|0.2436
90921912|NCT03138512|181716004|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.36||||0.45||95.0|0.61|3.07|||Log Rank|||Treatment Part B||3.07|0.61|0.4500
90921913|NCT03138512|181716006|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.67||||||||1.67|0.89|
90921914|NCT03138512|181716007|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.75||||||95.0|0.33|1.68||||||||1.68|0.33|
90921915|NCT02120456|181716041|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.58|||Negative binominal regression|||Negative binominal regression with log baseline count as offset variable and treatment group and analysis site as factors.||0.58|0.34|<0.001
90962745|NCT00372385|181806645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.709||||0.959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|3.212|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.212|0.910|0.959
90962746|NCT00372385|181806645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.589||||0.1089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.309|1.125|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.125|0.309|0.1089
90962747|NCT00372385|181806646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.632||||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.359|5.097|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.097|1.359|0.0041
90962748|NCT00372385|181806646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.623||||0.1324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.864|3.05|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.050|0.864|0.1324
90962749|NCT00372385|181806646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.591||||0.1099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.311|1.126|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.126|0.311|0.1099
90921916|NCT02120456|181716041|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.73|||Negative binominal regression|||Negative binominal regression with log baseline count as offset variable and treatment group and analysis site as factors.||0.73|0.44|<0.001
90921917|NCT02120456|181716041|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|1.26||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.6|||Negative binominal regression|||||1.60|0.99|0.058
90921918|NCT02120456|181716042|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of clearance rates|1.05||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|4.73|||Log binomial regression|||Log binomial regression with factors treatment group and baseline AK count as a covariate.||4.73|0.30|0.94
90921919|NCT02120456|181716042|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of clearance rates|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|4.51|||Log binomial regression|||Log binomial regression with factors treatment group and baseline AK count as a covariate.||4.51|0.28|1.00
90921920|NCT02120456|181716042|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of clearance rates|0.95||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|2.89|||Log binomial regression|||Log binomial regression with factors treatment group and baseline AK count as a covariate.||2.89|0.31|0.93
90962750|NCT02554903|181806651|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.7393||||0.0158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5798|0.9426|||ANCOVA|||||0.9426|0.5798|0.0158
90921921|NCT02120456|181716043|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of clearance rates|2.88||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|7.85|||Log binomial regression|||Log binomial regression with factors treatment group and baseline AK count as a covariate.||7.85|1.36|0.003
90962751|NCT01405937|181806660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The Type-I error rate over the multiple tests comparisons was controlled by the Hochberg testing procedure.|exact test for binomial proportion|||The null hypothesis that the percentage of participants achieving SVR24 of vaniprevir treatment was 20% versus the alternative that the percentage of participants achieving SVR24 of vaniprevir treatment was over 20% was tested.||||<0.001
90962752|NCT01405937|181806660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The Type-I error rate over the multiple tests comparisons was controlled by the Hochberg testing procedure.|exact test for binomial proportion|||The null hypothesis that the percentage of participants achieving SVR24 of vaniprevir treatment was 20% versus the alternative that the percentage of participants achieving SVR24 of vaniprevir treatment was over 20% was tested.||||<0.001
90962753|NCT02340091|181806688|SUPERIORITY||Subjects % with difference in VAS ≥ 10mm|0.9194|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.97||||||||0.97|0.80|
90962754|NCT01163721|181806689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in least squares mean (LSM)|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|-0.13||P-value is from an Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as factor and baseline HbA1c value as covariate. Due to the exploratory nature of this study, there were no adjustments for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Assuming a common standard deviation of 1.1%, 60 evaluable participants would provide 93% power to detect a statistically significant -1.0% difference in change from baseline HbA1c at Week 12 between ranolazine and placebo (2-sided alpha = 0.05). 80 participants were randomized to ensure at least 60 evaluable participants.||-0.13|-0.93|0.010
90921922|NCT02120456|181716043|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of clearance rates|2.84||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|7.74|||Log binomial regression|||Log binomial regression with factors treatment group and baseline AK count as a covariate.||7.74|1.35|0.004
90921923|NCT02120456|181716043|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of clearance rates|0.99||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.47|||Log binomial regression|||Log binomial regression with factors treatment group and baseline AK count as a covariate.||1.47|0.66|0.95
90921924|NCT03378570|181716060|OTHER|comparative effectiveness trial||||||0.945|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis of this study was that there would be no differences between targets across all measures.||||0.945
90921925|NCT03378570|181716061|OTHER|comparative effectiveness trial||||||0.828|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis of this study was that there would be no differences between targets across all measures.||||0.828
90921926|NCT03378570|181716062|OTHER|comparative effectiveness trial||||||0.252|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis of this study was that there would be no differences between targets across all measures.||||0.252
90921927|NCT03378570|181716063|OTHER|||||||0.505||||||p value for response rate|Chi-squared|||"The null hypothesis of this study was that there would be no differences between targets across all measures.~A power analysis revealed that a total sample size of 144 would have 80% power when testing for differences between target groups at alpha = 0.05. Accounting for potential attrition, the study conservatively planned to enroll 200 participants, with a planned interim analysis after 100 participants were randomized."||||0.505
90921928|NCT03378570|181716063|OTHER|||||||0.888||||||p value for remission rate|Chi-squared|||"The null hypothesis of this study was that there would be no differences between targets across all measures.~A power analysis revealed that a total sample size of 144 would have 80% power when testing for differences between target groups at alpha = 0.05. Accounting for potential attrition, the study conservatively planned to enroll 200 participants, with a planned interim analysis after 100 participants were randomized."||||0.888
90921929|NCT03378570|181716064|OTHER|||||||0.994|||||||Chi-squared|p value for response rates||"The null hypothesis of this study was that there would be no differences between targets across all measures.~A power analysis revealed that a total sample size of 144 would have 80% power when testing for differences between target groups at alpha = 0.05. Accounting for potential attrition, the study conservatively planned to enroll 200 participants, with a planned interim analysis after 100 participants were randomized."||||0.994
90962755|NCT01163721|181806690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in LSM|-15.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.83||0.234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.0|10.2||P-value is from an ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline HbA1c stratification as factors and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||10.2|-41.0|0.234
91034333|NCT03772522|181954787|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d (effect size)|0.33||||0.168|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of SCS scores at baseline (pre-intervention) and 6-months post-intervention.||||0.168
90962756|NCT01163721|181806691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in least squares mean (LSM)|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.38||0.794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.1|16.2||P-value is from an ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline HbA1c stratification as factors and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||16.2|-21.1|0.794
90962757|NCT01786239|181806694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0493|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0493
90882264|NCT00533949|181627283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.47|||Log Rank||Reference level = 60 Gy|Progression-free survival is estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method. Comparisons by RT level and by cetuximab assignment are performed separately and tested with a two-sided significance level of 0.05 for each comparison.||1.47|0.95|0.12
90882265|NCT00533949|181627283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.22|||Log Rank||Reference level = cetuximab|Progression-free survival is estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method. Comparisons by RT level and by cetuximab assignment are performed separately and tested with a two-sided significance level of 0.05.||1.22|0.80|0.89
90882266|NCT00533949|181627284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.53|||Gray's test||Reference level = 60 Gy|Local-regional failure was estimated by the cumulative incidence method. Comparisons by RT level and by cetuximab assignment are performed separately and tested with a two-sided significance level of 0.05 for each comparison.||1.53|0.89|0.24
90882267|NCT00533949|181627284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.1|||Gray's test||Reference level = cetuximab|Local-regional failure was estimated by the cumulative incidence method. Comparisons by RT level and by cetuximab assignment are performed separately and tested with a two-sided significance level of 0.05 for each comparison.||1.10|0.64|0.22
90882268|NCT00533949|181627285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||Esophagitis: Only those toxicities reported as possibly, probably, or definitely related to treatment were considered. The worst grade of esophagitis and the worst grade of pneumonitis at any time were classified by binary groupings of \< grade 3 and \>= grade 3. Comparisons were made using a two-sided chi-square test with a significance level of 0.05.||||<0.0001
90882269|NCT00533949|181627285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2533|||||||Chi-squared|||PNEUMONITIS: Only those toxicities reported as possibly, probably, or definitely related to treatment were considered. The worst grade of esophagitis and the worst grade of pneumonitis at any time were classified by binary groupings of \< grade 3 and \>= grade 3. Comparisons were made using a two-sided chi-square test with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.2533
90882270|NCT00533949|181627286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.52|||||||Chi-squared|||Only those toxicities reported as possibly, probably, or definitely related to treatment were considered. The worst grade of of toxicity at any time was classified by a binary grouping of \< grade 3 and \>= grade 3. Comparisons were made using a two-sided chi-square test.||||0.52
90882271|NCT00533949|181627288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0233|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||FACT-TOI-LCS was assessed and changes from baseline to 3 months calculated and grouped using a 2 point decline as the threshold. Comparisons of decline vs no decline by RT level were from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test and controlling for cetuximab assignment using a two-side significance level of 0.05.||||0.0233
90882272|NCT00533949|181627289|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Two-sided significance level = 0.05||||||0.92
90882273|NCT00533949|181627290|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Two-sided significance level = 0.05||||||0.19
90882274|NCT00533949|181627291|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.33|||Regression, Cox||Reference level = EGFR H-Score \< 200|Univariate model of overall survival by EGFR group||1.33|0.68|0.78
90882275|NCT00533949|181627291|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.65|||Regression, Cox||Reference level = EGFR H-Score \< 200|Univariate model of time to local-regional failure by EGFR group||1.65|0.74|0.61
90882276|NCT00533949|181627292|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Chi-squared|||||||0.02
90882277|NCT00533949|181627293|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.001||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.002||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Regression, Cox||Corresponding to a one unit increase in GTV|Univariate model with GTV as a continuous variable||1.002|1.000|0.06
90882278|NCT00533949|181627293|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.001||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.997|1.004||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Regression, Cox||Corresponding to a one unit increase in GTV|Multivariate model with GTV as a continuous variable, adjusting for planned radiation therapy dose group (60 Gy or 74 Gy) and the interaction of GTV and planned dose.|P-Value for the interaction of GTV and planned dose = 0.77|1.004|0.997|0.78
90882279|NCT00533949|181627294|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.0||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.02|||Regression, Cox||Corresponding to a one unit increase in SUV|Univariate model of overall survival time by PET SUV as a continuous variable||1.02|0.98|0.94
90882280|NCT00533949|181627294|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.0||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.02|||Regression, Cox||Corresponding to a one unit increase in SUV|Univariate model of time to local-regional failure by PET SUV as a continuous variable||1.02|0.98|0.72
90882281|NCT00533949|181627294|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.0||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.02|||Regression, Cox||Corresponding to a one unit increase in SUV|Univariate model of time to distant metastasis by PET SUV as a continuous variable||1.02|0.98|0.79
90882282|NCT00727194|181627296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.25||||0.0144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.45|-1.05||No multiple comparisons or multiplicity adjustments were conducted.|paired t-test|||||-1.05|-7.45|0.0144
90882283|NCT00727194|181627296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.71||||0.117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|1.37||No multiple comparisons or multiplicity adjustments were conducted.|t-test, 2 sided|||||1.37|-10.80|0.1170
90882284|NCT00727194|181627297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||No multiple comparisons or multiplicity adjustments were conducted.|Chi-squared|||||||1.0000
90882285|NCT00727194|181627297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0606|TWO_SIDED|||||No multiple comparisons or multiplicity adjustments were conducted.|Chi-squared|||||||0.0606
90882286|NCT00727194|181627298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.58||||0.1873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.08|0.91||No multiple comparisons or multiplicity adjustments were conducted.|paired t-test|||||0.91|-4.08|0.1873
90962758|NCT02708095|181806711|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28||||0.392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.27|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.27|0.73|0.392
90962759|NCT02708095|181806711|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.84||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|3.29|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.29|1.02|0.041
90882287|NCT00727194|181627298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.57||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.97|-0.17||No multiple comparisons or multiplicity adjustments were conducted.|t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.17|-6.97|0.0410
90882288|NCT00727194|181627299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.83||||0.919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.94|18.6||No multiple comparisons or multiplicity adjustments were conducted.|paired t-test|||Physical Functioning||18.60|-16.94|0.9190
90882289|NCT00727194|181627299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.86||||0.5931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.05|23.33||No multiple comparisons or multiplicity adjustments were conducted.|t-test, 2 sided|||Physical Functioning||23.33|-39.05|0.5931
90882290|NCT00727194|181627299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Net)|3.13||||0.7319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.64|22.89||No multiple comparisons or multiplicity adjustments were conducted.|Paired t-test|||Role Physical||22.89|-16.64|0.7319
90882291|NCT00727194|181627299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Net)|-7.14||||0.691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.36|31.08||No multiple comparisons or multiplicity adjustments were conducted.|t-test, 2 sided|||Role Physical||31.08|-45.36|0.6910
90882292|NCT00727194|181627299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.42||||0.1311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.18|3.34||No multiple comparisons or multiplicity adjustments were conducted.|Paired t-test|||Bodily Pain||3.34|-22.18|0.1311
90882293|NCT00727194|181627299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.86||||0.2406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.08|11.36||No multiple comparisons or multiplicity adjustments were conducted.|t-test, 2 sided|||Bodily Pain||11.36|-41.08|0.2406
90882294|NCT00727194|181627299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|7.17||||0.0578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|14.62||No multiple comparisons or multiplicity adjustments were conducted.|Paired t-test|||General Health||14.62|-0.29|0.0578
90882295|NCT00727194|181627299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|7.43||||0.5073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.26|31.11||No multiple comparisons or multiplicity adjustments were conducted.|t-test, 2 sided|||General Health||31.11|-16.26|0.5073
90882296|NCT00727194|181627299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.17||||0.2474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.39|11.72||No multiple comparisons or multiplicity adjustments were conducted.|Paired t-test|||Vitality||11.72|-3.39|0.2474
90882297|NCT00727194|181627299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.68||||0.8085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.24|20.88||No multiple comparisons or multiplicity adjustments were conducted.|t-test, 2 sided|||Vitality||20.88|-26.24|0.8085
90882298|NCT00727194|181627299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.46||||0.0716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.13|1.21||No multiple comparisons or multiplicity adjustments were conducted.|Paired t-test|||Social Functioning||1.21|-24.13|0.0716
90882299|NCT00727194|181627299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.07||||0.1966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.68|9.54||No multiple comparisons or multiplicity adjustments were conducted.|t-test, 2 sided|||Social Functioning||9.54|-41.68|0.1966
90882300|NCT00727194|181627299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.81||||0.1701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.6|5.99||No multiple comparisons or multiplicity adjustments were conducted.|paired t-test|||Role Emotional||5.99|-29.60|0.1701
90882301|NCT00727194|181627299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.95||||0.7422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.58|44.48||No multiple comparisons or multiplicity adjustments were conducted.|t-test, 2 sided|||Role Emotional||44.48|-32.58|0.7422
90882302|NCT00727194|181627299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.42||||0.9007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.83|7.67||No multiple comparisons or multiplicity adjustments were conducted.|Paired t-test|||Mental Health||7.67|-6.83|0.9007
90882303|NCT00727194|181627299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|17.86||||0.1519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.57|43.29||No multiple comparisons or multiplicity adjustments were conducted.|t-test, 2 sided|||Mental Health||43.29|-7.57|0.1519
90882304|NCT00727194|181627299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.07||||0.6807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.57|6.72||No multiple comparisons or multiplicity adjustments were conducted.|Paired t-test|||Physical Component Score||6.72|-4.57|0.6807
90882305|NCT00727194|181627299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.23||||0.2226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.79|4.32||No multiple comparisons or multiplicity adjustments were conducted.|t-test, 2 sided|||Physical Component Score||4.32|-16.79|0.2226
90882306|NCT00727194|181627299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.92||||0.1505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|1.26||No multiple comparisons or multiplicity adjustments were conducted.|Paired t-test|||Mental Component Score||1.26|-7.10|0.1505
90882307|NCT00727194|181627299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.55||||0.4151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.77|19.87||No multiple comparisons or multiplicity adjustments were conducted.|t-test, 2 sided|||Mental Component Score||19.87|-8.77|0.4151
90921930|NCT03378570|181716064|OTHER|||||||0.911|||||||Chi-squared|p value for remission rates||"The null hypothesis of this study was that there would be no differences between targets across all measures.~A power analysis revealed that a total sample size of 144 would have 80% power when testing for differences between target groups at alpha = 0.05. Accounting for potential attrition, the study conservatively planned to enroll 200 participants, with a planned interim analysis after 100 participants were randomized."||||0.911
90882308|NCT00727194|181627300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.25||||0.3377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.94|10.44||No multiple comparisons or multiplicity adjustments were conducted.|paired t-test|||Forced Vital Capacity||10.44|-3.94|0.3377
90882309|NCT00727194|181627300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Net)|-10.57||||0.3391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.71|12.56||No multiple comparisons or multiplicity adjustments were conducted.|t-test, 2 sided|||Forced Vital Capacity||12.56|-33.71|0.3391
90882310|NCT00727194|181627300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.35|4.35||No multiple comparisons or multiplicity adjustments were conducted.|paired t test|||Negative Inspiratory Force||4.35|-4.35|1.0000
90882311|NCT00727194|181627300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-6.57||||0.2292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.87|4.73||No multiple comparisons or multiplicity adjustments were conducted.|t-test, 2 sided|||Negative Inspiratory Force||4.73|-17.87|0.2292
90921931|NCT03378570|181716065|OTHER|||||||0.778|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The null hypothesis of this study was that there would be no differences between targets across all measures.~A power analysis revealed that a total sample size of 144 would have 80% power when testing for differences between target groups at alpha = 0.05. Accounting for potential attrition, the study conservatively planned to enroll 200 participants, with a planned interim analysis after 100 participants were randomized."||||0.778
90962760|NCT02708095|181806712|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|1.25||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.19|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.19|0.71|0.440
91034334|NCT03772522|181954787|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d (effect size)|0.37||||0.133|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of SCS scores at baseline (pre-intervention) and 9-months post-intervention.||||0.133
91034335|NCT03772522|181954788|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d (effect size)|1.161||||0.026|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in score in the immediate intervention group (after receiving the intervention for 6 weeks) compared to that of the delayed intervention group (after receiving no intervention for 6 weeks).||||0.026
91034336|NCT03772522|181954788|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d (effect size)|0.62||||0.014|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of RSS scores at baseline (pre-intervention) and immediately post-intervention.||||0.014
91034337|NCT03772522|181954788|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d (effect size)|0.29||||0.217|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of RSS scores at baseline (pre-intervention) and 3-months post-intervention.||||0.217
91034338|NCT03772522|181954788|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d (effect size)|0.71||||0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of RSS scores at baseline (pre-intervention) and 6-months post-intervention.||||0.006
91034339|NCT03772522|181954788|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d (effect size)|0.53||||0.039|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of RSS scores at baseline (pre-intervention) and 9-months post-intervention.||||0.039
91034340|NCT00579345|181954804|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was met if lower limit of the 2-sided 95% Clopper-Pearson confidence interval (CI) of the ratio of the postvaccination (Day 22) Geometric Mean Titers (FLU+PV/FLU vaccine alone) was greater than 0.5.|Ratio of GMTs|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.98|||||A/H1N1(Day22)|The non-inferiority null hypothesis stated that the FLU+PV vaccine group was non-inferior to the FLU alone group if the lower limit of the 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs between vaccines (FLU+PV/FLU alone) on day 22 was greater than 0.5 for all three vaccine strains.||0.98|0.45|
91034341|NCT00579345|181954804|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was met if lower limit of the 2-sided 95% Clopper-Pearson confidence interval (CI) of the ratio of the postvaccination (Day 22) Geometric Mean Titers (FLU+PV/FLU vaccine alone) was greater than 0.5.|Ratio of GMTs|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.19|||||A/H3N2 (Day 22)-criterion was met|The non-inferiority null hypothesis stated that the FLU+PV vaccine group was non-inferior to the FLU alone group if the lower limit of the 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs between vaccines (FLU+PV/FLU alone) on day 22 was greater than 0.5 for all three vaccine strains.||1.19|0.55|
91034342|NCT00579345|181954804|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was met if lower limit of the 2-sided 95% Clopper-Pearson confidence interval (CI) of the ratio of the postvaccination (Day 22) Geometric Mean Titers (FLU+PV/FLU vaccine alone) was greater than 0.5.|Ratio of GMTs|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.02|||||B (Day 22)|The non-inferiority null hypothesis stated that the FLU+PV vaccine group was non-inferior to the FLU alone group if the lower limit of the 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs between vaccines (FLU+PV/FLU alone) on day 22 was greater than 0.5 for all three vaccine strains.||1.02|0.46|
91034343|NCT00905840|181954819|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The analysis of the primary outcome variable, was based on a confirmatory non-inferiority test with a one-sided 97.5% confidence interval. The non-inferiority margin for a clinically relevant difference was set at 0.1 mm. For a sample size of st least 73, a paired t-test with a 0.0025 one-sided significant level was calculated to have 80% power to reject the hypothesis that the test is inferior to the standard.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.1|0.3|||Student's t-test|||"Null hypothesis: Change of functional bone level at the test implant 12 month after surgery is more than 0.1 lower (inferior) than change of functional crestal bone level at the control implant 12 month after surgery.~H-1: Change of functional bone level at the tst implant 12 month after surgery is up to 0.1 lower, equal, or higher (not inferior) than change of functional crestal bone level at the control implant 12 month after surgery."||0.3|0.1|0.025
91034344|NCT00905840|181954820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||McNemar|||This analysis is up to 12 month.||||0.1573
91034345|NCT00905840|181954821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3617|TWO_SIDED|||||12 month data Plaque index|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3617
91034346|NCT00905840|181954821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7068|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|24 month data Plaque index||||||0.7068
91034347|NCT00905840|181954821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4312|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|36 month data Plaque Index||||||0.4312
91034348|NCT00905840|181954821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9933|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|12 month data Sulcus Bleeding Index||||||0.9933
91034349|NCT00905840|181954821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3667|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|24 month data Sulcus Bleeding Index||||||0.3667
91034350|NCT00905840|181954821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|36 month data Sulcus Bleeding Index||||||1.0000
91034351|NCT03020615|181954832|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.033|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.033
91034352|NCT03020615|181954835|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005|||||||Exact Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitley), two-sided|||||||0.0005
90882312|NCT04269161|181627312|NON_INFERIORITY|The margin of non-inferiority is 10 seconds such that the device is no worse than 10 seconds on average than manual mode. Our study is a 2-treatment, 24-period crossover design that accounts for first-order carryover effects, indicating a slightly higher power than a 2x2. Each subject acted as their own control. The study was defined as intention to treat, such that manual adjustments during the automated arm would be included in that arm.|Mean Difference (Net)|-9.885||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.51|-3.27||The p-value is significant at 0.01.|t-test, 2 sided||The difference is time to re-establish in automatic mode minus time to re-establish in manual mode. (a negative number favors automatic mode)|A sample requirement of 48 patients was determined based on a pilot study to provide 88% power, and 0.05 significance (two sided) to show the mean difference is less than 10 seconds based on a 2x2 crossover design. Considering patient drop-out, a sample size of n=40 drops power to 82%.||-3.27|-16.51|0.003
90921932|NCT03378570|181716066|OTHER|comparative effectiveness trial||||||0.951|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis of this study was that there would be no differences between targets across all measures.||||.951
90921933|NCT03378570|181716067|OTHER|comparative effectiveness trial||||||0.278|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis of this study was that there would be no differences between targets across all measures. Results below are for the subscale, Positive Affect.||||.278
90962761|NCT02708095|181806712|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.04||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|3.62|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.62|1.15|0.015
90882313|NCT04269161|181627313|OTHER|The difference is defined as the difference of proportion of time in the target range of SpO2 in modes, automatic minus manual. Our study is a 2-treatment, 24-period crossover design that accounts for first-order carryover effects, indicating a slightly higher power than a 2x2. Each subject acted as their own control. The study was defined as intention to treat, such that manual adjustments during the automated arm would be included in that arm.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.018||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.003|0.034||The threshold for statistical significance is p=.05|t-test, 2 sided|Two-sample t test with equal variances. Linear mixed model patient random effects, adjusted for site, sex, race, weight, gestational age, bed type.|Treatment difference = automatic - manual. A positive number favors automatic.|The difference in the proportion of time in the target saturation is calculated between the automatic and manual models. For each 6-hour time block, we calculate the proportion of time the patient stays within the prescribed SpO2 range.||.034|0.003|.02
90882314|NCT01221441|181627322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Denominator degrees of freedom were adjusted using the Kenward-Roger's method.||"The primary efficacy evaluation based on IKDC and the VAS were tested at week 52 evaluated 100 mm VAS with the following superiority hypothesis:~HO: μTG = μPC vs. HA: μTG ≠ μPC, where μTG and μPC are the mean change from baseline in IKDC or VAS scores at week 52 for patients in the TG-C and placebo control groups, respectively. If the null hypotheses for both the IKDC and the VAS are rejected, it the clinical effect of TG-C is concluded to be superior to that of the control."||||<0.01
90882315|NCT01221441|181627323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Denominator degrees of freedom were adjusted using the Kenward-Roger's method.||"The primary efficacy evaluation based on IKDC and the VAS were tested at week 52 evaluated 100 mm VAS with the following superiority hypothesis:~HO: μTG = μPC vs. HA: μTG ≠ μPC, where μTG and μPC are the mean change from baseline in IKDC or VAS scores at week 52 for patients in the TG-C and placebo control groups, respectively. If the null hypotheses for both the IKDC and the VAS are rejected, it the clinical effect of TG-C is concluded to be superior to that of the control."||||<0.01
90882316|NCT01221441|181627324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Denominator degrees of freedom were adjusted using the Kenward-Roger's method.||"The efficacy evaluation at week 104 evaluated KOOS with the following superiority hypothesis:~HO: μTG = μPC vs. HA: μTG ≠ μPC, where μTG and μPC are the mean change from baseline in KOOS scores at week 104 for patients in the TG-C and placebo control groups, respectively. If the null hypotheses for KOOS is rejected, it the clinical effect of TG-C is concluded to be superior to that of the control."||||<0.01
90882317|NCT01221441|181627325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Denominator degrees of freedom were adjusted using the Kenward-Roger's method.||"The efficacy evaluation at week 104 evaluated Lysholm score with the following superiority hypothesis:~HO: μTG = μPC vs. HA: μTG ≠ μPC, where μTG and μPC are the mean change from baseline in KOOS scores at week 104 for patients in the TG-C and placebo control groups, respectively. If the null hypotheses for Lysholm score is rejected, it the clinical effect of TG-C is concluded to be superior to that of the control."||||<0.01
90882318|NCT02896127|181627362|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|3.69|||Regression, Logistic||||"PTFU=post-treatment follow-up (12 weeks after last study treatment)~95% confidence intervals are from a score method with continuity correction."|3.69|1.65|<.0001
90882319|NCT00958776|181627370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.55|||Wilcoxon-Gehan statistic|Analysis stratified by duration of illness at randomization, ICU status and use of supplemental oxygen at Baseline, influenza season and type.|The hazard ratio was calculated using a Cox regression model with factors of duration of illness at randomization, ICU status at Baseline, use of supplemental oxygen at Baseline, influenza season, and influenza type.|||1.55|0.69|0.973
90882320|NCT00958776|181627372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.72|||Wilcoxon-Gehan statistic|Analysis stratified by duration of illness at randomization, ICU status and use of supplemental oxygen at Baseline, influenza season and type.|The hazard ratio was calculated using a Cox regression model with factors of duration of illness at randomization, ICU status at Baseline, use of supplemental oxygen at Baseline, influenza season, and influenza type.|||1.72|0.75|0.558
90882321|NCT00958776|181627373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.31|||Wilcoxon-Gehan statistic|Analysis stratified by duration of illness at randomization, ICU status and use of supplemental oxygen at Baseline, influenza season and type.|The hazard ratio was calculated using a Cox regression model with factors of duration of illness at randomization, ICU status at Baseline, use of supplemental oxygen at Baseline, influenza season, and influenza type.|||1.31|0.59|0.633
90882322|NCT00958776|181627374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.46||||0.747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.32|||Wilcoxon-Gehan statistic|Analysis stratified by duration of illness at randomization, ICU status and use of supplemental oxygen at Baseline, influenza season and type.|The hazard ratio was calculated using a Cox regression model with factors of duration of illness at randomization, ICU status at Baseline, use of supplemental oxygen at Baseline, influenza season, and influenza type.|||2.32|0.92|0.747
90882323|NCT00958776|181627376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|2.98|||Wilcoxon-Gehan statistic|Analysis stratified by duration of illness at randomization, ICU status and use of supplemental oxygen at Baseline, influenza season and type.|The hazard ratio is calculated using a Cox regression model with factors of duration of illness at randomization, ICU status at baseline, use of supplemental oxygen at baseline, influenza season, and influenza type.|||2.98|0.41|0.303
90962762|NCT02708095|181806713|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Vaules)|-0.26||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|0.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.71|-1.23|0.600
90962763|NCT02708095|181806713|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Vaules)|-0.58||||0.243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|0.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.39|-1.55|0.243
90962764|NCT02708095|181806714|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Vaules)|-0.16||||0.285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.13|-0.45|0.285
90962765|NCT02708095|181806714|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Vaules)|-0.33||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.04|-0.62|0.026
90921934|NCT03378570|181716067|OTHER|comparative effectiveness trial||||||0.024|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis of this study was that there would be no differences between targets across all measures. Results below are for the subscale, General Life Satisfaction.||||.024
90882324|NCT00958776|181627378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.768|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysis stratified by symptom onset prior to randomization, Baseline ICU status, need for supplemental oxygen at Baseline, influenza season and type.||||||0.768
90882325|NCT00958776|181627379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.758|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysis stratified by symptom onset prior to randomization, Baseline ICU status, need for supplemental oxygen at Baseline, influenza season and type.||||||0.758
90882326|NCT04027218|181627406|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.57||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.34|2.79|||McNemar|||||2.79|2.34|0.001
90882327|NCT04027218|181627406|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.92||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|2.13|||McNemar|||||2.13|1.70|0.002
90882328|NCT04027218|181627406|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.87|1.92|||McNemar|||||1.92|1.87|0.004
90882329|NCT04027218|181627407|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-4.179||||0|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.000
90882330|NCT04027218|181627407|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-3.619||||0|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.000
90882331|NCT04027218|181627407|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-4.099||||0|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.000
90882332|NCT04027218|181627408|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-1.073||||0.863|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated value corresponds with the number of negative changes, which implies participants with decrease in VAS score.|||||0.863
90882333|NCT04027218|181627408|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-1.267||||0.205|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated value corresponds with the number of negative changes, which implies participants with decrease in VAS score.|||||0.205
90882334|NCT04027218|181627408|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.858||||0.391|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated value corresponds with the number of negative changes, which implies participants with decrease in VAS score.|||||0.391
90882335|NCT04027218|181627410|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.672||||0.502|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated value corresponds with the absorbance comparing hemolysis in blood samples performed by clinical practice against to the corresponding intervention.|||||0.502
90882336|NCT04027218|181627410|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.327||||0.744|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated value corresponds with the absorbance comparing hemolysis in blood samples performed by clinical practice against to the corresponding intervention.|||||0.744
90882337|NCT04027218|181627410|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-1.885||||0.059|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated value corresponds with the absorbance comparing hemolysis in blood samples performed by clinical practice against to the corresponding intervention.|||||0.059
90882338|NCT00494494|181627412|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Our estimate of a clinically relevant increase is 25 microns. With these specifications, the sample size that is required to have 0.90 power for the comparison between two groups at the two-sided 0.05 significance level is about 10 per group.|Mean Difference (Net)|2.82|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.8||0.7029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.27|8.91|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis is that there is no correlation between the 2 groups. Standard methods were used for power calculation to determine the sample size needed to have 0.90 power for the comparison between two groups at the two-sided significance of 0.05.||8.91|-3.27|0.7029
90882339|NCT00494494|181627413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.56||0.1937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|6.43|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||6.43|-2.41|0.1937
90882340|NCT00494494|181627414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.6||0.5066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.12|16.52|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||16.52|-3.12|0.5066
90882341|NCT00494494|181627415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.21||0.5099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.227|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.227|-0.13|0.5099
90882342|NCT00494494|181627416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.64||0.5005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|3.55|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||3.55|-1.49|0.5005
90882343|NCT00433654|181627468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage|0.0|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||1.7|||exact test of binomial proportions|||Null hypothesis: rate \> 10%||1.7||<0.001
90882344|NCT00433654|181627469|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority margin is 10%.|Difference in percentages|0.0||||||95.0||||P-value and confidence interval could not be calculated because both groups were 100% successful.|Farrington-Manning|||Null hypothesis: success rate MRI group \<= success rate control group - 10%||||
90882345|NCT00433654|181627470|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority margin is 10%.|Difference in percentages|0.5|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Farrington-Manning|||Null hypothesis: success rate MRI group \<= success rate control group - 10%||||<0.001
91034353|NCT03020615|181954837|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||Exact Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney), two-sided|||||||0.011
90882346|NCT00433654|181627471|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority margin is 10%.|Difference in percentages|1.9|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Farrington-Manning|||Null hypothesis: success rate MRI group \<= success rate control group - 10%||||<0.001
90882347|NCT00433654|181627472|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority margin is 10%.|Difference in percentages|2.1|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Farrington-Manning|||Null hypothesis: success rate MRI group \<= success rate control group - 10%||||<0.001
90882348|NCT00433654|181627473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage|8.3|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||10.7|||exact test of binomial proportions|||Null hypothesis: Percentage of subjects with complication \> 20%||10.7||<0.001
90882349|NCT03523117|181627498|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.3108|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3108
90882350|NCT03523117|181627499|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0001
90921935|NCT03378570|181716067|OTHER|comparative effectiveness trial||||||0.439|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis of this study was that there would be no differences between targets across all measures. Results below are for the subscale, Meaning \& Purpose.||||.439
90882351|NCT03523117|181627500|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.64||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0001
90882352|NCT03523117|181627501|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.06||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0002
90882353|NCT02915029|181627502|SUPERIORITY|The primary hypothesis being tested was that the intervention will increase patient activation.|Mean Difference (Net)|8.7||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|15.5|||ANCOVA|Primary outcome was change in PAM total score, adjusted for baseline level. Adjusting for family clustering with generalized estimated equations.|This reflects the between-group difference for the within-person change scores in PAM total score adjusting for baseline values per person.|Group 1(usual care) is the comparison group, group 2 is the intervention group.|Applied generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for within family (household) clustering.|15.5|1.9|0.01
90882354|NCT04452188|181627522|EQUIVALENCE|Prior studies suggest a 25-50% reduction in oxidative stress in normoxia relative to supra-physiologic oxygen. A 20% difference was considered clinically meaningful, and a sample size of 42 total participants was anticipated to achieve at least 80% power with a two-sided 5% significance level. However, an interim analysis recommended by the DSMB after enrollment of 29 patients revealed a significant difference in the primary outcome between the groups, and enrollment was thus stopped.|||||<|0.01||||||To provide a more conservative estimate of significance, the Hochberg sequential procedure was used for adjustment of multiple comparisons in the serum biomarker data including the primary outcome.|t-test, 2 sided|||Each participant's post-operative samples were normalized to their baseline sample and described as a fold-of-change from baseline.||||<0.01
90882355|NCT04452188|181627524|OTHER|||||||0.66|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to compare the post-operative length of stay between the two groups.||||0.66
90921936|NCT03378570|181716067|OTHER|comparative effectiveness trial||||||0.025|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis of this study was that there would be no differences between targets across all measures. Results below are for the subscale, Emotional Support.||||.025
90921937|NCT03378570|181716067|OTHER|comparative effectiveness trial||||||0.007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis of this study was that there would be no differences between targets across all measures. Results below are for the subscale, Instrumental Support.||||.007
90921938|NCT03378570|181716067|OTHER|comparative effectiveness trial||||||0.014|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis of this study was that there would be no differences between targets across all measures. Results below are for the subscale, Friendship.||||.014
90921939|NCT03378570|181716067|OTHER|comparative effectiveness trial||||||0.398|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis of this study was that there would be no differences between targets across all measures. Results below are for the subscale, Loneliness.||||.398
90882356|NCT04452188|181627525|OTHER|||||||0.66|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to compare the days alive and out of ICU at 30 days since surgery between the two groups||||0.66
90882357|NCT04452188|181627526|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
90882358|NCT04452188|181627527|OTHER|||||||0.49|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.49
90882359|NCT04452188|181627528|OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||To provide a more conservative estimate of significance, the Hochberg sequential procedure was used for adjustment of multiple comparisons in the serum biomarker data including the primary outcome.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
90882360|NCT04452188|181627529|OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||To provide a more conservative estimate of significance, the Hochberg sequential procedure was used for adjustment of multiple comparisons in the serum biomarker data including the primary outcome.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
90882361|NCT04452188|181627530|OTHER||||||<|0.1||||||To provide a more conservative estimate of significance, the Hochberg sequential procedure was used for adjustment of multiple comparisons in the serum biomarker data including the primary outcome.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.1
90882362|NCT00357370|181627531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1898|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.32|||||ANCOVA was applied. No formal statistical testing was performed to compare between treatment groups.|||-0.32|-1.08|
90882363|NCT00357370|181627531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1903|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|-0.4|||||ANCOVA was applied. No formal statistical testing was performed to compare between treatment groups.|||-0.40|-1.16|
90882364|NCT00357370|181627532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.4753|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.37|7.48|||||ANCOVA was applied. No formal statistical testing was performed to compare between treatment groups.|||7.48|-38.37|
90882365|NCT00357370|181627532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.4574|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.33|-4.55|||||ANCOVA was applied. No formal statistical testing was performed to compare between treatment groups.|||-4.55|-50.33|
90882366|NCT00357370|181627536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8302|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.69|4.6|||||ANCOVA was applied. No formal statistical testing was performed to compare between treatment groups.|||4.60|-10.69|
90882367|NCT00357370|181627536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8291|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.17|5.12|||||ANCOVA was applied. No formal statistical testing was performed to compare between treatment groups.|||5.12|-10.17|
90921940|NCT03378570|181716067|OTHER|comparative effectiveness trial||||||0.064|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis of this study was that there would be no differences between targets across all measures. Results below are for the subscale, Perceived Rejection.||||.064
90921941|NCT03378570|181716067|OTHER|comparative effectiveness trial||||||0.368|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis of this study was that there would be no differences between targets across all measures. Results below are for the subscale, Perceived Hostility.||||.368
90921942|NCT03378570|181716067|OTHER|comparative effectiveness trial||||||0.504|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis of this study was that there would be no differences between targets across all measures. Results below are for the subscale, Self-Efficacy.||||.504
90921943|NCT03378570|181716067|OTHER|comparative effectiveness trial||||||0.371|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis of this study was that there would be no differences between targets across all measures. Results below are for the subscale, Perceived Stress.||||.371
90921944|NCT03378570|181716067|OTHER|comparative effectiveness trial||||||0.438|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis of this study was that there would be no differences between targets across all measures. Results below are for the subscale, Fear-Affect.||||.438
91034354|NCT03020615|181954838|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.030
91034355|NCT03020615|181954841|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0009|||||||Exact Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney), two-sided|||||||0.0009
90921945|NCT03378570|181716067|OTHER|comparative effectiveness trial||||||0.096|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis of this study was that there would be no differences between targets across all measures. Results below are for the subscale, Fear-Somatic Arousal.||||.096
90921946|NCT03378570|181716067|OTHER|comparative effectiveness trial||||||0.132|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis of this study was that there would be no differences between targets across all measures. Results below are for the subscale, Sadness.||||.132
90921947|NCT03378570|181716067|OTHER|comparative effectiveness trial||||||0.951|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis of this study was that there would be no differences between targets across all measures. Results below are for the subscale, Anger-Affect.||||.951
90921948|NCT03378570|181716067|OTHER|comparative effectiveness trial||||||0.852|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis of this study was that there would be no differences between targets across all measures. Results below are for the subscale, Anger-Hostility.||||.852
90921949|NCT03378570|181716067|OTHER|comparative effectiveness trial||||||0.083|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis of this study was that there would be no differences between targets across all measures. Results below are for the subscale, Anger-Physical Aggression.||||.083
90921950|NCT03378570|181716067|OTHER|comparative effectiveness trial||||||0.391|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis of this study was that there would be no differences between targets across all measures. Results below are for the subscale, Negative Affect.||||.391
90921951|NCT03378570|181716067|OTHER|comparative effectiveness trial||||||0.014|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis of this study was that there would be no differences between targets across all measures. Results below are for the subscale, Social Satisfaction.||||.014
90921952|NCT03378570|181716067|OTHER|comparative effectiveness trial||||||0.109|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis of this study was that there would be no differences between targets across all measures. Results below are for the subscale, Psychological Well Being.||||.109
90921953|NCT03378570|181716068|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.231||||||Week 6 timepoint p-value listed above|Mixed Models Analysis|"Other timepoint p-values below:~First Visit p = 0.875 Week 1 p = 0.084 Week 2 p = 0.277 Week 3 p = 0.686 Week 4 p = 0.369 Week 5 p = 0.806"||||||0.231
90921954|NCT03378570|181716069|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.963||||||Week 6-7 Follow-up p-value listed above|Mixed Models Analysis|"Other timepoint p-values below:~Evaluation p = 0.570 Week 2-3 Follow-up p = 0.063 Week 4-5 Follow-up p = 0.792"||||||0.963
90921955|NCT03378570|181716070|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.051||||||Week 6 timepoint p-value listed above|Mixed Models Analysis|"Other timepoint p-values below:~First Visit p = 0.772 Week 1 p = 0.194 Week 2 p = 0.127 Week 3 p = 0.196 Week 4 p = 0.079 Week 5 p = 0.187"||||||0.051
90921956|NCT03443323|181716071|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance was evaluated using a threshold p value of .0083, accounting for the estimation of three contrasts of time-by-treatment differences per outcome and two measures per domain (OTMP skills \[COSS-P, COSS-T\]).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.001
90962766|NCT05640648|181806717|OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|1.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.62|2.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects Poisson model adjusting for time and group level (paired health centres, based on randomization) cluster||||2.09|1.62|<0.001
90962767|NCT05640648|181806718|OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio|7.46||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.06|26.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects Poisson model adjusting for time and group level (paired health centres, based on randomization) cluster||||26.95|2.06|0.002
90962768|NCT05640648|181806719|OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio|1.25||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|2.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects poisson model adjusting for time and group (paired healthcentres, based on randomization)||||2.42|0.65|0.50
90921957|NCT03443323|181716072|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance was evaluated using a threshold p value of .0083, accounting for the estimation of three contrasts of time-by-treatment differences per outcome and two measures per domain (OTMP skills \[COSS-P, COSS-T\]).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.001
90921958|NCT03443323|181716073|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007||||||Statistical significance was evaluated using a threshold p value of .0083, accounting for the estimation of three contrasts of time-by-treatment differences per outcome and two measures per domain (homework performance \[HPC, HPQ-T\]).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.007
90921959|NCT03443323|181716074|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance was evaluated using a threshold p value of .0083, accounting for the estimation of three contrasts of time-by-treatment differences per outcome and two measures per domain (homework performance \[HPC, HPQ-T\]).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.001
90921960|NCT03443323|181716075|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.06||||||Statistical significance was evaluated using a threshold p value of .0083, accounting for the estimation of three contrasts of time-by-treatment differences per outcome and two measures per domain (academic performance \[ACES, APS\]).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.06
90921961|NCT03443323|181716076|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.0083||||||Statistical significance was evaluated using a threshold p value of .0083, accounting for the estimation of three contrasts of time-by-treatment differences per outcome and two measures per domain (academic performance \[ACES, APS\]).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>.0083
90921962|NCT03443323|181716077|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Statistical significance was evaluated using a threshold p value of .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>.05
90921963|NCT03443323|181716078|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Statistical significance was evaluated using a threshold p value of .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>.05
90921964|NCT04873401|181716090|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|2.79|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.79|0.39|0.928
90921965|NCT04873401|181716091|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.173|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.147||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.115|||Regression, Linear|||||0.115|-0.24|0.240
90921966|NCT04873401|181716092|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.1171|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062||0.367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.29|||Regression, Linear|||||0.29|0.05|0.367
90921967|NCT04873401|181716093|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.171|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.29|||Regression, Linear|||||0.29|0.05|0.005
90921968|NCT03457142|181716098|OTHER|No formal test, a confidence interval estimate for the grade 3+ treatment related AE rate.|grade 3+ treatment related AE rate|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.17|0.54||||||||0.54|0.17|
90921969|NCT03770273|181716103|OTHER|||||||0.774|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.7740
90921970|NCT03770273|181716105|OTHER|||||||0.1071|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.1071
90921971|NCT03770273|181716106|OTHER|||||||0.4904|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.4904
90921972|NCT03770273|181716107|OTHER|||||||0.1399|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.1399
90882368|NCT01147653|181627542|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|3.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||H0: The true mean 1-year change in GMFM-66 is the same on Autologous Umbilical Cord Blood and Placebo||3.7|-2.6|0.72
90882369|NCT01147653|181627543|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.39
90921973|NCT04533347|181716130|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Assuming an 85% clinical recovery rate in the TQ group and a 70% clinical recovery rate in the placebo group, sample sizes of 125 per treatment group were expected to achieve 80% power with a two-sided alpha of 0.05.||||0.1879
90921974|NCT05520190|181716136|SUPERIORITY||Standardized Response Mean|-0.47|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Baseline Attitude score - 1-month Attitude score / SD of average change|||||
90921975|NCT05520190|181716137|SUPERIORITY||Standardized Response Mean|-0.23|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Baseline Norm score - 1-month Norm score / SD of average change|||||
90921976|NCT05520190|181716138|SUPERIORITY||Standardized Response Mean|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Baseline Perceived Behavioral Control score - 1-month Perceived Behavioral Control score / SD of average change|||||
90921977|NCT05520190|181716139|SUPERIORITY||Standardized Response Mean|-0.16|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Baseline Intention score - 1-month Intention score / SD of average change|||||
90921978|NCT05520190|181716140|SUPERIORITY||Standardized Response Mean|0.35|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Baseline drinks per day - 1-month drinks per day / avg change in drinks per day|||||
90921979|NCT05520190|181716141|SUPERIORITY||Standardized Response Mean|0.35|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Baseline drinking days - 1-month drinking days / SD of avg change in drinking days|||||
90921980|NCT05520190|181716142|SUPERIORITY||Standardized Response Mean|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Baseline binge drinking days - 1-month binge drinking days / avg change in binge drinking days|||||
90921981|NCT05520190|181716143|SUPERIORITY||Standardized Response Mean|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Baseline depression - 1-month depression / SD of avg change in depression|||||
90882370|NCT01147653|181627544|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.473|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: The 12-month Behavior change score is identically distributed in patients assigned Autologous UCB Reinfusion First and Placebo First.||||0.473
90882371|NCT01147653|181627544|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.377|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: The 12-month Bodily Pain/Discomfort change score is identically distributed in patients assigned Autologous UCB Reinfusion First and Placebo First.||||0.377
90882372|NCT01147653|181627544|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.844|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: The 12-month Family Cohesion change score is identically distributed in patients assigned Autologous UCB Reinfusion First and Placebo First.||||0.844
90882373|NCT01147653|181627544|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.322|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: The 12-month General Behavior change score is identically distributed in patients assigned Autologous UCB Reinfusion First and Placebo First.||||0.322
90882374|NCT01147653|181627544|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.927|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: The 12-month General Health Perceptions change score is identically distributed in patients assigned Autologous UCB Reinfusion First and Placebo First.||||0.927
90882375|NCT01147653|181627544|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.199|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: The 12-month Global Behavior change score is identically distributed in patients assigned Autologous UCB Reinfusion First and Placebo First.||||0.199
90921982|NCT05520190|181716144|SUPERIORITY||Standardized Response Mean|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Baseline anxiety - 1-month anxiety / SD avg change in anxiety|||||
90921983|NCT05520190|181716145|SUPERIORITY||Standardized Response Mean|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Baseline PTSD - 1-month PTSd / SD avg change in PTSD|||||
90921984|NCT05520190|181716146|SUPERIORITY||Standardized Response Mean|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Baseline insomnia - 1-month insomnia / SD avg change in insomnia|||||
90921985|NCT05520190|181716147|SUPERIORITY||Standardized Response Mean|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Baseline Alcohol Screen - 1-month Alcohol Screen / SD avg change|||||
90921986|NCT05520190|181716148|SUPERIORITY||Standardized Response Mean|-0.39|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Baseline behavioral beliefs - 1-month behavioral beliefs / avg change in behavioral beliefs|||||
90921987|NCT05520190|181716149|SUPERIORITY||Standardized Response Mean|-0.62|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Baseline normative beliefs - 1-month normative beliefs / SD avg change in normative beliefs|||||
90921988|NCT05520190|181716150|SUPERIORITY||Standardized Response Mean|-0.83|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Baseline control beliefs - 1-month control beliefs / SD avg change in control beliefs|||||
90962769|NCT05640648|181806722|OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio|4.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.07|10.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects Poisson model adjusting for time and group level (paired health centres, based on randomization) cluster||||10.91|2.07|<0.001
90921989|NCT01999075|181716151|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.9||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|10.7||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was a two-sided p-value of 0.05.|ANCOVA||"The mean difference between the intervention and the control group in the change from baseline to 2 years was estimated.~Estimates presented here are based on multiple imputation of missing values."|||10.7|-6.9|0.68
90921990|NCT01999075|181716155|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.92|2.18||||||Difference in change in peak cough flow (L/min) from baseline to 2 years, between conventional treatment and intervention group.||2.18|-1.92|
90921991|NCT01999075|181716156|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.79
90921992|NCT01999075|181716157|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||1.00
90921993|NCT01999075|181716158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.98
90921994|NCT05521308|181716175|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.0|||ANOVA|||This is to see if there is a difference in preference count per participant between Variation #1, Variation #2 and Same counts.||1.00|0.20|<0.001
90921995|NCT05521308|181716175|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.23||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|6.05|||t-test, 2 sided|||This is to see if there is a difference between Variation #1 and Variation #2 preference counts per participant.||6.05|0.41|0.02
90921996|NCT05521308|181716175|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.0|||ANOVA|||This is to see if there is a difference in preference count per participant between Variation #1, Variation #3 and Same counts.||1.00|0.18|<0.001
90882376|NCT01147653|181627544|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.294|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: The 12-month Growth and Development change score is identically distributed in patients assigned Autologous UCB Reinfusion First and Placebo First.||||0.294
90882377|NCT01147653|181627544|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.726|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: The 12-month Overall Health change score is identically distributed in patients assigned Autologous UCB Reinfusion First and Placebo First.||||0.726
90882378|NCT01147653|181627544|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.315|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: The 12-month Parental Impact-Emotional change score is identically distributed in patients assigned Autologous UCB Reinfusion First and Placebo First.||||0.315
90882379|NCT01147653|181627544|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.396|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: The 12-month Parental Impact-Time change score is identically distributed in patients assigned Autologous UCB Reinfusion First and Placebo First.||||0.396
90882380|NCT01147653|181627544|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.381|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: The 12-month Physical Abilities change score is identically distributed in patients assigned Autologous UCB Reinfusion First and Placebo First.||||0.381
90882381|NCT01147653|181627544|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.869|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: The 12-month Temperament and Moods change score is identically distributed in patients assigned Autologous UCB Reinfusion First and Placebo First.||||0.869
90882382|NCT01147653|181627545|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.055|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: The 12 month Access to Services change score is identically distributed in patients assigned Autologous Cord Blood Reinfusion First and Placebo First.||||0.055
90882383|NCT01147653|181627545|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.121|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: The 12-month 2 Emotional Well Being and Self Esteem change score is identically distributed in patients assigned Autologous UCB Reinfusion First and Placebo First.||||0.121
90882384|NCT01147653|181627545|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.647|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: The 12-month 2 Family Health change score is identically distributed in patients assigned Autologous UCB Reinfusion First and Placebo First.||||0.647
90882385|NCT01147653|181627545|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: The 12-month Functioning change score is identically distributed in patients assigned Autologous UCB Reinfusion First and Placebo First.||||0.170
90882386|NCT01147653|181627545|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: The 12-month Pain and Impact of Disability change score is identically distributed in patients assigned Autologous UCB Reinfusion First and Placebo First.||||0.410
90882387|NCT01147653|181627545|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: The 12-month Participation and Physical Health change score is identically distributed in patients assigned Autologous UCB Reinfusion First and Placebo First.||||0.200
90882388|NCT01147653|181627545|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.225|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: The 12-month Social wellbeing and acceptance change score is identically distributed in patients assigned Autologous UCB Reinfusion First and Placebo First.||||0.225
90882389|NCT01147653|181627548|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.290
90882390|NCT01147653|181627551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.697|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.697
90882391|NCT01147653|181627552|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.912|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.912
90882392|NCT01147653|181627553|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.544|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.544
90882393|NCT01147653|181627554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.76
90882394|NCT01147653|181627555|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.76
90882395|NCT01147653|181627556|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.176|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.176
90882396|NCT01147653|181627557|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.099|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.099
90882397|NCT01147653|181627558|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.131|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.131
90882398|NCT01147653|181627559|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.478|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.478
90882399|NCT01147653|181627560|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.029
90882400|NCT01147653|181627561|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.310
90882401|NCT01147653|181627563|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.233|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: The population distribution of Modified Ashworth Scale scores is the same at 1-year post-infusion with autologous cord blood and placebo.||||0.233
90882402|NCT01147653|181627567|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.762|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.762
90882403|NCT01147653|181627568|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: The population distribution of the 1-year GMFM-66 change score is the same for patients infused with Low and High doses of autologous umbilical cord blood.||||0.05
90882404|NCT01147653|181627568|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: The population distribution of the 1-year GMFM-66 change score is the same for patients infused with High doses of autologous umbilical cord blood and Placebo.||||0.15
90882405|NCT01147653|181627568|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: The population distribution of the 1-year GMFM-66 change score is the same for patients infused with Low doses of autologous umbilical cord blood and placebo.||||0.21
90882406|NCT01147653|181627569|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: The population distribution of differences between observed and expected GMFM-66 change scores at 1-year post-infusion is the same for patients receiving Low and High doses of autologous umbilical cord blood.||||<0.01
90882407|NCT01147653|181627570|SUPERIORITY|H0: The population distribution of the Peabody Gross Motor Quotient change score 1 year post-infusion with autologous umbilical cord blood is the same in patients receiving a Low infused dose and a High infused dose.||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
90882408|NCT01147653|181627571|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.38|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: The true mean 1-year change in normalized whole brain connectivity is the same in patients infused with Low and High doses of autologous umbilical cord blood.||0.38|0.01|0.04
90882409|NCT01696032|181627626|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0654|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0654
90882410|NCT00376168|181627638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||one-sample t-test|one-sample t-test (combined) to test the null hypothesis that percent change = 0||"The primary efficacy analysis was based on two one-sample t-tests (one for each treatment group) to determine if the percent change in spleen volume is different than zero.~With 12 patients in each treatment group, there was greater than 95% power to detect a change of 20% or more using a one-sample t-test (alpha=0.025, 2-sided test to allow for each group to be tested separately) to evaluate the primary outcome of percent change in spleen volume after nine months."||||<0.0001
90962770|NCT03254485|181806724|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3|||=|0.3681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.35|||ANCOVA|||||0.35|-0.95|=0.3681
90882411|NCT00376168|181627638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||threshold for statistical significance = 0.025|one-sample t-test|one-sample t-test (combined) to test the null hypothesis that percent change = 0||"The primary efficacy analysis was based on two one-sample t-tests (one for each treatment group) to determine if the percent change in spleen volume is different than zero.~With 12 patients in each treatment group, there was greater than 95% power to detect a change of 20% or more using a one-sample t-test (alpha=0.025, 2-sided test to allow for each group to be tested separately) to evaluate the primary outcome of percent change in spleen volume after nine months."||||<0.0001
90882412|NCT00376168|181627639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0041||95.0|||||One-sample t-test|||For each of the secondary endpoints, a one-sample t-test (% change in liver volume, mean change in hemoglobin and platelet count) was examined first for each dose using the step-down approach. Next, a mixed effects model that included dose and time, with subject as a random effect, was fit to examine whether there was a difference between dose groups, for those outcomes that were tested in the step-down approach.||||0.0041
90882413|NCT00376168|181627639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||One-sample t-test|||For each of the secondary endpoints, a one-sample t-test (% change in liver volume, mean change in hemoglobin and platelet count) was examined first for each dose using the step-down approach. Next, a mixed effects model that included dose and time, with subject as a random effect, was fit to examine whether there was a difference between dose groups, for those outcomes that were tested in the step-down approach.||||<0.0001
90921997|NCT05521308|181716175|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.09||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|3.55|||t-test, 2 sided|||This is to see if there is a difference between Variation #1 and Variation #3 preference counts per participant.||3.55|-1.36|.54
90921998|NCT05521308|181716175|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.0|||ANOVA|||This is to see if there is a difference in preference count per participant between Variation #2, Variation #3, and Same counts.||1.00|0|.231
90921999|NCT05521308|181716177|SUPERIORITY||Cramer's V|0.14||||0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|This is to see if there is a difference in preference counts between standard curve, variation #4, and # of times they were rated as the same. -Indoor||||||.13
90922000|NCT05521308|181716177|SUPERIORITY||Cramer's V|0.2||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||This is to see if there is a difference in preference counts between standard curve, variation #4, and # of time they were rated as the same. -Outdoor|Chi-squared|||||||0.04
90922001|NCT05521308|181716177|SUPERIORITY||Cramer's V|0.2||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||The number of participants that showed overall preference toward variation #4 vs. the standard curve vs. no preference. - Outdoors.||||0.04
90922002|NCT05521308|181716178|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size|0.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.0|||ANOVA|Initally this is to see if there is a differnce between Unaided, Aided #1 and Aided #2.||Standard Curve vs Variation #4||1.00|0.10|<0.001
90922003|NCT05521308|181716178|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.83|2.35||Post-Hoc Pairwise Comparison|t-test, 2 sided|Standard Curve vs Variation #4||||2.35|-2.83|0.855
90922004|NCT02921230|181716221|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0077|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0077
90922005|NCT04274764|181716238|OTHER|||||||0.7399|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7399
90922006|NCT05260684|181716273|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.32||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.65|||Wald Chi- Square Statistic||HR was estimated using multivariable Cox proportional hazard models.|Statistical analysis data is presented for Dabrafenib+Trametinib relative to Encorafenib+Binimetinib (reference).||1.65|1.05|0.02
90882414|NCT00376168|181627640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||One-sample t-test|||For each of the secondary endpoints, a one-sample t-test (% change in liver volume, mean change in hemoglobin and platelet count) was examined first for each dose using the step-down approach. Next, a mixed effects model that included dose and time, with subject as a random effect, was fit to examine whether there was a difference between dose groups, for those outcomes that were tested in the step-down approach.||||0.0010
90922007|NCT05260684|181716273|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.79|||Wald Chi- Square Statistic||HR was estimated using multivariable Cox proportional hazard models.|Statistical analysis data is presented for Vemurafenib + Cobimetinib relative to Encorafenib+Binimetinib (reference).||1.79|0.76|0.47
90922008|NCT05260684|181716274|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|1.87|||Wald Chi- Square Statistic||HR was estimated using multivariable Cox proportional hazard models.|Statistical analysis data is presented for Dabrafenib+Trametinib relative to Encorafenib+Binimetinib (reference).||1.87|1.20|<0.001
90922009|NCT05260684|181716274|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.82|||Wald Chi- Square Statistic||HR was estimated using multivariable Cox proportional hazard models.|Statistical analysis data is presented for Vemurafenib + Cobimetinib relative to Encorafenib+Binimetinib (reference).||1.82|0.79|0.40
90922010|NCT00450658|181716312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.5||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|15.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by use of low-dose aspirin (Yes/No) and prior upper gastrointestinal ulcer history (Yes/No) at randomization.||The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of subjects developing UGI (gastric and/or duodenal) ulcers throughout 24 weeks of treatment. A summary including cumulative frequency and percentage with associated 95% confidence intervals was produced for the observational incidences of UGI ulcers at 24 weeks. The cumulative proportion of subjects developing UGI ulcers at 24 weeks was analyzed using the CMH test stratified by use of low-dose aspirin and prior UGI ulcer history at randomization.||15.9|3.0|0.0018
90882415|NCT00376168|181627640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||One-sample t-test|||For each of the secondary endpoints, a one-sample t-test (% change in liver volume, mean change in hemoglobin and platelet count) was examined first for each dose using the step-down approach. Next, a mixed effects model that included dose and time, with subject as a random effect, was fit to examine whether there was a difference between dose groups, for those outcomes that were tested in the step-down approach.||||<0.0001
90922011|NCT00450658|181716313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.2||||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|14.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by use of low-dose aspirin (Yes/No) and prior upper gastrointestinal ulcer history (Yes/No) at randomization.||||14.4|1.9|0.0051
90922012|NCT00450658|181716314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.9||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|7.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by use of low-dose aspirin and prior UGI ulcer history at randomization.||The secondary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of subjects developing duodenal ulcers throughout 24 weeks of treatment. A summary including cumulative frequency and percentage with associated 95% confidence intervals was produced for the observational incidences of duodenal ulcers at 24 weeks. The cumulative proportion of subjects developing duodenal ulcers at 24 weeks was analyzed using the CMH test stratified by use of low-dose aspirin and prior UGI ulcer history at randomization.||7.1|0.8|0.0017
90922013|NCT00999804|181716379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||proportion of pCR|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||No comparison is required between the 24 weeks arm and 12 weeks arm. The study is designed as the 24 weeks arm ran as a single arm, using an admissible Simon-like two-stage design and required 20 or more responses in the first 55 evaluable patients.|"The study was planned to enroll 136 patients if the original cohort (n=90) was deemed successful. The 24 weeks arm ran as a single arm, using an admissible Simon-like two-stage design. The 12 weeks arm accrued as long as the 24 weeks arm is open.~The analysis of the first cohort indicated that 15 pCR were observed , which did not meet the required 20 or more responses. The accrual was closed early and the study has a total of 128 participants."||||
90922014|NCT00999804|181716380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||proportion of patients with AE|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||61 out of 85 patients (72%) in the 24-week arm had at least 1 adverse events.|This outcome is to establish the safety and tolerability of an extended regimen of lapatinib + trastuzumab, with or without endocrine therapy. No comparison between the 2 arms is required.||||
90922015|NCT00999804|181716381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||proportion of tpCR in 24 weeks arm|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||No comparison between the two arms is required.||||
90922016|NCT00999804|181716382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||proportion of CR+PR in 24 weeks arm|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||No comparison between the 2 arm is required for this study.||||
90922017|NCT05229146|181716383|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.191||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 1 sided|t-statistic = .913, df = 10||One-sided paired-samples t-test comparing baseline to responses immediately following the intervention (approximately one week after baseline).||||.191
90922018|NCT05229146|181716383|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.043||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 1 sided|t-statistic = 1.92, df = 9||One-sided paired-samples t-test comparing baseline to responses at two week follow-up (approximately four weeks after baseline).||||.043
90922019|NCT05229146|181716384|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.03||||0.319|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made. DF = 15.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison is between future orientation subscale pre- and post-subscale scores.||||.319
90922020|NCT05229146|181716384|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.711||||0.488|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|No adjustments were made. DF = 15.||Comparison between immediate-orientation subscales.||||.488
90922021|NCT05229146|181716385|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.438||||0.34|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|No adjustments were made. DF = 10.||Performed a paired-samples one-sided t-test comparing positive parenting before the intervention to after the intervention.||||.34
90922022|NCT05229146|181716385|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.363||||0.362|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|No adjustments were made. DF = 10.||Performed a one-sided paired-samples t-test to compare negative parenting before and after the intervention.||||.362
90922023|NCT05229146|181716386|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.77|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|No adjustments, DF = 15||Used a one-sided paired samples t-test to examine changes in the parental involvement subscale from pre-intervention to post-intervention (approximately 4 weeks later).||||<.001
90922024|NCT05229146|181716386|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.14||||0.137|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Used a one-sided paired samples t-test to examine changes in the positive parenting subscale from pre-intervention to post-intervention (approximately 4 weeks later).||||.137
90922025|NCT05229146|181716386|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.31||||0.018|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|No adjustments; DF = 15.||Used a one-sided paired samples t-test to examine changes in the inconsistent discipline subscale from pre-intervention to post-intervention (approximately 4 weeks later).||||.018
90922026|NCT05229146|181716386|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.39||||0.015|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|No adjustments; DF = 15.||Used a one-sided paired samples t-test to examine changes in the use of corporal punishment subscale from pre-intervention to post-intervention (approximately 4 weeks later).||||.015
90922027|NCT05229146|181716386|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.23||||0.021|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Used a one-sided paired samples t-test to examine changes in the poor parental monitoring/supervision subscale from pre-intervention to post-intervention (approximately 4 weeks later).||||.021
90922028|NCT05229146|181716387|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.878||||0.197|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|No adjustments; DF = 15||Used a one-sided paired-samples t-test to examine changes in emotion regulation subscale from pre-intervention to post-intervention.||||.197
90922029|NCT05229146|181716387|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.857||||0.203|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|No adjustments, DF = 15.||Used a one-sided paired-samples t-test to examine changes in lability/negativity subscale from pre-intervention to post-intervention.||||.203
90940693|NCT01723514|181761248|SUPERIORITY||LS Geometric Mean Ratio|-81.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-88.62|-68.49|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Day 85: A repeated measures ANCOVA was performed for the ratio of blood flow measures at 30 minutes post capsaicin challenge to pre capsaicin challenge. The model included treatment, day, and the treatment by day interaction as independent variables, and both the 0 minute pre-capsaicin blood flow measure as well as the day 0, 30-minute post-capsaicin blood flow measures on day -1 .||-68.49|-88.62|< 0.001
90962771|NCT03254485|181806725|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-16.74|||=|0.2817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.38|13.9|||ANCOVA|||||13.90|-47.38|=0.2817
90922030|NCT05590403|181716431|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the anti-RSV-A GMT ratio (OA-RSV Group over Adults-HA-RSV Group) is less than (\<) 1.5 at 1 month post RSVPreF3 OA vaccine administration.|GMT Ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.09|||||The comparison is done using the group ratio of adjusted GMT (OA-RSV/Adults-HA-RSV) (ANCOVA model applied to the log10- transformed titers). The ANCOVA model included the group as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the RSVPreF3 OA vaccine when administered to healthy adults aged 50-59 years of age compared with older adults aged 60 years of age or above.||1.09|0.83|
90922031|NCT05590403|181716432|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority is demonstrated if the UL of the 2-sided 95% CI on the group difference (OA-RSV Group minus Adults-HA-RSV Group) in terms of SRR is \<10%, at 1 month post RSVPreF3 OA vaccine administration.|Difference in percentage|-2.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.54|3.28|||||The comparison is done using the difference of SRR (OA-RSV -Adults-HA-RSV)|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the RSVPreF3 OA vaccine when administered to healthy adults aged 50-59 years of age compared with older adults aged 60 years of age or above.||3.28|-8.54|
90922032|NCT05590403|181716433|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the anti-RSV-B GMT ratio (OA-RSV Group over Adults-HA-RSV Group) is \<1.5 at 1 month post RSVPreF3 OA vaccine administration.|GMT Ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.02|||||The comparison is done using the group ratio of adjusted GMT (OA-RSV/Adults-HA-RSV) (ANCOVA model applied to the log10- transformed titers). The ANCOVA model included the group as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the RSVPreF3 OA vaccine when administered to healthy adults aged 50-59 years of age compared with older adults aged 60 years of age or above.||1.02|0.79|
90922033|NCT05590403|181716434|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority is demonstrated if the UL of the 2-sided 95% CI on the group difference (OA-RSV Group minus Adults-HA-RSV Group) in terms of SRR is \<10%, at 1 month post RSVPreF3 OA vaccine administration.|Difference in percentage|-3.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.39|2.53|||||The comparison is done using the difference of SRR (OA-RSV -Adults-HA-RSV)|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the RSVPreF3 OA vaccine when administered to healthy adults aged 50-59 years of age compared with older adults aged 60 years of age or above.||2.53|-10.39|
91034356|NCT03020615|181954843|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004|||||||Exact Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney), two-sided|||||||0.0004
90882416|NCT00376168|181627641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.046||95.0|||||One-sample t-test|||For each of the secondary endpoints, a one-sample t-test (% change in liver volume, mean change in hemoglobin and platelet count) was examined first for each dose using the step-down approach. Next, a mixed effects model that included dose and time, with subject as a random effect, was fit to examine whether there was a difference between dose groups, for those outcomes that were tested in the step-down approach.||||0.0460
90882417|NCT00376168|181627641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0031||95.0|||||One-sample t-test|||For each of the secondary endpoints, a one-sample t-test (% change in liver volume, mean change in hemoglobin and platelet count) was examined first for each dose using the step-down approach. Next, a mixed effects model that included dose and time, with subject as a random effect, was fit to examine whether there was a difference between dose groups, for those outcomes that were tested in the step-down approach.||||0.0031
90882418|NCT02203591|181627682|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
90882419|NCT02203591|181627682|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
90882420|NCT02203591|181627682|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
90882421|NCT02203591|181627682|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
90882422|NCT02203591|181627682|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
90882423|NCT02203591|181627682|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
90882424|NCT02203591|181627682|OTHER|95% confidence interval generation|Mean value|81.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|75.6|86.6||||||||86.6|75.6|
90882425|NCT02203591|181627682|OTHER|95% confidence interval generation|Mean value|81.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|76.3|87.1||||||||87.1|76.3|
90882426|NCT02203591|181627682|OTHER|95% confidence interval generation|Mean value|83.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|77.9|88.4||||||||88.4|77.9|
90882427|NCT02203591|181627682|OTHER|95% confidence interval generation|Mean value|38.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.3|45.6||||||||45.6|32.3|
90882428|NCT02203591|181627682|OTHER|95% confidence interval generation|Mean value|46.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.1|53.7||||||||53.7|40.1|
90882429|NCT02203591|181627682|OTHER|95% confidence interval generation|Mean value|53.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.3|59.6||||||||59.6|46.3|
90882430|NCT02203591|181627683|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferior margin of 0.5 log10/cm\^2|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.1|||||3M CHG/IPA C - Inguinal minus ChloraPrep - Inguinal|||-0.10|-0.57|
90882431|NCT02203591|181627683|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferior margin of 0.5 log10/cm\^2|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.44|0.74|||||3M CHG/IPA CH - Inguinal minus ChloraPrep - Inguinal|Since there are two investigational products a Hochberg step-up procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity.||0.74|-0.44|
90882432|NCT02203591|181627684|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|2.83|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.85|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90882433|NCT02203591|181627684|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|2.86|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.9|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90882434|NCT02203591|181627684|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|2.83|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.97|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90882435|NCT02203591|181627684|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|1.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.97|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90882436|NCT02203591|181627684|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|3.46|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.31|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90882437|NCT02203591|181627684|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|3.49|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.33|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90882438|NCT02203591|181627684|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|3.69|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.29|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90882439|NCT02203591|181627684|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|1.23|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.73|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90882440|NCT02203591|181627685|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|2.78|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.94|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90882441|NCT02203591|181627685|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|2.73|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.0|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90882442|NCT02203591|181627685|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|2.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.97|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90962772|NCT03254485|181806726|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.297|||=|0.6508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.591|0.997|||ANCOVA|||||0.997|-1.591|=0.6508
90962773|NCT03153111|181806728|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|1.02||||0.7923|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.19|||ANCOVA|||||1.19|0.88|0.7923
90962774|NCT03153111|181806729|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.82||0.2172|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.17|1.17|||ANCOVA|||||1.17|-8.17|0.2172
90962775|NCT03153111|181806730|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.3665|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.05|0.02|||ANCOVA|||||0.02|-0.05|0.3665
91034357|NCT03020615|181954845|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||Exact Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney), two-sided|||||||0.75
91034358|NCT03020615|181954847|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0013|||||||Exact Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney), two-sided|||||||0.0013
91034359|NCT03020615|181954848|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.013
90882443|NCT02203591|181627685|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|0.76|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.81|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90882444|NCT02203591|181627685|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|2.84|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.19|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90882445|NCT02203591|181627685|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|2.99|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.12|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90882446|NCT02203591|181627685|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|3.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.24|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90882447|NCT02203591|181627685|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|1.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.67|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90882448|NCT02203591|181627686|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.84|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90882449|NCT02203591|181627686|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|0.74|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.79|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90882450|NCT02203591|181627686|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|0.81|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.94|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90882451|NCT02203591|181627686|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|2.65|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.89|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90882452|NCT02203591|181627686|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|2.76|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.2|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90882453|NCT02203591|181627686|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|2.73|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.22|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90882454|NCT02203591|181627686|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|2.58|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.18|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90882455|NCT02203591|181627686|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|4.85|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.75|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90882456|NCT02203591|181627687|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|0.85|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.95|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90882457|NCT02203591|181627687|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|0.87|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.98|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90882458|NCT02203591|181627687|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|0.89|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.94|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90882459|NCT02203591|181627687|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|2.88|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.7|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90882460|NCT02203591|181627687|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|3.39|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.1|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90882461|NCT02203591|181627687|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|3.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.04|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90882462|NCT02203591|181627687|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|3.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.14|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90882463|NCT02203591|181627687|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|5.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.68|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90882464|NCT02203591|181627688|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|3.63|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.46|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90882465|NCT02203591|181627688|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|3.61|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.48|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90882466|NCT02203591|181627688|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|3.64|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.49|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90882467|NCT02203591|181627688|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|3.64|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.53|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90882468|NCT02203591|181627688|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|6.23|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.6|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90882469|NCT02203591|181627688|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|6.22|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.56|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90882470|NCT02203591|181627688|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|6.27|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.62|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90882471|NCT02203591|181627688|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|6.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.63|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90882472|NCT04115358|181627692|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-Square Test was used to compare qualitative data.The results were evaluated at the significance level of p\<0,05.||||>0.05
90882473|NCT04115358|181627693|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-Square Test was used to compare qualitative data.The results were evaluated at the significance level of p\<0,05.||||>0.05
90882474|NCT04115358|181627694|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-Square Test was used to compare qualitative data.The results were evaluated at the significance level of p\<0,05.||||>0.05
90882475|NCT04115358|181627695|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-Square Test was used to compare qualitative data.The results were evaluated at the significance level of p\<0,05.||||>0.05
90882476|NCT04115358|181627696|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-Square Test was used to compare qualitative data.The results were evaluated at the significance level of p\<0,05.||||>0.05
90882477|NCT04115358|181627697|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-Square Test was used to compare qualitative data.The results were evaluated at the significance level of p\<0,05.||||>0.05
90882478|NCT04115358|181627698|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-Square Test was used to compare qualitative data.The results were evaluated at the significance level of p\<0,05.||||>0.05
90882479|NCT04115358|181627699|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-Square Test was used to compare qualitative data.The results were evaluated at the significance level of p\<0,05.||||>0.05
90882480|NCT04115358|181627700|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-Square Test was used to compare qualitative data.The results were evaluated at the significance level of p\<0,05.||||>0.05
90882481|NCT04115358|181627701|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-Square Test was used to compare qualitative data.The results were evaluated at the significance level of p\<0,05.||||>0.05
90882482|NCT04115358|181627702|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-Square Test was used to compare qualitative data.The results were evaluated at the significance level of p\<0,05.||||>0.05
90882483|NCT04115358|181627703|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-Square Test was used to compare qualitative data.The results were evaluated at the significance level of p\<0,05.||||>0.05
90882484|NCT04115358|181627704|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-Square Test was used to compare qualitative data.The results were evaluated at the significance level of p\<0,05.||||>0.05
90882485|NCT04115358|181627705|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-Square Test was used to compare qualitative data.The results were evaluated at the significance level of p\<0,05.||||>0.05
90882486|NCT04115358|181627706|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-Square Test was used to compare qualitative data.The results were evaluated at the significance level of p\<0,05.||||>0.05
90882487|NCT04115358|181627707|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-Square Test was used to compare qualitative data.The results were evaluated at the significance level of p\<0,05.||||>0.05
90882488|NCT04115358|181627708|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-Square Test was used to compare qualitative data.The results were evaluated at the significance level of p\<0,05.||||>0.05
90882489|NCT04115358|181627709|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-Square Test was used to compare qualitative data.The results were evaluated at the significance level of p\<0,05.||||>0.05
90882490|NCT04115358|181627710|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-Square Test was used to compare qualitative data.The results were evaluated at the significance level of p\<0,05.||||>0.05
90922034|NCT05590403|181716435|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the anti-RSV-A GMT ratio (OA-RSV Group over Adults-AIR-RSV Group) is \<1.5 at 1 month post RSVPreF3 OA vaccine administration.|GMT Ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.96|||||The comparison is done using the group ratio of adjusted GMT (OA-RSV/Adults-AIR-RSV) (ANCOVA model applied to the log10- transformed titers). The ANCOVA model included the group as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the RSVPreF3 OA vaccine when administered to adults at increased risk of RSV-LRTD aged 50-59 years of age compared with older adults aged 60 years of age or above.||0.96|0.73|
90882491|NCT04115358|181627711|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-Square Test was used to compare qualitative data.The results were evaluated at the significance level of p\<0,05.||||>0.05
90882492|NCT04115358|181627712|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-Square Test was used to compare qualitative data.The results were evaluated at the significance level of p\<0,05.||||>0.05
90882493|NCT04115358|181627713|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-Square Test was used to compare qualitative data.The results were evaluated at the significance level of p\<0,05.||||>0.05
90882494|NCT04115358|181627714|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-Square Test was used to compare qualitative data.The results were evaluated at the significance level of p\<0,05.||||>0.05
90922035|NCT05590403|181716436|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority is demonstrated if the UL of the 2-sided 95% CI on the group difference (OA-RSV Group over Adults-AIR-RSV Group) in terms of SRR is \<10%, at 1 month post RSVPreF3 OA vaccine administration.|Difference in percentage|-6.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.26|-1.12|||||The comparison is done using the difference of SRR (OA-RSV -Adults-AIR-RSV)|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the RSVPreF3 OA vaccine when administered to adults at increased risk of RSV-LRTD aged 50-59 years of age compared with older adults aged 60 years of age or above.||-1.12|-12.26|
90882495|NCT04115358|181627715|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-Square Test was used to compare qualitative data.The results were evaluated at the significance level of p\<0,05.||||>0.05
90882496|NCT04115358|181627716|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-Square Test was used to compare qualitative data.The results were evaluated at the significance level of p\<0,05.||||>0.05
90882497|NCT04115358|181627717|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-Square Test was used to compare qualitative data.The results were evaluated at the significance level of p\<0,05.||||>0.05
90882498|NCT04115358|181627718|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-Square Test was used to compare qualitative data.The results were evaluated at the significance level of p\<0,05.||||>0.05
90882499|NCT04115358|181627719|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-Square Test was used to compare qualitative data.The results were evaluated at the significance level of p\<0,05.||||>0.05
90882500|NCT04115358|181627720|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-Square Test was used to compare qualitative data.The results were evaluated at the significance level of p\<0,05.||||>0.05
90882501|NCT04115358|181627721|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-Square Test was used to compare qualitative data.The results were evaluated at the significance level of p\<0,05.||||>0.05
90882502|NCT04115358|181627722|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-Square Test was used to compare qualitative data.The results were evaluated at the significance level of p\<0,05.||||>0.05
90882503|NCT04115358|181627723|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-Square Test was used to compare qualitative data.The results were evaluated at the significance level of p\<0,05.||||>0.05
90882504|NCT00835497|181627724|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|86.5||||||90.0|81.8|91.6|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||91.6|81.8|
90882505|NCT00835497|181627725|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|97.0||||||90.0|94.2|99.9|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||99.9|94.2|
90882506|NCT00835497|181627726|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|97.0||||||90.0|94.2|99.8|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||99.8|94.2|
90882507|NCT00835497|181627727|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|88.9||||||90.0|83.5|94.6|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||94.6|83.5|
90882508|NCT00835497|181627728|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|92.7||||||90.0|88.4|97.1|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||97.1|88.4|
90882509|NCT00835497|181627729|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|93.0||||||90.0|88.8|97.5|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||97.5|88.8|
90882510|NCT01573624|181627732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.026||||0.264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.019|0.071|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No pairwise comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF alone were done unless overall F-test for treatment effect was statistically significant at 5% level. Multiplicity across these comparisons was controlled using a step-down closed testing procedure, whereby statistical comparison of the highest dose of FF + UMEC and FF alone was initially performed, and subsequent comparisons at lower doses continued in a step-down manner if preceding comparison was statistically significant at 5% level.||0.071|-0.019|0.264
90882511|NCT01573624|181627732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.033||||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.013|0.079|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No pairwise comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF alone were done unless overall F-test for treatment effect was statistically significant at 5% level. Multiplicity across these comparisons was controlled using a step-down closed testing procedure, whereby statistical comparison of the highest dose of FF + UMEC and FF alone was initially performed, and subsequent comparisons at lower doses continued in a step-down manner if preceding comparison was statistically significant at 5% level.||0.079|-0.013|0.165
90882512|NCT01573624|181627732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.026||||0.271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.071|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No pairwise comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF alone were done unless overall F-test for treatment effect was statistically significant at 5% level. Multiplicity across these comparisons was controlled using a step-down closed testing procedure, whereby statistical comparison of the highest dose of FF + UMEC and FF alone was initially performed, and subsequent comparisons at lower doses continued in a step-down manner if preceding comparison was statistically significant at 5% level.||0.071|-0.020|0.271
90882513|NCT01573624|181627732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.055||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No pairwise comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF alone were done unless overall F-test for treatment effect was statistically significant at 5% level. Multiplicity across these comparisons was controlled using a step-down closed testing procedure, whereby statistical comparison of the highest dose of FF + UMEC and FF alone was initially performed, and subsequent comparisons at lower doses continued in a step-down manner if preceding comparison was statistically significant at 5% level.||0.100|0.010|0.018
90922036|NCT05590403|181716437|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the anti-RSV-B GMT ratio (OA-RSV Group over Adults-AIR-RSV Group) is \<1.5 at 1 month post RSVPreF3 OA vaccine administration.|GMT Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.91|||||The comparison is done using the group ratio of adjusted GMT (OA-RSV/Adults-AIR-RSV) (ANCOVA model applied to the log10- transformed titers). The ANCOVA model included the group as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the RSVPreF3 OA vaccine when administered to adults at increased risk of RSV-LRTD aged 50-59 years of age compared with older adults aged 60 years of age or above.||0.91|0.71|
90922037|NCT05590403|181716438|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority is demonstrated if the UL of the 2-sided 95% CI on the group difference (OA-RSV Group over Adults-AIR-RSV Group) in terms of SRR is \<10%, at 1 month post RSVPreF3 OA vaccine administration.|Difference in percentage|-7.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.52|-1.09|||||The comparison is done using the difference of SRR (OA-RSV -Adults-AIR-RSV)|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the RSVPreF3 OA vaccine when administered to adults at increased risk of RSV-LRTD aged 50-59 years of age compared with older adults aged 60 years of age or above.||-1.09|-13.52|
90922038|NCT04717492|181716465|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.01||||0.962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.54||No adjustments for multiplicity were performed.|Regression, Cox|Cox proportional hazard model with inverse probability of treatment weighting as described in primary manuscript.||Time to death, or first hospitalization or revascularization event was analyzed using cox proportional hazards models with inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) to reduce confounding. Missing data were imputed using multivariate imputation by chained equations with predictive mean matching.||1.54|0.66|0.962
90922039|NCT04717492|181716467|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.11||||0.694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.92||No adjustments for multiplicity were performed.|Regression, Cox|Cox proportional hazard model with inverse probability of treatment weighting as described in primary manuscript.||Time to CVD-related death or hospitalization/revascularization was analyzed using cox proportional hazards models with inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) to reduce confounding. Missing data were imputed using multivariate imputation by chained equations with predictive mean matching.||1.92|0.65|0.694
90922040|NCT04717492|181716469|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.75||||0.476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.66||No adjustments for multiplicity were performed.|Regression, Cox|Cox proportional hazard model with inverse probability of treatment weighting as described in primary manuscript.||Time to respiratory/COPD-related death or hospitalization was analyzed using Cox proportional hazards models with inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) to reduce confounding. Missing data were imputed using multivariate imputation by chained equations with predictive mean matching.||1.66|0.34|0.476
90922041|NCT06393088|181716495|SUPERIORITY|It was calculated that 24 participants randomized 1:1 between 2 arms would have at least an 85% power to detect a difference in pain relief of 30 points as measured using a Visual Analog Device. The actual difference in the mean of the change in pain level, as measured using a Visual Analog Scale, between the two independent groups is 41.67. Results of the post trial calculation was a 95.7% power to detect the difference in pain relief using 29 randomized participants.|Mean Difference (Net)|41.67|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.15|61.67||The threshold is P-value \<.0.05 for statistical significance A bootstrap N=20,000 was used for all estimates|t-test, 2 sided|||"Null Hypothesis:~There is not a statistically significant difference in nociceptive musculoskeletal pain when using an IR REHAB device when compared with a sham (placebo) device as a therapy in an approved and standardized clinical protocol."||61.67|20.15|<0.01
90882514|NCT01573624|181627732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.055||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.101|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No pairwise comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF alone were done unless overall F-test for treatment effect was statistically significant at 5% level. Multiplicity across these comparisons was controlled using a step-down closed testing procedure, whereby statistical comparison of the highest dose of FF + UMEC and FF alone was initially performed, and subsequent comparisons at lower doses continued in a step-down manner if preceding comparison was statistically significant at 5% level.||0.101|0.010|0.018
90882515|NCT01573624|181627732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.078|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.032|0.124|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.124|0.032|<0.001
90922042|NCT03241459|181716501|NON_INFERIORITY|15.0% is the absolute noninferiority margin (50% of the difference in primary patency rate between IN.PACT Admiral DCB and PTA).|Difference in percentage|-3.7||||0.0029|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-11.7|||P-value is derived from one-sided Farrington-Manning test with noninferiority margin of 15% and a one-sided significance level of 0.025.|Farrington-Manning test||For subjects missing primary effectiveness endpoint status, a logistic regression model was used for multiple imputation with pre-specified baseline variables as model predictors.|The SurVeil DCB will be declared noninferior to IN.PACT Admiral DCB with respect to efficacy endpoint if the null hypothesis of inferiority is rejected at a one-sided significance level of 0.025.|||-11.7|0.0029
90922043|NCT03241459|181716502|NON_INFERIORITY|10.0% is the absolute noninferiority margin (50% of the difference in primary safety endpoint rate between IN.PACT Admiral DCB and PTA).|Difference in percentage|2.0|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-4.1|||P-value is derived from one-sided Farrington-Manning test with noninferiority margin of 10% and a one-sided significance level of 0.025.|Farrington-Manning test||For subjects missing primary safety endpoint status, a logistic regression model was used for multiple imputation with pre-specified baseline variables as model predictors.|The SurVeil DCB will be declared noninferior to IN.PACT Admiral DCB with respect to safety endpoint if the null hypothesis of inferiority is rejected at a one-sided significance level of 0.025.|||-4.1|<.0001
90922044|NCT03241459|181716503|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.579|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||P-value is derived from two-sided Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||The incidence estimates will be reported along with a p-value from a two-sided Fisher's exact test comparing the SurVeil and the IN.PACT Admiral groups.||||0.579
90922045|NCT03241459|181716504|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Both arms demonstrated 100% success, therefore, Fisher's exact test does not provide a p-value, but we populated it with a p-value of 1.00 to indicate no difference between arms.|Fisher Exact|||The incidence estimates will be reported along with a two-sided Fisher's exact test comparing the SurVeil and the IN.PACT Admiral groups.||||1.00
90922046|NCT03241459|181716505|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value is derived from two-sided Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||The incidence estimates will be reported along with a two-sided Fisher's exact test comparing the SurVeil and the IN.PACT Admiral groups.||||1.000
90922047|NCT03241459|181716506|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.494||||||P-value is derived from two-sided Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.494
90922048|NCT03241459|181716507|NON_INFERIORITY|The Farrington and Manning test for noninferiority of proportions at a one-sided significance level of 0.025.|Difference in percentage|-1.9||||0.0059|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-12.1|||P-value is derived from one-sided Farrington-Manning test with noninferiority margin of 15% and a one-sided significance level of 0.025.|Farrington-Manning test|||The objective is to assess whether the primary patency rate of subjects in the SurVeil DCB group is noninferior to that of the IN.PACT Admiral DCB group:|||-12.1|0.0059
90922049|NCT03241459|181716508|SUPERIORITY|Target Vessel Patency for SurVeil DCB vs. Target Vessel Patency for IN.PACT DCB at 12 months.||||||0.699||||||12-Month P-Value|Fisher Exact|||The main analysis of the secondary endpoints will be carried out using the ITT analysis set.||||0.699
90922050|NCT03241459|181716508|SUPERIORITY|Target Vessel Patency for SurVeil DCB vs. Target Vessel Patency for IN.PACT DCB at 24 months.||||||1||||||24-Month P-Value|Fisher Exact|||The main analysis of the secondary endpoints will be carried out using the ITT analysis set.||||1.0
90922051|NCT03241459|181716509|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.699|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||6-Month P-Value|Fisher Exact|||||||0.699
90922052|NCT03241459|181716509|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.447||||||12-Month P-Value|Fisher Exact|||||||0.447
90922053|NCT03241459|181716509|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.589||||||24-Month P-Value|Fisher Exact|||||||0.589
90922054|NCT03241459|181716510|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-Value at 6-Months|Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
90922055|NCT03241459|181716510|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.823||||||P-Value at 12-Months|Fisher Exact|||||||0.823
90922056|NCT03241459|181716510|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.454||||||P-Value at 24-Months|Fisher Exact|||||||0.454
90922057|NCT03241459|181716511|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.535||||||P-Value at 6-Months|Fisher Exact|||||||0.535
90922058|NCT03241459|181716511|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86||||||P-Value at 12-Months|Fisher Exact|||||||0.860
90922059|NCT03241459|181716511|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39||||||P-Value at 24-Months|Fisher Exact|||||||0.390
90922060|NCT03241459|181716512|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Both arms demonstrated 0 amputations at 6 months. Fisher's Exact test does not provide a p-value, but we populated it with a p-value of 1.00 to indicate no difference between arms.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
90922061|NCT03241459|181716512|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Both arms demonstrated 0 amputations at 12 months. Fisher's Exact test does not provide a p-value, but we populated it with a p-value of 1.00 to indicate no difference between arms.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
90922062|NCT03241459|181716512|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-Value at 24-Months|Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
90922063|NCT03241459|181716513|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
90922064|NCT03241459|181716513|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.472||||||P-Value at 24-Months|Fisher Exact|||||||0.472
90922065|NCT03241459|181716514|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.193||||||P-Value for change in Rutherford Classification from BL to 1-Month|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.193
90922066|NCT03241459|181716514|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14||||||P-Value for change in Rutherford Classification from BL to 6-Months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.140
90922067|NCT03241459|181716514|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.372||||||P-Value for change in Rutherford Classification from BL to 12-Months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.372
90922068|NCT03241459|181716514|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.104||||||P-Value for change in Rutherford Classification from BL to 24-Months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.104
90922069|NCT03241459|181716515|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32||||||P-Value for change in PARC from BL to 1-Month|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.320
90922070|NCT03241459|181716515|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.132||||||P-Value for change in PARC from BL to 6-Months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.132
90922071|NCT03241459|181716515|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.248||||||P-Value for change in PARC from BL to 12-Months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.248
90922072|NCT03241459|181716515|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.194||||||P-Value for change in PARC from BL to 24-Months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.194
90882516|NCT01573624|181627732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.052||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.097|-0.007|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No adjustments were made for comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF + VI.||-0.007|-0.097|0.023
90882517|NCT01573624|181627732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.045||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.091|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No adjustments were made for comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF + VI.||0.000|-0.091|0.051
90882518|NCT01573624|181627732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.053||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.098|-0.007|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No adjustments were made for comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF + VI.||-0.007|-0.098|0.023
90882519|NCT01573624|181627732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.023||||0.306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.068|0.021|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No adjustments were made for comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF + VI.||0.021|-0.068|0.306
90882520|NCT01573624|181627732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.023||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.068|0.023|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No adjustments were made for comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF + VI.||0.023|-0.068|0.330
90922073|NCT03241459|181716516|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.789||||||P-Value for Decrease in Resting Target Limb ABI ≥0.15: BL to 6-Months|Fisher Exact|||||||0.789
90922074|NCT03241459|181716516|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
90922075|NCT03241459|181716516|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.041||||||P-Value for Decrease in Resting Target Limb ABI ≥0.15: BL to 12-Months.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.041
90922076|NCT03241459|181716516|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-Value for Decrease in Resting Target Limb TBI ≥0.15: BL to 12-Months.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
90922077|NCT03241459|181716516|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.401||||||P-Value for Decrease in Resting Target Limb ABI ≥0.15: BL to 24-Months.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.401
90882521|NCT01573624|181627733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|15.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.5|22.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No pairwise comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF alone were done unless overall F-test for treatment effect was statistically significant at 5% level. Multiplicity across these comparisons was controlled using a step-down closed testing procedure, whereby statistical comparison of the highest dose of FF + UMEC and FF alone was initially performed, and subsequent comparisons at lower doses continued in a step-down manner if preceding comparison was statistically significant at 5% level.||22.3|9.5|<0.001
90882522|NCT01573624|181627733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|17.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.9|23.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No pairwise comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF alone were done unless overall F-test for treatment effect was statistically significant at 5% level. Multiplicity across these comparisons was controlled using a step-down closed testing procedure, whereby statistical comparison of the highest dose of FF + UMEC and FF alone was initially performed, and subsequent comparisons at lower doses continued in a step-down manner if preceding comparison was statistically significant at 5% level.||23.9|10.9|<0.001
90922078|NCT03241459|181716516|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-Value for Decrease in Resting Target Limb TBI ≥0.15: BL to 24-Months.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
90922079|NCT03241459|181716517|OTHER|||||||0.995||||||P-value for change in WIQ from BL to 1-Month: Walking Impairment Score|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.995
90922080|NCT03241459|181716517|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.158||||||P-value for change in WIQ from BL to 1-month: Walking distance score|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.158
90882523|NCT01573624|181627733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.1|25.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No pairwise comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF alone were done unless overall F-test for treatment effect was statistically significant at 5% level. Multiplicity across these comparisons was controlled using a step-down closed testing procedure, whereby statistical comparison of the highest dose of FF + UMEC and FF alone was initially performed, and subsequent comparisons at lower doses continued in a step-down manner if preceding comparison was statistically significant at 5% level.||25.1|12.1|<0.001
90882524|NCT01573624|181627733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|22.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.5|29.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No pairwise comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF alone were done unless overall F-test for treatment effect was statistically significant at 5% level. Multiplicity across these comparisons was controlled using a step-down closed testing procedure, whereby statistical comparison of the highest dose of FF + UMEC and FF alone was initially performed, and subsequent comparisons at lower doses continued in a step-down manner if preceding comparison was statistically significant at 5% level.||29.4|16.5|<0.001
90882525|NCT01573624|181627733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.5|28.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No pairwise comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF alone were done unless overall F-test for treatment effect was statistically significant at 5% level. Multiplicity across these comparisons was controlled using a step-down closed testing procedure, whereby statistical comparison of the highest dose of FF + UMEC and FF alone was initially performed, and subsequent comparisons at lower doses continued in a step-down manner if preceding comparison was statistically significant at 5% level.||28.4|15.5|<0.001
90882526|NCT01573624|181627733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|27.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.6|33.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||33.5|20.6|<0.001
90922081|NCT03241459|181716517|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.695||||||P-value for change in WIQ from BL to 1-month: Walking speed score|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.695
90922082|NCT03241459|181716517|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.086||||||P-value for change in WIQ from BL to 1-Month: Stair Climbing Score|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.086
90922083|NCT03241459|181716517|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.331||||||P-value for change in WIQ from BL to 12-Months: Walking Impairment Score|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.331
90922084|NCT03241459|181716517|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58||||||P-value for change in WIQ from BL to 12-Months: Walking Distance Score|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.580
90922085|NCT03241459|181716517|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.563||||||P-value for change in WIQ from BL to 12-Months: Walking Speed Score|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.563
90922086|NCT03241459|181716517|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27||||||P-value for change in WIQ from BL to 12-Months: Stair Climbing Score|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.270
90922087|NCT03241459|181716517|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.869||||||P-value for change in WIQ from BL to 24-Months: Walking Impairment Score|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.869
90922088|NCT03241459|181716517|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.837||||||P-value for change in WIQ from BL to 24-Months: Walking Distance Score|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.837
90922089|NCT03241459|181716517|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.674||||||P-value for change in WIQ for BL to 24-Months: Walking Speed Score|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.674
90882527|NCT01573624|181627733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6|-4.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No adjustments were made for comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF + VI.||-4.7|-17.6|<0.001
90882528|NCT01573624|181627733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.6||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.1|-3.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No adjustments were made for comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF + VI.||-3.1|-16.1|0.004
90882529|NCT01573624|181627733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.4||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|-1.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No adjustments were made for comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF + VI.||-1.9|-14.9|0.012
90882530|NCT01573624|181627733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.1||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No adjustments were made for comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF + VI.||2.3|-10.6|0.209
90882531|NCT01573624|181627733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.1||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No adjustments were made for comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF + VI.||1.4|-11.6|0.124
90882532|NCT01573624|181627734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|16.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.5|22.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No pairwise comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF alone were done unless overall F-test for treatment effect was statistically significant at 5% level. Multiplicity across these comparisons was controlled using a step-down closed testing procedure, whereby statistical comparison of the highest dose of FF + UMEC and FF alone was initially performed, and subsequent comparisons at lower doses continued in a step-down manner if preceding comparison was statistically significant at 5% level.||22.9|9.5|<0.001
90882533|NCT01573624|181627734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|17.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.5|24.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No pairwise comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF alone were done unless overall F-test for treatment effect was statistically significant at 5% level. Multiplicity across these comparisons was controlled using a step-down closed testing procedure, whereby statistical comparison of the highest dose of FF + UMEC and FF alone was initially performed, and subsequent comparisons at lower doses continued in a step-down manner if preceding comparison was statistically significant at 5% level.||24.0|10.5|<0.001
90882534|NCT01573624|181627734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|21.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.4|28.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No pairwise comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF alone were done unless overall F-test for treatment effect was statistically significant at 5% level. Multiplicity across these comparisons was controlled using a step-down closed testing procedure, whereby statistical comparison of the highest dose of FF + UMEC and FF alone was initially performed, and subsequent comparisons at lower doses continued in a step-down manner if preceding comparison was statistically significant at 5% level.||28.0|14.4|<0.001
90882535|NCT01573624|181627734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|28.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.1|35.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No pairwise comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF alone were done unless overall F-test for treatment effect was statistically significant at 5% level. Multiplicity across these comparisons was controlled using a step-down closed testing procedure, whereby statistical comparison of the highest dose of FF + UMEC and FF alone was initially performed, and subsequent comparisons at lower doses continued in a step-down manner if preceding comparison was statistically significant at 5% level.||35.5|22.1|<0.001
90882536|NCT01573624|181627734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|22.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.2|29.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No pairwise comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF alone were done unless overall F-test for treatment effect was statistically significant at 5% level. Multiplicity across these comparisons was controlled using a step-down closed testing procedure, whereby statistical comparison of the highest dose of FF + UMEC and FF alone was initially performed, and subsequent comparisons at lower doses continued in a step-down manner if preceding comparison was statistically significant at 5% level.||29.6|16.2|<0.001
90922090|NCT03241459|181716517|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.563||||||P-value for change in WIQ for BL to 24-Months: Stair Climbing Score|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.563
90882537|NCT01573624|181627734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|26.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.8|33.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||33.4|19.8|<0.001
90882538|NCT01573624|181627734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.3||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.2|-3.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No adjustments were made for comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF + VI.||-3.5|-17.2|0.003
90882539|NCT01573624|181627734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.3||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|-2.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No adjustments were made for comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF + VI.||-2.5|-16.2|0.007
90882540|NCT01573624|181627734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.4||||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No adjustments were made for comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF + VI.||1.5|-12.3|0.126
90882541|NCT01573624|181627734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.2||||0.523||95.0|-4.6|9.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No adjustments were made for comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF + VI.||9.1|-4.6|0.523
90882542|NCT01573624|181627734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.7||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|3.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No adjustments were made for comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF + VI.||3.1|-10.5|0.290
90882543|NCT01573624|181627735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No pairwise comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF alone were done unless overall F-test for treatment effect was statistically significant at 5% level. Multiplicity across these comparisons was controlled using a step-down closed testing procedure, whereby statistical comparison of the highest dose of FF + UMEC and FF alone was initially performed, and subsequent comparisons at lower doses continued in a step-down manner if preceding comparison was statistically significant at 5% level.||0.0|-0.5|0.036
90922091|NCT03241459|181716518|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.237||||||P-value for change in 6MWT from BL to 12-Months|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.237
90922092|NCT03241459|181716518|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||P-value for change in 6MWT from BL to 24-Months|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.040
90922093|NCT03241459|181716519|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.772||||||P-value for change in PAQ from BL to 1-Month: Physical Function Score|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.772
90922094|NCT03241459|181716519|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93||||||P-value for change in PAQ from BL to 1-Month: Stability Score|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.930
90882544|NCT01573624|181627735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No pairwise comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF alone were done unless overall F-test for treatment effect was statistically significant at 5% level. Multiplicity across these comparisons was controlled using a step-down closed testing procedure, whereby statistical comparison of the highest dose of FF + UMEC and FF alone was initially performed, and subsequent comparisons at lower doses continued in a step-down manner if preceding comparison was statistically significant at 5% level.||0.0|-0.5|0.064
90962776|NCT02684357|181806732|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|72.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|66.8|78.2||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (baseline weight \[≤100 kg vs \>100 kg\] and prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor \[TNF\] antagonists \[0 vs ≥1\]). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the comparison of 2 treatment groups. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|||78.2|66.8|< 0.001
90922095|NCT03241459|181716519|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.546||||||P-value for change in PAQ from BL to 1-Month: Symptom Score|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.546
90962777|NCT02684357|181806733|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|78.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|72.4|84.5||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (baseline weight \[≤100 kg vs \>100 kg\] and prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor \[TNF\] antagonists \[0 vs ≥1\]). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated by the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the comparison of 2 treatment groups. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|||84.5|72.4|< 0.001
90922096|NCT03241459|181716519|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.621||||||P-value for change in PAQ from BL to 1-Month: Treatment Satisfaction Score|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.621
90922097|NCT03241459|181716519|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.133||||||P-value for change in PAQ from BL to 1-Month: Quality of Life Score|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.133
90922098|NCT03241459|181716519|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.592||||||P-value for change in PAQ from BL to 1-Month: Social Limitation Score|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.592
90922099|NCT03241459|181716519|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.601||||||P-value for change in PAQ from BL to 1-Month: Summary Score|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.601
90922100|NCT03241459|181716519|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.185||||||P-value for change in PAQ from BL to 12-Months: Physical Function Score|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.185
90922101|NCT03241459|181716519|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.856||||||P-value for change in PAQ from BL to 12-Months: Stability Score|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.856
90962778|NCT02684357|181806734|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|47.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.9|54.2||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (baseline weight \[≤100 kg vs \>100 kg\] and prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor \[TNF\] antagonists \[0 vs ≥1\]). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the comparison of 2 treatment groups. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|||54.2|40.9|< 0.001
90962779|NCT02684357|181806735|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|48.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.9|54.6||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (baseline weight \[≤100 kg vs \>100 kg\] and prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor \[TNF\] antagonists \[0 vs ≥1\]). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the comparison of 2 treatment groups. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|||54.6|41.9|< 0.001
90922102|NCT03241459|181716519|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.541||||||P-value for change in PAQ from BL to 12-Months: Symptom Score|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.541
90922103|NCT03241459|181716519|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.731||||||P-value for change in PAQ from BL to 12-Months: Treatment Satisfaction Score|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.731
90922104|NCT03241459|181716519|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.696||||||P-value for change in PAQ from BL to 12-Months: Quality of Life Score|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.696
90922105|NCT03241459|181716519|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.716||||||P-value for change in PAQ from BL to 12-Months: Social Limitation Score|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.716
90922106|NCT03241459|181716519|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.797||||||P-value for change in PAQ from BL to 12-Months: Summary Score|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.797
90922107|NCT03241459|181716519|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29||||||P-value for change in PAQ from BL to 24-Months: Physical Function Score|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.290
90922108|NCT03241459|181716519|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.473||||||P-value for change in PAQ from BL to 24-Months: Stability Score|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.473
90922109|NCT03241459|181716519|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.278||||||P-value for change in PAQ from BL to 24-Months: Symptom Score|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.278
90922110|NCT03241459|181716519|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.974||||||P-value for change in PAQ from BL to 24-Months: Treatment Satisfaction Score|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.974
90922111|NCT03241459|181716519|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.266||||||P-value for change in PAQ from BL to 24-Months: Quality of Life Score|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.266
90922112|NCT03241459|181716519|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.656||||||P-value for change in PAQ from BL to 24-Months: Social Limitation Score|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.656
90922113|NCT03241459|181716519|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.959||||||P-value for change in PAQ from BL to 12-Months:Summary Score|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.959
90922114|NCT03241459|181716520|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-Value at 36-Months|Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
90922115|NCT03241459|181716520|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.903||||||P-Value at 48-Months|Fisher Exact|||||||0.903
90922116|NCT03241459|181716520|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-Value at 60-Months|Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
90922117|NCT03241459|181716521|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.913|||||||Fisher Exact|P-Value at 36-Months||||||0.913
90922118|NCT03241459|181716521|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|P-Value at 48-Months||||||1.0
90922119|NCT03241459|181716521|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.839||||||P-Value at 60-Months|Fisher Exact|||||||0.839
90922120|NCT03241459|181716522|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-Value at 36-Months|Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
90922121|NCT03241459|181716522|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Fisher Exact|P-Value at 48-Months||||||0.5
90922122|NCT03241459|181716522|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.251|||||||Fisher Exact|P-Value at 60-Months||||||0.251
90922123|NCT03241459|181716523|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.478||||||P-Value at 36-Months|Fisher Exact|||||||0.478
90922124|NCT03241459|181716523|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.605||||||P-Value at 48-Months|Fisher Exact|||||||0.605
90922125|NCT03241459|181716523|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.345||||||P-Value at 60-Months|Fisher Exact|||||||0.345
90922126|NCT01000961|181716560|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The non-inferiority endpoint of the clinical trial would be achieved if the upper limit of the 95.8% CI of the difference between RP103 and Cystagon® was less than the a-priori 0.3 non-inferiority margin, which would correspond to an observed p-value less than or equal to 0.02104|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0785||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.8|0.0107|0.1464|||t-test, 1 sided||95.8% confidence interval was used instead of 95% to take into account a sample size re-estimation calculation that was performed after 20 patients were enrolled.|16-subject study will have 90% power to reject the null hypothesis of non-inferiority at the 0.025 level of significance with a non-inferiority margin of 0.3. Final analysis was performed at a nominal significance level of 0.02104.||0.1464|0.0107|0.0001
90922127|NCT01000961|181716561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|1.67||||||||1.67|1.17|
90922128|NCT01000961|181716562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|105.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|90.0|150.0||||||||150|90|
90922129|NCT01000961|181716563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.75|2.39||||||||2.39|1.75|
90922130|NCT02023866|181716568|OTHER|||||||0.1875|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank|||Section I - Current Function Null hypothesis = change from baseline is 0.||||0.1875
90922131|NCT02023866|181716568|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxin Signed Rank|||Section II - System Specific Involvement Null hypothesis = change from baseline is 0.||||1.0000
90922132|NCT02023866|181716568|OTHER|||||||0.0781|||||||Wilcoxin Signed Rank|||Section III - Current Clinical Assessment Null hypothesis = change from baseline is 0.||||0.0781
90922133|NCT02023866|181716568|OTHER|||||||0.2941|||||||t-test, 2 sided|One-sample t-test||Section IV - Quality of Life Null hypothesis = change from baseline is 0.||||0.2941
90922134|NCT02432404|181716602|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Random effects mixed model|Random effects mixed model: random effects for subject and time category, with unstructured covariance, and AR(1) residuals; and robust SEs.||Mean quantity of G. vaginalis at baseline and during Nuvaring Use (M2-M3)||||0.011
90922135|NCT02432404|181716602|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Random effects mixed model|Random effects mixed model: random effects for subject and time category, with unstructured covariance, and AR(1) residuals; and robust SEs.||Mean quantity of G. vaginalis at baseline and during Nuvaring Use (M3-M6)||||0.008
90922136|NCT02432404|181716602|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.662|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Random effects mixed model|Random effects mixed model: random effects for subject and time category, with unstructured covariance, and AR(1) residuals; and robust SEs.||Mean quantity of L. iners at baseline and during Nuvaring Use (M2-M3)||||0.662
90922137|NCT02432404|181716602|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.48||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Random effects mixed model|Random effects mixed model: random effects for subject and time category, with unstructured covariance, and AR(1) residuals; and robust SEs.||Mean quantity of L. iners at baseline and during Nuvaring Use (M3-M6)||||0.41
90922138|NCT02432404|181716602|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Random effects mixed model|Random effects mixed model: random effects for subject and time category, with unstructured covariance, and AR(1) residuals; and robust SEs.||Mean quantity of L. crispatus at baseline and during Nuvaring Use (M2-M3)||||0.164
90922139|NCT02432404|181716602|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.35||||0.183|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Random effects mixed model|||Mean quantity of L. crispatus at baseline and during Nuvaring Use (M3-M6)||||0.183
90922140|NCT02432404|181716602|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.506|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Random effects mixed model|Random effects mixed model: random effects for subject and time category, with unstructured covariance, and AR(1) residuals; and robust SEs.||Mean quantity of L. jensenii at baseline and during Nuvaring Use (M2-M3)||||0.506
90922141|NCT02432404|181716602|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38||||0.119|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Random effects mixed model|Random effects mixed model: random effects for subject and time category, with unstructured covariance, and AR(1) residuals; and robust SEs.||Mean quantity of L. jensenii at baseline and during Nuvaring Use (M3-M6)||||0.119
90922142|NCT02432404|181716602|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Random effects mixed model|Random effects mixed model: random effects for subject and time category, with unstructured covariance, and AR(1) residuals; and robust SEs.||Mean quantity of Megasphaera at baseline and during Nuvaring Use (M2-M3)||||0.510
90922143|NCT02432404|181716602|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Random effects mixed model|Random effects mixed model: random effects for subject and time category, with unstructured covariance, and AR(1) residuals; and robust SEs.||Mean quantity of Megasphaera at baseline and during Nuvaring Use (M3-M6)||||0.168
90922144|NCT02432404|181716602|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.454|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Random effects mixed model|Random effects mixed model: random effects for subject and time category, with unstructured covariance, and AR(1) residuals; and robust SEs.||Mean quantity of BVAB2 at baseline and during Nuvaring Use (M2-M3)||||0.454
90922145|NCT02432404|181716602|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.471|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Random effects mixed model|Random effects mixed model: random effects for subject and time category, with unstructured covariance, and AR(1) residuals; and robust SEs.||Mean quantity of BVAB2 at baseline and during Nuvaring Use (M3-M6)||||0.471
90962780|NCT02684357|181806736|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|62.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.5|68.9||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (baseline weight \[≤100 kg vs \>100 kg\] and prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor \[TNF\] antagonists \[0 vs ≥1\]). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the comparison of 2 treatment groups. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|||68.9|55.5|< 0.001
91034360|NCT02760368|181954864|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.378|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.248|0.489|||Chi-squared|2x2 chi-square test||The OKZ ACR20 response rates for 64 q2w treatment group at Week 12 are expected to be at least 55%, resulting in an expected difference in ACR20 response rates of 30 percentage points between respective OKZ treatment group and placebo. Sample size yield 100% disjunctive power for testing the primary hypothesis.||0.489|0.248|<0.0001
90882545|NCT01573624|181627735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No pairwise comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF alone were done unless overall F-test for treatment effect was statistically significant at 5% level. Multiplicity across these comparisons was controlled using a step-down closed testing procedure, whereby statistical comparison of the highest dose of FF + UMEC and FF alone was initially performed, and subsequent comparisons at lower doses continued in a step-down manner if preceding comparison was statistically significant at 5% level.||0.1|-0.3|0.335
90882546|NCT01573624|181627735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No pairwise comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF alone were done unless overall F-test for treatment effect was statistically significant at 5% level. Multiplicity across these comparisons was controlled using a step-down closed testing procedure, whereby statistical comparison of the highest dose of FF + UMEC and FF alone was initially performed, and subsequent comparisons at lower doses continued in a step-down manner if preceding comparison was statistically significant at 5% level.||-0.1|-0.5|0.012
90882547|NCT01573624|181627735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No pairwise comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF alone were done unless overall F-test for treatment effect was statistically significant at 5% level. Multiplicity across these comparisons was controlled using a step-down closed testing procedure, whereby statistical comparison of the highest dose of FF + UMEC and FF alone was initially performed, and subsequent comparisons at lower doses continued in a step-down manner if preceding comparison was statistically significant at 5% level.||0.0|-0.5|0.023
90882548|NCT01573624|181627735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.2|-0.7|<0.001
90882549|NCT01573624|181627735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No adjustments were made for comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF + VI.||0.4|0.0|0.104
90882550|NCT01573624|181627735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No adjustments were made for comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF + VI.||0.5|0.0|0.062
90882551|NCT01573624|181627735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No adjustments were made for comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF + VI.||0.6|0.1|0.006
90922146|NCT04709783|181716648|OTHER|One group pre-post test.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.67||||0.01|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.01
90922147|NCT04709783|181716649|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.49||||0.01|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.01
90882552|NCT01573624|181627735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No adjustments were made for comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF + VI.||0.4|-0.1|0.217
90882553|NCT01573624|181627735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No adjustments were made for comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF + VI.||0.4|-0.1|0.143
90882554|NCT05036642|181627757|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference in measurements from 'no device' (baseline) to 'with device.'||||0.02
90882555|NCT05036642|181627758|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Difference in measurements from 'no device' (baseline) to 'with device.'||||0.01
90882556|NCT05036642|181627759|OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference in measurements from 'no device' (baseline) to 'with device.'||||0.48
90882557|NCT01610700|181627764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-5.93||||0.124||95.0|-13.52|1.65|||ANCOVA|||The change in the primary impairment was compared between treatment groups using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline primary impairment score as the covariate.||1.65|-13.52|0.124
90882558|NCT01610700|181627765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-7.1||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.56|0.37|||ANCOVA|||The change in the spasticity visual analogue scale score was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA with baseline primary impairment score as the covariate.||0.37|-14.56|0.062
90882559|NCT01610700|181627766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-1.88||||0.731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.73|8.96|||ANCOVA|||The change in the pain visual analogue scale score was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA with baseline primary impairment score as the covariate.||8.96|-12.73|0.731
90882560|NCT01610700|181627767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-3.3||||0.443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.82|5.21|||ANCOVA|||The change in the muscle spasm visual analogue scale score was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA with baseline primary impairment score as the covariate.||5.21|-11.82|0.443
90882561|NCT01610700|181627768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-6.85||||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.31|6.6|||ANCOVA|||The change in the tremor visual analogue scale score was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA with baseline primary impairment score as the covariate.||6.60|-20.31|0.311
90922148|NCT04709783|181716650|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.84||||0.07|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.07
90922149|NCT04709783|181716651|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.37||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.02
91034361|NCT02760368|181954864|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.445|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.318|0.552|||Chi-squared|2x2 chi-square test||The OKZ ACR20 response rates for 64 q4w treatment group at Week 12 are expected to be at least 50%, resulting in an expected difference in ACR20 response rates of 25 percentage points between respective OKZ treatment group and placebo. Sample size yield 100% disjunctive power for testing the primary hypothesis.||0.552|0.318|<0.0001
91034362|NCT02760368|181954865|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.294|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.197|0.389|||Chi-squared|2x2 chi-square test||DAS28 low disease activity (based on DAS28 \[CRP\] \<3.2) response rate at Week 12 was estimated to be 10% in the placebo group and 30% in 64 q2w OKZ treatment groups respectively, resulting in an expected difference of 20 percentage points between OKZ q2w treatment group and placebo.||0.389|0.197|<0.0001
90962781|NCT02684357|181806737|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|31.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.7|36.6||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (baseline weight \[≤100 kg vs \>100 kg\] and prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor \[TNF\] antagonists \[0 vs ≥1\]). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the comparison of 2 treatment groups. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|||36.6|25.7|< 0.001
90962782|NCT02684357|181806738|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|27.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.7|38.5||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (baseline weight \[≤100 kg vs \>100 kg\] and prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor \[TNF\] antagonists \[0 vs ≥1\]). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the comparison of 2 treatment groups. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|||38.5|16.7|< 0.001
90962783|NCT02684357|181806739|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|22.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|32.5||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (baseline weight \[≤100 kg vs \>100 kg\] and prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor \[TNF\] antagonists \[0 vs ≥1\]). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the comparison of 2 treatment groups. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|||32.5|12.0|< 0.001
90962784|NCT02684357|181806740|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|27.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.0|37.0||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (baseline weight \[≤100 kg vs \>100 kg\] and prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor \[TNF\] antagonists \[0 vs ≥1\]). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the comparison of 2 treatment groups. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|||37.0|17.0|< 0.001
90962785|NCT02684357|181806741|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|26.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.1|36.4||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (baseline weight \[≤100 kg vs \>100 kg\] and prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor \[TNF\] antagonists \[0 vs ≥1\]). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the comparison of 2 treatment groups. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|||36.4|16.1|< 0.001
90962786|NCT02684357|181806742|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|30.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.6|40.9||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (baseline weight \[≤100 kg vs \>100 kg\] and prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor \[TNF\] antagonists \[0 vs ≥1\]). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the comparison of 2 treatment groups. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|||40.9|19.6|< 0.001
90962787|NCT02684357|181806743|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|29.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.9|40.1||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (baseline weight \[≤100 kg vs \>100 kg\] and prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor \[TNF\] antagonists \[0 vs ≥1\]). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the comparison of 2 treatment groups. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|||40.1|18.9|< 0.001
90962788|NCT02684357|181806744|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|29.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.9|40.1||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (baseline weight \[≤100 kg vs \>100 kg\] and prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor \[TNF\] antagonists \[0 vs ≥1\]). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the comparison of 2 treatment groups. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|||40.1|18.9|< 0.001
90962789|NCT02684357|181806745|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|19.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.5|28.8||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (baseline weight \[≤100 kg vs \>100 kg\] and prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor \[TNF\] antagonists \[0 vs ≥1\]). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the comparison of 2 treatment groups. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|||28.8|9.5|< 0.001
90962790|NCT02684357|181806746|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|18.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.8|28.3||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (baseline weight \[≤100 kg vs \>100 kg\] and prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor \[TNF\] antagonists \[0 vs ≥1\]). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the comparison of 2 treatment groups. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|||28.3|7.8|< 0.001
90882562|NCT01610700|181627769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-6.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.36||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|2.38|||ANCOVA|||The change in bladder problems visual analogue scale score was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA with baseline primary impairment score as the covariate.||2.38|-14.90|0.154
90882563|NCT01610700|181627770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.43|||Fisher Exact|||The proportion of subjects with better/much better assessments was compared between groups using a Fisher's Exact Test.||2.43|0.77|0.293
90882564|NCT01610700|181627772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|0.69||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|2.5|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline in the mean Beck's Depression Inventory score at the end of treatment was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA with baseline primary impairment score as the covariate.||2.50|-1.11|0.450
90922150|NCT05794243|181716659|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0741|0.228|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUC (0-∞) was log-transformed and analyzed via mixed model for repeated measures with fixed effects for treatment, profile day and the treatment-by-day interaction, and a random effect for participant. The least square means (LSMs) and differences in LSMs were back transformed to produce the ratio between geometric least square means (GLSMs).||0.228|0.0741|
90922151|NCT05794243|181716659|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|0.399|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.237|0.669|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUC (0-∞) was log-transformed and analyzed via mixed model for repeated measures with fixed effects for treatment, profile day and the treatment-by-day interaction, and a random effect for participant. The LSMs and differences in LSMs were back transformed to produce the ratio between GLSMs.||0.669|0.237|
90922152|NCT05794243|181716661|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|0.106|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.062|0.182|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cmax was log-transformed and analyzed via mixed model for repeated measures with fixed effects for treatment, profile day and the treatment-by-day interaction, and a random effect for participant. The LSMs and differences in LSMs were back transformed to produce the ratio between GLSMs.||0.182|0.0620|
90922153|NCT05794243|181716661|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|0.343|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.206|0.569|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cmax was log-transformed and analyzed via mixed model for repeated measures with fixed effects for treatment, profile day and the treatment-by-day interaction, and a random effect for participant. The LSMs and differences in LSMs were back transformed to produce the ratio between GLSMs.||0.569|0.206|
90922154|NCT03637660|181716667|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority margin is defined as 10%. It can be assessed by comparing the margin (10%) to the upper limit of the 2-sided 90% CI for the difference in proportions.|Difference of proportion of participants|-0.06||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.15|0.03||P-value and 2-sided 90% CI are calculated based on the noninferiority analysis for the proportion difference (one-dose group is non-inferior to three-dose group) by Farrington-Manning method with a 10% margin.|Farrington-Manning||The 2-sided 90% CI are calculated based on the noninferiority analysis for the proportion difference (one-dose group is non-inferior to three-dose group) by Farrington-Manning method with a 10% margin.|To assess the primary efficacy endpoint, the number and proportion of participants with a serological response by Month 6 and the 95% confidence interval were summarized overall and by treatment. The Farrington-Manning test at the 5% one-sided level of significance was used to test the noninferiority hypothesis. The null hypothesis for the primary objective was that the difference in proportion of participants with serological responses between the three-dose and one-dose groups was at least 10%||0.03|-0.15|0.002
90922155|NCT03637660|181716675|EQUIVALENCE|The alternative hypothesis was that the two treatment groups were unequal.|||||<|0.001||||||P-value was calculated based on 2-sided Pearson Chi-Square test. Difference in proportion was reported with the Wilson 95% CI|Chi-squared|||The number and proportion of participants who were compliant to the treatment, receiving all assigned doses within the assigned visit windows. The null hypothesis was no difference between two treatment groups.||||< 0.001
90922156|NCT03637660|181716677|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority margin is defined as 10%. It can be assessed by comparing the margin (10%) to the upper limit of the 2-sided 90% CI for the difference in proportions.|Difference of proportion of participants|-0.05||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.17|0.07||P-value and 2-sided 90% CI are calculated based on the noninferiority analysis for the proportion difference (one-dose group is non-inferior to three-dose group) in HIV-infected participants by Farrington-Manning method with a 10% margin.|Farrington-Manning|||The number and proportion of participants with serological response by month 6 among participants with HIV infection and the 95% confidence interval (CI) were summarized overall and by treatment status. The Farrington-Manning test at the 5% one-sided level of significance was used to test the noninferiority hypothesis. The null hypothesis was that the difference in serological response rate between the three-dose and one-dose groups was at least 10%.||0.07|-0.17|0.022
90922157|NCT03637660|181716677|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority margin is defined as 10%. It can be assessed by comparing the margin (10%) to the upper limit of the 2-sided 90% CI for the difference in proportions.|Difference of proportion of participants|-0.06||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.22|0.09||P-value and 2-sided 90% CI are calculated based on the noninferiority analysis for the proportion difference (one-dose group is non-inferior to three-dose group) among HIV-uninfected participants by Farrington-Manning method with a 10% margin.|Farrington-Manning|||The number and proportion of participants with serological response by month 6 among participants without HIV infection and the 95% confidence interval (CI) were summarized overall and by treatment status. The Farrington-Manning test at the 5% one-sided level of significance was used to test the noninferiority hypothesis. The null hypothesis was that the difference in serological response rate between the three-dose and one-dose groups was at least 10%.||0.09|-0.22|0.037
90922158|NCT03637660|181716678|NON_INFERIORITY|The alternative hypothesis was that the difference in response rates was less than 10%. The noninferiority margin is defined as 10%. It can be assessed by comparing the margin (10%) to the upper limit of the 2-sided 90% CI for the difference in proportions.|Difference of proportion of participants|-0.05||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.14|0.04||P-value and 2-sided 90% CI are calculated based on the noninferiority analysis for the proportion difference (one-dose group is non-inferior to three-dose group) by Farrington-Manning method with a 10% margin.|Farrington-Manning||The 2-sided 90% CI are calculated based on the noninferiority analysis for the -sproportion difference (one-dose group is non-inferior to three-dose group) by Farrington-Manning method with a 10% margin.|The number and proportion of participants with a serological response by Month 12 and the 95% confidence interval (CI) were summarized overall and by treatment. The Farrington-Manning test at the 5% one-sided level of significance was used to test the noninferiority hypothesis. The null hypothesis was that the difference in serological response rate between the three-dose and one-dose groups was at least 10%.||0.04|-0.14|0.002
90940694|NCT01723514|181761248|SUPERIORITY||LS Geometric Mean Ratio|-79.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-88.02|-63.34|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Day 85: A repeated measures ANCOVA was performed for the ratio of blood flow measures at 30 minutes post capsaicin challenge to pre capsaicin challenge. The model included treatment, day, and the treatment by day interaction as independent variables, and both the 0 minute pre-capsaicin blood flow measure as well as the day 0, 30-minute post-capsaicin blood flow measures on day -1 .||-63.34|-88.02|< 0.001
90922159|NCT03637660|181716679|NON_INFERIORITY|The alternative hypothesis was that the difference in response rates was less than 10%. The noninferiority margin is defined as 10%. It can be assessed by comparing the margin (10%) to the upper limit of the 2-sided 90% CI for the difference in proportions.|Difference of proportion of participants|-0.06||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.18|0.05||P-value and 2-sided 90% CI are calculated based on the noninferiority analysis for the proportion difference (one-dose group is non-inferior to three-dose group) in HIV-infected participants by Farrington-Manning method with a 10% margin.|Farrington-Manning||The 2-sided 90% CI are calculated based on the noninferiority analysis for the -sproportion difference (one-dose group is non-inferior to three-dose group) among HIV-infected participants by Farrington-Manning method with a 10% margin.|The number and proportion of participants with a serological response by month 12 among participants with HIV infection and the 95% confidence interval (CI) were summarized overall and by treatment status. The Farrington-Manning test at the 5% one-sided level of significance was used to test the noninferiority hypothesis. The null hypothesis was that the difference in serological response rate between the three-dose and one-dose groups was at least 10%.||0.05|-0.18|0.011
90922160|NCT03637660|181716679|NON_INFERIORITY|The alternative hypothesis was that the difference in response rates was less than 10%. The noninferiority margin is defined as 10%. It can be assessed by comparing the margin (10%) to the upper limit of the 2-sided 90% CI for the difference in proportions.|Difference of proportion of participants|-0.03||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.18|0.11||P-value and 2-sided 90% CI are calculated based on the noninferiority analysis for the proportion difference (one-dose group is non-inferior to three-dose group) among HIV-uninfected participants by Farrington-Manning method with a 10% margin.|Farrington-Manning||The 2-sided 90% CI are calculated based on the noninferiority analysis for the -sproportion difference (one-dose group is non-inferior to three-dose group) among HIV-uninfected participants by Farrington-Manning method with a 10% margin.|The number and proportion of participants with a serological response by month 12 amont participants without HIV infection and the 95% confidence interval (CI) were summarized overall and by treatment status. The Farrington-Manning test at the 5% one-sided level of significance was used to test the noninferiority hypothesis. The null hypothesis was that the difference in serological response rate between the three-dose and one-dose groups was at least 10%.||0.11|-0.18|0.064
90922161|NCT05093829|181716711|NON_INFERIORITY|NmCV-5 will be deemed non-inferior to MenACWY-TT for serogroup A if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the difference in proportion (NmCV-5 minus MenACWY-TT) excludes -0.10 (-10%). Confidence Intervals are calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen method. Difference in proportions and confidence intervals are reported as percentages (number of infants per 100).|Difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.0||||||For serogroup A, the proportion of infants with a seroprotective response to MenACWY-TT is subtracted from the proportion of infants with a seroprotective response to NmCV-5 to determine the difference in proportions.||2.0|-1.0|
90922162|NCT05093829|181716711|NON_INFERIORITY|NmCV-5 will be deemed non-inferior to MenACWY-TT for serogroup A if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the difference in proportion (NmCV-5 minus MenACWY-TT) excludes -0.10 (-10%). Confidence Intervals are calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen method. Difference in proportions and confidence intervals are reported as percentages (number of infants per 100).|Difference in proportions|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|3.7||||||For serogroup A, the proportion of infants with a seroprotective response to MenACWY-TT is subtracted from the proportion of infants with a seroprotective response to NmCV-5 to determine the difference in proportions.||3.7|-0.6|
90922163|NCT05093829|181716711|NON_INFERIORITY|NmCV-5 will be deemed non-inferior to MenACWY-TT for serogroup C if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the difference in proportion (NmCV-5 minus MenACWY-TT) excludes -0.10 (-10%). Confidence Intervals are calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen method. Difference in proportions and confidence intervals are reported as percentages (number of infants per 100).|Difference in proportions|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.9||||||For serogroup C, the proportion of infants with a seroprotective response to MenACWY-TT is subtracted from the proportion of infants with a seroprotective response to NmCV-5 to determine the difference in proportions.||1.9|-2.3|
90922164|NCT05093829|181716711|NON_INFERIORITY|NmCV-5 will be deemed non-inferior to MenACWY-TT for serogroup C if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the difference in proportion (NmCV-5 minus MenACWY-TT) excludes -0.10 (-10%). Confidence Intervals are calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen method. Difference in proportions and confidence intervals are reported as percentages (number of infants per 100).|Difference in proportions|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|2.5||||||For serogroup C, the proportion of infants with a seroprotective response to MenACWY-TT is subtracted from the proportion of infants with a seroprotective response to NmCV-5 to determine the difference in proportions.||2.5|-3.3|
90922165|NCT05093829|181716711|NON_INFERIORITY|NmCV-5 will be deemed non-inferior to MenACWY-TT for serogroup W if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the difference in proportion (NmCV-5 minus MenACWY-TT) excludes -0.10 (-10%). Confidence Intervals are calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen method. Difference in proportions and confidence intervals are reported as percentages (number of infants per 100).|Difference in proportions|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|0.8||||||For serogroup W, the proportion of infants with a seroprotective response to MenACWY-TT is subtracted from the proportion of infants with a seroprotective response to NmCV-5 to determine the difference in proportions.||0.8|-6.3|
90922166|NCT05093829|181716711|NON_INFERIORITY|NmCV-5 will be deemed non-inferior to MenACWY-TT for serogroup W if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the difference in proportion (NmCV-5 minus MenACWY-TT) excludes -0.10 (-10%). Confidence Intervals are calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen method. Difference in proportions and confidence intervals are reported as percentages (number of infants per 100).|Difference in proportions|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|3.5||||||For serogroup W, the proportion of infants with a seroprotective response to MenACWY-TT is subtracted from the proportion of infants with a seroprotective response to NmCV-5 to determine the difference in proportions.||3.5|-1.8|
90882565|NCT01610700|181627773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.12||||0.427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.18|||ANCOVA|||The change baseline in the mean Fatigue Severity Scale Questionnaire score at the end of treatment was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA with baseline primary impairment score as the covariate.||0.18|-0.43|0.427
90922167|NCT05093829|181716711|NON_INFERIORITY|NmCV-5 will be deemed non-inferior to MenACWY-TT for serogroup Y if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the difference in proportion (NmCV-5 minus MenACWY-TT) excludes -0.10 (-10%). Confidence Intervals are calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen method. Difference in proportions and confidence intervals are reported as percentages (number of infants per 100).|Difference in proportions|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|-0.4||||||For serogroup Y, the proportion of infants with a seroprotective response to MenACWY-TT is subtracted from the proportion of infants with a seroprotective response to NmCV-5 to determine the difference in proportions.||-0.4|-5.4|
90922168|NCT05093829|181716711|NON_INFERIORITY|NmCV-5 will be deemed non-inferior to MenACWY-TT for serogroup Y if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the difference in proportion (NmCV-5 minus MenACWY-TT) excludes -0.10 (-10%). Confidence Intervals are calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen method. Difference in proportions and confidence intervals are reported as percentages (number of infants per 100).|Difference in proportions|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|4.8||||||For serogroup Y, the proportion of infants with a seroprotective response to MenACWY-TT is subtracted from the proportion of infants with a seroprotective response to NmCV-5 to determine the difference in proportions.||4.8|-0.6|
90882566|NCT01610700|181627775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|0.72||||0.647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.38|3.82|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline in the mean total 28-item General Health Questionnaire score at the end of treatment was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA with baseline primary impairment score as the covariate.||3.82|-2.38|0.647
90882567|NCT01610700|181627777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|1.54|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline in the mean total bladder control test score at the end of treatment was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA with baseline primary impairment score as the covariate.||1.54|-1.77|0.889
90882568|NCT01610700|181627780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-7.1||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.11|-0.08|||ANCOVA|||The from baseline in the mean sleep quality 100 mm visual analogue scale score at the end of treatment was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA with baseline primary impairment score as the covariate.||-0.08|-14.11|0.047
90882569|NCT01610700|181627781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-4.53||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.45|2.4|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline in the mean sleep amount 100 mm visual analogue scale score at the end of treatment was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA with baseline primary impairment score as the covariate.||2.40|-11.45|0.198
90882570|NCT01610700|181627782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-1.36||||0.717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|6.07|||ANCOVA|||The from baseline in the mean feeling upon wakening 100 mm visual analogue scale score at the end of treatment was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA with baseline primary impairment score as the covariate.||6.07|-8.80|0.717
90882571|NCT01610700|181627783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.47||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|0.07|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline in the mean Barthel Activities for Daily Living scale score at the end of treatment was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA with baseline primary impairment score as the covariate.||0.07|-1.01|0.087
90882572|NCT01610700|181627787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|1.81||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|3.6|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline in the mean Guy's Neurological Disability Scale score at the end of treatment was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA with baseline primary impairment score as the covariate.||3.60|0.02|0.048
90882573|NCT01610700|181627788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.11||||0.904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|1.64|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline in the mean Atkinson Morley Information Processing Battery test score at the end of treatment was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA with baseline primary impairment score as the covariate.||1.64|-1.85|0.904
90882574|NCT01706952|181627789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|For surgical field grade, we calculated the mean within sides and assessed its difference, reporting a 95% confidence interval as calculated by a Student t test. We used the average per patient over time.||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Data analysis was performed using SPSS version 13 for Windows (SPSS Inc, Chicago, IL). A power study was per formed with a power of 80% and a clinically significant difference in bleeding between the sides of 20% with a significance level of 5% (p \< 0.05).|"For the primary objective of surgical field grade, we calculated the mean within sides treated with cocaine vs adrenaline and assessed its difference, reporting a 95% con- fidence interval as calculated by a Student t test. As all of these values were measured over time, we used the average per patient over time. The total blood loss per side within subjects was also calculated, with 95% confidence interval again calculated by a Student t test. Once again, we took the average per patient over time as the main outcome.~Finally, we used a linear regression with surgical field improvement as the outcome and HR, MAP, or etCO2 as covariates, to investigate which variables may be related to the outcome. As these measures were taken over time, we used repeated measures analysis to investigate how these items correlate over time.~In addition to the operating surgeon, the statistician was blinded to the vasoconstrictor allocation."|||0.05
90882575|NCT03306264|181627831|EQUIVALENCE|ASTX727 and IV decitabine were to be considered equivalent if the 2-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) of the 5-day AUC0-24 ratio of Least Square Mean (LSM) for oral/IV was contained entirely within the range of 0.80 - 1.25.|Ratio of Geometric LSM|98.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.66|105.6|||||Analysis was based on ANOVA model with treatment, cycle, and sequence as fixed effects, and participant nested in sequence as a random effect (ratio is Oral/IV).|MDS or CMML: IV Decitabine Versus MDS or CMML: ASTX727||105.6|92.66|
90882576|NCT03306264|181627831|EQUIVALENCE|ASTX727 and IV decitabine were to be considered equivalent if the 2-sided 90% CI of the 5-day AUC0-24 ratio of LSM for oral/IV was contained entirely within the range of 0.80 - 1.25.|Ratio of Geometric LSM|99.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.23|108.8|||||Analysis was based on ANOVA model with treatment, cycle, and sequence as fixed effects, and participant nested in sequence as a random effect (ratio is Oral/IV).|AML: IV Decitabine Versus AML: ASTX727||108.8|91.23|
91034363|NCT02760368|181954865|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.352|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.251|0.449|||Chi-squared|2x2 chi-square test||DAS28 low disease activity (based on DAS28 \[CRP\] \<3.2) response rate at Week 12 was estimated to be 10% in the placebo group and 22% in 64 mg q4w OKZ treatment group respectively, resulting in an expected difference of 12 percentage points between OKZ q4w treatment group and placebo.||0.449|0.251|<0.0001
91034364|NCT02760368|181954866|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.47|-0.21|||ANCOVA|||||-0.21|-0.47|<0.0001
91034365|NCT02760368|181954866|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.49|-0.23|||ANCOVA|||||-0.23|-0.49|<0.0001
90882577|NCT03306264|181627837|EQUIVALENCE|ASTX727 and IV decitabine were to be considered equivalent if the 2-sided 90% CI of the 5-day AUC0-inf ratio of LSM for oral/IV was contained entirely within the range of 0.80 - 1.25.|Ratio of Geometric LSM|98.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.8|104.6|||||Analysis was based on ANOVA model with treatment, cycle, and sequence as fixed effects, and participant nested in sequence as a random effect (ratio is Oral/IV).|MDS or CMML: IV Decitabine Versus MDS or CMML: ASTX727||104.6|91.80|
90882578|NCT03306264|181627837|EQUIVALENCE|ASTX727 and IV decitabine were to be considered equivalent if the 2-sided 90% CI of the 5-day AUC0-inf ratio of LSM for oral/IV was contained entirely within the range of 0.80 - 1.25.|Ratio of Geometric LSM|99.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.2|108.8|||||Analysis was based on ANOVA model with treatment, cycle, and sequence as fixed effects, and participant nested in sequence as a random effect (ratio is Oral/IV).|AML: IV Decitabine Versus AML: ASTX727||108.8|91.20|
90882579|NCT03306264|181627838|EQUIVALENCE|ASTX727 and IV decitabine were to be considered equivalent if the 2-sided 90% CI of the 5-day AUC0-last ratio of LSM for oral/IV was contained entirely within the range of 0.80 - 1.25.|Ratio of Geometric LSM|98.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.88|104.8|||||Analysis was based on ANOVA model with treatment, cycle, and sequence as fixed effects, and participant nested in sequence as a random effect (ratio is Oral/IV).|MDS or CMML: IV Decitabine Versus MDS or CMML: ASTX727||104.8|91.88|
90882580|NCT03306264|181627838|EQUIVALENCE|ASTX727 and IV decitabine were to be considered equivalent if the 2-sided 90% CI of the 5-day AUC0-last ratio of LSM for oral/IV was contained entirely within the range of 0.80 - 1.25.|Ratio of Geometric LSM|98.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.75|107.2|||||Analysis was based on ANOVA model with treatment, cycle, and sequence as fixed effects, and participant nested in sequence as a random effect (ratio is Oral/IV).|AML: IV Decitabine Versus AML: ASTX727||107.2|89.75|
90882581|NCT03306264|181627839|EQUIVALENCE|ASTX727 and IV decitabine were to be considered equivalent if the 2-sided 90% CI of the 5-day AUC0-8 ratio of LSM for oral/IV was contained entirely within the range of 0.80 - 1.25.|Ratio of Geometric LSM|97.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.74|104.5|||||Analysis was based on ANOVA model with treatment, cycle, and sequence as fixed effects, and participant nested in sequence as a random effect (ratio is Oral/IV).|MDS or CMML: IV Decitabine Versus MDS or CMML: ASTX727||104.5|91.74|
90882582|NCT03306264|181627839|EQUIVALENCE|ASTX727 and IV decitabine were to be considered equivalent if the 2-sided 90% CI of the 5-day AUC0-8 ratio of LSM for oral/IV was contained entirely within the range of 0.80 - 1.25.|Ratio of Geometric LSM|97.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.32|106.5|||||Analysis was based on ANOVA model with treatment, cycle, and sequence as fixed effects, and participant nested in sequence as a random effect (ratio is Oral/IV).|AML: IV Decitabine Versus AML: ASTX727||106.5|89.32|
90882583|NCT00554749|181627859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.43|<|0.001||95.0|1.69|2.49|||paired t-test|Paired t-test of SSQ at baseline vs at 6 months, degrees of freedom=6. Difference in SSQ is reported.||||2.49|1.69|<0.001
90882584|NCT00094653|181627874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.85|||Stratified Log Rank||Cox model for Hazard ratios (HR) and log-rank test p-values were stratified by baseline M-stage at randomization (M0, M1a, M1b vs. M1c) and prior treatment with IL-2 (Yes vs. No).|||0.85|0.55|0.0004
90882585|NCT00094653|181627875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.87|||Stratified Log Rank||Cox model for Hazard ratios (HR) and log-rank test p-values were stratified by baseline M-stage at randomization (M0, M1a, M1b vs. M1c) and prior treatment with IL-2 (Yes vs. No).|||0.87|0.51|0.0026
90882586|NCT00094653|181627875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.7575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.3|||Stratified Log Rank||Cox model for Hazard ratios (HR) and log-rank test p-values were stratified by baseline M-stage at randomization (M0, M1a, M1b vs. M1c) and prior treatment with IL-2 (Yes vs. No).|||1.30|0.83|0.7575
90882587|NCT00094653|181627877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.0|||||Cox model for Hazard ratios (HR) were stratified by M-stage at randomization (M0, M1a, M1b vs. M1c) and prior treatment with IL-2 (Yes vs. No).|||1.00|0.66|
91034366|NCT02760368|181954867|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.239|0.45|||Chi-squared|2x2 chi-square test||||0.450|0.239|<0.0001
90882588|NCT00094653|181627877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.83|||||Cox model for Hazard ratios (HR) were stratified by M-stage at randomization (M0, M1a, M1b vs. M1c) and prior treatment with IL-2 (Yes vs. No).|||0.83|0.50|
90882589|NCT00094653|181627877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.53|||||Cox model for Hazard ratios (HR) were stratified by M-stage at randomization (M0, M1a, M1b vs. M1c) and prior treatment with IL-2 (Yes vs. No).|||1.53|1.01|
90882590|NCT00094653|181627879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.0|||||Cox model for Hazard ratios (HR) were stratified by M-stage at randomization (M0, M1a, M1b vs. M1c) and prior treatment with IL-2 (Yes vs. No).|||1.00|0.66|
91034367|NCT02760368|181954867|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.409|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.296|0.509|||Chi-squared|2x2 chi-square test||||0.509|0.296|<0.0001
91034368|NCT02760368|181954868|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.084|||<|0.0002|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.032|0.151||2x2 chi-square test|Chi-squared|||||0.151|0.032|<0.0002
91034369|NCT02760368|181954868|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.077|||<|0.0003|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.027|0.143||2x2 chi-square test|Chi-squared|||||0.143|0.027|<0.0003
91034370|NCT02129426|181954945|OTHER|t-test comparison of the two groups||||||0.96|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.96
91034371|NCT02129426|181954946|OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.52
91034372|NCT01860521|181954948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
91034373|NCT01860521|181954949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.005
91034374|NCT01860521|181954950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.047
90882591|NCT00094653|181627879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.83|||||Cox model for Hazard ratios (HR) were stratified by M-stage at randomization (M0, M1a, M1b vs. M1c) and prior treatment with IL-2 (Yes vs. No).|||0.83|0.50|
91034375|NCT01860521|181954951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.047
90882592|NCT00094653|181627879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.53|||||Cox model for Hazard ratios (HR) were stratified by M-stage at randomization (M0, M1a, M1b vs. M1c) and prior treatment with IL-2 (Yes vs. No).|||1.53|1.01|
90882593|NCT00094653|181627881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0433||95.0||||P-values were computed using CMH test stratified by baseline M-stage at randomization (M0, M1a, M1b vs. M1c) and prior IL-2 treatment (Yes vs. No).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0433
90882594|NCT00094653|181627881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0012||95.0||||P-values were computed using CMH test stratified by baseline M-stage at randomization (M0, M1a, M1b vs. M1c) and prior IL-2 treatment (Yes vs. No).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0012
90882595|NCT00094653|181627881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0402||95.0||||P-values were computed using CMH test stratified by baseline M-stage at randomization (M0, M1a, M1b vs. M1c) and prior IL-2 treatment (Yes vs. No).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0402
90882596|NCT00094653|181627884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0179||95.0||||P-values were computed using CMH test stratified by baseline M-stage at randomization (M0, M1a, M1b vs. M1c) and prior IL-2 treatment (Yes vs. No).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0179
90882597|NCT00094653|181627884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||95.0||||P-values were computed using CMH test stratified by baseline M-stage at randomization (M0, M1a, M1b vs. M1c) and prior IL-2 treatment (Yes vs. No).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0002
90882598|NCT00094653|181627884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0429||95.0||||P-values were computed using CMH test stratified by baseline M-stage at randomization (M0, M1a, M1b vs. M1c) and prior IL-2 treatment (Yes vs. No).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0429
90882599|NCT00094653|181627886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0||||0.2805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|8.6|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Global quality of life change from baseline||8.6|-2.5|0.2805
90882600|NCT00094653|181627886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|8.2|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Global quality of life change from baseline||8.2|-5.0|0.6300
90882601|NCT00094653|181627886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4||||0.6026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|6.8|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Global quality of life change from baseline||6.8|-3.9|0.6026
90882602|NCT00094653|181627886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.9||||0.1219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|8.9|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Physical change from baseline||8.9|-1.1|0.1219
90882603|NCT00094653|181627886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.0||||0.0978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|11.0|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Physical change from baseline||11.0|-0.9|0.0978
90882604|NCT00094653|181627886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|3.8|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Physical change from baseline||3.8|-6.0|0.6590
90882605|NCT00094653|181627886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.3||||0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|11.7|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Role change, change from baseline||11.7|-3.0|0.2480
90882606|NCT00094653|181627886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.2||||0.4742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|12.0|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Role change, change from baseline||12.0|-5.6|0.4742
90882607|NCT00094653|181627886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.7597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|8.3|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Role change, change from baseline||8.3|-6.1|0.7597
90882608|NCT00094653|181627886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.9119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|5.2|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Cognitive change from baseline||5.2|-4.7|0.9119
90882609|NCT00094653|181627886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.7616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|5.0|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Cognitive change from baseline||5.0|-6.9|0.7616
90882610|NCT00094653|181627886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2||||0.6266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|6.0|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Cognitive change from baseline||6.0|-3.6|0.6266
90922169|NCT05093829|181716712|NON_INFERIORITY|NmCV-5 will be deemed non-inferior to MenACWY-TT for serogroup X if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in proportion (NmCV-5 minus MenACWY-TT) excludes -0.10 (-10%). The CI is estimated using bootstrap resampling stratified by vaccine arm, and the 95% CI is estimated as the interval between the 2.5th and 97.5th percentiles of the bootstrap empirical distribution. The difference in proportions and CI are reported as percentages (number of infants per 100).|Difference in proportions|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|4.7||||||For the 9-months study age group, the proportion of infants with a seroprotective response to MenACWY-TT in serogroup W is subtracted from the proportion of infants with a seroprotective response to NmCV-5 in serogroup X to determine the difference in proportions.||4.7|0.3|
90922170|NCT05093829|181716712|NON_INFERIORITY|NmCV-5 will be deemed non-inferior to MenACWY-TT for serogroup X if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in proportion (NmCV-5 minus MenACWY-TT) excludes -0.10 (-10%). The CI is estimated using bootstrap resampling stratified by vaccine arm, and the 95% CI is estimated as the interval between the 2.5th and 97.5th percentiles of the bootstrap empirical distribution. The difference in proportions and CI are reported as percentages (number of infants per 100).|Difference in proportions|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|4.4||||||For the 15-months study age group, the proportion of infants with a seroprotective response to MenACWY-TT in serogroup Y is subtracted from the proportion of infants with a seroprotective response to NmCV-5 in serogroup X to determine the difference in proportions.||4.4|0.004|
90882611|NCT00094653|181627886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.9984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|4.8|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Emotional change from baseline||4.8|-4.8|0.9984
90882612|NCT00094653|181627886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.4873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|3.7|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Emotional change from baseline||3.7|-7.8|0.4873
90882613|NCT00094653|181627886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.3938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|6.7|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Emotional change from baseline||6.7|-2.7|0.3938
90882614|NCT00094653|181627886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0.6695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|5.2|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Social change from baseline||5.2|-8.1|0.6695
90882615|NCT00094653|181627886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.4||||0.4041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|4.6|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Social change from baseline||4.6|-11.3|0.4041
90882616|NCT00094653|181627886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9||||0.5538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|8.3|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Social change from baseline||8.3|-4.5|0.5538
90882617|NCT00094653|181627886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.9||||0.2259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|2.4|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Fatigue change from baseline||2.4|-10.3|0.2259
90882618|NCT00094653|181627886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.6168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|5.7|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Fatigue change from baseline||5.7|-9.6|0.6168
90882619|NCT00094653|181627886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.5329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|4.3|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Fatigue change from baseline||4.3|-8.2|0.5329
90882620|NCT00094653|181627886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.9397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|5.0|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Nausea and Vomiting change from baseline||5.0|-4.7|0.9397
90882621|NCT00094653|181627886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.6716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|4.6|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Nausea and Vomiting change from baseline||4.6|-7.1|0.6716
90882622|NCT00094653|181627886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4||||0.5497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|6.2|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Nausea and Vomiting change from baseline||6.2|-3.3|0.5497
90882623|NCT00094653|181627886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.3||||0.0625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|0.3|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Pain change from baseline||0.3|-12.8|0.0625
90882624|NCT00094653|181627886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0||||0.3214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|3.9|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Pain change from baseline||3.9|-11.9|0.3214
91034376|NCT00850174|181954957|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|98.48||||||90.0|88.98|109.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||109.00|88.98|
90882625|NCT00094653|181627886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3||||0.4898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|4.2|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Pain change from baseline||4.2|-8.7|0.4898
90882626|NCT00094653|181627886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.6||||0.0761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|0.6|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Dyspnea change from baseline||0.6|-11.8|0.0761
90882627|NCT00094653|181627886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.8||||0.3187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|3.7|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Dyspnea change from baseline||3.7|-11.2|0.3187
90882628|NCT00094653|181627886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.5548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|4.2|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Dyspnea change from baseline||4.2|-7.9|0.5548
90882629|NCT00094653|181627886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.5||||0.245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|3.1|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Sleep disturbance change from baseline||3.1|-12.1|0.2450
90882630|NCT00094653|181627886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.8464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|8.2|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Sleep disturbance change from baseline||8.2|-10.0|0.8464
90882631|NCT00094653|181627886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.6||||0.3351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|3.7|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Sleep Disturbance change from baseline||3.7|-10.9|0.3351
90882632|NCT00094653|181627886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.6291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|5.5|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Appetite loss change from baseline||5.5|-9.1|0.6291
90882633|NCT00094653|181627886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.7675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|10.1|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Appetite Loss change from baseline||10.1|-7.4|0.7675
90882634|NCT00094653|181627886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.1||||0.3911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|4.0|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Appetite Loss change from baseline||4.0|-10.2|0.3911
90882635|NCT00094653|181627886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.5||||0.0431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|-0.2|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Constipation change from baseline||-0.2|-12.9|0.0431
90882636|NCT00094653|181627886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.9||||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.4|-2.4|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Constipation change from baseline||-2.4|-17.4|0.0101
90882637|NCT00094653|181627886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.4||||0.2796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|9.5|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Constipation change from baseline||9.5|-2.8|0.2796
90882638|NCT00094653|181627886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.3||||0.194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|10.8|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Diarrhea change from baseline||10.8|-2.2|0.1940
90882639|NCT00094653|181627886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.9||||0.0821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|14.8|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Diarrhea change from baseline||14.8|-0.9|0.0821
90882640|NCT00094653|181627886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.6||||0.4169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|3.8|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Diarrhea change from baseline||3.8|-9.0|0.4169
90922171|NCT05093829|181716716|SUPERIORITY|NmCV-5 will be deemed superior to MenACWY-TT for serogroup X if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the difference in proportion (NmCV-5 minus MenACWY-TT) excludes 0.30 (30%). Confidence Intervals are calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen method. The difference in proportions and CI are reported as percentages (number of infants per 100).|Difference in proportions|82.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|76.4|87.2||||||For serogroup X, the proportion of infants with a seroprotective response to MenACWY-TT is subtracted from the proportion of infants with a seroprotective response to NmCV-5 to determine the difference in proportions.||87.2|76.4|
90922172|NCT05093829|181716716|SUPERIORITY|NmCV-5 will be deemed superior to MenACWY-TT for serogroup X if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the difference in proportion (NmCV-5 minus MenACWY-TT) excludes 0.30 (30%). Confidence Intervals are calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen method. The difference in proportions and CI are reported as percentages (number of infants per 100).|Difference in proportions|68.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.3|74.7||||||For serogroup X, the proportion of infants with a seroprotective response to MenACWY-TT is subtracted from the proportion of infants with a seroprotective response to NmCV-5 to determine the difference in proportions.||74.7|61.3|
91034377|NCT00850174|181954958|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|102.54||||||90.0|99.19|106.01|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||106.01|99.19|
90882641|NCT00094653|181627886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.5717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|4.2|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Financial Impact change from baseline||4.2|-7.5|0.5717
90882642|NCT00094653|181627886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4||||0.6949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|8.4|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Financial Impact change from baseline||8.4|-5.6|0.6949
90882643|NCT00094653|181627886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.1||||0.2849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|2.6|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Financial Impact change from baseline||2.6|-8.8|0.2849
90882644|NCT02114879|181627945|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007||||||The p-value refers to the time by group interaction. The a priori threshold for statistical significance in this planned primary test was p\<0.05.|Marginal Model|||This Primary analysis used a marginal model with time (baseline and discharge), condition (EMR vs SOC), and time x condition as fixed effects, with an unstructured covariance structure specified, based on Bayesian information criteria (BIC).||||0.007
90882645|NCT02114879|181627946|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.11
90882646|NCT02114879|181627947|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.91
90882647|NCT02114879|181627948|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96||||||The p-value refers to the time by group interaction. The statistical significance in this test was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||This Primary analysis used a marginal model with time (baseline and discharge), condition (EMR vs SOC), and time x condition as fixed effects, with an unstructured covariance structure specified, based on Bayesian information criteria (BIC).||||0.96
90882648|NCT02114879|181627949|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37||||||The p-value is calculated from a 2x2 Contingency Table consisting of rows that represent Discharged Home Vs Discharged to Institution and columns that represent the EMR and SOC groups.|Chi-squared|||||||0.37
90882649|NCT02114879|181627950|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85||||||The p-value is calculated from a 2x2 Contingency Table consisting of rows that represent Yes/No Rehospitalization and columns that represent the EMR and SOC groups.|Chi-squared|||||||0.85
90882650|NCT00330551|181627951|SUPERIORITY||t-test|0.77|||=|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.483|1.058|||t-test, 2 sided||||t(80)=5.3, p\<.001|1.058|0.483|=.05
90882651|NCT00330551|181627952|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.1|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||=.001
90882652|NCT00330551|181627953|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.83|||||||Chi-squared|||||||=.83
90882653|NCT00330551|181627954|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2|||||||ANOVA|||A priori hypothesis was that long-acting injectible risperidone would lead to greater duration of work/school attendance than oral risperidone.||||=.20
90882654|NCT00330551|181627955|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||ANOVA|||||||.71
90882655|NCT00330551|181627956|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.57|||||||ANOVA|||||||=.57
90882656|NCT00330551|181627958|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.16|||||||ANOVA|||||||<.16
90882657|NCT00330551|181627959|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.41|||||||ANOVA|||||||=.41
90882658|NCT03120013|181627969|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90882659|NCT03120013|181627970|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90882660|NCT03120013|181627971|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90882661|NCT03120013|181627972|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90882662|NCT03120013|181627973|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90882663|NCT03120013|181627974|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.006|||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.006
90882664|NCT03120013|181627975|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90882665|NCT03120013|181627976|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.043|||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.043
90922173|NCT05093829|181716717|NON_INFERIORITY|The NmCV-5 co-administered MR vaccine will be deemed non-inferior to the MenACWY-TT co-administered MR vaccine in eliciting seropositive response to measles if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the difference in proportions excludes -0.10 (-10%). Confidence Intervals are calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen method. The difference in proportions and CI are reported as percentages (number of infants per 100).|Difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.0||||||For this comparison, the proportion of infants with a seropositive response to measles vaccine in the MenACWY-TT arm is subtracted from the proportion of infants with a seropositive response to measles vaccine in the NmCV-5 arm to determine the difference in proportions.||2.0|-1.0|
90922174|NCT05093829|181716717|NON_INFERIORITY|The NmCV-5 co-administered MR vaccine will be deemed non-inferior to the MenACWY-TT co-administered MR vaccine in eliciting seropositive response to measles if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the difference in proportions excludes -0.10 (-10%). Confidence Intervals are calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen method. The difference in proportions and CI are reported as percentages (number of infants per 100).|Difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.1||||||For this comparison, the proportion of infants with a seropositive response to measles vaccine in the MenACWY-TT arm is subtracted from the proportion of infants with a seropositive response to measles vaccine in the NmCV-5 arm to determine the difference in proportions.||2.1|-1.0|
90922175|NCT05093829|181716718|NON_INFERIORITY|The NmCV-5 co-administered MR vaccine will be deemed non-inferior to the MenACWY-TT co-administered MR vaccine in eliciting seropositive response to rubella if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the difference in proportions excludes -0.10 (-10%). Confidence Intervals are calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen method. The difference in proportions and CI are reported as percentages (number of infants per 100).|Difference in proportions|-4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|2.6||||||For this comparison, the proportion of infants with a seropositive response to rubella vaccine in the MenACWY-TT arm is subtracted from the proportion of infants with a seropositive response to rubella vaccine in the NmCV-5 arm to determine the difference in proportions.||2.6|-10.5|
90922176|NCT05093829|181716718|NON_INFERIORITY|The NmCV-5 co-administered MR vaccine will be deemed non-inferior to the MenACWY-TT co-administered MR vaccine in eliciting seropositive response to rubella if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the difference in proportions excludes -0.10 (-10%). Confidence Intervals are calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen method. The difference in proportions and CI are reported as percentages (number of infants per 100).|Difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.1||||||For this comparison, the proportion of infants with a seropositive response to rubella vaccine in the MenACWY-TT arm is subtracted from the proportion of infants with a seropositive response to rubella vaccine in the NmCV-5 arm to determine the difference in proportions.||2.1|-1.0|
90922177|NCT05093829|181716719|NON_INFERIORITY|The NmCV-5 co-administered yellow fever vaccine will be deemed non-inferior to the MenACWY-TT co-administered yellow fever vaccine in eliciting seroprotective response to yellow fever if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the difference in proportions excludes -0.10 (-10%). Confidence Intervals are calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen method. The difference in proportions and CI are reported as percentages (number of infants per 100).|Difference in proportions|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|0.6||||||For this comparison, the proportion of infants with a seroprotective response to yellow fever vaccine in the MenACWY-TT arm is subtracted from the proportion of infants with a seroprotective response to yellow fever vaccine in the NmCV-5 arm to determine the difference in proportions.||0.6|-4.2|
90922178|NCT05093829|181716720|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean titers|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.3|||||NmCV-5 divided by MenACWY-TT|For serogroup A, the point and interval estimates for the Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) ratio will be obtained from a back transformation (exponentiation) of the estimated mean ratio of the log-transformed rSBA titers. The GMT ratio of rSBA titers at Day 29 is calculated for the NmCV-5 arm relative to the MenACWY-TT arm.||1.3|0.8|
90922179|NCT05093829|181716720|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean titers|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.6|||||NmCV-5 divided by MenACWY-TT|For serogroup A, the point and interval estimates for the Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) ratio will be obtained from a back transformation (exponentiation) of the estimated mean ratio of the log-transformed rSBA titers. The GMT ratio of rSBA titers at Day 29 is calculated for the NmCV-5 arm relative to the MenACWY-TT arm.||1.6|1.0|
90922180|NCT05093829|181716720|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean titers|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.6|||||NmCV-5 divided by MenACWY-TT|For serogroup C, the point and interval estimates for the Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) ratio will be obtained from a back transformation (exponentiation) of the estimated mean ratio of the log-transformed rSBA titers. The GMT ratio of rSBA titers at Day 29 is calculated for the NmCV-5 arm relative to the MenACWY-TT arm.||0.6|0.4|
90922181|NCT05093829|181716720|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean titers|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.5|||||NmCV-5 divided by MenACWY-TT|For serogroup C, the point and interval estimates for the Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) ratio will be obtained from a back transformation (exponentiation) of the estimated mean ratio of the log-transformed rSBA titers. The GMT ratio of rSBA titers at Day 29 is calculated for the NmCV-5 arm relative to the MenACWY-TT arm.||0.5|0.3|
90922182|NCT05093829|181716720|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean titers|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.3|||||NmCV-5 divided by MenACWY-TT|For serogroup W, the point and interval estimates for the Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) ratio will be obtained from a back transformation (exponentiation) of the estimated mean ratio of the log-transformed rSBA titers. The GMT ratio of rSBA titers at Day 29 is calculated for the NmCV-5 arm relative to the MenACWY-TT arm.||1.3|0.6|
90962791|NCT02684357|181806747|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|20.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.1|31.4||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (baseline weight \[≤100 kg vs \>100 kg\] and prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor \[TNF\] antagonists \[0 vs ≥1\]). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the comparison of 2 treatment groups. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|||31.4|9.1|< 0.001
90962792|NCT02684357|181806748|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.375|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.102|-5.648|||van Elteren test|||P-value calculated by the van Elteren test stratified for baseline weight (≤100 kg vs \>100 kg) and prior exposure to TNF antagonists (0 vs ≥1).||-5.648|-7.102|< 0.001
90962793|NCT02684357|181806749|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|84.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|79.0|90.4||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (baseline weight \[≤100 kg vs \>100 kg\] and prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor \[TNF\] antagonists \[0 vs ≥1\]). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the comparison of 2 treatment groups. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|||90.4|79.0|< 0.001
90962794|NCT02684357|181806750|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|29.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.5|39.6||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (baseline weight \[≤100 kg vs \>100 kg\] and prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor \[TNF\] antagonists \[0 vs ≥1\]). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the comparison of 2 treatment groups. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|||39.6|18.5|< 0.001
90962795|NCT02684357|181806751|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|14.7||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.9|23.5||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (baseline weight \[≤100 kg vs \>100 kg\] and prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor \[TNF\] antagonists \[0 vs ≥1\]). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the comparison of 2 treatment groups. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|||23.5|5.9|0.001
90962796|NCT03602261|181806854|OTHER|||||||0.5536|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.5536
90962797|NCT03226275|181806862|EQUIVALENCE|Results based on a mixed-effects model with sequence, treatment, and period as fixed effects and participant nested within sequence as a random effect.|Geometric Least Square Mean Percentage|99.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.25|106.09||||||Statistical Comparison of Bisoprolol in Fasting state||106.09|93.25|
90962798|NCT03226275|181806862|EQUIVALENCE|Results based on a mixed-effects model with sequence, treatment, and period as fixed effects and participant nested within sequence as a random effect.|Geometric Least Square Mean Percentage|96.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.95|100.73||||||Statistical Comparison of Amlodipine in Fasting State||100.73|92.95|
90962799|NCT03226275|181806862|EQUIVALENCE|Results based on a mixed-effects model with sequence, treatment, and period as fixed effects and participant nested within sequence as a random effect.|Geometric Least Square Mean Percentage|98.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.02|108.76||||||Statistical Comparison of Bisoprolol in Fed State||108.76|90.02|
90962800|NCT03226275|181806862|EQUIVALENCE|Results based on a mixed-effects model with sequence, treatment, and period as fixed effects and participant nested within sequence as a random effect.|Geometric Least Square Mean Percentage|103.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.53|111.2||||||Statistical Comparison of Amlodipine in Fed State||111.20|95.53|
90962801|NCT03226275|181806863|EQUIVALENCE|Results based on a mixed-effects model with sequence, treatment, and period as fixed effects and participant nested within sequence as a random effect.|Geometric Least Square Mean Percentage|97.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.29|103.74||||||Statistical Comparison of Bisoprolol in Fasting State||103.74|92.29|
90882666|NCT06561217|181628025|NON_INFERIORITY|A predefined non-inferiority margin of 0.05 was used. The primary study was powered on a retrospective, paired, non-inferiority design to evaluate abstraction accuracy of elements commonly used to help screen patients for clinical trials.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.00007515||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The upper bound of the 95% confidence interval is Inf due to the test being one-sided. Alternative hypothesis: true median location shift is greater than -0.05|A Shapiro-Wilk test was used to assess normality of paired differences in chart-level accuracy (alpha = 0.05). A one-sided, paired Wilcoxon Rank Sum test (alpha = 0.05) was employed to test the primary null hypothesis of whether chart-level accuracy of the Human+AI arm for EHR chart abstraction was non-inferior to the chart-level accuracy of a Human-alone arm abstraction by at least 5% (i.e., noninferiority margin).|||0.00007515|<0.001
90882667|NCT06561217|181628025|SUPERIORITY|The primary study was powered on a retrospective, paired, superiority design to evaluate abstraction accuracy of elements commonly used to help screen patients for clinical trials.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A Shapiro-Wilk test was used to assess normality of paired differences in chart-level accuracy (alpha = 0.05). A one-sided, paired Wilcoxon Rank Sum test (alpha = 0.05) was employed to test the null hypothesis of whether chart-level accuracy of the Human+AI arm for EHR chart abstraction was superior to the chart-level accuracy of a Human-alone arm abstraction.||||0.002
90882668|NCT06561217|181628026|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: True difference is equal to 0. Alternate hypothesis: true difference is not equal to 0|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.66||||0.513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|2.55|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A two-sided, paired Wilcoxon Rank Sum test (alpha = 0.05) was employed to test for difference between chart-level efficiency of the Human+AI arm and chart-level efficiency of the Human-alone arm abstraction.||2.55|-1.25|0.513
90882669|NCT04552587|181628067|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We compared change from baseline to follow up in our single group of caregivers.||||0.23
90882670|NCT04847674|181628083|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.027||||0.7914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2276|0.174|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was performed using an MMRM with treatment group, week, randomization factors, and treatment group by week interaction as fixed effects, and baseline FEV1 as a covariate.||0.1740|-0.2276|0.7914
90882671|NCT04847674|181628083|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.011||||0.9115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2126|0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was performed using an MMRM with treatment group, week, randomization factors, and treatment group by week interaction as fixed effects, and baseline FEV1 as a covariate.||0.1900|-0.2126|0.9115
90922183|NCT05093829|181716720|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean titers|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.1|||||NmCV-5 divided by MenACWY-TT|For serogroup W, the point and interval estimates for the Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) ratio will be obtained from a back transformation (exponentiation) of the estimated mean ratio of the log-transformed rSBA titers. The GMT ratio of rSBA titers at Day 29 is calculated for the NmCV-5 arm relative to the MenACWY-TT arm.||2.1|1.1|
91034378|NCT00850174|181954959|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|102.19||||||90.0|98.78|105.71|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||105.71|98.78|
90882672|NCT04847674|181628085|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.026||||0.6001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0733|0.1261|||Mixed Models Analysis||Change from baseline in FEV1 over 12 weeks: TEV-53275 Dose A versus Placebo|Analysis was performed using an MMRM with treatment group, week, randomization factors, and treatment group by week interaction as fixed effects, and baseline FEV1 as a covariate.||0.1261|-0.0733|0.6001
90882673|NCT04847674|181628085|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.027||||0.5922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0732|0.1276|||Mixed Models Analysis||Change from baseline in FEV1 over 12 weeks: TEV-53275 Dose B versus Placebo|Analysis was performed using an MMRM with treatment group, week, randomization factors, and treatment group by week interaction as fixed effects, and baseline FEV1 as a covariate.||0.1276|-0.0732|0.5922
90882674|NCT04847674|181628085|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.027||||0.6017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0744|0.1277|||Mixed Models Analysis||Change from baseline in FEV1 over 16 weeks: TEV-53275 Dose A versus Placebo|Analysis was performed using an MMRM with treatment group, week, randomization factors, and treatment group by week interaction as fixed effects, and baseline FEV1 as a covariate.||0.1277|-0.0744|0.6017
90882675|NCT04847674|181628085|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.022||||0.6664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0796|0.1239|||Mixed Models Analysis||Change from baseline in FEV1 over 16 weeks: TEV-53275 Dose B versus Placebo|Analysis was performed using an MMRM with treatment group, week, randomization factors, and treatment group by week interaction as fixed effects, and baseline FEV1 as a covariate.||0.1239|-0.0796|0.6664
90882676|NCT04847674|181628086|OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann (HL) estimator|0.4||||0.7261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|3.31|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Change from baseline in weekly average of rescue medication use over 12 weeks: TEV-53275 Dose A versus Placebo|Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank-sum test stratified on randomization stratification factors.||3.31|-2.33|0.7261
90882677|NCT04847674|181628086|OTHER||HL estimator|-0.5||||0.765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.56|3.32|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Change from baseline in weekly average of rescue medication use over 12 weeks: TEV-53275 Dose B versus Placebo|Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank-sum test stratified on randomization stratification factors.||3.32|-3.56|0.7650
90882678|NCT04847674|181628086|OTHER||HL estimator|0.2||||0.7942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|3.04|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Change from baseline in weekly average of rescue medication use over 16 weeks: TEV-53275 Dose A versus Placebo|Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank-sum test stratified on randomization stratification factors.||3.04|-2.44|0.7942
90922184|NCT05093829|181716720|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean titers|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.0|||||NmCV-5 divided by MenACWY-TT|For serogroup Y, the point and interval estimates for the Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) ratio will be obtained from a back transformation (exponentiation) of the estimated mean ratio of the log-transformed rSBA titers. The GMT ratio of rSBA titers at Day 29 is calculated for the NmCV-5 arm relative to the MenACWY-TT arm.||1.0|0.6|
90962802|NCT03226275|181806863|EQUIVALENCE|Results based on a mixed-effects model with sequence, treatment, and period as fixed effects and participant nested within sequence as a random effect.|Geometric Least Square Mean Percentage|100.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.37|106.03||||||Statistical Comparison of Amlodipine in Fasting State||106.03|94.37|
91034379|NCT00850174|181954960|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|100.77||||||90.0|97.03|104.65|||||Results presented for informational purposes only; metabolite not subjected to Bioequivalence criteria.|||104.65|97.03|
90922185|NCT05093829|181716720|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean titers|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.3|||||NmCV-5 divided by MenACWY-TT|For serogroup Y, the point and interval estimates for the Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) ratio will be obtained from a back transformation (exponentiation) of the estimated mean ratio of the log-transformed rSBA titers. The GMT ratio of rSBA titers at Day 29 is calculated for the NmCV-5 arm relative to the MenACWY-TT arm.||1.3|0.8|
90922186|NCT05093829|181716720|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean titers|1511.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1169.5|1952.4|||||NmCV-5 divided by MenACWY-TT|For serogroup X, the point and interval estimates for the Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) ratio will be obtained from a back transformation (exponentiation) of the estimated mean ratio of the log-transformed rSBA titers. The GMT ratio of rSBA titers at Day 29 is calculated for the NmCV-5 arm relative to the MenACWY-TT arm.||1952.4|1169.5|
90922187|NCT05093829|181716720|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean titers|767.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|553.2|1064.4|||||NmCV-5 divided by MenACWY-TT|For serogroup X, the point and interval estimates for the Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) ratio will be obtained from a back transformation (exponentiation) of the estimated mean ratio of the log-transformed rSBA titers. The GMT ratio of rSBA titers at Day 29 is calculated for the NmCV-5 arm relative to the MenACWY-TT arm.||1064.4|553.2|
90922188|NCT05093829|181716722|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean titers|2756.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1976.3|3844.5|||||Day 29 divided by Day 1|For serogroup A, the point and interval estimates for the Geometric Mean Fold Rise (GMFR) will be obtained from a back transformation (exponentiation) of the estimated mean ratio of the log-transformed rSBA titers. The GMFR from baseline to Day 29 of rSBA titers is calculated as Day 29 divided by Day 1.||3844.5|1976.3|
90922189|NCT05093829|181716722|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean titers|2506.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1404.0|4476.1|||||Day 29 divided by Day 1|For serogroup A, the point and interval estimates for the Geometric Mean Fold Rise (GMFR) will be obtained from a back transformation (exponentiation) of the estimated mean ratio of the log-transformed rSBA titers. The GMFR from baseline to Day 29 of rSBA titers is calculated as Day 29 divided by Day 1.||4476.1|1404.0|
90922190|NCT05093829|181716722|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean titers|1179.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|709.8|1958.6|||||Day 29 divided by Day 1|For serogroup A, the point and interval estimates for the Geometric Mean Fold Rise (GMFR) will be obtained from a back transformation (exponentiation) of the estimated mean ratio of the log-transformed rSBA titers. The GMFR from baseline to Day 29 of rSBA titers is calculated as Day 29 divided by Day 1.||1958.6|709.8|
90922191|NCT05093829|181716722|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean titers|1096.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|513.4|2340.6|||||Day 29 divided by Day 1|For serogroup A, the point and interval estimates for the Geometric Mean Fold Rise (GMFR) will be obtained from a back transformation (exponentiation) of the estimated mean ratio of the log-transformed rSBA titers. The GMFR from baseline to Day 29 of rSBA titers is calculated as Day 29 divided by Day 1.||2340.6|513.4|
90922192|NCT05093829|181716722|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean titers|288.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|212.6|392.0|||||Day 29 divided by Day 1|For serogroup C, the point and interval estimates for the Geometric Mean Fold Rise (GMFR) will be obtained from a back transformation (exponentiation) of the estimated mean ratio of the log-transformed rSBA titers. The GMFR from baseline to Day 29 of rSBA titers is calculated as Day 29 divided by Day 1.||392.0|212.6|
90922193|NCT05093829|181716722|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean titers|654.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|385.5|1111.0|||||Day 29 divided by Day 1|For serogroup C, the point and interval estimates for the Geometric Mean Fold Rise (GMFR) will be obtained from a back transformation (exponentiation) of the estimated mean ratio of the log-transformed rSBA titers. The GMFR from baseline to Day 29 of rSBA titers is calculated as Day 29 divided by Day 1.||1111.0|385.5|
91034380|NCT00850174|181954961|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|99.94||||||90.0|97.75|102.18|||||Results presented for informational purposes only, metabolite not subjected to bioequivalence criteria.|||102.18|97.75|
90922194|NCT05093829|181716722|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean titers|287.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|213.9|387.5|||||Day 29 divided by Day 1|For serogroup C, the point and interval estimates for the Geometric Mean Fold Rise (GMFR) will be obtained from a back transformation (exponentiation) of the estimated mean ratio of the log-transformed rSBA titers. The GMFR from baseline to Day 29 of rSBA titers is calculated as Day 29 divided by Day 1.||387.5|213.9|
91034381|NCT00850174|181954962|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|99.8||||||90.0|97.5|102.15|||||Results presented for informational purposes only; metabolite not subjected to bioequivalence criteria.|||102.15|97.50|
90922195|NCT05093829|181716722|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean titers|834.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|496.7|1402.3|||||Day 29 divided by Day 1|For serogroup C, the point and interval estimates for the Geometric Mean Fold Rise (GMFR) will be obtained from a back transformation (exponentiation) of the estimated mean ratio of the log-transformed rSBA titers. The GMFR from baseline to Day 29 of rSBA titers is calculated as Day 29 divided by Day 1.||1402.3|496.7|
90922196|NCT05093829|181716722|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean titers|1068.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|683.3|1670.6|||||Day 29 divided by Day 1|For serogroup W, the point and interval estimates for the Geometric Mean Fold Rise (GMFR) will be obtained from a back transformation (exponentiation) of the estimated mean ratio of the log-transformed rSBA titers. The GMFR from baseline to Day 29 of rSBA titers is calculated as Day 29 divided by Day 1.||1670.6|683.3|
90922197|NCT05093829|181716722|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean titers|1933.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1224.7|3051.1|||||Day 29 divided by Day 1|For serogroup W, the point and interval estimates for the Geometric Mean Fold Rise (GMFR) will be obtained from a back transformation (exponentiation) of the estimated mean ratio of the log-transformed rSBA titers. The GMFR from baseline to Day 29 of rSBA titers is calculated as Day 29 divided by Day 1.||3051.1|1224.7|
90922198|NCT05093829|181716722|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean titers|3163.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2247.5|4451.7|||||Day 29 divided by Day 1|For serogroup W, the point and interval estimates for the Geometric Mean Fold Rise (GMFR) will be obtained from a back transformation (exponentiation) of the estimated mean ratio of the log-transformed rSBA titers. The GMFR from baseline to Day 29 of rSBA titers is calculated as Day 29 divided by Day 1.||4451.7|2247.5|
90962803|NCT03226275|181806863|EQUIVALENCE|Results based on a mixed-effects model with sequence, treatment, and period as fixed effects and participant nested within sequence as a random effect.|Geometric Least Square Mean Percentage|93.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.56|104.2||||||Statistical Comparison of Bisoprolol in Fed State||104.20|84.56|
91034382|NCT00635492|181954964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|1.19|||Regression, Logistic|||Body Mass Index (BMI) - 1kg/m² higher||1.19|1.13|<0.0001
90922199|NCT05093829|181716722|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean titers|1524.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|913.5|2543.0|||||Day 29 divided by Day 1|For serogroup W, the point and interval estimates for the Geometric Mean Fold Rise (GMFR) will be obtained from a back transformation (exponentiation) of the estimated mean ratio of the log-transformed rSBA titers. The GMFR from baseline to Day 29 of rSBA titers is calculated as Day 29 divided by Day 1.||2543.0|913.5|
90922200|NCT05093829|181716722|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean titers|799.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|532.9|1199.4|||||Day 29 divided by Day 1|For serogroup Y, the point and interval estimates for the Geometric Mean Fold Rise (GMFR) will be obtained from a back transformation (exponentiation) of the estimated mean ratio of the log-transformed rSBA titers. The GMFR from baseline to Day 29 of rSBA titers is calculated as Day 29 divided by Day 1.||1199.4|532.9|
90922201|NCT05093829|181716722|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean titers|1469.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|995.3|2168.8|||||Day 29 divided by Day 1|For serogroup Y, the point and interval estimates for the Geometric Mean Fold Rise (GMFR) will be obtained from a back transformation (exponentiation) of the estimated mean ratio of the log-transformed rSBA titers. The GMFR from baseline to Day 29 of rSBA titers is calculated as Day 29 divided by Day 1.||2168.8|995.3|
90922202|NCT05093829|181716722|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean titers|549.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|371.8|811.8|||||Day 29 divided by Day 1|For serogroup Y, the point and interval estimates for the Geometric Mean Fold Rise (GMFR) will be obtained from a back transformation (exponentiation) of the estimated mean ratio of the log-transformed rSBA titers. The GMFR from baseline to Day 29 of rSBA titers is calculated as Day 29 divided by Day 1.||811.8|371.8|
90922203|NCT05093829|181716722|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean titers|642.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|309.2|1335.9|||||Day 29 divided by Day 1|For serogroup Y, the point and interval estimates for the Geometric Mean Fold Rise (GMFR) will be obtained from a back transformation (exponentiation) of the estimated mean ratio of the log-transformed rSBA titers. The GMFR from baseline to Day 29 of rSBA titers is calculated as Day 29 divided by Day 1.||1335.9|309.2|
90922204|NCT05093829|181716722|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean titers|2630.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2037.6|3394.6|||||Day 29 divided by Day 1|For serogroup X, the point and interval estimates for the Geometric Mean Fold Rise (GMFR) will be obtained from a back transformation (exponentiation) of the estimated mean ratio of the log-transformed rSBA titers. The GMFR from baseline to Day 29 of rSBA titers is calculated as Day 29 divided by Day 1.||3394.6|2037.6|
90922205|NCT05093829|181716722|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean titers|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|3.4|||||Day 29 divided by Day 1|For serogroup X, the point and interval estimates for the Geometric Mean Fold Rise (GMFR) will be obtained from a back transformation (exponentiation) of the estimated mean ratio of the log-transformed rSBA titers. The GMFR from baseline to Day 29 of rSBA titers is calculated as Day 29 divided by Day 1.||3.4|1.2|
90922206|NCT05093829|181716722|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean titers|1431.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|905.2|2262.9|||||Day 29 divided by Day 1|For serogroup X, the point and interval estimates for the Geometric Mean Fold Rise (GMFR) will be obtained from a back transformation (exponentiation) of the estimated mean ratio of the log-transformed rSBA titers. The GMFR from baseline to Day 29 of rSBA titers is calculated as Day 29 divided by Day 1.||2262.9|905.2|
90922207|NCT05093829|181716722|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean titers|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|3.3|||||Day 29 divided by Day 1|For serogroup X, the point and interval estimates for the Geometric Mean Fold Rise (GMFR) will be obtained from a back transformation (exponentiation) of the estimated mean ratio of the log-transformed rSBA titers. The GMFR from baseline to Day 29 of rSBA titers is calculated as Day 29 divided by Day 1.||3.3|0.9|
90922208|NCT06132867|181716733|OTHER|A linear mixed-effects analysis of variance model was used for the analysis. The model included sequence, treatment, and period as fixed effects and participants nested within sequence as a random effect. Geometric mean ratios and 90 percent (%) confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using the exponentiation of the difference between treatment least square means (LSM) from the analyses on the natural log-transformed of Cmax.|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR) (%)|92.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.98|97.74|||||GMR (%) was calculated as 100\*(Treatment A/Treatment B).|||97.74|86.98|
90922209|NCT06132867|181716734|OTHER|A linear mixed-effects analysis of variance model was used for the analysis. The model included sequence, treatment, and period as fixed effects and participants nested within sequence as a random effect. Geometric mean ratios and 90% CIs were calculated using the exponentiation of the difference between treatment LSM from the analyses on the natural log-transformed of AUClast.|GMR (%)|96.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.48|104.16|||||GMR (%) was calculated as 100\*(Treatment A/Treatment B).|||104.16|88.48|
90922210|NCT06132867|181716735|OTHER|A linear mixed-effects analysis of variance model was used for the analysis. The model included sequence, treatment, and period as fixed effects and participants nested within sequence as a random effect. Geometric mean ratios and 90% CIs were calculated using the exponentiation of the difference between treatment LSM from the analyses on the natural log-transformed of AUCinf.|GMR (%)|95.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.81|103.42|||||GMR (%) was calculated as 100\*(Treatment A/Treatment B).|||103.42|88.81|
90922211|NCT04648033|181716752|OTHER||Probability of DLT at dose level 4|0.116|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.032|0.26||||||The primary analysis is performed using the Time-To-Event Continual Reassessment Method (TiTE-CRM). Giving posterior estimates for the probability of toxicity (DLT) at each dose level.||0.26|0.032|
90922212|NCT05875142|181716775|NON_INFERIORITY|test of non-inferiority is H0: control\>=treatment vs HA: control\<treatment||||||0.0008|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||T compared with TM||||0.0008
90922213|NCT05875142|181716775|NON_INFERIORITY|test of non-inferiority is H0: control\>=treatment vs HA: control\<treatment||||||5.03e-06|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||T compared with TMC.||||0.00000503
90922214|NCT05875142|181716776|NON_INFERIORITY|test of non-inferiority is H0: control\>=treatment vs HA: control\<treatment||||||0.0176|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||T compared with T||||0.0176
90922215|NCT05875142|181716776|NON_INFERIORITY|test of non-inferiority is H0: control\>=treatment vs HA: control\<treatment||||||0.0056|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparing T with TMC.||||0.0056
90922216|NCT05875142|181716777|NON_INFERIORITY|test of non-inferiority is H0: control\<=treatment vs HA: control\>treatment||||||0.4066|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||T compared with TM||||0.4066
90922217|NCT05875142|181716777|NON_INFERIORITY|test of non-inferiority is H0: control\<=treatment vs HA: control\>treatment||||||0.4045|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||T compared with TMC||||0.4045
90922218|NCT03891667|181716779|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|75.66||||||||75.66|.21|
91034383|NCT00635492|181954965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.86|||Regression, Logistic|||Most recent HbA1c at baseline - 1% higher.||0.86|0.69|<0.0001
90882679|NCT04847674|181628086|OTHER||HL estimator|-0.8||||0.6147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.81|2.55|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Change from baseline in weekly average of rescue medication use over 16 weeks: TEV-53275 Dose B versus Placebo|Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank-sum test stratified on randomization stratification factors.||2.55|-3.81|0.6147
90882680|NCT04847674|181628088|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.083||||0.4394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2971|0.1301|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was performed using an MMRM with treatment group, week, randomization factors, and treatment group by week interaction as fixed effects, and baseline FEV1 as a covariate.||0.1301|-0.2971|0.4394
90882681|NCT04847674|181628088|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.089||||0.4051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.302|0.1231|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was performed using an MMRM with treatment group, week, randomization factors, and treatment group by week interaction as fixed effects, and baseline FEV1 as a covariate.||0.1231|-0.3020|0.4051
90882682|NCT04847674|181628091|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.093||||0.3485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1031|0.2893|||Mixed Models Analysis||Change from baseline in FEF25-75 over 12 weeks: TEV-53275 Dose A versus Placebo|Analysis was performed using an MMRM with treatment group, week, randomization factors, and treatment group by week interaction as fixed effects, and baseline FEF25-75 as a covariate.||0.2893|-0.1031|0.3485
90882683|NCT04847674|181628091|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.033||||0.7432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1644|0.2296|||Mixed Models Analysis||Change from baseline in FEF25-75 over 12 weeks: TEV-53275 Dose B versus Placebo|Analysis was performed using an MMRM with treatment group, week, randomization factors, and treatment group by week interaction as fixed effects, and baseline FEF25-75 as a covariate.||0.2296|-0.1644|0.7432
90882684|NCT04847674|181628091|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.087||||0.4014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.118|0.292|||Mixed Models Analysis||Change from baseline in FEF25-75 over 16 weeks: TEV-53275 Dose A versus Placebo|Analysis was performed using an MMRM with treatment group, week, randomization factors, and treatment group by week interaction as fixed effects, and baseline FEF25-75 as a covariate.||0.2920|-0.1180|0.4014
90882685|NCT04847674|181628091|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.01||||0.9259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.196|0.2153|||Mixed Models Analysis||Change from baseline in FEF25-75 over 16 weeks: TEV-53275 Dose B versus Placebo|Analysis was performed using an MMRM with treatment group, week, randomization factors, and treatment group by week interaction as fixed effects, and baseline FEF25-75 as a covariate.||0.2153|-0.1960|0.9259
90882686|NCT04847674|181628093|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.0||||0.9829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.42|||Mixed Models Analysis||Change from baseline in ACQ-6 at Week 12: TEV-53275 Dose A versus Placebo|Analysis was performed using an MMRM with treatment group, week, randomization factors, and treatment group by week interaction as fixed effects, and baseline ACQ-6 as a covariate.||0.42|-0.43|0.9829
90882687|NCT04847674|181628093|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.1||||0.6302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.52|||Mixed Models Analysis||Change from baseline in ACQ-6 at Week 12: TEV-53275 Dose B versus Placebo|Analysis was performed using an MMRM with treatment group, week, randomization factors, and treatment group by week interaction as fixed effects, and baseline ACQ-6 as a covariate.||0.52|-0.32|0.6302
90882688|NCT04847674|181628093|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.1||||0.6707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis||Change from baseline in ACQ-6 at Week 16: TEV-53275 Dose A versus Placebo|Analysis was performed using an MMRM with treatment group, week, randomization factors, and treatment group by week interaction as fixed effects, and baseline ACQ-6 as a covariate.||0.35|-0.54|0.6707
90882689|NCT04847674|181628093|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.0||||0.994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.43|||Mixed Models Analysis||Change from baseline in ACQ-6 at Week 16: TEV-53275 Dose B versus Placebo|Analysis was performed using an MMRM with treatment group, week, randomization factors, and treatment group by week interaction as fixed effects, and baseline ACQ-6 as a covariate.||0.43|-0.44|0.9940
90882690|NCT04847674|181628094|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.7||||0.4683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.71|1.26|||Mixed Models Analysis||Change from baseline in ACT at Week 12: TEV-53275 Dose A versus Placebo|Analysis was performed using an MMRM with treatment group, week, randomization factors, and treatment group by week interaction as fixed effects, and baseline ACT as a covariate.||1.26|-2.71|0.4683
90882691|NCT04847674|181628094|OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.2||||0.2239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.16|0.75|||Mixed Models Analysis||Change from baseline in ACT at Week 12: TEV-53275 Dose B versus Placebo|Analysis was performed using an MMRM with treatment group, week, randomization factors, and treatment group by week interaction as fixed effects, and baseline ACT as a covariate.||0.75|-3.16|0.2239
90882692|NCT04847674|181628094|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.6||||0.5389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|1.32|||Mixed Models Analysis||Change from baseline in ACT at Week 16: TEV-53275 Dose A versus Placebo|Analysis was performed using an MMRM with treatment group, week, randomization factors, and treatment group by week interaction as fixed effects, and baseline ACT as a covariate.||1.32|-2.51|0.5389
90882693|NCT04847674|181628094|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.9||||0.3564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.75|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Change from baseline in ACT at Week 16: TEV-53275 Dose B versus Placebo|Analysis was performed using an MMRM with treatment group, week, randomization factors, and treatment group by week interaction as fixed effects, and baseline ACT as a covariate.||1.00|-2.75|0.3564
90882694|NCT04847674|181628095|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.2||||0.4436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis||Change from baseline in AQLQT at Week 12: TEV-53275 Dose A versus Placebo|Analysis was performed using an MMRM with treatment group, week, randomization factors, and treatment group by week interaction as fixed effects, and baseline AQLQ as a covariate.||0.27|-0.62|0.4436
90922219|NCT03891667|181716780|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|9.47||||||||9.47|0.05|
91034384|NCT00635492|181954966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|0.97|||Regression, Logistic|||Age - 1 year older||0.97|0.95|<0.0001
90882695|NCT04847674|181628095|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.1||||0.597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis||Change from baseline in AQLQT at Week 12: TEV-53275 Dose B versus Placebo|Analysis was performed using an MMRM with treatment group, week, randomization factors, and treatment group by week interaction as fixed effects, and baseline AQLQ as a covariate.||0.32|-0.56|0.5970
90962804|NCT03226275|181806863|EQUIVALENCE|Results based on a mixed-effects model with sequence, treatment, and period as fixed effects and participant nested within sequence as a random effect.|Geometric Least Square Mean Percentage|106.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.82|116.08||||||Statistical Comparison of Amlodipine in Fed State||116.08|97.82|
90962805|NCT03226275|181806864|EQUIVALENCE|Results based on a mixed-effects model with sequence, treatment, and period as fixed effects and participant nested within sequence as a random effect.|Median Difference|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.5||||||Statistical Comparison of Bisoprolol in Fasting State||0.50|0.00|
90962806|NCT03226275|181806864|EQUIVALENCE|Results based on a mixed-effects model with sequence, treatment, and period as fixed effects and participant nested within sequence as a random effect.|Median Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|0.0||||||Statistical Comparison of Amlodipine in Fasting State||0.00|-1.00|
90962807|NCT03226275|181806864|EQUIVALENCE|Results based on a mixed-effects model with sequence, treatment, and period as fixed effects and participant nested within sequence as a random effect.|Median Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|0.5||||||Statistical Comparison of Bisoprolol in Fed State||0.50|-1.00|
90962808|NCT03226275|181806864|EQUIVALENCE|Results based on a mixed-effects model with sequence, treatment, and period as fixed effects and participant nested within sequence as a random effect.|Median Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|0.5||||||Statistical Comparison of Amlodipine in Fed State||0.50|-1.00|
90962809|NCT03226275|181806866|EQUIVALENCE|Results based on a mixed-effects model with sequence, treatment, and period as fixed effects and participant nested within sequence as a random effect.|Geometric Least Square Mean Percentage|99.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.61|106.79||||||Statistical Comparison of Bisoprolol in Fasting State||106.79|93.61|
90882696|NCT04847674|181628095|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.2||||0.3769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis||Change from baseline in AQLQT at Week 16: TEV-53275 Dose A versus Placebo|Analysis was performed using an MMRM with treatment group, week, randomization factors, and treatment group by week interaction as fixed effects, and baseline AQLQ as a covariate.||0.26|-0.68|0.3769
90882697|NCT04847674|181628095|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.2||||0.4595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis||Change from baseline in AQLQT at Week 16: TEV-53275 Dose B versus Placebo|Analysis was performed using an MMRM with treatment group, week, randomization factors, and treatment group by week interaction as fixed effects, and baseline AQLQ as a covariate.||0.29|-0.64|0.4595
90882698|NCT01393743|181628117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-30.81||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.49|-15.244||The P-value is based on a rank analysis of covariance with treatment and pooled country as factors, and prerandomization seizure frequency as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||The median difference to placebo and the 95% confidence interval are based on the Hodges-Lehmann method.||-15.244|-45.49|0.0001
90882699|NCT01393743|181628118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0019||||||The P value is based on non-missing values and is from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by pooled country.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0019
90882700|NCT01393743|181628120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-23.45||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.668|-8.518||The P value is based on a rank analysis of covariance with treatment and pooled country as factors, and prerandomization seizure frequency as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||The median difference to placebo and the 95% confidence interval are based on the Hodges-Lehmann method.||-8.518|-40.668|0.0018
90882701|NCT01393743|181628121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-12.25||||0.3478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.054|26.989||The P value is based on a rank analysis of covariance with treatment and pooled country as factors, and prerandomization seizure frequency as a covariate.|ANCOVA||The median difference to placebo and the 95% confidence interval are based on the Hodges-Lehmann method.|Median Difference to Placebo for Absence Seizures||26.989|-53.054|0.3478
90882702|NCT01393743|181628121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.87||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.338|59.938|||ANCOVA|||Median Difference to Placebo for Myoclonic Seizure||59.938|-15.338|0.61
90882703|NCT01393743|181628122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1826||||||The P value is based on non-missing values and is from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by pooled country.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1826
90882704|NCT01393743|181628123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4653|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P Value Compared to Placebo for Absence Seizures||||0.4653
90882705|NCT01393743|181628123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3694|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P Value Compared to Placebo for Myoclonic Seizures||||0.3694
90882706|NCT05409235|181628127|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage of participants|-1.064||||0.573|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.578|8.449|||Mantel Haenszel|MH test is adjusted for the randomization stratification factor (Screening DRSS score 47 or 53 or 61B).|A single imputation (non-response) when applying composite variable strategy. MI based for missing data at Week 24, assuming MAR when applying hypothetical strategy. Kept in the analysis when applying treatment policy strategy.|The study was powered to provide a 90% probability to detect a 20% difference between each treatment arm and the combined vehicle control.||8.449|-10.578|0.5730
90882707|NCT05409235|181628127|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage of participants|-1.152||||0.575|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.178|8.874|||Mantel Haenszel|||||8.874|-11.178|0.5750
90882708|NCT05409235|181628128|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage of participants|3.119||||0.7276|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.314|11.592|||Mantel Haenszel|||||11.592|-5.314|0.7276
90882709|NCT05409235|181628128|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage of participants|5.779||||0.8492|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.424|14.982|||Mantel Haenszel|||||14.982|-3.424|0.8492
90882710|NCT05409235|181628129|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage of participants|-1.863||||0.3097|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.036|4.309|||Mantel Haenszel|||||4.309|-8.036|0.3097
90882711|NCT05409235|181628129|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage of participants|-1.596||||0.3414|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.021|4.829|||Mantel Haenszel|||||4.829|-8.021|0.3414
90962810|NCT03226275|181806866|EQUIVALENCE|Results based on a mixed-effects model with sequence, treatment, and period as fixed effects and participant nested within sequence as a random effect.|Geometric Least Square Mean Percentage|98.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.38|104.28||||||Statistical Comparison of Amlodipine in Fasting State||104.28|93.38|
90882712|NCT05409235|181628130|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.899||||0.397|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4378|1.8467|||Log Rank|||||1.8467|0.4378|0.397
90882713|NCT05409235|181628130|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.113||||0.605|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5596|2.2117|||Log Rank|||||2.2117|0.5596|0.605
90882714|NCT05409235|181628131|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage of participants|-10.622||||0.0619|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.972|0.728|||Mantel Haenszel|||||0.728|-21.972|0.0619
90882715|NCT05409235|181628131|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage of participants|-4.942||||0.2483|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.897|7.013|||Mantel Haenszel|||||7.013|-16.897|0.2483
90882716|NCT05409235|181628132|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.807||||0.237|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4675|1.392|||Log Rank|||||1.3920|0.4675|0.237
90882717|NCT05409235|181628132|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.279||||0.766|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7795|2.0981|||Log Rank|||||2.0981|0.7795|0.766
90882718|NCT05409235|181628133|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage of participants|-6.389||||0.2022|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.994|6.215|||Mantel Haenszel|||||6.215|-18.994|0.2022
90882719|NCT05409235|181628133|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage of participants|-1.043||||0.4476|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.07|11.984|||Mantel Haenszel|||||11.984|-14.070|0.4476
90882720|NCT05409235|181628134|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.843||||0.268|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.533|1.334||log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factor|Log Rank|||||1.334|0.533|0.268
90882721|NCT05409235|181628134|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.145||||0.304|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.738|1.775|||Log Rank|||||1.775|0.738|0.304
90882722|NCT05409235|181628135|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.102||||0.428|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4573|2.657|||odds ratio|Odds ratio and p-value are from a proportional odds model with covariates for treatment group and the randomization stratification factor||||2.6570|0.4573|0.428
90882723|NCT05409235|181628135|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.119||||0.419|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.45|2.7846|||odds ratio|Odds ratio and p-value are from a proportional odds model with covariates for treatment group and the randomization stratification factor||||2.7846|0.4500|0.419
90882724|NCT05409235|181628136|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage of participants|-1.544||||0.6716|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.26|4.172|||Mantel Haenszel|||||4.172|-7.260|0.6716
90882725|NCT05409235|181628136|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage of participants|-3.412||||0.8414|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.025|2.2|||Mantel Haenszel|||||2.200|-9.025|0.8414
90882726|NCT05409235|181628137|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5325||||0.647|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.8478|1.7827|||ANCOVA|||||1.7827|-2.8478|0.647
90882727|NCT05409235|181628137|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.2849||||0.945|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.6356|0.0658|||ANCOVA|||||0.0658|-4.6356|0.945
90882728|NCT05409235|181628138|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.108||||0.367|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6722|1.8276|||odds ratio|Odds ratio and p-value are from a proportional odds model with covariates for treatment group and the randomization stratification factor||||1.8276|0.6722|0.367
90882729|NCT05409235|181628138|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.717||||0.857|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4295|1.1981|||odds ratio|Odds ratio and p-value are from a proportional odds model with covariates for treatment group and the randomization stratification factor||||1.1981|0.4295|0.857
90882730|NCT05409235|181628139|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.1531||||0.437|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-38.793|47.0991|||ANCOVA|||||47.0991|-38.7930|0.437
90882731|NCT05409235|181628139|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.2461||||0.733|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-59.2538|26.7616|||ANCOVA|||||26.7616|-59.2538|0.733
90882732|NCT05409235|181628140|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.0634||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.9712|13.098|||ANCOVA|||||13.0980|-4.9712|0.770
90882733|NCT05409235|181628140|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0507||||0.424|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.1046|8.0032|||ANCOVA|||||8.0032|-10.1046|0.424
90882734|NCT05409235|181628141|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0205||||0.606|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1043|0.1452|||ANCOVA|||||0.1452|-0.1043|0.606
90882735|NCT05409235|181628141|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0083||||0.544|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1161|0.1326|||ANCOVA|||||0.1326|-0.1161|0.544
90882736|NCT05409235|181628142|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage of participants|-1.544||||0.406|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.247|9.158|||Mantel Haenszel|||||9.158|-12.247|0.406
90882737|NCT05409235|181628142|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage of participants|1.763||||0.605|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.114|12.64|||Mantel Haenszel|||||12.640|-9.114|0.605
90882738|NCT05409235|181628143|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.916||||0.404|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5068|1.6556|||Log Rank|||||1.6556|0.5068|0.404
90882739|NCT05409235|181628143|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.128||||0.624|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6399|1.9868|||Log Rank|||||1.9868|0.6399|0.624
90882740|NCT05409235|181628144|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.947||||0.478|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.2473|3.6295|||Log Rank|Comparisons are made using the log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factor.||||3.6295|0.2473|0.478
90882741|NCT05409235|181628144|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.296||||0.631|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.3688|4.5512|||Log Rank|Comparisons are made using the log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factor||||4.5512|0.3688|0.631
90882742|NCT05409235|181628145|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage of participants|-13.7727||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.1319|-0.4134|||Mantel Haenszel|||||-0.4134|-27.1319|0.0450
90882743|NCT05409235|181628145|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage of participants|-3.8234||||0.3304|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.1549|10.5081|||Mantel Haenszel|||||10.5081|-18.1549|0.3304
90882744|NCT05409235|181628146|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage of participants|-14.8877||||0.0275|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.6462|-2.1293|||Mantel Haenszel|||||-2.1293|-27.6462|0.0275
90882745|NCT05409235|181628146|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage of participants|-7.5535||||0.179|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.0688|5.9617|||Mantel Haenszel|||||5.9617|-21.0688|0.1790
90882746|NCT03080961|181628199|OTHER||SADE percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|7.7||||||SADE rate after minimally 26 days of VIBLOK treatment will be assessed by calculating the upper limit of the 2-sided exact 95% Clopper-Pearson confidence interval which needs to be below 10%. With a sample size of 36, an exact two-sided 95.0% confidence interval for a single proportion would show that the SADE incidence is below 10% at an expected incidence of 0.1%.||7.7|0.0|
90922220|NCT01963793|181716816|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.51||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.12|4.11|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.11|-7.12|0.58
90922221|NCT01160211|181716911|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.88||Pike estimate of the treatment hazard ratio, \<1 indicates a lower risk compared with trastuzumab + AI.|Log Rank|using a two-sided stratified log-rank test (based on stratification factors)||Null hypothesis H0: λ ≥ 1 or to reject it in favor of the alternative hypothesis HA: λ \<1, where λ is the hazard ratio (HR) between Treatment Group A and Treatment Group B for progression-free survival.||0.88|0.45|0.0063
90882747|NCT03080961|181628200|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.248|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Statistical analysis will evaluate the difference in detection rate between pre and post-VIBLOK swabs. For each person the number of swabs with shedding only pre-VIBLOK will be assessed, and then the number of swabs with shedding only post-VIBLOK will be subtracted. A number above 0 indicates a decreased detection rate after VIBLOK. With an 8% anticipated asymptomatic shedding rate, 80% power, 50 subjects taking samples for 28 days are needed to show a 50% reduction.||||0.248
90882748|NCT03080961|181628201|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.013
90882749|NCT00689481|181628203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled center||||||0.016
90882750|NCT00689481|181628203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.843|||||||Breslow-Day test|Breslow-Day test of the homogeneity of the odds ratio using a 0.1 significance level.||Consistency of results across investigative centers was verified using the Breslow-Day test of homogeneity the odds ration using a significance level of 0.1||||0.843
90882751|NCT00689481|181628204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled center||||||0.034
90882752|NCT00689481|181628205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||||||P-value is significant based on the Holm stepwise closed testing procedure to control multiplicity for the key secondary analyses if primary analysis was significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled center.||||||0.004
90882753|NCT00689481|181628206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.052|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled center||||||0.052
90882754|NCT00689481|181628207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled center||||||0.033
90882755|NCT00689481|181628208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.859|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled center||Comparison of calcipotriene foam and vehicle foam for patients who had mild disease at baseline||||0.859
90882756|NCT00689481|181628208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled center||Comparison of calcipotriene foam and vehicle foam for patients who had moderate disease at baseline||||0.015
90882757|NCT03337724|181628210|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio|1.02||||0.9237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.45|||Log Rank||Stratification variables were: prior adjuvant/neoadjuvant chemotherapy (yes vs. no), region, tumor PIK3CA/AKT1/PTEN alteration status (PIK3CA/AKT1-activating mutations vs. PTEN alterations with no PIK3CA/AKT1-activating mutations).|||1.45|0.71|0.9237
90882758|NCT03337724|181628211|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio|1.0||||0.9965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.4|||Log Rank||Stratification variables were: prior adjuvant/neoadjuvant chemotherapy (yes vs. no), region, prior therapy with a PI3K or mTOR inhibitor (yes vs. no).|||1.40|0.71|0.9965
90882759|NCT03337724|181628219|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.58|||||Stratification was done prior adjuvant/neoadjuvant chemotherapy (yes vs. no), region, tumor PIK3CA/AKT1/PTEN alteration status (PIK3CA/AKT1-activating mutations vs. PTEN alterations with no PIK3CA/AKT1-activating mutations).|||1.58|0.73|
90882760|NCT03337724|181628219|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.37|||||Stratification variables were: prior adjuvant/neoadjuvant chemotherapy (yes vs. no), region, prior therapy with a PI3K or mTOR inhibitor (yes vs. no).|||1.37|0.65|
90882761|NCT03337724|181628222|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.36||||0.2162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|2.22|||Log Rank||Stratification variables were: prior adjuvant/neoadjuvant chemotherapy (yes vs. no), region, prior therapy with a PI3K or mTOR inhibitor (yes vs. no).||Stratified Analysis|2.22|0.83|0.2162
90922222|NCT01160211|181716913|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.79||||||||0.79|0.44|
90922223|NCT01160211|181716913|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.15||||||||1.15|0.66|
90922224|NCT01160211|181716913|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.92||||||||0.92|0.51|
90922225|NCT01160211|181716919|SUPERIORITY||Least square difference|-1.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.111|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.95|2.36||||||FACT-B total score||2.36|-5.95|
90922226|NCT01160211|181716919|SUPERIORITY||Least square difference|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.09|0.29||||||FACT-B total score||0.29|-8.09|
90922227|NCT01160211|181716919|SUPERIORITY||Least square difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.739|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.92|1.92||||||FACT-G total score||1.92|-4.92|
90922228|NCT01160211|181716919|SUPERIORITY||Least square difference|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.751|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.55|0.34||||||FACT-G total score||0.34|-6.55|
90922229|NCT01160211|181716919|SUPERIORITY||Least square difference|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.502|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.66|0.25||||||FACT-B trial outcome index (TOI)||0.25|-5.66|
90922230|NCT01160211|181716919|SUPERIORITY||Least square difference|-3.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.512|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.59|-0.64||||||FACT-B trial outcome index (TOI)||-0.64|-6.59|
90922231|NCT01160211|181716919|SUPERIORITY||Least square difference|-1.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.82|-0.11||||||Physical well-being (PWB)||-0.11|-2.82|
90962811|NCT03226275|181806866|EQUIVALENCE|Results based on a mixed-effects model with sequence, treatment, and period as fixed effects and participant nested within sequence as a random effect.|Geometric Least Square Mean Percentage|98.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.75|108.15||||||Statistical Comparison of Bisoprolol in Fed State||108.15|89.75|
90922232|NCT01160211|181716919|SUPERIORITY||Least square difference|-1.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.693|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-0.18||||||Physical well-being (PWB)||-0.18|-2.90|
90922233|NCT01160211|181716919|SUPERIORITY||Least square difference|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.711|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|1.79||||||Social family wellbeing (SWB)||1.79|-1.01|
90922234|NCT01160211|181716919|SUPERIORITY||Least square difference|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.715|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|0.86||||||Social family wellbeing (SWB)||0.86|-1.96|
90922235|NCT01160211|181716919|SUPERIORITY||Least square difference|0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.568|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|1.66||||||Emotional wellbeing (EWB)||1.66|-0.57|
90922236|NCT01160211|181716919|SUPERIORITY||Least square difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.571|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|1.53||||||Emotional wellbeing (EWB)||1.53|-0.72|
90922237|NCT01160211|181716919|SUPERIORITY||Least square difference|-0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.646|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|0.28||||||Functional wellbeing (FWB)||0.28|-2.26|
90922238|NCT01160211|181716919|SUPERIORITY||Least square difference|-1.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.649|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-0.04||||||Functional wellbeing (FWB)||-0.04|-2.60|
90882762|NCT02026115|181628243|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.43
90882763|NCT02026115|181628244|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||Experimental group performed worse than usual care.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.02
90882764|NCT02026115|181628245|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.32
90882765|NCT02026115|181628246|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||.36
90882766|NCT02026115|181628247|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.01
90882767|NCT02026115|181628248|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.01
90922239|NCT01160211|181716919|SUPERIORITY||Least square difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.665|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|0.95||||||Breast cancer subscale (BCS)||0.95|-1.66|
90962812|NCT03226275|181806866|EQUIVALENCE|Results based on a mixed-effects model with sequence, treatment, and period as fixed effects and participant nested within sequence as a random effect.|Geometric Least Square Mean Percentage|104.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.11|112.66||||||Statistical Comparison of Amlodipine in Fed State||112.66|96.11|
90882768|NCT04976530|181628276|SUPERIORITY||win ratio|1.07||||0.748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.58|||Finkelstein Schoenfeld test|||||1.58|0.72|0.748
90922240|NCT01160211|181716919|SUPERIORITY||Least square difference|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.668|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.14|0.48||||||Breast cancer subscale (BCS)||0.48|-2.14|
90882769|NCT04976530|181628277|SUPERIORITY||win ratio|1.33||||0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|2.04|||Finkelstein Schoenfeld test|||||2.04|0.86|0.202
90882770|NCT04976530|181628278|SUPERIORITY||win ratio|1.17||||0.451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.73|||Finkelstein Schoenfeld test|||||1.73|0.79|0.451
90882771|NCT04976530|181628279|SUPERIORITY||win ratio|1.59||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|2.46|||Finkelstein Schoenfeld test|||||2.46|1.02|0.041
90882772|NCT04976530|181628280|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6
90882773|NCT04976530|181628281|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.079|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.079
90882774|NCT04976530|181628282|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.427|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.427
90882775|NCT04976530|181628283|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.042|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.042
90882776|NCT04084769|181628298|OTHER|95% Confidence Interval (CI) of the difference in percentage was calculated from the Wilson Score method without continuity correction.|Difference in percentage|1.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.58|6.95||||||Serogroup A||6.95|-3.58|
90882777|NCT04084769|181628298|OTHER|95% CI of the difference in percentage was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction.|Difference in percentage|-1.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|1.6||||||Serogroup C||1.60|-5.50|
90882778|NCT04084769|181628298|OTHER|95% CI of the difference in percentage was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction.|Difference in percentage|-1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.09|1.14||||||Serogroup Y||1.14|-4.09|
90882779|NCT04084769|181628298|OTHER|95% CI of the difference in percentage was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction.|Difference in percentage|-1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.72|2.07||||||Serogroup W||2.07|-4.72|
90882780|NCT00445328|181628334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||P-value is based on chi-square test with alpha as 0.01.|Chi-squared|||||||1.0000
90882781|NCT00445328|181628336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Major Bleeding||||1.0000
90882782|NCT00445328|181628339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1355||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1355
90882783|NCT04477304|181628368|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|-0.07||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Left-Censored Tobit Regression||Assuming a clinic-level intraclass correlation of 0.01, alpha 0.025, 86 clinics, and 5.5 clinicians per-clinic (N = 473), it was calculated we would have over 85% power for a one-tailed test detecting a 12% reduction in MME from baseline to intervention.||-0.07|-0.12|<0.001
90882784|NCT04477304|181628369|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|-0.16||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Left-Censored Tobit Regression||Assuming a clinic-level intraclass correlation of 0.01, alpha 0.025, 86 clinics, and 5.5 clinicians per-clinic (N = 473), it was calculated we would have over 85% power for a one-tailed test detecting a 12% reduction in MME from baseline to intervention.||-0.16|-0.23|<0.001
90882785|NCT04477304|181628370|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|-0.06||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Assuming a clinic-level intraclass correlation of 0.01, alpha 0.025, 86 clinics, and 5.5 clinicians per-clinic (N = 473), it was calculated we would have over 85% power for a one-tailed test detecting a 12% reduction in MME from baseline to intervention.||-0.06|-0.10|<0.001
90882786|NCT04477304|181628371|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|-0.03||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Left-Censored Tobit Regression||Assuming a clinic-level intraclass correlation of 0.01, alpha 0.025, 86 clinics, and 5.5 clinicians per-clinic (N = 473), it was calculated we would have over 85% power for a one-tailed test detecting a 12% reduction in MME from baseline to intervention.||-0.03|-0.08|<0.001
90882787|NCT04477304|181628372|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|-0.01||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Assuming a clinic-level intraclass correlation of 0.01, alpha 0.025, 86 clinics, and 5.5 clinicians per-clinic (N = 473), it was calculated we would have over 85% power for a one-tailed test detecting a 12% reduction in MME from baseline to intervention.||-0.01|-0.03|0.392
90922241|NCT05746494|181717046|OTHER|Omnibus analysis||||||0.023|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.023
90922242|NCT05746494|181717047|OTHER|Omnibus analysis||||||0.042|||||||Multilevel Modeling|||||||0.042
90922243|NCT05746494|181717048|OTHER|Omnibus analysis||||||0.98|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.980
90922244|NCT05746494|181717049|OTHER|Omnibus analysis||||||0.01|||||||Multilevel Modeling|||||||0.010
90922245|NCT05746494|181717050|OTHER|Omnibus analysis||||||0.064|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.064
90922246|NCT05746494|181717051|OTHER|Omnibus analysis||||||0.306|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.306
90922247|NCT05746494|181717052|OTHER|Omnibus analysis||||||0.041|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.041
90922248|NCT05746494|181717053|OTHER|Omnibus analysis||||||0.019|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.019
90922249|NCT05409183|181717064|OTHER||LS Mean of Treatment Difference|26.473|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.216||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.847|45.099|||ANCOVA|||||45.099|7.847|0.0032
90962813|NCT01436071|181806876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.026|0.213|||ANCOVA|||||0.213|0.026|0.012
90962814|NCT01920594|181806901|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2228.14||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-292.84|4749.11|||ANCOVA||The point estimate was calculated as least square (LS) mean difference (final values) of S-100B Protein \[test\] and S-100B Protein \[reference\].|||4749.11|-292.84|0.0820
90882788|NCT04477304|181628373|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|-0.05||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Left-Censored Tobit Regression||Assuming a clinic-level intraclass correlation of 0.01, alpha 0.025, 86 clinics, and 5.5 clinicians per-clinic (N = 473), it was calculated we would have over 85% power for a one-tailed test detecting a 12% reduction in MME from baseline to intervention.||-0.05|-0.13|<0.001
90962815|NCT01920594|181806902|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|777.95||||0.1997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-424.04|1979.94|||ANCOVA||The point estimate was calculated as LS mean difference (final values) of GFAP \[test\] and GFAP \[reference\].|||1979.94|-424.04|0.1997
90962816|NCT01920594|181806908|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of comparison (Ratio)|1.77||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|3.9|||ANOVA||The point estimate was calculated as Geometric mean ratio of S-100B\[test\] and S-100B\[reference\].|||3.90|0.80|0.1530
90882789|NCT00548808|181628405|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A noninferiority margin of 0.4% for HbA1c was used.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.17|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Change in HbA1c = Treatment + Baseline + Country + Sulfonylurea use (Type III sums of squares).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Insulin Lispro LM minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.17|-0.25|0.716
90882790|NCT00548808|181628406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.279||95.0||||P-value for 16 Week Change from Baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Analysis: Change in HbA1c = Treatment + Baseline + Country + Sulfonylurea use + Visit + Treatment\*Visit (Type 3 sums of squares).||||||0.279
90882791|NCT00548808|181628406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.846||95.0||||P-value for 32 Week Change from Baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Analysis: Change in HbA1c = Treatment + Baseline + Country + Sulfonylurea use + Visit + Treatment\*Visit (Type 3 sums of squares).||||||0.846
90882792|NCT00548808|181628406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.741||95.0||||P-value for 48 Week Change from Baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Analysis: Change in HbA1c = Treatment + Baseline + Country + Sulfonylurea use + Visit + Treatment\*Visit (Type 3 sums of squares).||||||0.741
90882793|NCT00548808|181628407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.5||P-value for patients achieving HbA1c \<6.5% at 16 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|Generalized Estimating Equation model with fixed effects for treatment, country, sulfonylurea use, baseline HbA1c, visit, and visit\*treatment.||||1.50|0.41|0.465
90882794|NCT00548808|181628407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.28||P-value for Patients Achieving HbA1c \<7% at 16 Weeks.|Regression, Logistic|Generalized Estimating Equation model with fixed effects for treatment, country, sulfonylurea use, baseline HbA1c, visit, and visit\*treatment.||||1.28|0.51|0.365
90882795|NCT00548808|181628407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.95||P-value for patients achieving HbA1c \<6.5% at 32 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|Generalized Estimating Equation model with fixed effects for treatment, country, sulfonylurea use, baseline HbA1c, visit, and visit\*treatment.||||1.95|0.65|0.683
90882796|NCT00548808|181628407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.64||P-value for patients achieving HbA1c \<7% at 32 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|Generalized Estimating Equation model with fixed effects for treatment, country, sulfonylurea use, baseline HbA1c, visit, and visit\*treatment.||||1.64|0.68|0.810
90882797|NCT00548808|181628407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|2.01||P-value for patients achieving HbA1c \<6.5% at 48 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|Generalized Estimating Equation model with fixed effects for treatment, country, sulfonylurea use, baseline HbA1c, visit, and visit\*treatment.||||2.01|0.69|0.555
90882798|NCT00548808|181628407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.64||P-value for patients achieving HbA1c \<7% at 48 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|Generalized Estimating Equation model with fixed effects for treatment, country, sulfonylurea use, baseline HbA1c, visit, and visit\*treatment.||||1.64|0.67|0.829
90882799|NCT00548808|181628409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.604||95.0||||P-value for Week 16 Change from Baseline|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Analysis: Change in Blood Glucose = Treatment + Baseline + Country + HbA1c stratum + Sulfonylurea use + Visit + Treatment\*Visit||||||0.604
90882800|NCT00548808|181628409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.814||95.0||||P-value for Week 32 Change from Baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Analysis: Change in Blood Glucose = Treatment + Baseline + Country + HbA1c stratum + Sulfonylurea use + Visit + Treatment\*Visit||||||0.814
90882801|NCT00548808|181628409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.582||95.0||||P-value for 48 Week Change from Baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Analysis: Change in Blood Glucose = Treatment + Baseline + Country + HbA1c stratum + Sulfonylurea use + Visit + Treatment\*Visit||||||0.582
90882802|NCT00548808|181628412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.04||P-value for Cholesterol.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: Lab Result = Treatment + Baseline + Country + HbA1c stratum + Sulfonylurea use (Type III sums of squares).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Insulin Lispro LM minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.04|-0.26|0.162
90882803|NCT00548808|181628412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.05||P-value for Triglycerides.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: Lab Result = Treatment + Baseline + Country + HbA1c stratum + Sulfonylurea use (Type III sums of squares).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Insulin Lispro LM minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.05|-0.30|0.165
90882804|NCT00548808|181628412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.09||P-value for Low Density Lipoprotein.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: Lab Result = Treatment + Baseline + Country + HbA1c stratum + Sulfonylurea use (Type III sums of squares).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Insulin Lispro LM minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.09|-0.18|0.510
90882805|NCT00548808|181628412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.06||P-value for High Density Lipoprotein.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: Lab Result = Treatment + Baseline + Country + HbA1c stratum + Sulfonylurea use (Type III sums of squares).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Insulin Lispro LM minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.06|-0.02|0.382
90882806|NCT04456699|181628472|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.41||||0.9774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.97|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by prior FOLFOX/CAPOX + Bev induction response, number of induction cycles and mutation status.|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by prior FOLFOX/CAPOX + Bev induction response, number of induction cycles and mutation status.|||1.97|1.00|0.9774
90882807|NCT04456699|181628472|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.75||||0.9993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|2.49|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by prior FOLFOX/CAPOX + Bev induction response, number of induction cycles and mutation status.|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by prior FOLFOX/CAPOX + Bev induction response, number of induction cycles and mutation status.|||2.49|1.23|0.9993
90882808|NCT04456699|181628473|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.1527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.21|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by prior FOLFOX/CAPOX + Bev induction response, number of induction cycles and mutation status.|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by prior FOLFOX/CAPOX + Bev induction response, number of induction cycles and mutation status.|||1.21|0.54|0.1527
90882809|NCT04456699|181628473|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.2491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.3|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by prior FOLFOX/CAPOX + Bev induction response, number of induction cycles and mutation status.|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by prior FOLFOX/CAPOX + Bev induction response, number of induction cycles and mutation status.|||1.30|0.59|0.2491
90882810|NCT04456699|181628474|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|-0.2||||0.5272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|6.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Based on stratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method. One-sided p-value for testing H0: difference in % = 0 versus H1: difference in % \> 0.|Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by prior FOLFOX/CAPOX + Bev induction response, cycles and mutation status.|||6.5|-7.0|0.5272
90882811|NCT04456699|181628474|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|-3.2||||0.902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|2.3|||Miettinen & Nurminen|Based on stratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method. One-sided p-value for testing H0: difference in % = 0 versus H1: difference in % \> 0.|Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by prior FOLFOX/CAPOX + Bev induction response, cycles and mutation status.|||2.3|-9.7|0.9020
90882812|NCT05773287|181628478|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.509||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.509
90922250|NCT04806451|181717072|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-267.775|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|68.313||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-403.427|-132.124|||ANCOVA|||||-132.124|-403.427|0.0002
90922251|NCT03134196|181717145|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.06||||||||1.06|0.5|
90882813|NCT05773287|181628479|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.552||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.552
90882814|NCT00457197|181628496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4709|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Baseline drinks/day used as covariate.||||0.4709
90882815|NCT00457197|181628497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1272|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Baseline percent heavy drinking days included as covariate.||||0.1272
90882816|NCT00457197|181628498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9642|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Baseline GGT used as covariate.||||0.9642
90882817|NCT00457197|181628499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7222|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Baseline AST used as covariate.||||0.7222
90882818|NCT00457197|181628500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1412|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Baseline ALT used as covariate.||||0.1412
90882819|NCT00457197|181628501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7071|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Baseline HRSD used as covariate.||||0.7071
90882820|NCT00457197|181628502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2569|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Baseline IDS-SR used as a covariate.||||0.2569
90882821|NCT00457197|181628503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8814|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Baseline YMRS used as a covariate.||||0.8814
90882822|NCT00457197|181628504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2473|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Baseline PACS used as a covariate.||||0.2473
90882823|NCT02702401|181628585|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.775||||0.0186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.609|0.987|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value stratified by geographic region, macrovascular invasion and alfa-fetoprotein level.|Cox regression model with Efron's method (treatment as covariate) stratified by geographic region, macrovascular invasion and alfa-fetoprotein level|||0.987|0.609|0.0186
90882824|NCT02702401|181628586|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.781||||0.0238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.611|0.998|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value stratified by geographic region, macrovascular invasion and alfa-fetoprotein level.|Cox regression model with Efron's method (treatment as covariate) stratified by geographic region, macrovascular invasion and alfa-fetoprotein level|||0.998|0.611|0.0238
90882825|NCT02702401|181628587|OTHER||Difference in Percent|13.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|19.5|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by geographic region, macrovascular invasion and alfa-fetoprotein level|||19.5|7.7|
90882826|NCT02702401|181628589|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.688||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.877||One-sided p-value stratified by geographic region, macrovascular invasion and alfa-fetoprotein level.|Log Rank||Cox regression model with Efron's method (treatment as covariate) stratified by geographic region, macrovascular invasion and alfa-fetoprotein level|||0.877|0.540|0.0011
90922252|NCT03134196|181717146|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.04|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.99||||||||0.99|0.56|
90922253|NCT00875277|181717151|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90922254|NCT00875277|181717151|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90922255|NCT00875277|181717151|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90922256|NCT00875277|181717151|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90922257|NCT00875277|181717151|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90922258|NCT00875277|181717151|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90922259|NCT00875277|181717151|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.035
90922260|NCT00875277|181717151|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.082|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.082
90882827|NCT01833403|181628593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
90882828|NCT01686646|181628602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean DIfference|3.5||||0.0248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|6.5||A hierarchical testing procedure was used such that p-values were only presented if the preceding treatment comparison was statistically significant (p\<0.05).|ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model with factors for treatment group and season, and baseline score as a covariate.|A positive difference favored the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference in treatments in the change from baseline in the number of valid responses from the RVIP.||6.5|0.4|0.0248
90882829|NCT01686646|181628602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.7||||0.1513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|4.1||A hierarchical testing procedure was used such that p-values were only presented if the preceding treatment comparison was statistically significant (p\<0.05).|ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model with factors for treatment group and season, and baseline score as a covariate.|A positive difference favoured the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference in treatments in the change from baseline in the number of valid responses from the RVIP.||4.1|-0.6|0.1513
90882830|NCT01686646|181628602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|6.6||Not significant based on hierarchical testing.|ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model with factors for treatment group and season, and baseline score as a covariate.|A positive difference favoured the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference in treatments in change from baseline in number of valid responses from RVIP task.||6.6|1.1|
90882831|NCT01686646|181628603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.9||||0.0696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|6.1||A hierarchical testing procedure was used such that p-values were only presented if the preceding treatment comparison was statistically significant (p\<0.05).|ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model with factors for treatment group and season, and baseline score as a covariate.|A positive difference favored the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference in treatments in the change from baseline in the number of accurate responses from the RVIP.||6.1|-0.2|0.0696
90922261|NCT00875277|181717151|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.009
90922262|NCT00875277|181717151|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.012
90922263|NCT00875277|181717151|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91034385|NCT00635492|181954967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.1|||Regression, Logistic|||Diabetes Health Profile - 18 (DHP-18) subscale disinhibited eating - Yes vs. No||1.10|1.01|0.0083
90882832|NCT01686646|181628603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|5.2||A hierarchical testing procedure was used such that p-values were only presented if the preceding treatment comparison was statistically significant (p\<0.05).|ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model with factors for treatment group and season, and baseline score as a covariate.|A positive difference favored the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference in treatments in the change from baseline in the number of valid responses from the RVIP.||5.2|0.3|
90882833|NCT01686646|181628603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|3.9||A hierarchical testing procedure was used such that p-values were only presented if the preceding treatment comparison was statistically significant (p\<0.05).|ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model with factors for treatment group and season, and baseline score as a covariate.|A positive difference favored the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference in treatments in the change from baseline in the number of valid responses from the RVIP.||3.9|-1.7|
90882834|NCT02782949|181628644|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.399|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test|||||||0.3990
90882835|NCT02782949|181628647|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.74
90882836|NCT01966926|181628649|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Power not calculated due to small sample size and pilot study intent.|chi square|2.05||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was unadjusted, with an a priori threshold for statistical significance set at p \<.05.|Chi-squared|1 degree of freedom||||||.15
90882837|NCT01966926|181628650|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Power not calculated due to small sample size and pilot study intent.|Wilks' Lambda|0.96||||0.61||||||P-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold of \<0.05 for statistical significance|MANOVA|Degrees of freedom: 2,27||Repeated measures analysis from baseline to six months.||||0.61
90882838|NCT01966926|181628651|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Power not calculated due to small sample size and pilot study intent.|Wilks' Lambda|0.95||||0.5||||||P-value is unadjusted; a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|MANOVA|Degrees of freedom: 2,27||Repeated measures analysis from baseline to six months.||||0.50
90882839|NCT01966926|181628652|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Power not calculated due to small sample size and pilot study intent.|Wilks' Lambda|0.87||||0.15||||||P-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|MANOVA|Degrees of freedom: 2,27||Repeated measures analysis from baseline to six months.||||0.15
90922264|NCT00875277|181717151|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90922265|NCT00875277|181717151|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90922266|NCT00875277|181717151|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90922267|NCT00875277|181717151|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.089|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.089
90922268|NCT04541147|181717167|EQUIVALENCE|Test if the number of doses in Dexamethasone Plus Analgesics group differs from that in Analgesics Alone group at a significance level of 0.05.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.1||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|16.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||||16.7|-2.9|0.16
90922269|NCT04541147|181717168|EQUIVALENCE|Test if the average pain score in Dexamethasone Plus Analgesics group differs from that in Analgesics Alone group at a significance level of 0.05.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.4||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.0|-1.8|0.56
90922270|NCT04541147|181717169|EQUIVALENCE|Test if the Number of participants with post-operative complications in Dexamethasone Plus Analgesics group differs from that in Analgesics Alone group at a significance level of 0.05.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.36|||Fisher Exact|||||0.36|-0.22|1.00
90922271|NCT04026555|181717213|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|1.78|||Regression, Poisson|||IPTW Poisson regression was used to model the number of escalations per visit with an offset of the log transformed length of stay normalized per 1000 bed days. Treatment effect is expressed in terms of adjusted incidence rate ratio (IRR) per 1000 patient bed days.||1.78|1.16|< 0.001
91034386|NCT00635492|181954968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.0141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|0.99|||Regression, Logistic|||Random blood glucose - 1 mmol/L higher||0.99|0.90|0.0141
90962817|NCT01920594|181806909|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of comparison (Ratio)|3.13||||0.1377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|14.26|||ANOVA||The point estimate was calculated as Geometric mean ratio of GFAP\[test\] and GFAP\[reference\].|||14.26|0.69|0.1377
90882840|NCT01966926|181628653|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Power not calculated due to small sample size and pilot study intent.|Wilks' Lambda|0.91||||0.3||||||P-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|MANOVA|Degrees of freedom: 2,26||Repeated measures analysis from baseline to six months.||||0.30
90882841|NCT01966926|181628654|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Power not calculated due to small sample size and pilot study intent.|Wilks' Lambda|0.93||||0.17||||||P-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|MANOVA|Degrees of freedom: 1,28||Repeated measures analysis from three to six months.||||0.17
90882842|NCT03238911|181628690|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-67.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.4|-51.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Iron isomaltoside/ferric derisomaltose was compared to ferric carboxymaltose by estimation of the risk difference and the associated 95% CI, adjusting for strata (underlying disease and screening s-phosphate) using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method.|"Power:~The power was set to 80%. Assuming incidences of 15% for iron isomaltoside/ferric derisomaltose and 40% for ferric carboxymaltose, 49 subjects in each treatment group were required to detect a difference between the treatment groups. The significance level was set to 5%."||-51.5|-77.4|<0.0001
90882843|NCT03238911|181628691|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8979|||||||Log Rank|||The time with hypophosphatemia from baseline to day 35 was estimated by a Kaplan-Meier plot. The treatment groups were compared by a log-rank test. Only subjects who had one or more s-phosphate value(s) \<2 mg/dL were included.||||0.8979
90882844|NCT03238911|181628692|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-39.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.2|-23.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Iron isomaltoside/ferric derisomaltose will be compared to ferric carboxymaltose by estimation of the risk difference and the associated 95 % CI, adjusting for strata (type of underlying disease (women with IDA due to gynaecological blood losses; yes/no) and screening s-phosphate level (\< or ≥ 3.5 mg/dL)) using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method.||-23.3|-52.2|<0.0001
90882845|NCT03238911|181628693|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.48|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.65|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 1~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||0.65|0.31|<0.0001
90922272|NCT04026555|181717214|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|2.18||Correction for multiple comparisons was performed on all key outcomes within the primary and secondary hypotheses, respectively, using the false discovery rate method (FDR).|Regression, Logistic|||IPTW log-binomial regres- sion models were used to model the secondary and ad hoc outcomes. Treatment effect is expressed as adjusted relative risk (RR).||2.18|1.39|<0.001
91034387|NCT00635492|181954969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.0107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|0.99|||Regression, Logistic|||Blood glucose self-monitoring - 1 test/week more||0.99|0.96|0.0107
90882846|NCT03238911|181628693|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.27|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 7~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||1.27|0.85|<0.0001
90882847|NCT03238911|181628693|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.25|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 8~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||1.25|0.81|<0.0001
90882848|NCT03238911|181628693|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.6|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 14~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||1.60|1.10|<0.0001
90882849|NCT03238911|181628693|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.32|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 21~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||1.32|0.75|<0.0001
90882850|NCT03238911|181628693|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.39|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 35~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||1.39|0.86|<0.0001
90962818|NCT01920594|181806910|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|34.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.95|47.17|||ANCOVA||The point estimate was calculated as LS mean difference final values of Erythropoietin\[test\] and Erythropoietin\[reference\].|||47.17|21.95|<.0001
91034388|NCT00635492|181954970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67||||0.0193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|2.46|||Regression, Logistic|||Receipt of diet/exercise advice - Yes vs. No||2.46|1.13|0.0193
90882851|NCT03238911|181628694|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.32|20.79|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 1~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||20.79|10.32|<0.0001
90882852|NCT03238911|181628694|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.62|39.84|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 7~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||39.84|26.62|<0.0001
90922273|NCT04026555|181717217|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.76||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.99||Correction for multiple comparisons was performed on all key outcomes within the primary and secondary hypotheses, respectively, using the false discovery rate method (FDR).|Regression, Logistic|||IPTW log-binomial regression models were used to model the secondary and ad hoc outcomes. Treatment effect is expressed as adjusted relative risk (RR).||0.99|0.58|0.045
90922274|NCT04026555|181717222|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.18|||Regression, Cox|||||1.18|0.98|0.14
90922275|NCT04114877|181717242|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models||||||>0.05
90922276|NCT04114877|181717243|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models||||||>0.05
90922277|NCT04114877|181717244|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models||||||>0.05
90922278|NCT04114877|181717245|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models||||||>0.05
90922279|NCT04114877|181717246|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.455|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.455
90922280|NCT04295798|181717247|EQUIVALENCE|Model effects included stimulation condition (i.e., gel-tDCS, sponge-tDCS, gel-sham and sponge-sham), time (pre-, post-stimulation), and their interaction. Previous studies showed age, sex, and BMI were associated with one or more metrics of standing or walking and were therefore included as covariates. Tukey's post-hoc testing was used to compare factor means of significant models.||||||0.02|||||||ANOVA|||We hypothesized a significant effect of intervention type on absolute change in dual task cost to gait speed from baseline to immediately post intervention.||||0.02
90922281|NCT04295798|181717248|EQUIVALENCE|Model effects included stimulation condition (i.e., gel-tDCS, sponge-tDCS, gel-sham and sponge-sham), time (pre-, post-stimulation), and their interaction. Previous studies showed age, sex, and BMI were associated with one or more metrics of standing or walking and were therefore included as covariates. Tukey's post-hoc testing was used to compare factor means of significant models.||||||0.02|||||||ANOVA|||We hypothesized a significant effect of intervention type on absolute change in dual task cost to standing postural sway speed from baseline to immediately post intervention.||||0.02
90922282|NCT04295798|181717249|EQUIVALENCE|Model effects included stimulation condition (i.e., gel-tDCS, sponge-tDCS, gel-sham and sponge-sham), time (pre-, post-stimulation), and their interaction. Previous studies showed age, sex, and BMI were associated with one or more metrics of standing or walking and were therefore included as covariates. Tukey's post-hoc testing was used to compare factor means of significant models.||||||0.04|||||||ANOVA|||We hypothesized a significant effect of intervention type on absolute change in dual task cost to stride time variability from baseline to immediately post intervention.||||0.04
90922283|NCT04295798|181717250|EQUIVALENCE|Model effects included stimulation condition (i.e., gel-tDCS, sponge-tDCS, gel-sham and sponge-sham), time (pre-, post-stimulation), and their interaction. Previous studies showed age, sex, and BMI were associated with one or more metrics of standing or walking and were therefore included as covariates. Tukey's post-hoc testing was used to compare factor means of significant models.||||||0.56|||||||ANOVA|||We hypothesized no significant effect of intervention type on absolute change in single task gait speed from baseline to immediately post intervention.||||0.56
90922284|NCT04295798|181717251|EQUIVALENCE|Model effects included stimulation condition (i.e., gel-tDCS, sponge-tDCS, gel-sham and sponge-sham), time (pre-, post-stimulation), and their interaction. Previous studies showed age, sex, and BMI were associated with one or more metrics of standing or walking and were therefore included as covariates. Tukey's post-hoc testing was used to compare factor means of significant models.||||||0.07|||||||ANOVA|||We hypothesized a significant effect of intervention type on absolute change in dual task gait speed from baseline to immediately post intervention.||||0.07
90922285|NCT04295798|181717252|EQUIVALENCE|Model effects included stimulation condition (i.e., gel-tDCS, sponge-tDCS, gel-sham and sponge-sham), time (pre-, post-stimulation), and their interaction. Previous studies showed age, sex, and BMI were associated with one or more metrics of standing or walking and were therefore included as covariates. Tukey's post-hoc testing was used to compare factor means of significant models.||||||0.74|||||||ANOVA|||We hypothesized no significant effect of intervention type on absolute change in single task stride time variability from baseline to immediately post intervention.||||0.74
90882853|NCT03238911|181628694|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.71|39.84|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 8~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||39.84|25.71|<0.0001
90922286|NCT04295798|181717253|EQUIVALENCE|Model effects included stimulation condition (i.e., gel-tDCS, sponge-tDCS, gel-sham and sponge-sham), time (pre-, post-stimulation), and their interaction. Previous studies showed age, sex, and BMI were associated with one or more metrics of standing or walking and were therefore included as covariates. Tukey's post-hoc testing was used to compare factor means of significant models.||||||0.33|||||||ANOVA|||We hypothesized a significant effect of intervention type on absolute change in dual task stride time variability from baseline to immediately post intervention.||||0.33
90922287|NCT04295798|181717254|EQUIVALENCE|Model effects included stimulation condition (i.e., gel-tDCS, sponge-tDCS, gel-sham and sponge-sham), time (pre-, post-stimulation), and their interaction. Previous studies showed age, sex, and BMI were associated with one or more metrics of standing or walking and were therefore included as covariates. Tukey's post-hoc testing was used to compare factor means of significant models.||||||0.16|||||||ANOVA|||We hypothesized a significant effect of intervention type on absolute change in dual task cost to standing postural sway area from baseline to immediately post intervention.||||0.16
90922288|NCT04295798|181717255|EQUIVALENCE|Model effects included stimulation condition (i.e., gel-tDCS, sponge-tDCS, gel-sham and sponge-sham), time (pre-, post-stimulation), and their interaction. Previous studies showed age, sex, and BMI were associated with one or more metrics of standing or walking and were therefore included as covariates. Tukey's post-hoc testing was used to compare factor means of significant models.||||||0.52|||||||ANOVA|||We hypothesized no significant effect of intervention type on absolute change in single task postural sway speed from baseline to immediately post intervention.||||0.52
90922289|NCT04295798|181717256|EQUIVALENCE|Model effects included stimulation condition (i.e., gel-tDCS, sponge-tDCS, gel-sham and sponge-sham), time (pre-, post-stimulation), and their interaction. Previous studies showed age, sex, and BMI were associated with one or more metrics of standing or walking and were therefore included as covariates. Tukey's post-hoc testing was used to compare factor means of significant models.||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||We hypothesized a significant effect of intervention type on absolute change in dual task postural sway speed from baseline to immediately post intervention.||||0.01
90922290|NCT04295798|181717257|EQUIVALENCE|Model effects included stimulation condition (i.e., gel-tDCS, sponge-tDCS, gel-sham and sponge-sham), time (pre-, post-stimulation), and their interaction. Previous studies showed age, sex, and BMI were associated with one or more metrics of standing or walking and were therefore included as covariates. Tukey's post-hoc testing was used to compare factor means of significant models.||||||0.39|||||||ANOVA|||We hypothesized no significant effect of intervention type on absolute change in single task postural sway area from baseline to immediately post intervention||||0.39
90922291|NCT04295798|181717258|EQUIVALENCE|Model effects included stimulation condition (i.e., gel-tDCS, sponge-tDCS, gel-sham and sponge-sham), time (pre-, post-stimulation), and their interaction. Previous studies showed age, sex, and BMI were associated with one or more metrics of standing or walking and were therefore included as covariates. Tukey's post-hoc testing was used to compare factor means of significant models.||||||0.18|||||||ANOVA|||We hypothesized a significant effect of intervention type on absolute change in dual task postural sway area from baseline to immediately post intervention.||||0.18
90922292|NCT05364671|181717277|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0088||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is set to 0.04|Chi-squared|||||||0.0088
90922293|NCT05364671|181717278|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0025||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is set to 0.005|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mean differences (Raphamin vs. Placebo) were compared||||0.0025
90922294|NCT05364671|181717280|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2607|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mean differences (Raphamin vs. Placebo) were compared||||0.2607
90922295|NCT05364671|181717281|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7601|||||||Fisher Exact|||"This analysis applies to Day 6 row."||||0.7601
90922296|NCT05364671|181717281|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7685|||||||Fisher Exact|||"This analysis applies to Day 10 row."||||0.7685
90922297|NCT05364671|181717282|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.052|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.052
91034389|NCT00635492|181954971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.0138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.96|||Regression, Logistic|||LDL cholesterol - 1 mmol/L higher at baseline||0.96|0.72|0.0138
90922298|NCT05364671|181717283|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.19
90922299|NCT05364671|181717284|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.54
90922300|NCT05364671|181717285|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.10
90922301|NCT05364671|181717286|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92||||||"The p-value associated with treatment\*visit interaction of pulse rate (heart rate) from Visit 1 to 4 between Raphamin and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|ANOVA|||||||0.92
90922302|NCT05364671|181717287|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44||||||"The p-value associated with treatment\*visit interaction of respiration rate (breathing rate) from Visit 1 to 4 between Raphamin and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|ANOVA|||||||0.44
90922303|NCT05364671|181717288|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9||||||"The p-value associated with treatment\*visit interaction of SpO2 from Visit 1 to 4 between Raphamin and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|ANOVA|||||||0.90
90922304|NCT05364671|181717289|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3||||||"The p-value associated with treatment\*visit interaction of SBP from Visit 1 to 4 between Raphamin and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|ANOVA|||||||0.30
90922305|NCT05364671|181717289|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94||||||"The p-value associated with treatment\*visit interaction of DBP from Visit 1 to 4 between Raphamin and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|ANOVA|||||||0.94
90922306|NCT02761057|181717291|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.97|||Regression, Cox|||A proportional hazards model was used to compare the Hazard Ratio (HR) for PFS.||0.97|0.37|0.019
91034390|NCT00635492|181954979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.118|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.062|1.177|||Regression, Cox|||HbA1c (%) at baseline||1.177|1.062|<0.0001
91034391|NCT00635492|181954979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.937|0.985|||Regression, Cox|||DHP barriers to activity subscale at baseline||0.985|0.937|0.001
91034392|NCT00635492|181954979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.532|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.698|3.777|||Regression, Cox|||Gastrointestinal symptoms: yes vs. no at baseline||3.777|1.698|<0.001
91034393|NCT00635492|181954979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.437|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.303|0.63|||Regression, Cox|||Insulin regimen: basal/bolus vs. long-acting only||0.630|0.303|<0.001
90922307|NCT02761057|181717292|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Chi-squared|||The Chi-Square test will be used to compare RR between sunitinib and cabozantinib.||||0.10
90922308|NCT02761057|181717293|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.51|||Log Rank|||The log-rank test will be used to compare OS.||1.51|0.47|
90922309|NCT03798093|181717296|SUPERIORITY||least squares|-0.112||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.3|1.7|||Regression, Linear|||||1.7|-29.3|0.08
90922310|NCT00812461|181717338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.07|-0.38|||Adjusted change from Baseline to Month 6||The Number of Participants Analyzed is participants with efficacy measurement available at this endpoint, that is, 229 participants in the placebo group and 212 participants in the nalmefene group.|"The primary hypothesis concerned the treatment effect at Month 6. The null hypothesis of no difference in treatment effect was tested against the alternative hypothesis that there was a difference in treatment effect.~MMRM model with the Baseline score as a covariate; site, sex, time in months (Month 1-6); and treatment as fixed effects. The Baseline score-by-time and treatment-by-time interactions were also included in the model. An unstructured covariance matrix was used."||-0.38|-3.07|0.012
90922311|NCT00812461|181717339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.89||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.63|0.73|||Adjusted change from Baseline to Month 6||The Number of Participants Analyzed is participants with efficacy measurement available at this endpoint, that is, 229 participants in the placebo group and 212 participants in the nalmefene group.|"The primary hypothesis concerned the treatment effect at Month 6. The null hypothesis of no difference in treatment effect was tested against the alternative hypothesis that there was a difference in treatment effect.~MMRM model with the Baseline score as a covariate; site, sex, time in months (Month 1-6); and treatment as fixed effects. The Baseline score-by-time and treatment-by-time interactions were also included in the model. An unstructured covariance matrix was used."||0.73|-10.63|0.088
90922312|NCT00812461|181717340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.27|||Adjusted Odds Ratio (OR) response|||The analysis of RSDRL used a logistic regression (LREG) model, with country, sex, Baseline DRL, and treatment as fixed effects, and missing values were imputed using individual-patient predicted values of TAC derived from the MMRM model.||1.27|0.67|0.630
90922313|NCT00812461|181717341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.02|||Adjusted change from Baseline to Week 24||The Number of Participants Analyzed is participants with efficacy measurement available at this endpoint, that is, 225 participants in the placebo group and 203 participants in the nalmefene group.|MMRM model with the Baseline score as a covariate, and site, sex, time in weeks, and treatment as fixed effects. The Baseline score-by-time and treatment-by-time interactions were also included in the model; an unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.02|-0.44|0.029
90922314|NCT00812461|181717342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.04|||Adjusted change from Baseline to Week 24||The Number of Participants Analyzed is participants with efficacy measurement available at this endpoint, that is, 225 participants in the placebo group and 203 participants in the nalmefene group.|MMRM model with the Baseline CGI-S score as a covariate, and site, sex, time in weeks, and treatment as fixed effects. The Baseline CGI-S score-by-time and treatment-by-time interactions were also included in the model. An unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.04|-0.38|0.111
90922315|NCT00812461|181717343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio to placebo|0.96||||0.529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.08|||[Adjusted values||The Number of Participants Analyzed is participants with efficacy measurement available at this endpoint, that is, 224 participants in the placebo group and 207 participants in the nalmefene group.|Log-transformed GGT values were analysed using an MMRM model with the log-transformed Baseline value as a covariate, and site, sex, time in weeks, and treatment as fixed effects. Logtransformed Baseline value-by-time interaction and treatment-by-time interaction were included in the model. An unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.08|0.86|0.529
90922316|NCT00812461|181717344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio to placebo|0.92||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.0|||[Adjusted values||The Number of Participants Analyzed is participants with efficacy measurement available at this endpoint, that is, 222 participants in the placebo group and 205 participants in the nalmefene group.|Log-transformed ALAT values were analysed using an MMRM model with the log-transformed Baseline value as a covariate, and site, sex, time in weeks, and treatment as fixed effects. Logtransformed Baseline value-by-time and treatment-by-time interactions were included in the model. An unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.00|0.84|0.049
90922317|NCT02651428|181717345|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.29||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.62||The threshold significance level at the interim and final statistical analyses for the primary efficacy endpoint was 0.0294.|Log Rank||The numerator for the hazard ratio was the estimated hazard for the Neutrolin treatment arm, and the denominator was the estimated hazard for the Heparin treatment arm.|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the survival functions for CRBSI between the two treatments. Based on 80% power to detect a 55% reduction in the risk of CRBSI relative to the control treatment, a 1:1 randomization, a 2-sided log-rank test, one interim analysis using the method of Pocock, and an overall alpha of 0.05, it was determined that 56 CRBSIs would be needed. These are the results of the final analysis.||0.62|0.14|0.0006
90922318|NCT02651428|181717346|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.4161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.29||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Log Rank||The numerator for the hazard ratio was the estimated hazard for the Neutrolin treatment arm, and the denominator was the estimated hazard for the Heparin treatment arm.|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the time until catheter removal for any reason between the two treatments.||1.29|0.90|0.4161
91034394|NCT00635492|181954979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.676||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.523|0.874|||Regression, Cox|||Insulin regimen: mixtures vs. long-acting only||0.874|0.523|0.003
91034395|NCT00635492|181954979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.549||||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.175|1.718|||Regression, Cox|||Insulin regimen: other vs. long-acting only||1.718|0.175|0.303
90962819|NCT01920594|181806911|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.54||||0.2404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|1.45|||ANCOVA||The point estimate was calculated as LS mean difference final values of Lactate Dehydrogenase\[test\] and Lactate Dehydrogenase\[reference\].|||1.45|-0.37|0.2404
90882854|NCT03238911|181628694|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|42.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.89|50.32|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 14~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||50.32|33.89|<0.0001
90882855|NCT03238911|181628694|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.09|41.48|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 21~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||41.48|23.09|<0.0001
90882856|NCT03238911|181628694|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|36.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.33|44.78|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 35~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||44.78|27.33|<0.0001
90882857|NCT03238911|181628696|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-105.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-131.04|-80.45|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 1~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-80.45|-131.04|<0.0001
90882858|NCT03238911|181628696|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-60.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-82.95|-38.58|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 7~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-38.58|-82.95|<0.0001
90882859|NCT03238911|181628696|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-293.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-368.15|-218.3|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 8~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-218.30|-368.15|<0.0001
90882860|NCT03238911|181628696|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-117.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-151.6|-83.33|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 14~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-83.33|-151.60|<0.0001
90962820|NCT01920594|181806912|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|925.88||||0.0526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.73|1862.49|||ANCOVA||The point estimate was calculated as LS mean difference final values of Tau Protein\[test\] and Tau Protein\[reference\].|||1862.49|-10.73|0.0526
90882861|NCT03238911|181628696|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-71.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-101.8|-40.61|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 21~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-40.61|-101.80|<0.0001
90962821|NCT01920594|181806913|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.11||||0.0893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|8.87|||ANCOVA||The point estimate was calculated as LS mean difference final values of Neuron Specific Enolase\[test\] and Neuron Specific Enolase\[reference\].|||8.87|-0.65|0.0893
90962822|NCT01920594|181806918|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric mean|1.84||||0.5012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|11.32|||ANOVA|||For Troponin I||11.32|0.30|0.5012
91034396|NCT00635492|181954979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.164|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.681|2.785|||Regression, Cox|||Insulin regimen: short-acting only vs. long-acting only||2.785|1.681|<0.001
91034397|NCT00635492|181954980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.463||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.043|2.053|||Regression, Cox|||GI symptoms: yes vs. no at baseline||2.053|1.043|0.028
91034398|NCT00635492|181954980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.601||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.432|0.834|||Regression, Cox|||EQ-5D index value at baseline||0.834|0.432|0.002
90962823|NCT01920594|181806918|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric mean|0.75||||0.8053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|8.57|||ANOVA|||For Troponin T||8.57|0.07|0.8053
91034399|NCT02251886|181954984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.17||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.76|||Chi-squared|||||1.76|0.77|0.48
90882862|NCT03238911|181628696|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-37.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.92|-19.39|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 35~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-19.39|-54.92|<0.0001
90882863|NCT03238911|181628697|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-99.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-136.42|-61.76|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 1~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-61.76|-136.42|<0.0001
90882864|NCT03238911|181628697|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-49.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.8|-25.9|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 7~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-25.90|-72.80|<0.0001
90882865|NCT03238911|181628697|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-191.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-242.47|-140.09|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 8~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-140.09|-242.47|<0.0001
90882866|NCT03238911|181628697|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-100.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-137.19|-64.2|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 14~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-64.20|-137.19|<0.0001
90882867|NCT03238911|181628697|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-48.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.78|-24.96|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 21~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-24.96|-71.78|<0.0001
90882868|NCT03238911|181628697|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.0||||0.1411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.04|5.06|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 35~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||5.06|-35.04|0.1411
90882869|NCT03238911|181628698|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|0.59|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 1~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||0.59|-1.08|0.5620
90922319|NCT01333969|181717347|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.02|||GEE|Regression analysis using the generalized estimating equations (GEE) method to compare the changes over time in VAS scores at rest and with exercise||||-0.02|-1.40|.043
90922320|NCT01333969|181717348|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.043||||0.043|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.043
90922321|NCT01333969|181717349|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.584||||0.584|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.584
90922322|NCT01333969|181717350|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.763||||0.763|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.763
90922323|NCT01333969|181717351|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.602||||0.602|TWO_SIDED||||||GEE|Regression analyses based on the generalized estimating equations (GEE) method||||||.602
90922324|NCT01333969|181717352|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8656||||0.8656|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.8656
90922325|NCT01333969|181717353|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8422||||0.8422|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.8422
90922326|NCT01333969|181717354|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.526||||0.526|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.526
91034400|NCT02251886|181954984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.46|||Chi-squared|||||1.46|0.69|1.00
91034401|NCT02757105|181954988|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.036
91034402|NCT02757105|181954989|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.410
90922327|NCT01333969|181717355|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.526||||0.526|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.526
90922328|NCT01926496|181717422|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.89||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.99|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by country, anatomical location and history of squamous cell carcinoma.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel relative risk (ingenol mebutate / imiquimod), stratified by country, anatomical location and history of squamous cell carcinoma.|||0.99|0.80|0.03
90922329|NCT01926496|181717423|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.95||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.03|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by country, anatomical location and history of squamous cell carcinoma.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel relative risk (ingenol mebutate / imiquimod), stratified by country, anatomical location and history of squamous cell carcinoma.|||1.03|0.87|0.18
90922330|NCT01926496|181717424|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.84|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by country, anatomical location and history of squamous cell carcinoma.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel relative risk (ingenol mebutate / imiquimod), stratified by country, anatomical location and history of squamous cell carcinoma.|||0.84|0.52|<0.001
90922331|NCT02677298|181717425|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90922332|NCT02677298|181717426|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||For the testing a hierarchical approach has been applied. The result of this test is considered confirmative if the test of the Primary Outcome Measure shows a confirmatory result at a one-sided significance level of 0.025.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90922333|NCT02677298|181717427|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||For the testing a hierarchical approach has been applied. The result of this test is considered confirmative if the test of the Primary and all previous Secondary Outcome Measures show a confirmatory result at a one-sided significance level of 0.025.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.003
90922334|NCT02677298|181717428|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||For the testing a hierarchical approach has been applied. The result of this test is considered confirmative if the test of the Primary and all previous Secondary Outcome Measures show a confirmatory result at a one-sided significance level of 0.025.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Test performed for Investigator's In-clinic Assessment||||<0.001
90922335|NCT02677298|181717428|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||For the testing a hierarchical approach has been applied. The result of this test is considered confirmative if the test of the Primary and all previous Secondary Outcome Measures show a confirmatory result at a one-sided significance level of 0.025.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Test performed for Subject's In-clinic Assessment||||<0.001
90922336|NCT02677298|181717429|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.084||||||For the testing a hierarchical approach has been applied. The result of this test is considered confirmative if the test of the Primary and all previous Secondary Outcome Measures show a confirmatory result at a one-sided significance level of 0.025.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Test performed for responders rates at week 20||||0.084
90922337|NCT02677298|181717430|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||For the testing a hierarchical approach has been applied. The result of this test is considered confirmative if the test of the Primary and all previous Secondary Outcome Measures show a confirmatory result at a one-sided significance level of 0.025.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test performed for the Modified Skindex-16 (GL-QoL) Emotional domain change from baseline at week 4||||<0.001
90922338|NCT02677298|181717430|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||For the testing a hierarchical approach has been applied. The result of this test is considered confirmative if the test of the Primary and all previous Secondary Outcome Measures show a confirmatory result at a one-sided significance level of 0.025.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This test was performed for the Modified Skindex-16 (GL-QoL) Functioning domain - Change from baseline at Week 4||||<0.001
90922339|NCT02677298|181717430|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||For the testing a hierarchical approach has been applied. The result of this test is considered confirmative if the test of the Primary and all previous Secondary Outcome Measures show a confirmatory result at a one-sided significance level of 0.025.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This test was performed for the Modified Skindex-16 (GL-QoL) Overall score||||<0.001
90922340|NCT02677298|181717430|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||For the testing a hierarchical approach has been applied. The result of this test is considered confirmative if the test of the Primary and all previous Secondary Outcome Measures show a confirmatory result at a one-sided significance level of 0.025.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test was performed for the FACE-Q Appraisal of Lines Between Eyebrows Scale - Change from Baseline at Week 4||||<0.001
90922341|NCT02677298|181717430|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||For the testing a hierarchical approach has been applied. The result of this test is considered confirmative if the test of the Primary and all previous Secondary Outcome Measures show a confirmatory result at a one-sided significance level of 0.025.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test was performed for the FACE-Q Age Appraisal VAS score||||<0.001
90922342|NCT03210272|181717469|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio T/R (%)|155.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|130.66|185.3|||||intra-individual gCV (%) = 18.1|The statistical model to assess relative bioavailability in the FE part was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the ln-transformed parameters AUC and Cmax including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects nested within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'||185.30|130.66|
90922343|NCT03210272|181717469|OTHER||Ratio T/R (%)|240.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|196.25|293.81|||||intra-individual gCV (%) = 27.8|The statistical model to assess relative bioavailability in the FE part was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the ln-transformed parameters AUC and Cmax including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects nested within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'||293.81|196.25|
90922344|NCT03210272|181717470|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio T/R (%)|156.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|132.73|184.22|||||intra-individual gCV (%) = 17.0|The statistical model to assess relative bioavailability in the FE part was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the ln-transformed parameters AUC and Cmax including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects nested within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'||184.22|132.73|
90922345|NCT03210272|181717470|OTHER||Ratio T/R (%)|245.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|200.7|300.44|||||intra-individual gCV (%) = 27.8|The statistical model to assess relative bioavailability in the FE part was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the ln-transformed parameters AUC and Cmax including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects nested within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'||300.44|200.70|
90922346|NCT03210272|181717471|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio T/R (%)|158.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|114.25|220.56|||||intra-individual gCV (%) = 34.8|The statistical model to assess relative bioavailability in the FE part was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the ln-transformed parameters AUC and Cmax including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects nested within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'||220.56|114.25|
90922347|NCT03210272|181717471|OTHER||Ratio T/R (%)|246.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|203.37|297.89|||||intra-individual gCV (%) = 26.2|The statistical model to assess relative bioavailability in the FE part was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the ln-transformed parameters AUC and Cmax including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects nested within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'||297.89|203.37|
90922348|NCT03064217|181717489|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
90922349|NCT02143726|181717490|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56||||0.0918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.33|||Log Rank|Stratified 1-sided log-rank test (stratified by ECOG performance status, prior systemic treatment for hürthle thyroid cancer, and treating site).||||1.33|0.23|0.0918
90922350|NCT02143726|181717492|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.62||||0.3976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|4.96|||Log Rank|||||4.96|0.53|0.3976
90922351|NCT02100813|181717525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate ratio|0.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.42|||Negative binomial regression|||Negative binominal regression with log baseline count as offset variable and treatment group and analysis site as factors.||0.42|0.23|<0.001
90922352|NCT02100813|181717525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate ratio|0.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.33|||Negative binomial regression|||Negative binominal regression with log baseline count as offset variable and treatment group and analysis site as factors.||0.33|0.18|<0.001
90922353|NCT02100813|181717525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate ratio|0.79|||=|0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.04|||Negative binomial regression|||Negative binominal regression with log baseline count as offset variable and treatment group and analysis site as factors.||1.04|0.59|=0.096
90922354|NCT02100813|181717526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of clearance rates|7.02|||=|0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|124.0|||Log binomial regression|||Log binomial regression with treatment group as factor and baseline AK count included as covariate.||124|1.53|=0.007
90922355|NCT02100813|181717526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of clearance rates|8.82|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.99|154.5|||Log binomial regression|||Log binomial regression with treatment group as factor and baseline AK count included as covariate.||154.5|1.99|=0.001
90922356|NCT02100813|181717526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of clearance rates|1.26|||=|0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.31|||Log binomial regression|||Log binomial regression with treatment group as factor and baseline AK count included as covariate.||2.31|0.72|=0.43
91034403|NCT02757105|181954990|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.081|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.081
90922357|NCT02100813|181717527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of clearance rates|8.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.93|51.66|||Log binomial regression|||||51.66|2.93|<0.001
90922358|NCT02100813|181717527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of clearance rates|9.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.22|56.4|||Log binomial regression|||||56.4|3.22|<0.001
90922359|NCT02100813|181717527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of clearance rates|1.09|||=|0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.49|||Log binomial regression|||||1.49|0.81|=0.55
90922360|NCT04749615|181717532|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority Margin = (-Infinity, 1.28)||||||0.11|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.11
90922361|NCT04749615|181717533|NON_INFERIORITY|a noninferiority margin of 1.0 and 10% attrition|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||this is the calculated p-value.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5
90922362|NCT05894577|181717558|SUPERIORITY|Posterior probability of efficacy (P(HR\>1))|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.12|||||The interval is a highest-density credible interval. Adjustment variables: randomization, age, sex, duration of symptoms prior to study drug, calendar time, vaccination status, geographic region, call center indicator, and baseline symptom severity.|||1.12|0.92|
90922363|NCT05894577|181717559|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|7.07|||||Low event rate precluded covariate adjustment.|No hypothesis test or decision rule was evaluated.||7.07|0.14|
90922364|NCT05894577|181717562|SUPERIORITY|Posterior probability of efficacy (P(HR\<1))|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.84|||||The interval is a highest-density credible interval. Adjustment variables: randomization, age, sex, duration of symptoms prior to study drug, calendar time, vaccination status, geographic region, call center indicator, and baseline symptom severity.|No hypothesis test or decision rule was evaluated.||1.84|0.45|
90922365|NCT05894577|181717563|SUPERIORITY|Posterior probability of efficacy (P(OR\<1))|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.29|||||The interval is a highest-density credible interval. Adjustment variables: randomization, age, sex, duration of symptoms prior to study drug, calendar time, vaccination status, geographic region, call center indicator, and baseline symptom severity.|No hypothesis test or decision rule was evaluated.||2.29|0.50|
91034404|NCT02757105|181954991|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.042|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.042
91034405|NCT02757105|181954992|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.009
91034406|NCT02757105|181954993|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.919|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.919
91034407|NCT02757105|181954994|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.5||||0.278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|30.6|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||30.6|-7.7|0.278
91034408|NCT02757105|181954995|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.5||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|32.5|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||32.5|-3.4|0.135
90922366|NCT05894577|181717564|SUPERIORITY|Posterior probability of efficacy (P(OR\<1))|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.49|||||The interval is a highest-density credible interval. Adjustment variables: randomization, age, sex, duration of symptoms prior to study drug, calendar time, vaccination status, geographic region, call center indicator, and baseline symptom severity.|No hypothesis test or decision rule was evaluated.||1.49|0.16|
90922367|NCT05894577|181717565|SUPERIORITY|Posterior probability of efficacy (P(OR\<1))|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|2.96|||||The interval is a highest-density credible interval. Adjustment variables: randomization, age, sex, duration of symptoms prior to study drug, calendar time, vaccination status, geographic region, call center indicator, and baseline symptom severity.|No hypothesis test or decision rule was evaluated.||2.96|0.33|
90922368|NCT05894577|181717566|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.31|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||1.31|0.71|
90922369|NCT05894577|181717566|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.51|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.51|0.75|
90922370|NCT05894577|181717566|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.88|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||1.88|0.84|
90922371|NCT05894577|181717566|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.6|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.60|0.65|
90922372|NCT05894577|181717566|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.36|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 120||1.36|0.57|
90922373|NCT05894577|181717566|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|2.0|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 180||2.00|0.69|
90922374|NCT05894577|181717567|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.15|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||1.15|0.66|
90922375|NCT05894577|181717567|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.14|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.14|0.63|
90922376|NCT05894577|181717567|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.08|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||1.08|0.56|
90922377|NCT05894577|181717567|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.45|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.45|0.73|
90922378|NCT05894577|181717567|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.4|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 120||1.40|0.71|
90922379|NCT05894577|181717567|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.35|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 180||1.35|0.60|
90922380|NCT05894577|181717568|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.31|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||1.31|0.70|
90922381|NCT05894577|181717568|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.4|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.40|0.72|
90922382|NCT05894577|181717568|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.2|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||1.20|0.55|
90922383|NCT05894577|181717568|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.39|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.39|0.62|
90882870|NCT03238911|181628698|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.75||||0.0126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|3.12|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 7~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||3.12|0.38|0.0126
90922384|NCT05894577|181717568|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.46|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 120||1.46|0.65|
90882871|NCT03238911|181628698|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.42||||0.608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|2.02|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 8~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||2.02|-1.19|0.6080
90882872|NCT03238911|181628698|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.09||||0.0379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|4.05|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 14~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||4.05|0.12|0.0379
90882873|NCT03238911|181628698|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.17||||0.2368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|3.12|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 21~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||3.12|-0.78|0.2368
90882874|NCT03238911|181628698|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22||||0.8287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|1.75|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 35~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||1.75|-2.18|0.8287
90882875|NCT03238911|181628699|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.81|29.73|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 1~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||29.73|18.81|<0.0001
90882876|NCT03238911|181628699|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.75|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.83|22.67|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 7~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||22.67|8.83|<0.0001
90922385|NCT05894577|181717568|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.35|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 180||1.35|0.48|
90922386|NCT05894577|181717569|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.24|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||1.24|0.62|
90922387|NCT05894577|181717569|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.38|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.38|0.65|
90882877|NCT03238911|181628699|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.07|28.22|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 8~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||28.22|12.07|<0.0001
90882878|NCT03238911|181628699|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.49|38.96|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 14~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||38.96|25.49|<0.0001
90882879|NCT03238911|181628699|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.79|30.95|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 21~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||30.95|14.79|<0.0001
90922388|NCT05894577|181717569|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.13|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||1.13|0.49|
90922389|NCT05894577|181717569|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.55|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.55|0.67|
90922390|NCT05894577|181717569|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.19|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 120||1.19|0.51|
90922391|NCT05894577|181717569|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.35|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 180||1.35|0.49|
90922392|NCT05894577|181717570|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.41|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||1.41|0.77|
90922393|NCT05894577|181717570|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.69|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.69|0.82|
90922394|NCT05894577|181717570|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.14|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||1.14|0.52|
90922395|NCT05894577|181717570|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.43|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.43|0.65|
90882880|NCT03238911|181628699|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.6||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.39|17.82|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 35~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||17.82|3.39|0.0043
90882881|NCT03238911|181628700|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.0552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.0|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 1~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||0.00|-0.34|0.0552
90922396|NCT05894577|181717570|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.41|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 120||1.41|0.63|
90922397|NCT05894577|181717570|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.19|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 180||1.19|0.44|
90922398|NCT05894577|181717571|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.39|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||1.39|0.75|
90962824|NCT04498169|181807030|SUPERIORITY|With a sample size of up-to 20 subjects within a treatment group, the study had 80% power to demonstrate a statistically significant mean change from baseline, assuming the true effect size (mean change / SD) was 0.577 or larger (e.g. assuming the true mean change from baseline was 34.6 μm and the SD was 60 μm), a one sample t-test and a two-sided alpha = 0.10.||||||0.0021|||||||One-sample t-test (within group)|||The primary analysis used the mITT population with available data per subject at eye level (ie., ODO). Robustness analyses was also performed based on the MI methodology under different assumptions of missingness and intercurrent events (where missing data or withdrawal due to lack of efficacy or AEs were imputed using FCS regression method and missing data for all other reasons were imputed using worst within subject observation prior to the intercurrent event).||||0.0021
90962825|NCT04682977|181807043|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference (adjusted)|1.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||Sidak correction for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline score as covariate Effect size calculated using Cohen's d|Treatment Difference = IPROACTIF-Control|||||0.04
90962826|NCT04682977|181807044|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference (adjusted)|1.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.75||0.26|TWO_SIDED|||||Sidak correction for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline score as covariate Effect size calculated using Cohen's d|Treatment Difference = IPROACTIF-Control|||||0.26
90962827|NCT04682977|181807045|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference (adjusted)|-1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.51|TWO_SIDED|||||Sidak correction for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline score as covariate Effect size calculated using Cohen's d|Treatment Difference = IPROACTIF-Control|||||0.51
90962828|NCT04682977|181807046|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference (adjusted)|2.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.78||0.23|TWO_SIDED|||||Sidak correction for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline score as covariate Effect size calculated using Cohen's d|Treatment Difference = IPROACTIF - Control|||||0.23
90962829|NCT04682977|181807047|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference (adjusted)|4.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.97||0.44|TWO_SIDED|||||Sidak correction for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline score as covariate Effect size calculated using Cohen's d|Treatment Difference = IPROACTIF - Control|||||0.44
90962830|NCT04682977|181807048|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference (adjusted)|4.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.47||0.22|TWO_SIDED|||||Sidak correction for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline score as covariate Effect size calculated using Cohen's d|Treatment Difference = IPROACTIF - Control|||||0.22
90962831|NCT04682977|181807049|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference (adjusted)|0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.91|TWO_SIDED|||||Sidak correction for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline score as covariate Effect size calculated using Cohen's d|Treatment Difference = IPROACTIF - Control|||||0.91
90962832|NCT04682977|181807050|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference (adjusted)|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.78|TWO_SIDED|||||Sidak correction for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline score as covariate Effect size calculated using Cohen's d|Treatment Difference = IPROACTIF - Control|||||0.78
90962833|NCT04682977|181807051|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference (adjusted)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.83|TWO_SIDED|||||Sidak correction for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline score as covariate Effect size calculated using Cohen's d|Treatment Difference = IPROACTIF - Control|||||0.83
90962834|NCT04682977|181807052|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A non-parametric test was used due to non-normal distribution of data. Effect size calculated using rank biserial correlation r.||||||0.67
90962835|NCT04682977|181807053|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A non-parametric test was used due to non-normal distribution of data. Effect size calculated using rank biserial correlation r.||||||0.77
90962836|NCT04682977|181807054|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A non-parametric test was used due to non-normal distribution of data. Effect size calculated using rank biserial correlation r.||||||0.79
90962837|NCT04682977|181807055|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A non-parametric test was used due to non-normal distribution of data. Effect size calculated using rank biserial correlation r.||||||0.44
90962838|NCT04682977|181807056|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A non-parametric test was used due to non-normal distribution of data. Effect size calculated using rank biserial correlation r||||||0.65
90962839|NCT04682977|181807057|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A non-parametric test was used due to non-normal distribution of data. Effect size calculated using rank biserial correlation r.||||||0.66
90962840|NCT04682977|181807058|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A non-parametric test was used due to non-normal distribution of data. Effect size calculated using rank biserial correlation r.||||||0.81
90962841|NCT04682977|181807059|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A non-parametric test was used due to non-normal distribution of data. Effect size calculated using rank biserial correlation r.||||||0.89
90962842|NCT00221195|181807073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The Wilcoxin signed-rank test was used to compare the frequency of bleeds between the prophylaxis and on-demand periods.||||<0.001
90962843|NCT01383161|181807079|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||mixed-effects general linear model|||||||0.5
90962844|NCT01383161|181807079|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
90962845|NCT01383161|181807079|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2
90962846|NCT01383161|181807080|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||mixed-effects general linear model|||||||0.08
90962847|NCT01383161|181807080|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.006
90962848|NCT01383161|181807080|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.8
90962849|NCT01383161|181807081|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||mixed-effects general linear model|||||||0.05
90962850|NCT01383161|181807081|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.002
90962851|NCT01383161|181807081|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.8
90882882|NCT03238911|181628700|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.13|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 7~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-0.13|-0.60|0.0023
90882883|NCT03238911|181628700|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.21|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 8~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-0.21|-0.80|0.0008
90882884|NCT03238911|181628700|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.49|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 14~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-0.49|-1.11|<0.0001
90922399|NCT05894577|181717571|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.44|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.44|0.76|
90922400|NCT05894577|181717571|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.71|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||1.71|0.84|
90922401|NCT05894577|181717571|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.71|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.71|0.76|
90922402|NCT05894577|181717571|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.46|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 120||1.46|0.67|
90922403|NCT05894577|181717571|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.59|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 180||1.59|0.62|
90962852|NCT01383161|181807082|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||mixed-effects general linear model|||||||0.08
90882885|NCT03238911|181628700|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.64||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.28|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 21~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-0.28|-1.01|0.0006
90922404|NCT05894577|181717572|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.14|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||1.14|0.74|
90922405|NCT05894577|181717572|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.22|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.22|0.79|
90922406|NCT05894577|181717572|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.08|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||1.08|0.71|
90922407|NCT05894577|181717572|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.21|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.21|0.80|
90922408|NCT05894577|181717572|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.29|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 120||1.29|0.84|
90962853|NCT01383161|181807082|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.002
90962854|NCT01383161|181807082|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5
90962855|NCT01383161|181807083|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||mixed-effects general linear model|||||||0.04
90962856|NCT01383161|181807083|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0001
90962857|NCT01383161|181807083|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1
90962858|NCT01383161|181807084|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||mixed-effects general linear model|||||||0.3
91034409|NCT01593852|181955007|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Based on historical dose observations, a sample size of 68 patients per study group (i.e. 62 evaluable patients for 10% dropout rate) for a total of 136 patient randomized will allow for 80% power to detect for approximately 40% reduction in dose area product (DAP). This sample size will allow for detection of approximately 40% reduction in air kerma (AK). No adjustment for multiple endpoints was performed as both endpoints are assessing radiation dose.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91034410|NCT01593852|181955015|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Based on historical dose observations, a sample size of 68 patients per study group (i.e. 62 evaluable patients for 10% dropout rate) for a total of 136 patient randomized will allow for 80% power to detect for approximately 40% reduction in dose area product (DAP). This sample size will allow for detection of approximately 40% reduction in air kerma (AK). No adjustment for multiple endpoints was performed as both endpoints are assessing radiation dose.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91034411|NCT02937870|181955032|OTHER||Least square (LS) mean difference|0.66||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|1.47||p-values for treatment comparison of test adhesive 1 vs. no adhesive were adjusted using the Dunnett's method.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for subject (random effect), period \& treatment, subject-level and period-level pre-treatment baseline bite force as covariate.|Difference is first-named treatment minus second-named treatment such that a positive difference favours the first named treatment.|||1.47|-0.14|0.1770
90882886|NCT03238911|181628700|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.23|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 35~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-0.23|-0.94|0.0014
90882887|NCT03238911|181628701|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.13||||0.7447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.96|5.71|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 1~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||5.71|-7.96|0.7447
90882888|NCT03238911|181628701|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.7||||0.0363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.78|-0.63|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 7~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-0.63|-18.78|0.0363
90882889|NCT03238911|181628701|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49||||0.9242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.56|9.59|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 8~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||9.59|-10.56|0.9242
90882890|NCT03238911|181628701|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.17||||0.0602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.84|0.49|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 14~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||0.49|-22.84|0.0602
90882891|NCT03238911|181628701|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.2||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.68|-7.73|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 21~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-7.73|-28.68|0.0008
90962859|NCT01383161|181807084|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04
90882892|NCT03238911|181628701|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.79||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.75|-6.83|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 35~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-6.83|-32.75|0.0031
90882893|NCT03238911|181628702|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.037||||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.029|0.104|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 1~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||0.104|-0.029|0.2670
90962860|NCT01383161|181807084|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6
90962861|NCT01423812|181807089|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||p value||||<0.05
90962862|NCT01423812|181807090|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91034412|NCT02937870|181955033|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.2||||0.8321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.59||p-values for treatment comparison of test adhesive 1 vs. no adhesive were adjusted using the Dunnett's method.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for subject (random effect), period \& treatment, subject-level and period-level pre-treatment baseline bite force as covariate.|Difference is first-named treatment minus second-named treatment such that a positive difference favours the first named treatment.|||0.59|-0.98|0.8321
91034413|NCT02937870|181955034|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.07||||0.8566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.87|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for subject (random effect), period \& treatment, subject-level and period-level pre-treatment baseline bite force as covariate.|Difference is first-named treatment minus second-named treatment such that a positive difference favours the first named treatment.|||0.87|-0.72|0.8566
91034414|NCT02937870|181955035|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.79||||0.0488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|0.0|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for subject (random effect), period \& treatment, subject-level and period-level pre-treatment baseline bite force as covariate.|Difference is first-named treatment minus second-named treatment such that a positive difference favours the first named treatment.|||-0.00|-1.58|0.0488
90882894|NCT03238911|181628702|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.085||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.028|0.142|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 7~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||0.142|0.028|0.0040
90882895|NCT03238911|181628702|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.064||||0.0472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.127|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 8~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||0.127|0.001|0.0472
90882896|NCT03238911|181628702|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.101||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.031|0.171|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 14~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||0.171|0.031|0.0050
90882897|NCT03238911|181628702|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.101||||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.029|0.172|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 21~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||0.172|0.029|0.0061
90922409|NCT05894577|181717572|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.14|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 180||1.14|0.68|
90922410|NCT05894577|181717573|SUPERIORITY|Posterior probability of efficacy (P(Difference in MTU (Active - Placebo)\<0))|Difference in model estimate time unwell|-0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.1|||||The mean time unwell is estimated from receipt of study drug to study day 14. The interval is a highest density credible interval.|No hypothesis test or decision rule was evaluated.||0.1|-0.6|
90922411|NCT05894577|181717574|SUPERIORITY|Posterior probability of efficacy (P(Difference days benefit (Active - Placebo)\>0))|Difference in model estimated means|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.75|||||The interval is a highest density credible interval.|Analysis is exploratory. No hypothesis test or decision rule was evaluated.||0.75|-0.13|
90922412|NCT04064164|181717598|EQUIVALENCE|Pearson's Chi-square test was completed between the total instances of diminutives either identified by human or the Elderspeak App.||||||0.004||||||Dear (root word)|Chi-squared|X-squared = 8.4 df=1||||||.004
90922413|NCT04064164|181717598|EQUIVALENCE|Pearson's Chi-square test was completed between the total instances of diminutives either identified by human or the Elderspeak App. Significant associations indicated the human and app were accurately identifying true positives (1:1) or true negatives (0:0).|||||<|0.001||||||Sweet (root word)|Chi-squared|X-squared = 20.20 df=1||||||<.001
90882898|NCT03238911|181628702|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.055||||0.1282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.016|0.126|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 35~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||0.126|-0.016|0.1282
90922414|NCT04064164|181717598|EQUIVALENCE|Pearson's Chi-square test was completed between the total instances of diminutives either identified by human or the Elderspeak App.||||||0.02||||||Girl (root word)|Chi-squared|X-squared = 5.08, df=1||||||.02
90922415|NCT04064164|181717598|EQUIVALENCE|Pearson's Chi-square test was completed between the total instances of diminutives either identified by human or the Elderspeak App.||||||0.1||||||Honey (root word)|Chi-squared|X-squared = 2.7, df= 1||||||.10
90922416|NCT04064164|181717598|EQUIVALENCE|Pearson's Chi-square test was completed between the total instances of diminutives either identified by human or the Elderspeak App.||||||0.85||||||Baby (root word)|Chi-squared|X-squared = 12.2, df = 1||||||0.85
90922417|NCT06429319|181717612|SUPERIORITY||F value|5.919||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05.|ANCOVA|"To compare the efficacy of one and two NOLTREX™ courses was used ANCOVA adjusted for the baseline value with fixed factor of treatment group."||No sample size calculation was performed. Maximum expected number of participants for OLE was 72 patients randomized to the NOLTREX™ group in the parent study (IA/PAAG-SI/OA/2019). A total of 65 patients entered the OLE. The study did not have a formal hypothesis. The between-group comparison of changes from baseline (OLE visit 0) in the WOMAC-T at visit 5 was conducted using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) and, as a post hoc test, the Tukey test.||||0.004
91034415|NCT02937870|181955036|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.86||||0.0352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|1.66|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for subject (random effect), period \& treatment, subject-level and period-level pre-treatment baseline bite force as covariate.|Difference is first-named treatment minus second-named treatment such that a positive difference favours the first named treatment.|||1.66|0.06|0.0352
91034416|NCT00244764|181955037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage|34.7||||||95.0|28.4|40.9|||||The estimated value provided is the response rate.|||40.9|28.4|
90922418|NCT06429319|181717612|SUPERIORITY||LS-means difference|-37.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|56.34||0.783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-172.98|97.7||Difference between Least-square means was tested at a level of p \<0.05 via Tukey's multiple comparison test|Tukey's HSD|||Post-hoc pairwise comparisons were performed using Tukey test.||97.70|-172.98|0.783
90922419|NCT06429319|181717612|SUPERIORITY||LS-means difference|81.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|60.45||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.28|227.16|||Tukey's HSD|||Post-hoc pairwise comparisons were performed using Tukey test.||227.16|-63.28|0.370
90922420|NCT06429319|181717612|SUPERIORITY||LS-means difference|119.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|34.76||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.09|203.07||Difference between Least-square means was tested at a level of p \<0.05 via Tukey's multiple comparison test.|Tukey's HSD|||Post-hoc pairwise comparisons were performed using Tukey test.||203.07|36.09|0.003
90922421|NCT06429319|181717612|SUPERIORITY||F value|2.78||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05.|ANCOVA|"To compare the efficacy of one and two NOLTREX™ courses was used ANCOVA adjusted for the baseline value with fixed factor of treatment group."||The between-group comparison of changes from baseline (visit 1 study 1) in the WOMAC-T at visit 5 was conducted using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) and, as a post hoc test, the Tukey test.||||0.070
90922422|NCT06429319|181717616|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05.|Kruskal-Wallis|||"BASELINE (study 1 visit 1)~To determine a statistically significant difference between 3 groups the one-way ANOVA (for normally distributed data; aov) or the Kruskal-Wallis test (for non-normally distributed data; kw) was used. The Shapiro-Wilk test was employed to assess the normality of the data distribution."||||0.030
90922423|NCT06429319|181717616|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05.|Kruskal-Wallis|||"BASELINE (OLE visit 0)~To determine a statistically significant difference between 3 groups the one-way ANOVA (for normally distributed data; aov) or the Kruskal-Wallis test (for non-normally distributed data; kw) was used. The Shapiro-Wilk test was employed to assess the normality of the data distribution."||||0.002
90922424|NCT06429319|181717616|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05.|ANOVA|||"visit 3~To determine a statistically significant difference between 3 groups the one-way ANOVA (for normally distributed data; aov) or the Kruskal-Wallis test (for non-normally distributed data; kw) was used. The Shapiro-Wilk test was employed to assess the normality of the data distribution."||||0.007
90922425|NCT06429319|181717616|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05.|Kruskal-Wallis|||"visit 5~To determine a statistically significant difference between 3 groups the one-way ANOVA (for normally distributed data; aov) or the Kruskal-Wallis test (for non-normally distributed data; kw) was used. The Shapiro-Wilk test was employed to assess the normality of the data distribution."||||<0.001
90922426|NCT06429319|181717617|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05.|Fisher Exact|||"Fisher's exact test was used to determine whether there is a significant difference between 3 groups.~visit 3"||||<0.001
90922427|NCT06429319|181717617|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||"visit 5~Fisher's exact test was used to determine whether there is a significant difference between 3 groups."||||<0.001
90922428|NCT06429319|181717618|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05.|Fisher Exact|||"visit 3~Fisher's exact test was used to determine whether there was a significant difference between 3 groups."||||0.018
90922429|NCT06429319|181717618|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05.|Fisher Exact|||"visit 5~Fisher's exact test was used to determine whether there was a significant difference between 3 groups."||||<0.001
90922430|NCT06429319|181717621|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05.|Kruskal-Wallis|||To determine a statistically significant difference between 3 groups the one-way ANOVA (for normally distributed data; aov) or the Kruskal-Wallis test (for non-normally distributed data; kw) was used. The Shapiro-Wilk test was employed to assess the normality of the data distribution.||||0.010
90922431|NCT05020249|181717643|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups are based on the Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
90922432|NCT05020249|181717644|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups are based on the Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
90922433|NCT05020249|181717645|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08||||||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups are based on the Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.080
90922434|NCT05020249|181717646|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08||||||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups are based on the Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.080
90922435|NCT05020249|181717647|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups are based on the Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
90922436|NCT05020249|181717648|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups are based on the Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
90922437|NCT05020249|181717649|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups are based on the Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91034417|NCT00244764|181955038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage|42.0||||||95.0|29.0|54.0|||||The estimated value is the percentage of the first 60 participants who had stable disease at Week 12, as assessed by the investigator.|||54|29|
91034418|NCT00836056|181955072|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, ANOVA (Analysis of Variance) will be performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the alpha level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|97.75||||||90.0|91.5|104.42|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||104.42|91.50|
90882899|NCT03238911|181628704|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22||||0.4618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.37|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 1~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||0.37|-0.82|0.4618
90882900|NCT03238911|181628704|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.2|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 7~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||0.20|-0.54|0.3660
90882901|NCT03238911|181628704|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.3|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 8~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||0.30|-0.25|0.8580
90922438|NCT05020249|181717650|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups are based on the Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
90922439|NCT05020249|181717651|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|81.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.216|803.544||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups are based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio of scalp IGA response for bimekizumab group compared with placebo group using CMH.||803.544|8.216|<0.001
90922440|NCT05020249|181717652|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.353||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.447|105.443||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups are based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio of DLQI total score response for bimekizumab group compared with placebo group using CMH.||105.443|1.447|0.007
90922441|NCT05020249|181717653|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-80.444|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-102.509|-58.379|||ANCOVA|||||-58.379|-102.509|<0.001
90962863|NCT01699789|181807094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.95||||||Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline and covariates, and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization. We weighted data for 1,018 clients to characteristics of the eligible sample, with item-level imputation for missing data and wave-level imputation for missing surveys. Weights account for non-enrollment among eligible clients and attrition.||0.95|0.57|
90922442|NCT05505292|181717658|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.69
90922443|NCT05505292|181717659|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.66
90922444|NCT05505292|181717660|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.23
90882902|NCT03238911|181628704|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.0257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.74|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 14~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||0.74|0.05|0.0257
90922445|NCT05505292|181717661|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.84
90922446|NCT05505292|181717662|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.68
90922447|NCT05505292|181717663|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.14
90922448|NCT05505292|181717664|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Question 1a Change from baseline to week 8 in lifitegrast vs vehicle||||0.62
90922449|NCT05505292|181717664|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Question 1b change from baseline to week 8 in lifitegrast vs vehicle groups||||0.53
90922450|NCT05505292|181717664|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Question 2a change from baseline to week 8 in lifitegrast vs vehicle groups||||0.66
90922451|NCT05505292|181717664|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Question 2b change from baseline to week 8 in lifitegrast vs vehicle groups||||0.81
90922452|NCT05505292|181717664|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Question 3a change from baseline to week 8 in lifitegrast vs vehicle groups||||>0.999
90922453|NCT05505292|181717664|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Question 3b change from baseline to week 8 in lifitegrast vs vehicle groups||||0.47
90922454|NCT05505292|181717664|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Question 4 change from baseline to week 8 in lifitegrast vs vehicle groups||||0.52
90922455|NCT05505292|181717664|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Question 5 change from baseline to week 8 in lifitegrast vs vehicle groups||||0.69
90922456|NCT04971681|181717671|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.27|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.27
90922457|NCT04971681|181717672|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.10
90922458|NCT00686335|181717673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.07|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|-2.2||As this was an explorative study to collect data for a subsequent controlled study, no hypothesis testing was performed. All analyses were descriptive.|Other|As this was an explorative study, no hypothesis testing was performed. All analyses were descriptive.||As this was an explorative study to collect data for a subsequent controlled study, no hypothesis testing was performed. All analyses were descriptive.||-2.2|-13.5|
90922459|NCT05603143|181717680|OTHER|||||||0.3161|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.3161
90922460|NCT05603143|181717684|OTHER|||||||0.3219|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.3219
90962864|NCT01699789|181807095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.26||||||Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline and covariates, and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization. We weighted data for 1,018 clients to characteristics of the eligible sample, with item-level imputation for missing data and wave-level imputation for missing surveys. Weights account for non-enrollment among eligible clients and attrition.||1.26|0.48|
90962865|NCT01699789|181807096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.97||||||Intent-to-treat analyses of repeated measures were developed including all participants with data at baseline, 6-month, or 12-month. Missing data were imputed. A generalized estimating equation (GEE) with a logit link function was used with adjustment for covariates.|In an analysis of change from baseline in likelihood of Poor Mental Health Quality of Life, CEP showed a significant advantage at 6 months, but not at 12 months.|0.97|0.61|
90922461|NCT05603143|181717685|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.496||||0.6568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|8.952|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio and two-sided 95% CI for hazard ratio were estimated using the Cox regression.|||8.952|0.250|0.6568
90922462|NCT05603143|181717686|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.99||||0.319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.311|28.74|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio and two-sided 95% CI for hazard ratio were estimated using the Cox regression.|||28.740|0.311|0.3190
90922463|NCT05603143|181717687|OTHER|||||||0.3161|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.3161
90922464|NCT05603143|181717688|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.425||||0.0859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.961|2.112||P-value was based on stratified Log-rank test with randomization stratification factors as the strata.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio and two-sided 95% CI for hazard ratio were estimated using the Cox regression with randomization stratification factors as covariates.|||2.112|0.961|0.0859
90922465|NCT05603143|181717689|OTHER||Treatment Difference (vs Placebo)|-0.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.33|||MMRM||Least-squares mean (SE), 95% CI and P value were from MMRM with baseline viral load and randomization strata as covariates.|||-0.33|-0.83|< 0.0001
90922466|NCT01743807|181717713|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
90922467|NCT01814813|181717719|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.16
90962866|NCT01699789|181807097|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.3||||||Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using logistic regression model adjusted for baseline and covariates, and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization. We weighted data for 980 clients at 3 years to characteristics of the eligible sample, with item-level imputation for missing data and wave-level imputation for missing surveys. Weights account for non-enrollment among eligible clients and attrition.||2.3|0.7|
90922468|NCT01814813|181717720|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.01
90922469|NCT01814813|181717721|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.56
90922470|NCT04938492|181717722|SUPERIORITY||Slope|2.08|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Latent growth modeling|||||||>.05
90922471|NCT04938492|181717723|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Latent growth modeling|||||||<.001
90922472|NCT04938492|181717724|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.22|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Latent growth modeling|||||||<.01
90922473|NCT04938492|181717725|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.23|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Latent growth modeling|||||||>.05
90922474|NCT03865498|181717726|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.029|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.919|10.323||McNemar's Chi-squared test (paired) with continuity correction to the test slightly more conservative|McNemar|||Hypothesis: There will be significant pre/post-intervention differences in isolated macro-level network structures for African American dementia caregiver networks.||10.323|4.919|< 0.0001
90922475|NCT03865498|181717726|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|17.385|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.963|33.157||McNemar's Chi-squared test (paired) with continuity correction to the test slightly more conservative|McNemar|||Hypothesis: There will be significant pre/post-intervention differences in isolated macro-level network structures for Hispanic dementia caregiver networks.||33.157|9.963|<0.0001
90922476|NCT03865498|181717726|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.021||||0.924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.787|1.325||Pearson's Chi-squared test with Yates' continuity correction|Chi-squared, Corrected|||There will be no significant differences in isolated macro-level network structure from Tweets between Hispanic and African American dementia caregiver networks.||1.325|0.787|0.924
90922477|NCT03865498|181717727|SUPERIORITY|Pre-post mean difference|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.628|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.513|0.742|||a paired t-test|||Hypothesis: There will be significant pre/post-intervention differences in emotional valence score detected from Tweets for African American dementia caregiver networks.||0.742|0.513|<0.0001
90922478|NCT03865498|181717727|SUPERIORITY|Pre-post mean difference|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.189|1.631|||a paired t-test|||Hypothesis: There will be significant pre/post-intervention differences in emotional valence score detected from Tweets for Hispanic dementia caregiver networks.||1.631|1.189|<0.0001
90922479|NCT03865498|181717727|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.039||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.186|0.107|||t-test, 2 sided|||There will be no significant differences in emotional valence score detected from Tweets between Hispanic and African American dementia caregiver networks.||0.107|-0.186|0.600
91034419|NCT00836056|181955073|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, ANOVA (Analysis of Variance) will be performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the alpha level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|96.77||||||90.0|91.4|102.46|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||102.46|91.40|
90882903|NCT03238911|181628704|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.48||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.77|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 21~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||0.77|0.19|0.0016
90882904|NCT03238911|181628704|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.42||||0.0185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.76|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 35~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||0.76|0.07|0.0185
90882905|NCT03238911|181628705|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.84||||0.1922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.26|7.57|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 1~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||7.57|-37.26|0.1922
90882906|NCT03238911|181628705|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.28||||0.5601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.24|43.68|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 7~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||43.68|-80.24|0.5601
90882907|NCT03238911|181628705|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-71.02||||0.0459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-140.74|-1.3|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 8~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-1.30|-140.74|0.0459
90882908|NCT03238911|181628705|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-207.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-268.82|-145.84|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 14~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-145.84|-268.82|<0.0001
90882909|NCT03238911|181628705|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-78.6||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-124.81|-32.39|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 21~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-32.39|-124.81|0.0010
90882910|NCT03238911|181628705|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-58.79||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-88.75|-28.82|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 35~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-28.82|-88.75|0.0002
90882911|NCT03238911|181628706|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|40.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.3|55.33|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 1~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||55.33|26.30|<0.0001
90882912|NCT03238911|181628706|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.61||||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.69|11.53|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 7~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||11.53|1.69|0.0089
90882913|NCT03238911|181628706|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-43.48|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.92|-32.03|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 8~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-32.03|-54.92|<0.0001
90922480|NCT03994653|181717754|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.07|4.12|||Fisher Exact|||"Fishers exact test, conducted at each month prior to diagnosis comparing total purchases of relevant products (pain and indigestion medication) compared with all purchases in both cases and controls.~Power calculation: we used a power calculation assuming the Fisher Exact Test to calculate the minimum group size to detect a difference in purchase proportions that we hypothesised with 80% statistical power."||4.12|2.07|<0.001
90962867|NCT01699789|181807098|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.7||||||Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline and covariates, and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization. We weighted data for 980 clients at 3 years to characteristics of the eligible sample, with item-level imputation for missing data and wave-level imputation for missing surveys. Weights account for non-enrollment among eligible clients and attrition.||1.7|0.6|
90922481|NCT02876588|181717756|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.2||Random-effects logistic regression models were constructed, using RAR order sessions as the outcome, randomization group as the independent variable, and the clinician as the random intercept to account for nesting of order sessions within clinicians|Regression, Logistic|||||1.20|.90|.60
90922482|NCT02876588|181717757|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.19||Random-effects logistic regression models were constructed, using RAR order sessions as the outcome, randomization group as the independent variable, the clinician as the random intercept to account for nesting of order sessions within clinicians|Regression, Logistic|||||1.19|.89|.68
90922483|NCT02876588|181717758|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
90922484|NCT02547363|181717759|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher exact test|||||||<0.001
90922485|NCT02547363|181717760|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of clearance rates|62.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.68|451.08|||Mantel Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel estimate (0.037% relative to vehicle), adjusted for pooled sites.|The p-values for secondary endpoints have been corrected by the Holm-Bonferroni method to account for multiplicity. The prespecified multiplicity adjustment by the Holm-Bonferroni method requires the ordering of the p-values for the secondary endpoints by size.||451.08|8.68|<0.001
90922486|NCT02547363|181717761|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of clearance rates|59.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.44|415.35|||Mantel Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel estimate (0.037% relative to vehicle), adjusted for pooled sites.|The p-values for secondary endpoints have been corrected by the Holm-Bonferroni method to account for multiplicity. The prespecified multiplicity adjustment by the Holm-Bonferroni method requires the ordering of the p-values for the secondary endpoints by size.||415.35|8.44|<0.001
90922487|NCT02547363|181717762|SUPERIORITY||Week 8 AK count ratio|0.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.32|||Mantel Haenszel||0.037% relative to vehicle.|The p-values for secondary endpoints have been corrected by the Holm-Bonferroni method to account for multiplicity. The prespecified multiplicity adjustment by the Holm-Bonferroni method requires the ordering of the p-values for the secondary endpoints by size.||0.32|0.23|<0.001
90922488|NCT03931174|181717763|SUPERIORITY|Unit of analysis is the provider level. All 186 providers (95 ATTC, 91 E-ATTC) who enrolled in the study are included in the analysis.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|6.81||CM Exposure is reported as the estimated proportion of providers delivering 10 or more CM sessions to at least one patient in a mixed model accounting for nesting.|Mixed Models Analysis|||These analyses are unadjusted. The primary outcomes paper will report both unadjusted and adjusted analyses.||6.81|0.85|0.097
90922489|NCT03931174|181717764|SUPERIORITY|Unit of analysis is the provider level. All 186 providers (95 ATTC, 91 E-ATTC) who enrolled in the study are included in the analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|1.32|||t-test, 2 sided|T-test adjusted for inequality of variances||These analyses are unadjusted. The primary outcomes paper will report both unadjusted and adjusted analyses.||1.32|0.11|0.02
91034420|NCT00836056|181955074|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, ANOVA (Analysis of Variance) will be performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the alpha level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|95.96||||||90.0|90.77|101.46|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||101.46|90.77|
90922490|NCT03931174|181717765|SUPERIORITY|Unit of analysis is the organization-level. Total number of organizations included in the analysis is 28 (14 ATTC, 14 E-ATTC).|Chi-square test statistic value|0.662||||0.43|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Pearson Chi-Square||These analyses are unadjusted.||||0.430
90922491|NCT03931174|181717766|SUPERIORITY|Analyses are at the patient-level. All patients who enrolled in the study are included in the analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.695|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.313||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||These analyses are unadjusted. The primary outcomes paper will report both unadjusted and adjusted analyses.||-0.08|-1.30|.034
90922492|NCT03931174|181717767|SUPERIORITY|Analyses are at the patient-level. All patients who enrolled in the study are included in the analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.202|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.314||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||These analyses are unadjusted. The primary outcomes paper will report both unadjusted and adjusted analyses.||0.41|-0.82|0.27
90922493|NCT03931174|181717768|SUPERIORITY|Analyses are at the provider-level. Only those providers who completed the post-implementation survey (at the end of the 9-month implementation phase) were included in the analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.191||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.12||Means were compared between conditions in an independent-samples T-test.|t-test, 2 sided|T-test adjusted for inequality of variances||These analyses are unadjusted. The primary outcomes paper will report both unadjusted and adjusted analyses.||0.12|-0.88|.011
90922494|NCT03931174|181717769|SUPERIORITY|Analyses are at the provider-level. Only those providers who completed the post-implementation survey (at the end of the 9-month implementation phase) were included in the analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.232||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.17||Means of leadership engagement scores were compared between conditions in an independent-samples T-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||These analyses are unadjusted. The primary outcomes paper will report both unadjusted and adjusted analyses.||0.17|-0.75|.218
90922495|NCT05386030|181717770|NON_INFERIORITY|The hypothesis to be tested was: H0: pA-pB ≤ d0 versus H1: pA-pB\> d0 where, pA is the response rate for saypha® VOLUME Lidocaine, pB is the response rate for the Comparator, and d0 is the non-inferiority margin set at -10%. The hypothesis was tested based on Farrington-Manning-statistics with a one-sided type I error rate level of 0.025.|||||<|0.0001||||||Confirmatory testing will be performed in a hierarchical ordering: First analysis will be performed on the per protocol dataset, and if the corresponding p-value is below 0.025, the analysis will be performed on the full analysis dataset.|Farrington-Manning test|||||||<0.0001
91034421|NCT03226522|181955075|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.010
91034422|NCT03226522|181955075|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
90882914|NCT03238911|181628706|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.68||||0.373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.41|2.04|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 14~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||2.04|-5.41|0.3730
90882915|NCT03238911|181628706|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.63||||0.4778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.15|2.9|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 21~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||2.90|-6.15|0.4778
90882916|NCT03238911|181628706|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.73||||0.3575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.44|1.98|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 35~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||1.98|-5.44|0.3575
90882917|NCT03238911|181628707|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-11.9||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.1|-3.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The rate difference with 95% Newcombe confidence interval, adjusted for stratum using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method, could not be estimated due to lack of events. Thus, the unadjusted treatment difference is presented together with 95% Wald-based confidence interval. The p-value is based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics.||-3.6|-20.1|0.0050
90882918|NCT06893809|181628708|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|10.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.0||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|20.0|||Kruskal-Wallis|||Sixty male patients scheduled for TURP surgery were divided into three equal groups. The results were evaluated at a 95% confidence interval, with significance set at p \< 0.05. This was achieved using SPSS 15.0. Between-group comparisons were performed using One-way ANOVA, Kruskal-Wallis, Wilcoxon Signed Ranks, and Friedman tests. Within-group comparisons used Wilcoxon Signed Ranks tests, and Friedman tests were used for differences over time.||20|10|0.05
90882919|NCT06893809|181628708|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was applied. Non-parametric method used due to ordinal scale structure.|Kruskal-Wallis||Patient and surgeon satisfaction were compared across study arms.|The aim of this analysis is to compare the three groups in terms of patient and surgeon satisfaction using a superiority approach. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in satisfaction scores between the groups. Statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05.||0|0|>0.05
90882920|NCT06893809|181628710|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.05||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.6|||Kruskal-Wallis|Non-parametric test used due to ordinal scale and non-normal distribution.|Sensory block levels compared across study arms using numerical dermatomal codes.|||1.6|0.5|0.05
90882921|NCT06893809|181628712|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.93|||Kruskal-Wallis||Dermatomal regression levels were compared across groups at 60 minutes.|||0.93|0.07|<0.05
90882922|NCT03091192|181628713|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.36|||Log Rank|||||1.36|0.37|0.313
90882923|NCT03091192|181628714|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.17|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio \< 1 favours Savolitinib|||1.17|0.21|0.110
90882924|NCT00368940|181628750|SUPERIORITY||Cohen D at week 12|0.6||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.06|0.13|0.005
90882925|NCT00368940|181628751|SUPERIORITY||Cohen D at week 12|0.67||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.14|0.20|0.001
90882926|NCT00368940|181628752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0268|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0268
90882927|NCT00368940|181628753|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
90882928|NCT03370341|181628759|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis was that of no difference in levels of IA between Active and Sham stimulation. A paired samples t-test was performed with a significance level of 0.05 (two-tailed).||||.56
90882929|NCT03370341|181628760|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis was that of no difference in levels of IA between Active and Sham stimulation. A paired samples t-test was performed with a significance level of 0.05 (two-tailed).||||.38
90922496|NCT05386030|181717771|NON_INFERIORITY|The hypothesis to be tested was: H0: pA-pB ≤ d0 versus H1: pA-pB\> d0 where, pA is the response rate for saypha® VOLUME Lidocaine, pB is the response rate for the Comparator, and d0 is the non-inferiority margin set at -10%. The hypothesis was tested based on Farrington-Manning-statistics with a one-sided type I error rate level of 0.025.|||||<|0.0001||||||Confirmatory testing will be performed in a hierarchical ordering: First analysis will be performed on the per protocol dataset, and if the corresponding p-value is below 0.025, the analysis will be performed on the full analysis dataset.|Farrington-Manning test|||||||<0.0001
90922497|NCT03161028|181717788|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||For the model evaluating the primary outcome (change in T25FW), T25FW was transformed to walking speed by dividing 25 feet by the completion time in seconds (ft/sec). Any participants who were unable to complete the T25FW at any timepoint after baseline were assigned a value of 199 seconds, a statistical technique known as Winsorizing.||||0.51
90882930|NCT02573324|181628778|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.02||||0.633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.26||Weighted log-rank P-value: Stratified Fleming-Harrington (ρ = 0, γ = 0.2) test was used. Stratified by randomization stratification factors namely: MGMT methylation status, RPA class, region of the world and EGFRvIII mutation status.|Log Rank||Based on multivariate Cox proportional hazards model including treatment, MGMT methylation status, RPA class, region of the world, and EGFRvIII mutation status as covariates.|Terms abbreviated below: O6-methylguaninemethlytransferese (MGMT); Recursive Partitioning Analysis (RPA); EGFRde2-7 (EGFRvIII)||1.26|0.82|0.633
90882931|NCT02573324|181628778|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.704||||||Log-rank P-value (1-sided): Stratified by randomization stratification factors namely: MGMT methylation status, RPA class, region of the world and EGFRvIII mutation status.|Log Rank|||||||0.704
91034423|NCT01001208|181955076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Overall significance level for primary and secondary endpoints controlled based on a combination of sequential testing and Hommel procedures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline body mass index group and prior anti-TNF exposure group||||||<0.0001
91034424|NCT01001208|181955077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0112||95.0||||Overall significance level for primary and secondary endpoints controlled based on a combination of sequential testing and Hommel procedures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline body mass index group and prior anti-TNF exposure group||||||0.0112
90882932|NCT02573324|181628779|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.97||||0.504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.24||Weighted log-rank P-value: Stratified Fleming-Harrington (ρ = 0, γ = 0.2) test was used. Stratified by randomization stratification factors namely: MGMT methylation status, RPA class, region of the world and EGFRvIII mutation status.|Log Rank||Based on multivariate Cox proportional hazards model including treatment, MGMT methylation status, RPA class, region of the world, and EGFRvIII mutation status as covariates.|||1.24|0.76|0.504
90882933|NCT02573324|181628779|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.599||||||Log-rank P-value (1-sided): Stratified by randomization stratification factors namely: MGMT methylation status, RPA class, region of the world and EGFRvIII mutation status.|Log Rank|||||||0.599
90882934|NCT02573324|181628780|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.17||||0.773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.8||Weighted log-rank P-value: Stratified Fleming-Harrington (ρ = 0, γ = 0.2) test was used. Stratified by randomization stratification factors namely: MGMT methylation status, RPA class, region of the world and EGFRvIII mutation status.|Log Rank||Based on multivariate Cox proportional hazards model including treatment, MGMT methylation status, RPA class, region of the world, and EGFRvIII mutation status as covariates.|||1.80|0.76|0.773
90882935|NCT02573324|181628780|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74||||||Log-rank P-value (1-sided): Stratified by randomization stratification factors namely: MGMT methylation status, RPA class, region of the world and EGFRvIII mutation status.|Log Rank|||||||0.740
90882936|NCT02573324|181628781|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.95||||0.381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.27||Weighted log-rank P-value: Stratified Fleming-Harrington (ρ = 0, γ = 0.2) test was used. Stratified by randomization stratification factors namely: MGMT methylation status, RPA class, region of the world and EGFRvIII mutation status.|Log Rank||Based on multivariate Cox proportional hazards model including treatment, MGMT methylation status, RPA class, region of the world and EGFRvIII mutation status as covariates.|||1.27|0.71|0.381
90882937|NCT02573324|181628781|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.409||||||Log-rank P-value (1-sided): Stratified by randomization stratification factors namely: MGMT methylation status, RPA class, region of the world and EGFRvIII mutation status.|Log Rank|||||||0.409
90882938|NCT02573324|181628782|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.84||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.01||Stratified log-rank test was used. Stratified by randomization stratification factors namely: MGMT methylation status, RPA class, region of the world and EGFRvIII mutation status.|Log Rank||Based on multivariate Cox proportional hazards model including treatment, MGMT methylation status, RPA class, region of the world and EGFRvIII mutation status as covariates.|||1.01|0.70|0.029
90882939|NCT02573324|181628783|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.72||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.93||Stratified log-rank test was used. Stratified by randomization stratification factors namely: MGMT methylation status, RPA class, region of the world and EGFRvIII mutation status.|Log Rank||Based on multivariate Cox proportional hazards model including treatment, MGMT methylation status, RPA class, region of the world and EGFRvIII mutation status as covariates.|||0.93|0.56|0.002
90882940|NCT02573324|181628784|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.329||||0.994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.087|1.626||Stratified log-rank test was used. Stratified by randomization stratification factors namely: MGMT methylation status, RPA class, region of the world and EGFRvIII mutation status.|Log Rank||Based on multivariate Cox proportional hazards model including treatment, MGMT methylation status, RPA class, region of the world and EGFRvIII mutation status as covariates.|||1.626|1.087|0.994
90882941|NCT02573324|181628785|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.185||||0.938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.972|1.446||Stratified log-rank test was used. Stratified by randomization stratification factors namely: MGMT methylation status, RPA class, region of the world and EGFRvIII mutation status.|Log Rank||Based on multivariate Cox proportional hazards model including treatment, MGMT methylation status, RPA class, region of the world and EGFRvIII mutation status as covariates.|||1.446|0.972|0.938
90882942|NCT02573324|181628786|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.136||||0.814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.921|1.402||Stratified log-rank test was used. Stratified by randomization stratification factors namely: MGMT methylation status, RPA class, region of the world and EGFRvIII mutation status.|Log Rank||Based on multivariate Cox proportional hazards model including treatment, MGMT methylation status, RPA class, region of the world and EGFRvIII mutation status as covariates.|||1.402|0.921|0.814
90882943|NCT03892889|181628851|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Paired t-test was used based on the prospective phase efficacy sample when applicable.|paired t-test|||||||<0.0001
90882944|NCT02873923|181628867|OTHER||Correlation coefficient|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.68|||||||As of today, the meta-analytic surrogacy evaluation scheme proposed by Buyse and Burzykowski et al. is considered as the most statistically rigorous method for the validation of surrogate endpoints. This approach requires individual-patient data (IPD) from multiple randomized clinical trials (RCT) with similar design and treatment to address surrogacy from a multi-level framework. At the patient level, the surrogate endpoint should be correlated and predictive of the final endpoint regardless of the treatment (individual level association). At the trial level, the treatment effect on the surrogate endpoint should be correlated and predictive of the treatment effect on the final endpoint (trial-level association). Individual-level and trial-level associations estimated using weighted linear regression and the two-stage model introduced by Buyse and Burzykowski.|0.68|0.63|
90922498|NCT03161028|181717789|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.902|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.902
90922499|NCT03161028|181717790|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.90
90922500|NCT03161028|181717791|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.084|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.084
90922501|NCT03161028|181717792|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.134|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.134
90922502|NCT03492216|181717800|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.6||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|12.5|||Regression, Logistic||adjusted risk difference for non-hazardous alcohol use, alcohol incentive groups compared to no alcohol incentive groups. logistic regression model adjusted for INH incentive arm, participant sex, and study site.|||12.5|2.7|0.0025
90922503|NCT03492216|181717801|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.2||||0.9435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|6.5|||Regression, Logistic||adjusted risk difference for \>90% INH adherence, INH incentive group compared to no INH incentives. logistic regression model adjusted for alcohol incentive arm, participant sex and study site.|||6.5|-7.0|0.9435
90922504|NCT03492216|181717804|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.5||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|1.9|||Regression, Logistic||adjusted risk different for HIV viral suppression at 12 months, Arm 2 (escalating incentives; EtG tests) compared to Arm 1 (control); logistic regression model adjusted for randomization arm, participant sex, and study site.|||1.9|-6.8|0.26
90922505|NCT03492216|181717804|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.7||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|4.1|||Regression, Logistic||adjusted risk different for HIV viral suppression at 12 months, Arm 3 (escalating incentives; IsoScreen tests) compared to Arm 1 (control); logistic regression model adjusted for randomization arm, participant sex, and study site.|||4.1|-2.8|0.70
90922506|NCT03492216|181717804|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.3||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|4.5|||Regression, Logistic||adjusted risk different for HIV viral suppression at 12 months, Arm 4 (escalating incentives; EtG and IsoScreen tests) compared to Arm 1 (control); logistic regression model adjusted for randomization arm, participant sex, and study site.|||4.5|-1.9|0.42
90922507|NCT04318548|181717883|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the lower limit (LL) of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio between the MenB+MenACWY group and MenB group for hSBA titers against M14459 (fHbp) strain was above (\>) 0.5|GMT Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.06|||ANOVA||The ratio of GMTs (MenB+MenACWY/MenB) and the corresponding CI is constructed by exponentiating the mean difference and the confidence limits in log10 (titer), using ANOVA with study centre included as an independent variable.|To demonstrate the non-inferiority (NI) of the antibody response to rMenB+OMV NZ given concomitantly with MenACWY compared to rMenB+OMV NZ administered alone, measured by hSBA GMTs against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strains at one month after the second vaccination with rMenB+OMV NZ (at Day 91).||1.06|0.77|
90922508|NCT04318548|181717883|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if LL of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio between the MenB+MenACWY group and MenB group for hSBA titers against 96217 (NadA) strain was \>0.5|GMT Ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.04|||ANOVA||The ratio of GMTs (MenB+MenACWY/MenB) and the corresponding CI is constructed by exponentiating the mean difference and the confidence limits in log10 (titer), using ANOVA with study centre included as an independent variable.|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the antibody response to rMenB+OMV NZ given concomitantly with MenACWY compared to rMenB+OMV NZ administered alone, measured by hSBA GMTs against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strains at one month after the second vaccination with rMenB+OMV NZ (at Day 91).||1.04|0.75|
90922509|NCT04318548|181717883|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if LL of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio between the MenB+MenACWY group and MenB group for hSBA titers against NZ98/254 (PorA) strain was \>0.5.|GMT Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.12|||ANOVA||The ratio of GMTs (MenB+MenACWY/MenB) and the corresponding CI is constructed by exponentiating the mean difference and the confidence limits in log10 (titer), using ANOVA with study centre included as an independent variable.|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the antibody response to rMenB+OMV NZ given concomitantly with MenACWY compared to rMenB+OMV NZ administered alone, measured by hSBA GMTs against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strains at one month after the second vaccination with rMenB+OMV NZ (at Day 91).||1.12|0.76|
90922510|NCT04318548|181717883|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if LL of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio between the MenB+MenACWY group and MenB group for hSBA titers against M13520 (NHBA) strain was \>0.5|GMT Ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.06|||ANOVA||The ratio of GMTs (MenB+MenACWY/MenB) and the corresponding CI is constructed by exponentiating the mean difference and the confidence limits in log10 (titer), using ANOVA with study centre included as an independent variable.|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the antibody response to rMenB+OMV NZ given concomitantly with MenACWY compared to rMenB+OMV NZ administered alone, measured by hSBA GMTs against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strains at one month after the second vaccination with rMenB+OMV NZ (at Day 91).||1.06|0.73|
90922511|NCT04318548|181717884|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if LL of the 2-sided 95% CI of the between-group ratio of hSBA GMTs between MenB+MenACWY group and MenACWY group for Men A serogroup was \>0.5.|GMT Ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.14|||ANOVA||The ratio of GMTs (MenB+MenACWY/MenACWY) and the corresponding CI is constructed by exponentiating the mean difference and the confidence limits in log10 (titer), using ANOVA with study centre included as an independent variable.|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the antibody response to MenACWY given concomitantly with rMenB+OMV NZ compared to MenACWY administered alone, as measured by hSBA GMTs against the N. meningitidis serogroup Men A, at one month after the vaccination with MenACWY (at Day 31).||1.14|0.78|
90962868|NCT01699789|181807099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|2.59||||||Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline and covariates, and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization. We weighted data for 1,018 clients to characteristics of the eligible sample, with item-level imputation for missing data and wave-level imputation for missing surveys. Weights account for non-enrollment among eligible clients and attrition.||2.59|1.19|
90962869|NCT01699789|181807100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.04||||||Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline and covariates, and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization. We weighted data for 1,018 clients to characteristics of the eligible sample, with item-level imputation for missing data and wave-level imputation for missing surveys. Weights account for non-enrollment among eligible clients and attrition.||2.04|1.03|
91034425|NCT01001208|181955078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0112||95.0||||Overall significance level for primary and secondary endpoints controlled based on a combination of sequential testing and Hommel procedures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline body mass index group and prior anti-TNF exposure group||||||0.0112
90882945|NCT02873923|181628868|OTHER||correlation coefficient|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.005|||||||As of today, the meta-analytic surrogacy evaluation scheme proposed by Buyse and Burzykowski et al. is considered as the most statistically rigorous method for the validation of surrogate endpoints. This approach requires individual-patient data (IPD) from multiple randomized clinical trials (RCT) with similar design and treatment to address surrogacy from a multi-level framework. At the patient level, the surrogate endpoint should be correlated and predictive of the final endpoint regardless of the treatment (individual level association). At the trial level, the treatment effect on the surrogate endpoint should be correlated and predictive of the treatment effect on the final endpoint (trial-level association). Individual-level and trial-level associations estimated using weighted linear regression and the two-stage model introduced by Buyse and Burzykowski.|0.005|0.00|
90882946|NCT01639001|181628872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.402|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.286|0.565||The study was to be considered positive if the 1-sided log-rank test for PFS, stratified for baseline stratification factors (ECOG PS, ethnicity, and brain metastases) was significant at the 0.02496level.|1 sided stratified log-rank||Based on the Cox Proportional hazards model stratified by ECOG PS, ethnicity, and brain metastases. Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of crizotinib.|The study was designed to test the null hypothesis H0: λ=1.0 versus the alternative hypothesis HA: λ \< 1.0, where λ is the hazard ratio (HR; Crizotinib/Chemotherapy). Evaluation of 160 PFS events in the 2 arms using a 1-sided log-rank test at the 0.025 level of significance was required to detect a HR of 0.64 with 80% power.||0.565|0.286|<0.0001
90882947|NCT01639001|181628873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|41.869|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.34|53.398||If the PFS endpoint was significant, ORR was to be considered significant if 2-sided p-value from Pearson chi-square test was \<= 0.04992.|2-sided pearson chi-square test||Treatment difference in ORR (%)|The confidence interval for the treatment difference was based on normal distribution.||53.398|30.340|<0.0001
90882948|NCT01639001|181628874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.056||||0.6172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.734|1.521||If the PFS and ORR endpoints were significant, OS was to be considered significant if 1-sided, log-rank test stratified for ECOG, ethnicity and metastases was \<= 0.02496.|1 sided stratified log-rank||Based on the Cox Proportional hazards model stratified by ECOG PS, ethnicity, and brain metastases. Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of crizotinib.|||1.521|0.734|0.6172
90882949|NCT01639001|181628875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment difference|8.906||||0.1204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.275|20.086|||2-sided pearson chi-square test||Treatment Difference in DCR Rate (%)|The confidence interval for the treatment difference was based on normal distribution.||20.086|-2.275|0.1204
90882950|NCT01639001|181628879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.348|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.246|0.493|||1 sided unstratified log-rank||Based on the Cox Proportional hazards model.|||0.493|0.246|<0.0001
90882951|NCT01639001|181628880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.669||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.335|1.338|||1 sided unstratified log-rank||Based on the Cox Proportional hazards model.|||1.338|0.335|0.1270
90882952|NCT01639001|181628881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.277|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.186|0.412|||1 sided unstratified log-rank||Based on the Cox Proportional hazards model.|||0.412|0.186|<0.0001
90882953|NCT01639001|181628882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.432|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.307|0.61||2-sided Hochberg adjusted p-values|2 sided unstratified log rank||Based on the Cox Proportional hazards model.|||0.610|0.307|<0.0001
90882954|NCT01639001|181628883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|7.451|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.79|11.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis presented for QLQ-C30 Global QoL. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, visit day and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale score (intercept and visit day are included as random effects). P-values and confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity.||11.11|3.79|<0.0001
90882955|NCT01639001|181628883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.613||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|6.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis presented for QLQ-C30 cognitive functioning. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, visit day and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale score (intercept and visit day are included as random effects). P-values and confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity.||6.49|0.73|0.0140
90922512|NCT04318548|181717884|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if LL of the 2-sided 95% CI of the between-group ratio of hSBA GMTs between MenB+MenACWY group and MenACWY group for Men C serogroup was \>0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.44|||ANOVA||The ratio of GMTs (MenB+MenACWY/MenACWY) and the corresponding CI is constructed by exponentiating the mean difference and the confidence limits in log10 (titer), using ANOVA with study centre included as an independent variable.|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the antibody response to MenACWY given concomitantly with rMenB+OMV NZ compared to MenACWY administered alone, as measured by hSBA GMTs against the N. meningitidis serogroup Men C, at one month after the vaccination with MenACWY (at Day 31).||1.44|0.86|
90922513|NCT04318548|181717884|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if LL of the 2-sided 95% CI of the between-group ratio of hSBA GMTs between MenB+MenACWY group and MenACWY group for Men W serogroup was \>0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.21|||ANOVA||The ratio of GMTs (MenB+MenACWY/MenACWY) and the corresponding CI is constructed by exponentiating the mean difference and the confidence limits in log10 (titer), using ANOVA with study centre included as an independent variable.|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the antibody response to MenACWY given concomitantly with rMenB+OMV NZ compared to MenACWY administered alone, as measured by hSBA GMTs against the N. meningitidis serogroup Men W, at one month after the vaccination with MenACWY (at Day 31).||1.21|0.82|
91034426|NCT01001208|181955079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0112||95.0||||Overall significance level for primary and secondary endpoints controlled based on a combination of sequential testing and Hommel procedures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline body mass index group and prior anti-TNF exposure group||||||0.0112
90962870|NCT01699789|181807101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.98||||||Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline and covariates, and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization. We weighted data for 1,018 clients to characteristics of the eligible sample, with item-level imputation for missing data and wave-level imputation for missing surveys. Weights account for non-enrollment among eligible clients and attrition.||1.98|1.14|
90962871|NCT01699789|181807102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.96||||||Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline and covariates, and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization. We weighted data for 1,018 clients to characteristics of the eligible sample, with item-level imputation for missing data and wave-level imputation for missing surveys. Weights account for non-enrollment among eligible clients and attrition.||0.96|0.38|
90922514|NCT04318548|181717884|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if LL of the 2-sided 95% CI of the between-group ratio of hSBA GMTs between MenB+MenACWY group and MenACWY group for Men Y serogroup was \>0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.27|||ANOVA||The ratio of GMTs (MenB+MenACWY/MenACWY) and the corresponding CI is constructed by exponentiating the mean difference and the confidence limits in log10 (titer), using ANOVA with study centre included as an independent variable.|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the antibody response to MenACWY given concomitantly with rMenB+OMV NZ compared to MenACWY administered alone, as measured by hSBA GMTs against the N. meningitidis serogroup Men Y, at one month after the vaccination with MenACWY (at Day 31).||1.27|0.84|
90922515|NCT04318548|181717886|OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.91|||ANOVA||The ratio of GMTs (MenB+MenACWY/MenB) and the corresponding CI is constructed by exponentiating the mean difference and the confidence limits in log10 (titer), using ANOVA with study centre included as an independent variable.|To assess the immune response to rMenB+OMV NZ given concomitantly with MenACWY compared to rMenB+OMV NZ administered alone, measured by hSBA GMTs against N. meningitidis M14459 (fHbp) strain at one month after the fisrt vaccination with rMenB+OMV NZ (at Day 31).||0.91|0.64|
90922516|NCT04318548|181717886|OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.77|||ANOVA||The ratio of GMTs (MenB+MenACWY/MenB) and the corresponding CI is constructed by exponentiating the mean difference and the confidence limits in log10 (titer), using ANOVA with study centre included as an independent variable.|To assess the immune response to rMenB+OMV NZ given concomitantly with MenACWY compared to rMenB+OMV NZ administered alone, measured by hSBA GMTs against N. meningitidis 96217 (NadA) strain at one month after the first vaccination with rMenB+OMV NZ (at Day 31).||0.77|0.49|
90922517|NCT04318548|181717886|OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.91|||ANOVA||The ratio of GMTs (MenB+MenACWY/MenB) and the corresponding CI is constructed by exponentiating the mean difference and the confidence limits in log10 (titer), using ANOVA with study centre included as an independent variable.|To assess the immune response to rMenB+OMV NZ given concomitantly with MenACWY compared to rMenB+OMV NZ administered alone, measured by hSBA GMTs against N. meningitidis NZ98/254 (PorA) strain at one month after the first vaccination with rMenB+OMV NZ (at Day 31).||0.91|0.58|
90922518|NCT04318548|181717886|OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.9|||ANOVA||The ratio of GMTs (MenB+MenACWY/MenB) and the corresponding CI is constructed by exponentiating the mean difference and the confidence limits in log10 (titer), using ANOVA with study centre included as an independent variable.|To assess the immune response to rMenB+OMV NZ given concomitantly with MenACWY compared to rMenB+OMV NZ administered alone, measured by hSBA GMTs against N. meningitidis M13520 (NHBA) at one month after the first vaccination with rMenB+OMV NZ (at Day 31).||0.90|0.64|
90922519|NCT03953508|181717984|OTHER|Analysis of covariance test|||||>|0.05||||||Threshold for significance is p\<.05|ANCOVA|||||||>.05
90922520|NCT03953508|181717985|OTHER|T-test comparing differences, the null hypothesis is that the groups are equal|||||>|0.05||||||Threshold for significance is p\<.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>.05
90922521|NCT03953508|181717986|OTHER|Analysis of variance test comparing average breakpoint for menthol and non-menthol smokers|||||<|0.05||||||Threshold for significance is p\<.05|ANOVA|||||||<.05
90922522|NCT03953508|181717987|OTHER|T-test|||||<|0.05||||||Threshold for significance is p\<.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.05
90962872|NCT01699789|181807103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.7||||||Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline and covariates, and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization. We weighted data for 1,018 clients to characteristics of the eligible sample, with item-level imputation for missing data and wave-level imputation for missing surveys. Weights account for non-enrollment among eligible clients and attrition.||1.70|0.69|
90922523|NCT03953508|181717988|OTHER|Analysis of variance|||||>|0.05||||||Threshold for significance is p\<.05|ANOVA|||||||>.05
90922524|NCT03953508|181717989|OTHER|Analysis of variance|||||<|0.05||||||Threshold for significance is p\<.05|ANOVA|||||||<.05
90922525|NCT03953508|181717990|OTHER|T-test|||||<|0.05||||||Threshold for significance is p\<.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.05
91034427|NCT01001208|181955080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0112||95.0||||Overall significance level for primary and secondary endpoints controlled based on a combination of sequential testing and Hommel procedures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline body mass index group and prior anti-TNF exposure group||||||0.0112
91034428|NCT01001208|181955081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0112||95.0||||Overall significance level for primary and secondary endpoints controlled based on a combination of sequential testing and Hommel procedures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline body mass index group and prior anti-TNF exposure group||||||0.0112
90922526|NCT03953508|181717991|OTHER|Fisher's exact test|||||>|0.05||||||Threshold for significance is p\<.05|Fisher Exact|||||||>.05
90922527|NCT03953508|181717992|OTHER|T-test|||||>|0.05||||||Threshold for significance is p\<.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>.05
90922528|NCT03953508|181717993|OTHER|T-test|||||>|0.05||||||Threshold for significance is p\<.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>.05
90922529|NCT01715285|181718067|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.466|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.394|0.55|||Log Rank|||||0.550|0.394|<0.0001
90922530|NCT01715285|181718068|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.661|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.564|0.775|||Log Rank|||||0.775|0.564|< 0.0001
91034429|NCT01001208|181955082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0348||95.0||||Overall significance level for primary and secondary endpoints controlled based on a combination of sequential testing and Hommel procedures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline body mass index group and prior anti-TNF exposure group||||||0.0348
90962873|NCT01699789|181807104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.09||||||Adjusted analyses used multiply imputed data (N= 249), weighted for eligible sample for enrollment; logistic regression model adjusted for baseline and covariates and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization.||1.09|0.32|
90962874|NCT01699789|181807105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.95||||||Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline and covariates, and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization. We weighted data for 1,018 clients to characteristics of the eligible sample, with item-level imputation for missing data and wave-level imputation for missing surveys. Weights account for non-enrollment among eligible clients and attrition.||0.95|0.28|
90962875|NCT01699789|181807106|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.88||||||Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline and covariates, and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization. We weighted data for 1,018 clients to characteristics of the eligible sample, with item-level imputation for missing data and wave-level imputation for missing surveys. Weights account for non-enrollment among eligible clients and attrition.||0.88|0.14|
90962876|NCT01699789|181807107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.25|||||Median cut point for baseline variable.|Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline and covariates, and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization. We weighted data for 1,018 clients to characteristics of the eligible sample, with item-level imputation for missing data and wave-level imputation for missing surveys. Weights account for non-enrollment among eligible clients and attrition.||1.25|0.52|
90962877|NCT01699789|181807108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.41||||||Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline and covariates, and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization. We weighted data for 1,018 clients to characteristics of the eligible sample, with item-level imputation for missing data and wave-level imputation for missing surveys. Weights account for non-enrollment among eligible clients and attrition||1.41|0.69|
90962878|NCT01699789|181807109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.46||||||Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using logistic regression model adjusted for baseline and covariates, and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization. We weighted data for 1,018 clients to characteristics of the eligible sample, with item-level imputation for missing data and wave-level imputation for missing surveys. Weights account for non-enrollment among eligible clients and attrition.||1.46|0.70|
90962879|NCT01699789|181807110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.63|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|4.94|||Regression, Logistic|||Adjusted analyses used multiply imputed data (N=298), weighted for eligible sample for enrollment; logistic regression model adjusted for baseline and covariates and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization.||4.94|1.40|<.01
90922531|NCT05337306|181718081|SUPERIORITY|ANCOVA controlling for study arm and baseline||||||0.049||||||a priori threshold .05; no adjustment for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|covariates include arm and baseline level of outcome||Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF) for those lost to follow up; null hypothesis group 1 follow-up outcome = group 2 follow-up outcome.||||.049
90962880|NCT01699789|181807111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.21||||||Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using a generalized estimating equation logistic regression model adjusted for covariates, accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization. We weighted data for 1,018 clients to characteristics of the eligible sample, with item-level imputation for missing data and wave-level imputation for missing surveys. Weights account for non-enrollment among eligible clients and attrition.||1.21|0.66|
90962881|NCT01699789|181807112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.4||||||Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using logistic regression model adjusted for baseline and covariates, and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization. We weighted data for 1,018 clients to characteristics of the eligible sample, with item-level imputation for missing data and wave-level imputation for missing surveys. Weights account for non-enrollment among eligible clients and attrition.||1.40|0.61|
91034430|NCT01001208|181955083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0112||95.0||||Overall significance level for primary and secondary endpoints controlled based on a combination of sequential testing and Hommel procedures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline body mass index group and prior anti-TNF exposure group||||||0.0112
90922532|NCT05337306|181718082|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||a priori threshold .05; no adjustment for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|Covariates include trial arm and baseline level of outcome.||LOCF for lost to follow-up||||.040
90922533|NCT05337306|181718083|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||ANCOVA|covariates include trial arm and baseline level of outcome.||LOCF for dropout/lost to follow up||||.220
90922534|NCT02677805|181718174|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90882956|NCT01639001|181628883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.652||||0.2427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|4.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis presented for QLQ-C30 emotional functioning. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, visit day and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale score (intercept and visit day are included as random effects). P-values and confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity.||4.42|-1.12|0.2427
90922535|NCT02677805|181718175|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.087||||||For the testing a hierarchical approach has been applied. The result of this test is considered confirmative if the test of the Primary Outcome Measure shows a confirmatory result at a one-sided significance level of 0.025.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.087
90882957|NCT01639001|181628883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.7267|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.15|9.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis presented for QLQ-C30 physical functioning. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, visit day and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale score (intercept and visit day are included as random effects). P-values and confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity.||9.30|4.15|<0.0001
90882958|NCT01639001|181628883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.8109||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.15|10.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis presented for QLQ-C30 role functioning. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, visit day and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale score (intercept and visit day are included as random effects). P-values and confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity.||10.47|3.15|0.0003
90882959|NCT01639001|181628883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.594||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|10.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis presented for QLQ-C30 social functioning. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, visit day and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale score (intercept and visit day are included as random effects). P-values and confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity.||10.06|1.13|0.0140
90882960|NCT01639001|181628884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.0432||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.79|-2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis presented for QLQ-C30 appetite loss. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, visit day and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale score (intercept and visit day are included as random effects). P-values and confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity.||-2.30|-9.79|0.0016
90882961|NCT01639001|181628884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.5026||||0.0263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|8.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis presented for QLQ-C30 constipation. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, visit day and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale score (intercept and visit day are included as random effects). P-values and confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity.||8.47|0.53|0.0263
90882962|NCT01639001|181628884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|15.8085|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.94|18.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis presented for QLQ-C30 diarrhea. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, visit day and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale score (intercept and visit day are included as random effects). P-values and confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity.||18.68|12.94|<0.0001
90882963|NCT01639001|181628884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.7449|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|-4.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis presented for QLQ-C30 dyspnea. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, visit day and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale score (intercept and visit day are included as random effects). P-values and confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity.||-4.19|-11.30|<0.0001
90882964|NCT01639001|181628884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.4915||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.82|-3.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis presented for QLQ-C30 fatigue. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, visit day and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale score (intercept and visit day are included as random effects). P-values and confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity.||-3.17|-9.82|0.0001
90882965|NCT01639001|181628884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.6165||||0.2099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.27|2.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis presented for QLQ-C30 financial difficulties. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, visit day and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale score (intercept and visit day are included as random effects). P-values and confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity.||2.04|-9.27|0.2099
90882966|NCT01639001|181628884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.7756||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.49|-3.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis presented for QLQ-C30 insomnia. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, visit day and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale score (intercept and visit day are included as random effects). P-values and confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity.||-3.06|-10.49|0.0004
90882967|NCT01639001|181628884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.519||||0.0902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.43|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis presented for QLQ-C30 nausea and vomiting. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, visit day and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale score (intercept and visit day are included as random effects). P-values and confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity.||0.40|-5.43|0.0902
90882968|NCT01639001|181628884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.4349|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.42|-5.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis presented for QLQ-C30 pain. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, visit day and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale score (intercept and visit day are included as random effects). P-values and confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity.||-5.45|-11.42|<0.0001
90922536|NCT02677805|181718176|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.121||||||For the testing a hierarchical approach has been applied. The result of this test is considered confirmative if the test of the Primary and all previous Secondary Outcome Measures show a confirmatory result at a one-sided significance level of 0.025.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.121
91034431|NCT01001208|181955084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1995||95.0||||Overall significance level for primary and secondary endpoints controlled based on a combination of sequential testing and Hommel procedures.|2-sided van Elteren test|Stratified by baseline body mass index group and prior anti-TNF exposure group||||||0.1995
90882969|NCT01639001|181628885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.8547||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.15|-1.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis presented for QLQ-LC13 alopecia. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, visit day and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale score (intercept and visit day are included as random effects). P-values and confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity.||-1.56|-8.15|0.0039
90962882|NCT01699789|181807113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.25||||||Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using logistic regression model adjusted for baseline and covariates, and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization. We weighted data for 1,018 clients to characteristics of the eligible sample, with item-level imputation for missing data and wave-level imputation for missing surveys. Weights account for non-enrollment among eligible clients and attrition.||1.25|0.34|
90962883|NCT01699789|181807114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate Ratio (RR)|0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.82||||||Adjusted analyses used multiply imputed data (N=553), weighted for eligible sample for enrollment; Poisson regression model adjusted for baseline and covariates and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization.||0.82|0.30|
90962884|NCT01699789|181807115|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio (RR)|2.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|5.8||||||Adjusted analyses used multiply imputed data (N=588), weighted for eligible sample for enrollment; Poisson regression model adjusted for baseline status of the dependent variable and covariates and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization.||5.80|1.39|
90962885|NCT01699789|181807116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate Ratio (RR)|6.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|24.9||||||Adjusted analyses used multiply imputed data (N=410), weighted for eligible sample for enrollment; Poisson regression model adjusted for baseline and covariates and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization.||24.9|1.5|
90962886|NCT01699789|181807117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate Ratio (RR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.57||||||Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using a Poisson regression model adjusted for baseline and covariates, and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization. We weighted data for 1,018 clients to characteristics of the eligible sample, with item-level imputation for missing data and wave-level imputation for missing surveys. Weights account for non-enrollment among eligible clients and attrition.||1.57|0.59|
90971248|NCT00391222|181825187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||As defined in the protocol, the olanzapine arm was not included in the primary outcome comparison. Data on the olanzapine arm are presented in outcome measure 7.|Log Rank|||Comparison between risperidone LAI and placebo was performed using a log-rank test controlling for patient type at screening (acute or non-acute) and for geographic region. As recurrence rates at 9 months were assumed to be 45% for risperidone LAI and 68% for placebo, the study would have approximately 90% power to detect a clinically meaningful difference of 23% in recurrence rates of a mood episode if in Period III 100 patients were randomized to each of the 2 relevant treatment arms.||||0.057
90882970|NCT01639001|181628885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.9957||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.85|-3.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis presented for QLQ-LC13 coughing. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, visit day and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale score (intercept and visit day are included as random effects). P-values and confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity.||-3.14|-10.85|0.0004
90882971|NCT01639001|181628885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5181||||0.7082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.23|2.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis presented for QLQ-LC13 dysphagia. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, visit day and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale score (intercept and visit day are included as random effects). P-values and confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity.||2.20|-3.23|0.7082
90882972|NCT01639001|181628885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.6471|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.85|-5.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis presented for QLQ-LC13 dyspnoea. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, visit day and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale score (intercept and visit day are included as random effects). P-values and confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity.||-5.44|-11.85|<0.0001
90882973|NCT01639001|181628885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2504||||0.1284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.86|0.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis presented for QLQ-LC13 haemoptysis. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, visit day and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale score (intercept and visit day are included as random effects). P-values and confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity.||0.36|-2.86|0.1284
90882974|NCT01639001|181628885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.2363||||0.0265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.98|-0.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis presented for QLQ-LC13 pain in arm or shoulder. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, visit day and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale score (intercept and visit day are included as random effects). P-values and confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity.||-0.49|-7.98|0.0265
90882975|NCT01639001|181628885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.2237||||0.0185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.74|-0.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis presented for QLQ-LC13 pain in chest. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, visit day and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale score (intercept and visit day are included as random effects). P-values and confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity.||-0.71|-7.74|0.0185
90882976|NCT01639001|181628885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.5901||||0.0075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.95|-1.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis presented for QLQ-LC13 pain in other parts. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, visit day and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale score (intercept and visit day are included as random effects). P-values and confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity.||-1.23|-7.95|0.0075
90882977|NCT01639001|181628885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.6732||||0.2848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.74|1.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis presented for QLQ-LC13 peripheral neuropathy. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, visit day and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale score (intercept and visit day are included as random effects). P-values and confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity.||1.39|-4.74|0.2848
90962887|NCT01699789|181807118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.22|||||When analyzed as change from baseline, CEP showed significant reductions in likelihood of behavioral health hospitalizations at 6 months (P \< 0.01) and 12 months (P \< 0.01).|Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using a generalized estimating equation logistic regression model adjusted for covariates, accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization. We weighted data for 1,018 clients to characteristics of the eligible sample, with item-level imputation for missing data and wave-level imputation for missing surveys. Weights account for non-enrollment among eligible clients and attrition.||1.22|.40|
91034432|NCT01001208|181955085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1995||95.0||||Overall significance level for primary and secondary endpoints controlled based on a combination of sequential testing and Hommel procedures.|2-sided van Elteren test|Stratified by baseline body mass index group and prior anti-TNF exposure group||||||0.1995
91034433|NCT01864174|181955086|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The study provided 90% power to demonstrate noninferiority in change from baseline mean HbA1c at Week 24, with an assumed standard deviation (SD) of 1.0%, a non-inferiority margin of 0.3%, and 2-sided alpha of 0.05 for the primary comparison|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0687|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.17|||||METFORMIN XR VS METFORMIN IR|||0.17|-0.10|
90922537|NCT02677805|181718177|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||For the testing a hierarchical approach has been applied. The result of this test is considered confirmative if the test of the Primary and all previous Secondary Outcome Measures show a confirmatory result at a one-sided significance level of 0.025.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Test performed for Investigator's In-clinic Assessment||||<0.001
90922538|NCT02677805|181718177|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||For the testing a hierarchical approach has been applied. The result of this test is considered confirmative if the test of the Primary and all previous Secondary Outcome Measures show a confirmatory result at a one-sided significance level of 0.025.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Test performed for Subject's In-clinic Assessment||||<0.001
90922539|NCT02677805|181718178|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.218||||||For the testing a hierarchical approach has been applied. The result of this test is considered confirmative if the test of the Primary and all previous Secondary Outcome Measures show a confirmatory result at a one-sided significance level of 0.025.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Test performed for responders rates at week 20||||0.218
90922540|NCT02677805|181718179|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||For the testing a hierarchical approach has been applied. The result of this test is considered confirmative if the test of the Primary and all previous Secondary Outcome Measures show a confirmatory result at a one-sided significance level of 0.025.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test performed for Modified Skindex-16 (GL-QoL) Emotional domain - Change from Baseline at Week 4||||<0.001
90922541|NCT02677805|181718179|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||For the testing a hierarchical approach has been applied. The result of this test is considered confirmative if the test of the Primary and all previous Secondary Outcome Measures show a confirmatory result at a one-sided significance level of 0.025.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test performed for Modified Skindex-16 (GL-QoL) Social Functioning domain - Change from Baseline at Week 4||||<0.001
90922542|NCT02677805|181718179|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||For the testing a hierarchical approach has been applied. The result of this test is considered confirmative if the test of the Primary and all previous Secondary Outcome Measures show a confirmatory result at a one-sided significance level of 0.025.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test performed for Modified Skindex-16 (GL-QoL) Overall score - Change from Baseline at Week 4.||||<0.001
90922543|NCT02677805|181718179|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||For the testing a hierarchical approach has been applied. The result of this test is considered confirmative if the test of the Primary and all previous Secondary Outcome Measures show a confirmatory result at a one-sided significance level of 0.025.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test performed for FACE-Q Appraisal of Lines Between Eyebrows - Change from Baseline at Week 4||||<0.001
90922544|NCT02677805|181718179|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||For the testing a hierarchical approach has been applied. The result of this test is considered confirmative if the test of the Primary and all previous Secondary Outcome Measures show a confirmatory result at a one-sided significance level of 0.025.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test performed for FACE-Q Age Appraisal VAS score||||<0.001
90962888|NCT01699789|181807119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.66||||||Intent-to-treat analyses of repeated measures were developed including all participants with data at baseline, 6-month, or 12-month. Missing data were imputed. A generalized estimating equation (GEE) with a logit link function was used with adjustment for covariates.||1.66|.66|
91034434|NCT02648347|181955091|NON_INFERIORITY|Establishment of non-inferiority was based on a margin of -0.75 g/dL applied to the difference in mean change: Vadadustat minus Darbepoetin alfa.|Least squares mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.15||||||Treatment comparison: Vadadustat minus Darbepoetin Alfa||0.15|-0.04|
91034435|NCT02648347|181955092|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per Food and Drug Administration \[FDA\]) and 1.3 (per European Medicines Agency \[EMA\]).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16|||=|0.205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.955|1.412|||Log Rank|||Statistical analysis from study AKB-6548-CI-0014 has been reported in this section.||1.412|0.955|=0.2050
90922545|NCT03097549|181718268|SUPERIORITY||Estimated difference|-3.1||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|-1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of mean scores using a linear mixed model, incorporating baseline data and accounting for all available data. Sample size calculation: We anticipated ICIQ-UI SF improvements of 2.5 points in the treatment group and 0.9 points in the information group. Detecting this difference with 80% power, a two-sided test, and a significance level of P\<.05 would require a sample size of 49 in each group. With an expected drop-out rate of 20%, we needed approximately 60 participants in each group.||-1.3|-4.8|0.001
90922546|NCT03097549|181718269|SUPERIORITY||Estimated difference|-6.3||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|-2.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference in score between the treatment group and the information group at follow-up.||-2.1|-10.5|0.004
90922547|NCT03097549|181718270|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Null hypothesis: There is no difference in the number of urinary leakage episodes between the treatment app users and the information app users at follow-up.~ITT analysis. Missing data: 5 participants in the treatment group and 2 participants in the information group had a missing value at follow-up, and for those, the difference was set to 0 (ie, no change)."||||<0.001
90962889|NCT01699789|181807120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.42||||||Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using a generalized estimating equation logistic regression model adjusted for covariates, accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization. We weighted data for 1,018 clients to characteristics of the eligible sample, with item-level imputation for missing data and wave-level imputation for missing surveys. Weights account for non-enrollment among eligible clients and attrition.||1.42|0.74|
90962890|NCT01699789|181807121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.05||||||Intent-to-treat analyses of repeated measures were developed including all participants with data at baseline, 6-month, or 12-month. Missing data were imputed. A generalized estimating equation (GEE) with a logit link function was used with adjustment for covariates.||1.05|.60|
90922548|NCT03097549|181718271|SUPERIORITY||Estimated difference|-1.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference in score between the treatment group and the information group at follow-up.||-0.9|-2.8|<0.001
90922549|NCT03097549|181718272|SUPERIORITY||Estimated difference|-1.6||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference in score between the treatment group and the information group at follow-up.||-0.3|-2.8|0.016
90922550|NCT03097549|181718273|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: no difference in usage between treatment group and information group at follow-up.||||0.01
90922551|NCT03097549|181718274|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: No difference in improvement between the treatment group and the information group att follow-up.||||<0.001
90922552|NCT02301910|181718292|NON_INFERIORITY|The calculation was carried out taking into account the power of 80%||||||0.87|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.87
90922553|NCT04282148|181718300|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Z test using Kaplan Meier survival estim|||||||<0.0001
90922554|NCT05089019|181718374|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin 80% to 125%|Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|0.889|||||TWO_SIDED|94.12|0.81|0.976|||Mixed Models Analysis|Ratio of Geometric Least Square (LS) Mean||||0.976|0.810|
90922555|NCT05089019|181718375|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin 80% to 125%.|Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|0.927|||||TWO_SIDED|94.12|0.882|0.975|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.975|0.882|
90962891|NCT01699789|181807122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.32||||||Intent-to-treat analyses of repeated measures were developed including all participants with data at baseline, 6-month, or 12-month. Missing data were imputed. A generalized estimating equation (GEE) with a logit link function was used with adjustment for covariates.||1.32|0.72|
90922556|NCT05089019|181718376|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin 80% to 125%|Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|0.891|||||TWO_SIDED|94.12|0.834|0.951|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.951|0.834|
90922557|NCT03858634|181718397|SUPERIORITY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.31||0.398|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-8.68|2.17||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||2.17|-8.68|0.3980
90922558|NCT03858634|181718397|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.23||0.6653|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.17|1.09||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||1.09|-2.17|0.6653
90922559|NCT03858634|181718397|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.14||0.0711|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-11.63|-3.56||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-3.56|-11.63|0.0711
90922560|NCT03858634|181718397|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.0186|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.7|-1.51||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-1.51|-4.70|0.0186
90922561|NCT03858634|181718399|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-7.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.76||0.6533|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-31.52|16.84||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1||16.84|-31.52|0.6533
90962892|NCT01699789|181807123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.39||||||Intent-to-treat analyses of repeated measures were developed including all participants with data at baseline, 6-month, or 12-month. Missing data were imputed. A generalized estimating equation (GEE) with a logit link function was used with adjustment for covariates.||1.39|0.55|
90922562|NCT03858634|181718399|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.51||0.9077|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-15.16|12.69||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1||12.69|-15.16|0.9077
90922563|NCT03858634|181718399|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-61.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|33.18||0.2065|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-123.73|1.39||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1||1.39|-123.73|0.2065
90922564|NCT03858634|181718399|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.19||0.1133|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-9.56|-1.07||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1||-1.07|-9.56|0.1133
90882978|NCT01639001|181628885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.398||||0.0296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.56|-0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis presented for QLQ-LC13 sore mouth. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, visit day and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale score (intercept and visit day are included as random effects). P-values and confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity.||-0.24|-4.56|0.0296
90882979|NCT01639001|181628886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.9136||||0.0123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|6.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, visit day and baseline EQ-5D VAS subscale score (intercept and visit day are included as random effects). P-values and confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity.||6.98|0.85|0.0123
90882980|NCT01639001|181628887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0425||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, visit day and baseline EQ-5D Index score (intercept and visit day are included as random effects). P-values and confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity.||0.08|0.00|0.0320
90882981|NCT01639001|181628889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Overall percent agreement|0.934|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.914|0.949|||||95% CI for agreement rate is calculated by the Wilson (Score) Confidence Limit method with alpha=0.05|||0.949|0.914|
90882982|NCT01639001|181628889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kappa|0.847|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8065|0.8875|||||Kappa coefficient is a statistic which measures inter-rater agreement for qualitative (categorical) items.|||0.8875|0.8065|
90882983|NCT02610868|181628914|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
90882984|NCT02610868|181628914|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
90882985|NCT02610868|181628914|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
90882986|NCT02610868|181628914|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
90882987|NCT02610868|181628914|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0006|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0006
90882988|NCT02610868|181628914|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
90882989|NCT02610868|181628914|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1131|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1131
90882990|NCT02610868|181628914|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0026|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0026
90922565|NCT03858634|181718399|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-16.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.76||0.4997|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-52.29|18.98||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2||18.98|-52.29|0.4997
90922566|NCT03858634|181718399|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.85||0.9919|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-15.83|15.59||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2||15.59|-15.83|0.9919
90922567|NCT03858634|181718399|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-89.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|28.56||0.0891|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-143.03|-35.31||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2||-35.31|-143.03|0.0891
90922568|NCT03858634|181718399|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-9.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.47||0.1029|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-16.67|-2.12||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2||-2.12|-16.67|0.1029
90882991|NCT02610868|181628914|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2569|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2569
90882992|NCT02610868|181628915|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
90882993|NCT02610868|181628915|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
90882994|NCT02610868|181628915|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
90882995|NCT02610868|181628915|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
90882996|NCT02610868|181628915|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.313|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3130
90882997|NCT02610868|181628915|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
90882998|NCT02610868|181628915|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1054|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1054
90882999|NCT02610868|181628915|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0002
90883000|NCT02610868|181628915|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1663|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1663
90883001|NCT02610868|181628917|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
90883002|NCT02610868|181628917|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
90883003|NCT02610868|181628917|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
90883004|NCT02610868|181628917|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
90883005|NCT02610868|181628917|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1100
90883006|NCT02610868|181628917|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
90883007|NCT02610868|181628917|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||ANCOVA|||||||1.0000
90883008|NCT02610868|181628917|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
90883009|NCT02610868|181628917|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0290
90883010|NCT02610868|181628918|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
90883011|NCT02610868|181628918|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
90883012|NCT02610868|181628918|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
90883013|NCT02610868|181628918|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
90883014|NCT02610868|181628918|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
90883015|NCT02610868|181628918|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0003
90883016|NCT02610868|181628918|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9016|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.9016
90883017|NCT02610868|181628918|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0753|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0753
90883018|NCT02610868|181628918|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4992|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.4992
90883019|NCT02610868|181628919|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
90883020|NCT02610868|181628919|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
90883021|NCT02610868|181628919|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
90883022|NCT02610868|181628919|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
90883023|NCT02610868|181628919|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4567|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.4567
90883024|NCT02610868|181628919|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
90883025|NCT02610868|181628919|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8115|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.8115
90883026|NCT02610868|181628919|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
90883027|NCT02610868|181628919|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3282|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3282
90883028|NCT02610868|181628921|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
90883029|NCT02610868|181628921|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
90883030|NCT02610868|181628921|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
90883031|NCT02610868|181628921|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
90883032|NCT02610868|181628921|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3786|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3786
90883033|NCT02610868|181628921|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
90883034|NCT02610868|181628921|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7787|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.7787
90883035|NCT02610868|181628921|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
90883036|NCT02610868|181628921|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3825|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3825
90883037|NCT02665481|181628963|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.07|||Marginal Model|||Time x MBSR (Month 0 and Month 6)||0.07|-0.15|0.50
90883038|NCT02665481|181628963|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.19|||Marginal Model|||Time x MBSR (Month 0 and Month 18)||0.19|-0.04|0.18
90883039|NCT02665481|181628963|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.17|||Marginal Model|||Time x Exercise (Month 0 and Month 6)||0.17|-0.04|0.23
90883040|NCT02665481|181628963|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.07|||Marginal Model|||Time x Exercise (Month 0 and Month 18)||0.07|-0.15|0.47
90883041|NCT02665481|181628964|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.19|||Marginal Model|||Time x MBSR (Month 0 and Month 6)||0.19|-0.02|0.12
90883042|NCT02665481|181628964|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.07|||Marginal Model|||Time x MBSR (Month 0 and Month 18)||0.07|-0.15|0.44
90883043|NCT02665481|181628964|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.18|||Marginal Model|||Time x Exercise (Month 0 and Month 6)||0.18|-0.03|0.17
90883044|NCT02665481|181628964|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.11|||Marginal Model|||Time x Exercise (Month 0 and Month 18).||0.11|-0.12|0.93
90883045|NCT02665481|181628965|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.46||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.27|7.34|||Marginal Model|||Time x MBSR (Month 0 and Month 6)||7.34|-14.27|0.53
90883046|NCT02665481|181628965|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.16||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.88|-6.44|||Marginal Model|||Time x MBSR (Month 0 and Month 18).||-6.44|-33.88|0.004
90883047|NCT02665481|181628965|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.04||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.76|13.85|||Marginal Model|||Time x Exercise (Month 0 and Month 6)||13.85|-7.76|0.58
90883048|NCT02665481|181628965|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.26||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.98|7.46|||Marginal Model|||Time x Exercise (Month 0 and Month 18).||7.46|-19.98|0.37
90883049|NCT02665481|181628966|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.71||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.95|68.36|||Marginal Model|||Time x MBSR (Month 0 and Month 6)||68.36|-22.95|0.33
90883050|NCT02665481|181628966|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.35||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.18|73.88|||Marginal Model|||Time x MBSR (Month 0 and Month 18)||73.88|-23.18|0.31
90883051|NCT02665481|181628966|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.18||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.83|28.48|||Marginal Model|||Time x Exercise (Month 0 and Month 6).||28.48|-62.83|0.46
90883052|NCT02665481|181628966|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.11||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.41|69.64|||Marginal Model|||Time x Exercise (Month 0 and Month 18).||69.64|-27.41|0.39
90883053|NCT02665481|181628967|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.01|||Marginal Model|||Time x MBSR (Month 0 and Month 6).||0.01|-0.02|0.37
90883054|NCT02665481|181628967|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.0|||Marginal Model|||Time x MBSR (Month 0 and Month 18).||0.00|-0.02|0.10
90883055|NCT02665481|181628967|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.02|||Marginal Model|||Time x Exercise (Month 0 and Month 6).||0.02|-0.004|0.21
90922569|NCT03858634|181718399|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-21.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|32.93||0.5538|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-75.82|32.05||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 3||32.05|-75.82|0.5538
90922570|NCT03858634|181718399|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-11.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.78||0.3252|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-27.51|3.73||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 3||3.73|-27.51|0.3252
90922571|NCT03858634|181718399|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-93.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|34.1||0.1106|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-158.11|-29.52||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 3||-29.52|-158.11|0.1106
90922572|NCT03858634|181718399|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-19.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.17||0.0123|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-29.48|-10.4||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 3||-10.40|-29.48|0.0123
90922573|NCT03858634|181718399|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-28.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|35.86||0.4791|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-87.63|29.81||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4||29.81|-87.63|0.4791
90922574|NCT03858634|181718399|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-5.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.66||0.6684|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-22.28|11.27||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4||11.27|-22.28|0.6684
90922575|NCT03858634|181718399|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-79.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|26.28||0.0937|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-129.22|-30.13||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4||-30.13|-129.22|0.0937
90922576|NCT03858634|181718399|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-27.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.75||0.012|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-40.21|-14.27||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4||-14.27|-40.21|0.0120
90922577|NCT03858634|181718399|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-32.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|41.95||0.4927|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-101.39|36.02||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 5||36.02|-101.39|0.4927
90922578|NCT03858634|181718399|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-10.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.9||0.4409|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-29.35|7.49||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 5||7.49|-29.35|0.4409
90922579|NCT03858634|181718399|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-90.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|34.58||0.1197|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-155.96|-25.54||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 5||-25.54|-155.96|0.1197
90922580|NCT03858634|181718399|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-35.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.31||0.0102|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-51.68|-18.92||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANOVA|||Change at Week 5||-18.92|-51.68|0.0102
90971249|NCT00391222|181825188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||The time-to-event data were evaluated by the same survival analysis method as used for the primary outcome. The recurrence rates (Kaplan-Meier estimated) were calculated for each treatment arm using the same methods as for the primary outcome.||||0.005
90922581|NCT03858634|181718399|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-33.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|38.77||0.4515|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-96.97|30.02||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6||30.02|-96.97|0.4515
90922582|NCT03858634|181718399|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.56||0.7623|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-23.76|14.83||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6||14.83|-23.76|0.7623
90922583|NCT03858634|181718399|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-88.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|34.57||0.1247|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-153.65|-23.29||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6||-23.29|-153.65|0.1247
90922584|NCT03858634|181718399|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-37.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.91||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-53.59|-21.9||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6||-21.90|-53.59|0.0053
90922585|NCT03858634|181718399|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-17.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|43.23||0.7177|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-87.97|53.62||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 7||53.62|-87.97|0.7177
90922586|NCT03858634|181718399|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-6.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.35||0.6682|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-25.26|12.78||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 7||12.78|-25.26|0.6682
90922587|NCT03858634|181718399|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-95.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|29.16||0.0823|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-150.21|-40.24||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 7||-40.24|-150.21|0.0823
90922588|NCT03858634|181718399|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-38.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.95||0.0087|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-55.38|-20.92||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 7||-20.92|-55.38|0.0087
90922589|NCT03858634|181718399|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-31.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|38.73||0.4734|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-95.11|31.76||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8||31.76|-95.11|0.4734
90922590|NCT03858634|181718399|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.91||0.813|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-23.33|16.18||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8||16.18|-23.33|0.8130
90922591|NCT03858634|181718399|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-92.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|31.1||0.0979|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-150.6|-33.32||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8||-33.32|-150.60|0.0979
90922592|NCT03858634|181718399|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-37.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.48||0.0122|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-55.48|-19.61||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8||-19.61|-55.48|0.0122
90922593|NCT03858634|181718399|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-32.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|35.35||0.431|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-89.98|25.81||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 9||25.81|-89.98|0.4310
90922594|NCT03858634|181718399|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.22||0.6452|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-27.38|13.12||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 9||13.12|-27.38|0.6452
90922595|NCT03858634|181718399|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-89.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|37.02||0.1375|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-159.04|-19.44||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 9||-19.44|-159.04|0.1375
90922596|NCT03858634|181718399|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-39.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.59||0.0143|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-58.97|-20.15||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 9||-20.15|-58.97|0.0143
90962893|NCT01699789|181807124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate Ratio (RR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.29||||||Intent-to-treat analyses of repeated measures were developed including all participants with data at baseline, 6-month, or 12-month. Missing data were imputed. A generalized estimating equation (GEE) with a log link function was used with adjustment for covariates.||1.29|0.65|
90962894|NCT01699789|181807125|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.0||||||Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using a linear regression model adjusted for baseline and covariates, and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization. We weighted data for 980 clients to characteristics of the eligible sample, with item-level imputation for missing data and wave-level imputation for missing surveys. Weights account for non-enrollment among eligible clients and attrition.||2.0|0.2|
90962895|NCT01699789|181807126|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio (RR)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.8||||||Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using a Poisson regression model adjusted for baseline and covariates, and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization. We weighted data for 980 clients to characteristics of the eligible sample, with item-level imputation for missing data and wave-level imputation for missing surveys. Weights account for non-enrollment among eligible clients and attrition.||0.8|0.1|
90962896|NCT01699789|181807127|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio (RR)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.7||||||Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using a Poisson regression model adjusted for baseline and covariates, and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization. We weighted data for 980 clients to characteristics of the eligible sample, with item-level imputation for missing data and wave-level imputation for missing surveys. Weights account for non-enrollment among eligible clients and attrition.||3.7|0.4|
90962897|NCT01699789|181807128|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio (RR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.5||||||Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using a Poisson regression model adjusted for baseline and covariates, and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization. We weighted data for 980 clients to characteristics of the eligible sample, with item-level imputation for missing data and wave-level imputation for missing surveys. Weights account for non-enrollment among eligible clients and attrition.||1.5|0.8|
90962898|NCT01699789|181807129|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.1||||||Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using a Poisson regression model adjusted for baseline and covariates, and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization. We weighted data for 980 clients to characteristics of the eligible sample, with item-level imputation for missing data and wave-level imputation for missing surveys. Weights account for non-enrollment among eligible clients and attrition.||2.1|0.5|
90922597|NCT03858634|181718399|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-22.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|36.4||0.5867|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-81.7|37.52||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 10||37.52|-81.70|0.5867
90922598|NCT03858634|181718399|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.38||0.6745|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-12.99|25.27||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 10||25.27|-12.99|0.6745
90922599|NCT03858634|181718399|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-85.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|29.99||0.1039|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-142.18|-29.09||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 10||-29.09|-142.18|0.1039
90922600|NCT03858634|181718399|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-42.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.12||0.0116|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-62.6|-22.36||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 10||-22.36|-62.60|0.0116
90922601|NCT03858634|181718399|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-23.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|37.49||0.5807|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-84.55|38.26||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 11||38.26|-84.55|0.5807
90922602|NCT03858634|181718399|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|8.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.16||0.5765|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-11.55|28.8||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 11||28.80|-11.55|0.5765
90962899|NCT01699789|181807130|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.6||||||Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using a Poisson regression model adjusted for baseline and covariates, and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization. We weighted data for 980 clients to characteristics of the eligible sample, with item-level imputation for missing data and wave-level imputation for missing surveys. Weights account for non-enrollment among eligible clients and attrition.||1.6|0.7|
91034436|NCT02648347|181955092|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per FDA) and 1.3 (per EMA).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17|||=|0.0725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.012|1.355|||Log Rank|Based on non-parametric analysis.||MACE analysis was performed on pooled data from studies AKB-6548-CI-0014 (NCT02648347) and AKB-6548-CI-0015 (NCT02680574). Time to first MACE for the Vadadustat and Darbepoetin alfa treatment groups was as follows: participants with events = 382 and 344 respectively; median time to first event (Q1, Q3) = 50.07 (23.00, 82.86) weeks versus 51.93 (27.79, 91.00) weeks, respectively. Statistical analysis from the pooled data has been reported in this section.||1.355|1.012|=0.0725
90922603|NCT03858634|181718399|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-86.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|28.36||0.0933|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-139.7|-32.75||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 11||-32.75|-139.70|0.0933
90922604|NCT03858634|181718399|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-39.3||||0.0173|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-59.29|-19.37||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 11||-19.37|-59.29|0.0173
90922605|NCT03858634|181718399|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-27.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|38.36||0.5293|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-90.04|35.62||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12||35.62|-90.04|0.5293
90922606|NCT03858634|181718399|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.12||0.9676|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-20.73|19.49||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12||19.49|-20.73|0.9676
90922607|NCT03858634|181718399|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-86.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|23.38||0.0663|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-130.27|-42.11||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12||-42.11|-130.27|0.0663
90922608|NCT03858634|181718399|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-37.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.33||0.0252|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-57.81|-17.02||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12||-17.02|-57.81|0.0252
90922609|NCT03858634|181718399|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-19.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|40.81||0.6637|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-86.45|47.22||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 13||47.22|-86.45|0.6637
90922610|NCT03858634|181718399|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.35||0.9173|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-22.04|18.81||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 13||18.81|-22.04|0.9173
90922611|NCT03858634|181718399|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-96.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|26.55||0.0685|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-146.23|-46.1||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 13||-46.10|-146.23|0.0685
90962900|NCT01699789|181807131|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio (RR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|4.0||||||Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using a Poisson regression model adjusted for baseline and covariates, and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization. We weighted data for 980 clients to characteristics of the eligible sample, with item-level imputation for missing data and wave-level imputation for missing surveys. Weights account for non-enrollment among eligible clients and attrition.||4.0|0.3|
90922612|NCT03858634|181718399|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-39.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.96||0.023|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-60.91|-18.44||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 13||-18.44|-60.91|0.0230
90922613|NCT03858634|181718399|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-19.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|37.62||0.6471|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-80.69|42.54||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 14||42.54|-80.69|0.6471
90922614|NCT03858634|181718399|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.52||0.8044|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-24.56|16.75||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 14||16.75|-24.56|0.8044
90922615|NCT03858634|181718399|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-99.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|28.71||0.0741|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-153.63|-45.37||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 14||-45.37|-153.63|0.0741
90922616|NCT03858634|181718399|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-39.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.89||0.0219|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-61.0|-18.72||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 14||-18.72|-61.00|0.0219
90922617|NCT03858634|181718399|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-25.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|37.15||0.5436|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-86.21|35.46||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 15||35.46|-86.21|0.5436
90922618|NCT03858634|181718399|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.13||0.9149|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-23.2|19.71||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 15||19.71|-23.20|0.9149
90922619|NCT03858634|181718399|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-94.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|25.34||0.0646|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-142.63|-47.05||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 15||-47.05|-142.63|0.0646
90922620|NCT03858634|181718399|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-34.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.09||0.0611|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-56.89|-11.41||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 15||-11.41|-56.89|0.0611
90962901|NCT01699789|181807132|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio (RR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.7||||||Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using a Poisson regression model adjusted for baseline and covariates, and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization. We weighted data for 980 clients to characteristics of the eligible sample, with item-level imputation for missing data and wave-level imputation for missing surveys. Weights account for non-enrollment among eligible clients and attrition.||2.7|0.4|
90962902|NCT01699789|181807133|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio (RR)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|8.6||||||Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using a Poisson regression model adjusted for baseline and covariates, and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization. We weighted data for 980 clients to characteristics of the eligible sample, with item-level imputation for missing data and wave-level imputation for missing surveys. Weights account for non-enrollment among eligible clients and attrition.||8.6|0.2|
90883056|NCT02665481|181628967|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.0|||Marginal Model|||Time x Exercise (Month 0 and Month 18).||0.00|-0.02|0.09
90883057|NCT02665481|181628968|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.69|||Marginal Model|||Time x MBSR (Month 0 and Month 6)||0.69|-0.38|0.57
90883058|NCT02665481|181628968|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.55|||Marginal Model|||Time x MBSR (Month 0 and Month 18).||0.55|-0.58|0.96
90883059|NCT02665481|181628968|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.29|||Marginal Model|||Time x Exercise (Month 0 and Month 6).||0.29|-0.78|0.37
90922621|NCT03858634|181718399|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-22.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|38.28||0.606|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-84.68|40.71||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16||40.71|-84.68|0.6060
90922622|NCT03858634|181718399|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-6.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.61||0.6823|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-29.0|15.18||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16||15.18|-29.00|0.6823
90922623|NCT03858634|181718399|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-99.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|24.56||0.0556|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-146.02|-53.41||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16||-53.41|-146.02|0.0556
90922624|NCT03858634|181718399|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-33.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.99||0.0652|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-55.98|-10.76||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16||-10.76|-55.98|0.0652
90922625|NCT03858634|181718399|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-26.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|41.45||0.5714|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-94.14|41.62||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 17||41.62|-94.14|0.5714
90962903|NCT01699789|181807134|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio (RR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.8||||||Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using a Poisson regression model adjusted for baseline and covariates, and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization. We weighted data for 980 clients to characteristics of the eligible sample, with item-level imputation for missing data and wave-level imputation for missing surveys. Weights account for non-enrollment among eligible clients and attrition.||1.8|0.4|
90962904|NCT01699789|181807135|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.6||||||Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline and covariates, and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization. We weighted data for 980 clients to characteristics of the eligible sample, with item-level imputation for missing data and wave-level imputation for missing surveys. Weights account for non-enrollment among eligible clients and attrition.||2.6|1.2|
90922626|NCT03858634|181718399|OTHER||LS mean difference|-10.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.82||0.5386|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-32.93|11.83||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 17||11.83|-32.93|0.5386
90922627|NCT03858634|181718399|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-99.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.41||0.0438|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-139.35|-58.6||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 17||-58.60|-139.35|0.0438
90922628|NCT03858634|181718399|OTHER||LS mean difference|-27.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.66||0.1829|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-53.38|-1.08||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 17||-1.08|-53.38|0.1829
90922629|NCT03858634|181718399|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-25.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|37.59||0.5443|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-87.2|35.94||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 18||35.94|-87.20|0.5443
90883060|NCT02665481|181628968|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.003||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.57|||Marginal Model|||Time x Exercise (Month 0 and Month 18).||0.57|-0.57|0.99
90883061|NCT02665481|181628969|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.93||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|2.33|||Marginal Model|||Time x MBSR (Month 0 and Month 6).||2.33|-0.47|0.19
90883062|NCT02665481|181628969|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.29||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|2.77|||Marginal Model|||Time x MBSR (Month 0 and Month 18).||2.77|-0.19|0.09
90883063|NCT02665481|181628969|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.97|0.83|||Marginal Model|||Time x Exercise (Month 0 and Month 6).||0.83|-1.97|0.42
90883064|NCT02665481|181628969|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|1.94|||Marginal Model|||Time x Exercise (Month 0 and Month 18).||1.94|-1.01|0.54
90922630|NCT03858634|181718399|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-7.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.43||0.6748|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-32.39|16.66||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 18||16.66|-32.39|0.6748
90883065|NCT02660359|181628984|SUPERIORITY|If both p-values for the 2 primary tests (the test of Dysport® 800 U vs. placebo and the test of Dysport® 600 U vs. placebo) were lower than 0.05, both were declared statistically significant. If 1 of the primary tests had a p-value greater than or equal to 0.05, then the other test was declared statistically significant if its p-value was lower than 0.025 and only the significant dose continued in the hierarchal testing strategy.|LS Mean Difference|-8.97||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|-4.44|||MMLM|||Treatment group, visit (Week 6), treatment-by-visit interaction, recorded stratification factors (aetiology of NDO \[SCI or MS\], prior intradetrusor \[Botulinum toxin \[BTX\]-naïve or BTX-non-naïve\]) and study baseline value (weekly number of UI episodes) as fixed effect variables, and subject as a random effect.||-4.44|-13.5|0.0001
90883066|NCT02660359|181628984|SUPERIORITY|If both p-values for the 2 primary tests (the test of Dysport® 800 U vs. placebo and the test of Dysport® 600 U vs. placebo) were lower than 0.05, both were declared statistically significant. If 1 of the primary tests had a p-value greater than or equal to 0.05, then the other test was declared statistically significant if its p-value was lower than 0.025 and only the significant dose continued in the hierarchal testing strategy.|LS Mean Difference|-9.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.41|-5.12|||MMLM|||Treatment group, visit (Week 6), treatment-by-visit interaction, recorded stratification factors (aetiology of NDO \[SCI or MS\], prior intradetrusor \[Botulinum toxin \[BTX\]-naïve or BTX-non-naïve\]) and study baseline value (weekly number of UI episodes) as fixed effect variables, and subject as a random effect.||-5.12|-14.41|<0.0001
90883067|NCT02660359|181628985|SUPERIORITY|This secondary endpoint was included in the hierarchical analysis and was tested for both doses at the 0.05 level using a hierarchical methodology.|Odds Ratio (OR)|45.55||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.09|340.69|||Generalised linear mixed model (GLMM)|||Treatment group, recorded stratification factors, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, study baseline- by-visit interaction and study baseline weekly number of UI episodes as fixed effect.||340.69|6.09|0.0002
90883068|NCT02660359|181628985|SUPERIORITY|This secondary endpoint was included in the hierarchical analysis and was tested for both doses at the 0.05 level using a hierarchical methodology.|Odds Ratio (OR)|31.69||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.17|240.58|||GLMM|||Treatment group, recorded stratification factors, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, study baseline-by-visit interaction and study baseline weekly number of UI episodes as fixed effect.||240.58|4.17|0.0009
90883069|NCT02660359|181628986|SUPERIORITY|Treatment group, recorded stratification factors, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, study baseline-by-visit interaction and study baseline weekly number of UI episodes as fixed effect.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.55||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|7.34||This secondary endpoint was not included within the hierarchical testing procedure and was analysed for exploratory purposes only to compare each Dysport® dose to placebo at a 0.05 type one error rate.|GLMM|||Treatment comparison at ≥30% Improvement Level: Dysport® 600 U versus Placebo.||7.34|1.72|0.0007
90883070|NCT02660359|181628986|SUPERIORITY|Treatment group, recorded stratification factors, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, study baseline-by-visit interaction and study baseline weekly number of UI episodes as fixed effect.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.94||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|6.07||This secondary endpoint was not included within the hierarchical testing procedure and was analysed for exploratory purposes only to compare each Dysport® dose to placebo at a 0.05 type one error rate.|GLMM|||Treatment comparison at ≥30% Improvement Level: Dysport® 800 U versus Placebo||6.07|1.43|0.0037
90883071|NCT02660359|181628986|SUPERIORITY|Treatment group, recorded stratification factors, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, study baseline-by-visit interaction and study baseline weekly number of UI episodes as fixed effect.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.03|7.79||This secondary endpoint was not included within the hierarchical testing procedure and was analysed for exploratory purposes only to compare each Dysport® dose to placebo at a 0.05 type one error rate.|GLMM|||Treatment comparison at ≥50% Improvement level: Dysport® 600 U versus Placebo||7.79|2.03|<0.0001
90883072|NCT02660359|181628986|SUPERIORITY|Treatment group, recorded stratification factors, visit, treatment-by- visit interaction, study baseline-by-visit interaction and study baseline weekly number of UI episodes as fixed effect.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.73||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|5.33||This secondary endpoint was not included within the hierarchical testing procedure and was analysed for exploratory purposes only to compare each Dysport® dose to placebo at a 0.05 type one error rate.|GLMM|||Treatment comparison at ≥50% Improvement level: Dysport® 800 U versus Placebo||5.33|1.40|0.0034
90883073|NCT02660359|181628986|SUPERIORITY|Treatment group, recorded stratification factors, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, study baseline-by-visit interaction and study baseline weekly number of UI episodes as fixed effect.|Odds Ratio (OR)|7.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|15.58||This secondary endpoint was not included within the hierarchical testing procedure and was analysed for exploratory purposes only to compare each Dysport® dose to placebo at a 0.05 type one error rate.|GLMM|||Treatment comparison at ≥75% Improvement level: Dysport® 600 U versus Placebo||15.58|3.5|<0.0001
90883074|NCT02660359|181628986|SUPERIORITY|Treatment group, recorded stratification factors, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, study baseline-by-visit interaction and study baseline weekly number of UI episodes as fixed effect.|Odds Ratio (OR)|5.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.48|11.24||This secondary endpoint was not included within the hierarchical testing procedure and was analysed for exploratory purposes only to compare each Dysport® dose to placebo at a 0.05 type one error rate.|GLMM|||Treatment comparison at ≥75% Improvement level: Dysport® 800 U versus Placebo||11.24|2.48|<0.0001
90922631|NCT03858634|181718399|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-96.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.97||0.0297|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-128.19|-64.19||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 18||-64.19|-128.19|0.0297
90922632|NCT03858634|181718399|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-27.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.8||0.1899|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-53.33|-0.63||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 18||-0.63|-53.33|0.1899
90922633|NCT03858634|181718401|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-15.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|24.47||0.5763|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-55.37|24.78||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1||24.78|-55.37|0.5763
90922634|NCT03858634|181718401|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|9.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.66||0.5214|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-9.86|29.01||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1||29.01|-9.86|0.5214
90962905|NCT01699789|181807136|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.5||||||Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline and covariates, and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization. We weighted data for 980 clients to characteristics of the eligible sample, with item-level imputation for missing data and wave-level imputation for missing surveys. Weights account for non-enrollment among eligible clients and attrition.||1.5|0.5|
90962906|NCT01699789|181807137|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|8.3||||||Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline and covariates, and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization. We weighted data for 980 clients to characteristics of the eligible sample, with item-level imputation for missing data and wave-level imputation for missing surveys. Weights account for non-enrollment among eligible clients and attrition.||8.3|1.0|
90962907|NCT01699789|181807138|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.7||||||Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline and covariates, and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization. We weighted data for 980 clients to characteristics of the eligible sample, with item-level imputation for missing data and wave-level imputation for missing surveys. Weights account for non-enrollment among eligible clients and attrition.||1.7|0.7|
90962908|NCT01699789|181807139|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.0||||||Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline and covariates, and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization. We weighted data for 980 clients to characteristics of the eligible sample, with item-level imputation for missing data and wave-level imputation for missing surveys. Weights account for non-enrollment among eligible clients and attrition.||2.0|0.5|
90962909|NCT01699789|181807140|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.0||||||Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline and covariates, and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization. We weighted data for 980 clients to characteristics of the eligible sample, with item-level imputation for missing data and wave-level imputation for missing surveys. Weights account for non-enrollment among eligible clients and attrition.||2.0|1.0|
90962910|NCT01699789|181807141|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.7||||||Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline and covariates, and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization. We weighted data for 980 clients to characteristics of the eligible sample, with item-level imputation for missing data and wave-level imputation for missing surveys. Weights account for non-enrollment among eligible clients and attrition.||1.7|0.6|
90962911|NCT01699789|181807142|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.12|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.5|||Regression, Cox|||Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using a Cox proportional-hazards model adjusted for baseline covariates. Data were multiply imputed and weighted for eligible sample for enrollment, accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization.||1.50|0.83|>.05
90962912|NCT01699789|181807143|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.23|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.52|||Regression, Cox|||Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using a Cox proportional-hazards model adjusted for baseline covariates. Data were multiply imputed and weighted for eligible sample for enrollment, accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization.||1.52|0.99|>0.05
90962913|NCT01699789|181807144|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.99||||||Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline covariates. Data were multiply imputed and weighted for eligible sample for enrollment, accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization.||2.99|1.00|
91034437|NCT02648347|181955093|NON_INFERIORITY|Establishment of non-inferiority was based on a margin of -0.75 g/dL applied to the difference in mean change: Vadadustat minus Darbepoetin alfa.|Least squares mean difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.14||||||Treatment comparison: Vadadustat minus Darbepoetin Alfa||0.14|-0.06|
90962914|NCT01699789|181807145|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|5.54||||||Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline covariates. Data were multiply imputed and weighted for eligible sample for enrollment, accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization.||5.54|1.24|
90962915|NCT02511678|181807148|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0746||||||The 1-sided p-value was based on a t-test against a performance goal of -2.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0746
90971070|NCT00385255|181824668|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was defined as the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference between the two groups (Boostrix+Fluarix 19-64 YOA Group minus Fluarix Boostrix 19-64 YOA Group), in terms of percentage of subjects with anti-B antibody titers ≥ 1:40 being ≥ -10%.|Difference in percentage|-0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|1.42||||||Difference in percentage of subjects with anti-B antibody titers ≥ 1:40: To demonstrate that the immunogenicity of Boostrix® vaccine co-administered with Fluarix® vaccine (Boostrix+Fluarix 19-64 YOA Group) at Day 0, was non-inferior to that of Fluarix® vaccine administered alone at Day 0 (Fluarix Boostrix 19-64 YOA Group), in terms of percentage of subjects with anti-B antibody titers ≥ 1:40, one month post-Fluarix® vaccination.||1.42|-2.52|
91034438|NCT02648347|181955094|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per FDA) and 1.3 (per EMA).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16|||=|0.1743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.966|1.382|||Log Rank|Based on non-parametric analysis.||Statistical analysis from study AKB-6548-CI-0014 has been reported in this section.||1.382|0.966|=0.1743
90922635|NCT03858634|181718401|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-167.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|105.28||0.2536|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-365.51|31.54||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1||31.54|-365.51|0.2536
90922636|NCT03858634|181718401|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-10.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.55||0.067|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-18.2|-3.44||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1||-3.44|-18.20|0.0670
90922637|NCT03858634|181718401|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-33.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|34.98||0.4133|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-90.43|24.15||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2||24.15|-90.43|0.4133
90922638|NCT03858634|181718401|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.44||0.9305|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-21.83|19.11|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2||19.11|-21.83|0.9305
90922639|NCT03858634|181718401|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-160.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|132.98||0.3499|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-411.65|89.86||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2||89.86|-411.65|0.3499
90922640|NCT03858634|181718401|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-14.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.55||0.1588|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-26.74|-1.33||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2||-1.33|-26.74|0.1588
90922641|NCT03858634|181718401|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-40.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|35.19||0.3319|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-98.26|17.0||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 3||17.00|-98.26|0.3319
90922642|NCT03858634|181718401|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.39||0.7179|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-18.59|32.8||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 3||32.80|-18.59|0.7179
90922643|NCT03858634|181718401|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-193.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|112.17||0.2261|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-405.34|17.67||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 3||17.67|-405.34|0.2261
90922644|NCT03858634|181718401|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-30.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.88||0.0123|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-44.75|-15.8||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 3||-15.80|-44.75|0.0123
90922645|NCT03858634|181718401|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-54.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|35.45||0.2253|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-112.02|4.09||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4||4.09|-112.02|0.2253
90922646|NCT03858634|181718401|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|6.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.9||0.7149|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-16.14|28.66||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4||28.66|-16.14|0.7149
90922647|NCT03858634|181718401|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-168.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|109.12||0.2627|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-374.16|37.36||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4||37.36|-374.16|0.2627
90922648|NCT03858634|181718401|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-36.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.38||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-51.87|-21.6||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4||-21.60|-51.87|0.0047
90922649|NCT03858634|181718401|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-66.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|38.01||0.1803|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-128.37|-3.88||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 5||-3.88|-128.37|0.1803
90922650|NCT03858634|181718401|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.34||0.7174|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-16.62|29.35||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 5||29.35|-16.62|0.7174
90922651|NCT03858634|181718401|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-163.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|103.47||0.2551|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-358.51|31.72||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 5||31.72|-358.51|0.2551
90922652|NCT03858634|181718401|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-33.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.36||0.0086|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-48.58|-18.36||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 5||-18.36|-48.58|0.0086
90922653|NCT03858634|181718401|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-56.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|40.16||0.2576|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-121.78|9.78||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6||9.78|-121.78|0.2576
90922654|NCT03858634|181718401|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.09||0.9722|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-24.62|23.34||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6||23.34|-24.62|0.9722
90922655|NCT03858634|181718401|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-177.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|95.72||0.2051|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-357.85|3.13||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6||3.13|-357.85|0.2051
90922656|NCT03858634|181718401|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-42.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.99||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-57.98|-26.08||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6||-26.08|-57.98|0.0025
90922657|NCT03858634|181718401|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-65.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|33.78||0.1465|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-121.14|-10.5||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 7||-10.50|-121.14|0.1465
90922658|NCT03858634|181718401|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.54||0.7734|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-18.13|28.37||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 7||28.37|-18.13|0.7734
90922659|NCT03858634|181718401|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-175.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|87.45||0.1826|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-340.37|-10.56||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 7||-10.56|-340.37|0.1826
91034439|NCT02648347|181955094|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per FDA) and 1.3 (per EMA).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11|||=|0.2305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.972|1.267|||Log Rank|Based on non-parametric analysis.||MACE analysis was performed on pooled data from studies AKB-6548-CI-0014 (NCT02648347) and AKB-6548-CI-0015 (NCT02680574). Time to first MACE plus hospitalization for heart failure or thromboembolic events excluding vascular access thrombosis for the Vadadustat and Darbepoetin alfa treatment groups was as follows: participants with events = 451 and 424 respectively; median time to first event (Q1, Q3) = 42.86 (19.71, 73.43) weeks versus 43.86 (21.36, 80.43) weeks, respectively.||1.267|0.972|=0.2305
90883075|NCT02660359|181628988|SUPERIORITY|This secondary endpoint was not included within the hierarchical testing procedure and was analysed for exploratory purposes only to compare each Dysport® dose to placebo at a 0.05 type one error rate.|LS Mean Difference|96.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.1|139.19|||MMRM|||Treatment group, visit (Week 6), treatment-by-visit interaction, recorded stratification factors (aetiology of NDO \[SCI or MS\], prior intradetrusor \[BTX-naïve or BTX-non-naïve\]) and study baseline value (total volume per void) as fixed effect variables, and subject as a random effect.||139.19|53.10|<0.0001
90883076|NCT02660359|181628988|SUPERIORITY|This secondary endpoint was not included within the hierarchical testing procedure and was analysed for exploratory purposes only to compare each Dysport® dose to placebo at a 0.05 type one error rate.|LS Mean Difference|90.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.07|134.48|||MMRM|||Treatment group, visit (Week 6), treatment-by-visit interaction, recorded stratification factors (aetiology of NDO \[SCI or MS\], prior intradetrusor \[BTX-naïve or BTX-non-naïve\]) and study baseline value (total volume per void) as fixed effect variables, and subject as a random effect.||134.48|47.07|<0.0001
90883077|NCT02660359|181628989|SUPERIORITY|This secondary endpoint was not included within the hierarchical testing procedure and was analysed for exploratory purposes only to compare each Dysport® dose to placebo at a 0.05 type one error rate.|LS Mean Difference|175.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|122.9|227.0|||ANCOVA|||Treatment group, recorded stratification factors (aetiology of NDO \[SCI or MS\], prior intradetrusor \[BTX- naïve or BTX-non-naïve\]) and baseline value of MCC as covariates.||227.0|122.90|<0.0001
90883078|NCT02660359|181628989|SUPERIORITY|This secondary endpoint was not included within the hierarchical testing procedure and was analysed for exploratory purposes only to compare each Dysport® dose to placebo at a 0.05 type one error rate.|LS Mean Difference|168.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|113.6|223.1|||ANCOVA|||Treatment group, recorded stratification factors (aetiology of NDO \[SCI or MS\], prior intradetrusor \[BTX- naïve or BTX-non-naïve\]) and baseline value of MCC as covariates.||223.1|113.6|<0.0001
90922660|NCT03858634|181718401|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-39.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.71||0.0105|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-57.4|-20.93||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 7||-20.93|-57.40|0.0105
90922661|NCT03858634|181718401|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-53.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|40.17||0.2737|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-119.49|12.09||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8||12.09|-119.49|0.2737
90922662|NCT03858634|181718401|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.77||0.8692|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-20.59|26.52||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8||26.52|-20.59|0.8692
90922663|NCT03858634|181718401|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-163.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|89.64||0.2106|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-332.06|5.99||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8||5.99|-332.06|0.2106
90922664|NCT03858634|181718401|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-45.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.67||0.006|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-65.19|-26.14||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8||-26.14|-65.19|0.0060
90922665|NCT03858634|181718401|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-62.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|36.12||0.1831|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-121.44|-3.13||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 10||-3.13|-121.44|0.1831
90922666|NCT03858634|181718401|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|21.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.39||0.2061|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.31|43.3||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 10||43.30|-0.31|0.2061
90883079|NCT02660359|181628990|SUPERIORITY|This secondary endpoint was not included within the hierarchical testing procedure and was analysed for exploratory purposes only to compare each Dysport® dose to placebo at a 0.05 type one error rate.|LS Mean Difference|-32.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.5|-24.4|||ANCOVA|||Treatment group, recorded stratification factors (aetiology of NDO \[SCI or MS\], prior intradetrusor \[BTX- naïve or BTX-non-naïve\]) and baseline value of MDP as covariates.||-24.4|-41.5|<0.0001
90922667|NCT03858634|181718401|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-161.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|87.75||0.2073|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-326.83|4.12||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 10||4.12|-326.83|0.2073
90922668|NCT03858634|181718401|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-34.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.19||0.0371|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-54.62|-14.1||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 10||-14.10|-54.62|0.0371
90922669|NCT03858634|181718401|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-55.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|37.72||0.2393|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-117.01|6.54||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12||6.54|-117.01|0.2393
90922670|NCT03858634|181718401|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.01||0.9019|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-22.91|27.67||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12||27.67|-22.91|0.9019
90922671|NCT03858634|181718401|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-149.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|81.97||0.2103|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-303.77|5.35||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12||5.35|-303.77|0.2103
90922672|NCT03858634|181718401|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-22.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.2||0.1634|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-42.4|-1.88||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12||-1.88|-42.40|0.1634
90883080|NCT02660359|181628990|SUPERIORITY|This secondary endpoint was not included within the hierarchical testing procedure and was analysed for exploratory purposes only to compare each Dysport® dose to placebo at a 0.05 type one error rate.|LS Mean Difference|-32.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.5|-23.4|||ANCOVA|||Treatment group, recorded stratification factors (aetiology of NDO \[SCI or MS\], prior intradetrusor \[BTX- naïve or BTX-non-naïve\]) and baseline value of MDP as covariates.||-23.4|-41.5|<0.0001
90883081|NCT02660359|181628991|SUPERIORITY|This secondary endpoint was not included within the hierarchical testing procedure and was analysed for exploratory purposes only to compare each Dysport® dose to placebo at a 0.05 type one error rate.|LS Mean Difference|152.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.2|206.5|||ANCOVA|||Treatment group, recorded stratification factors (aetiology of NDO \[SCI or MS\], prior intradetrusor \[BTX- naïve or BTX-non-naïve\]) and baseline value of Vol@1stIDC as covariates.||206.5|99.2|<0.0001
90883082|NCT02660359|181628991|SUPERIORITY|This secondary endpoint was not included within the hierarchical testing procedure and was analysed for exploratory purposes only to compare each Dysport® dose to placebo at a 0.05 type one error rate.|LS Mean Difference|169.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|111.7|227.6|||ANCOVA|||Treatment group, recorded stratification factors (aetiology of NDO \[SCI or MS\], prior intradetrusor \[BTX- naïve or BTX-non-naïve\]) and baseline value of Vol@1stIDC as covariates.||227.6|111.7|<0.0001
90883083|NCT02660359|181628992|SUPERIORITY|This secondary endpoint was not included within the hierarchical testing procedure and was analysed for exploratory purposes only to compare each Dysport® dose to placebo at a 0.05 type one error rate.|Odds Ratio (OR)|31.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.05|137.09|||GLMM|||Treatment group, recorded stratification factors, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, study baseline-by-visit interaction and study baseline weekly number of UI episodes as fixed effect.||137.09|7.05|<0.0001
90883084|NCT02660359|181628992|SUPERIORITY|This secondary endpoint was not included within the hierarchical testing procedure and was analysed for exploratory purposes only to compare each Dysport® dose to placebo at a 0.05 type one error rate.|Odds Ratio (OR)|28.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.24|126.25|||GLMM|||Treatment group, recorded stratification factors, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, study baseline-by- visit interaction and study baseline weekly number of UI episodes as fixed effect.||126.25|6.24|<0.0001
90883085|NCT01923181|181628995|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was controlled for multiplicity.|Mean treatment difference|-1.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|-1.22|||Mixed Models Analysis||Oral semaglutide 40 mg pooled - Placebo|Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The analysis was based on mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment, stratum and country as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit. Group mean estimates were adjusted according to observed baseline distribution.||-1.22|-1.73|<0.0001
90883086|NCT01923181|181628995|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Treatment difference|-0.4||||0.0069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis||Oral semaglutide 2.5 mg - Placebo|Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The analysis was based on mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment, stratum and country as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit. Group mean estimates were adjusted according to observed baseline distribution.||-0.11|-0.69|0.0069
90883087|NCT01923181|181628995|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Treatment difference|-0.89|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||Oral semaglutide 5 mg - Placebo|Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The analysis was based on mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment, stratum and country as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit. Group mean estimates were adjusted according to observed baseline distribution.||-0.60|-1.18|<0.0001
90922673|NCT03858634|181718401|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-48.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|36.28||0.2727|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-108.04|10.8||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 14||10.80|-108.04|0.2727
90883088|NCT01923181|181628995|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Treatment difference|-1.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|-0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||Oral semaglutide 10 mg - Placebo|Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The analysis was based on mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment, stratum and country as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit. Group mean estimates were adjusted according to observed baseline distribution.||-0.90|-1.47|<0.0001
90922674|NCT03858634|181718401|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-9.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.29||0.5839|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-32.65|13.36||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 14||13.36|-32.65|0.5839
90883089|NCT01923181|181628995|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Treatment difference|-1.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|-1.09|||Mixed Models Analysis||Oral Semaglutide 20 mg - Placebo|Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The analysis was based on mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment, stratum and country as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit. Group mean estimates were adjusted according to observed baseline distribution.||-1.09|-1.68|<0.0001
90883090|NCT01923181|181628995|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Treatment difference|-1.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|-1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||Oral semaglutide 40 mg - Placebo|Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The analysis was based on mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment, stratum and country as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit. Group mean estimates were adjusted according to observed baseline distribution.||-1.30|-1.89|<0.0001
90922675|NCT03858634|181718401|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-167.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|76.58||0.1597|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-312.25|-23.45||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 14||-23.45|-312.25|0.1597
90922676|NCT03858634|181718401|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-27.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.27||0.1138|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-48.81|-5.43||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 14||-5.43|-48.81|0.1138
90922677|NCT03858634|181718401|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-62.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|24.93||0.0888|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-102.78|-21.13||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16||-21.13|-102.78|0.0888
90922678|NCT03858634|181718401|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.19||0.9741|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-24.79|23.6||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16||23.60|-24.79|0.9741
90883091|NCT01923181|181628995|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Treatment difference|-1.43|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|-1.14|||Mixed Models Analysis||Oral semaglutide 40 mg slow dose-escalation - Placebo|Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The analysis was based on mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment, stratum and country as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit. Group mean estimates were adjusted according to observed baseline distribution.||-1.14|-1.72|<0.0001
90962916|NCT01295281|181807160|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|"Two catheters were tested regarding subjects' perception when using them, in a cross over design. After using each catheter for 1 week the subjects were asked: Do you experience discomfort when using your catheter?, and the subjects were supposed to answer Yes or No. The hypothesis to be investigated was that the tolerability/perception was about the same for each type of catheter, i.e. the POBE 2.0 should be non-inferior compared to PVC. H0: p(disc. POBE - Yes) = p(disc. PVC - Yes)"||||||0.0066|||||||McNemar|||The size of the target population was estimated by calculating 95% Confidence Interval (CI) of a possible difference between the two catheter types. The width of the interval was decided on the proportion of patients who would prefer one or the other catheter. Max width was seen when both proportions were 0.5. A total of 90 evaluable subjects limited the maximum width to 0.41, which was considered narrow enough from a scientific point of view, why this sample size was used in the study.||||0.0066
90883092|NCT01923181|181628995|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Treatment difference|-1.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|-1.04|||Mixed Models Analysis||Oral semaglutide 40 mg fast dose-escalation - Placebo|Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The analysis was based on mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment, stratum and country as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit. Group mean estimates were adjusted according to observed baseline distribution.||-1.04|-1.64|<0.0001
90883093|NCT01923181|181628995|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Treatment difference|-1.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|-1.27|||Mixed Models Analysis||Subcutaneous semaglutide 1 mg - Placebo|Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The analysis was based on mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment, stratum and country as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit. Group mean estimates were adjusted according to observed baseline distribution.||-1.27|-1.85|<0.0001
90883094|NCT01923181|181628995|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Treatment difference|1.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.45|||Mixed Models Analysis||Oral semaglutide 2.5 mg - Subcutaneous semaglutide 1 mg|Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The analysis was based on mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment, stratum and country as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit. Group mean estimates were adjusted according to observed baseline distribution.||1.45|0.87|<0.0001
90883095|NCT01923181|181628995|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Treatment difference|0.67|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.96|||Mixed Models Analysis||Oral semaglutide 5 mg - Subcutaneous semaglutide 1 mg|Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The analysis was based on mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment, stratum and country as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit. Group mean estimates were adjusted according to observed baseline distribution.||0.96|0.38|<0.0001
90883096|NCT01923181|181628995|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Treatment difference|0.37||||0.0116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.67|||Mixed Models Analysis||Oral semaglutide 10 mg - Subcutaneous semaglutide 1 mg|Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The analysis was based on mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment, stratum and country as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit. Group mean estimates were adjusted according to observed baseline distribution.||0.67|0.08|0.0116
90883097|NCT01923181|181628995|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Treatment difference|0.18||||0.244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.47|||Mixed Models Analysis||Oral semaglutide 20 mg - Subcutaneous semaglutide 1 mg|Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The analysis was based on mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment, stratum and country as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit. Group mean estimates were adjusted according to observed baseline distribution.||0.47|-0.12|0.2440
90922679|NCT03858634|181718401|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-159.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|65.42||0.1354|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-282.59|-35.87||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16||-35.87|-282.59|0.1354
90922680|NCT03858634|181718401|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-26.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.21||0.1425|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-49.41|-3.52||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16||-3.52|-49.41|0.1425
90922681|NCT03858634|181718401|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-54.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|26.61||0.1326|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-98.18|-11.01||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 18||-11.01|-98.18|0.1326
90922682|NCT03858634|181718401|OTHER||LS mean difference|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.87||0.8433|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-31.95|23.58||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 18||23.58|-31.95|0.8433
90922683|NCT03858634|181718401|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-130.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|38.5||0.0768|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-203.39|-58.19||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 18||-58.19|-203.39|0.0768
90922684|NCT03858634|181718401|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-18.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.69||0.3341|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-43.49|6.34||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 18||6.34|-43.49|0.3341
90922685|NCT03858634|181718403|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-40.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|40.82||0.4995|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-166.52|84.74||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2||84.74|-166.52|0.4995
91034440|NCT02648347|181955095|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per FDA) and 1.3 (per EMA).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19|||=|0.3154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.901|1.564|||Gray's Test|Based on non-parametric analysis.||Statistical analysis from study AKB-6548-CI-0014 has been reported in this section.||1.564|0.901|=0.3154
91034441|NCT02648347|181955095|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per FDA) and 1.3 (per EMA).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16|||=|0.2531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.947|1.42|||Gray's Test|Based on non-parametric analysis.||MACE analysis was performed on pooled data from studies AKB-6548-CI-0014 (NCT02648347) and AKB-6548-CI-0015 (NCT02680574). Time to first cardiovascular MACE for the Vadadustat and Darbepoetin alfa treatment groups was as follows: participants with events = 198 and 178 respectively; median time to first event (Q1, Q3) = 45.57 (21.71, 73.29) weeks versus 47.36 (20.00, 88.43) weeks, respectively. Statistical analysis from the pooled data has been reported in this section.||1.420|0.947|=0.2531
91034442|NCT02648347|181955096|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per FDA) and 1.3 (per EMA).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13|||=|0.5991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.808|1.594|||Gray's test|Based on non-parametric analysis.||Statistical analysis from study AKB-6548-CI-0014 has been reported in this section.||1.594|0.808|=0.5991
90922686|NCT03858634|181718403|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.59||0.7071|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-16.37|9.06||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2||9.06|-16.37|0.7071
90922687|NCT03858634|181718403|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-52.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.39||0.0305|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-70.18|-34.77||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2||-34.77|-70.18|0.0305
90922688|NCT03858634|181718403|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.33||0.4884|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-19.01|5.81||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2||5.81|-19.01|0.4884
90922689|NCT03858634|181718403|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-45.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|31.63||0.2885|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-104.93|14.35||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4||14.35|-104.93|0.2885
90922690|NCT03858634|181718403|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.24||0.6505|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-9.73|20.06||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4||20.06|-9.73|0.6505
90922691|NCT03858634|181718403|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-72.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.72||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-82.91|-61.34||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4||-61.34|-82.91|0.0062
90922692|NCT03858634|181718403|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-19.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.62||0.0571|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-32.34|-6.76||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4||-6.76|-32.34|0.0571
90922693|NCT03858634|181718403|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-50.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Change at Week 6||||
90922694|NCT03858634|181718403|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.65||0.6927|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-18.38|9.84||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6||9.84|-18.38|0.6927
90922695|NCT03858634|181718403|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-65.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.08||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-73.33|-57.94||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6||-57.94|-73.33|0.0038
90922696|NCT03858634|181718403|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-17.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.82||0.094|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-30.43|-4.3||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6||-4.30|-30.43|0.0940
90922697|NCT03858634|181718403|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-72.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.73||0.1694|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-133.1|-11.65||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8||-11.65|-133.10|0.1694
90922698|NCT03858634|181718403|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.07||0.7811|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-10.5|16.18||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8||16.18|-10.50|0.7811
90922699|NCT03858634|181718403|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-68.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.28||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-72.51|-63.91||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8||-63.91|-72.51|0.0011
90922700|NCT03858634|181718403|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-23.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.52||0.0245|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-36.02|-10.7||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8||-10.70|-36.02|0.0245
90922701|NCT03858634|181718403|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-61.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.87||0.0603|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-79.88|-43.74||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 10||-43.74|-79.88|0.0603
90922702|NCT03858634|181718403|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|7.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.89||0.4365|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.29|21.04||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 10||21.04|-5.29|0.4365
90922703|NCT03858634|181718403|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-68.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.3||0.0218|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-88.11|-49.26||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 10||-49.26|-88.11|0.0218
90922704|NCT03858634|181718403|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-19.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.07||0.1238|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-35.65|-3.45||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 10||-3.45|-35.65|0.1238
90962917|NCT00292461|181807173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.240
90962918|NCT00292461|181807174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.460
90922705|NCT03858634|181718403|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-54.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|23.38||0.1437|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-98.88|-10.72||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12||-10.72|-98.88|0.1437
90962919|NCT00292461|181807175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.079||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.079
90962920|NCT00292461|181807176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.860
90962921|NCT03049735|181807251|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|54.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.3|64.78||P-value was stratified by baseline MBL volume (\< 225 mL or ≥ 225 mL) and geographic region (North America or Rest of World). Assessed at a 2-sided α = 0.05 significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Treatment difference is relugolix + E2/NETA minus placebo.|The primary efficacy analysis was the comparison of the relugolix + E2/NETA group with the placebo group with respect to responder rate.||64.78|44.3|<0.0001
90922706|NCT03858634|181718403|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.14||0.9279|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-12.56|14.43||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12||14.43|-12.56|0.9279
90922707|NCT03858634|181718403|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-59.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.67||0.0254|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-77.69|-41.24||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12||-41.24|-77.69|0.0254
90922708|NCT03858634|181718403|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-18.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.8||0.0994|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-33.23|-4.43||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12||-4.43|-33.23|0.0994
90922709|NCT03858634|181718403|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-45.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|39.36||0.3656|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-119.9|28.54||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 14||28.54|-119.90|0.3656
90922710|NCT03858634|181718403|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.92||0.7465|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-14.79|8.94||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 14||8.94|-14.79|0.7465
90922711|NCT03858634|181718403|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-82.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.3||0.0153|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-101.75|-62.9||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 14||-62.90|-101.75|0.0153
90962922|NCT03049735|181807252|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|46.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.31|56.35||P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline MBL volume (\< 225 mL, ≥ 225 mL) and geographic region (North America or Rest of World). Assessed at a 2-sided α = 0.05 significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Treatment difference was relugolix plus E2/NETA minus placebo. 95% confidence interval (CI) for difference is based on the normal approximation.|||56.35|37.31|<0.0001
90922712|NCT03858634|181718403|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-16.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.97||0.2184|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-33.88|0.72||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 14||0.72|-33.88|0.2184
90922713|NCT03858634|181718403|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-8.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|25.78||0.7726|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-50.37|34.07||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16||34.07|-50.37|0.7726
90922714|NCT03858634|181718403|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-9.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.66||0.476|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-26.07|7.63||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16||7.63|-26.07|0.4760
90922715|NCT03858634|181718403|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-82.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.12||0.0121|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-99.26|-64.87||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16||-64.87|-99.26|0.0121
90922716|NCT03858634|181718403|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-13.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.06||0.3329|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-30.43|4.4||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16||4.40|-30.43|0.3329
90922717|NCT03858634|181718403|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|28.46||0.9564|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-48.31|44.92||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 18||44.92|-48.31|0.9564
90922718|NCT03858634|181718403|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-7.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.49||0.5661|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-25.84|10.06||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 18||10.06|-25.84|0.5661
90962923|NCT03049735|181807253|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-61.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.32|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.5|-48.6||Treatment, visit, region, Baseline MBL and treatment by visit interaction included as fixed effects. The multiple visits for each participant were the repeated measures as random effect within each participant and an unstructured covariance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Assessed at a 2-sided α = 0.05 significance. Treatment difference is relugolix plus E2/NETA minus placebo.||||-48.6|-73.5|<0.0001
90971250|NCT00391222|181825188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Log Rank|||The time-to-event data were evaluated by the same survival analysis method as used for the primary outcome. The recurrence rates (Kaplan-Meier estimated) were calculated for each treatment arm using the same methods as for the primary outcome.||||<0.0001
90962924|NCT03049735|181807254|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|28.26|||=|0.0377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.68|52.84||P-value is based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline MBL volume (\< 225 mL, ≥ 225 mL). Assessed at a 2-sided α = 0.05 significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Treatment difference is relugolix plus E2/NETA minus placebo. 95% CI for difference is based on the normal approximation.|||52.84|3.68|= 0.0377
90962925|NCT03049735|181807255|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|33.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.36|47.56||P-value is based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline MBL volume (\< 225 mL, ≥ 225 mL). Assessed at a 2-sided α = 0.05 significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Treatment difference is relugolix plus E2/NETA minus placebo. 95% CI for difference is based on the normal approximation.|||47.56|18.36|<0.0001
90962926|NCT03049735|181807256|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-12.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.19||0.0921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.3|2.0||Based on analysis of covariance model with treatment, randomization stratification factors, Baseline MBL volume, geographic region (North America, Rest of World), and Baseline values as covariate. Assessed at a 2-sided α = 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|||||2|-26.3|0.0921
90962927|NCT03049735|181807257|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-15.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.98||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.0|-7.3||Based on analysis of covariance model with treatment, randomization stratification factors, Baseline MBL volume, geographic region (North America, Rest of World), and Baseline values as covariate. Assessed at a 2-sided α = 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|||||-7.3|-23|0.0002
90962928|NCT03049735|181807258|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-28.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.75|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.3|-21.5||Treatment, visit, region, Baseline MBL and treatment by visit interaction included as fixed effects. The multiple visits for each participant were the repeated measures as random effect within each participant and an unstructured covariance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Assessed at a 2-sided α = 0.05 significance level. LS means and p-value for test of difference is relugolix plus E2/NETA minus placebo.||||-21.5|-36.3|<0.0001
90962929|NCT03049735|181807261|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
90962930|NCT03049735|181807266|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value is based on Log-rank test stratified by Baseline MBL volume (\< 225 mL, ≥ 225 mL) and geographic region (North America, Rest of World) from the proportional hazard regression model comparing relugolix + E2/NETA with placebo.|Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
90962931|NCT03049735|181807267|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value for testing difference between relugolix plus E2/NETA and placebo is based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline MBL volume (\< 225 mL, ≥ 225 mL) and geographic region (North America, Rest of World).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
90962932|NCT03049735|181807268|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value is based on Log-rank test stratified by Baseline MBL volume (\< 225 mL, ≥ 225 mL) and geographic region (North America, Rest of World) from the proportional hazard regression model comparing relugolix plus E2/NETA with placebo.|Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
90962933|NCT03049735|181807269|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was based on Log-rank test stratified by Baseline MBL volume (\< 225 mL, ≥ 225 mL) and geographic region (North America, Rest of World) from the proportional hazard regression model comparing relugolix + E2/NETA with placebo.|Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
90962934|NCT03049735|181807270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0377||||||P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline MBL volume (\< 225 mL, ≥ 225 mL).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0377
90962935|NCT03049735|181807271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0117||||||Treatment, visit, region, Baseline MBL and treatment by visit interaction included as fixed effects. The multiple visits for each participant were the repeated measures as random effect within each participant and an unstructured covariance.|Mixed Models Analysis|LS means and p-value for test of difference is relugolix plus E2/NETA minus placebo.||||||0.0117
90962936|NCT03049735|181807272|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0084||||||P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline MBL volume (\< 225 mL, ≥ 225 mL) and geographic region (North America, Rest of World). Lower limit of normal is Hgb \< 11.6 g/dL.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0084
90962937|NCT03049735|181807273|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Treatment, visit, region, Baseline MBL and treatment by visit interaction included as fixed effects. The multiple visits for each participant were the repeated measures as random effect within each participant and an unstructured covariance.|Mixed Models Analysis|LS means and p-value for test of difference is relugolix plus E2/NETA minus placebo.||||||<0.0001
90962938|NCT03049735|181807274|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Treatment, visit, region, Baseline MBL and treatment by visit interaction included as fixed effects. The multiple visits for each participant were the repeated measures as random effect within each participant and an unstructured covariance.|Mixed Models Analysis|LS means and p-value for test of difference is relugolix plus E2/NETA minus placebo.||||||<0.0001
90962939|NCT03049735|181807275|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Treatment, visit, region, Baseline MBL and treatment by visit interaction included as fixed effects. The multiple visits for each participant were the repeated measures as random effect within each participant and an unstructured covariance.|Mixed Models Analysis|LS means and p-value for test of difference is relugolix plus E2/NETA minus placebo.||||||<0.0001
90962940|NCT03049735|181807276|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Treatment, visit, region, Baseline MBL and treatment by visit interaction included as fixed effects. The multiple visits for each participant were the repeated measures as random effect within each participant and an unstructured covariance.|Mixed Models Analysis|LS means and p-value for test of difference is relugolix plus E2/NETA minus placebo.||||||<0.0001
90962941|NCT03049735|181807277|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value for testing difference between Relugolix plus E2/NETA and placebo is based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline MBL volume (\< 225 mL, ≥ 225 mL) and geographic region (North America, Rest of World).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
90962942|NCT03049735|181807278|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Treatment, visit, region, Baseline MBL and treatment by visit interaction included as fixed effects. The multiple visits for each participant were the repeated measures as random effect within each participant and an unstructured covariance.|Mixed Models Analysis|LS means and p-value for test of difference is relugolix plus E2/NETA minus placebo.||||||<0.0001
90962943|NCT03049735|181807279|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline MBL volume (\< 225 mL, ≥ 225 mL) and geographic region (North America, Rest of World).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
90971251|NCT00391222|181825189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||The time-to-event data were evaluated by means of the same survival analysis method as used for the primary outcome. The recurrence rates (Kaplan-Meier estimated) were calculated for each treatment arm using the same methods as for the primary outcome.||||0.655
90922719|NCT03858634|181718403|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-82.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.12||0.0121|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-99.26|-64.87||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 18||-64.87|-99.26|0.0121
90922720|NCT03858634|181718403|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-11.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.7||0.4275|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-29.4|7.13||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 18||7.13|-29.40|0.4275
90922721|NCT03858634|181718408|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-27.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|40.54||0.5403|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-94.32|38.46||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1||38.46|-94.32|0.5403
90922722|NCT03858634|181718408|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|376.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|631.83||0.5587|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-462.83|1214.97||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1||1214.97|-462.83|0.5587
90922723|NCT03858634|181718408|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-67.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|72.99||0.4516|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-205.33|69.93||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1||69.93|-205.33|0.4516
90922724|NCT03858634|181718408|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-12.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.5||0.2052|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-25.13|0.15||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1||0.15|-25.13|0.2052
90922725|NCT03858634|181718408|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-59.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|38.89||0.224|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-123.09|4.28||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2||4.28|-123.09|0.2240
90922726|NCT03858634|181718408|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|39.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|48.33||0.4242|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-24.7|103.65||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2||103.65|-24.70|0.4242
90922727|NCT03858634|181718408|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-77.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|78.61||0.4295|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-225.44|71.01||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2||71.01|-225.44|0.4295
90922728|NCT03858634|181718408|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-18.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.97||0.2272|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-38.64|1.2||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2||1.20|-38.64|0.2272
90922729|NCT03858634|181718408|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-55.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|48.9||0.3416|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-135.23|24.95||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 3||24.95|-135.23|0.3416
90922730|NCT03858634|181718408|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|57.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|69.75||0.4192|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-35.02|150.19||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 3||150.19|-35.02|0.4192
90922731|NCT03858634|181718408|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-66.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|87.42||0.5245|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-231.66|98.02||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 3||98.02|-231.66|0.5245
90922732|NCT03858634|181718408|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-17.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.31||0.1988|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-35.47|-0.05||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 3||-0.05|-35.47|0.1988
90922733|NCT03858634|181718408|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-69.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|56.11||0.3054|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-161.08|22.72||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4||22.72|-161.08|0.3054
90922734|NCT03858634|181718408|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|229.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|377.23||0.5504|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-271.51|730.22||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4||730.22|-271.51|0.5504
90922735|NCT03858634|181718408|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-71.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|76.27||0.4493|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-214.96|72.65||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4||72.65|-214.96|0.4493
90922736|NCT03858634|181718408|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-40.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.63||0.0665|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-67.74|-12.85||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4||-12.85|-67.74|0.0665
90922737|NCT03858634|181718408|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-78.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|54.04||0.2411|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-167.25|9.75||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 5||9.75|-167.25|0.2411
90922738|NCT03858634|181718408|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|60.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|79.3||0.4528|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-44.51|166.08||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 5||166.08|-44.51|0.4528
90922739|NCT03858634|181718408|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-41.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|75.46||0.6381|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-183.72|100.85||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 5||100.85|-183.72|0.6381
90922740|NCT03858634|181718408|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-31.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.22||0.0837|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-54.44|-8.62||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 5||-8.62|-54.44|0.0837
90883098|NCT01923181|181628995|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Treatment difference|-0.04||||0.7973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis||Oral semaglutide 40 mg - Subcutaneous semaglutide 1 mg|Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The analysis was based on mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment, stratum and country as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit. Group mean estimates were adjusted according to observed baseline distribution.||0.26|-0.34|0.7973
90922741|NCT03858634|181718408|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-74.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|66.45||0.3428|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-183.53|34.13||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6||34.13|-183.53|0.3428
90922742|NCT03858634|181718408|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|21.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.93||0.3533|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-8.63|52.27||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6||52.27|-8.63|0.3533
90922743|NCT03858634|181718408|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-63.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|56.53||0.3755|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-170.51|42.66||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6||42.66|-170.51|0.3755
90922744|NCT03858634|181718408|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-37.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.6||0.0268|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-58.39|-16.87||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6||-16.87|-58.39|0.0268
90883099|NCT01923181|181628995|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Treatment difference|0.13||||0.3901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.42|||Mixed Models Analysis||Oral semaglutide 40 mg slow-dose escalation - Subcutaneous semaglutide 1 mg|Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The analysis was based on mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment, stratum and country as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit. Group mean estimates were adjusted according to observed baseline distribution.||0.42|-0.16|0.3901
90883100|NCT01923181|181628995|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Treatment difference|0.22||||0.1612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.52|||Mixed Models Analysis||Oral semaglutide 40 mg fast-dose escalation - Subcutaneous semaglutide 1 mg|Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The analysis was based on mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment, stratum and country as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit. Group mean estimates were adjusted according to observed baseline distribution.||0.52|-0.09|0.1612
90883101|NCT01923181|181628995|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Treatment difference|0.17||||0.2669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.46|||Mixed Models Analysis||Oral semaglutide 40 mg slow-dose escalation - Oral semaglutide 40 mg|Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The analysis was based on mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment, stratum and country as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit. Group mean estimates were adjusted according to observed baseline distribution.||0.46|-0.13|0.2669
90883102|NCT01923181|181628995|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Treatment difference|0.26||||0.0989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.56|||Mixed Models Analysis||Oral semaglutide 40 mg fast-dose escalation - Oral semaglutide 40 mg|Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The analysis was based on mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment, stratum and country as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit. Group mean estimates were adjusted according to observed baseline distribution.||0.56|-0.05|0.0989
90883103|NCT01923181|181628995|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Treatment difference|0.09||||0.5565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.39|||Mixed Models Analysis||Oral semaglutide 40 mg fast-dose escalation - Oral semaglutide 40 mg slow-dose escalation|Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The analysis was based on mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment, stratum and country as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit. Group mean estimates were adjusted according to observed baseline distribution.||0.39|-0.21|0.5565
90883104|NCT00451282|181629044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.69
90883105|NCT00451282|181629045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.89
90883106|NCT00451282|181629046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.69
90883107|NCT00451282|181629047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.18
90922745|NCT03858634|181718408|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-79.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|43.79||0.1672|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-151.2|-7.75||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 7||-7.75|-151.20|0.1672
90922746|NCT03858634|181718408|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|43.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|45.81||0.3518|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-17.09|104.55||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 7||104.55|-17.09|0.3518
90922747|NCT03858634|181718408|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-68.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|49.22||0.2974|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-161.52|24.09||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 7||24.09|-161.52|0.2974
90922748|NCT03858634|181718408|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-38.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.6||0.0555|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-62.83|-13.33||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 7||-13.33|-62.83|0.0555
90922749|NCT03858634|181718408|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-78.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|56.72||0.2614|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-171.17|14.62||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8||14.62|-171.17|0.2614
90962944|NCT03049735|181807280|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Treatment, visit, region, Baseline MBL and treatment by visit interaction included as fixed effects. The multiple visits for each participant were the repeated measures as random effect within each participant and an unstructured covariance.|Mixed Models Analysis|LS means and p-value for test of difference is relugolix plus E2/NETA minus placebo.||||||<0.0001
90922750|NCT03858634|181718408|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|31.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|37.89||0.4134|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-18.62|81.98||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8||81.98|-18.62|0.4134
90922751|NCT03858634|181718408|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-69.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|44.99||0.262|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-154.44|15.24||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8||15.24|-154.44|0.2620
90922752|NCT03858634|181718408|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-40.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.7||0.0269|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-62.46|-18.02||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8||-18.02|-62.46|0.0269
90922753|NCT03858634|181718408|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-81.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|45.32||0.1709|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-155.46|-7.02||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 10||-7.02|-155.46|0.1709
90922754|NCT03858634|181718408|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|42.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.98||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|80.0|25.61|60.22||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 10||60.22|25.61|0.0042
90922755|NCT03858634|181718408|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-53.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|47.22||0.3772|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-142.19|35.88||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 10||35.88|-142.19|0.3772
90922756|NCT03858634|181718408|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-28.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.54||0.0857|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-49.06|-7.63||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 10||-7.63|-49.06|0.0857
90922757|NCT03858634|181718408|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-77.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|26.34||0.0607|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-120.48|-34.2||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12||-34.20|-120.48|0.0607
90922758|NCT03858634|181718408|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|88.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|124.79||0.4862|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-77.57|255.22||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12||255.22|-77.57|0.4862
90922759|NCT03858634|181718408|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-53.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|49.73||0.3968|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-146.96|40.58||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12||40.58|-146.96|0.3968
90922760|NCT03858634|181718408|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-24.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.57||0.1624|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-46.31|-2.11||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12||-2.11|-46.31|0.1624
90922761|NCT03858634|181718408|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-76.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|37.75||0.1349|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-138.58|-14.93||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 14||-14.93|-138.58|0.1349
90922762|NCT03858634|181718408|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|45.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.81||0.0525|TWO_SIDED|80.0|16.38|74.56||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 14||74.56|16.38|0.0525
90922763|NCT03858634|181718408|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-76.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|50.98||0.2719|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-172.71|19.55||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 14||19.55|-172.71|0.2719
90922764|NCT03858634|181718408|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-30.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.39||0.0957|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-53.86|-7.49||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 14||-7.49|-53.86|0.0957
90922765|NCT03858634|181718408|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-79.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|32.98||0.0942|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-133.83|-25.78||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16||-25.78|-133.83|0.0942
90922766|NCT03858634|181718408|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|34.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|23.6||0.1606|TWO_SIDED|80.0|3.16|66.09||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16||66.09|3.16|0.1606
90922767|NCT03858634|181718408|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-77.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|42.2||0.2096|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-156.58|2.58||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16||2.58|-156.58|0.2096
90922768|NCT03858634|181718408|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-29.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.32||0.1279|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-53.74|-4.89||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16||-4.89|-53.74|0.1279
90922769|NCT03858634|181718408|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-75.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|23.17||0.0479|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-112.96|-37.08||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 18||-37.08|-112.96|0.0479
90922770|NCT03858634|181718408|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|32.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.91||0.17|TWO_SIDED|80.0|2.28|63.37||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 18||63.37|2.28|0.1700
90883108|NCT01797536|181629051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.34|1.08|||||GMR= Mild Hepatic Insufficiency Geometric Mean (GM) divided by Healthy Control GM|Back-transformed least-squares mean and confidence interval from linear fixed effect model performed on natural log-transformed values||1.08|0.34|
90883109|NCT01797536|181629051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|1.31|||||GMR = Moderate Hepatic Insufficiency GM divided by Healthy Control GM|Back-transformed least-squares mean and confidence interval from linear fixed effect model performed on natural log-transformed values||1.31|0.40|
90883110|NCT01797536|181629051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.48|1.61|||||GMR = Severe Hepatic Insufficiency GM divided by Healthy Control GM|Back-transformed least-squares mean and confidence interval from linear fixed effect model performed on natural log-transformed values||1.61|0.48|
90883111|NCT01797536|181629052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.34|1.05|||||GMR = Mild Hepatic Insufficiency GM divided by Healthy Control GM|Back-transformed least-squares mean and confidence interval from linear fixed effect model performed on natural log-transformed values||1.05|0.34|
90883112|NCT01797536|181629052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.35|1.14|||||GMR = Moderate Hepatic Insufficiency GM divided by Healthy Control GM|Back-transformed least-squares mean and confidence interval from linear fixed effect model performed on natural log-transformed values||1.14|0.35|
90883113|NCT01797536|181629052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.35|1.13|||||GMR = Severe Hepatic Insufficiency GM divided by Healthy Control GM|Back-transformed least-squares mean and confidence interval from linear fixed effect model performed on natural log-transformed values||1.13|0.35|
90883114|NCT01797536|181629053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.32|1.05|||||GMR = Mild Hepatic Insufficiency GM divided by Healthy Control GM|Back-transformed least-squares mean and confidence interval from linear fixed effect model performed on natural log-transformed values||1.05|0.32|
90883115|NCT01797536|181629053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.35|1.14|||||GMR = Moderate Hepatic Insufficiency GM divided by Healthy Control GM|Back-transformed least-squares mean and confidence interval from linear fixed effect model performed on natural log-transformed values||1.14|0.35|
90883116|NCT01797536|181629053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.32|1.08|||||GMR = Severe Hepatic Insufficiency GM divided by Healthy Control GM|Back-transformed least-squares mean and confidence interval from linear fixed effect model performed on natural log-transformed values||1.08|0.32|
90883117|NCT01797536|181629054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.34|1.08|||||GMR = Mild Hepatic Insufficiency GM divided by Healthy Control GM|Back-transformed least-squares mean and confidence interval from linear fixed effect model performed on natural log-transformed values||1.08|0.34|
90883118|NCT01797536|181629054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.38|1.25|||||GMR = Moderate Hepatic Insufficiency GM divided by Healthy Control GM|Back-transformed least-squares mean and confidence interval from linear fixed effect model performed on natural log-transformed values||1.25|0.38|
90883119|NCT01797536|181629054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.43|1.43|||||GMR = Severe Hepatic Insufficiency GM divided by Healthy Control GM|Back-transformed least-squares mean and confidence interval from linear fixed effect model performed on natural log-transformed values||1.43|0.43|
90883120|NCT00120042|181629068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||We planned that up to 300 women would be recruited. This sample size would achieve 80% poer at a 5% significance level to detect a reduction from 40% placental retention rate with no specific therapy (Group 1) to 20% with Group 2 or 3. An interim analysis was planned after 240 women had been recruited.||||0.05
90883121|NCT00120042|181629069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
90883122|NCT01126541|181629096|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Primary objective to demonstrate noninferiority of retreatment with one 1000 mg rituximab infusion. Mean ±SD of the DAS28-CRP AUC at 24 months = 2218 ±967 (based on EDWARDS, REFLEX and DANCER study data). H0 (null hypothesis): Arm B - Arm A \>20%. H1: Arm B - Arm A ≤ 20%. Power = 80%; Larger difference clinically acceptable = 20% = 444; Significance level of 2.5% (one-sided).||||||0.465|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from Day 1 to Week 24 (initial treatment)||||0.465
90922771|NCT03858634|181718408|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-80.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|29.67||0.1142|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-136.03|-24.15||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 18||-24.15|-136.03|0.1142
90883123|NCT01126541|181629096|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Primary objective to demonstrate noninferiority of retreatment with one 1000 mg rituximab infusion. Mean ±SD of the DAS28-CRP AUC at 24 months = 2218 ±967 (based on EDWARDS, REFLEX and DANCER study data). H0 (null hypothesis): Arm B - Arm A \>20%. H1: Arm B - Arm A ≤ 20%. Power = 80%; Larger difference clinically acceptable = 20% = 444; Significance level of 2.5% (one-sided)||||||0.161|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Arm A vs. Arm B: Change from 1st retreatment to 24 weeks after||||0.161
90883124|NCT01126541|181629096|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Primary objective to demonstrate noninferiority of retreatment with one 1000 mg rituximab infusion. Mean ±SD of the DAS28-CRP AUC at 24 months = 2218 ±967 (based on EDWARDS, REFLEX and DANCER study data). H0 (null hypothesis): Arm B - Arm A \>20%. H1: Arm B - Arm A ≤ 20%. Power = 80%; Larger difference clinically acceptable = 20% = 444; Significance level of 2.5% (one-sided)||||||0.524|||||||Student t-test|||Arm A vs. Arm B: Change from 2nd retreatment to 24 weeks after||||0.524
90922772|NCT03858634|181718408|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-18.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.82||0.398|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-45.8|9.71||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 18||9.71|-45.80|0.3980
90922773|NCT03858634|181718410|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-13.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.11||0.4979|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-41.17|14.86||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1||14.86|-41.17|0.4979
90922774|NCT03858634|181718410|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|21.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.88||0.1079|TWO_SIDED|80.0|4.63|38.83||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1||38.83|4.63|0.1079
90922775|NCT03858634|181718410|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-35.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|41.7||0.4837|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-114.19|43.07||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1||43.07|-114.19|0.4837
90922776|NCT03858634|181718410|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-10.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.14||0.0208|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-15.99|-4.98||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1||-4.98|-15.99|0.0208
90922777|NCT03858634|181718410|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-16.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|23.54||0.5413|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-54.74|22.38||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2||22.38|-54.74|0.5413
90922778|NCT03858634|181718410|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|17.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.22||0.1683|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.28|33.74||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2||33.74|1.28|0.1683
90962945|NCT03049735|181807281|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Treatment, visit, region, Baseline MBL and treatment by visit interaction included as fixed effects. The multiple visits for each participant were the repeated measures as random effect within each participant and an unstructured covariance.|Mixed Models Analysis|LS means and p-value for test of difference is relugolix plus E2/NETA minus placebo.||||||<0.0001
90922779|NCT03858634|181718410|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-58.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|54.45||0.3933|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-161.43|43.89||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2||43.89|-161.43|0.3933
90922780|NCT03858634|181718410|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.25||0.3705|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-14.06|2.58||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2||2.58|-14.06|0.3705
90922781|NCT03858634|181718410|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-23.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|35.63||0.5644|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-81.36|35.34||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 3||35.34|-81.36|0.5644
90922782|NCT03858634|181718410|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.82||0.6384|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-11.75|24.94||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 3||24.94|-11.75|0.6384
90922783|NCT03858634|181718410|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-58.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|58.62||0.4229|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-169.13|51.95||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 3||51.95|-169.13|0.4229
90922784|NCT03858634|181718410|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-16.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.38||0.1688|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-31.47|-1.18||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 3||-1.18|-31.47|0.1688
90922785|NCT03858634|181718410|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-59.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|28.11||0.1243|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-105.59|-13.53||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4||-13.53|-105.59|0.1243
90922786|NCT03858634|181718410|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|6.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.79||0.6841|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-15.35|29.22||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4||29.22|-15.35|0.6841
90922787|NCT03858634|181718410|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-53.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|49.83||0.3963|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-147.31|40.59||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4||40.59|-147.31|0.3963
90922788|NCT03858634|181718410|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-24.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.85||0.0571|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-39.85|-8.32||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4||-8.32|-39.85|0.0571
90922789|NCT03858634|181718410|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-35.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|40.32||0.4457|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-101.32|30.73||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 5||30.73|-101.32|0.4457
90922790|NCT03858634|181718410|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.99||0.8075|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-19.44|28.32||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 5||28.32|-19.44|0.8075
90922791|NCT03858634|181718410|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-57.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|55.75||0.4093|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-162.84|47.4||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 5||47.40|-162.84|0.4093
90922792|NCT03858634|181718410|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-27.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.4||0.0543|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-45.42|-9.76||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 5||-9.76|-45.42|0.0543
90922793|NCT03858634|181718410|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-31.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|37.75||0.4711|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-92.88|30.78||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6||30.78|-92.88|0.4711
91034443|NCT02648347|181955096|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per FDA) and 1.3 (per EMA).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01|||=|0.8613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.792|1.293|||Gray's test|Based on non-parametric analysis.||MACE analysis was performed on pooled data from studies AKB-6548-CI-0014 (NCT02648347) and AKB-6548-CI-0015 (NCT02680574). Time to first cardiovascular death for the Vadadustat and Darbepoetin alfa treatment groups was as follows: participants with events = 127 and 131 respectively; median time to first event (Q1, Q3) = 48.29 (28.86, 76.14) weeks versus 48.43 (21.29, 92.29) weeks, respectively. Statistical analysis from the pooled data has been reported in this section.||1.293|0.792|=0.8613
90922794|NCT03858634|181718410|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|13.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.89||0.3925|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.74|32.79||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6||32.79|-6.74|0.3925
90922795|NCT03858634|181718410|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-48.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|61.24||0.5095|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-164.22|66.72||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6||66.72|-164.22|0.5095
90922796|NCT03858634|181718410|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-33.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.22||0.0199|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-51.35|-16.18||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6||-16.18|-51.35|0.0199
90922797|NCT03858634|181718410|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-42.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|34.48||0.3029|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-99.26|13.69||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 7||13.69|-99.26|0.3029
90922798|NCT03858634|181718410|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|10.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.97||0.4094|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.28|28.16||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 7||28.16|-6.28|0.4094
90922799|NCT03858634|181718410|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-49.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|58.25||0.4828|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-159.63|60.05||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 7||60.05|-159.63|0.4828
90922800|NCT03858634|181718410|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-32.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.66||0.0383|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-52.26|-13.26||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 7||-13.26|-52.26|0.0383
90962946|NCT03049735|181807283|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Treatment, visit, region, Baseline MBL and treatment by visit interaction included as fixed effects. The multiple visits for each participant were the repeated measures as random effect within each participant and an unstructured covariance.|Mixed Models Analysis|LS means and p-value for test of difference is relugolix plus E2/NETA minus placebo.||||||<0.0001
90962947|NCT03049735|181807290|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002||||||P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline MBL volume (\< 225 mL, ≥ 225 mL).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0002
90962948|NCT02146326|181807295|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression analysis was used to examine the BREATHE intervention effect on clinician burnout and patient processes, engagement, and outcomes as compared to MI after the intervention by adjusting for the baseline scores and the implementation site.||||0.80
90922801|NCT03858634|181718410|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-26.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|37.1||0.5322|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-86.66|34.65||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8||34.65|-86.66|0.5322
90922802|NCT03858634|181718410|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-6.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.71||0.6577|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-24.38|12.03||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8||12.03|-24.38|0.6577
90922803|NCT03858634|181718410|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-38.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|67.21||0.6259|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-165.08|88.4||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8||88.40|-165.08|0.6259
90922804|NCT03858634|181718410|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-35.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.27||0.0312|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-56.01|-15.38||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8||-15.38|-56.01|0.0312
90922805|NCT03858634|181718410|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-108.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.73||0.0103|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-138.97|-77.61||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 9||-77.61|-138.97|0.0103
90922806|NCT03858634|181718410|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|10.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.43||0.433|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.59|26.56||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 9||26.56|-6.59|0.4330
90922807|NCT03858634|181718410|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-37.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|64.23||0.6165|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-158.82|83.39||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 9||83.39|-158.82|0.6165
90922808|NCT03858634|181718410|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-32.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.13||0.0488|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-52.11|-11.84||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 9||-11.84|-52.11|0.0488
90922809|NCT03858634|181718410|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-19.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|39.9||0.6636|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-84.53|46.16||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 10||46.16|-84.53|0.6636
90922810|NCT03858634|181718410|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|23.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.75||0.0583|TWO_SIDED|80.0|8.18|39.52||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 10||39.52|8.18|0.0583
90962949|NCT02146326|181807296|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression analysis was used to examine the BREATHE intervention effect on clinician burnout and patient processes, engagement, and outcomes as compared to MI after the intervention by adjusting for the baseline scores and the implementation site.||||0.80
90962950|NCT02146326|181807297|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression analysis was used to examine the BREATHE intervention effect on clinician burnout and patient processes, engagement, and outcomes as compared to MI after the intervention by adjusting for the baseline scores and the implementation site.||||0.54
91034444|NCT02648347|181955097|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per FDA) and 1.3 (per EMA).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11|||=|0.4388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.902|1.375|||Log Rank|Based on non-parametric analysis.||Statistical analysis from study AKB-6548-CI-0014 has been reported in this section.||1.375|0.902|=0.4388
90883125|NCT01126541|181629097|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Primary objective to demonstrate noninferiority of retreatment with one 1000 mg rituximab infusion. Mean plus or minus (±)SD of the DAS28-CRP AUC at 24 months = 2218 ±967 (based on EDWARDS, REFLEX and DANCER study data). H0 (null hypothesis): Arm B - Arm A \>20%. H1: Arm B - Arm A ≤ 20%. Power = 80%; Larger difference clinically acceptable = 20% = 444; Significance level of 2.5% (one-sided)|Adjusted difference|51.38|STANDARD_DEVIATION|92.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-131.22|233.98|||||Covariate analysis with baseline DAS28-CRP value as covariate|||233.98|-131.22|
90883126|NCT01126541|181629117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.389|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 1 to Week 104||||0.389
90883127|NCT01126541|181629117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.374|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||1st retreatment to Week 104||||0.374
90883128|NCT01126541|181629117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.277|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Weel 24 to Week 104||||0.277
90883129|NCT01126541|181629118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.278|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Total cortisone: Week 24 to Week 104||||0.278
90883130|NCT01126541|181629118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.887|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Oral cortisone: Week 24 to Week 104||||0.887
90883131|NCT01126541|181629118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||IV cortisone: Week 24 to Week 104||||<0.001
90883132|NCT04589559|181629142|OTHER|Paired-samples t-test|Mean change score|-1.5||||0.152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.67|0.67|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired-samples t-test|A negative value of the estimation parameter of mean change score indicates a reduction in cardiac-related interoceptive fear.|||0.67|-3.67|0.152
90922811|NCT03858634|181718410|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-45.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|54.87||0.4975|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-148.55|58.36||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 10||58.36|-148.55|0.4975
90922812|NCT03858634|181718410|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-30.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.54||0.0653|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-51.17|-9.82||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 10||-9.82|-51.17|0.0653
90883133|NCT04589559|181629143|OTHER|Paired-samples t-test|Mean change score|-6.2||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.71|-0.69|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired-samples t-test|A negative value of the estimation parameter of mean change score indicates a reduction in trait anxiety.|||-0.69|-11.71|0.031
90883134|NCT04589559|181629144|OTHER|Paired-samples t-test|Mean change score|-1.9||||0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.01|2.21|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired-samples t-test|A negative value of the estimation parameter of mean change score indicates a reduction in negative affect.|||2.21|-6.01|0.323
90883135|NCT04589559|181629145|OTHER|Paired-samples t-test|Mean change in the measure|0.58||||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|1.33|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired-samples t-test|A positive value of the estimation parameter of mean change in the measure indicates an increase in heart rate variability.|||1.33|-0.16|0.112
90883136|NCT02664038|181629146|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.68|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|0.05|-8.23|2.588|||ANCOVA|covaried for days of heavy drinking over the 30 days prior to randomization.||||2.588|-8.23|<.05
90883137|NCT02664038|181629147|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.66|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|0.05|-3.26|3.61|||ANCOVA|Days of heavy drinking 30 days prior to randomization||||3.61|-3.26|<.05
90883138|NCT02664038|181629148|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.49||0.77|TWO_SIDED|0.05|1.45|4.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measure with Baseline, 13 weeks and 26 weeks||||4.43|1.45|.77
90883139|NCT02664038|181629149|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.53|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|4.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.50|-1.61|<.05
90883140|NCT02664038|181629150|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.05|TWO_SIDED|0.05|0.19|1.11|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.11|.19|.05
90883141|NCT00673452|181629184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) Model: PGI-S = baseline PGI-S + treatment + pooled investigator + visit + treatment-by-visit + baseline-by-visit.||Patients treated with 60-120 mg duloxetine for 12 weeks compared with placebo will show greater improvement in symptoms as assessed by Patient's Global Impressions of Improvement (PGI-I). Sample size determined using 2-sided t-test with significance level of 0.05, and discontinuation rate of 5% without postbaseline data. With 261 patients per arm, study has approximately 85% power to detect treatment group difference of -0.4 points (standard deviation of 1.5) in PGI-I between treatment groups.||||<0.001
90883142|NCT00673452|181629185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|-0.31||P-value for Worst Pain Severity. P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: BPI Score change from baseline to LOCF endpoint = BPI baseline + treatment + pooled investigator|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||-0.31|-1.19|<0.001
90883143|NCT00673452|181629185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.61||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.24||P-value for Least Pain Severity. P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: BPI Score change from baseline to LOCF endpoint = BPI baseline + treatment + pooled investigator|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||-0.24|-0.99|0.001
90922813|NCT03858634|181718410|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-23.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|43.98||0.6316|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-95.42|48.62||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 11||48.62|-95.42|0.6316
90922814|NCT03858634|181718410|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|26.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.68||0.0874|TWO_SIDED|80.0|7.05|46.18||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 11||46.18|7.05|0.0874
90883144|NCT00673452|181629185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|-0.35||P-value for Average Pain Severity. P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: BPI Score change from baseline to LOCF endpoint = BPI baseline + treatment + pooled investigator|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||-0.35|-1.13|<0.001
90883145|NCT00673452|181629185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.31||P-value for Pain Right Now Severity. P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: BPI Score change from baseline to LOCF endpoint = BPI baseline + treatment + pooled investigator|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||-0.31|-1.20|<0.001
90883146|NCT00673452|181629185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|-0.49||P-value for General Activity Interference. P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: BPI Score change from baseline to LOCF endpoint = BPI baseline + treatment + pooled investigator|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||-0.49|-1.39|<0.001
90883147|NCT00673452|181629185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|-0.49||P-value for Mood Interference. P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: BPI Score change from baseline to LOCF endpoint = BPI baseline + treatment + pooled investigator|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||-0.49|-1.41|<0.001
90883148|NCT00673452|181629185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|-0.36||P-value for Walking Ability Interference. P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: BPI Score change from baseline to LOCF endpoint = BPI baseline + treatment + pooled investigator|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||-0.36|-1.24|<0.001
90883149|NCT00673452|181629185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|-0.32||P-value for Normal Work Interference. P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: BPI Score change from baseline to LOCF endpoint = BPI baseline + treatment + pooled investigator|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||-0.32|-1.21|<0.001
90883150|NCT00673452|181629185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|-0.52||P-value for Relations with Other People Interference. P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: BPI Score change from baseline to LOCF endpoint = BPI baseline + treatment + pooled investigator|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||-0.52|-1.38|<0.001
90883151|NCT00673452|181629185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|-0.39||P-value for Sleep Interference. P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: BPI Score change from baseline to LOCF endpoint = BPI baseline + treatment + pooled investigator|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||-0.39|-1.35|<0.001
90962951|NCT02146326|181807298|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression analysis was used to examine the BREATHE intervention effect on clinician burnout and patient processes, engagement, and outcomes as compared to MI after the intervention by adjusting for the baseline scores and the implementation site.||||0.94
90883152|NCT00673452|181629185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.92|-0.86||P-value for Enjoyment of Life Interference. P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: BPI Score change from baseline to LOCF endpoint = BPI baseline + treatment + pooled investigator|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||-0.86|-1.92|<0.001
90883153|NCT00673452|181629185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.52||P-value for Average Interference. P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: BPI Score change from baseline to LOCF endpoint = BPI baseline + treatment + pooled investigator|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||-0.52|-1.33|<0.001
90883154|NCT00673452|181629186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.83||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|-0.25||P-value for General Fatigue. P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: MFI subscale change from baseline at endpoint = MFI subscale baseline + treatment + pooled investigator.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||-0.25|-1.41|0.005
90883155|NCT00673452|181629186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.72||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.15||P-value for Physical Fatigue. P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: MFI subscale change from baseline at endpoint = MFI subscale baseline + treatment + pooled investigator.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||-0.15|-1.30|0.013
90962952|NCT02146326|181807299|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression analysis was used to examine the BREATHE intervention effect on clinician burnout and patient processes, engagement, and outcomes as compared to MI after the intervention by adjusting for the baseline scores and the implementation site.||||0.96
90922815|NCT03858634|181718410|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-45.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|50.39||0.4662|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-139.99|50.03||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 11||50.03|-139.99|0.4662
90883156|NCT00673452|181629186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.92||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|-0.32||P-value for Mental Fatigue. P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: MFI subscale change from baseline at endpoint = MFI subscale baseline + treatment + pooled investigator.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||-0.32|-1.52|0.003
90922816|NCT03858634|181718410|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-25.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.12||0.1073|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-45.76|-5.51||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 11||-5.51|-45.76|0.1073
90883157|NCT00673452|181629186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.88||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|-0.26||P-value for Reduced Activity. P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: MFI subscale change from baseline at endpoint = MFI subscale baseline + treatment + pooled investigator.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||-0.26|-1.49|0.005
90883158|NCT00673452|181629186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|-0.38||P-value for Reduced Motivation. P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: MFI subscale change from baseline at endpoint = MFI subscale baseline + treatment + pooled investigator.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||-0.38|-1.49|<0.001
90883159|NCT00673452|181629187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.89||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.25|-0.53||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: BDI-II Total score change from baseline to endpoint = baseline BDI-II total score + treatment + pooled investigator.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||-0.53|-3.25|0.007
90883160|NCT00673452|181629188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.16||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: CGI-S score change from baseline at endpoint = CGI-S score baseline + treatment + pooled investigator.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||-0.16|-0.51|<0.001
90883161|NCT00673452|181629189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.07||||0.907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|1.27||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: BAI total score change from baseline to endpoint = baseline BAI total + treatment + pooled investigator.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||1.27|-1.13|0.907
90883162|NCT00673452|181629190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|5.22||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.76|8.67||P-value for Bodily Pain. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: SF-36 subscale change from baseline at endpoint = SF-36 subscale at baseline + treatment + pooled investigator.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||8.67|1.76|0.003
90883163|NCT00673452|181629190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|6.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.41|9.43||P-value for General Health. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: SF-36 subscale change from baseline at endpoint = SF-36 subscale at baseline + treatment + pooled investigator.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||9.43|3.41|<0.001
90883164|NCT00673452|181629190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|7.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.41|10.47||P-value for Mental Health. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: SF-36 subscale change from baseline at endpoint = SF-36 subscale at baseline + treatment + pooled investigator.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||10.47|4.41|<0.001
90883165|NCT00673452|181629190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|5.47||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.06|8.88||P-value for Physical Functioning. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: SF-36 subscale change from baseline at endpoint = SF-36 subscale at baseline + treatment + pooled investigator.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||8.88|2.06|0.002
90883166|NCT00673452|181629190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|9.78||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.11|16.45||P-value for Role-Emotional. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: SF-36 subscale change from baseline at endpoint = SF-36 subscale at baseline + treatment + pooled investigator.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||16.45|3.11|0.004
90883167|NCT00673452|181629190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.59||||0.632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.93|8.11||P-value for Role-Physical. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: SF-36 subscale change from baseline at endpoint = SF-36 subscale at baseline + treatment + pooled investigator.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||8.11|-4.93|0.632
90883168|NCT00673452|181629190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|6.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.73|10.61||P-value for Social Functioning. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: SF-36 subscale change from baseline at endpoint = SF-36 subscale at baseline + treatment + pooled investigator.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||10.61|2.73|<0.001
90922817|NCT03858634|181718410|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-23.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|42.31||0.6197|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-92.62|45.96||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12||45.96|-92.62|0.6197
90922818|NCT03858634|181718410|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|20.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.97||0.1868|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.63|40.55||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12||40.55|0.63|0.1868
90922819|NCT03858634|181718410|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-55.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|43.32||0.3321|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-136.65|26.71||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12||26.71|-136.65|0.3321
90922820|NCT03858634|181718410|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-24.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.67||0.131|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-45.64|-3.95||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12||-3.95|-45.64|0.1310
90922821|NCT03858634|181718410|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-12.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|46.49||0.8128|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-88.15|64.13||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 13||64.13|-88.15|0.8128
90922822|NCT03858634|181718410|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|24.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.23||0.1004|TWO_SIDED|80.0|5.75|43.69||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 13||43.69|5.75|0.1004
90922823|NCT03858634|181718410|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-62.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|44.81||0.2962|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-147.28|21.71||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 13||21.71|-147.28|0.2962
90922824|NCT03858634|181718410|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-26.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.4||0.1236|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-48.31|-4.67||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 13||-4.67|-48.31|0.1236
90922825|NCT03858634|181718410|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|45.55||0.9276|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-79.1|70.11||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 14||70.11|-79.10|0.9276
90922826|NCT03858634|181718410|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|19.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.46||0.1657|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.55|37.45||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 14||37.45|1.55|0.1657
90922827|NCT03858634|181718410|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-58.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|47.8||0.3461|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-148.54|31.71||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 14||31.71|-148.54|0.3461
90922828|NCT03858634|181718410|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-27.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.51||0.1118|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-49.58|-5.64||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 14||-5.64|-49.58|0.1118
90922829|NCT03858634|181718410|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-18.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|43.24||0.6912|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-89.75|51.89||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 15||51.89|-89.75|0.6912
90922830|NCT03858634|181718410|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|22.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.07||0.0973|TWO_SIDED|80.0|5.5|40.35||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 15||40.35|5.50|0.0973
90922831|NCT03858634|181718410|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-57.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|40.33||0.289|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-133.72|18.37||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 15||18.37|-133.72|0.2890
90922832|NCT03858634|181718410|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-21.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.68||0.231|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-45.43|1.6||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 15||1.60|-45.43|0.2310
90922833|NCT03858634|181718410|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-12.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|45.17||0.7967|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-86.69|61.28||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16||61.28|-86.69|0.7967
90922834|NCT03858634|181718410|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|16.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.98||0.2868|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.5|36.44||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16||36.44|-3.50|0.2868
90922835|NCT03858634|181718410|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-64.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|38.83||0.2369|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-138.08|8.37||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16||8.37|-138.08|0.2369
90922836|NCT03858634|181718410|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-21.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.34||0.2228|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-44.97|1.17||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16||1.17|-44.97|0.2228
90962953|NCT02146326|181807300|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression analysis was used to examine the BREATHE intervention effect on clinician burnout and patient processes, engagement, and outcomes as compared to MI after the intervention by adjusting for the baseline scores and the implementation site.||||0.17
90883169|NCT00673452|181629190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|4.31||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|7.79||P-value for Vitality. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: SF-36 subscale change from baseline at endpoint = SF-36 subscale at baseline + treatment + pooled investigator.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||7.79|0.84|0.015
90883170|NCT00673452|181629190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.14||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|2.64||P-value for Physical Component Summary (PCS). The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: SF-36 subscale change from baseline at endpoint = SF-36 subscale at baseline + treatment + pooled investigator.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||2.64|-0.35|0.134
90883171|NCT00673452|181629190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.05|5.6||P-value for Mental Component Summary (MCS). The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: SF-36 subscale change from baseline at endpoint = SF-36 subscale at baseline + treatment + pooled investigator.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||5.60|2.05|<0.001
90883172|NCT00673452|181629191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.96||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|0.13||A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: MGH-CPFQ change from baseline at endpoint = MGH-CPFQ baseline + treatment + pooled investigator.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||0.13|-2.05|0.083
90883173|NCT00673452|181629192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|-0.32||P-value for Mood. P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Likert scale change from baseline at endpoint = Likert scale baseline + treatment + pooled investigator.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||-0.32|-1.18|<0.001
90883174|NCT00673452|181629192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.64||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.22||P-value for Anxiety. P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Likert scale change from baseline at endpoint = Likert scale baseline + treatment + pooled investigator.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||-0.22|-1.05|0.003
90883175|NCT00673452|181629192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.72||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|-0.25||P-value for Pain. P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Likert scale change from baseline at endpoint = Likert scale baseline + treatment + pooled investigator.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||-0.25|-1.19|0.003
90883176|NCT00673452|181629192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.49||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|0.0||P-value for Sleep. P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Likert scale change from baseline at endpoint = Likert scale baseline + treatment + pooled investigator.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||-0.00|-0.97|0.050
90883177|NCT00673452|181629192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|-0.43||P-value for Stiffness. P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Likert scale change from baseline at endpoint = Likert scale baseline + treatment + pooled investigator.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||-0.43|-1.32|<0.001
90883178|NCT00673452|181629193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.002
90883179|NCT00673452|181629194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.003
90883180|NCT00673452|181629195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.82||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|3.88||P-value for Systolic Blood Pressure (SBP). A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Change = baseline + treatment + pooled investigator.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||3.88|-0.25|0.084
90883181|NCT00673452|181629195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.52||||0.434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|1.84||P-value for Diastolic Blood Pressure (DBP). A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Change = baseline + treatment + pooled investigator.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||1.84|-0.79|0.434
90883182|NCT00673452|181629196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.96||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|3.26||A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Change = baseline + treatment + pooled investigator.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||3.26|0.67|0.003
90883183|NCT00673452|181629197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||P-value for Suicidal Ideation. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
90883184|NCT00673452|181629198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|-0.45||A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Change = baseline + treatment + pooled investigator.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||-0.45|-1.21|<0.001
90883185|NCT03037528|181629221|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.214|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.214
90883186|NCT03037528|181629221|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.017
90883187|NCT03037528|181629221|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.457|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.457
90883188|NCT03037528|181629221|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.580
90883189|NCT03037528|181629221|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.275|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.275
90883190|NCT03037528|181629221|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.001
90883191|NCT03037528|181629221|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.007
90883192|NCT03037528|181629221|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.142|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.142
90883193|NCT03037528|181629222|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.027
90883194|NCT03037528|181629222|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.000
90883195|NCT03037528|181629222|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.054|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.054
90883196|NCT03037528|181629222|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.014
90922837|NCT03858634|181718410|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-14.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|47.51||0.774|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-92.74|62.89||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 17||62.89|-92.74|0.7740
90883197|NCT03037528|181629222|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.019
90922838|NCT03858634|181718410|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|15.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.14||0.3|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.74|33.98||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 17||33.98|-3.74|0.3000
90922839|NCT03858634|181718410|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-72.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|31.37||0.1472|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-131.59|-13.3||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 17||-13.30|-131.59|0.1472
90922840|NCT03858634|181718410|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-12.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.56||0.5536|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-39.77|14.94||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 17||14.94|-39.77|0.5536
90922841|NCT03858634|181718410|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-17.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|43.65||0.7131|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-89.13|53.84||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 18||53.84|-89.13|0.7131
90883198|NCT03037528|181629222|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.026|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.026
90883199|NCT03037528|181629222|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.013
90922842|NCT03858634|181718410|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|13.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.27||0.3762|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.49|34.24||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 18||34.24|-6.49|0.3762
90922843|NCT03858634|181718410|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-74.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|31.37||0.1419|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-133.26|-14.97||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 18||-14.97|-133.26|0.1419
90922844|NCT03858634|181718410|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-11.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.74||0.5817|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-39.22|15.95||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 18||15.95|-39.22|0.5817
90922845|NCT03858634|181718412|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|27.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|55.77||0.6532|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-63.6|119.06||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1||119.06|-63.60|0.6532
90922846|NCT03858634|181718412|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|23.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.23||0.0187|TWO_SIDED|80.0|11.38|35.85||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1||35.85|11.38|0.0187
90922847|NCT03858634|181718412|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-39.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|44.53||0.4707|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-123.27|44.68||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1||44.68|-123.27|0.4707
90922848|NCT03858634|181718412|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.81||0.7108|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-8.22|4.59||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1||4.59|-8.22|0.7108
90922849|NCT03858634|181718412|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|22.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|60.36||0.7355|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-76.47|121.23||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2||121.23|-76.47|0.7355
90883200|NCT03037528|181629222|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.163|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.163
90883201|NCT03037528|181629223|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.018
90883202|NCT03037528|181629223|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.004
90883203|NCT03037528|181629223|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.134|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.134
90883204|NCT03037528|181629223|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||1.000
90883205|NCT03037528|181629223|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.048|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.048
90883206|NCT03037528|181629223|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.066|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.066
90883207|NCT03037528|181629223|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.045|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.045
90883208|NCT03037528|181629223|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.053|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.053
90883209|NCT02908529|181629224|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-15.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90883210|NCT04497987|181629226|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.63|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.63|0.26|<0.001
90883211|NCT04497987|181629227|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.67|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.67|0.27|<0.001
90883212|NCT04497987|181629228|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.66||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.94|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.94|0.46|0.021
90883213|NCT04099524|181629233|SUPERIORITY|The analysis was based on evaluating whether active tDCS is superior than sham tDCS on outcomes.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||multiple correction adjusted p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||p-value was calculated, and is not attempting to indicate the threshold for statistical significance.||||<0.05
90883214|NCT04099524|181629233|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||multiple correction adjusted p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
90883215|NCT04099524|181629234|SUPERIORITY|The analysis was based on evaluating whether active tDCS is superior than sham tDCS on outcomes.|chi-square|3.14|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||reported p-value was calculated, and is not attempting to indicate the threshold for statistical significance.||||<0.05
90962954|NCT02146326|181807301|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression analysis was used to examine the BREATHE intervention effect on clinician burnout and patient processes, engagement, and outcomes as compared to MI after the intervention by adjusting for the baseline scores and the implementation site.||||0.47
90962955|NCT02146326|181807302|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression analysis was used to examine the BREATHE intervention effect on clinician burnout and patient processes, engagement, and outcomes as compared to MI after the intervention by adjusting for the baseline scores and the implementation site.||||0.60
90962956|NCT02146326|181807303|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression analysis was used to examine the BREATHE intervention effect on clinician burnout and patient processes, engagement, and outcomes as compared to MI after the intervention by adjusting for the baseline scores and the implementation site.||||0.37
90962957|NCT02146326|181807304|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression analysis was used to examine the BREATHE intervention effect on clinician burnout and patient processes, engagement, and outcomes as compared to MI after the intervention by adjusting for the baseline scores and the implementation site.||||0.83
90962958|NCT02146326|181807305|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression analysis was used to examine the BREATHE intervention effect on clinician burnout and patient processes, engagement, and outcomes as compared to MI after the intervention by adjusting for the baseline scores and the implementation site.||||0.64
90962959|NCT02146326|181807306|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression analysis was used to examine the BREATHE intervention effect on clinician burnout and patient processes, engagement, and outcomes as compared to MI after the intervention by adjusting for the baseline scores and the implementation site.||||0.37
90962960|NCT02146326|181807307|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression analysis was used to examine the BREATHE intervention effect on clinician burnout and patient processes, engagement, and outcomes as compared to MI after the intervention by adjusting for the baseline scores and the implementation site.||||0.13
90962961|NCT02146326|181807308|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression analysis was used to examine the BREATHE intervention effect on clinician burnout and patient processes, engagement, and outcomes as compared to MI after the intervention by adjusting for the baseline scores and the implementation site.||||0.93
90962962|NCT02146326|181807309|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression analysis was used to examine the BREATHE intervention effect on clinician burnout and patient processes, engagement, and outcomes as compared to MI after the intervention by adjusting for the baseline scores and the implementation site.||||0.11
90962963|NCT02146326|181807310|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression analysis was used to examine the BREATHE intervention effect on clinician burnout and patient processes, engagement, and outcomes as compared to MI after the intervention by adjusting for the baseline scores and the implementation site.||||0.21
90962964|NCT02146326|181807312|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression analysis was used to examine the BREATHE intervention effect on clinician burnout and patient processes, engagement, and outcomes as compared to MI after the intervention by adjusting for the baseline scores and the implementation site.||||0.17
90962965|NCT02146326|181807313|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.24
90962966|NCT02146326|181807314|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.35
90962967|NCT02146326|181807315|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression analysis was used to examine the BREATHE intervention effect on patient processes, engagement, and outcomes as compared to MI after the intervention by adjusting for the baseline scores and the implementation site.||||0.67
90962968|NCT02146326|181807316|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression analysis was used to examine the BREATHE intervention effect on patient processes, engagement, and outcomes as compared to MI after the intervention by adjusting for the baseline scores and the implementation site.||||0.04
90962969|NCT02146326|181807317|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression analysis was used to examine the BREATHE intervention effect on patient processes, engagement, and outcomes as compared to MI after the intervention by adjusting for the baseline scores and the implementation site.||||0.34
90962970|NCT02146326|181807318|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression analysis was used to examine the BREATHE intervention effect on patient processes, engagement, and outcomes as compared to MI after the intervention by adjusting for the baseline scores and the implementation site.||||0.71
90962971|NCT02146326|181807319|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression analysis was used to examine the BREATHE intervention effect on patient processes, engagement, and outcomes as compared to MI after the intervention by adjusting for the baseline scores and the implementation site.||||0.22
90962972|NCT02146326|181807320|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression analysis was used to examine the BREATHE intervention effect on patient processes, engagement, and outcomes as compared to MI after the intervention by adjusting for the baseline scores and the implementation site.||||0.11
90962973|NCT02146326|181807321|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression analysis was used to examine the BREATHE intervention effect on patient processes, engagement, and outcomes as compared to MI after the intervention by adjusting for the baseline scores and the implementation site.||||0.14
90962974|NCT02146326|181807322|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression analysis was used to examine the BREATHE intervention effect on patient processes, engagement, and outcomes as compared to MI after the intervention by adjusting for the baseline scores and the implementation site.||||0.55
90883216|NCT04099524|181629235|SUPERIORITY|The analysis was based on evaluating whether active tDCS is superior than sham tDCS on outcomes.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||multiple correction adjusted p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||p-value was calculated, and is not attempting to indicate the threshold for statistical significance.||||<0.05
90883217|NCT04099524|181629236|SUPERIORITY|The analysis was based on evaluating whether active tDCS is superior than sham tDCS on outcomes.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.84|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||reported p-value was calculated, and is not attempting to indicate the threshold for statistical significance||||<0.05
90883218|NCT04733157|181629237|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.09||Threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|Chi-squared|||||1.09|0.69|0.33
90883219|NCT01694706|181629265|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|no formal testing, investigation of bioavailability|Geometric Mean Ratio|120.35|STANDARD_DEVIATION|23.2||0.342|TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.09|141.88|||ANOVA|Ratio calculated as Faldaprevir after a high-fat meal divided by Faldaprevir in fasting|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV)|||141.88|102.09|0.3420
90883220|NCT01694706|181629265|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|no formal testing, investigation of bioavailability|Geometric Mean Ratio|94.33|STANDARD_DEVIATION|30.8||0.0962|TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.21|116.76|||ANOVA|Ratio calculated as Faldaprevir and Omeprazole divided by Faldaprevir in fasting|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV)|||116.76|76.21|0.0962
90883221|NCT01694706|181629266|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|no formal testing, investigation of bioavailability|Geometric Mean Ratio|118.79|STANDARD_DEVIATION|52.4||0.3993|TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.19|169.628|||ANOVA|Ratio calculated as Faldaprevir after a high-fat meal divided by Faldaprevir in fasting|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV)|||169.628|83.190|0.3993
90883222|NCT01694706|181629266|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|no formal testing, investigation of bioavailability|Geometric Mean Ratio|93.55|STANDARD_DEVIATION|53.0||0.2204|TWO_SIDED|90.0|65.783|133.03|||ANOVA|Ratio calculated as Faldaprevir and Omeprazole divided by Faldaprevir in fasting|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV)|||133.030|65.783|0.2204
90883223|NCT01694706|181629267|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|no formal testing, investigation of bioavailability|Geometric Mean Ratio|121.28|STANDARD_DEVIATION|24.0||0.3765|TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.32|143.74|||ANOVA|Ratio calculated as Faldaprevir after a high-fat meal divided by Faldaprevir in fasting|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV)|||143.74|102.32|0.3765
90883224|NCT01694706|181629267|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|no formal testing, investigation of bioavailability|Geometric Mean Ratio|94.72|STANDARD_DEVIATION|31.4||0.0946|TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.25|117.67|||ANOVA|Ratio calculated as Faldaprevir and Omeprazole divided by Faldaprevir in fasting|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV)|||117.67|76.25|0.0946
90883225|NCT00739336|181629280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Piecewise linear multilevel models with multiple observations nested within each participant were used. Random components (intercept, slope) were introduced into the model to account for dependence among measurements within a participant and assessed by nested model comparisons using the deviance statistic (difference in -2LL).||||<0.01
90883226|NCT01993108|181629300|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.02
90922850|NCT03858634|181718412|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|16.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.27||0.2167|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.66|34.52||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2||34.52|-0.66|0.2167
90922851|NCT03858634|181718412|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-63.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|60.8||0.4058|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-178.16|51.13||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2||51.13|-178.16|0.4058
90883227|NCT01993108|181629300|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.118|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.118
90883228|NCT01993108|181629300|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.349|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.349
90883229|NCT01993108|181629300|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.348|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.348
90883230|NCT01993108|181629301|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.019|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.019
90883231|NCT01993108|181629301|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.24|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.240
90883232|NCT01993108|181629301|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.081|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.081
90883233|NCT01993108|181629301|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.247|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.247
90883234|NCT01993108|181629302|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.049|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.049
90883235|NCT01993108|181629302|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.497|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.497
90883236|NCT01993108|181629302|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.814|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.814
90883237|NCT01993108|181629302|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.593|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.593
90883238|NCT01993108|181629303|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.926|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.926
90883239|NCT01993108|181629303|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31||||0.126|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.126
90883240|NCT01993108|181629303|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.852|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.852
90922852|NCT03858634|181718412|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.43||0.3323|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-14.95|2.15||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2||2.15|-14.95|0.3323
90922853|NCT03858634|181718412|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|34.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|68.11||0.6496|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-77.29|145.8||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 3||145.80|-77.29|0.6496
90922854|NCT03858634|181718412|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|13.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.76||0.2925|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.12|30.7||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 3||30.70|-3.12|0.2925
90922855|NCT03858634|181718412|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-70.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|67.98||0.4074|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-198.92|57.46||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 3||57.46|-198.92|0.4074
90922856|NCT03858634|181718412|OTHER||LS mean difference|-15.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.56||0.1584|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-29.6|-1.49||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 3||-1.49|-29.60|0.1584
90922857|NCT03858634|181718412|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-22.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|54.04||0.7013|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-111.31|65.69||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4||65.69|-111.31|0.7013
90922858|NCT03858634|181718412|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|13.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.35||0.423|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-8.3|35.05||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4||35.05|-8.30|0.4230
90883241|NCT01993108|181629303|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.552|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.552
90883242|NCT01560624|181629304|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.0275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.97|||Cox proportion-hazard model|||||0.97|0.56|0.0275
90883243|NCT01560624|181629304|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0391|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0391
90883244|NCT01560624|181629305|SUPERIORITY||Hodges Lehmann estimate location shift|7.0||||0.0913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|16.0|||ANCOVA|||||16.0|0|0.0913
90883245|NCT01560624|181629306|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
90883246|NCT01560624|181629307|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0028|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0028
90883247|NCT00456092|181629308|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.19||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|10.2||A p-value \< 0.025 (2-sided) is considered statistically significant, after adjusting for two treatment comparisons using the Bonferroni procedure.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||||10.20|1.72|0.002
90883248|NCT00456092|181629308|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|13.88||A p-value \< 0.025 (2-sided) is considered statistically significant, after adjusting for two treatment comparisons using the Bonferroni procedure.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||||13.88|2.40|< 0.001
90883249|NCT00456092|181629311|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.12||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|24.67|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||24.67|1.06|0.056
90883250|NCT00456092|181629311|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.95||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.49|32.35|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||32.35|1.49|0.012
90883251|NCT00456092|181629312|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.4||||0.204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|47.54|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||47.54|0.61|0.204
90883252|NCT00456092|181629312|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.12||||0.371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|37.88|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||37.88|0.45|0.371
90883253|NCT00456092|181629313|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.568||||0.264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|3.11|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||3.11|0.79|0.264
90883254|NCT00456092|181629313|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.98||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|3.91|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||3.91|1.00|0.071
90883255|NCT00456092|181629314|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.305||||0.549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.57|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||2.57|0.66|0.549
90883256|NCT00456092|181629314|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.033||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|2.03|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||2.03|0.53|1.000
90883257|NCT00456092|181629315|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.06||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|4.34|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||4.34|0.98|0.083
90883258|NCT00456092|181629315|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|3.44|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||3.44|0.77|0.279
90883259|NCT00456092|181629316|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.66|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||2.66|0.66|0.548
90883260|NCT00456092|181629316|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|2.11|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||2.11|0.52|1.000
90883261|NCT00456092|181629319|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|11.58||||0.136|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|ANOVA model with treatment as the factor.|Treatment Difference = Apremilast 20 mg BID - Placebo|||||0.136
90883262|NCT00456092|181629319|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|13.53||||0.08|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|ANOVA model with treatment as the factor.|Treatment Difference = Apremilast 20 mg BID - Placebo|||||0.080
90883263|NCT00456092|181629320|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.745|1.211|||Chi-squared||Based on a proportional hazards model comparing the hazard functions associated with the treatment and placebo.|||1.211|0.745|0.650
90883264|NCT00456092|181629320|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.265||||0.283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.791|2.024|||Chi-squared||Based on a proportional hazards model comparing the hazard functions associated with the treatment and placebo.|||2.024|0.791|0.283
90883265|NCT00456092|181629321|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.337||||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.791|2.26|||Chi-squared||Based on a proportional hazards model comparing the hazard functions associated with the treatment and placebo.|||2.260|0.791|0.253
90883266|NCT00456092|181629321|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.023||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.059|8.63|||Chi-squared||Based on a proportional hazards model comparing the hazard functions associated with the treatment and placebo.|||8.630|1.059|0.026
90883267|NCT00456092|181629322|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.006||||0.984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.457|2.215|||Chi-squared||Based on a proportional hazards model comparing the hazard functions associated with the treatment and placebo.|||2.215|0.457|0.984
90883268|NCT00456092|181629322|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.872||||0.836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.158|4.797|||Chi-squared||Based on a proportional hazards model comparing the hazard functions associated with the treatment and placebo.|||4.797|0.158|0.836
90883269|NCT00456092|181629327|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.4||||0.308|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|ANOVA model including treatment group, methotrexate use, and baseline score.|Adjusted mean difference (Apremilast-Placebo) was based on the ANOVA model described above.|Mental Component||||0.308
90883270|NCT00456092|181629327|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|4.1||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|ANOVA model including treatment group, methotrexate use, and baseline score.|Adjusted mean difference (Apremilast-Placebo) was based on the ANOVA model described above.|Mental Component||||0.003
90922859|NCT03858634|181718412|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-60.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|57.96||0.4055|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-169.9|48.69||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4||48.69|-169.90|0.4055
90922860|NCT03858634|181718412|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-22.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.82||0.0709|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-38.41|-6.96||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4||-6.96|-38.41|0.0709
90922861|NCT03858634|181718412|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|17.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|74.17||0.8268|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-103.77|139.17||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 5||139.17|-103.77|0.8268
90922862|NCT03858634|181718412|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|12.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.63||0.4082|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-7.03|31.75||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 5||31.75|-7.03|0.4082
90922863|NCT03858634|181718412|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-50.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|58.86||0.4818|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-161.43|60.56||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 5||60.56|-161.43|0.4818
90922864|NCT03858634|181718412|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-27.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.93||0.0673|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-45.64|-8.58||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 5||-8.58|-45.64|0.0673
90922865|NCT03858634|181718412|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|29.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|82.15||0.7429|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-105.0|164.1||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6||164.10|-105.00|0.7429
90922866|NCT03858634|181718412|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|21.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.55||0.1227|TWO_SIDED|80.0|3.88|39.79||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6||39.79|3.88|0.1227
90922867|NCT03858634|181718412|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-47.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|58.06||0.4996|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-156.95|62.02||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6||62.02|-156.95|0.4996
90922868|NCT03858634|181718412|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-33.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.69||0.0244|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-51.87|-15.43||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6||-15.43|-51.87|0.0244
90962975|NCT02146326|181807323|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression analysis was used to examine the BREATHE intervention effect on patient processes, engagement, and outcomes as compared to MI after the intervention by adjusting for the baseline scores and the implementation site.||||0.91
90922869|NCT03858634|181718412|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|64.24||0.9967|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-105.5|104.92||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 7||104.92|-105.50|0.9967
90922870|NCT03858634|181718412|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|19.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.57||0.1739|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.15|37.12||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 7||37.12|1.15|0.1739
90922871|NCT03858634|181718412|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-55.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|51.61||0.3978|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-152.39|42.26||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 7||42.26|-152.39|0.3978
90922872|NCT03858634|181718412|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-32.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.73||0.0397|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-52.26|-13.07||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 7||-13.07|-52.26|0.0397
90922873|NCT03858634|181718412|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|10.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|70.66||0.8922|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-105.32|126.14||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8||126.14|-105.32|0.8922
90922874|NCT03858634|181718412|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|17.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.43||0.2439|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.8|36.45||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8||36.45|-1.80|0.2439
90922875|NCT03858634|181718412|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-50.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|37.1||0.3076|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-120.29|19.61||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8||19.61|-120.29|0.3076
90922876|NCT03858634|181718412|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-36.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.7||0.0322|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-57.32|-15.55||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8||-15.55|-57.32|0.0322
90922877|NCT03858634|181718412|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-94.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|27.67||0.0418|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-139.98|-49.36||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 9||-49.36|-139.98|0.0418
90922878|NCT03858634|181718412|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|24.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.44||0.0865|TWO_SIDED|80.0|6.49|42.26||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 9||42.26|6.49|0.0865
90922879|NCT03858634|181718412|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-48.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|40.32||0.3489|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-124.96|27.11||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 9||27.11|-124.96|0.3489
90922880|NCT03858634|181718412|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-38.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.99||0.0286|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-59.34|-16.79||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 9||-16.79|-59.34|0.0286
90922881|NCT03858634|181718412|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|28.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|72.63||0.7198|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-90.32|147.59||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 10||147.59|-90.32|0.7198
90962976|NCT02146326|181807324|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression analysis was used to examine the BREATHE intervention effect on patient processes, engagement, and outcomes as compared to MI after the intervention by adjusting for the baseline scores and the implementation site.||||0.48
90962977|NCT02146326|181807325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression analysis was used to examine the BREATHE intervention effect on patient processes, engagement, and outcomes as compared to MI after the intervention by adjusting for the baseline scores and the implementation site.||||0.67
90962978|NCT02146326|181807326|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression analysis was used to examine the BREATHE intervention effect on patient processes, engagement, and outcomes as compared to MI after the intervention by adjusting for the baseline scores and the implementation site.||||0.77
90962979|NCT02146326|181807327|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression analysis was used to examine the BREATHE intervention effect on patient processes, engagement, and outcomes as compared to MI after the intervention by adjusting for the baseline scores and the implementation site.||||0.59
90883271|NCT00456092|181629327|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.6||||0.182|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|ANOVA model including treatment group, methotrexate use, and baseline score.|Adjusted mean difference (Apremilast-Placebo) was based on the ANOVA model described above.|Physical Component||||0.182
90883272|NCT00456092|181629327|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|2.7||||0.026|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|ANOVA model including treatment group, methotrexate use, and baseline score.|Adjusted mean difference (Apremilast-Placebo) was based on the ANOVA model described above.|Physical Component||||0.026
90883273|NCT00456092|181629328|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.1||||0.016|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|ANOVA model using treatment group, methotrexate use, and interaction of treatment group and methotrexate use as factors.|The adjusted mean difference (Apremilast-Placebo) is based on an ANOVA model described above.|||||0.016
90883274|NCT00456092|181629328|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.4||||0.105|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|ANOVA model using treatment group, methotrexate use, and interaction of treatment group and methotrexate use as factors.|The adjusted mean difference (Apremilast-Placebo) is based on an ANOVA model described above.|||||0.105
90883275|NCT00456092|181629330|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|3.3||||0.028|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|ANOVA model with treatment, methotrexate use, and interaction of treatment group and methotrexate use as factors and baseline score as the covariate.|The adjusted mean difference (Apremilast-Placebo) is based on an ANOVA model described above.|||||0.028
90883276|NCT00456092|181629330|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|4.3||||0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|ANOVA model with treatment, methotrexate use, and interaction of treatment group and methotrexate use as factors with baseline score as the covariate.|The adjusted mean difference (Apremilast-Placebo) is based on an ANOVA model described above.|||||0.004
90883277|NCT04875520|181629352|NON_INFERIORITY|Overall rate compared using GEE model includes any person affiliated with the school who tested positive at least once during the study period that the schools reported to us that were positive. This includes people in our testing program and not in our testing program.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01845||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04981|0.01292|||generalized estimating equations|||||0.01292|-0.04981|0.25
90883278|NCT00780572|181629442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.9396||||0.668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7068|1.249|||Regression, Cox|||||1.2490|0.7068|0.6680
90883279|NCT00727857|181629454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.86|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.51|1.22|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - pioglitazone|One-way Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. Least Squares (LS) mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||1.22|0.51|<0.0001
90883280|NCT00727857|181629454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.84|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.5|1.18|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||1.18|0.50|<0.0001
90883281|NCT00727857|181629454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.8919||95.0|-0.37|0.33|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||0.33|-0.37|0.8919
90883282|NCT00727857|181629455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.8||||0.0005||95.0|7.8|27.7|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - pioglitazone|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||27.7|7.8|0.0005
90883283|NCT00727857|181629455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.1||||0.0021||95.0|5.5|24.7|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||24.7|5.5|0.0021
90883284|NCT00727857|181629455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.6||||0.5981||95.0|-12.5|7.2|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||7.2|-12.5|0.5981
90883285|NCT00727857|181629456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.73||||0.5074||95.0|-1.43|2.88|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - pioglitazone|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||2.88|-1.43|0.5074
90962980|NCT02146326|181807328|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression analysis was used to examine the BREATHE intervention effect on patient processes, engagement, and outcomes as compared to MI after the intervention by adjusting for the baseline scores and the implementation site.||||0.64
90962981|NCT02146326|181807329|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression analysis was used to examine the BREATHE intervention effect on patient processes, engagement, and outcomes as compared to MI after the intervention by adjusting for the baseline scores and the implementation site.||||0.05
90883286|NCT00727857|181629456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.93||||0.0047||95.0|0.9|4.95|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||4.95|0.90|0.0047
90883287|NCT00727857|181629456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2||||0.0435||95.0|0.06|4.33|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||4.33|0.06|0.0435
90883288|NCT00727857|181629457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.629||||0.3158||95.0|-0.602|1.861|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - pioglitazone|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||1.861|-0.602|0.3158
90883289|NCT00727857|181629457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.619||||0.0067||95.0|0.452|2.785|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||2.785|0.452|0.0067
90883290|NCT00727857|181629457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.989||||0.1094||95.0|-0.223|2.201|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||2.201|-0.223|0.1094
90883291|NCT00727857|181629458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|4.88||||0.5963||95.0|-4.71|13.97|||ANCOVA||The estimate of the median percent change from baseline and 95% confidence intervals were based on the Hodges-Lehmann method and the distribution-free confidence interval.|Nonparametric ANCOVA based on Tukey's normal rank transformation with a term for treatment and the baseline value as a covariate.||13.97|-4.71|0.5963
90883292|NCT00727857|181629458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|12.81||||0.0265||95.0|2.88|22.24|||ANCOVA||The estimate of the median percent change from baseline and 95% confidence intervals were based on the Hodges-Lehmann method and the distribution-free confidence interval.|Nonparametric ANCOVA based on Tukey's normal rank transformation with a term for treatment and the baseline value as a covariate.||22.24|2.88|0.0265
90883293|NCT00727857|181629458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|8.33||||0.1053||95.0|-1.77|18.07|||ANCOVA||The estimate of the median percent change from baseline and 95% confidence intervals were based on the Hodges-Lehmann method and the distribution-free confidence interval.|Nonparametric ANCOVA based on Tukey's normal rank transformation with a term for treatment and the baseline value as a covariate.||18.07|-1.77|0.1053
90883294|NCT00727857|181629459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4||||0.0806||95.0|-0.2|3.1|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - pioglitazone|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||3.1|-0.2|0.0806
90883295|NCT00727857|181629459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.1|||<|0.0001||95.0|-9.6|-6.5|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||-6.5|-9.6|<0.0001
90883296|NCT00727857|181629459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.5|||<|0.0001||95.0|-11.1|-7.9|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||-7.9|-11.1|<0.0001
90883297|NCT00727857|181629460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.73||||0.0324||95.0|0.31|7.14|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - pioglitazone|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||7.14|0.31|0.0324
90883298|NCT00727857|181629460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.78||||0.0233||95.0|-7.05|-0.52|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||-0.52|-7.05|0.0233
90883299|NCT00727857|181629460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.51|||<|0.0001||95.0|-10.9|-4.12|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||-4.12|-10.90|<0.0001
90883300|NCT00727857|181629461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.9||||0.0993||95.0|-0.93|10.72|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - pioglitazone|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||10.72|-0.93|0.0993
90883301|NCT00727857|181629461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.56||||0.367||95.0|-8.14|3.01|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||3.01|-8.14|0.3670
90883302|NCT00727857|181629461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.46||||0.0119||95.0|-13.26|-1.66|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||-1.66|-13.26|0.0119
90883303|NCT00727857|181629462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.31||||0.0423||95.0|-8.48|-0.15|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - pioglitazone|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||-0.15|-8.48|0.0423
90883304|NCT00727857|181629462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.1|||<|0.0001||95.0|-12.08|-4.12|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||-4.12|-12.08|<0.0001
90922882|NCT03858634|181718412|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|39.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.27||0.0088|TWO_SIDED|80.0|21.32|56.63||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 10||56.63|21.32|0.0088
90922883|NCT03858634|181718412|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-56.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|33.87||0.2371|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-120.39|7.34||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 10||7.34|-120.39|0.2371
90922884|NCT03858634|181718412|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-40.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.14||0.021|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-62.3|-19.35||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 10||-19.35|-62.30|0.0210
90922885|NCT03858634|181718412|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|20.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|54.07||0.7312|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-68.17|108.94||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 11||108.94|-68.17|0.7312
90883305|NCT00727857|181629462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.79||||0.728||95.0|-7.93|0.35|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||0.35|-7.93|0.728
90883306|NCT00727857|181629463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41||||0.9231||95.0|-7.94|8.76|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - pioglitazone|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||8.76|-7.94|0.9231
90883307|NCT00727857|181629463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.16||||0.3082||95.0|-3.86|12.19|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||12.19|-3.86|0.3082
90883308|NCT00727857|181629463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.75||||0.3753||95.0|-4.56|12.07|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||12.07|-4.56|0.3753
90883309|NCT00727857|181629464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.4||||0.4999||95.0|-44.6|91.4|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - pioglitazone|One-way ANCOVA with a term for treatment and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||91.4|-44.6|0.4999
90883310|NCT00727857|181629464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|64.2||||0.0531||95.0|-0.9|129.3|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with a term for treatment and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||129.3|-0.9|0.0531
90883311|NCT00727857|181629464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|40.9||||0.2369||95.0|-26.9|108.7|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with a term for treatment and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||108.7|-26.9|0.2369
90922886|NCT03858634|181718412|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|39.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.64||0.015|TWO_SIDED|80.0|19.88|58.83||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 11||58.83|19.88|0.0150
90922887|NCT03858634|181718412|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-53.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|33.87||0.2559|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-117.22|10.52||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 11||10.52|-117.22|0.2559
90922888|NCT03858634|181718412|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-35.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.97||0.0419|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-56.21|-13.72||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 11||-13.72|-56.21|0.0419
90922889|NCT03858634|181718412|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|20.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|60.66||0.7589|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-78.95|119.74||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12||119.74|-78.95|0.7589
90922890|NCT03858634|181718412|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|39.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.42||0.0374|TWO_SIDED|80.0|15.97|62.31||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12||62.31|15.97|0.0374
90922891|NCT03858634|181718412|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-54.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|33.87||0.2463|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-118.8|8.93||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12||8.93|-118.80|0.2463
90883312|NCT00727857|181629465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.5023||95.0|-0.09|0.19|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - pioglitazone|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||0.19|-0.09|0.5023
90883313|NCT00727857|181629465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.48|-0.21|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||-0.21|-0.48|<0.0001
90883314|NCT00727857|181629465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.53|-0.25|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||-0.25|-0.53|<0.0001
90883315|NCT00727857|181629466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.7||||0.2849||95.0|-16.5|55.9|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - pioglitazone|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||55.9|-16.5|0.2849
90883316|NCT00727857|181629466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-77.6|||<|0.0001||95.0|-112.4|-42.8|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||-42.8|-112.4|<0.0001
90883317|NCT00727857|181629466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-97.3|||<|0.0001||95.0|-133.4|-61.2|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||-61.2|-133.4|<0.0001
90922892|NCT03858634|181718412|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-33.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.78||0.0632|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-55.56|-10.9||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12||-10.90|-55.56|0.0632
90922893|NCT03858634|181718412|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|25.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|61.73||0.7053|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-75.41|126.78||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 13||126.78|-75.41|0.7053
90922894|NCT03858634|181718412|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|38.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.25||0.0285|TWO_SIDED|80.0|17.09|60.34||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 13||60.34|17.09|0.0285
90922895|NCT03858634|181718412|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-64.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|37.1||0.2236|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-134.58|5.32||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 13||5.32|-134.58|0.2236
90922896|NCT03858634|181718412|OTHER||LS mean difference|-35.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.38||0.0558|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-58.65|-12.41||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 13||-12.41|-58.65|0.0558
90922897|NCT03858634|181718412|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|29.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|72.86||0.7089|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-89.41|149.24||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 14||149.24|-89.41|0.7089
90922898|NCT03858634|181718412|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|33.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.76||0.0347|TWO_SIDED|80.0|14.08|53.35||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 14||53.35|14.08|0.0347
90922899|NCT03858634|181718412|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-60.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|41.94||0.2835|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-139.99|18.16||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 14||18.16|-139.99|0.2835
90922900|NCT03858634|181718412|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-35.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.11||0.0525|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-58.31|-12.77||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 14||-12.77|-58.31|0.0525
90922901|NCT03858634|181718412|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|24.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|64.52||0.7347|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-81.68|129.66||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 15||129.66|-81.68|0.7347
91034445|NCT02648347|181955097|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per FDA) and 1.3 (per EMA).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09|||=|0.4577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.274|||Log Rank|Based on non-parametric analysis.||MACE analysis was performed on pooled data from studies AKB-6548-CI-0014 (NCT02648347) and AKB-6548-CI-0015 (NCT02680574). Time to first all-cause mortality for the Vadadustat and Darbepoetin alfa treatment groups was as follows: participants with events = 319 and 307 respectively; median time to first event (Q1, Q3) = 52.14 (28.71, 84.71) weeks versus 53.00 (30.71, 94.14) weeks, respectively. Statistical analysis from the pooled data has been reported in this section.||1.274|0.930|=0.4577
90922902|NCT03858634|181718412|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|31.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.94||0.039|TWO_SIDED|80.0|12.5|49.6||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 15||49.60|12.50|0.0390
90922903|NCT03858634|181718412|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-60.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|35.48||0.2299|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-127.49|6.33||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 15||6.33|-127.49|0.2299
90922904|NCT03858634|181718412|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-32.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.11||0.0884|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-56.7|-8.53||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 15||-8.53|-56.70|0.0884
90922905|NCT03858634|181718412|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|16.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|61.44||0.8085|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-84.37|116.87||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16||116.87|-84.37|0.8085
90922906|NCT03858634|181718412|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|19.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.96||0.2283|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.33|41.14||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16||41.14|-1.33|0.2283
90922907|NCT03858634|181718412|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-69.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|32.26||0.1625|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-130.76|-9.11||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16||-9.11|-130.76|0.1625
90922908|NCT03858634|181718412|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-34.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.8||0.0707|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-57.87|-10.52||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16||-10.52|-57.87|0.0707
90922909|NCT03858634|181718412|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|50.17||0.9944|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-81.79|82.55||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 17||82.55|-81.79|0.9944
90922910|NCT03858634|181718412|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|23.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.16||0.1327|TWO_SIDED|80.0|3.71|44.05||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 17||44.05|3.71|0.1327
90922911|NCT03858634|181718412|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-69.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|33.87||0.1777|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-133.09|-5.35||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 17||-5.35|-133.09|0.1777
90922912|NCT03858634|181718412|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-23.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.4||0.2796|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-52.34|4.61||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 17||4.61|-52.34|0.2796
90922913|NCT03858634|181718412|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|55.4||0.8999|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-83.15|98.3||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 18||98.30|-83.15|0.8999
90883318|NCT00727857|181629467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.3||||0.2894||95.0|-4.5|15.1|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - pioglitazone|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||15.1|-4.5|0.2894
90883319|NCT00727857|181629467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.8463||95.0|-10.3|8.5|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||8.5|-10.3|0.8463
90883320|NCT00727857|181629467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.2||||0.2124||95.0|-16.0|3.6|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||3.6|-16.0|0.2124
90883321|NCT00727857|181629468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2||||0.804||95.0|-19.4|15.0|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - pioglitazone|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||15.0|-19.4|0.8040
90883322|NCT00727857|181629468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.5||||0.0008||95.0|12.0|45.0|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||45.0|12.0|0.0008
90883323|NCT00727857|181629468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|30.6||||0.0005||95.0|13.4|47.8|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||47.8|13.4|0.0005
90883324|NCT00727857|181629469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1||||0.9604||95.0|-83.3|79.2|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - pioglitazone|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||79.2|-83.3|0.9604
90883325|NCT00727857|181629469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|140.3||||0.0004||95.0|62.5|218.0|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||218.0|62.5|0.0004
90883326|NCT00727857|181629469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|142.3||||0.0006||95.0|61.3|223.3|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||223.3|61.3|0.0006
90883327|NCT00727857|181629470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.9922||95.0|-64.4|65.1|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - pioglitazone|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||65.1|-64.4|0.9922
90922914|NCT03858634|181718412|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|22.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.99||0.1867|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.68|43.23||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 18||43.23|0.68|0.1867
90883328|NCT00727857|181629470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|111.7||||0.0004||95.0|49.7|173.7|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||173.7|49.7|0.0004
90883329|NCT00727857|181629470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|111.4||||0.0008||95.0|46.8|175.9|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||175.9|46.8|0.0008
90883330|NCT00727857|181629471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.08||||0.0072||95.0|-1.86|-0.29|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - pioglitazone|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||-0.29|-1.86|0.0072
90883331|NCT00727857|181629471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34||||0.3682||95.0|-0.41|1.1|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||1.10|-0.41|0.3682
90883332|NCT00727857|181629471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.42||||0.0004||95.0|0.64|2.2|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||2.20|0.64|0.0004
90883333|NCT00727857|181629472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.1986||95.0|-0.02|0.1|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - pioglitazone|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||0.10|-0.02|0.1986
90883334|NCT00727857|181629472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.1487||95.0|-0.1|0.02|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||0.02|-0.10|0.1487
90883335|NCT00727857|181629472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.0076||95.0|-0.14|-0.02|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||-0.02|-0.14|0.0076
90922915|NCT03858634|181718412|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-70.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|33.87||0.1717|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-134.68|-6.94||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 18||-6.94|-134.68|0.1717
90922916|NCT03858634|181718412|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-23.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.46||0.2792|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-52.5|4.61||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 18||4.61|-52.50|0.2792
90922917|NCT03858634|181718414|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-47.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|31.41||0.2289|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-98.77|4.1||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4||4.10|-98.77|0.2289
90922918|NCT03858634|181718414|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|19.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.08||0.1788|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.96|38.27||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4||38.27|0.96|0.1788
90922919|NCT03858634|181718414|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-59.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|114.35||0.6544|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-275.19|156.06||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4||156.06|-275.19|0.6544
90922920|NCT03858634|181718414|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-72.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.4||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-99.39|-45.09||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4||-45.09|-99.39|0.0023
90922921|NCT03858634|181718414|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-52.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.96||0.1081|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-89.68|-14.47||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8||-14.47|-89.68|0.1081
90922922|NCT03858634|181718414|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|14.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.37||0.4926|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-13.39|43.26||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8||43.26|-13.39|0.4926
90922923|NCT03858634|181718414|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|53.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|219.98||0.8315|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-361.63|467.98||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8||467.98|-361.63|0.8315
90922924|NCT03858634|181718414|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-69.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.56||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-94.61|-45.22||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8||-45.22|-94.61|0.0014
90922925|NCT03858634|181718414|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-52.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.96||0.1081|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-89.68|-14.47||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12||-14.47|-89.68|0.1081
90922926|NCT03858634|181718414|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.97||0.7339|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-21.65|36.82||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12||36.82|-21.65|0.7339
90922927|NCT03858634|181718414|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|53.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|219.98||0.8315|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-361.63|467.98||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12||467.98|-361.63|0.8315
90922928|NCT03858634|181718414|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-67.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.26||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-95.92|-39.22||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12||-39.22|-95.92|0.0055
90922929|NCT03858634|181718414|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-57.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|26.73||0.1188|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-101.7|-14.15||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16||-14.15|-101.70|0.1188
90922930|NCT03858634|181718414|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.27||0.8697|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-21.26|27.35||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16||27.35|-21.26|0.8697
90922931|NCT03858634|181718414|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-30.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|78.64||0.7368|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-178.62|117.94||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16||117.94|-178.62|0.7368
90922932|NCT03858634|181718414|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.02||0.5571|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-29.03|11.03||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16||11.03|-29.03|0.5571
90922933|NCT03858634|181718414|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-49.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|32.21||0.2251|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-101.8|3.69||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 18||3.69|-101.80|0.2251
90922934|NCT03858634|181718414|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|17.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.93||0.3733|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-7.9|42.48||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 18||42.48|-7.90|0.3733
90922935|NCT03858634|181718414|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-22.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|66.57||0.7662|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-148.16|102.89||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 18||102.89|-148.16|0.7662
90922936|NCT03858634|181718414|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.87||0.7241|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-28.54|16.44||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 18||16.44|-28.54|0.7241
90922937|NCT03858634|181718416|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-21.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|29.04||0.5195|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-68.69|26.43||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4||26.43|-68.69|0.5195
90922938|NCT03858634|181718416|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|11.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.27||0.1869|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.34|22.26||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4||22.26|0.34|0.1869
90922939|NCT03858634|181718416|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-87.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|55.3||0.2545|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-191.75|16.79||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4||16.79|-191.75|0.2545
90922940|NCT03858634|181718416|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-20.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.26||0.0643|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-33.88|-6.57||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4||-6.57|-33.88|0.0643
90922941|NCT03858634|181718416|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-28.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.11||0.2503|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-61.52|4.35||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8||4.35|-61.52|0.2503
90922942|NCT03858634|181718416|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.58||0.8468|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-13.08|17.62||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8||17.62|-13.08|0.8468
90922943|NCT03858634|181718416|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-83.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|73.93||0.3755|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-222.98|55.18||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8||55.18|-222.98|0.3755
90883336|NCT00727857|181629473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31||||0.2384||95.0|-0.21|0.83|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - pioglitazone|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||0.83|-0.21|0.2384
90883337|NCT00727857|181629473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.4617||95.0|-0.69|0.31|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||0.31|-0.69|0.4617
90883338|NCT00727857|181629473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.0593||95.0|-1.02|0.02|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||0.02|-1.02|0.0593
90883339|NCT00727857|181629474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28||||0.5044||95.0|-0.54|1.1|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - pioglitazone|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||1.10|-0.54|0.5044
90883340|NCT00727857|181629474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.43||||0.0004||95.0|-2.22|-0.64|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||-0.64|-2.22|0.0004
90883341|NCT00727857|181629474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.71|||<|0.0001||95.0|-2.53|-0.89|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||-0.89|-2.53|<0.0001
90883342|NCT00727857|181629475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.63||||0.0017||95.0|-2.64|-0.62|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - pioglitazone|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||-0.62|-2.64|0.0017
90883343|NCT00727857|181629475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.97|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.01|2.94|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||2.94|1.01|<0.0001
90883344|NCT00727857|181629475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.6|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.59|4.61|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||4.61|2.59|<0.0001
90922944|NCT03858634|181718416|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-20.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.06||0.0755|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-35.58|-6.15||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8||-6.15|-35.58|0.0755
90922945|NCT03858634|181718416|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-28.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|25.77||0.3486|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-70.76|13.65||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12||13.65|-70.76|0.3486
90922946|NCT03858634|181718416|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.69||0.6559|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-17.28|8.5||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12||8.50|-17.28|0.6559
90922947|NCT03858634|181718416|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-70.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|50.46||0.2987|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-165.35|24.94||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12||24.94|-165.35|0.2987
90922948|NCT03858634|181718416|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-16.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.43||0.1966|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-33.29|-0.13||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12||-0.13|-33.29|0.1966
90883345|NCT00727857|181629476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.76||||0.2466||95.0|-2.61|10.14|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - pioglitazone|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||10.14|-2.61|0.2466
90883346|NCT00727857|181629476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.52||||0.0063||95.0|-14.63|-2.42|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||-2.42|-14.63|0.0063
90883347|NCT00727857|181629476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.29||||0.0002||95.0|-18.65|-5.93|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||-5.93|-18.65|0.0002
90883348|NCT00727857|181629477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.15||||0.2069||95.0|-2.93|0.64|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - pioglitazone|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||0.64|-2.93|0.2069
90883349|NCT00727857|181629477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.44||||0.0052||95.0|0.73|4.15|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||4.15|0.73|0.0052
90883350|NCT00727857|181629477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.59|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.81|5.36|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||5.36|1.81|<0.0001
90883351|NCT00727857|181629478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26||||0.609||95.0|-1.28|0.75|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - pioglitazone|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||0.75|-1.28|0.6090
90883352|NCT00727857|181629478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||0.6169||95.0|-1.22|0.72|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||0.72|-1.22|0.6169
90883353|NCT00727857|181629478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.974||95.0|-0.99|1.03|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||1.03|-0.99|0.9740
90883354|NCT00727857|181629479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.06||||0.615||95.0|-3.09|5.21|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - pioglitazone|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||5.21|-3.09|0.6150
90883355|NCT00727857|181629479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.41||||0.2346||95.0|-6.38|1.57|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||1.57|-6.38|0.2346
90883356|NCT00727857|181629479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.47||||0.1001||95.0|-7.61|0.67|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||0.67|-7.61|0.1001
90883357|NCT00727857|181629480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.86||||0.1217||95.0|-0.76|6.48|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - pioglitazone|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||6.48|-0.76|0.1217
90883358|NCT00727857|181629480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.9||||0.0009||95.0|-9.36|-2.44|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||-2.44|-9.36|0.0009
90883359|NCT00727857|181629480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.76|||<|0.0001||95.0|-12.36|-5.16|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||-5.16|-12.36|<0.0001
90883360|NCT01469065|181629481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%)|84.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.16|92.15||||||Test-to-Reference ratio and 90% confidence interval (CI) were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in MDG (Day 14) was analyzed using ANCOVA with country and treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test. Formal statistical inference was not performed thus p value was not reported.||92.15|78.16|
90883361|NCT01469065|181629481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%)|89.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.69|97.53||||||Test-to-Reference ratio and 90% confidence interval (CI) were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in MDG (Day 14) was analyzed using ANCOVA with country and treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||97.53|82.69|
90922949|NCT03858634|181718416|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-41.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|25.7||0.2051|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-83.56|0.62||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16||0.62|-83.56|0.2051
90922950|NCT03858634|181718416|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.16||0.7511|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-16.79|10.25||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16||10.25|-16.79|0.7511
90922951|NCT03858634|181718416|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-79.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|39.27||0.1797|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-153.68|-5.59||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16||-5.59|-153.68|0.1797
90883362|NCT01469065|181629481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%)|87.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.27|94.63||||||Test-to-Reference ratio and 90% confidence interval (CI) were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in MDG (Day 14) was analyzed using ANCOVA with country and treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||94.63|80.27|
90883363|NCT01469065|181629481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%)|78.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|72.06|85.03||||||Test-to-Reference ratio and 90% confidence interval (CI) were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in MDG (Day 14) was analyzed using ANCOVA with country and treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||85.03|72.06|
90883364|NCT01469065|181629494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%)|82.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.06|89.9||||||Test-to-Reference ratio and 90% confidence interval (CI) were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in MDG (Day 13) was analyzed using ANCOVA with country and treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||89.90|76.06|
90883365|NCT01469065|181629494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%)|85.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.6|92.77||||||Test-to-Reference ratio and 90% confidence interval (CI) were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in MDG (Day 13) was analyzed using ANCOVA with country and treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||92.77|78.60|
90883366|NCT01469065|181629494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%)|85.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.59|92.76||||||Test-to-Reference ratio and 90% confidence interval (CI) were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in MDG (Day 13) was analyzed using ANCOVA with country and treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||92.76|78.59|
90883367|NCT01469065|181629494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%)|75.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|69.78|82.39||||||Test-to-Reference ratio and 90% confidence interval (CI) were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in MDG (Day 13) was analyzed using ANCOVA with country and treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||82.39|69.78|
90883368|NCT01469065|181629494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between Test and Reference|-35.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-52.89|-18.78||||||Treatment difference and 90% confidence interval (CI) were based on adjusted geometric mean.||-18.78|-52.89|
90922952|NCT03858634|181718416|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-16.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.45||0.1715|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-31.61|-1.08||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16||-1.08|-31.61|0.1715
90922953|NCT03858634|181718416|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-36.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.32||0.185|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-71.47|-1.63||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 18||-1.63|-71.47|0.1850
90922954|NCT03858634|181718416|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.19||0.6907|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-21.15|11.29||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 18||11.29|-21.15|0.6907
90922955|NCT03858634|181718416|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-74.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|23.85||0.0901|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-118.97|-29.02||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 18||-29.02|-118.97|0.0901
90922956|NCT03858634|181718416|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.34||0.564|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-25.64|9.94||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 18||9.94|-25.64|0.5640
90922957|NCT03858634|181718417|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-31.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|38.73||0.4734|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-95.11|31.76||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||31.76|-95.11|0.4734
90922958|NCT03858634|181718417|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.91||0.813|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-23.33|16.18||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||16.18|-23.33|0.8130
90962982|NCT02146326|181807330|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression analysis was used to examine the BREATHE intervention effect on patient processes, engagement, and outcomes as compared to MI after the intervention by adjusting for the baseline scores and the implementation site.||||0.06
90962983|NCT02146326|181807331|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression analysis was used to examine the BREATHE intervention effect on patient processes, engagement, and outcomes as compared to MI after the intervention by adjusting for the baseline scores and the implementation site.||||0.84
90962984|NCT02146326|181807332|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression analysis was used to examine the BREATHE intervention effect on patient processes, engagement, and outcomes as compared to MI after the intervention by adjusting for the baseline scores and the implementation site.||||0.14
90962985|NCT02146326|181807333|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression analysis was used to examine the BREATHE intervention effect on patient processes, engagement, and outcomes as compared to MI after the intervention by adjusting for the baseline scores and the implementation site.||||0.45
90962986|NCT03808688|181807392|OTHER|Descriptive statistics included the number of subjects/eyes(n), mean, SD, median, minimum, and maximum for continuous variables, and frequency and percentages for categorical variables.||||||||||||||||Cohorts assessed versus baseline treatment|All efficacy data were summarized at each timepoint using appropriate descriptive statistics for the overall populations as well as separately for monotherapy and concomitant therapy groups.|||
90922959|NCT03858634|181718417|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-92.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|31.1||0.0979|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-150.6|-33.32||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-33.32|-150.60|0.0979
90922960|NCT03858634|181718417|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-37.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.48||0.0122|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-55.48|-19.61||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-19.61|-55.48|0.0122
90922961|NCT03808818|181718420|EQUIVALENCE|the smallest detectable difference will be 22%|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|4.13||No correction for multiple comparisons|Chi-squared|||"For self-reported 7-day point prevalence abstinence at 6-months, with a sample size of 140 in each arm then smallest detectable difference will be 22% with 80% power. Subsequent analyses will use a Bonferroni corrected alpha of 0.002 using with an estimated control rate of 31%.~The primary analysis will be performed from an intent-to-treat perspective. Chi-square tests will be used to compare the outcomes between treatment groups."||4.13|1.28|0.0046
90922962|NCT03808818|181718421|EQUIVALENCE|the smallest detectable difference will be 22% with 80% power and a Bonferroni corrected alpha of 0.002 using and an estimated control rate of 28%.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.86||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|3.33|||Chi-squared|||7-day point prevalence abstinence at 3-months, with a sample size of 140 in each arm then smallest detectable difference will be 18% with 80% power and a Bonferroni corrected alpha of 0.002 using and an estimated control rate of 20%||3.33|1.04|0.035
90922963|NCT03808818|181718422|EQUIVALENCE|the smallest detectable difference will be 21% with 80% power and a Bonferroni corrected alpha of 0.002 and an estimated control rate of 20%.||||||0.016|||||||Chi-squared|||power calculations assumed a sample size of 140 in each arm and a Bonferroni corrected alpha of 0.002 and an estimated control rate of 20%||||0.016
90922964|NCT03808818|181718424|EQUIVALENCE|no margin||||||0.069|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.069
90922965|NCT03808818|181718425|EQUIVALENCE|no margin||||||0.86|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.86
90962987|NCT02137512|181807402|SUPERIORITY|No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90962988|NCT02137512|181807402|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90962989|NCT02137512|181807402|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.31
90962990|NCT02137512|181807403|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.002
90962991|NCT02137512|181807403|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90962992|NCT02137512|181807403|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90883369|NCT01469065|181629495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%)|86.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.13|92.7||||||Test-to-Reference ratio and 90% confidence interval (CI) were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in Glucose AUC(2-6) was analyzed using ANCOVA with country and treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||92.70|81.13|
90883370|NCT01469065|181629495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%)|91.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.24|97.44||||||Test-to-Reference ratio and 90% confidence interval (CI) were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in Glucose AUC(2-6) was analyzed using ANCOVA with country and treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||97.44|85.24|
90883371|NCT01469065|181629495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%)|87.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.44|93.04||||||Test-to-Reference ratio and 90% confidence interval (CI) were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in Glucose AUC(2-6) was analyzed using ANCOVA with country and treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||93.04|81.44|
90883372|NCT01469065|181629495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%)|77.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|72.91|83.34||||||Test-to-Reference ratio and 90% confidence interval (CI) were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in Glucose AUC(2-6) was analyzed using ANCOVA with country and treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||83.34|72.91|
90883373|NCT01469065|181629496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%) at Day 2|100.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.7|107.96||||||Test-to-Reference ratio of log-transformed change from baseline and 90% confidence interval (CI) of log-transformed change from baseline at Day 2 were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in FPG was analyzed using mixed effects model with country, treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||107.96|92.70|
90883374|NCT01469065|181629496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%) at Day 2|99.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.04|107.43||||||Test-to-Reference ratio of log-transformed change from baseline and 90% confidence interval (CI) of log-transformed change from baseline at Day 2 were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in FPG was analyzed using mixed effects model with country, treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||107.43|92.04|
90883375|NCT01469065|181629496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%) at Day 2|101.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.1|109.84||||||Test-to-Reference ratio of log-transformed change from baseline and 90% confidence interval (CI) of log-transformed change from baseline at Day 2 were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in FPG was analyzed using mixed effects model with country, treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||109.84|94.10|
90883376|NCT01469065|181629496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%) at Day 2|96.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.69|104.52||||||Test-to-Reference ratio of log-transformed change from baseline and 90% confidence interval (CI) of log-transformed change from baseline at Day 2 were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in FPG was analyzed using mixed effects model with country, treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||104.52|89.69|
90883377|NCT01469065|181629496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%) at Day 3|95.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.82|103.44||||||Test-to-Reference ratio of log-transformed change from baseline and 90% confidence interval (CI) of log-transformed change from baseline at Day 3 were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in FPG was analyzed using mixed effects model with country, treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||103.44|88.82|
90922966|NCT03808818|181718437|EQUIVALENCE|No equivalence margin|||||<|0.0001||||||Alpha level 0.01|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact tests were performed to assess the differences between the VST and EUC arms on the 6-month questionnaire.||||<.0001
90922967|NCT03808818|181718438|EQUIVALENCE|No equivalence margin|||||<|0.0001||||||Alpha level 0.01|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact tests were performed to assess the differences between the VST and EUC arms on the 6-month questionnaire.||||<.0001
90922968|NCT03808818|181718439|EQUIVALENCE|No equivalence margin|||||<|0.0001||||||Alpha level 0.01|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact tests were performed to assess the differences between the VST and EUC arms on the 6-month questionnaire.||||<.0001
90883378|NCT01469065|181629496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%) at Day 3|98.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.37|106.64||||||Test-to-Reference ratio of log-transformed change from baseline and 90% confidence interval (CI) of log-transformed change from baseline at Day 3 were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in FPG was analyzed using mixed effects model with country, treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||106.64|91.37|
90883379|NCT01469065|181629496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%) at Day 3|99.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.3|107.73||||||Test-to-Reference ratio of log-transformed change from baseline and 90% confidence interval (CI) of log-transformed change from baseline at Day 3 were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in FPG was analyzed using mixed effects model with country, treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||107.73|92.30|
90883380|NCT01469065|181629496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%) at Day 3|94.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.53|102.1||||||Test-to-Reference ratio of log-transformed change from baseline and 90% confidence interval (CI) of log-transformed change from baseline at Day 3 were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in FPG was analyzed using mixed effects model with country, treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||102.10|87.53|
90922969|NCT03808818|181718441|EQUIVALENCE|No equivalence margin|||||<|0.0001||||||Alpha level 0.01|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact tests were performed to assess the differences between the VST and EUC arms on the 6-month questionnaire.||||<.0001
90922970|NCT05415722|181718456|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.48||0.1303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.178|3.406|||ANCOVA|||Arm 1 compared to Placebo||3.406|-26.178|0.1303
90962993|NCT02137512|181807404|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.10
90962994|NCT02137512|181807404|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90962995|NCT02137512|181807404|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90962996|NCT02137512|181807405|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90883381|NCT01469065|181629496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%) at Day 6|93.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.5|100.91||||||Test-to-Reference ratio of log-transformed change from baseline and 90% confidence interval (CI) of log-transformed change from baseline at Day 6 were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in FPG was analyzed using mixed effects model with country, treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||100.91|86.50|
90962997|NCT02137512|181807405|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90883382|NCT01469065|181629496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%) at Day 6|92.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.81|100.15||||||Test-to-Reference ratio of log-transformed change from baseline and 90% confidence interval (CI) of log-transformed change from baseline at Day 6 were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in FPG was analyzed using mixed effects model with country, treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||100.15|85.81|
90922971|NCT05415722|181718456|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.924||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.14|-7.799|||ANCOVA|||Arm 2 compared to Placebo||-7.799|-39.140|0.0036
90922972|NCT05415722|181718456|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-40.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.96|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.545|-25.064|||ANCOVA|||Arm 3 compared to Placebo||-25.064|-56.545|<0.0001
90922973|NCT05415722|181718457|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-31.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.87||0.1289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.17|9.39|||ANCOVA|||Arm 1 compared to Placebo||9.39|-73.17|0.1289
90922974|NCT05415722|181718457|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.65||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.08|13.58|||ANCOVA|||Arm 2 compared to Placebo||13.58|-72.08|0.1790
90962998|NCT02137512|181807405|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.91
90922975|NCT05415722|181718457|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-75.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.96||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-119.08|-32.23|||ANCOVA|||Arm 3 compared to Placebo||-32.23|-119.08|0.0008
90922976|NCT05415722|181718458|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.895||0.0358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.352|-1.128|||ANCOVA|||Arm 4 compared to Placebo||-1.128|-32.352|0.0358
90922977|NCT05415722|181718458|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-43.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.647|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.858|-28.612|||ANCOVA|||Arm 5 compared to Placebo||-28.612|-58.858|<0.0001
90922978|NCT05415722|181718459|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-62.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.09||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-106.33|-18.96|||ANCOVA|||Arm 4 compared to Placebo||-18.96|-106.33|0.0053
90922979|NCT05415722|181718459|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-69.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.13||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-110.97|-27.39|||ANCOVA|||Arm 5 compared to Placebo||-27.39|-110.97|0.0014
90922980|NCT03524612|181718463|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Clopper Pearson test|||||||<0.0001
90962999|NCT02137512|181807406|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90922981|NCT05457647|181718520|OTHER|The accuracy and precision of the theranostic imaging biomarkers, including both the riboflavin score and theranostic score, to predict CXL treatment outcome were determined by calculating the proportion of correctly classified eyes and the positive predictive value respectively.|Proportion|91.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||The study set a minimum threshold of 85 for the the combined use of the theranostic imaging biomarkers' accuracy and precision in predicting the propensity of CXL to halt disease progression at 1 year in the study population.|Accuracy and precision of the combined use of theranostic imaging biomarkers generated by the UV-A device to predict the propensity of CXL in flattening the Kmax value at 12-months.||||
90963000|NCT02137512|181807406|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90963001|NCT02137512|181807406|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.20
90963002|NCT02137512|181807407|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
90963003|NCT02137512|181807407|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90963004|NCT02137512|181807407|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.49
90963005|NCT02137512|181807408|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.009
90963006|NCT02137512|181807408|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.14
90963007|NCT02137512|181807408|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.06
90963008|NCT02137512|181807409|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.002
90963009|NCT02137512|181807409|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
90963010|NCT02137512|181807409|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.18
90963011|NCT02137512|181807410|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.07
90963012|NCT02137512|181807410|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.54
90963013|NCT02137512|181807410|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.07
90963014|NCT02137512|181807411|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.005
90963015|NCT02137512|181807411|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90883383|NCT01469065|181629496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%) at Day 6|94.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.08|101.64||||||Test-to-Reference ratio of log-transformed change from baseline and 90% confidence interval (CI) of log-transformed change from baseline at Day 6 were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in FPG was analyzed using mixed effects model with country, treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||101.64|87.08|
90883384|NCT01469065|181629496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%) at Day 6|87.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.2|94.81||||||Test-to-Reference ratio of log-transformed change from baseline and 90% confidence interval (CI) of log-transformed change from baseline at Day 6 were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in FPG was analyzed using mixed effects model with country, treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||94.81|81.20|
90883385|NCT01469065|181629496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%) at Day 10|96.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.72|104.67||||||Test-to-Reference ratio of log-transformed change from baseline and 90% confidence interval (CI) of log-transformed change from baseline at Day 10 were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in FPG was analyzed using mixed effects model with country, treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||104.67|89.72|
90883386|NCT01469065|181629496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%) at Day 10|96.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.9|103.76||||||Test-to-Reference ratio of log-transformed change from baseline and 90% confidence interval (CI) of log-transformed change from baseline at Day 10 were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in FPG was analyzed using mixed effects model with country, treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||103.76|88.90|
90883387|NCT01469065|181629496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%) at Day 10|99.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.21|107.64||||||Test-to-Reference ratio of log-transformed change from baseline and 90% confidence interval (CI) of log-transformed change from baseline at Day 10 were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in FPG was analyzed using mixed effects model with country, treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||107.64|92.21|
90883388|NCT01469065|181629496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%) at Day 10|94.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.46|102.11||||||Test-to-Reference ratio of log-transformed change from baseline and 90% confidence interval (CI) of log-transformed change from baseline at Day 10 were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in FPG was analyzed using mixed effects model with country, treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||102.11|87.46|
90883389|NCT01469065|181629496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%) at Day 14|86.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.32|93.69||||||Test-to-Reference ratio of log-transformed change from baseline and 90% confidence interval (CI) of log-transformed change from baseline at Day 14 were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in FPG was analyzed using mixed effects model with country, treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||93.69|80.32|
90883390|NCT01469065|181629496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%) at Day 14|87.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.34|94.93||||||Test-to-Reference ratio of log-transformed change from baseline and 90% confidence interval (CI) of log-transformed change from baseline at Day 14 were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in FPG was analyzed using mixed effects model with country, treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||94.93|81.34|
90883391|NCT01469065|181629496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%) at Day 14|91.35|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.55|98.7||||||Test-to-Reference ratio of log-transformed change from baseline and 90% confidence interval (CI) of log-transformed change from baseline at Day 14 were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in FPG was analyzed using mixed effects model with country, treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||98.70|84.55|
90883392|NCT01469065|181629496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%) at Day 14|88.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.0|95.74||||||Test-to-Reference ratio of log-transformed change from baseline and 90% confidence interval (CI) of log-transformed change from baseline at Day 14 were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in FPG was analyzed using mixed effects model with country, treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||95.74|82.00|
90883393|NCT01469065|181629496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%) at Day 15|90.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.75|97.69||||||Test-to-Reference ratio of log-transformed change from baseline and 90% confidence interval (CI) of log-transformed change from baseline at Day 15 were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in FPG was analyzed using mixed effects model with country, treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||97.69|83.75|
90883394|NCT01469065|181629496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%) at Day 15|90.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.03|98.08||||||Test-to-Reference ratio of log-transformed change from baseline and 90% confidence interval (CI) of log-transformed change from baseline at Day 15 were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in FPG was analyzed using mixed effects model with country, treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||98.08|84.03|
90883395|NCT01469065|181629496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%) at Day 15|94.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.69|102.34||||||Test-to-Reference ratio of log-transformed change from baseline and 90% confidence interval (CI) of log-transformed change from baseline at Day 15 were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in FPG was analyzed using mixed effects model with country, treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||102.34|87.69|
90883396|NCT01469065|181629496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%) at Day 15|93.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.17|100.77||||||Test-to-Reference ratio of log-transformed change from baseline and 90% confidence interval (CI) of log-transformed change from baseline at Day 15 were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in FPG was analyzed using mixed effects model with country, treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||100.77|86.17|
90883397|NCT01469065|181629497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%)|112.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.84|127.5||||||Test-to-Reference ratio and 90% confidence interval (CI) were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in Insulin AUC(2-6) (Day 14) was analyzed using ANCOVA with country and treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||127.50|99.84|
90883398|NCT01469065|181629497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%)|102.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.78|114.85||||||Test-to-Reference ratio and 90% confidence interval (CI) were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in Insulin AUC(2-6) (Day 14) was analyzed using ANCOVA with country and treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||114.85|90.78|
90883399|NCT01469065|181629497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%)|111.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.5|125.18||||||Test-to-Reference ratio and 90% confidence interval (CI) were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in Insulin AUC(2-6) (Day 14) was analyzed using ANCOVA with country and treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||125.18|98.50|
90883400|NCT01469065|181629497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%)|96.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.46|109.48||||||Test-to-Reference ratio and 90% confidence interval (CI) were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in Insulin AUC(2-6) (Day 14) was analyzed using ANCOVA with country and treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||109.48|85.46|
90883401|NCT01469065|181629498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%)|107.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.69|116.3||||||Test-to-Reference ratio and 90% confidence interval (CI) were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in C-peptide AUC(2-6) (Day 14) was analyzed using ANCOVA with country and treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||116.30|98.69|
90883402|NCT01469065|181629498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%)|92.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.26|100.5||||||Test-to-Reference ratio and 90% confidence interval (CI) were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in C-peptide AUC(2-6) (Day 14) was analyzed using ANCOVA with country and treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||100.50|85.26|
90883403|NCT01469065|181629498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%)|96.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.51|104.27||||||Test-to-Reference ratio and 90% confidence interval (CI) were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in C-peptide AUC(2-6) (Day 14) was analyzed using ANCOVA with country and treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||104.27|88.51|
90883404|NCT01469065|181629498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%)|91.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.38|99.65||||||Test-to-Reference ratio and 90% confidence interval (CI) were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in C-peptide AUC(2-6) (Day 14) was analyzed using ANCOVA with country and treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||99.65|84.38|
90963016|NCT02137512|181807411|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
90883405|NCT04542070|181629500|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority concluded if the upper limit of a two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA ≥ 50 c/mL at Month 12 (OLI and BIK)/Month 11 (D2I) between the two treatment arms (Q2M - BIK) is less than 4%.|Difference in percentage|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|2.2|||||Difference in percentage = percentage of Q2M - percentage of BIK|||2.2|-0.5|
90883406|NCT04542070|181629500|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority concluded if the upper limit of a two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA ≥ 50 c/mL at Month 12 (OLI and BIK)/Month 11 (D2I) between the two treatment arms (Q2M - BIK) is less than 4%.|Adjusted difference in percentage|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|2.2|||||Adjusted difference in percentage = percentage of Q2M - percentage of BIK. Based on cochran-mantel haenszel stratified analysis was adjusted for the baseline stratification factors gender at birth and baseline BMI.|||2.2|-0.5|
90883407|NCT04542070|181629501|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority concluded if the upper limit of a two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA ≥ 50 c/mL at Month 12 (OLI and BIK)/Month 11 (D2I) between the two treatment arms (Q2M - BIK) is less than 4%.|Difference in percentage|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|2.0|||||Difference in percentage = percentage of Q2M - percentage of BIK|||2.0|-0.6|
90922982|NCT05457647|181718521|OTHER|Paired Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to compare the distributions preoperatively and 12-months postoperatively.|||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Assessment of change of Kmax value at 12-months follow-up visit.||||<0.05
90922983|NCT05457647|181718522|OTHER|Paired Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to compare the distributions preoperatively and 12-months postoperatively.|||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Assessment of change of ECD value at 12-months follow-up visit.||||<0.05
90922984|NCT05457647|181718523|OTHER|Paired Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to compare the distributions preoperatively and 12-months postoperatively.|||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Assessment of change of MSER value at 12-months follow-up visit.||||<0.05
90922985|NCT05457647|181718524|OTHER|Paired Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to compare the distributions preoperatively and 12-months postoperatively.|||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Assessment of change of CDVA value at 12-months follow-up visit.||||<0.05
90922986|NCT05457647|181718525|OTHER|Paired Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to compare the distributions preoperatively and 12-months postoperatively.|||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Assessment of change of UDVA value at 12-months follow-up visit.||||<0.05
90922987|NCT05457647|181718526|OTHER|Paired Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to compare the distributions preoperatively and 12-months postoperatively.|||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Assessment of change of CCT value at 12-months follow-up visit.||||<0.05
90922988|NCT05457647|181718527|OTHER|Paired Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to compare the distributions preoperatively and 12-months postoperatively. Bonferroni correction was applied to analysis of exploratory outcome measures of stratification groups.|||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
90922989|NCT03115476|181718530|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.43||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|3.9|||likelihood ratio test|||Relative difference between groups (ingenol disoxate vs vehicle) expressed as hazard ratio||3.9|0.61|0.43
90922990|NCT03115476|181718531|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.99|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|3.62|||likelihood ratio test|||relative difference between treatment groups (ingenol disoxate gel vs vehicle) expressed as hazard ratio||3.62|1.17|<0.01
90922991|NCT05228457|181718534|SUPERIORITY|13 participants were randomized to receive active TMS, and 13 were randomized to receive sham TMS. 1 participant from each group withdrew, resulting in their exclusion from the analysis. Therefore, 24 participants were randomized to active (n = 12) or sham (n = 12) aiTBS groups. The analysis examined MADRS scores measured at baseline and post-treatment. A priori hypotheses were that active aiTBS would demonstrate measurable differences in MADRS scores compared to the sham group.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.94|-9.56|||t-test, 2 sided||The primary outcome was the between-group (Active vs Sham) difference in MADRS scores at the end of the treatment period. Results, including mean scores, standard deviations, confidence intervals, and p-value for the between-group comparisons.|||-9.56|-19.94|<0.001
90922992|NCT05228457|181718535|SUPERIORITY||Z-transformed Pearson's r values|-0.014||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Z-transformed Pearson's r values of average voxel-wise connectivity within the DMN||||0.04
90922993|NCT04382664|181718536|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.845|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.694|1.309|||Regression, Cox|||||1.309|0.694|0.845
90922994|NCT04986501|181718551|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.01
90922995|NCT04986501|181718553|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.01
90963017|NCT02137512|181807412|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90922996|NCT01084876|181718611|EQUIVALENCE|The therapeutic equivalence between CT-P6 and Herceptin is concluded if the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the risk difference (CT-P6 - Herceptin) estimate in ORR ITRC review during the Main Study Treatment Period is entirely within the predefined equivalence margin of -0.15 to 0.15.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.0535|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.143|0.036||||||||0.036|-0.143|
90922997|NCT05717907|181718631|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.000
90922998|NCT04342494|181718645|EQUIVALENCE|Symptom-level change estimates were adjusted for baseline PHQ-9 score via analysis of covariance.||||||0.31|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.31
90922999|NCT04342494|181718646|EQUIVALENCE|Average mood score obtained from daily measurements analyzed via analysis of variance||||||0.0073|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0073
90923000|NCT04342494|181718647|EQUIVALENCE|Symptom-level change estimates were adjusted for baseline PANSI-PI score via analysis of covariance||||||0.03|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.03
90923001|NCT04342494|181718648|EQUIVALENCE|Symptom-level change estimates were adjusted for baseline PANSI-NSI score via analysis of covariance||||||0.71|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.71
90923002|NCT04342494|181718649|EQUIVALENCE|Symptom-level change estimates were adjusted for baseline GAD-7 score via analysis of covariance||||||0.31|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.31
90923003|NCT03736720|181718651|OTHER|No statistical test.|Proportion|0.091|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.033|0.301|||||Estimated using Jeffrey's prior method.|||0.301|0.033|
90923004|NCT03736720|181718657|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.289|||||||Sign test|two-sided test.||Comparing the pre-treatment and end of treatment QoL scores.||||0.289
90923005|NCT05119023|181718662|OTHER|||||||0.39||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Pearson's correlation|||Examination of Language Severity and Characterization of learning: SRT Observational Learning Scores||||0.39
90923006|NCT05119023|181718662|OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Pearson's correlation|||Examination of Language severity and Characterization of learning: AGL Observational Learning Scores||||<0.01
90963018|NCT02137512|181807412|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90923007|NCT05119023|181718662|OTHER|||||||0.95||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Pearson's correlation|||Examination of Language severity and Characterization of learning: AGL Rule-based Learning Scores||||0.95
90923008|NCT05119023|181718663|OTHER|Sample underpowered for regression so correlation examined||||||0.36||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Pearson's correlation|||Examination of Attention and Characterization of learning: SRT Observational Learning Scores||||0.36
90923009|NCT05119023|181718663|OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||Pearson's correlation|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05||Examination of Attention and Characterization of learning: AGL Observational Learning Scores||||0.09
90923010|NCT05119023|181718663|OTHER|||||||0.32||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Pearson's correlation|||Examination of Attention and Characterization of learning: AGL Rule Based Learning||||0.32
90923011|NCT05119023|181718664|OTHER|Sample underpowered for regression so correlation examined||||||0.64||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Pearson's correlation|||Examination of Working Memory and Characterization of learning: SRT Observational Learning Scores||||0.64
90923012|NCT05119023|181718664|OTHER|||||||0.01||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Pearson's correlation|||Examination of Working Memory and Characterization of learning: AGL Observational Learning Scores||||0.01
90963019|NCT02137512|181807412|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.52
90963020|NCT02137512|181807413|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.13
90963021|NCT02137512|181807413|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90923013|NCT05119023|181718664|OTHER|||||||0.79|||||||Pearson's correlation|||Examination of Working Memory and Characterization of learning: AGL Rule-based Learning Scores||||0.79
90923014|NCT05119023|181718665|OTHER|Sample underpowered for regression so correlation examined||||||0.9||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Pearson's correlation|||Examination of Executive Function and Characterization of learning: SRT Observational Learning Scores||||0.90
90923015|NCT05119023|181718665|OTHER|||||||0.09||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Pearson's correlation|||Examination of Executive Function and Characterization of learning: AGL Observational Learning Scores||||0.09
90923016|NCT05119023|181718665|OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||Pearson's correlation|||Examination of Executive Function and Characterization of learning: AGL Rule-based Learning Scores||||0.24
90923017|NCT03194217|181718667|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|1.08|||ANCOVA|||||1.08|-1.68|0.668
90923018|NCT03194217|181718667|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|2.26|||ANCOVA|||||2.26|-0.50|0.213
90923019|NCT03194217|181718667|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|0.98|||ANCOVA|||||0.98|-1.76|0.575
90963022|NCT02137512|181807413|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90963023|NCT02137512|181807414|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90923020|NCT02962895|181718668|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.75||||0.5161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|3.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|Confidence intervals and p-values derived from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Week 24: VAY736 5 mg vs. Placebo||3.02|-1.52|0.5161
90923021|NCT02962895|181718668|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.55||||0.6332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|1.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|Confidence intervals and p-values derived from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Week 24: VAY736 50 mg vs. Placebo||1.71|-2.80|0.6332
90923022|NCT02962895|181718668|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.92||||0.0921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.15|0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|Confidence intervals and p-values derived from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Week 24: VAY736 300 mg vs. Placebo||0.32|-4.15|0.0921
90923023|NCT02962895|181718670|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.32||||0.4457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|Confidence intervals and p-values derived from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Week 24: VAY736 5 mg vs. Placebo||1.13|-0.50|0.4457
90923024|NCT02962895|181718670|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.01||||0.301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|Confidence intervals and p-values derived from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Week 24: VAY736 50 mg vs. Placebo||0.82|-0.79|0.301
90923025|NCT02962895|181718670|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.06||||0.8858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|Confidence intervals and p-values derived from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Week 24: VAY736 300 mg vs. Placebo||0.74|-0.86|0.8858
90923026|NCT02962895|181718672|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.93||||0.3424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.93|2.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|Confidence intervals and p-values are derived from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Week 24: VAY736 5 mg vs. Placebo||2.07|-5.93|0.3424
90923027|NCT02962895|181718672|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.56||||0.2092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.58|1.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|Confidence intervals and p-values are derived from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Week 24: VAY736 50 mg vs. Placebo||1.45|-6.58|0.2092
90923028|NCT02962895|181718672|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.31||||0.874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.58|4.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Confidence intervals and p-values are derived from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Week 24: VAY736 300 mg vs. Placebo||4.20|-3.58|0.8740
90923029|NCT02962895|181718674|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.02||||0.5768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.61|2.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|Confidence intervals and p-values derived from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Week 24: VAY736 5 mg vs. Placebo / Mental Component Score||2.57|-4.61|0.5768
90963024|NCT02137512|181807414|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90963025|NCT02137512|181807414|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.41
90963026|NCT02137512|181807415|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90963027|NCT02137512|181807415|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90963028|NCT02137512|181807415|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.12
90963029|NCT02137512|181807416|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
90963030|NCT02137512|181807416|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90963031|NCT02137512|181807416|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.06
90963032|NCT02137512|181807417|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90963033|NCT02137512|181807417|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
90963034|NCT02137512|181807417|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.26
90963035|NCT02137512|181807418|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90923030|NCT02962895|181718674|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.68||||0.7113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.93|4.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|Confidence intervals and p-values derived from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Week 24: VAY736 50 mg vs. Placebo / Mental Component Score||4.28|-2.93|0.7113
90963036|NCT02137512|181807418|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90963037|NCT02137512|181807418|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.11
90963038|NCT02137512|181807419|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
90963039|NCT02137512|181807419|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
90963040|NCT02137512|181807419|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.61
90923031|NCT02962895|181718674|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.0||||0.5722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.49|4.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|Confidence intervals and p-values derived from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Week 24: VAY736 300 mg vs. Placebo / Mental Component Score||4.48|-2.49|0.5722
90963041|NCT02137512|181807420|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90883408|NCT04542070|181629501|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority concluded if the upper limit of a two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA ≥ 50 c/mL at Month 12 (OLI and BIK)/Month 11 (D2I) between the two treatment arms (Q2M - BIK) is less than 4%.|Adjusted difference in percentage|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|2.0|||||Adjusted difference in percentage = percentage of Q2M - percentage of BIK. Based on cochran-mantel haenszel stratified analysis was adjusted for the baseline stratification factors gender at birth and baseline BMI.|||2.0|-0.7|
90883409|NCT04646616|181629598|NON_INFERIORITY|This is a single-group, of outcome measured at baseline and at 3 months. We hypothesized there would be an improvement or sustainability of the protective behaviours.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.39|||t-test, 2 sided|||This is a single-group study. Selected outcomes were measured at baseline (first interaction with the community popular opinion leader (POL) and 3 months after.||0.39|-0.12|0.28
90883410|NCT04646616|181629599|OTHER|Test of proportions|difference in proportion|-0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.07|||Test of proportions|||Two sample test of proportions, testing whether the proportion of participants who lack health access at baseline and 3 months is equal (null hypothesis)||0.07|-0.08|0.85
90883411|NCT04646616|181629600|OTHER|Test of proportions.|difference in proportion|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.19|||Test of proportions|||Test of proportions. Testing whether the proportion of participants who had a SAVAME factor at baseline and 3 months is equal (null hypothesis)||0.19|-0.04|0.19
90883412|NCT04646616|181629601|OTHER|Test of proportions.|difference in proportion|0.067|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.18|||Test of proportions|||Test of proportions. Testing whether the proportion of participants who lack access to SAVAME related services at baseline and 3 months is equal (null hypothesis)||0.18|-0.04|0.23
90883413|NCT03049813|181629602|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027||||||One-sided p value|Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline year of study participation, problematic substance use, social cognition, community functioning, and negative symptoms - anergia||||||0.027
90883414|NCT03049813|181629602|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0765||||||1-sided p-value|Chi-squared|||||||0.0765
90883415|NCT03049813|181629603|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.062||||||One-sided p value|Regression, Cox|Adjusting for baseline year of study participation, problematic substance use, social cognition, community functioning, and negative symptoms anergia||||||0.062
90883416|NCT03049813|181629604|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006||||||Adjusting for baseline year of study participation, problematic substance use, social cognition, community functioning, negative symptoms - anergia|Regression, Linear|||||||0.006
90883417|NCT03049813|181629605|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013||||||Mixed-effects linear regression models. Covariates include: baseline year, problematic substance use, social cognition, community functioning, and negative symptoms (anergia). One-sided p value.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.013
90883418|NCT03049813|181629606|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019||||||Mixed-effects linear regression models. Covariates include: baseline year, problematic substance use, social cognition, community functioning, and negative symptoms (anergia). One sided p-value.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.019
90883419|NCT03049813|181629607|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.692||||||Mixed-effects linear regression models. Covariates include: baseline year, problematic substance use, social cognition, community functioning, and negative symptoms (anergia).|Regression, Linear|||For this analysis, only participants who completed both pre-test and posttest were included. If someone completed a pre-test SSPA, but not a posttest SSPA, they were not included in the analysis.||||0.692
90883420|NCT02144675|181629615|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Cox|||||||<.05
90883421|NCT01813019|181629616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.671|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.671
90883422|NCT01458171|181629663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Annualized Rate|0.0|||||ONE_SIDED|99.0||0.45||||||||0.450||
90883423|NCT01458171|181629663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Annualized Rate|0.0|||||ONE_SIDED|99.0||0.523||||||||0.523||
90883424|NCT01192152|181629684|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|BE was concluded if the 90% CIs for the test-to-reference ratios of geometric means were entirely contained within 0.800 to 1.250 for both Cmax and AUC0-inf of saxagliptin.|Ratio of geometric least squares means|1.045|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.025|1.065|||||Ratio = Treatment B/Treatment A. Geometric least squares means values presented in other statistical analysis entries.|If there was no difference between the bioavailabilities of saxagliptin from the FDC tablet versus saxagliptin from coadministration of a 5-mg saxagliptin tablet plus two 500-mg metformin XR tablets under fed conditions, then 24 subjects would have provided 99% power to conclude bioequivalence (BE) with respect to Cmax and AUC0-inf. If there was a 5% difference, then 24 subjects would have provided 94% and 99% power to conclude BE with respect to Cmax and AUC0-inf.||1.065|1.025|
90883425|NCT01192152|181629684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng*hr/mL)|103.05||||||95.0||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment B||||
90923032|NCT02962895|181718674|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.84||||0.4138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|3.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|Confidence intervals and p-values derived from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Week 24: VAY736 5 mg vs. Placebo / Physical Component Score||3.83|-1.59|0.4138
90923033|NCT02962895|181718674|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.0||||0.4663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.72|1.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|Confidence intervals and p-values derived from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Week 24: VAY736 50 mg vs. Placebo / Physical Component Score||1.71|-3.72|0.4663
90883426|NCT01192152|181629684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng*hr/mL)|98.61||||||95.0||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment A||||
90883427|NCT01192152|181629685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares means|1.035|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.009|1.062|||||Ratio = Treatment B/Treatment A. Geometric least squares means values are presented in other statistical analysis entries.|||1.062|1.009|
90883428|NCT01192152|181629685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng*hr/mL)|101.16||||||95.0||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment B||||
90923034|NCT02962895|181718674|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.84||||0.1694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|4.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|Confidence intervals and p-values derived from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Week 24: VAY736 300 mg vs. Placebo / Physical Component Score||4.47|-0.79|0.1694
90923035|NCT02962895|181718676|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.17||||0.2671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.56|3.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|Confidence intervals and p-values derived from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Week 24: VAY736 5 mg vs. Placebo||3.22|-11.56|0.2671
90923036|NCT02962895|181718676|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.49||||0.2248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.78|2.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|Confidence intervals and p-values derived from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Week 24: VAY736 50 mg vs. Placebo||2.79|-11.78|0.2248
90923037|NCT02962895|181718676|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-8.36||||0.0224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.51|-1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Confidence intervals and p-values derived from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Week 24: VAY736 300 mg vs. Placebo||-1.20|-15.51|0.0224
90923038|NCT02962895|181718678|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.27||||0.6457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.46|12.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Confidence intervals and p-values derived from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Week 24: VAY736 5 mg vs. Placebo||12.00|-7.46|0.6457
90923039|NCT02962895|181718678|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.26||||0.5132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.55|13.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|Confidence intervals and p-values derived from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Week 24: VAY736 50 mg vs. Placebo||13.06|-6.55|0.5132
90923040|NCT02962895|181718678|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.77||||95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.21|4.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|Confidence intervals and p-values derived from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Week 24: VAY736 300 mg vs. Placebo||4.68|-14.21|95
90923041|NCT02962895|181718679|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.11||||0.271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Confidence intervals and p-values derived from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Week 24: VAY736 5 mg vs. Placebo (Stimulated salivary flow rate)||0.30|-0.08|0.2710
90923042|NCT02962895|181718679|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.13||||0.1618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|Confidence intervals and p-values derived from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Week 24: VAY736 50 mg vs. Placebo (Stimulated salivary flow rate)||0.32|-0.05|0.1618
90923043|NCT02962895|181718679|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.2||||0.0374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|Confidence intervals and p-values derived from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Week 24: VAY736 300 mg vs. Placebo (Stimulated salivary flow rate)||0.38|0.01|0.0374
90963042|NCT02137512|181807420|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90963043|NCT02137512|181807420|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.29
90963044|NCT02137512|181807421|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90923044|NCT02962895|181718679|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0||||0.9559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|Confidence intervals and p-values derived from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Week 24: VAY736 5 mg vs. Placebo (Unstimulated salivary flow rate)||0.09|-0.09|0.9559
90923045|NCT02962895|181718679|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0||||0.929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|Confidence intervals and p-values derived from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Week 24: VAY736 50 mg vs. Placebo (Unstimulated salivary flow rate)||0.08|-0.09|0.9290
90923046|NCT02962895|181718679|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.01||||0.7276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|Confidence intervals and p-values derived from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Week 24: VAY736 300 mg vs. Placebo (Unstimulated salivary flow rate)||0.07|-0.10|0.7276
90923047|NCT04509674|181718685|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.2061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.06||"Null hypothesis: there is no difference regarding the risk of the endpoint in question between empagliflozin and placebo.~p\<=0.05 required for testing of subsequent key secondary endpoint hypotheses"|Regression, Cox||Empagliflozin vs. Placebo|The primary endpoint was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment, type-2 diabetes at baseline, geographical region, age at baseline, estimated glomerular filtration rate at baseline, left ventricular ejection fraction at baseline, persistent or permanent atrial fibrillation at baseline, prior myocardial infarction at baseline, peripheral artery disease at baseline and smoking at baseline as covariates.||1.06|0.76|0.2061
90923048|NCT04509674|181718686|OTHER|The statistical model used was a negative binomial model, including factors for treatment and type-2 diabetes at baseline, geographical region, age at baseline, estimated glomerular filtration rate at baseline, left ventricular ejection fraction at baseline, persistent or permanent atrial fibrillation at baseline, prior myocardial infarction at baseline, peripheral artery disease at baseline and smoking at baseline as covariates. The log(observation time) was used as an offset variable.|Adjusted event rate ratio|0.87||||0.2423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.1|||Negative binomial regression||Empagliflozin vs. Placebo|||1.10|0.68|0.2423
90923049|NCT04509674|181718687|OTHER|The statistical model used was a negative binomial model, including factors for treatment and type-2 diabetes at baseline, geographical region, age at baseline, estimated glomerular filtration rate at baseline, left ventricular ejection fraction at baseline, persistent or permanent atrial fibrillation at baseline, prior myocardial infarction at baseline, peripheral artery disease at baseline and smoking at baseline as covariates. The log(observation time) was used as an offset variable.|Adjusted event rate ratio|0.92||||0.2867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.07|||Negative binomial regression||Empagliflozin vs. Placebo|||1.07|0.78|0.2867
90923050|NCT04509674|181718688|OTHER|The statistical model used was a negative binomial model, including factors for treatment and type-2 diabetes at baseline, geographical region, age at baseline, estimated glomerular filtration rate at baseline, left ventricular ejection fraction at baseline, persistent or permanent atrial fibrillation at baseline, prior myocardial infarction at baseline, peripheral artery disease at baseline and smoking at baseline as covariates. The log(observation time) was used as an offset variable.|Adjusted event rate ratio|0.87||||0.0463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7654|0.9978|||Negative binomial regression||Empagliflozin vs. Placebo|||0.9978|0.7654|0.0463
90963045|NCT02137512|181807421|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.005
90963046|NCT02137512|181807421|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.99
90883429|NCT01192152|181629685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng*hr/mL)|97.72||||||95.0||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment A||||
90883430|NCT01192152|181629687|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|BE was concluded if the 90% CIs for the test-to-reference ratios of geometric means were entirely contained within 0.800 to 1.250 for both Cmax and AUC0-inf of saxagliptin.|Ratio of geometric least squares mean|0.999|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.948|1.053|||||Ratio = Treatment B/Treatment A. Geometric least squares means values are presented in other statistical analysis entries.|If there was no difference between the bioavailabilities of saxagliptin from the FDC tablet versus saxagliptin from coadministration of a 5-mg saxagliptin tablet plus two 500-mg metformin XR tablets under fed conditions, then 24 subjects would have provided 99% power to conclude bioequivalence (BE) with respect to Cmax and AUC0-inf. If there was a 5% difference, then 24 subjects would have provided 94% and 99% power to conclude BE with respect to Cmax and AUC0-inf.||1.053|0.948|
90883431|NCT01192152|181629687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng*hr/mL)|24.85||||||95.0||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment B||||
90883432|NCT01192152|181629687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng*hr/mL)|24.88||||||95.0||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment A||||
90883433|NCT01192152|181629704|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|BE was concluded if the 90% CIs for the test-to-reference ratios of geometric means were entirely contained within 0.800 to 1.250 for both Cmax and AUC0-inf of metformin.|ratio of geometric least squares means|0.894|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.833|0.959|||||Ratio = Treatment B/Treatment A. Geometric least squares means values are presented in other statistical analysis entries.|If there was no difference between the bioavailabilities of metformin from the FDC tablet versus metformin from coadministration of a 5-mg saxagliptin tablet plus two 500-mg metformin XR tablets under fed conditions, then 24 subjects would have provided 99% power to conclude BE with respect to Cmax and AUC0-inf. If there was a 5% difference, then 24 subjects would have provided at least 99% power to conclude BE with respect to Cmax and AUC0-inf.||0.959|0.833|
90883434|NCT01192152|181629704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng*hr/mL)|8713.4||||||95.0||||||||Geometric least squares mean for Treatment B||||
90883435|NCT01192152|181629704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng*hr/mL)|9746.3||||||95.0||||||||Geometric least squares mean for Treatment A||||
90883436|NCT01192152|181629705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric least squares means|0.906|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.848|0.968|||||Ratio = Treatment B/Treatment A. Geometric least squares means values are presented in other statistical analysis entries.|||0.968|0.848|
90883437|NCT01192152|181629705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares mean (ng*hr/mL)|8377.8||||||95.0||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment B||||
90883438|NCT01192152|181629705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares mean (ng*hr/mL)|9246.8||||||95.0||||||||Geometric least squares mean for Treatment A||||
90923051|NCT04509674|181718689|OTHER|The statistical model used was a negative binomial model, including factors for treatment and type-2 diabetes at baseline, geographical region, age at baseline, estimated glomerular filtration rate at baseline, left ventricular ejection fraction at baseline, persistent or permanent atrial fibrillation at baseline, prior myocardial infarction at baseline, peripheral artery disease at baseline and smoking at baseline as covariates. The log(observation time) was used as an offset variable.|Adjusted event rate ratio|1.06||||0.6311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.35|||Negative binomial regression||Empagliflozin vs. Placebo|||1.35|0.83|0.6311
90923052|NCT04509674|181718690|OTHER|The statistical analysis was performed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment, type-2 diabetes at baseline, geographical region, age at baseline, estimated glomerular filtration rate at baseline, left ventricular ejection fraction at baseline, persistent or permanent atrial fibrillation at baseline, prior myocardial infarction at baseline, peripheral artery disease at baseline and smoking at baseline as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.8124||95.0|0.81|1.31|||Regression, Cox||Empagliflozin vs. Placebo|||1.31|0.81|0.8124
90923053|NCT03896789|181718789|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|3.5||The primary outcome was analyzed using a multi-level mixed-effects model, which included a random effect for site (to account for potential provider clustering) and fixed effects for covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Included covariates were age, gender, head maximum AIS, non-head maximum AIS, nurse: patient ratio and baseline TBI guideline adherence scores.||"Null hypothesis: Assuming no difference between usual care (control) and PEGASUS (intervention).~We used 2011-2012 results from prior pilot work in Argentina (58.6% TBI guideline adherence) to determine a sample size of 432 eligible patients (216 per arm) for the planned parallel cluster RCT, which would have 80% power to detect a 18.7% higher ICU TBI guideline adherence rate with programme implementation, with a two-sided alpha of 5%, and an intraclass coefficient of 0.05."||3.5|-3.3|.95
90923054|NCT03896789|181718795|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.9||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|13.8||The outcome was analyzed using a multi-level mixed-effects model, which included a random effect for site (to account for potential provider clustering) and fixed effects for covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Included covariates were age, gender, head maximum AIS, non-head maximum AIS, nurse: patient ratio and baseline TBI guideline adherence scores.||||13.8|1.9|.01
90923055|NCT01606215|181718797|OTHER|||||||0.84|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4 data||||0.84
90923056|NCT01606215|181718797|OTHER|||||||0.62|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12 data||||0.62
90923057|NCT01606215|181718797|OTHER|||||||0.61|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24 data||||0.61
90923058|NCT01606215|181718800|OTHER|||||||0.77|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4||||0.77
90963047|NCT02137512|181807422|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.006
90963048|NCT02137512|181807422|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90963049|NCT02137512|181807422|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.09
90963050|NCT02137512|181807423|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.002
90963051|NCT02137512|181807423|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90923059|NCT01606215|181718800|OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12||||0.68
90923060|NCT01606215|181718800|OTHER|Week 24||||||0.48|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24||||0.48
90923061|NCT05851573|181718803|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 9||||||< .05
90923062|NCT05851573|181718804|OTHER||||||=|0.775|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 9||||||= .775
90923063|NCT05851573|181718805|OTHER||||||=|0.444|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 10||||||= .444
90923064|NCT05851573|181718806|OTHER|||||||0.959|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 9||||||.959
90923065|NCT05851573|181718807|OTHER|||||||0.068|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 9||||||.068
90923066|NCT05851573|181718808|OTHER||||||=|0.119|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 10||||||= .119
90923067|NCT05851573|181718809|OTHER||||||=|0.258|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 10||||||= .258
90923068|NCT05851573|181718810|OTHER||||||=|0.593|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 10||||||= .593
90923069|NCT04473222|181718844|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|-0.15||||0.026|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||The logit represents the difference in log odds per 1-week change in time for the intervention group relative to enhanced usual care.|||||.026
90923070|NCT04473222|181718845|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|-0.2||||0.032|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||The logit represents the difference in log odds per 1-week change in time for the intervention group relative to enhanced usual care.|||||0.032
90963052|NCT02137512|181807423|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90963053|NCT02137512|181807424|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90923071|NCT04473222|181718846|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.009||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||The estimate represents the differential change in slope per week for the intervention group relative to enhanced usual care.|||||.010
90923072|NCT04473222|181718847|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.009|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.009||0.161|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||The estimate represents the differential change in slope per week for the intervention group relative to enhanced usual care.|||||0.161
90923073|NCT04473222|181718848|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||The estimate represents the differential change in slope per week for the intervention group relative to enhanced usual care.|||||0.006
90923074|NCT04473222|181718849|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.045|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||The estimate represents the differential change in slope per week for the intervention group relative to enhanced usual care.|||||0.045
90923075|NCT04473222|181718850|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.685|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||The estimate represents the differential change in slope per week for the intervention group relative to enhanced usual care.|||||0.685
90923076|NCT04473222|181718851|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.22||0.734|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||The estimate represents the differential change in slope per week for the intervention group relative to enhanced usual care.|||||0.734
90923077|NCT04473222|181718852|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.019|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||The estimate represents the differential change in slope per week for the intervention group relative to enhanced usual care.|||||0.019
90923078|NCT04473222|181718853|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.776|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||The estimate represents the differential change in slope per week for the intervention group relative to enhanced usual care.|||||0.776
90923079|NCT01098812|181718858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|43.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|75.0|<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|90.0|25.0|||Primary study endpoint; therefore, no adjustment for multiple comparisons. The planned alpha level for testing was 0.025.|t-test, 1 sided|||Toric IOL results for mean percent reduction in cyl compared to control results at 6 months. Null hypothesis = mean reduction for toric eyes is \<= to that of control eyes; alternate hypothesis = mean reduction for toric eyes is \> the control. There is 80% power to detect \>=31% difference in mean percent reduction in cylinder (postoperative refractive cylinder minus preoperative keratometric cylinder)/(target refractive cylinder minus preoperative keratometric cylinder) between IOL groups.|||25|<0.0001
90923080|NCT01098812|181718859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.15||0.0009|ONE_SIDED|90.0||-0.03||P-value compared to alpha level adjusted for multiplicity of 0.0125.|t-test, 1 sided|||Used LogMAR values for visual acuity; The null hypothesis is that the mean UCDVA for toric eyes is worse than or equal to that for control eyes; the alternate hypothesis is that the mean UCDVA for toric eyes is better than that for control eyes. There is 80% power to detect \>=0.06 LogMAR difference in mean UCDVA between IOL groups.||-0.03||0.0009
90923081|NCT02319759|181718860|SUPERIORITY||Percent difference|39.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.3|54.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||54.1|25.3|<0.001
90923082|NCT02319759|181718861|SUPERIORITY||Percentage (%) Difference|66.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.8|78.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||78.4|53.8|<0.001
90923083|NCT02319759|181718862|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.471|-0.148|||MMRM|MMRM stands for Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures||||-0.148|-0.471|<0.001
90923084|NCT01389856|181718904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
90923085|NCT01389856|181718905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3407|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.3407
90923086|NCT01389856|181718906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2399|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.2399
90923087|NCT01389856|181718908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
90923088|NCT01389856|181718909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2235|TWO_SIDED||||||Non-parametric ANCOVA|||||||0.2235
90923089|NCT01389856|181718910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1468|TWO_SIDED||||||Non-parametric ANCOVA|||||||0.1468
90923090|NCT01389856|181718911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0789|TWO_SIDED||||||Non-parametric ANCOVA|||||||0.0789
90923091|NCT01389856|181718912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3723|TWO_SIDED||||||Non-parametric ANCOVA|||||||0.3723
90923092|NCT01389856|181718913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0569|TWO_SIDED||||||Non-parametric ANCOVA|||||||0.0569
90963054|NCT02137512|181807424|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90923093|NCT01389856|181718914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1015|TWO_SIDED||||||Non-parametric ANCOVA|||||||0.1015
90923094|NCT01389856|181718915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0824|TWO_SIDED||||||Non-parametric ANCOVA|||||||0.0824
90923095|NCT01389856|181718916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3863|TWO_SIDED||||||Non-parametric ANCOVA|||||||0.3863
90923096|NCT01389856|181718917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3936|TWO_SIDED||||||Non-parametric ANCOVA|||||||0.3936
90923097|NCT01389856|181718918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2436|TWO_SIDED||||||Non-parametric ANCOVA|||||||0.2436
90923098|NCT01389856|181718919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1756|TWO_SIDED||||||Non-parametric ANCOVA|||||||0.1756
90923099|NCT01389856|181718920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1155|TWO_SIDED||||||Non-parametric ANCOVA|||||||0.1155
90923100|NCT01389856|181718921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.14|TWO_SIDED||||||Non-parametric ANCOVA|||||||0.1400
90923101|NCT03848065|181719004|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|17.8||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.0|31.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen method||Difference = % V114-SC minus % V114-IM|Injection Site Erythema (Redness)||31.4|9.0|0.004
90923102|NCT03848065|181719004|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|4.7||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|15.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen method||Difference = % V114-SC minus % PCV13-SC|Injection Site Erythema (Redness)||15.5|-3.7|0.150
90923103|NCT03848065|181719004|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-13.1||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.6|0.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen method||Difference = % V114-IM minus % PCV13-SC|Injection Site Erythema (Redness)||0.2|-27.6|0.054
90923104|NCT03848065|181719004|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|13.1||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|28.8|||Miettinen & Nurminen method||Difference = % V114-SC minus % V114-IM|Injection Site Induration (Hard Lump)||28.8|-2.3|0.091
90923105|NCT03848065|181719004|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-9.1||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.2|-0.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen method||Difference = % V114-SC minus % PCV13-SC|Injection Site Induration (Hard Lump)||-0.4|-21.2|0.044
90963055|NCT02137512|181807424|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.26
90923106|NCT03848065|181719004|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-22.2||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.4|-12.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen method||Difference = % V114-IM minus % PCV13-SC|Injection Site Induration (Hard Lump)||-12.5|-36.4|0.001
90923107|NCT03848065|181719004|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|9.7||||0.333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|28.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen method||Difference = % V114-SC minus % V114-IM|Injection Site Pain||28.9|-10.0|0.333
90923108|NCT03848065|181719004|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-3.2||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.4|17.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen method||Difference = % V114-SC minus % PCV13-SC|Injection Site Pain||17.2|-23.4|0.760
90923109|NCT03848065|181719004|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-13.0||||0.205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.2|7.1|||Miettinen & Nurminen method||Difference = % V114-IM minus % PCV13-SC|Injection Site Pain||7.1|-32.2|0.205
90923110|NCT03848065|181719004|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|13.0||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|29.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen method||Difference = % V114-SC minus % V114-IM|Injection Site Swelling||29.7|-3.9|0.128
90923111|NCT03848065|181719004|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-2.0||||0.779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|13.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen method||Difference = % V114-SC minus % PCV13-SC|Injection Site Swelling||13.0|-17.0|0.779
90923112|NCT03848065|181719004|OTHER||Difference in Parentages|-15.0||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.5|1.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen method||Difference = % V114-IM minus % PCV13-SC|Injection Site Swelling||1.7|-31.5|0.076
90923113|NCT03848065|181719005|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-10.6||||0.282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.1|8.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen method||Difference = % V114-SC minus % V114-IM|Decreased Appetite (Appetite Loss)||8.7|-29.1|0.282
90923114|NCT03848065|181719005|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-9.9||||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.7|9.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen method||Difference= % V114-SC minus % PCV13-SC|Decreased Appetite (Appetite Loss)||9.5|-28.7|0.317
90923115|NCT03848065|181719005|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.7||||0.948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.2|20.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen method||Difference= % V114-IM minus % PCV13-SC|Decreased Appetite (Appetite Loss)||20.4|-19.2|0.948
90923116|NCT03848065|181719005|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|10.5||||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|29.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen method||Difference = % V114-SC minus % V114-IM|Somnolence (Drowsiness)||29.6|-9.4|0.303
90923117|NCT03848065|181719005|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-4.0||||0.681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.6|15.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen method||Difference= % V114-SC minus % PCV13-SC|Somnolence (Drowsiness)||15.0|-22.6|0.681
90923118|NCT03848065|181719005|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-14.4||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.2|5.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen method||Difference= % V114-IM minus % PCV13-SC|Somnolence (Drowsiness)||5.4|-33.2|0.153
90923119|NCT03848065|181719005|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|10.7||||0.237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|28.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen method||Difference = % V114-SC minus % V114-IM|Irritability||28.2|-7.2|0.237
90923120|NCT03848065|181719005|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|7.4||||0.406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|25.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen method||Difference= % V114-SC minus % PCV13-SC|Irritability||25.0|-10.3|0.406
90923121|NCT03848065|181719005|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-3.3||||0.729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.8|15.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen method||Difference= % V114-IM minus % PCV13-SC|Irritability||15.5|-21.8|0.729
90923122|NCT03848065|181719005|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|4.6||||0.385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|17.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen method||Difference = % V114-SC minus % V114-IM|Urticaria (Hives/Welts)||17.5|-7.1|0.385
90923123|NCT03848065|181719005|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|2.1||||0.719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|15.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen method||Difference= % V114-SC minus % PCV13-SC|Urticaria (Hives/Welts)||15.4|-11.0|0.719
90923124|NCT03848065|181719005|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-2.5||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|8.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen method||Difference= % V114-IM minus % PCV13-SC|Urticaria (Hives/Welts)||8.9|-14.9|0.610
90923125|NCT03848065|181719007|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|8.5|||||Difference = % V114-SC minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 1||8.5|-8.1|
90923126|NCT03848065|181719007|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|8.5|||||Difference=% V114-IM minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 1||8.5|-7.9|
90923127|NCT03848065|181719007|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|7.9|||||Difference=% V114-SC minus % V114-IM. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 1||7.9|-8.1|
90963056|NCT02137512|181807425|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04
90883439|NCT01192152|181629707|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|BE was concluded if the 90% CIs for the test-to-reference ratios of geometric means were entirely contained within 0.800 to 1.250 for both Cmax and AUC0-inf of metformin.|ratio of geometric least squares means|0.917|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.859|0.98|||||Ratio = Treatment B/Treatment A. Geometric least squares means values are presented in other statistical analysis entries.|If there was no difference between the bioavailabilities of metformin from the FDC tablet versus metformin from coadministration of a 5-mg saxagliptin tablet plus two 500-mg metformin XR tablets under fed conditions, then 24 subjects would have provided 99% power to conclude BE with respect to Cmax and AUC0-inf. If there was a 5% difference, then 24 subjects would have provided at least 99% power to conclude BE with respect to Cmax and AUC0-inf.||0.980|0.859|
90963057|NCT02137512|181807425|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90883440|NCT01192152|181629707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng*hr/mL)|1055.9||||||95.0||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment B||||
90883441|NCT01192152|181629707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng*hr/mL)|1151.2||||||95.0||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment A||||
90883442|NCT03022617|181629716|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.89||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.05
90883443|NCT01339390|181629726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3941|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5759||0.4937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7347|1.5229||calculated after fitting the data to a repeated measures mixed model to control for repeated subject and random site and group effects|t-test, 2 sided|accounted for repeated measures and random effects|The difference is expressed as the Move (arm 2) group minus the Move Out (arm 1) group|This is the analysis at 12 months, comparing the change in weight from 12 months to baseline in our Move Out (arm 1) vs Move (arm 2) groups||1.5229|-.7347|0.4937
90883444|NCT01339390|181629726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5893|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5759||0.3062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5395|1.7181||calculated after fitting the data to a repeated measures mixed model to control for repeated subject and random site and group effects|t-test, 2 sided|accounted for repeated measures and random effects|The difference is expressed as the Move (arm 2) group minus the Move Out (arm 1) group|This is the analysis at 24 months, comparing the change in weight from 24 months to baseline in our Move Out (arm 1) vs Move (arm 2) groups||1.7181|-0.5395|0.3062
90883445|NCT00378703|181629727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Progression-free survival was compared between Arm B (bevacizumab and temsirolimus) and Arm A (bevacizumab alone) using stratified log rank test, stratified on prior cytokine or vaccine therapy and risk category (low/intermediate/high risk)||||0.89
90883446|NCT00378703|181629727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Progression-free survival was compared between Arm C (bevacizumab and sorafenib) and Arm A (bevacizumab alone) using stratified log rank test, stratified on prior cytokine or vaccine therapy and risk category (low/intermediate/high risk).||||0.54
90883447|NCT00378703|181629727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Progression-free survival was compared between Arm D (sorafenib and temsirolimus) and Arm A (bevacizumab alone) using stratified log rank test, stratified on prior cytokine or vaccine therapy and risk category (low/intermediate/high risk).||||0.68
90883448|NCT00378703|181629730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0076|TWO_SIDED|||||Each combination arm was compared with the bevacizumab alone arm. Since there were 3 pairwise comparisons, a Bonferroni--adjusted p-value of 0.017 was considered to be statistically significant.|Fisher Exact|||The response rate of each combination arm was compared to that of the bevacizumab alone arm.||||0.0076
90883449|NCT00378703|181629730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|||||Each combination arm was compared with the bevacizumab alone arm. Since there were 3 pairwise comparisons, a Bonferroni--adjusted p-value of 0.017 was considered to be statistically significant.|Fisher Exact|||The response rate of each combination arm was compared to that of the bevacizumab alone arm.||||0.0085
90883450|NCT00378703|181629730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3006|TWO_SIDED|||||Each combination arm was compared with the bevacizumab alone arm. Since there were 3 pairwise comparisons, a Bonferroni--adjusted p-value of 0.017 was considered to be statistically significant.|Fisher Exact|||The response rate of each combination arm was compared to that of the bevacizumab alone arm.||||0.3006
90883451|NCT03181542|181629758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.34
90883452|NCT03181542|181629759|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||||||0.40
90883453|NCT03181542|181629760|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||||||0.90
90883454|NCT00247728|181629767|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Sample size is based on the paper 'Two-stage selection and testing design for comparative clinical trials', Thall, PF, Simon, R and Ellenberg, SS. Biometrika (1988),75,(2),303-310.||||||0.072||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.072
90883455|NCT00247728|181629767|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Sample size is based on the paper 'Two-stage selection and testing design for comparative clinical trials', Thall, PF, Simon, R and Ellenberg, SS. Biometrika (1988),75,(2),303-310.||||||0.298||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.298
90883456|NCT00247728|181629768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59||||0.087||95.0|||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.087
90883457|NCT00247728|181629768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.653||95.0|||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.653
90883458|NCT01462357|181629770|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority with respect to seroconversion was shown if, one month after the last dose, for both anti-HPV-16 and anti-HPV-18 antibodies, the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference (Gardasil 2 dose Group minus Cervarix 2 dose Group) was below 5%.|Difference in SCR|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|1.15||||||Immune response to anti-HPV-16 in terms of seroconversion rates (SCR): To evaluate sequentially if the immunogenicity (as determined by ELISA) of Cervarix vaccine administered according to a 2-dose schedule at 0, 6 months is non-inferior to that of Gardasil vaccine administered according to a 2-dose schedule at 0, 6 months, 1 month after the last dose (Month 7), in initially seronegative subjects.||1.15|-1.16|
90923128|NCT03848065|181719007|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|8.5|||||Difference = % V114- SC minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 3||8.5|-8.1|
90923129|NCT03848065|181719007|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|6.3|||||Difference=% V114-IM minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 3||6.3|-11.7|
90923130|NCT03848065|181719007|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|11.6|||||Difference=% V114-SC minus % V114-IM. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 3||11.6|-6.0|
90923131|NCT03848065|181719007|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|8.5|||||Difference=% V114-SC minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 4||8.5|-8.1|
90923132|NCT03848065|181719007|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|8.5|||||Difference=% V114-IM minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 4||8.5|-7.9|
90923133|NCT03848065|181719007|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|7.9|||||Difference=% V114-SC minus % V114-IM. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 4||7.9|-8.1|
90923134|NCT03848065|181719007|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|8.5|||||Difference = % V114-SC minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 5||8.5|-8.1|
90923135|NCT03848065|181719007|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|8.5|||||Difference=% V114-IM minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 5||8.5|-7.9|
90923136|NCT03848065|181719007|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|7.9|||||Difference=% V114-SC minus % V114-IM. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 5||7.9|-8.1|
90923137|NCT03848065|181719007|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|6.3|||||Difference = % V114-SC minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 6A||6.3|-11.9|
90923138|NCT03848065|181719007|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|8.5|||||Difference=% V114-IM minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 6A||8.5|-7.9|
90923139|NCT03848065|181719007|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|5.8|||||Difference=% V114-SC minus % V114-IM. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 6A||5.8|-11.9|
90923140|NCT03848065|181719007|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.2|-0.2|||||Difference = % V114-SC minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 6B||-0.2|-21.2|
90923141|NCT03848065|181719007|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.9|2.1|||||Difference=% V114-IM minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 6B||2.1|-17.9|
90923142|NCT03848065|181719007|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.6|10.2|||||Difference=% V114 SC minus % V114 IM. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 6B||10.2|-15.6|
90923143|NCT03848065|181719007|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|8.5|||||Difference = % V114 SC minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 7F||8.5|-8.1|
90923144|NCT03848065|181719007|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|6.3|||||Difference=% V114-IM minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 7F||6.3|-11.7|
90923145|NCT03848065|181719007|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|11.6|||||Difference=% V114-SC minus % V114-IM. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 7F||11.6|-6.0|
90923146|NCT03848065|181719007|OTHER||Differences in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|8.5|||||Difference = % V114-SC minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 9V||8.5|-8.1|
90923147|NCT03848065|181719007|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|8.5|||||Difference=% V114-IM minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 9V||8.5|-7.9|
90923148|NCT03848065|181719007|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|7.9|||||Difference=% V114-SC minus % V114-IM. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 9V||7.9|-8.1|
90923149|NCT03848065|181719007|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|6.3|||||Difference = % V114-SC minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 14||6.3|-11.9|
90923150|NCT03848065|181719007|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|8.5|||||Difference=% V114-IM minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 14||8.5|-7.9|
90923151|NCT03848065|181719007|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|5.8|||||Difference=% V114-SC minus % V114-IM. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 14||5.8|-11.9|
90923152|NCT03848065|181719007|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|8.5|||||Difference = % V114-SC minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 18C||8.5|-8.1|
90923153|NCT03848065|181719007|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|8.5|||||Difference=% V114-IM minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 18C||8.5|-7.9|
90963058|NCT02137512|181807425|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90923154|NCT03848065|181719007|OTHER||Differences in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|7.9|||||Difference=% V114-SC minus % V114-IM. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 18C||7.9|-8.1|
90923155|NCT03848065|181719007|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|8.5|||||Difference=% V114-SC minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 19A||8.5|-8.1|
90923156|NCT03848065|181719007|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|8.5|||||Difference=% V114-IM minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 19A||8.5|-7.9|
90923157|NCT03848065|181719007|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|7.9|||||Difference=% V114-SC minus % V114-IM. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 19A||7.9|-8.1|
90923158|NCT03848065|181719007|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|8.5|||||Difference=% V114-SC minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 19F||8.5|-8.1|
90923159|NCT03848065|181719007|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|8.5|||||Difference=% V114-IM minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 19F||8.5|-7.9|
90923160|NCT03848065|181719007|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|7.9|||||Difference=% V114-SC minus % V114-IM. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 19F||7.9|-8.1|
90923161|NCT03848065|181719007|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|10.4|||||Difference=% V114-SC minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 23F||10.4|-9.8|
90963059|NCT02137512|181807426|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.006
90963060|NCT02137512|181807426|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90883459|NCT01462357|181629770|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority with respect to seroconversion was shown if, one month after the last dose, for both anti-HPV-16 and anti-HPV-18 antibodies, the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference (Gardasil 2 dose Group minus Cervarix 2 dose Group) was below 5%.|Difference in SCR|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|1.14||||||Immune response to anti-HPV-18 in terms of SCR: To evaluate sequentially if the immunogenicity (as determined by ELISA) of Cervarix vaccine administered according to a 2-dose schedule at 0, 6 months is non-inferior to that of Gardasil vaccine administered according to a 2-dose schedule at 0, 6 months, 1 month after the last dose (Month 7), in initially seronegative subjects.||1.14|-1.15|
90923162|NCT03848065|181719007|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|12.4|||||Difference=% V114-IM minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 23F||12.4|-5.7|
90923163|NCT03848065|181719007|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|5.8|||||Difference=% V114-SC minus % V114-IM. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 23F||5.8|-11.9|
90923164|NCT03848065|181719007|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|90.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|77.2|96.4|||||Difference=% V114-SC minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 22F||96.4|77.2|
90923165|NCT03848065|181719007|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|95.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|84.1|98.7|||||Difference=% V114-IM minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 22F||98.7|84.1|
90923166|NCT03848065|181719007|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|3.6|||||Difference=% V114-SC minus % V114-IM. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 22F||3.6|-15.2|
90883460|NCT01462357|181629771|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority with respect to GMT was shown if, one month after the last dose, for both anti-HPV-16 and anti-HPV-18 antibodies, the upper limit of the 95% CI for the GMT ratio (Gardasil 2 dose Group divided by Cervarix 2 dose Group) was below 2.|GMT ratio|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.69|||ANOVA|||Immune response to anti-HPV-16 in terms of Geometric Mean Titers (GMT): To evaluate sequentially if the immunogenicity (as determined by ELISA) of Cervarix vaccine administered according to a 2-dose schedule at 0, 6 months is non-inferior to that of Gardasil vaccine administered according to a 2-dose schedule at 0, 6 months, 1 month after the last dose (Month 7), in initially seronegative subjects.||0.69|0.54|
90883461|NCT01462357|181629771|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority with respect to GMT was shown if, one month after the last dose, for both anti-HPV-16 and anti-HPV-18 antibodies, the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the GMT ratio (Gardasil 2 dose Group divided by Cervarix 2 dose Group) was below 2.|GMT ratio|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.26|||ANOVA|||Immune response to anti-HPV-18 in terms of GMT: To evaluate sequentially if the immunogenicity (as determined by ELISA) of Cervarix vaccine administered according to a 2-dose schedule at 0, 6 months is non-inferior to that of Gardasil vaccine administered according to a 2-dose schedule at 0, 6 months, 1 month after the last dose (Month 7), in initially seronegative subjects.||0.26|0.20|
90923167|NCT03848065|181719007|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|81.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.9|90.5|||||Difference = % V114-SC minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 33F||90.5|67.9|
90923168|NCT03848065|181719007|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|88.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|76.4|95.2|||||Difference=% V114-IM minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 33F||95.2|76.4|
90923169|NCT03848065|181719007|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.7|8.2|||||Difference=% V114-SC minus % V114-IM. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 33F||8.2|-22.7|
90923170|NCT03848065|181719008|OTHER||Geometric Mean Concentration (GMC) Ratio|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.0|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-SC/GMC PCV13-SC. Based on an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 1||1.00|0.58|
90923171|NCT03848065|181719008|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.13|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-IM/GMC PCV13-SC. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|||1.13|0.65|
90923172|NCT03848065|181719008|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.16|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-SC/GMC V114-IM. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|||1.16|0.68|
90923173|NCT03848065|181719008|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.76|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-SC/GMC PCV13-SC. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 3||1.76|0.96|
90923174|NCT03848065|181719008|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.01|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-IM/GMC PCV13-SC. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 3||2.01|1.10|
90923175|NCT03848065|181719008|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.18|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-SC/GMC V114 IM. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 3||1.18|0.65|
90923176|NCT03848065|181719008|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.9|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-SC/GMC PCV13-SC. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 4||0.90|0.58|
90963061|NCT02137512|181807426|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90963062|NCT02137512|181807427|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
90963063|NCT02137512|181807427|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90963064|NCT02137512|181807427|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.53
90963065|NCT02137512|181807428|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
90963066|NCT02137512|181807428|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90963067|NCT02137512|181807428|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90963068|NCT02137512|181807429|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90963069|NCT02137512|181807429|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90923177|NCT03848065|181719008|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.0|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-IM/GMC PCV13-SC. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 4||1.00|0.65|
90923178|NCT03848065|181719008|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.11|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-SC/GMC V114 IM. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 4||1.11|0.72|
90923179|NCT03848065|181719008|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.16|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-SC/GMC PCV13-SC. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 5||1.16|0.60|
90923180|NCT03848065|181719008|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.31|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-IM/GMC PCV13-SC. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 5||1.31|0.69|
90923181|NCT03848065|181719008|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.21|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-SC/GMC V114 IM. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 5||1.21|0.64|
90923182|NCT03848065|181719008|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.84|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-SC/GMC PCV13-SC. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 6A||0.84|0.47|
90923183|NCT03848065|181719008|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.93|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-IM/GMC PCV13-SC. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 6A||0.93|0.52|
90923184|NCT03848065|181719008|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.21|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-SC/GMC V114 IM. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 6A||1.21|0.68|
90963070|NCT02137512|181807429|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90963071|NCT02137512|181807430|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90923185|NCT03848065|181719008|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.79|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-SC/GMC PCV13-SC. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 6B||0.79|0.36|
90923186|NCT03848065|181719008|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.9|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-IM/GMC PCV13-SC. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 6B||0.90|0.41|
90923187|NCT03848065|181719008|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.3|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-SC/GMC V114 IM. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 6B||1.30|0.59|
90923188|NCT03848065|181719008|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.81|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-SC/GMC PCV13-SC. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 7F||0.81|0.46|
90923189|NCT03848065|181719008|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.9|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-IM/GMC PCV13-SC. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 7F||0.90|0.52|
90923190|NCT03848065|181719008|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.17|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-SC/GMC V114 IM. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 7F||1.17|0.67|
90923191|NCT03848065|181719008|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.99|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-SC/GMC PCV13-SC. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 9V||0.99|0.57|
90923192|NCT03848065|181719008|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.13|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-IM/GMC PCV13-SC. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 9V||1.13|0.65|
90923193|NCT03848065|181719008|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.15|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-SC/GMC V114 IM. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 9V||1.15|0.67|
90923194|NCT03848065|181719008|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.19|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-SC/GMC PCV13-SC. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 14||1.19|0.60|
90923195|NCT03848065|181719008|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.43|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-IM/GMC PCV13-SC. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 14||1.43|0.72|
90923196|NCT03848065|181719008|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.16|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-SC/GMC V114 IM. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 14||1.16|0.59|
90923197|NCT03848065|181719008|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.9|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-SC/GMC PCV13-SC. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 18C||0.90|0.53|
90963072|NCT02137512|181807430|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90963073|NCT02137512|181807430|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.22
90963074|NCT02137512|181807431|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
90963075|NCT02137512|181807431|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90923198|NCT03848065|181719008|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.92|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-IM/GMC PCV13-SC. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 18C||0.92|0.54|
90923199|NCT03848065|181719008|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.27|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-SC/GMC V114 IM. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 18C||1.27|0.76|
90963076|NCT02137512|181807431|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90923200|NCT03848065|181719008|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.15|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-SC/GMC PCV13-SC. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 19A||1.15|0.66|
90923201|NCT03848065|181719008|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.96|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-IM/GMC PCV13-SC. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 19A||0.96|0.55|
90923202|NCT03848065|181719008|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.57|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-SC/GMC V114 IM. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 19A||1.57|0.90|
90923203|NCT03848065|181719008|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.89|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-SC/GMC PCV13-SC. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 19F||0.89|0.57|
90923204|NCT03848065|181719008|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.95|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-IM/GMC PCV13-SC. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 19F||0.95|0.62|
90923205|NCT03848065|181719008|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.15|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-SC/GMC V114 IM. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 19F||1.15|0.75|
90923206|NCT03848065|181719008|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.09|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-SC/GMC PCV13-SC. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 23F||1.09|0.57|
90963077|NCT02137512|181807432|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90923207|NCT03848065|181719008|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.09|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-IM/GMC PCV13-SC. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 23F||1.09|0.58|
90923208|NCT03848065|181719008|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.36|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-SC/GMC V114 IM. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 23F||1.36|0.73|
90923209|NCT03848065|181719008|OTHER||GMC Ratio|134.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|88.91|204.62|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-SC/GMC PCV13-SC. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 22F||204.62|88.91|
90923210|NCT03848065|181719008|OTHER||GMC Ratio|204.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|135.18|309.69|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-IM/GMC PCV13-SC. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 22F||309.69|135.18|
90923211|NCT03848065|181719008|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.99|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-SC/GMC V114 IM. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 22F||0.99|0.44|
90923212|NCT03848065|181719008|OTHER||GMC Ratio|25.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.34|41.13|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-SC/GMC PCV13-SC. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 33F||41.13|15.34|
90923213|NCT03848065|181719008|OTHER||GMC Ratio|34.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.93|55.83|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-IM/GMC PCV13-SC. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 33F||55.83|20.93|
90923214|NCT03848065|181719008|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.19|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-SC/GMC V114 IM. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 33F||1.19|0.45|
90923215|NCT03848065|181719009|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|13.9|||||Difference = % V114-SC minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Diphtheria Toxin||13.9|-7.7|
90923216|NCT03848065|181719009|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|12.0|||||Difference = % V114-IM minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Diphtheria Toxin||12.0|-10.8|
90923217|NCT03848065|181719009|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|13.0|||||Difference = % V114-SC minus % V114-IM. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Diphtheria Toxin||13.0|-8.0|
90923218|NCT03848065|181719009|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|12.4|||||Difference = % V114 SC minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Tetanus Toxin||12.4|-5.8|
90963078|NCT02137512|181807432|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
90963079|NCT02137512|181807432|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.26
90963080|NCT02137512|181807433|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90963081|NCT02137512|181807433|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90963082|NCT02137512|181807433|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
90963083|NCT02137512|181807434|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
90963084|NCT02137512|181807434|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
90963085|NCT02137512|181807434|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.52
90923219|NCT03848065|181719009|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|12.4|||||Difference = % V114-IM minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Tetanus Toxin||12.4|-5.7|
90923220|NCT03848065|181719009|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|7.9|||||Difference = % V114-SC minus % V114-IM. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Tetanus Toxin||7.9|-8.1|
90923221|NCT03848065|181719009|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|8.5|||||Difference = % V114-SC minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Pertussis Toxin||8.5|-8.1|
90963086|NCT02137512|181807435|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
90963087|NCT02137512|181807435|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90963088|NCT02137512|181807435|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.71
90963089|NCT02137512|181807436|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90883462|NCT01462357|181629772|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was shown if the lower limit of the 95% CI for the ratio of GMTs (Cervarix 2 dose Group divided by Gardasil 2 dose Group) was above 1 for anti-HPV-18 antibodies.|GMT ratio|4.52||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.97|5.13|||ANOVA|||Anti-HPV-18 immune response: To evaluate sequentially if the immunogenicity (as determined by ELISA) of Cervarix vaccine administered according to a 2-dose schedule at 0, 6 months is superior to that of Gardasil vaccine administered according to a 2-dose schedule at 0, 6 months, in 9-14 year-old females, 1 month after the last dose (Month 7) regardless of serostatus.||5.13|3.97|0.0001
90883463|NCT01462357|181629772|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was shown if the lower limit of the 95% CI for the ratio of GMTs (Cervarix 2 dose Group divided by Gardasil 2 dose Group) was above 1 for anti-HPV-16 antibodies.|GMT ratio|1.69||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.49|1.91|||ANOVA|||Anti-HPV-16 immune response: To evaluate sequentially if the immunogenicity (as determined by ELISA) of Cervarix vaccine administered according to a 2-dose schedule at 0, 6 months is superior to that of Gardasil vaccine administered according to a 2-dose schedule at 0, 6 months, in 9-14 year-old females, 1 month after the last dose (Month 7) regardless of serostatus.||1.91|1.49|0.0001
90883464|NCT04292730|181629803|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.65||||0.0174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.092|2.483||P-value was calculated using proportional odds model with treatment as the independent variable.|Proportional odds model|||Primary analysis||2.483|1.092|0.0174
90883465|NCT04292730|181629803|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.1826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.952||P-value was calculated using proportional odds model with treatment as the independent variable.|Proportional odds model|||Primary analysis||1.952|0.880|0.1826
90883466|NCT04292730|181629803|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.65||||0.0168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.095|2.497||P-value was calculated using proportional odds model with treatment as the independent variable and baseline clinical status as a nominal covariate.|Proportional odds model|||Secondary analysis||2.497|1.095|0.0168
90883467|NCT04292730|181629803|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.2186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.862|1.917||P-value was calculated using proportional odds model with treatment as the independent variable and baseline clinical status as a nominal covariate.|Proportional odds model|||Secondary analysis||1.917|0.862|0.2186
90883468|NCT04292730|181629804|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Percentages|4.8||||0.3633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|14.7||P-value was calculated from the Fisher exact test to compare each RDV group and the SOC group.|Fisher Exact|||||14.7|-5.2|0.3633
90883469|NCT04292730|181629804|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Percentages|12.0||||0.0201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|21.8||P-value was calculated from the Fisher exact test to compare each RDV group and the SOC group.|Fisher Exact|||||21.8|1.6|0.0201
90883470|NCT00556842|181629835|EQUIVALENCE|Please refer to the protocol paper for details of the power calculation.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.37|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|-9.18|-3.56||||||Using a multi-level model, the effect of THA versus HA on function (WOMAC) was estimated. We chose an alpha level of 0.01. The results below are the mean difference in score for WOMAC total at 24 months.||-3.56|-9.18|
90883471|NCT00556842|181629835|EQUIVALENCE|Please refer to the protocol paper for details of the power calculation.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|-1.42|-0.44||||||Using a multi-level model, the effect of THA versus HA on function (WOMAC) was estimated. We chose an alpha level of 0.01. The results below are the mean difference in score for WOMAC pain at 24 months.||-0.44|-1.42|
90883472|NCT00556842|181629835|EQUIVALENCE|Please refer to the protocol paper for details of the power calculation.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|-0.65|-0.23||||||Using a multi-level model, the effect of THA versus HA on function (WOMAC) was estimated. We chose an alpha level of 0.01. The results below are the mean difference in score for WOMAC stiffness at 24 months.||-0.23|-0.65|
90883473|NCT00556842|181629835|EQUIVALENCE|Please refer to the protocol paper for details of the power calculation.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.97|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|-7.11|-2.83||||||Using a multi-level model, the effect of THA versus HA on function (WOMAC) was estimated. We chose an alpha level of 0.01. The results below are the mean difference in score for WOMAC function at 24 months.||-2.83|-7.11|
90883474|NCT00556842|181629836|EQUIVALENCE|Please refer to the protocol paper for details of the power calculation.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.38|1.36||||||Using a multi-level model, the effect of THA versus HA on mobility (TUG) was estimated. We analyzed the TUG as a dichotomous outcome with the following categories: a) patients who complete the test in ≤12 seconds, and b) those who require \>12 seconds to complete the test or were unable to complete the test. We selected 12 seconds as the cut-off because this was the threshold used by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The TUG was summarized using odds ratios and 99% CIs.||1.36|0.38|
90883475|NCT00556842|181629837|EQUIVALENCE|Please refer to the protocol paper for details of the power calculation.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.41|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|-0.33|3.14||||||Using a multi-level model, the effect of THA versus HA on quality of life (SF-12) was estimated. We chose an alpha level of 0.01. The results below are the mean difference in score for SF-12 PCS at 24 months.||3.14|-0.33|
90883476|NCT00556842|181629837|EQUIVALENCE|Please refer to the protocol paper for details of the power calculation.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|-0.38|3.05||||||Using a multi-level model, the effect of THA versus HA on quality of life (SF-12) was estimated. We chose an alpha level of 0.01. The results below are the mean difference in score for SF-12 MCS at 24 months.||3.05|-0.38|
90883477|NCT00556842|181629838|EQUIVALENCE|Please refer to the protocol paper for details of the power calculation.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|-0.03|0.11||||||Using a multi-level model, the effect of THA versus HA on quality of life (EQ-5D) was estimated. We chose an alpha level of 0.01. The results below are the mean difference in score for EQ-5D utility index at 24 months.||0.11|-0.03|
90883478|NCT00556842|181629838|EQUIVALENCE|Please refer to the protocol paper for details of the power calculation.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|-2.02|3.46||||||Using a multi-level model, the effect of THA versus HA on quality of life (EQ-5D) was estimated. We chose an alpha level of 0.01. The results below are the mean difference in score for EQ-5D VAS at 24 months.||3.46|-2.02|
90883479|NCT01032135|181629840|OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.11
90963090|NCT02137512|181807436|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90963091|NCT02137512|181807436|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.39
90963092|NCT02137512|181807437|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90963093|NCT02137512|181807437|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90963094|NCT02137512|181807437|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.06
90963095|NCT02137512|181807438|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
90883480|NCT01032135|181629841|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.02
90883481|NCT01032135|181629842|OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.005
90883482|NCT01032135|181629847|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.68|||Chi-squared|||The statistical analyses used data from all follow up assessments.||0.68|0.23|0.0007
90883483|NCT01032135|181629847|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.54||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.27|||Chi-squared|||The statistical analyses used data from all follow up assessments.||1.27|0.23|0.16
90883484|NCT01032135|181629847|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|2.6|||Chi-squared|||The statistical analyses used data from all follow up assessments.||2.60|0.48|0.79
90883485|NCT01032135|181629852|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|-1.08||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|-0.29|||Chi-squared|||The statistical analyses used data from all follow up assessments.||-0.29|-1.87|0.009
90883486|NCT01032135|181629852|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.84||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.52|||Chi-squared|||The statistical analyses used data from all follow up assessments.||0.52|-2.20|0.23
90883487|NCT01032135|181629852|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.34||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|0.85|||Chi-squared|||The statistical analyses used data from all follow up assessments.||0.85|-1.52|0.58
90883488|NCT01032135|181629857|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.33||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.58|||Chi-squared|||The statistical analyses used data from all follow up assessments.||0.58|0.19|0.0001
90883489|NCT01032135|181629857|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.54|||Chi-squared|||The statistical analyses used data from all follow up assessments.||1.54|0.29|0.36
90883490|NCT01032135|181629857|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|3.54|||Chi-squared|||The statistical analyses used data from all follow up assessments.||3.54|0.58|0.45
90883491|NCT01032135|181629862|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|-1.09||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.39|||Chi-squared|||The statistical analyses used data from all follow up assessments.||-0.39|-1.80|0.003
90883492|NCT01032135|181629862|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.02||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.14|||Chi-squared|||The statistical analyses used data from all follow up assessments.||1.14|-1.10|0.10
90883493|NCT01032135|181629866|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.66||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.14|||Chi-squared|||The statistical analyses used data from all follow up assessments.||1.14|0.38|0.13
90883494|NCT01032135|181629866|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|2.12|||Chi-squared|||The statistical analyses used data from all follow up assessments.||2.12|0.33|0.71
90883495|NCT01032135|181629866|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|3.4|||Chi-squared|||The statistical analyses used data from all follow up assessments.||3.40|0.64|0.36
90883496|NCT01032135|181629869|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.13||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.6|||Chi-squared|||The statistical analyses used data from all follow up assessments.||0.60|-0.94|0.75
90883497|NCT01032135|181629869|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.84||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|0.3|||Chi-squared|||The statistical analyses used data from all follow up assessments.||0.30|-1.98|0.16
90883498|NCT01032135|181629869|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|2.04|||Chi-squared|||The statistical analyses used data from all follow up assessments.||2.04|-0.85|0.42
90883499|NCT03400033|181629870|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be established if the lower limit of the two-sided 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) for the treatment difference is greater than the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of -0.75 g/dL.|Least square (LS) mean difference|-0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.1||||||||0.10|-0.21|
90883500|NCT03400033|181629871|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-8.12||||0.3354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.66|29.41|||ANCOVA|||||29.41|-45.66|0.3354
90883501|NCT03400033|181629872|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be established if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference is greater than the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of -0.75 g/dL.|LS mean difference|-0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.1||||||||0.10|-0.37|
90883502|NCT03400033|181629873|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be established if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference was above the non-inferiority margin of - 15%.|Median Difference (Final Values)|11.18||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.83|19.56|||Van Elteren's test||Hodges-Lehmann Estimate of Treatment Difference has been reported.|||19.56|2.83|0.0034
90883503|NCT03400033|181629874|OTHER||Difference in response rate|0.1645||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.27|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.27|0.06|0.0007
90883504|NCT03400033|181629875|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.5308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|4.22|||Wald test||Hazard ratio is estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model adjusted for treatment group and region.|||4.22|0.26|0.5308
90883505|NCT03400033|181629876|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.73||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.03|1.56|||MMRM||SBP|||1.56|-9.03|0.083
90883506|NCT03400033|181629876|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.23||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.99|0.54|||MMRM||DBP|||0.54|-4.99|0.057
90883507|NCT03400033|181629876|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.6||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.86|0.67|||MMRM||MAP|||0.67|-5.86|0.059
90883508|NCT03400033|181629877|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.73|3.72|||ANCOVA||SBP|||3.72|-4.73|0.407
90883509|NCT03400033|181629877|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.05||||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.29|1.19|||ANCOVA||DBP|||1.19|-3.29|0.179
90883510|NCT03400033|181629877|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.86||||0.261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|1.78|||ANCOVA||MAP|||1.78|-3.50|0.261
90883511|NCT03400033|181629878|OTHER||Ratio of exacerbation rate|0.7||||0.0093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.94|||Negative binomial model|||||0.94|0.52|0.0093
90883512|NCT03400033|181629880|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.15||||0.0323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.01|||MMRM||Week 8|||0.01|-0.32|0.0323
90883513|NCT03400033|181629880|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.12||||0.0921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.06|||MMRM||Week 12|||0.06|-0.29|0.0921
90963096|NCT02137512|181807438|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
90963097|NCT02137512|181807438|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.86
90883514|NCT03400033|181629880|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.11||||0.1291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.08|||MMRM||Week 28|||0.08|-0.29|0.1291
90883515|NCT03400033|181629880|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.15||||0.0859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.06|||MMRM||Week 52|||0.06|-0.36|0.0859
90883516|NCT00558103|181629895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|29.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|17.2|43.3|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with CR and PR.|||43.3|17.2|
90883517|NCT00558103|181629895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|45.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|30.9|59.3|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with CR and PR.|||59.3|30.9|
90883518|NCT00558103|181629895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|47.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|32.8|62.1||Comparision of participants receiving lapatanib 1500 mg + placebo to historical control of 10% response rate|t-test, 1 sided||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants receiving lapatanib 1500 mg + placebo with CR and PR.|||62.1|32.8|<0.001
90883519|NCT00558103|181629895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|31.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|11.3|57.3|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with CR and PR.|||57.3|11.3|
90883520|NCT00558103|181629895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|58.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|43.3|71.5||Comparision of participants receiving lapatanib 1000 mg + pazopanib 400 mg to 10% historical response rate|t-test, 1 sided||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants receiving lapatanib 1000 mg + pazopanib 400 mg with CR and PR.|||71.5|43.3|<0.001
90883521|NCT00558103|181629895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|11.0||||0.485|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.3|29.7|||Fisher Exact||The estimated value represents the percent difference in the percentage of participants with CR and PR.|||29.7|-8.3|0.485
90883522|NCT00558103|181629895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|27.0||||0.116|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.3|52.0|||Fisher Exact||The estimated value represents the percent difference in the percentage of participants with CR and PR.|||52.0|2.3|0.116
90883523|NCT01868633|181629899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.32
90883524|NCT02457325|181629930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.192|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.192
90883525|NCT02457325|181629931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.457|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.457
90883526|NCT02457325|181629932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.158|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.158
90883527|NCT02457325|181629933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.953|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.953
90883528|NCT02457325|181629934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.693|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.693
90883529|NCT02457325|181629935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.158|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.158
90883530|NCT02457325|181629936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.192|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.192
90883531|NCT02457325|181629937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.512|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.512
90883532|NCT02457325|181629938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.115|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.115
90883533|NCT02457325|181629939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.73|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.730
90883534|NCT02457325|181629940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.835|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.835
90883535|NCT03385239|181629951|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-27.0||||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.0|-10.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|||-10|-41|0.0042
90883536|NCT03385239|181629951|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-58.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.0|-48.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in % CFB based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|||-48|-66|<0.0001
90883537|NCT03385239|181629951|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-63.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.0|-54.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in % CFB based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|||-54|-70|<0.0001
90883538|NCT03385239|181629951|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-62.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.0|-53.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in % CFB based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|||-53|-69|<0.0001
90883539|NCT03385239|181629953|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-30.0||||0.0123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.0|-8.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in % CFB based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|ApoC III||-8|-47|0.0123
90883540|NCT03385239|181629953|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-68.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.0|-58.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in % CFB based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|Apo-C III||-58|-76|<0.0001
90883541|NCT03385239|181629953|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-74.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.0|-65.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in % CFB based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|Apo-C III||-65|-80|<0.0001
90883542|NCT03385239|181629953|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-74.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.0|-66.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in % CFB based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|Apo-C III||-66|-80|<0.0001
90883543|NCT03385239|181629953|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-3.0||||0.568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|7.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in % CFB based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|TC||7|-11|0.568
90883544|NCT03385239|181629953|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-12.0||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|-3.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in % CFB based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|TC||-3|-19|0.008
90883545|NCT03385239|181629953|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-3.0||||0.4476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|6.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in % CFB based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|TC||6|-12|0.4476
90883546|NCT03385239|181629953|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-8.0||||0.0606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|0.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in % CFB based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|TC||0|-16|0.0606
90883547|NCT03385239|181629953|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|7.0||||0.4509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|26.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in % CFB based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|LDL-C||26|-10|0.4509
90883548|NCT03385239|181629953|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|4.0||||0.6746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|23.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in % CFB based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|LDL-C||23|-12|0.6746
90883549|NCT03385239|181629953|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|29.0||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.0|53.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in % CFB based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|LDL-C||53|9|0.0032
90883550|NCT03385239|181629953|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|12.0||||0.1996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|32.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in % CFB based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|LDL-C||32|-6|0.1996
90923222|NCT03848065|181719009|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|8.5|||||Difference = % V114-IM minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Pertussis Toxin||8.5|-7.9|
90923223|NCT03848065|181719009|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|7.9|||||Difference = % V114 SC minus % V114 IM. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Pertussis Toxin||7.9|-8.1|
90923224|NCT03848065|181719009|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|8.5|||||Difference = % V114-SC minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Pertussis FHA||8.5|-8.1|
90923225|NCT03848065|181719009|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|8.5|||||Difference = % V114-IM minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Pertussis FHA||8.5|-7.9|
90923226|NCT03848065|181719009|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|7.9|||||Difference = % V114-SC minus % V114-IM. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Pertussis FHA||7.9|-8.1|
90923227|NCT03848065|181719009|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|8.5|||||Difference = % V114-SC minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Poliovirus Type 1||8.5|-8.1|
90923228|NCT03848065|181719009|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|8.5|||||Difference = % V114-IM minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Poliovirus Type 1||8.5|-7.9|
90923229|NCT03848065|181719009|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|7.9|||||Difference = % V114-SC minus % V114-IM. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Poliovirus Type 1||7.9|-8.1|
90923230|NCT03848065|181719009|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|8.5|||||Difference = % V114-SC minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Poliovirus Type 2||8.5|-8.1|
90963098|NCT02137512|181807439|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90963099|NCT02137512|181807439|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90963100|NCT02137512|181807439|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.74
90883551|NCT03385239|181629953|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|12.0||||0.0373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|24.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in % CFB based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|HDL-C||24|1|0.0373
90923231|NCT03848065|181719009|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|8.5|||||Difference = % V114-IM minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Poliovirus Type 2||8.5|-7.9|
90923232|NCT03848065|181719009|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|7.9|||||Difference = % V114-SC minus % V114-IM. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Poliovirus Type 2||7.9|-8.1|
90923233|NCT03848065|181719009|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|8.5|||||Difference = % V114-SC minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Poliovirus Type 3||8.5|-8.1|
90923234|NCT03848065|181719009|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|8.5|||||"Difference = % V114-IM minus % PCV13~-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method."|Poliovirus Type 3||8.5|-7.9|
90923235|NCT03848065|181719009|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|7.9|||||Difference = % V114-SC minus % V114-IM. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Poliovirus Type 3||7.9|-8.1|
90883552|NCT03385239|181629953|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|34.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.0|49.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in % CFB based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|HDL-C||49|21|<0.0001
90923236|NCT00764751|181719010|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.4|||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.6|25.0|||Paired t-test|||||25|5.6|=0.003
90923237|NCT00764751|181719010|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.1||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.0|1.9|||Paired t-test|||||1.9|-36.0|0.07
90923238|NCT05270408|181719039|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|0.93||||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||RAVLT Total Learning||||0.25
90923239|NCT05270408|181719039|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|0.69||||0.18|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||RAVLT Total Learning||||0.18
90963101|NCT02137512|181807440|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90963102|NCT02137512|181807440|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90923240|NCT05270408|181719039|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|0.74||||0.48|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||RAVLT Delayed||||0.48
90923241|NCT05270408|181719039|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|0.19||||0.64|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||RAVLT Delayed||||0.64
90923242|NCT05270408|181719040|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|0.03||||0.98|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||BVMT total learning||||0.98
90923243|NCT05270408|181719040|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|0.86||||0.22|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||BVMT total learning||||0.22
90923244|NCT05270408|181719040|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|0.04||||0.97|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||BVMT delayed||||0.97
90923245|NCT05270408|181719040|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|0.69||||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||BVMT delayed||||0.23
90923246|NCT05270408|181719041|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|0.04||||0.94|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.94
90923247|NCT05270408|181719041|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|0.42||||0.47|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.47
90923248|NCT05270408|181719042|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|1.49||||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.06
90923249|NCT05270408|181719042|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|1.08||||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.07
90923250|NCT05270408|181719043|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|0.19||||0.61|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.61
90923251|NCT05270408|181719043|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|0.68||||0.38|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.38
90923252|NCT05270408|181719045|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|0.96||||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.11
90963103|NCT02137512|181807440|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.09
90963104|NCT02137512|181807441|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.07
90963105|NCT02137512|181807441|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.006
90923253|NCT05270408|181719045|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||ANCOVA||||Eta2 effect sizes produced from the pairwise comparisons were transformed to Cohen's d for examination of effect sizes. A small/weak effect size was demonstrated (Cohen's d = 0.10), when adjusting for baseline performance.|||0.68
90923254|NCT04204265|181719110|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-Value was calculated|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
90923255|NCT04204265|181719111|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-Value was calculated|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
90923256|NCT04204265|181719112|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-Value was calculated|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
90923257|NCT02465268|181719115|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.29||||0.196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.16|||Log Rank|||||2.16|0.77|0.196
90923258|NCT02465268|181719115|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.63||||0.196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|2.7|||Log Rank|||||2.70|0.99|0.196
90923259|NCT02465268|181719116|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.61|||Log Rank|||||1.61|0.60|0.354
90923260|NCT02465268|181719116|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.42||||0.354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|2.33|||Log Rank|||||2.33|0.87|0.354
90963106|NCT02137512|181807441|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.68
90963107|NCT02137512|181807442|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.006
90963108|NCT02137512|181807442|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.005
90963109|NCT02137512|181807442|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.62
90963110|NCT02137512|181807443|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90923261|NCT02465268|181719117|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.038
90923262|NCT02465268|181719117|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.038
90923263|NCT02465268|181719117|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.038
90923264|NCT02465268|181719119|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.2
90923265|NCT02465268|181719119|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.2
90923266|NCT02465268|181719119|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.2
90923267|NCT02465268|181719120|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.6
90923268|NCT02465268|181719120|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.6
90923269|NCT02465268|181719120|OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.6
90923270|NCT02465268|181719122|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.13
90923271|NCT02465268|181719122|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.13
90963111|NCT02137512|181807443|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.006
90963112|NCT02137512|181807443|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.23
90963113|NCT02137512|181807444|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.67
90963114|NCT02137512|181807444|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.09
90923272|NCT02465268|181719122|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.13
90923273|NCT04719832|181719150|SUPERIORITY|Analysis performed using a negative binomial model with covariates of treatment, exacerbation history (2, 3, 4+), baseline inhaled CS dose (medium, high), geographical region, baseline percent predicted Forced Expiratory Volume in one second (FEV1), and offset of log (total time in the study in years).|Rate Ratio|0.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.59|||Negative binomial distribution|||To demonstrate the superiority of GSK3511294 100 mg SC + SoC following two doses (at Week 0 and at Week 26) compared with placebo + SoC, assessed by the annualized rate of clinically significant exacerbations measured over the study intervention period of 52 weeks.||0.59|0.30|< 0.001
90923274|NCT04719832|181719151|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-3.36|||=|0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.11|0.39|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment group, baseline ICS dose (medium or high), exacerbation history (2, 3, 4+), geographical region, baseline SGRQ total score, baseline pre-bronchodilator percent predicted FEV1, visit, visit by baseline SGRQ total score and visit by treatment group||0.39|-7.11|= 0.080
90923275|NCT04719832|181719152|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-0.04|||=|0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.18|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment group, baseline ICS dose (medium or high), exacerbation history (2, 3, 4+), geographical region, baseline ACQ-5 score, baseline pre-bronchodilator percent predicted FEV1, visit, visit by baseline ACQ-5 score and visit by treatment group.||0.18|-0.27|= 0.690
90923276|NCT04719832|181719153|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-0.001|||=|0.991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.089|0.088|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment group, baseline ICS dose (medium or high), exacerbation history (2, 3, 4+), geographical region, baseline pre-bronchodilator FEV1, visit, visit by baseline pre-bronchodilator FEV1 and visit by treatment group.||0.088|-0.089|= 0.991
90923277|NCT04719832|181719154|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-0.09|||=|0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.31|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment group, baseline ICS dose (medium or high), exacerbation history (2, 3, 4+), geographical region, baseline ANSD weekly mean score, baseline pre-bronchodilator percent predicted FEV1, visit, visit by baseline ANSD weekly mean score and visit by treatment group.||0.31|-0.50|= 0.650
90923278|NCT04719832|181719155|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-0.08|||=|0.647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.26|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment group, baseline ICS dose (medium or high), exacerbation history (2, 3, 4+), geographical region, baseline ADSD weekly mean score, baseline pre-bronchodilator percent predicted FEV1, visit, visit by baseline ADSD weekly mean score and visit by treatment group.||0.26|-0.42|= 0.647
90923279|NCT04324359|181719157|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||z-test for proportions|Other: z-test for proportions, 2-sided test at alpha = 5% level. P-value: based on the normal approximation test for differences between proportions.||||||<0.001
90963115|NCT02137512|181807444|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.22
90963116|NCT02137512|181807445|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.25
90883553|NCT03385239|181629953|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|42.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.0|57.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in % CFB based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|HDL-C||57|28|<0.0001
90923280|NCT04324359|181719158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.066|||||||Other: z-test for proportions|Other: z-test for proportions, 2-sided test at alpha = 5% level. P-value: based on Barnard's exact test for differences between proportions.||||||0.066
90923281|NCT04324359|181719159|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.716|||||||z-test for proportions|Other: z-test for proportions, 2-sided test at alpha = 5% level. P-value: based on Barnard's exact test for differences between proportions.||||||0.716
90923282|NCT04324359|181719160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.528|||||||z-test for proportions|Other: z-test for proportions, 2-sided test at alpha = 5% level P-value: based on Barnard's exact test for differences between proportions.||||||0.528
90923283|NCT04324359|181719161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.766|||||||z-test for proportions|Other: z-test for proportions, 2-sided test at alpha = 5% level. P-value: based on Barnard's exact test for differences between proportions.||||||0.766
90923284|NCT04324359|181719162|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.619|||||||z-test for proportions|Other: z-test for proportions, 2-sided test at alpha = 5% level. P-value: based on Barnard's exact test for differences between proportions.||||||0.619
90923285|NCT01799265|181719168|NON_INFERIORITY|The 95% upper limit of the prediction interval was calculated using the formula (μ ) ̂+t\_(k-2)\^α √((τ\^2 ) ̂+〖(SE) ̂(μ ̂ )〗\^2 ),where (μ ) ̂is the estimate average AHI across all studies, (τ\^2 ) ̂ is the between-study variation, t\_(k-2)\^α is the critical value for a t-distribution, k is the number of studies in the meta-analysis, and k-2 are the degrees of freedom for the t distribution. Meta-analyzed statistics to compute the prediction interval were (μ ) ̂=5.0, SE(μ ̂ )=0.9, and (τ\^2 ) ̂=8.0||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|A p-value of .05 was used.||"Hypothesis testing for the primary endpoint was conducted using a one-sided test of non-inferiority with the following null and alternative hypotheses at the 0.05 significance level using the MIXED procedure in SAS, version 9.3:~H\_0:(ϕ\_m ) ̂≥6.9 H\_A:(ϕ\_m ) ̂\<6.9 where (ϕ\_m ) ̂ is the estimated AHI difference between Transcend Auto and REMstar Auto from the model described in 3.5.1."||||.05
90923286|NCT03084536|181719187|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.68
90923287|NCT03084536|181719188|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.67
90923288|NCT03084536|181719189|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.53
90923289|NCT03084536|181719190|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.44
90963117|NCT02137512|181807446|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.23
90923290|NCT03084536|181719191|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.88
90923291|NCT04285515|181719213|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|-3.84|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-3.84|-7.60|<0.0001
90923292|NCT04285515|181719214|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.33|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.29|-3.05|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-3.05|-8.29|<0.0001
90923293|NCT04285515|181719215|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.35|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.61|-3.29|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-3.29|-8.61|<0.0001
90883554|NCT03385239|181629953|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|30.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.0|44.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in % CFB based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|HDL-C||44|18|<0.0001
90883555|NCT03385239|181629953|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-7.0||||0.2826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|6.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in % CFB based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|Non-HDL-C||6|-18|0.2826
90923294|NCT04285515|181719216|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.25|-3.88|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-3.88|-7.25|<0.0001
90923295|NCT04285515|181719217|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.39|||Mixed Effects Model of Repeated Measure|||||-0.39|-0.81|<0.0001
90923296|NCT04285515|181719218|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.31|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-0.31|-0.91|<0.0001
90923297|NCT04285515|181719219|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.27|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-0.27|-0.89|0.0003
90923298|NCT04285515|181719220|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.44|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-0.44|-0.82|<0.0001
90923299|NCT02618577|181719221|SUPERIORITY||adjusted cause-specific hazard ratio|0.81||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.08|||Cause-spec. Cox Proport. Hazard model|||||1.08|0.6|0.15
90963118|NCT02137512|181807447|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90963119|NCT02137512|181807448|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90923300|NCT02618577|181719222|SUPERIORITY||adjusted cause-specific hazard ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.39||||||||1.39|0.45|
90923301|NCT02618577|181719223|SUPERIORITY||adjusted cause-specific hazard ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.18||||||||1.18|0.67|
90923302|NCT02618577|181719224|SUPERIORITY||adjusted cause-specific hazard ratio|1.16||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.53|||Cause-spec. Cox Proport. Hazard model|||||1.53|0.88|0.28
90923303|NCT02618577|181719225|SUPERIORITY||adjusted cause-specific hazard ratio|2.1||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|3.38|||Cause-spec. Cox Proport. Hazard model|||||3.38|1.3|0.002
90923304|NCT02618577|181719226|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.01|||||Estimation Parameter: baseline adjusted trial-group specific effect estimates (mean difference)|EQ-5D-5L UK Index||0.01|-0.02|
90923305|NCT02618577|181719226|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|1.38|||||Estimation Parameter: baseline adjusted trial-group specific effect estimates (mean difference)|EQ-5D-5L VAS, FU 24months||1.38|-1.46|
90923306|NCT02618577|181719226|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|1.09|||||Estimation Parameter: baseline adjusted trial-group specific effect estimates (mean difference)|Karnofsky score||1.09|-0.56|
90963120|NCT02137512|181807449|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90923307|NCT02618577|181719227|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|0.87|||||Estimation Parameter: baseline adjusted trial-group specific effect estimates (mean difference)|PACT-Q convenience||0.87|-1.12|
90923308|NCT02618577|181719227|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.52|||||Estimation Parameter: baseline adjusted trial-group specific effect estimates (mean difference)|PACT-Q satisfaction||0.52|-2.60|
90923309|NCT02618577|181719230|SUPERIORITY||adjusted cause-specific hazard ratio|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.96||||||||0.96|0.27|
90923310|NCT02618577|181719231|SUPERIORITY||adjusted cause-specific hazard ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.31||||||||1.31|0.62|
90923311|NCT05192109|181719232|OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||This is the p-value for the simple effect of condition.|Regression, Linear|||The primary statistical analysis involves asking whether children's preference to look at the target is significantly greater in one condition and/or group than the other. Mixed-effects regression analyses are used with the proportion-empirical-logit transformed-of target looking as the dependent measure, participant as random effect, and condition and group and their interaction as fixed effects.||||<0.01
90963121|NCT02137512|181807450|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90923312|NCT05192109|181719232|OTHER|||||||0.93||||||This is the p-value for the simple effect of diagnostic group.|Regression, Linear|||The primary statistical analysis involves asking whether children's preference to look at the target is significantly greater in one condition and/or group than the other. Mixed-effects regression analyses are used with the proportion-empirical-logit transformed-of target looking as the dependent measure, participant as random effect, and condition and group and their interaction as fixed effects.||||0.93
90923313|NCT05192109|181719232|OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||This is the p-value for the interaction between condition and group.|Regression, Linear|||The primary statistical analysis involves asking whether children's preference to look at the target is significantly greater in one condition and/or group than the other. Mixed-effects regression analyses are used with the proportion-empirical-logit transformed-of target looking as the dependent measure, participant as random effect, and condition and group and their interaction as fixed effects.||||<0.01
90923314|NCT05192109|181719233|OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||This is the p-value for the simple effect of condition.|Regression, Linear|||The primary statistical analysis involves asking whether children's preference to look at the target is significantly greater in one condition and/or group than the other. Mixed-effects regression analyses are used with the proportion-empirical-logit transformed-of target looking as the dependent measure, participant as random effect, and condition and group and their interaction as fixed effects.||||<0.01
90923315|NCT05192109|181719233|OTHER|||||||0.22||||||This is the p-value for the simple effect of group.|Regression, Linear|||The primary statistical analysis involves asking whether children's preference to look at the target is significantly greater in one condition and/or group than the other. Mixed-effects regression analyses are used with the proportion-empirical-logit transformed-of target looking as the dependent measure, participant as random effect, and condition and group and their interaction as fixed effects.||||0.22
90923316|NCT05192109|181719233|OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||This is the p-value for the interaction between condition and group.|Regression, Linear|||The primary statistical analysis involves asking whether children's preference to look at the target is significantly greater in one condition and/or group than the other. Mixed-effects regression analyses are used with the proportion-empirical-logit transformed-of target looking as the dependent measure, participant as random effect, and condition and group and their interaction as fixed effects.||||<0.01
90923317|NCT05546749|181719312|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|0.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed effects model was performed to predict pain intensity by arm at weeks 3 and 6, controlling for baseline pain intensity score.||0.54|-3.1|0.17
90923318|NCT05546749|181719313|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.6||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.3|13.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed effects model was used to predict opioid craving score by arm at weeks 3 and 6, controlling for baseline opioid craving score.||13.1|-40.3|0.32
90923319|NCT05546749|181719322|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.1||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.1|3.6|||Regression, Linear||RelieVRx was associated with lower stress score.|We performed a mixed effects model to predict stress score at week 6 by arm, controlling for baseline stress score.||3.6|-23.1|0.137
90923320|NCT02561585|181719344|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.05|11.65||t-test in a baseline adjusted linear model|t-test, 2 sided|t-test, 2 sided on a 5% level||||11.65|-12.05|0.97
90923321|NCT04292223|181719383|OTHER|Comparison of the 16-week value with the baseline value|Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.8|19.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||19.3|8.8|<0.0001
90923322|NCT02561247|181719392|OTHER|||||||0.0008||||||P Value is from a one sample t-test compared against the null hypothesis value|t-test, 1 sided|Null Hypothesis Value = -38; Degrees of Freedom=16; t-value=-4.13||P Value is from a one sample t-test compared against the null hypothesis value. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons/multiplicity in this study, since there was only one primary endpoint, one arm, and one pre-specified primary null hypothesis.||||0.0008
90923323|NCT04963270|181719397|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|-1.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.44||0.0196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|-0.16|||ANCOVA and Conditional Mean Imputation|||||-0.16|-1.88|0.0196
90923324|NCT04963270|181719398|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.0123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|-0.22|||ANCOVA and Conditional Mean Imputation|||||-0.22|-1.82|0.0123
90923325|NCT04963270|181719399|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rate|-12.7||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.3|1.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Stratified Analysis||1.9|-27.3|0.088
90923326|NCT04963270|181719400|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rate|-10.5||||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.2|3.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Stratified Analysis||3.3|-24.2|0.137
90923327|NCT04963270|181719401|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|-1.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-0.46|||ANCOVA and Conditional Mean Imputation|||||-0.46|-2.80|0.0062
90923328|NCT04963270|181719402|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted Mean|-1.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-0.56|||ANCOVA and Conditional Mean Imputation|||||-0.56|-2.80|0.0034
90923329|NCT04963270|181719403|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|-1.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94||0.1094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.36|0.34|||ANCOVA and Conditional Mean Imputation|||||0.34|-3.36|0.1094
90963122|NCT02137512|181807451|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
90963123|NCT02137512|181807452|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.006
90963124|NCT02137512|181807453|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.14
90963125|NCT01215175|181807457|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|10.0||||||95.0|-7.4|28.3|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method|||28.3|-7.4|
90883556|NCT03385239|181629953|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-24.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.0|-14.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in % CFB based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|Non-HDL-C||-14|-34|<0.0001
90883557|NCT03385239|181629953|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-15.0||||0.0118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.0|-4.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in % CFB based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|Non-HDL-C||-4|-26|0.0118
90883558|NCT03385239|181629953|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-20.0||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.0|-9.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in % CFB based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|Non-HDL-C||-9|-29|0.0009
90883559|NCT03385239|181629953|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-21.0||||0.0086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.0|-6.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in % CFB based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|VLDL-C||-6|-34|0.0086
90883560|NCT03385239|181629953|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-53.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.0|-44.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in % CFB based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|VLDL-C||-44|-60|<0.0001
90883561|NCT03385239|181629953|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-58.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.0|-50.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in % CFB based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|VLDL-C||-50|-64|<0.0001
90883562|NCT03385239|181629953|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-60.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.0|-52.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in % CFB based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|VLDL-C||-52|-66|<0.0001
90883563|NCT03385239|181629953|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|2.0||||0.6801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|13.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in % CFB based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|ApoB||13|-7|0.6801
90883564|NCT03385239|181629953|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-16.0||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.0|-7.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in % CFB based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|ApoB||-7|-24|0.0007
90883565|NCT03385239|181629953|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-5.0||||0.3183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|5.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in % CFB based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|ApoB||5|-14|0.3183
90883566|NCT03385239|181629953|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-10.0||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|-1.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in % CFB based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|ApoB||-1|-19|0.024
90883567|NCT03385239|181629953|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|5.0||||0.0936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|11.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in % CFB based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|ApoA-I||11|-1|0.0936
90883568|NCT03385239|181629953|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|14.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|21.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in % CFB based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|ApoA-I||21|8|<0.0001
90883569|NCT03385239|181629953|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|18.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|25.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in % CFB based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|ApoA-I||25|11|<0.0001
90883570|NCT03385239|181629953|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|14.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|20.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in % CFB based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|ApoA-I||20|7|<0.0001
90883571|NCT03385239|181629954|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.34||||0.2591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|27.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||27.20|0.41|0.2591
90883572|NCT03385239|181629954|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|84.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.54|740.02|||Regression, Logistic|||||740.02|9.54|<0.0001
90883573|NCT03385239|181629954|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|322.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.31|5130.99|||Regression, Logistic|||||5130.99|20.31|<0.0001
90883574|NCT03385239|181629954|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|342.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.72|4933.89|||Regression, Logistic|||||4933.89|23.72|<0.0001
90883575|NCT03385239|181629955|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.9119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|69.88|||Regression, Logistic|||||69.88|0.02|0.9119
90883576|NCT03385239|181629955|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|27.18||||0.0306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|542.48|||Regression, Logistic|||||542.48|1.36|0.0306
90883577|NCT03385239|181629955|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|25.54||||0.0344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|514.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||514.20|1.27|0.0344
90883578|NCT03385239|181629955|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|44.47||||0.0123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.28|866.49|||Regression, Logistic|||||866.49|2.28|0.0123
90883579|NCT01574703|181629959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37||||||P-value for the treatment effect from the Log-Rank test stratified by Cohort.|Log Rank|||Statistical analysis for overall treatment comparison.||||0.37
90883580|NCT01574703|181629960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53||||||P-value for the treatment effect from the Log-Rank test stratified by Cohort.|Log Rank|||Statistical analysis for overall treatment comparison.||||0.53
90883581|NCT01574703|181629961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34||||||P-value for the treatment effect from the Log-Rank test stratified by Cohort.|Log Rank|||Statistical analysis for overall treatment comparison.||||0.34
90883582|NCT01574703|181629962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.49||||0.8375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.22|4.23||P-values are for the risk differences of pairwise comparisons based on the logistic regression model with terms Baseline Cardiovascular Risk, treatment, cohort, region, and treatment by cohort interaction.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis between Varenicline and Bupropion.||4.23|-5.22|0.8375
90963126|NCT01215175|181807458|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|8.2||||||95.0|-7.9|26.6|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method|||26.6|-7.9|
90963127|NCT01215175|181807458|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|3.6||||||95.0|-15.5|22.9|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method|||22.9|-15.5|
90923330|NCT04963270|181719404|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|-1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.0999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.05|0.27|||ANCOVA and Conditional Mean Imputation|||||0.27|-3.05|0.0999
90923331|NCT04963270|181719405|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.0456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.36|-0.04|||ANCOVA and Conditional Mean Imputation|||||-0.04|-4.36|0.0456
90923332|NCT04963270|181719406|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|-2.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02||0.0382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|-0.11|||ANCOVA and Conditional Mean Imputation|||||-0.11|-4.10|0.0382
90923333|NCT04963270|181719407|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Difference in Response Rate|-18.7||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.5|-3.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-3.9|-33.5|0.013
90923334|NCT04963270|181719408|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Difference in Response Rate|-22.0||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.2|-7.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-7.9|-36.2|0.002
90923335|NCT04963270|181719409|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|-2.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.57|-1.41|||ANCOVA and Conditional Mean Imputation|||||-1.41|-4.57|0.0002
90923336|NCT04963270|181719410|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.47|-1.53|||ANCOVA and Conditional Mean Imputation|||||-1.53|-4.47|<0.0001
90923337|NCT04963270|181719411|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rate|-21.0||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.4|-6.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-6.6|-35.4|0.004
90923338|NCT04963270|181719412|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Difference in Response Rate|-19.4||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.8|-5.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-5.9|-32.8|0.005
90963128|NCT01215175|181807459|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||||95.0|-11.5|11.5|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method|||11.5|-11.5|
90923339|NCT04963270|181719413|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rate|-1.7||||0.847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|15.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||15.9|-19.4|0.847
90923340|NCT04963270|181719414|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Difference in Response Rate|-4.3||||0.441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|6.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||6.7|-15.4|0.441
90923341|NCT04963270|181719415|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rate|8.5||||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|19.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||19|-2.1|0.115
90923342|NCT04963270|181719416|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Difference in Response Rate|8.8||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|18.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||18.6|-1|0.077
90923343|NCT04963270|181719417|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference|-6.77||||0.1314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.25|3.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.70|-17.25|0.1314
90923344|NCT04963270|181719418|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Risk Difference|-5.07||||0.2264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.74|4.61|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.61|-14.74|0.2264
90923345|NCT04963270|181719419|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|3.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45||0.0179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|6.29|||ANCOVA and Conditional Mean Imputation|||||6.29|0.59|0.0179
90923346|NCT04963270|181719420|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Difference in Adjusted Mean|3.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.37||0.0066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|6.42|||ANCOVA and Conditional Mean Imputation|||||6.42|1.04|0.0066
90923347|NCT04636528|181719434|EQUIVALENCE|A minimal detectable difference of 11.2 points was selected based on the psychometric properties of the scale. Considering a power of 80%, a 2-sided 0.05 significance level, and a 10% dropout rate, 82 patients would be necessary to detect an 11.2-point difference between the 2 groups.|Median Difference (Net)|-1.8||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|9.8||The threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|quantile mixed-effects model|a robust method on the medians||||9.8|-13.5|0.75
90923348|NCT04636528|181719434|EQUIVALENCE||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|2.16||The threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.16|0.32|0.71
90923349|NCT04636528|181719435|EQUIVALENCE||Median Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.2||The threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Quantile mixed-effects model|a robust method on the medians||||-0.2|-1.4|0.12
90923350|NCT04636528|181719436|EQUIVALENCE||Median Difference (Net)|-2.2||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.6|30.2||The threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Quantile mixed-effects model|||||30.2|-34.6|0.89
90923351|NCT04636528|181719437|EQUIVALENCE||Median Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.5|||Quantile mixed-effects model|a robust method on the medians||||0.5|-1.0|0.51
90923352|NCT04636528|181719438|EQUIVALENCE||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90963129|NCT01215175|181807460|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||||95.0|-12.2|10.6|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method|||10.6|-12.2|
90923353|NCT04636528|181719439|EQUIVALENCE||Median Difference (Net)|-1.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.6||The threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Quantile mixed-effects model|a robust method on the medians||||0.6|-1.5|<.001
90923354|NCT04636528|181719440|EQUIVALENCE||Median Difference (Net)|-0.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.5||The threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Quantile mixed-effects model|a robust method on the medians||||-0.5|-1.4|<.001
90923355|NCT04636528|181719441|EQUIVALENCE||Median Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.4||The threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Quantile mixed-effects model|A robust method on the medians.||||0.4|-1.3|.27
90923356|NCT04636528|181719442|EQUIVALENCE||Difference in proportions|11.8||||0.14|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.14
90923357|NCT04636528|181719443|EQUIVALENCE||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90923358|NCT04636528|181719444|EQUIVALENCE||Mean Difference (Final Values)|67.7||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.36
90923359|NCT04636528|181719445|EQUIVALENCE||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90923360|NCT04908722|181719447|NON_INFERIORITY|Tested using 97.5% confidence interval approach. The non-inferiority margin was 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.926|1.44||||||Group 1 (1 dose) vs Group 3 (1 dose)||1.440|0.926|
90923361|NCT04908722|181719447|NON_INFERIORITY|Tested using 97.5% confidence interval approach. The non-inferiority margin was 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio|0.8||||||97.5|0.641|1.0||||||Group 5 (1 dose) vs Group 3 (1 dose)||1.00|0.641|
90963130|NCT01215175|181807460|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||||95.0|-12.3|12.3|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method|||12.3|-12.3|
90963131|NCT01215175|181807461|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|10.0||||||95.0|-7.4|28.3|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method|||28.3|-7.4|
90883583|NCT01574703|181629962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.07||||0.978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|5.05||P-values are for the risk differences of pairwise comparisons based on the logistic regression model with terms Baseline Cardiovascular Risk, treatment, cohort, region, and treatment by cohort interaction.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis between Varenicline and NRT patch.||5.05|-5.20|0.9780
90883584|NCT01574703|181629962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.13||||0.6142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.54|3.27||P-values are for the risk differences of pairwise comparisons based on the logistic regression model with terms Baseline Cardiovascular Risk, treatment, cohort, region, and treatment by cohort interaction.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis between Varenicline and Placebo.||3.27|-5.54|0.6142
90923362|NCT04908722|181719447|NON_INFERIORITY|Tested using 97.5% confidence interval approach. The non-inferiority margin was 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.844|1.356||||||Group 2 (1 dose) vs Group 3 (1 dose)||1.356|0.844|
90883585|NCT01574703|181629962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.42||||0.8602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.28|5.13||P-values are for the risk differences of pairwise comparisons based on the logistic regression model with terms Baseline Cardiovascular Risk, treatment, cohort, region, and treatment by cohort interaction.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis between Bupropion and NRT patch.||5.13|-4.28|0.8602
90883586|NCT01574703|181629962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.64||||0.7217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.15|2.88||P-values are for the risk differences of pairwise comparisons based on the logistic regression model with terms Baseline Cardiovascular Risk, treatment, cohort, region, and treatment by cohort interaction.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis between Bupropion and Placebo.||2.88|-4.15|0.7217
90883587|NCT01574703|181629962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.06||||0.6322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.41|3.28||P-values are for the risk differences of pairwise comparisons based on the logistic regression model with terms Baseline Cardiovascular Risk, treatment, cohort, region, and treatment by cohort interaction.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis between NRT patch and Placebo.||3.28|-5.41|0.6322
90883588|NCT01574703|181629963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.07||||0.9687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.48|3.34||P-values are for the risk differences of pairwise comparisons based on the logistic regression model with terms Baseline Cardiovascular Risk, treatment, cohort, region, and treatment by cohort interaction.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis between Varenicline and Bupropion.||3.34|-3.48|0.9687
90883589|NCT01574703|181629963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.56||||0.7905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.58|4.7||P-values are for the risk differences of pairwise comparisons based on the logistic regression model with terms Baseline Cardiovascular Risk, treatment, cohort, region, and treatment by cohort interaction.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis between Varenicline and NRT patch.||4.70|-3.58|0.7905
90883590|NCT01574703|181629963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.21||||0.8962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.36|2.94||P-values are for the risk differences of pairwise comparisons based on the logistic regression model with terms Baseline Cardiovascular Risk, treatment, cohort, region, and treatment by cohort interaction.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis between Varenicline and Placebo.||2.94|-3.36|0.8962
90883591|NCT01574703|181629963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.63||||0.7767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.72|4.98||P-values are for the risk differences of pairwise comparisons based on the logistic regression model with terms Baseline Cardiovascular Risk, treatment, cohort, region, and treatment by cohort interaction.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis between Bupropion and NRT patch.||4.98|-3.72|0.7767
90883592|NCT01574703|181629963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.14||||0.926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.13|2.85||P-values are for the risk differences of pairwise comparisons based on the logistic regression model with terms Baseline Cardiovascular Risk, treatment, cohort, region, and treatment by cohort interaction.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis between Bupropion and Placebo.||2.85|-3.13|0.9260
90883593|NCT01574703|181629963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.77||||0.7113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.85|3.31||P-values are for the risk differences of pairwise comparisons based on the logistic regression model with terms Baseline Cardiovascular Risk, treatment, cohort, region, and treatment by cohort interaction.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis between NRT patch and Placebo.||3.31|-4.85|0.7113
90883594|NCT01574703|181629964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.57||||0.8117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.27|4.13||P-values are for the risk differences of pairwise comparisons based on the logistic regression model with terms Baseline Cardiovascular Risk, treatment, cohort, region, and treatment by cohort interaction.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis between Varenicline and Bupropion.||4.13|-5.27|0.8117
90883595|NCT01574703|181629964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.78||||0.7303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.21|3.65||P-values are for the risk differences of pairwise comparisons based on the logistic regression model with terms Baseline Cardiovascular Risk, treatment, cohort, region, and treatment by cohort interaction.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis between Varenicline and NRT patch.||3.65|-5.21|0.7303
90883596|NCT01574703|181629964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.2||||0.5946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|3.21||P-values are for the risk differences of pairwise comparisons based on the logistic regression model with terms Baseline Cardiovascular Risk, treatment, cohort, region, and treatment by cohort interaction.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis between Varenicline and Placebo.||3.21|-5.60|0.5946
90883597|NCT01574703|181629964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.21||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.27|3.85||P-values are for the risk differences of pairwise comparisons based on the logistic regression model with terms Baseline Cardiovascular Risk, treatment, cohort, region, and treatment by cohort interaction.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis between Bupropion and NRT patch.||3.85|-4.27|0.9200
90883598|NCT01574703|181629964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.62||||0.7236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.09|2.84||P-values are for the risk differences of pairwise comparisons based on the logistic regression model with terms Baseline Cardiovascular Risk, treatment, cohort, region, and treatment by cohort interaction.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis between Bupropion and Placebo.||2.84|-4.09|0.7236
90923363|NCT04908722|181719447|NON_INFERIORITY|Tested using 97.5% confidence interval approach. The non-inferiority margin was 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.742|1.193||||||Group 4 (1 dose) vs Group 3 (1 dose)||1.193|0.742|
90923364|NCT04908722|181719447|NON_INFERIORITY|Tested using 97.5% confidence interval approach. The non-inferiority margin was 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.648|1.007||||||Group 6 (1 dose) vs Group 3 (1 dose)||1.007|0.648|
90923365|NCT04908722|181719448|NON_INFERIORITY|Testing according to sequential non-inferiority assessment hypothesis. Tested using 97.5% confidence interval approach. The non-inferiority margin was 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio|2.53|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.992|3.207||||||Group 1 (2 doses) vs Group 3 (1 dose)||3.207|1.992|
90923366|NCT04908722|181719448|NON_INFERIORITY|Testing according to sequential non-inferiority assessment hypothesis. Tested using 97.5% confidence interval approach. The non-inferiority margin was 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio|1.41|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.088|1.815||||||Group 1 (2 doses) vs Group 3 (2 doses)||1.815|1.088|
90923367|NCT04908722|181719448|NON_INFERIORITY|Testing according to sequential non-inferiority assessment hypothesis. Tested using 97.5% confidence interval approach. The non-inferiority margin was 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio|1.79|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.408|2.265||||||Group 5 (2 doses) vs Group 3 (1 dose)||2.265|1.408|
90923368|NCT04908722|181719448|NON_INFERIORITY|Testing according to sequential non-inferiority assessment hypothesis. Tested using 97.5% confidence interval approach. The non-inferiority margin was 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.769|1.282||||||Group 5 (2 doses) vs Group 3 (2 doses)||1.282|0.769|
90923369|NCT04908722|181719448|NON_INFERIORITY|Testing according to sequential non-inferiority assessment hypothesis. Tested using 97.5% confidence interval approach. The non-inferiority margin was 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio|2.37|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.829|3.007||||||Group 2 (2 doses) vs Group 3 (1 dose)||3.007|1.829|
90923370|NCT04908722|181719448|NON_INFERIORITY|Testing according to sequential non-inferiority assessment hypothesis. Tested using 97.5% confidence interval approach. The non-inferiority margin was 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.0|1.739||||||Group 2 (2 doses) vs Group 3 (2 doses)||1.739|1.000|
90923371|NCT04908722|181719448|NON_INFERIORITY|Testing according to sequential non-inferiority assessment hypothesis. Tested using 97.5% confidence interval approach. The non-inferiority margin was 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.697|2.841||||||Group 4 (2 doses) vs Group 3 (1 dose)||2.841|1.697|
90923372|NCT04908722|181719448|NON_INFERIORITY|Testing according to sequential non-inferiority assessment hypothesis. Tested using 97.5% confidence interval approach. The non-inferiority margin was 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.928|1.606||||||Group 4 (2 doses) vs Group 3 (2 doses)||1.606|0.928|
90923373|NCT04908722|181719448|NON_INFERIORITY|Testing according to sequential non-inferiority assessment hypothesis. Tested using 97.5% confidence interval approach. The non-inferiority margin was 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.348|2.148||||||Group 6 (2 doses) vs Group 3 (1 dose)||2.148|1.348|
90963132|NCT01215175|181807462|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|9.8||||||95.0|-10.6|30.9|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method|||30.9|-10.6|
90923374|NCT04908722|181719448|NON_INFERIORITY|Testing according to sequential non-inferiority assessment hypothesis. Tested using 97.5% confidence interval approach. The non-inferiority margin was 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.736|1.217||||||Group 6 (2 doses) vs Group 3 (2 doses)||1.217|0.736|
90923375|NCT06321809|181719458|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A significance level of p\<0.05 was used for all analyses.||total scale score comparison||||0.24
90923376|NCT06321809|181719458|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A significance level of p\<0.05 was used for all analyses||total scale score comparison||||0.001
90923377|NCT06321809|181719458|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A significance level of p\<0.05 was used for all analyses||total scale score comparison||||0.03
90923378|NCT06321809|181719458|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|A significance level of p\<0.05 was used for all analyses||total scale score comparison||||0.003
90923379|NCT06321809|181719459|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|A significance level of p\<0.05 was used for all analyses||Weight comparison||||0.08
90923380|NCT06321809|181719460|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|A significance level of p\<0.05 was used for all analyses||BMI Comparison||||0.13
90923381|NCT06321809|181719461|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|A significance level of p\<0.05 was used for all analyses||Waist Circumference Comparison||||0.63
90923382|NCT06321809|181719462|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|A significance level of p\<0.05 was used for all analyses||LDL Cholesterol Comparison||||0.89
90923383|NCT01987895|181719479|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of CCR for cadazolid versus vancomycin is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) is above -10%.|Difference between 2 proportions|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|4.3|||||CI for the difference between two proportions are estimated using the Wilson's score method|||4.3|-7.2|
90923384|NCT01987895|181719479|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of CCR for cadazolid versus vancomycin is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) is above -10%.|Difference between 2 proportions|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|3.2|||||CI for the difference between two proportions are estimated using the Wilson's score method|Sensitivity analysis with imputation for a single day with missing UBM data between one day before end-of-treatment (EOT) and 2 days after EOT||3.2|-8.1|
90923385|NCT01987895|181719480|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of CCR for cadazolid versus vancomycin is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) is above -10%.|Difference between 2 proportions|-4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|1.0|||||CI for the difference between two proportions are estimated using the Wilson' score method|||1.0|-9.2|
90923386|NCT01987895|181719481|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of cadazolid versus vancomycin is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) is above zero|Difference between 2 proportions|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|10.8|||||CI for the difference between two proportions are estimated using the Wilson's score method|||10.8|-4.3|
90923387|NCT01987895|181719482|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.6016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.14||two-sided p-value (alpha 5%) based on log-rank test stratified by first occurrence / first recurrence and geographical region.|Log Rank|||||1.14|0.80|0.6016
90963133|NCT01215175|181807462|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|3.6||||||95.0|-19.1|26.0|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method|||26.0|-19.1|
90923388|NCT01987895|181719483|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean difference|0.002||||0.9814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2||Two-sided 5% alpha level was used|ANOVA|ANOVA for repeated measurements was fitted using all values from Day 1 (baseline) to Day 12.|The Least Square Means of the treatments differences for the changes from baseline at Day 3 were obtained using estimate statements|Comparison of the diarrhea domain scores||0.20|-0.20|0.9814
90963134|NCT03872453|181807472|SUPERIORITY|The stratified percentage difference between zavegepant group and placebo was tested at a Bonferroni-corrected alpha level of 0.0167.|Stratified Percentage Difference|4.2||||0.1214|TWO_SIDED|98.3|-2.3|10.7||Threshold for significance at 0.0167 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.7|-2.3|0.1214
90963135|NCT03872453|181807472|SUPERIORITY|The stratified percentage difference between zavegepant group and placebo was tested at a Bonferroni-corrected alpha level of 0.0167.|Stratified Percentage Difference|7.0||||0.0113|TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.4|13.7||Threshold for significance at 0.0167 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||13.7|0.4|0.0113
90963136|NCT03872453|181807472|SUPERIORITY|The stratified percentage difference between zavegepant group and placebo was tested at a Bonferroni-corrected alpha level of 0.0167.|Stratified Percentage Difference|7.7||||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|98.3|1.1|14.3||Threshold for significance at 0.0167 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||14.3|1.1|0.0055
90963137|NCT03872453|181807473|SUPERIORITY|The stratified percentage difference between zavegepant group and placebo was tested at a Bonferroni-corrected alpha level of 0.0167.|Stratified Percentage Difference|5.4||||0.1162|TWO_SIDED|98.3|-2.8|13.6||Threshold for significance at 0.0167 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||13.6|-2.8|0.1162
90963138|NCT03872453|181807473|SUPERIORITY|The stratified percentage difference between zavegepant group and placebo was tested at a Bonferroni-corrected alpha level of 0.0167.|Stratified Percentage Difference|8.3||||0.0155|TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.1|16.5||Threshold for significance at 0.0167 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||16.5|0.1|0.0155
90963139|NCT03872453|181807473|SUPERIORITY|The stratified percentage difference between zavegepant group and placebo was tested at a Bonferroni-corrected alpha level of 0.0167.|Stratified Percentage Difference|8.9||||0.0094|TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.7|17.0||Threshold for significance at 0.0167 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||17.0|0.7|0.0094
90963140|NCT03872453|181807474|SUPERIORITY|The stratified percentage difference between zavegepant group and placebo was tested at a Bonferroni-corrected alpha level of 0.0167.|Stratified Percentage Difference|7.1||||0.0439|TWO_SIDED|98.3|-1.3|15.4||Threshold for significance at 0.0167 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||If the coprimary endpoint tests were both significant for a zavegepant dose group versus placebo, the secondary endpoints were tested for that zavegepant dose group versus placebo using a hierarchical gate-keeping procedure in the order the endpoints are reported, with each test in the hierarchy conducted at alpha = 0.0167. If a test in the hierarchy was not significant, any further tests on endpoints in the sequence were not considered significant for any zavegepant dose group versus placebo.||15.4|-1.3|0.0439
90963141|NCT03872453|181807474|SUPERIORITY|The stratified percentage difference between zavegepant group and placebo was tested at a Bonferroni-corrected alpha level of 0.0167.|Stratified Percentage Difference|7.5||||0.0302|TWO_SIDED|98.3|-0.8|15.9||Threshold for significance at 0.0167 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||If the coprimary endpoint tests were both significant for a zavegepant dose group versus placebo, the secondary endpoints were tested for that zavegepant dose group versus placebo using a hierarchical gate-keeping procedure in the order the endpoints are reported, with each test in the hierarchy conducted at alpha = 0.0167. If a test in the hierarchy was not significant, any further tests on endpoints in the sequence were not considered significant for any zavegepant dose group versus placebo.||15.9|-0.8|0.0302
90963142|NCT02960113|181807496|OTHER|||||||0.98||||||Bonferroni-adjusted P-value, calculated as two times the nominal p-value because there are two primary outcomes|Chi-squared|d.f.=2||Null hypothesis: Percent experiencing nausea equal between groups||||0.98
90963143|NCT02960113|181807497|OTHER|||||||0.9||||||Bonferroni-adjusted P-value, calculated as two times the nominal p-value because there are two primary outcomes|Chi-squared|d.f.=2||Null hypothesis: Percent experiencing vomiting equal across groups||||0.90
90963144|NCT02960113|181807498|OTHER|Null hypothesis: Mean scores equal across treatment groups||||||0.026|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.026
90963145|NCT02960113|181807499|OTHER|Null hypothesis: means equal across treatment groups||||||0.91|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.91
90963146|NCT02960113|181807500|OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: means equal across treatment groups||||0.80
90963147|NCT02960113|181807501|OTHER|||||||0.82|||||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: means equal across treatment groups||||0.82
90963148|NCT02960113|181807502|OTHER|||||||0.93|||||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: means equal across treatment groups||||0.93
90963149|NCT02960113|181807503|OTHER|Null hypothesis: percent of vomiting equal across treatment groups||||||0.55|||||||Chi-squared|d.f.=2||||||0.55
90963150|NCT02960113|181807504|OTHER|||||||0.71|||||||Chi-squared|d.f.=2||Null hypothesis: percent of vomiting equal across treatment groups||||0.71
90963151|NCT02960113|181807505|OTHER|||||||0.55|||||||Chi-squared|d.f.=2||Null hypothesis: percent of vomiting equal across treatment groups||||0.55
90963152|NCT02960113|181807506|OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||Chi-squared|d.f.=2||Null hypothesis: percent of vomiting equal across treatment groups||||0.20
90963153|NCT00863109|181807508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027|||||||Student´s t-test for paired samples|||Within-group comparison of Worry domain between BL Visit and WK72 Visit||||0.027
90923389|NCT01987895|181719483|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean difference|0.087||||0.2879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.25||Two-sided 5% alpha level was used|ANOVA|ANOVA for repeated measurements was fitted using all values from Day 1 (baseline) to Day 12|The Least Square Means of the treatments differences for the changes from baseline at Day 3 were obtained using estimate statements|Comparison of the abdominal symptoms domain scores||0.25|-0.07|0.2879
90923390|NCT01987895|181719483|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean difference|0.05||||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.19||Two-sided 5% alpha level was used|ANOVA|ANOVA for repeated measurements was fitted using all values from Day 1 (baseline) to Day 12|The Least Square Means of the treatments differences for the changes from baseline at Day 3 were obtained using estimate statements|Comparison of the systemic / other symptoms domain scores||0.19|-0.09|0.4880
90923391|NCT01987895|181719484|OTHER||Difference between 2 proportions|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|2.9|||||CI for the difference between two proportions are estimated using the Wilson's score method|Exploratory analysis||2.9|-6.5|
90923392|NCT01987895|181719485|OTHER||Difference between 2 proportions|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|2.3|||||CI for the difference between two proportions are estimated using the Wilson's score method|Exploratory analysis||2.3|-6.2|
90923393|NCT01987895|181719486|OTHER||Difference between 2 proportions|3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|10.7|||||CI for the difference between two proportions are estimated using the Wilson's score method|Exploratory analysis||10.7|-3.4|
90923394|NCT01987895|181719487|OTHER|Sensitivity analysis|Difference between 2 proportions|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|8.7|||||CI for the difference between two proportions are estimated using the Wilson's score method|||8.7|-6.5|
90923395|NCT01073566|181719495|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Pre-study power calculations determined that 28 completed subjects provided 90% power to detect equivalence for the primary endpoint of MDBG of bolus-patch compared to pen/syringe using a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05, when the margin of equivalence for MDBG is 1.11 mmol/L, the true mean difference is 0.0, and the standard deviation of the differences is 1.72 mmol/L.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|0.16|||ANOVA||Finesse versus usual injection device.|A two-period, two-treatment crossover ANOVA model was used to compare devices for continuous measures.||0.16|-0.97|0.098
90923396|NCT01073566|181719496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.17|||ANOVA||Finesse versus usual injection device|This was conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05 and confidence intervals (CI) were calculated at 95%, 2-sided. A two-period, two-treatment crossover ANOVA model was used to compare devices for continuous measures.||-0.17|-0.80|0.004
90923397|NCT01073566|181719497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||McNemar|||Higher number is better. The answers were scored on a scale of 0-100 to standardize as described in the original papers.||||<0.001
90963154|NCT00863109|181807509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038|||||||Student´s t-test for paired samples|||Between-group comparison of change from baseline in MCS||||0.038
90923398|NCT03959696|181719507|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.36||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.64||A priori threshold for statistical significance is .05|Regression, Linear|We used a linear regression model with Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) techniques to account for the patients-within-physicians data structure|Mean difference is the Training + Notification arm minus the Notification only arm|The null hypothesis SDMP is equal in the two arms||.64|.08|.011
90923399|NCT03959696|181719508|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.77||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.01|5.55||A priori threshold for statistical significance is .05|Regression, Linear|We used a linear regression model with Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) techniques to account for the patients-within-physicians data structure||The null hypothesis is that the two arms have the same knowledge score||5.55|-2.01|0.36
90923400|NCT03959696|181719509|SUPERIORITY|We will have 81% power to detect a difference of 14% in rates (e.g. decrease from 61% to 47%).||||||0.47|||||||Regression, Logistic|||We will compare the percentages of patients who received their preferred screening in the 12 months after the visit across the two groups using logistic regression model with the GEE approach to adjust for clustering of patients within clinicians.||||0.47
90923401|NCT03959696|181719510|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.53||||0.19|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.19
90923402|NCT03959696|181719511|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.4||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|18.0|||Chi-squared|||Null hypothesis was equal screening rate in both arms||18.0|0.9|0.032
90923403|NCT03959696|181719512|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.5||||0.64|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.64
90923404|NCT05604508|181719538|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.735|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.347|1.553|||||Adjusted for age, gender, race, socioeconomic status, lifetime tobacco use, and baseline cigarette use intentions|||1.553|0.347|
90923405|NCT05604508|181719538|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.471|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.234|0.947|||||Adjusted for age, gender, race, socioeconomic status, lifetime tobacco use, and baseline cigarette use intentions.|||0.947|0.234|
90923406|NCT05604508|181719539|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.503|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.727|3.107|||||Adjusted for age, gender, race, socioeconomic status, lifetime tobacco use, baseline vaping intentions|||3.107|0.727|
90923407|NCT05604508|181719539|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.878|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.398|1.938|||||Adjusted for age, gender, race, socioeconomic status, lifetime tobacco use, baseline vaping intentions|||1.938|0.398|
90923408|NCT05604508|181719540|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.619|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.295|1.301|||||Adjusted for age, gender, race, socioeconomic status, lifetime tobacco use, and baseline smokeless use intentions|||1.301|0.295|
90923409|NCT05604508|181719540|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.489|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.237|1.006|||||Adjusted for age, gender, race, socioeconomic status, lifetime tobacco, baseline smokeless use intentions|||1.006|0.237|
90923410|NCT05604508|181719541|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.428|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.832|||||Adjusted for age, gender, race, socioeconomic status, lifetime tobacco use, baseline LCC use intentions|||2.832|0.720|
90963155|NCT00863109|181807510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014|||||||Student´s t-test for paired samples|||Between-group comparison of change from baseline in Emotional Function domain||||0.014
90963156|NCT00863109|181807510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||Student´s t-test for paired samples|||Between-group comparison of change from baseline in Worry domain||||0.009
90963157|NCT00863109|181807510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022|||||||Student´s t-test for paired samples|||Between-group comparison of change from baseline in CLDQ-HCV Global domain||||0.022
90923411|NCT05604508|181719541|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.681|2.96|||||Adjusted for age, gender, race, socioeconomic status, lifetime tobacco use, baseline LCC use intentions|||2.960|0.681|
90883599|NCT01574703|181629964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.42||||0.8201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.01|3.17||P-values are for the risk differences of pairwise comparisons based on the logistic regression model with terms Baseline Cardiovascular Risk, treatment, cohort, region, and treatment by cohort interaction.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis between NRT patch and Placebo.||3.17|-4.01|0.8201
90923412|NCT06019559|181719658|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0756||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM model with gender, treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and baseline body weight as a covariate.||||||0.0756
90923413|NCT06019559|181719658|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0008||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|(MMRM) model with gender, treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and baseline body weight as a covariate.||For the primary endpoint of percentage change from baseline in body weight, a sample size of 150 participants (stratified by gender and randomized 1:1:1 into three treatment arms) provided \>95% power to detect a treatment difference of 4% weight reduction after 13 weeks of treatment with a 2-sided alpha of 0.05, assuming a standard deviation of 4% and 20% drop out.||||0.0008
90923414|NCT06019559|181719659|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8366||||||The threshold for significance was p = 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.8366
90923415|NCT06019559|181719659|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1848||||||The threshold for significance was p = 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.1848
90923416|NCT06019559|181719660|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0616||||||The threshold for significance was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0616
90923417|NCT06019559|181719660|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004||||||The threshold for significance was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0004
90923418|NCT03344094|181719663|OTHER|changes in subsets paired and unpaired t-tests, ANOVA||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.05
90923419|NCT04568603|181719775|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis that administration of methadone + ISL is similar to the methadone alone will be supported if the 90% CI for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) of methadone+ ISL to methadone alone is contained within the interval (0.70, 1.43).|GMR|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.07||||||||1.07|1.00|
90923420|NCT04568603|181719776|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis that administration of methadone + ISL is similar to the methadone alone will be supported if the upper bound of the 90% CI for the GMR of methadone+ ISL to methadone alone is below 2.0.|GMR|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.99|1.07||||||||1.07|0.99|
90923421|NCT04568603|181719777|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis that administration of methadone + ISL is similar to the methadone alone will be supported if the upper bound of the 90% CI for the GMR of methadone+ ISL to methadone alone is below 1.43.|GMR|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.09||||||||1.09|0.96|
90923422|NCT04568603|181719778|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis that administration of methadone + ISL is similar to methadone alone will be supported if the upper bound of the 90% CI for the GMR of methadone+ ISL to methadone alone is below 2.0.|GMR|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.03|1.1||||||||1.10|1.03|
90963158|NCT00702845|181807535|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Equivalence margins of -3 and +5 were applied for the difference in the mean number of oocytes between the treatment groups. Org 36286 treatment was considered equivalent to the reference treatment (recFSH) if the two-sided 95% confidence interval of the difference was between -3 and +5 oocytes.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|3.9|||ANOVA|||||3.9|1.2|<0.001
90883600|NCT01574703|181629965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.21||||0.8932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.22|2.81||P-values are for the risk differences of pairwise comparisons based on the logistic regression model with terms Baseline Cardiovascular Risk, treatment, cohort, region, and treatment by cohort interaction.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis between Varenicline and Bupropion.||2.81|-3.22|0.8932
90923423|NCT04568603|181719780|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis that administration of methadone + ISL is similar to methadone alone will be supported if the upper bound of the 90% CI for the GMR of methadone+ ISL to methadone alone is below 2.0.|GMR|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|1.09||||||||1.09|0.94|
90923424|NCT04568603|181719781|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis that administration of methadone + ISL is similar to methadone alone will be supported if the upper bound of the 90% CI for the GMR of methadone+ ISL to methadone alone is below 2.0.|GMR|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.04|1.13||||||||1.13|1.04|
90923425|NCT04568603|181719783|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis that administration of methadone + ISL is similar to methadone alone will be supported if the upper bound of the 90% CI for the GMR of methadone+ ISL to methadone alone is below 2.0.|GMR|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.99|1.07||||||||1.07|0.99|
90923426|NCT04568603|181719784|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis that administration of methadone + ISL is similar to methadone alone will be supported if the upper bound of the 90% CI for the GMR of methadone+ ISL to methadone alone is below 2.0.|GMR|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|1.08||||||||1.08|0.95|
90923427|NCT04568603|181719785|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis that administration of methadone + ISL is similar to methadone alone will be supported if the upper bound of the 90% CI for the GMR of methadone+ ISL to methadone alone is below 2.0.|GMR|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.03|1.11||||||||1.11|1.03|
90923428|NCT04564742|181719789|SUPERIORITY||Win Ratio (WR)|1.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|1.5||A closed testing procedure including a pre-specified hierarchical ordering of the primary and secondary endpoints was utilised. No multiplicity control was placed on the exploratory endpoints.|Win Ratio Analysis|||The primary objective of the study was to determine if the clinical benefit of dapagliflozin was superior as compared with placebo, utilizing a hierarchical composite endpoint and win-ratio (WR) method. With a presumed WR of 1.20, 4000 patients were provide an 80% statistical power for the primary endpoint, maintaining a 1:1 allocation between treatments. The primary analysis was based on the intention-to-treat principle using the Full Analysis Set.||1.50|1.20|<0.001
90923429|NCT03313076|181719797|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.84||||0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.32|0.63||"The final, adjusted p-value threshold of 0.0492, using the O'Brien-Fleming approach, allows for a statistical penalty to be assessed because of the interim analysis."|Mixed Models Analysis|The model was adjusted for age, sex, race, treatment interaction, initial pain severity, and total body surface area burned.||||0.63|-2.32|0.276
90963159|NCT00440700|181807553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|15.5|||<|0.05||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis was used to determine if there were any differences in anxiety levels in patients who listen to music as compared to headphones only or usual ICU care.||||<0.05
90923430|NCT03313076|181719797|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.72||||0.336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|2.14||"The final, adjusted p-value threshold of 0.0492, using the O'Brien-Fleming approach, allows for a statistical penalty to be assessed because of the interim analysis."|Mixed Models Analysis|The model was adjusted for age, sex, race, treatment interaction, initial pain severity, and total body surface area burned.||||2.14|-0.71|0.336
90963160|NCT00440700|181807555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61|<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis||Usual care was the reference comparison group.|Length of mechanical ventilatory support was assessed among all 3 groups. Usual usual care was the reference group as compared to the experimental patient-directed music group.||||<0.05
90923431|NCT03313076|181719797|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.33||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.76|-0.9||"The final, adjusted p-value threshold of 0.0492, using the O'Brien-Fleming approach, allows for a statistical penalty to be assessed because of the interim analysis."|Mixed Models Analysis|The model was adjusted for age, sex, race, treatment interaction, initial pain severity, and total body surface area burned.||Sensitivity analysis adjusting for an influential observation (using the dfbeta approach) that could produce spurious results from a small trial dataset||-0.9|-3.76|0.004
90923432|NCT03313076|181719797|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.92||||0.139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|2.09||"The final, adjusted p-value threshold of 0.0492, using the O'Brien-Fleming approach, allows for a statistical penalty to be assessed because of the interim analysis."|Mixed Models Analysis|The model was adjusted for age, sex, race, treatment interaction, initial pain severity, and total body surface area burned.||Sensitivity analysis adjusting for an influential observation (using the dfbeta approach) that could produce spurious results from a small trial dataset||2.09|-0.25|0.139
90923433|NCT04137367|181719843|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||We estimated a priori that a total of 100 participants would be needed to detect a difference between ABM and sham condition, with a two-tailed α of 0.05 and (1-β) of .80. Power calculation was based on the assumption that 50 % of the participants allocated to ABM would report a minimum of 3 points reduction on BDI-II at six months, compared to 20 % in the sham condition. Assuming 15 % lost to follow up, power calculation indicated the need for 50 participants in each condition||||.05
90923434|NCT05448105|181719882|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|"Wilcoxon signed rank test comparing the participants' SUS scores to the threshold value of 71 indicative of good usability."||||||0.02
90923435|NCT05448105|181719885|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||paired Wilcoxon signed-rank sum test|||||||0.04
90963161|NCT00440700|181807556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|5.0|||<|0.05||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cortisol levels were compared among all 3 groups.||||<0.05
90963162|NCT04697264|181807559|OTHER|Univariate linear regression was initially performed, followed by multivariate regression using the significant associations from the univariate analysis.||||||0.026||||||Adjustments to the p-values for multiple comparison were performed using Benjamini and Hochberg approach on 'R' and represented in the text as adjusted p-value.|Regression, Linear|||The influence of age on adiponectin levels was analysed by dividing the population into binary groups (\<60 years and \>/= 60 years) to facilitate comparison.||||0.026
90963163|NCT04697264|181807559|OTHER|Univariate linear regression was initially performed, followed by multivariate regression using the significant associations from the univariate analysis.||||||0.496||||||Adjustments to the p-values for multiple comparisons were performed using Benjamini and Hochberg approach on 'R'.|Regression, Linear|||The influence of age on adiponectin levels was analysed by dividing the population into binary groups (\<60years and \>/=60years) to facilitate comparison.||||0.496
90963164|NCT04697264|181807559|OTHER|Univariate linear regression was initially performed, followed by multivariate regression using the significant associations from the univariate analysis.|||||>|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||The influence of age on leptin levels was analysed by dividing the population into binary groups (\<60years and \>/=60years) to facilitate comparison.||||>0.05
90923436|NCT05448105|181719886|OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||This is calculated p-value. The threshold for significance was less than 0.05.|paired Wilcoxon signed-rank sum test|||||||<0.01
90963165|NCT04697264|181807559|OTHER|Univariate linear regression was initially performed, followed by multivariate regression using the significant associations from the univariate analysis.|||||>|0.05||||||Adjustments to the p-values for multiple comparisons were performed using Benjamini and Hochberg approach on 'R'.|Regression, Linear|||The influence of age on IGF1 and 2 levels were analysed by dividing the population into binary groups (\<60years and \>/=60years) to facilitate comparison.||||>0.05
90923437|NCT05448105|181719887|OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||paired Wilcoxon signed-rank sum test|||||||0.16
90923438|NCT05448105|181719888|OTHER|||||||0.69|||||||paired Wilcoxon signed-rank sum test|||||||0.69
90923439|NCT05448105|181719889|OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||paired Wilcoxon signed-rank sum test|||||||0.90
90923440|NCT05448105|181719890|OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||paired Wilcoxon signed-rank sum test|||||||0.11
90923441|NCT05448105|181719891|OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||paired Wilcoxon signed-rank sum test|||||||0.22
90923442|NCT05448105|181719892|OTHER|||||||1||||||This is the calculated p-value.|McNemar|||Analysis for pre-post change in knowledge of definition of A1C||||1.00
90963166|NCT04697264|181807559|OTHER|Univariate linear regression was initially performed, followed by multivariate regression using the significant associations from the univariate analysis. Adjustments to the p-values for multiple comparisons were performed using Benjamini and Hochberg approach on 'R'.|||||>|0.05||||||Adjustments to the p-values for multiple comparisons were performed using Benjamini and Hochberg approach on 'R'.|Regression, Linear|||The influence of age on IGF1 and 2 levels were analysed by dividing the population into binary groups (\<60years and \>/=60years) to facilitate comparison.||||>0.05
90923443|NCT05448105|181719892|OTHER|||||||0.55|||||||McNemar|||Analysis for pre-post change in knowledge of goal range for hemoglobin A1c.||||0.55
90923444|NCT05448105|181719892|OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||McNemar|||Analysis for pre-post change in knowledge of definition of systolic blood pressure||||0.11
90923445|NCT05448105|181719892|OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||McNemar|||Analysis of pre-post change in knowledge of goal range for systolic blood pressure||||0.63
90923446|NCT05448105|181719892|OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||McNemar|||Analysis of pre-post change in knowledge of definition of LDL cholesterol||||0.12
90923447|NCT05448105|181719892|OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||McNemar|||Analysis for pre-post change in knowledge of goal range for LDL cholesterol||||0.33
90923448|NCT05448105|181719892|OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||McNemar|||Analysis of pre-post change in knowledge of definition of urine microalbumin||||0.23
90963167|NCT04697264|181807559|OTHER|Univariate linear regression was initially performed, followed by multivariate regression using the significant associations from the univariate analysis.|||||>|0.05||||||Adjustments to the p-values for multiple comparisons were performed using Benjamini and Hochberg approach on 'R'.|Regression, Linear|||The influence of menopausal status on levels of adiponectin, leptin, IGF1 and 2 were analysed by dividing the population into binary groups (pre-menopausal and menopausal) to facilitate comparison.||||>0.05
90883601|NCT01574703|181629965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.23||||0.8747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|2.63||P-values are for the risk differences of pairwise comparisons based on the logistic regression model with terms Baseline Cardiovascular Risk, treatment, cohort, region, and treatment by cohort interaction.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis between Varenicline and NRT patch.||2.63|-3.09|0.8747
90883602|NCT01574703|181629965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.6||||0.671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.35|2.15||P-values are for the risk differences of pairwise comparisons based on the logistic regression model with terms Baseline Cardiovascular Risk, treatment, cohort, region, and treatment by cohort interaction.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis between Varenicline and Placebo.||2.15|-3.35|0.6710
90883603|NCT01574703|181629965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.02||||0.9886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.32|3.27||P-values are for the risk differences of pairwise comparisons based on the logistic regression model with terms Baseline Cardiovascular Risk, treatment, cohort, region, and treatment by cohort interaction.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis between Bupropion and NRT patch.||3.27|-3.32|0.9886
90883604|NCT01574703|181629965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.39||||0.7631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.92|2.14||P-values are for the risk differences of pairwise comparisons based on the logistic regression model with terms Baseline Cardiovascular Risk, treatment, cohort, region, and treatment by cohort interaction.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis between Bupropion and Placebo.||2.14|-2.92|0.7631
90883605|NCT01574703|181629965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.37||||0.8022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.23|2.5||P-values are for the risk differences of pairwise comparisons based on the logistic regression model with terms Baseline Cardiovascular Risk, treatment, cohort, region, and treatment by cohort interaction.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis between NRT patch and Placebo.||2.50|-3.23|0.8022
90883606|NCT01574703|181629966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.91||||0.6441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.78|2.96||P-values are for the risk differences of pairwise comparisons based on the logistic regression model with terms Baseline Cardiovascular Risk, treatment, cohort, region, and treatment by cohort interaction.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis between Varenicline and Bupropion.||2.96|-4.78|0.6441
90883607|NCT01574703|181629966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.69||||0.7327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.63|3.26||P-values are for the risk differences of pairwise comparisons based on the logistic regression model with terms Baseline Cardiovascular Risk, treatment, cohort, region, and treatment by cohort interaction.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis between Varenicline and NRT patch.||3.26|-4.63|0.7327
90883608|NCT01574703|181629966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.99||||0.6109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|2.82||P-values are for the risk differences of pairwise comparisons based on the logistic regression model with terms Baseline Cardiovascular Risk, treatment, cohort, region, and treatment by cohort interaction.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis between Varenicline and Placebo.||2.82|-4.80|0.6109
90883609|NCT01574703|181629966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.22||||0.8707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|2.93||P-values are for the risk differences of pairwise comparisons based on the logistic regression model with terms Baseline Cardiovascular Risk, treatment, cohort, region, and treatment by cohort interaction.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis between Bupropion and NRT patch.||2.93|-2.48|0.8707
90883610|NCT01574703|181629966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.08||||0.9531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.63|2.48||P-values are for the risk differences of pairwise comparisons based on the logistic regression model with terms Baseline Cardiovascular Risk, treatment, cohort, region, and treatment by cohort interaction.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis between Bupropion and Placebo.||2.48|-2.63|0.9531
90883611|NCT01574703|181629966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.3||||0.8262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.99|2.39||P-values are for the risk differences of pairwise comparisons based on the logistic regression model with terms Baseline Cardiovascular Risk, treatment, cohort, region, and treatment by cohort interaction.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis between NRT patch and Placebo.||2.39|-2.99|0.8262
90883612|NCT01574703|181629967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.59||||0.6105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.84|1.67||P-values are for the risk differences of pairwise comparisons based on the logistic regression model with terms Baseline Cardiovascular Risk, treatment, cohort, region, and treatment by cohort interaction.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis between Varenicline and Bupropion.||1.67|-2.84|0.6105
90923449|NCT05448105|181719892|OTHER|||||||0.58|||||||McNemar|||Analysis for pre-post change in knowledge of goal range for urine microalbumin||||0.58
90923450|NCT05448105|181719892|OTHER|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||Analysis of pre-post change in knowledge of definition of body mass index (BMI)||||1.00
90923451|NCT05448105|181719892|OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||McNemar|||Analysis for pre-post change in knowledge of goal range for body mass index (BMI)||||0.27
90923452|NCT05329220|181719973|NON_INFERIORITY|The success criterion for the null hypothesis that ABNCoV2 is inferior to Comirnaty will be rejected if the ratio of the GMTs for ABNCoV2 versus Comirnaty is within the non-inferiority margin of 0.67; that is, the lower bound of the 2-sided 97.5% CI of the GMT ratio is \>=0.67.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.89||||0.635|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.5|1.57||P-value corresponds to Cohort 1 ABNCoV2 comparison to Cohort 1 Comirnaty|Mixed Models Analysis|A generalized linear model with age and baseline results included as covariates was used to compare between the vaccination groups.||Formal hypothesis testing was performed due to having at least 400 evaluable subjects with primary endpoint data available at baseline and at 2 weeks after trial vaccination. The null hypothesis is that ABNCoV2 is inferior to Comirnaty and will be rejected if the ratio of the GMTs for ABNCoV2 versus Comirnaty is within the non-inferiority margin of 0.67; that is, the lower bound of the 2-sided 97.5% CI of the GMT ratio is \>=0.67.||1.57|0.50|0.6350
90923453|NCT05329220|181719973|NON_INFERIORITY|The success criterion for the null hypothesis that ABNCoV2 is inferior to Comirnaty will be rejected if the ratio of the GMTs for ABNCoV2 versus Comirnaty is within the non-inferiority margin of 0.67; that is, the lower bound of the 2-sided 97.5% CI of the GMT ratio is \>=0.67.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.8||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.7|0.92||P-value corresponds to Cohort 2 ABNCoV2 comparison to Cohort 2 Comirnaty|Mixed Models Analysis|A generalized linear model with age and baseline results included as covariates was used to compare between the vaccination groups.||Formal hypothesis testing was performed due to having at least 400 evaluable subjects with primary endpoint data available at baseline and at 2 weeks after trial vaccination. The null hypothesis is that ABNCoV2 is inferior to Comirnaty and will be rejected if the ratio of the GMTs for ABNCoV2 versus Comirnaty is within the non-inferiority margin of 0.67; that is, the lower bound of the 2-sided 97.5% CI of the GMT ratio is \>=0.67.||0.92|0.70|0.0002
90923454|NCT05329220|181719974|NON_INFERIORITY|The success criterion for the null hypothesis that ABNCoV2 is inferior to Comirnaty will be rejected if the ratio of the GMTs for ABNCoV2 versus Comirnaty is within the non-inferiority margin of 0.67; that is, the lower bound of the 2-sided 97.5% CI of the GMT ratio is \>=0.67.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.76||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.64|0.91||P-value corresponds to Cohort 2 ABNCoV2 comparison to Cohort 2 Comirnaty for Omicron variant BA.4/BA.5|Mixed Models Analysis|A generalized linear model with age and baseline results included as covariates was used to compare between the vaccination groups.||Formal hypothesis testing was performed due to meeting the primary endpoint success criterion in Cohort 2. The null hypothesis is that ABNCoV2 is inferior to Comirnaty and will be rejected if the ratio of the GMTs for ABNCoV2 versus Comirnaty is within the non-inferiority margin of 0.67; that is, the lower bound of the 2-sided 97.5% CI of the GMT ratio is \>=0.67.||0.91|0.64|0.0008
90923455|NCT05329220|181719974|NON_INFERIORITY|The success criterion for the null hypothesis that ABNCoV2 is inferior to Comirnaty will be rejected if the ratio of the GMTs for ABNCoV2 versus Comirnaty is within the non-inferiority margin of 0.67; that is, the lower bound of the 2-sided 97.5% CI of the GMT ratio is \>=0.67.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.59|0.81||P-value corresponds to Cohort 2 ABNCoV2 comparison to Cohort 2 Comirnaty for Omicron Variant XBB.1.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|A generalized linear model with age and baseline results included as covariates was used to compare between the vaccination groups.||Formal hypothesis testing was performed due to meeting the primary endpoint success criterion in Cohort 2. The null hypothesis is that ABNCoV2 is inferior to Comirnaty and will be rejected if the ratio of the GMTs for ABNCoV2 versus Comirnaty is within the non-inferiority margin of 0.67; that is, the lower bound of the 2-sided 97.5% CI of the GMT ratio is \>=0.67.||0.81|0.59|<0.0001
90923456|NCT05651308|181719981|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.026||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.08|||Chi-squared||Risk difference = Intervention proportion minus control proportion.|||0.08|-0.03|0.37
90923457|NCT00986856|181719985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.2|||<|0.01||95.0|1.4|120.4||Test for the hypothesis of odds ratio equal to 1.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||120.4|1.4|<0.01
90923458|NCT00986856|181719986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.7||||0.023||95.0|1.1|28.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||28.6|1.1|0.023
90923459|NCT00986856|181719987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|8.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||8.1|0.3|0.54
90923460|NCT00986856|181719988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.7||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|8.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||8.8|0.8|0.1
90923461|NCT00986856|181719989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1
90923462|NCT00986856|181719990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.5||||0.043||95.0|0.9|83.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||83.5|0.9|0.043
90923463|NCT00986856|181719991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.8||||0.007||95.0|1.5|109.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||109.6|1.5|0.007
90963168|NCT04697264|181807559|OTHER|Univariate linear regression was initially performed, followed by multivariate regression using the significant associations from the univariate analysis.||||||0.014||||||Adjustments to the p-values for multiple comparisons were performed using Benjamini and Hochberg approach on 'R'.|Regression, Linear|||The influence of menopausal status on levels of adiponectin was analysed by dividing the population into binary groups (pre-menopausal and menopausal) to facilitate comparison.||||0.014
90963169|NCT04697264|181807559|OTHER|Univariate linear regression was initially performed, followed by multivariate regression using the significant associations from the univariate analysis.||||||0.006||||||Adjustments to the p-values for multiple comparisons were performed using Benjamini and Hochberg approach on 'R'.|Regression, Linear|||The influence of menopausal status on levels of leptin was analysed by dividing the population into binary groups (pre-menopausal and menopausal) to facilitate comparison.||||0.006
90963170|NCT04697264|181807559|OTHER|Univariate linear regression was initially performed, followed by multivariate regression using the significant associations from the univariate analysis.||||||0.019||||||Adjustments to the p-values for multiple comparisons were performed using Benjamini and Hochberg approach on 'R'.|Regression, Linear|||The influence of menopausal status on levels of IGF1 and IGF2 were analysed by dividing the population into binary groups (pre-menopausal and menopausal) to facilitate comparison.||||0.019
90923464|NCT00986856|181719992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.0||0.008||95.0|-4.8|-0.8|||Regression, Linear|||||-0.8|-4.8|0.008
90923465|NCT05445427|181719993|SUPERIORITY|Groups were compared using Wilcoxon rank sum test.||||||0.544|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.544
90923466|NCT05445427|181719994|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.292|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA was used with the baseline value used as the covariate.||||||0.292
90923467|NCT05835336|181719997|SUPERIORITY|Considering the exploratory nature of the study, a sample size of at least 0.5 (Cohen's D) for a 2-Tailed test, at alpha-0.05 with a power of 80%, was chosen to detect significant within-subject effects.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90923468|NCT05835336|181719998|SUPERIORITY|Considering the exploratory nature of the study, a sample size of at least 0.5 (Cohen's D) for a 2-Tailed test, at alpha-0.05 with a power of 80%, was chosen to detect significant within-subject effects.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90923469|NCT05835336|181719999|SUPERIORITY|Considering the exploratory nature of the study, a sample size of at least 0.5 (Cohen's D) for a 2-Tailed test, at alpha-0.05 with a power of 80%, was chosen to detect significant within-subject effects.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.55||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
91034446|NCT01639222|181955108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Calcium-Vitamin D/Reference (%)|179.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|157.16|205.52|||||Point estimates and 95% CIs for the treatment difference ratio (Calcium-Vitamin D/reference treatment) are provided on the original scale as a ratio \* 100%.|The primary parameters were analysed in a mixed effects general linear model of the logtransformed values, including treatment as a fixed effect and subject as a random effect. The objective of the trial was met if the treatment contrast was statistically significantly different from 0 in the appropriate direction in a 2-sided test on a 5% significance level for both parameters. The 5% significance level for both primary parameters was not adjusted for multiple testing.||205.52|157.16|
91034447|NCT01639222|181955109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Calcium-Vitamin D/Reference (%)|71.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.83|74.84|||||Point estimate and 95% CI for the treatment difference ratio (Calcium-Vitamin D /reference treatment) are provided on the original scale as a ratio \* 100%.|||74.84|68.83|
91034448|NCT01639222|181955110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Calcium-Vitamin D/Reference (%)|156.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|121.66|201.93|||||Point estimates and 95% CIs for the treatment difference ratio (Calcium-Vitamin D / reference treatment) are provided on the original scale as a ratio \* 100%.|||201.93|121.66|
90883613|NCT01574703|181629967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.32||||0.7895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.65|2.01||P-values are for the risk differences of pairwise comparisons based on the logistic regression model with terms Baseline Cardiovascular Risk, treatment, cohort, region, and treatment by cohort interaction.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis between Varenicline and NRT patch.||2.01|-2.65|0.7895
90883614|NCT01574703|181629967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.48||||0.6804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.75|1.8||P-values are for the risk differences of pairwise comparisons based on the logistic regression model with terms Baseline Cardiovascular Risk, treatment, cohort, region, and treatment by cohort interaction.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis between Varenicline and Placebo.||1.80|-2.75|0.6804
90883615|NCT01574703|181629967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.27||||0.8127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|2.49||P-values are for the risk differences of pairwise comparisons based on the logistic regression model with terms Baseline Cardiovascular Risk, treatment, cohort, region, and treatment by cohort interaction.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis between Bupropion and NRT patch.||2.49|-1.95|0.8127
90883616|NCT01574703|181629967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.11||||0.9218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|2.25||P-values are for the risk differences of pairwise comparisons based on the logistic regression model with terms Baseline Cardiovascular Risk, treatment, cohort, region, and treatment by cohort interaction.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis between Bupropion and Placebo.||2.25|-2.04|0.9218
90883617|NCT01574703|181629967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.16||||0.8841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.32|2.0||P-values are for the risk differences of pairwise comparisons based on the logistic regression model with terms Baseline Cardiovascular Risk, treatment, cohort, region, and treatment by cohort interaction.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis between NRT patch and Placebo.||2.00|-2.32|0.8841
90883618|NCT00749931|181629968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
90883619|NCT00749931|181629969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative reduction|0.47||||0.002|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.002
90883620|NCT04590495|181629972|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.946|||||||Mann Whitney U Test|||||||0.9460
90883621|NCT04590495|181629973|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5699|||||||Mann Whitney U Test|||||||0.5699
90883622|NCT04590495|181629974|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6068|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6068
90883623|NCT04590495|181629975|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.903|||||||Mann Whitney U Test|||||||0.9030
90883624|NCT04590495|181629976|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2668|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2668
90883625|NCT04590495|181629977|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8749||||||adjusted for baseline VAMS score|paired t test|||||||0.8749
90883626|NCT04590495|181629978|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7922||||||adjusted for baseline VAMS score for physical sedation|paired t test|||||||0.7922
90883627|NCT04590495|181629979|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9925||||||adjusted for baseline SSS score|paired t test|||||||0.9925
90883628|NCT04590495|181629980|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2628||||||adjusted for baseline score|paired t test|||||||0.2628
90883629|NCT04590495|181629981|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0347||||||adjusted for baseline scores|paired t test|||||||0.0347
90883630|NCT04590495|181629982|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6331||||||adjusted for baseline score|paired t test|||||||0.6331
90883631|NCT04590495|181629983|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.472||||||adjusted for baseline score|paired t test|||||||0.4720
90883632|NCT04590495|181629984|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||adjusted for baseline reaction time|paired t test|||||||0.0200
91034449|NCT01723397|181955117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.8
91034450|NCT01302548|181955147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0833|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.8609||0.797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5738|0.7405||This is unadjusted.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 28||"Ho: There is not a significant difference between the use of IRRISEPT solution and the usual care methods on abscess healing.~This study did not enroll an adequate number of patients to meet sufficient power."||.7405|-.5738|.7970
91034451|NCT01302548|181955148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.2364||||0.3575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0239|2.3394||This is unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|Cell (1,1) Frequency (F) = 13||"Ho: There is not a significant difference between the proportion of patients requiring antibiotics after the use of IRRISEPT solution vs. the usual care methods on abscess healing.~This study did not enroll an adequate number of patients to meet sufficient power."||2.3394|.0239|.3575
91034452|NCT01302548|181955149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.5477||0.5415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0659|1.2659||This is unadjusted.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 4||"Ho: There is not a significant difference between the use of IRRISEPT solution and the usual care methods on abscess healing in patients that are MRSA positive.~This study did not enroll an adequate number of patients to meet sufficient power."||1.2659|-2.0659|.5415
91034453|NCT01237054|181955153|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024||||||The reported p-value is representative of the difference in levels of Ang2 in both groups.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.024
91034454|NCT01237054|181955153|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.055||||||The reported p-value is representative of the difference in levels of G-CSF in both groups.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.055
91034455|NCT01237054|181955153|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.055||||||The reported p-value is representative of the difference in levels of Follistatin in both groups.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.055
91034456|NCT01237054|181955153|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0098||||||The reported p-value is representative of the difference in levels of HGF in both groups.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.0098
90963171|NCT04697264|181807560|OTHER|Univariate linear regression was initially performed, followed by multivariate regression using the significant associations from the univariate analysis.||||||0.033||||||Adjustments to the p-values for multiple comparison were performed using Benjamini and Hochberg approach on 'R'.|Regression, Linear|||Effects of LVSI on adiponectin levels were assessed using multivariate linear regression, with binary categorisations (presence and absence of LVSI) to facilitate comparisons.||||0.033
90963172|NCT04697264|181807560|OTHER|Univariate linear regression was initially performed, followed by multivariate regression using the significant associations from the univariate analysis.||||||0.015||||||Adjustments to the p-values for multiple comparisons were performed using Benjamini and Hochberg approach on 'R'.|Regression, Linear|||Effects of MELF on TNF levels were assessed using multivariate linear regression, with binary categorisations (presence and absence of MELF) to facilitate comparisons.||||0.015
90963173|NCT04697264|181807560|OTHER|Univariate linear regression was initially performed, followed by multivariate regression using the significant associations from the univariate analysis.|||||>|0.05||||||Adjustments to the p-values for multiple comparisons were performed using Benjamini and Hochberg approach on 'R'.|Regression, Linear|||Effects of tumour grade (Grade 1/2), stage (Stage 1/ \>/=1), histology (type 1 and type 2), and MSI (presence or absence) on the biomarker levels (adiponectin, leptin, IGF 1 and 2, IL6 and TNF) were assessed using multivariate linear regression, with binary categorisations to facilitate comparisons.||||>0.05
90963174|NCT04697264|181807561|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Adjustments to the p-values for multiple comparison were performed using the Benjamini and Hochberg approach in 'R'.|Regression, Linear|||To compare biomarker levels between study and control populations, a linear regression model was used, adjusting for BMI, diabetes, and parity, which are the unmatched factors between the study and control groups. This adjustment aimed to mitigate the confounding impact of these factors, considering their individual influence on the risk of endometrial cancer.||||<0.0001
90963175|NCT04697264|181807562|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Adjustments to the p-values for multiple comparison were performed using the Benjamini and Hochberg approach in 'R'.|Regression, Linear|||To compare biomarker levels between study and control populations, a linear regression model was used, adjusting for BMI, diabetes, and parity, which are the unmatched factors between the study and control groups. This adjustment aimed to mitigate the confounding impact of these factors, considering their individual influence on the risk of endometrial cancer.||||>0.05
90963176|NCT04697264|181807563|OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||Adjustments to the p-values for multiple comparison were performed using the Benjamini and Hochberg approach in 'R'.|Regression, Linear|||To compare biomarker levels between study and control populations, a linear regression model was used, adjusting for BMI, diabetes, and parity, which are the unmatched factors between the study and control groups. This adjustment aimed to mitigate the confounding impact of these factors, considering their individual influence on the risk of endometrial cancer.||||<0.05
90963177|NCT04697264|181807564|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Univariate linear regression was initially performed, followed by multivariate regression using the significant associations from the univariate analysis. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Regression, Linear|||"The impact of BMI on biomarker levels was assessed by categorising the population into two groups-normal weight and overweight/obese-for straightforward comparison.~Here, we present the associations between adiponectin and the BMI of the study population at baseline."||||>0.05
90963178|NCT04697264|181807564|OTHER|||||||0.09||||||Univariate linear regression was initially performed, followed by multivariate regression using the significant associations from the univariate analysis. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Regression, Linear|||"The impact of BMI on biomarker levels was assessed by categorising the population into two groups-normal weight and overweight/obese-for straightforward comparison.~Here, we present the associations between leptin and the BMI of the study population at baseline."||||0.09
90963179|NCT04697264|181807564|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Univariate linear regression was initially performed, followed by multivariate regression using the significant associations from the univariate analysis. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Regression, Linear|||"The impact of BMI on biomarker levels was assessed by categorising the population into two groups-normal weight and overweight/obese-for straightforward comparison.~Here, we present the association between IL6, TNFα, IGF1, and IGF2 and the BMI of the study population at baseline."||||>0.05
90963180|NCT04697264|181807565|OTHER|||||||0.004||||||Univariate linear regression was initially performed, followed by multivariate regression using the significant associations from the univariate analysis. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Regression, Linear|||"The impact of BMI on biomarker levels was assessed by categorising the population into two groups-normal weight and overweight/obese-for straightforward comparison.~Here, we present the associations between adiponectin and the BMI of the control population at baseline."||||0.004
90963181|NCT04697264|181807565|OTHER|||||||0.0002||||||Univariate linear regression was initially performed, followed by multivariate regression using the significant associations from the univariate analysis. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Regression, Linear|||"The impact of BMI on biomarker levels was assessed by categorising the population into two groups-normal weight and overweight/obese-for straightforward comparison.~Here, we present the associations between leptin and the BMI of the control population at baseline."||||0.0002
90963182|NCT04697264|181807565|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Univariate linear regression was initially performed, followed by multivariate regression using the significant associations from the univariate analysis. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Regression, Linear|||"The impact of BMI on biomarker levels was assessed by categorising the population into two groups-normal weight and overweight/obese-for straightforward comparison.~Here, we present the associations between IL6, TNFα, IGF1, and IGF2 and the BMI of the control population at baseline."||||>0.05
91034457|NCT01237054|181955153|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||The reported p-value is representative of the difference in levels of VEGF-A in both groups.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.02
90883633|NCT04590495|181629985|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.062||||||adjusted for baseline reaction time|paired t test|||||||0.0620
90883634|NCT01387607|181630010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1906||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.36||From a repeated measures analysis (MMRM) with treatment, pooled center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction as factors, and baseline value as covariate.|Mixed-effects model repeated measures|||||-0.36|-1.10|0.0001
91034458|NCT01237054|181955154|OTHER|Other, trend test.||||||0.008|||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra test for trend|||||||0.008
90963183|NCT04697264|181807566|OTHER|||||||0.0007||||||Adjustments to the p-values for multiple comparisons were performed using Benjamini and Hochberg approach on 'R'.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0007
90963184|NCT04697264|181807567|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Adjustments to the p-values for multiple comparisons were performed using Benjamini and Hochberg approach on 'R'.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Leptin levels were compared between the day 0 and 6 months post-operative bloods.||||>0.05
91034459|NCT01237054|181955155|OTHER|Other, trend test.||||||0.15||||||The reported p-value is representative of the difference in levels of Kep between MGUS and SMM+MM.|Jonckheere-Terpstra test for trend|||||||0.15
90883635|NCT01387607|181630011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4376||||0.1397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8732|2.3667||Based on the combined categories from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for pooled center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Overall odds ratio was calculated based on Mentel-Haenszel method as pregabalin versus placebo.|Statistical analysis performed for PGIC endpoint re-categorized into much/very much improved and other.||2.3667|0.8732|0.1397
90883636|NCT01387607|181630011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4626||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8596|2.4886||Based on the combined categories from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for pooled center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Overall odds ratio was calculated based on Mentel-Haenszel method as pregabalin versus placebo.|Statistical analysis performed for PGIC endpoint re-categorized into any improvement (participants who were very much improved or much improved or minimally improved) and other.||2.4886|0.8596|0.1510
90883637|NCT01387607|181630012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6804||0.0762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|0.32||From the analysis of covariate (ANCOVA) with treatment and pooled center as factors, and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.32|-6.30|0.0762
90883638|NCT01387607|181630013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8924||||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2007|2.9827||From Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test comparing pregabalin to placebo adjusted for pooled center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Overall odds ratio was calculated based on Mantel-Haenszel method as pregabalin versus placebo.|||2.9827|1.2007|0.0044
90883639|NCT01387607|181630014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9683||||0.0189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1151|3.4742||From Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test comparing pregabalin to placebo adjusted for pooled center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Overall odds ratio was calculated based on Mantel-Haenszel method as pregabalin versus placebo.|||3.4742|1.1151|0.0189
90883640|NCT01387607|181630015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.427|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0152||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.39|0.54||From the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.54|-7.39|0.0900
90883641|NCT01387607|181630016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.527|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1858||0.2485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|6.83||From the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis for snoring.||6.83|-1.77|0.2485
90883642|NCT01387607|181630016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.355|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.265||0.2993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.81|2.1||From the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis for awaken short of breath.||2.10|-6.81|0.2993
90883643|NCT01387607|181630016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4485||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.21|13.85||From the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis for sleep adequacy.||13.85|4.21|0.0003
90883644|NCT01387607|181630017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.286|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1114||0.0106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.51||From the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis for quantity of sleep.||0.51|0.07|0.0106
90883645|NCT01387607|181630017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.194|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6428||0.0112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|7.43||From the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis for somnolence||7.43|0.96|0.0112
90883646|NCT01387607|181630018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.059|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6438||0.0637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.29|0.18||From the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.18|-6.29|0.0637
90883647|NCT01387607|181630019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.6767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.87||Logistic regression model includes treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline value as covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.87|0.67|0.6767
90923470|NCT05835336|181720000|SUPERIORITY|Considering the exploratory nature of the study, a sample size of at least 0.5 (Cohen's D) for a 2-Tailed test, at alpha-0.05 with a power of 80%, was chosen to detect significant within-subject effects.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.16||||0.032|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.032
90923471|NCT05835336|181720002|SUPERIORITY|Considering the exploratory nature of the study, a sample size of at least 0.5 (Cohen's D) for a 2-Tailed test, at alpha-0.05 with a power of 80%, was chosen to detect significant within-subject effects.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.58||||0.035|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.035
90963185|NCT04697264|181807567|OTHER|||||||0.004||||||Adjustments to the p-values for multiple comparisons were performed using Benjamini and Hochberg approach on 'R'.|Mixed Models Analysis|||IGF1 levels were compared between the day 0 and 6 months post-operative bloods.||||0.004
90963186|NCT04697264|181807567|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Adjustments to the p-values for multiple comparisons were performed using Benjamini and Hochberg approach on 'R'.|Mixed Models Analysis|||IGF2 levels were compared between the day 0 and 6 months post-operative bloods.||||<0.0001
90963187|NCT04697264|181807569|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Expression of adiponectin was studied in endometrial cancer tissue and fat tissue using qRT-PCR.||||<0.0001
91034460|NCT01237054|181955155|OTHER|Other, trend test.||||||0.33||||||The reported p-value is representative of the difference in levels of Ktrans between MGUS and SMM+MM.|Jonckheere-Terpstra test for trend|||||||0.33
90963188|NCT04697264|181807569|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Expression of leptin and their receptors were studied in endometrial cancer tissue and fat tissue using qRT-PCR.||||<0.05
91034461|NCT01237054|181955156|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.08
91034462|NCT01237054|181955157|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.011
90923472|NCT05835336|181720003|SUPERIORITY|Considering the exploratory nature of the study, a sample size of at least 0.5 (Cohen's D) for a 2-Tailed test, at alpha-0.05 with a power of 80%, was chosen to detect significant within-subject effects.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.13||||0.521|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.521
90923473|NCT04489771|181720004|SUPERIORITY|P-value, difference in percentage and associated 95% CI were calculated using Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by IMDC risk categories (favorable vs. intermediate or poor).|Difference in Percentage|-0.5||||0.5312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|12.9||One-sided p-value for testing. H0: difference in % = 0 versus H1: difference in % \> 0.|Miettinen & Nurminen||Belzutifan 200 mg minus Belzutifan 120 mg|||12.9|-14.0|0.5312
90923474|NCT04489771|181720005|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.3861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.4||No formal hypothesis testing performed; nominal p-value provided for treatment comparison.|Log Rank|One-sided nominal p-value based on log-rank test stratified by IMDC risk group (favorable vs. intermediate or poor).|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by IMDC risk group (favorable vs. intermediate or poor).|||1.40|0.63|0.3861
90923475|NCT04489771|181720007|OTHER|One-sided nominal p-value, difference in percentage and associated 95% CIs were based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by IMDC risk group (favorable vs. intermediate or poor).|Miettinen & Nurminen method|-6.3||||0.7832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.7|9.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||9.4|-21.7|0.7832
90923476|NCT04489771|181720008|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.6448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.9||No formal hypothesis testing performed; nominal p-value provided for treatment comparison.|Log Rank|One-sided nominal p-value based on log-rank test stratified by IMDC risk group (favorable vs. intermediate or poor).|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by IMDC risk group (favorable vs. intermediate or poor).|||1.90|0.65|0.6448
90923477|NCT05292872|181720015|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.143|0.752||1-sided p-values are proportion of bootstrap replicates exceeding null (defined as a HR of 1) in each direction), and the two-tailed p-value is twice the smaller of one-tailed p-values. A two-tailed p-value was calculated for HR using this method.|Nonparametric bootstrap approach|||||0.752|0.143|<.001
90923478|NCT04059484|181720034|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.051||||0.6437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.789|1.4||One-sided p-value based on Stratified log-rank test. Threshold for statistical significance at 0.025 level.|Stratified Log-Rank test|Stratified on presence of visceral metastasis, prior treatment with CDK4/6 inhibitors and ECOG according to IRT.|Amcenestrant versus PCEM|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to ensure a strong control of the overall Type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures was reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at one-sided 2.5% for the primary and the first secondary outcome.||1.4|0.789|0.6437
90923479|NCT00753545|181720047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.35|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.49|||Regression, Cox|The model includes factors for treatment, ethnic descent, platinum sensitivity and response to final platinum therapy.||HR \< 1 favours olaparib||0.49|0.25|<0.00001
90923480|NCT00753545|181720048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.95|||Regression, Cox|The model includes factors for treatment, ethnic descent, platinum sensitivity and response to final platinum therapy.||HR \< 1 favours olaparib||0.95|0.55|0.02
90923481|NCT00753545|181720052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS means|-27.1||||0.03185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.9|-2.4|||ANCOVA|The model includes factors for treatment, ethnic descent, platinum sensitivity and response to final platinum therapy.||LS mean \< 0 favours olaparib||-2.4|-51.9|0.03185
90923482|NCT00753545|181720056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.35|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.47|||Regression, Cox|The model includes factors for treatment, ethnic descent, platinum sensitivity and response to final platinum therapy.||HR \< 1 favours olaparib||0.47|0.25|<0.00001
90923483|NCT00753545|181720060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.23||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.71|||Regression, Cox|The model includes factors for treatment, ethnic descent, platinum sensitivity and response to final platinum therapy.||HR \< 1 favours olaparib||1.71|0.88|0.22
90923484|NCT00753545|181720061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.56|||Regression, Cox|The model includes factors for treatment, ethnic descent, platinum sensitivity and response to final platinum therapy.||HR \< 1 favours olaparib||1.56|0.75|0.67
90923485|NCT00753545|181720062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.64|||Regression, Cox|The model includes factors for treatment, ethnic descent, platinum sensitivity and response to final platinum therapy.||HR \< 1 favours olaparib||1.64|0.83|0.38
90923486|NCT03839940|181720134|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.9999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.9999
90923487|NCT03839940|181720135|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3346|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3346
90923488|NCT03839940|181720151|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.70361|||||||Fisher Exact|||Female Population.||||< 0.70361
90923489|NCT03839940|181720151|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.4667|||||||Fisher Exact|||Male population.||||<0.4667
90923490|NCT03839940|181720152|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Black or African American population||||<1.0
90923491|NCT03839940|181720152|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1|||||||Fisher Exact|||White population||||<1.0
90923492|NCT03839940|181720153|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Not Hispanic or Latino population.||||<1.0
91034463|NCT00913627|181955162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.13|20.19||p-value adjusted for baseline pain severity rating (PSR) and gender|ANOVA|||||20.19|12.13|<0.001
90923493|NCT03839940|181720154|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.1701|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Female population.||||<0.1701
90923494|NCT03839940|181720154|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.4811|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Male population.||||<0.4811
90923495|NCT03839940|181720155|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Black or African American Population||||<1.0
90923496|NCT03839940|181720155|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.5029|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||White Population||||<0.5029
90923497|NCT03839940|181720156|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.295|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Not Hispanic or Latino Population||||<0.2950
90923498|NCT05210608|181720164|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|2.18||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||We analyzed whether significant changes occurred between baseline and the post-treatment assessment.||2.18|-.85|.29
90923499|NCT05210608|181720164|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.45|5.79||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||We analyzed whether significant changes occurred between baseline and the 1 month follow up||5.79|-3.45|.48
90923500|NCT05210608|181720165|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|37.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.8|=|0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.9|102.1||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||We analyzed whether there were significant differences in number of total cigarettes smoked per week from baseline to Post-treatment.||102.10|19.90|=0.015
90923501|NCT05210608|181720165|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|24.69||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.57|142.57|||t-test, 2 sided|||We analyzed whether there were significant differences in number of total cigarettes smoked per week from baseline to 1 month follow-up.||142.57|-14.57|.08
90923502|NCT05210608|181720166|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.64||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.86|8.86|||t-test, 2 sided|||We analyzed whether there were significant differences in carbon monoxide ppm from baseline to Post-treatment.||8.86|-9.86|.90
90923503|NCT05210608|181720166|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.29||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.42|22.42|||t-test, 2 sided|||We analyzed whether there were significant difference in carbon monoxide ppm from baseline to the 1 month follow-up.||22.42|-49.42|.32
90923504|NCT05210608|181720167|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.36||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|19.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||We analyzed whether there were significant differences in working memory scores from baseline to post-treatment.||19.10|-5.10|.18
90923505|NCT05210608|181720167|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.14||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.38|7.38|||t-test, 2 sided|||We analyzed whether there were significant differences in working memory scores from baseline to the 1 month follow up.||7.38|-25.38|.18
90923506|NCT04802967|181720176|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.81|17.86|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures.|The p value was determined using MMRM model, based on treatment, timepoint, baseline value as covariable and subject as a random effect.||Outcome Measure at 15 minutes post injection||17.86|-17.81|0.998
90923507|NCT04802967|181720176|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.9||||0.445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.73|10.93||The p value was determined using MMRM model, based on treatment, timepoint, baseline value as covariable and subject as a random effect.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures.|||Outcome Measure at 15 minutes post injection||10.93|-24.73|0.445
90923508|NCT04802967|181720176|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.51||||0.781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.33|20.36||The p value was determined using MMRM model, based on treatment, timepoint, baseline value as covariable and subject as a random effect.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures.|||Outcome Measure at 15 minutes post injection||20.36|-15.33|0.781
90923509|NCT04802967|181720176|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.09||||0.732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.93|14.75||The p value was determined using MMRM model, based on treatment, timepoint, baseline value as covariable and subject as a random effect.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures.|||Outcome Measure at 15 minutes post injection||14.75|-20.93|0.732
90923510|NCT04802967|181720176|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.3||||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.53|29.14||The p value was determined using MMRM model, based on treatment, timepoint, baseline value as covariable and subject as a random effect.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures.|||Outcome Measure at 15 minutes post injection||29.14|-6.53|0.212
90963189|NCT04697264|181807569|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Expression of adiponectin receptors were studied in endometrial cancer tissue and fat tissue using qRT-PCR.||||>0.05
90963190|NCT04697264|181807570|OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Expression of adiponectin was studied in endometrial cancer tissue and lymph node tissue using qRT-PCR.||||0.0002
90963191|NCT04697264|181807570|OTHER|||||||0.011|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Expression of leptin was studied in endometrial cancer tissue and lymphnode tissue using qRT-PCR.||||0.011
90963192|NCT04697264|181807570|OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The expression of IL6 receptor (IL6R) was studied in endometrial cancer tissue and lymphnode tissue using qRT-PCR.||||0.009
91034464|NCT00913627|181955162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.02|20.99||p-value adjusted for baseline pain severity rating (PSR) and gender|ANOVA|||||20.99|13.02|<0.001
90923511|NCT04802967|181720176|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.44||||0.476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.27|11.39|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures.|The p value was determined using MMRM model, based on treatment, timepoint, baseline value as covariable and subject as a random effect.||Outcome Measure at 15 minutes post injection||11.39|-24.27|0.476
90923512|NCT04802967|181720176|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.43||||0.962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.4|18.26|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures.|The p value was determined using MMRM model, based on treatment, timepoint, baseline value as covariable and subject as a random effect.||Outcome Measure at 15 minutes post injection||18.26|-17.40|0.962
90963193|NCT04697264|181807570|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The expression of adiponectin receptor, leptin receptor, IGF1 and IGF 2 receptors, IL6, TNF, IGF1 and IGF2 were studied in endometrial cancer tissue and lymphnode tissue using qRT-PCR.||||>0.05
90963194|NCT04697264|181807571|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Pearson's correlation test|||Circulating adiponectin levels and the expression of these markers and their receptors in endometrial tissue were compared using correlation studies.||||>0.05
90963195|NCT04697264|181807572|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Pearson's correlation test|||Circulating leptin, IGF1 and IGF2 levels and the expression of these markers and their receptors in endometrial tissue were compared using Pearson's correlation studies.||||>0.05
90963196|NCT04697264|181807573|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Pearson's correlation test|||Circulating IL6 and TNF levels and the expression of these markers and their receptors in endometrial tissue were compared using Pearson's correlation studies.||||>0.05
90963197|NCT00813319|181807580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||This comparison is for participants in the Girls OnGuard/HPV Awareness condition compared to the General Health Promotion condition||||>.05
90963198|NCT00813319|181807581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.52|||||||Chi-squared|||||||=.52
90963199|NCT00813319|181807582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.12|||||||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom = 2||This comparison is for total doses received (26 in Girls OnGuard/HPV Awareness condition compared to 17 in General Health Promotion condition)||||=.12
90923513|NCT04802967|181720176|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.1||||0.211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.96|31.16|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures.|The p value was determined using MMRM model, based on treatment, timepoint, baseline value as covariable and subject as a random effect.||Outcome Measure at 30 minutes post injection||31.16|-6.96|0.211
90923514|NCT04802967|181720176|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.67||||0.782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|21.73|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures.|The p value was determined using MMRM model, based on treatment, timepoint, baseline value as covariable and subject as a random effect.||Outcome Measure at 30 minutes post injection||21.73|-16.40|0.782
90923515|NCT04802967|181720176|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.72||||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.34|33.78|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures.|The p value was determined using MMRM model, based on treatment, timepoint, baseline value as covariable and subject as a random effect.||Outcome Measure at 30 minutes post injection||33.78|-4.34|0.129
90923516|NCT04802967|181720176|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.27||||0.171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|32.35|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures.|The p value was determined using MMRM model, based on treatment, timepoint, baseline value as covariable and subject as a random effect.||Outcome Measure at 30 minutes post injection||32.35|-5.80|0.171
90923517|NCT04802967|181720176|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.56||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.49|34.62|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures.|The p value was determined using MMRM model, based on treatment, timepoint, baseline value as covariable and subject as a random effect.||Outcome Measure at 30 minutes post injection||34.62|-3.49|0.108
90923518|NCT04802967|181720176|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.24||||0.661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.83|23.3|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures.|The p value was determined using MMRM model, based on treatment, timepoint, baseline value as covariable and subject as a random effect.||Outcome Measure at 30 minutes post injection||23.30|-14.83|0.661
90923519|NCT04802967|181720176|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.21||||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.85|33.27|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures.|The p value was determined using MMRM model, based on treatment, timepoint, baseline value as covariable and subject as a random effect.||Outcome Measure at 30 minutes post injection||33.27|-4.85|0.142
90923520|NCT04802967|181720176|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.98||||0.216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.08|31.04|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures.|The p value was determined using MMRM model, based on treatment, timepoint, baseline value as covariable and subject as a random effect.||Outcome Measure at 60 minutes post injection||31.04|-7.08|0.216
90923521|NCT04802967|181720176|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.38||||0.445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.71|26.48|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures.|The p value was determined using MMRM model, based on treatment, timepoint, baseline value as covariable and subject as a random effect.||Outcome Measure at 60 minutes post injection||26.48|-11.71|0.445
90923522|NCT04802967|181720176|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.13||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.92|35.19|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures.|The p value was determined using MMRM model, based on treatment, timepoint, baseline value as covariable and subject as a random effect.||Outcome Measure at 60 minutes post injection||35.19|-2.92|0.096
90923523|NCT04802967|181720176|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.89||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.19|30.96|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures.|The p value was determined using MMRM model, based on treatment, timepoint, baseline value as covariable and subject as a random effect.||Outcome Measure at 60 minutes post injection||30.96|-7.19|0.220
90923524|NCT04802967|181720176|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.71||||0.189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.35|31.78|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures.|The p value was determined using MMRM model, based on treatment, timepoint, baseline value as covariable and subject as a random effect.||Outcome Measure at 60 minutes post injection||31.78|-6.35|0.189
90923525|NCT04802967|181720176|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.67||||0.782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.75|16.41|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures.|The p value was determined using MMRM model, based on treatment, timepoint, baseline value as covariable and subject as a random effect.||Outcome Measure at 60 minutes post injection||16.41|-21.75|0.782
90923526|NCT04802967|181720176|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.1||||0.528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.98|25.18|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures.|The p value was determined using MMRM model, based on treatment, timepoint, baseline value as covariable and subject as a random effect.||Outcome Measure at 60 minutes post injection||25.18|-12.98|0.528
90923527|NCT04802967|181720176|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.34||||0.795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.45|20.12|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures.|The p value was determined using MMRM model, based on treatment, timepoint, baseline value as covariable and subject as a random effect.||Outcome Measure at 90 minutes post injection||20.12|-15.45|0.795
90923528|NCT04802967|181720176|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.13||||0.497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.96|11.69|||mean difference|The p value was determined using MMRM model, based on treatment, timepoint, baseline value as covariable and subject as a random effect.||Outcome Measure at 90 minutes post injection||11.69|-23.96|0.497
90923529|NCT04802967|181720176|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.44||||0.409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.34|25.21|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures.|The p value was determined using MMRM model, based on treatment, timepoint, baseline value as covariable and subject as a random effect.||Outcome Measure at 90 minutes post injection||25.21|-10.34|0.409
90923530|NCT04802967|181720176|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.89||||0.382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.92|25.7|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures.|The p value was determined using MMRM model, based on treatment, timepoint, baseline value as covariable and subject as a random effect.||Outcome Measure at 90 minutes post injection||25.70|-9.92|0.382
90923531|NCT04802967|181720176|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.74||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.05|25.54|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures.|The p value was determined using MMRM model, based on treatment, timepoint, baseline value as covariable and subject as a random effect.||Outcome Measure at 90 minutes post injection||25.54|-10.05|0.390
91034465|NCT00913627|181955162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.33|16.26||p-value adjusted for baseline pain severity rating (PSR) and gender|ANOVA|||||16.26|8.33|<0.001
90923532|NCT04802967|181720176|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.72||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.54|14.1|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures.|The p value was determined using MMRM model, based on treatment, timepoint, baseline value as covariable and subject as a random effect.||Outcome Measure at 90 minutes post injection||14.10|-21.54|0.680
90923533|NCT04802967|181720176|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.83||||0.927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.99|18.65|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures.|The p value was determined using MMRM model, based on treatment, timepoint, baseline value as covariable and subject as a random effect.||Outcome Measure at 90 minutes post injection||18.65|-16.99|0.927
90923534|NCT04802967|181720176|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.02||||0.508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.95|23.98||The p value was determined using MMRM model, based on treatment, timepoint, baseline value as covariable and subject as a random effect.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures.|||Outcome Measure at 120 minutes post injection||23.98|-11.95|0.508
90923535|NCT04802967|181720176|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.65||||0.688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.66|14.35|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures.|The p value was determined using MMRM model, based on treatment, timepoint, baseline value as covariable and subject as a random effect.||Outcome Measure at 120 minutes post injection||14.35|-21.66|0.688
90923536|NCT04802967|181720176|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.08||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|34.03|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures.|The p value was determined using MMRM model, based on treatment, timepoint, baseline value as covariable and subject as a random effect.||Outcome Measure at 120 minutes post injection||34.03|-1.88|0.079
90923537|NCT04802967|181720176|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.0||||0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.96|26.96|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures.|The p value was determined using MMRM model, based on treatment, timepoint, baseline value as covariable and subject as a random effect.||Outcome Measure at 120 minutes post injection||26.96|-8.96|0.323
90923538|NCT04802967|181720176|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.23||||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.39|27.85|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures.|The p value was determined using MMRM model, based on treatment, timepoint, baseline value as covariable and subject as a random effect.||Outcome Measure at 120 minutes post injection||27.85|-5.39|0.183
90923539|NCT04802967|181720176|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.61||||0.756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.24|14.02|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures.|The p value was determined using MMRM model, based on treatment, timepoint, baseline value as covariable and subject as a random effect.||Outcome Measure at 120 minutes post injection||14.02|-19.24|0.756
90923540|NCT04802967|181720176|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.96||||0.638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.68|20.59|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures.|The p value was determined using MMRM model, based on treatment, timepoint, baseline value as covariable and subject as a random effect.||Outcome Measure at 120 minutes post injection||20.59|-12.68|0.638
90923541|NCT01369355|181720203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.04||||||A fixed sequence testing procedure was used to control alpha at 0.05 over the outcome measures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test, stratified by clinical remission at Week 0, ustekinumab induction dose and the induction study.||||||0.040
90923542|NCT01369355|181720203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.005||||||A fixed sequence testing procedure was used to control alpha at 0.05 over the outcome measures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test, stratified by clinical remission at Week 0, ustekinumab induction dose and the induction study.||||||0.005
90923543|NCT01369355|181720204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.033||||||A fixed sequence testing procedure was used to control alpha at 0.05 over the outcome measures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test, stratified by clinical remission at Week 0, ustekinumab induction dose and the induction study.||||||0.033
90923544|NCT01369355|181720204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.018||||||A fixed sequence testing procedure was used to control alpha at 0.05 over the outcome measures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test, stratified by clinical remission at Week 0, ustekinumab induction dose and the induction study.||||||0.018
90923545|NCT01369355|181720205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.189||||||A fixed sequence testing procedure was used to control alpha at 0.05 over the outcome measures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test, stratified by ustekinumab induction dose and the induction study.||||||0.189
90923546|NCT01369355|181720205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.007||||||A fixed sequence testing procedure was used to control alpha at 0.05 over the outcome measures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test, stratified by ustekinumab induction dose and the induction study.||||||0.007
90923547|NCT01369355|181720206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.035||||||A fixed sequence testing procedure was used to control alpha at 0.05 over the outcome measures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test, stratified by clinical remission at Week 0, ustekinumab induction dose and the induction study.||||||0.035
90923548|NCT01369355|181720206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004||||||A fixed sequence testing procedure was used to control alpha at 0.05 over the outcome measures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test, stratified by clinical remission at Week 0, ustekinumab induction dose and the induction study.||||||0.004
90923549|NCT01369355|181720207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.14||||||A fixed sequence testing procedure was used to control alpha at 0.05 over the outcome measures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|2 sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test, stratified by clinical remission status at Week 0 and ustekinumab induction dose.||||||0.140
90923550|NCT01369355|181720207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.102||||||A fixed sequence testing procedure was used to control alpha at 0.05 over the outcome measures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|2 sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test, stratified by clinical remission status at Week 0 and ustekinumab induction dose.||||||0.102
90883648|NCT01387607|181630020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.882|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1932|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|-0.5||From a repeated measures analysis (MMRM) with treatment, pooled center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction as factors, and baseline value as covariate.|Mixed-effects model repeated measures|||||-0.50|-1.26|<0.0001
91034466|NCT00913627|181955163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|8.38||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||||8.38|4.30|<0.001
90883649|NCT01387607|181630021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.172|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.7785||0.0273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.42|-1.92||From a repeated measures analysis (MMRM) with treatment, pooled center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction as factors, and baseline value as covariate.|Mixed-effects model repeated measures|||||-1.92|-32.42|0.0273
90883650|NCT01387607|181630022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0677||0.8082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.15||From a repeated measures analysis (MMRM) with treatment, pooled center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction as factors, and baseline value as covariate.|Mixed-effects model repeated measures|||||0.15|-0.12|0.8082
90883651|NCT01387607|181630023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.655|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1223|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.41||From a repeated measures analysis (MMRM) with treatment, pooled center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction as factors, and baseline value as covariate.|Mixed-effects model repeated measures|||||-0.41|-0.89|<0.0001
90883652|NCT01387607|181630024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.396|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.7309||0.3388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.76|22.55||From a repeated measures analysis (MMRM) with treatment, pooled center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction as factors, and baseline value as covariate.|Mixed-effects model repeated measures|||||22.55|-7.76|0.3388
90883653|NCT01387607|181630025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.765|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2115||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.18||From a repeated measures analysis (MMRM) with treatment, pooled center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction as factors, and baseline value as covariate.|Mixed-effects model repeated measures|||||1.18|0.35|0.0003
90883654|NCT01387607|181630026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8414||0.3186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.82||From the analysis of covariate (ANCOVA) with treatment and pooled center as factors, and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.82|-2.50|0.3186
90883655|NCT01387607|181630027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0404||0.7149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|2.43||From the analysis of covariate (ANCOVA) with treatment and pooled center as factors, and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||2.43|-1.67|0.7149
90883656|NCT01387607|181630028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.785|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.673||0.2442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|2.11||From the analysis of covariate (ANCOVA) with treatment and pooled center as factors, and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||2.11|-0.54|0.2442
90883657|NCT01387607|181630029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.616|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4019||0.1332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.34|1.11||From the analysis of covariate (ANCOVA) with treatment and pooled center as factors, and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||1.11|-8.34|0.1332
90883658|NCT01387607|181630030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.378|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3595||0.2934||95.0|-1.09|0.33||From the analysis of covariate (ANCOVA) with treatment and pooled center as factors, and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.33|-1.09|0.2934
90883659|NCT01387607|181630031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3621||0.0226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|-0.12||From the analysis of covariate (ANCOVA) with treatment and pooled center as factors, and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-0.12|-1.54|0.0226
90883660|NCT03890367|181630081|NON_INFERIORITY|The two-sided 97.5 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) was calculated based on the Wilson score method without continuity correction. The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 97.5% CI of the percentage difference between compared groups was greater than (\>) -10%.|Difference in Percentage|10.43|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|5.68|16.2||||||||16.2|5.68|
90883661|NCT03890367|181630082|NON_INFERIORITY|The two-sided 97.5% CI of the ratio of post-vaccination GMTs was calculated using normal approximation of log-transformed titers. The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% CI of the ratio of GMTs between compared groups was \>1/1.5.|GMT Ratio|16.3|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|12.7|21.0||||||||21.0|12.7|
90883662|NCT03890367|181630083|SUPERIORITY|The two-sided 97.5% CI of the ratio of post-vaccination GMTs was calculated using normal approximation of log-transformed titers. The superiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% CI of the ratio of GMTs between compared groups was \>1.|GMT Ratio|16.3|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|12.7|21.0||||||||21.0|12.7|
90883663|NCT03890367|181630084|SUPERIORITY|The two-sided 97.5% CI was calculated based on the Wilson score method without continuity correction. The superiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 97.5% CI of the percentage difference between compared groups was \>0%.|Difference in Percentage|10.43|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|5.68|16.2||||||||16.20|5.68|
90883664|NCT03890367|181630085|NON_INFERIORITY|The two-sided 97.5% CI was calculated based on the Wilson score method without continuity correction. The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 97.5% CI of the percentage difference between compared groups was \>-10%.|Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.3|2.28||||||||2.28|-2.30|
90883665|NCT03890367|181630086|NON_INFERIORITY|The two-sided 97.5% CI of the ratio of post-vaccination GMTs was calculated using normal approximation of log-transformed titers. The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% CI of the ratio of GMTs between compared groups was \>1/1.5.|GMT Ratio|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.06|1.64||||||||1.64|1.06|
90883666|NCT03890367|181630087|SUPERIORITY|The two-sided 97.5% CI of the ratio of post-vaccination GMTs was calculated using normal approximation of log-transformed titers. The superiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% CI of the ratio of GMTs between compared groups was \>1.|GMT Ratio|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.06|1.64||||||||1.64|1.06|
90923551|NCT03131154|181720216|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.129|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.643|1.982|||||Cox proportional hazards model|||1.982|0.643|
91034467|NCT00913627|181955163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.05|9.08||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||||9.08|5.05|<0.001
91034468|NCT00913627|181955163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.04|7.06||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||||7.06|3.04|<0.001
90923552|NCT03131154|181720217|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.619|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.989|6.939|||||Cox proportional hazards model|||6.939|0.989|
90883667|NCT03890367|181630088|NON_INFERIORITY|The two-sided 97.5% CI was calculated based on the Wilson score method without continuity correction. The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 97.5% CI of the percentage difference between compared groups was \>-10%.|Difference in Percentage|5.24|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.83|9.85||||||||9.85|1.83|
90883668|NCT03890367|181630089|NON_INFERIORITY|The two-sided 97.5% CI of the ratio of post-vaccination GMTs was calculated using normal approximation of log-transformed titers. The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% CI of the ratio of GMTs between compared groups was \>1/1.5.|GMT Ratio|6.8|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|5.04|9.18||||||||9.18|5.04|
90883669|NCT03890367|181630090|SUPERIORITY|The two-sided 97.5% CI of the ratio of post-vaccination GMTs was calculated using normal approximation of log-transformed titers. The superiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% CI of the ratio of GMTs between compared groups was \>1.|GMT Ratio|6.8|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|5.04|9.18||||||||9.18|5.04|
90883670|NCT03890367|181630091|NON_INFERIORITY|The two-sided 97.5% CI was calculated based on the Wilson score method without continuity correction. The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 97.5% CI of the percentage difference between compared groups was \>-10%.|Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.71|2.67||||||||2.67|-2.71|
90883671|NCT03890367|181630092|NON_INFERIORITY|The two-sided 97.5% CI of the ratio of post-vaccination GMTs was calculated using normal approximation of log-transformed titers. The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% CI of the ratio of GMTs between compared groups was \>1/1.5.|GMT Ratio|2.27|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.82|2.84||||||||2.84|1.82|
90883672|NCT03890367|181630093|SUPERIORITY|The two-sided 97.5% CI of the ratio of post-vaccination GMTs was calculated using normal approximation of log-transformed titers. The superiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% CI of the ratio of GMTs between compared groups was \>1.|GMT Ratio|2.27|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.82|2.84||||||||2.84|1.82|
90883673|NCT02556710|181630094|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline WOMAC Score||||||0.94
90923553|NCT06424236|181720218|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) mean|-0.1166|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.29505||0.0117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.206|-0.0272|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 52: Treatment group and visit were treated as categorical fixed effects factors and OLE baseline Composite \[11C\] PiB-PET SUVR score as continuous. An unstructured correlation pattern was used to estimate the variance-covariance of the within participant repeated measures. The Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||-0.0272|-0.2060|0.0117
90923554|NCT06424236|181720218|OTHER||LS mean|-0.4648|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.46591|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5971|-0.3326|||MMRM|||Week 104: Treatment group and visit were treated as categorical fixed effects factors and OLE baseline Composite \[11C\] PiB-PET SUVR score as continuous. An unstructured correlation pattern was used to estimate the variance-covariance of the within participant repeated measures. The Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||-0.3326|-0.5971|<0.0001
90923555|NCT06424236|181720218|OTHER||LS mean|-0.7062|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.43787|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8821|-0.5303|||MMRM|||Week 156: Treatment group and visit were treated as categorical fixed effects factors and OLE baseline Composite \[11C\] PiB-PET SUVR score as continuous. An unstructured correlation pattern was used to estimate the variance-covariance of the within participant repeated measures. The Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||-0.5303|-0.8821|<0.0001
90923556|NCT06424236|181720219|SUPERIORITY|Recurrent progression was defined as any progression which was either the first increase in CDR-SB above baseline or any progression above the highest preceding post-baseline value identified as a progression, where progression above the preceding value must be observed at 2 consecutive measurements unless the progression occurs at the last measurement.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.32||||0.4535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|2.7|||Regression, Cox|||The time to recurrent progression in CDR - sum of boxes. Baseline Asymptomatic Participants: Estimate and confidence interval was based on the Cox proportional hazards regression model including treatment and baseline estimated years to symptom onset as fixed effects. The OLE gantenerumab mITT analysis set included all participants in the OLE who met mITT criteria using OLE baseline as the baseline reference point.||2.70|0.64|0.4535
91034469|NCT00913627|181955166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH)|-72.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-88.56|-55.83||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||CMH adjusted proportions|8 hours||-55.83|-88.56|<0.001
90883674|NCT02556710|181630095|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline WOMAC score||||||0.53
90883675|NCT02556710|181630096|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35||||||Adjusted for baseline WOMAC Score.|ANCOVA|||||||0.35
90883676|NCT04524403|181630102|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.24||||0.787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|2.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.01|-1.52|0.7870
90883677|NCT04524403|181630102|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.75||||0.4018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|2.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.51|-1.01|0.4018
90883678|NCT04524403|181630103|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.5||||0.5228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|2.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.02|-1.03|0.5228
90883679|NCT04524403|181630104|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.781||||0.2537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.661|4.802|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.802|0.661|0.2537
90883680|NCT04524403|181630104|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.916||||0.874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.308|2.722|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.722|0.308|0.8740
90883681|NCT04524403|181630105|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0||||0.987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.021|0.021|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.021|-0.021|0.9870
90883682|NCT04524403|181630105|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.008||||0.4624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.013|0.029|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.029|-0.013|0.4624
90963200|NCT03434353|181807583|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.4|26.4|||||The percentage difference (Group 1 - Group 2) \& corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated by using stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel proportions, stratified by baseline hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg) status (positive,negative).|||26.4|-30.4|
91034470|NCT00913627|181955166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH)|-70.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-87.14|-54.3||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||CMH adjusted proportions|8 hours||-54.30|-87.14|<0.001
90963201|NCT03434353|181807583|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-24.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.2|-0.2|||||The percentage difference (Group 3 - Group 2) and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI were calculated by using stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel proportions, stratified by baseline HBeAg status (positive, negative).|||-0.2|-49.2|
90963202|NCT03434353|181807583|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-17.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.7|8.2|||||The percentage difference (Group 5 - Group 2) and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI were calculated by using stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel proportions, stratified by baseline HBeAg status (positive, negative).|||8.2|-43.7|
90923557|NCT06424236|181720219|OTHER|Recurrent progression was defined as any progression which was either the first increase in CDR-SB above baseline or any progression above the highest preceding post-baseline value identified as a progression, where progression above the preceding value must be observed at 2 consecutive measurements unless the progression occurs at the last measurement.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18||||0.4848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.86|||Regression, Cox|||The time to recurrent progression in CDR - sum of boxes. Baseline Symptomatic Participants: Estimate and confidence interval was based on the Cox proportional hazards regression model including treatment and baseline estimated years to symptom onset as fixed effects. The OLE gantenerumab mITT analysis set included all participants in the OLE who met mITT criteria using OLE baseline as the baseline reference point.||1.86|0.74|0.4848
90923558|NCT06424236|181720220|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.8855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|2.58|||Regression, Cox|||Time to first progression in CDR-Global score. Baseline Asymptomatic Participants: Estimate and confidence interval was based on Cox proportional hazards regression model including treatment and baseline estimated years to symptom onset as fixed effects. Time to first progression was defined as time from baseline to first visit where CDR-Global Score was greater than baseline value, where progression must be observed at 2 consecutive measurements unless progression occurs at last measurement.||2.58|0.33|0.8855
90923559|NCT06424236|181720220|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.4497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.69|||Regression, Cox|||Time to first progression in CDR-Global score. Baseline Symptomatic Participants: Estimate and confidence interval was based on Cox proportional hazards regression model including treatment and baseline estimated years to symptom onset as fixed effects. Time to first progression was defined as time from baseline to first visit where CDR-Global Score was greater than baseline value, where progression must be observed at 2 consecutive measurements unless progression occurs at last measurement.||1.69|0.30|0.4497
90923560|NCT06424236|181720221|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.33|||Linear Mixed Effects Model||Estimated value is the difference in the rate of change between the treatment group and control group.|Baseline Asymptomatic Participants: The statistical model included time since baseline (years), treatment arm, an interaction between treatment and time. Time was considered as continuous. Random intercepts and slopes for each participant was included as random effects with compound symmetry covariance matrix.||0.33|-0.46|0.760
90923561|NCT06424236|181720221|OTHER||LS mean|-1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.715||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.63|0.2|||Linear Mixed Effects Model||Estimated value is the difference in the rate of change between the treatment group and control group.|Baseline Symptomatic Participants: The statistical model included time since baseline (years), treatment arm, an interaction between treatment and time. Time was considered as continuous. Random intercepts and slopes for each participant was included as random effects with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.20|-2.63|0.093
90923562|NCT06424236|181720222|OTHER||LS mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.44|||Linear Mixed Effects Model||Estimated value is the difference in the rate of change between the treatment group and control group.|Baseline Asymptomatic Participants: The statistical model included time since baseline (years), treatment arm, an interaction between treatment and time. Time was considered as continuous. Random intercepts and slopes for each participant was included as random effects with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.44|-0.43|0.989
90923563|NCT06424236|181720222|OTHER||LS mean|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.533||0.714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|1.25|||Linear Mixed Effects Model||Estimated value is the difference in the rate of change between the treatment group and control group.|Baseline Symptomatic Participants: The statistical model included time since baseline (years), treatment arm, an interaction between treatment and time. Time was considered as continuous. Random intercepts and slopes for each participant was included as random effects with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.25|-0.86|0.714
90923564|NCT06424236|181720223|OTHER||LS mean|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.077||0.738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.13|||Linear Mixed Effects Model||Estimated value is the difference in the rate of change between the treatment group and control group.|Baseline Asymptomatic Participants: The statistical model included time since baseline (years), treatment arm, an interaction between treatment and time. Time was considered as continuous. Random intercepts and slopes for each participant was included as random effects with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.13|-0.18|0.738
90963203|NCT03434353|181807585|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-16.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.7|4.4|||||The percentage difference (Group 1 - Group 2) and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI were calculated by using stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel proportions, stratified by baseline HBeAg status (positive, negative).|||4.4|-37.7|
90963204|NCT03434353|181807585|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-16.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.1|4.3|||||The percentage difference (Group 3 - Group 2) and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI were calculated by using stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel proportions, stratified by baseline HBeAg status (positive, negative).|||4.3|-38.1|
90963205|NCT03434353|181807585|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-16.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.9|4.4|||||The percentage difference (Group 5 - Group 2) and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI were calculated by using stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel proportions, stratified by baseline HBeAg status (positive, negative).|||4.4|-37.9|
90963206|NCT03739762|181807596|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-31.85||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.91|-10.79|||Regression, Linear|The model fit was a linear regression model with GEE on the outcome change from baseline.||The sample size of 284 ensured 90% power to detect a 41-minute difference in sitting time between I-STAND and the attention control from baseline to 6 months, assuming a standard deviation (SD) of 97 minutes/day for change in sitting time (based on our pilot data), and 15% loss to follow-up. Sample and power calculations were performed using R software version 3.5 \[39\] via simulation, assuming specified SDs and differences between means.||-10.79|-52.91|0.003
90963207|NCT03739762|181807597|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.48||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.68|-0.28|||Regression, Linear|The model fit was a linear regression model with GEE on the outcome change from baseline.||||-0.28|-6.68|.033
90883683|NCT00991302|181630109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|stratified by dosing complexity||"Treatment comparison was made using a Wilcoxon rank sum test stratified by dosing complexity.~The test was not stratified by region of enrollment due to dosing complexity and region of enrollment were almost identical: almost all (exception with two) participants in the US region were on QD and all participants in the Peru region were on BID or TID."||||0.52
90883684|NCT01709318|181630117|NON_INFERIORITY|Based on a longitudinal data analysis (LDA) model with terms for treatment, cycle and the interaction cycle by treatment and stratum:starter/switcher followed by Miettinen and Nurminen's method. Non-inferiority criterion was met if the upper bound of the 95% CI of the difference is less than or equal to 10%.|Difference in Percent|8.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|26.5|||||95% CI adjusted for multiplicity (Dunnett)|||26.5|-4.3|
90883685|NCT01709318|181630117|NON_INFERIORITY|Based on a LDA model with terms for treatment, cycle and the interaction cycle by treatment and stratum:starter/switcher followed by Miettinen and Nurminen's method. Non-inferiority criterion was met if the upper bound of the 95% CI of the difference is less than or equal to 10%.|Difference in Percent|6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|24.8|||||95% CI adjusted for multiplicity (Dunnett)|||24.8|-5.7|
90883686|NCT01709318|181630117|NON_INFERIORITY|Based on a LDA model with terms for treatment, cycle and the interaction cycle by treatment and stratum:starter/switcher followed by Miettinen and Nurminen's method. Non-inferiority criterion was met if the upper bound of the 95% CI of the difference is less than or equal to 10%.|Difference in Percent|12.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|33.1|||||95% CI adjusted for multiplicity (Dunnett)|||33.1|-1.7|
90883687|NCT01709318|181630117|NON_INFERIORITY|Based on a LDA model with terms for treatment, cycle and the interaction cycle by treatment and stratum:starter/switcher followed by Miettinen and Nurminen's method. Non-inferiority criterion was met if the upper bound of the 95% CI of the difference is less than or equal to 10%.|Difference in Percent|6.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|25.4|||||95% CI adjusted for multiplicity (Dunnett)|||25.4|-5.7|
90883688|NCT01709318|181630117|NON_INFERIORITY|Based on a LDA model with terms for treatment, cycle and the interaction cycle by treatment and stratum:starter/switcher followed by Miettinen and Nurminen's method. Non-inferiority criterion was met if the upper bound of the 95% CI of the difference is less than or equal to 10%.|Difference in Percent|9.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|27.4|||||95% CI adjusted for multiplicity (Dunnett)|||27.4|-3.5|
90883689|NCT01709318|181630117|NON_INFERIORITY|Based on a LDA model with terms for treatment, cycle and the interaction cycle by treatment and stratum:starter/switcher followed by Miettinen and Nurminen's method. Non-inferiority criterion was met if the upper bound of the 95% CI of the difference is less than or equal to 10%.|Difference in Percent|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|15.9|||||95% CI adjusted for multiplicity (Dunnett)|||15.9|-10.7|
90883690|NCT01709318|181630118|NON_INFERIORITY|Based on a LDA model with terms for treatment, cycle and the interaction cycle by treatment and stratum:starter/switcher followed by Miettinen and Nurminen's method. Non-inferiority criterion was met if the upper bound of the 95% CI of the difference is less than or equal to 10%.|Difference in Percent|3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|16.4|||||95% CI adjusted for multiplicity (Dunnett)|||16.4|-3.6|
90883691|NCT01709318|181630118|NON_INFERIORITY|Based on a LDA model with terms for treatment, cycle and the interaction cycle by treatment and stratum:starter/switcher followed by Miettinen and Nurminen's method. Non-inferiority criterion was met if the upper bound of the 95% CI of the difference is less than or equal to 10%.|Difference in Percent|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|11.0|||||95% CI adjusted for multiplicity (Dunnett)|||11.0|-6.2|
90883692|NCT01709318|181630118|NON_INFERIORITY|Based on a LDA model with terms for treatment, cycle and the interaction cycle by treatment and stratum:starter/switcher followed by Miettinen and Nurminen's method. Non-inferiority criterion was met if the upper bound of the 95% CI of the difference is less than or equal to 10%.|Difference in Percent|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|17.5|||||95% CI adjusted for multiplicity (Dunnett)|||17.5|-3.8|
90883693|NCT01709318|181630118|NON_INFERIORITY|Based on a LDA model with terms for treatment, cycle and the interaction cycle by treatment and stratum:starter/switcher followed by Miettinen and Nurminen's method. Non-inferiority criterion was met if the upper bound of the 95% CI of the difference is less than or equal to 10%.|Difference in Percent|4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|18.9|||||95% CI adjusted for multiplicity (Dunnett)|||18.9|-2.5|
90883694|NCT01709318|181630118|NON_INFERIORITY|Based on a LDA model with terms for treatment, cycle and the interaction cycle by treatment and stratum:starter/switcher followed by Miettinen and Nurminen's method. Non-inferiority criterion was met if the upper bound of the 95% CI of the difference is less than or equal to 10%.|Difference in Percent|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|13.4|||||95% CI adjusted for multiplicity (Dunnett)|||13.4|-5.0|
90883695|NCT01709318|181630118|NON_INFERIORITY|Based on a LDA model with terms for treatment, cycle and the interaction cycle by treatment and stratum:starter/switcher followed by Miettinen and Nurminen's method. Non-inferiority criterion was met if the upper bound of the 95% CI of the difference is less than or equal to 10%.|Difference in Percent|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|11.0|||||95% CI adjusted for multiplicity (Dunnett)|||11.0|-6.2|
90883696|NCT01709318|181630119|OTHER|Based on longitudinal data analysis (LDA) model: generalized linear mixed model with terms for stratum, ring group, cycle (and the interaction of cycle by ring group), and continuous response variable.|Difference of Least Squares (LS) Mean|-0.08||||0.096|||||||LDA|||||||0.096
90923565|NCT06424236|181720223|OTHER||LS mean|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.222||0.395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.66|||Linear Mixed Effects Model||Estimated value is the difference in the rate of change between the treatment group and control group.|Baseline Symptomatic Participants: The statistical model included time since baseline (years), treatment arm, an interaction between treatment and time. Time was considered as continuous. Random intercepts and slopes for each participant was included as random effects with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.66|-0.28|0.395
90923566|NCT06424236|181720224|OTHER||LS mean|-2.176|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.89551|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9469|-1.4051|||MMRM|||Week 56: Treatment group and visit were treated as categorical fixed effects factors and OLE baseline CSF pTau181 as continuous. An unstructured correlation pattern was used to estimate the variance-covariance of the within participant repeated measures. The Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||-1.4051|-2.9469|<0.0001
90963208|NCT03739762|181807598|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27||||0.784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|2.16|||Regression, Linear|The model fit was a linear regression model with GEE on the outcome change from baseline.||||2.16|-1.63|.784
90963209|NCT03739762|181807599|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|2.38|||Regression, Linear|The model fit was a linear regression model with GEE on the outcome change from baseline.||||2.38|-2.61|.927
90963210|NCT03739762|181807600|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.47|||Regression, Linear|The model fit was a linear regression model with GEE on the outcome change from baseline.||||0.47|-0.42|.916
90963211|NCT03739762|181807601|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36||||0.325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|0.36|||Regression, Linear|The model fit was a linear regression model with GEE on the outcome change from baseline.||||0.36|-1.09|.325
90963212|NCT01346488|181807623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||Week 12||||< 0.0001
90963213|NCT01346488|181807623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||Week 24||||< 0.0001
90963214|NCT01346488|181807623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||Week 36||||< 0.0001
90963215|NCT01346488|181807623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||Week 48||||< 0.0001
90963216|NCT01346488|181807623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||at discontinuation of ADA therapy||||1.0000
90963217|NCT01346488|181807623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||at final assessment||||< 0.0001
90963218|NCT01346488|181807624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||Week 12||||< 0.0001
90963219|NCT01346488|181807624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||Week 24||||< 0.0001
90963220|NCT01346488|181807624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||Week 36||||< 0.0001
90963221|NCT01346488|181807624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||Week 48||||< 0.0001
90963222|NCT01346488|181807624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0054||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||at discontinuation of ADA therapy||||0.0054
90963223|NCT01346488|181807624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||at final assessment||||< 0.0001
90963224|NCT01346488|181807625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||Week 12||||<0.0001
90963225|NCT01346488|181807625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||Week 24||||<0.0001
90963226|NCT01346488|181807625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||Week 36||||< 0.0001
90963227|NCT01346488|181807625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||Week 48||||<0.0001
90963228|NCT01346488|181807625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0592||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||at discontinuation of ADA therapy||||0.0592
90963229|NCT01346488|181807625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||at final assessment||||< 0.0001
90963230|NCT01346488|181807626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||Week 12||||< 0.0001
90963231|NCT01346488|181807626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||Week 24||||<0.0001
90963232|NCT01346488|181807626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||Week 36||||<0.0001
90963233|NCT01346488|181807626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||Week 48||||<0.0001
90963234|NCT01346488|181807626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||at discontinuation of ADA therapy||||< 0.0001
90963235|NCT01346488|181807626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||at final assessment||||< 0.0001
90963236|NCT01346488|181807627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||Week 12||||< 0.0001
90963237|NCT01346488|181807627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||Week 24||||< 0.0001
90963238|NCT01346488|181807627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||Week 36||||< 0.0001
90963239|NCT01346488|181807627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||Week 48||||< 0.0001
90963240|NCT01346488|181807627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||at discontinuation of ADA therapy||||< 0.0001
90963241|NCT01346488|181807627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||at final assessment||||< 0.0001
90963242|NCT01346488|181807628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|McNemar|||Week 12 (Remission)||||<0.0001
90963243|NCT01346488|181807628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|McNemar|||Week 24 (Remission)||||< 0.0001
90963244|NCT01346488|181807628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|McNemar|||Week 36 (Remission)||||< 0.0001
90963245|NCT01346488|181807628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|McNemar|||Week 48 (Remission)||||< 0.0001
90963246|NCT01346488|181807628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.0005||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|McNemar|||at discontinuation of ADA therapy (Remission)||||= 0.0005
90963247|NCT01346488|181807628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|McNemar|||at final assessment (Remission)||||< 0.0001
90963248|NCT01346488|181807629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||Week 12||||< 0.0001
90963249|NCT01346488|181807629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||Week 24||||< 0.0001
90963250|NCT01346488|181807629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||Week 36||||< 0.0001
90963251|NCT01346488|181807629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||Week 48||||< 0.0001
90963252|NCT01346488|181807629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||at discontinuation of ADA therapy||||< 0.0001
90963253|NCT01346488|181807629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||at final assessment||||< 0.0001
90883697|NCT01709318|181630119|OTHER|Based on longitudinal data analysis model: generalized linear mixed model with terms for stratum, ring group, cycle (and the interaction of cycle by ring group), and continuous response variable.|Difference of LS Mean|-0.03||||0.993|||||||LDA|||||||0.993
90883698|NCT01709318|181630119|OTHER|Based on longitudinal data analysis model: generalized linear mixed model with terms for stratum, ring group, cycle (and the interaction of cycle by ring group), and continuous response variable.|Difference of LS Mean|-0.08||||0.124|||||||LDA|||||||0.124
90883699|NCT01709318|181630119|OTHER|Based on longitudinal data analysis model: generalized linear mixed model with terms for stratum, ring group, cycle (and the interaction of cycle by ring group), and continuous response variable.|Difference of LS Mean|-0.05||||0.845|||||||LDA|||||||0.845
90923567|NCT06424236|181720224|OTHER||LS mean|-4.8434|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.78771|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8609|-3.826|||MMRM|||Week 104: Treatment group and visit were treated as categorical fixed effects factors and OLE baseline CSF pTau181 as continuous. An unstructured correlation pattern was used to estimate the variance-covariance of the within participant repeated measures. The Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||-3.8260|-5.8609|<0.0001
90923568|NCT06424236|181720224|OTHER||LS mean|-5.762|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.31129|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9679|-4.5561|||MMRM|||Week 156: Treatment group and visit were treated as categorical fixed effects factors and OLE baseline CSF pTau181 as continuous. An unstructured correlation pattern was used to estimate the variance-covariance of the within participant repeated measures. The Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||-4.5561|-6.9679|<0.0001
90923569|NCT06424236|181720225|OTHER||LS mean|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.09|||Linear Mixed Effects Model||Estimated value is the difference in the rate of change between the treatment group and control group.|Baseline Asymptomatic Participants: The statistical model included time since baseline (years), treatment arm, an interaction between treatment and time. Time was considered as continuous. Random intercepts and slopes for each participant was included as random effects with variance components covariance matrix.||0.09|0.00|0.055
90923570|NCT06424236|181720225|OTHER||LS mean|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.11|||Linear Mixed Effects Model||Estimated value is the difference in the rate of change between the treatment group and control group.|Baseline Symptomatic Participants: The statistical model included time since baseline (years), treatment arm, an interaction between treatment and time. Time was considered as continuous. Random intercepts and slopes for each participant was included as random effects with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.11|-0.02|0.188
90923571|NCT06424236|181720226|OTHER||LS mean|0.0067|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0124||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0034|0.01|||MMRM|||Week 52: Treatment group and visit were treated as categorical fixed effects factors and OLE baseline CSF Amyloid Beta1-42/40 score as continuous. An unstructured correlation pattern was used to estimate the variance-covariance of the within participant repeated measures. The Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||0.0100|0.0034|0.0001
90923572|NCT06424236|181720226|OTHER||LS mean|0.0251|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.02262|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0189|0.0312|||MMRM|||Week 104: Treatment group and visit were treated as categorical fixed effects factors and OLE baseline CSF Amyloid Beta1-42/40 score as continuous. An unstructured correlation pattern was used to estimate the variance-covariance of the within participant repeated measures. The Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||0.0312|0.0189|<0.0001
90923573|NCT06424236|181720226|OTHER||LS mean|0.0357|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.02467|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0266|0.0447|||MMRM|||Week 156: Treatment group and visit were treated as categorical fixed effects factors and OLE baseline CSF Amyloid Beta1-42/40 score as continuous. An unstructured correlation pattern was used to estimate the variance-covariance of the within participant repeated measures. The Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||0.0447|0.0266|<0.0001
90923574|NCT06424236|181720227|OTHER||LS mean|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.081||0.644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.2|||Linear Mixed Effects Model||Estimated value is the difference in the rate of change between the treatment group and control group.|Baseline Asymptomatic Participants: The statistical model included time since baseline (years), treatment arm, an interaction between treatment and time. Time was considered as continuous. Random intercepts and slopes for each participant was included as random effects with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.20|-0.12|0.644
90923575|NCT06424236|181720227|OTHER||LS mean|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.111||0.745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.26|||Linear Mixed Effects Model||Estimated value is the difference in the rate of change between the treatment group and control group.|Baseline Symptomatic Participants: The statistical model included time since baseline (years), treatment arm, an interaction between treatment and time. Time was considered as continuous. Random intercepts and slopes for each participant was included as random effects with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.26|-0.18|0.745
90883700|NCT01709318|181630119|OTHER|Based on longitudinal data analysis model: generalized linear mixed model with terms for stratum, ring group, cycle (and the interaction of cycle by ring group), and continuous response variable.|Difference of LS Mean|-0.04||||0.976|||||||LDA|||||||0.976
90883701|NCT01709318|181630119|OTHER|Based on longitudinal data analysis model: generalized linear mixed model with terms for stratum, ring group, cycle (and the interaction of cycle by ring group), and continuous response variable.|Difference of LS Mean|-0.03||||0.995|||||||LDA|||||||0.995
90923576|NCT04213872|181720228|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Measure Pre-MM mean (sd) Post-MM mean (sd) Pre/Post MM mean (sd) difference P-Value CogPCI 25.4 (14.2) 17.3 (10.5) \*-8.1 (3.7) .01~\*reduction in scores indicate improvement."||||.01
90883702|NCT01709318|181630120|OTHER|Based on longitudinal data analysis (LDA) model: generalized linear mixed model with terms for stratum, ring group, cycle (and the interaction of cycle by ring group), and continuous response variable.|Difference of Least Squares (LS) Mean|-0.01||||1|||||||LDA|||||||1.000
90883703|NCT01709318|181630120|OTHER|Based on longitudinal data analysis model: generalized linear mixed model with terms for stratum, ring group, cycle (and the interaction of cycle by ring group), and continuous response variable.|Difference of LS Mean|0.19||||0.996|||||||LDA|||||||0.996
90883704|NCT01709318|181630120|OTHER|Based on longitudinal data analysis model: generalized linear mixed model with terms for stratum, ring group, cycle (and the interaction of cycle by ring group), and continuous response variable.|Difference of LS Mean|-0.06||||1|||||||LDA|||||||1.000
90883705|NCT01709318|181630120|OTHER|Based on longitudinal data analysis model: generalized linear mixed model with terms for stratum, ring group, cycle (and the interaction of cycle by ring group), and continuous response variable.|Difference of LS Mean|-0.04||||1|||||||LDA|||||||1.000
90883706|NCT01709318|181630120|OTHER|Based on longitudinal data analysis model: generalized linear mixed model with terms for stratum, ring group, cycle (and the interaction of cycle by ring group), and continuous response variable.|Difference of LS Mean|0.09||||1|||||||LDA|||||||1.000
90923577|NCT04213872|181720229|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Measure Pre-MM mean (sd) Post-MM mean (sd) Pre/Post MM mean (sd) difference P-Value CogPCA 16.0 (5.1) 19.2 (5.3) 3.2 (0.2) .03||||.03
90923578|NCT04213872|181720230|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Measure Pre-MM mean (sd) Post-MM mean (sd) Pre/Post MM mean (sd) difference P-Value CogQOL 3.7 (3.8) 1.8 (2.2) \*-1.9 (1.6) .04~\*lower scores signifying better outcomes."||||.04
90923579|NCT04213872|181720231|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Measure Pre-MM mean (sd) Post-MM mean (sd) Pre/Post MM mean (sd) difference P-Value CogOth 1.5 (2.1) 0.2 (0.4) \*-1.3 (1.7) .04~\*lower scores signifying better outcomes."||||.04
90923580|NCT04213872|181720232|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Measure Pre-MM mean (sd) Post-MM mean (sd) Pre/Post MM mean (sd) difference P-Value WAIS-III Letter/Number 10.7 (3.2) 12.7 (2.8) 2.0 (0.4) .01||||.01
90923581|NCT04213872|181720233|OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Measure Pre-MM mean (sd) Post-MM mean (sd) Pre/Post MM mean (sd) difference P-Value~WAIS-III Digit Span Forward and Backward 19.2 (4.8) 19.7 (4.4) 0.5 (0.4) .60"||||.60
90923582|NCT04213872|181720234|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Measure Pre-MM mean (sd) Post-MM mean (sd) Pre/Post MM mean (sd) difference P-Value PSQI 1.5 (0.8) 0.9 (0.7) \*-0.6 (0.1) .03~\*Lower scores mean better outcomes."||||.03
90923583|NCT04213872|181720235|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Measure Pre-MM mean (sd) Post-MM mean (sd) Pre/Post MM mean (sd) difference P-Value POMS Anxiety 9.2 (7.7) 4.2 (3.7) \*-5.0 (4.0) .05~\*Lower scores mean better outcomes."||||.05
90923584|NCT04213872|181720236|OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Measure Pre-MM mean (sd) Post-MM mean (sd) Pre/Post MM mean (sd) difference P-Value POMS Depression 4.1 (4.9) 2.0 (3.0) \*-2.1 (1.9) .08~\*Lower scores mean better outcomes."||||.08
90923585|NCT04213872|181720237|OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Measure Pre-MM mean (sd) Post-MM mean (sd) Pre/Post MM mean (sd) difference P-Value BDNF 0.11 (0.9) 0.30 (0.7) 0.19 (0.2) .30~Higher scores mean better outcomes."||||.30
90923586|NCT04213872|181720238|OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Measure Pre-MM mean (sd) Post-MM mean (sd) Pre/Post MM mean (sd) difference P-Value NF-kB1 171.7 (25.4) 173.7 (21.6) 2.0 (3.8) .80~Higher scores mean better outcomes."||||.80
90923587|NCT04213872|181720239|OTHER|||||||0.61|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Measure Pre-MM mean (sd) Post-MM mean (sd) Pre/Post MM mean (sd) difference P-Value TP53 12.3 (2.7) 13.1 (5.5) 0.8 (2.8) .61||||.61
90923588|NCT05403827|181720240|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5019|||||||Control-Based Mean Imputation|||||||0.5019
90923589|NCT05403827|181720241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2028|||||||Control-Based Mean Imputation|||||||0.2028
90923590|NCT05403827|181720242|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1914|||||||Control-Based Mean Imputation|||||||0.1914
90923591|NCT05403827|181720243|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2512|||||||Control-Based Mean Imputation|||||||0.2512
90923592|NCT05403827|181720244|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7906|||||||Control-Based Mean Imputation|||||||0.7906
90923593|NCT05403827|181720245|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5343|||||||Control-Based Mean Imputation|||||||0.5343
90923594|NCT05403827|181720246|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3757|||||||Control-Based Mean Imputation|||||||0.3757
90923595|NCT02547233|181720277|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of clearance rates|30.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.28|218.0|||Mantel Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel estimate (0.018% relative to vehicle), adjusted for pooled sites.|||218.0|4.28|<0.001
90923596|NCT02547233|181720278|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of clearance rates|12.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.73|31.78|||Mantel Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel estimate (0.018% relative to vehicle), adjusted for pooled sites.|The p-values for secondary endpoints have been corrected by the Holm-Bonferroni method to account for multiplicity. The prespecified multiplicity adjustment by the Holm-Bonferroni method requires the ordering of the p-values for the secondary endpoints by size.||31.78|4.73|<0.001
90923597|NCT02547233|181720279|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of clearance rates|10.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.43|23.97|||Mantel Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel estimate (0.018% relative to vehicle), adjusted for pooled sites.|The p-values for secondary endpoints have been corrected by the Holm-Bonferroni method to account for multiplicity. The prespecified multiplicity adjustment by the Holm-Bonferroni method requires the ordering of the p-values for the secondary endpoints by size.||23.97|4.43|<0.001
90923598|NCT02547233|181720280|SUPERIORITY||Week 8 AK count ratio|0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.37||Negative binominal regression with treatment group and pooled site as factors and log baseline count as offset variable.|Mantel Haenszel||0.018% relative to vehicle.|The p-values for secondary endpoints have been corrected by the Holm-Bonferroni method to account for multiplicity. The prespecified multiplicity adjustment by the Holm-Bonferroni method requires the ordering of the p-values for the secondary endpoints by size.||0.37|0.25|<0.001
90923599|NCT05235750|181720281|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value refers to the difference between post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T3-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for RSES.|Mixed Models Analysis||The above value represents net difference between post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T3-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for RSES.|We analyzed short- (at 6 weeks post-baseline or T3) and longer-term differences (at 8 weeks post-baseline or T4) for the RSES, expecting a larger size of differences at T3. The short-term difference \[(T3-T2)-(T2-T1)\] represents differences between post-intervention change (T3-T2) and pre-intervention change (T2-T1). Longer-term difference \[(T4-T2)-(T2-T1)\] represents differences between 2 weeks post-intervention change (T4-T2) and pre-intervention change (T2-T1).||||.83
90923600|NCT05235750|181720281|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value refers to the difference between 2 weeks post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T4-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for RSES.|Mixed Models Analysis||The above value represents net difference between 2 weeks post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T4-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for RSES.|||||.91
90963254|NCT01346488|181807630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|McNemar|||Week 12 (Remission)||||< 0.0001
91034471|NCT00913627|181955166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH)|-59.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.94|-42.27||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||CMH adjusted proportions|8 hours||-42.27|-76.94|<0.001
90883707|NCT01709318|181630120|OTHER|Based on longitudinal data analysis model: generalized linear mixed model with terms for stratum, ring group, cycle (and the interaction of cycle by ring group), and continuous response variable.|Difference of LS Mean|-0.24||||0.998|||||||LDA|||||||0.998
90883708|NCT00827372|181630132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0658|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||With a sample size of 14 evaluable subjects, we will have 80% power to detect a change in excess arm volume of .8 standard deviations using a two-sided paired t-test. We will have 90% power to detect a difference of .9 standard deviations. A Paired T-Test was used to test the difference in arm volume from the second baseline measurement to Cycle 2 only.||||0.0658
90883709|NCT00827372|181630133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0061|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A Paired T-Test was used to compare the IFP affected at first versus affected at last reading.||||0.0061
90883710|NCT00827372|181630134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0143|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A Paired T-Test was used for the difference in the impedance ratio from the second baseline to cycle 2, day 1||||0.0143
90883711|NCT02139644|181630145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|0.154||||0.0076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.041|0.267|||ANCOVA|Fixed effects of treatment, sex, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), and covariates of age and baseline FEV1.||A fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure was used to control the overall Type I error rate at the 0.05 level (2-sided) for the primary endpoints analyses. Analyses appear in the defined sequence. This is the first in the sequence.||0.267|0.041|0.0076
90883712|NCT02139644|181630145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|0.131||||0.0322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.011|0.25|||ANCOVA|Fixed effects of treatment, sex, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), and covariates of age and baseline FEV1.||A fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure was used to control the overall Type I error rate at the 0.05 level (2-sided) for the primary endpoints analyses. Analyses appear in the defined sequence. This is the second in the sequence.||0.250|0.011|0.0322
90883713|NCT02139644|181630145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|0.335||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.216|0.453|||ANCOVA|Fixed effects of treatment, sex, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), and covariates of age and baseline FEV1.||A fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure was used to control the overall Type I error rate at the 0.05 level (2-sided) for the primary endpoints analyses. Analyses appear in the defined sequence. This is the third in the sequence.||0.453|0.216|0.0000
90883714|NCT02139644|181630145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|0.325||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.203|0.447|||ANCOVA|Fixed effects of treatment, sex, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), and covariates of age and baseline FEV1.||A fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure was used to control the overall Type I error rate at the 0.05 level (2-sided) for the primary endpoints analyses. Analyses appear in the defined sequence. This is the fourth in the sequence.||0.447|0.203|0.0000
90883715|NCT02139644|181630146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|0.262||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.168|0.356|||ANCOVA|Effects due to baseline trough AM FEV1, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), and treatment.||A fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure was used to control the overall Type I error rate at the 0.05 level (2-sided) for the primary endpoints analyses. Analyses appear in the defined sequence. This is the fifth in the sequence.||0.356|0.168|0.0000
90883716|NCT02139644|181630146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|0.266||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.172|0.36|||ANCOVA|Effects due to baseline trough AM FEV1, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), and treatment.||A fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure was used to control the overall Type I error rate at the 0.05 level (2-sided) for the primary endpoints analyses. Analyses appear in the defined sequence. This is the sixth in the sequence.||0.360|0.172|0.0000
90883717|NCT02139644|181630146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|0.151||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.057|0.244|||ANCOVA|Effects due to baseline trough AM FEV1, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), and treatment.||A fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure was used to control the overall Type I error rate at the 0.05 level (2-sided) for the primary endpoints analyses. Analyses appear in the defined sequence. This is the seventh in the sequence.||0.244|0.057|0.0017
90883718|NCT02139644|181630146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|0.119||||0.0132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.025|0.212|||ANCOVA|Effects due to baseline trough AM FEV1, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), and treatment.||A fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure was used to control the overall Type I error rate at the 0.05 level (2-sided) for the primary endpoints analyses. Analyses appear in the defined sequence. This is the eighth in the sequence.||0.212|0.025|0.0132
90883719|NCT02139644|181630147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|10.926||||0.0123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.38|19.471||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||The analysis of change from baseline in weekly average of daily (AM predose and pre-rescue bronchodilator) PEF over the 12-week treatment period was performed using an mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline weekly average of daily AM PEF, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||19.471|2.380|0.0123
90883720|NCT02139644|181630147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|7.018||||0.1074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.531|15.567||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||The analysis of change from baseline in weekly average of daily (AM predose and pre-rescue bronchodilator) PEF over the 12-week treatment period was performed using an mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline weekly average of daily AM PEF, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||15.567|-1.531|0.1074
90963255|NCT01346488|181807630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|McNemar|||Week 24 (Remission)||||< 0.0001
90963256|NCT01346488|181807630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|McNemar|||Week 36 (Remission)||||< 0.0001
91034472|NCT00913627|181955166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH)|-72.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-88.56|-55.83||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||CMH adjusted proportions|9 hours||-55.83|-88.56|<0.001
90883721|NCT02139644|181630147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|20.824||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.253|29.395||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||The analysis of change from baseline in weekly average of daily (AM predose and pre-rescue bronchodilator) PEF over the 12-week treatment period was performed using an mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline weekly average of daily AM PEF, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||29.395|12.253|0.0000
90923601|NCT05235750|181720282|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.1||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value refers to the difference between post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T3-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for the total FACT-G.|Mixed Models Analysis||The above value represents net difference between post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T3-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for the total FACT-G.|We analyzed short- (at 6 weeks post-baseline, T3) and longer-term differences (at 8 weeks post-baseline, T4) for the FACT-G at scale, factor and item levels expecting a larger size of differences at T3. The short-term difference \[(T3-T2)-(T2-T1)\] represents differences between post-intervention change (T3-T2) and pre-intervention change (T2-T1). Longer-term difference \[(T4-T2)-(T2-T1)\] represents differences between 2 weeks post-intervention change (T4-T2) and pre-intervention change (T2-T1).||||.45
90923602|NCT05235750|181720282|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.3||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value refers to the difference between 2 weeks post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T4-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for the total FACT-G.|Mixed Models Analysis||The above value represents net difference between 2 weeks post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T4-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for the total FACT-G.|||||.29
90923603|NCT05235750|181720282|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value refers to the difference between post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T3-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for physical well-being (PWB) as measured by the FACT-G.|Mixed Models Analysis||The above value represents net difference between post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T3-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for physical well-being (PWB) as measured by the FACT-G.|||||.46
90923604|NCT05235750|181720282|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value refers to the difference between 2 weeks post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T4-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for physical well-being (PWB) as measured by the FACT-G.|Mixed Models Analysis||The above value represents net difference between 2 weeks post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T4-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for physical well-being (PWB) as measured by the FACT-G.|||||.79
90923605|NCT05235750|181720282|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.1||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value refers to the difference between post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T3-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for social/family well-being (SWB) as measured by the FACT-G.|Mixed Models Analysis||The above value represents net difference between post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T3-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for social/family well-being (SWB) as measured by the FACT-G.|||||.05
90923606|NCT05235750|181720282|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.4||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value refers to the difference between 2 weeks post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T4-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for social/family well-being (SWB) as measured by the FACT-G.|Mixed Models Analysis||The above value represents net difference between 2 weeks post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T4-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for social/family well-being (SWB) as measured by the FACT-G.|||||.03
90923607|NCT05235750|181720282|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value refers to the difference between post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T3-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for emotional well-being (EWB) as measured by the FACT-G.|Mixed Models Analysis||The above value represents net difference between post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T3-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for emotional well-being (EWB) as measured by the FACT-G.|||||.82
90923608|NCT05235750|181720282|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value refers to the difference between 2 weeks post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T4-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for emotional well-being (EWB) as measured by the FACT-G.|Mixed Models Analysis||The above value represents net difference between 2 weeks post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T4-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for emotional well-being (EWB) as measured by the FACT-G.|||||.58
90923609|NCT05235750|181720282|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value refers to the difference between post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T3-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for functional well-being (FWB) as measured by the FACT-G.|Mixed Models Analysis||The above value represents net difference between post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T3-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for functional well-being (FWB) as measured by the FACT-G.|||||.56
90923610|NCT05235750|181720282|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value refers to the difference between 2 weeks post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T4-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for functional well-being (FWB) as measured by the FACT-G.|Mixed Models Analysis||The above value represents net difference between 2 weeks post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T4-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for functional well-being (FWB) as measured by the FACT-G.|||||.58
90923611|NCT05235750|181720282|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|||||"The above p value refers to the difference between post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T3-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for Global QoL (item G7 I am content with the quality of my life right now) as measured by the FACT-G."|Mixed Models Analysis||"The above value represents net difference between post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T3-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for Global QoL (item G7 I am content with the quality of my life right now) as measured by the FACT-G."|||||.58
90963257|NCT01346488|181807630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|McNemar|||Week 48 (Remission)||||< 0.0001
90963258|NCT01346488|181807630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|McNemar|||at discontinuation of ADA therapy (Remission)||||< 0.0001
91034473|NCT00913627|181955166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH)|-70.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-87.14|-54.3||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||CMH adjusted proportions|9 hours||-54.30|-87.14|<0.001
90963259|NCT01346488|181807630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|McNemar|||at final assessment (Remission)||||< 0.0001
91034474|NCT00913627|181955166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH)|-57.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.43|-40.16||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||CMH adjusted proportions|9 hours||-40.16|-75.43|<0.001
91034475|NCT00913627|181955166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH)|-66.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.98|-49.6||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||CMH adjusted proportions|10 hours||-49.60|-83.98|<0.001
90883722|NCT02139644|181630147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|21.273||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.728|29.818||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||The analysis of change from baseline in weekly average of daily (AM predose and pre-rescue bronchodilator) PEF over the 12-week treatment period was performed using an mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline weekly average of daily AM PEF, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||29.818|12.728|0.0000
90883723|NCT02139644|181630147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|9.898||||0.0233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.349|18.447||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||The analysis of change from baseline in weekly average of daily (AM predose and pre-rescue bronchodilator) PEF over the 12-week treatment period was performed using an mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline weekly average of daily AM PEF, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||18.447|1.349|0.0233
90883724|NCT02139644|181630147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|14.255||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.732|22.778||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||The analysis of change from baseline in weekly average of daily (AM predose and pre-rescue bronchodilator) PEF over the 12-week treatment period was performed using an mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline weekly average of daily AM PEF, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||22.778|5.732|0.0011
90883725|NCT02139644|181630147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|10.347||||0.0175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.822|18.872||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||The analysis of change from baseline in weekly average of daily (AM predose and pre-rescue bronchodilator) PEF over the 12-week treatment period was performed using an mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline weekly average of daily AM PEF, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||18.872|1.822|0.0175
90883726|NCT02139644|181630148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|-0.165||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.251|-0.08||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||The change from baseline in the weekly average of the total daily asthma symptom scores over weeks 1 to 12 was analyzed using an MMRM with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline score, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||-0.080|-0.251|0.0002
90883727|NCT02139644|181630148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|-0.143||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.229|-0.058||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||The change from baseline in the weekly average of the total daily asthma symptom scores over weeks 1 to 12 was analyzed using an MMRM with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline score, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||-0.058|-0.229|0.0010
90923612|NCT05235750|181720282|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|||||"The above p value refers to the difference between 2 weeks post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T4-T2)-(T2-T1)\] for Global QoL (item G7 I am content with the quality of my life right now) as measured by the FACT-G."|Mixed Models Analysis||"The above value represents net difference between 2 weeks post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T4-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for Global QoL (item G7 I am content with the quality of my life right now) as measured by the FACT-G."|||||.34
90923613|NCT05235750|181720282|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|||||"The above p value refers to the difference between post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T3-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for item Ge6 I worry that my condition will get worse as measured by the FACT-G."|Mixed Models Analysis||"The above value represents net difference between post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T3-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for item Ge6 I worry that my condition will get worse as measured by the FACT-G."|||||.27
90923614|NCT05235750|181720282|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|||||"The above p value refers to the difference between 2 weeks post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T4-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for item Ge6 I worry that my condition will get worse as measured by the FACT-G."|Mixed Models Analysis||"The above value represents net difference between 2 weeks post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T4-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for item Ge6 I worry that my condition will get worse as measured by the FACT-G."|||||.62
90923615|NCT05235750|181720283|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value refers to the difference between post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T3-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for the total FACIT-Sp-12.|Mixed Models Analysis||The above value represents net difference between post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T3-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for the total FACIT-Sp-12.|We analyzed short- (at 6 weeks post-baseline, T3) and longer-term differences (at 8 weeks post-baseline, T4) for the FACIT-Sp-12 at scale and factor levels, expecting a larger size of differences at T3. The short-term difference \[(T3-T2)-(T2-T1)\] represents differences between post-intervention change (T3-T2) and pre-intervention change (T2-T1). Longer-term difference \[(T4-T2)-(T2-T1)\] represents differences between 2 weeks post-intervention change (T4-T2) and pre-intervention change (T2-T1).||||.76
90923616|NCT05235750|181720283|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.1||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value refers to the difference between 2 weeks post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T4-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for the total FACIT-Sp-12.|Mixed Models Analysis||The above value represents net difference between 2 weeks post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T4-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for the total FACIT-Sp-12.|||||.19
90923617|NCT05235750|181720283|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value refers to the difference between post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T3-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for the Meaning/Peace factor (M/P) as measured by the FACIT-Sp-12.|Mixed Models Analysis||The above value represents net difference between post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T3-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for the Meaning/Peace factor (M/P) as measured by the FACIT-Sp-12.|||||.35
90963260|NCT01346488|181807631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||Week 12||||< 0.0001
90963261|NCT01346488|181807631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||Week 24||||< 0.0001
90963262|NCT01346488|181807631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||Week 36||||< 0.0001
90963263|NCT01346488|181807631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||Week 48||||< 0.0001
90963264|NCT01346488|181807631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||at discontinuation of ADA therapy||||< 0.0001
90963265|NCT01346488|181807631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||at final assessment||||< 0.0001
90963266|NCT01346488|181807632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|McNemar|||Week 12 (Remission)||||< 0.0001
90963267|NCT01346488|181807632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|McNemar|||Week 24 (Remission)||||< 0.0001
90883728|NCT02139644|181630148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|-0.23||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.315|-0.144||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||The change from baseline in the weekly average of the total daily asthma symptom scores over weeks 1 to 12 was analyzed using an MMRM with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline score, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||-0.144|-0.315|0.0000
90883729|NCT02139644|181630148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|-0.194||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.279|-0.109||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||The change from baseline in the weekly average of the total daily asthma symptom scores over weeks 1 to 12 was analyzed using an MMRM with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline score, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||-0.109|-0.279|0.0000
90963268|NCT01346488|181807632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|McNemar|||Week 36 (Remission)||||< 0.0001
90963269|NCT01346488|181807632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|McNemar|||Week 48 (Remission)||||< 0.0001
90883730|NCT02139644|181630148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|-0.064||||0.1381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.021||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||The change from baseline in the weekly average of the total daily asthma symptom scores over weeks 1 to 12 was analyzed using an MMRM with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline score, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||0.021|-0.150|0.1381
90963270|NCT01346488|181807632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|McNemar|||at discontinuation of ADA therapy (Remission)||||< 0.0001
90963271|NCT01346488|181807632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|McNemar|||at final assessment (Remission)||||< 0.0001
90963272|NCT01346488|181807633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||Week 12||||< 0.0001
90963273|NCT01346488|181807633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||Week 24||||< 0.0001
90963274|NCT01346488|181807633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||Week 36||||< 0.0001
90963275|NCT01346488|181807633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||Week 48||||< 0.0001
90963276|NCT01346488|181807633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||at discontinuation of ADA therapy||||< 0.0001
90963277|NCT01346488|181807633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||at final assessment||||< 0.0001
90963278|NCT01346488|181807634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|McNemar|||Week 12 (Remission)||||< 0.0001
90963279|NCT01346488|181807634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|McNemar|||Week 24 (Remission)||||< 0.0001
90963280|NCT01346488|181807634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|McNemar|||Week 36 (Remission)||||< 0.0001
90963281|NCT01346488|181807634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|McNemar|||Week 48 (Remission)||||< 0.0001
90963282|NCT01346488|181807634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|McNemar|||at discontinuation of ADA therapy (Remission)||||< 0.0001
90963283|NCT01346488|181807634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|McNemar|||at final assessment (Remission)||||< 0.0001
90963284|NCT01346488|181807635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||Week 12||||< 0.0001
90963285|NCT01346488|181807635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||Week 24||||< 0.0001
90963286|NCT01346488|181807635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||Week 36||||< 0.0001
90963287|NCT01346488|181807635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||Week 48||||< 0.0001
90963288|NCT01346488|181807635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||at discontinuation of ADA therapy||||< 0.0001
90963289|NCT01346488|181807635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||at final assessment||||< 0.0001
90963290|NCT01008696|181807638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8849||||||Homozygous extensive metabolizer|Chi-squared|||||||0.8849
90963291|NCT01008696|181807638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.865||||||Heterozygous extensive metabolizer|Chi-squared|||||||0.8650
90963292|NCT01008696|181807638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.266||||||Poor metabolizer|Chi-squared|||||||0.2660
90963293|NCT01008696|181807639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7734||||||Change at Day 57: Heartburn|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.7734
90963294|NCT01008696|181807639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6414||||||Change at Day 57: Regurgitation|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.6414
90963295|NCT01008696|181807639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7809||||||Change at Day 57: Globus sensation|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.7809
90963296|NCT01008696|181807639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8294||||||Change at Day 57: Chronic cough|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.8294
90963297|NCT01008696|181807639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9874||||||Change at Day 57: Epigastric pain|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.9874
90963298|NCT01008696|181807639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2776||||||Change at Day 57: Non cardiac chest pain|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.2776
90963299|NCT01008696|181807639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6295||||||Change at Day 57: Hoarseness|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.6295
90883731|NCT02139644|181630148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|-0.051||||0.2438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.136|0.035||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||The change from baseline in the weekly average of the total daily asthma symptom scores over weeks 1 to 12 was analyzed using an MMRM with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline score, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||0.035|-0.136|0.2438
90883732|NCT02139644|181630148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|-0.029||||0.5095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.114|0.057||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||The change from baseline in the weekly average of the total daily asthma symptom scores over weeks 1 to 12 was analyzed using an MMRM with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline score, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||0.057|-0.114|0.5095
90883733|NCT02139644|181630149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|-0.463||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.716|-0.209||Significance level of 0.05|mixed model for repeated measures|||The change from baseline in the weekly average of total daily (24-hour) use of albuterol/ salbutamol inhalation aerosol (number of inhalations) over weeks 1 to 12 was analyzed using an MMRM with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline value, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||-0.209|-0.716|0.0004
90883734|NCT02139644|181630149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|-0.464||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.718|-0.211||Significance level of 0.05|mixed model for repeated measures|||The change from baseline in the weekly average of total daily (24-hour) use of albuterol/ salbutamol inhalation aerosol (number of inhalations) over weeks 1 to 12 was analyzed using an MMRM with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline value, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||-0.211|-0.718|0.0003
90923618|NCT05235750|181720283|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.9||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value refers to the difference between 2 weeks post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T4-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for the Meaning/Peace factor (M/P) as measured by the FACIT-Sp-12.|Mixed Models Analysis||The above value represents net difference between 2 weeks post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T4-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for the Meaning/Peace factor (M/P) as measured by the FACIT-Sp-12.|||||.99
90923619|NCT05235750|181720283|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value refers to the difference between post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T3-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for the Faith factor of the FACIT-Sp-12.|Mixed Models Analysis||The above value represents net difference between post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T3-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for the Faith factor of the FACIT-Sp-12.|||||.46
90923620|NCT05235750|181720283|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value refers to the difference between 2 weeks post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T4-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for the Faith factor of the FACIT-Sp-12.|Mixed Models Analysis||The above value represents net difference between 2 weeks post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T4-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for the Faith factor of the FACIT-Sp-12.|||||.24
90923621|NCT05235750|181720283|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value refers to the difference between post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T3-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for the revised Faith factor of the FACIT-Sp-12.|Mixed Models Analysis||The above value represents net difference between post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T3-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for the revised Faith factor of the FACIT-Sp-12.|||||.55
90923622|NCT05235750|181720283|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value refers to the difference between 2 weeks post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T4-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for the revised Faith factor of the FACIT-Sp-12.|Mixed Models Analysis||The above value represents net difference between 2 weeks post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T4-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for the revised Faith factor of the FACIT-Sp-12.|||||.80
90883735|NCT02139644|181630149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|-0.675||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.928|-0.421||Significance level of 0.05|mixed model for repeated measures|||The change from baseline in the weekly average of total daily (24-hour) use of albuterol/ salbutamol inhalation aerosol (number of inhalations) over weeks 1 to 12 was analyzed using an MMRM with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline value, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||-0.421|-0.928|0.0000
90883736|NCT02139644|181630149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|-0.704||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.957|-0.45||Significance level of 0.05|mixed model for repeated measures|||The change from baseline in the weekly average of total daily (24-hour) use of albuterol/ salbutamol inhalation aerosol (number of inhalations) over weeks 1 to 12 was analyzed using an MMRM with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline value, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||-0.450|-0.957|0.0000
90883737|NCT02139644|181630149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|-0.212||||0.1014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.465|0.042||Significance level of 0.05|mixed model for repeated measures|||The change from baseline in the weekly average of total daily (24-hour) use of albuterol/ salbutamol inhalation aerosol (number of inhalations) over weeks 1 to 12 was analyzed using an MMRM with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline value, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||0.042|-0.465|0.1014
90923623|NCT05235750|181720283|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.5||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value refers to the difference between post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T3-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for the total FACIT-Sp-12 (revised).|Mixed Models Analysis||The above value represents net difference between post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T3-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for the total FACIT-Sp-12 (revised).|||||.34
90923624|NCT05235750|181720283|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.0||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value refers to the difference between 2 weeks post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T4-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for the total FACIT-Sp-12 (revised).|Mixed Models Analysis||The above value represents net difference between 2 weeks post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T4-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for the total FACIT-Sp-12 (revised).|||||.91
90963300|NCT01008696|181807639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5335||||||Change at Day 57: Dysphagia|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.5335
90963301|NCT01008696|181807639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8068||||||Change at Day 57: Abdominal distension|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.8068
90883738|NCT02139644|181630149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|-0.239||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.492|0.014||Significance level of 0.05|mixed model for repeated measures|||The change from baseline in the weekly average of total daily (24-hour) use of albuterol/ salbutamol inhalation aerosol (number of inhalations) over weeks 1 to 12 was analyzed using an MMRM with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline value, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||0.014|-0.492|0.0640
90883739|NCT02139644|181630149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|-0.241||||0.0626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.494|0.013||Significance level of 0.05|mixed model for repeated measures|||The change from baseline in the weekly average of total daily (24-hour) use of albuterol/ salbutamol inhalation aerosol (number of inhalations) over weeks 1 to 12 was analyzed using an MMRM with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline value, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||0.013|-0.494|0.0626
90883740|NCT02139644|181630150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1679||||||Significance level of 0.05|Log Rank|||||||0.1679
90883741|NCT02139644|181630150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1701||||||Significance level of 0.05|Log Rank|||||||0.1701
90883742|NCT02139644|181630150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0437||||||Significance level of 0.05|Log Rank|||||||0.0437
90883743|NCT02139644|181630150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1718||||||Significance level of 0.05|Log Rank|||||||0.1718
90923625|NCT05235750|181720284|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.1||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value refers to the difference between post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T3-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for HADS-anxiety subscale (HADS-A).|Mixed Models Analysis||The above value represents net difference between post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T3-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for HADS-anxiety subscale (HADS-A).|We analyzed short- (at 6 weeks post-baseline, T3) and longer-term differences (at 8 weeks post-baseline, T4) for two subscales HADS-A and HADS-D respectively, expecting a larger size of differences at T3. The short-term difference \[(T3-T2)-(T2-T1)\] represents differences between post-intervention change (T3-T2) and pre-intervention change (T2-T1). Longer-term difference \[(T4-T2)-(T2-T1)\] represents differences between 2 weeks post-intervention change (T4-T2) and pre-intervention change (T2-T1).||||.14
90923626|NCT05235750|181720284|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.2||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value refers to the difference between 2 weeks post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T4-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for HADS-anxiety subscale (HADS-A).|Mixed Models Analysis||The above value represents net difference between 2 weeks post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T4-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for HADS-anxiety subscale (HADS-A).|||||.14
91034476|NCT00913627|181955166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH)|-70.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-87.14|-54.3||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||CMH adjusted proportions|10 hours||-54.30|-87.14|<0.001
90883744|NCT02139644|181630150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3134||||||Significance level of 0.05|Log Rank|||||||0.3134
90883745|NCT02139644|181630150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.993||||||Significance level of 0.05|Log Rank|||||||0.9930
90883746|NCT02139644|181630150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9999||||||Significance level of 0.05|Log Rank|||||||0.9999
90883747|NCT02139644|181630151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|0.301||||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.094|0.508||Significance level of 0.05|ANCOVA|||The change from baseline in AQLQ(S) score (patients ≥18 years of age) at endpoint (ie, last postbaseline observation) was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with effects due to baseline AQLQ(S) score, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), and treatment, imputing missing data via last observation carried forward (LOCF).||0.508|0.094|0.0044
90883748|NCT02139644|181630151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|0.253||||0.0155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.048|0.458||Significance level of 0.05|ANCOVA|||The change from baseline in AQLQ(S) score (patients ≥18 years of age) at endpoint (ie, last postbaseline observation) was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with effects due to baseline AQLQ(S) score, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), and treatment, imputing missing data via last observation carried forward (LOCF).||0.458|0.048|0.0155
90883749|NCT02139644|181630151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|0.473||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.676||Significance level of 0.05|ANCOVA|||The change from baseline in AQLQ(S) score (patients ≥18 years of age) at endpoint (ie, last postbaseline observation) was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with effects due to baseline AQLQ(S) score, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), and treatment, imputing missing data via last observation carried forward (LOCF).||0.676|0.270|0.0000
90883750|NCT02139644|181630151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|0.23||||0.0293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.023|0.437||Significance level of 0.05|ANCOVA|||The change from baseline in AQLQ(S) score (patients ≥18 years of age) at endpoint (ie, last postbaseline observation) was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with effects due to baseline AQLQ(S) score, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), and treatment, imputing missing data via last observation carried forward (LOCF).||0.437|0.023|0.0293
90883751|NCT02139644|181630151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|0.172||||0.0913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.028|0.372||Significance level of 0.05|ANCOVA|||The change from baseline in AQLQ(S) score (patients ≥18 years of age) at endpoint (ie, last postbaseline observation) was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with effects due to baseline AQLQ(S) score, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), and treatment, imputing missing data via last observation carried forward (LOCF).||0.372|-0.028|0.0913
90963302|NCT01008696|181807639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.568||||||Change at Day 57: Bloating|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.5680
90883752|NCT02139644|181630151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|-0.023||||0.8216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.223|0.177||Significance level of 0.05|ANCOVA|||The change from baseline in AQLQ(S) score (patients ≥18 years of age) at endpoint (ie, last postbaseline observation) was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with effects due to baseline AQLQ(S) score, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), and treatment, imputing missing data via last observation carried forward (LOCF).||0.177|-0.223|0.8216
90883753|NCT02139644|181630151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|-0.071||||0.4934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.275|0.133||Significance level of 0.05|ANCOVA|||The change from baseline in AQLQ(S) score (patients ≥18 years of age) at endpoint (ie, last postbaseline observation) was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with effects due to baseline AQLQ(S) score, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), and treatment, imputing missing data via last observation carried forward (LOCF).||0.133|-0.275|0.4934
90963303|NCT01008696|181807639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5913||||||Change at Day 57: Post-prandial discomfort|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.5913
90963304|NCT01008696|181807639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5566||||||Change at Day 57: Early satiety|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.5566
90963305|NCT01008696|181807639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7047||||||Change at Day 57: Nausea|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.7047
90963306|NCT01008696|181807639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3654||||||Change at Day 57: Vomitting|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.3654
90963307|NCT01008696|181807639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.531||||||Change at Day 57: Belching|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.5310
90963308|NCT01008696|181807640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5032|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.5032
90963309|NCT01621230|181807657|OTHER|The median (first and third quartile) lengths of the second stage of labor were estimated at 28min (15, 58) in women without epidural analgesia. Assuming a one-third increase in the length of the second stage to 37min due to epidural bupivacaine, a sample size of 155 per arm (310 total) was required for 80% power to detect such a difference using a two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test.||||||0.17|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.17
90963310|NCT01621230|181807660|OTHER|||||||0.55|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.55
90963311|NCT01621230|181807661|OTHER|||||||0.57|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.57
90963312|NCT02856893|181807681|OTHER|The decision rule is based on confidence intervals. The treatment strategy will be considered feasible (H0 is rejected) if the lower bound of the 84% two-sided confidence interval of the PFS rate at 18 months is greater than 40%.|Kaplan-Meier survival rate|67.2|||||TWO_SIDED|84.0|56.4|75.9|||||"The population parameter is PFS Rate at 18 months in the Gefitinib till + blood test/progression then Osimertinib arm. The decision rule is based on the lower bound of the estimated confidence interval around the point estimate."|Each arm will be assessed individually against a historical control with a single proportion test. The test is designed to reject a PFS rate at 18 months of 40% (null hypothesis) at the 0.08 significance level. Under the alternative hypothesis of a PFS rate at 18 months of 60%, 49 patients are required to reach a power of 84%.||75.9|56.4|
90963313|NCT02856893|181807681|OTHER|The decision rule is based on confidence intervals. The treatment strategy will be considered feasible (H0 is rejected) if the lower bound of the 84% two-sided confidence interval of the PFS rate at 18 months is greater than 40%.|Kaplan-Meier survival rate|53.5|||||TWO_SIDED|84.0|42.3|63.5|||||"The population parameter is PFS Rate at 18 months in the Gefitinib till progression than Osimertinib arm. The decision rule is based on the lower bound of the estimated confidence interval around the point estimate."|Each arm will be assessed individually against a historical control with a single proportion test. The test is designed to reject a PFS rate at 18 months of 40% (null hypothesis) at the 0.08 significance level. Under the alternative hypothesis of a PFS rate at 18 months of 60%, 49 patients are required to reach a power of 84%.||63.5|42.3|
90963314|NCT03258554|181807699|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.33||||0.8878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.12||One-sided significance level = 0.2|Log Rank||Reference arm = radiation therapy + cetuximab|Sixty-nine progression-free survival (PFS) events provides 0.80 power for a log-rank test with one-sided alpha of 0.20 to detect an improvement in PFS corresponding to a median of 2.35 years (RT+Durvalumab) compared to 1.53 years (RT+Cetuximab). A hazard ratio (RT+Durvalumab/RT+Cetuximab) ≤ 0.806 would indicate a rejection of the null hypothesis (no difference between the arms) and the study would continue to phase III; otherwise, the study would not continue to phase III.||2.12|0.84|0.8878
90963315|NCT03258554|181807700|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3||||0.8175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|2.28||One-side significance level = 0.025|Log Rank|||||2.28|0.74|0.8175
90963316|NCT03258554|181807701|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.71||||0.1001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|3.28||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Log Rank||Reference level = RT+ Cetuximab|||3.28|0.89|0.1001
90963317|NCT03258554|181807702|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.5197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.77||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Log Rank||Reference level = RT+ Cetuximab|||1.77|0.32|0.5197
90963318|NCT03258554|181807703|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.75||||0.3201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|5.38||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Log Rank|||||5.38|0.57|0.3201
90963319|NCT03258554|181807704|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
90963320|NCT03258554|181807705|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0688||||||Two-side significance level = 0.05|Fisher Exact|||||||0.0688
90963321|NCT03258554|181807708|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.97|||||Reference arm = RT + Cetuximab|CPS ≥ 1||1.97|0.62|
90963322|NCT03258554|181807708|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|4.06|||||Reference arm = RT + Cetuximab|CPS = 0||4.06|0.66|
90963323|NCT03258554|181807708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41||||||Testing the interaction of treatment arm and PD-L1 expression (CPS ≥ 1, CPS = 0)|Regression, Cox|||Interaction||||0.41
90963324|NCT03258554|181807709|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|2.51|||||Reference arm = RT + cetuximab|p16-positive||2.51|0.57|
90963325|NCT03258554|181807709|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|2.89|||||Reference arm = RT + cetuximab|p16-negative||2.89|0.83|
90963326|NCT03258554|181807709|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61||||||Testing the interaction of treatment arm and p16 status (positive, negative)|Regression, Cox|||Interaction||||0.61
90963327|NCT01214187|181807713|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.2072|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Repeated measure ANOVA|Difference = (Change from baseline to Week 12 for Carbon monoxide group) minus (Change from baseline to Week 12 for Placebo group)|||||0.2072
90963328|NCT01214187|181807714|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.57||0.5882|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Repeated Measure ANOVA|Difference = (Change from baseline to week 12 for CO group) minus (Change from baseline to week 12 for placebo group)|||||0.5882
90883754|NCT00630877|181630156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90883755|NCT00630877|181630158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman rank-order correlation|||||||<0.0001
90883756|NCT00630877|181630159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman rank-order correlation|||||||<0.0001
90883757|NCT00630877|181630160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman rank-order correlation|||||||<0.0001
90883758|NCT00630877|181630161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman rank-order correlation|||||||<0.0001
90883759|NCT00630877|181630162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Independent groups t-test|||||||0.002
90883760|NCT00630877|181630163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Independent groups t-test|||||||<0.001
90883761|NCT01312909|181630164|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.6337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.37||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratios and p-values were obtained from a logistic regression model with terms treatment, age strata, body weight strata and pooled center. A testing order was used to control type I error. 1mg Varenicline twice daily group was tested against placebo first, and if statistically significant difference was observed, the 0.5 mg Varenicline twice daily group was tested against placebo.||2.37|0.59|0.6337
90883762|NCT01312909|181630164|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73||||0.1114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|3.39||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratios and p-values were obtained from a logistic regression model with terms treatment, age strata, body weight strata and pooled center. A testing order was used to control type I error. 1mg Varenicline twice daily group was tested against placebo first, and if statistically significant difference was observed, the 0.5 mg Varenicline twice daily group was tested against placebo.||3.39|0.88|0.1114
90923627|NCT05235750|181720284|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.6||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value refers to the difference between post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T3-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for HADS-depression subscale (HADS-D).|Mixed Models Analysis||The above value represents net difference between post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T3-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for HADS-depression subscale (HADS-D).|||||.32
91034477|NCT00913627|181955166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH)|-55.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.85|-38.11||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||CMH adjusted proportions|10 hours||-38.11|-73.85|<0.001
90883763|NCT01312909|181630165|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.5793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.38|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios and p-values were obtained from separate logistic regression models of treatment, pooled center, age strata and body weight strata.||Week 12||2.38|0.62|0.5793
90883764|NCT01312909|181630165|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.79||||0.0932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|3.51|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios and p-values were obtained from separate logistic regression models of treatment, pooled center, age strata and body weight strata.||Week 12||3.51|0.91|0.0932
90883765|NCT01312909|181630165|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.5647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|2.5|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios and p-values were obtained from separate logistic regression models of treatment, pooled center, age strata and body weight strata.||Week 24||2.50|0.61|0.5647
90883766|NCT01312909|181630165|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46||||0.2917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.96|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios and p-values were obtained from separate logistic regression models of treatment, pooled center, age strata and body weight strata.||Week 24||2.96|0.72|0.2917
90883767|NCT01312909|181630165|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.5616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.69|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios and p-values were obtained from separate logistic regression models of treatment, pooled center, age strata and body weight strata.||Week 52||2.69|0.58|0.5616
90883768|NCT01312909|181630165|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.79||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|3.78|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios and p-values were obtained from separate logistic regression models of treatment, pooled center, age strata and body weight strata.||Week 52||3.78|0.84|0.1300
90883769|NCT01312909|181630167|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) mean difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|0.6|||Longitudinal repeated measures model|||Week 12: Analysis was performed using longitudinal repeated measures model with the change from baseline average number of Cigarettes Smoked as the dependent variable, including terms treatment, visit, age strata, body weight strata, pooled center, baseline measure and treatment by visit interaction.||0.60|-1.69|0.3540
90883770|NCT01312909|181630167|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.7574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|0.98|||Longitudinal repeated measures model|||Week 12: Analysis was performed using longitudinal repeated measures model with the change from baseline average number of Cigarettes Smoked as the dependent variable, including terms treatment, visit, age strata, body weight strata, pooled center, baseline measure and treatment by visit interaction.||0.98|-1.35|0.7574
90883771|NCT01312909|181630167|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.5676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|0.84|||Longitudinal repeated measures model|||Week 24: Analysis was performed using longitudinal repeated measures model with the change from baseline average number of Cigarettes Smoked as the dependent variable, including terms treatment, visit, age strata, body weight strata, pooled center, baseline measure and treatment by visit interaction.||0.84|-1.53|0.5676
90883772|NCT01312909|181630167|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.2356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.92|0.47|||Longitudinal repeated measures model|||Week 24: Analysis was performed using longitudinal repeated measures model with the change from baseline average number of Cigarettes Smoked as the dependent variable, including terms treatment, visit, age strata, body weight strata, pooled center, baseline measure and treatment by visit interaction.||0.47|-1.92|0.2356
90923628|NCT05235750|181720284|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value refers to the difference between 2 weeks post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T4-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for HADS-depression subscale (HADS-D).|Mixed Models Analysis||The above value represents net difference between 2 weeks post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T4-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for HADS-depression subscale (HADS-D).|||||.20
90940695|NCT01723514|181761248|SUPERIORITY||LS Geometric Mean Ratio|-32.7||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.71|32.1|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Day 113: A repeated measures ANCOVA was performed for the ratio of blood flow measures at 30 minutes post capsaicin challenge to pre capsaicin challenge. The model included treatment, day, and the treatment by day interaction as independent variables, and both the 0 minute pre-capsaicin blood flow measure as well as the day 0, 30-minute post-capsaicin blood flow measures on day -1 .||32.10|-65.71|0.25
90923629|NCT03461276|181720328|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|A 1-sided t-test with a significance level of 0.025 was employed.||"The trial was considered successfully confirmatory regarding efficacy (immunogenicity) of ABvac40 if the average MΔ of anti-Aβ40 antibody signal (OD in ELISA) in the ABvac40 group was significantly greater than the average MΔ of anti-Aβ40 antibody signal in the Placebo group. i.e.~* Null hypothesis: average MΔ anti-Aβ40 (ABvac40) ≤ average MΔ anti-Aβ40 (placebo).~* Alternative hypothesis: average MΔ anti-Aβ40 (ABvac40) \> average MΔ anti-Aβ40 (placebo)."||||<0.0001
90923630|NCT03461276|181720328|SUPERIORITY|Additional test|||||<|0.0001||||||1-sided|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
90923631|NCT03461276|181720328|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.96|3.34|||ANCOVA|||The average MΔ of anti-Aβ40 antibody signal between the two treatment groups was compared using an ANCOVA model, using the MΔ anti-Aβ40 antibody signal as the dependent variable, baseline anti-Aβ40 antibody signal (OD in ELISA) as covariate and treatment group and amyloid positivity as fixed effects.||3.34|2.96|<0.0001
90963329|NCT01214187|181807715|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93||0.7401|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Repeated Measure ANOVA|difference=(change from baseline to week 12 for CO group) minus (change from baseline to week 12 for placebo group)|||||0.7401
90963330|NCT01214187|181807716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-48.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.14||0.0099|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Repeated measure ANOVA|Difference=(Change from baseline to week 12 for CO group) minus (Change from baseline to week 12 for placebo group)|||||0.0099
90963331|NCT01214187|181807717|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.42||0.8124|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Repeated measure ANOVA||||||0.8124
91034478|NCT00913627|181955166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-63.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.82|-46.06||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hours||-46.06|-80.82|<0.001
90923632|NCT03461276|181720328|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|t-test (sensitivity hypothesis). A 1-sided t-test with a significance level of 0.025 was employed.||"1-sided t-test to compare the ABvac40 and placebo groups.~The primary analysis (t-test) was repeated, using the mITT Analysis Set to test the hypothesis:~* Null hypothesis: average MΔ anti-Aβ40 (ABvac40) - average MΔ anti-Aβ40 (placebo) ≤ 1.778~* Alternative hypothesis: average MΔ anti-Aβ40 (ABvac40) - average MΔ anti-Aβ40 (placebo) \> 1.778 The alternative hypothesis was confirmed."||||<0.0001
90923633|NCT03461276|181720328|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||"The change in anti-Aβ40 antibody signal from baseline to each post-baseline efficacy visit was analyzed using a Mixed-Model Repeated Measures (MMRM), using the mITT Analysis Set.~Dependent variable: change from baseline in anti-Aβ40 antibody signal. Fixed effects: treatment, protocol-specified visits, treatment-by-visit interaction, and amyloid positivity. Covariates: baseline anti-Aβ40 antibody signal and baseline age; Repeated measure: measures within-patient at each visit."||||<0.05
90923634|NCT03461276|181720335|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 50A||||<0.001
90923635|NCT03461276|181720335|OTHER||||||=|0.047|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 104A||||= 0.047
91034479|NCT00913627|181955166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-68.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-85.63|-54.14||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hours||-54.14|-85.63|<0.001
90883773|NCT01312909|181630167|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|1.38|||Longitudinal repeated measures model|||Week 52: Analysis was performed using longitudinal repeated measures model with the change from baseline average number of Cigarettes Smoked as the dependent variable, including terms treatment, visit, age strata, body weight strata, pooled center, baseline measure and treatment by visit interaction.||1.38|-1.03|0.7730
90883774|NCT01312909|181630167|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.2166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|0.45|||Longitudinal repeated measures model|||Week 52: Analysis was performed using longitudinal repeated measures model with the change from baseline average number of Cigarettes Smoked as the dependent variable, including terms treatment, visit, age strata, body weight strata, pooled center, baseline measure and treatment by visit interaction.||0.45|-1.99|0.2166
90923636|NCT03461276|181720336|OTHER||||||=|0.9936|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 2A||||= 0.9936
90923637|NCT03461276|181720336|OTHER||||||=|0.0391||||||MMRM - Week 6A|Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 6A||||= 0.0391
90923638|NCT03461276|181720336|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 10A||||< 0.0001
90923639|NCT03461276|181720336|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 14A||||< 0.0001
90923640|NCT03461276|181720336|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 18A||||< 0.0001
90923641|NCT03461276|181720336|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 24A||||< 0.0001
90923642|NCT03461276|181720336|OTHER||||||=|0.0299|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 40A||||= 0.0299
90923643|NCT03461276|181720336|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 44A||||< 0.0001
90923644|NCT03461276|181720336|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 50A||||< 0.0001
90923645|NCT03461276|181720336|OTHER||||||=|0.1267|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 77A||||= 0.1267
90923646|NCT03461276|181720336|OTHER|MMRM - Week 104A|||||=|0.2477|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||= 0.2477
90923647|NCT03461276|181720337|OTHER||||||=|0.2151|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 2A||||= 0.2151
90923648|NCT03461276|181720337|OTHER||||||=|0.0169|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 6A||||= 0.0169
90963332|NCT00998426|181807722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|||||This is the p value for the meter by time interaction|Random intercept model|||A random intercept model was used to fit the five subjects' glucose reading data over time. The fixed effect glucose meters, time effect and their interactions were included in the model.||||0.59
90963333|NCT02308007|181807724|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.030
90963334|NCT02308007|181807724|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.073|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.073
90963335|NCT02308007|181807724|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0204|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Stratified by race (black, white, or other race)||||0.0204
90963336|NCT02308007|181807724|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0493|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Stratified by race (black, white, or other race)||||0.0493
90963337|NCT02308007|181807725|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.015
90963338|NCT02308007|181807725|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.193|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Difference for Terconazole/metronidazole vaginal gel cures minus metronidazole vaginal gel cures||||0.193
90963339|NCT02308007|181807726|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.012
90963340|NCT02308007|181807726|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.918|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.918
90963341|NCT01233869|181807734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|3.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|5.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Analysis 1 is comparison of annualized rate of kidney enlargement: placebo versus pooled bosutinib.||5.74|2.02|<0.0001
90963342|NCT01233869|181807734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.83||||0.1234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|4.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Analysis 2 is comparison of annualized rate of kidney enlargement: bosutinib 200 mg/day versus bosutinib 400/200 mg/day.||4.22|-0.50|0.1234
90963343|NCT01233869|181807734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|3.06||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|5.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Analysis 3 is comparison of annualized rate of kidney enlargement: placebo versus bosutinib 200 mg/day.||5.23|0.93|0.0050
90963344|NCT01233869|181807734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|3.41||||0.1336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|8.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Analysis 4 is comparison of annualized rate of kidney enlargement: placebo versus bosutinib 400 mg/day.||8.05|-1.03|0.1336
90963345|NCT01233869|181807734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|4.95|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.65|7.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Analysis 5 is comparison of annualized rate of kidney enlargement: placebo versus bosutinib 400/200 mg/day.||7.30|2.65|<0.0001
90963346|NCT01324323|181807756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the Geometric Mean (%)|179.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|160.3|200.7|||ANOVA||"Ratio (Romidepsin + rifampin/Romidepsin) and 90% CI of the ratio of geometric means are from an ANOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and subject as random effect on the natural log transformed PK values."|||200.7|160.3|
90963347|NCT01324323|181807757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the Geometric Mean|178.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|159.4|199.4|||ANOVA||"Ratio (Romidepsin + rifampin/Romidepsin) and 90% CI of the ratio of geometric means are from an ANOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and subject as random effect on the natural log transformed PK values."|||199.4|159.4|
90963348|NCT01324323|181807758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the Geometric Mean|179.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|160.5|201.0|||ANOVA||"Ratio (Romidepsin + rifampin/Romidepsin) and 90% CI of the ratio of geometric means are from an ANOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and subject as random effect on the natural log transformed PK values."|||201.0|160.5|
90963349|NCT01324323|181807759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the Geometric Mean|159.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|135.8|186.5|||ANOVA||"Ratio (Romidepsin + rifampin/Romidepsin) and 90% CI of the ratio of geometric means are from an ANOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and subject as random effect on the natural log transformed PK values."|||186.5|135.8|
91034480|NCT00913627|181955166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-55.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.85|-38.11||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hours||-38.11|-73.85|<0.001
90963350|NCT01324323|181807760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.791|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|1.01|||Wilcoxon signed-rank|||"Note: The median, median difference (romidepsin + rifampin minus romidepsin) and 90% CI of the median difference are from Hodges-Lehmann Estimate. The P-value is from Wilcoxon signed-rank test."||1.01|-1.0|0.7910
90963351|NCT00537485|181807765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|1.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.1|-3.7|0.002
90963352|NCT00537485|181807766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|30.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.7|44.6|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||44.6|16.7|<0.001
90963353|NCT00537485|181807766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|26.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|40.2|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||40.2|12.0|<0.001
90963354|NCT02967354|181807775|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5875||||||Treshold for significance P\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.5875
90963355|NCT02967354|181807776|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0065||||||Treshold for significance P\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.0065
90963356|NCT02967354|181807777|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0072||||||Treshold for significance P\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.0072
90963357|NCT02967354|181807778|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9472||||||Treshold for significance P\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.9472
90963358|NCT02967354|181807779|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0048||||||Treshold for significance P\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.0048
90963359|NCT01158651|181807780|SUPERIORITY|The treatment regimen was considered promising for further study if after 48 weeks of treatment there was at least a 25% response rate compared to an expected response rate of 5% or less, which was considered evidence of an unpromising regimen. Assuming the true response rate is 5%, the binomial distribution was used to calculate Type I errors and power.|Proportion responding|0.682|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4872|0.8764|||Exact test|||||0.8764|0.4872|<0.001
90963360|NCT01191541|181807782|NON_INFERIORITY|The primary objective was to demonstrate the noninferiority of DNR alone to DNR+ARA-C in the rate of DFS at 2 years. Assuming a 95% rate of DFS in the two groups, a margin of -15% , 5% type 1 error, 80% power, 30 evaluable patients per group were required to draw a noninferiority conclusion.|||||<|0.05||||||the p-value is not adjusted|Log Rank|||The characteristics of all of the included patients were summarized using cross-tabulations (for categorical variables) and quantiles. Nonparametric tests were used to analyse comparisons between groups .EFS、disease-free survival (DFS) and OS were estimated using the Kaplan -Meier method, and log-rank tests were used. All P values were two-sided, and those with values of 0.05 or less were considered to be statistically significant.||||<0.05
90963361|NCT01601847|181807785|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.66||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.94|||Poisson|Poisson regression using GEE with robust variance estimation (e.g. Zou, American Journal Epidemiology, 2004)||||0.94|0.47|0.02
90963362|NCT01601847|181807785|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.522||||0.0185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.304|0.897|||logistic regression with GEE|||||0.897|0.304|0.0185
90963363|NCT01601847|181807786|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.228|||||||Regression, Logistic|||For secondary outcomes, GEE is used to assess randomization arm association.||||0.228
90963364|NCT01601847|181807787|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.798|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.798
90971252|NCT00391222|181825189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||The time-to-event data were evaluated by means of the same survival analysis method as used for the primary outcome. The recurrence rates (Kaplan-Meier estimated) were calculated for each treatment arm using the same methods as for the primary outcome.||||0.011
91034481|NCT00913627|181955166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-63.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.82|-46.06||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hours||-46.06|-80.82|<0.001
90971253|NCT00391222|181825190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||The time-to-event data were evaluated by means of the same survival analysis method as used for the primary outcome. The recurrence rates (Kaplan-Meier estimated) were calculated for each treatment arm using the same methods as for the primary outcome.||||0.2882
90883775|NCT01312909|181630168|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.6133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.9|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 9 through Week 24: Odds ratios and p-values were obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment, pooled center, age strata and body weight strata.||1.90|0.34|0.6133
90883776|NCT01312909|181630168|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.26||||0.0335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|4.79|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 9 through Week 24: Odds ratios and p-values were obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment, pooled center, age strata and body weight strata.||4.79|1.07|0.0335
90883777|NCT01312909|181630168|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.9874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|2.65|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 9 through Week 52: Odds ratios and p-values were obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment, pooled center, age strata and body weight strata.||2.65|0.37|0.9874
90883778|NCT01312909|181630168|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.79||||0.0188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|6.55|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 9 through Week 52: Odds ratios and p-values were obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment, pooled center, age strata and body weight strata.||6.55|1.19|0.0188
90883779|NCT02099721|181630193|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin is a hazard ratio significantly above 0.70.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.57|||||The hazard ratio, estimated by a Cox proportional hazard model, has time to first treated VT/VF for 1.5 Prevention in the numerator, with Secondary Prevention in the denominator.|"H0: Hazard ratio of Implanted 1.5 patients (Group C) to implanted secondary patients (Group A) ≤ 0.70~HA: Hazard ratio of Implanted 1.5 patients (Group C) to implanted secondary patients (Group A) \> 0.70"||0.57|0.38|
90883780|NCT02099721|181630194|SUPERIORITY|A hazard ratio significantly below 1 indicates reduced mortality in the 1.5 implanted group.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.66||The p-value is for the effect of treatment group on time to death, adjusting for the baseline covariates of age, gender, QRS duration, ischemic cardiomyopathy, LBBB, NYHA classification, diabetes, LVEF, syncope, NSVT and PVCs.|Wald chi-square||Multiple imputations were employed to account for missing baseline covariates.|The null hypothesis is that the hazard ratio of implanted to non-implanted 1.5 patients = 1. The alternative is that the ratio is not equal to 1.||0.66|0.40|< 0.0001
90883781|NCT00844545|181630205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean change from baseline|65.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.01|93.36|||ANOVA|Change from baseline were analyzed using a repeated measurement ANOVA model with time and baseline as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||With at least 12 patients enrolled and assuming a null hypothesis of no post-dose change from baseline in mean platelet count, the study had approximately 88% power to detect as statistically significant an effect size (mean change from baseline/standard deviation) of at least 1 when using a one sample t-test with a two-sided α=0.05. All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: C08-002A (adult) and C08-002B (adolescent), a similar protocol, for patients \<18 years with aHUS.||93.36|37.01|<0.0001
90883782|NCT00844545|181630206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of platelet count normalization|82.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.0|96.0||||||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: protocol C08-002A for adult patients with aHUS and protocol C08-002B, a similar protocol, for patients \< 18 years of age for adolescent patients with aHUS.||96|57|
90883783|NCT00844545|181630207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of hematologic normalization|76.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.0|93.0||||||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: protocol C08-002A for adult patients with aHUS and protocol C08-002B, a similar protocol, for patients \< 18 years of age for adolescent patients with aHUS.||93|50|
90883784|NCT00844545|181630208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of complete TMA response|65.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.0|86.0||||||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: protocol C08-002A for adult patients with aHUS and protocol C08-002B, a similar protocol, for patients \< 18 years of age for adolescent patients with aHUS.||86|38|
90883785|NCT00844545|181630209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: protocol C08-002A for adult patients with aHUS and protocol C08-002B, a similar protocol, for patients \< 18 years of age for adolescent patients with aHUS.||||<0.0001
90883786|NCT00844545|181630210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean change from baseline|111.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.12|125.13|||ANOVA|Change from baseline were analyzed using a repeated measurement ANOVA model with time and baseline as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: protocol C08-002A for adult patients with aHUS and protocol C08-002B, a similar protocol, for patients \< 18 years of age for adolescent patients with aHUS.||125.13|98.12|<0.0001
90883787|NCT00844545|181630211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of platelet count normalization|88.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.0|99.0||||||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: protocol C08-002A for adult patients with aHUS and protocol C08-002B, a similar protocol, for patients \< 18 years of age for adolescent patients with aHUS.||99|64|
90883788|NCT00844545|181630212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of hematologic normalization|88.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.0|99.0||||||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: protocol C08-002A for adult patients with aHUS and protocol C08-002B, a similar protocol, for patients \< 18 years of age for adolescent patients with aHUS.||99|64|
90883789|NCT00844545|181630213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of complete TMA response|76.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.0|93.0||||||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: protocol C08-002A for adult patients with aHUS and protocol C08-002B, a similar protocol, for patients \< 18 years of age for adolescent patients with aHUS.||93|50|
90883790|NCT00844545|181630214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: protocol C08-002A for adult patients with aHUS and protocol C08-002B, a similar protocol, for patients \< 18 years of age for adolescent patients with aHUS.||||<0.0001
90883791|NCT04574362|181630224|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.4|13.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference and associated 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) were calculated from Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by use of prophylactic medication and country. The risk difference was tested at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05.|||13.0|5.4|<0.0001
90923649|NCT03461276|181720337|OTHER||||||=|0.0008|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 10A||||= 0.0008
90923650|NCT03461276|181720337|OTHER||||||=|0.0002|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 14A||||= 0.0002
90883792|NCT04574362|181630225|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.6|20.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference and associated 95% CI were calculated from Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by use of prophylactic medication and country. The risk difference was tested at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05.|||20.0|9.6|<0.0001
90883793|NCT04574362|181630226|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.0|23.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Within the family of key secondary endpoints, multiplicity was controlled using the Hochberg procedure.|Risk difference and associated 95% CI were calculated from Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by use of prophylactic medication and country. The risk difference was tested at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05.|||23.3|13.0|<0.0001
90883794|NCT04574362|181630227|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.4|22.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Within the family of key secondary endpoints, multiplicity was controlled using the Hochberg procedure.|Risk difference and associated 95% CI were calculated from Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by use of prophylactic medication and country. The risk difference was tested at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05.|||22.3|11.4|<0.0001
90883795|NCT04574362|181630228|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-11.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|-8.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Within the family of key secondary endpoints, multiplicity was controlled using the Hochberg procedure.|Risk difference and associated 95% CI were calculated from Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by use of prophylactic medication and country. The risk difference was tested at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05.|||-8.0|-15.0|<0.0001
90883796|NCT04574362|181630229|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|11.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Within the family of key secondary endpoints, multiplicity was controlled using the Hochberg procedure.|Risk differences and associated 95% CI were calculated from Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by use of prophylactic medication and country. The risk difference was tested at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05.|||11.2|4.3|<0.0001
90883797|NCT04574362|181630230|SUPERIORITY||Risk difference|7.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|11.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Within the family of key secondary endpoints, multiplicity was controlled using the Hochberg procedure.|Risk difference and associated 95% CI were calculated from Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by use of prophylactic medication and country. The risk difference was tested at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05.|||11.0|4.4|<0.0001
90883798|NCT04574362|181630231|SUPERIORITY||Risk difference|-0.7||||0.2057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.4||Nominal p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference and associated 95% CI were calculated from Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by use of prophylactic medication and country. The risk difference was tested at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05.|15 minutes post-dose||0.4|-1.9|0.2057
90883799|NCT04574362|181630231|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||0.9702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.1||Nominal p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference and associated 95% CI were calculated from Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by use of prophylactic medication and country. The risk difference was tested at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05.|30 minutes post-dose||1.1|-1.1|0.9702
90883800|NCT04574362|181630231|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.0||||0.2419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|2.8||Nominal p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference and associated 95% CI were calculated from Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by use of prophylactic medication and country. The risk difference was tested at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05.|45 minutes post-dose||2.8|-0.7|0.2419
90883801|NCT04574362|181630231|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.4||||0.0597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|4.8||Nominal p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference and associated 95% CI were calculated from Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by use of prophylactic medication and country. The risk difference was tested at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05.|60 minutes post-dose||4.8|-0.1|0.0597
90883802|NCT04574362|181630231|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.2||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|8.4||Nominal p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference and associated 95% CI were calculated from Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by use of prophylactic medication and country. The risk difference was tested at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05.|90 minutes post-dose||8.4|2.1|0.0012
90883803|NCT04574362|181630232|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.7||||0.6809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|2.5||Nominal p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference and associated 95% CI were calculated from Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by use of prophylactic medication and country. The risk difference was tested at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05.|15 minutes post-dose||2.5|-3.9|0.6809
90883804|NCT04574362|181630232|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.2||||0.2586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|6.0||Nominal p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference and associated 95% CI were calculated from Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by use of prophylactic medication and country. The risk difference was tested at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05.|30 minutes post-dose||6.0|-1.6|0.2586
90883805|NCT04574362|181630232|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.5||||0.0421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|8.8||Nominal p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference and associated 95% CI were calculated from Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by use of prophylactic medication and country. The risk difference was tested at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05.|45 minutes post-dose||8.8|0.2|0.0421
90883806|NCT04574362|181630232|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.6||||0.0066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|11.3||Nominal p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference and associated 95% CI were calculated from Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by use of prophylactic medication and country. The risk difference was tested at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05.|60 minutes post-dose||11.3|1.8|0.0066
90883807|NCT04574362|181630232|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.9||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.8|14.9||Nominal p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference and associated 95% CI were calculated from Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by use of prophylactic medication and country. The risk difference was tested at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05.|90 minutes post-dose||14.9|4.8|0.0002
90923651|NCT03461276|181720337|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 18A||||< 0.0001
90923652|NCT03461276|181720337|OTHER||||||=|0.0023|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 24A||||= 0.0023
90923653|NCT03461276|181720337|OTHER||||||=|0.0021|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 40A||||= 0.0021
90923654|NCT03461276|181720337|OTHER||||||=|0.0007|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 44A||||= 0.0007
90923655|NCT03461276|181720337|OTHER||||||=|0.0012|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 50A||||= 0.0012
90923656|NCT03461276|181720337|OTHER||||||=|0.0018|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 77A||||= 0.0018
90923657|NCT03461276|181720337|OTHER||||||=|0.738|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 104A||||= 0.738
90923658|NCT03461276|181720338|OTHER||||||=|0.7623|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 2A||||= 0.7623
90923659|NCT03461276|181720338|OTHER||||||=|0.1506|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 6A||||= 0.1506
90923660|NCT03461276|181720338|OTHER||||||=|0.1071|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 10A||||= 0.1071
90923661|NCT03461276|181720338|OTHER||||||=|0.0212|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 14A||||= 0.0212
90923662|NCT03461276|181720338|OTHER||||||=|0.0014|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 18A||||= 0.0014
90923663|NCT03461276|181720338|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 24A||||< 0.0001
90923664|NCT03461276|181720338|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 40A||||< 0.0001
90923665|NCT03461276|181720338|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 44A||||< 0.0001
90923666|NCT03461276|181720338|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 50A||||< 0.0001
90923667|NCT03461276|181720338|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 77A||||< 0.0001
90923668|NCT03461276|181720338|OTHER||||||=|0.0251|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 104A||||= 0.0251
90923669|NCT03461276|181720339|OTHER||||||=|0.6515|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 2A||||= 0.6515
90923670|NCT03461276|181720339|OTHER||||||=|0.7447|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 6A||||= 0.7447
90923671|NCT03461276|181720339|OTHER||||||=|0.4518|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 10A||||= 0.4518
90923672|NCT03461276|181720339|OTHER||||||=|0.5416|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 14A||||= 0.5416
90923673|NCT03461276|181720339|OTHER||||||=|0.3504|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 18A||||= 0.3504
90923674|NCT03461276|181720339|OTHER||||||=|0.2109|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 24A||||= 0.2109
90923675|NCT03461276|181720339|OTHER||||||=|0.0049|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 40A||||= 0.0049
90923676|NCT03461276|181720339|OTHER||||||=|0.0498|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 44A||||= 0.0498
90923677|NCT03461276|181720339|OTHER||||||=|0.2181|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 50A||||= 0.2181
90923678|NCT03461276|181720339|OTHER||||||=|0.2087|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 77A||||= 0.2087
90923679|NCT03461276|181720339|OTHER||||||=|0.8599|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 104A||||= 0.8599
90923680|NCT03461276|181720340|OTHER||||||=|0.9469|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 2A||||= 0.9469
90923681|NCT03461276|181720340|OTHER||||||=|0.9063|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 6A||||= 0.9063
90923682|NCT03461276|181720340|OTHER||||||=|0.3418|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 10A||||= 0.3418
90923683|NCT03461276|181720340|OTHER||||||=|0.0236|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 14A||||= 0.0236
90923684|NCT03461276|181720340|OTHER||||||=|0.0012|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 18A||||= 0.0012
90923685|NCT03461276|181720340|OTHER||||||=|0.0004|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 24A||||= 0.0004
90923686|NCT03461276|181720340|OTHER||||||=|0.0008|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 40A||||= 0.0008
90923687|NCT03461276|181720340|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 44A||||< 0.0001
90923688|NCT03461276|181720340|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 50A||||< 0.0001
90923689|NCT03461276|181720340|OTHER||||||=|0.1255|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 77A||||= 0.1255
90923690|NCT03461276|181720340|OTHER||||||=|0.4232|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 104A||||= 0.4232
90923691|NCT03461276|181720341|OTHER||||||=|0.9211|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 2A||||= 0.9211
90923692|NCT03461276|181720341|OTHER||||||=|0.2817|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 6A||||= 0.2817
90923693|NCT03461276|181720341|OTHER||||||=|0.2984|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 10A||||= 0.2984
90923694|NCT03461276|181720341|OTHER||||||=|0.8402|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 14A||||= 0.8402
90923695|NCT03461276|181720341|OTHER||||||=|0.4428|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 18A||||= 0.4428
90923696|NCT03461276|181720341|OTHER||||||=|0.4156|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 24A||||= 0.4156
90923697|NCT03461276|181720341|OTHER||||||=|0.8706|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 40A||||= 0.8706
90923698|NCT03461276|181720341|OTHER||||||=|0.8691|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 44A||||= 0.8691
90923699|NCT03461276|181720341|OTHER||||||=|0.2188|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 50A||||= 0.2188
90923700|NCT03461276|181720341|OTHER||||||=|0.1448|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 77A||||= 0.1448
90923701|NCT03461276|181720341|OTHER||||||=|0.5004|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 104A||||= 0.5004
90923702|NCT03461276|181720342|OTHER||||||=|0.1058|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 50A||||= 0.1058
90923703|NCT03461276|181720342|OTHER||||||=|0.0922|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 104A||||= 0.0922
90923704|NCT03461276|181720343|OTHER||||||=|0.9313|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 24A||||= 0.9313
90923705|NCT03461276|181720343|OTHER||||||=|0.2243|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 50A||||= 0.2243
90923706|NCT03461276|181720343|OTHER||||||=|0.0952|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 104A||||= 0.0952
90923707|NCT03461276|181720344|OTHER||||||=|0.3599|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 24A - left||||= 0.3599
90923708|NCT03461276|181720344|OTHER||||||=|0.8913|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 50A - left||||= 0.8913
90923709|NCT03461276|181720344|OTHER||||||=|0.4736|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 104A - left||||= 0.4736
90923710|NCT03461276|181720344|OTHER||||||=|0.9095|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 24A - right||||= 0.9095
90923711|NCT03461276|181720344|OTHER||||||=|0.8744|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 50A - right||||= 0.8744
90923712|NCT03461276|181720344|OTHER||||||=|0.9307|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 104A - right||||= 0.9307
90923713|NCT03461276|181720345|OTHER||||||=|0.3982|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 24A||||= 0.3982
90923714|NCT03461276|181720345|OTHER||||||=|0.7035|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 50A||||= 0.7035
90923715|NCT03461276|181720345|OTHER||||||=|0.6334|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 104A||||= 0.6334
90923716|NCT03461276|181720346|OTHER||||||=|0.2193|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 50A||||= 0.2193
90923717|NCT03461276|181720346|OTHER||||||=|0.5543|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 104A||||= 0.5543
90923718|NCT03461276|181720347|OTHER||||||=|0.7324|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 50A||||= 0.7324
90923719|NCT03461276|181720347|OTHER||||||=|0.1719|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 104A||||= 0.1719
90923720|NCT03461276|181720348|OTHER||||||=|0.7977|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 50A||||= 0.7977
90923721|NCT03461276|181720348|OTHER||||||=|0.8828|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 104A||||= 0.8828
90883808|NCT04574362|181630233|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.4||||0.1148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.5|2.8||Nominal p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference and associated 95% CI were calculated from Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by use of prophylactic medication and country. The risk difference was tested at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05.|||2.8|-23.5|0.1148
90883809|NCT03670810|181630277|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.56|5.73|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.73|2.56|<0.001
90883810|NCT03670810|181630277|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.07|6.77|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.77|3.07|<0.001
90883811|NCT03670810|181630278|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|6.76|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.76|2.10|<.001
90883812|NCT03670810|181630278|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.13|12.67|||Regression, Logistic|||||12.67|4.13|<.001
90883813|NCT03670810|181630279|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.05|3.57|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.57|2.05|<0.001
90883814|NCT03670810|181630279|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.04|3.53|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.53|2.04|<0.001
90883815|NCT03670810|181630280|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.11|4.01|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.01|2.11|<0.001
90883816|NCT03670810|181630280|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.53|4.85|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.85|2.53|<0.001
90883817|NCT03670810|181630281|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.05|6.02|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.02|2.05|<0.001
90883818|NCT03670810|181630281|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.77|7.88|||Regression, Logistic|||||7.88|2.77|<0.001
90883819|NCT03670810|181630282|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|4.04|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.04|1.30|0.004
90883820|NCT03670810|181630282|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.41|6.94|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.94|2.41|<0.001
90883821|NCT03670810|181630283|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|6.02|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.02|1.80|<0.001
90883822|NCT03670810|181630283|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.97|6.42|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.42|1.97|<0.001
90883823|NCT03670810|181630284|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|3.33|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.33|1.48|<0.001
90883824|NCT03670810|181630284|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|3.67|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.67|1.65|<0.001
90883825|NCT03670810|181630285|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.73||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|6.78|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.78|1.10|0.031
90883826|NCT03670810|181630285|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|13.25|||Regression, Logistic|||||13.25|2.40|<0.001
90883827|NCT03670810|181630286|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|2.35|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.35|1.29|<0.001
90883828|NCT03670810|181630286|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|2.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.20|1.21|0.001
90883829|NCT03670810|181630287|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.65|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.65|0.33|<0.001
90883830|NCT03670810|181630287|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.6|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.60|0.30|<0.001
90883831|NCT03670810|181630288|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.79|4.28|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.28|1.79|<0.001
90883832|NCT03670810|181630288|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|5.15|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.15|2.20|<0.001
90883833|NCT03670810|181630290|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.4||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|53.37|||Regression, Logistic|||Pain Freedom 30 Min. Postdose||53.37|0.77|0.086
90883834|NCT03670810|181630290|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.24||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|59.08|||Regression, Logistic|||Pain Freedom 30 Min. Postdose||59.08|0.89|0.065
90883835|NCT03670810|181630290|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.08||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|6.68|||Regression, Logistic|||Pain Free 1 Hour Postdose||6.68|1.42|0.004
90883836|NCT03670810|181630290|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.43|14.44|||Regression, Logistic|||Pain Free 1 Hour Postdose||14.44|3.43|<0.001
90883837|NCT03670810|181630290|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|2.03|||Regression, Logistic|||Pain Relief 30 Min Postdose 100 mg||2.03|0.98|0.065
90883838|NCT03670810|181630290|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|2.52|||Regression, Logistic|||Pain Relief 30 Min. Postdose 200 mg||2.52|1.25|0.001
90883839|NCT03670810|181630290|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.74|3.06|||Regression, Logistic|||Pain Relief 1 Hour Postdose 100 mg||3.06|1.74|<0.001
90883840|NCT03670810|181630290|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.64|2.88|||Regression, Logistic|||Pain Relief 1 Hour Postdose 200 mg||2.88|1.64|<0.001
90883841|NCT03670810|181630290|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.71|||Regression, Logistic|||Freedom from MBS 30 Min 100 mg||1.71|0.71|0.651
90883842|NCT03670810|181630290|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.98|||Regression, Logistic|||Freedom from MBS 30 Min. 200 mg||1.98|0.85|0.220
90883843|NCT03670810|181630290|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.54|||Regression, Logistic|||Freedom from MBS 1 Hour 100 mg||1.54|0.78|0.593
90883844|NCT03670810|181630290|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.98|||Regression, Logistic|||Freedom from MBS 1 Hour 200 mg||1.98|1.04|0.030
90883845|NCT03670810|181630291|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.092|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.092
90883846|NCT03670810|181630291|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.211|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.211
90883847|NCT03670810|181630292|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.01|4.05|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.05|2.01|<0.001
90883848|NCT03670810|181630292|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.12|4.26|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.26|2.12|<0.001
90883849|NCT03670810|181630293|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.056|||||||ANOVA|||Social Functioning||||0.056
90883850|NCT03670810|181630293|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.267|||||||ANOVA|||Social Functioning||||0.267
90883851|NCT03670810|181630293|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||ANOVA|||Migraine Symptoms 100 mg||||0.003
90883852|NCT03670810|181630293|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||ANOVA|||Migraine Symptoms 200 mg||||0.002
90883853|NCT03670810|181630293|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||ANOVA|||Feeling/Concerns 100 mg||||0.014
90923722|NCT03461276|181720349|OTHER||||||=|0.7954|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 50A||||= 0.7954
90923723|NCT03461276|181720349|OTHER||||||=|0.5895|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 104A||||= 0.5895
90883854|NCT03670810|181630293|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018|||||||ANOVA|||Feelings/Concerns 200 mg||||0.018
90923724|NCT03461276|181720350|OTHER||||||=|0.743|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 50A||||= 0.743
90923725|NCT03461276|181720350|OTHER||||||=|0.832|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 104A||||= 0.832
90923726|NCT03461276|181720351|OTHER||||||=|0.2283|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 50A||||= 0.2283
90923727|NCT03461276|181720351|OTHER||||||=|0.886|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 104A||||= 0.886
90923728|NCT03461276|181720352|OTHER||||||=|0.909|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 50A||||= 0.909
90923729|NCT03461276|181720352|OTHER||||||=|0.8498|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 104A||||= 0.8498
90923730|NCT03461276|181720353|OTHER||||||=|0.8711|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 24A||||= 0.8711
90923731|NCT03461276|181720353|OTHER||||||=|0.1098|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 50A||||= 0.1098
90923732|NCT03461276|181720353|OTHER||||||=|0.6179|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 77A||||= 0.6179
90923733|NCT03461276|181720353|OTHER||||||=|0.3715|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 104A||||= 0.3715
90923734|NCT03461276|181720354|OTHER||||||=|0.8949|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 24A||||= 0.8949
90923735|NCT03461276|181720354|OTHER||||||=|0.8712|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 50A||||= 0.8712
90923736|NCT03461276|181720354|OTHER||||||=|0.8748|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 77A||||= 0.8748
90923737|NCT03461276|181720354|OTHER||||||=|0.6402|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 104A||||= 0.6402
90923738|NCT03461276|181720355|OTHER||||||=|0.552|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 24A||||= 0.552
90923739|NCT03461276|181720355|OTHER||||||=|0.9371|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 50A||||= 0.9371
90923740|NCT03461276|181720355|OTHER||||||=|0.2354|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 77A||||= 0.2354
91034482|NCT00913627|181955166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-65.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-82.49|-48.07||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hours||-48.07|-82.49|<0.001
91034483|NCT00913627|181955166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-50.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.09|-32.45||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hours||-32.45|-69.09|<0.001
90883855|NCT03670810|181630294|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.62|||Regression, Logistic|||Recommend Treatment - Agree Strongly Agree||1.62|0.96|0.101
90883856|NCT03670810|181630294|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.67|||Regression, Logistic|||Recommend Treatment Agree/Strongly Agree||1.67|0.99|0.063
90883857|NCT03670810|181630294|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.16|||Regression, Logistic|||Willing to Take This Treatment Again - Agree/Strongly Agree||1.16|0.68|0.376
90923741|NCT03461276|181720355|OTHER||||||=|0.4608|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 104A||||= 0.4608
90923742|NCT03461276|181720356|OTHER||||||=|0.3246|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 24A||||= 0.3246
90923743|NCT03461276|181720356|OTHER||||||=|0.8047|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 50A||||= 0.8047
90923744|NCT03461276|181720356|OTHER||||||=|0.916|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 77A||||= 0.916
90923745|NCT03461276|181720356|OTHER||||||=|0.9582|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 104A||||= 0.9582
90923746|NCT03461276|181720357|OTHER||||||=|0.777|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 24A - Trail A||||= 0.777
90923747|NCT03461276|181720357|OTHER||||||=|0.1727|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 50A - Trail A||||= 0.1727
90923748|NCT03461276|181720357|OTHER||||||=|0.0218|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 77A - Trail A||||= 0.0218
90883858|NCT03670810|181630294|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.03|||Regression, Logistic|||Willing to Take This Treatment Again - Agree/Strongly Agree||1.03|0.60|0.082
90923749|NCT03461276|181720357|OTHER||||||=|0.2789|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 104A - Trail A||||= 0.2789
90923750|NCT03461276|181720357|OTHER||||||=|0.2261|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 24A - Trail B||||= 0.2261
90923751|NCT03461276|181720357|OTHER||||||=|0.9743|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 50A - Trail B||||= 0.9743
90923752|NCT03461276|181720357|OTHER||||||=|0.2556|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 77A - Trail B||||= 0.2556
90923753|NCT03461276|181720357|OTHER||||||=|0.1008|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 104A - Trail B||||= 0.1008
90923754|NCT03461276|181720358|OTHER||||||=|0.6189|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 24A||||= 0.6189
90923755|NCT03461276|181720358|OTHER||||||=|0.6937|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 50A||||= 0.6937
90923756|NCT03461276|181720358|OTHER||||||=|0.6981|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 104A||||= 0.6981
90923757|NCT03461276|181720360|OTHER||||||=|0.2863|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 50A||||= 0.2863
90923758|NCT03461276|181720360|OTHER||||||=|0.3703|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 104A||||= 0.3703
90923759|NCT03461276|181720361|OTHER||||||=|0.9663|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 50A||||= 0.9663
90923760|NCT03461276|181720361|OTHER||||||=|0.3843|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 104A||||= 0.3843
90923761|NCT03461276|181720362|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||A 1-sided t-test with a significance level of 0.025 was employed.|t-test, 1 sided|||"The trial was considered successfully confirmatory regarding efficacy (immunogenicity) of ABvac40 if the average MΔ of anti-Aβ40 antibody signal (OD in ELISA) in the ABvac40 group was significantly greater than the average MΔ of anti-Aβ40 antibody signal in the Placebo group. i.e.~* Null hypothesis: average MΔ anti-Aβ40 (ABvac40) ≤ average MΔ anti-Aβ40 (placebo).~* Alternative hypothesis: average MΔ anti-Aβ40 (ABvac40) \> average MΔ anti-Aβ40 (placebo)"||||< 0.0001
90923762|NCT03461276|181720362|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||< 0.0001
90923763|NCT03461276|181720362|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.02|3.4|||ANCOVA|||||3.4|3.02|< 0.0001
91034484|NCT00913627|181955167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.18|6.51||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR, and gender|ANOVA|||SPID 0-4||6.51|4.18|<0.001
91034485|NCT00913627|181955167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.09|6.4||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||SPID 0-4||6.40|4.09|<0.001
91034486|NCT00913627|181955167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.83|5.12||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||SPID 0-4||5.12|2.83|<0.001
91034487|NCT00913627|181955167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.63|9.43||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||SPID 4-8||9.43|5.63|<0.001
91034488|NCT00913627|181955167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.8|9.56||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||SPID 4-8||9.56|5.80|<0.001
90963365|NCT04464265|181807800|OTHER|Our study adopted a within-subject design, which is not a randomized controlled trial (RCT). The P-value below indicates if propofol administration has a statistically significant impact on the brain activity in response to sensory stimuli.|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05. The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons, as only one comparison was performed.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = BOLD Response During Sedation - BOLD Response During Baseline|The null hypothesis is no difference in BOLD response between sedated state and baseline. For an fMRI study of cognitive function, Desmond and Glover (J. Neurosci. Methods., 2002) reported that about 25 subjects are necessary to achieve 80% power for a 0.5% increase of activity. We analyzed 27 subjects that fulfilled the suggested optimal group size for reliable statistics in functional MRI studies (also see Thirion et al., Neuroimage, 2007).||||<0.001
90963366|NCT04464265|181807801|OTHER|Our study adopted a within-subject design, which is not a randomized controlled trial (RCT). The P-value below indicates if propofol administration has a statistically significant impact on the brain activity in response to sensory stimuli.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.72|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05. The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons, as only one comparison was performed.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = Squeeze Pressure During Sedation - Squeeze Pressure During Baseline|||||<0.001
90963367|NCT01063829|181807802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.007
91034489|NCT00913627|181955167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.62|7.36||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||SPID 4-8||7.36|3.62|<0.001
91034490|NCT00913627|181955168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.68|16.27||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||SPRID 0-4||16.27|10.68|<0.001
90883859|NCT03670810|181630294|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.62|||Regression, Logistic|||Extremely/Very Satisfied||1.62|0.96|0.096
90883860|NCT03670810|181630294|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.8|||Regression, Logistic|||Extremely/Very Satisfied||1.80|1.06|0.016
90963368|NCT01063829|181807802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.014
90963369|NCT01063829|181807802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.321|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.321
91034491|NCT00913627|181955168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.48|16.01||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||SPRID 0-4||16.01|10.48|<0.001
91034492|NCT00913627|181955168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.33|12.83||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||SPRID 0-4||12.83|7.33|<0.001
91034493|NCT00913627|181955168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.71|23.71||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||SPRID 4-8||23.71|14.71|<0.001
91034494|NCT00913627|181955168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.86|23.78||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||SPRID 4-8||23.78|14.86|<0.001
91034495|NCT00913627|181955168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.44|18.3||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||SPRID 4-8||18.30|9.44|<0.001
91034496|NCT00913627|181955168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.29|21.07||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||SPRID 8-12||21.07|11.29|<0.001
91034497|NCT00913627|181955168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.81|22.49||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||SPRID 8-12||22.49|12.81|<0.001
91034498|NCT00913627|181955168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.97|17.59||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||SPRID 8-12||17.59|7.97|<0.001
91034499|NCT00913627|181955168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|41.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.48|50.69||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||SPRID 0-12||50.69|31.48|<0.001
91034500|NCT00913627|181955168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|42.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.15|52.17||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||SPRID 0-12||52.17|33.15|<0.001
91034501|NCT00913627|181955168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|31.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.63|40.53||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||SPRID 0-12||40.53|21.63|<0.001
91034502|NCT00913627|181955169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.45|9.8||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 0-4||9.80|6.45|<0.001
91034503|NCT00913627|181955169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.34|9.65||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 0-4||9.65|6.34|<0.001
91034504|NCT00913627|181955169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.46|7.75||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 0-4||7.75|4.46|<0.001
91034505|NCT00913627|181955169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.02|14.34||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 4-8||14.34|9.02|<0.001
91034506|NCT00913627|181955169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.01|14.27||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 4-8||14.27|9.01|<0.001
91034507|NCT00913627|181955169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.76|11.0||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 4-8||11.00|5.76|<0.001
91034508|NCT00913627|181955169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.93|12.75||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 8-12||12.75|6.93|<0.001
90883861|NCT03670810|181630294|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.49|||Regression, Logistic|||Prefer This Treatment||1.49|0.84|0.445
90883862|NCT03670810|181630294|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.58|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.58|0.89|0.243
90883863|NCT03670810|181630295|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.142|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.142
90883864|NCT03670810|181630296|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.01||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|6.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.40|1.42|0.004
90883865|NCT03670810|181630296|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.22|9.47|||Regression, Logistic|||||9.47|2.22|<0.001
90883866|NCT03670810|181630297|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.74|3.62|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.62|1.74|<0.001
90883867|NCT03670810|181630297|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|5.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.20|2.50|<0.001
90883868|NCT03670810|181630298|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.36|||Regression, Logistic|||Nausea||1.36|0.75|0.953
90883869|NCT03670810|181630298|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.41|||Regression, Logistic|||Nausea||1.41|0.78|0.768
90883870|NCT03670810|181630298|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.71|||Regression, Logistic|||Phonophobia||0.71|0.39|<0.001
90883871|NCT03670810|181630298|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.62|||Regression, Linear|||Phonophobia||0.62|0.34|<0.001
90883872|NCT03670810|181630298|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.63|||Regression, Logistic|||Photophobia||0.63|0.36|<0.001
90883873|NCT03670810|181630298|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.71|||Regression, Logistic|||Photophobia||0.71|0.40|<0.001
90883874|NCT03670810|181630298|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.46||||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.25|||Regression, Logistic|||Vomiting||1.25|0.17|0.129
90883875|NCT03670810|181630298|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|2.43|||Regression, Logistic|||Vomiting||2.43|0.52|0.769
90883876|NCT00678691|181630299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||all p-values come from one model analysis and are therefore included in free text as such|piecewise model|A piecewise statistical model results for between group differences: P=.390 (baseline through week 5), p=.775 (week 5 - week 8||Authors expected armodafinal to work better than placebo reducing BFI scale scores by 30%. A piecewise statistical model was used to compare baseline scores against those over through week 8. Piecewise results for between group differences for BFI Scores: P=.390 (baseline through week 5), p=.775 (week 5 - week 8).||||<0.05
90883877|NCT03192150|181630301|SUPERIORITY|Statistical hypotheses testing for the primary efficacy endpoint was two-sided and performed using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05.|||||<|0.0001||||||P-values were from a Chi-Square test (with continuity correction) of differences between treatments in the proportion of participants with ACC Grade 0 who did not receive rescue medication versus all other grades combined.|Chi-squared, Corrected|A Fisher's exact test was used if 1 or more of the cells had an expected frequency of ≤ 5.||||||< 0.0001
90963370|NCT01063829|181807803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.002
90883878|NCT03192150|181630302|SUPERIORITY|Statistical hypotheses testing for the secondary efficacy endpoints were two-sided and performed using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.311||||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.311|4.074||P-values were from a Chi-Square test with continuity correction.|Chi-squared, Corrected|A Fisher's exact test was used if ≥ 1 of the cells had an expected frequency of ≤ 5.||Statistical analysis of proportion of participants who achieved a pain score of 0 on the VAS on Day 1||4.074|1.311|0.0054
90883879|NCT03192150|181630302|SUPERIORITY|Statistical hypotheses testing for the secondary efficacy endpoints were two-sided and performed using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.581|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.967|6.519||P-values were from a Chi-Square test with continuity correction.|Chi-squared, Corrected|A Fisher's exact test was used if ≥ 1 of the cells had an expected frequency of ≤ 5.||Statistical analysis of proportion of participants who achieved a pain score of 0 on the VAS on Day 8||6.519|1.967|< 0.0001
90883880|NCT03192150|181630302|SUPERIORITY|Statistical hypotheses testing for the secondary efficacy endpoints were two-sided and performed using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.503|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.909|6.426||P-values were from a Chi-Square test with continuity correction.|Chi-squared, Corrected|A Fisher's exact test was used if ≥ 1 of the cells had an expected frequency of ≤ 5.||Statistical analysis of proportion of participants who achieved a pain score of 0 on the VAS on Day 15||6.426|1.909|< 0.0001
90883881|NCT03192150|181630302|SUPERIORITY|Statistical hypotheses testing for the secondary efficacy endpoints were two-sided and performed using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.659|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.987|6.736||P-values were from a Chi-Square test with continuity correction.|Chi-squared, Corrected|A Fisher's exact test was used if ≥ 1 of the cells had an expected frequency of ≤ 5.||Statistical analysis of proportion of participants who achieved a pain score of 0 on the VAS on Day 18||6.736|1.987|< 0.0001
90883882|NCT03192150|181630302|SUPERIORITY|Statistical hypotheses testing for the secondary efficacy endpoints were two-sided and performed using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.952||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.596|5.462||P-values were from a Chi-Square test with continuity correction.|Chi-squared, Corrected|A Fisher's exact test was used if ≥ 1 of the cells had an expected frequency of ≤ 5.||Statistical analysis of proportion of participants who achieved a pain score of 0 on the VAS on Day 29||5.462|1.596|0.0008
90883883|NCT03993938|181630362|OTHER|Delta PVI percentage change and Delta LAP (v-wave) percentage change were correlated using Spearman's rank correlation - two-tailed.|Spearman's rank correlation|0.34||||0.066|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman's rank correlation|||||||0.066
90883884|NCT00308711|181630372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Kaplan-Meier|1595.5||||0.974||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Log Rank||This was a Kaplan-Meier analysis of median time to vaginal delivery. Cervidil was compared separately to MVI 100 and MVI 50.|Null hypothesis was that there would be no difference in time to vaginal delivery for MVI 100 compared to time to vaginal delivery for Cervidil.||||0.974
90883885|NCT00308711|181630372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1977.0||||0.011||95.0|1977.0|2253.0|||Log Rank|||||2253|1977|0.011
90963371|NCT01063829|181807803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.126|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.126
90963372|NCT01063829|181807803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.148|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.148
90963373|NCT01063829|181807804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.007
91034509|NCT00913627|181955169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.71|13.46||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 8-12||13.46|7.71|<0.001
90883886|NCT00308711|181630373|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority (NI) margin was within 15% relative to the rate of cesarean section for the comparator (Cervidil 10 mg dinoprostone vaginal insert).|Cox Proportional Hazard|27.8||||0.64||95.0|23.61|32.31|||Fisher Exact|||||32.31|23.61|0.64
90883887|NCT00308711|181630373|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin was rate of cearean section within 15% of Cervidil rate.|Cox Proportional Hazard|28.0||||0.59||95.0|23.86|32.42|||Fisher Exact|||||32.42|23.86|0.59
90883888|NCT01556204|181630381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71||||||This p-value is from a single comparison between two arms for operative time.|t-test, 2 sided|||Variance estimates for this power analysis were taken from Nezhat C, et al, 2010. We determined that 37 subjects in each arm were needed to detect a difference of ≥ 32 minutes in operating time between conventional and robotic surgery for endometriosis with 80% power and a significance level of 0.05.||||0.71
90883889|NCT01556204|181630382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53||||||This applies to Row title: Baseline|Mixed Models Analysis|||Secondary analysis for pain at baseline for robotic vs conventional laparoscopy for endometriosis.||||0.53
90883890|NCT01556204|181630382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53||||||This applies to Row title: 6-weeks|Mixed Models Analysis|||Pain scores at 6 weeks comparison between robotic and laparoscopy.||||0.53
90883891|NCT01556204|181630382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48||||||This applies to Row title: 6-months|Mixed Models Analysis|||Pain scores at 6 months for robotic vs laparoscopy.||||0.48
90883892|NCT03467425|181630397|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|1.51||Analysis was performed using logistic regression model with covariates of treatment group, Baseline CAT score, number of exacerbations in the prior year, actual prior medication use strata and country.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical comparison is presented for combined data of responders, non-responders and those with imputed CAT score at Week 24.|||1.51|1.13|<0.001
90883893|NCT03467425|181630398|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0121|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.026|0.073|||ANCOVA||Analysis was performed using an ANCOVA with covariates of treatment group, Baseline FEV1, actual prior medication use strata, country and timing of spirometry.|||0.073|0.026|<0.001
90883894|NCT03467425|181630399|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.99||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|4.53|||Regression, Logistic||Analysis was performed using logistic regression model with covariates of treatment group, actual prior medication use strata and country.|||4.53|0.87|0.103
90883895|NCT02318693|181630400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-8.8||||0.245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.8|6.2|||constrained longitudinal analysis model|Model included terms for treatment, time and time-by-treatment interaction with a constraint that mean baseline is the same for both treatment groups.||The comparison was conducted at the α=0.05 (2-sided) significance level.||6.2|-23.8|0.245
90883896|NCT02318693|181630401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-5.9||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|-0.6|||constrained longitudinal analysis model|Model included terms for treatment, time and time-by-treatment interaction with a constraint that mean baseline is the same for both treatment groups.||The comparison was conducted at the α=0.05 (2-sided) significance level.||-0.6|-11.3|0.029
90883897|NCT02318693|181630402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-12.8||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.1|-0.5|||constrained longitudinal analysis model|Model included terms for treatment, time and time-by-treatment interaction with a constraint that mean baseline is the same for both treatment groups.||Comparison: Change from Baseline in Maximum Incremental Postprandial Glucose Levels at Breakfast. The comparison was conducted at the α=0.05 (2-sided) significance level.||-0.5|-25.1|0.041
90883898|NCT02318693|181630402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-14.3||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.1|-0.5|||constrained longitudinal analysis model|Model included terms for treatment, time and time-by-treatment interaction with a constraint that mean baseline is the same for both treatment groups.||Comparison: Change from Baseline in Maximum Incremental Postprandial Glucose Levels at Lunch. The comparison was conducted at the α=0.05 (2-sided) significance level.||-0.5|-28.1|0.043
90883899|NCT02318693|181630402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|5.1||||0.509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|20.4|||constrained longitudinal analysis model|Model included terms for treatment, time and time-by-treatment interaction with a constraint that mean baseline is the same for both treatment groups.||Comparison: Change from Baseline in Maximum Incremental Postprandial Glucose Levels at Dinner. The comparison was conducted at the α=0.05 (2-sided) significance level.||20.4|-10.3|0.509
90883900|NCT02318693|181630403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|15.7||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|28.8|||constrained longitudinal analysis model|Model included terms for treatment, time and time-by-treatment interaction with a constraint that mean baseline is the same for both treatment groups.||The comparison was conducted at the α=0.05 (2-sided) significance level.||28.8|2.5|0.020
90883901|NCT02318693|181630404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-1.1||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.3|||constrained longitudinal analysis model|||Comparison: Change in Baseline in Percentage of Hypoglycemic Values \< 70 mg/dL. The comparison was conducted at the α=0.05 (2-sided) significance level.||0.3|-2.5|0.134
90883902|NCT02318693|181630404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-0.6||||0.226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.4|||constrained longitudinal analysis model|||Comparison: Change in Baseline in Percentage of Hypoglycemic Values \< 60 mg/dL. The comparison was conducted at the α=0.05 (2-sided) significance level.||0.4|-1.5|0.226
90963374|NCT01063829|181807804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.014
90963375|NCT01063829|181807804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.321|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.321
91034510|NCT00913627|181955169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.87|10.59||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 8-12||10.59|4.87|<0.001
91034511|NCT00913627|181955169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.24|30.61||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 0-12||30.61|19.24|<0.001
91034512|NCT00913627|181955169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.03|31.28||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 0-12||31.28|20.03|<0.001
91034513|NCT00913627|181955169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.19|24.38||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 0-12||24.38|13.19|<0.001
90963376|NCT01603082|181807895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-159.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-194.7|-123.5|||t-test, 2 sided||Ticagrelor minus clopidogrel.|||-123.5|-194.7|<0.001
90963377|NCT01603082|181807896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.2||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.5|9.7|||t-test, 2 sided||Ticagrelor minus clopidogrel.|Analysis at 0.5 hours after the loading dose||9.7|-50.5|0.182
90963378|NCT01603082|181807896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-158.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-189.4|-127.7|||t-test, 2 sided||Ticagrelor minus clopidogrel.|Analysis at 8 hours after the loading dose.||-127.7|-189.4|<0.001
90963379|NCT01603082|181807896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-43.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.5||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.5|-10.7|||t-test, 2 sided||Ticagrelor minus clopidogrel.|Analysis at end of PCI.||-10.7|-76.5|0.010
90963380|NCT00846885|181807897|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|110.0||||||90.0|103.0|117.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||117|103|
90963381|NCT00846885|181807898|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|106.0||||||90.0|102.0|111.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||111|102|
90963382|NCT00846885|181807899|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|105.0||||||90.0|101.0|110.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||110|101|
90963383|NCT04561765|181807960|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.051|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||P values at discharge||||0.051
90963384|NCT04561765|181807960|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.206|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||P values at discharge.||||0.206
90963385|NCT04561765|181807960|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.765|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||P values at discharge||||0.765
90883903|NCT02318693|181630404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|0.0||||0.332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.0|||constrained longitudinal analysis model|||Comparison: Change in Baseline in Percentage of Hypoglycemic Values \< 50 mg/dL. The comparison was conducted at the α=0.05 (2-sided) significance level.||0.0|-0.1|0.332
90963386|NCT04561765|181807960|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.991|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||P values at follow-up.||||0.991
90963387|NCT04561765|181807960|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.963|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||P values at discharge.||||0.963
90963388|NCT04561765|181807960|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.916|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||P values at discharge.||||0.916
90963389|NCT04561765|181807961|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||P value at discharge.||||0.005
90963390|NCT04561765|181807961|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||P value at discharge.||||0.270
90963391|NCT04561765|181807961|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.177|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||P value at discharge.||||0.177
90963392|NCT04561765|181807961|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||P Value at follow-up.||||0.300
90963393|NCT04561765|181807961|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.996|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||||||0.996
90963394|NCT04561765|181807961|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.334|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||||||0.334
90963395|NCT04561765|181807963|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.212|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||P value at discharge.||||0.212
90963396|NCT04561765|181807963|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.965|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||||||0.965
90963397|NCT04561765|181807963|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.294|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||P value at discharge.||||0.294
90963398|NCT04561765|181807963|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.207|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||P value at follow-up.||||0.207
90963399|NCT04561765|181807963|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.158|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||P value at follow-up.||||0.158
90963400|NCT04561765|181807963|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.988|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||P value at follow-up.||||0.988
90963401|NCT04561765|181807965|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.295|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||P value at discharge.||||0.295
90963402|NCT04561765|181807965|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.718|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||P value at discharge.||||0.718
90963403|NCT04561765|181807965|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.738|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||P value at discharge.||||0.738
90963404|NCT04561765|181807965|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.797|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||P value at follow-up.||||0.797
90963405|NCT04561765|181807965|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||P value at follow-up.||||0.260
90963406|NCT04561765|181807965|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.616|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||||||0.616
90963407|NCT04561765|181807966|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.333|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||P value at discharge.||||0.333
90963408|NCT04561765|181807966|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||P value at discharge.||||0.003
90963409|NCT04561765|181807966|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.106|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||P value at discharge.||||0.106
90963410|NCT04561765|181807966|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.541|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||P value at follow-up.||||0.541
90963411|NCT04561765|181807966|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.202|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||P value at follow-up.||||0.202
90963412|NCT04561765|181807966|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.791|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||P value at follow-up.||||0.791
90963413|NCT04561765|181807967|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.026|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||P value at discharge.||||0.026
90963414|NCT04561765|181807967|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||P value at discharge.||||0.15
90963415|NCT04561765|181807967|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.745|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||||||0.745
90963416|NCT04561765|181807967|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.021|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||P value at follow-up.||||0.021
90963417|NCT04561765|181807967|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.155|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||P value at follow-up.||||0.155
90963418|NCT04561765|181807967|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.652|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||P value at follow-up.||||0.652
90963419|NCT04561765|181807968|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.343|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||P value at discharge.||||0.343
90963420|NCT04561765|181807968|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.995|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||P value at discharge.||||0.995
90963421|NCT04561765|181807968|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.371|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||P value at discharge.||||0.371
90963422|NCT04561765|181807968|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.228|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||P value at follow-up.||||0.228
90963423|NCT04561765|181807968|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.282|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||P value at follow-up.||||0.282
90963424|NCT04561765|181807968|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.986|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||||||0.986
90963425|NCT04561765|181807969|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.421|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||||||0.421
90963426|NCT04561765|181807969|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.556|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||||||0.556
90963427|NCT02645760|181808117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||It was calculated that 38 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the 2 arms would have at least 80% power to detect a difference of 2.26 points in mean 11-point NRS pain score between core stabilization exercise and conventional treatment from baseline to week 7.||||<0.001
90963428|NCT02645760|181808118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||ANCOVA|||It was calculated that 38 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the 2 arms would have at least 80% power to detect a difference of 2.68 points in mean disability score (RMDQ score) between core stabilization exercise and conventional treatment from baseline to week 7.||||0.009
90963429|NCT02645760|181808119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013|||||||ANCOVA|||It was calculated that 38 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the 2 arms would have at least 80% power to detect a difference of 0.79 centimeter in mean range of motion between core stabilization exercise and conventional treatment from baseline to week 7.||||0.013
90963430|NCT02645760|181808120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|||||||ANCOVA|||It was calculated that 38 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the 2 arms would have at least 80% power to detect a difference of 0.30 centimeter in mean repositioning error between core stabilization exercise and conventional treatment from baseline to week 7.||||0.012
90971071|NCT00385255|181824669|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was defined as the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference between the two groups (Boostrix+Fluarix 19-64 YOA Group minus Fluarix Boostrix 19-64 YOA Group), in terms of percentage of subjects with ≥ 4-fold increase in anti-H1N1 antibody titers (seroconversion) being ≥ -10%.|Difference in seroconversion rate|2.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.84|7.58||||||Difference in seroconversion rates for anti-H1N1 antibody: To demonstrate that the immunogenicity of Boostrix® vaccine co-administered with Fluarix® vaccine (Boostrix+Fluarix 19-64 YOA Group) at Day 0, was non-inferior to that of Fluarix® vaccine administered alone at Day 0 (Fluarix Boostrix 19-64 YOA Group), in terms of seroconversion rates for anti-H1N1 antibody, one month post-Fluarix® vaccination.||7.58|-2.84|
90971254|NCT00391222|181825190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||The time-to-event data were evaluated by means of the same survival analysis method as used for the primary outcome. The recurrence rates (Kaplan-Meier estimated) were calculated for each treatment arm using the same methods as for the primary outcome.||||<0.0001
91034514|NCT00913627|181955170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|13.31||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|25.36||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||15 minutes||25.36|1.26|0.080
90923764|NCT02310646|181720367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2||||||Treatment sequence effect: p=0.28; gender effect: p=0.20; threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|Regression, Logistic|2-factor logistic regression model with treatment sequence and gender as factors.||"The statistical significance of each of the 7 baseline characteristics was tested in a 2-factor logistic regression model with treatment sequence and each baseline characteristic as factors.~Baseline factor: gender (male, female)."||||0.2
90923765|NCT02310646|181720367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.001||||||Treatment sequence effect: p=0.34; age effect: p=0.001; threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05.|Regression, Logistic|2-factor logistic regression with age and treatment sequence as factors||"The statistical significance of each of the 7 baseline characteristics was tested in a 2-factor logistic regression model with treatment sequence and each baseline characteristic as factors.~Baseline factor: age (18-39 years, 40-59 years, ≥60 years)."||||=0.001
90923766|NCT02310646|181720367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.29||||||Treatment sequence effect: p=0.34; baseline disease severity effect: p=0.29; threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|Regression, Logistic|2-factor logistic regression model with treatment sequence and baseline disease severity as factors.||"The statistical significance of each of the 7 baseline characteristics was tested in a 2-factor logistic regression model with treatment sequence and each baseline characteristic as factors.~Baseline factor: Baseline disease severity (mild, moderate, severe)."||||0.29
90923767|NCT02310646|181720367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.55||||||Treatment sequence effect: p=0.33; distribution phenotype (localised, widespread) effect: p=0.55; threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|Regression, Logistic|2-factor logistic regression model with treatment sequence and distribution phenotype (localised, widespread) as factors.||"The statistical significance of each of the 7 baseline characteristics was tested in a 2-factor logistic regression model with treatment sequence and each baseline characteristic as factors.~Baseline factor: distribution phenotype (localised, widespread)."||||0.55
91034515|NCT00913627|181955170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|16.39||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.73|29.04||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||15 minutes||29.04|3.73|0.043
90923768|NCT02310646|181720367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.25||||||Treatment sequence effect: p=0.32; plaque size (≤3 mm diameter, \>3 mm diameter): p=0.25; threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|Regression, Logistic|2-factor logistic regression model with treatment sequence and plaque size as factors.||"The statistical significance of each of the 7 baseline characteristics was tested in a 2-factor logistic regression model with treatment sequence and each baseline characteristic as factors.~Baseline factor: plaque size (≤3 mm diameter, \>3 mm diameter)."||||0.25
90923769|NCT02310646|181720367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.41||||||Treatment sequence effect: p=0.34; skin thickness phenotype (≤0.75 mm, \>0.75 mm) effect: p=0.41; threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|Regression, Logistic|2-factor logistic regression model with treatment sequence and skin thickness phenotype as factors.||"The statistical significance of each of the 7 baseline characteristics was tested in a 2-factor logistic regression model with treatment sequence and each baseline characteristic as factors.~Baseline factor: skin thickness phenotype (≤0.75 mm, \>0.75 mm)."||||0.41
90923770|NCT02310646|181720367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2||||||Treatment sequence effect: p=0.30; onset phenotype (≤40 years of age, \>40 years of age) effect: p=0.20; threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|Regression, Logistic|2-factor logistic regression model with treatment sequence and onset phenotype (≤40 years of age, \>40 years of age) as factors.||"The statistical significance of each of the 7 baseline characteristics was tested in a 2-factor logistic regression model with treatment sequence and each baseline characteristic as factors.~Baseline factor: onset phenotype (≤40 years of age, \>40 years of age)."||||0.20
90923771|NCT02310646|181720368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.007||||||"The total TPUQ score for the gel and the foam (mean score 29.9 vs. mean score 26.8; p=0.007).~Threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05."|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|Wilcoxon rank sum test comparing the period difference (within subject difference between study treatments) between both treatment sequences.||Subjects in the analysis are 212 - full analysis set. All subjects received both study treatments. Total TPUQ score (summary score item 1-25) superiority comparison gel versus foam.||||0.007
90923772|NCT02310646|181720369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|Wilcoxon signed rank test comparing within subject difference to latest topical treatment||Subjects in the analysis are 118. All subjects received both study treatments. Statistical analysis for total TPUQ score (summary score item 1-25): superiority comparison foam versus latest topical treatment.||||<0.001
90923773|NCT02310646|181720369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|Wilcoxon signed rank test comparing within subject difference to latest topical treatment||Subjects in the analysis are 118. All subjects received both study treatments. Statistical analysis for total TPUQ score (summary score item 1-25): superiority comparison gel versus latest topical treatment.||||<0.001
90923774|NCT00613106|181720384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4228||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4228
90923775|NCT05530603|181720405|OTHER|||||||0.009||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||.009
90923776|NCT05530603|181720406|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.8||0.73|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.730
90923777|NCT05530603|181720407|OTHER|||||||0.033||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|ANOVA|||||||.033
90923778|NCT05530603|181720408|OTHER|||||||0.068|||||||ANOVA|The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.||||||.068
90923779|NCT05530603|181720409|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||.001
90923780|NCT05530603|181720410|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.001
90923781|NCT05530603|181720411|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.001
90923782|NCT02043678|181720421|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.122||||0.2636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.917|1.374|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||||1.374|0.917|0.2636
90923783|NCT02043678|181720422|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.151||||0.1194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.964|1.374|||Cox Proportional Hazards model|||||1.374|0.964|0.1194
90923784|NCT02043678|181720423|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.152||||0.1283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.383|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||||1.383|0.960|0.1283
91034516|NCT00913627|181955170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|5.39||||0.354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.62|15.4||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||15 minutes||15.40|-4.62|0.354
90963431|NCT02267603|181808121|OTHER|The null hypothesis will be rejected if 3 or more responses are observed in 24 patients. This design yields a type I error rate of 0.10 and power of 0.90 when the true response rate is 25%. Progression-free survival (PFS) at 16 months will be estimated by Kaplan-Meier method. Unless otherwise stated, all statistical tests will be conducted at the α=0.05 (1-sided) level.||||||||||||||||The protocol was designed w/ a standard Simon 2 stage design. Null hypothesis that true response rate is 5% was tested against a 1-sided alternative. In stage 1, 9 patients were accrued. If no responses in these 9 patients, study was to stop. Otherwise,15 more patients were to be accrued for a total of 24 patients. Study was amended to increase number of patients to 50, following discussion w/ pharmaceutical collaborator and FDA.|ORR will be estimated as the # of responders as a % of the # of eligible participants who received at least 1 dose of treatment. If a substantial amount of primary endpoint data are missing (at least 1 value missing from more than 20% of participants), using nonparametric estimation to estimate the ORR requires the missing completely at random assumption may give misleading results. In this case, analyses of the primary endpoint will be performed using parametric generalized linear models fit by maximum likelihood. These methods provide unbiased estimation and inferences under the parametric modeling assumptions and the assumption that the missing data are missing at random (MAR). MAR assumes that the probability of an observation being missing may depend upon the observed responses and upon observed covariates. A generalized linear model for the ORR will use a binomial error distribution. The model will include as covariates all available baseline predictors of the missing outcomes.|||
90963432|NCT01284062|181808128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares (LS) mean|0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.225|0.766|||||LS mean and confidence interval (CI) were based on back log-transformation of those from the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model.|||0.766|0.225|
90963433|NCT01284062|181808128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.187|0.446|||||LS mean and CI were based on back log-transformation of those from the ANCOVA model.|||0.446|0.187|
90963434|NCT01284062|181808128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.517|1.203|||||LS mean and CI were based on back log-transformation of those from the ANCOVA model.|||1.203|0.517|
90963435|NCT01284062|181808128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.794|1.949|||||LS mean and CI were based on back log-transformation of those from the ANCOVA model.|||1.949|0.794|
90963436|NCT01284062|181808128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean ratio|0.7||||0.532|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.329|1.472|||ANCOVA||LS mean ratio and CI were based on back log-transformation of those from the ANCOVA model.|P-value was calculated from ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline (in log scale).||1.472|0.329|0.5320
90963437|NCT01284062|181808128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean ratio|1.9||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.9|4.013|||ANCOVA||LS mean ratio and CI were based on back log-transformation of those from the ANCOVA model.|P-value was calculated from ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline (in log scale).||4.013|0.900|0.2700
91034517|NCT00913627|181955170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|48.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.34|63.96||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||30 minutes||63.96|33.34|<0.001
90883904|NCT00025883|181630405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A null hypothesis of interest is there is no significant change over three time points (baseline, 6 months, 12 months) in response to metreleptin within GLD group.||||<0.001
90963438|NCT01284062|181808128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean ratio|3.0||||0.0666|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.403|6.409|||ANCOVA||LS mean ratio and CI were based on back log-transformation of those from the ANCOVA model.|P-value was calculated from ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline (in log scale).||6.409|1.403|0.0666
90963439|NCT01284062|181808135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.466|1.048||||||Week 2: LS mean and CI were based on back log-transformation of those from the ANCOVA model.||1.048|0.466|
91034518|NCT00913627|181955170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|51.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.15|66.73||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||30 minutes||66.73|37.15|<0.001
90883905|NCT00025883|181630405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A null hypothesis of interest is there is no significant change over three time points (baseline, 6 months, 12 months) in response to metreleptin within PLD group.||||0.004
90963440|NCT01284062|181808135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.552|1.185||||||Week 2: LS mean and CI were based on back log-transformation of those from the ANCOVA model.||1.185|0.552|
90963441|NCT01284062|181808135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.488|1.027||||||Week 2: LS mean and CI were based on back log-transformation of those from the ANCOVA model.||1.027|0.488|
90963442|NCT01284062|181808135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.5|1.195||||||Week 2: LS mean and CI were based on back log-transformation of those from the ANCOVA model.||1.195|0.500|
90963443|NCT01284062|181808135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.631|1.328||||||Week 4: LS mean and CI were based on back log-transformation of those from the ANCOVA model.||1.328|0.631|
90963444|NCT01284062|181808135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.339|0.655||||||Week 4: LS mean and CI were based on back log-transformation of those from the ANCOVA model.||0.655|0.339|
90963445|NCT01284062|181808135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.669|1.269||||||Week 4: LS mean and CI were based on back log-transformation of those from the ANCOVA model.||1.269|0.669|
90963446|NCT01284062|181808135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.388|0.779||||||Week 4: LS mean and CI were based on back log-transformation of those from the ANCOVA model.||0.779|0.388|
91034519|NCT00913627|181955170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|36.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.62|50.98||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||30 minutes||50.98|22.62|<0.001
91034520|NCT00913627|181955170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|57.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.2|73.57||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||45 minutes||73.57|41.20|<0.001
91034521|NCT00913627|181955170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|66.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.56|81.78||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||45 minutes||81.78|51.56|<0.001
91034522|NCT00913627|181955170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|50.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.2|66.21||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||45 minutes||66.21|34.20|<0.001
91034523|NCT00913627|181955170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|67.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.36|83.93||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||60 minutes||83.93|51.36|<0.001
91034524|NCT00913627|181955170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|70.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.16|86.05||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||60 minutes||86.05|55.16|<0.001
90883906|NCT00025883|181630406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Triglycerides were log transformed for analysis due to non-normal distribution. Changes in triglycedies in response to metreleptin over three time points (baseline, 6 months, 12 months) are tested within GLD group.||||0.05
90883907|NCT00025883|181630406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Triglycerides were log transformed for analysis due to non-normal distribution. Changes in triglycedies in response to metreleptin over three time points (baseline, 6 months, 12 months) are tested within PLD group.||||0.02
90883908|NCT03591575|181630407|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0446|||||||Fisher Exact|||Patients who reached the serum ferritin threshold at any time point prior to Month 12 were withdrawn from the study as per protocol, so that they could begin on standard chelation therapy. For these individuals, imputed data were used to estimate the values that would likely have been seen at Month 12 had they remained in the study.||||0.0446
90883909|NCT03591575|181630408|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0446||||||he p-value shown here is for the difference between the groups at Month 12.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.0446
90883910|NCT02915744|181630419|OTHER||ESMO-MCBS (v1.0)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90883911|NCT00813358|181630421|NON_INFERIORITY|NI=7%|KM product-limit estimator|99.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|97.4|100.0||||||||100|97.4|
90883912|NCT02033889|181630487|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.71|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis||||Based on Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis (cLDA) model with fixed effects for treatment, time, prior anti hyperglycemic medication (Metformin monotherapy or Metformin + another anti-hyperglycemic agent, AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous), menopausal status. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|-0.71|-1.05|<0.001
90883913|NCT02033889|181630487|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.53|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis||||Based on cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, prior anti hyperglycemic medication (Metformin monotherapy or Metformin + another anti-hyperglycemic agent, AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous), menopausal status. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|-0.53|-0.87|<0.001
90883914|NCT02033889|181630489|OTHER||Difference in % vs Placebo/Glimepiride|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|5.4|||||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method was used to construct the 95% CI|5.4|-2.1|
90883915|NCT02033889|181630489|OTHER||Difference in % vs Placebo/Glimepiride|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|4.7|||||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method was used to construct the 95% CI|4.7|-2.5|
90883916|NCT02033889|181630490|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-38.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.5|-31.99|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis||||Based on the cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, prior antihyperglycemic medication (metformin monotherapy or metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous), menopausal status. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|-31.99|-44.50|<0.001
90883917|NCT02033889|181630490|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-26.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.9|-20.48|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis||||Based on the cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, prior antihyperglycemic medication (metformin monotherapy or metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous), menopausal status. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|-20.48|-32.90|<0.001
90883918|NCT02033889|181630491|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|-1.03|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis||||Based on the cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, prior antihyperglycemic medication (metformin monotherapy or metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous), menopausal status. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|-1.03|-2.16|<0.001
90883919|NCT02033889|181630491|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.24|-1.11|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis||||Based on the cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, prior antihyperglycemic medication (metformin monotherapy or metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous), menopausal status. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|-1.11|-2.24|<0.001
90883920|NCT02033889|181630492|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Odds Ratio Relative to Placebo|4.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.64|7.62|||Regression, Logistic||||Adjusted odds ratio based on a logistic regression model fitted with fixed effects for treatment, prior antihyperglycemic medication (metformin monotherapy or metformin + another AHA), menopausal status, covariates for baseline A1C and baseline eGFR (continuous). Missing data imputed using a multiple imputation procedure based on cLDA prediction modeling with fixed effects as in the primary analysis, which allows for participants with missing data to be included in the analysis.|7.62|2.64|<0.001
90883921|NCT02033889|181630492|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Odds Ratio Relative to Placebo|3.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.81|5.06|||Regression, Logistic||||Adjusted odds ratio based on a logistic regression model fitted with fixed effects for treatment, prior antihyperglycemic medication (metformin monotherapy or metformin + another AHA), menopausal status, covariates for baseline A1C and baseline eGFR (continuous). Missing data imputed using a multiple imputation procedure based on cLDA prediction modeling with fixed effects as in the primary analysis, which allows for participants with missing data to be included in the analysis.|5.06|1.81|<0.001
90883922|NCT02033889|181630493|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-4.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.81|-2.19|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis||||Based on the cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, prior antihyperglycemic medication (metformin monotherapy or metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous), menopausal status, and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|-2.19|-6.81|<0.001
90883923|NCT02033889|181630493|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-3.68||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.96|-1.39|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis||||Based on the cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, prior antihyperglycemic medication (metformin monotherapy or metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous), menopausal status, and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|-1.39|-5.96|0.002
90923785|NCT02043678|181720424|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.145||||0.1669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.945|1.389|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||||1.389|0.945|0.1669
90883924|NCT02033889|181630494|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-2.42||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.86|-0.98|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis||||Based on the cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, prior antihyperglycemic medication (metformin monotherapy or metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous), menopausal status, and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|-0.98|-3.86|0.001
90883925|NCT02033889|181630494|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.82||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.24|-0.39|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis||||Based on the cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, prior antihyperglycemic medication (metformin monotherapy or metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous), menopausal status, and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|-0.39|-3.24|0.013
90883926|NCT02033889|181630495|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Odds Ratio|5.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|13.9|||Regression, Logistic||||Adjusted odds ratio based on a logistic regression model fitted with fixed effects for treatment, prior antihyperglycemic medication (metformin monotherapy or metformin + another AHA), menopausal status, covariates for baseline A1C and baseline eGFR (continuous). Missing data imputed using a multiple imputation procedure based on cLDA prediction modeling with fixed effects as in the primary analysis, which allows for participants with missing data to be included in the analysis.|13.90|2.10|<0.001
90883927|NCT02033889|181630495|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Odds Ratio|3.1||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|8.22|||Regression, Logistic||||Adjusted odds ratio based on a logistic regression model fitted with fixed effects for treatment, prior antihyperglycemic medication (metformin monotherapy or metformin + another AHA), menopausal status, covariates for baseline A1C and baseline eGFR (continuous). Missing data imputed using a multiple imputation procedure based on cLDA prediction modeling with fixed effects as in the primary analysis, which allows for participants with missing data to be included in the analysis.|8.22|1.17|0.023
90883928|NCT02033889|181630496|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % vs Placebo|-16.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.2|-11.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|Miettinen \& Nurminen method was used to construct both the 95% CI and derive p-value for the difference between the proportions (i.e. percentages).||||-11.2|-22.2|<0.001
90883929|NCT02033889|181630496|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % vs Placebo|-14.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.9|-9.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen method.|Miettinen \& Nurminen method was used to construct both the 95% CI and derive p-value for the difference between the proportions (i.e. percentages).||||-9.4|-20.9|<0.001
90883930|NCT02033889|181630515|OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.5|||||||Based on cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, prior antihyperglycemic medication (Metformin monotherapy or Metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous), menopausal status, and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|0.50|-0.71|
90883931|NCT02033889|181630515|OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|97.0|-0.83|0.37|||||||Based on cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, prior antihyperglycemic medication (Metformin monotherapy or Metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous), menopausal status, and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|0.37|-0.83|
90883932|NCT02033889|181630516|OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.39|||||||Based on cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, prior antihyperglycemic medication (Metformin monotherapy or Metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous), menopausal status, and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|1.39|0.00|
90883933|NCT02033889|181630516|OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.99|||||||Based on cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, prior antihyperglycemic medication (Metformin monotherapy or Metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous), menopausal status, and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|0.99|-0.38|
90883934|NCT02033889|181630517|OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.68|||||||Based on cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, prior antihyperglycemic medication (Metformin monotherapy or Metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous), menopausal status, and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|0.68|-0.15|
90883935|NCT02033889|181630517|OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.48|||||||Based on cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, prior antihyperglycemic medication (Metformin monotherapy or Metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous), menopausal status, and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|0.48|-0.33|
90883936|NCT02033889|181630518|OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.39|||||||Based on cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, prior anti hyperglycemic medication (Metformin monotherapy or Metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous), menopausal status, and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|0.39|-0.76|
90883937|NCT02033889|181630518|OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.35|||||||Based on cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, prior anti hyperglycemic medication (Metformin monotherapy or Metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous), menopausal status, and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|0.35|-0.78|
90883938|NCT02033889|181630522|OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.88|||||||Based on cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, prior antihyperglycemic medication (Metformin monotherapy or Metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous), menopausal status, and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|0.88|-0.53|
90883939|NCT02033889|181630522|OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|97.0|-0.88|0.51|||||||Based on cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, prior antihyperglycemic medication (Metformin monotherapy or Metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous), menopausal status, and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|0.51|-0.88|
90883940|NCT02033889|181630523|OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.98|||||||Based on cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, prior antihyperglycemic medication (Metformin monotherapy or Metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous), menopausal status, and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|0.98|-0.48|
90883941|NCT02033889|181630523|OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.91|||||||Based on cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, prior antihyperglycemic medication (Metformin monotherapy or Metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous), menopausal status, and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|0.91|-0.51|
90963447|NCT01284062|181808135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.454|1.331||||||Week 8: LS mean and CI were based on back log-transformation of those from the ANCOVA model.||1.331|0.454|
90963448|NCT01284062|181808135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.236|0.553||||||Week 8: LS mean and CI were based on back log-transformation of those from the ANCOVA model.||0.553|0.236|
90963449|NCT01284062|181808135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.757|1.722||||||Week 8: LS mean and CI were based on back log-transformation of those from the ANCOVA model.||1.722|0.757|
91034525|NCT00913627|181955170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|51.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.32|69.38||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||60 minutes||69.38|34.32|<0.001
91034526|NCT00913627|181955170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|69.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.33|85.33||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||90 minutes||85.33|53.33|<0.001
90883942|NCT02033889|181630524|OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.04|||||||Based on cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, prior antihyperglycemic medication (Metformin monotherapy or Metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous), menopausal status, and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|-0.04|-0.95|
90883943|NCT02033889|181630524|OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.23|||||||Based on cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, prior antihyperglycemic medication (Metformin monotherapy or Metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous), menopausal status, and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|0.23|-0.66|
90883944|NCT02033889|181630525|OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.72|||||||Based on cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, prior anti hyperglycemic medication (Metformin monotherapy or Metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous), menopausal status, and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|0.72|-0.61|
90883945|NCT02033889|181630525|OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.49|||||||Based on cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, prior anti hyperglycemic medication (Metformin monotherapy or Metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous), menopausal status, and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|0.49|-0.78|
90883946|NCT02033889|181630529|OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|0.56|||||||Based on cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, prior antihyperglycemic medication (Metformin monotherapy or Metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous), menopausal status, and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|0.56|-1.01|
90883947|NCT02033889|181630529|OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|97.0|-1.06|0.5|||||||Based on cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, prior antihyperglycemic medication (Metformin monotherapy or Metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous), menopausal status, and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|0.50|-1.06|
90883948|NCT02033889|181630530|OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|1.13|||||||Based on cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, prior antihyperglycemic medication (Metformin monotherapy or Metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous), menopausal status, and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|1.13|-0.58|
90883949|NCT02033889|181630530|OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.93|||||||Based on cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, prior antihyperglycemic medication (Metformin monotherapy or Metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous), menopausal status, and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|0.93|-0.70|
90883950|NCT02033889|181630531|OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|-0.24|||||||Based on cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, prior antihyperglycemic medication (Metformin monotherapy or Metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous), menopausal status, and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|-0.24|-1.44|
90883951|NCT02033889|181630531|OTHER||Difference in the least Squares Means|-0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|0.05|||||||Based on cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, prior antihyperglycemic medication (Metformin monotherapy or Metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous), menopausal status, and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|0.05|-1.12|
90883952|NCT02033889|181630532|OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.65|||||||Based on cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, prior anti hyperglycemic medication (Metformin monotherapy or Metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous), menopausal status, and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|0.65|-0.77|
90883953|NCT02033889|181630532|OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.85|||||||Based on cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, prior anti hyperglycemic medication (Metformin monotherapy or Metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous), menopausal status, and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|0.85|-0.50|
90883954|NCT02391948|181630589|OTHER||mean population value age 12|98.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|97.8|98.6||||||||98.6|97.8|
90883955|NCT02391948|181630589|OTHER||mean population value age 12|89.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.6|91.1||||||||91.1|86.6|
90963450|NCT01284062|181808135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.338|0.788||||||Week 8: LS mean and CI were based on back log-transformation of those from the ANCOVA model.||0.788|0.338|
90963451|NCT01284062|181808135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.374|1.084||||||Week 12: LS mean and CI were based on back log-transformation of those from the ANCOVA model.||1.084|0.374|
90963452|NCT01284062|181808135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.122|0.297||||||Week 12: LS mean and CI were based on back log-transformation of those from the ANCOVA model.||0.297|0.122|
90963453|NCT01284062|181808135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.623|1.465||||||Week 12: LS mean and CI were based on back log-transformation of those from the ANCOVA model.||1.465|0.623|
90963454|NCT01284062|181808135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.411|1.076||||||Week 12: LS mean and CI were based on back log-transformation of those from the ANCOVA model.||1.076|0.411|
91034527|NCT00913627|181955170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|74.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.29|89.14||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||90 minutes||89.14|59.29|<0.001
90923786|NCT02043678|181720425|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.033||||0.7871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.816|1.308|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||||1.308|0.816|0.7871
90883956|NCT02391948|181630589|OTHER||mean population value age 12|50.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.5|53.6||||||||53.6|46.5|
90883957|NCT02391948|181630589|OTHER||mean population value age 12|25.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.7|27.0||||||||27.0|23.7|
90923787|NCT02043678|181720426|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.126||||0.2467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.921|1.378|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||||1.378|0.921|0.2467
90923788|NCT04447469|181720546|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.069||||0.2598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.555|8.615||P-value and odds ratio were calculated using Fisher's Exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||8.615|0.555|0.2598
90923789|NCT04447469|181720546|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.414||||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.653|9.957||P-value and odds ratio were calculated using Fisher's Exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||9.957|0.653|0.1610
90923790|NCT04447469|181720546|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Odds Ratio|2.091||||0.2448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.612|7.144||P-value and odds ratio were calculated using Cochran Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, stratified by randomization strata (standard of care antiretroviral therapy, age, and ARDS status).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||7.144|0.612|0.2448
90883958|NCT02391948|181630589|OTHER||mean population value age 12|6.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.66|7.38||||||||7.38|5.66|
90923791|NCT04447469|181720546|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Odds Ratio|2.749||||0.1378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.756|9.993||P-value and odds ratio were calculated using Cochran Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, stratified by randomization strata (standard of care antiretroviral therapy, age, and ARDS status).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||9.993|0.756|0.1378
90923792|NCT04447469|181720547|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Odds Ratio|1.231||||0.4534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.715|2.12||P-value and odds ratio were calculated using Cochran Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, stratified by randomization strata (age and ARDS status).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.120|0.715|0.4534
90923793|NCT04447469|181720547|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Odds Ratio|1.097||||0.7414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.636|1.891||P-value and odds ratio were calculated using Cochran Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, stratified by randomization strata (age and ARDS status).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.891|0.636|0.7414
90923794|NCT04447469|181720548|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.984||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.198|4.884|||Fisher Exact|||||4.884|0.198|1.0000
91034528|NCT00913627|181955170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|58.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.88|75.84||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||90 minutes||75.84|41.88|<0.001
90883959|NCT02391948|181630590|OTHER||mean population value age 12|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.49||||||||0.49|0.38|
90883960|NCT02391948|181630590|OTHER||mean population value age 12|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.77||||||||0.77|0.60|
90883961|NCT02391948|181630590|OTHER||mean population value age 12|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.07||||||||1.07|0.79|
90923795|NCT04447469|181720548|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.286||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|6.417|||Fisher Exact|||||6.417|0.260|1.0000
90923796|NCT04447469|181720549|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion|-15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.6|15.6|||||95% CI were calculated using asymptotic normal approximation. Difference = KPL-301 - placebo.|||15.6|-45.6|
90923797|NCT04447469|181720549|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportions|-27.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.4|0.9|||||95% CI were calculated using asymptotic normal approximation. Difference = KPL-301 - Placebo .|||0.9|-56.4|
90923798|NCT04447469|181720550|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6229||||||Log-rank test is stratified by randomization strata (Standard of Care antiretroviral therapy, age, and ARDS status).|Log Rank|||||||0.6229
91034529|NCT00913627|181955170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|69.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.33|85.33||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||120 minutes||85.33|53.33|<0.001
90883962|NCT02391948|181630590|OTHER||mean population value age 12|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|1.54||||||||1.54|1.22|
90883963|NCT02391948|181630590|OTHER||mean population value age 12|2.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.01|2.31||||||||2.31|2.01|
90883964|NCT02391948|181630591|OTHER||mean population value|4.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.43|4.54||||||||4.54|4.43|
90883965|NCT02391948|181630591|OTHER||mean population value|4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.99|4.2||||||||4.20|3.99|
90883966|NCT02391948|181630591|OTHER||mean population value|3.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.75|4.25||||||||4.25|3.75|
90883967|NCT02391948|181630591|OTHER||mean population value|2.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.73|3.19||||||||3.19|2.73|
90883968|NCT02391948|181630591|OTHER||mean population value|1.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|1.75||||||||1.75|1.44|
90883969|NCT02391948|181630592|OTHER||mean population value|1362.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1313.6|1410.7||||||||1410.7|1313.6|
90883970|NCT02391948|181630592|OTHER||mean population value|1096.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1028.8|1158.62||||||||1158.62|1028.80|
90923799|NCT04447469|181720550|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5526||||||Log-rank test is stratified by randomization strata (Standard of Care antiretroviral therapy, age, and ARDS status).|Log Rank|||||||0.5526
90923800|NCT04447469|181720551|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.9426|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.71|1.46||Log-rank test is stratified by randomization strata (Standard of Care antiretroviral therapy, age, and ARDS status).|Log Rank||Calculated based on a Cox proportional-hazards model with treatment as covariate and stratified by randomization strata (Standard of Care antiretroviral therapy, age, and ARDS status).|||1.46|0.71|0.9426
90923801|NCT04447469|181720551|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.6838|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.78|1.57||Log-rank test is stratified by randomization strata (Standard of Care antiretroviral therapy, age, and ARDS status).|Log Rank||Calculated based on a Cox proportional-hazards model with treatment as covariate and stratified by randomization strata (Standard of Care antiretroviral therapy, age, and ARDS status).|||1.57|0.78|0.6838
90923802|NCT04447469|181720552|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.235||||0.0905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.023|1.328|||Fisher Exact|||||1.328|0.023|0.0905
90923803|NCT04447469|181720552|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.431||||0.2247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.087|1.815|||Fisher Exact|||||1.815|0.087|0.2247
90923804|NCT04447469|181720552|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Odds Ratio|0.191||||0.0623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.033|1.114||P-value and odds ratio were calculated using Cochran Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, stratified by randomization strata (standard of care antiretroviral therapy, age, and ARDS status).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.114|0.033|0.0623
90923805|NCT04447469|181720552|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Odds Ratio|0.368||||0.1957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.085|1.583||P-value and odds ratio were calculated using Cochran Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, stratified by randomization strata (standard of care antiretroviral therapy, age, and ARDS status).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.583|0.085|0.1957
90883971|NCT02391948|181630592|OTHER||mean population value|592.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|533.79|652.72||||||||652.72|533.79|
90883972|NCT02391948|181630593|OTHER||mean population value|3.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.91|4.07||||||||4.07|3.91|
90923806|NCT04447469|181720553|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.57||||0.3766|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.8|3.09||Log-rank test is stratified by randomization strata (Standard of Care antiretroviral therapy, and age).|Log Rank||Calculated based on a Cox proportional-hazards model with treatment as covariate and stratified by randomization strata (Standard of Care antiretroviral therapy and age).|||3.09|0.80|0.3766
90923807|NCT04447469|181720553|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.9209|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.51|2.16||Log-rank test is stratified by randomization strata (Standard of Care antiretroviral therapy, and age).|Log Rank||Calculated based on a Cox proportional-hazards model with treatment as covariate and stratified by randomization strata (Standard of Care antiretroviral therapy and age).|||2.16|0.51|0.9209
90963455|NCT01284062|181808135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean ratio|1.16||||0.7352|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.663|2.021|||ANCOVA||LS mean ratio and CI were based on back log-transformation of those from the ANCOVA model.|Week 2: P-value was calculated from ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline (in log scale).||2.021|0.663|0.7352
90963456|NCT01284062|181808135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean ratio|1.01||||0.9754|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.586|1.753|||ANCOVA||LS mean ratio and CI were based on back log-transformation of those from the ANCOVA model.|Week 2: P-value was calculated from ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline (in log scale).||1.753|0.586|0.9754
90963457|NCT01284062|181808135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean ratio|1.11||||0.8277|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.609|2.008|||ANCOVA||LS mean ratio and CI were based on back log-transformation of those from the ANCOVA model.|Week 2: P-value was calculated from ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline (in log scale).||2.008|0.609|0.8277
90963458|NCT01284062|181808135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean ratio|0.51||||0.0885|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.313|0.846|||ANCOVA||LS mean ratio and CI were based on back log-transformation of those from the ANCOVA model.|Week 4: P-value was calculated from ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline (in log scale).||0.846|0.313|0.0885
90963459|NCT01284062|181808135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean ratio|1.01||||0.9856|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.617|1.644|||ANCOVA||LS mean ratio and CI were based on back log-transformation of those from the ANCOVA model.|Week 4: P-value was calculated from ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline (in log scale).||1.644|0.617|0.9856
90963460|NCT01284062|181808135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean ratio|0.6||||0.1996|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.361|1.0|||ANCOVA||LS mean ratio and CI were based on back log-transformation of those from the ANCOVA model.|Week 4: P-value was calculated from ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline (in log scale).||1.000|0.361|0.1996
90923808|NCT04447469|181720554|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Odds Ratio|0.645||||0.1772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.222||Calculated using Cochran Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by randomization strata (age and ARDS status).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.222|0.340|0.1772
90923809|NCT04447469|181720554|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Odds Ratio|1.029||||0.9269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.563|1.881||Calculated using Cochran Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by randomization strata (age and ARDS status).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.881|0.563|0.9269
90883973|NCT02391948|181630593|OTHER||mean population value|3.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.39|3.6||||||||3.60|3.39|
90883974|NCT02391948|181630593|OTHER||mean population value|3.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.08|3.37||||||||3.37|3.08|
90883975|NCT02391948|181630593|OTHER||mean population value|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.67|2.93||||||||2.93|2.67|
90883976|NCT02391948|181630593|OTHER||mean population value|1.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.67|1.91||||||||1.91|1.67|
90883977|NCT02391948|181630594|OTHER||mean population value|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|9.0|0.47|0.72||||||||0.72|0.47|
90883978|NCT02391948|181630594|OTHER||mean population value|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.3||||||||1.30|0.91|
90883979|NCT02391948|181630594|OTHER||mean population value|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.89||||||||0.89|0.48|
90883980|NCT02391948|181630594|OTHER||mean population value|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.65||||||||1.65|1.12|
90883981|NCT02391948|181630594|OTHER||mean population value|2.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.08|2.6||||||||2.60|2.08|
90923810|NCT04447469|181720555|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.9578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.49||Log-rank test is stratified by randomization strata (age, and ARDS status).|Log Rank||Calculated based on a Cox proportional-hazards model with treatment as covariate and stratified by randomization strata (age and ARDS status).|||1.49|0.66|0.9578
90923811|NCT04447469|181720555|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.5274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.7||Log-rank test is stratified by randomization strata (age, and ARDS status).|Log Rank||Calculated based on a Cox proportional-hazards model with treatment as covariate and stratified by randomization strata (age and ARDS status).|||1.70|0.76|0.5274
90963461|NCT01284062|181808135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean ratio|0.46||||0.1553|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.233|0.926|||ANCOVA||LS mean ratio and CI were based on back log-transformation of those from the ANCOVA model.|Week 8: P-value was calculated from ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline (in log scale).||0.926|0.233|0.1553
90963462|NCT01284062|181808135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean ratio|1.47||||0.4633|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.748|2.882|||ANCOVA||LS mean ratio and CI were based on back log-transformation of those from the ANCOVA model.|Week 8: P-value was calculated from ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline (in log scale).||2.882|0.748|0.4633
90963463|NCT01284062|181808135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean ratio|0.66||||0.4409|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.335|1.316|||ANCOVA||LS mean ratio and CI were based on back log-transformation of those from the ANCOVA model.|Week 8: P-value was calculated from ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline (in log scale).||1.316|0.335|0.4409
90963464|NCT01284062|181808135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean ratio|0.3||||0.0283|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.15|0.598|||ANCOVA||LS mean ratio and CI were based on back log-transformation of those from the ANCOVA model.|Week 12: P-value was calculated from ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline (in log scale).||0.598|0.150|0.0283
90883982|NCT02391948|181630595|OTHER||mean population value age 12|70.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|69.1|72.0||||||||72.0|69.1|
90883983|NCT02391948|181630595|OTHER||mean population value age 12|62.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.4|65.0||||||||65.0|59.4|
90963465|NCT01284062|181808135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean ratio|1.5||||0.4434|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.758|2.97|||ANCOVA||LS mean ratio and CI were based on back log-transformation of those from the ANCOVA model.|Week 12: P-value was calculated from ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline (in log scale).||2.970|0.758|0.4434
91034530|NCT00913627|181955170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|77.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.57|92.06||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||120 minutes||92.06|63.57|<0.001
90883984|NCT02391948|181630595|OTHER||mean population value age 12|62.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.9|65.0||||||||65.0|60.9|
90883985|NCT02391948|181630595|OTHER||mean population value age 12|58.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.7|59.7||||||||59.7|56.7|
90923812|NCT04447469|181720556|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64||||0.1336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.15||Log-rank test is stratified by randomization strata (age, and ARDS status).|Log Rank||Calculated based on a Cox proportional-hazards model with treatment as covariate and stratified by randomization strata (age, and ARDS status).|||1.15|0.36|0.1336
90923813|NCT04447469|181720556|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.9767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.72||Log-rank test is stratified by randomization strata (age, and ARDS status).|Log Rank||Calculated based on a Cox proportional-hazards model with treatment as covariate and stratified by randomization strata ( age, and ARDS status).|||1.72|0.59|0.9767
90923814|NCT04447469|181720557|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|3.71|||||Calculated based on a Cox proportional-hazards model with treatment as covariate and stratified by randomization strata (age).|||3.71|0.55|
90923815|NCT04447469|181720557|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|4.54|||||Calculated based on a Cox proportional-hazards model with treatment as covariate and stratified by randomization strata (age).|||4.54|0.78|
90963466|NCT01284062|181808135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean ratio|1.04||||0.9372|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.51|2.141|||ANCOVA||LS mean ratio and CI were based on back log-transformation of those from the ANCOVA model.|Week 12: P-value was calculated from ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline (in log scale).||2.141|0.510|0.9372
90883986|NCT02391948|181630595|OTHER||mean population value age 12|51.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.2|53.6||||||||53.6|50.2|
90923816|NCT05201079|181720558|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.395||||0.228|TWO_SIDED|97.79|0.54|10.624||Alpha: 0.0221|Regression, Logistic||Numerator: fidaxomicin; denominator: MBK-01|||10.624|0.540|0.228
90923817|NCT05201079|181720564|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||Alpha value used: 0.0221|Statistical analysis using Odds Ratio cannot be performed because there are zero patients with bad progress in MBK-01 group.|||
90923818|NCT05201079|181720565|SUPERIORITY||Score (logrank) test|1.25||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha: 0.0221|Regression, Cox|Degrees of freedom: 1||||||0.300
90923819|NCT05201079|181720567|SUPERIORITY||Score (logrank) test|0.02||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha: 0.0221|Regression, Cox|Degrees of freedom: 1||||||0.900
90923820|NCT05201079|181720578|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.749||||||Main effect of the Group for the Physical Function area of the SF-36 questionnaire. F statistic (1,56) = 0.104.|ANOVA|||For each area of the SF-36 questionnaire, a mixed ANOVA for the effect of Group, Visit, and interaction effect of Group x Visit was performed. alpha = 0.0221.||||0.749
90963467|NCT01284062|181808140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|41.67|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|25.53|59.81|||||CI was assessed by Wilson score method.|||59.81|25.53|
90883987|NCT02391948|181630596|OTHER||mean population value age 12|78.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|76.0|80.4||||||||80.4|76.0|
90883988|NCT02391948|181630596|OTHER||mean population value age 12|66.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.5|68.5||||||||68.5|63.5|
90883989|NCT02391948|181630596|OTHER||mean population value age 12|60.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.3|63.3|||mean population value age 12|||||63.3|57.3|
90883990|NCT02391948|181630596|OTHER||mean population value age 12|37.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.6|40.3||||||||40.3|35.6|
90923821|NCT05201079|181720578|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62||||||Main effect of the Visit for the Physical Function area of the SF-36 questionnaire. F statistic (1,56) = 0.249.|ANOVA|||For each area of the SF-36 questionnaire, a mixed ANOVA for the effect of Group, Visit, and interaction effect of Group x Visit was performed. alpha = 0.0221.||||0.620
90923822|NCT05201079|181720578|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16||||||Main effect of the Group x Visit interaction for the Physical Function area of the SF-36 questionnaire. F statistic (1,56) = 2.024.|ANOVA|||For each area of the SF-36 questionnaire, a mixed ANOVA for the effect of Group, Visit, and interaction effect of Group x Visit was performed. alpha = 0.0221.||||0.160
90923823|NCT05201079|181720578|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.614||||||Main effect of the Group for the Bodily pain area of the SF-36 questionnaire. F statistic (1,56) = 0.257.|ANOVA|||For each area of the SF-36 questionnaire, a mixed ANOVA for the effect of Group, Visit, and interaction effect of Group x Visit was performed. alpha = 0.0221.||||0.614
90923824|NCT05201079|181720578|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007||||||Main effect of the Visit for the Bodily pain area of the SF-36 questionnaire. F statistic (1,56) = 7.705. Effect size = 0.046.|ANOVA|||For each area of the SF-36 questionnaire, a mixed ANOVA for the effect of Group, Visit, and interaction effect of Group x Visit was performed. alpha = 0.0221.||||0.007
90923825|NCT05201079|181720578|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.718||||||Main effect of the Group x Visit interaction for the Bodily pain area of the SF-36 questionnaire. F statistic (1,56) = 0.132.|ANOVA|||For each area of the SF-36 questionnaire, a mixed ANOVA for the effect of Group, Visit, and interaction effect of Group x Visit was performed. alpha = 0.0221.||||0.718
90963468|NCT01284062|181808140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|60.0|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|43.59|74.43|||||CI was assessed by Wilson score method.|||74.43|43.59|
90963469|NCT01284062|181808140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|34.74|65.26|||||CI was assessed by Wilson score method.|||65.26|34.74|
90963470|NCT01284062|181808140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|15.38|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|6.58|31.96|||||CI was assessed by Wilson score method.|||31.96|6.58|
91034531|NCT00913627|181955170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|58.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.88|75.84||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||120 minutes||75.84|41.88|<0.001
91034532|NCT00913627|181955170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|69.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.33|85.33||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||180 minutes||85.33|53.33|<0.001
91034533|NCT00913627|181955170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|77.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.57|92.06||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||180 minutes||92.06|63.57|<0.001
91034534|NCT00913627|181955170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|58.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.88|75.84||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||180 minutes||75.84|41.88|<0.001
91034535|NCT00913627|181955170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|69.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.33|85.33||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||240 minutes||85.33|53.33|<0.001
90963471|NCT01284062|181808140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|18.33||||0.4495|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.13|39.98|||Fisher Exact||CI was assessed by Wilson score method.|Two-sided p-value was calculated by Fisher's exact test.||39.98|-6.13|0.4495
90963472|NCT01284062|181808140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|8.33||||0.7177|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-15.37|30.54|||Fisher Exact||CI was assessed by Wilson score method.|Two-sided p-value was calculated by Fisher's exact test.||30.54|-15.37|0.7177
90883991|NCT02391948|181630596|OTHER||mean population value age 12|14.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.4|16.5||||||||16.5|12.4|
90883992|NCT02391948|181630597|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.02|||||Data from all GMFCS levels was used, country was included as a model covariate. OR represents the odds of children developing 'better than expected' (top 10%) vs 'as expected' (central 80%) for each unit change in family-centredness outcome.|Logistic regression comparing children progressing better than expected to those progressing as expected on the Child Engagement in Daily Life - Participation outcome for the predictor family-centred service.||2.02|1.06|
90883993|NCT02391948|181630597|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|2.03|||||Country was included as a model covariate. OR represents the odds of children developing 'better than expected' (top 10%) vs 'as expected' (central 80%) for each unit change in parents' perception of needs being met.|Logistic regression comparing children progressing better than expected to those progressing as expected on the Child Engagement in Daily Life - Participation outcome for the predictor parents' perception of needs being met.||2.03|1.07|
90883994|NCT02391948|181630597|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.38|||||Country was included as a model covariate. OR represents the odds of children developing 'better than expected' (top 10%) vs 'as expected' (central 80%) for each unit change in the amount of focus on environment.|Logistic regression comparing children progressing better than expected to those progressing as expected on the Child Engagement in Daily Life - Participation outcome for the predictor degree of focus on environment (assistive devices, equipment, home/school modifications).||1.38|0.96|
90883995|NCT02391948|181630597|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.58|||||Country was included as a model covariate. OR represents the odds of children developing 'better than expected' (top 10%) vs 'as expected' (central 80%) for each unit change in focus on participation.|Logistic regression comparing children progressing better than expected to those progressing as expected on the Child Engagement in Daily Life - Participation outcome for the predictor focus on participation (structured play/recreation/leisure activities).||1.58|1.07|
90883996|NCT02391948|181630597|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.58|||||Country was included as a model covariate. OR represents the odds of children developing 'better than expected' (top 10%) vs 'as expected' (central 80%) for each unit change in amount of physical therapy services.|Logistic regression comparing children progressing better than expected to those progressing as expected on the Child Engagement in Daily Life - Participation outcome for the predictor amount of physical therapy services.||1.58|0.72|
90883997|NCT02391948|181630597|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.28|||||Country was included as a model covariate. OR represents the odds of children developing 'better than expected' (top 10%) vs 'as expected' (central 80%) for each unit change in amount of occupational therapy services.|Logistic regression comparing children progressing better than expected to those progressing as expected on the Child Engagement in Daily Life - Participation outcome for the predictor amount of occupational therapy.||1.28|0.74|
90883998|NCT02391948|181630597|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.6|||||Country was included as a model covariate. OR represents the odds of children developing 'better than expected' (top 10%) vs 'as expected' (central 80%) for each unit change in amount of speech and language therapy.|Logistic regression comparing children progressing better than expected to those progressing as expected on the Child Engagement in Daily Life - Participation outcome for the predictor amount of speech and language therapy.||1.60|0.97|
90883999|NCT02391948|181630597|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.88|||||Country was included as a model covariate. OR represents the odds of children developing 'better than expected' (top 10%) vs 'as expected' (central 80%) for each unit change in parents' perception of needs being met.|Logistic regression comparing children progressing better than expected to those progressing as expected on the Child Engagement in Daily Life - Self Care outcome for the predictor family-centred service.||1.88|1.00|
90884000|NCT02391948|181630597|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.44|||||Country was included as a model covariate. OR represents the odds of children developing 'better than expected' (top 10%) vs 'as expected' (central 80%) for each unit change in parents' perception of needs being met.|Logistic regression comparing children progressing better than expected to those progressing as expected on the Early Clinical Assessment of Balance outcome for the predictor family-centred service.||1.44|0.78|
90884001|NCT02391948|181630597|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.26|||||Country was included as a model covariate. OR represents the odds of children developing 'better than expected' (top 10%) vs 'as expected' (central 80%) for each unit change in parents' perception of needs being met.|Logistic regression comparing children progressing better than expected to those progressing as expected on the Six Minute Walk Test outcome for the predictor family-centred service.||1.26|0.54|
90884002|NCT02391948|181630597|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.87|||||Country was included as a model covariate. OR represents the odds of children developing 'better than expected' (top 10%) vs 'as expected' (central 80%) for each unit change in parents' perception of needs being met.|Logistic regression comparing children progressing better than expected to those progressing as expected on the Child Engagement in Daily Life - Self Care outcome for the predictor parents' perception of needs being met.||1.87|1.00|
90884003|NCT02391948|181630597|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.53|||||Country was included as a model covariate. OR represents the odds of children developing 'better than expected' (top 10%) vs 'as expected' (central 80%) for each unit change in parents' perception of needs being met.|Logistic regression comparing children progressing better than expected to those progressing as expected on the Early Clinical Assessment of Balance outcome for the predictor parents' perception of needs being met.||1.53|0.83|
90963473|NCT01284062|181808140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|-26.28||||0.2016|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-46.45|-3.15|||Fisher Exact||CI was assessed by Wilson score method.|Two-sided p-value was calculated by Fisher's exact test.||-3.15|-46.45|0.2016
90963474|NCT01284062|181808141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|16.67|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|7.14|34.22|||||CI was assessed by Wilson score method.|||34.22|7.14|
90923826|NCT05201079|181720578|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.494||||||Main effect of the Group for the General Health area of the SF-36 questionnaire. F statistic (1,56) = 0.474.|ANOVA|||For each area of the SF-36 questionnaire, a mixed ANOVA for the effect of Group, Visit, and interaction effect of Group x Visit was performed. alpha = 0.0221.||||0.494
90923827|NCT05201079|181720578|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.339||||||Main effect of the Visit for the General Health area of the SF-36 questionnaire. F statistic (1,56) = 0.932.|ANOVA|||For each area of the SF-36 questionnaire, a mixed ANOVA for the effect of Group, Visit, and interaction effect of Group x Visit was performed. alpha = 0.0221.||||0.339
90923828|NCT05201079|181720578|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38||||||Main effect of the Group x Visit interaction for the General health area of the SF-36 questionnaire. F statistic (1,56) = 0.783.|ANOVA|||For each area of the SF-36 questionnaire, a mixed ANOVA for the effect of Group, Visit, and interaction effect of Group x Visit was performed. alpha = 0.0221.||||0.380
90923829|NCT05201079|181720578|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79||||||Main effect of the Group for the Vitality area of the SF-36 questionnaire. F statistic (1,56) = 0.072|ANOVA|||For each area of the SF-36 questionnaire, a mixed ANOVA for the effect of Group, Visit, and interaction effect of Group x Visit was performed. alpha = 0.0221.||||0.790
90923830|NCT05201079|181720578|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.498||||||Main effect of the Visit for the Vitality area of the SF-36 questionnaire. F statistic (1,56) = 0.465.|ANOVA|||For each area of the SF-36 questionnaire, a mixed ANOVA for the effect of Group, Visit, and interaction effect of Group x Visit was performed. alpha = 0.0221.||||0.498
90923831|NCT05201079|181720578|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.023||||||Main effect of the Group x Visit interaction for the Vitality area of the SF-36 questionnaire. F statistic (1,56) = 5.490.|ANOVA|||For each area of the SF-36 questionnaire, a mixed ANOVA for the effect of Group, Visit, and interaction effect of Group x Visit was performed. alpha = 0.0221.||||0.023
90923832|NCT05201079|181720578|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.553||||||Main effect of the Group for the Social role area of the SF-36 questionnaire. F statistic (1,56) = 0.356.|ANOVA|||For each area of the SF-36 questionnaire, a mixed ANOVA for the effect of Group, Visit, and interaction effect of Group x Visit was performed. alpha = 0.0221.||||0.553
90923833|NCT05201079|181720578|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.718||||||Main effect of the Visit for the Social role area of the SF-36 questionnaire. F statistic (1,56) = 0.132.|ANOVA|||For each area of the SF-36 questionnaire, a mixed ANOVA for the effect of Group, Visit, and interaction effect of Group x Visit was performed. alpha = 0.0221.||||0.718
90923834|NCT05201079|181720578|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.574||||||Main effect of the Group x Visit interaction for the Social role area of the SF-36 questionnaire. F statistic (1,56) = 0.319.|ANOVA|||For each area of the SF-36 questionnaire, a mixed ANOVA for the effect of Group, Visit, and interaction effect of Group x Visit was performed. alpha = 0.0221.||||0.574
90923835|NCT05201079|181720578|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49||||||Main effect of the Group for the Emotional role area of the SF-36 questionnaire. F statistic (1,56) = 0.482.|ANOVA|||For each area of the SF-36 questionnaire, a mixed ANOVA for the effect of Group, Visit, and interaction effect of Group x Visit was performed. alpha = 0.0221.||||0.490
90923836|NCT05201079|181720578|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.032||||||Main effect of the Visit for the Emotional role area of the SF-36 questionnaire. F statistic (1,56) = 4.850|ANOVA|||For each area of the SF-36 questionnaire, a mixed ANOVA for the effect of Group, Visit, and interaction effect of Group x Visit was performed. alpha = 0.0221.||||0.032
90923837|NCT05201079|181720578|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.145||||||Main effect of the Group x Visit interaction for the Emotional role area of the SF-36 questionnaire. F statistic (1,56) = 2.181.|ANOVA|||For each area of the SF-36 questionnaire, a mixed ANOVA for the effect of Group, Visit, and interaction effect of Group x Visit was performed. alpha = 0.0221.||||0.145
90923838|NCT05201079|181720578|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.467||||||Main effect of the Group for the Mental health area of the SF-36 questionnaire. F statistic (1,56) = 0.535.|ANOVA|||For each area of the SF-36 questionnaire, a mixed ANOVA for the effect of Group, Visit, and interaction effect of Group x Visit was performed. alpha = 0.0221.||||0.467
90923839|NCT05201079|181720578|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1||||||Main effect of the Visit for the Mental health area of the SF-36 questionnaire. F statistic (1,56) = 2.795|ANOVA|||For each area of the SF-36 questionnaire, a mixed ANOVA for the effect of Group, Visit, and interaction effect of Group x Visit was performed. alpha = 0.0221.||||0.100
90923840|NCT05201079|181720578|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89||||||Main effect of the Group x Visit interaction for the Mental health area of the SF-36 questionnaire. F statistic (1,56) = 0.019.|ANOVA|||For each area of the SF-36 questionnaire, a mixed ANOVA for the effect of Group, Visit, and interaction effect of Group x Visit was performed. alpha = 0.0221.||||0.890
90923841|NCT05201079|181720578|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.742||||||Main effect of the Group for the Physical Role area of the SF-36 questionnaire. F statistic (1,56) = 0.109.|ANOVA|||For each area of the SF-36 questionnaire, a mixed ANOVA for the effect of Group, Visit, and interaction effect of Group x Visit was performed. alpha = 0.0221.||||0.742
90923842|NCT05201079|181720578|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Main effect of the Visit for the Physical Role area of the SF-36 questionnaire. F statistic (1,56) = 21.912. Effect size = 0.109.|ANOVA|||For each area of the SF-36 questionnaire, a mixed ANOVA for the effect of Group, Visit, and interaction effect of Group x Visit was performed. alpha = 0.0221.||||<0.001
90923843|NCT05201079|181720578|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.089||||||Main effect of the Group x Visit interaction for the Physical Role area of the SF-36 questionnaire. F statistic (1,56) = 2.986.|ANOVA|||For each area of the SF-36 questionnaire, a mixed ANOVA for the effect of Group, Visit, and interaction effect of Group x Visit was performed. alpha = 0.0221.||||0.089
90923844|NCT05825755|181720579|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.252|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.252
90923845|NCT05825755|181720580|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||||||1.0
90923846|NCT05825755|181720581|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.791|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.791
90923847|NCT05977530|181720610|SUPERIORITY||comparison of ranks in Wilcoxon|0.0|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<.01
90923848|NCT04898673|181720631|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.08|-4.37|||ANOVA|||||-4.37|-6.08|<0.001
90923849|NCT04898673|181720632|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.39||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.31|3.51|||ANOVA|||||3.51|-2.31|0.670
90923850|NCT04898673|181720633|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin=-10% words correct; CP1110 non-inferior to CP1000 if the lower limit of the confidence interval for the difference \> -10% words correct.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.55||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|-0.5|||ANOVA|||||-0.50|-7.00|0.026
90923851|NCT04898673|181720634|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin=-10% words correct; CP1110 non-inferior to CP1000 if the lower limit of the confidence interval for the difference \> -10% words correct.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.37||0.411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.02|1.72|||ANOVA|||||1.72|-4.02|0.411
90923852|NCT05778695|181720673|OTHER|A comparison is not being made between two different treatment groups. Exploratory analysis|Median Difference (Net)|-14.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.02||0.875|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.875
90923853|NCT05778695|181720673|OTHER|A comparison is not being made between two different treatment groups. Exploratory analysis|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.166||0.739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.026|12.026||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||12.026|-16.026|0.739
90923854|NCT05778695|181720674|OTHER|A comparison is not being made between two different treatment groups. Exploratory analysis|Median Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.34||0.37|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.37
90923855|NCT03701763|181720734|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Adjusted Difference|21.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.2|32.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||32.1|11.2|<0.0001
90923856|NCT03701763|181720735|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Adjusted Difference|29.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.8|40.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||40.9|17.8|<0.0001
90923857|NCT03701763|181720736|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Adjusted Difference|38.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.6|51.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||51.2|25.6|<0.0001
90923858|NCT03701763|181720737|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-26.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.572|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.93|-18.0|||ANCOVA|||||-18.00|-35.93|<0.0001
90923859|NCT03701763|181720738|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-34.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.229|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.99|-22.55|||ANCOVA|||||-22.55|-46.99|< 0.0001
90923860|NCT03701763|181720739|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Adjusted Difference|4.1||||0.5616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|18.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||18.0|-9.8|0.5616
90923861|NCT03701763|181720740|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-1.8||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-0.8|||ANCOVA|||||-0.8|-2.9|0.0009
90923862|NCT04164888|181720769|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean|-84.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.137|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-98.95|-70.18|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with LOCF||Applying the LOCF method (Last Observation Carried Forward) did not result in any changes at Day 29 or Day 57 due to the lack of missing values and resulted in similar results at Day 85.||-70.18|-98.95|<0.0001
90923863|NCT04164888|181720769|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean|-80.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.018|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-94.58|-66.29|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with LOCF||Applying the LOCF method (Last Observation Carried Forward) did not result in any changes at Day 29 or Day 57 due to the lack of missing values and resulted in similar results at Day 85.||-66.29|-94.58|<0.0001
90923864|NCT04164888|181720769|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean|-84.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.009|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-99.0|-70.75|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with LOCF||Applying the LOCF method (Last Observation Carried Forward) did not result in any changes at Day 29 or Day 57 due to the lack of missing values and resulted in similar results at Day 85.||-70.75|-99.00|<0.0001
90923865|NCT04164888|181720770|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean|-48.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.46|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.06|-32.99|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with LOCF||Similar changes from baseline were observed for Day 29, Day 57, and Day 85 compared to Day 29, Day 57, and Day 85 LOCF.||-32.99|-63.06|<0.0001
90963475|NCT01284062|181808141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|33.33|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|20.08|49.88|||||CI was assessed by Wilson score method.|||49.88|20.08|
90923866|NCT04164888|181720770|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean|-49.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.396|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.5|34.69|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with LOCF||Similar changes from baseline were observed for Day 29, Day 57, and Day 85 compared to Day 29, Day 57, and Day 85 LOCF.||34.69|-64.50|<0.0001
90923867|NCT04164888|181720770|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean|-51.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.616|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.34|-36.64|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with LOCF||Similar changes from baseline were observed for Day 29, Day 57, and Day 85 compared to Day 29, Day 57, and Day 85 LOCF.||-36.64|-67.34|<0.0001
90923868|NCT04828005|181720779|NON_INFERIORITY|Alternative hypothesis: Nalmefene reversal not less than 80% naloxone reversal|||||<|0.0009|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0009
90923869|NCT03339713|181720795|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of Group 2 versus Group 1 in terms of the HI antibody titers against all four influenza vaccine strains 28 days after the administration of influenza vaccine, using a non-inferiority margin of 2 for the GMT ratio (Group 2 / Group 1).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.55|1.11|||t-test, 1 sided|||A/Michigan strain: Based on Welch-Satterthwaite t-interval method. The difference (Group 2 minus Group 1) and CI in log-transformed HI antibody titers were calculated for each of the 4 influenza vaccine strains, and were back-transformed (by exponentiation) to a GMT ratio (Group 2 / Group 1) and the corresponding CI.||1.11|0.55|<.001
90923870|NCT03339713|181720795|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of Group 2 versus Group 1 in terms of the HI antibody titers against all four influenza vaccine strains 28 days after the administration of influenza vaccine, using a non-inferiority margin of 2 for the GMT ratio (Group 2 / Group 1).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.59|1.12|||t-test, 1 sided|||A/Hong Kong strain: Based on Welch-Satterthwaite t-interval method. The difference (Group 2 minus Group 1) and CI in log-transformed HI antibody titers were calculated for each of the 4 influenza vaccine strains, and were back-transformed (by exponentiation) to a GMT ratio (Group 2 / Group 1) and the corresponding CI.||1.12|0.59|<.001
90940696|NCT01723514|181761248|SUPERIORITY||LS Geometric Mean Ratio|3.44||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.78|80.66|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Day 169: A repeated measures ANCOVA was performed for the ratio of blood flow measures at 30 minutes post capsaicin challenge to pre capsaicin challenge. The model included treatment, day, and the treatment by day interaction as independent variables, and both the 0 minute pre-capsaicin blood flow measure as well as the day 0, 30-minute post-capsaicin blood flow measures on day -1 .||80.66|-40.78|0.90
90940697|NCT01723514|181761248|SUPERIORITY||LS Geometric Mean Ratio|-40.53||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.5|8.82|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Day 169: A repeated measures ANCOVA was performed for the ratio of blood flow measures at 30 minutes post capsaicin challenge to pre capsaicin challenge. The model included treatment, day, and the treatment by day interaction as independent variables, and both the 0 minute pre-capsaicin blood flow measure as well as the day 0, 30-minute post-capsaicin blood flow measures on day -1 .||8.82|-67.50|0.091
90963476|NCT01284062|181808141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|18.75|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|9.4|33.92|||||CI was assessed by Wilson score method.|||33.92|9.40|
90963477|NCT01284062|181808141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.0|11.22|||||CI was assessed by Wilson score method.|||11.22|0.00|
90963478|NCT01284062|181808141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|16.67||||0.4082|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.33|35.76|||Fisher Exact||CI was assessed by Wilson score method.|Two-sided p-value was calculated by Fisher's exact test.||35.76|-5.33|0.4082
90963479|NCT01284062|181808141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|2.08||||1|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-17.8|19.99|||Fisher Exact||CI was assessed by Wilson score method.|Two-sided p-value was calculated by Fisher's exact test.||19.99|-17.80|1.0000
90963480|NCT01284062|181808141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|-16.67||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-34.22|-1.95|||Fisher Exact||CI was assessed by Wilson score method.|Two-sided p-value was calculated by Fisher's exact test.||-1.95|-34.22|0.2200
90963481|NCT01284062|181808142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.332|-0.3||||||||-0.300|-2.332|
90963482|NCT01284062|181808142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-2.28|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.19|-1.374||||||||-1.374|-3.190|
90923871|NCT03339713|181720795|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of Group 2 versus Group 1 in terms of the HI antibody titers against all four influenza vaccine strains 28 days after the administration of influenza vaccine, using a non-inferiority margin of 2 for the GMT ratio (Group 2 / Group 1).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.77|1.34|||t-test, 1 sided|||B/Brisbane strain: Based on Welch-Satterthwaite t-interval method. The difference (Group 2 minus Group 1) and CI in log-transformed HI antibody titers were calculated for each of the 4 influenza vaccine strains, and were back-transformed (by exponentiation) to a GMT ratio (Group 2 / Group 1) and the corresponding CI.||1.34|0.77|<.001
90923872|NCT03339713|181720795|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of Group 2 versus Group 1 in terms of the HI antibody titers against all four influenza vaccine strains 28 days after the administration of influenza vaccine, using a non-inferiority margin of 2 for the GMT ratio (Group 2 / Group 1).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.76|1.36|||t-test, 1 sided|||B/Phuket strain: Based on Welch-Satterthwaite t-interval method. The difference (Group 2 minus Group 1) and CI in log-transformed HI antibody titers were calculated for each of the 4 influenza vaccine strains, and were back-transformed (by exponentiation) to a GMT ratio (Group 2 / Group 1) and the corresponding CI.||1.36|0.76|<.001
90923873|NCT03381196|181720820|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0216|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon test|||||||0.0216
90923874|NCT03628924|181720844|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|12.6|||=|0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|29.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||29.8|-4.6|= 0.166
90923875|NCT03628924|181720844|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|6.6|||=|0.459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|23.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||23.6|-10.3|= 0.459
90923876|NCT03031470|181720944|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.688|||||||Fisher Exact|Analysis is based on exact Fisher test to compare treatments.||||||0.688
90923877|NCT03031470|181720945|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Fisher Exact|Analysis is based on exact Fisher test to compare treatments.||||||0.700
90923878|NCT03031470|181720946|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|Treatment groups were compared for frequency of allograft nonfunction using Fisher exact test||||||>0.999
90923879|NCT03031470|181720947|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.308|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.308
90923880|NCT03031470|181720948|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.601|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.601
90963483|NCT01284062|181808142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.178|-1.419||||||||-1.419|-3.178|
90963484|NCT01284062|181808142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.761|0.19||||||||0.190|-1.761|
90963485|NCT01284062|181808142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.97||||0.3639|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.335|0.403|||ANCOVA|||P-value was analyzed from ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group and baseline.||0.403|-2.335|0.3639
90963486|NCT01284062|181808142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.98||||0.3446|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.32|0.355|||ANCOVA|||P-value was analyzed from ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group and baseline.||0.355|-2.320|0.3446
90963487|NCT01284062|181808142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.53||||0.6285|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.884|1.945|||ANCOVA|||P-value was analyzed from ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group and baseline.||1.945|-0.884|0.6285
90963488|NCT01026142|181808184|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.0731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.02||The primary endpoint, IRF-assessed PFS, is tested at a two-sided 5% significance level.|Log Rank|Two-sided and stratified by: prior CNS disease present/absent, measurable disease at baseline, and response to trastuzumab in 1L metastatic setting.|The stratified Cox proportional hazard model will be used to estimate the HR between the two treatment arms and its 95% CI.|"The null hypothesis for the primary endpoint is that the survival distributions of IRF-assessed PFS in the two treatment groups are the same. The alternative hypothesis is that the survival distributions of IRF-assessed PFS in the treatment and the control arms are different:~H0: IRF PFS\<pertuzumab\> = IRF PFS\<control\> vs. H1: IRF PFS\<pertuzumab\> ≠ IRF PFS\<control\>"||1.02|0.65|0.0731
90963489|NCT04722250|181808198|NON_INFERIORITY|The endpoint is designed to test whether the Medtronic SE TAV is non-inferior to Edwards BE TAV in the composite event rate of all-cause mortality, disabling stroke or heart failure rehospitalization at 12 months post-procedure with an absolute non-inferiority margin of 8.0%.|Risk Difference (RD)|-1.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.9|2.5|||z-test on Kaplan-Meier percentages|||||2.5|-4.9|<0.001
90963490|NCT04722250|181808199|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-32.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.7|-25.6|||z-test on Kaplan-Meier percentages|||||-25.6|-38.7|<0.001
90963491|NCT03829319|181808248|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.07976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.05|||Stratified Log Rank|Two-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG performance status, geographic region of the enrolling site, and baseline PD-L1 status.||Comparison based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 versus 1), geographic region of the enrolling site (East Asia versus non-East Asia), and Baseline PD-L1 Status (\<50% versus \>=50%).||1.05|0.74|0.07976
90963492|NCT03829319|181808249|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.70818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.26|||Stratified Log Rank|Two-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG performance status, geographic region of the enrolling site, and baseline PD-L1 status.||Comparison based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 versus 1), geographic region of the enrolling site (East Asia versus non-East Asia), and Baseline PD-L1 Status (\<50% versus \>=50%).||1.26|0.88|0.70818
90923881|NCT03031470|181720950|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.574|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Reparixin and Control groups will be compared for degree of allograft steatosis using Cochran-Mantel-Hensel (CMH) test with control EAD.||||||0.574
90923882|NCT03031470|181720951|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.843|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Reparixin and Control groups will be compared for duration of cold ischemia using Cochran-Mantel-Hensel (CMH) test with control EAD.||||||0.843
90923883|NCT03031470|181720952|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.701|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Reparixin and Control groups will be compared for duration of earm ischemia using Cochran-Mantel-Hensel (CMH) test with control EAD.||||||0.701
90923884|NCT03031470|181720962|SUPERIORITY|"General survival and graft survival (graft loss will be qualified as an event for graft survival) within 1 year were presented with Kaplan-Mayer curves and survival time median with 95% CI. Treatment groups will be compared using logrank test."||||||0.416|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.416
90923885|NCT03435614|181720975|OTHER||||||||||||||||||We selected the individual signs and symptoms associated with the presence of OIWS based on a difference of greater than 15 % in the assessments between the group with OIWS and the group not displaying OIWS. This 15 % difference was judged to be of clinical significance. The signs and symptoms which did not meet this difference were not considered (data not available).|||
90923886|NCT03216057|181720997|SUPERIORITY|The sample size was calculated that 130 subjects randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the 2 arms have 85% power to detect a difference of at least 20% in triglyceride percentage changes compared with placebo at week 12, assuming a common standard deviation in percentage change of 35%, a 2-sided α = 0.05, and we add 20% for lost follow-up, finally the number of subjects for each arm was 65.|Mean Difference (Net)|-24.5|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.7|-16.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-16.2|-32.7|<0.01
90923887|NCT03216057|181720998|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-59.9|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.0|-36.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-36.8|-83.0|<0.01
90923888|NCT03216057|181720999|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.0||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.1|-1.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-1.9|-16.1|0.01
90923889|NCT03216057|181721000|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.9||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.8|6.05|||t-test, 2 sided|||||6.05|-15.8|0.3
90923890|NCT03216057|181721001|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.4|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.2|-3.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-3.5|-21.2|<0.01
90923891|NCT03216057|181721002|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.2||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|-0.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.3|-4.1|0.02
90923892|NCT03216057|181721003|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|3.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.8|-6.3|0.6
90923893|NCT03216057|181721004|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.9||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|4.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.9|-0.9|0.1
90923894|NCT03216057|181721005|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|13.4|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.8|21.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||21|5.8|<0.01
90923895|NCT03216057|181721006|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.2|0.4|<0.01
90923896|NCT06044090|181721050|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.856|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.856
90923897|NCT06044090|181721050|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.613|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.613
90923898|NCT06044090|181721051|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||1.000
90923899|NCT06044090|181721051|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.691|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.691
90923900|NCT06044090|181721052|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.225|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.225
90923901|NCT06044090|181721052|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.667|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.667
90923902|NCT03133546|181721084|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.37||significance level: 5%|Regression, Cox|Univariate Cox for PFS with treatment effect only|The HR for Osimertinib plus Bevacizumab versus Osimertinib alone is provided.|"Assumption: Median PFS with osimertinib 11 months Target: Detect a 36% improvement in PFS (HR=0.64, corresponding to an increase in median PFS to 17.2 months) under osimertinib and bevacizumab (80% power, at one-sided significant level of 5%)~126 events required"||1.37|0.68|0.84
90923903|NCT05034328|181721091|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
90923904|NCT05034328|181721092|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.063||||0.7026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.778|1.451|||Regression, Cox|||For each item 2 to 7 of the WURSS-K questionnaire, the impact of the treament chosen on the corresponding common cold symptom duration was analyzed by means of Cox model and p-value (Wald) calculated||1.451|0.778|0.7026
90923905|NCT05034328|181721093|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.078||||0.6322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.792|1.469|||Regression, Cox|||For each item 2 to 7 of the WURSS-K questionnaire, the impact of the treatment chosen on the corresponding common cold symptom duration was analyzed by means of Cox model and p-value (Wald) calculated||1.469|0.792|0.6322
90923906|NCT05034328|181721094|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.992||||0.9598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.726|1.356|||Regression, Cox|||For each item 2 to 7 of the WURSS-K questionnaire, the impact of the treatment chosen on the corresponding common cold symptom duration was analyzed by means of Cox model and p-value (Wald) calculated||1.356|0.726|0.9598
90923907|NCT05034328|181721095|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.333||||0.1016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.945|1.88|||Regression, Cox|||For each item 2 to 7 of the WURSS-K questionnaire, the impact of the treatment chosen on the corresponding common cold symptom duration was analyzed by means of Cox model and p-value (Wald) calculated||1.880|0.945|0.1016
90923908|NCT05034328|181721096|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.153||||0.3954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.601|||Regression, Cox|||For each item 2 to 7 of the WURSS-K questionnaire, the impact of the treatment chosen on the corresponding common cold symptom duration was analyzed by means of Cox model and p-value (Wald) calculated||1.601|0.830|0.3954
90923909|NCT05034328|181721097|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.218||||1.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.871|1.703|||Regression, Cox|||For each item 2 to 7 of the WURSS-K questionnaire, the impact of the treatment chosen on the corresponding common cold symptom duration was analyzed by means of Cox model and p-value (Wald) calculated||1.703|0.871|1.218
90923910|NCT05034328|181721098|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Regression, Logistic|||The impact of the treatment chosen on the risk to develop respiratory complication requiring antibiotic prescription during a 20-day follow-up was analyzed by a multivariate logistic model||||>0.05
90923911|NCT05034328|181721099|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.335||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.174|0.644|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.644|0.174|0.0010
90923912|NCT03468868|181721109|NON_INFERIORITY|We chose a non-inferiority margin of 10% (or 0.10 feet per second) for this population.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.1|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.44|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.44|-0.14|<0.01
91034536|NCT00913627|181955170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|77.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.57|92.06||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||240 minutes||92.06|63.57|<0.001
90923913|NCT03468868|181721110|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|72.46|STANDARD_DEVIATION|384.1||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.56|174.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||174.5|-29.56|0.16
90923914|NCT03468868|181721111|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.71|STANDARD_DEVIATION|24.96||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.84|1.41|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.41|-10.84|0.13
90923915|NCT03468868|181721112|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.88|STANDARD_DEVIATION|18.22||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.55|5.32|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.32|-3.55|0.70
90923916|NCT03468868|181721113|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.66|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.71||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|2.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||NeuroQOL Anxiety Domain||2.30|-0.97|0.43
90923917|NCT03468868|181721113|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.16||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|1.74|||t-test, 2 sided|||NeuroQOL Depression Domain||1.74|-1.26|0.75
91034537|NCT00913627|181955170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|58.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.88|75.84||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||240 minutes||75.84|41.88|<0.001
90923918|NCT03468868|181721113|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.87|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.54||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.71|0.97|||t-test, 2 sided|||NeuroQOL Fatigue Domain||0.97|-2.71|0.35
90923919|NCT03468868|181721113|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.83||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.99|||t-test, 2 sided|||NeuroQOL Upper Extremity Function Domain||0.99|-0.88|0.91
90963493|NCT03829319|181808250|OTHER||Percent Difference|6.3||||0.08643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|15.4|||Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen|One-sided p-value for testing. H0: difference in percent = 0 versus H1: difference in percent \> 0.||Comparison based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by ECOG performance status (0 versus 1), geographic region of the enrolling site (East Asia versus non-East Asia), and Baseline PD-L1 Status (\<50% versus \>=50% ).||15.4|-2.8|0.08643
90923920|NCT03468868|181721113|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.52|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.44||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.85|||t-test, 2 sided|||NeuroQOL Lower Extremity Function Domain||2.85|0.20|0.02
90923921|NCT03468868|181721113|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.89||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|0.76|||t-test, 2 sided|||NeuroQOL Cognitive Function Domain||0.76|-2.54|0.29
90923922|NCT03468868|181721113|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.08||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|2.42|||t-test, 2 sided|||NeuroQOL Emotional and Behavioral Dyscontrol Domain||2.42|-0.26|0.11
90923923|NCT03468868|181721113|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.55|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.13||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|2.28|||t-test, 2 sided|||NeuroQOL Positive Affect and Well-Being Domain||2.28|-1.19|0.54
90923924|NCT03468868|181721113|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.76||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.81|||t-test, 2 sided|||NeuroQOL Sleep Disturbance Domain||0.81|-2.00|0.41
90923925|NCT03468868|181721113|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.65||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|2.02|||t-test, 2 sided|||NeuroQOL Ability to Participate in Social Roles and Activities Domain||2.02|-1.22|0.63
90923926|NCT03468868|181721113|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.65|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.44||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|2.47|||t-test, 2 sided|||NeuroQOL Satisfaction with Social Roles and Activities Domain||2.47|-1.16|0.48
90923927|NCT03468868|181721113|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.68||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|1.45|||t-test, 2 sided|||NeuroQOL Stigma Domain||1.45|-1.32|0.92
90923928|NCT03468868|181721113|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.45||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|0.37|||t-test, 2 sided|||NeuroQOL Communication Domain||0.37|-1.31|0.28
90923929|NCT03468868|181721114|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.48|STANDARD_DEVIATION|20.63||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.55|2.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||MSIS Physical||2.60|-7.55|0.34
90923930|NCT03468868|181721114|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.38|STANDARD_DEVIATION|21.37||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.63|3.88|||t-test, 2 sided|||MSIS Psychological||3.88|-6.63|0.24
90923931|NCT03468868|181721115|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.91||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|2.56|||t-test, 2 sided|||MFIS Cognitive||2.56|-1.83|0.74
90923932|NCT03468868|181721115|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.03||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.07|-0.12|||t-test, 2 sided|||MFIS Physical||-0.12|-4.07|0.04
91034538|NCT00913627|181955170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|69.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.33|85.33||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||300 minutes||85.33|53.33|<0.001
91034539|NCT00913627|181955170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|77.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.57|92.06||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||300 minutes||92.06|63.57|<0.001
91034540|NCT00913627|181955170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|58.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.88|75.84||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||300 minutes||75.84|41.88|<0.001
90884004|NCT02391948|181630597|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.3|||||Country was included as a model covariate. OR represents the odds of children developing 'better than expected' (top 10%) vs 'as expected' (central 80%) for each unit change in parents' perception of needs being met.|Logistic regression comparing children progressing better than expected to those progressing as expected on the Six Minute Walk Test outcome for the predictor parents' perception of needs being met.||1.3|0.59|
90884005|NCT02391948|181630597|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.29|||||Country was included as a model covariate. OR represents the odds of children developing 'better than expected' (top 10%) vs 'as expected' (central 80%) for each unit change in parents' perception of needs being met.|Logistic regression comparing children progressing better than expected to those progressing as expected on the Child Engagement in Daily Life - Self Care outcome for the predictor degree of focus on environment (assistive devices, equipment, home/school modifications).||1.29|0.9|
90884006|NCT02391948|181630597|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.22||||||Logistic regression comparing children progressing better than expected to those progressing as expected on the Early Clinical Assessment of Balance outcome for the predictor degree of focus on environment (assistive devices, equipment, home/school modifications).||1.22|0.86|
90884007|NCT02391948|181630597|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.13|||||Country was included as a model covariate. OR represents the odds of children developing 'better than expected' (top 10%) vs 'as expected' (central 80%) for each unit change in parents' perception of needs being met.|Logistic regression comparing children progressing better than expected to those progressing as expected on the Six Minute Walk Test outcome for the predictor degree of focus on environment (assistive devices, equipment, home/school modifications).||1.13|0.7|
90884008|NCT02391948|181630597|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.31|||||Country was included as a model covariate. OR represents the odds of children developing 'better than expected' (top 10%) vs 'as expected' (central 80%) for each unit change in parents' perception of needs being met.|Logistic regression comparing children progressing better than expected to those progressing as expected on the Child Engagement in Daily Life - Self Care outcome for the predictor focus on participation (structured play/recreation/leisure activities).||1.31|0.9|
90923933|NCT03468868|181721115|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.17||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.39|||t-test, 2 sided|||MFIS Psychosocial||0.39|-0.68|0.59
90923934|NCT03468868|181721115|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.88|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.0||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.05|2.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||MFIS Total||2.30|-6.05|0.38
90923935|NCT03468868|181721116|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.18||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.29|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.29|-0.34|0.87
90963494|NCT03829319|181808254|OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|-1.01||||0.4805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.83|1.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparision based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors (baseline ECOG performance status (0 versus 1), geographic region of the enrolling site (East Asia versus non-East Asia), and baseline PD-L1 Status ( \<50% versus ≥50%)) as covariates.||1.80|-3.83|0.4805
90923936|NCT03468868|181721117|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.54|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.21||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|0.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.00|-1.08|0.05
90923937|NCT05399459|181721118|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted percentage difference|19.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|26.8|||Mantel Haenszel||Adjusted percentage difference (rimegepant 75 mg - placebo) stratified by randomization stratum with Mantel-Haenszel weighting.|||26.8|12.0|<0.0001
90923938|NCT05399459|181721119|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted percentage difference|22.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.5|30.9|||Mantel Haenszel||Adjusted percentage difference (rimegepant 75 mg - placebo) stratified by randomization stratum with Mantel-Haenszel weighting.|||30.9|14.5|<0.0001
90923939|NCT05399459|181721120|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted percentage difference|14.8||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.9|23.6|||Mantel Haenszel||Adjusted percentage difference (rimegepant 75 mg- placebo) stratified by randomization stratum with Mantel-Haenszel weighting.|||23.6|5.9|0.0011
90923940|NCT05399459|181721121|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted percentage difference|18.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.1|27.4|||Mantel Haenszel||Adjusted percentage difference (rimegepant 75 mg- placebo) stratified by randomization stratum with Mantel-Haenszel weighting.|||27.4|10.1|<0.0001
91034541|NCT00913627|181955170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|69.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.33|85.33||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||360 minutes||85.33|53.33|<0.001
90884009|NCT02391948|181630597|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.32|||||Country was included as a model covariate. OR represents the odds of children developing 'better than expected' (top 10%) vs 'as expected' (central 80%) for each unit change in parents' perception of needs being met.|Logistic regression comparing children progressing better than expected to those progressing as expected on the Early Clinical Assessment of Balance outcome for the predictor focus on participation (structured play/recreation/leisure activities).||1.32|0.91|
90884010|NCT02391948|181630597|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.24|||||Country was included as a model covariate. OR represents the odds of children developing 'better than expected' (top 10%) vs 'as expected' (central 80%) for each unit change in parents' perception of needs being met.|Logistic regression comparing children progressing better than expected to those progressing as expected on the Six Minute Walk Test outcome for the predictor focus on participation (structured play/recreation/leisure activities).||1.24|0.76|
90884011|NCT02391948|181630597|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.15|||||Country was included as a model covariate. OR represents the odds of children developing 'better than expected' (top 10%) vs 'as expected' (central 80%) for each unit change in parents' perception of needs being met.|Logistic regression comparing children progressing better than expected to those progressing as expected on the Child Engagement in Daily Life - Self Care outcome for the predictor amount of physical therapy services.||1.15|.7|
90884012|NCT02391948|181630597|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.48|||||Country was included as a model covariate. OR represents the odds of children developing 'better than expected' (top 10%) vs 'as expected' (central 80%) for each unit change in parents' perception of needs being met.|Logistic regression comparing children progressing better than expected to those progressing as expected on the Six Minute Walk Test outcome for the predictor amount of physical therapy services.||1.48|.74|
90923941|NCT05399459|181721122|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted percentage difference|31.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.2|40.3|||Mantel Haenszel||Adjusted percentage difference (rimegepant 75 mg- placebo) stratified by randomization stratum with Mantel-Haenszel weighting.|||40.3|23.2|<0.0001
90923942|NCT05399459|181721123|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted percentage difference|-19.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.8|-11.6|||Mantel Haenszel||Adjusted percentage difference (rimegepant 75 mg- placebo) stratified by randomization stratum with Mantel-Haenszel weighting.|||-11.6|-27.8|<0.0001
90923943|NCT05399459|181721124|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted percentage difference|33.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.7|41.6|||Mantel Haenszel||Adjusted percentage difference (rimegepant 75 mg- placebo) stratified by randomization stratum with Mantel-Haenszel weighting.|||41.6|24.7|<0.0001
90923944|NCT05399459|181721125|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted percentage difference|10.1||||0.0707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|21.1||P-value \> 0.05; therefore, all secondary outcome measures listed after this outcome measure in the hierarchy were not tested.|Mantel Haenszel||Adjusted percentage difference (rimegepant 75 mg- placebo) stratified by randomization stratum with Mantel-Haenszel weighting.|||21.1|-0.9|0.0707
90923945|NCT02969707|181721172|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035|||||||t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test||Examining the Change in sum of positive z-transformed CC.||||0.035
90923946|NCT02969707|181721172|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7||||||2-sample t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||Examining the change in sum of all z-transformed CC.||||0.7
91034542|NCT00913627|181955170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|77.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.57|92.06||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||360 minutes||92.06|63.57|<0.001
90923947|NCT02969707|181721172|SUPERIORITY|2-sample t-test||||||0.11|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Examining the change in sum of negative z-transformed CC.||||0.11
90923948|NCT02969707|181721172|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|61.98||||0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|One sample(paired) t-test||Examining the change in positive functional connectivity between the L-DLPFC and the dACC within the active group from pre to post TMS.||||0.008
90923949|NCT02969707|181721174|OTHER||Mann-Whitney U statistic|601.0||||0.046|TWO_SIDED||||||Mann-Whitney U-test 2-tailed|||Non-parametric analysis, comparison of change (post-treatment minus pre-treatment)||||0.046
90923950|NCT02969707|181721174|OTHER||Cohen's R|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Estimate of effect size|Non-parametric analysis, comparison of change (post-treatment minus pre-treatment)||||
90923951|NCT02969707|181721175|SUPERIORITY|We assessed the superiority of active over sham.|Mann-Whitney U statistic|702.5|||=|0.412|TWO_SIDED||||||Mann-Whitney U-test 2-tailed|||Pre- to post-rTMS change in HIS scores were calculated for both Active and Sham conditions. Two-tailed t-tests were used to evaluate the difference between the two conditions' change scores.||||=.412
90923952|NCT02969707|181721178|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.037|||||||t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test||||||0.037
90923953|NCT02969707|181721178|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.063|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.063
90923954|NCT02969707|181721178|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.31
90923955|NCT02969707|181721183|SUPERIORITY|We assessed the superiority of active over sham.|Cohen's d|-0.234||||0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed-effects model|||We used standard mixed-effects modeling to estimate the change (slope) in pain in our 2\*2 pre- and post-assessment design. Pain ratings were calculated by averaging pain ratings across 5 assessments under four conditions (TMS with hypnosis, TMS without hypnosis, Sham with hypnosis, Sham without hypnosis). Based on these change estimates, we derived the two main effects (TMS, Hypnosis) and their interaction effect on the change in pain from the pre- to post-treatment assessment.||||0.49
90923956|NCT02969707|181721184|SUPERIORITY|We assessed the superiority of active over sham.|||||=|0.454|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre- to post-rTMS change in SOARS scores were calculated for both Active and Sham conditions. Two-tailed t-tests were used to evaluate the difference between the two conditions' change scores.||||=.454
90923957|NCT02969707|181721185|OTHER|Linear regression was used to evaluate the scalar relationship between E/I ratio as it relates to water and Thermal Pain Tolerance with E/I as the independent variable and Thermal Pain Tolerance as the dependent variable.||||||0.023|||||||Regression, Linear|(R² = .104, F(2,48) = 2.794, β = .320, p = .023)||In people with FMS, the linear relationship between Thermal Pain Tolerance and E/I ratio as it relates to water was assessed.||||0.023
90923958|NCT02969707|181721185|OTHER|Linear regression was used to evaluate the scalar relationship between E/I ratio as it relates to water and Thermal Pain Threshold with E/I as the independent variable and Thermal Pain Threshold as the dependent variable.||||||0.043|||||||Regression, Linear|(R² = .081, F(1,49) = 4.315, β = .284, p = .043)||In people with FMS, the linear relationship between Thermal Pain Threshold and E/I ratio as it relates to water was assessed.||||0.043
90923959|NCT02969707|181721185|OTHER|Linear regression was used to evaluate the scalar relationship between E/I ratio as it relates to creatine and Thermal Pain Tolerance with E/I as the independent variable and Thermal Pain Tolerance as the dependent variable.||||||0.022|||||||Regression, Linear|(R² = .103, F(1,49) = 5.632, β = .321, p = .022)||In people with FMS, the linear relationship between Thermal Pain Tolerance and E/I ratio as it relates to creatine was assessed.||||0.022
90923960|NCT02969707|181721185|OTHER|Linear regression was used to evaluate the scalar relationship between E/I ratio as it relates to creatine and Thermal Pain Threshold with E/I as the independent variable and Thermal Pain Threshold as the dependent variable.||||||0.041|||||||Regression, Linear|(R² = .083, F(1,49) = 4.425, β = .288, p = .041)||In people with FMS, the linear relationship between Thermal Pain Threshold and E/I ratio as it relates to creatine was assessed.||||0.041
90923961|NCT02969707|181721191|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.728|||||||ANCOVA|||Standard ANCOVA testing whether the Post-TMS E/I relative to creatine is predicted for each subject by the intervention (Active / Sham) while covarying for the Pre-TMS E/I ratio relative to creatine.||||0.728
90923962|NCT02969707|181721191|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||ANCOVA|||Standard ANCOVA testing whether the Post-TMS E/I relative to water is predicted for each subject by the intervention (Active / Sham) while covarying for the Pre-TMS E/I ratio relative to water.||||0.720
91034543|NCT00913627|181955170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|58.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.88|75.84||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||360 minutes||75.84|41.88|<0.001
91034544|NCT00913627|181955171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio, log|13.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.85|37.89||p-value adjusted for gender and categorical baseline pain severity|Proportional hazards regression|||||37.89|4.85|<0.001
91034545|NCT00913627|181955172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|2.03||||0.434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|6.02||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||15 minutes||6.02|-1.95|0.434
90884013|NCT02391948|181630597|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.21|||||Country was included as a model covariate. OR represents the odds of children developing 'better than expected' (top 10%) vs 'as expected' (central 80%) for each unit change in parents' perception of needs being met.|Logistic regression comparing children progressing better than expected to those progressing as expected on the Child Engagement in Daily Life -Self Care outcome for the predictor amount of occupational therapy.||1.21|.72|
90884014|NCT02391948|181630597|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.5|||||Country was included as a model covariate. OR represents the odds of children developing 'better than expected' (top 10%) vs 'as expected' (central 80%) for each unit change in parents' perception of needs being met.|Logistic regression comparing children progressing better than expected to those progressing as expected on the Early Clinical Assessment of Balance outcome for the predictor amount of occupational therapy.||1.5|.89|
90884015|NCT02391948|181630597|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.38|||||Country was included as a model covariate. OR represents the odds of children developing 'better than expected' (top 10%) vs 'as expected' (central 80%) for each unit change in parents' perception of needs being met.|Logistic regression comparing children progressing better than expected to those progressing as expected on the Six Minute Walk Test outcome for the predictor amount of occupational therapy.||1.38|.65|
90884016|NCT02391948|181630597|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.31|||||Country was included as a model covariate. OR represents the odds of children developing 'better than expected' (top 10%) vs 'as expected' (central 80%) for each unit change in parents' perception of needs being met.|Logistic regression comparing children progressing better than expected to those progressing as expected on the Child Engagement in Daily Life - Self Care outcome for the predictor amount of speech and language therapy.||1.31|.81|
90884017|NCT02391948|181630597|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.39|||||Country was included as a model covariate. OR represents the odds of children developing 'better than expected' (top 10%) vs 'as expected' (central 80%) for each unit change in parents' perception of needs being met.|Logistic regression comparing children progressing better than expected to those progressing as expected on the Early Clinical Assessment of Balance outcome for the predictor amount of speech and language therapy.||1.39|.87|
90884018|NCT02391948|181630597|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.25|||||Country was included as a model covariate. OR represents the odds of children developing 'better than expected' (top 10%) vs 'as expected' (central 80%) for each unit change in parents' perception of needs being met.|Logistic regression comparing children progressing better than expected to those progressing as expected on the Six Minute Walk Test outcome for the predictor amount of speech and language therapy.||1.25|.6|
90884019|NCT02391948|181630597|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.53|||||Country was included as a model covariate. OR represents the odds of children developing 'better than expected' (top 10%) vs 'as expected' (central 80%) for each unit change in parents' perception of needs being met.|Logistic regression comparing children progressing better than expected to those progressing as expected on the Early Clinical Assessment of Balance outcome for the predictor amount of physical therapy services.||1.53|.92|
90884020|NCT02391948|181630601|OTHER||population average|2319.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1460.0|3218.0||||||The outcome was modelled as a function of age using a linear mixed effects model, and the population value at age 12 years was estimated from the model.||3218|1460|
90884021|NCT02391948|181630601|OTHER||population average|1858.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1233.0|2530.0||||||The outcome was modelled as a function of age using a linear mixed effects model, and the population value at age 12 years was estimated from the model.||2530|1233|
90884022|NCT02391948|181630602|OTHER||population average|5240.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3874.0|6670.0||||||The outcome was modelled as a function of age using a linear mixed effects model, and the population value at age 12 years was estimated from the model.||6670|3874|
90884023|NCT02391948|181630602|OTHER||population average|4319.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3258.0|5443.0||||||The outcome was modelled as a function of age using a linear mixed effects model, and the population value at age 12 years was estimated from the model.||5443|3258|
90884024|NCT02391948|181630603|OTHER||population average|108.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.0|151.0||||||The outcome was modelled as a function of age using a linear mixed effects model, and the population value at age 12 years was estimated from the model.||151|67|
90884025|NCT02391948|181630603|OTHER||population average|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.0|145.0||||||The outcome was modelled as a function of age using a linear mixed effects model, and the population value at age 12 years was estimated from the model.||145|58|
90884026|NCT02391948|181630603|OTHER||population average|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|35.0||||||The outcome was modelled as a function of age using a linear mixed effects model, and the population value at age 12 years was estimated from the model. This analysis combined children in GMFCS Levels III-V.||35|0|
90884027|NCT02391948|181630604|OTHER||population average|2815.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2025.0|3650.0||||||The outcome was modelled as a function of age using a linear mixed effects model, and the population value at age 12 years was estimated from the model.||3650|2025|
90884028|NCT02391948|181630604|OTHER||population average|3109.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2502.0|3739.0||||||The outcome was modelled as a function of age using a linear mixed effects model, and the population value at age 12 years was estimated from the model.||3739|2502|
90884029|NCT02391948|181630604|OTHER||population average|1056.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|471.0|1665.0||||||The outcome was modelled as a function of age using a linear mixed effects model, and the population value at age 12 years was estimated from the model. This analysis combined children in GMFCS Levels III-V.||1665|471|
90884030|NCT02348489|181630608|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rate (%)|1.92||||0.482|TWO_SIDED|96.0|-3.67|7.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The complete response rate was compared between the treatment groups using a Cochran Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test at an alpha level of 0.04 stratified to adjust for stratification factors used at randomization: age (\<75 or \>=75), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (0-1, 2-3), study center region (North American, Europe, Rest of World), and secondary AML (secondary to MDS or other antecedent hematologic disorder) or poor-risk cytogenetics (Yes, No/Unknown).||7.5|-3.67|0.482
90884031|NCT02348489|181630609|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.7328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.14|||Stratified log-rank|||Overall survival curves were estimated using Kaplan-Meier method and compared between the treatment groups using a 2-sided stratification log-rank test, stratified by the same factors used at randomization: age (\<75 or \>=75), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (0-1, 2-3), study center region (North American, Europe, Rest of World), and secondary AML (secondary to MDS or other antecedent hematologic disorder) or poor-risk cytogenetics (Yes, No/Unknown).||1.14|0.83|0.7328
90923963|NCT04103580|181721206|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.005||0.247|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Due to uneven space between time points (days), we estimated a random effects model with varying intercepts and slopes for each phase independently.|We used an interaction between time and study arm to determine whether there was a significant difference over time in the change in outcome. The estimate is the difference in change over time for the intervention group compared to the control group.|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between control and intervention over time in Phase 1.||||0.247
90923964|NCT04103580|181721206|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.004||0.049|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Due to uneven space between time points (days), we estimated a random effects model with varying intercepts and slopes for each phase independently.|We used an interaction between time and study arm to determine whether there was a significant difference over time in the change in outcome. The estimate is the difference in change over time for the intervention group compared to the control group.|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between control and intervention over time in Phase 2.||||0.049
90923965|NCT04103580|181721207|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.004||0.15|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Due to uneven space between time points (days), we estimated a random effects model with varying intercepts and slopes for each phase independently.|We used an interaction between time and study arm to determine whether there was a significant difference over time in the change in outcome. The estimate is the difference in change over time for the intervention group compared to the control group.|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between control and intervention over time in Phase 1.||||0.150
90923966|NCT04103580|181721207|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.004||0.635|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Due to uneven space between time points (days), we estimated a random effects model with varying intercepts and slopes for each phase independently.|We used an interaction between time and study arm to determine whether there was a significant difference over time in the change in outcome. The estimate is the difference in change over time for the intervention group compared to the control group.|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between control and intervention over time in Phase 2.||||0.635
90923967|NCT05312008|181721241|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.6|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired||||||<0.6
90923968|NCT05312008|181721242|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.6|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired||||||<0.6
90963495|NCT03829319|181808255|OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|-0.29||||0.8747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.95|3.36|||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparision based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors (baseline ECOG performance status (0 versus 1), geographic region of the enrolling site (East Asia versus non-East Asia), and baseline PD-L1 Status ( \<50% versus ≥50%)) as covariates.||3.36|-3.95|0.8747
90963496|NCT03829319|181808256|OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|-0.91||||0.5941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.24|2.43|||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparision based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors (baseline ECOG performance status (0 versus 1), geographic region of the enrolling site (East Asia versus non-East Asia), and baseline PD-L1 Status (\<50% versus ≥50%)) as covariates.||2.43|-4.24|0.5941
90923969|NCT05312008|181721243|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired||||||<1
90923970|NCT05312008|181721244|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired||||||<0.04
90923971|NCT05312008|181721245|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.5|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired||||||<0.5
90923972|NCT00324805|181721246|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.19|||Regression, Cox||Arm II versus Arm I|||1.19|0.82|0.90
90923973|NCT00324805|181721247|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.15|||Regression, Cox||Arm II vs. Arm I|||1.15|0.86|0.95
90923974|NCT05698875|181721251|OTHER||Fixed effects parameter|1.0||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.9||P=0.04 however was adjusted using the Bonferroni correction The a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||HGL vs control meals||1.9|0.1|0.12
90923975|NCT05698875|181721251|OTHER||Fixed effects parameter|-0.58||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.4||The a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||HGLP vs control meal||0.4|-1.5|0.23
90923976|NCT05698875|181721251|OTHER||Fixed effects parameter|0.24||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.2||The a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||MGL vs control meal||1.2|-0.7|0.62
90923977|NCT05698875|181721251|OTHER||Fixed effects parameter|1.6||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.5||Above is adjusted p value using Bonferroni correction. The a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||HGL vs HGLP||2.5|0.7|0.003
90923978|NCT05698875|181721251|OTHER||Fixed effects parameter|0.82||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.7||The a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||HGL vs MGL meals||1.7|-0.1|0.08
90923979|NCT05698875|181721251|OTHER||Fixed effects parameter|-0.8||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.2||The a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||HGLP vs MGL meals||0.2|-1.7|0.12
90923980|NCT05698875|181721252|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.835||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.8||The a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||HGL vs control meals||1.8|-0.1|0.08
90923981|NCT05698875|181721252|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.2||The a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||HGLP meal vs control meal||0.2|-1.7|0.13
90923982|NCT05698875|181721252|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.8||The a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||MGL meals vs control meals||0.8|-1.2|0.68
90963497|NCT03829319|181808257|OTHER||covariate|-2.16||||0.3115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.36|2.03|||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparision based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors (baseline ECOG performance status (0 versus 1), geographic region of the enrolling site (East Asia versus non-East Asia), and baseline PD-L1 Status ( \<50% versus ≥50%)) as covariates.||2.03|-6.36|0.3115
91034546|NCT00913627|181955172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||15 minutes||0.00|0.00|
90923983|NCT05698875|181721252|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.5||The a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05 P value adjusted with Bonferroni correction|Linear Mixed Model|||HGL vs HGLP meals||2.5|0.7|<0.01
90923984|NCT05698875|181721252|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.0||The a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05 p value adjusted with the Bonferroni correction|Linear Mixed Model|||HGL vs MGL meals||2.0|0.2|0.06
90923985|NCT05698875|181721252|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.4||a priori threshold for statistical significance - P\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||HGLP vs MGL meals||0.4|-1.4|0.29
90923986|NCT05698875|181721253|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|3.0||The a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05 Adjusted p value with Bonferroni correction|Linear Mixed Model|||HGL meals vs control meals||3.0|0.8|<0.01
90923987|NCT05698875|181721253|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.8||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||HGLP meals vs control meals||0.8|-1.4|0.59
90923988|NCT05698875|181721253|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.0||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||MGL meals vs control meals||1.0|-1.2|0.86
90923989|NCT05698875|181721253|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|3.3||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05 Adjustment with Bonferroni did not alter p value|Linear Mixed Model|||HGL vs HGLP meals||3.3|1.2|<0.001
90923990|NCT05698875|181721253|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|3.1||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05 Adjustment with Bonferroni correction did not alter p value|Linear Mixed Model|||HGL vs MGL meals||3.1|1.1|<0.001
90923991|NCT05698875|181721253|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.9||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||HGLP vs MGL meals||0.9|-1.2|0.79
90923992|NCT05698875|181721254|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.5||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.0|8.0||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||HGL meals vs control meals||8|-25|0.31
90923993|NCT05698875|181721254|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.4||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.0|-8.0||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05 P adjusted using Bonferroni correction|Linear Mixed Model|||HGLP meals vs control meals||-8|-41|0.03
90923994|NCT05698875|181721254|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.7||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|29.5||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||MGL meals vs control meals||29.5|-4.1|0.14
90923995|NCT05698875|181721254|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.0||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|31.7||A priori threshold P \<0.05 P value adjusted with Bonferroni correction|Linear Mixed Model|||HGL vs HGLP meals||31.7|3.1|0.34
90963498|NCT03829319|181808258|OTHER||covariate|-0.37||||0.8134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.47|2.72|||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparision based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors (baseline ECOG performance status (0 versus 1), geographic region of the enrolling site (East Asia versus non-East Asia), and baseline PD-L1 Status ( \<50% versus ≥50%)) as covariates.||2.72|-3.47|0.8134
90923996|NCT05698875|181721254|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.0||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.3|-4.7||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05 Adjusted P value with Bonferroni correction|Linear Mixed Model|||HGL vs MGL meals||-4.7|-33.3|0.07
90923997|NCT05698875|181721254|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-36.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.0|-21.8||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05 Adjustment with Bonferroni did not alter p value|Linear Mixed Model|||HGLP vs MGL meals||-21.8|-51.0|<0.001
90923998|NCT05698875|181721255|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|151.0||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|294.0||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05 Adjusted p value with Bonferroni correction|Linear Mixed Model|||HGL meals vs control meals||294|7|0.25
90923999|NCT05698875|181721255|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-109.0||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-256.0|38.0||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||HGLP meals vs control meals||38|-256|0.15
90924000|NCT05698875|181721255|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-30.0||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-177.0|117.0||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||MGL meals vs control meals||117|-177|0.69
90924001|NCT05698875|181721255|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|264.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|126.0|401.0||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05 Adjustment with Bonferroni did not alter p value|Linear Mixed Model|||HGL vs HGLP meals||401|126|<0.001
90924002|NCT05698875|181721255|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|192.0||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.0|329.0||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05 P value adjusted with Bonferroni correction|Linear Mixed Model|||HGL vs MGL meals||329|56|0.02
90924003|NCT05698875|181721255|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-71.0||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-211.0|69.0||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||HGLP vs MGL meals||69|-211|0.32
90924004|NCT05698875|181721256|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.9|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|10.4||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05 P value adjusted with Bonferroni correction|Linear Mixed Model|||HGL meals vs control meals||10.4|3.3|<0.01
91034547|NCT00913627|181955172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|1.78||||0.469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|5.27||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||15 minutes||5.27|-1.71|0.469
90924005|NCT05698875|181721256|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.5||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|7.2||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||HGLP meals vs control meals||7.2|-0.2|0.06
90924006|NCT05698875|181721256|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|3.9||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||MGL meals vs control meals||3.9|-3.3|0.86
90924007|NCT05698875|181721256|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.4||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|6.48||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05 P value adjusted with the Bonferroni correction|Linear Mixed Model|||HGL vs HGLP meals||6.48|0.24|0.11
90924008|NCT05698875|181721256|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.6|9.8||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05 Adjustment with Bonferroni did not alter p value|Linear Mixed Model|||HGL vs MGL meals||9.8|3.6|<0.001
90924009|NCT05698875|181721256|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.3||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|6.5||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05 Adjustment with Bonferroni correction|Linear Mixed Model|||HGLP vs MGL meals||6.5|0.2|0.13
90884032|NCT01969838|181630622|NON_INFERIORITY|To evaluate the noninferiority of MMB over RUX, a conventional 2-sided confidence interval (CI) was calculated for the difference in splenic response rate (SRR) at Week 24: delta = prob(MMB) - 0.6\*prob(RUX). If the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for delta was greater than 0, MMB was declared noninferior to RUX in SRR at Week 24. The 2-sided 95% CI of delta was calculated based on stratum-adjusted Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) proportions. This is the noninferiority proportion difference.|Proportion Difference - Stratified CMH|0.09||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.16|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.16|0.02|0.014
90884033|NCT01969838|181630623|NON_INFERIORITY|To evaluate the noninferiority of MMB over RUX, a conventional 2-sided CI was calculated for the difference in TSS response rate at Week 24: delta = prob(MMB) - 0.67\*prob(RUX). If the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for delta was greater than 0, MMB was declared to be noninferior to RUX in TSS response rate at Week 24. The 2-sided 95% CI of delta was calculated based on stratum-adjusted Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) proportions. This is called the noninferiority proportion difference.|Proportion Difference - Stratified CMH|0.0||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.08|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.08|-0.08|0.98
90884034|NCT01969838|181630624|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.43|||Negative Binomial Model, Adjusted||A smaller ratio represents larger benefit.|||0.43|0.19|<0.001
90884035|NCT01969838|181630625|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference - Stratified CMH|0.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.26|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||A larger proportion represents larger benefit.|||0.26|0.09|<0.001
90884036|NCT01969838|181630626|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference - Stratified CMH|-0.1||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|-0.02|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||A smaller proportion represents larger benefit.|||-0.02|-0.19|0.019
90884037|NCT00408993|181630627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.617||95.0||||Treatment effects were evaluated based on a two-sided significance level of 0.05 and interaction effects at 0.10. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|ANCOVA|Model=Treatment, Pooled Investigator and Baseline.||With 104 patients per arm, the study has at least 85% power to detect a treatment group difference of -1.20 points in baseline to endpoint mean change on the BPI 24-hour average pain score between Duloxetine and Placebo. Sample size determined using a two-sided t-test with alpha=0.05, and assuming a common standard deviation of 2.5 and a discontinuation rate of 25%.||||0.617
90924010|NCT05698875|181721257|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-34.8||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.9|-13.6||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05 Adjustment with Bonferroni correction|Linear Mixed Model|||HGL meals vs control meal||-13.6|-55.9|0.01
90924011|NCT05698875|181721257|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.6|19.9||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||HGLP meals vs control meals||19.9|-23.6|0.87
90963499|NCT03829319|181808259|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||0.2133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.47|||Stratified Log Rank|Two-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG performance status, geographic region of the enrolling site, and baseline PD-L1 status.||Comparison based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 versus 1), geographic region of the enrolling site (East Asia versus non-East Asia), and Baseline PD-L1 Status (\<50% versus \>=50%).||1.47|0.92|0.2133
91034548|NCT00913627|181955172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|9.13||||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|16.93||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||30 minutes||16.93|1.33|0.101
90924012|NCT05698875|181721257|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.7||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.4|17.0||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||MGL meals vs control meals||17.0|-26.4|0.67
90924013|NCT05698875|181721257|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-33.3||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.4|-12.2||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05 Adjustment with Bonferroni correction|Linear Mixed Model|||HGL vs HGLP meals||-12.2|-54.4|0.01
90924014|NCT05698875|181721257|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-31.4||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.4|-10.4||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05 Adjustment with Bonferroni correction|Linear Mixed Model|||HGL vs MGL meals||-10.4|-52.4|0.01
90924015|NCT05698875|181721257|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.86||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|23.4||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||HGLP vs MGL meals||23.4|-19.7|0.87
91034549|NCT00913627|181955172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|10.73||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.54|18.91||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||30 minutes||18.91|2.54|0.069
91034550|NCT00913627|181955172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|3.59||||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|8.57||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||30 minutes||8.57|-1.39|0.303
91034551|NCT00913627|181955172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|24.58||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.68|38.47||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||45 minutes||38.47|10.68|0.008
90884038|NCT00408993|181630628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07||95.0||||P-value for Worst Pain Score|ANCOVA|Model=Treatment, Pooled Investigator, Baseline and Major Depressive Disorder status at baseline.||||||0.070
90884039|NCT00408993|181630628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.151||95.0||||P-value for Least Pain Score|ANCOVA|Model=Treatment, Pooled Investigator, Baseline and Major Depressive Disorder status at baseline.||||||0.151
90884040|NCT00408993|181630628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||95.0||||P-value for Pain Right Now Score|ANCOVA|Model=Treatment, Pooled Investigator, Baseline and Major Depressive Disorder status at baseline.||||||0.012
90884041|NCT00408993|181630628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.077||95.0||||P-value for Average Interference Score|ANCOVA|Model=Treatment, Pooled Investigator, Baseline and Major Depressive Disorder status at baseline.||||||0.077
90884042|NCT00408993|181630629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Model=Treatment, Pooled Investigator, Baseline and Major Depressive Disorder status at baseline.||||||0.036
90924016|NCT05698875|181721258|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|34.0||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|65.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Control vs HGL meals||65|2|0.04
90924017|NCT05698875|181721258|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.0||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|30.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Control vs HGLP meals||30|-17|0.56
90924018|NCT05698875|181721258|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.0||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|32.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Control vs MGL meals||32|8|0.22
90924019|NCT05698875|181721258|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|38.0||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|67.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||HGL vs HGLP meals||67|10|0.01
90963500|NCT03829319|181808260|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.41||||0.0377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.94|||Stratified Log Rank|Two-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG performance status, geographic region of the enrolling site, and baseline PD-L1 status.||Comparison based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 versus 1), geographic region of the enrolling site (East Asia versus non-East Asia), and Baseline PD-L1 Status (\<50% versus \>=50%).||1.94|1.02|0.0377
90963501|NCT03829319|181808261|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.4084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.21|||Stratified Log Rank|Two-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG performance status, geographic region of the enrolling site, and baseline PD-L1 status.||Comparison based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 versus 1), geographic region of the enrolling site (East Asia versus non-East Asia), and Baseline PD-L1 Status (\<50% versus \>=50%).||1.21|0.62|0.4084
90963502|NCT03829319|181808262|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.7955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.36|||Stratified Log Rank|Two-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG performance status, geographic region of the enrolling site, and baseline PD-L1 status.||Comparison based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 versus 1), geographic region of the enrolling site (East Asia versus non-East Asia), and Baseline PD-L1 Status (\<50% versus \>=50%).||1.36|0.79|0.7955
90963503|NCT03829319|181808264|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.7191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.28|||Stratified Log Rank|Two-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG performance status, geographic region of the enrolling site, and baseline PD-L1 status.||Comparison based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 versus 1), geographic region of the enrolling site (East Asia versus non-East Asia), and Baseline PD-L1 Status (\<50% versus \>=50%).||1.28|0.84|0.7191
90963504|NCT04484259|181808265|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin 45 PRU|Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.0|38.0||||||The primary end point was non-inferiority of Ticagrelor 60 mg monotherapy vs. aspirin plus Ticagrelor 60 mg||38|-23|
91034552|NCT00913627|181955172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|25.31||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.35|39.28||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||45 minutes||39.28|11.35|0.007
90884043|NCT00408993|181630630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.955||95.0||||P-value for Visit 3|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated Measures: Model=Treatment, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Baseline, baseline MDD status, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.955
90884044|NCT00408993|181630630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0||||P-value for Visit 4|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated Measures: Model=Treatment, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Baseline, baseline MDD status, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.004
90884045|NCT00408993|181630630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.037||95.0||||P-value for Visit 5|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated Measures: Model=Treatment, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Baseline, baseline MDD status, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.037
90884046|NCT00408993|181630630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Visit 6|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated Measures: Model=Treatment, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Baseline, baseline MDD status, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit.||||||<0.001
90884047|NCT00408993|181630630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028||95.0||||P-value for Visit 7|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated Measures: Model=Treatment, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Baseline, baseline MDD status, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.028
90884048|NCT00408993|181630631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.207||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Model=Treatment, Pooled Investigator, Baseline and Major Depressive Disorder status at baseline.||||||0.207
90884049|NCT00408993|181630632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.008
90884050|NCT00408993|181630634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.364||95.0||||P-value for 5-Item Score|ANCOVA|Model=Treatment, Pooled Investigator, Baseline and Major Depressive Disorder status at baseline.||||||0.364
90884051|NCT00408993|181630634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59||95.0||||P-value for 8-Item Score|ANCOVA|Model=Treatment, Pooled Investigator, Baseline and Major Depressive Disorder status at baseline.||||||0.590
90884052|NCT00408993|181630635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62||95.0|||||ANOVA|Model=Treatment and Pooled Investigator||||||0.620
90884053|NCT00408993|181630636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.324||95.0|||||ANOVA|Model=Treatment and Pooled Investigator||||||0.324
90884054|NCT00408993|181630637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.642||95.0||||P-value for Systolic Blood Pressure|ANOVA|Model=Treatment and Pooled Investigator||||||0.642
90884055|NCT00408993|181630637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.601||95.0||||P-value for Diastolic Blood Pressure|ANOVA|Model=Treatment and Pooled Investigator||||||0.601
90884056|NCT00408993|181630638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014||95.0||||P-value for Chloride|ANOVA|Sums of squares from ANOVA on the ranks: Model=Treatment and Pooled Investigator for treatment effects p-value.||||||0.014
90884057|NCT00408993|181630638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||P-value for High Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol|ANOVA|Sums of squares from ANOVA on the ranks: Model=Treatment and Pooled Investigator for treatment effects p-value.||||||0.005
90884058|NCT00408993|181630638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011||95.0||||P-value for Sodium|ANOVA|Sums of squares from ANOVA on the ranks: Model=Treatment and Pooled Investigator for treatment effects p-value.||||||0.011
90884059|NCT00408993|181630638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.044||95.0||||P-value for triglycerides|ANOVA|Sums of squares from ANOVA on the ranks: Model=Treatment and Pooled Investigator for treatment effects p-value.||||||0.044
90884060|NCT00408993|181630639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017||95.0|||||ANOVA|Sums of squares from ANOVA on the ranks: Model=Treatment and Pooled Investigator for treatment effects p-values.||||||0.017
90884061|NCT04193202|181630646|SUPERIORITY||Estimated difference|0.75||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|1.44|||Longitudinal ANCOVA|The model included terms for treatment group, visit, interaction of treatment by visit, gender, and baseline LCQ total score.|The estimated difference is the treatment difference in model based mean change from baseline at Week 12|||1.44|0.06|0.034
90884062|NCT04193202|181630647|OTHER||Estimated Difference|-6.92||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.88|-1.97||Nominal p value, not controlled for multiplicity|Longitudinal ANCOVA|The model included terms for treatment group, visit, interaction of treatment by visit, gender, and baseline mean weekly cough severity VAS score.|The estimated difference is the treatment difference in model based mean change from baseline at Week 12.|||-1.97|-11.88|0.006
90963505|NCT04498832|181808269|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of GMTs was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% Confidence Interval (CI) for the ratio of GMTs was greater than (\>) 1 between groups for each of the comparisons.|GMT ratio|2.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.46|3.2|||||The 2-sided 95% CI was based on the student t-distribution of logarithmic transformation of the individual titers. Antilog transformations were applied to the results.|A/H1N1||3.20|2.46|
90963506|NCT04498832|181808269|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of GMTs was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95%CI for the ratio of GMTs was \>1 between groups for each of the comparisons.|GMT ratio|2.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.03|2.5|||||The 2-sided 95% CI was based on the student t-distribution of logarithmic transformation of the individual titers. Antilog transformations were applied to the results.|A/H3N2-like||2.50|2.03|
90963507|NCT04498832|181808269|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of GMTs was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95%CI for the ratio of GMTs was \>1 between groups for each of the comparisons.|GMT ratio|2.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.31|2.81|||||The 2-sided 95% CI was based on the student t-distribution of logarithmic transformation of the individual titers. Antilog transformations were applied to the results.|B/Victoria-like||2.81|2.31|
90963508|NCT04498832|181808269|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of GMTs was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95%CI for the ratio of GMTs was \>1 between groups for each of the comparisons.|GMT ratio|3.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.85|3.42|||||The 2-sided 95% CI was based on the student t-distribution of logarithmic transformation of the individual titers. Antilog transformations were applied to the results.|B/Yamagata||3.42|2.85|
90963509|NCT04498832|181808270|SUPERIORITY|Superiority on seroconversions was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference in percentage between groups was \> 0% for each of the comparisons.|Difference in percentage|29.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.7|33.5|||||The 2-sided 95% CI for the difference was based on the Wilson score method without continuity correction.|A/H1N1||33.5|25.7|
90963510|NCT04498832|181808270|SUPERIORITY|Superiority on seroconversions was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference in percentage between groups was \> 0% for each of the comparisons.|Difference in percentage|28.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.0|32.0|||||The 2-sided 95% CI for the difference was based on the Wilson score method without continuity correction.|A/H3N2-like||32.0|24.0|
90963511|NCT04498832|181808270|SUPERIORITY|Superiority on seroconversions was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference in percentage between groups was \> 0% for each of the comparisons.|Difference in percentage|31.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.4|35.2|||||The 2-sided 95% CI for the difference was based on the Wilson score method without continuity correction.|B/Victoria-like||35.2|27.4|
90963512|NCT04498832|181808270|SUPERIORITY|Superiority on seroconversions was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference in percentage between groups was \> 0% for each of the comparisons.|Difference in percentage|35.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.4|39.3|||||The 2-sided 95% CI for the difference was based on the Wilson score method without continuity correction.|B/Yamagata||39.3|31.4|
90963513|NCT01313650|181808282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.115|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.076|0.155|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least squares mean difference=UMEC 62.5 µg minus Placebo.|||0.155|0.076|<0.001
91034553|NCT00913627|181955172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|10.62||||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|21.92||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||45 minutes||21.92|-0.68|0.129
90924020|NCT05698875|181721258|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.0||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|62.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||HGL vs MGL meals||62|4|0.03
90924021|NCT05698875|181721258|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.0||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.0|18.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||HGLP vs MGL meals||18|-29|0.63
90924022|NCT05698875|181721259|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.0||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|53.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Control vs HGL meals||53|10|0.16
90924023|NCT05698875|181721259|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.0||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|46.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Control vs HGLP meals||46|5|0.11
90924024|NCT05698875|181721259|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.0||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|45.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Control vs MGL meals||45|8|0.15
90924025|NCT05698875|181721259|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|44.0|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.0|71.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||HGL vs HGLP meals||71|16|<0.01
90924026|NCT05698875|181721259|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.0||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.0|21.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||HGL vs MGL meals||21|-36|0.60
90924027|NCT05698875|181721259|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|29.0||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|51.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||HGLP vs MGL meals||51|6|0.02
90924028|NCT05698875|181721260|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.4||The a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||HGL meal excursion vs Control meal at 30 minutes||2.4|0.8|<0.001
90924029|NCT05698875|181721260|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.2|||Linear Mixed Model|||HGLP meal vs Control meal glucose excursion at 30 minutes||1.2|-0.5|0.38
90924030|NCT05698875|181721260|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.5||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||MGL meal excursion vs Control meal at 30 minutes||0.5|-1.1|0.47
90924031|NCT05698875|181721260|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.0||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05 P value adjusted with Bonferroni correction|Linear Mixed Model|||HGL meal vs HGLP meal||2.0|0.5|0.01
90924032|NCT05698875|181721260|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.6||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||HGL meal vs MGL meals||2.6|1.1|<0.001
90924033|NCT05698875|181721260|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.4||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||HGLP meals vs MGL meals||1.4|0.1|0.09
90924034|NCT05698875|181721261|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|3.0||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||HGL meals vs control meals||3.0|0.7|<0.001
90924035|NCT05698875|181721261|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.0||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||HGLP meals vs control meals||1.0|-1.2|0.87
90924036|NCT05698875|181721261|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.7||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||MGL meals vs control meals||0.7|-1.5|0.48
90924037|NCT05698875|181721261|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|3.1||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||HGL meals vs HGLP meals||3.1|1.0|<0.001
90924038|NCT05698875|181721261|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|3.4||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||HGL meals vs MGL meals||3.4|1.3|<0.001
90924039|NCT05698875|181721261|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.7||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||MGL meals vs HGLP meals||0.7|-1.4|0.53
90963514|NCT01313650|181808282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.072|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.032|0.112|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least squares mean difference=VI 25 µg minus Placebo.|||0.112|0.032|<0.001
90963515|NCT01313650|181808282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.167|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.128|0.207|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least squares mean difference=UMEC/VI 62.5/25 µg minus Placebo.|||0.207|0.128|<0.001
90963516|NCT01313650|181808282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.052||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.017|0.087|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least squares mean difference=UMEC/VI 62.5/25 minus UMEC 62.5 µg.|||0.087|0.017|0.004
90924040|NCT05698875|181721262|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|2.7||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||HGL meals vs control meals||2.7|-0.03|0.06
90924041|NCT05698875|181721262|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.3||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||HGLP meals vs control meals||0.3|-2.5|0.13
90924042|NCT05698875|181721262|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.2||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||MGL meals vs control meals||1.2|-1.5|0.82
90924043|NCT05698875|181721262|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|3.7||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05 Adjusted with Bonferroni correction|Linear Mixed Model|||HGL meals vs MGL meals||3.7|1.1|<0.01
90924044|NCT05698875|181721262|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.9||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05 Adjusted with Bonferroni correction|Linear Mixed Model|||HGL meals vs MGL meals||2.9|0.2|0.08
90924045|NCT05698875|181721262|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|2.2||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||MGL meals vs HGLP meals||2.2|-0.5|0.21
90924046|NCT05698875|181721263|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|2.2||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||HGL meals vs control meals||2.2|-0.7|0.31
90924047|NCT05698875|181721263|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-0.1||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||HGLP meals vs control meals||-0.1|-3.0|0.05
90924048|NCT05698875|181721263|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.5||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||MGL meals vs control meals||1.5|-1.5|0.97
90924049|NCT05698875|181721263|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|3.6||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05 Adjusted with Bonferroni correction|Linear Mixed Model|||HGL meals vs HGLP meals||3.6|1.0|<0.01
90924050|NCT05698875|181721263|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.2||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||HGL meals vs MGL meals||2.2|0.6|0.27
90963517|NCT01313650|181808282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.095|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least squares mean difference=UMEC/VI 62.5/25 minus VI 25 µg.|||0.130|0.060|<0.001
90963518|NCT04029480|181808286|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Bayesian Means|-0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.29||||||This analysis is based on a Bayesian ANCOVA model including terms for Baseline A1C, treatment, age (10 to 14 years/15 to 17 years), and insulin use (yes/no) at Screening and calculated by Rubin's Rule. The 95% confidence interval actually refers to a credible interval.||-0.29|-1.06|
90963519|NCT04029480|181808287|OTHER||Difference in Percent|-6.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.2|9.3||||||This analysis is based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.||9.3|-22.2|
90963520|NCT04029480|181808288|OTHER||Difference in Percent|-12.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.9|2.8||||||This analysis is based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.||2.8|-25.9|
90924051|NCT05698875|181721263|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|3.0||a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05 Adjusted with p value|Linear Mixed Model|||MGL meals vs HGLP meals||3.0|0.1|0.12
90924052|NCT05698875|181721264|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.2||a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||HGL meals vs control meals||1.2|-1.5|0.83
90924053|NCT05698875|181721264|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-0.2||a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05 Adjusted with Bonferroni correction|Linear Mixed Model|||HGLP meals vs control meals||-0.2|-2.9|0.09
90924054|NCT05698875|181721264|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.2||a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||MGL meals vs control meals||1.2|-1.6|0.78
90924055|NCT05698875|181721264|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.7||a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05 Adjusted with Bonferroni correction|Linear Mixed Model|||HGL meals vs HGLP meals||2.7|0.1|0.11
90963521|NCT04029480|181808289|OTHER||Difference in Percent|0.0|||||||||||||No confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. CIs were computed only for those endpoints where at least ≥8 participants in the combined ertugliflozin group or ≥2 participants in the placebo group had events.|This analysis is based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.||||
90884063|NCT01777997|181630650|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Regression, repeated measures (GEE)|||Estimated mean change from baseline to weeks 24-48 on ART from repeated measures (GEE) model, against the null hypothesis of zero change. Estimated mean represents on ART levels minus pre-ART levels.||||0.001
90884064|NCT04622254|181630665|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
90884065|NCT04622254|181630666|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
90884066|NCT04622254|181630667|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
90884067|NCT04622254|181630668|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
90884068|NCT04622254|181630669|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
90884069|NCT04622254|181630670|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
90884070|NCT04622254|181630671|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
90884071|NCT04622254|181630672|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
90884072|NCT04622254|181630673|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
90884073|NCT04622254|181630674|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
90884074|NCT04622254|181630675|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
90884075|NCT04622254|181630676|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
90884076|NCT04622254|181630677|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
90884077|NCT04622254|181630677|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
90884078|NCT04622254|181630678|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
90884079|NCT04622254|181630678|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
90884080|NCT02652624|181630681|NON_INFERIORITY|A sample size of 470 participants (\~235 participants per treatment group) would provide at least 87% power to detect a non-inferiority margin of 4% difference in the percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA ≥ 50 copies/mL at Week 48 between the 2 treatment groups. This was based on the assumptions that both treatment groups have 2% of participants with HIV-1 RNA ≥ 50 copies/mL (based on Gilead Genvoya and Stribild studies) and that the significance level of the test is at a 1-sided 0.025 level.|Difference in percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.001|-2.9|2.9|||||The difference in percentages between treatment groups and their 95.001% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated based on an unconditional exact method using 2 inverted 1-sided tests.|The null hypothesis was that the percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA ≥ 50 copies/mL at Week 48 in the B/F/TAF group was at least 4% higher than the rate in the SBR group; the alternative hypothesis was that the percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA ≥ 50 copies/mL in the B/F/TAF group was less than 4% higher than that in the SBR group.||2.9|-2.9|
90884081|NCT02652624|181630681|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
90884082|NCT02652624|181630682|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority of B/F/TAF would be established if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95.001% CI of the difference between the treatment groups (B/F/TAF group - SBR group) in the percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL is greater than -10%.|Difference in percentages|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.001|-3.7|4.5|||||The difference in percentages between treatment groups and their 95.001% CIs were calculated based on an unconditional exact method using 2 inverted 1-sided tests.|||4.5|-3.7|
90884083|NCT02652624|181630682|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
90884084|NCT02652624|181630683|OTHER||Difference in least square means|3.0||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.0|34.0|||ANOVA||Difference in least squares means and its 95% CI were from ANOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect in the model.|||34|-27|0.84
90884085|NCT03228680|181630688|NON_INFERIORITY|The pre-specified non-inferiority (NI) margin was -3.0 oocytes. The NI was evaluated based on the two-sided 95% CI from the ANOVA on 'number of oocytes retrieved' with treatment and AMH stratum as fixed factors.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.1|||||If the lower bound of 95% CI was well above pre-specified NI limit of -3.0 oocytes, then NI of FE 999049 to FOLLISTIM with respect to number of oocytes retrieved in women undergoing controlled ovarian stimulation would be demonstrated|Mean number of oocytes retrieved.||-0.1|-2.3|
90884086|NCT03228680|181630689|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|10.6|||||The difference (FE 999049-FOLLISTIM) in rates was estimated and a two-sided 95% Cl was constructed using the Mantel-Haenszel method to combine results across AMH strata.|Percentage of participants with at least one gestational sac 5-6 weeks after transfer.||10.6|-7.5|
90884087|NCT03228680|181630690|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|9.6|||||The difference (FE 999049-FOLLISTIM) in rates was estimated and a two-sided 95% Cl was constructed using the Mantel-Haenszel method to combine results across AMH strata.|Percentage of participants with positive beta-hCG.||9.6|-9.5|
90884088|NCT03228680|181630691|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|10.8|||||The difference (FE 999049-FOLLISTIM) in rates was estimated and a two-sided 95% Cl was constructed using the Mantel-Haenszel method to combine results across AMH strata.|Percentage of participants with vital pregnancy.||10.8|-6.7|
90884089|NCT03228680|181630692|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|12.8|||||The difference (FE 999049-FOLLISTIM) in rates was estimated and a two-sided 95% Cl was constructed using the Mantel-Haenszel method to combine results across AMH strata.|Percentage of implanted embryos 5-6 weeks after transfer.||12.8|-8.9|
90884090|NCT03228680|181630694|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.244||||||P-value was based on likelihood ratio chi-square test.|Regression, Logistic|The model included treatment and AMH stratum (\<15 pmol/L and ≥15 pmol/L) as fixed factors.||Proportion of participants with blastocyst transfer cancellation.||||0.244
90884091|NCT03228680|181630695|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.254||||||P-value was based on likelihood ratio chi-square test.|Regression, Logistic|The model included treatment and AMH stratum (\<15 pmol/L and ≥15 pmol/L) as fixed factors.||Proportion of participants with \<4 oocytes retrieved (low response).||||0.254
90884092|NCT03228680|181630695|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.041||||||P-value was based on likelihood ratio test.|Regression, Logistic|The model included treatment and AMH stratum (\<15 pmol/L and ≥15 pmol/L) as fixed factors.||Proportion of participants with 4-7 oocytes retrieved (moderate response).||||0.041
90884093|NCT03228680|181630695|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.705||||||P-value was based on likelihood ratio test.|Regression, Logistic|The model included treatment and AMH stratum (\<15 pmol/L and ≥15 pmol/L) as fixed factors.||Proportion of participants with 8-14 oocytes retrieved (targeted response).||||0.705
90884094|NCT03228680|181630695|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.183||||||P-value was based on likelihood ratio test.|Regression, Logistic|The model included treatment and AMH stratum (\<15 pmol/L and ≥15 pmol/L) as fixed factors.||Proportion of participants with 15-19 oocytes retrieved (hyperresponse).||||0.183
91034554|NCT00913627|181955172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|47.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.25|63.19||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||60 minutes||63.19|32.25|<0.001
91034555|NCT00913627|181955172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|36.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.24|50.78||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||60 minutes||50.78|21.24|<0.001
90884095|NCT03228680|181630695|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||P-value was based on likelihood ratio chi-square test.|Regression, Logistic|The model included treatment and AMH stratum (\<15 pmol/L and ≥15 pmol/L) as fixed factors.||Proportion of participants with \>= (more than equal to) 20 oocytes retrieved (severe hyperresponse).||||0.030
90884096|NCT03228680|181630696|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.893||||||P-value was based on likelihood ratio chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||Proportion of participants with extreme ovarian responses: AMH \< 15 pmol/L (\<4 oocytes retrieved)||||0.893
90884097|NCT03228680|181630696|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||P-value was based on likelihood ratio chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||Proportion of participants with extreme ovarian responses: AMH \>= 15 pmol/L (\>=15 oocytes retrieved)||||0.002
90884098|NCT03228680|181630696|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.021||||||P-value based on likelihood ratio chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||Proportion of participants with extreme ovarian responses: AMH \>= 15 pmol/L (\>=20 oocytes retrieved)||||0.021
90884099|NCT03228680|181630698|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017||||||P-value was based on likelihood ratio chi-square test.|Regression, Logistic|The model included treatment and AMH stratum (\<15 pmol/L and ≥15 pmol/L) as fixed factors.||Proportions of participants with early OHSS (any grade).||||0.017
90884100|NCT03228680|181630698|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035||||||P-value was based on likelihood ratio chi-square test.|Regression, Logistic|The model included treatment and AMH stratum (\<15 pmol/L and ≥15 pmol/L) as fixed factors.||Proportion of participants with early OHSS (moderate/severe).||||0.035
90884101|NCT03228680|181630698|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006||||||P-value was based on likelihood ratio chi-square test.|Regression, Logistic|The model included treatment and AMH stratum (\<15 pmol/L and ≥15 pmol/L) as fixed factors.||Proportion of participants with early OHSS (any grade) and/or preventive interventions.||||0.006
90884102|NCT03228680|181630698|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009||||||P-value was based on likelihood ratio chi-square test.|Regression, Logistic|The model included treatment and AMH stratum (\<15 pmol/L and ≥15 pmol/L) as fixed factors.||Proportion of participants with early OHSS (moderate/severe) and/or preventive interventions.||||0.009
90884103|NCT03228680|181630699|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.968||||||P-value was based on likelihood ratio chi-square test.|Regression, Logistic|The model included treatment and AMH stratum (\<15 pmol/L and ≥15 pmol/L) as fixed factors.||Proportions of participants with late OHSS (any grade).||||0.968
90884104|NCT03228680|181630699|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.582||||||P-value was based on likelihood ratio chi-square test.|Regression, Logistic|The model included treatment and AMH stratum (\<15 pmol/L and ≥15 pmol/L) as fixed factors.||Proportions of participants with late OHSS (moderate/severe).||||0.582
91034556|NCT00913627|181955172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|27.87||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.93|41.81||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||60 minutes||41.81|13.93|0.003
90884105|NCT03228680|181630700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.198||||||2-sided|van Elteren test|P-value was based on van Elteren test adjusted for AMH strata.||The number of follicles on stimulation Day 6 was analyzed.||||0.198
90884106|NCT03228680|181630701|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036||||||2-sided|van Elteren test|P-value was based on van Elteren test adjusted for AMH strata.||The number of follicles at end-of-stimulation was analyzed.||||0.036
90884107|NCT03228680|181630702|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.592||||||2-sided|van Elteren test|P-value was based on van Elteren test adjusted for AMH strata.||The average size of 3 largest follicles was analyzed.||||0.592
91034557|NCT00913627|181955172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|61.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.12|75.89||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||90 minutes||75.89|46.12|<0.001
91034558|NCT00913627|181955172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|53.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.85|68.8||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||90 minutes||68.80|38.85|<0.001
90884108|NCT03228680|181630703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.286||||||2-sided|van Elteren test|P-value was based on van Elteren test adjusted for AMH strata.||The average size of 3 largest follicles was analyzed.||||0.286
90884109|NCT03228680|181630704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.395||||||2-sided|van Elteren test|P-value was based on van Elteren test adjusted for AMH strata.||The fertilization rate (number of oocytes with 2 pronuclei divided by the number of oocytes retrieved) was analyzed.||||0.395
90884110|NCT03228680|181630705|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||2-sided|van Elteren test|P-value was based on van Elteren test adjusted for AMH strata.||The number of embryos on Day 3 was analyzed.||||0.001
90884111|NCT03228680|181630705|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||2-sided|van Elteren test|P-value was based on van Elteren test adjusted for AMH strata.||The number of good-quality embryos on Day 3 was analyzed.||||0.004
90884112|NCT03228680|181630706|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||2-sided|van Elteren test|P-value was based on van Elteren test adjusted for AMH strata.||The number of blastocysts on Day 5 was analyzed.||||<.001
90884113|NCT03228680|181630706|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||2-sided|van Elteren test|P-value was based on van Elteren test adjusted for AMH strata.||The number of good-quality blastocysts on Day 5 was analyzed.||||<0.001
90924056|NCT05698875|181721264|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.1||a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||MGL meals vs HGL meals||1.1|-1.5|0.82
90924057|NCT05698875|181721264|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|2.6||a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||MGL meals vs HGLP meals||2.6|-0.1|0.06
90924058|NCT05698875|181721265|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.3||a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||HGL meals vs control meals||1.3|-1.1|0.85
90924059|NCT05698875|181721265|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.04||a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||HGLP meals vs control meals||0.04|-2.4|0.06
90924060|NCT05698875|181721265|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.2||a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||MGL meals vs control meals||1.2|-1.3|0.90
90924061|NCT05698875|181721265|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.5||a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05 Adjusted with Bonferroni correction|Linear Mixed Model|||HGL meals vs HGLP meals||2.5|0.3|0.05
90924062|NCT05698875|181721265|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.5||a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||HGL meals vs MGL meals||1.5|-0.8|0.55
90924063|NCT05698875|181721265|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|2.2||a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||MGL meals vs HGLP meals||2.2|-0.1|0.08
90924064|NCT05692960|181721295|SUPERIORITY|For this feasibility study, a sample of approximately 15 participants per arm will allow for estimates that can be used in the development of a larger study.|FSFI Total, HRI Cohen's d|1.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.1||||||Effect sizes, Cohen's d, were calculated for both study arms using paired t-tests for FSFI total, FSFI lubrication, FSFI pain, and FSFI desire subscales. Means and 95% confidence intervals were also calculated.||2.10|.62|
90924065|NCT05692960|181721295|SUPERIORITY||FSFI Total, VVA Cohen's d|1.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|2.37||||||||2.37|.86|
91034559|NCT00913627|181955172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|46.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.89|61.58||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||90 minutes||61.58|31.89|<0.001
90924066|NCT05692960|181721295|SUPERIORITY||FSFI Lubrication, HRI Cohen's d|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.87||||||||1.87|.49|
90924067|NCT05692960|181721295|SUPERIORITY||FSFI Lubrication, VVA Cohen's d|1.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|2.66||||||||2.66|1.02|
90924068|NCT05692960|181721295|SUPERIORITY||FSFI Pain, HRI Cohen's d|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.36||||||||1.36|.16|
90924069|NCT05692960|181721295|SUPERIORITY||FSFI Pain, VVA Cohen's d|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|1.38||||||||1.38|.24|
90924070|NCT05692960|181721295|SUPERIORITY||FSFI Desire, HRI Cohen's d|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.82||||||||1.82|.46|
90924071|NCT05692960|181721295|SUPERIORITY||FSFI Desire, VVA Cohen's d|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.86||||||||1.86|.55|
90924072|NCT05692960|181721296|SUPERIORITY|For this feasibility study, a sample of approximately 15 participants per arm will allow for estimates that can be used in the development of a larger study.|BITS, HRI Cohen's d|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.63||||||Effect sizes, Cohen's d, were calculated for both study arms using paired t-tests for the BITS. Means and 95% confidence intervals were also calculated.||1.63|.34|
90924073|NCT05692960|181721296|SUPERIORITY||BITS, VVA Cohen's d|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|1.01||||||||1.01|.03|
90924074|NCT05692960|181721297|SUPERIORITY|For this feasibility study, a sample of approximately 15 participants per arm will allow for estimates that can be used in the development of a larger study.|PROMIS Interest, HRI Cohen's d|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.75||||||Effect sizes, Cohen's d, were calculated for both study arms using paired t-test for PROMIS interest, lubrication and satisfaction subscales. Means and 95% confidence intervals were also calculated.||1.75|.41|
90924075|NCT05692960|181721297|SUPERIORITY||PROMIS Interest, VVA Cohen's d|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.18||||||||1.18|.09|
90924076|NCT05692960|181721297|SUPERIORITY||PROMIS Satisfaction, HRI Cohen's d|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.89||||||||1.89|.45|
90924077|NCT05692960|181721297|SUPERIORITY||PROMIS Satisfaction, VVA Cohen's d|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.44||||||||1.44|.13|
90924078|NCT05692960|181721297|SUPERIORITY||PROMIS Lubrication, HRI Cohen's d|1.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.67||||||||2.67|.88|
90924079|NCT05692960|181721297|SUPERIORITY||PROMIS Lubrication, VVA Cohen's d|1.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|2.5||||||||2.50|.74|
90924080|NCT02675777|181721298|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.001
90924081|NCT02675777|181721299|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.30
90924082|NCT00691002|181721306|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.74|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Test for superiority of LEO 80190 ointment versus calcipotriol ointment at Week 8 LOCF (Last Observation Carried Forward).||1.74|0.94|0.11
90924083|NCT00691002|181721306|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|2.45|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Test for superiority of LEO 80190 ointment versus hydrocortisone ointment at Week 8 LOCF (Last Observation Carried Forward).||2.45|1.31|<0.001
90924084|NCT00691002|181721306|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|4.04|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Test for superiority of LEO 80190 ointment versus ointment vehicle at Week 8 LOCF (Last Observation Carried Forward).||4.04|1.80|<0.001
90924085|NCT05239455|181721359|OTHER|The FDA requires one-sided 95% lower confidence limit for the population proportion of success is greater than 70% where success of a unit is defined as the RBC in vivo 24-hour percentage recovery ≥ 75%. Allows for low recoveries (\<75%) in 2/20 or 3/24 volunteers.|95% Confidence Interval|88.5|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|72.81||||||A one-sided confidence interval for the proportion of successes was determined using the Clopper-Pearson exact method for a 95% confidence interval.|The comparison is to the FDA requirements for in vivo 24-hour recovery of LR-RBC.|Proportion of successes greater than 70% where success of a unit is defined as the RBC in vivo 24-hour percentage recovery ≥ 75% was calculated.||72.81|
90924086|NCT05239455|181721360|OTHER|The FDA criteria requires LR-RBC mean 24-hour recovery ≥ 75% with standard deviation (SD) ≤ 9%||||||||||||||||The comparison is to the FDA requirements for in vivo 24-hour recovery of LR-RBC.|Mean and standard deviation were calculated.|||
90924087|NCT03365882|181721368|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.45|||Log Rank|||||1.45|0.43|0.44
90924088|NCT03365882|181721370|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.17
90924089|NCT00085735|181721416|NON_INFERIORITY|A hazard ratio of 1.6 is used as the non-inferiority margin. For the final analysis of comparing LDCSI vs. SDCSI, a one-sided 80% upper confidence limit of the hazard ratio based on a stratified approach will be estimated (stratified by RT group (IFRT vs. PFRT)). If the upper confidence limit is lower than 1.6, LDCSI would be deemed to be non-inferior. If not, non-inferiority would not be established.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.5|||||ONE_SIDED|80.0||1.9||||||The comparison is based on all eligible randomized patients 3-7 years of age without anaplastic histology or excess residual disease or disseminated disease by central review per the protocol document. Using a one-sided log rank test with type I error of 0.20, this study was designed to have power of 0.80 to detect a 10% reduction in cure rate due to the use of LDCSI compared to SDCSI.||1.9||
90924090|NCT00085735|181721416|NON_INFERIORITY|A hazard ratio of 1.6 is used as the non-inferiority margin. For the final analysis comparing IFRT vs. PFRT, a one-sided 94% upper confidence limit of the hazard ratio based on a stratified approach will be estimated (stratified by age group and RT group (LDCSI vs. SDCSI)). If the upper confidence limit is lower than 1.6, IFRT would be deemed to be non-inferior. If not, non-inferiority would not be established.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||||ONE_SIDED|94.0||1.3||||||The comparison is based on all eligible randomized patients 3-21 years of age without anaplastic histology or excess residual disease or disseminated disease by central review as per the protocol document. Using a one-sided log rank test with type I error of 0.20, this study was designed with power of 0.94 to detect a 10% reduction in cure rate and power of 0.65 to detect a 5% reduction in cure rate, due to the use of IFRT compared to PFRT.||1.3||
90924091|NCT01824875|181721436|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.07|||||Hazard ratio of Arm B/Arm A|||1.07|0.46|
90924092|NCT01824875|181721437|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.59
90924093|NCT02359890|181721520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of participants with events|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|6.5|||||The 2-sided 95% confidence interval is derived using the exact Clopper-Pearson interval.|||6.5|0.7|
90924094|NCT02359890|181721522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of patient with acute success|96.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|92.0|98.6|||||The 2-sided 95% confidence interval is derived using the exact Clopper-Pearson interval|||98.6|92.0|
90924095|NCT05260112|181721524|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90924096|NCT05260112|181721525|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90924097|NCT05260112|181721526|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90924098|NCT05260112|181721527|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90924099|NCT05260112|181721528|OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.53
90924100|NCT05260112|181721529|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90924101|NCT02683447|181721532|OTHER|Correlation||||||0.039||||||P \< 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Pearson correlation|||||||0.039
90924102|NCT02683447|181721533|OTHER|Correlation|||||<|0.01||||||P \< 0.05 is considered statically significant.|Pearson correlation|||ACLS correct score||||<0.01
90924103|NCT02683447|181721533|OTHER|Correlation||||||0.322||||||P \< 0.05 is considered statically significant.|Pearson correlation|||ACLS risk score||||0.322
90924104|NCT03904147|181721584|SUPERIORITY||Win Ratio|1.44||||0.0311|TWO_SIDED||||||Finkelstein-Schoenfeld Method||The Win Ratio provides an estimation of the treatment effect.|||||0.0311
90924105|NCT03904147|181721585|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0008|||||||exact test|||||||0.0008
90924106|NCT03904147|181721586|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Z test|||||||<0.0001
90924107|NCT03904147|181721587|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA model|||||||<0.0001
90924108|NCT03904147|181721588|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-square test|||||||<0.0001
90924109|NCT03904147|181721589|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2482|||||||ANCOVA model|||||||0.2482
90924110|NCT03904147|181721590|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Exact test|||||||<0.0001
90924111|NCT03904147|181721591|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Binomial exact method|||||||<0.0001
90924112|NCT03904147|181721592|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.109|||||||normal approximation|||||||0.1090
90924113|NCT04413708|181721598|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.62||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|5.17|||Fisher Exact|||||5.17|0.50|0.41
90924114|NCT04413708|181721599|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.07||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.9|||Fisher Exact|||||1.90|0.61|1.0
90924115|NCT06074172|181721657|OTHER|Linear Mixed Models were done with a compound symmetry covariance structure. This infers that the variances (pooled within-group) and covariances (across subjects) of all of the repeated measures are homogenous.||||||0.008||||||In the Bonferroni corrected Linear Mixed Model for PI Ratio, the p-value for the following interaction was reported: Treatment\*Age.|Linear Mixed Model|"Linear Mixed Model analyses:~1. Factor: Treatment group~2. Covariates: Age, Sex, CBD Use history, and Urine THC~3. Interactions"||||||0.008
90924116|NCT03020199|181721661|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.9|48.3|||Regression, Logistic||Logistic regression model with treatment as an explanatory variable and subset of significant covariates (including Baseline PASI score, age, BMI and their interaction terms with treatment) selected using forward selection method.|Week 52 PASI 90||48.3|5.9|<0.0001
90924117|NCT03020199|181721662|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.1|||Regression, Logistic||Exact logistic regression method for Treatment group comparison, without using any covariates.|Week 104 PASI 90||2.1|0.3|0.6530
90924118|NCT05583578|181721664|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012||||||The Threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.012
90924119|NCT05583578|181721664|OTHER||Cohen's d (effect size)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect sizes greater than (d = 0.80) were considered large.|Post-intervention changes in walking speed||||
90924120|NCT05583578|181721665|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.39
90924121|NCT05583578|181721665|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d (effect size)|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect sizes ranging from 0.21 to 0.79 were considered moderate, anything ≥0.80 were considered large.|||||
90963522|NCT04029480|181808290|OTHER||Difference in Percent|-1.8|||||||||||||No confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. CIs were computed only for those endpoints where at least ≥8 participants in the combined ertugliflozin group or ≥2 participants in the placebo group had events.|This analysis is based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.||||
90963523|NCT04029480|181808291|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.66||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||This analysis is based on an ANCOVA model including terms for Baseline A1C, treatment, age (10 to 14 years/15 to 17 years), and insulin use (yes/no) at Screening and calculated by Rubin's Rule.||-0.10|-1.23|0.021
90963524|NCT04029480|181808292|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.86||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|-0.33|||ANCOVA|||This analysis is based on an ANCOVA model including terms for Baseline A1C, treatment, age (10 to 14 years/15 to 17 years), and insulin use (yes/no) at Screening and calculated by Rubin's Rule.||-0.33|-1.39|0.001
90963525|NCT04029480|181808293|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-29.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.4|-13.6|||cLDA|||This analysis is based on a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model including terms for treatment, time, age (10 to 14 years/15 to 17 years), insulin use (yes/no), interaction of time by treatment with the constraint that the model estimated a single baseline mean (applicable to all treatment groups).||-13.6|-44.4|0.001
90963526|NCT04029480|181808294|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.03||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.35|||cLDA|||This analysis is a based on a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model including terms for treatment, time, age (10 to 14 years/15 to 17 years), insulin use (yes/no), interaction of time by treatment with the constraint that the model estimated a single baseline mean (applicable to all treatment groups).||-0.35|-1.70|0.003
90963527|NCT04029480|181808295|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-33.1||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.0|-13.1|||cLDA|||This analysis is based on a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model including terms for treatment, time, age (10 to 14 years/15 to 17 years), insulin use (yes/no), interaction of time by treatment with the constraint that the model estimated a single baseline mean (applicable to all treatment groups).||-13.1|-53.0|0.001
90963528|NCT01839487|181808318|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.01||Threshold for significance at 0.1 level.|Log Rank|P-value was based on stratified log-rank test with the KPS category at screening as the stratification factor.||Hazard ratio PAG/AG was based on Cox proportional hazards model stratified by the Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) category (70-80% and 90-100%) at screening using AG as the reference arm.||1.01|0.54|0.058
90963529|NCT01839487|181808320|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.1||Threshold for significance at 0.1 level.|Log Rank|P-value was based on stratified log-rank test with the KPS category at screening as the stratification factor.||Hazard ratio PAG/AG for HA-high was based on Cox proportional hazards model stratified by the KPS category (70-80% and 90-100%) at screening using AG as the reference arm.||1.10|0.30|0.092
90924131|NCT02714257|181721681|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.14|||Regression, Cox||Enhanced Usual Care - control group vs. Enhanced Usual Care plus Exercise Coaching Intervention|||1.14|0.74|0.43
90924132|NCT02714257|181721682|SUPERIORITY||Incidence Rate Ratio|1.06||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.28|||Regression, Negative Binomial||Enhanced Usual Care - control group vs. Enhanced Usual Care plus Exercise Coaching Intervention|||1.28|0.89|0.50
90924133|NCT02714257|181721683|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.11|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.11|0.72|0.30
90924134|NCT02714257|181721684|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.54|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.92|||Mixed Models Analysis||Enhanced Usual Care - control group vs. Enhanced Usual Care plus Exercise Coaching Intervention|||0.92|0.16|<0.01
90924135|NCT02714257|181721685|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.27|||Regression, Logistic||Enhanced Usual Care - control group vs. Enhanced Usual Care plus Exercise Coaching Intervention|||1.27|0.85|0.73
90924136|NCT02714257|181721686|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.62|||Mixed Models Analysis||Enhanced Usual Care - control group vs. Enhanced Usual Care plus Exercise Coaching Intervention|||0.62|-0.18|0.27
90924137|NCT02714257|181721687|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis||Enhanced Usual Care - control group vs. Enhanced Usual Care plus Exercise Coaching Intervention|||0.34|-0.13|0.37
90924138|NCT02714257|181721688|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.38|||Mixed Models Analysis||Enhanced Usual Care - control group vs. Enhanced Usual Care plus Exercise Coaching Intervention|||0.38|-0.10|0.26
90924139|NCT02714257|181721689|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis||Enhanced Usual Care - control group vs. Enhanced Usual Care plus Exercise Coaching Intervention|||0.22|-0.09|0.39
90924140|NCT04752709|181721743|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90924141|NCT04248725|181721748|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.7||||0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Models were adjusted for sex, baseline severity, and disability condition.||||||0.004
90924142|NCT04248725|181721749|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.88|0.30|<0.001
90924143|NCT04248725|181721750|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.32||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.03|-0.61|0.29
90924144|NCT03656510|181721865|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.382|0.185||||||Difference versus placebo in mean RSV viral load AUC on Day 3||0.185|-1.382|
90924145|NCT03656510|181721865|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|0.418||||||Difference versus placebo in mean RSV viral load AUC on Day 3||0.418|-1.190|
90924146|NCT03656510|181721865|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.674|-0.25||||||Difference versus placebo in mean RSV viral load AUC on Day 8||-0.250|-4.674|
90924147|NCT03656510|181721865|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.645|-0.114||||||Difference versus placebo in mean RSV viral load AUC on Day 8||-0.114|-4.645|
90924148|NCT03819153|181721952|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.88|||Regression, Cox|||Time from randomization to first composite renal event was analyzed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as categorical fixed factor and stratified by use of sodium glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitor (yes/no) at baseline. Based on the available number of events for analysis, the nominal significance level was updated to 0.01612 using the Lan-DeMets alpha spending function. eGFR was calculated using the CKD-EPI formula.||0.88|0.66|0.0001
90924149|NCT03974178|181721974|OTHER|"The minimal sample size to get a possible rejection of H0 (pdeath = 8.5% or more) in favour of H1 (pdeath \<8.5%) was 34 evaluable patients with stage 2 r-HAT.~The hypothesis was tested with a one-sided exact test for proportions at the 0.05 significance level."|Fatality rate|0.0||||0.0488|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|8.43||The rate of deaths possibly related to r-HAT or to fexinidazole at the end of hospitalization was compared to the predefined unacceptable rate of 8.5%.|one-sided exact test|Clopper Pearson exact method||"The proportion of deaths (pdeath) is compared to the threshold of 8.5%, with H0 being pdeath = 8.5% or more.~The 90% confidence interval of the fatality rate is calculated with the Clopper-Pearson method."||8.43|0|0.0488
90924150|NCT03974178|181721975|OTHER|The hypothesis H0 (pfailure at the end of hospitalization = 9% or more) was tested with a one-sided exact test for proportions at the 0.05 significance level.|Failure rate|0.0||||0.0405|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|8.43||The rate of failures at the end of hospitalization was compared to the predefined unacceptable rate of 9%.|one-sided exact test|Clopper Pearson exact method||"The proportion of failures at the end of hospitalization (pfailure) is compared to the threshold of 9%, with H0 being pfailure = 9% or more.~The 90% confidence interval of the failure rate is calculated with the Clopper-Pearson method."||8.43|0|0.0405
90884114|NCT03228680|181630707|SUPERIORITY||Mean ratio|1.03||||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.09||The P-value corresponds to the two-sided F-test of treatment effect.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment and AMH stratum (\<15 pmol/L and ≥15 pmol/L) as fixed factors and log-baseline as covariate.|Mean ratio is equal to FE 999049/FOLLISTIM.|Circulating levels of FSH on stimulation Day 6.||1.09|0.98|0.228
90963530|NCT01839487|181808320|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.31||Threshold for significance at 0.1 level.|Log Rank|P-value was based on stratified log-rank test with the KPS category at screening as the stratification factor.||Hazard ratio PAG/AG for HA-low was based on Cox proportional hazards model stratified by the KPS category (70-80% and 90-100%) at screening using AG as the reference arm.||1.31|0.59|0.514
90963531|NCT01839487|181808321|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.22||||0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.68||Threshold for significance at 0.1 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||p-Value and relative risk were based on a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method using KPS category at screening as the stratification factor.||1.68|0.88|0.225
91034560|NCT00913627|181955172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|64.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.37|80.18||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||120 minutes||80.18|49.37|<0.001
91034561|NCT00913627|181955172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|64.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.01|79.59||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||120 minutes||79.59|50.01|<0.001
90884115|NCT03228680|181630707|SUPERIORITY||Mean ratio|0.97||||0.777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.17||The P-value corresponds to the two-sided F-test of treatment effect.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment and AMH stratum (\<15 pmol/L and ≥15 pmol/L) as fixed factors and log-baseline as covariate.|Mean ratio is equal to FE 999049/FOLLISTIM.|Circulating levels of LH on stimulation Day 6.||1.17|0.81|0.777
90884116|NCT03228680|181630708|SUPERIORITY||Mean ratio|0.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|0.94||The P-value corresponds to the two-sided F-test of treatment effect.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment and AMH stratum (\<15 pmol/L and ≥15 pmol/L) as fixed factors and log-baseline as covariate.|Mean ratio is equal to FE 999049/FOLLISTIM.|Circulating levels of FSH at end-of-stimulation.||0.94|0.84|<0.001
90884117|NCT03228680|181630708|SUPERIORITY||Mean ratio|1.17||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.39||The P-value corresponds to the two-sided F-test of treatment effect.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment and AMH stratum (\<15 pmol/L and ≥15 pmol/L) as fixed factors and log-baseline as covariate.|Mean ratio is equal to FE 999049/FOLLISTIM.|Circulating levels of LH at end-of-stimulation.||1.39|1.00|0.057
90884118|NCT03228680|181630709|SUPERIORITY||Mean ratio|0.81||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.93||The P-value corresponds to the two-sided F-test of treatment effect.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment and AMH stratum (\<15 pmol/L and ≥15 pmol/L) as fixed factors and log-baseline as covariate.|Mean ratio is equal to FE 999049/FOLLISTIM.|Circulating levels of estradiol on stimulation Day 6.||0.93|0.71|0.002
90884119|NCT03228680|181630710|SUPERIORITY||Mean ratio|0.85||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.95||The P-value corresponds to the two-sided F-test of treatment effect.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment and AMH stratum (\<15 pmol/L and ≥15 pmol/L) as fixed factors and log-baseline as covariate.|Mean ratio is equal to FE 999049/FOLLISTIM.|Circulating levels of estradiol at end-of-stimulation.||0.95|0.76|0.003
90884120|NCT03228680|181630711|SUPERIORITY||Mean ratio|1.02||||0.814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.16||The P-value corresponds to the two-sided F-test of treatment effect.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment and AMH stratum (\<15 pmol/L and ≥15 pmol/L) as fixed factors and log-baseline as covariate.|Mean ratio is equal to FE 999049/FOLLISTIM.|Circulating levels of progesterone on stimulation Day 6.||1.16|0.89|0.814
90884121|NCT03228680|181630712|SUPERIORITY||Mean ratio|0.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.88||The P-value corresponds to the two-sided F-test of treatment effect.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment and AMH stratum (\<15 pmol/L and ≥15 pmol/L) as fixed factors and log-baseline as covariate.|Mean ratio is equal to FE 999049/FOLLISTIM.|Circulating levels of progesterone levels at end-of-stimulation.||0.88|0.68|<0.001
90884122|NCT03228680|181630713|SUPERIORITY||Mean ratio|0.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.92||The P-value corresponds to the two-sided F-test of treatment effect.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment and AMH stratum (\<15 pmol/L and ≥15 pmol/L) as fixed factors and log-baseline as covariate.|Mean ratio is equal to FE 999049/FOLLISTIM.|Circulating levels of Inhibin A on stimulation Day 6.||0.92|0.73|<0.001
90884123|NCT03228680|181630714|SUPERIORITY||Mean ratio|0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.88||The P-value corresponds to the two-sided F-test of treatment effect.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment and AMH stratum (\<15 pmol/L and ≥15 pmol/L) as fixed factors and log-baseline as covariate.|Mean ratio is equal to FE 999049/FOLLISTIM.|Circulating levels of Inhibin A at end-of-stimulation.||0.88|0.72|<0.001
90884124|NCT03228680|181630715|SUPERIORITY||Mean ratio|0.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|0.93||The P-value corresponds to the two-sided F-test of treatment effect.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment and AMH stratum (\<15 pmol/L and ≥15 pmol/L) as fixed factors and log-baseline as covariate.|Mean ratio is equal to FE 999049/FOLLISTIM.|Circulating levels of Inhibin B on stimulation Day 6.||0.93|0.75|<0.001
90884125|NCT03228680|181630716|SUPERIORITY||Mean ratio|0.88||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.99||The P-value corresponds to the two-sided F-test of treatment effect.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment and AMH stratum (\<15 pmol/L and ≥15 pmol/L) as fixed factors and log-baseline as covariate.|Mean ratio is equal to FE 999049/FOLLISTIM.|Circulating levels of Inhibin B at end-of-stimulation.||0.99|0.79|0.027
90884126|NCT03228680|181630717|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.694||||||2-sided|van Elteren test|P-value was based on van Elteren test adjusted for AMH strata.||The number of stimulation days at end-of-stimulation.||||0.694
90963532|NCT01839487|181808322|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.19||Threshold for significance at 0.1 level.|Log Rank|P-value was based on stratified log-rank test with the KPS category at screening as the stratification factor.||Hazard ratio PAG/AG was based on Cox proportional hazards model stratified by the KPS category (70-80% and 90-100%) at screening using AG as the reference arm.||1.19|0.70|0.495
91034562|NCT00913627|181955172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|50.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.27|66.11||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||120 minutes||66.11|34.27|<0.001
91034563|NCT00913627|181955172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|68.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.81|84.38||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||180 minutes||84.38|52.81|<0.001
90924151|NCT03974178|181721976|OTHER|The hypothesis H0 (pfailure at 12 months = 12% or more) was tested with a one-sided exact test for proportions at the 0.05 significance level.|Failure rate|2.94||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.15|13.21||The rate of failures at 12 months was compared to the predefined unacceptable rate of 12%.|one-sided exact test|Clopper Pearson exact method||"The proportion of failures at 12 months (pfailure) is compared to the threshold of 12%, with H0 being pfailure = 12% or more.~The 90% confidence interval of the failure rate is calculated with the Clopper-Pearson method."||13.21|0.15|0.0730
90924152|NCT03974178|181721979|OTHER|The hypothesis H0 (pdeath = 8.5% or more) was tested with a one-sided exact test for proportions at the 0.05 significance level.|Fatality rate|0.0||||0.0201|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|6.58||The rate of deaths possibly related to r-HAT or to fexinidazole at the end of hospitalization was compared to the predefined unacceptable rate of 8.5%.|one-sided exact test|Clopper Pearson exact method||"The proportion of deaths (pdeath) is compared to the threshold of 8.5%, with H0 being pdeath = 8.5% or more.~The 90% confidence interval of the fatality rate is calculated with the Clopper-Pearson method."||6.58|0|0.0201
90924153|NCT03974178|181721980|OTHER|The hypothesis H0 (pfailure at the end of hospitalization = 9% or more) was tested with a one-sided exact test for proportions at the 0.05 significance level.|Failure rate|0.0||||0.0158|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|6.58||The rate of failures at the end of hospitalization was compared to the predefined unacceptable rate of 9%.|one-sided exact test|Clopper Pearson exact method||"The proportion of failures at the end of hospitalization (pfailure) is compared to the threshold of 9%, with H0 being pfailure = 9% or more.~The 90% confidence interval of the failure rate is calculated with the Clopper-Pearson method."||6.58|0|0.0158
90924154|NCT03974178|181721981|OTHER|The hypothesis H0 (pfailure at 12 months = 12% or more) was tested with a one-sided exact test for proportions at the 0.05 significance level.|Failure rate|2.27||||0.0253|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.12|10.34||The rate of failures at 12 months was compared to the predefined unacceptable rate of 12%.|one-sided exact test|Clopper Pearson exact method||"The proportion of failures at 12 months (pfailure) is compared to the threshold of 12%, with H0 being pfailure = 12% or more.~The 90% confidence interval of the failure rate is calculated with the Clopper-Pearson method."||10.34|0.12|0.0253
90924155|NCT03899259|181721985|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.79|22.17|||Regression, Logistic|||||22.17|2.79|<0.001
90924156|NCT03899259|181721985|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|19.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.3|53.3|||Regression, Logistic|||||53.30|7.30|<0.001
90924157|NCT03899259|181721986|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.834|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.78|-17.72|||ANCOVA|||||-17.72|-32.78|<0.001
90924158|NCT03899259|181721986|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-44.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.482|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.33|-37.65|||ANCOVA|||||-37.65|-51.33|<0.001
90924159|NCT03899259|181721987|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.63||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|13.6|||Regression, Logistic|||||13.60|1.58|0.005
90924160|NCT03899259|181721987|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.72|35.44|||Regression, Logistic|||||35.44|4.72|<0.001
90924161|NCT03899259|181721988|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.36||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|10.74|||Regression, Logistic|||||10.74|1.77|0.001
91034564|NCT00913627|181955172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|72.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.05|87.26||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||180 minutes||87.26|57.05|<0.001
90924162|NCT03899259|181721988|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.75|31.1|||Regression, Logistic|||||31.10|5.75|<0.001
90924163|NCT03899259|181721990|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.56||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|7.24|||Regression, Logistic|||||7.24|0.91|0.076
90924164|NCT03899259|181721990|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.12|25.77|||Regression, Logistic|||||25.77|4.12|<0.001
90924165|NCT03899259|181721991|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.88||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|5.62|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.62|0.63|0.260
90924166|NCT03899259|181721991|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.18|20.66|||Regression, Logistic|||||20.66|3.18|<0.001
90924167|NCT03899259|181721992|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.43||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|9.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||9.40|1.25|0.017
90924168|NCT03899259|181721992|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.32|27.25|||Regression, Logistic|||||27.25|4.32|<0.001
90924169|NCT03899259|181721993|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.63||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.73|78.42|||Regression, Logistic|||||78.42|2.73|0.002
90924170|NCT03899259|181721993|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|30.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.93|99.99|||Regression, Logistic|||||99.99|5.93|<0.001
90924171|NCT03899259|181721994|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.981||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.91|0.88|||ANCOVA|||||0.88|-6.91|0.129
90924172|NCT03899259|181721994|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.799||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.75|-0.68|||ANCOVA|||||-0.68|-7.75|0.020
90924173|NCT03899259|181721995|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.017||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.68|-0.82|||ANCOVA|||||-0.82|-12.68|0.026
90924174|NCT03899259|181721995|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.737|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.8|-8.04|||ANCOVA|||||-8.04|-18.80|<0.001
90924175|NCT03899259|181721996|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.68||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.65|0.88|||ANCOVA|||||0.88|-9.65|0.103
90924176|NCT03899259|181721996|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.429|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|-3.56|||ANCOVA|||||-3.56|-13.10|<0.001
90924177|NCT03899259|181721997|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.315||0.518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.42|||ANCOVA|||||0.42|-0.82|0.518
90924178|NCT03899259|181721997|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.286||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|-0.16|||ANCOVA|||||-0.16|-1.28|0.012
90924179|NCT03899259|181721998|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.291||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|0.07|||ANCOVA|||||0.07|-1.08|0.083
90924180|NCT03899259|181721998|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.264||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.16|||ANCOVA|||||-0.16|-1.20|0.010
91034565|NCT00913627|181955172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|53.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.57|70.37||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||180 minutes||70.37|36.57|<0.001
91034566|NCT00913627|181955172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|72.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.48|87.84||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||240 minutes||87.84|57.48|<0.001
91034567|NCT00913627|181955172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|79.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.68|93.05||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||240 minutes||93.05|65.68|<0.001
91034568|NCT00913627|181955172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|57.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.46|73.6||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||240 minutes||73.60|40.46|<0.001
91034569|NCT00913627|181955172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|72.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.48|87.84||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||300 minutes||87.84|57.48|<0.001
91034570|NCT00913627|181955172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|81.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.91|94.49||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||300 minutes||94.49|67.91|<0.001
91034571|NCT00913627|181955172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|58.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.34|75.35||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||300 minutes||75.35|42.34|<0.001
90884127|NCT03732638|181630740|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.0099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.20|-1.46|0.0099
91034572|NCT00913627|181955172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|69.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.33|85.33||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||360 minutes||85.33|53.33|<0.001
90884128|NCT03732638|181630741|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.6||||0.0438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|14.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||14.9|0.2|0.0438
91034573|NCT00913627|181955172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|77.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.57|92.06||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||360 minutes||92.06|63.57|<0.001
91034574|NCT00913627|181955172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|58.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.88|75.84||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||360 minutes||75.84|41.88|<0.001
91034575|NCT00913627|181955173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Goodman-Kruskal Gamma Statistic|0.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.01||p-value from CMH test with modified ridit scores, adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.01|0.85|<0.001
91034576|NCT00913627|181955173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Goodman-Kruskal Gamma Statistic|0.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.02||p-value from CMH test with modified ridit scores, adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.02|0.88|<0.001
91034577|NCT00913627|181955173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Goodman-Kruskal Gamma Statistic|0.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.98||p-value from CMH test with modified ridit scores, adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.98|0.70|<0.001
91034578|NCT00913627|181955174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Goodman-Kruskal Gamma Statistic|0.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.01||p-value from CMH test with modified ridit scores, adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.01|0.85|<0.001
90884129|NCT03732638|181630742|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|-0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.31|-1.34|0.0017
90884130|NCT03732638|181630743|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.3868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.31||P-value ≥ 0.05; therefore, all secondary endpoints listed after this endpoint in the hierarchy were not tested.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.31|-0.80|0.3868
90884131|NCT01420302|181630763|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91034579|NCT00913627|181955174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Goodman-Kruskal Gamma Statistic|0.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.01||p-value from CMH test with modified ridit scores, adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.01|0.91|<0.001
91034580|NCT00913627|181955174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Goodman-Kruskal Gamma Statistic|0.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.99||p-value from CMH test with modified ridit scores, adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.99|0.79|<0.001
91034581|NCT00913627|181955175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.38||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||15 minutes||0.38|0.06|0.008
91034582|NCT00913627|181955175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.38||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||15 minutes||0.38|0.06|0.007
91034583|NCT00913627|181955175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.34||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||15 minutes||0.34|0.02|0.024
91034584|NCT00913627|181955175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.78||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||30 minutes||0.78|0.24|<0.001
91034585|NCT00913627|181955175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.73||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||30 minutes||0.73|0.20|<0.001
91034586|NCT00913627|181955175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.42||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.68||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||30 minutes||0.68|0.16|0.002
90884132|NCT02214147|181630793|OTHER|The effect of hepatic impairment on alisertib PK. Combined analysis of moderate and severe hepatic impairment in reference to normal hepatic function.|Least Squares Geometric Mean Ratio|1.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.12|1.8|||||Least Squares Geometric Means Ratio= Moderate + Severe Hepatic Impairment/Normal Hepatic Function|||1.80|1.12|
90884133|NCT02214147|181630794|OTHER|The effect of hepatic impairment on alisertib PK. Combined analysis of moderate and severe hepatic impairment in reference to normal hepatic function.|Least Squares Geometric Mean Ratio|3.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.33|4.43|||||Least Squares Geometric Mean Ratio=Moderate + Severe Hepatic Impairment/Normal Hepatic Function|||4.43|2.33|
90884134|NCT02214147|181630795|OTHER|The effect of hepatic impairment on alisertib PK. Combined analysis of moderate and severe hepatic impairment in reference to normal hepatic function.|Least Squares Geometric Mean Ratio|2.54|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.84|3.53|||||Least Squares Geometric Mean Ratio=Moderate + Severe Hepatic Impairment/Normal Hepatic Function|||3.53|1.84|
90884135|NCT05446909|181630814|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
90884136|NCT05446909|181630815|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
90884137|NCT05446909|181630816|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
90884138|NCT05446909|181630817|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
90884139|NCT05446909|181630818|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.754|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.754
90884140|NCT05446909|181630819|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.985|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.985
90884141|NCT05446909|181630820|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.877|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.877
90884142|NCT03759223|181630830|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||0:24 weeks|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.04
90884143|NCT03759223|181630830|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||0:24 weeks|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.05
90884144|NCT03759223|181630830|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58||||||12:12 weeks|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.58
90884145|NCT05421078|181630843|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-25.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.387|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.53|-15.14||p value is calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-15.14|-36.53|<.0001
91034587|NCT00913627|181955175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.17||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||45 minutes||1.17|0.52|<0.001
90884146|NCT05421078|181630843|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-33.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.378|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.01|-22.66||p value is calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-22.66|-44.01|<.0001
90884147|NCT05421078|181630843|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-36.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.323|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.68|-25.55||p value is calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-25.55|-46.68|<.0001
90884148|NCT05421078|181630844|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-25.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.387|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.53|-15.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||p value is calculated||-15.14|-36.53|<.0001
90884149|NCT05421078|181630844|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-33.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.378|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.01|-22.66||p value is calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-22.66|-44.01|<.0001
90884150|NCT05421078|181630844|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-36.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.323|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.68|-25.55||p value is calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-25.55|-46.68|<.0001
90884151|NCT05421078|181630845|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-25.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.387|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.53|-15.14||p value is calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-15.14|-36.53|<.0001
90924181|NCT01152450|181721999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.149|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001||95.0|0.102|0.196|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R2.5 bid - Placebo|||0.196|0.102|<0.0001
90884152|NCT05421078|181630845|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-33.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.378|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.01|-22.66||p value is calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-22.66|-44.01|<.0001
90884153|NCT05421078|181630845|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-36.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.323|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.68|-25.55||p value is calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-25.55|-46.68|<.0001
90884154|NCT05421078|181630846|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-27.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.626|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.37|-16.04||p value is calculated|ANCOVA|||||-16.04|-38.37|<.0001
90884155|NCT05421078|181630846|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-31.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.609|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.36|-20.1||p value is calculated|ANCOVA|||||-20.10|-42.36|<.0001
90884156|NCT05421078|181630846|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-36.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.55|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.83|-25.8||p value is calculated|ANCOVA|||||-25.80|-47.83|<.0001
90884157|NCT05421078|181630847|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-27.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.626|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.37|-16.04||p value is calculated|ANCOVA|||||-16.04|-38.37|<.0001
90884158|NCT05421078|181630847|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-31.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.609|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.36|-20.1||p value is calculated|ANCOVA|||||-20.10|-42.36|<.0001
90884159|NCT05421078|181630847|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-36.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.55|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.83|-25.8||p value is calculated|ANCOVA|||||-25.80|-47.83|<.0001
90884160|NCT05421078|181630848|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-27.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.626|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.37|-16.04||p value is calculated|ANCOVA|||||-16.04|-38.37|<.0001
90884161|NCT05421078|181630848|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-31.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.609|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.36|-20.1||p value is calculated|ANCOVA|||||-20.10|-42.36|<.0001
90884162|NCT05421078|181630848|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-36.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.55|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.83|-25.8||p value is calculated|ANCOVA|||||-25.80|-47.83|<.0001
90884163|NCT05421078|181630849|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-19.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.439|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.83|-12.18||p value is calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-12.18|-25.83|<.0001
90924182|NCT01152450|181721999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.158|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001||95.0|0.111|0.205|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd - Placebo|||0.205|0.111|<0.0001
90924183|NCT01152450|181721999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.009|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||||95.0|-0.038|0.056|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd - Tio R2.5 bid|||0.056|-0.038|
90924184|NCT01152450|181722000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.328|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.19|<|0.0001||95.0|11.084|31.573|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R2.5 bid - Placebo|||31.573|11.084|<0.0001
90924185|NCT01152450|181722000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.357|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.225|<|0.0001||95.0|12.044|32.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd - Placebo|||32.670|12.044|<0.0001
90924186|NCT01152450|181722000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.029|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.242||||95.0|-9.318|11.376|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd - Tio R2.5 bid|||11.376|-9.318|
90963533|NCT03714425|181808332|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The primary research objective to measure perceived improvement in pain at three months was assessed using a two-sample t-test of PGIC scores between the two treatment groups using a type I error rate of 0.05 (two-sided).|t-test, 2 sided|Most of the analyses involved delta scores reflecting changes within subjects, though we compared PGIC raw scores rather than change scores.||||||<0.05
90924187|NCT01152450|181722001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|29.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.026|<|0.0001||95.0|20.001|39.839|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R2.5 bid - Placebo|||39.839|20.001|<0.0001
90924188|NCT01152450|181722001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.657|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.042|<|0.0001||95.0|18.707|38.606|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd - Placebo|||38.606|18.707|<0.0001
90924189|NCT01152450|181722001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.264|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.056||||95.0|-11.243|8.716|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd - Tio R2.5 bid|||8.716|-11.243|
90924190|NCT01152450|181722002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.169|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001||95.0|0.12|0.218|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R2.5 bid - Placebo|||0.218|0.120|<0.0001
90924191|NCT01152450|181722002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.185|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001||95.0|0.136|0.234|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd - Placebo|||0.234|0.136|<0.0001
90924192|NCT01152450|181722002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||||95.0|-0.033|0.065|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd - Tio R2.5 bid|||0.065|-0.033|
90924193|NCT01152450|181722003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.129|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001||95.0|0.077|0.181|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R2.5 bid - Placebo|||0.181|0.077|<0.0001
90924194|NCT01152450|181722003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.131|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001||95.0|0.079|0.183|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd - Placebo|||0.183|0.079|<0.0001
90924195|NCT01152450|181722003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||||95.0|-0.05|0.054|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd - Tio R2.5 bid|||0.054|-0.050|
91034588|NCT00913627|181955175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.11||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||45 minutes||1.11|0.47|<0.001
90924196|NCT01152450|181722004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.132|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001||95.0|0.084|0.179|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R2.5 bid - Placebo|||0.179|0.084|<0.0001
90924197|NCT01152450|181722004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.131|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001||95.0|0.084|0.179|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd - Placebo|||0.179|0.084|<0.0001
90924198|NCT01152450|181722004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||||95.0|-0.048|0.047|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd - Tio R2.5 bid|||0.047|-0.048|
90924199|NCT01152450|181722005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.111|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0002||95.0|0.053|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R2.5 bid - Placebo|||0.170|0.053|0.0002
90924200|NCT01152450|181722005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.133|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029|<|0.0001||95.0|0.074|0.191|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd - Placebo|||0.191|0.074|<0.0001
90924201|NCT01152450|181722005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||||95.0|-0.037|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd - Tio R2.5 bid|||0.080|-0.037|
90924202|NCT01152450|181722006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.068|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035||0.0515||95.0|0.0|0.136|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R2.5 bid - Placebo|||0.136|0.000|0.0515
90963534|NCT01658826|181808338|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.43|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.63|||non-linear mixed effects model|||||0.63|0.30|<0.0001
91034589|NCT00913627|181955175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.94||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||45 minutes||0.94|0.30|<0.001
90884164|NCT05421078|181630849|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-22.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.441|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.28|-15.62||p value is calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-15.62|-29.28|<.0001
90884165|NCT05421078|181630849|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-24.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.406|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.62|-18.1||p value is calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-18.10|-31.62|<.0001
90884166|NCT05421078|181630850|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-19.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.439|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.83|-12.18||p value is calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-12.18|-25.83|<.0001
90884167|NCT05421078|181630850|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-22.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.441|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.28|-15.62||p value is calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-15.62|-29.28|<.0001
90884168|NCT05421078|181630850|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-24.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.406|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.62|-18.1||p value is calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-18.10|-31.62|<.0001
90884169|NCT05421078|181630851|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-19.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.439|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.83|-12.18||p value is calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-12.18|-25.83|<.0001
90884170|NCT05421078|181630851|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-22.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.441|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.28|-15.62||p value is calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-15.62|-29.28|<.0001
90884171|NCT05421078|181630851|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-24.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.406|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.62|-18.1||p value is calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-18.10|-31.62|<.0001
90884172|NCT05421078|181630852|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-23.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.85|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.56|-14.31||p value is calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-14.31|-33.56|<.0001
90884173|NCT05421078|181630852|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-28.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.849|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.01|-18.76||p value is calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-18.76|-38.01|<.0001
90884174|NCT05421078|181630852|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-28.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.801|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.08|-19.03||p value is calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-19.03|-38.08|<.0001
90884175|NCT05421078|181630853|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-23.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.85|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.56|-14.31||p value is calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-14.31|-33.56|<.0001
90884176|NCT05421078|181630853|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-28.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.849|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.01|-18.76||p value is calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-18.76|-38.01|<.0001
90884177|NCT05421078|181630853|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-28.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.801|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.08|-19.03||p value is calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-19.03|-38.08|<.0001
90884178|NCT05421078|181630854|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-23.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.85|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.56|-14.31||p value is calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-14.31|-33.56|<.0001
90884179|NCT05421078|181630854|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-28.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.849|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.01|-18.76||p value is calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-18.76|-38.01|<.0001
90884180|NCT05421078|181630854|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-28.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.801|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.08|-19.03||p value is calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-19.03|-38.08|<.0001
90884181|NCT05421078|181630855|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|133.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.205|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|112.85|153.36||p value is calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||153.36|112.85|<.0001
90884182|NCT05421078|181630855|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|147.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.195|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|127.17|167.64||p value is calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||167.64|127.17|<.0001
90884183|NCT05421078|181630855|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|155.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|135.93|176.02||p value is calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||176.02|135.93|<.0001
90884184|NCT05421078|181630856|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|133.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.205|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|112.85|153.36||p value is calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||153.36|112.85|<.0001
90884185|NCT05421078|181630856|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|147.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.195|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|127.17|167.64||p value is calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||167.64|127.17|<.0001
90924203|NCT01152450|181722006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.056|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035||0.1058||95.0|-0.012|0.124|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd - Placebo|||0.124|-0.012|0.1058
90924204|NCT01152450|181722006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035||||95.0|-0.08|0.057|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd - Tio R2.5 bid|||0.057|-0.080|
90924205|NCT01152450|181722007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.125|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001||95.0|0.073|0.177|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R2.5 bid - Placebo|||0.177|0.073|<0.0001
90924206|NCT01152450|181722007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.0002||95.0|0.048|0.152|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd - Placebo|||0.152|0.048|0.0002
90884186|NCT05421078|181630856|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|155.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|135.93|176.02||p value is calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||176.02|135.93|<.0001
90924207|NCT01152450|181722007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.025|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||||95.0|-0.077|0.027|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd - Tio R2.5 bid|||0.027|-0.077|
90884187|NCT05421078|181630857|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|133.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.205|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|112.85|153.36||p value is calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||153.36|112.85|<.0001
90884188|NCT05421078|181630857|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|147.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.195|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|127.17|167.64||p value is calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||167.64|127.17|<.0001
90884189|NCT05421078|181630857|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|155.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|135.93|176.02||p value is calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||176.02|135.93|<.0001
90884190|NCT05944250|181630917|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.21
90884191|NCT05944250|181630921|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Wounds that reach \>50% healing from baseline per investigator assessment at Month 1||||1
90884192|NCT05944250|181630921|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Wounds that reach \>50% healing from baseline per investigator assessment at Month 2||||1
90884193|NCT05944250|181630921|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Wounds that reach \>50% healing from baseline per investigator assessment at Month 3||||1
90884194|NCT05944250|181630921|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Wounds that reach \>50% healing from baseline per investigator assessment at Month 4||||0.15
90884195|NCT05944250|181630922|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Wounds that reach \>70% healing from baseline per investigator assessment at Month 1||||1
90884196|NCT05944250|181630922|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Wounds that reach \>70% healing from baseline per investigator assessment at Month 2||||1
90884197|NCT05944250|181630922|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Wounds that reach \>70% healing from baseline per investigator assessment at Month 3||||0.59
90924208|NCT01152450|181722008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.076|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.0051||95.0|0.023|0.129|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R2.5 bid - Placebo|||0.129|0.023|0.0051
90884198|NCT05944250|181630922|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Wounds that reach \>70% healing from baseline per investigator assessment at Month 4||||0.09
90884199|NCT00086580|181630923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.467|0.795|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional hazards model was stratified by Rai Stage Group||||0.795|0.467|<0.001
90884200|NCT00086580|181630924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.15||P-value presented is adjusted for multiple tests using Hochberg procedure for 3 clinically important secondary endpoints: ORR, CR rates and OS.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH chi-square test for a difference in overall response rates between treatments stratified by Rai Stage Group.|Difference and confidence interval (CI) calculated using the recommended method by Altman et al.|Comparison of Overall Response.||0.15|-0.03|0.178
90884201|NCT00086580|181630924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.15||P-value presented is adjusted for multiple tests using Hochberg procedure for 3 clinically important secondary endpoints: ORR, CR rates and OS.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH chi-square test for a difference in complete response rates between treatments stratified by Rai Stage Group.|Difference and confidence interval (CI) calculated using the recommended method by Altman et al.|Comparison of complete response (CR).||0.15|0.02|0.018
90884202|NCT00086580|181630925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.648||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.449|0.937||P-value presented is adjusted for multiple tests using Hochberg procedure for 3 clinically important secondary endpoints: ORR, CR rates and OS.|Regression, Cox|Cox proportional hazards model stratified by Rai Stage Group||||0.937|0.449|0.042
90884203|NCT00086580|181630926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.562|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.752|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression model stratified by Rai Stage Group.||||0.752|0.420|<0.001
90884204|NCT00086580|181630928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.718||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.543|0.951|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional hazards model stratified by Rai Stage Group.||||0.951|0.543|0.021
90884205|NCT00086580|181630936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.75||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.531|1.059|||Regression, Cox|||||1.059|0.531|0.102
90884206|NCT00086580|181630937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.443|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.292|0.671|||Regression, Cox|||||0.671|0.292|<0.001
90884207|NCT00086580|181630938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.066||||0.819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.619|1.836|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional hazards model||||1.836|0.619|0.819
90884208|NCT00086580|181630939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.416|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.69|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional hazards model||||0.690|0.250|<0.001
90884209|NCT00086580|181630942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.08|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH chi-square test for a difference in response rates between treatments stratified by Rai Stage Group.||||0.08|0.01|0.014
90884210|NCT03235024|181630949|EQUIVALENCE|A sample size of 52 per group would achieve \>80% power to reject the null hypothesis of equal means when the population mean difference is μ1 - μ2 = (-1.4) - (-5.3) = 3.9 with a standard deviation for both groups of 7.0 and with a significance level (alpha) of 0.025 using a 1-sided 2-sample equal variance t-test.||||||0.0228||||||At Week 2|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0228
90884211|NCT02357576|181630956|OTHER|Percentage and frequencies were used to describe the incidence of PNAC in the two groups.||||||0.617|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.617
90924209|NCT01152450|181722008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.068|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.0123||95.0|0.015|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd - Placebo|||0.120|0.015|0.0123
90924210|NCT01152450|181722008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||||95.0|-0.061|0.045|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd - Tio R2.5 bid|||0.045|-0.061|
90924211|NCT01152450|181722009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.077|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.0042||95.0|0.025|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R2.5 bid - Placebo|||0.130|0.025|0.0042
90924212|NCT01152450|181722009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.0747||95.0|-0.005|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd - Placebo|||0.100|-0.005|0.0747
90924213|NCT01152450|181722009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.029|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||||95.0|-0.082|0.023|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd - Tio R2.5 bid|||0.023|-0.082|
90924214|NCT01152450|181722013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.101|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001||95.0|0.055|0.147|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R2.5 bid - Placebo|||0.147|0.055|<0.0001
90963535|NCT03877432|181808346|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||ANOVA|||All data were presented as means ± standard deviations (SDs). Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare the effects of 1T stimulation amplitude changes on bladder capacity.||||0.012
90924215|NCT01152450|181722013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.084|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023||0.0004||95.0|0.038|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd - Placebo|||0.130|0.038|0.0004
90924216|NCT01152450|181722013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023||||95.0|-0.063|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd - Tio R2.5 bid|||0.030|-0.063|
90924217|NCT01152450|181722014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|30.242|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.091|<|0.0001||95.0|22.167|38.317|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R2.5 bid - Placebo|||38.317|22.167|<0.0001
90924218|NCT01152450|181722014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|34.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.089|<|0.0001||95.0|26.24|42.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd - Placebo|||42.380|26.240|<0.0001
90924219|NCT01152450|181722014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.068|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.094||||95.0|-4.012|12.148|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd - Tio R2.5 bid|||12.148|-4.012|
90924220|NCT01152450|181722015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.323|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.769||0.6747||95.0|-1.195|1.841|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R2.5 bid - Placebo|||1.841|-1.195|0.6747
90924221|NCT01152450|181722015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.389|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.774||0.6159||95.0|-1.138|1.916|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd - Placebo|||1.916|-1.138|0.6159
90924222|NCT01152450|181722015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.065|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.777||||95.0|-1.468|1.599|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd - Tio R2.5 bid|||1.599|-1.468|
90924223|NCT01152450|181722016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.077|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.142||0.5906||95.0|-0.358|0.204|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R2.5 bid - Placebo|||0.204|-0.358|0.5906
91034590|NCT00913627|181955175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.37||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||60 minutes||1.37|0.65|<0.001
91034591|NCT00913627|181955175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.44||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||60 minutes||1.44|0.73|<0.001
90924224|NCT01152450|181722016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.176|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.143||0.2208||95.0|-0.458|0.106|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd - Placebo|||0.106|-0.458|0.2208
90924225|NCT01152450|181722016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.099|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.143||||95.0|-0.382|0.184|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd - Tio R2.5 bid|||0.184|-0.382|
90924226|NCT01152450|181722017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.082||0.9797||95.0|-0.163|0.159|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R2.5 bid - Placebo|||0.159|-0.163|0.9797
90924227|NCT01152450|181722017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.062|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.082||0.4518||95.0|-0.223|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd - Placebo|||0.100|-0.223|0.4518
90924228|NCT01152450|181722017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.082||||95.0|-0.222|0.102|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd - Tio R2.5 bid|||0.102|-0.222|
90924229|NCT01152450|181722018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.061|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.074||0.4089||95.0|-0.207|0.085|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R2.5 bid - Placebo|||0.085|-0.207|0.4089
90963536|NCT03877432|181808346|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017|||||||ANOVA|||All data were presented as means ± standard deviations (SDs). Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare the effects of 2T stimulation amplitude changes on bladder capacity.||||0.017
90963537|NCT03877432|181808346|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||ANOVA|||All data were presented as means ± standard deviations (SDs). Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare the effects of 3T stimulation amplitude changes on bladder capacity.||||0.003
91034592|NCT00913627|181955175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.25||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||60 minutes||1.25|0.54|<0.001
90924230|NCT01152450|181722018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.074|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.074||0.3185||95.0|-0.221|0.072|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd - Placebo|||0.072|-0.221|0.3185
90924231|NCT01152450|181722018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.013|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.074||||95.0|-0.16|0.134|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd - Tio R2.5 bid|||0.134|-0.160|
90924232|NCT01152450|181722019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031||0.9626||95.0|-0.059|0.062|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R2.5 bid - Placebo|||0.062|-0.059|0.9626
90884212|NCT02357576|181630957|OTHER|Percentage and frequencies were used to describe the incidence of severe PNAC.||||||0.45|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.450
90884213|NCT02357576|181630958|OTHER|The Kaplan Meier curve was used to evaluated the time to first PNAC event.||||||0.2716|||||||Log Rank|A log rank test was used to test the equality of the survival curve between the two groups.||||||0.2716
90884214|NCT00261716|181630975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||Chi-squared|1 degree of freedom||Intent to treat analysis||||.33
90884215|NCT00261716|181630976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75|||||||t-test, 2 sided|degrees of freedom=36||intent to treat analysis||||.75
90884216|NCT00261716|181630977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||t-test, 2 sided|degrees of freedom=17||||||.41
90884217|NCT00261716|181630978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|Fishers exact= 1.0; one degree of freedom||intent to treat --all participants who obtained at least one job||||>.05
90884218|NCT00261716|181630978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>.05
90884219|NCT00261716|181630979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|employment status effect- F(1,12)=..85||Intent to treat analysis||||.37
90884220|NCT00261716|181630979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|time effect F(1,54)=.2.05||||||.16
90884221|NCT00261716|181630979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|employment status X time effect F (1,54)=.. 24||||||.63
90884222|NCT00261716|181630980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|employment status effect F(1,12)=.26||intent to treat analysis||||.62
90884223|NCT00261716|181630980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|time effect F (1,58)=.21 ,.||||||.65
90884224|NCT00261716|181630980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|employment status X time effect F(1,58)=.06||||||.81
90884225|NCT00261716|181630981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|employment status effect F(1,12)=1.95,||Intent to treat analysis||||.19
90884226|NCT00261716|181630981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|time effect (1.54)=2.99,||||||.09
90884227|NCT00261716|181630981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|employment status X time effect (F(1,54)=.74||||||.39
90963538|NCT03877432|181808346|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||ANOVA|||All data were presented as means ± standard deviations (SDs). Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare the effects of 4T stimulation amplitude changes on bladder capacity.||||0.004
90884228|NCT00128180|181630982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.18
90884229|NCT02047110|181630996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|7.5||||0.2652|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.1|26.6||The Suissa-Shuster unconditional exact test was used to test the difference in the proportion of patients achieving the primary endpoint, ASAS 40 response at Week 12, between treatment groups.|Suissa-Shuster unconditional exact test||"The confidence interval for the difference in proportion between the treatment groups was obtained by the Clopper-Pearson method. Difference calculated as risankizumab 18 mg minus Placebo."|To control the type I error rate, the primary endpoint was tested in a hierarchical fixed sequence approach. The proportion of patients achieving ASAS 40 response at Week 12 was pairwise compared in the following sequence: risankizumab 180 mg vs. placebo (1.) and risankizumab 90 mg vs. placebo (2.). The significance level was 5% (1-sided). The comparison risankizumab 18 mg vs. placebo was not included in the formal testing sequence; an exploratory p-value was provided.||26.6|-12.1|0.2652
90884230|NCT02047110|181630996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|3.0||||0.4129|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.9|20.8||The Suissa-Shuster unconditional exact test was used to test the difference in the proportion of patients achieving the primary endpoint, ASAS 40 response at Week 12, between treatment groups.|Suissa-Shuster unconditional exact test||"The confidence interval for the difference in proportion between the treatment groups was obtained by the Clopper- Pearson method. Difference calculated as risankizumab 90 mg minus Placebo."|To control the type I error rate, the primary endpoint was tested in a hierarchical fixed sequence approach. The proportion of patients achieving ASAS 40 response at Week 12 was pairwise compared in the following sequence: risankizumab 180 mg vs. placebo (1.) and risankizumab 90 mg vs. placebo (2.). The significance level was 5% (1-sided). The comparison risankizumab 18 mg vs. placebo was not included in the formal testing sequence; an exploratory p-value was provided.||20.8|-15.9|0.4129
90884231|NCT02047110|181630996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.5||||0.4243|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.8|17.0||The Suissa-Shuster unconditional exact test was used to test the difference in the proportion of patients achieving the primary endpoint, ASAS 40 response at Week 12, between treatment groups|Suissa-Shuster unconditional exact test||"The confidence interval for the difference in proportion between the treatment groups was obtained by the Clopper- Pearson method. Difference calculated as risankizumab 180 mg minus Placebo."|To control the type I error rate, the primary endpoint was tested in a hierarchical fixed sequence approach. The proportion of patients achieving ASAS 40 response at Week 12 was pairwise compared in the following sequence: risankizumab 180 mg vs. placebo (1.) and risankizumab 90 mg vs. placebo (2.). The significance level was 5% (1-sided). The comparison risankizumab 18 mg vs. placebo was not included in the formal testing sequence; an exploratory p-value was provided.||17.0|-21.8|0.4243
90884232|NCT02047110|181630997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median estimate by Hodges-Lehmann method|-0.4||||0.0229|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|-0.1||One sided p-value from Wilcoxon rank-sum test|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||"The confidence interval for the difference in proportion between the treatment groups was obtained by the Moses method. Difference calculated as risankizumab 18 mg minus Placebo."|||-0.1|-0.7|0.0229
90884233|NCT02047110|181630997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median estimate by Hodges-Lehmann method|-0.3||||0.1038|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|0.1||One sided p-value from Wilcoxon rank-sum test|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||"The confidence interval for the difference in proportion between the treatment groups was obtained by the Moses method. Difference calculated as risankizumab 90 mg minus Placebo."|||0.1|-0.6|0.1038
90963539|NCT01474863|181808364|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.86
90963540|NCT02038920|181808365|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.1448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.816|3.958|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||MLN0002 group/placebo group. Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test was used for analysis. Prior tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNFα) antagonist use (yes/no) was used as stratification factor.|||3.958|0.816|0.1448
90963541|NCT02038920|181808366|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.57||||0.1779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.532|23.953|||Pearson's Chi-square Test||MLN0002 group/placebo group|||23.953|0.532|0.1779
90963542|NCT02038920|181808372|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.83||||0.1963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|4.673|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||MLN0002 group/placebo group. Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test was used for analysis. Prior tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNFα) antagonist use (yes/no) was used as stratification factor.|||4.673|0.720|0.1963
90963543|NCT02038920|181808374|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|15.4||||0.0094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.473|160.972|||Pearson's Chi-square Test|||||160.972|1.473|0.0094
90963544|NCT02038920|181808375|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.6534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.254|8.844|||Pearson's Chi-square Test||MLN0002 group/placebo group.|||8.844|0.254|0.6534
90963545|NCT02038920|181808376|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2059|||||||Pearson's Chi-square Test|||||||0.2059
90963546|NCT02383589|181808391|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|30.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.7|45.15||The analysis was stratified by the stratification factors applied at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||45.15|14.70|<0.0001
90884234|NCT02047110|181630997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median estimate by Hodges-Lehmann method|-0.5||||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|-0.1||One sided p-value from Wilcoxon rank-sum test|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||"The confidence interval for the difference in proportion between the treatment groups was obtained by the Moses method. Difference calculated as risankizumab 180 mg minus Placebo."|||-0.1|-0.7|0.0101
90963547|NCT02383589|181808392|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0005
91034593|NCT00913627|181955175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.63||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||90 minutes||1.63|0.90|<0.001
91034594|NCT00913627|181955175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.69||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||90 minutes||1.69|0.97|<0.001
90924233|NCT01152450|181722019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031||0.9102||95.0|-0.058|0.065|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd - Placebo|||0.065|-0.058|0.9102
90924234|NCT01152450|181722019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031||||95.0|-0.059|0.063|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd - Tio R2.5 bid|||0.063|-0.059|
90924235|NCT03738852|181722020|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.907|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.907
90924236|NCT04508309|181722037|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be demonstrated if the lower bound of the 98.3% confidence interval of the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio was greater than the non-inferiority margin of 0.5 for both HPV-16 and HPV-18.|GMC Ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.891|1.327|||||GMC ratios (Cecolin/Gardasil) and corresponding confidence limits were calculated using linear models of the log concentration values adjusted by site and transformed back to the original scale.|The primary objective included three non-inferiority comparisons of Cecolin at 0 and 6 months, 0 and 12 months, or 0 and 24 months compared to Gardasil at 0 and 6 months. To control the type I error for the three co-primary non-inferiority hypotheses, a Bonferroni correction corresponding to 98.3% confidence intervals (CI) was used.||1.327|0.891|
90924237|NCT04508309|181722037|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be demonstrated if the lower bound of the 98.3% confidence interval of the GMC ratio was greater than the non-inferiority margin of 0.5 for both HPV-16 and HPV-18.|GMC Ratio|1.78|||||TWO_SIDED|98.3|1.455|2.176|||||GMC ratio (Cecolin/Gardasil) and corresponding confidence limits were calculated using linear models of the log concentration values adjusted by site and transformed back to the original scale.|The primary objective included three non-inferiority comparisons of Cecolin at 0 and 6 months, 0 and 12 months, or 0 and 24 months compared to Gardasil at 0 and 6 months. To control the type I error for the three co-primary non-inferiority hypotheses, a Bonferroni correction corresponding to 98.3% CI was used.||2.176|1.455|
90924238|NCT04508309|181722037|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be demonstrated if the lower bound of the 98.3% confidence interval of the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio was greater than the non-inferiority margin of 0.5 for both HPV-16 and HPV-18.|GMC Ratio|2.37|||||TWO_SIDED|98.3|1.942|2.903|||||GMC ratios (Cecolin/Gardasil) and corresponding confidence limits were calculated using linear models of the log concentration values adjusted by site and transformed back to the original scale.|The primary objective included three non-inferiority comparisons of Cecolin at 0 and 6 months, 0 and 12 months, or 0 and 24 months compared to Gardasil at 0 and 6 months. To control the type I error for the three co-primary non-inferiority hypotheses, a Bonferroni correction corresponding to 98.3% confidence intervals (CI) was used.||2.903|1.942|
90924239|NCT04508309|181722038|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be demonstrated if the lower bound of the 98.3% confidence interval of the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio was greater than the non-inferiority margin of 0.5 for both HPV-16 and HPV-18.|GMC Ratio|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|98.3|1.022|1.539|||||GMC ratios (Cecolin/Gardasil) and corresponding confidence limits were calculated using linear models of the log concentration values adjusted by site and transformed back to the original scale.|The primary objective included three non-inferiority comparisons of Cecolin at 0 and 6 months, 0 and 12 months, or 0 and 24 months compared to Gardasil at 0 and 6 months. To control the type I error for the three co-primary non-inferiority hypotheses, a Bonferroni correction corresponding to 98.3% confidence intervals (CI) was used.||1.539|1.022|
90924240|NCT04508309|181722038|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be demonstrated if the lower bound of the 98.3% confidence interval of the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio was greater than the non-inferiority margin of 0.5 for both HPV-16 and HPV-18.|GMC Ratio|1.68|||||TWO_SIDED|98.3|1.372|2.069|||||GMC ratios (Cecolin/Gardasil) and corresponding confidence limits were calculated using linear models of the log concentration values adjusted by site and transformed back to the original scale.|The primary objective included three non-inferiority comparisons of Cecolin at 0 and 6 months, 0 and 12 months, or 0 and 24 months compared to Gardasil at 0 and 6 months. To control the type I error for the three co-primary non-inferiority hypotheses, a Bonferroni correction corresponding to 98.3% confidence intervals (CI) was used.||2.069|1.372|
90963548|NCT02383589|181808393|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Rate Ratio|0.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.29||The model was adjusted for the following covariates in addition to log (each participant's duration in study) as an offset: treatment, region, duration of illness, baseline PDAI activity score, and baseline prednisone dose.|Negative Binominal Regression|||||0.29|0.05|<0.0001
90963549|NCT02383589|181808394|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.83||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.97|11.81||P-value is from a stratified log-rank test used to test the time to first disease flare between the RTX and MMF treatment arms over the 52-week treatment period, adjusting for the stratification factors applied at randomization|Log Rank|||||11.81|1.97|0.0003
90963550|NCT02383589|181808395|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.39||P-value is from a stratified log-rank test used to test the time to first disease flare between the RTX and MMF treatment arms over the 52-week treatment period, adjusting for the stratification factors applied at randomization|Log Rank|||||0.39|0.06|<0.0001
90963551|NCT02383589|181808396|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Estimated Means|-2.872||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.577|-1.167||P-value is from Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with unstructured covariance matrix, adjusting for treatment, region, duration of illness, baseline DLQI score, visit, and an interaction terms for visit × baseline DLQI score and visit × treatment|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||-1.167|-4.577|0.0012
91034595|NCT00913627|181955175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.45||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||90 minutes||1.45|0.74|<0.001
90924241|NCT04508309|181722038|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be demonstrated if the lower bound of the 98.3% confidence interval of the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio was greater than the non-inferiority margin of 0.5 for both HPV-16 and HPV-18.|GMC Ratio|1.71|||||TWO_SIDED|98.3|1.389|2.102|||||GMC ratios (Cecolin/Gardasil) and corresponding confidence limits were calculated using linear models of the log concentration values adjusted by site and transformed back to the original scale.|The primary objective included three non-inferiority comparisons of Cecolin at 0 and 6 months, 0 and 12 months, or 0 and 24 months compared to Gardasil at 0 and 6 months. To control the type I error for the three co-primary non-inferiority hypotheses, a Bonferroni correction corresponding to 98.3% confidence intervals (CI) was used.||2.102|1.389|
90924242|NCT04508309|181722043|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of the Cecolin containing arm (Group 5) compared to Gardasil at months 0 and 6 (Group 4) was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI of the GMC ratio was greater than the non-inferiority margin of 0.5 for both HPV-16 and HPV-18.|GMC Ratio|1.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.476|2.071|||||GMC ratio (Cecolin containing arm (Group 5)/Gardasil (Group 4)) and corresponding confidence limits were calculated using linear models of the log concentration values adjusted by site and transformed back to the original scale.|||2.071|1.476|
90924243|NCT04508309|181722044|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of the Cecolin containing arm (Group 5) compared to Gardasil at months 0 and 6 (Group 4) was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI of the GMC ratio was greater than the non-inferiority margin of 0.5 for both HPV-16 and HPV-18.|GMC Ratio|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.004|1.451|||||GMC ratio (Cecolin containing arm (Group 5)/Gardasil (Group 4)) and corresponding confidence limits were calculated using linear models of the log concentration values adjusted by site and transformed back to the original scale.|||1.451|1.004|
90924244|NCT04508309|181722045|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of Cecolin at Months 0 and 6 (Group 1) compared to Gardasil at Months 0 and 6 (Group 4) was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI of the GMC ratio was greater than the non-inferiority margin of 0.5 for both HPV-16 and HPV-18.|GMC Ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.933|1.344|||||GMC ratio (Cecolin/Gardasil) and corresponding confidence limits were calculated using linear models of the log concentration values adjusted by site and transformed back to the original scale.|||1.344|0.933|
90924245|NCT04508309|181722046|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of Cecolin at Months 0 and 6 (Group 1) compared to Gardasil at Months 0 and 6 (Group 4) was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI of the GMC ratio was greater than the non-inferiority margin of 0.5 for both HPV-16 and HPV-18.|GMC Ratio|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.635|||||GMC ratios (Cecolin/Gardasil) and corresponding confidence limits were calculated using linear models of the log concentration values adjusted by site and transformed back to the original scale.|||1.635|1.070|
90924246|NCT04731818|181722072|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0001|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||analyzed by 1-way repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) with post hoc Tukey multiple comparison test|ANOVA|1 way repeated measures ANOVA||||||<0.0001
90924247|NCT06182033|181722088|OTHER|||||||0.84|||||||Regression, Linear|Kenward Rogers and Restricted Maximum Likelihood adjustment made to reduce error likelihood||We conducted a linear regression. We accounted for baseline, which allowed us to examine residualized gains. We controlled for age.||||.84
90924248|NCT06182033|181722089|OTHER|||||||0.727|||||||Regression, Linear|Kenward Rogers and Restricted Maximum Likelihood adjustment made to reduce error likelihood||We conducted a linear regression. We accounted for baseline, which allowed us to examine residualized gains. We controlled for age.||||.727
90963552|NCT00866697|181808400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.766||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.643|0.911||The P-value from the stratified log-rank test was adjusted for the two stratification factors.|Log Rank||The Hazard Ratio was estimated using a Pike estimator.|||0.911|0.643|0.0021
90963553|NCT00866697|181808401|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.6431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.805|1.145|||Log Rank|Stratified Log-Rank P-Value.|"The HR was estimated using a Pike estimator.~CIs were estimated using the Brookmeyer-Crowley method."|||1.145|0.805|0.6431
90971255|NCT00391222|181825191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model was applied to the change from baseline of Period III at each time point in Period III, with treatment, patient type at screening, and geographic region as factors and baseline YMRS total score as covariate. The comparison between active treatment and placebo was performed based on the LS means obtained from the ANCOVA model. The difference in LS means between treatment arms was estimated, as was the 95% confidence interval for the difference.||||<0.001
91034596|NCT00913627|181955175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.82||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||2 hours||1.82|1.09|<0.001
90971256|NCT00391222|181825191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model was applied to the change from baseline of Period III at each time point in Period III, with treatment, patient type at screening, and geographic region as factors and baseline YMRS total score as covariate. The comparison between active treatment and placebo was performed based on the LS means obtained from the ANCOVA model. The difference in LS means between treatment arms was estimated, as was the 95% confidence interval for the difference.||||<0.001
90924249|NCT06182033|181722090|OTHER|||||||0.205|||||||Regression, Linear|Kenward Rogers and Restricted Maximum Likelihood adjustment made to reduce error likelihood||These analyses use the assertiveness subscale as the outcome variable. We conducted a linear regression for each of the measure's subscales. We accounted for baseline, which allowed us to examine residualized gains. We controlled for age.||||.205
90924250|NCT06182033|181722090|OTHER|||||||0.034|||||||Regression, Linear|Kenward Rogers and Restricted Maximum Likelihood adjustment made to reduce error likelihood||This analysis focused specifically on the behavior control subscale. We conducted a linear regression for each of the measure's subscales. We accounted for baseline, which allowed us to examine residualized gains. We controlled for age.||||.034
90924251|NCT06182033|181722090|OTHER|||||||0.099|||||||Regression, Linear|Kenward Rogers and Restricted Maximum Likelihood adjustment made to reduce error likelihood||These analyses use the Task Orientation subscale as the outcome variable. We conducted a linear regression for each of the measure's subscales. We accounted for baseline, which allowed us to examine residualized gains. We controlled for age.||||.099
90924252|NCT06182033|181722090|OTHER|||||||0.209|||||||Regression, Linear|||This analysis used peer social skills subscale as the outcome in the model. We conducted a linear regression for each of the measure's subscales. We accounted for baseline, which allowed us to examine residualized gains. We controlled for age.||||.209
90924253|NCT06182033|181722091|OTHER|||||||0.82|||||||Multilevel Model|Kenward Rogers and Restricted Maximum Likelihood adjustment made to reduce error likelihood||We examined the trajectory across timepoints using a multilevel model that controlled for age. The p value is in reference to the difference between the treatment and control children at the final observation.||||.82
90924254|NCT06182033|181722092|OTHER|||||||0.67|||||||Multilevel Model|Kenward-Rogers and Restricted Maximum Likelihood adjustments in light of small sample size to reduce error likelihood.||We examined the trajectory across timepoints using a multilevel model that controlled for age. The p value is in reference to the difference between the treatment and control children at the final observation.||||.67
90924255|NCT06182033|181722093|OTHER|||||||0.024|||||||Regression, Linear|Kenward-Rogers and Restricted Maximum Likelihood to account for the small sample size.||We examined the trajectory across timepoints using a multilevel model that controlled for age. The p value is in reference to the difference between the treatment and control children at the final observation.||||.024
90924256|NCT06182033|181722094|OTHER|||||||0.013|||||||Regression, Linear|Kenward Rogers and Restricted Maximum Likelihood adjustment made to reduce error likelihood||We examined the trajectory across timepoints using a multilevel model that controlled for age. The p value is in reference to the difference between the treatment and control children at the final observation.||||.013
90924257|NCT05623228|181722157|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||"Bonferroni correction p\<.05~F(1.25)=9.17 η=.254 (p\<.05)"|ANOVA|||||||.00
90924258|NCT05623228|181722157|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||Bonferroni correction p\<.05 F(2)=7.30 η=.213 (P\<.05)|ANOVA|||||||.00
90924259|NCT05623228|181722158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||F(2)=3.20, η=.106 Bonferroni Correction p\<.05|ANOVA|||||||.04
90924260|NCT05623228|181722159|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||F(1,06)=8,11, η2=.231 Bonferroni correction p\<.05|ANOVA|||||||.00
90924261|NCT05623228|181722160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||F(1,19)=4,30, η2=.137 Bonferroni correction p\<0.5|ANOVA|||||||.04
90924262|NCT05623228|181722161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||t (38.70)|t-test, 1 sided|||||||.00
90924263|NCT05349500|181722191|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.0||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.1|-1.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.9|-20.1|0.019
90924264|NCT05349500|181722192|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.9||||0.286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|4.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.3|-14.1|0.286
90924265|NCT05349500|181722193|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.0|-4.0|0.046
90924266|NCT05349500|181722194|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.5|-3.8|0.128
90924267|NCT05349500|181722195|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.5||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|-0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.7|-14.3|0.031
90924268|NCT05349500|181722196|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|4.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.9|-8.8|0.564
90924269|NCT05349500|181722197|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.6|-0.2|0.349
90924270|NCT05349500|181722198|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.2|-0.6|0.303
90924271|NCT05349500|181722199|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.2|-0.1|0.507
90924272|NCT05349500|181722200|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.2|-0.2|0.729
90924273|NCT05349500|181722201|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.1|-0.2|0.421
90924274|NCT05349500|181722202|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.1|-0.2|0.648
90924275|NCT05349500|181722203|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.4||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|6.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.5|0.3|0.034
90924276|NCT05349500|181722204|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1||||0.315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|6.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.3|-2.1|0.315
90924277|NCT05349500|181722205|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.4||||0.444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.5|48.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||48.2|-21.5|0.444
90924278|NCT05349500|181722206|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.3||||0.638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.6|49.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||49.2|-30.6|0.638
90924279|NCT05349500|181722207|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2||||0.688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|8.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.9|-13.4|0.688
90963554|NCT00447382|181808427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Ratio|1.04||||0.649||95.0|0.86|1.26|||ANOVA|Treatment, previous insulin detemir exposure and country as fixed effects and the baseline value as a covariate. (Log transformed data).|The treatment ratio calculated is the NN729-NN304 ratio for the change from baseline to Week 52. The 95% confidence interval for this ratio was also calculated.|"Null hypothesis:Treatment with detemir produced with the NN729 process result in a similar change in cross reacting antibody levels as the NN304 process. Alternative hypothesis: change in antibody levels differ after treatment with detemir produced by the two manufacturing processes.~The statistical analysis applies to the change from baseline to week 52 which was analysed using ANOVA."||1.26|0.86|0.649
90963555|NCT00447382|181808429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated treatment difference|-0.03||||0.758||95.0|-0.21|0.15|||ANOVA|Adjustments: Treatment, previous insulin detemir exposure and country as fixed effects and the baseline value as covariate.|The estimated treatment difference calculated is the NN729-NN304 treatment difference for the change from baseline to Week 52. The 95% confidence interval for this difference was also calculated.|The statistical analysis applies to the change from baseline to week 52 which was analysed using ANOVA.||0.15|-0.21|0.758
90963556|NCT00447382|181808430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated treatment difference|-0.1||||0.812||95.0|-0.89|0.7|||ANOVA|Adjustments: Treatment, previous insulin detemir exposure and country as fixed effects and the baseline value as covariate.|The estimated treatment difference calculated is the NN729-NN304 treatment difference for the change from baseline to Week 52. The 95% confidence interval for this difference was also calculated|The statistical analysis applies to the change from baseline to week 52 which was analysed using ANOVA.||0.7|-0.89|0.812
90963557|NCT00447382|181808432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Ratio|0.93||||0.15||95.0|0.84|1.03|||ANOVA|Adjustments:Treatment, previous insulin detemir exposure and country as fixed effects and the baseline value as a covariate. (Log transformed data)|The treatment ratio calculated is the NN729-NN304 ratio for the change from baseline to Week 52. The 95% confidence interval for this ratio was also calculated.|The statistical analysis applies to the change from baseline to week 52 which was analysed using ANOVA. The analysis was based on an assumption of a log-normal distribution for antibody data and was thus built on log-transformed data.||1.03|0.84|0.15
90963558|NCT00447382|181808433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Ratio|1.0||||0.966||95.0|0.87|1.15|||ANOVA|Adjustments: Treatment, previous insulin detemir exposure and country as fixed effects and the baseline value as a covariate. (Log transformed data)|The treatment ratio calculated is the NN729-NN304 ratio for the change from baseline to Week 52. The 95% confidence interval for this ratio was also calculated.|The statistical analysis applies to the change from baseline to week 52 which was analysed using ANOVA. The analysis was based on an assumption of a log-normal distribution for antibody data and was thus built on log-transformed data.||1.15|0.87|0.966
90963559|NCT01703663|181808451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||absolute difference|-5.73||||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|2.97|||ANOVA|||||2.97|-14.4|0.183
90963560|NCT02113579|181808519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Success rate difference (%)|24.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Per statistical analysis plan, if experimental rinse was significantly better than placebo (p\<0.05) with estimated difference of \>= 20%, testing proceeded to Mean Cold Air Stimulus VAS Score at Week 4. Family-wise error was controlled at 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Study center and mean baseline cold air stimulus VAS score as covariate. For subjects with no score at Week 4, non-response was imputed.|Estimated by calculating the model predicted success probabilities assuming all subjects received 12027-033 and then assuming all subjects received placebo, and then calculating mean of subjects' differences between these predicted probabilities.|The null hypothesis was no difference in success rates between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in success rates between treatment groups.||||<0.001
90971072|NCT00385255|181824669|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was defined as the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference between the two groups (Boostrix+Fluarix 19-64 YOA Group minus Fluarix Boostrix 19-64 YOA Group), in terms of percentage of subjects with ≥ 4-fold increase in anti-H3N2 antibody titers (seroconversion) being ≥ -10%.|Difference in seroconversion rate|5.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|10.07||||||Difference in seroconversion rates for anti-H3N2 antibody: To demonstrate that the immunogenicity of Boostrix® vaccine co-administered with Fluarix® vaccine (Boostrix+Fluarix 19-64 YOA Group) at Day 0, was non-inferior to that of Fluarix® vaccine administered alone at Day 0 (Fluarix Boostrix 19-64 YOA Group), in terms of seroconversion rates for anti-H3N2 antibody, one month post-Fluarix® vaccination.||10.07|1.10|
91034597|NCT00913627|181955175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.82||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||2 hours||1.82|1.10|<0.001
91034598|NCT00913627|181955175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.38||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||2 hours||1.38|0.67|<0.001
90884235|NCT02047110|181630998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|15.0||||0.0238|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.6|33.8||The Suissa-Shuster unconditional exact test was used to test the difference in the proportion of patients achieving the endpoint at Week 12, between treatment groups.|Suissa-Shuster unconditional exact test||"The confidence interval for the difference in proportion between the treatment groups was obtained by the Clopper-Pearson method. Difference calculated as risankizumab 18 mg minus Placebo."|||33.8|-4.6|0.0238
90924280|NCT05349500|181722208|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.7|-2.5|0.709
90924281|NCT05349500|181722209|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.2|-3.3|0.089
90924282|NCT05349500|181722210|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.9||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|30.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||30.8|-1.0|0.066
90924283|NCT05256017|181722211|OTHER||Excess rate (ER)|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|3.7||||||||3.7|-7.2|
90924284|NCT05256017|181722212|OTHER||Excess rate (ER)|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|1.4|||||"ER: calculated as occurrence rate of the TEAE in the acoziborole arm minus occurrence rate of the TEAE in the placebo arm.~CI: calculated using the Wilson score interval."|Occurrence and excess rate (95% CI) of any TEAEs (by PT, for PTs reported in ≥1% of participants in either arm) from the investigational product administration (Day 1) to the Month 4 follow-up visit.||1.4|-4.1|
90924285|NCT05256017|181722213|OTHER||Excess rate (ER)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.6|||||"ER: calculated as occurrence rate of the TEAE in the acoziborole arm minus occurrence rate of the TEAE in the placebo arm.~CI: calculated using the Wilson score interval."|||1.6|-1.6|
90924286|NCT05256017|181722214|OTHER||Excess rate (ER)|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|1.4|||||"ER: calculated as occurrence rate of the TEAE in the acoziborole arm minus occurrence rate of the TEAE in the placebo arm.~CI: calculated using the Wilson score interval."|||1.4|-3.2|
90924287|NCT05256017|181722215|OTHER||Excess rate (ER)|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.6|||||"ER: calculated as occurrence rate of the TEAE in the acoziborole arm minus occurrence rate of the TEAE in the placebo arm.~CI: calculated using the Wilson score interval."|||0.6|-2.6|
90924288|NCT05256017|181722216|OTHER||Excess rate (ER)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.8|||||"ER: calculated as occurrence rate of the TEAE in the acoziborole arm minus occurrence rate of the TEAE in the placebo arm.~CI: calculated using the Wilson score interval."|||0.8|-2.2|
90924289|NCT05256017|181722217|OTHER||Excess rate (ER)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.7|||||"ER: calculated as occurrence rate of the TEAE in the acoziborole arm minus occurrence rate of the TEAE in the placebo arm.~CI: calculated using the Wilson score interval."|||0.7|-2.3|
90924290|NCT05256017|181722218|OTHER||Excess rate (ER)|3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|5.3|||||"ER: calculated as occurrence rate of the TEAE in the acoziborole arm minus occurrence rate of the TEAE in the placebo arm.~CI: calculated using the Wilson score interval."|||5.3|0.3|
90924291|NCT05256017|181722219|OTHER||Excess rate (ER)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.3|||||"ER: calculated as occurrence rate of the TEAE in the acoziborole arm minus occurrence rate of the TEAE in the placebo arm.~CI: calculated using the Wilson score interval."|||1.3|-2.4|
90924292|NCT05256017|181722220|OTHER||Excess rate (ER)|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|0.3|||||"ER: calculated as occurrence rate of the TEAE in the acoziborole arm minus occurrence rate of the TEAE in the placebo arm.~CI: calculated using the Wilson score interval."|||0.3|-3.5|
90924293|NCT05256017|181722221|OTHER||Excess rate (ER)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|5.1||||||Occurrence and excess rate (95% CI) of any TEAEs reported during hospitalization.||5.1|-3.7|
90924294|NCT05256017|181722221|OTHER||Excess rate (ER)|-3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|0.9||||||Occurrence and excess rate (95% CI) of any TEAEs reported after the hospitalization period.||0.9|-8.2|
90924295|NCT05256017|181722222|OTHER||Excess rate (ER)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|0.0||||||||0.0|-3.1|
90924296|NCT05256017|181722223|OTHER||Excess rate (ER)|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|3.7||||||Of note, all AEs reported during this study were TEAEs.||3.7|-7.2|
90924297|NCT05256017|181722241|OTHER||Placebo-corrected change from baseline|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.1|1.4||||||Placebo-corrected change from baseline (ΔΔ), calculated using an ANCOVA model adjusted for sex and age.||1.4|-2.1|
90924298|NCT05256017|181722242|OTHER||Placebo-corrected change from baseline|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.0|21.1||||||Placebo-corrected change from baseline (ΔΔ), calculated using an ANCOVA model adjusted for sex and age.||21.1|-22.0|
90924299|NCT05256017|181722243|OTHER||Placebo-corrected change from baseline|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.6|1.3||||||Placebo-corrected change from baseline (ΔΔ), calculated using an ANCOVA model adjusted for sex and age.||1.3|-3.6|
90924300|NCT05256017|181722244|OTHER||Placebo-corrected change from baseline|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.9|0.4||||||Placebo-corrected change from baseline (ΔΔ), calculated using an ANCOVA model adjusted for sex and age.||0.4|-1.9|
90924301|NCT05256017|181722245|OTHER||Placebo-corrected change from baseline|-10.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.3|-6.6||||||Placebo-corrected change from baseline (ΔΔ), calculated using an ANCOVA model adjusted for sex and age.||-6.6|-15.3|
90924302|NCT05256017|181722246|OTHER||Placebo-corrected change from baseline|-11.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.4|-8.7||||||Placebo-corrected change from baseline (ΔΔ), calculated using an ANCOVA model adjusted for sex and age.||-8.7|-14.4|
90924303|NCT05256017|181722247|OTHER||Placebo-corrected change from baseline|-11.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.9|-8.6||||||Placebo-corrected change from baseline (ΔΔ), calculated using an ANCOVA model adjusted for sex and age.||-8.6|-14.9|
90924304|NCT05256017|181722248|OTHER||Estimate|-10.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.72|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.5|-7.85||||||Estimated ΔΔQTcF (in ms) computed from a concentration-response (C-R) model between dry blood spot concentration of acoziborole and changes from baseline in QTcF parameter||-7.85|-13.5|
90924305|NCT01574274|181722288|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
90924306|NCT01574274|181722289|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 4 NSAA Level||||0.07
90924307|NCT01574274|181722289|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 11 NSAA Level||||0.29
90924308|NCT01574274|181722289|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 18 NSAA Level||||0.0002
90924309|NCT01574274|181722289|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 25 NSAA Level||||<0.0001
90924310|NCT01574274|181722289|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 7 NSAA Level||||<0.0001
90924311|NCT01574274|181722289|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 13 NSAA Level||||0.87
90924312|NCT01574274|181722289|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 19 NSAA Level||||0.83
90924313|NCT01574274|181722289|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 25 NSAA Level||||0.94
90924314|NCT03852472|181722337|OTHER||% Difference (Avacopan - Placebo)|-8.4||||0.1321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.7|2.4||P-values are obtained from a CMH test stratified by stratification factors Hurley Stage (Stage II vs III), and anti-TNF drug use (Treatment naive vs Previous treatment).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.4|-18.7|0.1321
90924315|NCT03852472|181722337|OTHER||% Difference (Avacopan - Placebo)|4.3||||0.4503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|15.5||P-values are obtained from a CMH test stratified by stratification factors Hurley Stage (Stage II vs III), and anti-TNF drug use (Treatment naive vs Previous treatment)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||15.5|-6.9|0.4503
90924316|NCT03852472|181722338|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17||0.5784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|2.9|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||||2.9|-1.7|0.5784
90924317|NCT03852472|181722338|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17||0.2253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|0.9|||Mixed effects model for repeated measure|||||0.9|-3.7|0.2253
90963561|NCT02113579|181808520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-14.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.239|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.68|-9.87||Per statistical analysis plan, if experimental rinse was significantly better than placebo (p\<0.05), testing proceeded to Mean Tactile Sensitivity Score at Week 4. Family-wise error was controlled at 0.05.|Repeated Measures Model|Analysis included Weeks 2 and 4 data. Terms included treatment, visit, study center, baseline value, treatment-by-visit and baseline-by-visit.|For subjects without post-baseline data, the baseline value was carried forward to Week 2. An unstructured covariance pattern was assumed.|The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-9.87|-18.68|<0.001
90963562|NCT02113579|181808521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|13.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.844|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.83|17.08||Per statistical analysis plan, if experimental rinse was significantly better than placebo (p\<0.05), testing proceeded to Mean Cold Air Stimulus VAS Score at Week 2 and Mean Tactile Sensitivity Score at Week 2. Family-wise error controlled at 0.05.|Repeated Measures Model|Analysis included Weeks 2 and 4 data. Terms included treatment, visit, study center, baseline value, treatment-by-visit and baseline-by-visit.|For subjects without post-baseline data, the baseline value was carried forward to Week 2. An unstructured covariance pattern was assumed.|The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||17.08|9.83|<0.001
90924318|NCT05670587|181722369|OTHER||gMean ratio at Week 4|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.18|||||"gMean ratios of CfB in CC/h were calculated from the log transformed values at each visit.~Geometric Coefficient of variation (gCV) = 84.59%"|Geometric mean (gMean) ratio of change from baseline (CfB) in cough count per hour (CC/h) at Week 4.||1.18|0.76|
91034599|NCT00913627|181955175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|2.0||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||3 hours||2.00|1.26|<0.001
91034600|NCT00913627|181955175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|1.98||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||3 hours||1.98|1.25|<0.001
91034601|NCT00913627|181955175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.57||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||3 hours||1.57|0.85|<0.001
90884236|NCT02047110|181630998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|18.1||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8|35.3||The Suissa-Shuster unconditional exact test was used to test the difference in the proportion of patients achieving the endpoint at Week 12, between treatment groups.|Suissa-Shuster unconditional exact test||"The confidence interval for the difference in proportion between the treatment groups was obtained by the Clopper- Pearson method. Difference calculated as risankizumab 90 mg minus Placebo."|||35.3|-0.8|0.0120
90884237|NCT02047110|181630998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|12.5||||0.0465|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.1|31.4||The Suissa-Shuster unconditional exact test was used to test the difference in the proportion of patients achieving the endpoint at Week 12, between treatment groups|Suissa-Shuster unconditional exact test||"The confidence interval for the difference in proportion between the treatment groups was obtained by the Clopper- Pearson method. Difference calculated as risankizumab 180 mg minus Placebo."|||31.4|-7.1|0.0465
90884238|NCT02047110|181630999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-19.4|19.4|||||"The confidence interval for the difference in proportion between the treatment groups was obtained by the Clopper-Pearson method. Difference calculated as risankizumab 18 mg minus Placebo."|p-values are not presented as they were not meaningful; 3 treatment groups had only a single patient with partial remission.||19.4|-19.4|
90884239|NCT02047110|181630999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.3|18.3|||||"The confidence interval for the difference in proportion between the treatment groups was obtained by the Clopper- Pearson method. Difference calculated as risankizumab 90 mg minus Placebo."|p-values are not presented as they were not meaningful; 3 treatment groups had only a single patient with partial remission.||18.3|-18.3|
90884240|NCT02047110|181630999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|7.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.1|26.6|||||"The confidence interval for the difference in proportion between the treatment groups was obtained by the Clopper- Pearson method. Difference calculated as risankizumab 180 mg minus Placebo."|p-values are not presented as they were not meaningful; 3 treatment groups had only a single patient with partial remission.||26.6|-12.1|
90884241|NCT02047110|181631000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|25.0||||0.0092|TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.5|43.1||The Suissa-Shuster unconditional exact test was used to test the difference in the proportion of patients achieving the endpoint at Week 12, between treatment groups.|Suissa-Shuster unconditional exact test||"The confidence interval for the difference in proportion between the treatment groups was obtained by the Clopper-Pearson method. Difference calculated as risankizumab 18 mg minus Placebo."|||43.1|5.5|0.0092
90884242|NCT02047110|181631000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|13.3||||0.1243|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.9|30.5||The Suissa-Shuster unconditional exact test was used to test the difference in the proportion of patients achieving the endpoint at Week 12, between treatment groups.|Suissa-Shuster unconditional exact test||"The confidence interval for the difference in proportion between the treatment groups was obtained by the Clopper- Pearson method. Difference calculated as risankizumab 90 mg minus Placebo."|||30.5|-5.9|0.1243
90884243|NCT02047110|181631000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|12.5||||0.1198|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.1|31.4||The Suissa-Shuster unconditional exact test was used to test the difference in the proportion of patients achieving the endpoint at Week 12, between treatment groups|Suissa-Shuster unconditional exact test||"The confidence interval for the difference in proportion between the treatment groups was obtained by the Clopper- Pearson method. Difference calculated as risankizumab 180 mg minus Placebo."|||31.4|-7.1|0.1198
90924319|NCT05670587|181722369|OTHER||gMean ratio at Week 8|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.11|||||"gMean ratios of CfB in CC/h were calculated from the log transformed values at each visit.~Geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 115.62%"|Geometric mean (gMean) ratio of change from baseline (CfB) in cough count per hour (CC/h) at Week 8.||1.11|0.64|
90924320|NCT05670587|181722369|OTHER||gMean ratio at Day 82|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.29|||||"gMean ratios of CfB in CC/h were calculated from the log transformed values at each visit.~Geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 100.02%."|Geometric mean (gMean) ratio of change from baseline (CfB) in cough count per hour (CC/h) at Day 82.||1.29|0.75|
90924321|NCT01674140|181722382|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.14|||Log Rank|||||1.14|0.77|0.52
90924322|NCT01674140|181722383|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.26|||Log Rank|||||1.26|0.75|0.84
90924323|NCT01674140|181722385|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.1|||Log Rank|||||1.10|0.74|0.32
90924324|NCT05139810|181722390|SUPERIORITY||IC HAE attack rate ratio|0.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.107|0.351|||Poisson regression model||Model adjusted rate ratio from Poisson regression model.|The Poisson regression model includes treatment groups, baseline (the run-in period HAE attack rate), the treatment-by-baseline interaction as a covariate, and the logarithm of time in every-4-week that each participant was observed from Week 1 to Week 25 used as an offset variable. Pearson chi-square scaling of standard errors was used to account for potential over dispersion.||0.351|0.107|<0.001
90924325|NCT05139810|181722390|SUPERIORITY||IC HAE attack rate ratio|0.45|||=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.261|0.777|||Poisson regression model||Model adjusted rate ratio from Poisson regression model.|The Poisson regression model includes treatment groups, baseline (the run-in period HAE attack rate), the treatment-by-baseline interaction as a covariate, and the logarithm of time in every-4-week that each participant was observed from Week 1 to Week 25 used as an offset variable. Pearson chi-square scaling of standard errors was used in the Poisson regression model to account for potential overdispersion.||0.777|0.261|=0.004
90924326|NCT05139810|181722391|SUPERIORITY||IC HAE attack rate ratio|0.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.062|0.281|||Poisson regression model||Model adjusted rate ratio from Poisson regression model.|The Poisson regression model includes treatment groups, baseline (the run-in period HAE attack rate), the treatment-by-baseline interaction as a covariate, and the logarithm of time in every-4-week that each participant was observed from Week 5 to Week 25 used as an offset variable. Pearson chi-square scaling of standard errors was used in the Poisson regression model to account for potential over dispersion.||0.281|0.062|<0.001
90971257|NCT00391222|181825192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model was applied to the change from baseline of Period III at each time point in Period III, with treatment, patient type at screening, and geographic region as factors and baseline MADRS total score as covariate. The comparison between active treatment and placebo was performed based on the LS means obtained from the ANCOVA model. The difference in LS means between treatment arms was estimated, as was the 95% confidence interval for the difference.||||0.480
90924327|NCT05139810|181722391|SUPERIORITY||IC HAE attack rate ratio|0.4|||=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.212|0.748|||Poisson regression model||Model adjusted rate ratio from Poisson regression model.|The Poisson regression model includes treatment groups, baseline (the run-in period HAE attack rate), the treatment-by-baseline interaction as a covariate, and the logarithm of time in every-4-week that each participant was observed from Week 5 to Week 25 used as an offset variable. Pearson chi-square scaling of standard errors was used in the Poisson regression model to account for potential over dispersion.||0.748|0.212|=0.004
90924328|NCT05139810|181722392|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.79|||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.34|59.36|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was calculated based on logistic regression with baseline and the treatment-by-baseline interaction as a covariate.||||59.36|2.34|=0.003
90924329|NCT05139810|181722392|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.23|||=|0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|22.85|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was calculated based on logistic regression with baseline and the treatment-by-baseline interaction as a covariate.||||22.85|0.46|=0.240
90924330|NCT05139810|181722393|SUPERIORITY||IC HAE attack rate ratio|0.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.035|0.339|||Poisson regression model||Model adjusted rate ratio from Poisson regression model.|The Poisson regression model includes treatment groups, baseline (the run-in period HAE attack rate), the treatment-by-baseline interaction as a covariate, and the logarithm of time in every-4-week that each participant was observed from Week 5 to Week 25 used as an offset variable. Pearson chi-square scaling of standard errors was used in the Poisson regression model to account for potential over dispersion.||0.339|0.035|<0.001
90924331|NCT05139810|181722393|SUPERIORITY||IC HAE attack rate ratio|0.59|||=|0.173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.276|1.26|||Poisson regression model||Model adjusted rate ratio from Poisson regression model.|The Poisson regression model includes treatment groups, baseline (the run-in period HAE attack rate), the treatment-by-baseline interaction as a covariate, and the logarithm of time in every-4-week that each participant was observed from Week 5 to Week 25 used as an offset variable. Pearson chi-square scaling of standard errors was used in the Poisson regression model to account for potential over dispersion.||1.260|0.276|=0.173
90924332|NCT05139810|181722394|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|310.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.63|8279.94|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was calculated based on logistic regression with baseline and the treatment-by-baseline interaction as a covariate.|The odds ratio and its 95% confidence interval were calculated based on a logistic regression with baseline (the time-normalized run-in period attack rate) and the treatment-by-baseline interaction as a covariate.|≥ 50% Reduction||8279.94|11.63|<0.001
90924333|NCT05139810|181722394|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.15|69.41|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was calculated based on logistic regression with baseline and the treatment-by-baseline interaction as a covariate.|The odds ratio and its 95% confidence interval were calculated based on a logistic regression with baseline (the time-normalized run-in period attack rate) and the treatment-by-baseline interaction as a covariate.|≥ 50% Reduction||69.41|3.15|<0.001
90924334|NCT05139810|181722394|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|34.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.32|164.87|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was calculated based on logistic regression with baseline and the treatment-by-baseline interaction as a covariate.|The odds ratio and its 95% confidence interval were calculated based on a logistic regression with baseline (the time-normalized run-in period attack rate) and the treatment-by-baseline interaction as a covariate.|≥ 70% Reduction||164.87|7.32|<0.001
90924335|NCT05139810|181722394|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.17|||=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.05|41.09|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was calculated based on logistic regression with baseline and the treatment-by-baseline interaction as a covariate.|The odds ratio and its 95% confidence interval were calculated based on a logistic regression with baseline (the time-normalized run-in period attack rate) and the treatment-by-baseline interaction as a covariate.|≥ 70% Reduction||41.09|2.05|=0.004
90884244|NCT02047110|181631001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median estimate by Hodges-Lehmann method|-0.4||||0.1241|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|0.2||One sided p-value from Wilcoxon rank-sum test|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||"The confidence interval for the difference in proportion between the treatment groups was obtained by the Moses method. Difference calculated as risankizumab 18 mg minus Placebo."|||0.2|-1.0|0.1241
90884245|NCT02047110|181631001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median estimate by Hodges-Lehmann method|0.3||||0.3033|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|1.0||One sided p-value from Wilcoxon rank-sum test|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||"The confidence interval for the difference in proportion between the treatment groups was obtained by the Moses method. Difference calculated as risankizumab 90 mg minus Placebo."|||1.0|-0.5|0.3033
90884246|NCT02047110|181631001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median estimate by Hodges-Lehmann method|-0.2||||0.3203|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8|0.4||One sided p-value from Wilcoxon rank-sum test|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||"The confidence interval for the difference in proportion between the treatment groups was obtained by the Moses method. Difference calculated as risankizumab 180 mg minus Placebo."|||0.4|-0.8|0.3203
90884247|NCT02047110|181631002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|7.5||||0.2639|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.1|26.6||The Suissa-Shuster unconditional exact test was used to test the difference in the proportion of patients achieving the endpoint at Week 24, between treatment groups.|Suissa-Shuster unconditional exact test||"The confidence interval for the difference in proportion between the treatment groups was obtained by the Clopper-Pearson method. Difference calculated as risankizumab 18 mg minus Placebo."|||26.6|-12.1|0.2639
90884248|NCT02047110|181631002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|8.1||||0.2691|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.9|25.7||The Suissa-Shuster unconditional exact test was used to test the difference in the proportion of patients achieving the endpoint at Week 24, between treatment groups.|Suissa-Shuster unconditional exact test||"The confidence interval for the difference in proportion between the treatment groups was obtained by the Clopper- Pearson method. Difference calculated as risankizumab 90 mg minus Placebo."|||25.7|-10.9|0.2691
90884249|NCT02047110|181631002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.5||||0.4174|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.8|17.0||The Suissa-Shuster unconditional exact test was used to test the difference in the proportion of patients achieving the endpoint at Week 24, between treatment groups|Suissa-Shuster unconditional exact test||"The confidence interval for the difference in proportion between the treatment groups was obtained by the Clopper- Pearson method. Difference calculated as risankizumab 180 mg minus Placebo."|||17.0|-21.8|0.4174
90884250|NCT03296163|181631007|EQUIVALENCE|"Equivalence analysis was based on the risk ratio (RR) (MB02/EU-approved Avastin) with an equivalence margin predefined \[0.73, 1.36\].~The ORR estimate was stratified using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the RR and corresponding 2-sided 90% confidence interval (CI)."|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.78|1.06|||||Direction of comparison is: For RR: MB02/EU-approved Avastin. 95% CI was also calculated: (0.758, 1.092)|||1.060|0.780|
90884251|NCT03296163|181631007|EQUIVALENCE|The ORR estimate was stratified using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the risk difference (RD) (MB02-EU-approved Avastin) with an equivalence margin predefined \[-12%, 12%\] and corresponding 2-sided 95% CI.|Risk Difference (RD)|-4.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.51|2.47|||||Direction of comparison is: For RD: MB02 - EU-approved Avastin. 95% CI was also calculated: (-11.76, 3.71)|||2.47|-10.51|
90884252|NCT03296163|181631008|OTHER|Hazard ratio of MB02 versus EU-approved Avastin; a hazard ratio =1 indicated no difference in progressive disease(PD)/death between 2 reporting groups; \>1 indicated an increase in PD/death in MB02; \<1 indicated an increase in PD/death in EU-approved Avastin.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.187|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.44||||||||1.44|0.98|
90884253|NCT03296163|181631009|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.108|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.827|1.485||||||||1.485|0.827|
90884254|NCT01959581|181631029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Repeated measures ANOVA||||<.05
90884255|NCT00829621|181631061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.36|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||=0.36
90884256|NCT03551210|181631062|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority bound was designated at the level of -15%|Difference in percentage|6.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|13.0||||||||13.0|-0.7|
90884257|NCT03551210|181631062|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45|||=|0.499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|4.29|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.29|0.49|=0.499
91034602|NCT00913627|181955175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|2.08||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||4 hours||2.08|1.33|<0.001
90884258|NCT03551210|181631063|OTHER||Difference in percentage|4.3|||=|0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|9.7|||Barnard's test|||Visit 2||9.7|-0.6|=0.08
90884259|NCT03551210|181631063|OTHER||Difference in percentage|3.7|||=|0.246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|9.8|||Barnard's test|||Visit 3||9.8|-2.0|=0.246
90884260|NCT03551210|181631064|OTHER||||||=|0.154|||||||Barnard test|||||||=0.154
90884261|NCT03551210|181631065|OTHER||||||=|0.14|||||||Log Rank|||||||=0.14
90884262|NCT03551210|181631066|OTHER||||||=|0.26|||||||Barnard test|||||||=0.26
90884263|NCT03551210|181631067|OTHER||||||=|0.14||||||Visit 2 assessment|Barnard's test|||||||=0.14
90884264|NCT03551210|181631067|OTHER|||||||0.515||||||Visit 3 assessment|Barnard's test|||||||0.515
90884265|NCT03551210|181631067|OTHER|||||||0.515||||||Visit 4 assessment|Barnard's test|||||||0.515
90884266|NCT04011475|181631083|OTHER|||||||0.0276|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0276
90884267|NCT04011475|181631083|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.875||||0.6665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.604|||Regression, Cox||Hazard Ratio (HR) was from Cox regression comparing group A versus group B using group B as reference.|||1.604|0.47|0.6665
90884268|NCT04011475|181631083|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.377||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.083|5.221|||Regression, Cox||Hazard Ratio (HR) was from Cox regression comparing group A versus group C using group C as reference.|||5.221|1.083|0.0310
90884269|NCT04011475|181631083|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.716||||0.0116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|5.901|||Regression, Cox||Hazard Ratio (HR) was from Cox regression comparing group B versus group C using group C as reference.|||5.901|1.250|0.0116
90884270|NCT04011475|181631084|OTHER||Rate ratio|0.67||||0.0756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.04|||Z-test||The rate ratio was from Poisson regression for Group A versus Group B using Group B as the reference group.|||1.04|0.43|0.0756
90884271|NCT04011475|181631084|OTHER||Rate ratio|4.36|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.27|8.4|||Z-test||The rate ratio was from Poisson regression for Group B versus Group C using Group C as the reference group.|||8.40|2.27|< 0.0001
91034603|NCT00913627|181955175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|1.97||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||4 hours||1.97|1.23|<0.001
90924336|NCT05139810|181722394|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|17.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.36|86.42|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was calculated based on logistic regression with baseline and the treatment-by-baseline interaction as a covariate.|The odds ratio and its 95% confidence interval were calculated based on a logistic regression with baseline (the time-normalized run-in period attack rate) and the treatment-by-baseline interaction as a covariate.|≥ 90% Reduction||86.42|3.36|<0.001
90963563|NCT02113579|181808522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.809|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.23|-4.11||Per statistical analysis plan, Hochberg's method at significance level 0.05 was applied to jointly evaluate secondary outcomes Mean Cold Air Stimulus VAS Score at Wk 2 and Mean Tactile Sensitivity Score at Wk 2. Family-wise error controlled at 0.05.|Repeated Measures Model|Analysis included Weeks 2 and 4 data. Terms included treatment, visit, study center, baseline value, treatment-by-visit and baseline-by-visit.|For subjects without post-baseline data, the baseline value was carried forward to Week 2. An unstructured covariance pattern was assumed.|The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-4.11|-11.23|<0.001
90963564|NCT02113579|181808523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.975|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.78|6.62||Per statistical analysis plan, Hochberg's method at significance level 0.05 was applied to jointly evaluate secondary outcomes Mean Cold Air Stimulus VAS Score at Wk 2 and Mean Tactile Sensitivity Score at Wk 2. Family-wise error controlled at 0.05.|Repeated Measures Model|Analysis included Weeks 2 and 4 data. Terms included treatment, visit, study center, baseline value, treatment-by-visit and baseline-by-visit.|For subjects without post-baseline data, the baseline value was carried forward to Week 2. An unstructured covariance pattern was assumed.|The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||6.62|2.78|<0.001
90963565|NCT02113579|181808524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Success rate difference (%)|15.44||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|Regression, Logistic|Study center and mean baseline cold air stimulus VAS score as covariate. For subjects with no score at Week 2, non-response was imputed.|Estimated by calculating the model predicted success probabilities assuming all subjects received 12027-033 and then assuming all subjects received placebo, and then calculating mean of subjects' differences between these predicted probabilities.|The null hypothesis was no difference in success rates between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in success rates between treatment groups.||||0.002
90963566|NCT02113579|181808525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.65|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.92|-3.43||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|Repeated Measures Model|Analysis included Weeks 2 and 4 data. Terms included treatment, visit, study center, baseline value, treatment-by-visit and baseline-by-visit.|For subjects without post-baseline data, the baseline value was carried forward to Week 2. An unstructured covariance pattern was assumed.|The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-3.43|-9.92|<0.001
90963567|NCT02113579|181808526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-11.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.92|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.3|-7.75||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|Repeated Measures Model|Analysis included Weeks 2 and 4 data. Terms included treatment, visit, study center, baseline value, treatment-by-visit and baseline-by-visit.|For subjects without post-baseline data, the baseline value was carried forward to Week 2. An unstructured covariance pattern was assumed.|The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-7.75|-15.30|<0.001
90963568|NCT02113579|181808527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.422||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.04|-0.45||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|Repeated Measures Model|Analysis included Weeks 2 and 4 data. Terms included treatment, visit, study center, baseline value, treatment-by-visit and baseline-by-visit.|For subjects without post-baseline data, the baseline value was carried forward to Week 2. An unstructured covariance pattern was assumed.|The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-0.45|-6.04|0.023
90963569|NCT02113579|181808528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.873|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.29|-3.93||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|Repeated Measures Model|Analysis included Weeks 2 and 4 data. Terms included treatment, visit, study center, baseline value, treatment-by-visit and baseline-by-visit.|For subjects without post-baseline data, the baseline value was carried forward to Week 2. An unstructured covariance pattern was assumed.|The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups||-3.93|-11.29|<0.001
90963570|NCT00726622|181808531|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Assuming a baseline rate of 90% oncologic success for the open resection arm, the sample size provided 80% power to declare non-inferiority if oncologic success rates were truly identical, using a 1-sided z score with α = .10 for falsely declaring non-inferiority when the true oncologic success rate for laparoscopic resection was 84%. Calculations were based on a 2-sample binomial non-inferiority calculation with a 90% success rate for the control group and a 6% non-inferiority margin.||||||0.41|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.41
91034604|NCT00913627|181955175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.54||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||4 hours||1.54|0.81|<0.001
91034605|NCT00913627|181955175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.0||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||5 hours||2.00|1.20|<0.001
90924337|NCT05139810|181722394|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.7|||=|0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|48.52|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was calculated based on logistic regression with baseline and the treatment-by-baseline interaction as a covariate.|The odds ratio and its 95% confidence interval were calculated based on a logistic regression with baseline (the time-normalized run-in period attack rate) and the treatment-by-baseline interaction as a covariate.|≥ 90% Reduction||48.52|1.56|=0.014
90924338|NCT05139810|181722395|SUPERIORITY||IC HAE attack rate ratio|0.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.234|||Poisson regression model||Model adjusted rate ratio from Poisson regression model.|The Poisson regression model includes treatment groups, baseline (the run-in period HAE attack rate), the treatment-by-baseline interaction as a covariate, and the logarithm of time in every-4-week that each participant was observed from Week 5 to Week 25 used as an offset variable. Pearson chi-square scaling of standard errors was used in the Poisson regression model to account for potential over dispersion.||0.234|0.030|<0.001
91034606|NCT00913627|181955175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|1.98||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||5 hours||1.98|1.19|<0.001
90884272|NCT04011475|181631084|OTHER||Rate ratio|0.34||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.68|||Z-test||The rate ratio was from Poisson regression for Group C versus Group A using Group A as the reference group.|||0.68|0.17|0.0022
90884273|NCT04011475|181631085|OTHER||Rate ratio|1.25||||0.7394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|4.65|||Z-test||The rate ratio was from Poisson regression for Group B versus Group C using Group C as the reference group.|||4.65|0.34|0.7394
90884274|NCT04011475|181631086|OTHER||Rate ratio|0.65||||0.1116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.11|||Z-test||The rate ratio was from Poisson regression for Group A versus Group B using Group B as the reference group.|||1.11|0.38|0.1116
90884275|NCT04011475|181631086|OTHER||Rate ratio|3.78||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.81|7.88|||Z-test||The rate ratio was from Poisson regression for Group B versus Group C using Group C as the reference group.|||7.88|1.81|0.0004
90884276|NCT04011475|181631086|OTHER||Rate ratio|0.41||||0.0239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.89|||Z-test||The rate ratio was from Poisson regression for Group C versus Group A using Group A as the reference group.|||0.89|0.19|0.0239
90884277|NCT04011475|181631087|OTHER||Rate ratio|0.71||||0.4164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.61|||Z-test||The rate ratio was from Poisson regression for Group A versus Group B using Group B as the reference group.|||1.61|0.32|0.4164
90884278|NCT04011475|181631087|OTHER||Rate ratio|7.0||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|30.8|||Z-test||The rate ratio was from Poisson regression for Group B versus Group C using Group C as the reference group.|||30.8|1.59|0.0100
90884279|NCT04011475|181631087|OTHER||Rate ratio|0.2||||0.0377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.91|||Z-test||The rate ratio was from Poisson regression for Group C versus Group A using Group A as the reference group.|||0.91|0.04|0.0377
90884280|NCT04011475|181631088|OTHER|||||||0.2035|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.2035
90884281|NCT04011475|181631089|OTHER|||||||0.1858|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-square test was applied for assessing the inter-group difference.||||||0.1858
90884282|NCT04011475|181631090|OTHER|||||||0.0144|||||||Pair t-test|Pair t-test was used for assessing the intra-group difference.||||||0.0144
90884283|NCT04011475|181631090|OTHER|||||||0.9219|||||||Pair t-test|Pair t-test was used for assessing the intra-group difference.||||||0.9219
90884284|NCT04011475|181631090|OTHER|||||||0.959|||||||Pair t-test|Pair t-test was used for assessing the intra-group difference.||||||0.9590
90884285|NCT04011475|181631091|OTHER|||||||0.2909|||||||Pair t-test|Pair t-test was used for assessing the intra-group difference.||||||0.2909
90884286|NCT04011475|181631091|OTHER|||||||0.1618|||||||Pair t-test|Pair t-test was used for assessing the intra-group difference.||||||0.1618
90884287|NCT04011475|181631091|OTHER|||||||0.4695|||||||Pair t-test|Pair t-test was used for assessing the intra-group difference.||||||0.4695
90884288|NCT04011475|181631092|OTHER||||||>|0.9999|||||||Pair t-test|Pair t-test was used for assessing the intra-group difference.||||||> 0.9999
90884289|NCT04011475|181631092|OTHER|||||||0.2516|||||||Pair t-test|Pair t-test was used for assessing the intra-group difference.||||||0.2516
90884290|NCT04011475|181631092|OTHER|||||||0.0036|||||||Pair t-test|Pair t-test was used for assessing the intra-group difference.||||||0.0036
90884291|NCT04011475|181631093|OTHER|||||||0.6189|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon test was used for assessing the intra-group difference.||||||0.6189
90884292|NCT04011475|181631093|OTHER|||||||0.7656|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon test was used for assessing the intra-group difference.||||||0.7656
90884293|NCT04011475|181631093|OTHER|||||||0.3594|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon test was used for assessing the intra-group difference.||||||0.3594
90884294|NCT04011475|181631094|OTHER|||||||0.0483|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-square test was applied for assessing the inter-group difference.||||||0.0483
90884295|NCT00600821|181631097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.093||||0.639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.679|1.761||One-sided log-rank test at alpha = 0.20 significance level was used.|Log Rank|||Differences in PFS between treatment arms was analyzed by 1-sided log rank test, stratified by gender and prior adjuvant therapy.||1.761|0.679|0.639
90884296|NCT00600821|181631098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.117||||0.699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.739|1.689||One-sided log-rank test at alpha = 0.20 significance level was used.|Log Rank|||Differences in OS between treatment arms was analyzed by 1-sided log rank test, stratified by gender and prior adjuvant therapy.||1.689|0.739|0.699
90884297|NCT00600821|181631099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.676||||0.9422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.412|1.107|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated using 1-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by gender and prior adjuvant therapy. Risk ratio in comparison to the Bevacizumab group was calculated assuming all other factors as constant.||1.107|0.412|0.9422
90884298|NCT02066298|181631160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||exact binomial test|a priori threshold for significance was 0.025||The null hypothesis was that, among those participants for which either mometasone is not equal to placebo, the proportion for which mometasone is superior to placebo is equal to the proportion for which placebo is superior to mometasone. The trial was designed to provide power of 0.85 for a 0.20 difference between the proportions being compared at a significance level of 0.025.||||0.14
90884299|NCT02066298|181631160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029||||||a priori threshold for significance was 0.025|exact binomial test|||The null hypothesis was that, among those participants for which either tiotropium is not equal to placebo, the proportion for which tiotropium is superior to placebo is equal to the proportion for which placebo is superior to tiotropium. The trial was designed to provide power of 0.85 for a 0.20 difference between the proportions being compared at a significance level of 0.025.||||0.029
90884300|NCT02066298|181631160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||this analysis is considered exploratory|exact binomial test|||The null hypothesis was that, among those participants for which either mometasone is not equal to placebo, the proportion for which mometasone is superior to placebo is equal to the proportion for which placebo is superior to mometasone. This was an exploratory analysis and there were no power considerations.||||0.001
90884301|NCT02066298|181631160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45||||||this analysis is considered exploratory|exact binomial test|||The null hypothesis was that, among those participants for which either tiotropium is not equal to placebo, the proportion for which tiotropium is superior to placebo is equal to the proportion for which placebo is superior to tiotropium. This was an exploratory analysis and there were no power considerations.||||0.45
90884302|NCT01513317|181631182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.082||||0.271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The estimated parameter is the difference in proportion of participants who had a reduction in RBC transfusion to treat the anemia of MDS.|||0.20|-0.03|0.271
90884303|NCT01513317|181631183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|0.07||||0.872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.93|||ANCOVA||The estimated parameter is the difference in LS means of the change from baseline hemoglobin levels at Week 13.|||0.93|-0.79|0.872
90963571|NCT02462928|181808547|NON_INFERIORITY|For hypothesis testing, if the lower limit of 95.1% Confidence Interval (CI) for the difference between an abicipar group and ranibizumab was greater than or equal to -10%, non-inferiority of abicipar was established.|Percentage Difference|-3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.1|-8.2|0.3|||||The 95.1% CI for the weighted difference were calculated based on the Newcombe method using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights and baseline BCVA (≤55 vs \>55 letters) as stratification factor.|||0.3|-8.2|
91034607|NCT00913627|181955175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.52||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||5 hours||1.52|0.73|<0.001
90884304|NCT01513317|181631184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.042||||0.494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.15|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The estimated parameter is the difference in proportion of participants achieving hemoglobin improvement at Week 13.|||0.15|-0.06|0.494
90884305|NCT01513317|181631185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.002||||0.986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The estimated parameter is the difference in proportion of participants who did not require a blood transfusion in the 8 weeks of treatment before unblinding at Week 13.|||0.09|-0.09|0.986
90884306|NCT01513317|181631186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|1.96||||0.363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|6.27|||ANCOVA||The estimated parameter is the difference in LS means for changes from baseline in bone marrow blasts at Week 13.|||6.27|-2.35|0.363
90884307|NCT01513317|181631187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|-1.69||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.55|0.17|||ANCOVA||The estimated parameter is the difference in LS means of the number of RBC transfusions during the 8 weeks of treament before unblinding at Week 13.|||0.17|-3.55|0.073
90884308|NCT00274716|181631202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|0.9|||ANCOVA|Treatment group and ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM; yes or no) as class variables and baseline mean trough SiDBP as a continuous variable||||0.9|-5.3|0.157
90884309|NCT00274716|181631202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|-1.0|||ANCOVA|Treatment group and ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM; yes or no) as class variables and baseline mean trough SiDBP as a continuous variable||||-1.0|-7.1|0.010
90884310|NCT00274716|181631202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|-0.1|||ANCOVA|Treatment group and ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM; yes or no) as class variables and baseline mean trough SiDBP as a continuous variable||||-0.1|-6.4|0.042
90884311|NCT00274716|181631202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|4.1|||ANCOVA|Treatment group and ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM; yes or no) as class variables and baseline mean trough SiDBP as a continuous variable||||4.1|-2.1|0.517
90884312|NCT00274716|181631202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|2.3|||ANCOVA|Treatment group and ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM; yes or no) as class variables and baseline mean trough SiDBP as a continuous variable||||2.3|-3.9|0.602
90884313|NCT00274716|181631203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|-0.1|||ANCOVA|Treatment group and ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM; yes or no) as class variables and baseline mean trough SiDBP as a continuous variable||||-0.1|-9.7|0.046
90884314|NCT00274716|181631203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|0.9|||ANCOVA|Treatment group and ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM; yes or no) as class variables and baseline mean trough SiDBP as a continuous variable||||0.9|-8.7|0.108
90924339|NCT05139810|181722395|SUPERIORITY||IC HAE attack rate ratio|0.33|||=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.155|0.706|||Poisson regression model||Model adjusted rate ratio from Poisson regression model.|The Poisson regression model includes treatment groups, baseline (the run-in period HAE attack rate), the treatment-by-baseline interaction as a covariate, and the logarithm of time in every-4-week that each participant was observed from Week 5 to Week 25 used as an offset variable. Pearson chi-square scaling of standard errors was used in the Poisson regression model to account for potential over dispersion.||0.706|0.155|=0.004
90924340|NCT05139810|181722397|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-18.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.673|-9.454|||Mixed model with repeated measures(MMRM)|||||-9.454|-27.673|<0.001
90924341|NCT05139810|181722397|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-13.65|||=|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.024|-3.286|||MMRM|||||-3.286|-24.024|=0.010
90924342|NCT03621371|181722404|OTHER||F-test|9.88|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
91034608|NCT00913627|181955175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.9||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||6 hours||1.90|1.08|<0.001
90924343|NCT03785964|181722449|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.55|||Log Rank|p-value was from a one-sided stratified log-rank test with placebo as reference.||Hazard ratio was estimated from stratified Cox proportional hazards model using the exact method for ties, stratified by tumor location. Placebo was the reference treatment.||0.55|0.15|< 0.001
90924344|NCT03785964|181722450|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Two-sided p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for general association stratified by tumor location. Placebo was reference treatment.||||< 0.001
90924345|NCT03785964|181722451|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|An unstructured covariance structure was used and degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Roger approximation.||Mixed model with repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment and visit as factors, Baseline Brief Pain Inventory Short Form score and primary tumor location (intra-abdominal or extra-abdominal) as covariates, included baseline by visit and treatment by visit interactions. Only participants with a Baseline and at least one post-baseline score were included in the analysis. 40 and 31 participants contributed to this analysis at Cycle 10 from Nirogacestat and Placebo respectively.||||<0.001
90924346|NCT03785964|181722452|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|An unstructured covariance structure was used and degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Roger approximation.||Mixed model with repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment and visit as factors, Baseline DEsmoid Tumor Symptom Scale score and primary tumor location (intra-abdominal or extra-abdominal) as covariates, included baseline by visit and treatment by visit interactions. Only participants with a Baseline and at least one post-baseline score were included in the analysis. 40 and 32 participants contributed to this analysis at Cycle 10 from Nirogacestat and Placebo respectively.||||<0.001
90924347|NCT03785964|181722453|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|An unstructured covariance structure was used and degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Roger approximation.||Mixed model with repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment and visit as factors, Baseline score and primary tumor location (intra-abdominal or extra-abdominal) as covariates, included baseline by visit and treatment by visit interactions. Only participants with a Baseline and at least one post-baseline score were included in the analysis. 39 and 28 participants contributed to this analysis at Cycle 10 from Nirogacestat and Placebo respectively.||||<0.001
90924348|NCT03785964|181722454|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|An unstructured covariance structure was used and degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Roger approximation.||Mixed model with repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment and visit as factors, Baseline score and primary tumor location (intra-abdominal or extra-abdominal) as covariates, included baseline by visit and treatment by visit interactions. Only participants with a Baseline and at least one post-baseline score were included in the analysis. 38 and 27 participants contributed to this analysis at Cycle 10 from Nirogacestat and Placebo respectively.||||0.006
90924349|NCT03785964|181722455|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|An unstructured covariance structure was used and degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Roger approximation.||Mixed model with repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment and visit as factors, Baseline score and primary tumor location (intra-abdominal or extra-abdominal) as covariates, included baseline by visit and treatment by visit interactions. Only participants with a Baseline and at least one post-baseline score were included in the analysis. 38 and 28 participants contributed to this analysis at Cycle 10 from Nirogacestat and Placebo respectively.||||<0.001
90963572|NCT02462928|181808547|NON_INFERIORITY|For hypothesis testing, if the lower limit of 95.1% Confidence Interval (CI) for the difference between an abicipar group and ranibizumab was greater than or equal to -10%, non-inferiority of abicipar was established.|Percentage Difference|-4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.1|-8.7|0.0|||||The 95.1% CI for the weighted difference were calculated based on the Newcombe method using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights and baseline BCVA (≤55 vs \>55 letters) as stratification factor.|||0.0|-8.7|
90924350|NCT03785964|181722456|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|An unstructured covariance structure was used and degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Roger approximation.||Mixed model with repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment and visit as factors, Baseline score and primary tumor location (intra-abdominal or extra-abdominal) as covariates, included baseline by visit and treatment by visit interactions. Only participants with a Baseline and at least one post-baseline score were included in the analysis. 38 and 28 participants contributed to this analysis at Cycle 10 from Nirogacestat and Placebo respectively.||||<0.001
90924351|NCT02723591|181722457|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.115||||0.5777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.636|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression with DSA/IA occurrence by Month 12 as response, with treatment group, planned Campath use, KDPI level (as recorded in IVRS), HLA Class II mismatch, recipient age, recipient gender, recipient race, and pre-transplant calculated panel reactivity antibody (cPRA) as fixed effects, and pooled site as a random effect with standard variance components covariance type.||1.636|0.760|0.5777
90924352|NCT02723591|181722460|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6618|||||||Fisher Exact|||P-values obtained from a 2x3 Exact Test of treatment by strength levels.||||0.6618
90924353|NCT02723591|181722465|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.038||||0.8518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.539|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression with IA occurrence by Month 12 as response, with treatment group, planned Campath use, KDPI level (as recorded in IVRS), HLA Class II mismatch, recipient age, recipient gender, recipient race, and pre-transplant cPRA as fixed effects, and pooled site as a random effect with standard Variance Components covariance type.||1.539|0.700|0.8518
90924354|NCT02723591|181722468|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||P-values obtained from a 2-sided Fisher's Exact Test of treatment arm by response.||||1.0000
90924355|NCT02723591|181722469|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.475|||||||Fisher Exact|||P-values obtained from a 2-sided Fisher's Exact Test of treatment arm by response.||||0.4750
90924356|NCT02723591|181722470|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0939|||||||Fisher Exact|||P-values obtained from a 2-sided Fisher's Exact Test of treatment arm by response.||||0.0939
90963573|NCT02462928|181808548|NON_INFERIORITY|For hypothesis testing, non-inferiority of abicipar is established if the lower limit of the CI is \> - 5.0 letters.|Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.1|-4.7|-0.1|||||MMRM included treatment, region, BL BCVA, BL CRT ≤400 or \>400, choroidal neovascularization lesion type, visit, visit-by-BL BCVA interaction, and treatment-by-visit interaction term as covariates using an unstructured covariance matrix.|||-0.1|-4.7|
91034609|NCT00913627|181955175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|1.97||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||6 hours||1.97|1.16|<0.001
90963574|NCT02462928|181808548|NON_INFERIORITY|For hypothesis testing, non-inferiority of abicipar is established if the lower limit of the CI is \> - 5.0 letters.|LS Mean Difference|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.1|-6.0|-1.3|||||MMRM included treatment, region, BL BCVA, BL CRT ≤400 or \>400, choroidal neovascularization lesion type, visit, visit-by-BL BCVA interaction, and treatment-by-visit interaction term as covariates using an unstructured covariance matrix.|||-1.3|-6.0|
90963575|NCT02462928|181808549|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of abicipar was demonstrated if the lower limit of CI for the treatment difference was greater than zero.|LS Mean Difference|8.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.1|-3.8|20.9|||||MMRM was used for analyses with covariates (treatment, region, baseline BCVA, CRT, choroidal neovascularization lesion type, visit, visit by baseline BCVA and treatment by visit interaction) with unstructured covariance matrix.|||20.9|-3.8|
90963576|NCT02462928|181808549|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of abicipar was demonstrated if the lower limit of CI for the treatment difference was greater than zero.|LS Mean Difference|2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.1|-10.1|14.7|||||MMRM was used for analyses with covariates (treatment, region, baseline BCVA, CRT, choroidal neovascularization lesion type, visit, visit by baseline BCVA and treatment by visit interaction) with unstructured covariance matrix.|||14.7|-10.1|
90963577|NCT02462928|181808550|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|-4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.1|-11.5|2.1|||||The 95.1% CI for the weighted difference were calculated based on the Newcombe method using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights and baseline BCVA (≤55 vs \>55 letters) as the stratification factor.|||2.1|-11.5|
90924357|NCT02723591|181722473|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.431||||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.915|2.24|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression with occurrence of eGFR \< 50 by Month 12 as response, with treatment group, planned Campath use, KDPI level (as recorded in IVRS), HLA Class II mismatch, recipient age, recipient gender, recipient race, and pre-transplant cPRA as fixed effects, and pooled site as a random effect with standard Variance Components covariance type.||2.240|0.915|0.1160
90924358|NCT02723591|181722474|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.212||||0.4995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.693|2.12|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression with occurrence of 5-point eGFR decline by Month 12 as response, with treatment group, planned Campath use, KDPI level (as recorded in IVRS), HLA Class II mismatch, recipient age, recipient gender, recipient race, and pre-transplant cPRA as fixed effects, and pooled site as a random effect with standard Variance Components covariance type.||2.120|0.693|0.4995
90924359|NCT02723591|181722492|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6327|||||||Fisher Exact|||P-values obtained from the Exact Test of treatment arm by Banff scoring levels.||||0.6327
90924360|NCT02723591|181722493|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9701|||||||Fisher Exact|||P-values obtained from the Exact Test of treatment arm by Banff scoring levels.||||0.9701
90924361|NCT02723591|181722494|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3127|||||||Fisher Exact|||P-values obtained from the Exact Test of treatment arm by Banff scoring levels.||||0.3127
91034610|NCT00913627|181955175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.53||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||6 hours||1.53|0.72|<0.001
90924362|NCT02723591|181722495|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.083|||||||Fisher Exact|||P-values obtained from the Exact Test of treatment arm by Banff scoring levels.||||0.0830
90924363|NCT02723591|181722496|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6022|||||||Fisher Exact|||P-values obtained from the Exact Test of treatment arm by Banff scoring levels.||||0.6022
90924364|NCT02723591|181722497|SUPERIORITY|P-values obtained from the Exact Test of treatment arm by Banff scoring levels.||||||0.9249|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.9249
90924365|NCT02723591|181722498|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9136|||||||Fisher Exact|||P-values obtained from the Exact Test of treatment arm by Banff scoring levels.||||0.9136
90924366|NCT02723591|181722499|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8789|||||||Fisher Exact|||P-values obtained from the Exact Test of treatment arm by Banff scoring levels.||||0.8789
90924367|NCT02723591|181722500|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5574|||||||Fisher Exact|||P-values obtained from the Exact Test of treatment arm by Banff scoring levels.||||0.5574
90924368|NCT02723591|181722501|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.815|||||||Fisher Exact|||P-values obtained from the Exact Test of treatment arm by Banff scoring levels.||||0.8150
90924369|NCT02723591|181722502|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5673|||||||Fisher Exact|||P-values obtained from the Exact Test of treatment arm by Banff scoring levels.||||0.5673
90924370|NCT02151981|181722527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.41|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio \<1 favours Osimertinib 80mg|||0.41|0.23|<0.001
90924371|NCT02151981|181722528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.47|8.48|||Regression, Logistic|adjusted for ethnicity (Asian/non-Asian)|odds ratio \>1.0 favours Osimertinib 80 mg|||8.48|3.47|<0.001
90924372|NCT02151981|181722529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of Expected (DoR)|6.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.04|9.57|||formulae provided in Ellis S et al 2008|Treatments compared by calculating the ratio of the Expected (DoR) using the Log Normal probability distribution for DOR in responding patients||||9.57|4.04|<0.001
90924373|NCT02151981|181722530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.64|8.84|||Regression, Logistic||odds ratio \>1.0 favours Osimertinib 80 mg|||8.84|2.64|<0.001
90924374|NCT02151981|181722531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS means|-21.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.71|-15.52|||ANCOVA|Covariates for ethnicity (Asian, non-Asian) and the baseline sum of diameters of target lesions|LS Mean: Osimertinib -46.93, Chemo -25.3 A difference in LS means \<0 favours Osimertinib 80mg|||-15.52|-27.71|<0.001
90924375|NCT02151981|181722532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.13|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio \<1 favours Osimertinib 80 mg|||1.13|0.67|0.277
90963578|NCT02462928|181808550|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|-8.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.1|-14.7|-1.5|||||The 95.1% CI for the weighted difference were calculated based on the Newcombe method using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights and baseline BCVA (≤55 vs \>55 letters) as the stratification factor.|||-1.5|-14.7|
90963579|NCT02462928|181808551|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of abicipar was demonstrated if the lower limit of CI for the treatment difference was greater than zero.|LS Mean Difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.1|-3.7|0.0|||||MMRM was used for analyses with covariates (treatment, region, baseline BCVA, visual function questionnaire (VFQ) score, visit, visit by baseline BCVA and treatment by visit interaction) with unstructured covariance matrix.|||-0.0|-3.7|
91034611|NCT00913627|181955175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.79||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||7 hours||1.79|0.97|<0.001
90963580|NCT02462928|181808551|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of abicipar was demonstrated if the lower limit of CI for the treatment difference was greater than zero.|LS Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.1|-2.7|1.0|||||MMRM was used for analyses with covariates (treatment, region, baseline BCVA, visual function questionnaire (VFQ) score, visit, visit by baseline BCVA and treatment by visit interaction) with unstructured covariance matrix.|||1.0|-2.7|
90963581|NCT00395863|181808552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Reader 1|wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||< 0.0001
90924376|NCT02151981|181722533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.28|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio \<1 favors Osimertinib 80mg|||0.28|0.16|<0.001
90924377|NCT02151981|181722534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.11|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio \<1 favours Osimertinib 80 mg|||1.11|0.69|<0.001
90924378|NCT01922050|181722547|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.69|||Negative binominal regression|Negative binominal regression with log baseline count as offset variable and treatment group and analysis site as factors.||||0.69|0.40|<0.001
90924379|NCT01922050|181722547|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.61|||Negative binominal regression|Negative binominal regression with log baseline count as offset variable and treatment group and analysis site as factors.||||0.61|0.35|<0.001
90924380|NCT01922050|181722547|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.48|||Negative binominal regression|Negative binominal regression with log baseline count as offset variable and treatment group and analysis site as factors.||||0.48|0.28|<0.001
90924381|NCT01922050|181722547|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.88||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.17|||Negative binominal regression|Negative binominal regression with log baseline count as offset variable and treatment group and analysis site as factors.||||1.17|0.66|0.38
90924382|NCT01922050|181722547|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.69||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.93|||Negative binominal regression|Negative binominal regression with log baseline count as offset variable and treatment group and analysis site as factors.||||0.93|0.52|0.013
90924383|NCT01922050|181722547|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.79||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.07|||Negative binominal regression|Negative binominal regression with log baseline count as offset variable and treatment group and analysis site as factors.||||1.07|0.58|0.13
90924384|NCT01922050|181722548|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of clearance rates|0.74||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|2.04|||Log binomial regression|||Log binomial regression with treatment group as factor and baseline AK count included as covariate.||2.04|0.27|0.57
90924385|NCT01922050|181722548|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of clearance rates|1.33||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|3.13|||Log binomial regression|||Log binomial regression with treatment group as factor and baseline AK count included as covariate.||3.13|0.56|0.51
90924386|NCT01922050|181722548|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of clearance rates|1.9||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|4.21|||Log binomial regression|||Log binomial regression with treatment group as factor and baseline AK count included as covariate.||4.21|0.86|0.11
90924387|NCT01922050|181722548|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of clearance rates|1.79||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|4.43|||Log binomial regression|||Log binomial regression with treatment group as factor and baseline AK count included as covariate.||4.43|0.72|0.21
90924388|NCT01922050|181722548|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of clearance rates|2.55||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|5.98|||Log binomial regression|||Log binomial regression with treatment group as factor and baseline AK count included as covariate.||5.98|1.09|0.031
90924389|NCT01922050|181722548|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of clearance rates|1.43||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|2.75|||Log binomial regression|||Log binomial regression with treatment group as factor and baseline AK count included as covariate.||2.75|0.74|0.29
90924390|NCT01922050|181722549|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of clearance rates|1.69||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.69|||Log binomial regression|||Log binomial regression with treatment group as factor and baseline AK count included as covariate.||2.69|1.06|0.026
90924391|NCT01922050|181722549|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of clearance rates|1.79||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|2.84|||Log binomial regression|||Log binomial regression with treatment group as factor and baseline AK count included as covariate.||2.84|1.13|0.013
90924392|NCT01922050|181722549|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of clearance rates|2.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|3.25|||Log binomial regression|||||3.25|1.35|<0.001
90924393|NCT01922050|181722549|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of clearance rates|1.06||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.47|||Log binomial regression|||||1.47|0.76|0.73
90924394|NCT01922050|181722549|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of clearance rates|1.24||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.67|||Log binomial regression|||||1.67|0.92|0.16
90924395|NCT01922050|181722549|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of clearance rates|1.17||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.57|||Log binomial regression|||Log binomial regression with treatment group as factor and baseline AK count included as covariate.||1.57|0.87|0.30
90924396|NCT04642820|181722605|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.05
90924397|NCT04568434|181722606|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-43.5|||=|0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.085|-17.921||ANCOVA model included effects of treatment (olezarsen 80 mg, olezarsen 50 mg, or placebo): dependent variable, protocol specified 2 randomization stratification factors: fixed effects, log-transformed baseline TG: covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-17.921|-69.085|=0.0009
90924398|NCT04568434|181722606|SUPERIORITY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-22.37|||=|0.0775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.2|2.463||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model included effects of treatment (olezarsen 80 mg, olezarsen 50 mg, or placebo): dependent variable, protocol specified 2 randomization stratification factors: fixed effects, log-transformed baseline TG: covariate.|ANCOVA|||||2.463|-47.200|=0.0775
90963582|NCT00395863|181808552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Reader 2|wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||<0.0001
90963583|NCT00395863|181808552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Reader 3|wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||< 0.0001
90963584|NCT00395863|181808553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0001||||||Reader 1|wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.0001
90963585|NCT00395863|181808553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001||||||Reader 2|wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.001
90963586|NCT00395863|181808553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0002||||||Reader 3|wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.0002
90963587|NCT00395863|181808554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Reader 1|wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||<0.0001
90963588|NCT00395863|181808554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Reader 2|wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||<0.0001
90884315|NCT00274716|181631203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|0.8|||ANCOVA|Treatment group and ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM; yes or no) as class variables and baseline mean trough SiDBP as a continuous variable||||0.8|-9.0|0.099
90884316|NCT00274716|181631203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|4.1|||ANCOVA|Treatment group and ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM; yes or no) as class variables and baseline mean trough SiDBP as a continuous variable||||4.1|-5.7|0.752
90884317|NCT00274716|181631203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|5.0|||ANCOVA|Treatment group and ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM; yes or no) as class variables and baseline mean trough SiDBP as a continuous variable||||5.0|-4.7|0.941
90884318|NCT00274716|181631204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.7|||ANCOVA|Treatment group and ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM; yes or no) as class variables and baseline weight as a continuous variable||||-0.7|-2.2|<0.001
90884319|NCT00274716|181631204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.4|||ANCOVA|Treatment group and ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM; yes or no) as class variables and baseline weight as a continuous variable||||-0.4|-1.9|0.003
90884320|NCT00274716|181631204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-1.0|||ANCOVA|Treatment group and ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM; yes or no) as class variables and baseline weight as a continuous variable||||-1.0|-2.4|<0.001
90884321|NCT00274716|181631204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.0|||ANCOVA|Treatment group and ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM; yes or no) as class variables and baseline weight as a continuous variable||||1.0|-0.5|0.462
90884322|NCT00274716|181631204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.3|||ANCOVA|Treatment group and ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM; yes or no) as class variables and baseline weight as a continuous variable||||1.3|-0.2|0.118
90884323|NCT00274716|181631205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|0.1|||ANCOVA|Treatment group and ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM; yes or no) as class variables and baseline waist as a continuous variable||||0.1|-3.7|0.059
90884324|NCT00274716|181631205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|-1.7|||ANCOVA|Treatment group and ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM; yes or no) as class variables and baseline waist as a continuous variable||||-1.7|-5.5|<0.001
90884325|NCT00274716|181631205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|0.5|||ANCOVA|Treatment group and ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM; yes or no) as class variables and baseline waist as a continuous variable||||0.5|-3.3|0.136
90884326|NCT00274716|181631205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.4|||ANCOVA|Treatment group and ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM; yes or no) as class variables and baseline waist as a continuous variable||||1.4|-2.2|0.686
90884327|NCT00274716|181631205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-0.3|||ANCOVA|Treatment group and ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM; yes or no) as class variables and baseline waist as a continuous variable||||-0.3|-4.0|0.022
90884328|NCT00274716|181631206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.8|-3.7|||ANCOVA|Treatment group and ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM; yes or no) as class variables and baseline LDL-C as a continuous variable||||-3.7|-20.8|0.005
90884329|NCT00274716|181631206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.4||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.7|0.5|||ANCOVA|Treatment group and ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM; yes or no) as class variables and baseline LDL-C as a continuous variable||||0.5|-16.7|0.066
90884330|NCT00274716|181631206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5||0.319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|4.4|||ANCOVA|Treatment group and ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM; yes or no) as class variables and baseline LDL-C as a continuous variable||||4.4|-13.4|0.319
90884331|NCT00274716|181631206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.4||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|0.8|||ANCOVA|Treatment group and ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM; yes or no) as class variables and baseline LDL-C as a continuous variable||||0.8|-16.4|0.077
90884332|NCT00274716|181631206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.4||0.418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|5.1|||ANCOVA|Treatment group and ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM; yes or no) as class variables and baseline LDL-C as a continuous variable||||5.1|-12.2|0.418
90924399|NCT04568434|181722607|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-43.81|||=|0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.928|-13.692||ANCOVA model included percent change from baseline in fasting TG at Month 12: dependent variable, treatment group, protocol specified 2 randomization stratification factors: fixed effects, log-transformed baseline TG: covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-13.692|-73.928|=0.0044
90924400|NCT04568434|181722607|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-59.39|||=|0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-90.663|-28.119||ANCOVA model included percent change from baseline in fasting TG at Month 12: dependent variable, treatment group, protocol specified 2 randomization stratification factors: fixed effects, log-transformed baseline TG: covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-28.119|-90.663|=0.0002
90924401|NCT04568434|181722608|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-65.48|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-82.634|-48.32||ANCOVA model included percent change from baseline in fasting apoC-III at Month 6: dependent variable, treatment group, protocol specified 2 randomization stratification factors: fixed effects, log-transformed baseline apoC-III: covariate.|ANCOVA|||Percent Change from Baseline at Month 6||-48.320|-82.634|<0.0001
90924402|NCT04568434|181722608|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-73.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-94.553|-52.837||ANCOVA model included percent change from baseline in fasting apoC-III at Month 6: dependent variable, treatment group, protocol specified 2 randomization stratification factors: fixed effects, log-transformed baseline apoC-III: covariate.|ANCOVA|||Percent Change from Baseline at Month 6||-52.837|-94.553|<0.0001
91034612|NCT00913627|181955175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.95||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||7 hours||1.95|1.14|<0.001
91034613|NCT00913627|181955175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.43||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||7 hours||1.43|0.62|<0.001
91034614|NCT00913627|181955175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.77||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||8 hours||1.77|0.93|<0.001
91034615|NCT00913627|181955175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.81||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||8 hours||1.81|0.97|<0.001
90924403|NCT04568434|181722608|SUPERIORITY||Ls mean difference|-77.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-98.938|-55.177||ANCOVA model included percent change from baseline in fasting apoC-III at Month 12: dependent variable, treatment group, protocol specified 2 randomization stratification factors: fixed effects, log-transformed baseline apoC-III: covariate.|ANCOVA|||Percent Change from Baseline at Month 12||-55.177|-98.938|<0.0001
90924404|NCT04568434|181722608|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-81.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-104.656|-57.894||ANCOVA model included percent change from baseline in fasting apoC-III at Month 12: dependent variable, treatment group, protocol specified 2 randomization stratification factors: fixed effects, log-transformed baseline apoC-III: covariate.|ANCOVA|||Percent Change from Baseline at Month 12||-57.894|-104.656|<0.0001
90924405|NCT04568434|181722610|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-33.29|||=|0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-82.612|16.041||ANCOVA model included percent change from baseline in fasting apoB-48 to Month 6: dependent variable, treatment group, protocol prespecified randomization stratification factors: fixed effects \& log-transformed baseline apoB-48: covariate.|ANCOVA|||Percent Change From Baseline at Month 6||16.041|-82.612|=0.1860
90924406|NCT04568434|181722610|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-83.97|||=|0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-136.949|-30.982||ANCOVA model included percent change from baseline in fasting apoB-48 to Month 6: dependent variable, treatment group, protocol prespecified randomization stratification factors: fixed effects \& log-transformed baseline apoB-48: covariate.|ANCOVA|||Percent Change From Baseline at Month 6||-30.982|-136.949|=0.0019
90924407|NCT04568434|181722610|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-32.9|||=|0.4219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-113.254|47.459||ANCOVA model included percent change from baseline in fasting apoB-48 to Month 12: dependent variable, treatment group, protocol prespecified randomization stratification factors: fixed effects \& log-transformed baseline apoB-48: covariate.|ANCOVA|||Percent Change from Baseline at Month 12||47.459|-113.254|=0.4219
90924408|NCT04568434|181722610|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-75.63|||=|0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-153.195|1.927||ANCOVA model included percent change from baseline in fasting apoB-48 to Month 12: dependent variable, treatment group, protocol prespecified randomization stratification factors: fixed effects \& log-transformed baseline apoB-48: covariate.|ANCOVA|||Percent Change from Baseline at Month 12||1.927|-153.195|=0.0560
90924409|NCT04568434|181722611|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-17.69|||=|0.0401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.571|-0.801||ANCOVA model included percent change from baseline in fasting non-HDL-C to Month 6: dependent variable, treatment group, protocol prespecified randomization stratification factors: fixed effects \& log-transformed baseline non-HDL-C: covariate.|ANCOVA|||Percent Change from Baseline Month 6||-0.801|-34.571|=0.0401
90924410|NCT04568434|181722611|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-24.2|||=|0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.484|-7.911||ANCOVA model included percent change from baseline in fasting non-HDL-C to Month 6: dependent variable, treatment group, protocol prespecified randomization stratification factors: fixed effects \& log-transformed baseline non-HDL-C: covariate|ANCOVA|||Percent Change from Baseline Month 6||-7.911|-40.484|=0.0036
90924411|NCT04568434|181722611|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-29.84|||=|0.0134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.49|-6.198||ANCOVA model included percent change from baseline in fasting non-HDL-C to Month 12: dependent variable, treatment group, protocol prespecified randomization stratification factors: fixed effects \& log-transformed baseline non-HDL-C: covariate.|ANCOVA|||Percent Change from Baseline at Month 12||-6.198|-53.490|=0.0134
90924412|NCT04568434|181722611|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-39.7|||=|0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.108|-16.292||ANCOVA model included percent change from baseline in fasting non-HDL-C to Month 12: dependent variable, treatment group, protocol prespecified randomization stratification factors: fixed effects \& log-transformed baseline non-HDL-C: covariate.|ANCOVA|||Percent Change from Baseline at Month 12||-16.292|-63.108|=0.0009
90924413|NCT04568434|181722612|SUPERIORITY||Mean Rate Ratio|0.1|||=|0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.506||Regression model: treatment group \& previous treatment (volanesorsen):factors adjudicated acute pancreatitis events in 5 years prior enrollment:covariate. Logarithm of time in year that each participant was observed from Week 1 to 53:offset variable.|Negative Binomial Regression Model|||||0.506|0.020|=0.0052
90924414|NCT04568434|181722613|SUPERIORITY||Mean Rate Ratio|0.12|||=|0.0144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.022|0.656||Regression model: treatment group \& previous treatment (volanesorsen):factors adjudicated acute pancreatitis events in 5 years prior enrollment:covariate. Logarithm of time in year that each participant was observed from Week 1 to 53:offset variable.|Negative Binomial Regression Model|||||0.656|0.022|=0.0144
91034616|NCT00913627|181955175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.46||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||8 hours||1.46|0.63|<0.001
91034617|NCT00913627|181955175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.71||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||9 hours||1.71|0.87|<0.001
91034618|NCT00913627|181955175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.81||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||9 hours||1.81|0.97|<0.001
90884333|NCT00274716|181631207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|-1.2|||ANCOVA|Treatment group and ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM; yes or no) as class variables and baseline HDL-C as a continuous variable||||-1.2|-11.3|0.015
90884334|NCT00274716|181631207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|1.1|||ANCOVA|Treatment group and ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM; yes or no) as class variables and baseline HDL-C as a continuous variable||||1.1|-9.2|0.124
90884335|NCT00274716|181631207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6||0.429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|7.2|||ANCOVA|Treatment group and ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM; yes or no) as class variables and baseline HDL-C as a continuous variable||||7.2|-3.1|0.429
90884336|NCT00274716|181631207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|-3.4|||ANCOVA|Treatment group and ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM; yes or no) as class variables and baseline HDL-C as a continuous variable||||-3.4|-13.3|0.001
90884337|NCT00274716|181631207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|-1.1|||ANCOVA|Treatment group and ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM; yes or no) as class variables and baseline HDL-C as a continuous variable||||-1.1|-11.1|0.018
90884338|NCT00274716|181631208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.0||0.587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|22.8|||ANCOVA|Treatment group and ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM; yes or no) as class variables and baseline TG as a continuous variable||||22.8|-12.9|0.587
90884339|NCT00274716|181631208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.2||0.562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.5|12.8|||ANCOVA|Treatment group and ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM; yes or no) as class variables and baseline TG as a continuous variable||||12.8|-23.5|0.562
90884340|NCT00274716|181631208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.2||0.802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.8|20.4|||ANCOVA|Treatment group and ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM; yes or no) as class variables and baseline TG as a continuous variable||||20.4|-15.8|0.802
90884341|NCT00274716|181631208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.0||0.772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|20.5|||ANCOVA|Treatment group and ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM; yes or no) as class variables and baseline TG as a continuous variable||||20.5|-15.2|0.772
90884342|NCT00274716|181631208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.2||0.409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.9|10.6|||ANCOVA|Treatment group and ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM; yes or no) as class variables and baseline TG as a continuous variable||||10.6|-25.9|0.409
90884343|NCT01257204|181631213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|20.8|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|4.9|36.8|||||The difference in the percentage of participants with antiviral response between daclatasvir and placebo was presented with a difference estimate (daclatasvir - placebo) and 80% confidence Interval.|||36.8|4.9|
90884344|NCT01257204|181631213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|20.1|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|3.9|36.3|||||The difference in the percentage of participants with antiviral response between daclatasvir and placebo was presented with a difference estimate (daclatasvir - placebo) and 80% confidence Interval.|||36.3|3.9|
90884345|NCT01257204|181631222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.8|26.7|||||The difference in the percentage of participants with antiviral response between daclatasvir and placebo was presented with a difference estimate (daclatasvir - placebo) and 80% confidence Interval.|||26.7|-6.8|
90884346|NCT01257204|181631222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|7.4|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-9.4|24.2|||||The difference in the percentage of participants with antiviral response between daclatasvir and placebo was presented with a difference estimate (daclatasvir - placebo) and 80% confidence Interval.|||24.2|-9.4|
90884347|NCT01268644|181631231|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14||||||P value comparing baseline to week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.14
90884348|NCT01268644|181631232|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||P value comparing week 0 with week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.01
90884349|NCT01268644|181631233|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009||||||P value comparing week 0 to week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.009
90884350|NCT01268644|181631234|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.75
90884351|NCT01663259|181631244|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Estimates of proportion event-free at 1 and 2 years calculated using Kaplan-Meier methods, and the 2-sided, 95% confidence intervals were calculated by the Greenwood method. All analyses were performed using SAS v9.4 software and R version 3.5.2.|||
90884352|NCT01663259|181631245|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Survival proportion estimates at 1 and 2 years were calculated using Kaplan-Meier methods, and the 2-sided, 95% confidence intervals calculated by the Greenwood method. All analyses were performed using SAS v9.4 software and R version 3.5.2.|||
90884353|NCT01663259|181631246|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Estimates of proportion LRP event-free at 1 and 2 years were calculated using Kaplan-Meier methods, and the 2-sided, 95% confidence intervals calculated by the Greenwood method. All analyses were performed using SAS v9.4 software and R version 3.5.2.|||
90884354|NCT03160703|181631252|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.2681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.01||Statistical significance set at 5% level|ANCOVA|From ANCOVA with treatment and smoking status as factors and baseline pre-prophylaxis overall MLSI score as covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|||0.01|-0.05|0.2681
90884355|NCT03160703|181631252|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|-0.02||Statistical significance set at 5% level|ANCOVA|From ANCOVA with treatment and smoking status as factors and baseline pre-prophylaxis overall MLSI score as covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|||-0.02|-0.08|0.0043
90884356|NCT03160703|181631252|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|-0.05||Statistical significance set at 5% level|ANCOVA|From ANCOVA with treatment and smoking status as factors and baseline pre-prophylaxis overall MLSI score as covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|||-0.05|-0.12|<.0001
90963589|NCT00395863|181808554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Reader 3|wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||<0.0001
90924415|NCT04568434|181722614|SUPERIORITY||Mean Rate Ratio|0.14|||=|0.0174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.028|0.709||Regression model: treatment group \& previous treatment (volanesorsen):factors adjudicated acute pancreatitis events in 5 years prior enrollment:covariate. Logarithm of time in year that each participant was observed from Week 13 to 53:offset variable|Negative Binomial Regression Model|||||0.709|0.028|=0.0174
90924416|NCT04568434|181722615|SUPERIORITY||Mean Rate Ratio|0.16|||=|0.0314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.031|0.85||Regression model: treatment group \& previous treatment (volanesorsen):factors adjudicated acute pancreatitis events in 5 years prior enrollment:covariate. Logarithm of time in year that each participant was observed from Week 13 to 53:offset variable|Negative Binomial Regression Model|||||0.850|0.031|=0.0314
90924417|NCT04568434|181722618|SUPERIORITY||Mean Rate Ratio|0.14|||=|0.0137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.029|0.669||Regression model: treatment group \& previous treatment (volanesorsen):factors adjudicated acute pancreatitis events in 5 years prior enrollment:covariate. Logarithm of time in year that each participant was observed from Week 1 to 53:offset variable|Negative Binomial Regression Model|||||0.669|0.029|=0.0137
90924418|NCT04568434|181722619|SUPERIORITY||Mean Rate Ratio|0.2|||=|0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.986||Regression model:treatment group \& previous treatment (volanesorsen):factors adjudicated acute pancreatitis events in 5 years prior enrollment:covariate. Logarithm of time in year that each participant was observed from Week 13 to 53:offset variable|Negative Binomial Regression Model|||||0.986|0.040|=0.0480
90924419|NCT03334630|181722631|NON_INFERIORITY|Assuming a Control composite SAE freedom rate of 93.5%, 226 subjects per group yields 80% power to detect a non-inferiority margin of -6.5% between treatment groups at a significance level of 0.025.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0324|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0132|0.0779||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.025.|Farrington-Manning non-inferiority test||Estimated risk difference = DiamondTemp composite SAE freedom rate - Control composite SAE freedom rate = 3.24% = 0.0324|Null hypothesis: the DiamondTemp arm is inferior to the Control arm. Alternative hypothesis: the DiamondTemp arm is non-inferior to the Control arm.||0.0779|-0.0132|<0.0001
90924420|NCT03334630|181722632|NON_INFERIORITY|Assuming a Control primary effectiveness rate of 65%, 229 subjects per group yields 80% power to detect a non-inferiority margin of -12.5% between treatment groups at a significance level of 0.025.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.034|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.042|0.109||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.025.|Farrington-Manning non-inferiority test||Estimated risk difference = DiamondTemp composite SAE freedom rate - Control composite SAE freedom rate = 3.4% = 0.034|Null hypothesis: the DiamondTemp arm is inferior to the Control arm. Alternative hypothesis: the DiamondTemp arm is non-inferior to the Control arm.||0.109|-0.042|<0.0001
90940698|NCT01723514|181761248|SUPERIORITY||LS Geometric Mean Ratio|13.33||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.39|130.94|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Day 197: A repeated measures ANCOVA was performed for the ratio of blood flow measures at 30 minutes post capsaicin challenge to pre capsaicin challenge. The model included treatment, day, and the treatment by day interaction as independent variables, and both the 0 minute pre-capsaicin blood flow measure as well as the day 0, 30-minute post-capsaicin blood flow measures on day -1 .||130.94|-44.39|0.73
90963590|NCT00395863|181808555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.22|<|0.0001||95.0|0.14|0.3||Mean difference of MultiHance minus Magnevist for change from baseline|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.30|0.14|<0.0001
90963591|NCT00395863|181808556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.2|<|0.0001||95.0|0.22|0.38||Mean difference of Multihance minus Magnevist for change from baseline|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.38|0.22|<0.0001
90963592|NCT00395863|181808557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.19|<|0.0001||95.0|0.18|0.33||Mean difference of Multihance minus Magnevist for change from baseline|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.33|0.18|<0.0001
90963593|NCT00395863|181808558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|40.99|STANDARD_DEVIATION|59.78||0.0062||95.0|20.72|61.26||Mean difference of Multihance minus Magnevist for change from baseline|t-test, 2 sided|||||61.26|20.72|0.0062
90963594|NCT00395863|181808559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|30.95|STANDARD_DEVIATION|48.64||0.0027||95.0|16.57|45.33||Mean difference of Multihance minus Magnevist for change from baseline|t-test, 2 sided|||||45.33|16.57|0.0027
90963595|NCT00395863|181808560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|25.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|37.37||0.02||95.0|12.41|37.67||Mean difference of Multihance minus Magnevist for change from baseline|t-test, 2 sided|||||37.67|12.41|0.02
90963596|NCT00395863|181808561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.77|STANDARD_DEVIATION|48.51||0.0019||95.0|14.28|51.25||Mean difference of Multihance minus Magnevist|t-test, 2 sided|||||51.25|14.28|0.0019
90963597|NCT00395863|181808562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.61|STANDARD_DEVIATION|43.16||0.0008||95.0|16.75|50.47||Mean difference of Multihance minus Magnevist|t-test, 2 sided|||||50.47|16.75|0.0008
90963598|NCT00395863|181808563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.72|STANDARD_DEVIATION|48.5||0.0026||95.0|14.63|52.81||Mean difference of Multihance minus Magnevist|t-test, 2 sided|||||52.81|14.63|0.0026
90963599|NCT01448213|181808589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.17
90963600|NCT01448213|181808590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0005
90963601|NCT03503513|181808591|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.2|||differences in incidence rate ratio|An incidence rate ratio per person/month was determined by comparing the total number of UTIs in relation to time points.||comparison between pre and during treatment rates of UTI||0.20|0.03|<0.0001
90963602|NCT03503513|181808592|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.13|<|0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|0.3||a priori threshold p value of \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided||Baseline to end of 6 month treatment score comparisons; (higher numbers represent more symptoms or complications)|NBSS Domain score for incontinence pre-post comparison; small sample size did not allow for power calculation.||0.3|-7.9|<0.06
91034619|NCT00913627|181955175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.39||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||9 hours||1.39|0.56|<0.001
90940699|NCT01723514|181761248|SUPERIORITY||LS Geometric Mean Ratio|-80.02||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-91.53|-52.87|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Day 8: A repeated measures ANCOVA was performed for the ratio of blood flow measures at 30 minutes post capsaicin challenge to pre capsaicin challenge. The model included treatment, day, and the treatment by day interaction as independent variables, and both the 0 minute pre-capsaicin blood flow measure as well as the day 0, 30-minute post-capsaicin blood flow measures on day -1 .||-52.87|-91.53|0.001
90963603|NCT03503513|181808592|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.09|<|0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|1.7||a priori threshold p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided||(higher numbers represent more symptoms or complications)|NBSS Domain score for storage and voiding; pre-post comparison. Due to small sample size (n=11) no power calculations were conducted.||1.7|-3.8|<0.39
90884357|NCT03160703|181631252|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|-0.08||Statistical significance set at 5% level|ANCOVA|From ANCOVA with treatment and smoking status as factors and baseline pre-prophylaxis overall MLSI score as covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|||-0.08|-0.15|<.0001
90884358|NCT03160703|181631252|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.0779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.06||Statistical significance set at 5% level|ANCOVA|From ANCOVA with treatment and smoking status as factors and baseline pre-prophylaxis overall MLSI score as covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|||0.06|-0.00|0.0779
90884359|NCT03160703|181631252|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.1||Statistical significance set at 5% level|ANCOVA|From ANCOVA with treatment and smoking status as factors and baseline pre-prophylaxis overall MLSI score as covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|||0.10|0.03|0.0001
90884360|NCT01513291|181631263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.4||||0.33153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.4|||Constrained Longitudinal Analysis (cLDA)||Risk difference is for MK-6096 - Placebo. The cLDA model included terms for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, monthly migraine days during the Screening (Baseline) Period (≤8, \>8) as covariates|||0.4|-1.3|0.33153
90884361|NCT01513291|181631264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|9.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|21.6|||||Risk difference (MK-6096 - Placebo) was estimated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method|||21.6|-3.4|
90884362|NCT01513291|181631265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|8.9|||||Risk difference (MK-6096 - Placebo) was estimated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method|||8.9|-4.0|
90884363|NCT01513291|181631266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.5||||0.24008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.4|||Constrained Longitudinal Analysis (cLDA)||Risk difference is for MK-6096 - Placebo. The cLDA model included terms for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, monthly migraine days during the Screening (Baseline) Period (≤8, \>8) as covariates|||0.4|-1.4|0.24008
90884364|NCT01513291|181631267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.43093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.0|||Generalized linear mixed effects model||Odds ratio is for MK-6096 / Placebo. The generalized linear mixed effects model included terms for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, monthly migraine days during the Screening (Baseline) Period 1 (≤8, \>8) as covariates.|||2.0|0.7|0.43093
90884365|NCT01513291|181631268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.9737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.5|||Generalized linear mixed effects model||Odds ratio is for MK-6096 / Placebo. The generalized linear mixed effects model included terms for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, monthly migraine days during the Treatment Period 1 (≤8, \>8) as covariates.|||1.5|0.7|0.97370
90884366|NCT00047463|181631316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis was that the groups would be similar in tolerance. This was a pilot study so we did not do a power calculation.||||0.26
90884367|NCT03304379|181631345|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-0.63|||=|0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.971|-0.286||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||Analyses were based on a multiple imputation approach using a Mixed-Effect Model With Repeated Measure (MMRM) model with baseline randomization strata, baseline, treatment, visit and treatment by-visit interaction.||-0.286|-0.971|= 0.0003
90884368|NCT03304379|181631345|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.77|||>|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.154|-0.383||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||"(mFAS)~Analyses were based on a multiple imputation approach using a MMRM model with baseline, randomization strata, baseline, treatment, visit and treatment by-visit interaction"||-0.383|-1.154|> 0.0001
90884369|NCT03304379|181631346|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.64|||=|0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.981|-0.29||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||Analyses were based on a multiple imputation approach using a Mixed-Effect Model With Repeated Measure (MMRM) model with baseline randomization strata, baseline, treatment, visit and treatment by-visit interaction.||-0.290|-0.981|= 0.0003
90884370|NCT03304379|181631346|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.198|-0.443||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level|MMRM|||"(mFAS)~Analyses were based on a multiple imputation approach using an Mixed-Effect Model With Repeated Measure (MMRM) model with baseline randomization strata, baseline, treatment, visit and treatment by-visit interaction."||-0.443|-1.198|<0.0001
90884371|NCT03304379|181631347|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.581|||=|0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.195|2.092||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level. Analyses are based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel model.||2.092|1.195|= 0.0013
90884372|NCT03304379|181631348|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|||=|0.0365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|-0.009||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level. Analyses are based on a multiple imputation approach using Mixed-Effect Model With Repeated Measure (MMRM) model.||-0.009|-0.28|= 0.0365
90884373|NCT03402243|181631363|SUPERIORITY||Estimated mean ratio|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.75|||||Baseline adjusted model estimated mean ratio in cigarettes smoked per day of those randomized to a total menthol ban smoked relative to those randomized to a menthol cigarette ban|||1.75|1.1|
91034620|NCT00913627|181955175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.68||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||10 hours||1.68|0.82|<0.001
90963604|NCT03503513|181808592|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.99|<|0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|0.8|||t-test, 2 sided||Higher numbers represent more symptoms or complications referred as consequences.|Pre and post test comparisons of mean NBSS scores for the consequences domain. Power calculations were not conducted due to small sample size.||0.8|-4.6|<0.14
90884374|NCT03402243|181631363|SUPERIORITY||Estimated mean ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.11|||||Baseline adjusted model estimated mean ratio in cigarettes smoked per day of those randomized to a menthol cigarettes ban relative to those randomized to no menthol ban|||1.11|0.68|
90884375|NCT03402243|181631363|SUPERIORITY||Estimated mean ratio|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.45|||||Baseline adjusted model estimated mean ratio in cigarettes smoked per day of those randomized to a menthol ban for cigarettes and e-cigarettes relative to those randomized to no menthol ban|||1.45|0.99|
90884376|NCT03402243|181631363|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.349|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Average number of puffs per participants over the 6 week study period||||0.349
90884377|NCT03402243|181631364|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.185|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison among groups in number of cigarette packs selected||||0.185
90884378|NCT03402243|181631364|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.076|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison among groups in number of e-cigarette liquid units selected||||0.076
90884379|NCT03402243|181631365|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.27
90884380|NCT02802345|181631370|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.431||0.7191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.33|2.3|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|The Roger- Kenward approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Adjusted mean difference (Nintedanib +placebo vs Nintedanib+sildenafil) is based on all analyzed patients in the model (not only patients with a measurement at baseline and at 12 weeks).|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) included fixed effects for treatment, visit, presence of any echocardiographic signs, baseline SGRQ total score as covariate, treatment-by-visit and baseline SGRQ total score-by-visit interaction terms using an unstructured covariance matrix. No imputation was planned. Data collected after Visit 5 (planned 12 weeks after start of study treatment) were not used for this analysis.|"H0: There is no difference in the mean change from baseline in SGRQ total score at Week 12 between treatment with nintedanib co-administered with sildenafil and treatment with nintedanib alone.~Ha: There is a difference in the mean change from baseline in SGRQ total score at Week 12 between treatment with nintedanib co-administered with sildenafil and treatment with nintedanib alone."|2.30|-3.33|0.7191
90884381|NCT02802345|181631371|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-2.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.198||0.1823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.27|1.39|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|The Roger- Kenward approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Adjusted mean difference (Nintedanib +placebo vs Nintedanib+sildenafil) is based on all analyzed patients in the model (not only patients with a measurement at baseline and at 12 weeks)|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) included fixed effects for treatment, visit, presence of any echocardiographic signs, baseline UCSD SOBQ total score as covariate, treatment-by-visit and baseline UCSD SOBQ total score-by-visit interaction terms using an unstructured covariance matrix. No imputation was planned. Data collected after Visit 5 (planned 12 weeks after start of study treatment) were not used for this analysis.||1.39|-7.27|0.1823
90884382|NCT02802345|181631372|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-2.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.631||0.1809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|1.02|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|The Roger- Kenward approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Adjusted mean difference (Nintedanib +placebo vs Nintedanib+sildenafil) is based on all analyzed patients in the model (not only patients with a measurement at baseline and at 24 weeks)|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) included fixed effects for treatment, visit, presence of any echocardiographic signs, baseline SGRQ total score as covariate, treatment-by-visit and baseline SGRQ total score-by-visit interaction terms using an unstructured covariance matrix. No imputation was planned.||1.02|-5.40|0.1809
90884383|NCT02802345|181631373|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-2.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.529||0.3421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.39|2.58|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|The Roger- Kenward approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Adjusted mean difference (Nintedanib +placebo vs Nintedanib+sildenafil) is based on all analyzed patients in the model (not only patients with a measurement at baseline and at 24 weeks)|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) included fixed effects for treatment, visit, presence of any echocardiographic signs, baseline UCSD SOBQ total score as covariate, treatment-by-visit and baseline UCSD SOBQ total score-by-visit interaction terms using an unstructured covariance matrix. No imputation was planned.||2.58|-7.39|0.3421
90884384|NCT02802345|181631374|SUPERIORITY||Percentage ratio (%)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.2|||||Within strata confidence limits are calculated according to Wald. Percentage ratio = (% of Nintedanib+sildenafil) / (% of Nintedanib+placebo).|Relative risk, Comparison of treatment groups is calculated by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the categorical covariate presence of any echocardiographic signs indicative of right heart dysfunction (yes/no), adjusted Mantel-Haenszel type risk ratios and risk differences with 95% confidence are presented.||1.20|0.58|
90963605|NCT03503513|181808593|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.99|<|0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|2.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.6|-6.8|<0.34
90963606|NCT00733304|181808643|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.362|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.18|2.31||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used to perform statistical analysis based on treatment, visit, fixed effect terms etc.|ANCOVA|||Month 2 versus screening visit||2.31|-3.18|
91034621|NCT00913627|181955175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.89||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||10 hours||1.89|1.03|<0.001
90884385|NCT02802345|181631374|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference (%)|-5.37||||0.334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.25|5.52|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Within strata confidence limits are calculated according to Wald. Percentage difference = (% of Nintedanib+sildenafil) - (% of Nintedanib+placebo).|Risk difference, Comparison of treatment groups is calculated by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the categorical covariate presence of any echocardiographic signs indicative of right heart dysfunction (yes/no), adjusted Mantel-Haenszel type risk ratios and risk differences with 95% confidence are presented.||5.52|-16.25|0.334
90963607|NCT00733304|181808643|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.659|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.13|-0.46||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used to perform statistical analysis based on treatment, visit, fixed effect terms etc.|ANCOVA|||Month 5 versus screening visit||-0.46|-7.13|
90963608|NCT00733304|181808643|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.672|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.52|-0.78||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used to perform statistical analysis based on treatment, visit, fixed effect terms etc.|ANCOVA|||Month 2 versus screening visit||-0.78|-7.52|
90963609|NCT00733304|181808643|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.74|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.53|0.53||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used to perform statistical analysis based on treatment, visit, fixed effect terms etc.|ANCOVA|||Month 5 versus screening visit||0.53|-7.53|
90884386|NCT03969212|181631375|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted OR (BMX vs Placebo)|0.68|||=|0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.38|0.5|0.93|||GEE|||The odds ratio (OR) shown represents the odds of Baloxavir Marboxil (BMX) versus the odds of Placebo.||0.93|0.50|= 0.013
90884387|NCT03969212|181631376|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted OR (BMX vs Placebo)|0.75|||=|0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.38|0.5|1.12|||GEE model|||The OR shown represents the odds of BMX versus the odds of Placebo.||1.12|0.50|= 0.1550
90884388|NCT03969212|181631377|OTHER||Odds Ratio (BMX vs Placebo}]|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.38|0.55|1.06||||||The OR shown represents the odds of BMX versus the odds of Placebo.||1.06|0.55|
90884389|NCT03969212|181631378|OTHER||Odds Ratio (BMX vs Placebo)|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.38|0.46|1.04||||||The OR shown represents the odds of BMX versus the odds of Placebo.||1.04|0.46|
90884390|NCT03969212|181631379|OTHER||Adjusted OR (BMX vs Placebo)|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.38|0.48|0.91|||GEE model|||The OR shown represents the odds of BMX versus the odds of Placebo.||0.91|0.48|
90884391|NCT03969212|181631380|OTHER||Adjusted OR (BMX vs Placebo)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.38|0.48|1.09|||Two-Sided P-value|||The OR shown represents the odds of BMX versus the odds of Placebo.||1.09|0.48|
90884392|NCT03969212|181631381|OTHER||Adjusted OR (BMX vs Placebo)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.38|0.53|0.94|||Two-Sided P-value|||The OR shown represents the odds of BMX versus the odds of Placebo.||0.94|0.53|
90884393|NCT03969212|181631382|OTHER||Odds Ratio (BMX vs Placebo)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.38|0.59|1.06||||||The OR shown represents the odds of BMX versus the odds of Placebo.||1.06|0.59|
90884394|NCT03969212|181631383|OTHER||Adjusted OR (BMX vs Placebo)|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.38|0.49|1.07|||Two-Sided P-value|||The OR shown represents the odds of BMX versus the odds of Placebo.||1.07|0.49|
90884395|NCT03969212|181631384|OTHER||Odds Ratio (BMX vs Placebo)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.38|0.48|1.04||||||The OR shown represents the odds of BMX versus the odds of Placebo.||1.04|0.48|
90884396|NCT03773757|181631392|SUPERIORITY|Longitudinal measures of NPI-Q patient over 24 months were compared between the two groups using mixed effects model that included a group indicator variable, time since baseline, and an interaction between group and time as independent variables. Unstructured variance-covariance matrix was used to adjust for within-subject correlations over time. Predicted differences in mean scores between the two groups at each time point were estimated using the contrast procedures in the mixed model.||||||0.8719|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8719
90963610|NCT00733304|181808644|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|8.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.899|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.72|42.29||ANCOVA model was used to perform statistical analysis based on treatment, visit, fixed effect terms, Baseline OCT central subfield as covariate, and participant within treatment as a random effect term.|ANCOVA|||For Month 1 versus Screening visit||42.29|-25.72|
90963611|NCT00733304|181808644|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.177|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.73|33.31||ANCOVA model was used to perform statistical analysis based on treatment, visit, fixed effect terms, Baseline OCT central subfield as covariate, and participant within treatment as a random effect term.|ANCOVA|||Month 2 versus Screening visit||33.31|-35.73|
90963612|NCT00733304|181808644|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.958|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.08|30.86||ANCOVA model was used to perform statistical analysis based on treatment, visit, fixed effect terms, Baseline OCT central subfield as covariate, and participant within treatment as a random effect term.|ANCOVA|||Month 3 versus Screening visit||30.86|-41.08|
91034622|NCT00913627|181955175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.45||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||10 hours||1.45|0.60|<0.001
91034623|NCT00913627|181955175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.64||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||11 hours||1.64|0.77|<0.001
90924421|NCT03334630|181722633|SUPERIORITY|"Four secondary endpoints will be tested for superiority over Control hierarchically with pre-specified order:~1. Mean duration of individual RF ablations (seconds)~2. Mean cumulative RF time per procedure (minutes)~3. Total fluoroscopy time (minutes)~4. Total procedure time (minutes) The first secondary endpoint needs to be significant at the two-sided 0.05 alpha level before the next one can be tested at the same threshold. Testing stops once an endpoint is determined to be non-significant."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.2|-14.6||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05 two-sided. The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons via the hierarchical testing approach.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference is DiamondTemp minus Control. A lower value is better.|"Null hypothesis: the population means for the DiamondTemp and Control groups are not different.~Alternative hypothesis: the population means for the DiamondTemp and Control groups are different."||-14.6|-21.2|<0.0001
90924422|NCT03334630|181722634|SUPERIORITY|"Four secondary endpoints will be tested for superiority over Control hierarchically with pre-specified order:~1. Mean duration of individual RF ablations (seconds)~2. Mean cumulative RF time per procedure (minutes)~3. Total fluoroscopy time (minutes)~4. Total procedure time (minutes) The first secondary endpoint needs to be significant at the two-sided 0.05 alpha level before the next one can be tested at the same threshold. Testing stops once an endpoint is determined to be non-significant."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|-9.8||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05 two-sided. The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons via the hierarchical testing approach.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference is DiamondTemp minus Control. A lower value is better.|"Null hypothesis: the population means for the DiamondTemp and Control groups are not different.~Alternative hypothesis: the population means for the DiamondTemp and Control groups are different."||-9.8|-13.9|<0.0001
90924423|NCT03334630|181722643|SUPERIORITY|"Four secondary endpoints will be tested for superiority over Control hierarchically with pre-specified order:~1. Mean duration of individual RF ablations (seconds)~2. Mean cumulative RF time per procedure (minutes)~3. Total fluoroscopy time (minutes)~4. Total procedure time (minutes) The first secondary endpoint needs to be significant at the two-sided 0.05 alpha level before the next one can be tested at the same threshold. Testing stops once an endpoint is determined to be non-significant."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|3.1||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05 two-sided. The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons via the hierarchical testing approach.||Since the previous secondary endpoint (Total fluoroscopy time) was non-significant, testing stopped and this secondary endpoint was not tested.|Difference is DiamondTemp minus Control. A lower value is better.|"Null hypothesis: the population means for the DiamondTemp and Control groups are not different.~Alternative hypothesis: the population means for the DiamondTemp and Control groups are different."||3.1|-14.4|
90924424|NCT03334630|181722648|SUPERIORITY|"Four secondary endpoints will be tested for superiority over Control hierarchically with pre-specified order:~1. Mean duration of individual RF ablations (seconds)~2. Mean cumulative RF time per procedure (minutes)~3. Total fluoroscopy time (minutes)~4. Total procedure time (minutes) The first secondary endpoint needs to be significant at the two-sided 0.05 alpha level before the next one can be tested at the same threshold. Testing stops once an endpoint is determined to be non-significant."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.8528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.6||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05 two-sided. The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons via the hierarchical testing approach.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference is DiamondTemp minus Control. A lower value is better.|"Null hypothesis: the population means for the DiamondTemp and Control groups are not different.~Alternative hypothesis: the population means for the DiamondTemp and Control groups are different."||1.6|-1.9|0.8528
90924425|NCT05693935|181722681|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-9.75|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|-5.89||p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons (using Truncated Hochberg).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed model for repeated measures fitted to 200 multiply imputed datasets generated in accordance with the estimand. Treatment group LS mean, 95% confidence intervals, and two-sided p values were pooled across imputations using Rubin's rules.||-5.89|-13.60|<0.0001
90924426|NCT05693935|181722681|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-11.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.01|-7.53||p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons (using Truncated Hochberg).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed model for repeated measures fitted to 200 multiply imputed datasets generated in accordance with the estimand. Treatment group LS mean, 95% confidence intervals, and two-sided p values were pooled across imputations using Rubin's rules.||-7.53|-15.01|<0.0001
90924427|NCT05693935|181722681|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-9.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|-6.02||p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons (using Truncated Hochberg).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed model for repeated measures fitted to 200 multiply imputed datasets generated in accordance with the estimand. Treatment group LS mean, 95% confidence intervals, and two-sided p values were pooled across imputations using Rubin's rules.||-6.02|-13.50|<0.0001
90924428|NCT05693935|181722682|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.31||p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons (using Truncated Hochberg).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed model for repeated measures fitted to 200 multiply imputed datasets generated in accordance with the estimand. Treatment group LS mean, 95% confidence intervals, and two-sided p values were pooled across imputations using Rubin's rules.||-0.31|-0.75|<0.0001
90924429|NCT05693935|181722682|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.39||p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons (using Truncated Hochberg).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed model for repeated measures fitted to 200 multiply imputed datasets generated in accordance with the estimand. Treatment group LS mean, 95% confidence intervals, and two-sided p values were pooled across imputations using Rubin's rules.||-0.39|-0.82|<0.0001
91034624|NCT00913627|181955175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.87||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||11 hours||1.87|1.00|<0.001
90963613|NCT00733304|181808644|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.996|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.83|28.0||ANCOVA model was used to perform statistical analysis based on treatment, visit, fixed effect terms, Baseline OCT central subfield as covariate, and participant within treatment as a random effect term.|ANCOVA|||Month 4 versus Screening visit||28.00|-47.83|
90963614|NCT00733304|181808644|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.996|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.5|40.33||ANCOVA model was used to perform statistical analysis based on treatment, visit, fixed effect terms, Baseline OCT central subfield as covariate, and participant within treatment as a random effect term.|ANCOVA|||Month 5 versus Screening visit||40.33|-35.50|
90963615|NCT00733304|181808644|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|9.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.931|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.09|51.2||ANCOVA model was used to perform statistical analysis based on treatment, visit, fixed effect terms, Baseline OCT central subfield as covariate, and participant within treatment as a random effect term.|ANCOVA|||Month 1 versus Screening visit||51.20|-33.09|
90963616|NCT00733304|181808644|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.29|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.05|41.57||ANCOVA model was used to perform statistical analysis based on treatment, visit, fixed effect terms, Baseline OCT central subfield as covariate, and participant within treatment as a random effect term.|ANCOVA|||Month 2 versus Screening visit||41.57|-44.05|
90963617|NCT00733304|181808644|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|15.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.757|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.28|59.06||ANCOVA model was used to perform statistical analysis based on treatment, visit, fixed effect terms, Baseline OCT central subfield as covariate, and participant within treatment as a random effect term.|ANCOVA|||Month 3 versus Screening visit||59.06|-28.28|
90963618|NCT00733304|181808644|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.183|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.28|27.63||ANCOVA model was used to perform statistical analysis based on treatment, visit, fixed effect terms, Baseline OCT central subfield as covariate, and participant within treatment as a random effect term.|ANCOVA|||Month 4 versus Screening visit||27.63|-61.28|
90963619|NCT00733304|181808644|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.757|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.83|41.51||ANCOVA model was used to perform statistical analysis based on treatment, visit, fixed effect terms, Baseline OCT central subfield as covariate, and participant within treatment as a random effect term.|ANCOVA|||Month 5 versus Screening visit||41.51|-45.83|
90963620|NCT00528567|181808647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.07|||Log Rank|Stratification factors were axillary nodal status, choice of adjuvant chemotherapy, hormone receptor status, surgery.||||1.07|0.72|0.1810
91034625|NCT00913627|181955175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.48||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||11 hours||1.48|0.61|<0.001
90963621|NCT00528567|181808649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.5247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.17|||Log Rank|Stratification factors are Axillary nodal status, Choice of adjuvant chemotherapy, Hormone receptor status, Surgery||||1.17|0.74|0.5247
90963622|NCT00528567|181808651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.1966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.07|||Log Rank||Stratification factors were axillary nodal status, choice of adjuvant chemotherapy, hormone receptor status, surgery.|||1.07|0.71|0.1966
90963623|NCT00528567|181808652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.2318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.12|||Log Rank|||||1.12|0.64|0.2318
90963624|NCT00528567|181808655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.2792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.1|||Log Rank||Stratification factors were axillary nodal status, choice of adjuvant chemotherapy, hormone receptor status, surgery.|||1.10|0.72|0.2792
90963625|NCT00528567|181808657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.1832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.07|||Log Rank||Stratification factors were axillary nodal status, choice of adjuvant chemotherapy, hormone receptor status, surgery.|||1.07|0.72|0.1832
90963626|NCT00528567|181808659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.3309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.12|||Log Rank||Stratification factors were axillary nodal status, choice of adjuvant chemotherapy, hormone receptor status, surgery.|||1.12|0.72|0.3309
90963627|NCT05696236|181808709|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.77
90963628|NCT05696236|181808710|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.07
90963629|NCT05696236|181808711|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.006
90963630|NCT05341700|181808713|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.246|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of PINP between RUN and RUN+J.||||0.246
91034626|NCT00913627|181955175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.68||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||12 hours||1.68|0.81|<0.001
90963631|NCT05341700|181808714|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.714|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of CTX between RUN and RUN+J.||||0.714
90963632|NCT05341700|181808715|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.309|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.309
90963633|NCT05341700|181808716|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.308|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of IGF1 between RUN and RUN+J.||||0.308
91034627|NCT00913627|181955175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.82||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||12 hours||1.82|0.96|<0.001
91034628|NCT00913627|181955175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.39||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||12 hours||1.39|0.53|<0.001
90963634|NCT05341700|181808717|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.207|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of ferritin between RUN and RUN+J.||||0.207
90963635|NCT01829360|181808718|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|The significance of fixed effects (e.g.,treatment) was evaluated using Wald tests||||||<0.05
90963636|NCT01829360|181808718|OTHER|A secondary analysis was performed to examine individual differences in treatment outcomes. This was done collapsed across all arms because the difference between the arms/treatments was not significant in the primary analysis. This was done by adding predictors to the primary analysis model to determine if learner characteristics were significantly related to growth in word defining. All continuous learner characteristics were grand mean centered.|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
90963637|NCT01829360|181808719|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The interim definition data were analyzed with the primary pre-/post-definition data to capture growth across the entire treatment period.||||<0.05
90963638|NCT00778622|181808727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0806||||||Interpretation based on 2-sided 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline in HbA1c at Week 16 was dependent variable, BMI was fixed main effect, baseline HbA1c was covariate.||"Standard deviation assumed for changes from baseline in HbA1c maximally was 1.0 across the baseline BMI subgroups. 97 participants in a single subgroup would be sufficient to estimate mean change in HbA1c with precision of 0.20% within the subgroup. Given number of baseline BMI subgroups and no correction for reason of multiplicity was made to the 95% CI within each BMI subgroup, total sample size calculated as 291. Sample size used the method CI for mean for one group in nQuery Advisor v6.0."||||0.0806
90963639|NCT00778622|181808727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1984||||||Interpretation of two-by-two comparison based on 2-sided 5% significance level without correction for multiplicity.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1984
90963640|NCT00778622|181808727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0232||||||Interpretation of two-by-two comparison based on 2-sided 5% significance level without correction for multiplicity.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0232
90963641|NCT00778622|181808727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3589||||||Interpretation of two-by-two comparison based on 2-sided 5% significance level without correction for multiplicity.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3589
90963642|NCT00778622|181808728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4614||||||Interpretation based on 2-sided 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline in FPG at Week 16 was dependent variable, BMI was fixed main effect, baseline FPG was covariate.||||||0.4614
90963643|NCT00778622|181808728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4696||||||Interpretation of two-by-two comparison based on 2-sided 5% significance level without correction for multiplicity.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4696
91034629|NCT00913627|181955175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.64||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||13 hours||1.64|0.75|<0.001
90963644|NCT00778622|181808728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5305||||||Interpretation of two-by-two comparison based on 2-sided 5% significance level without correction for multiplicity.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5305
90963645|NCT00778622|181808728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9145||||||Interpretation of two-by-two comparison based on 2-sided 5% significance level without correction for multiplicity.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9145
90963646|NCT00778622|181808729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0305||||||Interpretation based on 2-sided 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline in TC at Week 16 was dependent variable, BMI was fixed main effect, baseline TC was covariate.||||||0.0305
90963647|NCT00778622|181808729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||||||Interpretation of two-by-two comparison based on 2-sided 5% significance level without correction for multiplicity. For lipids, no comparison between overweight and obese was performed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0080
90963648|NCT00778622|181808729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0422||||||Interpretation of two-by-two comparison based on 2-sided 5% significance level without correction for multiplicity. For lipids, no comparison between overweight and obese was performed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0422
90963649|NCT00778622|181808730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4508||||||Interpretation based on 2-sided 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline in LDL-C at Week 16 was dependent variable, BMI was fixed main effect, baseline LDL-C was covariate.||||||0.4508
90963650|NCT00778622|181808730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0526||||||Interpretation of two-by-two comparison based on 2-sided 5% significance level without correction for multiplicity. For lipids, no comparison between overweight and obese was performed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0526
91034630|NCT00913627|181955175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.65||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||13 hours||1.65|0.77|<0.001
90963651|NCT00778622|181808730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1295||||||Interpretation of two-by-two comparison based on 2-sided 5% significance level without correction for multiplicity. For lipids, no comparison between overweight and obese was performed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1295
90963652|NCT00778622|181808731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1431||||||Interpretation based on 2-sided 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline in HDL-C at Week 16 was dependent variable, BMI was fixed main effect, baseline HDL-C was covariate.||||||0.1431
90963653|NCT00778622|181808731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4066||||||Interpretation of two-by-two comparison based on 2-sided 5% significance level without correction for multiplicity. For lipids, no comparison between overweight and obese was performed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4066
90963654|NCT00778622|181808731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4071||||||Interpretation of two-by-two comparison based on 2-sided 5% significance level without correction for multiplicity. For lipids, no comparison between overweight and obese was performed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4071
90963655|NCT00778622|181808732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021||||||Interpretation based on 2-sided 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline in TG at Week 16 was dependent variable, BMI was fixed main effect, baseline TG was covariate.||||||0.0210
90963656|NCT00778622|181808732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2507||||||Interpretation of two-by-two comparison based on 2-sided 5% significance level without correction for multiplicity. For lipids, no comparison between overweight and obese was performed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2507
90963657|NCT00778622|181808732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6546||||||Interpretation of two-by-two comparison based on 2-sided 5% significance level without correction for multiplicity. For lipids, no comparison between overweight and obese was performed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6546
91034631|NCT00913627|181955175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.36||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||13 hours||1.36|0.49|<0.001
90924430|NCT05693935|181722682|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.25||p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons (using Truncated Hochberg).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed model for repeated measures fitted to 200 multiply imputed datasets generated in accordance with the estimand. Treatment group LS mean, 95% confidence intervals, and two-sided p values were pooled across imputations using Rubin's rules.||-0.25|-0.68|<0.0001
90924431|NCT05693935|181722683|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.72||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.05|7.4||p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons (using Truncated Hochberg).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed model for repeated measures fitted to 200 multiply imputed datasets generated in accordance with the estimand. Treatment group LS mean, 95% confidence intervals, and two-sided p values were pooled across imputations using Rubin's rules.||7.40|2.05|0.0011
90924432|NCT05693935|181722683|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.24||||0.0167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|5.89||p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons (using Truncated Hochberg).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed model for repeated measures fitted to 200 multiply imputed datasets generated in accordance with the estimand. Treatment group LS mean, 95% confidence intervals, and two-sided p values were pooled across imputations using Rubin's rules.||5.89|0.59|0.0167
90924433|NCT05693935|181722683|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.01||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.35|7.66||p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons (using Truncated Hochberg).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed model for repeated measures fitted to 200 multiply imputed datasets generated in accordance with the estimand. Treatment group LS mean, 95% confidence intervals, and two-sided p values were pooled across imputations using Rubin's rules.||7.66|2.35|0.0007
90924434|NCT03474107|181722720|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio|0.702||||0.00142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.556|0.886||Stratification factors were ECOG PS, geographic region and liver metastasis. P-value was based on log-rank test. P-value of overall survival is ≤ the predetermined 1-sided significance level of 0.00679 based on the number of observed deaths.|Stratified Log rank||Cox proportional hazards model with treatment, ECOG PS, geographic region and liver metastasis as the explanatory variables.|||0.886|0.556|0.00142
90924435|NCT03474107|181722721|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio|0.615|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.505|0.748||Stratification factors were ECOG PS, geographic region and liver metastasis. P-value was based on log-rank test. P value of PFS is ≤ the predetermined 1-sided significance level of 0.02189 based on the number of observed PFS events.|Stratified Log Rank||Cox proportional hazards model with treatment, ECOG PS, geographic region and liver metastasis as the explanatory variables.|||0.748|0.505|<0.00001
90924436|NCT03474107|181722722|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||"Stratification factors were ECOG PS, Region and Liver Metastasis."|Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90924437|NCT03474107|181722723|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Stratification factors were ECOG PS, Region and Liver Metastasis.|Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90924438|NCT06504862|181722797|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|133.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|105.52|170.11|||||Ratio \[%\] = (adjusted geometric mean T/adjusted geometric mean R)\*100. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 39.0|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale. The PK endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model, which included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: participant (considered as random) and treatment (considered as fixed). These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale.||170.11|105.52|
90924439|NCT06504862|181722798|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|124.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.13|160.43|||||Ratio \[%\] = (adjusted geometric mean T/adjusted geometric mean R)\*100. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 42.0|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale. The PK endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model, which included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: participant (considered as random) and treatment (considered as fixed). These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale.||160.43|96.13|
90924440|NCT06504862|181722799|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|230.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|195.68|271.04|||||Ratio \[%\] = (adjusted geometric mean T/adjusted geometric mean R)\*100. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 26.7|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale. The PK endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model, which included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: participant (considered as random) and treatment (considered as fixed). These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale.||271.04|195.68|
90924441|NCT06504862|181722800|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|301.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|247.19|368.19|||||Ratio \[%\] = (adjusted geometric mean T/adjusted geometric mean R)\*100. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 33.0|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale. The PK endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model, which included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: participant (considered as random) and treatment (considered as fixed). These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale.||368.19|247.19|
90963658|NCT02469896|181808785|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.875||||0.602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.556|1.377|||Fisher Exact|||||1.377|0.556|0.602
90963659|NCT02469896|181808786|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||No statistical data was obtain because no patients died during the trial.|||
91034632|NCT00913627|181955175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.53||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||14 hours||1.53|0.60|<0.001
91034633|NCT00913627|181955175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.58||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||14 hours||1.58|0.66|<0.001
90924442|NCT06504862|181722801|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|83.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.48|90.12|||||Ratio \[%\] = (adjusted geometric mean T/adjusted geometric mean R)\*100. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 13.3|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale. The PK endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model, which included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: participant (considered as random) and treatment (considered as fixed). These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale.||90.12|76.48|
90924443|NCT06504862|181722802|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|75.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|68.03|83.95|||||Ratio \[%\] = (adjusted geometric mean T/adjusted geometric mean R)\*100. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 17.1|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale. The PK endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model, which included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: participant (considered as random) and treatment (considered as fixed). These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale.||83.95|68.03|
90924444|NCT06504862|181722803|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|137.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|120.17|158.36|||||Ratio \[%\] = (adjusted geometric mean T/adjusted geometric mean R)\*100. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 22.5|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale. The PK endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model, which included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: participant (considered as random) and treatment (considered as fixed). These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale.||158.36|120.17|
90924445|NCT06504862|181722804|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|149.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|116.12|193.25|||||Ratio \[%\] = (adjusted geometric mean T/adjusted geometric mean R)\*100. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 44.4|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale. The PK endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model, which included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: participant (considered as random) and treatment (considered as fixed). These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale.||193.25|116.12|
90924446|NCT06504862|181722805|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|134.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|105.56|171.34|||||Ratio \[%\] = (adjusted geometric mean T/adjusted geometric mean R)\*100. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 39.5|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale. The PK endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model, which included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: participant (considered as random) and treatment (considered as fixed). These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale.||171.34|105.56|
90924447|NCT06504862|181722806|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|248.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|211.03|293.07|||||Ratio \[%\] = (adjusted geometric mean T/adjusted geometric mean R)\*100. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 27.0|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale. The PK endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model, which included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: participant (considered as random) and treatment (considered as fixed). These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale.||293.07|211.03|
90924448|NCT06504862|181722807|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|82.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.27|89.96|||||Ratio \[%\] = (adjusted geometric mean T/adjusted geometric mean R)\*100. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 13.4|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale. The PK endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model, which included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: participant (considered as random) and treatment (considered as fixed). These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale.||89.96|76.27|
90924449|NCT06504862|181722808|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|143.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|123.78|166.33|||||Ratio \[%\] = (adjusted geometric mean T/adjusted geometric mean R)\*100. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 24.2|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale. The PK endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model, which included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: participant (considered as random) and treatment (considered as fixed). These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale.||166.33|123.78|
90924450|NCT02296125|181722809|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.46|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.57|||Log Rank|||||0.57|0.37|<0.0001
90924451|NCT02296125|181722809|OTHER|The china cohort was not powered for superiority|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56||||0.0065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.85|||Log Rank|||||0.85|0.37|0.0065
90924452|NCT02296125|181722811|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.22|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.22|1.03|0.036
91034634|NCT00913627|181955175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.33||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||14 hours||1.33|0.42|<0.001
90924453|NCT02296125|181722811|OTHER|The china cohort was not powered for superiority|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|2.84|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.84|0.61|0.485
90924454|NCT02296125|181722812|OTHER|The china cohort was not powered for superiority|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.48||||0.0133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|5.09|||Regression, Linear|||||5.09|1.21|0.0133
90924455|NCT02296125|181722812|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.68|3.08|||Regression, Linear|||||3.08|1.68|<0.0001
90924456|NCT02296125|181722813|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.78||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|6.78|||Regression, Logistic||An odds ratio \> 1 favours osimertinib|||6.78|1.25|0.0110
90924457|NCT02296125|181722813|OTHER|The china cohort was not powered for superiority|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67||||0.5772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|12.98|||Regression, Logistic||An odds ratio \>1 favours osimertinib|||12.98|0.27|0.5772
91034635|NCT00913627|181955175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.51||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||16 hours||1.51|0.61|<0.001
90884397|NCT03773757|181631393|SUPERIORITY|Longitudinal measures of SM-EOLD over 24 months were compared between the two groups using mixed effects model that included a group indicator variable, time since baseline, and an interaction between group and time as independent variables. Unstructured variance-covariance matrix was used to adjust for within-subject correlations over time. Predicted differences in mean scores between the two groups at each time point were estimated using the contrast procedures in the mixed model.||||||0.8389|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8389
90884398|NCT03773757|181631394|SUPERIORITY|Longitudinal measures of PHQ-8 over 24 months were compared between the two groups using mixed effects model that included a group indicator variable, time since baseline, and an interaction between group and time as independent variables. Unstructured variance-covariance matrix was used to adjust for within-subject correlations over time. Predicted differences in mean scores between the two groups at each time point were estimated using the contrast procedures in the mixed model.||||||0.3431|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.3431
90884399|NCT03773757|181631395|SUPERIORITY|Longitudinal measures of NPI-Q caregiver distress over 24 months were compared between the two groups using mixed effects model including a group indicator variable, time since baseline, and an interaction between group and time as independent variables. Unstructured variance-covariance matrix was used to adjust for within-subject correlations over time. Predicted differences in mean scores between the two groups at each time point were estimated using the contrast procedures in the mixed model.||||||0.6612|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.6612
90884400|NCT03773757|181631396|SUPERIORITY|A zero-inflated Poisson (ZIP) model was used to compare the mean numbers of hospitalization/ED events between the two groups. The ZIP model consists of a combination of a standard Poisson distribution for count data and a binary logistic regression model to account for additional zero events exceeding what would be expected from an underlying Poisson distribution.||||||0.0007|||||||Zero-Inflated Poisson Regression Model|||||||0.0007
90884401|NCT00550836|181631411|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||Log Rank|||It was calculated that 39 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the 2 arms would have 80% to detect a difference in median survival of 6 vs. 9.7 months for GE vs. PGE respectively with a minimum follow up of 6 months. Sample size was determined using a 1-sided log-rank test at alpha=0.20.||||0.36
90884402|NCT00550836|181631412|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
90884403|NCT00550836|181631413|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.419|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.419
90884404|NCT00550836|181631414|OTHER|||||||0.36|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.36
90884405|NCT01848990|181631433|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper bound of the 95% CI for the treatment difference ≤0.40, it is concluded that Hylenex recombinant preadministration is noninferior to standard CSII.|least squares mean treatment difference|0.05||||0.4516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.18|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) with treatment (Hylenex, standard rapid-acting insulin CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|Sample size calculated based on approximately 400 participants (Pt) being enrolled. No more than 10% dropout rate at 6 months allowed at least 270 Hylenex and 90 standard CSII Pt to reach primary metabolic endpoint evaluation. Assuming HbA1c standard deviation of 0.7% and population difference of 0% between treatments, Pt reaching primary efficacy endpoint would provide \>90% power to demonstrate HbA1c noninferiority at margin of 0.4% using confidence bound from 2-tailed 95% confidence interval.||0.18|-0.08|0.4516
90924458|NCT02296125|181722814|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.8||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.205|-2.403|||Regression, Linear|||||-2.403|-11.205|0.0025
90924459|NCT02296125|181722814|OTHER|The china cohort was not powered for superiority|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.59||||0.1348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.246|2.072|||Regression, Linear|||||2.072|-15.246|0.1348
90924460|NCT02296125|181722815|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.799||||0.0462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6409|0.9963|||Log Rank|||||0.9963|0.6409|0.0462
90924461|NCT02296125|181722815|OTHER|The china cohort was not powered for superiority|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.848||||0.4416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5568|1.291|||Log Rank|||||1.2910|0.5568|0.4416
90924462|NCT05469464|181722905|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.93||0.505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.2|9.0|||ANCOVA|||||9.0|-18.2|0.505
90924463|NCT05469464|181722905|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.15||0.812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.8|12.3|||ANCOVA|||||12.3|-15.8|0.812
90924464|NCT05469464|181722905|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.99||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.6|2.8|||ANCOVA|||||2.8|-24.6|0.118
90924465|NCT04068311|181723027|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.61
90924466|NCT04068311|181723028|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83||||||unadjusted|Chi-squared|||||||0.83
90924467|NCT04068311|181723029|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.14
91034636|NCT00913627|181955175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.48||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||16 hours||1.48|0.58|<0.001
91034637|NCT00913627|181955175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.4||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||16 hours||1.40|0.52|<0.001
91034638|NCT00913627|181955175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.77||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.24||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||24 hours||1.24|0.31|0.001
90924468|NCT04068311|181723030|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.01
90924469|NCT03100149|181723031|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-2.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.71||0.2385|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.21|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.18|-4.21|0.2385
90924470|NCT03100149|181723031|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.71||0.7169|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.82|1.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.58|-2.82|0.7169
90924471|NCT03100149|181723032|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.165||0.6116|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.3|0.13||Nominal p-values are displayed for descriptive purposes only.|Mixed Models Analysis|||MDS-UPDRS Part IA||0.13|-0.30|0.6116
90924472|NCT03100149|181723032|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.165||0.6188|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.13|0.3||Nominal p-values are displayed for descriptive purposes only.|Mixed Models Analysis|||MDS-UPDRS Part IA||0.30|-0.13|0.6188
90924473|NCT03100149|181723032|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.345||0.9062|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.48|0.4||Nominal p-values are displayed for descriptive purposes only.|Mixed Models Analysis|||MDS-UPDRS Part IB||0.40|-0.48|0.9062
91034639|NCT00913627|181955175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.28||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||24 hours||1.28|0.36|<0.001
90924474|NCT03100149|181723032|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.347||0.9621|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.43|0.46||Nominal p-values are displayed for descriptive purposes only.|Mixed Models Analysis|||MDS-UPDRS Part IB||0.46|-0.43|0.9621
90924475|NCT03100149|181723032|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.411||0.651|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.71|0.34||Nominal p-values are displayed for descriptive purposes only.|Mixed Models Analysis|||MDS-UPDRS Part I Total||0.34|-0.71|0.6510
90924476|NCT03100149|181723032|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.413||0.7709|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.41|0.65||Nominal p-values are displayed for descriptive purposes only.|Mixed Models Analysis|||MDS-UPDRS Part I Total||0.65|-0.41|0.7709
90924477|NCT03100149|181723032|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.523||0.5177|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.33|1.01||Nominal p-values are displayed for descriptive purposes only.|Mixed Models Analysis|||MDS-UPDRS Part II Total||1.01|-0.33|0.5177
90924478|NCT03100149|181723032|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.523||0.9095|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.73|0.61||Nominal p-values are displayed for descriptive purposes only.|Mixed Models Analysis|||MDS-UPDRS Part II Total||0.61|-0.73|0.9095
90924479|NCT03100149|181723032|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-1.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.255||0.1354|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.49|-0.27||Nominal p-values are displayed for descriptive purposes only.|Mixed Models Analysis|||MDS-UPDRS Part III Total||-0.27|-3.49|0.1354
90924480|NCT03100149|181723032|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.262||0.4217|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.64|0.61||Nominal p-values are displayed for descriptive purposes only.|Mixed Models Analysis|||MDS-UPDRS Part III Total||0.61|-2.64|0.4217
90924481|NCT03100149|181723032|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.369||0.8053|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.38|0.56||Nominal p-values are displayed for descriptive purposes only.|Mixed Models Analysis|||MDS-UPDRS Part III Subscore: Rigidity||0.56|-0.38|0.8053
90924482|NCT03100149|181723032|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.497|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.22|0.73||Nominal p-values are displayed for descriptive purposes only.|Mixed Models Analysis|||MDS-UPDRS Part III Subscore: Rigidity||0.73|-0.22|0.4970
90924483|NCT03100149|181723032|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.779||0.1703|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.07|-0.07||Nominal p-values are displayed for descriptive purposes only.|Mixed Models Analysis|||MDS-UPDRS Part III Subscore: Bradykinesia||-0.07|-2.07|0.1703
90924484|NCT03100149|181723032|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.782||0.5729|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.45|0.56||Nominal p-values are displayed for descriptive purposes only.|Mixed Models Analysis|||MDS-UPDRS Part III Subscore: Bradykinesia||0.56|-1.45|0.5729
90924485|NCT03100149|181723032|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.324||0.0628|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.02|-0.19||Nominal p-values are displayed for descriptive purposes only.|Mixed Models Analysis|||MDS-UPDRS Part III Subscore: Resting Tremor||-0.19|-1.02|0.0628
90924486|NCT03100149|181723032|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.325||0.2125|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.82|0.01||Nominal p-values are displayed for descriptive purposes only.|Mixed Models Analysis|||MDS-UPDRS Part III Subscore: Resting Tremor||0.01|-0.82|0.2125
90963660|NCT02469896|181808787|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.099||||0.922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.902|2.099||Unadjusted|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.099|-1.902|0.922
91034640|NCT00913627|181955175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.33||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||24 hours||1.33|0.42|<0.001
91034641|NCT00913627|181955176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.57||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||15 minutes||0.57|0.02|0.034
90963661|NCT02469896|181808788|SUPERIORITY||Difference of slopes|-0.008||||0.983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.761|0.745|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.745|-0.761|0.983
91034642|NCT00913627|181955176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.49||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||15 minutes||0.49|-0.05|0.111
91034643|NCT00913627|181955176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.48||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||15 minutes||0.48|-0.06|0.125
90963662|NCT02469896|181808790|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric means|1.15||||0.684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.566|2.337|||t-test, 2 sided|||PBMC IL-6 fold-change||2.337|0.566|0.684
91034644|NCT00913627|181955176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.22||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||30 minutes||1.22|0.41|<0.001
90884406|NCT01848990|181631434|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper bound of the 95% CI for the treatment difference ≤0.40, it is concluded that Hylenex recombinant preadministration is noninferior to standard CSII.|least squares mean treatment difference|0.14||||0.0711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.28|||ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, standard rapid-acting insulin CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|Sample size calculated based on approximately 400 Pt being enrolled. No more than 10% dropout rate at 6 months allowed at least 270 Hylenex and 90 standard CSII Pt to reach primary metabolic endpoint evaluation. Assuming HbA1c standard deviation of 0.7% and population difference of 0% between treatments, Pt reaching primary efficacy endpoint would provide \>90% power to demonstrate HbA1c noninferiority at margin of 0.4% using confidence bound from 2-tailed 95% confidence interval.||0.28|-0.01|0.0711
90884407|NCT01848990|181631435|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|rate ratio|0.69||||0.0105|TWO_SIDED|||||SMBG \<56 mg/dL|negative binomial model||Hylenex/Standard CSII|||||0.0105
90884408|NCT01848990|181631435|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|rate ratio|0.79||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|||||SMBG \<=70 mg/dL|negative binomial model||Hylenex/Standard CSII|||||0.0130
90884409|NCT01848990|181631435|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|rate ratio|0.78||||0.0511|TWO_SIDED|||||Nocturnal HEs|negative binomial model||Hylenex/Standard CSII|||||0.0511
90884410|NCT01848990|181631435|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|rate ratio|0.34||||0.1176|TWO_SIDED|||||Severe HEs|negative binomial model||Hylenex/Standard CSII|||||0.1176
90884411|NCT01848990|181631436|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|rate ratio|0.81||||0.0456|TWO_SIDED|||||SMBG \<56 mg/dL|negative binomial model||Hylenex/Standard CSII|||||0.0456
90884412|NCT01848990|181631436|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|rate ratio|0.92||||0.2322|TWO_SIDED|||||SMBG \<=70 mg/dL|negative binomial model||Hylenex/Standard CSII|||||0.2322
90963663|NCT02469896|181808790|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric means|1.344||||0.663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.331|2.08|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.080|0.331|0.663
91034645|NCT00913627|181955176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.61||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.01||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||30 minutes||1.01|0.22|0.003
90884413|NCT01848990|181631436|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|rate ratio|0.87||||0.1365|TWO_SIDED|||||Nocturnal HEs|negative binomial model||Hylenex/Standard CSII|||||0.1365
90884414|NCT01848990|181631436|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|rate ratio|1.07||||0.8909|TWO_SIDED|||||Severe HEs|negative binomial model||Hylenex/Standard CSII|||||0.8909
90884415|NCT01848990|181631437|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|rate ratio|0.98||||0.7292|TWO_SIDED|||||SMBG \>240 mg/dL|negative binomial model||Hylenex/Standard CSII|||||0.7292
90884416|NCT01848990|181631437|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|rate ratio|0.95||||0.5895|TWO_SIDED|||||SMBG \>300 mg/dL|negative binomial model||Hylenex/Standard CSII|||||0.5895
90884417|NCT01848990|181631438|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|rate ratio|1.04||||0.5414|TWO_SIDED|||||SMBG \>240 mg/dL|negative binomial model||Hylenex/Standard CSII|||||0.5414
90884418|NCT01848990|181631438|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|rate ratio|1.03||||0.711|TWO_SIDED|||||SMBG \>300 mg/dL|negative binomial model||Hylenex/Standard CSII|||||0.7110
90884419|NCT01848990|181631439|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|-3.4||||0.5394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.2|7.5||Breakfast|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||7.5|-14.2|0.5394
90963664|NCT02469896|181808790|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric means|1.198||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.691|2.08|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.080|0.691|0.500
90963665|NCT02469896|181808791|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of fold change|0.047|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.217|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.217|0.010|<0.001
90963666|NCT02469896|181808791|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of fold change|1.306||||0.247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.828|2.059|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.059|0.828|0.247
90963667|NCT02469896|181808791|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of fold change|19.591|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.143|34.446|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||34.446|11.143|<0.001
90963668|NCT02469896|181808791|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of fold change|1.264||||0.185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.892|1.791|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.791|0.892|0.185
91034646|NCT00913627|181955176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.59||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.98||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||30 minutes||0.98|0.19|0.004
91034647|NCT00913627|181955176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.91||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||45 minutes||1.91|0.91|<0.001
91034648|NCT00913627|181955176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.74||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||45 minutes||1.74|0.75|<0.001
91034649|NCT00913627|181955176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.39||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||45 minutes||1.39|0.41|<0.001
90884420|NCT01848990|181631439|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|4.3||||0.4151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|14.8||Lunch|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||14.8|-6.1|0.4151
90924487|NCT03100149|181723032|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.108||0.4577|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.22|0.06||Nominal p-values are displayed for descriptive purposes only.|Mixed Models Analysis|||MDS-UPDRS Part III Subscore: Axial Symptoms||0.06|-0.22|0.4577
90924488|NCT03100149|181723032|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.109||0.9182|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.15|0.13||Nominal p-values are displayed for descriptive purposes only.|Mixed Models Analysis|||MDS-UPDRS Part III Subscore: Axial Symptoms||0.13|-0.15|0.9182
90884421|NCT01848990|181631439|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|0.0||||0.993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|9.6||Dinner|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||9.6|-9.5|0.9930
90884422|NCT01848990|181631439|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|0.2||||0.941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|6.9||Overall|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||6.9|-6.4|0.9410
90884423|NCT01848990|181631440|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|-4.8||||0.3239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|4.7||Breakfast|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||4.7|-14.3|0.3239
90884424|NCT01848990|181631440|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|1.4||||0.754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|10.2||Lunch|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||10.2|-7.4|0.7540
90884425|NCT01848990|181631440|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|-1.1||||0.7904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|7.2||Dinner|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||7.2|-9.5|0.7904
90884426|NCT01848990|181631440|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|-2.6||||0.4016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|3.4||Overall|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||3.4|-8.5|0.4016
90884427|NCT01848990|181631441|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|-1.4||||0.526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|2.9|||ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||2.9|-5.6|0.5260
90884428|NCT01848990|181631442|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|0.5||||0.8049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|4.7|||ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||4.7|-3.7|0.8049
90884429|NCT01848990|181631443|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%||||||0.8955||||||HbA1c \<7.0%|Chi-squared|||||||0.8955
90884430|NCT01848990|181631443|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%||||||0.8926||||||HbA1c ≤6.5%|Chi-squared|||||||0.8926
90884431|NCT01848990|181631444|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|0.13||||0.7735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|1.03|||ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||1.03|-0.76|0.7735
90884432|NCT01848990|181631445|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|-1.1||||0.4948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|2.0||Daily bolus dose|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||2.0|-4.1|0.4948
90884433|NCT01848990|181631445|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|2.3||||0.1099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|5.2||Daily basal dose|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||5.2|-0.5|0.1099
90884434|NCT01848990|181631445|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|1.4||||0.583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|6.6||Daily total dose|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||6.6|-3.7|0.5830
90884435|NCT01848990|181631446|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|0.1||||0.8778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.1|||ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||1.1|-1.0|0.8778
90884436|NCT01848990|181631447|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|-2.1||||0.3233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|2.1|||ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||2.1|-6.3|0.3233
90884437|NCT01848990|181631449|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|1.0||||0.7708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|7.8||Average glucose|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||7.8|-5.8|0.7708
90884438|NCT01848990|181631449|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|1.8||||0.6058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|8.6||Median glucose|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||8.6|-5.0|0.6058
90924489|NCT03100149|181723033|SUPERIORITY||LS Means Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.3582|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.05|0.01||Nominal p-values are displayed for descriptive purposes only.|ANCOVA|||||0.01|-0.05|0.3582
90884439|NCT01848990|181631449|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|-0.7||||0.6571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|2.5||Average daily standard deviation|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||2.5|-4.0|0.6571
90884440|NCT01848990|181631450|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|-2.2||||0.6252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|6.9||Time per day \<56 mg/dL|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||6.9|-11.3|0.6252
90884441|NCT01848990|181631450|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|-5.5||||0.5929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.9|14.9||Time per day ≤70 mg/dL|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||14.9|-25.9|0.5929
90924490|NCT03100149|181723033|SUPERIORITY||LS Means Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.1955|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.06|0.0||Nominal p-values are displayed for descriptive purposes only.|ANCOVA|||||0.00|-0.06|0.1955
90924491|NCT03100149|181723034|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.245||0.3611|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.09|0.54||Nominal p-values are displayed for descriptive purposes only.|ANCOVA|||||0.54|-0.09|0.3611
90924492|NCT03100149|181723034|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.243||0.0727|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.13|0.75||Nominal p-values are displayed for descriptive purposes only.|ANCOVA|||||0.75|0.13|0.0727
90924493|NCT03100149|181723035|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77||||0.4265|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.5|1.18||Nominal p-values are displayed for descriptive purposes only.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.18|0.50|0.4265
90924494|NCT03100149|181723035|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.4063|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.49|1.16||Nominal p-values are displayed for descriptive purposes only.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.16|0.49|0.4063
90924495|NCT03100149|181723036|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.3847|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.48|1.15||Nominal p-values are displayed for descriptive purposes only.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.15|0.48|0.3847
90924496|NCT03100149|181723036|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.7055|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.57|1.36||Nominal p-values are displayed for descriptive purposes only.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.36|0.57|0.7055
90924497|NCT03100149|181723037|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.888||0.4142|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.87|0.41||Nominal p-values are displayed for descriptive purposes only.|ANCOVA|||||0.41|-1.87|0.4142
90924498|NCT03100149|181723037|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.885||0.4486|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.81|0.47||Nominal p-values are displayed for descriptive purposes only.|ANCOVA|||||0.47|-1.81|0.4486
90924499|NCT03100149|181723038|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||0.3769|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.94|1.42||Nominal p-values are displayed for descriptive purposes only.|Regression, Cox|||||1.42|0.94|0.3769
90924500|NCT03100149|181723038|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.25||||0.1658|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.02|1.53||Nominal p-values are displayed for descriptive purposes only.|Regression, Cox|||||1.53|1.02|0.1658
90924501|NCT03100149|181723039|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.9542|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.77|1.33||Nominal p-values are displayed for descriptive purposes only.|Regression, Cox|||||1.33|0.77|0.9542
90924502|NCT03100149|181723039|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.4567|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.63|1.13||Nominal p-values are displayed for descriptive purposes only.|Regression, Cox|||||1.13|0.63|0.4567
90924503|NCT01733316|181723124|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0048||||||Paired t-test testing the null hypothesis that the population average difference during the Cystagon® phase is equal to the population average difference during the RP103 phase.|Paired t-test, two-sided|||||||0.0048
90924504|NCT05602220|181723137|SUPERIORITY||F test|0.054||||0.817|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.817
90924505|NCT05602220|181723138|SUPERIORITY||F test|2.162||||0.147|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.147
90924506|NCT05602220|181723139|SUPERIORITY||F test|2.88||||0.096|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.096
90924507|NCT05602220|181723140|SUPERIORITY||F test|0.449||||0.64|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.640
90924508|NCT05602220|181723141|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed-effects model fit to participants' latent performance scores across 10 time bins.~Comparison of performance changes over time between groups."|beta parameter|0.0001419|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036816||0.997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.072164|0.072448|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.072448|-0.072164|0.997
90924509|NCT05321082|181723281|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.0507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.0|||Regression, Cox|||The hazard ratio (HR) was estimated using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment, baseline intake of AF (nintedanib) treatment, baseline HRCT pattern, age (continuous), baseline FVC % predicted, and baseline DLCO % predicted (corrected for hemoglobin) as covariates. Breslow's method was applied for tied event times. A two-sided p-value from the Wald test assessed the treatment effect. P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity.||1.00|0.61|0.0507
90924510|NCT05321082|181723281|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.0395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.99|||Regression, Cox|||The hazard ratio (HR) was estimated using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment, baseline intake of AF (nintedanib) treatment, baseline HRCT pattern, age (continuous), baseline FVC % predicted, and baseline DLCO % predicted (corrected for hemoglobin) as covariates. Breslow's method was applied for tied event times. A two-sided p-value from the Wald test assessed the treatment effect. P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity.||0.99|0.60|0.0395
90924511|NCT05321082|181723282|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.0258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.96|||Regression, Cox|||Analysis performed using a Cox proportional hazards model that included baseline antifibrotic therapy (AF group vs non-AF group), baseline HRCT pattern, age, baseline FVC % predicted, baseline diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide (DLCO) % predicted (corrected for Hb) and treatment as covariates.||0.96|0.51|0.0258
90924512|NCT05321082|181723282|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.82|||Regression, Cox|||Analysis performed using a Cox proportional hazards model that included baseline antifibrotic therapy (AF group vs non-AF group), baseline HRCT pattern, age, baseline FVC % predicted, baseline diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide (DLCO) % predicted (corrected for Hb) and treatment as covariates.||0.82|0.43|0.0017
90924513|NCT05321082|181723283|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.0237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.96|||Regression, Cox|||Analysis performed using a Cox proportional hazards model that included baseline antifibrotic therapy (AF group vs non-AF group), baseline HRCT pattern, age, baseline FVC % predicted, baseline diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide (DLCO) % predicted (corrected for Hb) and treatment as covariates.||0.96|0.57|0.0237
90963669|NCT02469896|181808791|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of fold change|1.396||||0.427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.608|3.206|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.206|0.608|0.427
91034650|NCT00913627|181955176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|2.16||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||60 minutes||2.16|1.11|<0.001
91034651|NCT00913627|181955176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|2.09||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||60 minutes||2.09|1.05|<0.001
91034652|NCT00913627|181955176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.78||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||60 minutes||1.78|0.75|<0.001
91034653|NCT00913627|181955176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|2.52||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||90 minutes||2.52|1.46|<0.001
91034654|NCT00913627|181955176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|2.61||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||90 minutes||2.61|1.57|<0.001
90884442|NCT01848990|181631450|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|6.9||||0.5207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|28.3||Time per day \>70 mg/dL|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||28.3|-14.4|0.5207
90924514|NCT05321082|181723283|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.0427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.99|||Regression, Cox|||Analysis performed using a Cox proportional hazards model that included baseline antifibrotic therapy (AF group vs non-AF group), baseline HRCT pattern, age, baseline FVC % predicted, baseline diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide (DLCO) % predicted (corrected for Hb) and treatment as covariates.||0.99|0.59|0.0427
91034655|NCT00913627|181955176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|2.2||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||90 minutes||2.20|1.16|<0.001
91034656|NCT00913627|181955176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|2.64||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||2 hours||2.64|1.59|<0.001
90924515|NCT05321082|181723284|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|81.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.95|116.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger method estimated denominator degrees of freedom and adjusted standard errors; tests used two-sided α per multiple testing strategy.|Adjusted mean difference in FVC change from baseline at Week 52 between the Nerandomilast 9 mg group and the Placebo group.|Based on a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), with fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit, baseline antifibrotic therapy at each visit, baseline HRCT pattern at each visit, the fixed continuous effects of baseline FVC \[mL\] at each visit and unstructured covariance for repeated measures. Baseline antifibrotic therapy and HRCT pattern as entered in the CRF pages were used as covariates.||116.32|45.95|<0.0001
91034657|NCT00913627|181955176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|2.74||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||2 hours||2.74|1.70|<0.001
90884443|NCT01848990|181631450|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|-23.3||||0.4754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-87.8|41.2||Time per day \<140 mg/dL|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||41.2|-87.8|0.4754
90884444|NCT01848990|181631450|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|23.9||||0.4644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.7|88.6||Time per day ≥140 mg/dL|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||88.6|-40.7|0.4644
91034658|NCT00913627|181955176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|2.21||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||2 hours||2.21|1.18|<0.001
91034659|NCT00913627|181955176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.98|3.01||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||3 hours||3.01|1.98|<0.001
91034660|NCT00913627|181955176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.97|2.99||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||3 hours||2.99|1.97|<0.001
91034661|NCT00913627|181955176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|2.38||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||3 hours||2.38|1.37|<0.001
91034662|NCT00913627|181955176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.01|3.07||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||4 hours||3.07|2.01|<0.001
91034663|NCT00913627|181955176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.92|2.97||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||4 hours||2.97|1.92|<0.001
91034664|NCT00913627|181955176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|2.33||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||4 hours||2.33|1.29|<0.001
91034665|NCT00913627|181955176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.92|3.03||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||5 hours||3.03|1.92|<0.001
90963670|NCT02469896|181808791|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of fold change|0.893||||0.285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.725|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.100|0.725|0.285
90963671|NCT02469896|181808792|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of fold change|0.167||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.043|0.643|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.643|0.043|0.011
90963672|NCT02469896|181808792|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of fold change|0.741||||0.604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.228|2.405|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.405|0.228|0.604
90963673|NCT02469896|181808792|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of fold change|2.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.823|4.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.740|1.823|<0.001
90924516|NCT05321082|181723284|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|67.18||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.91|102.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger method estimated denominator degrees of freedom and adjusted standard errors; tests used two-sided α per multiple testing strategy.|Adjusted mean difference in FVC change from baseline at Week 52 between the Nerandomilast 18 mg group and the Placebo group.|Based on a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), with fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit, baseline antifibrotic therapy at each visit, baseline HRCT pattern at each visit, the fixed continuous effects of baseline FVC \[mL\] at each visit and unstructured covariance for repeated measures. Baseline antifibrotic therapy and HRCT pattern as entered in the CRF pages were used as covariates.||102.46|31.91|0.0002
90924517|NCT05321082|181723285|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.78|||Regression, Cox|||Analysis performed using a Cox proportional hazards model that included baseline antifibrotic therapy (AF group vs non-AF group), baseline HRCT pattern, age, baseline FVC % predicted, baseline diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide (DLCO) % predicted (corrected for Hb) and treatment as covariates.||0.78|0.34|0.0017
90924518|NCT05321082|181723285|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.78|||Regression, Cox|||Analysis performed using a Cox proportional hazards model that included baseline antifibrotic therapy (AF group vs non-AF group), baseline HRCT pattern, age, baseline FVC % predicted, baseline diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide (DLCO) % predicted (corrected for Hb) and treatment as covariates.||0.78|0.34|0.0018
90924519|NCT05321082|181723286|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|3.23|||Mixed Models Analysis||The adjusted mean difference represents the model-estimated difference in predicted Forced Vital Capacity % between the Nerandomilast 9 mg group and the Placebo group at Week 52.|Based on MMRM, with fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit, baseline antifibrotic therapy at each visit, baseline HRCT pattern at each visit, the fixed continuous effects of baseline FVC \[% pred\] at each visit and unstructured covariance for repeated measures. Baseline antifibrotic therapy and HRCT pattern as entered in the CRF pages were used as covariates.||3.23|1.15|<0.0001
90924520|NCT05321082|181723286|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.94||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.98|||Mixed Models Analysis||The adjusted mean difference represents the model-estimated difference in predicted Forced Vital Capacity % between the Nerandomilast 18 mg group and the Placebo group at Week 52.|Based on MMRM, with fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit, baseline antifibrotic therapy at each visit, baseline HRCT pattern at each visit, the fixed continuous effects of baseline FVC \[% pred\] at each visit and unstructured covariance for repeated measures. Baseline antifibrotic therapy and HRCT pattern as entered in the CRF pages were used as covariates.||2.98|0.90|0.0003
90924521|NCT05321082|181723287|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.87|||Regression, Cox|||Analysis was performed using a Cox proportional hazards regression model that included baseline use of antifibrotic therapy (antifibrotic group vs non-antifibrotic group), baseline HRCT pattern, age, baseline forced vital capacity (FVC) percentage predicted, baseline diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide (DLCO) percentage predicted (corrected for hemoglobin levels), and treatment group as covariates.||0.87|0.54|0.0018
90924522|NCT05321082|181723287|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.89|||Regression, Cox|||Analysis was performed using a Cox proportional hazards regression model that included baseline use of antifibrotic therapy (antifibrotic group vs non-antifibrotic group), baseline HRCT pattern, age, baseline forced vital capacity (FVC) percentage predicted, baseline diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide (DLCO) percentage predicted (corrected for hemoglobin levels), and treatment group as covariates.||0.89|0.56|0.0038
90924523|NCT05321082|181723288|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9||||0.3793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|1.11|||Mixed Models Analysis||The adjusted mean difference represents the model-estimated difference in DLCO \[% pred\] between the Nerandomilast 9 mg group and the Placebo group at Week 52.|Analysis was based on a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), which included fixed, categorical effects of treatment, baseline use of antifibrotic therapy, and the fixed continuous effects of baseline DLCO \[% pred\] at each visit. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model repeated measures within patients. Baseline use of antifibrotic therapy, as recorded in the concomitant medication case report form page (CRF), was included as a covariate.||1.11|-2.90|0.3793
90963674|NCT02469896|181808792|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of fold change|1.078||||0.587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.813|1.431|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.431|0.813|0.587
90963675|NCT02469896|181808792|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of fold change|1.078||||0.697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.728|1.595|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.595|0.728|0.697
90963676|NCT02469896|181808793|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of fold change|1.785|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.502|2.121|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.121|1.502|<0.001
90963677|NCT02510560|181808795|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.115|||||||Stratified Van Elteren Test|||||||0.115
90963678|NCT02510560|181808795|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.243|||||||Stratified Van Elteren Test|||||||0.243
90963679|NCT02510560|181808796|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.714|||||||Stratified Van Elteren Test|||||||0.714
90963680|NCT02510560|181808796|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.243|||||||Stratified Van Elteren Test|||||||0.243
90963681|NCT03684642|181808806|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of Efpeglenatide vs. Dulaglutide was demonstrated if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference between groups was \<=0.3%.|Least Square (LS) Mean difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.14||||||A hierarchical step-down testing procedure was used to control type 1 error. Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with the treatment groups, randomization strata, and geographical region as fixed classification effects, and baseline HbA1c value as a continuous covariate.||0.14|-0.20|
91034666|NCT00913627|181955176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.87|2.96||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||5 hours||2.96|1.87|<0.001
91034667|NCT00913627|181955176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|2.25||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||5 hours||2.25|1.16|<0.001
91034668|NCT00913627|181955176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.69|2.83||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||6 hours||2.83|1.69|<0.001
91034669|NCT00913627|181955176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|2.93||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||6 hours||2.93|1.80|<0.001
90884445|NCT01848990|181631450|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|2.8||||0.9232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.2|59.8||Time per day outside of 71 to 180 mg/dL|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||59.8|-54.2|0.9232
90884446|NCT01848990|181631450|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|18.4||||0.5151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.5|74.4||Time per day outside of 71 to 139 mg/dL|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||74.4|-37.5|0.5151
90884447|NCT01848990|181631451|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|-33.5||||0.4216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-115.9|48.9||Area per day \<56 mg/dL|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||48.9|-115.9|0.4216
90884448|NCT01848990|181631451|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|-84.7||||0.5697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-379.2|209.8||Area per day ≤70 mg/dL|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||209.8|-379.2|0.5697
90884449|NCT01848990|181631451|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|342.9||||0.9241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6772.3|7458.2||Area per day ≥140 mg/dL|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||7458.2|-6772.3|0.9241
90884450|NCT01848990|181631451|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|2.8||||0.9232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.2|59.8||Area per day outside of 71 to 180 mg/dL|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||59.8|-54.2|0.9232
90884451|NCT01848990|181631451|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|Mean Difference (Final Values)|258.2||||0.9423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6792.2|7308.7||Area per day outside of 71 to 139 mg/dL|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Least squares mean treatment difference (Hylenex minus Standard CSII)|||7308.7|-6792.2|0.9423
90884452|NCT01848990|181631452|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|-0.2||||0.5246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.4||Leisure activities|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||0.4|-0.7|0.5246
90884453|NCT01848990|181631452|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|-0.1||||0.638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.5||Work life|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||0.5|-0.8|0.6380
90884454|NCT01848990|181631452|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|-0.2||||0.5719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.4||Local or long distance travel|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||0.4|-0.7|0.5719
90884455|NCT01848990|181631452|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|-0.2||||0.4052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.3||Vacations|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||0.3|-0.8|0.4052
90884456|NCT01848990|181631452|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|0.1||||0.724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.6||Do physically|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||0.6|-0.4|0.7240
90884457|NCT01848990|181631452|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|0.1||||0.6876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.6||Family life|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||0.6|-0.4|0.6876
90884458|NCT01848990|181631452|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|0.1||||0.6478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.6||Friendships and social life|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||0.6|-0.4|0.6478
90884459|NCT01848990|181631452|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|0.0||||0.9744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.6||Close personal relationship|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||0.6|-0.6|0.9744
90884460|NCT01848990|181631452|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|0.3||||0.3177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.8||Sex life|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||0.8|-0.3|0.3177
90884461|NCT01848990|181631452|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|0.3||||0.2087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.7||Physical appearance|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||0.7|-0.2|0.2087
90884462|NCT01848990|181631452|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|0.1||||0.7907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.5||Self-confidence|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||0.5|-0.4|0.7907
90884463|NCT01848990|181631452|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|-0.3||||0.3444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.3||Motivation|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||0.3|-0.8|0.3444
91034670|NCT00913627|181955176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|2.23||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||6 hours||2.23|1.11|<0.001
91034671|NCT00913627|181955176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|2.79||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||7 hours||2.79|1.66|<0.001
91034672|NCT00913627|181955176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.74|2.85||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||7 hours||2.85|1.74|<0.001
91034673|NCT00913627|181955176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|2.13||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||7 hours||2.13|1.02|<0.001
91034674|NCT00913627|181955176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|2.78||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||8 hours||2.78|1.59|<0.001
91034675|NCT00913627|181955176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|2.7||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||8 hours||2.70|1.53|<0.001
91034676|NCT00913627|181955176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|2.21||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||8 hours||2.21|1.04|<0.001
91034677|NCT00913627|181955176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.52||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||9 hours||2.52|1.30|<0.001
91034678|NCT00913627|181955176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|2.72||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||9 hours||2.72|1.52|<0.001
91034679|NCT00913627|181955176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|2.11||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||9 hours||2.11|0.91|<0.001
91034680|NCT00913627|181955176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|2.55||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||10 hours||2.55|1.34|<0.001
91034681|NCT00913627|181955176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|2.79||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||10 hours||2.79|1.59|<0.001
91034682|NCT00913627|181955176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|2.16||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||10 hours||2.16|0.97|<0.001
91034683|NCT00913627|181955176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|2.52||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||11 hours||2.52|1.28|<0.001
91034684|NCT00913627|181955176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|2.75||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||11 hours||2.75|1.52|<0.001
91034685|NCT00913627|181955176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|2.2||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||11 hours||2.20|0.98|<0.001
91034686|NCT00913627|181955176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|2.54||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||12 hours||2.54|1.26|<0.001
91034687|NCT00913627|181955176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|2.66||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||12 hours||2.66|1.39|<0.001
91034688|NCT00913627|181955176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.07||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||12 hours||2.07|0.81|<0.001
91034689|NCT00913627|181955176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|2.49||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||13 hours||2.49|1.17|<0.001
91034690|NCT00913627|181955176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|2.43||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||13 hours||2.43|1.13|<0.001
91034691|NCT00913627|181955176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.07||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||13 hours||2.07|0.78|<0.001
91034692|NCT00913627|181955176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.32||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||14 hours||2.32|0.95|<0.001
91034693|NCT00913627|181955176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|2.29||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||14 hours||2.29|0.94|<0.001
91034694|NCT00913627|181955176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.06||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||14 hours||2.06|0.71|<0.001
91034695|NCT00913627|181955176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.27||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||16 hours||2.27|0.88|<0.001
90924524|NCT05321082|181723288|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.49||||0.6354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.53|||Mixed Models Analysis||The adjusted mean difference represents the model-estimated difference in DLCO \[% pred\] between the Nerandomilast 18 mg group and the Placebo group at Week 52.|Analysis was based on a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), which included fixed, categorical effects of treatment, baseline use of antifibrotic therapy, and the fixed continuous effects of baseline DLCO \[% pred\] at each visit. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model repeated measures within patients. Baseline use of antifibrotic therapy, as recorded in the concomitant medication case report form page (CRF), was included as a covariate.||1.53|-2.50|0.6354
90884464|NCT01848990|181631452|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|0.2||||0.2175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.6||The way people in general react|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||0.6|-0.1|0.2175
90884465|NCT01848990|181631452|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|-0.4||||0.2062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.2||Feelings about the future|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||0.2|-1.0|0.2062
90884466|NCT01848990|181631452|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|0.0||||0.8762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.6||Financial situation|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||0.6|-0.5|0.8762
90884467|NCT01848990|181631452|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|0.0||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5||Living situation and conditions|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||0.5|-0.5|0.8900
90884468|NCT01848990|181631452|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|-0.5||||0.1367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.2||Depend on others|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||0.2|-1.1|0.1367
90884469|NCT01848990|181631452|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|0.3||||0.3144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.9||Freedom to eat|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||0.9|-0.3|0.3144
90884470|NCT01848990|181631452|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|0.1||||0.6869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.6||Freedom to drink|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||0.6|-0.4|0.6869
90884471|NCT01848990|181631453|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|0.0||||0.9901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3|||ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||0.3|-0.3|0.9901
90884472|NCT01848990|181631454|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|0.1||||0.9081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.3||DTSQs|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||1.3|-1.1|0.9081
90884473|NCT01848990|181631454|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|0.0||||0.984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.6||DTSQc|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||1.6|-1.5|0.9840
90884474|NCT02553746|181631472|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.748|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.748
90884475|NCT02553746|181631473|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.498|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.498
90884476|NCT02553746|181631474|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.171|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.171
90884477|NCT02553746|181631475|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.162|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.162
90884478|NCT02553746|181631476|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.104|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.104
91034696|NCT00913627|181955176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.1||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||16 hours||2.10|0.73|<0.001
90884479|NCT02553746|181631477|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.005
90884480|NCT01312766|181631490|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The one-way Analysis of Variance with Least-Squares means was performed to calculate the 95% Confidence Interval of the difference between the two treatments. If the lower bound of the 95% Confidence Interval of the difference between means (hMG-IBSA minus Menopur®) was greater than -2.1, then hMG-IBSA would be considered to be not-inferior to the comparator.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|3.43|||ANOVA|||||3.43|0.43|0.012
90884481|NCT01312766|181631491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.25
90884482|NCT01312766|181631493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.90
90884483|NCT01312766|181631494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.02
90884484|NCT01312766|181631497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.61
90884485|NCT01312766|181631498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.002
90884486|NCT01312766|181631499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.004
90884487|NCT01312766|181631500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90884488|NCT01312766|181631501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.04
90884489|NCT01312766|181631502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.61
90884490|NCT00298038|181631503|SUPERIORITY|Analysis based on the overall comparison of time to the first breakthrough overt HE episode between rifaximin and placebo groups adjusting for analysis region, using the Cox proportional hazards model (Score test, \[that is, Log rank test stratified by analysis region\]) with a 2-sided test at a significance level of 0.05 under the proportional hazards assumption.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.421|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.276|0.641|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||0.641|0.276|<0.0001
90963682|NCT03684642|181808806|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of Efpeglenatide vs. Dulaglutide was demonstrated if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference between groups was \<=0.3%.|LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.09||||||A hierarchical step-down testing procedure was used to control type 1 error. Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with the treatment groups, randomization strata, and geographical region as fixed classification effects, and baseline HbA1c value as a continuous covariate.||0.09|-0.25|
90963683|NCT03684642|181808806|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7064||||||Threshold for significance at the level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||||0.7064
90963684|NCT03684642|181808806|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3427||||||Threshold for significance at the level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||||0.3427
90963685|NCT04556396|181808812|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.2|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.4|||Chi-squared|||||0.4|0.1|<0.01
90963686|NCT03739437|181808875|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.384|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.384
90963687|NCT04908189|181808932|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.4743|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08735|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6455|-0.3031|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|||-0.3031|-0.6455|<0.0001
90963688|NCT04908189|181808933|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.1126|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03511||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1814|-0.0438|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|||-0.0438|-0.1814|0.0013
90963689|NCT04908189|181808935|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|2.042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5421||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|3.105|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|||3.105|0.980|0.0002
90963690|NCT04908189|181808938|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.2017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|2.0|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|||2.0|-0.4|0.2017
90963691|NCT04908189|181808942|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.0643|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02831||0.0231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0088|0.1198|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 2||0.1198|0.0088|0.0231
90963692|NCT04908189|181808942|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.0085|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03126||0.7865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0528|0.0697|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 4||0.0697|-0.0528|0.7865
90963693|NCT04908189|181808942|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.0515|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03386||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1179|0.0148|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 8||0.0148|-0.1179|0.1280
90963694|NCT04908189|181808942|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean differnce|-0.0541|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0346||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1219|0.0137|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 12||0.0137|-0.1219|0.1180
90963695|NCT04908189|181808942|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.1126|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03511||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1814|-0.0438|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 16||-0.0438|-0.1814|0.0013
90963696|NCT04908189|181808947|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.692|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4384||0.1147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.168|1.551|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 4||1.551|-0.168|0.1147
90963697|NCT04908189|181808947|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|1.999|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5147||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.991|3.008|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 12||3.008|0.991|0.0001
90963698|NCT04908189|181808947|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|2.042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5421||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|3.105|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 16||3.105|0.980|0.0002
90963699|NCT04908189|181808951|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.284|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.567||0.6159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.396|0.827|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 4||0.827|-1.396|0.6159
90963700|NCT04908189|181808951|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.829|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.625||0.1847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.396|2.054|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 12||2.054|-0.396|0.1847
90963701|NCT04908189|181808951|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|1.145|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.673||0.0888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.174|2.464|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 16||2.464|-0.174|0.0888
90963702|NCT04908189|181808952|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.1924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.3|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 2||0.3|-1.6|0.1924
90963703|NCT04908189|181808952|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.7601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.8|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 4||0.8|-1.20|0.7601
91034697|NCT00913627|181955176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.08||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||16 hours||2.08|0.72|<0.001
90963704|NCT04908189|181808952|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.0303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.4|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 8||2.4|0.1|0.0303
90963705|NCT04908189|181808952|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.4747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.7|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 12||1.7|-0.8|0.4747
90963706|NCT04908189|181808952|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.2017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|2.0|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 16||2.0|-0.4|0.2017
90963707|NCT04908189|181808954|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.077|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1015||0.4459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.276|0.122|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 2||0.122|-0.276|0.4459
90963708|NCT04908189|181808954|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.232|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1164||0.0461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.004|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 4||-0.004|-0.460|0.0461
90963709|NCT04908189|181808954|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.598|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1321|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.857|-0.339|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 8||-0.339|-0.857|<0.0001
90963710|NCT04908189|181808954|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.605|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1416|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.882|-0.327|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 12||-0.327|-0.882|<0.0001
90963711|NCT04908189|181808954|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.786|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1455|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.071|-0.501|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 16||-0.501|-1.071|<0.0001
90963712|NCT04908189|181808955|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.3525|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9227||0.7025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.456|2.1609|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 2||2.1609|-1.4560|0.7025
90963713|NCT04908189|181808955|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-1.373|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93331||0.1413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2023|0.4562|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 4||0.4562|-3.2023|0.1413
90963714|NCT04908189|181808955|SUPERIORITY||Adjused mean difference|-3.7522|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.10374||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9155|-1.589|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 8||-1.5890|-5.9155|0.0007
90963715|NCT04908189|181808955|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-4.8072|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.13857|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0388|-2.5757|||ANOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 12||-2.5757|-7.0388|<0.0001
90963716|NCT04908189|181808955|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-6.2006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2284|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6082|-3.793|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 16||-3.7930|-8.6082|<0.0001
90963717|NCT04908189|181808959|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.0318|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05613||0.5707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0782|0.1419|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 2||0.1419|-0.0782|0.5707
90963718|NCT04908189|181808959|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.0833|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06303||0.1862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2069|0.0402|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 4||0.0402|-0.2069|0.1862
90963719|NCT04908189|181808959|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.2958|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07854||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4497|-0.1418|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 8||-0.1418|-0.4497|0.0002
90963720|NCT04908189|181808959|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.3262|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.083|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4889|-0.1635|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 12||-0.1635|-0.4889|<0.0001
90963721|NCT04908189|181808959|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.4743|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08735|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6455|-0.3031|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 16||-0.3031|-0.6455|<0.0001
90963722|NCT04908189|181808962|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.0758|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07069||0.2836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2144|0.0627|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 4||0.0627|-0.2144|0.2836
90963723|NCT04908189|181808962|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.5548|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09431|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7396|-0.3699|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 12||-0.3699|-0.7396|<0.0001
91034698|NCT00913627|181955176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.96||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||24 hours||1.96|0.53|<0.001
90963724|NCT04908189|181808962|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.5835|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.10162|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7826|-0.3843|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 16||-0.3843|-0.7826|<0.0001
90963725|NCT04908189|181808963|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.2143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 4||0.1|-0.4|0.2143
90963726|NCT04908189|181808963|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.2|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 8||-0.2|-0.8|0.0001
90963727|NCT04908189|181808963|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.4|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 12||-0.4|-1.0|<0.0001
90963728|NCT04908189|181808963|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.4|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 16||-0.4|-0.9|<0.0001
90884491|NCT01940705|181631534|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.578||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for Hearing Aid Skills and Knowledge test Skills scale||||0.001
90884492|NCT01940705|181631534|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.235||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for Hearing Aid Skills and Knowledge test Knowledge scale||||0.003
90884493|NCT01940705|181631535|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.956||||0.414|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.414
90884494|NCT01940705|181631536|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27||||0.847|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.847
90884495|NCT02447991|181631537|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.33||||||Significance level p \< 0.05|Chi-squared, Corrected|This analysis applies to proportion of treated episodes.||Hypothesis: Rizatriptan will be superior to placebo in reducing the severity of vertigo as measured by the proportion of treated episodes in which subjects experience a reduction in severity rating from Grade 3/2 to Grade 1/0 at 1 hour after taking study medication.||||<0.33
90884496|NCT02447991|181631538|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.18||||||Signficant at p \< 0.05|Chi-squared, Corrected|This analysis applies to proportion of treated episodes||Hypothesis: Rizatriptan will be superior to placebo in reducing the severity of unsteadiness/dizziness as measured by the proportion of treated episodes in which subjects experience a reduction in severity rating from Grade 3/2 to Grade 1/0 at 1 hour after taking study medication||||<0.18
90884497|NCT02447991|181631539|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.62||||||Significance threshold p\<0.05|Chi-squared, Corrected|This analysis applies to proportion of treated episodes.||Hypothesis: Rizatriptan will be superior to placebo in reducing the severity of vertigo as measured by the proportion of treated episodes in which subjects experience freedom from vestibular symptoms (i.e., severity rating of Grade 0) at 1 hour after taking study medication.||||<0.62
90884498|NCT02447991|181631540|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.19||||||Significance threshold p \< 0.05|Chi-squared, Corrected|This analysis applies to proportions of treated episodes||Hypothesis: Rizatriptan will be superior to placebo in reducing the severity of unsteadiness/dizziness as measured by the proportion of treated episodes in which subjects experience freedom from vestibular symptoms (i.e., severity rating of Grade 0) at 1 hour after taking study medication.||||<0.19
90884499|NCT02447991|181631541|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.14||||||Significance threshold p\<0.05|Chi-squared, Corrected|This analysis applies to proportion of treated episodes.||Hypothesis: Rizatriptan will be superior to placebo in reducing the severity of headaches as measured by the proportion of treated episodes in which subjects experience a reduction in severity rating from Grade 3/2 to Grade 1/0 at 1 hour after taking study medication.||||<0.14
90884500|NCT02447991|181631542|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.72||||||Significance threshold p \< 0.05|Chi-squared, Corrected|This analysis applies to proportion of treated episodes||Hypothesis: Rizatriptan will be superior to placebo in reducing the severity of photophobia/phonophobia as measured by the proportion of treated episodes in which subjects experience a reduction in severity rating from Grade 3/2 to Grade 1/0 at 1 hour after taking study medication.||||<0.72
90884501|NCT02447991|181631543|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.48||||||Significance threshold p \< 0.05|Chi-squared, Corrected|This analysis applies to proportion of treated episodes||Hypothesis: Rizatriptan will be superior to placebo in reducing the severity of sensitivity to motion as measured by the proportion of treated episodes in which subjects experience a reduction in severity rating from Grade 3/2 to Grade 1/0 at 1 hour after taking study medication.||||<0.48
90884502|NCT02447991|181631544|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.35||||||Significance threshold p \< 0.05|Chi-squared, Corrected|This analysis applies to proportion of treated episodes||Hypothesis: Rizatriptan will be superior to placebo in reducing the severity of nausea/vomiting as measured by the proportion of treated episodes in which subjects experience a reduction in severity rating from Grade 3/2 to Grade 1/0 at 1 hour after taking study medication..||||<0.35
90884503|NCT02447991|181631545|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.022||||||Significance of threshold p\<0.05|Regression, Linear|This analysis applies to proportion of treated episodes.||Hypothesis: Rizatriptan will be superior to placebo on the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication at 48 hours after each attack treated with effectiveness of study medication||||<0.022
90884504|NCT02447991|181631545|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.418||||||Significance of threshold p\<0.05|Regression, Linear|This analysis applies to proportion of treated episodes.||Hypothesis: Rizatriptan will be superior to placebo on the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication at 48 hours after each attack treated with side effects of study medication||||<0.418
90884505|NCT02447991|181631545|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.674||||||Significance of threshold p\<0.05|Regression, Linear|This analysis applies to proportion of treated episodes.||Hypothesis: Rizatriptan will be superior to placebo on the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication at 48 hours after each attack treated with convenience of study medication||||<0.674
90884506|NCT02447991|181631545|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.016||||||Significance of threshold of p\<0.05|Regression, Linear|This analysis applies to proportion of treated episodes.||Hypothesis: Rizatriptan will be superior to placebo on the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication at 48 hours after each attack treated with overall satisfaction of study medication||||<0.016
90963729|NCT04908189|181808966|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.801||0.8316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.91|3.15|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Absenteeism||3.15|-3.91|0.8316
90963730|NCT04908189|181808966|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-2.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.827||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.54|0.63|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Presenteeism||0.63|-6.54|0.1060
90963731|NCT04908189|181808966|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-2.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.918||0.1578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.47|1.05|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Work Productivity||1.05|-6.47|0.1578
90963732|NCT04908189|181808966|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-7.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.719|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.96|-4.22|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Activity Impairment||-4.22|-10.96|<0.0001
90884507|NCT02447991|181631546|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.009||||||Significance threshold p\<0.05|Regression, Linear|This analysis applies to proportion of treated episodes.||Hypothesis: Rizatriptan will be superior to placebo on physical well-being||||<0.009
90884508|NCT02447991|181631546|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.467||||||Significance threshold p\<0.05|Regression, Linear|This analysis applies to proportion of treated episodes.||Hypothesis: Rizatriptan will be superior to placebo on mental well-being||||<0.467
90884509|NCT02447991|181631547|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.013||||||Significance threshold p\<0.05|Logistic regression with GEE|GEE=generalized estimating equations - this accounts for repeated measures within patients.This analysis applies to proportion of treated episodes.||Hypothesis: Rizatriptan will be tolerated as well as placebo with regard to fatigue.||||<0.013
90884510|NCT02447991|181631547|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.021||||||Significance threshold p\<0.05|Logistic regression with GEE|GEE=generalized estimating equations - this accounts for repeated measures within patients. This analysis applies to proportion of treated episodes.||Hypothesis: Rizatriptan will be tolerated as well as placebo with regard to sleepiness/drowsiness||||<0.021
90884511|NCT02447991|181631548|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.76||||||Significance threshold p\<0.05|Chi-squared, Corrected|This analysis applies to proportion of treated episodes.||Hypothesis: Rizatriptan will be superior to placebo in reducing the severity of vertigo measured by the proportion of treated episodes that subjects rate at grade 1/0 24 hours after taking study medication.||||<0.76
90884512|NCT02447991|181631549|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.041||||||Significance threshold p \< 0.05|Chi-squared, Corrected|This analysis applies to proportion of treated episodes.||Hypothesis: Rizatriptan will be superior to placebo in reducing the severity of unsteadiness/dizziness episodes measured by the proportion of treated episodes that subjects rate at grade 1/0 24 hours after taking study medication.||||<0.041
90884513|NCT02447991|181631550|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.12||||||Significance threshold p\<0.05|Chi-squared, Corrected|This analysis applies to proportion of treated episodes.||Hypothesis: Rizatriptan will be superior to placebo in reducing the severity of headaches measured by the proportion of treated episodes that subjects rate at grade 1/0 24 hours after taking study medication.||||<0.12
90884514|NCT02447991|181631551|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.051||||||Significance threshold p\<0.05|Chi-squared, Corrected|This analysis applies to proportion of treated episodes.||Hypothesis: Rizatriptan will be superior to placebo in reducing the severity of photophobia/phonophobia measured by the proportion of treated episodes that subjects rate at grade 1/0 24 hours after taking study medication.||||<0.051
90884515|NCT02447991|181631552|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.006||||||Significance threshold p\<0.05|Chi-squared, Corrected|This analysis applies to proportion of treated episodes.||Hypothesis: Rizatriptan will be superior to placebo in reducing the severity of sensitivity to motion measured by the proportion of treated episodes that subjects rate at grade 1/0 24 hours after taking study medication.||||<0.006
90884516|NCT02447991|181631553|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.67||||||Significance threshold p\<0.05|Chi-squared, Corrected|This analysis applies to proportion of treated episodes.||Hypothesis: Rizatriptan will be superior to placebo in reducing the severity of nausea/vomiting measured by the proportion of treated episodes that subjects rate at grade 1/0 24 hours after taking study medication.||||<0.67
90884517|NCT01222494|181631635|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||The p-value refers to the treatment group term in the model. The a priori threshold for statistical significance in this planned primary test was p \< 0.05.|ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA was used to test for differences between groups at endpoint, controlling for baseline values.||||0.01
90884518|NCT01222494|181631636|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||The p-value refers to the treatment group term in the model. The a priori threshold for statistical significance in this planned primary test was p \< 0.05.|ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA was used to test for differences between groups at endpoint, controlling for baseline values.||||0.04
90884519|NCT01222494|181631637|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7||||||The p-value refers to the treatment group term in the model. The a priori threshold for statistical significance in this planned primary test was p \< 0.05.|ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA was used to test for differences between groups at endpoint, controlling for baseline values.||||0.70
90884520|NCT01222494|181631638|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||The p-value refers to the treatment group term in the model. The a priori threshold for statistical significance in this planned primary test was p \< 0.05.|ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA was used to test for differences between groups at endpoint, controlling for baseline values.||||0.003
90884521|NCT01174030|181631641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.392|||<|0.001||95.0|2.637|26.71|||GEE:Logit link function|Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) methods with Logit link function and marginal expectation model.||||26.710|2.637|<0.001
90884522|NCT01174030|181631641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.269||||0.549||95.0|0.586|2.747|||GEE:Logit link function|Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) methods with Logit link function and marginal expectation model.||||2.747|0.586|0.549
90884523|NCT01174030|181631641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.738||||0.027||95.0|1.097|12.742|||GEE:Logit link function|Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) methods with Logit link function and marginal expectation model.||||12.742|1.097|0.027
90884524|NCT01174030|181631642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.683||||0.003||95.0|1.388|5.188|||GEE:Logit link Function|Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) methods with Logit link function and marginal expectation model||||5.188|1.388|.003
90924525|NCT05321082|181723289|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.2967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.14|||Regression, Cox|||Analysis was performed using a Cox proportional hazards regression model that included baseline use of antifibrotic therapy (antifibrotic group vs non-antifibrotic group), baseline HRCT pattern, age, baseline forced vital capacity (FVC) percentage predicted, baseline diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide (DLCO) percentage predicted (corrected for hemoglobin levels), and treatment group as covariates.||1.14|0.65|0.2967
90924526|NCT05321082|181723289|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.4815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.2|||Regression, Cox|||Analysis was performed using a Cox proportional hazards regression model that included baseline use of antifibrotic therapy (antifibrotic group vs non-antifibrotic group), baseline HRCT pattern, age, baseline forced vital capacity (FVC) percentage predicted, baseline diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide (DLCO) percentage predicted (corrected for hemoglobin levels), and treatment group as covariates.||1.20|0.68|0.4815
90924527|NCT05321082|181723290|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.88||||0.4748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|1.54|||Mixed Models Analysis||The adjusted mean difference represents the model-estimated difference in symptom change (L-PF Dyspnea score) between the Nerandomilast 9mg group and the Placebo group at Week 52.|Analysis was based on a Based on Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), with fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit, baseline antifibrotic therapy at each visit, baseline HRCT pattern at each visit, the fixed continuous effects of baseline L-PF Dyspnea score at each visit and unstructured covariance for repeated measures. Baseline antifibrotic therapy and HRCT pattern as entered in the CRF pages were used as covariates.||1.54|-3.30|0.4748
90924528|NCT05321082|181723290|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.27||||0.3042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.69|1.15|||Mixed Models Analysis||The adjusted mean difference represents the model-estimated difference in symptom change (L-PF Dyspnea score) between the Nerandomilast 18 mg group and the Placebo group at Week 52.|Analysis was based on a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), with fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit, baseline antifibrotic therapy at each visit, baseline HRCT pattern at each visit, the fixed continuous effects of baseline L-PF Dyspnea score at each visit and unstructured covariance for repeated measures. Baseline antifibrotic therapy and HRCT pattern as entered in the CRF pages were used as covariates.||1.15|-3.69|0.3042
90924529|NCT05321082|181723291|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63||0.2506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.08|1.33|||Mixed Models Analysis||The adjusted mean difference represents the model-estimated difference in symptom change (L-PF Cough score) between the Nerandomilast 9 mg group and the Placebo group at Week 52.|Analysis was based on a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), with fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit, baseline antifibrotic therapy at each visit, baseline HRCT pattern at each visit, the fixed continuous effects of baseline L-PF Cough score at each visit and unstructured covariance for repeated measures. Baseline antifibrotic therapy and HRCT pattern as entered in the CRF pages were used as covariates.||1.33|-5.08|0.2506
90924530|NCT05321082|181723291|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.14||||0.9311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.07|3.35|||Mixed Models Analysis||The adjusted mean difference represents the model-estimated difference in symptom change (L-PF Cough score) between the Nerandomilast 18 mg group and the Placebo group at Week 52.|Analysis was based on a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), with fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit, baseline antifibrotic therapy at each visit, baseline HRCT pattern at each visit, the fixed continuous effects of baseline L-PF Cough score at each visit and unstructured covariance for repeated measures. Baseline antifibrotic therapy and HRCT pattern as entered in the CRF pages were used as covariates.||3.35|-3.07|0.9311
90963733|NCT04908189|181808967|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.0026|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01224||0.8487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0291|0.0239|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 4 Utility Score||0.0239|-0.0291|0.8487
90963734|NCT04908189|181808967|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.0365|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01531||0.0171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0065|0.0665|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 16 Utility Score||0.0665|0.0065|0.0171
90924531|NCT05321082|181723292|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.9668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.46|2.57|||Mixed Models Analysis||The adjusted mean difference represents the model-estimated difference in symptom change (L-PF Fatigue score) between the Nerandomilast 9mg group and the Placebo group at Week 52.|Analysis was based on a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), with fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit, baseline antifibrotic therapy at each visit, baseline HRCT pattern at each visit, the fixed continuous effects of baseline L-PF Fatigue score at each visit and unstructured covariance for repeated measures. Baseline antifibrotic therapy and HRCT pattern as entered in the CRF pages were used as covariates.||2.57|-2.46|0.9668
90924532|NCT05321082|181723292|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.94||||0.4644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|3.46|||Mixed Models Analysis||The adjusted mean difference represents the model-estimated difference in symptom change (L-PF Fatigue score) between the Nerandomilast 18 mg group and the Placebo group at Week 52.|Analysis was based on a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), with fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit, baseline antifibrotic therapy at each visit, baseline HRCT pattern at each visit, the fixed continuous effects of baseline L-PF Fatigue score at each visit and unstructured covariance for repeated measures. Baseline antifibrotic therapy and HRCT pattern as entered in the CRF pages were used as covariates.||3.46|-1.58|0.4644
90924533|NCT04119843|181723400|SUPERIORITY|Reader success for the primary analysis was achieved if the reading results demonstrated superiority of combined MRI versus unenhanced MRI for both lesion border delineation and lesion contrast. The acceptance by two out of three readers was considered to be a successful demonstration of efficacy in the study.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.95|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.824|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.743|1.165|||t-test, 1 sided|p-values show a one-sided t-test with a significance level of 0.025.|Positive changes in lesion border delineation mean difference (combined MRI compared to unenhanced MRI) represents a better outcome.|Paired difference of combined MRI versus unenhanced MRI: Reader 1||1.165|0.743|<0.001
90924534|NCT04119843|181723400|SUPERIORITY|Reader success for the primary analysis was achieved if the reading results demonstrated superiority of combined MRI versus unenhanced MRI for both lesion border delineation and lesion contrast. The acceptance by two out of three readers was considered to be a successful demonstration of efficacy in the study.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.892|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.552|1.043|||t-test, 1 sided|p-values show a one-sided t-test with a significance level of 0.025.|Positive changes in lesion border delineation mean difference (combined MRI compared to unenhanced MRI) represents a better outcome.|Paired difference of combined MRI versus unenhanced MRI: Reader 2||1.043|0.552|<0.001
90924535|NCT04119843|181723400|SUPERIORITY|Reader success for the primary analysis was achieved if the reading results demonstrated superiority of combined MRI versus unenhanced MRI for both lesion border delineation and lesion contrast. The acceptance by two out of three readers was considered to be a successful demonstration of efficacy in the study.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.65|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.622|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.494|0.813|||t-test, 1 sided|p-values show a one-sided t-test with a significance level of 0.025.|Positive changes in lesion border delineation mean difference (combined MRI compared to unenhanced MRI) represents a better outcome.|Paired difference of combined MRI versus unenhanced MRI: Reader 3||0.813|0.494|<0.001
90924536|NCT04119843|181723401|SUPERIORITY|Reader success of the primary analysis was achieved if the reading results demonstrated superiority of combined MRI versus unenhanced MRI for both lesion border delineation and lesion contrast. The acceptance by two out of three readers was considered to be a successful demonstration of efficacy in the study.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.98|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.853|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.759|1.196|||t-test, 1 sided|p-values show a one-sided t-test with a significance level of 0.025.|Positive changes in lesion contrast mean difference (combined MRI compared to unenhanced MRI) represents a better outcome.|Paired difference of combined MRI versus unenhanced MRI: Reader 1||1.196|0.759|<0.001
90924537|NCT04119843|181723401|SUPERIORITY|Reader success of the primary analysis was achieved if the reading results demonstrated superiority of combined MRI versus unenhanced MRI for both lesion border delineation and lesion contrast. The acceptance by two out of three readers was considered to be a successful demonstration of efficacy in the study.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.909|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.766|1.267|||t-test, 1 sided|p-values show a one-sided t-test with a significance level of 0.025.|Positive changes in lesion contrast mean difference (combined MRI compared to unenhanced MRI) represents a better outcome.|Paired difference of combined MRI versus unenhanced MRI: Reader 2||1.267|0.766|<0.001
90924538|NCT04119843|181723401|SUPERIORITY|Reader success for the primary analysis was achieved if the reading results demonstrated superiority of combined MRI versus unenhanced MRI for both lesion border delineation and lesion contrast. The acceptance by two out of three readers was considered to be a successful demonstration of efficacy in the study.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.81|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.678|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.638|0.985|||t-test, 1 sided|p-values show a one-sided t-test with a significance level of 0.025.|Positive changes in lesion contrast mean difference (combined MRI compared to unenhanced MRI) represents a better outcome.|Paired difference of combined MRI versus unenhanced MRI: Reader 3||0.985|0.638|<0.001
90924539|NCT04119843|181723403|SUPERIORITY|Reader success was achieved if the reading results demonstrated superiority of mangoral-enhanced MRI versus unenhanced MRI for both lesion border delineation and lesion contrast. The acceptance by two out of three readers was considered to be a successful demonstration of efficacy in the study.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.76|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.805|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.555|0.971|||t-test, 1 sided|p-values show a one-sided t-test with a significance level of 0.025.|Positive changes in lesion border delineation mean difference (mangoral-enhanced MRI compared to unenhanced MRI) represents a better outcome.|Paired difference of mangoral-enhanced MRI versus unenhanced MRI: Reader 1||0.971|0.555|<0.001
90924540|NCT04119843|181723403|SUPERIORITY|Reader success was achieved if the reading results demonstrated superiority of mangoral-enhanced MRI versus unenhanced MRI for both lesion border delineation and lesion contrast. The acceptance by two out of three readers was considered to be a successful demonstration of efficacy in the study.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.76|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.059|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.464|1.054|||t-test, 1 sided|p-values show a one-sided t-test with a significance level of 0.025.|Positive changes in lesion border delineation mean difference (mangoral-enhanced MRI compared to unenhanced MRI) represents a better outcome.|Paired difference of mangoral-enhanced MRI versus unenhanced MRI: Reader 2||1.054|0.464|<0.001
90924541|NCT04119843|181723403|SUPERIORITY|Reader success was achieved if the reading results demonstrated superiority of mangoral-enhanced MRI versus unenhanced MRI for both lesion border delineation and lesion contrast. The acceptance by two out of three readers was considered to be a successful demonstration of efficacy in the study.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.59|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.609|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.429|0.747|||t-test, 1 sided|p-values show a one-sided t-test with a significance level of 0.025.|Positive changes in lesion border delineation mean difference (mangoral-enhanced MRI compared to unenhanced MRI) represents a better outcome.|Paired difference of mangoral-enhanced MRI versus unenhanced MRI: Reader 3||0.747|0.429|<0.001
90924542|NCT04119843|181723404|SUPERIORITY|Reader success was achieved if the reading results demonstrated superiority of mangoral-enhanced MRI versus unenhanced MRI for both lesion border delineation and lesion contrast. The acceptance by two out of three readers was considered to be a successful demonstration of efficacy in the study.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.95|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.852|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.726|1.166|||t-test, 1 sided|p-values show a one-sided t-test with a significance level of 0.025.|Positive changes in lesion contrast mean difference (mangoral-enhanced MRI compared to unenhanced MRI) represents a better outcome.|Paired difference of mangoral-enhanced MRI versus unenhanced MRI: Reader 1||1.166|0.726|<0.001
90924543|NCT04119843|181723404|SUPERIORITY|Reader success was achieved if the reading results demonstrated superiority of mangoral-enhanced MRI versus unenhanced MRI for both lesion border delineation and lesion contrast. The acceptance by two out of three readers was considered to be a successful demonstration of efficacy in the study.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.73|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.261|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.082|||t-test, 1 sided|p-values show a one-sided t-test with a significance level of 0.025.|Positive changes in lesion contrast mean difference (mangoral-enhanced MRI compared to unenhanced MRI) represents a better outcome.|Paired difference of mangoral-enhanced MRI versus unenhanced MRI: Reader 2||1.082|0.380|<0.001
90924544|NCT04119843|181723404|SUPERIORITY|Reader success was achieved if the reading results demonstrated superiority of mangoral-enhanced MRI versus unenhanced MRI for both lesion border delineation and lesion contrast. The acceptance by two out of three readers was considered to be a successful demonstration of efficacy in the study.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.72|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.786|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.517|0.927|||t-test, 1 sided|p-values show a one-sided t-test with a significance level of 0.025.|Positive changes in lesion contrast mean difference (mangoral-enhanced MRI compared to unenhanced MRI) represents a better outcome.|Paired difference of mangoral-enhanced MRI versus unenhanced MRI: Reader 3||0.927|0.517|<0.001
90924545|NCT03532282|181723490|SUPERIORITY||coefficient beta for change trajectory|-0.15||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The a-priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model incorporating all assessment time points.||||||0.001
90924546|NCT03532282|181723491|SUPERIORITY||coefficient beta for change trajectory|-0.01||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||The a-priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model incorporating all assessment time points.||||||0.01
90924547|NCT03532282|181723492|SUPERIORITY||coefficient beta for change trajectory|-0.24||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|||||The a-priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model incorporating all assessment time points.||||||0.0006
90924548|NCT03532282|181723493|SUPERIORITY||coefficient beta for change trajectory|-0.04||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The a-priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model incorporating all assessment time points.||||||0.05
90924549|NCT02606422|181723549|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.05
90924550|NCT04625465|181723570|OTHER||Difference in the log odds ratios|0.042||||0.869|||||||Multilevel logistic regression|||"Multilevel logistic regression of daily IPV perpetration on alcohol use (Level 1) nested within participant (Level 2) with interaction between alcohol use and CBT Intervention.~Testing the difference in odds ratio between groups 1 (No Intervention and Attention Control ) and 2 (CBT Texts Intervention) H0: OR1 = OR2"||||.869
90924551|NCT04625465|181723571|OTHER||Difference in the log odds ratios|-0.32||||0.21|||||||Multilevel logistic regression|||"Multilevel logistic regression of daily IPV perpetration on alcohol use (Level 1) nested within participant (Level 2) with interaction between alcohol use and CBT Intervention.~Testing the difference in odds ratio between groups 1 (No Intervention and Attention Control ) and 2 (CBT Texts Intervention) H0: OR1 = OR2"||||.210
90924552|NCT05566639|181723580|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority margin = 10%|Relative vaccine efficacy (rVE)|1.7||||0.1715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.1|22.2|||Stratified Cox proportional hazards||rVE = 100 \* (1 - HR) % was defined as the percent reduction in the hazard (mRNA-1010 vs active comparator), where HR was the hazard ratio between mRNA-1010 vs the active comparator.|||22.2|-24.1|0.1715
91034699|NCT00913627|181955176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.08||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.79||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||24 hours||1.79|0.38|0.003
90963735|NCT04908189|181808967|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.9254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 4 Mobility||0.1|-0.1|0.9254
90884525|NCT01174030|181631642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.892||||0.056||95.0|0.98|3.651|||GEE: Logit link Function|Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) methods with Logit link function and marginal expectation model.||||3.651|0.980|0.056
90884526|NCT01174030|181631642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.885||||0.074||95.0|0.946|3.756|||GEE:Logit link Function|Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) methods with Logit link function and marginal expectation model.||||3.756|0.946|0.074
90884527|NCT01174030|181631643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.582|||<|0.001||95.0|2.755|15.723|||GEE: Logit link function|Generalize Estimating Equation (GEE) methods with Logit link function and marginal expectation model.||||15.723|2.755|<0.001
90884528|NCT01174030|181631643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.853||||0.093||95.0|0.903|3.802|||GEE: Logit link function|Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) methods with Logit link function and marginal expectation model.||||3.802|0.903|0.093
90884529|NCT01174030|181631643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.365||||0.054||95.0|0.96|5.825|||GEE: Logit link function|Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) methods with Logit link function and marginal expectation model.||||5.825|0.960|0.054
90884530|NCT03779997|181631652|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.78|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.1||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.02||0.05 a priori threshold for statistical significance.|Log-linear GEE regression|||Null hypothesis: no difference in the percentage of urine drug tests (UDT) negative for opioids between the two treatment arms.Treatment-as-usual (TAU) is the reference group.||1.02|0.60|0.07
90884531|NCT03779997|181631653|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.84|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.11||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.1||0.05 a priori threshold for statistical significance.|Poisson regression with robust SEs|||Null hypothesis: no difference between treatment arms in the percentage of patients engaged in treatment at week 12. TAU is the reference group.||1.10|0.65|0.20
90884532|NCT03779997|181631654|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.73|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.17||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.16||0.05 a priori threshold for statistical significance.|Poisson regression with robust SEs|||Null hypothesis: No difference between arms in the percentage of participants engaged in treatment at week 24 post-randomization. TAU is the reference group.||1.16|0.45|0.18
90884533|NCT03779997|181631655|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.45||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|2.7||0.05 a priori threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided||TAU is the reference group.|Null hypothesis: No difference between arms on the number of consecutive weeks with UDT negative for opioids.||2.7|-0.9|0.31
90884534|NCT03779997|181631656|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.71|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.41||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|2.26||0.05 a priori threshold for statistical significance.|Poisson regression with robust SEs||TAU is the reference group.|Null hypothesis: No difference between arms in the number of participants who self-reported illicit opioid use at week 12.||2.26|0.23|0.57
90884535|NCT03779997|181631657|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.066||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.15||0.05 a priori threshold for statistical significance.|GEE Poisson regression||TAU is the reference group.|Null hypothesis: No difference between arms in the mean number of days adherent to buprenorphine by self-report.||1.15|0.89|0.88
90884536|NCT03779997|181631659|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.6||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|3.24||0.05 a priori threshold for statistical significance.|Poisson regression with robust SEs||TAU is the reference group.|Null hypothesis: No difference between arms in number of participants who had one or more urine drug tests negative for buprenorphine.||3.24|0.42|0.77
90884537|NCT03779997|181631660|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.67|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.26||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.43||0.05 a priori threshold for statistical significance.|Poisson regression with robust SEs||TAU is the reference group.|Null hypothesis: No difference between arms in number of participants who tested positive for stimulants at week 12.||1.43|0.32|0.30
90884538|NCT03779997|181631661|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.07||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.32||0.05 a priori threshold for statistical significance|t-test, 2 sided||TAU is the reference group|Null hypothesis: No difference between arms in mean treatment satisfaction scores||0.32|-0.29|0.91
90924553|NCT03952338|181723658|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.07|3.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.93|-4.07|0.97
90924554|NCT03952338|181723659|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.22||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|5.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.44|-3.00|0.57
90924555|NCT03952338|181723660|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.96||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|4.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.23|-0.32|0.09
90924556|NCT03952338|181723661|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|4.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.43|-0.22|0.08
90924557|NCT03952338|181723662|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.15||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|2.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.46|-0.17|0.09
90924558|NCT03952338|181723663|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.30|-1.39|0.95
90924559|NCT03952338|181723664|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.21||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.7|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.70|0.06|0.01
90924560|NCT03952338|181723665|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.29||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.96|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.96|0.09|0.04
90924561|NCT03952338|181723666|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.11||||0.236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|7.23|||Regression, Logistic|||||7.23|0.27|0.236
90924562|NCT03952338|181723667|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.22||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|7.97|||Regression, Logistic|||||7.97|0.62|0.220
90924563|NCT03952338|181723668|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Total vegetables||0.55|-0.37|0.70
90924564|NCT03952338|181723668|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Greens and beans||0.69|-0.84|0.85
90924565|NCT03952338|181723668|SUPERIORITY|Total fruits|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.98|-0.29|0.29
90924566|NCT03952338|181723668|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|1.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Whole fruits||1.26|-0.06|0.07
90924567|NCT03952338|181723668|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|1.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Whole grains||1.05|-1.16|0.92
90924568|NCT03952338|181723668|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|0.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Dairy||0.89|-1.29|0.72
90924569|NCT03952338|181723668|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Total protein||0.74|-0.12|0.15
90924570|NCT03952338|181723668|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Seafood and plant proteins||0.71|-0.78|0.92
90924571|NCT03952338|181723668|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|0.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Fatty acids||0.94|-1.47|0.67
90924572|NCT03952338|181723668|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|0.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sodium||0.84|-1.45|0.61
90963736|NCT04908189|181808967|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.0566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.0|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 16 Mobility||0.0|-0.2|0.0566
90963737|NCT04908189|181808967|SUPERIORITY||Ajudted mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.8933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 4 Self-Care||0.1|-0.1|0.8933
90924573|NCT03952338|181723668|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.15||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Refined grains||0.04|-2.34|0.06
90924574|NCT03952338|181723668|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.53||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|1.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Saturated fats||1.57|-0.51|0.32
90924575|NCT03952338|181723668|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Added sugars||0.92|-0.56|0.63
90924576|NCT03952338|181723669|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Total vegetables||0.50|-0.61|0.85
90924577|NCT03952338|181723669|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Greens and beans||0.70|-0.88|0.82
90924578|NCT03952338|181723669|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Total fruits||0.93|-0.43|0.48
90924579|NCT03952338|181723669|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.71||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|1.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Whole fruits||1.46|-0.04|0.06
90924580|NCT03952338|181723669|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.61||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|1.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Whole grains||1.84|-0.63|0.34
90924581|NCT03952338|181723669|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.47||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|2.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Dairy||2.62|0.31|0.01
90924582|NCT03952338|181723669|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Total protein||0.69|-0.27|0.39
90924583|NCT03952338|181723669|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Seafood and plant proteins||0.70|-0.90|0.81
90924584|NCT03952338|181723669|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.57|-0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Fatty acids||-0.04|-2.57|0.04
90924585|NCT03952338|181723669|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|0.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sodium||0.48|-1.86|0.25
90924586|NCT03952338|181723669|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Refined grains||1.40|-1.25|0.91
90924587|NCT03952338|181723669|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|1.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Saturated fats||1.13|-0.98|0.89
90924588|NCT03952338|181723669|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Added sugars||0.97|-0.55|0.59
90924589|NCT03952338|181723670|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.15||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.67||Marginal food insecurity|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects multinomial logistic regression||||0.67|0.03|0.01
90924590|NCT03952338|181723670|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.56||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects multinomial logistic regression||Moderate food insecurity||1.82|0.17|0.34
90884539|NCT04086472|181631670|SUPERIORITY||Least squares (LS) Mean Difference|-1.31||||0.808|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.25|7.64|||ANOVA|||Treatment vs. Placebo||7.64|-10.25|0.808
90884540|NCT04086472|181631670|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.51||||0.229|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.46|2.43|||ANOVA|||Treatment vs. Placebo||2.43|-15.46|0.229
90884541|NCT04086472|181631670|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.81||||0.363|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.58|3.96|||ANOVA|||Treatment vs. Placebo||3.96|-13.58|0.363
90884542|NCT04086472|181631670|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.92||||0.273|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.87|3.02|||ANOVA|||Treatment vs. Placebo||3.02|-14.87|0.273
90884543|NCT04086472|181631671|OTHER|Treatment vs. Placebo|Difference in percentage|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.57|37.78|||||95% CI based on the Chan and Zhang exact method|||37.78|-36.57|
90884544|NCT04086472|181631671|OTHER|Treatment vs. Placebo|Difference in percentage|-22.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.7|15.53|||||95% CI based on the Chan and Zhang exact method|||15.53|-56.70|
90884545|NCT04086472|181631671|OTHER|Treatment vs. Placebo|Difference in percentage|-17.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.09|20.01|||||95% CI based on the Chan and Zhang exact method|||20.01|-53.09|
90884546|NCT04086472|181631671|OTHER|Treatment vs. Placebo|Difference in percentage|-22.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.7|15.53|||||95% CI based on the Chan and Zhang exact method|Treatment vs. Placebo||15.53|-56.70|
90884547|NCT00436280|181631691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.512|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.217|1.206|||||Comparing GCB versus non-GCB|Comparing GCB versus non-GCB||1.206|0.217|
90884548|NCT00436280|181631692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.878|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.388|1.989|||||Comparing High Expression versus Low Expression|Comparing High Expression versus Low Expression||1.989|0.388|
90884549|NCT00048724|181631697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.452||||0.1439||95.0|0.88|2.396|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Age (\<= 50 years, \>50 years) and participation in a prior study (yes, no) were stratification factors.|Hazard ratio represents results of untreated control relative to treatment.|The primary scientific hypothesis is that, 0.5 ug/kg subcutaneous once weekly PegIntron as maintenance therapy is efficacious, when compared to no treatment, in the prevention of clinical events in adult subjects with compensated cirrhosis (Metavir F4), secondary to Chronic Hepatitis C, who have failed to respond to therapy with any α interferon plus ribavirin.||2.396|0.880|0.1439
90884550|NCT00048724|181631698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.564||||0.007||95.0|1.13|2.166|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Age (\<= 50 years, \>50 years) and participation in a prior study (yes, no) were stratification factors.|Hazard ratio represents results of untreated control relative to treatment.|The secondary hypothesis is that 0.5 ug/kg subcutaneous once weekly PegIntron as maintenance therapy is efficacious, when compared to no treatment, in the prevention of disease progression in adult subjects with compensated cirrhosis (Metavir F4), secondary to Chronic Hepatitis C, who have failed to respond to therapy with any α interferon plus ribavirin.||2.166|1.130|0.0070
90884551|NCT01532687|181631701|SUPERIORITY|Log-log plots revealed crossing of the curves at late time points, indicating a possible interaction between treatment arms over time. We used the Gehan-Wilcoxon test, which weights early differences between groups, to test whether there is a difference between the treatment arms early in the study.||||||0.017|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon|||Statistical results are for the full randomized population (n = 54). The study was originally designed with overall one-sided alpha of 5%, where a total of 73 patients (36 in the gemcitabine + placebo arm, and 37 in the gemcitabine + pazopanib arm) were required to achieve 80% power to detect a 2.5 month increase in median PFS (a hazard ratio of 0.55) between the two treatment arms. Study was closed early by the sponsor due to slow accrual and funds and thus was under powered.||||0.017
90884552|NCT01532687|181631701|OTHER|Log-log plots revealed crossing of the curves at late time points, indicating a possible interaction between treatment arms over time. We used the Gehan-Wilcoxon test, which weights early differences between groups, to test whether there is a difference between the treatment arms early in the study.||||||0.195|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon|||Comparison between the two arms for the liposarcoma subgroup||||0.195
90884553|NCT01532687|181631701|OTHER|Log-log plots revealed crossing of the curves at late time points, indicating a possible interaction between treatment arms over time. We used the Gehan-Wilcoxon test, which weights early differences between groups, to test whether there is a difference between the treatment arms early in the study.||||||0.079|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon|||Statistical results are for the 'other' sarcoma subgroup (n = 38)||||0.079
90884554|NCT01532687|181631703|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was not powered for secondary endpoints. Given the study closed early due to slow enrollment, we do not anticipate detecting a statistical difference between the two groups||||||0.5||||||Yate's continuity correction was applied because of the number of subjects and successes (n = 4)|One-sided Proportions Test|||Statistical results are for the full randomized population (n = 54). The study tests whether gemcitabine plus pazopanib is superior to gemcitabine plus placebo (one-sided proportion test with Yate's continuity correction)||||0.5
90884555|NCT01532687|181631703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3||||||Yate's continuity correction was applied because of small number of participants (n = 16) and successes (n = 2).|One-sided Proportion Test|||Statistical results are for the Liposarcoma group (n = 16). The study tests whether gemcitabine plus pazopanib is superior to gemcitabine plus placebo (one-sided proportion test with Yate's continuity correction). Analysis was not powered for the secondary endpoints. Given the study closed early due to slow enrollment we do not anticipate detecting a statistical difference between the groups.||||0.3
90884556|NCT01532687|181631703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8||||||Yate's continuity correction was applied because of the small number of participants and successes (n = 2).|One-sided Proportion Test|||Statistical results are for the Other Sarcoma group (n = 38). The study tests whether gemcitabine plus pazopanib is superior to gemcitabine plus placebo (one-sided proportion test with Yate's continuity correction). Analysis was not powered for secondary endpoints. Given the study closed early due to slow enrollment, we do not anticipate detecting a statistical difference between the two groups.||||0.8
90884557|NCT01532687|181631704|OTHER|Log-log plots revealed crossing of the curves at late time points, indicating a possible interaction between treatment arms over time. We used the Gehan-Wilcoxon test, which weights early differences between groups, to test whether there is a difference between the treatment arms early in the study.||||||0.481|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon|||Overall survival estimated among all randomized participants (n = 54)||||0.481
90924591|NCT03952338|181723670|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.16||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects multinomial logistic regression||Severe food insecurity||0.76|0.03|0.02
90924592|NCT03952338|181723671|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio, log|0.28||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|1.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects multinomial logistic regression||Marginal food insecurity||1.29|0.06|0.10
90924593|NCT03952338|181723671|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.68||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|2.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects multinomial logistic regression||Moderate food insecurity||2.21|0.21|0.52
90924594|NCT03952338|181723671|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.11||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects multinomial logistic regression||Severe food insecurity||0.56|0.02|0.01
90924595|NCT03952338|181723672|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.94||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|12.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects multinomial logistic regression||Medium malnutrition risk||12.66|0.68|0.15
90924596|NCT03952338|181723672|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.18||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|7.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects multinomial logistic regression||High malnutrition risk||7.13|0.20|0.86
90924597|NCT03952338|181723673|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.28||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|5.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects multinomial logistic regression||Medium malnutrition risk||5.38|0.31|0.74
90924598|NCT03952338|181723673|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|5.48||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|41.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects multinomial logistic regression||High malnutrition risk||41.3|0.73|0.10
90924599|NCT03952338|181723674|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.40|-0.65|0.64
90924600|NCT03952338|181723675|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.50|-0.57|0.90
90924601|NCT03952338|181723676|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.07||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.05|5.92||Males|Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.92|-14.05|0.43
90924602|NCT03952338|181723676|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.75|4.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Females||4.66|-3.75|0.83
90924603|NCT03952338|181723677|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.04||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.65|3.57||Age 18-59 years|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.57|-5.65|0.66
90924604|NCT03952338|181723677|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.28||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.36|10.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Age 60+ years||10.93|-4.36|0.40
90924605|NCT03952338|181723678|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.25||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.13|21.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Males||21.63|-9.13|0.43
90924606|NCT03952338|181723678|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.09||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.23|5.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Females||5.41|-3.23|0.62
90924607|NCT03952338|181723679|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.76|4.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||18-59 years||4.66|-4.76|0.99
90924608|NCT03952338|181723679|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.66||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.48|12.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||60+ years||12.80|-5.48|0.43
90924609|NCT01456949|181723686|SUPERIORITY||Kaplan-Meier (product-limit) estimator|66.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.6|71.7|||Exact binomial|Exact binomial p-value is shown, but the confidence intervals reported are calculated from Greenwood's approximation of the standard error.||||71.7|61.6|<0.001
90924610|NCT01456949|181723687|SUPERIORITY||Kaplan-Meier (product-limit) estimator|2.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|4.5|||Exact binomial|Exact binomial p-value is shown, but the confidence intervals reported are calculated from Greenwood's approximation of the standard error.||||4.5|1.1|<0.001
90924611|NCT01456949|181723688|OTHER|Secondary analyses were exploratory. No formal hypotheses or performance criteria were predefined.|||||||||||||||||Freedom from MAFE's was estimated using Kaplan-Meier methods.|||
90924612|NCT01456949|181723689|OTHER|Secondary analyses were exploratory. No formal hypotheses or performance criteria were predefined.|||||||||||||||||Chronic treatment success was estimated at one and two years using Kaplan-Meier methods.|||
90924613|NCT04753697|181723690|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Mean|-1.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.544||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.97|-0.84|||ANCOVA|||||-0.84|-2.97|0.0005
90924614|NCT04753697|181723691|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|26.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.6|32.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Imputed data is used in CMH test, which is stratified by Steroid Inadequate Responder/Intolerant status.||||32.2|20.6|<0.0001
90924615|NCT04753697|181723692|SUPERIORITY||DIFFERENCE IN RESPONSE RATE AFTER MI(%)|18.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.3|25.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Imputed data is used in CMH test, which is stratified by Steroid Inadequate Responder/Intolerant status.||||25.5|11.3|<0.0001
90924616|NCT04753697|181723692|SUPERIORITY||DIFFERENCE IN RESPONSE RATE AFTER MI(%)|17.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.1|24.0||Imputed data is used in CMH test, which is stratified by Steroid Inadequate Responder/Intolerant status.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||24.0|10.1|<0.0001
90924617|NCT04753697|181723693|SUPERIORITY||DIFFERENCE IN RESPONSE RATE AFTER MI (%)|40.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.3|46.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Imputed data is used in CMH test, which is stratified by Steroid Inadequate Responder/Intolerant status||||46.7|33.3|<0.0001
90924618|NCT04753697|181723694|SUPERIORITY||DIFFERENCE IN RESPONSE RATE AFTER MI (%)|25.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.8|33.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Imputed data is used for all in CMH test, which is stratified by Steroid Inadequate Responder/Intolerant status.||||33.6|17.8|<0.0001
90924619|NCT04753697|181723694|SUPERIORITY||DIFFERENCE IN RESPONSE RATE AFTER MI (%)|27.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.7|35.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Imputed data is used for all in CMH test, which is stratified by Steroid Inadequate Responder/Intolerant status.||||35.7|19.7|<0.0001
90924620|NCT04753697|181723695|SUPERIORITY||DIFFERENCE IN LSM|-2.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.655||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.55|-0.98|||ANCOVA|||||-0.98|-3.55|0.0006
90924621|NCT04753697|181723695|SUPERIORITY||DIFFERENCE IN LSM|-2.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.657||0.0002||95.0|-3.78|-1.2|||ANCOVA|||||-1.20|-3.78|0.0002
90924622|NCT04753697|181723696|SUPERIORITY||DIFFERENCE IN LSM|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|-3.2|||ANCOVA|||||-3.2|-4.8|<0.0001
90924623|NCT04753697|181723697|SUPERIORITY||DIFFERENCE IN LSM|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|-2.4|||ANCOVA|||||-2.4|-4.5|<0.0001
90924624|NCT04753697|181723697|SUPERIORITY||DIFFERENCE IN LSM|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|-2.1|||ANCOVA|||||-2.1|-4.1|<0.0001
90924625|NCT04753697|181723698|SUPERIORITY||DIFFERENCE IN LSM|-22.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.528|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.5|-19.51|||ANCOVA|||||-19.51|-25.50|<0.0001
90924626|NCT04753697|181723699|SUPERIORITY||DIFFERENCE IN LSM|-18.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.85|-14.4|||ANCOVA|||||-14.40|-21.85|<0.0001
90924627|NCT04753697|181723699|SUPERIORITY||DIFFERENCE IN LSM|-19.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.88|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.9|-15.53|||ANCOVA|||||-15.53|-22.90|<0.0001
90924628|NCT04753697|181723700|SUPERIORITY||DIFFERENCE IN LSM|-25.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.793|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.92|-21.89|||ANCOVA|||||-21.89|-28.92|<0.0001
90924629|NCT04753697|181723701|SUPERIORITY||DIFFERENCE IN LSM|-20.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.229|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.17|-18.91|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-18.91|-25.17|<0.0001
90924630|NCT04753697|181723701|SUPERIORITY||DIFFERENCE IN LSM|-23.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.222|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.73|-21.56|||ANCOVA|||||-21.56|-27.73|<0.0001
90924631|NCT04753697|181723702|SUPERIORITY||DIFFERENCE IN LSM|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.174||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|-1.8|||ANCOVA|||||-1.80|-6.40|0.0005
90924632|NCT04753697|181723703|SUPERIORITY||DIFFERENCE IN LSM|-4.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.42||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.14|-1.57|||ANCOVA|||||-1.57|-7.14|0.0022
90924633|NCT04753697|181723703|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.425||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|-2.41|||ANCOVA|||||-2.41|-8.00|0.0003
90924634|NCT04753697|181723704|SUPERIORITY||DIFFERENCE IN RESPONSE RATE AFTER MI (%)|16.9||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.7|27.2|||ANCOVA|||||27.2|6.7|0.0016
90924635|NCT01658930|181723723|NON_INFERIORITY|Margin of inferiority in the difference of 3 year pelvic recurrence rates between simple and radical hysterectomy group was 4%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0035|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0162|0.0232|||||Difference between simple and radical hysterectomy groups.|||0.0232|-0.0162|
90924636|NCT01658930|181723724|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|2.67|||||Hazard ratio of simple to radical hysterectomy.|||2.67|0.47|
90924637|NCT01658930|181723725|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|18.4|||||Hazard ratio is simple hysterectomy group of radical hysterectomy group.|||18.4|0.79|
90924638|NCT01658930|181723726|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|3.45|||||Hazard ratio is simple hysterectomy group to radical hysterectomy group.|||3.45|0.69|
90924639|NCT01658930|181723727|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|3.14|||||Hazard ratio of simple to radical hysterectomy.|||3.14|0.38|
90924640|NCT05446168|181723794|OTHER|A comparison is not being made between two different treatment groups. Exploratory analysis|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.05||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|-0.03||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|t = -4.05, df = 7||||-0.03|-0.12|0.005
90924641|NCT05446168|181723795|OTHER|A comparison is not being made between two different treatment groups. Exploratory analysis.|Mean Difference (Net)|4.33|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.81||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.81|12.47||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|t = 1.17, df = 11||||12.47|-3.81|0.27
90924642|NCT01828099|181723796|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.73|||Log Rank|||||0.73|0.42|<0.001
90924643|NCT05875467|181723822|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.042|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.042
90924644|NCT05875467|181723823|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.928|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.928
90924645|NCT05875467|181723824|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.022
90924646|NCT05875467|181723825|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.004
90924647|NCT06473662|181723841|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0039
90924648|NCT06473662|181723842|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.8||||0.0166|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0166
90924649|NCT06473662|181723844|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.13||||0.0474|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0474
90924650|NCT02398656|181723845|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.04||||||||1.04|0.88|
90924651|NCT05764525|181723864|SUPERIORITY||Difference of least squares mean|6.938||||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.145|11.731|||ANOVA|||||11.731|2.145|0.0047
90924652|NCT05907174|181723922|SUPERIORITY||B|-2.23||||0.023|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.023
90924653|NCT05093842|181723939|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
90924654|NCT05093842|181723940|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
90924655|NCT05093842|181723941|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
90924656|NCT05093842|181723942|OTHER|Descriptive rates were calculated.|||||||||||||||||Descriptive statistics only|||
90924657|NCT05093842|181723943|OTHER|Descriptive statistics only|||||||||||||||||Descriptive statistics only|||
90924658|NCT05093842|181723944|OTHER|Descriptive statistics only|||||||||||||||||Descriptive statistics only|||
90924659|NCT05093842|181723945|OTHER|Descriptive statistics only|||||||||||||||||Descriptive statistics only|||
90963738|NCT04908189|181808967|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.0738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.0|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 16 Self-Care||0.0|-0.2|0.0738
90884558|NCT01532687|181631704|OTHER|Log-log plots revealed crossing of the curves at late time points, indicating a possible interaction between treatment arms over time. We used the Gehan-Wilcoxon test, which weights early differences between groups, to test whether there is a difference between the treatment arms early in the study.||||||0.353|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon|||Overall survival compared between the two arms for the liposarcoma subgroup (n = 16)||||0.353
90884559|NCT01532687|181631704|OTHER|Log-log plots revealed crossing of the curves at late time points, indicating a possible interaction between treatment arms over time. We used the Gehan-Wilcoxon test, which weights early differences between groups, to test whether there is a difference between the treatment arms early in the study.||||||0.408|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon|||Overall survival comparison between the two treatment arms for the other sarcoma group (n = 38)||||0.408
90884560|NCT04116229|181631714|EQUIVALENCE|"Alternative hypothesis: people with normal-weight BMI have lower DBSI restricted fraction, or putative cellularity, than people with obesity.~Null hypothesis: DBSI restricted fraction, or putative cellularity, is not different between normal-weight and obese groups."|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: p \< 0.05|Independent-Samples Median Test|||This is a pilot study with a small sample. Power to detect significant results is therefore low in the current study.||||0.28
90884561|NCT04116229|181631714|EQUIVALENCE|"Alternative hypothesis: people with normal-weight BMI have lower DBSI hindered fraction, or putative vasogenic edema, than people with obesity.~Null hypothesis: DBSI hindered fraction, or putative vasogenic edema, is not different between normal-weight and obese groups."|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: p \< 0.05|Independent-Samples Median Test|||This is a pilot study with a small sample. Power to detect significant results is therefore low in the current study.||||0.03
90884562|NCT04116229|181631715|OTHER|"Alternative hypothesis: Worse crystallized cognitive function will relate to greater putative vasogenic edema (DBSI HF) in white matter tracts.~Null hypothesis: Crystallized cogntive function is not related to DBSI HF."|Slope|-0.69||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: p \< 0.05|Regression, Linear|||This is a pilot study with a small sample. Power to detect significant results is therefore low in the current study. Analyses performed across normal-weight and obese groups.||||0.01
90884563|NCT04116229|181631715|OTHER|"Alternative hypothesis: Worse fluid cognitive function will relate to greater putative vasogenic edema (DBSI HF) in white matter tracts.~Null hypothesis: Fluid cogntive function is not related to DBSI HF."|Slope|0.52||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: p \< 0.05|Regression, Linear|||This is a pilot study with a small sample. Power to detect significant results is therefore low in the current study. Analyses performed across normal-weight and obese groups.||||0.10
90884564|NCT04116229|181631715|OTHER|"Alternative hypothesis: Worse crystallized cognitive function will relate to greater putative cellularity (DBSI RF) in white matter tracts.~Null hypothesis: Crystallized cognitive function is not related to DBSI RF."|Slope|-0.45||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: p \< 0.05|Regression, Linear|||This is a pilot study with a small sample. Power to detect significant results is therefore low in the current study. Analyses performed across normal-weight and obese groups.||||0.01
90884565|NCT04116229|181631715|OTHER|"Alternative hypothesis: Worse fluid cognitive function will relate to greater putative cellularity (DBSI RF) in white matter tracts.~Null hypothesis: Fluid cognitive function is not related to DBSI RF."|Slope|0.22||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: p \< 0.05|Regression, Linear|||This is a pilot study with a small sample. Power to detect significant results is therefore low in the current study. Analyses performed across normal-weight and obese groups.||||0.10
90884566|NCT04116229|181631716|OTHER|"Alternative hypothesis: higher levels of insulin, a pro-inflammatory marker, will relate to higher levels of putative neuroinflammation in white matter tracts as measured by DBSI restricted fraction after controlling for BMI.~Null hypothesis: Insulin levels will not be related to DBSI RF in white matter tracts after controlling for BMI."|Slope|-0.18|||>|0.46|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: p \< 0.05|Regression, Linear|||"This is a pilot study with a small sample. Power to detect significant results is therefore low in the current study.~Analyses performed across normal-weight and obese groups."||||>0.46
90924660|NCT03910478|181723952|EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided Wald-test for evidence of a non-zero coefficient for intervention group in the regression was conducted at the 5% significance level.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.948||||0.892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.438|2.053|||Regression, Logistic|The logistic regression was adjusted by covariates (transplant site and participant's perceived ease of access to blood draw facility).||A traditional logistic regression model was fit where the outcome was whether or not participants completed \> 90% of their clinician-recommended CMV monitoring tests in the study period by 1-year after HCT.||2.053|0.438|0.8920
90963739|NCT04908189|181808967|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.6176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 4 Usual Activities||0.1|-0.1|0.6176
90884567|NCT04116229|181631716|OTHER|"Alternative hypothesis: higher levels of insulin, a pro-inflammatory marker, will relate to higher levels of putative neuroinflammation in white matter tracts as measured by DBSI hindered fraction after controlling for BMI.~Null hypothesis: Insulin levels will not be related to DBSI HF in white matter tracts after controlling for BMI."|Slope|-0.22|||>|0.5|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: p \< 0.05|Regression, Linear|||"This is a pilot study with a small sample. Power to detect significant results is therefore low in the current study.~Analyses performed across normal-weight and obese groups."||||>0.5
90884568|NCT04116229|181631717|OTHER|"Alternative hypothesis: higher levels of leptin, a pro-inflammatory marker and satiety hormone, will relate to higher levels of putative neuroinflammation in white matter tracts as measured by DBSI restricted fraction after controlling for BMI.~Null hypothesis: Leptin levels will not be related to DBSI RF in white matter tracts after controlling for BMI."|Slope|0.15||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: p \< 0.05|Regression, Linear|||"This is a pilot study with a small sample. Power to detect significant results is therefore low in the current study.~Analyses performed across normal-weight and obese groups."||||0.62
90884569|NCT04116229|181631717|OTHER|"Alternative hypothesis: higher levels of leptin, a pro-inflammatory marker and satiety hormone, will relate to higher levels of putative neuroinflammation in white matter tracts as measured by DBSI hindered fraction after controlling for BMI.~Null hypothesis: Leptin levels will not be related to DBSI HF in white matter tracts after controlling for BMI."|Slope|-0.07||||0.82|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||"This is a pilot study with a small sample. Power to detect significant results is therefore low in the current study.~Analyses performed across normal-weight and obese groups."||||0.82
90924661|NCT03910478|181723953|EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided Wald-test for evidence of a non-zero coefficient for intervention group in the regression was conducted at the 5% significance level.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.66||||0.3008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.301|1.45|||Regression, Logistic|The logistic regression was adjusted by covariates (transplant site and participant's perceived ease of access to blood draw facility).||A traditional logistic regression model was fit where the outcome was whether or not participants completed \> 90% of their clinician -recommended CMV monitoring tests in the study period by 1-year after HCT.||1.450|0.301|0.3008
90924662|NCT04800211|181724021|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-178.789|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-204.899|-152.678|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)||-152.678|-204.899|<.0001
90940700|NCT01723514|181761248|SUPERIORITY||LS Geometric Mean Ratio|-87.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-94.53|-71.88|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Day 8: A repeated measures ANCOVA was performed for the ratio of blood flow measures at 30 minutes post capsaicin challenge to pre capsaicin challenge. The model included treatment, day, and the treatment by day interaction as independent variables, and both the 0 minute pre-capsaicin blood flow measure as well as the day 0, 30-minute post-capsaicin blood flow measures on day -1 .||-71.88|-94.53|< 0.001
90963740|NCT04908189|181808967|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.1544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.0|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 16 Usual Activities||0.0|-0.2|0.1544
90884570|NCT04116229|181631718|OTHER|"Alternative hypothesis: higher levels of ghrelin, an anti-inflammatory marker and hunger hormone, will relate to lower levels of putative neuroinflammation in white matter tracts as measured by DBSI restricted fraction after controlling for BMI.~Null hypothesis: Ghrelin levels will not be related to DBSI RF in white matter tracts after controlling for BMI."|Slope|0.19||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: p \< 0.05|Regression, Linear|||"This is a pilot study with a small sample. Power to detect significant results is therefore low in the current study.~Analyses performed across normal-weight and obese groups."||||0.53
90884571|NCT04116229|181631718|OTHER|"Alternative hypothesis: higher levels of ghrelin, an anti-inflammatory marker and hunger hormone, will relate to lower levels of putative neuroinflammation in white matter tracts as measured by DBSI hindered fraction after controlling for BMI.~Null hypothesis: Ghrelin levels will not be related to DBSI HF in white matter tracts after controlling for BMI."|Slope|-0.12||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: p \< 0.05|Regression, Linear|||"This is a pilot study with a small sample. Power to detect significant results is therefore low in the current study.~Analyses performed across normal-weight and obese groups."||||0.71
90884572|NCT04116229|181631719|OTHER|"Alternative hypothesis: greater HOMA-IR, where higher HOMA-IR indicates greater insulin resistance, will relate to higher levels of putative neuroinflammation in white matter tracts as measured by DBSI restricted fraction after controlling for BMI.~Null hypothesis: HOMA-IR levels will not be related to DBSI RF in white matter tracts after controlling for BMI."|Slope|-0.19||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: p \< 0.05|Regression, Linear|||"This is a pilot study with a small sample. Power to detect significant results is therefore low in the current study.~Analyses performed across normal-weight and obese groups."||||0.53
90884573|NCT04116229|181631719|OTHER|"Alternative hypothesis: greater HOMA-IR, where higher HOMA-IR indicates greater insulin resistance, will relate to higher levels of putative neuroinflammation in white matter tracts as measured by DBSI hindered fraction after controlling for BMI.~Null hypothesis: HOMA-IR levels will not be related to DBSI HF in white matter tracts after controlling for BMI."|Slope|-0.21||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||"This is a pilot study with a small sample. Power to detect significant results is therefore low in the current study.~Analyses performed across normal-weight and obese groups."||||0.5
90884574|NCT04116229|181631720|OTHER|"Alternative hypothesis: higher levels of IL-10, an anti-inflammatory marker, will relate to lower levels of putative neuroinflammation in white matter tracts as measured by DBSI restricted fraction after controlling for BMI.~Null hypothesis: IL-10 levels will not be related to DBSI RF in white matter tracts after controlling for BMI."|Slope|0.5||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: p \< 0.05|Regression, Linear|||This is a pilot study with a small sample. Power to detect significant results is therefore low in the current study. Analyses performed across normal-weight and obese groups.||||0.09
90884575|NCT04116229|181631720|OTHER|"Alternative hypothesis: higher levels of IL-10, an anti-inflammatory marker, will relate to lower levels of putative neuroinflammation in white matter tracts as measured by DBSI hindered fraction after controlling for BMI.~Null hypothesis: IL-10 levels will not be related to DBSI HF in white matter tracts after controlling for BMI."|Slope|-0.2||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: p \< 0.05|Regression, Linear|||This is a pilot study with a small sample. Power to detect significant results is therefore low in the current study. Analyses performed across normal-weight and obese groups.||||0.45
90884576|NCT04116229|181631721|OTHER|"Alternative hypothesis: higher levels of adiponectin, an anti-inflammatory marker, will relate to lower levels of putative neuroinflammation in white matter tracts as measured by DBSI restricted fraction after controlling for BMI.~Null hypothesis: Adiponectin levels will not be related to DBSI RF in white matter tracts after controlling for BMI."|Slope|0.38||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: p \< 0.05|Regression, Linear|||This is a pilot study with a small sample. Power to detect significant results is therefore low in the current study. Analyses performed across normal-weight and obese groups.||||0.19
90884577|NCT04116229|181631721|OTHER|"Alternative hypothesis: higher levels of adiponectin, an anti-inflammatory marker, will relate to lower levels of putative neuroinflammation in white matter tracts as measured by DBSI hindered fraction after controlling for BMI.~Null hypothesis: Adiponectin levels will not be related to DBSI HF in white matter tracts after controlling for BMI."|Slope|-0.2||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: p \< 0.05|Regression, Linear|||"This is a pilot study with a small sample. Power to detect significant results is therefore low in the current study.~Analyses performed across normal-weight and obese groups."||||0.52
91034700|NCT00913627|181955176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|2.02||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||24 hours||2.02|0.61|<0.001
90924663|NCT04800211|181724021|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-184.391|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-211.184|-157.598|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||-157.598|-211.184|<.0001
90924664|NCT04800211|181724021|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-175.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-200.964|-149.237|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)||-149.237|-200.964|<.0001
90924665|NCT04800211|181724021|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-161.576|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-187.543|-135.609|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||-135.609|-187.543|<.0001
90924666|NCT04800211|181724021|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-172.983|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-192.08|-153.886|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||-153.886|-192.080|<.0001
90924667|NCT04800211|181724021|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.585||||0.7781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.572|21.401|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)||21.401|-28.572|0.7781
90940701|NCT01723514|181761248|SUPERIORITY||LS Geometric Mean Rratio|-79.81||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-91.44|-52.37|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Day 57: A repeated measures ANCOVA was performed for the ratio of blood flow measures at 30 minutes post capsaicin challenge to pre capsaicin challenge. The model included treatment, day, and the treatment by day interaction as independent variables, and both the 0 minute pre-capsaicin blood flow measure as well as the day 0, 30-minute post-capsaicin blood flow measures on day -1 .||-52.37|-91.44|0.001
90963741|NCT04908189|181808967|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.4707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 4 Pain/Discomfort||0.1|-0.2|0.4707
91034701|NCT00913627|181955177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.52||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.91||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||15 minutes||0.91|0.12|0.011
91034702|NCT00913627|181955177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.83||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||15 minutes||0.83|0.05|0.028
90963742|NCT04908189|181808967|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.0114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.0|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 16 Pain/Discomfort||0.0|-0.3|0.0114
90963743|NCT04908189|181808967|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.6594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 4 Anxiety/Depression||0.1|-0.1|0.6594
90963744|NCT04908189|181808967|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.7123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 16 Anxiety/Depression||0.1|-0.1|0.7123
90963745|NCT04908189|181808968|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.498||0.9834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.97|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 4||0.97|-0.99|0.9834
90963746|NCT04908189|181808968|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.565||0.6099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|0.82|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 12||0.82|-1.39|0.6099
90963747|NCT04908189|181808968|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.538||0.2205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|0.4|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 16||0.40|-1.71|0.2205
90963748|NCT00607022|181809001|OTHER|Kruskal-Wallis values between each loading group and for Wilcoxon Signed Rank for measures on the mesial vs buccal side of the implant.|||||>|0.05||||||0.0501 \< p \< 0.9797|Kruskal-Wallis|Kruskal-Wallis test evaluated ISQ at each time point..||Comparison between loading groups at 16 weeks - loading at baseline, Loading at 6 weeks, and loading at 12 weeks. Scores for all groups were compared at 16 weeks from implant placement..||||>0.05
90884578|NCT04116229|181631722|OTHER|"Alternative hypothesis: higher levels of TNF-alpha, a pro-inflammatory marker, will relate to higher levels of putative neuroinflammation in white matter tracts as measured by DBSI restricted fraction after controlling for BMI.~Null hypothesis: TNF-alpha levels will not be related to DBSI RF in white matter tracts after controlling for BMI."|Slope|-0.05||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: p \< 0.05|Regression, Linear|||"This is a pilot study with a small sample. Power to detect significant results is therefore low in the current study.~Analyses performed across normal-weight and obese groups."||||0.90
90963749|NCT03622619|181809030|OTHER|||||||0.65|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.65
90963750|NCT03622619|181809031|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.014
90963751|NCT03622619|181809032|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.055|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.055
90963752|NCT03622619|181809033|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Burning/stinging||||||0.90
90963753|NCT03622619|181809033|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Grittiness/foreign body sensation||||||0.30
90963754|NCT03622619|181809033|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66||||||Dryness|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.66
90963755|NCT03622619|181809033|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14||||||Blurred vision|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.14
90963756|NCT03622619|181809033|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3||||||Overall discomfort|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.30
90963757|NCT03610165|181809041|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.04|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.04|-0.03|0.757
90963758|NCT03610165|181809042|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|7.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||7|-12|0.715
90963759|NCT03610165|181809043|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|1.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1|-3.3|0.328
90963760|NCT03610165|181809044|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|0.011|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.011|-0.001|0.376
90963761|NCT03610165|181809045|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0|0|0.226
90963762|NCT03610165|181809046|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|2.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||2.00|-0.67|0.610
90963763|NCT03610165|181809047|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0|0|0.302
90963764|NCT03610165|181809048|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.67|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.67|-0.67|0.889
90963765|NCT03610165|181809049|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0|0|0.403
90963766|NCT01554488|181809050|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.03|2.92||||||All of the comparisons were based on mixed effects linear regression models with visit and group\*visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect. Confidence intervals for the treatment difference (group\*visit interaction) were constructed using the Wald method.||2.92|-5.03|
90963767|NCT04223791|181809059|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is concluded if the upper bound of the 2-sided multiplicity-adjusted 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA ≥50 copies/mL (DOR/ISL-BIC/FTC/TAF) is less than 4 percentage points.|Estimated difference|0.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|1.96||p-value for the treatment differences in percent response were calculated using the unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen||Treatment difference for DOR/ISL group-BIC/FTC/TAF group.|||1.96|-1.19|<.001
90963768|NCT04223791|181809060|OTHER|Difference between treatment groups|Difference in % (DOR/ISL- BIC/FTC/TAF)|-3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|3.4|||||Based on Miettinen and Nurminen method|||3.4|-10.4|
90963769|NCT04223791|181809061|OTHER|Difference between treatment groups|Difference in % (DOR/ISL- BIC/FTC/TAF)|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|2.6|||||Based on Miettinen and Nurminen method|||2.6|-2.7|
90963770|NCT04223791|181809074|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.3||||0.392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.39|||ANCOVA|Model included terms for baseline weight, sex, race, and treatment.|Treatment difference for DOR/ISL group-BIC/FTC/TAF group.|||0.39|-0.99|0.392
90963771|NCT00789867|181809079|OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0002
90963772|NCT00789867|181809080|OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.22
90963773|NCT00789867|181809081|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.06
90963774|NCT00789867|181809082|OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.08
90924668|NCT04800211|181724021|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-7.764||||0.5457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.993|17.465|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||17.465|-32.993|0.5457
90940702|NCT01723514|181761248|SUPERIORITY||LS Geometric Mean Ratio|-83.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-92.79|-62.95|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Day 57: A repeated measures ANCOVA was performed for the ratio of blood flow measures at 30 minutes post capsaicin challenge to pre capsaicin challenge. The model included treatment, day, and the treatment by day interaction as independent variables, and both the 0 minute pre-capsaicin blood flow measure as well as the day 0, 30-minute post-capsaicin blood flow measures on day -1 .||-62.95|-92.79|< 0.001
90884579|NCT04116229|181631722|OTHER|"Alternative hypothesis: higher levels of TNF-alpha, a pro-inflammatory marker, will relate to higher levels of putative neuroinflammation in white matter tracts as measured by DBSI hindered fraction after controlling for BMI.~Null hypothesis: TNF-alpha levels will not be related to DBSI HF in white matter tracts after controlling for BMI."|Slope|0.04||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: p \< 0.05|Regression, Linear|||"This is a pilot study with a small sample. Power to detect significant results is therefore low in the current study.~Analyses performed across normal-weight and obese groups."||||0.87
90884580|NCT04116229|181631723|OTHER|"Alternative hypothesis: higher levels of MCP-1, a pro-inflammatory marker, will relate to higher levels of putative neuroinflammation in white matter tracts as measured by DBSI restricted fraction after controlling for BMI.~Null hypothesis: MCP-1 levels will not be related to DBSI RF in white matter tracts after controlling for BMI."|Slope|0.34||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: p \< 0.05|Regression, Linear|||This is a pilot study with a small sample. Power to detect significant results is therefore low in the current study. Analyses performed across normal-weight and obese groups.||||0.26
90884581|NCT04116229|181631723|OTHER|"Alternative hypothesis: higher levels of MCP-1, a pro-inflammatory marker, will relate to higher levels of putative neuroinflammation in white matter tracts as measured by DBSI hindered fraction after controlling for BMI.~Null hypothesis: MCP-1 levels will not be related to DBSI HF in white matter tracts after controlling for BMI."|Slope|0.12||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: p \< 0.05|Regression, Linear|||"This is a pilot study with a small sample. Power to detect significant results is therefore low in the current study.~Analyses performed across normal-weight and obese groups."||||0.71
90884582|NCT04116229|181631724|OTHER|"Alternative hypothesis: higher levels of CRP, a pro-inflammatory marker, will relate to higher levels of putative neuroinflammation in white matter tracts as measured by DBSI restricted fraction after controlling for BMI.~Null hypothesis: CRP levels will not be related to DBSI RF in white matter tracts after controlling for BMI."|Slope|0.19||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: p \< 0.05|Regression, Linear|||This is a pilot study with a small sample. Power to detect significant results is therefore low in the current study. Analyses performed across normal-weight and obese groups.||||0.54
90884583|NCT04116229|181631724|OTHER|"Alternative hypothesis: higher levels of CRP, a pro-inflammatory marker, will relate to higher levels of putative neuroinflammation in white matter tracts as measured by DBSI hindered fraction after controlling for BMI.~Null hypothesis: CRP levels will not be related to DBSI HF in white matter tracts after controlling for BMI."|Slope|0.09||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: p \< 0.05|Regression, Linear|||"This is a pilot study with a small sample. Power to detect significant results is therefore low in the current study.~Analyses performed across normal-weight and obese groups."||||0.77
90884584|NCT02595684|181631725|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.327|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.327
90884585|NCT02595684|181631725|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.635|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.635
90884586|NCT02595684|181631726|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.380
90884587|NCT02595684|181631726|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.441|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.441
90884588|NCT02595684|181631727|SUPERIORITY|||||||515|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0515
90884589|NCT02595684|181631727|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.953|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.953
90884590|NCT02595684|181631728|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.314|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.314
90884591|NCT02595684|181631728|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.594|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.594
90884592|NCT02595684|181631729|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.767|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.767
90884593|NCT02595684|181631729|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.779|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.779
90884594|NCT02595684|181631730|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.859|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.859
90884595|NCT02595684|181631730|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.767|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.767
90884596|NCT02595684|181631731|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.374|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.374
90884597|NCT02595684|181631731|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.953|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.953
90884598|NCT02595684|181631732|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.594|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.594
90884599|NCT02595684|181631732|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.085|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.085
90884600|NCT02595684|181631733|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.594|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.594
90884601|NCT02595684|181631733|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.086|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.086
90884602|NCT02595684|181631734|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.285|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.285
90884603|NCT02595684|181631734|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.854|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.854
90884604|NCT02595684|181631735|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.374|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.374
90884605|NCT02595684|181631735|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.263|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.263
90884606|NCT02595684|181631736|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.859|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.859
90884607|NCT02595684|181631736|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.374|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.374
90884608|NCT02595684|181631737|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.722|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.722
90884609|NCT02595684|181631737|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.953|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.953
90884610|NCT02595684|181631738|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.260
90963775|NCT00789867|181809083|OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.22
90963776|NCT00789867|181809084|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.003
90963777|NCT00594516|181809085|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin of (-2, 2). A prespecified equivalence margin of (-2,2) was used for equivalence analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||||95.0|-0.09|0.28||||||Comparison of Tapentadol IR to ER analysis of variance model with factors for treatment, double blind cross-over period and subject.||0.28|-0.09|
90963778|NCT01493557|181809090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.31||||0.2554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.54|29.49|||Fisher Exact||Exact 95% Confidence interval (CI) and the difference between the two strategies were calculated using the Clopper Pearson approach.|Evaluation of GIS was based on Last observation carried forward (LOCF) data up to the last observed time or up to adding the second management strategy.||29.49|-6.54|0.2554
90963779|NCT01493557|181809091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.1||||0.3165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.24|24.58|||Fisher Exact||Exact 95% Confidence interval (CI) and the difference between the two strategies were calculated using the Clopper Pearson approach.|Evaluation of GIS was based on Last observation carried forward (LOCF) data up to the last observed time or up to adding the second management strategy.||24.58|-11.24|0.3165
90963780|NCT01493557|181809092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.41||||0.0273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|35.98|||Fisher Exact||Exact 95% Confidence interval (CI) and the difference between the two strategies were calculated using the Clopper Pearson approach.|Evaluation of GIS was based on Last observation carried forward (LOCF) data up to the last observed time or up to adding the second management strategy.||35.98|0.71|0.0273
91034703|NCT00913627|181955177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.39||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.78||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||15 minutes||0.78|0.00|0.048
91034704|NCT00913627|181955177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.96||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||30 minutes||1.96|0.69|<0.001
90963781|NCT01493557|181809093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.52||||0.7104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.22|28.4|||Fisher Exact||Exact 95% Confidence interval (CI) and the difference between the two strategies were calculated using the Clopper Pearson approach.|Evaluation of GIS was based on Last observation carried forward (LOCF) data up to the last observed time or up to adding the second management strategy.||28.40|-44.22|0.7104
90884611|NCT02595684|181631738|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.314|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.314
90963782|NCT01493557|181809094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.81||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.94|40.44|||Fisher Exact||Exact 95% Confidence interval (CI) and the difference between the two strategies were calculated using the Clopper Pearson approach.|Evaluation of GIS was based on Last observation carried forward (LOCF) data up to the last observed time or up to adding the second management strategy.||40.44|-32.94|1.0000
90963783|NCT01493557|181809095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.71||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.25|28.77|||Fisher Exact||Exact 95% Confidence interval (CI) and the difference between the two strategies were calculated using the Clopper Pearson approach.|Evaluation of GIS was based on Last observation carried forward (LOCF) data up to the last observed time or up to adding the second management strategy.||28.77|-41.25|1.0000
91034705|NCT00913627|181955177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.71||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||30 minutes||1.71|0.45|<0.001
91034706|NCT00913627|181955177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.01||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.63||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||30 minutes||1.63|0.38|0.002
91034707|NCT00913627|181955177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|3.06||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||45 minutes||3.06|1.46|<0.001
90884612|NCT02595684|181631739|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.058|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.058
90884613|NCT02595684|181631739|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.952|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.952
90884614|NCT02595684|181631740|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.128|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.128
90884615|NCT02595684|181631740|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.108|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.108
90884616|NCT02595684|181631741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.092|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.092
90884617|NCT02595684|181631741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.374|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.374
90884618|NCT02809976|181631742|OTHER|single group/descriptive analysis||||||0.02|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.02
90884619|NCT02732847|181631749|OTHER|Chi square tests used to compared groups||||||0.924||||||A p-value of \< 0.05 was considered|Chi-squared|||||||0.924
90884620|NCT01163682|181631750|NON_INFERIORITY|"This tests determined the odds of an increase of greater than or equal to 2 points on the BPI-SF worst pain score, from baseline to 16 weeks, among those in the intervention arm (electo-acupuncture), compared to those in the control arm (sham acupuncture). This change was considered to be clinically meaningful.~Null Hypothesis: electro-acupucture does not prevent taxane-induced peripheral neuropathy"|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.5|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.50|0.90|0.25
90884621|NCT01163682|181631751|NON_INFERIORITY|This tests determined the odds of an increase of greater than or equal to 5 points on the FACT-NTX scale, from baseline to 16 weeks, among those in the intervention arm (electo-acupuncture), compared to those in the control arm (sham acupuncture). This change was considered to be clinically meaningful.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.62|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.62|0.97|0.09
90884622|NCT01034397|181631752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||Wrist region: Tocilizumab versus placebo; Since one-sided t-test was used all effects in the opposite direction of what was predicted have a p-value=1.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||1.00
90884623|NCT01034397|181631752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026||||||2nd and 5th MCP joints: Tocilizumab versus placebo|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.026
90884624|NCT01034397|181631752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||Total synovitis score: Tocilizumab versus placebo; Since one-sided t-test was used all effects in the opposite direction of what was predicted have a p-value=1.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||1.00
90884625|NCT01034397|181631753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.421||||||Percentage Change in OMERACT RAMRIS global score; Tocilizumab versus placebo.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.421
90884626|NCT01034397|181631754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.434||||||Absolute change in OMERACT RAMRIS global score; Placebo versus Tocilizumab|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.434
90924669|NCT04800211|181724021|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-175.203|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-220.445|-129.961|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)||-129.961|-220.445|<.0001
90924670|NCT04800211|181724021|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-176.627|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-222.672|-130.582|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||-130.582|-222.672|<.0001
90924671|NCT04800211|181724021|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-171.515|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-216.626|-126.404|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)||-126.404|-216.626|<.0001
90924672|NCT04800211|181724021|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-153.812|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-199.27|-108.354|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||-108.354|-199.270|<.0001
90924673|NCT04800211|181724021|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-165.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-195.898|-134.541|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||-134.541|-195.898|<.0001
90924674|NCT04800211|181724021|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 1 is equal to Test 2 on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Test 2 on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-22.815||||0.2188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.223|13.593|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 1 is equal to Test 2 on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Test 2 on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||13.593|-59.223|0.2188
90924675|NCT04800211|181724022|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-248.311|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-286.423|-210.199|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-210.199|-286.423|<.0001
91034708|NCT00913627|181955177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|2.82||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||45 minutes||2.82|1.24|<0.001
91034709|NCT00913627|181955177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|2.31||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||45 minutes||2.31|0.74|<0.001
90924676|NCT04800211|181724022|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-247.572|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-280.904|-214.241|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-214.241|-280.904|<.0001
90924677|NCT04800211|181724022|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-245.868|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-284.945|-206.791|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-206.791|-284.945|<.0001
90924678|NCT04800211|181724022|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-234.942|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-271.603|-198.282|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-198.282|-271.603|<.0001
90924679|NCT04800211|181724022|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-244.049|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-275.269|-212.829|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-212.829|-275.269|<.0001
90924680|NCT04800211|181724022|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-221.385|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-258.371|-184.398|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-184.398|-258.371|<.0001
90924681|NCT04800211|181724022|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-233.626|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-261.113|-206.14|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-206.140|-261.113|<.0001
90963784|NCT01493557|181809099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|8.9|||||Mean difference = (Mean number of days for Pradaxa w/meal) - (Mean number of days for pantoprazole).|Mean difference for the Duration of gastrointestinal symptoms (GIS).||8.9|-9.9|
90924682|NCT04800211|181724022|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|26.266||||0.1672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.13|63.661|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||63.661|-11.130|0.1672
90924683|NCT04800211|181724022|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-40.051||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.881|-8.221|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-8.221|-71.881|0.0140
90924684|NCT04800211|181724022|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-42.635||||0.0288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.785|-4.484|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-4.484|-80.785|0.0288
90924685|NCT04800211|181724022|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-274.577|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-345.428|-203.726|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-203.726|-345.428|<.0001
90924686|NCT04800211|181724022|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-207.521|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-269.198|-145.844|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-145.844|-269.198|<.0001
90940703|NCT01723514|181761248|SUPERIORITY||LS Geometric Mean Ratio|-81.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-92.35|-57.46|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Day 85: A repeated measures ANCOVA was performed for the ratio of blood flow measures at 30 minutes post capsaicin challenge to pre capsaicin challenge. The model included treatment, day, and the treatment by day interaction as independent variables, and both the 0 minute pre-capsaicin blood flow measure as well as the day 0, 30-minute post-capsaicin blood flow measures on day -1 .||-57.46|-92.35|< 0.001
91034710|NCT00913627|181955177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|3.5||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||60 minutes||3.50|1.78|<0.001
91034711|NCT00913627|181955177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.81|3.51||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||60 minutes||3.51|1.81|<0.001
91034712|NCT00913627|181955177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|3.0||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||60 minutes||3.00|1.32|<0.001
91034713|NCT00913627|181955177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.39|4.12||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||90 minutes||4.12|2.39|<0.001
90884627|NCT01034397|181631757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||Change in Wrist region; Tocilizumab versus placebo. Since one-sided t-test was used all effects in the opposite direction of what was predicted have a p-value=1.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||1.00
90884628|NCT01034397|181631757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.065||||||Change in 2nd to 5th MCP; Tocilizumab versus placebo.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.065
90884629|NCT01034397|181631757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||Change in Total synovitis; Tocilizumab versus placebo. Since one-sided t-test was used all effects in the opposite direction of what was predicted have a p-value=1.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||1.00
90884630|NCT01034397|181631759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||Absolute Change in Bone erosion; Tocilizumab versus placebo. Since one-sided t-test was used all effects in the opposite direction of what was predicted have a p-value=1.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||1.00
90884631|NCT01034397|181631760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||Percentage Change in Bone erosion; Tocilizumab versus placebo. Since one-sided t-test was used all effects in the opposite direction of what was predicted have a p-value=1.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||1.00
90884632|NCT01034397|181631763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.266||||||Percentage Change in Bone oedema; Tocilizumab versus placebo.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.266
90924687|NCT04800211|181724022|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-203.233|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-275.683|-130.784|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-130.784|-275.683|<.0001
90924688|NCT04800211|181724022|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-261.208|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-330.647|-191.769|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-191.769|-330.647|<.0001
90924689|NCT04800211|181724022|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-203.998|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-263.396|-144.599|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-144.599|-263.396|<.0001
90924690|NCT04800211|181724022|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-178.75|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-249.092|-108.408|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-108.408|-249.092|<.0001
90884633|NCT01034397|181631764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.337||||||Absolute Change in Bone edema; Tocilizumab versus placebo.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.337
90884634|NCT01034397|181631767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.114||||||Percentage change in DCE-MRI EER (global); Placebo versus Tocilizumab|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.114
90884635|NCT01034397|181631768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.239||||||Absolute Change in DCE-MRI EER; Tocilizumab versus placebo.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.239
90884636|NCT01034397|181631771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.271||||||Percentage change in DCE-MRI EER (MCP); Placebo versus Tocilizumab|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.271
91034714|NCT00913627|181955177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.57|4.28||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||90 minutes||4.28|2.57|<0.001
91034715|NCT00913627|181955177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.92|3.63||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||90 minutes||3.63|1.92|<0.001
91034716|NCT00913627|181955177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|4.44||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||2 hours||4.44|2.70|<0.001
90884637|NCT01034397|181631772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37||||||Absolute change in DCE-MRI EER (MCP); Placebo versus Tocilizumab|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.370
90884638|NCT01034397|181631775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||Percentage and absolute change in DCE-MRI EER (wrist); Placebo versus Tocilizumab|t-test, 1 sided|||||||1.00
90884639|NCT01034397|181631780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
90884640|NCT01034397|181631783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.067|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.067
90884641|NCT01034397|181631785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.001
90884642|NCT01034397|181631787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.002
90884643|NCT01034397|181631789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Change from Baseline to Week 12|Friedman's T test|||||||<0.001
90884644|NCT01034397|181631789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5||||||Change from Baseline to Week 12|Friedman's T test|||||||0.500
90884645|NCT01034397|181631790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.007
90884646|NCT01034397|181631793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.001
90884647|NCT01034397|181631795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.002
90884648|NCT01034397|181631797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.118|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.118
90884649|NCT01034397|181631799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||1.00
90884650|NCT01034397|181631801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.437|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.437
90884651|NCT01034397|181631802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||1.00
90884652|NCT01034397|181631805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.190
90884653|NCT01034397|181631807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.051|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.051
90884654|NCT02002767|181631809|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean(GLSM) Ratio|149.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|116.62|190.49||||||A sample size of 8 evaluable participants in each renal function group (normal and severely impaired) will provide at least 80% power to reject the null hypothesis that participants with severe renal impairment have a minimum increase of 100% in AUC0-last, AUCinf, or Cmax of velpatasvir compared to participants with normal renal function.||190.49|116.62|
90884655|NCT02002767|181631810|OTHER||GLSM Ratio|149.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|116.97|192.11||||||A sample size of 8 evaluable participants in each renal function group (normal and severely impaired) will provide at least 80% power to reject the null hypothesis that participants with severe renal impairment have a minimum increase of 100% in AUC0-last, AUCinf, or Cmax of velpatasvir compared to participants with normal renal function.||192.11|116.97|
90884656|NCT02002767|181631811|OTHER||GLSM Ratio|110.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.76|135.38||||||A sample size of 8 evaluable participants in each renal function group (normal and severely impaired) will provide at least 80% power to reject the null hypothesis that participants with severe renal impairment have a minimum increase of 100% in AUC0-last, AUCinf, or Cmax of velpatasvir compared to participants with normal renal function.||135.38|90.76|
90884657|NCT00113516|181631845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||probability|0.405|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.315|0.494|||Kaplan-Meier||The probability of survival along with the corresponding confidence interval (CI) (for the log \[-log (1-year survival rate)\]) was calculated using a normal approximation and then back transformed to give a CI for the 1-year survival rate itself.|The study was designed to test the null hypothesis that the true one-year probability of survival is 0.40 versus the alternative hypothesis that the true one-year probability of survival is at least 0.55. The sample size was determined using a One-Sample Survival design, assuming alpha=0.05 (1-sided), power= 0.90, 6 month accrual, a minimum follow-up period of 12 months, and an expectation that approximately 5% of subjects may be lost to follow-up.||0.494|0.315|
90884658|NCT00113516|181631849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Objective Response Rate (ORR) (percent)|27.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.2|38.2||||||||38.2|18.2|
90884659|NCT00113516|181631863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.474||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.474
90884660|NCT00113516|181631864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.836||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 1, Day 28||||0.836
90884661|NCT00113516|181631864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.071||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 2, Day 1||||0.071
90884662|NCT00113516|181631864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.393||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 2, Day 28||||0.393
90884663|NCT00113516|181631864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 3, Day 1||||0.029
90884664|NCT00113516|181631864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.247||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 3, Day 28||||0.247
90884665|NCT00113516|181631865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.305||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.305
90884666|NCT00113516|181631866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.738||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 1, Day 28||||0.738
90884667|NCT00113516|181631866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.438||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 2, Day 1||||0.438
90884668|NCT00113516|181631866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.236||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 2, Day 28||||0.236
90884669|NCT00113516|181631866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.287||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 3, Day 1||||0.287
90884670|NCT00113516|181631866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.772||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 3, Day 28||||0.772
90884671|NCT00113516|181631867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.537||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.537
90884672|NCT00113516|181631868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.813||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 1, Day 28||||0.813
90884673|NCT00113516|181631868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.849||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 2, Day 1||||0.849
90884674|NCT00113516|181631868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.121||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 2, Day 28||||0.121
90884675|NCT00113516|181631868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.582||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 3, Day 1||||0.582
90884676|NCT00113516|181631868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.383||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 3, Day 28||||0.383
90924691|NCT04800211|181724022|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-190.992|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-237.134|-144.85|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-144.850|-237.134|<.0001
90924692|NCT04800211|181724022|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Test 1 on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Test 1 on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-24.483||||0.359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.096|28.13|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Test 1 on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Test 1 on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||28.130|-77.096|0.3590
90924693|NCT04800211|181724023|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.287|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.582|-1.992|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)||-1.992|-2.582|<.0001
90924694|NCT04800211|181724023|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.415|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.722|-2.107|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||-2.107|-2.722|<.0001
90924695|NCT04800211|181724023|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.382|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.673|-2.09|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)||-2.090|-2.673|<.0001
90924696|NCT04800211|181724023|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.486|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.782|-2.19|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||-2.190|-2.782|<.0001
90924697|NCT04800211|181724023|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.668|-2.233|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||-2.233|-2.668|<.0001
90963785|NCT01493557|181809099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|6.3|||||Mean difference = (Mean number of days for Pradaxa w/meal) - (Mean number of days for pantoprazole).|Mean difference for Time to first complete effectiveness. Complete effectiveness of a gastrointestinal symptoms (GIS) management strategy can only be measured at a point in time. Because the same or a different GIS could occur after a time of effective GIS management, the patients who indicated some degree of effectiveness at one visit may not be the same patients who experience effectiveness at a subsequent visit.||6.3|-3.5|
90963786|NCT01493557|181809099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|48.5|||||Mean difference = (Mean number of days for Pradaxa w/meal) - (Mean number of days for pantoprazole).|Mean difference for Time to first complete effectiveness. Partial effectiveness of a gastrointestinal symptoms (GIS) management strategy can only be measured at a point in time. Because the same or a different GIS could occur after a time of effective GIS management, the patients who indicated some degree of effectiveness at one visit may not be the same patients who experience effectiveness at a subsequent visit.||48.5|-8.2|
90963787|NCT02973425|181809100|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.68||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|2.6|||Regression, Cox|||The primary hypothesis was tested through a time-to-event analysis implemented using Cox proportional hazards models||2.60|1.09|0.02
90963788|NCT02973425|181809101|OTHER||Linear regression|0.03||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||For hypothesis 3, we compared the mean score on the SEQ-12 and its subscales at 6 months, adjusting for baseline.||||0.03
90963789|NCT02973425|181809102|OTHER|Six-month OR, 95%CI, and P value were calculated from generalized estimating equation marginal models with a logit link and an exchangeable correlation matrix.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.92||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|3.68||Analysis models were adjusted by study site, having quit attempts in the past 12 months measured at baseline, cigarettes per day measured at baseline, quit attempts in the past 12 months measured at baseline.|Chi-squared|||||3.68|1.01|0.048
90963790|NCT02973425|181809103|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.01||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||During the first 3 weeks from randomization, both the Take a Break and comparison groups reported the number of cigarettes smoked daily (by texting); texting response rate (responded on at least 1 day).||||0.01
90963791|NCT03823404|181809109|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0455||||||The interim analysis was conducted at significance level of 0.05 and the significance level was adjusted for final analysis.|mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||||<0.0455
90963792|NCT03823404|181809110|SUPERIORITY||||||<|455|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0455
90963793|NCT02366728|181809131|OTHER|||||||0.072|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.072
90963794|NCT02366728|181809131|OTHER|||||||0.089|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.089
90963795|NCT02366728|181809132|OTHER|||||||0.0195|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0195
90963796|NCT02366728|181809133|OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.40
90963797|NCT02366728|181809134|OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.40
90884677|NCT00113516|181631869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.6782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|2.15|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 1, Day 1||2.15|0.61|0.6782
90963798|NCT02366728|181809135|OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.16
90963799|NCT02366728|181809135|OTHER|||||||0.078|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.078
90963800|NCT02366728|181809136|OTHER|||||||0.64|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.64
90963801|NCT02366728|181809137|OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.29
90963802|NCT03829241|181809261|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Model-based summary statistics are from a mixed model with repeated measures, including fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score, baseline score-by-visit interaction as covariates, and participant as random effect.||1.30|-1.45|0.917
90963803|NCT00698451|181809267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|72.2||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.4|83.5|||Exact Binomial Distribution|||||83.5|58.4|0.05
90963804|NCT00729781|181809346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of subjects with improvement|57.8||||0.19|ONE_SIDED|97.5|42.2||||One-sided, binomial exact test|||This study had two independent primary endpoints (cosmetic and functional improvement). Therefore, the assumed type I error rate for each was 2.5% in order to maintain an overall 5% type I error rate. For each endpoint, the percent of subjects with improvement of the total number implanted was to be compared to a rate of 50% using a one-sided, binomial exact test. If the p-value was \< 0.025, the objective would have been met.|||42.2|0.19
90963805|NCT00729781|181809347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of subjects with improvement|15.6|||>|0.99|ONE_SIDED|97.5|0.05||||One-sided, binomial exact test||||||0.05|>0.99
90963806|NCT00006392|181809359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.95|1.35||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox|||Per study design, with a sample size of 32,400 men, using a 1-sided alpha=.005 level (equivalent to a 2-sided alpha=.01 level) there was 96% power to detect a 25% reduction in prostate cancer for either agent vs. Placebo.||1.35|0.95|< .01
90963807|NCT00006392|181809359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.87|1.24||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox|||Per study design, with a sample size of 32,400 men, using a 1-sided alpha=.005 level (equivalent to a 2-sided alpha=.01 level) there was 96% power to detect a 25% reduction in prostate cancer for either agent vs. Placebo.||1.24|0.87|< .01
90963808|NCT00006392|181809359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05|||<|0.01||99.0|0.88|1.25||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox|||Per study design, with a sample size of 32,400 men, using a 1-sided alpha=.005 level (equivalent to a 2-sided alpha=.01 level) there was 99% power to detect a 44% reduction in prostate cancer for combination vs. Placebo.||1.25|.88|< .01
90924698|NCT04800211|181724023|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.466||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.185|0.747|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)||0.747|0.185|0.0012
90940704|NCT01723514|181761248|SUPERIORITY||LS Geometric Mean Ratio|-84.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-93.12|-64.6|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Day 85: A repeated measures ANCOVA was performed for the ratio of blood flow measures at 30 minutes post capsaicin challenge to pre capsaicin challenge. The model included treatment, day, and the treatment by day interaction as independent variables, and both the 0 minute pre-capsaicin blood flow measure as well as the day 0, 30-minute post-capsaicin blood flow measures on day -1 .||-64.60|-93.12|< 0.001
90963809|NCT00006392|181809360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||>|0.05||99.0|0.64|1.55||The trial was designed to study prostate cancer and lung cancer has a lower incidence rate, there was limited power to look at lung cancer incidence. A 99% CI (rather than a 95% CI) was used to adjust for the multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox||The placebo was the denominator.|||1.55|.64|> .05
90884678|NCT00113516|181631869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.6||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|3.3|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 1, Day 28||3.30|0.77|0.1980
90884679|NCT00113516|181631869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.8||||0.1344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|3.98|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 2, Day 1||3.98|0.82|0.1344
90884680|NCT00113516|181631869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.4||||0.4809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|3.39|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 2, Day 28||3.39|0.56|0.4809
90884681|NCT00113516|181631869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.6||||0.0153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|11.13|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group|Cycle 3, Day 1||11.13|1.19|0.0153
90884682|NCT00113516|181631869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.7||||0.2085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|14.37|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group|Cycle 3, Day 28||14.37|0.52|0.2085
90884683|NCT00113516|181631869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.4||||0.8084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|23.57|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group|Cycle 5, Day 28||23.57|0.08|0.8084
90884684|NCT00113516|181631870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|2.39|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 1, Day 1||2.39|0.65|0.5070
90884685|NCT00113516|181631870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3||||0.4474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.82|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 1, Day 28||2.82|0.63|0.4474
90884686|NCT00113516|181631870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.7599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.95|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 2, Day 1||1.95|0.40|0.7599
90884687|NCT00113516|181631870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.3||||0.0109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.8|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 2, Day 28||0.80|0.12|0.0109
90884688|NCT00113516|181631870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.6878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|3.58|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 3, Day 1||3.58|0.43|0.6878
90884689|NCT00113516|181631870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.7||||0.4637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|8.12|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 3, Day 28||8.12|0.38|0.4637
90884690|NCT00113516|181631871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.5277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.62|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 1, Day 1||1.62|0.39|0.5277
90884691|NCT00113516|181631871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.4||||0.466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|3.29|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \>=Median Cutpoint group hazard to \<Median Cutpoint group.|Cycle 1, Day 28||3.29|0.58|0.4660
90884692|NCT00113516|181631871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3||||0.5337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|3.44|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \>=Median Cutpoint group hazard to \<Median Cutpoint group.|Cycle 2, Day 1||3.44|0.52|0.5337
90884693|NCT00113516|181631871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.4||||0.0712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.13|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \>=Median Cutpoint group hazard to \<Median Cutpoint group.|Cycle 2, Day 28||1.13|0.13|0.0712
90884694|NCT00113516|181631871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.0||||0.2948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|7.07|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \>=Median Cutpoint group hazard to \<Median Cutpoint group.|Cycle 3, Day 1||7.07|0.54|0.2948
90884695|NCT00113516|181631871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.3||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|38.48|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \>=Median Cutpoint group hazard to \<Median Cutpoint group.|Cycle 3, Day 28||38.48|0.28|0.3200
90884696|NCT00113516|181631872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.7824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|2.17|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 1, Day 1||2.17|0.56|0.7824
90884697|NCT00113516|181631872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.6||||0.1918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|3.47|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 1, Day 28||3.47|0.77|0.1918
90884698|NCT00113516|181631872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.9||||0.1093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|4.3|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 2, Day 1||4.30|0.85|0.1093
90924699|NCT04800211|181724023|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.099||||0.4957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.187|0.386|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||0.386|-0.187|0.4957
90924700|NCT04800211|181724023|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.753|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.266|-2.239|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)||-2.239|-3.266|<.0001
90924701|NCT04800211|181724023|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.514|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.043|-1.986|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||-1.986|-3.043|<.0001
90924702|NCT04800211|181724023|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.848|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.359|-2.336|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)||-2.336|-3.359|<.0001
90924703|NCT04800211|181724023|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.586|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.105|-2.066|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||-2.066|-3.105|<.0001
90924704|NCT04800211|181724023|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.901|-2.199|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||-2.199|-2.901|<.0001
90924705|NCT04800211|181724023|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is equal to Test 2 on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Test 2 on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.071||||0.7372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.346|0.489|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is equal to Test 2 on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Test 2 on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||0.489|-0.346|0.7372
90924706|NCT04800211|181724024|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (MiTT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.106|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.502|-2.71|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (MiTT Population)||-2.710|-3.502|<.0001
90924707|NCT04800211|181724024|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (MiTT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.824|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.235|-2.414|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (MiTT Population)||-2.414|-3.235|<.0001
90924708|NCT04800211|181724024|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (MiTT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.228|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.553|-2.904|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (MiTT Population)||-2.904|-3.553|<.0001
90924709|NCT04800211|181724024|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (MiTT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.839|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.221|-2.457|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (MiTT Population)||-2.457|-3.221|<.0001
90940705|NCT01723514|181761248|SUPERIORITY||LS Geometric Mean Ratio|43.1||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.06|286.83|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Day 113: A repeated measures ANCOVA was performed for the ratio of blood flow measures at 30 minutes post capsaicin challenge to pre capsaicin challenge. The model included treatment, day, and the treatment by day interaction as independent variables, and both the 0 minute pre-capsaicin blood flow measure as well as the day 0, 30-minute post-capsaicin blood flow measures on day -1 .||286.83|-47.06|0.47
90940706|NCT01723514|181761248|SUPERIORITY||LS Geometric Mean Ratio|-68.58||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-88.02|-17.63|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Day 169: A repeated measures ANCOVA was performed for the ratio of blood flow measures at 30 minutes post capsaicin challenge to pre capsaicin challenge. The model included treatment, day, and the treatment by day interaction as independent variables, and both the 0 minute pre-capsaicin blood flow measure as well as the day 0, 30-minute post-capsaicin blood flow measures on day -1 .||-17.63|-88.02|0.020
90940707|NCT01723514|181761248|SUPERIORITY||LS Geometric Mean Ratio|-54.32||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-82.58|19.75|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Day 197: A repeated measures ANCOVA was performed for the ratio of blood flow measures at 30 minutes post capsaicin challenge to pre capsaicin challenge. The model included treatment, day, and the treatment by day interaction as independent variables, and both the 0 minute pre-capsaicin blood flow measure as well as the day 0, 30-minute post-capsaicin blood flow measures on day -1 .||19.75|-82.58|0.11
90940708|NCT00297778|181761249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.9||||0.0103||95.0|-3.4|-0.5|||ANCOVA|||||-0.5|-3.4|0.0103
90940709|NCT00297778|181761250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.758||||0.0535||95.0|0.992|3.115|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.115|0.992|0.0535
90940710|NCT00297778|181761251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8||||0.0346||95.0|-1.5|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||||-0.1|-1.5|0.0346
90940711|NCT00297778|181761252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.5244||95.0|-1.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0|-1|0.5244
90924710|NCT04800211|181724024|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (MiTT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.449|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.828|-2.07|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (MiTT Population)||-2.070|-2.828|<.0001
90924711|NCT04800211|181724024|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (MiTT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.023|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.328|-2.718|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (MiTT Population)||-2.718|-3.328|<.0001
90924712|NCT04800211|181724024|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (MiTT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.126|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.354|-2.897|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (MiTT Population)||-2.897|-3.354|<.0001
90924713|NCT04800211|181724024|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (MiTT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.908|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.518|1.298|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (MiTT Population)||1.298|0.518|<.0001
90924714|NCT04800211|181724024|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (MiTT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.291|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.902|1.679|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (MiTT Population)||1.679|0.902|<.0001
90924715|NCT04800211|181724024|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (MiTT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.174||||0.2772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.142|0.49|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (MiTT Population)||0.490|-0.142|0.2772
90940712|NCT00297778|181761253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.141||95.0|0.0|0.0|||van Elteren (country stratification)|||||0|0|0.141
90940713|NCT00297778|181761254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2||||0.003||95.0|-1.9|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||||-0.4|-1.9|0.003
90924716|NCT04800211|181724024|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (MiTT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-4.014|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.75|-3.278|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (MiTT Population)||-3.278|-4.750|<.0001
90924717|NCT04800211|181724024|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (MiTT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-4.115|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.865|-3.365|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (MiTT Population)||-3.365|-4.865|<.0001
90924718|NCT04800211|181724024|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (MiTT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.403|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.005|-2.801|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (MiTT Population)||-2.801|-4.005|<.0001
90924719|NCT04800211|181724024|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (MiTT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.747|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.473|-3.02|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (MiTT Population)||-3.020|-4.473|<.0001
90924720|NCT04800211|181724024|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (MiTT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.461|-3.018|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (MiTT Population)||-3.018|-4.461|<.0001
90924721|NCT04800211|181724024|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (MiTT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.197|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.784|-2.61|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (MiTT Population)||-2.610|-3.784|<.0001
91034717|NCT00913627|181955177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.82|4.53||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||2 hours||4.53|2.82|<0.001
90924722|NCT04800211|181724024|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (MiTT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.678|-2.921|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (MiTT Population)||-2.921|-3.678|<.0001
90924723|NCT04800211|181724024|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is equal to Test 1 on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Test 1 on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (MiTT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.206||||0.348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.638|0.226|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is equal to Test 1 on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Test 1 on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (MiTT Population)||0.226|-0.638|0.3480
90924724|NCT04800211|181724025|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 5. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.716|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.951|-0.481|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 5. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5. (mITT Population)||-0.481|-0.951|<0.0001
90924725|NCT04800211|181724025|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.686|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.966|-0.406|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7. (mITT Population)||-0.406|-0.966|<0.0001
90924726|NCT04800211|181724025|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 5. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.521|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.755|-0.288|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 5. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5. (mITT Population)||-0.288|-0.755|<.0001
90924727|NCT04800211|181724025|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.342||||0.0131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.612|-0.072|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7. (mITT Population)||-0.072|-0.612|0.0131
90924728|NCT04800211|181724025|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.514|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.712|-0.316|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7. (mITT Population)||-0.316|-0.712|<.0001
90924729|NCT04800211|181724025|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 5. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.231||||0.0435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.455|-0.007|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 5. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5. (mITT Population)||-0.007|-0.455|0.0435
90963810|NCT00006392|181809360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12|||>|0.01|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.73|1.72||The trial was designed to study prostate cancer and lung cancer has a lower incidence rate, there was limited power to look at lung cancer incidence. A 99% CI (rather than a 95% CI) was used to adjust for the multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox||The placebo was the denominator.|||1.72|0.73|> .01
90924730|NCT04800211|181724025|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.111||||0.4012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.149|0.371|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7. (mITT Population)||0.371|-0.149|0.4012
90924731|NCT04800211|181724025|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 5. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.485||||0.0133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.895|-0.074|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 5. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5. (mITT Population)||-0.074|-0.895|0.0133
90924732|NCT04800211|181724025|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.797||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.277|-0.317|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7. (mITT Population)||-0.317|-1.277|0.0002
90924733|NCT04800211|181724025|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.29||||0.2641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.699|0.119|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5. (mITT Population)||0.119|-0.699|0.2641
90924734|NCT04800211|181724025|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.453||||0.0639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.924|0.018|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7. (mITT Population)||0.018|-0.924|0.0639
90924735|NCT04800211|181724025|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.625||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.945|-0.305|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7. (mITT Population)||-0.305|-0.945|0.0001
90924736|NCT04800211|181724025|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is equal to Test 2 on Visit 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Test 2 on Visit 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.344||||0.0776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.725|0.038|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is equal to Test 2 on Visit 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Test 2 on Visit 7. (mITT Population)||0.038|-0.725|0.0776
90940714|NCT00297778|181761255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.2||||0.0034||95.0|-3.7|-0.7|||ANCOVA|||||-0.7|-3.7|0.0034
90940715|NCT00297778|181761256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.4||||0.0007||95.0|-5.4|-1.5|||ANCOVA|||||-1.5|-5.4|0.0007
90940716|NCT00297778|181761257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.821||||0.006||95.0|1.187|2.794|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.794|1.187|0.006
90940717|NCT00297778|181761258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-1.3||||0.1925||95.0|-3.3|0.8|||van Elteren (country stratification)|||||0.8|-3.3|0.1925
90963811|NCT00006392|181809360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16|||>|0.01|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.9|1.16||The trial was designed to study prostate cancer and lung cancer has a lower incidence rate, there was limited power to look at lung cancer incidence. A 99% CI (rather than a 95% CI) was used to adjust for the multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox||The placebo was the denominator.|||1.16|0.90|>.01
90940718|NCT00297778|181761259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann est of diff in medians|0.04||||0.0337||95.0|0.0|0.09|||Wilcoxon rank sum (Van Elteren's test)|||||0.09|0|0.0337
90940719|NCT00297778|181761260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.8471||95.0|-5.6|4.6|||ANCOVA|||||4.6|-5.6|0.8471
90963812|NCT00006392|181809361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.69|1.73||A 99% CI (rather than a 95% CI) was used to adjust for the multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox||The placebo was the denominator.|The trial was designed to study prostate cancer and colorectal cancer has a lower incidence rate, there was limited power to look at colorectal cancer incidence.||1.73|0.69|> .05
91034718|NCT00913627|181955177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.87|3.57||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||2 hours||3.57|1.87|<0.001
90924737|NCT04800211|181724026|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.621||||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.055|-0.186|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-0.186|-1.055|0.0055
90924738|NCT04800211|181724026|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.778||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|-0.316|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-0.316|-1.240|0.0011
90924739|NCT04800211|181724026|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|-0.54|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-0.540|-1.260|<.0001
90963813|NCT00006392|181809361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.66|1.67||A 99% CI (rather than a 95% CI) was used to adjust for the multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox||The placebo was the denominator.|The trial was designed to study prostate cancer and colorectal cancer has a lower incidence rate, there was limited power to look at colorectal cancer incidence.||1.67|0.66|> .05
90924740|NCT04800211|181724026|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.52||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.938|-0.103|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-0.103|-0.938|0.0150
90924741|NCT04800211|181724026|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.349||||0.1048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.771|0.074|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||0.074|-0.771|0.1048
90924742|NCT04800211|181724026|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.846|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.185|-0.507|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-0.507|-1.185|<.0001
90924743|NCT04800211|181724026|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.873|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.127|-0.619|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-0.619|-1.127|<.0001
90924744|NCT04800211|181724026|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.247||||0.2525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.178|0.671|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||0.671|-0.178|0.2525
90924745|NCT04800211|181724026|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.098||||0.6503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.527|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||0.527|-0.330|0.6503
90884699|NCT00113516|181631872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.4||||0.4809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|3.39|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 2, Day 28||3.39|0.56|0.4809
90924746|NCT04800211|181724026|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.239||||0.1759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.109|0.588|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||0.588|-0.109|0.1759
90924747|NCT04800211|181724026|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.867||||0.0293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.674|-0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-0.060|-1.674|0.0293
90924748|NCT04800211|181724026|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.876||||0.0362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.714|-0.038|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-0.038|-1.714|0.0362
90924749|NCT04800211|181724026|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.139|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.809|-0.469|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-0.469|-1.809|<.0001
90940720|NCT00297778|181761261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann est of diff in medians|0.0||||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon rank sum (Van Elteren's test)||95% Confidence interval is Distribution-free Confidence Interval (Moses).|N's exclude patients from the analysis set with incomplete data||0.0|0.0|0.1410
90940721|NCT00297778|181761262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.5231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.2|||ANCOVA|||N's exclude patients from the analysis set with incomplete data||0.2|-0.5|0.5231
90963814|NCT00006392|181809361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.28|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.82|2.0||A 99% CI (rather than a 95% CI) was used to adjust for the multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox||The placebo was the denominator.|The trial was designed to study prostate cancer and colorectal cancer has a lower incidence rate, there was limited power to look at colorectal cancer incidence.||2.00|0.82|> .05
90963815|NCT00006392|181809362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.91|1.17||A 99% CI (rather than a 95% CI) was used to adjust for the multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox||The placebo was the denominator.|The power to look at all cancer incidence is greater than 90%.||1.17|0.91|> .05
90884700|NCT00113516|181631872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.2||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|13.85|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 3, Day 1||13.85|1.26|0.0110
90884701|NCT00113516|181631872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.7||||0.2085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|14.37|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 3, Day 28||14.37|0.52|0.2085
90963816|NCT00006392|181809362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.89|1.15||A 99% CI (rather than a 95% CI) was used to adjust for the multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox||The placebo was the denominator.|The power to look at all cancer incidence is greater than 90%.||1.15|0.89|> .05
90963817|NCT00006392|181809362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02|||>|0.05||99.0|0.9|1.16||A 99% CI (rather than a 95% CI) was used to adjust for the multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox||The placebo was the denominator.|The power to look at all cancer incidence is greater than 90%.||1.16|0.90|> .05
90963818|NCT00006392|181809363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93|||>|0.05||99.0|0.77|1.13||A 99% CI (rather than a 95% CI) was used to adjust for the multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox||The placebo is the denominator.|Only results from overall survival are presented as the number of cancer-specific deaths is too few to be meaningful.||1.13|0.77|> .05
91034719|NCT00913627|181955177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.27|4.99||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||3 hours||4.99|3.27|<0.001
90924750|NCT04800211|181724026|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.767||||0.0621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.559|0.025|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||0.025|-1.559|0.0621
90924751|NCT04800211|181724026|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.447||||0.5259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.246|0.352|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||0.352|-1.246|0.5259
90924752|NCT04800211|181724026|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.085|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.736|-0.435|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-0.435|-1.736|<.0001
90963819|NCT00006392|181809363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.82|1.19||A 99% CI (rather than a 95% CI) was used to adjust for the multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox||The placebo was the denominator.|Only results from overall survival are presented as the number of cancer-specific deaths is too few to be meaningful.||1.19|0.82|> .05
90963820|NCT00006392|181809363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.77|1.13||A 99% CI (rather than a 95% CI) was used to adjust for the multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox|||Only results from overall survival are presented as the number of cancer-specific deaths is too few to be meaningful.||1.13|0.77|> .05
91034720|NCT00913627|181955177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.24|4.95||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||3 hours||4.95|3.24|<0.001
91034721|NCT00913627|181955177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.24|3.93||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||3 hours||3.93|2.24|<0.001
91034722|NCT00913627|181955177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.36|5.13||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||4 hours||5.13|3.36|<0.001
90884702|NCT00113516|181631872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.4||||0.8084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|23.57|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 5, Day 28||23.57|0.08|0.8084
90884703|NCT00113516|181631873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3||||0.5215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.53|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 1, Day 1||2.53|0.62|0.5215
90940722|NCT02831998|181761264|NON_INFERIORITY|Investigational product upper bounds must be less than 0.5.|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.188|0.083||||||Groin 10 minutes Average Treatment Effect, calculated using a linear regression model for each body site, was used for primary analysis. In the model, the response was the post-treatment log10 CFU/cm\^2 bacterial counts and the predictors were the treatment effect as a fixed effect and the pre-treatment log10 CFU/cm\^2 bacterial counts as a covariate.||0.083|-0.188|
91034723|NCT00913627|181955177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.17|4.92||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||4 hours||4.92|3.17|<0.001
90963821|NCT00006392|181809364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.88|1.09||A 99% CI (rather than a 95% CI) was used to adjust for the multiple comparisons.|Chi-squared||The placebo was the denominator.|||1.09|0.88|> .05
90884704|NCT00113516|181631873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.6||||0.2504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|3.49|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 1, Day 28||3.49|0.72|0.2504
90884705|NCT00113516|181631873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.8766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|2.11|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 2, Day 1||2.11|0.42|0.8766
90884706|NCT00113516|181631873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.3||||0.0109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.8|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 2, Day 28||0.80|0.12|0.0109
90884707|NCT00113516|181631873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.4||||0.5627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|4.18|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 3, Day 1||4.18|0.46|0.5627
91034724|NCT00913627|181955177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.11|3.85||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||4 hours||3.85|2.11|<0.001
91034725|NCT00913627|181955177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.14|5.01||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||5 hours||5.01|3.14|<0.001
90963822|NCT00006392|181809364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.02|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.92|1.13||A 99% CI (rather than a 95% CI) was used to adjust for the multiple comparisons.|Chi-squared||The placebo was the denominator.|||1.13|0.92|> .05
90963823|NCT00006392|181809364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.89|1.1||A 99% CI (rather than a 95% CI) was used to adjust for the multiple comparisons.|Chi-squared||The placebo was the denominator.|||1.10|0.89|> .05
90963824|NCT01186796|181809377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
90963825|NCT01186796|181809378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Two-way ANOVA in a 2x4 factorial nested design with repeated measures.||||||<0.05
90884708|NCT00113516|181631873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.7||||0.4637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|8.12|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 3, Day 28||8.12|0.38|0.4637
90884709|NCT00113516|181631874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.6682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.84|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 1, Day 1||1.84|0.39|0.6682
90884710|NCT00113516|181631874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.6854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|3.0|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 1, Day 28||3.00|0.49|0.6854
90884711|NCT00113516|181631874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3||||0.6028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|3.37|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 2, Day 1||3.37|0.49|0.6028
90884712|NCT00113516|181631874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.4||||0.0712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.13|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 2, Day 28||1.13|0.13|0.0712
90884713|NCT00113516|181631874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.9||||0.3411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|7.15|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 3, Day 1||7.15|0.50|0.3411
90884714|NCT00113516|181631874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.3||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|38.48|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 3, Day 28||38.48|0.28|0.3200
90884715|NCT00113516|181631875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.4768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.17|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 1, Day 1||2.17|0.70|0.4768
90884716|NCT00113516|181631875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.6||||0.1484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|3.13|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 1, Day 28||3.13|0.84|0.1484
90884717|NCT00113516|181631875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.8957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.18|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 2, Day 1||2.18|0.50|0.8957
90884718|NCT00113516|181631875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.5681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.85|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 2, Day 28||1.85|0.33|0.5681
90884719|NCT00113516|181631875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.8||||0.0074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|10.88|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 3, Day 1||10.88|1.35|0.0074
90884720|NCT00113516|181631875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.3||||0.1637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|1.7|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 3, Day 28||1.70|0.06|0.1637
90884721|NCT00113516|181631875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.6||||0.4328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|29.12|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 5, Day 28||29.12|0.23|0.4328
90884722|NCT00113516|181631876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3||||0.4269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.21|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 1, Day 1||2.21|0.72|0.4269
90884723|NCT00113516|181631876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.86|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 1, Day 28||1.86|0.51|0.9290
90884724|NCT00113516|181631876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.8195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.91|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 2, Day 1||1.91|0.44|0.8195
90884725|NCT00113516|181631876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.38|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 2, Day 28||1.38|0.26|0.2210
90884726|NCT00113516|181631876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.4297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|1.85|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 3, Day 1||1.85|0.24|0.4297
90884727|NCT00113516|181631876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.3||||0.0522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|1.11|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 3, Day 28||1.11|0.06|0.0522
90884728|NCT00113516|181631876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.6949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|7.0|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 5, Day 28||7.00|0.05|0.6949
90884729|NCT00113516|181631877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.65|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 1, Day 1||1.65|0.51|0.7660
90884730|NCT00113516|181631877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.5||||0.2682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|3.23|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 1, Day 28||3.23|0.72|0.2682
90884731|NCT00113516|181631877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.6||||0.2726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|3.7|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 2, Day 1||3.70|0.69|0.2726
90884732|NCT00113516|181631877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.2787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.55|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 2, Day 28||1.55|0.22|0.2787
91034726|NCT00913627|181955177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.07|4.92||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||5 hours||4.92|3.07|<0.001
91034727|NCT00913627|181955177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.91|3.75||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||5 hours||3.75|1.91|<0.001
90884733|NCT00113516|181631877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.4||||0.0241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|17.56|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 3, Day 1||17.56|1.09|0.0241
90884734|NCT00113516|181631877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|5.4||||0.0943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|48.81|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 3, Day 28||48.81|0.59|0.0943
90884735|NCT00113516|181631877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.8084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|11.79|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 5, Day 28||11.79|0.04|0.8084
90884736|NCT03915548|181631882|OTHER|Group by time interaction (difference in trajectory)||||||0.54||||||Adjusted|Mixed Models Analysis|multiple-degree-of-freedom test|||F(3,747)=0.88|||.54
90884737|NCT03915548|181631883|OTHER|Group by time interaction (difference in trajectory)||||||0.09||||||Adjusted|Mixed Models Analysis|multiple-degree-of-freedom test|||F(3,746.4)=2.64|||.09
90884738|NCT03915548|181631884|OTHER|Group by time interaction (difference in trajectory)||||||0.55||||||Adjusted|Mixed Models Analysis|Poisson model with log link; multiple-degree-of-freedom test|||F(3,717)=0.7|||.55
90884739|NCT03915548|181631885|OTHER|Group by time interaction (difference in trajectory)||||||0.99||||||Adjusted|Mixed Models Analysis|multiple-degree-of-freedom test|||F(3,394.7)=0.18|||.99
90884740|NCT03915548|181631886|OTHER|Group by time interaction (difference in trajectory)||||||0.99||||||Overall score adjusted P = 0.99 Physical subscale adjusted P = 0.99 Social subscale adjusted P = 0.99 Emotional subscale adjusted P = 0.99 Functional subscale adjusted P = 0.99|Mixed Models Analysis|multiple-degree-of-freedom test|||"Group by time interaction:~Overall score: F(3,731.3)=0.03 Physical subscale: F(3,744.5)=0.23 Social subscale: F(3,740.6)=0.32 Emotional subscale: F(3,743)=0.46 Functional subscale: F(3,746.1)=0.3"|||0.99
90884741|NCT03915548|181631887|OTHER|Group by time interaction (difference in trajectory)||||||0.99||||||Active coping adjusted P = 0.99 Planning adjusted P = 0.21 Positive reframing adjusted P = 0.99|Mixed Models Analysis|multiple-degrees-of-freedom test|||Active planning: F(3,746)=0.8 Planning: F(3,744.8)=2.93 Positive reframing = F(3,742)=0.21|||0.99
90884742|NCT03915548|181631888|OTHER|Group by time interaction (difference in trajectory)||||||0.02|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|multiple-degrees-of-freedom test|||Disengagement: F(3,741.2)=5.09 Reengagement: F(3,745.7)=0.81|||0.02
90884743|NCT03915548|181631889|OTHER|Group by time interaction (difference in trajectory)||||||0.99||||||Anxiety adjusted P = 0.99 Depression adjusted P = 0.99|Mixed Models Analysis|multiple-degrees-of-freedom test|||Anxiety: F(3,737.5)=0.17 Depression: F(3,733.6)=0.85|||0.99
90884744|NCT03915548|181631890|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|0.26||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.54||Importance subscale: Adjusted P = .09 Performance subscale: Adjusted P = \<.001 Satisfaction subscale: Adjusted P = \<.001|Mixed Models Analysis|multiple-degrees-of-freedom test|Importance subscale: Cohen's d = 0.26 (-.01, 0.54) Performance subscale: Cohen's d = 0.60 (0.32, 0.87) Satisfaction subscale: Cohen's d = 0.76 (0.48, 1.02)|||0.54|-.01|.09
90884745|NCT03217136|181631901|OTHER|The Miettinen \& Nurminen method was used.|Difference in Percentage|18.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|41.1||||||Difference in Percentage (C/T+MTZ minus MERO)||41.1|-2.6|
90884746|NCT03217136|181631902|OTHER|The Miettinen \& Nurminen method was used.|Difference in Percentage|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|9.9||||||Difference in Percentage (C/T+MTZ minus MERO)||9.9|-12.9|
90884747|NCT03217136|181631903|OTHER|The difference in percentage was based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by age group with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. If there was a zero count in any class of the stratum, the groups with the lower count were pooled with its near age group stratum in the model.|Difference in Percentage|-14.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.67|4.93||||||Difference in Percentage (C/T+MTZ minus MERO)||4.93|-26.67|
90884748|NCT03217136|181631904|OTHER|The difference in percentage was based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by age group with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. If there was a zero count in any class of the stratum, the groups with the lower count were pooled with its near age group stratum in the model.|Difference in Percentage|-19.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.18|-2.89||||||Difference in Percentage (C/T+MTZ minus MERO)||-2.89|-30.18|
90884749|NCT03217136|181631905|OTHER|The difference in percentage was based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by age group with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. If there was a zero count in any class of the stratum, the groups with the lower count were pooled with its near age group stratum in the model.|Difference in Percentage|-11.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.66|9.61||||||Difference in Percentage (C/T+MTZ minus MERO)||9.61|-23.66|
90884750|NCT03217136|181631906|OTHER|The difference in percentage was based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by age group with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. If there was a zero count in any class of the stratum, the groups with the lower count were pooled with its near age group stratum in the model.|Difference in Percentage|-16.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.59|1.39||||||Difference in Percentage (C/T+MTZ minus MERO)||1.39|-27.59|
90884751|NCT03091751|181631924|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.41||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-224.88|245.7|||t-test, 1 sided|||||245.70|-224.88|0.77
90884752|NCT03091751|181631925|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3068||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1501|0.4635|||t-test, 1 sided|||||0.4635|0.1501|0.002
90884753|NCT03091751|181631926|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.3||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|2.3|||t-test, 1 sided|||||2.3|-8.9|0.30
90884754|NCT03091751|181631927|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0058||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0119|0.0003|||t-test, 1 sided|||||0.0003|-0.0119|0.16
90884755|NCT03091751|181631928|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.609||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.344|-1.879|||t-test, 1 sided|||||-1.879|-13.344|0.02
91034728|NCT00913627|181955177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.78|4.71||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||6 hours||4.71|2.78|<0.001
90884756|NCT01161329|181631933|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|It was estimated that 128 individuals would be required for 80 % Power with a type I error of 5% to detect a 2-point difference in BBS with a standard deviation of +/- 4 points. Because of the slow recruitment and the statistically significant improvements observed in the primary outcome in the intervention group during an interim analysis the study was finalized with fewer participants than had been initially calculated.||||||0.001||||||The Bonferroni method was used to assess longitudinal Changes and correct for multiple comparisons, with significance set at p\<0.016 to minimize the risk for type I errors.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Intention-to-treat analysis was performed to assess the effects on the outcome measures. Between-group differences for all outcome measures were analyzed using Mann-Whitney U-test.||||0.001
90884757|NCT01161329|181631934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09||||||The p-value for the man differnece in SPPB between grpoups att three months was 0.09|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.09
90884758|NCT01448850|181631955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.92||||0.645|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.68|1.25||Data was analyzed using Poisson regression with Pearson correction, adjusting for treatment, background therapy and history of previous exacerbations.|Poisson regression|||||1.25|0.68|0.645
90884759|NCT01591746|181631994|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.43
90884760|NCT01591746|181631995|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.56
90884761|NCT01591746|181631996|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Right breast initial percent volume expansion||||0.45
90884762|NCT01591746|181631996|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Left breast initial percent volume expansion||||0.98
90940723|NCT02831998|181761264|SUPERIORITY|Investigational product lower bounds must be greater than 1.2.|Median Difference (Final Values)|2.627|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.396|2.858||||||Groin 10 minutes Average Treatment Effect, calculated using a linear regression model for each body site, was used for primary analysis. In the model, the response was the post-treatment log10 CFU/cm\^2 bacterial counts and predictors were the treatment effect as a fixed effect and the pre-treatment log10 CFU/cm\^2 bacterial counts as a covariate.||2.858|2.396|
90884763|NCT01591746|181631997|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.43
90884764|NCT01591746|181631998|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.37
90884765|NCT01591746|181631999|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.0
90884766|NCT03495908|181632010|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin is 0.4% HbA1c|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2207||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6654|0.2241||Non-inferiority p-value based on the 0.4% non-inferiority margin|Mixed Models Analysis||RHI - RAI estimated treatment difference. Upper confidence interval 0.22 is less than the 0.4% non-inferiority margin.|RHI - RAI estimated treatment difference (ETD) in HbA1c. Per-protocol analysis is the pre-specified primary outcome.||0.2241|-0.6654|0.007
90884767|NCT03495908|181632011|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of Post-randomization prevalence of hypoglycemia based on 7-point glucose profiles.||||||0.82|||||||Fisher Exact|||Post-randomization prevalence of hypoglycemia based on 7-point glucose profiles.||||.82
90884768|NCT03495908|181632012|SUPERIORITY|Analysis of the 7-point profiles within the ITT population (n=136)|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.925||||0.861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.386|2.217||Results are from a Poisson regression model with repeated measures; generalized estimating equations (GEE) approach.|Regression, Poisson|Poisson regression model with repeated measures; generalized estimating equations (GEE) approach|The incidence rate ratio quantitates the risk of hypoglycemia in the RHI group (RR numerator) compared with the RAI group (RR numerator). Results from Poisson regression model with repeated measures; generalized estimating equations (GEE) approach.|Level 1 (≤70 mg/dL or (\<3.9 mmol/L)) and level 2 hypoglycemia (\<54 mg/dL (\<3.0 mmol/L)) events are analyzed. No level 3 events were reported for either group.||2.217|0.386|0.861
90884769|NCT03495908|181632013|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01073||||0.415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03674|0.01528|||Mixed Models Analysis||Between Group Comparison (RHI-RAI) Estimated Treatment Difference (ETD) mixed effects model analysis|RHI versus RAI for Insulin Intent-to-treat Population N=136 Mixed Model Estimates for Insulin TDD U/kg I||0.01528|-0.03674|0.415
90884770|NCT03495908|181632014|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0776||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2139|1.0587|||Mixed Models Analysis||Between Group Comparison (RHI-RAI) Estimated Treatment Difference (ETD) mixed effects model analysis|||1.0587|-3.2139|0.320
90884771|NCT03495908|181632015|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-265.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-288.6|-243.11|||Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated Treatment Difference (RHI-RAI) from repeated measures mixed model least squares estimates|||-243.11|-288.60|<0.0001
90884772|NCT03495908|181632016|NON_INFERIORITY|Change in A1C Non-inferiority Margin is 0.4%|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1317||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5838|0.3205||p-value for non-inferiority|Mixed Models Analysis||Between Group Difference (RHI-RAI) mixed effects repeated measures model analysis.Upper confidence interval 0.32 is less than the 0.4% non-inferiority margin.|Intent-to-treat secondary outcome of HbA1c response for assessment of non-inferiority of RHI compared to RAI||0.3205|-0.5838|0.02
90884773|NCT01109316|181632018|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin of 0.6 mmol/L was used.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.76|||||Least Squares Mean Difference = Insulin Lispro 6 Day minus Insulin Aspart 6 Day; adjusted for Treatment + Sequence + Period + Age stratum + Baseline HbA1c.|This was the primary gated analysis.||0.76|0.20|
90884774|NCT01109316|181632019|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin of 0.6 mmol/L was used.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.52|||||Least Squares Mean Difference = Insulin Lispro 6 Day minus Insulin Aspart 6 Day; adjusted for Treatment + Sequence + Period + Age Stratum + Baseline HbA1c; where participant is treated as a random effect.|||0.52|-0.07|
91034729|NCT00913627|181955177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.98|4.89||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||6 hours||4.89|2.98|<0.001
90884775|NCT01109316|181632019|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin of 0.6 mmol/L was used.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.56|||||Least Squares Mean Difference = Insulin Lispro 6 Day minus Insulin Aspart 6 Day; adjusted for Treatment + Sequence + Period + Age Stratum + Baseline HbA1c; where participant is treated as a random effect.|||0.56|-0.05|
90884776|NCT01109316|181632020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.51|||||Least Squares Mean Difference of Daily Bolus Insulin = Insulin Lispro 6 Day minus Insulin Aspart 6 Day; adjusted for Treatment + Sequence + Period + Baseline Insulin Basal/Bolus/Total Dose + Age Stratum.|||0.51|-0.29|
90884777|NCT01109316|181632020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.73|||||Least Squares Mean Difference of Daily Bolus Insulin = Insulin Lispro 6 Day minus Insulin Aspart 6 Day; adjusted for Treatment + Sequence + Period + Baseline Insulin Basal/Bolus/Total Dose + Age Stratum.|||0.73|-0.41|
90884778|NCT01109316|181632020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.24|||||Least Squares Mean Difference of Daily Bolus Insulin = Insulin Lispro 6 Day minus Insulin Aspart 6 Day; adjusted for Treatment + Sequence + Period + Baseline Insulin Basal/Bolus/Total Dose + Age Stratum.|||0.24|-0.18|
90940724|NCT02831998|181761265|NON_INFERIORITY|Investigational product average treatment effect upper bounds cannot be more than 0.5.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.018|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.102|0.065||||||Abdomen 10 minutes Average Treatment Effect, calculated using a linear regression model for each body site, was used for primary analysis. In the model, the response was the post-treatment log10 CFU/cm\^2 bacterial counts and predictors were the treatment effect as a fixed effect and the pre-treatment log10 CFU/cm\^2 bacterial counts as a covariate.||0.065|-0.102|
90884779|NCT01109316|181632020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.27|||||Least Squares Mean Difference of Daily Bolus Insulin = Insulin Lispro 6 Day minus Insulin Aspart 6 Day; adjusted for Treatment + Sequence + Period + Baseline Insulin Basal/Bolus/Total Dose + Age Stratum.|||0.27|-0.56|
90884780|NCT01109316|181632020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.6|||||Least Squares Mean Difference of Daily Bolus Insulin = Insulin Lispro 6 Day minus Insulin Aspart 6 Day; adjusted for Treatment + Sequence + Period + Baseline Insulin Basal/Bolus/Total Dose + Age Stratum.|||0.60|-0.48|
90884781|NCT01109316|181632020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.65|||||Least Squares Mean Difference of Daily Bolus Insulin = Insulin Lispro 6 Day minus Insulin Aspart 6 Day; adjusted for Treatment + Sequence + Period + Baseline Insulin Basal/Bolus/Total Dose + Age Stratum.|||0.65|-0.85|
90884782|NCT01109316|181632021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.14|||||Least Squares Mean Difference = Insulin Lispro 6 Day minus Insulin Aspart 6 Day; adjusted for Treatment + Period + Sequence + Baseline HbA1c.|||0.14|-0.02|
90884783|NCT01109316|181632021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.18|||||Least Squares Mean Difference = Insulin Lispro 6 Day minus Insulin Aspart 6 Day; adjusted for Treatment + Period + Sequence + Baseline HbA1c.|||0.18|0.01|
90884784|NCT01109316|181632022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.75|||||Odds Ratio of HbA1c ≤6.5% for Insulin Lispro 6 Day versus Insulin Aspart 6 Day.|||1.75|0.50|
90884785|NCT01109316|181632022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.67|||||Odds Ratio of HbA1c ≤6.5% for Insulin Lispro 6 Day versus Insulin Lispro 2 Day.|||1.67|0.29|
90884786|NCT01109316|181632022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.41|||||Odds Ratio of HbA1c \<7% for Insulin Lispro 6 Day versus Insulin Aspart 6 Day.|||1.41|0.56|
90963826|NCT01186796|181809379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||"Unit of mass secreted per burst is in ug/L. An automated deconvolution method was used and mathematically verified by direct statistical proof and empirically validated using hypothalamopituitary sampling and a simulated pulsatile time series."|ANOVA|Two-way ANOVA in a 2x4 factorial nested design with repeated measures.||||||<0.05
90963827|NCT01186796|181809380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Two-way ANOVA in a 2x4 factorial nested design with repeated measures.||||||<0.05
91034730|NCT00913627|181955177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.85|3.75||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||6 hours||3.75|1.85|<0.001
91034731|NCT00913627|181955177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.65|4.56||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||7 hours||4.56|2.65|<0.001
91034732|NCT00913627|181955177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.89|4.79||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||7 hours||4.79|2.89|<0.001
91034733|NCT00913627|181955177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|3.54||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||7 hours||3.54|1.65|<0.001
91034734|NCT00913627|181955177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.54|4.53||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||8 hours||4.53|2.54|<0.001
91034735|NCT00913627|181955177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.52|4.49||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||8 hours||4.49|2.52|<0.001
91034736|NCT00913627|181955177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.69|3.65||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||8 hours||3.65|1.69|<0.001
90963828|NCT01186796|181809381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Two-way ANOVA in a 2x4 factorial nested design with repeated measures.||||||<0.05
90963829|NCT01936909|181809388|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.2|||||||ANOVA|||This test reflects a comparison between baseline and 2 weeks (both rows).||||>0.20
91034737|NCT00913627|181955177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.19|4.21||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||9 hours||4.21|2.19|<0.001
90884787|NCT01109316|181632022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.64|||||Odds Ratio of HbA1c \<7% for Insulin Lispro 6 Day versus Insulin Lispro 2 Day.|||1.64|0.66|
90884788|NCT01109316|181632023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||P-value computed using Treatment comparison Gart's Test. Participants represented in both treatment groups and with non-missing incidence value in each treatment period are used for p-value calculation.|Gart's Test|||||||1.00
90963830|NCT01936909|181809389|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Paired analysis versus baseline||||<0.01
90963831|NCT01936909|181809390|SUPERIORITY|Log-rank test||||||0.12|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.12
90963832|NCT00578786|181809393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|38.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|74.28|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.7|53.3|||||Applies to Ambrisentan 2.5 mg group only. Missing values were imputed using last-observation-carried forward method (LOCF) based on post-baseline observations.|||53.3|22.7|
91034738|NCT00913627|181955177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.51|4.51||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||9 hours||4.51|2.51|<0.001
91034739|NCT00913627|181955177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.49|3.48||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||9 hours||3.48|1.49|<0.001
91034740|NCT00913627|181955177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.17|4.21||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||10 hours||4.21|2.17|<0.001
91034741|NCT00913627|181955177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.64|4.66||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||10 hours||4.66|2.64|<0.001
91034742|NCT00913627|181955177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|3.6||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||10 hours||3.60|1.58|<0.001
91034743|NCT00913627|181955177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.06|4.15||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||11 hours||4.15|2.06|<0.001
91034744|NCT00913627|181955177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.53|4.61||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||11 hours||4.61|2.53|<0.001
91034745|NCT00913627|181955177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.61|3.67||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||11 hours||3.67|1.61|<0.001
90884789|NCT01109316|181632024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.164||95.0||||P-value computed using a negative binomial test including factors for treatment, period, and sequence.|Negative Binomial Test|||||||0.164
90884790|NCT01109316|181632024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.185||95.0||||P-value computed using a negative binomial test including factors for treatment, period, and sequence.|Negative Binomial Test|||||||0.185
90884791|NCT01109316|181632025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.736||95.0||||P-value for Premature Reservoir Change. P-value computed using Treatment comparison Gart's Test. Participants represented in both treatment groups and with non-missing incidence value in each treatment period are used for p-value calculation.|Gart's Test|||||||0.736
90884792|NCT01109316|181632025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0||||P-value for Premature Reservoir Change. P-value computed using Treatment comparison Gart's Test. Participants represented in both treatment groups and with non-missing incidence value in each treatment period are used for p-value calculation.|Gart's Test|||||||0.006
90884793|NCT01109316|181632025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||P-value for Premature Infusion Set Change. P-value computed using Treatment comparison Gart's Test. Participants represented in both treatment groups and with non-missing incidence value in each treatment period are used for p-value calculation.|Gart's Test|||||||1.00
90884794|NCT01109316|181632025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017||95.0||||P-value for Premature Infusion Set Change. P-value computed using Treatment comparison Gart's Test. Participants represented in both treatment groups and with non-missing incidence value in each treatment period are used for p-value calculation.|Gart's Test|||||||0.017
90884795|NCT01109316|181632026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.471||95.0||||P-value for Premature Reservoir Change. P-value is computed using negative binomial test including factors for treatment, period and sequence.|Negative Binomial Test|||||||0.471
90884796|NCT01109316|181632026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Premature Reservoir Change. P-value is computed using negative binomial test including factors for treatment, period and sequence.|Negative Binomial Test|||||||<0.001
90884797|NCT01109316|181632026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.737||95.0||||P-value for Premature Infusion Set Change. P-value is computed using negative binomial test including factors for treatment, period and sequence.|Negative Binomial Test|||||||0.737
90884798|NCT01109316|181632026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Premature Infusion Set Change. P-value is computed using negative binomial test including factors for treatment, period and sequence.|Negative Binomial Test|||||||<0.001
90884799|NCT01109316|181632028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0||||P-value is computed using negative binomial test including factors for treatment, period and sequence.|Negative Binomial Test|||||||0.006
90884800|NCT01109316|181632028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-value is computed using negative binomial test including factors for treatment, period and sequence.|Negative Binomial Test|||||||0.002
90884801|NCT01109316|181632029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0||||P-value computed using crossover model. Response = Treatment + Sequence + Period + Age stratum + Baseline Body Weight.|Crossover Model|||||||0.060
90884802|NCT01109316|181632029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.486||95.0||||P-value computed using crossover model. Response = Treatment + Sequence + Period + Age stratum + Baseline Body Weight.|Crossover Model|||||||0.486
90884803|NCT01109316|181632030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.056||95.0||||P-value is for Systolic Blood Pressure. P-value computed using crossover model. Response = Treatment + Sequence + Period + Age stratum + Baseline Systolic Blood Pressure.|Crossover Model|||||||0.056
90884804|NCT01109316|181632030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.805||95.0||||P-value is for Systolic Blood Pressure. P-value computed using crossover model. Response = Treatment + Sequence + Period + Age stratum + Baseline Systolic Blood Pressure.|Crossover Model|||||||0.805
90884805|NCT01109316|181632030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0||||P-value is for Diastolic Blood Pressure. P-value computed using crossover model. Response = Treatment + Sequence + Period + Age stratum + Baseline Diastolic Blood Pressure.|Crossover Model|||||||0.020
90884806|NCT01109316|181632030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.051||95.0||||P-value is for Diastolic Blood Pressure. P-value computed using crossover model. Response = Treatment + Sequence + Period + Age stratum + Baseline Diastolic Blood Pressure.|Crossover Model|||||||0.051
90884807|NCT01559311|181632038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1734|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"* H01: μ LVEF, 1= μ LVEF, 2a vs H1a: μ LVEF, 1 \< μ LVEF, 2a~* Where μ LVEF, 1 is the mean of LVEF at month 12 in DDDR Gp.~* μ LVEF, 2a is the mean of LVEF at month 12 in CRT-P ON Gp,"||||0.1734
90884808|NCT01559311|181632038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1439|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"* H03: μ LVEF, 1= μ LVEF, 2b vs H1a: μ LVEF, 1 \< μ LVEF, 2b~* Where μ LVEF, 1 is the mean of LVEF at month 12 in DDDR Gp.~* μ LVEF, 2b is the mean of LVEF at month 12 in the CRT-P OFF Gp"||||0.1439
90884809|NCT01559311|181632039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6276|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"* H02: μ LVESV, 1 = μ LVESV, 2a vs H1b: μ LVESV, 1 \> μ LVESV, 2a~* Where, μLVESV, 1 is the mean of LVESV at month 12 in the DDDR Group,~* μLVESV, 2a is the mean of LVESV at month 12 in the CRT-P ON group"||||0.6276
90884810|NCT01559311|181632039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5871|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"* H04: μ LVESV, 1 = μ LVESV, 2b vs H1b: μ LVESV, 1 \> μ LVESV, 2b~* Where, μLVESV, 1 is the mean of LVESV at month 12 in the DDDR Group,~* and μLVESV, 2b is the mean of LVESV at month 12 in CRT-P OFF group."||||0.5871
90884811|NCT01196871|181632083|OTHER|Geometric means for each treatment combination is obtained from the linear mixed effects model Log (parameter) = Intercept + ß\*Treatment + Error.|AUC0-t Ratio|2.942|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.439|3.548|||||The ratios of the geometric means (combination/alone) and its 90% CI are obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|Statistical Analysis of Stage 1 AUC0-t Data: Point estimates for the geometric means and their 90% confidence interval (CI) are obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean and the lower and upper bounds of the 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.||3.548|2.439|
90884812|NCT01196871|181632083|OTHER|Geometric means for each treatment combination is obtained from the linear mixed effects model Log (parameter) = Intercept + ß\*Treatment + Error.|AUCinfinity Ratio|2.942|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.431|3.56|||||The ratios of the geometric means (combination/alone) and its 90% CI are obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|Statistical Analysis of Stage 1 AUCinfinity Data: Point estimates for the geometric means and their 90% CI are obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean and the lower and upper bounds of the 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.||3.560|2.431|
90924753|NCT04800211|181724026|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.112|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.532|-0.693|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-0.693|-1.532|<.0001
90924754|NCT04800211|181724026|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is equal to Test 1 on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Test 1 on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.054||||0.8248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.535|0.427|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is equal to Test 1 on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Test 1 on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||0.427|-0.535|0.8248
90924755|NCT04800211|181724027|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.821||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.369|4.273|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)||4.273|1.369|0.0002
90924756|NCT04800211|181724027|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|3.468|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.85|5.086|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||5.086|1.850|<.0001
90924757|NCT04800211|181724027|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.245||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.812|3.679|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)||3.679|0.812|0.0022
90924758|NCT04800211|181724027|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|3.329|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.768|4.891|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||4.891|1.768|<.0001
90963833|NCT00578786|181809393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|32.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|78.55|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.1|43.8|||||Applies to Ambrisentan 5 mg group only. Missing values were imputed using last-observation-carried forward method (LOCF) based on post-baseline observations.|||43.8|21.1|
90963834|NCT00578786|181809393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|40.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|72.85|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.1|55.7|||||Applies to Ambrisentan 10 mg group only. LOCF method of imputation. Missing values were imputed using last-observation-carried forward method (LOCF) based on post-baseline observations.|||55.7|26.1|
90963835|NCT00578786|181809393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|36.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|75.97|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.3|43.7|||||Applies to Ambrisentan combined group only. LOCF method of imputation.|||43.7|28.3|
91034746|NCT00913627|181955177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.09|4.21||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||12 hours||4.21|2.09|<0.001
91034747|NCT00913627|181955177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.36|4.46||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||12 hours||4.46|2.36|<0.001
91034748|NCT00913627|181955177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|3.44||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||12 hours||3.44|1.36|<0.001
90884813|NCT01196871|181632083|OTHER|Geometric means for each treatment combination is obtained from the linear mixed effects model Log (parameter) = Intercept + ß\*Treatment + Error.|AUC0-t Ratio|2.354|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.826|3.035|||||The ratios of the geometric means (combination/alone) and its 90% CI are obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|Statistical Analysis of Stage 2 AUC0-t Data: Point estimates for the geometric means and their 90% CI are obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean and the lower and upper bounds of the 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.||3.035|1.826|
91034749|NCT00913627|181955177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.94|4.12||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||13 hours||4.12|1.94|<0.001
90924759|NCT04800211|181724027|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|3.399|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.252|4.545|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||4.545|2.252|<.0001
90924760|NCT04800211|181724027|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.25||||0.0761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.132|2.633|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)||2.633|-0.132|0.0761
90924761|NCT04800211|181724027|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.778||||0.0211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.269|3.286|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||3.286|0.269|0.0211
90924762|NCT04800211|181724027|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.57||||0.3841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.951|4.092|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)||4.092|-0.951|0.3841
90940725|NCT02831998|181761265|SUPERIORITY|Investigational product lower bounds must be greater than 1.2.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.909|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.766|2.053||||||Abdomen 10 minutes Average Treatment Effect, calculated using a linear regression model for each body site, was used for primary analysis. In the model, the response was the post-treatment log10 CFU/cm\^2 bacterial counts and predictors were the treatment effect as a fixed effect and the pre-treatment log10 CFU/cm\^2 bacterial counts as a covariate.||2.053|1.766|
91034750|NCT00913627|181955177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.91|4.07||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||13 hours||4.07|1.91|<0.001
91034751|NCT00913627|181955177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|3.42||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||13 hours||3.42|1.28|<0.001
91034752|NCT00913627|181955177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|3.83||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||14 hours||3.83|1.57|<0.001
91034753|NCT00913627|181955177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.62|3.85||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||14 hours||3.85|1.62|<0.001
91034754|NCT00913627|181955177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|3.37||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||14 hours||3.37|1.14|<0.001
91034755|NCT00913627|181955177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|3.76||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||16 hours||3.76|1.51|<0.001
91034756|NCT00913627|181955177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|3.56||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||16 hours||3.56|1.33|<0.001
91034757|NCT00913627|181955177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|3.47||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||16 hours||3.47|1.25|<0.001
91034758|NCT00913627|181955177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|3.19||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||24 hours||3.19|0.86|<0.001
91034759|NCT00913627|181955177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|3.05||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||24 hours||3.05|0.75|0.001
90884814|NCT01196871|181632083|OTHER|Geometric means for each treatment combination is obtained from the linear mixed effects model Log (parameter) = Intercept + ß\*Treatment + Error.|AUCinfinity Ratio|2.375|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.839|3.068|||||The ratios of the geometric means (combination/alone) and its 90% CI are obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|Statistical Analysis of Stage 2 AUCinfinity Data: Point estimates for the geometric means and their 90% CI are obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean and the lower and upper bounds of the 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.||3.068|1.839|
91034760|NCT00913627|181955177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|3.34||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||24 hours||3.34|1.05|<0.001
91034761|NCT00913627|181955178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.94|2.89||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||||2.89|1.94|<0.001
90884815|NCT01196871|181632084|OTHER|Geometric means for each treatment combination is obtained from the linear mixed effects model Log (parameter) = Intercept + ß\*Treatment + Error.|Cmax Ratio|1.629|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.44|1.843|||||The ratios of the geometric means (combination/alone) and its 90% CI are obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|Statistical Analysis of Stage 1 Cmax Data: Point estimates for the geometric means and their 90% CI are obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean and the lower and upper bounds of the 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.||1.843|1.440|
90884816|NCT01196871|181632084|OTHER|Geometric means for each treatment combination is obtained from the linear mixed effects model Log (parameter) = Intercept + ß\*Treatment + Error.|Cmax Ratio|1.546|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.3|1.838|||||The ratios of the geometric means (combination/alone) and its 90% CI are obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|Statistical Analysis of Stage 2 Cmax Data: Point estimates for the geometric means and their 90% CI are obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean and the lower and upper bounds of the 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.||1.838|1.300|
90884817|NCT01196871|181632086|OTHER|Geometric means for each treatment combination is obtained from the linear mixed effects model Log (parameter) = Intercept + ß\*Treatment + Error.|AUC0-t Ratio|1.025|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.921|1.14|||||The ratios of the geometric means (combination/alone) and its 90% CI are obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|Statistical Analysis of Stage 1 AUC0-t Data: Point estimates for the geometric means and their 90% CI are obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean and the lower and upper bounds of the 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.||1.140|0.921|
90884818|NCT01196871|181632086|OTHER|Geometric means for each treatment combination is obtained from the linear mixed effects mode Log (parameter) = Intercept + ß\*Treatment + Error.|AUC0-t Ratio|1.256|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.026|1.538|||||The ratios of the geometric means (combination/alone) and its 90% CI are obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|Statistical Analysis of Stage 2 AUC0-t Data: Point estimates for the geometric means and their 90% CI are obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean and the lower and upper bounds of the 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.||1.538|1.026|
90884819|NCT01196871|181632088|OTHER|Geometric means for each treatment combination is obtained from the linear mixed effects model Log (parameter) = Intercept + ß\*Treatment + Error.|Cmax Ratio|1.034|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.929|1.152|||||The ratios of the geometric means (combination/alone) and its 90% CI are obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|Statistical Analysis of Stage 1 Cmax Data: Point estimates for the geometric means and their 90% CI are obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean and the lower and upper bounds of the 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.||1.152|0.929|
90884820|NCT01196871|181632088|OTHER|Geometric means for each treatment combination is obtained from the linear mixed effects model Log (parameter) = Intercept + ß\*Treatment + Error.|Cmax Ratio|1.063|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.972|1.164|||||The ratios of the geometric means (combination/alone) and its 90% CI are obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|Statistical Analysis of Stage 2 Cmax Data: Point estimates for the geometric means and their 90% CI are obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean and the lower and upper bounds of the 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.||1.164|0.972|
90940726|NCT00839332|181761267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Bayesian Posterior Probability|0.333|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Inference about survival was made using a Bayesian posterior probability. The combination treatment would have been considered superior to gemcitabine alone if the posterior probability of superiority exceeded 0.8.|||||
91034762|NCT00913627|181955178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.92|2.86||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||||2.86|1.92|<0.001
91034763|NCT00913627|181955178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|2.52||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||||2.52|1.58|<0.001
91034764|NCT00095212|181955191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||longitudinal linear mixed effects model|||||||0.04
91034765|NCT00095212|181955192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Longitudinal linear mixed effects model|||The study was powered at 80% to detect a significant treatment difference of 2.7 kg in lean body mass between the two groups with 25 randomized patients and a 15% assumed dropout rate, using a two sided 5.0 percent significance level.||||0.02
91034766|NCT00095212|181955193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Longitudinal mixed methods model|||The study was powered at 80% to detect a significant treatment difference of 2.7 kg in lean body mass between the two groups with 25 randomized patients and a 15% assumed dropout rate, using a two sided 5.0 percent significance level.||||0.02
91034767|NCT00095212|181955194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||Longitudinal mixed methods model|||The study was powered at 80% to detect a significant treatment difference of 2.7 kg in lean body mass between the two groups with 25 randomized patients and a 15% assumed dropout rate, using a two sided 5.0 percent significance level.||||0.01
90924763|NCT04800211|181724027|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.69||||0.3934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.084|4.464|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||4.464|-1.084|0.3934
90924764|NCT04800211|181724027|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.995||||0.7782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.505|3.494|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)||3.494|-1.505|0.7782
90924765|NCT04800211|181724027|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.552||||0.4576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.171|4.274|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||4.274|-1.171|0.4576
90924766|NCT04800211|181724027|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.621||||0.0849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.224|3.466|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||3.466|-0.224|0.0849
90924767|NCT04800211|181724027|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is equal to Test 2 on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Test 2 on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.139||||0.9016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.064|2.341|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is equal to Test 2 on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Test 2 on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||2.341|-2.064|0.9016
90940727|NCT04414397|181761283|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|66.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.9|78.8||Analysis was performed using the SAS procedure MIANALYZE with normal approximation to generate an associated p-value for the comparison of responder rates between groups.|Multiple imputation regression|||JUVÉDERM® VOLUMA® XC Treatment vs No-treatment control||78.8|54.9|<0.0001
90940728|NCT04414397|181761287|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value is based on a 2-sided paired t-test at the 5% level to demonstrate that the mean satisfaction score at Month 3 visit is statistically greater than at Baseline for the treatment group.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90940729|NCT04414397|181761288|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value is based on a 2-sided paired t-test at the 5% level to demonstrate that the mean satisfaction score at Month 3 is statistically greater than at Baseline for the treatment group.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90940730|NCT02551692|181761292|OTHER||Partial sum of squares|855.65||||0.534|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.534
90940731|NCT02551692|181761293|OTHER||Partial sum of squares|29602.69||||0.26|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.26
90940732|NCT02551692|181761294|OTHER||Partial sum of squares|101.69||||0.318|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.318
90940733|NCT00230971|181761324|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A 2-sided 95% CI (corrected for continuity) was calculated for the true difference between the cure rates. Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided CI is greater than -15%.|Risk Difference (RD)|1.6||||||95.0|-6.4|9.6|||t-test, 1 sided||Estimates of the difference, CI and hypothesis tests are weighted by using minimum risk weights.|||9.6|-6.4|
90940734|NCT00230971|181761325|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A 2-sided 95% CI (corrected for continuity) was calculated for the true difference between the cure rates. Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided CI is greater than -15%.|Risk Difference (RD)|1.8||||0.001||95.0|-8.8|12.5|||t-test, 1 sided||Estimates of the difference, CI and hypothesis tests are weighted by using minimum risk weights.|||12.5|-8.8|0.001
91034768|NCT00095212|181955195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.16
91034769|NCT00095212|181955196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.29
91034770|NCT00095212|181955197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.75
90924768|NCT04800211|181724028|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|5.587||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.511|8.662|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||8.662|2.511|0.0004
90940735|NCT00230971|181761326|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A 2-sided 95% CI (corrected for continuity) was calculated for the true difference between the cure rates. Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided CI is greater than -15%.|Risk Difference (RD)|2.7||||||95.0|-7.9|13.3|||t-test, 1 sided||Estimates of the difference, CI and hypothesis tests are weighted by using minimum risk weights.|Group comparison of eradication + presumed eradication||13.3|-7.9|
90940736|NCT00230971|181761327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75|||||||ANOVA|Treatment as a factor||Overall inpatient hospitalization||||0.750
90940737|NCT00230971|181761327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.655|||||||ANOVA|Treatment as a factor||Primary inpatient hospitalization||||0.655
90940738|NCT00230971|181761327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.191|||||||ANOVA|Treatment as a factor||ICU treatment||||0.191
90940739|NCT00230971|181761327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.717|||||||ANOVA|Treatment as a factor||Inpatient hospitalization, non-ICU||||0.717
90963836|NCT00578786|181809394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|24.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|96.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.1|44.7|||||Applies to Ambrisentan 2.5 mg group only. Missing values were imputed using last-observation-carried forward method (LOCF) based on post-baseline observations.|||44.7|5.1|
90963837|NCT00578786|181809394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|27.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|94.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.2|41.6|||||Applies to Ambrisentan 5.0 mg group only. Missing values were imputed using last-observation-carried forward method (LOCF) based on post-baseline observations.|||41.6|14.2|
90963838|NCT00578786|181809394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|37.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|72.97|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.4|52.0|||||Applies to Ambrisentan 10 mg group only. Missing values were imputed using last-observation-carried forward method (LOCF) based on post-baseline observations.|||52.0|22.4|
90963839|NCT00578786|181809394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|29.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|89.81|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.4|38.7|||||Applies to Ambrisentan combined group only. LOCF method of imputation.|||38.7|20.4|
90963840|NCT00578786|181809395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|97.48|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|26.8|||||Applies to Ambrisentan 2.5 mg group only. LOCF method of imputation.|||26.8|-13.4|
90963841|NCT00578786|181809395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|23.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|100.69|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.7|37.8|||||Applies to Ambrisentan 5 mg group only. LOCF method of imputation.|||37.8|8.7|
90963842|NCT00578786|181809395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|28.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|84.38|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.9|45.1|||||Applies to Ambrisentan 10 mg group only. LOCF method of imputation.|||45.1|10.9|
91034771|NCT00095212|181955198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.14
90884821|NCT01196871|181632090|OTHER|Geometric means for each treatment combination is obtained from the linear mixed effects model Log (parameter) = Intercept + ß\*Treatment + Error.|AUC0-t Ratio|1.059|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.818|1.371|||||The ratios of the geometric means (combination/alone) and its 90% CI are obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|Statistical Analysis of Stage 1 AUC0-t Data: Point estimates for the geometric means and their 90% CI are obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean and the lower and upper bounds of the 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.||1.371|0.818|
90884822|NCT01196871|181632090|OTHER|Geometric means for each treatment combination is obtained from the linear mixed effects model Log (parameter) = Intercept + ß\*Treatment + Error.|AUCinfinity Ratio|1.052|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.807|1.371|||||The ratios of the geometric means (combination/alone) and its 90% CI are obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|Statistical Analysis of Stage 1 AUCinfinity Data: Point estimates for the geometric means and their 90% CI are obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean and the lower and upper bounds of the 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.||1.371|0.807|
90884823|NCT01196871|181632091|OTHER|Geometric means for each treatment combination is obtained from the linear mixed effects model Log (parameter) = Intercept + ß\*Treatment + Error.|Cmax Ratio|0.997|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.791|1.259|||||The ratios of the geometric means (combination/alone) and its 90% CI are obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|Statistical Analysis of Stage 1 Cmax Data: Point estimates for the geometric means and their 90% CI are obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean and the lower and upper bounds of the 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.||1.259|0.791|
90884824|NCT02188485|181632108|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.278|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||This mean difference is not identical to the mean difference presented in the summary table because this mean difference was adjusted for random effects in the model.|Thwarted belonging (INQ-TB) at 10 week follow-up||||.278
91034772|NCT00095212|181955199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.26
91034773|NCT00095212|181955200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.22
91034774|NCT00095212|181955201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.94||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.94
91034775|NCT00762307|181955209|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|18.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.9|22.4||||||||22.4|14.9|
91034776|NCT00762307|181955211|OTHER||sucess percentage|91.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.2|||ONE_SIDED|||||||||||||
91034777|NCT02305758|181955214|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.939|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.596|1.48||||||Comparisons between treatment groups were performed using the Cox Proportional Hazard Model, stratified by planned bevacizumab use (planned use versus no planned use).||1.480|0.596|
91034778|NCT02305758|181955215|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.261|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.738|2.156||||||Comparisons between treatment groups were performed using the Cox Proportional Hazard Model, stratified by planned bevacizumab use (planned use versus no planned use).||2.156|0.738|
90884825|NCT02188485|181632108|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.591|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||This mean difference is not identical to the mean difference presented in the summary table because this mean difference was adjusted for random effects in the model.|Perceived burden (INQ-PB) at 10-week follow-up||||.591
90884826|NCT02188485|181632109|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.511|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||This mean difference is not identical to the mean difference presented in the summary table because this mean difference was adjusted for random effects in the model.|||||.511
91034779|NCT02305758|181955216|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|-4.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.4|12.1|||Mantel Haenszel|||Comparisons between treatment groups were performed using the Mantel-Haenszel method, stratified by planned bevacizumab use (planned use versus no planned use).||12.1|-21.4|
90884827|NCT02188485|181632110|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.014|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||This mean difference is not identical to the mean difference presented in the summary table because this mean difference was adjusted for random effects in the model.|||||.014
90884828|NCT00799617|181632111|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.78||The p value for the treatment effect was determined with the use of a linear mixed model with a random effect for participant.|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjustment for balancing factors: baseline testosterone, age, site, trial participation, use of antidepressants, use of PDE5 inhibitors||||0.78|0.38|<0.001
90884829|NCT00799617|181632112|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|2.45||The P value for the treatment effect was determined with the use of a logistic mixed model with a random effect for participant for dichotomous outcomes and a linear mixed model with a random effect for participant for continuous outcomes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The treatment effect for dichotomous outcomes is the odds ratio for achieving the outcome versus not achieving the outcome among men assigned to testosterone versus those assigned to placebo.||2.45|0.83|0.20
90884830|NCT00799617|181632113|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.84||The p value for the treatment effect was determined with the use of a logistic mixed model with a random effect for participant for dichotomous outcomes and a linear mixed model with a random effect for participant for continuous outcomes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.84|0.83|0.30
90884831|NCT00799617|181632114|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|41.0||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.0|67.0||Determined by a linear mixed model with all balancing factors and baseline outcome value as covariates and a random effect for participant.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference in change from baseline for participants assigned to testosterone v. placebo, with adjustment for balancing factors: baseline testosterone, age, site, trial participation, use of antidepressants, PDE5 inhibitors, baseline outcome.|||67|14|.003
90884832|NCT00799617|181632115|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.8|8.7||Treatment effect is the mean difference in the change from baseline between testosterone and placebo arms.The P-Value for the significance of the treatment effect was determined by multivariable linear regression adjusted for balancing factors.|Regression, Linear|||||8.7|4.8|<.001
90884833|NCT00799617|181632116|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.79||The estimated difference and P-value were determined by a linear mixed-model with a random effect for participants using outcomes at month 6 and month 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"A positive estimated difference indicates greater increases, smaller decreases, or both for the testosterone group compared with the placebo group.~The difference is the mean difference in the change from baseline to 6 months to 12 months in participants allocated to testosterone vs placebo adjusted for balancing factors."||0.79|-0.92|.88
90884834|NCT00799617|181632117|SUPERIORITY|Dichotomous hemoglobin response is an increase of 1g/dL or more from baseline.|Odds Ratio (OR)|31.5||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|277.8||The P-value for the significance of the treatment effect was determined by a logistic mixed model with a random intercept for participant.|Mixed Models Analysis|The statistical analysis was intent-to-treat by a logistic mixed effects model adjusted for balancing factors.||||277.8|3.7|.002
90884835|NCT00799617|181632118|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.13|3.74||The p value for the treatment effect was determined with the use of a linear mixed model with a random effect for participant.|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjustment for balancing factors: baseline testosterone, age, site, trial participation, use of antidepressants, use of PDE5 inhibitors||||3.74|2.13|<0.001
90884836|NCT00799617|181632119|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|2.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.68|3.61||The p value for the treatment effect was determined with the use of a linear mixed model with a random effect for participant.|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjustment for balancing factors: baseline testosterone, age, site, trial participation, use of antidepressants, use of PDE5 inhibitors||||3.61|1.68|<0.001
90884837|NCT00799617|181632120|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.09||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|11.18||The P value for the treatment effect was determined with the use of a logistic mixed model with a random effect for participant for dichotomous outcomes and a linear mixed model with a random effect for participant for continuous outcomes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.18|-3.00|0.28
90884838|NCT00799617|181632121|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.0||The P value for the treatment effect was determined with the use of a logistic mixed model with a random effect for participant for dichotomous outcomes and a linear mixed model with a random effect for participant for continuous outcomes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.00|0.90|0.15
90940740|NCT02799745|181761359|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.542||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.892||P-value was from a 2-sided stratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||HR, 95% CI for HR:based on a Cox regression model assuming proportional hazards with treatment, prostate cancer risk,type of biopsy,baseline variables(as age, race), time since prostate cancer diagnosis as fixed effects and random effect of site.|||0.892|0.330|0.016
90884839|NCT00799617|181632122|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.75||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|5.29||The P value for the treatment effect was determined with the use of a logistic mixed model with a random effect for participant for dichotomous outcomes and a linear mixed model with a random effect for participant for continuous outcomes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.29|0.20|0.03
91034780|NCT00837486|181955234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.53||||||"one-sided P-value~per protocol responder rates: Active Group = 20.0%, Control Group = 14.3%"|Fisher Exact|||The study originally required a sample size of 208 subjects in order to have 90% power to detect a statistically significant difference between the responder rate of the active and control groups. With this 30-subject cohort, and only 29 subjects completing the blinded-treatment phase per protocol, the comparison of response rates was not adequately powered. The P-value is presented only to describe the outcomes of the two groups.||||=0.53
91034781|NCT03666026|181955247|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.03||||||||1.03|1.00|
91034782|NCT03666026|181955247|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.04||||||||1.04|1.00|
91034783|NCT03666026|181955247|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.04||||||||1.04|1.00|
90884840|NCT00799617|181632123|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.21||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|2.46||The p value for the treatment effect was determined with the use of a logistic mixed model with a random effect for participant for dichotomous outcomes and a linear mixed model with a random effect for participant for continuous outcomes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.46|-0.04|0.06
90884841|NCT00799617|181632124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.41||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|4.5||The p value for the treatment effect was determined with the use of a logistic mixed model with a random effect for participant for dichotomous outcomes and a linear mixed model with a random effect for participant for continuous outcomes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.50|0.31|0.03
90884842|NCT00799617|181632125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.47||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.92||The p value for the treatment effect was determined with the use of a logistic mixed model with a random effect for participant for dichotomous outcomes and a linear mixed model with a random effect for participant for continuous outcomes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.92|0.02|0.04
90884843|NCT00799617|181632126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.19||The p value for the treatment effect was determined with the use of a logistic mixed model with a random effect for participant for dichotomous outcomes and a linear mixed model with a random effect for participant for continuous outcomes.|Treatment Effect|||||-0.19|-0.79|<0.001
90884844|NCT00799617|181632127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.72||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.23||The p value for the treatment effect was determined with the use of a logistic mixed model with a random effect for participant for dichotomous outcomes and a linear mixed model with a random effect for participant for continuous outcomes.|Treatment Effect|||||-0.23|-1.20|0.004
90884845|NCT00799617|181632128|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|47.0||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.0|80.0||Determined by linear mixed model with all balancing factors and baseline outcome value as covariates and a random effect for participant.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference in change from baseline for participants assigned to testosterone v. placebo, with adjustment for balancing factors: baseline testosterone, age, site, trial participation, use of antidepressants, PDE5 inhibitors, baseline outcome.|||80|13|.006
90884846|NCT00799617|181632129|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.0||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.0|26.0||Determined by a linear mixed model with all balancing factors and baseline outcome value as covariates and a random effect for participant.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference in change from baseline for participants assigned to testosterone v. placebo, with adjustment for balancing factors: baseline testosterone, age, site, trial participation, use of antidepressants, PDE5 inhibitors, baseline outcome.|||26|-80|.31
90884847|NCT00799617|181632130|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|3.7||"Treatment effect is the mean difference in the change from baseline between testosterone and placebo arms.~The P-Value for the significance of the treatment effect was determined by multivariable linear regression adjusted for balancing factors."|Regression, Linear|||||3.7|2.1|<.001
90884848|NCT00799617|181632131|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|5.3||"Treatment effect is the mean difference in the change from baseline between testosterone and placebo arms.~The P-Value for the significance of the treatment effect was determined by multivariable linear regression adjusted for balancing factors."|Regression, Linear|||||5.3|3.2|<.001
90884849|NCT00799617|181632132|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.0||"Treatment effect is the mean difference in the change from baseline between testosterone and placebo arms.~The P-Value for the significance of the treatment effect was determined by multivariable linear regression adjusted for balancing factors."|Regression, Linear|||||2.0|0.9|<.001
90884850|NCT00799617|181632133|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.5||"Treatment effect is the mean difference in the change from baseline between testosterone and placebo arms.~The P-Value for the significance of the treatment effect was determined by multivariable linear regression adjusted for balancing factors."|Regression, Linear|||||1.5|0.5|<.001
90884851|NCT00799617|181632134|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.7|||Regression, Linear|||"Treatment effect is the mean difference in the change from baseline between testosterone and placebo arms.~The P-Value for the significance of the treatment effect was determined by multivariable linear regression adjusted for balancing factors."||1.7|0.8|<.001
90884852|NCT00799617|181632135|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|809.0||"Treatment effect is the mean difference in the change from baseline between testosterone and placebo arms.~The P-Value for the significance of the treatment effect was determined by multivariable linear regression adjusted for balancing factors."|Regression, Linear|||||809|5.3|<.001
91034784|NCT01343004|181955248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
91034785|NCT01343004|181955248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
91034786|NCT01343004|181955249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|P-values were derived from contrast tests based on the ANCOVA model fitted using only the data of the two treatment groups to be compared.||||||<0.0001
91034787|NCT01343004|181955249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|P-values were derived from contrast tests based on the ANCOVA model fitted using only the data of the two treatment groups to be compared.||||||<0.0001
91034788|NCT01343004|181955249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8155|||||||ANCOVA|P-values were derived from contrast tests based on the ANCOVA model fitted using only the data of the two treatment groups to be compared.||||||0.8155
91034789|NCT01343004|181955250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|P-values were derived from contrast tests based on the ANCOVA model fitted using only the data of the two treatment groups to be compared.||||||<0.0001
91034790|NCT01343004|181955250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|P-values were derived from contrast tests based on the ANCOVA model fitted using only the data of the two treatment groups to be compared.||||||<0.0001
91034791|NCT01343004|181955250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|P-values were derived from contrast tests based on the ANCOVA model fitted using only the data of the two treatment groups to be compared.||||||<0.0001
90884853|NCT00799617|181632136|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|10.9||"Treatment effect is the mean difference in the change from baseline between testosterone and placebo arms.~The P-Value for the significance of the treatment effect was determined by multivariable linear regression adjusted for balancing factors."|Regression, Linear|||||10.9|6.0|<.001
91034792|NCT01343004|181955251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|P-values were derived from contrast tests based on the ANCOVA model fitted using only the data of the two treatment groups to be compared.||||||<0.0001
91034793|NCT01343004|181955251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|P-values were derived from contrast tests based on the ANCOVA model fitted using only the data of the two treatment groups to be compared.||||||<0.0001
91034794|NCT01343004|181955251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004|||||||ANCOVA|P-values were derived from contrast tests based on the ANCOVA model fitted using only the data of the two treatment groups to be compared.||||||0.0004
90884854|NCT00799617|181632137|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|7.2||"Treatment effect is the mean difference in the change from baseline between testosterone and placebo arms.~The P-Value for the significance of the treatment effect was determined by multivariable linear regression adjusted for balancing factors."|Regression, Linear|||||7.2|4.3|<.001
90884855|NCT00799617|181632138|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.6||"Treatment effect is the mean difference in the change from baseline between testosterone and placebo arms.~The P-Value for the significance of the treatment effect was determined by multivariable linear regression adjusted for balancing factors."|Regression, Linear|||||2.6|1.1|<.001
90884856|NCT00799617|181632139|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.7||"Treatment effect is the mean difference in the change from baseline between testosterone and placebo arms.~The P-Value for the significance of the treatment effect was determined by multivariable linear regression adjusted for balancing factors."|Regression, Linear|||||1.7|0.3|.005
90884857|NCT00799617|181632140|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.4||"Treatment effect is the mean difference in the change from baseline between testosterone and placebo arms.~The P-Value for the significance of the treatment effect was determined by multivariable linear regression adjusted for balancing factors."|Regression, Linear|||||1.4|0.5|<.001
90884858|NCT00799617|181632141|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|2.09||"Treatment effect is the mean difference in the change from baseline between testosterone and placebo arms.~The P-Value for the significance of the treatment effect was determined by multivariable linear regression adjusted for balancing factors."|Regression, Linear|||||2.09|0.25|.01
90884859|NCT00799617|181632142|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|1.36||"Treatment effect is the mean difference in the change from baseline between testosterone and placebo arms.~The P-Value for the significance of the treatment effect was determined by multivariable linear regression adjusted for balancing factors."|Regression, Linear|||||1.36|-0.01|.052
90884860|NCT00799617|181632143|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.56||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|1.58||"Treatment effect is the mean difference in the change from baseline between testosterone and placebo arms.~The P-Value for the significance of the treatment effect was determined by multivariable linear regression adjusted for balancing factors."|Regression, Linear|||||1.58|-0.45|0.27
90884861|NCT00799617|181632144|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.19||The estimated difference and P-value were determined by a linear mixed-model with a random effect for participants using outcomes at month 6 and month 12.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference is the mean difference in the change from baseline to 6 months to 12 months in participants allocated to testosterone vs placebo adjusted for balancing factors.|A positive estimated difference indicates greater increases, smaller decreases, or both for the testosterone group compared with the placebo group.||0.19|-0.76|.24
90884862|NCT00799617|181632145|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|1.65||The estimated difference and P-value were determined by a linear mixed-model with a random effect for participants using outcomes at month 6 and month 12.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference is the mean difference in the change from baseline to 6 months to 12 months in participants allocated to testosterone vs placebo adjusted for balancing factors.|A positive estimated difference indicates greater increases, smaller decreases, or both for the testosterone group compared with the placebo group.||1.65|-1.89|.89
90884863|NCT00799617|181632146|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.51||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.91|1.88||The estimated difference and P-value were determined by a linear mixed-model with a random effect for participants using outcomes at month 6 and month 12.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference is the mean difference in the change from baseline to 6 months to 12 months in participants allocated to testosterone vs placebo adjusted for balancing factors.|A positive estimated difference indicates greater increases, smaller decreases, or both for the testosterone group compared with the placebo group.||1.88|-12.91|.14
90884864|NCT00799617|181632147|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.39||The P-value for the significance of the treatment effect was determined by a linear mixed model for continuous outcomes with a random intercept for participant.|Mixed Models Analysis||Intent-to-treat analysis by a linear mixed effects model adjusted for balancing factors.|||1.39|0.48|<.001
90884865|NCT03851016|181632166|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.113|||||||Mancova|||"Null hypothesis is that there would be no difference in change of depressive symptoms between Life Story Book Intervention and Usual Care. A multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) models with the GDS-12R at baseline as the covariate, and the treatment group and study site as factors. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.~A sample size of 20 was needed to provide 90% power to detect a 5 point difference in depressive symptoms."||||.113
90884866|NCT03851016|181632167|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.123|||||||Mancova|||"Null hypothesis is that there would be no difference in change of Presence of Meaning (POM) between Life Story Book Intervention and Usual Care. A multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) models with the POM at baseline as the covariate, and the treatment group and study site as factors. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.~A sample size of 20 was needed to provide 90% power to detect a 5 point difference in POM."||||.123
90963843|NCT00578786|181809395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|20.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|96.05|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.6|30.1|||||Applies to Ambrisentan combined group only. Missing values were imputed using last-observation-carried forward method (LOCF) based on post-baseline observations.|||30.1|10.6|
91034795|NCT01343004|181955252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0318|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0318
91034796|NCT01343004|181955252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2304|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2304
91034797|NCT01343004|181955252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3361|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3361
90924769|NCT04800211|181724028|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.556||||0.1141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|5.732|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||5.732|-0.620|0.1141
90924770|NCT04800211|181724028|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|5.536||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.367|8.705|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||8.705|2.367|0.0007
90924771|NCT04800211|181724028|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|6.629|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.68|9.577|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||9.577|3.680|<.0001
90924772|NCT04800211|181724028|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|4.083||||0.0072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.118|7.047|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||7.047|1.118|0.0072
90924773|NCT04800211|181724028|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|4.688||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.691|7.686|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||7.686|1.691|0.0023
90924774|NCT04800211|181724028|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|5.112|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.874|7.35|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||7.350|2.874|<.0001
90963844|NCT00578786|181809396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|95.21|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9|20.3|||||Applies to Ambrisentan 2.5 mg group only. Missing values were imputed using last-observation-carried forward method (LOCF) based on post-baseline observations.|||20.3|-18.9|
91034798|NCT00834067|181955276|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|96.7||||||90.0|90.1|104.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||104|90.1|
90884867|NCT03851016|181632168|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91|||||||Mancova|||"The null hypothesis is that there would be no difference in change of Search for Meaning (SFM) between Life Story Book Intervention and Usual Care. A multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) models with the SFM at baseline as the covariate, and the treatment group and study site as factors. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.~A sample size of 20 was needed to provide 90% power to detect a 5 point difference in SFM."||||.910
90884868|NCT01660412|181632169|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.42|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|2.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.00|0.85|<0.0001
90884869|NCT01856140|181632170|OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups at baseline||||0.52
90884870|NCT01856140|181632170|OTHER|||||||0.47|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups at post-injection 6 weeks.||||0.47
90884871|NCT01856140|181632170|OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups at post-injection 12 weeks.||||0.52
90884872|NCT01856140|181632171|OTHER|||||||0.227|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups at baseline||||0.227
90884873|NCT01856140|181632171|OTHER|||||||0.573|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups at post-injection 6 weeks.||||0.573
90884874|NCT01856140|181632171|OTHER|||||||0.588|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.588
90884875|NCT01856140|181632172|OTHER|||||||0.262|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups at baseline||||0.262
90924775|NCT04800211|181724028|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.777||||0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.165|3.72|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||3.720|-2.165|0.6030
90963845|NCT00578786|181809396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|18.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|101.22|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|33.5|||||Applies to Ambrisentan 5 mg group only. Missing values were imputed using last-observation-carried forward method (LOCF) based on post-baseline observations.|||33.5|4.2|
90884876|NCT01856140|181632172|OTHER|||||||0.631|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups at post-injection 6 weeks.||||0.631
90884877|NCT01856140|181632172|OTHER|||||||0.796|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups at post-injection 12 weeks.||||0.796
90884878|NCT01856140|181632173|OTHER|||||||0.337|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups at baseline||||0.337
90884879|NCT01856140|181632173|OTHER|||||||0.078|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups at post-injection 6 weeks||||0.078
90884880|NCT01856140|181632173|OTHER|||||||0.439|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups at post-injection 12 weeks.||||0.439
90884881|NCT03223298|181632211|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||3-month mean change (from pre-op) in Jaw Pain compared between the Botox group and Placebo group.||||0.80
90884882|NCT03223298|181632212|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||3-month mean Jaw Function Limitation Scale score compared between Botox group and placebo group.||||0.50
90884883|NCT03223298|181632213|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in MIO with Pain at 3-months post-intervention compared between Botox group and Placebo group.||||0.30
90884884|NCT03223298|181632213|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in MIO without Pain at 3-months post-intervention compared between Botox group and Placebo group.||||0.50
90884885|NCT03223298|181632214|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mean change at 3 months post intervention - General Health Score, compared between Botox group and Placebo group.||||0.40
90884886|NCT03143829|181632235|OTHER|||||||0.083|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences at week 10||||0.083
90884887|NCT03143829|181632236|OTHER|||||||0.099|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Descriptive comparison||||.099
90884888|NCT03143829|181632237|OTHER|||||||0.558|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparison at time 4||||.558
90884889|NCT03143829|181632238|OTHER|||||||0.153|||||||Chi-squared|||descriptive comparison of resource use||||.153
90884890|NCT00672477|181632239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||< 0.0001
90884891|NCT00672477|181632240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||< 0.0001
90884892|NCT01175824|181632287|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the difference in the LS mean between the two treatment arms (twice-daily insulin lispro Low Mixture minus the comparator arm) at 24 weeks is \<0.4%.|LS mean difference|-0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.04||||||||-0.04|-0.38|
90884893|NCT01175824|181632288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1858||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1858
90884894|NCT01175824|181632289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3588||95.0||||HbA1c concentration \<7%|Fisher Exact|||||||0.3588
90884895|NCT01175824|181632289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5958||95.0||||HbA1c \<=6.5%|Fisher Exact|||||||0.5958
90884896|NCT01175824|181632290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0827||95.0||||p-value is for the Week 12 comparison|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0827
90884897|NCT01175824|181632290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5353||95.0||||p-value is for the Week 24 comparison|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.5353
90884898|NCT01175824|181632294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2833||95.0||||p-value is for the comparison at Week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2833
90884899|NCT01175824|181632294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0176||95.0||||p-value is for the comparison at Week 24.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0176
90884900|NCT01175824|181632300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|-0.05||||Superiority will be concluded if of 95% CI upper limit for treatment difference (2x-daily insulin lispro LM minus the comparator arm) at 24 wks is \<0%||||-0.05|-0.39|
90884901|NCT00924950|181632307|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8571||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0008
90884902|NCT01602315|181632312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||median HR|0.99||||||||||||||The hazard ratio was estimated using the Bayesian Cox proportional hazard (PH) model.||||
90884903|NCT01602315|181632312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.82|||Regression, Cox|||||1.82|0.69|0.643
90884904|NCT01602315|181632312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.97|||Regression, Cox|||Adjusted on Covariates: treatment, sum of longest diameters from central data \[SLD (C)\], Hemaglobin (Hgb) and White Blood Cells (WBC).||0.97|0.30|0.039
90884905|NCT01602315|181632315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier method (median)|43.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.0|88.0|||||days|||88.0|27.0|
90884906|NCT01602315|181632321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.28||||0.313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.05|||Regression, Cox|||||2.05|0.79|0.313
91034799|NCT00834067|181955277|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|104.0||||||90.0|99.9|108.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||108|99.9|
90884907|NCT01602315|181632322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier (median)|294.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|172.0|463.0||||||||463.0|172.0|
90884908|NCT01602315|181632336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.19|||Regression, Cox|||||1.19|0.49|0.235
90884909|NCT01602315|181632336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.02|||Regression, Cox|||Adjusted on Covariates: treatment, sum of longest diameters from local data \[SLD (L)\], Hemaglobin (Hgb) and White Blood Cells (WBC).||1.02|0.4|0.062
90884910|NCT02057757|181632397|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin is 1.25 Days.||||||0.5634|||||||Fay - Shaw|||||||0.5634
90884911|NCT02057757|181632398|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.645||||||The p-value for each time point was calculated; Day 3|Fay - Shaw|||||||0.645
90884912|NCT02057757|181632398|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.989||||||The p-value for each value was calculated (Day 7).|Fay-Shaw|||||||0.989
90884913|NCT02057757|181632398|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.809||||||Day 14|Fay-Shaw|||||||0.809
90884914|NCT02057757|181632398|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.671||||||Day 28|Fay-Shaw|||||||0.671
90884915|NCT02057757|181632400|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4277||||||Cough|Fay - Shaw|||||||0.4277
90884916|NCT02057757|181632400|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4022||||||Sore Throat|Fay-Shaw|||||||0.4022
90884917|NCT02057757|181632400|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5957||||||Fatigue|Fay-Shaw|||||||0.5957
90884918|NCT02057757|181632400|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0446||||||Nasal Discharge|Fay-Shaw|||||||0.0446
90884919|NCT02057757|181632400|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8628||||||Difficulty Breathing|Fay-Shaw|||||||0.8628
90884920|NCT02057757|181632400|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16||||||Headache|Fay-Shaw|||||||0.16
90884921|NCT02057757|181632400|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1234||||||Muscle Pain|Fay-Shaw|||||||0.1234
90884922|NCT02057757|181632400|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2155||||||Nausea|Fay-Shaw|||||||0.2155
90884923|NCT02057757|181632400|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5176||||||Vomiting|Fay-Shaw|||||||0.5176
90884924|NCT02057757|181632400|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6986||||||Diarrhea|Fay-Shaw|||||||0.6986
90884925|NCT02057757|181632401|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.985|||||||Fay - Shaw|||||||0.9850
90884926|NCT02057757|181632402|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.681||||||Any Time|Fay - Shaw|||||||0.681
90884927|NCT02057757|181632402|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.341||||||Day 0|Fay-Shaw|||||||0.341
90884928|NCT02057757|181632402|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.321||||||Day 3|Fay-Shaw|||||||0.321
90884929|NCT02057757|181632402|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.957||||||Day 7|Fay-Shaw|||||||0.957
90884930|NCT02057757|181632402|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.788||||||Day 14|Fay-Shaw|||||||0.788
90884931|NCT02057757|181632402|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.544||||||Day 28|Fay-Shaw|||||||0.544
90884932|NCT02057757|181632403|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.671||||||Any Time|Fay - Shaw|||||||0.671
90884933|NCT02057757|181632403|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.325||||||Day 0|Fay-Shaw|||||||0.325
90884934|NCT02057757|181632403|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.987||||||Day 3|Fay-Shaw|||||||0.987
90884935|NCT02057757|181632403|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.987||||||Day 7|Fay-Shaw|||||||0.987
90884936|NCT02057757|181632403|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.311||||||Day 14|Fay-Shaw|||||||0.311
90884937|NCT02057757|181632404|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.973||||||Any Time|Fay - Shaw|||||||0.973
90884938|NCT02057757|181632404|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.575||||||Day 0|Fay-Shaw|||||||0.575
90884939|NCT02057757|181632404|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.548||||||Day 3|Fay-Shaw|||||||0.548
90884940|NCT02057757|181632404|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.987||||||Day 7|Fay-Shaw|||||||0.987
90884941|NCT02057757|181632404|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.987||||||Day 14|Fay-Shaw|||||||0.987
90884942|NCT02057757|181632404|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.987||||||Day 28|Fay-Shaw|||||||0.987
90884943|NCT02057757|181632405|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.928||||||Pneumonia|Fay - Shaw|||||||0.928
90884944|NCT02057757|181632405|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9669||||||ARDS|Fay-Shaw|||||||0.9669
90884945|NCT02057757|181632405|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0832||||||Bronchitis|Fay-Shaw|||||||0.0832
90884946|NCT02057757|181632406|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036||||||Adults (\>= 18 Years ) - Global Assessment: Have you felt as good as you did before you had the respiratory illness?|Fay - Shaw|||||||0.0360
90963846|NCT00578786|181809396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|27.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|87.07|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.1|45.4|||||Applies to Ambrisentan 10 mg group only. Missing values were imputed using last-observation-carried forward method (LOCF) based on post-baseline observations.|||45.4|10.1|
90963847|NCT00578786|181809396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|16.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|96.54|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|26.4|||||Applies to Ambrisentan combined group only. Missing values were imputed using last-observation-carried forward method (LOCF) based on post-baseline observations.|||26.4|6.8|
90963848|NCT00578786|181809398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.254|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.38|||||Applies to Ambrisentan 2.5 mg group only. Missing values were imputed using last-observation-carried forward method (LOCF) based on post-baseline observations.|||0.38|-0.55|
90924776|NCT04800211|181724028|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.003||||0.5053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|3.967|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||3.967|-1.960|0.5053
90924777|NCT04800211|181724028|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.674||||0.6607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.347|3.694|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||3.694|-2.347|0.6607
90924778|NCT04800211|181724028|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|4.809||||0.1309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.827|10.446|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||10.446|-0.827|0.1309
90963849|NCT00578786|181809398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.59|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.45|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.23|||||Applies to Ambrisentan 5 mg group only. Missing values were imputed using last-observation-carried forward method (LOCF) based on post-baseline observations.|||-0.23|-0.94|
90963850|NCT00578786|181809398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.51|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.03|||||Applies to Ambrisentan 10 mg group only. Missing values were imputed using last-observation-carried forward method (LOCF) based on post-baseline observations.|||-0.03|-1.00|
90963851|NCT00578786|181809398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.393|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.2|||||Applies to Ambrisentan combined group only. Missing values were imputed using last-observation-carried forward method (LOCF) based on post-baseline observations.|||-0.20|-0.69|
90963852|NCT00578786|181809399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.23|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.603|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.76|||||Applies to Ambrisentan 2.5 mg group only. Missing values were imputed using last-observation-carried forward method (LOCF) based on post-baseline observations.|||0.76|-0.31|
90963853|NCT00578786|181809399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.33|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.477|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.03|||||Applies to Ambrisentan 5 mg group only. Missing values were imputed using last-observation-carried forward method (LOCF) based on post-baseline observations.|||0.03|-0.68|
90963854|NCT00578786|181809399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.65|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.305|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|-0.18|||||Applies to Ambrisentan 10 mg group only. Missing values were imputed using last-observation-carried forward method (LOCF) based on post-baseline observations.|||-0.18|-1.12|
90963855|NCT00578786|181809399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.27|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.48|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.02|||||Applies to Ambrisentan combined group only. Missing values were imputed using last-observation-carried forward method (LOCF) based on post-baseline observations.|||-0.02|-0.52|
91034800|NCT00834067|181955278|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|103.0||||||90.0|99.7|107.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||107|99.7|
90884947|NCT02057757|181632406|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038||||||Adults (\>= 18 Years) - Global Assessment: Are you functioning as well as you were before you had the respiratory illness?|Fay-Shaw|||||||0.0380
90884948|NCT02057757|181632406|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5035||||||Children (\< 18 Years) - Global Assessment: Have you/your child felt as good as you did before you had the respiratory illness?|Fay-Shaw|||||||0.5035
90884949|NCT02057757|181632406|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9231||||||Children (\<18 Years) - Global Assessment: Are you/your child functioning as well as you/your child were before you/your child had the respiratory illness?|Fay-Shaw|||||||0.9231
90884950|NCT02057757|181632410|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9785||||||No Detectable Virus on Day 3|Fay-Shaw|||||||0.9785
90884951|NCT01416194|181632433|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.4|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.7|||Regression, Logistic|||The hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazard regression models was used for comparison of event rates of the primary and secondary endpoints in each treatment group. Statistical two-sided tests was used with a significance level of 0.05.||0.7|0.3|<0.01
90884952|NCT01416194|181632433|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.2|||Regression, Logistic|||The hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazard regression models was used for comparison of event rates of the primary and secondary endpoints in each treatment group. Statistical two-sided tests was used with a significance level of 0.05.||2.2|0.4|0.91
90884953|NCT01416194|181632434|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.7|||Regression, Logistic|||The hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazard regression models was used for comparison of event rates of the primary and secondary endpoints in each treatment group. Statistical two-sided tests was used with a significance level of 0.05.||0.7|0.3|<0.01
90884954|NCT01416194|181632434|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.4|||Regression, Logistic|||The hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazard regression models was used for comparison of event rates of the primary and secondary endpoints in each treatment group. Statistical two-sided tests was used with a significance level of 0.05.||2.4|0.5|0.76
90884955|NCT01416194|181632435|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.9|||Regression, Logistic|||The hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazard regression models was used for comparison of event rates of the primary and secondary endpoints in each treatment group. Statistical two-sided tests was used with a significance level of 0.05.||0.9|0.3|0.01
90884956|NCT01416194|181632435|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.5|||Regression, Logistic|||The hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazard regression models was used for comparison of event rates of the primary and secondary endpoints in each treatment group. Statistical two-sided tests was used with a significance level of 0.05.||1.5|0.4|0.37
90884957|NCT01416194|181632436|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.1|||Regression, Logistic|||The hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazard regression models was used for comparison of event rates of the primary and secondary endpoints in each treatment group. Statistical two-sided tests was used with a significance level of 0.05.||1.1|0.5|0.10
90884958|NCT01416194|181632436|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.2|||Regression, Logistic|||The hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazard regression models was used for comparison of event rates of the primary and secondary endpoints in each treatment group. Statistical two-sided tests was used with a significance level of 0.05.||1.2|0.4|0.19
90884959|NCT01416194|181632437|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.4|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.7|||Regression, Logistic|||The hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazard regression models was used for comparison of event rates of the primary and secondary endpoints in each treatment group. Statistical two-sided tests was used with a significance level of 0.05.||0.7|0.3|<0.01
90884960|NCT01416194|181632437|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.1|||Regression, Linear|||The hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazard regression models was used for comparison of event rates of the primary and secondary endpoints in each treatment group. Statistical two-sided tests was used with a significance level of 0.05.||2.1|0.4|0.90
90924779|NCT04800211|181724028|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.553||||0.9776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.212|7.318|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||7.318|-4.212|0.9776
90940741|NCT02799745|181761361|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.5||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.76|6.92||P-value: Based on the exact binomial distribution from the logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic||OR: from logistic regression model where fixed covariates=treatment group, prostate cancer risk, type of biopsy, age, race and time since prostate cancer diagnosis; random effects: site and subject. 95% CI: based on exact binomial distribution.|At the end of month 12||6.92|1.76|0.00
90884961|NCT01416194|181632438|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.9|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|2.5|||Regression, Logistic|||The hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazard regression models was used for comparison of event rates of the primary and secondary endpoints in each treatment group. Statistical two-sided tests was used with a significance level of 0.05.||2.5|1.4|<0.01
90884962|NCT01416194|181632438|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.3|||Regression, Logistic|||The hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazard regression models was used for comparison of event rates of the primary and secondary endpoints in each treatment group. Statistical two-sided tests was used with a significance level of 0.05.||1.3|0.7|0.74
90884963|NCT01416194|181632439|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.4|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.6|||Regression, Logistic|||The hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazard regression models was used for comparison of event rates of the primary and secondary endpoints in each treatment group. Statistical two-sided tests was used with a significance level of 0.05.||0.6|0.3|<0.01
90884964|NCT01416194|181632439|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.9|||Regression, Logistic|||The hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazard regression models was used for comparison of event rates of the primary and secondary endpoints in each treatment group. Statistical two-sided tests was used with a significance level of 0.05.||0.9|0.4|0.01
90884965|NCT01416194|181632440|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.3|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.5|||Regression, Linear|||The hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazard regression models was used for comparison of event rates of the primary and secondary endpoints in each treatment group. Statistical two-sided tests was used with a significance level of 0.05.||0.5|0.1|<0.01
90884966|NCT01416194|181632440|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.4||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.1|||Regression, Linear|||The hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazard regression models was used for comparison of event rates of the primary and secondary endpoints in each treatment group. Statistical two-sided tests was used with a significance level of 0.05.||1.1|0.2|0.06
90884967|NCT01416194|181632441|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.7|||Regression, Linear|||The hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazard regression models was used for comparison of event rates of the primary and secondary endpoints in each treatment group. Statistical two-sided tests was used with a significance level of 0.05.||0.7|0.3|<0.01
90884968|NCT01416194|181632441|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.4|||Regression, Linear|||The hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazard regression models was used for comparison of event rates of the primary and secondary endpoints in each treatment group. Statistical two-sided tests was used with a significance level of 0.05.||1.4|0.5|0.38
90884969|NCT01416194|181632443|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.5|||Regression, Linear|||The hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazard regression models was used for comparison of event rates of the primary and secondary endpoints in each treatment group. Statistical two-sided tests was used with a significance level of 0.05.||1.5|0.9|0.24
90884970|NCT01416194|181632443|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.6|||Regression, Linear|||The hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazard regression models was used for comparison of event rates of the primary and secondary endpoints in each treatment group. Statistical two-sided tests was used with a significance level of 0.05.||1.6|0.8|0.59
90884971|NCT01416194|181632444|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.0|||Regression, Logistic|||The hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazard regression models was used for comparison of event rates of the primary and secondary endpoints in each treatment group. Statistical two-sided tests was used with a significance level of 0.05.||1.0|0.6|0.03
90884972|NCT01416194|181632444|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.1|||Regression, Linear|||The hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazard regression models was used for comparison of event rates of the primary and secondary endpoints in each treatment group. Statistical two-sided tests was used with a significance level of 0.05.||1.1|0.6|0.19
90884973|NCT01416194|181632445|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.3|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.5|||Regression, Linear|||The hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazard regression models was used for comparison of event rates of the primary and secondary endpoints in each treatment group. Statistical two-sided tests was used with a significance level of 0.05.||0.5|0.2|<0.01
90884974|NCT01416194|181632445|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.3|||Regression, Linear|||The hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazard regression models was used for comparison of event rates of the primary and secondary endpoints in each treatment group. Statistical two-sided tests was used with a significance level of 0.05.||1.3|0.3|0.24
90884975|NCT00414050|181632464|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Modified Process Hepatitis B vaccine-5µg (micrograms) declared non-inferior to RECOMBIVAX HB™ if the lower bound of the 95% Confidence Interval for the ratio of Geometric Mean Titers (Modified Process Vaccine 5 micrograms/RECOMBIVAX HB™) was \>= 0.67. The study had 98 percent power for this test, based on an assumption of true equality.|Ratio of geometric means|1.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.69|2.35||||||Comparison of Induced (effected) Geometric Mean Titer for the Modified Hepatitis B Process Vaccine and RECOMBIVAX Hepatitis B vaccine.||2.35|1.69|
90884976|NCT00395044|181632466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.029
90884977|NCT02550652|181632477|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Participants|12.3||||0.1145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|28.1||"Stratified by race (Afro Caribbean/African American vs. Others) and region (US vs. non-US sites).~Statistically significant at pre-specified alpha of 20%."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||28.1|-3.4|0.1145
90884978|NCT02550652|181632477|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Participants|12.3||||0.1145|TWO_SIDED|80.0|2.1|22.6||"Stratified by race (Afro Caribbean/African American vs. Others) and region (US vs. non-US sites).~Statistically significant at pre-specified alpha of 20%."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Difference in Percentage of Participants||||22.6|2.1|0.1145
90963856|NCT00578786|181809400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.593|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.74|||||Applies to Ambrisentan 2.5 mg group only. Missing values were imputed using last-observation-carried forward method (LOCF) based on post-baseline observations.|||0.74|-0.33|
90963857|NCT00578786|181809400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.514|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.22|||||Applies to Ambrisentan 5 mg group only. Missing values were imputed using last-observation-carried forward method (LOCF) based on post-baseline observations.|||0.22|-0.51|
90963858|NCT00578786|181809400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.48|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.215|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|-0.03|||||Applies to Ambrisentan 10 mg group only. Missing values were imputed using last-observation-carried forward method (LOCF) based on post-baseline observations.|||-0.03|-0.93|
90963859|NCT00578786|181809400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.467|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.11|||||Applies to Ambrisentan combined group only. Missing values were imputed using last-observation-carried forward method (LOCF) based on post-baseline observations.|||0.11|-0.39|
90963860|NCT00312221|181809413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38||||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8562|0.1054|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment comparison between BTDS 20 and BTDS 5 during the 12-week double-blind phase|||0.1054|-0.8562|0.126
90963861|NCT00312221|181809413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36||||0.14||95.0|-0.8455|0.1189|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment comparison between BTDS 5 and oxycodone immediate-release during the 12-week double-blind phase.|||0.1189|-0.8455|0.140
90963862|NCT00312221|181809414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|-0.2|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison between BTDS 5 and BTDS 20 during the 12-week double-blind phase.|||-0.20|-1.47|0.007
91034801|NCT00834067|181955279|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|101.0||||||90.0|96.0|106.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||106|96|
91034802|NCT00834067|181955280|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|101.0||||||90.0|99.1|102.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||102|99.1|
90884979|NCT02550652|181632478|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Participants|20.1||||0.0246||95.0|3.0|37.2||"Stratified by race (Afro Caribbean/African American vs. Others) and region (US vs. non-US sites).~Statistically significant at pre-specified alpha of 20%."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||37.2|3.0|0.0246
90963863|NCT00312221|181809414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|-0.17|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison between BTDS 5 and oxycodone immediate-release during the 12-week double-blind phase.|||-0.17|-1.47|0.011
90963864|NCT00312221|181809415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48||||0.707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0054|2.0397|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment comparison between BTDS 5 and BTDS 20 during the 12-week double-blind phase.|||2.0397|-3.0054|0.707
90963865|NCT00312221|181809415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.79||||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4459|0.8706|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment comparison between BTDS 5 and oxycodone immediate-release during the 12-week double-blind phase.|||0.8706|-4.4459|0.187
90963866|NCT00312221|181809416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.96||||0.685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6177|3.693|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment comparison between BTDS 5 and BTDS 20 during the 12-week double-blind phase.|||3.6930|-5.6177|0.685
90963867|NCT00312221|181809416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.81||||0.443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4415|2.8255|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment comparison between BTDS 5 and oxycodone immediate-release during the 12-week double-blind phase.|||2.8255|-6.4415|0.443
90963868|NCT01807923|181809422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|4.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.62|5.44|||MMRM|||Analysis was performed using mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) model including treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects with adjustments for sex (male versus female), age group at baseline (less than (\<)18 versus greater than equal to (\>=18) years old), and percent predicted FEV1 severity at Screening (\<70 versus \>=70).||5.44|2.62|<0.0001
90884980|NCT02550652|181632478|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Participants|20.1||||0.0246|TWO_SIDED|80.0|8.9|31.3||"Stratified by race (Afro Caribbean/African American vs. Others) and region (US vs. non-US sites).~Statistically significant at pre-specified alpha of 20%."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||31.3|8.9|0.0246
90884981|NCT02550652|181632479|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0744|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0744
90963869|NCT01807923|181809422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.6||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|4.01|||MMRM|||Analysis was performed using MMRM model, as described in Statistical Analysis 1.||4.01|1.18|0.0003
90963870|NCT01807923|181809423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.27|9.19|||MMRM|||Analysis was performed using MMRM model including treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects with adjustments for sex (male versus female), age group at baseline (\<18 versus \>=18 years old), and percent predicted FEV1 severity at Screening (\<70 versus \>=70).||9.19|4.27|<0.0001
90963871|NCT01807923|181809423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.33||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.86|6.8|||MMRM|||Analysis was performed using MMRM model, as described in Statistical Analysis 1.||6.80|1.86|0.0006
90963872|NCT01807923|181809424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.16||||0.1122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.35|||MMRM|||Analysis was performed using MMRM model including treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects with adjustments for sex (male versus female), age group at baseline (\<18 versus \>=18 years old), percent predicted FEV1 severity at Screening (\<70 versus \>=70), and baseline BMI.||0.35|-0.04|0.1122
90963873|NCT01807923|181809424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.13||||0.1938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.32|||MMRM|||Analysis was performed using MMRM model, as described in Statistical Analysis 1.||0.32|-0.07|0.1938
90963874|NCT01807923|181809425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.88||||0.0168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|7.05||This test is considered nominally significant because a hierarchical procedure was used and was broken prior to this test.|MMRM|||Analysis was performed using MMRM model including treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects with adjustments for sex (male versus female), age group at baseline (\<18 versus \>=18 years old), percent predicted FEV1 severity at Screening (\<70 versus \>=70), and baseline CFQ-R respiratory domain score.||7.05|0.70|0.0168
90963875|NCT01807923|181809425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.5||||0.3569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|4.69|||MMRM|||Analysis was performed using MMRM model, as described in Statistical Analysis 1.||4.69|-1.69|0.3569
90963876|NCT01807923|181809426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.9378|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8786|4.5941||This test is considered nominally significant because a hierarchical procedure was used and was broken prior to this test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds Ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (Cis) are Mantel-Haenszel estimates. P values are from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by sex (male versus female), age group at baseline (\<18 versus \>=18 years old), and percent predicted FEV1 severity at Screening (\<70 versus \>=70).||4.5941|1.8786|<0.0001
90963877|NCT01807923|181809426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0592||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.292|3.2819||This test is considered nominally significant because a hierarchical procedure was used and was broken prior to this test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis was performed as described in Statistical Analysis 1.||3.2819|1.2920|0.0023
90963878|NCT01807923|181809427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Event Rate Ratio|0.7186||||0.0491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.517|0.9987|||Negative Binomial Regression|||Analysis was performed using regression analysis for a negative binomial distribution with sex (male versus female), age group at baseline (\<18 versus \>=18 years old), and percent predicted FEV1 severity at Screening (\<70 versus \>=70) as covariates with the logarithm of time on study as the offset.||0.9987|0.5170|0.0491
90963879|NCT01807923|181809427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Event Rate Ratio|0.6643||||0.0169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4749|0.9291||This test is considered nominally significant because a hierarchical procedure was used and was broken prior to this test.|Negative Binomial Regression|||Analysis was performed as described in Statistical Analysis 1.||0.9291|0.4749|0.0169
90963880|NCT01807923|181809428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.1565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.96|||MMRM|||Analysis was performed using MMRM model including treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects with adjustments for sex (male versus female), age group at baseline (\<18 versus \>=18 years old), percent predicted FEV1 severity at Screening (\<70 versus \>=70), and baseline weight.||0.96|-0.16|0.1565
90963881|NCT01807923|181809428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.2992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.86|||MMRM|||Analysis was performed as described in Statistical Analysis 1.||0.86|-0.26|0.2992
90963882|NCT01807923|181809429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.098||||0.1539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.037|0.233|||MMRM|||Analysis was performed using MMRM model including treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects with adjustments for sex (male versus female), age group at baseline (\<18 versus \>=18 years old), percent predicted FEV1 severity at Screening (\<70 versus \>=70), and baseline BMI z-score.||0.2330|-0.0370|0.1539
90963883|NCT01807923|181809429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0781||||0.2713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0615|0.2176|||MMRM|||Analysis was performed as described in Statistical Analysis 1.||0.2176|-0.0615|0.2713
90963884|NCT01807923|181809430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.692||||0.0396|TWO_SIDED||||||Cox Proportional Hazard Regression|||Analysis was performed using Cox proportional hazard regression, time is the time-to-first event or censoring, with adjustment for sex (male versus female), age group at baseline (\<18 versus \>=18 years old), and percent predicted FEV1 severity at Screening (\<70 versus \>=70).||||0.0396
91034803|NCT00834067|181955281|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|101.0||||||90.0|99.4|103.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||103|99.4|
90963885|NCT01807923|181809430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.691||||0.0385|TWO_SIDED||||||Cox Proportional Hazard Regression|||Analysis was performed as described in Statistical Analysis 1.||||0.0385
90963886|NCT01807923|181809431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6565||||0.0552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4266|1.0103|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||OR and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) are Mantel-Haenszel estimates. P values are from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by sex (male versus female), age group at baseline (\<18 versus \>=18 years old), and percent predicted FEV1 severity at Screening (\<70 versus \>=70).||1.0103|0.4266|0.0552
90963887|NCT01807923|181809431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6438||||0.0512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4142|1.0005|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis was performed as described in Statistical Analysis 1.||1.0005|0.4142|0.0512
90963888|NCT01807923|181809432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.006||||0.5604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0142|0.0262|||MMRM|||Analysis was performed using MMRM model including treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects with adjustments for sex (male versus female), age group at baseline (\<18 versus \>=18 years old), percent predicted FEV1 severity at Screening (\<70 versus \>=70), and baseline EQ-5D-3L index score.||0.0262|-0.0142|0.5604
90963889|NCT01807923|181809432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0095||||0.3613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0109|0.0298|||MMRM|||Analysis was performed as described in Statistical Analysis 1.||0.0298|-0.0109|0.3613
90963890|NCT01807923|181809433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.1||||0.1342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|4.9|||MMRM|||Analysis was performed using MMRM model including treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects with adjustments for sex (male versus female), age group at baseline (\<18 versus \>=18 years old), percent predicted FEV1 severity at Screening (\<70 versus \>=70), and baseline EQ-5D-3L VAS score.||4.9|-0.7|0.1342
90963891|NCT01807923|181809433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.4||||0.3071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|4.2|||MMRM|||Analysis was performed as described in Statistical Analysis 1.||4.2|-1.3|0.3071
91034804|NCT00834067|181955282|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|107.0||||||90.0|99.8|114.0|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||114|99.8|
91034805|NCT00834067|181955283|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|102.0||||||90.0|99.0|106.0|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||106|99|
90924780|NCT04800211|181724028|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|4.862||||0.1422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.939|10.663|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||10.663|-0.939|0.1422
90924781|NCT04800211|181724028|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|5.851||||0.0334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.307|11.396|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||11.396|0.307|0.0334
90924782|NCT04800211|181724028|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|3.08||||0.5622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.501|8.66|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||8.660|-2.501|0.5622
90924783|NCT04800211|181724028|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|4.014||||0.2841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.643|9.672|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||9.672|-1.643|0.2841
90940742|NCT02799745|181761361|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6||||0.289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|4.0||P-value: Based on the exact binomial distribution from the logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic||OR: from logistic regression model where fixed covariates=treatment group, prostate cancer risk, type of biopsy, age, race and time since prostate cancer diagnosis; random effects: site and subject. 95% CI: based on exact binomial distribution.|At the end of month 24||4.00|0.66|0.289
90940743|NCT02799745|181761362|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-10.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.398|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.79|-5.34||P-values: from differences of least squares means.Bonferroni-Holm was used in the primary hypothesis testing to adjust for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|Compound symmetry was used as the covariance structure. Covariance parameters:estimated using Restricted Maximum likelihood.|Mixed model repeated measure(MMRM) with treatment group, prostate cancer risk(low/intermediate), type of biopsy(mpMRI-targeted/non-mpMRI-targeted), visit, visit-by-treatment, baseline scores as fixed factors, site and participants as random factors.|Change at month 12||-5.34|-14.79|<0.001
90940744|NCT02799745|181761362|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-5.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.174||0.1063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|1.11||P-values: from differences of least squares means.Bonferroni-Holm was used in the primary hypothesis testing to adjust for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|Compound symmetry was used as the covariance structure. Covariance parameters:estimated using Restricted Maximum likelihood.|MMRM with treatment group, prostate cancer risk (low vs. intermediate), type of biopsy (mpMRI targeted vs. non mpMRI targeted), visit, visit-by-treatment and baseline scores were the fixed factors, and site and participants were the random factors.|Change at month 24||1.11|-11.40|0.1063
90924784|NCT04800211|181724028|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|4.438||||0.0178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.774|8.103|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||8.103|0.774|0.0178
90924785|NCT04800211|181724028|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is equal to Test 1 on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Test 1 on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.847||||0.6944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.398|5.093|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is equal to Test 1 on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Test 1 on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||5.093|-3.398|0.6944
90924786|NCT04800211|181724029|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-35.556||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.038|-12.075|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)||-12.075|-59.038|0.0031
90924787|NCT04800211|181724029|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-31.35||||0.0371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.818|-1.882|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||-1.882|-60.818|0.0371
90924788|NCT04800211|181724029|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-34.356||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.877|-10.834|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)||-10.834|-57.877|0.0043
90924789|NCT04800211|181724029|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-18.096||||0.2091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.375|10.183|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||10.183|-46.375|0.2091
91034806|NCT00834067|181955284|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|103.0||||||90.0|98.1|108.0|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||108|98.1|
90924790|NCT04800211|181724029|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-24.723||||0.0197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.473|-3.973|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||-3.973|-45.473|0.0197
90924791|NCT04800211|181724029|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-13.595||||0.2353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.08|8.891|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)||8.891|-36.080|0.2353
90924792|NCT04800211|181724029|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-4.759||||0.7329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.159|22.641|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||22.641|-32.159|0.7329
90924793|NCT04800211|181724029|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-21.962||||0.542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.989|19.065|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)||19.065|-62.989|0.5420
90924794|NCT04800211|181724029|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-26.591||||0.5234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.049|23.866|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||23.866|-77.049|0.5234
90963892|NCT01807923|181809434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.49||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|9.96|||MMRM|||Effectiveness: analysis was performed using MMRM model including treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects with adjustments for sex (male versus female), age group at baseline (\<18 versus \>=18 years old), percent predicted FEV1 severity at Screening (\<70 versus \>=70), and baseline TSQM effectiveness score.||9.96|1.03|0.0160
90963893|NCT01807923|181809434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.8||||0.0126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|10.35|||MMRM|||Effectiveness: analysis was performed as described in Statistical Analysis 1.||10.35|1.25|0.0126
91034807|NCT00418561|181955289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0737|TWO_SIDED|||||Test for no difference between cohorts.|ANOVA|||The comparisons of the three doses were done using analysis of variance (ANOVA) model including the baseline measurement as a covariate.||||0.0737
91034808|NCT00418561|181955290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1115|TWO_SIDED|||||Test for no difference between cohorts.|ANOVA|||The comparisons of the three doses were done using ANOVA model including the baseline measurement as a covariate.||||0.1115
91034809|NCT00418561|181955292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1268|TWO_SIDED|||||Test for no difference between cohorts.|ANOVA|||The comparisons of the three doses were done using ANOVA model including the baseline measurement as a covariate.||||0.1268
90963894|NCT01807923|181809434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.18||||0.0074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.23|-1.13|||MMRM|||Side Effects: analysis was performed using MMRM model including treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects with adjustments for sex (male versus female), age group at baseline (\<18 versus \>=18 years old), percent predicted FEV1 severity at Screening (\<70 versus \>=70), and baseline TSQM side effects score.||-1.13|-7.23|0.0074
90963895|NCT01807923|181809434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.74||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.85|-1.63|||MMRM|||Side Effects: analysis was performed as described in Statistical Analysis 1.||-1.63|-7.85|0.0029
90884982|NCT02550652|181632480|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Participants|21.7||||0.015||95.0|4.7|38.7||"Stratified by race (Afro Caribbean/African American vs. Others) and region (US vs. non-US sites).~Statistically significant at pre-specified alpha of 20%."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||38.7|4.7|0.0150
90963896|NCT01807923|181809434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.61||||0.7721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|4.71|||MMRM|||Convenience: analysis was performed using MMRM model including treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects with adjustments for sex (male versus female), age group at baseline (\<18 versus \>=18 years old), percent predicted FEV1 severity at Screening (\<70 versus \>=70), and baseline TSQM convenience score.||4.71|-3.50|0.7721
90963897|NCT01807923|181809434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.08||||0.1472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|7.25|||MMRM|||Convenience: analysis was performed as described in Statistical Analysis 1.||7.25|-1.09|0.1472
91034810|NCT00829309|181955309|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|98.45||||||90.0|80.08|121.03|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||121.03|80.08|
91034811|NCT00829309|181955310|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|90.98||||||90.0|85.23|97.12|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||97.12|85.23|
90884983|NCT02550652|181632480|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Participants|21.7||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|80.0|10.6|32.8||"Stratified by race (Afro Caribbean/African American vs. Others) and region (US vs. non-US sites).~Statistically significant at pre-specified alpha of 20%."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||32.8|10.6|0.0150
90884984|NCT02550652|181632481|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Participants|-2.0||||0.8461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|13.4||"Stratified by race (Afro Caribbean/African American vs. Others) and region (US vs. non-US sites).~Statistically significant at pre-specified alpha of 20%."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||13.4|-17.5|0.8461
90884985|NCT02550652|181632481|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Participants|-2.0||||0.8461|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-12.1|8.1||"Stratified by race (Afro Caribbean/African American vs. Others) and region (US vs. non-US sites).~Statistically significant at pre-specified alpha of 20%."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||8.1|-12.1|0.8461
90884986|NCT02550652|181632482|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.353|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.3530
90884987|NCT02550652|181632483|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|-0.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|-0.491||"Stratified by race (Afro Caribbean/African American vs. Others) and region (US vs. non-US sites).~Statistically significant at pre-specified alpha of 20%."|ANCOVA|||||-0.491|-1.13|<0.0001
90884988|NCT02550652|181632483|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|-0.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.019|-0.602||"Stratified by race (Afro Caribbean/African American vs. Others) and region (US vs. non-US sites).~Statistically significant at pre-specified alpha of 20%."|ANCOVA|||||-0.602|-1.019|<0.0001
90884989|NCT02550652|181632484|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|0.178||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.081|0.275||"Stratified by race (Afro Caribbean/African American vs. Others) and region (US vs. non-US sites).~Statistically significant at pre-specified alpha of 20%."|ANCOVA|||||0.275|0.081|0.0004
90884990|NCT02550652|181632484|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|0.178||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.115|0.241|||ANCOVA|||||0.241|0.115|0.0004
90884991|NCT02550652|181632485|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|0.088|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.052|0.124|||ANCOVA|Stratified by race (Afro Caribbean/African American vs. Others) and region (US vs. non-US sites).||||0.124|0.052|<0.0001
90884992|NCT02550652|181632485|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|0.088|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.065|0.112||"Stratified by race (Afro Caribbean/African American vs. Others) and region (US vs. non-US sites).~Statistically significant at pre-specified alpha of 20%."|ANCOVA|||||0.112|0.065|<0.0001
90884993|NCT02550652|181632486|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Participants|13.9||||0.09||95.0|-2.4|30.1||"Stratified by race (Afro Caribbean/African American vs. Others) and region (US vs. non-US sites).~Statistically significant at pre-specified alpha of 20%"|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||30.1|-2.4|0.0900
90884994|NCT02550652|181632486|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Participants|13.9||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|80.0|3.2|24.5||"Stratified by race (Afro Caribbean/African American vs. Others) and region (US vs. non-US sites).~Statistically significant at pre-specified alpha of 20%"|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||24.5|3.2|0.0900
90884995|NCT02550652|181632487|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Participants|10.6||||0.1838|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|27.6||"Stratified by race (Afro Caribbean/African American vs. Others) and region (US vs. non-US sites).~Statistically significant at pre-specified alpha of 20%"|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||27.6|-6.4|0.1838
90963898|NCT01807923|181809434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.49||||0.0345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|10.58|||MMRM|||Global Satisfaction: analysis was performed using MMRM model including treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects with adjustments for sex (male versus female), age group at baseline (\<18 versus \>=18 years old), percent predicted FEV1 severity at Screening (\<70 versus \>=70), and baseline TSQM global satisfaction score.||10.58|0.40|0.0345
90963899|NCT01807923|181809434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.72||||0.0109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|11.89|||MMRM|||Global Satisfaction: analysis was performed as described in Statistical Analysis 1.||11.89|1.55|0.0109
90963900|NCT04721821|181809440|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.44||||||||1.44|0.82|
90963901|NCT04721821|181809441|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.16||||||||1.16|0.44|
90963902|NCT04721821|181809442|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.27||||||||1.27|0.73|
91034812|NCT00829309|181955311|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|96.3||||||90.0|85.34|108.66|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||108.66|85.34|
90884996|NCT02550652|181632487|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Participants|10.6||||0.1838|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.5|21.7||"Stratified by race (Afro Caribbean/African American vs. Others) and region (US vs. non-US sites).~Statistically significant at pre-specified alpha of 20%"|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.7|-0.5|0.1838
90884997|NCT02550652|181632488|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Participants|7.3||||0.3726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|24.6||"Stratified by race (Afro Caribbean/African American vs. Others) and region (US vs. non-US sites).~Statistically significant at pre-specified alpha of 20%."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||24.6|-10.0|0.3726
90884998|NCT02550652|181632488|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Participants|7.3||||0.3726|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.0|18.6||"Stratified by race (Afro Caribbean/African American vs. Others) and region (US vs. non-US sites).~Statistically significant at pre-specified alpha of 20%"|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||18.6|-4.0|0.3726
90884999|NCT01706250|181632499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.29|STANDARD_DEVIATION|32.98||0.6779|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Percent change for IL count for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV at Wk 8||||0.6779
90885000|NCT01706250|181632499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|7.68|STANDARD_DEVIATION|29.51||0.2847|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Percent change for NIL count for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV at Wk 8||||0.2847
90885001|NCT01706250|181632499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|2.24|STANDARD_DEVIATION|23.35||0.6894|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Percent change for TL count for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV at Wk 8||||0.6894
90885002|NCT01706250|181632500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.38|STANDARD_DEVIATION|50.1||0.9909|||||||Signed Rank|||Percent change for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV: IL count, BL to Wk 1 (within group)||||0.9909
90885003|NCT01706250|181632500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-4.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|39.91||0.6671|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||IL count for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV- BL to Wk 2 (within group)||||0.6671
90885004|NCT01706250|181632500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|23.64|STANDARD_DEVIATION|52.05||0.0632|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Percent change for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV: IL count, BL to Wk 4 (within group)||||0.0632
90885005|NCT01706250|181632501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|42.31||0.7385|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Percent change for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV: NIL count, BL to Wk 1 (within group)||||0.7385
90885006|NCT01706250|181632501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|37.77||0.7296|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Percent change for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV: NIL count, BL to Wk 2 (within group)||||0.7296
90885007|NCT01706250|181632501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|36.11||0.3774|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Percent change for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV: NIL count, BL to Wk 4 (within group)||||0.3774
90885008|NCT01706250|181632502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|29.53||0.7634|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Percent change for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV: TL count, BL to Wk 1 (within group)||||0.7634
90885009|NCT01706250|181632502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|29.61||0.4087|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Percent change for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV: TL count, BL to Wk 2 (within group)||||0.4087
90885010|NCT01706250|181632502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|25.4||0.2455|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Percent change for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV: TL count, BL to Wk 4 (within group)||||0.2455
90963903|NCT04721821|181809443|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.88||||||||1.88|0.79|
90885011|NCT01706250|181632503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.39||1|||||||Signed Rank|||Change, in ISGA for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV: from BL to Wk 1 (within group)||||1.0000
90885012|NCT01706250|181632503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.56||0.125|||||||Signed Rank|||Change, in ISGA for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV: from BL to Wk 2 (within group)||||0.1250
90885013|NCT01706250|181632503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.46||0.625|||||||Signed Rank|||Change, in ISGA for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV: from BL to Wk 4 (within group)||||0.6250
90885014|NCT01706250|181632503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.59||1|||||||Signed Rank|||Change, in ISGA for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV: from BL to Wk 8 (within group)||||1.0000
90963904|NCT04721821|181809444|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.67||||||||1.67|0.79|
90885015|NCT01706250|181632504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.45||1|||||||Signed Rank|||Change, in Erythema for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV: from BL to Wk 1 (within group)||||1.0000
90885016|NCT01706250|181632504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Signed Rank|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.23||1|||||||Signed Rank|||Change, in Erythema for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV: from BL to Wk 2 (within group)||||1.0000
90885017|NCT01706250|181632505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.22||1|||||||Signed Rank|||Change, in Dryness for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV: from BL to Wk 1 (within group)||||1.00
90885018|NCT01706250|181632505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.23||1|||||||Signed rank|||Change, in Dryness for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV: from BL to Wk 4 (within group)||||1.0000
90963905|NCT04721821|181809445|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.76||||||||1.76|0.94|
90963906|NCT04721821|181809446|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.89||||||||1.89|0.70|
90963907|NCT04721821|181809447|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.32||||||||1.32|0.69|
90963908|NCT04721821|181809448|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.16||||||||2.16|0.81|
90963909|NCT04721821|181809449|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.87||||||||1.87|0.81|
90963910|NCT04721821|181809450|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.66||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||1.66|0.80|
91034813|NCT00777023|181955338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.8|-0.42||P value for pairwise test of difference of least square mean change from baseline between G-ER 1200 mg and placebo groups based on F test of type III analysis.|ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis: no treatment differences relative to placebo in mean change from baseline in average daily number of moderate or severe hot flashes at SDW 4||-0.42|-2.80|0.0024
91034814|NCT00777023|181955338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.004|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.69|-0.33||P value for pairwise test of difference of least square mean change from baseline between G-ER 1800 mg and placebo groups based on F test of type III analysis.|ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis: no treatment differences relative to placebo in mean change from baseline in average daily number of moderate or severe hot flashes at SDW 4||-0.33|-2.69|0.0040
91034815|NCT00777023|181955339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.72|-0.41||P value for pairwise test of difference of least square mean change from baseline between G-ER 1200 mg and placebo groups based on F test of type III analysis.|ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis: no treatment differences relative to placebo in mean change from baseline in average daily number of moderate or severe hot flashes at SDW 12||-0.41|-2.72|0.0024
91034816|NCT00777023|181955339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.0281|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.26|0.02||P value for pairwise test of difference of least square mean change from baseline between G-ER 1800 mg and placebo groups based on F test of type III analysis.|ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis: no treatment differences relative to placebo in mean change from baseline in average daily number of moderate or severe hot flashes at SDW 12||0.02|-2.26|0.0281
91034817|NCT00777023|181955340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.0608|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.32|-0.03||P value for pairwise test of difference of least square mean change from baseline between G-ER 1200 mg and placebo groups based on F test of type III analysis.|ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis: no treatment differences relative to placebo in mean change from baseline in average daily severity score of moderate or severe hot flashes at SDW 4||-0.03|-0.32|0.0608
91034818|NCT00777023|181955340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.45|-0.11||P value for pairwise test of difference of least square mean change from baseline between G-ER 1800 mg and placebo groups based on F test of type III analysis.|ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis: no treatment differences relative to placebo in mean change from baseline in average daily severity score of moderate or severe hot flashes at SDW 4||-0.11|-0.45|0.0003
91034819|NCT00777023|181955341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.028|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.43|0.0||P value for pairwise test of difference of least square mean change from baseline between G-ER 1200 mg and placebo groups based on F test of type III analysis.|ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis: no treatment differences relative to placebo in mean change from baseline in average daily severity score of moderate or severe hot flashes at SDW 12||0.00|-0.43|0.0280
91034820|NCT00777023|181955341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.51|-0.07||P value for pairwise test of difference of least square mean change from baseline between G-ER 1800 mg and placebo groups based on F test of type III analysis.|ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis: no treatment differences relative to placebo in mean change from baseline in average daily severity score of moderate or severe hot flashes at SDW 12||-0.07|-0.51|0.0026
91034821|NCT04274686|181955381|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9||||0.667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|10.7|||Paired t-test|||Null hypothesis: No difference in percent air leakage||10.7|-7.0|0.667
91034822|NCT04274686|181955382|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|2.9|||Paired t-test|||||2.90|-0.70|0.218
90885019|NCT01706250|181632506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.46||1|||||||Signed rank|||Change, in Peeling, for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV: from BL to Wk 2 (within group)||||1.0000
90885020|NCT01706250|181632507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.67||0.5313||95.0|||||Signed Rank|||Change, in Redness for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV: from BL to Wk 1 (within group)||||0.5313
90885021|NCT01706250|181632507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.6||0.5||95.0|||||Signed Rank|||Change, in Redness for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV: from BL to Wk 2 (within group)||||0.5000
90885022|NCT01706250|181632507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.86||0.75|||||||Signed Rank|||Change, in Redness for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV: from BL to Wk 4 (within group)||||0.7500
90885023|NCT01706250|181632507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.33|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.84||0.25|||||||Signed rank|||Change, in Redness for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV: from BL to Wk 8 (within group)||||0.2500
90885024|NCT01706250|181632508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.86||0.2131|||||||Signed Rank)|||Change, in Dryness for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV: from BL to Wk 1 (within group)||||0.2131
90885025|NCT01706250|181632508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.37|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.16||0.2656||95.0|||||Signed Rank|||Change, in Dryness for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV: from BL to Wk 2 (within group)||||0.2656
90885026|NCT01706250|181632508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.28|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.75||0.2344||95.0|||||Signed Rank|||Change, in Dryness for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV: from BL to Wk 4 (within group)||||0.2344
90885027|NCT01706250|181632508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.22|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.73||0.3594||95.0|||||Signed Rank|||Change, in Dryness for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV: from BL to Wk 8 (within group)||||0.3594
90885028|NCT01706250|181632509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.32||0.6172|||||||Signed Rank|||Change, in Burning for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV: from BL to Wk 1 (within group)||||0.6172
90885029|NCT01706250|181632509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.93||0.3984|||||||Signed Rank|||Change, in Burning for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV: from BL to Wk 2 (within group)||||0.3984
90963911|NCT04721821|181809450|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.65||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||1.65|0.75|
91034823|NCT04274686|181955383|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.2|||Paired t-test|||||0.2|-0.5|0.455
91034824|NCT00089661|181955391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.5|||<|0.0001||95.0|4.8|6.3|||ANCOVA|||||6.3|4.8|<0.0001
91034825|NCT02647944|181955405|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90963912|NCT04721821|181809451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.99||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||1.99|0.57|
90963913|NCT04721821|181809451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.75||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||1.75|0.49|
90963914|NCT04721821|181809452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.58||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||1.58|0.79|
91034826|NCT02647944|181955406|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91034827|NCT02647944|181955407|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.27
90885030|NCT01706250|181632509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.56|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.1||0.0781||95.0|||||Signed Rank|||Change, in Burning for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV: from BL to Wk 4 (within group)||||0.0781
90885031|NCT01706250|181632509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.39|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.24||0.375||95.0|||||Signed Rank|||Change, in Burning for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV: from BL to Wk 8 (within group)||||0.3750
90885032|NCT01706250|181632510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.46||1||95.0|||||[Signed Rank]|||Change, in Itching for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV: from BL to Wk 1 (within group)||||1.0000
90885033|NCT01706250|181632510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.32|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.58||0.0625||95.0|||||Signed Rank|||Change, in Itching for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV: from BL to Wk 2 (within group)||||0.0625
90885034|NCT01706250|181632510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.28|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.75||0.25||95.0|||||Signed Rank|||Change, in Itching for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV: from BL to Wk 4 (within group)||||0.2500
90885035|NCT01706250|181632510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.38||0.25||95.0|||||Signed Rank|||Change, in Itching for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV: from BL to Wk 8 (within group)||||0.2500
90885036|NCT01706250|181632511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Signed Rank|0.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.59||0.5||95.0|||||Signed Rank|||Change, in Scaling for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV: from BL to Wk 1 (within group)||||0.5000
90885037|NCT01706250|181632511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Signed Rank|0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.57||0.75||95.0|||||Signed Rank|||Change, in Scaling for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV: from BL to Wk 2 (within group)||||0.7500
90885038|NCT01706250|181632511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.62||0.4531||95.0|||||Signed Rank|||Change, in Scaling for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV: from BL to Wk 4 (within group)||||0.4531
90885039|NCT01706250|181632511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.86||0.625||95.0|||||Signed Rank|||Change, in Scaling for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV: from BL to Wk 8 (within group)||||0.6250
90885040|NCT00515827|181632518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.546||95.0||||P-value is 2-sided and is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.546
90885041|NCT03254134|181632556|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.534|0.97||||||There was no formal hypothesis testing.|The hazard ratio of stroke for the dabigatran group as compared to the warfarin group and its 95% CI were estimated from the propensity score matched group using a Cox regression model with treatment group as the dependent variable|0.970|0.534|
90963915|NCT04721821|181809452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.35||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||1.35|0.60|
90963916|NCT04721821|181809453|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.29||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||2.29|0.77|
90963917|NCT04721821|181809453|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|2.71||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||2.71|0.82|
90963918|NCT04721821|181809454|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.24||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||2.24|0.81|
90963919|NCT04721821|181809454|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.62||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||1.62|0.50|
90963920|NCT04721821|181809455|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|1.31||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||1.31|-0.88|
90963921|NCT04721821|181809455|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.73|-0.27||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||-0.27|-2.73|
91034828|NCT02647944|181955408|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.069|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.069
91034829|NCT02647944|181955409|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.054|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.054
91034830|NCT02647944|181955410|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.13
91034831|NCT02647944|181955411|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.68
91034832|NCT02647944|181955412|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.95
91034833|NCT02576938|181955437|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.065|||||||Chi-squared|||||||=0.065
91034834|NCT02576938|181955437|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.027|||||||Chi-squared|||||||=0.027
90963922|NCT04721821|181809456|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|2.02||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||2.02|-1.24|
90963923|NCT04721821|181809456|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|2.84||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||2.84|-0.92|
90963924|NCT04721821|181809457|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|0.56||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||0.56|-1.68|
90963925|NCT04721821|181809457|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|1.99||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||1.99|-0.51|
90963926|NCT04721821|181809458|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.66|0.45||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||0.45|-2.66|
90963927|NCT04721821|181809458|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.52|0.05||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||0.05|-3.52|
90963928|NCT04721821|181809459|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.44||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||0.44|-2.30|
90963929|NCT04721821|181809459|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.62||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||0.62|-2.60|
90963930|NCT04721821|181809460|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.35||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis: mACR 20||1.35|0.80|
90963931|NCT04721821|181809460|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.67||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis: mACR 50||1.67|0.86|
90963932|NCT04721821|181809460|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.54||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis: mACR 70||1.54|0.57|
90963933|NCT04721821|181809460|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.41||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis: mACR 20||1.41|0.77|
90963934|NCT04721821|181809460|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.95||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis: mACR 50||1.95|0.89|
90963935|NCT04721821|181809460|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|2.6||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis: mACR 70||2.60|0.85|
90963936|NCT04721821|181809461|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.34||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis: mACR 20||1.34|0.59|
90963937|NCT04721821|181809461|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.15||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis: mACR 50||1.15|0.39|
90963938|NCT04721821|181809461|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.83||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis: mACR 70||1.83|0.34|
90963939|NCT04721821|181809461|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.42||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis: mACR 20||1.42|0.56|
90963940|NCT04721821|181809461|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.8||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis: mACR 50||1.80|0.46|
90963941|NCT04721821|181809461|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.48||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis: mACR 70||1.48|0.19|
90963942|NCT04721821|181809462|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.45||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis: mACR 20||1.45|0.86|
90963943|NCT04721821|181809462|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.26||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis: mACR 50||1.26|0.67|
90963944|NCT04721821|181809462|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.09||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis: mACR 70||1.09|0.44|
90963945|NCT04721821|181809462|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.38||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis: mACR 20||1.38|0.74|
90963946|NCT04721821|181809462|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.52||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis: mACR 50||1.52|0.69|
90963947|NCT04721821|181809462|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.33||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis: mACR 70||1.33|0.46|
90963948|NCT04721821|181809463|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.77||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis: mACR 20||1.77|0.78|
90963949|NCT04721821|181809463|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.95||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis: mACR 50||1.95|0.71|
90963950|NCT04721821|181809463|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.39||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis: mACR 70||2.39|0.45|
90963951|NCT04721821|181809463|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.4||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis: mACR 20||1.40|0.50|
90963952|NCT04721821|181809463|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.83||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis: mACR 50||1.83|0.49|
90963953|NCT04721821|181809463|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.95||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis: mACR 70||1.95|0.33|
90963954|NCT04721821|181809464|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.49||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis: mACR 20||1.49|0.76|
90963955|NCT04721821|181809464|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.37||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis: mACR 50||1.37|0.55|
90963956|NCT04721821|181809464|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.2||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis: mACR 70||1.20|0.32|
90963957|NCT04721821|181809464|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.3||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis: mACR 20||1.30|0.59|
90963958|NCT04721821|181809464|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.86||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis: mACR 50||1.86|0.65|
90963959|NCT04721821|181809464|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||||95.0|0.62|3.28||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis: mACR 70||3.28|0.62|
90963960|NCT04721821|181809465|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|2.15||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||2.15|0.94|
90963961|NCT04721821|181809465|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.84||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||1.84|0.68|
90963962|NCT04721821|181809466|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.67||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||1.67|0.41|
90963963|NCT04721821|181809466|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|3.07||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||3.07|0.62|
90963964|NCT04721821|181809467|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.52||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||1.52|0.66|
90963965|NCT04721821|181809467|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.74||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||1.74|0.64|
90963966|NCT04721821|181809468|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.94||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||2.94|0.80|
90963967|NCT04721821|181809468|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|3.87||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||3.87|0.76|
90963968|NCT04721821|181809469|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.27||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||2.27|0.73|
90963969|NCT04721821|181809469|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.23||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||2.23|0.63|
90963970|NCT04721821|181809470|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.04||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||0.04|-0.06|
90963971|NCT04721821|181809470|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.09||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||0.09|-0.01|
90963972|NCT04721821|181809471|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.06||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||0.06|-0.08|
90963973|NCT04721821|181809471|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.05||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||0.05|-0.11|
90963974|NCT04721821|181809472|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.03||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||0.03|-0.07|
90963975|NCT04721821|181809472|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.07||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||0.07|-0.05|
90963976|NCT04721821|181809473|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.07||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||0.07|-0.06|
91034835|NCT00571064|181955461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6593|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 6 (Visit 3)||||0.6593
90963977|NCT04721821|181809473|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.06||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||0.06|-0.12|
90963978|NCT04721821|181809474|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.04||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||0.04|-0.09|
90963979|NCT04721821|181809474|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.09||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||0.09|-0.06|
90963980|NCT04721821|181809475|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.45||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||1.45|0.90|
90963981|NCT04721821|181809475|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.94||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||0.94|0.54|
90963982|NCT04721821|181809476|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.11||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||1.11|0.53|
90963983|NCT04721821|181809476|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.61||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||1.61|0.72|
90963984|NCT04721821|181809477|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.21||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||1.21|0.73|
90963985|NCT04721821|181809477|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.39||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||1.39|0.77|
90963986|NCT04721821|181809478|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.32||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||1.32|0.64|
91034836|NCT00571064|181955461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6048|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12/ET (Visit 4)||||0.6048
90963987|NCT04721821|181809478|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.64||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||1.64|0.69|
90963988|NCT04721821|181809479|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.59||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||1.59|0.84|
90963989|NCT04721821|181809479|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.32||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||1.32|0.65|
90963990|NCT04721821|181809480|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.04||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||0.04|-0.03|
90963991|NCT04721821|181809480|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.05||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||0.05|-0.04|
90963992|NCT04721821|181809481|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.05||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||0.05|-0.05|
90963993|NCT04721821|181809481|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.06||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||0.06|-0.07|
90963994|NCT04721821|181809482|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.02||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||0.02|-0.06|
90963995|NCT04721821|181809482|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.04||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||0.04|-0.04|
90963996|NCT04721821|181809483|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.04||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||0.04|-0.06|
90963997|NCT04721821|181809483|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.03||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||0.03|-0.10|
90963998|NCT04721821|181809484|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.04||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||0.04|-0.05|
90963999|NCT04721821|181809484|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.06||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||0.06|-0.06|
90964000|NCT04721821|181809485|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.65|2.45||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||2.45|-2.65|
90964001|NCT04721821|181809485|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.59|3.11||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||3.11|-2.59|
90964002|NCT04721821|181809486|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.71|4.38||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||4.38|-2.71|
90964003|NCT04721821|181809486|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.12|2.95||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||2.95|-5.12|
90964004|NCT04721821|181809487|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.94|1.45||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||1.45|-3.94|
90964005|NCT04721821|181809487|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.61|2.42||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||2.42|-3.61|
90964006|NCT04721821|181809488|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.39|3.05||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||3.05|-4.39|
91034837|NCT00571064|181955461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5924|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12 LOCF (Study Endpoint)||||0.5924
91034838|NCT00571064|181955462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 6 (Visit 3)||||<0.0001
91034839|NCT00571064|181955462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12/ET (Visit 4)||||<0.0001
91034840|NCT00571064|181955462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12 LOCF (Study Endpoint)||||<0.0001
90964007|NCT04721821|181809488|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.19|-0.48||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||-0.48|-9.19|
90964008|NCT04721821|181809489|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.59|2.82||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||2.82|-3.59|
90964009|NCT04721821|181809489|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.97|4.49||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||4.49|-2.97|
90964010|NCT04721821|181809490|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.34||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||1.34|0.73|
90964011|NCT04721821|181809490|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.34||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||1.34|0.66|
91034841|NCT00571064|181955464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0431|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12/ET (Visit 4)||||0.0431
90885042|NCT03254134|181632557|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.549|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.303|0.994||||||There was no formal hypothesis testing.|The hazard ratio of systemic embolism for the dabigatran group as compared to the warfarin group and its 95% CI were estimated from the propensity score matched group using a Cox regression model with treatment group as the dependent variable|0.994|0.303|
90885043|NCT01009099|181632561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Co-variates included in the analysis were time walked on the constant workrate test at baseline and adherence (sessions completed/expected).||The outcomes compared were time walked on the constant workrate treadmill test measured in minutes.||||0.63
90885044|NCT02442830|181632577|OTHER|Log rank test||||||0.002|||||||Log Rank|||||||.002
90885045|NCT00508742|181632586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.65||||||||0.65|0.47|
90885046|NCT00508742|181632587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.9||||||Month 7: 13vPnC/7vPnC, odds ratio was calculated using a logistic regression model with treatment group as the independent variable.||0.9|0.5|
90885047|NCT00508742|181632587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.7||||||Month 12: 13vPnC/7vPnC, odds ratio was calculated using a logistic regression model with treatment group as the independent variable.||0.7|0.4|
90885048|NCT00508742|181632587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.5||||||Month 13: 13vPnC/7vPnC, odds ratio was calculated using a logistic regression model with treatment group as the independent variable.||0.5|0.3|
90885049|NCT00508742|181632587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.7||||||Month 18: 13vPnC/7vPnC, odds ratio was calculated using a logistic regression model with treatment group as the independent variable.||0.7|0.4|
90885050|NCT00508742|181632587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.8||||||Month 24: 13vPnC/7vPnC, odds ratio was calculated using a logistic regression model with treatment group as the independent variable.||0.8|0.4|
90885051|NCT03328897|181632671|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.746|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|-2.77|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures(MMRM)|||||-2.77|-5.70|<0.001
90885052|NCT03328897|181632671|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.738|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.24|-2.33|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures(MMRM)|||||-2.33|-5.24|<0.001
90885053|NCT03328897|181632672|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.555|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.25|-7.14|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures(MMRM)|||||-7.14|-13.25|<0.001
90885054|NCT03328897|181632672|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.535|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.14|-6.1|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures(MMRM)|||||-6.10|-12.14|<0.001
90885055|NCT03328897|181632673|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.853|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.59|-4.24|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures(MMRM)|||||-4.24|-7.59|<0.001
90885056|NCT03328897|181632673|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.842|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|-3.69|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures(MMRM)|||||-3.69|-7.00|<0.001
90885057|NCT03328897|181632674|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.27|15.06|||Regression, Logistic|||||15.06|3.27|<0.001
90885058|NCT03328897|181632674|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.29|15.06|||Regression, Logistic|||||15.06|3.29|<0.001
90885059|NCT03328897|181632675|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.88|32.37|||Regression, Logistic|||||32.37|3.88|<0.001
90964012|NCT04721821|181809491|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.73||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||1.73|0.62|
90964013|NCT04721821|181809491|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.6||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||1.60|0.50|
90964014|NCT04721821|181809492|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.19||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||1.19|0.64|
90964015|NCT04721821|181809492|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.26||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||1.26|0.60|
90964016|NCT04721821|181809493|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.46||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||1.46|0.55|
90964017|NCT04721821|181809493|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.51||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||1.51|0.47|
90964018|NCT04721821|181809494|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.38||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||1.38|0.60|
90964019|NCT04721821|181809494|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.5||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||1.50|0.56|
91034842|NCT00571064|181955464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0431|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12 LOCF (Study Endpoint)||||0.0431
91034843|NCT00571064|181955466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1285|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12/ET (Visit 4)||||0.1285
90885060|NCT03328897|181632675|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.88||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.01|17.17|||Regression, Logistic|||||17.17|2.01|0.001
90924795|NCT04800211|181724029|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-20.761||||0.5975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.867|20.344|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)||20.344|-61.867|0.5975
90924796|NCT04800211|181724029|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-13.337||||0.9331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.853|36.179|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||36.179|-62.853|0.9331
90924797|NCT04800211|181724029|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-19.964||||0.2444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.637|13.709|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||13.709|-53.637|0.2444
90924798|NCT04800211|181724029|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Test 2 on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Test 2 on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-13.254||||0.5169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.427|26.919|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Test 2 on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Test 2 on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||26.919|-53.427|0.5169
90924799|NCT04800211|181724030|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-40.174||||0.1359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-93.12|12.772|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||12.772|-93.120|0.1359
90940745|NCT02799745|181761363|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.714||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.525|0.972||P-value: from a 2-sided, stratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||HR and 95% CI for HR:based on Cox regression model assuming proportional hazards with treatment, prostate cancer risk, type of biopsy, baseline variables(as age, race), time since prostate cancer diagnosis as fixed effects and random effect of site.|||0.972|0.525|0.032
90940746|NCT02799745|181761364|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.1||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.26||P-value:based on the exact binomial distribution from the logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic||OR:from logistic regression model where treatment group, prostate cancer risk, type of biopsy, age, race and time since prostate cancer diagnosis were fixed covariates, site and participant were random effects. 95% CI:based on binomial distribution.|At the end of month 12||0.26|0.08|0.000
90964020|NCT04721821|181809495|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|4.11||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||4.11|-0.69|
90964021|NCT04721821|181809495|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.79|2.77||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||2.77|-2.79|
91034844|NCT00571064|181955466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1285|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12 LOCF (Study Endpoint)||||0.1285
91034845|NCT00571064|181955468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2327|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 6 (Visit 3)||||0.2327
91034846|NCT00571064|181955468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4724|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12/ET (Visit 4)||||0.4724
91034847|NCT00571064|181955468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4724|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12 LOCF - Study Endpoint||||0.4724
90924800|NCT04800211|181724030|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-71.725||||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-127.961|-15.49|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-15.490|-127.961|0.0129
90924801|NCT04800211|181724030|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-37.308||||0.3262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-112.293|37.678|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||37.678|-112.293|0.3262
90924802|NCT04800211|181724030|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-20.012||||0.4343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.468|30.444|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||30.444|-70.468|0.4343
90924803|NCT04800211|181724030|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-44.657||||0.0967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-97.481|8.167|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||8.167|-97.481|0.0967
90924804|NCT04800211|181724030|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-28.974||||0.4198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-99.915|41.966|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||41.966|-99.915|0.4198
90940747|NCT02799745|181761364|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|3.53||P-value: based on the exact binomial distribution from the logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic||OR: from logistic regression model where treatment group, prostate cancer risk, type of biopsy, age, race and time since prostate cancer diagnosis were fixed covariates, site and participant were random effects. 95% CI:based on binomial distribution.|At the end of month 24||3.53|0.37|0.807
91034848|NCT00575159|181955485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.728||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.219|-1.236|||ANCOVA|||Difference from placebo to GSK189075 50mg AUC(0-4) Incremental Adjusted Weighted Mean||-1.236|-4.219|0.0008
91034849|NCT00575159|181955485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.325||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.735|-0.916|||ANCOVA|||Difference from placebo toGSK189075 150mg AUC(0-4) Incremental Adjusted Weighted Mean||-0.916|-3.735|0.0021
90924805|NCT04800211|181724030|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-33.141||||0.2121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-85.475|19.193|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||19.193|-85.475|0.2121
90924806|NCT04800211|181724030|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|15.799||||0.5445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.614|67.212|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||67.212|-35.614|0.5445
90924807|NCT04800211|181724030|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.583||||0.9534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.951|55.116|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||55.116|-51.951|0.9534
90924808|NCT04800211|181724030|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|7.584||||0.8366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.126|80.295|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||80.295|-65.126|0.8366
90940748|NCT02799745|181761364|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.15||P-value:based on the exact binomial distribution from the logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic||OR: from logistic regression model where treatment group, prostate cancer risk, type of biopsy, age, race and time since prostate cancer diagnosis were fixed covariates, site and participant were random effects. 95% CI:based on binomial distribution.|At the end of study||2.15|0.50|0.931
90940749|NCT01726049|181761385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|-0.3||||||||-0.3|-4.5|
90940750|NCT01726049|181761385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|-2.3||||||||-2.3|-7.1|
90940751|NCT01726049|181761386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.4||||||||1.4|-0.9|
90940752|NCT01726049|181761386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.6||||||||1.6|-0.3|
90940753|NCT01726049|181761387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.1||||||||0.1|-0.9|
90940754|NCT01726049|181761387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1||||||||0.1|-0.5|
90940755|NCT01726049|181761388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.0||||||||1.0|-1.9|
91034850|NCT00575159|181955485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.402||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.862|-0.942|||ANCOVA|||Difference from placebo to GSK189075 500mg AUC(0-4) Incremental Adjusted Weighted Mean||-0.942|-3.862|0.0021
90924809|NCT04800211|181724030|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-55.973||||0.5437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-154.862|42.916|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||42.916|-154.862|0.5437
90924810|NCT04800211|181724030|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-73.308||||0.2974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-177.224|30.608|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||30.608|-177.224|0.2974
90924811|NCT04800211|181724030|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-44.892||||0.9026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-181.909|92.126|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||92.126|-181.909|0.9026
90924812|NCT04800211|181724030|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-35.811||||0.8954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-132.513|60.891|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||60.891|-132.513|0.8954
90940756|NCT01726049|181761388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|-1.8||||||||-1.8|-5.2|
90940757|NCT01929876|181761390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of least squares means|316.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|268.1|374.0|||||LS means from analysis of variance (ANOVA), calculated by transforming the natural log means back to the linear scale (that is, geometric LS mean).|Ratio of Least squares (LS) means (Cobimetinib with Itraconazole/Cobimetinib alone) of natural log-transformed parameter (expressed as a percent).||374.0|268.1|
90940758|NCT01929876|181761391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of LS means|672.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|563.7|801.9|||||Ratio of LS means (Cobimetinib with Itraconazole/Cobimetinib alone) of natural log-transformed parameter (expressed as a percent). LS means from ANOVA, calculated by transforming the natural log means back to the linear scale.|Only participants with PK parameter data from both Period 1 Day 1 and Period 2 Day 4 (n=11) were included for statistical analyses.||801.9|563.7|
90940759|NCT01929876|181761393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of LS means|583.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|488.2|698.2|||||Ratio of LS means (Cobimetinib with Itraconazole/Cobimetinib alone) of natural log-transformed parameter (expressed as a percent). LS means from ANOVA, calculated by transforming the natural log means back to the linear scale.|||698.2|488.2|
90964022|NCT04721821|181809496|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.02|1.6||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||1.60|-5.02|
90924813|NCT04800211|181724030|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-46.239||||0.7485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-146.766|54.288|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||54.288|-146.766|0.7485
90924814|NCT04800211|181724030|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-36.559||||0.9578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-169.77|96.653|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||96.653|-169.770|0.9578
90924815|NCT04800211|181724030|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-40.725||||0.3635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-129.208|47.757|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||47.757|-129.208|0.3635
90924816|NCT04800211|181724030|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Test 1 on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Test 1 on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-8.333||||0.8713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-110.097|93.431|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Test 1 on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Test 1 on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||93.431|-110.097|0.8713
90924817|NCT04800211|181724031|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-115.256||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-177.973|-52.539|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)||-52.539|-177.973|0.0003
90940760|NCT01222533|181761404|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The standard bioequivalence range of 80 to 125% was pre-specified for Cmax,ss in order to assess the relative systemic exposure following inhalation of Tio R5 compared to Tio HH18. Bioequivalence was not used as a surrogate for efficacy.|Geometric mean ratio (percentage)|80.66|STANDARD_DEVIATION|43.4||0.4423||90.0|73.49|88.52||Maximum of two one-sided p-values for geometric mean ratio being outside interval 80 percent to 125 percent.|ANOVA||Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation.|||88.52|73.49|0.4423
90964023|NCT04721821|181809496|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.85|4.96||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||4.96|-2.85|
90964024|NCT04721821|181809497|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.75|1.45||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||1.45|-3.75|
90964025|NCT04721821|181809497|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.54|2.47||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||2.47|-3.54|
90964026|NCT04721821|181809498|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.36|4.73||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||4.73|-2.36|
90964027|NCT04721821|181809498|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.36|1.07||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||1.07|-7.36|
90964028|NCT04721821|181809499|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|5.41||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||5.41|-0.66|
90964029|NCT04721821|181809499|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.69|4.71||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||4.71|-2.69|
90964030|NCT04721821|181809500|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.4||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||0.40|-0.16|
90964031|NCT04721821|181809500|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.45||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||0.45|-0.21|
90964032|NCT04721821|181809501|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.43||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||0.43|-0.40|
90964033|NCT04721821|181809501|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.29||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||0.29|-0.74|
90964034|NCT04721821|181809502|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.1||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||0.10|-0.51|
90964035|NCT04721821|181809502|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.31||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||0.31|-0.42|
90964036|NCT04721821|181809503|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.32||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||0.32|-0.34|
90964037|NCT04721821|181809503|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.31||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||0.31|-0.69|
90964038|NCT04721821|181809504|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.32||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||0.32|-0.37|
90964039|NCT04721821|181809504|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.59||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||0.59|-0.30|
90964040|NCT03836807|181809511|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.020
90964041|NCT03836807|181809512|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.026|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.026
90964042|NCT03836807|181809513|SUPERIORITY||adjusted least square mean|-0.3||||0.914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|5.0|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included fixed effect terms for clinical site, time point and treatment. Time point was specified as a repeated measurement.||at Baseline (at 0')||5.0|-5.5|0.914
90964043|NCT03836807|181809513|SUPERIORITY||adjusted least square mean|1.3||||0.685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|7.4|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included fixed effect terms for clinical site, time point and treatment. Time point was specified as a repeated measurement.||at 5'||7.4|-4.9|0.685
90964044|NCT03836807|181809513|SUPERIORITY||adjusted least square mean|-0.3||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|6.8|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included fixed effect terms for clinical site, time point and treatment. Time point was specified as a repeated measurement.||at 10'||6.8|-7.4|0.930
90964045|NCT03836807|181809513|SUPERIORITY||adjusted least square mean|-2.1||||0.615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|6.1|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included fixed effect terms for clinical site, time point and treatment. Time point was specified as a repeated measurement.||at 15'||6.1|-10.3|0.615
90964046|NCT03836807|181809513|SUPERIORITY||adjusted least square mean|-8.5||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|0.0|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included fixed effect terms for clinical site, time point and treatment. Time point was specified as a repeated measurement.||at 30'||0|-17.0|0.051
90964047|NCT03836807|181809513|SUPERIORITY||adjusted least square mean|-8.4||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|-0.3|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included fixed effect terms for clinical site, time point and treatment. Time point was specified as a repeated measurement.||at 45'||-0.3|-16.6|0.043
90964048|NCT03836807|181809513|SUPERIORITY||adjusted least square mean|-9.0||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.7|-1.3|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included fixed effect terms for clinical site, time point and treatment. Time point was specified as a repeated measurement.||at 1h||-1.3|-16.7|0.023
90964049|NCT03836807|181809513|SUPERIORITY||adjusted least square mean|-10.5||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.2|-2.7|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included fixed effect terms for clinical site, time point and treatment. Time point was specified as a repeated measurement.||at 1.5h||-2.7|-18.2|0.009
90964050|NCT03836807|181809513|SUPERIORITY||adjusted least square mean|-9.3||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|-1.7|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included fixed effect terms for clinical site, time point and treatment. Time point was specified as a repeated measurement.||at 2h||-1.7|-17.0|0.018
90964051|NCT03836807|181809513|SUPERIORITY||adjusted least square mean|-5.5||||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|2.6|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included fixed effect terms for clinical site, time point and treatment. Time point was specified as a repeated measurement.||at 3h||2.6|-13.6|0.182
90964052|NCT03836807|181809513|SUPERIORITY||adjusted least square mean|-4.8||||0.236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|3.2|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included fixed effect terms for clinical site, time point and treatment. Time point was specified as a repeated measurement.||at 4h||3.2|-12.9|0.236
90964053|NCT03836807|181809513|SUPERIORITY||adjusted least square mean|-3.6||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|3.5|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included fixed effect terms for clinical site, time point and treatment. Time point was specified as a repeated measurement.||at 5h||3.5|-10.6|0.320
90885061|NCT03328897|181632676|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|4.95|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.95|1.51|<0.001
90885062|NCT03328897|181632676|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.53||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|4.56|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.56|1.41|0.002
90885063|NCT03328897|181632677|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|-2.3|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures(MMRM)|||||-2.3|-5.7|<0.001
90885064|NCT03328897|181632677|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|-1.8|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures(MMRM)|||||-1.8|-5.1|<0.001
90885065|NCT03328897|181632678|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|2.33|||Regression, Cox|||||2.33|1.25|<0.001
90885066|NCT03328897|181632678|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.66||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|2.25|||Regression, Cox|||||2.25|1.22|0.001
90924818|NCT04800211|181724031|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-74.904||||0.0467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-148.706|-1.102|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||-1.102|-148.706|0.0467
90940761|NCT01222533|181761405|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The standard bioequivalence range of 80 to 125% was pre-specified for AUC0-6,ss in order to assess the relative systemic exposure following inhalation of Tio R5 compared to Tio HH18. Bioequivalence was not used as a surrogate for efficacy.|Geometric mean ratio (percentage)|75.99|STANDARD_DEVIATION|34.1||0.8683||90.0|70.44|81.98||Maximum of two one-sided p-values for geometric mean ratio being outside interval 80 percent to 125 percent.|ANOVA||Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation.|||81.98|70.44|0.8683
90940762|NCT01222533|181761406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.087|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014||||95.0|0.06|0.114|||||Tio R1.25-Placebo|||0.114|0.060|
90885067|NCT01040871|181632703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.038||||0.915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.529|2.037|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by IPI score|Odds ratio: VR-CAP CR rate relative to R-CHOP CR rate|||2.037|0.529|0.915
90885068|NCT00982319|181632739|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.32
90885069|NCT00767000|181632744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.51|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.8|-0.22|||Constrained longitudinal model|||Analysis for change from baseline to Week 14||-0.22|-0.80|<0.001
90885070|NCT00767000|181632744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.64|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.93|-0.36|||Constrained longitudinal model|||Analysis for change from baseline to Week 14||-0.36|-0.93|<0.001
90885071|NCT00767000|181632744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.81|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.1|-0.53|||Contrained longitudinal model|||Analysis for change from baseline to Week 14||-0.53|-1.10|<0.001
90885072|NCT00767000|181632744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.75|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.04|-0.46|||Constrained longitudinal model|||Analysis for change from baseline to Week 14||-0.46|-1.04|<0.001
90885073|NCT00767000|181632745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-36.6|||<|0.001||95.0|-55.6|-17.5|||Constrained longitudial model|||Analysis for change from baseline to Week 14||-17.5|-55.6|<0.001
90885074|NCT00767000|181632745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-26.7||||0.005||95.0|-45.4|-8.1|||Constrained longitudinal model|||Analysis for change from baseline to Week 14||-8.1|-45.4|0.005
90885075|NCT00767000|181632745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-35.0|||<|0.001||95.0|-54.0|-16.0|||Constrained longitudinal model|||Analysis for change from baseline to Week 14||-16.0|-54.0|<0.001
90885076|NCT00767000|181632745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-36.9|||<|0.001||95.0|-55.9|-17.9|||Constrained longitudinal model|||Analysis for change from baseline to Week 14||-17.9|-55.9|<0.001
90885077|NCT00767000|181632746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.8||||0.791||95.0|-11.6|15.2|||Constrained longitudinal model|||Analysis for change from baseline to Week 14||15.2|-11.6|0.791
90885078|NCT00767000|181632746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|10.3||||0.121||95.0|-2.7|23.2|||Constrained longitudinal model|||Analysis for change from baseline to Week 14||23.2|-2.7|0.121
90885079|NCT00767000|181632746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.3||||0.169||95.0|-22.6|4.0|||Constrained longitudinal model|||Analysis for change from baseline to Week 14||4.0|-22.6|0.169
90885080|NCT00767000|181632746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|6.7||||0.321||95.0|-6.6|20.0|||Constrained longitudinal model|||Analysis for change from baseline to Week 14||20.0|-6.6|0.321
90885081|NCT00127790|181632760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.0||||0.01|||||||Generalized Estimating Equations|||Two-tailed comparison of pre-post scores.||||0.010
90885082|NCT00127790|181632760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.581|||||||Generalized Estimating Equations|||Two-tailed comparison of pre-post scores.||||0.581
90885083|NCT00127790|181632760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.6||||0.011|||||||Generalized Estimating Equations|||Two-tailed comparison of pre-post scores||||0.011
90885084|NCT00127790|181632761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.5||||0.33|||||||Generalized Estimating Equations|||Two-tailed comparison of pre-post scores.||||0.33
90885085|NCT00127790|181632761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.112|||||||Generalized Estimating Equations|||Two-tailed comparison of pre-post scores.||||0.112
90964054|NCT03836807|181809513|SUPERIORITY||adjusted least square mean|-2.2||||0.572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|5.6|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included fixed effect terms for clinical site, time point and treatment. Time point was specified as a repeated measurement.||at 6h||5.6|-10.0|0.572
90964055|NCT03836807|181809514|SUPERIORITY||adjusted least square mean|2.7||||0.361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|8.4|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included fixed effect terms for clinical site, time point and treatment. Time point was specified as a repeated measurement.||at 5'||8.4|-3.1|0.361
90964056|NCT03836807|181809514|SUPERIORITY||adjusted least square mean|4.2||||0.298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|12.3|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included fixed effect terms for clinical site, time point and treatment. Time point was specified as a repeated measurement.||at 10'||12.3|-3.8|0.298
90964057|NCT03836807|181809514|SUPERIORITY||adjusted least square mean|8.9||||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|19.8|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included fixed effect terms for clinical site, time point and treatment. Time point was specified as a repeated measurement.||at 15'||19.8|-2.1|0.112
90964058|NCT03836807|181809514|SUPERIORITY||adjusted least square mean|22.3||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.8|36.8|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included fixed effect terms for clinical site, time point and treatment. Time point was specified as a repeated measurement.||at 30'||36.8|7.8|0.003
90964059|NCT03836807|181809514|SUPERIORITY||adjusted least square mean|21.2||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.6|36.7|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included fixed effect terms for clinical site, time point and treatment. Time point was specified as a repeated measurement.||at 45'||36.7|5.6|0.008
90964060|NCT03836807|181809514|SUPERIORITY||adjusted least square mean|18.7||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|34.0|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included fixed effect terms for clinical site, time point and treatment. Time point was specified as a repeated measurement.||at 1h||34.0|3.3|0.018
90964061|NCT03836807|181809514|SUPERIORITY||adjusted least square mean|22.3||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|37.0|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included fixed effect terms for clinical site, time point and treatment. Time point was specified as a repeated measurement.||at 1.5h||37.0|7.7|0.003
90964062|NCT03836807|181809514|SUPERIORITY||adjusted least square mean|22.0||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|36.1|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included fixed effect terms for clinical site, time point and treatment. Time point was specified as a repeated measurement.||at 2h||36.1|8.0|0.003
90964063|NCT03836807|181809514|SUPERIORITY||adjusted least square mean|16.7||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|30.0|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included fixed effect terms for clinical site, time point and treatment. Time point was specified as a repeated measurement.||at 3h||30.0|3.4|0.015
91034851|NCT00575159|181955485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.556||||0.0382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|3.021|||ANCOVA|||Difference from Placebo+ Prandial insulin to GSK189075 50mg AUC(0-4) Incremental Adjusted Weighted Mean||3.021|0.090|0.0382
90964064|NCT03836807|181809514|SUPERIORITY||adjusted least square mean|10.8||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|23.9|||ANOVA|||at 4h||23.9|-2.2|0.103
90964065|NCT03836807|181809514|SUPERIORITY||adjusted least square mean|5.9||||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|17.5|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included fixed effect terms for clinical site, time point and treatment. Time point was specified as a repeated measurement.||at 5'||17.5|-5.6|0.311
90964066|NCT03836807|181809514|SUPERIORITY||adjusted least square mean|2.8||||0.638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|14.5|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included fixed effect terms for clinical site, time point and treatment. Time point was specified as a repeated measurement.||at 6h||14.5|-9.0|0.638
90964067|NCT03836807|181809515|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||ANOVA|||in the ITT population||||0.007
90964068|NCT03836807|181809515|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||ANOVA|||in the PP population||||0.009
90964069|NCT03836807|181809516|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.004
90964070|NCT03836807|181809517|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.002
90964071|NCT03836807|181809518|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.480
90964072|NCT03531788|181809524|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Activity counts from the ActiGraph GT9x activity monitor provide data per participant during testing of upper extremity activities/tasks and were collected while wearing the device (Kinova and WREX) and without the device (Kinova and WREX). For each upper extremity task, we summed all activity count data for all tasks completed. We then computed means and standard deviations. Data presented are within group data change and not between group data comparisons.|Due to the small sample size, we utilized change in activity count data when comparing two upper limb testing sessions: one without the use of an arm support device (Kinova or WREX) and one while using the arm support device. For each upper extremity task, we summed all activity count data for all tasks completed. We then computed means and standard deviations. Data presented are within group data change and not between group data comparisons.|||
90964073|NCT03531788|181809525|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Activity counts from the ActiGraph GT9x activity monitor were collected during baseline (without a device) and throughout the 4 week device trial (with the device). For each time period, activity count data were averaged across the day. We then compared the baseline time period to the device trial period to understand the difference in movement and upper extremity positioning during the device trial. Data presented are within group change scores and not between group data comparisons.|Counts from each axis (x, y, z) were measured across baseline and during the 4-week trial to explore arm movement and positioning during the use of an upper extremity arm device. Counts (within each participant) were summed. A change score from trial minus baseline was calculated for each axis. We provide an average change score and standard deviation across participants with Kinova and participants with WREX.|||
90971258|NCT00391222|181825192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model was applied to the change from baseline of Period III at each time point in Period III, with treatment, patient type at screening, and geographic region as factors and baseline MADRS total score as covariate. The comparison between active treatment and placebo was performed based on the LS means obtained from the ANCOVA model. The difference in LS means between treatment arms was estimated, as was the 95% confidence interval for the difference.||||0.001
91034852|NCT00575159|181955485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.958||||0.0132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.439|3.477|||ANCOVA|||Difference from Placebo+ Prandial insulin to GSK189075 150mg AUC(0-4) Incremental Adjusted Weighted Mean||3.477|0.439|0.0132
91034853|NCT00575159|181955485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.881||||0.0161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.373|3.389|||ANCOVA|||Difference from Placebo+ Prandial insulin to GSK189075 500mg AUC(0-4) Incremental Adjusted Weighted Mean||3.389|0.373|0.0161
90924819|NCT04800211|181724031|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-144.035|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-206.668|-81.402|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)||-81.402|-206.668|<.0001
90924820|NCT04800211|181724031|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-62.755||||0.0807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-133.221|7.71|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||7.710|-133.221|0.0807
90924821|NCT04800211|181724031|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-68.83||||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-120.753|-16.907|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||-16.907|-120.753|0.0095
90964074|NCT03531788|181809526|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Three goals were identified for each participant and scored without using an arm support device to serve as a baseline measure of abilities. These scores were compared to the scores achieved on the same goals using the arm support device.|We compared the change in GAS scores when using an arm support device on three goal areas identified as important for each participant. For each goal, we measured abilities at baseline and with the device (Kinova and WREX). We calculated the change in score for each goal and averaged these change scores across all participants. While our groups are too small to complete statistical tests to estimate the significance of the differences participants noted in activity and independence while using both arm supports, our results quantify the amount of increased success participants noted with the use of the arm support device.|||
90964075|NCT02019420|181809527|NON_INFERIORITY|Difference in ITT all-cause mortality (linezolid - tedizolid). Noninferiority is declared when the lower bound of the 95% CI \> -10.|Difference in all-cause mortality|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|4.7|||||Difference and 95% CI were calculated with the Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification.|||4.7|-8.2|
90964076|NCT02019420|181809528|OTHER|Difference in mITT all-cause mortality (linezolid - tedizolid)|Difference in all-cause mortality|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|7.1|||||Difference and 95% CI were calculated with the Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification.|||7.1|-10.3|
90964077|NCT02019420|181809529|OTHER|Difference in ITT clinical success (tedizolid - linezolid)|Difference in clinical success|-7.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|-0.5|||||Difference and 95% CI were calculated with the Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification.|||-0.5|-14.7|
90964078|NCT02019420|181809530|OTHER|Difference in CE clinical success (tedizolid - linezolid)|Difference in clinical success|-6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.1|2.1|||||Difference and 95% CI were calculated with the Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification.|||2.1|-15.1|
90964079|NCT02019420|181809531|OTHER|Difference in MSSA mITT all-cause mortality (linezolid - tedizolid)|Difference in all-cause mortality|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|9.5|||||Difference and 95% CI were calculated with the Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification.|||9.5|-12.5|
90964080|NCT02019420|181809532|OTHER|Difference in MRSA mITT all-cause mortality (linezolid - tedizolid)|Difference in all-cause mortality|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|18.9|||||Difference and 95% CI were calculated with the Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification.|||18.9|-12.8|
91034854|NCT00575159|181955485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.592||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.162|-2.022|||ANCOVA|||Difference from placebo to GSK189075 50mg AUC(0-10) Incremental Adjusted Weighted Mean||-2.022|-5.162|0.0001
90964081|NCT02019420|181809533|OTHER|Difference in mITT favorable response (tedizolid - linezolid)|Difference in clinical success|-13.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.7|-4.5|||||Difference and 95% CI were calculated with the Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification.|||-4.5|-21.7|
90964082|NCT02019420|181809534|OTHER|Difference in ME-1 favorable response (tedizolid - linezolid)|Difference in clinical success|-13.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.7|-4.5|||||Difference and 95% CI were calculated with the Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification.|||-4.5|-21.7|
90964083|NCT02019420|181809535|OTHER|Difference in mITT favorable response (tedizolid - linezolid)|Difference in clinical success|-12.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.5|-3.5|||||Difference and 95% CI were calculated with the Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification.|||-3.5|-21.5|
91034855|NCT00575159|181955485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.82||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.304|-2.337|||ANCOVA|||Difference from placebo to GSK189075 150mg AUC(0-10) Incremental Adjusted Weighted Mean||-2.337|-5.304|0.0000
90964084|NCT02019420|181809536|OTHER|Difference in ME-2 favorable response (tedizolid - linezolid)|Difference in clinical success|-13.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.2|-1.2|||||Difference and 95% CI were calculated with the Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification.|||-1.2|-26.2|
90964085|NCT05118204|181809566|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.346||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|16.54|||Fisher Exact|||||16.540|0.050|1.00
90885086|NCT00127790|181632761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.737|||||||Generalized Estimating Equations|||Two-tailed comparison of pre-post scores||||0.737
90885087|NCT00127790|181632762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.063|||||||Generalized Estimating Equations|||Two-tailed comparison of pre-post scores||||0.063
90885088|NCT00127790|181632762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.786|||||||Generalized Estimating Equations|||Two-tailed comparison of pre-post scores||||0.786
90885089|NCT00127790|181632762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.039|||||||Generalized Estimating Equations|||Two-tailed comparison of pre-post scores.||||0.039
90885090|NCT00127790|181632763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.2||||0.016|||||||Generlaized Estimating Equations|||Two-tailed comparison of pre-post scores.||||0.016
90885091|NCT00127790|181632763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.4||||0.187|||||||Generalized Estimating Equations|||Two-tailed comparison of pre-post scores.||||0.187
90885092|NCT00127790|181632763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.2||||0.015|||||||Generalized Estimating Equations|||Two-tailed comparison of pre-post scores.||||0.015
90885093|NCT00097591|181632777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.726|0.927||The primary outcome measure was analyzed first in the UA/NSTEMI population, followed by All ACS subjects, followed by the STEMI population.|Gehan-Wilcoxon|||For UA/NSTEMI population||0.927|0.726|0.002
90885094|NCT00097591|181632777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.793||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.649|0.968|||Gehan-Wilcoxon|||For STEMI population||0.968|0.649|0.019
90885095|NCT00097591|181632777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.812|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.732|0.902|||Gehan-Wilcoxon|Clinical presentation, UA/NSTEMI versus STEMI, was used as a stratification factor.||For All ACS population||0.902|0.732|<0.001
90885096|NCT00097591|181632778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.314||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.107|1.559|||Log Rank|Clinical presentation, UA/NSTEMI versus STEMI, was used as a stratification factor.||For non-CABG TIMI Major or Minor Bleeding||1.559|1.107|0.002
90885097|NCT00097591|181632778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.315||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.028|1.683|||Log Rank|Clinical presentation, UA/NSTEMI versus STEMI, was used as a stratification factor.||For non-CABG TIMI Major Bleeding||1.683|1.028|0.029
90885098|NCT00097591|181632778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.517||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.083|2.126|||Log Rank|Clinical presentation, UA/NSTEMI versus STEMI, was used as a stratification factor.||For the subset of non-CABG TIMI Major Bleeding - Life-threatening events (LT)||2.126|1.083|0.015
90885099|NCT00097591|181632778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.191||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.158|11.113|||Log Rank|Clinical presentation, UA/NSTEMI versus STEMI, was used as a stratification factor.||For the subset of non-CABG TIMI Major Bleeding - LT - Fatal||11.113|1.1580|0.002
90885100|NCT00097591|181632778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.119||||0.736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.582|2.152|||Log Rank|Clinical presentation, UA/NSTEMI versus STEMI, was used as a stratification factor.||For the subset of non-CABG TIMI Major Bleeding - LT - Symptomatic intracranial hemorrage (ICH)||2.152|0.582|0.736
90885101|NCT00097591|181632778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.617||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.159|5.908|||Log Rank|Clinical presentation, UA/NSTEMI versus STEMI, was used as a stratification factor.||For the subset of non-CABG TIMI Major Bleeding - LT - Requiring inotropes||5.908|1.159|0.016
90885102|NCT00097591|181632778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.998||||0.995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.528|1.885|||Log Rank|Clinical presentation, UA/NSTEMI versus STEMI, was used as a stratification factor.||For the subset of non-CABG TIMI Major Bleeding - LT - Requiring surgical intervention||1.885|0.528|0.995
90885103|NCT00097591|181632778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.499||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.945|2.379|||Log Rank|Clinical presentation, UA/NSTEMI versus STEMI, was used as a stratification factor.||For the subset of non-CABG TIMI Major Bleeding - LT - Requiring transfusion (\>=4 units)||2.379|0.945|0.084
90964086|NCT04409353|181809596|OTHER|Primary inference will be based on the treatment comparison of least squares means for Day 30, and a p-value will be presented for this time period only. The null hypothesis is that the mean difference in the primary endpoint between the treatment groups and the sham control group is zero, versus the alternative hypothesis that these differences are not zero.|Difference in Least Squares Means|0.47||||0.4884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|1.81||A two-sided test performed at the 0.05 level of significance.|Mixed Models Analysis||Distraction-Based VR - Sham VR|The primary analysis will compare the treatment groups, separately, to the control group using a linear mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis. The repeated measures are the change from baseline PROMIS-PI score obtained at Days 7, 15, 21, and 30, respectively. The model will include fixed categorical effects for treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and the baseline PROMIS-PI t-score as a continuous covariate.||1.81|-0.87|0.4884
90971259|NCT01119248|181825194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.62|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.25|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.25|-0.48|<.001
90964087|NCT04409353|181809596|OTHER|Primary inference will be based on the treatment comparison of least squares means for Day 30, and a p-value will be presented for this time period only. The null hypothesis is that the mean difference in the primary endpoint between the treatment groups and the sham control group is zero, versus the alternative hypothesis that these differences are not zero.|Difference in Least Squares Means|0.16||||0.8095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|1.43||A two-sided test performed at the 0.05 level of significance.|Mixed Models Analysis||Skills-Based VR - Sham VR|The primary analysis will compare the treatment groups, separately, to the control group using a linear mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis. The repeated measures are the change from baseline PROMIS-PI score obtained at Days 7, 15, 21, and 30, respectively. The model will include fixed categorical effects for treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and the baseline PROMIS-PI t-score as a continuous covariate.||1.43|-1.12|0.8095
90964088|NCT04409353|181809597|OTHER|The inference will be based on the treatment comparison of least squares means for Day 60, and a p-value will be presented for this time period only. The null hypothesis is that the mean difference in the primary endpoint between the treatment groups and the sham control group is zero, versus the alternative hypothesis that these differences are not zero.|Difference in Least Squares Means|0.79||||0.3101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|2.32||A two-sided test performed at the 0.05 level of significance.|Mixed Models Analysis||Distraction-Based VR - Sham VR|The analysis will compare the treatment groups, separately, to the control group using a linear mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis. The repeated measures are the change from baseline PROMIS-PI score obtained at Days 60 and 90, respectively. The model will include fixed categorical effects for treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and the baseline PROMIS-PI t-score as a continuous covariate.||2.32|-0.74|0.3101
90964089|NCT04409353|181809597|OTHER|The inference will be based on the treatment comparison of least squares means for Day 60, and a p-value will be presented for this time period only. The null hypothesis is that the mean difference in the primary endpoint between the treatment groups and the sham control group is zero, versus the alternative hypothesis that these differences are not zero.|Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.42||||0.6328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|1.3||A two-sided test performed at the 0.05 level of significance.|Mixed Models Analysis||Skills-Based VR - Sham VR|The analysis will compare the treatment groups, separately, to the control group using a linear mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis. The repeated measures are the change from baseline PROMIS-PI score obtained at Days 60 and 90, respectively. The model will include fixed categorical effects for treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and the baseline PROMIS-PI t-score as a continuous covariate.||1.30|-2.13|0.6328
90964090|NCT04409353|181809597|OTHER|The inference will be based on the treatment comparison of least squares means for Day 90, and a p-value will be presented for this time period only. The null hypothesis is that the mean difference in the primary endpoint between the treatment groups and the sham control group is zero, versus the alternative hypothesis that these differences are not zero.|Difference in Least Squares Means|1.16||||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|2.64||A two-sided test performed at the 0.05 level of significance.|Mixed Models Analysis||Distraction-Based VR - Sham VR|The analysis will compare the treatment groups, separately, to the control group using a linear mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis. The repeated measures are the change from baseline PROMIS-PI score obtained at Days 60 and 90, respectively. The model will include fixed categorical effects for treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and the baseline PROMIS-PI t-score as a continuous covariate.||2.64|-0.33|0.1260
90964091|NCT04409353|181809597|OTHER|The inference will be based on the treatment comparison of least squares means for Day 90, and a p-value will be presented for this time period only. The null hypothesis is that the mean difference in the primary endpoint between the treatment groups and the sham control group is zero, versus the alternative hypothesis that these differences are not zero.|Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.51||||0.515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|1.03||A two-sided test performed at the 0.05 level of significance.|Mixed Models Analysis||Skills-Based VR - Sham VR|The analysis will compare the treatment groups, separately, to the control group using a linear mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis. The repeated measures are the change from baseline PROMIS-PI score obtained at Days 60 and 90, respectively. The model will include fixed categorical effects for treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and the baseline PROMIS-PI t-score as a continuous covariate.||1.03|-2.05|0.5150
90964092|NCT04409353|181809598|OTHER|Primary inference will be based on the treatment comparison of least squares means for Day 90, and a p-value will be presented for this time period only. The null hypothesis is that the mean difference in the primary endpoint between the treatment groups and the sham control group is zero, versus the alternative hypothesis that these differences are not zero.|Difference in Least Squares Means|1.43||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|2.61||A two-sided test performed at the 0.05 level of significance.|Mixed Models Analysis||Distraction-Based VR - Sham VR|The analysis will compare the treatment groups, separately, to the control group using a linear mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis. The repeated measures are the change from baseline PCS SF-6 score obtained at Days 15, 30, 60, and 90, respectively. The model will include fixed categorical effects for treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and the baseline PCS SF-6 t-score as a continuous covariate.||2.61|0.25|.0180
90971260|NCT01119248|181825195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.43|||t-test, 2 sided|||pre- MRI body temperature was associated with change in body temperature after MRI by bivariate analysis. The values presented are adjusted for body surface area, type of MRI, room temperature and duration of MRI||-0.43|-0.95|0.0001
90885104|NCT00097591|181632778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.313||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.656|||Log Rank|Clinical presentation, UA/NSTEMI versus STEMI, was used as a stratification factor.||For the subset of non-CABG TIMI Minor Bleeding||1.656|1.040|0.022
90885105|NCT00097591|181632779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.784|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.688|0.894|||Log Rank|Clinical presentation, UA/NSTEMI versus STEMI, was used as a stratification factor.||Through 30 days||0.894|0.688|<0.001
90885106|NCT00097591|181632779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.794|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.703|0.896|||Log Rank|Clinical presentation, UA/NSTEMI versus STEMI, was used as a stratification factor.||Through 90 days||0.896|0.703|<0.001
90885107|NCT00097591|181632780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.767|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.672|0.876|||Log Rank|Clinical presentation, UA/NSTEMI versus STEMI, was used as a stratification factor.||Through 30 days||0.876|0.672|<0.001
90885108|NCT00097591|181632780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.797|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.705|0.901|||Log Rank|Clinical presentation, UA/NSTEMI versus STEMI, was used as a stratification factor.||Through 90 days||0.901|0.705|<0.001
90885109|NCT00097591|181632781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.838|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.762|0.921|||Log Rank|Clinical presentation, UA/NSTEMI versus STEMI, was used as a stratification factor.||||0.921|0.762|<0.001
90885110|NCT00097591|181632782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.831|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.751|0.919|||Log Rank|Clinical presentation, UA/NSTEMI versus STEMI, was used as a stratification factor.||||0.919|0.751|<0.001
90924822|NCT04800211|181724031|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.593||||0.9586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.873|58.687|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)||58.687|-61.873|0.9586
90924823|NCT04800211|181724031|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.635||||0.9402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.714|66.443|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||66.443|-71.714|0.9402
90940763|NCT01222533|181761406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.101|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014|<|0.0001||95.0|0.074|0.128|||ANOVA|Adjusted for sequence, patients within sequences, period and treatment.|Tio R2.5-Placebo|||0.128|0.074|<0.0001
90940764|NCT01222533|181761406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.121|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014|<|0.0001||95.0|0.094|0.148|||ANOVA|Adjusted for sequence, patients within sequences, period and treatment.|Tio R5-Placebo|||0.148|0.094|<0.0001
90885111|NCT00563797|181632787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|||||F=7.73|Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison is between baseline and during treatment.||||0.014
90885112|NCT00563797|181632788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||F=36.32|Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of baseline and post-treatment||||.0001
90885113|NCT00563797|181632789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.025
90885114|NCT00563797|181632790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.019
90885115|NCT03264157|181632791|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis is p-p0 ≤ -0.1. The alternative hypothesis is p-p0 \> -0.1, where p is the proportion of subjects with anti-rabies titer of \>0.5 IU/mL at Day 14 in subjects receiving BPL HRIG + vaccine and p0 is the proportion receiving comparator HRIG + vaccine. We reject the null hypothesis at the one-sided 0.025 significance level, and conclude that p-p0 \> -0.1, if the lower bound of an exact 95% binomial confidence interval exceeds -0.1.|lower 95% CI|-0.05||||0.0006|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|||The threshold for this test is \<=0.025.|Farrington and Manning test||||||-0.05|0.0006
90885116|NCT03264157|181632792|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non inferiority margin was 20%. The lower bound of the 95% CI required should be greater than 0.8 to conclude non-inferiority.|lower 95% CI|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.94||||||||0.94|0.74|
90885117|NCT03264157|181632793|SUPERIORITY||95% CI|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Data analyzed as log normal. The value presented is the untransformed value of the difference between means.|||||
90885118|NCT03264157|181632794|NON_INFERIORITY|The same methodology was used as the primary endpoint for each visit. The statistical analysis is presenting the Day 14 data.|lower 95% CI|-0.05||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.1|||Farrington and Manning test|||||0.10|-0.05|0.0006
90885119|NCT03264157|181632795|NON_INFERIORITY|The same methodology was used as the primary endpoint for each visit. The statistical analysis is presenting the Day 14 data.|lower 95% CI|0.0||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Farrington and Manning test||For Day 14, all subjects achieved the endpoint (RVNA titer \> LLOQ). Since the statistic to measure the performance is a proportion, the proportion is 1 and no variance is calculable.|||0|0|0
90940765|NCT01222533|181761407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.165|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||||95.0|0.141|0.189|||||Tio R1.25-Placebo.|||0.189|0.141|
90971261|NCT01119248|181825196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
90924824|NCT04800211|181724031|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-113.663||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-223.33|-3.996|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)||-3.996|-223.330|0.0390
90924825|NCT04800211|181724031|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-72.269||||0.4543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-199.091|54.554|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||54.554|-199.091|0.4543
90924826|NCT04800211|181724031|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-142.442||||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-252.08|-32.805|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)||-32.805|-252.080|0.0051
90924827|NCT04800211|181724031|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-60.12||||0.6061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-184.286|64.046|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||64.046|-184.286|0.6061
90924828|NCT04800211|181724031|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-66.194||||0.1242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-150.672|18.284|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||18.284|-150.672|0.1242
90924829|NCT04800211|181724031|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Test 2 on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Test 2 on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-12.149||||0.8117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-112.35|88.052|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Test 2 on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Test 2 on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||88.052|-112.350|0.8117
90940766|NCT01222533|181761407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.185|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001||95.0|0.161|0.209|||ANOVA|Adjusted for sequence, patients within sequences, period and treatment.|Tio R2.5-Placebo|||0.209|0.161|<0.0001
90940767|NCT01222533|181761407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.191|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001||95.0|0.167|0.216|||ANOVA|Adjusted for sequence, patients within sequences, period and treatment.|Tio R5-Placebo|||0.216|0.167|<0.0001
90885120|NCT00009737|181632797|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was tested by comparing the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval for the hazard ratio to the non-inferiority margin of 1.25 in a first step, and then of 1.20 in a second step.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.0||For difference between arms, \< 0.001 for non-inferiority|Wald Chi-Square Test|||||1.00|0.75|0.053
90885121|NCT00009737|181632798|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was tested by comparing the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval for the hazard ratio to the non-inferiority margin of 1.25|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.99||For difference between arms, \< 0.001 for non-inferiority|Wald Chi-Square Test|||||0.99|0.74|0.041
90885122|NCT00009737|181632799|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was tested by comparing the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval for the hazard ratio to the non-inferiority margin of 1.25|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.01||For difference between arms, \< 0.001 for non-inferiority|Wald Chi-Square Test|||||1.01|0.69|0.071
90885123|NCT04188041|181632811|OTHER|see above||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Non-parametric Wilcoxon signed rank test for paired data was used to test for significant change in confidence.||||0.02
90885124|NCT02248922|181632844|OTHER|||||||0.4099|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.4099
90885125|NCT02248922|181632845|OTHER|||||||0.6961|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.6961
90940768|NCT01222533|181761408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.155|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||||95.0|0.13|0.18|||||Tio R1.25-Placebo|||0.180|0.130|
90885126|NCT02248922|181632846|OTHER|||||||0.354|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.3540
90885127|NCT02248922|181632847|OTHER|||||||0.591|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.5910
90885128|NCT02248922|181632848|OTHER|||||||0.4249|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.4249
90885129|NCT02248922|181632849|OTHER|||||||0.3963|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.3963
90885130|NCT02248922|181632850|OTHER|||||||0.3502|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.3502
90885131|NCT02708745|181632857|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.29
90885132|NCT02708745|181632858|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.18
90885133|NCT02708745|181632859|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78||||||For the barrier 'not having enough time to discuss vaccine concerns', P=0.78. For the barrier 'not realizing until late in visit that parent had vaccine concerns', P=0.37. For the barrier 'not understanding parent specific vaccine concerns', P=0.66.|Chi-squared|||||||0.78
90885134|NCT01298063|181632867|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Relative bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio|92.64|STANDARD_DEVIATION|33.6||0.1998|TWO_SIDED|90.0|67.96|126.27||P-value for ratio outside interval 80 - 125 percent|ANOVA|Adjusted (by treatment) geometric mean ratio|The standard deviation is actually the intra individual geometric coefficient of variation|||126.270|67.960|0.1998
90885135|NCT01298063|181632867|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Relative bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio|94.88|STANDARD_DEVIATION|31.6||0.144|TWO_SIDED|90.0|72.278|124.549||P-value for ratio outside interval 80 - 125 percent|ANOVA|Adjusted (by treatment) geometric mean ratio|The standard deviation is actually the intra individual geometric coefficient of variation|||124.549|72.278|0.1440
90885136|NCT01298063|181632868|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Relative bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio|109.47|STANDARD_DEVIATION|30.3||0.2002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.683|144.947||P-value for ratio outside interval 80 - 125 percent|ANOVA|Adjusted (by treatment) geometric mean ratio|The standard deviation is actually the intra individual geometric coefficient of variation|||144.947|82.683|0.2002
90885137|NCT01298063|181632868|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Relative bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio|126.89|STANDARD_DEVIATION|42.8||0.5281|TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.028|187.159||P-value for ratio outside interval 80 - 125 percent|ANOVA|Adjusted (by treatment) geometric mean ratio|The standard deviation is actually the intra individual geometric coefficient of variation|||187.159|86.028|0.5281
90885138|NCT01298063|181632869|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Relative bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio|90.61|STANDARD_DEVIATION|32.8||0.2309|TWO_SIDED|90.0|66.915|122.705||P-value for ratio outside interval 80 - 125 percent|ANOVA|Adjusted (by treatment) geometric mean ratio|The standard deviation is actually the intra individual geometric coefficient of variation|||122.705|66.915|0.2309
90885139|NCT01298063|181632869|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Relative bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio|94.49|STANDARD_DEVIATION|32.4||0.1546|TWO_SIDED|90.0|71.563|124.764||P-value for ratio outside interval 80 - 125 percent|ANOVA|Adjusted (by treatment) geometric mean ratio|The standard deviation is actually the intra individual geometric coefficient of variation|||124.764|71.563|0.1546
90885140|NCT01700946|181632871|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.035
90885141|NCT01700946|181632872|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.105|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.105
90885142|NCT01700946|181632873|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1181|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1181
90885143|NCT04632940|181632883|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.528|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8912||0.5553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.308|1.251|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.251|-2.308|0.5553
90885144|NCT02486406|181633006|SUPERIORITY||Wilson's score method|98.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.7|99.7||||||According to the Highlights of Prescribing Information of PEGASYS, the SVR24 rate was 47% among 45 treatment-naïve pediatric participants with HCV GT1 in the NV17424 trial. To show that the DAA regimen is superior to this current standard of care by 20%, the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the SVR12 rate across all participants in the study must be greater than 67%.||99.7|91.7|
90885145|NCT03509948|181633014|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Least Squares Mean|79.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|66.4|95.35||||||Fed/Fasted Ratio||95.35|66.40|
90885146|NCT03509948|181633015|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Least Squares Mean|92.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.37|95.95||||||Fed/Fasted Ratio||95.95|88.37|
90885147|NCT03509948|181633016|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Least Squares Mean|90.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.99|97.2||||||Fed/Fasted Ratio||97.20|84.99|
90940769|NCT01222533|181761408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001||95.0|0.155|0.205|||ANOVA|Adjusted for sequence, patients within sequences, period and treatment.|Tio R2.5-Placebo|||0.205|0.155|<0.0001
90924830|NCT04800211|181724032|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-111.957||||0.0567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-227.151|3.237|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||3.237|-227.151|0.0567
90924831|NCT04800211|181724032|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-76.728||||0.2103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-197.025|43.569|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||43.569|-197.025|0.2103
90924832|NCT04800211|181724032|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-169.735||||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-288.22|-51.251|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-51.251|-288.220|0.0052
90924833|NCT04800211|181724032|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-52.505||||0.349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-162.721|57.711|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||57.711|-162.721|0.3490
90924834|NCT04800211|181724032|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-11.413||||0.841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-123.333|100.507|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||100.507|-123.333|0.8410
90940770|NCT01222533|181761408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.187|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001||95.0|0.162|0.211|||ANOVA|Adjusted for sequence, patients within sequences, period and treatment.|Tio R5-Placebo|||0.211|0.162|<0.0001
90940771|NCT01222533|181761409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.138|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028||||95.0|0.083|0.194|||||Tio R1.25-Placebo|||0.194|0.083|
90924835|NCT04800211|181724032|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-53.565||||0.3465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-165.4|58.27|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||58.270|-165.400|0.3465
90924836|NCT04800211|181724032|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-111.65||||0.0087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-194.865|-28.435|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-28.435|-194.865|0.0087
90924837|NCT04800211|181724032|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|63.944||||0.2688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.678|177.565|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||177.565|-49.678|0.2688
90940772|NCT01222533|181761409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.188|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.0001||95.0|0.133|0.244|||ANOVA|Adjusted for sequence, patients within sequences, period and treatment.|Tio R2.5-Placebo|||0.244|0.133|<0.0001
90940773|NCT01222533|181761409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.236|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.0001||95.0|0.18|0.292|||ANOVA|Adjusted for sequence, patients within sequences, period and treatment.|Tio R5-Placebo|||0.292|0.180|<0.0001
90940774|NCT01222533|181761410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.283|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022||||95.0|0.241|0.326|||||Tio R1.25-Placebo|||0.326|0.241|
90940775|NCT01222533|181761410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.319|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.276|0.362|||ANOVA|Adjusted for sequence, patients within sequences, period and treatment.|Tio R2.5-Placebo|||0.362|0.276|<0.0001
90940776|NCT01222533|181761410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.335|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.292|0.378|||ANOVA|Adjusted for sequence, patients within sequences, period and treatment.|Tio R5-Placebo|||0.378|0.292|<0.0001
90964093|NCT04409353|181809598|OTHER|Primary inference will be based on the treatment comparison of least squares means for Day 90, and a p-value will be presented for this time period only. The null hypothesis is that the mean difference in the primary endpoint between the treatment groups and the sham control group is zero, versus the alternative hypothesis that these differences are not zero.|Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.33||||0.5742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|0.82||A two-sided test performed at the 0.05 level of significance.|Mixed Models Analysis||Skills-Based VR - Sham VR|The analysis will compare the treatment groups, separately, to the control group using a linear mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis. The repeated measures are the change from baseline PCS SF-6 score obtained at Days 15, 30, 60, and 90, respectively. The model will include fixed categorical effects for treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and the baseline PCS SF-6 t-score as a continuous covariate.||0.82|-1.48|0.5742
90964094|NCT04409353|181809599|OTHER|Primary inference will be based on the treatment comparison of least squares means for Day 90, and a p-value will be presented for this time period only. The null hypothesis is that the mean difference in the primary endpoint between the treatment groups and the sham control group is zero, versus the alternative hypothesis that these differences are not zero.|Difference in Least Squares Means|0.39||||0.7338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|2.62||A two-sided test performed at the 0.05 level of significance.|Mixed Models Analysis||Distraction-Based VR - Sham VR|The analysis will compare the treatment groups, separately, to the control group using a linear mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis. The repeated measures are the change from baseline PROMIS- Anxiety score obtained at Day 15, 30, 60, and 90, respectively. The model will include fixed categorical effects for treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and the baseline PROMIS-Anxiety t-score as a continuous covariate.||2.62|-1.85|0.7338
91034856|NCT00575159|181955485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.887||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.424|-1.35|||ANCOVA|||Difference from placebo to GSK189075 500mg AUC(0-10) Incremental Adjusted Weighted Mean||-1.350|-4.424|0.0006
91034857|NCT00575159|181955485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.953||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.411|4.496|||ANCOVA|||Difference from Placebo+ Prandial insulin to GSK189075 50mg AUC(0-10) Incremental Adjusted Weighted Mean||4.496|1.411|0.0005
91034858|NCT00575159|181955485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.725||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.126|4.324|||ANCOVA|||Difference from Placebo+ Prandial insulin to GSK189075 150mg AUC(0-10) Incremental Adjusted Weighted Mean||4.324|1.126|0.0015
91034859|NCT00575159|181955485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.659||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.071|5.246|||ANCOVA|||Difference from Placebo+ Prandial insulin to GSK189075 500mg AUC(0-10) Incremental Adjusted Weighted Mean||5.246|2.071|0.0001
91034860|NCT02648438|181955543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|62.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|53.01|73.94|||||Ratio (%)|Statistical Assessment of AZD7594 Pharmacokinetic Parameter (AUC0-t) Following Inhalation Administration ofAZD7594 via DPI Device 2 Versus DPI Device 1.||73.94|53.01|
90885148|NCT03509948|181633018|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Least Squares Mean|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.25|1.75||||||Fed/Fasted Ratio||1.75|0.25|
90885149|NCT03509948|181633020|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Least Squares Mean|91.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.55|95.41||||||Fed/Fasted Ratio||95.41|87.55|
90885150|NCT01331694|181633023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.64||||||95.0|1.5|1.79|||||Hazard ratio for hospitalization or emergency department visit for IP compared to FSC; HR estimate adjusted for age, sex, geographic region, pre-initial treatment comorbidities, and COPD-related utilization|||1.79|1.50|
90885151|NCT01331694|181633023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.29||||||95.0|1.17|1.41|||||Hazard ratio for hospitalization or emergency department visit for TIO compared to FSC; HR estimate adjusted for age, sex, geographic region, pre-initial treatment comorbidities, and COPD-related utilization|||1.41|1.17|
90885152|NCT01331694|181633023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.78||||||95.0|1.59|2.0|||||Hazard ratio for emergency department visit for IP compared to FSC; HR estimate adjusted for age, sex, geographic region, pre-initial treatment comorbidities, and COPD-related utilization|||2.00|1.59|
91034861|NCT02648438|181955544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|101.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.21|120.06|||||Ratio (%)|Statistical Assessment of AZD7594 Pharmacokinetic Parameter (AUC0-t) Following Inhalation Administration ofAZD7594 via DPI Device 2 Versus DPI Device 1.||120.06|85.21|
91034862|NCT04405570|181955563|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5551|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.5551
91034863|NCT04405570|181955563|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.727|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.7270
91034864|NCT04405570|181955563|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0128|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0128
91034865|NCT04499963|181955567|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.984|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We compared he ALSFRS-R slope (not the actual score) of the patients in our open label treatment versus the historical controls.||||0.984
91034866|NCT04499963|181955572|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Open Label Arm participant samples from baseline, month 1, and month 6.||||>0.05
91034867|NCT04499963|181955573|OTHER||||||>|0.5||||||Alpha Diversity|Kruskal-Wallis|||Open Label Arm participant samples from baseline, month 1, and month 6.||||>0.5
91034868|NCT04499963|181955574|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Open Label Arm participant samples from baseline, month 1, and month 6.||||>0.05
91034869|NCT04499963|181955575|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Open Label Arm participant samples from baseline, month 1, and month 6.||||>0.05
91034870|NCT04499963|181955576|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Open Label Arm participant samples from baseline, month 1, and month 6.||||>0.05
91034871|NCT04499963|181955577|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Open Label Arm participant samples from baseline, month 1, and month 6.||||>0.05
91034872|NCT04499963|181955578|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Open Label Arm participant samples from baseline, month 1, and month 6.||||>0.05
91034873|NCT04499963|181955579|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Open Label Arm participant samples from baseline, month 1, and month 6.||||>0.05
91034874|NCT03117296|181955582|OTHER||Rank-Sum|0.05|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Univariate 2-group comparisons were performed using χ2 and Fisher's exact tests (when expected cell counts are \<5) for categorical variables, using 2-group t tests and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests (when normality distributions were violated) for continuous variables. Statistical significance was set at P \< .05. All analyses were performed using SAS 9.4 (SAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina).||||<0.01
91034875|NCT00838279|181955594|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|100.31||||||90.0|97.82|102.85|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||102.85|97.82|
91034876|NCT00838279|181955595|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|101.78||||||90.0|99.09|104.55|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||104.55|99.09|
90885153|NCT01331694|181633023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.33||||||95.0|1.17|1.51|||||Hazard ratio for emergency department visit for TIO compared to FSC; HR estimate adjusted for age, sex, geographic region, pre-initial treatment comorbidities, and COPD-related utilization|||1.51|1.17|
90885154|NCT01331694|181633023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.65||||||95.0|1.41|1.94|||||Hazard ratio for outpatient visit with oral steroid fill for IP compared to FSC; HR estimate adjusted for age, sex, geographic region, pre-initial treatment comorbidities, and COPD-related utilization|||1.94|1.41|
90885155|NCT01331694|181633023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.49||||||95.0|1.26|1.76|||||Hazard ratio for outpatient visit with oral steroid fill for TIO compared to FSC; HR estimate adjusted for age, sex, geographic region, pre-initial treatment comorbidities, and COPD-related utilization|||1.76|1.26|
90885156|NCT01331694|181633023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.39||||||95.0|1.23|1.57|||||Hazard ratio for outpatient visit with antibiotic fill for IP compared to FSC; HR estimate adjusted for age, sex, geographic region, pre-initial treatment comorbidities, and COPD-related utilization|||1.57|1.23|
90885157|NCT01331694|181633023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.33||||||95.0|1.17|1.51|||||Hazard ratio for outpatient visit with antibiotic fill for TIO compared to FSC; HR estimate adjusted for age, sex, geographic region, pre-initial treatment comorbidities, and COPD-related utilization|||1.51|1.17|
90885158|NCT01071512|181633028|OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis used all available data from subjects, including those who dropped out early.||||0.17
90885159|NCT01071512|181633029|OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis used all available data||||0.6
90885160|NCT01071512|181633030|OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis used all available data||||0.3
90885161|NCT01071512|181633031|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis used all available data||||0.02
90885162|NCT01071512|181633032|OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis used all available data||||0.9
90885163|NCT00853658|181633035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.1724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.03|||Regression, Cox|||(superiority)||1.03|0.85|0.1724
90885164|NCT00853658|181633035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.4579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.07|||Regression, Cox|||(superiority) Non-Diabetic patients||1.07|0.85|0.4579
90885165|NCT00853658|181633035|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Pre-specified Non-inferiority margin 1.104 is used.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.0368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.1|||Regression, Cox|||||1.10|0.90|0.0368
90885166|NCT00853658|181633035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.9118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.1|||Regression, Cox|||(superiority)||1.10|0.90|0.9118
90885167|NCT02797262|181633039|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Treatment Difference = Intervention - Control|Compared the IPAM score between two groups.||||0.57
90885168|NCT02797262|181633041|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment Difference = Intervention - Control|Compared the change of the plasma HIV RNA levels during the intervention period (week 0-16) between two groups.||||0.08
90885169|NCT02797262|181633041|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment Difference = Intervention - Control|Compared the change of the plasma HIV RNA levels during the post-intervention period (week 16-28) between two groups.||||0.23
90885170|NCT02797262|181633041|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.73||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment Difference = Intervention - Control|Compared the plasma HIV RNA levels during week 4-28 between two groups.||||0.03
90885171|NCT04160260|181633048|EQUIVALENCE|Omadacycline 300 mg PO provided equivalent total exposure as measured by AUC relative to omadacycline 100 mg IV.|Geometric Mean Ratio|95.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.2|107.5|||||A t-test on the natural log-transformed PK parameter AUC(0-48) was performed to obtain the Geometric Mean Ratio and its confidence interval.|Comparison was performed with the 100 mg intravenous (IV) omadacycline treatment group (data were obtained from 6 completed studies-NCT numbers not available). Using the Day 1 plasma concentration profile of the 100 mg IV QD dosing from these studies, a BID dosing on Day 1 and a QD dosing on Day 2 was simulated using the superposition principle. Log Geometric Mean (GM) AUC(0-48) of omadacycline for the 100 mg IV omadacycline group was as follows:Participants analyzed=63; GM (SD)=9.98 (0.2091).||107.5|84.2|
90940777|NCT01222533|181761411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.281|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023||||95.0|0.236|0.325|||||Tio R1.25-Placebo|||0.325|0.236|
90940778|NCT01222533|181761411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.324|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001||95.0|0.279|0.369|||ANOVA|Adjusted for sequence, patients within sequences, period and treatment.|Tio R2.5-Placebo|||0.369|0.279|<0.0001
90924838|NCT04800211|181724032|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|151.222||||0.0096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.114|265.33|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||265.330|37.114|0.0096
90924839|NCT04800211|181724032|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|182.631||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.754|299.509|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||299.509|65.754|0.0023
90924840|NCT04800211|181724032|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-175.901||||0.1612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-390.865|39.063|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||39.063|-390.865|0.1612
90924841|NCT04800211|181724032|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-227.95||||0.0396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-448.725|-7.175|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-7.175|-448.725|0.0396
90924842|NCT04800211|181724032|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-352.366||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-573.315|-131.418|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-131.418|-573.315|0.0002
90940779|NCT01222533|181761411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.339|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001||95.0|0.294|0.384|||ANOVA|Adjusted for sequence, patients within sequences, period and treatment.|Tio R5-Placebo|||0.384|0.294|<0.0001
91034877|NCT00838279|181955596|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|99.94||||||90.0|97.4|102.55|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||102.55|97.40|
90885172|NCT04160260|181633049|EQUIVALENCE|Omadacycline 300 mg PO provided equivalent total exposure as measured by AUC relative to omadacycline 100 mg IV.|Geometric Mean Ratio|100.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.0|115.5|||||A t-test on the natural log-transformed PK parameter AUC(0-24) was performed to obtain the Geometric Mean Ratio and its confidence interval.|Comparison was performed with the 100 mg IV omadacycline treatment group (data were obtained from 6 completed studies-NCT numbers not available). Using the Day 1 plasma concentration profile of the 100 mg IV QD dosing from these studies, a BID dosing on Day 1 and a QD dosing on Day 2 was simulated using the superposition principle. Log GM AUC(0-24) of omadacycline for the 100 mg IV omadacycline group was as follows:Participants analyzed=63; GM (SD)=9.26 (0.1985).||115.5|88.0|
90885173|NCT01227512|181633056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9495||||||The alpha level was set at 0.05|Generalized Wilcoxon Test|Participants who used rescue therapy within first 7 days of treatment period were censored at time they started the rescue therapy.||||||0.9495
90971262|NCT01332357|181825226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.96|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|2.46||The unadjusted risk of experiencing a recurrent event associated with not initiating a controller medication at index event discharge|Regression, Cox|||||2.46|1.56|<0.0001
90885174|NCT01227512|181633057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.146||95.0|-0.7|0.11||alpha level was set at 0.05. p-value was derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment and clinical center as factors and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|Includes factors of treatment, study center and covariate baseline.||||0.11|-0.70|0.1460
90885175|NCT01227512|181633058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.315||95.0|-0.57|0.19|||ANCOVA|P-value was derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment and clinical center as factors and baseline value as covariate.||P value corresponds to 24 hours post-dose.||0.19|-0.57|0.3150
90885176|NCT01227512|181633058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.5381||95.0|-0.57|0.3|||ANCOVA|P-value was derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment and clinical center as factors and baseline value as covariate.||P value corresponds to 72 hours post-dose.||0.30|-0.57|0.5381
90885177|NCT01227512|181633059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26||||0.2702||95.0|-0.73|0.21||P-value was derived from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) row mean scores test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.21|-0.73|0.2702
90885178|NCT01227512|181633060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.77||||0.0019||95.0|1.43|6.11||P-value was derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment and clinical center as factors and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||6.11|1.43|0.0019
90885179|NCT01227512|181633061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5128||||||p-value was derived from Generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by treatment. Participants who received rescue therapy were censored at the time of receiving rescue therapy.|Generalized Wilcoxon Test|||||||0.5128
90885180|NCT01227512|181633062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|1.1||||0.5795||95.0|0.79|1.52||P-value was derived using a CMH test stratified by hyponatremia symptoms severity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.52|0.79|0.5795
90885181|NCT01227512|181633063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|0.33||||0.1568||95.0|0.07|1.65||p-value was derived using a CMH test stratified by hyponatremia symptoms severity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.65|0.07|0.1568
90885182|NCT00320281|181633088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.432||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.432
90885183|NCT02669329|181633108|OTHER||success proportion|85.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|72.9|93.4||||||||93.4|72.9|
90885184|NCT02312310|181633113|SUPERIORITY|Test of trend across doses.||||||0.393|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Change in outcome from baseline to 12 weeks tested using mixed effects models controlling for baseline measures, treatment, sex, age, and education.|||The flavanol effect on the change in each outcome from baseline to 12 weeks was tested using linear mixed effects models controlling for the respective baseline measures, four categories of treatment, sex, age, and education. Regression adjusted mean within-group tests of change were estimated and tested for statistical significance from the model. The primary test used for assessing the treatment effect was the linear trend contrast from the model across: placebo, low, medium and high dose. The model for cognitive measures incorporated additional outcome measurement times at 4 weeks and 20 weeks and included categorical time (4, 12, 20 weeks) as a predictor as well as a treatment (4 category) by time interaction, and a random intercept to control for repeated measures within individuals (results for 4 and 20 weeks not presented).|||.393
90885185|NCT00812812|181633122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.6||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|2.5|||ANCOVA||Mean difference was estimated as paroxetine minus placebo.|||2.5|-11.7|0.198
90885186|NCT02114892|181633127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.131|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.131
90885187|NCT02114892|181633128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.859|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.859
90885188|NCT02114892|181633129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.070
90885189|NCT02114892|181633130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.338|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.338
90885190|NCT02114892|181633131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.278|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.278
90885191|NCT02114892|181633132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
90885192|NCT02114892|181633133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.083|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.083
90885193|NCT02114892|181633134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
90885194|NCT02114892|181633135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
90885195|NCT02114892|181633136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.946|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.946
90885196|NCT02114892|181633137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.365|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.365
90885197|NCT02114892|181633138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.557|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.557
91034878|NCT04608188|181955597|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.05
91034879|NCT04608188|181955598|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.05
90924843|NCT04800211|181724032|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-116.449||||0.5616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-327.445|94.547|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||94.547|-327.445|0.5616
90924844|NCT04800211|181724032|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-162.635||||0.2176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-375.57|50.299|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||50.299|-375.570|0.2176
90924845|NCT04800211|181724032|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-236.196||||0.0242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-451.334|-21.059|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-21.059|-451.334|0.0242
90924846|NCT04800211|181724032|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-294.281|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-434.513|-154.05|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-154.050|-434.513|<.0001
90940780|NCT00460564|181761440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.83|||<|0.001||95.0|-10.567|-3.093|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-3.093|-10.567|<0.001
90940781|NCT01936324|181761463|OTHER|||||||0.0003|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment, baseline lesion count, and center.||||||0.0003
90940782|NCT01936324|181761464|OTHER|||||||0.0032|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment, baseline lesion count, and center||||||0.0032
90940783|NCT01936324|181761465|OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by study center||||||0.0070
90971073|NCT00385255|181824669|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was defined as the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference between the two groups (Boostrix+Fluarix 19-64 YOA Group minus Fluarix Boostrix 19-64 YOA Group), in terms of percentage of subjects with ≥ 4-fold increase anti-B antibody titers (seroconversion) being ≥ -10%.|Difference in seroconversion rate|2.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|7.2||||||Difference in seroconversion rates for anti-B antibody: To demonstrate that the immunogenicity of Boostrix® vaccine co-administered with Fluarix® vaccine (Boostrix+Fluarix 19-64 YOA Group) at Day 0, was non-inferior to that of Fluarix® vaccine administered alone at Day 0 (Fluarix Boostrix 19-64 YOA Group), in terms of seroconversion rates for anti-B antibody, one month post-Fluarix® vaccination.||7.20|-2.90|
91034880|NCT04608188|181955599|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.05
91034881|NCT04608188|181955600|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.05
91034882|NCT01045161|181955660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.051||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.09|||ANCOVA|||||0.09|0.01|0.019
91034883|NCT01045161|181955660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.072||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.12|||ANCOVA|||||0.12|0.03|0.0012
91034884|NCT01045161|181955662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.051||||0.0192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.09|||ANCOVA|||||0.09|0.01|0.0192
91034885|NCT01045161|181955662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean difference|0.072||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.12|||ANCOVA|||||0.12|0.03|0.0012
90964095|NCT04409353|181809599|OTHER|Primary inference will be based on the treatment comparison of least squares means for Day 90, and a p-value will be presented for this time period only. The null hypothesis is that the mean difference in the primary endpoint between the treatment groups and the sham control group is zero, versus the alternative hypothesis that these differences are not zero.|Difference in Least Squares Means|0.63||||0.5279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|2.6||A two-sided test performed at the 0.05 level of significance.|Mixed Models Analysis||Skills-Based VR - Sham VR|The analysis will compare the treatment groups, separately, to the control group using a linear mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis. The repeated measures are the change from baseline PROMIS-Anxiety score obtained at Days 15, 30, 60, and 90, respectively. The model will include fixed categorical effects for treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and the baseline PROMIS-Anxiety t-score as a continuous covariate.||2.60|-1.34|0.5279
90964096|NCT04409353|181809600|OTHER|Primary inference will be based on the treatment comparison of least squares means for Day 90, and a p-value will be presented for this time period only. The null hypothesis is that the mean difference in the primary endpoint between the treatment groups and the sham control group is zero, versus the alternative hypothesis that these differences are not zero.|Difference in Least Squares Means|1.19||||0.1833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|2.94||A two-sided test performed at the 0.05 level of significance.|Mixed Models Analysis||Distraction-Based VR - Sham VR|The analysis will compare the treatment groups, separately, to the control group using a linear mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis. The repeated measures are the change from baseline PROMIS-Sleep Disturbance score obtained at Days 15, 30, 60, and 90, respectively. The model will include fixed categorical effects for treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and the baseline PROMIS-Sleep Disturbance t-score as a continuous covariate.||2.94|-0.56|0.1833
90964097|NCT04409353|181809600|OTHER|Primary inference will be based on the treatment comparison of least squares means for Day 90, and a p-value will be presented for this time period only. The null hypothesis is that the mean difference in the primary endpoint between the treatment groups and the sham control group is zero, versus the alternative hypothesis that these differences are not zero.|Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.33||||0.7006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|1.37||A two-sided test performed at the 0.05 level of significance.|Mixed Models Analysis||Skills-Based VR - Sham VR|The analysis will compare the treatment groups, separately, to the control group using a linear mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis. The repeated measures are the change from baseline PROMIS-Sleep Disturbance score obtained at Days 15, 30, 60, and 90, respectively. The model will include fixed categorical effects for treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and the baseline PROMIS-Sleep Disturbance t-score as a continuous covariate.||1.37|-2.04|0.7006
90964098|NCT04409353|181809601|OTHER||Common Odds Ratio|0.76||||0.1913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.15||A two-sided test performed at the 0.05 level of significance without the continuity correction.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test was used to compare the association between time (baseline and day 90) and response (yes or no) while stratifying for the treatment groups. The null hypothesis is that the common odds ratio of the association between time and response across the treatment groups is equal to 1, versus the alternative hypothesis that the common odds ratio is not equal to 1.||1.15|0.50|0.1913
90964099|NCT04409353|181809601|OTHER||Common Odds Ratio|0.83||||0.367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.24||A two-sided test performed at the 0.05 level of significance without the continuity correction.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test was used to compare the association between time (baseline and day 90) and response (yes or no) while stratifying for the treatment groups. The null hypothesis is that the common odds ratio of the association between time and response across the treatment groups is equal to 1, versus the alternative hypothesis that the common odds ratio is not equal to 1.||1.24|0.55|0.3670
90964100|NCT04409353|181809602|OTHER|Primary inference will be based on the treatment comparison of least squares means for Day 90, and a p-value will be presented for this time period only. The null hypothesis is that the mean difference in the primary endpoint between the treatment groups and the sham control group is zero, versus the alternative hypothesis that these differences are not zero.|Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.83||||0.1619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|0.33||A two-sided test performed at the 0.05 level of significance.|Mixed Models Analysis||Distraction-Based VR - Sham VR|The analysis will compare the treatment groups, separately, to the control group using a linear mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis. The repeated measures are the change from baseline PROMIS- PF score obtained for Day 15, 30, 60, and 90, respectively. The model will include fixed categorical effects for treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and the baseline PROMIS-PF t-score as a continuous covariate.||0.33|-1.98|0.1619
90971074|NCT00345176|181824680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||<|0.013|TWO_SIDED|98.7|0.76|1.07||Adjusted for 3 treatment versus placebo comparisons and interim analyses|Regression, Cox|Adjusted for baseline AMD status|The reference group is placebo.|Each of the 3 active arms was compared to the placebo/control arm.||1.07|0.76|<0.013
90971075|NCT00345176|181824680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97|||<|0.013|TWO_SIDED|98.7|0.82|1.16||Adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Cox|||||1.16|0.82|<0.013
91034886|NCT03686033|181955664|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.98|3.22||||||The mixed effects model for the crossover part of the study will include treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, baseline (predose) measurement as a covariate, and subject nested within sequence as a random effect. Least Square (LS) Mean Difference was calculated for 2.5 mg versus (vs) Placebo only.||3.22|-0.98|
90971076|NCT00345176|181824680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89|||<|0.013|TWO_SIDED|98.7|0.75|1.06|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for multiple comparisons||||1.06|0.75|<0.013
90924847|NCT04800211|181724032|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Test 1 on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Test 1 on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-116.17||||0.1524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-275.521|43.18|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Test 1 on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Test 1 on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||43.180|-275.521|0.1524
90924848|NCT04800211|181724033|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-32.792|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.375|-26.208|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)||-26.208|-39.375|<.0001
90924849|NCT04800211|181724033|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-25.921|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.398|-18.443|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||-18.443|-33.398|<.0001
90924850|NCT04800211|181724033|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-25.484|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.99|-18.979|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)||-18.979|-31.990|<.0001
90924851|NCT04800211|181724033|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-26.899|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.135|-19.663|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||-19.663|-34.135|<.0001
90940784|NCT03226106|181761466|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|930.51||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.65|1819.36||The value corresponds to the interaction between time and group assignment.|Mixed Models Analysis|We used a linear mixed model with a random intercept for subject and fixed effects for age, time, and interaction between intervention arm and time.|The difference is the estimated mean between the intervention and control arms.|||1819.36|41.65|0.024
90940785|NCT03226106|181761467|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|2.07||The value corresponds to the interaction between time and group assignment.|Mixed Models Analysis|We used a linear mixed model with a random intercept for subject and fixed effects for age, time, and interaction between intervention arm and time.|The difference is the estimated mean between the intervention and control arms.|||2.07|-0.67|0.584
90940786|NCT03226106|181761468|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.32||The value corresponds to the interaction between time and group assignment.|Mixed Models Analysis|We used a linear mixed model with a random intercept for subject and fixed effects for age, time, and interaction between intervention arm and time.|The difference is the estimated mean between the intervention and control arms.|||1.32|-1.40|0.724
90971077|NCT00345176|181824681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.08|||Regression, Cox|||||1.08|0.84|<0.05
90971078|NCT00345176|181824681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.09|||Regression, Cox|||||1.09|0.84|<0.05
90971079|NCT00345176|181824681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.07|||Regression, Cox|||||1.07|0.83|<0.05
91034887|NCT03686033|181955664|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-4.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.35|-1.99||||||The mixed effects model for the crossover part of the study will include treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, baseline (predose) measurement as a covariate, and subject nested within sequence as a random effect. LS Mean Difference was calculated for 25 mg vs Placebo only.||-1.99|-6.35|
90885198|NCT02114892|181633139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
90885199|NCT02114892|181633140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
90885200|NCT02114892|181633141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.672|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.672
90885201|NCT02832674|181633154|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|||||Fisher Exact|||The primary endpoint was an evaluation of the proportion of subjects with ≥ 20 mm2 lift at Day 90.||||0.05
90885202|NCT02832674|181633155|OTHER|Binomial test of proportions||||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared||||The summary included number and percentage of subjects in each of the categories and the 2 sided Clopper-Pearson 95% CI. a binomial test of proportions tested the improvement at Day 90 and Day 180.|||0.025
90885203|NCT02832674|181633156|OTHER|||||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Analysis of all effectiveness endpoints was conducted on the ITT population and on the PP population.|The summary included number and percentage of subjects in each of the categories and the 2 sided Clopper-Pearson 95% CI. a binomial test of proportions tested the improvement at Day 90 and Day 180.|||0.025
90885204|NCT02832674|181633157|OTHER|||||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared||||The summary included number and percentage of subjects in each of the categories and the 2 sided Clopper-Pearson 95% CI. a binomial test of proportions tested the improvement at Day 90 and Day 180.|||0.025
90885205|NCT02832674|181633158|OTHER|||||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared||||The summary included number and percentage of subjects in each of the categories and the 2 sided Clopper-Pearson 95% CI. a binomial test of proportions tested the improvement at Day 90 and Day 180.|||0.025
90885206|NCT02832674|181633159|OTHER|||||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared||||The summary included number and percentage of subjects in each of the categories and the 2 sided Clopper-Pearson 95% CI. a binomial test of proportions tested the improvement at Day 90 and Day 180.|||0.025
90885207|NCT00718042|181633177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Specificity|99.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.79|99.91|||Point Estimate||Numerator = All blood donors tested nonreactive from all True Negative blood donors (16,223) Denominator = All True Negative blood donors (16,246) True Negative excludes donor specimens positive by supplemental testing (3)|||99.91|99.79|
90885208|NCT00718042|181633179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.7|100.0|||Sensitivity|||||100.00|96.70|
90885209|NCT00718042|181633182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|99.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|97.4|99.8|||Percentage Negative|||||99.8|97.4|
90885210|NCT04327934|181633186|EQUIVALENCE|We compared groups across treatments||||||0.018|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.018
90885211|NCT04327934|181633187|EQUIVALENCE|We compared across groups and within groups over time.|||||<|0.016|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.016
90885212|NCT04327934|181633187|EQUIVALENCE|We compared across groups and within groups over time.||||||0.08|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.08
90885213|NCT04327934|181633190|OTHER|||||||0.05||||||Friedman's tests to compare slopes|Friedman's test|||||||0.05
90885214|NCT04327934|181633192|OTHER|||||||0.023|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.023
90885215|NCT04327934|181633192|OTHER||||||<|0.04|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.04
90885216|NCT04327934|181633193|EQUIVALENCE|We compared groups across treatments||||||0.0023|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0023
90885217|NCT04327934|181633194|OTHER||||||<|0.04|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.04
90885218|NCT04327934|181633195|OTHER||||||<|0.04|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.04
90885219|NCT02443298|181633196|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.46||||0.0255|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.18|1.81|||Cox proportional hazards model||Comparison of Risankizumab to Placebo|This was analyzed by using a Cox proportional hazards model that included treatment and the stratification factor of OCS use at baseline as fixed effects.||1.81|1.18|0.0255
91034888|NCT01854047|181955677|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|0.21||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.36||Threshold for significance at 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs. Placebo q2w|Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with repeated measures (MMRM) approach including available FEV1 data from baseline to Week 12 and treatment group as a factor. A step-down procedure was used to strongly control the overall type I error rate for testing multiple doses against placebo. The hierarchy was 300 mg q2w, 200 mg q2w, 300 mg q4w, and 200 mg q4w.||0.36|0.06|0.0063
90924852|NCT04800211|181724033|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-26.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.716|-21.103|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||-21.103|-31.716|<.0001
90924853|NCT04800211|181724033|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-7.021||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.278|-0.763|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)||-0.763|-13.278|0.0280
90924854|NCT04800211|181724033|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-5.902||||0.0972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.881|1.077|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||1.077|-12.881|0.0972
90924855|NCT04800211|181724033|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-25.771|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.189|-14.353|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)||-14.353|-37.189|<.0001
90924856|NCT04800211|181724033|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-20.019||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.833|-7.205|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||-7.205|-32.833|0.0005
90924857|NCT04800211|181724033|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-18.463||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.825|-7.101|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)||-7.101|-29.825|0.0002
90924858|NCT04800211|181724033|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-20.997||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.619|-8.375|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||-8.375|-33.619|0.0002
91034889|NCT01854047|181955677|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.26||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.4||Threshold for significance at 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab 200 mg q2w vs. Placebo q2w|||0.40|0.11|0.0008
91034890|NCT01854047|181955677|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.17||||0.0212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.32||Threshold for significance at 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab 300 mg q4w vs. Placebo q2w|||0.32|0.03|0.0212
90885220|NCT02443298|181633197|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.47||||0.0131|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.2|1.79|||Cox proportional hazards model||Comparison of Risankizumab to Placebo|This was analyzed by using a Cox proportional hazards model that included treatment and the stratification factor of OCS use at baseline as fixed effects.||1.79|1.20|0.0131
90885221|NCT02443298|181633198|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|1.4937|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0065|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.2366|1.8044|||Negative binomial regression||Comparison of Risankizumab to Placebo|Annualized rate is obtained from fitting a negative binomial regression including logarithm of the exposure as an offset, treatment, and OCS use at baseline as covariate.||1.8044|1.2366|0.0065
90885222|NCT02443298|181633199|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18||||0.4619|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.88|1.57|||Cox proportional hazards model||Comparison of Risankizumab to Placebo|Time to first event is obtained from fitting a Cox proportional-hazards model including treatment, and OCS use at baseline as covariate||1.57|0.88|0.4619
90885223|NCT02443298|181633200|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|1.1317|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.237||0.555|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.8652|1.4803|||Negative binomial regression||Comparison of Risankizumab to Placebo|Annualized rate is obtained from fitting a negative binomial regression including logarithm of the exposure as an offset, treatment, and OCS use at baseline as covariate.||1.4803|0.8652|0.5550
90885224|NCT02443298|181633201|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.039|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.051||0.4423|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.104|0.026|||Mixed Models Analysis|Unstructured covariance structure for within-patient variation|Comparison of Risankizumab to Placebo|The adjusted mean (SE) are obtained from fitting a mixed effect repeated measures (MMRM) model including treatment, OCS use at baseline, test day, treatment-by-test day interaction, baseline, and baseline-by-test day interaction as covariates patient as a random effect.||0.026|-0.104|0.4423
90885225|NCT02443298|181633202|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.068|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045||0.1377|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.126|-0.009|||Mixed Models Analysis|Unstructured covariance structure for within-patient variation|Comparison of Risankizumab to Placebo|The adjusted mean (SE) are obtained from fitting a mixed effect repeated measures (MMRM) model including treatment, OCS use at baseline, test day, treatment-by-test day interaction, baseline, and baseline-by-test day interaction as covariates patient as a random effect.||-0.009|-0.126|0.1377
90924859|NCT04800211|181724033|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-20.508|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.061|-11.955|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||-11.955|-29.061|<.0001
90924860|NCT04800211|181724033|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is equal to Test 2 on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Test 2 on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.978||||0.8504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.216|11.172|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is equal to Test 2 on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Test 2 on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||11.172|-9.216|0.8504
90924861|NCT04800211|181724034|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-31.257|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.957|-20.557|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-20.557|-41.957|<.0001
90940787|NCT03226106|181761469|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.49||||0.547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9|33.89||The value corresponds to the interaction between time and group assignment.|Mixed Models Analysis|We used a linear mixed model with a random intercept for subject and fixed effects for age, time, and interaction between intervention arm and time.|The difference is the estimated mean between the intervention and control arms.|||33.89|-18.90|0.547
90971080|NCT00345176|181824682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.4|||Regression, Cox|||Comparison of Lutein/Zeaxantin versus Control for mortality||1.40|0.77|<0.05
90885226|NCT02443298|181633203|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.149|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.115||0.1985|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.0|0.297|||ANCOVA||Comparison of Risankizumab to Placebo|The adjusted mean (SE) are obtained from fitting an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model separately for each week including treatment, OCS use at baseline, and baseline as covariates. The weekly averages of daily measurements are calculated before fitting the model.||0.297|0.000|0.1985
90924862|NCT04800211|181724034|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-29.862|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.234|-15.491|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-15.491|-44.234|<.0001
90924863|NCT04800211|181724034|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-31.512|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.971|-16.053|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-16.053|-46.971|<.0001
90940788|NCT03226106|181761470|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.93||||0.716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.67|31.54||The value corresponds to the interaction between time and group assignment.|Mixed Models Analysis|We used a linear mixed model with a random intercept for subject and fixed effects for age, time, and interaction between intervention arm and time.|The difference is the estimated mean between the intervention and control arms.|||31.54|-21.67|0.716
90971081|NCT00345176|181824682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.52|||Regression, Cox|||Comparison of DHA/EPA versus Placebo for mortality||1.52|0.84|<0.05
90885227|NCT03095417|181633204|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.747|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.747
90885228|NCT03095417|181633205|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.032|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.032
90885229|NCT03095417|181633206|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.264|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.264
90885230|NCT03095417|181633207|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.511|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.511
90885231|NCT03095417|181633208|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.677|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.677
90885232|NCT03095417|181633209|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.815|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.815
90885233|NCT03095417|181633210|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.719|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.719
90885234|NCT03095417|181633211|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.346|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.346
90885235|NCT03095417|181633212|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.910
90885236|NCT03095417|181633213|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.794|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.794
90885237|NCT03095417|181633214|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.626|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.626
90885238|NCT03095417|181633215|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.774|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.774
90885239|NCT02571452|181633216|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.53||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.65|-0.55||The threshold for statistical significance was p=.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.55|-6.65|.021
90885240|NCT02571452|181633217|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|2.3||The threshold for statistical significance was p=.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.30|-1.26|.568
91034891|NCT01854047|181955677|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.08||||0.2774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.23||Threshold for significance at 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab 200 mg q4w vs. Placebo q2w|||0.23|-0.07|0.2774
90885241|NCT02571452|181633218|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.87|-2.33||The threshold for statistical significance was p=.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.33|-5.87|<.001
90885242|NCT02571452|181633219|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|0.29||The threshold for statistical significance was p=.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.29|-1.61|.173
90885243|NCT03161314|181633224|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline||||0.660
90885244|NCT03161314|181633224|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.734|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||2 weeks after the intervention||||0.734
90885245|NCT03161314|181633224|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.629|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||4 weeks after the intervention||||0.629
90885246|NCT03161314|181633224|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.752|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||1-month follow-up||||0.752
90885247|NCT03161314|181633224|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.512|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||2-month follow-up||||0.512
90885248|NCT03161314|181633224|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Within group comparison||||<0.001
90885249|NCT03161314|181633224|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Within group comparison||||<0.001
90885250|NCT03161314|181633225|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.128|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline||||0.128
90885251|NCT03161314|181633225|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.889|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||2 weeks after the intervention||||0.889
90885252|NCT03161314|181633225|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.793|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||4 weeks after the intervention||||0.793
90885253|NCT03161314|181633225|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.602|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||1-month follow-up||||0.602
90885254|NCT03161314|181633225|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.574|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||2-month follow-up||||0.574
90885255|NCT03161314|181633225|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Within group comparison||||<0.001
90885256|NCT03161314|181633225|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Within group comparison||||<0.001
90885257|NCT03161314|181633226|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.374|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline||||0.374
90885258|NCT03161314|181633226|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.674|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||2 weeks after the intervention||||0.674
90885259|NCT03161314|181633226|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.781|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||4 weeks after the intervention||||0.781
90885260|NCT03161314|181633226|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.778|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||1-month follow-up||||0.778
90885261|NCT03161314|181633226|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.727|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||2-month follow-up||||0.727
90885262|NCT03161314|181633226|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||ANOVA|||Within group comparison||||0.014
90885263|NCT03161314|181633226|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||ANOVA|||Within group comparison||||0.002
90885264|NCT03161314|181633227|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline||||0.390
90885265|NCT03161314|181633227|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||2 weeks after the intervention||||0.770
90885266|NCT03161314|181633227|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.603|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||4 weeks after the intervention||||0.603
90885267|NCT03161314|181633227|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.922|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||1-month follow-up||||0.922
90885268|NCT03161314|181633227|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||2-month follow-up||||0.560
90885269|NCT03161314|181633227|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.181|||||||ANOVA|||Within group comparison||||0.181
90885270|NCT03161314|181633227|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Within group comparison||||<0.001
90885271|NCT03161314|181633228|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.334|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline||||0.334
90885272|NCT03161314|181633228|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.766|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||2 weeks after the intervention||||0.766
90885273|NCT03161314|181633228|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.598|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||4 weeks after the intervention||||0.598
90885274|NCT03161314|181633228|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.682|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||1-month follow-up||||0.682
90885275|NCT03161314|181633228|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.707|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||2-month follow-up||||0.707
90885276|NCT03161314|181633228|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||ANOVA|||Within group comparison||||0.008
90885277|NCT03161314|181633228|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||ANOVA|||Within group comparison||||0.002
90885278|NCT03161314|181633229|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.287|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline||||0.287
90885279|NCT03161314|181633229|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.861|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||2 weeks after the intervention||||0.861
90885280|NCT03161314|181633229|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.641|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||4 weeks after the intervention||||0.641
90885281|NCT03161314|181633229|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.864|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||1-month follow-up||||0.864
90885282|NCT03161314|181633229|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.888|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||2-month follow-up||||0.888
90885283|NCT03161314|181633229|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.262|||||||ANOVA|||Within group comparison||||0.262
90885284|NCT03161314|181633229|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Within group comparison||||<0.001
90885285|NCT03698773|181633240|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.16
90885286|NCT03698773|181633241|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.99
90885287|NCT01260922|181633263|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|102.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.07|107.51|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||107.51|97.07|
90885288|NCT01260922|181633264|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Slope|94.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.11|97.46|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||97.46|92.11|
90885289|NCT04165291|181633266|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<.01
90885290|NCT04165291|181633267|OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||ANOVA|||||||.08
90885291|NCT04165291|181633268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.116|||||||Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||||||.116
90885292|NCT04165291|181633269|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.146|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.05
90924864|NCT04800211|181724034|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-37.197|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.522|-26.872|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-26.872|-47.522|<.0001
90940789|NCT03226106|181761471|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.82||The value corresponds to the interaction between time and group assignment.|Mixed Models Analysis|We used a linear mixed model with a random intercept for subject and fixed effects for age, time, and interaction between intervention arm and time.|The difference is the estimated mean between the intervention and control arms.|||0.82|-0.88|0.946
91034892|NCT01854047|181955678|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.16||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.25||Threshold for significance at 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs. Placebo q2w|Analysis was performed using MMRM approach including available FEV1 data from baseline to Week 12 and treatment group as a factor. A step-down procedure was used to strongly control the overall type I error rate for testing multiple doses against placebo. The hierarchy was 300 mg q2w, 200 mg q2w, 300 mg q4w and 200 mg q4w.||0.25|0.08|0.0002
90885293|NCT04165291|181633270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||ANOVA|||||||.13
90885294|NCT04165291|181633271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||ANOVA|||||||.35
91034893|NCT01854047|181955678|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.011|0.28||Threshold for significance at 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab 200 mg q2w vs. Placebo q2w|||0.28|0.011|<0.0001
91034894|NCT01854047|181955678|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.12||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.21||Threshold for significance at 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab 300 mg q4w vs. Placebo q2w|||0.21|0.04|0.0048
90885295|NCT01599650|181633278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in LS mean|10.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.41|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.3|12.8|||ANOVA|||||12.8|7.3|<0.0001
90885296|NCT01599650|181633278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in LS Means|8.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.46|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.8|11.6|||ANOVA|||||11.6|5.8|<0.0001
90885297|NCT01731171|181633289|OTHER|The effect of treatment was calculated using logistic regression and the Cox proportional hazard function employing age, gender, and race as covariates.|Cox Proportional Hazard|0.37|||=|0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Logistic||Values less than one favor adjunctive probiotic treatment, while values higher than one favor the placebo.|||||=.029
90885298|NCT01731171|181633290|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.022|||||||Chi-squared|||||||=.022
90885299|NCT01731171|181633291|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.009|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||=.009
90885300|NCT01731171|181633292|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.017|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||=.017
90885301|NCT01410110|181633293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.41||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.57|6.25||a prior threshold p \< .05|t-test, 2 sided|df = 40||t-test for equality of means||6.25|-11.57|.55
90885302|NCT01410110|181633294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.162|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|2.05||Time X Condition|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Models allows for all randomized participants (N=48) to be included in the model.||F Test (df = 1,39.32), Type III Fixed Effects for Time X Condition||2.05|-1.73|.86
90885303|NCT01410110|181633295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.41|<|0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.36|2.39||a priori threshold p \< .05|t-test, 2 sided|||||2.39|-7.36|<.31
90885304|NCT01410110|181633296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.152|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.952||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|2.08||a priori threshold p \< .05|t-test, 2 sided|df=39||||2.08|-1.77|.87
90885305|NCT01410110|181633297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|1.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|Time X Condition||Type III Fixed Effects for Time X Condition F Test (df = 1,36.86)||1.33|-2.07|.67
90885306|NCT01410110|181633298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|0.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|Time X Condition||Type III Fixed Effects for Time X Condition, F Test F (df = 1,42.4)||.83|-1.67|.50
90885307|NCT01410110|181633299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|2.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|Time X Condition||Type III Fixed Effects Time X Condition F Test (df = 1,70.15)||2.01|.32|.008
90885308|NCT01410110|181633300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|2.025|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.169|3.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|Time X Condition||Type III Fixed Effects Time X Condition F Test (df = 1,37.8)||3.93|.169|.03
90924865|NCT04800211|181724034|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-31.442|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.96|-17.923|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-17.923|-44.960|<.0001
90940790|NCT03226106|181761472|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28||||0.906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|0.52||The value corresponds to the interaction between time and group assignment.|Mixed Models Analysis|We used a linear mixed model with a random intercept for subject and fixed effects for age, time, and interaction between intervention arm and time.|The difference is the estimated mean between the intervention and control arms.|||0.52|-1.08|0.906
90885309|NCT01410110|181633301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|3.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.77||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|9.46||a priori p-value is .05. for two-tailed test. Positive estimated value is in the direction of the experimental condition.|Mixed Models Analysis|Time X Condition||Type III Fixed Effects for Time X Condition F Test (df = 1,39.8)||9.46|-1.73|.17
90885310|NCT00684424|181633304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||R-ratio|-56.723|STANDARD_DEVIATION|46.9499||||95.0|||||summary statistic|||R-ratio of seizure frequency summaries = \[(t-b)/(t+b)\]\*100; where t= treatment seizure frequency and b= baseline seizure frequency.||||
90885311|NCT03282955|181633326|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin= 1.151||||||0.025|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.025
90885312|NCT01649856|181633358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Response Rates|8.2||||0.076||95.0|-1.1|17.5|||Chi-squared|||||17.5|-1.1|0.076
91034895|NCT01854047|181955678|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.0304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.18||Threshold for significance at 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab 200 mg q4w vs. Placebo q2w|||0.18|0.01|0.0304
90885313|NCT00835406|181633374|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA will be performed on ln-transformed Ae0-36 and Rmax at the α level of 0.05.|Ratio of the mean|97.94||||||90.0|90.96|105.45|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||105.45|90.96|
90885314|NCT00835406|181633375|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA will be performed on ln-transformed Ae0-35 and Rmax at the α level of 0.05.|Ratio of the mean|100.36||||||90.0|92.85|108.48|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||108.48|92.85|
90885315|NCT02138214|181633376|OTHER|||||||0.567||||||p-value threshold for statistical significance is 0.05|Fisher Exact|||||||0.567
90885316|NCT02138214|181633377|OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.110
90885317|NCT02138214|181633379|OTHER|||||||0.758|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.758
90885318|NCT02138214|181633381|OTHER|||||||0.236|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.236
90885319|NCT02138214|181633382|OTHER|||||||0.759|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.759
90885320|NCT02138214|181633383|OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.400
90885321|NCT00594256|181633400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.002||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Open label baseline final paired t test||||=0.002
90885322|NCT00594256|181633401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Open label baseline final paired t test||||0.02
90885323|NCT00594256|181633402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Open label baseline final paired t test||||0.04
90885324|NCT00594256|181633403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Open label baseline final paired t test||||0.8
90885325|NCT00594256|181633404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||Open label baseline final paired t test||||<0.01
90885326|NCT02517905|181633412|SUPERIORITY||LSMD|-2.7||||0.8661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.5|28.2|||ANOVA|||||28.2|-33.5|0.8661
90885327|NCT02517905|181633413|SUPERIORITY||LSMD|-4.0||||0.578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.2|10.2|||ANOVA|||||10.2|-18.2|0.5780
90885328|NCT02517905|181633414|SUPERIORITY||LSMD|5.9||||0.801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.2|52.1|||ANOVA|||||52.1|-40.2|0.8010
90971082|NCT00345176|181824682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.23|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.65|||Regression, Cox|||Comparison of Lutein/Zeaxanthin + DHA/EPA versus Placebo for Mortality||1.65|0.92|<0.05
91034896|NCT02444715|181955711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||H0: no change between baseline and post-intervention||||0.96
90885329|NCT00023452|181633418|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The noninferiority test statistic was based on the difference of the nonparametric Kaplan-Meier estimators. The asymptotic variance of the test statistic was obtained through Greenwood's formula and a two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was constructed for the difference. If the upper bound of the CI was smaller than the noninferiority margin 0.75%, then the null hypothesis would be rejected and noninferiority could be claimed.|Difference in Cumulative TB Disease Rate|-0.24|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.01|||||The difference in cumulative TB disease rate is the rate in the 3RPT/INH arm minus the rate in the 9INH arm.|||0.01||
90924866|NCT04800211|181724034|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-28.597||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.34|-13.853|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-13.853|-43.340|0.0002
90924867|NCT04800211|181724034|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-30.054|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.943|-19.166|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-19.166|-40.943|<.0001
90924868|NCT04800211|181724034|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-5.904||||0.2667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.37|4.563|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||4.563|-16.370|0.2667
90924869|NCT04800211|181724034|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|8.767||||0.2085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.95|22.485|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||22.485|-4.950|0.2085
90924870|NCT04800211|181724034|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|12.455||||0.1041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.595|27.505|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||27.505|-2.595|0.1041
90940791|NCT03226106|181761473|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.55||||0.873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.59|4.49||The value corresponds to the interaction between time and group assignment.|Mixed Models Analysis|We used a linear mixed model with a random intercept for subject and fixed effects for age, time, and interaction between intervention arm and time.|The difference is the estimated mean between the intervention and control arms.|||4.49|-7.59|0.873
91034897|NCT02444715|181955711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||H0: no change between baseline and post-intervention||||0.03
90885330|NCT00023452|181633419|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The noninferiority test statistic was based on the difference of the nonparametric Kaplan-Meier estimators. The asymptotic variance of the test statistic was obtained through Greenwood's formula and a two-sided 95% CI was constructed for the difference. If the upper bound of the CI was smaller than the noninferiority margin 0.75%, then the null hypothesis would be rejected and noninferiority could be claimed.|Difference in Cumulative TB Rate|-0.21|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.04|||||The difference in cumulative TB disease rate is the percentage in the 3RPT/INH arm minus the percentage in the 9INH arm.|||0.04||
91034898|NCT02444715|181955712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: no change between baseline and post-intervention||||0.53
90885331|NCT00023452|181633420|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The noninferiority test statistic was based on the difference of the nonparametric Kaplan-Meier estimators. The asymptotic variance of the test statistic was obtained through Greenwood's formula and a two-sided 95% CI was constructed for the difference. If the upper bound of the CI was smaller than the noninferiority margin 0.75%, then the null hypothesis would be rejected and noninferiority could be claimed.|Difference in Cumulative TB Disease Rate|-0.25|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.03|||||The difference in cumulative TB disease rate is the percentage in the 3RPT/INH arm minus the percentage in the 9INH arm.|||0.03||
90885332|NCT00023452|181633421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.02
90885333|NCT00023452|181633422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.24||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Grade 3 Drug Toxicity||||0.24
90885334|NCT00023452|181633422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.59||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Grade 4 Drug Toxicity||||0.59
90885335|NCT00023452|181633423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.22||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.22
90885336|NCT00023452|181633425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
90885337|NCT00023452|181633426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
90885338|NCT00023452|181633427|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The noninferiority test statistic was based on the difference of the nonparametric Kaplan-Meier estimators. The asymptotic variance of the test statistic was obtained through Greenwood's formula and a two-sided 95% CI was constructed for the difference. If the upper bound of the CI was smaller than the noninferiority margin 0.75%, then the null hypothesis would be rejected and noninferiority could be claimed.|Difference in Cumulative TB Disease Rate|-0.19|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.06|||||The difference in cumulative TB disease rate is the percentage in the 3RPT/INH arm minus the percentage in the 9INH arm.|||0.06||
90885339|NCT04551105|181633458|SUPERIORITY||different in area under the LROC curve|0.0374|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.019|0.0557|||OR-DBM model|||||0.0557|0.0190|<0.05
90885340|NCT04551105|181633459|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|12.78|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
90885341|NCT04551105|181633460|SUPERIORITY||different in sensitivity|-0.0013|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2307|0.2281|||McNemar|||||0.2281|-0.2307|<0.05
90885342|NCT04551105|181633460|SUPERIORITY||different in specificity|0.1065|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0008|0.2122|||McNemar|||||0.2122|0.0008|<0.05
90885343|NCT04551105|181633460|SUPERIORITY||different in PPV|-0.086|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1824|0.0104|||McNemar|||||0.0104|-0.1824|<0.05
90885344|NCT04551105|181633460|SUPERIORITY||different in NPV|0.086|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0104|0.1824|||McNemar|||||0.1824|-0.0104|<0.05
90885345|NCT00459134|181633467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.19||0.576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|3.0||This p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect repeated measures model constrained such that the baseline means were equal in the two groups.||The null hypothesis is that sexual function will be the same in both groups at 12 weeks. A Mixed effect repeated measures model constrained such that the baseline means were equal in the two groups was used to test this hypothesis.||3.00|-1.67|0.576
90885346|NCT00459134|181633468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.73||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|7.89||This p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect repeated measures model constrained such that the baseline means were equal in the two groups.||The null hypothesis was that quality of life would be the same in both groups at 12 weeks. A mixed effect repeated measures model constrained such that the baseline means were equal in the two groups was used to test this hypothesis.||7.89|1.09|0.010
90885347|NCT02276495|181633480|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.668|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.668
90885348|NCT02276495|181633481|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.006
90885349|NCT02276495|181633482|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.013
90971083|NCT00345176|181824683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.1|||Regression, Cox|||||1.10|0.84|<0.05
90971084|NCT02692495|181824701|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
91034899|NCT02444715|181955712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: no change between baseline and post-intervention||||0.44
90940792|NCT03226106|181761474|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.26||||0.241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.48|-0.04||The value corresponds to the interaction between time and group assignment.|Mixed Models Analysis|We used a linear mixed model with a random intercept for subject and fixed effects for age, time, and interaction between intervention arm and time.|The difference is the estimated mean between the intervention and control arms.|||-0.04|-12.48|0.241
90885353|NCT03047447|181633526|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||Change over time from week 0 to week 10 with HgA1c for experimental ketogenic group vs.control exercise and non-exercise groups.|ANOVA|||||||0.001
90885354|NCT03047447|181633527|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||ANOVA|Change over time from week 0 to week 10 with weight for experimental ketogenic group vs.control exercise and non-exercise groups.||||||0.001
90885355|NCT03047447|181633528|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||ANOVA|Change over time from week 0 to week 10 with BMI for experimental ketogenic group vs.control exercise and non-exercise groups.||||||0.001
90885356|NCT03047447|181633529|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||ANOVA|Change over time from week 0 to week 10 with body fat mass for experimental ketogenic group vs.control exercise and non-exercise groups.||||||0.001
90885357|NCT03047447|181633530|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||ANOVA|Change over time from week 0 to week 10 with blood ketones for experimental ketogenic group vs.control exercise and non-exercise groups.||||||0.001
90885358|NCT01404312|181633553|NON_INFERIORITY|"Non-inferiority margin: 1.25 events per 100 person-years.~Sample size determination was based on the assumption of a primary endpoint rate of 2.0/100 person-years, with a one-sided 0.025 alpha level, and targeting at least 90% power. This required a sample size of approximately 2500. The sample size was adjusted upwards to account for loss to follow-up, interim monitoring, and to allow for subgroup analyses with reasonable power."|Incidence Rate Difference|-0.0231|||||TWO_SIDED|95.1|-0.346|0.3|||||"Estimate given as Incidence rate in Arm A - Incidence Rate in Arm B (negative favors Arm A).~Incidence rate units: Events per 100 person-years"|Mantel-Haenszel method used for estimating standardized incidence rate in each arm and incidence rate difference.||0.300|-0.346|
90885359|NCT01404312|181633554|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.016||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.035|0.002||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact||Estimate given as: Proportion Arm A - Proportion Arm B|"Comparison of the proportion of participants with any SAE occurrence between arms A and B.~H0: Proportion of participants with SAE in Arm A = Proportion of participants with SAE in Arm B."||0.002|-0.035|0.073
91034900|NCT02444715|181955713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: no change between baseline and post-intervention||||0.76
90885360|NCT01404312|181633555|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.0058||||0.405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.019|0.007||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Fisher Exact||Estimate given as: Proportion Arm A - Proportion Arm B|"Comparison of the proportion of participants with any targeted adverse event occurrence between arms A and B.~H0: Proportion of participants with a targeted adverse event in Arm A = Proportion of participants with a targeted adverse event in Arm B."||0.007|-0.019|0.405
90885361|NCT01404312|181633556|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.093|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.315|3.332|||||"Estimate given as: Odds of being in higher category (more stringent management due to toxicity) for Arm B compared with arm A~Not adjusted for multiple comparisons."|"Odds ratio of being in higher category estimated from proportional odds model~H0: Odds ratio of being in higher category for Arm A vs Arm B = 1"||3.332|1.315|
90885362|NCT01404312|181633557|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3078||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Log Rank|||H0: Survival curve Arm A = Survival curve Arm B||||0.3078
90885363|NCT01404312|181633558|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.396||||0.2802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.762|2.559||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Hazard Ratio||Hazard ratio given as: Arm B hazard / Arm A hazard, i.e. HR \> 1 favors arm A|"Competing risk analysis using the Fine-Gray model, treating TB-related deaths as competing risks, and other deaths including deaths of unknown cause as the event of interest.~H0: Hazard Ratio for Arm A vs Arm B = 1"||2.559|0.762|0.2802
90885364|NCT02451748|181633586|EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA||||||0.5378||||||Tukey adjustment for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|A priori threshold was \<0.05.||The mean mRNA expression for IL-7 was compared between all three visits simultaneously in RA Peripheral Blood Nonnuclear Cells. The comparison between the first and second visit is as follows.||||0.5378
90971085|NCT01627860|181824707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Seizure free rate|23.57||||0.0759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.21|49.0|||ANOVA||Difference in Seizure free rate (Monotherapy minus Add on therapy)|||49.00|-4.21|0.0759
91034901|NCT02444715|181955713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: no change between baseline and post-intervention||||0.04
91034902|NCT02444715|181955714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: no change between baseline and post-intervention||||0.39
91034903|NCT02444715|181955714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: no change between baseline and post-intervention||||0.04
91034904|NCT02444715|181955715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: no change between baseline and post-intervention||||0.92
91034905|NCT02444715|181955715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: no change between baseline and post-intervention||||0.37
90885365|NCT02451748|181633586|EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA||||||0.919||||||Tukey adjustment for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|A priori threshold was \<0.05.||The mean mRNA expression for IL-7 was compared between all three visits simultaneously in RA Peripheral Blood Nonnuclear Cells. The comparison between the first and third visit is as follows.||||0.919
90924871|NCT04800211|181724034|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-25.353||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.41|-5.295|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-5.295|-45.410|0.0058
90924872|NCT04800211|181724034|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-38.63||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.062|-12.197|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-12.197|-65.062|0.0010
90924873|NCT04800211|181724034|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-43.967||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.443|-15.491|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-15.491|-72.443|0.0005
90940793|NCT03226106|181761475|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.86||||0.223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|6.12||The value corresponds to the interaction between time and group assignment.|Mixed Models Analysis|We used a linear mixed model with a random intercept for subject and fixed effects for age, time, and interaction between intervention arm and time.|The difference is the estimated mean between the intervention and control arms.|||6.12|-0.39|0.223
91034906|NCT02444715|181955716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: no change between baseline and post-intervention||||0.78
91034907|NCT02444715|181955716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: no change between baseline and post-intervention||||0.19
91034908|NCT02444715|181955717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||H0: no change between baseline and post-intervention||||0.9
91034909|NCT02444715|181955717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||H0: no change between baseline and post-intervention||||0.43
91034910|NCT02444715|181955718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: no change between baseline and post-intervention||||0.67
90885366|NCT02451748|181633586|EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA||||||0.4255||||||Tukey adjustment for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|A priori threshold was \<0.05.||The mean mRNA expression for IL-7 was compared between all three visits simultaneously in RA Peripheral Blood Nonnuclear Cells. The comparison between the second and third visit is as follows.||||0.4255
91034911|NCT02444715|181955718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: no change between baseline and post-intervention||||0.04
91034912|NCT02444715|181955719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: no change between baseline and post-intervention||||0.26
90885367|NCT02451748|181633586|EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA||||||0.1037||||||Tukey adjustment for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|A priori threshold was \<0.05.||The mean mRNA expression for IL-7R was compared between all three visits simultaneously in RA Peripheral Blood Nonnuclear Cells. The comparison between the first and second visit is as follows.||||0.1037
91034913|NCT02444715|181955719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: no change between baseline and post-intervention||||0.07
91034914|NCT02444715|181955720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: no change between baseline and post-intervention||||0.06
91034915|NCT02444715|181955720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: no change between baseline and post-intervention||||0.04
90885368|NCT02451748|181633586|EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA||||||0.0008||||||Tukey adjustment for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|A priori threshold was \<0.05.||The mean mRNA expression for IL-7R was compared between all three visits simultaneously in RA Peripheral Blood Nonnuclear Cells. The comparison between the first and third visit is as follows.||||0.0008
90885369|NCT02451748|181633586|EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA||||||0.0001||||||Tukey adjustment for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|A priori threshold was \<0.05.||The mean mRNA expression for IL-7R was compared between all three visits simultaneously in RA Peripheral Blood Nonnuclear Cells. The comparison between the second and third visit is as follows.||||0.0001
90885370|NCT00071487|181633587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.1||||0.3677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|7.2||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|t-test, 2 sided|||Missing data was handled by using a last observation carried forward (LOCF) imputation. If patient required a protocol-prohibited medication, the SELENA SLEDAI score of the last visit prior to the use of the prohibited medication was used.||7.2|-19.4|0.3677
91034916|NCT02444715|181955721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Medium intensity~H0: no change between baseline and post-intervention"||||0.37
91034917|NCT02444715|181955721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Medium intensity~H0: no change between baseline and post-intervention"||||0.34
90885371|NCT00071487|181633587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.9||||0.4244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|20.6||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|t-test, 2 sided|||Missing data was handled by using LOCF imputation. If patient required a protocol-prohibited medication, the SELENA SLEDAI score of the last visit prior to the use of the prohibited medication was used.||20.6|-8.7|0.4244
90885372|NCT00071487|181633587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.5||||0.3296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.6|6.6||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|t-test, 2 sided|||Missing data was handled by using LOCF imputation. If patient required a protocol-prohibited medication, the SELENA SLEDAI score of the last visit prior to the use of the prohibited medication was used.||6.6|-19.6|0.3296
90885373|NCT00071487|181633588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6423||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|Log Rank|||Patients who required protocol-prohibited medications were considered to have a flare on the date the prohibited medication was started or date of the first flare, whichever came first. Patients who withdrew from the study for reasons other than SLE disease manifestations or hospitalization related to SLE or who missed 2 or more consecutive visits were censored at the time of the last assessment.||||0.6423
90885374|NCT00071487|181633588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8536||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|Log Rank|||Patients who required protocol-prohibited medications were considered to have a flare on the date the prohibited medication was started or date of the first flare, whichever came first. Patients who withdrew from the study for reasons other than SLE disease manifestations or hospitalization related to SLE or who missed 2 or more consecutive visits were censored at the time of the last assessment.||||0.8536
91034918|NCT02444715|181955721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"High intensity~H0: no change between baseline and post-intervention"||||0.37
91034919|NCT02444715|181955721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"High intensity~H0: no change between baseline and post-intervention"||||0.59
90924874|NCT04800211|181724034|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-31.293||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.159|-11.428|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-11.428|-51.159|0.0003
90924875|NCT04800211|181724034|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-40.209||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.941|-14.477|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-14.477|-65.941|0.0004
90924876|NCT04800211|181724034|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-41.052||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.965|-13.138|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-13.138|-68.965|0.0011
90924877|NCT04800211|181724034|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-42.509|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.902|-24.116|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-24.116|-60.902|<.0001
90924878|NCT04800211|181724034|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is equal to Test 1 on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Test 1 on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.915||||0.7835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.855|18.025|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is equal to Test 1 on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Test 1 on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||18.025|-23.855|0.7835
90940794|NCT03226106|181761476|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.17||||0.388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.19|4.53||The value corresponds to the interaction between time and group assignment.|Mixed Models Analysis|We used a linear mixed model with a random intercept for subject and fixed effects for age, time, and interaction between intervention arm and time.|The difference is the estimated mean between the intervention and control arms.|||4.53|-2.19|0.388
91034920|NCT02444715|181955722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: no change between baseline and post-intervention||||0.64
91034921|NCT02444715|181955722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: no change between baseline and post-intervention||||0.14
91034922|NCT00017953|181955724|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.09|||Regression, Cox|||||1.09|0.83|0.51
91034923|NCT00017953|181955725|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.1|||Regression, Cox|||||1.10|0.79|0.42
91034924|NCT00017953|181955726|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.05|||Regression, Cox|||||1.05|0.82|0.23
91034925|NCT00017953|181955727|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.05|||Regression, Cox|||||1.05|0.84|0.29
90964101|NCT04409353|181809602|OTHER|Primary inference will be based on the treatment comparison of least squares means for Day 90, and a p-value will be presented for this time period only. The null hypothesis is that the mean difference in the primary endpoint between the treatment groups and the sham control group is zero, versus the alternative hypothesis that these differences are not zero.|Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.04||||0.9569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|1.24||A two-sided test performed at the 0.05 level of significance.|Mixed Models Analysis||Skills-Based VR - Sham VR|The analysis will compare the treatment groups, separately, to the control group using a linear mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis. The repeated measures are the change from baseline PROMIS- PF score obtained for Day 15, 30, 60, and 90, respectively. The model will include fixed categorical effects for treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and the baseline PROMIS-PF t-score as a continuous covariate.||1.24|-1.31|0.9569
90885375|NCT00071487|181633588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9705||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|Log Rank|||Patients who required protocol-prohibited medications were considered to have a flare on the date the prohibited medication was started or date of the first flare, whichever came first. Patients who withdrew from the study for reasons other than SLE disease manifestations or hospitalization related to SLE or who missed 2 or more consecutive visits were censored at the time of the last assessment.||||0.9705
90885376|NCT00071487|181633589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.1||||0.1763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.4|4.1||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|t-test, 2 sided|||Missing data was handled by using LOCF imputation. If patient required a protocol-prohibited medication, the SELENA SLEDAI score of the last visit prior to the use of the prohibited medication was used.||4.1|-22.4|0.1763
90885377|NCT00071487|181633589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.3||||0.7112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.9|14.3||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|t-test, 2 sided|||Missing data was handled by using LOCF imputation. If patient required a protocol-prohibited medication, the SELENA SLEDAI score of the last visit prior to the use of the prohibited medication was used.||14.3|-20.9|0.7112
90885378|NCT00071487|181633589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.4||||0.332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.2|7.5||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|t-test, 2 sided|||Missing data was handled by using LOCF imputation. If patient required a protocol-prohibited medication, the SELENA SLEDAI score of the last visit prior to the use of the prohibited medication was used.||7.5|-22.2|0.3320
90885379|NCT00071487|181633590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-28.6||||0.1287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.6|8.4||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|t-test, 2 sided|||Missing data was handled by using LOCF imputation. If patient required a protocol-prohibited medication, the SELENA SLEDAI score of the last visit prior to the use of the prohibited medication was used.||8.4|-65.6|0.1287
90885380|NCT00071487|181633590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.98||||0.8807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.2|42.1||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|t-test, 2 sided|||Missing data was handled by using LOCF imputation.||42.1|-36.2|0.8807
90885381|NCT00071487|181633590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-30.41||||0.1131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.1|7.3||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|t-test, 2 sided|||Missing data was handled by using LOCF imputation.||7.3|-68.1|0.1131
90885382|NCT00071487|181633591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.7823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|10.4||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing|t-test, 2 sided|||Missing data for BILAG were handled as described previously for SELENA SLEDAI.||10.4|-13.8|0.7823
90885383|NCT00071487|181633591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.4||||0.1774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.2|3.4||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|t-test, 2 sided|||Missing data for BILAG were handled as described previously for SELENA SLEDAI.||3.4|-18.2|0.1774
90885384|NCT00071487|181633591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.8||||0.6406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|9.1|||t-test, 2 sided|P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.||Missing data for BILAG were handled as described previously for SELENA SLEDAI.||9.1|-14.8|0.6406
90885385|NCT00071487|181633592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.8||||0.7822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.6|29.1||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|t-test, 2 sided|||Missing data for BILAG were handled as described previously for SELENA SLEDAI.||29.1|-38.6|0.7822
90885386|NCT00071487|181633592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.9||||0.3332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.3|15.4||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|t-test, 2 sided|||Missing data for BILAG were handled as described previously for SELENA SLEDAI.||15.4|-45.3|0.3332
90885387|NCT00071487|181633592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.7||||0.466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.9|21.5||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|t-test, 2 sided|||Missing data for BILAG were handled as described previously for SELENA SLEDAI.||21.5|-46.9|0.4660
90885388|NCT00071487|181633593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5615||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|||Missing data for BILAG were handled as described previously for SELENA SLEDAI (SLE Flare Index).||||0.5615
90885389|NCT00071487|181633593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7593||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|Log Rank|||Missing data for BILAG were handled as described previously for SELENA SLEDAI (SLE Flare Index).||||0.7593
90885390|NCT00071487|181633593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2273||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|Log Rank|||Missing data for BILAG were handled as described previously for SELENA SLEDAI (SLE Flare Index).||||0.2273
90885391|NCT00071487|181633594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference from placebo|-7.1||||0.4355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.7|10.6||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|Likelihood ratio chi-squared|||Patients who dropped out or had missing data were considered failures.||10.6|-24.7|0.4355
90971086|NCT01627860|181824708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean percent change|18.3||||0.7102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-81.0|117.7|||ANCOVA||Difference in mean percent change of seizure frequency (Monotherapy minus Add on therapy)|||117.7|-81.0|0.7102
90971087|NCT01225731|181824710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Difference in Response Rate|28.89||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.41|44.36|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline weight (≤90 kg or \>90 kg) and prior use of biologics for psoriasis (Yes/No).||||44.36|13.41|0.001
91034926|NCT02374853|181955728|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.23
91034927|NCT02374853|181955729|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.25
90924879|NCT04800211|181724035|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population with Outliers Excluded)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.769||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.228|-0.309|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population with Outliers Excluded)||-0.309|-1.228|0.0002
90924880|NCT04800211|181724035|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population with Outliers Excluded)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.52||||0.0175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.972|-0.068|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population with Outliers Excluded)||-0.068|-0.972|0.0175
90924881|NCT04800211|181724036|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population with Outliers Excluded)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.408||||0.0362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|4.705|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population with Outliers Excluded)||4.705|0.110|0.0362
90924882|NCT04800211|181724036|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.692||||0.2142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.569|3.953|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||3.953|-0.569|0.2142
90924883|NCT04800211|181724037|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-39.501||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.396|-3.605|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||-3.605|-75.396|0.0250
90924884|NCT04800211|181724037|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.94||||0.9997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.896|32.016|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||32.016|-37.896|0.9997
90940795|NCT03226106|181761477|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.08|2.68||The value corresponds to the interaction between time and group assignment.|Mixed Models Analysis|We used a linear mixed model with a random intercept for subject and fixed effects for age, time, and interaction between intervention arm and time.|The difference is the estimated mean between the intervention and control arms.|||2.68|-4.08|0.88
91034928|NCT02374853|181955730|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.054|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.054
91034929|NCT01754597|181955800|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.714|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.714
91034930|NCT01754597|181955801|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.492|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.492
91034931|NCT01754597|181955802|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.183|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.183
90885392|NCT00071487|181633594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference from placebo|4.4||||0.6669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5|24.2||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|Likelihood ratio chi-squared|||Patients who dropped out or had missing data were considered failures.||24.2|-15.5|0.6669
90885393|NCT00071487|181633594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference from placebo|17.7||||0.0882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|37.9||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|Likelihood ratio chi-squared|||Patients who dropped out or had missing data were considered failures.||37.9|-2.5|0.0882
90924885|NCT04800211|181724038|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-54.398||||0.6778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-177.281|68.485|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||68.485|-177.281|0.6778
90924886|NCT04800211|181724038|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-48.395||||0.7497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-168.697|71.908|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||71.908|-168.697|0.7497
90924887|NCT04800211|181724039|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-20.01||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.447|-7.573|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||-7.573|-32.447|0.0003
90924888|NCT04800211|181724039|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-22.566|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.837|-10.295|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||-10.295|-34.837|<.0001
90940796|NCT03226106|181761478|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.77||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.63|4.17||The value corresponds to the interaction between time and group assignment.|Mixed Models Analysis|We used a linear mixed model with a random intercept for subject and fixed effects for age, time, and interaction between intervention arm and time.|The difference is the estimated mean between the intervention and control arms.|||4.17|-2.63|0.85
90964102|NCT04409353|181809603|OTHER|Primary inference will be based on the treatment comparison of least squares means for Day 90, and a p-value will be presented for this time period only. The null hypothesis is that the mean difference in the primary endpoint between the treatment groups and the sham control group is zero, versus the alternative hypothesis that these differences are not zero.|Difference in Least Squares Means|0.03||||0.9727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.86||A two-sided test performed at the 0.05 level of significance.|Mixed Models Analysis||Distraction-Based VR - Sham VR|The analysis will compare the treatment groups, separately, to the control group using a linear mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis. The repeated measures are the change from baseline PROMIS-Depression score obtained for Day 15, 30, 60, and 90, respectively. The model will include fixed categorical effects for treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and the baseline PROMIS-Depression t-score as a continuous covariate.||1.86|-1.80|0.9727
90971088|NCT01225731|181824710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Difference in Response Rate|60.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.42|71.58|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline weight (≤90 kg or \>90 kg) and prior use of biologics for psoriasis (Yes/No).||||71.58|48.42|<0.001
90971089|NCT01225731|181824710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Difference in Response Rate|61.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.33|73.37|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline weight (≤90 kg or \>90 kg) and prior use of biologics for psoriasis (Yes/No).||||73.37|50.33|<0.001
90971090|NCT01225731|181824710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Difference in Response Rate|69.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.96|80.99|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline weight (≤90 kg or \>90 kg) and prior use of biologics for psoriasis (Yes/No).||||80.99|58.96|<0.001
90885394|NCT01176591|181633625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.08
90885395|NCT01176591|181633626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.08
90885396|NCT01176591|181633627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.046|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.046
90885397|NCT01176591|181633628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.039|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.039
90885398|NCT01176591|181633630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.035|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.035
90885399|NCT01073618|181633631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Efficacy rate (percent)|75.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.36|78.94|||Normal approximation to binomial||Confidence Interval (CI) by normal approximation to binomial.|Efficacy Rate (treatment effective) = Percentage of evaluable participants with clinical response of cure or improvement||78.94|71.36|
90885400|NCT00673049|181633639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.091||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.909|1.31||One-sided significance level at alpha=0.024 was used. Two-sided p-value was reported.|Log Rank|Nominal p-values were reported without adjustment for the interim analysis.||P-value was calculated using log-rank test stratified by gender (Male or Female), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (less than or equal to \[=\<1\] or 2), and region (United States/Canada, European Union, rest of world). The stratified Cox proportional hazards model was fitted to estimate the hazard ratio, using the same stratification variables as above.||1.310|0.909|0.35
90885401|NCT00673049|181633640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.075||||0.426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.898|1.287||One-sided significance level at alpha=0.001 was used. Two-sided p-value was reported.|Log Rank|||P-value was calculated using log-rank test stratified by gender (Male or Female), ECOG performance status (less than or equal to \[=\<1\] or 2), and region (United States/Canada, European Union, rest of world). The stratified Cox proportional hazards model was fitted to estimate the hazard ratio, using the same stratification variables as above.||1.287|0.898|0.426
90885402|NCT00673049|181633641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rates|1.668||||0.338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|5.1|||Chi-squared|||||5.1|-1.7|0.338
90885403|NCT00693992|181633684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.82|||Log Rank|||||0.82|0.47|0.0006
90885404|NCT00693992|181633685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.31|||Log Rank|||||1.31|0.73|0.89
90885405|NCT00693992|181633687|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0061|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0061
90885406|NCT00693992|181633688|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8393|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.8393
90885407|NCT04265755|181633691|OTHER|Adjusted analysis utilizes a logistic regression model which includes age, sex, dose switch, Baseline value of interest, and mPRS as covariates and presents the mPRS estimates.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.13|||Regression, Logistic||Based on a 1 standard deviation increase in mPRS.|Odds of achieving at least 50% reduction from Baseline in mean MMD over months 4, 5, and 6 in relation to mPRS.||1.13|0.90|0.86
90885408|NCT01863446|181633697|SUPERIORITY|Unpaired t-test comparing Lighting 1 and Lighting2||||||0.334|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.334
90924889|NCT04800211|181724040|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-179.365|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-225.708|-133.022|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||-133.022|-225.708|<.0001
90885409|NCT01863446|181633697|SUPERIORITY|Unpaired t-test comparing Lighting3 vs Lighting 4||||||0.423|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.423
90885410|NCT01863446|181633698|SUPERIORITY|Unpaired t-test of Lighting1 vs Lighting2||||||0.78|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.780
90885411|NCT01863446|181633698|SUPERIORITY|Unpaired t-test of Lighting3 vs Lighting4||||||0.791|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.791
90885412|NCT01863446|181633699|SUPERIORITY|Unpaired t-test||||||0.883|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.883
90885413|NCT01863446|181633699|SUPERIORITY|Unpaired t-test||||||0.271|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.271
90885414|NCT02652780|181633732|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.008||||0.8783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.119|0.102|||ANCOVA|||A mixed model of analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used with change from baseline at Week 48 as the response, and participants, eyes of the participant as random factor, treatment and baseline LogMAR value as covariates in the model. P-value is used to assess the significance of the difference between All-GS010 and All-Sham with respect to change of LogMAR from baseline.||0.102|-0.119|0.8783
90885415|NCT04177693|181633753|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.112|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.112
90885416|NCT04177693|181633754|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.613|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.613
90885417|NCT04177693|181633755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.202|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.202
90885418|NCT04177693|181633756|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.508|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.508
90885419|NCT04177693|181633757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.237|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.237
90885420|NCT04177693|181633758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.327|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.327
90885421|NCT04177693|181633759|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.633|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.633
90885422|NCT04177693|181633760|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.146|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.146
90885423|NCT04177693|181633761|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.372|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.372
90885424|NCT04177693|181633762|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.07
90885425|NCT04177693|181633763|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.24
90885426|NCT03224468|181633764|SUPERIORITY|Power was determined to be 85.2% using a Monte Carlo simulation approach in which data were simulated from a multi-level linear regression model with a subject-varying random intercept, a shared baseline across WLC and MMC, and fixed effects for a change over each time point. Simulated data were fit with a linear model estimated via GEE - simulations were repeated 1000 times and power was estimated as the proportion where the contrast between WLC and MM had p\<0.05.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.4||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using per Benjamini \& Hochberg (1995) across the five primary outcome measures. Effects were deemed significant for p\<0.05.|Regression, Linear|Estimates were obtained using generalized estimating equations (GEE) with robust standard errors obtained by the sandwich estimator.|Estimate is the mean difference in number of symptoms for MM above and beyond WLC (positive values denote higher number of symptoms for MM).|The mean difference in number of symptoms between the MM and WLC groups was estimated via a linear model with a dummy-coded contrast (0 for WLC, 1 for MM). The model adjusted for change at weeks 4 and 12 of the study, and for a subject's number of symptoms at baseline.||0.40|0.15|<0.001
90888152|NCT01767116|181639654|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The noninferiority of the rate of sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment for the ABT-450/r/ABT-267 and ABT-333, plus placebo RBV treatment group as compared with the historical rate for telaprevir plus pegIFN-RBV was analyzed; the lower confidence bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (95% CI) for the percentage of participants with sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment must exceed 73% to achieve noninferiority.|Percentage of Participants|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.2|100.0|||||95% CI was calculated using the Wilson score method for the single proportion because the point estimate was 100%..|For the primary efficacy endpoint of sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment, based on a 2-sided significance level of 0.05 and an underlying rate of 92% or higher in each arm, a sample size of 200 participants per treatment arm provides \>95% power to demonstrate noninferiority of each regimen to the historical rate for telaprevir plus pegIFN and RBV therapy (84%) (based on the normal approximation of a single binomial proportion in a one-sample test for superiority).||100.0|98.2|
90924890|NCT04800211|181724040|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-153.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-198.93|-107.509|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||-107.509|-198.930|<.0001
90924891|NCT04800211|181724041|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.569|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.084|-2.054|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||-2.054|-3.084|<.0001
90924892|NCT04800211|181724041|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.586|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.092|-2.081|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||-2.081|-3.092|<.0001
90924893|NCT04800211|181724043|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Screening) for Percentage of Predicted FEV1 (%) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Screening) for Percentage of Predicted FEV1 (%) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.42||||0.0839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|3.04|||ANCOVA||The ANCOVA includes study group, gender, and age class as fixed effects, and baseline score as the covariate. Least-squares means (LS Means) are calculated from the ANCOVA.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Screening) for Percentage of Predicted FEV1 (%) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Screening) for Percentage of Predicted FEV1 (%) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||3.04|-0.19|0.0839
90940797|NCT03226106|181761479|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|559.81||||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-405.01|1524.62||The value corresponds to the interaction between time and group assignment.|Mixed Models Analysis|We used a linear mixed model with a random intercept for subject and fixed effects for age, time, and interaction between intervention arm and time.|The difference is the estimated mean between the intervention and control arms.|||1524.62|-405.01|0.101
91078000|NCT02542293|182041272|OTHER|The study was not designed or powered to show statistical significance for efficacy endpoints in the China cohort, so all statistical analyses for the China cohort were considered exploratory.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.018|||||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for PD-L1 status (\>= 25% Vs \< 25 and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"FAS:~China: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs China: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy to be associated with a longer OS than SoC."||1.018|0.480|
91078001|NCT02542293|182041272|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.654|1.078|||||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for smoking status (never smoker Vs ever smoker) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"PD-L1 TC ≥25% analysis set:~Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy to be associated with a longer OS than SoC."||1.078|0.654|
91034932|NCT00819741|181955803|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"If non-inferiority was shown (that was if H0 was rejected), then superiority of repaglinide and metformin combination therapy compared to repaglinide monotherapy would be claimed if the upper limit of the 95% CI for the difference was lower than 0%.~The non-inferiority margin for HbA1c was set to 0.4%."|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.302|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0096||||95.0|-0.491|-0.114|||ANCOVA|||"The non-inferiority margin for HbA1c was set to 0.4%.~The null hypothesis (H0) was:~H0: HbA1c of repaglinide + metformin therapy after 16 weeks of treatment - HbA1c of repaglinide monotherapy after 16 weeks of treatment ≥0.4%~Against the alternative hypothesis (H1):~H1: HbA1c of repaglinide + metformin therapy after 16 weeks of treatment - HbA1c of repaglinide monotherapy after 16 weeks of treatment \<0.4%"||-0.114|-0.491|
90885427|NCT03224468|181633765|SUPERIORITY|Power was determined to be 83.6% using a Monte Carlo simulation approach in which data were simulated from a multi-level linear regression model with a subject-varying random intercept, a shared baseline across WLC and MMC, and fixed effects for a change over each time point. Simulated data were fit with a linear model estimated via GEE - simulations were repeated 1000 times and power was estimated as the proportion where the contrast between WLC and MM had p\<0.05.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.4||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using per Benjamini \& Hochberg (1995) across the five primary outcome measures. Effects were deemed significant for p\<0.05.|Regression, Linear|Estimates were obtained using generalized estimating equations (GEE) with robust standard errors obtained by the sandwich estimator.|Estimate is the mean difference in scale score for MM above and beyond WLC (positive values denote higher score for MM).|The mean difference in scale scores between the MM and WLC groups was estimated via a linear model with a dummy-coded contrast (0 for WLC, 1 for MM). The model adjusted for change at weeks 4 and 12 of the study, and for a subject's scale scores at baseline.||0.4|-1.4|0.50
90885428|NCT03224468|181633766|SUPERIORITY|Power was determined to be 84.3% using a Monte Carlo simulation approach in which data were simulated from a multi-level linear regression model with a subject-varying random intercept, a shared baseline across WLC and MMC, and fixed effects for a change over each time point. Simulated data were fit with a linear model estimated via GEE - simulations were repeated 1000 times and power was estimated as the proportion where the contrast between WLC and MM had p\<0.05.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.24||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using per Benjamini \& Hochberg (1995) across the five primary outcome measures. Effects were deemed significant for p\<0.05.|Regression, Linear|Estimates were obtained using generalized estimating equations (GEE) with robust standard errors obtained by the sandwich estimator.|Estimate is the mean difference in number of symptoms for MM above and beyond WLC (positive values denote higher number of symptoms for MM).|The mean difference in number of symptoms between the MM and WLC groups was estimated via a linear model with a dummy-coded contrast (0 for WLC, 1 for MM). The model adjusted for change at weeks 4 and 12 of the study, and for a subject's number of symptoms at baseline.||0.24|-0.30|0.90
90885429|NCT03224468|181633767|SUPERIORITY|Power was determined to be 83.6% using a Monte Carlo simulation approach in which data were simulated from a multi-level linear regression model with a subject-varying random intercept, a shared baseline across WLC and MMC, and fixed effects for a change over each time point. Simulated data were fit with a linear model estimated via GEE - simulations were repeated 1000 times and power was estimated as the proportion where the contrast between WLC and MM had p\<0.05.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.39||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using per Benjamini \& Hochberg (1995) across the five primary outcome measures. Effects were deemed significant for p\<0.05.|Regression, Linear|Estimates were obtained using generalized estimating equations (GEE) with robust standard errors obtained by the sandwich estimator.|Estimate is the mean difference in number of symptoms for MM above and beyond WLC (positive values denote higher number of symptoms for MM).|The mean difference in number of symptoms between the MM and WLC groups was estimated via a linear model with a dummy-coded contrast (0 for WLC, 1 for MM). The model adjusted for change at weeks 4 and 12 of the study, and for a subject's number of symptoms at baseline.||0.39|-0.38|0.93
90885430|NCT03224468|181633768|SUPERIORITY|Power was determined to be 90.4% using a Monte Carlo simulation approach in which data were simulated from a multi-level linear regression model with a subject-varying random intercept, a shared baseline across WLC and MMC, and fixed effects for a change over each time point. Simulated data were fit with a linear model estimated via GEE - simulations were repeated 1000 times and power was estimated as the proportion where the contrast between WLC and MM had p\<0.05.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.43||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using per Benjamini \& Hochberg (1995) across the five primary outcome measures. Effects were deemed significant for p\<0.05.|Regression, Linear|Estimates were obtained using generalized estimating equations (GEE) with robust standard errors obtained by the sandwich estimator.|Estimate is the mean difference in number of symptoms for MM above and beyond WLC (positive values denote higher number of symptoms for MM).|The mean difference in number of symptoms between the MM and WLC groups was estimated via a linear model with a dummy-coded contrast (0 for WLC, 1 for MM). The model adjusted for change at weeks 4 and 12 of the study, and for a subject's number of symptoms at baseline.||-0.43|-1.30|<0.001
90885431|NCT03224468|181633769|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.5|||||Estimate is the mean difference in number of symptoms for MM above and beyond WLC (positive values denote higher number of symptoms for MM).|The mean difference in number of symptoms between the MM and WLC groups was estimated via a linear model with a dummy-coded contrast (0 for WLC, 1 for MM). The model adjusted for change at weeks 4 and 12 of the study, and for a subject's score at baseline.||2.5|-1.0|
90885432|NCT03224468|181633771|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|3.5|||||Estimate is the mean difference in the congruency cost on response time for MM above and beyond WLC (positive values indicate higher cost for MM).|The mean difference in number of symptoms between the MM and WLC groups was estimated via a linear model with a dummy-coded contrast (0 for WLC, 1 for MM). The model adjusted for change at week 12 of the study, and for a subject's score at baseline.||3.5|-19.0|
90885433|NCT03224468|181633772|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-24.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.9|-2.2|||||Estimate is the mean difference in the switching cost on response time for MM above and beyond WLC (positive values indicate higher cost for MM).|The mean difference in number of symptoms between the MM and WLC groups was estimated via a linear model with a dummy-coded contrast (0 for WLC, 1 for MM). The model adjusted for change at week 12 of the study, and for a subject's score at baseline.||-2.2|-45.9|
90940798|NCT04349644|181761480|OTHER|A series of Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) models were used to test the between-group differences on each dependent variable at the immediate posttest and at the follow-up periods separately using the pretest values as a covariate. Independent samples t-tests were used to identify statistically significant differences on all pretest dependent vari- ables.||||||0.016|||||||ANCOVA|Posttest ANCOVA controlling for pretest values.||||||0.016
91034933|NCT02635750|181955823|OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio(%)|99.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.502|111.62|||||"Ratio of BI 409306 25mg with donepezil 10mg and BI 409306 25mg alone (BI 409306+ don / BI 409306).~Intra-individual coefficient of variation (gCV (%)) = 18.6."|"The statistical model used for the analysis of those endpoints was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale (natural logarithm). This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'subjects' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects' was considered as random, whereas the other effect was considered as fixed.~Abbreviations used: geometric mean (gMean), donepezil (don)"||111.62|89.502|
90885434|NCT03224468|181633773|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.005|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.007|0.011|||||Estimate is the mean difference in discriminability for MM above and beyond WLC (positive values indicate better ability to identify target items for MM).|The mean difference in number of symptoms between the MM and WLC groups was estimated via a linear model with a dummy-coded contrast (0 for WLC, 1 for MM). The model adjusted for change at week 12 of the study, and for a subject's score at baseline.||0.011|-0.007|
90885435|NCT03224468|181633774|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.7|||||Estimate is the mean difference in number of total errors for MM above and beyond WLC (positive values indicate greater number of errors for MM).|The mean difference in number of symptoms between the MM and WLC groups was estimated via a linear model with a dummy-coded contrast (0 for WLC, 1 for MM). The model adjusted for change at week 12 of the study, and for a subject's score at baseline.||1.7|-1.8|
90885436|NCT03224468|181633775|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|0.3|||||Estimate is the mean difference in number of repetition errors for MM above and beyond WLC (positive values indicate greater number of errors for MM).|The mean difference in number of symptoms between the MM and WLC groups was estimated via a linear model with a dummy-coded contrast (0 for WLC, 1 for MM). The model adjusted for change at week 12 of the study, and for a subject's score at baseline.||0.3|-7.4|
90885437|NCT03224468|181633776|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||||Estimate is the mean difference in discriminability for MM above and beyond WLC (positive values indicate a greater ability to recognize previously studied words for MM).|The mean difference in number of symptoms between the MM and WLC groups was estimated via a linear model with a dummy-coded contrast (0 for WLC, 1 for MM). The model adjusted for change at week 12 of the study, and for a subject's score at baseline.||0.1|-0.2|
90885438|NCT03224468|181633777|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.0|||||Estimate is the mean difference in number recalled for MM above and beyond WLC (positive values indicate a greater ability to recall previously studied words for MM).|The mean difference in number of symptoms between the MM and WLC groups was estimated via a linear model with a dummy-coded contrast (0 for WLC, 1 for MM). The model adjusted for change at week 12 of the study, and for a subject's score at baseline.||1.0|-0.2|
90885439|NCT04713748|181633779|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Interclass correlation coefficient|||||||<0.0001
90885440|NCT00406029|181633781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.2||||0.753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.2||The alpha threshold for statistical significance is 0.049 (2-sided).|ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.2|-0.9|0.753
90885441|NCT00406029|181633781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.7||||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.3||The alpha threshold for statistical significance is 0.049 (2-sided).|ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline at endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.3|-1.7|0.162
90885442|NCT00406029|181633781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.0||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.0||The alpha threshold for statistical significance is 0.049 (2-sided).|ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.0|-2.1|0.049
90885443|NCT00406029|181633781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.2||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.2||The alpha threshold for statistical significance is 0.049 (2-sided).|ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||-0.2|-2.2|0.019
90885444|NCT00406029|181633782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.0||||0.935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.8|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.8|-0.9|0.935
90885445|NCT00406029|181633782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.4||||0.326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.4|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.4|-1.3|0.326
90885446|NCT00406029|181633782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.8||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.1|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.1|-1.7|0.070
90885447|NCT00406029|181633782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.0||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||-0.2|-1.9|0.020
90885448|NCT00406029|181633782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.0||||0.982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.0|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.0|-1.0|0.982
90885449|NCT00406029|181633782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.5||||0.281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.4|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.4|-1.5|0.281
90885450|NCT00406029|181633782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.6||||0.261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.4|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.4|-1.6|0.261
90885451|NCT00406029|181633782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.4||||0.447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.6|-1.4|0.447
90885452|NCT00406029|181633782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.5||||0.378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.6|-0.6|0.378
90924894|NCT04800211|181724043|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Screening) for Percentage of Predicted FEV1 (%) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Screening) for Percentage of Predicted FEV1 (%) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.1||||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|3.66|||ANCOVA||The ANCOVA includes study group, gender, and age class as fixed effects, and baseline score as the covariate. Least-squares means (LS Means) are calculated from the ANCOVA.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Screening) for Percentage of Predicted FEV1 (%) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Screening) for Percentage of Predicted FEV1 (%) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||3.66|0.53|0.0089
90924895|NCT04800211|181724044|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Screening) for Percentage of Predicted FVC (%) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Screening) for Percentage of Predicted FVC (%) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.26||||0.7101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|1.66|||ANCOVA||The ANCOVA includes study group, gender, and age class as fixed effects, and baseline score as the covariate. Least-squares means (LS Means) are calculated from the ANCOVA.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Screening) for Percentage of Predicted FVC (%) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Screening) for Percentage of Predicted FVC (%) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||1.66|-1.13|0.7101
90971091|NCT01225731|181824711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Difference in Response Rate|19.37||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.15|33.58|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline weight (≤90 kg or \>90 kg) and prior use of biologics for psoriasis (Yes/No).||||33.58|5.15|0.009
90971092|NCT01225731|181824711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Difference in Response Rate|54.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.63|66.26|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline weight (≤90 kg or \>90 kg) and prior use of biologics for psoriasis (Yes/No).||||66.26|42.63|<0.001
90885453|NCT00406029|181633782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.6||||0.299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.5|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.5|-1.7|0.299
90885454|NCT00406029|181633782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.5||||0.377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.6|-1.6|0.377
90885455|NCT00406029|181633782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.2||||0.707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.9|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.9|-1.3|0.707
90885456|NCT00406029|181633782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.3||||0.562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.7|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.7|-1.4|0.562
90885457|NCT00406029|181633782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.7||||0.156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.3|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.3|-1.7|0.156
90885458|NCT00406029|181633782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.5||||0.292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.5|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.5|-1.6|0.292
90885459|NCT00406029|181633782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.2||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||-0.1|-2.2|0.034
90885460|NCT00406029|181633782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.2||||0.762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.2|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.2|-0.9|0.762
90885461|NCT00406029|181633782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.9||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.1|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.1|-1.9|0.092
90885462|NCT00406029|181633782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.3||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||-0.3|-2.3|0.013
90885463|NCT00406029|181633782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.5||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||-0.4|-2.5|0.005
90885464|NCT00406029|181633782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.6||||0.293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.6|-1.8|0.293
90885465|NCT00406029|181633782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.9||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.2|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.2|-2.0|0.095
90885466|NCT00406029|181633782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.2||||0.04||95.0|-2.3|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||-0.1|-2.3|0.040
90885467|NCT00406029|181633782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.4||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||-0.3|-2.5|0.011
90885468|NCT00406029|181633783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.3||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.2|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.2|-0.6|0.470
90885469|NCT00406029|181633783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.3||||0.505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.2|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.2|-0.6|0.505
90885470|NCT00406029|181633783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.7||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.7|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.7|-0.2|0.114
90940799|NCT04349644|181761480|OTHER|"A series of Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) models were used to test the between-group differences on each depen- dent variable at the immediate posttest and at the follow-up periods separately using the pretest values as a covariate.~Independent samples t-tests were used to identify statistically significant differences on all pretest dependent variables."||||||0.288|||||||ANCOVA|Follow-up ANCOVA while controlling Pretest.||||||0.288
90885471|NCT00406029|181633783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.9||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.8|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.8|0.0|0.042
90885472|NCT00406029|181633783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.2||||0.684|TWO_SIDED|94.0|-0.8|1.3|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.3|-0.8|0.684
90885473|NCT00406029|181633783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.4||||0.489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.4|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.4|-0.7|0.489
90885474|NCT00406029|181633783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.5||||0.305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.6|-0.5|0.305
90885475|NCT00406029|181633783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.4||||0.451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.4|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.4|-0.6|0.451
90885476|NCT00406029|181633783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.3||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.0|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.0|-1.5|0.680
90885477|NCT00406029|181633783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.4||||0.466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.6|-0.8|0.466
90971093|NCT01225731|181824711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Difference in Response Rate|56.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.43|68.03|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline weight (≤90 kg or \>90 kg) and prior use of biologics for psoriasis (Yes/No).||||68.03|44.43|<0.001
90885478|NCT00406029|181633783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.5||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.7|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.7|-0.8|0.450
90885479|NCT00406029|181633783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.4||||0.523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.6|-0.8|0.523
90885480|NCT00406029|181633783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.6||||0.309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.8|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.8|-0.6|0.309
90885481|NCT00406029|181633783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.8||||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.9|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.9|-0.3|0.136
90885482|NCT00406029|181633783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.9||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|2.1|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.1|-0.2|0.106
90885483|NCT00406029|181633783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.9||||0.144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|2.1|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.1|-0.3|0.144
90885484|NCT00406029|181633783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.0||||0.954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.1|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.1|-1.1|0.954
90885485|NCT00406029|181633783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.8||||0.152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.8|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.8|-0.3|0.152
90885486|NCT00406029|181633783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.4||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.4|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.4|0.3|0.012
90885487|NCT00406029|181633783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.2||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.3|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.3|0.2|0.025
90885488|NCT00406029|181633783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.9||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|2.2|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.2|-0.3|0.151
90885489|NCT00406029|181633783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.7||||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.9|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.9|-0.5|0.235
90885490|NCT00406029|181633783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.7||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.9|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.9|0.5|0.007
90885491|NCT00406029|181633783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.3||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.5|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.5|0.1|0.033
90885492|NCT00406029|181633783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.2||||0.757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.2|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.2|-0.9|0.757
90885493|NCT00406029|181633783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.5||||0.341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.6|-0.5|0.341
90885494|NCT00406029|181633783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.2||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.3|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.3|0.2|0.024
90924896|NCT04800211|181724044|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Screening) for Percentage of Predicted FVC (%) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Screening) for Percentage of Predicted FVC (%) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.24||||0.7325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|1.59|||ANCOVA||The ANCOVA includes study group, gender, and age class as fixed effects, and baseline score as the covariate. Least-squares means (LS Means) are calculated from the ANCOVA.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Screening) for Percentage of Predicted FVC (%) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Screening) for Percentage of Predicted FVC (%) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||1.59|-1.12|0.7325
90940800|NCT04349644|181761481|OTHER|A series of Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) models were used to test the between-group differences on each dependent variable at the immediate posttest and at the follow-up periods separately using the pretest values as a covariate. Independent samples t-tests were used to identify statistically significant differences on all pretest dependent variables.||||||0.932|||||||ANCOVA|Posttest ANCOVA controlling pretest value for CASS Vocal Expressiveness.||||||0.932
90885495|NCT00406029|181633783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.1||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.1|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.1|0.0|0.049
90885496|NCT00406029|181633784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.8||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.8|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.8|-0.3|0.151
90885497|NCT00406029|181633784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.0||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.0|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.0|-1.1|0.930
90885498|NCT00406029|181633784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.5||||0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.6|-0.6|0.343
90885499|NCT00406029|181633784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.2||||0.746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.2|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.2|-0.9|0.746
90885500|NCT00406029|181633784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.8||||0.222|TWO_SIDED|94.0|-0.5|2.0|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.0|-0.5|0.222
90924897|NCT04800211|181724045|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Screening) for Percentage of Predicted FEV1/FVC (%) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Screening) for Percentage of Predicted FEV1/FVC (%) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.48||||0.0136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|2.66|||ANCOVA||The ANCOVA includes study group, gender, and age class as fixed effects, and baseline score as the covariate. Least-squares means (LS Means) are calculated from the ANCOVA.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Screening) for Percentage of Predicted FEV1/FVC (%) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Screening) for Percentage of Predicted FEV1/FVC (%) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||2.66|0.31|0.0136
90924898|NCT04800211|181724045|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Screening) for Percentage of Predicted FEV1/FVC (%) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Screening) for Percentage of Predicted FEV1/FVC (%) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.94||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|3.08|||ANCOVA||The ANCOVA includes study group, gender, and age class as fixed effects, and baseline score as the covariate. Least-squares means (LS Means) are calculated from the ANCOVA.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Screening) for Percentage of Predicted FEV1/FVC (%) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Screening) for Percentage of Predicted FEV1/FVC (%) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||3.08|0.80|0.0009
90924899|NCT04800211|181724046|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.038||||0.9294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.795|0.87|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)||0.870|-0.795|0.9294
90924900|NCT04800211|181724046|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.277||||0.529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.587|1.142|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||1.142|-0.587|0.5290
90964103|NCT04409353|181809603|OTHER|Primary inference will be based on the treatment comparison of least squares means for Day 90, and a p-value will be presented for this time period only. The null hypothesis is that the mean difference in the primary endpoint between the treatment groups and the sham control group is zero, versus the alternative hypothesis that these differences are not zero.|Difference in Least Squares Means|0.43||||0.6427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|2.26||A two-sided test performed at the 0.05 level of significance.|Mixed Models Analysis||Skills-Based VR - Sham VR|The analysis will compare the treatment groups, separately, to the control group using a linear mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis. The repeated measures are the change from baseline PROMIS-Depression score obtained for Day 15, 30, 60, and 90, respectively. The model will include fixed categorical effects for treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and the baseline PROMIS-Depression t-score as a continuous covariate.||2.26|-1.40|0.6427
90964104|NCT04409353|181809604|OTHER|The inference will be based on the treatment comparison of least squares means for week 12, and a p-value will be presented for this time period only. The null hypothesis is that the mean difference in the change in the average weekly steps between the treatment groups and the sham control group is zero, versus the alternative hypothesis that these differences are not zero.|Difference in Least Squares Means|691.58||||0.291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-602.98|1986.14||A two-sided test performed at the 0.05 level of significance.|Mixed Models Analysis||Distraction-Based VR - Sham VR|The analysis will compare the treatment groups, separately, to the control group using a linear mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis. The repeated measures are the change from baseline average weekly steps obtained at weeks 1 thorough 12, respectively. The model will include fixed categorical effects for treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and the baseline average weekly steps as a continuous covariate.||1986.14|-602.98|0.2910
90971094|NCT01225731|181824711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Difference in Response Rate|67.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.42|78.88|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline weight (≤90 kg or \>90 kg) and prior use of biologics for psoriasis (Yes/No).||||78.88|56.42|<0.001
90971095|NCT01225731|181824712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Difference in Response Rate|31.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.22|46.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline weight (≤90 kg or \>90 kg) and prior use of biologics for psoriasis (Yes/No).||||46.0|16.22|<0.001
91034934|NCT02635750|181955824|OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio(%)|100.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.861|124.17|||||Ratio of BI 409306 25mg with donepezil 10mg and BI 409306 25mg alone (BI 409306+don / BI 409306). Intra-individual coefficient of variation (gCV (%)) = 35.8.|"The statistical model used for the analysis of those endpoints was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale (natural logarithm). This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'subjects' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects' was considered as random, whereas the other effect was considered as fixed.~Abbreviations used: geometric mean (gMean), donepezil (don)"||124.17|81.861|
90885501|NCT00406029|181633784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.3||||0.673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.5|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.5|-1.0|0.673
90885502|NCT00406029|181633784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.5||||0.415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.7|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.7|-0.7|0.415
90885503|NCT00406029|181633784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.0||||0.968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.2|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.2|-1.3|0.968
90885504|NCT00406029|181633784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.4||||0.543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.9|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.9|-1.0|0.543
90885505|NCT00406029|181633784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.0||||0.967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.4|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.4|-1.4|0.967
90885506|NCT00406029|181633784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.6||||0.411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|2.0|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.0|-0.8|0.411
90885507|NCT00406029|181633784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.1||||0.864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.3|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.3|-1.6|0.864
90885508|NCT00406029|181633784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.6||||0.449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|2.0|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.0|-0.9|0.449
90885509|NCT00406029|181633784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.6||||0.411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.8|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.8|-2.0|0.411
90885510|NCT00406029|181633784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.4||||0.576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.8|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.8|-1.0|0.576
90885511|NCT00406029|181633784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.4||||0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.1|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.1|-1.9|0.603
90885512|NCT00406029|181633784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.2||||0.842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.7|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.7|-1.4|0.842
90885513|NCT00406029|181633784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.4||||0.558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.0|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.0|-1.9|0.558
90885514|NCT00406029|181633784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.9||||0.245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|2.4|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.4|-0.6|0.245
90885515|NCT00406029|181633784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.1||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.6|-1.5|0.930
90885516|NCT00406029|181633784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.3||||0.759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.1|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.1|-1.5|0.759
90885517|NCT00406029|181633784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.8||||0.374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.9|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.9|-2.4|0.374
90885518|NCT00406029|181633784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.4||||0.621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|2.1|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.1|-1.3|0.621
90885519|NCT00406029|181633784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.4||||0.607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.2|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.2|-2.1|0.607
90885520|NCT00406029|181633784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.1||||0.907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.6|-1.4|0.907
90885521|NCT00406029|181633784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.7||||0.368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.8|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.8|-2.1|0.368
90885522|NCT00406029|181633784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.3||||0.654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.8|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.8|-1.1|0.654
90885523|NCT00406029|181633784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.2||||0.769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.2|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.2|-1.7|0.769
90885524|NCT00406029|181633785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.5||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.0|-1.0|0.055
90885525|NCT00406029|181633785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.5||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.0|-1.0|0.071
90924901|NCT04800211|181724046|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.508||||0.2291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.337|0.321|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)||0.321|-1.337|0.2291
90924902|NCT04800211|181724046|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.525||||0.2179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.311|1.361|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||1.361|-0.311|0.2179
90924903|NCT04800211|181724046|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.401||||0.2002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.213|1.016|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||1.016|-0.213|0.2002
90924904|NCT04800211|181724046|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.29||||0.476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.089|0.509|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)||0.509|-1.089|0.4760
90940801|NCT04349644|181761481|OTHER|A series of Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) models were used to test the between-group differences on each dependent variable at the immediate posttest and at the follow-up periods separately using the pretest values as a covariate. Independent samples t-tests were used to identify statistically significant differences on all pretest dependent variables.||||||0.221|||||||ANCOVA|Posttest ANCOVA controlling for pretest for CASS Quality of Rapport.||||||0.221
90971096|NCT01225731|181824712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Difference in Response Rate|55.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.48|66.63|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline weight (≤90 kg or \>90 kg) and prior use of biologics for psoriasis (Yes/No).||||66.63|44.48|<0.001
91034935|NCT02635750|181955825|OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio (%)|100.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.584|104.19|||||Ratio of donepezil 5mg with BI 409306 100mg and donepezil 5mg alone (BI 409306+don / don). Intra-individual coefficient of variation (gCV (%)) = 4.9.|The PK endpoints were log transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'periods' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed. Abbreviations used: geometric mean (gMean), donepezil (don)||104.19|97.584|
90885526|NCT00406029|181633785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.3||||0.288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.2|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.2|-0.8|0.288
90940802|NCT04349644|181761481|OTHER|A series of Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) models were used to test the between-group differences on each dependent variable at the immediate posttest and at the follow-up periods separately using the pretest values as a covariate. Independent samples t-tests were used to identify statistically significant differences on all pretest dependent variables.||||||0.873|||||||ANCOVA|Follow-up ANCOVA controlling for pretest Vocal Expressiveness.||||||0.873
90971097|NCT01225731|181824712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Difference in Response Rate|59.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.6|70.55|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline weight (≤90 kg or \>90 kg) and prior use of biologics for psoriasis (Yes/No).||||70.55|48.60|<0.001
90885527|NCT00406029|181633785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.1||||0.764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.4|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.4|-0.6|0.764
90885528|NCT00406029|181633785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.3||||0.342|TWO_SIDED|94.0|-0.9|0.3|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.3|-0.9|0.342
90885529|NCT00406029|181633785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.2||||0.611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.4|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.4|-0.7|0.611
90885530|NCT00406029|181633785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.2||||0.424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.3|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.3|-0.8|0.424
90885531|NCT00406029|181633785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.0||||0.991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.6|-0.6|0.991
90885532|NCT00406029|181633785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.5||||0.185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.3|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.3|-1.3|0.185
90885533|NCT00406029|181633785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.2||||0.597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.6|-1.0|0.597
90885534|NCT00406029|181633785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.7||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.1|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.1|-1.5|0.090
90924905|NCT04800211|181724046|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.699||||0.0914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.512|0.113|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||0.113|-1.512|0.0914
91034936|NCT02635750|181955826|OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio(%)|113.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|106.41|120.15|||||Ratio of donepezil 5mg with BI 409306 100mg and donepezil 5mg alone. (BI 409306+don / don) Intra-individual coefficient of variation (gCV (%)) = 9.0.|"The PK endpoints were log transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'periods' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.~Abbreviations used: geometric mean (gMean), donepezil (don)"||120.15|106.41|
90885535|NCT00406029|181633785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.2||||0.686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.6|-0.9|0.686
90885536|NCT00406029|181633785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.3||||0.501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.5|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.5|-1.0|0.501
90885537|NCT00406029|181633785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.1||||0.764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.8|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.8|-0.6|0.764
90885538|NCT00406029|181633785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.1||||0.715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.6|-0.9|0.715
90885539|NCT00406029|181633785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.0||||0.924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.8|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.8|-0.7|0.924
90971098|NCT01225731|181824712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Difference in Response Rate|72.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.02|82.37|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline weight (≤90 kg or \>90 kg) and prior use of biologics for psoriasis (Yes/No).||||82.37|62.02|<0.001
90885540|NCT00406029|181633785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.4||||0.264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.3|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.3|-1.2|0.264
90885541|NCT00406029|181633785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.0||||0.976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.7|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.7|-0.7|0.976
90885542|NCT00406029|181633785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.2||||0.626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.5|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.5|-0.9|0.626
90885543|NCT00406029|181633785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.0||||0.925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.7|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.7|-0.8|0.925
90885544|NCT00406029|181633785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.1||||0.849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.8|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.8|-1.0|0.849
90971099|NCT00577642|181824723|OTHER|single group|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired t-tests were used to compare differences of NTX cytokine levels at study entry versus end-of-study.||||<0.05
91034937|NCT02635750|181955827|OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio(%)|100.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.549|111.68|||||Ratio of BI 409306 25mg with donepezil 10mg and BI 409306 25mg alone (BI 409306+don/ BI 409306). Intra-individual coefficient of variation (gCV(%)) = 18.6.|The statistical model used for the analysis of those endpoints was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale (natural logarithm). This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'subjects' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects' was considered as random, whereas the other effect was considered as fixed. Abbreviations used: geometric mean (gMean), donepezil (don)||111.68|89.549|
91034938|NCT02635750|181955828|OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio(%)|98.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.413|103.6|||||Ratio of donepezil 5mg with BI 409306 100mg and donepezil 5mg alone (BI 409306+don / don). Intra-individual coefficient of variation (gCV (%)) = 7.7.|"The PK endpoints were log transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'periods' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.~Abbreviations used: geometric mean (gMean), donepezil (don)"||103.60|93.413|
91034939|NCT00461786|181955932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Overall Response Rate|21.0||||||95.0|10.5|35.0||||||Overall Response Rate is the total percentage of participants with either a complete response or a partial response (CR+PR)/48 X 100.||35.0|10.5|
90885545|NCT00406029|181633785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.1||||0.755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.0|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.0|-0.7|0.755
90885546|NCT00406029|181633785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.1||||0.863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.9|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.9|-0.8|0.863
90885547|NCT00406029|181633785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.3||||0.477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.1|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.1|-0.5|0.477
90885548|NCT00406029|181633785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.3||||0.432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.4|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.4|-1.0|0.432
90885549|NCT00406029|181633785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.0||||0.909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.7|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.7|-0.8|0.909
90885550|NCT00406029|181633785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.1||||0.812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.7|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.7|-0.8|0.812
90885551|NCT00406029|181633785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.2||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.0|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.0|-0.5|0.540
90885552|NCT00406029|181633786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.1||||0.829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.9|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.9|-0.7|0.829
90885553|NCT00406029|181633786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.8||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.6|0.0|0.042
90885554|NCT00406029|181633786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.5||||0.204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.4|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.4|-0.3|0.204
90885555|NCT00406029|181633786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.9||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.6|0.1|0.035
90885556|NCT00406029|181633786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.2||||0.696|TWO_SIDED|94.0|-1.2|0.8|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.8|-1.2|0.696
90885557|NCT00406029|181633786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.2||||0.625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.2|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.2|-0.7|0.625
90885558|NCT00406029|181633786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.4||||0.478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.3|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.3|-0.6|0.478
90885559|NCT00406029|181633786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.4||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.4|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.4|-0.5|0.380
90971100|NCT01556425|181824724|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.26||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|21.6|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||21.6|0.2|0.48
90971101|NCT01556425|181824724|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.58||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|4.6|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||4.6|0.1|0.61
90885560|NCT00406029|181633786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.1||||0.925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.1|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.1|-1.2|0.925
90885561|NCT00406029|181633786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.6||||0.285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.7|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.7|-0.5|0.285
90885562|NCT00406029|181633786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.6||||0.296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.7|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.7|-0.5|0.296
90885563|NCT00406029|181633786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.7||||0.241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.8|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.8|-0.5|0.241
90924906|NCT04800211|181724046|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.328||||0.9705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.122|1.777|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)||1.777|-1.122|0.9705
90885564|NCT00406029|181633786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.4||||0.571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.6|-0.9|0.571
90924907|NCT04800211|181724046|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.977||||0.328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.512|2.465|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||2.465|-0.512|0.3280
90885565|NCT00406029|181633786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.3||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.4|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.4|0.1|0.032
90885566|NCT00406029|181633786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.8||||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|2.0|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.0|-0.4|0.214
90885567|NCT00406029|181633786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.2||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.5|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.5|0.0|0.051
90885568|NCT00406029|181633786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.3||||0.572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.5|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.5|-0.9|0.572
90885569|NCT00406029|181633786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.2||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.4|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.4|0.1|0.041
90885570|NCT00406029|181633786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.7||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.9|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.9|-0.5|0.240
90885571|NCT00406029|181633786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.2||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.4|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.4|0.0|0.047
90885572|NCT00406029|181633786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.8||||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|2.2|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.2|-0.5|0.228
90885573|NCT00406029|181633786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.4||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.6|0.1|0.030
90885574|NCT00406029|181633786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.2||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.5|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.5|0.0|0.059
90885575|NCT00406029|181633786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.5||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.7|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.7|0.2|0.021
90885576|NCT00406029|181633786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.4||||0.428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.5|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.5|-0.6|0.428
90924908|NCT04800211|181724046|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.218||||0.9951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.667|1.23|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)||1.230|-1.667|0.9951
90924909|NCT04800211|181724046|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.225||||0.1367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.244|2.693|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||2.693|-0.244|0.1367
90971102|NCT01556425|181824724|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.0||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|54.9|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||54.9|0.7|0.11
91035872|NCT02558491|181958307|OTHER|||||||0.158||||||No a priori sample size was determined due to the feasibility/pilot nature of the trial. Significance level was set at P-value \<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Secondary analysis followed the same format unless variables could not be considered normally distributed; in that case a related samples Wilcoxon signed-rank test is used. Data were first binned (to ensure minimum count of five per bins) and the w2 statistics was used with the expected counts given by SoC. Based on achieved recruitment, a moderate effect size (0.3) is detectable with 80% power, or a large effect size (0.4) with 95% power (G-Power 3.1.9.2). Outcome measurement was for overall.||||0.158
90885577|NCT00406029|181633786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.2||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.3|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.3|0.2|0.025
90885578|NCT00406029|181633786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.0||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|2.1|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.1|-0.1|0.064
90885579|NCT00406029|181633786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.1||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.1|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.1|0.0|0.047
90971103|NCT01556425|181824724|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.66||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|24.9|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||24.9|0.3|0.39
90885580|NCT00406029|181633787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.4||||0.345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.5|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.5|-1.4|0.345
90885581|NCT00406029|181633787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.3||||0.468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.3|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.3|-0.6|0.468
90885582|NCT00406029|181633787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.3||||0.596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.2|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.2|-0.7|0.596
90885583|NCT00406029|181633787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.8||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.7|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.7|-0.2|0.107
90885584|NCT00406029|181633787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.6||||0.348|TWO_SIDED|94.0|-1.8|0.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.6|-1.8|0.348
90885585|NCT00406029|181633787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.0||||0.938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.2|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.2|-1.1|0.938
90885586|NCT00406029|181633787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.1||||0.897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.3|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.3|-1.1|0.897
90885587|NCT00406029|181633787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.4||||0.518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.6|-0.8|0.518
90885588|NCT00406029|181633787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.7||||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.7|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.7|-2.2|0.311
90940803|NCT04349644|181761481|OTHER|A series of Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) models were used to test the between-group differences on each dependent variable at the immediate posttest and at the follow-up periods separately using the pretest values as a covariate. Independent samples t-tests were used to identify statistically significant differences on all pretest dependent variables.||||||0.512|||||||ANCOVA|Follow-up ANCOVA controlling for pretest Quality of Rapport.||||||0.512
90971104|NCT01556425|181824724|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.4||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|85.5|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||85.5|1.3|0.03
91034940|NCT01415232|181955940|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Balki et al found a Pearson's correlation coefficient between the UD and ND depth of 0.85 (95% CI 0.75-0.91). We believe EDE + US would result in a correlation coefficient of approximately 0.91. To keep the lower bound estimate within 0.04 of a correlation of 0.91, and to maintain a 95% confidence level, 140 patients would need to be sampled. To allow for patients who may not complete the study, 160 patients were enrolled.|correlation coefficient|0.91|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|0.93|||longitudinal correlation coefficient|||Pearson's correlation coefficient was calculated for epidural distance measurements which included actual clinical epidural needle depth (ND) and the epidural depth equation (EDE), ND and prior EDE + US midline longitudinal plane view, ND and prior EDE + US transverse plane view.||0.93|0.87|< 0.05
91034941|NCT01415232|181955940|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|correlation coefficient|transverse plane correlation coefficient|0.9|||>|0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|0.93|||transverse plane correlation coefficient|||Transverse plane correlation coefficient||0.93|0.87|>0.85
90885589|NCT00406029|181633787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.4||||0.597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.7|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.7|-1.0|0.597
90885590|NCT00406029|181633787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.1||||0.925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.3|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.3|-1.5|0.925
90885591|NCT00406029|181633787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.5||||0.478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.9|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.9|-0.9|0.478
90885592|NCT00406029|181633787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.0||||0.995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.5|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.5|-1.5|0.995
90885593|NCT00406029|181633787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.3||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.7|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.7|0.0|0.057
90885594|NCT00406029|181633787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.6||||0.431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|2.0|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.0|-0.9|0.431
90885595|NCT00406029|181633787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.2||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|2.7|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.7|-0.2|0.099
90885596|NCT00406029|181633787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.1||||0.847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.3|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.3|-1.5|0.847
90885597|NCT00406029|181633787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.2||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|2.5|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.5|-0.2|0.093
90885598|NCT00406029|181633787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.5||||0.471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.9|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.9|-0.9|0.471
90885599|NCT00406029|181633787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.2||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|2.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.6|-0.2|0.102
90971105|NCT01556425|181824725|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.36||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.4|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||2.4|0.1|0.30
91034942|NCT01415232|181955940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.64|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.0|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|6.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||Clinical epidural needle depth||6.8|6.5|>0.05
91034943|NCT01415232|181955940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Formula calculation|6.54|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.68|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.44|6.65|||Formula calculation||Estimated epidural depth equation depth (cm)|Estimated epidural depth equation depth (cm)||6.65|6.44|>0.05
91034944|NCT03570749|181955941|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.75|12.02|||Regression, Logistic|||||12.02|2.75|<0.001
90924910|NCT04800211|181724046|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.101||||0.0294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.111|2.091|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||2.091|0.111|0.0294
90924911|NCT04800211|181724046|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Test 2 on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Test 2 on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.248||||0.6792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.424|0.928|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Test 2 on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Test 2 on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||0.928|-1.424|0.6792
90924912|NCT04800211|181724047|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.638||||0.4012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|2.137|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||2.137|-0.860|0.4012
90940804|NCT04349644|181761482|OTHER|A series of Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) models were used to test the between-group differences on each dependent variable at the immediate posttest and at the follow-up periods separately using the pretest values as a covariate. Independent samples t-tests were used to identify statistically significant differences on all pretest dependent variables.||||||0.05|||||||ANCOVA|Posttest ANCOVA controlling for Pretest.||||||0.05
91034945|NCT03570749|181955941|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.89|23.62|||Regression, Logistic|||||23.62|5.89|<0.001
91034946|NCT03570749|181955942|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.81|8.51|||Regression, Logistic|||||8.51|1.81|<0.001
91034947|NCT03570749|181955942|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.05|20.87|||Regression, Logistic|||||20.87|5.05|<0.001
91034948|NCT03570749|181955943|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.58||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.97|15.83|||Regression, Logistic|||||15.83|1.97|0.001
91034949|NCT03570749|181955943|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|38.83|||Regression, Logistic|||||38.83|5.30|<0.001
91034950|NCT03570749|181955944|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.72|39.3|||Regression, Logistic|||||39.30|2.72|<0.001
91034951|NCT03570749|181955944|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|18.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.04|67.68|||Regression, Logistic|||||67.68|5.04|<0.001
91034952|NCT03570749|181955945|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.34|18.62|||Regression, Logistic|||||18.62|2.34|<0.001
91034953|NCT03570749|181955945|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.01|36.81|||Regression, Logistic|||||36.81|5.01|<0.001
90885600|NCT00406029|181633787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.7||||0.415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|2.3|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.3|-0.9|0.415
91034954|NCT03570749|181955946|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.63||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|15.27|||Regression, Logistic|||||15.27|1.41|0.012
90885601|NCT00406029|181633787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.5||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.0|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||3.0|0.0|0.051
90885602|NCT00406029|181633787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.3||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|2.8|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.8|-0.3|0.103
90885603|NCT00406029|181633787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.7||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.2|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||3.2|0.3|0.022
90885604|NCT00406029|181633787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.1||||0.903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.4|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.4|-1.2|0.903
90885605|NCT00406029|181633787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.2||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|2.5|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.5|-0.1|0.074
90885606|NCT00406029|181633787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.9||||0.185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|2.2|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.2|-0.4|0.185
90885607|NCT00406029|181633787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.3||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.6|0.0|0.054
90885608|NCT00406029|181633788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.0||||0.985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.5|-0.5|0.985
90885609|NCT00406029|181633788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.1||||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.6|-0.3|0.556
90885610|NCT00406029|181633788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.1||||0.776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.5|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.5|-0.4|0.776
90885611|NCT00406029|181633788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.1||||0.777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.5|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.5|-0.4|0.777
90885612|NCT00406029|181633788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.0||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|94.0|-0.5|0.5|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.5|-0.5|0.920
90885613|NCT00406029|181633788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.4||||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.9|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.9|-0.1|0.155
90885614|NCT00406029|181633788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.1||||0.843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.6|-0.5|0.843
90885615|NCT00406029|181633788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.1||||0.673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.6|-0.4|0.673
90885616|NCT00406029|181633788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.1||||0.612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.4|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.4|-0.7|0.612
90885617|NCT00406029|181633788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.2||||0.512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.7|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.7|-0.4|0.512
90885618|NCT00406029|181633788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.3||||0.269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.2|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.2|-0.9|0.269
90885619|NCT00406029|181633788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.2||||0.516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.4|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.4|-0.7|0.516
90885620|NCT00406029|181633788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.2||||0.597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.5|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.5|-0.8|0.597
90885621|NCT00406029|181633788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.1||||0.766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.5|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.5|-0.7|0.766
90885622|NCT00406029|181633788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.3||||0.428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.4|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.4|-0.9|0.428
90885623|NCT00406029|181633788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.1||||0.796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.6|-0.7|0.796
91034955|NCT03570749|181955946|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.73|43.93|||Regression, Logistic|||||43.93|4.73|<0.001
91034956|NCT03570749|181955947|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.806|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.57|-15.63|||ANCOVA|||||-15.63|-30.57|<0.001
90964105|NCT04409353|181809604|OTHER|The inference will be based on the treatment comparison of least squares means for week 12, and a p-value will be presented for this time period only. The null hypothesis is that the mean difference in the change in the average weekly steps between the treatment groups and the sham control group is zero, versus the alternative hypothesis that these differences are not zero.|Difference in Least Squares Means|405.68||||0.4842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-741.79|1553.15||A two-sided test performed at the 0.05 level of significance.|Mixed Models Analysis||Skills-Based VR - Sham VR|The analysis will compare the treatment groups, separately, to the control group using a linear mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis. The repeated measures are the change from baseline average weekly steps obtained at weeks 1 thorough 12, respectively. The model will include fixed categorical effects for treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and the baseline average weekly steps as a continuous covariate.||1553.15|-741.79|0.4842
90964106|NCT04409353|181809605|OTHER|The inference will be based on the treatment comparison of least squares means for week 12, and a p-value will be presented for this time period only. The null hypothesis is that the mean difference in the change in the average weekly sleep scores between the treatment groups and the sham control group is zero, versus the alternative hypothesis that these differences are not zero.|Difference in Least Squares Means|1.0||||0.4228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|3.49||A two-sided test performed at the 0.05 level of significance.|Mixed Models Analysis||Distraction-Based VR - Sham VR|The analysis will compare the treatment groups, separately, to the control group using a linear mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis. The repeated measures are the change from baseline average weekly sleep scores obtained at weeks 1 thorough 12, respectively. The model will include fixed categorical effects for treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and the baseline sleep score as a continuous covariate.||3.49|-1.48|0.4228
90964107|NCT04409353|181809605|OTHER|The inference will be based on the treatment comparison of least squares means for week 12, and a p-value will be presented for this time period only. The null hypothesis is that the mean difference in the change in the average weekly sleep scores between the treatment groups and the sham control group is zero, versus the alternative hypothesis that these differences are not zero.|Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.28||||0.8363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.92|2.37||A two-sided test performed at the 0.05 level of significance.|Mixed Models Analysis||Skills-Based VR - Sham VR|The analysis will compare the treatment groups, separately, to the control group using a linear mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis. The repeated measures are the change from baseline average weekly sleep scores obtained at weeks 1 thorough 12, respectively. The model will include fixed categorical effects for treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and the baseline sleep score as a continuous covariate.||2.37|-2.92|0.8363
90964108|NCT04409353|181809606|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.44||A two-sided test performed at the 0.05 level of significance.|Regression, Logistic||Sham VR as the reference group.|"Responder status (Yes vs. No) will be analyzed as the dependent variable using logistic regression, with terms for treatment groups and baseline PROMIS-PI as predictors. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the treatment groups, versus the alternative hypothesis that there a difference exists between the treatment groups."||1.44|0.48|0.514
90964109|NCT04409353|181809606|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.36||A two-sided test performed at the 0.05 level of significance.|Regression, Logistic||Sham VR as the reference group.|"Responder status (Yes vs. No) will be analyzed as the dependent variable using logistic regression, with terms for treatment groups and baseline PROMIS-PI as predictors. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the treatment groups, versus the alternative hypothesis that there a difference exists between the treatment groups."||2.36|0.78|0.280
90964110|NCT04252287|181809633|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|4.3||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|7.8|||ANCOVA|||||7.8|0.8|0.016
90885624|NCT00406029|181633788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.0||||0.988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.6|-0.6|0.988
90885625|NCT00406029|181633788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.1||||0.786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.7|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.7|-0.5|0.786
90885626|NCT00406029|181633788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.1||||0.702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.7|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.7|-0.5|0.702
90885627|NCT00406029|181633788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.3||||0.371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.9|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.9|-0.3|0.371
90885628|NCT00406029|181633788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.0||||0.981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.6|-0.6|0.981
90964111|NCT04252287|181809634|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|29.8||||0.852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-284.4|344.1|||ANCOVA|||||344.1|-284.4|0.852
90964112|NCT02564926|181809647|OTHER||LS mean difference (kg)|-2.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.346|-1.819|||ANCOVA|||||-1.819|-3.346|<0.001
90885629|NCT00406029|181633788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.3||||0.282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.9|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.9|-0.3|0.282
90885630|NCT00406029|181633788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.2||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.4|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.4|-0.7|0.550
90885631|NCT00406029|181633788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.1||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.7|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.7|-0.5|0.720
90885632|NCT00406029|181633788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.1||||0.742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.6|-0.5|0.742
90924913|NCT04800211|181724047|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.163||||0.0201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.343|3.983|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||3.983|0.343|0.0201
90940805|NCT04349644|181761482|OTHER|A series of Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) models were used to test the between-group differences on each dependent variable at the immediate posttest and at the follow-up periods separately using the pretest values as a covariate. Independent samples t-tests were used to identify statistically significant differences on all pretest dependent variables.||||||0.393|||||||ANCOVA|Follow-up ANCOVA controlling for Pretest.||||||0.393
90940806|NCT04349644|181761483|OTHER|A series of Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) models were used to test the between-group differences on each dependent variable at the immediate posttest and at the follow-up periods separately using the pretest values as a covariate. Independent samples t-tests were used to identify statistically significant differences on all pretest dependent variables||||||0.917|||||||ANCOVA|Posttest ANCOVA controlling for pretest values.||||||0.917
90885633|NCT00406029|181633788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.3||||0.211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.9|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.9|-0.2|0.211
90885634|NCT00406029|181633788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.0||||0.906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.5|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.5|-0.6|0.906
90885635|NCT00406029|181633788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.0||||0.868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.6|-0.5|0.868
90885636|NCT00406029|181633795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.1||||0.747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.4|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.4|-0.6|0.747
90885637|NCT00406029|181633795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.4||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.1|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.1|-0.9|0.140
90885638|NCT00406029|181633795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.4||||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.1|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.1|-0.9|0.148
90885639|NCT00406029|181633795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.7||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||-0.2|-1.2|0.005
90885640|NCT00406029|181633795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.3||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|94.0|-0.8|0.2|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.2|-0.8|0.256
90885641|NCT00406029|181633795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.3||||0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.3|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.3|-0.8|0.343
90885642|NCT00406029|181633795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.4||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.1|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.1|-1.0|0.102
90964113|NCT02564926|181809648|OTHER||LS mean difference (%)|-0.46||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.821|-0.094|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.094|-0.821|0.014
90885643|NCT00406029|181633795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.4||||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.2|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.2|-0.9|0.161
90964114|NCT02564926|181809649|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.673|3.113|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.113|0.673|0.343
90885644|NCT00406029|181633795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.4||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.1|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.1|-0.9|0.150
90964115|NCT02564926|181809650|OTHER||LS mean difference (mg/dL)|-18.25||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.14|-5.351|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.351|-31.140|0.006
90885645|NCT00406029|181633795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.3||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.2|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.2|-0.9|0.175
90885646|NCT00406029|181633795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.7||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||-0.1|-1.2|0.013
90885647|NCT00406029|181633795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.4||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.1|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.1|-0.9|0.120
90924914|NCT04800211|181724047|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.21||||0.1709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.528|2.948|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||2.948|-0.528|0.1709
90924915|NCT04800211|181724047|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.593||||0.0307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|3.035|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||3.035|0.150|0.0307
90924916|NCT04800211|181724047|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.588||||0.0691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.126|3.302|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||3.302|-0.126|0.0691
90924917|NCT04800211|181724047|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.487||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.838|4.137|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||4.137|0.838|0.0034
90924918|NCT04800211|181724047|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.849||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.622|3.075|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||3.075|0.622|0.0034
90924919|NCT04800211|181724047|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.178||||0.8123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.654|1.299|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||1.299|-1.654|0.8123
90964116|NCT02564926|181809651|OTHER||LS mean difference (kg)|-3.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.667|-2.631|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.631|-4.667|<0.001
91034957|NCT03570749|181955947|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-37.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.447|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.24|-30.89|||ANCOVA|||||-30.89|-44.24|<0.001
90924920|NCT04800211|181724047|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.48||||0.5879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.226|1.267|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||1.267|-2.226|0.5879
90924921|NCT04800211|181724047|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.596||||0.491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.304|1.111|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||1.111|-2.304|0.4910
90924922|NCT04800211|181724047|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.816||||0.9673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.967|3.599|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||3.599|-1.967|0.9673
90924923|NCT04800211|181724047|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.643||||0.1787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.683|5.968|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||5.968|-0.683|0.1787
90940807|NCT04349644|181761483|OTHER|A series of Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) models were used to test the between-group differences on each dependent variable at the immediate posttest and at the follow-up periods separately using the pretest values as a covariate. Independent samples t-tests were used to identify statistically significant differences on all pretest dependent variables||||||0.963|||||||ANCOVA|Follow-up ANCOVA while controlling for pretest.||||||0.963
90940808|NCT01084239|181761494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|Result for index hospitalization||||||<0.001
90964117|NCT02564926|181809652|OTHER||LS mean difference (cm)|-2.21||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.785|-0.635|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.635|-3.785|0.006
90964118|NCT02564926|181809653|OTHER||LS mean difference (kg/m2)|-1.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.742|-0.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.990|-1.742|<0.001
90964119|NCT02564926|181809654|OTHER||LS mean difference (mmHg)|-6.81||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.969|-2.641|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.641|-10.969|0.002
90964120|NCT02564926|181809655|OTHER||LS mean difference (mmHg)|-2.61||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.829|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.600|-5.829|0.110
91034958|NCT03570749|181955948|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.31||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|5.29|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.29|1.01|0.047
91034959|NCT03570749|181955948|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.91|12.51|||Regression, Logistic|||||12.51|2.91|<0.001
90924924|NCT04800211|181724047|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.806||||0.5243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.406|5.018|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||5.018|-1.406|0.5243
90924925|NCT04800211|181724047|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.77||||0.3956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.966|4.507|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||4.507|-0.966|0.3956
90924926|NCT04800211|181724047|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.068||||0.381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|5.295|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||5.295|-1.160|0.3810
90924927|NCT04800211|181724047|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|3.084||||0.0557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.049|6.216|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||6.216|-0.049|0.0557
90940809|NCT00863798|181761513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.86||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|2.1||A Hochberg step-up procedure was used to control for the multiplicity associated with multiple active dose arms.|ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment and as a factor and the baseline HAM-D17 total score as a covariate was used to compare DVS SR 10 mg to placebo. The comparison was performed at the 0.05 level overall.||2.10|-0.38|0.175
90940810|NCT00863798|181761513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.51||||0.421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|1.75||A Hochberg step-up procedure was used to control for the multiplicity associated with multiple active dose arms.|ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment and as a factor and the baseline HAM-D17 total score as a covariate was used to compare DVS SR 10 mg to placebo. The comparison was performed at the 0.05 level overall.||1.75|-0.73|0.421
90940811|NCT00863798|181761514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|||||In this case, multiplicity arising from testing key secondary hypotheses in both doses was controlled by a Hochberg step-up procedure. p-Value obtained for the alternative hypothesis of 'Row mean scores differences'.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Each DVS SR dose was separately compared to placebo. To control the study-wise type I error rate across the primary and the key secondary endpoints, as well as across the 2 active dose arms, testing of the key secondary hypothesis occurred only when both active doses were superior to placebo on the primary endpoint.||||0.076
90964121|NCT02564926|181809656|OTHER||LS mean difference (cm2)|-17.55||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.603|-6.489|||ANCOVA|||||-6.489|-28.603|0.002
91034960|NCT03570749|181955950|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.288||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|-0.25|||ANCOVA|||||-0.25|-1.38|0.005
90964122|NCT02564926|181809657|OTHER||LS mean difference (cm2)|-18.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.561|-9.218|||ANCOVA|||||-9.218|-27.561|<0.001
91034961|NCT03570749|181955950|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.261||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||||-0.02|-1.05|0.040
91034962|NCT03570749|181955951|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.259||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.09|||ANCOVA|||||0.09|-0.93|0.107
90924928|NCT04800211|181724047|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.445||||0.0195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|4.49|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||4.490|0.400|0.0195
90924929|NCT04800211|181724047|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Test 1 on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Test 1 on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.277||||0.2817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.615|1.06|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Test 1 on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Test 1 on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||1.060|-3.615|0.2817
90924930|NCT05170841|181724048|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.566|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.566
90924931|NCT05170841|181724049|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.013|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.013
90924932|NCT05170841|181724050|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.006
90924933|NCT05170841|181724051|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.013|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.013
90924934|NCT05170841|181724052|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.031|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.031
90964123|NCT02564926|181809658|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.03||||0.503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.127|0.063|||ANCOVA|||||0.063|-0.127|0.503
90964124|NCT02564926|181809659|OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.992|-0.54|||ANCOVA|||||-0.540|-1.992|<0.001
90964125|NCT02564926|181809660|OTHER||LS mean difference (ng/mL)|657.71||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.325|1297.101|||ANCOVA|||||1297.101|18.325|0.044
91034963|NCT03570749|181955951|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.234||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.14|||ANCOVA|||||0.14|-0.78|0.174
91034964|NCT00834418|181955989|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-72 and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|107.0||||||90.0|99.6|116.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||116|99.6|
91034965|NCT00834418|181955990|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-72 and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|102.0||||||90.0|95.2|109.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||109|95.2|
90924935|NCT05170841|181724053|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.027|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.027
90924936|NCT05170841|181724054|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.011|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.011
90924937|NCT05170841|181724055|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.007
90924938|NCT05170841|181724056|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.013|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.013
90924939|NCT05170841|181724057|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.029|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.029
90924940|NCT05170841|181724058|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.022|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.022
90924941|NCT05170841|181724059|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90924942|NCT05170841|181724060|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90924943|NCT05170841|181724061|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.001
90924944|NCT05170841|181724062|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.01
90924945|NCT05170841|181724063|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.04
90924946|NCT05170841|181724064|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.016|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.016
90924947|NCT05170841|181724065|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.045|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.045
90924948|NCT05170841|181724066|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.042|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.042
90924949|NCT05170841|181724067|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.037|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.037
90924950|NCT05170841|181724068|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.045|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.045
90924951|NCT05170841|181724069|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.029|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.029
90924952|NCT05170841|181724070|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.027|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.027
90924953|NCT05170841|181724071|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.035|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.035
90924954|NCT05170841|181724072|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.001
90924955|NCT03643744|181724074|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.530
90924956|NCT03643744|181724074|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.727|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.727
90924957|NCT03643744|181724075|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
90924958|NCT06201559|181724120|EQUIVALENCE|Point estimate of geometric mean ratio (GMR) of T/R should be between 80.00 -125.00%. If the intra-subject variability for Cmax following replicate administrations of the comparator product was \> 30%, the acceptance criteria for Cmax was widened to a maximum of 69.84-143.19%.|Ratio of Geometric Least Square Means|98.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.79|110.91|||||Geometric least square means were combined to perform statistical analysis of T as T1 + T2 and R as R1 + R2.|||110.91|86.79|
90885648|NCT00406029|181633795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.0||||0.971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.6|-0.6|0.971
90924959|NCT06201559|181724121|EQUIVALENCE|Point estimate of geometric mean ratio (GMR) of T/R should be between 80.00 -125.00%. If the intra-subject variability for AUC(0-t) following replicate administrations of the comparator product was \> 30%, the acceptance criteria for AUC(0-t) was widened to a maximum of 69.84-143.19%.|Ratio of Geometric Least Square Means|97.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.86|109.73|||||Geometric least square means were combined to perform statistical analysis of T as T1 + T2 and R as R1 + R2.|||109.73|86.86|
90924960|NCT04726371|181724151|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89||||||A Wald test was used to test against the null hypothesis that intervention main effect and interaction effects between intervention and time trends were simultaneously zero and assess for differences in the mean trend of infections over follow-up.|Test of joint null hypothesis from model|Bonferroni-adjusted p-value is reported to correct for multiplicity for testing outcomes with 6 combinations of outcomes and subpopulations.||A Poisson GLMM was fit with a main effect for intervention group, linear and quadratic time trends, and interaction effects between intervention and the time trend variables. The model was adjust for stratification factors, baseline infection incidence, agency and included random intercept for group home.|"The point estimates for intervention main effect, intervention by linear time effect, and for intervention by time\^2 interaction effect are described in the paper Tailored vs. General COVID-19 prevention for adults with mental disabilities residing in group homes: a randomized controlled effectiveness-implementation trial by Bartels S, Levison JH, Trieu HD, et al., published in 2024 in BMC Public Health, doi:10.1186/s12889-024-18835-w."|||0.89
90924961|NCT04726371|181724152|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99||||||A Wald test was used to test against the null hypothesis that intervention main effect and interaction effects between intervention and time trends were simultaneously zero and assess for differences in the mean trend of scores over follow-up.|Wald test|Bonferroni-adjusted p-value is reported to correct for multiplicity for testing outcomes with 6 combinations of outcomes and subpopulations.||A GLMM was fit with a main effect for intervention group, linear and quadratic time trends, and interaction effects between intervention and the time trend variables. The model was adjust for stratification factors, baseline fidelity score, agency and included random intercept for group home.|"The point estimates for intervention main effect, intervention by linear time effect, and intervention by time\^2 interaction effect are described in the paper Tailored vs. General COVID-19 prevention for adults with mental disabilities residing in group homes: a randomized controlled effectiveness-implementation trial by Bartels S, Levison JH, Trieu HD, et al., published in 2024 in BMC Public Health, doi:10.1186/s12889-024-18835-w."|||>.99
90924962|NCT04726371|181724153|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.21|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.84||Bonferroni-adjusted p-value is reported to correct for multiplicity for testing outcomes with 6 combinations of outcomes and subpopulations.|Regression, Cox|||A Cox frailty model was fit to evaluate differences in the hazard of vaccination uptake between arms separately within the combined population of residents with SMI and ID/DD. This model included a main effect for intervention arm and additionally adjusted for stratification factors, GH agency, and GH-level log-normal frailties.||1.84|0.79|>.99
90924963|NCT04726371|181724154|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.15||Bonferroni-adjusted p-value is reported to correct for multiplicity for testing outcomes with 6 combinations of outcomes and subpopulations.|Regression, Cox|||A Cox frailty model was fit to evaluate differences in the hazard of vaccination uptake between arms separately within the staff population. This model included a main effect for intervention arm and additionally adjusted for stratification factors, GH agency, and GH-level log-normal frailties.||1.15|0.86|>.99
90924964|NCT01037881|181724178|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares mean|-1.29||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|1.03|||ANOVA|||Active treatment minus vehicle, adjusted for the effect of (pooled) country.||1.03|-3.60|0.27
90924965|NCT01037881|181724178|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares mean|-0.25||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.53|2.04|||ANOVA|||Active treatment minus vehicle, adjusted for the effect of (pooled) country.||2.04|-2.53|0.83
90885649|NCT00406029|181633795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.2||||0.456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.3|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.3|-0.7|0.456
90885650|NCT00406029|181633795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.7||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||-0.1|-1.2|0.018
90885651|NCT00406029|181633795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.4||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.2|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.2|-0.9|0.175
90885652|NCT00406029|181633795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.2||||0.422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.8|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.8|-0.3|0.422
90924966|NCT01037881|181724178|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares mean|-2.01||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|0.28|||ANOVA|||Active treatment minus vehicle, adjusted for the effect of (pooled) country.||0.28|-4.30|0.08
90924967|NCT01037881|181724178|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares mean|-1.56||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.77|0.65|||ANOVA|||Active treatment minus vehicle, adjusted for the effect of (pooled) country.||0.65|-3.77|0.16
90924968|NCT01037881|181724178|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares mean|-1.65||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.84|0.54|||ANOVA|||Active treatment minus vehicle, adjusted for the effect of (pooled) country.||0.54|-3.84|0.14
90924969|NCT01037881|181724178|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares mean|-2.46||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.47|-0.17|||ANOVA|||Active treatment minus vehicle, adjusted for the effect of (pooled) country.||-0.17|-4.47|0.04
90924970|NCT01037881|181724178|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares mean|2.46||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|4.74|||ANOVA|||LEO 29102 treatment minus Elidel, adjusted for the effect of (pooled) country.||4.74|0.17|0.04
90924971|NCT01037881|181724178|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares mean|1.17||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|3.48|||ANOVA|||LEO 29102 treatment minus Elidel, adjusted for the effect of (pooled) country.||3.48|-1.14|0.32
90964126|NCT02564926|181809661|OTHER||LS mean difference (mg/L)|-0.12||||0.756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.858|0.625|||ANCOVA|||||0.625|-0.858|0.756
90885653|NCT00406029|181633795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.1||||0.651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.6|-0.4|0.651
90885654|NCT00406029|181633795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.5||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.1|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.1|-1.0|0.096
90885655|NCT00406029|181633795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.0||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.6|-0.5|0.860
90885656|NCT00406029|181633795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.2||||0.511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.4|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.4|-0.8|0.511
90885657|NCT00406029|181633795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.3||||0.286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.3|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.3|-0.9|0.286
90885658|NCT00406029|181633795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.9||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||-0.3|-1.4|0.004
90885659|NCT00406029|181633795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.5||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.0|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.0|-1.1|0.060
90885660|NCT00406029|181633795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.3||||0.345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.3|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.3|-0.8|0.345
90885661|NCT00406029|181633795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.2||||0.439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.3|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.3|-0.7|0.439
90885662|NCT00406029|181633795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.8||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.3|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.3|-1.4|0.004
90885663|NCT00406029|181633795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.6||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.0|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.0|-1.1|0.040
90885664|NCT00406029|181633796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.2||||0.743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.6|-1.1|0.743
90885665|NCT00406029|181633796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.8||||0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.5|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.5|-2.2|0.225
90885666|NCT00406029|181633796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.8||||0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.6|-2.2|0.252
90885667|NCT00406029|181633796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.9||||0.173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.4|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.4|-2.3|0.173
90885668|NCT00406029|181633796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.2||||0.757|TWO_SIDED|94.0|-1.3|1.8|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.8|-1.3|0.757
90885669|NCT00406029|181633796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.4||||0.581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.9|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.9|-1.1|0.581
90885670|NCT00406029|181633796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.0||||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.5|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.5|-2.5|0.195
90885671|NCT00406029|181633796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.8||||0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.7|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.7|-2.4|0.272
90924972|NCT01037881|181724178|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares mean|2.21||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|4.5|||ANOVA|||LEO 29102 treatment minus Elidel, adjusted for the effect of (pooled) country.||4.50|-0.08|0.06
91034966|NCT01705574|181955991|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The null hypothesis was that the STB group was at least 12% worse than the ATV+RTV+TVD group with respect to the percentage of participants achieving HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL at Week 48 (response rate as defined by the snapshot analysis algorithm). The alternative hypothesis was that the STB group was less than 12% worse than the ATV+RTV+TVD group.|Difference in proportions|6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.2|0.4|12.6|||||Difference in percentages of virologic success and its 95.2% confidence interval (CI) were calculated based on baseline HIV-1 RNA and race stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel (MH) proportion.|||12.6|0.4|
90885672|NCT00406029|181633796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.2||||0.758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.2|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.2|-1.7|0.758
90885673|NCT00406029|181633796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.6||||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.9|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.9|-2.1|0.416
90885674|NCT00406029|181633796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.0||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.5|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.5|-2.5|0.174
90885675|NCT00406029|181633796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.5||||0.547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.0|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.0|-1.1|0.547
90885676|NCT00406029|181633796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.7||||0.372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|2.2|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.2|-0.8|0.372
90885677|NCT00406029|181633796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.1||||0.942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.5|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.5|-1.4|0.942
90885678|NCT00406029|181633796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.3||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|0.2|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.2|-2.8|0.082
90924973|NCT01037881|181724178|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares mean|0.45||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|2.73|||ANOVA|||LEO 29102 treatment minus Elidel, adjusted for the effect of (pooled) country.||2.73|-1.84|0.70
90885679|NCT00406029|181633796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.8||||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.6|-2.3|0.267
90885680|NCT00406029|181633796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.2||||0.801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.9|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.9|-1.5|0.801
90885681|NCT00406029|181633796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.3||||0.753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.4|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.4|-1.9|0.753
90885682|NCT00406029|181633796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.4||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|0.2|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.2|-3.1|0.087
90885683|NCT00406029|181633796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.2||||0.796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.4|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.4|-1.9|0.796
90885684|NCT00406029|181633796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.4||||0.621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|2.1|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.1|-1.3|0.621
90885685|NCT00406029|181633796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.2||||0.784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.4|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.4|-1.8|0.784
90885686|NCT00406029|181633796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.9||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||-0.2|-3.5|0.024
90885687|NCT00406029|181633796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.0||||0.963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.6|-1.6|0.963
90885688|NCT00406029|181633796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.7||||0.331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|2.3|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.3|-0.8|0.331
90885689|NCT00406029|181633796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.1||||0.898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.6|-1.4|0.898
90885690|NCT00406029|181633796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.5||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|0.0|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.0|-3.0|0.058
90885691|NCT00406029|181633796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.2||||0.832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.7|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.7|-1.3|0.832
90924974|NCT01037881|181724178|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares mean|0.9||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|3.1|||ANOVA|||LEO 29102 treatment minus Elidel, adjusted for the effect of (pooled) country.||3.10|-1.31|0.42
90964127|NCT02564926|181809662|OTHER||LS mean difference (%)|-1.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.807|-1.082|||ANCOVA|||||-1.082|-2.807|<0.001
90964128|NCT04600336|181809674|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.11||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.76|-4.46|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-4.46|-13.76|0.0019
90964129|NCT04600336|181809674|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.09||||0.0732|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.7|-0.48|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.48|-9.70|0.0732
90964130|NCT04600336|181809677|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0120
91078002|NCT02542293|182041272|OTHER|The study was not designed or powered to show statistical significance for efficacy endpoints in the China cohort, so all statistical analyses for the China cohort were considered exploratory.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.289|1.065|||||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"PD-L1 TC ≥ 25% analysis set:~China: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs China: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy to be associated with a longer OS than SoC."||1.065|0.289|
90885692|NCT00406029|181633797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.7||||0.365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|5.3|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||5.3|-2.0|0.365
90885693|NCT00406029|181633797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.4||||0.476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|5.1|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||5.1|-2.4|0.476
90885694|NCT00406029|181633797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.8||||0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|5.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||5.6|-2.0|0.343
90885695|NCT00406029|181633797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-3.1||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|0.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.6|-6.8|0.103
90885696|NCT00406029|181633797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-2.3||||0.224|TWO_SIDED|94.0|-6.0|1.4|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.4|-6.0|0.224
90885697|NCT00406029|181633797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.4||||0.448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|2.2|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.2|-5.1|0.448
90885698|NCT00406029|181633797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-2.7||||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|1.0|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.0|-6.4|0.154
90885699|NCT00406029|181633797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-4.8||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|-1.1|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||-1.1|-8.5|0.010
90885700|NCT00406029|181633797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.2||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|5.0|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||5.0|-2.6|0.540
90885701|NCT00406029|181633797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.9||||0.646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|2.9|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.9|-4.7|0.646
90885702|NCT00406029|181633797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.0||||0.608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|2.9|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.9|-4.9|0.608
90885703|NCT00406029|181633797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.9||||0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|2.1|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.1|-6.0|0.343
90885704|NCT00406029|181633797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.7||||0.419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|5.9|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||5.9|-2.5|0.419
90964131|NCT04600336|181809680|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0057|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0057
90964132|NCT03672461|181809681|SUPERIORITY||Model based LS mean difference|0.29||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for baseline value. Repeated measures mixed models, unstructured variance co-variance matrix||Null Hypothesis: Yoga is not associated with improvement in change from baseline in Total Urinary Incontinence Episodes||0.6|-0.01|0.056
90964133|NCT03672461|181809682|SUPERIORITY||Model based LS mean difference|0.03||||0.757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for baseline value Repeated measures mixed models, unstructured variance co-variance matrix||||0.2|-0.15|0.757
90964134|NCT03672461|181809683|SUPERIORITY||Model based LS mean difference|0.22||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for baseline value Repeated measures mixed models, unstructured variance co-variance matrix||||0.45|0|0.048
90964135|NCT03672461|181809684|SUPERIORITY||Model based LS mean difference|0.82||||0.911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|15.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for baseline value Repeated measures mixed models, unstructured variance co-variance matrix||||15.23|-13.6|0.911
90885705|NCT00406029|181633797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.1||||0.562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|5.1|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||5.1|-2.8|0.562
90885706|NCT00406029|181633797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.3||||0.525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|2.7|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.7|-5.3|0.525
90964136|NCT03672461|181809685|SUPERIORITY||Model based LS mean difference|3.13||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|6.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for baseline value Repeated measures mixed models, unstructured variance co-variance matrix||||6.13|0.13|0.041
90964137|NCT03672461|181809686|SUPERIORITY||Model based LS mean difference|0.07||||0.564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for baseline value Repeated measures mixed models, unstructured variance co-variance matrix||||0.3|-0.16|0.564
90964138|NCT03672461|181809687|SUPERIORITY||Model based LS mean difference|0.3||||0.764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for baseline value Repeated measures mixed models, unstructured variance co-variance matrix||||2.3|-1.69|0.764
90964139|NCT03672461|181809688|SUPERIORITY||Model based LS mean difference|-0.12||||0.883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|1.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for baseline value Repeated measures mixed models, unstructured variance co-variance matrix||||1.53|-1.78|0.883
90964140|NCT03672461|181809689|SUPERIORITY||Model based LS mean difference|-0.11||||0.753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for baseline value Repeated measures mixed models, unstructured variance co-variance matrix||||0.6|-0.83|0.753
90964141|NCT03672461|181809690|SUPERIORITY||Model based LS mean difference|-0.28||||0.685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|1.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for baseline value Repeated measures mixed models, unstructured variance co-variance matrix||||1.07|-1.63|0.685
90964142|NCT03672461|181809691|SUPERIORITY||Model based LS mean difference|0.24||||0.691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|1.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for baseline value Repeated measures mixed models, unstructured variance co-variance matrix||||1.43|-0.95|0.691
91034967|NCT01705574|181955991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions|6.5||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.2|0.4|12.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value comparing virologic success was from the CMH test stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA and race strata.|Difference in percentages of virologic success and its 95.2% CI were calculated based on baseline HIV-1 RNA and race stratum-adjusted MH proportion. If the lower bound of the CI was \> 0, superiority of STB over ATV+RTV+TVD was established.|If noninferiority of STB versus ATV+RTV+TVD was established, the same 95.2% CI used in evaluating noninferiority was used to evaluate superiority. The baseline HIV-1 RNA and race stratum-stratified, 2-sided CMH test was also used to assess superiority as a secondary assessment.||12.6|0.4|0.034
91034968|NCT02659150|181955996|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.24||0.26|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired T-test comparing values obtained during the follow-up imaging (at 13-18 weeks)minus the baseline values||||0.26
90885707|NCT00406029|181633797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-3.0||||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|1.1|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.1|-7.0|0.148
90885708|NCT00406029|181633797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.3||||0.546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|2.9|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.9|-5.4|0.546
90885709|NCT00406029|181633797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-3.7||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|0.3|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.3|-7.6|0.068
90885710|NCT00406029|181633797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-2.5||||0.208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|1.4|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.4|-6.5|0.208
90885711|NCT00406029|181633797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-3.4||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|0.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.6|-7.5|0.099
90885712|NCT00406029|181633797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.8||||0.731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|5.1|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||5.1|-3.6|0.731
90885713|NCT00406029|181633797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.4||||0.861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|3.8|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||3.8|-4.5|0.861
90885714|NCT00406029|181633797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.0||||0.621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|3.1|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||3.1|-5.2|0.621
90885715|NCT00406029|181633797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-2.2||||0.288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|1.9|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.9|-6.4|0.288
90885716|NCT00406029|181633797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.3||||0.861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|4.1|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||4.1|-3.5|0.861
90885717|NCT00406029|181633797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.1||||0.954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|3.7|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||3.7|-4.0|0.954
90964143|NCT03672461|181809692|SUPERIORITY||Model based LS mean difference|0.19||||0.743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|1.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for baseline value Repeated measures mixed models, unstructured variance co-variance matrix||||1.34|-0.95|0.743
90964144|NCT03672461|181809693|SUPERIORITY||Model based LS mean difference|0.98||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|1.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for baseline value Repeated measures mixed models, unstructured variance co-variance matrix||||1.93|0.03|0.043
90964145|NCT03672461|181809694|SUPERIORITY||Model based LS mean difference|0.99||||0.689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.87|5.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for baseline value Repeated measures mixed models, unstructured variance co-variance matrix||||5.84|-3.87|0.689
90964146|NCT03672461|181809695|SUPERIORITY||Model based LS mean difference|-3.4||||0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.54|2.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for baseline value Repeated measures mixed models, unstructured variance co-variance matrix||||2.74|-9.54|0.276
90964147|NCT03672461|181809696|SUPERIORITY||Model based LS mean difference|0.1||||0.448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for baseline value Repeated measures mixed models, unstructured variance co-variance matrix||||0.34|-0.15|0.448
90964148|NCT03672461|181809697|SUPERIORITY||Model based LS mean difference|-0.29||||0.319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for baseline value Repeated measures mixed models, unstructured variance co-variance matrix||||0.28|-0.86|0.319
90964149|NCT03672461|181809698|SUPERIORITY||Model based LS mean difference|1.21||||0.747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.25|8.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for baseline value Repeated measures mixed models, unstructured variance co-variance matrix||||8.67|-6.25|0.747
91034969|NCT02659150|181955997|OTHER||Spearman Correlation Coefficient|0.76||||0.036|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman|||correlation coefficient||||0.036
90885718|NCT00406029|181633797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.6||||0.419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|2.3|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.3|-5.5|0.419
90885719|NCT00406029|181633797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-3.2||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|0.5|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.5|-6.9|0.088
90885720|NCT00406029|181633798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.2||||0.924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|3.2|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||3.2|-3.5|0.924
90885721|NCT00406029|181633798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.4||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|3.1|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||3.1|-3.8|0.840
90885722|NCT00406029|181633798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.9||||0.599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|2.5|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.5|-4.4|0.599
90885723|NCT00406029|181633798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-2.6||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|0.8|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.8|-6.0|0.134
90885724|NCT00406029|181633798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.4||||0.846|TWO_SIDED|94.0|-4.1|3.3|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||3.3|-4.1|0.846
90885725|NCT00406029|181633798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.3||||0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|5.0|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||5.0|-2.3|0.467
90885726|NCT00406029|181633798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.2||||0.533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|2.5|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.5|-4.8|0.533
90885727|NCT00406029|181633798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-3.1||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|0.5|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.5|-6.7|0.094
90885728|NCT00406029|181633798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.0||||0.994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|3.7|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||3.7|-3.7|0.994
90885729|NCT00406029|181633798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.1||||0.944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|3.8|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||3.8|-3.5|0.944
90885730|NCT00406029|181633798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.5||||0.424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|2.2|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.2|-5.1|0.424
90885731|NCT00406029|181633798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-4.0||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||-0.2|-7.8|0.042
90885732|NCT00406029|181633798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|3.7||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|7.8|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||7.8|-0.4|0.075
90885733|NCT00406029|181633798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|3.9||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|7.8|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||7.8|0.0|0.052
90885734|NCT00406029|181633798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.1||||0.975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|3.9|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||3.9|-4.0|0.975
90971106|NCT01556425|181824725|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.2||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|1.2|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||1.2|0.03|0.08
90885735|NCT00406029|181633798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.2||||0.541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|2.8|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.8|-5.2|0.541
90885736|NCT00406029|181633798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.2||||0.931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|3.7|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||3.7|-4.1|0.931
90885737|NCT00406029|181633798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.0||||0.618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|2.8|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.8|-4.7|0.618
90885738|NCT00406029|181633798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.8||||0.341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|1.9|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.9|-5.6|0.341
90885739|NCT00406029|181633798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-2.2||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|1.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.6|-6.0|0.256
90885740|NCT00406029|181633798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.8||||0.399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|6.0|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||6.0|-2.4|0.399
90885741|NCT00406029|181633798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.4||||0.477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|5.4|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||5.4|-2.5|0.477
90885742|NCT00406029|181633798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-2.8||||0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|1.2|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.2|-6.8|0.172
90885743|NCT00406029|181633798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-2.3||||0.254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|1.7|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.7|-6.2|0.254
90924975|NCT01037881|181724178|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares mean|0.81||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|3.0|||ANOVA|||LEO 29102 treatment minus Elidel, adjusted for the effect of (pooled) country.||3.00|-1.38|0.47
90924976|NCT04563546|181724185|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Unadjusted p-value. Threshold for statistical significance = 0.05|Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
90885744|NCT00406029|181633798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.1||||0.972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|3.8|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||3.8|-3.6|0.972
90885745|NCT00406029|181633798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.3||||0.891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|4.0|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||4.0|-3.5|0.891
90885746|NCT00406029|181633798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-2.8||||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|1.0|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.0|-6.6|0.143
90924977|NCT04563546|181724186|OTHER|||||||0.739|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.739
90924978|NCT04563546|181724187|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Unadjusted p-value. Threshold for statistical significance = 0.05|Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
90924979|NCT05671653|181724258|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% confidence interval (CI) are expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|88.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.25|98.38||||||Reference: Cohort 1: Midazolam 2 mg + Omeprazole 20 mg (Period 1). Test: Cohort 1: PF-07081532 80 mg QD + Midazolam 2 mg + Omeprazole 20 mg (Period 4).||98.38|80.25|
90924980|NCT05671653|181724258|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% confidence interval (CI) are expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|70.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|55.21|88.76||||||Reference: Cohort 1: Midazolam 2 mg + Omeprazole 20 mg (Period 1). Test: Cohort 1: PF-07081532 260 mg QD + Midazolam 2 mg + Omeprazole 20 mg (Period 7).||88.76|55.21|
90924981|NCT05671653|181724259|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% confidence interval (CI) are expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|57.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|39.27|83.29||||||Reference: Cohort 1: Midazolam 2 mg + Omeprazole 20 mg (Period 1). Test: Cohort 1: PF-07081532 80 mg QD + Midazolam 2 mg + Omeprazole 20 mg (Period 4).||83.29|39.27|
90924982|NCT05671653|181724259|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% confidence interval (CI) are expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|29.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|19.6|44.94||||||Reference: Cohort 1: Midazolam 2 mg + Omeprazole 20 mg (Period 1). Test: Cohort 1: PF-07081532 260 mg QD + Midazolam 2 mg + Omeprazole 20 mg (Period 7).||44.94|19.60|
90924983|NCT05671653|181724260|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% confidence interval (CI) are expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|119.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|108.97|131.85||||||Reference: Cohort 1: LE 0.15 mg \& EE 0.03 mg (Period 2). Test: Cohort 1: PF-07081532 80 mg QD + LE 0.15 mg \& EE 0.03 mg (Period 5).||131.85|108.97|
90885747|NCT00406029|181633798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-3.2||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|0.4|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.4|-6.8|0.083
91034970|NCT02659150|181955998|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.32||0.14|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The carotid artery plaque with highest FDG uptake is located using Positron Emission Tomography/ Magnetic Resonance Imaging images. Thereafter Paired T- Test is used to compare baseline vs follow-up values of FDG uptake (before vs after 12 weeks of tocilizumab treatment). FDG uptake is assessed as a Target to background values (TBR) , which is calculated as the mean arterial standardized uptake value (SUV) divided by background blood pool SUV.||||0.14
90924984|NCT05671653|181724260|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% confidence interval (CI) are expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|185.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|108.0|318.44||||||Reference: Cohort 1: LE 0.15 mg \& EE 0.03 mg (Period 2). Test: Cohort 1: PF-07081532 260 mg QD + LE 0.15 mg \& EE 0.03 mg (Period 8)||318.44|108.00|
90924985|NCT05671653|181724261|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% confidence interval (CI) are expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|103.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.09|111.93||||||Reference: Cohort 1: LE 0.15 mg \& EE 0.03 mg (Period 2). Test: Cohort 1: PF-07081532 80 mg QD + LE 0.15 mg \& EE 0.03 mg (Period 5).||111.93|95.09|
90924986|NCT05671653|181724261|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% confidence interval (CI) are expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|90.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.24|135.06||||||Reference: Cohort 1: LE 0.15 mg \& EE 0.03 mg (Period 2). Test: Cohort 1: PF-07081532 260 mg QD + LE 0.15 mg \& EE 0.03 mg (Period 8)||135.06|60.24|
90924987|NCT05671653|181724262|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% confidence interval (CI) are expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|92.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.97|107.87||||||Reference: Cohort 2: Midazolam 2 mg (Period 1). Test: Cohort 2: Semaglutide 2.4 mg QW + Midazolam 2 mg (Period 3).||107.87|79.97|
90924988|NCT01959607|181724306|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|103.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|84.94|126.11|||ANOVA|The model included terms for sequence, subject nested within sequence, period, and product as fixed effect factors.|LS mean ratio (THS 2.2 - Group 1:CC - Group 1)|The objective of this study was to determine the point estimate and precision of the nicotine bioavailability (ratio of THS 2.2:CC) for Cmax, therefore, there was no statistical hypothesis to be tested for this objective.||126.11|84.94|
90924989|NCT01959607|181724307|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|96.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|85.1|109.07|||ANOVA|The model included terms for sequence, subject nested within sequence, period, and product as fixed effect factors.|LS mean ratio (THS 2.2 - Group 1:CC - Group 1)|The objective of this study was to determine the point estimate and precision of the nicotine bioavailability (ratio of THS 2.2:CC) for AUC(0-last), therefore, there was no statistical hypothesis to be tested for this objective.||109.07|85.10|
90924990|NCT02589795|181724352|OTHER|Inequality test|||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||The proportions of subjects with primary safety outcomes were compared in a pairwise manner between the three randomised groups, using Fisher's exact tests.||||>0.05
91034971|NCT02659150|181955999|SUPERIORITY||correlation coefficient|-0.66||||0.076|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman's Method|||||||0.076
90885748|NCT00406029|181633799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.5||||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.2|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.2|-0.2|0.154
90924991|NCT02589795|181724353|OTHER|Inequality test|||||>|0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|Kruskal-Wallis test with Dunn's correction for multiple comparisons||Kruskal-Wallis test with Dunn's correction for multiple comparisons to compare the levels of antigen-specific serum IgG in the three groups at Week 22.||||>0.05
90924992|NCT02505984|181724357|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5
90885749|NCT00406029|181633799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.3||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.0|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.0|-0.4|0.380
90924993|NCT02505984|181724357|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.093|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.093
90924994|NCT02505984|181724357|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.077|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.077
90924995|NCT02505984|181724357|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3
90924996|NCT02505984|181724358|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.9
90924997|NCT02505984|181724358|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4
90924998|NCT02505984|181724359|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5
90924999|NCT02505984|181724359|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8
90925000|NCT02505984|181724360|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7
90925001|NCT02505984|181724360|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3
90925002|NCT02505984|181724360|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4
90925003|NCT04176601|181724364|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.37|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.49|7.15||||||||7.15|1.49|
90925004|NCT04176601|181724365|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.67|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|8.15||||||||8.15|1.26|
90925005|NCT04176601|181724366|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|6.14||||||||6.14|1.59|
90925006|NCT03511664|181724396|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|99.2|0.29|0.57|||Log Rank|one-sided stratified log-rank test||||0.57|0.29|< 0.001
91034972|NCT02659150|181956000|SUPERIORITY||Correlation coefficient|0.67||||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman's Method|||||||0.07
91034973|NCT02678286|181956002|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0145|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0145
91034974|NCT02678286|181956003|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1841||||||Row 1 (SPID6)|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1841
91034975|NCT02678286|181956003|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0434||||||Row 2 (SPID12)|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0434
91034976|NCT02678286|181956003|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||Row 3 (SPID48)|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0040
91034977|NCT02678286|181956003|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0028||||||Row 4 (SPID24-48)|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0028
91034978|NCT02678286|181956004|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7572|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.7572
91034979|NCT02678286|181956005|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6559||||||Row 1 (Hour 0-24)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.6559
90885750|NCT00406029|181633799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.4||||0.288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.1|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.1|-0.3|0.288
90885751|NCT00406029|181633799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.3||||0.355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.0|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.0|-0.4|0.355
90885752|NCT00406029|181633799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.1||||0.831|TWO_SIDED|94.0|-0.8|0.7|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.7|-0.8|0.831
90885753|NCT00406029|181633799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.5||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.2|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.2|-1.2|0.198
90885754|NCT00406029|181633799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.1||||0.792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.6|-0.8|0.792
90885755|NCT00406029|181633799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.1||||0.749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.6|-0.8|0.749
90885756|NCT00406029|181633799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.1||||0.896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.7|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.7|-0.8|0.896
90885757|NCT00406029|181633799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.3||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.0|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.0|-0.5|0.480
90885758|NCT00406029|181633799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.4||||0.285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.2|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.2|-0.4|0.285
90885759|NCT00406029|181633799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.5||||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.3|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.3|-0.3|0.212
90885760|NCT00406029|181633799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.1||||0.883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.0|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.0|-0.9|0.883
90885761|NCT00406029|181633799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.0||||0.947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.9|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.9|-0.9|0.947
90885762|NCT00406029|181633799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.2||||0.663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.7|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.7|-1.1|0.663
90885763|NCT00406029|181633799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.7||||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.6|-0.3|0.157
90885764|NCT00406029|181633799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.5||||0.283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.4|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.4|-1.4|0.283
90885765|NCT00406029|181633799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.1||||0.768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.7|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.7|-1.0|0.768
90885766|NCT00406029|181633799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.4||||0.334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.4|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.4|-1.3|0.334
90885767|NCT00406029|181633799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.3||||0.465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.6|-1.2|0.465
90885768|NCT00406029|181633799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.2||||0.688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.8|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.8|-1.2|0.688
91034980|NCT02678286|181956005|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0014||||||Row 2 (Hour 24-48)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0014
91034981|NCT02678286|181956005|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4994||||||Row 3 (Hour 0-48)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4994
91034982|NCT02678286|181956006|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0275||||||Row 1 (Hour 0-24)|ANCOVA|P-values were derived from ANCOVA models with fixed effects of treatment, baseline PI score, and investigational site||||||0.0275
91034983|NCT02678286|181956006|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0009||||||Row 2 (Hour 24-48)|ANCOVA|P-values were derived from ANCOVA models with fixed effects of treatment, baseline PI score, and investigational site||||||0.0009
91034984|NCT02678286|181956006|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0027||||||Row 3 (Hour 0-48)|ANCOVA|P-values were derived from ANCOVA models with fixed effects of treatment, baseline PI score, and investigational site||||||0.0027
91034985|NCT02678286|181956007|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0050
91034986|NCT02678286|181956008|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5096|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.5096
91034987|NCT02678286|181956009|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.389|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3890
91034988|NCT02678286|181956010|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0178|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0178
91034989|NCT02678286|181956011|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1888|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1888
91034990|NCT02678286|181956012|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0788|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0788
90925007|NCT03511664|181724397|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.74|||Log Rank|one-sided stratified log-rank test||Primary OS Analysis||0.74|0.52|<0.001
90925008|NCT03511664|181724397|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.81|||||Cox PH model stratified by LDH (≤260 vs. \>260 IU/L), liver metastases (yes/no), ECOG score (0-1 vs. 2), and NAAD inclusion in best supportive care at randomization (yes/no). IRT data used for stratification|Final OS analysis||0.81|0.58|
90925009|NCT03511664|181724399|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|24.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.05|103.24|||Chi-squared|Two-sided Wald's Chi-square test (stratified)||||103.24|6.05|< 0.001
90925010|NCT03511664|181724400|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.18|10.55|||Chi-squared|Two-sided Wald's Chi-square test (stratified)||||10.55|3.18|< 0.001
90925011|NCT03511664|181724402|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.62|||Log Rank|Two-sided stratified log-rank test||||0.62|0.40|< 0.001
90925012|NCT03511664|181724403|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.38|||Log Rank|Two-sided stratified log-rank test||||0.38|0.24|< 0.001
90964150|NCT03672461|181809699|SUPERIORITY||Model based LS mean difference|-2.76||||0.459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|4.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for baseline value Repeated measures mixed models, unstructured variance co-variance matrix||||4.65|-10.2|0.459
90964151|NCT03672461|181809700|SUPERIORITY||Model based LS mean difference|-2.0||||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|4.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for baseline value Repeated measures mixed models, unstructured variance co-variance matrix||||4.65|-10.2|0.556
91034991|NCT02678286|181956013|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0607|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was derived from comparisons between N1539 and Placebo via General Association of CMH Test controlling for investigational site||||||0.0607
90925013|NCT03511664|181724405|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|20.0|||Chi-squared|Two-sided Wald's Chi-square test (stratified)||||20.0|6.3|< 0.001
90925014|NCT03511664|181724406|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|23.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.6|65.1|||Chi-squared|Two-sided Wald's Chi-square test (stratified)||||65.1|8.6|< 0.001
91034992|NCT02678286|181956014|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0027|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was derived from comparisons between N1539 and Placebo via General Association of CMH Test controlling for investigational site||||||0.0027
90925015|NCT04299464|181724477|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|-0.432||||0.765|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.291|1.428|||ANCOVA|||||1.428|-2.291|0.7650
90964152|NCT03672461|181809701|SUPERIORITY||Model based LS mean difference|-3.26||||0.516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|6.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for baseline value Repeated measures mixed models, unstructured variance co-variance matrix||||6.7|-13.2|0.516
90964153|NCT03672461|181809702|SUPERIORITY||Model based LS mean difference|-2.38||||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.68|0.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for baseline value Repeated measures mixed models, unstructured variance co-variance matrix||||0.91|-5.68|0.154
90925016|NCT04299464|181724477|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|-0.4444||||0.7517|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.25|1.363|||ANCOVA|||||1.363|-2.250|0.7517
90925017|NCT04299464|181724486|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|1.741||||0.6082|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.631|6.114|||ANCOVA|||||6.114|-2.631|0.6082
90925018|NCT04299464|181724486|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|-1.715||||0.6228|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.204|2.774|||ANCOVA|||||2.774|-6.204|0.6228
90925019|NCT04299464|181724487|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|-2.983||||0.1987|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.957|-0.009|||ANCOVA|||||-0.009|-5.957|0.1987
90925020|NCT04299464|181724487|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|-4.474||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-7.326|-1.622|||ANCOVA|||||-1.622|-7.326|0.0460
90925021|NCT04299464|181724488|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|1.279||||0.4746|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.021|3.578|||ANCOVA|||||3.578|-1.021|0.4746
90925022|NCT04299464|181724488|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|2.697||||0.1244|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.453|4.94|||ANCOVA|||||4.940|0.453|0.1244
90925023|NCT06415292|181724527|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The P-value reported here is the calculated p-value. The p-value theshold for significance was p =0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90925024|NCT05233800|181724556|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.83|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.84|7.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.81|3.84|<0.05
90925025|NCT04487860|181724567|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7905|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.7905
90925026|NCT04487860|181724567|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7372|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.7372
90925027|NCT04487860|181724567|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2989|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2989
90925028|NCT04487860|181724567|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3328|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3328
90925029|NCT04487860|181724568|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8989|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.8989
90925030|NCT04487860|181724568|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6768|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.6768
90925031|NCT04487860|181724568|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8209|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.8209
90925032|NCT04487860|181724568|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3106|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3106
90925033|NCT04487860|181724569|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8593|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.8593
90925034|NCT04487860|181724569|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9594|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.9594
90925035|NCT04487860|181724569|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9041|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.9041
90925036|NCT04487860|181724569|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7147|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.7147
90925037|NCT02432261|181724572|SUPERIORITY|We did not statistically power this study.|difference of proportion of subjects|57.6||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact||The difference of proportion = NES/Testosterone - Testosterone|||||0.003
90925038|NCT06122194|181724615|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|112.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.01|135.22||||||Natural log transformed Cmax for PF-07817883 were analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect in Periods 1 to 4. The ratio (Test/Reference) and 90 percent (%) confidence intervals (CIs) were expressed as percentages.||135.22|93.01|
90964154|NCT03672461|181809703|SUPERIORITY||Model based LS mean difference|-2.22||||0.375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.17|2.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for baseline value Repeated measures mixed models, unstructured variance co-variance matrix||||2.72|-7.17|0.375
90964155|NCT03672461|181809704|SUPERIORITY||Model based LS mean difference|-1.75||||0.287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for baseline value Repeated measures mixed models, with unstructured variance co-variance matrix||||1.5|-5|0.287
90971107|NCT01556425|181824725|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|5.8|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||5.8|0.1|0.91
90964156|NCT03672461|181809705|SUPERIORITY||Model based LS mean difference|-1.63||||0.147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.85|0.58||adjusted for baseline value Repeated measures mixed models, with unstructured variance co-variance matrix|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.58|-3.85|0.147
90964157|NCT03672461|181809706|SUPERIORITY||Model based LS mean difference|-1.37||||0.495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.36|2.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for baseline value Repeated measures mixed models, with unstructured variance co-variance matrix||||2.61|-5.36|0.495
90964158|NCT03672461|181809707|SUPERIORITY||Model based LS mean difference|-2.82||||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.22|2.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for baseline value Repeated measures mixed models, unstructured variance co-variance matrix||||2.59|-8.22|0.303
90964159|NCT03672461|181809708|SUPERIORITY||Model based LS mean difference|2.97||||0.196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|7.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for baseline value Repeated measures mixed models, unstructured variance co-variance matrix||||7.51|-1.56|0.196
90964160|NCT01187550|181809726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.194||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.194
90964161|NCT01187550|181809727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.752||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.752
90964162|NCT01187550|181809728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.710
90964163|NCT01187550|181809729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.265||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.265
90964164|NCT01187550|181809730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.308||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.308
90964165|NCT01187550|181809731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.078||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||For total cholesterol: Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.078
90964166|NCT01187550|181809731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||For HDL-cholesterol: Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.033
90964167|NCT01187550|181809731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.041||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||For LDL-cholesterol: Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.041
90964168|NCT01187550|181809731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.091||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||For triglycerides: Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.091
90971108|NCT01556425|181824725|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.47||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|15.8|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||15.8|0.4|0.34
90971109|NCT01556425|181824725|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.46||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|26.1|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||26.1|0.8|0.09
91034993|NCT01513174|181956042|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.38||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.92|||Log Rank||||The initial hypothesis estimated that the median PFS for the gefitinib group would be 10 months, while the median PFS for the gefitinib/olaparib group would be 16 months, which implied a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.6.|1.92|1.00|0.124
90885769|NCT00406029|181633799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.9||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.8|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.8|0.0|0.062
91034994|NCT01513174|181956043|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.22||||0.3455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.806|1.845|||Log Rank|||||1.845|0.806|0.3455
90885770|NCT00406029|181633799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.3||||0.579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.7|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.7|-1.2|0.579
90885771|NCT00406029|181633799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.2||||0.644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.2|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.2|-0.7|0.644
90885772|NCT00406029|181633799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.1||||0.825|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.0|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.0|-0.8|0.825
90885773|NCT00406029|181633799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.5||||0.233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.4|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.4|-0.3|0.233
90885774|NCT00406029|181633799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.1||||0.853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.0|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.0|-0.8|0.853
90885775|NCT00406029|181633799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.2||||0.592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.1|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.1|-0.6|0.592
90971110|NCT01783080|181824726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.4||||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.005
90885776|NCT02822794|181633823|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Binomial test|P-value is obtained from the 2-sided exact 1-sample binomial test for the superiority of SOF/VEL+RBV 12 Weeks (GT1) over the performance goal of 50%.||||||<0.001
90885777|NCT02822794|181633823|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Binomial test|P-value is obtained from the 2-sided exact 1-sample binomial test for the superiority of SOF/VEL +RBV 24 Weeks (GT1) over the performance goal of 50%.||||||<0.001
90885778|NCT04788147|181633852|OTHER|"The modified 3+3 design with 6 patients at the 'Recommended RefleXion FDG Dose level' aims to ensure that the observed proportion of patients below activity threshold to be less than 33%.~Probability of Observations at Most 1 of 6 below Activity Threshold True below activity rate 40% 30% 20% 10% Probability at most 1 of 6 patients below activity threshold 0.233 0.420 0.655 0.886"||||||||||||||||"Statistical analysis of the primary endpoint is not applicable to Cohort I. A modified 3+3 design was utilized wherein meeting the activity level threshold, not dose-limiting toxicity, is the endpoint. The RRFD is primarily based upon the lower FDG dose level where 5 to 6 out of 6 subjects have an Activity Concentration greater than 5 kBq/ml."|"Statistical analysis of the primary endpoint is not applicable to Cohort I. A modified 3+3 design was utilized wherein meeting the activity level threshold, not dose-limiting toxicity, is the endpoint. The RRFD is primarily based upon the lower FDG dose level where 5 to 6 out of 6 subjects have an Activity Concentration greater than 5 kBq/ml."|||
90885779|NCT05101252|181633868|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was declared if the upper limit of the 98.75% confidence interval of was below 0.00 logMAR for distance.|Least-square Mean|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|||TWO_SIDED|98.75|-0.14|-0.01|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger method was used for denominator degrees of freedom.||It was calculated using a 2-sided one sample mean t-test with a family wise type I error rate of 5% (1.25% individually) with at least 90% statistical power, that 22 subjects were required to test for superiority for distance.||-0.01|-0.14|
90885780|NCT05101252|181633868|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was declared if the upper limit of the 98.75% confidence interval of was below 0.17 logMAR for intermediate.|Least-square Mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|||TWO_SIDED|98.75|-0.06|0.07|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger method was used for denominator degrees of freedom.||It was calculated using a 2-sided one sample mean t-test with a family wise type I error rate of 5% (1.25% individually) with at least 90% statistical power, that 12 subjects were required to test for superiority for intermediate.||0.07|-0.06|
90885781|NCT05101252|181633868|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was declared if the upper limit of the 98.75% confidence interval of was below 0.17 logMAR for near.|Least-square Mean|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|||TWO_SIDED|98.75|0.02|0.16|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger method was used for denominator degrees of freedom.||It was calculated using a 2-sided one sample mean t-test with a family wise type I error rate of 5% (1.25% individually) with at least 90% statistical power, that 60 subjects were required to test for superiority for near.||0.16|0.02|
90971111|NCT01783080|181824728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26||||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.11
90971112|NCT01181011|181824762|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence|gMean Ratio|109.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06||0.0107||90.0|99.45|119.95||The p-value is for the ratio being outside the interval 0.8 to 1.25.|ANCOVA|||||119.95|99.45|0.0107
91034995|NCT02363803|181956085|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.03
91034996|NCT03140631|181956090|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91034997|NCT03140631|181956091|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||Fisher Exact|||number of participants who experienced a vascular access site complication at 90 days||||0.74
91034998|NCT03872128|181956110|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.009
91034999|NCT03872128|181956111|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.019
91035000|NCT03872128|181956112|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.044|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.044
91035001|NCT03872128|181956113|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||OCDS: Total||||<0.001
91035002|NCT03872128|181956113|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||OCDS: Obsessive||||<0.001
90964169|NCT00129623|181809732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.1226|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9613|5.2838||The primary analysis was an ANOVA (two way classification), including treatment group and time since menopause (as a binary variable; 0.5-3 years, \>3 years) as independent factors.|ANOVA|||"H0 (null hypothesis): There was no statistically significant difference between monthly treatment with 150 mg oral IBN and monthly treatment with placebo in relative change from baseline of mean lumbar spine (L2-L4 BMD).~H1 (alternative hypothesis): There was a statistically significant difference between monthly treatment with 150 mg oral IBN and monthly treatment with placebo in relative change from baseline of mean lumbar spine (L2-L4 BMD)."||5.2838|2.9613|<0.0001
90964170|NCT00129623|181809738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.12|30.56||||||Lumbar BMD: Adjusted treatment effect - The treatment effect and 95% C.I. were represented by presenting OR. These were estimated by fitting a logistic regression model, with responder outcome (responder/non-responder) as the dependent variable and the treatment group (oral IBN 150 mg/Placebo) and time since menopause as the independent variables. An OR of \>1 indicated participants treated with IBN were more likely to have BMD above or equal to baseline relative to those treated with placebo.||30.56|5.12|
90964171|NCT00129623|181809738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|19.42||||||Proximal femur BMD: The adjusted treatment effect and 95% C.I. were represented by presenting OR. These were estimated by fitting a logistic regression model, with responder outcome (responder/non-responder) as the dependent variable and the treatment group (oral IBN 150 mg once monthly/Placebo) and time since menopause as the independent variables. An OR of \>1 indicated participants treated with IBN were more likely to have BMD above or equal to baseline relative to those treated with placebo.||19.42|3.80|
90964172|NCT00129623|181809738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.17|36.79||||||Lumbar Spine and Proximal Femur BMD: The adjusted treatment effect and 95% C.I. were represented by presenting OR. These were estimated by fitting a logistic regression model, with responder outcome (responder/non-responder) as the dependent variable, and treatment group (oral IBN150 mg/Placebo) and time since menopause as the independent variables. An OR of \>1 indicated participants treated with IBN were more likely to have BMD above or equal to baseline relative to those treated with placebo.||36.79|5.17|
90964173|NCT05178134|181809741|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin was set to -15% (on an absolute scale)|Difference in response rates|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.108|0.069||||||||0.069|-0.108|
90964174|NCT00596934|181809744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in each collected parameter will be evaluated using a paired t-test. If data are skewed such as in triglyceride levels, nonparametric tests will be used. P\<0.05 will be considered significant. If a significant difference can be demonstrated between baseline and 1-year results, a large scale, placebo-controlled trial will be designed using the data obtained from this pilot study||||0.015
90964175|NCT00596934|181809745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90964176|NCT00596934|181809746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.074||||||p = 0.074|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.074
91035003|NCT03872128|181956113|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Fisher Exact|||OCDS: Compulsive||||0.003
91035004|NCT03872128|181956115|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<.0001
90964177|NCT00596934|181809747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
90964178|NCT00596934|181809748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.006
90964179|NCT00596934|181809749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.023
90964180|NCT00596934|181809750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.195||||||p-value = 0.195.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.195
90964181|NCT00596934|181809751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.026
90964182|NCT03239483|181809765|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.072|||||||Fisher Exact|||two-sided Fisher's Exact Test||||0.072
90964183|NCT03239483|181809770|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||This is a calculated p-value. P-values of 1.0 are possible when using the Fisher Exact test method.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
90964184|NCT03239483|181809771|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.591|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.591
90964185|NCT00056862|181809815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: first phase decline in HCV RNA are the same for the two groups||||0.002
90964186|NCT00056862|181809817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: the second phase slopes of HCV RNA are the same for the two groups||||0.2
90964187|NCT00056862|181809818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||Null hypothesis: the time to negativity for the two groups are same||||0.047
90964188|NCT02378220|181809849|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.65||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.28||P-value for 30 days measure.|Regression, Poisson|||||1.28|0.32|0.21
90964189|NCT02378220|181809849|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.48||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.82||P-Value for 60 days measure|Regression, Poisson|||||0.82|0.27|0.007
90964190|NCT02378220|181809850|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.62||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.21||P-Value for 30 days measure|Regression, Poisson|||||1.21|0.31|0.16
90964191|NCT02378220|181809850|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.58||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.99|||Regression, Poisson|||||0.99|0.34|0.045
90964192|NCT02378220|181809851|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.12|||Log Rank|||||1.12|0.31|0.10
90964193|NCT02378220|181809852|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.1|||Log Rank|||||1.10|0.33|0.09
90964194|NCT00744211|181809863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||p\<0.05; Pairwise tests of individual groups means were compared by adjusted probabilities (Bonferroni method).|ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91035005|NCT03872128|181956116|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||HADS-Depression||||<0.001
91035006|NCT03872128|181956116|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.089|||||||Fisher Exact|||HADS-Anxiety||||0.089
91035007|NCT05446870|181956139|OTHER||Posterior probability (%)|100.0|||||||||||||||Posterior probability (based on 20000 sets of model parameters) ctDNA fold change (square root scale) coefficient less than zero in the multivariable logistic regression model of pCR, adjusted for baseline ctDNA and treatment assignment.|||
90925039|NCT06122194|181724615|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|187.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|155.79|225.35||||||Natural log transformed Cmax for PF-07817883 were analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect in Periods 1 to 4. The ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs were expressed as percentages.||225.35|155.79|
90925040|NCT06122194|181724615|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|153.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|127.4|185.21||||||Natural log transformed Cmax for PF-07817883 were analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect in Periods 1 to 4. The ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs were expressed as percentages.||185.21|127.40|
90925041|NCT06122194|181724616|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|102.59|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.09|115.54||||||Natural log transformed AUCinf for PF-07817883 were analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect in Periods 1 to 4. The ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs were expressed as percentages.||115.54|91.09|
90925042|NCT06122194|181724616|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|125.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|110.81|141.17||||||Natural log transformed AUCinf for PF-07817883 were analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect in Periods 1 to 4. The ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs were expressed as percentages.||141.17|110.81|
90925043|NCT06122194|181724616|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|121.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|108.65|136.43||||||Natural log transformed AUCinf for PF-07817883 were analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect in Periods 1 to 4. The ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs were expressed as percentages.||136.43|108.65|
90925044|NCT05218096|181724621|OTHER|Difference|Difference|-7.1||||0.6797|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-28.8|15.0|||Barnard's Unconditional Exact Test||CI calculated using the Chan and Zhang method.|||15.0|-28.8|0.6797
90925045|NCT05218096|181724621|OTHER|Difference|Difference|-7.1||||0.7341|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-34.8|19.3|||Barnard's Unconditional Exact Test||CI calculated using the Chan and Zhang method.|||19.3|-34.8|0.7341
90925046|NCT03125070|181724648|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Chi-squared|||||||0.90
90925047|NCT03125070|181724649|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Chi-squared|||||||0.60
90925048|NCT03125070|181724650|OTHER|||||||0.27||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Chi-squared|||Sex: Female vs. Male||||0.27
90925049|NCT03125070|181724650|OTHER|||||||0.88||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Chi-squared|||Age \<70 vs. \>=70||||0.88
90925050|NCT03125070|181724650|OTHER|||||||0.98||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Chi-squared|Participants that did not answer this survey item are shown as unknwon in the table and are excluded from the statistical test.||Race and ethnicity: white AND non-Hispanic versus any other combination of race and ethnicity (BIPOC)||||0.98
90925051|NCT03125070|181724650|OTHER|||||||0.19||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Chi-squared|Participants that did not answer this survey item are shown as unknwon in the table and are excluded from the statistical test.||Education: High school or less versus at least some college or vocational/technical program||||0.19
90925052|NCT03125070|181724650|OTHER|||||||0.24||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Chi-squared|Participants that did not answer this survey item are shown as unknwon in the table and are excluded from the statistical test.||Income: \<$100,000 annual versus \>=$100,000 annual||||0.24
90925053|NCT03125070|181724650|OTHER|||||||0.28||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Chi-squared|Participants that did not answer the survey items for this measure are shown as unknwon in the table and are excluded from the statistical test.||PHQ score at baseline: no depression (\<10), mild depression (10-14), moderate depression (15-19), severe depression (\>=20)||||0.28
90925054|NCT03125070|181724650|OTHER|||||||0.33||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Chi-squared|Participants that did not answer the survey items for this measure are shown as unknwon in the table and are excluded from the statistical test.||CTXD score at baseline \<0.9 (not distressed) or \>=0.9 (distressed)||||0.33
90925055|NCT03125070|181724650|OTHER|||||||0.1||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Chi-squared|Participants that did not answer this survey item are shown as unknwon in the table and are excluded from the statistical test.||Cardiometabolic Healthcare Utilization (HCU-C) score at baseline: \>.80 versus \<.80||||0.10
90925056|NCT03125070|181724650|OTHER|||||||0.31||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Chi-squared|||Secondary cancer screening healthcare utilization (HCU-SM) at baseline: \>=.80 versus \<.80||||0.31
90925057|NCT03125070|181724651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.89
90925058|NCT03125070|181724652|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.40
90925059|NCT04231331|181724680|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value \<0.05 was considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||Based on our previous study, we assumed a common baseline mean EROA of 0.21 cm2 with a common standard deviation of 0.11 cm2. Given these assumptions, we calculated that a sample size of 204 patients randomly assigned to two groups, would provide 90% power to detect a difference of 0.05 cm2 in the EROA between the ertugliflozin and placebo groups, using a two-sided t test with an alpha level of 0.05.||||<0.001
90925060|NCT03257410|181724759|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.828|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.501|19.156|||||Method=ANCOVA|If the lower bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval around the difference between Theranova 400 and Elisio-17H is \> 0 then superiority will be demonstrated.||19.156|10.501|
90925061|NCT03257410|181724760|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval around the mean estimated treatment difference between Theranova 400 and Elisio 17H is \> -0.1765 g/dL then non-inferiority can be claimed. If the lower bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval is \> 0, then superiority may be concluded.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.015|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.098|0.069|||ANCOVA|||||0.069|-0.098|
90925062|NCT03257410|181724761|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.103|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 4||||<0.0001
90925063|NCT03257410|181724761|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.115|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 24||||<0.0001
90885782|NCT05101252|181633869|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was declared if the lower bound of the 98.75% confidence interval was above 32.|Least-square Mean|50.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.922|||TWO_SIDED|98.75|43.1|58.5|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger method was used for denominator degrees of freedom.||It was calculated using a 2-sided one sample mean t-test with a family wise type I error rate of 5% (1.25% individually) with at least 99% statistical power, that 13 subjects were required to test for superiority for CLUE vision scores.||58.5|43.1|
90885783|NCT05101252|181633870|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was declared if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval of the least-square mean difference was below 0.05 logMAR.|LSM Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.05|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger method was used for denominator degrees of freedom.|LSM difference was calculated as Test minus Control|It was calculated using a 2 independent sample means t-test with a 2-sided type I error rate of 5% with at least 95% statistical power, that 60 subjects were required to test for non-inferiority of the Test compared to the Control for distance (4m).||0.05|-0.05|
91035008|NCT05446870|181956141|OTHER||Posterior probability (%)|90.99|||||||||||||||Posterior probability (based on 20000 sets of model parameters) ctDNA fold change (square root scale) coefficient less than zero in the multivariable logistic regression model of CRS (CRS3 coded as 1 and CRS1 or 2 coded as 0), adjusted for baseline ctDNA and treatment assignment.|||
91035009|NCT05446870|181956142|OTHER|Difference in percentage (calculated as % Pembrolizumab + SOC + MK-4830 arm - % Pembrolizumab + SOC arm) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in Percentage|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|12.9||||||||12.9|-10.0|
90885784|NCT01504438|181633871|OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.29
90885785|NCT01504438|181633872|OTHER|||||||0.31|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.31
90885786|NCT01504438|181633873|OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.07
90885787|NCT01504438|181633874|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.04
90885788|NCT03221257|181633883|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14||||0.9326|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.9326
90885789|NCT03221257|181633884|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.9968|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.9968
90885790|NCT03221257|181633885|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.46||||0.7489|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7489
90885791|NCT03221257|181633886|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.2||||0.8898|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8898
90885792|NCT03221257|181633887|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.86||||0.3826|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.3826
90885793|NCT03221257|181633888|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14||||0.2819|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2819
90885794|NCT03221257|181633889|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.35||||0.7534|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7534
90885795|NCT03221257|181633890|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.58||||0.1701|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1701
90885796|NCT03221257|181633891|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.44||||0.3515|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3515
90885797|NCT03221257|181633892|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.51||||0.1177|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1177
90885798|NCT03221257|181633893|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.98||||0.1931|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1931
90885799|NCT03221257|181633894|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|121.3||||0.1811|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1811
90885800|NCT03221257|181633895|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.433||||0.3261|TWO_SIDED||||||Stratified log rank|||||||0.3261
90885801|NCT03221257|181633896|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6||||0.454|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.454
90885802|NCT01129141|181633906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.198|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.88|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.86|-11.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-11.53|-22.86|<.0001
90885803|NCT01971346|181633924|OTHER|||||||0.38||||||Type III TNF-alpha p-value=0.36. Type III IFN-alpha p-value=0.36. Interaction was not included in this model.|Regression, Linear|||A cumulative score reflecting change in PASI during the course of treatment was calculated and treated as a continuous response variable. Linear modeling was done to determine if change in PASI score was associated with the baseline TNF-alpha signal, baseline IFN-alpha signal and/or an interaction between these two signals.||||0.38
90885804|NCT01971346|181633925|OTHER|||||||0.03||||||Test of Hypotheses for Between subject effect of PASI profile p-value=0.03 Test of Hypotheses for Within subject effect of Time p-value=0.38 Test of Hypotheses for Within subject effect of Time\*PASI profile p-value=0.31|ANOVA|||The strength of the TNF-alpha cytokine signals will be treated as a response variable in a univariate repeated measure analysis of variance, with PASI response profile and time as covariates. Testing if TNF-alpha signals are significantly altered during the course of etanercept therapy and if such changes differ between subjects with different PASI response profiles.||||0.03
90885805|NCT01971346|181633926|OTHER|||||||0.34||||||Test of Hypotheses for Between subject effect of PASI profile p-value=0.34 Test of Hypotheses for Within subject effect of Time p-value=0.73 Test of Hypotheses for Within subject effect of Time\*PASI profile p-value=0.57|ANOVA|||The strength of the IFN-alpha cytokine signals will be treated as a response variable in a univariate repeated measure analysis of variance, with PASI response profile and time as covariates. Testing if IFN-alpha signals are significantly altered during the course of etanercept therapy and if such changes differ between subjects with different PASI response profiles.||||0.34
90885806|NCT02755831|181633948|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's Exact Test||||<0.05
90885807|NCT02755831|181633949|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Friedman test|Friedman's test was used to analyze differences with a post hoc Wilcoxon Ranked Sign test to compare differences at individual time points.||||||<.05
90925064|NCT03257410|181724762|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||MMRM|||Week 4||||<0.0001
91035010|NCT05446870|181956143|OTHER|Difference in percentage (calculated as % Pembrolizumab + SOC + MK-4830 arm - % Pembrolizumab + SOC arm) and 95% CI were based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in Percentage|20.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|37.0||||||||37.0|3.5|
91035011|NCT05446870|181956146|OTHER||Posterior probability (%)|38.75|||||||||||||||Posterior probability (based on 20000 sets of model parameters) coefficient for treatment assignment (MK-4830 containing vs. not) less than zero in Bayesian parametrization of the constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model, modeling ctDNA value at Cycle 3 and ctDNA value at baseline as bivariate normal.|||
90925065|NCT03257410|181724762|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||MMRM|||Week 24||||<0.0001
90925066|NCT03257410|181724763|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.73|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||MMRM|||Week 4||||<0.0001
90925067|NCT03257410|181724763|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.479|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||MMRM|||Week 24||||<0.0001
90925068|NCT03257410|181724764|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.583||0.0684|TWO_SIDED||||||MMRM|||Week 4||||0.0684
90925069|NCT03257410|181724764|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.937||0.0806|TWO_SIDED||||||MMRM|||Week 24||||0.0806
90925070|NCT03257410|181724769|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033||0.0347|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 4||||0.0347
90925071|NCT03257410|181724769|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033||0.0036|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 8||||0.0036
90925072|NCT03257410|181724769|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.129|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 12||||0.129
90925073|NCT03257410|181724769|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.1149|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 16||||0.1149
90925074|NCT03257410|181724769|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044||0.0688|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 20||||0.0688
90925075|NCT03257410|181724769|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.042||0.6097|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 24||||0.6097
90925076|NCT03257410|181724770|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.336||0.1472|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 12||||0.1472
90925077|NCT03257410|181724770|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.154||0.1207|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 24||||0.1207
90925078|NCT03257410|181724771|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.488||0.9775|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 12||||0.9775
90925079|NCT03257410|181724771|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.905||0.5538|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 24||||0.5538
90925080|NCT03257410|181724772|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.146||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 4||||0.1100
90925081|NCT03257410|181724772|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.153||0.4607|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 24||||0.4607
90925082|NCT03257410|181724773|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0787|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04454||0.0791|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 4||||0.0791
90925083|NCT03257410|181724773|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0027|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04302||0.9505|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 8||||0.9505
90925084|NCT03257410|181724773|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0615|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04271||0.1521|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 12||||0.1521
90925085|NCT03257410|181724773|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0538|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04652||0.2489|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 16||||0.2489
90925086|NCT03257410|181724773|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0345|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05025||0.4936|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 20||||0.4936
90925087|NCT03257410|181724773|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0663|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0458||0.1497|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 24||||0.1497
90925088|NCT03257410|181724774|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.012||0.9001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 12||||0.9001
90964195|NCT00744211|181809864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||||||Pairwise tests of individual groups means were compared by adjusted probabilities (Bonferroni method).|ANOVA|||||||0.001
90964196|NCT00744211|181809865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
90964197|NCT00744211|181809866|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-square tests for differences between groups.||||||0.015||||||P-value is associated with the hematological/lymphatic adverse event.|Chi-squared|||||||0.015
90964198|NCT05105789|181809880|SUPERIORITY|"One-sample binomial test. Null hypothesis: NPV of BinaxNOW at Home testing is at most 91%.~Alternative hypothesis: NPV of BinaxNOW at Home testing is greater than 91%."|Kappa Co-efficient|100.0||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|95.0|100.0|||one-sample binomial test||binary outcome|Negative Predictive Value||100|95|0.0015
91035012|NCT01686438|181956161|NON_INFERIORITY|The mean change in ISI score from baseline in Veterans receiving CBT-I by video teleconferencing will be no more than 1.67 smaller than the reference treatment, i.e., Veterans receiving in-person CBT-I.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.33||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.63|1.57|||t-test, 1 sided|||||1.57|-4.63|0.138
90885808|NCT02755831|181633950|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Friedman|Friedman's test was used to analyze differences with a post hoc Wilcoxon Ranked Sign test to compare differences at individual time points.||||||<0.05
90885809|NCT02755831|181633951|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Friedman Test|Friedman's test was used to analyze differences with a post hoc Wilcoxon Ranked Sign test to compare differences in treatment group only.||||||<0.05
90925089|NCT03257410|181724774|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.372||0.3279|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 24||||0.3279
90925090|NCT03257410|181724775|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.452||0.6576|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.6576
90925091|NCT03257410|181724776|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.104||0.0058|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0058
90925092|NCT03257410|181724777|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023||0.034|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.034
90925093|NCT03257410|181724778|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.071||0.0285|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0285
90964199|NCT05105789|181809880|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin of δ=5% and a sensitivity/specificity of PCR of 99%||||||0.3308|||||||one-sample binomial test|||Sensitivity H0: Sens-0.99 ≤ 0.05 vs. HA: Sens-0.99 \> -0.05||||0.3308
90964200|NCT05105789|181809880|NON_INFERIORITY|a non-inferiority margin of δ=5% and a sensitivity/specificity of PCR of 99%||||||0.0536|||||||one-sample binomial test|||Specificity H0: Spec-0.99 ≤ 0.05 vs. HA: Spec-0.99 \> -0.05||||0.0536
90885810|NCT02755831|181633952|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|T-test used to compare mean difference in hospital costs at time of delivery.||||||<0.05
90885811|NCT03837496|181634067|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.66||||0.504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.59|1.27||a priori threshold p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Adjusted for distress and receipt of ovarian suppression.||Analysis comparing the change in monthly adherence to adjuvant endocrine therapy across the study period adjusting for distress and receipt of ovarian suppression.||1.27|-2.59|.504
90925094|NCT03257410|181724779|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.513||0.9069|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.9069
90925095|NCT03257410|181724780|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.443||0.8413|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.8413
90925096|NCT03257410|181724781|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.382||0.0125|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0125
90925097|NCT03257410|181724782|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.561||0.6891|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.6891
90925098|NCT03257410|181724783|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047||0.6043|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.6043
90925099|NCT03257410|181724784|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.08||0.5067|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.5067
90925100|NCT03257410|181724785|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.009||0.0297|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0297
90925101|NCT03257410|181724786|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.14||0.1325|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1325
90925102|NCT03257410|181724787|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.186||0.2304|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2304
90925103|NCT03257410|181724788|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.846||0.5785|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.5785
90925104|NCT03257410|181724789|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.918||0.0067|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0067
90925105|NCT03257410|181724790|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.314||0.0434|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0434
90925106|NCT03257410|181724791|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.3281|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3281
90964201|NCT05105789|181809881|EQUIVALENCE|Concordance between the PCR test results will be evaluated by calculating the Kappa statistic which will be reported along with corresponding two-sided 95% confidence interval. The nonparametric bootstrap technique will be used to construct the confidence interval. A kappa statistic of \>0.95 will be considered as sufficient to define lollipop swab test non-inferior to the gold-standard PCR testing of nasal swabs.|Kappa Co-efficient|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.0||||||Kappa statistics for Nasal Swab PCR vs Lollipop Swab PCR||1.00|0.78|
90964202|NCT05105789|181809882|NON_INFERIORITY|a non-inferiority margin of δ=5% and a sensitivity/specificity of PCR testing of 99%||||||0.201|||||||one-sample binomial test|||Sensitivity H0: Sens-0.99 ≤ 0.05 vs. HA: Sens-0.99 \> -0.05||||0.2010
90964203|NCT05105789|181809882|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin of δ=5% and a sensitivity/specificity of PCR testing of 99%||||||0.0705|||||||one-sample binomial test|||Specificity H0: Spec-0.99 ≤ 0.05 vs. HA: Spec-0.99 \> -0.05||||0.0705
90964204|NCT00038727|181809893|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.28|||Log Rank|||||1.28|0.81|0.87
90964205|NCT00038727|181809893|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.25|||Log Rank|||||1.25|0.79|0.95
90964206|NCT00728481|181809894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between arms for a histologic response||||1.00
90964207|NCT00728481|181809899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between arms for a symptomatic response||||0.76
90971113|NCT01181011|181824763|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence|gMean Ratio|109.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06||0.0139|TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.96|120.71||The p-value is for the ratio being outside the interval 0.8 to 1.25.|ANCOVA|||||120.71|99.96|0.0139
91035013|NCT00984126|181956175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence rate|0.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||1.4||||||A one-sided 95% upper confidence limit was based on an exact calculation for a binomial distribution.||1.4||
91035014|NCT02009163|181956205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value based on a log-rank test, stratified by 4-week cessation status (Yes, No). 4-week cessation was defined as a subject having no binge days during the 4 weeks prior to randomization.|Log Rank|||||||<0.001
91035015|NCT02009163|181956206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||difference in LS mean|-0.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.42||Nominal P-value not adjusted for multiplicity.|mixed- effects model for repeated measur|MMRM over all post-randomization visits during the randomized-withdrawal phase. Value for change from baseline = outcome variable.||||-0.42|-0.81|<0.001
91035016|NCT02009163|181956207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Unadjusted P-value for the difference in distribution between treatment groups in CGI-S.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with a modified ridit score, adjusting for Visit 8 (Week 12) CGI-S as the covariate.||||||<0.001
91035017|NCT02009163|181956208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||difference in LS mean|-5.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|-3.9||Nominal P-value not adjusted for multiplicity.|mixed-effects model for repeated measure|MMRM over all post-randomization visits during the randomized-withdrawal phase. Value for change from baseline = outcome variable.||||-3.9|-7.2|<0.001
91035018|NCT01935934|181956240|OTHER||||||||||||||||||"Trial design discriminated between co-primary endpoints of objective RR of 30% (vs 10%) and 12-week PFS of 55% (vs 30%). The design had 86% power to detect a true objective RR of at least 30% and at least 90% power to detect a true 12-week PFS rate of atleast 55% (or a median PFS of 3.4 months).~The parallel exploratory cohort of uncommon histology cancers was analyzed independently."|||
91035019|NCT00833586|181956247|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|95.1||||||90.0|85.8|105.4|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||105.4|85.8|
90885812|NCT03837496|181634067|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.17||||0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.1||a priori threshold p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Adjusted for distress and receipt of ovarian suppression||Analysis comparing the change in weekly adherence rates to adjuvant endocrine therapy across the study period adjusting for distress and receipt of ovarian suppression.||-0.10|-0.44|.225
90925107|NCT03257410|181724792|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.334||0.0463|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0463
90925108|NCT03257410|181724793|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.1925|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1925
90925109|NCT03257410|181724794|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.389||0.2569|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2569
90925110|NCT03257410|181724795|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.104||0.5709|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.5709
90925111|NCT03257410|181724796|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.412||0.217|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.217
90925112|NCT03257410|181724797|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.292||0.2386|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2386
90925113|NCT03257410|181724798|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.1769|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1769
90925114|NCT03257410|181724799|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.8102|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.8102
90925115|NCT03257410|181724800|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.501||0.9672|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.9672
90925116|NCT03257410|181724801|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|24.623||0.2697|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2697
90925117|NCT03257410|181724804|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.115||0.7189|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.7189
90925118|NCT03257410|181724805|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044||0.097|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.097
90925119|NCT03257410|181724806|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.113||0.4513|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.4513
90925120|NCT03257410|181724807|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0733|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0733
90925121|NCT03257410|181724808|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.467||0.5326|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.5326
90925122|NCT03257410|181724809|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.076||0.3042|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3042
90925123|NCT03257410|181724810|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.976||0.5534|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.5534
90925124|NCT03257410|181724811|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.181||0.2958|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2958
90925125|NCT03257410|181724812|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.377||0.0998|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0998
90925126|NCT03257410|181724813|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.176||0.9952|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.9952
90925127|NCT03257410|181724814|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.693||0.3063|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3063
90925128|NCT03257410|181724815|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.529||0.1098|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1098
90925129|NCT03257410|181724816|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.797||0.0766|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0766
90925130|NCT03257410|181724817|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.41||0.2886|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2886
90925131|NCT03257410|181724818|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.042||0.4513|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.4513
90925132|NCT03257410|181724819|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.96||0.5992|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.5992
90925133|NCT03257410|181724820|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.3836|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3836
90925134|NCT03257410|181724821|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.284||0.0769|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0769
90925135|NCT03257410|181724822|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.17||0.0002|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0002
90925136|NCT03257410|181724823|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.039||0.1825|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1825
90925137|NCT03257410|181724824|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.737||0.0957|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0957
90885813|NCT03837496|181634068|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.66||a priori threshold p \< 0.05|ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline values of criterion outcomes, distress and receipt of ovarian suppression||Analysis comparing the change in self-reported endocrine therapy adherence between groups on the MARS-5 scale from baseline to 12-weeks post-baseline adjusting for distress, receipt of ovarian suppression, and baseline values of criterion outcome.||0.66|-0.40|.630
90885814|NCT03837496|181634069|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.58||||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|6.44||a priori threshold p \< 0.05|ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline values of criterion outcomes, distress and receipt of ovarian suppression||Analysis comparing the change in satisfaction with adjuvant endocrine therapy between groups on the CTSQ from baseline to 12 weeks post-baseline adjusting for distress, receipt of ovarian suppression, and baseline values of criterion outcome.||6.44|-1.27|.186
91035020|NCT00833586|181956248|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|98.9||||||90.0|82.7|118.4|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||118.4|82.7|
90885815|NCT03837496|181634070|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.79||||0.562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.49|1.91||a priori threshold p \< 0.05|ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline values of criterion outcomes, distress and receipt of ovarian suppression||Analysis comparing the change in symptom distress between groups on the BCPT scale from baseline to 12-weeks post-baseline adjusting for distress, receipt of ovarian suppression, and baseline values of criterion outcome.||1.91|-3.49|.562
90885816|NCT01130740|181634127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.158|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is a comparison of 6-month outcomes between the two study groups. (Primary comparison is for 12 months.)||||0.158
90925138|NCT03257410|181724825|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-34.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.23||0.0012|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0012
91035021|NCT00833586|181956249|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|102.4||||||90.0|95.0|110.5|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||110.5|95.0|
90925139|NCT03257410|181724826|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.859||0.1824|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1824
90925140|NCT04005794|181724908|OTHER|||||||0.004||||||Social latency t = 3.215|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004
90925141|NCT04005794|181724909|OTHER|||||||0.213|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.213
90925142|NCT04005794|181724910|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.01
90925143|NCT04005794|181724911|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.004
90925144|NCT04005794|181724912|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
90925145|NCT00104676|181724917|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.0|||Log Rank|Adjusted on the stratification factor (treatment centers)||To detect an absolute difference of 20% in progression-free survival at 3-years between Arm I and Unfav-Dose-Dense Arm II (46% versus 66%) with the possibility that 80 events (progressive disease and death) may be observed during this period, a total of 196 participants, 98 per group needed to be included, with an additional 25% of patients for a total of 260 participants required.||1.00|0.44|0.05
90925146|NCT00104676|181724918|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.31|||Log Rank|Adjusted on the stratification factor (treatment centers)||||1.31|0.46|0.34
90925147|NCT05622812|181724919|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|39.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.6|56.5||Two-sided p-value calculated using Fisher's Exact Test. The threshold of significance at \<0.05.|Fisher's Exact Test.||Difference confidence interval calculated using normal approximation.|||56.5|21.6|<0.001
91035022|NCT01141374|181956262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.0667|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.28||0.352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.0|23.0||The test of hypothesis was conducted with repeated measures ANOVA with Post hoc. It was performed parametric test to compare data and the statistical significance was p\<0.05.|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: there was no statistical difference among 3 groups (control, needles and seeds) after 4 auriculotherapy sessions.||23.00|-76.00|0.352
90925148|NCT05622812|181724920|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|40.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.1|57.6||Two-sided p-value calculated using Fisher's Exact Test. The threshold of significance at \<0.05.|Fisher's Exact Test.||Difference confidence interval calculated using normal approximation.|Month 6||57.6|23.1|<0.001
90925149|NCT05622812|181724920|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|41.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.6|57.8||Two-sided p-value calculated using Fisher's Exact Test. The threshold of significance at \<0.05.|Fisher's Exact Test.||Difference confidence interval calculated using normal approximation.|Month 9||57.8|25.6|<0.001
90925150|NCT05622812|181724920|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|30.2||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.2|47.1||Two-sided p-value calculated using Fisher's Exact Test. The threshold of significance at \<0.05.|Fisher's Exact Test.||Difference confidence interval calculated using normal approximation.|Month 12||47.1|13.2|0.003
90925151|NCT05622812|181724921|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|99.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|97.1|100.0||Two-sided p-value calculated using Fisher's Exact Test. The threshold of significance at \<0.05.|Fisher's Exact Test.||Difference confidence interval calculated using normal approximation.|Month 3||100.0|97.1|<0.001
90925152|NCT05622812|181724921|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|87.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|76.9|98.2||Two-sided p-value calculated using Fisher's Exact Test. The threshold of significance at \<0.05.|Fisher's Exact Test.||Difference confidence interval calculated using normal approximation.|Month 6||98.2|76.9|<0.001
90925153|NCT05622812|181724921|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|80.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.6|92.4||Two-sided p-value calculated using Fisher's Exact Test. The threshold of significance at \<0.05.|Fisher's Exact Test.||Difference confidence interval calculated using normal approximation.|Month 9||92.4|68.6|<0.001
90885817|NCT01130740|181634127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the 12-month comparison between the 2 study groups, which is the primary study analysis.||||0.008
90885818|NCT01130740|181634128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.274|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the between-group 12-month comparison.||||0.274
90885819|NCT01130740|181634129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.177|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.177
90885820|NCT01181895|181634138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.048|0.188||P-value for the adjusted treatment difference for Vilanterol 25 µg OD versus Placebo.|ANCOVA||The estimated value represents the adjusted treatment difference in the weighted mean 0-24 hour FEV1 (Liters) at Week 12 for Vilanterol 25 µg OD versus Placebo.|||0.188|-0.048|0.244
90885821|NCT01181895|181634138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.006||||0.926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.124|0.113||P-value for the adjusted treatment difference for Salmetarol 50 µg BID versus Placebo.|ANCOVA||The estimated value represents the adjusted treatment difference in the weighted mean 0-24 hour FEV1 (Liters) at Week 12 for Salmeterol 50 µg BID versus Placebo.|||0.113|-0.124|0.926
90885822|NCT06748040|181634185|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.4852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.2||P-value less than 0.05 is considered as statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||||1.2|-2.4|0.4852
90885823|NCT04419493|181634201|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was concluded, if the confidence interval (CI) for the comparison of geometric least squares means ratio was included in the pre-defined equivalence range of 80.00% to 125.00%|Geometric Least Squares Mean ratio (%)|102.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.8|||TWO_SIDED|92.83|94.87|110.1|||||Geometric Least Squares Mean ratio is: Alteplase, TPA-02/Alteplase, TPA-05. Standard Error of the mean is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient variation.|"The null hypothesis was that the ratio of expected geometric least squares means Alteplase, TPA-02 vs. Alteplase, TPA-05 is less than 80.00% or more than 125.00%.~The statistical model used for the analysis of this endpoints was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale.~This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment. All effects were considered as fixed."||110.10|94.87|
90885824|NCT04419493|181634203|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was concluded, if the confidence interval (CI) for the comparison of geometric least squares means ratio was included in the pre-defined equivalence range of 80.00% to 125.00%|Geometric Least Squares Mean ratio (%)|105.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.3|||TWO_SIDED|92.83|99.18|112.88|||||Geometric Least Squares Mean ratio is: Alteplase, TPA-02/Alteplase, TPA-05. Standard Error of the mean is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient variation.|"The null hypothesis was that the ratio of expected geometric least squares means Alteplase, TPA-02 vs. Alteplase, TPA-05 is less than 80.00% or more than 125.00%.~The statistical model used for the analysis of this endpoints was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale.~This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment. All effects were considered as fixed."||112.88|99.18|
90925154|NCT05622812|181724921|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|73.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.9|85.5||Two-sided p-value calculated using Fisher's Exact Test. The threshold of significance at \<0.05.|Fisher's Exact Test.||Difference confidence interval calculated using normal approximation.|Month 12||85.5|61.9|<0.001
90925155|NCT05622812|181724922|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|93.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|88.2|98.0||Two-sided p-value calculated using Fisher's Exact Test. The threshold of significance at \<0.05.|Fisher's Exact Test.||Difference confidence interval calculated using normal approximation.|Month 3||98.0|88.2|<0.001
90925156|NCT05622812|181724922|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|87.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|81.4|94.3||Two-sided p-value calculated using Fisher's Exact Test. The threshold of significance at \<0.05.|Fisher's Exact Test.||Difference confidence interval calculated using normal approximation.|Month 6||94.3|81.4|<0.001
91078003|NCT02542293|182041272|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.587|1.081|||||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for smoking status (never smoker Vs ever smoker) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"PD-L1 TC ≥50% analysis set:~Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy to be associated with a longer OS than SoC."||1.081|0.587|
90925157|NCT05622812|181724922|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|80.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|72.7|88.1||Two-sided p-value calculated using Fisher's Exact Test. The threshold of significance at \<0.05.|Fisher's Exact Test.||Difference confidence interval calculated using normal approximation.|||88.1|72.7|<0.001
90925158|NCT05622812|181724922|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|71.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.8|80.3||Two-sided p-value calculated using Fisher's Exact Test. The threshold of significance at \<0.05.|Fisher's Exact Test.||Difference confidence interval calculated using normal approximation.|Month 12||80.3|62.8|<0.001
90925159|NCT03916185|181724923|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|0.0|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.0|32.0||Statistical significance level of 0.05 was used. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact||Comparison was vaccine arm - placebo.|||32|-32|>0.99
90925160|NCT03916185|181724923|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|-15.0||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.0|18.0||Statistical significance level of 0.05 used. No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact||Comparison was vaccine arm - placebo.|||18|-46|0.53
90925161|NCT03916185|181724923|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|16.0||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.0|52.0||Statistical significance level of 0.05 was used. No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact||Comparison was vaccine arm - placebo.|||52|-29|0.66
90925162|NCT03916185|181724924|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|0.0|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|20.0||Statistical significance level of 0.05 was used. No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact||Comparison was vaccine arm - placebo.|||20|-20|>0.99
90964208|NCT01505010|181809902|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.5||0.018|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for the baseline 24-h systolic blood pressure|Difference at 6 months in 24-h systolic blood pressure (control minus intervention)|We used mixed models to compare blood pressure changes between randomized groups at 6 months, while adjusting for the baseline blood pressure; statistical significance was a P-value less than 0.05 on two-sided tests.||||0.018
90964209|NCT01505010|181809903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.87||0.86|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference between control and intervention group at 6 months||||0.86
90964210|NCT01505010|181809904|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.7||||0.032|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcocon rank sum test||||0.032
90964211|NCT01505010|181809904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.032|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.032
91035023|NCT01141374|181956263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.9067|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.21||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.0|37.0||It was verified the normality of data distribution and the homogeneity of variance.|ANOVA|As for the comparison between the scores, we used ANOVA for repeated measures.It was made post hoc to find the differences among groups.||It was carried out the analysis of variance (ANOVA) among the groups in the 3rd assessment (after 60 days and 8 sessions). The main objective was to compare the difference among the control group, seeds and needles and to recognize significant outcomes of auriculotherapy by seeds or needles.||37.00|-67.00|0.023
90925163|NCT03916185|181724924|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|-5.0|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.0|13.0||Statistical significance level of 0.05 was used. No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact||Comparison was vaccine arm - placebo.|||13|-25|>0.99
90925164|NCT03916185|181724924|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|-5.0|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.0|34.0||Statistical significance level of 0.05 was used. No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact||Comparison was vaccine arm - placebo.|||34|-26|>0.99
90925165|NCT03916185|181724925|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|0.0|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|18.0||Statistical significance level of 0.05 was used. No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact||Comparison was vaccine arm - placebo.|||18|-18|>0.99
90964212|NCT02558231|181809925|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric Least Square mean|0.96||||0.4239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.07|||ANCOVA|||||1.07|0.86|0.4239
91035024|NCT03769025|181956279|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.1
90964213|NCT02558231|181809926|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean difference|-1.43||||0.8758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.393|16.538|||ANCOVA|||||16.538|-19.393|0.8758
90964214|NCT02558231|181809927|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS mean|1.03||||0.8529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.371|||ANCOVA|||||1.371|0.770|0.8529
90964215|NCT02558231|181809929|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.72||||0.4998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.834|1.386|||ANCOVA|||||1.386|-2.834|0.4998
90964216|NCT02558231|181809930|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.09||||0.8528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.003|0.83|||ANCOVA|||||0.830|-1.003|0.8528
90964217|NCT02558231|181809931|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.4||||0.9474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.368|74.178|||ANCOVA|||||74.178|-69.368|0.9474
90964218|NCT02558231|181809932|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.13||||0.1902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.066|0.328|||ANCOVA|||||0.328|-0.066|0.1902
90964219|NCT02558231|181809933|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2||||0.1227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.737|0.327|||ANCOVA|||||0.327|-2.737|0.1227
90964220|NCT02558231|181809934|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59||||0.0867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.09|||Log Rank|||||1.09|0.32|0.0867
90925166|NCT03916185|181724925|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|0.0|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|18.0||Statistical significance level of 0.05 was used. No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact||Comparison was vaccine arm - placebo.|||18|-18|>0.99
90925167|NCT03916185|181724925|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|0.0|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|41.0||Statistical significance level of 0.05 was used. No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact||Comparison was vaccine arm - placebo.|||41|-17|>0.99
90925168|NCT03916185|181724926|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|61.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.0|83.0||Statistical significance level of 0.05 was used. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact||Comparison was vaccine arm - placebo.|||83|27|<0.001
90964221|NCT03933397|181809938|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.909|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.909
90964222|NCT01294150|181809962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|||||Assuming unequal variances comparing mean improvement in the UL group to 125% of the mean improvement in the Control group. A p-value of 0.025 or less associated with UL is considered evidence of statistical significance|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
90964223|NCT00698932|181809975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.079|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.65|-0.34|||ANCOVA|\*adjusted for baseline HbA1c||||-0.34|-0.65|<0.0001
90885825|NCT04419493|181634205|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was concluded, if the confidence interval (CI) for the comparison of geometric least squares means ratio was included in the pre-defined equivalence range of 80.00% to 125.00% .|Geometric Least Squares Mean ratio (%)|102.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.8|||TWO_SIDED|92.83|94.79|110.12|||||Geometric Least Squares Mean ratio is: Alteplase, TPA-02/Alteplase, TPA-05. Standard Error of the mean is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient variation.|"The null hypothesis was that the ratio of expected geometric least squares means Alteplase, TPA-02 vs. Alteplase, TPA-05 is less than 80.00% or more than 125.00%.~The statistical model used for the analysis of this endpoints was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale.~This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment. All effects were considered as fixed."||110.12|94.79|
90885826|NCT03794089|181634210|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<=.05|ANCOVA|||comparisons of groups at post-assessment controls for baseline GAD-7 total scores||||0.035
90885827|NCT03794089|181634211|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.231||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<=0.05|ANCOVA|||comparisons of groups at post-assessment controls for baseline PHQ-9 total scores||||0.231
90925169|NCT03916185|181724926|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|56.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.0|79.0|||Fisher Exact|Statistical significance level of 0.05 was used. No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|Comparison was vaccine arm - placebo.|||79|22|<0.001
90925170|NCT03916185|181724926|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|56.0||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.0|86.0|||Fisher Exact|Statistical significance level of 0.05 was used. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Comparison was vaccine arm - placebo.|||86|9|0.011
90925171|NCT03916185|181724926|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|6.0|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.0|36.0||Statistical significance level of 0.05 was used. No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact||Comparison was RSV ΔNS2/Δ1313/I1314L Vaccine - RSV 6120/ΔNS2/1030s Vaccine.|||36|-25|>0.99
90885828|NCT03794089|181634212|SUPERIORITY|Testing null hypothesis of no difference between groups||||||0.393||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in DASS-21 Anxiety subscale total from Baseline to 4 weeks||||0.393
90885829|NCT03794089|181634212|SUPERIORITY|Testing null hypothesis of no difference between groups||||||0.022||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in DASS-21 Anxiety subscale total from Baseline to 8 weeks||||0.022
90964224|NCT00698932|181809976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.06|-0.39|||ANCOVA|\*adjusted for baseline FPG||||-0.39|-1.06|<0.0001
91035025|NCT03769025|181956280|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.959|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.959
90925172|NCT03916185|181724926|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|5.0|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.0|48.0||Statistical significance level of 0.05 was used. No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact||Comparison was RSV ΔNS2/Δ1313/I1314L Vaccine - RSV 276 Vaccine.|||48|-31|>0.99
90925173|NCT03916185|181724926|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|-1.0|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.0|44.0||Statistical significance level of 0.05 was used. No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact||Comparison was RSV 6120/ΔNS2/1030s Vaccine - RSV 276 Vaccine.|||44|-38|>0.99
90925174|NCT03916185|181724927|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|73.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.0|91.0||Statistical significance level of 0.05 was used. No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact||Comparison was vaccine arm - placebo.|||91|44|<0.001
90925175|NCT03916185|181724927|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|61.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.0|83.0||Statistical significance level of 0.05 was used. No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact||Comparison was vaccine arm - placebo.|||83|27|<0.001
90925176|NCT03916185|181724927|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|85.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.0|97.0||Statistical significance level of 0.05 was used. No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact||Comparison was vaccine arm - placebo.|||97|42|<0.001
90925177|NCT03916185|181724927|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|12.0||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|40.0||Statistical significance level of 0.05 was used. No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact||Comparison was RSV ΔNS2/Δ1313/I1314L Vaccine - RSV 6120/ΔNS2/1030s Vaccine.|||40|-17|0.66
90925178|NCT03916185|181724927|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|-12.0|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.0|30.0||Statistical significance level of 0.05 was used. No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact||Comparison was RSV ΔNS2/Δ1313/I1314L Vaccine - RSV 276 Vaccine.|||30|-36|>0.99
90925179|NCT03916185|181724927|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|-24.0||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.0|20.0||Statistical significance level of 0.05 was used. No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact||Comparison was RSV 6120/ΔNS2/1030s Vaccine - RSV 276 Vaccine.|||20|-50|0.28
90925180|NCT03916185|181724928|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance level of 0.05 was used. No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90925181|NCT03916185|181724928|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance level of 0.05 was used. No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90925182|NCT03916185|181724928|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance of 0.05 was used. No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90925183|NCT03916185|181724928|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95||||||Statistical significance level of 0.05 was used. No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.95
90925184|NCT03916185|181724928|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12||||||Statistical significance level of 0.05 was used. No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.12
90925185|NCT03916185|181724928|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.033||||||Statistical significance level of 0.05 was used. No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.033
90925186|NCT03916185|181724929|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance level of 0.05 was used. No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90925187|NCT03916185|181724929|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance level of 0.05 was used. No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90925188|NCT03916185|181724929|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance level of 0.05 was used. No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90925189|NCT03916185|181724929|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39||||||Statistical significance level of 0.05 was used. No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.39
90925190|NCT03916185|181724929|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15||||||Statistical significance level of 0.05 was used. No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.15
90925191|NCT03916185|181724929|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.049||||||Statistical significance level of 0.05 was used. No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.049
90925192|NCT02844465|181724950|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority test will be performed using a paired t-test, with a non-inferiority delta (δ) of one Reliable Change Index (RCI) of 5 points, to test the hypothesis of no reduction. A two-tailed alpha of 0.05 will be used.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||"It is hypothesized that the Boston Naming Test score will not decrease from baseline to 12 months following the Visualase procedure. The hypotheses associated with this endpoint are as follows:~Null Hypothesis: μ (V-BNT - BSL-BNT) + δ ≤ 0 Alternate Hypothesis: μ (V-BNT - BSL-BNT) + δ \> 0 Where μ (V-BNT - BSL-BNT) = mean difference in the Boston Naming Test score from baseline to Month 12 post Visualase."||||<0.0001
90925193|NCT02844465|181724951|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority test will be performed using a paired t-test, with a non-inferiority delta (δ) of one Reliable Change Index (RCI) of 15 points, to test the hypothesis of no reduction. A two-tailed alpha of 0.05 will be used.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||"It is hypothesized that the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test 5-Trial Total score will not decrease from baseline to 12 months following the Visualase procedure. The hypotheses associated with this endpoint are as follows:~Null Hypothesis: μ (V-RAVLT - BSL-RAVLT) + δ ≤ 0 Alternate Hypothesis: μ (V-RAVLT - BSL-RAVLT) + δ \> 0 Where μ (V-RAVLT - BSL-RAVLT) = mean difference in the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test 5-Trial Total score from baseline to Month 12 post Visualase."||||<0.0001
90885830|NCT03794089|181634212|SUPERIORITY|Testing null hypothesis of no difference between groups||||||0.013||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in DASS-21 Anxiety subscale total from Baseline to 12 weeks||||0.013
91035026|NCT03374176|181956285|EQUIVALENCE||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||||chi-square|||<0.05
90885831|NCT03794089|181634212|SUPERIORITY|Testing null hypothesis of no difference between groups||||||0.049||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in DASS-21 Anxiety subscale total from Baseline to Post assessment (16 weeks)||||0.049
90885832|NCT03794089|181634213|SUPERIORITY|Testing null hypothesis of no difference between groups||||||0.008||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in DASS-21 Depression subscale total from Baseline to 4 weeks||||0.008
90885833|NCT03794089|181634213|SUPERIORITY|Testing null hypothesis of no difference between groups|||||<|0.001||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in DASS-21 Depression subscale total from Baseline to 8 weeks||||<0.001
90885834|NCT03794089|181634213|SUPERIORITY|Testing null hypothesis of no difference between groups|||||<|0.001||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in DASS-21 Depression subscale total from Baseline to 12 weeks||||<0.001
90885835|NCT03794089|181634213|SUPERIORITY|Testing null hypothesis of no difference between groups||||||0.008||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in DASS-21 Depression subscale total from Baseline to Post-assessment (16 weeks)||||0.008
90885836|NCT03794089|181634214|SUPERIORITY|Testing null hypothesis of no difference between groups||||||0.44||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in DASS-21 Stress subscale total from Baseline to 4 weeks||||0.440
90885837|NCT03794089|181634214|SUPERIORITY|Testing null hypothesis of no difference between groups||||||0.022||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in DASS-21 Stress subscale total from Baseline to 8 weeks||||0.022
90964225|NCT00698932|181809977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.053|<|0.0001||95.0|-19.12|-7.13|||ANCOVA|\*adjusted for baseline FPG||||-7.13|-19.12|<0.0001
90885838|NCT03794089|181634214|SUPERIORITY|Testing null hypothesis of no difference between groups||||||0.032||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in DASS-21 Stress subscale total from Baseline to 12 weeks||||0.032
90885839|NCT03794089|181634214|SUPERIORITY|Testing null hypothesis of no difference between groups||||||0.091||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in DASS-21 Stress subscale total from Baseline to Post-assessment (16 weeks)||||0.091
90885840|NCT03794089|181634215|SUPERIORITY|Testing null hypothesis of no difference between groups||||||0.058||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in OASIS total score from Baseline to 4 weeks||||0.058
90885841|NCT03794089|181634215|SUPERIORITY|Testing null hypothesis of no difference between groups||||||0.032||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in OASIS total score from Baseline to 8 weeks||||0.032
90885842|NCT03794089|181634215|SUPERIORITY|Testing null hypothesis of no difference between groups||||||0.007||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in OASIS total score from Baseline to 12 weeks||||0.007
90885843|NCT03794089|181634215|SUPERIORITY|Testing null hypothesis of no difference between groups||||||0.044||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in OASIS total score from Baseline to Post assessment (16 weeks)||||0.044
90885844|NCT03794089|181634216|SUPERIORITY|Testing null hypothesis of no difference between groups||||||0.328||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in ODSIS total from Baseline to 4 weeks||||0.328
90885845|NCT03794089|181634216|SUPERIORITY|Testing null hypothesis of no difference between groups||||||0.148||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in ODSIS total from Baseline to 8 weeks||||0.148
90885846|NCT03794089|181634216|SUPERIORITY|Testing null hypothesis of no difference between groups||||||0.002||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in ODSIS total from Baseline to 12 weeks||||0.002
90885847|NCT03794089|181634216|SUPERIORITY|Testing null hypothesis of no difference between groups||||||0.069||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in ODSIS total from Baseline to Post-assessment (16 weeks)||||0.069
90885848|NCT03794089|181634217|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.928||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<=0.05|ANCOVA|||comparisons of groups at post-assessment controls for baseline Q-LES-Q-SF total scores||||0.928
90964226|NCT00698932|181809978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-182.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|54.4||0.001||95.0|-289.0|-74.0|||ANCOVA|\*adjusted for baseline PPG AUC||||-74|-289|0.001
91035027|NCT02911701|181956289|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||maxim|||||||0.3
90964227|NCT00698932|181809979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3280.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|980.0||0.001||95.0|-5214.0|-1345.0|||ANCOVA|\*adjusted for baseline PPG AUC||||-1345|-5214|0.001
90885849|NCT03794089|181634218|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.402||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<.05|Fisher Exact|degrees of freedom = 1||Testing null hypothesis of no difference between groups||||0.402
90885850|NCT03794089|181634219|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<=.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Testing the null hypothesis of no difference between groups||||<0.001
90885851|NCT03794089|181634220|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<=.05|t-test, 2 sided|Used Satterthwaite method given unequal variances||Testing the null hypothesis of no difference between groups||||.006
90885852|NCT03794089|181634221|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<=.05|t-test, 2 sided|used Satterthwaite method given unequal variances||Testing the null hypothesis of no difference between groups||||0.004
90885853|NCT03794089|181634222|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<=.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Testing the null hypothesis of no difference between groups||||0.002
90885854|NCT03119766|181634234|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.94||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|1.85|||ANOVA||Results are presented as estimated differences of Least Squares Means according to ANOVA model|Mean changes of GIS scores after 8 weeks of treatment were compared.||1.85|0.04|0.041
90885855|NCT03119766|181634234|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.89||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|1.74|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Fixed factor Treatment and random factor research center were used in mixed model. Difference in mean changes between groups was estimeted."|Mean changes of GIS scores after 8 weeks of treatment were compared. Influence of between center variation was estimated.||1.74|0.04|0.041
90885856|NCT03119766|181634235|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.067|||||||Fisher Exact|||Test for comparison percentage of patients with reduction ≥ 1 point.||||0.067
90885857|NCT03119766|181634235|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029|||||||Fisher Exact|||Test for comparison percentage of patients with reduction ≥ 2 points.||||0.029
90885858|NCT03119766|181634235|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.082|||||||Fisher Exact|||Test for comparison percentage of patients with reduction ≥ 3 points.||||0.082
90885859|NCT03119766|181634235|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046|||||||Fisher Exact|||Test for comparison percentage of patients with reduction ≥ 4 points.||||0.046
90885860|NCT03119766|181634235|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.111|||||||Fisher Exact|||Test for comparison percentage of patients with reduction ≥ 5 points.||||0.111
90885861|NCT03119766|181634236|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.61||||0.435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|2.15|||ANOVA||Results are presented as estimated differences of Least Squares Means according to ANOVA model|Mean changes of NDI scores after 8 weeks of treatment were compared.||2.15|-0.93|0.435
90885862|NCT03119766|181634237|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37||||0.655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.26|||ANOVA||Results are presented as estimated differences of Least Squares Means according to ANOVA model|Mean changes of SF-36 scores (physical health domain) after 8 weeks of treatment were compared.||1.26|-2.00|0.655
90885863|NCT03119766|181634237|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.65||||0.375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|2.1|||ANOVA|||Mean changes of SF-36 scores (mental health domain) after 8 weeks of treatment were compared.||2.10|-0.79|0.375
90885864|NCT03119766|181634238|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
90885865|NCT03119766|181634239|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Side effects analysis.||||0.08
90964228|NCT00698932|181809980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|17.0|||<|0.0001||95.0|8.9|24.9|||ANCOVA|||||24.9|8.9|<0.0001
90885866|NCT03119766|181634239|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.139|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Therapeutic effect||||0.139
90885867|NCT03119766|181634239|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.251|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Efficacy index analysis.||||0.251
90885868|NCT02034578|181634242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|0.953|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.873|1.04||||||B versus A||1.040|0.873|
90885869|NCT02034578|181634242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|0.805|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.749|0.865||||||C versus A||0.865|0.749|
90885870|NCT02034578|181634244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|0.966|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.924|1.01||||||B versus A||1.010|0.924|
90885871|NCT02034578|181634244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|0.919|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.896|0.942||||||C versus A||0.942|0.896|
90885872|NCT02034578|181634245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|0.968|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.926|1.011||||||B versus A||1.011|0.926|
90885873|NCT02034578|181634245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|0.922|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.899|0.947||||||C versus A||0.947|0.899|
90885874|NCT01782131|181634258|NON_INFERIORITY|Based on Miettinen and Nurminen's method stratified by the risk for mortality/poor outcome (high risk, not high risk) and using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting scheme. The p-Value is based on the one-sided non-inferiority test. Non-inferiority of posaconazole vs. voriconazole is established if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval is less than 10%.|Estimated Difference in Percent|-5.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|1.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||1.0|-11.6|<.0001
90885875|NCT01782131|181634259|OTHER|Based on Miettinen and Nurminen's method stratified by the risk for mortality/poor outcome (high risk, not high risk) and using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting scheme.|Estimated Difference in Percent|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|8.8||||||||8.8|-8.2|
90885876|NCT01782131|181634260|OTHER|Based on Miettinen and Nurminen's method stratified by the risk for mortality/poor outcome (high risk, not high risk) and using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting scheme.|Estimated Difference in Percent|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|4.9||||||||4.9|-9.9|
90885877|NCT01782131|181634261|OTHER|Based on Miettinen and Nurminen's method stratified by the risk for mortality/poor outcome (high risk, not high risk) and using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting scheme.|Estimated Difference in Percent|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|13.1||||||||13.1|-6.9|
90885878|NCT01782131|181634262|OTHER|Based on Miettinen and Nurminen's method stratified by the risk for mortality/poor outcome (high risk, not high risk) and using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting scheme.|Estimated Difference in Percent|-3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|7.1||||||||7.1|-13.9|
90885879|NCT01782131|181634263|OTHER|Based on Miettinen and Nurminen's method stratified by the risk for mortality/poor outcome (high risk, not high risk) and using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting scheme.|Difference in Percent|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|10.1||||||||10.1|-11.2|
90925194|NCT02844465|181724952|OTHER|A sign test will be used to determine if the median categorical change is significantly greater than zero.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Sign test|||"It is hypothesized that the QOLIE-31 score will increase (improve) from baseline to 12 months following the Visualase procedure. The hypotheses associated with this endpoint are as follows:~Null Hypothesis: M (V-QOLIE-31 - BSL-QOLIE-31) ≤ 0 Alternate Hypothesis: M (V-QOLIE-31 - BSL-QOLIE-31) \> 0 Where M (V-QOLIE-31 - BSL-QOLIE-31) = sign-test statistic (\[increases-decreases\]/2) in the Quality of Life in Epilepsy inventory from baseline to Month 12 post Visualase."||||<0.0001
90925195|NCT02844465|181724953|OTHER|A sign test will be used to determine if the median categorical change is significantly greater than zero.||||||0.0004|||||||Sign test|||"It is hypothesized that the SF-36 Mental Component Score (MCS) will increase (improve) from baseline to 12 months following the Visualase procedure. The hypotheses associated with this endpoint are as follows:~Null Hypothesis: M (V-SF-36 - BSL-SF-36-MCS) ≤ 0 Alternate Hypothesis: M (V-SF-36 - BSL-SF-36-MCS) \> 0 Where M (V- SF-36-MCS - BSL- SF-36-MCS) = sign-test statistic (\[increases-decreases\]/2) in the SF-36 quality of life questionnaire MCS from baseline to Month 12 post Visualase."||||0.0004
90925196|NCT02844465|181724954|OTHER|A sign test will be used to determine if the median categorical change is significantly greater than zero.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Sign test|||"It's hypothesized that the SF-36 Physical Component Score (PCS) will increase (improve) from baseline to 12 months following the Visualase procedure. The hypotheses associated with this endpoint are as follows:~Null Hypothesis: M (V-SF-36-PCS - BSL-SF-36-PCS) ≤ 0 Alternate Hypothesis: M (V-SF-36-PCS - BSL-SF-36-PCS) \> 0 Where M (V-SF-36-PCS - BSL- SF-36-PCS) = sign-test statistic (\[increases-decreases\]/2) in the SF-36 quality of life questionnaire PCS from baseline to Month 12 post Visualase."||||<0.0001
90925197|NCT02844465|181724955|NON_INFERIORITY|"The hypotheses associated with this endpoint are:~Null Hypothesis: π V - 64% + δ ≤ 0 Alternate Hypothesis: π V - 64% + δ \> 0 Where πV is the proportion of subjects treated with Visualase experiencing no seizures.~An exact 95% CI for the percentage of subjects who are seizure free will be calculated and its lower boundary compared to zero after subtraction of the historical open surgical resection percentage of 64% and the addition of the equivalence delta percentage of 10%."|Proportion of Participants|56.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.2|65.8||||||||65.8|46.2|
90925198|NCT01928394|181725042|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.12||||0.0309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|4.26|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||SCLC Arm N Expansion as compare to SCLC Arm N-I Dose Level 2- Expansion||4.26|1.06|0.0309
90925199|NCT02038777|181725068|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||An exact test for a single proportion (1-sided significance level: 0.05) was used.|Exact test for a single proportion|||||||<.0001
90925200|NCT03386578|181725160|OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|1.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|2.94||||||The incidence rate ratio of cumulative maternal adverse events was calculated between PrEP-exposed group (Cohort 1 and Cohort 2/Step 2) and the PrEP-unexposed (Cohort 2/Step 1) reference group based on incidence per person-time follow-up. Maternal participants in Cohort 2/Step 2 contributed person-time to both Cohort 2/Step 1 and Step 2.||2.94|0.89|
90925201|NCT03386578|181725161|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.5||||||Odds ratio comparing the proportion of mothers with adverse pregnancy outcomes between the PrEP-exposed group (Cohort 1 and Cohort 2/Step 2) and PrEP-unexposed (Cohort 2/Step 1) reference group.||1.50|0.52|
90925202|NCT03386578|181725161|OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||Fisher Exact|||Test the differences in the proportion of mothers with adverse pregnancy outcomes between PrEP-exposed (Cohort 1 and Cohort 2/Step 2) and PrEP-unexposed (Cohort 2/Step 2) groups.||||0.68
90925203|NCT03386578|181725162|OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.38||||||The incidence rate ratio of cumulative infant AEs between PrEP-exposed group (Cohort 1 and Cohort 2/Step 2) and PrEP-unexposed (Cohort 2/Step 1) reference group was based on incidence per person-time follow-up. Cohort 2/Step 2 infants contributed person-time to both Cohort 2/Step 1 and Step 2.||2.38|0.70|
90925204|NCT03386578|181725163|OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sample t-test was used to evaluate the difference in mean infant whole-body bone mineral content (WB-BMC) at birth between PrEP-exposed group (Cohort 1 and Cohort 2/Step 2) and PrEP-unexposed group (Cohort 2/Step 1).||||0.18
90925205|NCT03386578|181725164|OTHER|||||||0.39|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sample t-test was used to evaluate the difference in mean infant lumbar-spine bone mineral content (WB-BMC) at birth between PrEP-exposed group (Cohort 1 and Cohort 2/Step 2) and PrEP-unexposed group (Cohort 2/Step 1).||||0.39
90925206|NCT03386578|181725165|OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sample t-test was used to evaluate the difference in mean infant lumbar-spine bone mineral content (WB-BMC) at week 26 between PrEP-exposed group (Cohort 1 and Cohort 2/Step 2) and PrEP-unexposed group (Cohort 2/Step 1).||||0.12
90925207|NCT03386578|181725166|OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sample t-test was used to evaluate the difference in mean infant creatinine levels at birth between PrEP-exposed group (Cohort 1 and Cohort 2/Step 2) and PrEP-unexposed group (Cohort 2/Step 1).||||0.70
90925208|NCT03386578|181725167|OTHER|||||||0.58|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sample t-test was used to evaluate the difference in mean infant creatinine levels at week 26 between PrEP-exposed group (Cohort 1 and Cohort 2/Step 2) and PrEP-unexposed group (Cohort 2/Step 1).||||0.58
91035028|NCT01110005|181956321|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.3||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.3|||Regression, log binomial|The regression model adjusted for site of recruitment as a covariate.|D5LR vs. LR|||2.3|0.7|0.34
91035029|NCT01110005|181956322|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.3|||Regression, log binomial|The regression model adjusted for site of recruitment as a covariate.|D5LR vs. LR|||1.3|0.9|0.40
90925209|NCT03386578|181725168|OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sample t-test was used to evaluate the difference in mean infant creatinine clearance rate at birth between PrEP-exposed group (Cohort 1 and Cohort 2/Step 2) and PrEP-unexposed group (Cohort 2/Step 1).||||0.08
90925210|NCT03386578|181725169|OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sample t-test was used to evaluate the difference in mean infant creatinine clearance rate at week 26 between PrEP-exposed group (Cohort 1 and Cohort 2/Step 2) and PrEP-unexposed group (Cohort 2/Step 1)||||0.52
90925211|NCT03386578|181725170|OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sample t-test was used to evaluate the difference in mean infant length-for-age z-score at birth between PrEP-exposed group (Cohort 1 and Cohort 2/Step 2) and PrEP-unexposed group (Cohort 2/Step 1).||||0.30
90971114|NCT01181011|181824764|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence|gMean Ratio|97.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09||0.0126|TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.643|112.472||The p-value is for the ratio being outside the interval 0.8 to 1.25.|ANCOVA|||||112.472|84.643|0.0126
90885880|NCT01782131|181634264|OTHER||Survival Rate in Percent|60.7||||0.2767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.8|67.8||Based on Stratified Log-Rank method stratified by the risk for mortality/poor outcome (high risk, not high risk).|Kaplan-Meier|From product-limit (Kaplan-Meier) method for censored data.||Analysis of Time to All-Cause Mortality Through Day 114: Posaconazole vs. Voriconazole||67.8|52.8|0.2767
90885881|NCT01782131|181634265|OTHER|Based on Miettinen and Nurminen's method.|Difference in Percent|20.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|42.7||||||||42.7|-4.1|
90885882|NCT01782131|181634266|OTHER|Based on Miettinen and Nurminen's method.|Difference in Percent|11.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|28.6||||||||28.6|-6.9|
90885883|NCT01782131|181634267|OTHER||Difference in Percent|0.3||||0.8305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|3.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Abnormal Hepatic Laboratory Value||3.6|-2.9|0.8305
90885884|NCT01782131|181634267|OTHER||Difference in Percent|-3.6||||0.3633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|4.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||CNS and Visual Disturbances||4.2|-11.3|0.3633
90885885|NCT01782131|181634267|OTHER||Difference in Percent|-2.8||||0.3724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|3.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Dermatologic Reactions||3.4|-9.1|0.3724
90925212|NCT03386578|181725171|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sample t-test was used to evaluate the difference in mean infant length-for-age z-score at week 26 between PrEP-exposed group (Cohort 1 and Cohort 2/Step 2) and PrEP-unexposed group (Cohort 2/Step 1).||||0.06
90925213|NCT03386578|181725172|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
90925214|NCT03916276|181725190|OTHER|We hypothesized negligible between condition differences, although within each condition, we hypothesized that each treatment would produce a greater proportion of people decreasing their dose relative to those increasing their dose during treatment.|||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>.05
90925215|NCT03916276|181725191|OTHER|We hypothesized negligible between condition differences, although within each condition, we hypothesized that each treatment would produce medium effect size improvements.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
91035030|NCT01110005|181956323|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|This method was used to control for site of recruitment||||||0.69
91035031|NCT01077596|181956346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude Odds Ratio|1.2||||||95.0|1.1|1.3||||||||1.3|1.1|
91035032|NCT01077596|181956346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.1||||||95.0|1.0|1.2|||||Adjusted for age, sex, cal year, study site, tumor characteristics, multiple antidepressants exposure, smoking, hysterectomy status, previous depression dx, previous IBD diagnosis, OC use, HRT/ERT use, and NSAID use.|||1.2|1.0|
90885886|NCT01782131|181634267|OTHER||Difference in Percent|1.0||||0.6431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|5.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Adrenal Insufficiency or Temporal Hypotension||5.5|-3.4|0.6431
90885887|NCT01782131|181634268|OTHER|Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen|Difference in Percent|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|2.8||||||||2.8|-2.8|
90885888|NCT01782131|181634269|OTHER|Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in Percent|-10.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.9|-2.4||||||||-2.4|-17.9|
90885889|NCT01782131|181634270|OTHER|Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in Percent|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|9.8||||||||9.8|-6.1|
90885890|NCT01782131|181634271|OTHER|Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in Percent|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|2.7||||||||2.7|-5.6|
90885891|NCT01782131|181634272|OTHER|Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in Percent|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|4.5||||||||4.5|-11.0|
90885892|NCT01627249|181634274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|5.7|||ANCOVA||Reported P-values have been adjusted for multiple treatment group comparisons.|Aflibercept vs. Bevacizumab||5.7|1.4|<0.001
90885893|NCT01627249|181634274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|4.2|||ANCOVA||Reported P-values have been adjusted for multiple treatment group comparisons.|Aflibercept vs. Ranibizumab||4.2|0.1|0.034
90885894|NCT01627249|181634274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|3.2|||ANCOVA||Reported P-values have been adjusted for multiple treatment group comparisons.|Ranibizumab vs. Bevacizumab||3.2|-0.4|0.12
90885895|NCT01627249|181634275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-69.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-91.1|-48.6|||ANCOVA||Reported P-values have been adjusted for multiple treatment group comparisons.|Aflibercept vs Bevacizumab||-48.6|-91.1|<0.001
90925216|NCT03916276|181725192|OTHER|We hypothesized negligible between condition differences, although within each condition, we hypothesized that each treatment would produce medium effect size improvements.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
90964229|NCT00708175|181809987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|0.24||P-value is from a 1-way ANCOVA with treatment group as a factor and baseline BMD as a covariate. There were no multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|||The sample size was calculated using a precision approach to estimate the difference between the pioglitazone and placebo treatment groups in the percent change from baseline in BMD.||0.24|-1.33|0.170
91035033|NCT01077596|181956346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude Odds Ratio|1.2||||||95.0|1.1|1.3||||||||1.3|1.1|
90925217|NCT03916276|181725193|OTHER|We hypothesized negligible between condition differences, although within each condition, we hypothesized that each treatment would produce medium effect size improvements.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
90925218|NCT03916276|181725194|OTHER|We hypothesized negligible between condition differences, although within each condition, we hypothesized that each treatment would produce medium effect size improvements.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
90925219|NCT03916276|181725195|OTHER|We hypothesized negligible between condition differences, although within each condition, we hypothesized that each treatment would produce medium effect size improvements.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
90925220|NCT03916276|181725196|OTHER|We hypothesized negligible between condition differences, although within each condition, we hypothesized that each treatment would produce medium effect size improvements.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
90885896|NCT01627249|181634275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.6||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.0|-1.2|||ANCOVA||Reported P-values have been adjusted for multiple treatment group comparisons.|Aflibercept vs Ranibizumab||-1.2|-36|0.036
90964230|NCT00708175|181809988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.56||P-value is from a 1-way ANCOVA with treatment group as a factor and the Month 12 BMD value as a covariate. There were no multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|||||0.56|-0.91|0.640
90964231|NCT04667247|181810009|OTHER||ratio of frequencies|0.94||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||1.000
90964232|NCT04667247|181810012|OTHER||ratio of frequencies|1.022||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||1.000
91035034|NCT01077596|181956346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.1||||||95.0|1.0|1.2|||||Adjusted for age, sex, cal year, study site, tumor characteristics, multiple antidepressants exposure, smoking, hysterectomy status, previous depression dx, previous IBD diagnosis, OC use, HRT/ERT use, and NSAID use.|||1.2|1.0|
91035035|NCT01077596|181956346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude Odds Ratio|1.2||||||95.0|1.0|1.3||||||||1.3|1.0|
91035036|NCT01077596|181956346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.1||||||95.0|1.0|1.2|||||Adjusted for age, sex, cal year, study site, tumor characteristics, multiple antidepressants exposure, smoking, hysterectomy status, previous depression dx, previous IBD diagnosis, OC use, HRT/ERT use, and NSAID use.|||1.2|1.0|
90885897|NCT01627249|181634275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-51.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.2|-31.3|||ANCOVA||Reported P-values have been adjusted for multiple treatment group comparisons.|Ranibizumab vs Bevacizumab||-31.3|-71.2|<0.001
90885898|NCT01627249|181634276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.5||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|10.1|||ANCOVA||Reported P-values have been adjusted for multiple treatment group comparisons.|Aflibercept vs. Bevacizumab||10.1|2.9|0.001
90885899|NCT01627249|181634276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.7||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|8.0|||ANCOVA||Reported P-values have been adjusted for multiple treatment group comparisons.|Aflibercept vs. Ranibizumab||8.0|1.4|0.0031
90885900|NCT01627249|181634276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|4.8|||ANCOVA||Reported P-values have been adjusted for multiple treatment group comparisons.|Ranibizumab vs Bevacizumab||4.8|-1.1|0.21
90885901|NCT01627249|181634277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|2.7|||ANCOVA||Reported P-values have been adjusted for multiple treatment group comparisons.|Aflibercept vs Bevacizumab||2.7|-1.3|0.69
90885902|NCT01627249|181634277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.5|||ANCOVA||Reported P-values have been adjusted for multiple treatment group comparisons.|Aflibercept vs Ranibizumab||1.5|-2.3|0.69
90885903|NCT01627249|181634277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|3.1|||ANCOVA||Reported P-values have been adjusted for multiple treatment group comparisons.|Ranibizumab vs Bevacizumab||3.1|-0.9|0.69
90885904|NCT02039505|181634297|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.37||||0.2722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.779|2.399|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test was used for analysis. Prior tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNFα) antagonist use (yes/no) was used as stratification factor.|||2.399|0.779|0.2722
90964233|NCT04667247|181810014|OTHER||ratio of frequencies|4.828||||0.061|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.061
90964234|NCT04667247|181810015|OTHER||ratio of frequencies|3.526||||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||.100
90964235|NCT04667247|181810016|OTHER||ratio of frequencies|0.005||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||1.000
90964236|NCT04667247|181810017|OTHER||ratio of frequencies|3.036||||0.162|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||.162
91035037|NCT01077596|181956346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude Odds Ratio|1.2||||||95.0|1.1|1.4||||||||1.4|1.1|
90885905|NCT02039505|181634298|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Odds Ratio|2.88||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.168|7.108|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||CMH test was used for analysis. Prior TNFα antagonist use (yes/no) was used as stratification factor.|||7.108|1.168|0.0210
90885906|NCT02039505|181634304|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.66||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.762|3.596|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||CMH test was used for analysis. Prior TNFα antagonist use (yes/no) was used as stratification factor.|||3.596|0.762|0.1980
90885907|NCT02039505|181634305|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.33||||0.3168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.755|2.356|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||CMH test was used for analysis. Prior TNFα antagonist use (yes/no) was used as stratification factor.|||2.356|0.755|0.3168
90885908|NCT02039505|181634306|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Odds Ratio|3.48||||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.407|8.626|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||CMH test was used for analysis. Prior TNFα antagonist use (yes/no) was used as stratification factor.|||8.626|1.407|0.0067
90885909|NCT02039505|181634307|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Odds Ratio|3.49||||0.0066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.409|8.642|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||CMH test was used for analysis. Prior TNFα antagonist use (yes/no) was used as stratification factor.|||8.642|1.409|0.0066
90885910|NCT02039505|181634308|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Odds Ratio|2.02||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.677|6.033|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||CMH test was used for analysis. Prior TNFα antagonist use (yes/no) was used as stratification factor.|||6.033|0.677|0.2090
90885911|NCT02039505|181634309|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Odds Ratio|3.38||||0.1571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.636|17.981|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||CMH test was used for analysis. Prior TNFα antagonist use (yes/no) was used as stratification factor.|||17.981|0.636|0.1571
90885912|NCT04088097|181634321|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||.01
90885913|NCT04088097|181634322|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||ANOVA|||||||.75
90964237|NCT04667247|181810019|OTHER||ratio of frequencies|0.151||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||1.00
90964238|NCT04667247|181810020|SUPERIORITY||F value|1.908||||0.174|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group by Day interaction|||||.174
90964239|NCT04667247|181810021|SUPERIORITY||F value|0.038||||0.846|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group by Day interaction|||||.846
90964240|NCT04667247|181810022|SUPERIORITY||F value|0.041||||0.841|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Day by Group interaction|||||.841
90964241|NCT04667247|181810023|SUPERIORITY||F value|0.261||||0.612|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||day by group interaction|||||0.612
90964242|NCT04667247|181810024|SUPERIORITY||F value|0.161||||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group by Day interaction|||||.690
90964243|NCT04667247|181810025|SUPERIORITY||F value|2.671||||0.109|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||day by group interaction|||||0.109
91035038|NCT01077596|181956346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.2||||||95.0|1.0|1.3|||||Adjusted for age, sex, cal year, study site, tumor characteristics, multiple antidepressants exposure, smoking, hysterectomy status, previous depression dx, previous IBD diagnosis, OC use, HRT/ERT use, and NSAID use.|||1.3|1.0|
90925221|NCT03916276|181725197|OTHER|We hypothesized negligible between condition differences, although within each condition, we hypothesized that each treatment would produce medium effect size improvements.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
90925222|NCT03916276|181725198|OTHER|We hypothesized negligible between condition differences, although within each condition, we hypothesized that each treatment would produce medium effect size improvements.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
90925223|NCT03916276|181725199|OTHER|We hypothesized negligible between condition differences, although within each condition, we hypothesized that each treatment would produce medium effect size improvements.|||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<.05
90925224|NCT03916276|181725200|OTHER|We hypothesized negligible between condition differences, although within each condition, we hypothesized that each treatment would produce medium effect size improvements|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
90925225|NCT03916276|181725201|OTHER|We hypothesized negligible between condition differences, although within each condition, we hypothesized that each treatment would produce medium effect size improvements|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
90925226|NCT03916276|181725202|OTHER|We hypothesized negligible between condition differences, although within each condition, we hypothesized that each treatment would produce medium effect size improvements.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
90925227|NCT03916276|181725203|OTHER|We hypothesized negligible between condition differences, although within each condition, we hypothesized that each treatment would produce medium effect size improvements.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
90925228|NCT03916276|181725204|OTHER|We hypothesized negligible between condition differences, although within each condition, we hypothesized that each treatment would produce medium effect size improvements.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
90925229|NCT03916276|181725205|OTHER|We hypothesized negligible between condition differences, although within each condition, we hypothesized that each treatment would produce medium effect size improvements.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
90964244|NCT04667247|181810026|SUPERIORITY||F value|0.039||||0.844|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||day by group interaction|||||0.844
90964245|NCT04667247|181810027|SUPERIORITY||F value|4.28||||0.044|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||day by group interaction|||||0.044
91035039|NCT01077596|181956347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude Odds Ratio|1.4||||||95.0|0.9|2.2||||||||2.2|0.9|
91035040|NCT01077596|181956347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.2||||||95.0|0.8|2.0|||||Adjusted for age, sex, cal year, study site, tumor characteristics, multiple antidepressants exposure, smoking, hysterectomy status, previous depression dx, previous IBD diagnosis, OC use, HRT/ERT use, and NSAID use.|||2.0|0.8|
91035041|NCT01077596|181956347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude Odds Ratio|1.2||||||95.0|0.8|2.0||||||||2.0|0.8|
91035042|NCT01077596|181956347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.1||||||95.0|0.7|1.9|||||Adjusted for age, sex, cal year, study site, tumor characteristics, multiple antidepressants exposure, smoking, hysterectomy status, previous depression dx, previous IBD diagnosis, OC use, HRT/ERT use, and NSAID use.|||1.9|0.7|
90964246|NCT04667247|181810028|SUPERIORITY||F value|0.001||||0.989|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Day by Group interaction|||||.989
90925230|NCT03916276|181725206|OTHER|We hypothesized negligible between condition differences, although within each condition, we hypothesized that each treatment would produce medium effect size improvements.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
90964247|NCT04667247|181810029|SUPERIORITY||F value|7.186||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||day by group interaction|||||0.010
90964248|NCT04667247|181810030|SUPERIORITY||F value|0.345||||0.56|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group by Day interaction|||||.560
90964249|NCT04667247|181810031|SUPERIORITY||F value|0.143||||0.707|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||day by group interaction|||||0.707
91035043|NCT01077596|181956347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude Odds Ratio|1.3||||||95.0|0.8|2.1||||||||2.1|0.8|
91035044|NCT01077596|181956347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.1||||||95.0|0.7|1.9|||||Adjusted for age, sex, cal year, study site, tumor characteristics, multiple antidepressants exposure, smoking, hysterectomy status, previous depression dx, previous IBD diagnosis, OC use, HRT/ERT use, and NSAID use.|||1.9|0.7|
91035045|NCT01077596|181956347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude Odds Ratio|2.2||||||95.0|1.2|3.9||||||||3.9|1.2|
90925231|NCT03209973|181725207|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||1-sided p-value was based on exact test of BGB-A317 versus historical rate of 0.35|Exact Binomial Test|Comparison with historical control values||||||<0.0001
90925232|NCT03987022|181725232|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.16
90925233|NCT03987022|181725233|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.00
90925234|NCT03987022|181725234|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.01
90925235|NCT03987022|181725235|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.00
90925236|NCT03987022|181725236|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.58
90925237|NCT03987022|181725237|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.47
90925238|NCT03987022|181725238|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4
90925239|NCT03987022|181725239|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.02
90925240|NCT03987022|181725240|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90925241|NCT01627574|181725248|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio, log|0.281|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.056|1.42|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||1.42|.056|>.05
90925242|NCT01236781|181725305|EQUIVALENCE|no margin is assumed.||||||0.46||||||1 degree of freedom;|McNemar|Exact test||"To account for the paired nature of the design, McNemar's test will be used to compare the call-back rates.~H0: assumes no difference between the tests (modalities)"||||0.46
90964250|NCT04667247|181810032|SUPERIORITY||F value|0.09||||0.765|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Day by Group interaction|||||0.765
90964251|NCT04667247|181810033|SUPERIORITY||F value|7.835||||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||day by group interaction|||||0.005
90885914|NCT04088097|181634323|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||ANOVA|||||||.03
91035046|NCT01077596|181956347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|2.0||||||95.0|1.1|3.6|||||Adjusted for age, sex, cal year, study site, tumor characteristics, multiple antidepressants exposure, smoking, hysterectomy status, previous depression dx, previous IBD diagnosis, OC use, HRT/ERT use, and NSAID use.|||3.6|1.1|
90885915|NCT03556761|181634325|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.4||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.81|||Regression, Linear|||||0.81|0.20|0.03
90885916|NCT03556761|181634326|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.51|||Regression, Cox|||||1.51|0.95|0.12
90885917|NCT03556761|181634327|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.55||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.21|||Chi-squared|||||1.21|0.25|0.14
90885918|NCT03556761|181634328|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.87||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.18|||Chi-squared|||||1.18|0.64|0.36
90885919|NCT03556761|181634329|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.02||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.13|||Regression, Linear|||||.13|-0.09|0.76
90885920|NCT03556761|181634330|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.62
90885921|NCT03556761|181634331|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|28.59||||||||28.59|0.32|
90885922|NCT03556761|181634332|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.61||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.96|||Chi-squared|||||0.96|0.39|0.03
91035047|NCT01077596|181956348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude Odds Ratio|4.5||||||95.0|3.2|6.3||||||||6.3|3.2|
90885923|NCT01154166|181634335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean for treatment difference|-1.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.27|-1.26|||ANCOVA||The estimated value indicates the treatment difference for the adjusted mean for Ropinirole PR and placebo.|||-1.26|-2.27|<0.001
90885924|NCT01168999|181634397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.01
90885925|NCT01168999|181634398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.01
90885926|NCT01168999|181634399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||Repeated Measure ANOVA|||||||>0.05
90885927|NCT01168999|181634400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||Repeated Measure ANOVA|||||||>0.05
90885928|NCT01168999|181634401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||Repeated Measure ANOVA|||||||0.05
90885929|NCT01168999|181634402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||Repeated Measure ANOVA|||||||>0.05
90885930|NCT00491244|181634408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|2.21|||Chi-squared|||||2.21|1.46|< 0.001
90885931|NCT00491244|181634409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.61||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|4.01|||Chi-squared|||||4.01|0.65|0.35
90885932|NCT01276327|181634410|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence of the FDC tablet compared with the individual tablets of linagliptin and pioglitazone administered together|Adjusted gMean Ratio (Test/Ref) (%)|99.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.11|102.81|||Unscaled average Bioequivalence||Geometric standard error of mean was calculated.|||102.81|97.11|
90885933|NCT01276327|181634411|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence of the FDC tablet compared with the individual tablets of linagliptin and pioglitazone administered together|Adjusted gMean Ratio (Test/Ref) (%)|94.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.08|99.55|||Unscaled average Bioequivalence||Geometric Standard error of mean was calculated.|||99.55|89.08|
90885934|NCT01276327|181634412|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence of the FDC tablet compared with the individual tablets of linagliptin and pioglitazone administered together.|Adjusted gMean Ratio (Test/Ref) (%)|79.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.65|85.72|||Scaled average bioequivalence (SABE)||Geometric Standard error of mean was calculated.|||85.72|74.65|
90885935|NCT01276327|181634413|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence of the FDC tablet compared with the individual tablets of linagliptin and pioglitazone administered together|Adjusted gMean Ratio (Test/Ref) (%)|97.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.9|106.51|||Scaled average bioequivalence (SABE)||Geometric standard error of mean was calculated.|||106.51|88.90|
90885936|NCT01276327|181634414|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence of the FDC tablet compared with the individual tablets of linagliptin and pioglitazone administered together|Adjusted gMean Ratio (Test/Ref) (%)|99.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.1|102.81|||Unscaled average bioequivalence||Geometric Standard error of mean was calculated.|||102.81|97.10|
90885937|NCT01276327|181634415|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence of the FDC tablet compared with the individual tablets of linagliptin and pioglitazone administered together|Adjusted gMean Ratio (Test/Ref) (%)|101.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.18|105.67|||Unscaled average bioequivalence||Geometric standard error of mean was calculated.|||105.67|98.18|
90885938|NCT01276327|181634416|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence of the FDC tablet compared with the individual tablets of linagliptin and pioglitazone administered together|Adjusted gMean Ratio (Test/Ref) (%)|80.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.6|86.34|||Scaled average bioequivalence (SABE)||Geometric standard error of mean was calculated.|||86.34|75.60|
90925243|NCT01236781|181725308|EQUIVALENCE|no equivalence margin||||||0.2188||||||Due to the paired nature of the data an exact McNemar's Test is used|McNemar|Exact test||H0: no difference between the 2 modalities||||0.2188
90964252|NCT04667247|181810034|SUPERIORITY||F value|16.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||day by group interaction|||||<0.001
90964253|NCT02012296|181810106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.83
90925244|NCT04028284|181725322|OTHER|Two-sided inferential test||||||0.02||||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Holm-Bonferroni correction. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was P \< 0.05 for the primary outcome.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
90925245|NCT04028284|181725323|OTHER|Inferential two-sided test||||||0.31|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.31
90925246|NCT04028284|181725324|OTHER|Inferential two-sided test||||||0.01||||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Holm-Bonferroni correction.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
90925247|NCT04028284|181725325|OTHER|Inferential two-sided test||||||0.03||||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Holm-Bonferroni correction.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
90925248|NCT04028284|181725326|OTHER|Inferential two-sided test||||||0.56|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.56
90925249|NCT04028284|181725327|OTHER|Inferential two-sided test||||||0.78|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.78
90925250|NCT04028284|181725328|OTHER|Inferential two-sided test||||||0.24|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.24
90925251|NCT03728608|181725366|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||survival analysis|||||||0.92
90925252|NCT03728608|181725367|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||survival analysis|||||||0.65
90925253|NCT03728608|181725368|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||survival analysis|||||||0.96
90925254|NCT03728608|181725369|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||survival analysis|||||||0.77
90925255|NCT03728608|181725370|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.43
90925256|NCT03728608|181725371|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.97
90925257|NCT03728608|181725372|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.97
90925258|NCT03728608|181725373|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.79
90925259|NCT04587453|181725386|OTHER|No formal testing was performed. Confidence intervals (CIs) are presented with two sided 95% degree of confidence.|Risk Difference (RD)|5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|22.5|||||Mantel-Haenzel risk difference, stratified by baseline IGA.|Responders were considered those meeting an IGA score of 0 or 1 (clear or almost clear). Subjects with missing data or subjects who had received rescue medication prior to Week 16 were considered non-responders in the primary analysis of the primary estimand.||22.5|-11.2|
90925260|NCT04587453|181725387|OTHER|No formal testing was performed. CIs are presented with two sided 95% degree of confidence.|Risk Difference (RD)|15.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|33.0|||||Mantel-Haenzel risk difference, stratified by baseline IGA.|Subjects with 75% reduction in EASI were considered responders. Subjects with missing data or subjects who had received rescue medication prior to Week 16 were considered non-responders in the primary analysis of the primary estimand.||33.0|-2.9|
90925261|NCT04587453|181725388|OTHER|No formal testing was performed. CIs are presented with two sided 95% degree of confidence.|Mean Difference (Net)|-5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|2.3|||||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). Worst observation carried forward for all subjects who prior to Week 16 had received rescue medication. Multiple imputation of missing values for subjects who had not received rescue medication.|||2.3|-12.4|
90964254|NCT02012296|181810107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.21
91035048|NCT01077596|181956348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|3.0||||||95.0|2.0|4.4|||||Adjusted for age, sex, cal year, study site, tumor characteristics, multiple antidepressants exposure, smoking, hysterectomy status, previous depression dx, previous IBD diagnosis, OC use, HRT/ERT use, and NSAID use.|||4.4|2.0|
90925262|NCT04587453|181725389|OTHER|No formal testing was performed. CIs are presented with two sided 95% degree of confidence.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|0.5|||||ANCOVA. Worst observation carried forward for all subjects who prior to Week 16 had received rescue medication. Multiple imputation of missing values for subjects who had not received rescue medication.|||0.5|-2.7|
90925263|NCT04587453|181725390|OTHER|No formal testing was performed. CIs are presented with two sided 95% degree of confidence.|Risk Difference (RD)|-3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.7|14.2|||||Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by baseline IGA.|Subjects with at least a reduction of 4 in the worst daily pruritus NRS score were considered responders. Subjects who had received rescue medication were considered non-responders. Subjects with missing data at Week 16 were imputed as non-responders.||14.2|-21.7|
90925264|NCT04587453|181725391|OTHER|No formal testing was performed. CIs are presented with two sided 95% degree of confidence.|Risk Difference (RD)|15.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|33.2|||||Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by baseline IGA.|Subjects with a reduction of 90% in EASI were considered responders. Subjects who had received rescue medication were considered non-responders. Subjects with missing data were imputed as non-responders.||33.2|-3.0|
90925265|NCT04587453|181725392|OTHER|No formal testing was performed. CIs are presented with two sided 95% degree of confidence.|Risk Difference (RD)|5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|20.3|||||Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by baseline IGA.|Subjects with at least 50% reduction in EASI were considered responders. Subjects who had received rescue medication were considered non-responders. Subjects with missing data were imputed as non-responders.||20.3|-9.0|
90925266|NCT04587453|181725393|OTHER|No formal testing was performed. CIs are presented with two sided 95% degree of confidence.|Mean Difference (Net)|-4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|6.3|||||Repeated measurements Model: Change=Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week+Baseline IGA. Data after permanent discontinuation of IMP/initiation of rescue medication not included (4 subjects excluded). Week 2 change imputed as 0 if no post-baseline assessments.|||6.3|-14.9|
90925267|NCT04587453|181725394|OTHER|No formal testing was performed. CIs are presented with two sided 95% degree of confidence.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.8|||||Repeated measurements Model: Change=Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week+Baseline IGA. Data after permanent discontinuation of IMP/initiation of rescue medication not included (4 subjects excluded). Week 2 change imputed as 0 if no post-baseline assessments.|||0.8|-0.7|
90925268|NCT04587453|181725395|OTHER|No formal testing was performed. CIs are presented with two sided 95% degree of confidence.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.6|||||Repeated measurements model: Change=Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week+Baseline IGA. Data after permanent discontinuation of IMP/initiation of rescue medication not included (4 subjects excluded). Week 1 change imputed as 0 if no post-baseline assessments.|||0.6|-0.9|
90964255|NCT02012296|181810110|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0012|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0012
90964256|NCT02012296|181810111|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90964257|NCT02012296|181810112|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0002
90964258|NCT01681810|181810131|OTHER|Paired t-test comparing insulin stimulated glucose disposal at end of 12 weeks on nitrite drug to baseline (pre-drug) insulin stimulated glucose disposal.||||||0.2068|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2068
90925269|NCT04587453|181725396|OTHER|No formal testing was performed. CIs are presented with two sided 95% degree of confidence.|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|-0.9|||||Repeated measurements model: Change=Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week+Baseline IGA. Data after permanent discontinuation of IMP/initiation of rescue medication not included (4 subjects excluded). Week 2 change imputed as 0 if no post-baseline assessments.|||-0.9|-5.6|
90925270|NCT05098158|181725435|EQUIVALENCE|Paired t tests had .05 set as level of significance to reject null hypothesis. Sample powered to generate effect size for future studies.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Actual p value results above; Not adjusted due to pilot study aim to generate effect size comparing pre and posttest data|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t tests of pre and posttest data||||<0.001
90925271|NCT05098158|181725436|EQUIVALENCE|Paired t tests had .05 set as level of significance to reject null hypothesis. Sample powered to generate effect size for future studies.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.6||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|||||Actual p value results above; Not adjusted due to pilot study aim to generate effect size comparing pre and posttest data|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t tests of pre and posttest data||||0.003
90925272|NCT05098158|181725437|EQUIVALENCE|Paired t tests had .05 set as level of significance to reject null hypothesis. Sample powered to generate effect size for future studies.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.1||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|||||Actual p value results above; Not adjusted due to pilot study aim to generate effect size comparing pre and posttest data|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t tests of pre and posttest data||||0.011
90925273|NCT05098158|181725438|EQUIVALENCE|Paired t tests had .05 set as level of significance to reject null hypothesis. Sample powered to generate effect size for future studies.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|||||Actual p value results above; Not adjusted due to pilot study aim to generate effect size comparing pre and posttest data|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t tests of pre and posttest data||||0.168
90925274|NCT05098158|181725439|EQUIVALENCE|Paired t tests had .05 set as level of significance to reject null hypothesis. Sample powered to generate effect size for future studies.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.456|TWO_SIDED|||||Actual p value results above; Not adjusted due to pilot study aim to generate effect size comparing pre and posttest data|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t tests of pre and posttest data||||0.456
90925275|NCT05098158|181725440|EQUIVALENCE|Paired t tests had .05 set as level of significance to reject null hypothesis. Sample powered to generate effect size for future studies.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.517|TWO_SIDED|||||Actual p value results above; Not adjusted due to pilot study aim to generate effect size comparing pre and posttest data|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t tests of pre and posttest data||||0.517
90925276|NCT05098158|181725441|EQUIVALENCE|Paired t tests had .05 set as level of significance to reject null hypothesis. Sample powered to generate effect size for future studies.|Mean Difference (Net)|3.2||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|||||Actual p value results above; Not adjusted due to pilot study aim to generate effect size comparing pre and posttest data|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t tests of pre and posttest data||||0.012
90925277|NCT05098158|181725442|EQUIVALENCE|Paired t tests had .05 set as level of significance to reject null hypothesis. Sample powered to generate effect size for future studies.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.811|TWO_SIDED|||||Actual p value results above; Not adjusted due to pilot study aim to generate effect size comparing pre and posttest data|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.811
90925278|NCT05098158|181725443|EQUIVALENCE|Paired t tests had .05 set as level of significance to reject null hypothesis. Sample powered to generate effect size for future studies.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.941|TWO_SIDED|||||Actual p value results above; Not adjusted due to pilot study aim to generate effect size comparing pre and posttest data|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t tests of pre and posttest dat||||0.941
90925279|NCT05098158|181725444|OTHER|Descriptive statistics to report the percentage of offered telehealth sessions that were attended \[#attended/#offered = % attended\]|percentage|95.8|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90925280|NCT03526887|181725446|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|9.7||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.4|19.1|||Log Rank|||||19.1|9.4|0.016
90925281|NCT04183283|181725475|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.49||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.66|15.65|||ANOVA|||Ring/CA conc: Vehicle, Type: ROI||15.65|-10.66|0.75
90925282|NCT04183283|181725475|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.37||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.49|7.76|||ANOVA|||Ring/CA conc: Vehicle, Type: ROI||7.76|-18.49|0.50
90925283|NCT04183283|181725475|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.68||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.48|14.84|||ANOVA|||Ring/CA conc: Vehicle, Type: ROI||14.84|-11.48|0.83
91035049|NCT01077596|181956348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude Odds Ratio|4.0||||||95.0|2.8|5.8||||||||5.8|2.8|
91035050|NCT01077596|181956348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|2.9||||||95.0|1.9|4.5|||||Adjusted for age, sex, cal year, study site, tumor characteristics, multiple antidepressants exposure, smoking, hysterectomy status, previous depression dx, previous IBD diagnosis, OC use, HRT/ERT use, and NSAID use.|||4.5|1.9|
90925284|NCT04183283|181725475|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.88||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.91|6.15|||ANOVA|||Ring/CA conc: Vehicle, Type: Entire Image||6.15|-7.91|0.84
90925285|NCT04183283|181725475|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.89||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.13|8.9|||ANOVA|||Ring/CA conc: Vehicle, Type: Entire Image||8.90|-5.13|0.66
90925286|NCT04183283|181725475|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.65||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.38|7.68|||ANOVA|||Ring/CA conc: Vehicle, Type: Entire Image||7.68|-6.38|0.88
91035051|NCT01077596|181956348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude Odds Ratio|4.4||||||95.0|3.1|6.3||||||||6.3|3.1|
90964259|NCT01681810|181810132|OTHER|One-way repeated measures ANOVA comparing blood pressure over time on nitrite drug to baseline (pre-drug) blood pressure.||||||0.0074||||||Bonferroni adjusted p-value for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||0.0074
90964260|NCT01681810|181810133|OTHER|One-way repeated measures ANOVA comparing blood pressure over time on nitrite drug to baseline (pre-drug) blood pressure.|||||<|0.0001||||||Bonferroni adjusted p-value for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91035052|NCT01077596|181956348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|3.0||||||95.0|1.9|4.5|||||Adjusted for age, sex, cal year, study site, tumor characteristics, multiple antidepressants exposure, smoking, hysterectomy status, previous depression dx, previous IBD diagnosis, OC use, HRT/ERT use, and NSAID use.|||4.5|1.9|
91035053|NCT01077596|181956348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude Odds Ratio|4.5||||||95.0|2.8|7.2||||||||7.2|2.8|
91035054|NCT01077596|181956348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|3.5||||||95.0|2.1|5.9|||||Adjusted for age, sex, cal year, study site, tumor characteristics, multiple antidepressants exposure, smoking, hysterectomy status, previous depression dx, previous IBD diagnosis, OC use, HRT/ERT use, and NSAID use.|||5.9|2.1|
91035055|NCT01077596|181956349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude Odds Ratio|2.6||||||95.0|1.7|4.1||||||||4.1|1.7|
90925287|NCT04183283|181725475|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-53.83||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-200.7|93.05|||ANOVA|||Ring/CA conc: 3% Type: ROI||93.05|-200.70|0.54
90925288|NCT04183283|181725475|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-40.51||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-187.01|105.98|||ANOVA|||Ring/CA conc: 3% Type: ROI||105.98|-187.01|0.65
90925289|NCT04183283|181725475|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-52.99||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-199.87|93.88|||ANOVA|||Ring/CA conc: 3% Type: ROI||93.88|-199.87|0.55
90925290|NCT04183283|181725475|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-36.65||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-81.85|8.56|||ANOVA|||Ring/CA conc: 3%, Type: Entire Image||8.56|-81.85|0.18
90925291|NCT04183283|181725475|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.49||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-67.58|22.59|||ANOVA|||Ring/CA conc: 3%, Type: Entire Image||22.59|-67.58|0.41
90925292|NCT04183283|181725475|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-33.86||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-79.06|11.34|||ANOVA|||Ring/CA conc: 3%, Type: Entire Image||11.34|-79.06|0.22
90925293|NCT04183283|181725475|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-30.66||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-183.08|121.76|||ANOVA|||Ring/CA conc: 10%, Type: ROI||121.76|-183.08|0.74
90925294|NCT04183283|181725475|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-98.77||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-250.79|53.25|||ANOVA|||Ring/CA conc: 10%, Type: ROI||53.25|-250.79|0.28
90925295|NCT04183283|181725475|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-214.89||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-367.31|-62.48|||ANOVA|||Ring/CA conc: 10%, Type: ROI||-62.48|-367.31|0.02
91035056|NCT01077596|181956349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|2.1||||||95.0|1.3|3.4|||||Adjusted for age, sex, cal year, study site, tumor characteristics, multiple antidepressants exposure, smoking, hysterectomy status, previous depression dx, previous IBD diagnosis, OC use, HRT/ERT use, and NSAID use.|||3.4|1.3|
90925296|NCT04183283|181725475|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.89||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-81.44|73.66|||ANOVA|||Ring/CA conc: 10% , Type: Entire Image||73.66|-81.44|0.93
90925297|NCT04183283|181725475|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-191.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-268.37|-113.67|||ANOVA|||Ring/CA conc: 10% , Type: Entire Image||-113.67|-268.37|<.0001
90925298|NCT04183283|181725475|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-252.24|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-329.79|-174.68|||ANOVA|||Ring/CA conc: 10%, Type: Entire Image||-174.68|-329.79|<.0001
91035057|NCT01077596|181956349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude Odds Ratio|2.3||||||95.0|1.4|3.6||||||||3.6|1.4|
90925299|NCT04183283|181725476|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.28|8.15|||ANOVA|||Ring/CA conc: Vehicle, Type: ROI||8.15|-8.28|0.99
90925300|NCT04183283|181725476|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.78|7.6|||ANOVA|||Ring/CA conc: Vehicle, Type: ROI||7.60|-8.78|0.91
90925301|NCT04183283|181725476|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.53||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.69|10.74|||ANOVA|||Ring/CA conc: Vehicle, Type: ROI||10.74|-5.69|0.61
90925302|NCT04183283|181725476|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.29||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.58|7.0|||ANOVA|||Ring/CA conc: Vehicle, Type: Entire Image||7.00|-9.58|0.80
90925303|NCT04183283|181725476|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.45||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.83|9.72|||ANOVA|||Ring/CA conc: Vehicle, Type: Entire Image||9.72|-6.83|0.77
90925304|NCT04183283|181725476|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.85||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.45|10.14|||ANOVA|||Ring/CA conc: Vehicle, Type: Entire Image||10.14|-6.45|0.71
90925305|NCT04183283|181725476|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.38||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-53.27|16.51|||ANOVA|||Ring/CA conc: 3%, Type: ROI||16.51|-53.27|0.38
90925306|NCT04183283|181725476|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.97||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-37.76|31.83|||ANOVA|||Ring/CA conc: 3%, Type: ROI||31.83|-37.76|0.89
90925307|NCT04183283|181725476|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.12||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-45.0|24.77|||ANOVA|||Ring/CA conc: 3%, Type: ROI||24.77|-45.00|0.63
90925308|NCT04183283|181725476|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.31||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-26.21|3.58|||ANOVA|||Ring/CA conc: 3%, Type: Entire Image||3.58|-26.21|0.21
90925309|NCT04183283|181725476|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.19||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.04|11.67|||ANOVA|||Ring/CA conc: 3%, Type: Entire Image||11.67|-18.04|0.72
90964261|NCT01681810|181810134|OTHER|One-way repeated measures ANOVA comparing blood pressure over time on nitrite drug to baseline (pre-drug) blood pressure.|||||<|0.0001||||||Bonferroni adjusted p-value for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
90964262|NCT01681810|181810135|OTHER|One-way repeated measures ANOVA comparing methemoglobin percent over time on nitrite drug to baseline (pre-drug) methemoglobin percent.||||||0.0127||||||Bonferroni adjusted p-value for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||0.0127
90964263|NCT03627767|181810144|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.286|0.424||A stratified log-rank test with age group and disease severity as stratification variables was performed to evaluate P value.|Log Rank|||A Cox regression model with treatment, age group and disease severity as stratification covariates was used to estimate the hazard ratio and the corresponding 95% CI.||0.424|0.286|< 0.0001
91035058|NCT01077596|181956349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.8||||||95.0|1.1|3.0|||||Adjusted for age, sex, cal year, study site, tumor characteristics, multiple antidepressants exposure, smoking, hysterectomy status, previous depression dx, previous IBD diagnosis, OC use, HRT/ERT use, and NSAID use.|||3.0|1.1|
90964264|NCT03627767|181810144|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.176|0.27||A stratified log-rank test with age group and disease severity as stratification variables was performed to evaluate P value.|Log Rank|||A Cox regression model with treatment, age group and disease severity as stratification covariates was used to estimate the hazard ratio and the corresponding 95% CI.||0.270|0.176|< 0.0001
91035059|NCT01077596|181956349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude Odds Ratio|2.3||||||95.0|1.5|3.7||||||||3.7|1.5|
90925310|NCT04183283|181725476|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.46||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-25.35|4.44|||ANOVA|||Ring/CA conc: 3%, Type: Entire Image||4.44|-25.35|0.25
90925311|NCT04183283|181725476|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.27||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.71|37.25|||ANOVA|||Ring/CA conc: 10%, Type: ROI||37.25|-22.71|0.69
90925312|NCT04183283|181725476|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.7||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-50.6|9.2|||ANOVA|||Ring/CA conc: 10%, Type: ROI||9.2|-50.60|0.25
90925313|NCT04183283|181725476|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-34.79||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-64.77|-4.81|||ANOVA|||Ring/CA conc: 10%, Type: ROI||-4.81|-64.77|0.06
90925314|NCT04183283|181725476|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.01||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.4|35.42|||ANOVA|||Ring/CA conc: 10% Type: Entire Image||35.42|-15.4|0.51
90925315|NCT04183283|181725476|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-53.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-78.98|-28.29|||ANOVA|||Ring/CA conc: 10% Type: Entire Image||-28.29|-78.98|<0.001
90925316|NCT04183283|181725476|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-79.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-104.91|-54.09|||ANOVA|||Ring/CA conc: 10% Type: Entire Image||-54.09|-104.91|<.0001
90925317|NCT04228042|181725497|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.009
90925318|NCT04228042|181725497|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.04
90925319|NCT04228042|181725497|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.003
90925320|NCT04228042|181725497|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
90925321|NCT05196919|181725509|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.693||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.57|30.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This was a phase 2a safety study that was not statistically powered for efficacy assessments.||30.97|-22.57|1.00
90925322|NCT05196919|181725509|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.142||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.12|33.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This was a phase 2a safety study that was not statistically powered for efficacy assessments.||33.03|-17.12|0.99
90925323|NCT05196919|181725510|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.676||0.1933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.49|3.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This was a phase 2a safety study that was not statistically powered for efficacy assessments.||3.19|-15.49|0.1933
90925324|NCT05196919|181725510|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.434||0.2511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.73|14.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This was a phase 2a safety study that was not statistically powered for efficacy assessments.||14.00|-3.73|0.2511
90925325|NCT04909801|181725538|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.0||||0.9026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.6|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.6|0.6|0.9026
90925326|NCT04909801|181725539|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.9||||0.5824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.5|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.5|0.5|0.5824
90925327|NCT04909801|181725540|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.8||||0.3534||95.0|0.5|1.3|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.3|0.5|0.3534
90925328|NCT04909801|181725541|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.9||||0.614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.5|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.5|0.5|0.6140
90925329|NCT04909801|181725543|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.8||||0.4996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.4|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 29||1.4|0.5|0.4996
90925330|NCT04909801|181725543|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.8||||0.449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.4|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 57||1.4|0.5|0.4490
90925331|NCT04909801|181725543|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.9||||0.809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.7|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 85||1.7|0.5|0.8090
90925332|NCT04909801|181725543|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.9||||0.0739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|3.6|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 113||3.6|0.9|0.0739
90925333|NCT04909801|181725543|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.3||||0.4201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.6|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 141||2.6|0.7|0.4201
91035060|NCT01077596|181956349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.8||||||95.0|1.1|3.0|||||Adjusted for age, sex, cal year, study site, tumor characteristics, multiple antidepressants exposure, smoking, hysterectomy status, previous depression dx, previous IBD diagnosis, OC use, HRT/ERT use, and NSAID use.|||3.0|1.1|
90925334|NCT04909801|181725543|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.1||||0.7928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.0|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 169||2.0|0.6|0.7928
90925335|NCT04909801|181725544|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.7||||0.2701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.3|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 29||1.3|0.4|0.2701
90925336|NCT04909801|181725544|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.8||||0.4863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.4|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 57||1.4|0.5|0.4863
90925337|NCT04909801|181725544|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.0||||0.9513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.7|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 85||1.7|0.6|0.9513
90925338|NCT04909801|181725544|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.1||||0.8536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.8|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 113||1.8|0.6|0.8536
90925339|NCT04909801|181725544|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.0||||0.9223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.7|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 141||1.7|0.6|0.9223
90925340|NCT04909801|181725544|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.0||||0.9026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.6|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 169||1.6|0.6|0.9026
90925341|NCT04909801|181725545|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.6||||0.3411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.6|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 29||1.6|0.2|0.3411
91035061|NCT01077596|181956349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude Odds Ratio|2.6||||||95.0|1.5|4.5||||||||4.5|1.5|
91035062|NCT01077596|181956349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|2.2||||||95.0|1.3|3.9|||||Adjusted for age, sex, cal year, study site, tumor characteristics, multiple antidepressants exposure, smoking, hysterectomy status, previous depression dx, previous IBD diagnosis, OC use, HRT/ERT use, and NSAID use.|||3.9|1.3|
91035063|NCT01077596|181956350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude Odds Ratio|0.8||||||95.0|0.5|1.3||||||||1.3|0.5|
90885939|NCT00807092|181634419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.013|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.666||||95.0|-1.332|1.306||A statistical significant threshold p less than 0.025|ANCOVA|Treatment and strata as factors; baseline (visit 2) value of mean IAUC(0-4hours) as covariate|BIAsp 30 - BHI 30|"The null hypothesis (H0) was:~H0: Change in mean IAUC(0-4hours) of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in mean IAUC(0-4hours) of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment greater than or equal to 0 mol\*h/L against the alternative hypothesis(H1): H1: Change in mean IAUC (0-4hours) of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in mean IAUC(0-4hours) of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment less than 0 mol\*h/L"||1.306|-1.332|
90885940|NCT00807092|181634420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.178|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.2412||95.0|-0.802|3.157||A statistical significant threshold p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment and strata as factors; corresponding baseline (week 0) value of mean IAUC(0-4h) as covariate (breakfast/lunch/dinner)|Breakfast|"Null hypothesis and alternative hypothesis for breakfast:~The null hypothesis (H0) was:~H0: Change in mean IAUC(0-4h) of BIAsp 30 for breakfast after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in mean IAUC(0-4h) of BHI 30 for breakfast after 6 weeks of treatment =0 mol\*h/L against the alternative hypothesis(H1): H1: Change in mean IAUC (0-4h) of BIAsp 30 for breakfast after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in mean IAUC(0-4h) of BHI 30 for breakfast after 6 weeks of treatment≠0 mol\*h/L"||3.157|-0.802|0.2412
90885941|NCT00807092|181634420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.318|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.216||0.794||95.0|-2.724|2.087||A statistical significant threshold p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment and strata as factors; corresponding baseline (week 0) value of mean IAUC(0-4h) as covariate (breakfast/lunch/dinner)|Lunch|"Null hypothesis and alternative hypothesis for lunch:~The null hypothesis (H0) was:~H0: Change in mean IAUC(0-4h) of BIAsp 30 for lunch after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in mean IAUC(0-4h) of BHI 30 for lunch after 6 weeks of treatment =0 mol\*h/L against the alternative hypothesis(H1): H1: Change in mean IAUC (0-4h) of BIAsp 30 for lunch after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in mean IAUC(0-4h) of BHI 30 for lunch after 6 weeks of treatment≠0 mol\*h/L"||2.087|-2.724|0.794
90925342|NCT04909801|181725545|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.7||||0.2546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.3|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 57||1.3|0.4|0.2546
90925343|NCT04909801|181725545|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.8||||0.4558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.4|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 85||1.4|0.5|0.4558
90925344|NCT04909801|181725545|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.0||||0.9544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.7|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 113||1.7|0.6|0.9544
90925345|NCT04909801|181725545|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.9||||0.545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.4|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 141||1.4|0.5|0.5450
90925346|NCT04909801|181725545|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.7||||0.2227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.2|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 169||1.2|0.4|0.2227
90925347|NCT04909801|181725546|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.7||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.4|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 29||1.4|0.3|0.3200
90925348|NCT04909801|181725546|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.8||||0.4992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.5|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 57||1.5|0.5|0.4992
90925349|NCT04909801|181725546|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.0||||0.8963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.7|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 85||1.7|0.6|0.8963
90925350|NCT04909801|181725546|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.8||||0.4544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.4|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 113||1.4|0.5|0.4544
90925351|NCT04909801|181725546|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.0||||0.8985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.8|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 141||1.8|0.6|0.8985
90925352|NCT04909801|181725546|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.9||||0.5824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.5|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 169||1.5|0.5|0.5824
90925353|NCT04909801|181725547|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.5||||0.4152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|4.1|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 29||4.1|0.6|0.4152
90925354|NCT04909801|181725547|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.2||||0.5917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.5|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 57||2.5|0.6|0.5917
90925355|NCT04909801|181725547|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.4||||0.3348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.6|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 85||2.6|0.7|0.3348
90925356|NCT04909801|181725547|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.8||||0.3959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.4|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 113||1.4|0.4|0.3959
90925357|NCT04909801|181725547|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.2||||0.6225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.0|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 141||2.0|0.7|0.6225
90925358|NCT04909801|181725547|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.9||||0.614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.5|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 169||1.5|0.5|0.6140
90925359|NCT04909801|181725548|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.1||||0.8084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.9|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 29||2.9|0.4|0.8084
90925360|NCT04909801|181725548|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.1||||0.747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.3|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 57||2.3|0.5|0.7470
90964265|NCT03627767|181810144|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.503|0.78||A stratified log-rank test with age group and disease severity as stratification variables was performed to evaluate P value.|Log Rank|||A Cox regression model with treatment, age group and disease severity as stratification covariates was used to estimate the hazard ratio and the corresponding 95% CI.||0.780|0.503|< 0.0001
90964266|NCT03627767|181810145|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|0.0|||=|0.9495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.1||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||1.1|-1.0|= 0.9495
91035064|NCT01077596|181956350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.7||||||95.0|0.4|1.2|||||Adjusted for age, sex, cal year, study site, tumor characteristics, multiple antidepressants exposure, smoking, hysterectomy status, previous depression dx, previous IBD diagnosis, OC use, HRT/ERT use, and NSAID use.|||1.2|0.4|
90925361|NCT04909801|181725548|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.2||||0.5233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.3|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 85||2.3|0.7|0.5233
90925362|NCT04909801|181725548|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.9||||0.7295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.6|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 113||1.6|0.5|0.7295
90925363|NCT04909801|181725548|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.1||||0.7621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.9|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 141||1.9|0.6|0.7621
90925364|NCT04909801|181725548|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.9||||0.6861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.6|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 169||1.6|0.5|0.6861
90925365|NCT04909801|181725549|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.8||||0.3117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.2|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 29||1.2|0.5|0.3117
90925366|NCT04909801|181725549|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.9||||0.612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.4|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 57||1.4|0.6|0.6120
90925367|NCT04909801|181725549|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.8||||0.4339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.3|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 85||1.3|0.5|0.4339
90925368|NCT04909801|181725549|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.5||||0.1963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.6|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 113||2.6|0.8|0.1963
90925369|NCT04909801|181725549|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.3||||0.3275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.3|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 141||2.3|0.8|0.3275
90925370|NCT04909801|181725549|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.0||||0.9113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.7|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 169||1.7|0.6|0.9113
90925371|NCT04909801|181725550|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.7||||0.1247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.1|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 29||1.1|0.4|0.1247
90925372|NCT04909801|181725550|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.9||||0.5656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.4|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 57||1.4|0.6|0.5656
90925373|NCT04909801|181725550|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.0||||0.897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.5|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 85||1.5|0.6|0.8970
90925374|NCT04909801|181725550|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.0||||0.9175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.6|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 113||1.6|0.7|0.9175
90925375|NCT04909801|181725550|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.1||||0.5996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.7|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 141||1.7|0.7|0.5996
90925376|NCT04909801|181725550|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.8||||0.3534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.3|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 169||1.3|0.5|0.3534
90925377|NCT04909801|181725551|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.6||||0.1641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.3|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 29||1.3|0.2|0.1641
90925378|NCT04909801|181725551|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.9||||0.5905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.5|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 57||1.5|0.5|0.5905
90925379|NCT04909801|181725551|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.9||||0.7146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.5|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 85||1.5|0.6|0.7146
90925380|NCT04909801|181725551|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.1||||0.7416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.7|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 113||1.7|0.7|0.7416
90925381|NCT04909801|181725551|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.0||||0.9026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.5|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 141||1.5|0.6|0.9026
90964267|NCT03627767|181810145|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-0.4|||=|0.5717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.9||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||0.9|-1.6|= 0.5717
90971115|NCT01181011|181824765|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence|gMean Ratio|109.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.87|117.07||The p-value is for the ratio being outside the interval 0.8 to 1.25.|ANCOVA|||||117.07|102.87|0.0011
90925382|NCT04909801|181725551|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.8||||0.2605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.2|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 169||1.2|0.5|0.2605
90925383|NCT04909801|181725552|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.6||||0.1078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.1|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 29||1.1|0.3|0.1078
90925384|NCT04909801|181725552|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.7||||0.1855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.2|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 57||1.2|0.4|0.1855
90925385|NCT04909801|181725552|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.9||||0.5223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.4|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 85||1.4|0.6|0.5223
90925386|NCT04909801|181725552|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.8||||0.4078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.3|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 113||1.3|0.5|0.4078
90925387|NCT04909801|181725552|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.2||||0.5238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.8|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 141||1.8|0.7|0.5238
90925388|NCT04909801|181725552|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.9||||0.474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.3|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 169||1.3|0.5|0.4740
90925389|NCT04909801|181725553|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.2||||0.6565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.9|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 29||2.9|0.5|0.6565
90925390|NCT04909801|181725553|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.1||||0.701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.1|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 57||2.1|0.6|0.7010
90925391|NCT04909801|181725553|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.3||||0.3683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.1|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 85||2.1|0.8|0.3683
90964268|NCT03627767|181810145|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.9||||||Week 12: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||0.9|-1.7|
90925392|NCT04909801|181725553|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.1||||0.6372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.8|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 113||1.8|0.7|0.6372
90925393|NCT04909801|181725553|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.3||||0.2922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.0|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 141||2.0|0.8|0.2922
90925394|NCT04909801|181725553|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.1||||0.8178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.7|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 169||1.7|0.7|0.8178
90925395|NCT04909801|181725554|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.0||||0.9599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.2|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 29||2.2|0.4|0.9599
90925396|NCT04909801|181725554|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.9||||0.7899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.7|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 57||1.7|0.5|0.7899
90925397|NCT04909801|181725554|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.1||||0.6305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.9|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 85||1.9|0.7|0.6305
90925398|NCT04909801|181725554|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.3||||0.3491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.0|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 113||2.0|0.8|0.3491
90925399|NCT04909801|181725554|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.2||||0.4916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.9|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 141||1.9|0.7|0.4916
90925400|NCT04909801|181725554|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.1||||0.5697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.8|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 169||1.8|0.7|0.5697
90925401|NCT04909801|181725555|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept - Adalimumab|Adjusted Mean Difference|0.2||||0.0977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.5|||longitudinal|||Day 29||0.5|-0.0|0.0977
90925402|NCT04909801|181725555|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept - Adalimumab|Adjusted Mean Difference|0.2||||0.2889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.5|||longitudinal|||Day 57||0.5|-0.1|0.2889
90925403|NCT04909801|181725555|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept - Adalimumab|Adjusted Mean Difference|0.0||||0.7676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.4|||longitudinal|||Day 85||0.4|-0.3|0.7676
90925404|NCT04909801|181725555|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept - Adalimumab|Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.6157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.2|||longitudinal|||Day 113||0.2|-0.3|0.6157
90925405|NCT04909801|181725555|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept - Adalimumab|Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.3904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2|||longitudinal|||Day 141||0.2|-0.4|0.3904
90925406|NCT04909801|181725555|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept - Adalimumab|Adjusted Mean Difference|0.0||||0.8359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.3|||longitudinal|||Day 169||0.3|-0.4|0.8359
90925407|NCT04909801|181725556|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept - Adalimumab|Adjusted Mean Difference|0.4||||0.7852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|3.1|||longitudinal|||Day 29||3.1|-2.3|0.7852
90925408|NCT04909801|181725556|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept - Adalimumab|Adjusted Mean Difference|0.6||||0.6336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|3.3|||longitudinal|||Day 57||3.3|-2.0|0.6336
90925409|NCT04909801|181725556|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept - Adalimumab|Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.9||||0.4879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|1.7|||longitudinal|||Day 85||1.7|-3.5|0.4879
90925410|NCT04909801|181725556|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept - Adalimumab|Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.2||||0.2812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|1.0|||longitudinal|||Day 113||1.0|-3.5|0.2812
90925411|NCT04909801|181725556|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept - Adalimumab|Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.7||||0.1205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|0.5|||longitudinal|||Day 141||0.5|-3.9|0.1205
90925412|NCT04909801|181725556|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept - Adalimumab|Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.4||||0.3001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|1.3|||longitudinal|||Day 169||1.3|-4.1|0.3001
90925413|NCT04909801|181725557|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept - Adalimumab|Adjusted Mean Difference|1.2||||0.4107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|4.0|||longitudinal|||Day 29||4.0|-1.6|0.4107
90925414|NCT04909801|181725557|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept - Adalimumab|Adjusted Mean Difference|0.5||||0.6824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|3.2|||longitudinal|||Day 57||3.2|-2.1|0.6824
90964269|NCT03627767|181810145|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|40.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.1|47.8||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||47.8|33.1|< 0.0001
90964270|NCT03627767|181810145|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|62.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.1|69.2||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||69.2|56.1|< 0.0001
90885942|NCT00807092|181634420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.749||||0.3093||95.0|-2.2|0.703||A statistical significant threshold p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment and strata as factors; corresponding baseline (week 0) value of mean IAUC(0-4h) as covariate (breakfast/lunch/dinner)|Dinner|"Null hypothesis and alternative hypothesis for dinner:~The null hypothesis (H0) was:~H0: Change in mean IAUC(0-4h) of BIAsp 30 for dinner after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in mean IAUC(0-4h) of BHI 30 for dinner after 6 weeks of treatment =0 mol\*h/L against the alternative hypothesis(H1): H1: Change in mean IAUC (0-4h) of BIAsp 30 for dinner after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in mean IAUC(0-4h) of BHI 30 for dinner after 6 weeks of treatment≠0 mol\*h/L"||0.703|-2.2|0.3093
90885943|NCT00807092|181634421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.448|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.261||0.0891||95.0|-0.069|0.964||A statistical significant threshold p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment and strata as factors; baseline (week 0) value of mean FBG as covariate||"The null hypothesis (H0) was:~H0: Change in mean FBG of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in mean FBG of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment =0 mmol/L against the alternative hypothesis(H1): H1: Change in mean FBG of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in mean FBG of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment≠0 mmol/L"||0.964|-0.069|0.0891
90925415|NCT04909801|181725557|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept - Adalimumab|Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.7||||0.5793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|1.9|||longitudinal|||Day 85||1.9|-3.4|0.5793
90925416|NCT04909801|181725557|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept - Adalimumab|Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.5||||0.2883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|1.2|||longitudinal|||Day 113||1.2|-4.2|0.2883
90925417|NCT04909801|181725557|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept - Adalimumab|Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.7||||0.1285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|0.5|||longitudinal|||Day 141||0.5|-3.9|0.1285
90925418|NCT04909801|181725557|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept - Adalimumab|Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.5||||0.2815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|1.2|||longitudinal|||Day 169||1.2|-4.2|0.2815
90925419|NCT04909801|181725562|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept - Adalimumab|Adjusted Mean Difference|0.3||||0.0099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.5|||longitudinal|||Day 29||0.5|0.1|0.0099
90925420|NCT04909801|181725562|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept - Adalimumab|Adjusted Mean Difference|0.2||||0.1519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.4|||longitudinal|||Day 57||0.4|-0.1|0.1519
90925421|NCT04909801|181725562|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept - Adalimumab|Adjusted Mean Difference|0.1||||0.2505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.4|||longitudinal|||Day 85||0.4|-0.1|0.2505
90925422|NCT04909801|181725562|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept - Adalimumab|Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.5248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.2|||longitudinal|||Day 113||0.2|-0.3|0.5248
90971116|NCT01181011|181824766|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence|gMean Ratio|108.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|102.1|116.0||The p-value is for the ratio being outside the interval 0.8 to 1.25.|ANCOVA|||||116.0|102.1|0.0006
91035065|NCT01077596|181956350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude Odds Ratio|0.6||||||95.0|0.4|1.1||||||||1.1|0.4|
91035066|NCT01077596|181956350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.6||||||95.0|0.3|1.0|||||Adjusted for age, sex, cal year, study site, tumor characteristics, multiple antidepressants exposure, smoking, hysterectomy status, previous depression dx, previous IBD diagnosis, OC use, HRT/ERT use, and NSAID use.|||1.0|0.3|
90925423|NCT04909801|181725562|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept - Adalimumab|Adjusted Mean Difference|0.0||||0.1778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.2|||longitudinal|||Day 141||0.2|-0.3|0.1778
90925424|NCT04909801|181725562|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept - Adalimumab|Adjusted Mean Difference|0.0||||0.851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.2|||longitudinal|||Day 169||0.2|-0.3|0.8510
90925425|NCT04909801|181725563|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept - Adalimumab|Adjusted Mean Difference|1.3||||0.2319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|3.5|||longitudinal|||Day 29||3.5|-0.9|0.2319
90925426|NCT04909801|181725563|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept - Adalimumab|Adjusted Mean Difference|0.6||||0.5572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.7|||longitudinal|||Day 57||2.7|-1.5|0.5572
90925427|NCT04909801|181725563|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept - Adalimumab|Adjusted Mean Difference|0.1||||0.9366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|2.1|||longitudinal|||Day 85||2.1|-2.0|0.9366
90925428|NCT04909801|181725563|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept - Adalimumab|Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.2||||0.1508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|1.0|||longitudinal|||Day 113||1.0|-3.5|0.1508
90925429|NCT04909801|181725563|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept - Adalimumab|Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.9||||0.0303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|-0.2|||longitudinal|||Day 141||-0.2|-3.6|0.0303
90925430|NCT04909801|181725563|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept - Adalimumab|Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.2||||0.2333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|0.8|||longitudinal|||Day 169||0.8|-3.3|0.2333
90925431|NCT04909801|181725564|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept - Adalimumab|Adjusted Mean Difference|1.9||||0.0938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|4.2|||longitudinal|||Day 29||4.2|-0.3|0.0938
90925432|NCT04909801|181725564|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept - Adalimumab|Adjusted Mean Difference|0.6||||0.6053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.7|||longitudinal|||Day 57||2.7|-1.6|0.6053
90925433|NCT04909801|181725564|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept - Adalimumab|Adjusted Mean Difference|0.2||||0.857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|2.3|||longitudinal|||Day 85||2.3|-1.9|0.8570
90925434|NCT04909801|181725564|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept - Adalimumab|Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.2||||0.1592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|0.5|||longitudinal|||Day 113||0.5|-3.0|0.1592
90925435|NCT04909801|181725564|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept - Adalimumab|Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.9||||0.0319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|-0.2|||longitudinal|||Day 141||-0.2|-3.7|0.0319
90925436|NCT04909801|181725564|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept - Adalimumab|Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.3||||0.2059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|0.7|||longitudinal|||Day 169||0.7|-3.4|0.2059
91035067|NCT01077596|181956350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude Odds Ratio|0.8||||||95.0|0.5|1.4||||||||1.4|0.5|
90964271|NCT03627767|181810145|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|22.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.3|29.9||||||Week 16: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||29.9|14.3|
90964272|NCT03627767|181810145|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|35.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.1|42.0||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 28: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||42.0|28.1|< 0.0001
90964273|NCT03627767|181810145|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|51.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.6|58.4||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 28: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||58.4|44.6|< 0.0001
90964274|NCT03627767|181810145|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|16.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.1|24.8||||||Week 28: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||24.8|8.1|
90964275|NCT03627767|181810145|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|32.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.2|39.2||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||39.2|25.2|< 0.0001
90964276|NCT03627767|181810145|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|46.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.9|53.8||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||53.8|39.9|< 0.0001
90964277|NCT03627767|181810145|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|14.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.9|22.6||||||Week 40: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||22.6|5.9|
90964278|NCT03627767|181810145|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|25.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.5|32.5||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||32.5|18.5|< 0.0001
90964279|NCT03627767|181810145|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|42.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.3|49.7||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||49.7|35.3|< 0.0001
91035068|NCT01077596|181956350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.8||||||95.0|0.4|1.4|||||Adjusted for age, sex, cal year, study site, tumor characteristics, multiple antidepressants exposure, smoking, hysterectomy status, previous depression dx, previous IBD diagnosis, OC use, HRT/ERT use, and NSAID use.|||1.4|0.4|
90964280|NCT03627767|181810145|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|17.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.6|25.5||||||Week 52: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||25.5|8.6|
90964281|NCT03627767|181810146|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||||||Week 12: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||0.0|0.0|
90964282|NCT03627767|181810146|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||||||Week 12: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions. P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.||0.0|0.0|
90964283|NCT03627767|181810146|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||||||Week 12: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||0.0|0.0|
90964284|NCT03627767|181810146|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|42.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.3|50.1||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||50.1|35.3|< 0.0001
90964285|NCT03627767|181810146|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|55.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.1|61.7||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||61.7|49.1|< 0.0001
90964286|NCT03627767|181810146|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|12.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.9|17.9||||||Week 16: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||17.9|7.9|
91035069|NCT01077596|181956350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude Odds Ratio|1.1||||||95.0|0.6|2.0||||||||2.0|0.6|
90925437|NCT05274074|181725573|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.4||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|6.2|||Regression, Linear|||||6.2|-3.4|0.57
90925438|NCT05274074|181725574|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.2|||Regression, Linear|||||0.2|-0.5|0.53
90925439|NCT05274074|181725575|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|1.4|||Regression, Linear|||||1.4|-3.3|0.41
90925440|NCT05274074|181725576|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|1.6|||Regression, Linear|||||1.6|-3.5|0.45
90925441|NCT05274074|181725577|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.3||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|6.2|||Regression, Linear|||||6.2|0.5|0.02
90925442|NCT05274074|181725578|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|3.3|||Regression, Linear|||||3.3|-4.9|0.69
90925443|NCT04117347|181725579|OTHER|Dose Response Relationship.|Coefficient for an indicator|0.022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0861723|0.1309519|||||coefficient for an indicator for Light Therapy B (vs. Light Therapy A)|Analysis for left amygdala.||0.1309519|-0.0861723|
90925444|NCT04117347|181725579|OTHER|Dose Response Relationship.|Coefficient for an indicator|0.068|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0363877|0.1730965|||||coefficient for an indicator for Light Therapy C (vs. Light Therapy A)|Analysis for left amygdala.||0.1730965|-0.0363877|
90925445|NCT04117347|181725579|OTHER|Dose Response Relationship.|Coefficient for an indicator|0.043|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0676154|0.1545869|||||coefficient for an indicator for Light Therapy B (vs. Light Therapy A)|Analysis for right amygdala.||0.1545869|-0.0676154|
90925446|NCT04117347|181725579|OTHER|Dose Response Relationship.|Coefficient for an indicator|0.018|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0888691|0.1255146|||||coefficient for an indicator for Light Therapy C (vs. Light Therapy A)|Analysis for right amygdala.||0.1255146|-0.0888691|
90925447|NCT05194956|181725580|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|8.5||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.75|13.15|||Two-period two-treatment crossover ANOVA|P-values are calculated taking sequence and period effects into account.|This estimation value assumes period and sequence effects are equal between the treatments.|All units of measure reported for this analysis are the mean within-patient differences between alginate and scan VAS scores (i.e. alginate score - scan score)||13.15|3.75|0.0006
90925448|NCT05194956|181725580|SUPERIORITY|Sequence effects||||||0.1984|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.1984
90925449|NCT05194956|181725580|SUPERIORITY|Period effects||||||0.7494|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.7494
90925450|NCT05194956|181725580|SUPERIORITY|Mixed effects modelling|Mean Difference (Net)|-13.31||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.29|-5.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.33|-21.29|0.001
90925451|NCT05194956|181725581|SUPERIORITY|All units of measure reported for this analysis are the mean within-patient differences between alginate and scan VAS scores (i.e. alginate score - scan score)|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.4||||0.123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.71|0.91||From a 2-period 2-treatment crossover ANOVA, taking sequence and period effects into account|Two-period two-treatment crossover ANOVA||This estimation value assumes period and sequence effects are equal between the treatments.|||0.91|-7.71|0.1230
90925452|NCT05194956|181725581|SUPERIORITY|Sequence effects||||||0.8423|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.8423
90925453|NCT05194956|181725581|SUPERIORITY|Period effects||||||0.9544|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.9544
90925454|NCT05194956|181725582|SUPERIORITY|All units of measure reported for this analysis are the mean within-patient differences between alginate and scan VAS scores (i.e. alginate score - scan score)|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.4||||0.0439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.69|-0.12||From a 2-period 2-treatment crossover ANOVA, taking sequence and period effects into account|Two-period two-treatment crossover ANOVA||This estimation value assumes period and sequence effects are equal between the treatments.|||-0.12|-6.69|0.0439
90925455|NCT05194956|181725582|SUPERIORITY|Sequence effects||||||0.3878|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.3878
90925456|NCT05194956|181725582|SUPERIORITY|Period effects||||||0.9772|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.9772
90925457|NCT05194956|181725583|SUPERIORITY|All units of measure reported for this analysis are the mean within-patient differences between alginate and scan VAS scores (i.e. alginate score - scan score)|Mean Difference (Net)|9.6||||0.0213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|17.79||From a 2-period 2-treatment crossover ANOVA, taking sequence and period effects into account|Two-period two-treatment crossover ANOVA||This estimation value assumes period and sequence effects are equal between the treatments.|||17.79|1.50|0.0213
90925458|NCT05194956|181725583|SUPERIORITY|Sequence effects||||||0.1583|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.1583
90925459|NCT05194956|181725583|SUPERIORITY|Period effects||||||0.4709|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.4709
90925460|NCT05194956|181725584|SUPERIORITY|All units of measure reported for this analysis are the mean within-patient differences between alginate and scan VAS scores (i.e. alginate score - scan score)|Mean Difference (Net)|5.3||||0.0146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|9.46||From a 2-period 2-treatment crossover ANOVA, taking sequence and period effects into account|Two-period two-treatment crossover ANOVA||This estimation value assumes period and sequence effects are equal between the treatments.|||9.46|1.09|0.0146
90925461|NCT05194956|181725584|SUPERIORITY|Sequence effects||||||0.5911|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.5911
90925462|NCT05194956|181725584|SUPERIORITY|Period effects||||||0.5825|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.5825
90925463|NCT05194956|181725585|SUPERIORITY|All units of measure reported for this analysis are the mean within-patient differences between alginate and scan VAS scores (i.e. alginate score - scan score)|Mean Difference (Net)|-5.2||||0.0817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.12|0.69||From a 2-period 2-treatment crossover ANOVA, taking sequence and period effects into account|Two-period two-treatment crossover ANOVA||This estimation value assumes period and sequence effects are equal between the treatments.|||0.69|-11.12|0.0817
90925464|NCT05194956|181725585|SUPERIORITY|Sequence effects||||||0.091|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0910
90925465|NCT05194956|181725585|SUPERIORITY|Period effects||||||0.2278|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.2278
90925466|NCT05194956|181725586|SUPERIORITY|All units of measure reported for this analysis are the mean within-patient differences between alginate and scan VAS scores (i.e. alginate score - scan score)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.2||||0.1347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.17|0.69|||Two-period two-treatment crossover ANOVA|From a 2-period 2-treatment crossover ANOVA, taking sequence and period effects into account|This estimation value assumes period and sequence effects are equal between the treatments.|||0.69|-5.17|0.1347
90925467|NCT05194956|181725586|SUPERIORITY|Sequence effects||||||0.9259|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.9259
90925468|NCT05194956|181725586|SUPERIORITY|Period effects||||||0.8225|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.8225
90971117|NCT01181011|181824767|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence|gMean Ratio|106.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.9|112.9||The p-value is for the ratio being outside the interval 0.8 to 1.25.|ANCOVA|||||112.9|100.9|0.000
90925469|NCT05194956|181725587|SUPERIORITY|All units of measure reported for this analysis are the mean within-patient differences between alginate and scan VAS scores (i.e. alginate score - scan score)|Median Difference (Net)|-11.2||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.47|-1.83||From a 2-period 2-treatment crossover ANOVA, taking sequence and period effects into account|Two-period two-treatment crossover ANOVA||This estimation value assumes period and sequence effects are equal between the treatments.|||-1.83|-20.47|0.0200
90925470|NCT05194956|181725587|SUPERIORITY|Sequence effects||||||0.9104|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.9104
90925471|NCT05194956|181725587|SUPERIORITY|Period effects||||||0.5194|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.5194
90925472|NCT05194956|181725588|SUPERIORITY|All units of measure reported for this analysis are the mean within-patient differences between alginate and scan VAS scores (i.e. alginate score - scan score)|Mean Difference (Net)|-23.2|||<|5e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.71|-15.75||From a 2-period 2-treatment crossover ANOVA, taking sequence and period effects into account|Two-period two-treatment crossover ANOVA||This estimation value assumes period and sequence effects are equal between the treatments.|||-15.75|-30.71|<0.00005
90925473|NCT05194956|181725588|SUPERIORITY|Sequence effects||||||0.1369|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.1369
90925474|NCT05194956|181725588|SUPERIORITY|Period effects||||||0.3366|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.3366
90925475|NCT05194956|181725589|SUPERIORITY|All units of measure reported for this analysis are the mean within-patient differences between alginate and scan VAS scores (i.e. alginate score - scan score)|Mean Difference (Net)|-120.0|||<|5e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-149.54|-90.38|||Two-period two-treatment crossover ANOVA|From a 2-period 2-treatment crossover ANOVA, taking sequence and period effects into account|This estimation value assumes period and sequence effects are equal between the treatments.|||-90.38|-149.54|<0.00005
90925476|NCT05194956|181725589|SUPERIORITY|Sequence effects||||||0.8509|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.8509
90925477|NCT05194956|181725589|SUPERIORITY|Period effects||||||0.0355|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0355
90925478|NCT03687086|181725591|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|3.7|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.70|1.03|.039
90925479|NCT03687086|181725592|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|3.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|Interaction contrast of Treatment Group (Program A vs. Program B) by Time (9 Weeks vs. baseline)||||3.29|-0.52|0.155
90925480|NCT03687086|181725593|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|2.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Interaction contrast of Treatment Group (Program A vs. Program B) by Time (6 months vs. baseline)||||2.20|-1.88|0.880
90925481|NCT03687086|181725594|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Interaction contrast of Treatment Group (Program A vs. Program B) by Time (9 weeks vs. baseline)||||0.30|-1.25|0.228
90925482|NCT03687086|181725595|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|Interaction contrast of Treatment Group (Program A vs. Program B) by Time (6 months vs. baseline)||||0.78|-0.96|0.843
90925483|NCT03687086|181725596|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.48||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.67|8.12|||Regression, Logistic|||||8.12|1.67|0.001
90925484|NCT03687086|181725597|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Interaction contrast of Treatment Group (Program A vs. Program B) by Time (9 weeks vs. baseline)||||0.50|-1.14|0.443
90925485|NCT03687086|181725598|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|0.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|Interaction contrast of Treatment Group (Program A vs. Program B) by Time (6 months vs. baseline)||||0.58|-1.41|0.409
90925486|NCT05485779|181725624|EQUIVALENCE|Study was not powered and confidence intervals were assessed for containing unity (1) within them.|Slope|1.17||||0.6358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.27|||Lack of fit 2-sided|Lack of Fit Model: ln(parameter) = intercept + slope × ln(dose) + dose + random error|Between-subject geometric coefficient of variation was 30.4. Data were analyzed using a power model. ln(parameter) = intercept + slope ×ln(dose) + random error.|Statistical Analysis of AQ280 Primary Pharmacokinetic Endpoints to Assess Dose Proportionality of Single Oral Doses of 3 to 60 mg AQ280||1.27|1.07|0.6358
90925487|NCT05485779|181725624|EQUIVALENCE|Study was not powered and confidence intervals were assessed for containing unity (1) within them.|Slope|1.13||||0.5506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.963|1.31|||Lack of Fit 2-sided|Lack of Fit Model: ln(parameter) = intercept + slope × ln(dose) + dose + random error|Between-subject geometric coefficient of variation was 32.9. Data were analyzed using a power model. ln(parameter) = intercept + slope ×ln(dose) + random error.|Statistical Analysis of AQ280 Primary Pharmacokinetic Endpoints to Assess Dose Proportionality of Single Oral Doses of 9 to 60 mg AQ280||1.31|0.963|0.5506
90925488|NCT05485779|181725625|EQUIVALENCE|Study was not powered and confidence intervals were assessed for containing unity (1) within them.|Slope|1.13||||0.3653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.22|||Lack of Fit 2-sided|Lack of Fit Model: ln(parameter) = intercept + slope × ln(dose) + dose + random error|Between-subject geometric coefficient of variation was 25.7. Data were analyzed using a power model. ln(parameter) = intercept + slope ×ln(dose) + random error|Statistical Analysis of AQ280 Primary Pharmacokinetic Endpoints to Assess Dose Proportionality of Single Oral Doses of 3 to 60 mg AQ280||1.22|1.04|0.3653
90925489|NCT05485779|181725625|EQUIVALENCE|Study was not powered and confidence intervals were assessed for containing unity (1) within them.|Slope|1.16||||0.2933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.31|||Lack of Fit 2-sided|Lack of Fit Model: ln(parameter) = intercept + slope × ln(dose) + dose + random error|Between-subject geometric coefficient of variation was 27.7. Data were analyzed using a power model. ln(parameter) = intercept + slope ×ln(dose) + random error|Statistical Analysis of AQ280 Primary Pharmacokinetic Endpoints to Assess Dose Proportionality of Single Oral Doses of 9 to 60 mg AQ280||1.31|1.01|0.2933
90925490|NCT05485779|181725626|EQUIVALENCE|Study was not powered and confidence intervals were assessed for containing unity (1) within them.|Slope|1.16||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.908|1.41|||Lack of Fit 2-sided|Lack of Fit Model: ln(parameter) = intercept + slope × ln(dose) + dose + random error|Between-subject geometric coefficient of variation was 64.3. Data were analyzed using a power model. ln(parameter) = intercept + slope ×ln(dose) + random error|Statistical Analysis of Metabolite AQ282 Primary Pharmacokinetic Endpoints to Assess Dose Proportionality of Single Oral Doses of 3 to 60 mg AQ280||1.41|0.908|0.4600
90885944|NCT00807092|181634423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.495|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.247||0.0472||95.0|0.006|0.984||A statistical significant threshold p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment and strata as factors; baseline (week 0) value of mean FBG as covariate||"The null hypothesis (H0) was:~H0: Change in FPG of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in FPG of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment =0 mmol/L against the alternative hypothesis(H1): H1: Change in FPG of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in FPG of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment≠0 mmol/L"||0.984|0.0060|0.0472
90885945|NCT00807092|181634424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.11||||0.676||95.0|-0.41|0.63||A statistical significant threshold p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment and strata as factors; baseline (week 2) value of BG as covariate|Before breakfast|"For each endpoint of SMBG :The null hypothesis (H0) was:~H0: Change in BG of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in BG of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment =0 mmol/L against the alternative hypothesis(H1): H1: Change in BG of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in BG of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment≠0 mmol/L"||0.63|-0.41|0.676
90885946|NCT00807092|181634424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.23||||0.026||95.0|0.15|2.31||A statistical significant threshold p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment and strata as factors; baseline (week 0) value of BG as covariate|2 hours after breakfast|"For each endpoint of SMBG :The null hypothesis (H0) was:~H0: Change in BG of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in BG of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment =0 mmol/L against the alternative hypothesis(H1): H1: Change in BG of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in BG of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment≠0 mmol/L"||2.31|0.15|0.026
90885947|NCT00807092|181634424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.27||||0.5||95.0|-0.53|1.08||A statistical significant threshold p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment and strata as factors; baseline (week 0) value of BG as covariate|Before lunch|"For each endpoint of SMBG :The null hypothesis (H0) was:~H0: Change in BG of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in BG of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment =0 mmol/L against the alternative hypothesis(H1): H1: Change in BG of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in BG of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment≠0 mmol/L"||1.08|-0.53|0.5
90885948|NCT00807092|181634424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17||||0.747||95.0|-0.86|1.19||A statistical significant threshold p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment and strata as factors; baseline (week 0) value of BG as covariate|2 hours after lunch|"For each endpoint of SMBG :The null hypothesis (H0) was:~H0: Change in BG of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in BG of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment =0 mmol/L against the alternative hypothesis(H1): H1: Change in BG of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in BG of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment≠0 mmol/L"||1.19|-0.86|0.747
90885949|NCT00807092|181634424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.27||||0.581||95.0|-1.23|0.69||A statistical significant threshold p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment and strata as factors; baseline (week 0) value of BG as covariate|Before dinner|"For each endpoint of SMBG :The null hypothesis (H0) was:~H0: Change in BG of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in BG of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment =0 mmol/L against the alternative hypothesis(H1): H1: Change in BG of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in BG of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment≠0 mmol/L"||0.69|-1.23|0.581
90885950|NCT00807092|181634424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.47||||0.326||95.0|-1.42|0.48||A statistical significant threshold p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment and strata as factors; baseline (week 0) value of BG as covariate|2 hours after dinner|"For each endpoint of SMBG :The null hypothesis (H0) was:~H0: Change in BG of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in BG of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment =0 mmol/L against the alternative hypothesis(H1): H1: Change in BG of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in BG of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment≠0 mmol/L"||0.48|-1.42|0.326
90885951|NCT00807092|181634424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.19||||0.643||95.0|-0.61|0.99||A statistical significant threshold p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment and strata as factors; baseline (week 0) value of BG as covariate|Bedtime|"For each endpoint of SMBG :The null hypothesis (H0) was:~H0: Change in BG of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in BG of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment =0 mmol/L against the alternative hypothesis(H1): H1: Change in BG of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in BG of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment≠0 mmol/L"||0.99|-0.61|0.643
90925491|NCT05485779|181725626|EQUIVALENCE|Study was not powered and confidence intervals were assessed for containing unity (1) within them.|Slope|1.12||||0.3157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.795|1.45|||Lack of Fit 2-sided|Lack of Fit Model: ln(parameter) = intercept + slope × ln(dose) + dose + random error|Between-subject geometric coefficient of variation was 65.6. Data were analyzed using a power model. ln(parameter) = intercept + slope ×ln(dose) + random error|Statistical Analysis of Metabolite AQ282 Primary Pharmacokinetic Endpoints to Assess Dose Proportionality of Single Oral Doses of 9 to 60 mg AQ280||1.45|0.795|0.3157
90925492|NCT05485779|181725627|EQUIVALENCE|Study was not powered and confidence intervals were assessed for containing unity (1) within them.|Slope|1.2||||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.37|||Lack of fit 1-sided p-value|Lack of Fit Model: ln(parameter) = intercept + slope × ln(dose) + dose + random error|Between-subject geometric coefficient of variation was 54.2. Data were analyzed using a power model. ln(parameter) = intercept + slope ×ln(dose) + random error.|Statistical Analysis of Metabolite AQ282 Primary Pharmacokinetic Endpoints to Assess Dose Proportionality of Single Oral Doses of 3 to 60 mg AQ280||1.37|1.02|0.2350
90885952|NCT00807092|181634424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.77||||0.008||95.0|0.21|1.33||A statistical significant threshold p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment and strata as factors; baseline (week 0) value of BG as covariate|3 AM|"For each endpoint of SMBG :The null hypothesis (H0) was:~H0: Change in BG of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in BG of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment =0 mmol/L against the alternative hypothesis(H1): H1: Change in BG of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in BG of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment≠0 mmol/L"||1.33|0.21|0.0080
90885953|NCT00807092|181634424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.27||||0.274||95.0|-0.22|0.75||A statistical significant threshold p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment and strata as factors; baseline (week 0) value of BG as covariate|Average|"For each endpoint of SMBG :The null hypothesis (H0) was:~H0: Change in BG of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in BG of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment =0 mmol/L against the alternative hypothesis(H1): H1: Change in BG of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in BG of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment≠0 mmol/L"||0.75|-0.22|0.274
90971118|NCT00401375|181824783|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0.4259||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Log Rank|||Treatment comparisons were made at the overall α=0.05 level (2-sided) using a closed sequential procedure. Placebo and MNTX 24 mg groups were compared first.||||0.4259
90885954|NCT00807092|181634425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.99||||0.062||95.0|-0.05|2.04||A statistical significant threshold p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment and strata as factors; baseline (week 0) value of prandial BG increment as covariate|Breakfast|"For each endpoint of Prandial Blood Glucose Increment :The null hypothesis (H0) was:~H0: Change in prandial BG increment of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in prandial BG increment of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment =0 mmol/L against the alternative hypothesis(H1): H1: Change in prandial BG increment of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in prandial BG increment of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment≠0 mmol/L"||2.04|-0.05|0.062
90885955|NCT00807092|181634425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.933||95.0|-1.12|1.22||A statistical significant threshold p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment and strata as factors; baseline (week 0) value of prandial BG increment as covariate|Lunch|"For each endpoint of Prandial Blood Glucose Increment :The null hypothesis (H0) was:~H0: Change in prandial BG increment of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in prandial BG increment of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment =0 mmol/L against the alternative hypothesis(H1): H1: Change in prandial BG increment of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in prandial BG increment of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment≠0 mmol/L"||1.22|-1.12|0.933
90885956|NCT00807092|181634425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05||||0.922||95.0|-1.16|1.05||A statistical significant threshold p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment and strata as factors; baseline (week 0) value of prandial BG increment as covariate|Dinner|"For each endpoint of Prandial Blood Glucose Increment :The null hypothesis (H0) was:~H0: Change in prandial BG increment of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in prandial BG increment of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment =0 mmol/L against the alternative hypothesis(H1): H1: Change in prandial BG increment of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in prandial BG increment of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment≠0 mmol/L"||1.05|-1.16|0.922
90885957|NCT00807092|181634425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.29||||0.313||95.0|-0.28|0.85||A statistical significant threshold p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment and strata as factors; baseline (week 0) value of prandial BG increment as covariate|Average|"For each endpoint of Prandial Blood Glucose Increment :The null hypothesis (H0) was:~H0: Change in prandial BG increment of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in prandial BG increment of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment =0 mmol/L against the alternative hypothesis(H1): H1: Change in prandial BG increment of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in prandial BG increment of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment≠0 mmol/L"||0.85|-0.28|0.313
90885958|NCT00807092|181634426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.187|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.371||0.6149||95.0|-0.547|0.921||A statistical significant threshold p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment and strata as factors; baseline (visit 2) value of mean MAGE as covariate||The full analysis set using LOCF (Last Observation Carried Forward) consists of all randomised subjects who had been exposed to at least one dose of the trial products.||0.921|-0.547|0.6149
90885959|NCT00807092|181634427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.328|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.577||0.5706||95.0|-0.813|1.468||A statistical significant threshold p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment and strata as factors; baseline (week 0) value of GA as covariate||"The null hypothesis (H0) was:~H0: Change in GA of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in GA of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment =0 % against the alternative hypothesis(H1): H1: Change in GA of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in GA of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment≠0 %"||1.468|-0.813|0.5706
90885960|NCT00807092|181634428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.113||0.8598||95.0|-0.243|0.243||A statistical significant threshold p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment and strata as factors; baseline (week 0) value of HbA1c as covariate||"The null hypothesis (H0) was:~H0: Change in HbA1c of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in HbA1c of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment =0 % against the alternative hypothesis(H1): H1: Change in HbA1c of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in HbA1c of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment≠0%"||0.243|-0.243|0.8598
90885961|NCT00807092|181634429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.054|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.128||0.671||95.0|-0.307|0.198||A statistical significant threshold p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment and strata as factors; baseline (week 0) value of duration of hypoglycaemic events as covariate|Blood glucose below 3.5 mmol/l|"The null hypothesis (H0) was:~H0: Duration of Hypoglycaemic Events Based on CGMS of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Duration of Hypoglycaemic Events Based on CGMS of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment =0 hours against the alternative hypothesis(H1): H1: Duration of Hypoglycaemic Events Based on CGMS of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Duration of Hypoglycaemic Events Based on CGMS of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment≠0 hours"||0.198|-0.307|0.671
90885962|NCT00807092|181634429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038||0.7544||95.0|-0.088|0.064||A statistical significant threshold p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment and strata as factors; baseline (week 0) value of duration of hypoglycaemic events as covariate|Blood glucose below 2.5 mmol/l|"The null hypothesis (H0) was:~H0: Duration of Hypoglycaemic Events Based on CGMS of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Duration of Hypoglycaemic Events Based on CGMS of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment =0 hours against the alternative hypothesis(H1): H1: Duration of Hypoglycaemic Events Based on CGMS of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Duration of Hypoglycaemic Events Based on CGMS of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment≠0 hours"||0.064|-0.088|0.7544
90885963|NCT01229228|181634444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|22.417|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7891|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.923|27.91|||ANCOVA|||||27.910|16.923|<0.001
90885964|NCT01807585|181634446|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was determined by the application of a Z-test with a 10% non-inferiority margin as well as examination of confidence intervals.|Risk Difference (RD)|3.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|7.6|||One tailed Z-test|||Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF)||7.6|-0.7|<0.0001
90925493|NCT05485779|181725627|EQUIVALENCE|Study was not powered and confidence intervals were assessed for containing unity (1) within them.|Slope|1.19||||0.1632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.5|||Lack of fit 1-sided p-value|Lack of Fit Model: ln(parameter) = intercept + slope × ln(dose) + dose + random error|Between-subject geometric coefficient of variation was 58.5. Data were analyzed using a power model. ln(parameter) = intercept + slope ×ln(dose) + random error.|Statistical Analysis of Metabolite AQ282 Primary Pharmacokinetic Endpoints to Assess Dose Proportionality of Single Oral Doses of 9 to 60 mg AQ280||1.50|0.880|0.1632
90964287|NCT03627767|181810146|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|45.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.9|53.0||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 28: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||53.0|37.9|< 0.0001
90925494|NCT05485779|181725628|EQUIVALENCE|Study was not powered and confidence intervals were assessed for containing unity (1) within them.|Ratio of geometric least squares mean|0.977|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.915|1.04|||||Within-subject geometric coefficient of variation was 5.66. Data analyzed using a mixed model included treatment as a fixed effect and subject as a random effect. ln(parameter)=treatment+subject+random error, with subject fitted as a random effect.|Statistical Analysis of AQ280 Primary Pharmacokinetic Endpoints to Assess the Effect of Food on Single Oral Doses of 16 mg AQ280||1.04|0.915|
90925495|NCT05485779|181725629|EQUIVALENCE|Study was not powered and confidence intervals were assessed for containing unity (1) within them.|Ratio of geometric least squares mean|0.805|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.635|1.02|||||Within-subject geometric coefficient of variation was 20.5. Data analyzed using a mixed model included treatment as a fixed effect and subject as a random effect. ln(parameter)=treatment+subject+random error, with subject fitted as a random effect.|Statistical Analysis of AQ280 Primary Pharmacokinetic Endpoints to Assess the Effect of Food on Single Oral Doses of 16 mg AQ280||1.02|0.635|
90925496|NCT05485779|181725631|EQUIVALENCE|Study was not powered and confidence intervals were assessed for containing unity (1) within them.|Slope|1.15||||0.1558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.954|1.34|||Lack of fit 2-sided|Lack of Fit Model: ln(parameter) = intercept + slope × ln(dose) + dose + random error|Between-subject geometric coefficient of variation was 28.0. Data were analyzed using a power model. ln(parameter) = intercept + slope ×ln(dose) + random error|Statistical Analysis of AQ280 Primary Pharmacokinetic Endpoints to Assess Dose Proportionality of Multiple Oral Doses of 9 to 60 mg AQ280 QD for 7 Consecutive Days in a Fasted State||1.34|0.954|0.1558
90925497|NCT05485779|181725632|EQUIVALENCE|Study was not powered and confidence intervals were assessed for containing unity (1) within them.|Slope|1.1||||0.5458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.946|1.26|||Lack of Fit 2-sided model|Lack of Fit Model: ln(parameter) = intercept + slope × ln(dose) + dose + random error|Between-subject geometric coefficient of variation was 24.0. Data were analyzed using a power model. ln(parameter) = intercept + slope ×ln(dose) + random error|Statistical Analysis of AQ280 Primary Pharmacokinetic Endpoints to Assess Dose Proportionality of Multiple Oral Doses of 9 to 60 mg AQ280 QD for 7 Consecutive Days in a Fasted State||1.26|0.946|0.5458
90925498|NCT05485779|181725633|EQUIVALENCE|Study was not powered and confidence intervals were assessed for containing unity (1) within them.|Slope|0.941||||0.4856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.602|1.28||Lack of Fit Model: ln(parameter) = intercept + slope × ln(dose) + dose + random error|Lack of fit 2-sided||Between-subject geometric coefficient of variation was 54.7. Data were analyzed using a power model. ln(parameter) = intercept + slope ×ln(dose) + random error.|Statistical Analysis of Metabolite AQ282 Primary Pharmacokinetic Endpoints to Assess Dose Proportionality of Multiple Oral Doses of 9 to 60 mg AQ280 once daily for 7 Consecutive Days in a Fasted State||1.28|0.602|0.4856
90925499|NCT05485779|181725634|EQUIVALENCE|Study was not powered and confidence intervals were assessed for containing unity (1) within them.|Slope|0.971||||0.1455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.666|1.28|||Lack of fit 2-sided|Lack of Fit Model: ln(parameter) = intercept + slope × ln(dose) + dose + random error|Between-subject geometric coefficient of variation was 45.5. Data were analyzed using a power model. ln(parameter) = intercept + slope ×ln(dose) + random error.|Statistical Analysis of Metabolite AQ282 Primary Pharmacokinetic Endpoints to Assess Dose Proportionality of Multiple Oral Doses of 9 to 60 mg AQ280 once daily for 7 Consecutive Days in a Fasted State||1.28|0.666|0.1455
90964288|NCT03627767|181810146|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|63.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.4|69.5||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 28: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||69.5|56.4|< 0.0001
90925500|NCT03676192|181725635|EQUIVALENCE|The similarity criterion had been set such that the confidence limits of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the difference of ORR from each treatment group was entirely bounded by the interval (-12.5, 12.5).|Risk Difference (RD)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.02|7.83||||||Logistic regression model including treatment groups (CT-P16 and EU-approved Avastin) as a fixed effect and region (EMEA vs. America vs. Asia), sex (female vs. male), disease status at baseline (recurrence vs. metastatic), and ECOG performance score at baseline (0 vs. 1) as covariates was used.||7.83|-7.02|
90925501|NCT03676192|181725635|EQUIVALENCE|The similarity criterion had been set such that the confidence limits of the 90% confidence interval (CI) of the ratio of ORR from each treatment group was entirely bounded by the interval (0.7368, 1.3572).|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0136|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8767|1.1719||||||Log-binomial regression model including treatment groups (CT-P16 and EU-approved Avastin) as a fixed effect and region (EMEA vs. America vs. Asia), sex (female vs. male), disease status at baseline (recurrence vs. metastatic), and ECOG performance score at baseline (0 vs. 1) as covariates was used.||1.1719|0.8767|
90925502|NCT03676192|181725638|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.1||||||Adjusted stratified Cox regression model is used to estimate the hazard ratio and its 95% CI for receiving CT-P16 compared with receiving EU-approved Avastin using region (EMEA vs. America vs. Asia), sex (female vs. male), disease status at baseline (recurrence vs. metastatic), and ECOG performance score at baseline (0 vs. 1) as stratification factors.||1.10|0.77|
90964289|NCT03627767|181810146|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|17.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.7|24.7||||||Week 28: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions||24.7|10.7|
91035070|NCT01077596|181956350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.0||||||95.0|0.6|1.9|||||Adjusted for age, sex, cal year, study site, tumor characteristics, multiple antidepressants exposure, smoking, hysterectomy status†, previous depression dx, previous IBD‡ diagnosis, OC§ use, HRT/ERT use, and NSAID use.|||1.9|0.6|
90885965|NCT01168934|181634453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|43.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|39.68|47.56||||||Natural log transformed AUC (0 - ∞)(dn) of crizotinib was analyzed using mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the differences was exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||47.56|39.68|
90885966|NCT01168934|181634456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|44.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|40.9|48.78||||||Natural log transformed AUClast(dn) of crizotinib was analyzed using mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences was exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||48.78|40.90|
90885967|NCT00887341|181634471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.238|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.238
90885968|NCT00887341|181634478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.121|||||||Chi-squared|||Week 4||||0.121
90885969|NCT00887341|181634478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.809|||||||Chi-squared|||Week 8||||0.809
90885970|NCT00887341|181634478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.367|||||||Chi-squared|||Week 12||||0.367
90885971|NCT00887341|181634478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.339|||||||Chi-squared|||Week 16||||0.339
90885972|NCT00887341|181634478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017|||||||Chi-squared|||Week 20||||0.017
90885973|NCT00887341|181634478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.451|||||||Chi-squared|||Final visit||||0.451
90885974|NCT00887341|181634479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.377|||||||Chi-squared|||Week 4||||0.377
90885975|NCT00887341|181634479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.387|||||||Chi-squared|||Week 8||||0.387
90885976|NCT00887341|181634479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.304|||||||Chi-squared|||Week 12||||0.304
90885977|NCT00887341|181634479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.509|||||||Chi-squared|||Week 16||||0.509
90885978|NCT00887341|181634479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||Chi-squared|||Week 20||||0.110
90885979|NCT00887341|181634479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.504|||||||Chi-squared|||Final visit||||0.504
90885980|NCT00887341|181634480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.327|||||||Chi-squared|||Week 4||||0.327
90885981|NCT00887341|181634480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.786|||||||Chi-squared|||Week 8||||0.786
90885982|NCT00887341|181634480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.482|||||||Chi-squared|||Week 12||||0.482
90885983|NCT00887341|181634480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||Chi-squared|||Week 16||||0.680
90885984|NCT00887341|181634480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69|||||||Chi-squared|||Week 20||||0.690
90885985|NCT00887341|181634480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.516|||||||Chi-squared|||Final Visit||||0.516
90885986|NCT00887341|181634481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97|||||||Chi-squared|||Week 8||||0.970
90885987|NCT00887341|181634481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.587|||||||Chi-squared|||Week 12||||0.587
90885988|NCT00887341|181634481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.184|||||||Chi-squared|||Week 16||||0.184
90885989|NCT00887341|181634481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||Chi-squared|||Week 20||||0.600
90885990|NCT00887341|181634481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.937|||||||Chi-squared|||Final Visit||||0.937
90885991|NCT02617589|181634486|SUPERIORITY|Hazard Ratio is Nivolumab over Temozolomide|Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|1.31||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.58|||Log-rank test stratified|Log-rank test stratified by complete or partial resection at baseline as entered into the IVRS.||||1.58|1.09|0.0037
90885992|NCT02617589|181634487|SUPERIORITY|Hazard Ratio is Nivolumab over Temozolomide|Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|1.71|||Log-rank test stratified|Log-rank test stratified by complete or partial resection at baseline as entered into the IVRS.||||1.71|1.19|
90885993|NCT02617589|181634491|SUPERIORITY|Hazard Ratio is Nivolumab over Temozolomide|Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|1.31||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.55|||Log-rank test stratified|Log-rank test stratified by complete or partial resection at baseline as entered into the IVRS.||||1.55|1.10|0.0024
90885994|NCT01591681|181634502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Repeated measures regression model|Repeated measures regression model was used accounting for correlated data from the same participant and for the overnight measures.||Sample size was computed to be 45 participants using the system for 42 nights (21 nights with system active and 21 control nights) for a total of 1,890 nights in order to have 90% power with a type 1 error rate of 5% to reject the null hypothesis of no difference in nocturnal hypoglycemia assuming a true population rate of 30% of control nights and 15% of intervention nights with hypoglycemia after adjusting for the correlation from repeated nights and misclassification due to sensor inaccuracy.||||<0.001
90885995|NCT01591681|181634503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|repeated measures logistic regression|Was used to test differences using mixed effects and a within subject autocorrelation structure to account for multiple nights from the same subject.||||||<0.001
90885996|NCT01591681|181634504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Repeated measures regression model|Repeated measures regression model was used accounting for correlated data from the same participant and for the overnight measures.||||||<0.001
90885997|NCT01591681|181634505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Repeated measures regression model|Repeated measures regression model was used accounting for correlated data from the same participant and for the overnight measures.||||||<0.001
90885998|NCT01591681|181634506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Repeated measures regression model|Repeated measures regression model was used accounting for correlated data from the same participant and for the overnight measures.||||||<0.001
90885999|NCT01591681|181634507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|repeated measures logistic regression|Was used to test differences using mixed effects and a within subject autocorrelation structure to account for multiple nights from the same subject.||||||0.71
90886000|NCT01591681|181634508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|repeated measures logistic regression|Was used to test differences using mixed effects and a within subject autocorrelation structure to account for multiple nights from the same subject.||||||0.62
91035071|NCT01077596|181956351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude Odds Ratio|0.9||||||95.0|0.8|1.1||||||||1.1|0.8|
91035072|NCT01077596|181956351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.9||||||95.0|0.8|1.1|||||Adjusted for age, sex, cal year, study site, tumor characteristics, multiple antidepressants exposure, smoking, hysterectomy status, previous depression dx, previous IBD diagnosis, OC use, HRT/ERT use, and NSAID use.|||1.1|0.8|
90886001|NCT01591681|181634509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|repeated measures logistic regression|Was used to test differences using mixed effects and a within subject autocorrelation structure to account for multiple nights from the same subject.||||||0.10
90886002|NCT01591681|181634510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Repeated measures regression model|Repeated measures regression model was used accounting for correlated data from the same participant and for the overnight measures.||||||<0.001
90886003|NCT01591681|181634511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Repeated measures regression model|Repeated measures regression model was used accounting for correlated data from the same participant and for the overnight measures.||||||0.98
90886004|NCT01591681|181634512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Repeated measures regression model|Repeated measures regression model was used accounting for correlated data from the same participant and for the overnight measures.||||||0.93
90886005|NCT03062891|181634519|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.54||||0.572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|2.4|||Regression, Linear|||This analysis looked at the interaction between baseline anxiety symptoms and group on the change in insomnia symptoms across the intervention. The results of the interaction are reported here.||2.40|-1.33|.572
90886006|NCT03062891|181634520|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.08||||0.934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|1.98|||Regression, Linear|||This analysis looked at the interaction between baseline depression symptoms and group on the change in insomnia symptoms across the intervention. The results of the interaction are reported here.||1.98|-1.82|.934
90886007|NCT03062891|181634521|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.07||||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|2.89|||Regression, Linear|||This analysis looked at the interaction between attentional problems and group on the change in insomnia symptoms across the intervention. The results of the interaction are reported here.||2.89|-0.76|.253
90886008|NCT03062891|181634522|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.2||||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|3.1|||Regression, Linear|||This analysis looked at the interaction between baseline paranois and group on the change in insomnia symptoms across the intervention. The results of the interaction are reported here.||3.10|-0.70|.215
90886009|NCT03062891|181634522|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.14||||0.254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|3.11|||Regression, Linear|||This analysis looked at the interaction between baseline hallucinations and group on the change in insomnia symptoms across the intervention. The results of the interaction are reported here.||3.11|-0.83|.254
90886010|NCT03062891|181634522|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.27||||0.778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|1.59|||Regression, Linear|||This analysis looked at the interaction between baseline cognitive disorganization and group on the change in insomnia symptoms across the intervention. The results of the interaction are reported here.||1.59|-2.13|.778
90886011|NCT03062891|181634523|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.25||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|1.67|||Regression, Linear|||This analysis looked at the interaction between baseline positive mental health and group on the change in insomnia symptoms across the intervention. The results of the interaction are reported here.||1.67|-2.16|.800
90886012|NCT03062891|181634524|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.59||||0.525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|2.44|||Regression, Linear|||This analysis looked at the interaction between baseline perceived stress and group on the change in insomnia symptoms across the intervention. The results of the interaction are reported here.||2.44|-1.25|.525
90886013|NCT03062891|181634525|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.3||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|3.03|||Regression, Linear|||This analysis looked at the interaction between baseline threatening life events and group on the change in insomnia symptoms across the intervention. The results of the interaction are reported here.||3.03|-0.43|.140
90886014|NCT03062891|181634526|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.58||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|-0.25|||Generalized estimating equation|||This analysis looked at the effect of group on changes in anxiety symptoms across the intervention period.||-0.25|-4.90|.030
90886015|NCT03062891|181634527|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.63||||0.456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.24|1.01|||Generalized estimating equation|||This analysis looked at the effect of group on changes in depression symptoms across the intervention period.||1.01|-2.24|.456
90886016|NCT03062891|181634528|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.34||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.21|0.53|||Generalized estimating equation|||This analysis looked at the effect of group on changes attentional problems across the intervention period.||0.53|-5.21|.110
91035073|NCT01077596|181956351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude Odds Ratio|1.0||||||95.0|0.9|1.2||||||||1.2|0.9|
90964290|NCT03627767|181810146|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|41.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.6|48.5||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||48.5|33.6|< 0.0001
90964291|NCT03627767|181810146|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|58.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.3|65.2||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||65.2|51.3|< 0.0001
90964292|NCT03627767|181810146|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|17.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.6|25.5||||||Week 40: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||25.5|9.6|
90964293|NCT03627767|181810146|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|35.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.8|42.8||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||42.8|27.8|< 0.0001
90964294|NCT03627767|181810146|OTHER||Difference in percentage|55.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.3|62.4||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||62.4|48.3|< 0.0001
90964295|NCT03627767|181810146|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|20.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.1|28.5||||||Week 52: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||28.5|12.1|
90964296|NCT03627767|181810147|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|0.7|||=|0.1848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.7||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||1.7|-0.3|= 0.1848
90964297|NCT03627767|181810147|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|0.3|||=|0.5971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.6||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||1.6|-0.9|= 0.5971
91035074|NCT01077596|181956351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.0||||||95.0|0.8|1.1|||||Adjusted for age, sex, cal year, study site, tumor characteristics, multiple antidepressants exposure, smoking, hysterectomy status, previous depression dx, previous IBD diagnosis, OC use, HRT/ERT use, and NSAID use.|||1.1|0.8|
90964298|NCT03627767|181810147|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.4||||||Week 12: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||0.4|-1.1|
90964299|NCT03627767|181810147|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|49.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.0|56.8||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||56.8|42.0|< 0.0001
90964300|NCT03627767|181810147|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|65.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.3|71.7||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||71.7|59.3|< 0.0001
90964301|NCT03627767|181810147|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|16.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.3|22.3||||||Week 16: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||22.3|10.3|
90964302|NCT03627767|181810147|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|42.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.2|50.2||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 28: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||50.2|35.2|< 0.0001
91035075|NCT01077596|181956351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude Odds Ratio|1.0||||||95.0|0.8|1.1||||||||1.1|0.8|
90886017|NCT03062891|181634529|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.69||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.31|-0.07|||Generalized estimating equations|||This analysis looked at the effect of group on changes in psychotic experiences (paranoia) across the intervention period.||-0.07|-3.31|.041
90886018|NCT03062891|181634529|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.22||||0.531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.48|||Generalized estimating equation|||This analysis looked at the effect of group on changes in psychotic experiences (hallucinations) across the intervention period.||0.48|-0.92|.531
90886019|NCT03062891|181634529|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.37||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.11|||Generalized estimating equation|||This analysis looked at the effect of group on changes in psychotic experiences (cognitive disorganization) across the intervention period.||0.11|-0.84|.130
90886020|NCT03062891|181634530|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.07||||0.916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|1.3|||Generalized estimating equation|||This analysis looked at the effect of group on changes in positive mental health across the intervention period.||1.30|-1.17|.916
90925503|NCT03676192|181725639|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.19||||||Adjusted stratified Cox regression model is used to estimate the hazard ratio and its 95% CI for receiving CT-P16 compared with receiving EU-approved Avastin using region (EMEA vs. America vs. Asia), sex (female vs. male), disease status at baseline (recurrence vs. metastatic), and ECOG performance score at baseline (0 vs. 1) as stratification factors.||1.19|0.77|
90925504|NCT04731129|181725642|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.023||||||threshold for statistical significance \< 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Abnormal tissular architecture||||0.023
90886021|NCT03062891|181634531|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.03||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.83|-0.23|||Generalized estimating equation|||This analysis looked at the effect of group on changes in perceived stress across the intervention period.||-0.23|-3.83|.027
90886022|NCT03062891|181634533|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.4|||Regression, Logistic|||Assocation between baseline anxiety symptoms and exploding head syndrome||2.40|0.77|.296
90886023|NCT03062891|181634533|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.02|||Regression, Logistic|||Assocation between baseline insomnia symptoms and exploding head syndrome||1.02|0.47|.065
90964303|NCT03627767|181810147|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|62.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.0|69.2||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 28: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||69.2|56.0|< 0.0001
90964304|NCT03627767|181810147|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|19.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.3|27.4||||||Week 28: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||27.4|12.3|
90964305|NCT03627767|181810147|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|39.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.1|46.9||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||46.9|32.1|< 0.0001
90971119|NCT00401375|181824783|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.3575||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Log Rank|||Treatment comparisons were made at the overall α=0.05 level (2-sided) using a closed sequential procedure. Placebo and MNTX 24 mg groups were compared first.||||0.3575
90925505|NCT04731129|181725642|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||Threshold for statistical significance \< 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Homogeneous cell size||||0.01
90925506|NCT04731129|181725642|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||threshold for statistical significance \< 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Homogeneous cell shape||||0.01
90925507|NCT04731129|181725642|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013||||||threshold for statistical significance \< 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Homogeneous cell fluorescence||||0.013
90925508|NCT04731129|181725642|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16||||||threshold for statistical significance \< 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Blood vessel dysplasia||||0.16
90925509|NCT04731129|181725642|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17||||||threshold for statistical significance \< 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Organized conjunctive fibers||||0.17
91035076|NCT01077596|181956351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.9||||||95.0|0.8|1.1|||||Adjusted for age, sex, cal year, study site, tumor characteristics, multiple antidepressants exposure, smoking, hysterectomy status, previous depression dx, previous IBD diagnosis, OC use, HRT/ERT use, and NSAID use.|||1.1|0.8|
90925510|NCT04731129|181725642|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.049||||||threshold for statistical significance \< 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Full chia seed sign||||0.049
90925511|NCT04731129|181725642|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0041||||||threshold for statistical significance \< 0.05|Fisher Exact|||General physician conclusion||||0.0041
90925512|NCT01868997|181725645|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.293|23.825||Odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and P-value are obtained from a logistic regression model with treatment and smoking status as covariates.|Regression, Logistic|||||23.825|3.293|< 0.001
90925513|NCT01868997|181725646|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|10.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.221||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.561|17.375|||Mixed-Model Repeated Measures|||||17.375|4.561|0.001
91035077|NCT01077596|181956351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude Odds Ratio|1.1||||||95.0|0.9|1.3||||||||1.3|0.9|
90886024|NCT03062891|181634533|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67||||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.15|||Regression, Logistic|||Assocation between baseline depression symptoms and exploding head syndrome||1.15|0.39|.145
90886025|NCT03062891|181634533|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.19|||Regression, Logistic|||Assocation between baseline life stress and exploding head syndrome||2.19|0.73|.398
90925514|NCT01868997|181725647|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-2.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.269|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.843|-1.772|||Mixed-Model Repeated Measures|||||-1.772|-2.843|< 0.001
90925515|NCT01868997|181725648|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-1.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.245|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.073|-1.098|||Mixed-Model Repeated Measures|||||-1.098|-2.073|< 0.001
90925516|NCT01868997|181725649|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|14.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.827|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.549|21.773|||Mixed-Model Repeated Measures|||||21.773|6.549|< 0.001
90925517|NCT01868997|181725650|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|6.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.81||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.255|13.901|||Mixed-Model Repeated Measures|||||13.901|-1.255|0.101
90925518|NCT03308877|181725662|OTHER|||||||0.07||||||Covariates include education \& percent days abstinent at baseline.|Regression, Linear|||Hypothesis 1: Affective psychopathy scores will moderate response to a BMI such that individuals with lower scores will benefit relative to controls, but individuals with higher psychopathy scores will not benefit from the intervention in terms of percent days abstinent.||||.07
90925519|NCT03308877|181725662|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Regression, Linear|||Sensitivity analysis: proximal follow-up (3 months following BMI or SC)||||.02
90925520|NCT03308877|181725662|OTHER||B|0.063|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.007|0.156|||Regression, Linear|bias corrected bootstrap||Increased readiness to change will be associated with decreased substance use.||.156|.007|<.01
91035078|NCT01077596|181956351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.1||||||95.0|0.9|1.2|||||Adjusted for age, sex, cal year, study site, tumor characteristics, multiple antidepressants exposure, smoking, hysterectomy status, previous depression dx, previous IBD diagnosis, OC use, HRT/ERT use, and NSAID use.|||1.2|0.9|
90886026|NCT03062891|181634533|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|2.38|||Regression, Logistic|||Assocation between sleep paralysis and exploding head syndrome||2.38|1.24|.001
90925521|NCT03308877|181725663|OTHER|||||||0.74|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.74
90925522|NCT03308877|181725664|OTHER|||||||0.88|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||.88
90925523|NCT03806790|181725665|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.8||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|49.16|||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis on the Full Analysis Set (FAS)||49.16|0.68|0.120
90925524|NCT03806790|181725666|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.5||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|4.6|||Fisher Exact|||End of Week 1 (FAS)||4.60|1.36|0.004
90925525|NCT03806790|181725666|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.85||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|14.97|||Fisher Exact|||End of Week 2 (FAS)||14.97|1.57|0.003
90925526|NCT03806790|181725667|SUPERIORITY||Estimated difference|-1.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|-0.59|||ANOVA|||FAS||-0.59|-1.64|<0.001
90925527|NCT02709161|181725766|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90925528|NCT02709161|181725767|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90925529|NCT04089059|181725780|SUPERIORITY|Poisson regression for comparison of incidence rate against performance goal (0.43)|||||<|0.0001|||||||Poisson Regression|||||||<0.0001
90925530|NCT04089059|181725783|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of HF Hospitalization events 6 months before implant vs 6 months after implant||||<0.0001
90925531|NCT04089059|181725784|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of the incidence rate of HF hospitalizations or emergency department / hospital outpatient IV diuretic visits of Former Control Arm versus Modified Intent to Treat Arm at 6 months post-implant/Subgroup Analysis||||||0.0697|||||||Poisson Regression|||||||0.0697
90886027|NCT02076412|181634544|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.8||||0.1519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|27.1|||Fisher Exact||Confidence interval for treatment difference (risk difference) was based on the normal approximation|||27.1|0.5|0.1519
90886028|NCT02076412|181634549|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.01||||0.4927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.02||P-value from a two-sided two-sample t-test, testing for a difference in means between fostamatinib and placebo.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.02|-0.05|0.4927
90925532|NCT04089059|181725787|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of mPAP values at baseline to values at 6 months.||||||0.0952|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0952
90925533|NCT04089059|181725787|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of mPAP values at baseline to values at 6 months.||||||0.009|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0090
90925534|NCT04089059|181725787|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of mPAP values at baseline to values at 6 months.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
90925535|NCT04089059|181725789|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of KCCQ at baseline and at 6 months||||||0.0026|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0026
90925536|NCT04089059|181725790|OTHER|Test of difference in distribution of NYHA class from baseline (all patients were class III at baseline).|||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||The New York Heart Association (NYHA) Classification is a system used to evaluate and classify the severity of heart failure based on symptoms, patient's physical activity, and quality of life. Its scale ranges from class 1 to 4 with class 1 indicating the least severe heart failure symptoms (i.e., the best functionality) and class 4 indicating the most severe heart failure symptoms (i.e., the poorest functionality), with higher classes indicating poorer functioning as relates to heart failure.||||<0.0001
90925537|NCT04089059|181725791|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of baseline 6MWT vs 6 month 6MWT.||||||0.1086|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1086
90925538|NCT04089059|181725794|SUPERIORITY|Compare NTproBNP at baseline with 6 months||||||0.0628|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0628
90925539|NCT02800356|181725804|OTHER|||||||0.404|||||||ANOVA|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for paired samples with Bonferroni post-hoc analysis||||||0.404
90925540|NCT02800356|181725805|OTHER|||||||0.232|||||||ANOVA|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for paired samples with Bonferroni post-hoc analysis||||||0.232
90886029|NCT02076412|181634550|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.12||||0.2499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.09||P-value from a two-sided two-sample t-test, testing for a difference in means between fostamatinib and placebo.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.09|-0.32|0.2499
90886030|NCT00958880|181634551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|10.46||||0.015||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||.015
90886031|NCT00958880|181634552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.03||||0.575||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||.575
90886032|NCT01516879|181634569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-56.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.08|-52.85|||Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference using placebo as the reference.|The null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 52 in LDL-C between evolocumab 420 mg and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-52.85|-61.08|<0.001
90925541|NCT02800356|181725806|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||ANOVA|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for paired samples with Bonferroni post-hoc analysis||||||0.001
90925542|NCT02800356|181725809|OTHER|||||||0.267|||||||ANOVA|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for paired samples with Bonferroni post-hoc analysis||||||0.267
90886033|NCT01516879|181634570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-57.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.3|-53.3|||Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference using placebo as the reference.|||-53.3|-62.3|<0.001
90964306|NCT03627767|181810147|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|56.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.8|63.7||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||63.7|49.8|< 0.0001
90964307|NCT03627767|181810147|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|17.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.3|25.5||||||Week 40: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||25.5|9.3|
90964308|NCT03627767|181810147|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|33.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.7|40.4||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||40.4|25.7|< 0.0001
91035079|NCT01077596|181956352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude Odds Ratio|1.1||||||95.0|1.0|1.3||||||||1.3|1.0|
90886034|NCT01516879|181634571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|75.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|70.8|79.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by the stratification factor. For testing, non-achievement was imputed for participants with a missing value at Week 52.|Treatment difference using placebo as the reference.|||79.7|70.8|<0.001
90886035|NCT01516879|181634572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-57.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.56|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.57|-54.45|||Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference using placebo as the reference.|||-54.45|-60.57|<0.001
90886036|NCT01516879|181634573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-35.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.19|-33.11|||Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference using placebo as the reference.|||-33.11|-37.19|<0.001
90886037|NCT01516879|181634574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-33.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.41|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.21|-30.68|||Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference using placebo as the reference.|||-30.68|-36.21|<0.001
90925543|NCT03295721|181725832|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (LSMD)|-122.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.217|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-163.76|-80.34|||ANOVA|||||-80.34|-163.76|< 0.0001
90925544|NCT03295721|181725833|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (LSMD)|-70.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.777|=|0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-107.07|-33.25|||ANOVA|||||-33.25|-107.07|= 0.0002
90925545|NCT03295721|181725834|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||< 0.0001
90925546|NCT03295721|181725835|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.177||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.085|0.265|||Fisher Exact|||||.265|.085|0.0001
90925547|NCT03295721|181725836|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0022|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||= 0.0022
90925548|NCT01651403|181725852|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for age at baseline and region strata||||||< 0.001
90925549|NCT01651403|181725852|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|Fisher's exact test without adjusting for strata at baseline||||||< 0.001
91035080|NCT01077596|181956352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.2||||||95.0|1.0|1.3|||||Adjusted for age, sex, cal year, study site, tumor characteristics, multiple antidepressants exposure, smoking, hysterectomy status, previous depression dx, previous IBD diagnosis, OC use, HRT/ERT use, and NSAID use.|||1.3|1.0|
90964309|NCT03627767|181810147|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|51.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.6|58.8||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||58.8|44.6|< 0.0001
90964310|NCT03627767|181810147|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|19.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.8|27.6||||||Week 52: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||27.6|10.8|
90971120|NCT00950664|181824787|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|81 participants required to detect 5 difference in Tsui score, with 80% power. 20% drop out rate assumed, 102 participants needed. Alpha level of 0.05.||||||0.05||95.0|||||Paired-t test|||||||0.05
90925550|NCT01651403|181725853|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.935|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for age at baseline and region strata||||||0.935
90925551|NCT01651403|181725854|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel tests adjusted for age at baseline and region strata||||||0.001
90925552|NCT01651403|181725856|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel tests adjusted for age at baseline and region strata||||||<0.001
90925553|NCT01651403|181725858|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel tests adjusted for age at baseline and region strata||||||0.002
90925554|NCT01651403|181725860|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel tests adjusted for age at baseline and region strata||||||<0.001
90925555|NCT01651403|181725862|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel tests adjusted for age at baseline and region strata||||||<0.001
90925556|NCT01651403|181725864|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel tests adjusted for age at baseline and region strata||||||<0.001
91035081|NCT01077596|181956352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude Odds Ratio|1.2||||||95.0|1.0|1.4||||||||1.4|1.0|
91035082|NCT01077596|181956352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.2||||||95.0|1.0|1.4|||||Adjusted for age, sex, cal year, study site, tumor characteristics, multiple antidepressants exposure, smoking, hysterectomy status, previous depression dx, previous IBD diagnosis, OC use, HRT/ERT use, and NSAID use.|||1.4|1.0|
90925557|NCT01651403|181725866|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|two-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for age at baseline and region strata||||||<0.001
90925558|NCT01651403|181725868|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Two-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for age at baseline and region strata||||||>0.999
90925559|NCT01651403|181725876|OTHER|Comparison of the difference in percentages|Exact Chan-Zhang method|11.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|25.1||||||||25.1|-6.9|
90925560|NCT01651403|181725877|OTHER|Comparison of the difference in percentages|Exact Chan-Zhang method|11.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|25.1||||||||25.1|-6.9|
90925561|NCT01651403|181725878|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||ANOVA|two-sided superiority test||||||0.007
90925562|NCT01651403|181725880|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for age at baseline and region strata||||||<0.001
90925563|NCT04070573|181725927|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.035||||0.28|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared||Risk difference direction = 81mg arm minus 162mg arm.|||||0.28
90925564|NCT04070573|181725928|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.035||||0.31|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared||Risk difference direction = 81mg arm minus 162mg arm.|||||0.31
91035083|NCT01077596|181956352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude Odds Ratio|1.1||||||95.0|0.9|1.2||||||||1.2|0.9|
90925565|NCT04070573|181725929|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.019||||0.61|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared||Risk difference direction = 81mg arm minus 162mg arm.|||||0.61
90925566|NCT04070573|181725932|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.72|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.72
90925567|NCT04479761|181725965|OTHER|T test derived from a linear mixed effects model|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.52||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis||we provided the mean difference between the vestibular group and healthy controls for the reported condition.|||||0.005
90925568|NCT04479761|181725966|OTHER|T tests derived from linear mixed effects model|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23||||0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||we provided the mean difference between the vestibular group and the controls on the reported condition.|||||0.008
90925569|NCT05309291|181725967|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis to demonstrate non-inferiority using a 10% margin for λ FLC RR can be expressed as: Ho: μT-μR ≤ -3.783. The alternative hypothesis is expressed as: Ha: μT-μR \> -3.783 where μT denotes the Theranova 400 treatment mean and μR denotes the FX 800 treatment mean.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.99|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.86|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.84|19.15|||t-test, 2 sided|T-test was utilized to generate a two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in means.||Non-inferiority of the Theranova 400 Dialyzer compared to the FX 800 Dialyzer in regard to the λ FLC RR at the mid-week treatment day dialysis session was assessed.||19.15|14.84|<0.0001
90925570|NCT05309291|181725968|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis to demonstrate non-inferiority using a 10% margin for ß2-MG RR can be expressed as Ho: μT-μR ≤ -7.848. The alternative hypothesis is expressed as: Ha: μT-μR \> -7.848, where μT denotes the Theranova 400 treatment mean and μR denotes the FX 800 treatment mean.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.19|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.55|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|0.16|||t-test, 2 sided|T-test was utilized to generate a two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in means.||Non-inferiority of the Theranova 400 Dialyzer compared to the FX 800 Dialyzer in regard to the β2-MG RR at the mid-week treatment day dialysis session was assessed.||0.16|-2.54|<0.0001
90925571|NCT04778397|181726013|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio|1.132||||0.507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.783|1.637|||Stratified log-rank test|P-value from stratified log-rank test.|||Hazard ratio and 95% CIs were calculated using the Cox proportional hazards model, adjusted for randomization stratification factors (appropriateness for non-intensive therapy vs intensive therapy, age (\< 75 years, \>=75 years), geographic region (US sites, outside the US sites)).|1.637|0.783|0.5070
90971121|NCT04703075|181824794|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.5||||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.07
91035084|NCT01077596|181956352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.1||||||95.0|0.9|1.3|||||Adjusted for age, sex, cal year, study site, tumor characteristics, multiple antidepressants exposure, smoking, hysterectomy status, previous depression dx, previous IBD diagnosis, OC use, HRT/ERT use, and NSAID use.|||1.3|0.9|
90925572|NCT04778397|181726014|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio|1.183||||0.3237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.845|1.654|||Stratified Log-rank test|P-value from stratified log-rank test.|||Hazard ratio and 95% CIs were calculated using the Cox proportional hazards model, adjusted for randomization stratification factors (appropriateness for non-intensive therapy vs intensive therapy, age (\< 75 years, \>=75 years), geographic region (US sites, outside the US sites)).|1.654|0.845|0.3237
90925573|NCT04778397|181726015|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio|1.389||||0.0661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.043|1.848|||Stratified Log-rank test|P-value for comparing the event free survival functions from the two treatment groups was from stratified log-rank test, adjusted for randomization.|||Hazard ratio and 95% CIs were calculated using the Cox proportional hazards model, adjusted for randomization stratification factors: therapy appropriateness, age (\< 75 years, \>=75 years), geographic region (US sites, outside the US sites).|1.848|1.043|0.0661
90925574|NCT04778397|181726016|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Odds Ratio|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.123|0.506|||||||Odds ratio and 2-sided 95% CI were calculated from stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel estimates adjusted for randomization stratification factors (appropriateness for non-intensive therapy versus intensive therapy, age (\< 75 years, \>=75 years), geographic region (US sites, outside US sites)).|0.506|0.123|
90925575|NCT04778397|181726017|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Odds Ratio|0.072|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.009|0.559|||||||Odds ratio and 2-sided 95% CI were calculated from stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel estimates adjusted for randomization stratification factors (appropriateness for non-intensive therapy versus intensive therapy, age (\< 75 years, \>=75 years), geographic region (US sites, outside US sites)).|0.559|0.009|
90925576|NCT04778397|181726018|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Odds Ratio|0.215|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.108|0.428|||||||Odds ratio and 2-sided 95% CI were calculated from stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel estimates adjusted for randomization stratification factors (appropriateness for non-intensive therapy versus intensive therapy, age (\< 75 years, \>=75 years), geographic region (US sites, outside US sites)).|0.428|0.108|
90925577|NCT05163496|181726054|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|12.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis was that the mean change in MADRS score from the preparation 1 session to day 28 would be the same in both niacin and psilocybin groups. The alternative hypothesis was that the change in the psilocybin group would be greater than the change in the niacin group, with an assumed true effect size of 1.06 SD units based on findings in prior studies. With 15 participants per group, this study had 80% power to observe a statistically significant difference between groups.||||<.001
90925578|NCT04685135|181726076|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.76|||Log Rank|HR and CI are from stratified Cox proportional hazard model||||0.76|0.45|<0.0001
90925579|NCT04685135|181726078|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.56|8.56|||Cochran Mantel Haenszel chi-square test|||||8.56|2.56|<0.0001
90925580|NCT02724969|181726117|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.272|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.272
90925581|NCT02724969|181726118|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.082|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.082
90925582|NCT02724969|181726119|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.355|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.355
90925583|NCT02724969|181726120|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.780
90925584|NCT02724969|181726121|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.588|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.588
90925585|NCT04911296|181726125|OTHER|||||||0.935|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.935
90925586|NCT04911296|181726126|OTHER|||||||0.536|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.536
90925587|NCT03625115|181726135|EQUIVALENCE|A two-tailed t-test was done to compare the mean Bayley cognitive scores between the groups.||||||0.3|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.30
90925588|NCT03625115|181726136|SUPERIORITY||Pearson chi square (1)|8.51||||0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-square test of independence to determine if there was a significant difference between intervention arms for those who completed a multidisciplinary evaluation (referral completed).||||.004
90925589|NCT03625115|181726137|SUPERIORITY||Pearson chi square (1)|0.05||||0.82|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-square test of independence to determine if there was a significant difference between intervention arms for those who began early intervention services.||||.82
90925590|NCT03625115|181726138|EQUIVALENCE|A two-tailed t-test was done to compare the mean Bayley language scores between the groups.||||||0.69|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.69
90925591|NCT03625115|181726140|EQUIVALENCE|two tailed t-test to compare the means of factor 1 between groups||||||0.858|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of factor 1 items from the parent engagement questionnaire. Factor 1 (Buy-in) I am open to getting EI for my child. EI can help my child. EI can teach me new ways to help my child.||||.858
90925592|NCT03625115|181726140|EQUIVALENCE|two tailed t-test to compare the means of factor 2 between groups||||||0.995|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Analysis of factor 2 items from the parent engagement questionnaire.~Factor 2 (early intervention consequences):~EI could have negative consequences for my child. Getting EI for my child reflects negatively on me as a parent."||||.995
90925593|NCT03625115|181726140|EQUIVALENCE|two tailed t-test to compare the means of factor 3 between groups||||||0.049|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Analysis of factor 3 items from the parent engagement questionnaire.~Factor 3 (Knowledge/Self-Efficacy):~I know how to get EI for my child. I understand how the EI process works. If I have questions about EI, I know who to call. 12. I know my child's rights to EI under the law."||||.049
90971122|NCT00853671|181824797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Pearson Correlation|||||||<0.0001
90925594|NCT03625115|181726141|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.87||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|3.21|||Regression, Logistic|||A logistic regression was run to determine if the intervention arm, adjusted for child sex, income, maternal education, and primary care site, was associated with the completion of early intervention referrals for families with an adverse childhood experience survey score of greater than 2.||3.21|1.09|.02
90925595|NCT03655028|181726175|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85||||||The co-variate used in the analysis was the 6 minute walk distance at baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.85
90925596|NCT03655028|181726176|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.307||||||The co-variant used to adjust the ANCOVA was the baseline step count/day.|ANCOVA|||||||.307
90925597|NCT03655028|181726177|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.106||||||this comparison is made between distance walked during 6MW at 12 weeks and distance walked during 6MW at 24 weeks|ANCOVA|||||||0.106
90925598|NCT03655028|181726178|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26||||||Baseline PCS score was used at the co-variate|ANCOVA|||||||0.26
90925599|NCT03655028|181726179|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85||||||Covariate was baseline MCS score|ANCOVA|||||||0.85
90925600|NCT03655028|181726180|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.025|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.025
90925601|NCT05256654|181726194|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.92||0.691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5|11.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model uses log-transformed outcome and baseline variables, including terms for baseline, strata (Triglycerides (TG) \<250 milligram per deciliter (mg/dL) or \>=250 mg/dL at screening), and the interaction between treatment and time.|||11.9|-15.5|0.691
91035085|NCT01077596|181956352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude Odds Ratio|1.0||||||95.0|0.9|1.2||||||||1.2|0.9|
90925602|NCT05256654|181726194|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.98||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.6|-3.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model uses log-transformed outcome and baseline variables, including terms for baseline, strata (TG \<250 mg/dL or \>=250 mg/dL at screening), and the interaction between treatment and time.|||-3.9|-23.6|0.008
90925603|NCT05256654|181726194|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.36||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.3|2.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model uses log-transformed outcome and baseline variables, including terms for baseline, strata (TG \<250 mg/dL or \>=250 mg/dL at screening), and the interaction between treatment and time.|||2.9|-18.3|0.140
90925604|NCT05256654|181726195|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-54.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.3|-43.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model uses log-transformed outcome and baseline variables, including terms for baseline, strata (TG \<250 mg/dL or \>=250 mg/dL at screening), and the interaction between treatment and time.|||-43.1|-63.3|<.001
90925605|NCT05256654|181726195|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-69.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.73|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.8|-63.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model uses log-transformed outcome and baseline variables, including terms for baseline, strata (TG \<250 mg/dL or \>=250 mg/dL at screening), and the interaction between treatment and time.|||-63.9|-74.8|<.001
91035086|NCT01077596|181956352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.0||||||95.0|0.8|1.2|||||Adjusted for age, sex, cal year, study site, tumor characteristics, multiple antidepressants exposure, smoking, hysterectomy status, previous depression dx, previous IBD diagnosis, OC use, HRT/ERT use, and NSAID use.|||1.2|0.8|
90925606|NCT05256654|181726195|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-76.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.13|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.4|-72.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model uses log-transformed outcome and baseline variables, including terms for baseline, strata (TG \<250 mg/dL or \>=250 mg/dL at screening), and the interaction between treatment and time.|||-72.0|-80.4|<.001
90925607|NCT05256654|181726196|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.24||0.854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|14.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model uses log-transformed outcome and baseline variables, including terms for baseline, strata (TG \<250 mg/dL or \>=250 mg/dL at screening), and the interaction between treatment and time.|||14.0|-14.6|0.854
90925608|NCT05256654|181726196|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.98||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.0|-6.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model uses log-transformed outcome and baseline variables, including terms for baseline, strata (TG \<250 mg/dL or \>=250 mg/dL at screening), and the interaction between treatment and time.|||-6.4|-26.0|0.002
90925609|NCT05256654|181726196|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.28||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.9|-1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model uses log-transformed outcome and baseline variables, including terms for baseline, strata (TG \<250 mg/dL or \>=250 mg/dL at screening), and the interaction between treatment and time.|||-1.1|-21.9|0.033
90925610|NCT05256654|181726197|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.03||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|2.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model uses log-transformed outcome and baseline variables, including terms for baseline, strata (TG \<250 mg/dL or \>=250 mg/dL at screening), and the interaction between treatment and time.|||2.2|-13.8|0.143
90971123|NCT00853671|181824799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Pearson Correlation|||Pearson Correlation||||<0.0001
91035087|NCT02538523|181956353|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.005|||||||Fisher Exact|||A Fischer's Exact Test for two independent proportions was conducted to compare the statistical significance of the 44.8% difference in proportion of successes between procedure groups at two-months post-procedure (study endpoint) relative to baseline evaluation.||||<0.005
90964311|NCT03627767|181810148|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|2.6|||=|0.3994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|8.4||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||8.4|-3.3|= 0.3994
90964312|NCT03627767|181810148|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|1.8|||=|0.5542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|7.8||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||7.8|-4.1|= 0.5542
90964313|NCT03627767|181810148|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|5.0||||||Week 12: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||5.0|-6.5|
90964314|NCT03627767|181810148|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|37.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.2|44.9||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||44.9|30.2|< 0.0001
90964315|NCT03627767|181810148|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|63.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.8|69.8||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||69.8|56.8|< 0.0001
90964316|NCT03627767|181810148|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|25.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.7|33.4||||||Week 16: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||33.4|17.7|
90964317|NCT03627767|181810148|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|36.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.9|44.0||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 28: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||44.0|29.9|< 0.0001
90964318|NCT03627767|181810148|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|54.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.3|61.0||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 28: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||61.0|47.3|< 0.0001
91035088|NCT02538523|181956354|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||Differences is the statistical significance of change scores in ODI total score from study baseline to endpoint (two-months post-procedure) were evaluated by Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA), with change from baseline to endpoint in ODI total score as the dependent variable, baseline ODI total score as the covariate and procedure group (Erchonia FX-635 or placebo laser) as a main effect.||||<0.05
90964319|NCT03627767|181810148|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|17.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.9|25.5||||||Week 28: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||25.5|8.9|
90964320|NCT03627767|181810148|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|29.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.7|37.0||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||37.0|22.7|< 0.0001
90964321|NCT03627767|181810148|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|46.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.6|53.8||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||53.8|39.6|< 0.0001
90964322|NCT03627767|181810148|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|16.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.5|25.3||||||Week 40: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||25.3|8.5|
90971124|NCT03036293|181824819|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.56||||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|98.33|0.217|2.91|||ANCOVA|Baseline score used as covariate||Mean score differences (begin-end) were compared||2.91|0.217|0.0055
90886038|NCT01516879|181634575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-50.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.03|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.25|-46.28|||Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference using placebo as the reference.|||-46.28|-54.25|<0.001
90886039|NCT01516879|181634576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-44.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.71|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.56|-40.85|||Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference using placebo as the reference.|||-40.85|-47.56|<0.001
90886040|NCT01516879|181634577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-37.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.67|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.41|-33.87|||Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference using placebo as the reference.|||-33.87|-40.41|<0.001
90886041|NCT01516879|181634578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-46.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.82|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.79|-42.63|||Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference using placebo as the reference.|||-42.63|-49.79|<0.001
90886042|NCT01516879|181634579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-22.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.94|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.15|-18.55|||Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference using placebo as the reference.|||-18.55|-26.15|<0.001
90886043|NCT01516879|181634580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-11.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.89|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.21|-5.86|||Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference using placebo as the reference.|||-5.86|-17.21|<0.001
90886044|NCT01516879|181634581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|5.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.28|7.56|||Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference using placebo as the reference.|||7.56|3.28|<0.001
90886045|NCT01516879|181634582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-29.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.64|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.23|-18.08|||Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference using placebo as the reference.|||-18.08|-40.23|<0.001
90886046|NCT01516879|181634583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.84||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.76|3.48|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment group and stratification factor as covariates.|Treatment difference using placebo as the reference.|||3.48|-3.76|0.94
90886047|NCT04666441|181634601|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.25|||ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.25|-0.88|0.0004
90886048|NCT04666441|181634601|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.34|||ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.34|-0.99|<0.0001
90886049|NCT04666441|181634601|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.24|-0.89|0.0007
90886050|NCT04666441|181634601|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.38|||ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.38|-1.05|<0.0001
90886051|NCT04666441|181634601|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0006||95.0|-0.88|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.24|-0.88|0.0006
90886052|NCT04666441|181634601|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0007||95.0|-0.87|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.24|-0.87|0.0007
90886053|NCT04666441|181634602|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0002||95.0|-0.72|-0.23|||ANCOVA|||||-0.23|-0.72|0.0002
90886054|NCT04666441|181634602|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.82|-0.32|||ANCOVA|||||-0.32|-0.82|<0.0001
90886055|NCT04666441|181634602|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.83|-0.33|||ANCOVA|||||-0.33|-0.83|<0.0001
90886056|NCT04666441|181634602|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0002||95.0|-0.75|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||||-0.24|-0.75|0.0002
90886057|NCT04666441|181634602|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.004||95.0|-0.62|-0.12|||ANCOVA|||||-0.12|-0.62|0.0040
90886058|NCT04666441|181634602|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0007||95.0|-0.67|-0.18|||ANCOVA|||||-0.18|-0.67|0.0007
90925611|NCT05256654|181726197|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.93|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|-10.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model uses log-transformed outcome and baseline variables, including terms for baseline, strata (TG \<250 mg/dL or \>=250 mg/dL at screening), and the interaction between treatment and time.|||-10.5|-22.0|<.001
91078004|NCT02542293|182041272|OTHER|The study was not designed or powered to show statistical significance for efficacy endpoints in the China cohort, so all statistical analyses for the China cohort were considered exploratory.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.222|0.955|||||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"PD-L1 TC ≥50% analysis set:~China: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs China: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy to be associated with a longer OS than SoC."||0.955|0.222|
90886059|NCT04666441|181634603|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.33|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^4 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.33|-0.82|<0.0001
90886060|NCT04666441|181634603|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^5 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.40|-0.90|<0.0001
90886061|NCT04666441|181634603|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.42|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^6 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.42|-0.97|<0.0001
90886062|NCT04666441|181634603|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|-0.58|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^7 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.58|-1.19|<0.0001
90886063|NCT04666441|181634603|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.33|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^4 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.33|-0.84|<0.0001
90886064|NCT04666441|181634603|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.43|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^5 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.43|-0.95|<0.0001
90886065|NCT04666441|181634603|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.44|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^6 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.44|-0.98|<0.0001
90886066|NCT04666441|181634603|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|-0.64|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^7 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.64|-1.25|<0.0001
90886067|NCT04666441|181634603|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.37|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^4 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.37|-0.87|<0.0001
90886068|NCT04666441|181634603|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|-0.42|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^5 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.42|-0.93|<0.0001
90886069|NCT04666441|181634603|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.44|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^6 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.44|-0.99|<0.0001
90886070|NCT04666441|181634603|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|-0.61|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^7 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.61|-1.25|<0.0001
90886071|NCT04666441|181634603|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.31|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^4 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.31|-0.80|<0.0001
90886072|NCT04666441|181634603|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.38|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^5 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.38|-0.89|<0.0001
90886073|NCT04666441|181634603|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.43|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^6 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.43|-0.97|<0.0001
90886074|NCT04666441|181634603|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|-0.52|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^7 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.52|-1.15|<0.0001
90886075|NCT04666441|181634603|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.27|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^4 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.27|-0.76|<0.0001
90886076|NCT04666441|181634603|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.33|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^5 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.33|-0.83|<0.0001
90886077|NCT04666441|181634603|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.28|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^6 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.28|-0.82|<0.0001
90886078|NCT04666441|181634603|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.32|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^7 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.32|-0.95|<0.0001
90886079|NCT04666441|181634603|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.23|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^4 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.23|-0.73|0.0002
90886080|NCT04666441|181634603|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.31|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^5 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.31|-0.82|<0.0001
90925612|NCT05256654|181726197|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-22.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.71|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.9|-17.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model uses log-transformed outcome and baseline variables, including terms for baseline, strata (TG \<250 mg/dL or \>=250 mg/dL at screening), and the interaction between treatment and time.|||-17.2|-27.9|<.001
90886081|NCT04666441|181634603|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.33|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^6 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.33|-0.87|<0.0001
90964323|NCT03627767|181810148|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|27.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.4|34.3||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||34.3|20.4|< 0.0001
90964324|NCT03627767|181810148|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|43.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.7|50.9||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||50.9|36.7|< 0.0001
90964325|NCT03627767|181810148|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|16.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.4|25.2||||||Week 52: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||25.2|8.4|
90964326|NCT03627767|181810149|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|0.3|||=|0.9313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|8.1||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||8.1|-7.5|= 0.9313
90964327|NCT03627767|181810149|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-2.1|||=|0.6043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|5.7||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||5.7|-9.8|= 0.6043
90925613|NCT05256654|181726198|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.55||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.1|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model uses log-transformed outcome and baseline variables, including terms for baseline, strata (TG \<250 mg/dL or \>=250 mg/dL at screening), and the interaction between treatment and time.|||0.9|-21.1|0.068
90964328|NCT03627767|181810149|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|5.4||||||Week 12: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||5.4|-10.0|
90964329|NCT03627767|181810149|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|11.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.6|16.5||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||16.5|6.6|< 0.0001
90964330|NCT03627767|181810149|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|25.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.4|31.2||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||31.2|19.4|< 0.0001
90964331|NCT03627767|181810149|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.6|20.4||||||Week 16: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||20.4|6.6|
90925614|NCT05256654|181726198|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-25.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.79|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.6|-17.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model uses log-transformed outcome and baseline variables, including terms for baseline, strata (TG \<250 mg/dL or \>=250 mg/dL at screening), and the interaction between treatment and time.|||-17.6|-32.6|<.001
90925615|NCT05256654|181726198|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-23.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.88|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.1|-15.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model uses log-transformed outcome and baseline variables, including terms for baseline, strata (TG \<250 mg/dL or \>=250 mg/dL at screening), and the interaction between treatment and time.|||-15.7|-31.1|<.001
90925616|NCT05256654|181726199|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-36.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.21|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.8|-25.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model uses log-transformed outcome and baseline variables, including terms for baseline, strata (TG \<250 mg/dL or \>=250 mg/dL at screening), and the interaction between treatment and time.|||-25.1|-45.8|<.001
90925617|NCT05256654|181726199|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-50.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.31|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.4|-43.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model uses log-transformed outcome and baseline variables, including terms for baseline, strata (TG \<250 mg/dL or \>=250 mg/dL at screening), and the interaction between treatment and time.|||-43.3|-56.4|<.001
90964332|NCT03627767|181810149|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|12.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|18.0||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 28: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||18.0|7.7|< 0.0001
90886082|NCT04666441|181634603|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|-0.52|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^7 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.52|-1.16|<0.0001
90964333|NCT03627767|181810149|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|26.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.9|32.0||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 28: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||32.0|19.9|< 0.0001
90886083|NCT04666441|181634604|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|-0.18|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^4 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.18|-0.64|0.0005
90886084|NCT04666441|181634604|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.23|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^5 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.23|-0.69|<0.0001
90886085|NCT04666441|181634604|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.26|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^6 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.26|-0.75|<0.0001
90886086|NCT04666441|181634604|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.32|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^7 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.32|-0.88|<0.0001
90886087|NCT04666441|181634604|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.21|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^4 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.21|-0.69|0.0003
90886088|NCT04666441|181634604|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.29|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^5 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.29|-0.77|<0.0001
90886089|NCT04666441|181634604|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.29|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^6 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.29|-0.78|<0.0001
90886090|NCT04666441|181634604|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.41|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^7 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.41|-0.98|<0.0001
90886091|NCT04666441|181634604|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.25|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^4 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.25|-0.72|<0.0001
90925618|NCT05256654|181726199|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-52.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.4|-45.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model uses log-transformed outcome and baseline variables, including terms for baseline, strata (TG \<250 mg/dL or \>=250 mg/dL at screening), and the interaction between treatment and time.|||-45.9|-58.4|<.001
90886092|NCT04666441|181634604|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.28|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^5 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.28|-0.74|<0.0001
90886093|NCT04666441|181634604|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^6 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.30|-0.79|<0.0001
90886094|NCT04666441|181634604|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^7 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.40|-0.99|<0.0001
90886095|NCT04666441|181634604|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.16|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^4 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.16|-0.63|0.0009
90886096|NCT04666441|181634604|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.23|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^5 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.23|-0.69|0.0001
90886097|NCT04666441|181634604|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.27|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^6 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.27|-0.77|<0.0001
90886098|NCT04666441|181634604|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|-0.34|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^7 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.34|-0.92|<0.0001
90886099|NCT04666441|181634604|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^4 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.10|-0.57|0.0046
90886100|NCT04666441|181634604|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.15|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^5 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.15|-0.62|0.0011
90925619|NCT05256654|181726200|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-38.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.76|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.2|-21.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model uses log-transformed outcome and baseline variables, including terms for baseline, strata (TG \<250 mg/dL or \>=250 mg/dL at screening), and the interaction between treatment and time.|||-21.2|-52.2|<.001
90964334|NCT03627767|181810149|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|13.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|20.6||||||Week 28: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||20.6|6.3|
90925620|NCT05256654|181726200|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-54.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.69|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.4|-43.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model uses log-transformed outcome and baseline variables, including terms for baseline, strata (TG \<250 mg/dL or \>=250 mg/dL at screening), and the interaction between treatment and time.|||-43.8|-62.4|<.001
90925621|NCT05256654|181726200|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-63.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.72|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.3|55.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model uses log-transformed outcome and baseline variables, including terms for baseline, strata (TG \<250 mg/dL or \>=250 mg/dL at screening), and the interaction between treatment and time.|||55.5|-70.3|<.001
90925622|NCT05256654|181726201|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.99||0.506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|8.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model uses log-transformed outcome and baseline variables, including terms for baseline, strata (TG \<250 mg/dL or \>=250 mg/dL at screening), and the interaction between treatment and time.|||8.5|-15.2|0.506
90925623|NCT05256654|181726201|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-19.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.04|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.2|-11.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model uses log-transformed outcome and baseline variables, including terms for baseline, strata (TG \<250 mg/dL or \>=250 mg/dL at screening), and the interaction between treatment and time.|||-11.3|-27.2|<.001
90925624|NCT05256654|181726201|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-19.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.0|-11.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model uses log-transformed outcome and baseline variables, including terms for baseline, strata (TG \<250 mg/dL or \>=250 mg/dL at screening), and the interaction between treatment and time.|||-11.0|-27.0|<.001
90925625|NCT05256654|181726202|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.16||0.428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|5.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model uses log-transformed outcome and baseline variables, including terms for baseline, strata (TG \<250 mg/dL or \>=250 mg/dL at screening), and the interaction between treatment and time.|||5.2|-11.2|0.428
90925626|NCT05256654|181726202|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.14||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|-2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model uses log-transformed outcome and baseline variables, including terms for baseline, strata (TG \<250 mg/dL or \>=250 mg/dL at screening), and the interaction between treatment and time.|||-2.3|-14.7|0.009
90925627|NCT05256654|181726202|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.04|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|-6.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model uses log-transformed outcome and baseline variables, including terms for baseline, strata (TG \<250 mg/dL or \>=250 mg/dL at screening), and the interaction between treatment and time.|||-6.0|-18.0|<.001
90925628|NCT05256654|181726203|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.1||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|23.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model uses log-transformed outcome and baseline variables, including terms for baseline, strata (TG \<250 mg/dL or \>=250 mg/dL at screening), and the interaction between treatment and time.|||23.7|-8.4|0.412
90925629|NCT05256654|181726203|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.52||0.104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|2.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model uses log-transformed outcome and baseline variables, including terms for baseline, strata (TG \<250 mg/dL or \>=250 mg/dL at screening), and the interaction between treatment and time.|||2.1|-19.7|0.104
90971125|NCT03036293|181824819|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.33|1.1|3.96|||ANCOVA|Baseline score used as covariate. Yeo-Johnson transformation with λ=1,09 was applied. Statistical inference performed for transformed values.|estimate and CL are backtransformed|Mean score differences (begin-end) were compared||3.96|1.1|<0.0001
90964335|NCT03627767|181810149|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|11.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|16.8||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||16.8|6.5|< 0.0001
91035089|NCT02222818|181956370|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|In order to demonstrate that CAFRPlus is no less effective than CAFR by a non-inferiority margin of 2%, assuming a true paired difference of 6% and a standard deviation of 15% for the paired differences, a sample size of 39 subjects with paired data is required to achieve 90% statistical power using the one-sample t-test for non-inferiority, while controlling the one-sided type I error rate at 0.025.|Mean Difference (Net)|7.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.7|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.86|4.5|9.5||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.0207, determined by the pre-specified alpha spending function accounting for one interim analysis.|t-test, 1 sided|||Null Hypothesis (Ho): μd ≤ -2% Alternative Hypothesis (Ha): μd \> -2% where μd is the paired difference in percent effective CRT pacing during AF between when CAFRPlus is applied and when CAFR is applied, based on subjects' paired measurements from the two cross-over follow-up periods, and -2% is the non-inferiority margin selected based upon clinical judgment.||9.5|4.5|<0.0001
90886101|NCT04666441|181634604|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.13|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^6 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.13|-0.62|0.0029
90886102|NCT04666441|181634604|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.08|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^7 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.08|-0.66|0.0120
90886103|NCT04666441|181634604|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.09|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^4 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.09|-0.56|0.0062
90886104|NCT04666441|181634604|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.16|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^5 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.16|-0.62|0.0011
90886105|NCT04666441|181634604|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.17|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^6 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.17|-0.66|0.0011
90886106|NCT04666441|181634604|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.29|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^7 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.29|-0.87|0.0001
90886107|NCT04666441|181634608|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.007||95.0|-0.85|-0.14|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Difference vs. Placebo, by Day 3 (log10 copies/mL)||-0.14|-0.85|0.0070
90886108|NCT04666441|181634608|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.33|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Difference vs. Placebo, by Day 3 (log10 copies/mL)||-0.33|-1.06|0.0002
90886109|NCT04666441|181634608|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0008||95.0|-1.0|-0.26|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Difference vs. Placebo, by Day 3 (log10 copies/mL)||-0.26|-1.00|0.0008
90886110|NCT04666441|181634608|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0125||95.0|-0.85|-0.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Difference vs. Placebo, by Day 3 (log10 copies/mL)||-0.10|-0.85|0.0125
90886111|NCT04666441|181634608|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0696||95.0|-0.7|0.03|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Difference vs. Placebo, by Day 3 (log10 copies/mL)||0.03|-0.70|0.0696
90886112|NCT04666441|181634608|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.07|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Difference vs. Placebo, by Day 3 (log10 copies/mL)||-0.07|-0.79|0.0187
90886113|NCT04666441|181634608|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.39|-0.52|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Difference vs. Placebo, by Day 5 (log10 copies/mL)||-0.52|-1.39|<0.0001
90886114|NCT04666441|181634608|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.53|-0.64|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Difference vs. Placebo, by Day 5 (log10 copies/mL)||-0.64|-1.53|<0.0001
90886115|NCT04666441|181634608|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.48|-0.59|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Difference vs. Placebo, by Day 5 (log10 copies/mL)||-0.59|-1.48|<0.0001
90886116|NCT04666441|181634608|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.5|-0.6|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Difference vs. Placebo, by Day 5 (log10 copies/mL)||-0.60|-1.50|<0.0001
90886117|NCT04666441|181634608|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|-0.46|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Difference vs. Placebo, by Day 5 (log10 copies/mL)||-0.46|-1.34|<0.0001
91035090|NCT02222818|181956371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.7|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.86|4.5|9.5||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.0207, determined by the pre-specified alpha spending function accounting for one interim analysis.|t-test, 1 sided|||Null Hypothesis (Ho): μd ≤ 0% Alternative Hypothesis (Ha): μd \> 0% where μd is the paired difference in percent effective CRT pacing during AF between when CAFRPlus is applied and when CAFR is applied, based on subjects' paired measurements from the two cross-over follow-up periods.||9.5|4.5|<0.0001
90925630|NCT05256654|181726203|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.79||0.363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|6.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model uses log-transformed outcome and baseline variables, including terms for baseline, strata (TG \<250 mg/dL or \>=250 mg/dL at screening), and the interaction between treatment and time.|||6.7|-16.2|0.363
90925631|NCT05256654|181726204|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.19||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.2|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model uses log-transformed outcome and baseline variables, including terms for baseline, strata (TG \<250 mg/dL or \>=250 mg/dL at screening), and the interaction between treatment and time.|||2.3|-22.2|0.101
90925632|NCT05256654|181726204|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.96||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.6|-1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model uses log-transformed outcome and baseline variables, including terms for baseline, strata (TG \<250 mg/dL or \>=250 mg/dL at screening), and the interaction between treatment and time.|||-1.0|-20.6|0.033
90925633|NCT05256654|181726204|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.98||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.3|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model uses log-transformed outcome and baseline variables, including terms for baseline, strata (TG \<250 mg/dL or \>=250 mg/dL at screening), and the interaction between treatment and time.|||-0.6|-20.3|0.040
90925634|NCT05256654|181726205|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-28.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.79|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.5|-13.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model uses log-transformed outcome and baseline variables, including terms for baseline, strata (TG \<250 mg/dL or \>=250 mg/dL at screening), and the interaction between treatment and time.|||-13.6|-40.5|<.001
90925635|NCT05256654|181726205|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-42.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.35|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.5|-33.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model uses log-transformed outcome and baseline variables, including terms for baseline, strata (TG \<250 mg/dL or \>=250 mg/dL at screening), and the interaction between treatment and time.|||-33.2|-50.5|<.001
90925636|NCT05256654|181726205|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-44.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.5|-35.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model uses log-transformed outcome and baseline variables, including terms for baseline, strata (TG \<250 mg/dL or \>=250 mg/dL at screening), and the interaction between treatment and time.|||-35.9|-52.5|<.001
90925637|NCT05167864|181726223|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank sum test||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement of line in the forehead post injection day 3|||0.13519
90925638|NCT05167864|181726223|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank sum test||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement of line in the forehead post injection day 3|||0.8556
90925639|NCT05167864|181726223|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement of line in the forehead post injection day 3|||0.46943
90925640|NCT05167864|181726223|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank sum test||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement of line in the forehead post injection day 3|||0.0449
90925641|NCT05167864|181726223|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank sum test||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement of line in the forehead post injection day 30|||0.504
90925642|NCT05167864|181726223|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.772193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank sum test||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement of line in the forehead post injection day 30|||0.772193
90925643|NCT05167864|181726223|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank sum test||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement of line in the forehead post injection day 30|||0.5414
90925644|NCT05167864|181726223|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank sum test||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement of line in the forehead post injection day 30|||0.070
90925645|NCT05167864|181726223|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank sum test||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement of line in the forehead post injection day 90|||0.546
90925646|NCT05167864|181726223|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank sum test||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement of line in the forehead post injection day 90|||0.756
90925647|NCT05167864|181726223|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank sum test||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement of line in the forehead post injection day 90|||0.700
90925648|NCT05167864|181726223|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank sum||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement of line in the forehead post injection day 90|||0.397
90925649|NCT05167864|181726223|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank sum||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement of line in the forehead post injection day 180|||0.093
90925650|NCT05167864|181726223|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank sum||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement of line in the forehead post injection day 180|||0.323
90925651|NCT05167864|181726223|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank sum||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) tothe patient satisfaction improvement of line in the forehead post injection day 180|||0.182
91035091|NCT00834717|181956372|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|97.86||||||90.0|92.36|103.69|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||103.69|92.36|
91035092|NCT00834717|181956373|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|92.57||||||90.0|82.8|103.48|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||103.48|82.80|
91035093|NCT00834717|181956374|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|92.95||||||90.0|83.11|103.97|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||103.97|83.11|
90925652|NCT05167864|181726223|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank sum||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement of line in the forehead post injection day 180|||0.880
90925653|NCT05167864|181726223|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank sum||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) tothe patient satisfaction improvement in the forehead post injection day 3|||0.496
90925654|NCT05167864|181726223|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank sum||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement in the forehead post injection day 3|||0.905
90925655|NCT05167864|181726223|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank sum||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement in the forehead post injection day 3|||0.692
90925656|NCT05167864|181726223|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank sum||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement in the forehead post injection day 3|||0.262
90925657|NCT05167864|181726223|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank sum||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement in the forehead post injection day 30|||0.828
90925658|NCT05167864|181726223|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank sum test||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement in the forehead post injection day 30|||0.268
90925659|NCT05167864|181726223|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank sum||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement in the forehead post injection day 30|||0.975
90925660|NCT05167864|181726223|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank sum||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement in the forehead post injection day 30|||0.499
91035094|NCT00795821|181956387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Model terms included treatment, investigator, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline score, and baseline-by-visit.||||||<0.001
91035095|NCT00795821|181956389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||To control for multiple comparisons, the analysis of this secondary outcome measure was pre-specified as a gated secondary objective. As the primary hypothesis was statistically significant, this hypothesis was tested at the 0.05 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model terms included treatment, investigator, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline score, and baseline-by-visit.||||||<0.001
91035096|NCT00795821|181956391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Model terms included treatment, investigator, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline score, and baseline-by-visit.||||||<0.001
90925661|NCT05167864|181726223|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank sum||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement in the forehead post injection day 90|||0.750
90925662|NCT05167864|181726223|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank sum||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement in the forehead post injection day 90|||0.433
90925663|NCT05167864|181726223|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank sum||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement in the forehead post injection day 90|||0.834
90925664|NCT05167864|181726223|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank sum||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement in the forehead post injection day 90|||0.834
90925665|NCT05167864|181726223|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank sum test||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement in the forehead post injection day 180|||0.526
90925666|NCT05167864|181726223|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon singed rank sum||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement in the forehead post injection day 180|||0.816
90925667|NCT05167864|181726223|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||wilcoxon signed rank sum||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement in the forehead post injection day 180|||0.650
90925668|NCT05167864|181726223|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||wilcoxon rank sum test||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement in the forehead post injection day 180|||0.095
90925669|NCT05167864|181726223|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank sum||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement in the lines between the eyebrows post injection day 3|||0.618
90925670|NCT05167864|181726223|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||wilcoxon signed rank sum||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement in the lines between the eyebrows post injection day 3|||0.340
90925671|NCT05167864|181726223|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank sum||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement in the lines between the eyebrows post injection day 3|||0.150
90925672|NCT05167864|181726223|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank sum test||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement in the lines between the eyebrows post injection day 3|||0.361
90925673|NCT05167864|181726223|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||wilcoxon signed rank sum||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement in the lines between the eyebrows post injection day 30|||0.428
91035097|NCT00795821|181956393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Model terms included treatment, investigator, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline score, and baseline-by-visit.||||||0.002
91035098|NCT00795821|181956395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Model terms included treatment, investigator, and baseline score.||||||0.007
91035099|NCT00795821|181956397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.056||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Model terms included treatment, investigator, and baseline score.||||||0.056
90964336|NCT03627767|181810149|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|25.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.6|31.8||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||31.8|19.6|< 0.0001
90964337|NCT03627767|181810149|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|14.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|21.2||||||Week 40: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||21.2|7.0|
90964338|NCT03627767|181810149|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|14.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.2|20.0||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||20.0|9.2|< 0.0001
90964339|NCT03627767|181810149|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|24.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.4|30.5||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||30.5|18.4|< 0.0001
90964340|NCT03627767|181810149|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|17.2||||||Week 52: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||17.2|2.7|
90964341|NCT03627767|181810150|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|1.8|||=|0.6082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|8.5||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||8.5|-5.0|= 0.6082
90964342|NCT03627767|181810150|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|0.2|||=|0.964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|7.0||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||7.0|-6.7|= 0.9640
91035100|NCT00795821|181956399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Model terms included treatment, investigator, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline score, and baseline-by-visit.||||||0.002
90964343|NCT03627767|181810150|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|4.4||||||Week 12: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||4.4|-9.1|
90964344|NCT03627767|181810150|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|38.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.2|46.5||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||46.5|31.2|< 0.0001
91035101|NCT00795821|181956401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Model terms included treatment, investigator, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline score, and baseline-by-visit.||||||<0.001
91035102|NCT00795821|181956403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Model terms included treatment, investigator, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline score, and baseline-by-visit.||||||0.003
91035103|NCT00795821|181956405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Model terms included treatment, investigator, and baseline score.||||||0.009
91035104|NCT00795821|181956407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0||||P-value for Severity of Overall Fatigue|Mixed Models Analysis|Model terms included treatment, investigator, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline score, and baseline-by-visit.||||||0.008
91035105|NCT00795821|181956407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024||95.0||||P-value for Fatigue Interference with Daily Activities|Mixed Models Analysis|Model terms included treatment, investigator, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline score, and baseline-by-visit.||||||0.024
91035106|NCT00795821|181956409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.261||95.0||||P-value for participants reporting use of primary doctor|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test controlling for investigator.||||||0.261
90886118|NCT04666441|181634608|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.35|-0.48|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Difference vs. Placebo, by Day 5 (log10 copies/mL)||-0.48|-1.35|<0.0001
90886119|NCT04666441|181634608|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0004||95.0|-1.23|-0.35|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Difference vs. Placebo, by Day 7 (log10 copies/mL)||-0.35|-1.23|0.0004
90886120|NCT04666441|181634608|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0058||95.0|-1.08|-0.18|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Difference vs. Placebo, by Day 7 (log10 copies/mL)||-0.18|-1.08|0.0058
90886121|NCT04666441|181634608|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0046||95.0|-1.11|-0.2|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Difference vs. Placebo, by Day 7 (log10 copies/mL)||-0.20|-1.11|0.0046
90886122|NCT04666441|181634608|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0019||95.0|-1.18|-0.27|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Difference vs. Placebo, by Day 7 (log10 copies/mL)||-0.27|-1.18|0.0019
90886123|NCT04666441|181634608|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.33|-0.44|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Difference vs. Placebo, by Day 7 (log10 copies/mL)||-0.44|-1.33|<0.0001
90886124|NCT04666441|181634608|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0079||95.0|-1.04|-0.16|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Difference vs. Placebo, by Day 7 (log10 copies/mL)||-0.16|-1.04|0.0079
90886125|NCT04666441|181634608|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0515||95.0|-0.9|0.0|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Difference vs. Placebo, by Day 15 (log10 copies/mL)||0.00|-0.90|0.0515
90886126|NCT04666441|181634608|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.1864||95.0|-0.77|0.15|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Difference vs. Placebo, by Day 15 (log10 copies/mL)||0.15|-0.77|0.1864
90886127|NCT04666441|181634608|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.2866||95.0|-0.72|0.21|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Difference vs. Placebo, by Day 15 (log10 copies/mL)||0.21|-0.72|0.2866
90886128|NCT04666441|181634608|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.647||95.0|-0.58|0.36|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Difference vs. Placebo, by Day 15 (log10 copies/mL)||0.36|-0.58|0.6470
90886129|NCT04666441|181634608|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.028||95.0|-0.97|-0.06|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Difference vs. Placebo, by Day 15 (log10 copies/mL)||-0.06|-0.97|0.0280
90886130|NCT04666441|181634608|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0854||95.0|-0.84|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference vs. Placebo, by Day 15 (log10 copies/mL)||0.05|-0.84|0.0854
90886131|NCT04666441|181634608|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.1078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.07|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Difference vs. Placebo, by Day 22 (log10 copies/mL)||0.07|-0.69|0.1078
90886132|NCT04666441|181634608|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.2235||95.0|-0.62|0.14|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Difference vs. Placebo, by Day 22 (log10 copies/mL)||0.14|-0.62|0.2235
90886133|NCT04666441|181634608|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.1369||95.0|-0.68|0.09|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Difference vs. Placebo, by Day 22 (log10 copies/mL)||0.09|-0.68|0.1369
90886134|NCT04666441|181634608|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.661||95.0|-0.48|0.31|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Difference vs. Placebo, by Day 22 (log10 copies/mL)||0.31|-0.48|0.6610
90886135|NCT04666441|181634608|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0284||95.0|-0.81|-0.05|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Difference vs. Placebo, by Day 22 (log10 copies/mL)||-0.05|-0.81|0.0284
90886136|NCT04666441|181634608|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.08||95.0|-0.71|0.04|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Difference vs. Placebo, by Day 22 (log10 copies/mL)||0.04|-0.71|0.0800
90886137|NCT01114516|181634654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Kaplan Meier survival analysis||||0.018
90886138|NCT01114516|181634655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.05||||||||2.05|1.06|
90886139|NCT01114516|181634656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.393|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.393
90886140|NCT01431508|181634667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Week 12 and Baseline||||<0.05
90886141|NCT00132769|181634668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|1.48||||0.278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|4.18|||ANCOVA|||||4.18|-1.21|0.278
90886142|NCT00132769|181634669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent|-5.66||||0.543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.45|13.13|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||13.13|-24.45|0.543
90886143|NCT00132769|181634676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean ratio between treatments|0.84||||0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.12|||ANCOVA|||||1.12|0.63|0.225
90886144|NCT00129259|181634677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-value for testing treatment effect uses change in ln(AUC+1) as the outcome variable and adjusts for baseline ln(AUC+1).||"Null hypothesis: The mean change from baseline to Month 24 in the 4-hour C-peptide AUC does not differ between treatment groups after adjusting for baseline C-peptide AUC.~Alternative hypothesis: The mean change from baseline to Month 24 in the 4-hour C-peptide AUC differs between the treatment groups after adjusting for baseline values."||||0.002
90886145|NCT00129259|181634678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.697||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusts for baseline HbA1c.||"Null hypothesis: The mean change in HbA1c from baseline (pre-treatment) to Month 24 does not differ between treatment groups.~Alternative hypothesis: The mean change in HbA1c from baseline to Month 24 differs between treatment groups."||||0.697
90886146|NCT00129259|181634679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusts for baseline daily insulin use per kg||"Null hypothesis: The mean change from baseline to Month 24 in daily insulin use per kg does not differ between the treatment and control groups.~Alternative hypothesis: The mean change from baseline to Month 24 in daily insulin use per kg differs between the treatment and control groups."||||0.110
91035107|NCT00795821|181956409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.868||95.0||||P-value for participants reporting use of specialist|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test controlling for investigator.||||||0.868
90886147|NCT00139997|181634689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.028
90886148|NCT00019682|181634698|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.035
90886149|NCT00019682|181634699|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008||||||Unadjusted 2 tail p value.|Log Rank|||||||0.008
90886150|NCT00019682|181634700|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.05
90886151|NCT00019682|181634701|NON_INFERIORITY|Evaluated inferiority in quality of life outcomes between arms.|||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||FACT-G scale||||>0.05
90886152|NCT00019682|181634701|NON_INFERIORITY|Evaluated inferiority in quality of life outcomes between arms.|||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||FACT-F scale||||>0.05
90886153|NCT00019682|181634701|NON_INFERIORITY|Evaluated inferiority in quality of life outcomes between arms.|||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||SF-36 scale||||>0.05
90886154|NCT00019682|181634701|NON_INFERIORITY|Evaluated inferiority in quality of life outcomes between arms.|||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||SDS scale||||>0.05
90886155|NCT01612546|181634702|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.01
90886156|NCT01016834|181634707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||For the primary analyses and other PPMQ-R variables, the mean of the differences between each subject's rating of overall treatment satisfaction at the end of study based on the subject's experience using Sumavel DosePro and the rating at baseline based on the subject's pre-study triptan treatment were compared using a two-sided paired t-test at the 5% level of significance||||0.0007
90886157|NCT01722331|181634716|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|56.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.6|62.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no). P-values are not adjusted for multiplicity.||||62.8|49.6|<0.001
90886158|NCT01722331|181634716|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|58.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.0|64.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no). P-values are not adjusted for multiplicity.||||64.1|51.0|<0.001
90886159|NCT01722331|181634717|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|52.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.8|58.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no). P-values are not adjusted for multiplicity.||||58.5|44.8|<0.001
90886160|NCT01722331|181634717|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|50.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.6|57.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no). P-values are not adjusted for multiplicity.||||57.4|43.6|<0.001
90886161|NCT01722331|181634721|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|32.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.8|38.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no). P-values are not adjusted for multiplicity.||||38.8|26.8|<0.001
90886162|NCT01722331|181634721|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|32.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.9|38.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no). P-values are not adjusted for multiplicity.||||38.0|25.9|<0.001
90886163|NCT01722331|181634722|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|12.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.3|17.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no). P-values are not adjusted for multiplicity.||||17.2|8.3|<0.001
90886164|NCT01722331|181634722|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|12.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|17.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no). P-values are not adjusted for multiplicity.||||17.3|8.0|<0.001
90886165|NCT01722331|181634724|OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-7.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|-6.8|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Terms for time, the interaction of time by treatment, body weight (\<=90 kg, \>90 kg), and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no).||||-6.8|-8.6|<0.001
90886166|NCT01722331|181634724|OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-7.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|-6.5|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Terms for time, the interaction of time by treatment, body weight (\<=90 kg, \>90 kg), and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no).||||-6.5|-8.3|<0.001
90886167|NCT01722331|181634725|OTHER||Difference in percentages|38.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.9|45.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no). P-values are not adjusted for multiplicity.||||45.4|31.9|<0.001
90886168|NCT01722331|181634725|OTHER||Difference in percentages|36.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.3|42.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no). P-values are not adjusted for multiplicity.||||42.5|29.3|<0.001
90886169|NCT05209191|181634761|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|7.28|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.65||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.001
90886170|NCT05209191|181634763|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.08||||0.38|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test.||||.38
90886171|NCT05209191|181634764|SUPERIORITY||Chi square|52.07||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||.001
90925674|NCT05167864|181726223|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank sum||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement in the lines between the eyebrows post injection day 30|||0.834
90925675|NCT05167864|181726223|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||wilcoxon signed rank sum||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement in the lines between the eyebrows post injection day 30|||0.318
90925676|NCT05167864|181726223|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||wilcoxon signed rank sum||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement in the lines between the eyebrows post injection day 30|||0.311
90925677|NCT05167864|181726223|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank sum||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement in the lines between the eyebrows post injection day 90|||0.885
90925678|NCT05167864|181726223|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank sum||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement in the lines between the eyebrows post injection day 90|||0.457
90925679|NCT05167864|181726223|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank sum||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement in the lines between the eyebrows post injection day 90|||0.745
90925680|NCT05167864|181726223|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||wilcoxon signed rank sum||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement in the lines between the eyebrows post injection day 90|||0.757
90925681|NCT05167864|181726223|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||wilcoxon signed rank sum||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement in the lines between the eyebrows post injection day 180|||0.562
90925682|NCT05167864|181726223|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||wilcoxon signed rank sum||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement in the lines between the eyebrows post injection day 180|||0.828
90925683|NCT05167864|181726223|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||wilcoxon signed rank sum||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement in the lines between the eyebrows post injection day 180|||0.005
90925684|NCT05167864|181726223|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||wilcoxon signed rank sum||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement in the lines between the eyebrows post injection day 180|||0.437
90964345|NCT03627767|181810150|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|59.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.7|66.7||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||66.7|52.7|< 0.0001
90925685|NCT05207982|181726244|OTHER|||||||||||||||||This study utilized a multiple baseline single case experimental design in which analysis of the daily weights (for each participant) involved discontinuous growth curve analysis using multi-level modeling. Separate models were developed for each participant which include the daily weights from the baseline, treatment and follow-up phases. Given the nature of the data, we hypothesized different slopes for the baseline vs treatment phases. Overall weight change was a primary outcome measure.|Multiple baseline single case experimental design in which analysis of the daily weights (for each participant) involved discontinuous growth curve analysis using multi-level modeling.|||
90925686|NCT04625725|181726283|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk Reduction|76.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.05|89.96|||Poisson regression||Estimates are based on a Poisson regression with robust variance. The model includes covariate for treatment, and age group, with the log of the follow-up time as an offset. Estimated RRR greater than 0% provides evidence in favor of AZD7442.|Primary Analysis||89.96|46.05|<0.001
90925687|NCT04625725|181726283|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk Reduction|83.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.26|91.21|||Poisson regression||Estimates are based on a Poisson regression with robust variance. The model includes covariate for treatment, and age group, with the log of the follow-up time as an offset. Estimated RRR greater than 0% provides evidence in favor of AZD7442.|Final Analysis||91.21|67.26|<0.001
90925688|NCT04625725|181726285|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk Reduction|34.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.44|46.05|||Poisson regression||Estimates are based on a Poisson regression with robust variance. The model includes covariate for treatment, and age group, with the log of the follow-up time as an offset. Estimated RRR greater than 0% provides evidence in favor of AZD7442.|||46.05|21.44|<0.001
90925689|NCT04625725|181726286|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk Reduction|91.41||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.31|98.09|||Poisson regression||Estimates are based on a Poisson regression with robust variance. The model includes covariate for treatment, and age group, with the log of the follow-up time as an offset. Estimated RRR greater than 0% provides evidence in favor of AZD7442.|||98.09|61.31|0.001
90925690|NCT04625725|181726287|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk Reduction|52.43||||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.61|82.13|||Poisson regression|||||82.13|-26.61|0.137
90925691|NCT00429364|181726333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|||||P values are based on a linear regression mixed-effect model comparing slopes under compound symmetry, with adjustment for baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.08
90925692|NCT00429364|181726334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|||||P values are based on a linear regression mixed-effect model comparing slopes under compound symmetry, with adjustment for baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.20
90925693|NCT00429364|181726335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|||||P values are based on a linear regression mixed-effect model comparing slopes under compound symmetry, with adjustment for baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.15
90925694|NCT00429364|181726336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|||||P values are based on a linear regression mixed-effect model comparing slopes under compound symmetry, with adjustment for baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.30
90925695|NCT00429364|181726337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P values are based on a linear regression mixed-effect model comparing slopes under compound symmetry, with adjustment for baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
90925696|NCT00429364|181726338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||P values are based on a linear regression mixed-effect model comparing slopes under compound symmetry, with adjustment for baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.002
90925697|NCT00429364|181726339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|||||P values are based on a linear regression mixed-effect model comparing slopes under compound symmetry, with adjustment for baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.29
90925698|NCT00429364|181726340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|||||Regression model adjusted for age at study visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.96
90925699|NCT00429364|181726341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.45|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.45
90925700|NCT00429364|181726342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.13
90964346|NCT03627767|181810150|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|20.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.7|29.0||||||Week 16: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||29.0|12.7|
90925701|NCT00429364|181726343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.65|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.65
90925702|NCT00429364|181726344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.13
90925703|NCT00429364|181726345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.82|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.82
90925704|NCT00429364|181726346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.64|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.64
90925705|NCT00429364|181726347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.49
90925706|NCT00429364|181726348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.59|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.59
90925707|NCT00429364|181726350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.16
90925708|NCT00429364|181726352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.13
90925709|NCT00429364|181726354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.32|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.32
90925710|NCT00429364|181726356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.10
90925711|NCT02361216|181726369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of clearance rates|6.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.82|14.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||AKclear100 at Week 8: full analysis set. The null hypothesis was that there is no difference at Week 8 in AKclear100 rates between ingenol mebutate gel 0.027% and vehicle gel. This hypothesis was tested against the 2-sided alternative of a difference between the 2 treatment groups.||14|2.82|<0.001
90925712|NCT02361216|181726370|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of clearance rates|6.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.16|11.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel estimate (0.027% relative to vehicle), adjusted for pooled sites|The p-values for secondary endpoints have been corrected by the Holm-Bonferroni method to account for multiplicity. The prespecified multiplicity adjustment by the Holm-Bonferroni method requires the ordering of the p-values for the secondary endpoints by size.||11.1|4.16|<0.001
90925713|NCT02361216|181726371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of clearance rates|6.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.04|10.5|||Mantel Haenszel|||The p-values for secondary endpoints have been corrected by the Holm-Bonferroni method to account for multiplicity. The pre-specified multiplicity adjustment by the Holm-Bonferroni method requires the ordering of the p-values for the secondary endpoints by size.||10.5|4.04|<0.001
90925714|NCT02361216|181726372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of clearance|0.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.32||Negative binominal regression with log baseline count as offset variable and treatment group, anatomical location stratum and pooled site as factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The p-values for secondary endpoints have been corrected by the Holm-Bonferroni method to account for multiplicity. The prespecified multiplicity adjustment by the Holm-Bonferroni method requires the ordering of the p-values for the secondary endpoints by size.||0.32|0.24|<0.001
90925715|NCT03825588|181726390|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71||||||False Discovery Rate q-value \> 0.99|Chi-squared|||Compare participants receiving ASAP (ASAP+TAU and ASAP+BRITE+TAU) to those who do not (BRITE+TAU and TAU) on the rate of actual suicide attempts||||0.71
90925716|NCT03825588|181726390|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43||||||False Discovery Rate q-vale \> 0.99|Chi-squared|||Compare participants receiving BRITE (BRITE+TAU and ASAP+BRITE+TAU) to those who do not (ASAP+TAU and TAU) on the rate of actual suicide attempts||||0.43
90925717|NCT03825588|181726390|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.66||False Discovery Rate q-value \> 0.99|Regression, Logistic|||Compare the 4 arms on the rate of actual suicide attempts in a 2x2 factorial design. Interaction effect of ASAP and BRITE.||1.66|0.10|0.21
90971126|NCT03036293|181824819|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence limits were prespecified as \[-2.763; 2.763\]|Mean Difference (Net)|0.89||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|98.33|-0.64|2.33|||ANCOVA|Baseline score used as covariate||Mean score differences (begin-end) were compared||2.33|-0.64|0.0008
90925718|NCT03825588|181726390|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|3.34||False Discovery Rate q-value \> 0.99|Regression, Logistic|||Compare the 4 arms on the rate of actual suicide attempts in a 2x2 factorial design. Main effect of ASAP||3.34|0.51|0.57
90925719|NCT03825588|181726390|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|2.97||False Discovery Rate q-value \> 0.99|Regression, Logistic|||Compare the 4 arms on the rate of actual suicide attempts in a 2x2 factorial design. Main effect of BRITE.||2.97|0.44|0.77
90925720|NCT03825588|181726390|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.69||False Discovery Rate q-value \> 0.99|Regression, Cox|||Compare participants receiving ASAP (ASAP+TAU and ASAP+BRITE+TAU) to those who do not (BRITE+TAU and TAU) on time to actual suicide attempt||1.69|0.48|0.74
90925721|NCT03825588|181726390|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.48||False Discovery Rate q-vale \> 0.99|Regression, Cox|||Compare participants receiving BRITE (BRITE+TAU and ASAP+BRITE+TAU) to those who do not (ASAP+TAU and TAU) on the time to actual suicide attempt||1.48|0.42|0.45
90925722|NCT03825588|181726390|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.47||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.72||False Discovery Rate q-value \> 0.99|Regression, Cox|||Compare the 4 arms on time to actual suicide attempt in a 2x2 factorial design. Interaction effect of ASAP and BRITE||1.72|0.13|0.25
90925723|NCT03825588|181726390|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.24||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|2.87||False Discovery Rate q-value \> 0.99|Regression, Cox|||Compare the 4 arms on time to actual suicide attempt in a 2x2 factorial design. Main effect of ASAP.||2.87|0.54|0.62
90925724|NCT03825588|181726390|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|2.59||False Discovery Rate q-value \> 0.99|Regression, Cox|||Compare the 4 arms on time to actual suicide attempt in a 2x2 factorial design. Main effect of BRITE.||2.59|0.47|0.83
90925725|NCT03825588|181726391|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19||||||False Discovery Rate q-value = 0.72|Chi-squared|||Compare participants receiving ASAP (ASAP+TAU and ASAP+BRITE+TAU) to those who do not (BRITE+TAU and TAU) on the rate of suicidal events|We used standard univariate statistics to compare partici- pants' baseline sociodemographics and clinical characteris- tics by arm \[(ASAP vs No ASAP where comparison is 6 www.jaacap.org (ASAP+TAU) and (ASAP+BRITE+TAU) vs (TAU alone) and (BRITE+TAU); and BRITE vs No BRITE where comparison is (ASAP+BRITE+TAU) and (BRITE+TAU) vs (ASAP+TAU) and (TAU Alone)\], site, retention, pre- post-COVID and recruitment venue. We then tested for equality of the 2 cells (ASAP vs no ASAP, BRITE vs no BRITE) or 4 cells (ASAP+BRITE+TAU vs BRITE +TAU vs ASAP+TAU vs TAU Alone) without covariates on the rates of and time to suicidal behavior using the appropriate (t or F, c2, Kaplan-Meier, Cox models) test statistics. We then used mixed-effects regression models with arm (2 and 4 cells), time, and their interaction for continuous data. Presented percentages are based on all observed data.|||0.19
90925726|NCT03825588|181726391|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||False Discovery Rate q-value \> 0.99|Chi-squared|||Compare participants receiving BRITE (BRITE+TAU and ASAP+BRITE+TAU) to those who do not (ASAP+TAU and TAU) on the rate of suicidal events||||0.89
90925727|NCT03825588|181726391|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.35||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|1.1||False Discovery Rate q-value = 0.72|Regression, Logistic|||Compare participants the 4 arms on the rate of suicidal events in a 2x2 factorial design. Interaction effect of ASAP and BRITE.||1.10|0.11|0.08
90925728|NCT03825588|181726391|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|2.55||False Discovery Rate q \> 0.99|Regression, Logistic|||Compare the 4 arms on time to actual suicide attempt in a 2x2 factorial design. Main effect of ASAP.||2.55|0.51|0.74
90925729|NCT03825588|181726391|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.69||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|3.69||False Discovery Rate q=0.72|Regression, Logistic|||Compare the 4 arms on time to actual suicide attempt in a 2x2 factorial design. Main effect of BRITE.||3.69|0.77|0.19
90925730|NCT03221426|181726464|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.01501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.98||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by geographic region (Asia vs. Non-Asia) and tumor staging (II vs. III vs. IVa)|Log Rank||Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region (Asia vs. Non-Asia) and tumor staging (II vs. III vs. IVa)|||0.98|0.67|0.01501
90925731|NCT03221426|181726465|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|11.4|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|15.3|||Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen|Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by geographic region (Asia vs. Non-Asia) and tumor staging (II vs. III vs. IVa)||||15.3|8.0|<0.00001
90925732|NCT03221426|181726466|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.07503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.06||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by geographic region (Asia vs. Non-Asia) and tumor staging (II vs. III vs. IVa)|Log Rank||Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region (Asia vs. Non-Asia) and tumor staging (II vs. III vs. IVa)|||1.06|0.71|0.07503
90925733|NCT03221426|181726471|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.04125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.03||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test with stratification|Log Rank||Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate with stratification|||1.03|0.65|0.04125
90925734|NCT03221426|181726472|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.04493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.03||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by geographic region (Asia vs. Non-Asia), tumor staging (II vs. III vs. IVa), and chemotherapy backbone (XP/FP vs. FLOT)|Log Rank||Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region (Asia vs. Non-Asia), tumor staging (II vs. III vs. IVa), and chemotherapy backbone (XP/FP vs. FLOT)|||1.03|0.71|0.04493
90925735|NCT03221426|181726473|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.00589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.95||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by geographic region (Asia vs. Non-Asia) and tumor staging (II vs. III vs. IVa)|Log Rank||Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region (Asia vs. Non-Asia) and tumor staging (II vs. III vs. IVa)|||0.95|0.67|0.00589
90925736|NCT06262477|181726474|EQUIVALENCE|The natural log (ln)- transformed Cmax was analysed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model, which included actual treatment \& body weight category (\<75 kilograms \[kg\], ≥75 kg) as factors. The ratio of geometric least square means (GLSM), and corresponding confidence interval (CI) was obtained by taking the exponential of the differences in LSMs and corresponding CIs on the ln scale.|Ratio of GLSM|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.3|0.974|1.13||||||||1.13|0.974|
90925737|NCT06262477|181726475|EQUIVALENCE|The natural log (ln)- transformed AUC0-inf was analyzed using ANCOVA model, which included actual treatment \& body weight category (\<75 kg, ≥75 kg) as factors. The ratio of GLSM, and corresponding CI was obtained by taking the exponential of the differences in LSMs and corresponding CIs on the ln scale.|Ratio of GLSM|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.3|0.988|1.15||||||||1.15|0.988|
90925738|NCT06262477|181726476|EQUIVALENCE|The natural log (ln)- transformed AUC0-t was analyzed using ANCOVA model, which included actual treatment \& body weight category (\<75 kg, ≥75 kg) as factors. The ratio of GLSM, and corresponding CI was obtained by taking the exponential of the differences in LSMs and corresponding CIs on the ln scale.|Ratio of GLSM|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.3|0.985|1.15||||||||1.15|0.985|
90925739|NCT05365958|181726489|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Repeated Measures t-test of differences|||||||<.001
90925740|NCT05365958|181726490|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Repeated Measures t-test of differences|||||||<.001
91035108|NCT00795821|181956409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.495||95.0||||P-value for participants reporting other diagnostic tests|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test controlling for investigator.||||||0.495
90925741|NCT05452460|181726529|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with post-test condition difference in RT as the outcome, with Group as the factor, and pre-test condition difference in RT as the covariate.||||||> 0.05
90925742|NCT05452460|181726530|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with post-test condition difference in ACC the outcome, with Group as the factor, and pre-test condition difference in ACC as the covariate.||||||> .05
90925743|NCT05452460|181726531|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with post-test condition difference in N2 the outcome, with Group as the factor, and pre-test condition difference in N2 as the covariate.||||||> 0.05
90925744|NCT05452460|181726532|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.71|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with post-test condition difference in P3 the outcome, with Group as the factor, and pre-test condition difference in P3 as the covariate.||||||> 0.05
90925745|NCT05452460|181726533|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.35|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with post-test condition difference in TTE the outcome, with Group as the factor, and pre-test condition difference in TTE as the covariate.|\[F(1, 52) = 13.35, p = .001, ηp2 = .211\]|||||< 0.01
90925746|NCT05452460|181726534|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Factor: Group Outcome: Post-test condition difference in VO2max Covariate: Pre-test condition difference in VO2max||||||> 0.05
90925747|NCT05452460|181726535|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|38.76|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Four-way mixed-design ANOVA: 2 (GROUP) × 2 (CONDITION) × 3 (ASSESSMENT TIME) × 2 (Experiment Phase)||||||< 0.01
90925748|NCT05452460|181726536|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.21|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||The main effect of the Stroop block on accuracy showed a decrease from the first block to the fifth block.|ANOVA|Four-way mixed-design ANOVA: 2 (GROUP) × 2 (CONDITION) × 5 (BLOCK) × 2 (Phase)||||||< 0.01
90925749|NCT05452460|181726537|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.07|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Factor: Group Outcome: Post-test mean score Covariate: Pre-test mean score||||||< 0.05
90925750|NCT05452460|181726538|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.37|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Factor: Group Outcome: Post-test condition difference in changed anger Covariate: Pre-test condition difference in changed anger||||||> 0.05
90925751|NCT05452460|181726539|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.73|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Factor: Group Outcome: Post-test condition difference in changed confusion Covariate: Pre-test condition difference in changed confusion||||||> 0.05
90925752|NCT05452460|181726540|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Factor: Group Outcome: Post-test condition difference in changed depression Covariate: Pre-test condition difference in changed depression||||||> 0.05
90925753|NCT05452460|181726541|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Factor: Group Outcome: Post-test condition difference in changed fatigue Covariate: Pre-test condition difference in changed fatigue||||||> 0.05
91035109|NCT00795821|181956409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.189||95.0||||P-value for participants reporting prescribed medication|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test controlling for investigator.||||||0.189
91035110|NCT00795821|181956411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.737||95.0||||P-value for suicidal ideation|Fisher Exact|||||||0.737
90925754|NCT05452460|181726542|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Factor: Group Outcome: Post-test condition difference in changed confusion Covariate: Pre-test condition difference in changed confusion||||||> 0.05
90925755|NCT05452460|181726543|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.66|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Factor: Group Outcome: Post-test condition difference in changed confusion Covariate: Pre-test condition difference in changed confusion||||||> 0.05
90925756|NCT04447040|181726546|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) Mean Difference|31.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.379|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.9|42.07|||ANOVA|||||42.07|20.90|<0.001
90925757|NCT04447040|181726546|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|41.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.267|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.02|51.75|||ANOVA|||||51.75|31.02|<0.001
90925758|NCT04447040|181726546|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|46.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.292|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.44|57.27|||ANOVA|||||57.27|36.44|<0.001
90925759|NCT04447040|181726546|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|54.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.321|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.57|64.51|||ANOVA|||||64.51|43.57|<0.001
90925760|NCT04447040|181726546|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|59.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.468|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.16|70.68|||ANOVA|||||70.68|49.16|<0.001
90925761|NCT04447040|181726547|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|35.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.542|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.79|48.54|||ANOVA|||||48.54|22.79|<0.001
91035111|NCT00795821|181956413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-value for change in supine systolic blood pressure|Mixed Models Analysis|Model terms included treatment, investigator, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline score, and baseline-by-visit.||||||0.002
90925762|NCT04447040|181726547|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|49.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.407|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.44|61.65|||ANOVA|||||61.65|36.44|<0.001
90925763|NCT04447040|181726547|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|53.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.437|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.97|66.31|||ANOVA|||||66.31|40.97|<0.001
90925764|NCT04447040|181726547|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|60.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.472|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.19|73.67|||ANOVA|||||73.67|48.19|<0.001
90925765|NCT04447040|181726547|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|67.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.65|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.49|80.67|||ANOVA|||||80.67|54.49|<0.001
90925766|NCT04447040|181726548|SUPERIORITY||LS mean Difference|12.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.097|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.44|18.63|||ANOVA|||||18.63|6.44|<0.001
91035112|NCT00795821|181956413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for change in supine diastolic blood pressure|Mixed Models Analysis|Model terms included treatment, investigator, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline score, and baseline-by-visit.||||||<0.001
90925767|NCT04447040|181726548|SUPERIORITY||LS MEAN Difference|17.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.032|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.76|23.7|||ANOVA|||||23.70|11.76|<0.001
90925768|NCT04447040|181726548|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|21.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.047|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.89|27.88|||ANOVA|||||27.88|15.89|<0.001
90925769|NCT04447040|181726548|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|25.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.063|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.98|31.03|||ANOVA|||||31.03|18.98|<0.001
90925770|NCT04447040|181726548|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|29.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.148|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.11|35.5|||ANOVA|||||35.50|23.11|<0.001
90925771|NCT04447040|181726549|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.001
90925772|NCT04447040|181726549|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.001
90925773|NCT04447040|181726549|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.001
90925774|NCT04447040|181726549|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.001
90925775|NCT04447040|181726549|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.001
90925776|NCT04447040|181726550|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||Wald method|||||||0.014
90925777|NCT04447040|181726550|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Wald method|||||||0.002
90925778|NCT04447040|181726550|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wald method|||||||<0.001
90925779|NCT04447040|181726550|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wald method|||||||<0.001
90925780|NCT04447040|181726550|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wald method|||||||<0.001
90925781|NCT01208662|181726551|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|1.91|||Log Rank|Observed Stratified Log Rank Test (1-sided p-value)||||1.91|1.23|<0.001
90925782|NCT01208662|181726552|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||Fisher Exact|||Exact (Clopper-Pearson) confidence limits of 98.2857% represents Bonferroni adjustment for 7 tests (1-0.05/7) per statistical analysis plan for key secondary outcomes.||||0.55
90925783|NCT01208662|181726553|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||Exact (Clopper-Pearson) confidence limits of 98.2857% represents Bonferroni adjustment for 7 tests (1-0.05/7) per statistical analysis plan for key secondary outcomes.||||0.99
90925784|NCT01208662|181726554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||Exact (Clopper-Pearson) confidence limits of 98.2857% represents Bonferroni adjustment for 7 tests (1-0.05/7) per statistical analysis plan for key secondary outcomes.||||0.99
90925785|NCT01208662|181726556|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|99.29|1.21|2.27|||Log Rank|Stratified||Exact (Clopper-Pearson) confidence limits of 98.2857% represents Bonferroni adjustment for 7 tests (1-0.05/7) per statistical analysis plan for key secondary outcomes.||2.27|1.21|<0.001
90925786|NCT01208662|181726557|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.65|||Log Rank|||||1.65|0.73|>0.99
90971127|NCT03036293|181824820|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|1.54|||ANCOVA|Baseline score used as covariate||Mean score differences (begin-end) were compared||1.54|-0.08|0.08
91035113|NCT00795821|181956415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Model terms included treatment, investigator, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline score, and baseline-by-visit.||||||<0.001
91035114|NCT01285713|181956418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.0003
91035115|NCT02149420|181956428|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.93|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.058||0.678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.007|3.18|||repeated measures Bayesian analysis|with baseline as a covariate||Per protocol the primary analysis was between placebo and the combined VAY736 groups at Week 12.||3.180|-5.007|0.678
90886172|NCT01282710|181634776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04627||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Agreement between SureCALL® and IUPC Contraction Peak Events~Null hypothesis: the mean peak difference between TOCO and IUPC is equal to 0. Alternative hypothesis: the mean peak difference is not equal to 0."||||.04627
90886173|NCT01282710|181634776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1676||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Agreement between TOCO and IUPC Contraction Peak Events~Null hypothesis: the mean peak difference between TOCO and IUPC is equal to 0. Alternative hypothesis: the mean peak difference is not equal to 0."||||0.1676
90886174|NCT02504645|181634777|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2631|TWO_SIDED|0.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2631
90886175|NCT01854554|181634779|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||Gray's test|Cumulative Incidence Function treating progressive disease (RANO) or death before cognitive function decline as a competing risk.||||||.74
90886176|NCT01854554|181634780|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Log Rank|||||||.60
90886177|NCT01854554|181634781|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.24
90886178|NCT02819726|181634783|EQUIVALENCE|Standard acceptance limits for bioequivalence (80.00% to 125.00%) for all treatment comparisons|GLS Mean Ration|95.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.07|104.37||||||The statistical comparison of the loge-transformed primary parameters between treatments is based on an analysis of variance model (ANOVA) with fixed effect for treatment||104.37|87.07|
90886179|NCT02819726|181634783|EQUIVALENCE|Standard acceptance limits for bioequivalence (80.00% to 125.00%) for all treatment comparisons|GLS Mean Ratio|93.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.54|102.15||||||The statistical comparison of the loge-transformed primary parameters between treatments is based on an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with fixed effect for treatment||102.15|85.54|
90886180|NCT02819726|181634783|EQUIVALENCE|Standard acceptance limits for bioequivalence (80.00% to 125.00%) for all treatment comparisons|GLS Mean Ratio|98.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.49|107.45||||||The statistical comparison of the loge-transformed primary parameters between treatments is based on an analysis of variance model (ANOVA) with fixed effect for treatment||107.45|89.49|
90886181|NCT02819726|181634784|EQUIVALENCE|Standard acceptance limits for bioequivalence (80.00% to 125.00%) for all treatment comparisons|GLS Mean Ratio|94.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.91|101.81||||||The statistical comparison of the loge-transformed primary parameters between treatments is based on an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with fixed effect for treatment||101.81|86.91|
90886182|NCT02819726|181634784|EQUIVALENCE|Standard acceptance limits for bioequivalence (80.00% to 125.00%) for all treatment comparisons|GLS Mean Ration|94.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.21|102.16||||||The statistical comparison of the loge-transformed primary parameters between treatments is based on an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with fixed effect for treatment||102.16|87.21|
90886183|NCT02819726|181634784|EQUIVALENCE|Standard acceptance limits for bioequivalence (80.00% to 125.00%) for all treatment comparisons|GLS Mean Ratio|100.35|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.68|108.65||||||The statistical comparison of the loge-transformed primary parameters between treatments is based on an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with fixed effect for treatment||108.65|92.68|
90886184|NCT02819726|181634785|EQUIVALENCE|Standard acceptance limits for bioequivalence (80.00% to 125.00%) for all treatment comparisons|GLS Mean Ratio|96.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.52|102.46||||||The statistical comparison of the loge-transformed primary parameters between treatments is based on an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with fixed effect for treatment||102.46|90.52|
90886185|NCT02819726|181634785|EQUIVALENCE|Standard acceptance limits for bioequivalence (80.00% to 125.00%) for all treatment comparisons|GLS Mean Ratio|98.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.64|105.05||||||The statistical comparison of the loge-transformed primary parameters between treatments is based on an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with fixed effect for treatment||105.05|92.64|
90925787|NCT01208662|181726559|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|99.29|0.73|1.65|||Log Rank|Stratified||Exact (Clopper-Pearson) confidence limits of 98.2857% represents Bonferroni adjustment for 7 tests (1-0.05/7) per statistical analysis plan for key secondary outcomes.||1.65|0.73|0.99
90925788|NCT01208662|181726566|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.01||||||||1.01|0.30|
90925789|NCT04433208|181726568|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
90886186|NCT02819726|181634785|EQUIVALENCE|Standard acceptance limits for bioequivalence (80.00% to 125.00%) for all treatment comparisons|GLS Mean Ratio|102.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.14|109.14||||||The statistical comparison of the loge-transformed primary parameters between treatments is based on an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with fixed effect for treatment||109.14|96.14|
90886187|NCT02819726|181634786|EQUIVALENCE|Standard acceptance limits for bioequivalence (80.00% to 125.00%) for all treatment comparisons|GLS Mean Ratio|94.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.03|101.23||||||The statistical comparison of the loge-transformed primary parameters between treatments is based on an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with fixed effect for treatment||101.23|89.03|
90886188|NCT02819726|181634786|EQUIVALENCE|Standard acceptance limits for bioequivalence (80.00% to 125.00%) for all treatment comparisons|GLS Mean Ratio|98.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.61|105.3||||||The statistical comparison of the loge-transformed primary parameters between treatments is based on an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with fixed effect for treatment||105.30|92.61|
90886189|NCT02819726|181634786|EQUIVALENCE|Standard acceptance limits for bioequivalence (80.00% to 125.00%) for all treatment comparisons|GLS Mean Ratio|104.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.54|110.95||||||The statistical comparison of the loge-transformed primary parameters between treatments is based on an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with fixed effect for treatment||110.95|97.54|
90886190|NCT02819726|181634787|EQUIVALENCE|Standard acceptance limits for bioequivalence (80.00% to 125.00%) for all treatment comparisons|GLS Mean Ratio|89.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.2|102.79||||||The statistical comparison of the loge-transformed primary parameters between treatments is based on an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with fixed effect for treatment||102.79|77.20|
90925790|NCT02010242|181726574|SUPERIORITY|All statistical analyses were performed on a comparison-wise basis without adjustment for multiple comparisons.||||||1|||||||ANCOVA|||Primary efficacy endpoint was analyzed using ANCOVA comparing GKT137831 vs placebo after controlling for the baseline UACR level. The UACR were log-transformed prior to analysis. The model included treatment group and log-transformed baseline UACR value as predicted variables. The results were back-transformed exponentially to calculate geo. mean values and associated 90% CIs and 1-sided p-values. The null hypothesis was that the difference in the adjusted mean logarithm of UACR was equal to 0||||1.000
90925791|NCT03314688|181726720|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.69
90925792|NCT03314688|181726721|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of Q1: In the past month, how often did you take your aromatase inhibitor (AI)/tamoxifen pills as the doctor prescribed? = 'All the time'||||0.33
90886191|NCT02819726|181634787|EQUIVALENCE|Standard acceptance limits for bioequivalence (80.00% to 125.00%) for all treatment comparisons|GLS Mean Ratio|102.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.72|118.56||||||The statistical comparison of the loge-transformed primary parameters between treatments is based on an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with fixed effect for treatment||118.56|88.72|
90925793|NCT03314688|181726721|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of Q2: In the past month, how often did you forget to take one or more of your aromatase inhibitor (AI)/tamoxifen pills? = 'Never'||||0.44
90925794|NCT03314688|181726721|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of Q3: In the past month, how often did you decide to skip one or more of your aromatase inhibitor (AI)/tamoxifen pills? = 'Never'||||0.29
90925795|NCT03314688|181726722|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of Q1: In the past month, how often did you take your aromatase inhibitor (AI)/tamoxifen pills as the doctor prescribed? = 'All the time'||||0.69
90925796|NCT03314688|181726722|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of Q2: In the past month, how often did you forget to take one or more of your aromatase inhibitor (AI)/tamoxifen pills? = 'Never'||||0.91
90925797|NCT03314688|181726722|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of Q3: In the past month, how often did you decide to skip one or more of your aromatase inhibitor (AI)/tamoxifen pills? = 'Never'||||0.13
91035116|NCT03086460|181956469|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.111|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.171|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~The primary endpoint was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including treatment, period, and patient as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate. The confidence intervals (CIs) and the p-values of the comparisons between each dose of CHF 1531 pMDI and Placebo at Day 14 were adjusted for multiplicity, based on the parametric simulation method of Edwards and Berry."||0.171|0.050|<0.001
90886192|NCT02819726|181634787|EQUIVALENCE|Standard acceptance limits for bioequivalence (80.00% to 125.00%) for all treatment comparisons|GLS Mean Ratio|115.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.51|133.21||||||The statistical comparison of the loge-transformed primary parameters between treatments is based on an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with fixed effect for treatment||133.21|99.51|
90886193|NCT02819726|181634788|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence between 2 study treatments would be declared if the two-sided 95% CI of the difference in change from baseline in DAS28-CRP at week 24 in entirely contained within the equivalence margin of \[-0.6,0.6\]|LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.134||0.2402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.422|0.106|||ANCOVA|||Least square means and confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated from an ANCOVA model containing treatment group as a factor and baseline DAS28-CRP value as a covariate. ANCOVA model contains treatment group only||0.106|-0.422|0.2402
90886194|NCT02819726|181634788|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence between 2 study treatments would be declared if the two-sided 95% CI of the difference in change from baseline in DAS28-CRP at week 24 in entirely contained within the equivalence margin of \[-0.6,0.6\]|LS Means Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.135||0.1346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.469|0.063|||ANCOVA|||Least square means and CIs were estimated from an ANCOVA model containing treatment group as a factor and baseline DAS28-CRP value as a covariate. ANCOVA model contains treatment group only||0.063|-0.469|0.1346
90886195|NCT02819726|181634788|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence between 2 study treatments would be declared if the two-sided 95% CI of the difference in change from baseline in DAS28-CRP at week 24 in entirely contained within the equivalence margin of \[-0.6,0.6\]|LS Means Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.7429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.314|0.224|||ANCOVA|||Least square means and CIs were estimated from an ANCOVA model containing treatment group as a factor and baseline DAS28-CRP value as a covariate. ANCOVA model contains treatment group only||0.224|-0.314|0.7429
90925798|NCT05086796|181726772|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.51|2.91|||||The START arm is the numerator, Usual Care is the denominator. There are two primary outcome measures, so the type I error level was adjusted to alpha = 0.025.||Poisson regression was used to compare the proportions of participants who initiated MOUD in the hospital by calculating the risk ratio (RR) and 97.5% confidence interval (CI) and with covariates treatment arm, site (3 sites), prior exposure to MOUD (yes vs. no), and length of hospital stay in days.|2.91|1.51|
90925799|NCT05086796|181726773|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.15|1.93|||||The START arm is the numerator, Usual Care is the denominator. There are two primary outcome measures, so the type I error level was adjusted to alpha = 0.025.||Poisson regression was used to compare the proportions of participants who linked to follow-up OUD care by calculating the risk ratio (RR) and 97.5% confidence interval (CI) and with covariates treatment arm, site (3 sites), and prior exposure to MOUD (yes vs. no).|1.93|1.15|
90925800|NCT05086796|181726774|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|2.41|||||The START arm is the numerator, Usual Care is the denominator.||Multivariable Poisson regression was used to compare the proportions of participants who initiated MOUD in the hospital between arms by calculating the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) with covariates: treatment arm, site (3 sites), and prior exposure to MOUD (yes vs. no).|2.41|1.35|
90925801|NCT05086796|181726775|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|2.39|||||The START arm is the numerator, Usual Care is the denominator.||Multivariable Poisson regression was used to compare the proportions of participants who reported any post-discharge MOUD utilization between arms by calculating the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) with covariates: treatment arm, site (3 sites), and prior exposure to MOUD (yes vs. no).|2.39|1.23|
90925802|NCT05086796|181726776|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|3.03|||||The START arm is the numerator, Usual Care is the denominator.||Multivariable Poisson regression was used to compare the proportions of participants who reported receiving any post-discharge outpatient medical care for their OUD between arms by calculating the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) with covariates: site (3 sites), and prior exposure to MOUD (yes vs. no).|3.03|1.18|
90925803|NCT05086796|181726777|SUPERIORITY||Incident rate ratio|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|2.43|||||The START arm is the numerator, Usual Care is the denominator.||Multivariable negative binomial regression with a log link function was used to compare opioid use-days between the two treatment arms by calculating the incident rate ratio (IRR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) with covariates: site (3 sites), prior exposure to MOUD (yes vs. no), and baseline opioid use days.|2.43|0.64|
91035117|NCT03086460|181956469|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.158|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.095|0.22|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.220|0.095|<0.001
90886196|NCT02819726|181634797|OTHER||LS Means Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.172||0.6068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.428|0.25|||ANCOVA|||Week 52 (EOS). Least square means and confidence intervals were estimated from an ANCOVA model containing treatment group as a factor and Baseline DAS28-CRP value as a covariate. ANCOVA model contains treatment group only.||0.250|-0.428|0.6068
90886197|NCT02819726|181634797|OTHER||LS Means Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.172||0.599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.249|0.43|||ANCOVA|||Week 52 (EOS) Least square means and confidence intervals were estimated from an ANCOVA model containing treatment group as a factor and Baseline DAS28-CRP value as a covariate. ANCOVA model contains treatment group only.||0.430|-0.249|0.5990
90886198|NCT02819726|181634797|OTHER||LS Means Difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.175||0.3053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.165|0.532|||ANCOVA|||Week 53 (EOS) MabThera vs Rituxan. Least square means and confidence intervals were estimated from an ANCOVA model containing treatment group as a factor and Baseline DAS28-CRP value as a covariate. ANCOVA model contains treatment group only.||0.532|-0.165|0.3053
90886199|NCT02819726|181634798|OTHER||Difference (%)|9.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.22|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.74|23.03||||||Week 52 (EOS) assessment. The 95% CIs for ACR response rate and difference were derived using the Wilson Score method.||23.03|-4.74|
90886200|NCT02819726|181634798|OTHER||Difference (%)|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.05|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.95|11.22||||||Week 52 (EOS) assessment. The 95% CIs for ACR response rate and difference were derived using the Wilson Score method.||11.22|-15.95|
90886201|NCT02819726|181634798|OTHER||Difference (%)|-11.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.26|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.47|2.45||||||Week 52 (EOS) assessment. The 95% CIs for ACR response rate and difference were derived using the Wilson Score method.||2.45|-25.47|
90886202|NCT02819726|181634799|OTHER||Difference (%)|9.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.87|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.07|22.46||||||ACR20 Week 52 (EOS) assessment. The 95% CIs for ACR response rate and difference were derived using the Wilson Score method. The adjusted difference and its 95% confidence intervals are from a logistic regression model containing treatment group as a factor and baseline DAS28-CRP value as a covariate.||22.46|-4.07|
90886203|NCT02819726|181634799|OTHER||Difference (%)|3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.07|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.22|17.03||||||ACR50 Week 52 (EOS) assessment. The 95% CIs for ACR response rate and difference were derived using the Wilson Score method. The adjusted difference and its 95% confidence intervals are from a logistic regression model containing treatment group as a factor and baseline DAS28-CRP value as a covariate.||17.03|-10.22|
90886204|NCT02819726|181634799|OTHER||Difference (%)|-5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.88|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.1|7.51||||||ACR50 Week 52 (EOS) assessment. The 95% CIs for ACR response rate and difference were derived using the Wilson Score method. The adjusted difference and its 95% confidence intervals are from a logistic regression model containing treatment group as a factor and baseline DAS28-CRP value as a covariate.||7.51|-19.10|
90886205|NCT02819726|181634799|OTHER||Difference (%)|10.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.78|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|21.22||||||ACR70 Week 52 (EOS) assessment. The 95% CIs for ACR response rate and difference were derived using the Wilson Score method. The adjusted difference and its 95% confidence intervals are from a logistic regression model containing treatment group as a factor and baseline DAS28-CRP value as a covariate.||21.22|-1.52|
90886206|NCT02819726|181634799|OTHER||Difference|5.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.08|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.69|17.13||||||ACR70 Week 52 (EOS) assessment. The 95% CIs for ACR response rate and difference were derived using the Wilson Score method. The adjusted difference and its 95% confidence intervals are from a logistic regression model containing treatment group as a factor and baseline DAS28-CRP value as a covariate.||17.13|-6.69|
90886207|NCT02819726|181634799|OTHER||Difference (%)|-4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.58|||TWO_SIDED|92.0|-15.68|6.41||||||ACR70 Week 52 (EOS) assessment. The 95% CIs for ACR response rate and difference were derived using the Wilson Score method. The adjusted difference and its 95% confidence intervals are from a logistic regression model containing treatment group as a factor and baseline DAS28-CRP value as a covariate.||6.41|-15.68|
90886208|NCT02819726|181634800|OTHER||LS Means Difference|-1.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.991||0.1997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.23|0.671|||ANCOVA|||Swollen Joint Count (SJC) Week 52 (EOS) assessment. Least square means and confidence intervals were estimated from an ANCOVA model containing treatment group as a factor and baseline value as a covariate.||0.671|-3.230|0.1997
91035118|NCT03086460|181956469|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.133|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.072|0.194|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.194|0.072|<0.001
90886209|NCT02819726|181634800|OTHER||LS Means Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.996||0.9098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.074|1.848|||ANCOVA|||Swollen Joint Count (SJC) Week 52 (EOS) assessment. Least square means and confidence intervals were estimated from an ANCOVA model containing treatment group as a factor and baseline value as a covariate.||1.848|-2.074|0.9098
90886210|NCT02819726|181634800|OTHER||LS Means Difference|1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.008||0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.817|3.15|||ANCOVA|||Swollen Joint Count (SJC) Week 52 (EOS) assessment. Least square means and confidence intervals were estimated from an ANCOVA model containing treatment group as a factor and baseline value as a covariate.||3.150|-0.817|0.2480
90886211|NCT02819726|181634800|OTHER||LS Means Difference|-1.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.1931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.909|0.996|||ANCOVA|||Tender Joint Count (TJC) Week 52 (EOS) assessment. Least square means and confidence intervals were estimated from an ANCOVA model containing treatment group as a factor and baseline value as a covariate.||0.996|-4.909|0.1931
90886212|NCT02819726|181634800|OTHER||LS Means Difference|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||-0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.722|2.184|||ANCOVA|||Swollen Joint Count (SJC) Week 52 (EOS) assessment. Least square means and confidence intervals were estimated from an ANCOVA model containing treatment group as a factor and baseline value as a covariate.||2.184|-3.722|-0.77
90886213|NCT02819726|181634800|OTHER||LS Means Difference|1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52||0.4352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.805|4.18|||ANCOVA|||Swollen Joint Count (SJC) Week 52 (EOS) assessment. Least square means and confidence intervals were estimated from an ANCOVA model containing treatment group as a factor and baseline value as a covariate.||4.180|-1.805|0.4352
90886214|NCT02819726|181634801|OTHER||LS Means Difference|-4.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.242||0.2008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.541|2.226|||ANCOVA|||Week 52 (EOS) Physician's Disease Activity Assessment. Least square means and confidence intervals were estimated from an ANCOVA model containing treatment group as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Change from Study Day 1 (Baseline)||2.226|-10.541|0.2008
90886215|NCT02819726|181634801|OTHER||LS Means Difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.242||-0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.771|5.994|||ANOVA|||Week 52 (EOS) Physician's Disease Activity Assessment. Least square means and confidence intervals were estimated from an ANCOVA model containing treatment group as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Change from Study Day 1 (Baseline||5.994|-6.771|-0.39
90886216|NCT02819726|181634801|OTHER||LS Means Difference|3.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.268||0.2498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.665|10.204|||ANCOVA|||Week 52 (EOS) Physician's Disease Activity Assessment. Least square means and confidence intervals were estimated from an ANCOVA model containing treatment group as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Change from Study Day 1 (Baseline||10.204|-2.665|0.2498
90886217|NCT02819726|181634802|OTHER||LS Means Difference|-1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.592||0.7322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0302|5.841|||ANCOVA|||Week 52 (EOS) Participants Pain Assessment. Least square means and confidence intervals were estimated from an ANCOVA model containing treatment group as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Change from Study Day 1 (Baseline).||5.841|-8.0302|0.7322
90886218|NCT02819726|181634802|OTHER||LS Means Difference|-2.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.623||0.5418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.347|4.92|||ANCOVA|||Week 52 (EOS) Participants Pain Assessment. Least square means and confidence intervals were estimated from an ANCOVA model containing treatment group as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Change from Study Day 1 (Baseline).||4.920|-9.347|0.5418
90886219|NCT02819726|181634802|OTHER||LS Means Difference|-0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.633||0.7869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.136|6.169|||ANCOVA|||Week 52 (EOS) Participants Pain Assessment. Least square means and confidence intervals were estimated from an ANCOVA model containing treatment group as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Change from Study Day 1 (Baseline).||6.169|-8.136|0.7869
90886220|NCT02819726|181634803|OTHER||LS Means Difference|-1.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.443||0.7097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.062|5.496|||ANCOVA|||Week 52 (EOS) Participants Disease Activity Assessment. Least square means and confidence intervals were estimated from an ANCOVA model containing treatment group as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Change from Study Day 1 (Baseline)||5.496|-8.062|0.7097
90886221|NCT02819726|181634803|OTHER||LS Means Difference|-1.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.453||0.6683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.28|5.317|||ANCOVA|||Week 52 (EOS) Participants Disease Activity Assessment. Least square means and confidence intervals were estimated from an ANCOVA model containing treatment group as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Change from Study Day 1 (Baseline)||5.317|-8.280|0.6683
90886222|NCT02819726|181634803|OTHER||LS Means Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.494||0.9548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.078|6.682|||ANCOVA|||Week 52 (EOS) Participants Disease Activity Assessment. Least square means and confidence intervals were estimated from an ANCOVA model containing treatment group as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Change from Study Day 1 (Baseline)||6.682|-7.078|0.9548
90925804|NCT05873556|181726778|SUPERIORITY|Generalized linear mixed model was estimated using a sample of N=93 with a Condition × 2-Week Follow-Up interaction. AOC was the reference category for Condition, and Baseline was the reference category for 2-Week Follow-Up.|Count/Rate Ratio|0.97||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.27|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models controlled for sex assigned at birth, age, and student status (4-year vs. not) and used a Poisson error distribution.||Changes from Baseline to 2-Week Follow-Up for PFI versus AOC reported in this section.||1.27|0.74|0.83
90925805|NCT05873556|181726778|SUPERIORITY|Generalized linear mixed model was estimated using a sample of N=93 with a Condition × 3-Month Follow-Up interaction. AOC was the reference category for Condition, and Baseline was the reference category for 3-Month Follow-Up.|Count/Rate Ratio|1.07||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.38|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models controlled for sex assigned at birth, age, and student status (4-year vs. not) and used a Poisson error distribution.||Changes from Baseline to 3-Month Follow-Up for PFI versus AOC reported in this section.||1.38|0.83|0.61
90925806|NCT05873556|181726779|SUPERIORITY|Generalized linear mixed model was estimated using a sample of N=93 with a Condition × 2-Week Follow-Up interaction. AOC was the reference category for Condition, and Baseline was the reference category for 2-Week Follow-Up.|Count/Rate Ratio|1.16||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.72|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models controlled for sex assigned at birth, age, and student status (4-year vs. not) and used a Poisson error distribution.||Changes from Baseline to 2-Week Follow-Up for PFI versus AOC reported in this section.||1.72|0.79|0.45
90925807|NCT05873556|181726779|SUPERIORITY|Generalized linear mixed model was estimated using a sample of N=93 with a Condition × 3-Month Follow-Up interaction. AOC was the reference category for Condition, and Baseline was the reference category for 3-Month Follow-Up.|Count/Rate Ratio|1.17||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.79|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models controlled for sex assigned at birth, age, and student status (4-year vs. not) and used a Poisson error distribution.||Changes from Baseline to 3-Month Follow-Up for PFI versus AOC reported in this section.||1.79|0.77|0.46
90925808|NCT05873556|181726780|SUPERIORITY|Generalized linear mixed model was estimated using a sample of N=93 with a Condition × 2-Week Follow-Up interaction. AOC was the reference category for Condition, and Baseline was the reference category for 2-Week Follow-Up.|Count/Rate Ratio|0.95||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.17|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models controlled for sex assigned at birth, age, and student status (4-year vs. not) and used a Poisson error distribution.||Changes from Baseline to 2-Week Follow-Up for PFI versus AOC reported in this section.||1.17|0.77|0.62
90886223|NCT02819726|181634804|OTHER||LS Means Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.086||0.0505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.339|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Week 52 (EOS) HAQ-DI (0-3). Least square means and confidence intervals were estimated from an ANCOVA model containing treatment group as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Change from Study Day 1 (Baseline).||0.000|-0.339|0.0505
90971128|NCT03036293|181824820|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.76||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|1.66|||ANCOVA|Baseline score used as covariate||Mean score differences (begin-end) were compared||1.66|0.02|0.044
90971129|NCT03036293|181824821|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.69||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.78|||ANCOVA|Baseline score used as covariate||Mean score differences (begin-end) were compared||1.78|-0.4|0.21
90886224|NCT02819726|181634804|OTHER||LS Means Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.086||0.1141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.307|0.033|||ANCOVA|||Week 52 (EOS) HAQ-DI (0-3). Least square means and confidence intervals were estimated from an ANCOVA model containing treatment group as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Change from Study Day 1 (Baseline).||0.033|-0.307|0.1141
90886225|NCT02819726|181634804|OTHER||LS Means Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.087||0.7111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.139|0.204|||ANCOVA|||Week 52 (EOS) HAQ-DI )0-3). Least square means and confidence intervals were estimated from an ANCOVA model containing treatment group as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Change from Study Day 1 (Baseline).||0.204|-0.139|0.7111
90925809|NCT05873556|181726780|SUPERIORITY|Generalized linear mixed model was estimated using a sample of N=93 with a Condition × 3-Month Follow-Up interaction. AOC was the reference category for Condition, and Baseline was the reference category for 3-Month Follow-Up.|Count/Rate Ratio|1.14||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.48|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models controlled for sex assigned at birth, age, and student status (4-year vs. not) and used a Poisson error distribution.||Changes from Baseline to 3-Month Follow-Up for PFI versus AOC reported in this section.||1.48|0.87|0.34
90925810|NCT05873556|181726781|SUPERIORITY|Generalized linear mixed model was estimated using a sample of N=93 with a Condition × 2-Week Follow-Up interaction. AOC was the reference category for Condition, and Baseline was the reference category for 2-Week Follow-Up.|Count/Rate Ratio|1.08||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.54|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models controlled for sex assigned at birth, age, and student status (4-year vs. not) and used a Poisson error distribution.||Changes from Baseline to 2-Week Follow-Up for PFI versus AOC reported in this section.||1.54|0.76|0.66
90925811|NCT05873556|181726781|SUPERIORITY|Generalized linear mixed model was estimated using a sample of N=93 with a Condition × 3-Month Follow-Up interaction. AOC was the reference category for Condition, and Baseline was the reference category for 3-Month Follow-Up.|Count/Rate Ratio|1.02||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.38|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models controlled for sex assigned at birth, age, and student status (4-year vs. not) and used a Poisson error distribution.||Changes from Baseline to 3-Month Follow-Up for PFI versus AOC reported in this section.||1.38|0.75|0.92
90925812|NCT04047602|181726782|EQUIVALENCE|The observed proportion of evaluable patients with symptomatic radiation necrosis was calculated and tested against a baseline 6-month symptomatic radiation necrosis rate of 16% at a type I error rate of 5% using a one-sided binomial exact test. The null hypothesis is that the observed proportion is equivalent to 16% or 0.160.|Binomial Proportion|0.083||||0.234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.002|0.385||The p-value reported is the one-sided p-value from the exact equivalence binomial test using an alpha value of 0.05.|Exact Binomial Test||The binomial proportion 95% confidence intervals were calculated using the Clopper-Pearson (Exact) method.|The observed proportion of evaluable patients with symptomatic radiation necrosis was calculated and tested against a baseline 6-month symptomatic radiation necrosis rate of 16% at a type I error rate of 5% using a one-sided binomial exact test. The null hypothesis is that the observed proportion is equivalent to 16% or 0.160.||0.385|0.002|0.234
90925813|NCT04047602|181726785|OTHER|||||||0.285|||||||Klein Method|||The method of Klein et al., (Klein et.al., 2007) was used to compare the 12-month survival probabilities across SRS groups. The null hypothesis was that the survival probabilities were equal.||||0.285
90925814|NCT04047602|181726786|OTHER|||||||0.292|||||||Klein Method|||The method of Klein et al., (Klein et.al., 2007) was used to compare the 12-month survival probabilities across brain metastases groups. The null hypothesis was that the survival probabilities were equal.||||0.292
90925815|NCT04047602|181726787|OTHER|||||||0.289|||||||Klein Method|||The method of Klein et al., (Klein et.al., 2007) was used to compare the 12-month survival probabilities across ICI groups. The null hypothesis was that the survival probabilities were equal.||||0.289
90925816|NCT04047602|181726790|OTHER|||||||0.248|||||||Klein Method|||The method of Klein et al., (Klein et.al., 2007) was used to compare the 12-month survival probabilities across SRS groups. The null hypothesis was that the survival probabilities were equal.||||0.248
90925817|NCT04047602|181726791|OTHER|||||||0.292|||||||Klein Method|||The method of Klein et al., (Klein et.al., 2007) was used to compare the 12-month survival probabilities across brain metastases groups. The null hypothesis was that the survival probabilities were equal.||||0.292
90925818|NCT04047602|181726792|OTHER|||||||0.289|||||||Klein Method|||The method of Klein et al., (Klein et.al., 2007) was used to compare the 12-month survival probabilities across ICI groups. The null hypothesis was that the survival probabilities were equal.||||0.289
90925819|NCT04484428|181726799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.773|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.773
90925820|NCT04484428|181726800|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.972|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.972
90925821|NCT04484428|181726801|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.617|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.617
90925822|NCT04484428|181726802|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.796|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.796
90925823|NCT04484428|181726803|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.960
90925824|NCT04484428|181726804|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.761|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.761
90925825|NCT04484428|181726805|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.979|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.979
90925826|NCT04484428|181726806|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.803|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.803
90925827|NCT00661141|181726809|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8727||||||Overall p-value testing cohort difference from ANOVA|ANOVA|||1.0 mg/kg Cohort, 3.0 mg/kg cohort, 5.0 mg/kg cohort||||0.8727
90925828|NCT00661141|181726812|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0023||||||Overall p-value testing cohort difference from ANOVA|ANOVA|||1.0 mg/kg Cohort, 3.0 mg/kg cohort, 5.0 mg/kg cohort||||0.0023
90925829|NCT00661141|181726812|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.386||||||P-values for pairwise comparison between cohorts from ANOVA|ANOVA|||1.0 mg/kg Cohort, 3.0 mg/kg cohort||||0.386
90925830|NCT00661141|181726812|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0006||||||P-values for pairwise comparison between cohorts from ANOVA|ANOVA|||1.0 mg/kg, 5.0 mg/kg||||0.0006
90925831|NCT00661141|181726812|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0154||||||P-values for pairwise comparison between cohorts from ANOVA|ANOVA|||3.0 mg/kg, 5.0 mg/kg||||0.0154
90925832|NCT00661141|181726819|SUPERIORITY||ratio of parameter means|115.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.45|147.67|||||Ratio of parameter means (Antizol/placebo, expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale. 90% confidence interval for ratio of parameter means (expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale.|||147.67|90.45|
90886226|NCT02819726|181634805|OTHER||LS Means Difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.871||0.8183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.113|3.253|||ANCOVA|||Week 52 (EOS) CRP. Least square means and confidence intervals were estimated from an ANCOVA model containing treatment group as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Change from Study Day 1 (Baseline).||3.253|-4.113|0.8183
90886227|NCT02819726|181634805|OTHER||LS Means Difference|1.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.868||0.4186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.164|5.191|||ANCOVA|||Week 52 (EOS) CRP. Least square means and confidence intervals were estimated from an ANCOVA model containing treatment group as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Change from Study Day 1 (Baseline).||5.191|-2.164|0.4186
90886228|NCT02819726|181634805|OTHER||LS Means Difference|1.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.885||0.3035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.768|5.655|||ANCOVA|||Week 52 (EOS) CRP. Least square means and confidence intervals were estimated from an ANCOVA model containing treatment group as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Change from Study Day 1 (Baseline).||5.655|-1.768|0.3035
90886229|NCT02819726|181634806|OTHER||LS Means Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.9249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.375|0.413|||ANCOVA|||Week 52 ( EOS) Least square means and confidence intervals were estimated from an ANCOVA model containing treatment group as a factor and baseline DAS28-ESR value as a covariate. ANCOVA model contains treatment group only.||0.413|-0.375|0.9249
90886230|NCT02819726|181634806|OTHER||LS Measn Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.201||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.351|0.442|||ANCOVA|||Week 52 ( EOS) Least square means and confidence intervals were estimated from an ANCOVA model containing treatment group as a factor and baseline DAS28-ESR value as a covariate. ANCOVA model contains treatment group only.||0.442|-0.351|0.05
90886231|NCT02819726|181634806|OTHER||LS Means Diference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.205||0.8962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.376|0.43|||ANCOVA|||Week 52 ( EOS) Least square means and confidence intervals were estimated from an ANCOVA model containing treatment group as a factor and baseline DAS28-ESR value as a covariate. ANCOVA model contains treatment group only.||0.430|-0.376|0.8962
90886232|NCT02819726|181634807|OTHER||Difference (%)|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.57|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.56|7.83||||||Week 52 (EOS) Major Clinical Response. The 95% CIs for major clinical response rate and treatment difference were derived using the Wilson Score method. The adjusted difference and its 95% CI are from a logistic regression model containing treatment group as a factor and baseline DAS28-CRP as a covariate.||7.83|-2.56|
90886233|NCT02819726|181634807|OTHER||Difference (%)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.74|6.67||||||Week 52 (EOS) Major Clinical Response. The 95% CIs for major clinical response rate and treatment difference were derived using the Wilson Score method. The adjusted difference and its 95% CI are from a logistic regression model containing treatment group as a factor and baseline DAS28-CRP as a covariate.||6.67|-4.74|
90886234|NCT02819726|181634807|OTHER||Difference (%)|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.24|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.75|3.39||||||Week 52 (EOS) Major Clinical Response. The 95% CIs for major clinical response rate and treatment difference were derived using the Wilson Score method. The adjusted difference and its 95% CI are from a logistic regression model containing treatment group as a factor and baseline DAS28-CRP as a covariate.||3.39|-6.75|
90886235|NCT02819726|181634808|OTHER||Difference (%)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.92|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|3.9||||||Week 52 (EOS). Clinical remission is defined as score of Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI) smaller than 3.3. The 95% CIs for clinical remission rate and treatment difference were derived using the Wilson Score method. The adjusted difference and its 95% CI are from a logistic regression model containing treatment group as a factor and baseline DAS28-CRP as a covariate.||3.90|-6.9|
90886236|NCT02819726|181634808|OTHER||Difference (%)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.95|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.07|3.86||||||Week 52 (EOS). Clinical remission is defined as score of Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI) smaller than 3.3. The 95% CIs for clinical remission rate and treatment difference were derived using the Wilson Score method. The adjusted difference and its 95% CI are from a logistic regression model containing treatment group as a factor and baseline DAS28-CRP as a covariate.||3.86|-7.07|
90886237|NCT02819726|181634808|OTHER||Differnce (%)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.27|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.05|5.83||||||Week 52 (EOS). Clinical remission is defined as score of Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI) smaller than 3.3. The 95% CIs for clinical remission rate and treatment difference were derived using the Wilson Score method. The adjusted difference and its 95% CI are from a logistic regression model containing treatment group as a factor and baseline DAS28-CRP as a covariate.||5.83|-6.05|
90886238|NCT02819726|181634809|OTHER||Difference (%)|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.19|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.59|15.1||||||Week 52 EULAR score 'Good'. EULAR (European League Against Rheumatism) response was classified using the individual amount of change in the DAS28-CRP score. The 95% CIs for EULAR response rate and treatment difference were derived using the Wilson Score method.||15.10|-12.59|
90886239|NCT02819726|181634809|OTHER||Difference (%)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.21|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.75|14.03|||Difference (%)|||Week 52 EULAR score 'Good'. EULAR (European League Against Rheumatism) response was classified using the individual amount of change in the DAS28-CRP score. The 95% CIs for EULAR response rate and treatment difference were derived using the Wilson Score method.||14.03|-13.75|
90886240|NCT02819726|181634809|OTHER||Difference (%)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.29|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.14|12.91||||||Week 52 EULAR score 'Good'. EULAR (European League Against Rheumatism) response was classified using the individual amount of change in the DAS28-CRP score. The 95% CIs for EULAR response rate and treatment difference were derived using the Wilson Score method.||12.91|-15.14|
90886241|NCT02819726|181634815|OTHER|Statistical comparison of CD19+ B-cell pharmacokinetic parameters at Day 15 \[AUEC(0-d15)\]|Statistical Comparisons Difference|22.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-137.1|181.3||||||The statistical comparison of the between treatments is based on an analysis of covariance (ANOVA) model with fixed effect for treatment and a covariate for baseline value.||181.3|-137.1|
90886242|NCT02819726|181634815|OTHER|Statistical comparison of CD19+ B-cell pharmacokinetic parameters at Day 15 \[AUEC(0-d15)\]|Statistical Comparisons Difference|69.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-91.8|230.8||||||The statistical comparison of the between treatments is based on an analysis of covariance (ANOVA) model with fixed effect for treatment and a covariate for baseline value.||230.8|-91.8|
90886243|NCT02819726|181634815|OTHER|Statistical comparison of CD19+ B-cell pharmacokinetic parameters at Day 15 \[AUEC(0-d15)\]|Statistical Comparisons Difference|47.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-112.5|207.2||||||The statistical comparison of the between treatments is based on an analysis of covariance (ANOVA) model with fixed effect for treatment and a covariate for baseline value.||207.2|-112.5|
90886244|NCT02819726|181634815|OTHER|Statistical comparison of CD19+ B-cell pharmacokinetic parameters at Day week \[AUEC(0-w24)\]|Statistical Comparisons Difference|310.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-187.9|809.4||||||The statistical comparison of the between treatments is based on an analysis of covariance (ANOVA) model with fixed effect for treatment and a covariate for baseline value.||809.4|-187.9|
90925833|NCT00661141|181726819|SUPERIORITY||ratio of parameter means|126.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.94|155.87|||||Ratio of parameter means (Antizol/placebo, expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale. 90% confidence interval for ratio of parameter means (expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale.|||155.87|101.94|
90925834|NCT00661141|181726819|SUPERIORITY||ratio of parameter means|137.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|115.66|163.65|||||Ratio of parameter means (Antizol/placebo, expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale. 90% confidence interval for ratio of parameter means (expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale.|||163.65|115.66|
90925835|NCT00661141|181726819|SUPERIORITY||ratio of parameter means|82.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|62.83|108.07|||||Ratio of parameter means (Antizol/placebo, expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale. 90% confidence interval for ratio of parameter means (expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale.|||108.07|62.83|
90925836|NCT00661141|181726819|SUPERIORITY||ratio of parameter means|115.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.19|145.67|||||Ratio of parameter means (Antizol/placebo, expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale. 90% confidence interval for ratio of parameter means (expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale.|3 participants in Cohort 3 had some residual 4-MP detected on Day 2 (Placebo treatment). As a result, the data for the participants on Day 2 were excluded from these statistical analyses, which could be compared with the analyses below where all available data were included.||145.67|91.19|
90925837|NCT00661141|181726819|SUPERIORITY||ratio of parameter means|112.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.14|131.98|||||Ratio of parameter means (Antizol/placebo, expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale. 90% confidence interval for ratio of parameter means (expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale.|Analyses for Cohort 3 where all available data were included.||131.98|96.14|
90925838|NCT00661141|181726822|SUPERIORITY||ratio of parameter means|139.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.18|211.51|||||Ratio of parameter means (Antizol/placebo, expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale. 90% confidence interval for ratio of parameter means (expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale.|||211.51|92.18|
90925839|NCT00661141|181726822|SUPERIORITY||ratio of parameter means|120.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|108.8|134.03|||||Ratio of parameter means (Antizol/placebo, expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale. 90% confidence interval for ratio of parameter means (expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale.|||134.03|108.80|
90886245|NCT02819726|181634815|OTHER|Statistical comparison of CD19+ B-cell pharmacokinetic parameters at Day week \[AUEC(0-w24)\]|Statistical Comparisons Difference|296.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-213.8|806.1||||||The statistical comparison of the between treatments is based on an analysis of covariance (ANOVA) model with fixed effect for treatment and a covariate for baseline value.||806.1|-213.8|
90925840|NCT00661141|181726822|SUPERIORITY||ratio of parameter means|143.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|107.72|190.87|||||Ratio of parameter means (Antizol/placebo, expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale. 90% confidence interval for ratio of parameter means (expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale.|||190.87|107.72|
90925841|NCT00661141|181726822|SUPERIORITY||ratio of parameter means|103.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.35|126.1|||||Ratio of parameter means (Antizol/placebo, expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale. 90% confidence interval for ratio of parameter means (expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale.|||126.10|84.35|
90925842|NCT00661141|181726822|SUPERIORITY||ratio of parameter means|123.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|108.61|139.67|||||Ratio of parameter means (Antizol/placebo, expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale. 90% confidence interval for ratio of parameter means (expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale.|3 participants in Cohort 3 had some residual 4-MP detected on Day 2 (Placebo treatment). As a result, the data for the participants on Day 2 were excluded from these statistical analyses, which could be compared with the analyses below where all available data were included.||139.67|108.61|
90925843|NCT00661141|181726822|SUPERIORITY||ratio of parameter means|137.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|123.3|152.59|||||Ratio of parameter means (Antizol/placebo, expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale. 90% confidence interval for ratio of parameter means (expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale.|Analyses for Cohort 3 where all available data were included.||152.59|123.30|
90925844|NCT00661141|181726824|SUPERIORITY||ratio of parameter means|121.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|108.42|136.84|||||Ratio of parameter means (Antizol/placebo, expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale. 90% confidence interval for ratio of parameter means (expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale.|||136.84|108.42|
90925845|NCT00661141|181726824|SUPERIORITY||ratio of parameter means|123.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.55|163.56|||||Ratio of parameter means (Antizol/placebo, expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale. 90% confidence interval for ratio of parameter means (expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale.|||163.56|93.55|
90925846|NCT00661141|181726824|SUPERIORITY||ratio of parameter means|150.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.14|242.63|||||Ratio of parameter means (Antizol/placebo, expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale. 90% confidence interval for ratio of parameter means (expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale.|||242.63|93.14|
90925847|NCT00661141|181726824|SUPERIORITY||ratio of parameter means|122.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.45|183.0|||||Ratio of parameter means (Antizol/placebo, expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale. 90% confidence interval for ratio of parameter means (expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale.|Analysis for Cohort 3 where all available data were included.||183.00|82.45|
90925848|NCT00661141|181726830|SUPERIORITY||ratio of parameter means|69.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|48.88|97.78|||||Ratio of parameter means (Antizol/placebo, expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale. 90% confidence interval for ratio of parameter means (expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale.|||97.78|48.88|
90925849|NCT00661141|181726830|SUPERIORITY||ratio of parameter means|124.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.77|174.5|||||Ratio of parameter means (Antizol/placebo, expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale. 90% confidence interval for ratio of parameter means (expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale.|||174.50|88.77|
90925850|NCT00661141|181726830|SUPERIORITY||ratio of parameter means|105.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.24|124.27|||||Ratio of parameter means (Antizol/placebo, expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale. 90% confidence interval for ratio of parameter means (expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale.|||124.27|89.24|
90925851|NCT00661141|181726830|SUPERIORITY||ratio of parameter means|88.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|56.66|138.54|||||Ratio of parameter means (Antizol/placebo, expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale. 90% confidence interval for ratio of parameter means (expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale.|||138.54|56.66|
90925852|NCT00661141|181726830|SUPERIORITY||ratio of parameter means|70.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|34.16|146.59|||||Ratio of parameter means (Antizol/placebo, expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale. 90% confidence interval for ratio of parameter means (expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale.|3 participants in Cohort 3 had some residual 4-MP detected on Day 2 (Placebo treatment). As a result, the data for the participants on Day 2 were excluded from these statistical analyses, which could be compared with the analyses below where all available data were included.||146.59|34.16|
90925853|NCT00661141|181726830|SUPERIORITY||ratio of parameter means|86.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|55.78|132.73|||||Ratio of parameter means (Antizol/placebo, expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale. 90% confidence interval for ratio of parameter means (expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale.|Analyses for Cohort 3 where all available data were included.||132.73|55.78|
90925854|NCT00661141|181726833|SUPERIORITY||ratio of parameter means|90.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|69.54|117.0|||||Ratio of parameter means (Antizol/placebo, expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale. 90% confidence interval for ratio of parameter means (expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale.|||117.00|69.54|
90925855|NCT00661141|181726833|SUPERIORITY||ratio of parameter means|112.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.72|121.54|||||Ratio of parameter means (Antizol/placebo, expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale. 90% confidence interval for ratio of parameter means (expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale.|||121.54|103.72|
91035119|NCT03086460|181956469|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.167|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.109|0.225|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.225|0.109|<0.001
90925856|NCT00661141|181726833|SUPERIORITY||ratio of parameter means|106.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.81|116.24|||||Ratio of parameter means (Antizol/placebo, expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale. 90% confidence interval for ratio of parameter means (expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale.|||116.24|96.81|
90925857|NCT00661141|181726833|SUPERIORITY||ratio of parameter means|104.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.5|129.84|||||Ratio of parameter means (Antizol/placebo, expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale. 90% confidence interval for ratio of parameter means (expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale.|||129.84|83.50|
90925858|NCT00661141|181726833|SUPERIORITY||ratio of parameter means|100.41|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.86|129.49|||||Ratio of parameter means (Antizol/placebo, expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale. 90% confidence interval for ratio of parameter means (expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale.|3 participants in Cohort 3 had some residual 4-MP detected on Day 2 (Placebo treatment). As a result, the data for the participants on Day 2 were excluded from these statistical analyses, which could be compared with the analyses below where all available data were included.||129.49|77.86|
90925859|NCT00661141|181726833|SUPERIORITY||ratio of parameter means|94.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.7|108.42|||||Ratio of parameter means (Antizol/placebo, expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale. 90% confidence interval for ratio of parameter means (expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale.|Analyses for Cohort 3 where all available data were included.||108.42|82.70|
90925860|NCT00661141|181726835|SUPERIORITY||ratio of parameter means|94.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.01|1113.63|||||Ratio of parameter means (Antizol/placebo, expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale. 90% confidence interval for ratio of parameter means (expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale.|||1113.63|78.01|
90925861|NCT00661141|181726835|SUPERIORITY||ratio of parameter means|107.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.42|131.1|||||Ratio of parameter means (Antizol/placebo, expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale. 90% confidence interval for ratio of parameter means (expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale.|3 participants in Cohort 3 had some residual 4-MP detected on Day 2 (Placebo treatment). As a result, the data for the participants on Day 2 were excluded from these statistical analyses, which could be compared with the analyses below where all available data were included.||131.10|87.42|
90971130|NCT03036293|181824821|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.19||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|2.26|||ANCOVA|Baseline score used as covariate||Mean score differences (begin-end) were compared||2.26|0.14|0.027
91035120|NCT03086460|181956469|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.144|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.098|0.19|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment F ( Perforomist® IS 40 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~The statistical analysis was performed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including treatment, period, and patient as fixed effects, and baseline as a covariate."||0.190|0.098|<0.001
91035121|NCT03086460|181956469|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.047||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.002|0.095|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~The statistical analysis was performed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including treatment, period, and patient as fixed effects, and baseline as a covariate."||0.095|-0.002|0.059
90886246|NCT02819726|181634815|OTHER|Statistical comparison of CD19+ B-cell pharmacokinetic parameters at Day week \[AUEC(0-w24)\]|Statistical Comparisons Difference|-14.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-527.4|498.2||||||The statistical comparison of the between treatments is based on an analysis of covariance (ANOVA) model with fixed effect for treatment and a covariate for baseline value.||498.2|-527.4|
90886247|NCT00359762|181634818|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority test was based on the upper 1-sided 97.5% CI for the hazard ratio of Exenatide/Glimepiride;the upper bound was compared to 1.25: if \<1.25, the hypothesis that the risk of treatment failure with Exenatide is more than 1.25 times greater than the risk with Glimepiride is rejected.Superiority test was based on the 2-sided 95% CI for the hazard ratio. If CI excludes 1, the hypothesis that the risk of treatment failure with Exenatide is equal to that with Glimepiride is rejected.|Hazard Ratio|0.748||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.623|0.899|||Regression, Cox|Time to treatment failure was modeled using Cox regression with treatment and baseline HbA1c as predictive terms.||The null hypothesis (H0) and alternative hypothesis (H1) for the primary analysis (i.e., non-inferiority) are:H0: hazards of treatment for Exenatide/hazards of treatment for Glimepiride \>=1.25.H1: hazards of treatment for Exenatide/hazards of treatment for Glimepiride \< 1.25. With 527 patients in each arm, the study would have approximately 90% power to conclude non-inferiority of Exenatide to Glimepiride.||0.899|0.623|0.0020
90886248|NCT00359762|181634819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0315|TWO_SIDED|99.95|||||Log Rank|||Kaplan-Meier survival curves for time to treatment failure were compared between treatment groups using log rank test.||||0.0315
90886249|NCT00359762|181634820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.56||0.7648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.58|9.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis includes treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value as a covariate. The unstructured covariance matrix was used.||9.25|-12.58|0.7648
90886250|NCT00359762|181634821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-14.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.399||0.0528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.88|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Change in HOMA-B from baseline to endpoint was analyzed by an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model that includes treatment and baseline HbA1c stratum (\<=7.3%, \>7.3% to \<=8.2%, \>8.2%) as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.17|-28.88|0.0528
90886251|NCT00359762|181634822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032||0.904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM analysis includes treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value as a covariate. The unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.06|-0.07|0.9040
91035122|NCT03086460|181956469|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.022||||0.361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.026|0.07|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #6 of this outcome measure."||0.070|-0.026|0.361
91035123|NCT03086460|181956469|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.057||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.011|0.102|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #6 of this outcome measure."||0.102|0.011|0.016
90886252|NCT00359762|181634823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Change in fasting proinsulin/insulin ratio from baseline to endpoint was analyzed by an ANCOVA model that includes treatment and baseline HbA1c stratum (\<=7.3%, \>7.3% to \<=8.2%, \>8.2%) as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.01|-0.05|0.2500
90886253|NCT00359762|181634824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.497||0.9001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|8.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM analysis includes treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value as a covariate. The unstructured covariance matrix was used.||8.27|-9.40|0.9001
90886254|NCT00359762|181634825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|11.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.966||0.0246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|20.95|||ANCOVA|||Change in DI30/DG30 ratio from baseline to endpoint was analyzed by an ANCOVA model that includes treatment and baseline HbA1c stratum (\<=7.3%, \>7.3% to \<=8.2%, \>8.2%) as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||20.95|1.44|0.0246
90886255|NCT00359762|181634826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|4.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.598||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|7.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM analysis includes treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value as a covariate. The unstructured covariance matrix was used.||7.81|1.53|0.0036
90886256|NCT00359762|181634827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|7.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.128||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.15|11.5|||ANCOVA|||Change in disposition index from baseline to endpoint was analyzed by an ANCOVA model that includes treatment and baseline HbA1c stratum (\<=7.3%, \>7.3% to \<=8.2%, \>8.2%) as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||11.50|3.15|0.0006
90971131|NCT03036293|181824822|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.89|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Bigger OR is better|Common OR of event analysis||1.89|0.98|0.065
91035124|NCT03086460|181956469|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.025||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.075|0.026|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #6 of this outcome measure."||0.026|-0.075|0.340
90886257|NCT00359762|181634828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.0128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|-0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM analysis includes treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value as a covariate. The unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.04|-0.31|0.0128
90886258|NCT00359762|181634829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|-0.06|||ANCOVA|||Change in HbA1c from baseline to endpoint was analyzed by an ANCOVA model that includes treatment as factor and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.06|-0.26|0.0015
90886259|NCT00359762|181634830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.174|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM includes treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value as a covariate. The unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.34|-1.03|<.0001
90886260|NCT00359762|181634831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.183||0.0109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||Change in fasting plasma glucose from baseline to endpoint was analyzed by an ANCOVA model that includes treatment and baseline HbA1c stratum (\<=7.3%, \>7.3% to \<=8.2%, \>8.2%) as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.11|-0.83|0.0109
90886261|NCT00359762|181634832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.424|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.64|-1.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM analysis includes treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value as a covariate. The unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-1.97|-3.64|<.0001
90886262|NCT00359762|181634833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.327|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.84|-1.55|||ANCOVA|||Change in postprandial (2 hours) plasma glucose from baseline to endpoint was analyzed by an ANCOVA model that includes treatment and baseline HbA1c stratum (\<=7.3%, \>7.3% to \<=8.2%, \>8.2%) as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-1.55|-2.84|<.0001
90886263|NCT00359762|181634834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.463|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.31|-4.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM analysis includes treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction and baseline value as a covariate. The unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-4.49|-6.31|<.0001
90886264|NCT00359762|181634835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.228|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.61|-2.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM analysis includes treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value as a covariate. The unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-2.79|-7.61|<.0001
90886265|NCT00359762|181634836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.0228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.18|-0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM analysis includes treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value as a covariate. The unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.24|-3.18|0.0228
90886266|NCT00359762|181634837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.805||0.3737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM analysis includes treatment, visit, and visit by treatment interaction, and baseline value as a covariate. The unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.86|-2.30|0.3737
90886267|NCT00359762|181634838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.089||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM analysis includes treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value as a covariate. The unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.08|-0.43|0.0042
90886268|NCT00359762|181634839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.079||0.7914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM analysis includes treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value as a covariate. The unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.18|-0.13|0.7914
90886269|NCT00359762|181634840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM analysis includes treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value as a covariate. The unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.10|0.02|0.0011
90886270|NCT00359762|181634841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.37|||Negative Binomial Model|||The number of hypoglycemic episodes by patient were compared between treatment groups using a negative binomial model with effects for treatment and baseline HbA1c and the logarithm of the days of exposure as the offset variable.||0.37|0.22|<.0001
90886271|NCT00359762|181634842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141||0.0508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM analysis includes treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value at Period III as a covariate. The compound symmetric covariance structure was assumed.||0.55|-0.00|0.0508
90964347|NCT03627767|181810150|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|33.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.6|41.2||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 28: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||41.2|26.6|< 0.0001
90964348|NCT03627767|181810150|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|55.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.2|62.3||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 28: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||62.3|48.2|< 0.0001
90964349|NCT03627767|181810150|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|21.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.2|30.2||||||Week 28: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||30.2|13.2|
90964350|NCT03627767|181810150|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|29.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.7|36.7||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||36.7|22.7|< 0.0001
90964351|NCT03627767|181810150|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|45.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.4|52.7||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||52.7|38.4|< 0.0001
90886272|NCT01172938|181634848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|19.0||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.7|28.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|2-sided p-value is based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusting for baseline disease modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) use.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the CMH weights. The 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|In order to maintain the Type 1 error at the 0.05 significance level, the Hochberg procedure was to be used. The results of the endpoint were to be considered statistically significant if both the 30 mg apremilast dose versus placebo comparison and the 20 mg versus placebo comparison were statistically significant at the 0.05 significance level, or one of the comparisons was statistically significant at the 0.025 level.||28.3|9.7|0.0001
90886273|NCT01172938|181634848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|11.3||||0.0166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|20.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the CMH weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|In order to maintain the Type 1 error at the 0.05 significance level, the Hochberg procedure was to be used. The results of the endpoint were to be considered statistically significant if both the 30 mg apremilast dose versus placebo comparison and the 20 mg versus placebo comparison were statistically significant at the 0.05 significance level, or one of the comparisons was statistically significant at the 0.025 level.||20.4|2.2|0.0166
90886274|NCT01172938|181634849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.159||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.258|-0.06|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.||Pairwise comparisons (30 mg vs placebo and 20 mg vs placebo) were conducted conditional on the primary endpoint results. If the primary endpoint was statistically significant for both apremilast dose groups, pairwise comparisons for the HAQ-DI were to be evaluated at the 0.05 level using the Hochberg procedure. If only one apremilast dose was statistically significant, then only the comparison between that apremilast dose and placebo was conducted for the HAQ-DI score, at the 0.025 level.||-0.060|-0.258|0.0017
90886275|NCT01172938|181634849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.113||||0.0252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.211|-0.014|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.||Pairwise comparisons (30 mg vs placebo and 20 mg vs placebo) were conducted conditional on the primary endpoint results. If the primary endpoint was statistically significant for both apremilast dose groups, pairwise comparisons for the HAQ-DI were to be evaluated at the 0.05 level using the Hochberg procedure. If only one apremilast dose was statistically significant, then only the comparison between that apremilast dose and placebo was conducted for the HAQ-DI score, at the 0.025 level.||-0.014|-0.211|0.0252
90886276|NCT01172938|181634850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|22.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.4|30.9||Secondary endpoints from the placebo-controlled period (Weeks 16 and 24) were analyzed in a hierarchical fashion to control the Type I error rate as described above.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||30.9|13.4|<0.0001
90964352|NCT03627767|181810150|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|16.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|24.6||||||Week 40: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||24.6|7.4|
90964353|NCT03627767|181810150|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|19.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.0|26.8||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||26.8|13.0|< 0.0001
90971132|NCT03036293|181824822|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|2.33|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Bigger OR is better|Common OR of event analysis||2.33|1.22|0.0015
90971133|NCT03036293|181824822|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 4 frequencies comparison||||0.7
90971134|NCT03036293|181824822|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 8 frequencies comparison||||1
90886277|NCT01172938|181634850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|12.4||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|20.7||Secondary endpoints from the placebo-controlled period (Weeks 16 and 24) were analyzed in a hierarchical fashion to control the Type I error rate as described above.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||20.7|4.2|0.0038
90886278|NCT01172938|181634851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.182||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.283|-0.08||Secondary endpoints from the placebo-controlled period (Weeks 16 and 24) were analyzed in a hierarchical fashion to control the Type I error rate as described above.|ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.||||-0.080|-0.283|0.0005
90886279|NCT01172938|181634851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.135||||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.236|-0.034||Secondary endpoints from the placebo-controlled period (Weeks 16 and 24) were analyzed in a hierarchical fashion to control the Type I error rate as described above.|ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.||||-0.034|-0.236|0.0091
90886280|NCT01172938|181634852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|2.42||||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|4.13||Secondary endpoints from the placebo-controlled period (Weeks 16 and 24) were analyzed in a hierarchical fashion to control the Type I error rate as described above.|ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.||||4.13|0.71|0.0056
90886281|NCT01172938|181634852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.7||||0.0504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.4||Secondary endpoints from the placebo-controlled period (Weeks 16 and 24) were analyzed in a hierarchical fashion to control the Type I error rate as described above.|ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.||||3.40|-0.00|0.0504
90886282|NCT01172938|181634853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|16.7||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.6|26.8||Secondary endpoints from the placebo-controlled period (Weeks 16 and 24) were analyzed in a hierarchical fashion to control the Type I error rate as described above.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||26.8|6.6|0.0017
90886283|NCT01172938|181634853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|8.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|18.9|||||Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||18.9|-1.2|
90886284|NCT01172938|181634854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-7.9||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|-2.8||Secondary endpoints from the placebo-controlled period (Weeks 16 and 24) were analyzed in a hierarchical fashion to control the Type I error rate as described above.|ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.||||-2.8|-12.9|0.0023
90886285|NCT01172938|181634854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-5.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|-0.7|||||Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.|||-0.7|-10.8|
90886286|NCT01172938|181634855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.4|||||Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.|||0.4|-1.2|
90886287|NCT01172938|181634855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.3|||||Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.|||0.3|-1.3|
90886288|NCT01172938|181634856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.4|||||Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.|||0.4|-1.1|
90925862|NCT00661141|181726835|SUPERIORITY||ratio of parameter means|97.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.84|112.97|||||Ratio of parameter means (Antizol/placebo, expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale. 90% confidence interval for ratio of parameter means (expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale.|Analyses for Cohort 3 where all available data were included.||112.97|84.84|
90886289|NCT01172938|181634856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.3|||||Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.|||0.3|-1.3|
90886290|NCT01172938|181634857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-4.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.41|-2.34|||||Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.|||-2.34|-7.41|
90886291|NCT01172938|181634857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-4.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.92|-1.86|||||Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.|||-1.86|-6.92|
90886292|NCT01172938|181634858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.31|||||Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.|||-0.31|-0.76|
90886293|NCT01172938|181634858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.25|||||Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.|||-0.25|-0.70|
90886294|NCT01172938|181634859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|2.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|4.23|||||Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.|||4.23|0.43|
90886295|NCT01172938|181634859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|2.03|||||Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.|||2.03|-1.77|
90886296|NCT01172938|181634860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|3.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|5.4|||||Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.|||5.40|1.72|
90925863|NCT00670241|181726884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.05|5.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.70|2.05|< 0.001
90925864|NCT00670241|181726885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|98.33|1.46|8.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||8.40|1.46|<0.001
90925865|NCT00670241|181726886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|98.33|-22.6|-6.9|||ANOVA|||||-6.90|-22.6|<0.001
90925866|NCT03505008|181726889|NON_INFERIORITY|Two-sided 90% CI for the intergroup difference in SDAI remission rates to exceed the non-inferiority margin of -15%|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0||||||||||||
90925867|NCT02056834|181726921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0166|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired T-Test p-value tests the significance of the percent change from baseline within each treatment group.||||0.0166
90925868|NCT02056834|181726922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3785|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired T-Test p-value tests the significance of the percent change from baseline within each treatment group.||||0.3785
90925869|NCT02056834|181726923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired T-Test p-value tests the significance of the change from baseline within treatment group.||||<0.0001
90925870|NCT02056834|181726924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired T-Test p-value tests the significance of the change from baseline within treatment group.||||<0.0001
90925871|NCT05618587|181727076|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.46
90925872|NCT05618587|181727077|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.79
90925873|NCT05618587|181727078|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.68
90886297|NCT01172938|181634860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|2.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|3.88|||||Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.|||3.88|0.21|
90886298|NCT01172938|181634861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|24.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.2|34.0|||||Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||34.0|15.2|
90925874|NCT05618587|181727079|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.89
90925875|NCT05618587|181727080|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.75
90925876|NCT05618587|181727081|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Barnard unconditional exact test|||||||1.0
90925877|NCT05618587|181727082|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.28
90925878|NCT05618587|181727083|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.58
90925879|NCT05618587|181727084|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.41
90925880|NCT05618587|181727085|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.50
90925881|NCT05618587|181727086|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.29
90925882|NCT05618587|181727087|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.35
90925883|NCT01828112|181727088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.67|||Log Rank|||||0.67|0.36|<0.001
90925884|NCT05565820|181727114|SUPERIORITY||difference in proportions|-0.335|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.149||0.025|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha: .05|Z-test for difference in proportions|Z: 2.246 Cohen's d: .590|Direction of comparison: Vamousse Day 2 proportion of live lice - Nix Day 2 proportion of live lice|"Null hypothesis: At Day 2 the proportion of lice free subjects in the Vamousse Spray 'n' Go group does not exceed that in the Nix Creme Rinse Lice Treatment group.~The null hypothesis is one-tailed. However, for consistency with the practice of reporting conservative p-values in clinical studies, the two-tailed p-value will be reported."||||.025
90925885|NCT05565820|181727114|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|0.348|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141||0.014|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha: .05.|Z-test for difference in proportions|Z 2.469 Cohen's d .660|Direction of comparison: Vamousse Day 7 proportion live lice free - Nix Day 7 proportion live lice free|"Null hypothesis: At Day 7 the proportion of lice free subjects in the Vamousse Spray 'n' Go group does not exceed that in the Nix Creme Rinse Lice Treatment group.~The null hypothesis is one-tailed. However, for consistency with the practice of reporting conservative p-values in clinical studies, the two-tailed p-value will be reported."||||.014
90925886|NCT05565820|181727114|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|0.283|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.147||0.054|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha: .05|Z-test for difference in proportions|Z: 1.920 Cohen's d: .513|Vamousse Day 14 proportion live lice free - Nix Day 14 proportion live lice free|"Null hypothesis: At Day 14 the proportion of lice-free subjects in the Vamousse Spray 'n' Go group does not exceed that in the Nix Creme Rinse Lice Treatment group.~The null hypothesis is one-tailed. However, for consistency with the practice of reporting conservative p-values in clinical studies, the two-tailed p-value will be reported."||||.054
90925887|NCT05565820|181727115|SUPERIORITY|"To check on the effect of the non-normality of the change proportions, the nonparametric Mann-Whitney test was also performed.~The null hypothesis is one-tailed. However, for consistency with the practice of reporting conservative p-values in clinical studies, the two-tailed p-value will be reported."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.295|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1148||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.052|0.537||Alpha = .05 t: 2.567 df (adjusted, see comment below): 16.83 Mann-Whitney Z: 2.830 p(2-tailed) of Mann-Whitney Z: .005 Cohen's d = 1.023|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom for the t-test were adjusted for inequality of variances between the groups using the Satterthwaite correction: df(adj) = 16.83|Direction of comparison: Vamousse prop. reduction in live lice count from Day O - Nix prop. reduction in live lice count from Day O|"Null hypothesis: At Day 2 the mean proportion of decrease from Day 0 in the number of live lice in the Vamousse group does not exceed that in the Nix group.~The distribution of the Day 0 to Day 2 change proportions deviated significantly from normality by the Shapiro-Wilk test for both the Vamousse and combined samples. However, the t-test is robust to such departures from normality for samples of this size and was used to compare the two groups on the mean change proportions."||.537|.052|.020
90971135|NCT03036293|181824822|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 12 frequencies comparison||||0.01
90886299|NCT01172938|181634861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|12.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|21.5|||||Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||21.5|3.4|
90886300|NCT01172938|181634862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|-10.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|-5.7|||||Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.|||-5.7|-15.4|
90886301|NCT01172938|181634862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|-2.2|||||Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.|||-2.2|-12.0|
90886302|NCT01172938|181634863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.0|||||Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.|||0.0|-1.6|
90886303|NCT01172938|181634863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean DIfference|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.1|||||Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.|||0.1|-1.6|
90886304|NCT01172938|181634864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.3|||||Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.|||0.3|-1.2|
90886305|NCT01172938|181634864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.1|||||Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.|||0.1|-1.5|
90886306|NCT01172938|181634865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean Difference|-6.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|-3.75|||||Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.|||-3.75|-9.00|
90886307|NCT01172938|181634865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean Difference|-4.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.03|-1.79|||||Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.|||-1.79|-7.03|
90886308|NCT01172938|181634866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.46|||||Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.|||-0.46|-0.94|
90886309|NCT01172938|181634866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.22|||||Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.|||-0.22|-0.70|
90886310|NCT01172938|181634867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean Difference|2.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|4.1|||||Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.|||4.10|0.32|
90886311|NCT01172938|181634867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean DIfference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.29|||||Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.|||2.29|-1.50|
91035125|NCT03086460|181956469|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.038|0.058|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #6 of this outcome measure."||0.058|-0.038|0.690
90886312|NCT01172938|181634868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|16.7|||||Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||16.7|-10.1|
90886313|NCT01172938|181634868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|7.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|21.1|||||Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||21.1|-6.5|
90886314|NCT01172938|181634869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|19.3|||||Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||19.3|-13.4|
90886315|NCT01172938|181634869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|24.6|||||Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||24.6|-9.1|
90886316|NCT01172938|181634870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|19.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.0|29.3|||||Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||29.3|9.0|
90886317|NCT01172938|181634870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|16.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.4|26.8|||||Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||26.8|6.4|
90886318|NCT01172938|181634871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|13.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|26.5|||||Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||26.5|-0.1|
90886319|NCT01172938|181634871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|11.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|25.0|||||Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||25.0|-2.4|
90925888|NCT05565820|181727115|SUPERIORITY|"The nonparametric Mann-Whitney test was also conducted to check on the effect of the non-normality of the change proportions.~The null hypothesis is one-tailed. However, for consistency with the practice of reporting conservative p-values in clinical studies, the two-tailed p-value will be reported."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.178|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.182||0.334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.187|0.543||Alpha = .05 t: .976 df: 54 Mann-Whitney Z: 3.021 p(2-tailed) of Mann-Whitney Z: .003 Cohen's d = .294|t-test, 2 sided|Levine's test for violation of equality of variances nonsignificant; no df adjustment necessary.||"Null hypothesis: At Day 7 the proportion of decrease from baseline in the number of live lice in the Vamousse group does not exceed that in the Nix group.~The distribution of the Day 0 to Day 7 change proportions deviated significantly from normality by the Shapiro-Wilk test for both the Vamousse and combined samples. However, the t-test is robust to such departures from normality for samples of this size and was used to compare the two groups on their mean change proportions."||.543|-.187|.334
90925889|NCT05565820|181727115|SUPERIORITY|"The nonparametric Mann-Whitney test was also conducted to check on the effect of the non-normality of the change proportions.~The null hypothesis is one-tailed. However, for consistency with the practice of reporting conservative p-values in clinical studies, the two-tailed p-value will be reported."|Difference between proportions|0.235|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1034||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.016|0.454||Alpha = .05 t: 2.276 df(adjusted, see comment below): 16.2 Mann-Whitney Z: 2.478 p(2-tailed) of Mann-Whitney Z: .013 Cohen's d = .947|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom for the t-test were adjusted for inequality of variances between the groups using the Satterthwaite correction: df(adj) = 16.2||"Null hypothesis: At Day 14 the proportion of decrease from baseline in the number of live lice in the Vamousse group does not exceed that in the Nix group.~The distribution of the Day 0 to Day 14 change proportion deviated significantly from normality by the Shapiro-Wilk test for both the Vamousse and combined samples. However, the t-test is robust to such departures from normality for samples of this size and was used to compare the two groups on the mean change proportions."||.454|.016|.037
90925890|NCT05586490|181727154|OTHER|A comparison is not being made between two different treatment groups.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6375||||0.429|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired samples t-test, df = 7||||||0.429
90925891|NCT05586490|181727155|OTHER|A comparison is not being made between two different treatment groups.|Mean Difference (Net)|3.75||||0.351|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired samples t-test, df = 7||||||0.351
90925892|NCT05586490|181727156|OTHER|A comparison is not being made between two different treatment groups.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.013||||0.937|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired samples t-test, df = 7||||||0.937
90925893|NCT05586490|181727157|OTHER|A comparison is not being made between two different treatment groups.|Mean Difference (Net)|-14.8||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired samples t-test, df = 7||||||0.044
90925894|NCT05586490|181727158|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.68||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|ANCOVA|Estimated difference between groups (alternate device and no device group) controlling for pre-trial measurements, gender, and age.||||||0.42
90925895|NCT05586490|181727158|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.57||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|ANCOVA|Estimated difference between groups (research device group and no device group) controlling for pre-trial measurements, gender, and age.||||||0.50
90925896|NCT05586490|181727159|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03||||0.986|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|ANCOVA|Estimated difference between groups (alternate device and no device group) controlling for pre-trial measurements, gender, and age.||||||0.986
90925897|NCT05586490|181727159|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.25||||0.479|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|ANCOVA|Estimated difference between groups (research device and no device group) controlling for pre-trial measurements, gender, and age.||||||0.479
90925898|NCT05586490|181727160|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.195||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|ANCOVA|Estimated difference between groups (alternate device and no device group) controlling for pre-trial measurements, gender, and age.||||||0.098
90925899|NCT05586490|181727160|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.039||||0.729|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|ANCOVA|Estimated difference between groups (research device and no device group) controlling for pre-trial measurements, gender, and age.||||||0.729
90925900|NCT05586490|181727161|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.15||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|ANCOVA|Estimated difference between groups (alternate device and no device group) controlling for pre-trial measurements, gender, and age.||||||0.0580
90925901|NCT05586490|181727161|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.54||||0.718|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|ANCOVA|Estimated difference between groups (research device and no device group) controlling for pre-trial measurements, gender, and age.||||||0.718
90925902|NCT05586490|181727163|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.063||||0.816|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|ANCOVA|Estimated difference between groups (alternate device and no device group) controlling for pre-trial measurements, gender, and age.||||||0.816
90971136|NCT03036293|181824822|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 4 frequencies comparison||||0.57
91035126|NCT03086460|181956469|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.034||||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.013|0.082|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #6 of this outcome measure."||0.082|-0.013|0.155
90886320|NCT01172938|181634872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|8.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|24.6|||||Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||24.6|-6.8|
90886321|NCT01172938|181634872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|24.2|||||Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||24.2|-8.7|
90925903|NCT05586490|181727163|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0048||||0.985|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|ANCOVA|Estimated difference between groups (research device and no device group) controlling for pre-trial measurements, gender, and age.||||||0.985
90964354|NCT03627767|181810150|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|40.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.8|48.1||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||48.1|32.8|< 0.0001
90886322|NCT01172938|181634873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|26.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.1|35.5|||||Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||35.5|17.1|
90886323|NCT01172938|181634873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|14.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.4|23.1|||||Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||23.1|5.4|
90886324|NCT01172938|181634874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|10.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|16.8|||||Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||16.8|3.7|
90886325|NCT01172938|181634874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|9.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|16.0|||||Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||16.0|3.0|
90886326|NCT01172938|181634875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|6.5|||||Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||6.5|-0.4|
90886327|NCT01172938|181634875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|8.7|||||Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||8.7|0.8|
90886328|NCT01172938|181634876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|14.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.3|21.5|||||Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||21.5|8.3|
90886329|NCT01172938|181634876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|10.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|16.1|||||Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||16.1|4.0|
90886330|NCT01172938|181634877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|9.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.8|14.2|||||Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||14.2|4.8|
90886331|NCT01172938|181634877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|8.3|||||Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||8.3|1.2|
90886332|NCT01172938|181634878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|7.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|17.9|||||Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||17.9|-2.8|
90925904|NCT05586490|181727164|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.33||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|ANCOVA|Estimated difference between groups (alternate device and no device group) controlling for pre-trial measurements, gender, and age.||||||0.59
90925905|NCT05586490|181727164|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|8.16||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|ANCOVA|Estimated difference between groups (research device and no device group) controlling for pre-trial measurements, gender, and age.||||||0.51
90886333|NCT01172938|181634878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|11.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|23.0|||||Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||23.0|0.8|
90925906|NCT05828017|181727186|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.107|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This is to see if there is a difference in mean preference counts per participant between the standard curve, variation #1, and no preference counts.||||<0.001
90925907|NCT05828017|181727186|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.544||||0.015|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This is to see if there is a difference between Variation #1 and the standard curve in terms of mean preference counts per participant.||||0.015
90925908|NCT05828017|181727187|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.039|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This is to see if there is a difference in mean preference counts per participant between the standard curve, variation #1, and no preference counts.||||<0.001
90925909|NCT05828017|181727187|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47||||0.03569|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This is to see if there is a difference in mean preference counts between the standard curve and variation #1.||||0.03569
90925910|NCT05828017|181727188|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.365||||0.069|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This is to see if there is a difference in mean preference counts per participant between the standard curve, variation #1, and no preference counts.||||0.069
90886334|NCT01172938|181634879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|14.8|||||Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||14.8|-17.7|
90886335|NCT01172938|181634879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|19.6|||||Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||19.6|-14.8|
90886336|NCT01172938|181634880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|17.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.6|28.2|||||Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||28.2|6.6|
90886337|NCT01172938|181634880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|16.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.6|27.9|||||Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||27.9|5.6|
90886338|NCT01172938|181634881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|5.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|22.4|||||Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||22.4|-10.7|
90886339|NCT01172938|181634881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|8.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|26.2|||||Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||26.2|-8.5|
90886340|NCT00701389|181634920|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper bound of the 90% CI is less than 5 mmHg, the primary hypothesis would be supported.|Difference in Least Squares Means|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|3.0|||Mixed Effect Model|||100 mg sumatriptan/600 mg telcagepant minus 100 mg sumatriptan/telcagepant placebo||3.0|0.0|
90925911|NCT05828017|181727188|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.087||||0.6976|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This is to see if there is a difference in mean preference counts between the standard curve and variation #1.||||0.6976
90925912|NCT05828017|181727189|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.876|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This is to see if there is a difference in mean preference counts per participant between the standard curve, variation #1, and no preference counts.||||<0.001
90925913|NCT05828017|181727189|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.728||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This is to see if there is a difference in mean preference counts between the standard curve and variation #1.||||0.0013
90925914|NCT05828017|181727190|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.522|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This is to see if there is a difference in mean counts per participant between the standard curve, variation #1, and no preference counts.||||0.522
90925915|NCT05828017|181727190|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24||||0.27|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This is to see if there is a difference in mean counts between the standard curve and variation #1.||||0.27
90925916|NCT05828017|181727191|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25||||0.28|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This is to see if there is a difference in mean counts per participant between the standard curve, variation #1, and no preference counts.||||0.28
90925917|NCT05828017|181727191|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.35||||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This is to see if there is a difference in mean counts per participant between the standard curve and variation #1.||||0.11
90925918|NCT05828017|181727192|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.52|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This is to see if there is a difference in mean counts per participant between the standard curve, variation #1, and no preference counts.||||0.52
90925919|NCT05828017|181727192|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25||||0.26|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This is to see if there is a difference in mean counts per participant between the standard curve and variation #1.||||0.26
90925920|NCT05828017|181727193|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This is to see if there is a difference in mean counts per participant between the standard curve, variation #1, and no preference counts.||||0.16
90925921|NCT05828017|181727193|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19||||0.37|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This is to see if there is a difference in mean counts per participant between the standard curve and variation #1.||||0.37
90886341|NCT00701389|181634921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|2.7|||Mixed Effect Model|||sumatriptan placebo/600 mg telcagepant minus sumatriptan placebo/telcagepant placebo||2.7|-0.2|
90925922|NCT05828017|181727194|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.35||||0.08|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This is to see if there is a difference in mean counts per participant between the standard curve, variation #1, and no preference counts.||||0.08
90886342|NCT04808609|181634928|OTHER|feasibility test|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|6.76|||Fisher Exact|||||6.76|0.24|0.77
90886343|NCT04808609|181634929|OTHER|feasibility test|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|3.78|||Chi-squared|||||3.78|0.43|0.66
90886344|NCT04808609|181634930|OTHER|feasibility test|Cohen's D|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.86|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.86|-0.44|0.59
90886345|NCT04808609|181634930|OTHER|feasibility|Cohen's D|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.74|||t-test, 1 sided|||Results from Paired T-Test assessing the with-subject time effect on exhaled CO in ppm from baseline to 12 weeks||0.74|0.07|0.02
90886346|NCT04808609|181634931|OTHER|feasibility test|Cohen's D|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.78|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.78|-0.46|0.61
90886347|NCT04808609|181634932|OTHER|feasibility test|Cohen's D|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.80|-0.42|0.55
90886348|NCT04808609|181634933|OTHER|feasibility test|Cohen's D|0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.62|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.62|-0.61|0.99
90886349|NCT00562159|181634934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.31|||=|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|-0.4|||ANOVA|Asthma status, treatment group, and site were fixed effects.||||-0.40|-2.22|=0.005
90886350|NCT00562159|181634935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.86|||=|0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|-0.26|||ANOVA|Asthma status, treatment group, and site were fixed effects.||||-0.26|-1.46|=0.015
90886351|NCT00562159|181634936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45|||=|0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.06|||ANOVA|Asthma status, treatment group, and site were fixed effects.||||0.06|-0.96|=0.084
90886352|NCT00562159|181634937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27|||=|0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.05|||ANOVA|Asthma status, treatment group, and site were fixed effects.||||-0.05|-0.48|=0.022
90886353|NCT04382326|181634966|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison was conducted for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the percentage differences (20vPnC - 13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|percentage difference|-8.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|-5.1||||||Serotype 1: 2-Sided CI were calculated based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage||-5.1|-12.1|
90886354|NCT04382326|181634966|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison was conducted for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the percentage differences (20vPnC - 13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|percentage difference|-15.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.1|-10.8||||||Serotype 3: 2-Sided CI were calculated based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage.||-10.8|-20.1|
90886355|NCT04382326|181634966|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison was conducted for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the percentage differences (20vPnC - 13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|percentage difference|-8.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|-4.9||||||Serotype 4: 2-Sided CI were calculated based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage||-4.9|-12.0|
90886356|NCT04382326|181634966|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison was conducted for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the percentage differences (20vPnC - 13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|percentage difference|-4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|-0.8||||||Serotype 5: 2-Sided CI were calculated based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage||-0.8|-7.8|
90925923|NCT05828017|181727194|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22||||0.31|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This is to see if there is a difference in mean counts per participant between the standard curve and variation #1.||||0.31
90925924|NCT05828017|181727195|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27||||0.21|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This is to see if there is a difference in mean counts per participant between the standard curve, variation #1, and no preference counts.||||0.21
90925925|NCT05828017|181727195|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38||||0.085|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This is to see if there is a difference in mean counts per participant between the standard curve and variation #1.||||0.085
90971137|NCT03036293|181824822|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 8 frequencies comparison||||0.25
90964355|NCT03627767|181810150|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|20.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.8|30.0||||||Week 52: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||30.0|11.8|
90886357|NCT04382326|181634966|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison was conducted for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the percentage differences (20vPnC - 13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|percentage difference|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|-0.2||||||Serotype 6A: 2-Sided CI were calculated based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage||-0.2|-4.6|
90886358|NCT04382326|181634966|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison was conducted for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the percentage differences (20vPnC - 13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|percentage difference|-4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|-1.2||||||Serotype 6B: 2-Sided CI were calculated based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage||-1.2|-7.0|
90886359|NCT04382326|181634966|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison was conducted for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the percentage differences (20vPnC - 13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|percentage difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|0.7||||||Serotype 7F: 2-sided CI were calculated based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage||0.7|-2.7|
90886360|NCT04382326|181634966|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison was conducted for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the percentage differences (20vPnC - 13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|percentage difference|-7.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|-4.6||||||Serotype 9V: 2-Sided CI were calculated based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage||-4.6|-11.3|
90886361|NCT04382326|181634966|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison was conducted for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the percentage differences (20vPnC - 13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|percentage difference|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|1.6||||||Serotype 14: 2-Sided CI were calculated based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage||1.6|-3.1|
90886362|NCT04382326|181634966|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison was conducted for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the percentage differences (20vPnC - 13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|percentage difference|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|1.9||||||Serotype 18C: 2-Sided CI were calculated based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage||1.9|-3.1|
90886363|NCT04382326|181634966|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison was conducted for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the percentage differences (20vPnC - 13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|percentage difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.5||||||Serotype 19A: 2-Sided CI were calculated based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage||0.5|-2.6|
90886364|NCT04382326|181634966|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison was conducted for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the percentage differences (20vPnC - 13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|percentage difference|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.0||||||Serotype 19F: 2-Sided CI were calculated based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage||2.0|-1.5|
90886365|NCT04382326|181634966|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison was conducted for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the percentage differences (20vPnC - 13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|percentage difference|-7.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|-3.9||||||Serotype 23F: 2-Sided CI were calculated based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage||-3.9|-11.4|
90886366|NCT04382326|181634966|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results were from serotype 23F (13vPnC serotype with the lowest percentage, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the percentage differences (20vPnC - lowest 13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|percentage difference|11.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.6|14.0||||||Serotype 8: 2-Sided CI were calculated based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage||14.0|8.6|
90886367|NCT04382326|181634966|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results were from serotype 23F (13vPnC serotype with the lowest percentage, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the percentage differences (20vPnC - lowest 13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|percentage difference|-3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|0.3||||||Serotype 10A: 2-Sided CI were calculated based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage||0.3|-6.9|
90886368|NCT04382326|181634966|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results were from serotype 23F (13vPnC serotype with the lowest percentage, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the percentage differences (20vPnC - lowest 13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|percentage difference|7.1||||||95.0|4.2|10.2||||||Serotype 11A: 2-Sided CI were calculated based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage||10.2|4.2|
90886369|NCT04382326|181634966|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results were from serotype 23F (13vPnC serotype with the lowest percentage, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the percentage differences (20vPnC - lowest 13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|percentage difference|-18.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.1|-14.0||||||Serotype 12F: 2-Sided CI were calculated based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage||-14.0|-22.1|
90971138|NCT03036293|181824822|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 12 frequencies comparison||||0.001
90886370|NCT04382326|181634966|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results were from serotype 23F (13vPnC serotype with the lowest percentage, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the percentage differences (20vPnC - lowest 13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|percentage difference|12.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.2|15.4||||||Serotype 15B: 2-Sided CI were calculated based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage||15.4|10.2|
90886371|NCT04382326|181634966|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results were from serotype 23F (13vPnC serotype with the lowest percentage, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the percentage differences (20vPnC - lowest 13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|percentage difference|12.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.3|15.5||||||Serotype 22F: 2-Sided CI were calculated based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage||15.5|10.3|
90886372|NCT04382326|181634966|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results were from serotype 23F (13vPnC serotype with the lowest percentage, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the percentage differences (20vPnC - lowest 13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|percentage difference|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|4.5||||||Serotype 33F: 2-Sided CI were calculated based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage||4.5|-2.2|
90886373|NCT04382326|181634967|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC was to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the IgG GMR of 20vPnC to 13vPnC for the serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold NI margin).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.76||||||Serotype 1: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC-13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||0.76|0.63|
90886374|NCT04382326|181634967|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC was to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the IgG GMR of 20vPnC to 13vPnC for the serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold NI margin).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.73||||||Serotype 3: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC-13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||0.73|0.61|
90886375|NCT04382326|181634967|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC was to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the IgG GMR of 20vPnC to 13vPnC for the serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold NI margin).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.78||||||95.0|0.7|0.86||||||Serotype 4: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC-13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||0.86|0.70|
90886376|NCT04382326|181634967|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC was to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the IgG GMR of 20vPnC to 13vPnC for the serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold NI margin).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.82||||||Serotype 5: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC-13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||0.82|0.67|
90886377|NCT04382326|181634967|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC was to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the IgG GMR of 20vPnC to 13vPnC for the serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold NI margin).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.85||||||Serotype 6A: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC-13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||0.85|0.70|
90886378|NCT04382326|181634967|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC was to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the IgG GMR of 20vPnC to 13vPnC for the serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold NI margin).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.79||||||Serotype 6B: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC-13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||0.79|0.62|
90886379|NCT04382326|181634967|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC was to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the IgG GMR of 20vPnC to 13vPnC for the serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold NI margin).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.82||||||Serotype 7F: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC-13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||0.82|0.70|
90886380|NCT04382326|181634967|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC was to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the IgG GMR of 20vPnC to 13vPnC for the serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold NI margin).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.8||||||95.0|0.73|0.88||||||Serotype 9V: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC-13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||0.88|0.73|
90925926|NCT05828017|181727196|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.86|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This is to see if there is a difference in mean counts per participant between the standard curve, variation #1, and no preference counts.||||0.86
90886381|NCT04382326|181634967|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC was to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the IgG GMR of 20vPnC to 13vPnC for the serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold NI margin).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.0||||||Serotype 14: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC-13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||1.00|0.81|
90886382|NCT04382326|181634967|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC was to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the IgG GMR of 20vPnC to 13vPnC for the serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold NI margin).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.74||||||95.0|0.67|0.82||||||Serotype 18C: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC-13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||0.82|0.67|
90925927|NCT05828017|181727196|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This is to see if there is a difference in mean counts per participant between the standard curve and variation #1.||||1
90925928|NCT05828017|181727197|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.607||||0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This is to see if there is a difference in mean counts per participant between the standard curve, variation #1, and no preference counts.||||0.009
90925929|NCT05828017|181727197|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.61|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This is to see if there is a difference in mean counts per participant between the standard curve and variation #1.||||0.61
90925930|NCT05828017|181727198|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|1.0|||ANOVA|||This is to see if there is a difference in mean SRT50 scores between the standard curve, variation #1, and no preference counts.||1.00|0.11|<0.001
90925931|NCT05828017|181727198|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.0|||ANOVA|||This is to see if there is a difference in SRT 50 scores between the standard curve and variation #1.||1|0|0.357
90925932|NCT05828017|181727199|SUPERIORITY||Total Count - Cramer's V|0.7|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This is to see if there is a difference in most preferred program counts between variations #2, #3, and #4||||<0.01
90925933|NCT05828017|181727199|SUPERIORITY||Total Count - Cramer's V|0.01||||0.94|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This is to see if there is a difference in most preferred program counts between variations #2 and #3.||||0.94
90886383|NCT04382326|181634967|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC was to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the IgG GMR of 20vPnC to 13vPnC for the serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold NI margin).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.94||||||Serotype 19A: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC-13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||0.94|0.77|
90925934|NCT05828017|181727199|SUPERIORITY||Total Count - Cramer's V|0.014||||0.94|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This is to see if there is a difference in most preferred program counts between variations #2 and #4||||0.94
90925935|NCT05828017|181727199|SUPERIORITY||Total Count - Cramer's V|0.45||||0.017|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This is to see if there is a difference in somewhat preferred (i.e. rated in the middle) program counts between variations #2, #3, and #4||||0.017
90925936|NCT05828017|181727199|SUPERIORITY||Total Count - Cramer's V|0.51||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This is to see if there is a difference in somewhat preferred (i.e. rated in the middle) program counts between variations #2 and #3.||||0.02
90925937|NCT05828017|181727199|SUPERIORITY||Total Count - Cramer's V|0.61||||0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This is to see if there is a difference in somewhat preferred (i.e. rated in the middle) program counts between variations #2 and #4||||0.006
90925938|NCT05828017|181727199|SUPERIORITY||Total Count - Cramer's V|0.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This is to see if there is a difference in the least preferred program counts between variations #2, #3, and #4||||<.0001
90925939|NCT05828017|181727199|SUPERIORITY||Total Count - Cramer's V|0.38||||0.08|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This is to see if there is a difference in the least preferred program counts between variations #2 and #3||||0.08
90925940|NCT05828017|181727199|SUPERIORITY||Total Count - Cramer's V|0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This is to see if there is a difference in the least preferred program counts between variations #2 and #4||||<0.001
90925941|NCT05419830|181727200|OTHER|Three-group ANCOVA comparisons were completed using pre- to post-intervention changes in sleep time dip in systolic BP. Analysis was adjusted for baseline value of the outcome||||||0.65|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.65
90925942|NCT05419830|181727201|OTHER|Three-group ANCOVA comparisons were completed using pre- to post-intervention changes in nocturia frequency. Analysis was adjusted for baseline value of the outcome||||||0.66|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.66
90925943|NCT05419830|181727202|OTHER|Three-group ANCOVA comparisons were completed using pre- to post-intervention changes in NPi. Analysis was adjusted for baseline value of the outcome||||||0.14|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.14
90925944|NCT05419830|181727203|OTHER|Three-group ANCOVA comparisons were completed using pre- to post-intervention changes in PSQI scores. Analysis was adjusted for baseline value of the outcome||||||0.2|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2
90925945|NCT05419830|181727204|OTHER|Three-group ANCOVA comparisons were completed using pre- to post-intervention changes in sleep efficiency. Analysis was adjusted for baseline value of the outcome||||||0.02|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.02
90925946|NCT05012163|181727205|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.506||||||Pairwise comparisons between patients offered scratch-off tickets for vaccination and those in other arms (Analyses 1, 2 and 3) were analyzed in the same regression.|Regression, Linear|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference in vaccination rates between patients sent messages offering a scratch-off lottery ticket and patients sent messages offering $1 cash in exchange for vaccination; Alternative hypothesis: the vaccination rate is higher in patients sent messages offering scratch-off tickets compared to those sent messages offering $1 cash.||||.506
90971139|NCT03036293|181824823|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.23|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Bigger OR is better|Common OR of event analysis||1.23|0.64|0.46
90886384|NCT04382326|181634967|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC was to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the IgG GMR of 20vPnC to 13vPnC for the serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold NI margin).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|0.96||||||Serotype 19F: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC-13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||0.96|0.78|
90886385|NCT04382326|181634967|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC was to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the IgG GMR of 20vPnC to 13vPnC for the serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold NI margin).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.72||||||Serotype 23F: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC-13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||0.72|0.57|
90886386|NCT04382326|181634967|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results were from serotype 1 (13vPnC serotype with the lowest GMC, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/lowest 13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.71|2.06||||||Serotype 8: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC - lowest 13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||2.06|1.71|
90886387|NCT04382326|181634967|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results were from serotype 1 (13vPnC serotype with the lowest GMC, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/lowest 13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|2.94||||||95.0|2.64|3.26||||||Serotype 10A: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC - lowest 13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||3.26|2.64|
90886388|NCT04382326|181634967|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results were from serotype 1 (13vPnC serotype with the lowest GMC, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/lowest 13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|1.84||||||Serotype 11A: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC - lowest 13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||1.84|1.51|
90886389|NCT04382326|181634967|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results were from serotype 1 (13vPnC serotype with the lowest GMC, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/lowest 13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.88||||||95.0|0.79|0.97||||||Serotype 12F: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC - lowest 13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||0.97|0.79|
91078005|NCT02542293|182041273|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.514|1.146|||||The HR and CI interval were calculated using an unstratified Cox proportional hazards model, with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"bTMB ≥20 mut/Mb analysis set: Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy to be associated with a longer PFS than SoC."||1.146|0.514|
90886390|NCT04382326|181634967|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results were from serotype 1 (13vPnC serotype with the lowest GMC, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/lowest 13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|5.95||||||95.0|5.39|6.55||||||Serotype 15B: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC - lowest 13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||6.55|5.39|
90925947|NCT05012163|181727205|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.378||||||Comments: Pairwise comparisons between patients offered scratch-off tickets for vaccination and those in other arms (Analyses 1, 2 and 3) were analyzed in the same regression.|Regression, Linear|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference in vaccination rates between patients sent messages offering a scratch-off lottery ticket in exchange for vaccination and those sent active control messages; Alternative hypothesis: the vaccination rate is higher in patients sent messages offering scratch-off tickets compared to those sent active control messages.||||0.378
90886391|NCT04382326|181634967|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results were from serotype 1 (13vPnC serotype with the lowest GMC, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/lowest 13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|5.01||||||95.0|4.54|5.52||||||Serotype 22F: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC - lowest 13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||5.52|4.54|
90925948|NCT05012163|181727205|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Pairwise comparisons between patients offered scratch-off tickets for vaccination and those in other arms (Analyses 1, 2 and 3) were analyzed in the same regression.|Regression, Linear|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference in vaccination rates between patients sent messages offering a scratch-off lottery ticket in exchange for vaccination and those sent no study messages; Alternative hypothesis: the vaccination rate is higher in patients sent messages offering scratch-off tickets compared to those who were not sent messages.||||<.001
90925949|NCT05012163|181727205|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference in vaccination rates between patients sent active control messages and those sent no study messages; Alternative hypothesis: the vaccination rate is higher in patients sent active control messages compared to those who were not sent messages.||||<.001
90925950|NCT05012163|181727205|SUPERIORITY|Pairwise comparisons between patients offered cash for vaccination and those in active or passive control (Analyses 5 and 6) were analyzed in the same regression.||||||0.121|||||||Regression, Linear|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference in vaccination rates between patients sent messages offering $1 cash in exchange for vaccination and those sent active control messages; Alternative hypothesis: the vaccination rate is higher in patients sent messages offering $1 cash compared to those sent active control messages.||||.121
90886392|NCT04382326|181634967|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results were from serotype 1 (13vPnC serotype with the lowest GMC, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/lowest 13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.99|4.85||||||Serotype 33F: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC - lowest 13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||4.85|3.99|
90886393|NCT04382326|181634968|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the percentage differences (20vPnC - 13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percentage Difference|-4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|-1.4||||||Diphtheria: 2-Sided CI was calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage.||-1.4|-7.5|
90886394|NCT04382326|181634968|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the percentage differences (20vPnC - 13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percentage Difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.7||||||Tetanus: 2-Sided CI was calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage.||1.7|-1.0|
90886395|NCT04382326|181634968|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the percentage differences (20vPnC - 13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percentage Difference|-0.2||||||95.0|-3.5|3.1||||||Pertussis (PT): 2-Sided CI was calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage.||3.1|-3.5|
90886396|NCT04382326|181634968|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the percentage differences (20vPnC - 13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percentage Difference|0.6||||||95.0|-2.5|3.9||||||Pertussis (FHA): 2-Sided CI was calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage.||3.9|-2.5|
90886397|NCT04382326|181634968|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the percentage differences (20vPnC - 13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percentage Difference|-1.3||||||95.0|-4.7|2.2||||||Pertussis (PRN): 2-Sided CI was calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage.2-Sided CIs are calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage.||2.2|-4.7|
90886398|NCT04382326|181634968|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the percentage differences (20vPnC - 13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percentage Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-3.2|2.9||||||HBsAg: 2-Sided CI was calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage.||2.9|-3.2|
90886399|NCT04382326|181634968|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the percentage differences (20vPnC - 13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percentage Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-3.4|3.2||||||Poliovirus (Type 1): 2-Sided CI was calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage.||3.2|-3.4|
90886400|NCT04382326|181634968|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the percentage differences (20vPnC - 13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percentage Difference|0.8||||||95.0|-2.4|4.6||||||Poliovirus (Type 2): 2-Sided CI was calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage.||4.6|-2.4|
90886401|NCT04382326|181634968|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the percentage differences (20vPnC - 13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percentage Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-3.2|3.1||||||Poliovirus (Type 3): 2-Sided CI was calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage.||3.1|-3.2|
90886402|NCT04382326|181634968|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the percentage differences (20vPnC - 13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|3.0||||||Hib (≥0.15 μg/mL): 2-Sided CI were calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage.||3.0|-3.0|
90886403|NCT04382326|181634969|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared for if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the IgG GMR of 20vPnC to 13vPnC for the serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold NI margin).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.72||||||Serotype 1: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC-13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||0.72|0.59|
90886404|NCT04382326|181634969|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared for if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the IgG GMR of 20vPnC to 13vPnC for the serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold NI margin).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.76||||||Serotype 3: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC-13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||0.76|0.64|
90886405|NCT04382326|181634969|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared for if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the IgG GMR of 20vPnC to 13vPnC for the serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold NI margin).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.7||||||95.0|0.63|0.78||||||Serotype 4: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC-13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||0.78|0.63|
91078006|NCT02542293|182041273|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.623|1.189|||||The HR and CI interval were calculated using an unstratified Cox proportional hazards model, with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"bTMB ≥16 mut/Mb analysis set: Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy to be associated with a longer PFS than SoC."||1.189|0.623|
90886406|NCT04382326|181634969|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared for if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the IgG GMR of 20vPnC to 13vPnC for the serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold NI margin).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.69||||||95.0|0.61|0.77||||||Serotype 5: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC-13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||0.77|0.61|
90964356|NCT03627767|181810153|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.0|||=|0.9207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pruritus VAS: Week 12: The least squares mean (LSM) differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. Mixed model repeated measure (MMRM) contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.3|-0.3|= 0.9207
90964357|NCT03627767|181810153|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.0|||=|0.9998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pruritus VAS: Week 12: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.3|-0.3|= 0.9998
90964358|NCT03627767|181810153|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3||||||Pruritus VAS: Week 12: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.3|-0.3|
90964359|NCT03627767|181810153|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-2.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pruritus VAS: Week 16: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.7|-2.5|< 0.0001
90964360|NCT03627767|181810153|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-3.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|-2.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pruritus VAS: Week 16: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-2.8|-3.6|< 0.0001
90964361|NCT03627767|181810153|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.7||||||Pruritus VAS: Week 16: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.7|-1.4|
90964362|NCT03627767|181810153|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pruritus VAS: Week 28: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.8|-2.0|< 0.0001
90964363|NCT03627767|181810153|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pruritus VAS: Week 28: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.3|-2.5|< 0.0001
90964364|NCT03627767|181810153|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.1||||||Pruritus VAS: Week 28: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.1|-0.9|
90964365|NCT03627767|181810153|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.0|||=|0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pruritus VAS: Week 40: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.3|-1.7|= 0.0039
90964366|NCT03627767|181810153|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pruritus VAS: Week 40: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.2|-2.5|< 0.0001
90964367|NCT03627767|181810153|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.4||||||Pruritus VAS: Week 40: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.4|-1.3|
90964368|NCT03627767|181810153|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.5|||=|0.1488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pruritus VAS: Week 52: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.2|-1.2|= 0.1488
90964369|NCT03627767|181810153|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.3|||=|0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pruritus VAS: Week 52: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.6|-2.0|= 0.0003
90964370|NCT03627767|181810153|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.3||||||Pruritus VAS: Week 52: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.3|-1.2|
90964371|NCT03627767|181810153|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.0|||=|0.9294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sleep Loss VAS: Week 12: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.2|-0.2|= 0.9294
90964372|NCT03627767|181810153|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.1|||=|0.4081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sleep Loss VAS: Week 12: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.1|-0.3|= 0.4081
90971140|NCT03036293|181824823|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.79|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Bigger OR is better|Common OR of event analysis||1.79|0.9|0.17
90971141|NCT03036293|181824823|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 4 frequencies comparison||||0.38
90886407|NCT04382326|181634969|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared for if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the IgG GMR of 20vPnC to 13vPnC for the serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold NI margin).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.72||||||95.0|0.65|0.81||||||Serotype 6A: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC-13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||0.81|0.65|
90886408|NCT04382326|181634969|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared for if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the IgG GMR of 20vPnC to 13vPnC for the serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold NI margin).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.7||||||Serotype 6B: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC-13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||0.70|0.51|
90925951|NCT05012163|181727205|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||Pairwise comparisons between patients offered cash for vaccination and those in active or passive control (Analyses 5 and 6) were analyzed in the same regression.|Regression, Linear|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference in vaccination rates between patients sent messages offering $1 cash in exchange for vaccination and those sent no study messages; Alternative hypothesis: the vaccination rate is higher in patients sent messages offering $1 cash compared to those who were not sent messages.||||.002
90925952|NCT02567409|181727219|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.98|||||Hazard ratio relative to arm B.|||1.98|0.69|
90925953|NCT02567409|181727220|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.48|||||Hazard ratio relative to arm B.|||2.48|0.71|
90925954|NCT02567409|181727221|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.51
90925955|NCT03673501|181727257|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.3598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.16|||Log Rank|Strata: by intolerance to imatinib treatment||||1.16|0.66|0.3598
90925956|NCT03673501|181727258|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.7153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.33||Two-sided P-value|Log Rank|Strata: mutation status (KIT exon 9 vs. 11 vs. KIT/PDGFRA WT vs. other KIT {absence of exon 9 or 11}/PDGFRA) and intolerance to imatinib treatment||||1.33|0.82|0.7153
90925957|NCT03673501|181727259|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0333|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Strata: intolerance to imatinib treatment||||||0.0333
90925958|NCT03673501|181727260|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2681|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Strata: mutation status (KIT exon 9 vs. 11 vs. KIT/PDGFRA WT vs. other KIT {absence of exon 9 or 11}/PDGFRA) and intolerance to imatinib treatment||||||0.2681
90964373|NCT03627767|181810153|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1||||||Sleep Loss VAS: Week 12: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.1|-0.3|
90925959|NCT03673501|181727261|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.7733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.48|||Log Rank|Strata: intolerance to imatinib treatment||||1.48|0.75|0.7733
90925960|NCT03673501|181727262|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.3928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.18|||Log Rank|Strata: mutation status (KIT exon 9 vs. 11 vs. KIT/PDGFRA WT vs. other KIT {absence of exon 9 or 11}/PDGFRA) and intolerance to imatinib||||1.18|0.66|0.3928
90925961|NCT05838027|181727263|SUPERIORITY|All panel-data marginal models use robust standard errors. Categorical outcomes were assessed with ordered logistic models and continuous outcomes were assessed with GEE population-averaged models, except Medication Expenditures which used Poisson models to account for count data. Some outcomes are missing additional data (not \>10%).|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|12.55||||||||12.55|0.84|
90925962|NCT05838027|181727264|SUPERIORITY|All panel-data marginal models use robust standard errors. Categorical outcomes were assessed with ordered logistic models and continuous outcomes were assessed with GEE population-averaged models, except Medication Expenditures which used Poisson models to account for count data. Some outcomes are missing additional data (not \>10%).|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|2.64||||||||2.64|0.24|
90925963|NCT05838027|181727265|SUPERIORITY|All panel-data marginal models use robust standard errors. Categorical outcomes were assessed with ordered logistic models and continuous outcomes were assessed with GEE population-averaged models, except Medication Expenditures which used Poisson models to account for count data. Some outcomes are missing additional data (not \>10%).|Mean Difference (Net)|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.78|4.82||||||||4.82|-3.78|
90925964|NCT05838027|181727266|SUPERIORITY|All panel-data marginal models use robust standard errors. The binary outcome, Future Preference: Behavioral task was assessed with a logistic model and continuous outcomes were assessed with GEE population-averaged models, except All Health Care Expenditures which used Poisson models to account for count data. Some outcomes are missing additional data (not \>10%).|Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|1.4||||||||1.40|-1.01|
90925965|NCT05838027|181727267|SUPERIORITY|All panel-data marginal models use robust standard errors. The binary outcome, Future Preference: Behavioral task was assessed with a logistic model and continuous outcomes were assessed with GEE population-averaged models, except All Health Care Expenditures which used Poisson models to account for count data. Some outcomes are missing additional data (not \>10%).|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.43|2.0||||||||2.00|-7.43|
90925966|NCT05838027|181727268|SUPERIORITY|All panel-data marginal models use robust standard errors. Categorical outcomes were assessed with ordered logistic models and continuous outcomes were assessed with GEE population-averaged models, except Medication Expenditures which used Poisson models to account for count data. Some outcomes are missing additional data (not \>10%).|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.45|4.16||||||||4.16|-5.45|
90925967|NCT05838027|181727269|SUPERIORITY|All panel-data marginal models use robust standard errors. The binary outcome, Future Preference: Behavioral task was assessed with a logistic model and continuous outcomes were assessed with GEE population-averaged models, except All Health Care Expenditures which used Poisson models to account for count data. Some outcomes are missing additional data (not \>10%).|IRR|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|2.74||||||||2.74|0.46|
90971142|NCT03036293|181824823|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 8 frequencies comparison||||0.67
90971143|NCT03036293|181824823|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 12 frequencies comparison||||0.85
90886409|NCT04382326|181634969|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared for if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the IgG GMR of 20vPnC to 13vPnC for the serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold NI margin).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.75||||||95.0|0.69|0.81||||||Serotype 7F: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC-13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||0.81|0.69|
90925968|NCT05838027|181727270|SUPERIORITY|All panel-data marginal models use robust standard errors. Categorical outcomes were assessed with ordered logistic models and continuous outcomes were assessed with GEE population-averaged models, except Medication Expenditures which used Poisson models to account for count data. Some outcomes are missing additional data (not \>10%).|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|-0.21||||||||-0.21|-1.29|
90925969|NCT05838027|181727273|SUPERIORITY|All panel-data marginal models use robust standard errors. The binary outcome, Future Preference: Behavioral task was assessed with a logistic model and continuous outcomes were assessed with GEE population-averaged models, except All Health Care Expenditures which used Poisson models to account for count data. Some outcomes are missing additional data (not \>10%).|Mean Difference (Net)|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|3.03||||||||3.03|-1.90|
90925970|NCT05838027|181727274|SUPERIORITY|All panel-data marginal models use robust standard errors. The binary outcome, Future Preference: Behavioral task was assessed with a logistic model and continuous outcomes were assessed with GEE population-averaged models, except All Health Care Expenditures which used Poisson models to account for count data. Some outcomes are missing additional data (not \>10%).|Mean Difference (Net)|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.58||||||||0.58|-0.32|
90925971|NCT05838027|181727275|SUPERIORITY|All panel-data marginal models use robust standard errors. The binary outcome, Future Preference: Behavioral task was assessed with a logistic model and continuous outcomes were assessed with GEE population-averaged models, except All Health Care Expenditures which used Poisson models to account for count data. Some outcomes are missing additional data (not \>10%).|IRR|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.63||||||||1.63|0.23|
90925972|NCT05838027|181727276|SUPERIORITY|All panel-data marginal models use robust standard errors. The binary outcome, Future Preference: Behavioral task was assessed with a logistic model and continuous outcomes were assessed with GEE population-averaged models, except All Health Care Expenditures which used Poisson models to account for count data. Some outcomes are missing additional data (not \>10%).|Mean Difference (Net)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|2.64||||||||2.64|-0.54|
90925973|NCT05838027|181727277|SUPERIORITY|All panel-data marginal models use robust standard errors. The binary outcome, Future Preference: Behavioral task was assessed with a logistic model and continuous outcomes were assessed with GEE population-averaged models, except All Health Care Expenditures which used Poisson models to account for count data. Some outcomes are missing additional data (not \>10%).|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|5.49||||||||5.49|0.19|
90925974|NCT05838027|181727278|SUPERIORITY|All panel-data marginal models use robust standard errors. The binary outcome, Future Preference: Behavioral task was assessed with a logistic model and continuous outcomes were assessed with GEE population-averaged models, except All Health Care Expenditures which used Poisson models to account for count data. Some outcomes are missing additional data (not \>10%).|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.64|0.43||||||||0.43|-2.64|
90925975|NCT05838027|181727279|SUPERIORITY|All panel-data marginal models use robust standard errors. The binary outcome, Future Preference: Behavioral task was assessed with a logistic model and continuous outcomes were assessed with GEE population-averaged models, except All Health Care Expenditures which used Poisson models to account for count data. Some outcomes are missing additional data (not \>10%).|Mean Difference (Net)|2.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|6.8||||||||6.80|-1.35|
90964374|NCT03627767|181810153|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sleep Loss VAS: Week 16: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.4|-2.1|< 0.0001
91078007|NCT02542293|182041273|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.714|1.193|||||The HR and CI interval were calculated using an unstratified Cox proportional hazards model, with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"bTMB ≥12 mut/Mb analysis set: Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy to be associated with a longer PFS than SoC."||1.193|0.714|
90925976|NCT05838027|181727280|SUPERIORITY|All panel-data marginal models use robust standard errors. The binary outcome, Future Preference: Behavioral task was assessed with a logistic model and continuous outcomes were assessed with GEE population-averaged models, except All Health Care Expenditures which used Poisson models to account for count data. Some outcomes are missing additional data (not \>10%).|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|0.36||||||||0.36|-1.74|
90925977|NCT05237284|181727281|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6999|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||CAFS at Week 24 was analyzed using the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test to compare mean scores between the treatment groups at Week 24.||||0.6999
90925978|NCT05237284|181727284|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.52||||0.2182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|1.35|||MMRM|||Analysis was performed using MMRM including treatment group, visit, randomization strata of the geographic region, ALS onset region, use of riluzole, use of edaravone, use of the combination of sodium phenylbutyrate and taurursodiol, treatment-by-visit interaction, disease duration, baseline ALSFRS-R score, baseline NfL, disease duration-by-visit interaction, and baseline ALSFRS-R score-by-visit interaction.||1.350|-0.310|0.2182
90925979|NCT05237284|181727285|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.419||||0.8134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.075|3.914|||MMRM|||Analysis was performed using MMRM including treatment group, visit, randomization strata of the geographic region, ALS onset region, use of riluzole, use of edaravone, use of the combination of sodium phenylbutyrate and taurursodiol, treatment-by-visit interaction, disease duration, baseline SVC, baseline NfL, disease duration-by-visit interaction, baseline NfL-by-visit interaction, and baseline SVC-by-visit interaction.||3.914|-3.075|0.8134
90971144|NCT03036293|181824823|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 4 frequencies comparison||||0.71
90971145|NCT03036293|181824823|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 8 frequencies comparison||||0.29
90886410|NCT04382326|181634969|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared for if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the IgG GMR of 20vPnC to 13vPnC for the serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold NI margin).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.8||||||Serotype 9V: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC-13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||0.80|0.65|
90886411|NCT04382326|181634969|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared for if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the IgG GMR of 20vPnC to 13vPnC for the serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold NI margin).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.79||||||95.0|0.71|0.89||||||Serotype 14: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC-13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||0.89|0.71|
90886412|NCT04382326|181634969|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared for if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the IgG GMR of 20vPnC to 13vPnC for the serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold NI margin).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.77||||||95.0|0.7|0.84||||||Serotype 18C: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC-13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||0.84|0.70|
90886413|NCT04382326|181634969|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared for if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the IgG GMR of 20vPnC to 13vPnC for the serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold NI margin).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.86||||||Serotype 19A: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC-13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||0.86|0.72|
90886414|NCT04382326|181634969|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared for if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the IgG GMR of 20vPnC to 13vPnC for the serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold NI margin).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.79||||||95.0|0.73|0.86||||||Serotype 19F: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC-13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||0.86|0.73|
90925980|NCT05237284|181727286|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of the LS Geometric Mean Ratios|0.961||||0.2356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.899|1.027|||MMRM|||Analysis was performed using MMRM including treatment group, visit, randomization strata of the geographic region, ALS onset region, use of riluzole, use of edaravone, use of the combination of sodium phenylbutyrate and taurursodiol, treatment-by-visit interaction, disease duration, log transformed baseline NfL, disease duration-by-visit interaction, and log transformed baseline NfL-by-visit interaction.||1.027|0.899|0.2356
90925981|NCT05237284|181727287|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.005||||0.9565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.193|0.183|||MMRM|||Analysis was performed using MMRM including treatment group, visit, randomization strata of the geographic region, ALS onset region, use of riluzole, use of edaravone, use of the combination of sodium phenylbutyrate and taurursodiol, treatment-by-visit interaction, disease duration, baseline megascore, baseline NfL, disease duration-by-visit interaction, baseline NfL-by-visit interaction and baseline megascore-by-visit interaction.||0.183|-0.193|0.9565
90925982|NCT05237284|181727292|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-0.414||||0.5289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.706|0.878|||MMRM|||Analysis was performed using MMRM including treatment group, visit, randomization strata of the geographic region, ALS onset region, use of riluzole, use of edaravone, use of the combination of sodium phenylbutyrate and taurursodiol, treatment-by-visit interaction, disease duration, baseline ALSFRS-R score, baseline serum neurofilament light chain (NfL), disease duration-by-visit interaction, baseline NfL-by-visit interaction and baseline ALSFRS-R score-by-visit interaction.||0.878|-1.706|0.5289
90925983|NCT05237284|181727293|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.183|||||||ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using rank analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including treatment group, randomization strata of the geographic region of the study site, ALS onset region (bulbar or other areas), use of riluzole (yes or no), use of edaravone (yes or no), use of the combination of sodium phenylbutyrate and taurursodiol (yes or no), disease duration (from first symptom onset to the screening visit), baseline ALSFRS-R score and baseline NfL.||||0.1830
91035127|NCT03086460|181956470|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.112|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.049|0.175|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups:~Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Analysis of covariance model: treatment, subject, and period as fixed effects; baseline FEV1 value as covariates. CIs and p-values for CHF 1531 pMDI vs Placebo are adjusted for multiplicity (parametric simulation method by Edwards and Berry). Subjects receiving the same treatment in more than one period are included in the primary efficacy model with only data from the first instance of each treatment."||0.175|0.049|<0.001
90886415|NCT04382326|181634969|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared for if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the IgG GMR of 20vPnC to 13vPnC for the serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold NI margin).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.75||||||Serotype 23F: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC-13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||0.75|0.58|
90925984|NCT03213873|181727424|SUPERIORITY||Interaction effect time x group|0.4||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.9|-1.0|0.57
90925985|NCT03213873|181727425|SUPERIORITY||Interaction effect time x group|0.05||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.12|-0.03|0.25
90925986|NCT03213873|181727426|SUPERIORITY||Interaction effect time x group|0.2||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.1|-0.8|0.75
90925987|NCT05683340|181727444|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-21.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.482||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.71|-16.85|||MMRM||The least squares mean difference was calculated as the value for the ETC-1002 180 mg arm minus the value for the placebo arm.|||-16.85|-26.71|0.001
91035128|NCT03086460|181956470|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.166|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.101|0.23|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.230|0.101|<0.001
90886416|NCT04382326|181634969|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 19A (13vPnC serotype with the lowest GMC, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/lowest 13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.98||||||95.0|1.81|2.16||||||Serotype 8: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC - lowest 13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||2.16|1.81|
90925988|NCT03687762|181727507|OTHER|We hypothesized negligible between condition differences, although within each condition, we hypothesized that each treatment would produce medium effect size improvements.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
90886417|NCT04382326|181634969|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 19A (13vPnC serotype with the lowest GMC, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/lowest 13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.32||||||95.0|1.18|1.49||||||Serotype 10A: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC - lowest 13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||1.49|1.18|
90886418|NCT04382326|181634969|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 19A (13vPnC serotype with the lowest GMC, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/lowest 13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.52||||||95.0|1.39|1.67||||||Serotype 11A: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC - lowest 13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||1.67|1.39|
90886419|NCT04382326|181634969|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 19A (13vPnC serotype with the lowest GMC, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/lowest 13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.6||||||95.0|0.54|0.67||||||Serotype 12F: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC - lowest 13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||0.67|0.54|
90886420|NCT04382326|181634969|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 19A (13vPnC serotype with the lowest GMC, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/lowest 13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|4.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.39|5.3||||||Serotype 15B: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC - lowest 13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||5.30|4.39|
90886421|NCT04382326|181634969|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 19A (13vPnC serotype with the lowest GMC, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/lowest 13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|4.06||||||95.0|3.68|4.48||||||Serotype 22F: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC - lowest 13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||4.48|3.68|
90886422|NCT04382326|181634969|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 19A (13vPnC serotype with the lowest GMC, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/lowest 13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.64||||||95.0|1.46|1.83||||||Serotype 33F: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC - lowest 13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||1.83|1.46|
90886423|NCT04382326|181634977|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR of 20vPnC group to 13vPnC group is greater than 0.5 (2-fold NI margin).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.29||||||95.0|1.05|1.58||||||Measles: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC - 13vPnC) of the logarithms of the concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||1.58|1.05|
90886424|NCT04382326|181634978|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR of 20vPnC group to 13vPnC group is greater than 0.5 (2-fold NI margin).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.38||||||Mumps: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC - 13vPnC) of the logarithms of the concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||1.38|0.85|
90925989|NCT03687762|181727508|OTHER|We hypothesized negligible between condition differences, although within each condition, we hypothesized that each treatment would produce medium effect size improvements.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
90925990|NCT03687762|181727509|OTHER|We hypothesized negligible between condition differences, although within each condition, we hypothesized that each treatment would produce medium effect size improvements.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
90925991|NCT03687762|181727510|OTHER|We hypothesized negligible between condition differences, although within each condition, we hypothesized that each treatment would produce medium effect size improvements.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
90925992|NCT03687762|181727511|OTHER|We hypothesized negligible between condition differences, although within each condition, we hypothesized that each treatment would produce medium effect size improvements.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
90886425|NCT04382326|181634979|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR of 20vPnC group to 13vPnC group is greater than 0.5 (2-fold NI margin).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.48||||||Rubella: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC - 13vPnC) of the logarithms of the concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||1.48|1.02|
91035129|NCT03086460|181956470|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.138|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.074|0.203|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.203|0.074|<0.001
90886426|NCT04382326|181634980|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR of 20vPnC group to 13vPnC group is greater than 0.5 (2-fold NI margin).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.17||||||Varicella: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC - 13vPnC) of the logarithms of the concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution)||1.17|0.84|
90886427|NCT00618657|181634981|OTHER||Standard Error|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90886428|NCT00618657|181634981|OTHER||Standard Error|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90886429|NCT02710630|181634986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio [Test/Reference]|119.33|STANDARD_DEVIATION|40.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.838|139.834|||||"The adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio \[%\] calculated as Dabigatran Etexilate Tablet: A1/Dabigatran Etexilate Capsule: Ref.~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\]."|||139.834|101.838|
90886430|NCT02710630|181634986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio [Test/Reference]|52.97|STANDARD_DEVIATION|168.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|33.341|84.158|||||"The adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio \[%\] calculated as Dabigatran Etexilate Tablet: B1/Dabigatran Etexilate Capsule: Ref.~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\]."|||84.158|33.341|
90886431|NCT02710630|181634986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio [Test/Reference]|59.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|73.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|45.255|76.955|||||"The adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio \[%\] calculated as Dabigatran Etexilate Tablet: C1/Dabigatran Etexilate Capsule: Ref.~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\]."|||76.955|45.255|
90886432|NCT02710630|181634986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio [Test/Reference]|108.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|55.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.698|133.53|||||"The adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio \[%\] calculated as Dabigatran Etexilate Tablet: D1/Dabigatran Etexilate Capsule: Ref.~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\]."|||133.530|87.698|
90886433|NCT02710630|181634986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|110.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|41.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.939|129.297|||||"The adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio \[%\] calculated as Dabigatran Etexilate Tablet: E1/Dabigatran Etexilate Capsule: Ref.~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\]."|||129.297|93.939|
90886434|NCT02710630|181634987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio [Test/Reference]|118.31|STANDARD_DEVIATION|44.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.569|140.579|||||"The adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio \[%\] calculated as Dabigatran Etexilate Tablet: A1/Dabigatran Etexilate Capsule: Ref.~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\]."|||140.579|99.569|
90886435|NCT02710630|181634987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio [Test/Reference]|57.49|STANDARD_DEVIATION|132.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|38.502|85.837|||||"The adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio \[%\] calculated as Dabigatran Etexilate Tablet: B1/Dabigatran Etexilate Capsule: Ref.~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\]."|||85.837|38.502|
90886436|NCT02710630|181634987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio [Test/Reference]|61.94|STANDARD_DEVIATION|69.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|48.13|79.72|||||"The adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio \[%\] calculated as Dabigatran Etexilate Tablet: C1/Dabigatran Etexilate Capsule: Ref.~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\]."|||79.720|48.130|
90886437|NCT02710630|181634987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio [Test/Reference]|108.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|55.8|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.704|133.629|||||"The adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio \[%\] calculated as Dabigatran Etexilate Tablet: D1/Dabigatran Etexilate Capsule: Ref.~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\]."|||133.629|87.704|
90886438|NCT02710630|181634987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio [Test/Reference]|107.76|STANDARD_DEVIATION|43.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.238|127.281|||||"The adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio \[%\] calculated as Dabigatran Etexilate Tablet: E1/Dabigatran Etexilate Capsule: Ref.~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\]."|||127.281|91.238|
90886439|NCT02710630|181634988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio [Test/Reference]|118.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|38.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.627|137.621|||||"The adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio \[%\] calculated as Dabigatran Etexilate Tablet: A1/Dabigatran Etexilate Capsule: Ref.~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\]."|||137.621|101.627|
90886440|NCT02710630|181634988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio [Test/Reference]|87.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|60.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|69.404|109.722|||||"The adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio \[%\] calculated as Dabigatran Etexilate Tablet: B1/Dabigatran Etexilate Capsule: Ref.~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\]."|||109.722|69.404|
90925993|NCT03687762|181727512|OTHER|We hypothesized negligible between condition differences, although within each condition, we hypothesized that each treatment would produce medium effect size improvements.||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.01
90925994|NCT03687762|181727513|OTHER|We hypothesized negligible between condition differences, although within each condition, we hypothesized that each treatment would produce medium effect size improvements.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
90925995|NCT03687762|181727514|OTHER|We hypothesized negligible between condition differences, although within each condition, we hypothesized that each treatment would produce medium effect size improvements.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
90925996|NCT03687762|181727515|OTHER|We hypothesized negligible between condition differences, although within each condition, we hypothesized that each treatment would produce a greater proportion of people decreasing their dose relative to those increasing their dose during treatment.|||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>.05
90925997|NCT03687762|181727516|OTHER|We hypothesized negligible between condition differences, although within each condition, we hypothesized that each treatment would produce medium effect size improvements.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
90964375|NCT03627767|181810153|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-2.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-2.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sleep Loss VAS: Week 16: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-2.0|-2.7|< 0.0001
90964376|NCT03627767|181810153|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.2||||||Sleep Loss VAS: Week 16: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.2|-0.9|
90964377|NCT03627767|181810153|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.7|||=|0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sleep Loss VAS: Week 28: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.2|-1.2|= 0.0035
90964378|NCT03627767|181810153|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sleep Loss VAS: Week 28: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.7|-1.6|< 0.0001
90964379|NCT03627767|181810153|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.1||||||Sleep Loss VAS: Week 28: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.1|-0.8|
91035130|NCT03086460|181956470|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.174|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.113|0.235|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.235|0.113|<0.001
91035131|NCT03086460|181956470|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.149|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.101|0.197|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment F ( Perforomist® IS 40 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Analysis of covariance model: treatment, subject, and period as fixed effects; baseline FEV1 value as covariates. Subjects receiving the same treatment in more than one period are included in the primary efficacy model with only data from the first instance of each treatment."||0.197|0.101|<0.001
90964380|NCT03627767|181810153|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.7|||=|0.0136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sleep Loss VAS: Week 40: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.1|-1.2|= 0.0136
91035132|NCT03086460|181956470|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.054||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|0.104|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Analysis of covariance model: treatment, subject, and period as fixed effects; baseline FEV1 value as covariates. Subjects receiving the same treatment in more than one period are included in the primary efficacy model with only data from the first instance of each treatment."||0.104|0.004|0.035
90971146|NCT03036293|181824823|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 12 frequencies comparison||||0.007
90964381|NCT03627767|181810153|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sleep Loss VAS: Week 40: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.6|-1.6|< 0.0001
90964382|NCT03627767|181810153|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.0||||||Sleep Loss VAS: Week 40: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.0|-0.8|
91035133|NCT03086460|181956470|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.026||||0.301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.024|0.076|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #6 of this outcome measure."||0.076|-0.024|0.301
91035134|NCT03086460|181956470|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.062||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.014|0.11|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #6 of this outcome measure."||0.110|0.014|0.011
90886441|NCT02710630|181634988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio [Test/Reference]|71.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|49.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|58.828|86.648|||||"The adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio \[%\] calculated as Dabigatran Etexilate Tablet: C1/Dabigatran Etexilate Capsule: Ref.~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\]."|||86.648|58.828|
90886442|NCT02710630|181634988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio [Test/Reference]|116.67|STANDARD_DEVIATION|37.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.516|135.41|||||"The adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio \[%\] calculated as Dabigatran Etexilate Tablet: D1/Dabigatran Etexilate Capsule: Ref.~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\]."|||135.410|100.516|
90886443|NCT02710630|181634988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio [Test/Reference]|109.85|STANDARD_DEVIATION|38.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.452|127.75|||||"The adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio \[%\] calculated as Dabigatran Etexilate Tablet: E1/Dabigatran Etexilate Capsule: Ref.~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\]."|||127.750|94.452|
90886444|NCT02710630|181634989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio [Test/Reference]|115.69|STANDARD_DEVIATION|40.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.783|135.491|||||"The adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio \[%\] calculated as Dabigatran Etexilate Tablet: A1/Dabigatran Etexilate Capsule: Ref.~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\]."|||135.491|98.783|
90886445|NCT02710630|181634989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio [Test/Reference]|50.43|STANDARD_DEVIATION|173.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|31.519|80.689|||||"The adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio \[%\] calculated as Dabigatran Etexilate Tablet: B1/Dabigatran Etexilate Capsule: Ref.~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\]."|||80.689|31.519|
90886446|NCT02710630|181634989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio [Test/Reference]|56.71|STANDARD_DEVIATION|74.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|43.388|74.122|||||"The adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio \[%\] calculated as Dabigatran Etexilate Tablet: C1/Dabigatran Etexilate Capsule: Ref.~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\]."|||74.122|43.388|
90886447|NCT02710630|181634989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio [Test/Reference]|106.99|STANDARD_DEVIATION|52.8|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.554|130.732|||||"The adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio \[%\] calculated as Dabigatran Etexilate Tablet: D1/Dabigatran Etexilate Capsule: Ref.~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\]."|||130.732|87.554|
90886448|NCT02710630|181634989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio [Test/Reference]|107.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|40.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.399|125.432|||||"The adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio \[%\] calculated as Dabigatran Etexilate Tablet: E1/Dabigatran Etexilate Capsule: Ref.~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\]."|||125.432|91.399|
90886449|NCT02710630|181634990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio [Test/Reference]|115.39|STANDARD_DEVIATION|45.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.74|137.644|||||"The adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio \[%\] calculated as Dabigatran Etexilate Tablet: A1/Dabigatran Etexilate Capsule: Ref.~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\]."|||137.644|96.740|
90886450|NCT02710630|181634990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio [Test/Reference]|54.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|138.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|35.818|81.774|||||"The adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio \[%\] calculated as Dabigatran Etexilate Tablet: B1/Dabigatran Etexilate Capsule: Ref.~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\]."|||81.774|35.818|
90886451|NCT02710630|181634990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio [Test/Reference]|58.96|STANDARD_DEVIATION|71.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|45.489|76.431|||||"The adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio \[%\] calculated as Dabigatran Etexilate Tablet: C1/Dabigatran Etexilate Capsule: Ref.~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\]."|||76.431|45.489|
90886452|NCT02710630|181634990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio [Test/Reference]|106.38|STANDARD_DEVIATION|57.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.846|131.836|||||"The adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio \[%\] calculated as Dabigatran Etexilate Tablet: D1/Dabigatran Etexilate Capsule: Ref.~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\]."|||131.836|85.846|
90886453|NCT02710630|181634990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio [Test/Reference]|103.73|STANDARD_DEVIATION|43.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.74|122.628|||||"The adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio \[%\] calculated as Dabigatran Etexilate Tablet: E1/Dabigatran Etexilate Capsule: Ref.~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\]."|||122.628|87.740|
90886454|NCT02710630|181634991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio [Test/Reference]|115.27|STANDARD_DEVIATION|38.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.063|134.13|||||"The adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio \[%\] calculated as Dabigatran Etexilate Tablet: A1/Dabigatran Etexilate Capsule: Ref.~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\]."|||134.130|99.063|
90886455|NCT02710630|181634991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio [Test/Reference]|83.73|STANDARD_DEVIATION|62.8|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|66.033|106.163|||||"The adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio \[%\] calculated as Dabigatran Etexilate Tablet: B1/Dabigatran Etexilate Capsule: Ref.~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\]."|||106.163|66.033|
90886456|NCT02710630|181634991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio [Test/Reference]|68.77|STANDARD_DEVIATION|50.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|56.452|83.782|||||"The adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio \[%\] calculated as Dabigatran Etexilate Tablet: C1/Dabigatran Etexilate Capsule: Ref.~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\]."|||83.782|56.452|
90886457|NCT02710630|181634991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio [Test/Reference]|107.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|49.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.616|129.51|||||"The adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio \[%\] calculated as Dabigatran Etexilate Tablet: D1/Dabigatran Etexilate Capsule: Ref.~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\]."|||129.510|88.616|
90925998|NCT03687762|181727517|OTHER|We hypothesized negligible between condition differences, although within each condition, we hypothesized that each treatment would produce medium effect size improvements.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
90925999|NCT03687762|181727518|OTHER|We hypothesized negligible between condition differences, although within each condition, we hypothesized that each treatment would produce medium effect size improvements.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
90964383|NCT03627767|181810153|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.3|||=|0.2887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sleep Loss VAS: Week 52: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.3|-1.0|= 0.2887
90964384|NCT03627767|181810153|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.0|||=|0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sleep Loss VAS: Week 52: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.3|-1.6|= 0.0025
91035135|NCT03086460|181956470|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.028||||0.294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.024|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #6 of this outcome measure."||0.024|-0.080|0.294
90926000|NCT03687762|181727519|OTHER|We hypothesized negligible between condition differences, although within each condition, we hypothesized that each treatment would produce medium effect size improvements.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
90926001|NCT03687762|181727520|OTHER|We hypothesized negligible between condition differences, although within each condition, we hypothesized that each treatment would produce medium effect size improvements.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
90926002|NCT03687762|181727521|OTHER|We hypothesized negligible between condition differences, although within each condition, we hypothesized that each treatment would produce medium effect size improvements.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
90926003|NCT03687762|181727522|OTHER|We hypothesized negligible between condition differences, although within each condition, we hypothesized that each treatment would produce medium effect size improvements.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
90926004|NCT06029452|181727559|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin was 0.10.|Sensitivity|0.853|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.815||||||Sensitivity was defined as the probability that an individual with the disease in the population were screen positive for disease by the algorithm (TP). Sensitivity = TP / (TP + FN).||||0.815|
90926005|NCT06029452|181727559|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin was 0.10.|Specificity|0.584|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.539||||||Sensitivity was defined as the probability that an individual with the disease in the population were screen positive for disease by the algorithm (TP). Sensitivity = TP / (TP + FN).||||0.539|
90926006|NCT05552508|181727591|OTHER|||||||0.0327|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||All participants||||0.0327
90926007|NCT05552508|181727591|OTHER|||||||0.0359|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Participants with \>=4 mucus plugs||||0.0359
90926008|NCT05552508|181727591|OTHER|||||||0.1088|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Participants with \<4 mucus plugs||||0.1088
90926009|NCT05552508|181727591|OTHER|||||||0.0391|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Non-OCS-dependent participants||||0.0391
90926010|NCT05552508|181727592|OTHER|||||||0.0423|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0423
90926011|NCT05552508|181727593|OTHER|||||||0.9465|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9465
90926012|NCT05552508|181727594|OTHER|||||||0.3455|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3455
90926013|NCT05552508|181727595|OTHER|||||||0.2484|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2484
90926014|NCT05552508|181727596|OTHER|||||||0.9405|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9405
90926015|NCT05552508|181727597|OTHER|||||||0.6867|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6867
90926016|NCT05552508|181727598|OTHER|||||||0.7554|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7554
90926017|NCT03421340|181727655|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-Inferiority Margin of 10%|Risk Difference (RD)|1.8||||0.029|TWO_SIDED||||||exact|||||||0.029
90926018|NCT03421340|181727656|SUPERIORITY|Not powered|Risk Difference (RD)|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|4.1||||||||4.1|-8|
90926019|NCT03421340|181727657|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|133.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|120.0|143.0||||||||143|120|
90926020|NCT03421340|181727658|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-10.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|-7.5||||||||-7.5|-11.6|
90926021|NCT01199133|181727659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.01|||>|0.05||95.0|-0.41|0.43|||ANCOVA|||||0.43|-0.41|> 0.05
90926022|NCT02575950|181727660|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.71|-3.96|||ANCOVA|||Least square mean values and difference is from ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline total lesion count as covariate and participants as random effect. 100 simulations of monotone multiple imputation is performed. Summary statistics are found across these 100 simulations.||-3.96|-14.71|<.001
90926023|NCT04181736|181727672|OTHER||F-statistic|6.621||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Repeated Measures General Linear Model|||Test of the effect of guanfacine using a general linear model including a within subjects' effect for treatment (pre- versus post-treatment sessions) and for circuit function, with five repeated measures for each circuit measure defining the cognitive control circuit.||||0.020
90926024|NCT04181736|181727677|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|1.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.937|2.002||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||A paired t-test was conducted to evaluate the effect of GIR on changes in HDRS-17 depression scores from pre-treatment to week 2.||2.002|0.937|<0.001
90926025|NCT04181736|181727677|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|3.152|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.757|3.547||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||A paired t-test was conducted to evaluate the effect of GIR on changes in HDRS-17 depression scores from pre-treatment to post-treatment sessions.||3.547|2.757|<0.001
90926026|NCT04181736|181727678|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|-1.249|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.724|-0.774||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||A paired t-test was conducted to evaluate the effect of GIR on changes in QIDS-SR depression scores from pre-treatment to post-treatment sessions.||-0.774|-1.724|< 0.001
90926027|NCT04181736|181727679|OTHER||F-statistic|19.362|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Repeated Measures General Linear Model|||Test of the effect of guanfacine using a general linear model including a within subjects' effect for treatment (pre- versus post-treatment sessions) and for cognitive control function, with six repeated measures for behavioral tests of cognitive control.||||<0.001
90926028|NCT04181736|181727680|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|0.881||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.324|1.438||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||A paired t-test was conducted to evaluate the effect of GIR on changes in SWLS scores from pre-treatment to post-treatment sessions.||1.438|0.324|0.002
90971147|NCT03036293|181824824|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.00002||||0.314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00002|0.33|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Hodges-Lehmann estimator for location difference provided|Median changes (begin-end) within groups are compared||0.33|-0.00002|0.314
90926029|NCT04181736|181727681|OTHER||F-statistic|11.913||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Repeated Measures General Linear Model|||Test of the effect of guanfacine using a general linear model including a within subjects' effect for treatment (pre- versus post-treatment sessions) and for quality with four repeated measures for domains of quality of life.||||0.003
90926030|NCT04181736|181727682|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|-0.2||||0.283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.608|0.208||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||A paired t-test was conducted to evaluate the effect of GIR on changes in C-SSRS scores from pre-treatment to post-treatment sessions.||0.208|-0.608|0.283
90926031|NCT04797858|181727683|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0077||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.021|0.056|||Fisher Exact|||||0.056|-0.021|0.45
90926032|NCT04797858|181727684|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.015||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0004|0.03|||Fisher Exact|||||0.03|-0.0004|0.11
90926033|NCT01880515|181727689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.99||||||||0.99|0.17|
90926034|NCT01880515|181727692|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.41
90926035|NCT05290493|181727746|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0672|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0672
90926036|NCT05290493|181727747|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2045|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2045
90926037|NCT05290493|181727748|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2931|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2931
90926038|NCT05290493|181727749|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7799|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7799
90926039|NCT05290493|181727750|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7974|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7974
90926040|NCT05290493|181727751|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8286|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8286
90926041|NCT05062330|181727754|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.67|4.13|||Generalized estimating equation|||||4.13|1.67|<0.0001
90926042|NCT05280574|181727815|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.75|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.1|||Distinct-effects GEE model||Average relative effect of unblinded versus blinded monitoring across the 5-component composite (SpO2 \<85%, RR \>30/min, RR \<4/min, HR \<45/min, HR \>130/min) of cumulative durations.||We assessed the treatment effect of unblinded versus blinded monitoring across the 5-component primary outcome composite of cumulative durations by estimating the average relative effect on the log-transformed count data (counts of observations beyond a given threshold at 1 Hz). Specifically, we employed a distinct-effects (i.e., separate treatment effect estimated for each component) generalized estimating equation (GEE) model to account for within-subject correlation across components with the vector of the 5 cumulative durations as the dependent variable and treatment as independent. We then averaged the component-specific effects and tested whether the average effect equals zero (on the log scale), and reported results as the ratio of geometric means of unblinded versus blinded monitoring.|1.1|0.51|< 0.05
90926043|NCT05363163|181727818|OTHER|If the mean volume variation was higher than 0 and the p-value of the statistical test lower than 0.05, the H0 hypothesis was rejected, and the primary endpoint demonstrated.|||||<|0.0001||||||p-value of the statistical test lower than 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90926044|NCT03154190|181727825|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.47|||Regression, Cox|||||0.47|0.20|
90926045|NCT03154190|181727826|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.75|||Regression, Cox|||||0.75|0.30|
90926046|NCT03154190|181727829|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.62||||||||0.62|0.33|
90926047|NCT03154190|181727831|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.7||||||||0.70|0.36|
90926048|NCT03154190|181727836|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.88|10.55||||||||10.55|1.88|
90926049|NCT06193070|181727846|OTHER|A one-tailed paired t-test was run to examine within subject mean difference on the cancer nutrition information beliefs scale pre- and post-game.|||||<|0.001||||||The threshold was set at alpha \< 0.05.|t-test, 1 sided|A paired samples t-test was run on pre- and post-game mean scores within subjects.||All participants were exposed to the intervention, and pre- and post-game scores within subject were examined.||||<.001
90926050|NCT03583333|181727880|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for the difference in mortality (IMI/REL minus PIP/TAZ) was 12.5%.|Adjusted difference in percentage|5.2||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|12.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen method||Adjusted differences and the 95% confidence intervals (CIs) are based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by randomization stratum.|||12.4|-1.5|0.024
90926051|NCT03583333|181727880|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in percentage|5.2||||0.938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|12.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen|Adjusted differences and the 95% CIs are based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by randomization stratum.||||12.4|-1.5|0.938
90926052|NCT03583333|181727881|OTHER||Adjusted difference in percentage|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|14.9|||||Adjusted differences and the 95% CIs are based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by randomization stratum.|||14.9|-8.7|
90926053|NCT03583333|181727882|OTHER||Adjusted difference in percentage|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|16.8|||||Adjusted difference and the 95% CIs are based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by randomization stratum.|||16.8|-12.4|
90926054|NCT03583333|181727883|OTHER||Adjusted difference in percentage|3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|14.3|||||Adjusted difference and the 95% CIs are based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by randomization stratum.|||14.3|-7.6|
90926055|NCT03583333|181727884|OTHER||Adjusted difference in percentage|-4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.8|6.6|||||Adjusted difference and the 95% CIs are based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by randomization stratum.|||6.6|-15.8|
90886458|NCT02710630|181634991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio [Test/Reference]|106.64|STANDARD_DEVIATION|38.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.625|124.114|||||"The adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio \[%\] calculated as Dabigatran Etexilate Tablet: E1/Dabigatran Etexilate Capsule: Ref.~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\]."|||124.114|91.625|
90926056|NCT03583333|181727885|OTHER||Adjusted difference in percentage|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|13.1|||||Adjusted differences and the 95% CIs are based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by randomization stratum.|||13.1|-17.8|
90926057|NCT03583333|181727886|OTHER||Adjusted difference in percentage|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|19.8|||||Adjusted difference and the 95% CIs are based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by randomization stratum.|||19.8|-16.5|
90926058|NCT03583333|181727887|OTHER||Adjusted difference in percentage|-3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.8|14.4|||||Adjusted difference and the 95% CIs are based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by randomization stratum.|||14.4|-19.8|
90926059|NCT03583333|181727888|OTHER||Adjusted difference in percentage|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|10.6|||||Difference and the 95% CIs are based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by randomization stratum.|||10.6|-6.5|
91035136|NCT03086460|181956470|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.008||||0.747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.042|0.058|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #6 of this outcome measure."||0.058|-0.042|0.747
91035137|NCT03086460|181956470|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.036||||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.014|0.086|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #6 of this outcome measure."||0.086|-0.014|0.155
90886459|NCT02461589|181634992|OTHER||Treatment difference|-1.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.77|-1.30|<0.0001
90886460|NCT02461589|181634992|OTHER||Treatment difference|-1.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|-1.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.08|-1.61|<0.0001
90886461|NCT02461589|181634992|OTHER||Treatment difference|-1.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|-1.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.42|-1.95|<0.0001
90886462|NCT02461589|181634992|OTHER||Treatment difference|-1.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|-1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.60|-2.12|<0.0001
90886463|NCT01978119|181634997|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non- inferiority was demonstrated if lower limit of the CI (0.025 one sided significance level) for the difference of the mean change from Baseline in trough FEV1 of FSC administered BID by capsule-based unit dose DPI versus FSC administered BID by multi-dose DPI is greater than -125 milliliter (mL).|Mean Difference (Net)|0.028|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.024|0.08|||Repeated Measures Mixed Models|||||0.080|-0.024|
90886464|NCT01978119|181634998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.352|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.039|0.334||||||||0.334|-1.039|
90886465|NCT01978119|181634999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.278|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.372|0.927||||||||0.927|-0.372|
90886466|NCT01978119|181635000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.007|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.074|0.088|||||Day 28 Change from Baseline Analysis|||0.088|-0.074|
90886467|NCT01978119|181635000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.022||||||95.0|-0.049|0.092|||||Day 56 Change from Baseline Analysis|||0.092|-0.049|
90886468|NCT01978119|181635001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|10.05||||||||10.05|-1.34|
90886469|NCT01978119|181635002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.09||||||||0.09|-0.20|
90886470|NCT01978119|181635004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.97|2.46||||||||2.46|-6.97|
90886471|NCT01978119|181635005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.5||||||||0.5|-0.9|
90886472|NCT01978119|181635006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.64|3.11||||||||3.11|-4.64|
90886473|NCT01958918|181635064|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.185|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.1850
90886474|NCT00659269|181635095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.91|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.91
90886475|NCT00908960|181635097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|6.7||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|43.17|||Fine and Gray regression|||||43.17|1.03|0.06
90886476|NCT02401672|181635101|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.05
90886477|NCT02401672|181635102|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
90886478|NCT02401672|181635103|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.05
90886479|NCT02401672|181635104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.05
90886480|NCT01736852|181635106|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin of 10%, α = 0.025, power = 0.80,||||||0.06|||||||Fisher Exact|||.ample size calculations were performed using an expected rate of 4% for each group,a one-sided exact test, α = 0.025, power = 0.80, non-inferiority margin of 10% resulting in a sample size of 124 patients or 62 patients per treatment arm.||||0.06
90886481|NCT00403546|181635112|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|1.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Baseline||1.12|-1.09|0.980
90886482|NCT00403546|181635112|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.02||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|1.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 2||1.95|0.08|0.033
90886483|NCT00403546|181635112|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.73||||0.171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|1.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 4||1.77|-0.32|0.171
90886484|NCT00403546|181635112|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|1.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 6||1.62|-0.62|0.380
90886485|NCT00403546|181635112|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|1.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 8||1.08|-1.32|0.840
90886486|NCT00403546|181635113|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|0.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Baseline||0.88|-1.23|0.737
90886487|NCT00403546|181635113|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14||||0.764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 2||0.80|-1.09|0.764
90886488|NCT00403546|181635113|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.25||||0.642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|1.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 4||1.32|-0.82|0.642
90886489|NCT00403546|181635113|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.34||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 6||0.83|-1.50|0.570
90886490|NCT00403546|181635113|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09||||0.894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|1.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 8||1.17|-1.34|0.894
90886491|NCT00403546|181635115|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.82||||0.599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.68|5.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||SBP at Baseline||5.05|-8.68|0.599
90926060|NCT03583333|181727889|OTHER||Adjusted difference in percentage|-4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|1.4|||||Difference and the 95% CIs are based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by randomization stratum.|||1.4|-10.7|
90926061|NCT03926130|181727890|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|28.7|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.0|34.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||34.4|23.0|<0.000001
90926062|NCT03926130|181727891|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|25.8|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.8|32.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||32.7|18.8|<0.000001
90926063|NCT03926130|181727892|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|19.7|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.7|25.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||25.6|13.7|<0.000001
90926064|NCT03926130|181727893|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|39.1|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.4|44.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||44.8|33.4|<0.000001
90926065|NCT03926130|181727893|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.3||||0.513623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|9.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||9.3|-4.7|0.513623
90926066|NCT03926130|181727894|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.4||||0.001431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|19.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||19.6|5.3|0.001431
90926067|NCT03926130|181727895|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|34.6|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.7|41.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||41.4|27.7|<0.000001
90926068|NCT03926130|181727895|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is 10%. We do not have power calculation in the SAP for this endpoint.|Risk Difference (RD)|5.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|12.8|||Z test|||||12.8|-1.4|<0.0001
90964385|NCT03627767|181810153|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.2||||||Sleep Loss VAS: Week 52: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.2|-1.0|
90886492|NCT00403546|181635115|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.53||||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.31|9.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||SBP at Week 1||9.37|-2.31|0.235
90886493|NCT00403546|181635115|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.83||||0.449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|8.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||SBP at Week 2||8.57|-3.80|0.449
90886494|NCT00403546|181635115|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.64||||0.301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.28|10.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||SBP at Week 4||10.56|-3.28|0.301
90926069|NCT03926130|181727896|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.8||||0.003414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|10.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.5|3.2|0.003414
90926070|NCT03926130|181727897|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference (Net)|-0.86||||1.1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|-0.48|||ANCOVA|||||-0.48|-1.24|0.000011
90926071|NCT03926130|181727898|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference (Net)|-2.01|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.42|-1.6|||ANCOVA|||||-1.60|-2.42|<0.000001
90926072|NCT03926130|181727899|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|25.7|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.9|32.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||32.6|18.9|<0.000001
90926073|NCT03926130|181727900|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.8|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.2|17.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||17.4|10.2|<0.000001
90926074|NCT03926130|181727901|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|25.0|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.2|31.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||31.8|18.2|<0.000001
90926075|NCT03926130|181727902|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference (Net)|-0.85|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.65|||ANCOVA|||||-0.65|-1.05|<0.000001
90926076|NCT03926130|181727903|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference (Net)|-1.22|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|-0.95|||ANCOVA|||||-0.95|-1.48|<0.000001
90926077|NCT03926130|181727904|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
90926078|NCT03926130|181727905|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.1||||0.732715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|26.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||26.1|-18.0|0.732715
90926079|NCT03926130|181727906|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference (Net)|27.92|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.67|33.18|||ANCOVA|||||33.18|22.67|<0.000001
90926080|NCT03926130|181727908|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.6||||0.000213|TWO_SIDED|99.5|4.1|17.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||17.2|4.1|0.000213
90926081|NCT03926130|181727909|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|19.4|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|99.5|13.1|25.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||25.7|13.1|<0.000001
90926082|NCT01866163|181727919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|30.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.72|94.3|||Mantel Haenszel|||Multiple imputations were used to handle missing data.||94.30|9.72|<0.001
90926083|NCT01866163|181727920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|-2.67|||ANOVA|||The mean value and CIs were adjusted for the effect of pooled centres and baseline m-PASI. Multiple imputation was used to handle missing data.||-2.67|-3.90|<0.001
90926084|NCT01866163|181727921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|-0.78|||ANOVA|||The mean value and CIs were adjusted for the effect of pooled centres and baseline m-PASI. Multiple imputation was used to handle missing data.||-0.78|-1.76|<0.001
90926085|NCT03580356|181727944|SUPERIORITY|Wald chi-square test based on logistic regression|Odds Ratio (OR)|9.029|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.183|25.615|||Regression, Logistic|95% confidence interval for the odds ratio||Adults only||25.615|3.183|<.0001
90926086|NCT03580356|181727944|SUPERIORITY|Wald chi-square test based on logistic regression|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.926||||0.6646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.319|||Regression, Logistic|95% confidence interval for the odds ratio||Adults only||1.319|0.650|0.6646
91078008|NCT02542293|182041273|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.258|0.818|||||The HR and CI were calculated using an unstratified Cox proportional hazards model, with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"tTMB ≥14 mut/Mb analysis set: Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy to be associated with a longer PFS than SoC."||0.818|0.258|
90886495|NCT00403546|181635115|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.75||||0.842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.13|6.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||SBP at Week 6||6.63|-8.13|0.842
90886496|NCT00403546|181635115|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.33||||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|14.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||SBP at Week 8||14.09|-1.43|0.109
90926087|NCT03580356|181727944|SUPERIORITY|Wald chi-square test based on logistic regression|Odds Ratio (OR)|11.508|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.058|32.638|||Regression, Logistic|95% confidence interval for the odds ratio||Adults only||32.638|4.058|<.0001
90886497|NCT00403546|181635115|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8||||0.741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.62|4.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||DBP at Baseline||4.02|-5.62|0.741
90886498|NCT00403546|181635115|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.44||||0.552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.32|6.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||DBP at Week 1||6.19|-3.32|0.552
90926088|NCT03580356|181727944|SUPERIORITY|Wald chi-square test based on logistic regression|Odds Ratio, log|1.181||||0.173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.836|1.667|||Regression, Logistic|95% confidence interval for the odds ratio||Adults only||1.667|0.836|0.1730
90886499|NCT00403546|181635115|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.83||||0.268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|7.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||DBP at Week 2||7.84|-2.18|0.268
90886500|NCT00403546|181635115|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.02||||0.719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.53|6.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||DBP at Week 4||6.56|-4.53|0.719
90886501|NCT00403546|181635115|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.86||||0.334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.68|2.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|||DBP at Week 6||2.96|-8.68|0.334
90886502|NCT00403546|181635115|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.38||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|10.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||DBP at Week 8||10.37|-1.61|0.151
90886503|NCT00403546|181635117|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.77||||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.97|9.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed models analysis with random slopes||At Baseline||9.50|-3.97|0.416
90886504|NCT00403546|181635117|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.37||||0.854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.59|4.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 2||4.33|-3.59|0.854
90886505|NCT00403546|181635117|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.95||||0.406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.68|6.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 4||6.58|-2.68|0.406
90886506|NCT00403546|181635117|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.01||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.23|2.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 6||2.21|-8.23|0.256
90886507|NCT00403546|181635117|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.37||||0.642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|4.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 8||4.45|-7.20|0.642
90886508|NCT00403546|181635119|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.67||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Baseline||0.20|-1.55|0.135
90886509|NCT00403546|181635119|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.44||||0.262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|1.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 2||1.21|-0.33|0.262
90886510|NCT00403546|181635119|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.58||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|1.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 4||1.49|-0.33|0.209
90886511|NCT00403546|181635119|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|1.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 6||1.07|-1.01|0.950
90886512|NCT00403546|181635119|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.57||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|1.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 8||1.76|-0.61|0.340
90886513|NCT01070810|181635137|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.40
90886514|NCT01070810|181635138|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.62|||Regression, Cox|||Time to shock reversal was complicated by a high incidence of death prior to the event. To account for this we classified death as a competing risk event and used the estimated cumulative incidence function (CIF) to illustrate the comparison of CIFs between the two treatment groups using the Fine-Gray competing risk model. We tested the subdistribution hazards of these two CIF functions and obtained the estimated hazard ratio with 95% confidence intervals.||1.62|0.61|0.97
90886515|NCT01070810|181635139|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.15
90886516|NCT01070810|181635140|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
90886517|NCT01070810|181635141|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.10
90886518|NCT02480621|181635147|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.74|||<|0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.10
90886519|NCT05061446|181635148|OTHER||Difference in percentage|6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.96|19.29||||||||19.29|-5.96|
90886520|NCT05061446|181635148|OTHER||Difference in percentage|26.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.52|46.12||||||||46.12|6.52|
90886521|NCT05061446|181635149|OTHER||Difference in percentage|6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.96|19.29||||||||19.29|-5.96|
90886522|NCT05061446|181635149|OTHER||Difference in percentage|26.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.52|46.12||||||||46.12|6.52|
90886523|NCT05061446|181635150|OTHER||Difference in percentage|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|40.24||||||||40.24|-0.24|
90886524|NCT05061446|181635150|OTHER||Difference in percentage|31.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.68|52.48||||||||52.48|10.68|
90886525|NCT05061446|181635151|OTHER||Difference in percentage|6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.96|19.29||||||||19.29|-5.96|
90886526|NCT05061446|181635151|OTHER||Difference in percentage|5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.78|15.3||||||||15.30|-4.78|
90886527|NCT05061446|181635152|OTHER||Difference in percentage|26.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|53.6||||||||53.60|-1.22|
90886528|NCT05061446|181635152|OTHER||Difference in percentage|45.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.3|71.68||||||||71.68|19.30|
90964386|NCT03627767|181810154|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|1.0|||=|0.4244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|3.4||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||3.4|-1.4|= 0.4244
91035138|NCT03086460|181956471|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.136|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.065|0.207|||ANCOVA|||"Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Analysis of covariance model: treatment, subject, and period as fixed effects; baseline FEV1 value as covariates. CIs and p-values for CHF 1531 pMDI vs Placebo are adjusted for multiplicity (parametric simulation method by Edwards and Berry). Subjects receiving the same treatment in more than one period are included in the model with only data for the instance of each treatment, which occurred after the randomization error."||0.207|0.065|<0.001
90886529|NCT02799082|181635187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||"The percentages stated relate to the total number of subjects for the respective week and treatment.~Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Test stratified by center"|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
90886530|NCT02799082|181635188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
90926089|NCT03580356|181727945|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-9.997|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.305|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.554|-7.439|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with repeated measures (MMRM)||Treatment contrast in LS mean (change), Adults only||-7.439|-12.554|<.0001
90926090|NCT03580356|181727945|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|0.414|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.922||0.6735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.392|2.221|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with repeated measures (MMRM)||Treatment contrast in LS mean (change), Adults only||2.221|-1.392|0.6735
90964387|NCT03627767|181810154|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-0.3|||=|0.8092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|2.4||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||2.4|-3.1|= 0.8092
90886531|NCT02799082|181635196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
90886532|NCT02799082|181635197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
90886533|NCT02442700|181635249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
90886534|NCT00752908|181635258|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
90886535|NCT02610140|181635263|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.215||||0.859125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|||1-sided p-value from log-rank test (stratified by TTP on 1st line treatment). P-value is calculated based on alpha level 0.0125.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio (anetumab ravtansine / vinorelbine) was estimated using Cox proportional hazards models with Wald CIs, stratified by Time to progression (TTP) on 1st line treatment.|PFS anetumab ravtansine / vinorelbine||1,738|0.850|0.859125
90886536|NCT02610140|181635264|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.072||||0.655624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.763|1.506||1-sided p-value from log-rank test (stratified by TTP on 1st line treatment). Alpha spending/boundary for interim was 0.00245. Alpha boundary value for final analysis was 0.02421.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio (anetumab ravtansine/vinorelbine) was estimated using Cox proportional hazards models with Wald CIs, stratified by TTP on 1st line treatment.|OS anetumab ravtansine / vinorelbine||1.506|0.763|0.655624
90886537|NCT02610140|181635269|SUPERIORITY||Difference (%) improvement rate symptoms|4.65||||0.244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|17.51|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|1-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by TTP on 1st line treatment||Anetumab ravtansine versus vinorelbine||17.51|-8.20|0.244
90886538|NCT02610140|181635270|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.829||||0.313747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.386|1.779|||Log Rank|one-sided log-rank test stratified by time to progression (TTP) on first line treatment||Anetumab ravtansine versus vinorelbine||1.779|0.386|0.313747
90886539|NCT02610140|181635271|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.924||||0.378916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.557|1.533|||Log Rank|one-sided log-rank test stratified by time to progression (TTP) on first line treatment||Anetumab ravtansine versus vinorelbine||1.533|0.557|0.378916
90886540|NCT02610140|181635272|SUPERIORITY||Difference (%) improvement rate of pain|6.64||||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|22.68|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|1-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by TTP on 1st line treatment||||22.68|-9.40|0.214
90886541|NCT02610140|181635275|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|39.3||||||||39.3|0.1|
90886542|NCT02610140|181635275|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|35.9||||||||35.9|0.0|
90886543|NCT01312961|181635276|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.077|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.021|0.28||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic||Dupilumab 300 mg vs. Placebo|Analysis was performed using a logistic regression model with treatment groups and stratification factor (prior ICS/LABA combination therapy dose) as covariates.||0.280|0.021|<0.0001
90886544|NCT01306617|181635302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.547|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|Arm, baseline log10 HCV RNA level (\<=800,000, \>800,000), IL-28B genotype (CC, non-CC), and HCV subgenotype (1a, 1b) were used as strata.||For the percentage of subjects with HCV RNA suppressed below the LLOD from Week 4 through Week 12, if it was assumed that 60% of subjects would be successfully suppressed from Week 4 through Week 12, then 20 subjects in arm 1 would give a 95% 2-sided confidence interval (CI) of (38.5%, 81.5%), 10 subjects in arm 2 would give a 95% CI of (29.6%, 90.4%), and 15 subjects in arm 3 would give a 95% CI of (35.2%, 84.8%) for the percentage of subjects suppressed using the binomial exact method.||||0.547
90926091|NCT03580356|181727945|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-11.091|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.313|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.664|-8.518|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with repeated measures (MMRM)||Treatment contrast in LS mean (change), Adults only||-8.518|-13.664|<.0001
90886545|NCT01306617|181635302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.207|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|Arm, baseline log10 HCV RNA level (\<=800,000, \>800,000), IL-28B genotype (CC, non-CC), and HCV subgenotype (1a, 1b) were used as strata.||||||0.207
90886546|NCT01306617|181635303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.061|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Arm, baseline log10 HCV RNA level (\<=800,000, \>800,000), IL-28B genotype (CC, non-CC), and HCV subgenotype (1a, 1b) were used as strata.||||||0.061
90886547|NCT01306617|181635304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.061|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Arm, baseline log10 HCV RNA level (\<=800,000, \>800,000), IL-28B genotype (CC, non-CC), and HCV subgenotype (1a, 1b) were used as strata.||||||0.061
90886548|NCT01306617|181635304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.375|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Arm, baseline log10 HCV RNA level (\<=800,000, \>800,000), IL-28B genotype (CC, non-CC), and HCV subgenotype (1a, 1b) were used as strata.||||||0.375
90886549|NCT01306617|181635305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.312|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Arm, baseline log10 HCV RNA level (\<=800,000, \>800,000), IL-28B genotype (CC, non-CC), and HCV subgenotype (1a, 1b) were used as strata.||||||0.312
90886550|NCT01306617|181635305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Arm, baseline log10 HCV RNA level (\<=800,000, \>800,000), IL-28B genotype (CC, non-CC), and HCV subgenotype (1a, 1b) were used as strata.||||||0.012
90886551|NCT01306617|181635306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.312|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Arm, baseline log10 HCV RNA level (\<=800,000, \>800,000), IL-28B genotype (CC, non-CC), and HCV subgenotype (1a, 1b) were used as strata.||||||0.312
90886552|NCT01306617|181635306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Arm, baseline log10 HCV RNA level (\<=800,000, \>800,000), IL-28B genotype (CC, non-CC), and HCV subgenotype (1a, 1b) were used as strata.||||||0.012
90886553|NCT01306617|181635307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.395|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.395
90886554|NCT01306617|181635307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.010
90886555|NCT01306617|181635308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.048
90886556|NCT01208233|181635327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.735||||0.4962|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.41|1.31|||Regression, Logistic|LOCF was used to impute missing data.||||1.31|0.41|0.4962
90886557|NCT01208233|181635327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.561||||0.2517|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.29|1.07|||Regression, Logistic|The analysis was based on OC.||||1.07|0.29|0.2517
90926092|NCT03580356|181727945|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.923||0.2305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.489|1.128|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with repeated measures (MMRM)||Treatment contrast in LS mean (change), Adults only||1.128|-2.489|0.2305
90886558|NCT01208233|181635328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.141|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.942||0.9716|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.972|5.254|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Paretic hand||5.254|-4.972|0.9716
90886559|NCT01208233|181635329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.789|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.2392||0.1417|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.401|20.177|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Paretic to non-paretic hand ratio (%)||20.177|1.401|0.1417
90886560|NCT01208233|181635330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4241||0.0611|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-17.351|-3.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Paretic hand||-3.310|-17.351|0.0611
90886561|NCT01208233|181635330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.235|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2899||0.9433|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.011|4.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Non-paretic hand||4.480|-4.011|0.9433
90886562|NCT01208233|181635331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.812|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.8448||0.0654|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-21.668|-3.957|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Paretic to non-paretic hand ratio (%)||-3.957|-21.668|0.0654
90886563|NCT01208233|181635332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.972||||0.951|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.54|1.76|||Regression, Logistic|||LOCF was used to impute missing data.||1.76|0.54|0.9510
90886564|NCT01208233|181635333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.854||||0.7234|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.48|1.51|||Regression, Logistic|||LOCF was used to impute missing data.||1.51|0.48|0.7234
90886565|NCT01208233|181635334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.283|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6755||0.6759|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.156|0.589|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.589|-1.156|0.6759
90886566|NCT01208233|181635335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.433||||0.4213|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.81|2.54|||Regression, Logistic|||BI \>=95, LOCF was used to impute missing data.||2.54|0.81|0.4213
90886567|NCT01208233|181635335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.651||||0.276|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.92|2.98|||Regression, Logistic|||BI=100, LOCF was used to impute missing data.||2.98|0.92|0.2760
90886568|NCT01208233|181635336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.599|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.4547||0.2118|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.15|11.348|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.348|-0.150|0.2118
90926093|NCT03580356|181727947|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-4.105|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.281|-2.929|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with repeated measures (MMRM)||Adults only||-2.929|-5.281|<.0001
90926094|NCT03580356|181727947|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.101|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.422||0.5943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.727|0.928|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with repeated measures (MMRM)||Adults only||0.928|-0.727|0.5943
90886569|NCT01208233|181635337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.062|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7844||0.5541|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.252|3.375|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.375|-1.252|0.5541
90886570|NCT01208233|181635338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.334|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4178||0.426|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.874|0.205|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.205|-0.874|0.4260
90886571|NCT01208233|181635339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.477|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4394||0.65|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.547|9.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||(L+R)/28 × 100%||9.500|-4.547|0.6500
90926095|NCT03580356|181727947|SUPERIORITY|Adults only|LS Mean|-4.496|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.603|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.678|-3.314|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with repeated measures (MMRM)||||-3.314|-5.678|<.0001
90886572|NCT01208233|181635339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.874|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.7431||0.5671|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.834|12.583|||Mixed Models Analysis|||(L/14) × 100%||12.583|-4.834|0.5671
90926096|NCT03580356|181727947|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.423||0.2467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|0.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with repeated measures (MMRM)||Adults only||0.540|-1.120|0.2467
90926097|NCT03580356|181727949|SUPERIORITY|Wald chi-square test based on logistic regression|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.443|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.955|6.063|||Regression, Logistic|95% confidence interval for the odds ratio||Adults only||6.063|1.955|<.0001
90886573|NCT01208233|181635339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.049|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.2816||0.843|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.771|7.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||(R/14) × 100%||7.870|-5.771|0.8430
90886574|NCT01208233|181635340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.106|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0733||0.1512|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.011|0.201|||Mixed Models Analysis|||(L R)/(L+R)||0.201|0.011|0.1512
90886575|NCT01208233|181635341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.279|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5041||0.0128|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.929|-0.629|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.629|-1.929|0.0128
90886576|NCT01208233|181635342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.089|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1226||0.4713|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.07|0.248|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.248|-0.070|0.4713
90886577|NCT01208233|181635349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.516|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7201||0.8501|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.026|2.995|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Non-paretic hand||2.995|-4.026|0.8501
90886578|NCT01891734|181635351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d|0.3|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
90886579|NCT01891734|181635352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d|0.3|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
90886580|NCT04028388|181635354|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.22||||0.1465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|2.65|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||2.65|0.56|0.1465
90926098|NCT03580356|181727949|SUPERIORITY|Wald chi-square test based on logistic regression|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.838||||0.8524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.602|1.167|||Regression, Logistic|95% confidence interval for the odds ratio||Adults only||1.167|0.602|0.8524
90926099|NCT03580356|181727949|SUPERIORITY|Wald chi-square test based on logistic regression|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.542|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.577|8.004|||Regression, Logistic|95% confidence interval for the odds ratio||Adults only||8.004|2.577|<.0001
90886581|NCT04028388|181635358|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.76||||0.4576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|7.93|||Log Rank|||DOR is calculated in the subpopulation of subjects experiencing a response (CR or PR). Hazard Ratio \< 1 means that tested drug (ModraDoc006/r) has better outcome.||7.93|0.39|0.4576
90886582|NCT04028388|181635359|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.5||||0.0776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|3.48|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Difference between the cohorts is tested with Log-rank test and estimated using Univariate Cox model.~Wilcoxon test is used if proportional hazards assumption is not fulfilled. Hazard Ratio \< 1 means that tested drug (ModraDoc006/r) has better outcome"||3.48|0.65|0.0776
90886583|NCT04028388|181635361|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.4||||0.2539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.49|||Log Rank|||"Difference between the cohorts is tested with Log-rank test and estimated using Univariate Cox model.~Wilcoxon test is used if proportional hazards assumption is not fulfilled. Hazard Ratio \< 1 means that tested drug (ModraDoc006/r) has better outcome."||2.49|0.79|0.2539
90886584|NCT04028388|181635362|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.35||||0.3062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.42|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Difference between the cohorts is tested with Log-rank test and estimated using Univariate Cox model.~Wilcoxon test is used if proportional hazards assumption is not fulfilled. Hazard Ratio \< 1 means that tested drug (ModraDoc006/r) has better outcome."||2.42|0.76|0.3062
90886585|NCT01543256|181635414|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-Inferiority margin was 20%||||||0.008|||||||Exact non-inferiority|||||||.008
90886586|NCT01543256|181635415|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.568|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.568
90886587|NCT01543256|181635416|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Negative binomial|||||||<.001
90886588|NCT01543256|181635417|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.99
90886589|NCT01543256|181635418|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.519|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.519
90886590|NCT01543256|181635419|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Negative binomial|||||||<.001
90886591|NCT00822510|181635420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<.05
90886592|NCT00822510|181635422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|0.79|||||ANOVA|||||||.79
90886593|NCT00822510|181635423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|0.001|||||ANOVA|||||||.001
90886594|NCT00822510|181635424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|0.001|||||ANOVA|||||||.001
90886595|NCT00822510|181635425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|0.71|||||ANOVA|||||||.71
90886596|NCT00822510|181635426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|0.01|||||ANOVA|||||||.01
90886597|NCT00116805|181635431|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|With a sample size of 160 subjects in the TDF group and 80 subjects in the ADV group, a two group large-sample normal approximation test of proportions with a one-sided 0.025 significance level would have 95% power to reject the null hypothesis that the TDF treatment was inferior to the ADV treatment (the difference in proportions was less than -0.080) in favor of the alternative hypothesis that the TDF treatment was not inferior.|Difference in proportions|54.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.6|63.6||P-value corresponds to a Z-test of the null hypothesis that the stratum-adjusted (baseline ALT ≤ 4 x upper limit of the normal range \[ULN\] or \> 4 x ULN) difference is 0.|Z-test|2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI), stratified by baseline ALT was used to evaluate difference between groups in proportion of complete responders.||||63.6|44.6|<0.001
90886598|NCT00116805|181635432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|63.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.8|72.3||P-value corresponds to a Z-test of the null hypothesis that the stratum-adjusted difference in zero.|Z-test|Difference, standard error of the difference, and the CI are stratum adjusted based on baseline ALT category (≤ 4 x ULN or \> 4 x ULN).||||72.3|53.8|<0.001
90926100|NCT03580356|181727949|SUPERIORITY|Wald chi-square test based on logistic regression|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.106||||0.2764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.794|1.54|||Regression, Logistic|95% confidence interval for the odds ratio||Adults only||1.540|0.794|0.2764
90926101|NCT03580356|181727950|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.389|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.235|1.561|||Negative binomial regression model|95% confidence interval for the relative risk ratio||Adults only||1.561|1.235|<.0001
90926102|NCT03580356|181727950|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.029||||0.2369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.952|1.111|||Negative binomial regression model|95% confidence interval for the relative risk ratio||Adults only||1.111|0.952|0.2369
90926103|NCT03580356|181727950|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.425|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.268|1.603|||Negative binomial regression model|95% confidence interval for the relative risk ratio||Adults only||1.603|1.268|<.0001
90926104|NCT03580356|181727950|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.056||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.978|1.14|||Negative binomial regression model|95% confidence interval for the relative risk ratio||Adults only||1.140|0.978|0.0830
90926105|NCT05715528|181727952|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.099||||0.0681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.997|1.211||P-value calculated from stratified Log-rank test with randomization stratification factor as the strata.|Stratified Log-rank test||Hazard ratio and two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for hazard ratio were estimated using the Cox regression with randomization stratification factor as a covariate.|||1.211|0.997|0.0681
90926106|NCT05715528|181727956|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.036||||0.5558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.935|1.147|||Stratified Log-Rank Test|P-value calculated from stratified Log-rank test with randomization stratification factor as the strata.|Hazard ratio and two-sided 95% CI for hazard ratio were estimated using the Cox regression with randomization stratification factor as a covariate.|||1.147|0.935|0.5558
90926107|NCT05715528|181727957|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6469|||||||Fisher's exact test|||||||0.6469
90926108|NCT05715528|181727958|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.495||||0.5581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.045|5.464|||Log-rank test|P value was based on log-rank test.|Hazard ratio and two-sided 95% CI were estimated using the Cox regression.|||5.464|0.045|0.5581
90964388|NCT03627767|181810154|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|1.0||||||Week 12: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||1.0|-4.1|
90964389|NCT03627767|181810154|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|46.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.2|54.2||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||54.2|39.2|< 0.0001
90964390|NCT03627767|181810154|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|63.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.2|70.0||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||70.0|57.2|< 0.0001
90964391|NCT03627767|181810154|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|17.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.4|23.5||||||Week 16: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||23.5|10.4|
90964392|NCT03627767|181810154|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|41.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.9|48.7||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 28: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||48.7|33.9|< 0.0001
90926109|NCT05715528|181727960|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|0.02||||0.4254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.08||p-value was from Mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) with baseline viral load and randomization strata as covariates.|MMRM||95% CI was from MMRM with baseline viral load and randomization strata as covariates.|||0.08|-0.03|0.4254
90926110|NCT05715528|181727961|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.138||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.032|1.256||P-value calculated from stratified Log-rank test with randomization stratification factor as the strata.|Stratified Log-rank test||Hazard ratio and two-sided 95% CI for hazard ratio were estimated using the Cox regression with randomization stratification factor as a covariate.|||1.256|1.032|0.0015
90926111|NCT05715528|181727962|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6978|||||||Fisher's exact test|P-value was from the Fisher's exact test.||||||0.6978
90926112|NCT05715528|181727967|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5707|||||||Fisher's exact test|P-value was from the Fisher's exact test.||||||0.5707
90926113|NCT05736458|181728044|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45||||0.66|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Of the 23 participants who completed all study procedures, 2 participant's data was unusable for this analysis. Statistics are from paired 2 tailed t-test comparing pre-rTMS 2-back percent accuracy scores for participant's high and low controllability target.||||0.66
90926114|NCT05736458|181728045|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.94||||0.43|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 19||Statistics are from 2-tailed t-test comparing pre-rTMS to post-rTMS 2-back accuracy scores for a high controllability TMS target. Alternative hypothesis: true mean is not equal to 0.||||0.43
90926115|NCT05736458|181728045|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.36|||<|0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 20||Statistics are from 2-tailed t-test comparing pre-rTMS and post-rTMS 2-back percent accuracy scores for a low controllability TMS target. Alternative hypothesis: true mean is not equal to 0.||||<0.04
90926116|NCT05736458|181728046|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.54|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 11||Statistics are from 2-tailed paired t-test comparing 2-back accuracy score before and after rTMS to a high controllability target. Alternative hypothesis: true mean is not equal to 0.||||<0.05
90926117|NCT05736458|181728047|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.42||||0.27|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 19||Statistics are from paired 2 tailed t-test comparing 2-back percent changes (Post-rTMS - pre-rTMS) scores for participant's high and low controllability target. Alternative hypothesis: true mean is not equal to 0.||||0.27
90926118|NCT04011644|181728048|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.688|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Quanbeck,A.et al. A randomized trial testing digital medicine support models for mild-to-moderate alcohol use disorder. npj Digit. Med.7,248(2024)||||||0.688
90926119|NCT04011644|181728049|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.261|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.261
90926120|NCT04011644|181728050|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.014
90964393|NCT03627767|181810154|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|59.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.1|66.7||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 28: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||66.7|53.1|< 0.0001
91035139|NCT03086460|181956471|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.186|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.113|0.258|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.258|0.113|<0.001
90926121|NCT04011644|181728052|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.908|||||||ANCOVA|||A univariate analysis (Analysis of Covariance or ANCOVA) was conducted to compare the number of hospital days among the three groups controlling for baseline assessment of the dependent variable and design factors (i.e., Sex and Severity).||||0.908
90971148|NCT03036293|181824824|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Hodges-Lehmann estimator for location difference provided|Median changes (begin-end) within groups are compared||1|0|0.031
90926122|NCT04011644|181728054|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.206|||||||ANCOVA|||A univariate analysis (Analysis of Covariance or ANCOVA) was conducted to compare the number of hospital days among the three groups controlling for baseline assessment of the dependent variable and design factors (i.e., Sex and Severity).||||0.206
90926123|NCT04011644|181728055|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.104|||||||ANCOVA|||A univariate analysis (Analysis of Covariance or ANCOVA) was conducted to compare the number of hospital days among the three groups controlling for baseline assessment of the dependent variable and design factors (i.e., Sex and Severity).||||0.104
90926124|NCT04011644|181728056|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
90926125|NCT04011644|181728057|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.025|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.025
90926126|NCT04011644|181728058|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.555|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.555
90926127|NCT04011644|181728059|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.131|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.131
91035140|NCT03086460|181956471|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.165|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.092|0.238|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.238|0.092|<0.001
90926128|NCT04011644|181728063|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.02
90926129|NCT05654662|181728084|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0032|||||||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 12 (Test for non-zero within group change from Baseline)||||0.0032
90926130|NCT05654662|181728085|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.03||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|-2.6|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measure (MMRM)||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test product minus reference product.|||-2.6|-10.6|0.0013
90926131|NCT05654662|181728086|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0181|||||||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 3 (Test for non-zero within group change from Baseline)||||0.0181
90926132|NCT05654662|181728086|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0541|||||||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 6 (Test for non-zero within group change from Baseline)||||0.0541
90926133|NCT05654662|181728087|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.44||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|-1.0|||MMRM||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test product minus reference product.|Change from Baseline at Week 3||-1.0|-6.7|0.0091
90926134|NCT05654662|181728087|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.78||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|-1.8|||MMRM||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test product minus reference product.|Change from Baseline at Week 6||-1.8|-8.8|0.0031
90926135|NCT05654662|181728088|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 3 (Test for non-zero within group change from Baseline)||||<0.0001
90926136|NCT05654662|181728088|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 6 (Test for non-zero within group change from Baseline)||||<0.0001
90926137|NCT05654662|181728088|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 12 (Test for non-zero within group change from Baseline)||||<0.0001
90926138|NCT05654662|181728089|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|-0.01|||MMRM||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test product minus reference product.|Change from Baseline at Week 3||-0.01|-0.05|0.0051
90926139|NCT05654662|181728089|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|-0.01|||MMRM||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test product minus reference product.|Change from Baseline at Week 6||-0.01|-0.07|0.0034
90926140|NCT05654662|181728089|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|-0.02|||MMRM||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test product minus reference product.|Change from Baseline at Week 12||-0.02|-0.08|0.0022
90926141|NCT05654662|181728090|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 3 (Test for non-zero within group change from Baseline)||||<0.0001
90926142|NCT05654662|181728090|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 6 (Test for non-zero within group change from Baseline)||||<0.0001
90926143|NCT05654662|181728090|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 12 (Test for non-zero within group change from Baseline)||||<0.0001
90926144|NCT05654662|181728091|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|-0.04|||MMRM||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test product minus reference product.|Change from Baseline at Week 3||-0.04|-0.12|<0.0001
90926145|NCT05654662|181728091|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|-0.07|||MMRM||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test product minus reference product.|Change from Baseline at Week 6||-0.07|-0.18|<0.0001
90926146|NCT05654662|181728091|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|-0.08|||MMRM||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test product minus reference product.|Change from Baseline at Week 12||-0.08|-0.20|<0.0001
90926147|NCT05654662|181728092|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 3 (Test for non-zero within group change from Baseline)||||<0.0001
90926148|NCT05654662|181728092|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 6 (Test for non-zero within group change from Baseline)||||<0.0001
90926149|NCT05654662|181728092|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 12 (Test for non-zero within group change from Baseline)||||<0.0001
90926150|NCT05654662|181728093|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|-0.06|||MMRM||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test product minus reference product.|Change from Baseline at Week 3||-0.06|-0.25|0.0012
90926151|NCT05654662|181728093|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|-0.05|||MMRM||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test product minus reference product.|Change from Baseline at Week 6||-0.05|-0.29|0.0058
90886599|NCT00116805|181635433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4||0.801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|9.3||P-value corresponds to a Z-test of the null hypothesis that the stratum-adjusted difference is zero.|Z-test|Two-sided 95% CIs, stratified by baseline ALT (baseline ALT ≤ 4 x ULN or \> 4 x ULN), were used to evaluate treatment group differences.||||9.3|-12.0|0.801
90886600|NCT00116805|181635438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.8||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|17.2||P-value corresponds to a Z-test of the null hypothesis that the stratum-adjusted difference in zero. Difference, standard error of the difference, and the CI are stratum adjusted based on baseline ALT category (≤ 4 x ULN or \> 4 x ULN).|Z-test|||||17.2|-5.6|0.320
90886601|NCT00116805|181635444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|13.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.4||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|26.1||P-value corresponds to a Z-test. Statistical tests were not adjusted for baseline ALT stratum.|Z-test|Difference, standard error of the difference, and CI are stratum adjusted (baseline ALT ≤ 4 x ULN or \> 4 x ULN).||||26.1|1.1|0.032
90926152|NCT05654662|181728093|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.16|||MMRM||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test product minus reference product.|Change from Baseline at Week 12||-0.16|-0.42|<0.0001
90926153|NCT05654662|181728094|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 3 (Test for non-zero within group change from Baseline)||||<0.0001
90926154|NCT05654662|181728094|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 6 (Test for non-zero within group change from Baseline)||||<0.0001
90886602|NCT00116805|181635445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|-9.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.0||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.5|1.9||P-value corresponds to a Z-test of the null hypothesis that the ALT stratum-adjusted difference is zero.|Z-test|Difference, standard error of the difference, and CI are stratum adjusted (baseline ALT ≤ 4 x ULN or \> 4 x ULN).||||1.9|-21.5|0.100
90886603|NCT00116805|181635450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.3||0.245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|16.4||P-value above for HBeAg loss corresponds to a Z-test of the null hypothesis that stratum-adjusted difference is zero.|Z-test|Difference, standard error of the difference, and Cl are stratum adjusted based on baseline ALT category (≤ 4 x ULN or \> 4 x ULN).||This information pertains to HBeAg loss.||16.4|-4.2|0.245
90886604|NCT00116805|181635450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.2||0.363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|14.9||P-value for HBeAg seroconversion corresponds to Z-test of the null hypothesis that stratum-adjusted difference is zero.|Z-test|Difference, standard error of difference, and Cl are stratum adjusted based on baseline ALT category (≤ 4 x ULN or \> 4 x ULN).||This information pertains to HBeAg seroconversion.||14.9|-5.5|0.363
90886605|NCT00116805|181635451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.9||0.963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|11.9||P-value above for HBeAg loss corresponds to a Z-test of the null hypothesis that stratum-adjusted difference is zero.|Z-test|Difference, standard error of the difference, and Cl are stratum adjusted based on baseline ALT category (≤ 4 x ULN or \> 4 x ULN).||This information pertains to HBeAg loss.||11.9|-11.3|0.963
90886606|NCT00116805|181635451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.6||0.904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|11.7||P-value above for HBeAg loss corresponds to a Z-test of the null hypothesis that stratum-adjusted difference is zero.|Z-test|Difference, standard error of the difference, and Cl are stratum adjusted based on baseline ALT category (≤ 4 x ULN or \>4 x ULN).||This information pertains to seroconversion to anti-HBe.||11.7|-10.4|0.904
90886607|NCT00116805|181635452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|10.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.6||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|19.9||P-value corresponds to a Z-test of the null hypothesis that the ALT stratum-adjusted difference is zero. Difference, standard error of the difference, and confidence interval (CI) are stratum adjusted (baseline ALT ≤ 4 x ULN or \> 4 x ULN).|Z-test|||This information pertains to HBsAg loss.||19.9|1.9|0.018
90886608|NCT00116805|181635452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|10.2||P-value corresponds to a Z-test of the null hypothesis that the ALT stratum-adjusted difference is zero. Difference, standard error of the difference, and confidence interval (CI) are stratum adjusted (baseline ALT ≤ 4 x ULN or \> 4 x ULN).|Z-test|||This information pertains to HBsAg seroconversion.||10.2|-1.5|0.148
90886609|NCT00116805|181635453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9||0.757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|6.5||P-value above for HBsAg loss corresponds to a Z-test of the null hypothesis that stratum-adjusted difference is zero. Difference, standard error of the difference, and CI are stratum adjusted based on baseline ALT category (≤ 4 x ULN or \> 4 x ULN).|Z-test|||This information pertains to HBsAg loss.||6.5|-4.8|0.757
90886610|NCT00116805|181635453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6||0.733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|5.9||P-value above corresponds to Z-test of the null hypothesis that stratum-adjusted difference is zero. Difference, standard error of the difference, and CI are stratum adjusted based on baseline ALT category (≤ 4 x ULN or \> 4 x ULN).|Z-test|||This information pertains to seroconversion to anti-HBs.||5.9|-4.2|0.733
90886611|NCT01159938|181635465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.26||||0.617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|1.3||P-value is for LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in PWV at 30-min pre-breakfast in aortic arteries. Significance was assessed at the 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|||||1.30|-0.78|0.617
90926155|NCT05654662|181728094|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 12 (Test for non-zero within group change from Baseline)||||<0.0001
90926156|NCT05654662|181728095|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.051||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|-0.06|||MMRM||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test product minus reference product.|Change from Baseline at Week 3||-0.06|-0.26|0.0022
90926157|NCT05654662|181728095|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066||0.0099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.04|||MMRM||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test product minus reference product.|Change from Baseline at Week 6||-0.04|-0.30|0.0099
90971149|NCT03036293|181824825|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.00001||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-0.00001|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Lower is better|||-0.00001|-3|0.0021
90926158|NCT05654662|181728095|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.073|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.16|||MMRM||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test product minus reference product.|Change from Baseline at Week 12||-0.16|-0.45|<0.0001
90926159|NCT03106740|181728101|SUPERIORITY|Because relevant \[11C\]PBR28 PET imaging data were unavailable at the time of trial initiation to inform a power analysis of a treatment effect, we ran a power analysis of the treatment effect on the expected change in pain ratings based on a recent clinical trial using minocycline in subjects with back pain. We computed the sample size required for mixed effects between-subject and within-subject (Time: Pretest/Posttest) repeated measures ANOVA design. Alpha was set at 0.05 (two-tailed test).|Restricted maximum likelihood|0.0||||0.956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.02||The p-value corresponds to the group-by-time interaction analysis of the primary outcome measure.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimation parameter: Unstandardized partial regression coefficient (beta)|||0.02|-0.02|0.956
90926160|NCT05507333|181728109|OTHER||Proportion of clinically cured patients|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4073|0.7909|||||"The proportion of clinically cured patients at Day 7-14 was calculated and presented together with a two-sided 95% CI based on the Wilson score for the proportion of Yes with continuity correction."|"It was assumed that the true clinical cure rate was 54% in the treatment group, therefore a sample size of 24 patients was needed to obtain 80% power to show that the one-sided 95% CI for the clinical cure rate was above 30%. A sample size of 26 was used to account for patients with missing data.~Hypotheses for the primary endpoint:~Null hypothesis: Clinical cure rate is less than or equal to 30%.~Alternative hypothesis (one-sided): Clinical cure rate is above 30%"||0.7909|0.4073|
90926161|NCT05507333|181728110|OTHER||Proportion with cont. clinical response|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5366|0.9729|||||"The proportion of participants with continued clinical response at Day 25 (Yes) was calculated and presented together with a two-sided 95% CI. The CI was based on the Wilson score for the proportion of Yes with a continuity correction."|||0.9729|0.5366|
90926162|NCT05507333|181728111|OTHER||Proportion with clin and mycol. cure|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2091|0.5927|||||"The proportion of participants with clinical and mycological cure at Day 7-14 (Yes) was calculated and presented with a 95% CI. The CI was based on the Wilson score for the proportion of participants with Yes with a continuity correction."|||0.5927|0.2091|
91035141|NCT03086460|181956471|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.185|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.118|0.252|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.252|0.118|<0.001
90926163|NCT05507333|181728112|OTHER||Proportion with mycological cure|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3375|0.7286|||||"The proportion of participants with mycological cure at Day 7-14 (Yes) was calculated and presented with a 95% CI. The CI was based on the Wilson score for the proportion of participants with Yes with a continuity correction."|||0.7286|0.3375|
90926164|NCT05507333|181728113|OTHER||Proportion with mycological cure|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4598|0.9384|||||"The proportion of participants with mycological cure at Day 25 (Yes) was calculated and presented with a 95% CI. The CI was based on the Wilson score for the proportion of participants recorded as Yes with a continuity correction."|||0.9384|0.4598|
90926165|NCT05507333|181728114|OTHER||Proportion with absence of Candida|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3719|0.7603|||||"The proportion of participants that did not show Candida hyphae in the wet smear (absence of/Yes) at Day 7-14 was calculated and presented together with a 95% CI based on the Wilson score for the proportion of Yes with a continuity correction."|||0.7603|0.3719|
90964394|NCT03627767|181810154|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|18.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.8|26.6||||||Week 28: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||26.6|10.8|
90964395|NCT03627767|181810154|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|37.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.6|44.4||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||44.4|29.6|< 0.0001
90964396|NCT03627767|181810154|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|54.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.6|61.7||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||61.7|47.6|< 0.0001
90964397|NCT03627767|181810154|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|17.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.4|26.0||||||Week 40: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||26.0|9.4|
90964398|NCT03627767|181810154|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|30.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.6|37.4||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||37.4|22.6|< 0.0001
90964399|NCT03627767|181810154|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|50.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.8|58.1||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||58.1|43.8|< 0.0001
90964400|NCT03627767|181810154|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|21.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.8|29.5||||||Week 52: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||29.5|12.8|
90964401|NCT03627767|181810155|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|1.4|||=|0.7232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|8.8||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||8.8|-6.1|= 0.7232
90964402|NCT03627767|181810155|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-2.2|||=|0.5694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|5.4||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||5.4|-9.8|= 0.5694
90964403|NCT03627767|181810155|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|3.8||||||Week 12: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||3.8|-11.2|
90964404|NCT03627767|181810155|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|29.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.2|35.8||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||35.8|22.2|< 0.0001
90964405|NCT03627767|181810155|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|57.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.2|64.5||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||64.5|51.2|< 0.0001
90964406|NCT03627767|181810155|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|28.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.8|37.0||||||Week 16: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||37.0|20.8|
90964407|NCT03627767|181810155|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|30.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.9|37.2||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 28: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||37.2|23.9|< 0.0001
91035142|NCT03086460|181956471|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.176|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.121|0.231|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment F ( Perforomist® IS 40 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Analysis of covariance model: treatment, subject, and period as fixed effects; baseline FEV1 value as covariates. Subjects receiving the same treatment in more than one period are included in the model with only data for the instance of each treatment which occurred after the randomization error."||0.231|0.121|<0.001
90964408|NCT03627767|181810155|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|48.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.1|55.6||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 28: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||55.6|42.1|< 0.0001
90926166|NCT05507333|181728115|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.15|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.77|-3.23|||||The mean change in the score for composite vulvovaginal signs and symptoms from Screening to Day 7-14 was calculated and presented together with a 95% CI.|||-3.23|-5.77|
90926167|NCT05507333|181728116|OTHER||Proportion with reduction CVVS score|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6872|0.9697|||||"The proportion of participants having a reduction in signs and symptoms (CVVS scores) on Day 7-14 vs. Screening was calculated and presented with a 95% CI based on the Wilson score for the prop. with Yes with a continuity correction."|||0.9697|0.6872|
90926168|NCT04359654|181728131|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.01
90926169|NCT04359654|181728132|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.03
90926170|NCT04359654|181728134|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.004
90926171|NCT04359654|181728135|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.021|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The reported LS means are antilogs of the LS means estimated on the log scale.||||0.021
90926172|NCT03677141|181728180|SUPERIORITY||Difference in rates|-4.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.61|21.07||||||||21.07|-30.61|
90964409|NCT03627767|181810155|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|18.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.8|26.6||||||Week 28: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||26.6|9.8|
90926173|NCT03331835|181728247|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|42.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.93|54.79|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|95% CI and p-value are derived from CMH analysis stratified by weight group at baseline (≤100 kg, \> 100 kg).||Estimated risk difference, 95% CI and p-value are derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) analysis stratified by weight group at baseline (≤100 kg, \> 100 kg). Non-responder Imputation (NRI) was used to impute missing data. Treatment groups were defined as randomised treatment.||54.79|30.93|<0.001
90926174|NCT03331835|181728248|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|44.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.81|56.71|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|95% CI and p-value are derived from CMH analysis stratified by weight group at baseline (≤100 kg, \> 100 kg)||Estimated risk difference, 95% CI and p-value are derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) analysis stratified by weight group at baseline (≤100 kg, \> 100 kg). Non-responder Imputation (NRI) was used to impute missing data. Treatment groups were defined as randomised treatment.||56.71|32.81|<0.001
90926175|NCT03331835|181728249|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|43.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.78|55.84|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Estimated risk difference, 95% CI and p-value are derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) analysis stratified by weight group at baseline (≤100 kg, \> 100 kg). Non-responder Imputation (NRI) was used to impute missing data. Treatment groups were defined as randomised treatment.||55.84|31.78|<0.001
90926176|NCT03331835|181728250|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|31.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.76|42.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Estimated risk difference, 95% CI and p-value are derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) analysis stratified by weight group at baseline (≤100 kg, \> 100 kg). Non-responder Imputation (NRI) was used to impute missing data. Treatment groups were defined as randomised treatment.||42.10|20.76|<0.001
90926177|NCT03331835|181728251|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.83|-1.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The endpoint was analysed using mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) model including treatment group, week, interaction between treatment and time, baseline value, and baseline weight group as fixed factors. Within participant covariance was estimated by an unstructured covariance matrix. Treatment groups were defined as randomised treatment.||-1.33|-4.83|<0.001
90926178|NCT03331835|181728252|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.03|-9.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The endpoint was analysed using mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) model including treatment group, week, interaction between treatment and time, baseline value, and baseline weight group as fixed factors. Within participant covariance was estimated by an unstructured covariance matrix. Treatment groups were defined as randomised treatment.||-9.68|-23.03|<0.001
90926179|NCT03331835|181728253|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|-4.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The endpoint was analysed using mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) model including treatment group, week, interaction between treatment and time, baseline value, and baseline weight group as fixed factors. Within participant covariance was estimated by an unstructured covariance matrix. Treatment groups were defined as randomised treatment.||-4.81|-13.00|<0.001
90971150|NCT03036293|181824825|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.00002||||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.00002|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Lower is better|||-0.00002|-1|0.0056
90926180|NCT03331835|181728257|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.31|-3.53|||ANCOVA|||The AUC was analysed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment group, baseline weight group, and the baseline PSI total score as explanatory variables. Treatment groups are defined as randomised treatment.||-3.53|-6.31|<0.001
90926181|NCT03331835|181728258|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.57||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.32|-0.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The endpoint is analysed by using mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM) model including treatment group, week, interaction between treatment and time, baseline value, and baseline weight group as fixed factors. Within participant covariance was estimated by an unstructured covariance matrix. Treatment groups are defined as randomised treatment.||-0.82|-4.32|0.004
90926182|NCT03331835|181728259|SUPERIORITY|Estimated risk difference, 95% CI and p-value are derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) analysis stratified by weight group at baseline (\<=100 kg, \> 100 kg). Non-responder Imputation (NRI) was used to impute missing data. Treatment groups were defined as randomised treatment.|Risk Difference (RD)|40.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.75|53.16|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||53.16|28.75|<0.001
90926183|NCT03331835|181728260|SUPERIORITY|The endpoint was analysed by using mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) model including treatment group, week, interaction between treatment and time, baseline value, and baseline weight group as fixed factors. Within participant covariance was estimated by an unstructured covariance matrix. Treatment groups were defined as randomised treatment.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.72||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.24|-0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.19|-3.24|0.028
90926184|NCT04204083|181728275|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-Value was calculated|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
90926185|NCT04204083|181728276|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-Value was calculated|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
90926186|NCT04204083|181728277|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-Value was calculated|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
90926187|NCT04934072|181728302|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of FKS518 to US-Prolia was demonstrated if the 90% CI for the difference in mean percent change from baseline to Week 52 in LS-BMD laid entirely above -1.45%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.306|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.05|0.96|||||Difference : FKS518 - US-Prolia|||0.96|-0.05|
90926188|NCT04934072|181728302|OTHER|Non-superiority Analysis: Non-superiority of FKS518 to US-Prolia was demonstrated if the 90% CI for the difference in mean percent change from baseline to Week 52 in LS-BMD laid entirely below 1.45%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.306|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.19|1.2|||||Difference : FKS518 - US-Prolia|||1.20|0.19|
90926189|NCT05970861|181728317|OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Null hypothesis: there is no statistical significance between the mean percentages of microbiota units of the main and control groups after the mare's milk administration.~Alternate hypothesis: statistical significance exists between the mean percentages of microbiota units of the main and control groups after the mare's milk administration."||||<0.05
90926190|NCT05970861|181728317|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||"Null Hypothesis: The freeze-dried mare's milk does not significantly influence the mean percentages of gut microbiota units.~Alternate Hypothesis: The freeze-dried mare's milk significantly influences the mean percentages of gut microbiota units."||||<0.05
90926191|NCT05970861|181728318|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Null hypothesis: No statistically significant difference exists between antiphospholipid antibody levels before and after the mare's milk administration.~Alternate hypothesis: Statistically significant difference exists between antiphospholipid antibody levels before and after the mare's milk administration."||||>0.05
90926192|NCT05970861|181728319|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Null hypothesis: No statistically significant difference exists between uric acid blood levels before and after the mare's milk administration.~Alternate hypothesis: Statistically significant difference exists between uric acid blood levels before and after the mare's milk administration."||||0.01
90926193|NCT05970861|181728320|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Null hypothesis: No statistically significant difference exists between the scores on a scale (PCS, MCS) after the mare's milk administration.~Alternate hypothesis: Statistically significant difference exists between the scores on a scale (PCS, MCS) after the mare's milk administration."||||<0.01
90926194|NCT05970861|181728320|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Null hypothesis: No statistically significant difference exists between the scores on a scale (PCS, MCS) after 2 measurements in the control group.~Alternate hypothesis: Statistically significant difference exists between the scores on a scale (PCS, MCS) after 2 measurements in the control group."||||>0.05
90926195|NCT05970861|181728320|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||"Null Hypothesis: The freeze-dried mare's milk does not significantly influence the scores on the scales (PCS, MCS).~Alternate Hypothesis: The freeze-dried mare's milk significantly influences the scores on the scales (PCS, MCS)."||||<0.01
90926196|NCT02990338|181728326|SUPERIORITY|A closed test procedure was used to control the type I error rate meaning no further testing would be performed unless the significance level had been reached on PFS.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.596||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.436|0.814||One-sided p-value based on Stratified log-rank test. Threshold for statistical significance at 0.025.|Log Rank|Stratification was based on age (\<75 years versus \>=75 years) and number of previous lines of therapy (2 or 3 versus \>3) according to IRT.|Stratification was based on age (\<75 years versus \>=75 years) and number of previous lines of therapy (2 or 3 versus \>3) according to IRT.|Confidence interval (CI) for Kaplan-Meier estimates were calculated with log-log transformation of survival function and methods of Brookmeyer and Crowley.||0.814|0.436|0.0005
90926197|NCT02990338|181728327|SUPERIORITY|A closed test procedure was used to control the type I error rate meaning no further testing would be performed unless the significance level had been reached on PFS.|||||<|0.0001||||||Threshold for statistical significance at 0.025.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|One sided p-value was stratified based on age (\<75 years versus \>=75 years) and number of previous lines (2 or 3 versus \>3) according to IRT.||||||<0.0001
90964410|NCT03627767|181810155|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|25.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.4|31.5||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||31.5|18.4|< 0.0001
90926198|NCT02990338|181728331|SUPERIORITY|A closed test procedure was used to control the type I error rate meaning no further testing would be performed unless the significance level had been reached on PFS.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.776||||0.0319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.594|1.015||One-sided significance level was 0.02 using the O'Brien-Fleming alpha spending function.|Log Rank|Stratified on age (\<75 years versus \>=75 years) and number of previous lines of therapy (2 or 3 versus \> 3) according to IRT.|Stratified on age (\<75 years versus \>=75 years) and number of previous lines of therapy (2 or 3 versus \> 3) according to IRT.|||1.015|0.594|0.0319
90926199|NCT00971087|181728350|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|3D + s2D will be considered non-inferior to 2D FFDM if the lower limit one-sided 95% CI for the difference in AUCs (3DS minus 2D FFDM) is greater than -0.05. That is, our null hypothesis is that the AUC for 3D + s2D is 0.05 less than the AUC for 2D FFDM. A difference of 0.05 is considered a clinically significant difference.||||||0.009|||||||MRMC ROC Analysis|||A multi-reader, multi-case ROC analysis will be used to compare 3D + s2D to 2D FFDM. The areas under the curve (AUC) will be used to compare ROC performance.||||0.009
90926200|NCT00971087|181728351|NON_INFERIORITY|A multi-reader, multi-case ROC analysis will be used to compare 3DS to 2D FFDM. The areas under the curve (AUC) will be used to compare ROC performance. 3DS will be considered non-inferior to 2D FFDM if the lower limit onesided 95% CI for the difference in AUCs (3DS minus 2D FFDM) is greater than -0.05.||||||0.045|||||||MRMC ROC Analysis|||||||0.045
90926201|NCT00677365|181728370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.96||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|-0.38||Repeated Measure Model|Mixed Models Analysis|||LS Mean Difference||-0.38|-1.54|0.0014
90926202|NCT00677365|181728371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.21||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.52|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard Ratio for need of anti-pseudomonal antimicrobials; Estimates are obtained from a Cox proportional hazards regression model including terms for treatment, region, baseline P.aeruginosa density (log10 ), highest baseline MIC of levofloxacin against P. aeruginosa (log2 ), and baseline percent predicted FEV1 (quartiles)||0.52|0.09|0.0007
90926203|NCT00677365|181728372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.61||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.05|14.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS Mean Difference Between MP-376 240 mg and Placebo groups||14.17|3.05|0.0026
90926204|NCT00677365|181728373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.94||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.63|17.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS Mean Difference Between Placebo and MP-376 240 mg BID groups||17.25|4.63|0.0008
90926205|NCT00677365|181728374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.5||||0.2174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.68|11.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS Mean Difference from MP-376 240 mg BID to placebo groups||11.67|-2.68|0.2174
90926206|NCT04102111|181728408|OTHER||Least Squares Means|37.4||||0.288|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.0|95.8|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||95.8|-21.0|0.288
90926207|NCT03334695|181728415|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|||||||0.012
90926208|NCT02641730|181728429|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.674|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|-4.383|||Mixed-Model for Repeated Measures|||||-4.383|-11.000|<0.001
90926209|NCT02641730|181728429|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.468|-0.748|||Mixed-Model for Repeated Measures|||||-0.748|-7.468|0.017
90926210|NCT02938923|181728459|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.19||||0.853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.16|25.54||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 112) = 0.19|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||25.54|-21.16|0.853
90926211|NCT02938923|181728459|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.04||||0.767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.57|38.65||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 112) = 0.30|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||38.65|-28.57|0.767
90926212|NCT02938923|181728459|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.84||||0.868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.93|36.62||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df,112) = 0.17|Difference between the changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||36.62|-30.93|0.868
90926213|NCT02938923|181728459|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.63||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.26|25.52||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 217) = 0.05|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with a Toeplitz covariance structure in the model with covariates.||25.52|-24.26|0.960
90926214|NCT02938923|181728459|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.42||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.97|42.82||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 217) = 0.48|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with a Toeplitz covariance structure in the model with covariates.||42.82|-25.97|0.630
90926215|NCT02938923|181728459|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.79||||0.657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.77|42.36||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 217) = 0.44|Difference between the changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with a Toeplitz covariance structure in the model with covariates.||42.36|-26.77|0.657
90926216|NCT02938923|181728459|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.08||||0.627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.72|15.56||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 112) = -0.49|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||15.56|-25.72|0.627
90926217|NCT02938923|181728459|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.5||||0.364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.86|15.86||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 112) = -0.91|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||15.86|-42.86|0.364
90926218|NCT02938923|181728459|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.42||||0.574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.0|21.15||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 112) = -0.56|Difference between the changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||21.15|-38.00|0.574
90926219|NCT02938923|181728459|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.51||||0.557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.96|12.94||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 217) = -0.59|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with a Toeplitz covariance structure in the model with covariates.||12.94|-23.96|0.557
90926220|NCT02938923|181728459|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.65||||0.302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.64|12.35||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 217) = -1.03|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with a Toeplitz covariance structure in the model with covariates.||12.35|-39.64|0.302
90926221|NCT02938923|181728459|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.14||||0.541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.33|18.06||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 217) = -0.61|Difference between the changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with a Toeplitz covariance structure in the model with covariates.||18.06|-34.33|0.541
90926222|NCT02938923|181728460|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|357.72||||0.336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-375.75|1091.19||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 112) = 0.97|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||1091.19|-375.75|0.336
90926223|NCT02938923|181728460|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|936.93||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-147.56|2021.42||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 112) = 1.71|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||2021.42|-147.56|0.090
90926224|NCT02938923|181728460|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|579.21||||0.297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-515.36|1673.78||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 112) = 1.05|Difference between the changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||1673.78|-515.36|0.297
90926225|NCT02938923|181728460|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|383.36||||0.245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-266.06|1032.79||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 107) = 1.17|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with a Heterogeneous Toeplitz covariance structure in the model with covariates.||1032.79|-266.06|0.245
90926226|NCT02938923|181728460|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|836.64||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.04|1740.32||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 107) = 1.84|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with a Heterogeneous Toeplitz covariance structure in the model with covariates.||1740.32|-67.04|0.069
90926227|NCT02938923|181728460|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|453.28||||0.327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-459.13|1365.68||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 107) = 0.98|Difference between changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with a Heterogeneous Toeplitz covariance structure in the model with covariates.||1365.68|-459.13|0.327
90926228|NCT02938923|181728461|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.16||||0.934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-391.74|426.05||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 112) = 0.08|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||426.05|-391.74|0.934
90926229|NCT02938923|181728461|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|562.64||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.02|1167.31||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 112) = 1.84|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||1167.31|-42.02|0.068
90926230|NCT02938923|181728461|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|545.49||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.81|1155.79||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 112) = 1.77|Difference between the changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||1155.79|-64.81|0.079
90926231|NCT02938923|181728461|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.73||||0.867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-365.4|432.86||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 102) = 0.17|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure in the model with covariates.||432.860|-365.40|0.867
90926232|NCT02938923|181728461|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|665.75||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|105.68|1225.81||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 102) = 2.36|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure in the model with covariates.||1225.81|105.68|0.020
90926233|NCT02938923|181728461|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|632.02||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|66.38|1197.66||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 102) = 2.22|Difference between the changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure in the model with covariates.||1197.66|66.38|0.029
90926234|NCT02938923|181728462|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.61|21.01||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 110) = 0.07|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||21.01|-19.61|0.946
90926235|NCT02938923|181728462|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.44||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.25|53.13||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 110) = 1.69|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||53.13|-4.25|0.094
90926236|NCT02938923|181728462|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.74||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.19|52.67||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 110) = 1.63|Difference between the changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||52.67|-5.19|0.107
90926237|NCT02938923|181728462|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.81||||0.627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.68|24.3||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 189) = 0.49|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with a Toeplitz covariance structure in the model with covariates.||24.30|-14.68|0.627
90926238|NCT02938923|181728462|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.91||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|52.01||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 189) = 1.81|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with a Toeplitz covariance structure in the model with covariates.||52.01|-2.20|0.072
90926239|NCT02938923|181728462|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.1||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.29|47.49||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 189) = 1.45|Difference between the changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with a Toeplitz covariance structure in the model with covariates.||47.49|-7.29|0.149
90926240|NCT02938923|181728462|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.38||||0.849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.71|12.95||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 110) = -0.19|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||12.95|-15.71|0.849
90926241|NCT02938923|181728462|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.47||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.83|35.78||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|(df, 110) = 1.15|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||35.78|-4.83|0.134
90926242|NCT02938923|181728462|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.86||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.68|37.39||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 110) = 1.63|Difference between the changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||37.39|-3.68|0.107
90926243|NCT02938923|181728462|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0.973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.64|13.17||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 189) = -0.03|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with a Toeplitz covariance structure in the model with covariates.||13.17|-13.64|0.973
90926244|NCT02938923|181728462|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.49||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.56|33.54||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 189) = 1.50|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with a Toeplitz covariance structure in the model with covariates.||33.54|-4.56|0.135
90964411|NCT03627767|181810155|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|39.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.7|46.5||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||46.5|32.7|< 0.0001
90964412|NCT03627767|181810155|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|14.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|22.8||||||Week 40: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||22.8|6.3|
90926245|NCT02938923|181728462|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.72||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.55|34.0||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 189) = 1.51|Difference between the changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with a Toeplitz covariance structure in the model with covariates.||34.00|-4.55|0.134
90926246|NCT02938923|181728463|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.21||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|2.76||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 112) = 1.55|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||2.76|-0.34|0.125
90926247|NCT02938923|181728463|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.35||||0.758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|2.61||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 112) = 0.31|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||2.61|-1.90|0.758
90926248|NCT02938923|181728463|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.86||||0.455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.12|1.41||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 112) = -0.75|Difference between the changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||1.41|-3.12|0.455
90926249|NCT02938923|181728463|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.14||||0.229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|3.0||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 214) = 1.21|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure in the model with covariates.||3.00|-0.72|0.229
90926250|NCT02938923|181728463|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.97|3.16||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 214) = 0.46|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure in the model with covariates.||3.16|-1.97|0.647
90926251|NCT02938923|181728463|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.54||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.12|2.04||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 214) = -0.41|Difference between the changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure in the model with covariates.||2.04|-3.12|0.680
90926252|NCT02938923|181728463|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.48||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|2.97||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 112) = 1.96|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||2.97|-0.02|0.052
90926253|NCT02938923|181728463|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34||||0.754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.79|2.46||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 112) = 0.31|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||2.46|-1.79|0.754
90926254|NCT02938923|181728463|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.14||||0.294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.28|1.0||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 112) = -1.06|Difference between the changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||1.00|-3.28|0.294
90926255|NCT02938923|181728463|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.46||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|2.78||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 214) = 2.17|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure in the model with covariates.||2.78|0.13|0.031
90964413|NCT03627767|181810155|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|24.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.1|31.2||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||31.2|18.1|< 0.0001
90926256|NCT02938923|181728463|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|2.16||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 214) = 0.32|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure in the model with covariates.||2.16|-1.56|0.752
90926257|NCT02938923|181728463|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.16||||0.223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.03|0.71||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 214) = -1.22|Difference between the changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure in the model with covariates.||0.71|-3.03|0.223
90926258|NCT02938923|181728464|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.85||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|1.46||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 112) = 2.78|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||1.46|0.24|0.006
90926259|NCT02938923|181728464|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.97||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 112) = 0.17|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||0.97|-0.81|0.863
90926260|NCT02938923|181728464|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.77||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|0.12||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 112) = -1.71|Difference between the changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||0.12|-1.67|0.091
90926261|NCT02938923|181728464|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.83||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.44||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 214) = 2.65|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an Autoregressive (1) covariance structure in the model with covariates.||1.44|0.21|0.009
90926262|NCT02938923|181728464|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|1.02||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 214) = 0.28|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an Autoregressive (1) covariance structure in the model with covariates.||1.02|-0.76|0.778
90926263|NCT02938923|181728464|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|0.19||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 214) = -1.55|Difference between the changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an Autoregressive (1) covariance structure in the model with covariates.||0.19|-1.59|0.124
90926264|NCT02938923|181728464|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.69||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|1.31||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 112) = 2.24|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||1.31|0.08|0.027
90926265|NCT02938923|181728464|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|0.78||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 112) = -0.21|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||0.78|-0.97|0.833
90926266|NCT02938923|181728464|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.79||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|0.1||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 112) = -1.77|Difference between the changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||0.10|-1.67|0.080
90926267|NCT02938923|181728464|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.67||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|1.21||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 214) = 2.49|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with an Autoregressive (1) covariance structure in the model with covariates.||1.21|0.14|0.014
90926268|NCT02938923|181728464|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.68||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 214) = -0.21|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with an Autoregressive (1) covariance structure in the model with covariates.||0.68|-0.84|0.834
90926269|NCT02938923|181728464|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.75||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|0.01||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 214) = -1.94|Difference between the changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with an Autoregressive (1) covariance structure in the model with covariates.||0.01|-1.52|0.054
90926270|NCT02938923|181728465|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25||||0.326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.74||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 112) = 0.99|Difference between the BADL changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison of the Basic Activities of Daily Living (BADL) subscale based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||0.74|-0.25|0.326
90926271|NCT02938923|181728465|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.49||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 112) = -0.54|Difference between the BADL changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison of the Basic Activities of Daily Living (BADL) subscale based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||0.49|-0.87|0.587
90926272|NCT02938923|181728465|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43||||0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|0.25||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 112) = -1.25|Difference between the BADL changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison of the Basic Activities of Daily Living (BADL) subscale based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||0.25|-1.12|0.213
90926273|NCT02938923|181728465|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.78||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 233) = 0.83|Difference between the BADL changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison of the Basic Activities of Daily Living (BADL) subscale based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with a Toeplitz covariance structure in the model with covariates.||0.78|-0.32|0.410
90926274|NCT02938923|181728465|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.51||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 233) = -0.63|Difference between the BADL changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison of the Basic Activities of Daily Living (BADL) subscale based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with a Toeplitz covariance structure in the model with covariates.||0.51|-0.99|0.527
90926275|NCT02938923|181728465|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47||||0.219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|0.28||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 233) = -1.23|Difference between the BADL changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison of the Basic Activities of Daily Living (BADL) subscale based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with a Toeplitz covariance structure in the model with covariates.||0.28|-1.23|0.219
90926276|NCT02938923|181728465|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22||||0.355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.69||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 112) = 0.93|Difference between the BADL changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison of the Basic Activities of Daily Living (BADL) subscale based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||0.69|-0.25|0.355
90926277|NCT02938923|181728465|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.47||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 112) = -0.59|Difference between the BADL changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison of the Basic Activities of Daily Living (BADL) subscale based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||0.47|-0.88|0.554
90926278|NCT02938923|181728465|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42||||0.219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.26||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 112) = -1.24|Difference between the BADL changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison of the Basic Activities of Daily Living (BADL) subscale based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||0.26|-1.10|0.219
90926279|NCT02938923|181728465|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22||||0.345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.68||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 233) = 0.95|Difference between the BADL changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison of the Basic Activities of Daily Living (BADL) subscale based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with a Toeplitz covariance structure in the model with covariates.||0.68|-0.24|0.345
90926280|NCT02938923|181728465|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0.494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.43||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 233) = -0.69|Difference between the BADL changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison of the Basic Activities of Daily Living (BADL) subscale based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with a Toeplitz covariance structure in the model with covariates.||0.43|-0.88|0.494
90926281|NCT02938923|181728465|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|0.21||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 233) = -1.35|Difference between the BADL changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison of the Basic Activities of Daily Living (BADL) subscale based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with a Toeplitz covariance structure in the model with covariates.||0.21|-1.11|0.180
90926282|NCT02938923|181728465|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.5||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 112) = -0.4|Difference between the changes of IADL of EX+T - EX+P|Comparison of the Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADL) subscale based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||0.50|-0.75|0.693
90964414|NCT03627767|181810155|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|38.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.6|45.3||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||45.3|31.6|< 0.0001
90964415|NCT03627767|181810155|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|13.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.6|22.3||||||Week 52: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||22.3|5.6|
90926283|NCT02938923|181728465|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42||||0.327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|0.43||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 112) = -0.98|Difference between the IADL changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison of the Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADL) subscale based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||0.43|-1.27|0.327
90926284|NCT02938923|181728465|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|0.56||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 112) = -0.69|Difference between the IADL changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison of the Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADL) subscale based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||0.56|-1.15|0.493
90926285|NCT02938923|181728465|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.49||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 233) = -0.39|Difference between the IADL changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison of the Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADL) subscale based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an Autoregressive (1) covariance structure in the model with covariates.||0.49|-0.72|0.698
90926286|NCT02938923|181728465|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35||||0.404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|0.47||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 233) = -0.84|Difference between the IADL changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison of the Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADL) subscale based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an Autoregressive (1) covariance structure in the model with covariates.||0.47|-1.17|0.404
90926287|NCT02938923|181728465|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0.585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|0.6||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 233) = -0.55|Difference between the IADL changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison of the Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADL) subscale based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an Autoregressive (1) covariance structure in the model with covariates.||0.60|-1.06|0.585
90926288|NCT02938923|181728465|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23||||0.399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.76||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 112) = 0.85|Difference between IADL changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison of the Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADL) subscale based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||0.76|-0.31|0.399
90926289|NCT02938923|181728465|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23||||0.554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.98||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 112) = 0.59|Difference between the IADL changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison of the Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADL) subscale based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||0.98|-0.53|0.554
90926290|NCT02938923|181728465|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.76||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 112) = 0|Difference between the IADL changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison of the Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADL) subscale based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||0.76|-0.76|0.998
90926291|NCT02938923|181728465|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23||||0.378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.73||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 233) = 0.88|Difference between the IADL changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison of the Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADL) subscale based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with an Autoregressive (1) covariance structure in the model with covariates.||0.73|-0.28|0.378
90926292|NCT02938923|181728465|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19||||0.608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.91||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 233) = 0.51|Difference between the IADL changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison of the Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADL) subscale based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with an Autoregressive (1) covariance structure in the model with covariates.||0.91|-0.53|0.608
90926293|NCT02938923|181728465|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.69||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 233) = -0.11|Difference between the IADL changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison of the Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADL) subscale based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with an Autoregressive (1) covariance structure in the model with covariates.||0.69|-0.76|0.915
90926294|NCT02938923|181728466|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.49||||0.602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|2.33||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 234) = 0.52|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with a Toeplitz covariance structure.||2.33|-1.36|0.602
90926295|NCT02938923|181728466|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.96||||0.454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.48|1.56||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 234) = -0.75|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with a Toeplitz covariance structure.||1.56|-3.48|0.454
90926296|NCT02938923|181728466|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.45||||0.262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.98|1.09||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 234) = -1.13|Difference between the changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with a Toeplitz covariance structure.||1.09|-3.98|0.262
90926297|NCT02938923|181728466|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.46||||0.639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|2.4||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 234) = 0.47|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with a Toeplitz covariance structure in the model with covariates.||2.40|-1.47|0.639
90926298|NCT02938923|181728466|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.04||||0.438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.66|1.59||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 234) = -0.78|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with a Toeplitz covariance structure in the model with covariates.||1.59|-3.66|0.438
90926299|NCT02938923|181728466|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.14|1.14||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 234) = -1.12|Difference between the changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with a Toeplitz covariance structure in the model with covariates.||1.14|-4.14|0.265
90926300|NCT02938923|181728466|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.48||||0.555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|2.07||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 234) = 0.59|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with a Toeplitz covariance structure.||2.07|-1.11|0.555
90926301|NCT02938923|181728466|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.39|2.15||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 234) = -0.10|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with a Toeplitz covariance structure.||2.15|-2.39|0.917
90926302|NCT02938923|181728466|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.87|1.68||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 234) = -0.52|Difference between the changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with a Toeplitz covariance structure.||1.68|-2.87|0.606
90926303|NCT02938923|181728466|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.48||||0.549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|2.04||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 234) = 0.60|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with a Toeplitz covariance structure in the model with covariates.||2.04|-1.09|0.549
90926304|NCT02938923|181728466|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16||||0.887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.38|2.06||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 234) = -0.14|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with a Toeplitz covariance structure in the model with covariates.||2.06|-2.38|0.887
90926305|NCT02938923|181728466|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.64||||0.574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.87|1.59||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 234) = -0.56|Difference between the changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with a Toeplitz covariance structure in the model with covariates.||1.59|-2.87|0.574
90964416|NCT03627767|181810163|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|3.0|||=|0.4815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|11.3||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||11.3|-5.3|= 0.4815
90926306|NCT02938923|181728467|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.96||||0.649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.19|5.11||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 233) = 0.46|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with a Compound Symmetry covariance structure.||5.11|-3.19|0.649
90926307|NCT02938923|181728467|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5||||0.389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.22|8.23||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 233) = 0.86|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with a Compound Symmetry covariance structure.||8.23|-3.22|0.389
90926308|NCT02938923|181728467|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.55||||0.598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.22|7.31||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 233) = 0.53|Difference between the changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with a Compound Symmetry covariance structure.||7.31|-4.22|0.598
90926309|NCT02938923|181728467|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.88||||0.676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.26|5.02||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 233) = 0.42|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with a Compound Symmetry covariance structure in the model with covariates.||5.02|-3.26|0.676
90926310|NCT02938923|181728467|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.48||||0.394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.24|8.19||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 233) = 0.85|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with a Compound Symmetry covariance structure in the model with covariates.||8.19|-3.24|0.394
90926311|NCT02938923|181728467|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6||||0.585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.15|7.35||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 233) = 0.55|Difference between the changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with a Compound Symmetry covariance structure in the model with covariates.||7.35|-4.15|0.585
90926312|NCT02938923|181728467|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.55||||0.794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.56|4.65||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 233) = 0.26|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with a Compound Symmetry covariance structure.||4.65|-3.56|0.794
90926313|NCT02938923|181728467|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.27||||0.449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.62|8.16||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 233) = 0.76|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with a Compound Symmetry covariance structure.||8.16|-3.62|0.449
90926314|NCT02938923|181728467|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.72||||0.567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|7.64||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 233) = 0.57|Difference between the changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with a Compound Symmetry covariance structure.||7.64|-4.20|0.567
90926315|NCT02938923|181728467|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.55||||0.794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.56|4.65||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 233) = 0.26|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with a Compound Symmetry covariance structure in the model with covariates.||4.65|-3.56|0.794
90926316|NCT02938923|181728467|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.89||||0.526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.97|7.75||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 233) = 0.64|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with a Compound Symmetry covariance structure in the model with covariates.||7.75|-3.97|0.526
90926317|NCT02938923|181728467|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.34||||0.654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.55|7.23||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 233) = 0.45|Difference between the changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with a Compound Symmetry covariance structure in the model with covariates.||7.23|-4.55|0.654
90926318|NCT02938923|181728468|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.63||||0.597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|2.98||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 233) = 0.53|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EX+P) on Physical Health domain|Comparison of Physical Health Domain based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with a Heterogeneous Toeplitz covariance structure.||2.98|-1.72|0.597
90926319|NCT02938923|181728468|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.18||||0.184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.41|1.04||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 233) = -1.33|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EUC) on Physical Health domain|Comparison of Physical Health Domain based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with a Heterogeneous Toeplitz covariance structure.||1.04|-5.41|0.184
90926320|NCT02938923|181728468|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.82||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.07|0.44||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 233) = -1.71|Difference between the changes (EX+P - EUC) on Physical Health domain|Comparison of Physical Health Domain based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with a Heterogeneous Toeplitz covariance structure.||0.44|-6.07|0.089
90926321|NCT02938923|181728468|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.64||||0.635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.01|3.28||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 233) = 0.47|Difference in the changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison of Physical Health Domain based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with a Heterogeneous Toeplitz covariance structure in the model with covariates.||3.28|-2.01|0.635
90886612|NCT01159938|181635465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.25||||0.732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|1.73||P-value is for LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in PWV at 30-min pre-breakfast in aortic arteries. Significance was assessed at the 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|||||1.73|-1.23|0.732
90926322|NCT02938923|181728468|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.15||||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.76|1.46||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 233) = -1.17|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison of Physical Health Domain based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with a Heterogeneous Toeplitz covariance structure in the model with covariates.||1.46|-5.76|0.242
90926323|NCT02938923|181728468|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.79||||0.132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.42|0.85||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 233) = -1.51|Difference between the changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison of Physical Health Domain based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with a Heterogeneous Toeplitz covariance structure in the model with covariates.||0.85|-6.42|0.132
90926324|NCT02938923|181728468|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.52||||0.193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|3.81||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 233) = 1.31|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison of Physical Health Domain based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with a Heterogeneous Toeplitz covariance structure.||3.81|-0.77|0.193
90926325|NCT02938923|181728468|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.44||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|4.75||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 233) = 0.86|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison of Physical Health Domain based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with a Heterogeneous Toeplitz covariance structure.||4.75|-1.86|0.390
90926326|NCT02938923|181728468|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.39|3.25||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 233) = -0.04|Difference between the changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison of Physical Health Domain based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with a Heterogeneous Toeplitz covariance structure.||3.25|-3.39|0.965
90964417|NCT03627767|181810163|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-1.8|||=|0.6748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|6.6||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||6.6|-10.3|= 0.6748
90964418|NCT03627767|181810163|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|3.2||||||Week 12: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||3.2|-13.4|
90886613|NCT01159938|181635465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.27||||0.715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.73||P-value is for LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in PWV at 30-min pre-breakfast in aortic arteries. Significance was assessed at the 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|||||1.73|-1.20|0.715
90886614|NCT01159938|181635465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.35||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.16||P-value is for LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in PWV at 30-min pre-breakfast in brachial arteries. Significance was assessed at 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|||||0.16|-0.85|0.177
90886615|NCT01159938|181635465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.53||P-value is for LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in PWV at 30-min pre-breakfast in brachial arteries. Significance was assessed at the 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|||||0.53|-0.94|0.579
90886616|NCT01159938|181635465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.49||||0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|0.21||P-value is for LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in PWV at 30-min pre-breakfast in brachial arteries. Significance was assessed at 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|||||0.21|-1.19|0.167
90886617|NCT01159938|181635466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.19||||0.676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.72||P-value is for LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in PWV at 60-min post-breakfast in aortic arteries. Significance was assessed at the 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|||||0.72|-1.10|0.676
90886618|NCT01159938|181635466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.03||||0.957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|1.34||P-value is for LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in PWV at 60-min post-breakfast in aortic arteries. Significance was assessed at the 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|||||1.34|-1.27|0.957
90886619|NCT01159938|181635466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.41||||0.513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|0.85||P-value is for LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in PWV at 60-min post-breakfast in aortic arteries. Significance was assessed at the 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|||||0.85|-1.68|0.513
90926327|NCT02938923|181728468|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.52||||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|3.82||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 233) = 1.30|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison of Physical Health Domain based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with a Heterogeneous Toeplitz covariance structure in the model with covariates.||3.82|-0.79|0.195
90926328|NCT02938923|181728468|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.35||||0.418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|4.63||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 233) = 0.81|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison of Physical Health Domain based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with a Heterogeneous Toeplitz covariance structure in the model with covariates.||4.63|-1.93|0.418
90926329|NCT02938923|181728468|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.46|3.13||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 233) = -0.10|Difference between the changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison of Physical Health Domain based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with a Heterogeneous Toeplitz covariance structure in the model with covariates.||3.13|-3.46|0.921
90886620|NCT01159938|181635466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.09||||0.623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.28||P-value is for LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in PWV at 60-min post-breakfast in brachial arteries. Significance was assessed at the 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|||||0.28|-0.47|0.623
90964419|NCT03627767|181810163|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|24.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.8|30.3||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||30.3|17.8|< 0.0001
90886621|NCT01159938|181635466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.03||||0.916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.57||P-value is for LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in PWV at 60-min post-breakfast in brachial arteries. Significance was assessed at the 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|||||0.57|-0.51|0.916
90886622|NCT01159938|181635466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.21||||0.413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.31||P-value is for LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in PWV at 60-min post-breakfast in brachial arteries. Significance was assessed at the 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|||||0.31|-0.73|0.413
90886623|NCT01159938|181635467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|1.34||P-value is for LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in PWV at 120-min post-breakfast in aortic arteries. Significance was assessed at the 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|||||1.34|-0.94|0.724
90886624|NCT01159938|181635467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.57||||0.479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|2.2||P-value is for LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in PWV at 120-min post-breakfast in aortic arteries. Significance was assessed at 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|||||2.20|-1.05|0.479
90886625|NCT01159938|181635467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.18||||0.825|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|1.41||P-value is for LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in PWV at 120-min post-breakfast in aortic arteries. Significance was assessed at 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|||||1.41|-1.76|0.825
90886626|NCT01159938|181635467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.25||P-value is for LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in PWV at 120-min post-breakfast in brachial arteries. Significance was assessed at the 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|||||0.25|-0.65|0.378
90886627|NCT01159938|181635467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.19||||0.553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.46||The p-value is for the LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in PWV at 120 mins post-breakfast in brachial arteries. Significance was assessed at the 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|||||0.46|-0.84|0.553
90886628|NCT01159938|181635467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.42||P-value is for LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in PWV at 120-min post-breakfast in brachial arteries. Significance was assessed at the 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|||||0.42|-0.83|0.512
90886629|NCT01159938|181635468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.29||||0.466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|0.51||P-value is for LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in PWV at 180-min post-breakfast in aortic arteries. Significance was assessed at the 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|||||0.51|-1.09|0.466
90886630|NCT01159938|181635468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.44||||0.449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.72||P-value is for LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in PWV at 180-min post-breakfast in aortic arteries. Significance was assessed at the 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|||||0.72|-1.60|0.449
90886631|NCT01159938|181635468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.15||||0.792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|0.96||P-value is for LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in PWV at 180-min post-breakfast in aortic arteries. Significance was assessed at the 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|||||0.96|-1.25|0.792
90886632|NCT01159938|181635468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.16||||0.493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.31||P-value is for LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in PWV at 180-min post-breakfast in brachial arteries. Significance was assessed at the 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|||||0.31|-0.63|0.493
90886633|NCT01159938|181635468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.58||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|0.1||P-value is for LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in PWV at 180-min post-breakfast in brachial arteries. Significance was assessed at the 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|||||0.10|-1.25|0.091
90886634|NCT01159938|181635468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.26||||0.425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.9||P-value is for LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in PWV at 180-min post-breakfast in brachial arteries. Significance was assessed at the 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|||||0.90|-0.39|0.425
90886635|NCT01159938|181635469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.48||||0.275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|0.4||P-value is for LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in PWV at 240-min post-breakfast in aortic arteries. Significance was assessed at the 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|||||0.40|-1.36|0.275
90886636|NCT01159938|181635469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.17||||0.784||95.0|-1.44|1.1||P-value is for LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in PWV at 240-min post-breakfast in aortic arteries. Significance was assessed at the 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|||||1.10|-1.44|0.784
90886637|NCT01159938|181635469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.79||||0.197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.01|0.43||P-value is for LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in PWV at 240-min post-breakfast in aortic arteries. Significance was assessed at the 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|||||0.43|-2.01|0.197
90971151|NCT02404103|181824835|EQUIVALENCE|The primary goal of the current study is to determine the effects of Aerospan on lung function in children with small airway obstruction with two doses.||||||0.148|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|generalized linear mixed-effects models (GLMM) using the identity link function and normal distribution were used||||||.148
90886638|NCT01159938|181635469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.11||P-value is for LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in PWV at 240-min post-breakfast in brachial arteries. Significance was assessed at the 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|||||0.11|-0.90|0.122
90886639|NCT01159938|181635469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.43||||0.246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.31||P-value is for LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in PWV at 240-min post-breakfast in brachial arteries. Significance was assessed at the 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|||||0.31|-1.16|0.246
90886640|NCT01159938|181635469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.37||||0.298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|0.33||P-value is for LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in PWV at 240-min post-breakfast in brachial arteries. Significance was assessed at the 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|||||0.33|-1.06|0.298
90926330|NCT02938923|181728468|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.31||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|4.88||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 232) = 1.77|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison of Mental Health Domain based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with a Heterogeneous AR Autoregressive (1) covariance structure.||4.88|-0.26|0.078
90926331|NCT02938923|181728468|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.51|3.43||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 232) = -0.02|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison of Mental Health Domain based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with a Heterogeneous AR Autoregressive (1) covariance structure.||3.43|-3.51|0.982
90926332|NCT02938923|181728468|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.35||||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.85|1.15||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 232) = -1.32|Difference between the changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison of Mental Health Domain based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with a Heterogeneous AR Autoregressive (1) covariance structure.||1.15|-5.85|0.187
90926333|NCT02938923|181728468|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.16||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|4.58||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 232) = 1.76|Difference of the changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison of Mental Health Domain based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with a Heterogeneous AR Autoregressive (1) covariance structure in the model with covariates.||4.58|-0.26|0.080
90886641|NCT01159938|181635470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.49||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|-0.48||P-value is for the Least Square (LS) mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in change in PWA at 60-min post-breakfast. Significance was assessed at the 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|LS mean was adjusted for age, body mass index (BMI), visit, group, condition, group by condition, and random participant.||||-0.48|-6.50|0.024
90964420|NCT03627767|181810163|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|42.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.6|49.0||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||49.0|35.6|< 0.0001
90964421|NCT03627767|181810163|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|18.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.2|26.6||||||Week 16: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions||26.6|10.2|
90964422|NCT03627767|181810163|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|24.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.2|31.0||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 28: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||31.0|18.2|< 0.0001
91035143|NCT03086460|181956471|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.008|0.108|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Analysis of covariance model: treatment, subject, and period as fixed effects; baseline FEV1 value as covariates. Subjects receiving the same treatment in more than one period are included in the model with only data for the instance of each treatment which occurred after the randomization error."||0.108|-0.008|0.088
90886642|NCT01159938|181635470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.25||||0.859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.59|3.09||P-value is for LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in change in PWA at 60-min post-breakfast. Significance was assessed at the 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|The LS mean was adjusted for age, BMI, visit, group, condition, group by condition, and random participant.||||3.09|-2.59|0.859
90926334|NCT02938923|181728468|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47||||0.781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.76|2.83||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 232) = -0.28|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison of Mental Health Domain based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with a Heterogeneous AR Autoregressive (1) covariance structure in the model with covariates.||2.83|-3.76|0.781
90926335|NCT02938923|181728468|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.63||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.94|0.69||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 232) = -1.56|Difference between the changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison of Mental Health Domain based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with a Heterogeneous AR Autoregressive (1) covariance structure in the model with covariates.||0.69|-5.94|0.121
90926336|NCT02938923|181728468|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.58||||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|3.73||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 232) = 1.45|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison of Mental Health Domain based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with a Heterogeneous AR Autoregressive (1) covariance structure.||3.73|-0.57|0.148
90926337|NCT02938923|181728468|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.64|2.45||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 232) = -0.39|Differences between the changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison of Mental Health Domain based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with a Heterogeneous AR Autoregressive (1) covariance structure.||2.45|-3.64|0.699
90926338|NCT02938923|181728468|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.18||||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.24|0.89||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 232) = -1.4|Difference in the changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison of Mental Health Domain based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with a Heterogeneous AR Autoregressive (1) covariance structure.||0.89|-5.24|0.163
90926339|NCT02938923|181728468|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.59||||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|3.69||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 232) = 1.49|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison of Mental Health Domain based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with a Heterogeneous AR Autoregressive (1) covariance structure in the model with covariates.||3.69|-0.51|0.137
90926340|NCT02938923|181728468|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69||||0.648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.68|2.29||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 232) = -0.46|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison of Mental Health Domain based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with a Heterogeneous AR Autoregressive (1) covariance structure in the model with covariates.||2.29|-3.68|0.648
90926341|NCT02938923|181728468|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.28||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.29|0.72||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 232) = -1.50|Difference between the changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison of Mental Health Domain based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with a Heterogeneous AR Autoregressive (1) covariance structure in the model with covariates.||0.72|-5.29|0.135
90926342|NCT02938923|181728469|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.008||||0.821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.073|0.058||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 92) = -0.23|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an Autoregressive AR(1) covariance structure.||0.058|-0.073|0.821
90926343|NCT02938923|181728469|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.013||||0.789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.082|0.108||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 92) = 0.27|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an Autoregressive AR(1) covariance structure.||0.108|-0.082|0.789
90926344|NCT02938923|181728469|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.075|0.116||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 92) = 0.42|Difference between the changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an Autoregressive AR(1) covariance structure.||0.116|-0.075|0.672
90926345|NCT02938923|181728469|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.002||||0.703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.013|0.009||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 92) = -0.38||Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an Autoregressive (1) covariance structure in the model with covariates.|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EX+P)|0.009|-0.013|0.703
90926346|NCT02938923|181728469|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.002||||0.803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.017|0.014||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 92) = -0.25||Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an Autoregressive (1) covariance structure in the model with covariates.|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EUC)|0.014|-0.017|0.803
90926347|NCT02938923|181728469|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.015|0.016||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 92) = 0.01||Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an Autoregressive (1) covariance structure in the model with covariates.|Difference between the changes (EX+P - EUC)|0.016|-0.015|0.991
90926348|NCT04271046|181728509|OTHER|||||||0.97|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.97
90926349|NCT04271046|181728510|OTHER|||||||0.55|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.55
90926350|NCT04271046|181728511|OTHER|||||||0.26|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.26
90926351|NCT04271046|181728512|OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.42
90926352|NCT04271046|181728519|OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.08
90926353|NCT04271046|181728520|OTHER|||||||0.79|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.79
90926354|NCT04271046|181728521|OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.60
90926355|NCT04271046|181728522|OTHER|||||||0.86|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.86
90926356|NCT04271046|181728523|OTHER|||||||0.46|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.46
90926357|NCT04271046|181728524|OTHER|||||||0.55|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.55
90926358|NCT04271046|181728525|OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.63
90926359|NCT04271046|181728526|OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.28
90926360|NCT04271046|181728527|OTHER|||||||0.82|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.82
90926361|NCT04271046|181728528|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.04
90926362|NCT04271046|181728529|OTHER|||||||0.98|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.98
90926363|NCT04271046|181728530|OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.22
90926364|NCT04271046|181728531|OTHER|||||||0.85|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.85
90926365|NCT04271046|181728532|OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.80
90926366|NCT01570361|181728571|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0009||||||Prior to the final analysis, study had two interim analyses. Hence alpha level is 0.0231 for primary analysis adjusted for the two interim analyses.|Log Rank|One-sided test||||||0.0009
90886643|NCT01159938|181635470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.19||||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.25|0.87||P-value is for LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in change in PWA at 120-min post-breakfast. Significance was assessed at the 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|LS mean was adjusted for age, BMI, visit, group, condition, group by condition, and random participant.||||0.87|-5.25|0.155
90886644|NCT01159938|181635470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.58||||0.685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.46|2.3||P-value is for LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in change in PWA at 120-min post-breakfast. Significance was assessed at 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|LS mean was adjusted for age, BMI, visit, group, condition, group by condition, and random participant.||||2.30|-3.46|0.685
90926367|NCT01570361|181728572|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0118||||||The alpha level is 0.025 for this secondary endpoint.|Log Rank|One-sided test||||||0.0118
90926368|NCT01570361|181728573|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0041||||||The alpha level is 0.025 for this secondary endpoint.|Log Rank|One-sided test||||||0.0041
90926369|NCT05513937|181728597|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference pre vs post|-15.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.32|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.001
90926370|NCT02846545|181728599|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean|-0.178|||=|0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|-0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.08|-0.28|= 0.0004
90926371|NCT02846545|181728600|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.09|||=|0.802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.63|-0.81|= 0.8020
90926372|NCT02846545|181728601|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of hypoglycemia rates|0.9|||=|0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.838|0.966|||Poisson regression model|||Hypoglycemia rate was analyzed by using a Poisson regression model with the number of hypoglycemia events through Week 52 as the response, treatment and gender as fixed factors, age and baseline HbA1c as covariates, and the duration of study participation through week 52 in logarithm as an offset variable.||0.966|0.838|= 0.0036
90926373|NCT06468982|181728610|SUPERIORITY|To evaluate whether intra-aortic balloon pump catheter support contributes to a more rapid decrease in troponin levels and faster myocardial recovery, daily troponin levels were analyzed using mixed ANOVA.||||||0.05||||||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons, and the threshold value was set at 0.05.|ANOVA|The hypothesis that IABP causes a rapid increase in troponin levels was analyzed using ANOVA, and the p-value was reported.||After testing for normality, the baseline characteristics of the two groups will be analyzed using the Student's t-test or the Mann-Whitney U-test for continuous variables and the chi-square test or Fisher's exact test for categorical variables. Differences between the intra-aortic balloon pump group and the control group in terms of repeated measurements will be analyzed using mixed ANOVA.||||0.05
90926374|NCT06468982|181728611|OTHER||Hazard Ratio, log|0.55|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.78|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The prognostic value of risk factors for in-hospital mortality was evaluated by multivariate logistic regression analysis||0.78|0.38|<0.05
90926375|NCT03663205|181728612|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.651||||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.465|0.912|||One-sided, Log Rank Test||Stratified by stratification factors: disease stage (IIIB or IV) and the level of PD-L1 expression in tumor cells (\>=50%, 1% to 49%, \<1%)|||0.912|0.465|0.0054
90926376|NCT03663205|181728619|OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|3.1|||||Based on a constrained longitudinal data analysis model with QLQ-LC13 coughing score on the response variable and treatment by study visit interaction and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Least squares mean difference in coughing score||3.1|-7.4|
90926377|NCT03663205|181728619|OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|2.1|||||Based on a constrained longitudinal data analysis model with QLQ-LC13 dyspnea score on the response variable and treatment by study visit interaction and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Least squares mean difference in dyspnea score||2.1|-4.4|
90926378|NCT03663205|181728619|OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|1.2|||||Based on a constrained longitudinal data analysis model with QLQ-LC13 chest pain score on the response variable and treatment by study visit interaction and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Least squares mean difference in chest pain score||1.2|-7.6|
90926379|NCT03663205|181728620|OTHER||Least squares mean difference|3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|8.7|||||Based on a constrained longitudinal data analysis model with QLQ-LC30 Global Health Status/Quality of Life score on the response variable and treatment by study visit interaction and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Least squares mean difference in Global Health Status/Quality of Life score||8.7|-0.9|
90926380|NCT04505410|181728681|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.05
90926381|NCT05247034|181728709|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Comparing row Change from baseline at Week 12"||||>0.05
90926382|NCT05247034|181728709|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0001
90926383|NCT05247034|181728709|OTHER|||||||0.0125|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0125
90926384|NCT05247034|181728710|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For 1 Hz||||>0.05
90926385|NCT05247034|181728710|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||5 and 10 Hz||||>0.05
90926386|NCT05247034|181728710|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||For 1, 5 and 10 Hz||||>0.05
90926387|NCT05247034|181728710|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||For 1, 5 and 10 Hz||||>0.05
90926388|NCT05247034|181728711|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Comparing row Change from baseline at Week 12"||||>0.05
90926389|NCT05247034|181728711|OTHER|||||||0.042|||||||Friedman|||||||0.042
90926390|NCT05247034|181728711|OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||Friedman|||||||0.015
90926391|NCT05247034|181728712|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Z Test|||||||>0.05
90926392|NCT05247034|181728712|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Z Test|||||||>0.05
90926393|NCT05247034|181728712|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Z Test|||||||>0.05
90886645|NCT01159938|181635470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.84||||0.292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.33|1.64||P-value is for LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in change in PWA at 180-min post-breakfast. Significance was assessed at the 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|LS mean was adjusted for age, BMI, visit, group, condition, group by condition, and random participant.||||1.64|-5.33|0.292
90964423|NCT03627767|181810163|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|40.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.7|47.3||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 28: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||47.3|33.7|< 0.0001
90886646|NCT01159938|181635470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.04||||0.216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|5.33||P-value is for LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in change in PWA at 180-min post-breakfast. Significance was assessed at the 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|LS mean was adjusted for age, BMI, visit, group, condition, group by condition, and random participant.||||5.33|-1.25|0.216
90886647|NCT01159938|181635470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.87||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.92|0.18||P-value is for LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in change in PWA at 240-min post-breakfast. Significance was assessed at the 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|LS mean was adjusted for age, BMI, visit, group, condition, group by condition, and random participant.||||0.18|-5.92|0.065
90886648|NCT01159938|181635470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.08||||0.954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.96|2.8||P-value is for LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in change in PWA at 240-min post-breakfast. Significance was assessed at the 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|LS mean was adjusted for age, BMI, visit, group, condition, group by condition, and random participant.||||2.80|-2.96|0.954
90886649|NCT01159938|181635471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.02||||0.905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.27||P-value is for Least Square (LS) mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in change in PAT at 120-min post-breakfast. Significance was assessed at the 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|LS mean was adjusted for age, BMI, visit, group, condition, group by condition, and random participant.||||0.27|-0.31|0.905
90886650|NCT01159938|181635471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.42||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.69||P-value is for LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in change in PAT at 120-min post-breakfast. Significance was assessed at the 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|LS mean was adjusted for age, BMI, visit, group, condition, group by condition, and random participant.||||0.69|0.14|0.004
90886651|NCT01159938|181635471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.09||||0.584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.23||P-value is for LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in change in PAT at 240-min post-breakfast. Significance was assessed at the 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|LS mean was adjusted for age, BMI, visit, group, condition, group by condition, and random participant.||||0.23|-0.41|0.584
90886652|NCT01159938|181635471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.13||||0.436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.44||P-value is for LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in change in PAT at 240-min post-breakfast. Significance was assessed at the 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|LS mean was adjusted for age, BMI, visit, group, condition, group by condition, and random participant.||||0.44|-0.19|0.436
90886653|NCT04837482|181635488|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority of AGN-190584 was concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI of the least-square mean difference between AGN-190584 and vehicle was greater than the pre-specified margin of -0.25.|Least-Square (LS) Mean|-0.224|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0602||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.346|-0.103|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed-effects model with repeated measures||||-0.103|-0.346|0.0006
90886654|NCT02979535|181635496|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.947|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.773|1.16||||||Antigen HPV-16||1.16|0.773|
90886655|NCT02979535|181635496|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.986|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.803|1.21||||||Antigen HPV-18||1.21|0.803|
90886656|NCT02979535|181635497|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.977|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.653|1.46||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 1||1.46|0.653|
90886657|NCT02979535|181635497|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.911|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.654|1.27||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 2||1.27|0.654|
90886658|NCT02979535|181635497|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.921|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.727|1.17||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 3||1.17|0.727|
90886659|NCT02979535|181635497|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.931|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.733|1.18||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 4||1.18|0.733|
90886660|NCT04820673|181635511|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P\<0.0001, calculated by t-test, corresponds to baseline response group domain scores in comparison to week-12 domain scores (CFB). CFB is calculated using available matching data for each domain. Higher domain scores indicate higher disease burden.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12 vs Baseline||||<.0001
90886661|NCT00587587|181635517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||"P-value compares overall incidence of AEs between groups, ie Apligraf 12/17 and Control 10/13.~UADE is defined in 21CFR812.3(s)"|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test used to evaluate treatment differences between Apligraf subjects and Control subjects experiencing any AEs.||||1.0000
90886662|NCT00587587|181635518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5863||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5863
90886663|NCT00587587|181635519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3783||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.3783
90886664|NCT00587587|181635520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7149|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Treatment differences in scar firmness evaluated using a 2-tailed Wilcoxon rank sum test with pooled variances.||||0.7149
90886665|NCT00587587|181635521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.167||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Treatment differences in scar thickness evaluated using a 2-tailed Wilcoxon rank sum test||||0.1670
90886666|NCT00587587|181635522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7221|TWO_SIDED|0.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Global assessments analyzed as ordinal ranks. Treatment differences in global assessment evaluated using a 2-tailed Wilcoxon rank sum test with pooled variances.||||0.7221
90886667|NCT00587587|181635523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.408|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Global assessments analyzed as ordinal ranks. Treatment differences in global assessment evaluated using a 2-tailed Wilcoxon rank sum test with pooled variances.||||0.4080
90886668|NCT00587587|181635524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9556||0.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Differences evaluated using a 2-tailed Wilcoxon rank sum test with pooled variances.||||0.9556
90886669|NCT01162005|181635525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
90886670|NCT00466193|181635541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value is for treatment|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90886671|NCT00466193|181635543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0||||p-value is for treatment|ANCOVA|||||||0.006
90926394|NCT05247034|181728713|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Comparing row Change from baseline at Week 12"||||>0.05
90926395|NCT05247034|181728713|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
90926396|NCT05247034|181728713|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
90926397|NCT05247034|181728714|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Comparing row Change from baseline at Week 12"||||>0.05
90926398|NCT05247034|181728714|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
90926399|NCT05247034|181728714|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
90926400|NCT05247034|181728715|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Comparing row Change from baseline at Week 12"||||>0.05
90926401|NCT05247034|181728715|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
90926402|NCT05247034|181728715|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
90926403|NCT05247034|181728716|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Comparing row Change from baseline at Week 12"||||>0.05
90926404|NCT05247034|181728716|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
90926405|NCT05247034|181728716|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
90926406|NCT05247034|181728717|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Comparing row Change from baseline at Week 12"||||>0.05
90964424|NCT03627767|181810163|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|15.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.6|24.1||||||Week 28: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||24.1|7.6|
90926407|NCT05247034|181728717|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
90926408|NCT05247034|181728717|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Friedman|||||||>0.05
90926409|NCT05247034|181728718|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Comparing row Change from baseline at Week 12"||||>0.05
90926410|NCT05247034|181728718|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
90926411|NCT05247034|181728718|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Friedman|||||||>0.05
90926412|NCT05247034|181728719|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Comparing row Change from baseline at Week 12"||||>0.05
90926413|NCT05247034|181728719|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
90926414|NCT05247034|181728719|OTHER|||||||0.0027|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0027
90926415|NCT05247034|181728720|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Comparing row Change from baseline at Week 12"||||>0.05
90926416|NCT05247034|181728720|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
90926417|NCT05247034|181728720|OTHER|||||||0.043|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0430
90926418|NCT05247034|181728721|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Comparing row Change from baseline at Week 12"||||>0.05
90926419|NCT05247034|181728721|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
90926420|NCT05247034|181728721|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
90926421|NCT05247034|181728722|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Comparing row Change from baseline at Week 12"||||>0.05
90926422|NCT05247034|181728722|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
90926423|NCT05247034|181728722|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
90926424|NCT05247034|181728723|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Comparing row Change from baseline at Week 12"||||>0.05
90926425|NCT05247034|181728723|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
90926426|NCT05247034|181728723|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
90926427|NCT05247034|181728724|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Comparing row Change from baseline at Week 12"||||>0.05
90926428|NCT05247034|181728724|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
90926429|NCT05247034|181728724|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
90926430|NCT05247034|181728725|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Comparing row Change from baseline at Week 12"||||>0.05
90926431|NCT05247034|181728725|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
90926432|NCT05247034|181728725|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
90926433|NCT05247034|181728726|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Comparing row Change from baseline at Week 12"||||>0.05
90926434|NCT05247034|181728726|OTHER|||||||0.0007|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0007
90926435|NCT05247034|181728726|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
90886672|NCT00466193|181635546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0041||95.0||||P-value is for treatment|ANCOVA|||||||0.0041
90886673|NCT00086346|181635552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.342|||||||Rank ANCOVA|||||||0.342
90886674|NCT00086346|181635553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison between treatment groups of percentages of patients with biopsy-confirmed acute rejection.||||0.017
90886675|NCT00086346|181635554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||1 way ANOVA, two sided|||||||>0.05
90886676|NCT00086346|181635555|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The a priori criterion for declaring non-inferiority was a lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) having a ≥ 5% difference in graft loss. -5.2 is \< 5 % difference.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2||||||95.0|-5.2|2.8|||||Weighted difference in percentage of graft loss: (CNI% minus SRL%); negative values are favorable to CNI group|||2.8|-5.2|
90886677|NCT01075074|181635571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||||||Corrected for 6 comparisons.|Kruskal-Wallis|||A sample size of 23 subjects per group was estimated to achieve 80% power to detect a 10 point difference in the aggregated QOR40 score for the 3 study groups to be compared assuming an overall standard deviation of 12.||||0.006
90886678|NCT01075074|181635571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|16.0||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|30.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||30|1|0.03
90886679|NCT01075074|181635571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|17.0||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|31.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||31|2|0.01
90886680|NCT01075074|181635571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|12.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||12|-16|1.0
90886681|NCT01075074|181635572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003||95.0||||P values is corrected for 6 comparisons|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0003
90886682|NCT01075074|181635572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003||95.0||||Corrected for 6 comparisons|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0003
90886683|NCT01075074|181635572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|195.0||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.0|300.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||300|98|0.0004
90886684|NCT01075074|181635572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|195.0||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.0|278.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||278|98|0.0003
90886685|NCT01075074|181635572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-105.0|83.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||83|-105|0.86
90886686|NCT01075074|181635573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005||95.0||||Corrected for multiple comparisons (n=6).|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0005
90886687|NCT01075074|181635573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|38.0||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|50.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||50|8|0.01
90886688|NCT01075074|181635573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|40.0||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|47.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||47|12|0.003
90886689|NCT01075074|181635573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|1.0||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|20.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||20|-18|0.95
90886690|NCT01075074|181635574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0||||Corrected for multiple comparisons (n=6).|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.03
90886691|NCT01075074|181635574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|30.0||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|60.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||60|0|0.01
90886692|NCT01075074|181635574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|30.0||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|60.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||60|0|0.04
90886693|NCT01075074|181635574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.0|30.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||30|-30|0.92
90886694|NCT00844194|181635587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSmean|-1.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|-1.1|||ANCOVA|with last observation carried forward (LOCF)||||-1.10|-1.89|< 0.0001
90886695|NCT00844194|181635587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSmean|-1.67|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-1.04|||ANCOVA|||||-1.04|-2.30|< 0.0001
90926436|NCT01960452|181728737|OTHER|Group comparison, for absolute (spatially z-score normalized across all electrodes for each subject)||||||0.2791|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Only reporting values for approximate 10-20 channel CP1||||0.2791
90926437|NCT01960452|181728737|OTHER|Group comparison, for absolute multiple comparisons correction across electrodes using threshold free cluster enhancement (TFCE)||||||0.9|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9
90926438|NCT01960452|181728738|OTHER|Group comparison, for both absolute (spatially z-score normalized across all electrodes for each subject)||||||0.1069|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Only reporting values for approximate 10-20 channel CP1||||0.1069
90926439|NCT01960452|181728738|OTHER|Group comparison, for absolute multiple comparisons correction across electrodes using threshold free cluster enhancement (TFCE)||||||0.546|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.546
90926440|NCT01960452|181728739|OTHER|Group comparison, for absolute (spatially z-score normalized across all electrodes for each subject)||||||0.2918|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Only reporting values for approximate 10-20 channel CP1||||0.2918
90926441|NCT01960452|181728739|OTHER|Group comparison, for absolute multiple comparisons correction across electrodes using threshold free cluster enhancement (TFCE)||||||0.761|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.761
90886696|NCT01038921|181635686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.0||||0.013|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Average change in systolic blood pressure from pre-treatment baseline to post-treatment at 10 weeks when those subjects were on Melatonin was compared to the average change in systolic blood pressure from pre-treatment baseline to post-treatment at 10 weeks when those same subjects were on Placebo using an intent-to-treat mixed model. Power was estimated based on having 30 subjects completing both the melatonin arm and the placebo arm.||||0.013
90926442|NCT02668692|181728740|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.96|||=|0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|10.95|||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis of the FAS.||10.95|0.35|=0.68
90926443|NCT02668692|181728740|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.92|||=|0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|10.72||Treatment comparison by Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact||Odds of 'overall improvement' in LEO 80185 gel group relative to Dovobet® ointment group.|Statistical analysis of the PPAS.||10.72|0.34|=0.68
90926444|NCT02668692|181728741|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.28|||=|0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.74|||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for the FAS.||0.74|0.11|=0.009
90926445|NCT02668692|181728741|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.22|||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.63||Treatment comparison by Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact||Odds of 'overall improvement' in LEO 80185 gel group relative to Dovobet® ointment group.|Statistical analysis of the PPAS.||0.63|0.08|=0.003
90926446|NCT04615273|181728775|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of Difference|-2.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.94|-1.14|||ANCOVA|||Analysis included treatment arm, region, baseline age group, gender, concomitant oral estrogen, Adult Growth Hormone Deficiency (AGHD) onset as factors \& baseline trunk percent fat as the covariates. Multiple imputation method was used to impute missing data.||-1.14|-2.94|<.0001
90926447|NCT04820322|181728810|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.087|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.087
90926448|NCT04820322|181728811|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.020
90926449|NCT04820322|181728812|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
90926450|NCT04820322|181728813|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.70
90926451|NCT04820322|181728814|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.71
90926452|NCT04820322|181728815|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.71
90926453|NCT04820322|181728816|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.67
90926454|NCT04820322|181728817|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.11
90926455|NCT04820322|181728818|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.023|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.023
90926456|NCT04820322|181728819|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.014
90964425|NCT03627767|181810163|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|18.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.6|25.1||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||25.1|12.6|< 0.0001
90926457|NCT04820322|181728820|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.040
90926458|NCT03314740|181728876|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|1.14|||cox model|||||1.14|0.5|0.265
90926459|NCT03314740|181728876|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.904|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.68|1.55|||cox- model|||||1.55|0.68|0.904
90926460|NCT01447719|181729117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Sensitivity|92.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.0|98.0|||||95% CI calculated by Wilson score method|Proportion of subjects who had a positive scan based on majority of 5 blinded readers||98|78|
90926461|NCT01447719|181729118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Specificity|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|80.0|100.0|||||95% CI calculated by Wilson score method|Proportion of subjects who had a negative scan based on majority of 5 blinded readers||100|80|
90926462|NCT01447719|181729119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Correlation coefficient|0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.133|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.85||A one-sided test (rho \> 0) was performed with a significance level of alpha=0.05 to assess a significant correlation.|Spearman's Rank Order Correlation test|Asymptotic standard error and 95 percent CI used Fisher z-transformation.||Spearman's Rank Order Correlation of the median semiquantitative read (three readers) and the quantitative IHC measurement of cortical amyloid plaque density averaged across six brain regions.||0.85|0.62|<0.0001
90926463|NCT01447719|181729120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Sensitivity|96.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|80.0|100.0||||||Proportion of subjects who had a positive scan based on majority of 5 blinded readers||100|80|
90926464|NCT01447719|181729121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Specificity|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.0|100.0||||||Proportion of subjects who had a negative scan based on majority of 5 blinded readers||100|78|
90926465|NCT02542631|181729135|NON_INFERIORITY|The sample size determination was based on the primary endpoint, A1C change from Baseline to Week 24. Assuming that the true mean difference in A1C change for Finesse versus Pen was -0.1% with a SD of 1.2%, a study population of 250 completers (125 per arm) was required to achieve a power of 90% for non-inferiority with a margin of 0.4%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.14||Non-inferiority p-value was calculated with 2-sided comparison of the difference in treatment effects between Finesse and Pen with a non-inferiority margin of 0.4%.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline value as a covariate was used to compare devices for continuous measures.||||0.14|-0.32|<0.0001
90926466|NCT02542631|181729136|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.14||Statistical test of device effects was conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05, and confidence interval (CI) was calculated at 95%, 2-sided.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.14|0.81|0.26
90926467|NCT02542631|181729137|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.36||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.63|3.7||Statistical test of device effects was conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05, and confidence interval (CI) was calculated at 95%, 2-sided.|ANCOVA|ACNOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline value as a covariate was used to compare devices for continuous measures.||||3.70|-9.63|0.38
90926468|NCT02542631|181729138|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.28||Statistical test of device effects was conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05, and confidence interval (CI) was calculated at 95%, 2-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline value as a covariate was used to compare devices for continuous measures.||||0.28|-0.28|0.99
90926469|NCT02542631|181729139|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.93||Statistical test of device effects was conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05, and confidence interval (CI) was calculated at 95%, 2-sided.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.93|0.64|0.71
90964426|NCT03627767|181810163|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|34.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.6|41.5||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||41.5|27.6|< 0.0001
90964427|NCT03627767|181810163|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|15.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.5|23.7||||||Week 40: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||23.7|7.5|
90964428|NCT03627767|181810163|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|18.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.4|25.0||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||25.0|12.4|< 0.0001
90964429|NCT03627767|181810163|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|32.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.4|39.2||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||39.2|25.4|< 0.0001
90964430|NCT03627767|181810163|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|13.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.6|21.7||||||Week 52: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||21.7|5.6|
90964431|NCT03627767|181810164|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.1|||=|0.7373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.7|-0.5|= 0.7373
90964432|NCT03627767|181810164|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.1|||=|0.8092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.5|-0.7|= 0.8092
90964433|NCT03627767|181810164|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.4||||||Week 12: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.4|-0.8|
90964434|NCT03627767|181810164|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-5.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|-4.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-4.0|-6.1|< 0.0001
90964435|NCT03627767|181810164|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-6.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|-5.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-5.5|-7.6|< 0.0001
90964436|NCT03627767|181810164|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.6||||||Week 16: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.6|-2.4|
90964437|NCT03627767|181810164|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-4.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|-2.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 28: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-2.7|-5.3|< 0.0001
91035144|NCT03086460|181956471|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.029||||0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.029|0.088|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #6 of this outcome measure."||0.088|-0.029|0.323
91035145|NCT03086460|181956471|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.049||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|0.103|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #6 of this outcome measure."||0.103|-0.005|0.073
91035146|NCT03086460|181956471|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.021||||0.489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.039|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #6 of this outcome measure."||0.039|-0.080|0.489
91035147|NCT03086460|181956471|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.001||||0.978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.057|0.056|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #6 of this outcome measure."||0.056|-0.057|0.978
90886697|NCT02753751|181635777|SUPERIORITY|The Mantel-Haenszel test was used, accounting for each hospital as an individual stratum, and to obtain the pooled relative risks across hospitals without adjusting for other baseline factors. (Alert arm is the numerator, control arm is the denominator.) Patients discharged prior to 14 days without an outcome of interest were assumed to be free of that outcome at 14 days. A p-value of \<=0.04 was considered statistically significant to account for the interim analysis.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.02||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.13||A p-value of \<=0.04 was considered statistically significant to account for the interim analysis.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||In our retrospective analysis of patients with AKI at 3 potential study hospitals, the composite outcome was 24.5%. A clinically meaningful relative reduction in this risk would be 20%. 5,024 patients (2,512 in each group) would have 90% power to detect a difference in outcome at least this extreme at a two-sided alpha of 0.05 as calculated using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test. We have elected to increase this number by 20% to account for potential contamination.||1.13|0.93|0.67
90886698|NCT02667912|181635788|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.8||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|21.4||The a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||21.4|0.3|0.045
90886699|NCT02667912|181635791|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.96
90886700|NCT02667912|181635792|OTHER|||||||0.203|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.203
90886701|NCT02667912|181635793|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.3||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|3.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.4|-11.9|0.27
90886702|NCT02667912|181635794|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|19.3||The a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||19.3|-3.7|0.17
90886703|NCT02667912|181635797|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.213|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.213
90886704|NCT02667912|181635798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.041|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.041
90886705|NCT02667912|181635799|OTHER|||||||0.304|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.304
90886706|NCT02667912|181635800|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.49
90886707|NCT02667912|181635801|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.66
90886708|NCT02667912|181635802|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.59
90886709|NCT02667912|181635803|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.66
90886710|NCT02667912|181635804|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04
90886711|NCT02667912|181635805|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.054|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.054
90886712|NCT02667912|181635806|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.204|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.204
90886713|NCT02667912|181635807|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.324|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.324
90886714|NCT02667912|181635808|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.217|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.217
90886715|NCT02667912|181635809|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.238|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.238
90886716|NCT02667912|181635810|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.969|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.969
90886717|NCT02667912|181635811|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.37
90886718|NCT01385059|181635834|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
90886719|NCT01975389|181635853|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.021469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.97|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% Confidence Interval (CI) were obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and complete statin intolerance with treatment as a covariate.||0.97|0.65|0.021469
90886720|NCT01975389|181635854|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.007597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.93|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and complete statin intolerance with treatment as a covariate.||0.93|0.60|0.007597
90886721|NCT01975389|181635855|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.035958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.99|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and complete statin intolerance with treatment as a covariate.||0.99|0.68|0.035958
90886722|NCT01975389|181635856|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.015694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.95|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and complete statin intolerance with treatment as a covariate.||0.95|0.64|0.015694
90886723|NCT01975389|181635857|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.814224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.46|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and complete statin intolerance with treatment as a covariate.||1.46|0.62|0.814224
90886724|NCT01975389|181635858|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.018053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.96|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and complete statin intolerance with treatment as a covariate.||0.96|0.65|0.018053
90886725|NCT01975389|181635859|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.446033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.36|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and complete statin intolerance with treatment as a covariate.||1.36|0.50|0.446033
90886726|NCT01975389|181635860|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.029977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.97|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and complete statin intolerance with treatment as a covariate.||0.97|0.57|0.029977
90886727|NCT01975389|181635861|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.44||||0.162615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|1.44|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and complete statin intolerance with treatment as a covariate.||1.44|0.14|0.162615
90886728|NCT01975389|181635862|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.051534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.0|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and complete statin intolerance with treatment as a covariate.||1.00|0.59|0.051534
90886729|NCT01975389|181635863|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.104998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.09|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and complete statin intolerance with treatment as a covariate.||1.09|0.41|0.104998
90886730|NCT01975389|181635864|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.294331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.24|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and complete statin intolerance with treatment as a covariate.||1.24|0.50|0.294331
90886731|NCT01975389|181635866|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.104998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.09|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and complete statin intolerance with treatment as a covariate.||1.09|0.41|0.104998
90926470|NCT02542631|181729140|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.24||Statistical test of device effects was conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05, and confidence interval (CI) was calculated at 95%, 2-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and week 24 value as a covariate was used to compare devices for continuous measures.||||0.24|-0.12|0.52
90926471|NCT02542631|181729141|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.65|14.67||Statistical test of device effects was conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05, and confidence interval (CI) was calculated at 95%, 2-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with change in score as dependent variable, treatment as factor, and baseline score as a covariate was used to compare devices.||||14.67|3.65|0.001
90926472|NCT02542631|181729142|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.03||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|8.32||Statistical test of device effects was conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05, and confidence interval (CI) was calculated at 95%, 2-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with change in score as dependent variable, treatment as factor, and baseline score as a covariate was used to compare devices.||||8.32|0.33|0.03
90926473|NCT02542631|181729143|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.00
90926474|NCT05932407|181729144|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.0||||||Crude hazard ratio of Vortioxetine Tablets to SSRIs for intracranial hemorrhage was reported. Crude hazard ratio of Vortioxetine Tablet Treatment group relative to the control group (SSRI Treatment group) was calculated by the rate of Vortioxetine Tablet Treatment group divided by the rate of SSRI Treatment group.||2.0|0.1|
90926475|NCT05932407|181729144|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted hazard ratio was adjusted from crude hazard ratio by covariance 1 (age and gender), and covariance 2 (antithrombotic drug administration, NSAID administration, and hypertension).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.9||||||Adjusted hazard ratio of Vortioxetine Tablets to SSRIs for intracranial hemorrhage was reported. Adjusted hazard ratio of Vortioxetine Tablet Treatment group relative to the control group (SSRI Treatment group) was calculated by the rate of Vortioxetine Tablet Treatment group divided by the rate of SSRI Treatment group.||1.9|0.1|
90926476|NCT02326974|181729150|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||By estimating that the overall pCR with T-DM1 plus pertuzumab would be approximately 40%, and 20% of the population classified as heterogeneous, the study would have 80% power with 136 evaluable patients to detect a difference in pCR of 44.9% in the non-heterogenous versus 20.3% in the heterogenous subgroup. The study had a 90% power to detect difference in pCR of 43.4% in the non-heterogenous versus 8.8% in the heterogenous subgroup if the observed prevalence of HER2 heterogeneity was 10%.||||<0.001
90926477|NCT02994927|181729193|NON_INFERIORITY|The proportion of subjects achieving disease remission at Week 26 and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the difference in proportions was estimated for the comparison between the avacopan group and the prednisone group. For both the noninferiority and superiority tests, the one-sided P-values are presented. Statistical significance was claimed based on the one-sided type-I error of 0.025.|Common difference in remission rates|3.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|12.8|||Summary score test||Summary Score estimate of the common difference and Miettinen-Nurminen (score) confidence limits for the common difference|||12.8|-6.0|< 0.0001
90926478|NCT02994927|181729193|SUPERIORITY|The proportion of subjects achieving disease remission at Week 26 and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the difference in proportions was estimated for the comparison between the avacopan group and the prednisone group. For both the noninferiority and superiority tests, the one-sided P-values are presented. Statistical significance was claimed based on the one-sided type-I error of 0.025.|Common difference in remission rates|3.4|||=|0.2387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|12.8|||Summary score test||Summary Score estimate of the common difference and Miettinen-Nurminen (score) confidence limits for the common difference|||12.8|-6.0|= 0.2387
90964438|NCT03627767|181810164|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-5.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|-3.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 28: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-3.9|-6.4|< 0.0001
90926479|NCT02994927|181729194|NON_INFERIORITY|The proportion of subjects achieving sustained disease remission at Week 52, and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the difference in proportions (avacopan minus prednisone) was estimated for the comparison between the avacopan group and the prednisone group. For both the noninferiority and superiority tests, the one-sided P-values are presented. Statistical significance was claimed based on the one-sided type-I error of 0.025.|Common difference in remission rates|12.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|22.3|||Summary score test||Summary Score estimate of the common difference and Miettinen-Nurminen (score) confidence limits for the common difference|||22.3|2.6|< 0.0001
90926480|NCT02994927|181729194|SUPERIORITY|The proportion of subjects achieving sustained disease remission at Week 52, and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the difference in proportions (avacopan minus prednisone) was estimated for the comparison between the avacopan group and the prednisone group. For both the noninferiority and superiority tests, the one-sided P-values are presented. Statistical significance was claimed based on the one-sided type-I error of 0.025.|Common difference in remission rates|12.5|||=|0.0066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|22.3|||Summary score test||Summary Score estimate of the common difference and Miettinen-Nurminen (score) confidence limits for the common difference|||22.3|2.6|= 0.0066
90926481|NCT03533257|181729223|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3654|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The analysis assessed the difference in estimated change-from-baseline values at the 24-week model estimate using LS means estimates from the MMRM.||||||0.3654
90926482|NCT03533257|181729224|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6698|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The analysis assessed the difference in estimated change-from-baseline values at the 24-week model estimate using LS means estimates from the MMRM.||||||0.6698
90926483|NCT03533257|181729225|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3086|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The analysis assessed the difference in estimated change-from-baseline values at the 24-week model estimate using LS means estimates from the MMRM.||||||0.3086
90971152|NCT02404103|181824835|EQUIVALENCE|A goal was to evaluate whether flunisolide HFA 320 mcg when compared to flunisolide 160 mcg lead to significantly better improvement in the same outcome measures over time.||||||0.74|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.740
90926484|NCT03533257|181729226|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5552|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The analysis assessed the difference in estimated change-from-baseline values at the 24-week model estimate using LS means estimates from the MMRM.||||||0.5552
90926485|NCT03533257|181729227|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0361|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The analysis assessed the difference in estimated change-from-baseline values at the 24-week model estimate using LS means estimates from the MMRM.||||||0.0361
90926486|NCT03533257|181729228|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3585|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The analysis assessed the difference in estimated change-from-baseline values at the 24-week model estimate using LS means estimates from the MMRM.||||||0.3585
90926487|NCT03533257|181729229|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8996|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The analysis assessed the difference in estimated change-from-baseline values at the 24-week model estimate using LS means estimates from the MMRM.||||||0.8996
90926488|NCT06149338|181729230|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002||||||Threshold for statistical significance: p \< 0.05|Chi-squared|||||||0.0002
90964439|NCT03627767|181810164|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.3||||||Week 28: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.3|-2.1|
90964440|NCT03627767|181810164|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.9|||=|0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 40: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.4|-3.5|= 0.0150
90964441|NCT03627767|181810164|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-3.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|-1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 40: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.7|-4.7|< 0.0001
90964442|NCT03627767|181810164|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.3||||||Week 40: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.3|-2.3|
90964443|NCT03627767|181810164|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.8|||=|0.3616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.9|-2.4|= 0.3616
90964444|NCT03627767|181810164|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-2.7|||=|0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|-1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.1|-4.3|= 0.0012
90964445|NCT03627767|181810164|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-0.8||||||Week 52: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.8|-3.0|
90926489|NCT06149338|181729230|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
91035148|NCT03086460|181956471|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.037|0.077|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #6 of this outcome measure."||0.077|-0.037|0.484
90926490|NCT06149338|181729231|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Threshold for statistical significance: p \< 0.05|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||< 0.0001
90926491|NCT06149338|181729232|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0041||||||Threshold for statistical significance: p \< 0.05|Chi-squared|||||||0.0041
90926492|NCT06149338|181729232|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
90926493|NCT06149338|181729233|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7895||||||Threshold for statistical significance: p \< 0.05|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.7895
90926494|NCT05879991|181729253|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|76.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.21|82.65|||||Ratio \[%\] = (adjusted geometric mean zongertinib / adjusted geometric mean \[14C\]zongertinib)\*100. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 7.9|"Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale.~The PK endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model, which included the effect 'subjects' as a random effect and 'treatment' as a fixed effect. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale."||82.65|70.21|
90964446|NCT03627767|181810165|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.6|||=|0.3339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.8|-0.6|= 0.3339
90971153|NCT02404103|181824835|EQUIVALENCE|generalized linear mixed-effects models (GLMM) using the identity link function and normal distribution were used||||||0.921|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.921
90964447|NCT03627767|181810165|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.5|||=|0.4653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.7|-0.8|= 0.4653
90964448|NCT03627767|181810165|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.1||||||Week 12: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.1|-1.3|
90964449|NCT03627767|181810165|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-4.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|-2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-2.3|-6.2|< 0.0001
90964450|NCT03627767|181810165|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-6.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|-4.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-4.3|-8.2|< 0.0001
90964451|NCT03627767|181810165|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|-0.3||||||Week 16: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.3|-3.6|
90964452|NCT03627767|181810165|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.1|||=|0.9083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|2.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 28: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.1|-1.8|= 0.9083
90964453|NCT03627767|181810165|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.1|||=|0.2439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 28: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.8|-3.0|= 0.2439
91035149|NCT03086460|181956472|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.107|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.048|0.166|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups:~Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Analysis of covariance model: treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as random effect, baseline FEV1 value as covariate. CIs and p-values for CHF 1531 pMDI vs Placebo are adjusted for multiplicity (parametric simulation method by Edwards and Berry). Patients receiving the same treatment during two periods are considered twice in the ANCOVA model (once for each period attended)."||0.166|0.048|<0.001
91035150|NCT03086460|181956472|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.157|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.096|0.217|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.217|0.096|<0.001
91035151|NCT03086460|181956472|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.133|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.073|0.193|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.193|0.073|<0.001
90964454|NCT03627767|181810165|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.1||||||Week 28: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.1|-2.6|
90964455|NCT03627767|181810165|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.3|||=|0.7405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 40: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.7|-2.4|= 0.7405
91035152|NCT03086460|181956472|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.103|0.217|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.217|0.103|<0.001
91035153|NCT03086460|181956472|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.147|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.102|0.192|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment F ( Perforomist® IS 40 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Analysis of covariance model: treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as random effect, baseline FEV1 value as covariate. Patients receiving the same treatment during two periods are considered twice in the ANCOVA model (once for each period attended)."||0.192|0.102|<0.001
91035154|NCT03086460|181956472|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.002|0.098|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Analysis of covariance model: treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as random effect, baseline FEV1 value as covariate. Patients receiving the same treatment during two periods are considered twice in the ANCOVA model (once for each period attended)."||0.098|0.002|0.041
90886732|NCT01975389|181635867|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.6012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.34|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and complete statin intolerance with treatment as a covariate.||1.34|0.60|0.601200
90886733|NCT01975389|181635868|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.678061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.67|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and complete statin intolerance with treatment as a covariate.||1.67|0.72|0.678061
90886734|NCT01975389|181635869|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.010457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.94|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and complete statin intolerance with treatment as a covariate.||0.94|0.63|0.010457
90886735|NCT01975389|181635870|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19||||0.509847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.01|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and complete statin intolerance with treatment as a covariate.||2.01|0.71|0.509847
90886736|NCT01975389|181635871|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.002981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.9|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and complete statin intolerance with treatment as a covariate.||0.90|0.58|0.002981
90886737|NCT01975389|181635872|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.748975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.3|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and complete statin intolerance with treatment as a covariate.||1.30|0.70|0.748975
90886738|NCT01975389|181635873|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.626157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.32|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and complete statin intolerance with treatment as a covariate.||1.32|0.63|0.626157
90886739|NCT01975389|181635874|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-56.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.91|-55.89|||MMRM|||Least square (LS) mean differences, associated 95% CI, and p-values were from an mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) model including observations through Week 70 with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographic region and complete statin intolerance.||-55.89|-57.91|<0.001
90886740|NCT01975389|181635875|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-73.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.11|-72.5|||MMRM|||LS mean differences, associated 95% CI, and p-values were from an MMRM model including observations through Week 70 with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographic region and complete statin intolerance.||-72.50|-75.11|<0.001
90886741|NCT01975389|181635876|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-39.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.55|-38.06|||ANCOVA|||LS-mean difference, associated 95% CI, and p-value were from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with fixed effects for treatment group, baseline value, geographic region and complete statin intolerance.||-38.06|-40.55|<0.001
90886742|NCT01975389|181635877|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-51.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.81|-50.94|||MMRM|||Non-HDLC: LS-mean differences, associated 95% CI, and p-values were from an MMRM model including observations through Week 70 with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographic region and complete statin intolerance.||-50.94|-52.81|<0.001
90926495|NCT05879991|181729258|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|26.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|22.12|30.79|||||Ratio \[%\] = (adjusted geometric mean zongertinib / adjusted geometric mean \[14C\]zongertinib)\*100. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 16.0|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale. The PK endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model, which included the effect 'subjects' as a random effect and 'treatment' as a fixed effect. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale.||30.79|22.12|
90926496|NCT05879991|181729259|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|76.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.92|83.59|||||Ratio \[%\] = (adjusted geometric mean zongertinib / adjusted geometric mean \[14C\]zongertinib)\*100. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 7.9|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale. The PK endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model, which included the effect 'subjects' as a random effect and 'treatment' as a fixed effect. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale.||83.59|70.92|
90886743|NCT01975389|181635877|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-18.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.96|-16.86|||MMRM|||VLDL-C: LS-mean differences, associated 95% CI, and p-values were from an MMRM model including observations through Week 70 with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographic region and complete statin intolerance.||-16.86|-19.96|<0.001
90886744|NCT01975389|181635877|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-29.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.44|-26.96|||MMRM|||RLP-C: LS-mean differences, associated 95% CI, and p-values were from an MMRM model including observations through Week 70 with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographic region and complete statin intolerance.||-26.96|-31.44|<0.001
90926497|NCT05464069|181729260|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16||||||Significant level \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.160
90926498|NCT03442309|181729268|NON_INFERIORITY|NI margin for arrest difference of 10%|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.01||||||||0.01|-.22|
90926499|NCT03442309|181729269|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority OR (OR δ, 0.63)|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.82|1.08||||||||1.08|0.82|
90926500|NCT05465239|181729273|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence analysis of metabolic energy consumption using the unpowered vs powered walker for control subjects.|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||< 0.001
90926501|NCT05465239|181729273|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence analysis of metabolic energy consumption using the unpowered vs powered walker for subjects with walking disabilities.|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
90926502|NCT05850052|181729278|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.79|||proportional-odds cumulative logit model|||||1.79|0.85|0.26
90926503|NCT05850052|181729279|SUPERIORITY||incidence rate ratio|1.02||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.82|1.27|||proportional-odds cumulative logit model|||||1.27|0.82|0.86
90926504|NCT05850052|181729280|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|3.1||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|30.0|||Fisher Exact|||||30|0.32|0.36
90926505|NCT04200313|181729318|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
90926506|NCT04200313|181729318|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
90926507|NCT04200313|181729319|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority with a 1% non-inferiority margin|||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
90926508|NCT04200313|181729319|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority with a 1% non-inferiority margin|||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
90926509|NCT04200313|181729320|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
90926510|NCT04200313|181729320|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
90926511|NCT04200313|181729321|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
90926512|NCT04200313|181729321|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
90926513|NCT04200313|181729322|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
90926514|NCT04200313|181729322|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
90926515|NCT04200313|181729323|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
90964456|NCT03627767|181810165|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-2.1|||=|0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 40: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.1|-4.1|= 0.0410
90964457|NCT03627767|181810165|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-0.4||||||Week 40: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.4|-3.1|
90926516|NCT04200313|181729323|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
90926517|NCT04200313|181729324|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
90926518|NCT04200313|181729324|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
90926519|NCT04200313|181729325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.51
90926520|NCT04200313|181729325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.54
90926521|NCT03988621|181729409|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.65||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|-0.03||The p-value for the group-by-time interaction is presented, as well as the estimated mean and confidence interval for difference in 6-month change between intervention and treatment groups.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean HSCN scale scores of participants in the intervention group were estimated to decrease by 0.65 (95% CI: -1.27 to -0.03) units more than that of participants in the control group from baseline to 6-months.|||-0.03|-1.27|0.04
90926522|NCT03988621|181729410|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.05||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|8.98||The p-value for the group-by-time interaction is presented, as well as the estimated mean and confidence interval for difference in 6-month change between intervention and treatment groups.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean Self Care Inventory scale scores of participants in the intervention group were estimated to increase by 5.05 (95% CI: 1.12 to 8.98) units more than that of participants in the control group from baseline to 6-months.|||8.98|1.12|0.01
90926523|NCT03988621|181729411|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.48|-2.52||The p-value for the group-by-time interaction is presented, as well as the estimated mean and confidence interval for difference in 6-month change between intervention and treatment groups.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean PSS scale scores of participants in the intervention group were estimated to decrease by 4.50 (95% CI: -6.48 to -2.52) units more than that of participants in the control group from baseline to 6-months.|||-2.52|-6.48|<0.0001
90926524|NCT03988621|181729412|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.16||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|4.73||The p-value for the group-by-time interaction is presented, as well as the estimated mean and confidence interval for difference in 6-month change between intervention and treatment groups.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Active Coping Subscale||4.73|-0.41|0.099
90886745|NCT01975389|181635877|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-51.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.37|-50.42|||MMRM|||Apo B: LS-mean differences, associated 95% CI, and p-values were from an MMRM model including observations through Week 52 with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographic region and complete statin intolerance.||-50.42|-52.37|<0.001
90886746|NCT01975389|181635877|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|6.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.33|7.5|||MMRM|||HDL-C: LS-mean differences, associated 95% CI, and p-values were from an MMRM model including observations through Week 70 with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographic region and complete statin intolerance.||7.50|6.33|<0.001
90886747|NCT01975389|181635877|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|4.9|||MMRM|||Apo A-I: LS-mean differences, associated 95% CI, and p-values were from an MMRM model including observations through Week 52 with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographic region and complete statin intolerance.||4.90|3.90|<0.001
90886748|NCT01975389|181635877|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-37.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.75|-37.22|||MMRM|||Total cholesterol: LS-mean differences, associated 95% CI, and p-values were from an MMRM model including observations through Week 70 with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographic region and complete statin intolerance.||-37.22|-38.75|<0.001
90886749|NCT01975389|181635878|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|0.83|||MMRM|||Triglycerides: LS-mean differences, associated 95% CI and p-values were from an MMRM model including observations through Week 70 on the difference of log-transformed observations with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, log-transformed baseline value, log-transformed baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and complete statin intolerance. The 95% CI was derived by exponentiating the LS-mean difference confidence interval from the log scale.||0.83|0.81|<0.001
90886750|NCT01975389|181635878|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.69|||MMRM|||Lp(a): LS-mean differences, associated 95% CI and p-values were from an MMRM model on the Difference of log-transformed observations with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, log-transformed baseline value, log-transformed baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and complete statin intolerance. The 95% CI was derived by exponentiating the LS-mean difference confidence interval from the log scale.||0.69|0.67|<0.001
90886751|NCT01975389|181635879|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.06||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.09|||MMRM|||LS-mean differences, associated 95% CI and p-values were from an MMRM model on the difference of log-transformed observations with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, log-transformed baseline value, log-transformed baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and complete statin intolerance.||1.09|1.02|0.002
90886752|NCT03735862|181635885|OTHER|Paired t-Test|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Difference between baseline and follow-up||||<0.001
90886753|NCT03735862|181635886|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||McNemar|||Difference between baseline and follow-up||||<0.0001
90886754|NCT01720069|181635902|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.772|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.772
90886755|NCT01720069|181635903|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.891|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.891
90886756|NCT01720069|181635904|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.066|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.066
90886757|NCT01720069|181635905|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.063|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.063
90886758|NCT01720069|181635906|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.054|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.054
90886759|NCT01720069|181635907|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.168|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.168
90886760|NCT01720069|181635907|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.363|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.363
90886761|NCT01720069|181635907|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.805|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.805
90886762|NCT00360334|181635909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.71|||<|0.001||95.0|2.62|8.46|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds Ratio (OR) = odds of a patient in the exenatide arm achieving the primary outcome divided by the odds of a patient in the insulin glargine arm achieving the primary outcome||8.46|2.62|<0.001
90886763|NCT00360334|181635910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.76|||<|0.001||95.0|3.11|10.64|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds Ratio (OR) = odds of a patient in the exenatide arm achieving the secondary outcome divided by the odds of a patient in the insulin glargine arm achieving the secondary outcome||10.64|3.11|<0.001
90886764|NCT00360334|181635911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90886765|NCT00360334|181635912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.28||95.0|0.44|1.26|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds Ratio (OR) = odds of a patient in the exenatide arm achieving the secondary outcome divided by the odds of a patient in the insulin glargine arm achieving the secondary outcome||1.26|0.44|0.280
90886766|NCT00360334|181635913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.191||95.0|0.42|1.19|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds Ratio (OR) = odds of a patient in the exenatide arm achieving the secondary outcome divided by the odds of a patient in the insulin glargine arm achieving the secondary outcome||1.19|0.42|0.191
90886767|NCT00360334|181635914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.363||95.0|0.66|3.07|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds Ratio (OR) = odds of a patient in the exenatide arm achieving the secondary outcome divided by the odds of a patient in the insulin glargine arm achieving the secondary outcome||3.07|0.66|0.363
90886768|NCT00360334|181635916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||||<0.001
90971154|NCT02404103|181824836|EQUIVALENCE|The primary goal of the current study is to determine the effects of Aerospan on lung function in children with small airway obstruction.||||||0.872|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|generalized linear mixed-effects models (GLMM) using the identity link function and normal distribution were used||||||.872
90886769|NCT00360334|181635917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||||<0.001
90886770|NCT00360334|181635918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||||<0.001
90886771|NCT00360334|181635919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||||<0.001
90886772|NCT00360334|181635920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||||||<0.001
90886773|NCT00360334|181635921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|27.91||||0.001||95.0|3.7|210.54|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds Ratio (OR) = odds of a patient in the exenatide arm achieving the secondary outcome divided by the odds of a patient in the insulin glargine arm achieving the secondary outcome||210.54|3.70|0.001
90886774|NCT00360334|181635923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014||95.0|||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||||0.014
90886775|NCT00360334|181635924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1||95.0|||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||||0.100
90886776|NCT00360334|181635925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.125||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.125
90886777|NCT00360334|181635926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.471||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.471
90886778|NCT00360334|181635927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.601||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.601
90886779|NCT00360334|181635928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.650
90886780|NCT00360334|181635929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.017
90886781|NCT00360334|181635930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.667||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.667
90886782|NCT00360334|181635931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.675||||0.139||95.0|0.401|1.136|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds Ratio (OR) = odds of a patient in the exenatide arm achieving the secondary outcome divided by the odds of a patient in the insulin glargine arm achieving the secondary outcome||1.136|0.401|0.139
90886783|NCT00360334|181635932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.317||||0.001||95.0|0.159|0.63|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds Ratio (OR) = odds of a patient in the exenatide arm achieving the secondary outcome divided by the odds of a patient in the insulin glargine arm achieving the secondary outcome||0.630|0.159|0.001
90886784|NCT00360334|181635933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.797||||0.716||95.0|0.235|2.705|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds Ratio (OR) = odds of a patient in the exenatide arm achieving the secondary outcome divided by the odds of a patient in the insulin glargine arm achieving the secondary outcome||2.705|0.235|0.716
90886785|NCT00360334|181635934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.113||95.0|||||ANCOVA on ranks|||||||0.113
90886786|NCT00360334|181635935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA on ranks|||||||<0.001
90886787|NCT00360334|181635936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74||95.0|||||ANCOVA on ranks|||||||0.740
90886788|NCT05955560|181636002|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||A two-sided paired t-test was used and p-value derived. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04
90926525|NCT03988621|181729412|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.88||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.38|0.62||The p-value for the group-by-time interaction is presented, as well as the estimated mean and confidence interval for difference in 6-month change between intervention and treatment groups.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated difference may not be consistent with difference sample means presented in outcome measure data table.|Avoidance Coping Subscale||0.62|-2.38|0.25
90926526|NCT03988621|181729412|SUPERIORITY|The p-value for the group-by-time interaction is presented, as well as the estimated mean and confidence interval for difference in 6-month change between intervention and treatment groups.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.31||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|1.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Minimization Coping Subscale||1.18|-1.81|0.68
90926527|NCT03988621|181729413|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.32||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.68|1.04||The p-value for the group-by-time interaction is presented, as well as the estimated mean and confidence interval for difference in 6-month change between intervention and treatment groups.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Physical Health Score||1.04|-3.68|0.27
90926528|NCT03988621|181729413|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.35||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|6.53||The p-value for the group-by-time interaction is presented, as well as the estimated mean and confidence interval for difference in 6-month change between intervention and treatment groups.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean Mental Health scores of participants in the intervention group were estimated to increase by 3.35 (95% CI: 0.17 to 6.53) units more than that of participants in the control group from baseline to 6-months.|Mental Health Score||6.53|0.17|0.04
90926529|NCT03988621|181729416|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3472||||0.5433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5153|3.5218|||Regression, zero inflated poisson||Estimation accounts for the zero-inflated distribution of hospitalization count, thus estimate is inconsistent with mean values in the Outcome Measure Data table|||3.5218|0.5153|0.5433
90926530|NCT03988621|181729417|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0143||||0.9173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7766|1.3247|||Zero-inflated poisson regression|||||1.3247|0.7766|0.9173
90926531|NCT03988621|181729418|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6486|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6486
90926532|NCT03988621|181729419|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6791|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6791
90926533|NCT02905331|181729420|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
90926534|NCT02905331|181729421|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
90926535|NCT02905331|181729426|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90926536|NCT04424316|181729432|OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|57.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.3|74.6||||||Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1-(P/\[1-P\]), where P is the number of cases in the RSVpreF group divided by the total number of cases. Vaccine efficacy was presented in percentage.||74.6|31.3|
90926537|NCT04424316|181729433|OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|54.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.2|69.5||||||Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1-(P/\[1-P\]), where P is the number of cases in the RSVpreF group divided by the total number of cases. Vaccine efficacy was presented in percentage.||69.5|33.2|
90926538|NCT04424316|181729434|OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.3|64.5||||||Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1-(P/\[1-P\]), where P is the number of cases in the RSVpreF group divided by the total number of cases. Vaccine efficacy was presented in percentage.||64.5|30.3|
90926539|NCT04424316|181729435|OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|49.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.4|62.8||||||Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1-(P/\[1-P\]), where P is the number of cases in the RSVpreF group divided by the total number of cases. Vaccine efficacy was presented in percentage.||62.8|31.4|
90926540|NCT04424316|181729436|OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|82.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.5|93.9||||||Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1-(P/\[1-P\]), where P is the number of cases in the RSVpreF group divided by the total number of cases. Vaccine efficacy was presented in percentage.||93.9|57.5|
90926541|NCT04424316|181729437|OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|73.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.3|86.8||||||Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1-(P/\[1-P\]), where P is the number of cases in the RSVpreF group divided by the total number of cases. Vaccine efficacy was presented in percentage.||86.8|50.3|
90926542|NCT04424316|181729438|OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|70.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.4|83.6||||||Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1-(P/\[1-P\]), where P is the number of cases in the RSVpreF group divided by the total number of cases. Vaccine efficacy was presented in percentage.||83.6|49.4|
90886789|NCT04621500|181636007|OTHER|The sequencing transcriptional profile cannot be analyzed by a statistical method.|||||||||||||||||In this open label study, the RNA sequencing transcription analysis was performed to assess if the transcriptome would be modified by vitamin D supplementation and it uniformaly was.|||
90926543|NCT04424316|181729439|OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|70.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.6|82.5||||||Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1-(P/\[1-P\]), where P is the number of cases in the RSVpreF group divided by the total number of cases. Vaccine efficacy was presented in percentage.||82.5|50.6|
90886790|NCT03809182|181636015|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||A p-value less than .05 was considered statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference in plasmatic glucose levels between dexmedetomidine and 0.9% sodium-chloride groups.||||0.38
90886791|NCT03809182|181636016|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||A p-value less than .05 was considered statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference in insulin levels between dexmedetomidine and 0.9% sodium-chloride groups.||||0.02
90886792|NCT01763567|181636022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.5|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90886793|NCT01763567|181636023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent of events correctly detected|16.7|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90886794|NCT01763567|181636024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent of events correctly detected|88.9|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90886795|NCT01763567|181636025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% of false alert|85.8|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90886796|NCT01763567|181636026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% of false alert|56.5|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90886797|NCT00982020|181636045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15||||||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures analysis terms included baseline BMI, baseline age, gender, intervention group, visit, region, intervention group\*visit.||||||0.150
90886798|NCT00982020|181636046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52||||||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model terms included: baseline, baseline age, gender, intervention group, and region.||||||0.520
90886799|NCT00982020|181636048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||||||Threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis terms included baseline, intervention group, visit, region, and intervention group\*visit.||||||0.008
90886800|NCT00982020|181636049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.266||||||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis terms included intervention group, visit, region, and intervention group\*visit.||||||0.266
90886801|NCT00982020|181636050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.954||||||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis terms included baseline, baseline age, gender, intervention group, visit, region, and intervention group\*visit.||||||0.954
90886802|NCT00982020|181636051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.103||||||Threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis terms included baseline, intervention group, visit, region, and intervention group\*visit.||||||0.103
90926544|NCT04424316|181729455|OTHER||Vaccine efficacy|69.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.1|86.7||||||Vaccine efficacy within 90 days after birth. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1-(P/\[1-P\]), where P is the number of cases in the RSVpreF group divided by the total number of cases. Vaccine efficacy was presented in percentage.||86.7|37.1|
90886803|NCT00982020|181636052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.436||||||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis terms included baseline, intervention group, visit, region, and intervention group\*visit.||||||0.436
90886804|NCT01762761|181636054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|26.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.29|93.26|||Regression, Logistic|||||93.26|7.29|<0.001
90886805|NCT01762761|181636055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|23.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.54|66.33|||Regression, Logistic|||||66.33|8.54|<0.001
90886806|NCT01762761|181636056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.84|18.94|||Regression, Logistic|||||18.94|3.84|<0.001
90886807|NCT01762761|181636057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.28||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.59|0.13|0.001
90886808|NCT01762761|181636058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59||||0.306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.64|0.21|0.306
90886809|NCT01762761|181636059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|6.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.01|9.34|||Log Rank|||||9.34|4.01|<0.001
90886810|NCT01762761|181636060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.37|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.37|0.05|<0.001
90886811|NCT01762761|181636061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.54||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.09|131.12|||Regression, Logistic|||||131.12|2.09|0.008
90886812|NCT01762761|181636062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||van Elteren stratified rank test|||||||<0.001
90886813|NCT01762761|181636063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||van Elteren stratified rank test|||||||<0.001
90886814|NCT03017508|181636110|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.34|STANDARD_DEVIATION|18.34||0.056|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test on VAS scores during speech comparing sublingual riluzole to placebo||||0.056
90886815|NCT02162810|181636121|OTHER||||||<|0.62|||||||Fisher Exact|||Due to the number of 0 cell counts, it is not possible to do individual statistics for each complication, so we looked at the incidence of complications overall between the two arms.||||<.62
90886816|NCT02162810|181636122|OTHER||||||<|0.61|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.61
90886817|NCT02162810|181636123|OTHER||||||<|0.87|||||||Fisher Exact|||Improvement category: Chordee with Degloving||||<.87
90886818|NCT02162810|181636123|OTHER||||||<|0.64|||||||Fisher Exact|||Improvement category: Ventral Chordee||||<.64
90886819|NCT02162810|181636123|OTHER||||||<|0.85|||||||Fisher Exact|||Improvement category: Chordee with Plication||||<.85
90926545|NCT04424316|181729455|OTHER||Vaccine efficacy|61.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.6|80.3||||||Vaccine efficacy within 120 days after birth. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1-(P/\[1-P\]), where P is the number of cases in the RSVpreF group divided by the total number of cases. Vaccine efficacy was presented in percentage.||80.3|28.6|
90926546|NCT04424316|181729455|OTHER||Vaccine efficacy|57.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.9|76.8||||||Vaccine efficacy within 150 days after birth. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1-(P/\[1-P\]), where P is the number of cases in the RSVpreF group divided by the total number of cases. Vaccine efficacy was presented in percentage.||76.8|23.9|
90926547|NCT04424316|181729455|OTHER||Vaccine efficacy|55.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.8|74.6||||||Vaccine efficacy within 180 days after birth. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1-(P/\[1-P\]), where P is the number of cases in the RSVpreF group divided by the total number of cases. Vaccine efficacy was presented in percentage.||74.6|23.8|
90926548|NCT04424316|181729455|OTHER||Vaccine efficacy|24.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|48.6||||||Vaccine efficacy within 360 days after birth. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1-(P/\[1-P\]), where P is the number of cases in the RSVpreF group divided by the total number of cases. Vaccine efficacy was presented in percentage.||48.6|-11.1|
90926549|NCT04424316|181729456|OTHER||Vaccine efficacy|9.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|25.7||||||Vaccine efficacy within 90 days after birth. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1-(P/\[1-P\]), where P is the number of cases in the RSVpreF group divided by the total number of cases. The confidence interval was adjusted using Bonferroni procedure and accounting for the primary endpoints results. Vaccine efficacy was presented in percentage.||25.7|-10.1|
90926550|NCT04424316|181729456|OTHER||Vaccine efficacy|6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|20.7||||||Vaccine efficacy within 120 days after birth. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1-(P/\[1-P\]), where P is the number of cases in the RSVpreF group divided by the total number of cases. The confidence interval was adjusted using Bonferroni procedure and accounting for the primary endpoints results. Vaccine efficacy was presented in percentage.||20.7|-9.8|
90926551|NCT04424316|181729456|OTHER||Vaccine efficacy|7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|20.1||||||Vaccine efficacy within 150 days after birth. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1-(P/\[1-P\]), where P is the number of cases in the RSVpreF group divided by the total number of cases. The confidence interval was adjusted using Bonferroni procedure and accounting for the primary endpoints results. Vaccine efficacy was presented in percentage.||20.1|-6.5|
90926552|NCT04424316|181729456|OTHER||Vaccine efficacy|4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|16.0||||||Vaccine efficacy within 180 days after birth. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1-(P/\[1-P\]), where P is the number of cases in the RSVpreF group divided by the total number of cases. The confidence interval was adjusted using Bonferroni procedure and accounting for the primary endpoints results. Vaccine efficacy was presented in percentage.||16.0|-9.5|
90926553|NCT04424316|181729456|OTHER||Vaccine efficacy|4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|14.6||||||Vaccine efficacy within 360 days after birth. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1-(P/\[1-P\]), where P is the number of cases in the RSVpreF group divided by the total number of cases. The confidence interval was adjusted using Bonferroni procedure and accounting for the primary endpoints results. Vaccine efficacy was presented in percentage.||14.6|-6.6|
90926554|NCT04424316|181729457|OTHER||Vaccine efficacy|43.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.6|57.7||||||Vaccine efficacy at 210 days after birth. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1-(P/\[1-P\]), where P is the number of cases in the RSVpreF group divided by the total number of cases. The confidence interval was adjusted using Bonferroni procedure and accounting for the primary endpoints results. Vaccine efficacy was presented in percentage.||57.7|25.6|
90926555|NCT04424316|181729457|OTHER||Vaccine efficacy|39.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.3|54.1||||||Vaccine efficacy at 240 days after birth. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1-(P/\[1-P\]), where P is the number of cases in the RSVpreF group divided by the total number of cases. The confidence interval was adjusted using Bonferroni procedure and accounting for the primary endpoints results. Vaccine efficacy was presented in percentage.||54.1|21.3|
90926556|NCT04424316|181729457|OTHER||Vaccine efficacy|35.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.1|49.9||||||Vaccine efficacy at 270 days after birth. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1-(P/\[1-P\]), where P is the number of cases in the RSVpreF group divided by the total number of cases. The confidence interval was adjusted using Bonferroni procedure and accounting for the primary endpoints results. Vaccine efficacy was presented in percentage.||49.9|16.1|
90926557|NCT04424316|181729457|OTHER||Vaccine efficacy|33.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.2|47.1||||||Vaccine efficacy at 360 days after birth. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1-(P/\[1-P\]), where P is the number of cases in the RSVpreF group divided by the total number of cases. The confidence interval was adjusted using Bonferroni procedure and accounting for the primary endpoints results. Vaccine efficacy was presented in percentage.||47.1|15.2|
90964458|NCT03627767|181810165|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.0|||=|0.4026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.4|-3.5|= 0.4026
90964459|NCT03627767|181810165|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.9|||=|0.0944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.3|-4.2|= 0.0944
90926558|NCT03812614|181729459|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.54||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|1.14|||Mixed Models Analysis||Positive coefficient favors I-DSMES; negative coefficient favors FAM-ACT|Linear mixed model with random intercept and slope was used to compare the change in HbA1c as a function of time (included using restricted cubic splines), the interaction between time and intervention arm, baseline A1c and whether PT-SP live together (stratification variables), baseline insulin use, age, vital hunger, and preferred language.||1.14|-0.05|0.07
90926559|NCT03812614|181729460|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.64|||Mixed Models Analysis||Positive coefficient favors I-DSMES; negative coefficient favors FAM-ACT|Linear mixed model with random intercept and slope was used to compare the change in A1c as a function of time (included using restricted cubic splines), the interaction between time and intervention arm, baseline A1c and whether PT-SP live together (stratification variables), baseline insulin use, age, vital hunger, and preferred language||0.64|-0.67|0.96
90926560|NCT03812614|181729461|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.51||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|3.38|||Mixed Models Analysis||Positive coefficient favors I-DSMES; negative coefficient favors FAM-ACT|Change in patient SBP was analyzed in a manner similar to that described for the primary outcome (6-month change in patient A1c).||3.38|-6.40|0.55
90926561|NCT03812614|181729462|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.74||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|10.91|||Mixed Models Analysis||Positive coefficient favors I-DSMES; negative coefficient favors FAM-ACT|Change in patient SBP was analyzed in a manner similar to that described for the primary outcome (6-month change in patient A1c).||10.91|0.57|0.03
90926562|NCT03812614|181729463|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|1.58|||Mixed Models Analysis||Positive coefficient favors I-DSMES; negative coefficient favors FAM-ACT|Change in patient diabetes distress was analyzed in a manner similar to that described for the primary outcome (6-month change in patient A1c).||1.58|-2.15|0.76
90926563|NCT03812614|181729464|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|1.46|||Mixed Models Analysis||Positive coefficient favors I-DSMES; negative coefficient favors FAM-ACT|Change in patient diabetes distress was analyzed in a manner similar to that described for the primary outcome (6-month change in patient A1c).||1.46|-2.11|0.72
90926564|NCT03812614|181729465|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis||Positive coefficient favors I-DSMES; negative coefficient favors FAM-ACT|Change in patient health eating was analyzed in a manner similar to that described for the primary outcome (6-month change in patient A1c).||0.29|-0.76|0.38
90926565|NCT03812614|181729466|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|0.74|||Mixed Models Analysis||Positive coefficient favors FAM-ACT; negative coefficient favors I-DSMES|Change in patient physical activity was analyzed in a manner similar to that described for the primary outcome (6-month change in patient A1c).||0.74|-1.11|0.70
90926566|NCT03812614|181729467|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.74|||Mixed Models Analysis||Positive coefficient favors FAM-ACT; negative coefficient favors I-DSMES|Change in patient diabetes medication adherence was analyzed in a manner similar to that described for the primary outcome (6-month change in patient A1c).||0.74|-0.53|0.75
90926567|NCT03812614|181729467|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.91|||Mixed Models Analysis||Positive coefficient favors FAM-ACT; negative coefficient favors I-DSMES|Change in patient blood pressure medication adherence (days/week meds were taken) was analyzed in a manner similar to that described for the primary outcome (6-month change in patient A1c). Analyses were ITT and thus based on data from all enrolled patients.||0.91|-0.98|0.94
90926568|NCT03812614|181729467|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|0.61|||Mixed Models Analysis||Positive coefficient favors FAM-ACT; negative coefficient favors I-DSMES|Change in patient cholesterol medication adherence (days/week meds were taken) was analyzed in a manner similar to that described for the primary outcome (6-month change in patient A1c). Analyses were ITT and thus based on data from all enrolled patients.||0.61|-1.46|0.42
90964460|NCT03627767|181810165|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.7||||||Week 52: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.7|-2.5|
90964461|NCT03627767|181810166|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.211|0.341||A stratified log-rank test with age group and disease severity as stratification variables was performed to evaluate p-value.|Log Rank|||A Cox regression model with treatment, age group and disease severity as stratification covariates was used to estimate the hazard ratio and the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI).||0.341|0.211|< 0.0001
90886820|NCT00389324|181636129|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The administration effect between SC and IV was assessed by exponentiation of the difference in least squares means between study phases (Test minus Reference) and the corresponding 90% confidence interval (CI) for the geometric LSM ratio between study phases (Test/Reference) for AUC. The Test (SC) was to be considered non-inferior to Reference (IV) if the lower bound of 90% CIs for the geometric LSM ratios of AUC between the Test and Reference was above 0.80 (80%).|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|0.888||||||90.0|0.861|0.917|||ANOVA||An adjusted steady-state area under the concentration vs. time curve following SC administration based on IV dosing schedule was calculated as AUC0-τ,SC multiplied by 3 or 4 for subjects on every-3-week or every-4-week IV dosing schedule.|The IV phase was considered as the Reference study phase and the SC phase as the Test study phase. The ANOVA included calculation of least-squares means (LSM), differences between adjusted means and the standard error associated with these differences.||0.917|0.861|
90926569|NCT03812614|181729468|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.52|||Mixed Models Analysis||Positive coefficient favors FAM-ACT; negative coefficient favors I-DSMES|Change in patient self-efficacy was analyzed in a manner similar to that described for the primary outcome (6-month change in patient A1c).||0.52|-0.54|0.96
90926570|NCT03812614|181729469|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.93||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.92|9.78|||Mixed Models Analysis||Positive coefficient favors FAM-ACT; negative coefficient favors I-DSMES|Change in patient activation was analyzed in a manner similar to that described for the primary outcome (6-month change in patient A1c).||9.78|-3.92|0.40
90926571|NCT03812614|181729470|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.75||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|1.68|||Mixed Models Analysis||Positive coefficient favors FAM-ACT; negative coefficient favors I-DSMES|Change in patient satisfaction with SP support was analyzed in a manner similar to that described for the primary outcome (6-month change in patient A1c).||1.68|-0.18|0.11
90926572|NCT03812614|181729471|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.55|||Mixed Models Analysis||Positive coefficient favors FAM-ACT; negative coefficient favors I-DSMES|Change in patient perception of supportive and non-supportive behaviors was analyzed in a manner similar to that described for the primary outcome (6-month change in patient A1c).||0.55|-0.19|0.34
90926573|NCT03812614|181729473|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.72||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.67|1.23|||Mixed Models Analysis||Positive coefficient favors I-DSMES; negative coefficient favors FAM-ACT|Support Persons (SPs) were surveyed twice, once at baseline and again at the end of their participation in the study. For SPs enrolled before the start of the COVID-19 pandemic (n=77), the follow-up survey was conducted at 12 months. Due to factors related to the pandemic, the length of the protocol was reduced from 12 to 6 months. Thus, SPs enrolled after the pandemic started (n=145) received their follow-up survey at 6 months, and 6-month change was used for predetermined SP outcomes.||1.23|-2.67|0.47
90926574|NCT03812614|181729474|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis||Positive coefficient favors FAM-ACT; negative coefficient favors I-DSMES|Support Persons (SPs) were surveyed twice, once at baseline and again at the end of their participation in the study. For SPs enrolled before the start of the COVID-19 pandemic (n=77), the follow-up survey was conducted at 12 months. Due to factors related to the pandemic, the length of the protocol was reduced from 12 to 6 months. Thus, SPs enrolled after the pandemic started (n=145) received their follow-up survey at 6 months, and 6-month change was used for predetermined SP outcomes.||0.27|-0.78|0.35
90926575|NCT03812614|181729475|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis||Positive coefficient favors FAM-ACT; negative coefficient favors I-DSMES|Change in patient healthy eating was analyzed in a manner similar to that described for the primary outcome (6-month change in patient A1c).||0.01|-1.00|0.06
90926576|NCT03812614|181729476|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|0.54|||Mixed Models Analysis||Positive coefficient favors FAM-ACT; negative coefficient favors I-DSMES|||0.54|-1.22|0.45
90926577|NCT03812614|181729477|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis||Positive coefficient favors FAM-ACT; negative coefficient favors I-DSMES|Change in patient diabetes medication adherence was analyzed in a manner similar to that described for the primary outcome (6-month change in patient A1c).||0.35|-0.86|0.40
90964462|NCT03627767|181810166|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.136||A stratified log-rank test with age group and disease severity as stratification variables was performed to evaluate P value.|Log Rank|||A Cox regression model with treatment, age group and disease severity as stratification covariates was used to estimate the hazard ratio and the corresponding 95% CI.||0.136|0.070|< 0.0001
90964463|NCT03627767|181810166|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.36|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.255|0.516||A stratified log-rank test with age group and disease severity as stratification variables was performed to evaluate P value.|Log Rank|||A Cox regression model with treatment, age group and disease severity as stratification covariates was used to estimate the hazard ratio and the corresponding 95% CI.||0.516|0.255|< 0.0001
90926578|NCT03812614|181729477|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.88|||Mixed Models Analysis||Positive coefficient favors FAM-ACT; negative coefficient favors I-DSMES|Change in patient blood pressure medication adherence (days/week meds were taken) was analyzed in a manner similar to that described for the primary outcome (6month change in patient A1c). Analyses were ITT and thus based on data from all enrolled patients.||0.88|-0.90|0.98
90886821|NCT01381172|181636189|OTHER|The primary analysis employed a Bayesian repeated measures linear model to estimate group differences in mean pVO2 at 24 weeks from baseline, with 30% borrowing of information (70% down-weighting) from the corresponding treatment group difference observed in the FIX-5 study subgroup. The Bayesian posterior probability would need to be \> 0.975 to be considered a positive result with statistical significance.||||||0.975||||||The posterior probability (Pr) that the mean difference in pVO2 (Δ3) between device and control groups is greater than zero must exceed 0.975 to meet the primary effectiveness endpoint.|Bayesian posterior probability|||The FIX-HF-5C Study was a study designed to confirm the preliminary evidence reported in the FIX-HF-5 subgroup analysis demonstrating improvement in subjects with LVEF 25-45% and NYHA class III-IV. A Bayesian statistical approach was employed to leverage the data available, particularly the pVO2 results, from the FIX-HF-5 subgroup.||||0.975
90886822|NCT01047683|181636200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-33.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.6|-21.5||Nonparametric analysis p values were planned using Wilcoxon rank-sum test for each comparison between AMR101 and placebo. Comparisons between AMR101 and placebo were made using a significance level of 0.01 for the primary endpoint.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|A prespecified step-down testing procedure was used to control Type I error rate using 4 g/day vs placebo then, if significant, 2 g/day vs placebo.|Median differences between the treatment groups and 95% CIs were estimated with the Hodges-Lehmann method.|A standard deviation of 45% in the TG measurements and a significance level of P \< 0.01 required a sample size of 69 completed patients per treatment group to provide greater than or equal to 90% power to detect a difference of 30% between AMR101 and placebo in the percentage of change from baseline in the fasting TG levels.||-21.5|-46.6|<0.0001
90886823|NCT01047683|181636200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-19.7||||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.3|-5.6|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Median differences between the treatment groups and 95% CIs were estimated with the Hodges-Lehmann method.|||-5.6|-33.3|0.0051
90886824|NCT01047683|181636201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-28.6||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.4|-13.9||Nonparametric analysis p values were planned using Wilcoxon rank-sum test for each comparison between AMR101 and placebo. Comparisons between AMR101 and placebo were made using a significance level of 0.05 for secondary and exploratory endpoints.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|A prespecified step-down testing procedure was used to control Type I error rate using 4 g/day vs placebo then, if significant, 2 g/day vs placebo.|Median differences between the treatment groups and 95% CIs were estimated with the Hodges-Lehmann method.|||-13.9|-43.4|0.0005
90886825|NCT01047683|181636201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-15.3||||0.1152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.3|-0.7|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Median differences between the treatment groups and 95% CIs were estimated with the Hodges-Lehmann method.|||-0.7|-30.3|0.1152
90886826|NCT01047683|181636202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-13.6||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.2|-6.3||Nonparametric analysis p values were planned using Wilcoxon rank-sum test for each comparison between AMR101 and placebo. Comparisons between AMR101 and placebo were made using a significance level of 0.05.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|A prespecified step-down testing procedure was used to control Type I error rate using 4 g/day vs placebo then, if significant, 2 g/day vs placebo.|Median differences between the treatment groups and 95% CIs were estimated with the Hodges-Lehmann method.|||-6.3|-20.2|0.0006
90886827|NCT01047683|181636202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-5.1||||0.2367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|2.2|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Median differences between the treatment groups and 95% CIs were estimated with the Hodges-Lehmann method.|||2.2|-12.3|0.2367
90886828|NCT01047683|181636203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-8.5||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|-3.2||Nonparametric analysis p values were planned using Wilcoxon rank-sum test for each comparison between AMR101 and placebo. Comparisons between AMR101 and placebo were made using a significance level of 0.05.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|A prespecified step-down testing procedure was used to control Type I error rate using 4 g/day vs placebo then, if significant, 2 g/day vs placebo.|Median differences between the treatment groups and 95% CIs were estimated with the Hodges-Lehmann method.|||-3.2|-13.5|0.0019
90886829|NCT01047683|181636203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.6||||0.2367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|1.9|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Median differences between the treatment groups and 95% CIs were estimated with the Hodges-Lehmann method.|||1.9|-7.8|0.2367
90886830|NCT01047683|181636204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.3||||0.6768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|8.1||Nonparametric analysis p values were planned using Wilcoxon rank-sum test for each comparison between AMR101 and placebo. Comparisons between AMR101 and placebo were made using a significance level of 0.05.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|A prespecified step-down testing procedure was used to control Type I error rate using 4 g/day vs placebo then, if significant, 2 g/day vs placebo.|Median differences between the treatment groups and 95% CIs were estimated with the Hodges-Lehmann method.|||8.1|-12.9|0.6768
90886831|NCT01047683|181636204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|5.2||||0.3022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|15.6|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Median differences between the treatment groups and 95% CIs were estimated with the Hodges-Lehmann method.|||15.6|-5.4|0.3022
90886832|NCT01047683|181636205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-17.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.0|-11.3||Nonparametric analysis p values were planned using Wilcoxon rank-sum test for each comparison between AMR101 and placebo. Comparisons between AMR101 and placebo were made using a significance level of 0.05.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|A prespecified step-down testing procedure was used to control Type I error rate using 4 g/day vs placebo then, if significant, 2 g/day vs placebo.|Median differences between the treatment groups and 95% CIs were estimated with the Hodges-Lehmann method.|||-11.3|-25.0|<0.0001
90926579|NCT03812614|181729477|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|0.61|||Mixed Models Analysis||Positive coefficient favors FAM-ACT; negative coefficient favors I-DSMES|Change in patient cholesterol medication adherence (days/week meds were taken) was analyzed in a manner similar to that described for the primary outcome (6month change in patient A1c). Analyses were ITT and thus based on data from all enrolled patients.||0.61|-1.42|0.43
90926580|NCT03812614|181729478|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis||Positive coefficient favors FAM-ACT; negative coefficient favors I-DSMES|||0.01|-1.00|0.06
90926581|NCT03812614|181729479|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.22|6.49|||Mixed Models Analysis||Positive coefficient favors FAM-ACT; negative coefficient favors I-DSMES|Change in patient activation was analyzed in a manner similar to that described for the primary outcome (6-month change in patient A1c).||6.49|-7.22|0.92
90926582|NCT03812614|181729480|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.99|||Mixed Models Analysis||Positive coefficient favors FAM-ACT; negative coefficient favors I-DSMES|Change in patient satisfaction with SP support was analyzed in a manner similar to that described for the primary outcome (6-month change in patient A1c).||1.99|0.21|0.02
90926583|NCT03812614|181729481|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||Positive coefficient favors FAM-ACT; negative coefficient favors I-DSMES|Change in patient perception of supportive and non-supportive behaviors was analyzed in a manner similar to that described for the primary outcome (6-month change in patient A1c).||0.70|-0.01|0.06
90926584|NCT03812614|181729482|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.19||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.19|4.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Support Persons (SPs) were surveyed twice, once at baseline and again at the end of their participation in the study. For SPs enrolled before the start of the COVID-19 pandemic (n=77), the follow-up survey was conducted at 12 months. Due to factors related to the pandemic, the length of the protocol was reduced from 12 to 6 months. Thus, SPs enrolled after the pandemic started (n=145) received their follow-up survey at 6 months, and 6-month change was used for predetermined SP outcomes.|Positive coefficient favors I-DSMES; negative coefficient favors FAM-ACT|4.57|-2.19|0.49
90926585|NCT03812614|181729483|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.78||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|1.66|||Mixed Models Analysis||Positive coefficient favors FAM-ACT; negative coefficient favors I-DSMES|Support Persons (SPs) were surveyed twice, once at baseline and again at the end of their participation in the study. For SPs enrolled before the start of the COVID-19 pandemic (n=77), the follow-up survey was conducted at 12 months. Due to factors related to the pandemic, the length of the protocol was reduced from 12 to 6 months. Thus, SPs enrolled after the pandemic started (n=145) received their follow-up survey at 6 months, and 6-month change was used for predetermined SP outcomes.||1.66|-0.09|0.08
90926586|NCT05652010|181729484|OTHER|Comparative study|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.576||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2634|1.2659||P=0.164 for testing the hypothesis that OR=1|Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model. As it was an exploratory study no adjustment for multiple comparison was performed.|P=0.164 for testing the hypothesis that OR=1|||1.2659|0.2634|0.164
90926587|NCT05652010|181729485|OTHER||Binominal|0.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|0.97|||Exact test in the binomial distribution|Exact test in the binomial distribution tested if the proportion of very satisfied/satisfied was sign. different from 50% when using a 5% test level|The binomial proportion is based on subjects that have answered the questions. Exact test in the binomial distribution.|||0.97|0.75|<0.0001
90926588|NCT05652010|181729486|OTHER|The binomial proportion is based on subjects that have answered the questions. Exact test in the binomial distribution.|Binominal|0.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.92|||Exact test in the binominal distribution|Exact test in the binomial distribution tested if the proportion of YES was significantly different from 50% when using a 5% test level||||0.92|0.66|<0.0001
90926589|NCT05652010|181729487|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.259||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.078|0.855||P=0.027 for testing the hypothesis that OR=1|Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model|P=0.027 for testing the hypothesis that OR=1|||0.855|0.078|0.027
90926590|NCT04763772|181729495|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.5||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|4.8|||Regression, Linear|||||4.8|-14|0.2
90926591|NCT02518048|181729506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.58|-1.76||Least Square Means difference from ANOVA with treatment group as fixed effect and subject as random effect (105 treated sites per treatment group).|ANOVA|||A last observation carried forward (LOCF) approach was used to account for drop-outs and missing values in the analysis of end of treatment values.||-1.76|-2.58|<0.001
90964464|NCT03627767|181810167|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.1|||=|0.7556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.6|-0.4|= 0.7556
90926592|NCT02518048|181729509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.32||Least Square Means difference from ANOVA with treatment group as fixed effect and subject as random effect (105 treated sites per treatment group)|ANOVA|||Total Skin Thickness: LEO 90100 vs. Betesil®||-0.32|-0.53|<0.001
90926593|NCT02518048|181729509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.41||Least Square Means difference from ANOVA with treatment group as fixed effect and subject as random effect (105 treated sites per treatment group)|ANOVA|||Echo-Poor Band Thickness: LEO 90100 vs. Betesil®||-0.41|-0.69|<0.001
90926594|NCT05123027|181729520|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.7||||0.399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.62||Threshold for significance: p\< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||The primary outcome was analyzed with a longitudinal mixed effects negative binomial model incorporating the total score at earlier time points as well as 180 days. Fixed effect covariates included baseline score, treatment, days, site, stratum, and an interaction between treatment and days. A random effect was included to account for correlation within each participant.||1.62|0.30|0.399
90964465|NCT03627767|181810167|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.1|||=|0.7484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.6|-0.4|= 0.7484
90926595|NCT05123027|181729521|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.09||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.45||Threshold for significance: p\< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||This was modeled similar to the primary outcome, an over dispersed Poisson regression model with fixed effect covariates for treatment arm, treatment days, site, and stratum with an interaction between treatment arm and treatment days. Note that no baseline score covariate was included as all participants will be considered to have achieved 0 steps at baseline. A random intercept was included for each subject to account for repeated measures.||1.45|0.83|0.53
90926596|NCT05525104|181729541|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.041|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.041
90926597|NCT05525104|181729542|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.066|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.066
90926598|NCT05525104|181729546|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
90926599|NCT06356285|181729560|EQUIVALENCE|Quasibinominal models were used as the outcomes are bounded count variables. Accepting a two-sided p-value adjusted for 3 comparisons, the study was designed with 80% power to detect a minimal detectable effect size between the trial arms and control for the primary outcome.|Odds Ratio, log|0.05||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||A two-sided p-value, as shown in the table, which was adjusted for 3 comparisons|Quasibinominal regression|||||||0.017
90926600|NCT01385202|181729580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Primary effectiveness rate|70.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.9|78.4||In the worst-case scenario analysis, over seventy-percent (70.2%, 80/114) of the primary effectiveness cohort (PEC) were free from documented symptomatic atrial tachyarrhythmias during their effectiveness evaluation period.|Fisher Exact|The lower bound of the 95% confidence intervals was 60.9%, significantly higher than the pre-determined performance goal of 50% (p\<0.0001).|The confidence intervals above are the 95% exact binomial confidence intervals.|The null hypothesis was that the rate of freedom from documented symptomatic AF/AFL/AT at 12 months would be less than or equal to the pre-determined performance criterion of 50%. The alternative hypothesis was that the rate of freedom from documented symptomatic AF/AFL/AT at 12 months would be greater than the pre-determined performance criterion of 50%.||78.4|60.9|<0.0001
90926601|NCT01385202|181729580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Primary effectiveness rate|74.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|66.0|82.0|||||The 95% confidence intervals above were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier (KM) method.|||82|66|
90926602|NCT04068792|181729611|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.467|2.416||||||||2.416|-4.467|
90926603|NCT03969563|181729635|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence based on non-significant difference between MBSR and Brain Health groups.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.694|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.694
90926604|NCT03969563|181729636|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence based on non-significant difference between MBSR vs Brain Health group.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0.837|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.837
90926605|NCT02577354|181729650|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.138||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wald asymptotic test of proportions|Cui p-value adjustment for sample size re-estimation at interim analysis; Multiple imputation utilized for 3 participants lost to follow-up.||||||0.138
90926606|NCT02577354|181729651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.032||||||Threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.032
90926607|NCT02577354|181729652|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0499||||||The threshold for significance was p=0.05.|Friedman's regression analysis|Multiple Imputation utilized for 3 participants lost to follow-up.||||||0.0499
90926608|NCT02577354|181729654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011||||||Threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.011
90926609|NCT02577354|181729655|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009||||||Threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.009
90926610|NCT02577354|181729656|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90926611|NCT02577354|181729657|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||Threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.003
90926612|NCT02577354|181729658|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.335||||||Threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.335
90926613|NCT02577354|181729666|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.048||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Wald asymptotic test of proportions|Multiple imputation used for three participants lost to follow-up.||||||0.048
90926614|NCT02577354|181729667|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||"P-value for Satisfied with Treatment. Threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05"|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90926615|NCT02577354|181729669|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90926616|NCT01116895|181729720|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-2.2||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.6|28.2|||ANOVA|||||28.2|-32.6|0.89
90926617|NCT01116895|181729720|OTHER||Least square mean difference|4.5||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.2|35.3|||ANOVA|||||35.3|-26.2|0.77
90926618|NCT01116895|181729720|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-6.7||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.2|22.8|||ANOVA|||||22.8|-36.2|0.65
90926619|NCT03995979|181729725|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||The P-value was calculated using a paired t test|Paired t-test|||A compositional analysis with species-level alpha diversity will be performed between the three conditions (Pre-Dietary Restriction, Dietary Restriction, and Post-Dietary Restriction,) with ANOVA testing. Furthermore, a differential abundance analysis will be performed to further identify and confirm prevalent organisms associated with the experimental dietary restriction.||||0.05
90926620|NCT04704869|181729738|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.17||||||||1.17|0.81|
90940812|NCT00863798|181761514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.204|TWO_SIDED|||||In this case, multiplicity arising from testing key secondary hypotheses in both doses was controlled by a Hochberg step-up procedure. p-Value obtained for the alternative hypothesis of 'Row mean scores differences'.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Each DVS SR dose was separately compared to placebo. To control the study-wise type I error rate across the primary and the key secondary endpoints, as well as across the 2 active dose arms, testing of the key secondary hypothesis occurred only when both active doses were superior to placebo on the primary endpoint.||||0.204
90940813|NCT00863798|181761515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.35|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was conducted using ANCOVA on the change from baseline with treatment as a factor and corresponding baseline value as a covariate.||0.35|-0.04|0.130
90964466|NCT03627767|181810167|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5||||||Week 12: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.5|-0.5|
90964467|NCT03627767|181810167|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.6|-1.6|< 0.0001
90964468|NCT03627767|181810167|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.9|-1.9|< 0.0001
90886833|NCT01047683|181636205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-8.1||||0.0182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.1|-1.4|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Median differences between the treatment groups and 95% CIs were estimated with the Hodges-Lehmann method.|||-1.4|-15.1|0.0182
90886834|NCT03447769|181636206|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.14||1-sided p-value|Stratified log-rank test||The HR for DFS was calculated, along with its 95% confidence interval, from a stratified Cox model using the same stratification factors as those for the log-rank test.|||1.14|0.78|0.258
90886835|NCT03447769|181636211|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.58||1-sided p-value|Stratified log-rank test||The HR for DFS was calculated, along with its 95% confidence interval, from a stratified Cox model using the same stratification factors as those for the log-rank test|PD-L1 \<1%||1.58|0.76|0.676
90886836|NCT03447769|181636211|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.05||1-sided p-value|Stratified log-rank test||The HR for DFS was calculated, along with its 95% confidence interval, from a stratified Cox model using the same stratification factors as those for the log-rank test|PD-L1 ≥1% and \<49%||1.05|0.34|0.036
90886837|NCT03447769|181636211|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.33||||0.823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.43||1-sided p-value|Stratified log-rank test||The HR for DFS was calculated, along with its 95% confidence interval, from a stratified Cox model using the same stratification factors as those for the log-rank test|PD-L1 ≥50%||2.43|0.73|0.823
90886838|NCT03447769|181636212|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.22||||0.872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.72||1-sided p-value|Stratified log-rank test||The HR for DFS was calculated, along with its 95% confidence interval, from a stratified Cox model using the same stratification factors as those for the log-rank test.|CD8 \< median||1.72|0.87|0.872
90886839|NCT03447769|181636212|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.33||1-sided p-value|Stratified log-rank test||The HR for DFS was calculated, along with its 95% confidence interval, from a stratified Cox model using the same stratification factors as those for the log-rank test.|CD8 ≥ median||1.33|0.62|0.303
90886840|NCT01485861|181636226|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.1606|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.56|1.04|||Log Rank|||||1.04|0.56|0.1606
90886841|NCT01485861|181636226|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.66|1.2|||Log Rank|||||1.20|0.66|0.5300
90886842|NCT01485861|181636226|SUPERIORITY|Strata are: prior enzalutamide (Yes vs. No), progression factor (prostate-specific antigen \[PSA\] only vs. other), and number of prior chemotherapy regimens for metastatic disease (one vs. more than one).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.1689|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.54|1.05|||Log Rank|||||1.05|0.54|0.1689
90886843|NCT01485861|181636226|SUPERIORITY|Strata are: prior enzalutamide (Yes vs. No), progression factor (PSA only vs. other), and number of prior chemotherapy regimens for metastatic disease (one vs. more than one).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.7484|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|1.28|||Log Rank|||||1.28|0.69|0.7484
90886844|NCT01485861|181636227|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.39||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.22|0.7|||Log Rank|||||0.70|0.22|0.0064
90886845|NCT01485861|181636227|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.46||||0.0285|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.25|0.83|||Log Rank|||||0.83|0.25|0.0285
90886846|NCT01485861|181636245|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.22|||Log Rank|||||1.22|0.62|0.4170
90886847|NCT01485861|181636245|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.6712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.3|||Log Rank|||||1.30|0.67|0.6712
90886848|NCT01485861|181636245|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.5164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.27|||Log Rank|||Strata were: prior enzalutamide (Yes vs. No), progression factor (PSA only vs. other), and number of prior chemotherapy regimens for metastatic disease (one vs. more than one).||1.27|0.62|0.5164
90926621|NCT04490109|181729759|SUPERIORITY|The ANCOVA model for primary endpoint change from Baseline to Week 4 in average WI-NRS will have treatment group and Baseline weekly average WI-NRS as explanatory variables. Hypothesis will be tested using a Dunnett Testing Method, applying pairwise comparisons of each group to vehicle using a one-sided familywise error rate of 0.10. Treatment effect will be estimated as least squares means using vehicle as reference and adjusted using Dunnett Testing Method and presented with one-sided 90% CI.||||||0.0148|||||||ANCOVA|||Approximately 576 subjects may be enrolled to account for 16.7% drop out rate prior to completing the study. A total of 160 evaluable subjects per group are required to achieve at least 80% power to detect a difference of 0.65 in mean WI-NRS change from Baseline to Week 4 between one of two active doses of B244 and vehicle control when assuming a standard deviation of 2.5 and applying a Dunnett Testing Method at a one-sided familywise error rate of 0.10.||||0.0148
90926622|NCT04490109|181729759|SUPERIORITY|The ANCOVA model for primary endpoint change from Baseline to Week 4 in average WI-NRS will have treatment group and Baseline weekly average WI-NRS as explanatory variables. Hypothesis will be tested using a Dunnett Testing Method, applying pairwise comparisons of each group to vehicle using a one-sided familywise error rate of 0.10. Treatment effect will be estimated as least squares means using vehicle as reference and adjusted using Dunnett Testing Method and presented with one-sided 90% CI.||||||0.0143|||||||ANCOVA|||Approximately 576 subjects may be enrolled to account for 16.7% drop out rate prior to completing the study. A total of 160 evaluable subjects per group are required to achieve at least 80% power to detect a difference of 0.65 in mean WI-NRS change from Baseline to Week 4 between one of two active doses of B244 and vehicle control when assuming a standard deviation of 2.5 and applying a Dunnett Testing Method at a one-sided familywise error rate of 0.10.||||0.0143
90926623|NCT04490109|181729761|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0205|||||||Regression, Logistic|||The frequency and rate of WI-NRS and AI-NRS responders will be reported and compared between treatment groups using a logistic regression model. Generalized estimating equations to account for repeated measures and within-subject variability may also be applied.||||0.0205
90926624|NCT04490109|181729762|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0044|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The difference in treatment groups in change from Baseline values at post-baseline visits will be analyzed using a mixed model with repeated measures.||||0.0044
90926625|NCT04490109|181729762|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0077|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The difference in treatment groups in change from Baseline values at post-baseline visits will be analyzed using a mixed model with repeated measures.||||0.0077
90926626|NCT04490109|181729763|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Regression, Logistic|||The frequency and rate of WI-NRS and AI-NRS responders will be reported and compared between treatment groups using a logistic regression model. Generalized estimating equations to account for repeated measures and within-subject variability may also be applied.||||0.0400
90926627|NCT04490109|181729763|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0486|||||||Regression, Logistic|||The frequency and rate of WI-NRS and AI-NRS responders will be reported and compared between treatment groups using a logistic regression model. Generalized estimating equations to account for repeated measures and within-subject variability may also be applied.||||0.0486
90926628|NCT04490109|181729765|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0246|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The difference in treatment groups in change from Baseline values at post-baseline visits will be analyzed using a mixed model with repeated measures.||||0.0246
90926629|NCT04490109|181729765|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0366|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The difference in treatment groups in change from Baseline values at post-baseline visits will be analyzed using a mixed model with repeated measures.||||0.0366
90926630|NCT04490109|181729766|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0467|||||||Regression, Logistic|||The frequency and rate of WI-NRS and AI-NRS responders will be reported and compared between treatment groups using a logistic regression model. Generalized estimating equations to account for repeated measures and within-subject variability may also be applied.||||0.0467
90926631|NCT04490109|181729767|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0293|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The difference in treatment groups in change from Baseline values at post-baseline visits will be analyzed using a mixed model with repeated measures.||||0.0293
90926632|NCT04490109|181729768|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0045|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The difference in treatment groups in change from Baseline values at post-baseline visits will be analyzed using a mixed model with repeated measures.||||0.0045
90926633|NCT04490109|181729768|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0043|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The difference in treatment groups in change from Baseline values at post-baseline visits will be analyzed using a mixed model with repeated measures.||||0.0043
90926634|NCT04490109|181729769|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0026|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The difference in treatment groups in change from Baseline values at post-baseline visits will be analyzed using a mixed model with repeated measures.||||0.0026
90926635|NCT04490109|181729769|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The difference in treatment groups in change from Baseline values at post-baseline visits will be analyzed using a mixed model with repeated measures.||||0.0005
90926636|NCT04490109|181729770|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0348|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The difference in treatment groups in change from Baseline values at post-baseline visits will be analyzed using a mixed model with repeated measures.||||0.0348
90926637|NCT04490109|181729770|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0173|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The difference in treatment groups in change from Baseline values at post-baseline visits will be analyzed using a mixed model with repeated measures.||||0.0173
90926638|NCT04490109|181729771|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0228|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Responder rates for IGA and EASI will be summarized using descriptive statistics and analyzed using a logistic regression model at each respective timepoints.||||0.0228
90926639|NCT04490109|181729771|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0015|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Responder rates for IGA and EASI will be summarized using descriptive statistics and analyzed using a logistic regression model at each respective timepoints.||||0.0015
90926640|NCT04490109|181729772|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Responder rates for IGA and EASI will be summarized using descriptive statistics and analyzed using a logistic regression model at each respective timepoints.||||0.0003
90926641|NCT04490109|181729773|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0195|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Responder rates for IGA and EASI will be summarized using descriptive statistics and analyzed using a logistic regression model at each respective timepoints.||||0.0195
90926642|NCT04490109|181729774|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0365|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Responder rates for IGA and EASI will be summarized using descriptive statistics and analyzed using a logistic regression model at each respective timepoints.||||0.0365
90926643|NCT04490109|181729775|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0086|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Responder rates for IGA and EASI will be summarized using descriptive statistics and analyzed using a logistic regression model at each respective timepoints.||||0.0086
90926644|NCT04490109|181729775|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0035|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Responder rates for IGA and EASI will be summarized using descriptive statistics and analyzed using a logistic regression model at each respective timepoints.||||0.0035
90926645|NCT04490109|181729776|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0074|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Responder rates for IGA and EASI will be summarized using descriptive statistics and analyzed using a logistic regression model at each respective timepoints.||||0.0074
90926646|NCT04490109|181729776|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0008|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Responder rates for IGA and EASI will be summarized using descriptive statistics and analyzed using a logistic regression model at each respective timepoints.||||0.0008
90926647|NCT04163991|181729777|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.0296|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.47|-0.21||Results are from MMRM analysis with treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, and baseline DAS28-CRP score included in the model.|MMRM||LS Mean difference is VIB4920 minus placebo. Differences less than 0 favor VIB4920.|||-0.21|-1.47|0.0296
90926648|NCT04163991|181729777|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.0355|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.44|-0.18||Results are from MMRM analysis with treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, and baseline DAS28-CRP score included in the model.|MMRM||LS Mean difference is VIB4920 minus placebo. Differences less than 0 favor VIB4920.|||-0.18|-1.44|0.0355
90926649|NCT04163991|181729777|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.0364|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.44|-0.18||Results are from MMRM analysis with treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, and baseline DAS28-CRP score included in the model.|MMRM||LS Mean difference is VIB4920 minus placebo. Differences less than 0 favor VIB4920.|||-0.18|-1.44|0.0364
90926650|NCT04163991|181729777|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.0478|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.41|-0.13||Results are from MMRM analysis with treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, and baseline DAS28-CRP score included in the model.|MMRM||LS Mean difference is VIB4920 minus placebo. Differences less than 0 favor VIB4920.|||-0.13|-1.41|0.0478
90926651|NCT04163991|181729788|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric mean versus placebo|0.64||||0.0584|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.43|0.94||Results are from MMRM analysis on log(ratio to baseline) with treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, and log(baseline) included in the model.|MMRM||Ratio of geometric mean is for VIB4920:placebo. Ratios less than 1 indicate a decrease.|||0.94|0.43|0.0584
90926652|NCT04163991|181729788|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean versus placebo|0.76||||0.2274|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.51|1.11||Results are from MMRM analysis on log(ratio to baseline) with treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, and log(baseline) included in the model.|MMRM||Ratio of geometric mean is for VIB4920:placebo. Ratios less than 1 indicate a decrease.|||1.11|0.51|0.2274
90926653|NCT04163991|181729788|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric mean versus placebo|0.77||||0.2794|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.52|1.14||Results are from MMRM analysis on log(ratio to baseline) with treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, and log(baseline) included in the model.|MMRM||Ratio of geometric mean is for VIB4920:placebo. Ratios less than 1 indicate a decrease.|||1.14|0.52|0.2794
90926654|NCT04163991|181729788|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric mean versus placebo|0.57||||0.0199|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.39|0.85||Results are from MMRM analysis on log(ratio to baseline) with treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, and log(baseline) included in the model.|MMRM||Ratio of geometric mean is for VIB4920:placebo. Ratios less than 1 indicate a decrease.|||0.85|0.39|0.0199
90926655|NCT04163991|181729789|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric mean versus placebo|0.64||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.52|0.79||Results are from MMRM analysis on log(ratio to baseline) with treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, and log(baseline) included in the model.|MMRM||Ratio of geometric mean is for VIB4920:placebo. Ratios less than 1 indicate a decrease.|||0.79|0.52|0.0007
90926656|NCT04163991|181729789|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric mean versus placebo|0.62||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|0.76||Results are from MMRM analysis on log(ratio to baseline) with treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, and log(baseline) included in the model.|MMRM||Ratio of geometric mean is for VIB4920:placebo. Ratios less than 1 indicate a decrease.|||0.76|0.50|0.0003
90926657|NCT04163991|181729789|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric mean versus placebo|0.6||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.48|0.74||Results are from MMRM analysis on log(ratio to baseline) with treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, and log(baseline) included in the model.|MMRM||Ratio of geometric mean is for VIB4920:placebo. Ratios less than 1 indicate a decrease.|||0.74|0.48|0.0001
90964469|NCT03627767|181810167|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.1||||||Week 16: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.1|-0.7|
90964470|NCT03627767|181810167|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.6|||=|0.0242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 28: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.1|-1.2|= 0.0242
90964471|NCT03627767|181810167|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.9|||=|0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 28: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.4|-1.4|= 0.0012
90964472|NCT03627767|181810167|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.1||||||Week 28: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.1|-0.6|
90964473|NCT03627767|181810167|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.6|||=|0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 40: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.2|-1.3|= 0.1240
90964474|NCT03627767|181810167|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.9|||=|0.0107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 40: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.2|-1.6|= 0.0107
90964475|NCT03627767|181810167|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.1||||||Week 40: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.1|-0.8|
90964476|NCT03627767|181810167|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.4|||=|0.3139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.3|-1.1|= 0.3139
90964477|NCT03627767|181810167|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.6|||=|0.0853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.1|-1.3|= 0.0853
90964478|NCT03627767|181810167|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.2||||||Week 52: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.2|-0.7|
90964479|NCT03627767|181810168|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.4|||=|0.0674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.8|0.0|= 0.0674
90964480|NCT03627767|181810168|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.3|||=|0.1437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.7|-0.1|= 0.1437
90964481|NCT03627767|181810168|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.3||||||Week 12: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.3|-0.5|
90886849|NCT01485861|181636245|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.8955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.44|||Log Rank|||Strata were: prior enzalutamide (Yes vs. No), progression factor (PSA only vs. other), and number of prior chemotherapy regimens for metastatic disease (one vs. more than one).||1.44|0.72|0.8955
90926658|NCT04163991|181729789|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric mean versus placebo|0.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.38|0.59||Results are from MMRM analysis on log(ratio to baseline) with treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, and log(baseline) included in the model.|MMRM||Ratio of geometric mean is for VIB4920:placebo. Ratios less than 1 indicate a decrease.|||0.59|0.38|< 0.0001
90926659|NCT04163991|181729790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.775|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.2|8.0||Results are from logistic regression analysis with treatment and baseline DAS28-CRP score included in the model.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio is VIB4920/placebo, with associated 90% CI and p-value. Odds ratios greater than 1 favor VIB4920.|||8.0|0.2|0.7750
90926660|NCT04163991|181729790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.6974|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.1|5.5||Results are from logistic regression analysis with treatment and baseline DAS28-CRP score included in the model.|Regression, Logistic||(Lower limit of 90% CI is \< 0.1.) Odds ratio is VIB4920/placebo, with associated 90% CI and p-value. Odds ratios greater than 1 favor VIB4920.|||5.5|0.1|0.6974
90926661|NCT04163991|181729790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.9318|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.1|5.7||Results are from logistic regression analysis with treatment and baseline DAS28-CRP score included in the model.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio is VIB4920/placebo, with associated 90% CI and p-value. Odds ratios greater than 1 favor VIB4920.|||5.7|0.1|0.9318
90926662|NCT04163991|181729790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.9108|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.2|5.1||Results are from logistic regression analysis with treatment and baseline DAS28-CRP score included in the model.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio is VIB4920/placebo, with associated 90% CI and p-value. Odds ratios greater than 1 favor VIB4920.|||5.1|0.2|0.9108
90926663|NCT04163991|181729791|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.9805|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.1|10.6||Based on Cox regression method with treatment group included in the model.|Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio is VIB4920/placebo. Hazard ratios less than 1 favor VIB4920.|||10.60|0.10|0.9805
90926664|NCT04163991|181729791|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.9805|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.1|10.6||Based on Cox regression method with treatment group included in the model.|Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio is VIB4920/placebo. Hazard ratios less than 1 favor VIB4920.|||10.60|0.10|0.9805
90926665|NCT04163991|181729791|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.01||||0.3407|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.45|20.09||Based on Cox regression method with treatment group included in the model.|Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio is VIB4920/placebo. Hazard ratios less than 1 favor VIB4920.|||20.09|0.45|0.3407
90926666|NCT04163991|181729791|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.9805|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.1|10.6||Based on Cox regression method with treatment group included in the model.|Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio is VIB4920/placebo. Hazard ratios less than 1 favor VIB4920.|||10.60|0.10|0.9805
90926667|NCT04564209|181729920|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.455|||||||ANOVA|||||||.455
90926668|NCT04564209|181729921|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.415|||||||ANOVA|||||||.415
90926669|NCT04564209|181729922|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.443|||||||ANOVA|||||||.443
90926670|NCT04564209|181729923|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.457|||||||ANOVA|||||||.457
90926671|NCT04564209|181729924|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.099|||||||ANOVA|||||||.099
90926672|NCT04564209|181729925|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.338|||||||ANOVA|||||||.338
90926673|NCT04564209|181729926|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.723|||||||ANOVA|||||||.723
90926674|NCT04564209|181729928|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.578|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.578
90926675|NCT04564209|181729929|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.998|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.998
90926676|NCT04564209|181729930|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.864|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.864
90926677|NCT04099732|181729932|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means (T/R) %|183.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|164.35|204.56|||||Geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 16.5.|Relative bioavailability. The statistical model was an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale, considering the effects 'subjects' as random and 'treatment' as fixed.||204.56|164.35|
90926678|NCT04099732|181729933|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means (T/R) %|174.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|154.73|195.68|||||Geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 17.7|Relative bioavailability. The statistical model was an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale, considering the effects 'subjects' as random and 'treatment' as fixed.||195.68|154.73|
90926679|NCT04099732|181729934|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means (T/R) %|119.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|109.84|129.15|||||Geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 11.1.|Relative Bioavailability. The statistical model was an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale, considering the effects 'subjects' as random and 'treatment' as fixed.||129.15|109.84|
90926680|NCT04099732|181729935|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means (T/R) %|119.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|107.68|131.94|||||Geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 13.9.|Relative Bioavailability. The statistical model was an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale, considering the effects 'subjects' as random and 'treatment' as fixed.||131.94|107.68|
90964482|NCT03627767|181810168|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.9|-1.8|< 0.0001
90964483|NCT03627767|181810168|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.9|-1.8|< 0.0001
90964484|NCT03627767|181810168|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4||||||Week 16: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.4|-0.4|
90964485|NCT03627767|181810168|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.4|||=|0.1136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 28: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.1|-1.0|= 0.1136
90964486|NCT03627767|181810168|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.6|||=|0.0276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 28: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.1|-1.1|= 0.0276
90964487|NCT03627767|181810168|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.2||||||Week 28: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.2|-0.5|
90964488|NCT03627767|181810168|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.9|||=|0.0108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 40: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.2|-1.5|= 0.0108
90886850|NCT01485861|181636246|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63||||0.1472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.19|||Log Rank|||||1.19|0.33|0.1472
90964489|NCT03627767|181810168|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.6|||=|0.0677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 40: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.0|-1.3|= 0.0677
90964490|NCT03627767|181810168|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.7||||||Week 40: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.7|-0.2|
90964491|NCT03627767|181810168|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.5|||=|0.132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.1|-1.1|= 0.1320
90964492|NCT03627767|181810168|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.3|||=|0.2975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.3|-0.9|= 0.2975
90886851|NCT01485861|181636246|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.45||||0.0157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.87|||Log Rank|||||0.87|0.23|0.0157
90886852|NCT01485861|181636249|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7|||=|0.0665|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.51|0.97|||Log Rank|||||0.97|0.51|= 0.0665
90964493|NCT03627767|181810168|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.6||||||Week 52: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.6|-0.2|
90964494|NCT03627767|181810169|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.4|||=|0.3531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.4|-1.3|= 0.3531
90964495|NCT03627767|181810169|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.0|||=|0.9282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.9|-0.8|= 0.9282
90964496|NCT03627767|181810169|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.3||||||Week 12: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.3|-0.4|
90964497|NCT03627767|181810169|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-6.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|-5.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-5.0|-7.3|< 0.0001
90964498|NCT03627767|181810169|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-9.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|-8.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-8.1|-10.3|< 0.0001
90964499|NCT03627767|181810169|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-2.1||||||Week 16: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-2.1|-4.0|
90964500|NCT03627767|181810169|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-4.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|-2.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 28: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-2.9|-6.2|< 0.0001
90964501|NCT03627767|181810169|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-6.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|-5.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 28: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-5.1|-8.3|< 0.0001
90964502|NCT03627767|181810169|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-0.9||||||Week 28: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.9|-3.3|
90964503|NCT03627767|181810169|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-2.6|||=|0.0082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|-0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 40: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.7|-4.5|= 0.0082
90964504|NCT03627767|181810169|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-5.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|-3.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 40: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-3.6|-7.4|< 0.0001
90964505|NCT03627767|181810169|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|-1.6||||||Week 40: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.6|-4.2|
90964506|NCT03627767|181810169|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-2.4|||=|0.0313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.2|-4.5|= 0.0313
90886853|NCT01485861|181636249|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99|||=|0.9319|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.73|1.33|||Log Rank|||||1.33|0.73|= 0.9319
90886854|NCT01485861|181636249|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7|||=|0.071|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|0.97|||Log Rank|||Strata were: prior Enzalutamide (Yes vs. No), progression factor (PSA only vs. other), and number of prior chemotherapy regimens for metastatic disease (one vs. more than one).||0.97|0.50|= 0.0710
90886855|NCT01485861|181636249|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95|||=|0.789|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7|1.31|||Log Rank|||Strata were: prior enzalutamide (Yes vs. No), progression factor (PSA only vs. other), and number of prior chemotherapy regimens for metastatic disease (one vs. more than one).||1.31|0.70|= 0.7890
90886856|NCT01485861|181636250|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68|||=|0.2906|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.37|1.25|||Log Rank|||||1.25|0.37|= 0.2906
90886857|NCT01485861|181636250|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65|||=|0.2716|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.35|1.22|||Log Rank|||||1.22|0.35|= 0.2716
90886858|NCT01485861|181636251|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified|Difference in response rates|1.97|||=|0.7913|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.25|14.18|||Chi-squared|||||14.18|-10.25|= 0.7913
90886859|NCT01485861|181636251|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified|Difference in response rates|-1.22|||=|0.8675|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.24|10.8|||Chi-squared|||||10.80|-13.24|= 0.8675
90886860|NCT01485861|181636252|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|11.43|||=|0.4176|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.43|58.32|||Chi-squared|||||58.32|-11.43|= 0.4176
90964507|NCT03627767|181810169|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-5.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|-3.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-3.0|-7.1|< 0.0001
90964508|NCT03627767|181810169|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|-1.3||||||Week 52: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.3|-4.1|
90964509|NCT03627767|181810170|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.1|||=|0.4832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.2|-0.4|= 0.4832
90964510|NCT03627767|181810170|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.1|||=|0.6553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.2|-0.3|= 0.6553
90964511|NCT03627767|181810170|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.3||||||Week 12: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.3|-0.2|
90886861|NCT01485861|181636252|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|15.43|||=|0.2802|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.58|38.44|||Chi-squared|||||38.44|-7.58|= 0.2802
90886862|NCT01485861|181636253|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|9.58|||=|0.3646|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.65|26.8|||Chi-squared|||||26.80|-7.65|= 0.3646
90886863|NCT01485861|181636253|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.22|||=|0.9821|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.89|16.33|||Chi-squared|||||16.33|-15.89|= 0.9821
90886864|NCT01485861|181636254|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-3.17|||=|0.8489|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-30.93|24.58|||Chi-squared|||||24.58|-30.93|= 0.8489
90886865|NCT01485861|181636254|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|12.38|||=|0.5186|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.36|41.12|||Chi-squared|||||41.12|-16.36|= 0.5186
90886866|NCT01485861|181636255|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.31|||=|0.678|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.45|3.8|||Log Rank|||||3.80|0.45|= 0.6780
90886867|NCT01485861|181636255|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85|||=|0.8372|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.24|3.02|||Log Rank|||||3.02|0.24|= 0.8372
90886868|NCT01485861|181636255|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77|||=|0.7733|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.17|3.5|||Log Rank|||Strata were: prior enzalutamide (Yes vs. No), progression factor (PSA only vs. other), and number of prior chemotherapy regimens for metastatic disease (one vs. more than one).||3.50|0.17|= 0.7733
90886869|NCT01485861|181636255|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.46|||=|0.4227|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.36|16.59|||Log Rank|||Strata were: prior enzalutamide (Yes vs. No), progression factor (PSA only vs. other), and number of prior chemotherapy regimens for metastatic disease (one vs. more than one).||16.59|0.36|= 0.4227
90886870|NCT01485861|181636256|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|999.99|||=|0.3173|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0||NA = Not estimable due to limited number of events observed||Log Rank||\>||||0.00|= 0.3173
90886871|NCT01485861|181636256|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|999.99|||=|0.6171|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0||NA = Not estimable due to limited number of events observed||Log Rank||\>||||0.00|= 0.6171
90886872|NCT01485861|181636257|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|3.75|||=|0.6652|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.47|17.97|||Chi-squared|||||17.97|-10.47|= 0.6652
90886873|NCT01485861|181636257|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|7.48|||=|0.3734|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.29|21.24|||Chi-squared|||||21.24|-6.29|= 0.3734
90886874|NCT01485861|181636258|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|4.41|||=|0.7633|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-19.76|28.58|||Chi-squared|||||28.58|-19.76|= 0.7633
90886875|NCT01485861|181636258|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|4.41|||=|0.7633|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-19.76|28.58|||Chi-squared|||||28.58|-19.76|= 0.7633
90886876|NCT01485861|181636259|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|2.24|||=|0.8317|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.07|19.54|||Chi-squared|||||19.54|-15.07|= 0.8317
90886877|NCT01485861|181636259|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|5.14|||=|0.6139|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.6|21.88|||Chi-squared|||||21.88|-11.60|= 0.6139
90886878|NCT01485861|181636260|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|34.85|||=|0.0505|TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.14|62.56|||Chi-squared|||||62.56|7.14|= 0.0505
90886879|NCT01485861|181636260|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-9.6|||=|0.4989|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-32.54|13.35|||Chi-squared|||||13.35|-32.54|= 0.4989
90886880|NCT01485861|181636263|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95|||=|0.8483|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.61|1.47|||Log Rank|||||1.47|0.61|= 0.8483
90886881|NCT01485861|181636263|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08|||=|0.785|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7|1.65|||Log Rank|||||1.65|0.70|= 0.7850
90886882|NCT01485861|181636263|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04|||=|0.8847|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.66|1.65|||Log Rank|||Strata were: prior enzalutamide (Yes vs. No), progression factor (PSA only vs. other), and number of prior chemotherapy regimens for metastatic disease (one vs. more than one).||1.65|0.66|= 0.8847
90886883|NCT01485861|181636263|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05|||=|0.8647|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.67|1.63|||Log Rank|||Strata were: prior enzalutamide (Yes vs. No), progression factor (PSA only vs. other), and number of prior chemotherapy regimens for metastatic disease (one vs. more than one).||1.63|0.67|= 0.8647
90886884|NCT01485861|181636264|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89|||=|0.8271|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.39|2.06|||Log Rank|||||2.06|0.39|= 0.8271
90886885|NCT01485861|181636264|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84|||=|0.7383|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.35|2.02|||Log Rank|||||2.02|0.35|= 0.7383
90886886|NCT00022516|181636321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.06|||Log Rank|||||1.06|0.6|0.14
90886887|NCT00022516|181636322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.17|||Log Rank|||||1.17|0.65|0.3570
90964512|NCT03627767|181810170|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.1|-1.5|< 0.0001
90886888|NCT00022516|181636323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.3178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.17|||Log Rank|||||1.17|0.62|0.3178
90886889|NCT00022516|181636324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.01|||Log Rank|||||1.01|0.6|0.06
90886890|NCT03321019|181636328|OTHER||F-statistic|8.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The p value was adjusted for multiple comparisons using Tukey's method.|ANOVA|Degree of freedom - 3, 278||Healthy controls were compared to PD participants across each of the 3 visits. PD participants were compared between visits 1, 2 and 3.||||<.0001
90886891|NCT03321019|181636329|OTHER||F-statistic|0.44||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|||||Tukey's method was used to control for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|Degrees of freedom - 3. 278||Healthy controls were compared to PD participants across each of the 3 visits. PD participants were compared between visits 1, 2 and 3.||||0.72
90886892|NCT03321019|181636330|OTHER||F-statistic|3.048||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||Dunnett's T3 method was used to account for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|degrees of freedom: 3, 229||Healthy controls were compared to PD participants across each of the 3 visits. PD participants were compared between visits 1, 2 and 3.||||0.02
90886893|NCT03321019|181636331|OTHER||F-statistic|2.939||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|||||The p value was adjusted in the analysis for multiple comparisons using Tukey's method.|ANOVA|Degrees of freedom - 3, 231||Healthy controls were compared to PD participants across each of the 3 visits. PD participants were compared between visits 1, 2 and 3.||||0.034
90886894|NCT03321019|181636332|OTHER||F-statistic|1.494||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|||||Tukey's method was used to adjust for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|Degrees of freedom - 3, 274||Healthy controls were compared to PD participants across each of the 3 visits. PD participants were compared between visits 1, 2 and 3.||||0.022
90886895|NCT03056690|181636338|SUPERIORITY|Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis model is performed with change from baseline (Week 8) as response; treatment, center (pooled where necessary), time (week 8) and treatment\*time as fixed effects, baseline and baseline\*time as covariates.|LSMean Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.086|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.76|0.07|||MMRM|||||0.07|-0.76|0.086
90886896|NCT03056690|181636344|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.2||||0.551|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.9|12.5|||Fisher Exact|CI for each treatment group and the difference of the proportions is an exact unconditional confidence interval based on Santner-Snell approach.||||12.5|-11.9|0.551
90886897|NCT03056690|181636345|SUPERIORITY||Difference|6.9||||0.202|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.2|19.1|||Fisher Exact|CI for each treatment group and the difference of the proportions is an exact unconditional confidence interval based on Santner-Snell approach.||||19.1|-5.2|0.202
90886898|NCT03056690|181636346|SUPERIORITY||Difference|1.7||||0.451|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.5|13.8|||Fisher Exact|CI for each treatment group and the difference of the proportions is an exact unconditional confidence interval based on Santner-Snell approach.||||13.8|-10.5|0.451
90886899|NCT03056690|181636347|SUPERIORITY||Difference|6.1||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.2|18.1|||Fisher Exact|CI for each treatment group and the difference of the proportions is an exact unconditional confidence interval based on Santner-Snell approach.||||18.1|-6.2|0.174
90886900|NCT03056690|181636348|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean difference|-1.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04||0.235|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.86|1.9||MMRM analysis model is performed with change from baseline (Weeks 2, 4, and 8) as response; treatment, center (pooled where necessary), time (Weeks 2, 4 and 8), treatment\*time as fixed effects, baseline and baseline\*time as covariates.|MMRM|||Function Subscale: Week 2||1.90|-4.86|0.235
90886901|NCT03056690|181636348|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.34||0.103|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.84|0.89||MMRM analysis model is performed with change from baseline (Weeks 2, 4, and 8) as response; treatment, center (pooled where necessary), time (Weeks 2, 4 and 8), treatment\*time as fixed effects, baseline and baseline\*time as covariates.|MMRM|||Function Subscale: Week 4||0.89|-6.84|0.103
90886902|NCT03056690|181636348|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.53||0.154|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.78|1.6||MMRM analysis model is performed with change from baseline (Weeks 2, 4, and 8) as response; treatment, center (pooled where necessary), time (Weeks 2, 4 and 8), treatment\*time as fixed effects, baseline and baseline\*time as covariates.|MMRM|||Function Subscale: Week 8||1.60|-6.78|0.154
90886903|NCT03056690|181636348|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.88||0.238|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.45|1.77||MMRM analysis model is performed with change from baseline (Weeks 2, 4, and 8) as response; treatment, center (pooled where necessary), time (Weeks 2, 4 and 8), treatment\*time as fixed effects, baseline and baseline\*time as covariates.|MMRM|||Symptoms Subscale: Week 2||1.77|-4.45|0.238
90886904|NCT03056690|181636348|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-3.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.11||0.039|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.22|-0.24||MMRM analysis model is performed with change from baseline (Weeks 2, 4, and 8) as response; treatment, center (pooled where necessary), time (Weeks 2, 4 and 8), treatment\*time as fixed effects, baseline and baseline\*time as covariates.|MMRM|||Symptoms Subscale: Week 4||-0.24|-7.22|0.039
90926681|NCT04099732|181729936|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means (T/R) %|186.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|169.7|204.71|||||Geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 14.1.|Relative Bioavailability. The statistical model was an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale, considering the effects 'subjects' as random and 'treatment' as fixed.||204.71|169.70|
90926682|NCT04099732|181729937|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means (T/R) %|120.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|110.78|130.23|||||Geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 11.1|Relative Bioavailability. The statistical model was an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale, considering the effects 'subjects' as random and 'treatment' as fixed.||130.23|110.78|
90926683|NCT03735979|181729938|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.51|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.51||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||"The P-value is the posterior probability that study drug has a higher benefit than control. The a priori threshold for a successful trial is 0.985.~The posterior probability that argatroban was better than placebo was 0.002."|Bayesian|Primary analysis compared treatment group with placebo, with adjustment for baseline NIHSS score in a Bayesian normal dynamic linear model.|The posterior mean of study treatment minus placebo.|||||0.002
90926684|NCT03735979|181729938|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.29||0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||"The P-value is the posterior probability that study drug has a higher benefit than control. The a priori threshold for a successful trial is 0.985.~The posterior probability that eptifibitide was better than placebo was 0.04."|Bayesian|Primary analysis compared treatment group with placebo, with adjustment for baseline NIHSS score in a Bayesian normal dynamic linear model.|The posterior mean of study treatment minus placebo.|||||0.04
90926685|NCT02865538|181730038|OTHER|Descriptive Analysis|LS means difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.127||0.4641|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.12|0.3|||Linear mixed-effects model||Change from Week -1 to Week 1|||0.30|-0.12|0.4641
90926686|NCT02865538|181730038|OTHER|Descriptive Analysis|Linear mixed-effects model|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.128||0.9894|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.21|0.21|||LS means difference||Change from Week -1 to Week 1|||0.21|-0.21|0.9894
90926687|NCT02865538|181730038|OTHER|Descriptive Analysis|LS means difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129||0.0199|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.52|-0.09|||Linear mixed-effects model||Change from Week -1 to Week 1|||-0.09|-0.52|0.0199
90926688|NCT02865538|181730038|OTHER|Descriptive Analysis|LS means difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.133||0.3907|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.34|0.11|||Linear mixed-effects model||Change from Week -1 to Week 1|||0.11|-0.34|0.3907
90926689|NCT02865538|181730038|OTHER|Descriptive Analysis|LS means difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.166||0.5393|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.17|0.38|||Linear mixed-effects model||Change from Week -1 to Week 2|||0.38|-0.17|0.5393
90926690|NCT02865538|181730038|OTHER|Descriptive Analysis|LS means difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.169||0.7931|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.33|0.24|||Linear mixed-effects model||Change from Week -1 to Week 2|||0.24|-0.33|0.7931
90964513|NCT03627767|181810170|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-2.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.7|-2.2|< 0.0001
90926691|NCT02865538|181730038|OTHER|Descriptive Analysis|LS means difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.169||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.92|-0.35|||Linear mixed-effects model||Change from Week -1 to Week 2|||-0.35|-0.92|0.0004
90926692|NCT02865538|181730038|OTHER|Descriptive Analysis|LS means difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.175||0.3739|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.45|0.13|||Linear mixed-effects model||Change from Week -1 to Week 2|||0.13|-0.45|0.3739
90926693|NCT02865538|181730039|OTHER|Descriptive Analysis|LS means difference|5.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.077||0.09|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.16|10.42|||Linear mixed-effects model||Change from Week -1 to Week 1|||10.42|0.16|0.0900
90926694|NCT02865538|181730039|OTHER|Descriptive Analysis|LS means difference|-4.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.053||0.1487|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.55|0.63|||Linear mixed-effects model||Change from Week -1 to Week 1|||0.63|-9.55|0.1487
90926695|NCT02865538|181730039|OTHER|Descriptive Analysis|LS means difference|-10.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.015||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.2|-5.15|||Linear mixed-effects model||Change from Week -1 to Week 1|||-5.15|-15.20|0.0012
90926696|NCT02865538|181730039|OTHER|Descriptive Analysis|LS means difference|-6.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.142||0.0548|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.37|-0.9|||Linear mixed-effects model||Change from Week -1 to Week 1|||-0.90|-11.37|0.0548
90926697|NCT02865538|181730039|OTHER|Descriptive Analysis|LS means difference|6.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.337||0.0522|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.03|12.15|||Linear mixed-effects model||Change from Week -1 to Week 2|||12.15|1.03|0.0522
90926698|NCT02865538|181730039|OTHER|Descriptive Analysis|LS means difference|-5.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.329||0.1326|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.61|0.48|||Linear mixed-effects model||Change from Week -1 to Week 2|||0.48|-10.61|0.1326
90926699|NCT02865538|181730039|OTHER|Descriptive Analysis|LS means difference|-12.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.27||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.73|-6.83|||Linear mixed-effects model||Change from Week -1 to Week 2|||-6.83|-17.73|0.0004
90926700|NCT02865538|181730039|OTHER|Descriptive Analysis|LS means difference|-7.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.408||0.0253|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.47|-2.11|||Linear mixed-effects model||Change from Week -1 to Week 2|||-2.11|-13.47|0.0253
90926701|NCT02865538|181730040|OTHER|Descriptive Analysis|LS means difference|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.58||0.3796|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.2|4.0|||Linear mixed-effects model||Day 7 Change from Day -1|||4.0|-1.2|0.3796
90926702|NCT02865538|181730040|OTHER|Descriptive Analysis|LS means difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.55||0.1413|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.9|0.3|||Linear mixed-effects model||Day 7 Change from Day -1|||0.3|-4.9|0.1413
90926703|NCT02865538|181730040|OTHER|Descriptive Analysis|LS means difference|-5.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.55||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.1|-2.9|||Linear mixed-effects model||Day 7 Change from Day -1|||-2.9|-8.1|0.0007
90926704|NCT02865538|181730040|OTHER|Descriptive Analysis|LS means difference|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.62||0.0624|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.8|-0.4|||Linear mixed-effects model||Day 7 Change from Day -1|||-0.4|-5.8|0.0624
90926705|NCT02865538|181730040|OTHER|Descriptive Analysis|LS means difference|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21||0.293|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|3.3|||Linear mixed-effects model||Day 14 Change from Day -1|||3.3|-0.7|0.2930
90926706|NCT02865538|181730040|OTHER|Descriptive Analysis|LS means difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21||0.0512|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.4|-0.4|||Linear mixed-effects model||Day 14 Change from Day -1|||-0.4|-4.4|0.0512
90964514|NCT03627767|181810170|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.4||||||Week 16: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.4|-0.9|
90964515|NCT03627767|181810170|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 28: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.0|-1.7|< 0.0001
90964516|NCT03627767|181810170|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-2.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-1.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 28: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.8|-2.5|< 0.0001
90964517|NCT03627767|181810170|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.5||||||Week 28: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.5|-1.1|
90964518|NCT03627767|181810170|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 40: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.6|-1.4|< 0.0001
90964519|NCT03627767|181810170|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 40: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.4|-2.2|< 0.0001
90964520|NCT03627767|181810170|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.5||||||Week 40: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.5|-1.1|
90964521|NCT03627767|181810170|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.8|||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.3|-1.2|= 0.0020
90964522|NCT03627767|181810170|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.2|-2.2|< 0.0001
90926707|NCT02865538|181730040|OTHER|Descriptive Analysis|LS means difference|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.0|-3.0|||Linear mixed-effects model||Day 14 Change from Day -1|||-3.0|-7.0|<0.0001
90926708|NCT02865538|181730040|OTHER|Descriptive Analysis|LS means difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25||0.008|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.5|-1.3|||Linear mixed-effects model||Day 14 Change from Day -1|||-1.3|-5.5|0.0080
90964523|NCT03627767|181810170|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.6||||||Week 52: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.6|-1.3|
90926709|NCT02865538|181730041|OTHER|Descriptive Analysis|LS means difference|0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.574||0.1482|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.12|1.8|||Linear mixed-effects model||Change from Week -1 to Week 1|||1.80|-0.12|0.1482
90926710|NCT02865538|181730041|OTHER|Descriptive Analysis|LS means difference|-1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.571||0.0734|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.99|-0.09|||Linear mixed-effects model||Change from Week -1 to Week 1|||-0.09|-1.99|0.0734
90964524|NCT02953639|181810178|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.36||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.11|1.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12 Day 84||1.38|-2.11|0.730
90964525|NCT02953639|181810178|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.28||||0.793|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.47|2.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24 Day 168||2.02|-1.47|0.793
90964526|NCT02953639|181810179|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.91||||0.556|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.46|1.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12 Day 84 (Attention/Vigilance)||1.64|-3.46|0.556
90964527|NCT02953639|181810179|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.27||||0.848|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.59|2.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24 Day 168 (Attention/Vigilance)||2.05|-2.59|0.848
90964528|NCT02953639|181810179|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.04||||0.973|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.08|2.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12 Day 84 (Reasoning and Problem Solving)||2.16|-2.08|0.973
90964529|NCT02953639|181810179|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.57||||0.651|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.53|2.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24 Day 168 (Reasoning and Problem Solving)||2.67|-1.53|0.651
90964530|NCT02953639|181810179|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-1.44||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.89|1.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12 Day 84 (Social Cognition)||1.08|-3.89|0.350
90964531|NCT02953639|181810179|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|2.18||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.14|4.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24 Day 168 (Social Cognition)||4.50|-0.14|0.121
90964532|NCT02953639|181810179|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.13||||0.911|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.1|1.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12 Day 84 (Speed of Processing)||1.83|-2.10|0.911
90926711|NCT02865538|181730041|OTHER|Descriptive Analysis|LS means difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.565||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.74|-0.86|||Linear mixed-effects model||Change from Week -1 to Week 1|||-0.86|-2.74|0.0022
90926712|NCT02865538|181730041|OTHER|Descriptive Analysis|LS means difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.589||0.066|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.08|-0.12|||Linear mixed-effects model||Change from Week -1 to Week 1|||-0.12|-2.08|0.0660
90926713|NCT02865538|181730041|OTHER|Descriptive Analysis|LS means difference|1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.613||0.0593|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.15|2.2|||Linear mixed-effects model||||Change from Week -1 to Week 2|2.20|0.15|0.0593
90926714|NCT02865538|181730041|OTHER||LS means difference|-0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.614||0.1354|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.95|0.1|||Linear mixed-effects model||Change from Week -1 to Week 2|||0.10|-1.95|0.1354
90926715|NCT02865538|181730041|OTHER|Descriptive Analysis|LS means difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.603||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.21|-1.2|||Linear mixed-effects model||Change from Week -1 to Week 2|||-1.20|-3.21|0.0005
90926716|NCT02865538|181730041|OTHER|Descriptive Analysis|LS means difference|-1.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.628||0.0309|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.43|-0.34|||Linear mixed-effects model||Change from Week -1 to Week 2|||-0.34|-2.43|0.0309
90926717|NCT02865538|181730042|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|LS means difference|-9.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.88||0.3768|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.8|8.5|||Linear mixed-effects model||Change from Day -1 to Day 1|||8.5|-27.8|0.3768
90926718|NCT02865538|181730042|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|LS means difference|-25.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.89||0.0248|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-43.1|-6.8|||Linear mixed-effects model||Change from Day -1 to Day 1|||-6.8|-43.1|0.0248
90926719|NCT02865538|181730042|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|LS means difference|-43.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.9||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-62.1|-25.8|||Linear mixed-effects model||Change from Day -1 to Day 1|||-25.8|-62.1|0.0001
90926720|NCT02865538|181730042|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|LS means difference|-42.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.43||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-61.9|-23.8|||Linear mixed-effects model||Change from Day -1 to Day 1|||-23.8|-61.9|0.0004
90964533|NCT02953639|181810179|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.02||||0.987|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.99|2.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24 Day 168 (Speed of Processing)||2.03|-1.99|0.987
90926721|NCT02865538|181730042|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|LS means difference|10.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.76||0.4819|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.2|35.1|||Linear mixed-effects model||Change from Day -1 to Day 7|||35.1|-14.2|0.4819
90926722|NCT02865538|181730042|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|LS means difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.77||0.8694|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.1|22.2|||Linear mixed-effects model||Change from Day -1 to Day 7|||22.2|-27.1|0.8694
90926723|NCT02865538|181730042|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|LS means difference|-23.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.79||0.1105|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-48.6|0.7|||Linear mixed-effects model||Change from Day -1 to Day 7|||0.7|-48.6|0.1105
90926724|NCT02865538|181730042|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|LS means difference|-18.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.5||0.239|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-44.2|7.4|||Linear mixed-effects model||Change from Day -1 to Day 7|||7.4|-44.2|0.2390
90926725|NCT06946888|181730043|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.837||||||This is the first week of tracking. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 1.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.837
90926726|NCT06946888|181730043|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.428||||||This is the second week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 2.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.428
90940814|NCT00863798|181761515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.23|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was conducted using ANCOVA on the change from baseline with treatment as a factor and corresponding baseline value as a covariate.||0.23|-0.16|0.757
90940815|NCT00863798|181761516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.41||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|3.16|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was conducted using ANCOVA on the change from baseline with treatment as a factor and corresponding baseline value as a covariate.||3.16|-0.34|0.114
90940816|NCT00863798|181761516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.89||||0.316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|2.64|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was conducted using ANCOVA on the change from baseline with treatment as a factor and corresponding baseline value as a covariate.||2.64|-0.85|0.316
90964534|NCT02953639|181810179|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.34||||0.803|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.62|1.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12 Day 84 (Verbal Learning)||1.93|-2.62|0.803
90964535|NCT02953639|181810179|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.94||||0.502|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.26|1.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24 Day 168 (Verbal Learning)||1.38|-3.26|0.502
91035155|NCT03086460|181956472|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.026||||0.275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.021|0.073|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #6 of this outcome measure."||0.073|-0.021|0.275
90926727|NCT06946888|181730043|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.269||||||This is the third week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 3.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.269
90926728|NCT06946888|181730043|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.015||||||This is the fourth week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 4.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.015
90926729|NCT06946888|181730043|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.163||||||This is the fifth week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 5.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.163
90926730|NCT06946888|181730043|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.14||||||This is the sixth week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 6.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.140
90926731|NCT06946888|181730043|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.079||||||This is the seventh week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 7.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.079
90940817|NCT00863798|181761517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.74||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|1.5|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was conducted using ANCOVA on the change from baseline with treatment as a factor and corresponding baseline value as a covariate.||1.50|-0.01|0.054
90940818|NCT00863798|181761517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44||||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|1.2|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was conducted using ANCOVA on the change from baseline with treatment as a factor and corresponding baseline value as a covariate.||1.20|-0.32|0.253
90940819|NCT00863798|181761518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.254||||0.2415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.83|||Regression, Logistic|||Analysis was conducted using a logistic regression model with treatment as a factor and baseline HAM-D17 score as a covariate.||1.83|0.86|0.2415
91035156|NCT03086460|181956472|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.053||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.008|0.098|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #6 of this outcome measure."||0.098|0.008|0.021
91035157|NCT03086460|181956472|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.024||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.073|0.026|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #6 of this outcome measure."||0.026|-0.073|0.350
91035158|NCT03086460|181956472|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.003||||0.886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.044|0.051|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #6 of this outcome measure."||0.051|-0.044|0.886
90926732|NCT06946888|181730043|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.151||||||This is the eighth week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 8.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.151
90926733|NCT06946888|181730044|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.63||||||This is the first week of tracking. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 1.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.63
90926734|NCT06946888|181730044|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.608||||||This is the second week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 2.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.608
90926735|NCT06946888|181730044|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.244||||||This is the third week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 3.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.244
90964536|NCT02953639|181810179|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.11||||0.945|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.74|2.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12 Day 84 (Visual Learning)||2.52|-2.74|0.945
90964537|NCT02953639|181810179|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|1.11||||0.488|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.54|3.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24 Day 168 (Visual Learning)||3.76|-1.54|0.488
90964538|NCT02953639|181810179|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-1.37||||0.262|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.38|0.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12 Day 84 (Working Memory)||0.64|-3.38|0.262
90964539|NCT02953639|181810179|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.89||||0.489|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.01|1.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24 Day 168 (Working Memory)||1.23|-3.01|0.489
90964540|NCT02953639|181810180|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-1.63||||0.211|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.78|0.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12 Day 84 (VPA I total raw score)||0.52|-3.78|0.211
90926736|NCT06946888|181730044|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.052||||||This is the fourth week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 4.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.052
90926737|NCT06946888|181730044|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.229||||||This is the fifth week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 5.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.229
90926738|NCT06946888|181730044|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.184||||||This is the sixth week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 6.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.184
90940820|NCT00863798|181761518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.102||||0.6169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.61|||Regression, Logistic|||Analysis was conducted using a logistic regression model with treatment as a factor and baseline HAM-D17 score as a covariate.||1.61|0.75|0.6169
90940821|NCT00863798|181761519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.236||||0.3667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.96|||Regression, Logistic|||Analysis was conducted using a logistic regression model with treatment as a factor and baseline HAM-D17 score as a covariate.||1.96|0.78|0.3667
90940822|NCT00863798|181761519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.894||||0.6509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.45|||Regression, Logistic|||Analysis was conducted using a logistic regression model with treatment as a factor and baseline HAM-D17 score as a covariate.||1.45|0.55|0.6509
90940823|NCT00863798|181761520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.182||||0.3893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.73|||Regression, Logistic|||Analysis would be conducted with a logistic regression model with treatment as a factor and baseline MADRS score as a covariate.||1.73|0.81|0.3893
90940824|NCT00863798|181761520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.123||||0.551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.65|||Regression, Logistic|||Analysis would be conducted with a logistic regression model with treatment as a factor and baseline MADRS score as a covariate.||1.65|0.77|0.5510
90940825|NCT00863798|181761521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.442||||0.0536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|2.09|||Regression, Logistic|||Analysis would be conducted with a logistic regression model with treatment as a factor.||2.09|0.99|0.0536
90940826|NCT00863798|181761521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.085||||0.6679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.57|||Regression, Logistic|||Analysis would be conducted with a logistic regression model with treatment as a factor.||1.57|0.75|0.6679
90940827|NCT00863798|181761523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.46||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|2.79|||ANCOVA|||"Analysis was conducted using ANCOVA on the change from baseline with treatment as a factor and corresponding baseline value as a covariate for total score."||2.79|0.12|0.033
90886905|NCT03056690|181636348|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-3.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.34||0.097|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.93|0.81||MMRM analysis model is performed with change from baseline (Weeks 2, 4, and 8) as response; treatment, center (pooled where necessary), time (Weeks 2, 4 and 8), treatment\*time as fixed effects, baseline and baseline\*time as covariates.|MMRM|||Symptoms Subscale: Week 8||0.81|-6.93|0.097
90886906|NCT03056690|181636348|SUPERIORITY||LSMean DIfference|-0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.057|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.03|0.04||MMRM analysis model is performed with change from baseline (Weeks 2, 4, and 8) as response; treatment, center (pooled where necessary), time (Weeks 2, 4 and 8), treatment\*time as fixed effects, baseline and baseline\*time as covariates.|MMRM|||Overall Impact Subscale: Week 2||0.04|-2.03|0.057
90886907|NCT03056690|181636348|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.018|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.39|-0.29||MMRM analysis model is performed with change from baseline (Weeks 2, 4, and 8) as response; treatment, center (pooled where necessary), time (Weeks 2, 4 and 8), treatment\*time as fixed effects, baseline and baseline\*time as covariates.|MMRM|||Overall Impact Subscale: Week 4||-0.29|-2.39|0.018
90886908|NCT03056690|181636348|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.111|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.02|0.3||MMRM analysis model is performed with change from baseline (Weeks 2, 4, and 8) as response; treatment, center (pooled where necessary), time (Weeks 2, 4 and 8), treatment\*time as fixed effects, baseline and baseline\*time as covariates.|MMRM|||Overall Impact Subscale: Week 8||0.30|-2.02|0.111
90886909|NCT03056690|181636349|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.36||0.092|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.05|0.75||ANCOVA model is performed with change from baseline at the EOT timepoint as response treatment and center (pooled where necessary) as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Function Subscale||0.75|-7.05|0.092
90886910|NCT03056690|181636349|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.16||0.065|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.85|0.28||ANCOVA model is performed with change from baseline at the EOT timepoint as response treatment and center (pooled where necessary) as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Symptoms subscale||0.28|-6.85|0.065
90886911|NCT03056690|181636349|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.049|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.15|-0.01||ANCOVA model is performed with change from baseline at the EOT timepoint as response treatment and center (pooled where necessary) as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Overall Impact Subscale.||-0.01|-2.15|0.049
90886912|NCT03056690|181636350|SUPERIORITY|The 90% 2-sided CI is based on profile likelihood and 2-sided p-value is based on likelihood test. p-value is for the comparison of ASP0819 15 mg with Placebo from the above described proportional odds model.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.192|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|2.24|||Likelihood test|||Week 2||2.24|0.91|0.192
90886913|NCT03056690|181636350|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.285|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.86|2.07||The 90% 2-sided CI is based on profile likelihood and 2-sided p-value is based on likelihood test. p-value is for the comparison of ASP0819 15 mg with Placebo from the above described proportional odds model.|Likelihod test|||Week 4||2.07|0.86|0.285
90886914|NCT03056690|181636350|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.486|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.78|1.87||The 90% 2-sided CI is based on profile likelihood and 2-sided p-value is based on likelihood test. p-value is for the comparison of ASP0819 15 mg with Placebo from the above described proportional odds model.|Likelihood test|||EOT||1.87|0.78|0.486
90886915|NCT03056690|181636351|SUPERIORITY|The 90% 2-sided CI is based on profile likelihood and 2-sided p-value is based on likelihood test.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.305|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|2.05|||Likelihood test|||Week 8||2.05|0.85|0.305
90964541|NCT02953639|181810180|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.35||||0.787|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.81|2.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24 Day 168 (VPA I total raw score)||2.52|-1.81|0.787
90886916|NCT02328326|181636388|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.6||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|5.18|||Regression, Linear|Model was adjusted for baseline value of PAM, insulin use, randomization stratification variables: care partner not in home and PAM cutoff of 40|Net difference defined as 12 months minus baseline|The null hypothesis was that change (baseline to 12 months) in PAM is the same for CO-IMPACT (intervention) compared to PACT (control). The alternative hypothesis is that that COIMPACT will significantly increase patient participants' PAM score compared to patient participants in PACT.||5.18|0.02|0.048
90964542|NCT02953639|181810180|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.28||||0.477|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.37|0.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12 Day 84 (VPA II total raw score)||0.94|-0.37|0.477
90964543|NCT02953639|181810180|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.91||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.23|1.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24 Day 168 (VPA II total raw score)||1.58|0.23|0.028
90964544|NCT02953639|181810180|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.3||||0.683|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.51|0.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12 Day 84 (VPA II recognition total raw score)||0.91|-1.51|0.683
90964545|NCT02953639|181810180|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.04||||0.954|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.13|1.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24 Day 168 (VPA II recognition total raw score)||1.22|-1.13|0.954
90964546|NCT02953639|181810181|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|1.45||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.27|3.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12 Day 84 (LM I)||3.17|-0.27|0.164
90964547|NCT02953639|181810181|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.56||||0.559|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.02|2.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24 Day 168 (LM I)||2.14|-1.02|0.559
90964548|NCT02953639|181810181|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.12||||0.912|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.7|1.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12 Day 84 (LM II)||1.94|-1.70|0.912
90964549|NCT02953639|181810181|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.36||||0.706|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.93|1.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24 Day 168 (LM II)||1.22|-1.93|0.706
90964550|NCT02953639|181810182|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|1.04||||0.527|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|1.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12 Day 84||1.15|0.94|0.527
90964551|NCT02953639|181810182|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|1.04||||0.636|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24 Day 168||1.17|0.92|0.636
90964552|NCT02953639|181810183|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-1.36||||0.323|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.63|0.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12 Day 84||0.91|-3.63|0.323
90964553|NCT02953639|181810183|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.95||||0.579|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.77|1.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24 Day 168||1.88|-3.77|0.579
90964554|NCT02953639|181810184|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.67||||0.493|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.27|0.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12 Day 84||0.94|-2.27|0.493
90964555|NCT02953639|181810184|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.12||||0.926|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.32|2.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24 Day 168||2.07|-2.32|0.926
90964556|NCT02953639|181810185|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.02||||0.839|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.22|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12 Day 84||0.17|-0.22|0.839
90964557|NCT02953639|181810185|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.06||||0.625|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.27|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24 Day 168||0.15|-0.27|0.625
90964558|NCT02953639|181810186|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.03||||0.865|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.28|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12 Day 84||0.23|-0.28|0.865
90964559|NCT02953639|181810186|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.01||||0.964|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.31|0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24 Day 168||0.29|-0.31|0.964
90964560|NCT02953639|181810187|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|3.27||||0.142|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|6.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12 Day 84 (SQLS Cognition \& Vitality Score)||6.95|-0.40|0.142
90964561|NCT02953639|181810187|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-2.32||||0.416|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.04|2.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24 Day 168 (SQLS Cognition \& Vitality Score)||2.40|-7.04|0.416
90964562|NCT02953639|181810187|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|1.98||||0.394|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.86|5.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12 Day 84 (SQLS Psychosocial Score)||5.83|-1.86|0.394
90964563|NCT02953639|181810187|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.71||||0.776|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.44|4.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24 Day 168 (SQLS Psychosocial Score)||4.87|-3.44|0.776
90964564|NCT02953639|181810187|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|2.43||||0.254|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.09|5.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12 Day 84 (SQLS Total Score)||5.94|-1.09|0.254
90964565|NCT02953639|181810187|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.57||||0.816|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.64|3.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24 Day 168 (SQLS Total Score)||3.50|-4.64|0.816
90964566|NCT03034460|181810200|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.158|||||||Wilcoxon rank signed test|||This analysis was performed in participants applied CD5024 1% Cream on one side of face and CD5024 1% Cream Matched Placebo on other side of face for paired difference between Active - Vehicle (CD5024 1% Cream \[n=48\] versus CD5024 1% Cream Matched Placebo \[n=48\]).||||= 0.158
90964567|NCT03034460|181810200|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.002|||||||Wilcoxon rank signed test|||This analysis was performed in participants applied Adapalene Benzoyl Peroxyde on one side of face and Adapalene Benzoyl Peroxyde Matched Placebo on the other side of face for paired difference between Active - Vehicle (Adapalene Benzoyl Peroxyde \[n=22\] versus Adapalene Benzoyl Peroxyde Matched Placebo \[n=22\]).||||= 0.002
90964568|NCT01798992|181810212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.685|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in rate of LVEF improvement according to treatment group.||||0.685
90964569|NCT01798992|181810213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.071|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in rate of LVEF improvement according to treatment group.||||0.071
90964570|NCT02294682|181810220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Microbio Response Urogenital Gonorrhea|97.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|85.1||||||GSK2140944 1500 mg||||85.1|
90964571|NCT02294682|181810220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Microbio Response Urogenital Gonorrhea|95.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|84.7||||||GSK2140944 3000 mg||||84.7|
90964572|NCT01516970|181810238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2434||||||The discontinuation rates were compared with a statistical test (Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel \[CMH\]-Test) with p-value: 0.2434|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2434
90964573|NCT01516970|181810239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8839||||||The percentage of participants with TEAEs were compared with a statistical test (Fisher's Exact Test) with p-value: 0.8839.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.8839
90964574|NCT01301456|181810268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square (LS) mean|-21.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.766||0.219|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-43.26|0.93|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 30||0.93|-43.26|0.219
90926739|NCT06946888|181730044|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.148||||||This is the seventh week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 7.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.148
90926740|NCT06946888|181730044|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.143||||||This is the eighth week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 8.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.143
90926741|NCT06946888|181730045|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.333||||||This is the first week of tracking. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 1.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.333
90926742|NCT06946888|181730045|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.273||||||This is the second week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 2.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.273
90940828|NCT00863798|181761523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.15||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|2.49|||ANCOVA|||"Analysis was conducted using ANCOVA on the change from baseline with treatment as a factor and corresponding baseline value as a covariate for total score."||2.49|-0.20|0.096
90940829|NCT00863798|181761523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.48||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.95|||ANCOVA|||"Analysis was conducted using ANCOVA on the change from baseline with treatment as a factor and corresponding baseline value as a covariate for work/studies component score."||0.95|0.02|0.043
90964575|NCT01301456|181810268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-34.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.189||0.034|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-54.2|-14.16|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 30||-14.16|-54.20|0.034
90964576|NCT01301456|181810268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-33.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.806||0.044|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-54.5|-12.84|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 30||-12.84|-54.50|0.044
90964577|NCT01301456|181810268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-2.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.111||0.857|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-24.16|18.31|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 30||18.31|-24.16|0.857
90964578|NCT01301456|181810269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.251||0.419|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.54|0.12|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 29: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||0.12|-0.54|0.419
90964579|NCT01301456|181810269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.224||0.077|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.71|-0.12|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 29: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||-0.12|-0.71|0.077
90964580|NCT01301456|181810269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.147|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.65|-0.04|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 29: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||-0.04|-0.65|0.147
90926743|NCT06946888|181730045|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.424||||||This is the third week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 3.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.424
90926744|NCT06946888|181730045|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.482||||||This is the fourth week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 4.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.482
90926745|NCT06946888|181730045|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.627||||||This is the fifth week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 5.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.627
90926746|NCT06946888|181730045|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.806||||||This is the sixth week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 6.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.806
90926747|NCT06946888|181730045|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.786||||||This is the seventh week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 7.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.786
90926748|NCT06946888|181730045|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.497||||||This is the eighth week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 8.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.497
90940830|NCT00863798|181761523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.53||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|1.0|||ANCOVA|||"Analysis was conducted using ANCOVA on the change from baseline with treatment as a factor and corresponding baseline value as a covariate for work/studies component score."||1.00|0.06|0.027
90940831|NCT00863798|181761523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.98|||ANCOVA|||"Analysis was conducted using ANCOVA on the change from baseline with treatment as a factor and corresponding baseline value as a covariate for social life and leisure activities component score."||0.98|0.01|0.045
90926749|NCT06946888|181730046|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.857||||||This is the first week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 1.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.857
90926750|NCT06946888|181730046|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.684||||||This is the second week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 2.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.684
90926751|NCT06946888|181730046|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.333||||||This is the third week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 3.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.333
90926752|NCT06946888|181730046|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.09||||||This is the fourth week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 4.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.090
90926753|NCT06946888|181730046|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.545||||||This is the fifth week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 5.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.545
90940832|NCT00863798|181761523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27||||0.277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.76|||ANCOVA|||"Analysis was conducted using ANCOVA on the change from baseline with treatment as a factor and corresponding baseline value as a covariate for social life and leisure activities component score."||0.76|-0.22|0.277
90940833|NCT00863798|181761523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.91|||ANCOVA|||"Analysis was conducted using ANCOVA on the change from baseline with treatment as a factor and corresponding baseline value as a covariate for family life/home responsibilities component score."||0.91|-0.01|0.056
90940834|NCT00863798|181761523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22||||0.355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.68|||ANCOVA|||"Analysis was conducted using ANCOVA on the change from baseline with treatment as a factor and corresponding baseline value as a covariate for family life/home responsibilities component score."||0.68|-0.24|0.355
90926754|NCT06946888|181730046|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.251||||||This is the sixth week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 6.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.251
90926755|NCT06946888|181730046|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.701||||||This is the seventh week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 7.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.701
90926756|NCT06946888|181730046|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.08||||||This is the eighth week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 8.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.080
90926757|NCT06946888|181730047|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.636||||||This is the first week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 1.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.636
90926758|NCT06946888|181730047|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.909||||||This is the second week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 2.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.909
90926759|NCT06946888|181730047|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.627||||||This is the third week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 3.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.627
90940835|NCT00863798|181761524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.54||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.53|-0.56|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was conducted using ANCOVA on the change from baseline with treatment as a factor and corresponding baseline value as a covariate.||-0.56|-2.53|0.002
90940836|NCT00863798|181761524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.77||||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|0.22|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was conducted using ANCOVA on the change from baseline with treatment as a factor and corresponding baseline value as a covariate.||0.22|-1.75|0.129
90940837|NCT00863798|181761525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.3097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.23|||Regression, Linear|||Analysis was conducted using a logistic regression model with treatment and gender as factors and baseline sexual dysfunction status as a covariate.||1.23|0.52|0.3097
90926760|NCT06946888|181730047|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.474||||||This is the fourth week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 4.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.474
90926761|NCT06946888|181730047|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.378||||||This is the fifth week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 5.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.378
90926762|NCT06946888|181730047|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.768||||||This is the sixth week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 6.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.768
90926763|NCT06946888|181730047|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.909||||||This is the seventh week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 7.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.909
90926764|NCT06946888|181730047|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.449||||||This is the eighth week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 8.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.449
90926765|NCT06946888|181730048|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.593||||||This is the first week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 1.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.593
90926766|NCT06946888|181730048|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.994||||||This is the second week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 2.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.994
90940838|NCT00863798|181761525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.272||||0.2794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.97|||Regression, Logistic|||Analysis was conducted using a logistic regression model with treatment and gender as factors and baseline sexual dysfunction status as a covariate.||1.97|0.82|0.2794
90926767|NCT06946888|181730048|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.959||||||This is the third week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 3.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.959
90926768|NCT06946888|181730048|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.946||||||This is the fourth week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 4.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.946
90926769|NCT06946888|181730048|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.715||||||This is the fifth week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 5.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.715
90926770|NCT06946888|181730048|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.422||||||This is the sixth week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 6.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.422
90926771|NCT06946888|181730048|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.379||||||This is the seventh week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 7.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.379
90926772|NCT06946888|181730048|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.302||||||This is the eighth week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 8.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.302
90940839|NCT00863798|181761527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.805|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To address the multiplicity effect inherent in these comparisons, adjusted p-values based on the false discovery rate was used at Week 8.||||0.805
90940840|NCT00863798|181761527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.805|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To address the multiplicity effect inherent in these comparisons, adjusted p-values based on the false discovery rate was used at Week 9.||||0.805
90926773|NCT06946888|181730049|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.913||||||This is the first week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 1.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.913
90926774|NCT06946888|181730049|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.802||||||This is the second week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 2.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.802
90926775|NCT06946888|181730049|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.605||||||This is the third week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 3.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.605
90926776|NCT06946888|181730049|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.35||||||This is the fourth week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 4.||Generalized Estimating Equations were used to analyze repeated measures data and to assess the interaction effect between group and time. Potential interfering factors such as age and years of work experience were controlled during the analysis, and the effect size (Cohen's d) and its 95% confidence interval were calculated to assist in interpreting the clinical significance. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS version XX or R version XX, and the significance level was set at p \< 0.05.||||0.350
90940841|NCT00863798|181761527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.978|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To address the multiplicity effect inherent in these comparisons, adjusted p-values based on the false discovery rate was used at Week 10.||||0.978
90940842|NCT00863798|181761527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.805|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||To address the multiplicity effect inherent in these comparisons, adjusted p-values based on the false discovery rate was used at Week 8.||||0.805
90940843|NCT00863798|181761527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.154|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To address the multiplicity effect inherent in these comparisons, adjusted p-values based on the false discovery rate was used at Week 9.||||0.154
90940844|NCT00863798|181761527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.805|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To address the multiplicity effect inherent in these comparisons, adjusted p-values based on the false discovery rate was used at Week 10.||||0.805
90926777|NCT06946888|181730049|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||1||||||This is the fifth week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 5.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||1.000
90926778|NCT06946888|181730049|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.744||||||This is the sixth week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 6.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.744
90926779|NCT06946888|181730049|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.202||||||This is the seventh week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 7.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.202
90926780|NCT06946888|181730049|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.918||||||This is the eighth week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 8.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.918
90926781|NCT04244175|181730079|SUPERIORITY|RRatio was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including treatment and the Baseline seizure frequency per week as a covariate.|LS Mean Difference|0.11|||=|0.986|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.38|10.61|||ANCOVA||CVL-865 25 mg BID - Placebo|CVL-865 25 mg BID vs Placebo||10.61|-10.38|=0.986
90926782|NCT04244175|181730079|SUPERIORITY|RRatio was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including treatment and the Baseline seizure frequency per week as a covariate.|LS Mean Difference|1.42|||=|0.823|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.04|11.87|||ANCOVA||CVL-865 7.5 mg BID - Placebo|CVL-865 7.5 mg BID vs Placebo||11.87|-9.04|=0.823
90926783|NCT04244175|181730079|SUPERIORITY|RRatio was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including treatment and the Baseline seizure frequency per week as a covariate.|LS Mean Difference|0.76|||=|0.888|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.23|9.76|||ANCOVA||CVL-865 7.5 mg BID / 25 mg BID - Placebo|CVL-865 7.5 mg BID / 25 mg BID vs Placebo||9.76|-8.23|=0.888
90926784|NCT04244175|181730080|SUPERIORITY|The percent reduction relative to Placebo was calculated.|Percent reduction relative to Placebo|4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.0|19.3||||||CVL-865 25 mg BID vs Placebo||19.3|-12.0|
90926785|NCT04244175|181730080|SUPERIORITY|The percent reduction relative to Placebo was calculated.|Percent reduction relative to Placebo|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.1|16.2||||||CVL-865 7.5 mg BID vs Placebo||16.2|-16.1|
90926786|NCT04244175|181730080|SUPERIORITY|The percent reduction relative to Placebo was calculated.|Percent reduction relative to Placebo|3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.4|15.8||||||CVL-865 7.5 mg BID / 25 mg BID vs Placebo||15.8|-11.4|
90926787|NCT04244175|181730081|SUPERIORITY|A logistic regression with treatment group and Baseline seizure frequency as covariates was used to calculate the Odds ratio, 90% confidence interval, and p-value.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27|||=|0.587|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.616|2.618|||Regression, Logistic|||CVL-865 25 mg BID vs Placebo||2.618|0.616|=0.587
90926788|NCT04244175|181730081|SUPERIORITY|A logistic regression with treatment group and Baseline seizure frequency as covariates was used to calculate the Odds ratio, 90% confidence interval, and p-value.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.303|||=|0.554|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.624|2.723|||Regression, Logistic|||CVL-865 7.5 mg BID vs Placebo||2.723|0.624|=0.554
90926789|NCT04244175|181730081|SUPERIORITY|A logistic regression with treatment group and Baseline seizure frequency as covariates was used to calculate the Odds ratio, 90% confidence interval, and p-value.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.286|||=|0.513|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.684|2.42|||Regression, Logistic|||CVL-865 7.5 mg BID / 25 mg BID vs Placebo||2.420|0.684|=0.513
90926790|NCT04244175|181730082|SUPERIORITY|The p-value is from Fisher's exact test for number of responders.|||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher's exact test|||CVL-865 25 mg BID vs Placebo||||>0.999
90926791|NCT04244175|181730082|SUPERIORITY|The p-value is from Fisher's exact test for number of responders.|||||=|0.618|||||||Fisher's exact test|||CVL-865 7.5 mg BID vs Placebo||||=0.618
90926792|NCT04244175|181730082|SUPERIORITY|The p-value is from Fisher's exact test for number of responders.|||||=|0.422|||||||Fisher's exact test|||CVL-865 7.5 mg BID / 25 mg BID vs Placebo||||=0.422
91035159|NCT03086460|181956472|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.027||||0.254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.074|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #6 of this outcome measure."||0.074|-0.020|0.254
90926793|NCT04244175|181730084|SUPERIORITY|The PGI-C score over time was analyzed using a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis. Treatment group, visit, and the interaction between treatment group and visit was included as fixed factors in the MMRM. Participant was included as a random effect, and an unstructured covariance structure was used for the repeated measures.|LS Mean Difference|-0.5|||=|0.021|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8|-0.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||CVL-865 25 mg BID - Placebo (Day 15)|CVL-865 25 mg BID vs Placebo (Day 15)||-0.1|-0.8|=0.021
90926794|NCT04244175|181730084|SUPERIORITY|The PGI-C score over time was analyzed using a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis. Treatment group, visit, and the interaction between treatment group and visit was included as fixed factors in the MMRM. Participant was included as a random effect, and an unstructured covariance structure was used for the repeated measures.|LS Mean Difference|-0.2|||=|0.342|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|0.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||CVL-865 7.5 mg BID - Placebo (Day 15)|CVL-865 7.5 mg BID vs Placebo (Day 15)||0.1|-0.5|=0.342
90926795|NCT04244175|181730084|SUPERIORITY|The PGI-C score over time was analyzed using a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis. Treatment group, visit, and the interaction between treatment group and visit was included as fixed factors in the MMRM. Participant was included as a random effect, and an unstructured covariance structure was used for the repeated measures.|LS Mean Difference|-0.3|||=|0.059|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|0.0|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||CVL-865 7.5 mg BID / 25 mg BID - Placebo (Day 15)|CVL-865 7.5 mg BID / 25 mg BID vs Placebo (Day 15)||0.0|-0.6|=0.059
90926796|NCT04244175|181730084|SUPERIORITY|The PGI-C score over time was analyzed using a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis. Treatment group, visit, and the interaction between treatment group and visit was included as fixed factors in the MMRM. Participant was included as a random effect, and an unstructured covariance structure was used for the repeated measures.|LS Mean Difference|-0.5|||=|0.04|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.9|-0.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||CVL-865 25 mg BID - Placebo (Day 43)|CVL-865 25 mg BID vs Placebo (Day 43)||-0.1|-0.9|=0.040
90926797|NCT04244175|181730084|SUPERIORITY|The PGI-C score over time was analyzed using a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis. Treatment group, visit, and the interaction between treatment group and visit was included as fixed factors in the MMRM. Participant was included as a random effect, and an unstructured covariance structure was used for the repeated measures.|LS Mean Difference|-0.4|||=|0.152|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8|0.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||CVL-865 7.5 mg BID - Placebo (Day 43)|CVL-865 7.5 mg BID vs Placebo (Day 43)||0.1|-0.8|=0.152
90926798|NCT04244175|181730084|SUPERIORITY|The PGI-C score over time was analyzed using a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis. Treatment group, visit, and the interaction between treatment group and visit was included as fixed factors in the MMRM. Participant was included as a random effect, and an unstructured covariance structure was used for the repeated measures.|LS Mean Difference|-0.4|||=|0.044|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8|-0.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||CVL-865 7.5 mg BID / 25 mg BID - Placebo (Day 43)|CVL-865 7.5 mg BID / 25 mg BID vs Placebo (Day 43)||-0.1|-0.8|=0.044
90926799|NCT04244175|181730084|SUPERIORITY|The PGI-C score over time was analyzed using a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis. Treatment group, visit, and the interaction between treatment group and visit was included as fixed factors in the MMRM. Participant was included as a random effect, and an unstructured covariance structure was used for the repeated measures.|LS Mean Difference|-0.3|||=|0.199|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|0.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||CVL-865 25 mg BID - Placebo (Day 71)|CVL-865 25 mg BID vs Placebo (Day 71)||0.1|-0.7|=0.199
90926800|NCT04244175|181730084|SUPERIORITY|The PGI-C score over time was analyzed using a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis. Treatment group, visit, and the interaction between treatment group and visit was included as fixed factors in the MMRM. Participant was included as a random effect, and an unstructured covariance structure was used for the repeated measures.|LS Mean Difference|-0.3|||=|0.171|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|0.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||CVL-865 7.5 mg BID - Placebo (Day 71)|CVL-865 7.5 mg BID vs Placebo (Day 71)||0.1|-0.7|=0.171
90926801|NCT04244175|181730084|SUPERIORITY|The PGI-C score over time was analyzed using a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis. Treatment group, visit, and the interaction between treatment group and visit was included as fixed factors in the MMRM. Participant was included as a random effect, and an unstructured covariance structure was used for the repeated measures.|LS Mean Difference|-0.3|||=|0.125|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|0.0|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||CVL-865 7.5 mg BID / 25 mg BID - Placebo (Day 71)|CVL-865 7.5 mg BID / 25 mg BID vs Placebo (Day 71)||0.0|-0.7|=0.125
91035160|NCT03086460|181956473|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.114|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.169|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~This secondary efficacy variable was analyzed using the ANCOVA model that was also used for the primary efficacy analysis, without adjusting for multiplicity."||0.169|0.060|<0.001
90886917|NCT02328326|181636389|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|2.67|||Regression, Linear|Model adjusted for baseline value of ukpds, insulin use, site, randomization stratification variables: care partner not in home and PAM cutoff of 40|Net difference defined as 12 months minus baseline. Reference for comparison is PACT.|The null hypothesis was that change (baseline to 12 months) in ukpds 5 year risk score is the same for CO-IMPACT (intervention) compared to PACT (control). The alternative hypothesis is that that COIMPACT will significantly decrease patient participants' 5-year cardiovascular event risk.||2.67|-0.87|0.32
90886918|NCT02328326|181636390|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.71||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.22|||Regression, Linear|Model adjusted for BL value of Healthy Eating, insulin use, randomization stratification variables: care partner not in home and PAM cutoff of 40|Net difference defined as 12 months minus baseline|The null hypothesis was that change (baseline to 12 months) in Healthy Eating is the same for CO-IMPACT (intervention) compared to PACT (control). The alternative hypothesis is that that COIMPACT will significantly change patient participants' Healthy Eating scores compared to patient participants in PACT.||1.22|0.20|0.01
90886919|NCT02328326|181636391|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.51|||Regression, Linear|Model was adjusted for baseline value of A1c, insulin use, randomization stratification variables: care partner not in home and PAM cutoff of 40|Net difference defined as 12 months minus baseline|The null hypothesis was that change (baseline to 12 months) in A1c is the same for CO-IMPACT (intervention) compared to PACT (control). The alternative hypothesis is that that COIMPACT will significantly decrease patient participants' A1c score compared to patient participants in PACT.||0.51|-0.17|0.33
90886920|NCT02328326|181636392|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.82||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|1.35|||Regression, Linear|Model was adjusted for baseline value of SBP, insulin use, randomization stratification variables: care partner not in home and PAM cutoff of 40.|Net difference defined as 12 months minus baseline|The null hypothesis was that change (baseline to 12 months) in SBP is the same for CO-IMPACT (intervention) compared to PACT (control). The alternative hypothesis is that that COIMPACT will significantly decrease patient participants' SBP score compared to patient participants in PACT.||1.35|-7.00|0.18
90886921|NCT02328326|181636393|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|1.19|||Regression, Linear|Model was adjusted for baseline value of PAID, insulin use, randomization stratification variables: care partner not in home and PAM cutoff of 40|Net difference defined as 12 months minus baseline|The null hypothesis was that change (baseline to 12 months) in PAID is the same for CO-IMPACT (intervention) compared to PACT (control). The alternative hypothesis is that that COIMPACT will significantly increase patient participants' PAID score compared to patient participants in PACT.||1.19|-0.95|0.83
90886922|NCT02328326|181636394|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.11||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.93|||Regression, Linear|Model was adjusted for baseline value of PEPPI, insulin use, randomization stratification variables: care partner not in home and PAM cutoff of 40|Net difference defined as 12 months minus baseline|The null hypothesis was that change (baseline to 12 months) in PEPPI is the same for CO-IMPACT (intervention) compared to PACT (control). The alternative hypothesis is that that COIMPACT will significantly increase patient participants' PEPPI score compared to patient participants in PACT.||0.93|-0.71|0.79
90886923|NCT02328326|181636395|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.15||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.4|||Regression, Linear|Model adjusted for BL value of Cho to HDL Ratio, insulin use, randomization stratification variables: care partner not in home and PAM cutoff of 40.|Net difference defined as 12 months minus baseline|The null hypothesis was that change (baseline to 12 months) in Chol to HDL Ratio is the same for CO-IMPACT (intervention) compared to PACT (control). The alternative hypothesis is that that COIMPACT will significantly decrease patient participants' Chol to HDL Ratio score compared to patient participants in PACT.||0.40|-0.09|0.21
90886924|NCT02328326|181636397|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.53|||Regression, Linear|Model was adjusted for baseline value of IOCQ, insulin use, randomization stratification variables: care partner not in home and PAM cutoff of 40|Net difference defined as 12 months minus baseline|The null hypothesis was that change (baseline to 12 months) in IOCQ is the same for CO-IMPACT (intervention) compared to PACT (control). The alternative hypothesis is that that COIMPACT will significantly increase patient participants' IOCQ score compared to patient participants in PACT.||0.53|0.08|0.01
90886925|NCT02328326|181636398|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalent distribution among categories|difference in count|-1.0||||0.17|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared||||Difference in count of those who stopped smoking in CO-IMPACT vs. those who stopped smoking in PACT.|||0.17
90940845|NCT01917006|181761574|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.11||||0.393||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline geometric mean IELT as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.393
90964581|NCT01301456|181810269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.244||0.086|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.76|-0.11|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 29: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||-0.11|-0.76|0.086
90964582|NCT01301456|181810271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.326||0.663|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-8.16|16.37|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 8: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||16.37|-8.16|0.663
90964583|NCT01301456|181810271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.472||0.825|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-13.03|9.25|||mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 8: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||9.25|-13.03|0.825
90964584|NCT01301456|181810271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.791||0.878|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-10.2|12.92|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 8: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||12.92|-10.20|0.878
90964585|NCT01301456|181810271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.829||0.936|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-10.89|12.33|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 8: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||12.33|-10.89|0.936
90964586|NCT01301456|181810271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.037||0.959|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-16.46|17.82|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 15: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||17.82|-16.46|0.959
90964587|NCT01301456|181810271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-32.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.872||0.011|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-48.07|-16.85|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 15: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||-16.85|-48.07|0.011
90964588|NCT01301456|181810271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.212||0.833|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-18.67|13.45|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 15: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||13.45|-18.67|0.833
90964589|NCT01301456|181810271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.365||0.565|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-23.47|9.05|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 15: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||9.05|-23.47|0.565
90964590|NCT01301456|181810271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.713||0.703|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-16.52|9.02|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 22: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||9.02|-16.52|0.703
90964591|NCT01301456|181810271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-25.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.827||0.008|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-37.07|-13.85|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 22: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||-13.85|-37.07|0.008
90964592|NCT01301456|181810271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-10.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.061||0.253|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-22.51|1.32|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 22: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||1.32|-22.51|0.253
90964593|NCT01301456|181810271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-14.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.198||0.128|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-26.57|-2.38|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 22: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||-2.38|-26.57|0.128
90964594|NCT01301456|181810271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-15.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.421||0.196|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-30.17|-0.13|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 29: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||-0.13|-30.17|0.196
90964595|NCT01301456|181810271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-28.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.393||0.012|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-41.84|-14.51|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 29: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||-14.51|-41.84|0.012
90964596|NCT01301456|181810271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-22.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.773||0.047|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-36.65|-8.32|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 29: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||-8.32|-36.65|0.047
90926802|NCT04244175|181730085|SUPERIORITY|The CGI-S score over time was analyzed using a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis. Treatment group, visit, and the interaction between treatment group and visit was included as fixed factors in the MMRM. Participant was included as a random effect, and an unstructured covariance structure was used for the repeated measures.|LS Mean Difference|0.0|||=|0.767|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|0.2|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||CVL-865 25 mg BID - Placebo (Day 15)|CVL-865 25 mg BID vs Placebo (Day 15)||0.2|-0.3|=0.767
90926803|NCT04244175|181730085|SUPERIORITY|The CGI-S score over time was analyzed using a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis. Treatment group, visit, and the interaction between treatment group and visit was included as fixed factors in the MMRM. Participant was included as a random effect, and an unstructured covariance structure was used for the repeated measures.|LS Mean Difference|0.2|||=|0.178|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.5|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||CVL-865 7.5 mg BID - Placebo (Day 15)|CVL-865 7.5 mg BID vs Placebo (Day 15)||0.5|0.0|=0.178
90926804|NCT04244175|181730085|SUPERIORITY|The CGI-S score over time was analyzed using a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis. Treatment group, visit, and the interaction between treatment group and visit was included as fixed factors in the MMRM. Participant was included as a random effect, and an unstructured covariance structure was used for the repeated measures.|LS Mean Difference|0.1|||=|0.542|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|0.3|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||CVL-865 7.5 mg BID / 25 mg BID - Placebo (Day 15)|CVL-865 7.5 mg BID / 25 mg BID vs Placebo (Day 15)||0.3|-0.1|=0.542
90926805|NCT04244175|181730085|SUPERIORITY|The CGI-S score over time was analyzed using a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis. Treatment group, visit, and the interaction between treatment group and visit was included as fixed factors in the MMRM. Participant was included as a random effect, and an unstructured covariance structure was used for the repeated measures.|LS Mean Difference|-0.3|||=|0.106|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|0.0|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||CVL-865 25 mg BID - Placebo (Day 43)|CVL-865 25 mg BID vs Placebo (Day 43)||0.0|-0.6|=0.106
90926806|NCT04244175|181730085|SUPERIORITY|The CGI-S score over time was analyzed using a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis. Treatment group, visit, and the interaction between treatment group and visit was included as fixed factors in the MMRM. Participant was included as a random effect, and an unstructured covariance structure was used for the repeated measures.|LS Mean Difference|0.1|||=|0.663|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|0.4|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||CVL-865 7.5 mg BID - Placebo (Day 43)|CVL-865 7.5 mg BID vs Placebo (Day 43)||0.4|-0.2|=0.663
90926807|NCT04244175|181730085|SUPERIORITY|The CGI-S score over time was analyzed using a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis. Treatment group, visit, and the interaction between treatment group and visit was included as fixed factors in the MMRM. Participant was included as a random effect, and an unstructured covariance structure was used for the repeated measures.|LS Mean Difference|-0.1|||=|0.488|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|0.2|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||CVL-865 7.5 mg BID / 25 mg BID - Placebo (Day 43)|CVL-865 7.5 mg BID / 25 mg BID vs Placebo (Day 43)||0.2|-0.4|=0.488
90926808|NCT04244175|181730085|SUPERIORITY|The CGI-S score over time was analyzed using a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis. Treatment group, visit, and the interaction between treatment group and visit was included as fixed factors in the MMRM. Participant was included as a random effect, and an unstructured covariance structure was used for the repeated measures.|LS Mean Difference|-0.3|||=|0.1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|0.0|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||CVL-865 25 mg BID - Placebo (Day 71)|CVL-865 25 mg BID vs Placebo (Day 71)||0.0|-0.7|=0.100
90940846|NCT01917006|181761574|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.25||||0.263||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline geometric mean IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.263
90926809|NCT04244175|181730085|SUPERIORITY|The CGI-S score over time was analyzed using a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis. Treatment group, visit, and the interaction between treatment group and visit was included as fixed factors in the MMRM. Participant was included as a random effect, and an unstructured covariance structure was used for the repeated measures.|LS Mean Difference|0.0|||=|0.969|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|0.3|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||CVL-865 7.5 mg BID - Placebo (Day 71)|CVL-865 7.5 mg BID vs Placebo (Day 71)||0.3|-0.3|=0.969
90926810|NCT04244175|181730085|SUPERIORITY|The CGI-S score over time was analyzed using a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis. Treatment group, visit, and the interaction between treatment group and visit was included as fixed factors in the MMRM. Participant was included as a random effect, and an unstructured covariance structure was used for the repeated measures.|LS Mean Difference|-0.2|||=|0.344|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|0.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||CVL-865 7.5 mg BID / 25 mg BID - Placebo (Day 71)|CVL-865 7.5 mg BID / 25 mg BID vs Placebo (Day 71)||0.1|-0.4|=0.344
90926811|NCT04244175|181730086|SUPERIORITY|The CGI-I score over time was analyzed using a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis. Treatment group, visit, and the interaction between treatment group and visit was included as fixed factors in the MMRM. Participant was included as a random effect, and an unstructured covariance structure was used for the repeated measures.|LS Mean Difference|-0.4|||=|0.01|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|-0.2|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||CVL-865 25 mg BID - Placebo (Day 15)|CVL-865 25 mg BID vs Placebo (Day 15)||-0.2|-0.7|=0.010
90926812|NCT04244175|181730086|SUPERIORITY|The CGI-I score over time was analyzed using a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis. Treatment group, visit, and the interaction between treatment group and visit was included as fixed factors in the MMRM. Participant was included as a random effect, and an unstructured covariance structure was used for the repeated measures.|LS Mean Difference|-0.1|||=|0.376|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|0.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||CVL-865 7.5 mg BID - Placebo (Day 15)|CVL-865 7.5 mg BID vs Placebo (Day 15)||0.1|-0.4|=0.376
90926813|NCT04244175|181730086|SUPERIORITY|The CGI-I score over time was analyzed using a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis. Treatment group, visit, and the interaction between treatment group and visit was included as fixed factors in the MMRM. Participant was included as a random effect, and an unstructured covariance structure was used for the repeated measures.|LS Mean Difference|-0.3|||=|0.044|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|-0.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||CVL-865 7.5 mg BID / 25 mg BID - Placebo (Day 15)|CVL-865 7.5 mg BID / 25 mg BID vs Placebo (Day 15)||-0.1|-0.5|=0.044
90964597|NCT01301456|181810271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-28.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.837||0.023|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-44.19|-13.06|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 29: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||-13.06|-44.19|0.023
90964598|NCT01301456|181810271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.576||0.711|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-12.77|22.93|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 50: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||22.93|-12.77|0.711
90964599|NCT01301456|181810271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.365||0.666|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-10.86|21.66|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 50: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||21.66|-10.86|0.666
90964600|NCT01301456|181810271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.333||0.807|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-19.27|13.17|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 50: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||13.17|-19.27|0.807
90964601|NCT01301456|181810271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.877||0.603|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-10.15|23.72|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 50: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||23.72|-10.15|0.603
90926814|NCT04244175|181730086|SUPERIORITY|The CGI-I score over time was analyzed using a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis. Treatment group, visit, and the interaction between treatment group and visit was included as fixed factors in the MMRM. Participant was included as a random effect, and an unstructured covariance structure was used for the repeated measures.|LS Mean Difference|-0.6|||=|0.005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|-0.3|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||CVL-865 25 mg BID - Placebo (Day 43)|CVL-865 25 mg BID vs Placebo (Day 43)||-0.3|-1.0|=0.005
90964602|NCT01301456|181810273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.551||0.387|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.24|1.21|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 8: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||1.21|-0.24|0.387
91035161|NCT03086460|181956473|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.154|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.099|0.208|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.208|0.099|<0.001
91035162|NCT03086460|181956473|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.193|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.138|0.247|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.247|0.138|<0.001
90926815|NCT04244175|181730086|SUPERIORITY|The CGI-I score over time was analyzed using a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis. Treatment group, visit, and the interaction between treatment group and visit was included as fixed factors in the MMRM. Participant was included as a random effect, and an unstructured covariance structure was used for the repeated measures.|LS Mean Difference|-0.1|||=|0.549|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|0.2|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||CVL-865 7.5 mg BID - Placebo (Day 43)|CVL-865 7.5 mg BID vs Placebo (Day 43)||0.2|-0.5|=0.549
90926816|NCT04244175|181730086|SUPERIORITY|The CGI-I score over time was analyzed using a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis. Treatment group, visit, and the interaction between treatment group and visit was included as fixed factors in the MMRM. Participant was included as a random effect, and an unstructured covariance structure was used for the repeated measures.|LS Mean Difference|-0.4|||=|0.048|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|-0.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||CVL-865 7.5 mg BID / 25 mg BID - Placebo (Day 43)|CVL-865 7.5 mg BID / 25 mg BID vs Placebo (Day 43)||-0.1|-0.7|=0.048
90926817|NCT04244175|181730086|SUPERIORITY|The CGI-I score over time was analyzed using a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis. Treatment group, visit, and the interaction between treatment group and visit was included as fixed factors in the MMRM. Participant was included as a random effect, and an unstructured covariance structure was used for the repeated measures.|LS Mean Difference|-0.6|||=|0.005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|-0.3|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||CVL-865 25 mg BID - Placebo (Day 71)|CVL-865 25 mg BID vs Placebo (Day 71)||-0.3|-1.0|=0.005
90926818|NCT04244175|181730086|SUPERIORITY|The CGI-I score over time was analyzed using a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis. Treatment group, visit, and the interaction between treatment group and visit was included as fixed factors in the MMRM. Participant was included as a random effect, and an unstructured covariance structure was used for the repeated measures.|LS Mean Difference|-0.1|||=|0.549|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|0.2|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||CVL-865 7.5 mg BID - Placebo (Day 71)|CVL-865 7.5 mg BID vs Placebo (Day 71)||0.2|-0.5|=0.549
90926819|NCT04244175|181730086|SUPERIORITY|The CGI-I score over time was analyzed using a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis. Treatment group, visit, and the interaction between treatment group and visit was included as fixed factors in the MMRM. Participant was included as a random effect, and an unstructured covariance structure was used for the repeated measures.|LS Mean Difference|-0.4|||=|0.048|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|-0.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||CVL-865 7.5 mg BID / 25 mg BID - Placebo (Day 71)|CVL-865 7.5 mg BID / 25 mg BID vs Placebo (Day 71)||-0.1|-0.7|=0.048
91035163|NCT03086460|181956473|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.216|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.163|0.268|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.268|0.163|<0.001
91035164|NCT03086460|181956473|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.172|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.224|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment F ( Perforomist® IS 40 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.224|0.120|<0.001
90926820|NCT04244175|181730087|SUPERIORITY|Changes from Baseline in QOLIE-31 Overall Scores was compared using an ANCOVA model with the Baseline score as a covariate and treatment group included in the model as fixed effects in the mITT population. This estimand included available post-Baseline response data that occurred before discontinuation of treatment or the addition of rescue medication.|LS Mean Difference|-0.49|||=|0.829|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.23|3.26|||ANCOVA||CVL-865 25 mg BID - Placebo|CVL-865 25 mg BID vs Placebo||3.26|-4.23|=0.829
90926821|NCT04244175|181730087|SUPERIORITY|Changes from Baseline in QOLIE-31 Overall Scores was compared using an ANCOVA model with the Baseline score as a covariate and treatment group included in the model as fixed effects in the mITT population. This estimand included available post-Baseline response data that occurred before discontinuation of treatment or the addition of rescue medication.|LS Mean Difference|-0.2|||=|0.927|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.87|3.46|||ANCOVA||CVL-865 7.5 mg BID - Placebo|CVL-865 7.5 mg BID vs Placebo||3.46|-3.87|=0.927
90926822|NCT04244175|181730087|SUPERIORITY|Changes from Baseline in QOLIE-31 Overall Scores was compared using an ANCOVA model with the Baseline score as a covariate and treatment group included in the model as fixed effects in the mITT population. This estimand included available post-Baseline response data that occurred before discontinuation of treatment or the addition of rescue medication.|LS Mean Difference|-0.35|||=|0.859|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.57|2.88|||ANCOVA||CVL-865 7.5 mg BID / 25 mg BID - Placebo|CVL-865 7.5 mg BID / 25 mg BID vs Placebo||2.88|-3.57|=0.859
90926823|NCT04244175|181730088|SUPERIORITY|The Least Square Means (LS Means), difference in LS Means, 90% confidence interval for the difference, and the p-value for the difference are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with fixed effects for treatment and Baseline score.|LS Mean Difference|-0.013|||=|0.788|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.096|0.069|||ANCOVA||CVL-865 25 mg BID - Placebo (HUI-2)|CVL-865 25 mg BID vs Placebo (HUI-2)||0.069|-0.096|=0.788
90926824|NCT04244175|181730088|SUPERIORITY|The Least Square Means (LS Means), difference in LS Means, 90% confidence interval for the difference, and the p-value for the difference are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with fixed effects for treatment and Baseline score.|LS Mean Difference|0.077|||=|0.126|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.006|0.16|||ANCOVA||CVL-865 7.5 mg BID - Placebo (HUI-2)|CVL-865 7.5 mg BID vs Placebo (HUI-2)||0.160|-0.006|=0.126
90926825|NCT04244175|181730088|SUPERIORITY|The Least Square Means (LS Means), difference in LS Means, 90% confidence interval for the difference, and the p-value for the difference are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with fixed effects for treatment and Baseline score.|LS Mean Difference|0.032|||=|0.461|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.039|0.103|||ANCOVA||CVL-865 7.5 mg BID / 25 mg BID - Placebo (HUI-2)|CVL-865 7.5 mg BID / 25 mg BID vs Placebo (HUI-2)||0.103|-0.039|=0.461
90926826|NCT04244175|181730088|SUPERIORITY|The Least Square Means (LS Means), difference in LS Means, 90% confidence interval for the difference, and the p-value for the difference are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with fixed effects for treatment and Baseline score.|LS Mean Difference|-0.032|||=|0.661|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.154|0.089|||ANCOVA||CVL-865 25 mg BID - Placebo (HUI-3)|CVL-865 25 mg BID vs Placebo (HUI-3)||0.089|-0.154|=0.661
90926827|NCT04244175|181730088|SUPERIORITY|The Least Square Means (LS Means), difference in LS Means, 90% confidence interval for the difference, and the p-value for the difference are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with fixed effects for treatment and Baseline score.|LS Mean Difference|0.115|||=|0.124|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.008|0.237|||ANCOVA||CVL-865 7.5 mg BID - Placebo (HUI-3)|CVL-865 7.5 mg BID vs Placebo (HUI-3)||0.237|-0.008|=0.124
90926828|NCT04244175|181730088|SUPERIORITY|The Least Square Means (LS Means), difference in LS Means, 90% confidence interval for the difference, and the p-value for the difference are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with fixed effects for treatment and Baseline score.|LS Mean Difference|0.041|||=|0.518|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.064|0.146|||ANCOVA||CVL-865 7.5 mg BID / 25 mg BID - Placebo (HUI-3)|CVL-865 7.5 mg BID / 25 mg BID vs Placebo (HUI-3)||0.146|-0.064|=0.518
90926829|NCT05423730|181730101|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.75|57.2|||||Estimates represent percentage change in log-transformed hormone levels for wine versus grape juice from linear mixed models including participant as a random effect and interaction terms for drink and sequence (Kenward approach).|||57.20|-49.75|
90926830|NCT05423730|181730102|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.96|63.9|||||Estimates represent percentage change in log-transformed hormone levels for wine versus grape juice from linear mixed models including participant as a random effect and interaction terms for drink and sequence (Kenward approach).|||63.90|-47.96|
90926831|NCT05423730|181730103|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|0.67|||||Estimates represent percentage change in log-transformed hormone levels for wine versus grape juice from linear mixed models including participant as a random effect and interaction terms for drink and sequence (Kenward approach).|||0.67|-1.95|
90926832|NCT05423730|181730104|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.45|43.09|||||Estimates represent percentage change in log-transformed hormone levels for wine versus grape juice from linear mixed models including participant as a random effect and interaction terms for drink and sequence (Kenward approach).|||43.09|-9.45|
90926833|NCT05423730|181730105|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.31|28.4|||||Estimates represent percentage change in log-transformed hormone levels for wine versus grape juice from linear mixed models including participant as a random effect and interaction terms for drink and sequence (Kenward approach).|||28.40|-3.31|
90926834|NCT05423730|181730106|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|27.69|||||Estimates represent percentage change in log-transformed hormone levels for wine versus grape juice from linear mixed models including participant as a random effect and interaction terms for drink and sequence (Kenward approach).|||27.69|-0.77|
90926835|NCT05423730|181730107|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.92|21.24|||||Estimates represent percentage change in log-transformed hormone levels for wine versus grape juice from linear mixed models including participant as a random effect and interaction terms for drink and sequence (Kenward approach).|||21.24|-21.92|
90886926|NCT02328326|181636399|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.47|||Regression, Linear|Model adjusted for BL value of Physical Activity, insulin use, randomization stratification variables: care partner not in home and PAM cutoff of 40|Net difference defined as 12 months minus baseline|The null hypothesis was that change (baseline to 12 months) in Physical activity is the same for CO-IMPACT (intervention) compared to PACT (control). The alternative hypothesis is that that COIMPACT will significantly increase patient participants' Physical activity score compared to patient participants in PACT.||0.47|-0.56|0.87
90886927|NCT02328326|181636400|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.23||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.68|||Regression, Linear|Model adjusted for BL value of Blood Sugar Home Testing, insulin use, randomization strat. variables: care partner not in home and PAM cutoff of 40|Net difference defined as 12 months minus baseline|The null hypothesis was that change (baseline to 12 months) in Blood Sugar Home Testing is the same for CO-IMPACT (intervention) compared to PACT (control). The alternative hypothesis is that that COIMPACT will significantly increase patient participants' Blood Sugar Home Testing score compared to patient participants in PACT.||0.68|-0.22|0.31
90886928|NCT02328326|181636401|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.89|||Regression, Linear|Model adjusted for BL value of Blood Pressure Home Testing, insulin use, randomization strat. variables: care partner not in home and PAM cutoff of 40|Net difference defined as 12 months minus baseline|The null hypothesis was that change (baseline to 12 months) in Blood Pressure Home Testing is the same for CO-IMPACT (intervention) compared to PACT (control). The alternative hypothesis is that that COIMPACT will significantly increase patient participants' Blood Pressure Home Testing score compared to patient participants in PACT.||0.89|-0.76|0.87
90886929|NCT02328326|181636402|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.23|||Regression, Linear|Model adjusted for BL value of Take Oral Meds as Prescribed, insulin use, randomization strat variables: care partner not in home and PAM cutoff of 40|Net difference defined as 12 months minus baseline|The null hypothesis was that change (baseline to 12 months) in Take Oral Meds as Prescribed is the same for CO-IMPACT (intervention) compared to PACT (control). The alternative hypothesis is that that COIMPACT will significantly increase patient participants' Take Oral Meds as Prescribed score compared to patient participants in PACT.||0.23|-0.42|0.56
90886930|NCT02328326|181636403|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.41|||Regression, Linear|Model adjusted for baseline value of Take Insulin as Prescribed, randomization stratification variables: care partner not in home and PAM cutoff of 40|Net difference defined as 12 months minus baseline|The null hypothesis was that change (baseline to 12 months) in Take Insulin as prescribed is the same for CO-IMPACT (intervention) compared to PACT (control). The alternative hypothesis is that that COIMPACT will significantly increase patient participants' Take Insulin as Prescribed compared to patient participants in PACT.||0.41|-0.26|0.67
90886931|NCT02328326|181636404|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was that change (baseline to 12 months) in Foot Care is the same for CO-IMPACT (intervention) compared to PACT (control). The alternative hypothesis is that that COIMPACT will significantly increase patient participants' Foot Care score compared to patient participants in PACT.|Median Difference (Net)|0.26||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.75|||Regression, Linear|Model was adjusted for baseline value of Foot Care, insulin use, randomization stratification variables: care partner not in home and PAM cutoff of 40|||Net difference defined as 12 months minus baseline|0.75|-0.22|0.29
90886932|NCT02328326|181636405|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.71|||Regression, Linear|Model was adjusted for baseline value of SE, insulin use, randomization stratification variables: care partner not in home and PAM cutoff of 40|Net difference defined as 12 months minus baseline|The null hypothesis was that change (baseline to 12 months) in SE is the same for CO-IMPACT (intervention) compared to PACT (control). The alternative hypothesis is that that COIMPACT will significantly change patient participants' SE scores compared to patient participants in PACT.||0.71|0.09|0.01
90886933|NCT02328326|181636406|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.55|||Regression, Linear|Model was adjusted for baseline value of Lorig\_CP, insulin use, randomization stratification variables: care partner not in home and PAM cutoff of 40|Net difference defined as 12 months minus baseline|The null hypothesis was that change (baseline to 12 months) in Lorig\_CP is the same for CO-IMPACT (intervention) compared to PACT (control). The alternative hypothesis is that that COIMPACT will significantly increase patient participants' Lorig\_CP score compared to patient participants in PACT.||0.55|-0.34|0.67
90886934|NCT02328326|181636407|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.28||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.16|||Regression, Linear||Net difference defined as 12 months minus baseline|The null hypothesis was that change (baseline to 12 months) in CSIS is the same for CO-IMPACT (intervention) compared to PACT (control). The alternative hypothesis is that that COIMPACT will significantly increase patient participants' CSIS score compared to patient participants in PACT.||1.16|-0.60|0.53
90926836|NCT03550170|181730108|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was established using the prespecified margin of inferiority of 10 points on the total composite score of the Fatigue Impact Scale.|Slope|4.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.57|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.67|9.11|||||Comparison of teleconference to one-to-one at 6 months.|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) served as the primary analysis tool for modeling the longitudinal scores of the primary outcome - Fatigue Impact Scale (FIS).||9.11|0.67|
90926837|NCT03550170|181730108|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was established using the prespecified margin of inferiority of 10 points on the total composite score of the Fatigue Impact Scale.|Slope|6.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.62|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|11.26|||||Comparison of internet to one-to-one at 6 months.|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) served as the primary analysis tool for modeling the longitudinal scores of the primary outcome - Fatigue Impact Scale (FIS).||11.26|0.98|
90926838|NCT03550170|181730109|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.10
90926839|NCT06037668|181730167|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1134||||||p-values are calculated by independent t-test|Independent t-test|||||||0.1134
90926840|NCT06037668|181730168|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0031||||||p-values are calculated by independent t-test|Independent t-test|||||||0.003100
90926841|NCT06037668|181730169|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0503||||||p-values are calculated by independent t-test|Independent t-test|||||||0.050300
90926842|NCT06037668|181730170|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1178||||||p-values are calculated by independent t-test|Independent t-test|||||||0.1178
90926843|NCT06037668|181730171|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1003||||||p-values are calculated by independent t-test|Independent t-test|||||||0.1003
90926844|NCT06037668|181730172|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4832||||||p-values are calculated by independent t-test|Independent t-test|||||||0.4832
90926845|NCT04881461|181730193|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.88||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.17||Adjusted P-value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates in the model: treatment, season and their interaction, ongoing asthma status, and country and season interaction|Placebo vs 5-grass mix SLIT-drops|"The null hypothesis was defined as no difference in means between treatment arms. The endpoint analysis was based on a 5% significance level. The trial was designed to have 86% power for the primary endpoint using the primary (trial product) estimand."||3.17|0.60|0.0036
90926846|NCT04881461|181730194|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17||||0.1111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.39||Adjusted P-value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates in the model: treatment, season and their interaction, ongoing asthma status, and country and season interaction.|Placebo vs 5-grass mix SLIT-drops|"The null hypothesis was defined as no difference in means between treatment arms. The endpoint analysis was based on a 5% significance level. The trial was designed to have 95% power for this key secondary endpoint using the primary (trial product) estimand."||0.39|-0.04|0.1111
90926847|NCT04881461|181730195|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.33||||0.0417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|2.67||Observed P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates in the model: treatment, season and their interaction, ongoing asthma status, and country and season interaction|Placebo vs 5-grass SLIT-drops|"The null hypothesis was defined as no difference in means between treatment arms. The analysis was based on a 5% significance level. The endpoint was analysed using primary (trial product) estimand."||2.67|-0.01|0.0417
90926848|NCT04881461|181730196|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.4984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.3||Observed P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates in the model: treatment, season and their interaction, ongoing asthma status, and country and season interaction|Placebo vs 5-grass SLIT drops|"The null hypothesis was defined as no difference in means between treatment arms. The analysis was based on a 5% significance level. The endpoint was analysed using primary (trial product) estimand."||0.30|-0.15|0.4984
90926849|NCT04881461|181730197|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.4438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.27||Observed P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates in the model: treatment, season and their interaction, ongoing asthma status, and country and season interaction|Placebo vs 5-grass mix SLIT-drops|"The null hypothesis was defined as no difference in means between treatment arms. The analysis was based on a 5% significance level. The endpoint was analysed using primary (trial product) estimand."||0.27|-0.12|0.4438
90926850|NCT04881461|181730198|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.0363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.38||Observed P-value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates in the model: treatment, season and their interaction, ongoing asthma status, and country and season interaction|Placebo vs 5-grass mix SLIT-drops|"The null hypothesis was defined as no difference in means between treatment arms. The analysis was based on a 5% significance level. The endpoint was analysed using primary (trial product) estimand."||0.38|0.01|0.0363
90886935|NCT02328326|181636408|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.32||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|1.25|||Regression, Linear|Model was adjusted for baseline value of PAID\_CP, insulin use, randomization stratification variables: care partner not in home and PAM cutoff of 40|Net difference defined as 12 months minus baselineNet difference defined as 12 months minus baseline|The null hypothesis was that change (baseline to 12 months) in PAID\_CP is the same for CO-IMPACT (intervention) compared to PACT (control). The alternative hypothesis is that that COIMPACT will significantly increase patient participants' PAID\_CP score compared to patient participants in PACT.||1.25|-0.61|0.50
90886936|NCT04289753|181636414|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.69||||||||0.69|0.46|
90886937|NCT04289753|181636415|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.85||||||||0.85|0.55|
90886938|NCT04289753|181636416|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.0||||||||1.0|0.70|
90886939|NCT00366626|181636452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.92|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.32||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|3.69|||ANOVA|||This was a 2 gene (asn40asn vs 40asp) by two medication (naltrexone vs placebo) design. The main hypothesis was that the effect of naltrexone (mean naltrexone drinking - placebo drinking) would be greater in the 40asp subjects than in the asn40asn subjects. Thus the null hypothesis there would be no gene by medication interaction. The mean difference above is then the difference in the size of the naltrexone effect in the two genotypes, equivalent to the interaction.||3.69|-1.85|0.51
90886940|NCT00366626|181636453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.46|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.1||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|4.11|||ANOVA|||This was a 2 gene (asn40asn vs 40asp) by 2 medication (naltrexone vs. placebo)interaction analysis. The main hypothesis was that subjects who had 40asp OPRM1 allele would a greater naltrexone effect on drinking (Placebo - Naltrexxone) than the asn40asn subjects. Thus the null hypothesis was the gene by medication interaction.||4.11|-1.22|0.28
90886941|NCT01242527|181636463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Placebo adjusted % change from baseline|-21.68||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.7|-2.89||P-value adjusted with Dunnett's procedure for multiple comparisons of Epanova vs olive oil|ANCOVA p-value on ranked data|ANCOVA model with baseline value as covariate, and treatment and user/non-user of lipid-altering drugs as factors|ANCOVA on log-scale TG with baseline value as covariate and treatment and user/non-user of lipid-altering drugs as factors|||-2.89|-40.70|0.005
90886942|NCT01242527|181636463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Placebo adjusted % change from baseline|-21.19||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.32|-2.29||P-value adjusted with Dunnett's procedure for multiple comparisons of Epanova vs olive oil|ANCOVA p-value on ranked data|ANCOVA model with baseline value as covariate, and treatment and user/non-user of lipid-altering drugs as factors|ANCOVA on log-scale TG with baseline value as covariate, and treatment and user/non-user of lipid-altering drugs as factors|||-2.29|-40.32|0.007
90886943|NCT01242527|181636463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Placebo adjusted % change from baseline|-26.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.12|-8.38||P-value adjusted with Dunnett's procedure for multiple comparisons of Epanova vs olive oil|ANCOVA p-value on ranked data|ANCOVA model with baseline value as covariate, and treatment and user/non-user of lipid-altering drugs as factors|ANCOVA on log-scale TG with baseline value as covariate, and treatment and user/non-user of lipid-altering drugs as factors|||-8.38|-45.12|<0.001
90886944|NCT02127307|181636530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.446|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3227|0.6156||At 0.025 level of significance.|Cox proportional hazards model|||"AdreView-Heart Failure Group with H/M \<1.60 vs. H/M ≥1.60:~Data analysis was performed using Cox proportional hazards model to demonstrate the relationship of consensus numeric H/M ratio and time to adverse cardiac events to identify participants with higher risk of death. Hazard (risk) of a death for a participant with H/M ratio at time t was expressed as Hl (t)/Hh (t)=Ψ,where Hl (t) and Hh (t) denote the hazard of an event at time t for participants with low H/M and high H/M respectively."||0.6156|0.3227|<0.0001
90886945|NCT00983580|181636546|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.448|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.448
90886946|NCT00983580|181636547|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.358|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This statistical analysis compares the difference between the number of patients with No adenoma recurrence at 12 months with those with adenoma recurrence at 12 months.||||0.358
90886947|NCT00983580|181636549|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.513|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.513
90886948|NCT04286594|181636561|OTHER|Change in single group over time|Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.667|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.051|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.457|14.876|||t-test, 1 sided|||||14.876|8.457|<0.001
90926851|NCT04881461|181730199|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.19||||0.0329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|2.31||Observed P-value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates in the model: treatment, season and their interaction, ongoing asthma status, and country and season interaction|Placebo vs 5-grass mix SLIT drops|"The null hypothesis was defined as no difference in means between treatment arms. The analysis was based on a 5% significance level. The endpoint was analysed using primary (trial product) estimand.."||2.31|0.06|0.0329
90886949|NCT01248884|181636578|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority in terms of immune response to diphteria antigens was demonstrated if the upper limit of the 97.5% confidence interval (CI) on the group difference (Infanrix hexa Group minus GSK2177744 Group 1) in the percentage of seroprotected subject was below or equal to 10%.|Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.25|2.3||||||||2.3|-2.25|
90886950|NCT01248884|181636578|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority in terms of immune response to tetanus antigens was demonstrated if the upper limit of the 97.5% confidence interval (CI) on the group difference (Infanrix hexa Group minus GSK2177744 Group 1) in the percentage of seroprotected subject was below or equal to 10%.|Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.25|2.3||||||||2.3|-2.25|
90926852|NCT04881461|181730200|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.73||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.79||Observed P-value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates in the model: treatment, season and their interaction, ongoing asthma status, and country and season interaction|Placebo vs 5-grass mix SLIT-drops|"The null hypothesis was defined as no difference in means between treatment arms. The analysis was based on a 5% significance level. The endpoint was analysed using primary (trial product) estimand."||2.79|0.66|0.0016
90926853|NCT04881461|181730201|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25||||0.4502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.92||Observed P-value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates in the model: treatment, season and their interaction, ongoing asthma status, and country and season interaction|Placebo vs 5-grass mix SLIT-drops|"The null hypothesis was defined as no difference in means between treatment arms. The analysis was based on a 5% significance level. The endpoint was analysed using primary (trial product) estimand."||0.92|-0.42|0.4502
90926854|NCT04881461|181730202|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.55||||0.1177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|1.23||Observed P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates in the model: treatment, season and their interaction, ongoing asthma status, and country and season interaction|Placebo vs 5-grass mix SLIT-drops|"The null hypothesis was defined as no difference in means between treatment arms. The analysis was based on a 5% significance level. The endpoint was analysed using primary (trial product) estimand."||1.23|-0.14|0.1177
90926855|NCT04881461|181730203|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||0.4604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.79||Observed P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates in the model: treatment, season and their interaction, ongoing asthma status, and country and season interaction|Placebo vs 5-grass mix SLIT-drops|"The null hypothesis was defined as no difference in means between treatment arms. The analysis was based on a 5% significance level. The endpoint was analysed using primary (trial product) estimand."||0.79|-0.37|0.4604
90964603|NCT01301456|181810273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.501||0.309|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.14|1.18|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 8: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||1.18|-0.14|0.309
90964604|NCT01301456|181810273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.518||0.956|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.71|0.65|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 8: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||0.65|-0.71|0.956
90964605|NCT01301456|181810273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.542||0.089|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.24|1.67|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 8: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||1.67|0.24|0.089
90964606|NCT01301456|181810273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.923||0.434|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.48|1.95|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 15: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||1.95|-0.48|0.434
90964607|NCT01301456|181810273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.841||0.15|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.14|2.35|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 15: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||2.35|0.14|0.150
90964608|NCT01301456|181810273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.861||0.752|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.86|1.41|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 15: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||1.41|-0.86|0.752
90964609|NCT01301456|181810273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.888||0.492|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.55|1.79|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 15: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||1.79|-0.55|0.492
90964610|NCT01301456|181810273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.064||0.358|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.4|2.4|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 22: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||2.40|-0.40|0.358
90964611|NCT01301456|181810273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean Difference|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||0.11|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.33|2.88|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 22: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||2.88|0.33|0.110
90964612|NCT01301456|181810273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean Difference|0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.993||0.461|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.56|2.05|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 22: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||2.05|-0.56|0.461
90964613|NCT01301456|181810273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean Difference|1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.021||0.286|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.23|2.45|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 22: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||2.45|-0.23|0.286
90926856|NCT04881461|181730204|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.57||||0.0549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|1.15||Observed P-value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates in the model: treatment, season and their interaction, ongoing asthma status, and country and season interaction|Placebo vs 5-grass mix SLIT-drops|"The null hypothesis was defined as no difference in means between treatment arms. The analysis was based on a 5% significance level. The endpoint was analysed using primary (trial product) estimand."||1.15|-0.01|0.0549
90926857|NCT04881461|181730205|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.12||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.93||Observed P-value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates in the model: treatment, season and their interaction, ongoing asthma status, and country and season interaction|Placebo vs 5-grass mix SLIT-drops|"The null hypothesis was defined as no difference in means between treatment arms. The analysis was based on a 5% significance level. The endpoint was analysed using primary (trial product) estimand."||1.93|0.30|0.0049
90926858|NCT04881461|181730206|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.24||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.95||Observed P-value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates in the model: treatment, season and their interaction, ongoing asthma status, and country and season interaction|Placebo vs 5-grass mix SLIT-drops|"The null hypothesis was defined as no difference in means between treatment arms. The analysis was based on a 5% significance level. The endpoint was analysed using primary (trial product) estimand."||1.95|0.54|0.0004
90926859|NCT04881461|181730207|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.94||||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.63||Observed P-value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates in the model: treatment, season and their interaction, ongoing asthma status, and country and season interaction|Placebo vs 5-grass mix SLIT-drops|"The null hypothesis was defined as no difference in means between treatment arms. The analysis was based on a 5% significance level. The endpoint was analysed using primary (trial product) estimand."||1.63|0.25|0.0054
90926860|NCT04881461|181730208|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.11||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.71||Observed P-value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates in the model: treatment, season and their interaction, ongoing asthma status, and country and season interaction|Placebo vs 5-grass mix SLIT-drops|"The null hypothesis was defined as no difference in means between treatment arms. The analysis was based on a 5% significance level. The endpoint was analysed using primary (trial product) estimand."||1.71|0.52|0.0002
90926861|NCT05265065|181730221|NON_INFERIORITY|"Non-inferiority margin of -10% (absolute difference) and a one-sided significance level of 5%.~The sample size calculation assumed an estimated seroresponse rate of 95% in both half- and full-dose arms, a non- inferiority margin of -10% (absolute difference), a one-sided significance level of5%, and no loss to follow- up. Under this scenario, a sample size of 100 per arm provides 90% power to compare seroresponse rates between arms under the non-inferiority framework."|Risk Difference (RD)|-2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|2.0|||Regression, Logistic||The difference in seroresponse was adjusted for age group, priming vaccine, duration between first and second dose, duration between second and third (study) dose, study day of blood draw, and baseline anti-spike IgG (IgG).|Non-inferiority margin of -10% (absolute difference) and a one-sided significance level of 5%.||2.0|-7.7|
90926862|NCT05265065|181730223|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of -10% (absolute difference)|Risk Difference (RD)|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.1|11.3|||Regression, Logistic||The difference in seroresponse was adjusted for age group, priming vaccine, duration between first and second dose, duration between second and third (study) dose, study day of blood draw, and baseline anti-spike IgG (IgG).|||11.3|-16.1|
90926863|NCT05265065|181730223|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of -10% (absolute difference)|Risk Difference (RD)|-3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|3.2|||Regression, Logistic||The difference in seroresponse was adjusted for age group, priming vaccine, duration between first and second dose, duration between second and third (study) dose, study day of blood draw, and baseline anti-spike IgG (IgG).|||3.2|-9.5|
90926864|NCT05265065|181730223|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of -10% (absolute difference)|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|16.1|||Regression, Logistic||The difference in seroresponse was adjusted for age group, priming vaccine, duration between first and second dose, duration between second and third (study) dose, study day of blood draw, and baseline anti-spike IgG (IgG).|||16.1|-17.1|
90964614|NCT01301456|181810273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.172||0.362|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.45|2.63|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 29: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||2.63|-0.45|0.362
90964615|NCT01301456|181810273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.069||0.179|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.07|2.88|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 29: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||2.88|0.07|0.179
90964616|NCT01301456|181810273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.092||0.342|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.38|2.49|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 29: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||2.49|-0.38|0.342
90964617|NCT01301456|181810273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.129||0.272|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.22|2.75|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 29: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||2.75|-0.22|0.272
90964618|NCT01301456|181810273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.317||0.979|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.77|1.7|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 50: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||1.70|-1.77|0.979
90964619|NCT01301456|181810273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.201||0.568|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.27|0.88|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 50: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||0.88|-2.27|0.568
90964620|NCT01301456|181810273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.201||0.311|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.34|2.82|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 50: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||2.82|-0.34|0.311
90964621|NCT01301456|181810273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26||0.71|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.18|2.13|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 50: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||2.13|-1.18|0.710
90964622|NCT01002456|181810276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|3.2|||||Proportional odds ratio to measure the trend of change in concordance with guideline recommendations, with Arm 1 as the comparator.|||3.2|1.1|
90964623|NCT03740997|181810309|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|16.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.46||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.44|21.89|||Paired t-test|||Reader 1: Difference Between Non-contrast and OPTISON Dose Level 1||21.89|10.44|0.0008
90926865|NCT05265065|181730224|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.94||||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.04|||Regression, Linear||Adjusted for age group, priming vaccine, duration between 1st and 2nd dose, duration between 2nd and 3rd (study) dose, study day of blood draw, and baseline anti-spike IgG (IgG).|||1.04|0.86|0.228
90926866|NCT05265065|181730225|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.94||||0.537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.15|||Regression, Linear||Adjusted for age group, priming vaccine, duration between 1st and 2nd dose, duration between 2nd and 3rd (study) dose, study day of blood draw, and baseline anti-spike IgG (IgG).|||1.15|0.77|0.537
90926867|NCT05265065|181730225|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.99||||0.922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.11|||Regression, Linear||Adjusted for age group, priming vaccine, duration between 1st and 2nd dose, duration between 2nd and 3rd (study) dose, study day of blood draw, and baseline anti-spike IgG (IgG).|||1.11|0.89|0.922
90926868|NCT05265065|181730225|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.71||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.93|||Regression, Linear||Adjusted for age group, priming vaccine, duration between 1st and 2nd dose, duration between 2nd and 3rd (study) dose, study day of blood draw, and baseline anti-spike IgG (IgG).|||0.93|0.54|0.014
90926869|NCT04778410|181730243|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1794|||||||One Group Chi-Square test|The p-value was based on one group Chi-Square test for the null hypothesis CR rate was 0.19 at one-sided alpha of 0.1 in Cohort 2.||||||0.1794
90926870|NCT04084574|181730299|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.5||0.3968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.8|6.9||The threshold for statistical significance is p = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided||Between group difference in mean blood pressure change from baseline for Standard of Care group minus Behavioral Diet Counseling group.|||6.9|-16.8|0.3968
90926871|NCT04084574|181730300|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.5||0.07926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.44|||t-test, 2 sided||Between group difference from baseline for Standard of Care group minus Behavioral Diet Counseling group.|||0.44|-0.33|0.07926
90964624|NCT03740997|181810309|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|17.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.49|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.11|23.07|||Paired t-test|||Reader 1: Difference Between Non-contrast and OPTISON Dose Level 1||23.07|11.11|<0.0001
90926872|NCT04084574|181730302|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|11.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|59.3||0.0673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.2|58.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||58.6|-34.2|0.0673
90964625|NCT03740997|181810309|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|19.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.5||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.28|25.3|||Paired t-test|||Reader 1: Difference Between Non-contrast and OPTISON Dose Level 2||25.30|13.28|0.0002
90964626|NCT03740997|181810309|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|18.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.68|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.47|23.57|||Paired t-test|||Reader 1: Difference Between Non-contrast and OPTISON Dose Level 2||23.57|13.47|<0.0001
90926873|NCT04084574|181730303|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|189.3||0.8821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-157.8|136.4|||t-test, 2 sided||Between group difference from baseline for Standard of Care group minus Behavioral Diet Counseling group.|||136.4|-157.8|0.8821
90964627|NCT03740997|181810309|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|19.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.06|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.62|23.05|||Paired t-test|||Reader 2: Difference Between Non-contrast and OPTISON Dose Level 1||23.05|16.62|<0.0001
90964628|NCT03740997|181810309|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|20.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.38|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.16|26.03|||Paired t-test|||Reader 2: Difference Between Non-contrast and OPTISON Dose Level 1||26.03|14.16|<0.0001
90964629|NCT03740997|181810309|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|22.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.77|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.44|24.56|||Paired t-test|||Reader 2: Difference Between Non-contrast and OPTISON Dose Level 2||24.56|19.44|<0.0001
90926874|NCT04084574|181730304|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.3||0.6479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|3.1|||t-test, 2 sided||Between group difference from baseline for Standard of Care group minus Behavioral Diet Counseling group.|||3.1|-2.0|0.6479
90926875|NCT04084574|181730305|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|7.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|21.8||0.4044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|24.0|||t-test, 2 sided||Between group difference in mean blood pressure change from baseline for Behavioral Diet Counseling group minus Standard of Care group.|||24.0|-10.0|0.4044
90926876|NCT04084574|181730306|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.34|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.91||0.2374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|3.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.60|-0.97|0.2374
90964630|NCT03740997|181810309|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|21.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.34|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.45|26.99|||Paired t-test|||Reader 2: Difference Between Non-contrast and OPTISON Dose Level 2||26.99|15.45|<0.0001
90964631|NCT03740997|181810309|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|11.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.35||0.0268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|21.64|||Paired t-test|||Reader 3: Difference Between Non-contrast and OPTISON Dose Level 1||21.64|2.02|0.0268
90964632|NCT03740997|181810309|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|16.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.45|22.82|||Paired t-test|||Reader 3: Difference Between Non-contrast and OPTISON Dose Level 1||22.82|9.45|<0.0001
90964633|NCT03740997|181810309|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|12.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.59||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.04|18.24|||Paired t-test|||Reader 3: Difference Between Non-contrast and OPTISON Dose Level 2||18.24|6.04|0.0028
90964634|NCT03740997|181810309|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|15.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.37|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.04|21.61|||Paired t-test|||Reader 3: Difference Between Non-contrast and OPTISON Dose Level 2||21.61|10.04|<0.0001
90964635|NCT04178967|181810348|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.9||||4e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.2|29.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||29.6|14.2|0.000004
90964636|NCT04178967|181810349|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|33.3|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.4|42.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||42.2|24.4|<0.000001
90964637|NCT04178967|181810350|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.7||||0.308463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.7|-0.3|0.308463
91035165|NCT03086460|181956473|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.016|0.095|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.095|-0.016|0.165
91035166|NCT03086460|181956473|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.078||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.024|0.132|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.132|0.024|0.005
90964638|NCT04178967|181810351|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.1||||0.001607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|12.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||12.0|4.1|0.001607
90964639|NCT04178967|181810352|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.9||||4e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.2|29.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||29.6|14.2|0.000004
90964640|NCT04178967|181810353|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.7||||8e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.3|28.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||28.1|13.3|0.000008
90964641|NCT04178967|181810354|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.53|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.9|-20.2|||ANCOVA|||||-20.2|-34.9|<0.000001
90964642|NCT04178967|181810355|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|28.3|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.0|36.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||36.5|20.0|<0.000001
90964643|NCT04178967|181810356|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|29.7|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.0|38.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||38.4|21.0|<0.000001
90964644|NCT04178967|181810357|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-33.57|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.2|-26.0|||ANCOVA|||||-26.0|-41.2|<0.000001
90964645|NCT04178967|181810358|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.2|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.3|-12.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-12.0|-20.3|<0.000001
90964646|NCT04178967|181810359|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.9||||0.022921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|8.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||8.4|1.4|0.022921
90964647|NCT04178967|181810360|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.9|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|-3.5|||ANCOVA|||||-3.5|-6.3|<0.000001
90964648|NCT04178967|181810361|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|32.9||||1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.2|43.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||43.6|22.2|0.000001
90964649|NCT04178967|181810362|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|33.0||||1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.2|43.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||43.8|22.2|0.000001
90964650|NCT04178967|181810363|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-37.09|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.4|-26.8|||ANCOVA|||||-26.8|-47.4|<0.000001
90964651|NCT04178967|181810364|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.5|||ANCOVA|||||-0.5|-0.9|<0.000001
90964652|NCT04178967|181810365|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.9||||0.000571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.6|28.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||28.1|9.6|0.000571
90964653|NCT04178967|181810366|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.4||||0.469221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.2|-0.4|0.469221
90964654|NCT04178967|181810367|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.7||||0.113194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|5.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.4|-0.1|0.113194
90964655|NCT04178967|181810368|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.2||||0.00023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|18.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||18.7|7.7|0.000230
90964656|NCT04178967|181810369|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.4||||0.46816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.3|-0.4|0.468160
90964657|NCT04178967|181810370|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.9||||0.11577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|5.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.8|-0.1|0.115770
90964658|NCT04178967|181810371|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.2||||0.000252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.2|20.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||20.1|8.2|0.000252
90964659|NCT04178967|181810372|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-30.76|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.93|-24.59|||ANCOVA|||||-24.59|-36.93|<0.000001
90964660|NCT04178967|181810374|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.8||||0.238245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|35.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||35.1|-9.5|0.238245
90964661|NCT04178967|181810374|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.8||||0.612427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|27.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||27.3|-17.8|0.612427
91035167|NCT03086460|181956473|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.101|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.049|0.153|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.153|0.049|<0.001
91035168|NCT03086460|181956473|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.039||||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.019|0.097|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.097|-0.019|0.187
91035169|NCT03086460|181956473|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.062||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.007|0.116|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.116|0.007|0.028
90886951|NCT01248884|181636578|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority in terms of immune response to diphteria antigens was demonstrated if the upper limit of the 97.5% confidence interval (CI) on the group difference (Infanrix hexa Group minus GSK2177744 Group 2) in the percentage of seroprotected subject was below or equal to 10%.|Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.25|2.27||||||||2.27|-2.25|
90886952|NCT01248884|181636578|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority in terms of immune response to tetanus antigens was demonstrated if the upper limit of the 97.5% confidence interval (CI) on the group difference (Infanrix hexa Group minus GSK2177744 Group 2) in the percentage of seroprotected subject was below or equal to 10%.|Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.25|2.27||||||||2.27|-2.25|
90886953|NCT01248884|181636580|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority in terms of immune response to pertussis antigen (anti-PT) was demonstrated if the upper limit of the 97.5% confidence interval (CI) on the GMC ratio (Infanrix hexa Group divided by GSK2177744 Group 1) was below or equal to 1.5.|GMC ratio|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.11|1.44||||||||1.44|1.11|
90886954|NCT01248884|181636580|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority in terms of immune response to pertussis antigen (anti-PRN) was demonstrated if the upper limit of the 97.5% confidence interval (CI) on the GMC ratio (Infanrix hexa Group divided by GSK2177744 Group 1) was below or equal to 1.5.|GMC ratio|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.14|1.54||||||||1.54|1.14|
90886955|NCT01248884|181636580|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority in terms of immune response to pertussis antigen (anti-PT) was demonstrated if the upper limit of the 97.5% confidence interval (CI) on the GMC ratio (Infanrix hexa Group divided by GSK2177744 Group 2) was below or equal to 1.5.|GMC ratio|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.1|1.43||||||||1.43|1.1|
90886956|NCT01248884|181636580|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority in terms of immune response to pertussis antigen (anti-PRN) was demonstrated if the upper limit of the 97.5% confidence interval (CI) on the GMC ratio (Infanrix hexa Group divided by GSK2177744 Group 2) was below or equal to 1.5.|GMC ratio|1.58|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.37|1.84||||||||1.84|1.37|
90886957|NCT01248884|181636581|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority in terms of immune response to PRP antigens was demonstrated if the upper limit of the 97.5 confidence interval (CI) on the group difference (Infanrix hexa Group minus GSK217744 Group 1) in the percentage of seroprotected subjects was below or equal to 10%.|Difference in percentage|-3.52|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-10.19|3.0||||||||3|-10.19|
90886958|NCT01248884|181636581|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority in terms of immune response to PRP antigens was demonstrated if the upper limit of the 97.5 confidence interval (CI) on the group difference (Infanrix hexa Group minus GSK217744 Group 2) in the percentage of seroprotected subjects was below or equal to 10%.|Difference in percentage|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-6.53|7.7||||||||7.7|-6.53|
90886959|NCT01248884|181636582|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority in terms of immune response to hepatitis B (HBs) antigens was demonstrated if the upper limit of the 97.5 confidence interval (CI) on the group difference (Infanrix hexa minus GSK217744 Group 1) in the percentage of seroprotected subjects was below or equal to 10%.|Difference in percentage|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.27|4.63||||||Immune response non-inferiority - anti-HBs (ELISA)||4.63|-3.27|
90886960|NCT01248884|181636582|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority in terms of immune response to hepatitis B (HBs) antigens was demonstrated if the upper limit of the 97.5 confidence interval (CI) on the group difference (Infanrix hexa minus GSK217744 Group 2) in the percentage of seroprotected subjects was below or equal to 10%.|Difference in percentage|-0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-4.57|2.36||||||Immune response non-inferiority - anti-HBs (ELISA)||2.36|-4.57|
90964662|NCT04178967|181810375|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|32.6||||0.033876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|62.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||62.5|2.6|0.033876
90964663|NCT04178967|181810375|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.4||||0.407417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|44.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||44.3|-17.5|0.407417
90964664|NCT04178967|181810376|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.3||||0.159281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|52.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||52.0|-11.4|0.159281
90964665|NCT04178967|181810376|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.4||||0.16495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|51.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||51.4|-10.6|0.164950
90964666|NCT04178967|181810377|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|19.7||||0.179704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|51.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||51.2|-12.2|0.179704
90964667|NCT04178967|181810377|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|24.3||||0.08308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|55.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||55.1|-6.5|0.083080
90964668|NCT04178967|181810378|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.29||||0.176748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.46|2.87|||ANCOVA|||||2.87|-15.46|0.176748
90964669|NCT04178967|181810378|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.25||||0.183151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.48|2.99|||ANCOVA|||||2.99|-15.48|0.183151
91035170|NCT03086460|181956473|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.023||||0.406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.031|0.076|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.076|-0.031|0.406
91035171|NCT03086460|181956474|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.173|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.116|0.23|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~This secondary efficacy variable was analyzed using the ANCOVA model that was also used for the primary efficacy analysis, without adjusting for multiplicity."||0.230|0.116|<0.001
91035172|NCT03086460|181956474|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.203|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.146|0.26|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.260|0.146|<0.001
90964670|NCT04178967|181810379|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.1|||ANCOVA|||UK||0.1|0.1|0.000001
90964671|NCT04178967|181810379|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.1|||ANCOVA|||US||0.1|0.0|0.000001
91035173|NCT03086460|181956474|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.223|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.166|0.28|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.280|0.166|<0.001
91035174|NCT03086460|181956474|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.216|0.325|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.325|0.216|<0.001
91035175|NCT03086460|181956474|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.241|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.187|0.295|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment F ( Perforomist® IS 40 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.295|0.187|<0.001
90964672|NCT04178967|181810380|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.5||||0.005304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|7.6|||ANCOVA|||||7.6|1.3|0.005304
90964673|NCT04178967|181810381|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.0|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|-4.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.3|-7.7|<0.000001
90964674|NCT04178967|181810382|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.91||||0.241275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.85|2.03|||ANCOVA|||||2.03|-7.85|0.241275
90964675|NCT04178967|181810383|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.74||||0.000116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.12|-1.36|||ANCOVA|||||-1.36|-4.12|0.000116
90964676|NCT04178967|181810384|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.645132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.86|3.67|||ANCOVA|||||3.67|-5.86|0.645132
90964677|NCT04178967|181810385|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.75||||3.1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.03|-1.47|||ANCOVA|||||-1.47|-4.03|0.000031
90964678|NCT04178967|181810386|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.974417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.26|||ANCOVA|||||0.26|-0.27|0.974417
90964679|NCT04178967|181810387|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.2||||0.084769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.6|-9.1|0.084769
90964680|NCT00628251|181810402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.6604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.56||If the observed p-value for the combined olaparib groups is \<0.02 (1-sided) then the result will be regarded as statistically significant.|Regression, Cox|Cox proportional hazards model with factors for treatment, BRCA (1 or 2) and platinum sensitivity (sensitive=1 or resistant/refractory=0).||Analysis of olaparib 200 or 400 mg bd (n=64) versus liposomal doxorubicin (n=33). A hazard ratio \< 1 favours olaparib.||1.56|0.51|0.6604
90964681|NCT00628251|181810402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.7794||95.0|0.48|1.74||An observed p-value of \<0.005 (1-sided) will be regarded as statistically significant for a given pairwise comparison.|Regression, Cox|Cox proportional hazards model with factors for treatment, BRCA (1 or 2) and platinum sensitivity (sensitive=1 or resistant/refractory=0).||Analysis of olaparib 200 (n=32) versus liposomal doxorubicin (n=33). A hazard ratio \< 1 favours olaparib.||1.74|0.48|0.7794
90964682|NCT00628251|181810402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.6604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.62||An observed p-value of \<0.005 (1-sided) will be regarded as statistically significant for a given pairwise comparison.|Regression, Cox|Cox proportional hazards model with factors for treatment, BRCA (1 or 2) and platinum sensitivity (sensitive=1 or resistant/refractory=0).||Analysis of olaparib 400 (n=32) versus liposomal doxorubicin (n=33). A hazard ratio \< 1 favours olaparib.||1.62|0.45|0.6604
90964683|NCT00628251|181810403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.27||||0.1291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|7.32||2-sided p-value|Regression, Logistic|Analysis was performed using logistic regression with factors for treatment, BRCA status and platinum sensitivity.|An odds ratio \>1 favoured olaparib|Analysis of olaparib 200 or 400 (n=64) versus liposomal doxorubicin (n=33).||7.32|0.79|0.1291
91035176|NCT03086460|181956474|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.028|0.089|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.089|-0.028|0.308
90964684|NCT00628251|181810403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.3131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|7.01||2-sided p-value|Regression, Logistic|Analysis was performed using logistic regression with factors for treatment, BRCA status and platinum sensitivity.|An odds ratio \>1 favoured olaparib.|Analysis of olaparib 200 (n=32) versus liposomal doxorubicin (n=33).||7.01|0.55|0.3131
90964685|NCT00628251|181810403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.69||||0.1079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|9.76|||Regression, Logistic|The analysis was performed using logistic regression with factors for treatment, BRCA status and platinum sensitivity.|An odds ratio \>1 favoured olaparib|Analysis of olaparib 400 (n=32) versus liposomal doxorubicin (n=33).||9.76|0.81|0.1079
90964686|NCT00628251|181810409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.5781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.7||2-sided p-value|Regression, Cox|Analysis was performed using a Cox proportional hazards model with factors for treatment, BRCA status and platinum sensitivity.|A hazard ratio of \<1 favoured olaparib.|Analysis of olaparib 200 or 400 (n=64) versus liposomal doxorubicin (n=33).||1.70|0.41|0.5781
90964687|NCT00628251|181810409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.3417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.55||2-sided p-value|Regression, Cox|Analysis was performed using a Cox proportional hazards model with factors for treatment, BRCA status and platinum sensitivity.|A hazard ratio of \<1 favoured olaparib.|Analysis of olaparib 200 (n=32) versus liposomal doxorubicin (n=33).||1.55|0.27|0.3417
90964688|NCT00628251|181810409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.9877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|2.27||2-sided p-value|Regression, Cox|Analysis was performed using a Cox proportional hazards model with factors for treatment, BRCA status and platinum sensitivity.|A hazard ratio of \<1 favoured olaparib.|Analysis of olaparib 400 (n=32) versus liposomal doxorubicin (n=33).||2.27|0.44|0.9877
90964689|NCT01368042|181810486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|32.9||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test-paired samples||n=234 (paired samples)|||||0.03
90964690|NCT01368042|181810487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|57.2||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test-paired samples||n=231 (paired samples)|||||0.05
90964691|NCT01368042|181810488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|56.4||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test-paired samples||n=231 (paired samples)|||||0.003
91035177|NCT03086460|181956474|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.006|0.107|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.107|-0.006|0.082
90886961|NCT01248884|181636582|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority in terms of immune response to hepatitis B (HBs) antigens was demonstrated if the upper limit of the 97.5 confidence interval (CI) on the group difference (Infanrix hexa minus GSK217744 Group 1) in the percentage of seroprotected subjects was below or equal to 10%.|Difference in percentage|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-4.62|3.8||||||Immune response non-inferiority - anti-HBs (CLIA)||3.8|-4.62|
90964692|NCT01368042|181810489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|30.5|<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test-paired samples||n=235 (paired samples)|||||<0.001
90964693|NCT01368042|181810490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|27.2|<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test-paired samples||n=235 (paired samples)|||||<0.001
90964694|NCT01368042|181810491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|35.3|<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test-paired samples||n=235 (paired samples)|||||<0.001
90964695|NCT01368042|181810492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|34.8|<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test-paired samples||n=234 (paired samples)|||||<0.001
90964696|NCT01368042|181810493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|20.9||0.38|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test-paired samples||n=235 (paired samples)|||||0.38
90964697|NCT01368042|181810494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|32.0|<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test-paired samples||n=235 (paired samples)|||||<0.001
90964698|NCT01368042|181810495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Generalized Estimating Equation approach|Generalized Estimating Equation approach (autoregressive structure)||Physical functioning scale||||0.03
90964699|NCT01368042|181810495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Generalized Estimating Equation approach|Generalized Estimating Equation approach (autoregressive structure)||Role functioning due to physical health scale||||0.02
90964700|NCT01368042|181810495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Generalized Estimating Equation approach|Generalized Estimating Equation approach (autoregressive structure)||Role functioning due to emotional problems scale||||0.01
90964701|NCT01368042|181810495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Generalized Estimating Equation approach|Generalized Estimating Equation approach (autoregressive structure)||Energy/fatigue scale||||<0.001
90964702|NCT01368042|181810495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Generalized Estimating Equation approach|Generalized Estimating Equation approach (autoregressive structure)||Emotional well-being scale||||0.002
90964703|NCT01368042|181810495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Generalized Estimating Equation approach|Generalized Estimating Equation approach (autoregressive structure)||Social functioning scale||||0.002
90964704|NCT01368042|181810495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Generalized Estimating Equation approach|Generalized Estimating Equation approach (autoregressive structure)||Bodily pain scale||||<0.001
91035178|NCT03086460|181956474|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.097|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.043|0.152|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.152|0.043|<0.001
90886962|NCT01248884|181636582|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority in terms of immune response to hepatitis B (HBs) antigens was demonstrated if the upper limit of the 97.5 confidence interval (CI) on the group difference (Infanrix hexa minus GSK217744 Group 2) in the percentage of seroprotected subjects was below or equal to 10%.|Difference in percentage|-0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-5.07|3.02||||||Immune response non-inferiority - anti-HBs (CLIA)||3.02|-5.07|
91035179|NCT03086460|181956474|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.041|0.08|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.080|-0.041|0.520
90886963|NCT00833924|181636612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate of 30-day freedom from MAE|99.2|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|95.4|100.0|||Exact binomial test|||Null hypothesis: The 30-day Freedom from MAE for patients treated with the Zenith® Low Profile AAA Endovascular Graft does not meet the performance goal (88%).||100|95.4|<0.01
90886964|NCT00833924|181636613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||12-month Device Success Rate|97.3|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|92.4|99.4|||Exact binomial test|||Null hypothesis: The 12-month device success for patients treated with the Zenith® Low Profile AAA Endovascular Graft does not meet the performance goal (84%).||99.4|92.4|<0.01
90886965|NCT01144338|181636676|SUPERIORITY|Superiority test of EQW over Placebo H0: HR ≥ 1 vs. H1: HR \< 1|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.832|1.004|||Regression, Cox|||||1.004|0.832|0.061
90886966|NCT01144338|181636677|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority test of EQW over Placebo H0: HR ≥ 1.3 vs. H1: HR \< 1.3|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.832|1.004|||Regression, Cox|||This analysis uses the same endpoint and cox regression method as the primary efficacy analysis. However, the statistical hypothesis is a non-inferiority test with a margin of HR=1.3.||1.004|0.832|< 0.001
90886967|NCT01144338|181636678|SUPERIORITY|Superiority test of EQW over Placebo H0: HR ≥ 1 vs. H1: HR \< 1|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.97|||Regression, Cox|||||0.97|0.77|0.016
90886968|NCT01144338|181636679|SUPERIORITY|Superiority test of EQW over Placebo H0: HR ≥ 1 vs. H1: HR \< 1|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.02|||Regression, Cox|||||1.02|0.76|0.096
90926877|NCT04084574|181730307|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.69|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.62||0.6188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.71|8.33|||t-test, 2 sided||Between group difference from 12 weeks to 24 weeks for Behavioral Diet Counseling group minus Standard of Care group.|||8.33|-13.71|0.6188
90926878|NCT04084574|181730308|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.39|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.79||0.0546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.82|0.03|||t-test, 2 sided||Between group difference from 12 weeks to 24 weeks for Behavioral Diet Counseling group minus Standard of Care group.|||0.03|-2.82|0.0546
90926879|NCT04084574|181730309|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.2||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.98|||t-test, 2 sided||Between group difference from 12 weeks to 24 weeks for Behavioral Diet Counseling group minus Standard of Care group.|||0.98|-0.98|1.00
90926880|NCT04084574|181730310|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.5||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|1.49|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.49|-0.89|1.00
90926881|NCT01223352|181730378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of geometric means|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.2||No statistical test of hypothesis was set for this study. The analysis of PK data was carried out descriptively|||b.i.d. bosentan regimen was taken as reference|||1.20|0.61|
90926882|NCT01223352|181730379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of geometric means|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.05||No statistical hypothesis tests were set for this study. The analysis of PK data was carried out descriptively.|||b.i.d. bosentan regimen was taken as reference|||1.05|0.48|
90926883|NCT04173247|181730421|OTHER|A t-test with 180 degrees of freedom to compare the mean DLQI score over the 6 weeks in arm1 to the mean DLQI score over six weeks in arm2.||||||0.28|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.28
90926884|NCT04214834|181730433|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|4.29|||Mixed Models Analysis||Given that the model was on the log scale, mean difference and 95% confidence interval were derived from 1,000 bootstrap resamples.|A logarithmic transformation was applied to the outcome, centers were added as random effects to account for variation between them.||4.29|1.70|<0.001
90926885|NCT06097494|181730437|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.15|||||Calculated as the odds of a person diagnosed with vitiligo having with depression versus people not diagnosed with vitiligo|||1.15|1.01|
90926886|NCT06097494|181730438|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.3|||||Calculated as the odds of people diagnosed with vitiligo having anxiety compared to people not diagnosed with vitilligo.|||1.30|1.09|
90926887|NCT06097494|181730439|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.17|||||Calculated as the odds of people diagnosed with vitiligo having anxiety or depression compared to people not diagnosed with vitilligo.|||1.17|1.03|
90926888|NCT06097494|181730440|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate ratio|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|1.32|||||Adjusted incident rate ratio for increased primary care use was calculated by comparing patients with vitiligo versus matched controls not having vitiligo,using negative binomial regression.|||1.32|1.26|
90926889|NCT06097494|181730442|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.2|||||Hazard ratios for mental health referrals was calculated using Cox proportional hazards regression model and reflect a comparison of the incidence rates between people diagnosed with vitiligo and people not diagnosed with vitiligo.|||1.20|0.93|
90926890|NCT06097494|181730443|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.15|||||Hazard ratios for unemployment was calculated using Cox proportional hazards regression model and reflect a comparison of the incidence rates between people diagnosed with vitiligo and people not diagnosed with vitiligo.|||1.15|0.76|
90926891|NCT06097494|181730444|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.24|||||Hazard ratios for time off work was calculated using Cox proportional hazards regression model and reflect a comparison of the incidence rates between people diagnosed with vitiligo and people not diagnosed with vitiligo.|||1.24|1.06|
91035180|NCT03086460|181956474|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.067||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.124|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.124|0.010|0.022
90886969|NCT01144338|181636680|SUPERIORITY|Superiority test of EQW over Placebo H0: HR ≥ 1 vs. H1: HR \< 1|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.1|||Regression, Cox|||||1.10|0.85|0.622
90964705|NCT01368042|181810495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.56|||||||Generalized Estimating Equation approach|Generalized Estimating Equation approach (autoregressive structure)||General health perceptions scale||||0.56
90964706|NCT01368042|181810496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|41.6||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test-paired samples||n=235 (paired samples)|||||0.001
90964707|NCT01368042|181810497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.4||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test-paired samples||n=235 (paired samples)|||||0.03
90964708|NCT01368042|181810498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.9||0.06|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test-paired samples||n=235 (paired samples)|||||0.06
90886970|NCT01144338|181636681|SUPERIORITY|Superiority test of EQW over Placebo H0: HR ≥ 1 vs. H1: HR \< 1|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.03|||Regression, Cox|||||1.03|0.70|0.095
90886971|NCT01144338|181636682|SUPERIORITY|Superiority test of EQW over Placebo H0: HR ≥ 1 vs. H1: HR \< 1|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.18|||Regression, Cox|||||1.18|0.94|0.402
90886972|NCT01144338|181636683|SUPERIORITY|Superiority test of EQW over Placebo H0: HR ≥ 1 vs. H1: HR \< 1|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.13|||Regression, Cox|||||1.13|0.78|0.485
90886973|NCT02059148|181636693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LSMeans|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.11|1.38||||||||1.38|1.11|
90886974|NCT02059148|181636694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LSMeans|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.05|1.23||||||||1.23|1.05|
90886975|NCT02059148|181636695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.95||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|2.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||2.00|1.00|0.0006
90886976|NCT01243944|181636703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|32.67|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.04|1337.0|||Exact Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1337|5.04|< 0.0001
90886977|NCT01243944|181636704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|28.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.24|1144.0|||Exact Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1144|4.24|<0.0001
90886978|NCT01243944|181636705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.57||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|9.06|||Exact Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was calculated using stratified exact Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test by adjusting for the WBC/platelet status (abnormal vs normal) at baseline.||||9.06|1.50|0.0016
90886979|NCT03029208|181636725|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be established if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference was greater than the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of -0.75 g/dL.|Least square (LS) mean difference|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.14|||||An ANCOVA model including randomization stratification factors Baseline Hgb and treatment was performed to obtain a point estimate and two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference (daprodustat-darbepoetin alfa).|||0.14|-0.34|
90886980|NCT03029208|181636726|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|19.4||||0.8949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|49.9|||ANCOVA||An ANCOVA model was used to compare the difference in this average monthly IV iron dose between arms, including factors for Baseline dose, treatment and the randomization stratification factors.|||49.9|-11.0|0.8949
90886981|NCT03029208|181636727|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.23||||0.8168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.82|10.27|||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)||The difference in change from Baseline in SBP at Week 52 was analyzed with a MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms.|||10.27|-3.82|0.8168
90886982|NCT03029208|181636727|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|4.21||||0.9793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|8.26|||MMRM||The difference in change from Baseline in DBP at Week 52 was analyzed with a MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms.|||8.26|0.17|0.9793
90886983|NCT03029208|181636727|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|4.1||||0.9597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|8.7|||MMRM||The difference in change from Baseline in MAP at Week 52 was analyzed with a MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms.|||8.70|-0.51|0.9597
90886984|NCT03029208|181636728|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.09||||0.484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.72|4.53|||ANCOVA||The difference in change from Baseline in SBP at the derived end of treatment was analyzed with an ANCOVA model including terms for treatment, prognostic randomization stratification factors.|||4.53|-4.72|0.4840
90886985|NCT03029208|181636728|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.99||||0.9156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|4.82|||ANCOVA||The difference in change from Baseline in DBP at the derived end of treatment was analyzed with an ANCOVA model including terms for treatment, prognostic randomization stratification factors.|||4.82|-0.85|0.9156
90964709|NCT01368042|181810499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.7||0.84|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test-paired samples||n=234 (paired samples)|||||0.84
90964710|NCT01368042|181810500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.5||0.67|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test-paired samples||n=234 (paired samples)|||||0.67
90964711|NCT01368042|181810501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|324.8||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test-paired samples||n= 215 (paired samples)|||||0.02
90964712|NCT01368042|181810502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||Generalized Estimating Equation approach|Generalized Estimating Equation approach (autoregressive structure)||||||0.12
90964713|NCT01621542|181810504|OTHER|None specified||||||||||||||||The MTD could not be established for this study as no DLTs occurred at doses up to and including 27.0 mg|The MTD could not be established for this study as no DLTs occurred at doses up to and including 27.0 mg|||
90964714|NCT02632721|181810521|OTHER||Probability of DLT rate in [0.16, 0.33)|0.081|||||||||||||Posterior probability of the DLT rate lying in the interval \[0.16, 0.33) (target dosing) is reported.|Bayesian logistic regression model (BLRM) with overdose control was used to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), defined as highest dose with less than 25% risk of the true DLT rate being equal to or above 33%.||||
90886986|NCT03029208|181636728|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.29||||0.7966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|4.33|||ANCOVA||The difference in change from Baseline in MAP at the derived end of treatment was analyzed with an ANCOVA model including terms for treatment, prognostic randomization stratification factors.|||4.33|-1.76|0.7966
90886987|NCT03029208|181636729|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of exacerbation rate|1.01||||0.5174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.39|||Negative binomial model||Model estimated exacerbation rates, ratio of model estimated exacerbation rates and CIs were estimated using a negative binomial model for the treatment group comparison.|||1.39|0.73|0.5174
90886988|NCT03029208|181636731|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be established if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference was greater than the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of -0.75 g/dL.|LS mean difference|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.36|||||The difference in change from Baseline in post-randomization Hgb at Week 52 was analyzed with a MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms.|||0.36|-0.29|
90886989|NCT03029208|181636732|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rate|-0.8||||0.5411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|10.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for treatment and randomization stratification factors were used to compare the number of responders between the treatment groups.|||10.7|-12.2|0.5411
90886990|NCT03029208|181636733|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be established if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the treatment difference was greater than non-inferiority margin of -15%.|Median Difference (Final Values)|2.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.45|11.27|||||Hodges-Lehmann Estimate of Treatment Difference has been reported.|||11.27|-4.45|
90886991|NCT03029208|181636734|SUPERIORITY||Probability|0.54||||0.1538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.61|||van Elteren test||Mann-Whitney estimate (Probability) of the treatment effect has been presented.|||0.61|0.46|0.1538
90886992|NCT03029208|181636735|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.5348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|3.66|||Wald test||Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model adjusted for treatment group, dialysis type and dialysis start manner.|||3.66|0.31|0.5348
90886993|NCT03029208|181636736|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.39||||0.6641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|1.44|||MMRM||SF-36 HRQoL PCS domain score was analyzed using an MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms at Week 8.|||1.44|-2.22|0.6641
90886994|NCT03029208|181636736|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.13||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|2.89|||MMRM||SF-36 HRQoL PCS domain score was analyzed using an MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms at Week 12.|||2.89|-0.63|0.1030
90886995|NCT03029208|181636736|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.49||||0.3157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|2.48|||MMRM||SF-36 HRQoL PCS domain score was analyzed using an MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms at Week 28.|||2.48|-1.51|0.3157
90886996|NCT03029208|181636736|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.31||||0.8855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.46|0.84|||MMRM||SF-36 HRQoL PCS domain score was analyzed using an MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms at Week 52.|||0.84|-3.46|0.8855
90886997|NCT03029208|181636737|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.67||||0.7146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.99|1.66|||MMRM||SF-36 HRQoL MCS domain score was analyzed using an MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms at Week 8.|||1.66|-2.99|0.7146
90926892|NCT06097494|181730445|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.31|||||Hazard ratios for sleep disturbance was calculated using Cox proportional hazards regression model and reflect a comparison of the incidence rates between people diagnosed with vitiligo and people not diagnosed with vitiligo.|||1.31|1.02|
90926893|NCT05683158|181730446|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA||Mean difference between two groups of movement unit in forward direction|To determine the sample size, the G\*Power software was utilized, incorporating an effect size (d) of 1.9, alpha level of 0.05, and power of 0.8. A sample size of six individuals per group was considered sufficient to achieve adequate statistical power, which are α ≤ 0.05, power = 0.8, and β = 0.2.||||<.001
90926894|NCT05683158|181730446|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA||Statistics difference among forward, ipsilateral and contralateral directions in within group|To determine the sample size, the G\*Power software was utilized, incorporating an effect size (d) of 1.9, alpha level of 0.05, and power of 0.8. A sample size of six individuals per group was considered sufficient to achieve adequate statistical power, which are α ≤ 0.05, power = 0.8, and β = 0.2.||||<.001
90926895|NCT04109066|181730460|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.05||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|3.27|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||"Stratified by PD-L1 by SP142 (\< 1% vs. \>= 1%), AC Dose-Frequency Chemotherapy Regimen (Q2W vs. Q3W) per IRT.~Strata adjusted odds ratio (Arm A over Arm B) using Mantel-Haenszel method."|Arm A over Arm B||3.27|1.29|0.0021
90886998|NCT03029208|181636737|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.53||||0.905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.82|0.76|||MMRM||SF-36 HRQoL MCS domain score was analyzed using an MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms at Week 12.|||0.76|-3.82|0.9050
90886999|NCT03029208|181636737|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.32||||0.595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.91|2.28|||MMRM||SF-36 HRQoL MCS domain score was analyzed using an MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms at Week 28.|||2.28|-2.91|0.5950
90964715|NCT02632721|181810521|OTHER||Probability of DLT rate in [0.33, 1)|0.0|||||||||||||Posterior probability of the DLT rate lying in the interval \[0.33,1) (overdosing) is reported.|Bayesian logistic regression model (BLRM) with overdose control was used to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), defined as highest dose with less than 25% risk of the true DLT rate being equal to or above 33%.||||
90964716|NCT02632721|181810521|OTHER||Probability of DLT rate in [0.16, 0.33)|0.028|||||||||||||Posterior probability of the DLT rate lying in the interval \[0.16, 0.33) (target dosing) is reported.|Bayesian logistic regression model (BLRM) with overdose control was used to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), defined as highest dose with less than 25% risk of the true DLT rate being equal to or above 33%.||||
90964717|NCT02632721|181810521|OTHER||Posterior probability of the DLT rate ly|0.0|||||||||||||Posterior probability of the DLT rate lying in the interval \[0.33,1) (overdosing) is reported.|Bayesian logistic regression model (BLRM) with overdose control was used to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), defined as highest dose with less than 25% risk of the true DLT rate being equal to or above 33%.||||
90964718|NCT02632721|181810521|OTHER||Probability of DLT rate in [0.16, 0.33)|0.012|||||||||||||Posterior probability of the DLT rate lying in the interval \[0.16, 0.33) (target dosing) is reported.|Bayesian logistic regression model (BLRM) with overdose control was used to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), defined as highest dose with less than 25% risk of the true DLT rate being equal to or above 33%.||||
91035181|NCT03086460|181956474|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.047||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.009|0.103|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.103|-0.009|0.098
91035182|NCT03086460|181956474|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.153|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.095|0.21|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.210|0.095|<0.001
90964719|NCT02632721|181810521|OTHER||Probability of DLT rate in [0.33, 1)|0.0|||||||||||||Posterior probability of the DLT rate lying in the interval \[0.33,1) (overdosing) is reported.|Bayesian logistic regression model (BLRM) with overdose control was used to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), defined as highest dose with less than 25% risk of the true DLT rate being equal to or above 33%.||||
90964720|NCT04207801|181810531|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Fisher Exact|||Efficacy of AUR101 was tested against placebo with respect to the primary endpoint (PASI75 response). A sample size of 25 in each of the three arms provided an 80% power with a one-sided Type I error of 0.05, if the true placebo response rate was 7% and the response rate on investigational arm(s) was 35%. The sample size was increased to 30 to account for \~ 15-20% dropouts over the study period.||||0.01
90964721|NCT02663271|181810542|SUPERIORITY|We used one-sample log rank test to compare to historical control.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.001
90964722|NCT01572675|181810552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||p-student|||Group comparison (Arcoxia® \[Initiation\] vs Arcoxia® \[Renewal\]) for duration of prescription at enrollment||||<0.001
91035183|NCT03086460|181956474|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.131|0.249|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.249|0.131|<0.001
90887000|NCT03029208|181636737|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.23||||0.5619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.17|2.7|||MMRM||SF-36 HRQoL MCS domain score was analyzed using an MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms at Week 52.|||2.70|-3.17|0.5619
90887001|NCT03029208|181636738|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.14||||0.4523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|2.49|||MMRM||SF-36 HRQoL bodily pain domain score was analyzed using an MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms at Week 8.|||2.49|-2.21|0.4523
90887002|NCT03029208|181636738|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.07||||0.5222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.57|2.43|||MMRM||SF-36 HRQoL bodily pain domain score was analyzed using an MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms at Week 12.|||2.43|-2.57|0.5222
90964723|NCT01572675|181810552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||p-student|||Group comparison (Celebrex® \[Initiation\] vs Celebrex® \[Renewal\]) for duration of prescription at enrollment||||<0.001
90964724|NCT01572675|181810557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||Duration of treatment comparison (More than one year vs Up to thirty days) for intermittent selective COX-2 inhibitor use. The analysis assessed whether long-term treatment was more correlated with intermittent selective COX-2 inhibitor use compared to short-term treatment.||||<0.001
90887003|NCT03029208|181636738|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.33||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|5.02|||MMRM||SF-36 HRQoL bodily pain domain score was analyzed using an MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms at Week 28.|||5.02|-0.35|0.0440
91035184|NCT03086460|181956474|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.113|0.228|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.228|0.113|<0.001
91035185|NCT03086460|181956474|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.217|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.162|0.272|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.272|0.162|<0.001
91035186|NCT03086460|181956474|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.198|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.144|0.252|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment F ( Perforomist® IS 40 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.252|0.144|<0.001
90887004|NCT03029208|181636738|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.61||||0.9523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.68|0.46|||MMRM||SF-36 HRQoL bodily pain domain score was analyzed using an MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms at Week 52.|||0.46|-5.68|0.9523
90887005|NCT03029208|181636738|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.05||||0.4811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|1.91|||MMRM||SF-36 HRQoL general health domain score was analyzed using an MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms at Week 8.|||1.91|-1.82|0.4811
90887006|NCT03029208|181636738|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.28||||0.3834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|2.11|||MMRM||SF-36 HRQoL general health domain score was analyzed using an MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms at Week 12.|||2.11|-1.56|0.3834
90887007|NCT03029208|181636738|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.26||||0.3983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|2.24|||MMRM||SF-36 HRQoL general health domain score was analyzed using an MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms at Week 28.|||2.24|-1.72|0.3983
90887008|NCT03029208|181636738|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.18||||0.5617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|2.15|||MMRM||SF-36 HRQoL general health domain score was analyzed using an MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms at Week 52.|||2.15|-2.51|0.5617
90887009|NCT03029208|181636738|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.15||||0.8336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.48|1.18|||MMRM||SF-36 HRQoL mental health domain score was analyzed using an MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms at Week 8.|||1.18|-3.48|0.8336
90887010|NCT03029208|181636738|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.41||||0.9188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|0.57|||MMRM||SF-36 HRQoL mental health domain score was analyzed using an MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms at Week 12.|||0.57|-3.40|0.9188
90887011|NCT03029208|181636738|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.48||||0.6495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.96|1.99|||MMRM||SF-36 HRQoL mental health domain score was analyzed using an MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms at Week 28.|||1.99|-2.96|0.6495
90887012|NCT03029208|181636738|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.27||||0.5737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|2.56|||MMRM||SF-36 HRQoL mental health domain score was analyzed using an MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms at Week 52.|||2.56|-3.09|0.5737
90887013|NCT03029208|181636738|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.33||||0.3963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|2.82|||MMRM||SF-36 HRQoL role-emotional domain score was analyzed using an MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms at Week 8.|||2.82|-2.15|0.3963
90887014|NCT03029208|181636738|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.62||||0.322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.01|3.25|||MMRM||SF-36 HRQoL role-emotional domain score was analyzed using an MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms at Week 12.|||3.25|-2.01|0.3220
90887015|NCT03029208|181636738|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.53||||0.3485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|3.18|||MMRM||SF-36 HRQoL role-emotional domain score was analyzed using an MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms at Week 28.|||3.18|-2.13|0.3485
90887016|NCT03029208|181636738|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.49||||0.8064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.87|1.9|||MMRM||SF-36 HRQoL role-emotional domain score was analyzed using an MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms at Week 52.|||1.90|-4.87|0.8064
90887017|NCT03029208|181636738|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.29||||0.8687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.57|0.98|||MMRM||SF-36 HRQoL role-physical domain score was analyzed using an MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms at Week 8.|||0.98|-3.57|0.8687
90926896|NCT04109066|181730460|OTHER||Adjusted Difference of pCR Rates|10.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|16.9|||||"Strata adjusted difference in pCR (Arm A-B) based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method of weighting.~Stratified by PD-L1 by SP142 (\< 1% vs. \>= 1%), AC Dose-Frequency Chemotherapy Regimen (Q2W vs. Q3W) per IRT."|||16.9|4.0|
90926897|NCT04109066|181730461|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|6.11|||||Stratified by AC Dose-Frequency. Chemotherapy Regimen (Q2W vs. Q3W) per IRT. Strata adjusted odds ratio (Arm A over Arm B) using Mantel-Haenszel method.|Arm A over Arm B||6.11|1.58|
90926898|NCT04109066|181730461|OTHER||Adjusted Difference of pCR Rates|24.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.7|37.5|||||"Strata adjusted difference in pCR (Arm A-B) based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method of weighting.~Stratified by AC Dose-Frequency Chemotherapy Regimen (Q2W vs. Q3W) per IRT."|||37.5|10.7|
90887018|NCT03029208|181636738|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.71||||0.2435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|2.7|||MMRM||SF-36 HRQoL role-physical domain score was analyzed using an MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms at Week 12.|||2.70|-1.29|0.2435
90887019|NCT03029208|181636738|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.87||||0.7747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.15|1.41|||MMRM||SF-36 HRQoL role-physical domain score was analyzed using an MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms at Week 28.|||1.41|-3.15|0.7747
90940847|NCT01917006|181761574|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.39||||0.861||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline geometric mean IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.861
90926899|NCT02510235|181730520|NON_INFERIORITY|"To declare non-inferiority between treatments, a change in the SANDE overall score of 12 mm was required, with an estimated standard deviation of 13 (approximately 70% of the mean at 28 ± 4 days after treatment).~The left inferior limits of confidence interval were determined and compared with the non-inferiority limit defined in the testing hypothesis.~Testing Hypothesis:~H0: meanHyaluronic - meanLubricin ≤ - 12~/ H1: meanHyaluronic - meanLubricin \> - 12"|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|-8.87||||Student t-test for unpaired data.|||Values at Day 28 ± 4 (end of treatment) for the SANDE overall VAS score were compared between treatment groups using a Student's t-test for unpaired data.|||-8.87|
90926900|NCT02510235|181730522|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.77||||0.8226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.66|6.11|||ANOVA|The analysis of variance included as sources of variability treatment, site and baseline tolerability score||Foreign Body Sensation in the Study Eye was analyzed using a repeated measures ANOVA, which evaluates changes from baseline across all time points in a single analysis. This method provides one overall value for comparison, as it incorporates all time points into a unified analysis. Consequently, the reported value represents the global outcome across time points, consistent with the repeated measures ANOVA methodology.||6.11|-7.66|0.8226
90926901|NCT02510235|181730522|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.16||||0.3178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.13|9.44|||ANOVA|The analysis of variance included as sources of variability treatment, site and baseline tolerability score.||Burning/Stinging in Study eye was analyzed using a repeated measures ANOVA, which evaluates changes from baseline across all time points in a single analysis. This method provides one overall value for comparison, as it incorporates all time points into a unified analysis. Consequently, the reported value represents the global outcome across time points, consistent with the repeated measures ANOVA methodology.||9.44|-3.13|0.3178
90926902|NCT02510235|181730522|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.52||||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.74|11.3|||ANOVA|The analysis of variance included as sources of variability treatment, site and baseline tolerability score.||Itching in Study eye was analyzed using a repeated measures ANOVA, which evaluates changes from baseline across all time points in a single analysis. This method provides one overall value for comparison, as it incorporates all time points into a unified analysis. Consequently, the reported value represents the global outcome across time points, consistent with the repeated measures ANOVA methodology.||11.30|1.74|0.0085
90926903|NCT02510235|181730522|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.41||||0.3124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.31|10.13|||ANOVA|The analysis of variance included as sources of variability treatment, site and baseline tolerability score.||Pain in Study eye was analyzed using a repeated measures ANOVA, which evaluates changes from baseline across all time points in a single analysis. This method provides one overall value for comparison, as it incorporates all time points into a unified analysis. Consequently, the reported value represents the global outcome across time points, consistent with the repeated measures ANOVA methodology.||10.13|-3.31|0.3124
90926904|NCT02510235|181730522|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.76||||0.0377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|13.12|||ANOVA|The analysis of variance included as sources of variability treatment, site and baseline tolerability score.||Sticky feeling in Study eye was analyzed using a repeated measures ANOVA, which evaluates changes from baseline across all time points in a single analysis. This method provides one overall value for comparison, as it incorporates all time points into a unified analysis. Consequently, the reported value represents the global outcome across time points, consistent with the repeated measures ANOVA methodology.||13.12|0.40|0.0377
90926905|NCT02510235|181730522|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1||||0.5321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.62|8.83|||ANOVA|The analysis of variance included as sources of variability treatment, site and baseline tolerability score.||Blurred vision in Study eye was analyzed using a repeated measures ANOVA, which evaluates changes from baseline across all time points in a single analysis. This method provides one overall value for comparison, as it incorporates all time points into a unified analysis. Consequently, the reported value represents the global outcome across time points, consistent with the repeated measures ANOVA methodology.||8.83|-4.62|0.5321
90926906|NCT02510235|181730522|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.32||||0.579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.04|10.68|||ANOVA|The analysis of variance included as sources of variability treatment, site and baseline tolerability score.||Photophobia in Study eye was analyzed using a repeated measures ANOVA, which evaluates changes from baseline across all time points in a single analysis. This method provides one overall value for comparison, as it incorporates all time points into a unified analysis. Consequently, the reported value represents the global outcome across time points, consistent with the repeated measures ANOVA methodology.||10.68|-6.04|0.5790
90926907|NCT02510235|181730522|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.13||||0.3383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.41|49.68|||ANOVA|The analysis of variance included as sources of variability treatment, site and baseline tolerability score.||Total ocular tolerability score in Study eye was analyzed using a repeated measures ANOVA, which evaluates changes from baseline across all time points in a single analysis. This method provides one overall value for comparison, as it incorporates all time points into a unified analysis. Consequently, the reported value represents the global outcome across time points, consistent with the repeated measures ANOVA methodology.||49.68|-17.41|0.3383
90940848|NCT01917006|181761574|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.14||||0.647||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline geometric mean IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.647
90887020|NCT03029208|181636738|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.73||||0.7141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.26|1.81|||MMRM||SF-36 HRQoL role-physical domain score was analyzed using an MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms at Week 52.|||1.81|-3.26|0.7141
90926908|NCT02510235|181730523|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.94||||0.6484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.07|3.19|||ANOVA|The analysis of variance included as sources of variability treatment, site and baseline tolerability score.||Study Eye analytic statistic is presented. The Statistical Analysis section reports results from a repeated measures ANOVA, which analyzes changes from baseline across all time points in a single unified analysis. This approach provides one overall comparison value by incorporating all time points. Consequently, the reported value represents the global outcome, consistently with repeated measures ANOVA methodology.||3.19|-5.07|0.6484
90926909|NCT02510235|181730524|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.7408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.51|||ANOVA|The analysis of variance included as sources of variability treatment, site and baseline tolerability score.||Study Eye analytic statistic is presented. The Statistical Analysis section reports results from a repeated measures ANOVA, which analyzes changes from baseline across all time points in a single unified analysis. This approach provides one overall comparison value by incorporating all time points. Consequently, the reported value represents the global outcome, consistently with repeated measures ANOVA methodology.||0.51|-0.71|0.7408
90926910|NCT02510235|181730525|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.8596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.87|||ANOVA|The analysis of variance included as sources of variability treatment, site and baseline tolerability score.||Study Eye analytic statistic is presented. The Statistical Analysis section reports results from a repeated measures ANOVA, which analyzes changes from baseline across all time points in a single unified analysis. This approach provides one overall comparison value by incorporating all time points. Consequently, the reported value represents the global outcome, consistently with repeated measures ANOVA methodology.||0.87|-0.78|0.8596
90926911|NCT02510235|181730526|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.7891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.2|||ANOVA|The analysis of variance included as sources of variability treatment, site and baseline tolerability score.||Eyelid - Meibomian glands in Study eye analytic statistic is presented. The Statistical Analysis section reports results from a repeated measures ANOVA, which analyzes changes from baseline across all time points in a single unified analysis. This approach provides one overall comparison value by incorporating all time points. Consequently, the reported value represents the global outcome, consistently with repeated measures ANOVA methodology.||0.20|-0.16|0.7891
90926912|NCT02510235|181730526|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.6075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.14|||ANOVA|The analysis of variance included as sources of variability treatment, site and baseline tolerability score.||Eyelid - Erythema in Study eye analytic statistic is presented. The Statistical Analysis section reports results from a repeated measures ANOVA, which analyzes changes from baseline across all time points in a single unified analysis. This approach provides one overall comparison value by incorporating all time points. Consequently, the reported value represents the global outcome, consistently with repeated measures ANOVA methodology.||0.14|-0.24|0.6075
90926913|NCT02510235|181730526|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.6639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.21|||ANOVA|The analysis of variance included as sources of variability treatment, site and baseline tolerability score.||Eyelid - Oedema in Study eye analytic statistic is presented.The Statistical Analysis section reports results from a repeated measures ANOVA, which analyzes changes from baseline across all time points in a single unified analysis. This approach provides one overall comparison value by incorporating all time points. Consequently, the reported value represents the global outcome, consistently with repeated measures ANOVA methodology.||0.21|-0.14|0.6639
90940849|NCT01917006|181761574|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.13||||0.645||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline geometric mean IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.645
90887021|NCT03029208|181636738|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.03||||0.7803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.65|1.59|||MMRM||SF-36 HRQoL social functioning domain score was analyzed using an MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms at Week 8.|||1.59|-3.65|0.7803
90887022|NCT03029208|181636738|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.18||||0.8556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.35|1.0|||MMRM||SF-36 HRQoL social functioning domain score was analyzed using an MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms at Week 12.|||1.00|-3.35|0.8556
90887023|NCT03029208|181636738|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.08||||0.4763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|2.77|||MMRM||SF-36 HRQoL social functioning domain score was analyzed using an MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms at Week 28.|||2.77|-2.61|0.4763
90887024|NCT03029208|181636738|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.73||||0.3208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|3.8|||MMRM||SF-36 HRQoL social functioning domain score was analyzed using an MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms at Week 52.|||3.80|-2.35|0.3208
90887025|NCT03029208|181636739|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.02||||0.791|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|1.46|||MMRM||SF-36 HRQoL vitality domain score was analyzed using an MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms at Week 28.|||1.46|-3.50|0.7910
90887026|NCT03029208|181636739|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.45||||0.8648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.03|1.14|||MMRM||SF-36 HRQoL vitality domain score was analyzed using an MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms at Week 52.|||1.14|-4.03|0.8648
90887027|NCT03029208|181636740|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.28||||0.5879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.75|2.19|||MMRM||SF-36 HRQoL physical functioning domain score was analyzed using an MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms at Week 28.|||2.19|-2.75|0.5879
90887028|NCT03029208|181636740|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.43||||0.8525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.12|1.26|||MMRM||SF-36 HRQoL physical functioning domain scor was analyzed using an MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms at Week 52.|||1.26|-4.12|0.8525
90887029|NCT03029208|181636741|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.03||||0.3154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.14|||MMRM||MMRM model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, dialysis start manner, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.14|-0.09|0.3154
90887030|NCT03029208|181636742|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.4||||0.7651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|5.9|||MMRM||MMRM model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, dialysis start manner, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||5.9|-12.7|0.7651
90887031|NCT03029208|181636743|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-6.43||||0.9875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.05|-0.82|||MMRM||Tired/Low energy/Weak domain: MMRM model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, dialysis start manner, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||-0.82|-12.05|0.9875
90887032|NCT03029208|181636743|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-4.11||||0.9663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.52|0.3|||MMRM||Chest pain/Shortness of breath domain: MMRM model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, dialysis start manner, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.30|-8.52|0.9663
90887033|NCT03029208|181636743|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-6.6||||0.993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.84|-1.35|||MMRM||Cognitive domain: MMRM model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, dialysis start manner, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||-1.35|-11.84|0.9930
90887034|NCT03029208|181636743|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.03||||0.8765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.19|2.12|||MMRM||Shortness of breath, no activity: MMRM model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, dialysis start manner, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||2.12|-8.19|0.8765
90887035|NCT03029208|181636743|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-4.27||||0.9464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.48|0.94|||MMRM||Severity-short breath, Resting: MMRM model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, dialysis start manner, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.94|-9.48|0.9464
90887036|NCT03029208|181636743|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-5.31||||0.9101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.09|2.47|||MMRM||Difficulty standing for long time: MMRM model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, dialysis start manner, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||2.47|-13.09|0.9101
90887037|NCT03029208|181636743|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-6.52||||0.9586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|0.86|||MMRM||Difficulty sleeping: MMRM model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, dialysis start manner, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.86|-13.90|0.9586
90887038|NCT03029208|181636744|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.27||||0.981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.53|||MMRM||MMRM model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 8 with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, dialysis start manner, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.53|0.02|0.9810
90887039|NCT03029208|181636744|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.05||||0.6743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.26|||MMRM||MMRM model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 12 with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, dialysis start manner, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.26|-0.17|0.6743
90887040|NCT03029208|181636744|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.16||||0.8997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.4|||MMRM||MMRM model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 28 with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, dialysis start manner, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.40|-0.09|0.8997
90887041|NCT03029208|181636744|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.18||||0.8835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.47|||MMRM||MMRM model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, dialysis start manner, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.47|-0.12|0.8835
90887042|NCT02673697|181636757|NON_INFERIORITY|"The primary analysis will calculate the Bayesian posterior probability that the difference \[MACCECONTROL~\- MACCEPERCEVAL\] is lower than 0.05 (predetermined non-inferiority margin): The null hypothesis will be rejected, and non-inferiority concluded, if the posterior probability exceeds 0.9775 at the final analysis."||||||0.9914||||||The null hypothesis will be rejected, and non-inferiority concluded, if the posterior probability exceeds 0.9775 at the final analysis.|Bayesian|||"A the primary analysis will compare Perceval valve (Treatment arm) vs. standard sutured stented valve (Control arm) on the Per Protocol population.~A one-sided non-inferiority test, using the non-inferiority margin Δ=0.05, will be performed to compare the two arms on the proportion of subjects that are event-free at one year (primary analysis)."||||0.9914
90964725|NCT01572675|181810560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.104|||||||Chi-squared|||Group comparison (Arcoxia® vs Celebrex®) for controlled BP (SBP \<140 mmHg and DBP \<90 mmHg) at study entry||||0.104
90964726|NCT01572675|181810560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0049|||||||Chi-squared|||Group comparison (Arcoxia® \[Initiation\] vs Arcoxia® \[Renewal\]) for controlled BP (SBP \<140 mmHg and DBP \<90 mmHg) at study entry||||0.0049
90964727|NCT01572675|181810560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.618|||||||Chi-squared|||Group comparison (Celebrex® \[Initiation\] vs Celebrex® \[Renewal\]) for controlled BP (SBP \<140 mmHg and DBP \<90 mmHg) at study entry||||0.618
90964728|NCT01572675|181810561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.012|||||||Chi-squared|||Group comparison (Arcoxia® \[Initiation\] vs Arcoxia® \[Renewal\]) for medical history of arterial hypertension||||0.012
90964729|NCT01572675|181810561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.175|||||||Chi-squared|||Group comparison (Celebrex® \[Initiation\] vs Celebrex® \[Renewal\]) for medical history of arterial hypertension||||0.175
90964730|NCT01572675|181810563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.701|||||||Chi-squared|||Group comparison (Arcoxia® \[Initiation\] vs Arcoxia® \[Renewal\]) for significant past treatments||||0.701
90964731|NCT01572675|181810563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.007|||||||Chi-squared|||Group comparison (Celebrex® \[Initiation\] vs Celebrex® \[Renewal\]) for significant past treatments||||0.007
90964732|NCT01572675|181810563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.955|||||||Chi-squared|||Group comparison (Arcoxia® vs Celebrex®) for significant past treatments||||0.955
90964733|NCT01572675|181810566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.049|||||||Fisher Exact|||Group comparsion (Arcoxia® vs Celebrex®) for previous treatment with other agents prior to initiation of Arcoxia® and Celebrex® for the main study indications||||0.049
90964734|NCT01572675|181810569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.165|||||||Chi-squared|||Group comparsion (Arcoxia® vs Celebrex®) of adverse events experienced during treatment||||0.165
90964735|NCT00223678|181810576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.849|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.849
90887043|NCT00289341|181636759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||for injection site reaction only||||0.001
90887044|NCT00289341|181636759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.2||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||for all other adverse events||||>0.2
90887045|NCT00289341|181636761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016||95.0|||||Linear Spline model|||||||0.016
90964736|NCT03346057|181810579|OTHER||Estimated Difference in percentage|-6.7||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|-0.8|||Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by neuromuscular blocking agent (NMBA) and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class was used to provide estimated between-treatment difference, 95% confidence interval, and p-value||-0.8|-17.5|0.026
90964737|NCT03346057|181810579|OTHER||Estimated Difference in percentage|-6.2||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|0.2|||Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by NMBA and ASA was used to provide estimated between-treatment difference, 95% confidence interval, and p-value||0.2|-17.3|0.058
90964738|NCT03346057|181810579|OTHER||Estimated Difference in percentage|-2.0||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|8.6|||Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by NMBA and ASA was used to provide estimated between-treatment difference, 95% confidence interval, and p-value||8.6|-17.8|0.730
90964739|NCT03346057|181810580|OTHER||Estimated Difference in percentage|-14.9||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.8|-4.0|||Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by NMBA and ASA was used to provide estimated between-treatment difference, 95% confidence interval, and p-value||-4.0|-28.8|0.007
90964740|NCT03346057|181810580|OTHER||Estimated Difference in percentage|-12.2||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.1|-0.8|||Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by NMBA and ASA was used to provide estimated between-treatment difference, 95% confidence interval, and p-value||-0.8|-26.1|0.036
90964741|NCT03346057|181810580|OTHER||Estimated Difference in percentage|-9.9||||0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.6|3.6|||Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by NMBA and ASA was used to provide estimated between-treatment difference, 95% confidence interval, and p-value||3.6|-27.6|0.158
90964742|NCT03346057|181810581|OTHER||Estimated Difference in percentage|-0.9||||0.637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|4.0|||Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by NMBA and ASA was used to provide estimated between-treatment difference, 95% confidence interval, and p-value||4.0|-9.4|0.637
90964743|NCT03346057|181810581|OTHER||Estimated Difference in percentage|-2.1||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|1.5|||Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by NMBA and ASA was used to provide estimated between-treatment difference, 95% confidence interval, and p-value||1.5|-10.6|0.134
90964744|NCT03346057|181810581|OTHER||Estimated Difference in percentage|-1.7||||0.577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|5.8|||Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by NMBA and ASA was used to provide estimated between-treatment difference, 95% confidence interval, and p-value||5.8|-14.7|0.577
90964745|NCT03346057|181810582|OTHER||Estimated Difference in percentage|6.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|18.5||||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by NMBA and ASA was used to provide estimated between-treatment difference and 95% confidence interval||18.5|-2.6|
90964746|NCT03346057|181810582|OTHER||Estimated Difference in percentage|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|13.1||||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by NMBA and ASA was used to provide estimated between-treatment difference and 95% confidence interval||13.1|-9.3|
90964747|NCT03346057|181810582|OTHER||Estimated Difference in percentage|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|17.7||||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by NMBA and ASA was used to provide estimated between-treatment difference and 95% confidence interval||17.7|-8.4|
90964748|NCT03346057|181810583|OTHER||Estimated Difference in percentage|5.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|14.3||||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by NMBA and ASA was used to provide estimated between-treatment difference and 95% confidence interval||14.3|-5.5|
90887046|NCT03893448|181636762|OTHER||Percentage Point Difference|-4.8|||=|0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|-0.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Injection site erythema Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method||-0.2|-9.3|= 0.039
90887047|NCT03893448|181636762|OTHER||Percentage Point Difference|-0.4|||=|0.836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|3.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Injection site induration Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method||3.7|-4.6|= 0.836
90964749|NCT03346057|181810583|OTHER||Estimated Difference in percentage|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|9.3||||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by NMBA and ASA was used to provide estimated between-treatment difference and 95% confidence interval||9.3|-9.2|
90964750|NCT03346057|181810583|OTHER||Estimated Difference in percentage|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.1|12.7||||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by NMBA and ASA was used to provide estimated between-treatment difference and 95% confidence interval||12.7|-15.1|
90964751|NCT03346057|181810584|OTHER||Estimated Difference in percentage|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|3.8||||||The percentage of participants experiencing one or more ECIs was compared between the Sugammadex 2 mg/kg arm and the Neostigmine plus Glycopyrrolate arm. Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by NMBA and ASA was used to provide estimated between-treatment difference and 95% confidence interval||3.8|-11.8|
90964752|NCT03346057|181810584|OTHER||Estimated Difference in percentage|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|8.4||||||The percentage of participants experiencing one or more ECIs was compared between the Sugammadex 4 mg/kg arm and the Neostigmine plus Glycopyrrolate arm. Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by NMBA and ASA was used to provide estimated between-treatment difference and 95% confidence interval||8.4|-8.1|
90964753|NCT03346057|181810584|OTHER||Estimated Difference in percentage|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|11.1||||||The percentage of participants experiencing one or more ECIs was compared between the Sugammadex 16 mg/kg arm and the Neostigmine plus Glycopyrrolate arm. Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by NMBA and ASA was used to provide estimated between-treatment difference and 95% confidence interval||11.1|-13.5|
90964754|NCT05315947|181810682|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence between the BRV tablet (reference) and BRV dry syrup (test) formulations were concluded if the 90% CI limits for Cmax was within the 0.80 to 1.25 range.|Ratio of Dry Syrup/ Tablet|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7814|0.9686||||||||0.9686|0.7814|
90926914|NCT02510235|181730526|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.3482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.29|||ANOVA|The analysis of variance included as sources of variability treatment, site and baseline tolerability score.||Conjunctiva - Erythema in Study eye analytic statistic is presented.The Statistical Analysis section reports results from a repeated measures ANOVA, which analyzes changes from baseline across all time points in a single unified analysis. This approach provides one overall comparison value by incorporating all time points. Consequently, the reported value is not duplicated or triplicated, reflecting the global outcome consistent with repeated measures ANOVA methodology.||0.29|-0.10|0.3482
90926915|NCT02510235|181730526|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.2422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.09|||ANOVA|The analysis of variance included as sources of variability treatment, site and baseline tolerability score.||Conjunctiva - Oedema in Study eye analytic statistic is presented.The Statistical Analysis section reports results from a repeated measures ANOVA, which analyzes changes from baseline (Visit 2 - Day 1) across all time points in a single unified analysis. This approach provides one overall comparison value by incorporating all time points. Consequently, the reported value represents the global outcome, consistently with repeated measures ANOVA methodology.||0.09|-0.34|0.2422
90926916|NCT02510235|181730526|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.8645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.14|||ANOVA|The analysis of variance included as sources of variability treatment, site and baseline tolerability score.||Lens in Study eye analytic statistic is presented.The Statistical Analysis section reports results from a repeated measures ANOVA, which analyzes changes from baseline across all time points in a single unified analysis. This approach provides one overall comparison value by incorporating all time points. Consequently, the reported value represents the global outcome, consistently with repeated measures ANOVA methodology.||0.14|-0.11|0.8645
90926917|NCT02510235|181730526|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.04|||ANOVA|The analysis of variance included as sources of variability treatment, site and baseline tolerability score.||Cornea transparency in Study eye analytic statistic is presented.The Statistical Analysis section reports results from a repeated measures ANOVA, which analyzes changes from baseline across all time points in a single unified analysis. This approach provides one overall comparison value by incorporating all time points. Consequently, the reported value represents the global outcome, consistently with repeated measures ANOVA methodology.||0.04|-0.11|0.3790
90926918|NCT02510235|181730527|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.8363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.21|||ANOVA|The analysis of variance included as sources of variability treatment, site and baseline tolerability score.||Study eye analytic statistic is presented.The Statistical Analysis section reports results from a repeated measures ANOVA, which analyzes changes from baseline across all time points in a single unified analysis. This approach provides one overall comparison value by incorporating all time points. Consequently, the reported value represents the global outcome, consistently with repeated measures ANOVA methodology.||0.21|-0.26|0.8363
90926919|NCT02510235|181730528|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.6248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|1.02|||ANOVA|The analysis of variance included as sources of variability treatment, site and baseline tolerability score.||Study eye analytic statistic is presented.The Statistical Analysis section reports results from a repeated measures ANOVA, which analyzes changes from baseline (Visit 2 - Day 1) across all time points in a single unified analysis. This approach provides one overall comparison value by incorporating all time points. Consequently, the reported value represents the global outcome, consistently with repeated measures ANOVA methodology.||1.02|-0.62|0.6248
90926920|NCT02510235|181730529|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16||||0.6153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.49|||ANOVA|The analysis of variance included as sources of variability treatment, site and baseline tolerability score.||Study eye analytic statistic is presented.The Statistical Analysis section reports results from a repeated measures ANOVA, which analyzes changes from baseline (Visit 2 - Day 1) across all time points in a single unified analysis. This approach provides one overall comparison value by incorporating all time points. Consequently, the reported value represents the global outcome, consistently with repeated measures ANOVA methodology.||0.49|-0.82|0.6153
90940850|NCT01917006|181761574|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.15||||0.343||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline geometric mean IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.343
90964755|NCT05315947|181810683|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence between the BRV tablet (reference) and BRV dry syrup (test) formulations were concluded if the 90% CI limits for AUC(0-t) was within the 0.80 to 1.25 range.|Ratio of Dry Syrup/ Tablet|0.989|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9756|1.003||||||||1.003|0.9756|
90964756|NCT02499770|181810691|OTHER||||||=|0.0097||||||The p-value was calculated using the stratified log-rank test to account for the baseline ECOG status (0-1 vs 2) as the stratification factor. Significance level was set as two-sided 0.2.|Stratified log-rank test|p-value calculated using stratified log-rank test with baseline ECOG status (0-1 vs 2) as stratification factor. Significance level was two-sided 0.2.||||||= 0.0097
90964757|NCT00315939|181810759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||=0.001
90964758|NCT04124614|181810792|SUPERIORITY|MMRM method with model terms: treatment, (pooled) study center, previous pharmacological treatment intervention for PTSD (yes/no), visit, treatment by visit and baseline by visit interaction.|Treatment Difference|-5.59||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.79|-2.38|||MMRM|||||-2.38|-8.79|0.0007
90964759|NCT04124614|181810793|SUPERIORITY|MMRM method with model terms: treatment, (pooled) study center, previous pharmacological treatment intervention for PTSD (yes/no), visit, treatment by visit and baseline by visit interaction.|Treatment Difference|-0.47||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.17|||MMRM|||||-0.17|-0.76|0.0019
90964760|NCT04124614|181810794|SUPERIORITY|MMRM method with model terms: treatment, (pooled) study center, previous pharmacological treatment intervention for PTSD (yes/no), visit, treatment by visit and baseline by visit interaction.|Treatment Difference|-12.03||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.44|-4.62|||MMRM|||||-4.62|-19.44|0.0016
90964761|NCT04415658|181810795|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.07|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||80% power to detect a 10% increase in hearts transplanted||1.07|0.97|0.57
90964762|NCT04415658|181810796|NON_INFERIORITY|Six percent margin, assuming 96% graft survival in control group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|6.0|||Regression, Logistic|||Non-inferiority analysis for thyroxine vs saline||6.0|-2.3|<0.001
90964763|NCT00785044|181810829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Analysis was performed using the null hypothesis for the AUC stated as: H0: θ ≤A versus H1: θ \>A, where the AUC (θ) value was: 'A' selected based on the diagnostic utility desired from the use of myocardial 123 I-mIBG uptake measured using H/M ratio. A smooth parametric model of the ROC curve was fitted to the data. The AUC for the resulting model was calculated and 95% confidence interval for the AUC was reported. The hypothesis was tested using the Z-statistics at 'A' at level of 0.70.|Mean|0.581|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.532|0.63||At 0.05 level of significance.|Z-statistic|||"Analysis was performed on all HF participants from both groups AdreView™ - HF Group (With No Adverse Cardiac Events) and AdreView™ - HF Group (With Adverse Cardiac Events) based on H/M ratio."||0.630|0.532|<0.001
90964764|NCT01830855|181810831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMTs|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.14||||||PMB80 \[A22\]: The lot consistency criteria was achieved if the 95% CI for all pairwise GMRs between lots are within (0.5, 2), for the strain PMB80.||1.14|0.93|
90964765|NCT01830855|181810831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMTs|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.13||||||PMB80 \[A22\]: The lot consistency criteria was achieved if the 95% CI for all pairwise GMRs between lots are within (0.5, 2), for the strain PMB80.||1.13|0.92|
90964766|NCT01830855|181810831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMTs|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.12||||||PMB80 \[A22\]: The lot consistency criteria was achieved if the 95% CI for all pairwise GMRs between lots are within (0.5, 2), for the strain PMB80.||1.12|0.88|
90964767|NCT01830855|181810831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMTs|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.06||||||PMB2948 \[B24\]: The lot consistency criteria was achieved if the 95% CI for all pairwise GMRs between lots are within (0.5, 2), for the strain PMB2948.||1.06|0.85|
90964768|NCT01830855|181810831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMTs|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.06||||||PMB2948 \[B24\]: The lot consistency criteria was achieved if the 95% CI for all pairwise GMRs between lots are within (0.5, 2), for the strain PMB2948.||1.06|0.86|
90964769|NCT01830855|181810831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMTs|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.14||||||PMB2948 \[B24\]: The lot consistency criteria was achieved if the 95% CI for all pairwise GMRs between lots are within (0.5, 2), for the strain PMB2948||1.14|0.88|
90964770|NCT00763971|181810906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||difference in LS means|-18.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.5|-15.7|||ANCOVA|||||-15.7|-21.5|<0.001
90964771|NCT00763971|181810906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||difference in LS means|-13.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.9|-10.2|||ANCOVA|||||-10.2|-15.9|<0.001
90964772|NCT00763971|181810907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||difference in percentages|63.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.0|74.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||74.1|53.0|<0.001
90964773|NCT00763971|181810907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||difference in percentages|46.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.6|57.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||57.7|34.6|<0.001
90964774|NCT00763971|181810908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||difference in LS means|-21.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.5|-17.0|||ANCOVA|||||-17.0|-25.5|<0.001
90964775|NCT00763971|181810908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||difference in LS means|-15.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.3|-10.9|||ANCOVA|||||-10.9|-19.3|<0.001
90964776|NCT00763971|181810910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||difference in LS means|8.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.1|11.5|||ANCOVA|||||11.5|6.1|<0.001
90964777|NCT00763971|181810910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||difference in LS means|7.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.6|10.0|||ANCOVA|||||10.0|4.6|<0.001
90964778|NCT00763971|181810911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||difference in LS means|-0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||||-0.2|-0.4|<0.001
90964779|NCT00763971|181810911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||difference in LS means|-0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||||-0.1|-0.3|<0.001
90964780|NCT01641237|181810923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|Adjusted Mean and SE were calculated from ANOVA model with treatment and period as factors, and subject as a random factor.||Test for linear dose-response relationship was performed for %SMHR as a function of fluoride concentration.||||<0.0001
90964781|NCT01641237|181810923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3748||95.0|||||ANOVA|Adjusted Mean and SE were calculated from ANOVA model with treatment and period as factors, and subject as a random factor.||Test for quadratic dose-response relationship was performed for %SMHR as a function of fluoride concentration.||||0.3748
90964782|NCT01641237|181810924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|2.17||||0.1898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|5.43||No adjustment was required for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with fixed factors for study period and treatment and the subject as random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered treatments in comparison to be equal.||5.43|-1.09|0.1898
90964783|NCT01641237|181810924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|5.6||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.35|8.86||No adjustment was required for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with fixed factors for study period and treatment and the subject as random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered no dose-response relationship between %SMHR and fluoride concentration in the dentifrice.||8.86|2.35|0.0009
90964784|NCT01641237|181810924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|3.43||||0.0389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|6.68||No adjustment was required for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with fixed factors for study period and treatment and the subject as random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered treatments in comparison to be equal.||6.68|0.18|0.0389
90964785|NCT01641237|181810924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|9.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.58|13.13||No adjustment was required for multiple comparisons as primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with fixed factors for study period and treatment, and subject as random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered treatments in comparison to be equal.||13.13|6.58|<0.0001
90964786|NCT01641237|181810924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|7.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.41|10.96||No adjustment was required for multiple comparisons as primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with fixed factors for study period and treatment, and subject as random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered treatments in comparison to be equal.||10.96|4.41|<0.0001
90964787|NCT01641237|181810924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|4.25||||0.0112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|7.53||No adjustment was required for multiple comparisons as primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with fixed factors for study period and treatment, and subject as random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered treatments in comparison to be equal.||7.53|0.98|0.0112
90964788|NCT01641237|181810925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|Adjusted Mean and SE were calculated from ANOVA model with treatment and period as factors, and subject as a random factor.||Test for linear dose-response relationship was performed for %RER as a function of fluoride concentration.||||<0.0001
90887048|NCT03893448|181636762|OTHER||Percentage Point Difference|2.9|||=|0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|7.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Injection site pain Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method||7.6|-1.9|= 0.235
90964789|NCT01641237|181810925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Test for quadratic dose-response relationship was performed for %RER as a function of fluoride concentration.||||0.0002
90964790|NCT01641237|181810925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|32.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.18|39.59||No adjustment was required for multiple comparisons as primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with fixed factors for study period and treatment, while subject was random effect.|Difference was first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered no difference between treatments, being compared.||39.59|25.18|<0.0001
90964791|NCT01641237|181810925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|31.46|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.25|38.67||No adjustment was required for multiple comparisons as primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with fixed factors for study period and treatment, while subject was random effect.|Difference was first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered no difference between treatments, being compared.||38.67|24.25|<0.0001
90971155|NCT02404103|181824836|EQUIVALENCE|secondary goal was to evaluate whether flunisolide HFA 320 mcg when compared to flunisolide 160 mcg lead to significantly better improvement in the same outcome measures over time.||||||0.82|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|generalized linear mixed-effects models (GLMM) using the identity link function and normal distribution were used||||||0.820
90964792|NCT01641237|181810925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|20.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.6|28.02||No adjustment was required for multiple comparisons as primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with fixed factors for study period and treatment, while subject was random effect.|Difference was first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered no difference between treatments, being compared.||28.02|13.60|<0.0001
90964793|NCT01641237|181810925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.92||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.25|8.1||No adjustment was required for multiple comparisons as primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with fixed factors for study period and treatment, while subject was random effect.|Difference was first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered no difference between treatments, being compared.||8.10|-6.25|0.8000
90964794|NCT01641237|181810925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|11.57||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|18.74||No adjustment was required for multiple comparisons as primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with fixed factors for study period and treatment, while subject was random effect.|Difference was first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered no difference between treatments, being compared.||18.74|4.40|0.0017
90887049|NCT03893448|181636762|OTHER||Percentage Point Difference|2.4|||=|0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|6.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Injection site swelling Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method||6.5|-1.7|= 0.260
90964795|NCT01641237|181810925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|10.65||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.48|17.81||No adjustment was required for multiple comparisons as primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with fixed factors for study period and treatment, while subject was random effect.|Difference was first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered no difference between treatments, being compared.||17.81|3.48|0.0038
90964796|NCT01641237|181810926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|Adjusted Mean and SE were calculated from ANOVA model with treatment and period as factors, and subject as a random factor.||Test for linear dose-response relationship was performed for EFU as a function of fluoride concentration.||||<0.0001
90964797|NCT01641237|181810926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0008||95.0|||||ANOVA|Adjusted Mean and SE were calculated from ANOVA model with treatment and period as factors, and subject as a random factor.||Test for quadratic dose-response relationship was performed for EFU as a function of fluoride concentration.||||0.0008
90964798|NCT01641237|181810926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|1.9||No adjustment was required for multiple comparisons as primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with fixed factors for study period and treatment, while subject was random effect.|Difference was first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered no difference between treatments, being compared.||1.90|1.42|<0.0001
90964799|NCT01641237|181810926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|1.85||No adjustment was required for multiple comparisons as primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with fixed factors for study period and treatment, while subject was random effect.|Difference was first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered no difference between treatments, being compared.||1.85|1.36|<0.0001
90964800|NCT01641237|181810926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.86||No adjustment was required for multiple comparisons as primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with fixed factors for study period and treatment, while subject was random effect.|Difference was first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered no difference between treatments, being compared.||0.86|0.38|<0.0001
90964801|NCT01641237|181810926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.05||||0.668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.29||No adjustment was required for multiple comparisons as primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with fixed factors for study period and treatment, while subject was random effect.|Difference was first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered no difference between treatments, being compared.||0.29|-0.19|0.6680
90964802|NCT01641237|181810926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.28||No adjustment was required for multiple comparisons as primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with fixed factors for study period and treatment, while subject was random effect.|Difference was first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered no difference between treatments, being compared.||1.28|0.80|<0.0001
90964803|NCT01641237|181810926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.23||No adjustment was required for multiple comparisons as primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with fixed factors for study period and treatment, while subject was random effect.|Difference was first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered no difference between treatments, being compared.||1.23|0.75|<0.0001
90964804|NCT01540825|181810928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.2472|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1831|1.3112|||||Dose proportionality was explored using the power model (ANCOVA). The perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope β of 1. PK endpoints on the log-transformed scale. Standard Error of the mean is actually the Standard Error of the slope|This was non confirmatory testing (Single dose). Dose proportionality of BI 113608 (powder in bottle (PIB)) for Cmax was analysed.||1.3112|1.1831|
90887050|NCT03893448|181636763|OTHER||Percentage Point Difference|-1.8|||=|0.446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|2.8|||Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Decreased appetite Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method||2.8|-6.3|= 0.446
90964805|NCT01540825|181810930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.1626|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0215|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1195|1.2057|||||Dose proportionality was explored using the power model (ANCOVA). The perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope β of 1. PK endpoints on the log-transformed scale. Standard Error of the mean is actually Standard Error of the slope|This was non confirmatory testing (Single dose). Dose proportionality of BI 113608 (PIB) for AUC 0- tz was analysed.||1.2057|1.1195|
91035187|NCT03086460|181956474|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.037||||0.203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.095|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.095|-0.020|0.203
91035188|NCT03086460|181956474|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.017||||0.542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.039|0.074|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.074|-0.039|0.542
91035189|NCT03086460|181956474|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.064||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.119|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.119|0.010|0.021
91035190|NCT03086460|181956474|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.04|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.040|-0.080|0.510
90964806|NCT01540825|181810931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.151|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0215|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.108|1.1941|||||Dose proportionality was explored using the power model (ANCOVA). The perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope β of 1. PK endpoints on the log-transformed scale. Standard Error of the mean is actually Standard Error of the slope|This was non confirmatory testing (Single dose).Dose proportionality of BI 113608 (PIB) for AUC0-inf was analysed||1.1941|1.1080|
90887051|NCT03893448|181636763|OTHER||Percentage Point Difference|1.0|||=|0.622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|5.1|||Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Irritability Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method||5.1|-3.0|= 0.622
90964807|NCT05395104|181810948|OTHER|Ratio = Geometric least squares mean (test)/geometric least squares mean (reference)|Ratio|1.0865|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9724|1.2141||||||Midazolam + Cefiderocol: single 5-mg dose of midazolam + 2 g cefiderocol (Day 15)||1.2141|0.9724|
91035191|NCT03086460|181956474|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.027||||0.352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.084|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.084|-0.030|0.352
91035192|NCT03086460|181956474|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.047||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.009|0.103|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.103|-0.009|0.098
91035193|NCT03086460|181956475|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.181|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.122|0.241|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~This secondary efficacy variable was analyzed using the ANCOVA model that was also used for the primary efficacy analysis, without adjusting for multiplicity."||0.241|0.122|<0.001
91035194|NCT03086460|181956475|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.192|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.133|0.251|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.251|0.133|<0.001
91035195|NCT03086460|181956475|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.215|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.156|0.275|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.275|0.156|<0.001
90926921|NCT00450216|181730530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|15.3||CMH test stratified by use of low-dose aspirin (yes/no) and prior upper gastrointestinal (UGI) ulcer history (yes/no) at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The primary efficacy endpoint was the number of participants developing gastric ulcers throughout 24 weeks of treatment. A summary, including cumulative frequency and percentage with associated 95% confidence intervals was produced for the observational incidences of gastric ulcers at 24 weeks. The cumulative number of participants developing gastric ulcers at 24 weeks was analyzed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by use of low-dose aspirin and prior UGI ulcer history.||15.3|4.4|<0.0001
90926922|NCT00450216|181730531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.1|17.6||CMH test stratified by use of low-dose aspirin (yes/no) and prior UGI ulcer history (yes/no) at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The secondary efficacy endpoint was the number of participants developing UGI (i.e., gastric and/or duodenal) ulcers throughout 24 weeks of treatment. A summary, including cumulative frequency and percentage with associated 95% confidence intervals was produced for the observational incidences of UGI ulcers at 24 weeks. The cumulative number of participants developing UGI ulcers at 24 weeks was analyzed using the CMH test stratified by use of low-dose aspirin and prior UGI ulcer history.||17.6|6.1|<0.0001
90926923|NCT00450216|181730532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.8||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|6.8||CMH test stratified by use of low-dose aspirin (yes/no) and prior UGI ulcer history (yes/no) at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The secondary efficacy endpoint was the number of participants developing duodenal ulcers throughout 24 weeks of treatment. A summary, including cumulative frequency and percentage with associated 95% confidence intervals was produced for the observational incidences of duodenal ulcers at 24 weeks. The cumulative number of participants developing duodenal ulcers at 24 weeks was analyzed using the CMH test stratified by use of low-dose aspirin and prio UGI ulcer history at randomization.||6.8|1.0|0.0006
90926924|NCT03636490|181730539|OTHER|We tested an association between change in urinary sodium excretion rate with stress and ratio of awake-to-asleep urinary sodium excretion rate.|unstandardized B coefficients|0.0021||||0.0032||95.0|0.0007|0.0034|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, sex, race, ethnicity, body mass index, mean DBP during the baseline period, and 24-hour creatinine clearance.||||0.0034|0.0007|0.0032
90926925|NCT03636490|181730540|OTHER|We tested an association between ratio of awake-to-asleep urinary sodium excretion rate and SBP dipping.|unstandardized B coefficients|0.8244||||0.037||95.0|0.0487|1.6|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, sex, race, ethnicity, BMI, smoking, alcohol use, glucose, 24-hr sodium and potassium excretion, 24-hr creat clear, and FENa|Data are unstandardized B coefficients (95% CI)|||1.6000|0.0487|0.037
90926926|NCT02585323|181730565|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in mean change|13.1||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|24.5|||ANCOVA|||We performed an intent-to-treat analysis. For the main comparison, we used analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) to estimate an adjusted mean difference comparing time in MVPA at 13 weeks (primary end point) between groups, adjusting for baseline MVPA, diagnosis, and blocking.||24.5|1.6|0.05
90926927|NCT02585323|181730566|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in mean change|-29.5||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.8|16.7|||ANCOVA|||||16.7|-75.8|0.05
90926928|NCT02585323|181730567|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in mean change|-1.4||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|4.9|||ANCOVA|||||4.9|-7.8|0.05
90926929|NCT02585323|181730568|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted diff in mean change at T0-T1|2.5||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|9.5|||ANCOVA|||||9.5|-4.2|0.05
90926930|NCT02585323|181730569|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted diff in mean change at T0-T1|-3.8||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|7.2|||ANCOVA|||||7.2|-14.9|0.05
90926931|NCT02585323|181730570|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted diff in mean change at T0-T1|2.8||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|8.8|||ANCOVA|||||8.8|-3.3|0.05
90926932|NCT02585323|181730571|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted diff in mean change at T0-T1|1.4||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|7.9|||ANCOVA|||||7.9|-5.0|0.05
90926933|NCT02585323|181730572|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted diff in mean change at T0-T1|-0.4||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.8|||ANCOVA|||||0.8|-1.7|0.05
90926934|NCT02585323|181730573|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted diff in mean change at T0-T1|-2.3||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|1.9|||ANCOVA|||||1.9|-6.6|0.05
90926935|NCT02585323|181730574|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted diff in mean change at T0-T1|0.7||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.2|||ANCOVA|||||1.2|0.2|0.05
90926936|NCT02585323|181730575|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted diff in mean change at T0-T1|0.7||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.1|||ANCOVA|||||1.1|0.2|0.05
90926937|NCT02585323|181730576|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted diff in mean change at T0-T1|0.3||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.9|||ANCOVA|||||0.9|-0.3|0.05
90926938|NCT02585323|181730577|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted diff in mean change at T0-T1|-0.1||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2|||ANCOVA|||||0.2|-0.4|0.05
90926939|NCT02585323|181730578|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted diff in mean change at T0-T1|0.2||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.5|||ANCOVA|||||0.5|-0.1|0.05
90926940|NCT02585323|181730579|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted diff in mean change at T0-T1|0.1||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.8|||ANCOVA|||||0.8|-0.6|0.05
90926941|NCT02585323|181730580|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted diff in mean change at T0-T1|0.1||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.3|||ANCOVA|||||0.3|-0.1|0.05
90964808|NCT05395104|181810950|OTHER|Ratio = Geometric least squares mean (test)/geometric least squares mean (reference)|Ratio|1.1174|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9784|1.2762||||||Midazolam + Cefiderocol: single 5-mg dose of midazolam + 2 g cefiderocol (Day 15)||1.2762|0.9784|
91035196|NCT03086460|181956475|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.252|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.195|0.309|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.309|0.195|<0.001
90964809|NCT05395104|181810951|OTHER|Ratio = Geometric least squares mean (test)/geometric least squares mean (reference)|Ratio|1.1239|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9887|1.2776||||||Midazolam + Cefiderocol: single 5-mg dose of midazolam + 2 g cefiderocol (Day 15)||1.2776|0.9887|
90964810|NCT00789750|181810974|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.084|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|-0.16|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference = Colesevelam - Placebo||-0.16|-0.49|<0.001
90964811|NCT00789750|181810975|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference = Colesevelam - Placebo||-0.10|-0.24|<0.001
90964812|NCT00789750|181810976|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference = Colesevelam - Placebo||-0.10|-0.32|0.0002
90964813|NCT00789750|181810977|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.077|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference = Colesevelam - Placebo||-0.20|-0.51|<0.001
90964814|NCT00789750|181810978|OTHER|||||||0.012|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.012
90964815|NCT00789750|181810979|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.68|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.93|-7.49|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference = Colesevelam - Placebo||-7.49|-21.93|<0.0001
90964816|NCT00789750|181810980|OTHER|||||||0.0003|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0003
90887052|NCT03893448|181636763|OTHER||Percentage Point Difference|-3.0|||=|0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|1.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Somnolence (drowsiness) Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method||1.6|-7.6|= 0.202
90887053|NCT03893448|181636763|OTHER||Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||=|0.985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|2.3|||Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Urticaria (Hives) Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method||2.3|-2.4|= 0.985
90964817|NCT00789750|181810981|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90964818|NCT00789750|181810982|OTHER|||||||0.132|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.132
90964819|NCT00789750|181810983|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90964820|NCT00789750|181810984|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.62|-12.18|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference = Colesevelam - Placebo||-12.18|-20.62|<0.001
90964821|NCT00789750|181810985|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.31||0.1652|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|4.39|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference = Colesevelam - Placebo||4.39|-0.75|0.1652
90964822|NCT00789750|181810986|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.85|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.44|-6.16|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference = Colesevelam - Placebo||-6.16|-13.44|<0.0001
90964823|NCT00789750|181810987|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|11.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|67.01||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|17.5|||ANCOVA||The treatment difference and its 95% confidence interval are estimated using the Hodges-Lehmann estimator and Moses method. The parameter dispersion Type is actually IQR of the Median Difference.|Treatment difference = Colesevelam - Placebo||17.5|5.3|0.0004
90964824|NCT00789750|181810988|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|5.23|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference = Colesevelam - Placebo||5.23|1.58|0.0003
90964825|NCT00789750|181810989|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.75|-5.78|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference = Colesevelam - Placebo||-5.78|-11.75|<0.0001
90964826|NCT00789750|181810990|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.77||0.7286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|2.9|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference = Colesevelam - Placebo||2.9|-4.1|0.7286
90964827|NCT00789750|181810991|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference = Colesevelam - Placebo||0.0|-0.4|0.0653
90887054|NCT03893448|181636764|OTHER||Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4|||||V114-Prevnar 13™|Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method||0.4|-0.4|
90964828|NCT00789750|181810992|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.8862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.3|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference = Colesevelam - Placebo||1.3|-1.5|0.8862
90887055|NCT03893448|181636765|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevnar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Point Difference|-3.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|-1.8||p-value is 1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Serotype 1 Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method||-1.8|-5.2|< 0.001
90887056|NCT03893448|181636765|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevnar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Point Difference|15.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.1|19.2||p-value is 1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Serotype 3 Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method||19.2|12.1|< 0.001
90887057|NCT03893448|181636765|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevnar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Point Difference|-2.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-0.6||p-value is 1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Serotype 4 Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method||-0.6|-4.0|< 0.001
90887058|NCT03893448|181636765|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevnar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Point Difference|-2.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|-0.2||p-value is 1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Serotype 5 Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method||-0.2|-4.2|< 0.001
90887059|NCT03893448|181636765|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevnar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Point Difference|-4.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|-3.0||p-value is 1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Serotype 6A Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method||-3.0|-7.1|< 0.001
90887060|NCT03893448|181636765|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevnar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Point Difference|-3.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|-0.3||p-value is 1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Serotype 6B Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method||-0.3|-6.6|< 0.001
90887061|NCT03893448|181636765|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevnar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Point Difference|-0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.1||p-value is 1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Serotype 7F Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method||-0.1|-1.9|< 0.001
90926942|NCT04734197|181730583|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||The threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Exploratory Phase 2 Study; the sample size of approximately 280-350 subjects (between 40 and 50 subjects per each of the 7 treatment groups) was based on medical judgement.||||0.0040
90926943|NCT04734197|181730584|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3111|||||||Fisher Exact|The threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.||"Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis included fixed effects of baseline TBUT, age, treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.~Least squares means (LSMs) of the absolute TBUT change from baseline and their 95% CIs were estimated from the MMRM model for each treatment group."||||0.3111
90926944|NCT04734197|181730585|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2027||||||The threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Fisher Exact|||"MMRM analysis included fixed effects of baseline Schirmer test score, age, treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.~LSMs of the absolute change from baseline in Schirmer test score and their 95% CIs were estimated from the MMRM model for each treatment group."||||0.2027
90926945|NCT02997202|181730595|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.679||||0.0518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.459|1.005|||Log Rank|||Stratification factors were conditioning regimen intensity MAC vs RIC/NMA, time from transplant to randomization (30 to 60 days vs 61 to 90 days), and the presence of MRD (present vs absent/unknown) based on the pre-transplant BM aspirate.||1.005|0.459|0.0518
90926946|NCT02997202|181730596|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.846||||0.4394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.554|1.293|||Log Rank|||Stratification factors were conditioning regimen intensity MAC vs RIC/NMA, time from transplant to randomization (30 to 60 days vs 61 to 90 days), and the presence of MRD (present vs absent/unknown) based on the pre-transplant BM aspirate.||1.293|0.554|0.4394
90926947|NCT02997202|181730599|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.308||||0.0209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1352|4.6922|||Fine-Grays Model|||Based on Fine \& Gray's model adjusting for conditioning regimen intensity (MAC vs RIC/NMA), time from transplant to randomization (30-60 days vs 61-90 days) \& presence of MRD (present vs absent/indeterminate) based on the pre-transplant BM aspirate.||4.6922|1.1352|0.0209
90926948|NCT02997202|181730600|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.6417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.686|1.261|||Log Rank|||Stratification factors were conditioning regimen intensity MAC vs RIC/NMA, time from transplant to randomization (30 to 60 days vs 61 to 90 days), and the presence of MRD (present vs absent/unknown) based on the pre-transplant BM aspirate.||1.261|0.686|0.6417
90926949|NCT02997202|181730601|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8938||||0.641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5574|1.433|||Fine-Grays model|||"aGVHD II to IV:~Based on Fine and Gray's model adjusting for conditioning regimen intensity (MAC vs RIC/NMA), time from transplant to randomization (30-60 days vs 61-90 days) \& presence of MRD (present vs absent/indeterminate) based on the pre-transplant BM aspirate."||1.4330|0.5574|0.6410
91035197|NCT03086460|181956475|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.238|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.182|0.295|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment F ( Perforomist® IS 40 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.295|0.182|<0.001
90887062|NCT03893448|181636765|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevnar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Point Difference|-1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|0.6||p-value is 1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Serotype 9V Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method||0.6|-2.8|< 0.001
90887063|NCT03893448|181636765|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevnar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.6||p-value is 1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Serotype 14 Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method||1.6|-1.6|< 0.001
90887064|NCT03893448|181636765|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevnar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Point Difference|-0.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.7||p-value is 1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Serotype 18C Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method||0.7|-2.6|< 0.001
90887065|NCT03893448|181636765|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevnar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Point Difference|-1.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-0.8||p-value is 1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Serotype 19A Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method||-0.8|-3.2|< 0.001
90887066|NCT03893448|181636765|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevnar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Point Difference|-1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.4||p-value is 1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Serotype 19F Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method||-0.4|-2.1|< 0.001
90887067|NCT03893448|181636765|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevnar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Point Difference|-0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|2.7||p-value is 1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Serotype 23F Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method||2.7|-3.2|< 0.001
90887068|NCT03893448|181636765|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevnar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Point Difference|6.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.6|9.2||p-value is 1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Serotype 22F This analysis represents the difference between response rate to Serotype 22F in recipients of V114 and lowest response (Serotype 23F at 91.8) in recipients of Prevnar 13™ for shared serotypes, excluding serotype 3. Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method||9.2|4.6|< 0.001
90887069|NCT03893448|181636765|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevnar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Point Difference|-4.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|-1.3||p-value is 1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Serotype 33F This analysis represents the difference between response rate to Serotype 33F in recipients of V114 and lowest response (Serotype 23F at 91.8) in recipients of Prevnar 13™ for shared serotypes, excluding serotype 3. Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method||-1.3|-7.8|< 0.001
90887070|NCT03893448|181636766|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevnar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|0.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.69|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|Serotype 1 GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.69|0.59|< 0.001
90887071|NCT03893448|181636766|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevnar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|1.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.61|1.87|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|Serotype 3 GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||1.87|1.61|< 0.001
90887072|NCT03893448|181636766|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevnar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|0.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.03|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|Serotype 4 GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||1.03|0.88|< 0.001
91035198|NCT03086460|181956475|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.011||||0.723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.049|0.071|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.071|-0.049|0.723
91035199|NCT03086460|181956475|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.034||||0.257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.025|0.093|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.093|-0.025|0.257
91035200|NCT03086460|181956475|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.071||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.014|0.128|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.128|0.014|0.016
90887073|NCT03893448|181636766|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevnar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|0.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.8|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|Serotype 5 GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.80|0.66|< 0.001
90887074|NCT03893448|181636766|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevnar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|0.52|||=|0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.58|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|Serotype 6A GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.58|0.48|= 0.167
90887075|NCT03893448|181636766|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevnar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|0.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.93|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|Serotype 6B GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.93|0.71|< 0.001
90887076|NCT03893448|181636766|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevnar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|0.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.83|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|Serotype 7F GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.83|0.71|< 0.001
90887077|NCT03893448|181636766|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevnar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|0.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.0|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|Serotype 9V GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||1.00|0.84|< 0.001
90887078|NCT03893448|181636766|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevnar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.78|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|Serotype 14 GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.78|0.63|< 0.001
90887079|NCT03893448|181636766|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevnar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|0.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.83|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|Serotype 18C GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.83|0.70|< 0.001
90887080|NCT03893448|181636766|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevnar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|0.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.77|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|Serotype 19A GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.77|0.65|< 0.001
90887081|NCT03893448|181636766|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevnar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|0.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.79|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|Serotype 19F GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.79|0.69|< 0.001
90887082|NCT03893448|181636766|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevnar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|0.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.99|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|Serotype 23F GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.99|0.80|< 0.001
90926950|NCT02997202|181730601|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.4254||||0.4128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6103|3.3289|||Fine-Grays model|||"aGVHD III to IV:~Based on Fine and Gray's model adjusting for conditioning regimen intensity (MAC vs RIC/NMA), time from transplant to randomization (30-60 days vs 61-90 days) \& presence of MRD (present vs absent/indeterminate) based on the pre-transplant BM aspirate."||3.3289|0.6103|0.4128
90887083|NCT03893448|181636766|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevnar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|3.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.33|3.98|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|Serotype 22F IgG GMC for Serotype 22F in recipients of V114 was compared to lowest IgG GMC (Serotype 4 at 1.35 ug/mL) for shared serotype in recipients of Prevnar 13™, excluding serotype 3. GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||3.98|3.33|< 0.001
90887084|NCT03893448|181636766|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevnar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|1.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.39|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|Serotype 33F IgG GMC for Serotype 33F in recipients of V114 was compared to lowest IgG GMC (Serotype 4 at 1.35 ug/mL) for shared serotype in recipients of Prevnar 13™, excluding serotype 3. GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||1.39|1.10|< 0.001
90926951|NCT02997202|181730602|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.236||||0.1725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9116|1.6757|||Fine-Grays Model|||Based on Fine and Gray's model adjusting for conditioning regimen intensity (MAC vs RIC/NMA), time from transplant to randomization (30-60 days vs 61-90 days) \& presence of MRD (present vs absent/indeterminate) based on the pre-transplant BM aspirate.||1.6757|0.9116|0.1725
90926952|NCT02997202|181730603|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.236||||0.1725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9116|1.6757|||Fine-Grays Model|||Based on Fine and Gray's model adjusting for conditioning regimen intensity (MAC vs RIC/NMA), time from transplant to randomization (30-60 days vs 61-90 days) \& presence of MRD (present vs absent/indeterminate) based on the pre-transplant BM aspirate.||1.6757|0.9116|0.1725
90926953|NCT02997202|181730604|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.4537||||0.2029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5126|23.2687|||Fine-Grays Model|||MRD Eradication||23.2687|0.5126|0.2029
90926954|NCT02997202|181730604|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7073||||0.4077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3116|1.6055|||Fine-Grays Model|||MRD 10\^-4 Detection||1.6055|0.3116|0.4077
90926955|NCT02997202|181730605|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.3729|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2243|0.6199|||Fine-Grays Model|||Based on Fine and Gray's model adjusting for conditioning regimen intensity (MAC vs RIC/NMA), time from transplant to randomization (30-60 days vs 61-90 days) \& presence of MRD (present vs absent/indeterminate) based on the pre-transplant BM aspirate.||0.6199|0.2243|<0.001
90926956|NCT02997202|181730606|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.4848||||0.0568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9886|2.23|||Fine-Grays model|||Based on Fine and Gray's model adjusting for conditioning regimen intensity (MAC vs RIC/NMA), time from transplant to randomization (30-60 days vs 61-90 days) \& presence of MRD (present vs absent/indeterminate) based on the pre-transplant BM aspirate.||2.2300|0.9886|0.0568
90926957|NCT00303459|181730626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.831||||0.2508|TWO_SIDED|97.31|0.582|1.187|||Log Rank|||||1.187|0.582|0.2508
90926958|NCT00303459|181730627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.963||||0.8385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.673|1.38|||Log Rank|||||1.380|0.673|0.8385
90926959|NCT00303459|181730628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|21.8||||0.0106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.9|37.8|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||37.8|5.9|0.0106
90964829|NCT04422990|181811032|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority in mean CLCDVA was declared if the upper confidence limit was less than 0.10 logMAR.|Least squares mean difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.01||Since a noninferiority hypothesis is being tested, a p-value is not applicable. Confidence limit is being reported and compared to the noninferiority margin.|Mixed effects repeated measures model||Least squares mean difference (LID018869 minus Biofinity).|||0.01|-0.01|
90964830|NCT04422990|181811033|NON_INFERIORITY|Proportion of subjects was used for the statistical analysis. Noninferiority in proportion of subjects achieving CLCDVA 20/20 or better in each eye was declared if the lower confidence limit was greater than -0.10.|Difference in proportion|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.02||Since a noninferiority hypothesis is being tested, a p-value is not applicable. Confidence limit is being reported and compared to the noninferiority margin.|Generalized linear mixed model||Lens difference (LID018869 minus Biofinity)|||0.02|-0.04|
90964831|NCT01849497|181811040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|-6.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|2.0||||||||2.0|-16.3|
90926960|NCT00303459|181730629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Relative risk of improvement|0.98||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.61|||Fisher Exact|||||1.61|0.60|1.0000
90926961|NCT00303459|181730630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.855||||0.4974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.544|1.344|||Log Rank|||||1.344|0.544|0.4974
90926962|NCT00303459|181730631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage change over placebo|-23.52||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.69|-11.79|||Repeated measures analysis|||||-11.79|-33.69|0.0003
90926963|NCT00303459|181730632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.9566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.39|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.39|-0.42|0.9566
90964832|NCT01849497|181811041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.38|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.38|2.99||||||||2.99|-10.38|
90926964|NCT00303459|181730633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02||||0.5571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.036|0.076|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.076|-0.036|0.5571
90926965|NCT00303459|181730634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.4086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|4.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||4.0|-3.7|0.4086
90926966|NCT02492711|181730656|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.0334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.593|0.979|||Log Rank|Stratified Log-Rank Test|Stratified Cox Proportional Model|||0.979|0.593|0.0334
90926967|NCT02492711|181730657|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.6204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.774|1.165|||Log Rank|Stratified Log-Rank Test|Stratified Cox Proportional Model|||1.165|0.774|0.6204
90926968|NCT02492711|181730659|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.556|0.87|||Log Rank|Stratified Log-Rank Test|Stratified Cox Proportional Model|||0.870|0.556|0.0014
90926969|NCT01474122|181730662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||NB-2 estimate of new DUs per patient|1.194||||0.434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.766|1.861|||negative binomial-2 regression (NB-2)||The estimated value corresponds to the treatment effect i.e. the ratio between the estimated number of new DUs in macitentan 3 mg and in placebo|||1.861|0.766|0.434
90964833|NCT00705432|181811079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||The difference in SVR|26.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.1|34.1|||Cochran-Mantel Haenszel Chi-square test|Adjustments were made for for baseline stratification factors: viral load (\>400,000 vs. ≤400,000 IU/mL) and Genotype (1a vs 1b).||||34.1|19.1|<0.0001
90964834|NCT00705432|181811079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||The difference in SVR|28.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.8|35.8|||Cochran-Mantel Haenszel Chi-square test|Adjustments were made for baseline stratification factors: viral load (\>400,000 vs. ≤400,000 IU/mL) and Genotype (1a vs 1b).||||35.8|20.8|<0.0001
90964835|NCT00705432|181811079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||The difference in SVR|19.2||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|36.9|||Cochran-Mantel Haenszel Chi-square test|Adjustments were made for the baseline stratification factors: viral load (\>400,000 vs. ≤400,000 IU/mL) and Genotype (1a vs 1b).||||36.9|1.6|0.0440
90964836|NCT00705432|181811079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||The difference in SVR|29.7||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.2|47.1|||Cochran-Mantel Haenszel Chi-square|Adjustments were made for the baseline stratification factors: viral load (\>400,000 vs. ≤400,000 IU/mL) and Genotype (1a vs 1b).||||47.1|12.2|0.0035
90964837|NCT00705432|181811080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||The difference in SVR rates|27.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.2|35.2|||Cochran-Mantel Haenszel Chi-square|Adjustments were made for the baseline stratification factors: viral load (\>400,000 vs. ≤400,000 IU/mL) and Genotype (1a vs 1b).||||35.2|19.2|<0.0001
90964838|NCT00705432|181811080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||The difference in SVR rates|29.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.5|36.8|||Cochran-Mantel Haenszel Chi-square|Adjustments were made for the baseline stratification factors: viral load (\>400,000 vs. ≤400,000 IU/mL) and Genotype (1a vs 1b).||||36.8|21.5|<0.0001
90964839|NCT00705432|181811080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||The difference in SVR|21.3||||0.0366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|40.2|||Cochran-Mantel Haenszel Chi-square test|Adjustments were made for the baseline stratification factors: viral load (\>400,000 vs. ≤400,000 IU/mL) and Genotype (1a vs 1b).||||40.2|2.3|0.0366
90964840|NCT00705432|181811080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||The difference in SVR|27.2||||0.0107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.0|45.3|||Cochran-Mantel Haenszel Chi-square|Adjustments were made for the baseline stratification factors: viral load (\>400,000 vs. ≤400,000 IU/mL) and Genotype (1a vs 1b).||||45.3|9.0|0.0107
90964841|NCT01557348|181811093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0068||||||LsMean and p-value are based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for significant factors leading to selection of new biologic therapy and unbalanced baseline covariates.|ANCOVA|||||||0.0068
90964842|NCT01557348|181811094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0588||||||LsMean and p-value are based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for significant factors leading to selection of new biologic therapy and unbalanced baseline covariates.|ANCOVA|||||||0.0588
90964843|NCT01557348|181811095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1126||||||LsMean and p-value are based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for significant factors leading to selection of new biologic therapy and unbalanced baseline covariates.|ANCOVA|||Comparison of least squares mean change from Baseline in TJC at Month 6||||0.1126
90964844|NCT01557348|181811095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2342||||||LsMean and p-value are based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for significant factors leading to selection of new biologic therapy and unbalanced baseline covariates.|ANCOVA|||Comparison of least squares mean change from Baseline in TJC at Month 12||||0.2342
90964845|NCT01557348|181811096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4168||||||LsMean and p-value are based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for significant factors leading to selection of new biologic therapy and unbalanced baseline covariates.|ANCOVA|||Comparison of least squares mean change from Baseline in SJC at Month 6||||0.4168
90964846|NCT01557348|181811096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5867||||||LsMean and p-value are based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for significant factors leading to selection of new biologic therapy and unbalanced baseline covariates.|ANCOVA|||Comparison of least squares mean change from Baseline in SJC at Month 12||||0.5867
90964847|NCT01557348|181811097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8758||||||LsMean and p-value are based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for significant factors leading to selection of new biologic therapy and unbalanced baseline covariates.|ANCOVA|||Comparison of least squares mean change from Baseline in CRP at Month 6||||0.8758
91035201|NCT03086460|181956475|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.023||||0.464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.039|0.086|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.086|-0.039|0.464
90964848|NCT01557348|181811097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4849||||||LsMean and p-value are based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for significant factors leading to selection of new biologic therapy and unbalanced baseline covariates.|ANCOVA|||Comparison of least squares mean change from Baseline in CRP at Month 12||||0.4849
90964849|NCT01557348|181811098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0086||||||LsMean and p-value are based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for significant factors leading to selection of new biologic therapy and unbalanced baseline covariates.|ANCOVA|||Comparison of least squares mean change from Baseline in ESR at Month 6||||0.0086
90964850|NCT01557348|181811098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2918||||||LsMean and p-value are based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for significant factors leading to selection of new biologic therapy and unbalanced baseline covariates.|ANCOVA|||Comparison of least squares mean change from Baseline in ESR at Month 12||||0.2918
90964851|NCT01557348|181811099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0764||||||LsMean and p-value are based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for significant factors leading to selection of new biologic therapy and unbalanced baseline covariates.|ANCOVA|||Comparison of least squares mean change from Baseline in Physician Global Assessment of Disease at Month 6||||0.0764
90964852|NCT01557348|181811099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0587||||||LsMean and p-value are based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for significant factors leading to selection of new biologic therapy and unbalanced baseline covariates.|ANCOVA|||Comparison of least squares mean change from Baseline in Physician Global Assessment of Disease at Month 12||||0.0587
90971156|NCT02404103|181824836|EQUIVALENCE|A goal was to evaluate whether flunisolide HFA 320 mcg when compared to flunisolide 160 mcg lead to significantly better improvement in the same outcome measures over time.||||||0.582|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.582
90964853|NCT01557348|181811100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0443||||||LsMean and p-value are based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for significant factors leading to selection of new biologic therapy and unbalanced baseline covariates.|ANCOVA|||Comparison of least squares mean change from Baseline in Patient Global Assessment of Disease at Month 6||||0.0443
90964854|NCT01557348|181811100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4802||||||LsMean and p-value are based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for significant factors leading to selection of new biologic therapy and unbalanced baseline covariates.|ANCOVA|||Comparison of least squares mean change from Baseline in Patient Global Assessment of Disease at Month 12||||0.4802
90964855|NCT01557348|181811101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2026||||||LsMean and p-value are based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for significant factors leading to selection of new biologic therapy and unbalanced baseline covariates.|ANCOVA|||Comparison of least squares mean change from Baseline in Participant's Visual Analogue Scale Pain Score at Months 6||||0.2026
90964856|NCT01557348|181811101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0295||||||LsMean and p-value are based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for significant factors leading to selection of new biologic therapy and unbalanced baseline covariates.|ANCOVA|||Comparison of least squares mean change from Baseline in Participant's Visual Analogue Scale Pain Score at Months 12||||0.0295
90964857|NCT01557348|181811102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.337||||||LsMean and p-value are based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for significant factors leading to selection of new biologic therapy and unbalanced baseline covariates.|ANCOVA|||Comparison of least squares mean change from Baseline in HAQ-DI at Month 6||||0.3370
90964858|NCT01557348|181811102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1515||||||LsMean and p-value are based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for significant factors leading to selection of new biologic therapy and unbalanced baseline covariates.|ANCOVA|||Comparison of least squares mean change from Baseline in HAQ-DI at Month 12||||0.1515
90964859|NCT01557348|181811103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3253||||||LsMean and p-value are based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for significant factors leading to selection of new biologic therapy and unbalanced baseline covariates.|ANCOVA|||Comparison of least squares mean change from Baseline in duration of morning stiffness at month 6||||0.3253
90964860|NCT01557348|181811103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3535||||||LsMean and p-value are based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for significant factors leading to selection of new biologic therapy and unbalanced baseline covariates.|ANCOVA|||Comparison of least squares mean change from Baseline in duration of morning stiffness at month 12||||0.3535
90964861|NCT01667107|181811115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman rank correlation coefficient|0.53||||0.139|||||||Spearman rank correlation|||Spearman rank correlation between concurrent BAL and serum posaconazole concentrations||||0.139
90964862|NCT01667107|181811115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman rank correlation coefficient|0.59||||0.057|||||||Spearman rank correlation|||Spearman rank correlation between concurrent BAL and serum posaconazole concentrations||||0.057
90964863|NCT03427125|181811117|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
90964864|NCT03427125|181811118|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0020
90964865|NCT02281357|181811120|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was that the average percentage change in OCS dose on tralokinumab was equal to the average percentage change in OCS dose on placebo.|LS Mean difference|-7.78||||0.271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.7|6.15|||ANCOVA|The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model utilised a sandwich estimator for the variance.|The model included treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline OCS dose as a continuous covariate. No interaction terms were included in the model. All group comparisons from the ANCOVA model were based on Type III sums of squares.|Comparison of percent change from baseline in OCS dose: tralokinumab vs placebo.||6.15|-21.70|0.271
90964866|NCT02281357|181811121|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|2.73|||Regression, Logistic|The model included treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline OCS dose as a continuous covariate.||Comparison of OCS dose ≤5.0 mg: tralokinumab vs placebo.||2.73|0.65|0.442
90964867|NCT02281357|181811122|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.74|||Regression, Logistic|The model included treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline OCS dose as a continuous covariate.||Comparison of ≥50% reduction in OCS dose: tralokinumab vs placebo.||2.74|0.70|0.356
91035202|NCT03086460|181956475|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.12|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.120|0.000|0.048
90964868|NCT02281357|181811123|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.8||||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.12|||Negative binomial||Treatment group, OCS dose at baseline, and number of exacerbations in the previous year are included in the model as covariates.|Comparison of AAER: tralokinumab vs placebo.||1.12|0.57|0.186
90964869|NCT01162239|181811129|OTHER|||||||0.62|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.62
90964870|NCT01162239|181811130|OTHER|||||||0.91|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.91
90964871|NCT05390580|181811171|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Repeated measures were analyzed with longitudinal mixed-effects models (FDA guidance), using subject as a random effect. This accounted for irregular timing, missing data, and time-varying covariates. Models included treatment, time since last known normal, and their interaction; quadratic time terms captured U-shaped cytokine/WBC patterns. Interaction p-values tested trajectory differences between taVNS and sham.||||0.24
90964872|NCT05390580|181811172|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Repeated measures were analyzed with longitudinal mixed-effects models (FDA guidance), using subject as a random effect. This accounted for irregular timing, missing data, and time-varying covariates. Models included treatment, time since last known normal, and their interaction; quadratic time terms captured U-shaped cytokine/WBC patterns. Interaction p-values tested trajectory differences between taVNS and sham.||||0.0001
90964873|NCT05390580|181811173|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Repeated measures were analyzed with longitudinal mixed-effects models (FDA guidance), using subject as a random effect. This accounted for irregular timing, missing data, and time-varying covariates. Models included treatment, time since last known normal, and their interaction; quadratic time terms captured U-shaped cytokine/WBC patterns. Interaction p-values tested trajectory differences between taVNS and sham.||||0.26
91035203|NCT03086460|181956475|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.037||||0.219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.022|0.095|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.095|-0.022|0.219
90887085|NCT03893448|181636767|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevnar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|0.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.72|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|Serotype 1 GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.72|0.62|< 0.001
90887086|NCT03893448|181636767|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevnar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|1.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|1.46|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|Serotype 3 GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||1.46|1.25|< 0.001
90887087|NCT03893448|181636767|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevnar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|0.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.84|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|Serotype 4 GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.84|0.71|< 0.001
90887088|NCT03893448|181636767|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevnar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|0.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.69|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|Serotype 5 GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.69|0.58|< 0.001
90887089|NCT03893448|181636767|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevnar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|0.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.65|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|Serotype 6A GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.65|0.54|< 0.001
90887090|NCT03893448|181636767|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevnar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|0.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.81|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|Serotype 6B GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.81|0.67|< 0.001
90887091|NCT03893448|181636767|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevnar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.77|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|Serotype 7F GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.77|0.65|< 0.001
90887092|NCT03893448|181636767|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevnar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|0.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.8|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|Serotype 9V GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.80|0.67|< 0.001
90887093|NCT03893448|181636767|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevnar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|0.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.89|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|Serotype 14 GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.89|0.73|< 0.001
90887094|NCT03893448|181636767|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevnar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|0.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|0.93|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|Serotype 18C GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.93|0.78|< 0.001
90887095|NCT03893448|181636767|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevnar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|0.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.8|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|Serotype 19A GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.80|0.68|< 0.001
90926970|NCT01474122|181730662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||NB-2 estimate of new DUs per patient|1.208||||0.407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.773|1.886|||NB-2||The estimated value corresponds to the treatment effect i.e. the ratio between the estimated number of new DUs in macitentan 10 mg and in placebo|||1.886|0.773|0.407
90926971|NCT01474122|181730663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.831||||0.5668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.442|1.564|||Chi-squared|||||1.564|0.442|0.5668
90887096|NCT03893448|181636767|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevnar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|0.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.86|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|Serotype 19F GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.86|0.74|< 0.001
90887097|NCT03893448|181636767|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevnar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|0.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.68|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|Serotype 23F GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.68|0.56|< 0.001
90887098|NCT03893448|181636767|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevnar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|4.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|5.11|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|Serotype 22F IgG GMC for Serotype 22F in recipients of V114 was compared to the lowest IgG GMC (Serotype 4 at 1.60 ug/mL) for shared serotype in recipients of Prevnar 13™, excluding serotype 3. GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||5.11|4.30|< 0.001
91035204|NCT03086460|181956475|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.163|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.226|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.226|0.100|<0.001
91035205|NCT03086460|181956475|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.126|0.254|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.254|0.126|<0.001
90926972|NCT01474122|181730663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.789||||0.4624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.484|||Chi-squared|||||1.484|0.420|0.4624
90926973|NCT01474122|181730664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.216||||0.6117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.572|2.582|||Chi-squared|||||2.582|0.572|0.6117
90926974|NCT01474122|181730664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.048||||0.9047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.485|2.264|||Chi-squared|||||2.264|0.485|0.9047
90926975|NCT01474122|181730665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.2|0.347
90926976|NCT01474122|181730665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.0|-0.3|0.165
90926977|NCT01474122|181730666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.2|0.339
90926978|NCT01474122|181730666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.2|0.312
90926979|NCT01474122|181730667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.4|0.319
90926980|NCT01474122|181730667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.4|0.221
90926981|NCT05061017|181730695|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
90926982|NCT05061017|181730696|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
90926983|NCT04631016|181730718|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.024||||0.216|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.015|0.063|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.063|-0.015|0.216
90926984|NCT04631016|181730721|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.186|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.57|1.11|||Regression, Cox|||||1.11|0.57|0.186
90926985|NCT04631016|181730742|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.067||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.017|0.116||One-sided p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger correction has been used for degrees of freedom approximation in the generation of model.||Results are based on the mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) analysis at Week 12.||0.116|0.017|0.044
90926986|NCT04631016|181730742|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.07||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.02|0.12||One-sided p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger correction has been used for degrees of freedom approximation in the generation of model.||Results are based on the MMRM analysis at Week 28.||0.120|0.020|0.036
90926987|NCT04967599|181730756|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.81
90926988|NCT04967599|181730757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.46
90926989|NCT04967599|181730758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.49
90926990|NCT04967599|181730759|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.59
90926991|NCT04967599|181730760|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.29
90926992|NCT04967599|181730761|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.49
90926993|NCT05541484|181730768|OTHER|Spearman's ρ given non-normal variable distributions|||||<|0.0001||||||Spearman's ρ given non-normal variable distributions|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||< 0.0001
90926994|NCT00626795|181730808|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower confidence limit greater or equal to -12.5% indicates non-inferiority.|Difference in percentage|4.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|10.71|||||Estimated using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel approach, stratifying by country and disease (impetigo/SITL).|||10.71|-1.59|
90926995|NCT00626795|181730808|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower confidence limit greater or equal to -12.5% indicates non-inferiority.|Difference in percentage|-3.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.28|3.57|||||Estimated using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel approach, stratifying by country and disease (impetigo/SITL).|||3.57|-10.28|
90926996|NCT04499521|181730814|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.5||||||Mean difference between Gauze and Gel ARM A Bladder D2cc||0.50|-0.27|
90926997|NCT04499521|181730814|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.96||||||Mean difference between Gauze and Gel ARM B Bladder D2cc||0.96|-0.94|
90926998|NCT04499521|181730814|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.16||||||Mean difference between Gauze and Gel ARM A Rectum D2cc||0.16|-0.54|
90926999|NCT04499521|181730814|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.29||||||Mean difference between Gauze and Gel ARM B Rectum D2cc||0.29|-0.67|
90927000|NCT05412004|181730824|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Change difference|-20.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.82|-14.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model was used with baseline, geographic region, sex, treatment (Type III sum of squares) as covariates.||||-14.20|-25.82|<0.001
90927001|NCT05412004|181730824|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Change difference|-23.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.61|-17.93|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model was used with baseline, geographic region, sex, treatment (Type III sum of squares) as covariates.||||-17.93|-29.61|<0.001
90927002|NCT05412004|181730825|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Change difference|-47.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.76|-29.55|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model was used with baseline, geographic region, sex, treatment (Type III sum of squares) as covariates.||||-29.55|-65.76|<0.001
90927003|NCT05412004|181730825|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Change difference|-56.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.73|-38.7|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model was used with baseline, geographic region, sex, treatment (Type III sum of squares) as covariates.||||-38.70|-73.73|<0.001
90927004|NCT05412004|181730826|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|42.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.76|54.79|||Regression, Logistic|||||54.79|30.76|<0.001
90927005|NCT05412004|181730826|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|48.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.55|60.65|||Regression, Logistic|||||60.65|36.55|<0.001
90927006|NCT05412004|181730827|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|28.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.27|39.22|||Regression, Logistic|||||39.22|18.27|<.001
90927007|NCT05412004|181730827|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|33.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.12|44.31|||Regression, Logistic|||||44.31|22.12|<0.001
90927008|NCT05412004|181730828|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-70.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.619|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-90.94|-49.31||||||||-49.31|-90.94|
90927009|NCT05412004|181730828|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-61.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.921|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.66|-37.93||||||||-37.93|-84.66|
90927010|NCT05412004|181730829|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Change difference|-2.03||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.95|-0.12|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model was used with baseline, geographic region, sex, baseline OSA severity Group, treatment (Type III sum of squares) as covariates.||Sleep Disturbance||-0.12|-3.95|0.037
90927011|NCT05412004|181730829|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Change difference|-3.43||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.69|-1.17|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model was used with baseline, geographic region, sex, baseline OSA severity Group, treatment (Type III sum of squares) as covariates.||Sleep Related Impairment||-1.17|-5.69|0.003
90927012|NCT05412004|181730829|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Change difference|-3.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.21|-1.58|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model was used with baseline, geographic region, sex, baseline OSA severity Group, treatment (Type III sum of squares) as covariates.||Sleep Disturbance||-1.58|-6.21|<0.001
90927013|NCT05412004|181730829|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Change difference|-4.26||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.97|-1.56|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model was used with baseline, geographic region, sex, baseline OSA severity Group, treatment (Type III sum of squares) as covariates.||Sleep-Related Impairment||-1.56|-6.97|0.002
90927014|NCT05412004|181730830|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Change difference|-16.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.99|-14.19|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model was used with baseline, geographic region, sex, baseline OSA severity Group, treatment (Type III sum of squares) as covariates.||||-14.19|-17.99|<0.001
90927015|NCT05412004|181730830|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Change difference|-17.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.29|-15.28|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model was used with baseline, geographic region, sex, baseline OSA severity Group, treatment (Type III sum of squares) as covariates.||||-15.28|-19.29|<.001
90927016|NCT05412004|181730831|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Change difference|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.253||0.752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|-0.22||ANCOVA model was used with baseline, geographic region, sex, baseline OSA severity Group, treatment (Type III sum of squares) as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||-0.22|-1.21|0.752
90964874|NCT05390580|181811174|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Repeated measures were analyzed with longitudinal mixed-effects models (FDA guidance), using subject as a random effect. This accounted for irregular timing, missing data, and time-varying covariates. Models included treatment, time since last known normal, and their interaction; quadratic time terms captured U-shaped cytokine/WBC patterns. Interaction p-values tested trajectory differences between taVNS and sham.||||0.14
90927017|NCT05412004|181730831|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Change difference|-1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.269||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|-0.51||ANCOVA model was used with baseline, geographic region, sex, baseline OSA severity Group, treatment (Type III sum of squares) as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||-0.51|-1.57|0.350
90927018|NCT05412004|181730832|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Change difference|-7.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.48|-4.77|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model was used with baseline, geographic region, sex, baseline OSA severity Group, treatment (Type III sum of squares) as covariates.||||-4.77|-10.48|<0.001
90927019|NCT05412004|181730832|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-3.7||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.75|-0.65|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model was used with baseline, geographic region, sex, baseline OSA severity Group, treatment (Type III sum of squares) as covariates.||||-0.65|-6.75|0.017
90927020|NCT03781089|181730833|OTHER|||||||0.024|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.024
90927021|NCT03781089|181730834|OTHER|||||||0.024|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.024
90927022|NCT02246127|181730882|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65||||0.229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.32|||Regression, Cox|||significant differences between both arms is assumed in case p-val \< 0.05||1.32|0.32|0.229
90927023|NCT02246127|181730883|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.4||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.19|||Regression, Cox|||significant differences between both arms is assumed in case p-val \< 0.05||2.19|0.90|0.135
90927024|NCT02246127|181730884|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||0.474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.75|||Regression, Cox|||significant differences between both arms is assumed in case p-val \< 0.05||1.75|0.77|0.474
90927025|NCT02246127|181730886|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||significant differences between both arms is assumed in case p-val \< 0.05||||0.001
90927026|NCT02246127|181730888|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||Fisher Exact|||significant differences between both arms is assumed in case p-val \< 0.05||||0.012
91035206|NCT03086460|181956475|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.166|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.103|0.229|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.229|0.103|<0.001
91035207|NCT03086460|181956475|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.206|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.146|0.266|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.266|0.146|<0.001
90927027|NCT02246127|181730889|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||significant differences between both arms is assumed in case p-val \< 0.05||||0.001
90927028|NCT02246127|181730890|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.43||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|2.37|||Regression, Cox|||significant differences between both arms is assumed in case p-val \< 0.05||2.37|0.86|0.168
90927029|NCT02246127|181730892|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.072|||||||Fisher Exact|||significant differences between both arms is assumed in case p-val \< 0.05||||0.072
90927030|NCT02246127|181730894|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.6||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|2.73|||Log Rank|||significant differences between both arms is assumed in case p-val \< 0.05||2.73|0.94|0.079
90927031|NCT03952520|181730895|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|37.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.5|48.1|||||This generalized linear model was adjusted for engagement of site leadership. The Standard Approach is the referent.|||48.1|26.5|
90927032|NCT03952520|181730896|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|2.1|||||This generalized linear model was adjusted for engagement of site leadership and used generalized estimating equations to account for clustering by HIV test site. The Standard Approach is the referent.|||2.1|2.0|
90927033|NCT03952520|181730898|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.4|||||This generalized linear model was adjusted for engagement of site leadership and used generalized estimating equations to account for clustering by HIV test site. The Standard Approach is the referent.|||0.4|-0.2|
90927034|NCT03952520|181730899|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|2.0|||||This generalized linear model was adjusted for engagement of site leadership and used generalized estimating equations to account for clustering by HIV test site. The Standard Approach is the referent.|||2.0|-3.1|
90927035|NCT03952520|181730900|SUPERIORITY||Prevalence Difference|15.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|26.5|||||This generalized linear model was adjusted for engagement of site leadership and used generalized estimating equations to account for clustering by HIV test site. The Standard Approach is the referent.|||26.5|5.0|
91035208|NCT03086460|181956475|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.184|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.125|0.243|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment F ( Perforomist® IS 40 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.243|0.125|<0.001
90887099|NCT03893448|181636767|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevnar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|2.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.36|2.83|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|Serotype 33F IgG GMC for Serotype 33F in recipients of V114 was compared to the lowest IgG GMC (Serotype 4 at 1.60 ug/mL) for shared serotype in recipients of Prevnar 13™, excluding serotype 3. GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||2.83|2.36|< 0.001
90887100|NCT03893448|181636768|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of Pentacel™ administered concomitantly with V114 to Pentacel™ administered concomitantly with Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevnar 13™) being greater than -10% (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Point Difference|-0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|1.1||p-value is 1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Diphtheria toxoid % ≥0.1 IU/mL Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.||1.1|-2.6|< 0.001
90887101|NCT03893448|181636768|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of Pentacel™ administered concomitantly with V114 to Pentacel™ administered concomitantly with Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevnar 13™) being greater than -5% (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Point Difference|0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.8||p-value is 1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Tetanus toxoid: % ≥0.1 IU/mL Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.||0.8|-0.4|< 0.001
90887102|NCT03893448|181636768|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of Pentacel™ administered concomitantly with V114 to Pentacel™ administered concomitantly with Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevnar 13™) being greater than -10% (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Point Difference|0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.9||p-value is 1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Pertussis toxin (PT): % ≥ 5 EU/mL Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.||1.9|-0.7|< 0.001
90927036|NCT03952520|181730901|SUPERIORITY||Prevalence Difference|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|10.0|||||This generalized linear model was adjusted for engagement of site leadership and used generalized estimating equations to account for clustering by HIV test site. The Standard Approach is the referent.|||10.0|-6.9|
90927037|NCT03952520|181730903|SUPERIORITY||Prevalence Difference|6.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|13.8|||||This generalized linear model was adjusted for engagement of site leadership and used generalized estimating equations to account for clustering by HIV test site. The Standard Approach is the referent.|||13.8|-1.5|
90940851|NCT01917006|181761575|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|55.33||||0.184||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline average IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 1 versus (vs) Placebo at Week 2||||0.184
90940852|NCT01917006|181761575|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|170.21||||0.002||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline average IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 2 vs Placebo at Week 2||||0.002
90964875|NCT05390580|181811176|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Repeated measures were analyzed with longitudinal mixed-effects models (FDA guidance), using subject as a random effect. This accounted for irregular timing, missing data, and time-varying covariates. Models included treatment, time since last known normal, and their interaction; linearly for in-hospital NIHSS scores based on panel data plots. Interaction terms were utilized to delineate differences amongst trajectories of the outcome of interest.||||0.69
90964876|NCT05390580|181811177|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Estimated using a mixed model that includes a random effect for person, based on actual day of the mRS, 90 day assessment. Restricted to participants who survived to an mRS assessment for day 90 , leaving 14 participants (28 mRS scores) in the treatment group and 17 participants (34 mRS scores) in the sham group.||||0.48
90887103|NCT03893448|181636768|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of Pentacel™ administered concomitantly with V114 to Pentacel™ administered concomitantly with Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevnar 13™) being greater than -10% (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Point Difference|-0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.8||p-value is 1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Pertussis filamentous hemagglutinin (FHA): % ≥5 EU/mL Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.||0.8|-1.3|< 0.001
90887104|NCT03893448|181636768|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of Pentacel™ administered concomitantly with V114 to Pentacel™ administered concomitantly with Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevnar 13™) being greater than -10% (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Point Difference|2.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|7.1||p-value is 1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Pertussis fimbrae types 2/3 (FIM 2/3): % ≥20 EU/mL Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.||7.1|-3.1|< 0.001
90887105|NCT03893448|181636768|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of Pentacel™ administered concomitantly with V114 to Pentacel™ administered concomitantly with Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevnar 13™) being greater than -10% (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Point Difference|1.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|6.8||p-value is 1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Pertussis pertactin (PRN): % ≥5 EU/mL Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.||6.8|-3.2|< 0.001
90887106|NCT03893448|181636768|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of Pentacel™ administered concomitantly with V114 to Pentacel™ administered concomitantly with Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevnar 13™) being greater than -5% (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.8||p-value is 1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Poliovirus 1: % NAb ≥1:8 dilution Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.||0.8|-0.7|< 0.001
90887107|NCT03893448|181636768|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of Pentacel™ administered concomitantly with V114 to Pentacel™ administered concomitantly with Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevnar 13™) being greater than -5% (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.6||p-value is 1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Poliovirus 2: % NAb ≥1:8 dilution Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.||0.6|-0.6|< 0.001
90887108|NCT03893448|181636768|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of Pentacel™ administered concomitantly with V114 to Pentacel™ administered concomitantly with Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevnar 13™) being greater than -5% (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.6||p-value is 1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Poliovirus 3: % NAb ≥1:8 dilution Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.||0.6|-0.6|< 0.001
90887109|NCT03893448|181636768|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of Pentacel™ administered concomitantly with V114 to Pentacel™ administered concomitantly with Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevnar 13™) being greater than -10% (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Point Difference|-1.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|1.5||p-value is 1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Haemophilus influenzae Type B polyribosylribitol phosphate (Hib-PRP): % ≥0.15 ug/mL Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.||1.5|-4.3|< 0.001
90887110|NCT03893448|181636769|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of Pentacel™ administered concomitantly with V114 to Pentacel™ administered concomitantly with Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevnar 13™) being \>0.67 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|0.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.09|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|Pertussis - PT GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||1.09|0.89|< 0.001
90887111|NCT03893448|181636769|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of Pentacel™ administered concomitantly with V114 to Pentacel™ administered concomitantly with Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevnar 13™) being \>0.67 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|0.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.09|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|Pertussis - FHA GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||1.09|0.87|< 0.001
90887112|NCT03893448|181636769|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of Pentacel™ administered concomitantly with V114 to Pentacel™ administered concomitantly with Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevnar 13™) being \>0.67 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|1.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.28|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|Pertussis - FIM 2/3 GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||1.28|0.91|< 0.001
90887113|NCT03893448|181636769|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of Pentacel™ administered concomitantly with V114 to Pentacel™ administered concomitantly with Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevnar 13™) being \>0.67 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.19|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|Pertussis - PRN GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||1.19|0.84|< 0.001
90964877|NCT05390580|181811178|EQUIVALENCE|Here we were testing if there were any safety differences based on treatment. This was a pilot exploratory trial, for which we may be underpowered.||||||0.49|||||||Regression, Logistic|||To assess our dichotomous safety endpoints, we used logistic regression models constructed to assess differences in hypotension.||||0.49
90964878|NCT05390580|181811179|EQUIVALENCE|Here we were testing if there were any safety differences based on treatment. This was a pilot exploratory trial, for which we may be underpowered.||||||0.66|||||||Regression, Logistic|||To assess our dichotomous safety endpoints, we used logistic regression models constructed to assess differences in bradycardia.||||0.66
90964879|NCT00823303|181811180|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|On the basis of prior published reports, we estimated a 5% rate of hypercalcemia with paricalcitol and a 30% rate with calcitriol. To have a 90% power to detect a difference at the P=0.05 confidence level, 42 patients per group were needed. Assuming a 30% dropout rate over the course of the study, we planned to randomize 110 patients.||||||0.36|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.36
90964880|NCT02877927|181811196|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 10% was used for the analysis.|treatment difference|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|10.3|||||The 95% confidence interval was constructed based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification. Treatment difference for a response of clinical success was calculated as omadacycline minus linezolid.|||10.3|-0.2|
90964881|NCT02877927|181811197|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 10% was used for the analysis.|treatment difference|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|8.9|||||The 95% confidence interval was constructed based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification. Treatment difference for a response of clinical success was calculated as omadacycline minus linezolid.|||8.9|-2.2|
90887114|NCT03893448|181636770|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of VAQTA™ administered concomitantly with V114 to VAQTA™ administered concomitantly with Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevnar 13™) being greater than -10% (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Point Difference|0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.2||p value is 1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.||2.2|-1.6|< 0.001
90887115|NCT03893448|181636771|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of M-M-R™ II administered concomitantly with V114 to M-M-R™ II administered concomitantly with Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevnar 13™) being greater than -5% (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Point Difference|-0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.3||p-value is 1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Measles antigen ≥255 mIU/mL Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.||1.3|-1.8|< 0.001
90887116|NCT03893448|181636771|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of M-M-R™ II administered concomitantly with V114 to M-M-R™ II administered concomitantly with Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevnar 13™) being greater than -5% (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Point Difference|-1.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|0.2||p-value is 1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Mumps antigen ≥10 mumps Ab units/mL Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.||0.2|-3.8|< 0.001
90887117|NCT03893448|181636771|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of M-M-R™ II administered concomitantly with V114 to M-M-R™ II administered concomitantly with Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevnar 13™) being greater than -5% (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Point Difference|-0.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.5||p-value is 1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Rubella antigen ≥10 IU/mL Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.||0.5|-2.3|< 0.001
90887118|NCT03893448|181636772|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of VARIVAX™ administered concomitantly with V114 to VARIVAX™ administered concomitantly with Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevnar 13™) being greater than -10% (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Point Difference|-1.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|0.5||p-value is 1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.||0.5|-3.2|< 0.001
90964882|NCT02877927|181811198|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 10% was used for the analysis.|treatment difference|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|5.6|||||The 95% confidence interval was constructed based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification. Treatment difference for a response of clinical success was calculated as omadacycline minus linezolid.|||5.6|-0.6|
90964883|NCT05564299|181811216|OTHER|||||||0.053|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon rank sum test||||0.053
90964884|NCT01791803|181811224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|11.4||||||||11.4|1.1|
90964885|NCT01791803|181811224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|9.7||||||||9.7|1.04|
90927038|NCT03635567|181730905|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.71||No formal hypothesis testing performed; nominal p-value provided for treatment comparison.|Stratified Log-Rank|Nominal p-value based on log-rank test stratified by metastatic at initial diagnosis (FIGO \[2009\] stage IVB), bevacizumab use, and PD-L1 status.||Treatment comparison (hazard ratio \[HR\]) was based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by metastatic at initial diagnosis (FIGO \[2009\] stage IVB) (yes or no), bevacizumab use (yes or no), and PD-L1 status (CPS\<1, CPS 1 to \<10, or CPS ≥10).||0.71|0.47|<0.0001
90927039|NCT03635567|181730906|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.74||No formal hypothesis testing performed; nominal p-value provided for treatment comparison.|Stratified Log-Rank|Nominal p-value based on log-rank test stratified by metastatic at initial diagnosis (FIGO \[2009\] stage IVB), bevacizumab use, and PD-L1 status.||Treatment comparison (HR) was based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by metastatic at initial diagnosis (FIGO \[2009\] stage IVB) (yes or no), bevacizumab use (yes or no), and PD-L1 status (CPS\<1, CPS 1 to \<10, or CPS ≥10).||0.74|0.50|<0.0001
90927040|NCT03635567|181730907|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.68||No formal hypothesis testing performed; nominal p-value provided for treatment comparison.|Stratified Log-Rank|Nominal p-value based on log-rank test stratified by metastatic at initial diagnosis (FIGO \[2009\] stage IVB), bevacizumab use, and PD-L1 status.||Treatment comparison (HR) was based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by metastatic at initial diagnosis (FIGO \[2009\] stage IVB) (yes or no), bevacizumab use (yes or no), and PD-L1 status (CPS\<1, CPS 1 to \<10, or CPS ≥10).||0.68|0.40|<0.0001
90964886|NCT01791803|181811225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|6.2||||Adjusted for gender, marital status, diagnosis at enrollment.||||6.2|0.8|
90964887|NCT01791803|181811225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|10.0||||||||10|1.2|
90964888|NCT01791803|181811226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison of smoking status at 12 weeks after hospitalization for a cardiac or pulmonary diagnosis||||< 0.001
90964889|NCT01791803|181811226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison of smoking stars at 26 weeks after hospitalization for a cardiac or a pulmonary illness||||0.07
90964890|NCT02060383|181811262|OTHER|There was no formal hypothesis testing planned in this study.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.08|||||Difference of adjusted mean change in HbA1c between the two arms based on an ANOVA model with treatment (Incretin, Insulin) and randomization stratification factors (Cushing's vs. Acromegaly; baseline HbA1c \<7% vs ≥7%) as fixed effects.|All Patients||0.08|-0.63|
90964891|NCT02060383|181811262|OTHER|There was no formal hypothesis testing planned in this study.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.95|||||Difference of adjusted mean change in HbA1c between the two arms based on an ANOVA model with treatment (Incretin, Insulin) and randomization stratification factors (baseline HbA1c \<7% vs ≥7%) as fixed effects.|Cushing's Disease||0.95|-0.96|
90964892|NCT02060383|181811262|OTHER|There was no formal hypothesis testing planned in this study.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.02|||||Difference of adjusted mean change in HbA1c between the two arms based on an ANOVA model with treatment (Incretin, Insulin) and randomization stratification factors (baseline HbA1c \<7% vs ≥7%) as fixed effects.|Acromegaly||0.02|-0.74|
90964893|NCT03426787|181811269|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.30216|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.95|-5.6531|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-5.6531|-18.95|<0.001
90927041|NCT03635567|181730908|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.74||No formal hypothesis testing performed; nominal p-value provided for treatment comparison.|Stratified Log-Rank|Nominal p-value based on log-rank test stratified by metastatic at initial diagnosis (FIGO \[2009\] stage IVB), bevacizumab use, and PD-L1 status.||Treatment comparison (HR) was based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by metastatic at initial diagnosis (FIGO \[2009\] stage IVB) (yes or no), bevacizumab use (yes or no), and PD-L1 status (CPS\<1, CPS 1 to \<10, or CPS ≥10).||0.74|0.49|<0.0001
90927042|NCT03635567|181730909|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.77||No formal hypothesis testing performed; nominal p-value based on log-rank test provided for treatment comparison.|Stratified Log-Rank|Nominal p-value based on log-rank test stratified by metastatic at initial diagnosis (FIGO \[2009\] stage IVB), bevacizumab use, and PD-L1 status.||Treatment comparison (HR) was based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by metastatic at initial diagnosis (FIGO \[2009\] stage IVB) (yes or no), bevacizumab use (yes or no), and PD-L1 status (CPS\<1, CPS 1 to \<10, or CPS ≥10).||0.77|0.52|<0.0001
90927043|NCT03635567|181730910|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.78||No formal hypothesis testing performed; nominal p-value provided for treatment comparison.|Stratified Log-Rank|Nominal p-value based on log-rank test stratified by metastatic at initial diagnosis (FIGO \[2009\] stage IVB), bevacizumab use, and PD-L1 status.||Treatment comparison (HR) was based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by metastatic at initial diagnosis (FIGO \[2009\] stage IVB) (yes or no), bevacizumab use (yes or no), and PD-L1 status (CPS\<1, CPS 1 to \<10, or CPS ≥10).||0.78|0.44|<0.0001
90927044|NCT03635567|181730911|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|14.9||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|22.3||No formal hypothesis testing performed; nominal p-value provided for treatment comparison|Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Treatment comparison was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by metastatic at initial diagnosis (FIGO \[2009\] stage IVB) (yes or no), bevacizumab use (yes or no), and PD-L1 status (CPS\<1, CPS 1 to \<10, or CPS ≥10).||22.3|7.4|0.0001
90940853|NCT01917006|181761575|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|12.73||||0.404||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline average IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 3 vs Placebo at Week 2||||0.404
90887119|NCT03893448|181636773|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of HIBERIX™ administered concomitantly with V114 to HIBERIX™ administered concomitantly with Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevnar 13™) being greater than -10% (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Point Difference|-1.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.5||p-value is 1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.||-0.5|-2.2|< 0.001
90887120|NCT03893448|181636774|SUPERIORITY||GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|92.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|83.47|101.47|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|Serotype 22F GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||101.47|83.47|< 0.001
90964894|NCT03426787|181811270|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4717||||0.0463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9355|-0.00793|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.00793|-0.9355|0.0463
90887121|NCT03893448|181636774|SUPERIORITY||GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|29.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.16|33.26|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|Serotype 33F GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||33.26|26.16|< 0.001
90887122|NCT03893448|181636775|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Point Difference|95.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.1|96.5||p-value is 1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Serotype 22F Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.||96.5|93.1|< 0.001
90887123|NCT03893448|181636775|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Point Difference|85.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|82.3|87.7||p-value is 1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Serotype 33F Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.||87.7|82.3|< 0.001
90887124|NCT03893448|181636776|SUPERIORITY||GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|68.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.1|75.02|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|Serotype 22F GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||75.02|63.10|< 0.001
90887125|NCT03893448|181636776|SUPERIORITY||GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|44.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.04|49.14|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|Serotype 33F GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||49.14|41.04|< 0.001
90887126|NCT03893448|181636779|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Point Difference|15.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.1|19.2||p-value is 1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method||19.2|12.1|< 0.001
90887127|NCT03893448|181636780|SUPERIORITY||GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|1.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.61|1.87|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||1.87|1.61|< 0.001
90887128|NCT03893448|181636781|SUPERIORITY||GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|1.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|1.46|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||1.46|1.25|< 0.001
90887129|NCT03880578|181636802|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|-5.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|The outcome measure is change over time between treatment groups, reported as a mean adjusted difference.|change in the composite score of the ThyPRO between groups|||-5.7|-14.9|<0.001
90887130|NCT03880578|181636803|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.14||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.34|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.06|-4.34|0.06
90964895|NCT03426787|181811271|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.936|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4086|3.5365|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.5365|-7.4086|>0.05
90964896|NCT00257166|181811279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-5.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.48||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.12|-2.31|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Mixed effects repeated measures Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with center and participant within center as random effects, treatment, visit and visit-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate was used for the analysis.||-2.31|-8.12|0.0005
90964897|NCT00257166|181811280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-3.2545|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9422||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1045|-1.4046|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1: Mixed effects repeated measures ANCOVA model with center and participant within center as random effects, treatment, visit and visit-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate was used for the analysis.||-1.4046|-5.1045|0.0006
90964898|NCT00257166|181811280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-3.5857|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4184||0.0117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3705|-0.8009|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Mixed effects repeated measures ANCOVA model with center and participant within center as random effects, treatment, visit and visit-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate was used for the analysis.||-0.8009|-6.3705|0.0117
90964899|NCT00257166|181811280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-4.8665|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7154||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2345|-1.4985|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 3: Mixed effects repeated measures ANCOVA model with center and participant within center as random effects, treatment, visit and visit-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate was used for the analysis.||-1.4985|-8.2345|0.0047
90964900|NCT00257166|181811281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.3754|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0989||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5696|-0.1812|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1: Mixed effects repeated measures ANCOVA model with center and participant within center as random effects, treatment, visit and visit-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate was used for the analysis.||-0.1812|-0.5696|0.0002
90964901|NCT00257166|181811281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.5596|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1355|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8256|-0.2936|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Mixed effects repeated measures ANCOVA model with center and participant within center as random effects, treatment, visit and visit-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate was used for the analysis.||-0.2936|-0.8256|<0.0001
90964902|NCT00257166|181811281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.6798|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1643|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0024|-0.3572|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 3: Mixed effects repeated measures ANCOVA model with center and participant within center as random effects, treatment, visit and visit-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate was used for the analysis.||-0.3572|-1.0024|<0.0001
90964903|NCT00257166|181811281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.6884|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1761||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0342|-0.3426|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Mixed effects repeated measures ANCOVA model with center and participant within center as random effects, treatment, visit and visit-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate was used for the analysis.||-0.3426|-1.0342|0.0001
90964904|NCT00257166|181811282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|-0.34|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Mixed effects repeated measures ANCOVA model with center and participant within center as random effects, treatment, visit and visit-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects was used for the analysis.||-0.34|-1.18|0.0004
90964905|NCT02592551|181811283|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|8.6||||0.109|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Compare in ratios of intratumoral cytotoxic T cells to regulatory T cells (CD8/Treg) between pre and post of MEDI4736+Tremelimumab||||0.109
90964906|NCT02592551|181811284|OTHER|Compare the tissue biomarker for the immune response of ICOS+ CD4 T cells to before and after MEDI-4736 and Tremelimumab||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||1
90927045|NCT03635567|181730914|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.74||No formal hypothesis testing performed; nominal p-value provided for treatment comparison|Stratified Log-Rank|Nominal p-value based on log-rank test stratified by metastatic at initial diagnosis (FIGO \[2009\] stage IVB), bevacizumab use, and PD-L1 status.||Treatment comparison (HR) was based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by metastatic at initial diagnosis (FIGO \[2009\] stage IVB) (yes or no), bevacizumab use (yes or no), and PD-L1 status (CPS\<1, CPS 1 to \<10, or CPS ≥10).||0.74|0.49|<0.0001
90927046|NCT05157841|181730927|SUPERIORITY|A one-sided hypothesis test was performed at alpha=0.025 level of significance comparing EXPAREL and bupivacaine HCI|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-164.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|27.74|<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-218.3|-109.6|||ANCOVA|Main effect of treatment, categorical covariate of pooled Investigator site, and continuous covariates of age||The superiority of EXPAREL to bupivacaine hydrochloric acid (HCI) was evaluated using the Efficacy Analysis Set.||-109.6|-218.3|<0.00001
90927047|NCT05157841|181730928|SUPERIORITY|A one-sided hypothesis test was performed at alpha=0.025 level of significance comparing EXPAREL and bupivacaine HCI|Least square mean difference|0.39|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.55|||ANCOVA|||The superiority of EXPAREL to bupivacaine hydrochloric acid (HCI) was evaluated using the Efficacy Analysis Set.||0.55|0.28|<0.00001
90927048|NCT05157841|181730929|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.04||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.01|12.62|||ANCOVA|||||12.62|2.01|0.0003
90927049|NCT05157841|181730930|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.93|||Cox proportional hazards model|Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as main effect and site as categorical and age as continuous covariates.||||0.93|0.45|0.0089
90927050|NCT05157841|181730931|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.0296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.0||Worst pain 0-24 hours|ANCOVA|Main effect of treatment, categorical covariate of pooled Investigator site, and continuous covariate of age.||||0.0|-1.7|0.0296
90927051|NCT05157841|181730931|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|-2.1||Worst pain 24-48 hours|ANCOVA|Main effect of treatment, categorical covariate of pooled Investigator site, and continuous covariates of age||||-2.1|-3.6|<0.00001
90927052|NCT05157841|181730931|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|-2.5||Worst pain 48-72 hours|ANCOVA|Main effect of treatment, categorical covariate of pooled Investigator site, and continuous covariates of age||||-2.5|-4.1|<0.00001
90927053|NCT05157841|181730931|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-1.3||Worst pain 72-96 hours|ANCOVA|Main effect of treatment, categorical covariate of pooled Investigator site, and continuous covariates of age||||-1.3|-3.0|<0.00001
90927054|NCT05157841|181730931|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.3419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.6||Average pain 0-24 hours|ANCOVA|Main effect of treatment, categorical covariate of pooled Investigator site, and continuous covariates of age||||0.6|-0.9|0.3419
90927055|NCT05157841|181730931|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-1.3||Average pain 24-48 hours|ANCOVA|Main effect of treatment, categorical covariate of pooled Investigator site, and continuous covariates of age||||-1.3|-2.5|<0.00001
90927056|NCT05157841|181730931|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-1.6||Average pain 48-72 hours|ANCOVA|Main effect of treatment, categorical covariate of pooled Investigator site, and continuous covariates of age||||-1.6|-2.8|<0.00001
90927057|NCT05157841|181730931|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.9||Average pain 72-96 hours|ANCOVA|Main effect of treatment, categorical covariate of pooled Investigator site, and continuous covariates of age||||-0.9|-2.1|<0.00001
90927058|NCT04310423|181730936|OTHER|||||||0.036|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment x Time interaction for alcohol cue-induced alcohol craving.||||0.036
90927059|NCT04310423|181730937|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Two-way Treatment x Time interaction||||>0.05
90927060|NCT04310423|181730938|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment x Time interactions||||>0.05
90927061|NCT04310423|181730939|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment x Time interactions||||>0.05
90927062|NCT04310423|181730940|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||Main effect of treatment on alcohol cue-elicited brain activation||||<0.001
90927063|NCT03364127|181730960|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12||||0.702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.51|||ANCOVA|Full information maximum likelihood for missing data and to retain participants for intention to treat model. Adjusted for baseline value.||||.51|-.76|0.702
90927064|NCT03364127|181730961|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.79|||ANCOVA|Full information maximum likelihood for missing data and to retain participants for intention to treat model. Adjusted for baseline value.||||.79|-.58|0.77
90964907|NCT02592551|181811285|OTHER|||||||0.461|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Compare tumor expression programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) before and after treatment with combination MEDI-4736 and Tremelimumab||||0.461
90964908|NCT02592551|181811286|OTHER|||||||0.954|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Compare tissue biomarker immune response of CD8 and Treg (ratio of CD8/treg) after MEDI-4736 and Tremelimumab, and after MEDI4736 alone||||0.954
90927065|NCT03364127|181730962|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.16||||0.436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|4.09|||ANCOVA|Full information maximum likelihood for missing data and to retain participants for intention to treat model. Adjusted for baseline value.||||4.09|-1.76|0.436
90927066|NCT03364127|181730963|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.72||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|6.54||Kaplan-Meier curves by treatment arm were examined to determine the rates of return to baseline over the 12-week follow-up period .|Log Rank|||Goal was to assess duration of effect among those who showed a response to the intervention (1.5 or greater decrease in PIN).||6.54|1.13|0.017
90927067|NCT02278211|181730964|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.25||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.76|||Log Rank|||||1.76|0.89|0.20
90927068|NCT02278211|181730965|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.43||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|5.12|||Log Rank|||||5.12|1.15|0.02
90964909|NCT02592551|181811287|OTHER|||||||0.799|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Compare tissue biomarker immune response of CD8 and Treg(ratio of CD8/Treg) after MEDI-4736 and Tremelimumab, and at day 1 of untread control group||||0.799
90927069|NCT02163694|181731015|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Log-rank test|||PFS was compared between the treatment groups using the log-rank test, stratified by prior platinum therapy (Yes versus No) and receptor status (estrogen receptor \[ER\] and/or progesterone receptor \[PgR\] positive versus ER/PgR negative).||||0.003
90927070|NCT02163694|181731015|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Cox proportional hazards|0.728||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.9|||Stratified Cox proportional hazards|||A Cox proportional hazards model, stratified by prior platinum therapy (Yes versus No) and receptor status (estrogen receptor (ER) and/or progesterone receptor (PgR) positive versus ER/PgR negative) was used to estimate the hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval comparing the two treatment arms.||0.900|0.590|0.003
90927071|NCT02163694|181731016|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.410
90964910|NCT02592551|181811290|OTHER|||||||0.418|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Compare tumor expression programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) after combination therapy (MEDI-4736 and Tremelimumab) and after MEDI-4736 alone||||0.418
91035209|NCT03086460|181956475|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.027||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.036|0.09|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.090|-0.036|0.400
90964911|NCT02592551|181811291|OTHER|||||||0.932|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Compare tumor expression programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) after combination therapy (MEDI-4736 and Tremelimumab) and before and at day 1 of untreated||||0.932
91035210|NCT03086460|181956475|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.003||||0.931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.059|0.064|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.064|-0.059|0.931
90887131|NCT03880578|181636804|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|2.03|||Mixed Models Analysis||MAD obtained after log transformation of TSH|||2.03|1.27|<0.001
90887132|NCT03880578|181636805|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||FT3||-0.35|-0.87|<0.001
90887133|NCT03880578|181636805|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.83||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||FT4||0.15|-1.81|0.12
90887134|NCT03880578|181636806|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|-8.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.5|-14.6|<0.001
90927072|NCT02163694|181731016|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Cox proportional hazards|0.914||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.737|1.333|||Stratified Cox proportional hazards|||A Cox proportional hazards model, stratified by prior platinum therapy (Yes versus No) and receptor status (estrogen receptor (ER) and/or progesterone receptor (PgR) positive versus ER/PgR negative) was used to estimate the hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval comparing the two treatment arms.||1.333|0.737|0.410
90927073|NCT02163694|181731017|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.202||||||Nominal P value is from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by ER/PgR status and prior platinum therapy use.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.202
91035211|NCT03086460|181956475|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.043||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.017|0.102|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.102|-0.017|0.160
90887135|NCT00856583|181636810|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper limit of the 90% confidence interval (CI) for the estimated all-cause mortality ratio was \<1.5 (pre-specified), the null hypothesis was rejected. With this limit, 7,600 patient years of exposure (PYE) were required to ensure 80% power at the 5% significance level of rejecting the null hypothesis when assuming a mortality of 2 deaths per 100 PYE. As the actual mortality was only about half that anticipated, more exposure was necessary and the duration of the study increased markedly.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.117||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.831|1.5|||Cox Proportional Hazard|Adjusted for: age, sex, time since last suicide attempt, last previous antipsychotic treatment (mono-/polytherapy), year since start of enrollment.|The hazard ratio is calculated as sertindole (numerator) versus risperidone (denominator).|The basis for the statistical analysis of the first primary outcome was the null hypothesis of an excess mortality in sertindole-treated patients compared to the mortality in risperidone-treated patients for the WRT+30 days period.||1.500|0.831|0.05
90927074|NCT02163694|181731018|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.715||||||Nominal P value is from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by ER/PgR status and prior platinum therapy use.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.715
90927075|NCT02163694|181731019|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.004
90927076|NCT02163694|181731019|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Cox proportional hazards|0.737||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.597|0.908|||Stratified Cox proportional hazards|Stratified by prior platinum therapy (yes vs no) and receptor status (ER and/or PgR positive vs ER/PgR negative).||||0.908|0.597|0.004
90927077|NCT03884101|181731020|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.5550121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.24|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test and stratified by ECOG performance status and prior chemotherapy and/or chemoradiation.|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method for tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG performance status and prior chemotherapy and/or chemoradiation.|||1.24|0.83|0.5550121
90927078|NCT03884101|181731021|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.1792058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.1|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test and stratified by MMR status, ECOG performance status, and prior chemotherapy and/or chemoradiation.|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method for tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by MMR status, ECOG performance status, and prior chemotherapy and/or chemoradiation.|||1.10|0.77|0.1792058
90964912|NCT00525044|181811317|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028||0.0156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|-0.01|||ANOVA||Treatment differences (Ambroxol- Placebo)|"Differences between the treatment groups with regard to the primary endpoint SPIDnorm was tested using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) including treatment and centre as fix effects.~Treatment differences were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95 % confidence intervals."||-0.01|-0.12|0.0156
90964913|NCT00525044|181811318|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.0|||ANCOVA||Treatment differences (Ambroxol- Placebo)|"Analysis at 30 min:~analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including treatment and centre as fix effects and baseline as covariable are presented. Treatment differences are estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95 % confidence intervals."||0|-0.4|0.1280
90964914|NCT00525044|181811318|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.0|||ANCOVA||Treatment differences (Ambroxol- Placebo)|"Analysis at 60 min:~analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including treatment and centre as fix effects and baseline as covariable are presented. Treatment differences are estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95 % confidence intervals."||0.0|-0.4|0.0417
90964915|NCT00525044|181811318|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.1|||ANCOVA||Treatment differences (Ambroxol- Placebo|"Analysis at 120 min:~analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including treatment and centre as fix effects and baseline as covariable are presented. Treatment differences are estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95 % confidence intervals."||-0.1|-0.6|0.0054
90964916|NCT00525044|181811318|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.0|||ANCOVA||Treatment differences (Ambroxol- Placebo|"Analysis at 180 min:~analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including treatment and centre as fix effects and baseline as covariable are presented. Treatment differences are estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95 % confidence intervals."||0.0|-0.6|0.0201
90964917|NCT00525044|181811319|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.0|||ANCOVA||Treatment differences (Ambroxol- Placebo)|"Analysis at 30 min:~analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including treatment and centre as fix effects and baseline as covariable are presented. Treatment differences are estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95 % confidence intervals."||0.0|-0.4|0.1280
90964918|NCT00525044|181811319|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.0|||ANCOVA||Treatment differences (Ambroxol- Placebo|"Analysis at 60 min:~analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including treatment and centre as fix effects and baseline as covariable are presented. Treatment differences are estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95 % confidence intervals."||0.0|-0.4|0.0417
90964919|NCT00525044|181811319|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.1|||ANCOVA||Treatment differences (Ambroxol- Placebo|"Analysis at 120 min:~analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including treatment and centre as fix effects and baseline as covariable are presented. Treatment differences are estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95 % confidence intervals."||-0.1|-0.6|0.0054
90964920|NCT00525044|181811319|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.0|||ANCOVA||Treatment differences (Ambroxol- Placebo|"Analysis at 180 min:~analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including treatment and centre as fix effects and baseline as covariable are presented. Treatment differences are estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95 % confidence intervals."||0.0|-0.6|0.0201
90964921|NCT00525044|181811320|OTHER|||||||0.9939|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||"Analysis at day 1:~P-value was calculated by the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for center."||||0.9939
90964922|NCT00525044|181811320|OTHER|||||||0.5552|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||"Analysis at day 2:~P-value was calculated by the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for center."||||0.5552
90964923|NCT00525044|181811321|OTHER|||||||0.0343|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||"Analysis at day 1:~P-value was calculated by the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for center."||||0.0343
90964924|NCT00525044|181811321|OTHER|||||||0.0119|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||"Analysis at day 2:~P-value was calculated by the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for center."||||0.0119
90964925|NCT02039726|181811329|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.758||||0.0185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.584|0.983|||P-value for HR=1 (1-sided)|||Stratified analysis - stratification factors include prior therapy and response (Relapsed in ≤6 months (not post-HSCT), Refractory, or relapsed in ≤6 months post allogeneic HSCT), and pre-selected chemotherapy (High intensity chemotherapy \[MEC or FLAG-IDA\], or low intensity chemotherapy \[LoDAC\]).||0.983|0.584|0.0185
90964926|NCT02039726|181811330|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.898||||0.2034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.697|1.157|||P value for HR=1 (1-sided)|||Stratified analysis - stratification factors include prior therapy and response (Relapsed in ≤6 months (not post-HSCT), Refractory, or relapsed in ≤6 months post allogeneic HSCT), and pre-selected chemotherapy (High intensity chemotherapy \[MEC or FLAG-IDA\], or low intensity chemotherapy \[LoDAC\]).||1.157|0.697|0.2034
90964927|NCT00713817|181811344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|0.89||||0.273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|2.56|||ANCOVA|||The two groups were compared using Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline severity as a covariate and study centre group and treatment group as factors. Due to the low power of the test for interaction the test was performed at the 10% level of significance and a 95% confidence interval (CI) was presented for the difference between treatments.||2.56|-0.78|0.273
90964928|NCT00713817|181811345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|4.62||||0.296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.51|13.75|||ANCOVA|||The two groups were compared using Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline severity as a covariate and study centre group and treatment group as factors. Due to the low power of the test for interaction the test was performed at the 10% level of significance and a 95% confidence interval (CI) was presented for the difference between treatments.||13.75|-4.51|0.296
90964929|NCT00713817|181811346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Chi-square|0.048||||0.826||95.0|||||Log Rank|||Time to treatment failure was analysed using Kaplan-Meier Survival analysis methodology. The difference in loss of response cumulative distribution function between treatments was assessed using the Hodges-Lehmann estimate.||||0.826
90927079|NCT03884101|181731022|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis for the non-inferiority test was that the hazard ratio was equal to 1.1.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.2459875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.26|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test and stratified by ECOG performance status and prior chemotherapy and/or chemoradiation.|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method for tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG performance status and prior chemotherapy and/or chemoradiation.|||1.26|0.83|0.2459875
90940854|NCT01917006|181761575|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|24.23||||0.328||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline average IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 4 vs Placebo at Week 2||||0.328
90940855|NCT01917006|181761575|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|18.48||||0.362||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline average IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 5 vs Placebo at Week 2||||0.362
90940856|NCT01917006|181761575|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|45.42||||0.203||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline average IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 6 vs Placebo at Week 2||||0.203
90940857|NCT01917006|181761575|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|33.05||||0.322||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline average IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 1 vs Placebo at Week 4||||0.322
90940858|NCT01917006|181761575|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|148.86||||0.015||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline average IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 2 vs Placebo at Week 4||||0.015
90940859|NCT01917006|181761575|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-6.2||||0.541||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline average IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 3 vs Placebo at Week 4||||0.541
90940860|NCT01917006|181761575|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|6.47||||0.459||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline average IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 4 vs Placebo at Week 4||||0.459
90940861|NCT01917006|181761575|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|1.32||||0.491||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline average IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 5 vs Placebo at Week 4||||0.491
90940862|NCT01917006|181761575|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|36.8||||0.281||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline average IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 6 vs Placebo at Week 4||||0.281
90940863|NCT01917006|181761575|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|14.12||||0.424||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline average IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 1 vs Placebo at Week 6||||0.424
90940864|NCT01917006|181761575|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|136.96||||0.026||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline average IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 2 vs Placebo at Week 6||||0.026
90940865|NCT01917006|181761575|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-27.62||||0.67||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline average IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 3 vs Placebo at Week 6||||0.670
90940866|NCT01917006|181761575|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-10.06||||0.561||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline average IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 4 vs Placebo at Week 6||||0.561
90940867|NCT01917006|181761575|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-16.58||||0.604||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline average IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 5 vs Placebo at Week 6||||0.604
90940868|NCT01917006|181761575|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|17.76||||0.394||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline average IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 6 vs Placebo at Week 6||||0.394
90940869|NCT01917006|181761575|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-5.94||||0.532||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline average IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 1 vs Placebo at Week 8||||0.532
91035212|NCT03086460|181956475|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.024||||0.464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.041|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.041|-0.090|0.464
91035213|NCT03086460|181956475|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.016||||0.623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.047|0.078|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.078|-0.047|0.623
91035214|NCT03086460|181956475|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.021|0.101|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.101|-0.021|0.197
90940870|NCT01917006|181761575|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|111.27||||0.058||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline average IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 2 vs Placebo at Week 8||||0.058
90940871|NCT01917006|181761575|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-48.65||||0.778||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline average IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 3 vs Placebo at Week 8||||0.778
90940872|NCT01917006|181761575|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-27.74||||0.662||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline average IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 4 vs Placebo at Week 8||||0.662
90940873|NCT01917006|181761575|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-35.72||||0.712||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline average IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 5 vs Placebo at Week 8||||0.712
90940874|NCT01917006|181761575|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.18||||0.501||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline average IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 6 vs Placebo at Week 8||||0.501
90940875|NCT01917006|181761575|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-12.14||||0.565||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline average IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 1 vs Placebo at Week 10||||0.565
90940876|NCT01917006|181761575|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|102.44||||0.071||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline average IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 2 vs Placebo at Week 10||||0.071
90940877|NCT01917006|181761575|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-52.81||||0.799||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline average IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 3 vs Placebo at Week 10||||0.799
90940878|NCT01917006|181761575|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-30.81||||0.681||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline average IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 4 vs Placebo at Week 10||||0.681
90940879|NCT01917006|181761575|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-40.68||||0.741||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline average IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 5 vs Placebo at Week 10||||0.741
90940880|NCT01917006|181761575|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-4.33||||0.526||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline average IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 6 vs Placebo at Week 10||||0.526
90940881|NCT01917006|181761575|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-14.76||||0.584||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline average IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 1 vs Placebo at Week 12||||0.584
90940882|NCT01917006|181761575|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|84.09||||0.101||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline average IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 2 vs Placebo at Week 12||||0.101
90940883|NCT01917006|181761575|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-55.14||||0.823||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline average IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 3 vs Placebo at Week 12||||0.823
90964930|NCT00713817|181811347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-7.14||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.7|9.62|||Hodges-Lehmann|||The difference in loss of response cumulative distribution functions between treatments was assessed using the Wilcoxon test with an estimate of the median difference between groups in response level (percent change from baseline) provided by the Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||9.62|-39.7|0.54
90964931|NCT00713817|181811348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimate mean treatment difference|-0.08||||0.902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|1.29|||ANCOVA|||The two groups were compared using Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline severity as a covariate and study centre group and treatment group as factors. Due to the low power of the test for interaction the test was performed at the 10% level of significance and a 95% confidence interval (CI) was presented for the difference between treatments.||1.29|-1.45|0.902
90964932|NCT00713817|181811349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.557||||0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.293|8.261|||Regression, Logistic|||The two treatment groups were compared using ordinal logistic regression and the proportional odds model. The model incorporated the parent Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs). The interaction between treatment group and parent RCTs was investigated, but was dropped from the model if found to have little influence. The test was performed at the 10% significance level. The final model was then treatment group and parent RCTs, i.e. the treatment effect was adjusted for parent RCTs baseline.||8.261|0.293|0.603
90964933|NCT01817907|181811353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.52
90964934|NCT01086410|181811381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of least square gometric mean|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.12|||||Analysis was performed using Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) with covariates of region, sex, age, treatment, and the log of the Baseline values.|||1.12|0.87|
90964935|NCT01086410|181811381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of least square gometric mean|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.1|||||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of region, sex, age, treatment, and the log of the Baseline values.|||1.10|0.86|
90964936|NCT01086410|181811381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of least square gometric mean|0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.41|||||Analysis performed using ANCOVA with covariates of region, sex, age, treatment, and the log of the Baseline values.|||0.41|0.28|
90964937|NCT00621751|181811421|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|36.7||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|||||CBZ (up to 800 mg daily) vs placebo significantly improves behavior (Rasch NPI irritability \& aggression rated by observer) baseline to day-42 among individuals \>6 months post-traumatic brain injury and moderate-severe irritability.|ANCOVA|||The primary outcome was a composite measure of observer-rated NPI-I \& NPI-A domains transformed to a Rasch logit scale ranging 0 (best) to 100 (worse) units (i.e., observer-rated NPI-I/A Rasch construct scores). Mean day-42 observer-rated NPI-I/A Rasch construct scores were compared between the placebo vs. carbamazepine groups using ANCOVA with baseline score as covariate.||||0.60
90964938|NCT00621751|181811422|OTHER|A prespecified secondary analysis compared proportions of participants that experienced a decrease of \> 1 MCID in the NPI-I/A Rasch construct score (i.e., participants that are considered to have meaningful reduction in irritability/aggression) from baseline to day-42 between the groups using a chi-square test. MCID was defined as 0.5 times the standard deviation of baseline scores.|||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||< .05
90964939|NCT05097716|181811438|EQUIVALENCE|90% CI|ratio of adjusted geometric means|103.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.66|109.77|||||The comparison was Test vs. Reference (Ritlecitinib + Tolbutamide vs. Tolbutamide).|||109.77|96.66|
90964940|NCT05097716|181811439|EQUIVALENCE|90% CI|ratio of adjusted geometric means|99.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.01|106.62|||||The comparison was Test vs. Reference (Ritlecitinib + Tolbutamide vs. Tolbutamide).|||106.62|92.01|
91035215|NCT03086460|181956476|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.052||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.113|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~This secondary efficacy variable was analyzed using the ANCOVA model that was also used for the primary efficacy analysis, without adjusting for multiplicity."||0.113|-0.010|0.098
90964941|NCT00791258|181811457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|75.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|73.0|78.5||||||||78.5|73.0|
90964942|NCT00791258|181811458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|84.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|81.8|86.5||||||||86.5|81.8|
90964943|NCT00791258|181811459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|71.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.3|74.1||||||12 week analysis||74.1|68.3|
90964944|NCT00791258|181811459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|84.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|82.4|87.0||||||20 week analysis||87.0|82.4|
90964945|NCT00791258|181811460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-14.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|-13.8|||t-test, 1 sided|||4 week analysis||-13.8|-15.4|<0.0001
90964946|NCT00791258|181811460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|-15.7|||t-test, 1 sided|||8 week analysis||-15.7|-17.7|<0.0001
90964947|NCT00791258|181811460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-21.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.7|-20.9|||t-test, 1 sided|||12 week analysis||-20.9|-22.7|<0.0001
90964948|NCT00791258|181811460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-26.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.0|-25.0|||t-test, 1 sided|||16 week analysis||-25.0|-27.0|<0.0001
91035216|NCT03086460|181956476|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.097||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.035|0.159|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.159|0.035|0.002
90964949|NCT00791258|181811460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-26.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.8|-25.7|||t-test, 1 sided|||20 week analysis||-25.7|-27.8|<0.0001
90964950|NCT00791258|181811461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|-7.6|||t-test, 1 sided|||4 week analysis||-7.6|-8.6|<0.0001
90964951|NCT00791258|181811461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|-8.5|||t-test, 1 sided|||8 week analysis||-8.5|-9.7|<0.0001
90964952|NCT00791258|181811461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|-11.4|||t-test, 1 sided|||12 week analysis||-11.4|-12.5|<0.0001
90964953|NCT00791258|181811461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|-14.0|||t-test, 1 sided|||16 week analysis||-14.0|-15.2|<0.0001
90964954|NCT00791258|181811461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.5||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.1|-13.8|||t-test, 1 sided|||20 week analysis||-13.8|-15.1|0.0001
90964955|NCT00791258|181811473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|-13.4|||t-test, 1 sided|||Mean 24-hour systolic blood pressure||-13.4|-16.2|<0.0001
90927080|NCT03884101|181731022|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.5875597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.26|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test and stratified by ECOG performance status and prior chemotherapy and/or chemoradiation.|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method for tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG performance status and prior chemotherapy and/or chemoradiation.|||1.26|0.83|0.5875597
90964956|NCT00791258|181811473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|-14.8|||t-test, 1 sided|||Mean daytime systolic blood pressure||-14.8|-17.8|<0.0001
90927081|NCT03884101|181731023|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.21552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.12|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test and stratified by MMR status, ECOG performance status, and prior chemotherapy and/or chemoradiation.|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method for tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by MMR status, ECOG performance status, and prior chemotherapy and/or chemoradiation.|||1.12|0.77|0.21552
90927082|NCT03884101|181731024|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-4.2||||0.8569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|3.5|||Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen|One-sided p-value for testing. H0: difference in % = 0 versus H1: difference in % \> 0.|Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by ECOG performance status and prior chemotherapy and/or chemoradiation.|||3.5|-11.9|0.8569
90927083|NCT03884101|181731025|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.0||||0.4999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|6.7|||Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen|One-sided p-value for testing. H0: difference in % = 0 versus H1: difference in % \> 0.|Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by MMR status, ECOG performance status, and prior chemotherapy and/or chemoradiation.|||6.7|-6.7|0.4999
90927084|NCT03884101|181731026|OTHER|Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors ECOG performance status, and prior chemotherapy and/or chemoradiation.|Difference in Least Square Means|-3.77||||0.0302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.17|-0.36|||cLDA model|||||-0.36|-7.17|0.0302
90927085|NCT03884101|181731027|OTHER|Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors MMR status, ECOG performance status, and prior chemotherapy and/or chemoradiation.|Difference in Least Square Means|-2.29||||0.1355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.31|0.72|||cLDA model|||||0.72|-5.31|0.1355
90927086|NCT03279978|181731047|OTHER||Slope|0.7124|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0694|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5702|0.8546||||||Dose proportionality for AUC0-24 of BI 730357 in plasma - fasted groups was assessed using a power model (regression model applied to log-transformed data). In this study AUCtau,1 = AUC0-24|Standard error of the mean is actually standard error of the slope. Based on the estimate for the slope parameter, a two sided 95% confidence interval for the slope was computed. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1.|0.8546|0.5702|
90927087|NCT03279978|181731047|OTHER||Slope|0.5964|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0575|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4777|0.7151||||||Dose proportionality for AUC0-24 of BI 730357 in plasma - fed groups was assessed using a power model (regression model applied to log-transformed data). In this study AUCtau,1 = AUC0-24|Standard error of the mean is actually standard error of the slope. Based on the estimate for the slope parameter, a two sided 95% confidence interval for the slope was computed. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1.|0.7151|0.4777|
90927088|NCT03279978|181731048|OTHER||Slope|0.6445|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0649|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5124|0.7766||||||Dose proportionality for Cmax of BI 730357 in plasma - fasted groups was assessed using a power model (regression model applied to log-transformed data).|Standard error of the mean is actually standard error of the slope. Based on the estimate for the slope parameter, a two sided 95% confidence interval for the slope was computed. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1.|0.7766|0.5124|
90927089|NCT03279978|181731048|OTHER||Slope|0.6223|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0715|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4747|0.7699||||||Dose proportionality for Cmax of BI 730357 in plasma - fed groups was assessed using a power model (regression model applied to log-transformed data).|Standard error of the mean is actually standard error of the slope. Based on the estimate for the slope parameter, a two sided 95% confidence interval for the slope was computed. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1.|0.7699|0.4747|
90927090|NCT03279978|181731049|OTHER||Slope|0.6401|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0909|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4545|0.8258||||||Dose proportionality for AUCτ,ss of BI 730357 in plasma - fasted groups was assessed using a power model (regression model applied to log-transformed data).|Standard error of the mean is actually standard error of the slope. Based on the estimate for the slope parameter, a two sided 95% confidence interval for the slope was computed. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1.|0.8258|0.4545|
90927091|NCT03279978|181731049|OTHER||Slope|0.5811|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0864|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4013|0.7609||||||Dose proportionality for AUCτ,ss of BI 730357 in plasma - fed groups was assessed using a power model (regression model applied to log-transformed data).|Standard error of the mean is actually standard error of the slope. Based on the estimate for the slope parameter, a two sided 95% confidence interval for the slope was computed. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1.|0.7609|0.4013|
90927092|NCT03279978|181731050|OTHER||Slope|0.6005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0722|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4534|0.7477||||||Dose proportionality for Cmax,ss of BI 730357 in plasma - fasted groups was assessed using a power model (regression model applied to log-transformed data).|Standard error of the mean is actually standard error of the slope. Based on the estimate for the slope parameter, a two sided 95% confidence interval for the slope was computed. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1.|0.7477|0.4534|
90927093|NCT03279978|181731050|OTHER||Slope|0.5799|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0656|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4441|0.7156||||||Dose proportionality for Cmax,ss of BI 730357 in plasma - fed groups was assessed using a power model (regression model applied to log-transformed data).|Standard error of the mean is actually standard error of the slope. Based on the estimate for the slope parameter, a two sided 95% confidence interval for the slope was computed. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1.|0.7156|0.4441|
90927094|NCT04159519|181731052|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measure (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment arm, visit, baseline value, and treatment-by-visit interaction with an unstructured covariance structure.|Least square mean difference|0.1062|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0485|0.2609||||||Comparison with reference arm||0.2609|-0.0485|
90927095|NCT04159519|181731053|OTHER|Comparison|Least square mean difference|-0.0343|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2527|0.1841|||Mixed model for repeated measure (MMRM)|MMRM with fixed effects for treatment arm, visit, baseline value, and treatment-by-visit interaction with an unstructured covariance structure.||Comparison with reference arm||0.1841|-0.2527|
90964957|NCT00791258|181811473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|-10.8|||t-test, 1 sided|||Mean nighttime systolic blood pressure||-10.8|-14.1|<0.0001
90964958|NCT00791258|181811473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.7|-11.6|||t-test, 1 sided|||systolic blood pressure during last 2 hours of dose||-11.6|-15.7|<0.0001
90964959|NCT00791258|181811473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|-11.2|||t-test, 1 sided|||systolic blood pressure during last 4 hours of dose||-11.2|-14.7|<0.0001
90964960|NCT00791258|181811473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|-10.9|||t-test, 1 sided|||systolic blood pressure during last 6 hours of dose||-10.9|-14.3|<0.0001
90887136|NCT00856583|181636810|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper limit of the 90% CI for the estimated all-cause mortality ratio was \<1.5 (pre-specified), the null hypothesis was rejected. With this limit, 7,600 PYE were required to ensure 80% power at the 5% significance level of rejecting the null hypothesis when assuming a mortality of 2 deaths per 100 PYE. As the actual mortality was only about half that anticipated, more exposure was necessary and the duration of the study increased markedly.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.684|1.405|||Cox Proportional Hazard|Adjusted for: age, sex, time since last suicide attempt, last previous antipsychotic treatment (mono-/polytherapy), year since start of enrollment.|The hazard ratio is calculated as sertindole (numerator) versus risperidone (denominator).|The basis for the statistical analysis of the first primary outcome was the null hypothesis of an excess mortality in sertindole-treated patients compared to the mortality in risperidone-treated patients for the ORT period.||1.405|0.684|<0.05
90887137|NCT00856583|181636811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.84||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|5.55|||Cox Proportional Hazard|Adjusted: age, sex, time since last suicide attempt, last previous antipsychotic treatment (mono-/polytherapy), region, year since start of enrollment||The basis for the statistical analysis of this secondary outcome was the null hypothesis of mortality hazard ratio equal to 1 for the sertindole-treated patients versus risperidone-treated patients during the WRT+30 days period.||5.55|1.45|0.0022
90887138|NCT00856583|181636812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.73||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|4.78|||Cox Proportional Hazard|Adjusted for: age and sex.||The basis for the statistical analysis of time to 1st occurence of the secondary primary outcome (one patient in the risperidone group reported more than one occurrence of this event) was the null hypothesis of hazard ratio equal to 1 for the sertindole-treated patients versus risperidone-treated patients during the WRT+30 days period.||4.78|0.63|0.29
90887139|NCT00856583|181636813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.41|||Cox Proportional Hazard|Adjusted for: age, sex, time since last suicide attempt, last previous antipsychotic treatment (mono-/polytherapy), year since start of enrollment.||The basis for the statistical analysis of this secondary outcome was the null hypothesis of mortality hazard ratio equal to 1 for the sertindole-treated patients versus risperidone-treated patients during the WRT+30 days period.||1.41|0.36|0.34
90964961|NCT00791258|181811473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.4|||<|0.0001||95.0|-10.3|-8.5|||t-test, 1 sided|||Mean 24-hour diastolic blood pressure||-8.5|-10.3|<0.0001
90964962|NCT00791258|181811473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|-9.6|||t-test, 1 sided|||Mean daytime diastolic blood pressure||-9.6|-11.7|<0.0001
90964963|NCT00791258|181811473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|-6.4|||t-test, 1 sided|||Mean nighttime diastolic blood pressure||-6.4|-8.8|<0.0001
90964964|NCT00791258|181811473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.6|||<|0.0001||95.0|-10.0|-7.2|||t-test, 1 sided|||diastolic blood pressure during last 2 hours of dose||-7.2|-10.0|<0.0001
90964965|NCT00791258|181811473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|-6.8|||t-test, 1 sided|||diastolic blood pressure during last 4 hours of dose||-6.8|-9.2|<0.0001
90964966|NCT00791258|181811473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.7|||<|0.0001||95.0|-8.8|-6.6|||t-test, 1 sided|||diastolic blood pressure during last 6 hours of dose||-6.6|-8.8|<0.0001
90964967|NCT00791258|181811474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-21.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.6|-19.3|||t-test, 1 sided|||24-hour mean systolic blood pressure||-19.3|-22.6|<0.0001
90887140|NCT00856583|181636814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.715||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.28|||Cox Proportional Hazard|Adjusted for: age, sex, last previous antipsychotic treatment (mono-/polytherapy), year since start of enrollment.||The basis for the statistical analysis of this secondary outcome was the null hypothesis of mortality hazard ratio equal to 1 for the sertindole-treated patients versus risperidone-treated patients during the WRT+30 days period.||1.28|0.40|0.26
90887141|NCT00856583|181636815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.13||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|4.98|||Cox Proportional Hazard|Adjusted for: age, sex, last previous antipsychotic treatment (mono-/polytherapy).||The basis for the statistical analysis of this secondary outcome was the null hypothesis of mortality hazard ratio equal to 1 for the sertindole-treated patients versus risperidone-treated patients during the WRT+30 days period.||4.98|0.91|0.081
90887142|NCT00856583|181636816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.32|||Cox Proportional Hazard|Adjusted for: age, sex, time since last suicide attempt, last previous antipsychotic treatment (mono-/polytherapy), year since start of enrollment.||The basis for the statistical analysis of this secondary outcome was the null hypothesis of mortality hazard ratio equal to 1 for the sertindole-treated patients versus risperidone-treated patients during the WRT+30 days period.||1.32|0.33|0.24
90887143|NCT00856583|181636817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.85|||Cox Proportional Hazard|Adjusted for: age, sex, last previous antipsychotic treatment (mono-/polytherapy), year since start of enrollment.||The basis for the statistical analysis of this secondary outcome was the null hypothesis of mortality hazard ratio equal to 1 for the sertindole-treated patients versus risperidone-treated patients during the WRT+30 days period.||1.85|0.70|0.59
90887144|NCT00856583|181636818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.29|||Cox Proportional Hazard|Adjusted for: age, sex, duration of schizophrenia, time since last suicide attempt, year since start of enrollment.||The basis for the statistical analysis of time to 1st occurence of this secondary outcome was the null hypothesis of hazard ratio equal to 1 for the sertindole-treated patients versus risperidone-treated patients during the WRT+30 days period.||1.29|0.66|0.65
90887145|NCT00856583|181636819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.99|||Cox Proportional Hazard|Adjusted for: age, sex, duration of schizophrenia, time since last suicide attempt, year since start of enrollment.||The basis for the statistical analysis of time to 1st occurence of this secondary outcome was the null hypothesis of hazard ratio equal to 1 for the sertindole-treated patients versus risperidone-treated patients during the WRT+30 days period.||0.99|0.45|0.044
90927096|NCT03493542|181731075|NON_INFERIORITY|The statistical criterion for non-inferiority required that the lower bound of two-sided 95% confidence interval of GMT ratio (9 to 19 years old/20 to 26 years old) was greater than 0.67 for each HPV type.|GMT Ratio|1.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|1.58|||ANOVA||GMT Ratio = GMT (9-19 yr)/GMT(20-26 yr)|Anti-HPV 6||1.58|1.28|<0.0001
90927097|NCT03493542|181731075|NON_INFERIORITY|The statistical criterion for non-inferiority required that the lower bound of two-sided 95% confidence interval of GMT ratio (9 to 19 years old/20 to 26 years old) was greater than 0.67 for each HPV type.|GMT Ratio|1.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|1.55|||ANOVA||GMT Ratio = GMT (9-19 yr)/GMT(20-26 yr)|Anti-HPV 11||1.55|1.25|<0.0001
90927098|NCT03493542|181731075|NON_INFERIORITY|The statistical criterion for non-inferiority required that the lower bound of two-sided 95% confidence interval of GMT ratio (9 to 19 years old/20 to 26 years old) was greater than 0.67 for each HPV type.|GMT Ratio|1.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|1.7|||ANOVA||GMT Ratio = GMT (9-19 yr)/GMT(20-26 yr)|Anti-HPV 16||1.70|1.37|<0.0001
90964968|NCT00791258|181811474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-23.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.1|-21.4|||t-test, 1 sided|||Mean daytime systolic blood pressure||-21.4|-25.1|<0.0001
90927099|NCT03493542|181731075|NON_INFERIORITY|The statistical criterion for non-inferiority required that the lower bound of two-sided 95% confidence interval of GMT ratio (9 to 19 years old/20 to 26 years old) was greater than 0.67 for each HPV type.|GMT Ratio|1.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|1.9|||ANOVA||GMT Ratio = GMT (9-19 yr)/GMT(20-26 yr)|Anti-HPV 18||1.90|1.45|<0.0001
90887146|NCT00856583|181636820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.26||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.57|||Cox Proportional Hazard|Adjusted for: age, sex, time since last suicide attempt, last antipsychotic medication (a-/typicals/both), region, year since start of enrollment.||The basis for the statistical analysis of time to 1st occurence of this secondary outcome was the null hypothesis of hazard ratio equal to 1 for the sertindole-treated patients versus risperidone-treated patients during the WRT+30 days period.||1.57|1.01|0.040
90887147|NCT00856583|181636821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|1.43|||Cox Proportional Hazard|Adjusted: disease duration, time since last suicide attempt, last antipsychotic medication (a-/typicals/both), region, year since start of enrollment.||The basis for the statistical analysis of this secondary outcome was the null hypothesis of hazard ratio equal to 1 for the sertindole-treated patients versus risperidone-treated patients during the WRT+30 days period.||1.43|1.28|<0.0001
90887148|NCT01944046|181636831|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.503||||||not adjusted primary outcome|Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for baseline, age category, functionality category||||||0.503
90887149|NCT01944046|181636832|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61||||||not adjusted primary outcome, p threshold 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|adjustment for value at week 24,||||||0.61
90964969|NCT00791258|181811474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-17.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|-15.6|||t-test, 1 sided|||Mean nighttime systolic blood pressure||-15.6|-19.4|<0.0001
90964970|NCT00791258|181811474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-19.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.7|-17.4|||t-test, 1 sided|||Systolic blood pressure - last 2 hours of dose||-17.4|-21.7|<0.0001
90964971|NCT00791258|181811474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-18.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.2|-16.3|||t-test, 1 sided|||Systolic blood pressure - last 4 hours of dose||-16.3|-20.2|<0.0001
90964972|NCT00791258|181811474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-17.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|-16.0|||t-test, 1 sided|||Systolic blood pressure - last 6 hours of dose||-16.0|-19.7|<0.0001
90964973|NCT00791258|181811474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|-12.2|||t-test, 1 sided|||24-hour mean diastolic blood pressure||-12.2|-14.4|<0.0001
90964974|NCT00791258|181811474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-15.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|-13.8|||t-test, 1 sided|||Mean daytime diastolic blood pressure||-13.8|-16.2|<0.0001
90964975|NCT00791258|181811474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|-9.8|||t-test, 1 sided|||Mean nighttime diastolic blood pressure||-9.8|-12.4|<0.0001
90964976|NCT00791258|181811474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|-10.8|||t-test, 1 sided|||Diastolic blood pressure - last 2 hours of dose||-10.8|-13.8|<0.0001
90964977|NCT00791258|181811474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|-10.2|||t-test, 1 sided|||Diastolic blood pressure - last 4 hours of dose||-10.2|-12.9|<0.0001
90964978|NCT00791258|181811474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|-10.0|||t-test, 1 sided|||Diastolic blood pressure - last 6 hours of dose||-10.0|-12.6|<0.0001
90964979|NCT00314249|181811522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.38||||||95.0|-8.56|-4.19|||ANCOVA|||This parameter was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment group and study center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-4.19|-8.56|
90964980|NCT00314249|181811523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.53||||||95.0|-0.69|-0.38|||ANOVA|||This parameter was analyzed using an ANOVA model with treatment group and study center as factors.||-0.38|-0.69|
90887150|NCT00153101|181636897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.8462||95.0|0.92|1.07|||Regression, Cox|||||1.07|0.92|0.8462
90887151|NCT00153101|181636897|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin was 1.13|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.0019||97.5|0.93|1.1|||Regression, Cox|||||1.10|0.93|0.0019
90964981|NCT00314249|181811524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.69||||||95.0|-3.27|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||This parameter was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment group and study center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.11|-3.27|
90964982|NCT00314249|181811525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.06|||<|0.001||95.0|1.45|2.94||Closed testing procedure used to control overall type 1 error rate at 5%: fibromyalgia syndrome tested prior to fibromyalgia pain|Regression, Logistic|||The test of no difference in the responder rate between milnacipran and placebo groups was performed using a logistic regression model with treatment group, baseline pain score, and baseline SF-36 PCS score as explanatory variables.||2.94|1.45|<0.001
90964983|NCT00314249|181811526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.86|||<|0.001||95.0|1.38|2.51||Closed testing procedure was used to control overall type 1 error rate at 5%: fibromyalgia pain tested after statistically significant fibromyalgia syndrome test|Regression, Logistic|||The test of no difference in the responder rate between milnacipran and placebo groups was performed using a logistic regression model with the treatment group and baseline pain score as explanatory variables.||2.51|1.38|<0.001
90964984|NCT00314249|181811527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.65||||||95.0|0.86|2.44|||ANCOVA|||This parameter was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment group and study center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||2.44|0.86|
90964985|NCT01372150|181811537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.71||||0.226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|4.48|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM)|Adjusted mean difference = placebo - fluoxetine|Fluoxetine versus Placebo||4.48|-1.06|0.226
90964986|NCT01372150|181811537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47||||0.739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.23|2.3|||MMRM||Adjusted mean difference = Placebo - DVS SR|DVS SR versus Placebo||2.30|-3.23|0.739
90964987|NCT01372150|181811538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.46|||MMRM||Adjusted mean difference = Placebo - Fluoxetine|Fluoxetine versus Placebo||0.46|-0.11|0.224
90964988|NCT01372150|181811538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.27|||MMRM||Adjusted mean difference = Placebo - DVS SR|DVS SR versus Placebo||0.27|-0.29|0.944
90964989|NCT01372150|181811539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.924||||||"P-value obtained from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for the alternative hypothesis of Row Mean Scores Differences."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Fluoxetine versus Placebo - Week 1||||0.924
90964990|NCT01372150|181811539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.698||||||"P-value obtained from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for the alternative hypothesis of Row Mean Scores Differences."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||DVS SR versus Placebo - Week 1||||0.698
90964991|NCT01372150|181811539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.214||||||"P-value obtained from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for the alternative hypothesis of Row Mean Scores Differences."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Fluoxetine versus Placebo - Week 2||||0.214
90964992|NCT01372150|181811539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.113||||||"P-value obtained from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for the alternative hypothesis of Row Mean Scores Differences."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||DVS SR versus Placebo - Week 2||||0.113
90964993|NCT01372150|181811539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.314||||||"P-value obtained from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for the alternative hypothesis of Row Mean Scores Differences."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Fluoxetine versus Placebo - Week 3||||0.314
90964994|NCT01372150|181811539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.659||||||"P-value obtained from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for the alternative hypothesis of Row Mean Scores Differences."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||DVS SR versus Placebo - Week 3||||0.659
90964995|NCT01372150|181811539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.577||||||"P-value obtained from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for the alternative hypothesis of Row Mean Scores Differences."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Fluoxetine versus Placebo - Week 4||||0.577
90887152|NCT00153101|181636898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.9086||95.0|0.93|1.09|||Regression, Cox|||||1.09|0.93|0.9086
90887153|NCT00153101|181636898|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin was 1.13|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.0004||97.5|0.9|1.08|||Regression, Cox|||||1.08|0.90|0.0004
90887154|NCT00153101|181636899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.4535||95.0|0.93|1.17|||Regression, Cox|||||1.17|0.93|0.4535
90887155|NCT00153101|181636899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.9421||95.0|0.89|1.12|||Regression, Cox|||||1.12|0.89|0.9421
90887156|NCT00153101|181636900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.2909||95.0|0.94|1.23|||Regression, Cox|||||1.23|0.94|0.2909
90887157|NCT00153101|181636900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.2534||95.0|0.94|1.24|||Regression, Cox|||||1.24|0.94|0.2534
90887158|NCT00153101|181636901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.2248||95.0|0.79|1.06|||Regression, Cox|||||1.06|0.79|0.2248
90887159|NCT00153101|181636901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.1829||95.0|0.79|1.05|||Regression, Cox|||||1.05|0.79|0.1829
90964996|NCT01372150|181811539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.187||||||"P-value obtained from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for the alternative hypothesis of Row Mean Scores Differences."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||DVS SR versus Placebo - Week 4||||0.187
90887160|NCT00153101|181636902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.4984||95.0|0.82|1.1|||Regression, Cox|||||1.10|0.82|0.4984
90887161|NCT00153101|181636902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.1203||95.0|0.97|1.29|||Regression, Cox|||||1.29|0.97|0.1203
90887162|NCT00153101|181636903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.25||||0.4221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.15|||Regression, Cox|||||2.15|0.73|0.4221
90887163|NCT00153101|181636903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.7305||95.0|0.51|1.6|||Regression, Cox|||||1.60|0.51|0.7305
90887164|NCT00153101|181636904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.6248||95.0|0.54|1.45|||Regression, Cox|||||1.45|0.54|0.6248
90887165|NCT00153101|181636904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.0751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.05|||Regression, Cox|||||1.05|0.36|0.0751
90887166|NCT00153101|181636905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.3682||95.0|0.63|1.18|||Regression, Cox|||||1.18|0.63|0.3682
90887167|NCT00153101|181636905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.6014||95.0|0.69|1.24|||Regression, Cox|||||1.24|0.69|0.6014
90887168|NCT00153101|181636906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.255||95.0|0.91|1.42|||Regression, Cox|||||1.42|0.91|0.2550
90887169|NCT00153101|181636906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.5297||95.0|0.86|1.34|||Regression, Cox|||||1.34|0.86|0.5297
90887170|NCT00153101|181636907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.4593||95.0|0.82|1.56|||Regression, Cox|||||1.56|0.82|0.4593
90887171|NCT00153101|181636907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.7468||95.0|0.68|1.32|||Regression, Cox|||||1.32|0.68|0.7468
90887172|NCT00153101|181636908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.5461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.2|||Regression, Cox|||||1.20|0.71|0.5461
90887173|NCT00153101|181636908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.3436||95.0|0.68|1.14|||Regression, Cox|||||1.14|0.68|0.3436
90887174|NCT00153101|181636909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.0133||95.0|0.8|0.97|||Regression, Cox|||||0.97|0.80|0.0133
90887175|NCT00153101|181636909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.1251||95.0|0.84|1.02|||Regression, Cox|||||1.02|0.84|0.1251
90887176|NCT00153101|181636910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.0213||95.0|0.67|0.97|||Regression, Cox|||||0.97|0.67|0.0213
90887177|NCT00153101|181636910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.2396||95.0|0.75|1.07|||Regression, Cox|||||1.07|0.75|0.2396
90887178|NCT00153101|181636911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.0111||95.0|0.83|0.98|||Regression, Cox|||||0.98|0.83|0.0111
90887179|NCT00153101|181636911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.0606||95.0|0.85|1.0|||Regression, Cox|||||1.00|0.85|0.0606
90887180|NCT00153101|181636912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19||||0.0082||95.0|1.05|1.35|||Regression, Cox|||||1.35|1.05|0.0082
90887181|NCT00153101|181636912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.2164||95.0|0.95|1.23|||Regression, Cox|||||1.23|0.95|0.2164
90887182|NCT00153101|181636913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.3732||95.0|0.83|1.07|||Regression, Cox|||||1.07|0.83|0.3732
90887183|NCT00153101|181636913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.3633||95.0|0.94|1.2|||Regression, Cox|||||1.20|0.94|0.3633
90887184|NCT00153101|181636914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.2713||95.0|0.97|1.13|||Regression, Cox|||||1.13|0.97|0.2713
90887185|NCT00153101|181636914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.515||95.0|0.95|1.11|||Regression, Cox|||||1.11|0.95|0.5150
90887186|NCT00153101|181636915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.3485||95.0|0.77|1.1|||Regression, Cox|||for subjects without diabetes at baseline||1.10|0.77|0.3485
90887187|NCT00153101|181636915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.1235||95.0|0.96|1.36|||Regression, Cox|||for subjects without diabetes at baseline||1.36|0.96|0.1235
90887188|NCT00153101|181636916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99||||0.869||95.0|0.89|1.11|||Chi-squared|||for subjects with available Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) at baseline||1.11|0.89|0.8690
90887189|NCT00153101|181636916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.04||||0.4337||95.0|0.94|1.17|||Chi-squared|||for subjects with available Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) at baseline||1.17|0.94|0.4337
90964997|NCT01372150|181811539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.051||||||"P-value obtained from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for the alternative hypothesis of Row Mean Scores Differences."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Fluoxetine versus Placebo - Week 6||||0.051
90964998|NCT01372150|181811539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.266||||||"P-value obtained from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for the alternative hypothesis of Row Mean Scores Differences."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||DVS SR versus Placebo - Week 6||||0.266
90964999|NCT01372150|181811539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.095||||||"P-value obtained from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for the alternative hypothesis of Row Mean Scores Differences."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Fluoxetine versus Placebo - Week 8||||0.095
90965000|NCT01372150|181811539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.852||||||"P-value obtained from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for the alternative hypothesis of Row Mean Scores Differences."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||DVS SR versus Placebo - Week 8||||0.852
90965001|NCT01372150|181811540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.55||||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.226|1.335|||Regression, Logistic||Logistic Regression using Response (Y/N) at each time point (excluding Week 9) as a response variable and treatment, age group and country as factors.|Fluoxetine versus Placebo - Week 1||1.335|0.226|0.186
90965002|NCT01372150|181811540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.382|2.567|||Regression, Logistic||Logistic Regression using Response (Y/N) at each time point (excluding Week 9) as a response variable and treatment, age group and country as factors.|DVS SR versus Placebo - Week 1||2.567|0.382|0.984
90965003|NCT01372150|181811540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.795||||0.462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.431|1.465|||Regression, Logistic||Logistic Regression using Response (Y/N) at each time point (excluding Week 9) as a response variable and treatment, age group and country as factors.|Fluoxetine versus Placebo - Week 2||1.465|0.431|0.462
90965004|NCT01372150|181811540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.726||||0.297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.399|1.324|||Regression, Logistic||Logistic Regression using Response (Y/N) at each time point (excluding Week 9) as a response variable and treatment, age group and country as factors.|DVS SR versus Placebo - Week 2||1.324|0.399|0.297
90965005|NCT01372150|181811540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.688||||0.194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.391|1.21|||Regression, Logistic||Logistic Regression using Response (Y/N) at each time point (excluding Week 9) as a response variable and treatment, age group and country as factors.|Fluoxetine versus Placebo - Week 3||1.210|0.391|0.194
90965006|NCT01372150|181811540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.732||||0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.419|1.277|||Regression, Logistic||Logistic Regression using Response (Y/N) at each time point (excluding Week 9) as a response variable and treatment, age group and country as factors.|DVS SR versus Placebo - Week 3||1.277|0.419|0.272
90887190|NCT00153101|181636917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.2666||95.0|0.83|1.05|||Regression, Cox|||for subjects without atrial fibrillation at baseline||1.05|0.83|0.2666
90965007|NCT01372150|181811540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.748||||0.313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.426|1.314|||Regression, Logistic||Logistic Regression using Response (Y/N) at each time point (excluding Week 9) as a response variable and treatment, age group and country as factors.|Flouxetine versus Placebo - Week 4||1.314|0.426|0.313
90965008|NCT01372150|181811540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.663||||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.376|1.171|||Regression, Logistic||Logistic Regression using Response (Y/N) at each time point (excluding Week 9) as a response variable and treatment, age group and country as factors.|DVS SR versus Placebo - Week 4||1.171|0.376|0.157
90965009|NCT01372150|181811540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.579||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.319|1.05|||Regression, Logistic||Logistic Regression using Response (Y/N) at each time point (excluding Week 9) as a response variable and treatment, age group and country as factors.|Flouxetine versus Placebo - Week 6||1.050|0.319|0.072
90965010|NCT01372150|181811540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.64||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.356|1.149|||Regression, Logistic||Logistic Regression using Response (Y/N) at each time point (excluding Week 9) as a response variable and treatment, age group and country as factors.|DVS SR versus Placebo - Week 6||1.149|0.356|0.135
90965011|NCT01372150|181811540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.465||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.249|0.871|||Regression, Logistic||Logistic Regression using Response (Y/N) at each time point (excluding Week 9) as a response variable and treatment, age group and country as factors.|Flouxetine versus Placebo - Week 8||0.871|0.249|0.017
90965012|NCT01372150|181811540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.751||||0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.415|1.357|||Regression, Logistic||Logistic Regression using Response (Y/N) at each time point (excluding Week 9) as a response variable and treatment, age group and country as factors.|DVS SR versus Placebo - Week 8||1.357|0.415|0.343
90965013|NCT01006265|181811570|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect (rate ratio)|0.226|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.133|0.384|||Negative binomial regression model|||||0.384|0.133|<0.0001
90965014|NCT01006265|181811570|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect (rate ratio)|0.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.289|||Negative binomial regression model|||||0.289|0.100|<0.0001
90965015|NCT01006265|181811570|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect (rate ratio)|0.566||||0.0318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.337|0.952|||Negative binomial regression model|||||0.952|0.337|0.0318
90887191|NCT00153101|181636917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.4784||95.0|0.85|1.08|||Regression, Cox|||for subjects without atrial fibrillation at baseline||1.08|0.85|0.4784
90887192|NCT00153101|181636918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.0483||95.0|0.76|1.0|||Regression, Cox|||||1.00|0.76|0.0483
90887193|NCT00153101|181636919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.2192||95.0|0.81|1.05|||Regression, Cox|||||1.05|0.81|0.2192
90887194|NCT00153101|181636920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.7764||95.0|0.85|1.24|||Regression, Cox|||||1.24|0.85|0.7764
90887195|NCT00153101|181636921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.0574||95.0|0.62|1.01|||Regression, Cox|||||1.01|0.62|0.0574
90887196|NCT00153101|181636922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.1365||95.0|0.64|1.06|||Regression, Cox|||||1.06|0.64|0.1365
90887197|NCT00153101|181636923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.694||95.0|0.82|1.34|||Regression, Cox|||||1.34|0.82|0.6940
90887198|NCT00153101|181636924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.58||||0.0245||95.0|1.06|2.35|||Regression, Cox|||||2.35|1.06|0.0245
90887199|NCT00153101|181636925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.5798||95.0|0.36|1.76|||Regression, Cox|||||1.76|0.36|0.5798
90887200|NCT00153101|181636926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.0006||95.0|0.65|0.89|||Regression, Cox|||||0.89|0.65|0.0006
90887201|NCT00153101|181636927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.0085||95.0|0.48|0.9|||Regression, Cox|||||0.90|0.48|0.0085
90887202|NCT00153101|181636928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.0015||95.0|0.69|0.92|||Regression, Cox|||||0.92|0.69|0.0015
90887203|NCT00153101|181636929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.39||||0.0101||95.0|1.08|1.79|||Regression, Cox|||||1.79|1.08|0.0101
90887204|NCT00153101|181636930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.9563||95.0|0.82|1.24|||Regression, Cox|||||1.24|0.82|0.9563
90887205|NCT00153101|181636931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.17||||0.0868||95.0|0.98|1.41|||Chi-squared|||||1.41|0.98|0.0868
90887206|NCT00153101|181636932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.0172||95.0|0.6|0.95|||Regression, Cox|||||0.95|0.60|0.0172
90887207|NCT00153101|181636933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.1431||95.0|0.78|1.04|||Regression, Cox|||||1.04|0.78|0.1431
90887208|NCT00153101|181636934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.8974||95.0|0.81|1.21|||Regression, Cox|||||1.21|0.81|0.8974
90887209|NCT03169153|181636935|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed effects repeated measures|||||||<0.0001
90887210|NCT00439777|181636936|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assuming equal efficacy, a total of 88 events will give a power of 90% to demonstrate that rivaroxaban is at least as effective as the comparator, considering a relative non-inferiority upper CI margin for the hazard ratio of 2.0 (two-sided alpha=0.05). The mean overall incidence for the primary efficacy outcome of 3% was expected and therefore 1465 patients per group would be needed. This number was to be adjusted based on the observed overall incidence of symptomatic recurrent VTE.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2067||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.68|||Regression, Cox|Stratified by intend treatment duration, adjusted for presence of active malignancy at baseline|The standard error of the log hazard ratio was estimated.|The rivaroxaban to comparator hazard ratio was computed with a 95% CI (confidence interval) (two-sided testing). Based on this model, rivaroxaban would be considered at least as effective as the comparator if the upper limit of the CI was less than 2.0.||1.68|0.75|0.0026
90887211|NCT00439777|181636937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.56||Nominal p-value|Regression, Cox||The standard error of the log hazard ratio was estimated.|Stratified by intend treatment duration, adjusted for presence of active malignancy at baseline.||1.56|0.86|0.33
90887212|NCT00439777|181636938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1499||0.275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.14||Nominal p-value|Regression, Cox|Stratified by intend treatment duration, adjusted for presence of active malignancy at baseline|The standard error of the log hazard ratio was estimated.|||1.14|0.63|0.275
90887213|NCT00439777|181636939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.257||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.93||nominal p-value|Regression, Cox|Stratified by intend treatment duration, adjusted for presence of active malignancy at baseline.|The standard error of the log hazard ratio was estimated.|||1.93|0.70|0.55
90887214|NCT00439777|181636940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3289||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.79||Nominal p-value|Regression, Cox|Stratified by intend treatment duration, adjusted for presence of active malignancy at baseline.|The standard error of the log hazard ratio was estimated.|||1.79|0.49|0.85
90887215|NCT00439777|181636941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08756||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.07||If the primary efficacy analysis shows that rivaroxaban is non-inferior to the comparator, the principal safety outcome was to be compared between treatment groups to maintain the overall type I error of 0.05 (2-sided) (a closed testing procedure).|Regression, Cox|Stratified by intend treatment duration, adjusted for presence of active malignancy at baseline.|The standard error of the log hazard ratio was estimated.|||1.07|0.76|0.23
90887216|NCT01175226|181636971|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.020
90887217|NCT01072201|181636976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
90965016|NCT01177384|181811573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-0.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.44||The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment and prior antihyperglycemic agent (AHA) therapy status (on acarbose monotherapy, or on acarbose in combination with other AHA(s)) and a covariate for baseline A1C.|ANCOVA|||||-0.44|-0.79|<.001
90965017|NCT01177384|181811574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-14.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.8|-7.0||The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment and prior AHA therapy status (on acarbose monotherapy, or on acarbose in combination with other AHA(s)) and a covariate for baseline FPG.|ANCOVA|||||-7.0|-21.8|<.001
90965018|NCT00955279|181811577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.543|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.543
90965019|NCT00955279|181811577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.126|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.126
90965020|NCT00955279|181811578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.896|||||||Linear Contrasts Test|||||||0.896
90965021|NCT00955279|181811578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.063|||||||Linear Contrasts Test|||||||0.063
90965022|NCT00955279|181811579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.374|||||||Linear Contrasts Test|||||||0.374
90965023|NCT00955279|181811579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.073|||||||Linear Contrasts Test|||||||0.073
90965024|NCT00955279|181811580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1931|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1931
90965025|NCT00955279|181811580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2772|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2772
90965026|NCT00955279|181811581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.451|||||||Linear Contrast Test|||||||0.451
90965027|NCT00955279|181811581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.546|||||||Linear Contrast Test|||||||0.546
90887218|NCT01072201|181636977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
90965028|NCT00232141|181811655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.3914||95.0|-0.83|0.32||The analysis procedures planned will control the Type I error for the primary analysis. No multiplicity adjustment is needed for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Primary hypotheses : null (H0): µA=µP vs alternative (HA): µA≠µP (µA and µP represent true means for primary endpoint in active treatment \& placebo groups respectively). Assumptions in power calculation: 2-sided test with type I error at α =0.05, type II error at β =0.10, \& a common s.d of 2.2 for primary endpoint (based on previous clinical trial data). With n=150 subjects/ group (300 subjects overall) at least 90% power to detect a treatment difference of at least 1.1 in primary endpoint||0.32|-0.83|0.3914
90887219|NCT01072201|181636978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups||||0.05
90887220|NCT02752048|181637003|OTHER|Change in time to rise from the floor from baseline to Week 24 were calculated to evaluate|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.378||||0.596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.757|4.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.000|-6.757|0.596
90965029|NCT00232141|181811656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0131||95.0|-0.81|-0.1||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 1||-0.10|-0.81|0.0131
90965030|NCT00232141|181811656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0393||95.0|-0.96|-0.02||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 2||-0.02|-0.96|0.0393
90965031|NCT00232141|181811656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.0554||95.0|-1.08|0.01||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 3||0.01|-1.08|0.0554
90965032|NCT00232141|181811656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.1513||95.0|-0.99|0.15||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 4||0.15|-0.99|0.1513
90965033|NCT00232141|181811656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.3345||95.0|-0.89|0.3||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 5||0.30|-0.89|0.3345
90965034|NCT00232141|181811656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.0879||95.0|-1.13|0.08||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 6||0.08|-1.13|0.0879
90887221|NCT02752048|181637003|OTHER|Change in time to rise from the floor from baseline to Week 24 were calculated to evaluate|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.349||||0.433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|4.918|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.918|-2.220|0.433
90887222|NCT02752048|181637004|OTHER|Change in 10-m walk/run test from baseline to Week 24 were calculated to evaluate|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.484||||0.382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.618|0.65|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.650|-1.618|0.382
91035217|NCT03086460|181956476|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.101||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.039|0.163|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.163|0.039|0.002
90927100|NCT03493542|181731096|NON_INFERIORITY|The statistical criterion for non-inferiority required that the lower bound of two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference (9 to 19 years old minus 20 to 26 years old) in seroconversion percentages being greater than -5 percentage points for each HPV type.|Difference in percentages (%)|0.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference of Seroconversion percentage HPV 6||1.2|-1.1|<0.0001
90927101|NCT03493542|181731096|NON_INFERIORITY|The statistical criterion for non-inferiority required that the lower bound of two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference (9 to 19 years old minus 20 to 26 years old) in seroconversion percentages being greater than -5 percentage points for each HPV type.|Difference in percentages (%)|0.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference of Seroconversion percentage HPV 11||1.2|-1.1|<0.0001
90927102|NCT03493542|181731096|NON_INFERIORITY|The statistical criterion for non-inferiority required that the lower bound of two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference (9 to 19 years old minus 20 to 26 years old) in seroconversion percentages being greater than -5 percentage points for each HPV type.|Difference in percentages (%)|0.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference of Seroconversion percentage HPV 16||1.2|-1.1|<0.0001
90927103|NCT03493542|181731096|NON_INFERIORITY|The statistical criterion for non-inferiority required that the lower bound of two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference (9 to 19 years old minus 20 to 26 years old) in seroconversion percentages being greater than -5 percentage points for each HPV type.|Difference in percentages (%)|0.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference of Seroconversion percentage HPV 18||1.2|-1.1|<0.0001
90927104|NCT01651000|181731109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
90927105|NCT01651000|181731110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
90927106|NCT01651000|181731111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
90927107|NCT04757753|181731127|NON_INFERIORITY|"πN = 2-year successful treatment rate of PA1704 πR = 2-year successful treatment rate of BioRoot™ RCS Δ = πN - πR ΔL = non-inferiority margin fixed to 13% or 0.13~Hypotheses are :~H0 : Δ ≤ -ΔL H1 : Δ \> -ΔL The χ2 of Dunnett \& Gent is used to assess the non-inferiority"|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.006||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0074|0.0087||A priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05|Chi-squared, Corrected|||The statistical analysis was done on the proportion difference of the treatment efficacy, defined on loose criteria, at 24 months, in PP population.||0.0087|-0.0074|0.03
90927108|NCT03370913|181731228|SUPERIORITY||% Reduction from Baseline|-77.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values were for 2-sided test against 0.|t-test, 2 sided|Superiority was tested by1-sample t-test to test null hypothesis that change is \>=0. Only negative changes represent efficacy.|77% reduction|Change from baseline in the ABR for all bleeds (post-baseline EEP value - baseline value)||||<0.0001
90927109|NCT02624050|181731253|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for significance was p\<0.05.|log-binomial regression|||||||0.01
90927110|NCT02624050|181731254|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold of significance was \<0.05|log binomial regression|||||||0.37
90927111|NCT02624050|181731259|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.277||||||"Because the data were skewed, the natural logarithmic transformation was used prior to analysis for inference.~Threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05"|Ratio of Geometric Means|This p-value is for 15 min after induction of anesthesia||||||0.277
90927112|NCT03734029|181731276|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.5085|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4012|0.6444||Two-sided p-value from stratified log-rank test, Hazard ratio and 95% CI from stratified Cox proportional hazards model using stratification factors: HER2 status, number of prior lines of chemotherapy, hormone Receptor/CDK status, as defined by IXRS.|Log Rank|||||0.6444|0.4012|<0.0001
90927113|NCT00624442|181731330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM placebo corrected diff from baseline|1.0||||0.8842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|8.0||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparison Threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis is based on the following model: CFB Parameter = Bin Group + Baseline + Error, treating patients as a random effect.||Placebo corrected change from baseline least squares mean +/- the standard error of the mean||8|-7|0.8842
90927114|NCT00624442|181731330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM placebo corrected diff from baseline|18.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|27.0||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparison Threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis is based on the following model: CFB Parameter = Bin Group + Baseline + Error, treating patients as a random effect.||Placebo corrected change from baseline least squares mean +/- the standard error of the mean||27|10|<0.0001
90971157|NCT02404103|181824837|EQUIVALENCE|The primary aim is to compare the average change in spirometric values (FEV1 and FEF25-75%) and AX from baseline to Week 6 from participants randomized flunisolide HFA 1 inhalation BID and to flunisolide HFA 2 inhalations BID.||||||0.782|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|generalized linear mixed-effects models (GLMM) using the identity link function and normal distribution were used.||||||.782
91035218|NCT03086460|181956476|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.122|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.063|0.182|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.182|0.063|<0.001
90887223|NCT02752048|181637004|OTHER|Change in 10-m walk/run test from baseline to Week 24 were calculated to evaluate|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.397||||0.501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|0.817|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.817|-1.610|0.501
90887224|NCT02752048|181637005|OTHER|Change in time to up and go from baseline to Week 24 were calculated to evaluate|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.533||||0.549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.363|1.298|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.298|-2.363|0.549
90887225|NCT02752048|181637005|OTHER|Change in time to up and go from baseline to Week 24 were calculated to evaluate|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.225||||0.767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.801|1.351|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.351|-1.801|0.767
90887226|NCT03779841|181637007|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.8||||0.1612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-values and Risk Ratios (and their corresponding 95% CI) for each pairwise comparison of AGN-151607 versus Placebo are obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test controlling for type of surgery (presence or absence of valve surgery) and age group (\< 65 or ≥ 65 years).||1.10|0.58|0.1612
90887227|NCT03779841|181637007|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.04||||0.7789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.37|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-values and Risk Ratios (and their corresponding 95% CI) for each pairwise comparison of AGN-151607 versus Placebo are obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test controlling for type of surgery (presence or absence of valve surgery) and age group (\< 65 or ≥ 65 years).||1.37|0.79|0.7789
90887228|NCT03779841|181637008|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2972|||||||stratified Wilcoxon (Van Elteren)|||P-value is obtained from stratified Wilcoxon (Van Elteren) test versus Placebo with type of surgery (presence or absence of valve surgery) and age group (\< 65 or ≥ 65 years) as stratification factors.||||0.2972
90887229|NCT03779841|181637008|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8722|||||||stratified Wilcoxon (Van Elteren)|||P-value is obtained from stratified Wilcoxon (Van Elteren) test versus Placebo with type of surgery (presence or absence of valve surgery) and age group (\< 65 or ≥ 65 years) as stratification factors.||||0.8722
90887230|NCT03779841|181637009|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99||||0.9814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.96|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-values and Risk Ratios (and their corresponding 95% CI) for each pairwise comparison of AGN-151607 versus Placebo are obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test controlling for type of surgery (presence or absence of valve surgery) and age group (\< 65 or ≥ 65 years).||1.96|0.50|0.9814
90887231|NCT03779841|181637009|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99||||0.9715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.97|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-values and Risk Ratios (and their corresponding 95% CI) for each pairwise comparison of AGN-151607 versus Placebo are obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test controlling for type of surgery (presence or absence of valve surgery) and age group (\< 65 or ≥ 65 years).||1.97|0.50|0.9715
90887232|NCT03779841|181637010|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1281|||||||Log Rank|||P-value is from stratified log-rank test versus Placebo with type of surgery (presence or absence of valve surgery) and age group (\< 65 or ≥ 65 years) as stratification factors.||||0.1281
90887233|NCT03779841|181637010|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.882|||||||Log Rank|||P-value is from stratified log-rank test versus Placebo with type of surgery (presence or absence of valve surgery) and age group (\< 65 or ≥ 65 years) as stratification factors.||||0.8820
90927115|NCT00624442|181731330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM placebo corrected diff from baseline|47.0|||<|0.0001||95.0|38.0|56.0||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparison Threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis is based on the following model: CFB Parameter = Bin Group + Baseline + Error, treating patients as a random effect.||Placebo corrected change from baseline least squares mean +/- the standard error of the mean||56|38|<0.0001
90927116|NCT00624442|181731330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM placebo corrected diff from baseline|58.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.0|70.0||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparison Threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis is based on the following model: CFB Parameter = Bin Group + Baseline + Error, treating patients as a random effect.||Placebo corrected change from baseline least squares mean +/- the standard error of the mean||70|46|<0.0001
90887234|NCT03779841|181637011|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.79||||0.1623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-values and Risk Ratios (and their corresponding 95% CI) for each pairwise comparison of AGN-151607 versus Placebo are obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test controlling for type of surgery (presence or absence of valve surgery) and age group (\< 65 or ≥ 65 years).||1.10|0.57|0.1623
90887235|NCT03779841|181637011|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.04||||0.7776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.39|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-values and Risk Ratios (and their corresponding 95% CI) for each pairwise comparison of AGN-151607 versus Placebo are obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test controlling for type of surgery (presence or absence of valve surgery) and age group (\< 65 or ≥ 65 years).||1.39|0.78|0.7776
90887236|NCT03779841|181637012|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.79||||0.1603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-values and Risk Ratios (and their corresponding 95% CI) for each pairwise comparison of AGN-151607 versus Placebo are obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test controlling for type of surgery (presence or absence of valve surgery) and age group (\< 65 or ≥ 65 years).||1.10|0.56|0.1603
90887237|NCT03779841|181637012|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.06||||0.6706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.42|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-values and Risk Ratios (and their corresponding 95% CI) for each pairwise comparison of AGN-151607 versus Placebo are obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test controlling for type of surgery (presence or absence of valve surgery) and age group (\< 65 or ≥ 65 years).||1.42|0.80|0.6706
90887238|NCT03779841|181637013|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.78||||0.1583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-values and Risk Ratios (and their corresponding 95% CI) for each pairwise comparison of AGN-151607 versus Placebo are obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test controlling for type of surgery (presence or absence of valve surgery) and age group (\< 65 or ≥ 65 years).||1.10|0.55|0.1583
90965035|NCT00232141|181811656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.0307||95.0|-1.32|-0.07||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 7||-0.07|-1.32|0.0307
90965036|NCT00232141|181811656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.0156||95.0|-1.36|-0.14||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 8||-0.14|-1.36|0.0156
90965037|NCT00232141|181811656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.0981||95.0|-1.15|0.1||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 9||0.10|-1.15|0.0981
90965038|NCT00232141|181811656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.306||95.0|-0.93|0.29||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 10||0.29|-0.93|0.3060
90965039|NCT00232141|181811656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.1874||95.0|-1.08|0.21||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 11||0.21|-1.08|0.1874
90965040|NCT00232141|181811656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.1025||95.0|-1.22|0.11||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 12||0.11|-1.22|0.1025
90965041|NCT00232141|181811656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.0662||95.0|-1.3|0.04||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 13||0.04|-1.30|0.0662
90965042|NCT00232141|181811656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.1856||95.0|-1.21|0.24||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 14||0.24|-1.21|0.1856
90965043|NCT00232141|181811656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.7925||95.0|-0.66|0.5||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Endpoint||0.50|-0.66|0.7925
90965044|NCT00232141|181811657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.18||||0.1191||95.0|0.802|5.935||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 1||5.935|0.802|0.1191
90965045|NCT00232141|181811657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.5041||95.0|0.666|2.301||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 2||2.301|0.666|0.5041
90887239|NCT03779841|181637013|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.07||||0.6694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.43|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-values and Risk Ratios (and their corresponding 95% CI) for each pairwise comparison of AGN-151607 versus Placebo are obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test controlling for type of surgery (presence or absence of valve surgery) and age group (\< 65 or ≥ 65 years).||1.43|0.80|0.6694
90887240|NCT03779841|181637014|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.81||||0.2578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.18|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-values and Risk Ratios (and their corresponding 95% CI) for each pairwise comparison of AGN-151607 versus Placebo are obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test controlling for type of surgery (presence or absence of valve surgery) and age group (\< 65 or ≥ 65 years).||1.18|0.55|0.2578
90887241|NCT03779841|181637014|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.05||||0.7526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.47|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-values and Risk Ratios (and their corresponding 95% CI) for each pairwise comparison of AGN-151607 versus Placebo are obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test controlling for type of surgery (presence or absence of valve surgery) and age group (\< 65 or ≥ 65 years).||1.47|0.76|0.7526
90887242|NCT03779841|181637015|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.8||||0.2549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.18|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-values and Risk Ratios (and their corresponding 95% CI) for each pairwise comparison of AGN-151607 versus Placebo are obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test controlling for type of surgery (presence or absence of valve surgery) and age group (\< 65 or ≥ 65 years).||1.18|0.55|0.2549
90887243|NCT03779841|181637015|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03||||0.8544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.45|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-values and Risk Ratios (and their corresponding 95% CI) for each pairwise comparison of AGN-151607 versus Placebo are obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test controlling for type of surgery (presence or absence of valve surgery) and age group (\< 65 or ≥ 65 years).||1.45|0.73|0.8544
90887244|NCT03779841|181637016|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.74||||0.1718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.14|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-values and Risk Ratios (and their corresponding 95% CI) for each pairwise comparison of AGN-151607 versus Placebo are obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test controlling for type of surgery (presence or absence of valve surgery) and age group (\< 65 or ≥ 65 years).||1.14|0.48|0.1718
90887245|NCT03779841|181637016|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.83||||0.3801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.27|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-values and Risk Ratios (and their corresponding 95% CI) for each pairwise comparison of AGN-151607 versus Placebo are obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test controlling for type of surgery (presence or absence of valve surgery) and age group (\< 65 or ≥ 65 years).||1.27|0.54|0.3801
90887246|NCT03779841|181637017|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.87||||0.5531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.39|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-values and Risk Ratios (and their corresponding 95% CI) for each pairwise comparison of AGN-151607 versus Placebo are obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test controlling for type of surgery (presence or absence of valve surgery) and age group (\< 65 or ≥ 65 years).||1.39|0.54|0.5531
90887247|NCT03779841|181637017|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.82||||0.4213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.33|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-values and Risk Ratios (and their corresponding 95% CI) for each pairwise comparison of AGN-151607 versus Placebo are obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test controlling for type of surgery (presence or absence of valve surgery) and age group (\< 65 or ≥ 65 years).||1.33|0.51|0.4213
90887248|NCT03779841|181637018|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.92||||0.804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.73|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-values and Risk Ratios (and their corresponding 95% CI) for each pairwise comparison of AGN-151607 versus Placebo are obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test controlling for type of surgery (presence or absence of valve surgery) and age group (\< 65 or ≥ 65 years).||1.73|0.49|0.8040
90927117|NCT00624442|181731330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM placebo corrected diff from baseline|59.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.0|72.0||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparison Threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis is based on the following model: CFB Parameter = Bin Group + Baseline + Error, treating patients as a random effect.||Placebo corrected change from baseline least squares mean +/- the standard error of the mean||72|47|<0.0001
90927118|NCT00624442|181731330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM placebo corrected diff from baseline|80.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.0|89.0||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparison Threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis is based on the following model: CFB Parameter = Bin Group + Baseline + Error, treating patients as a random effect.||Placebo corrected change from baseline least squares mean +/- the standard error of the mean||89|71|<0.0001
90927119|NCT00624442|181731330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis based on the following model: Change from baseline = Concentration + Baseline + Error, treating patients as random effect||"All available concentration data are used in the model as a continuous variable.~p-value based on individual plasma concentration of CK-1827452 vs. corresponding systolic ejection time PD assessment (not binned based on plasma concentration)"||||<0.0001
90927120|NCT00624442|181731331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM placebo corrected diff from baseline|1.0||||0.3665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.0||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparison Threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis is based on the following model: CFB Parameter = Bin Group + Baseline + Error, treating patients as a random effect.||Placebo corrected change from baseline least squares mean +/- the standard error of the mean||2|-1|0.3665
90940884|NCT01917006|181761575|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-40.18||||0.741||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline average IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 4 vs Placebo at Week 12||||0.741
90965046|NCT00232141|181811657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.6859||95.0|0.638|1.985||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 3||1.985|0.638|0.6859
90965047|NCT00232141|181811657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.414||95.0|0.735|2.116||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 4||2.116|0.735|0.4140
90965048|NCT00232141|181811657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.7852||95.0|0.644|1.794||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 5||1.794|0.644|0.7852
90965049|NCT00232141|181811657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.7399||95.0|0.654|1.817||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 6||1.817|0.654|0.7399
90965050|NCT00232141|181811657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.57||||0.1055||95.0|0.913|2.701||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 7||2.701|0.913|0.1055
90965051|NCT00232141|181811657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.2107||95.0|0.829|2.401||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 8||2.401|0.829|0.2107
90965052|NCT00232141|181811657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.527||95.0|0.697|2.046||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 9||2.046|0.697|0.5270
90965053|NCT00232141|181811657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.6845||95.0|0.513|1.546||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 10||1.546|0.513|0.6845
90965054|NCT00232141|181811657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.7737||95.0|0.522|1.619||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 11||1.619|0.522|0.7737
90965055|NCT00232141|181811657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.8853||95.0|0.597|1.818||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 12||1.818|0.597|0.8853
90965056|NCT00232141|181811657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.7712||95.0|0.612|1.946||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 13||1.946|0.612|0.7712
90965057|NCT00232141|181811657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.9586||95.0|0.574|1.796||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 14||1.796|0.574|0.9586
90965058|NCT00232141|181811657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.3482||95.0|0.486|1.283||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Endpoint-BOCF||1.283|0.486|0.3482
90965059|NCT00232141|181811658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.62||||0.1132||95.0|0.882|2.969||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 1||2.969|0.882|0.1132
90965060|NCT00232141|181811658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.4687||95.0|0.731|1.978||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 2||1.978|0.731|0.4687
90965061|NCT00232141|181811658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.1546||95.0|0.877|2.375||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 3||2.375|0.877|0.1546
90965062|NCT00232141|181811658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.4216||95.0|0.7444|2.025||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 4||2.025|0.7444|0.4216
90965063|NCT00232141|181811658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.7479||95.0|0.556|1.527||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 5||1.527|0.556|0.7479
90965064|NCT00232141|181811658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.3842||95.0|0.481|1.33||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 6||1.330|0.481|0.3842
90965065|NCT00232141|181811658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.845||95.0|0.627|1.769||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 7||1.769|0.627|0.8450
90965066|NCT00232141|181811658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.1602||95.0|0.864|2.527||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 8||2.527|0.864|0.1602
90965067|NCT00232141|181811658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.6815||95.0|0.66|1.89||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 9||1.890|0.660|0.6815
90965068|NCT00232141|181811658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.5635||95.0|0.486|1.482||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 10||1.482|0.486|0.5635
90965069|NCT00232141|181811658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.49||95.0|0.699|2.104||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 11||2.104|0.699|0.4900
90965070|NCT00232141|181811658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.1602||95.0|0.856|2.575||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 12||2.575|0.856|0.1602
90965071|NCT00232141|181811658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.5819||95.0|0.663|2.079||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 13||2.079|0.663|0.5819
90965072|NCT00232141|181811658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.2796||95.0|0.768|2.432||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 14||2.432|0.768|0.2796
90965073|NCT00232141|181811658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.5437||95.0|0.534|1.39||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Endpoint-BOCF||1.390|0.534|0.5437
90965074|NCT00232141|181811659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.53||0.5425||95.0|-3.44|6.52||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Disturbance.||6.52|-3.44|0.5425
90965075|NCT00232141|181811659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.3184||95.0|-0.75|0.25||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Quantity||0.25|-0.75|0.3184
90965076|NCT00232141|181811659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.92||0.9886||95.0|-5.81|5.72||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Adequacy||5.72|-5.81|0.9886
90965077|NCT00232141|181811659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.51||0.5742||95.0|-3.53|6.35||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Awaken Short of Breath or with Headache||6.35|-3.53|0.5742
90965078|NCT00232141|181811659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.5775||95.0|-3.54|6.33||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Somnolence||6.33|-3.54|0.5775
90965079|NCT00232141|181811659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.21||0.004||95.0|3.02|15.66||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Snoring||15.66|3.02|0.0040
90965080|NCT00232141|181811659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.98||0.5882||95.0|-2.83|4.97||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Sleep Problems Index I||4.97|-2.83|0.5882
90927121|NCT00624442|181731331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM placebo corrected diff from baseline|1.0|||<|0.0357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.0||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparison Threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis is based on the following model: CFB Parameter = Bin Group + Baseline + Error, treating patients as a random effect.||Placebo corrected change from baseline least squares mean +/- the standard error of the mean||3|0|<0.0357
90927122|NCT00624442|181731331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM placebo corrected diff from baseline|3.0||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|5.0||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparison Threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis is based on the following model: CFB Parameter = Bin Group + Baseline + Error, treating patients as a random effect.||Placebo corrected change from baseline least squares mean +/- the standard error of the mean||5|1|0.0004
90927123|NCT00624442|181731331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM placebo corrected diff from baseline|3.0||||0.0086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|4.0||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparison Threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis is based on the following model: CFB Parameter = Bin Group + Baseline + Error, treating patients as a random effect.||Placebo corrected change from baseline least squares mean +/- the standard error of the mean||4|1|0.0086
90927124|NCT00624442|181731331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM placebo corrected diff from baseline|2.0||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|5.0||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparison Threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis is based on the following model: CFB Parameter = Bin Group + Baseline + Error, treating patients as a random effect.||Placebo corrected change from baseline least squares mean +/- the standard error of the mean||5|0|0.032
90927125|NCT00624442|181731331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM placebo corrected diff from baseline|5.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|6.0||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparison Threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis is based on the following model: CFB Parameter = Bin Group + Baseline + Error, treating patients as a random effect.||Placebo corrected change from baseline least squares mean +/- the standard error of the mean||6|3|<0.0001
90927126|NCT00624442|181731331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis based on the following model: Change from baseline = Concentration + Baseline + Error, treating patients as random effect||"All available concentration data are used in the model as a continuous variable.~p-value based on individual plasma concentration of CK-1827452 vs. corresponding fractional shortening PD assessment (not binned based on plasma concentration)"||||<0.0001
90927127|NCT04933474|181731334|OTHER|||||||0.088|||||||Chi-squared|||The primary outcome will be the baseline vs. week 8 difference-in-difference in 7-day average NRS pain intensity scores, dichotomized into if the MCID of 2 is achieved. The between arm difference of achieving the MCID of 2 will be tested using Chi-squared test.||||0.088
90927128|NCT04933474|181731335|OTHER|||||||0.103|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sample t-test will be used to compare differences-in-differences between the arms.||||0.103
90927129|NCT04933474|181731336|OTHER|||||||0.774|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sample t-test will be used to compare differences-in-differences between the arms.||||0.774
90927130|NCT04933474|181731337|OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sample t-test will be used to compare differences-in-differences between the arms.||||0.005
90927131|NCT04933474|181731338|OTHER|||||||0.831|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sample t-test will be used to compare differences-in-differences between the arms.||||0.831
90927132|NCT04933474|181731339|OTHER||Common Odds Ratio|1.44||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.02||A two-sided test performed at the 0.05 level of significance without the continuity correction.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test was used to compare the association between time (baseline and week 8) and opioid use (yes or no) while stratifying for the treatment groups. The null hypothesis is that the common odds ratio of the association between time and response across the treatment groups is equal to 1, versus the alternative hypothesis that the common odds ratio is not equal to 1.||2.02|1.03|0.031
90927133|NCT04868656|181731362|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|0.8|||Regression, Linear|||Models included the arm indicator variable in addition to the stratification variables used in randomization (site complexity level (high complexity '1a', '1b' or '1c' vs. all others); adjusted length of stay (greater than or equal to 4.7 days versus less than 4.7 days); prior implementation of STRIDE (yes vs. no).||0.8|-5.0|0.15
90927134|NCT04868656|181731363|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.3||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|16.6|||Regression, Linear|||Models included the arm indicator variable in addition to the stratification variables used in randomization (site complexity level (high complexity '1a', '1b' or '1c' vs. all others); adjusted length of stay (greater than or equal to 4.7 days versus less than 4.7 days); prior implementation of STRIDE (yes vs. no).||16.6|-6.0|0.34
90927135|NCT04868656|181731364|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.5|||Regression, Logistic|||Model includes the arm indicator variable only; model does not include stratification variables due to potential for overfitting.||2.5|0.1|0.23
90927136|NCT06603766|181731416|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.83
90927137|NCT06603766|181731417|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.46
90927138|NCT06603766|181731418|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.008
90927139|NCT06603766|181731419|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.032|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.032
90927140|NCT06603766|181731420|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
90927141|NCT06603766|181731421|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
90940885|NCT01917006|181761575|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-41.31||||0.756||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline average IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 5 vs Placebo at Week 12||||0.756
90940886|NCT01917006|181761575|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-2.57||||0.517||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline average IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 6 vs Placebo at Week 12||||0.517
90940887|NCT01917006|181761576|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.59||||0.079||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline geometric mean IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 1 vs Placebo at Week 2||||0.079
90887249|NCT03779841|181637018|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1||||0.7573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.98|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-values and Risk Ratios (and their corresponding 95% CI) for each pairwise comparison of AGN-151607 versus Placebo are obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test controlling for type of surgery (presence or absence of valve surgery) and age group (\< 65 or ≥ 65 years).||1.98|0.61|0.7573
90887250|NCT03779841|181637019|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.69||||0.4065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.67|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-values and Risk Ratios (and their corresponding 95% CI) for each pairwise comparison of AGN-151607 versus Placebo are obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test controlling for type of surgery (presence or absence of valve surgery) and age group (\< 65 or ≥ 65 years).||1.67|0.28|0.4065
91035219|NCT03086460|181956476|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.112|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.054|0.171|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment F ( Perforomist® IS 40 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.171|0.054|<0.001
91035220|NCT03086460|181956476|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.045||||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.018|0.108|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.108|-0.018|0.162
91035221|NCT03086460|181956476|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.049||||0.117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.012|0.11|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.110|-0.012|0.117
91035222|NCT03086460|181956476|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.071||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.011|0.13|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.130|0.011|0.020
90927142|NCT03816397|181731422|SUPERIORITY|A sample size of 118 subjects (59 in each group) provides 88% power to detect a hazard ratio of 2.0 for the time to treatment failure comparing the group randomized to discontinue adalimumab to the group randomized to continue using adalimumab, assuming a median time until treatment failure of 10 weeks in the group that discontinues adalimumab (Arm 1) and of 20 weeks in the group that continues on adalimumab (Arm 2), an equal allocation between groups, and a 10% total loss to follow-up.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|8.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.6|21.2||A priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Log Rank||For the HR, the numerator is the placebo group (stop adalimumab) and the denominator is the adalimumab group (continue adalimumab).|A Cox proportional hazards regression was used to compare time to treatment failure between the adalimumab and placebo groups up to the primary endpoint of 48 weeks, with country and conventional DMARD use included as fixed effects in the model. The null hypothesis was an hazard ratio (HR) of 1. Hypothesis testing was based on a permutation test of the log hazard ratio (100,000 replicates). The model was checked for the assumption of proportional hazards by assessing Schoenfeld residuals.||21.2|3.6|<0.0001
90927143|NCT04496752|181731423|EQUIVALENCE|Weighted Cohen's kappa statistics were computed between DCTClock-pen and MMSE, and between DCTClock-tablet and MMSE. A TOST (two one-sided test) of equivalence was planned, with a difference in kappa of 0.2 specified a priori as significant.|Difference in Cohen's Kappa|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.05|0.19|||||The difference is Cohen's kappa is (tablet - pen). The confidence interval is estimated with a nonparametric bootstrap (5000 samples).|||0.19|-0.05|
90927144|NCT05275556|181731426|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.23||Threshold for significance is 0.025.|Poisson Regression|||||0.23|0.07|0.0002
90927145|NCT05275556|181731427|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin is -10%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.03||Threshold for significance is 0.025.|Resampling based|||||0.03|-0.15|0.09
91035223|NCT03086460|181956476|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.004||||0.909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.062|0.07|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.070|-0.062|0.909
91035224|NCT03086460|181956476|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.025||||0.419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.037|0.088|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.088|-0.037|0.419
91035225|NCT03086460|181956476|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.022||||0.483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.039|0.083|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.083|-0.039|0.483
91035226|NCT03086460|181956476|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.043||||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.012|0.099|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.099|-0.012|0.126
90887251|NCT03779841|181637019|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.28||||0.5257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-values and Risk Ratios (and their corresponding 95% CI) for each pairwise comparison of AGN-151607 versus Placebo are obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test controlling for type of surgery (presence or absence of valve surgery) and age group (\< 65 or ≥ 65 years).||2.70|0.60|0.5257
90887252|NCT03779841|181637020|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.78||||0.1612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.11|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-values and Risk Ratios (and their corresponding 95% CI) for each pairwise comparison of AGN-151607 versus Placebo are obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test controlling for type of surgery (presence or absence of valve surgery) and age group (\< 65 or ≥ 65 years).||1.11|0.55|0.1612
90887253|NCT03779841|181637020|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||0.9966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.35|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-values and Risk Ratios (and their corresponding 95% CI) for each pairwise comparison of AGN-151607 versus Placebo are obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test controlling for type of surgery (presence or absence of valve surgery) and age group (\< 65 or ≥ 65 years).||1.35|0.74|0.9966
90887254|NCT03779841|181637021|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.68||||0.3374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.52|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-values and Risk Ratios (and their corresponding 95% CI) for each pairwise comparison of AGN-151607 versus Placebo are obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test controlling for type of surgery (presence or absence of valve surgery) and age group (\< 65 or ≥ 65 years).||1.52|0.30|0.3374
90887255|NCT03779841|181637021|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.23||||0.5403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.45|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-values and Risk Ratios (and their corresponding 95% CI) for each pairwise comparison of AGN-151607 versus Placebo are obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test controlling for type of surgery (presence or absence of valve surgery) and age group (\< 65 or ≥ 65 years).||2.45|0.62|0.5403
90887256|NCT03779841|181637022|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|3.94||||0.0163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|13.42|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-values and Risk Ratios (and their corresponding 95% CI) for each pairwise comparison of AGN-151607 versus Placebo are obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test controlling for type of surgery (presence or absence of valve surgery) and age group (\< 65 or ≥ 65 years).||13.42|1.16|0.0163
90887257|NCT03779841|181637022|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.7||||0.1101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|9.64|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-values and Risk Ratios (and their corresponding 95% CI) for each pairwise comparison of AGN-151607 versus Placebo are obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test controlling for type of surgery (presence or absence of valve surgery) and age group (\< 65 or ≥ 65 years).||9.64|0.76|0.1101
90927146|NCT05275556|181731428|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|5.5||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|11.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Threshold for significance is 0.025.||||11.2|-0.3|0.031
90927147|NCT05275556|181731429|OTHER||rate|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90927148|NCT05275556|181731430|OTHER|2 sided test for differences between arms|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.58||||0.169|TWO_SIDED||||||Permutation test|||||||0.169
90927149|NCT05275556|181731431|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Descriptive analysis: 52.4 in Colonoscopy (Standard of Care), 59.6 in CAD-e Device|||
90927150|NCT05275556|181731432|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.6||||0.0578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|9.4||Nominal p-value.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Difference in percentage between both arms is reported. H0: Colonoscopy (Standard of Care) percentage \<= CADe Device percentage (i.e. test of superiority)||9.4|-0.2|0.0578
90927151|NCT05275556|181731433|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.7813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.0||Nominal p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Difference in percentage between both arms is reported. H0: Colonoscopy (Standard of Care) percentage \<= CADe Device percentage (i.e. test of superiority)||2.0|-1.5|0.7813
90927152|NCT05275556|181731434|SUPERIORITY||Least-squares means|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.17||||||||0.17|0.05|
90927153|NCT05275556|181731435|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.3||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|12.9||Nominal p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Difference in percentage between both arms is reported. H0: Colonoscopy (Standard of Care) percentage \<= CADe Device percentage (i.e. test of superiority)||12.9|3.7|0.0004
90927154|NCT05275556|181731436|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.1||||0.1185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|9.1||Nominal p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Difference in percentage between both arms is reported. H0: Colonoscopy (Standard of Care) percentage \<= CADe Device percentage (i.e. test of superiority)||9.1|-1|0.1185
90927155|NCT05275556|181731437|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.4||||0.0752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|9.2||nominal p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Difference in percentage between both arms is reported. H0: Colonoscopy (Standard of Care) percentage \<= CADe Device percentage (i.e. test of superiority)||9.2|-0.4|0.0752
90927156|NCT05275556|181731439|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.8194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|2.6||Nominal p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Difference in percentage between both arms is reported. H0: Colonoscopy (Standard of Care) percentage \<= CADe Device percentage (i.e. test of superiority)||2.6|-3.2|0.8194
90887258|NCT03779841|181637023|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.86||||0.3339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.16|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-values and Risk Ratios (and their corresponding 95% CI) for each pairwise comparison of AGN-151607 versus Placebo are obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test controlling for type of surgery (presence or absence of valve surgery) and age group (\< 65 or ≥ 65 years).||1.16|0.64|0.3339
90927157|NCT05275556|181731440|OTHER|Test for difference|Incidence Rate Ratio|1.39||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.69||Nominal p-value|Exact poisson|||||1.69|1.14|0.0008
90927158|NCT04679389|181731521|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.84
90927159|NCT04679389|181731522|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.48
90927160|NCT04679389|181731523|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.48
90927161|NCT04679389|181731524|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.99
90927162|NCT04679389|181731527|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.31
90927163|NCT04679389|181731528|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.09
90887259|NCT03779841|181637023|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1||||0.4614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.42|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-values and Risk Ratios (and their corresponding 95% CI) for each pairwise comparison of AGN-151607 versus Placebo are obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test controlling for type of surgery (presence or absence of valve surgery) and age group (\< 65 or ≥ 65 years).||1.42|0.85|0.4614
90927164|NCT05257603|181731529|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.615|<|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.24|5.72|||ANOVA|||||5.72|3.24|<0.99
90927165|NCT05257603|181731530|OTHER||||||<|0.29|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<.29
90887260|NCT03117387|181637072|OTHER|Bland-Altman analysis estimates bias between TOF-Cuff and electromyography.|bias|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|0.05|-0.05|0.05||||||"Paired measurements were compared using a Bland-Altman analysis modified for repeated measurements (http://sec.lumc.nl/method\_agreement\_analysis, Leiden, the Netherlands).~This Bland-Altman analysis corrects for between subject variability of repeated paired measurements in individual subjects."||0.05|-0.05|
90887261|NCT02055352|181637086|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A change of 5-10% from baseline values is considered to be clinically important. The estimated adjusted treatment difference for budesonide 400 μg twice a day/ indacaterol 150 μg once daily minus fixed combination of fluticasone/ salmeterol 250/ 50 μg twice daily was displayed along with the associated one-sided 97.5% confidence interval. If the lower limit of this confidence interval was to the right (i.e. above) - 10 mL, then non-inferiority could be claimed.||||||0.004|||||||Mixed effects General linear model|||||||0.004
90887262|NCT04745169|181637091|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.73
90887263|NCT04745169|181637092|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.07
90887264|NCT04745169|181637093|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.65
90887265|NCT04745169|181637094|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.31
90887266|NCT04745169|181637095|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.55
90887267|NCT04745169|181637096|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.95
90887268|NCT04745169|181637097|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.15
90887269|NCT04745169|181637098|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.31
90887270|NCT04745169|181637099|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.37
90887271|NCT01880424|181637115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.59||||0.001||95.0|1.21|2.09||Statistical significance (p\<0.05) was required in both co-primary efficacy parameters to meet the primary efficacy objective; both p-values met this criterion.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test controlling for geographic region|Odds ratio for response rate (linaclotide : placebo)|Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between the linaclotide dose and placebo in the proportion of 12-week Abdominal Pain/Abdominal Discomfort Responders or there is no difference in the proportion of 12-week IBS Degree of Relief Responders. With 800 planned patients, the statistical power was expected to be approximately 95%, with an overall type I error rate controlled at the 0.05 level (2-sided), based on assumptions from NCT00948818 (LIN-MD-31) study data.||2.09|1.21|0.0010
90887272|NCT01880424|181637116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.56|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.83|3.58||Statistical significance (p\<0.05) was required in both co-primary efficacy parameters to meet the primary efficacy objective; both p-values met this criterion.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test controlling for geographic region|Odds ratio for response rate (linaclotide : placebo)|Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between the linaclotide dose and placebo in the proportion of 12-week Abdominal Pain/Abdominal Discomfort Responders or there is no difference in the proportion of 12-week IBS Degree of Relief Responders. With 800 planned patients, the statistical power was expected to be approximately 95%, with an overall type I error rate controlled at the 0.05 level (2-sided), based on assumptions from NCT00948818 (LIN-MD-31) study data.||3.58|1.83|<0.0001
90887273|NCT01303627|181637182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0||||Statistical analyses were performed x2 test or Mann Whitney U test as approriate. A p value of \<0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Chi-squared|||The incidence of complications on removal of the cLMA has been reported 54 % in awake patients group A power analysis indicated that a minimum 16 patients in each group were required to demonstrate a difference that 50% reduction the complications (a power of 80% and α error 0.05).||||<0.05
90887274|NCT00795600|181637235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.645|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.364||0.849||95.0|-7.404|6.114||H01 (hypothesis): Micro detemir = micro NPH against the alternative H01: Microl detemir ≠ micro NPH.|ANCOVA|||The primary objective and endpoint of the trial was to compare the change in trunk fat mass (g) between insulin detemir versus insulin NPH at baseline and at week 26. A standard deviation of 5% was chosen based on a previous trial. A difference in trunk fat mass of 5% was considered clinically relevant also according to this trial.||6.114|-7.404|0.849
90887275|NCT00795600|181637236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.478||0.948||95.0|-7.588|6.407||H01: Micro detemir = micro NPH against the alternative H01: Microl detemir ≠ micro NPH.|ANCOVA|||The primary objective and endpoint of the trial was to compare the change in trunk fat mass (g) between insulin detemir versus insulin NPH at baseline and at week 26. A standard deviation of 5% was chosen based on a previous trial. A difference in trunk fat mass of 5% was considered clinically relevant also according to this trial.||6.407|-7.588|0.948
90887276|NCT00795600|181637237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|196.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|498.7||0.696||95.0|-805.8|1198.5||H01: Micro detemir = micro NPH against the alternative H01: Microl detemir ≠ micro NPH.|ANCOVA|||The primary objective and endpoint of the trial was to compare the change in trunk fat mass (g) between insulin detemir versus insulin NPH at baseline and at week 26. A standard deviation of 5% was chosen based on a previous trial. A difference in trunk fat mass of 5% was considered clinically relevant also according to this trial.||1198.5|-805.8|0.696
90965081|NCT00232141|181811659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.89||0.4516||95.0|-2.3|5.14||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Sleep Problems Index II||5.14|-2.30|0.4516
90965082|NCT00232141|181811660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.5105||95.0|-0.51|1.03||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Anxiety||1.03|-0.51|0.5105
90965083|NCT00232141|181811660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.2513||95.0|-0.3|1.14||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Depression||1.14|-0.30|0.2513
90965084|NCT00232141|181811661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.5834||95.0|-0.38|0.67||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Pain Severity Index||0.67|-0.38|0.5834
90965085|NCT00232141|181811661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.7783||95.0|-0.43|0.57||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Pain Interference Index||0.57|-0.43|0.7783
90965086|NCT00232141|181811662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.4776||95.0|-0.73|0.34||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||||0.34|-0.73|0.4776
90965087|NCT00232141|181811663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0077||95.0||||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0077
90965088|NCT00232141|181811664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3852||95.0||||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3852
90965089|NCT00232141|181811665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.3097||95.0|-0.03|0.1||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Burning||0.10|-0.03|0.3097
90965090|NCT00232141|181811665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.6147||95.0|-0.07|0.04||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Pressing||0.04|-0.07|0.6147
90965091|NCT00232141|181811665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.6838||95.0|-0.05|0.07||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Paroxysmal||0.07|-0.05|0.6838
90965092|NCT00232141|181811665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.6479||95.0|-0.07|0.04||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Evoked||0.04|-0.07|0.6479
90965093|NCT00232141|181811665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.1849||95.0|-0.02|0.11||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Paresthesia/dysesthesia||0.11|-0.02|0.1849
90965094|NCT00232141|181811665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0.5898||95.0|0.0|0.0||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Total Score||0|0|0.5898
90971158|NCT02404103|181824837|EQUIVALENCE|The primary aim is to compare the average change in spirometric values (FEV1 and FEF25-75%) and AX from baseline to Week 6 from participants randomized flunisolide HFA 1 inhalation BID and to flunisolide HFA 2 inhalations BID.||||||0.906|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|generalized linear mixed-effects models (GLMM) using the identity link function and normal distribution were used.||||||.906
91035227|NCT03086460|181956476|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.074||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.017|0.131|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.131|0.017|0.012
90927166|NCT05257603|181731531|OTHER||||||<|0.99|||||||ANOVA|||A one-way ANOVA was used to compare the mean difference in key presses from time 1 to time 2 between the intervention (RPCW) and Control conditions.||||<0.99
90927167|NCT05257603|181731532|OTHER||||||<|0.45|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.45
90927168|NCT05257603|181731533|OTHER||||||<|0.1||||||Given the exploratory nature of the analysis we were looking for a trend in improvement in emotion regulation (i.e., p\<.10) following the intervention condition compared to control.|ANOVA|||||||<.10
90927169|NCT05257603|181731534|OTHER||||||<|0.1|||||||ANOVA|||Repeated measure ANOVA was used to provide preliminary information for estimating sample sizes needed for a larger Stage II efficacy trial. The current pilot RCT was not powered to find significant effects.||||<.10
90927170|NCT05257603|181731535|OTHER||||||<|0.1||||||A priori threshold for a trend set at p\<.10 for condition effect (intervention v control).|ANOVA|||An exploratory repeated measures ANOVA with time (4) as the within-subjects variable and condition (2) as the between-subjects variable was conducted to provide preliminary information for estimating sample sizes needed for a larger Stage II efficacy trial. The current pilot RCT was not powered to find significant effects.||||<.10
90927171|NCT05257603|181731536|OTHER||||||<|0.098|||||||ANOVA|||An exploratory repeated measures ANOVA with time (4) as the within-subjects variable and condition (2) as the between-subjects variable was conducted to provide preliminary information for estimating sample sizes needed for a larger Stage II efficacy trial.||||<.098
90927172|NCT02777593|181731537|OTHER|Performance goal tested using Exact method calculation to estimate the 95% one-sided lower confidence level (95% LCL) on the proportion of participants with primary endpoint success. If the 95% LCL exceeded 0.64, then the the null hypothesis was to be rejected and the PG was met.|95% Exact Lower Confidence Limit|0.751|||||ONE_SIDED|||||||||"Primary endpoint success was defined as the proportion of analysis-eligible participants without a primary endpoint event and with 12-Month imaging performed.~Results were tested against a performance goal (PG) of 0.64 (i.e. 64%), derived from historical GORE TAG® and Conformable TAG® data.~Additionally, using a one-sided alpha of 0.05 and Exact Test, minimum power of 80%, the sample needed was 70 patients. With attrition, 85 patients were required."||||
90927173|NCT05954546|181731545|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.72|||||Hazard ratio (HR) was estimated using multivariable Cox proportional hazard models.|Statistical analysis data is presented for Encorafenib+Binimetinib (RWD) relative to Encorafenib+Binimetinib (CTD) (reference).||1.72|0.62|
90927174|NCT03547271|181731549|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was \>1/1.5 for all 4 serogroups.|GMT ratio|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.565|0.842|||||95% CI of the GMT ratio was calculated using a normal approximation of log-transformed titers.|Statistical analysis for Serogroup A||0.842|0.565|
90927175|NCT03547271|181731549|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was \>1/1.5 for all 4 serogroups.|GMT ratio|4.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|5.58|||||95% CI of the GMT ratio was calculated using a normal approximation of log-transformed titers.|Statistical analysis for Serogroup C||5.58|4.00|
90927176|NCT03547271|181731549|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was \>1/1.5 for all 4 serogroups.|Slope|1.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|1.78|||||95% CI of the GMT ratio was calculated using a normal approximation of log-transformed titers.|Statistical analysis for Serogroup W||1.78|1.33|
90927177|NCT03547271|181731549|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was \>1/1.5 for all 4 serogroups.|GMT ratio|1.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|2.04|||||95% CI of the GMT ratio was calculated using a normal approximation of log-transformed titers.|Statistical analysis for Serogroup Y||2.04|1.55|
90927178|NCT03547271|181731550|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was \>-10% for all 4 serogroups.|Difference in percentage of participants|-12.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.74|-6.56|||||95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson score method without continuity correction.|Statistical analysis for Serogroup A||-6.56|-17.74|
90927179|NCT03547271|181731550|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was \>-10% for all 4 serogroups.|Difference in percentage of participants|6.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.44|9.62|||||95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson score method without continuity correction.|Statistical analysis for Serogroup C||9.62|4.44|
90927180|NCT03547271|181731550|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was \>-10% for all 4 serogroups.|Difference in percentage of participants|2.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|4.7|||||95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson score method without continuity correction|Statistical analysis for Serogroup W||4.70|-0.49|
90927181|NCT03547271|181731550|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was \>-10% for all 4 serogroups.|Difference in percentage of participants|3.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|5.77|||||95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson score method without continuity correction.|Statistical analysis for Serogroup Y||5.77|0.34|
90927182|NCT04835363|181731567|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.029
90887277|NCT00795600|181637238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|192.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|515.4||0.71||95.0|-844.0|1229.7||H01: Micro detemir = micro NPH against the alternative H01: Microl detemir ≠ micro NPH.|ANCOVA|||The primary objective and endpoint of the trial was to compare the change in trunk fat mass (g) between insulin detemir versus insulin NPH at baseline and at week 26. A standard deviation of 5% was chosen based on a previous trial. A difference in trunk fat mass of 5% was considered clinically relevant also according to this trial.||1229.7|-844.0|0.710
90887278|NCT00795600|181637239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|288.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|766.41||0.709||95.0|-1252.0|1828.4|||ANCOVA|||||1828.4|-1252.0|0.709
90887279|NCT00795600|181637240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.178|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.732||0.948||95.0|-5.668|5.313|||ANCOVA|||||5.313|-5.668|0.948
90887280|NCT00795600|181637241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1151.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|810.48||0.162||95.0|-2780.0|477.33|||ANCOVA|||||477.33|-2780.0|0.162
90887281|NCT00795600|181637242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.747|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.788||0.131||95.0|-6.34|0.846|||ANCOVA|||||0.846|-6.340|0.131
90887282|NCT00795600|181637243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-110.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|368.69||0.766||95.0|-851.3|630.51|||ANCOVA|||||630.51|-851.3|0.766
90887283|NCT00795600|181637244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.662||0.716||95.0|-3.949|2.729|||ANCOVA|||||2.729|-3.949|0.716
90887284|NCT00795600|181637245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.491|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.695||0.483||95.0|-0.906|1.888|||ANCOVA|||||1.888|-0.906|0.483
90887285|NCT00795600|181637246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.116|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.909||0.952||95.0|-3.721|3.953|||ANCOVA|||||3.953|-3.721|0.952
90887286|NCT00795600|181637247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.278|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.746||0.711||95.0|-1.778|1.221|||ANCOVA|||||1.221|-1.778|0.711
90887287|NCT00795600|181637248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.585|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.854||0.397||95.0|-5.31|2.141|||ANCOVA|||||2.141|-5.310|0.397
90887288|NCT00795600|181637249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.916|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.985||0.421||95.0|-30.99|13.159|||ANCOVA|||||13.159|-30.99|0.421
90887289|NCT00795600|181637250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.061|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.216||0.42||95.0|-17.55|7.43|||ANCOVA|||||7.430|-17.55|0.420
90887290|NCT00795600|181637251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.961|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.007||0.705||95.0|-31.1|21.178|||ANCOVA|||||21.178|-31.10|0.705
90887291|NCT00795600|181637252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.776||0.341||95.0|-14.19|5.007|||ANCOVA|||||5.007|-14.19|0.341
90887292|NCT00795600|181637253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034||0.902||95.0|-0.064|0.073|||ANCOVA|||||0.073|-0.064|0.902
90887293|NCT00795600|181637254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.789|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.85||0.839||95.0|-8.525|6.947|||ANCOVA|||||6.947|-8.525|0.839
90887294|NCT00795600|181637255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041||0.607||95.0|-0.105|0.062|||ANCOVA|||||0.062|-0.105|0.607
90887295|NCT00795600|181637256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.777|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.719||0.635||95.0|-9.254|5.7|||ANCOVA|||||5.700|-9.254|0.635
90887296|NCT00795600|181637257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.266||0.628||95.0|-0.663|0.403|||ANCOVA|||||0.403|-0.663|0.628
90887297|NCT00795600|181637258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.46||0.535||95.0|-46.03|24.182|||ANCOVA|||||24.182|-46.03|0.535
90887298|NCT00795600|181637259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.918|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.332||0.66||95.0|-10.65|6.813|||ANCOVA|||||6.813|-10.65|0.660
90887299|NCT00795600|181637286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.629|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.967||0.518||95.0|-2.572|1.313|||ANCOVA|||||1.313|-2.572|0.518
90887300|NCT00795600|181637287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.546|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.283||0.673||95.0|-3.123|2.032|||ANCOVA|||||2.032|-3.123|0.673
90887301|NCT00795600|181637288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.466|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.386||0.738||95.0|-2.319|3.25|||ANCOVA|||||3.250|-2.319|0.738
90887302|NCT00795600|181637289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.062|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.168||0.346||95.0|-2.3|6.423|||ANCOVA|||||6.423|-2.300|0.346
90887303|NCT00795600|181637290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.726|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.173||0.781||95.0|-10.71|14.167|||ANCOVA|||||14.167|-10.71|0.781
90887304|NCT01659021|181637293|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.37||P-value is from stratified log-rank test, adjusted for randomization stratification factors (17p deletion/TP53 mutation, immunoglobulin heavy chain variable region (IGHV) mutation, and disease status).|Log Rank||Hazard Ratio and 95% confidence intervals (CI) are from the proportional hazard model, adjusted for randomization stratification factors.|||0.37|0.18|<0.0001
90887305|NCT01659021|181637294|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.17|34.76||P-value was calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) Chi-square test stratified by stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio and 95% CIs were calculated from the CMH Chi-square test stratified by stratification factors.|||34.76|8.17|<0.0001
90887306|NCT01659021|181637295|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|483.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.63|2467.02||P-value was calculated from the CMH Chi-square test stratified by stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio and 95% CIs were calculated from the CMH Chi-square test stratified by stratification factors.|||2467.02|94.63|<0.0001
90927183|NCT04835363|181731568|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.148|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.148
90965095|NCT00232141|181811666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.6865||95.0|-0.45|0.68||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Static mechanical allodynia||0.68|-0.45|0.6865
90965096|NCT00232141|181811666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.3787||95.0|-0.71|0.27||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Dynamic mechanical allodynia||0.27|-0.71|0.3787
90965097|NCT00232141|181811666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.7704||95.0|-0.79|0.59||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Punctate hyperalgesia testing area||0.59|-0.79|0.7704
90965098|NCT00232141|181811666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.6088||95.0|-0.82|0.48||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Temporal summation to tactile stimuli||0.48|-0.82|0.6088
90965099|NCT00232141|181811666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.3767||95.0|-0.93|0.35||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Cold allodynia testing area||0.35|-0.93|0.3767
90965100|NCT00232141|181811666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.7689||95.0|-0.64|0.86||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Cold hyperalgesia testing area||0.86|-0.64|0.7689
90965101|NCT00232141|181811667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.1277||95.0|-0.86|0.11||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||||0.11|-0.86|0.1277
90965102|NCT00232141|181811668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0469||95.0|-0.71|0.0||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 1||-0.00|-0.71|0.0469
90965103|NCT00232141|181811668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0067||95.0|-1.08|-0.18||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 2||-0.18|-1.08|0.0067
90965104|NCT00232141|181811668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.031||95.0|-1.1|-0.05||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 3||-0.05|-1.10|0.0310
90965105|NCT00232141|181811668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.2088||95.0|-0.86|0.19||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 4||0.19|-0.86|0.2088
90887307|NCT01659021|181637296|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.15||P-value is from stratified log-rank test, adjusted for randomization stratification factors (17p deletion/TP53 mutation, IGHV mutation, and disease status).|Log Rank|||||1.15|0.54|0.247
91035228|NCT03086460|181956476|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|0.116|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.116|0.004|0.037
90887308|NCT01659021|181637297|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.51|||||Hazard ratio and 95% CIs were calculated using the Cox proportional hazards model without any adjustments.|||0.51|0.17|
90887309|NCT00575588|181637321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.16||||||||0.16|-0.05|
90887310|NCT00575588|181637322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-33.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.1|-28.5||Between group comparison significant after controlling overall alpha of the study|Fisher Exact|||||-28.5|-38.1|<0.0001
90887311|NCT00575588|181637323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.0001||95.0|-2.7|-1.7||Between group comparison significant after controlling overall alpha of the study|ANCOVA|||||-1.7|-2.7|<0.0001
90887312|NCT00575588|181637324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0046|-0.0001||Between group comparison significant after controlling overall alpha of the study|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.0001|-0.0046|0.040
90887313|NCT00575588|181637325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.06|||Repeated Measures|||||0.06|-0.17|
90887314|NCT00575588|181637326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-34.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.8|-30.0||||||||-30.0|-39.8|
90887315|NCT00575588|181637327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.286|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.32|-2.2|||Repeated Measures|||||-2.20|-3.32|
90887316|NCT00575588|181637328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0035|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0007|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0048|-0.0022|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.0022|-0.0048|
90887317|NCT00801684|181637329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The difference between the active treatment was compared to placebo. For a null hypothesis, the difference would equal 0 (zero).||||<0.0001
90927184|NCT04835363|181731569|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.012
90927185|NCT04835363|181731570|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.078|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.078
90927186|NCT04835363|181731571|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.011
90927187|NCT04835363|181731572|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.797|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.797
90927188|NCT04835363|181731573|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.358|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.358
90927189|NCT04835363|181731574|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.055|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.055
90927190|NCT04835363|181731575|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.496|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.496
90927191|NCT04835363|181731576|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.241|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.241
91035229|NCT03086460|181956476|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.082||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.028|0.136|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.136|0.028|0.003
90887318|NCT00614939|181637332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.151||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.12|||ANCOVA|\*Adjusted for baseline HbA1c||||-0.12|-0.71|0.007
90887319|NCT00614939|181637333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.847||0.339||95.0|-37.91|13.22|||ANCOVA|\*Adjusted for baseline FPG||"Additional details about the analysis, such as null hypothesis and power calculation:~Due to a statistically significant treatment-by-baseline renal impairment interaction, fasting plasma glucose results were analyzed separately for each baseline renal impairment category."||13.22|-37.91|0.339
90887320|NCT00614939|181637334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.938||0.798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.65|29.93|||ANCOVA|\*Adjusted for baseline FPG||"Additional details about the analysis, such as null hypothesis and power calculation:~Due to a statistically significant treatment-by-baseline renal impairment interaction, fasting plasma glucose results were analyzed separately for each baseline renal impairment category."||29.93|-38.65|0.798
90887321|NCT00614939|181637335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|44.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|30.815||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.93|106.94|||ANCOVA|\*Adjusted for baseline FPG||"Additional details about the analysis, such as null hypothesis and power calculation:~Due to a statistically significant treatment-by-baseline renal impairment interaction, fasting plasma glucose results were analyzed separately for each baseline renal impairment category."||106.94|-18.93|0.164
90887322|NCT00614939|181637336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.713|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.74|||Footnote|\*Adjusted for baseline FPG||"Additional details about the analysis, such as null hypothesis and power calculation:~Due to a statistically significant treatment-by-baseline renal impairment interaction, fasting plasma glucose results were analyzed separately for each baseline renal impairment category."||0.74|-2.10|
90887323|NCT00614939|181637337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.941|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.14|1.67|||Footnote|\*Adjusted for baseline FPG||"Additional details about the analysis, such as null hypothesis and power calculation:~Due to a statistically significant treatment-by-baseline renal impairment interaction, fasting plasma glucose results were analyzed separately for each baseline renal impairment category."||1.67|-2.14|
90927192|NCT04835363|181731577|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.004
90927193|NCT04835363|181731578|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.019
90927194|NCT04835363|181731579|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.141|||||||ANOVA|||ENGAGEMENT STRATEGIES||||0.141
90927195|NCT04835363|181731579|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.496|||||||ANOVA|||DISENGAGEMENT STRATEGIES||||0.496
90927196|NCT03904576|181731586|OTHER||Difference of least squares means (T-R)|-7.305|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.082|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.949|-3.661||||||Mixed effects model including effects for 'treatment', 'period' and 'subject' as well as covariates 'period baseline' and 'subject baseline'.||-3.661|-10.949|
90887324|NCT00614939|181637338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.709|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|5.93|||Footnote|\*Adjusted for baseline FPG||"Additional details about the analysis, such as null hypothesis and power calculation:~Due to a statistically significant treatment-by-baseline renal impairment interaction, fasting plasma glucose results were analyzed separately for each baseline renal impairment category."||5.93|-1.05|
90887325|NCT00614939|181637339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.228|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|-0.37|||Repeated Measures|"Number of subjects with observed values at Week 52 was n=26 for saxagliptin and n=34 for placebo~\*Adjusted for baseline HbA1c"||||-0.37|-1.27|
90887326|NCT00614939|181637340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-17.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.475|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.28|18.33|||Repeated Measures|"Number of subjects with observed values at Week 52 was n=17 for saxagliptin and n=16 for placebo~\*Adjusted for baseline FPG"||"Additional details about the analysis, such as null hypothesis and power calculation:~Due to a statistically significant treatment-by-baseline renal impairment interaction, fasting plasma glucose results were analyzed separately for each baseline renal impairment category."||18.33|-54.28|
90887327|NCT00614939|181637341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-15.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|25.326|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.77|34.3|||Repeated Measures|"Number of subjects with observed values at Week 52 was n=5 for saxagliptin and n=11 for placebo.~\*Adjusted for baseline FPG"||"Additional details about the analysis, such as null hypothesis and power calculation:~Due to a statistically significant treatment-by-baseline renal impairment interaction, fasting plasma glucose results were analyzed separately for each baseline renal impairment category."||34.30|-65.77|
90887328|NCT00614939|181637342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-38.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|53.822|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-144.44|68.26|||Repeated Measures|"Number of subjects with observed values at Week 52 was n=2 for saxagliptin and n=5 for placebo.~\*Adjusted for baseline FPG"||"Additional details about the analysis, such as null hypothesis and power calculation:~Due to a statistically significant treatment-by-baseline renal impairment interaction, fasting plasma glucose results were analyzed separately for each baseline renal impairment category."||68.26|-144.44|
90887329|NCT00614939|181637343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.027|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.99|1.04|||Repeated Measures|"Number of subjects with observed values at Week 52 was n=17 for saxagliptin and n=16 for placebo.~\*Adjusted for baseline FPG"||"Additional details about the analysis, such as null hypothesis and power calculation:~Due to a statistically significant treatment-by-baseline renal impairment interaction, fasting plasma glucose results were analyzed separately for each baseline renal impairment category."||1.04|-2.99|
90887330|NCT00614939|181637344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.405|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.66|1.89|||Repeated Measures|"Number of subjects with observed values at Week 52 was n=5 for saxagliptin and n=11 for placebo.~\*Adjusted for baseline FPG"||"Additional details about the analysis, such as null hypothesis and power calculation:~Due to a statistically significant treatment-by-baseline renal impairment interaction, fasting plasma glucose results were analyzed separately for each baseline renal impairment category."||1.89|-3.66|
90927197|NCT03904576|181731586|OTHER||Difference in %|-24.396|||||||||||||Difference of least squares means in % (ratio to Placebo) (T-R)/R\*100%|Mixed effects model including effects for 'treatment', 'period' and 'subject' as well as covariates 'period baseline' and 'subject baseline'.||||
91035230|NCT03086460|181956476|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.074||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.021|0.127|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment F ( Perforomist® IS 40 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.127|0.021|0.006
90927198|NCT04780581|181731589|EQUIVALENCE|log-rank statistic test.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|5.1|||Log Rank|||Null hypothesis of equal survival curves. Estimates of rate and risk ratios are shown with 95% confidence intervals. All the p-values are 2-sided and shown without adjustment for multiple testing, and p \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. The analyses were performed using IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 26.0 (Armonk, NY, USA: IBM Corp.).||5.1|0.2|0.984
90927199|NCT04780581|181731589|EQUIVALENCE|Log-rank method|Risk Difference (RD)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|9.1||||||||9.1|-8.8|
90927200|NCT04780581|181731590|EQUIVALENCE|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.0|||Chi-squared|||||3.0|0.4|0.833
90927201|NCT04780581|181731590|EQUIVALENCE|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test|Risk Difference (RD)|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.2|11.5||||||||11.5|-14.2|
90927202|NCT04780581|181731591|EQUIVALENCE|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|9.3|||Chi-squared|||non-invasive mechanical ventilation||9.3|0.2|0.661
90927203|NCT04780581|181731591|EQUIVALENCE|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test|Risk Difference (RD)|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|6.9||||||non-invasive mechanical ventilation||6.9|-10.2|
90927204|NCT04780581|181731591|EQUIVALENCE|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.2|||Chi-squared|||high-flow oxygen requirements||2.2|0.2|0.549
90927205|NCT04780581|181731591|EQUIVALENCE|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test|Risk Difference (RD)|3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|15.1||||||high-flow oxygen requirements||15.1|-8.2|
90927206|NCT04780581|181731591|EQUIVALENCE|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.3|||Chi-squared|||Invasive mechanical ventilation or intubation requirements analysis||3.3|0.4|0.809
90927207|NCT04780581|181731591|EQUIVALENCE|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test|Risk Difference (RD)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|11.1||||||Invasive mechanical ventilation or intubation requirements analysis||11.1|-13.0|
90927208|NCT04780581|181731592|EQUIVALENCE|T-test|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.3||||0.908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|5.0|||t-test, 1 sided|||||5|-5|0.908
90927209|NCT04780581|181731593|EQUIVALENCE|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.5|||Chi-squared|||Secondary infections||2.5|0.3|0.758
90927210|NCT04780581|181731593|EQUIVALENCE|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test|Risk Difference (RD)|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|13.7||||||Secondary infections||13.7|-10.1|
90927211|NCT04780581|181731593|EQUIVALENCE|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.2||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|12.3|||Chi-squared|||Hyperglycaemia||12.3|1.4|0.007
90927212|NCT04780581|181731593|EQUIVALENCE|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test|Risk Difference (RD)|-18.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.8|-5.6||||||Hyperglycaemia||-5.6|-31.8|
90927213|NCT04780581|181731593|EQUIVALENCE|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test|Risk Difference (RD)|-1.6||||0.319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|4.4|||Chi-squared|||Psychotic states||4.4|-8.5|0.319
90927214|NCT04780581|181731594|EQUIVALENCE|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.3|||Chi-squared|||||2.3|0.4|0.962
90927215|NCT04780581|181731594|EQUIVALENCE|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test|Risk Difference (RD)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.2|14.9||||||||14.9|-14.2|
90927216|NCT02765412|181731596|OTHER|multilevel model|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.78||Two-sided test; the a priori threshold being 0.05|Regression, Logistic|Adjusts for age, gender, race, comorbidities, implementation group, travel distance, and VAMC indicator|OR corresponding to the interaction between implementation group and lung cancer risk, a ratio of odds ratios. The OR for screening based on lung cancer risk in the SI group versus the OR for screening based on lung cancer risk in the II group|||0.78|0.58|0.081
90927217|NCT02765412|181731597|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.15||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.46||Two-sided test; the a priori threshold being 0.05|t-test, 2 sided||Satisfaction rating on a scale of 0 to 10; Difference is Arm 1 - Arm 2|Simple t-test comparing mean satisfaction ratings between arms||0.46|-0.16|0.35
90927218|NCT03990883|181731601|NON_INFERIORITY|"The hypothesis to be tested was: H0: pA-pB ≤ d0 versus H1: pA-pB \> d0 where, pA is the response rate for Princess® FILLER Lidocaine, pB is the response rate for the Comparator, and d0 is the non-inferiority margin set at -10%. The hypothesis was tested using a 1-sided, McNemar type test at an alpha of 0.025 with a delta of 0.10 (10%).~Assuming pA to be 87% and pB to be 88% a sample size of 222 subjects had been calculated to be sufficient to achieve a power of 90%."|Risk Difference (RD)|0.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.96|3.7|||McNemar|||||3.7|-2.96|<0.0001
90927219|NCT03990883|181731602|NON_INFERIORITY|"The hypothesis to be tested was: H0: pA-pB ≤ d0 versus H1: pA-pB \> d0 where, pA is the response rate for Princess® FILLER Lidocaine, pB is the response rate for the Comparator, and d0 is the non-inferiority margin set at -10%. The hypothesis was tested using a 1-sided, McNemar type test at an alpha of 0.025 with a delta of 0.10 (10%).~Assuming pA to be 87% and pB to be 88% a sample size of 222 subjects had been calculated to be sufficient to achieve a power of 90%."|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.71|3.71||The threshold for statistical significance is 0.025. A hierarchical approach is used and results are confirmative if all tests previously performed within the hierarchy achieve significance at a one-sided significance level of 0.025.|McNemar|||||3.71|-3.71|<0.0001
90887331|NCT00614939|181637345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.985|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.04|3.76|||Repeated Measures|"Number of subjects with observed values at Week 52 was n=2 for saxagliptin and n=5 for placebo.~\*Adjusted for baseline FPG"||"Additional details about the analysis, such as null hypothesis and power calculation:~Due to a statistically significant treatment-by-baseline renal impairment interaction, fasting plasma glucose results were analyzed separately for each baseline renal impairment category."||3.76|-8.04|
90887332|NCT01854827|181637368|SUPERIORITY|Percent was evaluated relative to 80% where statistical superiority was demonstrated if the one-sided, 90% Clopper-Pearson lower confidence bound was \> 80%.|Percent of patients|79.3|||||ONE_SIDED|90.0|63.2||||||||The lower bound of the 90% Clopper-Pearson confidence interval was \< 80%, therefore the study failed to achieve the feasibility definition stated in the protocol.||63.2|
90887333|NCT01854827|181637369|SUPERIORITY|Percent was evaluated relative to 80% where statistical superiority was demonstrated if the one-sided, 90% Clopper-Pearson lower confidence bound was \> 80%.|Percent of patients|79.3|||||ONE_SIDED|90.0|63.2||||||||The lower bound of the 90% Clopper-Pearson confidence interval was \< 80%, therefore the study failed to achieve the feasibility definition stated in the protocol.||63.2|
90887334|NCT01854827|181637370|OTHER|Percents with serious AEs prior to liver transplant were calculated, along with one-sided 90% Clopper-Pearson confidence interval lower bounds.|Percent of patients|89.7|||||ONE_SIDED|90.0|75.4||||||||||75.4|
90887335|NCT01854827|181637371|OTHER|Percent of patients with level 3-5 toxicity are presented along with one-sided 90% Clopper-Pearson confidence interval lower bound.|Percent of patients|89.7|||||ONE_SIDED|90.0|75.4||||||||||75.4|
90887336|NCT01854827|181637372|OTHER|Percent of patients with other expected AEs are presented along with one-sided 90% Clopper-Pearson confidence limit lower bound.|Percent of patients|27.6|||||ONE_SIDED|90.0|14.5||||||||||14.5|
90887337|NCT01854827|181637373|SUPERIORITY|One-sided testing for superiority of IVIG to historical control.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67||||0.5486|ONE_SIDED|90.0||2.38|||Regression, Logistic|||IVIG was compared to the historical placebo control from the START study (n=64): PMID: 24794368 NCT00294684||2.38||0.5486
90887338|NCT01854827|181637374|SUPERIORITY|One-sided testing for superiority of IVIG relative to historical control.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.33||||0.8455|ONE_SIDED|90.0||1.22|||Regression, Logistic|||IVIG was compared for superiority to the historical control of START study placebo (N=64). PMID: 24794368 NCT00294684||1.22||0.8455
90887339|NCT01854827|181637375|SUPERIORITY|One-sided.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.29||||0.8431|ONE_SIDED|90.0||1.24||One-sided|Regression, Logistic|||IVIG was compared for superiority to the historical START placebo control (N=64).||1.24||0.8431
90887340|NCT01854827|181637376|SUPERIORITY|One-sided for IVIG superior to historical START placebo control. PMID: 24794368 NCT00294684|Risk Difference (RD)|-11.9|||||ONE_SIDED|90.0||2.1||||||K-M estimates for survival for IVIG vs the historical START placebo control are provided, along with one-sided 90% upper bounds of the confidence intervals.||2.1||
90887341|NCT00736996|181637378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0125|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was defined as a 2-sided p-value \< 0.0125 (=0.05/4) to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||The mean change in domain score with PIO was compared with the mean change in domain score with Placebo in a linear regression conditioned on the stratification categories (MCI subtype and number of APOE ε4 alleles) and the baseline domain score.||||<0.0125
90887342|NCT00736996|181637378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0125|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was defined as a 2-sided p-value \< 0.0125 (=0.05/4) to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||The mean change in domain score with EET was compared with the mean change in domain score with Placebo in a linear regression conditioned on the stratification categories (MCI subtype and number of APOE ε4 alleles) and the baseline domain score.||||<0.0125
90887343|NCT00736996|181637379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The mean change with PIO was compared with the mean change with Placebo in a linear regression conditioned on the stratification categories (MCI subtype and number of APOE ε4 alleles) and the baseline level of the outcome variable.||||<0.05
90887344|NCT00736996|181637379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The mean change with EET was compared with the mean change with Placebo in a linear regression conditioned on the stratification categories (MCI subtype and number of APOE ε4 alleles) and the baseline level of the outcome variable.||||<0.05
90887345|NCT00736996|181637380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The mean change with PIO was compared with the mean change with Placebo in a linear regression conditioned on the stratification categories (MCI subtype and number of APOE ε4 alleles) and the baseline level of the outcome variable.||||<0.05
90887346|NCT00736996|181637380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The mean change with EET was compared with the mean change with Placebo in a linear regression conditioned on the stratification categories (MCI subtype and number of APOE ε4 alleles) and the baseline level of the outcome variable.||||<0.05
90887347|NCT02660944|181637416|SUPERIORITY|Two-sample t-test with Satterthwaite approximation|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37||||0.845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.42|4.15|||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline at Day 85 RSLV-132 versus placebo||4.15|-3.42|0.845
90887348|NCT02660944|181637416|SUPERIORITY|Two-sample t-test with Satterthwaite approximation|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48||||0.818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.66|3.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline at Day 169 RSLV-132 versus placebo||3.70|-4.66|0.818
90940888|NCT01917006|181761576|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.77||||0.025||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline geometric mean IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 2 vs Placebo at Week 2||||0.025
91035231|NCT03086460|181956476|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.031||||0.282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.025|0.087|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.087|-0.025|0.282
91035232|NCT03086460|181956476|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.017||||0.554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.039|0.072|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.072|-0.039|0.554
91035233|NCT03086460|181956476|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.039||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.014|0.091|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.091|-0.014|0.149
91035234|NCT03086460|181956476|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.014||||0.636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.072|0.044|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.044|-0.072|0.636
91035235|NCT03086460|181956476|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.008||||0.775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.047|0.063|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.063|-0.047|0.775
91035236|NCT03086460|181956476|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.022||||0.425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.032|0.077|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.077|-0.032|0.425
91035237|NCT03086460|181956477|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.122|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.058|0.187|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~This secondary efficacy variable was analyzed using the ANCOVA model that was also used for the primary efficacy analysis, without adjusting for multiplicity."||0.187|0.058|<0.001
91035238|NCT03086460|181956477|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.085|0.215|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.215|0.085|<0.001
91035239|NCT03086460|181956477|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.124|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.059|0.189|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.189|0.059|<0.001
91035240|NCT03086460|181956477|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.118|0.242|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.242|0.118|<0.001
91035241|NCT03086460|181956477|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.177|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.115|0.238|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment F ( Perforomist® IS 40 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.238|0.115|<0.001
91035242|NCT03086460|181956477|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.028||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.039|0.094|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.094|-0.039|0.410
91035243|NCT03086460|181956477|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.002||||0.961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.063|0.066|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.066|-0.063|0.961
91035244|NCT03086460|181956477|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.057||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|0.119|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.119|-0.005|0.070
91035245|NCT03086460|181956477|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.026||||0.454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.095|0.043|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.043|-0.095|0.454
91035246|NCT03086460|181956477|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.035|0.095|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.095|-0.035|0.370
90927220|NCT03990883|181731603|NON_INFERIORITY|"The hypothesis to be tested was: H0: pA-pB ≤ d0 versus H1: pA-pB \> d0 where, pA is the response rate for Princess® FILLER Lidocaine, pB is the response rate for the Comparator, and d0 is the non-inferiority margin set at -10%. The hypothesis was tested using a 1-sided, McNemar type test at an alpha of 0.025 with a delta of 0.10 (10%).~Assuming pA to be 87% and pB to be 88% a sample size of 222 subjects had been calculated to be sufficient to achieve a power of 90%."|Risk Difference (RD)|-2.96||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.99|4.07||The threshold for statistical significance is 0.025. A hierarchical approach is used and results are confirmative if all tests previously performed within the hierarchy achieve significance at a one-sided significance level of 0.025.|McNemar|||||4.07|-9.99|0.025
90887349|NCT03586999|181637429|SUPERIORITY||proportion|0.3||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|90.0||||The proportion achieving a complete response will be calculated and will compared to null proportion of 30%. The population proportion for complete response rate, p-value and 90% confidence intervals for the complete response rate will be calculated.|t-test, 2 sided|||The study was to be suspended, if, at any time, there was sufficient evidence to suggest that the true probability of achieving a complete response falls below 30% while assuming the treatment drug will elicit a 56% complete response rate. Statistically significant evidence for this low complete response rate is defined as an observed complete response rate whose upper one-sided 90% confidence limit is 0-30%. Sample size calculations were made assuming 80% power.||||.1
90887350|NCT04096560|181637439|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|26.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.07|32.73||The analysis used a linear MMRM with fixed effects for baseline (Day -1 mean values), treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction. Visit was repeated factor in the model.|MMRM|The unstructured covariance structure was used for the repeated statement.||||32.73|20.07|<0.001
90887351|NCT04096560|181637439|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|29.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.68|36.07||The analysis used a linear MMRM with fixed effects for baseline (Day -1 mean values), treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction. Visit was repeated factor in the model.|MMRM|The unstructured covariance structure was used for the repeated statement.||||36.07|23.68|<0.001
90887352|NCT04096560|181637439|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|35.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.73|41.34||The analysis used a linear MMRM with fixed effects for baseline (Day -1 mean values), treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction. Visit was repeated factor in the model.|MMRM|The unstructured covariance structure was used for the repeated statement.||||41.34|28.73|<0.001
90887353|NCT04096560|181637446|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-10.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.96|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.07|-6.16||The analysis used a linear MMRM with fixed effects for baseline (Day -1 mean values), treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction. Visit was repeated factor in the model.|MMRM|The unstructured covariance structure was used for the repeated statement.||||-6.16|-14.07|<0.001
90887354|NCT04096560|181637446|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-11.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.89|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|-7.56||The analysis used a linear MMRM with fixed effects for baseline (Day -1 mean values), treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction. Visit was repeated factor in the model.|MMRM|The unstructured covariance structure was used for the repeated statement.||||-7.56|-15.20|<0.001
90887355|NCT04096560|181637446|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-13.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.95|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.96|-9.09||The analysis used a linear MMRM with fixed effects for baseline (Day -1 mean values), treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction. Visit was repeated factor in the model.|MMRM|The unstructured covariance structure was used for the repeated statement.||||-9.09|-16.96|<0.001
90887356|NCT04096560|181637447|SUPERIORITY||IRR|0.05|||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.007|0.317||The incidence rate was the exponentiated LS means and the incidence rate ratio (IRR) was the exponentiated LS mean differences from the generalized estimating equation (GEE) Poisson regression model.|MMRM|The Poisson regression with natural log link was on the count of cataplexy per week.||||0.317|0.007|=0.002
90887357|NCT04096560|181637447|SUPERIORITY||IRR|0.2|||=|0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.767||The incidence rate was the exponentiated LS means and the IRR was the exponentiated LS mean differences from the GEE Poisson regression model.|MMRM|The Poisson regression with natural log link was on the count of cataplexy per week.||||0.767|0.050|=0.019
90887358|NCT04096560|181637447|SUPERIORITY||IRR|0.15|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.047|0.482||The incidence rate was the exponentiated LS means and the IRR was the exponentiated LS mean differences from the GEE Poisson regression model.|MMRM|The Poisson regression with natural log link was on the count of cataplexy per week.||||0.482|0.047|=0.001
90927221|NCT03990883|181731604|NON_INFERIORITY|"The hypothesis to be tested was: H0: pA-pB ≤ d0 versus H1: pA-pB \> d0 where, pA is the response rate for Princess® FILLER Lidocaine, pB is the response rate for the Comparator, and d0 is the non-inferiority margin set at -10%. The hypothesis was tested using a 1-sided, McNemar type test at an alpha of 0.025 with a delta of 0.10 (10%).~Assuming pA to be 87% and pB to be 88% a sample size of 222 subjects had been calculated to be sufficient to achieve a power of 90%."|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.45||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.42|7.52||The threshold for statistical significance is 0.025. A hierarchical approach is used and results are confirmative if all tests previously performed within the hierarchy achieve significance at a one-sided significance level of 0.025.|McNemar|||||7.52|-8.42|0.009
90927222|NCT03990883|181731605|NON_INFERIORITY|"The hypothesis to be tested was: H0: pA-pB ≤ d0 versus H1: pA-pB \> d0 where, pA is the response rate for Princess® FILLER Lidocaine, pB is the response rate for the Comparator, and d0 is the non-inferiority margin set at -10%. The hypothesis was tested using a 1-sided, McNemar type test at an alpha of 0.025 with a delta of 0.10 (10%).~Assuming pA to be 87% and pB to be 88% a sample size of 222 subjects had been calculated to be sufficient to achieve a power of 90%."|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.85|3.11||The threshold for statistical significance is 0.025. A hierarchical approach is used and results are confirmative if all tests previously performed within the hierarchy achieve significance at a one-sided significance level of 0.025.|McNemar|||||3.11|-3.85|<0.0001
91035247|NCT03086460|181956477|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.056||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.008|0.12|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.120|-0.008|0.086
91035248|NCT03086460|181956477|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.086||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.151|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.151|0.020|0.011
91035249|NCT03086460|181956477|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.097||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.029|0.164|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.164|0.029|0.005
90927223|NCT03990883|181731606|NON_INFERIORITY|"The hypothesis to be tested was: H0: pA-pB ≤ d0 versus H1: pA-pB \> d0 where, pA is the response rate for Princess® FILLER Lidocaine, pB is the response rate for the Comparator, and d0 is the non-inferiority margin set at -10%. The hypothesis was tested using a 1-sided, McNemar type test at an alpha of 0.025 with a delta of 0.10 (10%).~Assuming pA to be 87% and pB to be 88% a sample size of 222 subjects had been calculated to be sufficient to achieve a power of 90%."|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.05|3.16||The threshold for statistical significance is 0.025. A hierarchical approach is used and results are confirmative if all tests previously performed within the hierarchy achieve significance at a one-sided significance level of 0.025.|McNemar|||||3.16|-4.05|<0.0001
90927224|NCT04664881|181731646|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.71
90927225|NCT04664881|181731647|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Cardiovascular Death||||0.99
90927226|NCT04664881|181731647|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Hospitalization for Myocardial Infarction||||0.36
90927227|NCT04664881|181731647|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Arrhythmias||||0.13
90927228|NCT04664881|181731647|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Cardiac Arrest||||0.99
90927229|NCT04243759|181731664|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.97
90927230|NCT04243759|181731665|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.36|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.09||0.232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.95|||t-test, 2 sided|||Within subjects comparison of drinks per drinking day with full intervention app access versus daily assessment via the app only||0.95|-0.24|.232
90927231|NCT05785130|181731684|SUPERIORITY|T0|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.07||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|||||T0|t-test, 2 sided|||It was calculated that 58 participants were randomized in a 1:1 between two arms on baseline, the first intervention day(T1), the third intervention day(T2), and follow up two days later after intervention (T3) . Sample size was determoned using G-power repeated measures, between factors(α = 0.05, power = 0.8). Assumption a discontinution rate of 10%.||||0.74
90927232|NCT05785130|181731684|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|133.57||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|||||T1|t-test, 2 sided|||It was calculated that 58 participants were randomized in a 1:1 between two arms on baseline, the first intervention day(T1), the third intervention day(T2), and follow up two days later after intervention (T3) . Sample size was determoned using G-power repeated measures, between factors(α = 0.05, power = 0.8). Assumption a discontinution rate of 10%.||||0.75
90927233|NCT05785130|181731684|SUPERIORITY|T|Median Difference (Final Values)|235.93|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||T2|t-test, 2 sided|||It was calculated that 58 participants were randomized in a 1:1 between two arms on baseline, the first intervention day(T1), the third intervention day(T2), and follow up two days later after intervention (T3) . Sample size was determoned using G-power repeated measures, between factors(α = 0.05, power = 0.8). Assumption a discontinution rate of 10%.||||<0.01
90927234|NCT05785130|181731684|SUPERIORITY|T3|Median Difference (Final Values)|214.18|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||T3|t-test, 2 sided|||It was calculated that 58 participants were randomized in a 1:1 between two arms on baseline, the first intervention day(T1), the third intervention day(T2), and follow up two days later after intervention (T3) . Sample size was determoned using G-power repeated measures, between factors(α = 0.05, power = 0.8). Assumption a discontinution rate of 10%.||||<0.01
90927235|NCT01992913|181731686|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||"Fisher's exact Test, right-sided probability based on a directional hypothesis."|Fisher Exact|||We conducted a 2 X 2 chi-square analysis of differences in proportion.||||<.05
90927236|NCT01992913|181731686|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.65|||<|0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|7.13|||Chi-squared|ChiSq = 3.6562, df = 1|OR, iCBT / TAU in job attainment|Chis Sq: group (iCBT/TAU) X Job attained (Yes/No)||7.13|0.97|<.06
90927237|NCT01992913|181731687|SUPERIORITY|A mixed effects logistic regression model was conducted on a binary work variable, with a random intercept, using the baseline measure as a binary covariate.|Odds Ratio, log|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91|<|0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.67|0.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|df (1, 30) for the group X assessment interaction, adjusting for baseline differences in hours worked at the start of the intervention.||Compare the groups on proportions in employment at the 6 month assessment points.||.89|-2.67|<0.33
90927238|NCT01992913|181731687|SUPERIORITY|A mixed effects logistic regression model was conducted on a binary work variable, with a random intercept, using the baseline measure as a binary covariate.|Odds Ratio, log|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85|<|0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|2.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|F (1, 130) = 1.0, p\<0.37, for the group X assessment interaction, adjusting for baseline differences in hours worked at the start of the intervention.||Compare the groups on proportions in employment at the 12 month assessment points.||2.19|-1.14|<.54
91035250|NCT03086460|181956477|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.087||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.021|0.153|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.153|0.021|0.010
91035251|NCT03086460|181956477|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.145|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.081|0.208|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.208|0.081|<0.001
90927239|NCT01992913|181731687|SUPERIORITY|A mixed effects logistic regression model was conducted on a binary work variable, with a random intercept, using the baseline measure as a binary covariate.|Odds Ratio, log|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83|<|0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|1.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|F (1, 130) = 1.0, p\<0.37, for the group X assessment interaction, adjusting for baseline differences in hours worked at the start of the intervention.||Compare the groups on proportions in employment at the 18 month assessment point.||1.73|-1.32|<0.71
90927240|NCT01992913|181731689|SUPERIORITY|This is mixed model analysis of the group X assessment interaction. This analysis is the test of mean differences in level of functioning at the baseline assessment.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.82|<|0.19|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|df (1, 114)||||||<0.19
90927241|NCT01992913|181731689|SUPERIORITY|This is mixed model analysis of the group X assessment interaction. This analysis is the test of mean differences in level of functioning at the 6 month assessment.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.42|<|0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|df (1, 114)||||||<0.99
90927242|NCT01992913|181731689|SUPERIORITY|This is mixed model analysis of the group X assessment interaction. This analysis is the test of mean differences in level of functioning at the 12 month assessment.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.54|<|0.94|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|df (1, 114)||||||<0.94
90927243|NCT01992913|181731689|SUPERIORITY|This is mixed model analysis of the group X assessment interaction. This analysis is the test of mean differences in level of functioning at the baseline assessment.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.52|<|0.14|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|df (1, 114)||||||<0.14
90927244|NCT04881110|181731816|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|14.5|||t-test, 2 sided||||To evaluate the change of variables over time, we subtracted the values at the start from values at the end. A 2-sample t test was used to compare differences between the interventions. The χ2 test was used for comparing proportions of participants in the 2 groups who reached the primary end point after the intervention. Relative risks (RRs) and 95%Cis were calculated to demonstrate the relationship between the intervention and the achievement of the primary end point. A 2-sided P \< .05 was considered statistically significant.|14.5|8.0|<0.001
90927245|NCT04881110|181731816|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|2.9|||Chi-squared||||To evaluate the change of variables over time, we subtracted the values at the start from values at the end. A 2-sample t test was used to compare differences between the interventions. The χ2 test was used for comparing proportions of participants in the 2 groups who reached the primary end point after the intervention. Relative risks (RRs) and 95%Cis were calculated to demonstrate the relationship between the intervention and the achievement of the primary end point. A 2-sided P \< .05 was considered statistically significant.|2.90|1.26|<0.001
91035252|NCT03086460|181956477|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.127|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.065|0.189|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment F ( Perforomist® IS 40 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.189|0.065|<0.001
91035253|NCT03086460|181956477|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.011||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.055|0.078|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.078|-0.055|0.740
90927246|NCT04881110|181731817|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.01|||t-test, 2 sided||||To evaluate the change of variables over time, we subtracted the values at the start from values at the end. A 2-sample t test was used to compare differences between the interventions. The χ2 test was used for comparing proportions of participants in the 2 groups who reached the primary end point after the intervention. Relative risks (RRs) and 95%Cis were calculated to demonstrate the relationship between the intervention and the achievement of the primary end point. A 2-sided P \< .05 was considered statistically significant.|0.01|-0.8|0.06
90927247|NCT04881110|181731818|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.4||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|7.4|||t-test, 2 sided||||To evaluate the change of variables over time, we subtracted the values at the start from values at the end. A 2-sample t test was used to compare differences between the interventions. The χ2 test was used for comparing proportions of participants in the 2 groups who reached the primary end point after the intervention. Relative risks (RRs) and 95%Cis were calculated to demonstrate the relationship between the intervention and the achievement of the primary end point. A 2-sided P \< .05 was considered statistically significant.|7.4|-14.3|0.52
90927248|NCT04881110|181731819|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|1.2|||t-test, 2 sided||||To evaluate the change of variables over time, we subtracted the values at the start from values at the end. A 2-sample t test was used to compare differences between the interventions. The χ2 test was used for comparing proportions of participants in the 2 groups who reached the primary end point after the intervention. Relative risks (RRs) and 95%Cis were calculated to demonstrate the relationship between the intervention and the achievement of the primary end point. A 2-sided P \< .05 was considered statistically significant.|1.2|-3.6|0.33
90927249|NCT04881110|181731820|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.1|||t-test, 2 sided||||To evaluate the change of variables over time, we subtracted the values at the start from values at the end. A 2-sample t test was used to compare differences between the interventions. The χ2 test was used for comparing proportions of participants in the 2 groups who reached the primary end point after the intervention. Relative risks (RRs) and 95%Cis were calculated to demonstrate the relationship between the intervention and the achievement of the primary end point. A 2-sided P \< .05 was considered statistically significant.|0.1|-1.7|0.10
90927250|NCT04881110|181731821|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.36||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|3.5|||t-test, 2 sided||||To evaluate the change of variables over time, we subtracted the values at the start from values at the end. A 2-sample t test was used to compare differences between the interventions. The χ2 test was used for comparing proportions of participants in the 2 groups who reached the primary end point after the intervention. Relative risks (RRs) and 95%Cis were calculated to demonstrate the relationship between the intervention and the achievement of the primary end point. A 2-sided P \< .05 was considered statistically significant.|3.5|-2.8|0.81
90927251|NCT04881110|181731822|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.003||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|5.8|||t-test, 2 sided||||To evaluate the change of variables over time, we subtracted the values at the start from values at the end. A 2-sample t test was used to compare differences between the interventions. The χ2 test was used for comparing proportions of participants in the 2 groups who reached the primary end point after the intervention. Relative risks (RRs) and 95%Cis were calculated to demonstrate the relationship between the intervention and the achievement of the primary end point. A 2-sided P \< .05 was considered statistically significant.|5.8|-5.8|0.99
90927252|NCT04881110|181731823|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.8||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.6|22.9|||t-test, 2 sided||||To evaluate the change of variables over time, we subtracted the values at the start from values at the end. A 2-sample t test was used to compare differences between the interventions. The χ2 test was used for comparing proportions of participants in the 2 groups who reached the primary end point after the intervention. Relative risks (RRs) and 95%Cis were calculated to demonstrate the relationship between the intervention and the achievement of the primary end point. A 2-sided P \< .05 was considered statistically significant.|22.9|-32.6|0.72
90927253|NCT04881110|181731824|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.07|||t-test, 2 sided||||To evaluate the change of variables over time, we subtracted the values at the start from values at the end. A 2-sample t test was used to compare differences between the interventions. The χ2 test was used for comparing proportions of participants in the 2 groups who reached the primary end point after the intervention. Relative risks (RRs) and 95%Cis were calculated to demonstrate the relationship between the intervention and the achievement of the primary end point. A 2-sided P \< .05 was considered statistically significant.|-0.07|-0.7|0.02
90940889|NCT01917006|181761576|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.07||||0.417||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline geometric mean IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 3 vs Placebo at Week 2||||0.417
90940890|NCT01917006|181761576|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.16||||0.33||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline geometric mean IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 4 vs Placebo at Week 2||||0.330
90940891|NCT01917006|181761576|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.3||||0.199||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline geometric mean IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 5 vs Placebo at Week 2||||0.199
90940892|NCT01917006|181761576|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.45||||0.113||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline geometric mean IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 6 vs Placebo at Week 2||||0.113
90927254|NCT04881110|181731825|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.3|||t-test, 2 sided||||To evaluate the change of variables over time, we subtracted the values at the start from values at the end. A 2-sample t test was used to compare differences between the interventions. The χ2 test was used for comparing proportions of participants in the 2 groups who reached the primary end point after the intervention. Relative risks (RRs) and 95%Cis were calculated to demonstrate the relationship between the intervention and the achievement of the primary end point. A 2-sided P \< .05 was considered statistically significant.|0.3|-0.04|0.12
90927255|NCT04881110|181731826|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.09||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|2.3|||t-test, 2 sided||||To evaluate the change of variables over time, we subtracted the values at the start from values at the end. A 2-sample t test was used to compare differences between the interventions. The χ2 test was used for comparing proportions of participants in the 2 groups who reached the primary end point after the intervention. Relative risks (RRs) and 95%Cis were calculated to demonstrate the relationship between the intervention and the achievement of the primary end point. A 2-sided P \< .05 was considered statistically significant.|2.3|-8.5|0.25
90927256|NCT04881110|181731827|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|87.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.9|115.1|||t-test, 2 sided||||To evaluate the change of variables over time, we subtracted the values at the start from values at the end. A 2-sample t test was used to compare differences between the interventions. The χ2 test was used for comparing proportions of participants in the 2 groups who reached the primary end point after the intervention. Relative risks (RRs) and 95%Cis were calculated to demonstrate the relationship between the intervention and the achievement of the primary end point. A 2-sided P \< .05 was considered statistically significant.|115.1|59.9|<0.001
90927257|NCT04881110|181731828|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.01|||t-test, 2 sided||||To evaluate the change of variables over time, we subtracted the values at the start from values at the end. A 2-sample t test was used to compare differences between the interventions. The χ2 test was used for comparing proportions of participants in the 2 groups who reached the primary end point after the intervention. Relative risks (RRs) and 95%Cis were calculated to demonstrate the relationship between the intervention and the achievement of the primary end point. A 2-sided P \< .05 was considered statistically significant.|0.01|-0.09|0.18
90927258|NCT04881110|181731829|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.7||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|18.1|||t-test, 2 sided||||To evaluate the change of variables over time, we subtracted the values at the start from values at the end. A 2-sample t test was used to compare differences between the interventions. The χ2 test was used for comparing proportions of participants in the 2 groups who reached the primary end point after the intervention. Relative risks (RRs) and 95%Cis were calculated to demonstrate the relationship between the intervention and the achievement of the primary end point. A 2-sided P \< .05 was considered statistically significant.|18.1|-0.6|0.06
90927259|NCT04881110|181731830|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|2.6|||t-test, 2 sided||||To evaluate the change of variables over time, we subtracted the values at the start from values at the end. A 2-sample t test was used to compare differences between the interventions. The χ2 test was used for comparing proportions of participants in the 2 groups who reached the primary end point after the intervention. Relative risks (RRs) and 95%Cis were calculated to demonstrate the relationship between the intervention and the achievement of the primary end point. A 2-sided P \< .05 was considered statistically significant.|2.6|-0.09|0.06
90927260|NCT04881110|181731832|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.8|28.3|||t-test, 2 sided||||To evaluate the change of variables over time, we subtracted the values at the start from values at the end. A 2-sample t test was used to compare differences between the interventions. The χ2 test was used for comparing proportions of participants in the 2 groups who reached the primary end point after the intervention. Relative risks (RRs) and 95%Cis were calculated to demonstrate the relationship between the intervention and the achievement of the primary end point. A 2-sided P \< .05 was considered statistically significant.|28.3|21.8|<0.001
90940893|NCT01917006|181761576|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.5||||0.127||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline geometric mean IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 1 vs Placebo at Week 4||||0.127
91035254|NCT03086460|181956477|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.001||||0.973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.064|0.066|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.066|-0.064|0.973
90887359|NCT00534352|181637458|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was shown for Cmin as the 90% confidence intervals (CI) of the LSmean ratio was within the 80-125% limits.|Least Square (LS) mean ratio|95.47||||||90.0|82.77|110.1||No p-values.|Mixed Models Analysis (Cmin)|The linear mixed effects model was controlled for treatment as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect.|The results are for the mean ratio of Cmin. Numerator: Treatment B Denominator: Treatment A|Previous studies showed that the intrasubject variability on the log transformed Cmax and AUC12h of TMC125 was less than or equal to 40%. Based on this and with complete data on 20 patients, the 90% CI of the true ratio of the means was expected to be contained within 81-124% of the observed ratio of the means.||110.1|82.77|
90927261|NCT05215054|181731833|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority will be demonstrated if the upper limit of the two-sided 95%CI of the difference of changes from baseline between test device and control is inferior or equal to 0.5.||||||||||||||||Difference of changes from baseline in WSRS score for Gana V versus Sculptra|Non-inferiority will be demonstrated if the upper limit of the two-sided 95%CI of the difference of changes from baseline between test device and control is inferior or equal to 0.5.To assess assay sensitivity, the proportion of responders with Gana V®, defined as improvement of ≥1-grade in the WSRS when compared to D0 pre-injection must be ≥50% at the 6 months visit after baseline.|||
90927262|NCT02933489|181731845|EQUIVALENCE|H0: DBT = AB-MR|Wald interval with Bonett-Price Laplace|0.007||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0022|0.0116|||McNemar||"Wald interval with Bonett-Price Laplace, described in :~Fagerland MW, Lydersen S, Laake P. Recommended tests and confidence intervals for paired binomial proportions. Statist. Med. 2014; 33:2850-75."|The proportion of participants who had an invasive cancer, verified by pathology, detected by each modality (the invasive cancer detection rates) will be made using exact McNemar's test.||0.0116|0.0022|0.002
90927263|NCT02933489|181731846|EQUIVALENCE|PPV DBT = PPV AB-MR||||||0.15||||||"Generalized estimating equation (GEE) regression with the p-value from the resulting score test.~5 secondary comparisons were planned: alpha level of 0.05/5 = 0.01 for p-value significance"|Leisenring|Leisenring W, Alonzo T, Pepe MS. Comparisons of predictive values of binary medical diagnostic tests for paired designs. Biometrics. 2000;56:345-351||Positive Predictive Value (PPV)||||0.15
90927264|NCT02933489|181731847|EQUIVALENCE|H0: DBT short term follow-up rate = AB-MR short term follow-up rate|||||<|0.0001||||||To adjust for multiplicity, using the Bonferroni correction, secondary comparisons are compared against an adjusted alpha level of 0.05/5=0.01 corresponding to the 5 secondary comparisons outlined in the Statistical Analysis Plan (SAP)|McNemar|exact p-value||The exact p-value from McNemar's test is reported for for comparing the DBT against the AB-MR short term follow-up rates||||<0.0001
90927265|NCT02933489|181731847|EQUIVALENCE|H0: DBT additional imaging rate =AB-MR additional imaging rate||||||0.02||||||To adjust for multiplicity, using the Bonferroni correction, secondary comparisons are compared against an adjusted alpha level of 0.05/5 = 0.01, corresponding to the 5 secondary comparisons outlined in the SAP|McNemar|exact p-values||The exact p-value from McNemar's test is reported for for comparing the DBT against the AB-MR additional imaging rates||||0.02
90927266|NCT02933489|181731848|EQUIVALENCE|Sensitivity DBT = Sensitivity AB-MR||||||0.001||||||The comparison of the sensitivity of AB-MR and DBT uses a two-sided exact McNemar's test to account for the paired design 5 secondary comparisons were planned: alpha level of 0.05/5 = 0.01 for p-value significance|McNemar|||||||0.001
90927267|NCT02933489|181731848|EQUIVALENCE|Specificity DBT = Specificity AB-MR|||||<|0.001||||||The comparison of the Specificity of AB-MR and DBT uses a two-sided exact McNemar's test to account for the paired design 5 secondary comparisons were planned: alpha level of 0.05/5 = 0.01 for p-value significance|McNemar|||||||<0.001
90927268|NCT05485935|181731855|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|45.94||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.24|72.64||The pass criteria were based on results analysing the 2 primary endpoints in a hierarchical fashion: rejecting the H0 on the first endpoint (Residual urine at first flow-stop) before continuing to the second (Number of flow-stop episodes).|Mixed Models Analysis|||This was a superiority investigation in which the null hypothesis of the primary endpoints was to be rejected, at a 5% significance (alpha 0.05), to demonstrate the superiority of the investigational device.||72.64|19.24|0.001
90940894|NCT01917006|181761576|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.56||||0.087||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline geometric mean IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 2 vs Placebo at Week 4||||0.087
90965106|NCT00232141|181811668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.1849||95.0|-0.87|0.17||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 5||0.17|-0.87|0.1849
90965107|NCT00232141|181811668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.0452||95.0|-1.09|-0.01||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 6||-0.01|-1.09|0.0452
90965108|NCT00232141|181811668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.0359||95.0|-1.18|-0.04||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 7||-0.04|-1.18|0.0359
91035255|NCT03086460|181956477|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.059||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.003|0.122|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.122|-0.003|0.064
90927269|NCT05485935|181731856|SUPERIORITY|The pass criteria were based on the results analysing the two primary endpoints in a hierarchical fashion: rejecting the null hypothesis on the first endpoint (Residual urine at first flow-stop) before continuing to the second (Number of flow-stop episodes).|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This was a superiority investigation in which the null hypothesis of the primary endpoints was to be rejected, at a 5% significance (alpha 0.05), to demonstrate the superiority of the investigational device.||0.35|0.07|<0.001
90927270|NCT05485935|181731857|SUPERIORITY|The pass criteria were based on the results analysing the two primary endpoints in a hierarchical fashion: rejecting the null hypothesis on the first endpoint (Residual urine at first flow-stop) before continuing to the second (Number of flow-stop episodes).|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This was a superiority investigation in which the null hypothesis of the primary endpoints was to be rejected, at a 5% significance (alpha 0.05), to demonstrate the superiority of the investigational device.||0.40|0.04|<0.001
90927271|NCT05485935|181731858|SUPERIORITY|The pass criteria were based on the results analysing the two primary endpoints in a hierarchical fashion: rejecting the null hypothesis on the first endpoint (Residual urine at first flow-stop) before continuing to the second (Number of flow-stop episodes).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.5||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.5|47.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This was a superiority investigation in which the null hypothesis of the primary endpoints was to be rejected, at a 5% significance (alpha 0.05), to demonstrate the superiority of the investigational device.||47.6|9.5|0.004
90927272|NCT04093869|181731861|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.1||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|14.0||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Full alpha of 0.05 was allocated to this as the sole primary outcome.|Regression, Linear||A negative mean difference would represent a better outcome in the CSTEX arm compared to the SOC-ED arm.|||14|-6|0.40
90927273|NCT04093869|181731862|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|20.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|32.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.0|85.0|||||A positive value for the estimate represents a greater distance walked for the CSTEX arm compared to the SOC-ED arm.|||85|-44|
90927274|NCT04093869|181731863|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-316.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|336.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-979.0|346.0|||||A positive value for the estimate would represent more steps per day for the CSTEX arm compared to the SOC-ED arm.|||346|-979|
90927275|NCT04093869|181731864|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|14.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|34.0||||||||34|-5|
90927276|NCT04093869|181731865|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0034|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.11|||||A negative value for the estimate would represent a better QOL survey score for the CSTEX arm compared to the SOC-ED arm.|||0.11|-0.1|
90927277|NCT04093869|181731866|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.041|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.3|||||A negative value for the estimate would represent a better Frailty index score for the CSTEX arm compared to the SOC-ED arm.|||0.30|-0.22|
90927278|NCT04093869|181731867|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.17||||||||0.17|-0.20|
90927279|NCT04093869|181731868|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.1||||||||0.10|-0.13|
90927280|NCT04093869|181731869|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.07||||||||0.07|-0.12|
90927281|NCT04093869|181731870|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|1.6|||||A positive value for the estimate represents better self-efficacy for the CSTEX arm compared to the SOC-ED arm.|||1.60|-0.83|
90927282|NCT01499368|181731892|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority: The Lower limit is not lower than -15%||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.05
90927283|NCT01499368|181731893|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-Inferiority||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test||||||0.05
90927284|NCT02720068|181731941|OTHER|Difference in Percentage|Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|22.9|||||Confidence interval based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|||22.9|-7.3|
90927285|NCT00412607|181732027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of mortality|13.3|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||17.5|||Fisher Exact||The 95% confidence interval is a one-sided with upper confidence level = 17.5% computed using the exact binomial test.|"Assumptions for sample size calculation: 10% attrition rate, Type I error of 0.05, anticipated 12-month mortality rate is 0.19, a region of indifference of 0.07, power of 0.8; the required sample size is 249 per nQuery Exact test for single proportion method.~The null hypothesis is that the 12-month mortality rate is greater than or equal to 0.26; the alternative is that the rate is less than 0.26. This hypothesis is evaluated with one-sided exact binomial test at α= 0.05."||17.5||
90927286|NCT03662022|181732033|SUPERIORITY||incidence rate ratio|0.95|||<|0.017|TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.4|2.23||The significance level was determined at 0.017, to account for the fact that we made three comparisons, thus conclusions can be drawn by examining if the 98.3% CI for the incidence rate ratio (IRR) contains the critical value of 1.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.23|0.40|<0.017
90927287|NCT03662022|181732033|SUPERIORITY||incidence rate ratio|0.8||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.34|1.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.87|0.34|0.017
90927288|NCT03662022|181732033|SUPERIORITY||incidence rate ratio|0.58|||<|0.017|TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.22|1.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.56|0.22|<0.017
91035256|NCT03086460|181956477|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.079|0.059|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.059|-0.079|0.774
90927289|NCT04024059|181732053|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.737|||=|0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.719|4.195|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.195|0.719|=0.22
90927290|NCT04024059|181732053|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.035|||=|0.938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.435|2.461|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.461|0.435|=0.938
90927291|NCT04024059|181732054|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.783|||=|0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.733|4.336|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.336|0.733|=0.202
90927292|NCT04024059|181732054|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38|||=|0.474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.571|3.336|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.336|0.571|=.474
90927293|NCT04024059|181732055|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.669|||=|0.328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.299|1.497|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.497|0.299|=0.328
90927294|NCT04024059|181732055|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.724|||=|0.435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.322|1.627|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.627|0.322|=0.435
90927295|NCT03351998|181732056|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|36.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|365.55||0.6051|TWO_SIDED||||||signed rank test|This is within group 12 month change.||||||0.6051
90927296|NCT03351998|181732056|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|31.89|STANDARD_DEVIATION|213.0||0.9434|TWO_SIDED||||||signed rank test|This is within group 12 month change.||||||0.9434
90927297|NCT03351998|181732056|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.39|STANDARD_DEVIATION|179.54||0.9408|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|This is within group 12 month change.||||||0.9408
90927298|NCT03351998|181732057|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.23||0.7458|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|This is within group 12 month change.||||||0.7458
90927299|NCT03351998|181732057|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.16||0.4056|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|This is within group 12 month change.||||||0.4056
90927300|NCT03351998|181732057|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.18||0.1932|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|This is within group 12 month change.||||||0.1932
90927301|NCT01527188|181732086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-198.18||||0.0427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-389.82|-6.55|||ANCOVA|||||-6.55|-389.82|0.0427
90927302|NCT01527188|181732086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-171.82||||0.0793||95.0|-363.87|20.24|||ANCOVA|||||20.24|-363.87|0.0793
90927303|NCT01527188|181732086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-118.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-305.9|69.04|||ANCOVA|||The statistical test is not applicable due to the step-down approach performed to address the multiplicity issue.||69.04|-305.90|
90927304|NCT01527188|181732087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-125.61||||0.0323||95.0|-240.53|-10.69|||ANCOVA|||||-10.69|-240.53|0.0323
90927305|NCT01527188|181732087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-122.23||||0.0376||95.0|-237.38|-7.08|||ANCOVA|||||-7.08|-237.38|0.0376
90927306|NCT01527188|181732087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-91.18||||0.1119||95.0|-203.74|21.38|||ANCOVA|||||21.38|-203.74|0.1119
90940895|NCT01917006|181761576|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.04||||0.543||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline geometric mean IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 3 vs Placebo at Week 4||||0.543
90965109|NCT00232141|181811668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.0184||95.0|-1.26|-0.12||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 8||-0.12|-1.26|0.0184
90965110|NCT00232141|181811668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.1043||95.0|-1.06|0.1||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 9||0.10|-1.06|0.1043
90965111|NCT00232141|181811668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.1053||95.0|-1.04|0.1||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 10||0.10|-1.04|0.1053
91035257|NCT03086460|181956477|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.048||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.018|0.113|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.113|-0.018|0.151
91035258|NCT03086460|181956477|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.058||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.006|0.122|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.122|-0.006|0.076
90927307|NCT04518943|181732116|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-634.0||||0.418|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1924.0|655.0|||linear mixed model|||This is the results of financial vs non-financial reward factor at week 12. It compares change in steps from baseline to week 12 between subjects randomized to receive financial rewards compared to those who received nonfinancial rewards. A linear mixed-effect model was estimated with independent variables of demographics, steps and outcomes at baseline, indicators for each of the four factor assignment, linear week with a spline at week 12, and interactions between factors and weeks.||655|-1924|0.418
90927308|NCT04518943|181732116|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1697.0||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3000.0|-385.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Positive values represent a positive effect of lottery based rewards compared to loss-based rewards.|This is the results of lottery vs loss-framed reward factor at week 12. It compares change in steps from baseline to week 12 between subjects randomized to receive financial rewards compared to those who received nonfinancial rewards. A linear mixed-effect model was estimated with independent variables of demographics, steps and outcomes at baseline, indicators for each of the four factor assignments, linear week with a spline at week 12, and interactions between factors and weeks.||-385|-3000|0.033
90927309|NCT04518943|181732116|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|820.0||||0.248|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-347.0|1988.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the results of precommitment (PC) vs no PC factor at week 12. It compares change in steps from baseline to week 12 between subjects randomized to receive a request for PC compared to those who received no request. A linear mixed-effect model was estimated with independent variables of demographics, steps and outcomes at baseline, indicators for each of the four factor assignments, linear week with a spline at week 12, and interactions between factors and weeks.||1988|-347|0.248
90927310|NCT04518943|181732116|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1121.0||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.0|2323.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the results of advice vs no advice factor at week 12. It compares change in steps from baseline to week 12 between subjects randomized to receive a request for advice to other subjects compared to those who received no request. A linear mixed-effect model was estimated with independent variables of demographics, steps and outcomes at baseline, indicators for each of the four factor assignments, linear week with a spline at week 12, and interactions between factors and weeks.|Positive values represent a positive effect of requests for advice on steps compared to no request for advice.|2323|82|0.125
90927311|NCT04518943|181732117|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.739|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.05|0.7|||Regression, Linear|||This is the results of financial vs non-financial reward factor at week 12. It compares change in efficacy from baseline to week 12 between subjects randomized to receive financial rewards compared to those who received nonfinancial rewards. A linear model was estimated with independent variables of demographics, steps and survey-based outcomes at baseline, indicators for each of the four factor assignments, indicator for week 12 or 24 week, and interactions between factors and week indicator.|Positive values represent a positive effect of financial rewards compared to non-financial rewards.|0.70|-1.05|0.739
90927312|NCT04518943|181732117|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.51||||0.347|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.42|0.39|||Mixed Models Analysis||Positive values represent a positive effect of financial rewards compared to non-financial rewards.|This is the results of financial vs non-financial reward factor at week 24. It compares change in efficacy from baseline to week 24 between subjects randomized to receive financial rewards compared to those who received nonfinancial rewards. A linear model was estimated with independent variables of demographics, steps and survey-based outcomes at baseline, indicators for each of the four factor assignments, indicator for week 12 or 24 week, and interactions between factors and week indicator.||0.39|-1.42|0.347
90927313|NCT04518943|181732117|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.61||||0.293|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.35|1.57|||Mixed Models Analysis||Positive values represent a positive effect of lottery-based rewards compared to loss-based rewards.|This is the results of lottery vs loss-framed reward factor at week 12. It compares change in efficacy from baseline to week 12 between subjects randomized to receive lottery-based rewards compared to those who received loss-based rewards. A linear model was estimated with independent variables of demographics, steps and survey-based outcomes at baseline, indicators for each of the four factor assignments, indicator for week 12 or 24 week, and interactions between factors and week indicator.||1.57|-0.35|0.293
90927314|NCT04518943|181732117|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.31||||0.599|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.67|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||Positive values represent a positive effect of lottery-based rewards compared to loss-based rewards.|This is the results of lottery vs loss-framed reward factor at week 24. It compares efficacy at week 24 between subjects randomized to receive lottery-based rewards compared to those who received loss-based rewards. A linear model was estimated with independent variables of demographics, steps and survey-based outcomes at baseline, indicators for each of the four factor assignments, indicator for week 12 or 24 week, and interactions between factors and week indicator.||1.30|-0.67|0.599
90927315|NCT04518943|181732117|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.49||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.58|2.4|||Regression, Linear|||This is the results of precommitment (PC) vs no PC factor at week 12. It compares efficacy at week 12 between subjects randomized to receive a request for PC to other subjects compared to those who received no request. A linear model was estimated with independent variables of demographics, steps and survey-based outcomes at baseline, indicators for each of the four factor assignments, indicator for week 12 or 24 week, and interactions between factors and week indicator.||2.40|0.58|0.007
90927316|NCT04518943|181732117|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.78||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.86|2.7|||Regression, Linear|||This is the results of precommitment (PC) vs no PC factor at week 24. It compares efficacy at week 24 between subjects randomized to receive a request for PC compared to those who received no request. A linear model was estimated with independent variables of demographics, steps and survey-based outcomes at baseline, indicators for each of the four factor assignments, indicator for week 12 or 24 week, and interactions between factors and week indicator.||2.70|0.86|0.002
90927317|NCT04518943|181732117|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.02||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.1|1.94|||Regression, Linear|||This is the results of advice vs no-advice factor at week 12. It compares efficacy at week 12 between subjects randomized to receive a request for advice to other subjects compared to those who received no request. A linear model was estimated with independent variables of demographics, steps and survey-based outcomes at baseline, indicators for each of the four factor assignments, indicator for week 12 or 24 week, and interactions between factors and week indicator.||1.94|0.10|0.068
90927318|NCT04518943|181732117|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.19||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.76|1.14|||Regression, Linear|||This is the results of advice vs no-advice factor at week 24. It compares efficacy at week 24 between subjects randomized to receive a request for advice to other subjects compared to those who received no request. A linear model was estimated with independent variables of demographics, steps and survey-based outcomes at baseline, indicators for each of the four factor assignments, indicator for week 12 or 24 week, and interactions between factors and week indicator.||1.14|-0.76|0.740
90927319|NCT04518943|181732118|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.14||||0.481|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.19|0.47|||Regression, Linear|||This is the results of financial vs non-financial reward factor at week 12. It compares intrinsic motivation in week 12 between subjects randomized to receive financial rewards compared to those who received nonfinancial rewards. A linear model was estimated with independent variables of demographics, steps and survey-based outcomes at baseline, indicators for each of the four factor assignments, indicator for week 12 or 24 week, and interactions between factors and week indicator..||0.47|-0.19|0.481
90927320|NCT04518943|181732118|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.18||||0.388|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.16|0.52|||Regression, Linear|||This is the results of financial vs non-financial reward factor at week 24. It compares intrinsic motivation in week 24 between subjects randomized to receive financial rewards compared to those who received nonfinancial rewards. A linear model was estimated with independent variables of demographics, steps and survey-based outcomes at baseline, indicators for each of the four factor assignments, indicator for week 12 or 24 week, and interactions between factors and week indicator.||0.52|-0.16|0.388
90965112|NCT00232141|181811668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.144||95.0|-1.03|0.15||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 11||0.15|-1.03|0.1440
90965113|NCT00232141|181811668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.0866||95.0|-1.17|0.08||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 12||0.08|-1.17|0.0866
90887360|NCT00534352|181637458|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was shown for Cmax as the 90% confidence intervals (CI) of the LSmean ratio was within the 80-125% limits.|Least Square (LS) mean ratio|102.6||||||90.0|92.91|113.3||No p-values.|Mixed Models Analysis (Cmax)|The linear mixed effects model was controlled for treatment as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect.|The results are for the mean ratio of Cmax. Numerator: Treatment B Denominator: Treatment A|Previous studies showed that the intrasubject variability on the log transformed Cmax and AUC12h of TMC125 was less than or equal to 40%. Based on this and with complete data on 20 patients, the 90% CI of the true ratio of the means was expected to be contained within 81-124% of the observed ratio of the means.||113.3|92.91|
90887361|NCT00534352|181637458|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was shown for AUC24 as the 90% confidence intervals (CI) of the LSmean ratio was within the 80-125% limits.|LS means of ratios|98.97||||||90.0|89.23|109.8||No p-values.|Mixed Models Analysis (AUC24)|The linear mixed effects model was controlled for treatment as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect.|The results are for the mean ratio of AUC24. Numerator: Treatment B Denominator: Treatment A|Previous studies showed that the intrasubject variability on the log transformed Cmax and AUC12h of TMC125 was less than or equal to 40%. Based on this and with complete data on 20 patients, the 90% CI of the true ratio of the means was expected to be contained within 81-124% of the observed ratio of the means.||109.8|89.23|
90887362|NCT00534352|181637458|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was shown for Css,av as the 90% confidence intervals (CI) of the LSmean ratio was within the 80-125% limits.|Least Square (LS) mean ratio|99.3||||||90.0|89.39|110.3||No p-values.|Mixed Models Analysis (Css,av)|The linear mixed effects model was controlled for treatment as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect.|The results are for the mean ratio of Css,av. Numerator: Treatment B Denominator: Treatment A|Previous studies showed that the intrasubject variability on the log transformed Cmax and AUC12h of TMC125 was less than or equal to 40%. Based on this and with complete data on 20 patients, the 90% CI of the true ratio of the means was expected to be contained within 81-124% of the observed ratio of the means.||110.3|89.39|
90887363|NCT04796610|181637525|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.55||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.98|||Regression, Logistic|Model is adjusted for participant age|Results are presented for an indicator where 0=control and 1=intervention|||2.98|.1|0.49
90887364|NCT04796610|181637526|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.82||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.93|146.91||Model is adjusted for participant age|Regression, Logistic||Results are presented for an indicator where 0=control and 1=intervention|||146.91|1.93|.011
90887365|NCT04796610|181637527|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.52||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.97|||Regression, Linear|Model is adjusted for participant age|Results are presented for an indicator where 0=control and 1=intervention|||0.97|0.07|.03
90927321|NCT04518943|181732118|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.926|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.38|0.34|||Regression, Linear|||This is the results of lottery vs loss-framed reward factor at week 12. It compares intrinsic motivation at week 12 between subjects randomized to receive lottery-based rewards compared to those who received loss-based rewards. A linear model was estimated with independent variables of demographics, steps and survey-based outcomes at baseline, indicators for each of the four factor assignments, indicator for week 12 or 24 week, and interactions between factors and week indicator.||0.34|-0.38|0.926
90927322|NCT04518943|181732118|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17||||0.446|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.54|0.2|||Regression, Linear|||This is the results of lottery vs loss-framed reward factor at week 24. It compares intrinsic motivation at week 24 between subjects randomized to receive lottery-based rewards compared to those who received loss-based rewards. A linear model was estimated with independent variables of demographics, steps and survey-based outcomes at baseline, indicators for each of the four factor assignments, indicator for week 12 or 24 week, and interactions between factors and week indicator.||0.20|-0.54|0.446
90927323|NCT04518943|181732118|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.08||||0.711|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.27|0.42|||Regression, Linear|||This is the results of precommitment (PC) vs no PC factor at week 12. It compares intrinsic motivation at week 12 between subjects randomized to receive a request for PC to compared to those who received no request. A linear model was estimated with independent variables of demographics, steps and survey-based outcomes at baseline, indicators for each of the four factor assignments, indicator for week 12 or 24 week, and interactions between factors and week indicator.||0.42|-0.27|0.711
90927324|NCT04518943|181732118|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.345|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.55|0.15|||Regression, Linear|||This is the results of precommitment (PC) vs no PC factor at week 24. It compares efficacy at week 24 between subjects randomized to receive a request for PC to compared to those who received no request. A linear model was estimated with independent variables of demographics, steps and survey-based outcomes at baseline, indicators for each of the four factor assignments, indicator for week 12 or 24 week, and interactions between factors and week indicator.||0.15|-0.55|0.345
90927325|NCT04518943|181732118|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02||||0.928|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.33|0.36|||Regression, Linear|||This is the results of advice vs no-advice factor at week 12. It compares intrinsic motivation at week 12 between subjects randomized to receive a request for advice compared to those who received no request. A linear model was estimated with independent variables of demographics, steps and survey-based outcomes at baseline, indicators for each of the four factor assignments, indicator for week 12 or 24 week, and interactions between factors and week indicator.||0.36|-0.33|0.928
90887366|NCT03299192|181637577|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||This feasibility study is small and not designed to look at outcome statistics|GEE with Ancova features|||||||.001
90887367|NCT01418209|181637586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||||||P-values from active treatment vs. placebo contrasts in a repeated measures linear model of outcome as a function of treatment arm, clinical site, week, and baseline outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|repeated measures linear model|Robust standard errors were calculated using generalized estimating equations to account for within-participant correlation between repeated measures.||Outcome differences between active treatment and placebo||||0.02
90887368|NCT01418209|181637586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||||||p-values from active treatment vs. placebo contrasts in a repeated measures linear model of outcome as a function of treatment arm, clinical site, week, and baseline outcome. The a priori threshold of statistical significance was 0.025.|repeated measures linear model|Robust standard errors were calculated using generalized estimating equations to account for within-participant correlation between repeated measures.||Outcome differences between active treatment and placebo||||0.02
90887369|NCT01418209|181637587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-values from active treatment vs. placebo contrasts in a repeated measures linear model of outcome as a function of treatment arm, clinical site, week, and baseline outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|repeated measures linear model|Robust standard errors were calculated using generalized estimating equations to account for within-participant correlation between repeated measures||VMS frequency values were log transformed for modeling.||||<0.001
90887370|NCT01418209|181637587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||||||P-values from active treatment vs. placebo contrasts in a repeated measures linear model of outcome as a function of treatment arm, clinical site, week, and baseline outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|repeated measures linear model|Robust standard errors were calculated using generalized estimating equations to account for within-participant correlation between repeated measures||VMS frequency values were log transformed for modeling.||||0.005
90887371|NCT01418209|181637589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||||||P-values from active treatment vs. placebo contrasts in a repeated measures linear model of outcome as a function of treatment arm, clinical site, week, and baseline outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|repeated measures linear model|Robust standard errors were calculated using generalized estimating equations to account for within-participant correlation between repeated measures.||Outcome differences between active treatment and placebo||||0.01
90887372|NCT01418209|181637589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07||||||P-values from active treatment vs. placebo contrasts in a repeated measures linear model of outcome as a function of treatment arm, clinical site, week, and baseline outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|repeated measures linear model|Robust standard errors were calculated using generalized estimating equations to account for within-participant correlation between repeated measures.||Outcome differences between active treatment and placebo||||0.07
90887373|NCT01418209|181637591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-values from active treatment vs. placebo contrasts in a repeated measures linear model of outcome as a function of treatment arm, clinical site, week, and baseline outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|repeated measures linear model|Robust standard errors were calculated using generalized estimating equations to account for within-participant correlation between repeated measures.||Outcome differences between active treatment and placebo.||||<0.001
90887374|NCT01418209|181637591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||||||P-values from active treatment vs. placebo contrasts in a repeated measures linear model of outcome as a function of treatment arm, clinical site, week, and baseline outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|repeated measures linear model|Robust standard errors were calculated using generalized estimating equations to account for within-participant correlation between repeated measures.||Outcome differences between active treatment and placebo||||0.03
90887375|NCT04737538|181637598|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|-8.8|||Non-parametric method (Van Elteren test)|||||-8.8|-13.3|<0.0001
90887376|NCT04737538|181637599|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.01||0.4488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.4|||Non-parametric method (Van Elteren test)|||||2.4|-1.6|0.4488
90927326|NCT04518943|181732118|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.19||||0.372|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.55|0.16|||Regression, Linear|||This is the results of advice vs no-advice factor at week 24. It compares intrinsic motivation at week 24 between subjects randomized to receive a request for advice to other subjects compared to those who received no request. A linear model was estimated with independent variables of demographics, steps and survey-based outcomes at baseline, indicators for each of the four factor assignments, indicator for week 12 or 24 week, and interactions between factors and week indicator.||0.16|-0.55|0.372
90887377|NCT04737538|181637600|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|-9.1|||Non-parametric method (Van Elteren test)|||||-9.1|-13.8|<0.0001
90887378|NCT01652716|181637601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1349||0.0072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.1|||Mixed model for repeated measure (MMRM)|Based on a repeated measures mixed model including fixed categorical effects of treatment||||-0.10|-0.63|0.0072
90887379|NCT01652716|181637602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2247|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2247
90887380|NCT01652716|181637603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-10.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.841||0.1656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.7|1.3||Adjusted|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.3|-21.7|0.1656
90887381|NCT01652716|181637604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4497||0.3744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|1.28|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.28|-0.48|0.3744
90887382|NCT01652716|181637605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|26.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.8957||0.0985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.16|58.64|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||58.64|-5.16|0.0985
90887383|NCT01422070|181637609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.63|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.88|||generalized estimating equation|Generalized estimating equation adjusts the confidence interval for the correlation of outcomes within-centre.|The fully adjusted multivariable logistic regression analysis showed an OR of 0.63 in favour of the presence of an intermediate care unit in the hospital|The null hypothesis was that hospital mortality of patients admitted to intensive care units with intermediate care unit in the hospital is similar to that of the patients admitted to intensive care units without intermediate care unit in the hospital||0.88|0.45|<0.05
90887384|NCT04122443|181637610|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.9||||||||1.9|0.3|
90887385|NCT04122443|181637611|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|29.0||||||||29|-3|
90887386|NCT04122443|181637612|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|23.0||||||||23|-5|
90887387|NCT04122443|181637613|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|21.0||||||||21|-10|
90887388|NCT05204134|181637617|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.06
90887389|NCT05204134|181637618|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.11
90887390|NCT05204134|181637619|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.04
90887391|NCT05204134|181637620|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
90965114|NCT00232141|181811668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.0359||95.0|-1.3|-0.04||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 13||-0.04|-1.30|0.0359
90965115|NCT00232141|181811668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.0711||95.0|-1.3|0.05||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 14||0.05|-1.30|0.0711
90965116|NCT00232141|181811670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0685||95.0|-0.89|0.03||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 1||0.03|-0.89|0.0685
90965117|NCT00232141|181811670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.928||95.0|-0.52|0.57||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 2||0.57|-0.52|0.9280
90965118|NCT00232141|181811670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.6672||95.0|-0.71|0.45||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 6||0.45|-0.71|0.6672
90965119|NCT00232141|181811670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.9731||95.0|-0.57|0.59||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 10||0.59|-0.57|0.9731
90965120|NCT00232141|181811670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.9045||95.0|-0.61|0.69||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 14||0.69|-0.61|0.9045
90965121|NCT00232141|181811670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.8298||95.0|-0.53|0.66||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Endpoint||0.66|-0.53|0.8298
90965122|NCT00232141|181811671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.8605||95.0|-0.52|0.44||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 1||0.44|-0.52|0.8605
90887392|NCT05204134|181637621|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.26
90965123|NCT00232141|181811671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.8348||95.0|-0.58|0.47||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 2||0.47|-0.58|0.8348
90965124|NCT00232141|181811671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.2227||95.0|-0.83|0.19||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 6||0.19|-0.83|0.2227
90965125|NCT00232141|181811671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.4753||95.0|-0.73|0.34||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 10||0.34|-0.73|0.4753
90971159|NCT02404103|181824837|EQUIVALENCE|The primary aim is to compare the average change in spirometric values (FEV1 and FEF25-75%) and AX from baseline to Week 6 from participants randomized flunisolide HFA 1 inhalation BID and to flunisolide HFA 2 inhalations BID.||||||0.102|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|generalized linear mixed-effects models (GLMM) using the identity link function and normal distribution were used.||||||.102
90887393|NCT05204134|181637622|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.005
90887394|NCT05204134|181637623|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90887395|NCT05204134|181637624|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90887396|NCT05204134|181637625|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90887397|NCT05204134|181637626|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between 2 week run-in and 13 weeks Control-IQ use with adaptation.||||<0.001
90887398|NCT05204134|181637627|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90887399|NCT05204134|181637628|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90887400|NCT05204134|181637629|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90887401|NCT05204134|181637630|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90887402|NCT05204134|181637631|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90887403|NCT05204134|181637632|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90887404|NCT05204134|181637633|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90887405|NCT05204134|181637634|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90887406|NCT05204134|181637635|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90887407|NCT05204134|181637636|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.17
90887408|NCT05204134|181637637|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
90887409|NCT05204134|181637638|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.69
90887410|NCT01312467|181637647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.773|TWO_SIDED||||||A paired t-test|||||||> 0.773
90887411|NCT01085318|181637651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|864.1||||0.061|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.061
90887412|NCT01085318|181637652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|644.99|||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90887413|NCT01968434|181637699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The sample size was calculated to detect a 0.75 point difference between any two treatment groups with a 90% power and p\<0.05. Such sample size was 60 subject which was elevated ot 75 subjects per group to account for drop outs. For comparison of cough evaluation before and after treatment a paired Student t test was used.||||<0.01
90887414|NCT01968434|181637700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
90887415|NCT01968434|181637701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
90887416|NCT02199691|181637709|NON_INFERIORITY|95% confidence interval (CI) of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between the 2 percentages was \> -10%.|Percentage Difference|9.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|15.0||||||Serogroup A||15|3.4|
90887417|NCT02199691|181637709|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between the 2 percentages was \> -10%.|Percentage Difference|24.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.3|29.0||||||Serogroup C||29|20.3|
90887418|NCT02199691|181637709|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between the 2 percentages was \> -10%.|Percentage Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.3|20.2||||||||20.2|12.3|
90887419|NCT02199691|181637709|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between the 2 percentages was \> -10%.|Percentage Difference|19.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.2|24.8||||||Serogroup W||24.8|14.2|
90887420|NCT02199691|181637710|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between the 2 percentages was \> -10%.|Percentage Difference|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|10.5||||||Serogroup A||10.5|-0.8|
90887421|NCT02199691|181637710|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between the 2 percentages was \> -10%.|Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|2.4||||||Serogroup C||2.4|-2.5|
90887422|NCT02199691|181637710|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between the 2 percentages was \> -10%.|Percentage Difference|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|1.2||||||Serogroup Y||1.2|-4.3|
90887423|NCT02199691|181637710|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between the 2 percentages was \> -10%.|Percentage Difference|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|2.6||||||Serogroup W||2.6|-7.3|
90887424|NCT02199691|181637711|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio was \>2/3.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.845|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.722|0.99||||||PT: Geometric Mean Ratio||0.99|0.722|
90965126|NCT00232141|181811671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.6017||95.0|-0.4|0.68||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 14||0.68|-0.40|0.6017
90965127|NCT00232141|181811671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.6158||95.0|-0.38|0.64||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Endpoint||0.64|-0.38|0.6158
90965128|NCT00232141|181811672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.239||95.0|-0.69|0.17||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 1||0.17|-0.69|0.2390
90965129|NCT00232141|181811672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.9444||95.0|-0.49|0.45||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 2||0.45|-0.49|0.9444
90965130|NCT00232141|181811672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.7386||95.0|-0.63|0.45||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 6||0.45|-0.63|0.7386
90965131|NCT00232141|181811672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.3493||95.0|-0.79|0.28||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 10||0.28|-0.79|0.3493
90965132|NCT00232141|181811672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.6596||95.0|-0.46|0.73||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 14||0.73|-0.46|0.6596
90965133|NCT00232141|181811672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.4075||95.0|-0.31|0.77||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Endpoint||0.77|-0.31|0.4075
90965134|NCT00232141|181811673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0202||95.0|-1.01|-0.09||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 1||-0.09|-1.01|0.0202
90965135|NCT00232141|181811673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.8865||95.0|-0.55|0.47||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 2||0.47|-0.55|0.8865
90965136|NCT00232141|181811673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.9964||95.0|-0.54|0.54||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 6||0.54|-0.54|0.9964
90965137|NCT00232141|181811673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.5993||95.0|-0.7|0.41||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 10||0.41|-0.70|0.5993
90965138|NCT00232141|181811673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.3553||95.0|-0.33|0.9||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 14||0.90|-0.33|0.3553
90971263|NCT01332357|181825226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|2.25||The adjusted risk of experiencing a recurrent event associated with not initiating a controller medication at index event discharge|Regression, Cox|Covariates included demographics, IP or ED index event, primary asthma diagnosis, Charlson score, and pre-index medication||||2.25|1.42|<0.0001
90887425|NCT02199691|181637711|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio was \>2/3.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.746|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.661|0.842||||||FHA: Geometric Mean Ratio||0.842|0.661|
90887426|NCT02199691|181637711|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio was \>2/3.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.753|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.627|0.903||||||PRN: Geometric Mean Ratio||0.903|0.627|
90887427|NCT02199691|181637711|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio was \>2/3.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.679|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.525|0.878||||||FIM: Geometric Mean Ratio||0.878|0.525|
90887428|NCT02199691|181637712|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between the 2 percentages was \>-10%.|Percentage Difference|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|1.3||||||Serogroup Diphtheria||1.3|-3.3|
90887429|NCT02199691|181637712|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between the 2 percentages was \>-10%.|Percentage Difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.9||||||Serogroup Tetanus||1.9|-1.2|
90887430|NCT02199691|181637713|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between the 2 percentages was \>-10%.|Percentage Difference|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|6.3||||||HPV Type 6||6.3|-1.8|
90887431|NCT02199691|181637713|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between the 2 percentages was \>-10%.|Percentage Difference|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|3.9||||||HPV Type 11||3.9|-1.3|
90887432|NCT02199691|181637713|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between the 2 percentages was \>-10%.|Percentage Difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|3.6||||||HPV Type 16||3.6|-1.9|
90887433|NCT02199691|181637713|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between the 2 percentages was \>-10%.|Percentage Difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|3.6||||||HPV Type 18||3.6|-1.9|
90887434|NCT00612313|181637731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|9.7||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||The estimated rate of time spent well was evaluated using a Poisson regression with adjustment for CDRS-R score at the end of the acute phase, age group, and gender.|Regression, Poisson||Differencein percentages represents estimated percentage for medication management + CBT Arm minus estimated percentage for medication management only Arm.|||||.02
90927327|NCT04518943|181732119|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.35||||0.767|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.6|2.3|||Regression, Linear|||This is the results of financial vs non-financial reward factor at week 12. It compares phq8 mental health scores in week 12 between subjects randomized to receive financial rewards compared to those who received nonfinancial rewards. A linear model was estimated with independent variables of demographics, steps and outcomes at baseline, indicators for each of the four factor assignments, indicator for week 12 or 24 week, and interactions between factors and week indicator.||2.3|-1.60|0.767
90887435|NCT05349617|181637758|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|86.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|80.0|90.3||p-value is from a two-sided chi-square test of equality of seroresponse percentages between groups. Both coprimary endpoints were required to be met for success, so no multiple comparisons were performed.|Chi-squared||Seroresponse rate difference is (PXVX0317 minus placebo).|Day 22||90.3|80|<0.0001
90887436|NCT05349617|181637759|SUPERIORITY||[GMT Ratio]|90.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|69.0|117.0||Both coprimary endpoints were required to be met for success, so no multiple comparisons were performed.|ANOVA|ANOVA model covers site and treatment group as fixed effects, assuming log titers' normality. p-value tests equivalence of mean titers between groups.|Ratio of GMTs is (PXVX0317:placebo).|Day 22||117|69|<0.0001
90887437|NCT05349617|181637765|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|79.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|72.3|84.6||Key secondary endpoints were tested hierarchically (Day 15 tested prior to Day 183), such that each was only tested if both coprimary endpoints and prior key secondary endpoints were met, so no multiple comparisons were performed|Chi-squared|p-value is from a two-sided chi-square test of equality of seroresponse percentages between groups.|Seroresponse rate difference is (PXVX0317 minus placebo).|Day 15||84.6|72.3|<0.0001
90887438|NCT05349617|181637765|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|74.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.1|80.1||Key secondary endpoints were tested hierarchically (Day 15 tested prior to Day 183), such that each was only tested if both coprimary endpoints and prior key secondary endpoints were met, so no multiple comparisons were performed|Chi-squared|p-value is from a two-sided chi-square test of equality of seroresponse percentages between groups.|Seroresponse rate difference is (PXVX0317 minus placebo).|Day 183||80.1|67.1|<0.0001
90887439|NCT05349617|181637766|SUPERIORITY||[GMT Ratio]|42.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.0|56.0|||ANOVA|ANOVA model covers site and treatment group as fixed effects, assuming log titers' normality. p-value tests equivalence of mean titers between groups.|Ratio of GMTs is (PXVX0317:placebo)|Day 15||56|32|<0.0001
90887440|NCT05349617|181637766|SUPERIORITY||[GMT Ratio]|28.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.0|35.0|||ANOVA|ANOVA model covers site and treatment group as fixed effects, assuming log titers' normality. p-value tests equivalence of mean titers between groups.|Ratio of GMTs is (PXVX0317:placebo)|Day 183||35|22|<0.0001
90940896|NCT01917006|181761576|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.12||||0.377||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline geometric mean IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 4 vs Placebo at Week 4||||0.377
90940897|NCT01917006|181761576|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.17||||0.321||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline geometric mean IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 5 vs Placebo at Week 4||||0.321
90927328|NCT04518943|181732119|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.78||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.12|2.69|||Regression, Linear|||This is the results of financial vs non-financial reward factor at week 24. It compares phq8 mental health scores in week 24 between subjects randomized to receive financial rewards compared to those who received nonfinancial rewards. A linear model was estimated with independent variables of demographics, steps and outcomes at baseline, indicators for each of the four factor assignments, indicator for week 12 or 24 week, and interactions between factors and week indicator.||2.69|-1.12|0.500
90927329|NCT04518943|181732119|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.59||||0.631|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.43|2.61|||Regression, Linear|||This is the results of lottery vs loss-framed reward factor at week 12. It compares phq8 mental health scores at week 12 between subjects randomized to receive lottery-based rewards compared to those who received loss-based rewards. A linear model was estimated with independent variables of demographics, steps and outcomes at baseline, indicators for each of the four factor assignments, indicator for week 12 or 24, and interactions between factors and weeks.||2.61|-1.43|0.631
90927330|NCT04518943|181732119|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.62||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.69|1.44|||Regression, Linear|||This is the results of lottery vs loss-framed reward factor at week 24. It compares phq8 mental health scores at week 24 between subjects randomized to receive lottery-based rewards compared to those who received loss-based rewards. A linear model was estimated with independent variables of demographics, steps and outcomes at baseline, indicators for each of the four factor assignments, indicator for week 12 or 24, and interactions between factors and weeks.||1.44|-2.69|0.620
90927331|NCT04518943|181732119|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17||||0.886|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.77|2.12|||Regression, Linear|||This is the results of pre-commitment (PC) vs no PC factor at week 12. It compares phq8 mental health scores at week 12 between subjects randomized to receive a request for PC to compared to those who received no request. A linear model was estimated with independent variables of demographics, steps and outcomes at baseline, indicators for each of the four factor assignments, indicator for week 12 or 24 week, and interactions between factors and week indicator.||2.12|-1.77|0.886
90927332|NCT04518943|181732119|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|-2.03|-2.03|1.88|||Regression, Linear|||This is the results of precommitment (PC) vs no PC factor at week 24. It compares phq8 mental health scores at week 24 between subjects randomized to receive a request for PC to compared to those who received no request. A linear model was estimated with independent variables of demographics, steps and outcomes at baseline, indicators for each of the four factor assignments, indicator for week 12 or 24 week, and interactions between factors and week indicator.||1.88|-2.03|0.950
90927333|NCT04518943|181732119|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.45||||0.248|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.51|0.61|||Regression, Linear|||This is the results of advice vs no-advice factor at week 12. It compares phq mental health scores at week 12 between subjects randomized to receive a request for advice to other subjects compared to those who received no request. A linear model was estimated with independent variables of demographics, steps and outcomes at baseline, indicators for each of the four factor assignments, indicator for week 12 or 24 week, and interactions between factors and week indicator.||0.61|-3.51|0.248
90927334|NCT04518943|181732119|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.23||||0.317|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.25|0.79|||Regression, Linear|||This is the results of advice vs no-advice factor at week 24. It compares phq mental health scores at week 24 between subjects randomized to receive a request for advice to other subjects compared to those who received no request. A linear model was estimated with independent variables of demographics, steps and outcomes at baseline, indicators for each of the four factor assignments, indicator for week 12 or 24 week, and interactions between factors and week indicator.||0.79|-3.25|0.317
90940898|NCT01917006|181761576|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.4||||0.149||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline geometric mean IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 6 vs Placebo at Week 4||||0.149
90940899|NCT01917006|181761576|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.35||||0.215||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline geometric mean IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 1 vs Placebo at Week 6||||0.215
90940900|NCT01917006|181761576|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.47||||0.126||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline geometric mean IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 2 vs Placebo at Week 6||||0.126
90940901|NCT01917006|181761576|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.28||||0.774||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline geometric mean IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 3 vs Placebo at Week 6||||0.774
90940902|NCT01917006|181761576|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.01||||0.495||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline geometric mean IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 4 vs Placebo at Week 6||||0.495
90940903|NCT01917006|181761576|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.0||||0.495||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline geometric mean IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 5 vs Placebo at Week 6||||0.495
90940904|NCT01917006|181761576|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.23||||0.274||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline geometric mean IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 6 vs Placebo at Week 6||||0.274
90927335|NCT04518943|181732120|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-35.0||||0.972|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1685.0|1616.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the results of financial vs non-financial reward factor at week 24. It compares change in steps from baseline to week 24 between subjects randomized to receive financial rewards compared to those who received nonfinancial rewards. A linear mixed-effect model was estimated with independent variables of demographics, steps and outcomes at baseline, indicators for each of the four factor assignments, linear week with a spline at week 12, and interactions between factors and weeks.||1616|-1685|0.972
90887441|NCT05349617|181637767|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||GMFI estimates and 95 percent CIs are based on t-statistics assuming a normal distribution of the log fold increase in titer. p-value tests equality of log fold increase in titer between groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Day 15||||<0.0001
90887442|NCT05349617|181637767|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||GMFI estimates and 95 percent CIs are based on t-statistics assuming a normal distribution of the log fold increase in titer. p-value tests equality of log fold increase in titer between groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Day 22||||<0.0001
90887443|NCT05349617|181637767|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||GMFI estimates and 95 percent CIs are based on t-statistics assuming a normal distribution of the log fold increase in titer. p-value tests equality of log fold increase in titer between groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Day 183||||<0.0001
90887444|NCT05349617|181637768|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|91.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.0|94.6|||Chi-squared|p-value is from a two-sided chi-square test of equality of SNA response percentages between groups.|SNA response rate difference is (PXVX0317 minus placebo).|SNA titers ≥15 at Day 15||94.6|86.0|<0.0001
90887445|NCT05349617|181637768|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|94.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.2|96.5|||Chi-squared|p-value is from a two-sided chi-square test of equality of seroresponse percentages between groups.|Seroresponse rate difference is (PXVX0317 minus placebo).|SNA titers ≥15 at Day 22||96.5|89.2|<0.0001
90887446|NCT05349617|181637768|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|91.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.3|94.8|||Chi-squared|p-value is from a two-sided chi-square test of equality of SNA response percentages between groups.|SNA response rate difference is (PXVX0317 minus placebo).|SNA titers ≥15 at Day 183||94.8|86.3|<0.0001
90887447|NCT05349617|181637768|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|82.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|75.9|87.5||p-value is from a two-sided chi-square test of equality of SNA response percentages between groups.|Chi-squared||SNA response rate difference is (PXVX0317 minus placebo).|≥4-fold rise over baseline at Day 15||87.5|75.9|<0.0001
90887448|NCT05349617|181637768|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|88.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|82.4|92.0|||Chi-squared|p-value is from a two-sided chi-square test of equality of SNA response percentages between groups.|SNA response rate difference is (PXVX0317 minus placebo).|≥4-fold rise over baseline at Day 22||92.0|82.4|<0.0001
90887449|NCT05349617|181637768|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|82.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|75.2|86.8|||Chi-squared|p-value is from a two-sided chi-square test of equality of SNA response percentages between groups.|SNA response rate difference is (PXVX0317 minus placebo).|≥4-fold rise over baseline at Day 183||86.8|75.2|<0.0001
90887450|NCT00746954|181637769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Comparisons among groups||||0.45
90887451|NCT04401579|181637778|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.15||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.31|||Log Rank|||||1.31|1.00|0.047
90887452|NCT04401579|181637794|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|0.0||||||||0|-12|
90887453|NCT04401579|181637795|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|0.0||||||||0|-10|
90887454|NCT04401579|181637805|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.57|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.57|1.01|0.44
90887455|NCT04401579|181637815|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.21||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.39|||Log Rank|||||1.39|1.06|0.002
90887456|NCT04401579|181637816|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.2||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.38|||Log Rank|||||1.38|1.05|0.005
90887457|NCT04401579|181637817|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.24||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.44|||Log Rank|||||1.44|1.07|0.003
90887458|NCT04401579|181637820|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.68||||||This analysis is for Asian participants.||1.68|0.73|
90887459|NCT04401579|181637820|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.5||||||This analysis is for Black or African American participants.||1.50|0.75|
90887460|NCT04401579|181637820|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.37||||||This analysis is for White participants.||1.37|0.93|
90887461|NCT04401579|181637820|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.74||||||This analysis is for Race of Other participants.||1.74|1.03|
90887462|NCT04401579|181637821|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.6||||||This analysis is for Not Hispanic or Latino participants||1.60|1.08|
90887463|NCT04401579|181637821|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.31||||||This analysis is for Hispanic or Latino participants.||1.31|0.89|
90887464|NCT04401579|181637822|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.46||||||This analysis is for Male participants.||1.46|1.04|
90887465|NCT04401579|181637822|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.32||||||This analysis is for Female participants.||1.32|0.85|
90940905|NCT01917006|181761576|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.22||||0.308||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline geometric mean IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 1 vs Placebo at Week 8||||0.308
90927336|NCT04518943|181732120|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2428.0||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4134.0|-722.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Positive values represent a positive effect of lottery-based rewards compared to loss-based rewards.|This is the results of lottery vs loss-framed reward factor at week 24. It compares change in steps from baseline to week 24 between subjects randomized to receive lottery-based rewards compared to those who received loss-based rewards. A linear mixed-effect model was estimated with independent variables of demographics, steps and outcomes at baseline, indicators for each of the four factor assignments, linear week with a spline at week 12, and interactions between factors and weeks.||-722|-4134|0.019
90927337|NCT04518943|181732120|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|418.0||||0.627|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-999.0|1836.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the results of precommitment (PC) vs no PC factor at week 24. It compares change in steps from baseline to week 24 between subjects randomized to receive a request for PC compared to those who received no request. A linear mixed-effect model was estimated with independent variables of demographics, steps and outcomes at baseline, indicators for each of the four factor assignments, linear week with a spline at week 12, and interactions between factors and weeks.||1836|-999|0.627
90927338|NCT04518943|181732120|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|195.0||||0.842|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1417.0|1807.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the results of advice vs no advice factor at week 24. It compares change in steps from baseline to week 24 between subjects randomized to receive a request for advice to other subjects compared to those who received no request. A linear mixed-effect model was estimated with independent variables of demographics, steps and outcomes at baseline, indicators for each of the four factor assignments, linear week with a spline at week 12, and interactions between factors and weeks.||1807|-1417|0.842
90927339|NCT06408870|181732121|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|103.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.08|106.75|||||"Ratio of adjusted geometric means \[%\] calculated as: test/reference\*100.~Intra-individual pair geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 9.0."|The statistical model applied was an analysis of variance (ANOVA), with 'subjects within sequence' as a random effect and 'sequence,' 'period,' and 'treatment' as fixed effects.||106.75|101.08|
90927340|NCT06408870|181732122|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|105.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.83|110.01|||||"Ratio of adjusted geometric means \[%\] calculated as: test/reference\*100.~Intra-individual pair geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 14.5."|The statistical model applied was an analysis of variance (ANOVA), with 'subjects within sequence' as a random effect and 'sequence,' 'period,' and 'treatment' as fixed effects.||110.01|100.83|
90927341|NCT06408870|181732123|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|103.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.95|106.65|||||"Ratio of adjusted geometric means \[%\] calculated as: test/reference\*100.~Intra-individual pair geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 9.1."|The statistical model applied was an analysis of variance (ANOVA), with 'subjects within sequence' as a random effect and 'sequence,' 'period,' and 'treatment' as fixed effects.||106.65|100.95|
90927342|NCT04174170|181732125|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|1.03||||0.5165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|4.16|||MMRM|||||4.16|-2.09|0.5165
90927343|NCT04174170|181732125|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.71||||0.6593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.88|2.46|||MMRM|||||2.46|-3.88|0.6593
90927344|NCT04174170|181732126|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.03||||0.8215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.31||MMRM method with model terms: treatment, (pooled) study center, previous pharmacological treatment intervention for PTSD (yes/no), visit, treatment by visit and baseline by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||0.31|-0.25|0.8215
90927345|NCT04174170|181732126|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.03||||0.8584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.26||MMRM method with model terms: treatment, (pooled) study center, previous pharmacological treatment intervention for PTSD (yes/no), visit, treatment by visit and baseline by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||0.26|-0.31|0.8584
90927346|NCT04174170|181732127|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-4.16||||0.2331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|2.69||MMRM method with model terms: treatment, (pooled) study center, previous pharmacological treatment intervention for PTSD (yes/no), visit, treatment by visit and baseline by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||2.69|-11.00|0.2331
90927347|NCT04174170|181732127|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-8.83||||0.0134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.82|-1.85||MMRM method with model terms: treatment, (pooled) study center, previous pharmacological treatment intervention for PTSD (yes/no), visit, treatment by visit and baseline by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||-1.85|-15.82|0.0134
90927348|NCT02360371|181732268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.567|||||||Mixed methods|||||||0.567
90927349|NCT02360371|181732269|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.805|||||||Mixed Model|||||||0.805
90927350|NCT03839446|181732280|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|3.65|||Regression, Cox||Intermediate / Favorable vs Poor|Cytogenetic status||3.65|0.18|0.777
90927351|NCT03839446|181732280|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.01|||Regression, Cox|||Percent of blasts present in the bone marrow.||1.01|0.96|0.200
90927352|NCT03839446|181732280|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|0.99|||Regression, Cox|||% CD33 expression in leukemia blasts||0.99|0.94|0.014
90927353|NCT03839446|181732281|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|3.86|||Regression, Cox||Intermediate / Favorable vs Poor|Cytogenetic status||3.86|0.17|0.801
90927354|NCT03839446|181732281|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.01|||Regression, Cox|||% bone marrow blasts||1.01|0.95|0.168
90927355|NCT03839446|181732281|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|0.99|||Regression, Cox|||% CD33 expression in leukemia blasts||0.99|0.94|0.015
90927356|NCT03142009|181732291|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-.04|-.45|.021
90927357|NCT03142009|181732292|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.15|-.01|.075
90927358|NCT03982186|181732293|SUPERIORITY||Difference of proportions|-2.3|||=|0.848|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.97|1.38|||Mantel Haenszel|||||1.38|-5.97|= 0.848
90927359|NCT03982186|181732293|SUPERIORITY||Difference of proportions|7.4|||=|0.027|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.07|13.68|||Mantel Haenszel|||||13.68|1.07|= 0.027
90927360|NCT03982186|181732293|SUPERIORITY||Difference of proportions|9.1|||=|0.917|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.16|14.07|||Mantel Haenszel|||||14.07|4.16|= 0.917
90927361|NCT03982186|181732293|SUPERIORITY||Difference of proportions|-6.7|||=|0.917|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.67|1.25|||Mantel Haenszel|||||1.25|-14.67|= 0.917
90927362|NCT03512301|181732354|OTHER||Accuracy|0.6587|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.569|0.7408||||||||0.7408|0.5690|
90927363|NCT03512301|181732354|OTHER||Sensitivity|0.8736|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90927364|NCT03512301|181732354|OTHER||Specificity|0.4872|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90927365|NCT03512301|181732354|OTHER||Positive Predictive Value|0.7917|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90927366|NCT03512301|181732354|OTHER||Negative Predictive Value|0.6333|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90927367|NCT03512301|181732354|OTHER||Sensitivity|0.1212|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90927368|NCT03512301|181732354|OTHER||Specificity|0.9032|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90927369|NCT03512301|181732354|OTHER||Positive Predictive Value|0.3077|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90927370|NCT03512301|181732354|OTHER||Negative Predictive Value|0.7434|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90927371|NCT03512301|181732354|OTHER||Sensitivity|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90927372|NCT03512301|181732354|OTHER||Specificity|0.8833|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90927373|NCT03512301|181732354|OTHER||Positive Predictive Value|0.1765|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90927374|NCT03512301|181732354|OTHER||Negative Predictive Value|0.9725|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90927375|NCT03512301|181732354|OTHER||Quadratic Weighted Kappa|0.4446|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2791|0.6101||||||||0.6101|0.2791|
90927376|NCT03512301|181732355|OTHER|Linear Regression. Power calculations for linear regression between CAMCI and MoCA were found to be sufficiently powered with a Pearson's R of at least 0.3 at 80% power and that equated to a test-set size of 98.|Pearson Correlation|0.5073|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3892|0.6091|||||Linear Regression Equation: \[CAMCI Score\] = -5.42 + 1.40 X \[MoCA Score\]|||0.6091|0.3892|
90927377|NCT03512301|181732355|OTHER||Accuracy|0.5556|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4644|0.644||||||||0.6440|0.4644|
90927378|NCT03512301|181732355|OTHER||Sensitivity|0.9747|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90927379|NCT03512301|181732355|OTHER||Specificity|0.3913|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90927380|NCT03512301|181732355|OTHER||Positive Predictive Value|0.5625|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90927381|NCT03512301|181732355|OTHER||Negative Predictive Value|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90927382|NCT03512301|181732355|OTHER||Sensitivity|0.1905|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90927383|NCT03512301|181732355|OTHER||Specificity|0.9841|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90927384|NCT03512301|181732355|OTHER||Positive Predictive Value|0.9231|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90927385|NCT03512301|181732355|OTHER||Negative Predictive Value|0.5487|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90927386|NCT03512301|181732355|OTHER||Sensitivity|0.6667|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90927387|NCT03512301|181732355|OTHER||Specificity|0.8917|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90927388|NCT03512301|181732355|OTHER||Positive Predictive Value|0.2353|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90927389|NCT03512301|181732355|OTHER||Negative Predictive Value|0.9817|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90927390|NCT03512301|181732355|OTHER||Quadratic Weighted Kappa|0.3931|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2401|0.5461||||||||0.5461|0.2401|
90927391|NCT02231749|181732383|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Difference|16.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.8|22.2|||DerSimonian and Laird Test|||||22.2|9.8|<0.0001
90927392|NCT02231749|181732384|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.8|0.44|0.89|||Log Rank|||||0.89|0.44|<0.0001
90927393|NCT02231749|181732385|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.0331|TWO_SIDED|99.1|0.64|1.05|||Log Rank|||||1.05|0.64|0.0331
90927394|NCT02231749|181732386|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Difference|7.2||||0.0191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|12.7|||DerSimonian and Laird Test|||||12.7|1.8|0.0191
90927395|NCT02231749|181732387|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|99.8|0.49|0.95|||Log Rank|||||0.95|0.49|0.0003
90927396|NCT02231749|181732388|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.8498|TWO_SIDED|99.1|0.79|1.23|||Log Rank|||||1.23|0.79|0.8498
90927397|NCT04602611|181732391|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient of negative binomial model|0.0547||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.368|0.4773||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|Regression, Negative binomial|Model was estimated without adjustments (sole covariate was treatment; coefficient was the estimated treatment effect) using 180 degrees of freedom.|The estimated coefficient was associated with Oncology Nurse Navigation with reference to Standard of Care.|The study was designed with co-primary objectives evaluating acute care utilization (ACU) and 6-month OS rate. Power/sample size were calculated based on the OS objective. The overall type I error rate was alpha=0.05; the co-primary objectives were powered at the 2-sided alpha=0.025 significance level. Three hundred evaluable subjects would have provided \>=93% power to detect a 20% reduction in ACU (assuming there were 6 ACUs per year in SOC arm). The study did not achieve targeted enrollment.||0.4773|-0.3680|0.80
90927398|NCT04602611|181732392|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|Fisher Exact|No adjustments were made in this analysis.||The study was designed with co-primary objectives evaluating acute care utilization (ACU) and 6-month OS rate. Power/sample size were calculated based on the OS objective. The overall type I error rate was alpha=0.05; the co-primary objectives were powered at the 2-sided alpha=0.025 significance level. Three hundred evaluable subjects would have provided \>=93% power to detect a 20% reduction in ACU (assuming there were 6 ACUs per year in SOC arm). The study did not achieve targeted enrollment.|The proportions of evaluable subjects surviving at 6 months were analyzed in a 2x2 contingency table using Fisher's Exact test. In the SOC arm, 52/87(60%) evaluable subjects were alive at 6 months and 35/87 (40%) were not. In the ONN + SOC arm, 58/95 (61%) evaluable subjects were alive at 6 months and 37/95 (39%) were not. The p-value estimated using Fisher's Exact test on this 2x2 contingency table was p=0.88.|||0.88
90927399|NCT04602611|181732393|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74||||||This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; the a priori threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Fisher Exact|No adjustments were made in this analysis.|||The proportions of evaluable subjects surviving at 12 months were analyzed in a 2x2 contingency table using Fisher's Exact test. In the SOC arm, 23/87(26%) evaluable subjects were alive at 12 months and 64/87(74%) were not. In the ONN + SOC arm, 28/95 (29%) evaluable subjects were alive at 6 months and 67/95 (71%) were not. The p-value estimated using Fisher's Exact test on this 2x2 contingency table was p=0.74.|||0.74
90927400|NCT04602611|181732394|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient of negative binomial model|0.1574||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3905|0.7054||This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; the a priori threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Regression, Negative binomial|Model was estimated without adjustments (sole covariate was treatment; coefficient was the estimated treatment effect) using 180 degrees of freedom.|The estimated coefficient was associated with Oncology Nurse Navigation with reference to Standard of Care.|||0.7054|-0.3905|0.57
91035259|NCT03086460|181956478|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.114||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.039|0.19|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~This secondary efficacy variable was analyzed using the ANCOVA model that was also used for the primary efficacy analysis, without adjusting for multiplicity."||0.190|0.039|0.003
90927401|NCT04602611|181732395|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.864||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.309||This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; the a priori threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Log Rank|Unadjusted log-rank test|The estimated hazard ratio was associated with Oncology Nurse Navigation with reference to Standard of Care; the model was estimated without adjustments (the sole covariate was treatment).|||1.309|0.570|0.45
90927402|NCT04602611|181732396|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient of negative binomial model|-0.4194||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0763|0.2374||This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; the a priori threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Regression, Negative binomial|Model was estimated without adjustments (sole covariate was treatment; coefficient was the estimated treatment effect) using 180 degrees of freedom.|The estimated coefficient was associated with Oncology Nurse Navigation with reference to Standard of Care.|||0.2374|-1.0763|0.21
90927403|NCT04602611|181732397|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.28|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.75|6.15||This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; the a priori threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Model was estimated without adjustments (the sole covariate was treatment).|The estimated odds ratio was associated with Oncology Nurse Navigation with reference to Standard of Care.|||6.15|1.75|<0.01
90927404|NCT04602611|181732398|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.6939||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9538|0.5659||This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; the a priori threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Regression, Linear|Model was estimated without adjustments (sole covariate was treatment; slope was the estimated treatment effect) using 180 degrees of freedom.|The estimated slope was associated with Oncology Nurse Navigation with reference to Standard of Care.|||0.5659|-5.9538|0.11
90927405|NCT04602611|181732399|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.1197||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0315|0.4378||This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; the a priori threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Regression, Linear|This univariate model was not adjusted for other covariates; this model was estimated using 84 degrees of freedom.|The estimated slope was associated with Oncology Nurse Navigation with reference to Standard of Care.|||0.4378|-0.0315|0.09
90927406|NCT04675034|181732404|SUPERIORITY||Combined estimate for LS mean|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.416||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.968|0.67|||ANCOVA|Least Square (LS) mean and treatment group difference with associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs) are modelled using ANCOVA on imputed data.||||0.670|-0.968|0.360
90927407|NCT04675034|181732404|SUPERIORITY||Combined estimate for LS mean|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.418||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.619|0.027|||ANCOVA|Least Square mean and treatment group difference with associated 95% CIs are modelled using ANCOVA on imputed data.||||0.027|-1.619|0.029
90927408|NCT04675034|181732404|SUPERIORITY||Combined estimate for LS mean|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.413||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.618|0.009|||ANCOVA|Least Square mean and treatment group difference with associated 95% CIs are modelled using ANCOVA on imputed data.||||0.009|-1.618|0.026
91035260|NCT03086460|181956478|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.055|0.206|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.206|0.055|<0.001
91035261|NCT03086460|181956478|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.137|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.061|0.213|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.213|0.061|<0.001
91035262|NCT03086460|181956478|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.151|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.078|0.223|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.223|0.078|<0.001
91035263|NCT03086460|181956478|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.168|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.097|0.24|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment F ( Perforomist® IS 40 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.240|0.097|<0.001
90927409|NCT04675034|181732404|SUPERIORITY||Combined estimate for LS mean|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.424||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.423|0.245|||ANCOVA|Least Square mean and treatment group difference with associated 95% CIs are modelled using ANCOVA on imputed data.||||0.245|-1.423|0.083
90927410|NCT02532621|181732456|NON_INFERIORITY|"Cumulative patency at 6 months was evaluated using the estimated patency from a Kaplan Meier survival analysis. The test statistic took the following form:~Z-test statistic = (P - 0.75) / SE (P) Where, (P) represents the Kaplan Meier estimate of cumulative patency at 6 months, and the standard error SE (P) is estimated using the method of Peto et al (1977)."|Cumulative patency|92.1|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||||A one-sided p-value of 0.025 was considered evidence of statistical significance for the primary study endpoint.|one-sided binomial exact test|||"The primary endpoint was evaluated by comparison with a performance goal of 75% that was determined from medical literature.~The sample size of 158 patients was estimated as follows:~* Kaplan-Meier estimate of cumulative patency rate at 6 months (exact binomial estimation for sample size)~* Type I error (alpha): 0.025 (one-sided)~* 80% Statistical power~* 8% Lost-to-follow up rate"||||<0.001
90927411|NCT04319887|181732469|OTHER||||||||||||||||||statistical analysis section may be deleted|||
90927412|NCT00357682|181732715|SUPERIORITY|5% significance level is considered statistically significant|Time Ratio|1.24||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.57|||Accelerated Failure Time|||Accelerated Failure Time (AFT) analysis comparing time to primary event in low dose PPI (20mg) patients to high dose PPI (80mg) patients. Included in AFT model are stratification factors (Barrett's length, age group and presence of baseline intestinal metaplasia) and aspirin randomisation group.||1.57|0.98|0.068
91035264|NCT03086460|181956478|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.016||||0.679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.061|0.093|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.093|-0.061|0.679
91035265|NCT03086460|181956478|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.023||||0.549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.052|0.098|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.098|-0.052|0.549
90927413|NCT00357682|181732715|SUPERIORITY|5% significance level is considered statistically significant|Time Ratio|1.27||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.58|||Accelerated Failure Time|||Accelerated Failure Time (AFT) analysis comparing time to primary event in aspirin patients to non-aspirin patients. Included in AFT model are stratification factors (Barrett's length, age group and presence of baseline intestinal metaplasia) and PPI randomisation group.||1.58|1.01|0.037
90927414|NCT00357682|181732716|SUPERIORITY|5% significance level is considered statistically significant|Time Ratio|1.36||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.82|||Accelerated Failure Time|||All recordings of death, regardless of the cause are used in this analysis and both PPI groups are compared.||1.82|1.01|0.039
90927415|NCT00357682|181732716|SUPERIORITY|5% significance level is considered statistically significant|Time Ratio|1.25||||0.159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.7|||Accelerated Failure Time|||There are 163 deaths in the aspirin comparison with all-cause mortality as the endpoint. Median follow-up is 8.9 years IQR: (8.2 , 10.0) Range: (0 , 11.5)||1.70|0.92|0.159
90927416|NCT00357682|181732717|SUPERIORITY|5% significance level is considered statistically significant|Time Ratio|1.04||||0.864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.61|||Accelerated Failure Time|||There are 81 diagnoses in the PPI dose comparison with adenocarcinoma oesophageal cancer as the endpoint. Median follow-up is 8.7 years IQR: (8.1 , 9.9)||1.61|0.67|0.864
90927417|NCT00357682|181732717|SUPERIORITY|5% significance level is considered statistically significant|Time Ratio|1.02||||0.921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.64|||Accelerated Failure Time|||There are 70 diagnoses of adenocarcinoma in the aspirin comparison. Median follow-up is 8.8 years, IQR: (8.1 , 10), Range: (0 , 11.5)||1.64|0.64|0.921
90927418|NCT00357682|181732718|SUPERIORITY|5% significance level is considered statistically significant.|Time Ratio|1.36||||0.119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.02|||Accelerated Failure Time|||There are 103 such diagnoses in the PPI dose comparison. Median follow-up is 8.7 years IQR: (8.1 , 9.9) Range: (0 , 11.48)||2.02|0.92|0.119
90927419|NCT00357682|181732718|SUPERIORITY|5% significance level is considered statistically significant|Time Ratio|1.51||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.29|||Accelerated Failure Time|||There are a total of 92 conversions to HGD in the aspirin comparison. Median follow-up is 8.8 years IQR (8.1 , 10.0) Range (0 , 11.5)||2.29|1.00|0.053
90927420|NCT00709956|181732803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least squares mean|-1.5||||0.7883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|9.4||If the primary endpoint reaches significance, treatment effect of the secondary endpoint is determined at a 2-sided nominal of 0.05. Since hierarchy of the endpoints to be tested has been predefined, no correction for multiple testing will be applied|Generalized linear model|Subject (sequence), treatment, and period as fixed effect||With a sample size of at least 63 patients and based on the assumptions on the primary endpoint (normal distribution, SD of the difference of 30 m) the study was designed to detect a significant treatment effect with 90% power, assuming a difference exceeding 12.5 m between the mean values of the 6MWD following the iloprost power 15 treatment and the one following the placebo treatment.||9.4|-12.3|0.7883
90927421|NCT04079517|181732816|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparing mean difference in symptom score (95% confidence intervals). Post hoc analysis. Not powered, but to give an indication of differences between standard dose (20mg) and the non-approved dose (10mg).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||Post hoc analysis. Not powered, but to give an indication on differences in symptom score between standard dose (20mg) and the non-approved dose (10mg).||Post hoc analysis. Not powered, but to give an indication on differences between standard dose (20mg) and the non-approved dose (10mg).|||
90927422|NCT04940624|181732817|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Location Shift Estimate|-15.64|||=|0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.3|0.24||The p-value was calculated by Rank Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model using treatment group, age stratum (≤6 years, \>6 years), and rank of Baseline seizure frequency per 28 days as predictors.|ANCOVA||The location shift between soticlestat and placebo (soticlestat - placebo) and its asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) were based on the Hodges-Lehmann estimation.|||0.24|-31.30|=0.061
90927423|NCT04940624|181732818|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Location Shift Estimate|-14.29|||=|0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.51|1.53||The p-value was calculated by the Rank ANCOVA model using treatment group, age stratum (≤6 years, \>6 years), and rank of baseline seizure frequency per 28 days as predictors.|ANCOVA||The location shift between soticlestat and placebo (soticlestat - placebo) and its asymptotic 95% CI were based on the Hodges-Lehmann estimation.|||1.53|-30.51|=0.089
90927424|NCT04940624|181732819|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.22|||=|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|7.96|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The p-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by age stratum (≤6 years, \>6 years).||||7.96|1.30|=0.010
90927425|NCT04940624|181732820|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.59|||=|0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|9.49|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The p-value was based on CMH test stratified by age stratum (≤6 years, \>6 years).||||9.49|1.36|=0.008
90927426|NCT04940624|181732822|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.51|||=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|4.72|||Cumulative Logit Model|P-value was calculated using the Cumulative Logit model including treatment and age group as factors.||||4.72|1.33|=0.004
90927427|NCT04940624|181732823|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.58|||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|4.87|||Cumulative Logit Model|P-value was calculated using the Cumulative Logit model including treatment and age group as factors.||||4.87|1.37|=0.003
90927428|NCT04940624|181732824|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12|||=|0.741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|2.26|||Cumulative Logit Model|P-value was calculated using the Cumulative Logit model including treatment and age group as factors.||Alertness||2.26|0.56|=0.741
90927429|NCT04940624|181732824|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04|||=|0.901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|2.02|||Cumulative Logit Model|P-value was calculated using the Cumulative Logit model including treatment and age group as factors.||Communication||2.02|0.54|=0.901
91035266|NCT03086460|181956478|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.036||||0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.036|0.109|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.109|-0.036|0.323
91035267|NCT03086460|181956478|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.007||||0.866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.073|0.087|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.087|-0.073|0.866
90927430|NCT04940624|181732824|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15|||=|0.693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.28|||Cumulative Logit Model|P-value was calculated using the Cumulative Logit model including treatment and age group as factors.||Disruptive Behaviors||2.28|0.58|=0.693
90927431|NCT04940624|181732825|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.03|||=|0.189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.59|1.52||P-value was based on MMRM analysis with change from baseline as outcome and baseline score as fixed continuous effect; treatment group, age stratum, analysis visit, and analysis visit by treatment group interaction as fixed categorical effects.|MMRM|||||1.52|-7.59|=0.189
90927432|NCT04940624|181732826|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.87|7.13|||Cumulative Logit Model|P-value was calculated using the Cumulative Logit model including treatment and age group as factors.||||7.13|1.87|<0.001
90927433|NCT04940624|181732827|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Location Shift Estimate|-9.97|||=|0.565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.01|7.87|||ANCOVA|The Rank ANCOVA model used treatment group, age stratum (≤6 years, \>6 years), and rank of Baseline seizure frequency per 28 days as predictors.|The location shift between soticlestat and placebo (soticlestat - placebo) and its asymptotic 95% CI were based on the Hodges-Lehmann estimation.|||7.87|-29.01|=0.565
90927434|NCT04940624|181732828|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Location Shift Estimate|-8.13|||=|0.637|TWO_SIDED|94.0|-26.31|10.13|||ANCOVA|The Rank ANCOVA model used treatment group, age stratum (≤6 years, \>6 years), and rank of Baseline seizure frequency per 28 days as predictors.|The location shift between soticlestat and placebo (soticlestat - placebo) and its asymptotic 95% CI were based on the Hodges-Lehmann estimation.|||10.13|-26.31|=0.637
90927435|NCT04940624|181732829|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.81|5.4|||||A linear model with treatment group and age stratum as factors and baseline percentage as a covariate was used for analysis.|||5.40|-3.81|
90927436|NCT04940624|181732830|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|5.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|11.2||||||||11.2|0.1|
90927437|NCT04940624|181732831|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|1.0|||||Least square mean difference was estimated using a linear model with treatment group and age stratum as factors.|||1.0|-3.1|
90927438|NCT04479787|181732832|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Two-sided Z-Test|||||||<0.0001
90927439|NCT04479787|181732833|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Two-sided Z-Test|||||||< 0.0001
90927440|NCT04479787|181732834|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Two-sample t-test.|||||||<0.0001
90927441|NCT04479787|181732835|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Two-sample t-test.|||||||<0.0001
90927442|NCT04479787|181732836|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Two-sided Z-Test|||||||<0.0001
90927443|NCT04479787|181732837|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Two-sided Z-Test|||||||<0.0001
90927444|NCT04479787|181732838|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Two-sample t-test.|||||||<0.0001
90927445|NCT04479787|181732839|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Two-sample t-test.|||||||<0.0001
90927446|NCT04039113|181732843|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.83||||0.1042|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.64|1.06||1-sided p-value|Negative Binomial|||||1.06|0.64|0.1042
90927447|NCT04039113|181732843|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.83||||0.2085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.11||2-sided p-value|Negative Binomial|||||1.11|0.61|0.2085
90927448|NCT00353496|181732855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.73||No p-value adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|The log rank test was stratified according to progression status at baseline and prior therapy.||||0.73|0.30|<0.001
90927449|NCT05550636|181732879|OTHER||adjusted gMean Ratio (%)|92.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.3|107.4|||||Adjusted gMean ratio of test/reference (T/R). Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 23.9%|The statistical model used was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. That is, the PK endpoint was logtransformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. This model includes effects accounting for the sources of variation: treatment. The effect 'subjects' is considered as random, whereas the treatment effect is considered as fixed. Quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale to provide the point estimate and 90% confidence interval.||107.4|79.3|
90927450|NCT05550636|181732880|OTHER||adjusted gmean Ratio (%)|78.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|68.9|88.2|||||Adjusted gMean ratio of test/reference (T/R). Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 19.4%|The statistical model used was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. That is, the PK endpoint was logtransformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. This model includes effects accounting for the sources of variation: treatment. The effect 'subjects' is considered as random, whereas the treatment effect is considered as fixed. Quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale to provide the point estimate and 90% confidence interval.||88.2|68.9|
90927451|NCT05550636|181732881|OTHER||adjusted gmean Ratio (%)|89.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.9|104.9|||||Adjusted gMean ratio of test/reference (T/R). Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 24.4|The statistical model used was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. That is, the PK endpoint was logtransformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. This model includes effects accounting for the sources of variation: treatment. The effect 'subjects' is considered as random, whereas the treatment effect is considered as fixed. Quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale to provide the point estimate and 90% confidence interval.||104.9|76.9|
90927452|NCT02502266|181732882|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.649|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.424|0.995|||||The hazard ratio estimate compares Cediranib and Olaparib to chemotherapy. If Cediranib and Olaparib is superior, the hazard ratio is \<1.0.|Experimental regimens with at least a 17% reduction in the estimated PFS event rate (compared to standard chemotherapy) (HR estimate \< 0.83) were recommended for further evaluation in the phase III trial.||0.995|0.424|
90927453|NCT02502266|181732882|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.832|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.539|1.284|||||The hazard ratio estimate compares Cediranib to chemotherapy. If Cediranib is superior, the hazard ratio is \<1.0.|Experimental regimens with at least a 17% reduction in the estimated PFS event rate (compared to standard chemotherapy) (HR estimate \< 0.83) were recommended for further evaluation in the phase III trial.||1.284|0.539|
90927454|NCT02502266|181732882|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.149|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.745|1.773|||||The hazard ratio estimate compares Olaparib to chemotherapy. If Olaparib is superior, the hazard ratio is \<1.0.|Experimental regimens with at least a 17% reduction in the estimated PFS event rate (compared to standard chemotherapy) (HR estimate \< 0.83) were recommended for further evaluation in the phase III trial.||1.773|0.745|
90927455|NCT02502266|181732883|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.796||||0.145|TWO_SIDED|98.0|0.597|1.06||The log rank test was stratified by the factors provided at randomization|Log Rank||The hazard ratio estimate compares Cediranib and Olaparib to chemotherapy. If Cediranib and Olaparib is superior, the hazard ratio is \<1.0.|Arm IV was suspended for futility at the end of Phase 2 analysis, so was not analyzed at the final analysis.||1.060|0.597|0.145
90927456|NCT02502266|181732883|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.972||||1|TWO_SIDED|98.0|0.726|1.0|||Log Rank|The log rank test was stratified by the factors provided at randomization.|The hazard ratio estimate compares Cediranib to chemotherapy. If Cediranib is superior, the hazard ratio is \<1.0.|Arm IV was suspended for futility at the end of Phase 2 analysis, so was not analyzed at the final analysis.||1.00|0.726|1.0
90927457|NCT02502266|181732884|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.027|||||TWO_SIDED|98.0|0.771|1.368||No p-values are provided because testing each of these null hypotheses was conditioned on first rejecting hypothesis concerning PFS.|||The hazard ratio estimate compares Cediranib and Olaparib to chemotherapy. If Cediranib and Olaparib is superior, the hazard ratio is \<1.0.|Arm IV was suspended for futility at the end of Phase 2 analysis, so was not analyzed at the final analysis.||1.368|0.771|
90965139|NCT00232141|181811673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.2771||95.0|-0.25|0.88||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Endpoint||0.88|-0.25|0.2771
90965140|NCT00232141|181811674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.2352||95.0|-0.82|0.2||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 1||0.20|-0.82|0.2352
90971264|NCT01332357|181825226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.008|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.005|1.011||The risk of experiencing a recurrent event associated with not initiating a controller medication at index event discharge by time interaction|Regression, Cox|Evaluates the impact of each day treatment with a controller was delayed||||1.011|1.005|<0.0001
90927458|NCT02502266|181732884|OTHER|No p-values are provided because testing each of these null hypotheses was conditioned on first rejecting hypothesis concerning PFS.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|98.0|0.795|1.413||No p-values are provided because testing each of these null hypotheses was conditioned on first rejecting hypothesis concerning PFS.|||The hazard ratio estimate compares Cediranib to chemotherapy. If Cediranib is superior, the hazard ratio is \<1.0.|Arm IV was suspended for futility at the end of Phase 2 analysis, so was not analyzed at the final analysis.||1.413|0.795|
90927459|NCT02567435|181732929|SUPERIORITY||3-Year EFS|65.8||||0.44|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.44
90927460|NCT02567435|181732930|SUPERIORITY||3-Year OS|78.2||||0.56|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.56
90965141|NCT00232141|181811674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.7607||95.0|-0.6|0.44||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 2||0.44|-0.60|0.7607
90965142|NCT00232141|181811674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.6563||95.0|-0.64|0.4||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 6||0.40|-0.64|0.6563
90965143|NCT00232141|181811674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.8319||95.0|-0.58|0.47||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 10||0.47|-0.58|0.8319
90965144|NCT00232141|181811674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.3086||95.0|-0.28|0.89||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 14||0.89|-0.28|0.3086
90965145|NCT00232141|181811674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.7972||95.0|-0.48|0.62||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Endpoint||0.62|-0.48|0.7972
90965146|NCT00232141|181811675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.1863||95.0|-0.94|0.18||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 1||0.18|-0.94|0.1863
90965147|NCT00232141|181811675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|-0.31||0.5953||95.0|-0.77|0.44||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 2||0.44|-0.77|0.5953
90965148|NCT00232141|181811675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.508||95.0|-0.73|0.36||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 6||0.36|-0.73|0.5080
91035268|NCT03086460|181956478|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.055|0.096|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.096|-0.055|0.596
90965149|NCT00232141|181811675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.5842||95.0|-0.7|0.39||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 10||0.39|-0.70|0.5842
90965150|NCT00232141|181811675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.4286||95.0|-0.35|0.83||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 14||0.83|-0.35|0.4286
90965151|NCT00232141|181811675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.5766||95.0|-0.4|0.71||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Endpoint||0.71|-0.40|0.5766
90965152|NCT00232141|181811676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.5493||95.0|-0.73|0.39||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 1||0.39|-0.73|0.5493
90965153|NCT00232141|181811676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.9875||95.0|-0.58|0.59||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 2||0.59|-0.58|0.9875
90965154|NCT00232141|181811676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.6931||95.0|-0.68|0.45||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 6||0.45|-0.68|0.6931
90965155|NCT00232141|181811676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.4614||95.0|-0.34|0.75||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 10||0.75|-0.34|0.4614
90965156|NCT00232141|181811676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.1467||95.0|-0.16|1.06||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 14||1.06|-0.16|0.1467
90965157|NCT00232141|181811676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.2819||95.0|-0.25|0.87||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Endpoint||0.87|-0.25|0.2819
90965158|NCT00232141|181811677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.8727||95.0|-0.55|0.46||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 1||0.46|-0.55|0.8727
90965159|NCT00232141|181811677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.6897||95.0|-0.65|0.43||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 2||0.43|-0.65|0.6897
90965160|NCT00232141|181811677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.7527||95.0|-0.6|0.44||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 6||0.44|-0.60|0.7527
90965161|NCT00232141|181811677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.6394||95.0|-0.67|0.41||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 10||0.41|-0.67|0.6394
90965162|NCT00232141|181811677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.1188||95.0|-0.13|1.11||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 14||1.11|-0.13|0.1188
90965163|NCT00232141|181811677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.2685||95.0|-0.24|0.87||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Endpoint||0.87|-0.24|0.2685
90965164|NCT00232141|181811678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.4991||95.0|-0.74|0.36||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 1||0.36|-0.74|0.4991
90965165|NCT00232141|181811678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.6094||95.0|-0.73|0.43||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 2||0.43|-0.73|0.6094
90965166|NCT00232141|181811678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.3669||95.0|-0.76|0.28||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 6||0.28|-0.76|0.3669
90965167|NCT00232141|181811678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.7641||95.0|-0.43|0.59||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 10||0.59|-0.43|0.7641
90965168|NCT00232141|181811678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.9428||95.0|-0.51|0.55||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 14||0.55|-0.51|0.9428
90965169|NCT00232141|181811678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.9508||95.0|-0.52|0.49||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Endpoint||0.49|-0.52|0.9508
90965170|NCT00232141|181811679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.0073||95.0|-1.18|-0.19||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 1||-0.19|-1.18|0.0073
90965171|NCT00232141|181811679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.2202||95.0|-0.96|0.22||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 2||0.22|-0.96|0.2202
90965172|NCT00232141|181811679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.1824||95.0|-0.95|0.18||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 6||0.18|-0.95|0.1824
90965173|NCT00232141|181811679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.1872||95.0|-0.98|0.19||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 10||0.19|-0.98|0.1872
90965174|NCT00232141|181811679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.4374||95.0|-0.38|0.88||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 14||0.88|-0.38|0.4374
90965175|NCT00232141|181811679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.4406||95.0|-0.36|0.82||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Endpoint||0.82|-0.36|0.4406
90965176|NCT00232141|181811680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.2277||95.0|-0.86|0.21||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 1||0.21|-0.86|0.2277
90965177|NCT00232141|181811680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.8407||95.0|-0.71|0.58||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 2||0.58|-0.71|0.8407
90965178|NCT00232141|181811680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.8809||95.0|-0.62|0.53||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 6||0.53|-0.62|0.8809
90965179|NCT00232141|181811680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.6288||95.0|-0.72|0.43||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 10||0.43|-0.72|0.6288
91035269|NCT03086460|181956478|SUPERIORITY|"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.014||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.061|0.088|||ANCOVA|||||0.088|-0.061|0.720
90965180|NCT00232141|181811680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.9739||95.0|-0.59|0.61||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 14||0.61|-0.59|0.9739
90965181|NCT00232141|181811680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.8926||95.0|-0.61|0.53||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Endpoint||0.53|-0.61|0.8926
90965182|NCT00232141|181811683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7136||95.0||||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.7136
90965183|NCT00232141|181811684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6729||95.0||||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.6729
90971160|NCT02404103|181824838|EQUIVALENCE|To assess the impact of flunisolide on small airway parameters using spirometry and impulse oscillometry and determine whether there is a dose-related difference (320 mcg vs 160 mcg) with flunisolide HFA in pediatric patients who have evidence of small airway obstruction.||||||0.62|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|generalized linear mixed-effects models (GLMM) using the identity link function and normal distribution were used.||||||.620
91035270|NCT03086460|181956478|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.112||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.038|0.185|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.185|0.038|0.003
91035271|NCT03086460|181956478|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.133|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.057|0.209|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.209|0.057|<0.001
90965184|NCT00782288|181811688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Measures were compared between Baseline, Treatment \& Recovery periods to determine if changes from baseline differed between placebo and the two digitoxin dose levels. Kruskal-Wallis equity of population rank test was performed on the changes Day 28 minus Day 1. To compare the change from baseline to treatment period between the two arms, a Wilcoxon rank sum test was performed. To determine whether induced sputum Il-8 returned to baseline at the final visit, a one sample sign test was performed.||||>0.05
90965185|NCT00782288|181811694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline,Treatment and Recovery periods were compared to determine if changes from baseline differed between placebo and the two digitoxin doses.||||>0.05
90965186|NCT00601250|181811701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.5|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin vs. Placebo||-0.5|-0.78|<0.0001
90965187|NCT00601250|181811702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.431|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.333|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin vs. Placebo||-0.333|-0.530|<0.0001
90965188|NCT00601250|181811703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.596|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.064|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.721|-0.471|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin vs. Placebo||-0.471|-0.721|<0.0001
90965189|NCT00601250|181811704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.648|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.069|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.785|-0.512|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin vs. Placebo||-0.512|-0.785|<0.0001
90965190|NCT00601250|181811705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-21.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.14|<|0.0001||95.0|-27.3|-14.96|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin vs. Placebo||-14.96|-27.3|<0.0001
90965191|NCT00601250|181811706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-16.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.67|<|0.0001||95.0|-21.76|-11.29|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin vs. Placebo||-11.29|-21.76|<0.0001
90965192|NCT00601250|181811707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-16.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.91|<|0.0001||95.0|-22.44|-11.01|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin vs. Placebo||-11.01|-22.44|<0.0001
90965193|NCT00601250|181811708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-20.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.05|<|0.0001||95.0|-26.81|-14.84|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin vs. Placebo||-14.84|-26.81|<0.0001
90965194|NCT00601250|181811709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.395|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.41|8.013|||Regression, Logistic|||"Linagliptin vs. Placebo~The odds-ratio is based on a logistic regression model including baseline HbA1c and previous antidiabetic medication."||8.013|2.410|<0.0001
90965195|NCT00601250|181811711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.456||||0.0016||95.0|1.907|15.614|||Regression, Logistic|||"Linagliptin vs. Placebo~The odds-ratio is based on a logistic regression model including baseline HbA1c and previous antidiabetic medication."||15.614|1.907|0.0016
90965196|NCT00601250|181811713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.754|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.486|5.669|||Regression, Logistic|||"Linagliptin vs. Placebo~The odds-ratio is based on a logistic regression model including baseline HbA1c and previous antidiabetic medication."||5.669|2.486|<0.0001
90965197|NCT00601250|181811714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-67.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.88|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-94.69|-39.58|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin vs. Placebo||-39.58|-94.69|<0.0001
90965198|NCT00601250|181811715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-41.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.02|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.71|-21.89|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin vs. Placebo||-21.89|-61.71|<0.0001
90965199|NCT00683163|181811747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|9.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||Mean difference in percent change from baseline (Concurrent - Sequential)||9.2|-11.5|0.82
90965200|NCT02229539|181811748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum|||||||0.02
90965201|NCT02229539|181811748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum|||||||0.004
90965202|NCT00088907|181811762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.60
90965203|NCT00088907|181811763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.19
90965204|NCT04050670|181811799|NON_INFERIORITY|A priori estimates for the 90% CI geometric least square means ratios of AUC(0-∞) for the thigh versus abdomen injection sites were from 0.80 to 1.25|Ratio of geometric least squares mean|0.953|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.935|0.97|||Linear mixed effects model|||||0.970|0.935|
90965205|NCT04050670|181811799|NON_INFERIORITY|A priori estimates for the 90% CI geometric least square means ratios of AUC(0-∞) for the upper arm versus abdomen injection sites were from 0.80 to 1.25.|Ratio of geometric least squares mean|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.972|1.01|||Linear mixed effects model|||||1.01|0.972|
90965206|NCT04050670|181811800|NON_INFERIORITY|A priori estimates for the 90% CI geometric least square means ratios of Cmax for thigh versus abdomen injection sites were from 0.80 to 1.25.|Ratio of geometric least squares mean|0.862|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.818|0.909|||Linear mixed effects model|||||0.909|0.818|
90965207|NCT04050670|181811800|NON_INFERIORITY|A priori estimates for the 90% CI geometric least square means ratios of Cmax for the upper arm versus abdomen injection sites were from 0.80 to 1.25.|Ratio of geometric least squares mean|0.921|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.874|0.971|||Linear mixed effects model|||||0.971|0.874|
90965208|NCT01809132|181811866|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Log Rank|||||||.30
90965209|NCT01809132|181811867|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||the observational subject was lost to follow-up||||.42
90965210|NCT01809132|181811868|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.75
90965211|NCT01809132|181811869|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.17
90965212|NCT03349775|181811882|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.57|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.14||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.32|3.18|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.18|-8.32|0.35
90965213|NCT03349775|181811883|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.13||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|3.92|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.92|-1.65|0.37
90965214|NCT02022085|181811908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||PTA4 6 months with Baha Attract vs Unaided||||<0.0001
90965215|NCT02022085|181811908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||PTA4 12 months with Baha Attract vs Unaided||||<0.0001
90965216|NCT02022085|181811908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||PTA4 24 months with Baha Attract vs Unaided||||<0.0001
90927461|NCT02166463|181732935|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Log Rank|Used a one-sided log-rank test between 2 arms||Assuming a 3-year EFS of 82% (5-year EFS of 78.4%, long term EFS of 76%) for standard arm, the study will have approximately 86% power for detecting an 8% improvement in 3-year EFS in the Bv-AVEPC arm (3-year EFS of 90%, 5-year EFS of 88.0%, long term EFS of 86.7%) in log rank test.||||0.0001
90927462|NCT05030584|181732962|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS-means|-1.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|-1.05||The type I error rate was controlled at a one-sided α=0.025 level.|Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|||"For category Change from baseline."||-1.05|-2.04|<0.0001
90927463|NCT06393127|181733030|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|105.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.07|111.36|||||Ratio \[%\] = (adjusted geometric mean of T / adjusted geometric mean R)\*100. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 18.8|"Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. PK endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model, which included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: subjects within sequences as random effect, sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale."||111.36|99.07|
90927464|NCT06393127|181733031|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|113.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.7|125.05|||||Ratio \[%\] = (adjusted geometric mean of T / adjusted geometric mean R)\*100. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 32.8|"Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. PK endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model, which included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: subjects within sequences as random effect, sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale."||125.05|102.70|
90927465|NCT06393127|181733032|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|104.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.1|111.14|||||Ratio \[%\] = (adjusted geometric mean of T / adjusted geometric mean R)\*100. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 18.5|"Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. PK endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model, which included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: subjects within sequences as random effect, sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale."||111.14|99.10|
90927466|NCT02446600|181733033|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.856||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.663|1.105||The p-value is one-sided. Per the protocol, the statistical significance threshold was \<0.025. Type 1 error was controlled using hierarchical testing strategy.|Log Rank|The log rank test was stratified by the minimization factors provided at randomization|The hazard ratio estimate compares olaparib+cedirinib to chemotherapy. If olaparib+cedirinib is superior, the hazard ratio is \<1.0.|Arm II was suspended for futility at the interim analysis so was not analyzed at the final analysis.||1.105|0.663|0.077
90927467|NCT04955431|181733112|OTHER|We performed a 2-way Repeated Measures ANOVA to compare changes in blood IL-6 levels from baseline to post simulated firefighting on control days (Normal Sleep) and experimental days (Sleep Restriction).|||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
90927468|NCT04955431|181733113|OTHER|RM-ANOVA|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
90927469|NCT05648890|181733119|OTHER|Spearman's rank correlation coefficient was used.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Spearman's rank correlation coefficient|||Correlation between MMSE and TEGEST test before operation.||||<0.0001
90927470|NCT05648890|181733120|OTHER|Spearman's ran correlation coefficient was used .|||||<|0.001|||||||Spearman's ran correlation coefficient|Spearman's ran correlation coefficient was used for correlation between two quantities.||Correlation between MMSE and TEGEST after operation||||< .001
90927471|NCT05648890|181733121|OTHER|Spearman's rank correlation coefficient was used.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Spearman's rank correlation coefficient|||Correlation between TEGEST and Clock drawing test before operation.|Spearman's rank correlation coefficient was used.|||<0.0001
90927472|NCT05648890|181733122|OTHER|Spearman's rank correlation coefficient was used.|||||<|0.001|||||||Spearman's rank correlation coefficient|||Correlation between TEGEST and clock drawing test after operation.||||<0.001
90927473|NCT05648890|181733123|OTHER|Spearman's rank correlation coefficient.|||||<|0.001|||||||Spearman's rank correlation coefficien|||Correlation between MMSE and Clock drawing test before operation.||||<0.001
90927474|NCT05648890|181733123|OTHER|Mann-Whitney U test before operation.||||||0.023|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Clock drawing before operation.||||0.023
90927475|NCT05648890|181733124|OTHER|Spearman's rank correlation coefficient|||||<|0.0001|||||||Spearman's rank correlation coefficient|||Correlation between Clock drawing test and MMSE after operation.||||<0.0001
90927476|NCT05648890|181733125|OTHER|Spearman's rank correlation coefficient was used.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Spearman's rank correlation coefficient|||Correlation of Clinical frailty scale with MMSE before operation.||||<0.0001
90927477|NCT05648890|181733125|OTHER|Spearman's rank correlation coefficient was used.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Spearman's rank correlation coefficient|||Correlation of Clinical frailty scale with TEGEST before operation.||||<0.0001
90927478|NCT05648890|181733125|OTHER|Spearman's rank correlation coefficient was used.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Spearman's rank correlation coefficient|||Correlation of Clinical frailty scale with Clock drawing test before operation.||||<0.0001
90927479|NCT05648890|181733126|OTHER|Mann-Whitney U test.||||||0.562|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Respondents living at a house or in apartment and relationships with Clinical frailty scale.||||.562
90927480|NCT05648890|181733127|OTHER|Mann-Whitney test was used.||||||0.129|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Respondents living with with family or alone and relationship with Clinical frailty scale.||||0.129
90927481|NCT05648890|181733128|OTHER|Mann-Whintney test was used.||||||0.019|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Relationship between respondents living at home with stairs and respondents living at home with an elevator and Clinical frailty scale.||||0.019
90940906|NCT01917006|181761576|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.34||||0.205||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline geometric mean IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 2 vs Placebo at Week 8||||0.205
90927482|NCT01260896|181733171|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|106.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.54|113.54|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||113.54|100.54|
90927483|NCT01260896|181733172|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|105.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.37|110.55|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||110.55|100.37|
90927484|NCT01260896|181733173|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|103.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.8|108.73|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||108.73|97.80|
90927485|NCT01260896|181733174|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|114.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|109.29|119.35|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||119.35|109.29|
90927486|NCT01260896|181733175|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|108.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|104.84|111.79|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||111.79|104.84|
90927487|NCT01260896|181733176|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|97.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.92|102.85|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||102.85|92.92|
90927488|NCT06415045|181733194|OTHER||Ratios of adjusted geometric means [%]|115.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|106.55|124.58|||||Ratio calculated as test/reference\*100. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 13.5|Relative bioavailability of Nerandomilast administered in fed state (Test) compared with Nerandomilast administered in fasted state (Reference) was estimated by the ratios of the gMeans (Test/Reference). Their corresponding 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were provided. This method corresponds to 2 one-sided t-test procedures, each at the 5% significance level.||124.58|106.55|
90927489|NCT06415045|181733195|OTHER||Ratios of adjusted geometric means [%]|85.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|68.8|107.06|||||Ratio calculated as test/reference\*100. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 39.4|Relative bioavailability of Nerandomilast administered in fed state (Test) compared with Nerandomilast administered in fasted state (Reference) was estimated by the ratios of the gMeans (Test/Reference). Their corresponding 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were provided. This method corresponds to 2 one-sided t-test procedures, each at the 5% significance level.||107.06|68.80|
90965217|NCT02022085|181811909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||All comparisons to the Unaided situation were p=\<0.0001.|Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Baha Attract after 24 months vs Unaided situation Pre-Op||||<0.0001
90965218|NCT02022085|181811910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||All comparisons to the Unaided situation were p=\<0.0001.|Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Baha Attract after 12 months vs Unaided situation Pre-Op||||<0.0001
91035272|NCT03086460|181956478|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.106||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.032|0.18|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.180|0.032|0.005
90887466|NCT00489970|181637831|NON_INFERIORITY|One month after vaccination, the lower limit of the 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the difference between groups in the seroprotection rate \[a second dose of Boostrix (Boostrix group) minus the first dose of Boostrix (Control group)\] against diphtheria antigen was greater than or equal to -10% (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Difference in percentage|1.41|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.16|4.17|||||Standardized asymptotic 97.5% CI for the group difference in the seroprotection rate was calculated.|To demonstrate that the immune response elicited by a second dose of Boostrix vaccine (Boostrix group and Control group) was non-inferior to the immune response elicited by a first dose of Boostrix vaccine (Control group), with respect to seroprotection rate against diphtheria antigen, one month following vaccination.||4.17|-1.16|
90887467|NCT00489970|181637831|NON_INFERIORITY|One month after vaccination, the lower limit of the 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the difference between groups in the seroprotection rate \[a second dose of Boostrix (Boostrix group) minus the first dose of Boostrix (Control group)\] against tetanus antigen was greater than or equal to -10% (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Difference in percentage|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.52|2.07|||||Standardized asymptotic 97.5% CI for the group difference in the seroprotection rate was calculated.|To demonstrate that the immune response elicited by a second dose of Boostrix vaccine (Boostrix group and Control group) was non-inferior to the immune response elicited by a first dose of Boostrix vaccine (Control group), with respect to seroprotection rate against tetanus antigen, one month following vaccination.||2.07|-1.52|
90887468|NCT00489970|181637831|NON_INFERIORITY|One month after vaccination, the lower limit of the 97.5% CI for the difference between groups in the seroprotection rate \[a second dose of Boostrix (Adacel group) minus the first dose of Boostrix (Control group)\] against diphtheria antigen was greater than or equal to -10% (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Difference in percentage|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.41|4.15|||||Standardized asymptotic 97.5% CI for the group difference in the seroprotection rate was calculated.|To demonstrate that the immune response elicited by a second dose of Boostrix vaccine (Adacel group and Control group) was non-inferior to the immune response elicited by a first dose of Boostrix vaccine (Control group), with respect to seroprotection rate against diphtheria antigen, one month following vaccination.||4.15|-3.41|
90887469|NCT00489970|181637831|NON_INFERIORITY|One month after vaccination, the lower limit of the 97.5% CI for the difference between groups in the seroprotection rate \[a second dose of Boostrix (Adacel group) minus the first dose of Boostrix (Control group)\] against tetanus antigen was greater than or equal to -10% (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Difference in percentage|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.69|2.07|||||Standardized asymptotic 97.5% CI for the group difference in the seroprotection rate was calculated.|To demonstrate that the immune response elicited by a second dose of Boostrix vaccine (Adacel group and Control group) was non-inferior to the immune response elicited by a first dose of Boostrix vaccine (Control group), with respect to seroprotection rate against tetanus antigen, one month following vaccination.||2.07|-3.69|
90887470|NCT00489970|181637833|NON_INFERIORITY|One month after vaccination, the lower limits of the 97.5% CIs for the anti-PT GMC ratios (Boostrix Group divided by Infanrix Group in APV-039) were greater than or equal to 0.67|GMC ratio|1.53|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.31|1.79|||GMC ratio|The associated CI was derived using the method proposed by G.Y. Zou and A. Donner \[Zou, 2008\]||To demonstrate that the immune response elicited by a second dose of Tdap vaccine, Boostrix (Boostrix Group) was non-inferior to the immune response elicited by a three dose series of Infanrix vaccine in infants in the German household contact efficacy study APV-039, with respect to antibodies against anti-PT one month following vaccination||1.79|1.31|
90887471|NCT00489970|181637833|NON_INFERIORITY|One month after vaccination, the lower limits of the 97.5% CIs for the anti-FHA GMC ratios (Boostrix Group divided by Infanrix Group in APV-039) were greater than or equal to 0.67|GMC ratio|5.27|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|4.62|6.01|||GMC ratio|The associated CI was derived using the method proposed by G.Y. Zou and A. Donner \[Zou, 2008\]||To demonstrate that the immune response elicited by a second dose of Tdap vaccine, Boostrix (Boostrix Group) was non-inferior to the immune response elicited by a three dose series of Infanrix vaccine in infants in the German household contact efficacy study APV-039, with respect to antibodies against anti-FHA one month following vaccination||6.01|4.62|
90887472|NCT00489970|181637833|NON_INFERIORITY|One month after vaccination, the lower limits of the 97.5% CIs for the anti-PRN GMC ratios (Boostrix Group divided by Infanrix Group in APV-039) were greater than or equal to 0.67|GMC ratio|3.62|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|3.07|4.25|||GMC ratio|The associated CI was derived using the method proposed by G.Y. Zou and A. Donner \[Zou, 2008\]||To demonstrate that the immune response elicited by a second dose of Tdap vaccine, Boostrix (Boostrix Group) was non-inferior to the immune response elicited by a three dose series of Infanrix vaccine in infants in the German household contact efficacy study APV-039, with respect to antibodies against anti-PRN one month following vaccination||4.25|3.07|
90887473|NCT00489970|181637833|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|One month after vaccination, the lower limits of the 97.5% CIs for the anti-PT GMC ratios (Adacel Group divided by Infanrix Group in APV-039) were greater than or equal to 0.67|GMC ratio|1.64||||||97.5|1.33|2.03|||GMC ratio|The associated CI was derived using the method proposed by G.Y. Zou and A. Donner \[Zou, 2008\]||To demonstrate that the immune response elicited by a second dose of Tdap vaccine, Boostrix (Adacel Group) was non-inferior to the immune response elicited by a three dose series of Infanrix vaccine in infants in the German household contact efficacy study APV-039, with respect to antibodies against anti-PT one month following vaccination||2.03|1.33|
90927490|NCT06415045|181733196|OTHER||Ratios of adjusted geometric means [%]|115.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|106.38|124.46|||||Ratio calculated as test/reference\*100. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 13.5|Relative bioavailability of Nerandomilast administered in fed state (Test) compared with Nerandomilast administered in fasted state (Reference) was estimated by the ratios of the gMeans (Test/Reference). Their corresponding 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were provided. This method corresponds to 2 one-sided t-test procedures, each at the 5% significance level.||124.46|106.38|
90940907|NCT01917006|181761576|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.39||||0.849||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline geometric mean IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 3 vs Placebo at Week 8||||0.849
91035273|NCT03086460|181956478|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.152|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.081|0.223|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.223|0.081|<0.001
90887474|NCT00489970|181637833|NON_INFERIORITY|One month after vaccination, the lower limits of the 97.5% CIs for the anti-FHA GMC ratios (Adacel Group divided by Infanrix Group in APV-039) were greater than or equal to 0.67|GMC ratio|5.27|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|4.37|6.36|||GMC ratio|The associated CI was derived using the method proposed by G.Y. Zou and A. Donner \[Zou, 2008\]||To demonstrate that the immune response elicited by a second dose of Tdap vaccine, Boostrix (Adacel Group) was non-inferior to the immune response elicited by a three dose series of Infanrix vaccine in infants in the German household contact efficacy study APV-039, with respect to antibodies against anti-FHA one month following vaccination||6.36|4.37|
90887475|NCT00489970|181637833|NON_INFERIORITY|One month after vaccination, the lower limits of the 97.5% CIs for the anti-PRN GMC ratios (Adacel Group divided by Infanrix Group in APV-039) were greater than or equal to 0.67|GMC ratio|4.47|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|3.58|5.57|||GMC ratio|The associated CI was derived using the method proposed by G.Y. Zou and A. Donner \[Zou, 2008\]||To demonstrate that the immune response elicited by a second dose of Tdap vaccine, Boostrix (Adacel Group) was non-inferior to the immune response elicited by a three dose series of Infanrix vaccine in infants in the German household contact efficacy study APV-039, with respect to antibodies against anti-PRN one month following vaccination||5.57|3.58|
90887476|NCT00489970|181637834|NON_INFERIORITY|One month after vaccination, the lower limit of the 97.5% CI for the difference between groups in the booster response rate \[a second dose of Boostrix (Boostrix group) minus the first dose of Boostrix (Control group)\] against diphtheria antigen was greater than or equal to -10% (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Difference in booster response rate|-5.91|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-14.67|2.85|||||Standardized asymptotic 97.5% CI for the group difference in the Booster response was calculated.|To demonstrate that the immune response elicited by a second dose of Boostrix vaccine (Boostrix group) was non-inferior to the immune response elicited by a first dose of Boostrix vaccine (Control group), with respect to booster response against diphtheria antigen, one month following vaccination.||2.85|-14.67|
90887477|NCT00489970|181637834|NON_INFERIORITY|One month after vaccination, the lower limit of the 97.5% CI for the difference between groups in the booster response rate \[a second dose of Boostrix (Boostrix group) minus the first dose of Boostrix (Control group)\] against tetanus antigen was greater than or equal to -10% (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Difference in booster response rate|-1.44|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-10.63|7.79|||||Standardized asymptotic 97.5% CI for the group difference in the Booster response was calculated.|To demonstrate that the immune response elicited by a second dose of Boostrix vaccine (Boostrix group) was non-inferior to the immune response elicited by a first dose of Boostrix vaccine (Control group), with respect to booster response against tetanus antigen, one month following vaccination.||7.79|-10.63|
90887478|NCT00489970|181637834|NON_INFERIORITY|One month after vaccination, the lower limit of the 97.5% CI for the difference between groups in the booster response rate \[a second dose of Boostrix (Adacel group) minus the first dose of Boostrix (Control group)\] against diphtheria antigen was greater than or equal to -10% (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Difference in booster response rate|-8.56|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-20.33|2.73|||||Standardized asymptotic 97.5% CI for the group difference in the Booster response was calculated.|To demonstrate that the immune response elicited by a second dose of Boostrix vaccine (Adacel group) was non-inferior to the immune response elicited by a first dose of Boostrix vaccine (Control group), with respect to booster response against diphtheria antigen, one month following vaccination.||2.73|-20.33|
90887479|NCT00489970|181637834|NON_INFERIORITY|One month after vaccination, the lower limit of the 97.5% CI for the difference between groups in the booster response rate \[a second dose of Boostrix (Adacel group) minus the first dose of Boostrix (Control group)\] against tetanus antigen was greater than or equal to -10% (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Difference in booster response rate|-11.79|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-22.98|0.15|||||Standardized asymptotic 97.5% CI for the group difference in the Booster response was calculated.|To demonstrate that the immune response elicited by a second dose of Boostrix vaccine (Adacel group) was non-inferior to the immune response elicited by a first dose of Boostrix vaccine (Control group), with respect to booster response against tetanus antigen, one month following vaccination.||0.15|-22.98|
90887480|NCT00489970|181637835|NON_INFERIORITY|One month after vaccination, the lower limit of the 97.5% CI for the difference between groups in the booster response rate \[a second dose of Boostrix (Boostrix group) minus the first dose of Boostrix (Control group)\] against PT antigen was greater than or equal to -10% (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Difference in booster response rate|-2.85|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-9.09|3.08|||||Standardized asymptotic 97.5% CI for the group difference in the Booster response was calculated.|To demonstrate that the immune response elicited by a second dose of Boostrix vaccine (Boostrix group) was non-inferior to the immune response elicited by a first dose of Boostrix vaccine (Control group), with respect to booster response against PT antigen, one month following vaccination.||3.08|-9.09|
90887481|NCT00489970|181637835|NON_INFERIORITY|One month after vaccination, the lower limit of the 97.5% CI for the difference between groups in the booster response rate \[a second dose of Boostrix (Boostrix group) minus the first dose of Boostrix (Control group)\] against FHA antigen was greater than or equal to -10% (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Difference in booster response rate|-7.05|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-13.16|-1.4|||||Standardized asymptotic 97.5% CI for the group difference in the Booster response was calculated.|To demonstrate that the immune response elicited by a second dose of Boostrix vaccine (Boostrix group) was non-inferior to the immune response elicited by a first dose of Boostrix vaccine (Control group), with respect to booster response against FHA antigen, one month following vaccination.||-1.40|-13.16|
90887482|NCT00489970|181637835|NON_INFERIORITY|One month after vaccination, the lower limit of the 97.5% CI for the difference between groups in the booster response rate \[a second dose of Boostrix (Boostrix group) minus the first dose of Boostrix (Control group)\] against PRN antigen was greater than or equal to -10% (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Difference in booster response rate|-10.32|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-17.5|-3.38|||||Standardized asymptotic 97.5% CI for the group difference in the Booster response was calculated.|To demonstrate that the immune response elicited by a second dose of Boostrix vaccine (Boostrix group) was non-inferior to the immune response elicited by a first dose of Boostrix vaccine (Control group), with respect to booster response against PRN antigen, one month following vaccination.||-3.38|-17.50|
90940908|NCT01917006|181761576|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.07||||0.571||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline geometric mean IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 4 vs Placebo at Week 8||||0.571
90965219|NCT02022085|181811911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||All comparisons to the Unaided situation were p=\<0.0001.|Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Baha Attract after 6 months vs Unaided situation Pre-Op||||<0.0001
90965220|NCT02022085|181811912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Speech in Noise, 6 months Baha Attract vs Unaided||||<0.0001
90965221|NCT02022085|181811912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Speech in Noise, 12 months Baha Attract vs Unaided||||<0.0001
90965222|NCT02022085|181811912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Speech in Noise, 24 months Baha Attract vs Unaided||||<0.0001
90965223|NCT02022085|181811913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||6 months: Speech in quiet at 50dB||||<0.0001
90965224|NCT02022085|181811913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||6 months: Speech in quiet at 65dB||||<0.0001
90965225|NCT02022085|181811913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||6 months: Speech in quiet at 80dB||||<0.0001
90965226|NCT02022085|181811913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||12 months: Speech in quiet at 50dB||||<0.0001
90965227|NCT02022085|181811913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||12 months: Speech in quiet at 65dB||||<0.0001
90965228|NCT02022085|181811913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||12 months: Speech in quiet at 80dB||||<0.0001
90965229|NCT02022085|181811913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||24 months: Speech in quiet at 50dB||||<0.0001
90965230|NCT02022085|181811913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||24 months: Speech in quiet at 65dB||||<0.0001
91035274|NCT03086460|181956478|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.142|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.072|0.212|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment F ( Perforomist® IS 40 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.212|0.072|<0.001
90965231|NCT02022085|181811913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||24 months: Speech in quiet at 80dB||||<0.0001
90965232|NCT02022085|181811914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||6 months with Baha Attract vs Softband: change in PTA4||||0.38
91035275|NCT03086460|181956478|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.021||||0.573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.053|0.096|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.096|-0.053|0.573
91035276|NCT03086460|181956478|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.006||||0.881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.078|0.067|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.067|-0.078|0.881
90965233|NCT02022085|181811914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||12 months with Baha Attract vs Softband: change in PTA4||||0.84
90965234|NCT02022085|181811914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||24 months with Baha Attract vs Softband: change in PTA4||||0.89
90965235|NCT02022085|181811915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||250Hz: 6 months with Baha Attract vs Softband||||0.34
90965236|NCT02022085|181811915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||500Hz: 6 months with Baha Attract vs Softband||||0.0004
90965237|NCT02022085|181811915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||1000Hz: 6 months with Baha Attract vs Softband||||0.22
90965238|NCT02022085|181811915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||2000Hz: 6 months with Baha Attract vs Softband||||0.64
90965239|NCT02022085|181811915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||3000Hz: 6 months with Baha Attract vs Softband||||0.039
90965240|NCT02022085|181811915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||4000Hz: 6 months with Baha Attract vs Softband||||0.012
90965241|NCT02022085|181811915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||6000Hz: 6 months with Baha Attract vs Softband||||<0.0001
90965242|NCT02022085|181811916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||250Hz: 12 months with Baha Attract vs Softband||||0.11
90965243|NCT02022085|181811916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.066|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||500Hz: 12 months with Baha Attract vs Softband||||0.066
90965244|NCT02022085|181811916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||1000Hz: 12 months with Baha Attract vs Softband||||0.71
90965245|NCT02022085|181811916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||2000Hz: 12 months with Baha Attract vs Softband||||0.78
90965246|NCT02022085|181811916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||3000Hz: 12 months with Baha Attract vs Softband||||0.015
90965247|NCT02022085|181811916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||4000Hz: 12 months with Baha Attract vs Softband||||0.035
90965248|NCT02022085|181811916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0013|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||6000Hz: 12 months with Baha Attract vs Softband||||0.0013
90965249|NCT02022085|181811917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0051|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||250Hz: 24 months with Baha Attract vs Softband||||0.0051
90965250|NCT02022085|181811917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||500Hz: 24 months with Baha Attract vs Softband||||0.26
90965251|NCT02022085|181811917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||1000Hz: 24 months with Baha Attract vs Softband||||0.22
90965252|NCT02022085|181811917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||2000Hz: 24 months with Baha Attract vs Softband||||0.57
90965253|NCT02022085|181811917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.064|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||3000Hz: 24 months with Baha Attract vs Softband||||0.064
90965254|NCT02022085|181811917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.064|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||4000Hz: 24 months with Baha Attract vs Softband||||0.064
90965255|NCT02022085|181811917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0051|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||6000Hz: 24 months with Baha Attract vs Softband||||0.0051
90940909|NCT01917006|181761576|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.09||||0.592||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline geometric mean IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 5 vs Placebo at Week 8||||0.592
90940910|NCT01917006|181761576|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.16||||0.34||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline geometric mean IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 6 vs Placebo at Week 8||||0.340
90940911|NCT01917006|181761576|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.16||||0.36||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline geometric mean IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 1 vs Placebo at Week 10||||0.360
90940912|NCT01917006|181761576|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.35||||0.192||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline geometric mean IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 2 vs Placebo at Week 10||||0.192
90940913|NCT01917006|181761576|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.37||||0.843||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline geometric mean IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 3 vs Placebo at Week 10||||0.843
90940914|NCT01917006|181761576|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.07||||0.572||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline geometric mean IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 4 vs Placebo at Week 10||||0.572
90940915|NCT01917006|181761576|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.12||||0.628||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline geometric mean IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 5 vs Placebo at Week 10||||0.628
90940916|NCT01917006|181761576|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.12||||0.38||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline geometric mean IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 6 vs Placebo at Week 10||||0.380
90940917|NCT00702650|181761587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||One-Sample Binomial (Wald) test, 2-sided|||||||<0.001
90940918|NCT00702650|181761592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||P-value is for Sexual Desire based on a two-sided, paired t-test comparing the Baseline and the Day 120 scores.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90940919|NCT00702650|181761592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||P-value is for Overall Sexual Activity Score based on a two-sided, paired t-test comparing the Baseline and the Day 120 scores.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90940920|NCT00702650|181761592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||P-value is for Erection Maintained for Satisfactory Duration based on a two-sided, paired t-test comparing the Baseline and the Day 120 scores.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90940921|NCT00702650|181761592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||P-value is for Positive Mood based on a two-sided, paired t-test comparing the Baseline and the Day 120 scores.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90940922|NCT00702650|181761592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||P-value is for Negative Mood based on a two-sided, paired t-test comparing the Baseline and the Day 120 scores.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90940923|NCT00702650|181761593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0254||95.0||||p-value for Physical Component Score based on a one-sample t-test comparing Day 120 and Baseline values.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0254
90940924|NCT00702650|181761593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||p-value for Mental Component Score based on a one-sample t-test comparing Day 120 and Baseline values.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90940925|NCT00943722|181761603|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority requires that the lower bound of two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of GMT ratio be greater than 0.67.|GMT ratio|1.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|2.14||one-sided tests of non-inferiority conducted at the alpha=0.025 level; model with a response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for comparison group|ANOVA|model with a response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for comparison group|GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) divided by GMT for 16- to 26-Year-Old Females (Lot 1)|Anti-HPV 6||2.14|1.70|< 0.001
90940926|NCT00943722|181761603|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority requires that the lower bound of two-sided 95% CI of GMT ratio be greater than 0.67|GMT ratio|1.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.63|2.06||one-sided tests of non-inferiority conducted at the alpha=0.025 level; model with a response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for comparison group|ANOVA|model with a response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for comparison group|GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) divided by GMT for 16- to 26-Year-Old Females (Lot 1)|Anti-HPV 11||2.06|1.63|< 0.001
90965256|NCT02022085|181811918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||6 months: Speech in Noise with Baha Attract vs Softband||||0.46
90965257|NCT02022085|181811918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||12 months: Speech in Noise with Baha Attract vs Softband||||0.19
90965258|NCT02022085|181811918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||24 months: Speech in Noise with Baha Attract vs Softband||||0.31
90965259|NCT02022085|181811919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||6 months Speech in Quiet at 50dB||||0.43
90965260|NCT02022085|181811919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||6 months Speech in Quiet at 65dB||||0.16
90965261|NCT02022085|181811919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||6 months Speech in Quiet at 80dB||||0.65
90965262|NCT02022085|181811919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||12 months Speech in Quiet at 50dB||||0.93
90965263|NCT02022085|181811919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.094|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||12 months Speech in Quiet at 65dB||||0.094
90965264|NCT02022085|181811919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||12 months Speech in Quiet at 80dB||||0.44
90965265|NCT02022085|181811919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||24 months Speech in Quiet at 50dB||||0.021
90965266|NCT02022085|181811919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||24 months Speech in Quiet at 65dB||||0.024
90965267|NCT02022085|181811919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||24 months Speech in Quiet at 80dB||||0.59
90965268|NCT02022085|181811920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||6 months change in Comprehensive health state||||0.088
90965269|NCT02022085|181811920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||6 months change in Vision||||0.88
90965270|NCT02022085|181811920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||6 months change in Hearing||||0.020
90965271|NCT02022085|181811920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||6 months change in Speech||||0.039
90965272|NCT02022085|181811920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||6 months change in Ambulation||||0.25
90965273|NCT02022085|181811920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||6 months change in Dexterity||||0.38
90965274|NCT02022085|181811920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||6 months change in Emotion||||0.43
90965275|NCT02022085|181811920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||6 months change in Cognition||||0.85
90965276|NCT02022085|181811920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||6 months change in Pain||||0.25
90965277|NCT02022085|181811920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||24 months change in Comprehensive health state||||0.088
90965278|NCT02022085|181811920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||24 months change in Vision||||0.63
90965279|NCT02022085|181811920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||24 months change in Hearing||||0.045
90965280|NCT02022085|181811920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||24 months change in Speech||||0.016
90965281|NCT02022085|181811920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||24 months change in Ambulation||||0.25
90965282|NCT02022085|181811920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxan Signed Rank Test|Fisher's non-parametric permutation test failed to approximate p value so Wilcoxan Signed Rank Test instead||24 months change in Dexterity||||0.50
90965283|NCT02022085|181811920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||24 months change in Emotion||||0.29
90965284|NCT02022085|181811920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||24 months change in Cognition||||0.92
90965285|NCT02022085|181811920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||24 months change in Pain||||0.020
90965286|NCT02022085|181811921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||6 months: Ease of communication||||<0.0001
90965287|NCT02022085|181811921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||6 months: Background noise||||<0.0001
90965288|NCT02022085|181811921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||6 months: Reverberation||||<0.0001
90965289|NCT02022085|181811921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||6 months: Aversiveness||||0.69
90965290|NCT02022085|181811921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||6 months: Global||||<0.0001
90965291|NCT02022085|181811921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||24 months: Ease of communication||||<0.001
90965292|NCT02022085|181811921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||24 months: Background noise||||<0.001
90965293|NCT02022085|181811921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||24 months: Reverberation||||<0.001
90965294|NCT02022085|181811921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||24 months: Aversiveness||||0.84
90965295|NCT02022085|181811921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||24 months: Global||||<0.001
90965296|NCT02022085|181811922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Speech: Change from pre-op to 6 months||||<0.0001
90965297|NCT02022085|181811922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Spatial: Change from pre-op to 6 months||||<0.0001
90965298|NCT02022085|181811922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Qualities: Change from pre-op to 6 months||||<0.0001
90965299|NCT02022085|181811922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Speech: Change from pre-op to 24 months||||<0.0001
90965300|NCT02022085|181811922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Spatial: Change from pre-op to 24 months||||<0.0001
90965301|NCT02022085|181811922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Qualities: Change from pre-op to 24 months||||<0.0001
90965302|NCT03383289|181811941|SUPERIORITY||Beta estimate of the percent who fell|0.118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145||0.417|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|MIANALYZE was used to model missing data. Models were adjusted for the design effects of clustering.||||||0.4170
90965303|NCT03383289|181811943|OTHER|paired t test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.353|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.181|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.708|-0.998|||paired t test|||Analysis of adjusted mean differences using a paired t test procedure||-0.998|-1.708|<0.001
90965304|NCT03383289|181811944|SUPERIORITY||Beta|0.6364|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.233||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1797|1.0931|||Poisson regression|||||1.0931|0.1797|0.0064
90965305|NCT03383289|181811944|SUPERIORITY||Estimated log mean|-4.0168||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5827|-2.4509|||Poisson regression|||||-2.4509|-5.5827|0.001
90965306|NCT03383289|181811945|OTHER|adjusted mean differences from paired t tests|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.456|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.162||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.774|-0.138|||paired t test|||||-0.138|-0.774|0.005
90965307|NCT04439071|181811946|OTHER|||||||0.949|||||||Log Rank|||Time to respiratory improvement was compared between treatment groups using stratified log-rank test.||||0.949
90965308|NCT04439071|181811965|OTHER|||||||0.033|||||||Log Rank|||Time to respiratory improvement was compared between treatment groups using stratified log-rank test.||||0.033
90965309|NCT00892177|181811973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Maximum Tolerated Dose (mg)|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90965310|NCT00892177|181811974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|0.1||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.052|0.262|||Chi-squared, Corrected||Difference in proportion|||0.262|-0.052|0.22
90965311|NCT00892177|181811976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.4|||Kaplan Meier|||||1.4|0.61|0.7
90965312|NCT00892177|181811977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.7|||Kaplan Meier|||||1.7|0.76|0.52
90965313|NCT00892177|181811978|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.223||||0.96|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||The estimate is the net difference between Arm A and Arm B total score using information from all cycles. A negative value means that Arm A has a lower quality of life and a positive value means Arm A has a higher reported quality of life.|||||0.96
90965314|NCT00892177|181811979|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6325|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6325
90965315|NCT01178333|181811997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.98||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|4.36|||Regression, Cox|||||4.36|0.90|0.09
90965316|NCT01178333|181811997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.31||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|2.66|||Regression, Cox|||||2.66|0.65|0.45
90965317|NCT01178333|181811999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.76||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|40.87|||Regression, Cox|||||40.87|0.55|0.15
90965318|NCT01178333|181811999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.35||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|11.25|||Regression, Cox|||||11.25|0.16|0.78
90965319|NCT01178333|181812000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.38||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|5.79|||Regression, Cox|||||5.79|0.98|0.06
91035277|NCT03086460|181956478|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.11|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.110|-0.030|0.261
91035278|NCT03086460|181956478|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.027||||0.493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.104|0.051|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.051|-0.104|0.493
90927491|NCT02112916|181733213|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.782||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.561|1.091|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio = hazard rate for Arm B/hazard rate for Arm A|To compare the EFS of the randomized patients (T-ALL+T-LLy) on Arm A vs Arm B. Study was designed to accrue 1200 eligible, evaluable randomized patients (to provide 90.5% power to detect an improvement in 4-year EFS from 85% to 90% with an alpha of 0.05 (one-sided log-rank test) (Hazard Ratio (HR)=0.6483). Study was closed to accrual early due to results from AALL0434 for nelarabine.||1.091|0.561|0.074
90927492|NCT03391466|181733297|SUPERIORITY|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by response to first-line therapy and second-line age-adjusted International Prognostic Index (IPI) as data collected on case report forms.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.398|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.308|0.514||Stratified (randomization factors) log-rank p-value.|Log Rank|Stratified (randomization stratification factors) log-rank test.|Hazard ratio (95% confidence interval (CI)), stratified using randomization stratification factors.|||0.514|0.308|<0.0001
90927493|NCT03391466|181733298|SUPERIORITY|One-sided p-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, one-sided tailed test, stratified by response to first-line therapy and second-line age-adjusted International Prognostic Index (IPI) as data collected on case report forms.|Difference in ORR|33.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.2|42.1||Stratified (randomization factor) CMH test p-value.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified (randomization factor) CMH test.|95% CI for the difference in ORR was from Wilson's score method with continuity correction.|||42.1|23.2|<0.0001
90927494|NCT03391466|181733299|SUPERIORITY|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by response to first-line therapy and second-line age-adjusted IPI as data collected on case report forms.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.007||Stratified log-rank (randomization factor) p-value.|Log Rank|Stratified (randomization factor) log-rank test.|Stratified Cox regression models were used to estimate hazard ratio and 2-sided CIs for axicabtagene ciloleucel relative to standard of care therapy. The Breslow method was used to handle the ties for the Cox regression models.||The Rho family spending function with parameter (Rho = 6) was used to allocate alpha between the interim and primary OS analysis. Given that fewer than the anticipated 210 events were observed at the data cutoff date for the primary OS analysis (25 January 2023), the efficacy boundary for the primary OS analysis was recalculated using the Rho family spending function based on the actual observed event numbers (177 deaths) resulting in an efficacy boundary at 1-sided significance level of 0.0249.|1.007|0.530|0.027
90927495|NCT03391466|181733300|SUPERIORITY|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by response to first-line therapy and second-line age-adjusted IPI as data collected on case report forms.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.736||||0.0695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.488|1.108||Stratified (randomization stratification factors) log-rank test.|Log Rank||Stratified Cox regression models were used to estimate hazard ratio and 2-sided 95% CIs for axicabtagene ciloleucel relative to standard of care.|||1.108|0.488|0.0695
90927496|NCT03391466|181733301|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.376|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.487||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by response to first-line therapy and second-line age-adjusted IPI as data collected on case report forms.|Log Rank|Stratified (randomization stratification factors) log-rank test.|Stratified Cox regression models were used to estimate hazard ratio and 2-sided 95% CIs for axicabtagene ciloleucel relative to standard of care therapy. The Breslow method was used to handle the ties for the Cox regression models.|||0.487|0.290|<0.0001
90927497|NCT03391466|181733302|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.422|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.327|0.545|||||Stratified Cox regression models were used to estimate hazard ratio and 2-sided 95% CIs for axicabtagene ciloleucel relative to standard of care therapy. The Breslow method was used to handle the ties for the Cox regression models.|||0.545|0.327|
90927498|NCT03391466|181733303|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.506|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.383|0.669|||||Stratified Cox regression models were used to estimate hazard ratio and 2-sided 95% CIs for axicabtagene ciloleucel relative to standard of care therapy. The Breslow method was used to handle the ties for the Cox regression models.|||0.669|0.383|
90927499|NCT03391466|181733304|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.412|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.318|0.532|||||Stratified Cox regression models were used to estimate hazard ratio and 2-sided 95% CIs for axicabtagene ciloleucel relative to standard of care therapy. The Breslow method was used to handle the ties for the Cox regression models.|||0.532|0.318|
90927500|NCT03391466|181733305|SUPERIORITY||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|18.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.3|23.9||False Discovery Rate Methodology|Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Difference in mean change of scores from Baseline at Day 100.||23.9|12.3|<0.0001
90927501|NCT03391466|181733305|SUPERIORITY||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|9.8||||0.0124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|17.0||False Discovery Rate Methodology|Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Difference in mean change of scores from Baseline at Day 150.||17.0|2.6|0.0124
90927502|NCT03391466|181733305|SUPERIORITY||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|4.4||||0.2655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|12.0||False Discovery Rate Methodology|Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Difference in mean change of scores from Baseline at Month 9.||12.0|-3.3|0.2655
90927503|NCT03391466|181733306|SUPERIORITY||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|13.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|18.2||False Discovery Rate Methodology.|Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Difference in mean change of scores from Baseline at Day 100.||18.2|8.0|<0.0001
90927504|NCT03391466|181733306|SUPERIORITY||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|5.1||||0.1253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|11.0||False Discovery Rate Methodology.|Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Difference in mean change of scores from Baseline at Day 150.||11.0|-0.9|0.1253
90927505|NCT03391466|181733307|SUPERIORITY||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|0.081||||0.0112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.024|0.138||False Discovery Rate Methodology.|Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Difference in mean change of scores from Baseline at Day 100.||0.138|0.024|0.0112
91035279|NCT03086460|181956478|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.019||||0.616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.055|0.092|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.092|-0.055|0.616
90927506|NCT03391466|181733307|SUPERIORITY||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|0.028||||0.3703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.034|0.091||False Discovery Rate Methodology.|Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Difference in mean change of scores from Baseline at Day 150.||0.091|-0.034|0.3703
90927507|NCT03391466|181733308|SUPERIORITY||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|13.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.5|18.8||False Discovery Rate Methodology|Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|Mixed Model with Repeated Measures Differences in Change from Baseline.||Difference in mean change of scores from Baseline at Day 100.||18.8|8.5|<0.0001
90927508|NCT03391466|181733308|SUPERIORITY||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|11.3||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.4|17.1||False Discovery Rate Methodology|Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Difference in mean change of scores from Baseline at Day 150.||17.1|5.4|0.0004
90927509|NCT03391466|181733308|SUPERIORITY||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|3.8||||0.2549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|10.0||False Discovery Rate Methodology.|Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|Mixed Model with Repeated Measures Differences in Change from Baseline.||Difference in mean change of scores from Baseline at Month 9.||10.0|-2.3|0.2549
90927510|NCT00220805|181733313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||The primary efficacy comparison for the change in LogMAR from baseline to endpoint was a two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with treatment group and center as fixed factors (main effect model).||||0.49
90927511|NCT00220805|181733314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted for centers (including a Breslow-Day test for homogeneity of odd ratios across centers)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.76
90927512|NCT00220805|181733315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for centers (including a Breslow-Day test for homogeneity of odd ratios across centers)||||||0.13
90965320|NCT01178333|181812000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.91||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|4.21|||Regression, Cox|||||4.21|0.87|0.11
90927513|NCT00220805|181733316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.19|||ANOVA|||||0.19|-0.21|0.90
90927514|NCT00220805|181733318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted to centers||||||0.74
90927515|NCT03373916|181733337|OTHER|||||||0.58|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.58
90927516|NCT03373916|181733338|OTHER|||||||0.46|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.46
90927517|NCT03373916|181733339|OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.18
90927518|NCT03373916|181733340|OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.29
90927519|NCT03373916|181733341|OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.35
90927520|NCT04098575|181733365|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
90927521|NCT04098575|181733366|OTHER|||||||0.835|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.835
90927522|NCT04098575|181733367|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||Antihypertensive drugs||||<0.001
90927523|NCT04098575|181733367|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||Lipid-lowering agents||||<0.001
90927524|NCT04098575|181733367|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||Antiplatelet, anticoagulant drugs||||<0.001
90927525|NCT04098575|181733367|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||Glucose-lowering therapies||||<0.001
90927526|NCT04098575|181733368|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||Group: \< 65||||<0.001
90965321|NCT01178333|181812001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.8||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|5.22|||Regression, Cox|||||5.22|1.50|0.001
90927527|NCT04098575|181733368|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||Group: 65 ≤ 75||||0.001
90927528|NCT04098575|181733368|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||Group: 75 - 80||||<0.001
90965322|NCT01178333|181812001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.97||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|3.45|||Regression, Cox|||||3.45|1.12|0.02
90927529|NCT04098575|181733368|OTHER||||||<|0.002|||||||Chi-squared|||Group: \> 80||||<0.002
90927530|NCT04098575|181733369|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
90927531|NCT04098575|181733370|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||<0.001
90927532|NCT04098575|181733371|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||<0.001
90927533|NCT04098575|181733372|OTHER|||||||0.475|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.475
90927534|NCT04098575|181733373|OTHER|||||||0.475|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.475
90927535|NCT04098575|181733374|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||Insulin||||<0.001
90927536|NCT04098575|181733374|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||Metformin||||<0.001
90927537|NCT04098575|181733374|OTHER|||||||0.157|||||||Chi-squared|||Acarbose||||0.157
90927538|NCT04098575|181733374|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||Sulfonylurea||||<0.001
90927539|NCT04098575|181733374|OTHER|||||||0.071|||||||Chi-squared|||Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors||||0.071
90927540|NCT04098575|181733374|OTHER|||||||0.317|||||||Chi-squared|||Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonists||||0.317
90927541|NCT04098575|181733374|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||Sodium-glucose transport protein-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors other than empagliflozin||||<0.001
90927542|NCT04098575|181733375|OTHER||||||<|0.002|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.002
90927543|NCT04098575|181733378|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.000
90927544|NCT00391443|181733500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.658|1.097|||Log Rank|||||1.097|0.658|0.2110
90965323|NCT01178333|181812004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is to compare three groups.|Chi-squared|||||||0.72
90927545|NCT00391443|181733501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Relative risk reduction|0.17||||0.2542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.39|||Fisher Exact|||||0.39|-0.13|0.2542
90927546|NCT02890355|181733510|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.23||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.78||a priori threshold for statistical significance, one sided p=0.02|Log Rank|||||1.78|0.85|0.28
90927547|NCT02890355|181733512|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.39||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|2.02|||Log Rank|||||2.02|0.96|0.09
90927548|NCT02379351|181733519|OTHER|This pilot study is primarily descriptive statistics||||||0.1|||||||Chi-squared|Data analysis will use mostly descriptive statistics - parametric and nonparametric statistics will be used as indicated (Chi-squared)||||||.1
90927549|NCT02379351|181733520|NON_INFERIORITY|Likert Scale of Provider Satisfaction|||||<|0.01|||||||Chi-squared|Data analysis will use mostly descriptive statistics: parametric and nonparametric statistics will be used as indicated.|||Likert Scale of Provider Satisfaction|||<0.01
90927550|NCT00195403|181733630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in PGA at Month 3 was evaluated using paired t-test.||||<0.0001
90927551|NCT00195403|181733631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in number of joints with tenderness, pain, and limitation of motion or swelling at Month 3 were evaluated using paired t-test.||||<0.0001
90927552|NCT05288348|181733651|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.57||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.19|11.33||unadjusted|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed methods ANOVA||||11.33|-6.19|0.56
90927553|NCT05288348|181733651|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|9.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed methods ANOVA||Adjusted for age, sex, respiratory rate and injury type||9.48|-10.5|0.92
90927554|NCT05288348|181733652|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.14||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.66|3.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects ANOVA||VNRS @ 60min||3.37|-17.66|0.18
90927555|NCT05288348|181733652|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.92||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|15.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects ANOVA||VNRS @ 60 min Adjusted for sex and injury type||15.10|-9.30|0.63
90927556|NCT05288348|181733652|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.59||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.39|1.21||Unadjusted|Mixed Models Analysis|||VNRS @ 90 min||1.21|-22.39|0.08
90927557|NCT05288348|181733652|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.36||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.13|20.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Method ANOVA|Adjusted for ISS|VNRS @90min adjusted||20.80|-6.13|0.28
90927558|NCT05288348|181733652|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.52||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.6|4.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||VNRS @ 120 min||4.56|-23.60|0.18
90927559|NCT05288348|181733652|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.24||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.7|10.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Method ANOVA||VNRS @ 120min adjusted for sex, HR, RR, and injury type||10.20|-20.70|0.50
90927560|NCT05288348|181733653|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||PGA @ 30 min|Chi-squared|||||||0.005
90927561|NCT05288348|181733654|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.77|1.89|||General Addative Model|||"SPID 30~last observation carried forward (LOCF) imputation technique to fill out the missing values by carrying forward the last observed value"||1.89|-4.77|0.39
90927562|NCT05288348|181733654|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|4.95|||General Additive Model|||"SPID 30, Adjusted Analysis~last observation carried forward (LOCF) imputation technique to fill out the missing values by carrying forward the last observed value"||4.95|-1.50|0.29
90927563|NCT05288348|181733654|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.08||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.63|6.47|||Generalized Additive Model|||SPID @ 60min last observation carried forward (LOCF) imputation technique to fill out the missing values by carrying forward the last observed value||6.47|-6.63|0.98
90927564|NCT05288348|181733654|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.61||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.76|6.98|||Generalized Additive Model|||"SPID 60 Adjusted~Last observed carried forward to address missingness"||6.98|-5.76|0.85
90927565|NCT05288348|181733654|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-1.26||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.75|11.28|||Generalized Additive Model|||SPID @ 90 mn last observation carried forward (LOCF) imputation technique to fill out the missing values by carrying forward the last observed value||11.28|-8.75|0.8
90965324|NCT01178333|181812005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is to compare three groups.|Chi-squared|||||||0.37
90965325|NCT01178333|181812006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is to compare three groups.|Chi-squared|||||||0.02
90965326|NCT01178333|181812007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.58
90927566|NCT05288348|181733654|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.44||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|9.92|||Generalized Additive Model|||"SPID 90 min Adjusted~last observation carried forward (LOCF) imputation technique to fill out the missing values by carrying forward the last observed value"||9.92|-10.2|0.92
90927567|NCT05288348|181733654|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-3.18||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.45|16.9|||Generalized Additive Model|||SPID @ 120 min last observation carried forward (LOCF) imputation technique to fill out the missing values by carrying forward the last observed value||16.90|-10.45|0.64
90927568|NCT05288348|181733654|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-2.15||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.6|11.3|||Generalized Additive Model|||"SPID 120 Adjusted~last observation carried forward (LOCF) imputation technique to fill out the missing values by carrying forward the last observed value"||11.30|-15.60|0.75
90927569|NCT05288348|181733655|SUPERIORITY||z statistic|0.46||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|1.96|||two sided test of proportion|||||1.96|-1.96|0.64
90927570|NCT05288348|181733656|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.22||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|0.66|||General Additive Models|||||0.66|-1.11|0.61
90927571|NCT05288348|181733656|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.28||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|0.65|||General Additive Model|||6 item screener adjusted analysis||0.65|-1.23|0.54
90927572|NCT05288348|181733657|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.35||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|4.46|||Ordinal Polytomous Logisitic Regression|||Healthcare Professional Global Assessment of method of pain control at 30 min.||4.46|1.24|0.009
90927573|NCT05288348|181733657|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.24||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|4.29|||Ordinal polytomous logistic regression|||Healthcare Professional Global Assessment of method of pain control at 30 min. adjusted for ISS and Race||4.29|1.18|0.01
90927574|NCT05288348|181733658|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|4.26|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.26|0.22|0.96
90927575|NCT05288348|181733658|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|5.04|||||Adjusted for age, sex and SpO2|||5.04|0.17|
90927576|NCT05288348|181733659|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|24.92||||||||24.92|0.04|
90927577|NCT05288348|181733659|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|14.28|||||Adjusted for Heart Rate and Injury Severity Score|||14.28|0|
90927578|NCT05288348|181733660|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|8.37||||||||8.37|0.39|
90927579|NCT05288348|181733660|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|8.6|||||Adjusted for SpO2|||8.60|0.39|
90927580|NCT05288348|181733662|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|5.12||||||||5.12|0.02|
90927581|NCT05288348|181733662|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|4.56|||||Adjusted for heart rate|||4.56|0.02|
90927582|NCT05288348|181733663|SUPERIORITY||difference of proportion|0.135|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.99
90927583|NCT05288348|181733664|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.61|||Regression, Cox|||||1.61|0.69|0.90
90927584|NCT05288348|181733664|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.81|||Regression, Cox|||Adjusted for Race and ISS||1.81|0.75|0.48
90927585|NCT05288348|181733666|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.15|||Non parametric General Addative Model|||||0.15|-0.15|0.99
90927586|NCT05288348|181733666|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.01||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.15|||Non Parametric General Additive Model|||Adjusted||0.15|-0.16|0.96
90927587|NCT05288348|181733667|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.01||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.16|||Non Parametric General Additive Model|||||0.16|-0.17|0.84
90927588|NCT05288348|181733667|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.02||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.16|||Non Parametric Generalized Additive Mode|||Adjusted||0.16|-0.19|0.84
90927589|NCT05288348|181733668|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.02||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.22|||Non Parametric Generalized Additive Mode|||||0.22|-0.17|0.81
90927590|NCT05288348|181733668|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.01||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.22|||Non Parametric Generalized Additive Mode|||Adjusted||0.22|-0.20|0.91
90927591|NCT05288348|181733669|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.03||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.18|||Non Parametric Generalized Additive Mode|||||0.18|-0.25|0.74
90927592|NCT05288348|181733669|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.05||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.18|||Non Parametric Generalized Additive Mode|||Adjusted||0.18|-0.30|0.63
90927593|NCT00003222|181733683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||This is a test for differences between the response rates of the two arms. The null hypothesis is that the arms have equal response rates and the alternative hypothesis is that they are different.||||0.13
90927594|NCT00003222|181733684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||This is a test for differences between the response rates of the two arms. The null hypothesis is that the arms have equal response rates and the alternative hypothesis is that they are different.||||0.004
90927595|NCT02879318|181733752|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.71|1.25||a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.1.|Log Rank|stratified by ECOG performance status and prior adjuvant therapy.||||1.25|0.71|0.72
90927596|NCT02879318|181733753|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.75|1.29|||Log Rank|||||1.29|0.75|0.91
90927597|NCT02879318|181733754|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|2.72|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|stratified by ECOG performance status and prior adjuvant chemotherapy||||2.72|0.81|0.28
90927598|NCT02382003|181733755|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|10.73||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|||||=Positive\~No-training, 0.030=Positive\~50/50 training, 0.833=50/50\~No-training Alpha = .05|Likelihood Ratio Tests|2=df Positive\~No-training, 2=df Positive\~50/50 training, 2=df 50/50\~No-training|=Positive\~No-training, 7.053=Positive\~50/50 training, 0.366=50/50\~No-training|Effect of CBM-I condition: The main effect of CBM-I was represented by three binary variables in the main effect models (Positive vs. No-training control; 50/50 vs. No- training control; Positive vs. 50/50). Due to high attrition, latent growth curve modeling was used instead of the planned approach (mixed effects models with multiple imputation of missing values) to minimize bias due to missing data estimation. Because omnibus tests were not run, results for all comparisons are listed below.||||0.005
90965327|NCT01178333|181812008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.66
90965328|NCT01178333|181812009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is to compare three groups.|Chi-squared|||||||<0.01
90887483|NCT00489970|181637835|NON_INFERIORITY|One month after vaccination, the lower limit of the 97.5% CI for the difference between groups in the booster response rate \[a second dose of Boostrix (Adacel group) minus the first dose of Boostrix (Control group)\] against PT antigen was greater than or equal to -10% (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Difference in booster response rate|-1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-10.03|5.57|||||Standardized asymptotic 97.5% CI for the group difference in the Booster response was calculated.|To demonstrate that the immune response elicited by a second dose of Boostrix vaccine (Adacel group) was non-inferior to the immune response elicited by a first dose of Boostrix vaccine (Control group), with respect to booster response against PT antigen, one month following vaccination.||5.57|-10.03|
90887484|NCT00489970|181637835|NON_INFERIORITY|One month after vaccination, the lower limit of the 97.5% CI for the difference between groups in the booster response rate \[a second dose of Boostrix (Adacel group) minus the first dose of Boostrix (Control group)\] against FHA antigen was greater than or equal to -10% (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Difference in booster response rate|4.01|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.38|8.66|||||Standardized asymptotic 97.5% CI for the group difference in the Booster response was calculated.|To demonstrate that the immune response elicited by a second dose of Boostrix vaccine (Adacel group) was non-inferior to the immune response elicited by a first dose of Boostrix vaccine (Control group), with respect to booster response against FHA antigen, one month following vaccination.||8.66|-2.38|
90887485|NCT00489970|181637835|NON_INFERIORITY|One month after vaccination, the lower limit of the 97.5% CI for the difference between groups in the booster response rate \[a second dose of Boostrix (Adacel group) minus the first dose of Boostrix (Control group)\] against PRN antigen was greater than or equal to -10% (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Difference in booster response|-4.76|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-14.53|3.18|||||Standardized asymptotic 97.5% CI for the group difference in the Booster response was calculated.|To demonstrate that the immune response elicited by a second dose of Boostrix vaccine (Adacel group) was non-inferior to the immune response elicited by a first dose of Boostrix vaccine (Control group), with respect to booster response against PRN antigen, one month following vaccination.||3.18|-14.53|
90887486|NCT02212028|181637860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|68.0||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|126.0|||ANOVA|||||126|10|0.022
90887487|NCT02212028|181637861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.005
90887488|NCT02646423|181637870|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.05||||||||1.05|0.84|
90887489|NCT02646423|181637871|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.16||||||||1.16|0.86|
90887490|NCT02646423|181637872|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.19||||||||0.19|-0.16|
90887491|NCT02646423|181637873|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|1.05||||||||1.05|-1.81|
90927599|NCT02382003|181733755|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.449||||0.799|TWO_SIDED|||||=Neutral\~Anxiety prime Alpha = .05|Likelihood Ratio Tests|2=df Neutral\~Anxiety prime|=Neutral\~Anxiety prime|Effect of Imagery Prime Type: The main effect of imagery prime was represented by one binary variable (neutral vs. anxiety imagery). Due to high attrition, latent growth curve modeling was used instead of the planned approach (mixed effects models with multiple imputation of missing values) to minimize bias due to missing data estimation. Because omnibus tests were not run, results for all comparisons are listed below.||||0.799
90927600|NCT02382003|181733755|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|9.085||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|||||=No-train+Neut\~Pos+Anx, 0.026=No-train+Neut\~Pos+Neut, 0.094=No-train+Anx\~Pos+Anx, 0.170=No-train+Anx\~Pos+Neut, No-train(all)\~50/50(all)≥ 0.136|Likelihood Ratio Tests|2=all df|=No-train+Neut\~Pos+Anx, 7.328=No-train+Neut\~Pos+Neut, 4.722=No-train+Anx\~Pos+Anx, 3.547=No-train+Anx\~Pos+Neut, No-train(all)\~50/50(all)≤3.988|Effect of CBM-I condition and Imagery Prime Type interaction: Each cell of the interaction was represented by one of 5 binary variables, set to 1 if a participant was in that group, and 0 otherwise; the sixth group (No-training + neutral prime) was considered a reference group, and was represented by all variables being 0. Due to high attrition, latent growth curve modeling was used instead of the planned approach. Because omnibus tests were not run, results for all comparisons are listed below.||||0.011
90887492|NCT02646423|181637874|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|1.27||||||||1.27|-1.96|
90887493|NCT02646423|181637875|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|1.66||||||||1.66|-0.94|
90887494|NCT02646423|181637876|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.03||||||||0.03|-0.09|
90887495|NCT02646423|181637877|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.51||||||||1.51|0.46|
90887496|NCT02646423|181637878|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.56||||||||1.56|0.64|
90887497|NCT02646423|181637879|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|2.81||||||||2.81|0.64|
90887498|NCT02646423|181637880|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|6.62||||||||6.62|0.60|
90887499|NCT02646423|181637881|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.35||||||||1.35|0.72|
90887500|NCT02646423|181637882|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.48||||||||1.48|0.86|
90887501|NCT04564833|181637885|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
90887502|NCT04564833|181637885|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
90887503|NCT04564833|181637886|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3954|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3954
90887504|NCT04564833|181637886|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0682|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0682
90887505|NCT04564833|181637887|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6755|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6755
90887506|NCT04564833|181637887|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6758|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6758
90887507|NCT04564833|181637888|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.9999
90887508|NCT04564833|181637888|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.9999
90887509|NCT00321919|181637906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.778976||||0.2036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.14|||Regression, Cox||The Cox regression model was used to estimate the relative risk of the time to first cardiovascular event in Late Epoetin beta therapy group compared to the Early Epoetin beta therapy group.|The null hypothesis stated that there was no difference with regard to the event-free distribution of the combined endpoint of all protocol specified cardiovascular events between Early Epoetin beta therapy and Late Epoetin beta therapy groups.||1.14|0.53|0.2036
90887510|NCT00321919|181637907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.744575||||0.4833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.7|||Regression, Cox||The Cox regression model was used to estimate the relative risk of an event of the time to death due to cardiovascular reasons in Late Epoetin beta therapy group compared to the Early Epoetin beta therapy group.|||1.70|0.33|0.4833
91035280|NCT03086460|181956478|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.046||||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.026|0.118|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.118|-0.026|0.212
90887511|NCT00321919|181637909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.658259||||0.1391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.15|||Regression, Cox||The Cox regression model was used to estimate the relative risk of the time to death for all causes in Late Epoetin beta therapy group compared to the Early Epoetin beta therapy treatment group.|||1.15|0.38|0.1391
90887512|NCT00321919|181637912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.804594||||0.4985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.51|||Regression, Cox||The Cox regression model was used to estimate the relative risk of time to first cardiovascular intervention in Late Epoetin beta therapy group compared to the Early Epoetin beta therapy group|||1.51|0.43|0.4985
90887513|NCT00321919|181637914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.82046||||0.3419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.23|||Regression, Cox||The Cox regression model was used to estimate the relative risk of the time to first hospitalization for cardiovascular reasons in Late Epoetin beta therapy group compared to the Early Epoetin beta therapy group.|||1.23|0.55|0.3419
90887514|NCT00321919|181637921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Mean Change from Baseline in the Score of General health scale of Quality of life for Year 1.||||0.0029
90887515|NCT00321919|181637921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0081|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Mean Change from Baseline in the Score of General health scale of Quality of life for Year 2||||0.0081
90887516|NCT00321919|181637921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Mean Change from Baseline in the Score of Mental health scale of Quality of life for Year 1||||0.0005
90887517|NCT00321919|181637921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0965|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Mean Change from Baseline in the Score of Mental Health scale of Quality of life for Year 2||||0.0965
90887518|NCT00321919|181637921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Mean Change from Baseline in the Score of Physical function scale of Quality of life for Year 1||||0.0004
90887519|NCT00321919|181637921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9864|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Mean Change from Baseline in the Score of Physical function scale of Quality of life for Year 2||||0.9864
90927601|NCT02382003|181733756|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|11.551||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|||||"=Positive\~No-training, 0.130=Positive\~50/50 training, 0.269=50/50\~No-training~Alpha = .05"|Likelihood Ratio Tests|2=Positive\~No-training, 2=Positive\~50/50 training, 2=50/50\~No-training|=Positive\~No-training, 4.075=Positive\~50/50 training, 2.630=50/50\~No-training|Effect of CBM-I condition: The main effect of CBM-I was represented by three binary variables in the main effect models (Positive vs. No-training control; 50/50 vs. No- training control; Positive vs. 50/50). Due to high attrition, latent growth curve modeling was used instead of the planned approach (mixed effects models with multiple imputation of missing values) to minimize bias due to missing data estimation. Because omnibus tests were not run, results for all comparisons are listed below.||||0.003
90927602|NCT02382003|181733756|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.933||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha = .05|Likelihood Ratio Tests|2=df Neutral\~Anxiety prime||Effect of Imagery Prime Type: The main effect of imagery prime was represented by one binary variable (neutral vs. anxiety imagery). Due to high attrition, latent growth curve modeling was used instead of the planned approach (mixed effects models with multiple imputation of missing values) to minimize bias due to missing data estimation. Because omnibus tests were not run, results for all comparisons are listed below.||||0.140
90965329|NCT01178333|181812010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.48||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|4.55|||Regression, Cox|||||4.55|1.35|0.003
90887520|NCT00321919|181637921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0097|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Mean Change from Baseline in the Score of Physical Role scale of Quality of life for Year 1||||0.0097
90887521|NCT00321919|181637921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.167|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Mean Change from Baseline in the Score of Physical Role scale of Quality of life for Year 2||||0.1670
90887522|NCT00321919|181637921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Mean Change from Baseline in the Score of Social function scale of Quality of life for Year 1||||0.0058
90887523|NCT00321919|181637921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1455|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Mean Change from Baseline in the Score of Social function scale of Quality of life for Year 2||||0.1455
90887524|NCT00321919|181637921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Mean Change from Baseline in the Score of Vitality function scale of Quality of life for Year 1||||0.0009
90887525|NCT00321919|181637921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0123|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Mean Change from Baseline in the Score of Vitality function scale of Quality of life for Year 2||||0.0123
90887526|NCT00321919|181637921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3155|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Mean Change from Baseline in the Score of Bodily pain scale of Quality of life for Year 1||||0.3155
90887527|NCT00321919|181637921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7076|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Mean Change from Baseline in the Score of Bodily pain scale of Quality of life for Year 2||||0.7076
90887528|NCT00321919|181637921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1291|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Mean Change from Baseline in the Score of Emotional role scale of Quality of life for Year 1||||0.1291
90887529|NCT00321919|181637921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5528|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Mean Change from Baseline in the Score of Emotional role scale of Quality of life for Year 2||||0.5528
90887530|NCT00996996|181637931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|95.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|90.0|100.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with a confirmed response.|||100|90|
90887531|NCT00996996|181637932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|97.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.0|100.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with a response.|||100|94|
90887532|NCT00996996|181637933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|70.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.0|80.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with a confirmed CR.|||80|59|
90887533|NCT00996996|181637933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|6.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with a confirmed CCR.|||6|0|
90887534|NCT00996996|181637933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|75.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.0|85.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with confirmed CR + confirmed CCR.|||85|65|
90887535|NCT00996996|181637933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|17.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.0|26.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with a confirmed PR.|||26|9|
90965330|NCT01178333|181812010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.66||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|2.85|||Regression, Cox|||||2.85|0.96|0.07
90965331|NCT01178333|181812012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is to compare three groups.|Chi-squared|||||||<0.01
90965332|NCT01178333|181812013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.49|||Regression, Cox|||||1.49|0.56|0.72
91035281|NCT03086460|181956479|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.034||||0.361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.039|0.106|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~This secondary efficacy variable was analyzed using the ANCOVA model that was also used for the primary efficacy analysis, without adjusting for multiplicity."||0.106|-0.039|0.361
91035282|NCT03086460|181956479|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.065||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.009|0.138|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.138|-0.009|0.085
90965333|NCT01178333|181812013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.24|||Regression, Cox|||||1.24|0.54|0.34
90887536|NCT00996996|181637934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|74.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.0|84.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with a CR.|||84|64|
90965334|NCT01241552|181812020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference|-1.7||||0.3182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|5.5||One sided p-value based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by SOC therapy (metronidazole vs. vancomycin vs. fidaxomicin) and hospitalization status (inpatient vs. outpatient).|Miettinen and Nurminen||Adjusted Difference: MK-3415 + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||5.5|-8.6|0.3182
90971265|NCT01534533|181825238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two sides)|Chi-squared|||"The null hypothesis was no group difference"||||>0.05
91035283|NCT03086460|181956479|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.036||||0.328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.037|0.109|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.109|-0.037|0.328
90887537|NCT00996996|181637934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|8.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with a CCR.|||8|0|
90887538|NCT00996996|181637934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|78.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.0|87.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with a CR + CCR.|||87|68|
90887539|NCT00996996|181637934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|29.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with a PR.|||29|11|
90887540|NCT01227889|181637960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.6||The p value from a stratified log-rank test was adjusted for disease stage at screening.|Log Rank||HRs were estimated using a Pike estimator. HR from a stratified log-rank test was adjusted for disease stage at screening.|||0.60|0.26|<0.0001
90887541|NCT01227889|181637961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.61|||||HRs were estimated using a Pike estimator. HR was adjusted for disease stage at screening.|||0.61|0.20|
90887542|NCT01227889|181637962|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.18|||||HRs were estimated using a Pike estimator. HR was adjusted for disease stage at screening.|||1.18|0.57|
90887543|NCT02203019|181637972|EQUIVALENCE|Outcome comparison used the Mann Whitney U test||||||0.107|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.107
90887544|NCT02203019|181637973|EQUIVALENCE|Outcomes were compared using a Mann Whitney U test.||||||0.26|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.260
90887545|NCT02203019|181637974|EQUIVALENCE|Outcomes were compared using a Mann Whitney U test.||||||0.376|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.376
90887546|NCT02203019|181637975|EQUIVALENCE|Outcomes were compared using a Chi square test.||||||0.739|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.739
90887547|NCT01148810|181637976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Bayesian analysis|0.96|||||||||||||||Probability that the difference (BAF312-Placebo) is greater than the threshold|||
90965335|NCT01241552|181812020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference|-10.1||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.9|-4.3||One sided p-value based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by SOC therapy (metronidazole vs. vancomycin vs. fidaxomicin) and hospitalization status (inpatient vs. outpatient).|Miettinen and Nurminen||Adjusted Difference: MK-6072 + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||-4.3|-15.9|0.0003
90965336|NCT01241552|181812020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference|-11.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.4|-5.9||One sided p-value based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by SOC therapy (metronidazole vs. vancomycin vs. fidaxomicin) and hospitalization status (inpatient vs. outpatient).|Miettinen and Nurminen||Adjusted Difference: MK-3415A + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||-5.9|-17.4|< 0.0001
90965337|NCT01241552|181812020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference|-9.9||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.9|-3.4||One sided p-value based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by SOC therapy (metronidazole vs. vancomycin vs. fidaxomicin) and hospitalization status (inpatient vs. outpatient).|Miettinen and Nurminen||Adjusted Difference: MK-3415A + SOC - MK-3415 + SOC|||-3.4|-16.9|0.0013
90965338|NCT01241552|181812020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference|-1.4||||0.2997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|3.9||One sided p-value based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by SOC therapy (metronidazole vs. vancomycin vs. fidaxomicin) and hospitalization status (inpatient vs. outpatient).|Miettinen and Nurminen||Adjusted Difference: MK-3415A + SOC - MK-6072 + SOC|||3.9|-6.7|0.2997
90965339|NCT01241552|181812021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference|-8.3||||0.9775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|-0.2||One sided p-value based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by SOC therapy (metronidazole vs. vancomycin vs. fidaxomicin) and hospitalization status (inpatient vs. outpatient).|Miettinen and Nurminen||Adjusted Difference: MK-3415 + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||-0.2|-16.3|0.9775
90965340|NCT01241552|181812021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference|4.8||||0.0861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|11.7||One sided p-value based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by SOC therapy (metronidazole vs. vancomycin vs. fidaxomicin) and hospitalization status (inpatient vs. outpatient).|Miettinen and Nurminen||Adjusted Difference: MK-6072 + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||11.7|-2.1|0.0861
90965341|NCT01241552|181812021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference|3.5||||0.1646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|10.4||One sided p-value based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by SOC therapy (metronidazole vs. vancomycin vs. fidaxomicin) and hospitalization status (inpatient vs. outpatient).|Miettinen and Nurminen||Adjusted Difference: MK-3415A + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||10.4|-3.5|0.1646
90965342|NCT01241552|181812021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference|11.7||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|19.7||One sided p-value based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by SOC therapy (metronidazole vs. vancomycin vs. fidaxomicin) and hospitalization status (inpatient vs. outpatient).|Miettinen and Nurminen||Adjusted Difference: MK-3415A + SOC - MK-3415 + SOC|||19.7|3.5|0.0025
90965343|NCT01241552|181812021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference|-1.4||||0.6532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|5.5||One sided p-value based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by SOC therapy (metronidazole vs. vancomycin vs. fidaxomicin) and hospitalization status (inpatient vs. outpatient).|Miettinen and Nurminen||Adjusted Difference: MK-3415A + SOC - MK-6072 + SOC|||5.5|-8.3|0.6532
90965344|NCT01241552|181812022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference|1.7||||0.6505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|10.7||One sided p-value based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by SOC therapy (metronidazole vs. vancomycin vs. fidaxomicin) and hospitalization status (inpatient vs. outpatient).|Miettinen and Nurminen||Adjusted Difference: MK-3415 + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||10.7|-6.9|0.6505
90965345|NCT01241552|181812022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference|-10.8||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|-3.8||One sided p-value based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by SOC therapy (metronidazole vs. vancomycin vs. fidaxomicin) and hospitalization status (inpatient vs. outpatient).|Miettinen and Nurminen||Adjusted Difference: MK-6072 + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||-3.8|-17.7|0.0013
90965346|NCT01241552|181812022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference|-11.7||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.6|-4.7||One sided p-value based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by SOC therapy (metronidazole vs. vancomycin vs. fidaxomicin) and hospitalization status (inpatient vs. outpatient).|Miettinen and Nurminen||Adjusted Difference: MK-3415A + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||-4.7|-18.6|0.0006
90965347|NCT01241552|181812022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference|-13.7||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.5|-5.2||One sided p-value based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by SOC therapy (metronidazole vs. vancomycin vs. fidaxomicin) and hospitalization status (inpatient vs. outpatient).|Miettinen and Nurminen||Adjusted Difference: MK-3415A + SOC - MK-3415 + SOC|||-5.2|-22.5|0.0007
90965348|NCT01241552|181812022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference|-1.0||||0.3906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|5.8||One sided p-value based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by SOC therapy (metronidazole vs. vancomycin vs. fidaxomicin) and hospitalization status (inpatient vs. outpatient).|Miettinen and Nurminen||Adjusted Difference: MK-3415A + SOC - MK-6072 + SOC|||5.8|-7.7|0.3906
90965349|NCT01241552|181812023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|5.2||||0.185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|12.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Percentage Difference: MK-3415 + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||12.8|-2.5|0.185
90965350|NCT01241552|181812023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|3.4||||0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|10.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Percentage Difference: MK-6072 + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||10.1|-3.3|0.323
90965351|NCT01241552|181812023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|-2.3||||0.507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|4.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Percentage Difference: MK-3415A + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||4.5|-9.1|0.507
90965352|NCT01241552|181812024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|2.2||||0.246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|6.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Percentage Difference: MK-3415 + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||6.7|-1.5|0.246
90965353|NCT01241552|181812024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|3.2||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|6.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Percentage Difference: MK-6072 + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||6.8|-0.3|0.069
90971266|NCT01534533|181825239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.992||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two sides)|ANOVA|||"The null hypothesis was no group difference"||||0.992
90965354|NCT01241552|181812024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|1.2||||0.464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|4.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Percentage Difference: MK-3415A + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||4.6|-2.1|0.464
90965355|NCT01241552|181812025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|7.7||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|14.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Percentage Difference: MK-3415 + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||14.7|0.9|0.027
90965356|NCT01241552|181812025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|1.5||||0.594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|7.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Percentage Difference: MK-6072 + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||7.2|-4.1|0.594
90965357|NCT01241552|181812025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|-5.3||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|0.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Percentage Difference: MK-3415A + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||0.0|-10.6|0.051
90965358|NCT01241552|181812026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|1.0||||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|3.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Percentage Difference: MK-3415 + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||3.5|-0.3|0.115
90965359|NCT01241552|181812026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.8||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|2.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Percentage Difference: MK-6072 + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||2.4|-0.5|0.170
90965360|NCT01241552|181812026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.3||||0.544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Percentage Difference: MK-3415A + SOC - Placeb + SOC|||1.6|-0.9|0.544
90965361|NCT01241552|181812027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.4||||0.192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|2.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Percentage Difference: MK-3415 + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||2.4|-0.5|0.192
90965362|NCT01241552|181812027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.3||||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Percentage Difference: MK-6072 + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||1.4|-0.7|0.311
90965363|NCT01241552|181812027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Percentage Difference: MK-3415A + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||1.0|-1.0|> 0.999
90965364|NCT01241552|181812028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|8.7|||||Percentage Difference: MK-3415 + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||8.7|-1.0|
90965365|NCT01241552|181812028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|8.5|||||Percentage Difference: MK-6072 + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||8.5|0.2|
90965366|NCT01241552|181812028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|5.2|||||Percentage Difference: MK-3415A + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||5.2|-2.6|
90965367|NCT01241552|181812029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|-6.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.8|3.5|||||Percentage Difference: MK-3415 + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||3.5|-16.8|
90965368|NCT01241552|181812029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|-18.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.3|-9.6|||||Percentage Difference: MK-6072 + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||-9.6|-26.3|
90965369|NCT01241552|181812029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|-16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.5|-7.7|||||Percentage Difference: MK-3415A + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||-7.7|-24.5|
90965370|NCT01241552|181812030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|-6.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.1|8.6|||||Percentage Difference: MK-3415 + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||8.6|-20.1|
90965371|NCT01241552|181812030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|-13.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.5|-0.5|||||Percentage Difference: MK-6072 + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||-0.5|-25.5|
90965372|NCT01241552|181812030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|-14.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.8|-1.6|||||Percentage Difference: MK-3415A + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||-1.6|-26.8|
90965373|NCT01241552|181812031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.9|21.0|||||Percentage Difference: MK-3415 + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||21.0|-16.9|
90965374|NCT01241552|181812031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|-14.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.3|-1.4|||||Percentage Difference: MK-6072 + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||-1.4|-28.3|
90965375|NCT01241552|181812031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|-12.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.2|1.9|||||Percentage Difference: MK-3415A + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||1.9|-26.2|
90965376|NCT01241552|181812032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|-10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.1|10.0|||||Percentage Difference: MK-6072 + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||10.0|-30.1|
90965377|NCT01241552|181812032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|-25.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.7|-6.1|||||Percentage Difference: MK-3415A + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||-6.1|-43.7|
90965378|NCT01241552|181812033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|-11.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.9|3.9|||||Percentage Difference: MK-3415 + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||3.9|-24.9|
90965379|NCT01241552|181812033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|-12.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.7|-0.5|||||Percentage Difference: MK-6072 + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||-0.5|-24.7|
90965380|NCT01241552|181812033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|-16.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.8|-4.0|||||Percentage Difference: MK-3415A + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||-4.0|-27.8|
90965381|NCT01241552|181812034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|-10.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.2|4.6|||||Percentage Difference: MK-3415 + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||4.6|-23.2|
90965382|NCT01241552|181812034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|-11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.2|1.4|||||Percentage Difference: MK-6072 + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||1.4|-23.2|
90965383|NCT01241552|181812034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|-16.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.4|-4.7|||||Percentage Difference: MK-3415A + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||-4.7|-28.4|
90965384|NCT00718549|181812041|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.028
90965385|NCT00718549|181812041|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.418||||0.033||95.0|0.187|0.933|||Cox's proportional hazards regression|||Univariate comparison||0.933|0.187|0.033
90965386|NCT00718549|181812041|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.052||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|1.972|||Cox's proportional hazards model|||Multivariate Comparison||1.972|0.001|0.111
90965387|NCT00718549|181812042|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.654||||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.674|28.337|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 129: Univariate Comparison||28.337|0.674|0.155
90965388|NCT00718549|181812043|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.625||||0.634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.073|4.114|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 129: Univariate comparison||4.114|0.073|0.634
90965389|NCT00718549|181812044|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.769||||0.752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.151|3.92|||Cox's proportional hazards model|||Multivariate Comparison: Age \<60 years versus Age \>/=60 years||3.920|0.151|0.752
90965390|NCT00718549|181812044|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.068||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.002|2.158|||Cox's proportional hazards model|||Multivariate Comparison: Sex: Female versus Male||2.158|0.002|0.128
90965391|NCT00718549|181812044|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.282||||0.728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.022|240.864|||Cox's proportional hazards model|||Multivariate Comparison: Rai Stage: I or II versus Rai Stage: III or IV||240.864|0.022|0.728
90965392|NCT00718549|181812044|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|26.275||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.036|666.708|||Cox's proportional hazards model|||Multivariate Comparison: Beta-2-Microglobulin \>/= Median Value versus Beta-2-Microglobulin \<Median Value||666.708|1.036|0.048
90965393|NCT00718549|181812044|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.21||||0.417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.005|9.1|||Cox's proportional hazards model|||Multivariate Comparison: ZAP-70 Expression Negative versus Positive||9.100|0.005|0.417
90965394|NCT00718549|181812044|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.197||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.024|1.647|||Cox's proportional hazards model|||Multivariate Comparison: CD38 Expression Negative versus Positive||1.647|0.024|0.134
90965395|NCT00718549|181812044|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|8.373||||0.426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.045|1568.717|||Cox's proportional hazards model|||Multivariate Comparison: Cytogenetic abnormality 17p No versus Yes||1568.717|0.045|0.426
90965396|NCT00718549|181812044|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.438||||0.733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|50.334|||Cox's proportional hazards model|||Multivariate Comparison: Cytogenetic abnormality 13q No versus Yes||50.334|0.004|0.733
90965397|NCT00718549|181812044|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.621||||0.463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|34.422|||Cox's proportional hazards model|||Multivariate Comparison: Cytogenetic abnormality 11q No versus Yes||34.422|0.200|0.463
90965398|NCT00718549|181812044|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.288||||0.397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.016|5.122|||Cox's proportional hazards model|||Multivariate Comparison: Cytogenetic abnormality 12q No versus Yes||5.122|0.016|0.397
90965399|NCT00718549|181812045|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.982||||0.969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.393|2.531|||Regression, Logistic|||Univariate Comparison: Age \<60 years versus Age \>/=60 years||2.531|0.393|0.969
90965400|NCT00718549|181812045|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.552||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.183|1.488|||Regression, Logistic|||Univariate Comparison: Sex: Female versus Male||1.488|0.183|0.260
90965401|NCT00718549|181812045|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.465||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.177|1.242|||Regression, Logistic|||Univariate Comparison: Rai Stage: I or II versus Rai Stage: III or IV||1.242|0.177|0.121
90965402|NCT00718549|181812045|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.374||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.137|0.957|||Regression, Logistic|||Univariate Comparison: Beta-2-Microglobulin \>/= Median Value versus Beta-2-Microglobulin \<Median Value||0.957|0.137|0.045
90965403|NCT00718549|181812045|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.809||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.655|163.316|||Regression, Logistic|||Univariate Comparison: ZAP-70 Expression Negative versus Positive||163.316|1.655|0.040
90965404|NCT00718549|181812045|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.921||||0.887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.287|2.851|||Regression, Logistic|||Univariate Comparison: CD38 Expression Negative versus Positive||2.851|0.287|0.887
90965405|NCT00718549|181812045|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.932||||0.936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.186|6.839|||Regression, Logistic|||Univariate Comparison: Cytogenetic abnormality 17p No versus Yes||6.839|0.186|0.936
90965406|NCT00718549|181812045|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.88||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.719|5.012|||Regression, Logistic|||Univariate Comparison: Cytogenetic abnormality 13q No versus Yes||5.012|0.719|0.199
90965407|NCT00718549|181812045|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.668||||0.375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.566|5.649|||Regression, Logistic|||Univariate Comparison: Cytogenetic abnormality 11q No versus Yes||5.649|0.566|0.375
90965408|NCT00718549|181812045|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.957||||0.961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.173|7.275|||Regression, Logistic|||Univariate Comparison: Cytogenetic abnormality 12q No versus Yes||7.275|0.173|0.961
90887548|NCT02165722|181637990|OTHER|Chi-square tests performed to test for differences in cumulative HPV series initiation vaccination rates from baseline to post-intervention.|||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance for two-sided tests was set at a type I error (alpha) equal to 0.05.|Chi-squared|Chi-square tests performed to test for differences in cumulative HPV series initiation vaccination rates from baseline to post-intervention.||||||<0.001
90887549|NCT02165722|181637990|OTHER|Chi-square tests performed to test for differences in cumulative HPV series initiation vaccination rates from baseline to post-intervention.|||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance for two-sided tests was set at a type I error (alpha) equal to 0.05.|Chi-squared|Chi-square tests performed to test for differences in cumulative HPV series initiation vaccination rates from baseline to post-intervention.||||||<0.001
90887550|NCT02165722|181637990|OTHER|Chi-square tests performed to test for differences in cumulative HPV series initiation vaccination rates from baseline to post-intervention between intervention and control clinics.|||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance for two-sided tests was set at a type I error (alpha) equal to 0.05.|Chi-squared|||Chi-square tests performed to test for differences in cumulative HPV series initiation vaccination rates from baseline to post-intervention between intervention and control clinics.||||<0.001
90887551|NCT02165722|181637990|OTHER|Chi-square tests performed to test for differences in cumulative HPV series initiation vaccination rates from baseline to post-intervention between intervention and control clinics.|||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance for two-sided tests was set at a type I error (alpha) equal to 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
90887552|NCT02165722|181637991|OTHER|Chi-square tests performed to test for differences in cumulative HPV series completion vaccination rates from baseline to post-intervention.||||||0.001||||||Statistical significance for two-sided tests was set at a type I error (alpha) equal to 0.05.|Chi-squared|Chi-square tests performed to test for differences in cumulative HPV series completion vaccination rates from baseline to post-intervention.||||||0.001
90887553|NCT02165722|181637991|OTHER|Chi-square tests performed to test for differences in cumulative HPV series completion vaccination rates from baseline to post-intervention.|||||>|0.05||||||Statistical significance for two-sided tests was set at a type I error (alpha) equal to 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
90887554|NCT02165722|181637991|OTHER|Chi-square tests performed to test for differences in cumulative HPV series completion vaccination rates from baseline to post-intervention between intervention and control clinics.|||||>|0.05||||||Statistical significance for two-sided tests was set at a type I error (alpha) equal to 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
90887555|NCT02165722|181637991|OTHER|Chi-square tests performed to test for differences in cumulative HPV series completion vaccination rates from baseline to post-intervention between intervention and control clinics.|||||>|0.05||||||Statistical significance for two-sided tests was set at a type I error (alpha) equal to 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
90887556|NCT02731131|181638000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.30
90887557|NCT02731131|181638002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.22
90887558|NCT02731131|181638003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.30
90887559|NCT02731131|181638004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.30
90887560|NCT02731131|181638005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.50
90887561|NCT02509624|181638022|OTHER||%Geometric least-square mean(GLSM) ratio|105.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.08|143.23||||||AUCinf of selonsertib||143.23|77.08|
90887562|NCT02509624|181638022|OTHER||% GLSM ratio|142.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|120.52|168.84||||||AUCinf of selonsertib||168.84|120.52|
90965409|NCT00718549|181812046|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.237|10.189|||Regression, Logistic|||Univariate Comparison: Age \<60 years versus Age \>/=60 years||10.189|0.237|0.768
90887563|NCT02509624|181638022|OTHER||% GLSM ratio|110.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.99|140.49||||||AUCinf of selonsertib||140.49|86.99|
90887564|NCT02509624|181638022|OTHER||% GLSM ratio|62.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|43.84|87.81||||||AUCinf of GS-607509||87.81|43.84|
90887565|NCT02509624|181638022|OTHER||% GLSM ratio|66.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|36.72|120.21||||||AUCinf of GS-607509||120.21|36.72|
90887566|NCT02509624|181638022|OTHER||% GLSM ratio|103.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|51.75|206.83||||||AUCinf of GS-607509||206.83|51.75|
90887567|NCT02509624|181638023|OTHER||% GLSM ratio|99.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|73.38|135.92||||||AUClast of selonsertib||135.92|73.38|
90887568|NCT02509624|181638023|OTHER||% GLSM ratio|141.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|118.5|169.55||||||AUClast of selonsertib||169.55|118.50|
90887569|NCT02509624|181638023|OTHER||% GLSM ratio|112.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.69|143.65||||||AUClast of selonsertib||143.65|87.69|
90887570|NCT02509624|181638023|OTHER||% GLSM ratio|61.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|43.06|86.98||||||AUClast of GS-607509||86.98|43.06|
90887571|NCT02509624|181638023|OTHER||% GLSM ratio|61.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|33.62|110.91||||||AUClast of GS-607509||110.91|33.62|
90887572|NCT02509624|181638023|OTHER||% GLSM ratio|96.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|48.47|190.67||||||AUClast of GS-607509||190.67|48.47|
90887573|NCT02509624|181638024|OTHER||% GLSM ratio|88.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.83|105.1||||||Cmax of selonsertib||105.10|74.83|
90887574|NCT02509624|181638024|OTHER||% GLSM ratio|91.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.76|105.52||||||Cmax of selonsertib||105.52|78.76|
90965410|NCT00718549|181812046|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.667||||0.657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.086|3.653|||Regression, Logistic|||Univariate Comparison: Sex: Female versus Male||3.653|0.086|0.657
90940927|NCT00943722|181761603|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority requires that the lower bound of two-sided 95% CI of GMT ratio be greater than 0.67|GMT ratio|1.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|2.22||one-sided tests of non-inferiority conducted at the alpha=0.025 level; model with a response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for comparison group|ANOVA|model with a response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for comparison group|GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) divided by GMT for 16- to 26-Year-Old Females (Lot 1)|Anti-HPV 16||2.22|1.77|< 0.001
90965411|NCT00718549|181812046|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68||||0.655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.229|34.486|||Regression, Logistic|||Univariate Comparison: Rai Stage: I or II versus Rai Stage: III or IV||34.486|0.229|0.655
90887575|NCT02509624|181638024|OTHER||% GLSM ratio|100.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.73|119.88||||||Cmax of selonsertib||119.88|83.73|
90887576|NCT02509624|181638024|OTHER||% GLSM ratio|71.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|54.58|93.5||||||Cmax of GS-607509||93.50|54.58|
90887577|NCT02509624|181638024|OTHER||% GLSM ratio|46.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|32.59|67.54||||||Cmax of GS-607509||67.54|32.59|
90887578|NCT02509624|181638024|OTHER||% GLSM ratio|93.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|67.6|130.5||||||Cmax of GS-607509||130.50|67.60|
90887579|NCT01055639|181638055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.12
90887580|NCT01055639|181638056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04
90887581|NCT01055639|181638057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.88
90887582|NCT01055639|181638058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.48
90887583|NCT01055639|181638059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.87
90887584|NCT01055639|181638060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.29
90887585|NCT01055639|181638061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.19
90887586|NCT01055639|181638062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.53
90887587|NCT01055639|181638063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||1.00
90887588|NCT02334800|181638109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted geometric mean|73.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|57.81|93.71||||||||93.71|57.81|
90887589|NCT02334800|181638109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted geometric mean|115.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.57|146.79||||||||146.79|90.57|
90887590|NCT02334800|181638109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted geometric mean|133.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|105.0|170.19||||||||170.19|105.00|
90887591|NCT02334800|181638110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted geometric mean|94.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|69.93|129.03||||||||129.03|69.93|
90887592|NCT02334800|181638110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted geometric mean|117.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.69|159.95||||||||159.95|86.69|
90887593|NCT02334800|181638110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted geometric mean|129.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.63|176.43||||||||176.43|95.63|
90887594|NCT02334800|181638111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted geometric mean|83.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|65.37|105.43||||||||105.43|65.37|
90887595|NCT02334800|181638111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted geometric mean|134.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|105.73|170.53||||||||170.53|105.73|
90887596|NCT02334800|181638111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted geometric mean|176.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|139.28|224.63||||||||224.63|139.28|
90887597|NCT02334800|181638112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted geometric mean|72.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|56.43|93.93||||||||93.93|56.43|
90887598|NCT02334800|181638112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted geometric mean|115.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.58|149.11||||||||149.11|89.58|
90887599|NCT02334800|181638112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted geometric mean|134.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|104.38|173.73||||||||173.73|104.38|
90887600|NCT02334800|181638113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted geometric mean|82.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|63.83|105.71||||||||105.71|63.83|
90887601|NCT02334800|181638113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted geometric mean|134.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|104.82|173.6||||||||173.60|104.82|
90887602|NCT02334800|181638113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted geometric mean|178.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|138.62|229.57||||||||229.57|138.62|
90887603|NCT02334800|181638116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted geometric mean|107.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.06|147.68||||||||147.68|78.06|
90887604|NCT02334800|181638116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted geometric mean|137.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.96|189.12||||||||189.12|99.96|
90887605|NCT02334800|181638116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted geometric mean|172.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|125.25|236.96||||||||236.96|125.25|
90887606|NCT02265705|181638132|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.1||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|6.9|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.9|2.5|0.001
90887607|NCT02265705|181638133|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|-0.09|||ANCOVA|||||-0.09|-0.31|0.001
90887608|NCT02265705|181638134|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|-0.79|||ANCOVA|||||-0.79|-1.25|0.001
90887609|NCT02265705|181638135|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rate|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|3.3||||||||3.3|-0.5|
90887610|NCT02265705|181638136|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-12.9||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.0|-2.9|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||-2.9|-28.0|0.004
90887611|NCT02265705|181638137|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||||-0.3|-1.2|0.002
90887612|NCT02265705|181638138|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||||-0.4|-1.2|0.001
90887613|NCT02265705|181638139|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.5|||ANCOVA|||||-0.5|-1.3|0.001
90887614|NCT02703844|181638140|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0089|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0089
90965412|NCT00718549|181812046|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.635||||0.595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.117|3.73|||Regression, Logistic|||Univariate Comparison: Beta-2-Microglobulin \>/= Median Value versus Beta-2-Microglobulin \<Median Value||3.730|0.117|0.595
90965413|NCT00718549|181812046|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.164|8.102|||Regression, Logistic|||Univariate Comparison: ZAP-70 Expression Negative versus Positive||8.102|0.164|1.000
90965414|NCT00718549|181812046|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.857||||0.882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.093|6.636|||Regression, Logistic|||Univariate Comparison: CD38 Expression Negative versus Positive||6.636|0.093|0.882
90965415|NCT00718549|181812046|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.154||||0.216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.005|4.405|||Regression, Logistic|||Univariate Comparison: Cytogenetic abnormality 17p No versus Yes||4.405|0.005|0.216
90965416|NCT00718549|181812046|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.361||||0.396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.017|2.971|||Regression, Logistic|||Univariate Comparison: Cytogenetic abnormality 13q No versus Yes||2.971|0.017|0.396
90965417|NCT00718549|181812046|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.103|6.572|||Regression, Logistic|||Univariate Comparison: Cytogenetic abnormality 11q No versus Yes||6.572|0.103|0.776
90965418|NCT00718549|181812047|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.528||||0.357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.131|2.114|||Regression, Logistic|||Univariate Comparison: Age \<60 years versus Age \>/=60 years||2.114|0.131|0.357
90965419|NCT00718549|181812047|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.694||||0.623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.138|2.8|||Regression, Logistic|||Univariate Comparison: Sex: Female versus Male||2.800|0.138|0.623
90965420|NCT00718549|181812047|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.0||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.901|28.158|||Regression, Logistic|||Univariate Comparison: Beta-2-Microglobulin \>/= Median Value versus Beta-2-Microglobulin \<Median Value||28.158|0.901|0.097
90965421|NCT00718549|181812047|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.2||||0.233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.484|89.588|||Regression, Logistic|||Univariate Comparison: CD38 Expression Negative versus Positive||89.588|0.484|0.233
90965422|NCT00718549|181812047|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.844||||0.826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.161|3.681|||Regression, Logistic|||Univariate Comparison: Cytogenetic abnormality 13q No versus Yes||3.681|0.161|0.826
90965423|NCT00718549|181812047|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.067||||0.933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.246|5.581|||Regression, Logistic|||Univariate Comparison: Cytogenetic abnormality 11q No versus Yes||5.581|0.246|0.933
90965424|NCT00718549|181812047|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.727||||0.794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|15.779|||Regression, Logistic|||Univariate Comparison: Cytogenetic abnormality 12q No versus Yes||15.779|0.080|0.794
90965425|NCT00718549|181812048|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.923||||0.591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.225|41.751|||Regression, Logistic|||Univariate Comparison: Age \<60 years versus Age \>/=60 years||41.751|0.225|0.591
90965426|NCT00718549|181812048|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.147|9.222|||Regression, Logistic|||Univariate Comparison: Sex: Female versus Male||9.222|0.147|0.796
90965427|NCT00718549|181812048|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.2||||0.338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.375|69.479|||Regression, Logistic|||Univariate Comparison: Beta-2-Microglobulin \>/= Median Value versus Beta-2-Microglobulin \<Median Value||69.479|0.375|0.338
90965428|NCT00718549|181812048|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.333||||0.486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.201|29.008|||Regression, Logistic|||Univariate Comparison: CD38 Expression Negative versus Positive||29.008|0.201|0.486
90965429|NCT00718549|181812048|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.667||||0.691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.074|4.722|||Regression, Logistic|||Univariate Comparison: Cytogenetic abnormality 13q No versus Yes||4.722|0.074|0.691
90965430|NCT00718549|181812048|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.212|13.563|||Regression, Logistic|||Univariate Comparison: Cytogenetic abnormality 11q No versus Yes||13.563|0.212|0.691
90965431|NCT00718549|181812048|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.076|24.621|||Regression, Logistic|||Univariate Comparison: Cytogenetic abnormality 12q No versus Yes||24.621|0.076|1.000
90965432|NCT00718549|181812048|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.099|22.791|||Regression, Logistic|||Univariate Comparison: Rai Stage: I or II versus Rai Stage: III or IV||22.791|0.099|1.000
90965433|NCT02606461|181812049|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7026||||0.0114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5191|0.9509|||Log Rank|||||0.9509|0.5191|0.0114
90965434|NCT02606461|181812051|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio, log|1.1521||||0.6051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5357|2.4778|||Log Rank|||||2.4778|0.5357|0.6051
90965435|NCT00239226|181812075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|3.93||||0.047|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.047
90965436|NCT01892306|181812098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Scores on the HAM-A were analyzed using a mixed-effects linear regression analysis over 6 timepoints.||||.02
90965437|NCT01892306|181812099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Scores on the HAM-D were analyzed using a mixed-effects linear regression analysis over 6 timepoints.||||0.02
90965438|NCT01892306|181812100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Scores on the CSQ were analyzed using a mixed-effects linear regression analysis over 6 timepoints.||||0.24
90965439|NCT01892306|181812101|OTHER|||||||0.62|||||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression - Dependent variable: HAM-A symptom change; Independent variable: Baseline DERS scores.||||.62
90965440|NCT01892306|181812101|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Regression, Linear|||Linear Regression - Dependent variable: HAM-A symptom change; Independent variable: Baseline DERS scores||||.03
90965441|NCT01892306|181812102|OTHER|||||||0.95|||||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression - Dependent variable: HAM-A symptom change; Independent variable: Baseline ACS scores.||||0.95
90887615|NCT02828111|181638159|OTHER|Pairwise comparison||||||0.132|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment group as a factor and using Baseline value as a covariate||at Week 12||||0.132
90887616|NCT02828111|181638159|OTHER|Pairwise comparison||||||0.658|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment group as a factor and using Baseline value as a covariate||at Week 12||||0.658
90887617|NCT02828111|181638159|OTHER|Pairwise comparison||||||0.142|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment group as a factor and using Baseline value as a covariate||at Week 12||||0.142
90887618|NCT02828111|181638159|OTHER|Pairwise comparison||||||0.207|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment group as a factor and using Baseline value as a covariate||at Week 12||||0.207
90887619|NCT02828111|181638159|OTHER|Pairwise comparison||||||0.077|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment group as a factor and using Baseline value as a covariate||This is the analysis of combined patidegib gel 2% once daily and twice daily compared with vehicle gel at Week 12.||||0.077
90887620|NCT02828111|181638159|OTHER|Pairwise comparison||||||0.331|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment group as a factor and using Baseline value as a covariate||This is the analysis of combined patidegib gel 4% once daily and twice daily compared with vehicle gel at Week 12.||||0.331
90887621|NCT02828111|181638159|OTHER|Pairwise comparison||||||0.117|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment group as a factor and using Baseline value as a covariate||This is the analysis of all four patidegib gel treatment groups combined compared with vehicle gel at Week 12.||||0.117
90887622|NCT02828111|181638163|OTHER|Pairwise comparison||||||0.038|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment group as a factor and using Baseline value as a covariate||at Week 12||||0.038
90887623|NCT02828111|181638163|OTHER|Pairwise comparison||||||0.099|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment group as a factor and using Baseline value as a covariate||at Week 12||||0.099
90887624|NCT02828111|181638163|OTHER|Pairwise comparison||||||0.198|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment group as a factor and using Baseline value as a covariate||at Week 12||||0.198
90887625|NCT02828111|181638163|OTHER|Pairwise comparison||||||0.757|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment group as a factor and using Baseline value as a covariate||at Week 12||||0.757
90887626|NCT02828111|181638164|OTHER|Pairwise comparison||||||0.043|||||||Fisher Exact|||at Week 12||||0.043
90887627|NCT02828111|181638164|OTHER|Pairwise comparison||||||0.312|||||||Fisher Exact|||at Week 12||||0.312
90887628|NCT02828111|181638164|OTHER|Pairwise comparison||||||0.353|||||||Fisher Exact|||at Week 12||||0.353
90887629|NCT02828111|181638164|OTHER|Pairwise comparison||||||0.093|||||||Fisher Exact|||This is the analysis of combined patidegib gel 2% once daily and twice daily compared with vehicle gel at Week 12.||||0.093
90887630|NCT02828111|181638164|OTHER|Pairwise comparison||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||This is the analysis of combined patidegib gel 4% once daily and twice daily compared with vehicle gel at Week 12.||||1.000
90887631|NCT02828111|181638164|OTHER|Pairwise comparison||||||0.157|||||||Fisher Exact|||This is the analysis of all four patidegib gel treatment groups combined compared with combined vehicle gel at Week 12.||||0.157
90887632|NCT02079805|181638179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|1.78||||||Telmisartan 40 mg, Azilsartan 20 mg||1.78|-0.89|
90887633|NCT00383435|181638186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90887634|NCT00383435|181638186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.007|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.007
90887635|NCT00383435|181638187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90887636|NCT00383435|181638187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.029|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.029
90887637|NCT00383435|181638188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.002
90887638|NCT00383435|181638188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.059|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.059
90887639|NCT02347761|181638205|SUPERIORITY|A sample size of 215 subjects per treatment would give \~ 90% power to detect a treatment difference of 80 mL in the change from baseline in trough FEV1 at Week 12 between each of the 2 SUN-101 dose groups and placebo at alpha= 0.05, assuming a standard deviation of 255 mL and using a 2-sided test.|Least Squares Mea Difference (SE)|0.1036|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0663|0.1409||The primary null hypothesis for this study is that the mean change from baseline in trough FEV1 at Week 12 for the SUN-101 50 mcg dose is equal to the mean change from baseline in trough FEV1 at Week 12 for Placebo.|MMixed Model Repeat Measurement|to control the family-wise Type I error rate,the Hochberg procedure(a tree-structured gatekeeping procedure)was used for comparisons of this endpoint|standard error of the least squares mean|The change from baseline in trough FEV1 was analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measures including terms for treatment, cardiovascular risk, background LABA use, visit, visit by treatment interaction, and baseline FEV1 as a covariate. An unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.1409|0.0663|<0.0001
90887640|NCT02347761|181638205|SUPERIORITY|A sample size of 215 subjects per treatment would give \~ 90% power to detect a treatment difference of 80 mL in the change from baseline in trough FEV1 at Week 12 between each of the 2 SUN-101 dose groups and placebo at alpha= 0.05, assuming a standard deviation of 255 mL and using a 2-sided test.|Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.0961|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01896|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0589|0.1334||The primary null hypothesis for this study is that the mean change from baseline in trough FEV1 at Week 12 for the SUN-101 50 mcg dose is equal to the mean change from baseline in trough FEV1 at Week 12 for Placebo.|Mixed Model Repeat Measurement|to control the family-wise Type I error rate,the Hochberg procedure(a tree-structured gatekeeping procedure)was used for comparisons of the endpoint.|Standard error of the least squares mean|The change from baseline in trough FEV1 was analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measures including terms for treatment, cardiovascular risk, background LABA use, visit, visit by treatment interaction, and baseline FEV1 as a covariate. An unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.1334|0.0589|<0.0001
90965442|NCT01892306|181812102|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Regression, Linear|||Linear Regression - Dependent variable: HAM-A symptom change; Independent variable: Baseline ACS scores.||||0.03
90965443|NCT01892306|181812103|OTHER|||||||0.87|||||||Regression, Linear|||Linear Regression - Dependent variable: HAM-A symptom change; Independent variable: Baseline ASI scores||||0.87
90965444|NCT01892306|181812103|OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||Regression, Linear|||Linear Regression - Dependent variable: HAM-A symptom change; Independent variable: Baseline ASI scores||||0.37
90965445|NCT01892306|181812104|OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||Regression, Linear|||Linear Regression - Dependent variable: HAM-A symptom change; Independent variable: Baseline NEO- Neuroticism scores.||||0.17
90965446|NCT01892306|181812104|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Regression, Linear|||Linear Regression - Dependent variable: HAM-A symptom change; Independent variable: Baseline NEO-Neuroticism scores||||.04
90965447|NCT01892306|181812105|OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||Regression, Linear|||Fisher's z-transformed values for functional connectivity between anterior insula and ventrolateral prefrontal cortex were entered in separate treatment group-specific linear regression models as the independent variable with change in primary outcomes (HAM-D) as dependent variable.||||0.007
90965448|NCT01892306|181812105|OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||Regression, Linear|||Fisher's z-transformed values for functional connectivity between anterior insula and ventrolateral prefrontal cortex were entered in separate treatment group-specific linear regression models as the independent variable with change in primary outcomes (HAM-D) as dependent variable.||||.14
90965449|NCT01750931|181812130|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125%.|Percent ratio|102.45||||0.4396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.4|105.59|||ANOVA|||||105.59|99.40|0.4396
90965450|NCT01750931|181812132|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125%.|Percent ratio|105.02||||0.9712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.69|110.63|||ANOVA||Comparison of AUC0-t between group GSK-meloxicam 15 mg and Mobic-meloxicam 15 mg|||110.63|99.69|0.9712
90940928|NCT00943722|181761603|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority requires that the lower bound of two-sided 95% CI of GMT ratio be greater than 0.67|GMT ratio|2.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.13|2.8||one-sided tests of non-inferiority conducted at the alpha=0.025 level; model with a response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for comparison group|ANOVA|model with a response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for comparison group|GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) divided by GMT for 16- to 26-Year-Old Females (Lot 1)|Anti-HPV 18||2.80|2.13|< 0.001
90940929|NCT00943722|181761603|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority requires that the lower bound of two-sided 95% CI of GMT ratio be greater than 0.67|GMT ratio|2.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.21|2.85||one-sided tests of non-inferiority conducted at the alpha=0.025 level; model with a response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for comparison group|ANOVA|model with a response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for comparison group|GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) divided by GMT for 16- to 26-Year-Old Females (Lot 1)|Anti-HPV 31||2.85|2.21|< 0.001
90965451|NCT01750931|181812132|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125%.|Percent ratio|102.31||||0.9951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.05|105.69|||ANOVA||Comparison of AUC0-infinity between group GSK-meloxicam 15 mg and Mobic-meloxicam 15 mg|||105.69|99.05|0.9951
90971267|NCT01534533|181825240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.672||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two sides)|ANOVA|||"The null hypothesis was no group difference"||||0.672
90940930|NCT00943722|181761603|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority requires that the lower bound of two-sided 95% CI of GMT ratio be greater than 0.67|GMT ratio|2.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.87|2.36||one-sided tests of non-inferiority conducted at the alpha=0.025 level; model with a response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for comparison group|ANOVA|model with a response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for comparison group|GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) divided by GMT for 16- to 26-Year-Old Females (Lot 1)|Anti-HPV 33||2.36|1.87|< 0.001
90940931|NCT00943722|181761603|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority requires that the lower bound of two-sided 95% CI of GMT ratio be greater than 0.67|GMT ratio|2.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.27|3.03||one-sided tests of non-inferiority conducted at the alpha=0.025 level; model with a response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for comparison group|ANOVA|model with a response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for comparison group|GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) divided by GMT for 16- to 26-Year-Old Females (Lot 1)|Anti-HPV 45||3.03|2.27|< 0.001
90940932|NCT00943722|181761603|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority requires that the lower bound of two-sided 95% CI of GMT ratio be greater than 0.67|GMT ratio|2.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.97|2.51||one-sided tests of non-inferiority conducted at the alpha=0.025 level; model with a response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for comparison group|ANOVA|model with a response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for comparison group|GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) divided by GMT for 16- to 26-Year-Old Females (Lot 1)|Anti-HPV 52||2.51|1.97|< 0.001
90927603|NCT02382003|181733756|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.018||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|||||=No-train+Neut\~Pos+Anx,0.049=No-train+Neut\~Pos+Neut,Positive(all)\~No-train+Anx≥0.198,50/50(all)\~No-train+Anx≥0.104,0.014=No-train+Neut\~50/50+Neut,0.627=No-train+Neut\~50/50+Anx,0.021=Pos+Anx\~50/50+Anx,0.764=Pos+Anx\~50/50+Neut,Pos+Neut\~50/50(all)≥0.067|Likelihood Ratio Tests|2=all df|=No-train+Neut\~Pos+Anx,6.041=No-train+Neut\~Pos+Neut,Positive(all)\~No-train+Anx≤3.240,50/50(all)\~No-train+Anx≤4.534,8.525=No-train+Neut\~50/50+Neut,0.933=No-train+Neut\~50/50+Anx,7.686=Pos+Anx\~50/50+Anx,0.537=Pos+Anx\~50/50+Neut,Pos+Neut\~50/50(all)≤5.395|Effect of CBM-I condition and Imagery Prime Type interaction: Each cell of the interaction was represented by one of 5 binary variables, set to 1 if a participant was in that group, and 0 otherwise; the sixth group (No-training + neutral prime) was considered a reference group, and was represented by all variables being 0. Due to high attrition, latent growth curve modeling was used instead of the planned approach. Because omnibus tests were not run, results for all comparisons are listed below.||||0.049
90927604|NCT02382003|181733757|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|17.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||=Positive\~No-training, Positive\~50/50 training\<0.001, 0.124=50/50\~No-training Alpha = .05|Likelihood Ratio Tests|2=df Positive\~No-training, 2=df Positive\~50/50 training, 2=df 50/50\~No-training|=Positive\~No-training, 31.921=Positive\~50/50 training, 4.175=50/50\~No-training|Effect of CBM-I condition: The main effect of CBM-I was represented by three binary variables in the main effect models (Positive vs. No-training control; 50/50 vs. No- training control; Positive vs. 50/50). Due to high attrition, latent growth curve modeling was used instead of the planned approach (mixed effects models with multiple imputation of missing values) to minimize bias due to missing data estimation. Because omnibus tests were not run, results for all comparisons are listed below.||||<0.001
90927605|NCT02382003|181733757|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.634||||0.728|TWO_SIDED|||||=Neutral\~Anxiety prime Alpha = .05|Likelihood Ratio Tests|2=df Neutral\~Anxiety prime|=Neutral\~Anxiety prime|Effect of Imagery Prime Type: The main effect of imagery prime was represented by one binary variable (neutral vs. anxiety imagery). Due to high attrition, latent growth curve modeling was used instead of the planned approach (mixed effects models with multiple imputation of missing values) to minimize bias due to missing data estimation. Because omnibus tests were not run, results for all comparisons are listed below.||||0.728
90971268|NCT01534533|181825241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.402||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two sides)|ANOVA|||"The null hypothesis was no group difference"||||0.402
90887641|NCT02347761|181638206|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean (SE)|0.1264|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02076|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0856|0.1672||In order to control the family-wise Type I error rate, the Hochberg procedure (a tree-structured gatekeeping procedure) was used for comparisons of the primary efficacy endpoints and the key secondary efficacy endpoints.|Least squares mean (SE)|||The change from baseline in trough FEV1 was analyzed using mixed model repeated measures including terms for treatment, cardiovascular risk, background LABA use, visit week, visit week by treatment interaction, and baseline FEV1 as a covariate. An unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.1672|0.0856|<0.0001
90887642|NCT02347761|181638206|SUPERIORITY|In order to control the family-wise Type I error rate, the Hochberg procedure (a tree-structured gatekeeping procedure) was used for comparisons of the primary efficacy endpoints and the key secondary efficacy endpoints.|LS mean (SE)|0.1052|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0206|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0647|0.1457|||LS mean (SE)|||The change from baseline in trough FEV1 was analyzed using mixed model repeated measures including terms for treatment, cardiovascular risk, background LABA use, visit week, visit week by treatment interaction, and baseline FEV1 as a covariate. An unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.1457|0.0647|<0.0001
90887643|NCT01255358|181638224|OTHER|Changes from baseline (V1) at V2, V4 and V7 were analyzed with a RMANOVA design with age and ICARS at baseline as covariates. A Wilcoxon non-parametric test between visits was performed when the overall analysis was significant in order to help determine timing of effects|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.5||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|-0.9|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The primary analysis on ICARS Total score has been conducted on the ITT Population employing carry-forward and carry-backward procedures for missing data imputation, in order to evaluate all enrolled patients.||-0.9|-7.1|0.02
90887644|NCT01255358|181638225|OTHER|Changes from baseline (V1) at V2, V4 and V7 were analyzed with a RMANOVA design with age and ICARS at baseline as covariates. A Wilcoxon non-parametric test between visits was performed when the overall analysis was significant in order to help determine timing of effects|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.0||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|-2.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Overall analysis on the PP Population||-2|-8.4|0.0031
90887645|NCT01255358|181638230|OTHER|VABS Total score and subscales have been analyzed with a RMANOVA design, using age as covariate (dichotomized as Low- or High-, using median age as threshold).|Median Difference (Final Values)|1.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.8|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||VABS total score at V7||1.8|0.8|<0.0001
90887646|NCT01255358|181638231|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||2|1|<0.0001
90887647|NCT04079933|181638265|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline in urinary total NNAL; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline in urinary total NNAL|Mean Difference (Net)|-12.6||||0.2347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.5|8.27|||t-test, 2 sided||"Difference in Least Square (LS) means (Test - Control) using Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model 1:~Percent Change from baseline = study group + visit + study group\*visit + subject + random error, fitted with unstructured covariance matrix."|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline in urinary total NNAL; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline in urinary total NNAL||8.27|-33.5|0.2347
91035284|NCT03086460|181956479|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.112||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.042|0.182|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.182|0.042|0.002
91035285|NCT03086460|181956479|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.089||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.158|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment F ( Perforomist® IS 40 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.158|0.020|0.011
90965452|NCT01829425|181812137|NON_INFERIORITY|The study design will use a non-inferiority design to compare the primary outcome (change in UUI episodes in the hypnotherapy versus pharmacotherapy groups). With respect to the outcome variable of percent reduction in UUI episodes as determined by bladder diaries, we will use a one-sided non- inferiority test at level alpha = 0.25 and a non-inferiority margin of 5%.|Difference in median % change between gr|5.0|||<|0.025|ONE_SIDED|95.0|5.0||||Exact Mann Whitney|Due dispersion, medians were calculated. Exact Mann Whitney test was used for this analysis.|Hypnotherapy - Pharmacotherapy. % difference in median % change in UUI episodes with lower bounds \> - 5% would be consistent with non-inferiority||||5|<.025
90965453|NCT01829425|181812138|NON_INFERIORITY|The study design will use a non-inferiority design to compare the primary outcome (change in UUI episodes in the hypnotherapy versus pharmacotherapy groups). With respect to the outcome variable of percent reduction in UUI episodes as determined by bladder diaries, we will use a one-sided non- inferiority test at level alpha = 0.25 and a non-inferiority margin of 5%. If|Difference in median % change between gr|5.0|||<|0.025|ONE_SIDED|95.0|5.0||||Exact Mann Whitney||||||5|<.025
90965454|NCT01390272|181812266|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.1||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|Constrained longitudinal model adjusting for baseline stratification variables of diabetes status and blood pressure control.||||1.6|-5.9|0.26
90965455|NCT01390272|181812267|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|2.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Constrained longitudinal model adjusting for baseline stratification variables of diabetes status and blood pressure control.||||2.4|-4.9|0.50
90965456|NCT01390272|181812268|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.6||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|2.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Constrained longitudinal model adjusting for baseline stratification variables of diabetes status and blood pressure control.||||2.4|-5.6|0.43
90965457|NCT01390272|181812270|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.6|||Generalized Estimating Equation|Generalized Estimating Equation with a Logit Link. Adjusted for baseline stratification variables of diabetes status.||Comparison at 6 months||1.6|0.7|0.83
90965458|NCT01390272|181812271|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.4|||Generalized Estimating Equation|Generalized Estimating Equation with a Logit Link. Adjusted for baseline stratification variables of diabetes status.||Comparison at 12 months||1.4|0.5|0.53
90965459|NCT01390272|181812272|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.3|||Generalized Estimating Equation|Generalized Estimating Equation with a Logit Link. Adjusted for baseline stratification variables of diabetes status.||Comparison at 18 months.||2.3|0.9|0.09
90965460|NCT01390272|181812275|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.5|||Generalized Estimating Equation|Generalized Estimating Equation with a Logit Link. Adjusted for baseline stratification variable of diabetes status and diabetes control.||||1.5|0.7|0.95
90965461|NCT01390272|181812276|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.1|||Generalized Estimating Equation|Generalized Estimating Equation with a Logit Link.Adjusted for baseline stratification variable of diabetes status and blood pressure control.||Comparison at 12 months||2.1|0.9|0.12
91035286|NCT03086460|181956479|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.031||||0.404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.042|0.104|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.104|-0.042|0.404
90965462|NCT01390272|181812277|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.9|||Generalized Estimating Equation|Generalized Estimating Equation with a Logit Link. Adjusted for baseline stratification variables of diabetes status and blood pressure control.||Comparison at 18 months||1.9|0.8|0.30
90965463|NCT03044249|181812288|SUPERIORITY||Response Ratio|4.0||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.0|25.0|||Fisher Exact|||||25|-18|0.48
90965464|NCT03044249|181812290|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.28||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.16|0.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.61|-11.16|0.14
90965465|NCT03044249|181812291|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.58||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.47|1.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.31|-4.47|0.37
90965466|NCT03044249|181812295|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.0|1.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.84|-2.00|0.94
90965467|NCT04196803|181812308|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|P value was calculated using general linear model adjusted for age, sex, and baseline level||||||<0.05
90965468|NCT04196803|181812309|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|P value was calculated using general linear model adjusted for age, sex, and baseline level||||||>0.05
91035287|NCT03086460|181956479|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.003||||0.942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.069|0.074|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.074|-0.069|0.942
90887648|NCT04079933|181638265|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline in urinary total NNAL; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline in urinary total NNAL|Mean Difference (Net)|-11.9||||0.2905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.9|10.2|||t-test, 2 sided||"Difference in LS means (Test - Control) using Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model 2:~%Change from baseline = study group +visit +study group\*visit +CPD +Sex +Race +BMI +Age +subject +random error, fitted with unstructured covariance matrix."|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline in urinary total NNAL; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline in urinary total NNAL||10.2|-33.9|0.2905
90887649|NCT04079933|181638266|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of change from baseline in urinary total NNAL; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of change from baseline to end of study in urinary total NNAL|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.72||||0.9433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-107.0|99.4|||t-test, 2 sided||"Difference in LS means (Test - Control) using Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model 1:~Change from baseline = study group + visit + study group\*visit + subject +random error, fitted with unstructured covariance matrix"|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of change from baseline in urinary total NNAL; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of change from baseline to end of study in urinary total NNAL||99.4|-107|0.9433
90887650|NCT04079933|181638266|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of change from baseline in urinary total NNAL; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of change from baseline in urinary total NNAL|Mean Difference (Net)|-12.2||||0.8264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-122.0|97.5|||t-test, 2 sided||"Difference in LS means (Test - Control) using Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model 2:~Change from baseline= study group + visit + study group\*visit + CPD + Sex + Race + BMI + Age + subject + random error, fitted with unstructured covariance matrix"|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of change from baseline in urinary total NNAL; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of change from baseline in urinary total NNAL||97.5|-122|0.8264
90887651|NCT04079933|181638267|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of change from baseline in nicotine equivalents; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of change from baseline in nicotine equivalents|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.13||||0.4903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.35|2.1|||t-test, 2 sided||"Difference in LS means (Test - Control) using Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model 1:~Change from baseline = study group + visit + study group\*visit + subject +random error, fitted with unstructured covariance matrix"|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of change from baseline in nicotine equivalents; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of change from baseline in nicotine equivalents||2.10|-4.35|0.4903
90887652|NCT04079933|181638267|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of change from baseline in nicotine equivalents; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of change from baseline in nicotine equivalents|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.4||||0.4251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.88|2.07|||t-test, 2 sided||"Difference in LS means (Test - Control) using Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model 2:~Change from baseline= study group + visit + study group\*visit + CPD + Sex + Race + BMI + Age + subject + random error, fitted with unstructured covariance matrix"|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of change from baseline in nicotine equivalents; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of change from baseline in nicotine equivalents||2.07|-4.88|0.4251
90887653|NCT04079933|181638268|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study in nicotine equivalents; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study in nicotine equivalents|Mean Difference (Net)|-9.83||||0.406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.2|13.5|||t-test, 2 sided||"Difference in Least Square means (Test - Control) using Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model 1:~Percent Change from baseline = study group + visit + study group\*visit + subject + random error, fitted with unstructured covariance matrix."|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study in nicotine equivalents; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study in nicotine equivalents||13.5|-33.2|0.4060
90887654|NCT04079933|181638268|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study in nicotine equivalents; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study in nicotine equivalents|Mean Difference (Net)|-10.3||||0.4165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.4|14.7|||t-test, 2 sided||"Difference in LS means (Test - Control) using Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model 2:~%Change from baseline = study group +visit +study group\*visit +CPD +Sex +Race +BMI +Age +subject +random error, fitted with unstructured covariance matrix."|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study in nicotine equivalents; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study in nicotine equivalents||14.7|-35.4|0.4165
90887655|NCT04079933|181638269|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of change from baseline in S-PMA; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of change from baseline in S-PMA|Mean Difference (Net)|-269.0||||0.724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1773.0|1235.0|||t-test, 2 sided||"Difference in LS means (Test - Control) using Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model 1:~Change from baseline = study group + visit + study group\*visit + subject +random error, fitted with unstructured covariance matrix"|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of change from baseline in S-PMA; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of change from baseline in S-PMA||1235|-1773|0.7240
90940933|NCT00943722|181761603|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority requires that the lower bound of two-sided 95% CI of GMT ratio be greater than 0.67|GMT ratio|2.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.93|2.45||one-sided tests of non-inferiority conducted at the alpha=0.025 level; model with a response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for comparison group|ANOVA|model with a response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for comparison group|GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) divided by GMT for 16- to 26-Year-Old Females (Lot 1)|Anti-HPV 58||2.45|1.93|< 0.001
90927606|NCT02382003|181733757|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|15.034|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||=Pos+Anx\~No-train+Neut, 0.026=Pos+Anx\~No-train+Anx, 0.002=Pos+Neut\~No-train+Neut, 0.091=Pos+Neut\~No-train+Anx, 50/50(all)\~No-train(all)≥ 0.081, Positive(all)\~50/50(all)\< 0.001|Likelihood Ratio Tests|2=all df|=Pos+Anx\~No-train+Neut, 7.306=Pos+Anx\~No-train+Anx, 12.672=Pos+Neut\~No-train+Neut, 4.802=Pos+Neut\~No-train+Anx, 50/50(all)\~No-train(all)≤5.037, Positive(all)\~50/50(all)≥16.239|Effect of CBM-I condition and Imagery Prime Type interaction: Each cell of the interaction was represented by one of 5 binary variables, set to 1 if a participant was in that group, and 0 otherwise; the sixth group (No-training + neutral prime) was considered a reference group, and was represented by all variables being 0. Due to high attrition, latent growth curve modeling was used instead of the planned approach. Because omnibus tests were not run, results for all comparisons are listed below.||||<0.001
90927607|NCT02382003|181733758|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|13.924|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||=Positive\~No-training, Positive\~50/50 training\< 0.001, 0.100=50/50\~No-training Alpha = .05|Likelihood Ratio Tests|2=df Positive\~No-training, 2=df Positive\~50/50 training, 2=df 50/50\~No-training|=Positive\~No-training, 15.288=Positive\~50/50 training, 4.605=50/50\~No-training|Effect of CBM-I condition: The main effect of CBM-I was represented by three binary variables in the main effect models (Positive vs. No-training control; 50/50 vs. No- training control; Positive vs. 50/50). Due to high attrition, latent growth curve modeling was used instead of the planned approach (mixed effects models with multiple imputation of missing values) to minimize bias due to missing data estimation. Because omnibus tests were not run, results for all comparisons are listed below.||||< 0.001
90927608|NCT02382003|181733758|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.011||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|||||=Neutral\~Anxiety prime Alpha = .05|Likelihood Ratio Tests|2=df Neutral\~Anxiety prime|=Neutral\~Anxiety prime|Effect of Imagery Prime Type: The main effect of imagery prime was represented by one binary variable (neutral vs. anxiety imagery). Due to high attrition, latent growth curve modeling was used instead of the planned approach (mixed effects models with multiple imputation of missing values) to minimize bias due to missing data estimation. Because omnibus tests were not run, results for all comparisons are listed below.||||0.135
90927609|NCT02382003|181733758|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|9.402||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|||||=Pos+Anx\~No-train+Neut, Pos+Anx\~No-train+Anx\<0.048, Pos+Neut\~No-train+Neut\<0.001, 0.055=Pos+Neut\~No-train+Anx, 50/50(all)\~No-train+Anx≥0.139, 0.034=No-train+Neut\~50/50+Neut, 0.340=No-train+Neut\~50/50+Anx, Pos(all)\~50/50(all)≥ 0.087|Likelihood Ratio Tests|2=all df|=Pos+Anx\~No-train+Neut, 6.076=Pos+Anx\~No-train+Anx, 14.525=Pos+Neut\~No-train+Neut, 5.811=Pos+Neut\~No-train+Anx, 50/50(all)\~No-train+Anx≤3.950, 6.770=No-train+Neut\~50/50+Neut, 2.158=No-train+Neut\~50/50+Anx, Pos(all)\~50/50(all)≤4.876|Effect of CBM-I condition and Imagery Prime Type interaction: Each cell of the interaction was represented by one of 5 binary variables, set to 1 if a participant was in that group, and 0 otherwise; the sixth group (No-training + neutral prime) was considered a reference group, and was represented by all variables being 0. Due to high attrition, latent growth curve modeling was used instead of the planned approach. Because omnibus tests were not run, results for all comparisons are listed below.||||0.009
90927610|NCT05934292|181733763|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|2.31|||||Geometric mean ratio (GMR) and 90% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a linear fixed effects model performed on natural log-transformed values. GMR: Panel A-Moderate Renal Impairment (RI)/Panel D-Healthy controls|||2.31|0.98|
90927611|NCT05934292|181733763|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.74|1.74|||Geometric Mean Ratio||GMR and 90% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a linear fixed effects model performed on natural log-transformed values. GMR: Panel B-Severe RI/Panel D-Healthy controls|||1.74|0.74|
90927612|NCT05934292|181733763|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1|2.78|||||GMR and 90% CI were calculated using a linear fixed effects model performed on natural log-transformed values. GMR: Panel C-ESRD Enlicitide Decanoate Pre-Hemodialysis/ Panel D-Healthy Controls|||2.78|1.10|
90927613|NCT05934292|181733763|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.77|1.77|||||GMR and 90% CI were calculated using a linear fixed effects model performed on natural log-transformed values. GMR: Panel C-ESRD Enlicitide Decanoate Post-Hemodialysis/ Panel D-Healthy Controls|||1.77|0.77|
90927614|NCT05934292|181733764|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.05|2.46|||||GMR and 90% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a linear fixed effects model performed on natural log-transformed values. GMR: Panel A-Moderate Renal Impairment (RI)/Panel D-Healthy controls|||2.46|1.05|
90927615|NCT05934292|181733764|OTHER||Geometric Mean ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.37|1.72|||||GMR and 90% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a linear fixed effects model performed on natural log-transformed values. GMR: Panel B-Severe RI/Panel D-Healthy controls|||1.72|0.37|
90927616|NCT05934292|181733764|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|2.54|||||GMR and 90% CI were calculated using a linear fixed effects model performed on natural log-transformed values. GMR: Panel C-ESRD Enlicitide Decanoate Pre-Hemodialysis/ Panel D-Healthy Controls|||2.54|0.80|
90927617|NCT05934292|181733764|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.78|1.78|||||GMR and 90% CI were calculated using a linear fixed effects model performed on natural log-transformed values. GMR: Panel C-ESRD Enlicitide Decanoate Post-Hemodialysis/ Panel D-Healthy Controls|||1.78|0.78|
90927618|NCT05934292|181733765|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.71|1.37|||||GMR and 90% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a linear fixed effects model performed on natural log-transformed values. GMR: Panel A-Moderate Renal Impairment (RI)/Panel D-Healthy controls.|||1.37|0.71|
90927619|NCT05934292|181733765|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.34|1.04|||||GMR and 90% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a linear fixed effects model performed on natural log-transformed values. GMR: Panel B-Severe RI/Panel D-Healthy controls.|||1.04|0.34|
91035288|NCT03086460|181956479|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.078||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.009|0.147|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.147|0.009|0.027
90965469|NCT04196803|181812310|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|P value was calculated using general linear model adjusted for age, sex, and baseline level||||||>0.05
90965470|NCT04196803|181812311|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.08|||||||Regression, Linear|P value was calculated using general linear model adjusted for age, sex, and baseline level||||||=0.08
90887656|NCT04079933|181638269|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of change from baseline in S-PMA; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of change from baseline in S-PMA|Mean Difference (Net)|50.5||||0.9508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1566.0|1667.0|||t-test, 2 sided||"Difference in LS means (Test - Control) using Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model 2:~Change from baseline= study group + visit + study group\*visit + CPD + Sex + Race + BMI + Age + subject + random error, fitted with unstructured covariance matrix"|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of change from baseline in S-PMA; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of change from baseline in S-PMA||1667|-1566|0.9508
90927620|NCT05934292|181733765|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.64|1.27|||||GMR and 90% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a linear fixed effects model performed on natural log-transformed values. GMR: Panel C-ESRD Enlicitide Decanoate Pre-Hemodialysis/ Panel D-Healthy Controls.|||1.27|0.64|
90887657|NCT04079933|181638270|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study in S-PMA; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study in S-PMA|Mean Difference (Net)|-19.0||||0.1524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.1|7.12|||t-test, 2 sided||"Difference in Least Square means (Test - Control) using Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model 1:~Percent Change from baseline = study group + visit + study group\*visit + subject + random error, fitted with unstructured covariance matrix."|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study in S-PMA; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study in S-PMA||7.12|-45.1|0.1524
90887658|NCT04079933|181638270|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study in S-PMA; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study in S-PMA|Mean Difference (Net)|-12.1||||0.4014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.4|16.3|||t-test, 2 sided||"Difference in LS means (Test - Control) using Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model 2:~%Change from baseline = study group +visit +study group\*visit +CPD +Sex +Race +BMI +Age +subject +random error, fitted with unstructured covariance matrix."|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study in S-PMA; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study in S-PMA||16.3|-40.4|0.4014
90887659|NCT04079933|181638271|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of change from baseline in carboxyhemoglobin; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of change from baseline in carboxyhemoglobin|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.507||||0.0241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.946|-0.0674|||t-test, 2 sided||"Difference in LS means (Test - Control) using Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model 1:~Change from baseline = study group + visit + study group\*visit + subject +random error, fitted with unstructured covariance matrix"|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of change from baseline in carboxyhemoglobin; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of change from baseline in carboxyhemoglobin||-0.0674|-0.946|0.0241
90887660|NCT04079933|181638271|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of change from baseline in carboxyhemoglobin; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of change from baseline in carboxyhemoglobin|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.367||||0.1292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.843|0.108|||t-test, 2 sided||"Difference in LS means (Test - Control) using Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model 2:~Change from baseline= study group + visit + study group\*visit + CPD + Sex + Race + BMI + Age + subject + random error, fitted with unstructured covariance matrix"|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of change from baseline in carboxyhemoglobin; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of change from baseline in carboxyhemoglobin||0.108|-0.843|0.1292
90887661|NCT04079933|181638272|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study in carboxyhemoglobin; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study in carboxyhemoglobin|Mean Difference (Net)|-10.0||||0.0333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.2|-0.803|||t-test, 2 sided||"Difference in Least Square means (Test - Control) using Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model 1:~Percent Change from baseline = study group + visit + study group\*visit + subject + random error, fitted with unstructured covariance matrix."|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study in carboxyhemoglobin; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study in carboxyhemoglobin||-0.803|-19.2|0.0333
90887662|NCT04079933|181638272|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study in carboxyhemoglobin; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study in carboxyhemoglobin|Mean Difference (Net)|-6.76||||0.1767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|3.08|||t-test, 2 sided||"Difference in LS means (Test - Control) using Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model 2:~%Change from baseline = study group +visit +study group\*visit +CPD +Sex +Race +BMI +Age +subject +random error, fitted with unstructured covariance matrix."|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study in carboxyhemoglobin; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study in carboxyhemoglobin||3.08|-16.6|0.1767
90927621|NCT05934292|181733765|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.78|1.78|||||GMR and 90% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a linear fixed effects model performed on natural log-transformed values. GMR: Panel C-ESRD Enlicitide Decanoate Post-Hemodialysis/ Panel D-Healthy Controls.|||1.78|0.78|
90927622|NCT05934292|181733768|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.43|1.02|||||GMR and 90% CI were calculated using a linear fixed effects model performed on natural log-transformed values. GMR: Panel A-Moderate Renal Impairment (RI)/Panel D-Healthy controls|||1.02|0.43|
90927623|NCT05934292|181733768|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.58|1.35|||||GMR and 90% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a linear fixed effects model performed on natural log-transformed values. GMR: Panel B-Severe RI/Panel D-Healthy controls|||1.35|0.58|
90965471|NCT03523728|181812321|SUPERIORITY||Relative difference|21.32|||=|0.1367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.77|58.22|||linear mixed effect model|||||58.22|-5.77|=0.1367
90965472|NCT03523728|181812321|SUPERIORITY||Relative difference|0.34|||=|0.9812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.57|33.36|||linear mixed effect model|||||33.36|-24.57|=0.9812
90965473|NCT03523728|181812322|SUPERIORITY||Relative difference|101.32|||=|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.63|233.72|||linear mixed effect model|||||233.72|35.63|=0.0005
90965474|NCT03523728|181812322|SUPERIORITY||Relative difference|104.17|||=|0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.54|236.45|||linear mixed effect model|||||236.45|39.54|=0.0002
90965475|NCT03523728|181812323|SUPERIORITY||Relative difference|51.01|||=|0.0197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.01|125.45|||linear mixed effect model|||||125.45|7.01|=0.0197
90965476|NCT03523728|181812323|SUPERIORITY||Relative difference|46.36|||=|0.0337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.21|119.01|||linear mixed effect model|||||119.01|3.21|=0.0337
90965477|NCT03523728|181812325|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|=|0.6374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.342|0.556|||Mixed effect model with repeated measure|||||0.556|-0.342|=0.6374
90965478|NCT03523728|181812325|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|=|0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.689|0.185|||Mixed effect model with repeated measure|||||0.185|-0.689|=0.2560
90965479|NCT03523728|181812326|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|=|0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.971|0.747|||Mixed effect model with repeated measure|||||0.747|-0.971|=0.7900
90887663|NCT04079933|181638273|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of change from baseline in exhaled carbon monoxide; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of change from baseline in exhaled carbon monoxide|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.51||||0.2961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.36|1.34|||t-test, 2 sided||"Difference in LS means (Test - Control) using Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model 1:~Change from baseline = study group + visit + study group\*visit + subject +random error, fitted with unstructured covariance matrix"|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of change from baseline in exhaled carbon monoxide; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of change from baseline in exhaled carbon monoxide||1.34|-4.36|0.2961
90887664|NCT04079933|181638273|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of change from baseline in exhaled carbon monoxide; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of change from baseline in exhaled carbon monoxide|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.05||||0.5015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.12|2.03|||t-test, 2 sided||"Difference in LS means (Test - Control) using Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model 2:~Change from baseline= study group + visit + study group\*visit + CPD + Sex + Race + BMI + Age + subject + random error, fitted with unstructured covariance matrix"|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of change from baseline in exhaled carbon monoxide; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of change from baseline in exhaled carbon monoxide||2.03|-4.12|0.5015
90887665|NCT04079933|181638274|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study in exhaled carbon monoxide; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study in exhaled carbon monoxide|Mean Difference (Net)|-12.1||||0.2048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.9|6.68|||t-test, 2 sided||"Difference in Least Square means (Test - Control) using Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model 1:~Percent Change from baseline = study group + visit + study group\*visit + subject + random error, fitted with unstructured covariance matrix."|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study in exhaled carbon monoxide; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study in exhaled carbon monoxide||6.68|-30.9|0.2048
90965480|NCT03523728|181812326|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32|=|0.6322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.808|0.5|||Mixed effect model with repeated measure|||||0.500|-0.808|=0.6322
90965481|NCT03523728|181812327|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|=|0.6245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.506|0.839|||Mixed effect model with repeated measure|||||0.839|-0.506|=0.6245
90965482|NCT03523728|181812327|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|=|0.2567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.044|0.281|||Mixed effect model with repeated measure|||||0.281|-1.044|=0.2567
90965483|NCT03523728|181812328|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68|=|0.2023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.232|0.485|||Mixed effect model with repeated measure|||||0.485|-2.232|=0.2023
90965484|NCT03523728|181812328|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53|=|0.3205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|0.537|||Mixed effect model with repeated measure|||||0.537|-1.610|=0.3205
90965485|NCT01509079|181812391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.38
90965486|NCT01195090|181812399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.08||The change from baseline in A1C were determined using an analysis of co-variance (ANCOVA) model with the factor 'treatment' and baseline A1C as covariate.|ANCOVA|||The change from baseline in A1C were determined using an analysis of co-variance (ANCOVA) model with the factor 'treatment' and baseline A1C as covariate.||0.08|-0.58|0.165
91035289|NCT03086460|181956479|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.028||||0.463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.104|0.048|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.048|-0.104|0.463
90965487|NCT01195090|181812415|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Chi-square test|Chi-Square|0.0034||||0.954||||||Chi-square test|Chi-squared|||Chi-square test for percentages of patient achieving an A1C \<7%||||0.954
90965488|NCT05111041|181812428|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.302|3.309||Not adjusted for multiple outcomes due to exploratory nature of the study.|Regression, Logistic|||||3.309|0.302|1.000
90965489|NCT05111041|181812429|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.7389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.215|2.972||Not adjusted for multiple outcomes due to exploratory nature of the study.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.972|0.215|0.7389
90965490|NCT05111041|181812431|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.306||||0.6058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.474|3.602||Not adjusted for multiple outcomes due to exploratory nature of the study.|Regression, Logistic|||||3.602|0.474|0.6058
90965491|NCT05111041|181812432|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.349|2.866||||||||2.866|0.349|
90965492|NCT05111041|181812433|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.333||||0.5925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.465|3.823||Not adjusted for multiple outcomes due to exploratory nature of the study.|Regression, Logistic|||||3.823|0.465|0.5925
90887666|NCT04079933|181638274|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to control in exhaled carbon monoxide; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to control in exhaled carbon monoxide|Mean Difference (Net)|-7.32||||0.4731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.4|12.8|||t-test, 2 sided||"Difference in LS means (Test - Control) using Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model 2:~%Change from baseline = study group +visit +study group\*visit +CPD +Sex +Race +BMI +Age +subject +random error, fitted with unstructured covariance matrix."|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to control in exhaled carbon monoxide; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to control in exhaled carbon monoxide||12.8|-27.4|0.4731
91035290|NCT03086460|181956479|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.047||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.025|0.119|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.119|-0.025|0.200
90887667|NCT04079933|181638275|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of change from baseline in cigarettes smoked per day; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of change from baseline in cigarettes smoked per day|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.25|-2.47|||t-test, 2 sided||"Difference in LS means (Test - Control) using Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model 1:~Change from baseline = study group + visit + study group\*visit + subject +random error, fitted with unstructured covariance matrix"|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of change from baseline in cigarettes smoked per day; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of change from baseline in cigarettes smoked per day||-2.47|-5.25|<0.0001
90887668|NCT04079933|181638275|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of change from baseline in cigarettes smoked per day; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of change from baseline in cigarettes smoked per day|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.14|-2.34|||t-test, 2 sided||"Difference in LS means (Test - Control) using Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model 2:~Change from baseline= study group + visit + study group\*visit + CPD + Sex + Race + BMI + Age + subject + random error, fitted with unstructured covariance matrix"|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of change from baseline in cigarettes smoked per day; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of change from baseline in cigarettes smoked per day||-2.34|-5.14|<0.0001
90887669|NCT04079933|181638276|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study in cigarettes smoked per day; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study in cigarettes smoked per day|Mean Difference (Net)|-22.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.5|-14.5|||t-test, 2 sided||"Difference in Least Square means (Test - Control) using Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model 1:~Percent Change from baseline = study group + visit + study group\*visit + subject + random error, fitted with unstructured covariance matrix."|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study in cigarettes smoked per day; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study in cigarettes smoked per day||-14.5|-30.5|<0.0001
90887670|NCT04079933|181638276|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study in cigarettes smoked per day; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study in cigarettes smoked per day|Mean Difference (Net)|-22.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.4|-14.1|||t-test, 2 sided||"Difference in LS means (Test - Control) using Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model 2:~%Change from baseline = study group +visit +study group\*visit +CPD +Sex +Race +BMI +Age +subject +random error, fitted with unstructured covariance matrix."|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study in cigarettes smoked per day; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study in cigarettes smoked per day||-14.1|-30.4|<0.0001
90927624|NCT05934292|181733768|OTHER||Geomtric Mean ratio|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.36|0.91|||||GMR and 90% CI were calculated using a linear fixed effects model performed on natural log-transformed values. GMR: Panel C-ESRD Enlicitide Decanoate Pre-Hemodialysis/ Panel D-Healthy Controls|||0.91|0.36|
90965493|NCT01205230|181812439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of least square geometric means|1.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.39|1.99|||||Ratio of least square (LS) geometric means (Pazopanib + Ketoconozole : Pazopanib alone)|||1.99|1.39|
90965494|NCT01205230|181812439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of LS geometric means|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.52|0.7|||||Ratio of LS geometric means (Pazopanib + Esomeprazole : Pazopanib alone)|||0.70|0.52|
90927625|NCT05934292|181733768|OTHER||Geomtric Mean Ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.57|1.29|||||GMR and 90% CI were calculated using a linear fixed effects model performed on natural log-transformed values. GMR: Panel C-ESRD Enlicitide Decanoate Post-Hemodialysis/ Panel D-Healthy Controls|||1.29|0.57|
90927626|NCT05934292|181733769|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|1.67|||||GMR and 90% CI were calculated using a linear fixed effects model performed on natural log-transformed values. GMR: Panel A-Moderate Renal Impairment (RI)/Panel D-Healthy controls|||1.67|0.83|
90927627|NCT05934292|181733769|OTHER||Geometric Mean ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.78|1.5|||||GMR and 90% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a linear fixed effects model performed on natural log-transformed values. GMR: Panel B-Severe RI/Panel D-Healthy controls|||1.50|0.78|
90927628|NCT05934292|181733769|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|0.89|||||GMR and 90% CI were calculated using a linear fixed effects model performed on natural log-transformed values. GMR: Panel C-ESRD Enlicitide Decanoate Pre-Hemodialysis/ Panel D-Healthy Controls|||0.89|0.50|
90927629|NCT05934292|181733769|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.97|||||GMR and 90% CI for AUC0-inf were calculated using a linear fixed effects model performed on natural log-transformed values. GMR: Panel C-ESRD Enlicitide Decanoate Post-Hemodialysis/ Panel D-Healthy Controls|||1.97|1.00|
90927630|NCT05934292|181733774|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.14|0.74|||||GMR and 90% CI were calculated using a linear fixed effects model performed on natural log-transformed values. GMR: Panel A-Moderate Renal Impairment (RI)/Panel D-Healthy controls|||0.74|0.14|
90927631|NCT05934292|181733774|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.04|0.22|||||GMR and 90% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a linear fixed effects model performed on natural log-transformed values. GMR: Panel B-Severe RI/Panel D-Healthy controls|||0.22|0.04|
90927632|NCT05934292|181733775|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.14|0.74|||||GMR and 90% CI were calculated using a linear fixed effects model performed on natural log-transformed values. GMR: Panel A-Moderate Renal Impairment (RI)/Panel D-Healthy controls|||0.74|0.14|
90927633|NCT05934292|181733775|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.04|0.22|||||GMR and 90% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a linear fixed effects model performed on natural log-transformed values. GMR: Panel B-Severe RI/Panel D-Healthy controls|||0.22|0.04|
90927634|NCT05934292|181733776|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.16|0.55|||||GMR and 90% CI were calculated using a linear fixed effects model performed on natural log-transformed values. GMR: Panel A-Moderate Renal Impairment (RI)/Panel D-Healthy controls|||0.55|0.16|
90927635|NCT05934292|181733776|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.06|0.36|||||GMR and 90% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a linear fixed effects model performed on natural log-transformed values. GMR: Panel B-Severe RI/Panel D-Healthy controls|||0.36|0.06|
90927636|NCT05714059|181733784|NON_INFERIORITY|The overall mean change in HbA1c, from baseline to end of 3-month study period was estimated and compared by a non-inferiority test to the threshold of -0.38% with a margin of 0.4%.|Mean difference from baseline to exit|-0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.3|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||This is one arm study, the differences of HbA1c from baseline to exit were summarized for this endpoint|||-0.3|-0.6|<0.001
90927637|NCT05714059|181733784|NON_INFERIORITY|The overall mean change in HbA1c from baseline to end of 3-month study period was estimated and compared by a non-inferiority test to the threshold of -0.50% with a margin of 0.4%. A significance level of 0.025 (one-sided) was used|Mean difference from baseline to exit|-0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.6|||t-test, 1 sided||This is one arm study, the differences of HbA1c from baseline to exit were summarized for this endpoint|||-0.6|-0.8|<0.001
90927638|NCT05714059|181733785|NON_INFERIORITY|The mean % of time in range (TIR 70-180 mg/dL) was estimated and compared by a non-inferiority test to the threshold of 65.3% with a margin of 7.5%.|Mean value (Final Values)|71.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|69.5|73.3|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||This is one arm study, the Percent of Time in Range (TIR 70-180 mg/dL) from the last 6-7 weeks of 3 month study period was summarized for this endpoint.|||73.3|69.5|<0.001
90927639|NCT05714059|181733785|NON_INFERIORITY|The mean % of time in range (TIR 70-180 mg/dL) was estimated and compared by a non-inferiority test to the threshold of 73.7% with a margin of 7.5%.|Mean value (Final Values)|80.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.7|81.8|||t-test, 1 sided||This is one arm study, the Percent of Time in Range (TIR 70-180 mg/dL) from the last 6-7 weeks of 3 month study period was summarized for this endpoint.|||81.8|78.7|<0.001
90927640|NCT05714059|181733786|NON_INFERIORITY|The mean % time in hypoglycemia (\< 54 mg/dL) was estimated and compared by a non-inferiority test to the threshold of 0.71% with a margin of 2%.|Mean value (Final Values)|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.4|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||This is one arm study, the Percent of Time in Hypoglycemia (\< 54 mg/dL) from last 6-7 weeks of 3 month study period was estimated for this endpoint.|||0.4|0.3|<0.001
90927641|NCT05714059|181733786|NON_INFERIORITY|The mean % time in hypoglycemia (\< 54 mg/dL) was estimated and compared by a non-inferiority test to the threshold of 0.86% with a margin of 2%.|Mean value (Final Values)|0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.3|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||This is one arm study, the Percent of Time in Hypoglycemia (\< 54 mg/dL) were summarized from last 6-7 weeks of 3 month study period for this endpoint|||0.3|0.1|<0.001
90965495|NCT01205230|181812440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of LS geometric means|1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.14|1.86|||||Ratio of LS geometric means (Pazopanib + Ketoconozole : Pazopanib alone)|||1.86|1.14|
90965496|NCT01205230|181812440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of LS geometric means|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|0.67|||||Ratio of LS geometric means (Pazopanib + Esomeprazole : Pazopanib alone)|||0.67|0.50|
90965497|NCT01205230|181812441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.06|0.06||||||||0.06|-1.06|
90965498|NCT01205230|181812441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|2.44||||||||2.44|-0.10|
90927642|NCT05714059|181733787|SUPERIORITY|The mean % of time in range (TIR 70-180 mg/dL) was estimated and compared to a threshold of 65.3% by a simple superiority test|Mean value (Final Values)|71.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|69.5|73.3|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||This is one arm study, the Percent of Time in Range (TIR 70-180 mg/dL) from the last 6-7 weeks of 3 month study period was summarized for this endpoint.|||73.3|69.5|<0.001
90927643|NCT05714059|181733787|SUPERIORITY|The mean % of time in range (TIR 70-180 mg/dL) was estimated and compared to a threshold of 73.7% by a simple superiority test|Mean value (Final Values)|80.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.7|81.8|||t-test, 1 sided||This is one arm study, the Percent of Time in Range (TIR 70-180 mg/dL) from the last 6-7 weeks of 3 month study period was summarized for this endpoint.|||81.8|78.7|<0.001
90927644|NCT04899674|181733788|OTHER||Ratio of gMeans [%]|94.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.3|103.8|||||"Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means (gMeans) was calculated as (gMean of BI 1358894 + bupropion)/(gMean of bupropion alone). Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\])=13.9."|The statistical model used for the analysis of the primary endpoints was an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model. The model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'subjects' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects' was considered as random, whereas the effect 'treatment' was considered as fixed.||103.8|86.3|
90927645|NCT04899674|181733789|OTHER||Ratio of gMeans[%]|90.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.3|110.7|||||"Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means (gMeans) was calculated as (gMean of BI 1358894 + bupropion)/(gMean of bupropion alone).~Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\])=31.5."|The statistical model used for the analysis of the primary endpoints was an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model. The model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'subjects' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects' was considered as random, whereas the effect 'treatment' was considered as fixed.||110.7|74.3|
90927646|NCT04899674|181733790|OTHER||Ratio of gMeans [%]|95.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.7|104.3|||||"Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means (gMeans) was calculated as (gMean of BI 1358894 + bupropion)/(gMean of bupropion alone).~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\])=13.9."|The statistical model used for the analysis of the primary endpoints was an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA). The model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'subjects' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects' was considered as random, whereas the effect 'treatment' was considered as fixed.||104.3|86.7|
90927647|NCT01288443|181733799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|ANCOVA|||"Each treatment group was compared to placebo using ANCOVA-derived contrasts.~A hierarchical testing procedure was applied to ensure strong control of overall Type-I error rate at 0.05 level. Order was following:~1. Alirocumab 150 mg Q2W versus placebo~2. Alirocumab 300 mg Q4W versus placebo~3. Alirocumab 100 mg Q2W versus placebo~4. Alirocumab 200 mg Q4W versus placebo~5. Alirocumab 50 mg Q2W versus placebo~Testing continued only when high-order test was statistically significant at 5% level"||||<0.0001
90927648|NCT01288443|181733799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
90927649|NCT01288443|181733799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
90927650|NCT01288443|181733799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
90927651|NCT01288443|181733799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
90927652|NCT04327843|181733808|OTHER|This is a prospective study with a repeated measures design.||||||0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|It was dependent sample pairwise t-tests, two tailed||||||0.001
90927653|NCT04327843|181733809|OTHER|This is a prospective study with a repeated measures design.||||||0.43||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|It was dependent sample pairwise t-tests, two tailed.||||||0.43
90927654|NCT04327843|181733810|OTHER|This is a prospective study with a repeated measures design.||||||0.07||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|It was dependent sample pairwise t-tests, two tailed.||||||0.07
90965499|NCT01011439|181812459|SUPERIORITY||Single proportion|0.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.59|||Fisher Exact|||H0:p\</=17% vs. H1:p\>17%, with an interesting PFS-3 rate of 33% or higher; Power=80%; Alpha(1-sided)=5%, 54 evaluable patients are required for a Simon optimal two stage design trial. If at least 4 successes among the first 17 evaluable patients are observed in the 1st stage, patients' enrollment proceed up to the final analysis where at least 14/54 successes (PFS-3 rate ≥ 25.9%) must be required to reject the null hypothesis.||0.59|0.31|<0.001
90927655|NCT04327843|181733811|OTHER|This is a prospective study with a repeated measures design.||||||0.1||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|It was dependent sample pairwise t-tests, two tailed.||||||0.10
90927656|NCT04327843|181733812|OTHER|This is a prospective study with a repeated measures design.||||||0.75||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|It was dependent sample pairwise t-tests, two tailed.||||||0.75
90927657|NCT04327843|181733813|OTHER|This is a prospective study with a repeated measures design.||||||1||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|It was dependent sample pairwise t-tests, two tailed.||||||1.00
90927658|NCT04327843|181733815|OTHER|This is a prospective study with a repeated measures design.||||||0.75||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|It was dependent sample pairwise t-tests, two tailed.||||||0.75
90965500|NCT01338415|181812479|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.438|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|4.399|||Regression, Cox|||Post-hoc analysis: Cox proportional hazard regression univariate model with treatment as covariate (treatment-only univariate model)||4.399|0.470|
90965501|NCT01338415|181812479|OTHER|||||||0.0526||||||p-value \<= 10% indicates that the covariate WHO FC at baseline is related to the time to PAH worsening|Regression, Cox|||Post-hoc analysis: Cox proportional hazard regression univariate model with WHO FC at baseline (FC III vs FC I/II) as covariate||||0.0526
90927659|NCT04327843|181733816|OTHER|This is a prospective study with a repeated measures design.||||||0.14||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|It was dependent sample pairwise t-tests, two tailed.||||||0.14
90927660|NCT01617369|181733817|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test performed. Null hypothesis is that no difference in clearance 30 min and 4 hr after HS inhalation exists||||<.05
90887671|NCT04079933|181638277|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of change from baseline to end of study for Fagerstrom Test score for Cigarette Dependence; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of change from baseline to end of study for Fagerstrom Test score for Cigarette Dependence|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.408||||0.0919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.884|0.0673|||t-test, 2 sided||"Difference in LS mean change between study groups using Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model 1:~Change from baseline=study group + visit + study group\*visit + subject + random error, fitted with unstructured covariance matrix"|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of change from baseline to end of study for Fagerstrom Test score for Cigarette Dependence; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of change from baseline to end of study for Fagerstrom Test score for Cigarette Dependence||0.0673|-0.884|0.0919
90887672|NCT04079933|181638277|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of change from baseline to end of study for Fagerstrom Test score for Cigarette Dependence; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of change from baseline to end of study for Fagerstrom Test score for Cigarette Dependence|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.405||||0.0975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.886|0.0751|||t-test, 2 sided||"Difference in LS means (Test - Control) using Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model 2:~Change from baseline= study group + visit + study group\*visit + CPD + Sex + Race + BMI + Age + subject + random error, fitted with unstructured covariance matrix"|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of change from baseline to end of study for Fagerstrom Test score for Cigarette Dependence; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of change from baseline to end of study for Fagerstrom Test score for Cigarette Dependence||0.0751|-0.886|0.0975
90887673|NCT04079933|181638277|EQUIVALENCE|"Statistical Analysis of Difference in Percent Change from Baseline in Total Score of Fagerstrom Test for Cigarette Dependence between the Study Groups.~Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study for Fagerstrom Test score for Cigarette Dependence; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study for Fagerstrom Test score for Cigarette Dependence"|Mean Difference (Net)|-8.31||||0.0643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|0.499|||t-test, 2 sided||"Difference in LS mean percent change between study groups using Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model 1:~Change from baseline=study group + visit + study group\*visit + subject + random error, fitted with unstructured covariance matrix"|"Statistical Analysis of Difference in Percent Change from Baseline in Total Score of Fagerstrom Test for Cigarette Dependence between the Study Groups.~Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study for Fagerstrom Test score for Cigarette Dependence; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study for Fagerstrom Test score for Cigarette Dependence"||0.499|-17.1|0.0643
90887674|NCT04079933|181638277|EQUIVALENCE|"Statistical Analysis of Difference in Percent Change from Baseline in Total Score of Fagerstrom Test for Cigarette Dependence between the Study Groups.~Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study for Fagerstrom Test score for Cigarette Dependence; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study for Fagerstrom Test score for Cigarette Dependence"|Mean Difference (Net)|-8.84||||0.0517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|0.0661|||t-test, 2 sided||"Difference in LS means (Test - Control) using Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model 2:~Change from baseline= study group + visit + study group\*visit + CPD + Sex + Race + BMI + Age + subject + random error, fitted with unstructured covariance matrix"|"Statistical Analysis of Difference in Percent Change from Baseline in Total Score of Fagerstrom Test for Cigarette Dependence between the Study Groups.~Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study for Fagerstrom Test score for Cigarette Dependence; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study for Fagerstrom Test score for Cigarette Dependence"||0.0661|-17.7|0.0517
90887675|NCT04079933|181638278|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of change in quit attempts from baseline to end of study; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of change in quit attempts from baseline to end of study|Probability|0.216||||0.216|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact||Estimated value is the probability of observed distribution assuming the null hypothesis|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of change in quit attempts from baseline to end of study; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of change in quit attempts from baseline to end of study||||0.2160
90887676|NCT04079933|181638278|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of change in quit attempts from baseline to end of study; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of change in quit attempts from baseline to end of study|Probability|0.0648||||0.0648|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of change in quit attempts from baseline to end of study; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of change in quit attempts from baseline to end of study||||0.0648
90887677|NCT04079933|181638279|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of change in quitting intentions from baseline to end of study; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of change in quitting intentions from baseline to end of study|Probability|0.5977||||0.5977|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact||Estimated value is the probability of observed distribution assuming the null hypothesis|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of change in quitting intentions from baseline to end of study; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of change in quitting intentions from baseline to end of study||||0.5977
90887678|NCT04079933|181638280|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis = The Day 1(Weekly Recall) and Day 8 (Daily Tracking using IVRS) methods will have equivalent levels of change in mean exposure of NNAL; Alternate hypothesis = The Day 1(Weekly Recall) and Day 8 (Daily Tracking using IVRS) methods will NOT have equivalent levels of change from baseline to end of study in mean exposure of NNAL|Mean Difference (Net)|10.0||||0.4388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5|35.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis = The Day 1(Weekly Recall) and Day 8 (Daily Tracking using IVRS) methods will have equivalent levels of change in mean exposure of NNAL; Alternate hypothesis = The Day 1(Weekly Recall) and Day 8 (Daily Tracking using IVRS) methods will NOT have equivalent levels of change from baseline to end of study in mean exposure of NNAL||35.5|-15.5|0.4388
90927661|NCT00945321|181733826|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence Bounds of (0.80, 1.25).|Least-Squares Mean Ratio|0.93||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.02||Hochberg's step-up procedure was applied to preserve the overall alpha level for the primary hypothesis that involved comparison at two oral dose levels.|two one-sided tests|The P-value obtained was the maximum of two P-values from two one-sided tests (GMR (Oral/IV) ≤0.80 vs. GMR\>0.80 and GMR≥1.25 vs. GMR\<1.25).||||1.02|0.84|0.001
90927662|NCT00945321|181733826|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence Bounds of (0.80, 1.25).|Least-Squares Mean Ratio|1.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.15||Hochberg's step-up procedure was applied to preserve the overall alpha level for the primary hypothesis that involved comparison at two oral dose levels|two one-sided tests|The P-value obtained was the maximum of two P-values from two one-sided tests (GMR (Oral/IV) ≤0.80 vs. GMR\>0.80 and GMR≥1.25 vs. GMR\<1.25).||||1.15|0.96|<0.001
90927663|NCT00945321|181733826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Ratio|1.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.23|1.76||||||The effect of a standard high-fat breakfast and a standard light breakfast on aprepitant plasma pharmacokinetics (AUC0-∞ and Cmax) following a single 165 mg oral dose of aprepitant and following a single 185 mg oral dose of aprepitant will be estimated in healthy young adult subjects||1.76|1.23|
90927664|NCT00945321|181733826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.32||||||The effect of a standard high-fat breakfast and a standard light breakfast on aprepitant plasma pharmacokinetics (AUC0-∞ and Cmax) following a single 165 mg oral dose of aprepitant and following a single 185 mg oral dose of aprepitant will be estimated in healthy young adult subjects||1.32|0.88|
90927665|NCT00945321|181733826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Ratio|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.01|1.46||||||The effect of a standard high-fat breakfast and a standard light breakfast on aprepitant plasma pharmacokinetics (AUC0-∞ and Cmax) following a single 165 mg oral dose of aprepitant and following a single 185 mg oral dose of aprepitant will be estimated in healthy young adult subjects||1.46|1.01|
90927666|NCT00945321|181733826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Ratio|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.16|1.75||||||The effect of a standard high-fat breakfast and a standard light breakfast on aprepitant plasma pharmacokinetics (AUC0-∞ and Cmax) following a single 165 mg oral dose of aprepitant and following a single 185 mg oral dose of aprepitant will be estimated in healthy young adult subjects||1.75|1.16|
90927667|NCT00945321|181733827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Ratio|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.13|1.56||||||The effect of a standard high-fat breakfast and a standard light breakfast on aprepitant plasma pharmacokinetics (AUC0-∞ and Cmax) following a single 165 mg oral dose of aprepitant and following a single 185 mg oral dose of aprepitant will be estimated in healthy young adult subjects||1.56|1.13|
90927668|NCT00945321|181733827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.25||||||The effect of a standard high-fat breakfast and a standard light breakfast on aprepitant plasma pharmacokinetics (AUC0-∞ and Cmax) following a single 165 mg oral dose of aprepitant and following a single 185 mg oral dose of aprepitant will be estimated in healthy young adult subjects||1.25|0.86|
90927669|NCT00945321|181733827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Ratio|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.34||||||The effect of a standard high-fat breakfast and a standard light breakfast on aprepitant plasma pharmacokinetics (AUC0-∞ and Cmax) following a single 165 mg oral dose of aprepitant and following a single 185 mg oral dose of aprepitant will be estimated in healthy young adult subjects||1.34|0.96|
90927670|NCT00945321|181733827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Ratio|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.16|1.68||||||The effect of a standard high-fat breakfast and a standard light breakfast on aprepitant plasma pharmacokinetics (AUC0-∞ and Cmax) following a single 165 mg oral dose of aprepitant and following a single 185 mg oral dose of aprepitant will be estimated in healthy young adult subjects||1.68|1.16|
90927671|NCT02438137|181733828|SUPERIORITY|In multiple linear regression models, the effect of DMF treatment on mean RDI change (beta-coefficient) was -11.3 respiratory events per hour (p=0.0124).|beta-coefficient for treatment effect|-11.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3||0.0124|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Multiple linear regression models were used to calculate treatment effect (DMF or placebo) on mean RDI change, controlling for change in age, gender, BMI, time spent in supine sleep, and time spent in REM sleep.|A mixed effects model, which treated RDI as a repeated measure and used individual ID as random effect, adjusted for age, gender, BMI, time spent in supine sleep, was also conducted. In this model, the effect of DMF compared to placebo, controlling for all other covariates, is a 28% decrease in Month 4 RDI (p=0.033).|||0.0124
90965502|NCT01338415|181812479|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.169||||||95.0|0.371|3.681|||Regression, Cox|||Post-hoc analysis: Treatment Hazard Ratio (HR) in the multivariate model with treatment and WHO FC at baseline as covariates||3.681|0.371|
90927672|NCT00692913|181733830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.2|||<|0.001||95.0|0.12|0.35|||Regression, Logistic|The logistic regression model was adjusted by baseline 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) level stratum, age, and region.||||0.35|0.12|<0.001
91035291|NCT03086460|181956479|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.076||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.005|0.146|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.146|0.005|0.037
90927673|NCT00692913|181733831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-squares means|-9.7|||<|0.001||95.0|-14.49|-4.93|||Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|The model was adjusted by baseline 25-hydroxyvitamin D level stratum, age, and region.||||-4.93|-14.49|<0.001
90965503|NCT01338415|181812479|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.076||||||p-value \<= 10% indicates an improvement in model fit|log(e) likelihood ratio|||Test of improvement in model fit from the univariate to the multivariate model with WHO FC at baseline as covariate||||0.076
90965504|NCT01338415|181812480|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.935|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.582|6.428|||Regression, Cox|||Post-hoc analysis: Cox proportional hazard regression univariate model with treatment as covariate (treatment-only univariate model)||6.428|0.582|
90887679|NCT04079933|181638281|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis = The Day 1(Weekly Recall) and Day 8 (Daily Tracking using IVRS) methods will have equivalent levels of change in mean exposure of nicotine metabolites; Alternate hypothesis = The Day 1(Weekly Recall) and Day 8 (Daily Tracking using IVRS) methods will NOT have equivalent levels of change from baseline to end of study in mean exposure of nicotine metabolites|Mean Difference (Net)|0.45||||0.339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|1.38|||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis = The Day 1(Weekly Recall) and Day 8 (Daily Tracking using IVRS) methods will have equivalent levels of change in mean exposure of nicotine metabolites; Alternate hypothesis = The Day 1(Weekly Recall) and Day 8 (Daily Tracking using IVRS) methods will NOT have equivalent levels of change from baseline to end of study in mean exposure of nicotine metabolites||1.38|-0.48|0.3390
90887680|NCT04079933|181638282|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis = The Day 1(Weekly Recall) and Day 8 (Daily Tracking using IVRS) methods will have equivalent levels of change in mean exposure of S-PMA; Alternate hypothesis = The Day 1(Weekly Recall) and Day 8 (Daily Tracking using IVRS) methods will NOT have equivalent levels of change from baseline to end of study in mean exposure of S-PMA|Mean Difference (Net)|-205.0||||0.4526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-745.0|334.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis = The Day 1(Weekly Recall) and Day 8 (Daily Tracking using IVRS) methods will have equivalent levels of change in mean exposure of S-PMA; Alternate hypothesis = The Day 1(Weekly Recall) and Day 8 (Daily Tracking using IVRS) methods will NOT have equivalent levels of change from baseline to end of study in mean exposure of S-PMA||334|-745|0.4526
90971269|NCT01534533|181825242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.636||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two sides)|ANOVA|||"The null hypothesis was no group difference"||||0.636
90927674|NCT00692913|181733832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-squares mean|-7.07|||<|0.001||95.0|-10.95|-3.2|||Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|The model was adjusted by baseline 25-hydroxyvitamin D level stratum, age, and region.||||-3.20|-10.95|<0.001
90927675|NCT00692913|181733833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.21|||<|0.001||95.0|0.13|0.35|||Regression, Logistic|The logistic regression model was adjusted by baseline 25-hydroxyvitamin D level stratum, age, and region.||||0.35|0.13|<0.001
90927676|NCT00692913|181733834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.01||||0.047||95.0|0.01|2.0|||Traditional Longitudinal data analysis|The model was adjusted by baseline 25-hydroxyvitamin D level stratum, age, and region.|FOSAVANCE minus Referred-Care. Analysis was for Lumbar Spine.|||2.00|0.01|0.047
90927677|NCT00692913|181733834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.82||||0.035||95.0|0.06|1.58|||Traditional Longitudinal data analysis|The model was adjusted by baseline 25-hydroxyvitamin D level stratum, age, and region.|FOSAVANCE minus Referred-Care. Analysis was for Total Hip.|||1.58|0.06|0.035
90927678|NCT00692913|181733835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference of falls (falls/patient-year)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.675||95.0|-0.12|0.19|||Zero-Inflated Poisson Regression|Adjusted by the terms for treatment, baseline 25(OH) D level stratum, age, and region and offset variable of log (total patient-years in the study).||||0.19|-0.12|0.675
90927679|NCT00692913|181733836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-8.35||||0.001||95.0|-13.19|-3.54|||Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|The model was adjusted by baseline 25-hydroxyvitamin D level stratum, age, and region.||||-3.54|-13.19|0.001
90927680|NCT00692913|181733837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-8.07|||<|0.001||95.0|-11.94|-4.21|||Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|The model was adjusted by baseline 25-hydroxyvitamin D level stratum, age, and region.||||-4.21|-11.94|<0.001
90927681|NCT03614663|181733864|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.321|||||||MMRM - Mixed model for repeated measures|||||||0.321
90927682|NCT03614663|181733865|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.149|||||||MMRM - Mixed model for repeated measures|||||||0.149
90927683|NCT03614663|181733866|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.607|||||||MMRM - Mixed model for repeated measures|||||||0.607
90927684|NCT03614663|181733867|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.426|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.426
90927685|NCT03614663|181733868|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||MMRM - Mixed model for repeated measures|||||||0.02
90927686|NCT03614663|181733869|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.091|||||||MMRM - Mixed model for repeated measures|||||||0.091
90927687|NCT03614663|181733870|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.135|||||||MMRM - Mixed model for repeated measures|||||||0.135
90927688|NCT03614663|181733871|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.056|||||||MMRM - Mixed model for repeated measures|||||||0.056
90927689|NCT05274321|181733876|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority margin was determined by taking 10% of the standard of care change score. Noninferiority was determined for each outcome if the noninferiority margin did not overlap with the regression coefficient's 95% confidence interval.||||||0.22||||||Wald P values were calculated by testing whether the regression coefficient met or exceeded the noninferiority margin.|Regression, Linear|The threshold for significance is 0.0167.||Absolute between-eye differences were calculated for each participant by subtracting the standard of care (SOC) change score from the Nanodropper change score. The confidence interval (CI) is 95%.||||0.22
90927690|NCT05274321|181733877|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority margin was determined by taking 10% of the standard of care change score. Noninferiority was determined for each outcome if the noninferiority margin did not overlap with the regression coefficient's 95% confidence interval. .||||||0.02||||||Wald P values were calculated by testing whether the regression coefficient met or exceeded the noninferiority margin.|Regression, Linear|The threshold for significance is 0.0167.||Absolute between-eye differences were calculated for each participant by subtracting the standard of care (SOC) change score from the Nanodropper change score. The confidence interval (CI) is 95%.||||0.02
90927691|NCT05274321|181733878|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority margin was determined by taking 10% of the standard of care change score. Noninferiority was determined for each outcome if the noninferiority margin did not overlap with the regression coefficient's 95% confidence interval.||||||0.03||||||Wald P values were calculated by testing whether the regression coefficient met or exceeded the noninferiority margin.|Regression, Linear|The threshold for significance is 0.0167.||Absolute between-eye differences were calculated for each participant by subtracting the standard of care (SOC) change score from the Nanodropper change score. The confidence interval (CI) is 95%.||||0.03
90927692|NCT05274321|181733879|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority margin was determined by taking 10% of the standard of care change score. Noninferiority was determined for each outcome if the noninferiority margin did not overlap with the regression coefficient's 95% confidence interval.||||||0.25||||||Wald P values were calculated by testing whether the regression coefficient met or exceeded the noninferiority margin.|Regression, Linear|The threshold for significance is 0.0167.||Absolute between-eye differences were calculated for each participant by subtracting the standard of care (SOC) change score from the Nanodropper change score. The confidence interval (CI) is 95%.||||0.25
90927693|NCT01074294|181733887|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.69||||0.5845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|3.19||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, trial center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects and Week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between Least Squares (LS) means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|||3.19|-1.80|0.5845
90927694|NCT01074294|181733888|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.8832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|1.18||The p-value was derived using ANCOVA model with treatment and trial center as main effects and Week 5 value as covariate.|ANCOVA||The difference between LS means derived from the ANCOVA model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|||1.18|-1.37|0.8832
90927695|NCT01074294|181733889|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.57||||0.3864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|1.86||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, trial center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects and Week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|||1.86|-0.72|0.3864
90927696|NCT01074294|181733890|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34||||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.58||The p value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, trial center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects and Week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|||0.58|0.10|0.0061
90927697|NCT01074294|181733891|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41||||0.6932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|2.46||The p-value was derived from ANCOVA model, with treatment and trial center as main effects and Week 5 value as covariate.|ANCOVA||This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|||2.46|-1.64|0.6932
90927698|NCT01074294|181733892|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.81||||0.2781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|2.28||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 6||2.28|-0.66|0.2781
90927699|NCT01074294|181733892|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.67||||0.4673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|2.49||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 7||2.49|-1.15|0.4673
90927700|NCT01074294|181733892|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.62||||0.5719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|2.79||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 8||2.79|-1.54|0.5719
90927701|NCT01074294|181733892|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.56||||0.6262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|2.83||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 9||2.83|-1.70|0.6262
90927702|NCT01074294|181733892|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4||||0.2638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|3.87||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 10||3.87|-1.06|0.2638
90927703|NCT01074294|181733893|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.42||||0.3804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|1.37||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 6||1.37|-0.52|0.3804
90927704|NCT01074294|181733893|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26||||0.6422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|1.39||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 7||1.39|-0.86|0.6422
90927705|NCT01074294|181733893|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28||||0.6707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.55||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 8||1.55|-1.00|0.6707
90927706|NCT01074294|181733893|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.6638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|1.64||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 9||1.64|-1.04|0.6638
90927707|NCT01074294|181733893|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.2252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|2.36||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 10||2.36|-0.56|0.2252
90927708|NCT01074294|181733893|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28||||0.697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|1.7||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 11||1.70|-1.14|0.6970
90927709|NCT01074294|181733894|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23||||0.6008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|1.11||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 6||1.11|-0.64|0.6008
90927710|NCT01074294|181733894|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28||||0.5859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|1.27||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 7||1.27|-0.72|0.5859
90887681|NCT04079933|181638283|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis = The Day 1(Weekly Recall) and Day 8 (Daily Tracking using IVRS) methods will have equivalent levels of change in mean exposure of carboxyhemoglobin; Alternate hypothesis = The Day 1(Weekly Recall) and Day 8 (Daily Tracking using IVRS) methods will NOT have equivalent levels of change from baseline to end of study in mean exposure of carboxyhemoglobin|Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis = The Day 1(Weekly Recall) and Day 8 (Daily Tracking using IVRS) methods will have equivalent levels of change in mean exposure of carboxyhemoglobin; Alternate hypothesis = The Day 1(Weekly Recall) and Day 8 (Daily Tracking using IVRS) methods will NOT have equivalent levels of change from baseline to end of study in mean exposure of carboxyhemoglobin||0.2|-0.2|0.9440
90887682|NCT04079933|181638284|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis = The Day 1(Weekly Recall) and Day 8 (Daily Tracking using IVRS) methods will have equivalent levels of change in mean exposure of carbon monoxide; Alternate hypothesis = The Day 1(Weekly Recall) and Day 8 (Daily Tracking using IVRS) methods will NOT have equivalent levels of change from baseline to end of study in mean exposure of carbon monoxide|Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.7484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis = The Day 1(Weekly Recall) and Day 8 (Daily Tracking using IVRS) methods will have equivalent levels of change in mean exposure of carbon monoxide; Alternate hypothesis = The Day 1(Weekly Recall) and Day 8 (Daily Tracking using IVRS) methods will NOT have equivalent levels of change from baseline to end of study in mean exposure of carbon monoxide||1|-1|0.7484
90887683|NCT04079933|181638285|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis = Cigarette consumption (CPD) determined using the Day 1 (Weekly Recall) and Day 8 (Daily Tracking using IVRS) methods will be equivalent; Alternate hypothesis = Cigarette consumption (CPD) determined using the Day 1(Weekly Recall) and Day 8 (Daily Tracking using IVRS) methods will NOT be equivalent|Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.9992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis = Cigarette consumption (CPD) determined using the Day 1 (Weekly Recall) and Day 8 (Daily Tracking using IVRS) methods will be equivalent; Alternate hypothesis = Cigarette consumption (CPD) determined using the Day 1(Weekly Recall) and Day 8 (Daily Tracking using IVRS) methods will NOT be equivalent||0|0|0.9992
90887684|NCT04079933|181638307|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent number of subjects in subgroups based on urinary total NNAL change from baseline to end of study; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent number of subjects in subgroups based on urinary total NNAL change from baseline to end of study|Probability|0.1661||||0.1661|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Estimated value is the probability of observed distribution assuming the null hypothesis|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent number of subjects in subgroups based on urinary total NNAL change from baseline to end of study; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent number of subjects in subgroups based on urinary total NNAL change from baseline to end of study||||0.1661
90887685|NCT04079933|181638307|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent number of subjects in subgroups based on urinary total NNAL change from baseline to end of study; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent number of subjects in subgroups based on urinary total NNAL change from baseline to end of study|Probability|0.2139||||0.2139|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact||Estimated value is the probability of observed distribution assuming the null hypothesis|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent number of subjects in subgroups based on urinary total NNAL change from baseline to end of study; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent number of subjects in subgroups based on urinary total NNAL change from baseline to end of study||||0.2139
90965505|NCT01338415|181812480|OTHER|||||||0.0085|||||||Regression, Cox|p-value \<= 10% indicates that the covariate is related to the time to the time to death up to end-of-study||Post-hoc analysis: Cox proportional hazard regression univariate model with WHO FC at baseline (FC III vs FC I/II) as covariate||||0.0085
90887686|NCT03207750|181638308|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit (LL) of the two-sided asymptotic standardized 95% Confidence Interval (CI) for the difference in seroprotective concentration (HRV PCV-free Liquid group minus HRV Lyophilized group) for each of anti-D antibodies should be ≥-10%.|Difference in anti-D concentration|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.79||||||Non-inferiority of the immune responses to 3 doses of Pediarix, Hiberix and Prevenar 13 when co-administered with 2 doses of the PCV-free liquid HRV vaccine, as compared to when co-administered with lyophilized HRV vaccine in terms of group difference in percentage of subjects with seroprotective concentrations (≥ 0.1 IU/mL) of anti-D antibodies.||0.79|-0.80|
90887687|NCT03207750|181638308|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit (LL) of the two-sided asymptotic standardized 95% Confidence Interval (CI) for the difference in seroprotective concentration (HRV PCV-free Liquid group minus HRV Lyophilized group) for each of anti-T antibodies should be ≥-10%.|Difference in anti-T concentration|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.77||||||Non-inferiority of the immune responses to 3 doses of Pediarix, Hiberix and Prevenar 13 when co-administered with 2 doses of the PCV-free liquid HRV vaccine, as compared to when co-administered with lyophilized HRV vaccine in terms of group difference in percentage of subjects with seroprotective concentrations (≥ 0.1 IU/mL) of anti-T antibodies.||0.77|-0.79|
90887688|NCT03207750|181638309|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit (LL) of the two-sided asymptotic standardized 95% CI for the difference in seroprotective concentration (HRV PCV-free Liquid group minus HRV Lyophilized group) for each of anti-HB antibodies should be ≥-10%.|Difference in anti-HB concentration|-0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.16||||||Non-inferiority of the immune responses to 3 doses of Pediarix, Hiberix and Prevenar 13 when co-administered with 2 doses of the PCV-free liquid HRV vaccine, as compared to when co-administered with lyophilized HRV vaccine in terms of group difference in percentage of subjects with seroprotective concentrations (≥ 10 mIU/mL) of anti-HB antibodies.||0.16|-1.90|
90887689|NCT03207750|181638310|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit (LL) of the two-sided asymptotic standardized 95% CI for the difference in seroprotective concentration (HRV PCV-free Liquid group minus HRV Lyophilized group) for each of anti-poliovirus type 1 antibodies should be ≥-5%.|Difference in anti-polio 1 concentration|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.15||||||Non-inferiority of the immune responses to 3 doses of Pediarix, Hiberix and Prevenar 13 when co-administered with 2 doses of the PCV-free liquid HRV vaccine, as compared to when co-administered with lyophilized HRV vaccine in terms of group difference in percentage of subjects with seroprotective titers (≥ 8 ED50) of anti-poliovirus type 1 antibodies.||1.15|-0.60|
90887690|NCT03207750|181638310|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit (LL) of the two-sided asymptotic standardized 95% CI for the difference in seroprotective concentration (HRV PCV-free Liquid group minus HRV Lyophilized group) for each of anti-poliovirus type 2 antibodies should be ≥-5%.|Difference in anti-polio 2 concentration|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|0.98||||||Non-inferiority of the immune responses to 3 doses of Pediarix, Hiberix and Prevenar 13 when co-administered with 2 doses of the PCV-free liquid HRV vaccine, as compared to when co-administered with lyophilized HRV vaccine in terms of group difference in percentage of subjects with seroprotective titers (≥ 8 ED50) of anti-poliovirus type 2 antibodies.||0.98|-1.02|
90887691|NCT03207750|181638310|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit (LL) of the two-sided asymptotic standardized 95% CI for the difference in seroprotective concentration (HRV PCV-free Liquid group minus HRV Lyophilized group) for each of anti-poliovirus type 3 antibodies should be ≥-5%.|Difference in anti-polio 3 concentration|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.84||||||Non-inferiority of the immune responses to 3 doses of Pediarix, Hiberix and Prevenar 13 when co-administered with 2 doses of the PCV-free liquid HRV vaccine, as compared to when co-administered with lyophilized HRV vaccine in terms of group difference in percentage of subjects with seroprotective titers (≥ 8 ED50) of anti-poliovirus type 3 antibodies.||0.84|-0.87|
90887692|NCT03207750|181638311|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit (LL) of the two-sided 95% CI on GMC ratios (HRV PCV-free Liquid group over HRV Lyophilized group) for each of anti-PT antibodies should be ≥ 0.67.|GMC ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.03|||ANOVA|ANOVA model that included the vaccine group as fixed effect.||Non-inferiority of the immune responses to 3 doses of Pediarix, Hiberix and Prevenar 13 when co-administered with 2 doses of the PCV-free liquid HRV vaccine, as compared to when co-administered with lyophilized HRV vaccine in terms of GMC ratios for anti-PT antibodies.||1.03|0.86|
90887693|NCT03207750|181638311|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit (LL) of the two-sided 95% CI on GMC ratios (HRV PCV-free Liquid group over HRV Lyophilized group) for each of anti-FHA antibodies should be ≥ 0.67.|GMC ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.08|||ANOVA|ANOVA model that included the vaccine group as fixed effect.||Non-inferiority of the immune responses to 3 doses of Pediarix, Hiberix and Prevenar 13 when co-administered with 2 doses of the PCV-free liquid HRV vaccine, as compared to when co-administered with lyophilized HRV vaccine in terms of GMC ratios for anti-FHA antibodies.||1.08|0.92|
90965506|NCT01338415|181812480|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.487|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.437|5.052|||Regression, Cox|||Post-hoc analysis: Treatment Hazard Ratio (HR) in the multivariate model with treatment and WHO FC at baseline as covariates||5.052|0.437|
90965507|NCT01338415|181812480|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||log(e) likelihood ratio|p-value \<= 10% indicates an improvement in model fit||Test of the improvement in model fit from the univariate to the multivariate model with WHO FC at baseline as covariate||||0.014
90887694|NCT03207750|181638311|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit (LL) of the two-sided 95% CI on GMC ratios (HRV PCV-free Liquid group over HRV Lyophilized group) for each of anti-PRN antibodies should be ≥ 0.67.|GMC ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.1|||ANOVA|ANOVA model that included the vaccine group as fixed effect.||Non-inferiority of the immune responses to 3 doses of Pediarix, Hiberix and Prevenar 13 when co-administered with 2 doses of the PCV-free liquid HRV vaccine, as compared to when co-administered with lyophilized HRV vaccine in terms of GMC ratios for anti-PRN antibodies.||1.10|0.86|
90887695|NCT03207750|181638312|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit (LL) of the two-sided 95% CI on GMC ratios (HRV PCV-free Liquid group over HRV Lyophilized group) for S. pneumoniae serotype 1 should be ≥ 0.5.|GMC ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.14|||ANOVA|ANOVA model that included the vaccine group as fixed effect.||Non-inferiority of the immune responses to 3 doses of Pediarix, Hiberix and Prevenar 13 when co-administered with 2 doses of the PCV-free liquid HRV vaccine, as compared to when co-administered with lyophilized HRV vaccine in terms of GMC ratios for Streptococcus pneumoniae (S. pneumoniae) serotype 1.||1.14|0.93|
90887696|NCT03207750|181638312|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit (LL) of the two-sided 95% CI on GMC ratios (HRV PCV-free Liquid group over HRV Lyophilized group) for S. pneumoniae serotype 3 should be ≥ 0.5.|GMC ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.11|||ANOVA|ANOVA model that included the vaccine group as fixed effect.||Non-inferiority of the immune responses to 3 doses of Pediarix, Hiberix and Prevenar 13 when co-administered with 2 doses of the PCV-free liquid HRV vaccine, as compared to when co-administered with lyophilized HRV vaccine in terms of GMC ratios for Streptococcus pneumoniae (S. pneumoniae) serotype 3.||1.11|0.91|
90887697|NCT03207750|181638312|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit (LL) of the two-sided 95% CI on GMC ratios (HRV PCV-free Liquid group over HRV Lyophilized group) for S. pneumoniae serotype 4 should be ≥ 0.5.|GMC ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.09|||ANOVA|ANOVA model that included the vaccine group as fixed effect.||Non-inferiority of the immune responses to 3 doses of Pediarix, Hiberix and Prevenar 13 when co-administered with 2 doses of the PCV-free liquid HRV vaccine, as compared to when co-administered with lyophilized HRV vaccine in terms of GMC ratios for Streptococcus pneumoniae (S. pneumoniae) serotype 4.||1.09|0.90|
90887698|NCT03207750|181638312|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit (LL) of the two-sided 95% CI on GMC ratios (HRV PCV-free Liquid group over HRV Lyophilized group) for S. pneumoniae serotype 5 should be ≥ 0.5.|GMC ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.17|||ANOVA|ANOVA model that included the vaccine group as fixed effect.||Non-inferiority of the immune responses to 3 doses of Pediarix, Hiberix and Prevenar 13 when co-administered with 2 doses of the PCV-free liquid HRV vaccine, as compared to when co-administered with lyophilized HRV vaccine in terms of GMC ratios for Streptococcus pneumoniae (S. pneumoniae) serotype 5.||1.17|0.94|
90887699|NCT03207750|181638312|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit (LL) of the two-sided 95% CI on GMC ratios (HRV PCV-free Liquid group over HRV Lyophilized group) for S. pneumoniae serotype 6A should be ≥ 0.5.|GMC ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.12|||ANOVA|ANOVA model that included the vaccine group as fixed effect.||Non-inferiority of the immune responses to 3 doses of Pediarix, Hiberix and Prevenar 13 when co-administered with 2 doses of the PCV-free liquid HRV vaccine, as compared to when co-administered with lyophilized HRV vaccine in terms of GMC ratios for Streptococcus pneumoniae (S. pneumoniae) serotype 6A.||1.12|0.92|
90887700|NCT03207750|181638312|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit (LL) of the two-sided 95% CI on GMC ratios (HRV PCV-free Liquid group over HRV Lyophilized group) for S. pneumoniae serotype 6B should be ≥ 0.5.|GMC ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.12|||ANOVA|ANOVA model that included the vaccine group as fixed effect.||Non-inferiority of the immune responses to 3 doses of Pediarix, Hiberix and Prevenar 13 when co-administered with 2 doses of the PCV-free liquid HRV vaccine, as compared to when co-administered with lyophilized HRV vaccine in terms of GMC ratios for Streptococcus pneumoniae (S. pneumoniae) serotype 6B.||1.12|0.83|
90887701|NCT03207750|181638312|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit (LL) of the two-sided 95% CI on GMC ratios (HRV PCV-free Liquid group over HRV Lyophilized group) for S. pneumoniae serotype 7F should be ≥ 0.5.|GMC ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.08|||ANOVA|ANOVA model that included the vaccine group as fixed effect.||Non-inferiority of the immune responses to 3 doses of Pediarix, Hiberix and Prevenar 13 when co-administered with 2 doses of the PCV-free liquid HRV vaccine, as compared to when co-administered with lyophilized HRV vaccine in terms of GMC ratios for Streptococcus pneumoniae (S. pneumoniae) serotype 7F.||1.08|0.91|
90887702|NCT03207750|181638312|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit (LL) of the two-sided 95% CI on GMC ratios (HRV PCV-free Liquid group over HRV Lyophilized group) for S. pneumoniae serotype 9V should be ≥ 0.5.|GMC ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.14|||ANOVA|ANOVA model that included the vaccine group as fixed effect.||Non-inferiority of the immune responses to 3 doses of Pediarix, Hiberix and Prevenar 13 when co-administered with 2 doses of the PCV-free liquid HRV vaccine, as compared to when co-administered with lyophilized HRV vaccine in terms of GMC ratios for Streptococcus pneumoniae (S. pneumoniae) serotype 9V.||1.14|0.93|
90887703|NCT03207750|181638312|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit (LL) of the two-sided 95% CI on GMC ratios (HRV PCV-free Liquid group over HRV Lyophilized group) for S. pneumoniae serotype 14 should be ≥ 0.5.|GMC ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.13|||ANOVA|ANOVA model that included the vaccine group as fixed effect.||Non-inferiority of the immune responses to 3 doses of Pediarix, Hiberix and Prevenar 13 when co-administered with 2 doses of the PCV-free liquid HRV vaccine, as compared to when co-administered with lyophilized HRV vaccine in terms of GMC ratios for Streptococcus pneumoniae (S. pneumoniae) serotype 14.||1.13|0.89|
90927711|NCT01074294|181733894|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19||||0.7406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|1.34||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 8||1.34|-0.96|0.7406
90927712|NCT01074294|181733894|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.8568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|1.37||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 9||1.37|-1.14|0.8568
90927713|NCT01074294|181733894|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34||||0.6044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|1.64||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 10||1.64|-0.96|0.6044
90927714|NCT01074294|181733894|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29||||0.6772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|1.66||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 11||1.66|-1.08|0.6772
90927715|NCT01074294|181733895|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.7881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|1.15||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 6||1.15|-0.87|0.7881
90927716|NCT01074294|181733895|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.8841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|1.19||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 7||1.19|-1.38|0.8841
90927717|NCT01074294|181733895|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22||||0.7589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|1.17||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 8||1.17|-1.61|0.7589
90927718|NCT01074294|181733895|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.46||||0.5375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|1.93||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 9||1.93|-1.01|0.5375
90927719|NCT01074294|181733895|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.58||||0.4456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|2.08||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 10||2.08|-0.92|0.4456
90927720|NCT01074294|181733895|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34||||0.667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|1.89||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 11||1.89|-1.21|0.6670
90927721|NCT01074294|181733896|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.9708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|1.01||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 7||1.01|-0.97|0.9708
90927722|NCT01074294|181733896|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.49||||0.397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|1.63||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 9||1.63|-0.65|0.3970
90927723|NCT01074294|181733897|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01||||0.9568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.5||The p-value was derived from CMH general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Difficulty Falling Asleep: Week 7||1.50|0.68|0.9568
90927724|NCT01074294|181733897|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.91||||0.6308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.31||The p-value was derived from CMH general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Difficulty Falling Asleep: Week 9||1.31|0.63|0.6308
90927725|NCT01074294|181733897|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.92||||0.6698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.32||The p-value was derived from CMH general association test controlling for study center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Difficulty Falling Asleep: Week 11||1.32|0.64|0.6698
90927726|NCT01074294|181733897|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.76||||0.2012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.15||The p-value was derived from CMH general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Difficulty Staying Asleep: Week 7||1.15|0.50|0.2012
90887704|NCT03207750|181638312|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit (LL) of the two-sided 95% CI on GMC ratios (HRV PCV-free Liquid group over HRV Lyophilized group) for S. pneumoniae serotype 18C should be ≥ 0.5.|GMC ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.14|||ANOVA|ANOVA model that included the vaccine group as fixed effect.||Non-inferiority of the immune responses to 3 doses of Pediarix, Hiberix and Prevenar 13 when co-administered with 2 doses of the PCV-free liquid HRV vaccine, as compared to when co-administered with lyophilized HRV vaccine in terms of GMC ratios for Streptococcus pneumoniae (S. pneumoniae) serotype 18C.||1.14|0.92|
90965508|NCT03334409|181812519|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
90965509|NCT03334409|181812520|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.08
90965510|NCT03334409|181812521|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.08
90965511|NCT03334409|181812522|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
90965512|NCT03334409|181812523|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.18
90965513|NCT03334409|181812524|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
90965514|NCT01495858|181812532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3047|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3047
90965515|NCT01495858|181812533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1677|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.1677
90965516|NCT01495858|181812534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2764|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2764
91035292|NCT03086460|181956480|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.005||||0.896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.083|0.073|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~This secondary efficacy variable was analyzed using the ANCOVA model that was also used for the primary efficacy analysis, without adjusting for multiplicity."||0.073|-0.083|0.896
90965517|NCT01495858|181812535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2764|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2764
90965518|NCT01495858|181812536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
90965519|NCT01495858|181812537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0004
90965520|NCT01495858|181812538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0145|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0145
90965521|NCT01495858|181812539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||>0.05
90965522|NCT01495858|181812540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0387|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0387
90965523|NCT01495858|181812541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0305|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0305
90965524|NCT01495858|181812542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0176|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0176
90965525|NCT01495858|181812543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
90965526|NCT01495858|181812544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0036|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0036
90965527|NCT01495858|181812545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
90965528|NCT01495858|181812546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||>0.05
90965529|NCT01495858|181812547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||>0.05
90965530|NCT01495858|181812548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4519|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.4519
90965531|NCT01495858|181812549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3707|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3707
90965532|NCT01495858|181812550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Log Rank|||||||>0.05
90965533|NCT01495858|181812552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3765|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3765
90965534|NCT05215262|181812557|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.87||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|3.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.17|0.04|0.04
90965535|NCT05215262|181812557|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|1.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.99|-1.59|0.82
90965536|NCT05215262|181812557|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.67||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|4.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference-in-differences results, comparing GSES scores between the Intervention and Standard of Care groups at the three-month time point.||4.23|-0.89|0.20
90965537|NCT05417607|181812587|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.86||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|6.22|||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group pre- and post-intervention.||6.22|1.27|0.0047
90965538|NCT05417607|181812588|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.9||0.2383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|6.02|||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group pre- and post-intervention.||6.02|-1.6|0.2383
90965539|NCT05417607|181812589|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.71|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.58||0.3426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|0.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group pre- and post-intervention.||0.80|-2.22|0.3426
90965540|NCT02871778|181812592|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean difference|1.519||||0.0437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.044|2.995|||Mixed-effects Model|||||2.995|0.044|0.0437
90965541|NCT02871778|181812592|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|0.04||||0.9755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.509|2.589|||Mixed-effects Model|||||2.589|-2.509|0.9755
90965542|NCT02871778|181812592|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|2.318||||0.0731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|4.856|||Mixed-effects Model|||||4.856|-0.22|0.0731
90965543|NCT02871778|181812592|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.799||||0.5373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.751|3.348|||Mixed-effects Model|||||3.348|-1.751|0.5373
90965544|NCT02871778|181812592|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|0.838||||0.453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.368|3.045|||Mixed-effects Model|||||3.045|-1.368|0.453
90965545|NCT02653300|181812601|OTHER|||||||0.03125|||||||Sign test|||||||0.03125
90965546|NCT00911625|181812612|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.502||0.958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.341|18.341|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two treatment cohorts on their average blood glucose level||18.341|-19.341|.958
90965547|NCT00911625|181812613|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.438||||0.0828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.172|1.114|||Regression, Logistic|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the odds of experiencing at least one blood glucose level below 70 mg/dL between the two treatment cohorts.||1.114|0.172|.0828
90887705|NCT03207750|181638312|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit (LL) of the two-sided 95% CI on GMC ratios (HRV PCV-free Liquid group over HRV Lyophilized group) for S. pneumoniae serotype 19A should be ≥ 0.5.|GMC ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.15|||ANOVA|ANOVA model that included the vaccine group as fixed effect.||Non-inferiority of the immune responses to 3 doses of Pediarix, Hiberix and Prevenar 13 when co-administered with 2 doses of the PCV-free liquid HRV vaccine, as compared to when co-administered with lyophilized HRV vaccine in terms of GMC ratios for Streptococcus pneumoniae (S. pneumoniae) serotype 19A.||1.15|0.93|
90887706|NCT03207750|181638312|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit (LL) of the two-sided 95% CI on GMC ratios (HRV PCV-free Liquid group over HRV Lyophilized group) for S. pneumoniae serotype 19F should be ≥ 0.5.|GMC ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.12|||ANOVA|ANOVA model that included the vaccine group as fixed effect.||Non-inferiority of the immune responses to 3 doses of Pediarix, Hiberix and Prevenar 13 when co-administered with 2 doses of the PCV-free liquid HRV vaccine, as compared to when co-administered with lyophilized HRV vaccine in terms of GMC ratios for Streptococcus pneumoniae (S. pneumoniae) serotype 19F.||1.12|0.95|
90927727|NCT01074294|181733897|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.78||||0.2365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.16||The p-value was derived from CMH general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Difficulty Staying Asleep: Week 9||1.16|0.52|0.2365
91035293|NCT03086460|181956480|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.089|0.07|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.070|-0.089|0.810
90927728|NCT01074294|181733897|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.65||||0.0312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.96||The p-value was derived from CMH general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Difficulty Staying Asleep: Week 11||0.96|0.44|0.0312
90927729|NCT01074294|181733897|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.12||||0.6408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.81||The p-value was derived from CMH general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Waking Up Too Early: Week 7||1.81|0.69|0.6408
90927730|NCT01074294|181733897|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.24||||0.3467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.96||The p-value was derived from CMH general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Waking Up Too Early: Week 9||1.96|0.79|0.3467
90927731|NCT01074294|181733897|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.02||||0.9437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.59||The p-value was derived from CMH general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Waking Up Too Early: Week 11||1.59|0.65|0.9437
90927732|NCT01074294|181733898|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41||||0.6357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|2.12||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 6||2.12|-1.30|0.6357
90927733|NCT01074294|181733898|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.46||||0.6536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|2.48||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 7||2.48|-1.56|0.6536
90927734|NCT01074294|181733898|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.9475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|2.06||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 8||2.06|-2.20|0.9475
90927735|NCT01074294|181733898|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.99||||0.3973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|3.29||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 9||3.29|-1.31|0.3973
90927736|NCT01074294|181733898|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.47||||0.2336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|3.91||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 10||3.91|-0.96|0.2336
90927737|NCT01074294|181733898|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.95||||0.4553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|3.44||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 11||3.44|-1.55|0.4553
90927738|NCT01074294|181733899|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29||||0.5647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.27||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 6||1.27|-0.70|0.5647
90927739|NCT01074294|181733899|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.9739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|1.12||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 7||1.12|-1.15|0.9739
90927740|NCT01074294|181733899|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.8077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.09||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 8||1.09|-1.40|0.8077
90927741|NCT01074294|181733899|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34||||0.6119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|1.65||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 9||1.65|-0.98|0.6119
90927742|NCT01074294|181733899|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41||||0.5513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|1.76||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 10||1.76|-0.94|0.5513
90927743|NCT01074294|181733899|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.57||||0.4185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|1.95||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 11||1.95|-0.81|0.4185
90927744|NCT01074294|181733900|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.7556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.09||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 6||1.09|-0.80|0.7556
90927745|NCT01074294|181733900|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.59||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 7||1.59|-0.60|0.3710
90927746|NCT01074294|181733900|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.8464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|1.21||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 8||1.21|-0.99|0.8464
90927747|NCT01074294|181733900|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.69||||0.2664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|1.91||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 9||1.91|-0.53|0.2664
91035294|NCT03086460|181956480|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.006||||0.882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.084|0.073|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.073|-0.084|0.882
90927748|NCT01074294|181733900|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.13||||0.0876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|2.42||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 10||2.42|-0.17|0.0876
91035295|NCT03086460|181956480|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.015|0.136|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.136|-0.015|0.115
90927749|NCT01074294|181733900|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44||||0.5119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|1.77||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 11||1.77|-0.89|0.5119
90927750|NCT01074294|181733901|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.8986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|1.18||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 6||1.18|-1.03|0.8986
90927751|NCT01074294|181733901|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26||||0.685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|1.55||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 7||1.55|-1.02|0.6850
90927752|NCT01074294|181733901|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26||||0.7108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|1.1||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 8||1.10|-1.61|0.7108
90927753|NCT01074294|181733901|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.9236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.36||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 9||1.36|-1.50|0.9236
90927754|NCT01074294|181733901|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.8576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|1.61||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 10||1.61|-1.35|0.8576
90927755|NCT01074294|181733901|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.8483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|1.37||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 11||1.37|-1.67|0.8483
90927756|NCT01074294|181733902|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.6976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.15||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 6||0.15|-0.22|0.6976
90927757|NCT01074294|181733902|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.6986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.17||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 7||0.17|-0.25|0.6986
90927758|NCT01074294|181733902|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.6507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.19||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 8||0.19|-0.30|0.6507
90927759|NCT01074294|181733902|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.2||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 9||0.20|-0.32|0.6550
90927760|NCT01074294|181733902|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.3959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.38||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 10||0.38|-0.15|0.3959
90927761|NCT01074294|181733902|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.6763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.35||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 11||0.35|-0.23|0.6763
90927762|NCT01074294|181733903|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27||||0.4089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.91||The p-value was derived from ANCOVA model, with treatment and study center as main effects and week 5 value as covariate, is used for change from week 5 comparisons.|ANCOVA||The difference between LS means derived from the ANCOVA model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|||0.91|-0.37|0.4089
90927763|NCT01074294|181733904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.2331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.2||The p-value was derived from ANCOVA model, with treatment and study center as main effects and week 5 value as covariate, is used for change from week 5 comparisons.|ANCOVA||Week 11 data is included here. The planned sample size of 225 participants (150 in brexipiprazole arm and 75 in the placebo arm) yielded at least 80% power to detect effects at a 2-tailed significance level of 0.05 using a two-sided z-test.|||0.20|-0.80|0.2331
90927764|NCT01074294|181733905|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.0||The p-value was derived from ANCOVA model, with treatment and study center as main effects and week 5 value as covariate, is used for change from week 5 comparisons.|ANCOVA||The difference between LS means derived from the ANCOVA model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|||0.00|-0.01|0.0670
90927765|NCT01074294|181733906|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.3||||0.0849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.5|1.98||The p-value was derived from ANCOVA model, with treatment and study center as main effects and week 5 value as covariate, is used for change from week 5 comparisons.|ANCOVA||The difference between LS means derived from the ANCOVA model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|||1.98|-30.5|0.0849
90927766|NCT01074294|181733907|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46||||0.7663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.52|2.6||The p-value was derived from ANCOVA model, with treatment and study center as main effects and week 5 value as covariate, is used for change from week 5 comparisons.|ANCOVA||The difference between LS means derived from the ANCOVA model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|||2.60|-3.52|0.7663
90927767|NCT01074294|181733908|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.51||||0.0298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.73|33.29||The p-value was derived from ANCOVA model, with treatment and study center as main effects and week 5 value as covariate, is used for change from week 5 comparisons.|ANCOVA||The difference between LS means derived from the ANCOVA model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|||33.29|1.73|0.0298
90927768|NCT01074294|181733909|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.2563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.01||The p-value was derived from ANCOVA model, with treatment and study center as main effects and week 5 value as covariate, is used for change from week 5 comparisons.|ANCOVA||The difference between LS means derived from the ANCOVA model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|||0.01|-0.05|0.2563
90927769|NCT01074294|181733910|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.67||||0.6644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.4|20.06||The p-value was derived from ANCOVA model, with treatment and study center as main effects and week 5 value as covariate, is used for change from week 5 comparisons.|ANCOVA||The difference between LS means derived from the ANCOVA model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|||20.06|-31.4|0.6644
90927770|NCT01074294|181733911|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.8418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.45||The p-value was derived from ANCOVA model, with treatment and study center as main effects and week 5 value as covariate, is used for change from week 5 comparisons.|ANCOVA||The difference between LS means derived from the ANCOVA model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|||0.45|-0.56|0.8418
90927771|NCT01074294|181733912|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26||||0.2513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.18||The p-value was derived from ANCOVA model, with treatment and study center as main effects and week 5 value as covariate, is used for change from week 5 comparisons.|ANCOVA||The difference between LS means derived from the ANCOVA model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|||0.18|-0.69|0.2513
90927772|NCT01074294|181733913|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.7037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.71||The p-value was derived from ANCOVA model, with treatment and study center as main effects and week 5 value as covariate, is used for change from week 5 comparisons.|ANCOVA||The difference between LS means derived from the ANCOVA model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|||0.71|-0.48|0.7037
90971270|NCT04099251|181825251|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.59|||Regression, Cox|||||0.59|0.30|< 0.0001
90887707|NCT03207750|181638312|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit (LL) of the two-sided 95% CI on GMC ratios (HRV PCV-free Liquid group over HRV Lyophilized group) for S. pneumoniae serotype 23F should be ≥ 0.5.|GMC ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.1|||ANOVA|ANOVA model that included the vaccine group as fixed effect.||Non-inferiority of the immune responses to 3 doses of Pediarix, Hiberix and Prevenar 13 when co-administered with 2 doses of the PCV-free liquid HRV vaccine, as compared to when co-administered with lyophilized HRV vaccine in terms of GMC ratios for Streptococcus pneumoniae (S. pneumoniae) serotype 23F.||1.10|0.87|
90887708|NCT03207750|181638313|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit (LL) of the two-sided asymptotic standardized 95% CI for the difference in seroprotective concentrations (HRV PCV-free Liquid group minus HRV Lyophilized group) for each of anti-PRP antibodies should be ≥-5%.|Difference in anti-PRP concentration|0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|2.28||||||Non-inferiority of the immune responses to 3 doses of Pediarix, Hiberix and Prevenar 13 when co-administered with 2 doses of the PCV-free liquid HRV vaccine, as compared to when co-administered with lyophilized HRV vaccine in terms of group difference in percentage of subjects with concentrations (≥ 0.15 µg/mL) of anti-PRP antibodies.||2.28|-1.94|
90887709|NCT03207750|181638314|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit (LL) of the two-sided asymptotic standardized 95% CI for the difference in seroprotective concentrations (HRV PCV-free Liquid group minus HRV Lyophilized group) for each of anti-PRP antibodies should be ≥-10%.|Difference in anti-PRP concentration|-0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.75|3.99||||||Non-inferiority of the immune responses to 3 doses of Pediarix, Hiberix and Prevenar 13 when co-administered with 2 doses of the PCV-free liquid HRV vaccine, as compared to when co-administered with lyophilized HRV vaccine in terms of group difference in percentage of subjects with concentrations (≥ 1.0 µg/mL) of anti-PRP antibodies.||3.99|-5.75|
90887710|NCT03207750|181638315|OTHER|p-value on the difference in seroresponse (HRV PCV-free Liquid group minus HRV Lyophilized group) between groups should be \<=0.025 for PT antigen.|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|p-value was computed by integrating on p-values of 1 sided test with alpha=0.025 \& the posterior probability of the cut-off in HRV Lyophilized group||To rule out 10% decrease in seroresponse to PT antigen in subjects who received Pediarix co-administered with PCV-free-Liquid-HRV vaccine compared to subjects who received Pediarix co-administered with currently licensed lyophilized HRV vaccine where seroresponse was defined as percentage of subjects who showed a concentration above a threshold that led to 95% seroresponse in HRV lyophilized group.||||<.0001
90887711|NCT03207750|181638315|OTHER|p-value on the difference in seroresponse (HRV PCV-free Liquid group minus HRV Lyophilized group) between groups should be \<=0.025 for FHA antigen.|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|p-value was computed by integrating on p-values of 1 sided test with alpha=0.025 \& the posterior probability of the cut-off in HRV lyophilized group||To rule out 10% decrease in seroresponse to FHA antigen in subjects who received Pediarix co-administered with PCV-free-Liquid-HRV vaccine compared to subjects who received Pediarix co-administered with currently licensed lyophilized HRV vaccine where seroresponse was defined as percentage of subjects who showed a concentration above a threshold that led to 95% seroresponse in HRV lyophilized group.||||<.0001
90887712|NCT03207750|181638315|OTHER|p-value on the difference in seroresponse (HRV PCV-free Liquid group minus HRV Lyophilized group) between groups should be \<=0.025 for PRN antigen.|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|p-value was computed by integrating on p-values of 1 sided test with alpha=0.025 \& the posterior probability of the cut-off in HRV Lyophilized group||To rule out 10% decrease in seroresponse to PRN antigen in subjects who received Pediarix co-administered with PCV-free-Liquid-HRV vaccine compared to subjects who received Pediarix co-administered with currently licensed lyophilized HRV vaccine where seroresponse was defined as percentage of subjects who showed a concentration above a threshold that led to 95% seroresponse in HRV lyophilized group.||||<.0001
90927773|NCT01074294|181733914|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.7572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.23||The p-value was derived from CMH row mean scores differ test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the CMH model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Week 6||0.23|-0.17|0.7572
90887713|NCT02504294|181638400|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was concluded since the lower bound of the 95% CI of the difference in percentage was greater than the non-inferiority margin (-12.5%).|Difference in Percentage|-1.3975|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6503|4.8553||||||Clustered binomial analysis using logistic regression method was performed and generalized estimating equation method was used to construct 95 percent (%) two-sided confidence intervals (CIs).||4.8553|-7.6503|
90887714|NCT02504294|181638401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1062.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|803.95||0.1874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2643.2|519.2|||ANCOVA|||P-value was calculated using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as factor and baseline ESA dose as covariate.||519.2|-2643.2|0.1874
90927774|NCT01074294|181733914|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.6132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.17||The p-value was derived from CMH row mean scores differ test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the CMH model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Week 7||0.17|-0.28|0.6132
90927775|NCT01074294|181733914|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.9312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.27||The p-value was derived from CMH row mean scores differ test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the CMH model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Week 8||0.27|-0.25|0.9312
90927776|NCT01074294|181733914|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.8073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.24||The p-value was derived from CMH row mean scores differ test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the CMH model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Week 9||0.24|-0.30|0.8073
90927777|NCT01074294|181733914|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.9168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.29||The p-value was derived from CMH row mean scores differ test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the CMH model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Week 10||0.29|-0.26|0.9168
90927778|NCT01074294|181733914|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.7432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.25||The p-value was derived from CMH row mean scores differ test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the CMH model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Week 11||0.25|-0.34|0.7432
90927779|NCT01074294|181733915|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.2||||0.6014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.42||The p-value was derived from CMH general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the CMH model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Week 6||2.42|0.60|0.6014
90927780|NCT01074294|181733915|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.02||||0.9225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.63||The p-value was derived from CMH general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the CMH model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Week 7||1.63|0.64|0.9225
90927781|NCT01074294|181733915|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.86||||0.4803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.3||The p-value was derived from CMH general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the CMH model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Week 8||1.30|0.58|0.4803
90927782|NCT01074294|181733915|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.91||||0.5876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.27||The p-value was derived from CMH general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the CMH model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Week 9||1.27|0.65|0.5876
90927783|NCT01074294|181733915|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.87||||0.3727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.18||The p-value was derived from CMH general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the CMH model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Week 10||1.18|0.64|0.3727
91035296|NCT03086460|181956480|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.014|0.134|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment F ( Perforomist® IS 40 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.134|-0.014|0.111
90887715|NCT02255175|181638458|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t=.501, df=33||||||.620
90927784|NCT01074294|181733915|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.93||||0.6265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.23||The p-value was derived from CMH general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the CMH model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Week 11||1.23|0.71|0.6265
90927785|NCT01074294|181733916|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1||||0.8586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.03||The p-value was derived from CMH general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the CMH model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Week 6||3.03|0.40|0.8586
90887716|NCT02255175|181638459|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.855|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t=.185, df=33||||||.855
90927786|NCT01074294|181733916|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.95||||0.8984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.99||The p-value was derived from CMH general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the CMH model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Week 7||1.99|0.46|0.8984
90927787|NCT01074294|181733916|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99||||0.9778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.74||The p-value was derived from CMH general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the CMH model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Week 8||1.74|0.57|0.9778
91035297|NCT03086460|181956480|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.004||||0.911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.083|0.074|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.074|-0.083|0.911
90887717|NCT02255175|181638460|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.758|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t=-.310, df=33||||||.758
90887718|NCT02255175|181638461|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.518|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t=.653, df=33||||||.518
90887719|NCT02255175|181638462|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.645|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t=.465, df=33||||||.645
90887720|NCT02255175|181638463|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t=2.56, df=33||||||.015
90887721|NCT02255175|181638464|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.486|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t=.705, df=33||||||.486
90887722|NCT02255175|181638465|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.831|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t=.216, df=33||||||.831
90887723|NCT02255175|181638466|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||Repeated measures ANOVA|F(1,33)=17.91||||||.0002
90887724|NCT05799495|181638467|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.671|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3178||0.0181|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.08|-0.262|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.262|-1.080|0.0181
90887725|NCT05799495|181638467|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.802|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3562||0.0127|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.26|-0.344|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.344|-1.260|0.0127
90887726|NCT05799495|181638467|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-1.167|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.264|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.506|-0.827|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.827|-1.506|<.0001
90887727|NCT05799495|181638468|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.608|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3402||0.0378|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.046|-0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 3||-0.170|-1.046|0.0378
90887728|NCT05799495|181638468|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-1.304|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3718||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.782|-0.826|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 3||-0.826|-1.782|0.0003
90887729|NCT05799495|181638468|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-1.148|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2803|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.509|-0.788|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 3||-0.788|-1.509|<.0001
90887730|NCT05799495|181638468|OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.064|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2732||0.5931|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.287|0.416|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 10||0.416|-0.287|0.5931
90887731|NCT05799495|181638468|OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2914||0.508|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.369|0.381|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 10||0.381|-0.369|0.5080
90887732|NCT05799495|181638468|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.214|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.223||0.1692|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.501|0.073|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 10||0.073|-0.501|0.1692
90887733|NCT05799495|181638468|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.239|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2004||0.1172|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.497|0.019|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14||0.019|-0.497|0.1172
90887734|NCT05799495|181638468|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.056|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2178||0.3979|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.337|0.224|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14||0.224|-0.337|0.3979
90887735|NCT05799495|181638468|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.383|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1655||0.0109|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.595|-0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14||-0.170|-0.595|0.0109
90887736|NCT04177108|181638488|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.49||||0.0098||95.0|0.28|0.85|||Log Rank|||||0.85|0.28|0.0098
90887737|NCT04177108|181638488|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.2396||95.0|0.42|1.25|||Log Rank|||||1.25|0.42|0.2396
90887738|NCT04177108|181638488|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.9809||95.0|0.63|1.58|||Log Rank|||||1.58|0.63|0.9809
90887739|NCT04177108|181638489|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.6805||95.0|0.55|2.51|||Log Rank|||||2.51|0.55|0.6805
90887740|NCT04177108|181638489|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.21||||0.6314||95.0|0.55|2.64|||Log Rank|||||2.64|0.55|0.6314
90887741|NCT04177108|181638489|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.9164||95.0|0.52|2.06|||Log Rank|||||2.06|0.52|0.9164
90887742|NCT05003791|181638525|OTHER|This was a cross-sectional design|||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
90887743|NCT05003791|181638526|OTHER|This was a cross-sectional design|||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
90887744|NCT05003791|181638527|OTHER|This was a cross-sectional design|||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
90927788|NCT01074294|181733916|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.92||||0.7315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.5||The p-value was derived from CMH general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the CMH model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Week 9||1.50|0.56|0.7315
90927789|NCT01074294|181733916|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9||||0.6518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.42||The p-value was derived from CMH general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the CMH model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Week 10||1.42|0.57|0.6518
90927790|NCT01074294|181733916|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.82||||0.3472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.23||The p-value was derived from CMH general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the CMH model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Week 11||1.23|0.55|0.3472
90927791|NCT01074294|181733917|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98||||0.9577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|2.16||The p-value was derived from CMH general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the CMH model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Week 6||2.16|0.44|0.9577
90927792|NCT01074294|181733917|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.19||||0.5864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.27||The p-value was derived from CMH general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the CMH model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Week 7||2.27|0.63|0.5864
90927793|NCT01074294|181733917|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.96||||0.8723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.6||The p-value was derived from CMH general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the CMH model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Week 8||1.60|0.57|0.8723
90927794|NCT01074294|181733917|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||0.9872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.52||The p-value was derived from CMH general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the CMH model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Week 9||1.52|0.65|0.9872
90927795|NCT01074294|181733917|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.8||||0.3171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.23||The p-value was derived from CMH general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the CMH model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Week 10||1.23|0.52|0.3171
90927796|NCT01074294|181733917|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.87||||0.4782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.27||The p-value was derived from CMH general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the CMH model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Week 11||1.27|0.60|0.4782
90927797|NCT01074294|181733918|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.19||||0.7232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|3.19||The p-value was derived from CMH general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the CMH model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Week 6||3.19|0.45|0.7232
90927798|NCT01074294|181733918|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99||||0.986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|2.13||The p-value was derived from CMH general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the CMH model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Week 7||2.13|0.46|0.9860
90927799|NCT01074294|181733918|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01||||0.9858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.95||The p-value was derived from CMH general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the CMH model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Week 8||1.95|0.52|0.9858
90927800|NCT01074294|181733918|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.02||||0.9466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.78||The p-value was derived from CMH general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the CMH model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Week 9||1.78|0.58|0.9466
90927801|NCT01074294|181733918|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.12||||0.6962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.0||The p-value was derived from CMH general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the CMH model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Week 10||2.00|0.63|0.6962
90927802|NCT01074294|181733918|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.93||||0.7637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.51||The p-value was derived from CMH general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the CMH model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Week 11||1.51|0.57|0.7637
90927803|NCT01074294|181733919|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.3||||0.3631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.33||The p-value was derived from CMH general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the CMH model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Week 6||2.33|0.73|0.3631
90927804|NCT01074294|181733919|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.35||||0.2786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.35||The p-value was derived from CMH general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the CMH model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Week 7||2.35|0.78|0.2786
90927805|NCT01074294|181733919|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.08||||0.7062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.62||The p-value was derived from CMH general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the CMH model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Week 8||1.62|0.72|0.7062
90927806|NCT01074294|181733919|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.95||||0.7844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.35||The p-value was derived from CMH general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the CMH model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Week 9||1.35|0.67|0.7844
90927807|NCT01074294|181733919|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.07||||0.694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.48||The p-value was derived from CMH general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the CMH model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Week 10||1.48|0.77|0.6940
90927808|NCT01074294|181733919|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03||||0.8697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.39||The p-value was derived from CMH general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the CMH model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Week 11||1.39|0.76|0.8697
90927809|NCT03260569|181733936|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
90927810|NCT05495945|181733951|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.62
91035298|NCT03086460|181956480|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.001||||0.985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.078|0.077|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.077|-0.078|0.985
90927811|NCT05495945|181733952|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.18
90927812|NCT05495945|181733953|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.20
90927813|NCT05495945|181733954|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.02
90927814|NCT05155306|181733955|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio [%]|89.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.5|99.7|||||Ratio is calculated as test/reference. Geometric Standard Error = 1.067.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||99.7|79.5|
91035299|NCT03086460|181956480|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.066||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.009|0.14|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.140|-0.009|0.084
90965548|NCT04666350|181812617|OTHER||Combined Difference in Prevalence|-0.025||||0.711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.109|||Other|The p-value is estimated assuming the combined difference over the square root of the weighted variance follows a normal distribution.||Comparison of DSFA Day 2 versus Day 1. For each participant, the difference in oocyte prevalence using DSFA on Day 1 versus Day 2 was estimated. To evaluate the hypothesis that the average mean difference in the prevalence between two assays within the same subject is zero, combined estimates (weighted mean and variance) were obtained using as weight the inverse of the variance of each paired difference obtained from the Agresti and Caffo method.||0.109|-0.160|0.711
91035300|NCT03086460|181956480|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.004||||0.928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.078|0.086|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.086|-0.078|0.928
90887745|NCT02207829|181638528|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Alternate hypothesis: the difference between the trt means (umeclidinium minus tiotropium) would be \> -50 milliliters (mL). If the lower CI (2.5% 1-sided significance level) of the statistical test should fall above -50 mL, then umeclidinium may be deemed statistically non-inferior to tiotropium. If the lower CI (2.5% 1-sided significance) of the statistical testing exceeded 0 then, umeclidinium may be deemed statistically superior to tiotropium.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.059|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.029|0.088|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.088|0.029|<0.001
90887746|NCT03285477|181638533|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value threshold for statistical significance was 0.5%|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical significance in the study for Day 57 complete clearance rate was analyzed using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel model controlling for treatment location (face or scalp) and treatment group (Placebo versus KX2-391 Ointment 1%).||||<0.0001
90887747|NCT03285477|181638534|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value threshold for statistical significance was 0.5%|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical significance in the study for Day 57 partial clearance rate was analyzed using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel model controlling for treatment location (face or scalp) and treatment group (Placebo versus KX2-391 Ointment 1%).||||<0.0001
90887748|NCT00560833|181638553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.4||Dunnet-adjusted from ANCOVA with factors for treatment and (pooled) center and a covariate for baseline value.|ANCOVA|||||-0.4|-2.3|<0.01
90887749|NCT00560833|181638553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-1.2||Dunnet-adjusted from ANCOVA with factors for treatment and (pooled) center and a covariate for baseline value.|ANCOVA|||||-1.2|-3.1|<0.01
90887750|NCT00560833|181638553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-1.0||Dunnet-adjusted from ANCOVA with factors for treatment and (pooled) center and a covariate for baseline value.|ANCOVA|||||-1.0|-2.9|<0.01
90887751|NCT00560833|181638553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-1.0||Dunnet-adjusted from ANCOVA with factors for treatment and (pooled) center and a covariate for baseline value.|ANCOVA|||||-1.0|-2.9|<0.01
90887752|NCT00560833|181638555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.0||Dunnet-adjusted from ANCOVA with factors for treatment and (pooled) center and a covariate for baseline value.|ANCOVA|||||0.0|-2.0|0.06
90887753|NCT00560833|181638555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-0.9||Dunnet-adjusted from ANCOVA with factors for treatment and (pooled) center and a covariate for baseline value.|ANCOVA|||||-0.9|-3.0|<0.01
90887754|NCT00560833|181638555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-0.9||Dunnet-adjusted from ANCOVA with factors for treatment and (pooled) center and a covariate for baseline value.|ANCOVA|||||-0.9|-2.9|<0.01
90887755|NCT00560833|181638555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-0.5||Dunnet-adjusted from ANCOVA with factors for treatment and (pooled) center and a covariate for baseline value.|ANCOVA|||||-0.5|-2.6|<0.01
90887756|NCT00560833|181638556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.03||Dunnet-adjusted from ANCOVA with factors for treatment and (pooled) center and a covariate for baseline value.|ANCOVA|||||0.03|-0.09|0.62
91035301|NCT03086460|181956480|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.008|0.148|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.148|-0.008|0.078
90965549|NCT04666350|181812617|OTHER||Combined Difference in Prevalence|-0.016||||0.795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.139|0.107|||Other|The p-value is estimated assuming the combined difference over the square root of the weighted variance follows a normal distribution.||Comparison of DMFA Day 2 versus Day 1. For each participant, the difference in oocyte prevalence using DMFA on Day 1 versus Day 2 was estimated. To evaluate the hypothesis that the average mean difference in the prevalence between two assays within the same subject is zero, combined estimates (weighted mean and variance) were obtained using as weight the inverse of the variance of each paired difference obtained from the Agresti and Caffo method.||0.107|-0.139|0.795
90965550|NCT04666350|181812618|OTHER||Relative Rate|0.38||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.7||Difference between days was evaluated using zero inflated Poisson regression models having as outcome the number of oocysts, as offset the number of surviving mosquitoes, and adjusted by subject.|Poisson Regression|||Comparison of DSFA Day 2 versus Day 1.||0.70|0.21|0.019
90927815|NCT05155306|181733955|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio [%]|98.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.4|101.9|||||Ratio is calculated as test/reference. Geometric Standard Error = 1.022.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||101.9|94.4|
90927816|NCT05155306|181733955|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio [%]|202.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|180.1|227.5|||||Ratio is calculated as fed/fasted. Geometric Standard Error = 1.069.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||227.5|180.1|
90927817|NCT05155306|181733955|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio [%]|173.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|158.3|190.8|||||Ratio is calculated as fed/fasted. Geometric Standard Error = 1.055.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||190.8|158.3|
90927818|NCT05155306|181733956|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio [%]|83.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|69.6|99.0|||||Ratio is calculated as test/reference. Geometric Standard Error = 1.106.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||99.0|69.6|
90927819|NCT05155306|181733956|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio [%]|99.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.7|112.0|||||Ratio is calculated as test/reference. Geometric Standard Error = 1.070.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||112.0|88.7|
90965551|NCT04666350|181812618|OTHER||Relative Rate|0.23||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.45||Difference between days was evaluated using zero inflated Poisson regression models having as outcome the number of oocysts, as offset the number of surviving mosquitoes, and adjusted by subject.|Poisson Regression|||Comparison of DMFA Day 2 versus Day 1.||0.45|0.11|0.003
90927820|NCT05155306|181733956|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio [%]|153.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|126.0|187.3|||||Ratio is calculated as fed/fasted. Geometric Standard Error = 1.121.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||187.3|126.0|
90927821|NCT05155306|181733956|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio [%]|121.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.6|147.8|||||Ratio is calculated as fed/fasted. Geometric Standard Error = 1.120.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||147.8|99.6|
90927822|NCT05155306|181733957|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio [%]|89.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.4|100.4|||||Ratio is calculated as test/reference. Geometric Standard Error = 1.066.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||100.4|80.4|
90927823|NCT05155306|181733957|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio [%]|100.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.8|104.1|||||Ratio is calculated as test/reference. Geometric Standard Error = 1.021.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||104.1|96.8|
90927824|NCT05155306|181733957|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio [%]|202.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|179.6|228.5|||||Ratio is calculated as fed/fasted. Geometric Standard Error = 1.072.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||228.5|179.6|
90927825|NCT05155306|181733957|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio [%]|172.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|158.2|187.7|||||Ratio is calculated as fed/fasted. Geometric Standard Error = 1.050.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||187.7|158.2|
90927826|NCT04121741|181733967|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.864|TWO_SIDED|||||Using Bonferroni correction for 3 primary outcomes (FMD, RHI, fRHI), a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.0167.|Regression, Linear|Included outlier detection and removal with estimation of standard models for a three-treatment, cross-over design.|Estimated mean difference for FMD% (singing video intervention compared to control) is shown. Estimates of FMD% for singing coach intervention compared to control also performed.||"Please reference the following pre-print manuscript for additional statistical analyses.~Bagherimohamadipour M, Hammad M, Visotcky A, Sparapani R, Kulinski J. Effects of Singing on Vascular Health in Older Adults with Coronary Artery Disease: A Randomized Trial. medRxiv \[Preprint\]. 2024 Jul 27:2024.07.25.24311033. doi: 10.1101/2024.07.25.24311033. PMID: 39108506; PMCID: PMC11302710."|||0.864
90927827|NCT04121741|181733967|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.913|TWO_SIDED|||||Using Bonferroni correction for 3 primary outcomes (FMD, RHI, fRHI), a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.0167.|Regression, Linear|Included outlier detection and removal with estimation of standard models for a three-treatment, cross-over design.|Estimated mean difference for FMD% (singing coach intervention compared to control) is shown. Estimates of FMD% for singing video intervention compared to control also performed.||"Please reference the following pre-print manuscript for additional statistical analyses.~Bagherimohamadipour M, Hammad M, Visotcky A, Sparapani R, Kulinski J. Effects of Singing on Vascular Health in Older Adults with Coronary Artery Disease: A Randomized Trial. medRxiv \[Preprint\]. 2024 Jul 27:2024.07.25.24311033. doi: 10.1101/2024.07.25.24311033. PMID: 39108506; PMCID: PMC11302710."|||0.913
90940934|NCT00943722|181761604|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority requires that the lower bound of two-sided 95% CI of GMT ratio be greater than 0.67|GMT ratio|2.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.07|2.59||one-sided tests of non-inferiority conducted at the alpha=0.025 level; model with a response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for comparison group|ANOVA|model with a response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for comparison group|GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old males (Lot 1) divided by GMT for 16- to 26-Year-Old Females (Lot 1)|Anti-HPV 6||2.59|2.07|< 0.001
90965552|NCT04666350|181812619|OTHER||Combined Difference in Prevalence|-0.023||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.164|0.118|||Other|The p-value is estimated assuming the combined difference over the square root of the weighted variance follows a normal distribution.||Comparison of DSFA Day 2 versus Day 1. For each participant, the difference in sporozoite prevalence using DSFA on Day 1 versus Day 2 was estimated. To evaluate the hypothesis that the average mean difference in the prevalence between two assays within the same subject is zero, combined estimates (weighted mean and variance) were obtained using as weight the inverse of the variance of each paired difference obtained from the Agresti and Caffo method.||0.118|-0.164|0.750
90971271|NCT04311502|181825263|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.21||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.82|1.79|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for HIV-1 status (positive/negative) and TB Disease at Screening (Advanced/Not Advanced).|Arm 1 vs Arm 2|This comparison is adjusting for HIV-1 status (positive/negative) and TB Disease at Screening (Advanced/Not Advanced).||1.79|0.82|0.21
90965553|NCT04666350|181812619|OTHER||Combined Difference in Prevalence|-0.031||||0.681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.178|0.117|||Other|The p-value is estimated assuming the combined difference over the square root of the weighted variance follows a normal distribution.||Comparison of DMFA Day 2 versus Day 1. For each participant, the difference in sporozoite prevalence using DMFA on Day 1 versus Day 2 was estimated. To evaluate the hypothesis that the average mean difference in the prevalence between two assays within the same subject is zero, combined estimates (weighted mean and variance) were obtained using as weight the inverse of the variance of each paired difference obtained from the Agresti and Caffo method.||0.117|-0.178|0.681
90965554|NCT00307333|181812631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.08
90965555|NCT00307333|181812632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.47
90965556|NCT00307333|181812633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.31
90965557|NCT00307333|181812634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.99|||||HR = hazard for intervention / hazard for control|||0.99|0.61|
90965558|NCT04166383|181812636|OTHER|||||||0.1||||||P≤0.10 (alpha 0.1); power = 90% (beta 0.1)|Kaplan-Meier|||||||0.10
90965559|NCT03044886|181812641|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.576|||||||ANOVA|||One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Neuman-Keuel test were carried out to determine difference between groups.||||0.576
90965560|NCT03044886|181812642|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.489|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.489
90965561|NCT03044886|181812643|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.042|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.042
90965562|NCT03044886|181812643|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.041|||||||ANOVA|||One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Neuman-Keuel test were carried out to determine changes from 3 month to 6 month of all groups.||||0.041
90965563|NCT03044886|181812644|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||ANCOVA|||One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Neuman-Keuel test were carried out to determine difference between groups.||||0.710
90965564|NCT03044886|181812645|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.340
90965565|NCT03044886|181812646|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.048|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.048
90965566|NCT03044886|181812646|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038|||||||ANOVA|||One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Neuman-Keuel test were carried out to determine changes from 3 month to 6 month of all groups.||||0.038
90965567|NCT03044886|181812647|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.521|||||||ANOVA|||One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Neuman-Keuel test were carried out to determine difference between groups.||||0.521
90965568|NCT03044886|181812648|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.742|||||||ANOVA|||One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Neuman-Keuel test were carried out to determine difference between groups.||||0.742
90965569|NCT03044886|181812649|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Neuman-Keuel test were carried out to determine difference between groups.||||<0.05
90965570|NCT03044886|181812649|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.073|||||||ANOVA|||One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Neuman-Keuel test were carried out to determine changes from 3 month to 6 month of all groups.||||0.073
90965571|NCT03044886|181812650|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.348|||||||ANOVA|||One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Neuman-Keuel test were carried out to determine difference between groups.||||0.348
90965572|NCT03044886|181812651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.685|||||||ANOVA|||One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Neuman-Keuel test were carried out to determine difference between groups.||||0.685
90965573|NCT03044886|181812652|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.075|||||||ANOVA|||One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Neuman-Keuel test were carried out to determine difference between groups.||||0.075
90965574|NCT03044886|181812652|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.083|||||||ANOVA|||One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Neuman-Keuel test were carried out to determine changes from 3 month to 6 month of all groups.||||0.083
90965575|NCT01159912|181812670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.146||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.036|0.257|||ANCOVA|||||0.257|0.036|0.009
90965576|NCT01159912|181812670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.145||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.033|0.257|||ANCOVA|||||0.257|0.033|0.011
90965577|NCT00228566|181812714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Responders = 201/241|83.4||||||95.0|78.7|88.1|||Descriptive Statistics||The Overall Endpoint includes the last postbaseline value for each patient in the full analysis set, regardless of evaluation period. The Number of Responders (at least minimal improvement) at this Overall Endpoint equaled a total of 201 patients.|This was an open label study, with all patients receiving treatment with armodafinil||88.1|78.7|
90965578|NCT01479829|181812715|SUPERIORITY||Chi-square value|5.3466||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared||The chi-square value with 1 degree of freedom was 5.3466.|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the response rate between patients assigned to the intervention cohort or control cohort.||||.02
90965579|NCT01479829|181812716|SUPERIORITY||Chi-square value|13.3821|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared||The chi-square value with 1 degree of freedom was 13.3821.|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the remission rate between patients assigned to the intervention cohort or control cohort.||||<.001
90965580|NCT02142738|181812733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.68||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test|Regression, Cox|Treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region (East Asia vs. non-East Asia), ECOG PS (0 vs. 1) and histology (squamous vs. nonsquamous)||||0.68|0.37|<0.001
90965581|NCT02142738|181812734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.86||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test|Regression, Cox|Treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region (East Asia vs. non-East Asia), ECOG PS (0 vs. 1) and histology (squamous vs. nonsquamous)||||0.86|0.47|0.002
90965582|NCT02142738|181812735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentages|16.6||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|27.0||One-sided p-value for testing|Miettinen & Nurminem method|Stratified by geographic region (East Asia vs. non-East Asia), ECOG PS (0 vs. 1) and histology (squamous vs. nonsquamous)||H0: difference in %=0 vs. H1: difference in % \>0||27.0|6.0|0.0011
90965583|NCT02615470|181812756|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.202||||||A priori alpha = 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||=0.202
90965584|NCT02615470|181812757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.048|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.048
90927828|NCT04121741|181733968|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.29|TWO_SIDED|||||Using Bonferroni correction for 3 primary outcomes (FMD, RHI, fRHI), a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.0167.|Regression, Linear|Included outlier detection and removal with estimation of standard models for a three-treatment, cross-over design.|Estimated mean difference for RHI (singing video intervention compared to control) is shown. Estimates of RHI for singing coach intervention compared to control also performed.||"Please reference the following pre-print manuscript for additional statistical analyses.~Bagherimohamadipour M, Hammad M, Visotcky A, Sparapani R, Kulinski J. Effects of Singing on Vascular Health in Older Adults with Coronary Artery Disease: A Randomized Trial. medRxiv \[Preprint\]. 2024 Jul 27:2024.07.25.24311033. doi: 10.1101/2024.07.25.24311033. PMID: 39108506; PMCID: PMC11302710."|||0.290
90927829|NCT04121741|181733968|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.462|TWO_SIDED|||||Using Bonferroni correction for 3 primary outcomes (FMD, RHI, fRHI), a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.0167.|Regression, Linear|Included outlier detection and removal with estimation of standard models for a three-treatment, cross-over design.|Estimated mean difference for RHI (singing coach intervention compared to control) is shown. Estimates of RHI for singing video intervention compared to control also performed.||"Please reference the following pre-print manuscript for additional statistical analyses.~Bagherimohamadipour M, Hammad M, Visotcky A, Sparapani R, Kulinski J. Effects of Singing on Vascular Health in Older Adults with Coronary Artery Disease: A Randomized Trial. medRxiv \[Preprint\]. 2024 Jul 27:2024.07.25.24311033. doi: 10.1101/2024.07.25.24311033. PMID: 39108506; PMCID: PMC11302710."|||0.462
90927830|NCT04121741|181733969|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.005|TWO_SIDED|||||Using Bonferroni correction for 3 primary outcomes (FMD, RHI, fRHI), a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.0167.|Regression, Linear|Included outlier detection and removal with estimation of standard models for a three-treatment, cross-over design.|Estimated mean difference for fRHI (singing video intervention compared to control) is shown. Estimates of fRHI for singing coach intervention compared to control also performed.||"Please reference the following pre-print manuscript for additional statistical analyses.~Bagherimohamadipour M, Hammad M, Visotcky A, Sparapani R, Kulinski J. Effects of Singing on Vascular Health in Older Adults with Coronary Artery Disease: A Randomized Trial. medRxiv \[Preprint\]. 2024 Jul 27:2024.07.25.24311033. doi: 10.1101/2024.07.25.24311033. PMID: 39108506; PMCID: PMC11302710."|||0.005
90927831|NCT04121741|181733969|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.57|TWO_SIDED|||||Using Bonferroni correction for 3 primary outcomes (FMD, RHI, fRHI), a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.0167.|Regression, Linear|Included outlier detection and removal with estimation of standard models for a three-treatment, cross-over design.|Estimated mean difference for fRHI (singing coach intervention compared to control) is shown. Estimates of fRHI for singing video intervention compared to control also performed.||"Please reference the following pre-print manuscript for additional statistical analyses.~Bagherimohamadipour M, Hammad M, Visotcky A, Sparapani R, Kulinski J. Effects of Singing on Vascular Health in Older Adults with Coronary Artery Disease: A Randomized Trial. medRxiv \[Preprint\]. 2024 Jul 27:2024.07.25.24311033. doi: 10.1101/2024.07.25.24311033. PMID: 39108506; PMCID: PMC11302710."|||0.570
90927832|NCT01084863|181733984|EQUIVALENCE|Pharmacokinetic equivalence was predefined based on acceptance criteria, 80% to 125%.|Geometric Mean Ratio|104.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.64|116.78||||||||116.78|93.64|
90927833|NCT03593356|181734049|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.427|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.179||0.717|TWO_SIDED|||||We use OLS regression with site fixed effects and baseline covariates. We report unadjusted p-values.|Regression, Linear||Positive (negative) estimates indicate the high cash gift group had a higher (lower) mean than the low cash gift group. Our measure of dispersion of parameter estimates is the standard error of estimate as described in our analysis plan.|||||0.717
90927834|NCT03593356|181734052|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.784|TWO_SIDED|||||We reported the Westfall-Young adjusted p-value, using OLS regression with site fixed effects and baseline covariates. The unadjusted p-value was 0.789.|Regression, Linear||Positive (negative) estimates indicate the high cash gift group had a higher (lower) mean than the low cash gift group. Our measure of dispersion of parameter estimates is the standard error of estimate as described in our analysis plan.|||||0.784
90927835|NCT03593356|181734053|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.578|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.807||0.474|TWO_SIDED|||||We use OLS regression with site fixed effects and baseline covariates. We report unadjusted p-values.|Regression, Linear||Positive (negative) estimates indicate the high cash gift group had a higher (lower) mean than the low cash gift group. Our measure of dispersion of parameter estimates is the standard error of estimate as described in our analysis plan.|||||0.474
90927836|NCT03593356|181734060|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.234|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.882||0.871|TWO_SIDED|||||We reported the Westfall-Young adjusted p-value, using OLS regression with site fixed effects and baseline covariates. The unadjusted p-value was 0.791.|Regression, Linear||Positive (negative) estimates indicate the high cash gift group had a higher (lower) mean than the low cash gift group. Our measure of dispersion of parameter estimates is the standard error of estimate as described in our analysis plan.|||||0.871
90965585|NCT02615470|181812758|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.322||||||a priori alpha = 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||=0.322
90927837|NCT03593356|181734061|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.046||0.871|TWO_SIDED|||||We reported the Westfall-Young adjusted p-value, using OLS regression with site fixed effects and baseline covariates. The unadjusted p-value was 0.646.|Regression, Linear||Positive (negative) estimates indicate the high cash gift group had a higher (lower) mean than the low cash gift group. Our measure of dispersion of parameter estimates is the standard error of estimate as described in our analysis plan.|||||0.871
90927838|NCT03593356|181734062|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.139|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86||0.872|TWO_SIDED|||||We use OLS regression with site fixed effects and baseline covariates. We report unadjusted p-values.|Regression, Linear||Positive (negative) estimates indicate the high cash gift group had a higher (lower) mean than the low cash gift group. Our measure of dispersion of parameter estimates is the standard error of estimate as described in our analysis plan.|||||0.872
90927839|NCT03593356|181734065|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.133|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.184|TWO_SIDED|||||We use OLS regression with site fixed effects and baseline covariates. We report unadjusted p-values.|Regression, Linear||Positive (negative) estimates indicate the high cash gift group had a higher (lower) mean than the low cash gift group. Our measure of dispersion of parameter estimates is the standard error of estimate as described in our analysis plan.|||||0.184
90927840|NCT03593356|181734068|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.138|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.173||0.415|TWO_SIDED|||||We reported the Westfall-Young adjusted p-value, using OLS regression with site fixed effects and baseline covariates. The unadjusted p-value was 0.427.|Regression, Linear||Positive (negative) estimates indicate the high cash gift group had a higher (lower) mean than the low cash gift group. Our measure of dispersion of parameter estimates is the standard error of estimate as described in our analysis plan.|||||0.415
90927841|NCT03593356|181734069|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.086|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.567|TWO_SIDED|||||We reported the Westfall-Young adjusted p-value, using OLS regression with site fixed effects and baseline covariates. The unadjusted p-value was 0.541.|Regression, Linear||Positive (negative) estimates indicate the high cash gift group had a higher (lower) mean than the low cash gift group. Our measure of dispersion of parameter estimates is the standard error of estimate as described in our analysis plan.|||||0.567
90927842|NCT04977583|181734333|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.138|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2625||0.6243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.679|1.904|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This test is comparing Arm 1 (screening) to Arm 2 (awareness)||1.904|0.679|0.6243
90927843|NCT04977583|181734333|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.497|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2553||0.1146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.908|2.469|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This test compares Arm 1 (screening) to arm 3 (assistance)||2.469|0.908|0.1146
90927844|NCT04977583|181734334|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.963|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2078||0.856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.641|1.447|||Poisson|We used total needs as an offset||This test is comparing Arm 1 (screening) to Arm 2 (awareness)||1.447|0.641|0.856
90927845|NCT04977583|181734334|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.136|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1999||0.5248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.768|1.681|||Poisson|||This test is comparing Arm 1 (screening) to Arm 3 (assistance)||1.681|0.768|0.5248
90927846|NCT04977583|181734335|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.866|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.5582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.536|1.4|||Regression, Logistic|||This is Arm 1 compared to Arm 2||1.400|0.536|.5582
90927847|NCT04977583|181734335|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.854|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.217||0.5196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.528|1.381|||Regression, Logistic|||This is Arm 1 compared to Arm 3||1.381|0.528|0.5196
90927848|NCT04977583|181734336|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2794||0.2105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.821|2.454|||ANOVA|||This is arm 1 compared to arm 2||2.454|0.821|0.2105
90965586|NCT01756040|181812791|OTHER|||||||0.932||||||not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||We hypothesized that intestinal permeability as measured by urinary lactulose/rhamnose ratio would be higher in the lower gestational age (\<29 weeks) compared to the more mature infants (≥29 weeks gestation) at postnatal age 7-10 days.||||0.932
90927849|NCT04977583|181734336|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7944|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2816||0.4143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4574|1.379|||ANOVA|||This is arm 1 compared to arm 3||1.379|0.4574|.4143
90927850|NCT04977583|181734337|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9995|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0171||0.9775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9665|1.0336|||ANOVA|||This arm 1 compared to arm 2||1.0336|0.9665|0.9775
90927851|NCT04977583|181734337|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.017|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0176||0.3194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9832|1.0534|||ANOVA|||This arm 1 compared to arm 3||1.0534|0.9832|0.3194
90927852|NCT04977583|181734338|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0284|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1613||0.8623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7497|1.4107|||ANOVA|||This is arm 1 compared to arm 2||1.4107|0.7497|0.8623
90965587|NCT01756040|181812792|OTHER|||||||0.316|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We hypothesized that stool A1AT would be higher in infants with high IP as measured by urinary La/Rh compared to those with low IP.||||0.316
90965588|NCT01756040|181812793|OTHER|||||||0.011||||||The significance value was estimated using Bayesian goodness-of-fit p-value to assess the significance of the association of the relative abundance of Clostridiales and IP categories. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Bayesian goodness of fit|||||||0.011
90965589|NCT01756040|181812794|OTHER|||||||0.0023|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We hypothesized that infants with normal barrier function (La/Rh ratio ≤0.05) would have been fed breastmilk for longer duration than infants with impaired barrier function (La/Rh\>0.05).||||0.0023
90965590|NCT01756040|181812795|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.0
90965591|NCT01756040|181812796|OTHER|||||||0.461||||||A priori threshold \<0.05|Chi-squared|||||||0.461
90965592|NCT01756040|181812797|OTHER|||||||0.019|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We hypothesized that infants with impaired barrier function as measured by high urinary La/Rh (\>0.05) ratio at 7-10 days of age would require longer time to reach full enteral feedings than infants with normal barrier function (La/Rh≤0.05)||||0.019
90965593|NCT01825057|181812808|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.5||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|||||adjusted for multiple comparisons using Dwass, Steel, Critchlow-Fligner Method|Kruskal-Wallis|degrees of freedom = 2|mean difference = Order One - Do One|||||0.0009
90965594|NCT01825057|181812808|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|19.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons using Dwass, Steel, Critchlow-Fligner Method|Kruskal-Wallis|degrees of freedom = 2|mean difference = Order One - See One|||||<0.0001
90965595|NCT01825057|181812808|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.178||||0.4983|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|degrees of freedom = 2|mean difference = Do One - See One|||||0.4983
90965596|NCT01825057|181812809|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.62||||0.0217|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Dwass, Steel, Critchlow-Fligner Method.|Kruskal-Wallis||Mean difference = Order One - Do One|||||0.0217
90965597|NCT01825057|181812809|SUPERIORITY|mean difference is Order One - See One|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.22||||0.0126|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons using Dwass, Steel, Critchlow-Fligner method|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0126
90965598|NCT01825057|181812809|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.4231|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons using Dwass, Steel, Critchlow-Fligner method|Kruskal-Wallis||mean difference is Do One - See One|||||0.4231
90965599|NCT01825057|181812810|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44||||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons using Dwass, Steel, Critchlow-Fligner method|Kruskal-Wallis||Mean difference = Order One - Do One|||||0.0091
90965600|NCT01825057|181812810|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.04||||0.0196|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons using Dwass, Steel, Critchlow-Fligner method|Kruskal-Wallis||mean difference = Order One - See One|||||0.0196
90965601|NCT01825057|181812810|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.2832|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons using Dwass, Steel, Critchlow-Fligner method|Kruskal-Wallis||mean difference = Do One - See One|||||0.2832
90965602|NCT01825057|181812811|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.43||||0.1566|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons using Dwass, Steel, Critchlow-Fligner method|Kruskal-Wallis||Mean difference = Order One - Do One|||||0.1566
90965603|NCT01825057|181812811|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.88||||0.0982|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons using Dwass, Steel, Critchlow-Fligner method|Kruskal-Wallis||mean difference = Order One - See One|||||0.0982
90965604|NCT01825057|181812811|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45||||0.6631|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons using Dwass, Steel, Critchlow-Fligner method|Kruskal-Wallis||mean difference = Do One - See One|||||0.6631
90965605|NCT01825057|181812812|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24||||0.1327|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons using Dwass, Steel, Critchlow-Fligner method|Kruskal-Wallis||Mean difference = Order One - Do One|||||.1327
90965606|NCT01825057|181812812|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.57||||0.4097|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons using Dwass, Steel, Critchlow-Fligner method|Kruskal-Wallis||||mean difference = Order One - See One|||0.4097
90965607|NCT01825057|181812812|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33||||0.8779|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons using Dwass, Steel, Critchlow-Fligner method|Kruskal-Wallis||mean difference = Do One - See One|||||0.8779
90965608|NCT01179672|181812823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.04|-0.82|0.030
90965609|NCT01179672|181812824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.54||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.14||P-value is for mean change from baseline to 12-week endpoint in night pain.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.14|-0.95|0.008
90965610|NCT01179672|181812824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.1||P-value is for mean change from baseline to 12 week endpoint in worst pain.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.10|-1.00|0.017
90965611|NCT01179672|181812825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.09|-0.90|0.016
90965612|NCT01179672|181812826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.03|-0.48|0.081
90965613|NCT01179672|181812827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.02|-0.40|0.034
90965614|NCT01179672|181812828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.12||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|-0.16|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment, pooled investigator and baseline.||||-0.16|-2.07|0.022
90965615|NCT01179672|181812829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014||||||P-value is for ≥30% reduction in 24-hour average pain.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by pooled investigator.||||||0.014
90927853|NCT04977583|181734338|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3701|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1626||0.0534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9962|1.8844|||ANOVA|||This is arm 1 compared to arm 3||1.8844|0.9962|0.0534
90927854|NCT04977583|181734339|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.298|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.464||0.5701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1304|40.5121|||ANOVA|||This is arm 1 compared to arm 2||40.5121|0.1304|0.5701
90927855|NCT04977583|181734339|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.467||0.3016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2571|80.8746|||ANOVA|||This is arm 1 compared to arm 3||80.8746|0.2571|0.3016
90927856|NCT04977583|181734340|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.522|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2438||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.944|2.454|||ANOVA|||This is arm 1 compared to arm 2||2.454|0.944|0.0870
90927857|NCT04977583|181734340|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2897||0.0354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.048|3.264|||ANOVA|||This is arm 1 compared to arm 3||3.264|1.048|0.0354
90927858|NCT04977583|181734341|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.618|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.333||0.3063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.246|1.553|||ANOVA|||This is arm 1 compared to arm 2||1.553|0.246|0.3063
90927859|NCT04977583|181734341|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.679|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3946||0.4378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.256|1.803|||ANOVA|||This is arm 1 compared to arm 3||1.803|.256|.4378
90927860|NCT04977583|181734342|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5083|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8265||0.4134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1006|2.5687|||ANOVA|||This is arm 1 compared to arm 2||2.5687|0.1006|0.4134
90927861|NCT04977583|181734342|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.819|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8283||0.4705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3588|9.223|||ANOVA|||This is arm 1 compared to arm 3||9.2230|0.3588|0.4705
90927862|NCT04977583|181734343|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.765|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2684||0.0347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.044|2.987|||Mixed Models Analysis||This analysis is arm 1 compared to arm 3. Arm 3 is the numerator and arm 1 is the denominator.|||2.987|1.044|0.0347
90927863|NCT04977583|181734344|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.734|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3489||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.875|3.436|||Mixed Models Analysis||This analysis compares arm 1 to arm 2. Arm 2 is the numerator and Arm 1 is the denominator|||3.436|0.875|0.1160
90927864|NCT04977583|181734344|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.376|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3475||0.0134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.202|4.695|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.695|1.202|0.0134
90927865|NCT04977583|181734345|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.617||0.0094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.512|16.57|||Mixed Models Analysis||This analysis is arm 1 compared to compared to arm 3. Arm 3 is the numerator and arm 1 is denominator.|||16.570|1.512|0.0094
90927866|NCT04977583|181734345|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.875|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6532||0.3377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.521|6.746|||Mixed Models Analysis||This is a comparison of arm 1 and arm 2. Arm 2 is the numerator and arm 1 is the denominator.|||6.746|0.521|0.3377
90927867|NCT00979459|181734348|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Administration of a single dose of two 40 mg MK-1006 FCT is similar to a single dose of four 20 mg MK-1006 DFC will be satisfied if the 90% confidence interval for the AUC(0 to infinity) geometric mean ratio (FCT/DCF) is contained within (0.70, 1.43).|Geometric mean ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.86|0.99||||||||0.99|0.86|
90927868|NCT00979459|181734349|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Administration of a single dose of two 40 mg MK-1006 FCT is similar to a single dose of four 20 mg MK-1006 DFC will be satisfied if the 90% confidence interval for the Cmax geometric mean ratio (FCT/DCF) is contained within (0.70, 1.43).|Geometric mean ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.24||||||||1.24|0.92|
90927869|NCT00786864|181734362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||p=|0||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||p=0.001
90927870|NCT00786864|181734363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||p<|0||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||p<0.001
90927871|NCT00786864|181734364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||p<|0||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||p<0.001
90927872|NCT00786864|181734365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||p<|0||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||p<0.01
90927873|NCT02422615|181734366|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.593||||4.1e-07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.732|||Log Rank|||||0.732|0.480|0.00000041
90927874|NCT02422615|181734367|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.724||||0.00455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.568|0.924|||Log Rank|||||0.924|0.568|0.00455
90927875|NCT02422615|181734368|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.492|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.345|0.703||||||||0.703|0.345|
90927876|NCT01105975|181734399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|78.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|64.9|92.1|||mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|||||92.1|64.9|<0.001
90927877|NCT01105975|181734400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.9||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.2|-6.7|||mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|||||-6.7|-21.2|0.002
90927878|NCT01105975|181734401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|56.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|43.6|69.8|||mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|||||69.8|43.6|<0.001
90927879|NCT01105975|181734401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|97.6|||<|0.001||90.0|84.5|110.8|||mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|||||110.8|84.5|<0.001
90927880|NCT01105975|181734401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|131.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|118.5|145.2|||mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|||||145.2|118.5|<0.001
90927881|NCT01105975|181734402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-24.6|-10.5|||mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|||||-10.5|-24.6|<0.001
90927882|NCT01105975|181734402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-33.2|-19.2|||mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|||||-19.2|-33.2|<0.001
90927883|NCT01105975|181734402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-39.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-47.0|-32.7|||mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|||||-32.7|-47.0|<0.001
90927884|NCT01105975|181734403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|79.3|||<|0.001||90.0|66.2|92.4|||mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|||||92.4|66.2|<0.001
90927885|NCT01105975|181734403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|88.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.2|101.8|||mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|||||101.8|75.2|<0.001
90927886|NCT01105975|181734404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.2||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.3|-4.2|||mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|||||-4.2|-18.3|0.009
90965616|NCT01179672|181812829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||||||P-value is for ≥50% reduction in 24-hour average pain.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by pooled investigator.||||||0.006
90965617|NCT01179672|181812829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.193||||||P-value is for ≥75% reduction in 24-hour average pain.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by pooled investigator.||||||0.193
90927887|NCT01105975|181734404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.5||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.6|-6.4|||mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|||||-6.4|-20.6|0.002
90927888|NCT04868617|181734416|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|||=|0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.03|-0.3|=0.015
90927889|NCT04868617|181734417|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|||=|0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.1|-1.5|=0.035
90927890|NCT05441449|181734426|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.002
90927891|NCT05441449|181734426|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90927892|NCT05441449|181734426|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90927893|NCT05441449|181734427|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.043|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.043
90927894|NCT05441449|181734427|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.281|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.281
90927895|NCT05441449|181734427|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90927896|NCT05441449|181734428|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.352|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.352
90927897|NCT05441449|181734428|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.001
90927898|NCT05441449|181734429|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.374|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.374
90927899|NCT05441449|181734429|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.045|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.045
90927900|NCT05441449|181734429|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.196|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.196
90927901|NCT02502526|181734475|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<.001
90927902|NCT02502526|181734476|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<.001
90927903|NCT02502526|181734476|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.605|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.605
90927904|NCT02502526|181734477|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.520
90927905|NCT02502526|181734477|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.817|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.817
90927906|NCT04612244|181734479|NON_INFERIORITY|"PT will be deemed to be non-inferior to PC if it can be established that the posterior probability Pr(HA \| data) \> Ψeff, where Ψeff is a pre-specified threshold value that controls the one-sided type I error rate (under simulation) at level 0.05. In the absence of missing data, the posterior distributions for PT and PC would be conjugate Beta distributions."||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||"The primary effectiveness endpoint for this study is Treatment Success, which will be analyzed as a test of non-inferiority of the event rate at 12 months using a noninferiority margin of 15%.~The null and alternative hypotheses are:~H0: PT ≤ PC - 0.15 versus HA: PT \> PC - 0.15 where PT is the Treatment Success rate at 12 months in the Pulsed Field Group and PC is the Treatment Success rate at 12 months in the Thermal (Control) Group."||||0.05
90927907|NCT04612244|181734481|SUPERIORITY|"The null and alternative hypotheses are provided below. H0: PT ≤ PC versus HA: PT \> PC where PT is the Treatment Success rate at 12 months in the Pulsed Field Group, and PC is the Treatment Success rate at 12 months in the Thermal Group.~Modeling will be identical primary endpoint and superiority concluded if the posterior probability Pr(HA \| data) \> Ψeff, sup, where the threshold Ψeff,sup is a pre-specified threshold value that controls the one-sided type I error rate at level 0.025."|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.708||||0.025|ONE_SIDED|97.5|||||t-test, 1 sided|||The secondary effectiveness endpoint for the ADVENT Trial is Treatment Superiority uses the same definition as the primary effectiveness endpoint for Treatment Success, but the test is for superiority between MITT subjects in the PFA and Thermal Groups.||||0.025
90927908|NCT03473223|181734484|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.925||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8126|1.0538||1-sided p-value.|Cox proportional hazards regression|||||1.0538|0.8126|0.121
90927909|NCT03473223|181734485|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.971||||0.341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8442|1.1171||1-sided p-value|Negative binomial regression model|||||1.1171|0.8442|0.341
90927910|NCT03473223|181734486|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.907||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8132|1.0106||1-sided p-value.|Cox proportional hazards regression|||||1.0106|0.8132|0.038
90927911|NCT03473223|181734487|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.933||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8511|1.0224||1-sided p-value.|Cox proportional hazards regression|||||1.0224|0.8511|0.069
90927912|NCT03473223|181734488|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.827||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6399|1.0695||1-sided p-value.|Cox proportional hazards regression|||||1.0695|0.6399|0.074
90927913|NCT03473223|181734489|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.909||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7801|1.0603||1-sided p-value.|Cox proportional hazards regression|||||1.0603|0.7801|0.113
90927914|NCT03473223|181734490|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.153||||0.767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7867|1.6886||1-sided p-value.|Cox proportional hazards regression|||||1.6886|0.7867|0.767
90927915|NCT03777657|181734515|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.94||The superiority boundary at the primary overall survival analysis was predefined using the O'Brien-Fleming boundary approximated using the Hwang-Shih-DeCani spending function at 0.0092.|One-sided Log Rank Test|One-Sided Log-Rank Test stratified by regions (Asia versus Europe/North America) and presence of peritoneal metastasis (yes vs no).|The stratified hazard ratio and two-sided 95% confidence interval were estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model, including treatment arm as a covariate, and region and presence of peritoneal metastasis as strata.|||0.94|0.59|0.0056
90965618|NCT01179672|181812830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||||||P-value is for ≥30% reduction in 24-hour BPI-Severity average pain.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by pooled investigator.||||||0.003
90965619|NCT01179672|181812830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||||||P-value is for ≥50% reduction in 24-hour BPI-Severity average pain.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by pooled investigator.||||||0.001
90965620|NCT01179672|181812830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.168||||||P-value is for ≥75% reduction in 24-hour BPI-Severity average pain.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran Mantel Haenszel test was stratified by pooled investigator.||||||0.168
90965621|NCT01179672|181812831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.24|-0.96|0.001
90965622|NCT01179672|181812832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.26||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.20|-2.33|0.020
90965623|NCT04667377|181812842|OTHER|Covariate adjusted fixed effect estimates of mean percentage change in body weight at Week 46 for each treatment group with associated covariance matrix were extracted from the MMRM (including fixed effects for baseline body weight as a continuous linear covariate, and treatment, gender, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline by visit interaction as factors) and used as input for the MCP-Mod.|||||<|0.0001||||||P-value is adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod - Linear model fit|||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of BI 456906 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different potential dose-response patterns (Linear, Exponential, Emax1, Emax2, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 2.5%).||||<0.0001
90965624|NCT04667377|181812842|OTHER|Covariate adjusted fixed effect estimates of mean percentage change in body weight at Week 46 for each treatment group with associated covariance matrix were extracted from the MMRM (including fixed effects for baseline body weight as a continuous linear covariate, and treatment, gender, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline by visit interaction as factors) and used as input for the MCP-Mod.|||||<|0.0001||||||P-value is adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod - Exponential model fit|Model Assumption: 50% of maximum effect achieved at dose 3.6 mg.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of BI 456906 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different potential dose-response patterns (Linear, Exponential, Emax1, Emax2, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 2.5%).||||<0.0001
90965625|NCT04667377|181812842|OTHER|Covariate adjusted fixed effect estimates of mean percentage change in body weight at Week 46 for each treatment group with associated covariance matrix were extracted from the MMRM (including fixed effects for baseline body weight as a continuous linear covariate, and treatment, gender, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline by visit interaction as factors) and used as input for the MCP-Mod.|||||<|0.0001||||||P-value is adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod - Emax1 model fit|Model Assumption: 90% of maximum effect achieved at dose 4.8 mg.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of BI 456906 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different potential dose-response patterns (Linear, Exponential, Emax1, Emax2, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 2.5%).||||<0.0001
90965626|NCT04667377|181812842|OTHER|Covariate adjusted fixed effect estimates of mean percentage change in body weight at Week 46 for each treatment group with associated covariance matrix were extracted from the MMRM (including fixed effects for baseline body weight as a continuous linear covariate, and treatment, gender, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline by visit interaction as factors) and used as input for the MCP-Mod.|||||<|0.0001||||||P-value is adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod - Emax2 model fit|Model Assumption: 70% of maximum effect achieved at dose 4.8 mg.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of BI 456906 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different potential dose-response patterns (Linear, Exponential, Emax1, Emax2, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 2.5%).||||<0.0001
90965627|NCT04667377|181812842|OTHER|Covariate adjusted fixed effect estimates of mean percentage change in body weight at Week 46 for each treatment group with associated covariance matrix were extracted from the MMRM (including fixed effects for baseline body weight as a continuous linear covariate, and treatment, gender, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline by visit interaction as factors) and used as input for the MCP-Mod.|||||<|0.0001||||||P-value is adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod - Sigmoid Emax model fit|Model Assumption: 50% of maximum effect achieved at dose 2.4 mg, 90% of maximum effect achieved at dose 4.8 mg.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of BI 456906 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different potential dose-response patterns (Linear, Exponential, Emax1, Emax2, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 2.5%).||||<0.0001
90965628|NCT04667377|181812842|OTHER|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline body weight as a continuous linear covariate, and treatment, gender, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline by visit interaction as factors, using visit as repeated measures and an unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.|Difference of adjusted means|-3.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.0257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.33|-0.41||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as BI 456906 - placebo.|No formal hypotheses were tested.||-0.41|-6.33|0.0257
90965629|NCT04667377|181812842|OTHER|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline body weight as a continuous linear covariate, and treatment, gender, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline by visit interaction as factors, using visit as repeated measures and an unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.|Difference of adjusted means|-9.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.46|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.57|-6.81||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation as used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as BI 456906 - placebo.|No formal hypotheses were tested.||-6.81|-12.57|<.0001
90887757|NCT00560833|181638556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|-0.01||Dunnet-adjusted from ANCOVA with factors for treatment and (pooled) center and a covariate for baseline value.|ANCOVA|||||-0.01|-0.12|0.02
90887758|NCT00560833|181638556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|-0.01||Dunnet-adjusted from ANCOVA with factors for treatment and (pooled) center and a covariate for baseline value.|ANCOVA|||||-0.01|-0.13|0.01
90887759|NCT00560833|181638556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|-0.01||Dunnet-adjusted from ANCOVA with factors for treatment and (pooled) center and a covariate for baseline value.|ANCOVA|||||-0.01|-0.12|0.02
90887760|NCT00560833|181638557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.07||Dunnet-adjusted from ANCOVA with factors for treatment and (pooled) center and a covariate for baseline value.|ANCOVA|||||0.07|-0.06|1.0
90887761|NCT00560833|181638557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.04||Dunnet-adjusted from ANCOVA with factors for treatment and (pooled) center and a covariate for baseline value.|ANCOVA|||||0.04|-0.09|0.72
90887762|NCT00560833|181638557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.01||Dunnet-adjusted from ANCOVA with factors for treatment and (pooled) center and a covariate for baseline value.|ANCOVA|||||0.01|-0.12|0.13
90887763|NCT00560833|181638557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.01||Dunnet-adjusted from ANCOVA with factors for treatment and (pooled) center and a covariate for baseline value.|ANCOVA|||||0.01|-0.12|0.15
90887764|NCT03283670|181638558|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.75||||0.55|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||HAMD-21 at 2 Hours, placebo vs 25% nitrous oxide||||0.55
90887765|NCT03283670|181638558|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.4||||0.47|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in HAMD-21, 25% nitrous oxide vs placebo at 24 hours||||0.47
90887766|NCT03283670|181638558|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.87||||0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||HAMD-21 at 2 Hours, placebo vs 50% nitrous oxide||||0.49
90887767|NCT03283670|181638558|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.9||||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in HAMD-21 at 24 hours, placebo vs 50% nitrous oxide||||0.34
90887768|NCT03283670|181638558|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11||||0.94|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in HAMD-21 at 2 hours, 25% nitrous oxide vs 50% nitrous oxide||||0.94
90887769|NCT03283670|181638558|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in HAMD-21 at 24 hours, 25% nitrous oxide vs 50% nitrous oxide||||0.80
90887770|NCT02062502|181638625|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The conclusion of non-inferiority (similarity) is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI on the risk difference excluding a decrease equal to or more than the prespecified criterion of 10.0 percentage points for Varicella zoster virus.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|3.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||3.2|-3.2|<0.001
90887771|NCT02062502|181638626|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The conclusion of non-inferiority (similarity) is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI on fold-difference, excluding a decrease of 1.5 fold or more.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.06|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.06|0.85|<0.001
90887772|NCT02062502|181638626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Antibody Response Rate|97.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.4|98.9|||Exact CI method/binomial proportion|||The conclusion of acceptability is based on the lower bound of the 95% Confidence Interval (CI) being \>76%, and implies that the value of the parameter is statistically significantly greater than the prespecified acceptability criterion (76%).||98.9|94.4|<0.001
90887773|NCT00566228|181638669|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.08|||Log Rank|||||2.08|0.62|0.690
90887774|NCT00566228|181638672|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.679|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.679
90887775|NCT03320070|181638679|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5076|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5076
90887776|NCT03320070|181638681|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.0000
90887777|NCT03320070|181638683|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0848|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0848
90887778|NCT03320070|181638685|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2005|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2005
90887779|NCT03320070|181638687|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9416|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.9416
90887780|NCT03320070|181638689|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1853|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1853
90887781|NCT03586648|181638691|SUPERIORITY|Statistically superiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the confidence intervals of the Test lens is greater than 32 points.|Least-square Mean|39.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.31|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.7|45.9|||Linear Mixed Model|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.||Data only from the first period will be used if period effect is significant.||45.9|32.7|
90887782|NCT03586648|181638692|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistically superiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the confidence intervals of the Test lens is greater than -5 points.|Least-square Mean Difference|-11.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|-3.3|||Linear Mixed Model|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as Test minus Control.|The non-inferiority of the Test lens relative to the Control will be concluded if the lower confidence limit of LSM difference is above the non-inferiority margin -5.||-3.3|-19.7|
90887783|NCT02041195|181638694|OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-4.26||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.81|-1.72||One sided p-value.|Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance||A longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effects for treatment, timepoint, treatment-by-timepoint, baseline weight as covariate, and participant as random effect was used.|||-1.72|-6.81|0.004
90887784|NCT02041195|181638694|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-3.63||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.23|-1.03|||Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance|One-sided p-value.|A longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effects for treatment, timepoint, treatment-by-timepoint, baseline weight as covariate, and participant as random effect was used.|||-1.03|-6.23|0.012
90887785|NCT02041195|181638696|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.24|-1.89||One sided p-value.|Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance||A longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effects for treatment, timepoint, treatment-by-timepoint, baseline weight as covariate, and participant as random effect was used.|||-1.89|-5.24|<0.001
90887786|NCT02041195|181638698|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.22||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.44|-1.0|||Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance||A longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effects for treatment, timepoint, treatment-by-timepoint, baseline weight as covariate, and participant as random effect was used.|||-1.00|-3.44|0.002
90965630|NCT04667377|181812842|OTHER|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline body weight as a continuous linear covariate, and treatment, gender, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline by visit interaction as factors, using visit as repeated measures and an unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.|Difference of adjusted means|-10.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.48|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.32|-7.49||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as BI 456906 - placebo.|No formal hypotheses were tested.||-7.49|-13.32|<.0001
90965631|NCT04667377|181812842|OTHER|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline body weight as a continuous linear covariate, and treatment, gender, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline by visit interaction as factors, using visit as repeated measures and an unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.|Difference of adjusted means|-12.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.46|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|-9.24||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation will be used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as BI 456906 - placebo.|No formal hypotheses were tested.||-9.24|-15.00|<.0001
90887787|NCT00414700|181638708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for age, associated lesion(s) and location of lesion||Test for superiority||||0.003
90887788|NCT00414700|181638709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for age, associated lesion(s) and location of lesion.||Test for superiority||||0.010
90887789|NCT00414700|181638710|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin = -9 % points|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||||95.0|-3.28|6.9|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline Overall KOOS score, age, associated lesion(s) and location of lesion.||||6.90|-3.28|
90887790|NCT01138124|181638797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|2.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|2.75|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||2.75|1.51|<0.0001
90887791|NCT01138124|181638797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.82||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|2.46|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, chronic pancreatitis, neuropathic pain, epilepsy."|||2.46|1.34|0.0001
90887792|NCT01138124|181638797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|1.52||||0.0627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|2.36|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||2.36|0.98|0.0627
90887793|NCT01138124|181638797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.33||||0.2183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|2.08|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, chronic pancreatitis, neuropathic pain, epilepsy."|||2.08|0.85|0.2183
90887794|NCT01138124|181638798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|2.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.86|4.28|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||4.28|1.86|<0.0001
90887795|NCT01138124|181638798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|2.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|3.85|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, chronic pancreatitis, neuropathic pain, epilepsy"|||3.85|1.66|<0.0001
90887796|NCT01138124|181638798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|2.75||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|5.03|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||5.03|1.51|0.001
90887797|NCT01138124|181638798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|2.44||||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|4.49|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, chronic pancreatitis, neuropathic pain, epilepsy."|||4.49|1.32|0.0042
90887798|NCT01138124|181638798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|1.8||||0.0645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|3.36|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||3.36|0.97|0.0645
90887799|NCT01138124|181638798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.65||||0.1232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|3.11|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, chronic pancreatitis, neuropathic pain, epilepsy."|||3.11|0.87|0.1232
90887800|NCT01138124|181638798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|0.55||||0.316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.78|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||1.78|0.17|0.3160
90887801|NCT01138124|181638798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.48||||0.2234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.57|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, chronic pancreatitis, neuropathic pain, epilepsy."|||1.57|0.15|0.2234
90887802|NCT01138124|181638798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|1.35||||0.3071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.42|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||2.42|0.76|0.3071
90887803|NCT01138124|181638798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.17||||0.6062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|2.11|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, chronic pancreatitis, neuropathic pain, epilepsy."|||2.11|0.65|0.6062
90887804|NCT01138124|181638798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|1.31||||0.5205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.97|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||2.97|0.58|0.5205
90887805|NCT01138124|181638798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.11||||0.8042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|2.57|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, chronic pancreatitis, neuropathic pain, epilepsy."|||2.57|0.48|0.8042
90887806|NCT01138124|181638799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|3.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.04|4.86|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||4.86|2.04|<0.0001
90887807|NCT01138124|181638799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|2.88|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.85|4.46|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, chronic pancreatitis, neuropathic pain, epilepsy."|||4.46|1.85|<0.0001
90887808|NCT01138124|181638799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|2.75||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|5.13|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||5.13|1.47|0.0015
91035302|NCT03086460|181956480|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.066||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.143|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.143|-0.010|0.089
90887809|NCT01138124|181638799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|2.45||||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|4.62|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, chronic pancreatitis, neuropathic pain, epilepsy."|||4.62|1.31|0.0053
90887810|NCT01138124|181638799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|1.68||||0.0777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|2.99|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||2.99|0.94|0.0777
90887811|NCT01138124|181638799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.5||||0.1762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|2.69|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, chronic pancreatitis, neuropathic pain, epilepsy."|||2.69|0.83|0.1762
90887812|NCT01138124|181638799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|0.82||||0.699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|2.28|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||2.28|0.29|0.6990
90887813|NCT01138124|181638799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.72||||0.5274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|2.01|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, chronic pancreatitis, neuropathic pain, epilepsy."|||2.01|0.26|0.5274
90927916|NCT03777657|181734516|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.92||The one sided P value boundary for superiority of overall survival in all randomized participants at final analysis was 0.0226 based on 776 actual observed deaths.|One-Sided Log-Rank Test|One-Sided Log-Rank test stratified by region (Asia vs Europe/North America), PD-L1 expression (\<5% vs ≥5%), and presence of peritoneal metastasis.|The stratified hazard ratio and two-sided 95% confidence interval were estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model, including treatment arm as a covariate, and region, PD-L1 expression, and presence of peritoneal metastasis as strata.|||0.92|0.70|0.0011
90927917|NCT03777657|181734517|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.83|||||The stratified hazard ratio and two-sided 95% confidence interval were estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model, including treatment arm as a covariate, and region and presence of peritoneal metastasis as strata.|||0.83|0.56|
90927918|NCT03777657|181734518|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.04|||||Odds ratio between arms weas calculated using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method, stratified by regions (Asia versus Europe/North America) and presence of peritoneal metastasis.|||2.04|1.03|
90927919|NCT03777657|181734519|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.9|||||The stratified hazard ratio and two-sided 95% confidence interval were estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model, including treatment arm as a covariate, and region, PD-L1 expression, and presence of peritoneal metastasis as strata.|||0.90|0.67|
90927920|NCT03777657|181734520|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.72|||||Odds ratio between arms were calculated using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method, stratified by regions (Asia versus Europe/North America), PD-L1 expression and presence of peritoneal metastasis.|||1.72|1.03|
90927921|NCT03777657|181734523|OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|3.94|||||Mixed effect model analysis with QLQ-C30 scores from cycle 1 to 6 as the response variable, and treatment by study visit interaction, baseline mean score and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Analysis of Change from Baseline in Global Health Status/QoL at Cycle 4||3.94|-0.33|
90927922|NCT03777657|181734523|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|4.74|||||Mixed effect model analysis with QLQ-C30 scores from cycle 1 to 6 as the response variable, and treatment by study visit interaction, baseline mean score and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Analysis of Change from Baseline in Global Health Status/QoL at Cycle 6||4.74|0.29|
90927923|NCT03777657|181734523|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|3.16||||||Analysis of Change from Baseline in Physical Functioning at Cycle 4||3.16|-0.27|
90927924|NCT03777657|181734523|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|4.43|||||Mixed effect model analysis with QLQ-C30 scores from cycle 1 to 6 as the response variable, and treatment by study visit interaction, baseline mean score and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Analysis of Change from Baseline in Physical Functioning at Cycle 6||4.43|0.49|
90927925|NCT03777657|181734524|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.79|1.15|||||Mixed effect model analysis with QLQ-C30 scores from cycle 1 to 6 as the response variable, and treatment by study visit interaction, baseline mean score and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Analysis of Change from Baseline in Fatigue at Cycle 4||1.15|-3.79|
90927926|NCT03777657|181734524|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.78|-0.24|||||Mixed effect model analysis with QLQ-C30 scores from cycle 1 to 6 as the response variable, and treatment by study visit interaction, baseline mean score and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Analysis of Change from Baseline in Fatigue at Cycle 6||-0.24|-5.78|
90927927|NCT03777657|181734525|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.53|0.31|||||Mixed effect model analysis with QLQ-STO22 scores from cycle 1 to 6 as the response variable, and treatment by study visit interaction, baseline mean score and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Analysis of Change from Baseline in QLQ-STO22 Index-Score at Cycle 4||0.31|-2.53|
90927928|NCT03777657|181734525|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.12|-0.12|||||Mixed effect model analysis with QLQ-STO22 scores from cycle 1 to 6 as the response variable, and treatment by study visit interaction, baseline mean score and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Analysis of Change from Baseline in QLQ-STO22 Index-Score at Cycle 6||-0.12|-3.12|
90927929|NCT03777657|181734525|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.13|0.11|||||Mixed effect model analysis with QLQ-STO22 scores from cycle 1 to 6 as the response variable, and treatment by study visit interaction, baseline mean score and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Analysis of Change from Baseline in QLQ-STO22 Dysphagia/Odynophagia Scale at Cycle 4||0.11|-3.13|
91078009|NCT02542293|182041273|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.524|1.228|||||The HR and CI were calculated using an unstratified Cox proportional hazards model, with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"tTMB ≥12 mut/Mb analysis set: Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy to be associated with a longer PFS than SoC."||1.228|0.524|
90965632|NCT04667377|181812843|OTHER|"Missing body weight measurements were multiply imputed using MMRM with treatment, gender, baseline body weight as factors. Percentage change in body weight from baseline to Week 46 and Body weight loss ≥ 5% at Week 46 (yes/no) were derived per participant in each of the 1000 imputed datasets. Each dataset was analysed by a logistic regression. Multiple estimates from multiple imputation runs were summarised using Rubin's method."|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.28||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|6.84||P-value is considered nominal.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with treatment group and gender as factors and baseline body weight as a continuous linear covariate.|Odds ratio is calculated as BI 456906 / Placebo.|Logistic regression after multiple imputation. Analysis based on all available post-baseline body weight measurements (on-treatment (first intake of study drug until 28 days after last intake of study drug) and off-treatment), except those for participants who discontinued treatment early due to COVID-19. For these participants only on-treatment values were used.||6.84|1.57|0.0015
90965633|NCT04667377|181812843|OTHER|"Missing body weight measurements were multiply imputed using MMRM with treatment, gender, baseline body weight as factors. Percentage change in body weight from baseline to Week 46 and Body weight loss ≥ 5% at Week 46 (yes/no) were derived per participant in each of the 1000 imputed datasets. Each dataset was analysed by a logistic regression. Multiple estimates from multiple imputation runs were summarised using Rubin's method."|Odds Ratio (OR)|8.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|19.46||P-value is considered nominal.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with treatment group and gender as factors and baseline body weight as a continuous linear covariate.|Odds ratio is calculated as BI 456906 / Placebo.|Logistic regression after multiple imputation. Analysis based on all available post-baseline body weight measurements (on-treatment (first intake of study drug until 28 days after last intake of study drug) and off-treatment), except those for participants who discontinued treatment early due to COVID-19. For these participants only on-treatment values were used.||19.46|4.00|<.0001
90965634|NCT04667377|181812843|OTHER|"Missing body weight measurements were multiply imputed using MMRM with treatment, gender, baseline body weight as factors. Percentage change in body weight from baseline to Week 46 and Body weight loss ≥ 5% at Week 46 (yes/no) were derived per participant in each of the 1000 imputed datasets. Each dataset was analysed by a logistic regression. Multiple estimates from multiple imputation runs were summarised using Rubin's method."|Odds Ratio (OR)|7.48|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.41|16.41||P-value is considered nominal.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with treatment group and gender as factors and baseline body weight as a continuous linear covariate.|Odds ratio is calculated as BI 456906 / Placebo.|Logistic regression after multiple imputation. Analysis based on all available post-baseline body weight measurements (on-treatment (first intake of study drug until 28 days after last intake of study drug) and off-treatment), except those for participants who discontinued treatment early due to COVID-19. For these participants only on-treatment values were used.||16.41|3.41|<.0001
90965635|NCT04667377|181812843|OTHER|"Missing body weight measurements were multiply imputed using MMRM with treatment, gender, baseline body weight as factors. Percentage change in body weight from baseline to Week 46 and Body weight loss ≥ 5% at Week 46 (yes/no) were derived per participant in each of the 1000 imputed datasets. Each dataset was analysed by a logistic regression. Multiple estimates from multiple imputation runs were summarised using Rubin's method."|Odds Ratio (OR)|10.77|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.77|24.31||P-value is considered nominal.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with treatment group and gender as factors and baseline body weight as a continuous linear covariate.|Odds ratio is calculated as BI 456906 / Placebo.|Logistic regression after multiple imputation. Analysis based on all available post-baseline body weight measurements (on-treatment (first intake of study drug until 28 days after last intake of study drug) and off-treatment), except those for participants who discontinued treatment early due to COVID-19. For these participants only on-treatment values were used.||24.31|4.77|<.0001
90965636|NCT04667377|181812844|OTHER|"Missing body weight measurements were multiply imputed using MMRM with treatment, gender, baseline body weight as factors. Percentage change in body weight from baseline to Week 46 and Body weight loss ≥ 10% at Week 46 (yes/no) were derived per participant in each of the 1000 imputed datasets. Each dataset was analysed by a logistic regression. Multiple estimates from multiple imputation runs were summarised using Rubin's method."|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.22||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|8.02||P-value is considered nominal.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with treatment group and gender as factors and baseline body weight as a continuous linear covariate.|Odds ratio is calculated as BI 456906 / Placebo.|Logistic regression after multiple imputation. Analysis based on all available post-baseline body weight measurements (on-treatment (first intake of study drug until 28 days after last intake of study drug) and off-treatment), except those for participants who discontinued treatment early due to COVID-19. For these participants only on-treatment values were used.||8.02|1.29|0.0120
90965637|NCT04667377|181812844|OTHER|"Missing body weight measurements were multiply imputed using MMRM with treatment, gender, baseline body weight as factors. Percentage change in body weight from baseline to Week 46 and Body weight loss ≥ 10% at Week 46 (yes/no) were derived per participant in each of the 1000 imputed datasets. Each dataset was analysed by a logistic regression. Multiple estimates from multiple imputation runs were summarised using Rubin's method."|Odds Ratio (OR)|10.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.36|25.86||P-value is considered nominal.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with treatment group and gender as factors and baseline body weight as a continuous linear covariate.|Odds ratio is calculated as BI 456906 / Placebo.|Logistic regression after multiple imputation. Analysis based on all available post-baseline body weight measurements (on-treatment (first intake of study drug until 28 days after last intake of study drug) and off-treatment), except those for participants who discontinued treatment early due to COVID-19. For these participants only on-treatment values were used.||25.86|4.36|<.0001
90965638|NCT04667377|181812844|OTHER|"Missing body weight measurements were multiply imputed using MMRM with treatment, gender, baseline body weight as factors. Percentage change in body weight from baseline to Week 46 and Body weight loss ≥ 10% at Week 46 (yes/no) were derived per participant in each of the 1000 imputed datasets. Each dataset was analysed by a logistic regression. Multiple estimates from multiple imputation runs were summarised using Rubin's method."|Odds Ratio (OR)|9.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.02|23.79||P-value is considered nominal.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with treatment group and gender as factors and baseline body weight as a continuous linear covariate.|Odds ratio is calculated as BI 456906 / Placebo.|Logistic regression after multiple imputation. Analysis based on all available post-baseline body weight measurements (on-treatment (first intake of study drug until 28 days after last intake of study drug) and off-treatment), except those for participants who discontinued treatment early due to COVID-19. For these participants only on-treatment values were used.||23.79|4.02|<.0001
90965639|NCT04667377|181812844|OTHER|"Missing body weight measurements were multiply imputed using MMRM with treatment, gender, baseline body weight as factors. Percentage change in body weight from baseline to Week 46 and Body weight loss ≥ 10% at Week 46 (yes/no) were derived per participant in each of the 1000 imputed datasets. Each dataset was analysed by a logistic regression. Multiple estimates from multiple imputation runs were summarised using Rubin's method."|Odds Ratio (OR)|14.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.91|35.55||P-value is considered nominal.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with treatment group and gender as factors and baseline body weight as a continuous linear covariate.|Odds ratio is calculated as BI 456906 / Placebo.|Logistic regression after multiple imputation. Analysis based on all available post-baseline body weight measurements (on-treatment (first intake of study drug until 28 days after last intake of study drug) and off-treatment), except those for participants who discontinued treatment early due to COVID-19. For these participants only on-treatment values were used.||35.55|5.91|<.0001
90965640|NCT04667377|181812845|OTHER|"Missing body weight measurements were multiply imputed using MMRM with treatment, gender, baseline body weight as factors. Percentage change in body weight from baseline to Week 46 and Body weight loss ≥ 15% at Week 46 (yes/no) were derived per participant in each of the 1000 imputed datasets. Each dataset was analysed by a logistic regression. Multiple estimates from multiple imputation runs were summarised using Rubin's method."|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.13||||0.2654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|8.02||P-value is considered nominal.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with treatment group and gender as factors and baseline body weight as a continuous linear covariate.|Odds ratio is calculated as BI 456906 / Placebo.|Logistic regression after multiple imputation. Analysis based on all available post-baseline body weight measurements (on-treatment (first intake of study drug until 28 days after last intake of study drug) and off-treatment), except those for participants who discontinued treatment early due to COVID-19. For these participants only on-treatment values were used.||8.02|0.56|0.2654
90965641|NCT04667377|181812845|OTHER|"Missing body weight measurements were multiply imputed using MMRM with treatment, gender, baseline body weight as factors. Percentage change in body weight from baseline to Week 46 and Body weight loss ≥ 15% at Week 46 (yes/no) were derived per participant in each of the 1000 imputed datasets. Each dataset was analysed by a logistic regression. Multiple estimates from multiple imputation runs were summarised using Rubin's method."|Odds Ratio (OR)|9.47||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.89|30.95||P-value is considered nominal.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with treatment group and gender as factors and baseline body weight as a continuous linear covariate.|Odds ratio is calculated as BI 456906 / Placebo.|Logistic regression after multiple imputation. Analysis based on all available post-baseline body weight measurements (on-treatment (first intake of study drug until 28 days after last intake of study drug) and off-treatment), except those for participants who discontinued treatment early due to COVID-19. For these participants only on-treatment values were used.||30.95|2.89|0.0002
90965642|NCT04667377|181812845|OTHER|"Missing body weight measurements were multiply imputed using MMRM with treatment, gender, baseline body weight as factors. Percentage change in body weight from baseline to Week 46 and Body weight loss ≥ 15% at Week 46 (yes/no) were derived per participant in each of the 1000 imputed datasets. Each dataset was analysed by a logistic regression. Multiple estimates from multiple imputation runs were summarised using Rubin's method."|Odds Ratio (OR)|11.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.62|38.36||P-value is considered nominal.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with treatment group and gender as factors and baseline body weight as a continuous linear covariate.|Odds ratio is calculated as BI 456906 / Placebo.|Logistic regression after multiple imputation. Analysis based on all available post-baseline body weight measurements (on-treatment (first intake of study drug until 28 days after last intake of study drug) and off-treatment), except those for participants who discontinued treatment early due to COVID-19. For these participants only on-treatment values were used.||38.36|3.62|<.0001
90965643|NCT04667377|181812845|OTHER|"Missing body weight measurements were multiply imputed using MMRM with treatment, gender, baseline body weight as factors. Percentage change in body weight from baseline to Week 46 and Body weight loss ≥ 15% at Week 46 (yes/no) were derived per participant in each of the 1000 imputed datasets. Each dataset was analysed by a logistic regression. Multiple estimates from multiple imputation runs were summarised using Rubin's method."|Odds Ratio (OR)|21.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.47|68.28||P-value is considered nominal.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with treatment group and gender as factors and baseline body weight as a continuous linear covariate.|Odds ratio is calculated as BI 456906 / Placebo.|Logistic regression after multiple imputation. Analysis based on all available post-baseline body weight measurements (on-treatment (first intake of study drug until 28 days after last intake of study drug) and off-treatment), except those for participants who discontinued treatment early due to COVID-19. For these participants only on-treatment values were used.||68.28|6.47|<.0001
90927930|NCT03777657|181734525|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.31|0.76|||||Mixed effect model analysis with QLQ-STO22 scores from cycle 1 to 6 as the response variable, and treatment by study visit interaction, baseline mean score and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Analysis of Change from Baseline in QLQ-STO22 Dysphagia/Odynophagia Scale at Cycle 6||0.76|-2.31|
90927931|NCT03777657|181734525|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.26|-0.2|||||Mixed effect model analysis with QLQ-STO22 scores from cycle 1 to 6 as the response variable, and treatment by study visit interaction, baseline mean score and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Analysis of Change from Baseline in QLQ-STO22 Pain/Discomfort Scale at Cycle 4||-0.20|-4.26|
90927932|NCT03777657|181734525|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.03|0.27|||||Mixed effect model analysis with QLQ-STO22 scores from cycle 1 to 6 as the response variable, and treatment by study visit interaction, baseline mean score and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Analysis of Change from Baseline in QLQ-STO22 Pain/Discomfort Scale at Cycle 6||0.27|-4.03|
90927933|NCT03777657|181734525|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.85|0.99|||||Mixed effect model analysis with QLQ-STO22 scores from cycle 1 to 6 as the response variable, and treatment by study visit interaction, baseline mean score and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Analysis of Change from Baseline in QLQ-STO22 Dietary Restrictions Scale at Cycle 4||0.99|-2.85|
90927934|NCT03777657|181734525|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.42|0.77|||||Mixed effect model analysis with QLQ-STO22 scores from cycle 1 to 6 as the response variable, and treatment by study visit interaction, baseline mean score and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Analysis of Change from Baseline in QLQ-STO22 Dietary Restrictions Scale at Cycle 6||0.77|-3.42|
90927935|NCT03777657|181734525|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.28|0.09|||||Mixed effect model analysis with QLQ-STO22 scores from cycle 1 to 6 as the response variable, and treatment by study visit interaction, baseline mean score and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Analysis of Change from Baseline in QLQ-STO22 Upper Gastro-Intestinal Symptoms at Cycle 4||0.09|-3.28|
90927936|NCT03777657|181734525|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.55|0.06|||||Mixed effect model analysis with QLQ-STO22 scores from cycle 1 to 6 as the response variable, and treatment by study visit interaction, baseline mean score and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Analysis of Change from Baseline in QLQ-STO22 Upper Gastro-Intestinal Symptoms at Cycle 6||0.06|-3.55|
90927937|NCT02549352|181734535|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of clearance rates|7.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.58|23.71|||Mantel Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel estimate (0.037% relative to vehicle), adjusted for pooled sites.|||23.71|2.58|<0.001
90927938|NCT02549352|181734536|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of clearance rates|5.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.32|10.51|||Mantel Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel estimate (0.037% relative to vehicle), adjusted for pooled sites.|The p-values for secondary endpoints have been corrected by the Holm-Bonferroni method to account for multiplicity. The prespecified multiplicity adjustment by the Holm-Bonferroni method requires the ordering of the p-values for the secondary endpoints by size.||10.51|3.32|<0.001
90927939|NCT02549352|181734537|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of clearance rates|7.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|15.61|||Mantel Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel estimate (0.037% relative to vehicle), adjusted for pooled sites.|The p-values for secondary endpoints have been corrected by the Holm-Bonferroni method to account for multiplicity. The prespecified multiplicity adjustment by the Holm-Bonferroni method requires the ordering of the p-values for the secondary endpoints by size.||15.61|3.70|<0.001
90927940|NCT02549352|181734538|SUPERIORITY||Week 8 AK count ratio|0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.36||Negative binominal regression with treatment group and pooled site as factors and log baseline count as offset variable.|Mantel Haenszel||0.037% relative to vehicle.|The p-values for secondary endpoints have been corrected by the Holm-Bonferroni method to account for multiplicity. The prespecified multiplicity adjustment by the Holm-Bonferroni method requires the ordering of the p-values for the secondary endpoints by size.||0.36|0.25|<0.001
90927941|NCT02760654|181734564|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
90927942|NCT02760654|181734565|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
90927943|NCT02760654|181734566|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
90927944|NCT02760654|181734567|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
90927945|NCT02760654|181734568|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
90927946|NCT02760654|181734569|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.05
90927947|NCT02760654|181734570|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
90927948|NCT02760654|181734571|EQUIVALENCE|Descriptive statistics (Mean, SD) were calculated for the 7 items of the Adapted Acceptability E-Scale|Calculated Mean and Standard Deviation|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90927949|NCT02760654|181734572|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
90927950|NCT02760654|181734573|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
90927951|NCT01574716|181734574|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08|||=|0.6562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.5|||Log Rank|Two-sided log-rank test|Based on Cox PH model|||1.50|0.77|= 0.6562
90927952|NCT01574716|181734575|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13|||=|0.4469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.57|||Log Rank|Two-sided log-rank test|Based on Cox PH model|||1.57|0.82|=0.4469
90927953|NCT01574716|181734576|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.23||||0.3153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.83|||Log Rank|Two-sided log-rank test|Based on Cox PH model|||1.83|0.82|0.3153
90927954|NCT01574716|181734577|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-0.6|||=|1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|10.9|||Log Rank|Two-sided log-rank test|Based on Cox PH model|Difference equal to (=) (MORAb 8.0 mg/kg + Gemcitabine/Docetaxel) minus (Placebo + Gemcitabine/Docetaxel). Confidence interval based on a normal approximation to the binomial distribution.||10.9|-12.0|= 1.000
90965644|NCT04667377|181812846|OTHER|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline body weight as a continuous linear covariate, and treatment, gender, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline by visit interaction as factors, using visit as repeated measures and an unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.|Difference of adjusted means|-4.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.48||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.44|-1.61||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as BI 456906 - placebo.|No formal hypotheses were tested.||-1.61|-7.44|0.0025
90965645|NCT04667377|181812846|OTHER|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline body weight as a continuous linear covariate, and treatment, gender, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline by visit interaction as factors, using visit as repeated measures and an unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.|Difference of adjusted means|-12.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.46|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.94|-9.19||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as BI 456906 - placebo.|No formal hypotheses were tested.||-9.19|-14.94|<.0001
90965646|NCT04667377|181812846|OTHER|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline body weight as a continuous linear covariate, and treatment, gender, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline by visit interaction as factors, using visit as repeated measures and an unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.|Difference of adjusted means|-12.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.47|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.85|-10.07||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as BI 456906 - placebo at week 46.|No formal hypotheses were tested.||-10.07|-15.85|<.0001
90965647|NCT04667377|181812846|OTHER|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline body weight as a continuous linear covariate, and treatment, gender, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline by visit interaction as factors, using visit as repeated measures and an unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.|Difference of adjusted means|-15.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.47|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.67|-12.9||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as BI 456906 - placebo at week 46.|No formal hypotheses were tested.||-12.90|-18.67|<.0001
90965648|NCT04667377|181812847|OTHER|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline waist circumference as a continuous linear covariate, and treatment, gender, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline by visit interaction as factors, using visit as repeated measures and an unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.|Difference of adjusted means|-4.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.71||0.0116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.74|-0.98||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as BI 456906 - placebo.|No formal hypotheses were tested.||-0.98|-7.74|0.0116
90965649|NCT04667377|181812847|OTHER|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline waist circumference as a continuous linear covariate, and treatment, gender, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline by visit interaction as factors, using visit as repeated measures and an unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.|Difference of adjusted means|-11.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.71|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.39|-7.66||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as BI 456906 - placebo.|No formal hypotheses were tested.||-7.66|-14.39|<.0001
90965650|NCT04667377|181812847|OTHER|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline waist circumference as a continuous linear covariate, and treatment, gender, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline by visit interaction as factors, using visit as repeated measures and an unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.|Difference of adjusted means|-11.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.69|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.33|-7.67||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as BI 456906 - placebo.|No formal hypotheses were tested.||-7.67|-14.33|<.0001
90965651|NCT04667377|181812847|OTHER|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline waist circumference as a continuous linear covariate, and treatment, gender, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline by visit interaction as factors, using visit as repeated measures and an unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.|Difference of adjusted means|-12.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.69|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.39|-8.71||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as BI 456906 - placebo.|No formal hypotheses were tested.||-8.71|-15.39|<.0001
90965652|NCT04667377|181812848|OTHER|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline systolic blood pressure as a continuous linear covariate, and treatment, gender, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline by visit interaction as factors, using visit as repeated measures and an unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.|Difference of adjusted means|-3.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.08||0.0733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.82|0.35||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as BI 456906 - placebo.|No formal hypotheses were tested.||0.35|-7.82|0.0733
91035303|NCT03086460|181956481|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|18.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.25|76.37|||Regression, Cox|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Time to onset of action was analyzed using a Cox proportional hazard model stratified by patient, including treatment and period as a factor, and baseline FEV1 as covariate.~For patients receiving the same treatment twice, the analysis includes only data from the first instance of each treatment."||76.37|4.25|<0.001
90887814|NCT01138124|181638799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|1.34||||0.3245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.39|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||2.39|0.75|0.3245
90887815|NCT01138124|181638799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.15||||0.6388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|2.07|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, chronic pancreatitis, neuropathic pain, epilepsy."|||2.07|0.64|0.6388
90887816|NCT01138124|181638799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|1.11||||0.796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|2.51|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||2.51|0.49|0.796
90887817|NCT01138124|181638799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.94||||0.8772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|2.15|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, chronic pancreatitis, neuropathic pain, epilepsy."|||2.15|0.41|0.8772
90887818|NCT01138124|181638800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|2.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.88|4.47|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||4.47|1.88|<0.0001
90887819|NCT01138124|181638800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|2.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.71|4.11|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, chronic pancreatitis, neuropathic pain, epilepsy."|||4.11|1.71|<0.0001
90887820|NCT01138124|181638800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|2.19||||0.0212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|4.25|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||4.25|1.12|0.0212
90887821|NCT01138124|181638800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.95||||0.0522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|3.81|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, chronic pancreatitis, neuropathic pain, epilepsy."|||3.81|0.99|0.0522
90887822|NCT01138124|181638800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|1.87||||0.0337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|3.32|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||3.32|1.05|0.0337
90887823|NCT01138124|181638800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.64||||0.0947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.95|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, chronic pancreatitis, neuropathic pain, epilepsy."|||2.95|0.92|0.0947
90887824|NCT01138124|181638800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|1.42||||0.3928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|3.16|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||3.16|0.64|0.3928
90887825|NCT01138124|181638800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.21||||0.6502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|2.72|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, chronic pancreatitis, neuropathic pain, epilepsy."|||2.72|0.54|0.6502
90887826|NCT01138124|181638800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|1.34||||0.3275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.39|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||2.39|0.75|0.3275
90887827|NCT01138124|181638800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.15||||0.6365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|2.08|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, chronic pancreatitis, neuropathic pain, epilepsy."|||2.08|0.64|0.6365
90887828|NCT01138124|181638800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|1.01||||0.9858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|2.41|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||2.41|0.42|0.9858
90887829|NCT01138124|181638800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.87||||0.7671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|2.12|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, chronic pancreatitis, neuropathic pain, epilepsy."|||2.12|0.36|0.7671
90887830|NCT01138124|181638801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|1.79||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|2.63|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||2.63|1.22|0.0031
90887831|NCT01138124|181638801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.68||||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|2.49|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, hypertension, diuretic use, diabetes, neuropathic pain, and epilepsy."|||2.49|1.13|0.0095
90887832|NCT01138124|181638801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|1.65||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|2.99|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||2.99|0.91|0.0970
90887833|NCT01138124|181638801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.63||||0.1123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|2.97|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, hypertension, diuretic use, diabetes, neuropathic pain, and epilepsy."|||2.97|0.89|0.1123
90887834|NCT01138124|181638802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|2.53||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|4.44|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)"|||4.44|1.44|0.0012
90887835|NCT01138124|181638802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|2.34||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|4.14|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, hypertension, diuretic use, diabetes, neuropathic pain, and epilepsy."|||4.14|1.32|0.0034
90887836|NCT01138124|181638802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|2.18||||0.0856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|5.32|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, hypertension, diuretic use, diabetes, neuropathic pain, and epilepsy."|||5.32|0.9|0.0856
90887837|NCT01138124|181638802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|2.14||||0.0996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|5.28|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, hypertension, diuretic use, diabetes, neuropathic pain, and epilepsy."|||5.28|0.87|0.0996
90887838|NCT01138124|181638802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|1.89||||0.0563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|3.63|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||3.63|0.98|0.0563
91035304|NCT03086460|181956481|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|31.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.52|133.47|||Regression, Cox|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||133.47|7.52|<0.001
90927955|NCT00112359|181734593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.98||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|12.47||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included treatment, baseline CFQ-R RSS, and disease severity (FEV1 \>50% or \<=50% pred.). Treatment differences: AZLI-placebo.||Null hypothesis was there was no difference between 75 mg AZLI TID and placebo treatment groups in change from baseline in CFQ-R RSS score at Day 14.||12.47|3.50|0.0006
90927956|NCT00112359|181734594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.33||||0.0154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|11.43||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included treatment, baseline CFQ-R RSS, and disease severity (FEV1 \>50% or \<=50% pred.). Treatment differences: AZLI-placebo.||Null hypothesis was there was no difference between 75 mg AZLI TID and placebo treatment groups in change from baseline in CFQ-R RSS score at Day 42.||11.43|1.22|0.0154
90927957|NCT00112359|181734597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|10.294|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.288|14.299||Analysis based on two-sided test with an 0.025 a priori threshold for statistical significance as part of the methods used to control the family-wise type 1 error.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included treatment, disease severity (FEV1 \>50% or \<=50% pred.), and Day 0 FEV1. Treatment differences: AZLI-placebo.||Null hypothesis was there was no difference between 75 mg AZLI TID and placebo treatment groups in percent change in FEV1 at Day 28.||14.299|6.288|<0.0001
90927958|NCT00112359|181734598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.453|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.115|-0.791||Analysis based on 2-sided test with an 0.025 a priori threshold for statistical significance as part of methods used to control family-wise type 1 error.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment and disease severity (FEV1 \>50% or \<=50% pred.). Treatment differences calculated as AZLI-placebo.||Null hypothesis was there was no difference between 75 mg AZLI TID and placebo treatment groups in change in log10 PA CFUs in sputum at Day 28.||-0.791|-2.115|< 0.0001
90927959|NCT00112359|181734599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2364||95.0||||Analysis based on 2-sided test with an 0.025 a priori threshold for statistical significance as part of methods used to control family-wise type 1 error.|Fisher Exact|Comparison by treatment for proportion of subjects using additional (nonprotocol-specified) antipseudomonal antibiotics at least once during study.||Null hypothesis was there was no difference between 75 mg AZLI TID and placebo treatment groups in number of participants using additional (nonprotocol-specified) antipseudomonal antibiotics during study.||||0.2364
90927960|NCT00112359|181734600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.71||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.31|15.11||"Primary endpoint analysis based on 2-sided test with an 0.05 a priori threshold for statistical significance.~A gate-keeping procedure to control family-wise Type 1 error was established a priori for primary and key secondary endpoints."|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment, baseline CFQ-R RSS, and disease severity (FEV1 \>50% or \<=50% pred.). Treatment differences: AZLI-placebo.||"Null hypothesis was there was no difference between 75 mg AZLI TID and placebo treatment groups in change from baseline in CFQ-R RSS score at Day 28.~A sample size of 70 participants per treatment group provided approximately 77% power to detect an 8-point difference in CFQ-R RSS score between treatment groups, assuming a standard deviation (SD) of 20 and a Type I error rate of 0.05."||15.11|4.31|0.0005
90927961|NCT00112359|181734601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.064||0.0||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|Comparison by treatment group for proportion of participants hospitalized at least once between Day 0 and Day 42 (or 14 days after last study dose).||Null hypothesis was there was no difference between 75 mg AZLI TID and placebo treatment groups in number of participants hospitalized at least once during the study.||||0.0640
90927962|NCT00312208|181734603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.978||95.0|0.86|1.16||Cumulative incidence functions in each treatment group were calculated using non-parametric Kaplan-Meier estimates.|Log Rank|||||1.16|0.86|0.978
90927963|NCT00312208|181734604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.371||95.0|0.75|1.11||Cumulative incidences calculated in each group using non-parametric Kaplan-Meier estimates.|Log Rank|||||1.11|0.75|0.371
90927964|NCT01324310|181734605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of Geometric Mean|124.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|110.2|140.5|||ANOVA||"Geometric means ratio (Romidepsin + Ketoconazole/Romidepsin) and 90% CI of the ratio of geometric means are from an ANOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and subject as random effect on the natural log transformed PK values."|||140.5|110.2|
90927965|NCT01324310|181734606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the Geometric Mean|123.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|109.6|139.6|||ANOVA|||||139.6|109.6|
91035305|NCT03086460|181956481|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|44.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.23|191.34|||Regression, Cox|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||191.34|10.23|<0.001
90965653|NCT04667377|181812848|OTHER|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline systolic blood pressure as a continuous linear covariate, and treatment, gender, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline by visit interaction as factors, using visit as repeated measures and an unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.|Difference of adjusted means|-5.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.08|<|0.0072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.71|1.53||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as BI 456906 - placebo.|No formal hypotheses were tested.||1.53|-9.71|<.0072
90965654|NCT04667377|181812848|OTHER|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline systolic blood pressure as a continuous linear covariate, and treatment, gender, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline by visit interaction as factors, using visit as repeated measures and an unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.|Difference of adjusted means|-6.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.05||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.23|-2.17||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as BI 456906 - placebo.|No formal hypotheses were tested.||-2.17|-10.23|0.0027
90965655|NCT04667377|181812848|OTHER|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline systolic blood pressure as a continuous linear covariate, and treatment, gender, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline by visit interaction as factors, using visit as repeated measures and an unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.|Difference of adjusted means|-6.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.08||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.25|-2.06||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as BI 456906 - placebo.|No formal hypotheses were tested.||-2.06|-10.25|0.0033
90965656|NCT04667377|181812849|OTHER|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline diastolic blood pressure as a continuous linear covariate, and treatment, gender, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline by visit interaction as factors, using visit as repeated measures and an unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.|Difference of adjusted means|-1.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26||0.2569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.92|1.05||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as BI 456906 - placebo.|No formal hypotheses were tested.||1.05|-3.92|0.2569
90965657|NCT04667377|181812849|OTHER|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline diastolic blood pressure as a continuous linear covariate, and treatment, gender, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline by visit interaction as factors, using visit as repeated measures and an unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.|Difference of adjusted means|-2.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26||0.0495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.97|0.0||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as BI 456906 - placebo.|No formal hypotheses were tested.||-0.00|-4.97|0.0495
90965658|NCT04667377|181812849|OTHER|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline diastolic blood pressure as a continuous linear covariate, and treatment, gender, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline by visit interaction as factors, using visit as repeated measures and an unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.|Difference of adjusted means|-2.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.24||0.0506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|0.01||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as BI 456906 -placebo.|No formal hypotheses were tested.||0.01|-4.90|0.0506
90965659|NCT04667377|181812849|OTHER|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline diastolic blood pressure as a continuous linear covariate, and treatment, gender, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline by visit interaction as factors, using visit as repeated measures and an unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.|Difference of adjusted means|-2.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25||0.0202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|-0.46||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as BI 456906 - placebo.|No formal hypotheses were tested.||-0.46|-5.40|0.0202
90965660|NCT03861936|181812853|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|68.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.5|83.1||P-values for between-treatment comparisons are based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model stratified by baseline MMPS Grade (4 or 5).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||83.1|54.5|<.0001
90965661|NCT03861936|181812853|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|69.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.1|84.0||P-values for between-treatment comparisons are based on CMH model stratified by baseline MMPS Grade (4 or 5).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||84.0|55.1|<.0001
90965662|NCT03861936|181812859|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|48.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.1|63.7||P-values for between-treatment comparisons are based on CMH model stratified by baseline MMPS Grade (4 or 5).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||63.7|33.1|<.0001
90965663|NCT03861936|181812859|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|45.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.5|61.8||P-values for between-treatment comparisons are based on CMH model stratified by baseline MMPS Grade (4 or 5).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||61.8|29.5|<.0001
90965664|NCT03861936|181812860|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|55.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.6|70.8||P-values for between-treatment comparisons are based on CMH model stratified by baseline MMPS Grade (4 or 5).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||70.8|39.6|<.0001
90965665|NCT03861936|181812860|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|60.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.1|76.7||P-values for between-treatment comparisons are based on CMH model stratified by baseline MMPS Grade (4 or 5).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||76.7|45.1|<.0001
90965666|NCT03861936|181812861|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|54.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.9|70.5||P-values for between-treatment comparisons are based on CMH model stratified by baseline MMPS Grade (4 or 5).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||70.5|37.9|<.0001
90965667|NCT03861936|181812861|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|47.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.1|65.6||P-values for between-treatment comparisons are based on CMH model stratified by baseline MMPS Grade (4 or 5).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||65.6|30.1|<.0001
90965668|NCT03861936|181812862|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|68.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.5|83.1||P-values for between-treatment comparisons are based on CMH model stratified by baseline MMPS Grade (4 or 5).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||83.1|54.5|<.0001
90927966|NCT01324310|181734607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the Geometric Mean|124.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|109.0|142.4|||ANOVA|||||142.4|109.0|
90927967|NCT01324310|181734608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the Geometric Mean|109.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.9|126.4|||ANOVA|||||126.4|94.9|
90927968|NCT01324310|181734609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.7422|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.485|0.095|||Wilcoxon signed- rank|||"Note: The median, median difference (romidepsin + ketoconazole minus romidepsin) and 90% CI of the median difference are from Hodges-Lehmann Estimate. The P-value is from Wilcoxon signed-rank test."||0.095|-0.485|0.7422
90927969|NCT03213457|181734623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.711|8.176||P-value for test of difference is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 6||8.176|3.711|< 0.001
90927970|NCT03213457|181734623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.968|6.331||P-value for test of difference is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 12||6.331|2.968|< 0.001
90927971|NCT03213457|181734624|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.275|2.605||P-value for test of difference is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 6||2.605|1.275|< 0.001
90927972|NCT03213457|181734624|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.146|2.326||P-value for test of difference is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 12||2.326|1.146|0.007
90965669|NCT03861936|181812862|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|52.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.8|69.6||P-values for between-treatment comparisons are based on CMH model stratified by baseline MMPS Grade (4 or 5).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||69.6|34.8|<.0001
90927973|NCT03213457|181734625|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean of Difference|-0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|-0.809||P value for the test of the difference is from an MMRM with the fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline pain score, and random effect for participant.|mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|||Ranked secondary endpoints were tested following a fixed-sequence testing procedure. Testing began with testing each of the co-primary endpoints using alpha of 0.05 (2-sided) for elagolix plus E2/NETA compared to placebo. If both co-primary endpoints achieved statistical significance with elagolix plus E2/NETA as compared to placebo, continued testing was performed for the ranked secondary endpoints following a fixed-sequence testing procedure in the order of endpoints presented.||-0.809|-1.180|< 0.001
90965670|NCT03861936|181812863|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-5.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.647|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|-4.54||The change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with study intervention and investigator site as factors and baseline MMPS Grade as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-4.54|-7.10|<.0001
90965671|NCT03861936|181812863|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.678|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.15|-4.47||The change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with study intervention and investigator site as factors and baseline MMPS Grade as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-4.47|-7.15|<.0001
90927974|NCT03213457|181734626|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.088|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|-0.845||P value for the test of the difference is from an MMRM with the fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline pain score, and random effect for participant.|MMRM|||Ranked secondary endpoints were tested following a fixed-sequence testing procedure. Testing began with testing each of the co-primary endpoints using alpha of 0.05 (2-sided) for elagolix plus E2/NETA compared to placebo. If both co-primary endpoints achieved statistical significance with elagolix plus E2/NETA as compared to placebo, continued testing was performed for the ranked secondary endpoints following a fixed-sequence testing procedure in the order of endpoints presented.||-0.845|-1.190|< 0.001
90927975|NCT03213457|181734627|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.085|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.156|-0.823||P value for the test of the difference is from an MMRM with the fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline pain score, and random effect for participant.|MMRM|||Ranked secondary endpoints were tested following a fixed-sequence testing procedure. Testing began with testing each of the co-primary endpoints using alpha of 0.05 (2-sided) for elagolix plus E2/NETA compared to placebo. If both co-primary endpoints achieved statistical significance with elagolix plus E2/NETA as compared to placebo, continued testing was performed for the ranked secondary endpoints following a fixed-sequence testing procedure in the order of endpoints presented.||-0.823|-1.156|< 0.001
90927976|NCT03213457|181734628|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.073||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.367|-0.08||P value for the test of the difference is from an MMRM with the fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline pain score, and random effect for participant.|MMRM|||Ranked secondary endpoints were tested following a fixed-sequence testing procedure. Testing began with testing each of the co-primary endpoints using alpha of 0.05 (2-sided) for elagolix plus E2/NETA compared to placebo. If both co-primary endpoints achieved statistical significance with elagolix plus E2/NETA as compared to placebo, continued testing was performed for the ranked secondary endpoints following a fixed-sequence testing procedure in the order of endpoints presented.||-0.080|-0.367|0.002
90927977|NCT03213457|181734629|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.329|-0.085||P value for the test of the difference is from an MMRM with the fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline pain score, and random effect for participant.|MMRM|||Ranked secondary endpoints were tested following a fixed-sequence testing procedure. Testing began with testing each of the co-primary endpoints using alpha of 0.05 (2-sided) for elagolix plus E2/NETA compared to placebo. If both co-primary endpoints achieved statistical significance with elagolix plus E2/NETA as compared to placebo, continued testing was performed for the ranked secondary endpoints following a fixed-sequence testing procedure in the order of endpoints presented.||-0.085|-0.329|< 0.001
90927978|NCT03213457|181734630|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|-0.05||P value for the test of the difference is from an MMRM with the fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline pain score, and random effect for participant.|MMRM|||Ranked secondary endpoints were tested following a fixed-sequence testing procedure. Testing began with testing each of the co-primary endpoints using alpha of 0.05 (2-sided) for elagolix plus E2/NETA compared to placebo. If both co-primary endpoints achieved statistical significance with elagolix plus E2/NETA as compared to placebo, continued testing was performed for the ranked secondary endpoints following a fixed-sequence testing procedure in the order of endpoints presented.||-0.050|-0.270|0.004
90927979|NCT03213457|181734631|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-2.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.283|-0.746||P-value for test of difference at each post-baseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Ranked secondary endpoints were tested following a fixed-sequence testing procedure. Testing began with testing each of the co-primary endpoints using alpha of 0.05 (2-sided) for elagolix plus E2/NETA compared to placebo. If both co-primary endpoints achieved statistical significance with elagolix plus E2/NETA as compared to placebo, continued testing was performed for the ranked secondary endpoints following a fixed-sequence testing procedure in the order of endpoints presented.||-0.746|-4.283|0.005
90965672|NCT03861936|181812864|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.756|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.12|-6.13||The change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with study intervention and investigator site as factors and baseline MMPS Grade as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-6.13|-9.12|<.0001
90965673|NCT03861936|181812864|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-8.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.793|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.83|-6.69||The change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with study intervention and investigator site as factors and baseline MMPS Grade as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-6.69|-9.83|<.0001
90927980|NCT03213457|181734632|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.098||0.284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.298|0.088||P value for the test of the difference is from an MMRM with the fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline pain score, and random effect for participant.|MMRM|||Ranked secondary endpoints were tested following a fixed-sequence testing procedure. Testing began with testing each of the co-primary endpoints using alpha of 0.05 (2-sided) for elagolix plus E2/NETA compared to placebo. If both co-primary endpoints achieved statistical significance with elagolix plus E2/NETA as compared to placebo, continued testing was performed for the ranked secondary endpoints following a fixed-sequence testing procedure in the order of endpoints presented.||0.088|-0.298|0.284
90927981|NCT03213457|181734633|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.092||0.286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.279|0.083||P value for the test of the difference is from an MMRM with the fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline pain score, and random effect for participant.|MMRM|||Ranked secondary endpoints were tested following a fixed-sequence testing procedure. Testing began with testing each of the co-primary endpoints using alpha of 0.05 (2-sided) for elagolix plus E2/NETA compared to placebo. If both co-primary endpoints achieved statistical significance with elagolix plus E2/NETA as compared to placebo, continued testing was performed for the ranked secondary endpoints following a fixed-sequence testing procedure in the order of endpoints presented.||0.083|-0.279|0.286
90927982|NCT03213457|181734634|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.079||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.375|-0.066||P value for the test of the difference is from an MMRM with the fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline pain score, and random effect for participant.|MMRM|||Ranked secondary endpoints were tested following a fixed-sequence testing procedure. Testing began with testing each of the co-primary endpoints using alpha of 0.05 (2-sided) for elagolix plus E2/NETA compared to placebo. If both co-primary endpoints achieved statistical significance with elagolix E2/NETA as compared to placebo, continued testing was performed for the ranked secondary endpoints following a fixed-sequence testing procedure in the order of endpoints presented.||-0.066|-0.375|0.005
90927983|NCT03213457|181734635|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-2.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.158||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.773|-0.216||P-value for test of difference at each post-baseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Ranked secondary endpoints were tested following a fixed-sequence testing procedure. Testing began with testing each of the co-primary endpoints using alpha of 0.05 (2-sided) for elagolix plus E2/NETA compared to placebo. If both co-primary endpoints achieved statistical significance with elagolix plus E2/NETA as compared to placebo, continued testing was performed for the ranked secondary endpoints following a fixed-sequence testing procedure in the order of endpoints presented.||-0.216|-4.773|0.032
90927984|NCT03213457|181734636|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.322|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.774|-0.508||P value for the test of the difference is from an MMRM with the fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline pain score, and random effect for participant.|MMRM|||Ranked secondary endpoints were tested following a fixed-sequence testing procedure. Testing began with testing each of the co-primary endpoints using alpha of 0.05 (2-sided) for elagolix plus E2/NETA compared to placebo. If both co-primary endpoints achieved statistical significance with elagolix plus E2/NETA as compared to placebo, continued testing was performed for the ranked secondary endpoints following a fixed-sequence testing procedure in the order of endpoints presented.||-0.508|-1.774|< 0.001
90927985|NCT03213457|181734637|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.303|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.978|-0.788||P value for the test of the difference is from an MMRM with the fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline pain score, and random effect for participant.|MMRM|||Ranked secondary endpoints were tested following a fixed-sequence testing procedure. Testing began with testing each of the co-primary endpoints using alpha of 0.05 (2-sided) for elagolix plus E2/NETA compared to placebo. If both co-primary endpoints achieved statistical significance with elagolix plus E2/NETA as compared to placebo, continued testing was performed for the ranked secondary endpoints following a fixed-sequence testing procedure in the order of endpoints presented.||-0.788|-1.978|< 0.001
90965674|NCT01312038|181812869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.93|||||||Paired T-test|df=34||Comparison of the simethicone and placebo groups with respect to the difference between the pre-post treatment FGE at ME-pressure chamber gradient of -200 daPa.||||=0.93
90965675|NCT01312038|181812869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.39|||||||Paired T-test|df = 31||Comparison of the simethicone and placebo groups with respect to the difference between the pre-post treatment FGE at ME-pressure chamber gradient of 200 daPa.||||=0.39
90887839|NCT01138124|181638802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.77||||0.0896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|3.43|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, hypertension, diuretic use, diabetes, neuropathic pain, and epilepsy."|||3.43|0.92|0.0896
90887840|NCT01138124|181638802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|1.4||||0.5308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|4.01|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||4.01|0.49|0.5308
90887841|NCT01138124|181638802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.39||||0.5458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|4.02|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, hypertension, diuretic use, diabetes, neuropathic pain, and epilepsy."|||4.02|0.48|0.5458
90887842|NCT01138124|181638802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|0.87||||0.7744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|2.19|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||2.19|0.35|0.7744
90887843|NCT01138124|181638802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.83||||0.6999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|2.11|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, hypertension, diuretic use, diabetes, neuropathic pain, and epilepsy."|||2.11|0.33|0.6999
90887844|NCT01138124|181638802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|1.32||||0.6528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|4.47|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||4.47|0.39|0.6528
90887845|NCT01138124|181638802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.3||||0.6722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|4.47|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, hypertension, diuretic use, diabetes, neuropathic pain, and epilepsy."|||4.47|0.38|0.6722
90887846|NCT01138124|181638803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|3.24|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.79|5.85|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||5.85|1.79|<0.0001
90887847|NCT01138124|181638803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|2.9||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|5.28|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, hypertension, diuretic use, diabetes, neuropathic pain, and epilepsy."|||5.28|1.59|0.0005
90887848|NCT01138124|181638803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|2.54||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|6.25|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||6.25|1.03|0.042
90887849|NCT01138124|181638803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|2.4||||0.0603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|5.98|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, hypertension, diuretic use, diabetes, neuropathic pain, and epilepsy."|||5.98|0.96|0.0603
90887850|NCT01138124|181638803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|1.35||||0.3762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|2.65|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||2.65|0.69|0.3762
90887851|NCT01138124|181638803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.33||||0.4073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|2.63|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, hypertension, diuretic use, diabetes, neuropathic pain, and epilepsy."|||2.63|0.68|0.4073
90940935|NCT00943722|181761604|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority requires that the lower bound of two-sided 95% CI of GMT ratio be greater than 0.67|GMT ratio|2.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.88|2.36||one-sided tests of non-inferiority conducted at the alpha=0.025 level; model with a response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for comparison group|ANOVA|model with a response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for comparison group|GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Males (Lot 1) divided by GMT for 16- to 26-Year-Old Females (Lot 1)|Anti-HPV 11||2.36|1.88|< 0.001
90887852|NCT01138124|181638803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|0.95||||0.9294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|3.12|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||3.12|0.29|0.9294
90887853|NCT01138124|181638803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.99||||0.9875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.29|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, hypertension, diuretic use, diabetes, neuropathic pain, and epilepsy."|||3.29|0.3|0.9875
90887854|NCT01138124|181638803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|1.19||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|2.63|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||2.63|0.54|0.66
90887855|NCT01138124|181638803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.1||||0.811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.45|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, hypertension, diuretic use, diabetes, neuropathic pain, and epilepsy."|||2.45|0.5|0.8110
90887856|NCT01138124|181638803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|1.7||||0.3336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|4.96|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||4.96|0.58|0.3336
90887857|NCT01138124|181638803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.63||||0.3782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|4.84|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, hypertension, diuretic use, diabetes, neuropathic pain, and epilepsy."|||4.84|0.55|0.3782
90887858|NCT01138124|181638804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|1.89||||0.0841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|3.88|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||3.88|0.92|0.0841
90887859|NCT01138124|181638804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.75||||0.1313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|3.63|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, hypertension, diuretic use, diabetes, neuropathic pain, and epilepsy."|||3.63|0.85|0.1313
90887860|NCT01138124|181638804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|2.03||||0.1488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|5.34|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||5.34|0.78|0.1488
90887861|NCT01138124|181638804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|2.05||||0.1495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|5.46|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, hypertension, diuretic use, diabetes, neuropathic pain, and epilepsy."|||5.46|0.77|0.1495
90927986|NCT03213457|181734638|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.276|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.002|-0.915||P value for the test of the difference is from an MMRM with the fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline pain score, and random effect for participant.|MMRM|||Ranked secondary endpoints were tested following a fixed-sequence testing procedure. Testing began with testing each of the co-primary endpoints using alpha of 0.05 (2-sided) for elagolix plus E2/NETA compared to placebo. If both co-primary endpoints achieved statistical significance with elagolix plus E2/NETA as compared to placebo, continued testing was performed for the ranked secondary endpoints following a fixed-sequence testing procedure in the order of endpoints presented.||-0.915|-2.002|< 0.001
90927987|NCT00747565|181734685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||ETDRS line scores used for statistical comparisons with mean Snellen values reported above.||||<0.0001
90927988|NCT01983683|181734712|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of CCR for cadazolid versus vancomycin is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) is above -10%|Difference between 2 proportions|-4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|1.3|||||CI for the difference between two proportions are estimated using the Wilson's score method|||1.3|-10.7|
90927989|NCT01983683|181734712|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of CCR for cadazolid versus vancomycin is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) is above -10%|Difference between 2 proportions|-3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|2.3|||||CI for the difference between two proportions are estimated using the Wilson's score method|Sensitivity analysis with imputation for a single day with missing UBM data between one day before end-of-treatment (EOT) and 2 days after EOT||2.3|-9.6|
90927990|NCT01983683|181734713|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of CCR for cadazolid versus vancomycin is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) is above -10%|Difference between 2 proportions|-4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|0.6|||||CI for the difference between two proportions are estimated using the Wilson' score method|||0.6|-10.4|
90927991|NCT01983683|181734714|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of cadazolid versus vancomycin is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) is above zero|Difference between 2 proportions|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|9.4|||||CI for the difference between two proportions are estimated using the Wilson's score method|||9.4|-6.1|
90927992|NCT01983683|181734715|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.7794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.24||two-sided p-value (alpha 5%) based on log-rank test stratified by first occurrence / first recurrence and geographical region.|Log Rank|||||1.24|0.86|0.7794
90927993|NCT01983683|181734716|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean difference|-0.044||||0.6871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.17||Two-sided 5% alpha level was used|ANOVA|ANOVA model for repeated measurements was fitted using all values from Day 1 (baseline) to Day 12.|The Least Square Means of the treatments differences for the changes from baseline at Day 3 were obtained using estimate statements|Comparison of the diarrhea domain scores||0.17|-0.26|0.6871
90927994|NCT01983683|181734716|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean difference|0.025||||0.7833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.2||Two-sided 5% alpha level was used|ANOVA|ANOVA model for repeated measurements was fitted using all values from Day 1 (baseline) to Day 12.|The Least Square Means of the treatments differences for the changes from baseline at Day 3 were obtained using estimate statements|Comparison of the abdominal symptoms domain scores||0.20|-0.15|0.7833
90927995|NCT01983683|181734716|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean difference|0.061||||0.4145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.21||Two-sided 5% alpha level was used|ANOVA|ANOVA model for repeated measurements was fitted using all values from Day 1 (baseline) to Day 12.|The Least Square Means of the treatments differences for the changes from baseline at Day 3 were obtained using estimate statements|Comparison of the other symptoms domain scores||0.21|-0.09|0.4145
90927996|NCT01983683|181734717|OTHER||Difference between 2 proportions|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|4.2|||||CI for the difference between two proportions are estimated using the Wilson's score method|Exploratory analysis||4.2|-6.5|
90927997|NCT01983683|181734718|OTHER||Difference between 2 proportions|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|3.3|||||CI for the difference between two proportions are estimated using the Wilson's score method|Exploratory analysis||3.3|-6.5|
90927998|NCT01983683|181734719|OTHER||Difference between 2 proportions|8.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|16.4|||||CI for the difference between two proportions are estimated using the Wilson's score method|Exploratory analysis||16.4|1.1|
90927999|NCT01983683|181734720|SUPERIORITY|Sensitivity analysis|Difference between 2 proportions|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|10.9|||||CI for the difference between two proportions are estimated using the Wilson's score method|||10.9|-5.5|
90928000|NCT00712179|181734780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.981|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null Hypothesis: Walking at different speeds with 15% body weight support will have no effect on EMG pattern.||||0.981
90928001|NCT00712179|181734780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null Hypothesis: Walking at self selected speed at 0%, 15% and 30% of body weight support will have no effect on EMG pattern||||0.84
90928002|NCT00712179|181734780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null Hypothesis: Walking at different speeds with 30% body weight support will have no effect on EMG pattern.||||0.16
90928003|NCT00712179|181734780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.073|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null Hypothesis: Walking at fastest comfortable speeds with different amount of body weight supports will not affect the EMG pattern.||||0.073
90965676|NCT02665052|181812904|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64||||||The primary analysis was a two sample t-test (alpha=0.05) of the mean WMFT log-time change at 6 weeks. The threshold for statistical significance was p-value = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||78 participants were needed to generate a sample size of 22 per group and provide 80% power to detect a between group difference in mean Wolf time change (6 week - baseline) based on an a priori assumption of a mean change of 0 and 7.4 seconds respectively for the delayed entry usual care control and home-based BATRAC group; a SD of 7.6 and discontinuation rate of 15%.||||0.64
90965677|NCT02665052|181812905|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||The lab-based group had significant within group mean Fugl-Meyer (FM) change at week 6.|ANOVA|Dunnett's adjustments were used to compare the active intervention changes to the delayed-entry usual care control group.||Within group changes from baseline to week 6 were assessed using analysis of variance.||||0.01
90965678|NCT02665052|181812905|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||ANOVA|||FM change was analyzed using analysis of variance followed by Dunnett's adjustment for between group comparisons in the home-based BATRAC group compared to the delayed-entry control.||||0.97
90965679|NCT02665052|181812906|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||ANOVA|||Within group SIS hand changes from baseline to week 6 were assessed using analysis of variance followed by comparisons to the delayed-entry usual care control using Dunnett's adjustment.||||0.31
90965680|NCT00823823|181812907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||The frequency of loss of reduction during the study period was compared across casting groups using a two-sided chi-square test with alpha = 0.05.||||1.00
90887862|NCT01138124|181638804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|2.44||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|4.22|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||4.22|1.42|0.0013
90965681|NCT02234284|181812909|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|Outcomes were by group assignment (intention to treat) using generalized linear models adjusted for baseline levels of variable and clustering.|Value is for mean score of participants in Health Coached arm minus mean score in Usual Care, adjusted for baseline values and for clustering.|Outcomes were compared by group assignment using generalized linear models (GLMs) with a normal distribution for continuous outcomes), Poisson distribution for count outcomes (e.g. exacerbations and hospitalizations), and binomial distribution for binary outcomes. In all models, baseline levels of the outcome were entered as a predictor and follow-up levels as the dependent variable, with use of a robust standard error to account for clustering.||.43|-.15|.35
90971161|NCT02404103|181824838|EQUIVALENCE|To assess the impact of flunisolide on small airway parameters using spirometry and impulse oscillometry and determine whether there is a dose-related difference (320 mcg vs 160 mcg) with flunisolide HFA in pediatric patients who have evidence of small airway obstruction.||||||0.543|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|generalized linear mixed-effects models (GLMM) using the identity link function and normal distribution were used||||||.543
90887863|NCT01138124|181638804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|2.34||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|4.07|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, hypertension, diuretic use, diabetes, neuropathic pain, and epilepsy."|||4.07|1.35|0.0026
90887864|NCT01138124|181638804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|1.78||||0.2421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|4.69|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||4.69|0.68|0.2421
90887865|NCT01138124|181638804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.7||||0.2899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|4.53|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, hypertension, diuretic use, diabetes, neuropathic pain, and epilepsy."|||4.53|0.64|0.2899
90887866|NCT01138124|181638804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|0.99||||0.9723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|2.29|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||2.29|0.42|0.9723
90887867|NCT01138124|181638804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.91||||0.8206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|2.13|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, hypertension, diuretic use, diabetes, neuropathic pain, and epilepsy."|||2.13|0.39|0.8206
91035306|NCT03086460|181956481|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|40.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.54|170.45|||Regression, Cox|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||170.45|9.54|<0.001
91035307|NCT03086460|181956481|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|22.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|92.06|||Regression, Cox|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment F ( Perforomist® IS 40 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||92.06|5.70|<0.001
90887868|NCT01138124|181638804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|1.15||||0.8135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|3.82|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||3.82|0.35|0.8135
90887869|NCT01138124|181638804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.15||||0.8173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|3.86|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, hypertension, diuretic use, diabetes, neuropathic pain, and epilepsy."|||3.86|0.34|0.8173
90887870|NCT00987467|181638805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
90887871|NCT00262834|181638817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.42||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank-sum tests were used to compare the differences (post-pre) between groups.||||||0.42
90887872|NCT00262834|181638818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank-sum tests were used to compare the differences (post-pre) between groups.||||||0.50
90887873|NCT00262834|181638819|OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.24
90928004|NCT00712179|181734780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null Hypothesis: Modification of non-paretic leg loading and movement by the therapist will have no effect on EMG pattern of paretic leg.||||<0.001
90928005|NCT00712179|181734780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.94|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null Hypothesis: Modification of paretic leg loading and movement by the therapist will have significant effect on EMG pattern of non-paretic leg.||||0.94
90928006|NCT00246805|181734839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportions|48.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.0|61.0|||Z-test for proportions|||VRS ON vs. VRS OFF||61|36|<0.0001
90928007|NCT01500200|181734849|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014||||||Hypothesis tests were two-sided with an alpha of 0.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|ALKS 5461 was compared to PBO using stage-specific MMRM for change from Baseline. Model-derived estimates were combined using pre-specified weights.||Analysis was conducted for each stage separately and overall efficacy was based on combined stage analysis where stage-specific estimates were combined using pre-specified weights (0.6/0.4 for Stage 1/Stage 2). Within each stage ALKS 5461 2mg/2mg was compared to placebo (i.e., ALKS 5461 2mg/2mg S1 vs Placebo S1; and ALKS 5461 2mg/2mg S2 vs Placebo S2.||||0.014
90928008|NCT01500200|181734849|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.699||||||Hypothesis tests were two-sided with an alpha of 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|ALKS 5461 was compared to PBO using stage-specific MMRM for change from Baseline. Model-derived estimates were combined using pre-specified weights.||Analysis was conducted for each stage separately and overall efficacy was based on combined stage analysis where stage-specific estimates were combined using pre-specified weights (0.6/0.4 for Stage 1/Stage 2). Within each stage ALKS 5461 8mg/8mg was compared to placebo (i.e., ALKS 5461 8mg/8mg S1 vs Placebo S1; and ALKS 5461 8mg/8mg S2 vs Placebo S2.||||0.699
90928009|NCT03066609|181734859|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|153.94|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.02|438.67|||Regression, Logistic|||PASI 75||438.67|54.02|<0.0001
90928010|NCT03066609|181734859|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|557.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|187.2|1663.4|||Regression, Logistic|||PASI 75||1663.4|187.2|<0.0001
90928011|NCT03066609|181734860|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|75.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.81|222.72|||Regression, Logistic|||IGA||222.72|25.81|<0.0001
90928012|NCT03066609|181734860|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|149.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.83|432.42|||Regression, Logistic|||IGA||432.42|51.83|<0.0001
90928013|NCT03066609|181734861|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|114.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.94|489.59|||Regression, Logistic|||PASI 90||489.59|26.94|<0.0001
90928014|NCT03066609|181734861|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|246.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.41|1037.1|||Regression, Logistic|||PASI 90||1037.1|58.41|<0.0001
90928015|NCT04191824|181734876|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.7769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|2.1||In order to maintain an overall alpha of 0.05 and account for two interim analyses, a two-sided alpha of 0.0492 was used for assessing the statistical significance in the final analysis of this primary endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|||||2.1|-2.7|0.7769
90928016|NCT04191824|181734877|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.106|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.061|0.151|||Chi-squared|||||0.151|0.061|<0.0001
90928017|NCT04191824|181734878|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.057||||0.0753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.006|0.12|||Chi-squared|||||0.120|-0.006|0.0753
90928018|NCT04191824|181734879|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.002||||0.8044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.013|0.016|||Chi-squared|||||0.016|-0.013|0.8044
90928019|NCT04191824|181734880|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.052||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.105|0.002|||Chi-squared|||||0.002|-0.105|0.0570
90965682|NCT02234284|181812910|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.26||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|Outcomes were by group assignment (intention to treat) using generalized linear models adjusted for baseline levels of variable and clustering.|Value is for mean score of participants in Health Coached arm minus mean score in Usual Care, adjusted for baseline values and for clustering.|Outcomes were compared by group assignment using generalized linear models (GLMs) with a normal distribution for continuous outcomes), Poisson distribution for count outcomes (e.g. exacerbations and hospitalizations), and binomial distribution for binary outcomes. In all models, baseline levels of the outcome were entered as a predictor and follow-up levels as the dependent variable, with use of a robust standard error to account for clustering.||.65|-.13|.20
90965683|NCT02234284|181812911|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|Outcomes were by group assignment (intention to treat) using generalized linear models adjusted for baseline levels of variable and clustering.|Value is for rate of exacerbations for participants in Health Coached arm minus rate for Usual Care, adjusted for baseline values and for clustering.|Outcomes were compared by group assignment using generalized linear models (GLMs) with a normal distribution for continuous outcomes), Poisson distribution for count outcomes (e.g. exacerbations and hospitalizations), and binomial distribution for binary outcomes. In all models, baseline levels of the outcome were entered as a predictor and follow-up levels as the dependent variable, with use of a robust standard error to account for clustering.||0.07|-0.49|.13
90965684|NCT02234284|181812912|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.53||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.18|25.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|Outcomes were by group assignment (intention to treat) using generalized linear models adjusted for baseline levels of variable and clustering.||Outcomes were compared by group assignment using generalized linear models (GLMs) with a normal distribution for continuous outcomes), Poisson distribution for count outcomes (e.g. exacerbations and hospitalizations), and binomial distribution for binary outcomes. In all models, baseline levels of the outcome were entered as a predictor and follow-up levels as the dependent variable, with use of a robust standard error to account for clustering.|Value is for mean distance (in meters) of participants in Health Coached arm minus mean distance in Usual Care, adjusted for baseline values and for clustering.|25.26|-8.18|.32
90965685|NCT02234284|181812913|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|Outcomes were by group assignment (intention to treat) using generalized linear models adjusted for baseline levels of variable and clustering.|Value is for mean score of participants in Health Coached arm minus mean score in Usual Care, adjusted for baseline values and for clustering.|Outcomes were compared by group assignment using generalized linear models (GLMs) with a normal distribution for continuous outcomes), Poisson distribution for count outcomes (e.g. exacerbations and hospitalizations), and binomial distribution for binary outcomes. In all models, baseline levels of the outcome were entered as a predictor and follow-up levels as the dependent variable, with use of a robust standard error to account for clustering.||.83|-.23|.27
90965686|NCT02234284|181812914|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|Outcomes were by group assignment (intention to treat) using generalized linear models adjusted for baseline levels of variable and clustering.|Value is for mean score of participants in Health Coached arm minus mean score in Usual Care, adjusted for baseline values and for clustering.|Outcomes were compared by group assignment using generalized linear models (GLMs) with a normal distribution for continuous outcomes), Poisson distribution for count outcomes (e.g. exacerbations and hospitalizations), and binomial distribution for binary outcomes. In all models, baseline levels of the outcome were entered as a predictor and follow-up levels as the dependent variable, with use of a robust standard error to account for clustering.||.68|.07|.02
90965687|NCT02234284|181812915|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.83||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|1.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|Outcomes were by group assignment (intention to treat) using generalized linear models adjusted for baseline levels of variable and clustering.|Value is for mean score of participants in Health Coached arm minus mean score in Usual Care, adjusted for baseline values and for clustering.|Outcomes were compared by group assignment using generalized linear models (GLMs) with a normal distribution for continuous outcomes), Poisson distribution for count outcomes (e.g. exacerbations and hospitalizations), and binomial distribution for binary outcomes. In all models, baseline levels of the outcome were entered as a predictor and follow-up levels as the dependent variable, with use of a robust standard error to account for clustering.||1.12|-2.78|.40
90965688|NCT02234284|181812916|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|3.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Outcomes were by group assignment (intention to treat) using generalized linear models adjusted for baseline levels of variable and clustering.|Value is for mean percent predicted of participants in Health Coached arm minus mean percent predicted in Usual Care, adjusted for baseline values and for clustering.|Outcomes were compared by group assignment using generalized linear models (GLMs) with a normal distribution for continuous outcomes), Poisson distribution for count outcomes (e.g. exacerbations and hospitalizations), and binomial distribution for binary outcomes. In all models, baseline levels of the outcome were entered as a predictor and follow-up levels as the dependent variable, with use of a robust standard error to account for clustering.||3|-3|.98
90971162|NCT02404103|181824838|EQUIVALENCE|To assess the impact of flunisolide on small airway parameters using spirometry and impulse oscillometry and determine whether there is a dose-related difference (320 mcg vs 160 mcg) with flunisolide HFA in pediatric patients who have evidence of small airway obstruction.||||||0.6|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|generalized linear mixed-effects models (GLMM) using the identity link function and normal distribution were used||||||.6
90887874|NCT00377819|181638837|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin = -0.35%|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.85|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.44|1.25|||Repeated Measures Model||Based on repeated measures model adjusting for treatment, length of prior alendronate stratification variable, visit, baseline value, machine type, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value by machine type interaction|||1.25|0.44|<0.0001
90887875|NCT00377819|181638838|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin = -0.22%|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.18|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.63|1.73|||Repeated Measures Model||Based on repeated measures model adjusting for treatment, length of prior alendronate stratification variable, visit, baseline value, machine type, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value by machine type interaction|||1.73|0.63|<0.0001
91035308|NCT03086460|181956481|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.76||||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|4.13|||Regression, Cox|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||4.13|0.75|0.195
91035309|NCT03086460|181956481|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.46||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|5.72|||Regression, Cox|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||5.72|1.06|0.037
91035310|NCT03086460|181956481|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.24||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|4.86|||Regression, Cox|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||4.86|1.03|0.042
91035311|NCT03086460|181956481|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.4||||0.435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.23|||Regression, Cox|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||3.23|0.60|0.435
90887876|NCT00377819|181638839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Van Elteren Stratified Rank Test|||||||<0.0001
90887877|NCT01054820|181638851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is unadjusted. All statistical tests were 2-sided and employed a level of significance of alpha = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: no change from baseline. Study powered at 95 percent (%) to detect a mean change of at least 1.2 units, with assumed standard deviation of at most 3.2 units.||||<0.0001
90887878|NCT01054820|181638852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is unadjusted. All statistical tests were 2-sided and employed a level of significance of alpha = 0.05.|McNemar|||||||<0.0001
90887879|NCT01054820|181638853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is unadjusted. All statistical tests were 2-sided and employed a level of significance of alpha = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90887880|NCT01054820|181638854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is unadjusted. All statistical tests were 2-sided and employed a level of significance of alpha = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90887881|NCT01054820|181638855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is unadjusted. All statistical tests were 2-sided and employed a level of significance of alpha = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90887882|NCT01054820|181638856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is unadjusted. All statistical tests were 2-sided and employed a level of significance of alpha = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90887883|NCT01054820|181638859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is unadjusted. All statistical tests were 2-sided and employed a level of significance of alpha = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90887884|NCT02239679|181638913|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0166|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0166
90887885|NCT02239679|181638919|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0102||||||no adjustments for multiple comparisons|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|stratified by site||||||0.0102
90887886|NCT02239679|181638919|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0089||||||no adjustment for multiple comparisons|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|stratified by site||||||0.0089
90887887|NCT02239679|181638920|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004||||||no adjustments for multiple comparisons|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|stratified by site||||||0.0004
90887888|NCT02239679|181638920|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||no adjustment for multiple comparison|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|stratified by site||||||<0.0001
90887889|NCT00760929|181638987|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.4301||90.0|0.58|1.21|||Wald Test|||||1.21|0.58|0.4301
90887890|NCT00760929|181638987|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61||||0.0342||90.0|0.42|0.9|||Wald Test|||||0.90|0.42|0.0342
90928020|NCT04191824|181734881|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.045||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.018|0.072|||Chi-squared|||||0.072|0.018|0.0012
90928021|NCT04191824|181734882|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.006||||0.8483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.066|0.055|||Chi-squared|||||0.055|-0.066|0.8483
90928022|NCT03170882|181734886|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.847|||=|0.477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.535|1.341|||Log Rank||HR obtained by unadjusted Cox's proportional hazard regression model stratified by age,international staging system(ISS),prior lines of therapy. HR\<1 was deemed to indicate better PFS in Ixazomib+Dexamethasone arm over Pomalidomide+Dexamethasone arm.|||1.341|0.535|=0.477
90928023|NCT03170882|181734887|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.427|||=|0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.761|2.677|||Log Rank||HR obtained by unadjusted Cox's proportional hazard regression model stratified by age, ISS and prior lines of therapy. HR \<1 was deemed to indicate longer survival time in Ixazomib + Dexamethasone arm as compared to Pomalidomide + Dexamethasone arm.|||2.677|0.761|=0.265
90928024|NCT03170882|181734888|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9|||=|0.634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||OR was based on logistic regression model with treatment group as categorical predictor variable and age, ISS and prior lines of therapy. OR \>1 was deemed to indicate better response in Ixazomib+Dexamethasone arm over Pomalidomide+Dexamethasone arm.|||1.90|0.43|=0.634
90928025|NCT03170882|181734890|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.556|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.288|1.073|||||HR was obtained by unadjusted Cox's proportional hazard regression model stratified by age, ISS, prior lines of therapy. HR \>1 was deemed to indicate quicker response time in Ixazomib + Dexamethasone arm over Pomalidomide + Dexamethasone arm.|||1.073|0.288|
90928026|NCT03170882|181734891|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83|||=|0.459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.506|1.361|||Log Rank||HR: obtained by unadjusted Cox's proportional hazard regression model stratified by age,ISS,prior lines of therapy. HR\<1 was deemed to indicate better disease progression prevention in Ixazomib+Dexamethasone arm over Pomalidomide+Dexamethasone arm.|||1.361|0.506|=0.459
90928027|NCT01371994|181734901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1745|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|Based on a Log-rank test stratified by (pooled) center and Baseline daily pad usage (≤ 3 and \> 3).||The treatment difference in the primary efficacy variable was tested using a log-rank test stratified by (pooled) center and by Baseline daily pad usage (≤3 and \>3) at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.||||0.1745
90928028|NCT01371994|181734902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4833|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mental-Haenszel test stratified by (pooled) center||Comparison at Week 4||||0.4833
90887891|NCT02099838|181638991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05; the change was statistical significant with P-value less than 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of HbA1c between before and after treatment in Pioglitazone and Metformin group. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||<0.0001
90887892|NCT02099838|181638991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.065||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05; the change was statistical significant with P-value less than 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of HbA1c between before and after treatment in Placebo group. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.0650
90887893|NCT02099838|181638991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05; the change was statistical significant with P-value less than 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of HbA1c between Pioglitazone and Metformin group and Placebo group. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.0005
90887894|NCT02099838|181638992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05; the change was statistical significant with P-value less than 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of FPG between before and after treatment in Pioglitazone and Metformin group. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||<0.0001
90887895|NCT02099838|181638992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0849||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05; the change was statistical significant with P-value less than 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of FPG between before and after treatment in Placebo group. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.0849
90887896|NCT02099838|181638992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05; the change was statistical significant with P-value less than 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of FPG between Pioglitazone and Metformin group and Placebo group. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.0005
90887897|NCT02099838|181638993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05; the change was statistical significant with P-value less than 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of 2hPPG between before and after treatment in Pioglitazone and Metformin group. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||<0.0001
90887898|NCT02099838|181638993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2428||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05; the change was statistical significant with P-value less than 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of 2hPPG between before and after treatment in Placebo group. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.2428
90887899|NCT02099838|181638993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05; the change was statistical significant with P-value less than 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of 2hPPG between Pioglitazone and Metformin group and Placebo group. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.0003
90887900|NCT02099838|181638994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05; the change was statistical significant with P-value less than 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of fasting insulin between before and after treatment in Pioglitazone and Metformin group. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||<0.0001
90887901|NCT02099838|181638994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7353||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05; the change was statistical significant with P-value less than 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of fasting insulin between before and after treatment in Placebo group.. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.7353
90887902|NCT02099838|181638994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0013||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05; the change was statistical significant with P-value less than 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of fasting insulin between Pioglitazone and Metformin group and Placebo group. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.0013
90928029|NCT01371994|181734902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5761|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mental-Haenszel test stratified by (pooled) center||Comparison at Week 8||||0.5761
90928030|NCT01371994|181734902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0592|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mental-Haenszel test stratified by (pooled) center||Comparison at Week 12||||0.0592
90928031|NCT01371994|181734902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.039|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mental-Haenszel test stratified by (pooled) center||Comparison of end of treatment analysis||||0.0390
90928032|NCT01371994|181734904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.3604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.38|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of variance model including treatment and (pooled) center as fixed factors.||Comparison at Week 4||0.38|-0.14|0.3604
90928033|NCT01371994|181734904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.52|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of variance model including treatment and (pooled) center as fixed factors.||Comparison at Week 8||0.52|-0.03|0.0761
90887903|NCT02099838|181638995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1147||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05; the change was statistical significant with P-value less than 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of 2-hour postprandial insulin between before and after treatment in Pioglitazone and Metformin group. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.1147
90887904|NCT02099838|181638995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4006||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05; the change was statistical significant with P-value less than 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of 2-hour postprandial insulin between before and after treatment in Placebo group. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.4006
90887905|NCT02099838|181638995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0614||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05; the change was statistical significant with P-value less than 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of 2-hour postprandial insulin between Pioglitazone and Metformin group and Placebo group. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.0614
90887906|NCT02099838|181638996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3795||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05; the change was statistical significant with P-value less than 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of TC between before and after treatment in Pioglitazone and Metformin group. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.3795
90887907|NCT02099838|181638996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4236||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05; the change was statistical significant with P-value less than 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of TC between before and after treatment in Placebo group. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.4236
90887908|NCT02099838|181638996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05; the change was statistical significant with P-value less than 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of TC between Pioglitazone and Metformin group and Placebo group. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||1.0000
90887909|NCT02099838|181638997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3151||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05; the change was statistical significant with P-value less than 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of TG between before and after treatment in Pioglitazone and Metformin group. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.3151
90887910|NCT02099838|181638997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6963||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05; the change was statistical significant with P-value less than 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of TG between before and after treatment in Placebo group. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.6963
90887911|NCT02099838|181638997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3204||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05; the change was statistical significant with P-value less than 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of TG between Pioglitazone and Metformin group and Placebo group. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.3204
90887912|NCT02099838|181638998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0038||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05; the change was statistical significant with P-value less than 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of HDL between before and after treatment in Pioglitazone and Metformin group. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.0038
90887913|NCT02099838|181638998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3812||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05; the change was statistical significant with P-value less than 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of HDL between before and after treatment in Placebo group. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.3812
90887914|NCT02099838|181638998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0108||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05; the change was statistical significant with P-value less than 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of HDL between Pioglitazone and Metformin group and Placebo group. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.0108
90887915|NCT02099838|181638999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5476||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05; the change was statistical significant with P-value less than 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of LDL between before and after treatment in Pioglitazone and Metformin group. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.5476
90887916|NCT02099838|181638999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1248||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05; the change was statistical significant with P-value less than 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of LDL between before and after treatment in Placebo group. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.1248
90887917|NCT02099838|181638999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.362||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05; the change was statistical significant with P-value less than 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of LDL between Pioglitazone and Metformin group and Placebo group. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.3620
90887918|NCT02099838|181639000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5636||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05; the change was statistical significant with P-value less than 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of ALT between before and after treatment in Pioglitazone and Metformin group. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.5636
90928034|NCT01371994|181734904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.64|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of variance model including treatment and (pooled) center as fixed factors.||Comparison at Week 12||0.64|0.07|0.0149
90928035|NCT01371994|181734904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.52|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of variance model including treatment and (pooled) center as fixed factors.||Comparison of end of treatment analysis||0.52|0.02|0.0325
90928036|NCT01371994|181734906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.5186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.19|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including Baseline value as a covariates and fixed effects for (pooled) center and treatment.||Comparison at Week 12||1.19|-0.60|0.5186
90928037|NCT01371994|181734906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.4521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|1.17|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including Baseline value as a covariates and fixed effects for (pooled) center and treatment.||Comparison of end of treatment analysis||1.17|-0.52|0.4521
90928038|NCT01371994|181734908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.1493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.47|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including Baseline value as a covariates and fixed effects for (pooled) center and treatment.||Comparison at Week 12||0.47|-0.07|0.1493
90928039|NCT01371994|181734908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.1499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.44|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including Baseline value as a covariates and fixed effects for (pooled) center and treatment.||Comparison of end of treatment analysis||0.44|-0.07|0.1499
90928040|NCT01371994|181734910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.1279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|1.23|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including Baseline value as a covariates and fixed effects for (pooled) center and treatment.||Comparison at Week 12||1.23|-0.16|0.1279
90928041|NCT01371994|181734910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.1038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|1.23|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including Baseline value as a covariates and fixed effects for (pooled) center and treatment.||Comparison of end of treatment analysis||1.23|-0.11|0.1038
90928042|NCT01371994|181734912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.98||0.8876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.19|3.63|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including Baseline value as a covariates and fixed effects for (pooled) center and treatment.||Comparison at Week 12||3.63|-4.19|0.8876
90928043|NCT01371994|181734912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.86||0.395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|3.21|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including Baseline value as a covariates and fixed effects for (pooled) center and treatment.||Comparison of end of treatment analysis||3.21|-8.10|0.3950
90928044|NCT01371994|181734914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.43||0.4126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.82|6.81|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including Baseline value as a covariates and fixed effects for (pooled) center and treatment.||Comparison at Week 12||6.81|-2.82|0.4126
90928045|NCT01371994|181734914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.47||0.6959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.92|5.85|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including Baseline value as a covariates and fixed effects for (pooled) center and treatment.||Comparison of end of treatment analysis||5.85|-3.92|0.6959
90928046|NCT01371994|181734916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.81||0.2402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|8.91|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including Baseline value as a covariates and fixed effects for (pooled) center and treatment.||Comparison at Week 12||8.91|-2.26|0.2402
90928047|NCT01371994|181734916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.83||0.698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|6.7|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including Baseline value as a covariates and fixed effects for (pooled) center and treatment.||Comparison of end of treatment analysis||6.70|-4.50|0.6980
90928048|NCT01371994|181734918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.46||0.4067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|6.89|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including Baseline value as a covariates and fixed effects for (pooled) center and treatment.||Comparison at Week 12||6.89|-2.80|0.4067
90928049|NCT01371994|181734918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.36||0.8507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.21|5.1|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including Baseline value as a covariates and fixed effects for (pooled) center and treatment.||Comparison of end of treatment analysis||5.10|-4.21|0.8507
90928050|NCT01371994|181734919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.27|||||||Log Rank|Based on a Log-rank test stratified by (pooled) center.||||||0.2700
90928051|NCT01830595|181734923|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.38
90928052|NCT01830595|181734925|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.55
90928053|NCT01830595|181734926|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.10
90928054|NCT03280030|181734946|OTHER|Success criteria is considered based on point estimated Hazard ratio|Hazard Ratio, log|1.326|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.624|2.818||||||||2.818|0.624|
90940936|NCT00943722|181761604|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority requires that the lower bound of two-sided 95% CI of GMT ratio be greater than 0.67|GMT ratio|2.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.19|2.74||one-sided tests of non-inferiority conducted at the alpha=0.025 level; model with a response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for comparison group|ANOVA|model with a response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for comparison group|GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Males (Lot 1) divided by GMT for 16- to 26-Year-Old Females (Lot 1)|Anti-HPV 16||2.74|2.19|< 0.001
90887919|NCT02099838|181639000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3681||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05; the change was statistical significant with P-value less than 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of ALT between before and after treatment in Placebo group. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.3681
90887920|NCT02099838|181639000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2589||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05; the change was statistical significant with P-value less than 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of ALT between Pioglitazone and Metformin group and Placebo group. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.2589
90928055|NCT03275285|181734967|SUPERIORITY|For PFS, the nominal significance levels at primary analysis was determined using alpha-spending function in order to control overall 1-sided type 1 error at 2.5%. The 1-sided nominal significance level to declare overwhelming efficacy at primary analysis (103 PFS events) was 0.005. Because the median PFS was not reached at the primary analysis, it was described at the final analysis.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.531||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.318|0.889||One-sided p-value based on Stratified log-rank test. Threshold for statistical significance at 0.005.|Stratified Log-Rank test|Stratified on number of prior lines of therapy (1 vs \>1) \& revised international staging system stage (I/II vs III vs not classified) as per IRT.|Hazard Ratio was stratified on number of prior lines of therapy (1 vs. \>1) and R-ISS stage (I or II vs. III vs. not classified) according to IRT.|Statistical analysis for comparison of PFS between the Kd and IKd arms based on primary analysis.||0.889|0.318|0.0007
90928056|NCT03275285|181734968|SUPERIORITY|The 1-sided nominal significance level to declare overwhelming efficacy at primary analysis was 0.004. Because the median PFS was not reached at the primary analysis, it was described at the final analysis.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.548||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|99.2|0.317|0.948||One-sided p-value based on Stratified log-rank test. Threshold for statistical significance at 0.004.|Stratified Log-Rank test|Stratified on number of prior lines of therapy (1 vs \>1) \& revised international staging system stage (I/II vs III vs not classified) as per IRT.|Hazard Ratio was stratified on number of prior lines of therapy (1 vs. \>1) and R-ISS stage (I or II vs. III vs. not classified) according to IRT.|Statistical analysis for comparison of PFS between the Kd and IKd arm based on primary analysis.||0.948|0.317|0.0016
90928057|NCT03275285|181734969|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.576|||||TWO_SIDED|95.4|0.418|0.792|||||Hazard Ratio was stratified on number of prior lines of therapy (1 vs. \>1) and R-ISS stage (I or II vs. III vs. not classified) according to IRT.|||0.792|0.418|
90971163|NCT01408147|181824839|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||To test the primary hypothesis, a generalized linear mixed effect model was used (intervention group as a fixed effect and clinic and subject as random effects). A group x time interaction term (fixed effect) tested if the change in weight over time differed significantly. The model included participant-level covariates (i.e., ethnicity, weeks postpartum at study entry, lactation, and age).||||<0.0001
90887921|NCT02099838|181639001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7972||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05; the change was statistical significant with P-value less than 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of AST between before and after treatment in Pioglitazone and Metformin group. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.7972
90887922|NCT02099838|181639001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7801||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05; the change was statistical significant with P-value less than 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of AST between before and after treatment in Placebo group. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.7801
90887923|NCT02099838|181639001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8744||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05; the change was statistical significant with P-value less than 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of AST between Pioglitazone and Metformin group and Placebo group. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.8744
90928058|NCT03275285|181734970|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.594|||||TWO_SIDED|95.4|0.424|0.832|||||Hazard Ratio was stratified on number of prior lines of therapy (1 vs. \>1) and R-ISS stage (I or II vs. III vs. not classified) according to IRT.|||0.832|0.424|
90940937|NCT00943722|181761604|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority requires that the lower bound of two-sided 95% CI of GMT ratio be greater than 0.67|GMT ratio|3.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|3.65||one-sided tests of non-inferiority conducted at the alpha=0.025 level; model with a response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for comparison group|ANOVA|model with a response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for comparison group|GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Males (Lot 1) divided by GMT for 16- to 26-Year-Old Females (Lot 1)|Anti-HPV 18||3.65|2.80|< 0.001
90940938|NCT00943722|181761604|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority requires that the lower bound of two-sided 95% CI of GMT ratio be greater than 0.67|GMT ratio|2.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|3.34||one-sided tests of non-inferiority conducted at the alpha=0.025 level; model with a response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for comparison group|ANOVA|model with a response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for comparison group|GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Males (Lot 1) divided by GMT for 16- to 26-Year-Old Females (Lot 1)|Anti-HPV 31||3.34|2.60|< 0.001
91035312|NCT03086460|181956481|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.27||||0.564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|2.89|||Regression, Cox|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||2.89|0.56|0.564
91035313|NCT03086460|181956481|SUPERIORITY|"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|2.01|||Regression, Cox|||||2.01|0.41|0.818
91035314|NCT02718326|181956496|SUPERIORITY||percentage difference|52.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.2|59.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||59.5|45.2|<0.0001
91035315|NCT02718326|181956497|SUPERIORITY||percentage difference|50.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.1|60.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||60.1|40.1|<0.0001
90928059|NCT03275285|181734971|SUPERIORITY|A closed test procedure was used to control the Type I error rate from the primary efficacy endpoints sequentially through the secondary efficacy endpoints. No further testing would be performed unless the significance level had been reached on PFS and testing on subsequent endpoints were continued only if the null hypothesis for the previously tested endpoint was rejected.||||||0.193||||||One-sided p-value based on Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test. Threshold for statistical significance level at 0.025.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|One sided p-value was stratified based on randomization factors according to IRT.||Statistical analysis for comparison of Overall Response between the Kd and IKd arms based on primary analysis.||||0.1930
90928060|NCT03275285|181734978|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio|0.425|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.269|0.672|||||Stratification was done on the number of prior lines of therapy (1 vs. \>1) and R-ISS stage (I or II vs. III vs. not classified) according to IRT.|||0.672|0.269|
90928061|NCT03275285|181734979|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio|0.495|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.324|0.757|||||Stratification was done on the number of prior lines of therapy (1 vs. \>1) and R-ISS stage (I or II vs. III vs. not classified) according to IRT.|||0.757|0.324|
90928062|NCT03275285|181734980|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio|1.143|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.888|1.471|||||||Stratification was done on the number of prior lines of therapy (1 vs. \>1) and R-ISS stage (I or II vs. III vs. not classified) according to IRT.|1.471|0.888|
90928063|NCT03275285|181734981|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio|0.955|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.233|||||Stratification was done on the number of prior lines of therapy (1 vs. \>1) and R-ISS stage (I or II vs. III vs. not classified) according to IRT.|||1.233|0.740|
90928064|NCT03275285|181734982|SUPERIORITY|\[Not specified\]|[Stratified Hazard Ratio]|0.683|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.496|0.941|||||Stratification was done on the number of prior lines of therapy (1 vs. \>1) and R-ISS stage (I or II vs. III vs. not classified) according to IRT.|\[Not specified\]||0.941|0.496|
90928065|NCT03275285|181734983|SUPERIORITY|\[Not specified\]|Stratified Hazard Ratio|0.663|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.491|0.895|||||Stratification was done on the number of prior lines of therapy (1 vs. \>1) and R-ISS stage (I or II vs. III vs. not classified) according to IRT.|\[Not specified\]||0.895|0.491|
90940939|NCT00943722|181761604|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority requires that the lower bound of two-sided 95% CI of GMT ratio be greater than 0.67|GMT ratio|2.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.29|2.88||one-sided tests of non-inferiority conducted at the alpha=0.025 level; model with a response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for comparison group|ANOVA|model with a response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for comparison group|GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Males (Lot 1) divided by GMT for 16- to 26-Year-Old Females (Lot 1)|Anti-HPV 33||2.88|2.29|< 0.001
91035316|NCT02718326|181956497|SUPERIORITY||percentage difference|64.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.8|73.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||73.9|55.8|< 0.0001
91035317|NCT02718326|181956498|SUPERIORITY||percentage difference|-17.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.7|-9.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-9.9|-24.7|<0.0001
91035318|NCT02718326|181956498|SUPERIORITY||percentage difference|-16.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.2|-9.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-9.1|-24.2|<0.0001
91035319|NCT02718326|181956499|SUPERIORITY||percentage difference|-17.3|||=|0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.2|-8.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-8.5|-26.2|= 0.0002
91035320|NCT02718326|181956499|SUPERIORITY||percentage difference|-18.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.5|-10.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-10.4|-27.5|<0.0001
91035321|NCT02718326|181956502|SUPERIORITY||percentage difference|-6.0||||0.0096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|-1.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-1.5|-10.5|0.0096
91035322|NCT02718326|181956502|SUPERIORITY||percentage difference|-6.0||||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|-1.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-1.6|-10.5|0.0089
91035323|NCT02718326|181956503|SUPERIORITY||Estimate for contrast|0.8||||0.0529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|1.6|||ANOVA|||||1.60|-0.01|0.0529
91035324|NCT02718326|181956503|SUPERIORITY||Estimate for contrast|1.14||||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.94|||ANOVA|||||1.94|0.33|0.0057
91035325|NCT02545283|181956535|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.5752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.45|||Log Rank|||||1.45|0.81|0.5752
91035326|NCT00583453|181956599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.674||||||Treatment x day interaction|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.674
91035327|NCT00583453|181956600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018||||||Treatment x day interaction reported as 0.018.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.018
91035328|NCT00583453|181956601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.214||||||Treatment x day interaction = 0.214|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.214
90928066|NCT00115934|181735006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.1||||0.013||95.0|-17.8|-2.4|||Fisher Exact||The risk difference is defined as the percent of subjects with events in the RVPAS group minus the percent of subjects with events in the MBTS group.|The original sample size of 456 was based on 85% power, with a two-sided, two sample test of proportions (anticipating 28% MBTS subjects with events, 16% RVPAS subjects with events), and an alpha of 0.05. The critical p-value was 0.044 because four interim analyses were performed. The target trial size was increased from 466 to 554 to account for crossovers. The stopping boundary was crossed at the 4th interim look; however, the trial was not halted, because all subjects were enrolled.||-2.4|-17.8|0.013
90928067|NCT00115934|181735007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.06||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.06
90928068|NCT00115934|181735008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.09
90928069|NCT00115934|181735009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.009||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.009
90928070|NCT00115934|181735010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.07||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.07
90928071|NCT00115934|181735011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
90928072|NCT00115934|181735012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test||||0.004
90928073|NCT00115934|181735013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.10
90928074|NCT00115934|181735014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90928075|NCT00115934|181735015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.07||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.07
90928076|NCT00115934|181735016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.97||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.97
90928077|NCT00115934|181735017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.54||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.54
90928078|NCT00115934|181735018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90928079|NCT00115934|181735019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.003||95.0|||||Poisson regression|The offset parameter used in the poisson regression was the log of the number of patients in each treatment arm.||||||0.003
90928080|NCT00115934|181735020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2||95.0|||||Poisson Regression|The offset parameter used in this analysis was the log of the number of patients per treatment arm.||||||0.20
90928081|NCT00115934|181735021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Poisson Regression|The offset parameter used in this analysis was the log of the number of patients per treatment arm.||||||0.002
90928082|NCT00115934|181735022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.03||95.0|||||Poisson regression|The offset parameter used in this analysis was the log of the number of patients per treatment arm.||||||0.03
90928083|NCT02278185|181735064|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||Chi-squared|||The difference between metabolic syndrome and treatment were evaluated with the Chi-square test|This study did not meet it's target accrual goal and thus is underpowered to detect a statistically significant difference between the two groups.|||0.46
90928084|NCT02278185|181735064|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||Chi-squared|||Cohort characteristics for Metabolic Syndrome were summarized by event and arm using counts and percentages for categorical variables and the mean, standard deviation, median, and quartiles for continuous variables. The difference between metabolic syndrome and treatment were evaluated with the Chi-square test. P-values are reported based on a null hypothesis of no difference against a two-sided alternative. Analyses were performed using SAS 9.4 (SAS Inst|Cohort characteristics for Metabolic Syndrome, the SPPB, the SHIM/FACT-P, and PSA were summarized by event and arm using counts and percentages for categorical variables and the mean, standard deviation, median, and quartiles for continuous variables. The difference between metabolic syndrome and treatment were evaluated with the Chi-square test. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was utilized to examine the difference between Month 1 and Month 12 SPPB scores. The Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to assess the difference of SHIM/FACT-P scores and PSA between arms. These tests were chosen to account for the non-normal distributions of the continuous variables. The difference between PSA progression between arms was examined using the Fisher Exact Test. A heat map of scores ordered by the highest average score was also created. P-values are reported based on a null hypothesis of no difference against a two-sided alternative. Analyses were performed using SAS 9.4 (SAS Inst|||0.46
90928085|NCT02278185|181735075|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The results are presented in the following format: N Mean (Std Dev) Median (Q1, Q3). In all cases (Overall, Arm 1, and Arm 2) we fail to reject the null hypothesis that the samples come from the same population of scores at Month 1 versus Month 12 at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.5
90928086|NCT02722434|181735087|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1228|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1228
90928087|NCT02722434|181735088|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.004
90928088|NCT02722434|181735089|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Sensory Subscale||||0.79
90928089|NCT02722434|181735089|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Motor Subscale||||0.43
90928090|NCT02722434|181735089|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Autonomic Subscale||||0.97
90928091|NCT01128595|181735138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.515|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.701||||||||0.701|0.330|
90928092|NCT01128595|181735138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.543|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.355|0.73||||||||0.730|0.355|
90928093|NCT01128595|181735138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.195|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.388||||||||0.388|0.001|
90928094|NCT01128595|181735138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.027|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.198|0.143||||||||0.143|-0.198|
90928095|NCT01128595|181735138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.501||||||||0.501|0.140|
90928096|NCT01128595|181735141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.484|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.332|0.636||||||||0.636|0.332|
90928097|NCT01128595|181735141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.484|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.638||||||||0.638|0.330|
90928098|NCT01128595|181735141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.168|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.009|0.327||||||||0.327|0.009|
91035329|NCT00583453|181956603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036||||||treatment x day interaction P = 0.036 Treatment main effect (average day 1 to 10) P = 0.003|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.036
90887924|NCT02099838|181639002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8034||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05; the change was statistical significant with P-value less than 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of DBil between before and after treatment in Pioglitazone and Metformin group. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.8034
90887925|NCT02099838|181639002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7675||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05; the change was statistical significant with P-value less than 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of TBil between before and after treatment in Placebo group. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.7675
90887926|NCT02099838|181639002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6918||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05; the change was statistical significant with P-value less than 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of TBil between Pioglitazone and Metformin group and Placebo group. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.6918
90887927|NCT02099838|181639003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0339||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05; the change was statistical significant with P-value less than 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of DBil between before and after treatment in Pioglitazone and Metformin group. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.0339
90887928|NCT02099838|181639003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0997||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05; the change was statistical significant with P-value less than 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of DBil between before and after treatment in Placebo group. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.0997
90887929|NCT02099838|181639003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5015||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05; the change was statistical significant with P-value less than 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of DBil between Pioglitazone and Metformin group and Placebo group. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.5015
90928099|NCT01128595|181735141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.14||||||||0.140|-0.140|
90928100|NCT01128595|181735141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.316|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.168|0.464||||||||0.464|0.168|
90928101|NCT01128595|181735142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.212|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.031|0.393||||||||0.393|0.031|
90928102|NCT01128595|181735142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.341|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.147|0.536||||||||0.536|0.147|
90928103|NCT01128595|181735142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.477|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.282|0.672||||||||0.672|0.282|
90928104|NCT01128595|181735142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.265|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.066|0.463||||||||0.463|0.066|
90928105|NCT01128595|181735142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.135|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.072|0.343||||||||0.343|-0.072|
90928106|NCT01128595|181735143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.089|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.037|0.215||||||||0.215|-0.037|
90928107|NCT01128595|181735143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.236|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.101|0.371||||||||0.371|0.101|
90928108|NCT01128595|181735143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.263|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.127|0.398||||||||0.398|0.127|
90928109|NCT01128595|181735143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.174|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.036|0.312||||||||0.312|0.036|
90928110|NCT01128595|181735143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.026|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.118|0.171||||||||0.171|-0.118|
90928111|NCT00336505|181735155|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Delta will be determined by the highest clinical cure-rate between the Cethromycin treatment group and the Clarithromycin treatment group, as follows: Greater than or equal to 90%, delta = -10%; Greater than or equal to 80% and less than 90%, delta = -15%, Greater than or equal to 70% and less than 80%, -20%)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.0||||0.5667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|8.9|||Fisher Exact|||The rate of clinical cure in each treatment group was calculated (number of cures/number of patient eligible for analysis). Non-inferiority will be demonstrated when the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in the clinical cure rate at the Test-of-Cure visit between treatment groups (Cethromycin -Clarithromycin) is greater than delta, and includes zero, for both Per-Protocol (PP) and Intent-to-Treat (ITT) analyses.||8.9|-4.8|0.5667
90928112|NCT00336505|181735157|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Delta will be determined by the highest clinical cure-rate between the Cethromycin treatment group and the Clarithromycin treatment group, as follows: Greater than or equal to 90%, delta = -10%; Greater than or equal to 80% and less than 90%, delta = -15%, Greater than or equal to 70% and less than 80%, -20%)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|||>|0.9999||95.0|-4.5|5.1|||Fisher Exact|||The rate of clinical cure in each treatment group was calculated (number of cures/number of patient eligible for analysis). Non-inferiority will be demonstrated when the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in the clinical cure rate at the Test-of-Cure visit between treatment groups (Cethromycin -Clarithromycin) is greater than delta, and includes zero, for both Per-Protocol (PP) and Intent-to-Treat (ITT) analyses.||5.1|-4.5|>0.9999
90928113|NCT00366249|181735159|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Statistical analysis tested for non-inferiority. Non-inferiority margin is -10%.|Mehrotra and Railker|-5.5||||||95.0|-11.0|0.1|||||Adjusted for Perfusion, Extent, Depth/tissue loss, Infection, and Sensation (PEDIS) score|Analysis provided for Cure||0.1|-11.0|
90928114|NCT00366249|181735161|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Statistical analysis tested for non-inferiority. Non-inferiority margin is -10%.|Mehrotra and Railkar|-6.7||||||95.0|-12.3|-1.1|||||Adjusted for PEDIS score|Analysis provided for Cure||-1.1|-12.3|
91035330|NCT00905606|181956604|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|ANOVA was performed on ln-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-72h, and Cmax. All analyses were performed according to FDA guidelines.|Ratio of the LS Mean (test/ref x 100)|93.91||||||90.0|85.42|103.25|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||103.25|85.42|
91035331|NCT00905606|181956605|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|ANOVA was performed on ln-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-72h, and Cmax. All analyses were performed according to FDA guidelines.|Ratio of the LS Mean (test/ref x 100)|98.27||||||90.0|94.63|102.05|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||102.05|94.63|
90928115|NCT00366249|181735163|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Statistical analysis tested for non-inferiority. Non-inferiority margin is -10%.|Mehrotra and Railkar|-6.3||||||95.0|-13.6|1.0|||||Adjusted for PEDIS score|||1.0|-13.6|
90928116|NCT01185600|181735188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.142|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.142
90928117|NCT01185600|181735189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0391|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0391
90928118|NCT01185600|181735190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.372|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.372
90928119|NCT01185600|181735191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1007
90928120|NCT01185600|181735192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0964|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0964
90928121|NCT01185600|181735193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1739|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1739
90928122|NCT01185600|181735194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7205|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.7205
90928123|NCT01185600|181735195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Negative Binomial|1.64||||0.0176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.55|||t-test, 2 sided||"Using Negative Binomial Regression the following ratio and corresponding 95% CI were obtained:~(# of AE's, Unwashed Group / (# of AE's, Washed Group) = 1.64 95% C.I. = \[1.06 - 2.55\]"|||2.55|1.06|0.0176
90928124|NCT05405244|181735196|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Snack intake||||0.45
90928125|NCT05405244|181735196|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Milkshake intake||||0.28
90928126|NCT05405244|181735197|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pleasantness||||0.89
90928127|NCT05405244|181735197|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Desire to consume||||<0.001
90928128|NCT03455985|181735218|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.09
90928129|NCT03455985|181735219|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.20
90928130|NCT03455985|181735220|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.99
90928131|NCT03455985|181735221|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|30.3||0.39|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.39
90928132|NCT00754065|181735227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||F-statistic|9.3218||||0.0024||||||Comparison of EV/DNG vs. EE/NGM|ANOVA|||2-way ANOVA model with treatment and pain strata (headache and pelvic pain) as factors||||0.0024
90928133|NCT04353492|181735346|OTHER|tested by a lower tailed test at 0.05 significance level|||||<|0.0001|||||||negative binomial regresion|||The null hypothesis (H0): ARR \>= 0.18||||<0.0001
90928134|NCT04250194|181735348|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority margin was 10%.|absolute difference in percentage points|5.4||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|17.2||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05. The p value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|One-sided two-sample z-test||Difference in diagnostic accuracy = navigational bronchoscopy % - transthoracic biopsy %|||17.2|-6.5|0.003
90928135|NCT01961609|181735367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|65.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.375|52.4|76.7|||two-sided binomial exact test||A Bonferroni adjustment adjusting for 8 analyses have been applied.|||76.7|52.4|<0.0001
90928136|NCT00571649|181735399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.771||||0.0211||95.0|0.618|0.962||Hochberg procedure: A 2-sided p-value of less than 0.05 would be considered significant, if the 1-sided p-value of the other primary efficacy outcome measure was less than 0.025, elsewise a p-value of less than 0.025 would be considered significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Weighted relative risks were calculated using asymptotic methods, with weights based upon sample sizes per strata (geographic region).||A sample size of 2876 valid patients per group was estimated to obtain a joint power of at least 90% for both primary endpoints (91.4% for superiority) with 4% event rate at day 35 for comparator and 40% relative risk reduction.||0.962|0.618|0.0211
90928137|NCT00571649|181735400|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Rivaroxaban would be considered at least as effective as the comparator if the upper limit of the CI (Confidence Interval) was less than 1.5|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.968||||0.0025||95.0|0.713|1.314||Hochberg procedure: A 1-sided p-value of less than 0.025 would be considered significant, if the 2-sided p-value of the other primary efficacy outcome measure was less than 0.05, elsewise a p-value of less than 0.0125 would be considered significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Weighted relative risks were calculated using asymptotic methods, with weights based upon sample sizes per strata (geographic region).||A sample size of 2876 valid patients per group was estimated to obtain a joint power of at least 90% for both primary endpoints (98.6% power for non-inferiority) with 1.8% event rate at day 10 for comparator and 35% relative risk reduction.||1.314|0.713|0.0025
90928138|NCT00571649|181735401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.931||||0.3758||95.0|0.795|1.091||Test hierarchy: A p-value of less than 0.05 would be considered significant, if the tests for the two primary efficacy outcome measures were significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Weighted relative risks were calculated using asymptotic methods, with weights based upon sample sizes per strata (geographic region).||||1.091|0.795|0.3758
90928139|NCT00571649|181735402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.991||||0.9473||95.0|0.753|1.304||"Test hierarchy: A p-value of less than 0.05 would be considered significant, if the tests for the 2 primary efficacy outcomes and for Composite endpoint of VTE (any DVT, non fatal PE) and all-cause mortality up to Day 35 + 6 days were significant."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Weighted relative risks were calculated using asymptotic methods, with weights based upon sample sizes per strata (geographic region).||||1.304|0.753|0.9473
91035332|NCT00905606|181956606|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|ANOVA was performed on ln-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-72h, and Cmax. All analyses were performed according to FDA guidelines.|Ratio of the LS Mean (test/ref x 100)|98.19||||||90.0|94.64|101.87|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||101.87|94.64|
90887930|NCT01175382|181639014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis of Covariance used to compare mean changes from baseline to 6 weeks among groups adjusting for baseline values and age. Last Observation Carried Forward was used for imputation of missing data.||||<.0001
90887931|NCT01175382|181639015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0013|||||||ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance to test for differences in mean change from 6 weeks to 12 weeks in voiding frequency controlling for age and 6 week frequency. Last Observation Carried Forward was used to impute missing data.||||.0013
90887932|NCT01175382|181639016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2933|||||||ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance testing whether mean change in 24-hour voiding frequency differed among the groups after adjusting for baseline voiding frequency and age. Last Observation Carried Forward was used to impute missing data.||||0.2933
90887933|NCT01175382|181639017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0051|||||||ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance used to test means changes among the groups adjusting for baseline values and age. Last Observation Carried Forward was used to impute missing data.||||0.0051
90887934|NCT01175382|181639018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1402|||||||ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance comparing mean change score among groups controlling for age and baseline score||||.1402
90887935|NCT01175382|181639019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0015|||||||ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance comparing mean change in Nocturia among groups adjusting for baseline values of nocturia and age. Last Observation Carried Forward was used to impute missing data.||||0.0015
90887936|NCT01175382|181639020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance comparing mean change in Overactive Bladder Questionnaire from baseline to 6 weeks among groups after controlling for baseline value and age. Last Observation Carried Forward was used to impute missing data.||||<.0001
90887937|NCT01175382|181639021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||"Analysis of Covariance comparing mean chance in IPSS from baseline to 6 weeks among groups controlling for baseline IPSS values and age.~Last Observation Carried Forward was used to impute missing data."||||<.0001
90887938|NCT01175382|181639022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0022|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0022
90887939|NCT01175382|181639023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0222|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||.0222
90887940|NCT01175382|181639024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0217|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||.0217
90887941|NCT01175382|181639025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.669|||||||ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance used to test whether mean changes in Urgency Score from 6 weeks to 12 weeks differed among groups after controlling for age and 6 week Urgency Score. Last Observation Carried Forward was used to impute missing values.||||0.6690
90887942|NCT01175382|181639026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0812|||||||ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance to test whether mean change in Incontinence Episodes from 6 weeks to 12 weeks differed among groups after controlling for age and frequency of incontinence episodes at 6 weeks. Last Observation Carried Forward was used to impute missing values.||||0.0812
90887943|NCT01175382|181639027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5578|||||||ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance used to test whether mean changes in nocturia from 6 weeks to 12 weeks differed among groups after controlling for age and 6 week nocturia frequency. Last Observation Carried Forward was used to impute missing values.||||0.5578
90887944|NCT01175382|181639028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0279|||||||ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance to test whether mean change in Overactive Bladder Questionnaire (OAB-q) from 6 to 12 weeks differed among groups after controlling for age and 6 week OAB-q score. Last Observation Carried Forward was used to impute missing values.||||0.0279
90887945|NCT01175382|181639029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2553|||||||ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance to test whether mean change in the International Prostate Symptom Scale (IPSS) from 6 to 12 weeks differed among groups||||0.2553
90887946|NCT01175382|181639030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3165|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3165
90887947|NCT01175382|181639031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8153|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.8153
90887948|NCT01175382|181639032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5536|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.5536
90887949|NCT01175382|181639033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2035|||||||ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance testing whether mean change in Nocturia frequency differed among the groups after adjusting for baseline Nocturia frequency and age. Last Observation Carried Forward was used to impute missing data||||0.2035
90887950|NCT01175382|181639034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0549|||||||ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance testing whether mean change in Urgency Score differed among the groups after adjusting for Urgency Scoe and age. Last Observation Carried Forward was used to impute missing data||||.0549
90887951|NCT01175382|181639035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.507|||||||ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance testing whether mean change in Incontinent Episodes differed among the groups after adjusting for baseline Incontinent episodes frequency and age. Last Observation Carried Forward was used to impute missing data||||0.5070
90887952|NCT01175382|181639036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0529|||||||ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance testing whether mean change in Overactive Bladder Questionnaire differed among the groups after adjusting for baseline Overactive Bladder Questionnaire Score and age. Last Observation Carried Forward was used to impute missing data||||.0529
90887953|NCT01175382|181639037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2384|||||||ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance to test whether mean change in International Prostate Symptom Score from Baseline to 12 weeks differed among groups after controlling for baseline International Prostate Symptom Score and age. Last Observation Carried Forward was used to impute missing values.||||0.2384
90887954|NCT02019719|181639042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||E0 (g/dL)|-1.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|-1.03|||||Posterior median and 95% credibility intervals were estimated using Bayesian methods.|||-1.03|-1.72|
90887955|NCT02019719|181639042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ED50 (mg)|21.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.99|42.64|||||Posterior median and 95% credibility intervals were estimated using Bayesian methods.|||42.64|9.99|
90887956|NCT02019719|181639042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Emax (g/dL)|5.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|8.61|||||Posterior median and 95% credibility intervals were estimated using Bayesian methods.|||8.61|3.20|
90887957|NCT02019719|181639042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Gamma|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.68|||||Posterior median and 95% credibility intervals were estimated using Bayesian methods.|||1.68|0.70|
90928140|NCT00571649|181735411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.455|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.854|3.251||2-sided p-value. No adjustment for multiple testing.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Weighted relative risks were calculated using asymptotic methods, with weights based upon sample sizes per strata (geographic region).||There was no sample size estimation as this was not planed as confirmatory analysis||3.251|1.854|<0.0001
90928141|NCT00571649|181735412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.272|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.628|3.171||2-sided p-value. No adjustment for multiple testing.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||There was no sample size estimation as this was not planed as confirmatory analysis||3.171|1.628|<0.0001
90928142|NCT02397096|181735433|NON_INFERIORITY|Doravirine/Lamivudine/Tenofovir Disoproxil Fumarate (DOR/3TC/TDF) once daily (QD) ISG is concluded to be non-inferior to baseline regimen DSG if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference in percent response is above -8 percentage points.|Treatment Difference|-3.784|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.877|0.31|||||Stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method with the difference weighted by the harmonic mean of sample size per arm for each stratum.||Superiority of an immediate switch to DOR/3TC/TDF over continuation of the baseline regimen was defined by a lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in response rates being greater than zero (contingent upon satisfying the multiplicity criteria).|0.310|-7.877|
90928143|NCT02397096|181735434|OTHER||Treatment Difference|-14.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.92|-10.38|||ANCOVA||95% CIs and 2-sided p-values were calculated from an ANCOVA model with terms for baseline lipid level, use of lipid-lowering therapy at Study Day 1 and treatment.|||-10.38|-18.92|<0.0001
90928144|NCT02397096|181735435|OTHER||Treatment Difference|-23.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.0|-18.05|||ANCOVA||95% CIs and 2-sided p-values were calculated from an ANCOVA model with terms for baseline lipid level, use of lipid-lowering therapy at Study Day 1 and treatment.|||-18.05|-28.00|<0.0001
90928145|NCT02397096|181735436|NON_INFERIORITY|DOR/3TC/TDF QD ISG is concluded to be non-inferior to baseline regimen DSG if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference in percent response is above -8 percentage points.|Treatment Difference|-0.877|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.706|2.952|||||Stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method with the difference weighted by the harmonic mean of sample size per arm for each stratum.||Superiority of an immediate switch to DOR/3TC/TDF over continuation of the baseline regimen was defined by a lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in response rates being greater than zero (contingent upon satisfying the multiplicity criteria).|2.952|-4.706|
90928146|NCT02397096|181735437|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.6|23.5|||||95% CIs were calculated based on t-distribution.|||23.5|-31.6|
90928147|NCT02397096|181735438|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.1|15.4|||||95% Confidence Intervals were based on t-distribution.|||15.4|-41.1|
90928148|NCT02397096|181735439|OTHER||Treatment Difference|-3.556|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.977|0.864|||||Stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method with the difference weighted by the harmonic mean of sample size per arm for each stratum.|||0.864|-7.977|
90928149|NCT02397096|181735440|OTHER||Treatment Difference|-0.427|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.591|3.738|||||Stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method with the difference weighted by the harmonic mean of sample size per arm for each stratum.|||3.738|-4.591|
90928150|NCT02397096|181735441|NON_INFERIORITY|DOR/3TC/TDF QD ISG is concluded to be non-inferior to baseline regimen DSG if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference in percent response is above -4 percentage points.|Treatment Difference|-0.232|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.529|2.064|||||Stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method with the difference weighted by the harmonic mean of sample size per arm for each stratum.|||2.064|-2.529|
90928151|NCT06688357|181735449|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|0.99||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|||||t (13) = 1.920. Only 1 comparison with 2 means, thus no adjustment necessary|t-test, 2 sided|||Independent sample t-test conducted to examine difference in pre-post intervention change scores for the active vs sham intervention groups. Cohen's d was calculated to determine effect size.||||.077
90928152|NCT06688357|181735450|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|0.779||||0.159|TWO_SIDED|||||t(13) = 1.504; only 1 comparison of 2 values, thus no adjustment is necessary|t-test, 2 sided|||independent sample t-test; Cohen's d effect size||||.159
90928153|NCT06688357|181735451|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|0.356||||0.503|TWO_SIDED|||||t (13) = 0.688; only 1 comparison, adjustment not necessary|t-test, 2 sided|df = 13||independent samples t-test, cohen's d effect size||||.503
90928154|NCT06688357|181735452|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|-0.922||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|||||t(13) = 1.893; only one comparison of 2 scores, thus no adjustment for multiple comparisons was necessary|t-test, 2 sided|df = 13||Independent sample t-test used to examine pre-post intervention change scores in active vs sham groups; Cohen's d was calculated to estimate effect size||||0.08
90928155|NCT06688357|181735453|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|0.793||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|||||t (13) = 1.533; only 1 comparison, no adjustment necessary|t-test, 2 sided|||independent sample t-test, Cohen d effect size||||.149
90928156|NCT06688357|181735454|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|0.905||||0.104|TWO_SIDED|||||t(13) = 1.749; only 1 comparison with 2 values, thus no adjustment for multiple comparisons|t-test, 2 sided|df = 13||independent sample t-test was used to examine difference in Post-Pre intervention change in the Active vs the Sham groups; Effect size was estimated using Cohen's d.||||.104
91035333|NCT02322593|181956607|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.091||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.99|||Log Rank|||||0.99|0.69|0.039
90928157|NCT06688357|181735455|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|-0.267||||0.614|TWO_SIDED|||||t(13) = -.516; only 1 comparison of 2 means, no adjustment needed|t-test, 2 sided|||independent sample t-tests examining Post-Baseline differences for the Active vs the Sham groups; Effect size computed using Cohen's d score||||.614
90928158|NCT06688357|181735456|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|0.652||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|||||t(13) = -1.260; only 1 comparison of 2 values, no need for adjustment|t-test, 2 sided|||independent samples t-test, effect size computation (cohen's d)||||.230
90928159|NCT03400150|181735473|OTHER|||||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Farrington-Manning|||||||0.025
90928160|NCT02866942|181735514|OTHER|||||||0.26|||||||McNemar|||||||0.26
90928161|NCT00372775|181735521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Objective Response Rate (ORR) (percent)|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|8.8|||||Two-Sided Confidence Interval (CI) from Exact Method using the F Distribution|||8.8|0.0|
90928162|NCT00372775|181735523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ORR (percent)|4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|21.9|||||Two-Sided CI from Exact Method using the F Distribution|||21.9|0.1|
90928163|NCT00372775|181735526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|23.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.0|34.3|||||Probability of survival along with the corresponding 2-sided confidence interval for the log \[-log(one-year survival rate)\] calculated using a normal approximation and then back transformed to give a confidence interval for the one-year survival|||34.3|14.0|
90928164|NCT01561300|181735535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|Subject as random factor, baseline same period and mean baseline in both periods as covariates, and treatment, operator, and period as fixed effects.|Tea-placebo|Null hypothesis: no difference between Tea and Control.||0.17|-2.16|0.09
90928165|NCT01561300|181735536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|1.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|Subject as random factor, baseline same period and mean baseline in both periods as covariates, and treatment, operator, and period as fixed effects.|Tea- Control|Null hypothesis: no difference between Tea and Control.||1.66|-2.44|0.70
90928166|NCT01561300|181735537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|0.75||Subject as random factor, baseline same period and mean baseline in both periods as covariates, and treatment, operator, and period as fixed effects.|Mixed Models Analysis||Tea-placebo|Null hypothesis: no difference between Tea and Control.||0.75|-1.15|0.66
90928167|NCT05230433|181735569|OTHER||Percent Consumed|86.0||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Chi-squared|||High fat agents were weighed pre- and post- providing the shake to the participant. All containers were tared to take into account straw, lid, and glass weight. Percentage of high-fat challenge consumed was calculated by post-shake weight / pre-shake weight. 13 out of 15 partcipants drank \>75% of the shake.||||0.15
90928168|NCT05230433|181735570|OTHER|No test vs. control groups.||||||0.65||||||This p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Pearson Correlation|||Fold change from 60 to 180 minutes of average medium chain acylcarnitine was calculated for each participant. Pearson correlation between BMI percentile and fold change was calculated.|Pearson Correlation between both secondary outcomes reported: BMI percentile and fold change between acylcarnitine at 60 minutes and 180 minutes post the high fat challenge.|||0.65
90928169|NCT00857766|181735593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-0.42||||0.065||95.0|-0.88|0.03|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference is calculated as FSC 250/50 minus Placebo and is adjusted for treatment, investigator, sex, smoking status, age, body mass index (BMI), waist circumference, treatment by sex interaction, age by BMI interaction, and baseline value.|||0.03|-0.88|0.065
90928170|NCT00857766|181735594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares analysis|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86||0.469||95.0|-2.3|1.1|||ANCOVA|||||1.1|-2.3|0.469
90928171|NCT00857766|181735595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares analysis|127.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|35.5|<|0.001||95.0|57.0|197.0|||ANCOVA|||||197|57|<0.001
90928172|NCT01988402|181735596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5
90928173|NCT01759862|181735635|SUPERIORITY|Our calculations showed that by enrolling 50 patients we will be able to detect a 25cc/min absolute difference in eGFR between the two arms with power above 80%, and a two-sided Type I probability error of \<0.05.||||||0.32|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Intention to treat analysis||||0.32
90928174|NCT01759862|181735636|SUPERIORITY|Enrolling 25 patients in each group will allow us to detect a difference of 200ng/mg cr in urinary NGAL levels between the two groups with a power of 80% and a two-sided type I probability error of 0.05.||||||0.95|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.95
90928175|NCT01759862|181735637|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.67
90928176|NCT01499849|181735645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.7||To control for multiplicity, analyses were performed hierarchically. For the CR delayed the threshold for statistical significance was 0.05; no further adjustment for multiplicity were required for the primary endpoint.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test was stratified by sex. Missing data were imputed as treatment failures.||||2.7|1.3|<0.001
90928177|NCT01499849|181735646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.8||To control for multiplicity, analyses were performed hierarchically. CR-acute was tested only if the result for the primary endpoint, CR delayed, was statistically significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test was stratified by sex. Missing data were imputed as treatment failures.||||2.8|1.2|0.005
90928178|NCT01499849|181735647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.6||To control for multiplicity, analyses were performed hierarchically. CR overall was tested only if both CR delayed and CR acute were statistically significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test was stratified by sex. Missing data were imputed as treatment failures.||||2.6|1.3|0.001
91035334|NCT02322593|181956608|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.086||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.93|||Log Rank|||||0.93|0.66|0.0045
90887958|NCT02019719|181639042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Var|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.88|||||Posterior median and 95% credibility intervals were estimated using Bayesian methods.|||0.88|0.50|
90928179|NCT02646618|181735651|NON_INFERIORITY|We set δ=2% as a relative margin to the 5% weight loss as clinically meaningful cut point and because 2% is not so small a difference in average weight loss between study conditions that we would have to recruit a prohibitively large sample.|Mean Difference (Net)|2.0||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.3|0.6|0.0038
90887959|NCT02019719|181639042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||MED (mg)|1.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|3.41|||||Posterior median and 95% credibility intervals were estimated using Bayesian methods.|||3.41|0.75|
90887960|NCT02019719|181639042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||TD (mg)|3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|5.63|||||Posterior median and 95% credibility intervals were estimated using Bayesian methods.|||5.63|2.20|
90887961|NCT02019719|181639042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||MAD (mg)|8.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.51|11.44|||||Posterior median and 95% credibility intervals were estimated using Bayesian methods.|||11.44|6.51|
90887962|NCT04535037|181639060|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit (LL) of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of group GMC ratio (Infanrix Hexa over Vaxelis group) was above 0.5.|Adjusted GMC Ratio|0.917|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.185||||The 95% CI for GMC ratio derived from an ANOVA model on log10 transformed concentration was used. GMC was adjusted for DTPA vaccination of the mother.||To demonstrate that the Haemophilus influenzae type b(Hib) response of Infanrix Hexa Group is non-inferior to the Vaxelis Group in terms of anti-PRP GMCs, 1 month post-booster vaccination.||1.185|0.710|
90928180|NCT02646618|181735652|NON_INFERIORITY|We set δ=2% as a relative margin to the 5% weight loss as clinically meaningful cut point and because 2% is not so small a difference in average weight loss between study conditions that we would have to recruit a prohibitively large sample.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.2||||0.1485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|2.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.8|-0.4|0.1485
90928181|NCT02646618|181735654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.248|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2480
90928182|NCT02646618|181735659|NON_INFERIORITY|For secondary noninferiority outcomes, we used 90% power to calculate noninferiority margins given N=131 per arm, setting alpha=.05 and using observed SDs from the literature. For change in energy (kcal/day) intake, the study is powered at 90% to detect whether the Get Social condition is not inferior to the Traditional condition with a noninferiority margin of 182 kcal/day (SD=500 kcal/day)|Mean Difference (Net)|93.0||||0.2025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.0|237.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||237|-50|0.2025
90928183|NCT02646618|181735660|NON_INFERIORITY|For secondary noninferiority outcomes, we used 90% power to calculate noninferiority margins given N=131 per arm, setting alpha=.05 and using observed SDs from the literature. For change in energy (kcal/day) intake, the study is powered at 90% to detect whether the Get Social condition is not inferior to the Traditional condition with a noninferiority margin of 182 kcal/day (SD=500 kcal/day)|Mean Difference (Net)|-75.0||||0.3323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-226.0|77.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||77|-226|0.3323
90928184|NCT02646618|181735662|NON_INFERIORITY|For secondary noninferiority outcomes, we used 90% power to calculate noninferiority margins given N=131 per arm, setting alpha=.05 and using observed SDs from the literature. For change in moderate to vigorous intensity physical activity minutes per day at 12 months, the noninferiority margin is 9.2 min/day(SD=25 min/day). However, we could not analyze the data in that manner and used the test described above.||||||0.3905|||||||Generalized estimating equation|||We examined the proportion of participants engaging in 150+ minutes/week of moderate/vigorous intensity physical activity (MVPA) using generalized estimating equations with a logit link function and incorporating repeated measures over time. For participants missing MVPA at either follow-up timepoint, we used a baseline observation carried forward approach to impute their activity level (150+ vs \<150 MVPA mins/week) at that timepoint.||||0.3905
90928185|NCT02646618|181735663|NON_INFERIORITY|For secondary noninferiority outcomes, we used 90% power to calculate noninferiority margins given N=131 per arm, setting alpha=.05 and using observed SDs from the literature. For change in moderate to vigorous intensity physical activity minutes per day at 12 months, the noninferiority margin is 9.2 min/day(SD=25 min/day). However, we could not analyze the data in that manner and used the test described above.||||||0.4741|||||||Generalized estimating equation|||We examined the proportion of participants engaging in 150+ minutes/week of moderate/vigorous intensity physical activity (MVPA) using generalized estimating equations with a logit link function and incorporating repeated measures over time. For participants missing MVPA at either follow-up timepoint, we used a baseline observation carried forward approach to impute their activity level (150+ vs \<150 MVPA mins/week) at that timepoint.||||0.4741
90928186|NCT03885232|181735699|SUPERIORITY|We applied a mixed zero-inflated beta regression model that included a fixed binary factor for treatment arm, a random effect for clinic to account for correlation within clinics, and unbalanced parent demographics across study arms.|Incidence Rate Ratio (IRR)|1.04||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.6|||Generalized linear mixed effects regress|Generalized linear mixed effects regression models||||1.60|0.68|0.9
90928187|NCT03885232|181735700|SUPERIORITY||Other|1.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Calculated individual survey means for vaccine hesitant parents who participated in the survey. Survey consisted of 15 questions with a 7-point Likert scale. We then created a dichotomous variable where 1 = mean \> or equal to 6; 0 = mean \< 6.||||<0.05
90928188|NCT03885232|181735701|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.92|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|5.64|||Generalized linear mixed effects regress|Adjusted for: study arm, study period (pre vs. post), years in practice, provider type, interaction between study arm and study period||"1. Ho: No difference in the proportion of clinicians using presumptive and Motivational Interviewing techniques between intervention and control.~2. Ho: No difference in the proportion of clinicians time spent talking to vaccine hesitant parents between intervention and control."||5.64|0.66|<0.05
90940940|NCT00943722|181761604|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority requires that the lower bound of two-sided 95% CI of GMT ratio be greater than 0.67|GMT ratio|3.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.89|3.84||one-sided tests of non-inferiority conducted at the alpha=0.025 level; model with a response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for comparison group|ANOVA|model with a response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for comparison group|GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Males (Lot 1) divided by GMT for 16- to 26-Year-Old Females (Lot 1)|Anti-HPV 45||3.84|2.89|< 0.001
90965689|NCT02234284|181812917|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.5||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.3|10.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Outcomes were by group assignment (intention to treat) using generalized linear models adjusted for baseline levels of variable and clustering.|Value is for proportion (%) of participants in Health Coached arm minus proportion in Usual Care, adjusted for baseline values and for clustering.|Outcomes were compared by group assignment using generalized linear models (GLMs) with a normal distribution for continuous outcomes), Poisson distribution for count outcomes (e.g. exacerbations and hospitalizations), and binomial distribution for binary outcomes. In all models, baseline levels of the outcome were entered as a predictor and follow-up levels as the dependent variable, with use of a robust standard error to account for clustering.||10.2|-33.3|.30
90965690|NCT02234284|181812918|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.73||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|0.62|||Mixed Models Analysis||Value is for mean number of days for participants in Health Coached arm minus mean score in Usual Care, adjusted for baseline values and for clustering.|||0.62|-2.07|.29
90965691|NCT02234284|181812919|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|39.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.6|59.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|Outcomes were by group assignment (intention to treat) using generalized linear models adjusted for baseline levels of variable and clustering.|Value is for proportion (%) of participants in Health Coached arm minus proportion in Usual Care, adjusted for baseline values and for clustering.|Outcomes were compared by group assignment using generalized linear models (GLMs) with a normal distribution for continuous outcomes), Poisson distribution for count outcomes (e.g. exacerbations and hospitalizations), and binomial distribution for binary outcomes. In all models, baseline levels of the outcome were entered as a predictor and follow-up levels as the dependent variable, with use of a robust standard error to account for clustering.||59.8|19.6|<.001
90965692|NCT02234284|181812920|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.8||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|25.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Value is for proportion of participants in Health Coached arm minus proportion in Usual Care, adjusted for baseline values and for clustering.|Outcomes were compared by group assignment using generalized linear models (GLMs) with a normal distribution for continuous outcomes), Poisson distribution for count outcomes (e.g. exacerbations and hospitalizations), and binomial distribution for binary outcomes. In all models, baseline levels of the outcome were entered as a predictor and follow-up levels as the dependent variable, with use of a robust standard error to account for clustering.||25.2|-9.5|.38
90965693|NCT02234284|181812921|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|13.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Outcomes were by group assignment (intention to treat) using generalized linear models adjusted for baseline levels of variable and clustering.||Outcomes were compared by group assignment using generalized linear models (GLMs) with a normal distribution for continuous outcomes), Poisson distribution for count outcomes (e.g. exacerbations and hospitalizations), and binomial distribution for binary outcomes. In all models, baseline levels of the outcome were entered as a predictor and follow-up levels as the dependent variable, with use of a robust standard error to account for clustering.||13.4|-9.4|.73
90965694|NCT02234284|181812922|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.4||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|20.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|Outcomes were by group assignment (intention to treat) using generalized linear models adjusted for baseline levels of variable and clustering.|Value is for proportion (%) of participants in Health Coached arm minus proportion in Usual Care, adjusted for baseline values and for clustering.|Outcomes were compared by group assignment using generalized linear models (GLMs) with a normal distribution for continuous outcomes), Poisson distribution for count outcomes (e.g. exacerbations and hospitalizations), and binomial distribution for binary outcomes. In all models, baseline levels of the outcome were entered as a predictor and follow-up levels as the dependent variable, with use of a robust standard error to account for clustering.||20.8|-14.0|.70
90965695|NCT02234284|181812923|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|5.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Outcomes were by group assignment (intention to treat) using generalized linear models adjusted for baseline levels of variable and clustering.|Value is for proportion (%) of participants in Health Coached arm minus proportion in Usual Care, adjusted for baseline values and for clustering.|Outcomes were compared by group assignment using generalized linear models (GLMs) with a normal distribution for continuous outcomes), Poisson distribution for count outcomes (e.g. exacerbations and hospitalizations), and binomial distribution for binary outcomes. In all models, baseline levels of the outcome were entered as a predictor and follow-up levels as the dependent variable, with use of a robust standard error to account for clustering.||5.3|-5.5|.97
90965696|NCT02234284|181812924|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.48||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|1.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|Outcomes were by group assignment (intention to treat) using generalized linear models adjusted for baseline levels of variable and clustering.|Value is for rate of outpatient visits for participants in Health Coached arm minus rate for Usual Care, adjusted for baseline values and for clustering.|Outcomes were compared by group assignment using generalized linear models (GLMs) with a normal distribution for continuous outcomes), Poisson distribution for count outcomes (e.g. exacerbations and hospitalizations), and binomial distribution for binary outcomes. In all models, baseline levels of the outcome were entered as a predictor and follow-up levels as the dependent variable, with use of a robust standard error to account for clustering.||1.28|-0.32|.52
90965697|NCT02234284|181812925|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis||Value is for rate of COPD-related ED visits for participants in Health Coached arm minus rate for Usual Care, adjusted for baseline values and for clustering.|Outcomes were compared by group assignment using generalized linear models (GLMs) with a normal distribution for continuous outcomes), Poisson distribution for count outcomes (e.g. exacerbations and hospitalizations), and binomial distribution for binary outcomes. In all models, baseline levels of the outcome were entered as a predictor and follow-up levels as the dependent variable, with use of a robust standard error to account for clustering.||0.22|-0.32|.78
91035335|NCT02322593|181956609|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.078||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.96|||Log Rank|||||0.96|0.70|0.011
90928189|NCT03500549|181735704|SUPERIORITY|The primary endpoint analysis was a between-treatment-group comparison using a mixed effect model for repeated measures (MMRM). The difference between pegcetacoplan and eculizumab LS mean Hb changes from Baseline at Week 16 was calculated along with its 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) and associated P-value from the MMRM model for the ITT set, censored for transfusions.|LS mean difference|3.84|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.33|5.34||Superiority was tested at the 5% level. MMRM includes treatment + baseline value + analysis visit + strata + analysis visit × treatment, where strata is the combination of randomization stratification factors.|MMRM|||||5.34|2.33|<0.0001
90928190|NCT03500549|181735705|NON_INFERIORITY|Analysis was based on prespecified non-inferiority margins (NIM) and non-inferiority was achieved if the lower confidence limit or upper confidence limit of the 95% CI of the treatment difference met the prespecified NIM of -20%. Stratified Cochran-Mantel Haenszel (CMH) chi-square test was used for treatment comparison and the 95% CI for difference in percentage between treatments is constructed using the stratified (Miettinen-Nurminen) method.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.6253|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.483|0.7677||Non-inferiority was tested at the 2.5% level.|Miettinen-Nurminen|||||0.7677|0.4830|<0.0001
90928191|NCT03500549|181735706|NON_INFERIORITY|Analysis was based on prespecified NIM and non-inferiority was achieved if the lower confidence limit or upper confidence limit of the 95% CI of the treatment difference met the prespecified NIM of 10.|LS mean difference|-163.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-189.91|-137.3||Non-inferiority was tested at the 2.5% level. MMRM includes treatment + baseline value + analysis visit + strata + analysis visit × treatment, where strata is the combination of randomization stratification factors.|MMRM|||||-137.30|-189.91|<0.0001
90928192|NCT03500549|181735707|NON_INFERIORITY|Analysis was based on prespecified NIM and non-inferiority was achieved if the lower confidence limit or upper confidence limit of the 95% CI of the treatment difference met the prespecified NIM of 20.|LS mean difference|-4.63||||0.9557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-181.3|172.04||Non-inferiority was tested at the 2.5% level. MMRM includes treatment + baseline value + analysis visit + strata + analysis visit × treatment, where strata is the combination of randomization stratification factors.|MMRM|||||172.04|-181.30|0.9557
90928193|NCT03500549|181735708|OTHER|Non-inferiority was not assessed because of the prespecified hierarchical testing. Analysis was a between-treatment-group comparison using an MMRM. The difference between pegcetacoplan and eculizumab LS mean changes from Baseline at Week 16 was calculated along with its 2-sided 95% CI and associated P-value from the MMRM model for the ITT set, censored for transfusions.|LS mean difference|11.87||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.49|18.25||MRMM includes treatment + baseline value + analysis visit + strata + analysis visit × treatment, where strata is the combination of randomization stratification factors.|MMRM|||||18.25|5.49|0.0005
90928194|NCT03500549|181735709|OTHER|Stratified CMH chi-square test was used for treatment comparison and the 95% CI for difference in percentage between treatments is constructed using the stratified Miettinen-Nurminen method.|Difference in percentage|0.6745|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5452|0.8039|||||The difference in percentage and 95% CI is calculated based on stratified Miettinen-Nurminen method stratified by randomization factor so it it is not a direct difference of two reporting groups.|||0.8039|0.5452|
90928195|NCT03500549|181735710|OTHER|Stratified CMH chi-square test was used for treatment comparison and the 95% CI for difference in percentage between treatments is constructed using the stratified Miettinen-Nurminen method.|Difference in percentage|0.6639|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5309|0.7968|||||The difference in percentage and 95% CI is calculated based on stratified Miettinen-Nurminen method stratified by randomization factor so it it is not a direct difference of two reporting groups.|||0.7968|0.5309|
90928196|NCT03500549|181735711|OTHER|Stratified CMH chi-square test was used for treatment comparison and the 95% CI for difference in percentage between treatments is constructed using the stratified Miettinen-Nurminen method.|Difference in percentage|0.3043|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1493|0.4593|||||The difference in percentage and 95% CI is calculated based on stratified Miettinen-Nurminen method stratified by randomization factor so it it is not a direct difference of two reporting groups.|||0.4593|0.1493|
90928197|NCT03500549|181735712|OTHER|Analysis was a between-treatment-group comparison using an MMRM. The difference between pegcetacoplan and eculizumab LS mean changes from Baseline at Week 16 was calculated along with its 2-sided 95% CI and associated P-value from the MMRM model for the ITT set, censored for transfusions.|LS mean difference|-21.93||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.49|-11.36||MMRM includes treatment + baseline value + analysis visit + strata + analysis visit × treatment, where strata is the combination of randomization stratification factors.|MMRM|||||-11.36|-32.49|0.0002
90928198|NCT03500549|181735713|OTHER|Analysis was a between-treatment-group comparison using an MMRM. The difference between pegcetacoplan and eculizumab LS mean changes from Baseline at Week 16 was calculated along with its 2-sided 95% CI and associated P-value from the MMRM model for the ITT set, censored for transfusions.|LS mean difference|-0.14||||0.0369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|-0.01||MMRM includes treatment + baseline value + analysis visit + strata + analysis visit × treatment, where strata is the combination of randomization stratification factors.|MMRM|||||-0.01|-0.28|0.0369
90928199|NCT03500549|181735714|OTHER|Analysis was a between-treatment-group comparison using an MMRM. The difference between pegcetacoplan and eculizumab LS mean changes from Baseline at Week 16 was calculated along with its 2-sided 95% CI and associated P-value from the MMRM model for the ITT set, censored for transfusions.|LS mean difference|59.1||||0.0069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.88|101.32||MMRM includes treatment + baseline value + analysis visit + strata + analysis visit × treatment, where strata is the combination of randomization stratification factors.|MMRM|||||101.32|16.88|0.0069
90971272|NCT04311502|181825264|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.3|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.14|0.45|||Wald chi-square test||Difference in cumulative proportions (Arm 1 - Arm 2)|"The point estimate and 90% two-sided confidence intervals for the difference in cumulative proportions of participants experiencing a Grade 3 or higher AE that is at least one-grade increase from baseline at any time during the 65-week study period was compared between Arm 1 and Arm 2.~This outcome measure is limited to data obtained up to September 25, 2023."||0.45|0.14|<0.01
91035336|NCT02322593|181956610|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91035337|NCT02322593|181956611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.092|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.092
90928200|NCT03500549|181735715|OTHER|Analysis was a between-treatment-group comparison using an MMRM. The difference between pegcetacoplan and eculizumab LS mean changes from Baseline at Week 16 was calculated along with its 2-sided 95% CI and associated P-value from the MMRM model for the ITT set, censored for transfusions.|LS mean difference|18.62||||0.0486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|37.13||MMRM includes treatment + baseline value + analysis visit + strata + analysis visit × treatment, where strata is the combination of randomization stratification factors.|MMRM|||Global Health Status/QoL: Difference in LS mean||37.13|0.12|0.0486
90928201|NCT03500549|181735715|OTHER|Analysis was a between-treatment-group comparison using an MMRM. The difference between pegcetacoplan and eculizumab LS mean changes from Baseline at Week 16 was calculated along with its 2-sided 95% CI and associated P-value from the MMRM model for the ITT set, censored for transfusions.|LS mean difference|12.86||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.86|20.86||MMRM includes treatment + baseline value + analysis visit + strata + analysis visit × treatment, where strata is the combination of randomization stratification factors.|MMRM|||Functional Scales - Physical functioning: Difference in LS mean||20.86|4.86|0.0023
90928202|NCT03500549|181735715|OTHER|Analysis was a between-treatment-group comparison using an MMRM. The difference between pegcetacoplan and eculizumab LS mean changes from Baseline at Week 16 was calculated along with its 2-sided 95% CI and associated P-value from the MMRM model for the ITT set, censored for transfusions.|LS mean difference|24.43||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.84|40.01||MMRM includes treatment + baseline value + analysis visit + strata + analysis visit × treatment, where strata is the combination of randomization stratification factors.|MMRM|||Functional Scales - Role functioning: Difference in LS mean||40.01|8.84|0.0027
90928203|NCT03500549|181735715|OTHER|Analysis was a between-treatment-group comparison using an MMRM. The difference between pegcetacoplan and eculizumab LS mean changes from Baseline at Week 16 was calculated along with its 2-sided 95% CI and associated P-value from the MMRM model for the ITT set, censored for transfusions.|LS mean difference|4.11||||0.6013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.58|19.8||MMRM includes treatment + baseline value + analysis visit + strata + analysis visit × treatment, where strata is the combination of randomization stratification factors.|MMRM|||Functional Scales - Emotional functioning: Difference in LS mean||19.80|-11.58|0.6013
90928204|NCT03500549|181735715|OTHER|Analysis was a between-treatment-group comparison using an MMRM. The difference between pegcetacoplan and eculizumab LS mean changes from Baseline at Week 16 was calculated along with its 2-sided 95% CI and associated P-value from the MMRM model for the ITT set, censored for transfusions.|LS mean difference|9.56||||0.1792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.52|23.64||MMRM includes treatment + baseline value + analysis visit + strata + analysis visit × treatment, where strata is the combination of randomization stratification factors.|MMRM|||Functional Scales - Cognitive functioning: Difference in LS mean||23.64|-4.52|0.1792
90928205|NCT03500549|181735715|OTHER|Analysis was a between-treatment-group comparison using an MMRM. The difference between pegcetacoplan and eculizumab LS mean changes from Baseline at Week 16 was calculated along with its 2-sided 95% CI and associated P-value from the MMRM model for the ITT set, censored for transfusions.|LS mean difference|11.27||||0.1039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.38|24.92||MMRM includes treatment + baseline value + analysis visit + strata + analysis visit × treatment, where strata is the combination of randomization stratification factors.|MMRM|||Functional Scales - Social functioning: Difference in LS mean||24.92|-2.38|0.1039
90928206|NCT03500549|181735715|OTHER|Analysis was a between-treatment-group comparison using an MMRM. The difference between pegcetacoplan and eculizumab LS mean changes from Baseline at Week 16 was calculated along with its 2-sided 95% CI and associated P-value from the MMRM model for the ITT set, censored for transfusions.|LS mean difference|-20.74||||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.29|-6.19||MMRM includes treatment + baseline value + analysis visit + strata + analysis visit × treatment, where strata is the combination of randomization stratification factors.|MMRM|||Symptom Scales - Fatigue: Difference in LS mean||-6.19|-35.29|0.0062
90928207|NCT03500549|181735715|OTHER|Analysis was a between-treatment-group comparison using an MMRM. The difference between pegcetacoplan and eculizumab LS mean changes from Baseline at Week 16 was calculated along with its 2-sided 95% CI and associated P-value from the MMRM model for the ITT set, censored for transfusions.|LS mean difference|-0.01||||0.9975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.38|8.35||MMRM includes treatment + baseline value + analysis visit + strata + analysis visit × treatment, where strata is the combination of randomization stratification factors.|MMRM|||Symptom Scales - Nausea and vomiting: Difference in LS mean||8.35|-8.38|0.9975
90928208|NCT03500549|181735715|OTHER|Analysis was a between-treatment-group comparison using an MMRM. The difference between pegcetacoplan and eculizumab LS mean changes from Baseline at Week 16 was calculated along with its 2-sided 95% CI and associated P-value from the MMRM model for the ITT set, censored for transfusions.|LS mean difference|-2.76||||0.7554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.36|14.85||MMRM includes treatment + baseline value + analysis visit + strata + analysis visit × treatment, where strata is the combination of randomization stratification factors.|MMRM|||Symptom Scales - Pain: Difference in LS mean||14.85|-20.36|0.7554
90928209|NCT03500549|181735715|OTHER|Analysis was a between-treatment-group comparison using an MMRM. The difference between pegcetacoplan and eculizumab LS mean changes from Baseline at Week 16 was calculated along with its 2-sided 95% CI and associated P-value from the MMRM model for the ITT set, censored for transfusions.|LS mean difference|-14.57||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.9|0.76||MMRM includes treatment + baseline value + analysis visit + strata + analysis visit × treatment, where strata is the combination of randomization stratification factors.|MMRM|||Symptom Scales - Dyspnoea: Difference in LS mean||0.76|-29.90|0.0620
90928210|NCT03500549|181735715|OTHER|Analysis was a between-treatment-group comparison using an MMRM. The difference between pegcetacoplan and eculizumab LS mean changes from Baseline at Week 16 was calculated along with its 2-sided 95% CI and associated P-value from the MMRM model for the ITT set, censored for transfusions.|LS mean difference|0.32||||0.9686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.67|16.3||MMRM includes treatment + baseline value + analysis visit + strata + analysis visit × treatment, where strata is the combination of randomization stratification factors.|MMRM|||Symptom Scales - Insomnia: Difference in LS mean||16.30|-15.67|0.9686
90965698|NCT02234284|181812926|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Outcomes were by group assignment (intention to treat) using generalized linear models adjusted for baseline levels of variable and clustering.|Value is for rate of non-COPD-related ED visits for participants in Health Coached arm minus rate for Usual Care, adjusted for baseline values and for clustering.|Outcomes were compared by group assignment using generalized linear models (GLMs) with a normal distribution for continuous outcomes), Poisson distribution for count outcomes (e.g. exacerbations and hospitalizations), and binomial distribution for binary outcomes. In all models, baseline levels of the outcome were entered as a predictor and follow-up levels as the dependent variable, with use of a robust standard error to account for clustering.||0.40|-0.56|.80
90965699|NCT02234284|181812927|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|Outcomes were by group assignment (intention to treat) using generalized linear models adjusted for baseline levels of variable and clustering.|Value is for rate of COPD-related hospital visits for participants in Health Coached arm minus rate for Usual Care, adjusted for baseline values and for clustering.|Outcomes were compared by group assignment using generalized linear models (GLMs) with a normal distribution for continuous outcomes), Poisson distribution for count outcomes (e.g. exacerbations and hospitalizations), and binomial distribution for binary outcomes. In all models, baseline levels of the outcome were entered as a predictor and follow-up levels as the dependent variable, with use of a robust standard error to account for clustering.||0.06|-0.32|.35
90928211|NCT03500549|181735715|OTHER|Analysis was a between-treatment-group comparison using an MMRM. The difference between pegcetacoplan and eculizumab LS mean changes from Baseline at Week 16 was calculated along with its 2-sided 95% CI and associated P-value from the MMRM model for the ITT set, censored for transfusions.|LS mean difference|-7.95||||0.3002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.23|7.33||MMRM includes treatment + baseline value + analysis visit + strata + analysis visit × treatment, where strata is the combination of randomization stratification factors.|MMRM|||Symptom Scales - Appetite loss: Difference in LS mean||7.33|-23.23|0.3002
90928212|NCT03500549|181735715|OTHER|Analysis was a between-treatment-group comparison using an MMRM. The difference between pegcetacoplan and eculizumab LS mean changes from Baseline at Week 16 was calculated along with its 2-sided 95% CI and associated P-value from the MMRM model for the ITT set, censored for transfusions.|LS mean difference|1.79||||0.8374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.7|19.29||MMRM includes treatment + baseline value + analysis visit + strata + analysis visit × treatment, where strata is the combination of randomization stratification factors.|MMRM|||Symptom Scales - Constipation: Difference in LS mean||19.29|-15.70|0.8374
90928213|NCT03500549|181735715|OTHER|Analysis was a between-treatment-group comparison using an MMRM. The difference between pegcetacoplan and eculizumab LS mean changes from Baseline at Week 16 was calculated along with its 2-sided 95% CI and associated P-value from the MMRM model for the ITT set, censored for transfusions.|LS mean difference|-1.38||||0.8775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.28|16.52||MMRM includes treatment + baseline value + analysis visit + strata + analysis visit × treatment, where strata is the combination of randomization stratification factors.|MMRM|||Symptom Scales - Diarrhoea: Difference in LS mean||16.52|-19.28|0.8775
90928214|NCT03500549|181735715|OTHER|Analysis was a between-treatment-group comparison using an MMRM. The difference between pegcetacoplan and eculizumab LS mean changes from Baseline at Week 16 was calculated along with its 2-sided 95% CI and associated P-value from the MMRM model for the ITT set, censored for transfusions.|LS mean difference|-7.4||||0.3066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.76|6.95||MMRM includes treatment + baseline value + analysis visit + strata + analysis visit × treatment, where strata is the combination of randomization stratification factors.|MMRM|||Symptom Scales - Financial difficulties: Difference in LS mean||6.95|-21.76|0.3066
90928215|NCT03500549|181735716|OTHER|Wilcoxon rank-sum test P-value for the comparison between treatments is based on median using stratified non-parametric analysis. The 95% CI is constructed using Hodges-Lehmann Estimation of Location Shift.|Median Difference (Final Values)|3.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|4.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||4.0|2.0|<0.0001
90928216|NCT05601882|181735738|SUPERIORITY|Analyzed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by Validated Investigator's Global Assessment for Atopic Dermatitis categories \[(vIGA-AD (moderate \[3\] versus severe \[4\])\] and age (12 to \< 18; 18 to \< 40; ≥40 to \< 64 years)|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|11.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.6|15.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Response rate difference = Upadacitinib (Period 1) - Dupilumab (Period 1)|Upadacitinib (Period 1) vs Dupilumab (Period 1)||15.5|6.6|<0.0001
90928217|NCT05601882|181735739|SUPERIORITY|Analyzed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by Validated Investigator's Global Assessment for Atopic Dermatitis categories \[(vIGA-AD (moderate \[3\] versus severe \[4\])\] and age (12 to \< 18; 18 to \< 40; ≥40 to \< 64 years)|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|18.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.5|24.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Response rate difference = Upadacitinib (Period 1) - Dupilumab (Period 1)|Upadacitinib (Period 1) vs Dupilumab (Period 1)||24.2|12.5|<0.0001
90928218|NCT05601882|181735740|SUPERIORITY|Analyzed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by Validated Investigator's Global Assessment for Atopic Dermatitis categories \[(vIGA-AD (moderate \[3\] versus severe \[4\])\] and age (12 to \< 18; 18 to \< 40; ≥40 to \< 64 years)|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|14.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.4|20.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Response rate difference = Upadacitinib (Period 1) - Dupilumab (Period 1)|Upadacitinib (Period 1) vs Dupilumab (Period 1)||20.0|9.4|<0.0001
90928219|NCT05601882|181735741|SUPERIORITY|Analyzed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by Validated Investigator's Global Assessment for Atopic Dermatitis categories \[(vIGA-AD (moderate \[3\] versus severe \[4\])\] and age (12 to \< 18; 18 to \< 40; ≥40 to \< 64 years)|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|16.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.2|23.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Response rate difference = Upadacitinib (Period 1) - Dupilumab (Period 1)|Upadacitinib (Period 1) vs Dupilumab (Period 1)||23.0|10.2|<0.0001
90928220|NCT05601882|181735742|SUPERIORITY|Analyzed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by Validated Investigator's Global Assessment for Atopic Dermatitis categories \[(vIGA-AD (moderate \[3\] versus severe \[4\])\] and age (12 to \< 18; 18 to \< 40; ≥40 to \< 64 years)|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|13.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.6|16.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Response rate difference = Upadacitinib (Period 1) - Dupilumab (Period 1)|Upadacitinib (Period 1) vs Dupilumab (Period 1)||16.9|9.6|<0.0001
90928221|NCT05601882|181735743|SUPERIORITY|Analyzed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by Validated Investigator's Global Assessment for Atopic Dermatitis categories \[(vIGA-AD (moderate \[3\] versus severe \[4\])\] and age (12 to \< 18; 18 to \< 40; ≥40 to \< 64 years)|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|6.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|9.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Response rate difference = Upadacitinib (Period 1) - Dupilumab (Period 1)|Upadacitinib (Period 1) vs Dupilumab (Period 1)||9.1|3.8|<0.0001
90928222|NCT05601882|181735744|SUPERIORITY|Analyzed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by Validated Investigator's Global Assessment for Atopic Dermatitis categories \[(vIGA-AD (moderate \[3\] versus severe \[4\])\] and age (12 to \< 18; 18 to \< 40; ≥40 to \< 64 years)|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|14.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.4|18.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Response rate difference = Upadacitinib (Period 1) - Dupilumab (Period 1)|Upadacitinib (Period 1) vs Dupilumab (Period 1)||18.8|9.4|<0.0001
90928223|NCT05601882|181735745|SUPERIORITY|Analyzed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by Validated Investigator's Global Assessment for Atopic Dermatitis categories \[(vIGA-AD (moderate \[3\] versus severe \[4\])\] and age (12 to \< 18; 18 to \< 40; ≥40 to \< 64 years)|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|18.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.9|23.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Response rate difference = Upadacitinib (Period 1) - Dupilumab (Period 1)|Upadacitinib (Period 1) vs Dupilumab (Period 1)||23.3|13.9|<0.0001
90928224|NCT05601882|181735746|SUPERIORITY|Analyzed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by Validated Investigator's Global Assessment for Atopic Dermatitis categories \[(vIGA-AD (moderate \[3\] versus severe \[4\])\] and age (12 to \< 18; 18 to \< 40; ≥40 to \< 64 years)|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|9.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.4|13.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Response rate difference = Upadacitinib (Period 1) - Dupilumab (Period 1)|Upadacitinib (Period 1) vs Dupilumab (Period 1)||13.1|5.4|<0.0001
90928225|NCT00227266|181735789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman's correlation|0.93|||<|0.001|||||||Spearman's correlation|||MHFMS-Extend was not normally distributed at p=0.048. Test-retest reliability of MHFMS-Extend measurements from the first (S1) to the second (S2) screening visit was analyzed using Spearman's correlation.||||<0.001
90928226|NCT00650078|181735794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.25||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|3.64||The p-value was based on logistic regression with treatment, geographic region, gender, and median age class as factors.|Regression, Logistic|||||3.64|1.39|0.0010
90928227|NCT00650078|181735795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-19.6||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.7|-6.1||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test p-value|Hodges-Lehman method|The difference between the treatment groups was assessed using the median and the 95% CI of the median computed using the Hodges Lehmann method.||||-6.1|-31.7|0.0015
90928228|NCT03301467|181735835|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.8|||ANCOVA|||||1.8|-1.9|0.9670
90928229|NCT03301467|181735836|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.02||||0.3083|TWO_SIDED||||||Van Elteren's Test||"Test for normality showed that mean change and mean percent change were not normally distributed. As per SAP, Van Elteren's test was then applied to test mean percent change.~SAP=Statistical Analysis Protocol"|||||0.3083
90928230|NCT03301467|181735837|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4591|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi square general association statistic||||||0.4591
90928231|NCT03301467|181735838|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3106|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi square general association statistic||||||0.3106
90928232|NCT03301467|181735839|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.3368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.5|||ANCOVA|||||0.5|-1.5|0.3368
90928233|NCT03301467|181735840|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.0401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||-0.0|-1.7|0.0401
90928234|NCT03301467|181735841|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.84||||0.0534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|21.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures models with treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors and baseline as a covariate.||||21.85|-0.16|0.0534
90928235|NCT03301467|181735842|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.67||||0.0221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|19.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures models with treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors and baseline as a covariate.||||19.78|1.56|0.0221
90928236|NCT03301467|181735843|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.0||||0.2638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.08|11.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures models with treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors and baseline as a covariate.||||11.08|-3.08|0.2638
90928237|NCT03301467|181735844|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.82||||0.2069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.14|9.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures models with treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors and baseline as a covariate.||||9.77|-2.14|0.2069
90928238|NCT03301467|181735845|SUPERIORITY||LSM UPCR Ratio|0.98||||0.9284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures models with treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors and baseline as a covariate.|LSM UPCR Ratio Week 26 vs Baseline, Avacopan:Placebo|||1.45|0.67|0.9284
90928239|NCT03301467|181735846|SUPERIORITY||LSM UPCR Ratio|0.86||||0.3778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures models with treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors and baseline as a covariate.|LSM UPCR Ratio Week 26 vs Baseline, Avacopan:Placebo|||1.21|0.60|0.3778
90928240|NCT03301467|181735847|SUPERIORITY||LSM MCP-1 Ratio|0.76||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures models with treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors and baseline as a covariate.|LSM MCP-1 Ratio Week 26 vs Baseline, Avacopan:Placebo|||1.04|0.55|0.0810
90928241|NCT03301467|181735848|SUPERIORITY||LSM MCP-1 Ratio|0.87||||0.3233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures models with treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors and baseline as a covariate.|LSM MCP-1 Ratio Week 26 vs Baseline, Avacopan:Placebo|||1.15|0.66|0.3233
90928242|NCT03301467|181735849|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6||||0.6025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|7.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures models with treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors and baseline as a covariate.||EQ-5D-5L VAS Score||7.9|-4.6|0.6025
90928243|NCT03301467|181735849|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0422||||0.1797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1043|0.0198|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures models with treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors and baseline as a covariate.||EQ-5D-5L Index Score||0.0198|-0.1043|0.1797
90928244|NCT03301467|181735850|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.4898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|3.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures models with treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors and baseline as a covariate.||EQ-5D-5L VAS Score||3.8|-7.9|0.4898
90928245|NCT03301467|181735850|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0199||||0.4826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0757|0.036|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures models with treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors and baseline as a covariate.||EQ-5D-5L Index Score||0.0360|-0.0757|0.4826
90928246|NCT03301467|181735851|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4019||||0.8161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0402|3.844|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures models with treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors and baseline as a covariate.||SF-36v2: Physical Component Score||3.8440|-3.0402|0.8161
90928247|NCT03301467|181735851|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0052||||0.9982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5994|4.6099|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures models with treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors and baseline as a covariate.||SF-36v2: Mental Component Score||4.6099|-4.5994|0.9982
90928248|NCT03301467|181735852|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1518||||0.9242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3192|3.0156|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures models with treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors and baseline as a covariate.||SF-36v2: Physical Component Score||3.0156|-3.3192|0.9242
90928249|NCT03301467|181735852|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0283||||0.6534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4972|5.5537|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures models with treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors and baseline as a covariate.||SF-36v2: Mental Component Score||5.5537|-3.4972|0.6534
90928250|NCT02798471|181735855|NON_INFERIORITY|The edoxaban-to-comparator hazard ratio will be computed with 95% confidence interval (CI) (two-sided) based on this model. Edoxaban will be considered non-inferior to comparator if the upper limit of the 95% CI is ≤1.5.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.9694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.594|1.719|||Regression, Cox|||Statistical analysis for the composite primary efficacy endpoint||1.719|0.594|0.9694
90928251|NCT04440228|181735871|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.088||||||Assumptions of ANOVA were violated, so we conducted a Related-Samples Friedman's Two-Way Analysis of Variance by Ranks|ANOVA|F=6.54, df=3||Repeated measures ANOVA examining change over time across the three partner school districts.||||0.088
90928252|NCT04440228|181735872|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.204|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.036|0.373|||Regression, Linear|||We conducted paired t-tests to evaluate simple pre-to-post changes in the primary outcome measures. We fitted linear mixed-effects regression models for each outcome variable, specifying random intercepts for participant ID to account for repeated measures and within-individual clustering. The core model included a binary post-training indicator as the primary predictor, along with the baseline value of the corresponding outcome as a covariate.||0.373|0.036|<0.05
90928253|NCT04440228|181735873|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.078||||0.277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.064|0.219|||Regression, Linear|||We conducted paired t-tests to evaluate simple pre-to-post changes in the primary outcome measures. We fitted linear mixed-effects regression models for each outcome variable, specifying random intercepts for participant ID to account for repeated measures and within-individual clustering. The core model included a binary post-training indicator as the primary predictor, along with the baseline value of the corresponding outcome as a covariate.||0.219|-0.064|.277
90928254|NCT04440228|181735874|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.002||||0.996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.082|0.083|||Regression, Linear|||We conducted paired t-tests to evaluate simple pre-to-post changes in the primary outcome measures. We fitted linear mixed-effects regression models for each outcome variable, specifying random intercepts for participant ID to account for repeated measures and within-individual clustering. The core model included a binary post-training indicator as the primary predictor, along with the baseline value of the corresponding outcome as a covariate.||0.083|-0.082|0.996
90928255|NCT04503681|181735892|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.1|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.1|-1.1|0.473
90928256|NCT04503681|181735893|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.8|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.8|-0.8|0.338
90928257|NCT03442777|181735915|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.64||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.99||controlled for type of ward (ICU/Non-ICU)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.99|0.41|0.04
90928258|NCT00724126|181735961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.03|||||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value was obtained from a logistic regression model with fixed effects for treatment arm and analysis center.||||||0.03
90928259|NCT00724126|181735962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.02|||||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value was obtained from a logistic regression model with fixed effects for treatment arm and analysis center.||||||0.02
90928260|NCT03577106|181735966|OTHER||||||<|0.005||||||t(20)=3.3, p\<0.005|paired t-test|||Mean difference using a paired t-test||||<0.005
90928261|NCT03601715|181735984|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||Bonferroni post-hoc tests.|ANOVA|||Based on a pilot test with eight subjects, we calculated that we would need 18 subjects to give 90% power to detect the most efficient arrangement with a α level of .05. Considering losses to follow up , we increased the sample size by 10%.|Effect size was calculated through partial eta squared and correlated using Cohen index (.1 to .3 as small, .3 to .5 as medium, and over .5 as large).|||<0.05
90971273|NCT04311502|181825264|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.28|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.11|0.44|||Wald chi-square test||Difference in cumulative proportions (Arm 1 - Arm 2)|"The point estimate and 90% two-sided confidence intervals for the difference in cumulative proportions of participants experiencing a Grade 3 or higher AE that is at least one-grade increase from baseline at any time during the 65-week study period was compared between Arm 1 and Arm 2.~All data through week 65."||0.44|0.11|<0.01
90965700|NCT02234284|181812928|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|Outcomes were by group assignment (intention to treat) using generalized linear models adjusted for baseline levels of variable and clustering.|Value is for rate of non-COPD-related hospitalizations for participants in Health Coached arm minus rate for Usual Care, adjusted for baseline values and for clustering.|Outcomes were compared by group assignment using generalized linear models (GLMs) with a normal distribution for continuous outcomes), Poisson distribution for count outcomes (e.g. exacerbations and hospitalizations), and binomial distribution for binary outcomes. In all models, baseline levels of the outcome were entered as a predictor and follow-up levels as the dependent variable, with use of a robust standard error to account for clustering.||0.04|-0.20|.37
90965701|NCT02234284|181812929|SUPERIORITY||difference in proportion|-18.9||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.1|-4.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|Outcomes were by group assignment (intention to treat) using generalized linear models adjusted for baseline levels of variable and clustering.|Value is for proportion (%) of participants in Health Coached arm minus proportion in Usual Care, adjusted for baseline values and for clustering.|Outcomes were compared by group assignment using generalized linear models (GLMs) with a normal distribution for continuous outcomes), Poisson distribution for count outcomes (e.g. exacerbations and hospitalizations), and binomial distribution for binary outcomes. In all models, baseline levels of the outcome were entered as a predictor and follow-up levels as the dependent variable, with use of a robust standard error to account for clustering.||-4.8|-33.1|.01
90965702|NCT02234284|181812930|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.6||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|25.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||Value is for proportion (%) of participants in Health Coached arm minus proportion in Usual Care, adjusted for baseline values and for clustering.|Outcomes were compared by group assignment using generalized linear models (GLMs) with a normal distribution for continuous outcomes), Poisson distribution for count outcomes (e.g. exacerbations and hospitalizations), and binomial distribution for binary outcomes. In all models, baseline levels of the outcome were entered as a predictor and follow-up levels as the dependent variable, with use of a robust standard error to account for clustering.||25.9|3.3|.01
90965703|NCT01576172|181813004|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.27
90965704|NCT01576172|181813005|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t=-0.39 on 112.7 degrees of freedom (Satterthwaite)||||||0.70
90965705|NCT01576172|181813006|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.51
90965706|NCT01576172|181813007|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.99
90965707|NCT01576172|181813008|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.62
90965708|NCT03496324|181813009|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was demonstrated between NfC® and Algifor® Junior if each 90% confidence interval (CI) (rounded to 2 decimal places) for the ratio between least square geometric means (test / reference) lay within 80% and 125% for Cmax.|Geometric Least Square Mean|94.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.81|103.38||||||||103.38|85.81|
90965709|NCT03496324|181813009|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was demonstrated between NfC® and Algifor® Junior if each 90% CI (rounded to 2 decimal places) for the ratio between least square geometric means (test / reference) lay within 80% and 125% for Cmax.|Geometric Least Square Mean|111.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.84|120.07||||||||120.07|103.84|
90965710|NCT03496324|181813010|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was demonstrated between NfC® and Algifor® Junior if each 90% CI (rounded to 2 decimal places) for the ratio between least square geometric means (test / reference) lay within 80% and 125% for AUC0-t.|Geometric Least Square Mean|101.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.28|107.16||||||||107.16|96.28|
90965711|NCT03496324|181813010|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was demonstrated between NfC® and Algifor® Junior if each 90% CI (rounded to 2 decimal places) for the ratio between least square geometric means (test / reference) lay within 80% and 125% for AUC0-t.|Geometric Least Square Mean|104.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.4|107.63||||||||107.63|101.4|
90965712|NCT02092350|181813017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||One-sided exact test|||The primary hypothesis was that the SVR12 rate in the Immediate Treatment plus Intensive PK arm would be \>45%.||||0.001
90965713|NCT00646906|181813028|SUPERIORITY|An analysis of variance, appropriate for a three factor experiment with cohort and dose as non-repeated factors and repeated measure order arranged in a two period cross-over design, was performed.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||The primary hypothesis is that acetaminophen given two hours before aspirin will antagonize the effects of aspirin, while reversing the order of administration will not. Percent change from start (8:00 am on day 1) to finish (8:00 am on day 7) of period in serum thromboxane B2 for each order of drug administration will be primary endpoint of interest.||||>0.05
90965714|NCT00646906|181813029|SUPERIORITY|An analysis of variance, appropriate for a three factor experiment with cohort and dose as non-repeated factors and repeated measure order arranged in a two period cross-over design, was performed.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
90965715|NCT00240981|181813043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|129.8||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.9|215.6||The unadjusted analysis using two-sample Student's t-tests of equal change in the trial groups, allowing unequal variance.|t-test, 2 sided|||||215.6|43.9|0.003
90965716|NCT00240981|181813043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|129.4||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.5|215.4||Adjusted analysis used multiple linear regression, with adjustment for baseline total score on the Short Physical Performance Battery, and self-report of limitations in mobility.|Regression, Linear|||||215.4|43.5|0.004
90965717|NCT00240981|181813044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|34.5||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.2|55.8||Unadjusted|t-test, 2 sided|||||55.8|13.2|0.002
90965718|NCT00240981|181813044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|34.5||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.1|56.2||Adjusted|Regression, Linear|||||56.2|13.1|0.002
90965719|NCT00240981|181813045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.7||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|26.7||Unadjusted|t-test, 2 sided|||||26.7|-9.2|0.34
90928262|NCT03601715|181735985|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||Bonferroni post-hoc tests.|ANOVA|||Based on a pilot test with eight subjects, we calculated that we would need 18 subjects to give 90% power to detect the most efficient arrangement with a α level of .05. Considering losses to follow up , we increased the sample size by 10%.|Effect size was calculated through partial eta squared and correlated using Cohen index (.1 to .3 as small, .3 to .5 as medium, and over .5 as large).|||<0.05
90928263|NCT03601715|181735986|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||Bonferroni post-hoc tests.|ANOVA|||Based on a pilot test with eight subjects, we calculated that we would need 18 subjects to give 90% power to detect the most efficient arrangement with a α level of .05. Considering losses to follow up , we increased the sample size by 10%.|Effect size was calculated through partial eta squared and correlated using Cohen index (.1 to .3 as small, .3 to .5 as medium, and over .5 as large).|||<0.05
90928264|NCT02347332|181735987|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8329|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Threshold significance value p\<0.05|Log Rank|||||||0.8329
90928265|NCT02347332|181735988|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3576|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Threshold significance value p\<0.05|Log Rank|||||||0.3576
90928266|NCT02347332|181735989|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Threshold significance value p\<0.05|Log Rank|||||||0.467
90928267|NCT02347332|181735990|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.243|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Threshold significance value p\<0.05|Log Rank|||||||0.243
90928268|NCT02347332|181735991|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6289|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Threshold significance value p\<0.05|Log Rank|||||||0.6289
90928269|NCT01478594|181735995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.091||||0.706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.693|1.718|||Log Rank|Stratification factors were LDH status (\< 1.5 x ULN or ≥ 1.5 x ULN), origin of cancer (rectal or colon) and number of metastatic sites (1 or ≥ 2).|HR presented for the stratified analysis, which was based on the Cox proportional hazards model. Assuming proportional hazards, an HR \< 1 indicates a reduction in the HR in favor of tivozanib.|An interim futility analysis was to be performed when approximately 83 PFS events (50% of the total PFS events) were observed. The Lans DeMets beta spending function with an O'Brien-Fleming boundary was used to derive the futility boundary. If the hazard ratio (HR) for PFS was greater than 1.0581, enrollment was to be stopped. With this futility stopping rule, the adjusted study power was 78.6%.||1.718|0.693|0.706
90928270|NCT01478594|181735997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.116||||0.754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.561|2.218|||Log Rank|Stratification factors were LDH status (\< 1.5 x ULN or ≥ 1.5 x ULN), origin of cancer (rectal or colon) and number of metastatic sites (1 or ≥ 2).|HR presented for the stratified analysis, which was based on the Cox proportional hazards model. Assuming proportional hazards, an HR \< 1 indicates a reduction in the HR in favor of tivozanib.|||2.218|0.561|0.754
90928271|NCT01478594|181735998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.718|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification factors were LDH status (\< 1.5 x ULN or ≥ 1.5 x ULN), origin of cancer (rectal or colon) and number of metastatic sites (1 or ≥ 2).||||||0.718
90928272|NCT01478594|181735999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.389||||0.437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.604|3.194|||Log Rank|Stratification factors were LDH status (\< 1.5 x ULN or ≥ 1.5 x ULN), origin of cancer (rectal or colon) and number of metastatic sites (1 or ≥ 2).|HR presented for the stratified analysis, which was based on the Cox proportional hazards model. Assuming proportional hazards, an HR \< 1 indicates a reduction in the HR in favor of tivozanib.|||3.194|0.604|0.437
90928273|NCT01478594|181736000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.006||||0.967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.746|1.358|||Log Rank|Stratification factors were LDH status (\< 1.5 x ULN or ≥ 1.5 x ULN), origin of cancer (rectal or colon) and number of metastatic sites (1 or ≥ 2).|HR presented for the stratified analysis, which was based on the Cox proportional hazards model. Assuming proportional hazards, an HR \< 1 indicates a reduction in the HR in favor of tivozanib.|||1.358|0.746|0.967
90928274|NCT01478594|181736003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.331|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.746|2.375|||||The hazard ratio was calculated using an unadjusted Cox proportional hazard model including treatment arms as the covariate. Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Tivozanib arm.|||2.375|0.746|
90928275|NCT01478594|181736003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.575|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.285|1.16|||||The hazard ratio was calculated using an unadjusted Cox proportional hazard model including treatment arms as the covariate. Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Tivozanib arm.|||1.160|0.285|
90928276|NCT01478594|181736004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.608|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.635|4.073|||||The hazard ratio was calculated using an unadjusted Cox proportional hazard model including treatment arms as the covariate. Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Tivozanib arm.|||4.073|0.635|
90928277|NCT01478594|181736004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.755|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.375|1.521|||||The hazard ratio was calculated using an unadjusted Cox proportional hazard model including treatment arms as the covariate. Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Tivozanib arm.|||1.521|0.375|
90928278|NCT01478594|181736005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.877|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.366|2.1|||||The hazard ratio was calculated using an unadjusted Cox proportional hazard model including treatment arms as the covariate. Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Tivozanib arm.|||2.100|0.366|
90928279|NCT01478594|181736005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.275|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.614|2.646|||||The hazard ratio was calculated using an unadjusted Cox proportional hazard model including treatment arms as the covariate. Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Tivozanib arm.|||2.646|0.614|
90965720|NCT00240981|181813045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.1||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|26.2||Adjusted.|Regression, Linear|||||26.2|-9.9|0.37
90965721|NCT00240981|181813046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.27||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.7||Unadjusted|t-test, 2 sided|||||1.7|-1.1|0.69
90965722|NCT00240981|181813046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.26||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.7||Adjusted.|Regression, Linear|||||1.7|-1.1|0.71
90928280|NCT01478594|181736006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.721|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.345|1.507|||||The hazard ratio was calculated using an unadjusted Cox proportional hazard model including treatment arms as the covariate. Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Tivozanib arm.|||1.507|0.345|
90928281|NCT01478594|181736006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.597|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.672|3.795|||||The hazard ratio was calculated using an unadjusted Cox proportional hazard model including treatment arms as the covariate. Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Tivozanib arm.|||3.795|0.672|
90928282|NCT01478594|181736007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.627|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|4.564|||||The hazard ratio was calculated using an unadjusted Cox proportional hazard model including treatment arms as the covariate. Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Tivozanib arm.|||4.564|0.580|
90928283|NCT01478594|181736007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.779|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.397|1.531|||||The hazard ratio was calculated using an unadjusted Cox proportional hazard model including treatment arms as the covariate. Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Tivozanib arm.|||1.531|0.397|
90928284|NCT01478594|181736008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.946|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.636|5.956|||||The hazard ratio was calculated using an unadjusted Cox proportional hazard model including treatment arms as the covariate. Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Tivozanib arm.|||5.956|0.636|
90928285|NCT01478594|181736008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.806|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.422|1.538|||||The hazard ratio was calculated using an unadjusted Cox proportional hazard model including treatment arms as the covariate. Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Tivozanib arm.|||1.538|0.422|
90928286|NCT01478594|181736009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.776|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.303|1.991|||||The hazard ratio was calculated using an unadjusted Cox proportional hazard model including treatment arms as the covariate. Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Tivozanib arm.|||1.991|0.303|
90928287|NCT01478594|181736009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.241|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.615|2.501|||||The hazard ratio was calculated using an unadjusted Cox proportional hazard model including treatment arms as the covariate. Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Tivozanib arm.|||2.501|0.615|
90928288|NCT01478594|181736010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.343|2.63|||||The hazard ratio was calculated using an unadjusted Cox proportional hazard model including treatment arms as the covariate. Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Tivozanib arm.|||2.630|0.343|
90928289|NCT01478594|181736010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.983|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.503|1.918|||||The hazard ratio was calculated using an unadjusted Cox proportional hazard model including treatment arms as the covariate. Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Tivozanib arm.|||1.918|0.503|
90928290|NCT01478594|181736011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.226|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.468|3.214|||||The hazard ratio was calculated using an unadjusted Cox proportional hazard model including treatment arms as the covariate. Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Tivozanib arm.|||3.214|0.468|
90928291|NCT01478594|181736011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.232|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.447|3.396|||||The hazard ratio was calculated using an unadjusted Cox proportional hazard model including treatment arms as the covariate. Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Tivozanib arm.|||3.396|0.447|
90928292|NCT01478594|181736012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.803|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.307|2.1|||||The hazard ratio was calculated using an unadjusted Cox proportional hazard model including treatment arms as the covariate. Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Tivozanib arm.|||2.100|0.307|
90928293|NCT01478594|181736012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.505|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.585|3.873|||||The hazard ratio was calculated using an unadjusted Cox proportional hazard model including treatment arms as the covariate. Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Tivozanib arm.|||3.873|0.585|
90928294|NCT01478594|181736013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.921|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.356|2.385|||||The hazard ratio was calculated using an unadjusted Cox proportional hazard model including treatment arms as the covariate. Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Tivozanib arm.|||2.385|0.356|
90928295|NCT01478594|181736013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.462|3.22|||||The hazard ratio was calculated using an unadjusted Cox proportional hazard model including treatment arms as the covariate. Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Tivozanib arm.|||3.220|0.462|
90965723|NCT00240981|181813047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.035|0.135||Unadjusted.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.135|-0.035|0.26
90965724|NCT00240981|181813047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.048||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.037|0.133||Adjusted|Regression, Linear|||||0.133|-0.037|0.27
90965725|NCT00240981|181813048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|30.2||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|60.1||Unadjusted.|t-test, 2 sided|||||60.1|0.3|0.05
90965726|NCT00240981|181813048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|29.7||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|59.3||Adjusted|Regression, Linear|||||59.3|0.2|0.05
90928296|NCT01478594|181736014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.915|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.334|2.512|||||The hazard ratio was calculated using an unadjusted Cox proportional hazard model including treatment arms as the covariate. Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Tivozanib arm.|||2.512|0.334|
90928297|NCT01478594|181736014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.384|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.554|3.455|||||The hazard ratio was calculated using an unadjusted Cox proportional hazard model including treatment arms as the covariate. Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Tivozanib arm.|||3.455|0.554|
90928298|NCT01478594|181736015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.538|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.548|4.32|||||The hazard ratio was calculated using an unadjusted Cox proportional hazard model including treatment arms as the covariate. Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Tivozanib arm.|||4.320|0.548|
90928299|NCT01478594|181736015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.744|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.299|1.85|||||The hazard ratio was calculated using an unadjusted Cox proportional hazard model including treatment arms as the covariate. Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Tivozanib arm.|||1.850|0.299|
90928300|NCT01970007|181736018|OTHER||Freedom from MAE rate (%)|96.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.5|98.6|||One-sided Exact binomial test||One-sided Exact binomial test|||98.6|93.5|<0.0001
90928301|NCT01970007|181736019|OTHER||12-month quantitative patency rate (%)|89.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|85.1|93.4|||Binomial test for one proportion||Binomial test for one proportion|||93.4|85.1|<0.0001
90928302|NCT01970007|181736020|OTHER||Change from Baseline Mean|-3.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-2.6||P-value is adjusted for multiplicity|paired t-test|A paired t-test with p-values adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Holm's procedure to control for a family-wise Type I error rate of 0.05.||||-2.6|-3.5|<0.0001
90928303|NCT01970007|181736021|OTHER||Change from Baseline Mean|-4.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|-3.7||p-value is adjusted for multiplicity.|pair t-test|A paired t-test with p-values adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Holm's procedure to control for a family-wise Type I error rate of 0.05||||-3.7|-4.7|<0.0001
90965727|NCT00240981|181813050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.8||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.5||Month 3 Measures|t-test, 2 sided|||||2.5|1.2|0.2
90965728|NCT00240981|181813050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.2||Month 6 Measures|t-test, 2 sided|||||2.2|0.4|<.0001
90965729|NCT00240981|181813051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.7||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.6||3 Months Measures|t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.6|-2.7|0.002
90965730|NCT00240981|181813051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-1.2||6 Month Measures|t-test, 2 sided|||||-1.2|-2.8|<.0001
90965731|NCT00240981|181813052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.074||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.19||Unadjusted.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.19|-0.05|0.24
90965732|NCT00240981|181813052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.09||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.209||Adjusted.|Regression, Linear|||||0.209|-0.030|0.14
90965733|NCT00369785|181813060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.62||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Null Hypothesis: No difference in immediate recall memory at 24 weeks||||.62
90965734|NCT00369785|181813061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.007||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Null Hypothesis: No difference in discrimination memory between the two groups||||.007
90965735|NCT00800683|181813062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.89|-0.31|||ANCOVA|||For patients who received rescue medication during the course of the trial, the Oracle Clinical (OC) technique was utilised for all efficacy endpoints and the values were set to missing after the rescue medication was administered.||-0.31|-0.89|< 0.0001
90965736|NCT00800683|181813063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.03|-0.41|||ANCOVA|||||-0.41|-1.03|< 0.0001
90965737|NCT00800683|181813064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.9|-0.33|||ANCOVA|||||-0.33|-0.90|< 0.0001
90965738|NCT00800683|181813065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.96|-0.41|||ANCOVA|||||-0.41|-0.96|< 0.0001
90965739|NCT00800683|181813066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.05|-0.39|||ANCOVA|||||-0.39|-1.05|< 0.0001
90965740|NCT00800683|181813067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.06|-0.44|||ANCOVA|||||-0.44|-1.06|< 0.0001
90965741|NCT00800683|181813068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.96|-0.33|||ANCOVA|||||-0.33|-0.96|< 0.0001
90965742|NCT00800683|181813069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.02|-0.44|||ANCOVA|||||-0.44|-1.02|< 0.0001
90965743|NCT00800683|181813070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1199||95.0||||P-value calculated using a Fisher's exact Test.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.1199
90965744|NCT00800683|181813071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.103||||0.2225||95.0|0.003|3.978|||Regression, Logistic|||Linagliptin vs Placebo. The odds-ratio is based on a logistic regression model including baseline HbA1c, previous anti-diabetic medication and creatinine clearance||3.978|0.003|0.2225
90965745|NCT00800683|181813072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.816||||0.8927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.042|15.756|||Regression, Logistic|||Linagliptin vs Placebo. The odds-ratio is based on a logistic regression model including baseline HbA1c, previous anti-diabetic medication and creatinine clearance||15.756|0.042|0.8927
90965746|NCT00800683|181813073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.43||0.8802||95.0|-24.36|20.91|||ANCOVA|||||20.91|-24.36|0.8802
90965747|NCT00800683|181813074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.19||0.7848||95.0|-18.47|13.98|||ANCOVA|||||13.98|-18.47|0.7848
90965748|NCT00800683|181813075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.09||0.1878||95.0|-26.74|5.31|||ANCOVA|||||5.31|-26.74|0.1878
90965749|NCT00800683|181813076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.92||0.5781||95.0|-11.28|20.12|||ANCOVA|||||20.12|-11.28|0.5781
90965750|NCT00800683|181813077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.8||0.2954||95.0|-26.67|8.18|||ANCOVA|||||8.18|-26.67|0.2954
90965751|NCT00800683|181813078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.27||0.5984||95.0|-12.02|20.75|||ANCOVA|||||20.75|-12.02|0.5984
90965752|NCT00800683|181813079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.53||0.4085||95.0|-9.82|23.96|||ANCOVA|||||23.96|-9.82|0.4085
90965753|NCT00800683|181813080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.17||0.8698||95.0|-14.84|17.52|||ANCOVA|||||17.52|-14.84|0.8698
90965754|NCT02247960|181813094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.00
90965755|NCT00953719|181813105|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The prospectively planned primary endpoint analysis was a non-inferiority test of covariate adjusted 24 month or later Harris Hip score means with a 5 point non-inferiority margin. A prospective power analysis with an anticipated Harris Hip score standard deviation of 10.08 (for both treatment groups) indicated that sample sizes of 134 and 67 would provide approximately 95% statistical power for this non-inferiority test with a type 1 error rate of 5%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.24|<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-1.4||||ANCOVA||||||-1.40|<0.001
90965756|NCT00953719|181813111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.079||||0.952||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|SAS PROC MIXED was used with an ante-dependence covariance structure.||A repeated measurements longitudinal model of Harris Hip scores was carried out to compare Harris Hip results between treatment groups across time.||||0.952
90965757|NCT01910116|181813125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Assuming that an improvement in AUSCAN pain score of \>10 is clinically meaningful, and assuming an alpha level of 0.05 (two-tailed), a power of 0.80, and a dropout rate of 20%, the sample size calculation revealed that 220 patients should be enrolled.||||0.014
90965758|NCT01910116|181813126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.011
90965759|NCT01910116|181813127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.053|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.053
90965760|NCT01910116|181813128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.014
90965761|NCT01910116|181813129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.728|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.728
90965762|NCT01910116|181813130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.229|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.229
90965763|NCT01910116|181813131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.194|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.194
90965764|NCT01910116|181813132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.347|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.347
90965765|NCT01910116|181813133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.122|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.122
90965766|NCT01910116|181813134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.097|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.097
90965767|NCT01910116|181813136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.050
90965768|NCT01910116|181813137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.031
90965769|NCT01910116|181813138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.021
90965770|NCT01910116|181813139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.049
90965771|NCT01910116|181813140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.221|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.221
90965772|NCT01910116|181813141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.174|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.174
90965773|NCT01910116|181813142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.124|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.124
90965774|NCT01910116|181813143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.128|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.128
90965775|NCT01910116|181813144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.126|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.126
90965776|NCT01910116|181813145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.042|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.042
90965777|NCT01910116|181813146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.660
90965778|NCT01910116|181813147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.006
90965779|NCT01910116|181813148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.186|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.186
90965780|NCT01910116|181813149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.493|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.493
90965781|NCT01910116|181813150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.062|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.062
90965782|NCT01910116|181813151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.604|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.604
90965783|NCT01910116|181813152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.252|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.252
90965784|NCT01910116|181813153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.378|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.378
90965785|NCT01910116|181813154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.485|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.485
90965786|NCT01910116|181813155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
90965787|NCT01910116|181813156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.683|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.683
90965788|NCT01910116|181813157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.036
90965789|NCT01910116|181813158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.022
90965790|NCT01910116|181813159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.017
90965791|NCT01910116|181813160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.060
90965792|NCT02289352|181813162|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% confidence interval for the absolute difference between the proportion of patients considered a treatment success (at least a 2-grade improvement on both CEA and PSA over 6 hours+/-10 minutes) in the Test and Reference groups is contained within the range \[-20%, +20%\], then bioequivalence of the Test product to the Reference product is considered to have been demonstrated.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.49|5.33||||||||5.33|-6.49|
90965793|NCT02289352|181813162|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90965794|NCT02289352|181813162|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91035338|NCT03868891|181956612|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank|||inflation test at 2 months compared with baseline; EMST150 + Eustachi not included because visit 2 measurements only available for 1 participant (2 ears)||||1.00
90965795|NCT02289352|181813163|EQUIVALENCE|"The secondary efficacy variable is the proportion of patients with a clinical response of treatment success on Day 1.~If the 90% confidence interval for the absolute difference between the proportion of patients considered a treatment success (at least a 2-grade improvement on both the CEA and PSA over 6 hours+/-10 minutes) in the Test and Reference groups is contained within the range \[-20%, 20%\], then bioequivalence of the Test to Reference product is considered to have been demonstrated."|Mean Difference (Net)|6.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.54|15.41||||||||15.41|-1.54|
90965796|NCT02289352|181813163|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90965797|NCT02289352|181813163|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0045|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0045
90965798|NCT03606980|181813164|EQUIVALENCE|p\<0.05 was considered statistically significant. A 95% confidence interval was computed using logistic regression model.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.11||||0.0366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.073|9.005|||Cox proportional hazards analysis|||||9.005|1.073|0.0366
90965799|NCT03606980|181813164|EQUIVALENCE|p\<0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.16||||0.0232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.215|14.273|||Cox proportional hazards analysis|||||14.273|1.215|0.0232
90965800|NCT03606980|181813164|EQUIVALENCE|p\<0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.24||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.389|4.615|||Cox proportional hazards analysis|||||4.615|0.389|0.64
90965801|NCT03606980|181813165|EQUIVALENCE|All statistical tests were two-sided, and p\<0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.86|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.86
90965802|NCT03606980|181813166|EQUIVALENCE|p\<00.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.25|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.25
90965803|NCT03606980|181813167|EQUIVALENCE|p\<0.05 considered statistically significant.||||||0.29|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.29
90965804|NCT03606980|181813168|EQUIVALENCE|All statistical tests were performed using the SAS Studio. All statistical tests were two-sided, and p\<0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.57|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.57
90965805|NCT01196533|181813169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||||||||||||||All data in the outcome measure table is presenting the percentage of error.|||
90965806|NCT02374021|181813170|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.15|||ANCOVA|||||0.15|-0.19|0.79
90965807|NCT02374021|181813171|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.17|||ANCOVA|||||0.17|-0.14|0.05
90965808|NCT02374021|181813172|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.18|||ANCOVA|||||0.18|-0.11|0.05
90965809|NCT02374021|181813173|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.003||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.19|||ANCOVA|||||0.19|-0.20|0.05
90965810|NCT02374021|181813174|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.16|||ANCOVA|||||0.16|-0.17|0.05
90965811|NCT02807480|181813202|OTHER|Correlation between conflict approach behavior and GAD-7 scores at baseline|Pearson correlation|0.23||||0.088|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson correlation|||||||.088
90965812|NCT02807480|181813202|OTHER||Pearson correlation|-0.2||||0.134|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson correlation|||Correlation of baseline response time during conflict with baseline GAD-7 scores.||||.134
90965813|NCT02807480|181813202|OTHER||Pearson correlation|0.12||||0.032|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson correlation|||Correlation of baseline striatum response to points (reward) with baseline GAD-7 scores.||||.032
90965814|NCT02807480|181813202|OTHER||Pearson correlation|-0.12||||0.375|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson correlation|||Correlation of baseline right amygdala activity during negative images with baseline GAD7 scores||||0.375
90965815|NCT02807480|181813202|OTHER||Pearson correlation|0.06||||0.651|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson correlation|||Correlation of baseline right dlPFC activity during conflict decision-making with baseline GAD-7 scores.||||.651
90965816|NCT02807480|181813202|OTHER|Correlation of baseline striatum response to negative pictures with baseline GAD-7 scores.|Pearson correlation|-0.35||||0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson correlation|||||||.008
90965817|NCT02807480|181813203|OTHER||Slope|-1.51||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.62|-0.41||The a priori threshold for statistical significance after Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was p\<.0071.|Regression, Linear||Those with lower levels of baseline left amygdala response to positive picture outcomes had favorable GAD symptom improvements in BA and limited GAD symptom improvements in EXP.|Assess left amygdala response to positive picture decision outcomes as a predictor of GAD-7 symptom improvement: time x L. Amyg x treatment-arm interaction||-0.41|-2.62|.007
90965818|NCT02807480|181813203|OTHER||Slope|0.36||||0.238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.97|||Regression, Linear|||Baseline approach behavior during conflict trials predicting trajectory of GAD-7 symptoms: time main effect||0.97|-0.24|0.238
90965819|NCT02807480|181813203|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.49||||0.262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|0.37|||Regression, Linear|||Relationship between baseline approach behavior on conflict trials and the trajectory of GAD-7 symptoms: time x treatment interaction effect||0.37|-1.36|.262
90965820|NCT02807480|181813203|OTHER||Slope|2.37||||0.222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|6.19|||Regression, Linear|||relationship between baseline response time on conflict trials and trajectory of GAD-7 symptoms: time main effects||6.19|-1.44|.222
90965821|NCT02807480|181813203|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.23||||0.942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.48|6.02|||Regression, Linear|||Relationship between baseline average RT during conflict trials on the AAC and trajectory of GAD-7 symptoms: time x treatment interaction effect||6.02|-6.48|.942
90965822|NCT02807480|181813203|OTHER||Slope|-0.05||||0.932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.1|||Regression, Linear|||Relationship of striatum activity during points outcomes (reward) with GAD-7 trajectory: time main effects||1.1|-1.2|.932
90965823|NCT02807480|181813203|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.08||||0.922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.53|||Regression, Linear|||Relationship of striatum activity during points outcomes (reward) with GAD-7 trajectory: time x treatment interaction effects||1.53|-1.7|.922
90965824|NCT02807480|181813203|OTHER||Slope|0.0||||0.998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.99|||Regression, Linear|||Relationship of right amygdala activity during negative images with GAD-7 trajectory: time main effects||.99|-.99|.998
90965825|NCT02807480|181813203|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.88||||0.234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|0.57|||Regression, Linear|||Relationship of right amygdala activity during negative images with GAD-7 trajectory: time x treatment interaction||.57|-2.34|.234
90965826|NCT02807480|181813203|OTHER||Slope|-0.03||||0.967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|1.47|||Regression, Linear|||Relationship of right dlPFC activity during conflict decisions with GAD-7 trajectory: time main effects||1.47|-1.53|.967
90965827|NCT02807480|181813203|OTHER||Slope|0.74||||0.504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|2.91|||Regression, Linear|||Relationship of right dlPFC activity during conflict decision-making with GAD-7 trajectory: time x treatment interaction effect||2.91|-1.43|0.504
90965828|NCT02807480|181813203|OTHER||Slope|-1.68||||0.612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.21|4.84|||Regression, Linear|||Change in conflict arbitration (AAC conflict RTpost-RTpre) predicting trajectories of GAD-7 scores over the 10 sessions: Time x RT\_Change interaction||4.84|-8.21|0.612
90965829|NCT02807480|181813203|SUPERIORITY||Slope|5.08||||0.259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.76|13.92|||Regression, Linear|||change in conflict arbitration response time (AAC conflict RTpost-RTpre) predicting trajectories of GAD-7 scores over 10 sessions: RT\_Change x Time x Treatment interaction||13.92|-3.76|.259
90965830|NCT02807480|181813203|OTHER||Slope|-0.53||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|0.3|||Regression, Linear|||Change in behavior (AAC conflict post-pre) in predicting trajectories of GAD-7 scores over the 10 sessions: Time x Behavior\_change interaction||0.30|-1.35|.209
90965831|NCT02807480|181813203|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.53||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|2.73|||Regression, Linear|||Change in behavior (AAC conflict post-pre) in predicting trajectories of GAD-7 scores over the 10 sessions: Time x Behavior\_change x Treatment interaction||2.73|0.33|0.013
90965832|NCT02807480|181813204|OTHER||Slope|-2.95||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.06|-0.84||The a priori threshold for statistical significance after Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was p\<.0125.|Regression, Linear|||Baseline emotional conflict, a computational parameter reflecting avoidance relative to reward value, as a predictor of the linear trajectory of symptom change over time: time x EC interaction||-0.84|-5.06|0.006
90965833|NCT02807480|181813204|OTHER||Slope|-1.02||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|-0.36|||Regression, Linear|||Assess avoidance behavior on conflict trials as a predictor of PROMIS Anxiety symptom improvement: time x avoidance interaction||-0.36|-1.68|0.003
90965834|NCT02807480|181813204|OTHER||Slope|-1.88||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.89|-0.87||The a priori threshold for statistical significance after Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was p\<.0071.|Regression, Linear|||Assess left dlPFC response to baseline negative picture decision outcomes as a predictor of PROMIS Anxiety symptom improvement: time x L. dlPFC interaction||-0.87|-2.89|.007
90965835|NCT02807480|181813204|OTHER||Slope|1.02||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.68|||Regression, Linear|||Relationships between baseline average approach behavior during conflict trials on the AAC and trajectory of PROMIS Anxiety symptoms||1.68|0.36|.003
90965836|NCT02807480|181813204|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.54||||0.258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|0.4|||Regression, Linear|||Relationships between baseline average approach behavior during conflict trials on the AAC and trajectory of PROMIS Anxiety symptoms: time x treatment x approach behavior interaction||0.4|-1.48|.258
90965837|NCT02807480|181813204|OTHER||Slope|1.3||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.08|5.69|||Regression, Linear|||Relationships between baseline average RT during conflict trials on the AAC and trajectory of PROMIS Anxiety symptoms: time x approach behavior interaction||5.69|-3.08|.56
90965838|NCT02807480|181813204|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.77||||0.629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.95|5.41|||Regression, Linear|||Relationships between baseline average RT (response time) during conflict trials on the AAC and trajectory of PROMIS Anxiety symptoms: time x treatment x RT interaction||5.41|-8.95|.629
90965839|NCT02807480|181813204|OTHER||Slope|-0.21||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|1.09|||Regression, Linear|||Relationship of striatum activity during points outcomes (reward) with PROMIS ANXIETY trajectory: time x striatum interaction effects||1.09|-1.51|0.75
90965840|NCT02807480|181813204|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.27||||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|3.09|||Regression, Linear|||Relationship of striatum activity during points outcomes (reward) with PROMIS Anxiety trajectory: time x treatment x striatum interaction effects||3.09|-0.54|.169
90965841|NCT02807480|181813204|OTHER||Slope|0.15||||0.792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.31|||Regression, Linear|||Relationship of right amygdala activity during negative images with PROMIS Anxiety trajectory: time x amygdala interaction||1.31|-1.00|0.792
90965842|NCT02807480|181813204|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.73||||0.396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|0.96|||Regression, Linear|||Relationship of right amygdala activity during negative images with PROMIS Anxiety trajectory: time x treatment amygdala interaction||0.96|-2.41|.396
90965843|NCT02807480|181813204|OTHER||Slope|-1.55||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.4|||Regression, Linear|||Relationship of right dlPFC activity during negative images with PROMIS Anxiety trajectory: time x dlPFC interaction||-0.4|-2.7|.009
90965844|NCT02807480|181813204|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.28||||0.724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|1.84|||Regression, Linear|||Relationship of right dlPFC activity during negative images with PROMIS Anxiety trajectory: time x treatment dlPFC interaction||1.84|-1.28|0.724
90965845|NCT02807480|181813204|OTHER||Slope|-4.99||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.79|2.8|||Regression, Linear|||Change in conflict arbitration response time (AAC conflict RT post-pre) predicting trajectories of GAD-7 scores over the 10 sessions: Time x RT\_change interaction||2.80|-12.79|.209
90965846|NCT02807480|181813204|SUPERIORITY||Slope|12.68||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.23|23.13|||Regression, Linear|||Change in conflict arbitration response time (AAC conflict RT post-pre) predicting trajectories of GAD-7 scores over the 10 sessions: Time x Treatment x RT\_change interaction||23.13|2.23|0.017
90965847|NCT02807480|181813204|OTHER||Slope|-0.58||||0.259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|0.43|||Regression, Linear|||Change in behavior (AAC conflict post-pre) predicting trajectories of GAD-7 scores over the 10 sessions: Time x Behavior\_change interaction||0.43|-1.59|.259
90965848|NCT02807480|181813204|OTHER||Slope|1.07||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|2.54|||Regression, Linear|||Change in behavior (AAC conflict post-pre) predicting trajectories of GAD-7 scores over the 10 sessions: Time x Treatment x Behavior\_change interaction||2.54|-0.39|.150
90965849|NCT02807480|181813205|OTHER||Slope|-3.52||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.57|-1.47||The a priori threshold for statistical significance after Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was p\<.0125.|Regression, Linear|||Assess emotional conflict, a computational parameter reflecting avoidance relative to reward value, as a predictor of PROMIS Depression scores. Time x EC interaction.||-1.47|-5.57|0.001
90965850|NCT02807480|181813205|OTHER||Slope|-1.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.91|-0.95||The a priori threshold for statistical significance after Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was p\<.0125.|Regression, Linear|||Baseline left dlPFC response to negative pictures as a predictor of PROMIS depression symptom improvement: time x L. dlFPC interaction.||-0.95|-2.91|<.001
90965851|NCT02807480|181813205|OTHER||Slope|-2.02||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|-0.13||Threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||Baseline striatum response to monetary outcomes as a predictor of improvement in depressive symptoms: time x treatment x striatum interaction.||-0.13|-3.9|.036
90965852|NCT02807480|181813205|OTHER||Slope|-1.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|-0.58||The a priori threshold for statistical significance after Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was p\<.0125.|Regression, Linear|||Relationships between baseline average approach behavior during conflict trials on the AAC and trajectory of PROMIS Depression symptoms: time x approach behavior interaction||-0.58|-1.85|<.001
90965853|NCT02807480|181813205|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.91||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|0.0|||Regression, Linear|||Relationships between baseline average approach behavior during conflict trials on the AAC and trajectory of PROMIS Depression symptoms: time x treatment x approach behavior interaction||0.00|-1.81|.049
90965854|NCT02807480|181813205|OTHER||Slope|0.6||||0.778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|4.81|||Regression, Linear|||Relationships between baseline average RT during conflict trials on the AAC and trajectory of PROMIS Depression symptoms: time x RT interaction||4.81|-3.6|.778
90965855|NCT02807480|181813205|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.38||||0.696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.56|8.31|||Regression, Linear|||Relationships between baseline average RT during conflict trials on the AAC and trajectory of PROMIS Depression symptoms: time x treatment x RT interaction||8.31|-5.56|.696
90965856|NCT02807480|181813205|OTHER||Slope|0.44||||0.503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|1.71|||Regression, Linear|||Relationship of striatum activity during points outcomes (reward) with PROMIS Depression trajectory: time x striatum interaction effects||1.71|-0.84|.503
90965857|NCT02807480|181813205|OTHER||Slope|-0.9||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|0.22|||Regression, Linear|||Relationship of right amygdala activity during negative images with PROMIS Depression trajectory: time x amygdala interaction||.22|-2.02|.114
90965858|NCT02807480|181813205|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.48||||0.561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|2.11|||Regression, Linear|||Relationship of right amygdala activity during negative images with PROMIS Depression trajectory: time x treatment amygdala interaction||2.11|-1.15|.561
90965859|NCT02807480|181813205|OTHER||Slope|-1.54||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.66|-0.42|||Regression, Linear|||Relationship of right dlPFC activity during negative images with PROMIS Depression trajectory: time x dlPFC interaction||-0.42|-2.66|.007
90965860|NCT02807480|181813205|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.65||||0.403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|2.17|||Regression, Linear|||Relationship of right dlPFC activity during negative images with PROMIS Depression trajectory: time x treatment dlPFC interaction||2.17|-0.87|0.403
90965861|NCT02807480|181813205|OTHER||Slope|-1.51||||0.681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.76|5.73|||Regression, Linear|||Change in conflict arbitration response time (AAC conflict RT post-pre) predicting trajectories of GAD-7 scores over the 10 sessions: Time x RT\_change interaction||5.73|-8.76|0.681
90965862|NCT02807480|181813205|SUPERIORITY||Slope|5.61||||0.264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.24|15.46|||Regression, Linear|||Change in conflict arbitration response time (AAC conflict RT post-pre) predicting trajectories of GAD-7 scores over the 10 sessions: Time x Treatment x RT\_change interaction||15.46|-4.24|.264
90965863|NCT02807480|181813205|OTHER||Slope|-0.43||||0.367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|0.51|||Regression, Linear|||Change in behavior (AAC conflict post-pre) predicting trajectories of GAD-7 scores over the 10 sessions: Time x Behavior\_change interaction||0.51|-1.38|.367
90965864|NCT02807480|181813205|OTHER||Slope|0.88||||0.211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|2.25|||Regression, Linear|||Change in behavior (AAC conflict post-pre) predicting trajectories of GAD-7 scores over the 10 sessions: Time x Treatment x Behavior\_change interaction||2.25|-0.50|.211
90965865|NCT02807480|181813206|OTHER||Slope|0.74||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|1.41|||Regression, Linear|||Relationships between baseline average approach behavior during conflict trials on the AAC and trajectory of SDS score: time x approach behavior interaction||1.41|0.08|0.028
90965866|NCT02807480|181813206|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.55||||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|0.39|||Regression, Linear|||Relationships between baseline average approach behavior during conflict trials on the AAC and trajectory of SDS symptoms: time x treatment x approach behavior interaction||0.39|-1.49|0.251
90965867|NCT02807480|181813206|OTHER||Slope|-0.26||||0.902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.49|3.96|||Regression, Linear|||Relationships between baseline average RT during conflict trials on the AAC and trajectory of SDS symptoms: time x RT interaction||3.96|-4.49|0.902
90965868|NCT02807480|181813206|SUPERIORITY||Slope|2.23||||0.519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.55|9.01|||Regression, Linear|||Relationships between baseline average RT during conflict trials on the AAC and trajectory of SDS symptoms: time x treatment x RT interaction||9.01|-4.55|.519
90965869|NCT02807480|181813206|OTHER||Slope|-0.64||||0.326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.92|0.64|||Regression, Linear|||Relationship of striatum activity during points outcomes (reward) with SDS trajectory: time x striatum interaction effects||0.64|-1.92|.326
90965870|NCT02807480|181813206|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.26||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|3.05|||Regression, Linear|||Relationship of striatum activity during points outcomes (reward) with SDS trajectory: time x treatment x striatum interaction effects||3.05|-0.53|.168
90965871|NCT02807480|181813206|OTHER||Slope|-0.5||||0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|0.35|||Regression, Linear|||Relationship of right amygdala activity during negative images with SDS trajectory: time x amygdala interaction||0.35|-1.34|.248
90965872|NCT02807480|181813206|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.3||||0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|1.44|||Regression, Linear|||Relationship of right amygdala activity during negative images with SDS trajectory: time x treatment amygdala interaction||1.44|-0.84|0.603
90965873|NCT02807480|181813206|OTHER||Slope|-0.85||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|0.18|||Regression, Linear|||Relationship of right dlPFC activity during negative images with SDS trajectory: time x dlPFC interaction||0.18|-1.89|.107
90965874|NCT02807480|181813206|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.16||||0.846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|1.8|||Regression, Linear|||Relationship of right dlPFC activity during negative images with SDS trajectory: time x treatment x dlPFC interaction||1.80|-1.47|0.846
90965875|NCT02807480|181813206|OTHER||Slope|-2.26||||0.561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.89|5.37|||Regression, Linear|||Change in conflict arbitration response time (AAC conflict RT post-pre) predicting trajectories of SDS scores over the 10 sessions: Time x RT\_change interaction||5.37|-9.89|.561
90965876|NCT02807480|181813206|SUPERIORITY||Slope|5.45||||0.297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|15.7|||Regression, Linear|||Change in conflict arbitration response time (AAC conflict RT post-pre) predicting trajectories of SDS scores over the 10 sessions: Time x Treatment x RT\_change interaction||15.70|-4.80|.297
90965877|NCT02807480|181813206|OTHER||Slope|-0.18||||0.712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|0.79|||Regression, Linear|||Change in behavior (AAC conflict post-pre) predicting trajectories of SDS cores over the 10 sessions: Time x Behavior\_change interaction||0.79|-1.15|.712
90965878|NCT02807480|181813206|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.56||||0.431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|1.97|||Regression, Linear|||Change in behavior (AAC conflict post-pre) predicting trajectories of SDS scores over the 10 sessions: Time x Treatment x Behavior\_change interaction||1.97|-0.84|0.431
90965879|NCT02807480|181813207|OTHER||Slope|-6.42||||0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.15|5.3|||Regression, Linear|||Relationships between baseline average approach behavior during conflict trials on the AAC and post-treatment PSWQ score: approach behavior main effect||5.30|-18.15|.276
90965880|NCT02807480|181813207|SUPERIORITY||Slope|5.69||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.12|23.5|||Regression, Linear|||Relationships between baseline average approach behavior during conflict trials on the AAC and post-treatment PSWQ score: treatment x approach behavior interaction||23.50|-12.12|.520
90965881|NCT02807480|181813207|OTHER||Slope|-50.0||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-127.65|27.65|||Regression, Linear|||Relationships between baseline average RT during conflict trials on the AAC and trajectory of PSWQ score: RT main effect||27.65|-127.65|.199
90965882|NCT02807480|181813207|SUPERIORITY||Slope|93.87||||0.191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.14|236.88|||Regression, Linear|||Relationships between baseline average RT during conflict trials on the AAC and trajectory of PSWQ score: treatment x RT interaction||236.88|-4.14|.191
90965883|NCT02807480|181813207|OTHER||Slope|27.35||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.45|50.26|||Regression, Linear|||Relationship of striatum activity during points outcomes (reward) with PSWQ trajectory: striatum main effect||50.26|4.45|0.021
90965884|NCT02807480|181813207|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-5.47||||0.734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.94|27.0|||Regression, Linear|||Relationship of striatum activity during points outcomes (reward) with PSWQ post-treatment: treatment x striatum interaction effects||27.00|-37.94|.734
90965885|NCT02807480|181813207|OTHER||Slope|-9.79||||0.231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.11|6.53|||Regression, Linear|||Relationship of right amygdala activity during negative images with PSWQ post-treatment: amygdala main effect||6.53|-26.11|.231
90965886|NCT02807480|181813207|SUPERIORITY||Slope|8.55||||0.602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.48|41.58|||Regression, Linear|||Relationship of right amygdala activity during negative images with PSWQ post-treatment: treatment amygdala interaction||41.58|-24.48|.602
90965887|NCT02807480|181813207|OTHER||Slope|-19.29||||0.369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.07|23.68|||Regression, Linear|||Relationship of right dlPFC activity during negative images with PSWQ post-treatment: dlPFC main effect||23.68|-62.07|.369
90965888|NCT02807480|181813207|SUPERIORITY||Slope|9.12||||0.684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.05|54.29|||Regression, Linear|||Relationship of right dlPFC activity during negative images with PSWQ post-treatment: treatment x dlPFC interaction||54.29|-36.05|.684
90965889|NCT02807480|181813207|OTHER||Slope|9.6||||0.487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.39|37.59|||Regression, Linear|||Change in behavior (AAC conflict post-pre) predicting trajectories of PSWQ cores over the 10 sessions: Behavior\_change main effect||37.59|-18.39|.487
90965890|NCT02807480|181813207|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-46.34||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-88.5|-4.18|||Regression, Linear|||Change in behavior (AAC conflict post-pre) predicting trajectories of PSWQ scores over the 10 sessions: Treatment x Behavior\_change interaction||-4.18|-88.5|.033
90965891|NCT02807480|181813207|OTHER||Slope|39.53||||0.546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-94.2|173.85|||Regression, Linear|||Change in conflict arbitration response time (AAC conflict RT post-pre) predicting trajectories of PSWQ scores over the 10 sessions: RT\_change main effect||173.85|-94.2|.546
90965892|NCT02807480|181813207|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-89.96||||0.443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-327.39|147.67|||Regression, Linear|||Change in conflict arbitration response time (AAC conflict RT post-pre) predicting trajectories of PSWQ scores over the 10 sessions: Treatment x RT\_change interaction||147.67|-327.39|.443
90965893|NCT02807480|181813208|OTHER||Slope|-1.01||||0.357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.22|1.19|||Regression, Linear|||Relationships between baseline average approach behavior during conflict trials on the AAC and post-treatment BDI-II score: approach behavior main effect||1.19|-3.22|.357
90965894|NCT02807480|181813208|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.37||||0.812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.74|3.47|||Regression, Linear|||Relationships between baseline average approach behavior during conflict trials on the AAC and post-treatment BDI-II score: treatment x approach behavior interaction||3.47|-2.74|.812
90965895|NCT02807480|181813208|OTHER||Slope|2.01||||0.826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.42|20.45|||Regression, Linear|||Relationships between baseline average RT during conflict trials on the AAC and post-treatment BDI-II score: RT main effect||20.45|-16.42|.826
90965896|NCT02807480|181813208|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.89||||0.838|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.42|25.64|||Regression, Linear|||Relationships between baseline average RT during conflict trials on the AAC and post-treatment BDI-II score: treatment x RT interaction||25.64|-31.42|.838
90965897|NCT02807480|181813208|OTHER||Slope|-0.68||||0.776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.51|4.14|||Regression, Linear|||Relationship of striatum activity during points outcomes (reward) with BDI-II post-treatment: striatum main effect||4.14|-5.51|.776
90965898|NCT02807480|181813208|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.69||||0.844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.79|6.4|||Regression, Linear|||Relationship of striatum activity during points outcomes (reward) with BDI-II post-treatment: treatment x striatum interaction effects||6.40|-7.79|.844
90965899|NCT02807480|181813208|OTHER||Slope|0.88||||0.719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.03|5.79|||Regression, Linear|||Relationship of right amygdala activity during negative images with BDI-II post-treatment: amygdala main effect||5.79|-4.03|.719
90965900|NCT02807480|181813208|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.33||||0.464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.74|4.07|||Regression, Linear|||Relationship of right amygdala activity during negative images with BDI-II post-treatment: treatment x amygdala interaction||4.07|-8.74|.464
90965901|NCT02807480|181813208|OTHER||Slope|5.91||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|13.75|||Regression, Linear|||Relationship of right dlPFC activity during negative images with BDI-II post-treatment: dlPFC main effect||13.75|-1.93|.135
90965902|NCT02807480|181813208|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-6.09||||0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.65|2.47|||Regression, Linear|||Relationship of right dlPFC activity during negative images with BDI-II post-treatment: treatment x dlPFC interaction||2.47|-14.65|.158
90965903|NCT02807480|181813208|OTHER||Slope|1.16||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.78|7.11|||Regression, Linear|||Change in behavior (AAC conflict post-pre) predicting trajectories of BDI-II cores over the 10 sessions: Behavior\_change main effect||7.11|-4.78|.690
90965904|NCT02807480|181813208|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.37||||0.715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.99|6.25|||Regression, Linear|||Change in behavior (AAC conflict post-pre) predicting trajectories of BDI-II scores over the 10 sessions: Treatment x Behavior\_change interaction||6.25|-8.99|.715
90965905|NCT02807480|181813208|OTHER||Slope|5.14||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.38|36.65|||Regression, Linear|||Change in conflict arbitration response time (AAC conflict RT post-pre) predicting trajectories of BDI-II scores over the 10 sessions: RT\_change main effect||36.65|-26.38|.740
90965906|NCT02807480|181813208|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.98||||0.966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.1|46.14|||Regression, Linear|||Change in conflict arbitration response time (AAC conflict RT post-pre) predicting trajectories of BDI-II scores over the 10 sessions: Treatment x RT\_change interaction||46.14|-48.10|.966
90965907|NCT01180478|181813209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.585|||||||Log Rank|||The expected recurrence rate in the WL-assisted TURBT group was 35%.14 To detect a clinically relevant difference in recurrence detection rates ≥10% at a 5% significance level and a power of 80%, the required sample size per treatment was calculated to be 329 patients (658 patients in total).||||0.585
90965908|NCT01180478|181813210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.742|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.742
91035339|NCT03868891|181956612|OTHER|||||||0.734|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank|||deflation test at 2 months compared with baseline; EMST150 + Eustachi not included because visit 2 measurements only available for 1 participant (2 ears)||||0.734
90965909|NCT01180478|181813211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||Fisher Exact|The analysis was performed by using the Fisher exact test, because the criteria for using the Chi square test were not met.||The statistical analyses refers to comparison of the different 8 categories (one variable) mentioned of the Clavien grading of perioperative complications between Narrow Band Imaging and White Light Trans Urethral Resection.||||0.170
90965910|NCT01180478|181813212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.311|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of the numbers in 'Bleeding' between NBI and WL||||0.311
90965911|NCT01180478|181813212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.666|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of the numbers in 'Fever' between NBI and WL||||0.666
90965912|NCT01180478|181813212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.569|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison in the number of 'UTI' between NBI and WL||||0.569
90965913|NCT01180478|181813212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.111|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison in the number of 'Bladder cramps' between NBI and WL||||0.111
90965914|NCT01180478|181813212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||||||||||||Comparison in the number of 'DVT' between NBI and WL|Non of the participants/patients had DVT. Therefore, the p-value is not available|||
90965915|NCT01180478|181813212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison in the number of 'CVA/TIA' between NBI and WL||||0.500
90965916|NCT01180478|181813212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||||||||||||Comparison in the number of 'Lung embolism' between NBI and WL|Non of the participants/patients had a lung embolism. Therefore, no p-value was available|||
90965917|NCT01180478|181813212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison in the number of 'Sepsis' between NBI and WL||||0.500
90965918|NCT01180478|181813212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison in the number of 'Acute Abdomen' between NBI and WL||||1.000
90965919|NCT01180478|181813212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison in the number of 'Other perioperative complication' between NBI and WL||||0.170
90965920|NCT01180478|181813213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.553|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.553
90965921|NCT02114164|181813306|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90965922|NCT02114164|181813307|OTHER|||||||0.39|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.39
90965923|NCT02114164|181813308|OTHER|||||||0.13||||||Comparison at baseline|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.13
90965924|NCT02114164|181813308|OTHER|||||||0.018||||||Comparison at 60 minutes|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.018
90965925|NCT02114164|181813308|OTHER|||||||0.712||||||Comparison at end of procedure|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.712
90965926|NCT02114164|181813309|OTHER|||||||0.42||||||Comparison at baseline|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.42
90965927|NCT02114164|181813309|OTHER|||||||0.75||||||Comparison at 60 minutes|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.75
90965928|NCT02114164|181813309|OTHER|||||||0.99||||||Comparison at end of procedure|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.99
90965929|NCT02114164|181813310|OTHER|||||||0.88||||||Comparison at baseline|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.88
90965930|NCT02114164|181813310|OTHER|||||||0.65||||||Comparison at 60 minutes|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.65
90965931|NCT02114164|181813310|OTHER|||||||0.86||||||Comparison at end of procedure|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.86
90965932|NCT02114164|181813311|OTHER|Number of interventions required by the anesthesiologists were compared between the AirSeal and standard Endopath groups using zero-inflated Poisson regression||||||0.41|||||||Zero-inflated Poisson regression|||||||0.41
90965933|NCT02114164|181813312|OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.09
90965934|NCT02114164|181813313|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
90965935|NCT01858532|181813314|OTHER||||||=|0.029|||||||Stratified log-rank test|||The endpoint was analyzed using the stratified log-rank test for treatment comparison.||||=0.029
90965936|NCT01858532|181813314|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.654|||=|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.488|0.878|||Regression, Cox|||A Cox Proportional Hazards regression model with pre-specified covariates adjusted was used to estimate the hazard ratio of atrasentan to placebo and its 95% confidence interval.||0.878|0.488|=0.005
90965937|NCT01858532|181813315|OTHER||||||=|0.289|||||||Stratified log-rank test|||The endpoint was analyzed using the stratified log-rank test for treatment comparison.||||=0.289
90965938|NCT01858532|181813315|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.779||||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.573|1.06|||Regression, Cox|||A Cox Proportional Hazards regression model with pre-specified covariates adjusted was used to estimate the hazard ratio of atrasentan to placebo and its 95% confidence interval.||1.060|0.573|0.112
90965939|NCT01858532|181813316|OTHER|||||||0.089|||||||Stratified log-rank test|||The endpoint was analyzed using the stratified log-rank test for treatment comparison.||||0.089
90965940|NCT01858532|181813316|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.801||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.642|0.999|||Regression, Cox|||A Cox Proportional Hazards regression model with pre-specified covariates adjusted was used to estimate the hazard ratio of atrasentan to placebo and its 95% confidence interval.||0.999|0.642|0.049
90965941|NCT01858532|181813317|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.89|||Regression, Cox|||A Cox Proportional Hazards regression model with pre-specified covariates adjusted was used to estimate the hazard ratio of atrasentan to placebo and its 95% confidence interval.||0.89|0.58|0.002
90965942|NCT01858532|181813318|OTHER|||||||0.446|||||||Stratified log-rank test|||The endpoint was analyzed using the stratified log-rank test for treatment comparison.||||0.446
90965943|NCT01858532|181813318|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.884||||0.447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.643|1.215|||Regression, Cox|||A Cox Proportional Hazards regression model with pre-specified covariates adjusted was used to estimate the hazard ratio of atrasentan to placebo and its 95% confidence interval.||1.215|0.643|0.447
90965944|NCT02081534|181813342|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.012
90965945|NCT02716675|181813436|OTHER||Prevention Efficacy (PE)|26.6||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|51.8||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|wald|||The primary PE analysis tests the null hypothesis PE equal to zero versus the alternative hypothesis PE not equal to zero using a 2-sided alpha equal 0.05 level Wald test of the equality of log cumulative hazard functions at the week 80 visit for the pooled VRC01 group versus the placebo group.||51.8|-11.7|0.15
90965946|NCT02716675|181813436|OTHER||Prevention Efficacy (PE)|22.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.5|52.0||||||A secondary analysis assesses the overall PE of the low-dose VRC01 group versus the placebo group.||52.0|-25.5|
90965947|NCT02716675|181813436|OTHER||Prevention Efficacy (PE)|30.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|58.0||||||A secondary analysis assesses the overall PE of the high-dose VRC01 group versus the placebo group.||58.0|-13.9|
90965948|NCT02716675|181813438|OTHER||Prevention Efficacy (PE)|73.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.6|89.9||||||PE against IC80 of least sensitive variant less than 1||89.9|27.6|
90965949|NCT02716675|181813438|OTHER||Prevention Efficacy (PE)|6.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-174.3|67.8||||||PE against IC80 of least sensitive variant 1-3||67.8|-174.3|
90965950|NCT02716675|181813438|OTHER||Prevention Efficacy (PE)|8.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.1|50.3||||||PE against IC80 of least sensitive variant \> 3||50.3|-68.1|
90965951|NCT00290290|181813441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|0.59||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.85|||Log Rank|||The average baseline rate of surgical-site infection at the six participating hospitals was 14% after clean-contaminated surgery with povidone-iodine skin preparation, and we estimated that substituting chlorhexidine-alcohol for povidone-iodine would reduce this rate to 7%. Therefore, we planned to enroll approximately 430 patients in each study group who could be evaluated in order for the study to have 90% power to detect a significant difference in the rates of surgical-site infection.||0.85|0.41|0.004
90965952|NCT02015442|181813442|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline vs. treatment period||||0.390
90965953|NCT02015442|181813442|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.204|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline vs treatment||||0.204
90965954|NCT02015442|181813443|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||calculated|t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline vs treatment||||0.001
90965955|NCT02015442|181813443|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.244|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline vs treatment||||0.244
90965956|NCT02015442|181813443|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.244|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.244
90965957|NCT00003895|181813445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Post versus Pre-treatment % g209-2M-specific t-cells|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
90965958|NCT00003895|181813445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Post versus Pre-Treatment %g209-2M-specific T-cells|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.0001
90965959|NCT00003895|181813445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59||||||Arm A Versus Arm B|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.59
90965960|NCT01380730|181813446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-66.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.73|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.48|-60.72||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factors.|Placebo is the reference|The null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-60.72|-71.48|<0.001
90965961|NCT01380730|181813446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-60.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.73|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.61|-54.88||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factors.|Placebo is the reference|The null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-54.88|-65.61|<0.001
90965962|NCT01380730|181813446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-41.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.73|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.18|-36.45||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factors.|Placebo is the reference|The null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-36.45|-47.18|<0.001
90965963|NCT01380730|181813446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-50.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.04|-44.62||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factors.|Placebo is the reference|The null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-44.62|-56.04|<0.001
90965964|NCT01380730|181813446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-50.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.89|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.69|-44.31||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factors.|Placebo is the reference|The null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-44.31|-55.69|<0.001
90965965|NCT01380730|181813446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-41.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.55|-36.13||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factors.|Placebo is the reference|The null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-36.13|-47.55|<0.001
90965966|NCT01380730|181813447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-79.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-87.0|-71.5||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factors.|Placebo is the reference|||-71.5|-87.0|<0.001
90965967|NCT01380730|181813447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-77.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-85.2|-69.6||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factors.|Placebo is the reference|||-69.6|-85.2|<0.001
90965968|NCT01380730|181813447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-50.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.5|-43.0||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factors.|Placebo is the reference|||-43.0|-58.5|<0.001
90965969|NCT01380730|181813447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-61.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.6|-53.7||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factors.|Placebo is the reference|||-53.7|-68.6|<0.001
91035340|NCT03868891|181956613|OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank|||inflation test at 4 months compared with baseline||||0.25
90965970|NCT01380730|181813447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-61.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.5|-53.7||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factors.|Placebo is the reference|||-53.7|-68.5|<0.001
90965971|NCT01380730|181813447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-50.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.0|-43.1||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factors.|Placebo is the reference|||-43.1|-58.0|<0.001
90965972|NCT01380730|181813448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-61.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.53|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.37|-56.43||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factors.|Placebo is the reference|||-56.43|-66.37|<0.001
90965973|NCT01380730|181813448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-55.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.52|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.37|-50.47||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factors.|Placebo is the reference|||-50.47|-60.37|<0.001
90965974|NCT01380730|181813448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-38.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.52|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.39|-33.48||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factors.|Placebo is the reference|||-33.48|-43.39|<0.001
90940941|NCT00943722|181761604|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority requires that the lower bound of two-sided 95% CI of GMT ratio be greater than 0.67|GMT ratio|2.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.19|2.79||one-sided tests of non-inferiority conducted at the alpha=0.025 level; model with a response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for comparison group|ANOVA|model with a response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for comparison group|GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Males (Lot 1) divided by GMT for 16- to 26-Year-Old Females (Lot 1)|Anti-HPV 52||2.79|2.19|< 0.001
90965975|NCT01380730|181813448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-47.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.61|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.72|-42.44||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factors.|Placebo is the reference|||-42.44|-52.72|<0.001
90965976|NCT01380730|181813448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-45.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.92|-40.67||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factors.|Placebo is the reference|||-40.67|-50.92|<0.001
90965977|NCT01380730|181813448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-37.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.61|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.94|-32.65||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factors.|Placebo is the reference|||-32.65|-42.94|<0.001
90965978|NCT01380730|181813449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-56.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.46|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.28|-51.61||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factors.|Placebo is the reference|||-51.61|-61.28|<0.001
90965979|NCT01380730|181813449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-50.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.45|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.97|-45.33||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factors.|Placebo is the reference|||-45.33|-54.97|<0.001
91035341|NCT03868891|181956613|OTHER|||||||0.75|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank|||deflation test at 4 months compared with baseline||||0.75
91035342|NCT03868891|181956614|OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank|||inflation test at 4 months compared with 2 months||||0.25
90965980|NCT01380730|181813449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-34.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.45|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.56|-29.92||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factors.|Placebo is the reference|||-29.92|-39.56|<0.001
90965981|NCT01380730|181813449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-42.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.61|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.16|-36.9||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factors.|Placebo is the reference|||-36.90|-47.16|<0.001
90965982|NCT01380730|181813449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-40.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.88|-35.66||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factors.|Placebo is the reference|||-35.66|-45.88|<0.001
90965983|NCT01380730|181813449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-34.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.61|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.51|-29.25||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factors.|Placebo is the reference|||-29.25|-39.51|<0.001
90965984|NCT01380730|181813450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-47.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.18|-43.29||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factors.|Placebo is the reference|||-43.29|-52.18|<0.001
90965985|NCT01380730|181813450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-43.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.25|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.81|-38.94||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factors.|Placebo is the reference|||-38.94|-47.81|<0.001
90965986|NCT01380730|181813450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-31.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.25|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.83|-26.97||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factors.|Placebo is the reference|||-26.97|-35.83|<0.001
90965987|NCT01380730|181813450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-35.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.99|-31.32||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factors.|Placebo is the reference|||-31.32|-39.99|<0.001
90965988|NCT01380730|181813450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-35.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.29|-31.65||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factors.|Placebo is the reference|||-31.65|-40.29|<0.001
90940942|NCT00943722|181761604|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority requires that the lower bound of two-sided 95% CI of GMT ratio be greater than 0.67|GMT ratio|2.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.37|2.98||one-sided tests of non-inferiority conducted at the alpha=0.025 level; model with a response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for comparison group|ANOVA|model with a response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for comparison group|GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Males (Lot 1) divided by GMT for 16- to 26-Year-Old Females (Lot 1)|Anti-HPV 58||2.98|2.37|< 0.001
90965989|NCT01380730|181813450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-27.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.06|-23.39||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factors.|Placebo is the reference|||-23.39|-32.06|<0.001
90965990|NCT01380730|181813451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-53.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.44|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.23|-48.65||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factors.|Placebo is the reference|||-48.65|-58.23|<0.001
90965991|NCT01380730|181813451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-47.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.43|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.08|-42.52||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factors.|Placebo is the reference|||-42.52|-52.08|<0.001
90965992|NCT01380730|181813451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-34.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.43|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.53|-29.97||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factors.|Placebo is the reference|||-29.97|-39.53|<0.001
90965993|NCT01380730|181813451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-42.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.76|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.36|-37.5||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factors.|Placebo is the reference|||-37.50|-48.36|<0.001
90965994|NCT01380730|181813451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-42.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.75|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.81|-36.98||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factors.|Placebo is the reference|||-36.98|-47.81|<0.001
90965995|NCT01380730|181813451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-33.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.76|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.2|-28.33||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factors.|Placebo is the reference|||-28.33|-39.20|<0.001
90965996|NCT00303979|181813468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Improvement (%)|8.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|9.7|||a large sample test (z-test)|||Performance Measure #1: relative change in % of eligible patients treated with angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor and/or angiotensin II receptor blockers (ACEU/ARB).||9.7|7.0|<0.001
90965997|NCT00303979|181813468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative improvement (%)|8.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|9.6|||a large sample test (z-test)|||Performance Measure #2: relative change in % of eligible patients treated with beta-blockers.||9.6|7.7|<0.001
90965998|NCT00303979|181813468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative improvement (%)|79.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|70.5|89.0|||a large sample test (z-test)|||Performance Measure #3: relative change in % of eligible patients treated with aldosterone receptor antagonists.||89.0|70.5|<0.001
91035343|NCT03868891|181956614|OTHER|||||||0.75|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank|||deflation test at 4 months compared with 2 months||||0.75
90965999|NCT00303979|181813468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Improvement (%)|1.0||||0.546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|4.2|||a large sample test (z-test)|||Performance Measure #4: relative change in % of eligible patients treated with anticoagulation for AF.||4.2|-2.2|0.546
90966000|NCT00303979|181813468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Improvement (%)|81.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|72.2|91.7|||a large sample test (z-test)|||Performance Measure #5: relative change in % of eligible patients treated with cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT-P/CRT-D).||91.7|72.2|<0.001
90966001|NCT00303979|181813468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Improvement (%)|62.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.1|65.1|||a large sample test (z-test)|||Performance Measure #6: relative change in % of eligible patients treated with implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) or CRT-D.||65.1|59.1|<0.001
90966002|NCT00303979|181813468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Improvement (%)|14.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.6|16.8|||a large sample test (z-test)|||Performance Measure #7: relative change in % of eligible patients with HF education.||16.8|12.6|<0.001
90928392|NCT03983434|181736112|OTHER|Due to the skewness of the data, outcome measures were summarized using median and interquartile range.||||||0.62|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.62
90928393|NCT03983434|181736113|OTHER|Due to the skewness of the data, outcome measures were summarized using median and interquartile range.||||||0.17|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.17
90928394|NCT03983434|181736114|OTHER|Due to the skewness of the data, outcome measures were summarized using median and interquartile range.||||||0.17|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.17
90928395|NCT03983434|181736115|OTHER|Due to the skewness of the data, outcome measures were summarized using median and interquartile range.||||||0.079|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.079
90928396|NCT03983434|181736116|OTHER|Due to the skewness of the data, outcome measures were summarized using median and interquartile range.||||||0.47|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.47
90928397|NCT03983434|181736118|OTHER|Due to the skewness of the data, outcome measures were summarized using median and interquartile range.||||||0.03|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.03
90928398|NCT03983434|181736119|OTHER|Due to the skewness of the data, outcome measures were summarized using median and interquartile range.||||||0.14|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.14
90928399|NCT03983434|181736120|OTHER|Due to the skewness of the data, outcome measures were summarized using median and interquartile range.||||||0.074|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.074
90928400|NCT03983434|181736121|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.004
90928401|NCT03983434|181736122|OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.17
90928402|NCT03983434|181736123|OTHER|Due to the skewness of the data, outcome measures were summarized using median and interquartile range.||||||0.98|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.98
90928403|NCT00811941|181736126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.35|||Adjusted change from Baseline to Month 6||The Number of Participants Analyzed is participants with efficacy measurement available at this endpoint, that is, 110 participants in the placebo group and 320 participants in the nalmefene group.|"The primary hypothesis concerned the treatment effect at Month 6. Null hypothesis of no difference in treatment effect was tested against the alternative hypothesis that there was a difference in treatment effect.~MMRM model with the Baseline score as a covariate; site, sex, time in months (Month 1-13); and treatment as fixed effects. The Baseline score-by-time and treatment-by-time interactions were also included in the model. An unstructured covariance matrix was used."||0.35|-2.10|0.160
90928404|NCT00811941|181736127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9||0.232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.17|2.23|||Adjusted change from Baseline to Month 6||The Number of Participants Analyzed is participants with efficacy measurement available at this endpoint, that is, 110 participants in the placebo group and 320 participants in the nalmefene group.|"The primary hypothesis concerned the treatment effect at Month 6. The null hypothesis of no difference in treatment effect was tested against the alternative hypothesis that there was a difference in treatment effect.~MMRM model with the Baseline score as a covariate; site, sex, time in months (Month 1-13); and treatment as fixed effects. The Baseline score-by-time and treatment-by-time interactions were also included in the model. An unstructured covariance matrix was used."||2.23|-9.17|0.232
90928405|NCT00811941|181736128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.41|||Adjusted Odds Ratio (OR) response|||The analysis of RSDRL used a logistic regression (LREG) model, with country, sex, Baseline DRL, and treatment as fixed effects, and missing values were imputed using individual-patient predicted values of TAC derived from the MMRM model.||1.41|0.59|0.689
90940943|NCT00943722|181761605|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMTs be entirely contained within the interval (0.5, 2.0)|GMT ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.08|||||GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) divided by GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 2)|Anti-HPV 6||1.08|0.88|
90966003|NCT00303979|181813470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Relative Change (%)|19.4||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|39.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||Performance Measure #1: Relative change at 24 months compared with baseline in ACEI/ARB for the aggregate practices.||39.8|-1.1|0.004
90966004|NCT00303979|181813470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Relative Change (%)|7.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.1|10.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||Performance Measure #2: the relative change at 24 months compared with baseline in beta-blockers for the aggregate practices.||10.2|5.1|<0.001
90966005|NCT00303979|181813470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Relative Change (%)|30.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.6|35.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||Performance Measure #3: the relative change at 24 months compared with baseline in aldosterone antagonist for the aggregate practices.||35.5|24.6|<0.001
90966006|NCT00303979|181813470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Relative Change (%)|1.0||||0.513||95.0|-3.6|5.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||Performance Measure #4: the relative change at 24 months compared with baseline in anticoagulation for AF for the aggregate practices.||5.5|-3.6|0.513
90966007|NCT00303979|181813470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Relative Change (%)|48.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.9|58.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||Performance Measure #5: the relative change at 24 months compared with baseline in CRT-P/CRT-D for the aggregate practices.||58.8|37.9|<0.001
90966008|NCT00303979|181813470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Relative Change (%)|70.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.0|80.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||Performance Measure #6: the relative change at 24 months compared with baseline in ICD/CRT-D for the aggregate practices.||80.8|61.0|<0.001
90928406|NCT00811941|181736129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.0|||Adjusted change from Baseline to Week 24||The Number of Participants Analyzed is participants with efficacy measurement available at this endpoint, that is, 104 participants in the placebo group and 306 participants in the nalmefene group.|MMRM model with the Baseline score as a covariate, and site, sex, time in weeks, and treatment as fixed effects. The Baseline score-by-time and treatment-by-time interactions were also included in the model; an unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.00|-0.37|0.046
90928407|NCT00811941|181736130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.08|||Adjusted change from Baseline to Week 24||The Number of Participants Analyzed is participants with efficacy measurement available at this endpoint, that is, 104 participants in the placebo group and 306 participants in the nalmefene group.|MMRM model with the Baseline CGI-S score as a covariate, and site, sex, time in weeks, and treatment as fixed effects. The Baseline CGI-S score-by-time and treatment by- time interactions were also included in the model. An unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.08|-0.36|0.217
90928408|NCT00811941|181736131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio to placebo|0.93||||0.273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.05|||Adjusted values||The Number of Participants Analyzed is participants with efficacy measurement available at this endpoint, that is, 108 participants in the placebo group and 319 participants in the nalmefene group.|Log-transformed GGT values were analysed using an MMRM model with the logtransformed Baseline value as a covariate, and site, sex, time in weeks, and treatment as fixed effects. Log-transformed Baseline value-by-time interaction and treatment-by-time interaction were included in the model. An unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.05|0.83|0.273
90928409|NCT00811941|181736132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio to placebo|0.99||||0.916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.1|||Adjusted values||The Number of Participants Analyzed is participants with efficacy measurement available at this endpoint, that is, 108 participants in the placebo group and 318 participants in the nalmefene group.|Log-transformed ALAT values were analysed using an MMRM model with the logtransformed Baseline value as a covariate, and site, sex, time in weeks, and treatment as fixed effects. Log-transformed Baseline value-by-time and treatment-by-time interactions were included in the model. An unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.10|0.90|0.916
90928410|NCT00811941|181736133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.85|-0.29|||Adjusted change from Baseline - Month 13||The Number of Participants Analyzed is participants with efficacy measurement available at this endpoint, that is, 97 participants in the placebo group and 258 participants in the nalmefene group.|MMRM model with the Baseline score as a covariate; site, sex, time in months (Month 1-13); and treatment as fixed effects. The Baseline score-by-time and treatment-by-time interactions were also included in the model. An unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.29|-2.85|0.017
90928411|NCT00811941|181736134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.07||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.53|-0.42|||Adjusted change from Baseline - Month 13||The Number of Participants Analyzed is participants with efficacy measurement available at this endpoint, that is, 97 participants in the placebo group and 258 participants in the nalmefene group.|MMRM model with the Baseline score as a covariate; site, sex, time in months (Month 1-13); and treatment as fixed effects. The Baseline score-by-time and treatment-by-time interactions were also included in the model. An unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.42|-12.53|0.036
90940944|NCT00943722|181761605|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMTs be entirely contained within the interval (0.5, 2.0).|GMT ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.16|||||GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) divided by GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 3)|Anti-HPV 6||1.16|0.93|
90966009|NCT00303979|181813470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Relative Change (%)|50.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.1|74.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||Performance Measure #7: the relative change at 24 months compared with baseline in HF education for the aggregate practices.||74.2|27.1|<0.001
90966010|NCT00303979|181813470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Relative Change (%)|19.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.3|22.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Composite Score: The relative change at 24 months compared with baseline in composite score for the aggregate practices.||22.0|16.3|<0.001
90966011|NCT00303979|181813471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Relative Change (%)|10.3||||0.197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|25.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||Performance Measure #1: the relative change of Cohort B (6 months) compared with Cohort A at baseline in ACEI/ARB for the aggregate practices.||25.9|-5.4|0.197
90966012|NCT00303979|181813471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Relative Change (%)|10.6||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|21.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||Performance Measure #2: the relative change of Cohort B (6 months) compared with Cohort A at baseline in beta-blockers for the aggregate practices.||21.7|-0.5|0.061
90966013|NCT00303979|181813471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Relative Change (%)|-1.1||||0.622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|3.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||Performance Measure #3: the relative change of Cohort B (6 months) compared with Cohort A at baseline in aldosterone antagonist for the aggregate practices.||3.4|-5.7|0.622
90966014|NCT00303979|181813471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Relative Change (%)|6.2||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|12.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||Performance Measure #4: the relative change of Cohort B (6 months) compared with Cohort A at baseline in anticoagulation for AF for the aggregate practices.||12.4|0.0|0.05
90966015|NCT00303979|181813471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Relative Change (%)|-1.8||||0.711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|7.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||Performance Measure #5: the relative change of Cohort B (6 months) compared with Cohort A at baseline in CRT-P/CRT-D for the aggregate practices.||7.7|-11.2|0.711
90966016|NCT00303979|181813471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Relative Change (%)|14.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|22.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Performance Measure #6: the relative change of Cohort B (6 months) compared with Cohort A at baseline in ICD/CRT-D for the aggregate practices.||22.0|6.9|<0.001
90966017|NCT00303979|181813471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Relative Change (%)|38.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.2|53.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||Performance Measure #7: the relative change of Cohort B (6 months) compared with Cohort A at baseline in HF education for the aggregate practices.||53.8|23.2|<0.001
90966018|NCT00303979|181813471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Relative Change (%)|6.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|9.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Composite Score: the relative change of Cohort B (6 months) compared with Cohort A at baseline in composite score for the aggregate practices.||9.0|4.2|<0.001
90966019|NCT00303979|181813472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Relative Change (%)|10.5||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|26.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||Performance Measure #1: the relative change of Cohort C (18 months) compared with Cohort A at baseline in ACEI/ARB for the aggregate practices.||26.3|-5.3|0.190
90966020|NCT00303979|181813472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Relative Change (%)|14.3||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|28.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||Performance Measure #2: the relative change of Cohort C (18 months) compared with Cohort A at baseline in beta-blockers for the aggregate practices.||28.4|0.1|0.048
90966021|NCT00303979|181813472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Relative Change (%)|5.8||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|15.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||Performance Measure #3: the relative change of Cohort C (18 months) compared with Cohort A at baseline in aldosterone antagonist for the aggregate practices.||15.4|-3.9|0.240
90966022|NCT00303979|181813472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Relative Change (%)|6.7||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|13.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Performance Measure #4: the relative change of Cohort C (18 months) compared with Cohort A at baseline in anticoagulation for AF for the aggregate practices.||13.0|0.5|0.033
90966023|NCT00303979|181813472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Relative Change (%)|9.3||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|19.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||Performance Measure #5: the relative change of Cohort C (18 months) compared with Cohort A at baseline in CRT-P/CRT-D for the aggregate practices.||19.8|-1.3|0.085
90966024|NCT00303979|181813472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Relative Change (%)|17.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.3|25.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||Performance Measure #6: the relative change of Cohort C (18 months) compared with Cohort A at baseline in ICD/CRT-D for the aggregate practices.||25.8|9.3|<0.001
90966025|NCT00303979|181813472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Relative Change (%)|59.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.9|85.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||Performance Measure #7: the relative change of Cohort C (18 months) compared with Cohort A at baseline in HF education for the aggregate practices.||85.2|33.9|<0.001
90966026|NCT00303979|181813472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Relative Change (%)|10.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.6|13.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||Composite Score: the relative change of Cohort C (18 months) compared with Cohort A at baseline in composite score for the aggregate practices.||13.6|7.6|<0.001
90966027|NCT01958788|181813473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|2.06|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Cohen's d effect size|||Pre-posttreatment effect size estimation using Cohen's d: a calculation of the relative magnitude of the effect from pretreatment to posttreatment||||
90966028|NCT01958788|181813473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Cohen's d effect size|||Pretreatment to 6-month follow-up effect size estimation using Cohen's d: a calculation of the relative magnitude of the effect from pretreatment to 6-month follow-up||||
90966029|NCT01958788|181813473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|0.37|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Cohen's d effect size|||Posttreatment to 6-month follow-up effect size estimation using Cohen's d: a calculation of the relative magnitude of the effect from posttreatment to 6-month follow-up||||
90966030|NCT01958788|181813474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Cohen's d effect size|||Pre-posttreatment effect size estimation using Cohen's d: a calculation of the relative magnitude of the effect from pretreatment to posttreatment||||
90966031|NCT01958788|181813474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Cohen's d effect size|||Pretreatment to 6-month follow-up effect size estimation using Cohen's d: a calculation of the relative magnitude of the effect from pretreatment to 6-month follow-up||||
90928412|NCT00811941|181736135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.52|||Adjusted Odds Ratio (OR) response|||The analysis of RSDRL used a logistic regression (LREG) model, with country, sex, Baseline DRL, and treatment as fixed effects, and missing values were imputed using individual-patient predicted values of TAC derived from the MMRM model.||1.52|0.67|0.976
90928413|NCT00811941|181736136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.01|||Adjusted change from Baseline to Week 52||The Number of Participants Analyzed is participants with efficacy measurement available at this endpoint, that is, 95 participants in the placebo group and 258 participants in the nalmefene group.|MMRM model with the Baseline score as a covariate, and site, sex, time in weeks, and treatment as fixed effects. The Baseline score-by-time and treatment-by-time interactions were also included in the model; an unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.01|-0.44|0.056
90928414|NCT00811941|181736137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.029||95.0|-0.5|-0.03|||Adjusted change from Baseline to Week 52||The Number of Participants Analyzed is participants with efficacy measurement available at this endpoint, that is, 95 participants in the placebo group and 258 participants in the nalmefene group.|MMRM model with the Baseline CGI-S score as a covariate, and site, sex, time in weeks, and treatment as fixed effects. The Baseline CGI-S score-by-time and treatment by- time interactions were also included in the model. An unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.03|-0.50|0.029
90928415|NCT00811941|181736138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio to placebo|0.78||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.9|||Adjusted values||The Number of Participants Analyzed is participants with efficacy measurement available at this endpoint, that is, 98 participants in the placebo group and 259 participants in the nalmefene group.|Log-transformed GGT values were analysed using an MMRM model with the logtransformed Baseline value as a covariate, and site, sex, time in weeks, and treatment as fixed effects. Log-transformed Baseline value-by-time interaction and treatment-by-time interaction were included in the model. An unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.90|0.67|0.001
90928416|NCT00811941|181736139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio to placebo|0.88||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.99|||Adjusted values||The Number of Participants Analyzed is participants with efficacy measurement available at this endpoint, that is, 97 participants in the placebo group and 259 participants in the nalmefene group.|Log-transformed GGT values were analysed using an MMRM model with the logtransformed Baseline value as a covariate, and site, sex, time in weeks, and treatment as fixed effects. Log-transformed Baseline value-by-time interaction and treatment-by-time interaction were included in the model. An unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.99|0.79|0.037
90928417|NCT04027439|181736169|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.186|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.138|1.235|||ANCOVA|||||1.235|1.138|<0.0001
90928418|NCT04027439|181736169|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.134|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.088|1.181|||ANCOVA|||||1.181|1.088|<0.0001
90928419|NCT04027439|181736169|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.134|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.089|1.181|||ANCOVA|||||1.181|1.089|<0.0001
90928420|NCT04027439|181736169|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.084||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.041|1.128|||ANCOVA|||||1.128|1.041|0.0001
90928421|NCT04027439|181736170|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.228||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.105|1.365|||ANCOVA|||||1.365|1.105|0.0004
90928422|NCT04027439|181736170|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.228||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.104|1.365|||ANCOVA|||||1.365|1.104|0.0004
90928423|NCT04027439|181736170|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.196||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.326|||ANCOVA|||||1.326|1.080|0.0012
90928424|NCT04027439|181736170|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.121||||0.0348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.009|1.246|||ANCOVA|||||1.246|1.009|0.0348
90928425|NCT04027439|181736170|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.055||||0.3106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.949|1.172|||ANCOVA|||||1.172|0.949|0.3106
90928426|NCT04027439|181736171|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.154||||0.0208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.024|1.301|||ANCOVA|||||1.301|1.024|0.0208
90928427|NCT04027439|181736171|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.2||||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.064|1.353|||ANCOVA|||||1.353|1.064|0.0041
90928428|NCT04027439|181736171|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.167||||0.0108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.039|1.311|||ANCOVA|||||1.311|1.039|0.0108
90928429|NCT04027439|181736171|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.087||||0.1641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.965|1.225|||ANCOVA|||||1.225|0.965|0.1641
90928430|NCT04027439|181736172|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.229||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.102|1.369|||ANCOVA|||||1.369|1.102|0.0005
90928431|NCT04027439|181736172|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.231||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.104|1.372|||ANCOVA|||||1.372|1.104|0.0005
90928432|NCT04027439|181736172|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.188||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.32|||ANCOVA|||||1.320|1.070|0.0022
90928433|NCT04027439|181736172|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.106||||0.0658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.993|1.233|||ANCOVA|||||1.233|0.993|0.0658
90928434|NCT04027439|181736180|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.183|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.134|1.234|||ANCOVA|||||1.234|1.134|<0.0001
90928435|NCT04027439|181736180|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.092|1.19|||ANCOVA|||||1.190|1.092|<0.0001
90928436|NCT04027439|181736180|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.131|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.084|1.18|||ANCOVA|||||1.180|1.084|<0.0001
90928437|NCT04027439|181736180|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.08||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.036|1.126|||ANCOVA|||||1.126|1.036|0.0004
90928438|NCT04027439|181736181|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.123|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.078|1.169|||ANCOVA|||||1.169|1.078|<0.0001
90928439|NCT04027439|181736181|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.078||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.035|1.122|||ANCOVA|||||1.122|1.035|0.0004
90928440|NCT04027439|181736181|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.081||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.039|1.125|||ANCOVA|||||1.125|1.039|0.0002
90928441|NCT04027439|181736181|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.041||||0.0437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.001|1.083|||ANCOVA|||||1.083|1.001|0.0437
90928442|NCT04027439|181736182|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.087||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.038|1.139|||ANCOVA|||||1.139|1.038|0.0006
90928443|NCT04027439|181736182|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.083||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.034|1.135|||ANCOVA|||||1.135|1.034|0.0010
90928444|NCT04027439|181736182|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.096||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.047|1.149|||ANCOVA|||||1.149|1.047|0.0002
90928445|NCT04027439|181736182|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.039||||0.0971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.993|1.088|||ANCOVA|||||1.088|0.993|0.0971
90928446|NCT04027439|181736183|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.145|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.106|1.185|||ANCOVA|||||1.185|1.106|<0.0001
90928447|NCT04027439|181736183|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.148|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.109|1.189|||ANCOVA|||||1.189|1.109|<0.0001
90928448|NCT04027439|181736183|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.099|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.062|1.137|||ANCOVA|||||1.137|1.062|<0.0001
90928449|NCT04027439|181736183|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.088|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.052|1.126|||ANCOVA|||||1.126|1.052|<0.0001
90928450|NCT04027439|181736184|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.113|1.189|||ANCOVA|||||1.189|1.113|<0.0001
90928451|NCT04027439|181736184|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.146|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.109|1.185|||ANCOVA|||||1.185|1.109|<0.0001
90928452|NCT04027439|181736184|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.107|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.071|1.144|||ANCOVA|||||1.144|1.071|<0.0001
90928453|NCT04027439|181736184|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.094|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.059|1.13|||ANCOVA|||||1.130|1.059|<0.0001
90928454|NCT04027439|181736185|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.103|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.066|1.141|||ANCOVA|||||1.141|1.066|<0.0001
90928455|NCT04027439|181736185|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.078|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.042|1.116|||ANCOVA|||||1.116|1.042|<0.0001
90928456|NCT04027439|181736185|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.067||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.032|1.104|||ANCOVA|||||1.104|1.032|0.0002
90928457|NCT04027439|181736185|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.048||||0.0066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.013|1.084|||ANCOVA|||||1.084|1.013|0.0066
90928458|NCT04035447|181736199|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.519|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Satisfaction with Therapy (ST)||||0.519
90928459|NCT04035447|181736199|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Satisfaction with Therapist (SWT)||||0.150
90928460|NCT04035447|181736199|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.309|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Global Improvement (Item 13)||||0.309
90928461|NCT04035447|181736201|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.696|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.696
90928462|NCT04035447|181736202|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.350
90928463|NCT04035447|181736203|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.274|||||||Fisher Exact|||Outcomes were compared at post-intervention visit: 3-month (A2) for intervention participants, 9-month (A4) for waitlist control participants.||||0.274
90928464|NCT04035447|181736204|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Fisher Exact|||Outcomes were compared at post-intervention visit: 3-month (A2) for intervention participants, 9-month (A4) for waitlist control participants.||||0.600
90928465|NCT04035447|181736205|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.4||0.1848|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Effect size (Hedges' g) of 0.18||||||0.1848
90928466|NCT04035447|181736206|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.4||0.6153|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Effect size (Hedges' g) of 0.07||||||0.6153
90928467|NCT04035447|181736207|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.1||0.0563|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Effect size (Hedges' g) of 0.28||||||0.0563
90928468|NCT04035447|181736208|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.8||0.0265|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Effect size (Hedges' g) of 0.31||||||0.0265
90928469|NCT04035447|181736208|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.6||0.2084|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Effect size (Hedges' g) of 0.18||||||0.2084
90928470|NCT04035447|181736209|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.4||0.3512|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Effect size (Hedges' g) of -0.13||||||0.3512
90928471|NCT00174252|181736253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|86.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|74.2|93.7|||||95% CI was estimated using the F-distribution.|"Applies to no."||93.7|74.2|
90928472|NCT00174252|181736253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|14.0||||||95.0|6.3|25.8|||||95% confidence interval (CI) was estimated using the F-distribution.|"Applies to yes."||25.8|6.3|
90928473|NCT00174252|181736267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.35||||0.002||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for height SD at baseline.||||||0.002
90928474|NCT00174252|181736268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.35||||0.023||95.0||||Bilateral test multiple comparison threshold for statistical significance = 0.05|ANCOVA|Adjusted for height SD at baseline.||||||0.023
90928475|NCT00174252|181736269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.708||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for height SD at baseline.||||||0.708
90928476|NCT00174252|181736270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.59||||0.325||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for height SD at baseline.||||||0.325
90928477|NCT05509816|181736278|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric least squares mean|0.929|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.849|1.02|||Mixed Models Analysis||The least square means (LSMs) and differences in LSMs were back transformed to produce the geometric least square means (GLSMs) and ratio between GLSMs. These were reported along with the 90% confidence interval (CI) for the ratio.|A mixed effects model was used to estimate drug-drug interaction using the Model: Log(PK) = Treatment + Participant + Random Error, where Participant is fitted as a random effect.||1.02|0.849|
90928478|NCT05509816|181736279|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric least squares mean|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.989|1.16|||Mixed Models Analysis||The LSMs and differences in LSMs were back transformed to produce the GLSMs and ratio between GLSMs. These were reported along with the 90% CI for the ratio.|A mixed effects model was used to estimate drug-drug interaction using the Model: Log(PK) = Treatment + Participant + Random Error, where Participant is fitted as a random effect.||1.16|0.989|
90928479|NCT05509816|181736280|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric least squares mean|0.821|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.777|0.868|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed effects model was used to estimate drug-drug interaction using the Model: Log(PK) = Treatment + Participant + Random Error, where Participant is fitted as a random effect.||0.868|0.777|
90928480|NCT05509816|181736281|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric least squares mean|0.964|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.828|1.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed effects model was used to estimate drug-drug interaction using the Model: Log(PK) = Treatment + Participant + Random Error, where Participant is fitted as a random effect.||1.12|0.828|
90928481|NCT00979121|181736310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in % of pts alive at 60 days|4.0||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|10.2||The monitoring boundaries were designed to have a low probability of stopping for futility before 750 patients. The maximum sample size was 1000 patients. Efficacy stopping was based on mortality; futility stopping was based on mortality and VFDs.|Proc lifetest|Proc lifetest was used to calculate mortality mean and variance due to one subject lost to follow up who was censored.||Hospital mortality to day 60 was estimated using the Kaplan Meier estimate, with patients discharged home before day 60 considered alive at day 60. The analysis was stratified by co-enrolled treatment assignments for 81 patients also enrolled in a randomized clinical trial of two different nutritional strategies. A maximum of 1000 patients were to be enrolled, providing a 92% probability of rejecting the null hypothesis for the effect on mortality if a true difference in mortality was 9%.||10.2|-2.3|0.21
90928482|NCT00979121|181736311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.96||95.0|-1.6|1.5|||ANCOVA|||Ventilator, ICU free, and organ failure free days were analyzed by analysis of variance, utilizing treatment assignment where applicable.||1.5|-1.6|0.96
90928483|NCT02130557|181736351|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.547||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.072|2.233||1-sided p-value based on CMH test for general association between treatment and response with stratification by sokal risk group (low, intermediate, high) and region (1-3) at time of randomization. Statistical significance threshold: 1-sided 0.025.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% Confidence Interval (CI) for the odds ratio adjusted for sokal risk group and region are based on Mantel-Haenszel confidence limits.|A total sample size of 500 Ph+ participants is required for the study to provide \>= 90% power to detect at least 15% difference (assuming 25% in the imatinib vs 40% in the bosutinib arm) in the MMR rates at 12 months (48 weeks) with a 1-sided alpha of 2.5%, and 2 interim futility analyses at 33% and 66% of patients with adequate follow-up with early stopping for futility only (non-binding, O'Brien-Fleming analog beta spending function).||2.233|1.072|0.0100
90928484|NCT02130557|181736352|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.418||||0.0303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.986|2.037||1-sided p-value based on CMH test for general association between treatment and response with stratification by sokal risk group (low, intermediate, high) and region (1-3) at time of randomization. Statistical significance threshold: 1-sided 0.0125.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for the odds ratio adjusted for sokal risk group and region are based on Mantel-Haenszel confidence limits.|If the primary analysis was significant, each member of the short-term family (CCyR by Month 12, MMR by Month 18) was tested via Bonferroni's procedure at the 1-sided level of 0.0125.||2.037|0.986|0.0303
90928485|NCT02130557|181736353|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|2.44|||||Hazard ratio (95% CIs) are based on the treatment effect (Bosutinib compared with Imatinib) in a stratified (by Sokal risk group at randomization and region) Cox proportional hazards model for the hazard of the respective event.|The medians have not been reached in either arm, as such, the premature estimated hazard ratio is provided.||2.44|0.49|
90928486|NCT02130557|181736354|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|2.61||1-sided p-value based on CMH test for general association between treatment and response with stratification by sokal risk group (low, intermediate, high) and region (1-3) at time of randomization. Statistical significance threshold: 1-sided 0.0125.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for the odds ratio adjusted for sokal risk group and region are based on Mantel-Haenszel confidence limits.|If the primary analysis was significant, each member of the short-term family (CCyR by Month 12, MMR by Month 18) was tested via Bonferroni's procedure at the 1-sided level of 0.0125.||2.610|1.160|0.0037
91035344|NCT02246920|181956633|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval is contained within 80.00-125.00%.|T/R Ls Mean Ratio|108.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.09|124.4||||||||124.40|94.09|
90966032|NCT01958788|181813474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|-0.15|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Cohen's d effect size|||Posttreatment to 6-month follow-up effect size estimation using Cohen's d: a calculation of the relative magnitude of the effect from posttreatment to 6-month follow-up||||
90966033|NCT01958788|181813475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|1.72|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Cohen's d effect size|||Pre-posttreatment follow-up effect size estimation using Cohen's d: a calculation of the relative magnitude of the effect from pretreatment to posttreatment follow-up||||
90966034|NCT01958788|181813475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|1.66|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Cohen's d effect size|||Pretreatment to 6-month follow-up effect size estimation using Cohen's d: a calculation of the relative magnitude of the effect from pretreatment to 6-month follow-up||||
90966035|NCT01958788|181813475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Cohen's d effect size|||Posttreatment to 6-month follow-up effect size estimation using Cohen's d: a calculation of the relative magnitude of the effect from posttreatment to 6-month follow-up||||
90966036|NCT01958788|181813476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Cohen's d effect size|||Pre-posttreatment effect size estimation using Cohen's d: a calculation of the relative magnitude of the effect from pretreatment to posttreatment||||
90966037|NCT01958788|181813476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Cohen's d effect size|||Pretreatment to 6-month follow-up effect size estimation using Cohen's d: a calculation of the relative magnitude of the effect from pretreatment to 6-month follow-up||||
90966038|NCT01958788|181813476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|-0.18|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Cohen's d effect size|||Posttreatment to 6-month follow-up effect size estimation using Cohen's d: a calculation of the relative magnitude of the effect from posttreatment to 6-month follow-up||||
90966039|NCT01958788|181813477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|1.41|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Cohen's d effect size|||Pre-posttreatment effect size estimation using Cohen's d: a calculation of the relative magnitude of the effect from pretreatment to posttreatment||||
90966040|NCT01958788|181813477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|1.65|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Cohen's d effect size|||Pretreatment to 6-month follow-up effect size estimation using Cohen's d: a calculation of the relative magnitude of the effect from pretreatment to 6-month follow-up||||
90966041|NCT01958788|181813477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Cohen's d effect size|||Posttreatment to 6-month follow-up effect size estimation using Cohen's d: a calculation of the relative magnitude of the effect from posttreatment to 6-month follow-up||||
90966042|NCT01958788|181813478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|1.64|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Cohen's d effect size|||Pre-posttreatment effect size estimation using Cohen's d: a calculation of the relative magnitude of the effect from pretreatment to posttreatment||||
90966043|NCT01958788|181813478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|1.47|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Cohen's d effect size|||Pretreatment to 6-month follow-up effect size estimation using Cohen's d: a calculation of the relative magnitude of the effect from pretreatment to 6-month follow-up||||
90966044|NCT01958788|181813478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|-0.56|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Cohen's d effect size|||Posttreatment to 6-month follow-up effect size estimation using Cohen's d: a calculation of the relative magnitude of the effect from posttreatment to 6-month follow-up||||
90966045|NCT01958788|181813479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|2.08|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Cohen's d effect size|||Pre-posttreatment effect size estimation using Cohen's d: a calculation of the relative magnitude of the effect from pretreatment to posttreatment||||
90966046|NCT01958788|181813479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|2.15|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Cohen's d effect size|||Pretreatment to 6-month follow-up effect size estimation using Cohen's d: a calculation of the relative magnitude of the effect from pretreatment to 6-month follow-up||||
90966047|NCT01958788|181813479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|-0.55|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Cohen's d effect size|||Posttreatment to 6-month follow-up effect size estimation using Cohen's d: a calculation of the relative magnitude of the effect from posttreatment to 6-month follow-up||||
90966048|NCT00962390|181813480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.4678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.1||Statistical testing was 2-sided and the 5% significant level was used.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA included Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and site.|S-equol treatment group minus placebo group.|Week 4, Treatment Effect||1.1|-0.5|0.4678
90966049|NCT00962390|181813480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.4892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.1||Statistical testing was 2-sided and the 5% significant level was used.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA included Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and site.|S-equol treatment group minus placebo group.|Week 4, Treatment Effect||1.1|-0.5|0.4892
90966050|NCT00962390|181813480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.8185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.0||Statistical testing was 2-sided and the 5% significant level was used.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA included Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and site.|S-equol treatment group minus placebo group.|Week 4, Treatment Effect||1.0|-0.8|0.8185
90928487|NCT02130557|181736355|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|1.13|||||Hazard ratio (95% CIs) are based on the treatment effect (Bosutinib compared with Imatinib) in a stratified (by Sokal risk group at randomization and region) Cox proportional hazards model for the hazard of the respective event.|The medians have not been reached in either arm, as such, the premature estimated hazard ratio is provided.||1.13|0.14|
90928488|NCT02130557|181736356|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64||||0.0749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.17||1-sided p-value based on Gray's test for comparing cumulative incidence function between treatment arms stratified by sokal risk group (low, intermediate, high) and region (1-3). Statistical significance threshold: 1-sided 0.0125.|Gray's test||The hazard ratio (95% CIs) are based on the proportional subdistribution hazards model stratified by Sokal risk group and region.|If each member of the short-term family (CCyR by Month 12, MMR by Month 18) was significant, EFS and OS were tested sequentially via the Holm's testing procedure at the 1-sided family wise level of 0.025. If one member of the short-term family was significant, EFS and OS were tested sequentially at 1-sided 0.0125.||1.17|0.35|0.0749
90928489|NCT02130557|181736357|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.2827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.73||1-sided p-value based on log-rank test for comparing survival curves between treatment arms stratified by sokal risk group and region. OS was not tested as EFS was not significant.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio (95% CIs) are based on the treatment effect (Bosutinib compared with Imatinib) in a stratified (by Sokal risk group at randomization and region) Cox proportional hazards model for the hazard of the respective event.|If each member of the short-term family (CCyR by Month 12, MMR by Month 18) was significant, EFS and OS were tested sequentially via the Holm's testing procedure at the 1-sided family wise level of 0.025. If one member of the short-term family was significant, EFS and OS were tested sequentially at 1-sided 0.0125.||1.73|0.37|0.2827
90928490|NCT01532999|181736367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Three-level mixed-effects linear regression analysis comparing MBSR and PCGT groups over 9 weeks. Data structure involved repeated measures over time nested within participant, who in turn, was nested within a therapy group. Models included a random intercept, a random slope, and fixed effects for treatment condition, time, and the stratification variable (site). Rejection of the null hypothesis of no treatment effect if this interaction was statistically significant (two-tailed α = .05).||||0.5
90928491|NCT01532999|181736368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Three-level mixed-effects linear regression analysis comparing MBSR and PCGT groups over 9 weeks.||||0.57
90928492|NCT01532999|181736370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Three-level mixed-effects linear regression analysis comparing MBSR and PCGT groups over 9 weeks.||||0.4
90928493|NCT01532999|181736371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Three-level mixed-effects linear regression analysis comparing MBSR and PCGT groups over 9 weeks.||||0.8
90928494|NCT01532999|181736372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Three-level mixed-effects linear regression analysis comparing MBSR and PCGT groups over 9 weeks.||||0.4
90928495|NCT01532999|181736373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Three-level mixed-effects linear regression analysis comparing MBSR and PCGT groups over 9 weeks.||||0.35
90928496|NCT01532999|181736374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Mixed effects logistic regression analysis.||||0.3
90928497|NCT01532999|181736375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Mixed effects logistic regression analysis.||||0.7
90966051|NCT00766090|181813505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.108|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.064|0.153|||ANCOVA|||||0.153|0.064|<0.001
90928498|NCT03333109|181736379|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|-0.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.42|-1.77|0.002
90928499|NCT03333109|181736379|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.45|-0.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.93|-2.45|<0.001
90928500|NCT03333109|181736380|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.52||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|2.07|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for stratification factor after missing data were imputed as non-response (NRI).||||2.07|1.12|0.007
90966052|NCT00766090|181813505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.098|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.054|0.142|||ANCOVA|||||0.142|0.054|<0.001
90928501|NCT03333109|181736380|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|3.15|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for stratification factor after missing data were imputed as non-response (NRI).||||3.15|1.55|<0.001
90928502|NCT03333109|181736381|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|-0.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.64|-2.07|<0.001
90928503|NCT03333109|181736381|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.71|-1.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.09|-2.71|<0.001
90928504|NCT03333109|181736382|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.99|-0.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.56|-2.99|0.004
90966053|NCT00766090|181813505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.087||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.014|0.161|||ANCOVA|||||0.161|0.014|0.020
90966054|NCT00766090|181813505|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the confidence interval (0.025, 1-sided significance level) for the mean difference in trough FEV1 of FF 200 µg OD versus FF 100 µg BID was greater than -110 milliliters.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.011||||0.641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.035|0.056|||ANCOVA|||||0.056|-0.035|0.641
90966055|NCT00766090|181813505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.132|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.059|0.205|||ANCOVA|||||0.205|0.059|<0.001
90966056|NCT03591354|181813632|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
90966057|NCT02463071|181813724|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.96|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.55|-16.88|||ANCOVA|Baseline TG and statin usage were included as covariates.||||-16.88|-36.55|<0.0001
90966058|NCT02463071|181813724|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-32.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.93|-22.92|||ANCOVA|Baseline TG and statin usage were included as covariates.||||-22.92|-42.93|<0.0001
90966059|NCT01499953|181813813|NON_INFERIORITY|The hypotheses for non-inferiority test using ∆=4.5% for the difference between incidence rates were H0: πrivaroxaban-πfondaparinux ≥ 4.5%, H1: πrivaroxaban-πfondaparinux \< 4.5% where πfondaparinux and πrivaroxaban were the incidence rates of CIAC confirmed VTE complications up to Day 45 in the treatment groups. Rejection of the null hypothesis would have concluded that rivaroxaban was not inferior to fondaparinux. To calculate the p-value, an asymptotic test for non-inferiority was used.||||||0.0252|||||||asymptotic test for non-inferiority|||||||0.0252
91035345|NCT02246920|181956634|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence is demonstrated when the 90% confidence interval is contained within 80.00-125.00%.|T/R LS Mean Ratio|107.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.42|124.09||||||||124.09|92.42|
90966060|NCT03734016|181813828|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority testing for ORR was performed using a stratified Wald test based on the stratified Mantel-Haenszel response ratio estimate against the non-inferiority margin of 0.8558 on the log scale.|Response ratio|1.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.22|||Stratified Wald test|Stratified by the randomization stratification factors (age, geographic region, refractory status, and 17p deletion and TP53 mutation status)|Response ratio is the estimated ratio of the overall response rate of the zanubrutinib arm divided by that of the ibrutinib arm.|||1.22|1.04|<0.0001
90966061|NCT03734016|181813828|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0035||||||Superiority testing was performed using a 2-sided stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by the randomization stratification factors (age, geographic region, refractory status, and 17p deletion and TP53 mutation status)||||||0.0035
90966062|NCT03734016|181813829|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority testing for ORR was performed using a stratified Wald test based on the stratified Mantel-Haenszel response ratio estimate against the non-inferiority margin of 0.8558 on the log scale.|Response ratio|1.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.22|||Stratified Wald test|Stratified by the randomization stratification factors (age, geographic region, refractory status, and 17p deletion and TP53 mutation status)|Response ratio is the estimated ratio of the overall response rate of the zanubrutinib arm divided by that of the ibrutinib arm.|||1.22|1.05|<0.0001
90966063|NCT03734016|181813829|SUPERIORITY|Superiority testing was performed using a 2-sided stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test.||||||0.0007|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by the randomization stratification factors (age, geographic region, refractory status, and 17p deletion and TP53 mutation status)||||||0.0007
90966064|NCT03734016|181813830|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was tested with a non-inferiority margin (hazard ratio) of 1.33 with the use of a stratified Wald test based on the four randomization stratification factors.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.86|||Stratified Wald test|Stratified by the randomization stratification factors (age, geographic region, refractory status, and 17p deletion and TP53 mutation status)|Hazard ratio is the ratio of the hazard of the zanubrutinib arm divided by that of the ibrutinib arm.|||0.86|0.49|<0.0001
90928505|NCT03333109|181736382|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.07|-1.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.36|-4.07|<0.001
90928506|NCT01447706|181736385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.37||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.76|||Log Rank|||||0.76|0.18|0.007
90928507|NCT01447706|181736385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.8||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|2.98|||Log Rank|||||2.98|1.08|0.023
90928508|NCT00918203|181736386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.29||||0.2133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.93|||Log Rank|||||1.93|0.86|0.2133
90928509|NCT00918203|181736389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.8731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.57|||Log Rank|||||1.57|0.68|0.8731
90928510|NCT00918203|181736390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4721|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4721
90966065|NCT03734016|181813830|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0024|||||||Stratified Log-rank test|Stratified by the randomization stratification factors (age, geographic region, refractory status, and 17p deletion and TP53 mutation status)||||||0.0024
90966066|NCT03734016|181813831|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was tested with a noninferiority margin (hazard ratio) of 1.33 with the use of a stratified Wald test based on the four randomization stratification factors.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.86||Stratified by the randomization stratification factors (age, geographic region, refractory status, and 17p deletion and TP53 mutation status)|Stratified Wald test||Hazard ratio is the ratio of the hazard of the zanubrutinib arm divided by that of the ibrutinib arm.|||0.86|0.49|<0.0001
90966067|NCT03734016|181813831|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0024|||||||Stratified Log-rank test|Stratified by the randomization stratification factors (age, geographic region, refractory status, and 17p deletion and TP53 mutation status)||||||0.0024
90966068|NCT03734016|181813832|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|-8.0||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|-3.6|||Chi-squared||Rate difference is the zanubrutinib rate minus the ibrutinib rate.|||-3.6|-12.4|0.0004
91035346|NCT02246920|181956635|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0028|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0028
91035347|NCT02246920|181956635|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0169|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0169
91078010|NCT02542293|182041273|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.585|1.177|||||The HR and CI were calculated using an unstratified Cox proportional hazards model, with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"tTMB ≥10 mut/Mb analysis set: Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy to be associated with a longer PFS than SoC."||1.177|0.585|
90928511|NCT05501600|181736460|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.004
90928512|NCT05501600|181736461|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.081616|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.081616
90928513|NCT02678689|181736465|SUPERIORITY|The two-sample T-test with unequal variance was conducted at a significance level of 0.05|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, unequal variance|||||||< 0.0001
90928514|NCT02678689|181736466|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.091|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.021|0.393|||Cox Model Wald Test||Hazard ratio is based on Cox proportional hazards model with a factor of study group|||0.393|0.021|<.0001
90928515|NCT02678689|181736467|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.0||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Cox Model Wald Test||Hazard ratio is based on Cox proportional hazards model with a factor of study group|||0.000|0.000|0.0032
90928516|NCT02678689|181736468|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, unequal variance|||||||<.0001
90928517|NCT02678689|181736469|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, unequal variance|||||||<.0001
90928518|NCT02678689|181736470|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.209||||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.059|0.735|||Cox Model Wald Test|The p value is a test that the hazard ratio equal to 1.|"Hazard ratio is based on Cox proportional hazards model with a factor of study group.~Hazard Ratio (HR) 190-203 vs DEM-CHILD."|||0.735|0.059|0.0081
90928519|NCT05890794|181736486|OTHER|The difference in dose group means (0.8 mg/kg - 3.2 mg/kg) was calculated.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|40.85||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.842|58.858||Significant test: 2-sided; significance level 5%.|t-test, 2 sided|A 2-sided t-test was carried out to determine whether there is a difference in means between the 0.8 mg/kg and 3.2 mg/kg dose groups.||Analysis of the difference in relative maximum change from baseline between dose groups of ilofotase alfa by a 2-sided t-test for PPi.||58.858|22.842|0.0005
90928520|NCT05890794|181736486|OTHER|The difference between LS Means of change from baseline between dose groups was calculated. The analysis was performed using an MMRM model with fixed effects for baseline value, dose group, timepoint, interaction between dose group and timepoint, as well as random effects for patient and error|Difference in LS Means|-11.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.681|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.52|-5.82||Significant test: 2-sided; significance level 5%.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of the difference in relative maximum change from baseline (LS Means) between dose groups of ilofotase alfa by a mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis for PPi.||-5.82|-16.52|<0.0001
90928521|NCT05890794|181736487|OTHER|The difference in dose group means (0.8 mg/kg - 3.2 mg/kg) was calculated.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|30.89|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.831|40.941||Significant test: 2-sided; significance level 5%.|t-test, 2 sided|A 2-sided t-test was carried out to determine whether there is a difference in means between the 0.8 mg/kg and 3.2 mg/kg dose groups.||Analysis of the difference in relative maximum change from baseline between dose groups of ilofotase alfa by a 2-sided t-test for PLP.||40.941|20.831|<0.0001
90928522|NCT05890794|181736487|OTHER|The difference between LS Means of change from baseline between dose groups was calculated. The analysis was performed using an MMRM model with fixed effects for baseline value, dose group, timepoint, interaction between dose group and timepoint, as well as random effects for patient and error.|Difference in LS Means|-22.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.289||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.81|-9.2||Significant test: two-sided; significance level 5%.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of the difference in relative maximum change from baseline (LS Means) between dose groups of ilofotase alfa by an MMRM analysis for PLP.||-9.20|-35.81|0.0024
90928523|NCT05890794|181736488|OTHER|The difference in dose group means (0.8 mg/kg - 3.2 mg/kg) was calculated.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4335.66||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6652.753|-2018.576||Significant test: 2-sided; significance level 5%.|t-test, 2 sided|A 2-sided t-test was carried out to determine whether there is a difference in means between the 0.8 mg/kg and 3.2 mg/kg dose groups.||Analysis of the difference in relative maximum change from baseline between dose groups of ilofotase alfa by a 2-sided t-test for ALP activity.||-2018.576|-6652.753|0.0019
90928524|NCT05890794|181736489|OTHER|The difference in dose group means (0.8 mg/kg - 3.2 mg/kg) was calculated.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.25||||0.0693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.319|48.812||Significant test: 2-sided; significance level 5%.|t-test, 2 sided|A 2-sided t-test was carried out to determine whether there is a difference in means between the 0.8 mg/kg and 3.2 mg/kg dose groups.||Analysis of the difference in relative maximum change from baseline between dose groups of ilofotase alfa by a 2-sided t-test for urine PEA.||48.812|-2.319|0.0693
90928525|NCT05890794|181736489|OTHER|The difference between LS Means of change from baseline between dose groups was calculated. The analysis was performed using an MMRM model with fixed effects for baseline value, dose group, timepoint, interaction between dose group and timepoint, as well as random effects for patient and error.|Difference in LS Means|-8.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.986||0.7086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.88|40.35||Significant test: 2-sided; significance level 5%.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of the difference in relative maximum change from baseline (LS Means) between dose groups of ilofotase alfa by an MMRM analysis for urine PEA.||40.35|-57.88|0.7086
90940945|NCT00943722|181761605|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMTs be entirely contained within the interval (0.5, 2.0).|GMT ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.19|||||GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 2) divided by GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 3)|Anti-HPV 6||1.19|0.95|
91035873|NCT02558491|181958307|OTHER|||||||0.085||||||No a priori sample size was determined due to the feasibility/pilot nature of the trial. Significance level was set at P-value \<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Secondary analysis followed the same format unless variables could not be considered normally distributed; in that case a related samples Wilcoxon signed-rank test is used. Data were first binned (to ensure minimum count of five per bins) and the w2 statistics was used with the expected counts given by SoC. Based on achieved recruitment, a moderate effect size (0.3) is detectable with 80% power, or a large effect size (0.4) with 95% power (G-Power 3.1.9.2). Outcome measurement was for mealtime.||||0.085
90928526|NCT05890794|181736490|OTHER|The difference in dose group means (0.8 mg/kg - 3.2 mg/kg) was calculated.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|187.43||||0.0199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.516|338.344||Significant test: 2-sided; significance level 5%.|t-test, 2 sided|A 2-sided t-test was carried out to determine whether there is a difference in means between the 0.8 mg/kg and 3.2 mg/kg dose groups.||Analysis of the difference in relative maximum change from baseline between dose groups of ilofotase alfa by a 2-sided t-test for PL.||338.344|36.516|0.0199
90928527|NCT05890794|181736490|OTHER|The difference between LS Means of change from baseline between dose groups was calculated. The analysis was performed using an MMRM model with fixed effects for baseline value, dose group, timepoint, interaction between dose group and timepoint, as well as random effects for patient and error.|Difference in LS Means|-12.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.767||0.2034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.92|6.89||Significant test: 2-sided; significance level 5%|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of the difference in relative maximum change from baseline (LS Means) between dose groups of ilofotase alfa by an MMRM analysis for PL.||6.89|-31.92|0.2034
90928528|NCT05890794|181736491|OTHER|The difference in dose group means (0.8 mg/kg - 3.2 mg/kg) was calculated.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.89||||0.5195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.868|2.084||Significant test: 2-sided; significance level 5%.|t-test, 2 sided|A 2-sided t-test was carried out to determine whether there is a difference in means between the 0.8 mg/kg and 3.2 mg/kg dose groups.||Analysis of the difference in fold change from baseline between dose groups of ilofotase alfa by a 2-sided t-test for PL/PLP ratio.||2.084|-3.868|0.5195
90928529|NCT05890794|181736491|OTHER|The difference between LS Means of fold change from baseline between dose groups was calculated. The analysis was performed using an MMRM model with fixed effects for baseline value, dose group, timepoint, interaction between dose group and timepoint, as well as random effects for patient and error.|Difference in LS Means|1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.161|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.33||Significant test: 2-sided; significance level 5%.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of the difference in fold change form baseline (LS Means) between dose levels of ilofotase alfa by an MMRM analysis for PL/PLP ratio.||1.33|0.69|<0.0001
90928530|NCT04538352|181736493|OTHER|p value of contrast difference compared from MDI to Semaglutide group at specific time point, testing whether contrast difference is equal to 0, which means there is no difference between two groups. The determination of statistical significance was made using Bonferroni-adjusted p-value, setting the significance threshold at 0.01 after multiplicity correction.||||||0.009||||||p value is adjusted for the multiple comparison. The significance threshold is set to 0.01.|Bonferroni-adjusted p-value|||"Linear mixed effect model was conducted for each endpoint to assess mean change at each time point, with time, treatment groups, the interaction of treatment groups and time, and baseline variables included and adjusted in each model.~Mean change difference between patients with MDI and those with Semaglutide (MDI - Semaglutide)"||||0.009
90928531|NCT04538352|181736494|OTHER|p value of contrast difference compared from MDI to Semaglutide group at specific time point, testing whether contrast difference is equal to 0, which means there is no difference between two groups. The determination of statistical significance was made using Bonferroni-adjusted p-value, setting the significance threshold at 0.01 after multiplicity correction.|||||<|0.001||||||p value is adjusted for the multiple comparison. The significance threshold is set to 0.01.|Bonferroni-adjusted p-value|||"Linear mixed effect model was conducted for each endpoint to assess mean change at each time point, with time, treatment groups, the interaction of treatment groups and time, and baseline variables included and adjusted in each model.~Mean change difference between patients with MDI and those with Semaglutide (MDI - Semaglutide)"||||<0.001
90928532|NCT03367156|181736501|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.7|||Linear Model|||||0.7|-0.8|0.48
90928533|NCT03367156|181736502|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.0|||Linear Model|||||1|-0.7|>0.99
90928534|NCT03367156|181736503|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.6|||Linear Model|||||1.6|-0.7|0.97
90928535|NCT03367156|181736504|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.0|||Linear Model|||||1.0|-0.8|0.78
90928536|NCT03367156|181736505|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|9.6|||Linear Model|||||9.6|-10.6|0.93
90928537|NCT03367156|181736506|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.8|||Linear Model|||||1.8|-0.6|0.93
90928538|NCT03367156|181736507|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.1|||Linear Model|||||1.1|-0.9|0.82
90928539|NCT03367156|181736508|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.5||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.9|6.9|||Linear Model|||||6.9|-17.9|0.38
90928540|NCT03762850|181736509|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.69|0.51|<0.0001
90928541|NCT03762850|181736510|OTHER||Slope difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.0582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|1.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.94|-0.03|0.0582
90928542|NCT03762850|181736511|OTHER||Slope difference|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.0369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|2.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.12|0.07|0.0369
90928543|NCT00092534|181736518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent relative risk reduction|96.6||||||95.0|88.2|99.6|||||Confidence Interval (CI) based on binomial tail probabilities and not from a dispersion parameter|||99.6|88.2|
90928544|NCT03244800|181736646|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90928545|NCT03244800|181736647|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.002
90966069|NCT03734016|181813835|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.72|||||Hazard ratio is the ratio of the hazard of the zanubrutinib arm divided by that of the ibrutinib arm.|||0.72|0.41|
90966070|NCT03734016|181813838|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.11|||||Hazard ratio is the ratio of the hazard of the zanubrutinib arm divided by that of the ibrutinib arm.|||1.11|0.51|
90966071|NCT03734016|181813839|OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|3.0||||0.0338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|5.77|||Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)|||Analysis of Change from Baseline in EORTC QLQ-C30 GHS/QOL at Week 24. A linear mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) includes the repeated measurement of the change from baseline as the dependent variable, and the treatment arm by assessment timepoint interaction, and baseline score as a covariate with an unstructured covariance matrix.||5.77|0.23|0.0338
90928546|NCT03244800|181736648|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90928547|NCT03244800|181736649|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90928548|NCT03244800|181736650|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.002
90928549|NCT03244800|181736651|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.76||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.61|72.03|||Regression, Logistic|||||72.03|1.61|0.040
90928550|NCT03802994|181736735|EQUIVALENCE|Differences between groups were compared using the paired t test|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|80.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences between groups were compared using the paired t test||||<0.05
90928551|NCT03802994|181736735|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
90928552|NCT03802994|181736735|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|80.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
90928553|NCT03802994|181736736|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
90928554|NCT03802994|181736736|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
90928555|NCT03802994|181736737|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
90928556|NCT03802994|181736738|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
90928557|NCT00622700|181736742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.574||||0.0087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.379|0.869||P value was derived using Wald chi-squared test in the Cox proportional hazard model.|Wald chi-squared|||A step-down hierarchical testing procedure, starting with the test of teriflunomide 14 mg versus placebo was used. Time to conversion to CDMS was analyzed using the Cox proportional hazard model with treatment, region, and baseline monofocal/multifocal status as covariates.||0.869|0.379|0.0087
90928558|NCT00622700|181736742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.628||||0.0271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.416|0.949||P value was derived using Wald chi-squared test in the Cox proportional hazard model.|Wald chi-squared|||A step-down hierarchical testing procedure was used. The second step was the test of teriflunomide 7 mg versus placebo for time to conversion to CDMS. Time to conversion to CDMS was analyzed using the Cox proportional hazard model with treatment, region, and baseline monofocal/multifocal status as covariates.||0.949|0.416|0.0271
90928559|NCT00622700|181736743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.651||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.515|0.822||P value was derived using Wald chi-squared test in the Cox proportional hazard model.|Wald chi-squared|||A step-down hierarchical testing procedure was used. The third step was the test of teriflunomide 14 mg versus placebo for time to conversion to DMS. This was analyzed using the Cox proportional hazard model with treatment, region, and baseline monofocal/multifocal status as covariates.||0.822|0.515|0.0003
90928560|NCT00622700|181736743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.686||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.871||P value was derived using Wald chi-squared test in the Cox proportional hazard model.|Wald chi-squared|||A step-down hierarchical testing procedure was used. The fourth step was the test of teriflunomide 7 mg versus placebo for time to conversion to DMS. This was analyzed using the Cox proportional hazard model with treatment, region, and baseline monofocal/multifocal status as covariates.||0.871|0.540|0.0020
90928561|NCT03611556|181736763|SUPERIORITY||Rate difference|-8.0||||0.3614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.6|12.1||Nominal P-value for comparison of treatment groups obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel-test was stratified by cluster of differentiation 73 (CD73) level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||||80% Confidence Interval 2-Sided: -20.9 to 5.2|12.1|-27.6|0.3614
90928562|NCT03611556|181736763|SUPERIORITY||Rate difference|3.8||||0.6503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|20.7||Nominal P-value for comparison of treatment groups obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel-test was stratified by CD73 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||||80% Confidence Interval 2-Sided: -7.4 to 15.0|20.7|-13.2|0.6503
90928563|NCT03611556|181736770|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.983|||||Hazard ratio for comparison between treatment groups obtained from Cox Proportional Hazards model stratified by CD73 level with ties handled by the Efron method.|||1.983|0.790|
90928564|NCT03611556|181736770|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.498|1.131|||||Hazard ratio for comparison between treatment groups obtained from Cox Proportional Hazards model stratified by CD73 level with ties handled by the Efron method.|||1.131|0.498|
90928565|NCT03611556|181736772|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.726|1.837|||||Hazard ratio for comparison between treatment groups obtained from Cox Proportional Hazards model stratified by CD73 level with ties handled by the Efron method.|||1.837|0.726|
91035874|NCT02558491|181958307|OTHER|||||||0.055||||||No a priori sample size was determined due to the feasibility/pilot nature of the trial. Significance level was set at P-value \<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Secondary analysis followed the same format unless variables could not be considered normally distributed; in that case a related samples Wilcoxon signed-rank test is used. Data were first binned (to ensure minimum count of five per bins) and the w2 statistics was used with the expected counts given by SoC. Based on achieved recruitment, a moderate effect size (0.3) is detectable with 80% power, or a large effect size (0.4) with 95% power (G-Power 3.1.9.2). Outcome measurement was for overnight.||||0.055
90928566|NCT03611556|181736772|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.719|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.468|1.105|||||Hazard ratio for comparison between treatment groups obtained from Cox Proportional Hazards model stratified by CD73 level with ties handled by the Efron method.|||1.105|0.468|
90928567|NCT03611556|181736776|SUPERIORITY||Rate difference|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.2|21.9||||||||21.9|-25.2|
90928568|NCT03611556|181736776|SUPERIORITY||Rate difference|7.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|27.0||||||||27.0|-12.6|
90928569|NCT03611556|181736776|SUPERIORITY||Rate difference|-25.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.3|13.9||||||||13.9|-58.3|
90928570|NCT03611556|181736776|SUPERIORITY||Rate difference|-6.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.1|26.6||||||||26.6|-39.1|
90928571|NCT03611556|181736777|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.173|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.676|1.985|||||Hazard ratio for comparison between treatment groups obtained from Cox Proportional Hazards model with ties handled by the Efron method.|||1.985|0.676|
90928572|NCT03611556|181736777|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.605|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.377|0.968|||||Hazard ratio for comparison between treatment groups obtained from Cox Proportional Hazards model with ties handled by the Efron method.|||0.968|0.377|
90928573|NCT03611556|181736777|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.549|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.622|3.917|||||Hazard ratio for comparison between treatment groups obtained from Cox Proportional Hazards model with ties handled by the Efron method.|||3.917|0.622|
90928574|NCT03611556|181736777|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.472|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.638|3.576|||||Hazard ratio for comparison between treatment groups obtained from Cox Proportional Hazards model with ties handled by the Efron method.|||3.576|0.638|
90928575|NCT03611556|181736779|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.004|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.584|1.693|||||Hazard ratio for comparison between treatment groups obtained from Cox Proportional Hazards model with ties handled by the Efron method.|||1.693|0.584|
90928576|NCT03611556|181736779|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.598|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.366|0.973|||||Hazard ratio for comparison between treatment groups obtained from Cox Proportional Hazards model with ties handled by the Efron method.|||0.973|0.366|
90928577|NCT03611556|181736779|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.933|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.716|5.437|||||Hazard ratio for comparison between treatment groups obtained from Cox Proportional Hazards model with ties handled by the Efron method.|||5.437|0.716|
90928578|NCT03611556|181736779|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.374|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|3.707|||||Hazard ratio for comparison between treatment groups obtained from Cox Proportional Hazards model with ties handled by the Efron method.|||3.707|0.550|
90928579|NCT05966155|181736836|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27||||0.677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|1.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.00|-1.54|0.677
90928580|NCT05966155|181736837|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.1264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.2|-1.4|0.1264
90928581|NCT05966155|181736838|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.3692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.1|||t-test, 2 sided||The by-group means and the estimated mean difference are independently rounded to the nearest tenth. As a result, the mean difference it not exactly equivalent to the difference in the two reported means.|||1.1|-0.4|0.3692
90928582|NCT05966155|181736839|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8492|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.8492
90928583|NCT05966155|181736840|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0246|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0246
90928584|NCT05966155|181736841|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0111|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0111
90928585|NCT05966155|181736842|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0776|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0776
90928586|NCT05966155|181736843|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0014|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0014
90928587|NCT04066075|181736939|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73||||||The p-value represents the difference between telerehabilitation and usual care.|Multilevel linear regression model|||Multilevel modeling in linear regression analyses accounted for within-patient correlations for the 3 assessments at baseline, 1-month and 4-months. Rasch analysis using the method of successive dichotomizations was applied to estimate person measures. Power calculation: a matched pairs t-test revealed 18 subjects per group would detect a within-subject mean improvement of 0.14-logits with 0.17-logits standard deviation for the differences, 0.80 power and 0.05 type 1 error probability.||||0.73
90928588|NCT00859781|181736973|SUPERIORITY||proportion difference|0.26||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.008|0.52|||Fisher Exact||Direction = 177Lu-J591 + Ketoconazole proportion free of radiographically evident metastases minus 111ln-J591 + Ketoconazole proportion free of radiographically evident metastases.|||0.52|0.008|0.08
90928589|NCT04057820|181736977|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate ratio (IRR)|0.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model adjusted for study design (i.e., fixed time effect and random site effect) and randomization scheme stratification indicator.||||0.65|0.46|<0.0001
90928590|NCT04057820|181736978|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.47|||Mixed-effect Poisson w/ robust err var|The model adjusted for study design (i.e., fixed time effect and random site effect) and randomization scheme stratification indicator.||||0.47|0.30|<0.0001
90928591|NCT04057820|181736979|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|4.9||||||||4.9|-0.4|
90928592|NCT04057820|181736980|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.1|37.9||||||||37.9|8.1|
90928593|NCT04057820|181736981|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.76||||||||1.76|0.37|
90928594|NCT04057820|181736982|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.0|-0.3|
90966072|NCT03734016|181813839|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.34||||0.3304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|4.06|||Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)|||Analysis of Change from Baseline in EORTC QLQ-C30 GHS/QOL at Week 48. A linear mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) includes the repeated measurement of the change from baseline as the dependent variable, and the treatment arm by assessment timepoint interaction, and baseline score as a covariate with an unstructured covariance matrix.||4.06|-1.37|0.3304
90966073|NCT03734016|181813839|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.82||||0.1189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|4.12|||Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)|||"Analysis of Change from Baseline in EORTC QLQ-C30 Physical Functioning Scale at Week 24.~A linear mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) includes the repeated measurement of the change from baseline as the dependent variable, and the treatment arm by assessment timepoint interaction, and baseline score as a covariate with an unstructured covariance matrix."||4.12|-0.47|0.1189
90966074|NCT03734016|181813839|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.15||||0.3274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|3.44|||Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)|||"Analysis of Change from Baseline in EORTC QLQ-C30 Physical Functioning Scale at Week 48.~A linear mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) includes the repeated measurement of the change from baseline as the dependent variable, and the treatment arm by assessment timepoint interaction, and baseline score as a covariate with an unstructured covariance matrix."||3.44|-1.15|0.3274
90966075|NCT03734016|181813839|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.63||||0.6821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|3.66|||Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)|||"Analysis of Change from Baseline in EORTC QLQ-C30 Role Functioning Scale at Week 24.~A linear mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) includes the repeated measurement of the change from baseline as the dependent variable, and the treatment arm by assessment timepoint interaction, and baseline score as a covariate with an unstructured covariance matrix."||3.66|-2.40|0.6821
90966076|NCT03734016|181813839|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.8||||0.2701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|5.0|||Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)|||"Analysis of Change from Baseline in EORTC QLQ-C30 Role Functioning Scale at Week 48.~A linear mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) includes the repeated measurement of the change from baseline as the dependent variable, and the treatment arm by assessment timepoint interaction, and baseline score as a covariate with an unstructured covariance matrix."||5.00|-1.40|0.2701
90966077|NCT03734016|181813840|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.91||||0.1778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|0.87|||Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)|||"Analysis of Change from Baseline in EORTC QLQ-C30 Fatigue Symptom Scale at Week 24.~A linear mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) includes the repeated measurement of the change from baseline as the dependent variable, and the treatment arm by assessment timepoint interaction, and baseline score as a covariate with an unstructured covariance matrix."||0.87|-4.70|0.1778
90928595|NCT04057820|181736983|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|3.99||||||||3.99|0.94|
90928596|NCT04057820|181736984|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|2.48||||||||2.48|1.13|
90928597|NCT04057820|181736985|SUPERIORITY||Incidence ratio ratio (IRR)|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model adjusted for study design (i.e., fixed time effect and random site effect) and randomization scheme stratification indicator.||||0.64|0.49|
90928598|NCT04057820|181736987|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.47||||||||1.47|0.71|
90928599|NCT05630833|181737030|OTHER||Lower 10th percentile (%)|48.2|||||||||||||Lower 10th percentile of therapeutic successes was calculated from the predictive distribution.|As defined in Statistical Analysis Plan, consistency with the global studies is demonstrated if the success criterion for gepotidacin is set to require a therapeutic response rate greater than lower 10th percentile value of the predictive distribution.||||
90928600|NCT01958021|181737069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.556||||3.29e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.429|0.72|||Log Rank|||||0.720|0.429|0.00000329
90928601|NCT01958021|181737070|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.765||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.628|0.932|||Log Rank|||||0.932|0.628|0.004
90928602|NCT01958021|181737071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.000155|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.000155
90928603|NCT01958021|181737072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.018|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.018
90928604|NCT00490139|181737077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.0|||Log Rank|Stratification was by chemotherapy timing, hormone receptor status, and axillary lymph node status.|The estimate of the treatment hazard ratio (lap plus tras versus tras) was based on the Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for the stratification factors of chemotherapy timing, hormone receptor status, and axillary lymph node status.|||1.00|0.71|0.048
90928605|NCT00490139|181737077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.13|||Log Rank|Stratification was by chemotherapy timing, hormone receptor status, and axillary lymph node status.|The estimate of the treatment hazard ratio (lap plus tras versus tras) was based on the Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for the stratification factors of chemotherapy timing, hormone receptor status, and axillary lymph node status.|||1.13|0.81|0.610
90928606|NCT00490139|181737078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.887|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.02|||||The estimate of the treatment hazard ratio (lap plus tras versus tras) was based on the Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for the stratification factors of chemotherapy timing, hormone receptor status, and axillary lymph node status.|||1.02|0.77|
90928607|NCT00490139|181737078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.914|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.05|||||The estimate of the treatment hazard ratio (lap plus tras versus tras) was based on the Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for the stratification factors of chemotherapy timing, hormone receptor status, and axillary lymph node status.|||1.05|0.80|
90928608|NCT00490139|181737079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.03|||Log Rank|Stratification was by chemotherapy timing, hormone receptor status, and axillary lymph node status.|The estimate of the treatment hazard ratio (lap plus tras versus tras) was based on the Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for the stratification factors of chemotherapy timing, hormone receptor status, and axillary lymph node status.|||1.03|0.62|0.078
90928609|NCT00490139|181737079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.16|||Log Rank|Stratification was by chemotherapy timing, hormone receptor status, and axillary lymph node status.|The estimate of the treatment hazard ratio (tras followed by lap versus tras) was based on the Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for the stratification factors of chemotherapy timing, hormone receptor status, and axillary lymph node status.|||1.16|0.71|0.433
90928610|NCT00490139|181737080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.853|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.03|||||The estimate of the treatment hazard ratio (lap plus tras versus tras) was based on the Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for the stratification factors of chemotherapy timing, hormone receptor status, and axillary lymph node status.|||1.03|0.70|
90928611|NCT00490139|181737080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.863|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.04|||||The estimate of the treatment hazard ratio (tras followed by lap versus tras) was based on the Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for the stratification factors of chemotherapy timing, hormone receptor status, and axillary lymph node status.|||1.04|0.71|
90928612|NCT00490139|181737081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Time to recurrence was analyzed using competing risks methodology with death (without event) as a competing risk.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.811|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.96||||||||0.96|0.68|
90928613|NCT00490139|181737081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Time to recurrence was analyzed using competing risks methodology with death (without event) as a competing risk.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.1||||||||1.10|0.79|
90928614|NCT00490139|181737082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Time to distant recurrence was analyzed using competing risks methodology with death (without event) as a competing risk.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.852|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.02||||||||1.02|0.71|
90928615|NCT00490139|181737082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Time to distant recurrence was analyzed using competing risks methodology with death (without event) as a competing risk.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.968|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.16||||||||1.16|0.81|
90928616|NCT00490139|181737083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Time to CNS recurrence was analyzed using competing risks methodology with death (without event) as a competing risk.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.986|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.31||||||||1.31|0.74|
90928617|NCT00490139|181737083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Time to CNS recurrence was analyzed using competing risks methodology with death (without event) as a competing risk.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.31||||||||1.31|0.74|
90928618|NCT04640974|181737086|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-Value was calculated|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
90928619|NCT04640974|181737087|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-Value was calculated|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
90928620|NCT04640974|181737088|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-Value was calculated|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
90928621|NCT02298842|181737119|NON_INFERIORITY|The sample size of 60 was chosen to meet the FDA pH requirements that the lower 95% confidence limit on the proportion of platelet test units with pH\> 6.2 will be at least 95%. This will be achieved if zero failures (pH\<=6.2) is seen.|Simple sample proportion|100.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0|||ONE_SIDED|95.0|95.1||||Exact Binomial Confidence Interval||Estimated proportion is 100%. Hence standard deviation is estimated as 0.|"A success is defined as pH22°C at Day 5 and Day 7 being at least 6.2. A one-sided 95% lower confidence limit will be used to assess the proportion of successes at Day 5 and Day 7. If the lower limit of the one-sided 95% confidence interval exceeds 0.95, the Test product will meet the FDA acceptance criteria."|||95.1|
90928622|NCT02298842|181737120|NON_INFERIORITY|The sample size of 60 was chosen to meet the FDA pH requirements that the lower 95% confidence limit on the proportion of platelet test units with pH\> 6.2 will be at least 95%. This will be achieved if zero failures (pH\<=6.2) is seen.|Simple sample proportion|100.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0|||ONE_SIDED|95.0|95.1||||Exact Bionomial Confidence Interval||Estimated proportion is 100%. Hence standard deviation is estimated as 0.|"A success is defined as pH22°C at Day 5 and Day 7 being at least 6.2. A one-sided 95% lower confidence limit will be used to assess the proportion of successes at Day 5 and Day 7. If the lower limit of the one-sided 95% confidence interval exceeds 0.95, the Test product will meet the FDA acceptance criteria."|||95.1|
90928623|NCT02298842|181737121|NON_INFERIORITY|If the 97.5% upper limit of the confidence interval is less than 0, the null hypothesis will be rejected in favor of the alternative suggesting the Test product is not inferior to the Control product.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.099|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.6367|||ONE_SIDED|97.5||16.738|||||Estimated from an ANCOVA with effects of treatment and subject nested within sequence.|The null hypothesis is that P-selectin's mean difference, Test - 1.25 \* Control, is greater than or equal to 0, and the alternative is that the mean difference is less than 0.||16.738||
90928624|NCT02298842|181737122|NON_INFERIORITY|Higher value is considered to indicate better platelet quality. If the 97.5% lower limit of the confidence interval is greater than 0, the null hypothesis will be rejected in favor of the alternative suggesting the Test product is not inferior to the Control product.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.418|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.5531|||ONE_SIDED|97.5|-1.544||||||Estimated from an ANCOVA with effects of treatment and subject nested within sequence.|The null hypothesis is that ESC's mean difference, Test - 0.8 \* Control, is less than or equal to 0, and the alternative is that the mean difference is greater than 0.|||-1.544|
90966078|NCT03734016|181813840|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.35||||0.8174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.32|2.62|||Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)|||"Analysis of Change from Baseline in EORTC QLQ-C30 Fatigue Symptom Scale at Week 48.~A linear mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) includes the repeated measurement of the change from baseline as the dependent variable, and the treatment arm by assessment timepoint interaction, and baseline score as a covariate with an unstructured covariance matrix."||2.62|-3.32|0.8174
90966079|NCT03734016|181813840|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.29||||0.6294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|0.89|||Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)|||"Analysis of Change from Baseline in EORTC QLQ-C30 Nausea and Vomiting Symptom Scale at Week 24.~A linear mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) includes the repeated measurement of the change from baseline as the dependent variable, and the treatment arm by assessment timepoint interaction, and baseline score as a covariate with an unstructured covariance matrix."||0.89|-1.48|0.6294
90966080|NCT03734016|181813840|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.51||||0.4933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|0.96|||Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)|||"Analysis of Change from Baseline in EORTC QLQ-C30 Nausea and Vomiting Symptom Scale at Week 48.~A linear mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) includes the repeated measurement of the change from baseline as the dependent variable, and the treatment arm by assessment timepoint interaction, and baseline score as a covariate with an unstructured covariance matrix."||0.96|-1.99|0.4933
90966081|NCT03734016|181813840|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.43||||0.3643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.51|1.66|||Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)|||"Analysis of Change from Baseline in EORTC QLQ-C30 Pain Symptom Scale at Week 24.~A linear mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) includes the repeated measurement of the change from baseline as the dependent variable, and the treatment arm by assessment timepoint interaction, and baseline score as a covariate with an unstructured covariance matrix."||1.66|-4.51|0.3643
90966082|NCT03734016|181813840|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.43||||0.1363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.62|0.77|||Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)|||"Analysis of Change from Baseline in EORTC QLQ-C30 Pain Symptom Scale at Week 48.~A linear mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) includes the repeated measurement of the change from baseline as the dependent variable, and the treatment arm by assessment timepoint interaction, and baseline score as a covariate with an unstructured covariance matrix."||0.77|-5.62|0.1363
90966083|NCT03734016|181813840|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.59||||0.2001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.01|0.84|||Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)|||"Analysis of Change from Baseline in EORTC QLQ-C30 Diarrhoea Symptom Scale at Week 24.~A linear mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) includes the repeated measurement of the change from baseline as the dependent variable, and the treatment arm by assessment timepoint interaction, and baseline score as a covariate with an unstructured covariance matrix."||0.84|-4.01|0.2001
90966084|NCT03734016|181813840|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.85||||0.1121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.12|0.43|||Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)|||"Analysis of Change from Baseline in EORTC QLQ-C30 Diarrhoea Symptom Scale at Week 48.~A linear mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) includes the repeated measurement of the change from baseline as the dependent variable, and the treatment arm by assessment timepoint interaction, and baseline score as a covariate with an unstructured covariance matrix."||0.43|-4.12|0.1121
90966085|NCT01624259|181813845|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Family-wise Type I error rate was controlled by applying a serial gatekeeping strategy.~This calculation assumed a 0 difference in HbA1c between the 1.5 mg LY2189265 1.5-mg arm and 1.8 mg liraglutide, 0.4% margin of noninferiority, common Standard Deviation (SD) of 1.3% for change from baseline in HbA1c, 0.05 two-sided significance level, and 25% dropout rate at 26 weeks."|LS Mean Difference|-0.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.07||1-sided raw p-value (no multiplicity adjustment).|Mixed Models Analysis|||To show noninferiority of 1.5 mg LY2189265 relative to 1.8 mg liraglutide with 90% power, 222 completers (444 total) at 26 weeks were required. Noninferiority of 1.5 mg LY2189265 relative to 1.8 mg liraglutide was demonstrated if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% Confidence Interval (CI) for the difference in mean change in HbA1c between the 1.5 mg LY2189265 arm and 1.8 mg liraglutide arm was below 0.4%.||0.07|-0.19|<0.001
90966086|NCT01624259|181813845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.06||||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.07||1-sided raw p-value (no multiplicity adjustment)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Superiority analysis||0.07|-0.19|0.186
90966087|NCT01624259|181813846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.26||No adjustment for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Treatment comparison from ANCOVA model at 26 weeks.||1.26|0.17|0.010
90966088|NCT01624259|181813847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.45||No adjustment for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Treatment comparison from ANCOVA model.||0.45|0.05|0.013
90966089|NCT01624259|181813848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.61||0.828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.69|4.56||No adjustment for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Treatment comparison from ANCOVA model.||4.56|-5.69|0.828
90966090|NCT01624259|181813849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.91|1.41||No adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|P-value from pairwise comparison of LS means at 26 weeks from REML-based MMRM.||||1.41|-5.91|0.228
90966091|NCT01624259|181813850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.86||P-value of treatment comparison at Week 26 is from repeated generalized linear mixed model (GLM model).|Regression, Logistic|No adjustment for multiplicity.||Treatment comparison for HbA1c levels ≤6.5%||1.86|0.81|0.322
90966092|NCT01624259|181813850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.63||No adjustment for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|P-value of treatment comparison at Week 26 is from repeated generalized linear mixed model (GLM model).||Treatment comparison for HbA1c levels \<7.0%.||1.63|0.64|0.925
90966093|NCT01624259|181813851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.79||0.608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.06|6.92|||ANCOVA|No adjustment for multiplicity.||||6.92|-4.06|0.608
90928625|NCT02298842|181737123|NON_INFERIORITY|Higher value is considered to indicate better platelet quality. If the 97.5% lower limit of the confidence interval is greater than 0, the null hypothesis will be rejected in favor of the alternative suggesting the Test product is not inferior to the Control product.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.667|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.7882|||ONE_SIDED|97.5|-2.499||||||Estimated from an ANCOVA with effects of treatment and subject nested within sequence.|The null hypothesis is that HSR's mean difference, Test - 0.8 \* Control, is less than or equal to 0, and the alternative is that the mean difference is greater than 0.|||-2.499|
90928626|NCT02298842|181737124|NON_INFERIORITY|Higher value is considered to indicate better platelet quality. If the 97.5% lower limit of the confidence interval is greater than 0, the null hypothesis will be rejected in favor of the alternative suggesting the Test product is not inferior to the Control product.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|46.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|23.056|||ONE_SIDED|97.5|40.02||||||Estimated from an ANCOVA with effects of treatment and subject nested within sequence.|The null hypothesis is that Morphology's mean difference, Test - 0.8 \* Control, is less than or equal to 0, and the alternative is that the mean difference is greater than 0.|||40.020|
90928627|NCT02298842|181737125|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower value is considered to indicate better platelet quality. If the 97.5% upper limit of the confidence interval is less than 0, the null hypothesis will be rejected in favor of the alternative suggesting the Test product is not inferior to the Control product.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.314|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.0422|||ONE_SIDED|97.5||13.981|||||Estimated from an ANCOVA with effects of treatment and subject nested within sequence.|The null hypothesis is that P-selection's mean difference, Test - 1.25 \* Control, is greater or equal to 0, and the alternative is that the mean difference is less than 0.||13.981||
90928628|NCT02298842|181737126|NON_INFERIORITY|Higher value is considered to indicate better platelet quality. If the 97.5% lower limit of the confidence interval is greater than 0, the null hypothesis will be rejected in favor of the alternative suggesting the Test product is not inferior to the Control product.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.042|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.422|||ONE_SIDED|97.5|-4.407||||||Estimated from an ANCOVA with effects of treatment and subject nested within sequence.|The null hypothesis is that ESC's mean difference, Test - 0.8 \* Control, is less than or equal to 0, and the alternative is that the mean difference is greater than 0.|||-4.407|
90928629|NCT02298842|181737127|NON_INFERIORITY|Higher value is considered to indicate better platelet quality. If the 97.5% lower limit of the confidence interval is greater than 0, the null hypothesis will be rejected in favor of the alternative suggesting the Test product is not inferior to the Control product.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.389|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.0544|||ONE_SIDED|97.5|-4.915||||||Estimated from an ANCOVA with effects of treatment and subject nested within sequence.|The null hypothesis is that HSR's mean difference, Test - 0.8 \* Control, is less than or equal to 0, and the alternative is that the mean difference is greater than 0.|||-4.915|
90928630|NCT02298842|181737128|NON_INFERIORITY|Higher value is considered to indicate better platelet quality. If the 97.5% lower limit of the confidence interval is greater than 0, the null hypothesis will be rejected in favor of the alternative suggesting the Test product is not inferior to the Control product.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|43.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|26.05|||ONE_SIDED|97.5|36.821||||||Estimated from an ANCOVA with effects of treatment and subject nested within sequence.|The null hypothesis is that Morphology's mean difference, Test - 0.8 \* Control, is less than or equal to 0, and the alternative is that the mean difference is greater than 0.|||36.821|
90928631|NCT01536093|181737166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.006
90928632|NCT01536093|181737167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.043|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.043
90928633|NCT01536093|181737168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.032|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.032
90928634|NCT01536093|181737169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.038
90928635|NCT01536093|181737170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.010
90928636|NCT01536093|181737171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.013
90928637|NCT02195232|181737191|OTHER|||||||0.92|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.92
90928638|NCT05580003|181737226|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|101.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.71|107.18|||||A mixed effect model was used with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effect and participant nested within sequence as random effect. Values had been back-transformed from natural log scale. Ratios (and 90% CIs) were expressed as percentages.|AUCinf||107.18|95.71|
90928639|NCT05580003|181737226|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|102.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.28|108.5|||||A mixed effect model was used with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effect and participant nested within sequence as random effect. Values had been back-transformed from natural log scale. Ratios (and 90% CIs) were expressed as percentages.|AUCinf||108.50|97.28|
90928640|NCT05580003|181737226|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|97.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.32|104.8|||||A mixed effect model was used with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effect and participant nested within sequence as random effect. Values had been back-transformed from natural log scale. Ratios (and 90% CIs) were expressed as percentages.|AUClast||104.80|91.32|
90928641|NCT05580003|181737226|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|102.41|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.6|109.7|||||A mixed effect model was used with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effect and participant nested within sequence as random effect. Values had been back-transformed from natural log scale. Ratios (and 90% CIs) were expressed as percentages.|AUClast||109.70|95.60|
90928642|NCT05580003|181737227|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|67.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|58.13|77.65|||||A mixed effect model was used with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effect and participant nested within sequence as random effect. Values had been back-transformed from natural log scale. Ratios (and 90% CIs) were expressed as percentages.|||77.65|58.13|
90966094|NCT02273726|181813885|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was established if the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the treatment difference in least square (LS) means from MI ANCOVA model between the 2 treatment groups lay entirely above -0.75 g/dL.|LS Mean Difference|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.058|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.365|0.591|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with MI||Treatment comparison was made using the multiple imputation (MI) strategy by combining the results of analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline Hb as a covariate, and treatment, ESA dependent incident dialysis within ≤4 months vs. \>4 months of starting dialysis when randomized, and other randomization stratification factors except mean qualifying screening hemoglobin (≤10.5 vs. \>10.5 g/dL) as fixed effects.||0.591|0.365|<0.0001
90966095|NCT02273726|181813886|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was established when the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference of LS means between the 2 treatment groups using the MMRM model lay entirely above -0.75 g/dL.|LS Mean Difference|0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.072|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.404|0.687|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment comparison was made using a mixed model of repeated measures (MMRM) with baseline Hb as a covariate, and treatment, visit, visit-by-treatment interaction, ESA dependent incident dialysis within ≤4 months vs. \>4 months of starting dialysis when randomized, and randomization stratification factors except mean qualifying screening Hb (≤10.5 vs. \>10.5 g/dL) as fixed effects.||0.687|0.404|<0.0001
90966096|NCT02273726|181813887|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference for the responder rates (roxadustat minus epoetin alfa) calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen approach, adjusting for stratification factors, was greater than -15%.|Responder Rate Difference|7.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|14.3||||||For the difference of responder rates between 2 treatment groups, the CI analyzed was from the Miettinen \& Nurminen approach adjusting for randomization stratification factors.||14.3|0.9|
90966097|NCT02273726|181813888|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference for the responder rates (roxadustat minus epoetin alfa) calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen approach, adjusting for stratification factors, was greater than -15%.|Responder Rate Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|9.7||||||For the difference of responder rates between 2 treatment groups, the CI analyzed was from the Miettinen \& Nurminen approach adjusting for randomization stratification factors.||9.7|-4.3|
90966098|NCT02273726|181813889|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was declared if the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between roxadustat and epoetin alfa (roxadustat - epoetin alpha) was less than 0.|Least Square Mean Difference|-14.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.514|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.64|-11.695|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment comparison was made using a MMRM with baseline as a covariate, and treatment, visit, visit-by-treatment interaction, ESA dependent incident dialysis within ≤4 months vs. \>4 months of starting dialysis when randomized, and randomization stratification factors as fixed effects.||-11.695|-17.640|<0.0001
90966099|NCT02273726|181813890|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin was fixed as a difference of -0.75.|LS Mean Difference|0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.093|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.503|0.869||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with MI||Treatment comparison was made using the MI strategy by combining the results of ANCOVA model with baseline Hb as a covariate, and treatment, ESA dependent incident dialysis within ≤4 months vs. \>4 months of starting dialysis when randomized, and other randomization stratification factors except mean qualifying screening Hb (≤10.5 vs. \>10.5 g/dL) as fixed effects.||0.869|0.503|<0.0001
90966100|NCT02273726|181813891|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-20.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.975||0.00091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.842|-6.445||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Rank ANCOVA|||Treatment comparison was made using an ANCOVA model with baseline iron repletion status, treatment, ESA dependent incident dialysis within ≤4 months vs. \>4 months of starting dialysis when randomized, and randomization stratification factors as fixed effects.||-6.445|-33.842|0.00091
90966101|NCT02273726|181813892|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin for the difference between groups was 1.8.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.0337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.466|0.97|||Cox Proportional Hazards model|||Analysis was done using a Cox Proportional Hazards model adjusting for baseline Hb and other stratification factors except mean qualifying screening Hb (≤10.5 vs. \>10.5 g/dL) as fixed effects.||0.970|0.466|0.0337
90966102|NCT02273726|181813893|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was declared if the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between roxadustat and epoetin alfa (roxadustat - epoetin alpha) was less than 0.|LS Mean Difference|0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.739||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|2.142|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment comparison was made using MMRM with baseline as a covariate, and treatment, visit, visit-by-treatment interaction, ESA dependent incident dialysis within ≤4 months vs. \>4 months of starting dialysis when randomized, and randomization stratification factors as fixed effects.||2.142|-0.760|0.3500
91035348|NCT01363765|181956636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||notification rate ratio|1.59|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|1.87||NR were calculated using an aggregated database consisting of 896 strata for laboratory (n=14), study month (n=8), sex (n=2) and age group (n=4: \<15, 15-39, 40-59, and \>=60 years). Poisson regression modeling was used to analyze changes in TB TB NR|Clustered Avareged|Adjustment for municipality, age, sex, and baseline proportion of samples with a positive smear was by a population-averaged quasi-likelihood approach|"The numbers reported in the CONSORT flowchart refer to the diagnostic samples. NR were obtained crosslinking lab and notification databases, denominator was population/year."|cluster-averaged NNR=1.59 (CI95% 1.31-1.88) Absolute numbers informed in table do not allow calculation of notification rates; they are based on population size, not in total numbers and percentages||1.87|1.32|<0.01
91035349|NCT01363765|181956636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||notification rate ratio|1.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|1.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed multi-level model, time-adjusted||Secondary analysis: Mixed multi-level model||1.92|1.51|<0.001
90928643|NCT05580003|181737227|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|74.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|64.14|85.67|||||A mixed effect model was used with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effect and participant nested within sequence as random effect. Values had been back-transformed from natural log scale. Ratios (and 90% CIs) were expressed as percentages.|||85.67|64.14|
90928644|NCT05580003|181737263|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|72.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.98|87.09|||||A paired t-test was used. Values had been back-transformed from natural log scale. Ratios (and 90% CIs) were expressed as percentages|AUCinf||87.09|60.98|
90928645|NCT05580003|181737263|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|76.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|68.35|85.52|||||A paired t-test was used. Values had been back-transformed from natural log scale. Ratios (and 90% CIs) were expressed as percentages|AUCinf||85.52|68.35|
90928646|NCT05580003|181737263|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|73.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|65.7|82.27|||||A paired t-test was used. Values had been back-transformed from natural log scale. Ratios (and 90% CIs) were expressed as percentages|AUClast||82.27|65.70|
90928647|NCT05580003|181737263|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|75.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|66.36|85.13|||||A paired t-test was used. Values had been back-transformed from natural log scale. Ratios (and 90% CIs) were expressed as percentages|AUClast||85.13|66.36|
90928648|NCT05580003|181737264|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|76.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.21|97.75|||||A paired t-test was used. Values had been back-transformed from natural log scale. Ratios (and 90% CIs) were expressed as percentages|||97.75|60.21|
90928649|NCT05580003|181737264|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|70.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|53.7|93.67|||||A paired t-test was used. Values had been back-transformed from natural log scale. Ratios (and 90% CIs) were expressed as percentages|||93.67|53.70|
90928650|NCT02392234|181737336|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|4.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|5.8|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|||||5.8|3.7|< 0.0001
90928651|NCT02392234|181737336|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|6.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|7.8|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|||||7.8|5.7|< 0.0001
90928652|NCT02392234|181737337|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|9.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.2|12.2|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|||||12.2|7.2|<0.0001
90928653|NCT02392234|181737337|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|11.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.7|13.6|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|||||13.6|8.7|<0.0001
90928654|NCT02392234|181737339|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|8.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|9.9|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|||||9.9|6.3|<0.0001
90928655|NCT02392234|181737339|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|11.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.6|13.2|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|||||13.2|9.6|<0.0001
90928656|NCT02392234|181737340|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|-2.3|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|||||-2.3|-6.7|<0.0001
90928657|NCT02392234|181737340|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|-7.3|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|||||-7.3|-11.7|<0.0001
90928658|NCT02029235|181737346|OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Null hypothesis: No difference between groups~Power analysis: A sample size of 16 in each group had an 80% power to detect a difference in means of 10 mm."||||0.24
90928659|NCT02029235|181737347|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: No difference between groups||||0.06
90928660|NCT03211247|181737385|OTHER||Proportion difference|33.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.36|44.49|||Wald test||The 2-sided Farrington-Manning 95% confidence interval for the difference in response rates was calculated.|Analysis of the difference in response rates between DBV712 250 μg group and Placebo group and 2-sided Farrington-Manning 95% confidence interval (CI). P-value was obtained from a 2-sided 5% test to evaluate the null hypothesis of no difference in response rates between treatment groups using the Wald method. Clinical relevance was evaluated based on the lower bound of the Farrignton-Manning 95% CI of the difference in response rates ≥15%.||44.49|22.36|<0.001
90928661|NCT02415127|181737391|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5442||||||From a repeated-measures ANCOVA with fixed effects of treatment, visit, and treatment\*visit with baseline score and investigative site as covariates using an unstructured covariance matrix, testing ACTIMMUNE® vs placebo.|ANCOVA|||The primary and secondary efficacy endpoints were tested in a hierarchical manner. Each endpoint was tested in sequential order and the current endpoint must have shown statistical significance (p \< 0.05) prior to performing testing the next endpoint. The primary endpoint, FARS-mNeuro, was to be tested first, followed by the key secondary endpoint, ADL, followed by the other secondary endpoints, T25FW, FARS-mNeuro responder rate, and FARStot.||||0.5442
90928662|NCT05120856|181737396|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.106369|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4985347||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.083479|-0.129259||This is the p value for the overall group x time interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|The model compared groups' change across all time points Time was coded as a continuous variable (i.e., 0, 4, 8, and 16).|This is the effect estimate for the group x time interaction.|||-0.129259|-2.083479|.026
90928663|NCT05120856|181737396|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.025|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.737||0.565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.098|22.149|||t-test, 2 sided|||planned between-group post-hoc comparison at 4-week follow-up||22.149|-12.098|.565
90928664|NCT05120856|181737396|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.349|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.891||0.706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.774|14.077|||t-test, 2 sided|||Planned post-hoc comparison between groups at 8-week follow-up||14.077|-20.774|.706
91035350|NCT01363765|181956637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||incremental cost-effectiveness ratio|-84.07||||||95.0||||||Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per case detected||||||
91035351|NCT01363765|181956638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||NRR|0.98||||0.923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.32||cluster-averaged adjusted NRR (notification rate ratio, not calculable from number shown, which are a proportion of tests. NRR calculated over a population/year denominator.|Agregated cluster-averaged|||||1.32|0.64|0.923
91035352|NCT01363765|181956639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||NRR|0.52||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.84||cluster-averaged adjusted NRR|Agregated cluster-averaged|||||0.84|0.21|0.004
90928665|NCT05120856|181737396|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.921|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.394||0.461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.332|11.491|||t-test, 2 sided|||Planned post-hoc comparison between groups at 16-week follow-up||11.491|-25.332|.461
90928666|NCT05120856|181737396|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.0838|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4798||0.0252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0229626|-0.1419329||This is the p value for the group x time interaction|Mixed Models Analysis|||In an additional sensitivity analysis, past-week alcohol use data was excluded if a participant reported having been in residential/inpatient treatment where they could not access alcohol for the whole of the past week at the time of follow-up. This resulted in data for one participant in the ApBM group being excluded at week 8, and 1 control being excluded at week 16.||-0.1419329|-2.0229626|.0252
90928667|NCT05120856|181737397|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033||0.633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.05||This is the p value for the time x group interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the test for the overall CEQ-F scores||0.05|-0.08|.633
90928668|NCT05120856|181737397|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.033|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041||0.411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.05||This is for the time x group interaction for the intensity subscale|Mixed Models Analysis|||This is for the test of the CEQ-F Intensity subscale score||0.05|-0.11|.411
90928669|NCT05120856|181737397|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.009|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||0.808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.06||p value for the time x group interaction for Imagery subscale|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of CEQ-F Imagery subscale score||0.06|-0.08|.808
90928670|NCT05120856|181737397|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041||0.886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.08||This is the p value for the time x group interaction for the Intrusiveness subscale score|Mixed Models Analysis|||This is for the analysis of the CEQ-F Intrusiveness subscale score||0.08|-0.09|.886
90928671|NCT05120856|181737398|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.083|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066||0.207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.046|0.212||This is the p value for the time x group interaction|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.212|-0.046|.207
90928672|NCT05120856|181737399|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.026|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.166||0.876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.352|0.3||This is the p value for the group x time interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.300|-0.352|.876
90928673|NCT05120856|181737400|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.069|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.142|0.004||This is the p value for the group x time interaction|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.004|-0.142|.064
90928674|NCT05120856|181737401|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.059|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.143||0.679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.338|0.22||This is the p value for the group x time interaction|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.220|-0.338|.679
90928675|NCT05120856|181737403|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.072|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.086||0.403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.097|0.24||This is the p value for the group x time interaction|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.240|-0.097|.403
90928676|NCT05120856|181737404|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.052|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.126|0.021||This is the p value for the group x time interaction|Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed-effects model analysis of psychological well-being ratings.||0.021|-0.126|.161
90928677|NCT05120856|181737404|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.029|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||0.425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.099|0.042||This is the p value for the group x time interaction|Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed-effects model analysis of physical well-being ratings||0.042|-0.099|.425
90928678|NCT05120856|181737404|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.039|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034||0.247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.106|0.027||This is the p value for the group x time interaction|Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed-effects model analysis of quality of life ratings||0.027|-0.106|.247
90928679|NCT05120856|181737405|SUPERIORITY||Slope|3.645|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.369||0.725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.68|23.97||This is the p value for the group x time interaction|Mixed Models Analysis|||||23.97|-16.68|.725
90928680|NCT05048394|181737467|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence is defined as a difference of 0.|||||<|0.001||||||Threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90928681|NCT05048394|181737468|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence is defined as a difference of 0.||||||0.14||||||Threshold for significance was p = 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.14
90928682|NCT05037513|181737469|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.06|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|62.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||62.2|0.8|<0.05
90928683|NCT05037513|181737470|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.06|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|62.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||62.2|0.8|<0.05
90928684|NCT06140290|181737507|EQUIVALENCE|The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. Here, Etrasimod 2mg (Treatment F) with practice session was the reference treatment, while Etrasimod 2mg (Treatment G) without practice session was the test treatment.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|108.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.2|115.94|||||Ratio (Test/Reference) and its associated 90% CI were expressed as percentages.|Analysis was performed using a mixed effect model, with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect.||115.94|101.20|
90928685|NCT06140290|181737508|EQUIVALENCE|The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. Here, Etrasimod 2mg (Treatment F) with practice session was the reference treatment, while Etrasimod 2mg (Treatment G) without practice session was the test treatment.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|120.41|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|108.02|134.22|||||Ratio (Test/Reference) and its associated 90% CI were expressed as percentages.|Analysis was performed using a mixed effect model, with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect.||134.22|108.02|
90928686|NCT06140290|181737509|EQUIVALENCE|The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. Here, Etrasimod 2mg (Treatment F) with practice session was the reference treatment, while Etrasimod 2mg (Treatment G) without practice session was the test treatment.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|115.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|105.17|126.38|||||Ratio (Test/Reference) and its associated 90% CI were expressed as percentages.|Analysis was performed using a mixed effect model, with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect.||126.38|105.17|
90940946|NCT00943722|181761605|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMTs be entirely contained within the interval (0.5, 2.0).|GMT ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.11|||||GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) divided by GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 2)|Anti-HPV 11||1.11|0.90|
91035353|NCT00609674|181956642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.004
90928687|NCT06140290|181737510|EQUIVALENCE|The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. Here, Etrasimod 2mg (Treatment F) with practice session was the reference treatment, while Etrasimod 2mg (Treatment G) without practice session was the test treatment.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|106.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.33|114.73|||||Ratio (Test/Reference) and its associated 90% CI were expressed as percentages.|Analysis was performed using a mixed effect model, with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect.||114.73|99.33|
90928688|NCT06140290|181737511|EQUIVALENCE|The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. Here, Etrasimod 2mg (Treatment F) with practice session was the test treatment, while Etrasimod 2mg IR tablet (Treatment A) was the reference treatment.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|91.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.76|108.38|||||Ratio (Test/Reference) and its associated 90% CI were expressed as percentages.|Analysis was performed using ANOVA (Analysis of variance) model with treatment as a fixed effect.||108.38|77.76|
90928689|NCT06140290|181737511|EQUIVALENCE|The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. Here, Etrasimod 2mg (Treatment G) without practice session was the test treatment, while Etrasimod 2mg IR tablet (Treatment A) was the reference treatment.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|102.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.33|122.19|||||Ratio (Test/Reference) and its associated 90% CI were expressed as percentages.|Analysis was performed using ANOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect.||122.19|86.33|
90928690|NCT06140290|181737512|EQUIVALENCE|The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. Here, Etrasimod 2mg (Treatment F) with practice session was the test treatment, while Etrasimod 2mg IR tablet (Treatment A) was the reference treatment.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|86.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|69.42|107.37|||||Ratio (Test/Reference) and its associated 90% CI were expressed as percentages.|Analysis was performed using ANOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect.||107.37|69.42|
90928691|NCT06140290|181737512|EQUIVALENCE|The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. Here, Etrasimod 2mg (Treatment G) without practice session was the test treatment, while Etrasimod 2mg IR tablet (Treatment A) was the reference treatment.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|97.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.99|124.7|||||Ratio (Test/Reference) and its associated 90% CI were expressed as percentages.|Analysis was performed using ANOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect.||124.70|76.99|
90928692|NCT06140290|181737513|EQUIVALENCE|The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. Here, Etrasimod 2mg (Treatment F) with practice session was the test treatment, while Etrasimod 2mg IR tablet (Treatment A) was the reference treatment.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|88.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|73.1|107.68|||||Ratio (Test/Reference) and its associated 90% CI were expressed as percentages.|Analysis was performed using ANOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect.||107.68|73.10|
90928693|NCT06140290|181737513|EQUIVALENCE|The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. Here, Etrasimod 2mg (Treatment G) without practice session was the test treatment, while Etrasimod 2mg IR tablet (Treatment A) was the reference treatment.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|97.54|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.74|120.83|||||Ratio (Test/Reference) and its associated 90% CI were expressed as percentages.|Analysis was performed using ANOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect.||120.83|78.74|
90928694|NCT06140290|181737514|EQUIVALENCE|The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. Here, Etrasimod 2mg (Treatment F) with practice session was the test treatment, while Etrasimod 2mg IR tablet (Treatment A) was the reference treatment.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|94.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.01|112.17|||||Ratio (Test/Reference) and its associated 90% CI were expressed as percentages.|Analysis was performed using ANOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect.||112.17|79.01|
90928695|NCT06140290|181737514|EQUIVALENCE|The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. Here, Etrasimod 2mg (Treatment G) without practice session was the test treatment, while Etrasimod 2mg IR tablet (Treatment A) was the reference treatment.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|103.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.04|124.16|||||Ratio (Test/Reference) and its associated 90% CI were expressed as percentages.|Analysis was performed using ANOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect.||124.16|86.04|
90928696|NCT02036970|181737530|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.74||||0.8133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.22|12.74||The p-value comparison is for the difference in the change in 6WMD from baseline at Week 16 for bardoxolone methyl relative to placebo in participants with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH).|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference (Net) = Bardoxolone methyl - Placebo.|Overall treatment effect in participants with PAH. Mean overall treatment effect across all visits for change from baseline in 6MWD was estimated and compared with placebo through 16 weeks of treatment using mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM), with treatment group, visit, and the interaction between treatment and visit as fixed factors. A compound symmetry covariance matrix was assumed. Data from Wks 4, 8, 12, and 16 used in the model with the change from baseline at Wk16 as primary endpoint.||12.74|-16.22|0.8133
90928697|NCT02036970|181737530|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.17||||0.759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.54|17.2||The p-value comparison is for the difference in the change in 6WMD from baseline at Week 16 for bardoxolone methyl relative to placebo in participants with pulmonary hypertension (PH)|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference (Net) = Bardoxolone methyl - Placebo.|Overall treatment effect in participants with PH. Mean overall treatment effect across all visits for change from baseline in 6MWD was estimated \& compared with placebo through 16 wks of treatment using mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM), with treatment group, visit, and the interaction between treatment \& visit as fixed factors. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was assumed. Data from Wks 4, 8, 12, and 16 were used in the model with the change from baseline at Wk 16 as the primary endpoint||17.20|-23.54|0.759
91035354|NCT02169115|181956655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.7||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.05
90928698|NCT02232737|181737545|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.41|-3.26||The p-value is Bonferroni-corrected for multiple comparisons with a priori threshold of significance P \< 0.0167|ANCOVA||Group difference = 0.12 mg nicotine - 0.8 mg nicotine|The statistical analysis method was ANCOVA, in order to test for statistically significant differences between group means, while controlling for covariates of interest. It was calculated that 207 subjects per group would be required to have at least 90% power to detect a mean difference of 4.52 CPD between the 0.8 mg and 0.12 mg groups at week 12, with significance level alpha of 0.0167. The significance level reflects the Bonferroni correction needed for testing of all pairwise comparisons.||-3.26|-7.41|<0.0001
90928699|NCT02232737|181737545|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.51|-5.57||The p-value is Bonferroni-corrected for multiple comparisons with a priori threshold of significance P \< 0.0167|ANCOVA||Group difference = 0.03 mg nicotine - 0.8 mg nicotine|The statistical analysis method was ANCOVA, in order to test for statistically significant differences between group means, while controlling for covariates of interest. It was calculated that 207 subjects per group would be required to have at least 90% power to detect a mean difference of 4.52 CPD between the 0.8 mg and 0.12 mg groups at week 12, with significance level alpha of 0.0167. The significance level reflects the Bonferroni correction needed for testing of all pairwise comparisons.||-5.57|-9.51|<0.0001
90928700|NCT03849937|181737546|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
90928701|NCT03849937|181737546|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.091||||||Time 1 to Time 2|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.091
90928702|NCT03849937|181737546|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Time 2 to Time 3|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
90928703|NCT03849937|181737547|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Effective Communication||||<.001
90928704|NCT03849937|181737547|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Appropriate Communication||||<.001
90928705|NCT03849937|181737547|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Recognizes elderspeak||||<.001
90928706|NCT03849937|181737547|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Recognizes person-centered communication||||<.001
90928707|NCT00065182|181737602|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.007||||0.946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.813|1.248|||Log Rank||Unadjusted hazard ratio.|||1.248|0.813|0.9460
90928708|NCT00065182|181737602|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.977|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.788|1.21|||||Adjusted hazard ratio.|||1.210|0.788|
90928709|NCT03801148|181737631|EQUIVALENCE|Natural log (ln)-transformed-Cmax, was analyzed using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model to assess the relative bioavailability of dexlansoprazole 30 mg capsule manufactured at TOB compared with dexlansoprazole 30 mg capsule manufactured at TPC. Geometric least square mean (LSM) ratios were calculated using the exponentiation of the difference between treatment LSM from the analyses on the ln-transformed Cmax.|Geometric LSM ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9171|1.0473||||||||1.0473|0.9171|
90928710|NCT03801148|181737631|EQUIVALENCE|ln-transformed-Cmax, was analyzed using an ANOVA model to assess the relative bioavailability of dexlansoprazole 60 mg capsule manufactured at TOB compared with dexlansoprazole 60 mg capsule manufactured at TPC. Geometric LSM ratios were calculated using the exponentiation of the difference between treatment LSM from the analyses on the ln-transformed Cmax.|Geometric LSM ratio|1.0737|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0025|1.1501||||||||1.1501|1.0025|
90928711|NCT03801148|181737632|EQUIVALENCE|ln-transformed- AUClast, was analyzed using an ANOVA model to assess the relative bioavailability of dexlansoprazole 30 mg capsule manufactured at TOB compared with dexlansoprazole 30 mg capsule manufactured at TPC. Geometric LSM ratios were calculated using the exponentiation of the difference between treatment LSM from the analyses on the ln-transformed AUClast.|Geometric LSM ratio|1.0455|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.007|1.0855||||||||1.0855|1.0070|
90928712|NCT03801148|181737632|EQUIVALENCE|ln-transformed- AUClast, was analyzed using an ANOVA model to assess the relative bioavailability of dexlansoprazole 60 mg capsule manufactured at TOB compared with dexlansoprazole 60 mg capsule manufactured at TPC. Geometric LSM ratios were calculated using the exponentiation of the difference between treatment LSM from the analyses on the ln-transformed AUClast.|Geometric LSM ratio|1.061|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0192|1.1046||||||||1.1046|1.0192|
90928713|NCT03801148|181737633|EQUIVALENCE|ln-transformed- AUC0\_infobs, was analyzed using an ANOVA model to assess the relative bioavailability of dexlansoprazole 30 mg capsule manufactured at TOB compared with dexlansoprazole 30 mg capsule manufactured at TPC. Geometric LSM ratios were calculated using the exponentiation of the difference between treatment LSM from the analyses on the ln-transformed AUC0\_infobs.|Geometric LSM ratio|1.0553|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0186|1.0933||||||||1.0933|1.0186|
90928714|NCT03801148|181737633|EQUIVALENCE|ln-transformed- AUC0\_infobs, was analyzed using an ANOVA model to assess the relative bioavailability of dexlansoprazole 60 mg capsule manufactured at TOB compared with dexlansoprazole 60 mg capsule manufactured at TPC. Geometric LSM ratios were calculated using the exponentiation of the difference between treatment LSM from the analyses on the ln-transformed AUC0\_infobs.|GMR|1.0468|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0027|1.0929||||||||1.0929|1.0027|
90928715|NCT03801148|181737634|EQUIVALENCE|ln-transformed- AUC0\_infpred, was analyzed using an ANOVA model to assess the relative bioavailability of dexlansoprazole 30 mg capsule manufactured at TOB compared with dexlansoprazole 30 mg capsule manufactured at TPC. Geometric LSM ratios were calculated using the exponentiation of the difference between treatment LSM from the analyses on the ln-transformed AUC0\_infpred.|Geometric LSM ratio|1.0555|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0188|1.0935||||||||1.0935|1.0188|
90940947|NCT00943722|181761605|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMTs be entirely contained within the interval (0.5, 2.0).|GMT ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.2|||||GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) divided by GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 3)|Anti-HPV 11||1.20|0.95|
90966103|NCT03697720|181813906|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Paired t-tests were used to compare worst menstrual pain rating across diary day (0-10 numeric rating scale) from baseline and at 6-8 maths followup.||||<0.0001
90966104|NCT03697720|181813907|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.119|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||||.119
90966105|NCT02414399|181813913|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.29||Alpha =0.045 (to account for .005 alpha spending at interim analysis)|Regression, Cox||azithromycin is the numerator and placebo is the denominator|Death or rehospitalization||1.29|.64|0.58
90966106|NCT02414399|181813913|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.58|||Regression, Cox||Azithromycin-numerator and placebo-denominator|Death alone||1.58|0.39|0.49
90966107|NCT02414399|181813913|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.47|||Regression, Cox||numerator-azithromycin denominator-placebo|Rehospitalization alone||1.47|.70|.94
90966108|NCT02414399|181813921|SUPERIORITY|We modelled azithromycin resistance in E coli at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months of follow-up by randomisation group using generalised estimating equations with a Poisson link and exchangeable correlation structure, including site in the model. Models included an interaction term between randomisation group and follow-up timepoint (month 3 or month 6) to test whether an effect on resistance waned with time.||||||0.77|||||||Chi-squared|||M0||||0.77
91035355|NCT02169115|181956655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.8||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.005
90928716|NCT03801148|181737634|EQUIVALENCE|ln-transformed- AUC0\_infpred, was analyzed using an ANOVA model to assess the relative bioavailability of dexlansoprazole 60 mg capsule manufactured at TOB compared with dexlansoprazole 60 mg capsule manufactured at TPC. Geometric LSM ratios were calculated using the exponentiation of the difference between treatment LSM from the analyses on the ln-transformed AUC0\_infpred.|Geometric LSM ratio|1.0472|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0029|1.0934||||||||1.0934|1.0029|
90928717|NCT06212752|181737636|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin is 0.8.|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.27|||||GMR and associated 96% confidence interval (Cl) were calculated using the Welch's t test. GMR was calculated as geometric mean (GM) of Pembrolizumab Formulated with Berahyaluronidase Alfa to GM of Pembrolizumab.|||1.27|0.95|
90928718|NCT06212752|181737637|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin is 0.8.|GMR|1.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.88|||||GMR and associated 95% CI were calculated using the Welch's t test. GMR was calculated as geometric mean (GM) of Pembrolizumab Formulated with Berahyaluronidase Alfa to GM of Pembrolizumab.|||1.88|1.14|
90928719|NCT04162210|181737648|OTHER||Stratified Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.47|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value from stratified log-rank test were adjusted for previous treatment with anti-CD38, ISS staging and number of prior lines of therapy.|HR was estimated using the Cox Proportional Hazards. HR stratified log-rank test were adjusted for previous treatment with anti-CD38, international staging system (ISS) staging and number of prior lines of therapy.|||1.47|0.72|0.558
90928720|NCT02568215|181737694|OTHER||Prevention Efficacy (PE)|8.8||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.1|42.6||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|wald|||The primary PE analysis tests the null hypothesis PE equal to zero versus the alternative hypothesis PE not equal to zero using a 2-sided alpha equal 0.05 level Wald test of the equality of log cumulative hazard functions at the week 80 visit for the pooled VRC01 group versus the placebo group.||42.6|-45.1|0.70
90928721|NCT02568215|181737694|OTHER||Prevention Efficacy (PE)|-9.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-85.3|35.5||||||A secondary analysis assesses the overall PE of the low-dose VRC01 group versus the placebo group.||35.5|-85.3|
90966109|NCT02414399|181813921|SUPERIORITY|We modelled azithromycin resistance in E coli at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months of follow-up by randomisation group using generalised estimating equations with a Poisson link and exchangeable correlation structure, including site in the model. Models included an interaction term between randomisation group and follow-up timepoint (month 3 or month 6) to test whether an effect on resistance waned with time.||||||0.088|||||||Chi-squared|||Month 3||||0.088
90966110|NCT02414399|181813921|SUPERIORITY|We modelled azithromycin resistance in E coli at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months of follow-up by randomisation group using generalised estimating equations with a Poisson link and exchangeable correlation structure, including site in the model. Models included an interaction term between randomisation group and follow-up timepoint (month 3 or month 6) to test whether an effect on resistance waned with time.||||||0.44|||||||Chi-squared|||M6||||0.44
90966111|NCT01704287|181813934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Cox regression model with treatment as covariate stratified by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (0 vs. 1); lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) levels (normal vs. elevated LDH levels \[≥110% Upper Limit of Normal (ULN)\]); \& BRAF mutational status (mutant vs. wild-type)|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.73||One-sided p-value based on stratified log rank test|Log Rank||Numerator=Pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg Denominator=ICC|||0.73|0.46|<0.0001
90966112|NCT01704287|181813934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Cox regression model with treatment as covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 vs. 1); LDH levels (normal vs. elevated LDH levels \[≥110% ULN\]); \& BRAF mutational status (mutant vs. wild-type)|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.6||One-sided p-value based on stratified log rank test|Log Rank||Numerator=Pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg Denominator=ICC|||0.60|0.37|<0.0001
91035356|NCT02169115|181956655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.4|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91035357|NCT03285594|181956662|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square (LS) Means|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.638|-0.271|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 18 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at Week -1, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at Week -1, randomization strata of sulfonylureas use (yes, no) at Week -1, and country as fixed effects, and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||-0.271|-0.638|<0.0001
90928722|NCT02568215|181737694|OTHER||Prevention Efficacy (PE)|27.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.7|59.3||||||A secondary analysis assesses the overall PE of the high-dose VRC01 group versus the placebo group.||59.3|-30.7|
90928723|NCT02568215|181737696|OTHER||Prevention Efficacy (PE)|78.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.3|94.4||||||PE against IC80 of least sensitive variant less than 1||94.4|17.3|
90928724|NCT02568215|181737696|OTHER||Prevention Efficacy (PE)|7.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-187.5|70.2||||||PE against IC80 of least sensitive variant 1-3||70.2|-187.5|
90928725|NCT02568215|181737696|OTHER||Prevention Efficacy (PE)|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.1|43.3||||||PE against IC80 of least sensitive variant \> 3||43.3|-83.1|
90928726|NCT02941549|181737700|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.9||||0.5946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.5|20.7|||ANCOVA|||||20.7|-34.5|0.5946
90928727|NCT02941549|181737700|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-10.1||||0.7309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.9|16.8|||ANCOVA|||||16.8|-36.9|0.7309
90928728|NCT02941549|181737701|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.308||||0.0763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|-0.51|||ANCOVA|||||-0.51|-2.11|0.0763
90928729|NCT02941549|181737701|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.727||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.554|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.100|-1.554|0.0058
90928730|NCT04732000|181737733|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.1373||||0.549|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Mann Whitney test, 2-sided|||||||0.5490
90928731|NCT03509909|181737805|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.74
90928732|NCT01855750|181737837|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.922||||0.5167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.18|||Log Rank|||||1.180|0.720|0.5167
90928733|NCT01855750|181737838|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.949||||0.7311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.704|1.279|||Log Rank|||||1.279|0.704|0.7311
90928734|NCT01855750|181737839|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.917||||0.5027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.183|||Log Rank|||||1.183|0.710|0.5027
90928735|NCT01855750|181737840|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.967||||0.8229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.722|1.296|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) Chi-square|||||1.296|0.722|0.8229
90928736|NCT01855750|181737841|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.8549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.754|1.407|||Log Rank|||||1.407|0.754|0.8549
90928737|NCT01855750|181737842|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.358||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.115|1.654|||Log Rank|||||1.654|1.115|0.0021
90928738|NCT03160885|181737889|SUPERIORITY|Primary endpoints tested sequentially at a 5% significance level.|Risk Difference (RD)|11.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.8|16.4||Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data or subjects who received rescue medication prior to Week 16 were considered non-responders.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Primary endpoints tested sequentially at a 5% significance level.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline disease severity.|Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity.The null hypothesis of no difference in response rates between tralokinumab and placebo were tested against the 2-sided alternative that there is a difference.||16.4|5.8|<0.001
90928739|NCT03160885|181737890|SUPERIORITY|Primary endpoints tested sequentially at a 5% significance level.|Risk Difference (RD)|21.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.8|27.3||Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data or subjects who received rescue medication prior to Week 16 were considered non-responders.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Primary endpoints tested sequentially at a 5% significance level.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline disease severity.|Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity.The null hypothesis of no difference in response rates between tralokinumab and placebo were tested against the 2-sided alternative that there is a difference.||27.3|15.8|<0.001
90928740|NCT03160885|181737891|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.3|20.9||Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'Composite', subjects who received rescue medication prior to Week 16 or have missing data at Week 16 were considered as non-responders'.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Tested sequentially at a 5% significance level.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline disease severity.|Reduction of Worst Daily Pruritus NRS weekly average ≥4 at Week 16 was tested after the sequential testing of IGA 0/1 and EASI75 if these tests showed statistical significance||20.9|10.3|<0.001
90928741|NCT03160885|181737892|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity adjustment using the Holm method.|Difference of least square means|-14.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|-10.1||Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'hypothetical'. Repeated measurements model on post-baseline data. In case of no post-baseline assessments before initiation of rescue medication, the Week 2 change was imputed as 0.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of IMP or initiation of rescue medication not included.||-10.1|-18.0|<0.001
90928742|NCT03160885|181737893|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity adjustment using Holm method.|Difference of least square means|-3.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|-2.6||Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'hypothetical'. Repeated measurements model on post-baseline data. In case of no post-baseline assessments before initiation of rescue medication, the Week 2 change was imputed as 0.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of IMP or initiation of rescue medication not included.||-2.6|-5.2|<0.001
90928743|NCT03160885|181737894|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|34.1||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.4|54.9||Based on the primary analysis of the 'composite' estimand. Subjects who received rescue medication or were transferred to open-label treatment were considered non-responders.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel risk difference compared to placebo, stratified by region.|"Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure in the order:~IGA 0/1 at Week 52 between Q2W vs Placebo, EASI75 at Week 52 between Q2W vs Placebo, IGA 0/1 at Week 52 between Q4W vs Placebo, and EASI75 at Week 52 between Q4W vs Placebo"||54.9|13.4|0.004
90928744|NCT03160885|181737894|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|19.9||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|40.9||"Based on the primary analysis of the 'composite' estimand. Subjects who received rescue medication or were transferred to open-label treatment were considered non-responders.~P value was considered non-significant"|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|This test was not statistically significant and hence next maintenance endpoint in the sequential testing procedure was not evaluated|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference compared to placebo, stratified by region.|"Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure in the order:~IGA 0/1 at Week 52 between Q2W vs Placebo, EASI75 at Week 52 between Q2W vs Placebo, IGA 0/1 at Week 52 between Q4W vs Placebo, and EASI75 at Week 52 between Q4W vs Placebo"||40.9|-1.2|0.084
90928745|NCT03160885|181737895|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|33.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.3|50.0||Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects who received rescue medication or were transferred to open-label treatment are considered non-responders.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel risk difference compared to placebo, stratified by region.|"Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure in the order:~IGA 0/1 at Week 52 between Q2W vs Placebo, EASI75 at Week 52 between Q2W vs Placebo, IGA 0/1 at Week 52 between Q4W vs Placebo, and EASI75 at Week 52 between Q4W vs Placebo"||50.0|17.3|<0.001
90928746|NCT03160885|181737895|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|30.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.7|46.4||Test not evaluated for statistical significance. Based on the primary analysis of the 'composite' estimand. Subjects who received rescue medication or were transferred to open-label treatment were considered non-responders.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel risk difference compared to placebo, stratified by region.|"Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure in the order:~IGA 0/1 at Week 52 between Q2W vs Placebo, EASI75 at Week 52 between Q2W vs Placebo, IGA 0/1 at Week 52 between Q4W vs Placebo, and EASI75 at Week 52 between Q4W vs Placebo"||46.4|13.7|0.001
90928747|NCT03160885|181737898|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|29.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.5|36.1||"Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data or subjects who received rescue medication prior to Week 16 were considered non-responders.~The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and disease severity.|||36.1|22.5|<0.001
90928748|NCT03160885|181737899|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.3|17.0||"Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data or subjects who received rescue medication prior to Week 16 were considered non-responders.~The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and disease severity.|||17.0|8.3|<0.001
90928749|NCT03160885|181737900|SUPERIORITY||Difference of least square means|-9.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|-7.5||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of IMP or initiation of rescue medication not included. In case of no post-baseline assessments before initiation of rescue medication, the Week 2 change will be imputed as 0.||-7.5|-12.2|<0.001
90928750|NCT03160885|181737901|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|11.6||"Based on the primary analysis of the 'composite' estimand. Subjects who received rescue medication prior to Week 16 or with missing data at Week 16 were considered non-responders.~The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline disease severity.|||11.6|4.4|<0.001
90928751|NCT03160885|181737902|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.8|25.1||"Based on the primary analysis of the 'composite' estimand. Subjects who received rescue medication prior to Week 16 or with missing data at Week 16 were considered non-responders.~The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel risk difference stratified by region and disease severity.|||25.1|12.8|<0.001
90928752|NCT03160885|181737903|SUPERIORITY||Difference of least square means|-1.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.8||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of IMP or initiation of rescue medication not included. In case of no post-baseline assessments before initiation of rescue medication, the Week 1 change will be imputed as 0.||-0.8|-1.7|<0.001
90928753|NCT03160885|181737904|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.9|26.2||"Subjects who received rescue medication prior to Week 16 or have missing data at Week 16 were considered as non-responders.~The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline disease severity.|||26.2|13.9|<0.001
90928754|NCT03160885|181737905|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|28.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.4|36.3||"Subjects who received rescue medication prior to Week 16 or have missing data at Week 16 were considered as non-responders.~The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline disease severity.|||36.3|21.4|<0.001
90928755|NCT02307682|181737947|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin was 4 letters.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.3||1-sided p-value reported. Hypothesis tested according to the pre-specified hierarchical testing that ensures the global type I error rate at 0.05.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|||1.3|-2.5|0.0003
90928756|NCT02307682|181737947|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin was 4 letters.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.8||1-sided p-value reported. Hypothesis tested according to the pre-specified hierarchical testing that ensures the global type I error rate at 0.05.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|||1.8|-2.1|<0.0001
90928757|NCT02307682|181737948|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin was 4 letters.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.3||1-sided p-value reported. Hypothesis tested according to the pre-specified hierarchical testing that ensures the global type I error rate at 0.05.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|||1.3|-2.4|0.0001
91035358|NCT03285594|181956662|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.081|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.706|-0.387|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 18 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at Week -1, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at Week -1, randomization strata of sulfonylureas use (yes, no) at Week -1, and country as fixed effects, and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||-0.387|-0.706|<0.0001
90928758|NCT02307682|181737948|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin was 4 letters.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.9||1-sided p-value reported. Hypothesis tested according to the pre-specified hierarchical testing that ensures the global type I error rate at 0.05.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|||1.9|-1.9|<0.0001
90928759|NCT02307682|181737953|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 4||0.9|-1.4|
90928760|NCT02307682|181737953|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|||1.1|-1.4|
90928761|NCT02307682|181737953|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 8||1.2|-1.4|
90928762|NCT02307682|181737953|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 8||1.2|-1.7|
90928763|NCT02307682|181737953|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 12||1.2|-1.8|
90928764|NCT02307682|181737953|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 12||1.6|-1.5|
90928765|NCT02307682|181737953|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 16||1.5|-1.8|
90928766|NCT02307682|181737953|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 16||2.1|-1.1|
90928767|NCT02307682|181737953|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 20||1.0|-2.2|
90966113|NCT01704287|181813934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Cox regression model with treatment as covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 vs. 1); LDH levels (normal vs. elevated LDH levels \[≥110% ULN\]); \& BRAF mutational status (mutant vs. wild-type)|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.1247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.05||Two-sided p-value based on stratified log rank test|Log Rank||Numerator=Pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg Denominator=Pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg|||1.05|0.66|0.1247
90971274|NCT04311502|181825265|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.26||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.06|||Wald chi-square test||Difference in cumulative proportions (Arm 1 - Arm 2)|The point estimate and 95% two-sided confidence interval for the difference in cumulative proportions of participants experiencing a favorable outcome through week 65 was compared between Arm 1 and Arm 2.||-0.06|-0.47|0.01
91035359|NCT03285594|181956663|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-15.858|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.6056||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.8845|-6.8309|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 18 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at Week -1, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at Week -1, randomization strata of sulfonylureas use (yes, no) at Week -1, and country as fixed effects, and baseline FPG as a covariate.||-6.8309|-24.8845|0.0006
90928768|NCT02307682|181737953|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 20||1.2|-2.2|
90928769|NCT02307682|181737953|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 24||1.3|-2.1|
90928770|NCT02307682|181737953|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 24||1.6|-1.9|
91078011|NCT02542293|182041273|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.534|1.017|||||The HR and CI were calculated using an unstratified Cox proportional hazards model, with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"tTMB ≥8 mut/Mb analysis set: Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy to be associated with a longer PFS than SoC."||1.017|0.534|
90966114|NCT01704287|181813935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.1173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.1||One-sided p-value based on stratified log rank test|Log Rank||Numerator=Pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg Denominator=ICC|Cox regression model with treatment as covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 vs. 1); LDH levels (normal vs. elevated LDH levels \[≥110% ULN\]); \& BRAF mutational status (mutant vs. wild-type)||1.10|0.67|0.1173
90966115|NCT01704287|181813935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.0106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.96||One-sided p-value based on stratified log rank test|Log Rank||Numerator=Pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg Denominator=ICC|Cox regression model with treatment as covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 vs. 1); LDH levels (normal vs. elevated LDH levels \[≥110% ULN\]); \& BRAF mutational status (mutant vs. wild-type)||0.96|0.57|0.0106
90966116|NCT01704287|181813935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.2905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.12||Two-sided p-value based on stratified log rank test|Log Rank||Numerator=Pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg Denominator=Pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg|Cox regression model with treatment as covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 vs. 1); LDH levels (normal vs. elevated LDH levels \[≥110% ULN\]); \& BRAF mutational status (mutant vs. wild-type)||1.12|0.67|0.2905
90966117|NCT01704287|181813936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.1146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.1||One-sided p-value based on stratified log rank test|Log Rank||Numerator=Pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg Denominator=ICC|Cox regression model with treatment as covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 vs. 1); LDH levels (normal vs. elevated LDH levels \[≥110% ULN\]); \& BRAF mutational status (mutant vs. wild-type)||1.10|0.68|0.1146
90966118|NCT01704287|181813936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.9||One-sided p-value based on stratified log rank test|Log Rank||Numerator=Pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg Denominator=ICC|Cox regression model with treatment as covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 vs. 1); LDH levels (normal vs. elevated LDH levels \[≥110% ULN\]); \& BRAF mutational status (mutant vs. wild-type)||0.90|0.55|0.0023
90966119|NCT01704287|181813936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.07||Two-sided p-value based on stratified log rank test|Log Rank||Numerator=Pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg Denominator=Pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg|Cox regression model with treatment as covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 vs. 1); LDH levels (normal vs. elevated LDH levels \[≥110% ULN\]); \& BRAF mutational status (mutant vs. wild-type)||1.07|0.66|0.1490
90966120|NCT01704287|181813937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|PD-L1-Positive Participants|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.3113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.28||One-sided p-value based on stratified log rank test|Log Rank||Numerator=Pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg Denominator=ICC|Cox regression model with treatment as covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 vs. 1); LDH levels (normal vs. elevated LDH levels \[≥110% ULN\]); \& BRAF mutational status (mutant vs. wild-type)||1.28|0.66|0.3113
90966121|NCT01704287|181813937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|PD-L1 Positive Participants|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.0208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.99||One-sided p-value based on stratified log rank test|Log Rank||Numerator=Pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg Denominator=ICC|Cox regression model with treatment as covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 vs. 1); LDH levels (normal vs. elevated LDH levels \[≥110% ULN\]); \& BRAF mutational status (mutant vs. wild-type)||0.99|0.50|0.0208
90966122|NCT01704287|181813937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|PD-L1 Positive Participants|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.0496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.0||Two-sided p-value based on stratified log rank test|Log Rank||Numerator=Pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg Denominator=Pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg|Cox regression model with treatment as covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 vs. 1); LDH levels (normal vs. elevated LDH levels \[≥110% ULN\]); \& BRAF mutational status (mutant vs. wild-type)||1.00|0.50|0.0496
90966123|NCT01704287|181813937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|PD-L1 Negative Participants|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.6043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.76||One-sided p-value based on stratified log rank test|Log Rank||Numerator=Pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg Denominator=ICC|Cox regression model with treatment as covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 vs. 1); LDH levels (normal vs. elevated LDH levels \[≥110% ULN\]); \& BRAF mutational status (mutant vs. wild-type)||1.76|0.65|0.6043
90966124|NCT01704287|181813937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|PD-L1 Negative Participants|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.0335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.04||One-sided p-value based on stratified log rank test|Log Rank||Numerator=Pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg Denominator=ICC|Cox regression model with treatment as covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 vs. 1); LDH levels (normal vs. elevated LDH levels \[≥110% ULN\]); \& BRAF mutational status (mutant vs. wild-type)||1.04|0.37|0.0335
90966125|NCT01704287|181813937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|PD-L1 Negative Participants|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.1504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.13||Two-sided p-value based on stratified log rank test|Log Rank||Numerator=Pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg Denominator=Pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg|Cox regression model with treatment as covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 vs. 1); LDH levels (normal vs. elevated LDH levels \[≥110% ULN\]); \& BRAF mutational status (mutant vs. wild-type)||1.13|0.44|0.1504
90966126|NCT04024228|181813959|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of GMTs was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% Confidence Interval (CI) for the ratio of GMTs was above 1 between groups for each of the comparisons.|GMT ratio|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|2.28||||||A/H1N1: 60-64 years||2.28|1.58|
91035360|NCT03285594|181956663|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-21.832|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0514|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.7725|-13.8911|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 18 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at Week -1, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at Week -1, randomization strata of sulfonylureas use (yes, no) at Week -1, and country as fixed effects, and baseline FPG as a covariate.||-13.8911|-29.7725|<0.0001
90966127|NCT04024228|181813959|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of GMTs was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMTs was above 1 between groups for each of the comparisons.|GMT ratio|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|2.08||||||A/H3N2: 60-64 years||2.08|1.38|
90966128|NCT04024228|181813959|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of GMTs was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMTs was above 1 between groups for each of the comparisons.|GMT ratio|1.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|1.74||||||B1: 60-64 years||1.74|1.30|
90966129|NCT04024228|181813959|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of GMTs was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMTs was above 1 between groups for each of the comparisons.|GMT ratio|1.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|2.04||||||B2: 60-64 years||2.04|1.53|
90966130|NCT04024228|181813959|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of GMTs was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMTs was above 1 between groups for each of the comparisons.|GMT ratio|1.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|2.15||||||A/H1N1: \>=65 years||2.15|1.44|
90966131|NCT04024228|181813959|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of GMTs was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMTs was above 1 between groups for each of the comparisons.|GMT ratio|2.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.74|2.65||||||A/H3N2: \>=65 years||2.65|1.74|
90966132|NCT04024228|181813959|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of GMTs was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMTs was above 1 between groups for each of the comparisons.|GMT ratio|1.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|1.79||||||B1: \>=65 years||1.79|1.34|
90966133|NCT04024228|181813959|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of GMTs was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMTs was above 1 between groups for each of the comparisons.|GMT ratio|1.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|2.03||||||B2: \>=65 years||2.03|1.52|
90966134|NCT04490395|181813982|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.68||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|3.62|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.62|-0.26|0.044
90966135|NCT04490395|181813983|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.59||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|1.33|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.33|-0.15|0.056
90966136|NCT04490395|181813984|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|1.28|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.28|-1.75|0.377
90966137|NCT04490395|181813985|SUPERIORITY|Within subjects change over time|F test (1,15) df|1.381||||0.258|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Change over time||Only 9 cases had any data available per group, and some had missing values and were not included in each analysis.|Within subjects change over time.|||0.258
90966138|NCT04490395|181813985|SUPERIORITY|Between group analysis|F test (1,15) df|0.246||||0.627|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA||||Between group analysis|||0.627
90966139|NCT04490395|181813985|SUPERIORITY||F test (1,15) df|0.005||||0.947|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Time x Condition interaction|Time x Condition interaction|||0.947
90966140|NCT04490395|181813986|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.88||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|0.98|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.98|-1.85|0.038
90966141|NCT04490395|181813987|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.56||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.05|0.94|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.94|-6.05|0.07
90966142|NCT04490395|181813988|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|1.42|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.42|-1.19|0.43
90966143|NCT04490395|181813989|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.029||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.194|1.42|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.42|-.194|0.72
90966144|NCT04490395|181813990|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.23|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.23|-0.35|0.341
90966145|NCT04490395|181813991|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.059||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|1.17|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.17|-2.35|0.25
90966146|NCT00938717|181813992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.44|8.84||The p-value is still less than 0.05 after adjusting multiplicity using a serial gatekeeping multiple comparison procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between the 290 μg dose and placebo groups in the proportion of 9/12 Week APC 3 + 1 Responders. The power, adjusted for multiplicity, was expected to be 93% based on NCT00460811 (MCP-103-202) study data.||8.84|2.44|<0.0001
90966147|NCT00938717|181813993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|7.03||The p-value is still less than 0.05 after adjusting multiplicity using a serial gatekeeping multiple comparison procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between the 290 μg dose and placebo groups in the proportion of 9/12 Week CSBM 3 + 1 Responders. The power, adjusted for multiplicity, was expected to be 93% based on NCT00460811 (MCP-103-202) study data.||7.03|2.50|<0.0001
90966148|NCT00938717|181813994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.91|3.6||The p-value is still less than 0.05 after adjusting multiplicity using a serial gatekeeping multiple comparison procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between the 290 μg dose and placebo groups in the proportion of 9/12 Week Abdominal Pain Responders. The power, adjusted for multiplicity, was expected to be 93% based on NCT00460811 (MCP-103-202) study data.||3.60|1.91|<0.0001
90966149|NCT00938717|181813995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.22|4.49||The p-value is still less than 0.05 after adjusting multiplicity using a serial gatekeeping multiple comparison procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between the 290 μg dose and placebo groups in the proportion of 6/12 Week APC + 1 Responders.~The power, adjusted for multiplicity, was expected to be 86% based on NCT00460811 (MCP-103-202) study data."||4.49|2.22|<0.0001
90966150|NCT00257725|181814052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.73||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||paired t-test|||||||0.01
90966151|NCT00257725|181814053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.64|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.29||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||paired t-test|||||||0.01
90966152|NCT00257725|181814054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|10.55|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.7||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||paired t-test|||||||0.01
90966153|NCT02573870|181814055|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|p-values were not presented as non-inferiority was assessed by confidence interval (CI).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.245|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.153|1.663|||||Treatment difference is calculated as active minus placebo and the non-inferiority bound was 10 bpm for Day 42|||1.663|-6.153|
90966154|NCT00514514|181814056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.82|8.31|||ANCOVA|||||8.31|2.82|< 0.0001
91035361|NCT03285594|181956664|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.716|-0.462|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 18 is analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at Week -1, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at Week -1, randomization strata of sulfonylureas use (yes, no) at Week -1, and country as fixed effects, and baseline body weight as a covariate.||-0.462|-1.716|0.0007
91035362|NCT03285594|181956664|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.278|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.274|-1.183|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 18 is analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at Week -1, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at Week -1, randomization strata of sulfonylureas use (yes, no) at Week -1, and country as fixed effects, and baseline body weight as a covariate.||-1.183|-2.274|<0.0001
91035363|NCT03285594|181956665|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-3.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.904||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.642|-0.178|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 12 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at Week -1, randomization strata of sulfonylureas use (yes, no) at Week -1, and country as fixed effects, and baseline SBP as a covariate.||-0.178|-7.642|0.04
91035364|NCT03285594|181956665|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-3.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.697||0.0239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.161|-0.507|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 12 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at Week -1, randomization strata of sulfonylureas use (yes, no) at Week -1, and country as fixed effects, and baseline SBP as a covariate.||-0.507|-7.161|0.0239
91035365|NCT03285594|181956666|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-4.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.425|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.73|-2.142||||||The change from baseline to Week 12 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at Week -1, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at Week -1, randomization strata of sulfonylureas use (yes, no) at Week -1, and country as fixed effects, and baseline SBP as a covariate.||-2.142|-7.73|
91035366|NCT03285594|181956666|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-3.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.246||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.333|-1.448|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 12 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at Week -1, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at Week -1, randomization strata of sulfonylureas use (yes, no) at Week -1, and country as fixed effects, and baseline SBP as a covariate.||-1.448|-6.333|0.0018
90928771|NCT02307682|181737953|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.92|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 28||1.7|-1.9|
90928772|NCT02307682|181737953|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.92|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|2.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 28||2.2|-1.4|
90928773|NCT02307682|181737953|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 32||1.3|-2.4|
90928774|NCT02307682|181737953|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|2.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 32||2.5|-1.2|
90928775|NCT02307682|181737953|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|0.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 36||0.8|-2.9|
90928776|NCT02307682|181737953|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 36||1.6|-2.1|
91035367|NCT03285594|181956667|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.1265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.185|0.147|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 52 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at Week -1, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at Week -1, randomization strata of sulfonylureas use (yes, no) at Week -1, and country as fixed effects, and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||0.147|-1.185|0.1265
91035368|NCT03285594|181956667|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.199|0.055|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 52 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at Week -1, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at Week -1, randomization strata of sulfonylureas use (yes, no) at Week -1, and country as fixed effects, and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||0.055|-1.199|0.074
91035369|NCT03285594|181956668|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.868||0.2466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.707|0.696|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 18 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at Week -1, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at Week -1, randomization strata of sulfonylureas use (yes, no) at Week -1, and country as fixed effects, and baseline body weight as a covariate.||0.696|-2.707|0.2466
91035370|NCT03285594|181956668|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.672||0.332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.969|0.665|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 18 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at Week -1, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at Week -1, randomization strata of sulfonylureas use (yes, no) at Week -1, and country as fixed effects, and baseline body weight as a covariate.||0.665|-1.969|0.332
91035371|NCT00834431|181956671|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|92.0||||||90.0|85.9|98.6|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||98.6|85.9|
91035372|NCT00834431|181956672|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|98.6||||||90.0|96.2|101.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||101|96.2|
90928777|NCT02307682|181737953|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 40||1.6|-2.2|
90928778|NCT02307682|181737953|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|2.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 40||2.1|-1.9|
90928779|NCT02307682|181737953|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 44||1.9|-2.1|
90928780|NCT02307682|181737953|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|2.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 44||2.2|-1.8|
90928781|NCT02307682|181737953|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 48||1.3|-2.5|
90928782|NCT02307682|181737953|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 48||1.8|-2.1|
90928783|NCT02307682|181737953|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 52||1.8|-2.2|
90928784|NCT02307682|181737953|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 52||1.9|-2.2|
90928785|NCT02307682|181737953|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 56||1.5|-2.5|
90928786|NCT02307682|181737953|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|1.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 56||1.4|-2.7|
90928787|NCT02307682|181737953|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 60||1.9|-2.1|
90928788|NCT02307682|181737953|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 60||1.9|-2.2|
90928789|NCT02307682|181737953|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 64||1.7|-2.3|
90940948|NCT00943722|181761605|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMTs be entirely contained within the interval (0.5, 2.0).|GMT ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.2|||||GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 2) divided by GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 3)|Anti-HPV 11||1.20|0.95|
91035373|NCT00834431|181956673|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|98.7||||||90.0|96.3|101.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||101|96.3|
91035374|NCT00556322|181956686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.7299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.19|||Log Rank|||||1.19|0.78|0.7299
90928790|NCT02307682|181737953|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 64||1.9|-2.2|
90928791|NCT02307682|181737953|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 68||2.0|-2.1|
90928792|NCT02307682|181737953|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 68||1.9|-2.2|
90966155|NCT01480284|181814072|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was judged based on the one-sided test of the model, y(Δ) = Baseline + Group ( Δ= -1.0). The adjusted mean values of the TDF group and the ETV group were calculated, and the adjusted mean value and two-sided 95% confidence interval of differences between the TDF group and the ETV group were calculated. Non-inferiority was also to be confirmed when the upper limit of the calculated two-sided 95% confidence interval was less than the non-inferiority limit value of 1.0|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.02||p-value was compared with the significance level of 0.025|ANCOVA|||||0.02|-0.28|<0.0001
90966156|NCT01480284|181814073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.39|||||CI and estimate difference is provided for change from Baseline in serum HBV DNA level at Week 48.|||0.39|-0.40|
90966157|NCT04746833|181814084|EQUIVALENCE|mean of Summit will be equal to mean of control||||||0.91|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.91
90966158|NCT04746833|181814085|OTHER|||||||||||||||||descriptive statistic of system use|simple descriptive findings for evaluation of feasibility of the Sumit app|||
90966159|NCT04746833|181814086|EQUIVALENCE|standard null hypothesis of no difference between groups||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.50
91035375|NCT00556322|181956689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.6198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.21|||Log Rank|||Comparison of EGFR positive populations||1.21|0.72|0.6198
90928793|NCT02307682|181737953|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|2.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 72||2.3|-2.0|
90928794|NCT02307682|181737953|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.07|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 72||1.8|-2.4|
90928795|NCT02307682|181737953|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.07|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|2.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 76||2.4|-1.8|
90966160|NCT04013789|181814098|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority margin was set at 0.05.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.006|||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.03|||Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model||DACP FreshTech minus DACP|||0.03||
90928796|NCT02307682|181737953|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 76||2.1|-2.1|
90966161|NCT01488279|181814100|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|480.8||0.983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1147.6|1126.0|||ANOVA|||2X2 crossover design with baseline values. To compare the means between Sitagliptin and Placebo, a sequential three step testing process used. The results of the third step, the direct treatment comparisons are presented.||1126.0|-1147.6|.983
90966162|NCT01488279|181814103|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.935||0.997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.585|4.568|||ANOVA|||||4.568|-4.585|.997
90966163|NCT01488279|181814104|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-38.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|49.9||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-156.9|79.0|||ANOVA|||||79.0|-156.9|.460
90928797|NCT02307682|181737953|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.07|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 80||2.7|-1.5|
90928798|NCT02307682|181737953|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|2.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 80||2.8|-1.4|
90966164|NCT03593850|181814105|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.002
90966165|NCT03593850|181814106|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence analysis was performed according to pre-defined significant difference of p \< 0.01||||||0.392|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.392
90966166|NCT03593850|181814107|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence analysis was performed according to pre-defined significant difference of p \< 0.01||||||0.802|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.802
90966167|NCT03593850|181814108|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
90966168|NCT03593850|181814108|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|1.429||||0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Fixed factors: group, covariates: pain before (VAS2), age in years, age at menarche, duration of menses, usual pain, anxiety before, hours with pain.|||Adjusted means: music 3.131 (99% CI 2.62, 3.999) and silence 4.56 (99% CI 3.581, 5.538), F= 8.44, R-square 54.5%|||0.006
91035376|NCT00556322|181956689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio, log|0.95||||0.8398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.62|||Log Rank|||Comparison of EGFR negative populations||1.62|0.55|0.8398
91035377|NCT00556322|181956692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19||||0.0885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.46|||Log Rank|||||1.46|0.97|0.0885
90928799|NCT02307682|181737953|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 84||2.7|-1.5|
90928800|NCT02307682|181737953|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|2.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 84||2.4|-1.8|
90928801|NCT02307682|181737953|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|2.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 88||2.5|-1.8|
90928802|NCT02307682|181737953|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|2.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 88||2.4|-1.9|
90928803|NCT02307682|181737953|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|2.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 92||2.5|-1.9|
90928804|NCT02307682|181737953|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|2.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 92||2.5|-1.8|
90928805|NCT02307682|181737953|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|2.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 96||2.5|-1.9|
90928806|NCT02307682|181737953|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 96||2.7|-1.6|
90928807|NCT02307682|181737954|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 4 to Week 48||1.1|-1.9|
90928808|NCT02307682|181737954|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 4 to Week 48||1.6|-1.5|
90928809|NCT02307682|181737954|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 4 to Week 96||1.6|-1.8|
90928810|NCT02307682|181737954|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 4 to Week 96||1.8|-1.7|
90928811|NCT02307682|181737955|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 12 to Week 48||1.2|-2.0|
90928812|NCT02307682|181737955|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 12 to Week 48||1.8|-1.6|
90928813|NCT02307682|181737955|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 12 to Week 96||1.7|-1.9|
90928814|NCT02307682|181737955|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.92|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 12 to Week 96||1.9|-1.7|
90928815|NCT02307682|181737956|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|2.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|||2.5|-1.7|
90928816|NCT02307682|181737956|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|2.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|||2.5|-1.7|
90966169|NCT03593850|181814109|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.11
90966170|NCT03593850|181814109|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.721||||0.37|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Fixed factor: Groups Covariates: Pain before, pain after, age, age menarche, menses duration, usual pain, anxiety before, anxiety after, hours pain|Adjusted means: music 2.58 (99% CI 1.339, 3.829), and silence 3.305 (1.728, 4.881); F 0.827, R-square 27.2%|||||0.370
90966171|NCT03593850|181814110|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between groups was pre-defined as p \> 0.01||||||0.377|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.377
90966172|NCT03593850|181814111|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.049|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.049
90966173|NCT03593850|181814112|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.168|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.168
90966174|NCT03593850|181814113|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between groups was pre-defined as p \> 0.01||||||0.642|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.642
90966175|NCT03593850|181814114|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.02
90966176|NCT03593850|181814115|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.025|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.025
90966177|NCT03593850|181814116|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between groups determined by pre-deined p \> 0.01||||||0.307|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.307
90966178|NCT03593850|181814117|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between groups determined by pre-deined p \> 0.01||||||0.318|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.318
90966179|NCT03593850|181814118|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between groups determined by pre-deined p \> 0.01||||||0.954|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.954
90966180|NCT03593850|181814119|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between groups determined by pre-deined p \> 0.01||||||0.258|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.258
90966181|NCT03593850|181814120|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.058|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.058
90966182|NCT03593850|181814121|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.056|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.056
90966183|NCT03593850|181814122|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.885|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.885
90966184|NCT03593850|181814123|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.036
90966185|NCT00119041|181814147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.153|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.025 using Bonferroni correction for 2 statistical tests.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparisons were made between the intervention and control groups at baseline||||>0.153
90966186|NCT00119041|181814147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.25|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.025 using Bonferroni correction for 2 statistical tests.|t-test, 2 sided|Threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.025 using Bonferroni correction for 2 statistical tests.||Comparisons were made between the intervention and control groups at 18 months||||>0.25
90966187|NCT04784897|181814153|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.9289||||0.7273|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6585|1.3102|||Log Rank|||Main comparison is between Brilacidin 5-dose and Pooled Placebo||1.3102|0.6585|0.7273
90966188|NCT04784897|181814153|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.8968||||0.5975|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5464|1.472|||Log Rank|||Secondary comparison between Brilacidin 3-dose and Pooled Placebo||1.4720|0.5464|0.5975
90966189|NCT02319668|181814172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square (LS) Mean difference|0.2||||0.2965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.58|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|||0.58|-0.18|0.2965
90966190|NCT00365456|181814188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0045||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.003|1.021||No multiplicity correction of the significance level was performed as only one primary endpoint was planned.|ANCOVA|Estimation allowing for unequal variance in the two treatment groups and robust estimates for the standard errors were obtained.||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used including treatment group, stratum and pooled centre as fixed effects and log (BMD at Baseline III (month 24)) as a covariate (log-normally distributed data assumed). Least square mean change from baseline III (month 24), 95% confidence interval and p-value for the treatment effect (PTH (1-84) vs. Risedronate) was calculated. Superiority was claimed if lower limit of the interval was above 1. Results were back-transformed from the log scale.||1.021|1.003|0.010
90966191|NCT01846728|181814189|OTHER|||||||0.84||||||Because this was a pilot study, the study was not powered to detect differences over time. the study was performed to generate preliminary data on means and standard deviations|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.84
90966192|NCT01846728|181814190|OTHER|||||||0.66|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Because this was a pilot study, the study was not powered to detect differences over time. the study was performed to generate preliminary data on means and standard deviations||||0.66
90966193|NCT01846728|181814191|OTHER|Because this was a pilot study, the study was not powered to detect differences over time. the study was performed to generate preliminary data on means and standard deviations||||||0.92|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.92
90966194|NCT01846728|181814192|OTHER|||||||0.98|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Because this was a pilot study, the study was not powered to detect differences over time. the study was performed to generate preliminary data on means and standard deviations||||0.98
90966195|NCT01846728|181814193|OTHER|||||||0.66|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Because this was a pilot study, the study was not powered to detect differences over time. the study was performed to generate preliminary data on means and standard deviations||||0.66
90966196|NCT04754802|181814201|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.42||0.5063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|6.4|||ANCOVA|||||6.4|-3.2|.5063
90966197|NCT04754802|181814202|SUPERIORITY||Other|-0.015||||0.8077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.137|0.107|||Wald Normal Approximation (Z)|Wald Normal Approximation (Z) for difference between two proportions||||0.107|-0.137|.8077
90966198|NCT00701090|181814203|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The pre-specified non-inferiority margin was 0.4%, i.e., Sitagliptin was declared non-inferior to glimepiride if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the between group difference (sitagliptin minus glimepiride) was less than 0.4%|Mean Difference (Net)|0.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.16|||||ANCOVA model with terms: treatment, country, and baseline HbA1c.|||0.16|-0.03|
90966199|NCT00701090|181814204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|28.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|6.7|||||ANCOVA model terms: treatment, country, and baseline.|||6.7|-0.9|
90966200|NCT00701090|181814205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-15.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.3|-10.9|||Miettinen &Nurminen method||Miettinen \&Nurminen method was used for the 95% confidence interval|||-10.9|-19.3|<0.001
90966201|NCT00701090|181814206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-1.6|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, country, and baseline.|ANCOVA model terms: treatment, country, and baseline.|||-1.6|-2.3|<0.001
90966202|NCT00701090|181814207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.9|||||The parameter estimate and 95% CI represent the odds of having A1C \<7.0% at Week 30 in the Sitagliptin group vs. the Glimepiride group, computed using a logistic regression model controlling for treatment, country and baseline A1C.|||0.90|0.47|
90966203|NCT00701090|181814208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.95|||||The parameter estimate and 95% CI represent the odds of having A1C \<6.5% at Week 30 in the Sitagliptin group vs. the Glimepiride group, computed using a logistic regression model controlling for treatment, country and baseline A1C.|||0.95|0.47|
90966204|NCT00324753|181814209|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||p-value based on a test of any treatment difference by site.|Mixed Models Analysis|The model was run using the xtlogit command in Stata and was adjusted for all of the reported baseline characteristics.||||||.005
90966205|NCT01299376|181814216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least-squares Means|-5.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|-4.2|||Contrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model including treatment, time and the interaction of time by treatment with a restriction of the same baseline mean across treatment groups.||||-4.2|-7.5|<0.001
90928817|NCT02307682|181737957|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|4.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 4||4.2|-4.2|
90928818|NCT02307682|181737957|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|5.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 4||5.8|-2.8|
90928819|NCT02307682|181737957|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|5.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 8||5.9|-4.4|
90928820|NCT02307682|181737957|OTHER||Difference in proportions|4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|10.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 8||10.0|-1.2|
90928821|NCT02307682|181737957|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|5.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 12||5.9|-5.9|
90928822|NCT02307682|181737957|OTHER||Difference in proportions|4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|11.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 12||11.0|-0.5|
90966206|NCT01299376|181814227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-10.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|-7.7||Model including treatment, time and the interaction of time by treatment with a restriction of the same baseline mean across treatment groups.|Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||-7.7|-12.8|<0.001
90966207|NCT00617604|181814235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.5|10.3||||||||10.3|-2.5|
90966208|NCT00617604|181814236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.1|5.0||||||||5.0|-3.1|
90966209|NCT00617604|181814237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.0|10.1||||||||10.1|-4.0|
90966210|NCT00617604|181814238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|2.5||||||||2.5|-0.6|
90928823|NCT02307682|181737957|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|8.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 16||8.0|-3.7|
90928824|NCT02307682|181737957|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|8.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 16||8.3|-3.8|
90966211|NCT00617604|181814239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.9|4.7||||||||4.7|-14.9|
90966212|NCT00617604|181814240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-9.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.5|0.0||||||||0.0|-18.5|
90966213|NCT00617604|181814241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.6|3.8||||||||3.8|-7.6|
90966214|NCT00617604|181814242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.2|4.6||||||||4.6|-8.2|
90966215|NCT00617604|181814243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.3|5.0||||||||5.0|-1.3|
90966216|NCT00617604|181814244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.2|10.4||||||||10.4|-1.2|
90966217|NCT00617604|181814246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.3|7.2||||||||7.2|-3.3|
90966218|NCT00617604|181814251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.7|14.6||||||||14.6|-2.7|
90966219|NCT00617604|181814252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.2|2.2||||||||2.2|-11.2|
90966220|NCT00617604|181814253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|5.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.4|14.7||||||||14.7|-4.4|
91035378|NCT00556322|181956695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.26||||0.0662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.61|||Log Rank|||Comparison of EGFR positive populations||1.61|0.98|0.0662
90966221|NCT02303704|181814255|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|to check the equality of means|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value less than 0.05 was considered significant|t-test, 2 sided|two compare two independent quantitative groups||Null hypothesis was there is no significant difference between the means of two groups||||<0.05
90966222|NCT02303704|181814256|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|to check the equality of means between the two groups|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
90928825|NCT02307682|181737957|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|6.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 20||6.1|-5.9|
90928826|NCT02307682|181737957|OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|9.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 20||9.9|-2.4|
90928827|NCT02307682|181737957|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|7.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 24||7.3|-4.2|
90928828|NCT02307682|181737957|OTHER||Difference in proportions|7.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|13.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 24||13.4|0.8|
90928829|NCT02307682|181737957|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|8.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 28||8.5|-4.3|
90928830|NCT02307682|181737957|OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|9.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 28||9.4|-3.4|
90928831|NCT02307682|181737957|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|7.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 32||7.2|-5.0|
90928832|NCT02307682|181737957|OTHER||Difference in proportions|7.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|14.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 32||14.4|1.5|
90928833|NCT02307682|181737957|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|7.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 36||7.0|-5.4|
90928834|NCT02307682|181737957|OTHER||Difference in proportions|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|14.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 36||14.5|2.1|
90928835|NCT02307682|181737957|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|8.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 40||8.1|-4.4|
90966223|NCT02303704|181814257|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|to check the equality of means|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value \<0.05 was considered significant.|t-test, 2 sided|To compare the means between the two groups, to find out the significant difference between Group I and II.||Null Hypothesis: The dose of nor-adrenaline on weaning from CPB is same for Group I and II.||||<0.05
90966224|NCT02303704|181814258|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|to chek the equality of means between the two groups|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
90966225|NCT02303704|181814259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||p- value less than 0.05 was considered as significant difference in proportion between the two groups|Chi-squared|two compare the qualitative data between two groups||Null Hypothesis:The proportion of IABP use is same between the two groups||||<0.05
90928836|NCT02307682|181737957|OTHER||Difference in proportions|8.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|15.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 40||15.1|2.0|
90928837|NCT02307682|181737957|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|7.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 44||7.1|-5.2|
90928838|NCT02307682|181737957|OTHER||Difference in proportions|7.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|13.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 44||13.8|0.7|
90966226|NCT02303704|181814260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value \<0.05 was considered to be significant i.e. operative mortality is not same between the two groups|Fisher Exact|Fisher exact test was used because 1 cell (25%) have expected count less than 5.||Null Hypothesis: Operative mortality ratio is same in both groups||||<0.05
90966227|NCT01353079|181814271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.834|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.298|-0.369|||ANCOVA|||||-0.369|-1.298|<0.05
90966228|NCT01353079|181814272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.857|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.388|-0.326|||ANCOVA|||||-0.326|-1.388|<0.05
90928839|NCT02307682|181737957|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|6.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 48||6.1|-6.8|
90928840|NCT02307682|181737957|OTHER||Difference in proportions|8.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|15.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 48||15.0|2.2|
90928841|NCT02307682|181737957|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|9.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 52||9.2|-3.9|
90928842|NCT02307682|181737957|OTHER||Difference in proportions|4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|11.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 52||11.4|-1.5|
90928843|NCT02307682|181737957|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|7.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 56||7.1|-5.9|
90928844|NCT02307682|181737957|OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|9.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 56||9.7|-3.1|
90928845|NCT02307682|181737957|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|6.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 60||6.5|-6.5|
90928846|NCT02307682|181737957|OTHER||Difference in proportions|4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|11.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 60||11.4|-1.3|
90928847|NCT02307682|181737957|OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|10.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 64||10.2|-2.9|
90928848|NCT02307682|181737957|OTHER||Difference in proportions|5.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|12.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 64||12.3|-0.4|
90966229|NCT01353079|181814273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.771|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.213|-0.329|||ANCOVA|||||-0.329|-1.213|<0.05
90966230|NCT01353079|181814274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.788|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.291|-0.284|||ANCOVA|||||-0.284|-1.291|<0.05
90966231|NCT04029961|181814277|OTHER|Multivariate regression model and intra-arm differences in measure scores between time points.|||||<|0.05||||||Multivariate regression was adjusted for covariates of study site, highest education level, prior chemotherapy, age, \& T stage. Random effects was adjusted for multiple measurements. Multiplicity corrections were conducted via Holm-Sidak method.|multivariate regression|||||||<0.05
90966232|NCT04029961|181814278|OTHER|Multivariate regression model and intra-arm differences in measure scores between time points.|||||<|0.05||||||Multivariate regression was adjusted for covariates of study site, highest education level, prior chemotherapy, age, \& T stage. Random effects was adjusted for multiple measurements. Multiplicity corrections were conducted via Holm-Sidak method.|multivariate regression|||||||<0.05
90928849|NCT02307682|181737957|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|9.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 68||9.0|-4.2|
90928850|NCT02307682|181737957|OTHER||Difference in proportions|5.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|11.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 68||11.9|-0.2|
90966233|NCT04029961|181814279|OTHER|Multivariate regression model and intra-arm differences in measure scores between time points.|||||<|0.05||||||Multivariate regression was adjusted for covariates of study site, highest education level, prior chemotherapy, age, \& T stage. Random effects was adjusted for multiple measurements. Multiplicity corrections were conducted via Holm-Sidak method.|multivariate regression|||||||<0.05
90966234|NCT04029961|181814280|OTHER|Multivariate regression model and intra-arm differences in measure scores between time points.|||||<|0.05||||||Multivariate regression was adjusted for covariates of study site, highest education level, prior chemotherapy, age, \& T stage. Random effects was adjusted for multiple measurements. Multiplicity corrections were conducted via Holm-Sidak method.|multivariate regression|||||||<0.05
90966235|NCT04029961|181814281|OTHER|"A univariate analysis comparing the proportion of each arm that indicated an item was met, evaluated for each item at each time point."|||||<|0.05|||||||Univariate analysis|||"The statistical test described below was only performed on the top 10 items on the scale rated the highest in importance by participants. The top 10 items were determined by computing the mean rating for each item (participants gave each item a rating from '1' - '9' with higher values representing greater importance) and selecting the 10 items with the largest mean values, excluding the item the radiation oncologist who will be treating me as that item was not addressed in either intervention."||||<0.05
90966236|NCT01721876|181814282|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided test of the hypothesis was performed at a 0.05 level of significance. An odds ratio (OR) = 1 would indicate that the odds of achieving CR+CRi with Volasertib + Low-dose Cytarabine is equal to the odds of achieving CR+CRi with Placebo + Low-dose Cytarabine , whereas an OR ≠ 1 would indicate the opposite. H0, CR+CRi: OR = 1 vs. Ha, CR+CRi: OR ≠ 1.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8751||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2432|2.8281|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Common odds ratio is calculated by Mantel-Haenszel estimate adjusting for the two stratification factors (baseline Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) and type of AML). If odds ratio is above 1 then it favours Volasertib+Low-dose Cytarabine.|This analysis was exploratory and descriptive.||2.8281|1.2432|0.0024
90966237|NCT01721876|181814283|SUPERIORITY|The hazard ratio (HR) between Volasertib + Low-dose Cytarabine and Placebo + Low-dose Cytarabine was tested against 1. The null hypothesis, H0,OS, was that the hazards are equal between Volasertib + Low-dose Cytarabine and Placebo + Low-dose Cytarabine, whereas the alternative hypothesis, Ha,OS, was that the hazards are not equal between the 2 treatment arms. H0, OS: HR = 1 vs. Ha, OS: HR ≠ 1.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.7571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.2||P-value is calculated from log-rank test stratified by baseline ECOG (0-1 vs. 2) and type of AML (denovo vs. secondary).|Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio is calculated from Cox proportional hazard model stratified by baseline ECOG and type of AML. If hazard ratio is below 1 then it favours volasertib.|This analysis was exploratory and descriptive.||1.2|0.8|0.7571
90966238|NCT01721876|181814284|SUPERIORITY|The hazard ratio (HR) between Volasertib + Low-dose Cytarabine and Placebo + Low-dose Cytarabine was tested against 1. The null hypothesis, H0,OS, was that the hazards are equal between Volasertib + Low-dose Cytarabine and Placebo + Low-dose Cytarabine, whereas the alternative hypothesis, Ha,OS, was that the hazards are not equal between the 2 treatment arms. H0, OS: HR = 1 vs. Ha, OS: HR ≠ 1.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.6718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.2||P-value is calculated from log-rank test stratified by baseline ECOG (0-1 vs. 2) and type of AML (denovo vs. secondary).|Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio is calculated from Cox proportional hazard model stratified by baseline ECOG and type of AML. If hazard ratio is below 1 then it favours volasertib.|This analysis was exploratory and descriptive.||1.2|0.8|0.6718
90966239|NCT01721876|181814285|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.7|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio is calculated from Cox proportional hazard model stratified by baseline ECOG and type of AML. If hazard ratio is below 1 then it favours volasertib.|||2.7|0.7|
90966240|NCT03086265|181814286|OTHER|||||||0.7934|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7934
90966241|NCT03086265|181814295|OTHER|||||||0.6876|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6876
90966242|NCT03086265|181814296|OTHER|||||||0.7549|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7549
90966243|NCT03086265|181814297|OTHER|||||||0.6479|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6479
90966244|NCT03086265|181814298|OTHER|||||||0.8322|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.8322
90966245|NCT03086265|181814300|OTHER|||||||0.0058|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0058
90966246|NCT03086265|181814301|OTHER|||||||0.3346|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3346
90966247|NCT03086265|181814302|OTHER|||||||0.5513|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5513
90966248|NCT03086265|181814303|OTHER|||||||0.1927|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1927
90966249|NCT03086265|181814304|OTHER|||||||0.6483|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6483
90966250|NCT03086265|181814305|OTHER|||||||0.5625|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5625
90966251|NCT03086265|181814306|OTHER|||||||0.2827|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2827
90966252|NCT03086265|181814307|OTHER|||||||0.8426|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.8426
90966253|NCT03086265|181814308|OTHER|||||||0.9856|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9856
90966254|NCT03086265|181814309|OTHER|||||||0.8112|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.8112
90966255|NCT03086265|181814310|OTHER|||||||0.6587|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6587
90966256|NCT03086265|181814311|OTHER|||||||0.4143|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4143
90966257|NCT03086265|181814312|OTHER|||||||0.4324|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4324
90966258|NCT03086265|181814313|OTHER|||||||0.7221|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of preoperative scores.||||0.7221
90966259|NCT03086265|181814313|OTHER|||||||0.0336|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of postoperative scores.||||0.0336
90966260|NCT02347488|181814317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.88|3.32|||ANCOVA|||Average displacement difference in cm, tape vs. tube-holder. 17 participants was the estimated enrollment needed to detect a difference of 1 SD from the mean between the 2 fixation techniques at 80% power; additional enrollment was included to increase the power of results and to include a larger variety of patients undergoing different surgical procedures.||3.32|2.88|<0.001
90966261|NCT05293743|181814334|EQUIVALENCE|This analysis uses Welch's t-tests to calculate statistical significance, given the different variances and sample sizes of the populations.||||||0.67||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of Freedom = 3.82.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in brace adherence fractions between the control arm and the experimental arm during the study's intervention period. In this test, brace wear was measured by parent-reported brace logs.||||0.67
91035379|NCT00556322|181956695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.9403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.69|||Log Rank|||Comparison of EGFR negative populations||1.69|0.61|0.9403
90966262|NCT05293743|181814334|EQUIVALENCE|This analysis uses Welch's t-tests to calculate statistical significance, given the different variances and sample sizes of the populations.||||||0.23||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of Freedom = 3.70.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in brace adherence fractions between the control arm and the experimental arm during the study's intervention period. In this test, brace wear was measured by iButton temperature sensors.||||0.23
90966263|NCT05293743|181814335|EQUIVALENCE|This analysis uses Welch's t-tests to calculate statistical significance, given the different variances and sample sizes of the populations.||||||0.86||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of Freedom = 6.68.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in brace adherence fractions when the experimental arm is wearing the Dynamic Bar versus the Standard Bar during the study period. In this test, brace wear was measured by parent-reported brace logs.||||0.86
90966264|NCT05293743|181814335|EQUIVALENCE|This analysis uses Welch's t-tests to calculate statistical significance, given the different variances and sample sizes of the populations.||||||0.21||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of Freedom = 6.94.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in brace adherence fractions when the experimental arm is wearing the Dynamic Bar versus the Standard Bar during the study period. In this test, brace wear was measured by iButton temperature sensors.||||0.21
90966265|NCT00688155|181814340|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test of mean differences from baseline.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.66|TWO_SIDED|||||Physical activity training versus no physical activity training;|ANOVA|||Marginal comparisons of physical activity training vs no physical activity training||||0.66
90966266|NCT00688155|181814340|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided tests of mean differences from baseline.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.55|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value for physical activity training is 0.55|ANOVA|||Marginal comparisons of physical activity training versus no physical activity training||||0.55
90966267|NCT00688155|181814340|EQUIVALENCE|Two Sided Test of Mean Difference from baseline|Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.95|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Marginal comparisons of cognitive training versus no cognitive training||||0.95
90966268|NCT00688155|181814340|EQUIVALENCE|Two Sided Test of Mean Difference from baseline|Mean Difference (Net)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.48|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Marginal comparisons of cognitive training versus no cognitive training||||0.48
90966269|NCT00688155|181814342|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided tests of marginal means|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Marginal comparisons of physical activity training versus no physical activity training.||||0.23
90966270|NCT00688155|181814342|EQUIVALENCE|Two Sided Test of Mean Difference from baseline|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.42|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Marginal comparisons of cognitive training versus no cognitive training||||0.42
90966271|NCT00445224|181814357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.041||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||.041
90966272|NCT00445224|181814358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Repeated measures ANOVA for group and time||||.049
90966273|NCT04391036|181814359|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||McNemar|||This was a paired analysis comparing successful insertion of the high and low Eudragit® Films. The McNemar's test statistic is based on the discordant pairs (number of participants with high successful, low unsuccessful versus low successful, high unsuccessful).||||>.99
90966274|NCT04391036|181814360|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45||||||This was a paired analysis comparing difficulty of insertion of the high and low Eudragit® Films. The McNemar's test is based on discordant pairs (high was not difficult, low was difficult versus low was not difficult, high was difficult).|McNemar|||||||.45
90966275|NCT04391036|181814361|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Fisher Exact|This was an overall Fisher's exact test so the analysis applies to all categories.||||||.26
90966276|NCT03184077|181814362|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.16
90966277|NCT03184077|181814363|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.62
90966278|NCT03184077|181814364|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||This is a calculated p value|Chi-squared|||||||0.01
90966279|NCT04136184|181814365|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-24.7593||||1e-08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.9552|-18.5635|||MMRM|||||-18.5635|-30.9552|0.00000001
90966280|NCT04136184|181814366|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-19.7352||||1e-08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.6301|-13.8403|||MMRM|||||-13.8403|-25.6301|0.00000001
90966281|NCT04136184|181814367|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-70.42||||1e-08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.17|-65.66|||MMRM|||||-65.66|-75.17|0.00000001
90966282|NCT04136184|181814368|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-66.65||||1e-08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.59|-61.71|||MMRM|||||-61.71|-71.59|0.00000001
90966283|NCT04136184|181814369|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-9.3542||||0.00012203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8691|-4.8394|||MMRM|||||-4.8394|-13.8691|0.00012203
90966284|NCT04136184|181814370|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-11.8202||||1.873e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.8927|-6.7477|||MMRM|||||-6.7477|-16.8927|0.00001873
90966285|NCT04136184|181814371|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-3.94||||0.00052447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.08|-1.8|||MMRM|||Week 35||-1.80|-6.08|0.00052447
90966286|NCT04136184|181814371|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-8.21||||1e-08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.65|-5.76|||MMRM|||Week 66||-5.76|-10.65|0.00000001
90966287|NCT04136184|181814372|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|5.305||||5.58e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.195|7.416|||MMRM|||||7.416|3.195|0.00000558
90966288|NCT04136184|181814373|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.2||||0.02407897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.0|||MMRM|||||-0.0|-0.4|0.02407897
90966289|NCT04136184|181814374|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|82.6991||||2e-07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.6431|110.7551|||MMRM|||||110.7551|54.6431|0.00000020
90971164|NCT00621504|181824849|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% Confidence Interval (CI) for the observed difference in the primary outcome measure (clinical cure rate) between the ceftaroline group and the ceftriaxone group was calculated based on each of the CE and the MITTE Populations at the TOC visit. Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 95% CI was higher than -10% for each of the CE and MITTE Populations.|Risk Difference (RD)|6.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|12.6|||||Risk difference corresponds to Ceftaroline clinical cure rate minus Ceftriaxone clinical cure rate. The confidence interval was calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen method without adjustment.|The primary objective of this study was to determine the noninferiority in the clinical cure rate for ceftaroline compared to that for ceftriaxone at TOC in the CE and MITTE Populations in adult subjects with CABP.||12.6|-0.2|
90928851|NCT02307682|181737957|OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|9.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 72||9.9|-3.0|
90928852|NCT02307682|181737957|OTHER||Difference in proportions|5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|11.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 72||11.4|-1.1|
90928853|NCT02307682|181737957|OTHER||Difference in proportions|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|12.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 76||12.8|-1.5|
90928854|NCT02307682|181737957|OTHER||Difference in proportions|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|11.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 76||11.6|-1.0|
90928855|NCT02307682|181737957|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|8.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 80||8.6|-5.1|
90928856|NCT02307682|181737957|OTHER||Difference in proportions|8.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|15.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 80||15.4|2.7|
90928857|NCT02307682|181737957|OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|9.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 84||9.4|-3.7|
90928858|NCT02307682|181737957|OTHER||Difference in proportions|4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|10.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 84||10.3|-2.2|
90928859|NCT02307682|181737957|OTHER||Difference in proportions|4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|10.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 88||10.9|-3.0|
90928860|NCT02307682|181737957|OTHER||Difference in proportions|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|14.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 88||14.6|1.9|
90928861|NCT02307682|181737957|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|8.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 92||8.3|-5.1|
90928862|NCT02307682|181737957|OTHER||Difference in proportions|5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|12.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 92||12.5|-0.0|
90928863|NCT02307682|181737957|OTHER||Difference in proportions|5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|12.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 96||12.3|-1.2|
90971165|NCT02229552|181824879|OTHER|Repeated measures analysis of variance with zbmi for each year as the repeated dependent measure.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0||||0.051|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.051
91035380|NCT00556322|181956697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Response Rates|1.55||||0.5349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|6.7||p-values are based on non-stratified analysis|Chi-squared||Approximate 95% CI for the difference of two rates was determined using Hauck-Anderson Method|||6.7|-3.6|0.5349
90928864|NCT02307682|181737957|OTHER||Difference in proportions|7.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|13.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 96||13.8|1.4|
90928865|NCT02307682|181737958|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|6.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 4||6.9|-4.3|
90928866|NCT02307682|181737958|OTHER||Difference in proportions|6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|12.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 4||12.2|0.6|
91035381|NCT00556322|181956699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.21||||0.1498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.59|||Log Rank|||||1.59|0.93|0.1498
90928867|NCT02307682|181737958|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|6.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 8||6.7|-6.6|
90928868|NCT02307682|181737958|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|8.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 8||8.0|-4.7|
90928869|NCT02307682|181737958|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|7.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 12||7.1|-6.2|
90928870|NCT02307682|181737958|OTHER||Difference in proportions|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|12.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 12||12.7|-0.8|
90928871|NCT02307682|181737958|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|7.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 16||7.7|-6.0|
90928872|NCT02307682|181737958|OTHER||Difference in proportions|5.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|12.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 16||12.2|-1.5|
90928873|NCT02307682|181737958|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|7.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 20||7.0|-6.5|
90928874|NCT02307682|181737958|OTHER||Difference in proportions|5.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|12.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 20||12.2|-1.8|
90928875|NCT02307682|181737958|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|9.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 24||9.5|-4.0|
90928876|NCT02307682|181737958|OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|11.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 24||11.3|-3.5|
90940949|NCT00943722|181761605|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMTs be entirely contained within the interval (0.5, 2.0).|GMT ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.06|||||GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) divided by GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 2)|Anti-HPV 16||1.06|0.86|
90940950|NCT00943722|181761605|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMTs be entirely contained within the interval (0.5, 2.0)|GMT ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.12|||||GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) divided by GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 3)|Anti-HPV 16||1.12|0.90|
90940951|NCT00943722|181761605|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMTs be entirely contained within the interval (0.5, 2.0)|GMT ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.17|||||GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 2) divided by GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 3)|Anti-HPV 16||1.17|0.94|
90940952|NCT00943722|181761605|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMTs be entirely contained within the interval (0.5, 2.0)|GMT ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.14|||||GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) divided by GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 2)|Anti-HPV 18||1.14|0.89|
90940953|NCT00943722|181761605|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMTs be entirely contained within the interval (0.5, 2.0)|GMT ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.26|||||GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) divided by GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 3)|Anti-HPV 18||1.26|0.98|
90940954|NCT00943722|181761605|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMTs be entirely contained within the interval (0.5, 2.0)|GMT ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.26|||||GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 2) divided by GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 3)|Anti-HPV 18||1.26|0.97|
90940955|NCT00943722|181761605|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMTs be entirely contained within the interval (0.5, 2.0)|GMT ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.13|||||GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) divided by GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 2)|Anti-HPV 31||1.13|0.89|
90940956|NCT00943722|181761605|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMTs be entirely contained within the interval (0.5, 2.0)|GMT ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.16|||||GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) divided by GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 3)|Anti-HPV 31||1.16|0.91|
90940957|NCT00943722|181761605|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMTs be entirely contained within the interval (0.5, 2.0)|GMT ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.15|||||GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 2) divided by GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 3)|Anti-HPV 31||1.15|0.90|
90928877|NCT02307682|181737958|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|8.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 28||8.2|-5.9|
90928878|NCT02307682|181737958|OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|11.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 28||11.2|-3.4|
90928879|NCT02307682|181737958|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|5.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 32||5.9|-8.2|
90928880|NCT02307682|181737958|OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|10.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 32||10.5|-3.2|
90928881|NCT02307682|181737958|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|6.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 36||6.8|-7.3|
90928882|NCT02307682|181737958|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|8.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 36||8.6|-5.2|
90928883|NCT02307682|181737958|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|6.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 40||6.6|-7.8|
90928884|NCT02307682|181737958|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|10.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 40||10.0|-4.8|
90928885|NCT02307682|181737958|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|9.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 44||9.2|-4.4|
90928886|NCT02307682|181737958|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|7.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 44||7.2|-7.1|
90928887|NCT02307682|181737958|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|6.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 48||6.2|-7.9|
90928888|NCT02307682|181737958|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|9.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 48||9.2|-4.5|
90928889|NCT02307682|181737958|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|8.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 52||8.1|-6.8|
90971166|NCT00631371|181824895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.3|||Log Rank|||P value was based on 1-sided stratified log-rank test (stratification factors: prior nephrectomy \[yes/no\] and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center \[MSKCC\] risk factors \[good/intermediate/poor\] at time of randomization). The hazard ratio and corresponding 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) from the stratified cox proportional hazard model were also presented.||1.3|0.9|0.8
91035382|NCT00556322|181956702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19||||0.2202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.57|||Log Rank|||||1.57|0.90|0.2202
90928890|NCT02307682|181737958|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|8.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 52||8.4|-5.8|
90928891|NCT02307682|181737958|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|8.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 56||8.2|-6.1|
90928892|NCT02307682|181737958|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|5.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 56||5.6|-8.6|
91035383|NCT00556322|181956705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.25||||0.1063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.66|||Log Rank|||||1.66|0.95|0.1063
90928893|NCT02307682|181737958|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|7.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 60||7.1|-7.0|
90928894|NCT02307682|181737958|OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|11.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 60||11.0|-3.5|
90928895|NCT02307682|181737958|OTHER||Difference in proportions|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|10.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 64||10.8|-3.0|
90928896|NCT02307682|181737958|OTHER||Difference in proportions|5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|13.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 64||13.0|-1.4|
90928897|NCT02307682|181737958|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|9.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 68||9.5|-4.1|
90928898|NCT02307682|181737958|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|9.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 68||9.7|-4.8|
90928899|NCT02307682|181737958|OTHER||Difference in proportions|5.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|12.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 72||12.3|-1.6|
90928900|NCT02307682|181737958|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|8.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 72||8.6|-5.4|
90928901|NCT02307682|181737958|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|9.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 76||9.4|-4.8|
90928902|NCT02307682|181737958|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|8.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 76||8.2|-5.0|
90928903|NCT02307682|181737958|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|7.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 80||7.4|-6.9|
90928904|NCT02307682|181737958|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|8.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 80||8.5|-5.1|
90928905|NCT02307682|181737958|OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|10.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 84||10.1|-3.9|
90928906|NCT02307682|181737958|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|9.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 84||9.1|-5.0|
90928907|NCT02307682|181737958|OTHER||Difference in proportions|4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|11.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 88||11.8|-2.5|
90940958|NCT00943722|181761605|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMTs be entirely contained within the interval (0.5, 2.0)|GMT ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.16|||||GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) divided by GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 2)|Anti-HPV 33||1.16|0.94|
90940959|NCT00943722|181761605|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMTs be entirely contained within the interval (0.5, 2.0)|GMT ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.17|||||GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) divided by GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 3)|Anti-HPV 33||1.17|0.94|
90928908|NCT02307682|181737958|OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|10.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 88||10.6|-3.4|
90928909|NCT02307682|181737958|OTHER||Difference in proportions|5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|12.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 92||12.2|-1.6|
90928910|NCT02307682|181737958|OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|11.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 92||11.2|-3.0|
90928911|NCT02307682|181737958|OTHER||Difference in proportions|5.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 96||12.7|-1.9|
90928912|NCT02307682|181737958|OTHER||Difference in proportions|5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|12.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 96||12.6|-1.0|
90928913|NCT02307682|181737959|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|6.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 4||6.0|-7.7|
90928914|NCT02307682|181737959|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|8.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 4||8.7|-5.3|
90928915|NCT02307682|181737959|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|6.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 8||6.8|-7.4|
90928916|NCT02307682|181737959|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|5.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 8||5.3|-8.9|
90928917|NCT02307682|181737959|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|5.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 12||5.9|-8.1|
90928918|NCT02307682|181737959|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|8.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 12||8.8|-4.8|
90928919|NCT02307682|181737959|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|4.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 16||4.7|-9.8|
90928920|NCT02307682|181737959|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|8.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 16||8.6|-5.3|
90971275|NCT04311502|181825266|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.25||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.04|||Wald chi-square||Difference in cumulative proportions (Arm 1 - Arm 2)|The point estimate and 95% two-sided confidence interval for the difference in cumulative proportions of participants experiencing a favorable outcome through week 65 was compared between Arm 1 and Arm 2.||-0.04|-0.46|0.02
90928921|NCT02307682|181737959|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|3.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 20||3.6|-9.7|
90928922|NCT02307682|181737959|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|3.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 20||3.3|-11.4|
90928923|NCT02307682|181737959|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|6.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 24||6.1|-7.6|
90928924|NCT02307682|181737959|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|10.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 24||10.0|-4.4|
90928925|NCT02307682|181737959|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|6.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 28||6.9|-7.2|
90928926|NCT02307682|181737959|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|7.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 28||7.8|-6.3|
90928927|NCT02307682|181737959|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|9.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 32||9.2|-4.7|
90928928|NCT02307682|181737959|OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|10.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 32||10.3|-3.9|
90928929|NCT02307682|181737959|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|1.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 36||1.3|-12.6|
90928930|NCT02307682|181737959|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|1.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 36||1.9|-12.7|
90928931|NCT02307682|181737959|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|5.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 40||5.6|-8.1|
90928932|NCT02307682|181737959|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|7.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 40||7.9|-6.2|
90928933|NCT02307682|181737959|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|3.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 44||3.9|-9.6|
90928934|NCT02307682|181737959|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|5.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 44||5.4|-9.1|
90928935|NCT02307682|181737959|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|2.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 48||2.1|-11.1|
90928936|NCT02307682|181737959|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|3.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 48||3.5|-10.4|
90928937|NCT02307682|181737959|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|5.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 52||5.7|-8.0|
90928938|NCT02307682|181737959|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|4.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 52||4.8|-9.7|
90966290|NCT05314712|181814391|OTHER|Linear Mixed Model (repeated measures model) of sleep trouble||||||||||||There was no hypothesis test. All participants received the 7-week intervention - there was no comparison group. A variable selection approach (AIC) was used for including the final variables in the model.||||Since all participants in this pilot study received in the intervention and data was collected pre and post intervention, there was no hypothesis test. Under the assumption that the likert scale data was treated as continuous, the data was analyzed using a linear mixed model. Variables in final model were included after variable selection (details below).|Using an exhaustive search of all models (dredge) that could be formed from predictor variables partner sleep rating, perceived stress, DASS scale, 8-item diet scale, amount of screen time, amount of time between bed time and wake time, amount of time to fall asleep, hours of sleep, sleep rating score, indicator variable if the child played outside, bed time, and wake time, adult height in inches, adult BMI, adult's highest education attained, the number of children in the household, grade of the child, child height in inches, child BMI, age of the child, and gender of the child, requiring the the timing of the survey be in the model, and accounting for repeated measurements over time, using AIC as the selection criterion we looked for the model with the smallest AIC value. The final sleep trouble model included the covariates timing of survey, DASS scale, and indicator variable if child played outside.|||
90966291|NCT05314712|181814391|OTHER|Mixed effects linear regression model of hours slept||||||||||||There was no hypothesis test. All participants received the 7-week intervention - there was no comparison group. A variable selection approach (AIC) was used for including the final variables in the model.||||Since all participants in this pilot study received in the intervention and data was collected pre and post intervention, there was no hypothesis test. The data was analyzed using a mixed effects linear regression model. Variables in final model were included after variable selection (details below).|Using an exhaustive search of all models (dredge) that could be formed from predictor variables partner sleep rating, perceived stress, DASS scale, 8-item diet scale, amount of screen time, amount of time between bed time and wake time, amount of time to fall asleep, hours of sleep, sleep rating score, indicator variable if the child played outside, bed time, and wake time, adult height in inches, adult BMI, adult's highest education attained, the number of children in the household, grade of the child, child height in inches, child BMI, age of the child, and gender of the child, requiring the the timing of the survey be in the model, and accounting for repeated measurements over time, using AIC as the selection criterion we looked for the model with the smallest AIC value. The final model for hours slept included the covariates number of children in the household, indicator variable if child played outside, and baseline hours slept.|||
90966292|NCT03496012|181814458|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportions|2.9|||=|0.354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|15.0|||Fisher's Exact|||||15|-3.1|=0.354
90966293|NCT03496012|181814458|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|4.6|||=|0.245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|12.8|||Fisher's Exact|||||12.8|-1.4|=0.245
90966294|NCT03496012|181814460|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|16.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|32.2||||||||32.2|5.3|
90966295|NCT03496012|181814460|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|12.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|23.0||||||||23|3.5|
90966296|NCT03496012|181814461|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.2|21.0||||||||21|-17.2|
90966297|NCT03496012|181814461|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|15.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|30.1||||||||30.1|0.3|
90928939|NCT02307682|181737959|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|7.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 56||7.9|-5.5|
90928940|NCT02307682|181737959|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|6.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 56||6.5|-7.2|
90966298|NCT04096274|181814496|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.014
90966299|NCT04096274|181814497|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.023|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.023
90966300|NCT04096274|181814498|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.188|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.188
90966301|NCT04096274|181814499|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.782|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.782
90966302|NCT02248259|181814508|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Equivalence range was 80% to 125%|Geometric mean ratio (%)|113.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.07|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.522|128.376|||||Ratio calculated as extensive metabolisers test treatment divided by extensive metabolisers: ref. treatment|Analysis for BI 409306||128.376|100.522|
90966303|NCT02248259|181814508|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Equivalence range was 80% to 125%|Geometric mean ratio (%)|87.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.07|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.839|99.452|||||Ratio calculated as poor metabolisers test treatment divided by poor metabolisers: ref. treatment|Analysis for BI 409306||99.452|77.839|
90966304|NCT02248259|181814508|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Equivalence range was 80% to 125%|Geometric mean ratio (%)|89.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.029|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.636|94.021|||||Ratio calculated as extensive metabolisers test treatment divided by extensive metabolisers: ref. treatment|Analysis for CD 13896||94.021|84.636|
90966305|NCT02248259|181814508|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Equivalence range was 80% to 125%|Geometric mean ratio (%)|92.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.026|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.592|97.396|||||Ratio calculated as poor metabolisers test treatment divided by poor metabolisers: ref. treatment|Analysis of CD 13896||97.396|88.592|
90966306|NCT02248259|181814508|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Equivalence range was 80% to 125%|Geometric mean ratio (%)|99.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.022|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.796|103.584|||||Ratio calculated as extensive metabolisers test treatment divided by extensive metabolisers: ref. treatment|Analysis for CD 14084||103.584|95.796|
90966307|NCT02248259|181814508|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Equivalence range was 80% to 125%|Geometric mean ratio (%)|104.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.031|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.783|110.278|||||Ratio calculated as poor metabolisers test treatment divided by poor metabolisers: ref. treatment|Analysis for CD 14084||110.278|98.783|
90928941|NCT02307682|181737959|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|8.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 60||8.4|-5.8|
90928942|NCT02307682|181737959|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|6.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 60||6.9|-7.2|
90928943|NCT02307682|181737959|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|5.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 64||5.5|-7.9|
90928944|NCT02307682|181737959|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|7.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 64||7.9|-6.6|
90928945|NCT02307682|181737959|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|5.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 68||5.2|-9.4|
90928946|NCT02307682|181737959|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|4.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 68||4.0|-10.0|
90928947|NCT02307682|181737959|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|8.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 72||8.2|-6.2|
90928948|NCT02307682|181737959|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|9.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 72||9.3|-5.5|
90928949|NCT02307682|181737959|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|9.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 76||9.6|-5.1|
90966308|NCT02248259|181814509|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Equivalence range was 80% to 125%|Geometric mean ratio (%)|93.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.086|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.377|108.217|||||Ratio calculated as extensive metabolisers test treatment divided by extensive metabolisers: ref. treatment|Analysis for BI 409306||108.217|80.377|
90966309|NCT02248259|181814509|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Equivalence range was 80% to 125%|Geometric mean ratio (%)|76.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.482|97.141|||||Ratio calculated as poor metabolisers test treatment divided by poor metabolisers: ref. treatment|Analysis for BI 409306||97.141|60.482|
90966310|NCT02248259|181814509|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Equivalence range was 80% to 125%|Geometric mean ratio (%)|78.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|67.304|92.052|||||Ratio calculated as extensive metabolisers test treatment divided by extensive metabolisers: ref. treatment|Analysis for CD 13896||92.052|67.304|
90966311|NCT02248259|181814509|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Equivalence range was 80% to 125%|Geometric mean ratio (%)|95.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.093|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.092|111.964|||||Ratio calculated as poor metabolisers test treatment divided by poor metabolisers: ref. treatment|Analysis for CD 13896||111.964|81.092|
90966312|NCT02248259|181814509|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Equivalence range was 80% to 125%|Geometric mean ratio (%)|86.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.041|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.731|93.309|||||Ratio calculated as extensive metabolisers test treatment divided by extensive metabolisers: ref. treatment|Analysis for CD 14084||93.309|80.731|
90966313|NCT02248259|181814509|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Equivalence range was 80% to 125%|Geometric mean ratio (%)|107.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.091|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.764|125.812|||||Ratio calculated as poor metabolisers test treatment divided by poor metabolisers: ref. treatment|Analysis for CD 14084||125.812|91.764|
90928950|NCT02307682|181737959|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|8.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 76||8.9|-5.0|
90966314|NCT02248259|181814510|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Equivalence range was 80% to 125%|Geometric mean ratio (%)|113.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.07|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.505|128.427|||||Ratio calculated as extensive metabolisers test treatment divided by extensive metabolisers: ref. treatment|Analysis for BI 409306||128.427|100.505|
90966315|NCT02248259|181814510|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Equivalence range was 80% to 125%|Geometric mean ratio (%)|87.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.07|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.763|99.37|||||Ratio calculated as poor metabolisers test treatment divided by poor metabolisers: ref. treatment|Analysis for BI 409306||99.370|77.763|
90966316|NCT02248259|181814510|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Equivalence range was 80% to 125%|Geometric mean ratio (%)|89.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.029|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.478|93.859|||||Ratio calculated as extensive metabolisers test treatment divided by extensive metabolisers: ref. treatment|Analysis for CD 13896||93.859|84.478|
90966317|NCT02248259|181814510|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Equivalence range was 80% to 125%|Geometric mean ratio (%)|92.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.026|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.278|96.889|||||Ratio calculated as poor metabolisers test treatment divided by poor metabolisers: ref. treatment|Analysis for CD 13896||96.889|88.278|
90928951|NCT02307682|181737959|OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|10.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 80||10.3|-3.9|
90928952|NCT02307682|181737959|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|8.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 80||8.1|-6.1|
90928953|NCT02307682|181737959|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|8.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 84||8.9|-5.1|
90928954|NCT02307682|181737959|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|8.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 84||8.4|-5.9|
90928955|NCT02307682|181737959|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|5.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 88||5.8|-8.5|
90928956|NCT02307682|181737959|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|4.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 88||4.7|-9.7|
90928957|NCT02307682|181737959|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|6.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 92||6.5|-7.9|
90928958|NCT02307682|181737959|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|5.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 92||5.5|-9.1|
90928959|NCT02307682|181737959|OTHER||Difference in proportions|4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|11.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 96||11.2|-2.9|
90928960|NCT02307682|181737959|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|8.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 96||8.0|-6.6|
90928961|NCT02307682|181737960|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|2.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 4||2.2|-1.4|
90928962|NCT02307682|181737960|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|4.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 4||4.0|-0.5|
90966318|NCT02248259|181814510|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Equivalence range was 80% to 125%|Geometric mean ratio (%)|99.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.022|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.791|103.583|||||Ratio calculated as extensive metabolisers test treatment divided by extensive metabolisers: ref. treatment|Analysis for CD 14084||103.583|95.791|
90928963|NCT02307682|181737960|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|1.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 8||1.5|-2.6|
90928964|NCT02307682|181737960|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|2.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 8||2.9|-1.7|
90928965|NCT02307682|181737960|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|2.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 12||2.2|-3.3|
90966319|NCT02248259|181814510|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Equivalence range was 80% to 125%|Geometric mean ratio (%)|104.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.031|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.861|110.336|||||Ratio calculated as poor metabolisers test treatment divided by poor metabolisers: ref. treatment|Analysis for CD 14084||110.336|98.861|
90971276|NCT04311502|181825267|SUPERIORITY|Fisher's exact test was used to test for a difference in proportions|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.06||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.05|||Fisher Exact||Difference in proportions (Arm 1 - Arm 2); exact confidence interval|||0.05|-0.22|0.35
90966320|NCT01901575|181814528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.05|TWO_SIDED|0.15|0.65|0.8|||Fisher Exact|||"null hypothesis:~Remifentanil IVPCA sedation in patients undergoing ablation of the idiopathic ventricular tachycardia does not cause suppression of PVC's"||0.8|0.65|0.05
90966321|NCT00496730|181814554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
90966322|NCT00496730|181814555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
90966323|NCT00496730|181814556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
90966324|NCT03962738|181814565|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.17|5.54|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.54|2.17|<0.001
90966325|NCT03962738|181814566|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||||||<.001
90966326|NCT03962738|181814567|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.99|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.99|1.03|0.037
90966327|NCT03962738|181814567|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.16|5.17|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.17|2.16|<0.001
90966328|NCT03962738|181814567|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.89|4.62|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.62|1.89|<0.001
90966329|NCT03962738|181814568|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.72|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.72|0.81|0.197
90966330|NCT03962738|181814568|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.59||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|2.5|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.50|1.01|0.044
90966331|NCT03962738|181814568|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.75||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|2.83|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.83|1.08|0.023
90966332|NCT03962738|181814569|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.52||||0.268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|3.17|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.17|0.73|0.268
90966333|NCT03962738|181814569|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.19||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|3.82|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.82|1.26|0.006
90966334|NCT03962738|181814569|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|4.61|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.61|1.50|<0.001
90966335|NCT03962738|181814570|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|2.58|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.58|0.61|0.535
90966336|NCT03962738|181814570|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|3.03|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.03|1.04|0.036
90966337|NCT03962738|181814570|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.93||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|3.33|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.33|1.12|0.018
90966338|NCT03962738|181814571|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|3.65|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.65|0.76|0.199
90966339|NCT03962738|181814571|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.32|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.32|0.77|0.305
90966340|NCT03962738|181814571|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.24|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.24|0.71|0.426
90966341|NCT03962738|181814572|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.57||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|2.82|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.82|0.87|0.135
90966342|NCT03962738|181814572|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.3|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.30|0.95|0.080
90966343|NCT03962738|181814572|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|2.49|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.49|0.98|0.061
90966344|NCT03962738|181814573|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.67|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.67|0.71|0.342
90966345|NCT03962738|181814573|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.04|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.04|0.76|0.377
90966346|NCT03962738|181814573|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.72|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.72|0.63|0.862
90966347|NCT03962738|181814575|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.43||||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|15.65|||Regression, Logistic|||||15.65|0.75|0.112
90966348|NCT03962738|181814575|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.68|30.55|||Regression, Logistic|||||30.55|2.68|<0.001
90966349|NCT03962738|181814575|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.01|34.55|||Regression, Logistic|||||34.55|3.01|<0.001
90966350|NCT03962738|181814576|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78||||0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.31|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.31|0.46|0.343
90966351|NCT03962738|181814576|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|2.98|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.98|1.37|<0.001
90966352|NCT03962738|181814576|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|3.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.20|1.42|<0.001
90966353|NCT03962738|181814577|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.26|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.26|0.62|0.605
90966354|NCT03962738|181814577|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|2.9|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.90|1.12|0.015
90966355|NCT03962738|181814577|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|2.05|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.05|0.74|0.432
90966356|NCT03962738|181814578|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77||||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|3.96|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.96|0.79|0.166
90966357|NCT03962738|181814578|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|2.62|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.62|0.68|0.396
90966358|NCT03962738|181814578|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.58||||0.181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|3.11|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.11|0.81|0.181
90966359|NCT03962738|181814579|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.64|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.64|0.79|0.233
90966360|NCT03962738|181814579|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|2.41|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.41|0.94|0.092
90966361|NCT03962738|181814579|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|2.92|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.92|1.11|0.017
90966362|NCT03962738|181814580|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.724|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.724
90966363|NCT03962738|181814580|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.240
91035384|NCT03733444|181956707|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|25.29||0.9123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.9|52.4||P-value was based on random coefficient regression model (linear slope model) on FVC values.|Coefficient Regression Model|Treatment effect was determined by using estimated slopes for each treatment group on basis of time-by-treatment interaction term from mixed model.||||52.4|-46.9|0.9123
90928966|NCT02307682|181737960|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|2.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 12||2.7|-3.2|
90928967|NCT02307682|181737960|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|2.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 16||2.4|-3.0|
90928968|NCT02307682|181737960|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|3.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 16||3.1|-2.4|
90928969|NCT02307682|181737960|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|2.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 20||2.4|-2.2|
90928970|NCT02307682|181737960|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|5.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 20||5.3|-0.3|
90928971|NCT02307682|181737960|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|3.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 24||3.2|-2.6|
90928972|NCT02307682|181737960|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|4.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 24||4.6|-1.8|
90928973|NCT02307682|181737960|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|3.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 28||3.3|-2.9|
90928974|NCT02307682|181737960|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|4.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 28||4.6|-2.3|
90928975|NCT02307682|181737960|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|4.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 32||4.1|-2.0|
90928976|NCT02307682|181737960|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|5.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 32||5.7|-1.0|
90928977|NCT02307682|181737960|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|4.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 36||4.4|-1.5|
90928978|NCT02307682|181737960|OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|6.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 36||6.5|0.0|
90928979|NCT02307682|181737960|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|3.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 40||3.9|-2.1|
90928980|NCT02307682|181737960|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|6.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 40||6.3|-0.7|
90966364|NCT03962738|181814580|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.548|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.548
90966365|NCT03962738|181814581|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.719|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.719
90966366|NCT03962738|181814581|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.823|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.823
90966367|NCT03962738|181814581|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.612|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.612
90966368|NCT03962738|181814582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.78||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|3.07|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.07|1.04|0.037
90966369|NCT03962738|181814582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.75|4.06|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.06|1.75|<.001
90966370|NCT03962738|181814582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.11|5.06|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.06|2.11|<.001
90966371|NCT03962738|181814583|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.162|||||||ANOVA|||Work Functioning||||0.162
91035385|NCT03733444|181956707|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|25.01||0.9456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.4|50.8||P-value was based on random coefficient regression model (linear slope model) on FVC values.|Coefficient Regression Model|Treatment effect was determined by using estimated slopes for each treatment group on basis of time-by-treatment interaction term from mixed model.||||50.8|-47.4|0.9456
91035386|NCT03733444|181956708|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.5162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.74|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.74|0.76|0.5162
90966372|NCT03962738|181814583|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.356|||||||ANOVA|||Social Functioning||||0.356
90966373|NCT03962738|181814583|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.696|||||||ANOVA|||Energy and Vitality||||0.696
90966374|NCT03962738|181814583|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.914|||||||ANOVA|||Feelings and Concerns||||0.914
90966375|NCT03962738|181814583|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.226|||||||ANOVA|||Migraine Symptoms||||0.226
90966376|NCT03962738|181814583|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||ANOVA|||Work Functioning||||0.310
90966377|NCT03962738|181814583|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.684|||||||ANOVA|||Social Functioning||||0.684
90966378|NCT03962738|181814583|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.864|||||||ANOVA|||Energy and Vitality||||0.864
90966379|NCT03962738|181814583|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.412|||||||ANOVA|||Feelings and Concerns||||0.412
90966380|NCT03962738|181814583|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.025|||||||ANOVA|||Migraine Symptoms||||0.025
90966381|NCT03962738|181814583|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.619|||||||ANOVA|||Work Functioning||||0.619
90966382|NCT03962738|181814583|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.824|||||||ANOVA|||Social Functioning||||0.824
90966383|NCT03962738|181814583|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.476|||||||ANOVA|||Energy and Vitality||||0.476
90966384|NCT03962738|181814583|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.352|||||||ANOVA|||Feelings and Concerns||||0.352
90966385|NCT03962738|181814583|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.044|||||||ANOVA|||Migraine Symptoms||||0.044
90966386|NCT02170779|181814584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.84
90966387|NCT02170779|181814585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.738|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.738
90966388|NCT02170779|181814586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8434|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8434
90966389|NCT02170779|181814587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.638|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.638
90966390|NCT02170779|181814588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.492|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.492
90966391|NCT02170779|181814589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.144|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis refers to the physical component of the MSIS-29||||0.144
90966392|NCT02170779|181814589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.953|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This refers to the psychological analysis for the MSIS-29.||||0.953
90966393|NCT02170779|181814590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.915|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.915
90966394|NCT02170779|181814591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.023
90966395|NCT02170779|181814592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.11
90966396|NCT02367066|181814593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.02|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.9|0.98||1-sided|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.98|0.90|0.02
90966397|NCT02367066|181814594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.06|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.92|0.99||1-sided|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.99|0.92|0.06
90966398|NCT02367066|181814595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.41|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.96|1.03||1-sided|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.03|0.96|0.41
90966399|NCT02367066|181814596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.06|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.85|0.99||1-sided|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.99|0.85|0.06
90966400|NCT02367066|181814597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.18|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.99|1.13||1-sided|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.13|0.99|0.18
90966401|NCT02367066|181814598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.04|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.89|0.98||1-sided|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.98|0.89|0.04
90966402|NCT02367066|181814600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS MEan Ratio|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.37|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.91|1.06||1-sided|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.06|0.91|0.37
90966403|NCT02367066|181814602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.06|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.0|1.04||1-sided|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.04|1.00|0.06
90966404|NCT02367066|181814603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.45|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.01|0.03||2-sided|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.03|-0.01|0.45
91035387|NCT03733444|181956708|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.7566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.62|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.62|0.71|0.7566
91035388|NCT03733444|181956709|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|3.85|||||Hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval originated from a Cox proportional hazards model for time to first respiratory-related hospitalization.|||3.85|1.20|
91035389|NCT03733444|181956709|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|3.1|||||Hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval originated from a Cox proportional hazards model for time to first respiratory-related hospitalization.|||3.10|0.93|
90928981|NCT02307682|181737960|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|4.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 44||4.2|-2.2|
90971167|NCT00631371|181824896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.4|||Log Rank|||P-value was based on 1-sided stratified log-rank test (stratification factors: prior nephrectomy \[yes/no\] and MSKCC risk factors \[good/intermediate/poor\] at time of randomization). The hazard ratio and corresponding 95% CI from the stratified cox proportional hazard model were also presented.||1.4|1.0|0.9
90928982|NCT02307682|181737960|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|5.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 44||5.2|-1.4|
90928983|NCT02307682|181737960|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|3.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 48||3.9|-3.2|
90928984|NCT02307682|181737960|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|4.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 48||4.3|-2.7|
90928985|NCT02307682|181737960|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|4.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 52||4.0|-3.3|
90928986|NCT02307682|181737960|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|4.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 52||4.8|-2.5|
90928987|NCT02307682|181737960|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|4.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 56||4.6|-2.4|
90928988|NCT02307682|181737960|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|6.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 56||6.3|-1.5|
90928989|NCT02307682|181737960|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|3.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 60||3.6|-3.5|
90928990|NCT02307682|181737960|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|4.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 60||4.9|-2.9|
91035390|NCT03733444|181956710|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.1||||0.937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|3.0||LS mean difference (95% CI) per treatment group with treatment, time (categorical), treatment-by-time interaction, stratum and baseline SGRQ total score as fixed effects and participant as random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.0|-3.2|0.9370
90928991|NCT02307682|181737960|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|5.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 64||5.1|-2.4|
90971168|NCT00631371|181824897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value (2-sided), risk ratio and associated 95% CI were based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by prior nephrectomy and MSKCC risk group as randomized.||1.3|0.8|1.0
90928992|NCT02307682|181737960|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|6.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 64||6.7|-1.3|
90928993|NCT02307682|181737960|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|4.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 68||4.5|-3.1|
90928994|NCT02307682|181737960|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|4.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 68||4.9|-2.9|
90971277|NCT04311502|181825269|SUPERIORITY||GEE|24.04|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.13|32.94|||Regression, Linear|||||32.94|15.13|<0.01
90966405|NCT04556136|181814620|NON_INFERIORITY|This non-inferiority study was designed to demonstrate the ability of the phototherapy kiosk to safely administer UVB radiation to participants with varying levels of 25(OH)D and achieve comparable levels of serum 25(OH)D in a similar population of adults randomized to receive RDA of 600 IU vitamin D oral supplementation daily. It is important to evaluate device equivalence to standard of care in the maintenance of sufficient levels of vitamin D in adults 18 - 70 years old.||||||0.01||||||Threshold for significance \<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Effect sizes for significant differences were included as eta squared (ŋ2) values.||The intent-to-treat analysis plan was carried out with all available subject data points. No interim analysis was performed. Exploratory data analyses were conducted on serum vitamin D levels of participants assigned to either the oral supplementation or kiosk group. Analysis was restricted to participants with valid baseline serum vitamin D data and at least one follow-up blood draw. The Shapiro-Wilk test was used to assess the normality of the data distribution.||||0.01
90966406|NCT03492554|181814644|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||1 sided exact binomial test|||H0: Specificity = 92% H1: Specificity \> 92 Under the assumption that the true population specificity is 96.5%, 226 subjects who were diagnosed with SR based on the 12-lead ECG reference strip and where the device algorithm classification produced a result of AF or SR was calculated to provide at least 80% power to reject its null hypothesis, using a one-sided type I error of 0.025. To obtain readable waveforms approximately 300 subjects with no known diagnosis of AF were enrolled.||||<0.0001
90966407|NCT03492554|181814645|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||1 sided exact binomial test|||H0: Sensitivity = 90% H1: Sensitivity \> 90% Under the assumption that the true population sensitivity is 95%, 231 subjects who were diagnosed with AF based on the 12-lead ECG reference strip and where the device algorithm classification produced a result of AF or SR was calculated to provide at least 80% power to reject the null hypothesis, using a one-sided type I error of 0.025. To obtain readable waveforms, a minimum of 260 subjects with a known diagnosis of AF were enrolled.||||<0.0001
90966408|NCT03492554|181814646|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||1 sided exact binomial|||H0: agreement proportion of visual display= 0.8 H1: agreement proportion of visual display\> 0.8 Under the assumption that the true population agreement proportion of visual display was 90%, 88 subjects would provide at least 80% power to reject the null hypothesis using a one-sided type I error of 0.05. To account for obtaining readable waveforms, approximately 140 subjects (70 SR; 70 AF) were randomly selected.||||<0.0001
90966409|NCT03492554|181814647|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||1 sided exact binomial|||H0: agreement proportion of R wave amplitude = 0.8 H1: agreement proportion of R wave amplitude \> 0.8 Under the assumption that the true population agreement proportion of R wave amplitude was 90%, 88 subjects would provide at least 80% power to reject the null hypothesis using a one-sided type I error of 0.05. To account for obtaining readable waveforms, approximately 140 subjects (70 SR; 70 AF) were randomly selected.||||<0.0001
90966410|NCT01478360|181814649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.166||||0.5392|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.617|0.285|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.285|-0.617|0.5392
90966411|NCT00529451|181814688|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin of 2.25 mm Hg|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.63|-1.25||||||||-1.25|-3.63|
90966412|NCT00529451|181814689|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin of 2.25 mm Hg|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|0.34||||||||0.34|-2.06|
90966413|NCT00529451|181814690|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin of 2.25 mm Hg|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.67|-0.28||||||||-0.28|-2.67|
90966414|NCT01010633|181814691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|22.9|||Chi-squared|||||22.9|5.7|<0.001
90928995|NCT02307682|181737960|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|4.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 72||4.7|-2.6|
90966415|NCT01010633|181814693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|31.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.4|40.7|||Chi-squared|||||40.7|21.4|<0.001
90966416|NCT00097773|181814703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.66||There was no significant interaction with ciprofloxacin in this analysis.|Regression, Cox||risk of exacerbation comparing cycled therapy to culture-based therapy|The primary analysis compared the pooled Cycled Therapy group (n=152) vs. the Pooled culture-based therapy group (n=152). The null hypothesis was no difference between groups in the risk of pulmonary exacerbation requiring IV antibiotics or hospitalization. Assuming a total sample size of 300 (150 per group), the study provided 80% power to detect at least a 40% reduction in the risk of exacerbation in the cycled group as compared to the culture-based group at the two-sided alpha level of 5%.||1.66|0.54|0.86
90928996|NCT02307682|181737960|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|5.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 72||5.3|-2.7|
90928997|NCT02307682|181737960|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|4.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 76||4.2|-3.1|
90928998|NCT02307682|181737960|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|6.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 76||6.0|-2.1|
90966417|NCT00097773|181814703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.45||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|2.54|||Regression, Cox||risk of exacerbation comparing oral cipro to oral placebo|A secondary comparison was between the pooled oral cipro (n=152)and pooled placebo groups (n=152. Null hypothesis was no difference between groups.||2.54|0.82|0.20
90966418|NCT00097773|181814704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78||||0.28||95.0|0.49|1.23|||Regression, Logistic|No interaction with ciprofloxacin usage was observed.|odds of a positive culture comparing cycled therapy to culture-based therapy|Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between pooled cycled and culture-based treatment groups in the odds of a Pa positive culture over the 18 month study.||1.23|0.49|0.28
91035391|NCT03733444|181956710|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.4||||0.8064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|2.7||LS mean difference (95% CI) per treatment group with treatment, time (categorical), treatment-by-time interaction, stratum and baseline SGRQ total score as fixed effects and participant as random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.7|-3.4|0.8064
91035392|NCT03733444|181956711|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|23.39|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.1|46.8|||||The treatment effect was determined by using estimated slopes for each study group on the basis of the time-by-treatment interaction term from the mixed model.|||46.8|-41.1|
91035393|NCT03733444|181956711|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.5|51.5|||||The treatment effect was determined by using estimated slopes for each study group on the basis of the time-by-treatment interaction term from the mixed model.|||51.5|-35.5|
90887963|NCT04535037|181639061|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the non inferiority of anti-PRP GMC ratio was met and the LL of the 2 sided 95% CI on group difference in the percentage (Infanrix Hexa over Vaxelis group) was more than -10%.|Difference in Percentage|-6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|1.49||||The 2 sided 95% CI of group difference in seroconversion rate (Inv\_group minus Com\_group) was computed based on Miettinen and Nurminen method.||To demonstrate that the Hib response in Infanrix Hexa group is non-inferior to Vaxelis Group in terms of percentage of subjects with anti-PRP antibody concentrations ≥ 5 µg/mL, 1 month post-booster vaccination.||1.49|-14.10|
90887964|NCT02031276|181639069|OTHER||difference in percentage of participants|12.6||||0.0955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|27.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistics for the difference are calculated using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel risk difference stratified by anti-tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) exposure.||27.5|-2.2|0.0955
90887965|NCT02031276|181639070|OTHER||difference in percentage of participants|13.4||||0.1151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|30.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistics for the difference are calculated using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel risk difference stratified by anti-TNF exposure.||30.1|-3.3|0.1151
90887966|NCT02031276|181639071|OTHER||difference in percentage of participants|12.0||||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|20.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistics for the difference are calculated using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel risk difference stratified by anti-TNF exposure.||20.6|3.5|0.0057
90887967|NCT02031276|181639072|OTHER||difference in percentage of participants|18.7||||0.0104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|33.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistics for the difference are calculated using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel risk difference stratified by anti-TNF exposure.||33.0|4.4|0.0104
90887968|NCT02031276|181639073|OTHER||difference in percentage of participants|2.4||||0.4977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|9.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistics for the difference are calculated using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel risk difference stratified by anti-TNF exposure.||9.2|-4.5|0.4977
90887969|NCT02031276|181639074|OTHER||difference in percentage of participants|7.4||||0.0107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|13.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistics for the difference are calculated using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel risk difference stratified by anti-TNF exposure.||13.0|1.7|0.0107
90887970|NCT02417246|181639098|EQUIVALENCE|A paired t-test was used to compare mean values of AUC0-24 for brand name metoprolol ER and Generic B at the 50mg dose. With a sample size of 38, at an alpha level of 0.025 (0.05/2 comparisons), using a 2-sided paired t test, we would have \>80% power to detect a 16% difference in AUC.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|45.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|222.2||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.1|131.2|||t-test, 2 sided|Average AUC from 0 to 24 hours (0-24) for patients on the 50mg dose of brand name metoprolol ER and Generic B were compared by a paired t-test (n=28)||||131.2|-41.1|0.3
90887971|NCT02417246|181639098|EQUIVALENCE|A bioequivalence (BE) test was performed for patients who were administered the 50mg dose. BE was declared if 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population geometric means of the AUC0-24 for Generic B to brand name metoprolol ER falls within 0.8 to 1.25|Geometric mean ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.76|0.95||The analysis included a total of 20 patients on Generic B and brand name metoprolol ER, which is less than the initial plan of including 38 patients.||||||0.95|0.76|
90887972|NCT02417246|181639098|EQUIVALENCE|A paired t-test was used to compare mean values of AUC0-24 for brand name metoprolol ER and Generic A at the 50mg dose. With a sample size of 38, at an alpha level of 0.025 (0.05/2 comparisons), using a 2-sided paired t test, we would have \>80% power to detect a 16% difference in AUC.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|176.5||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.0|74.3|||t-test, 2 sided|Average AUC0-24 for patients on the 50mg dose who were administered brand name metoprolol ER and Generic A were compared using a paired t-test (n=29)||||74.3|-60.0|0.8
90887973|NCT02417246|181639098|EQUIVALENCE|A bioequivalence (BE) test was performed for patients who were administered the 50mg dose. BE was declared if the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population geometric means of the AUC0-24 for Generic A to brand name metoprolol ER fell within 0.8 to 1.25|Geometric mean ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.86|1.01||This analysis included 21 individuals who were administered brand name metoprolol ER and Generic A, which is less than the initial plan of including 38 patients.||||||1.01|0.86|
90887974|NCT02417246|181639099|EQUIVALENCE|A paired t-test was used to compare the mean values of Cmax for brand name metoprolol ER and Generic B at the 50mg dose. With a sample size of 38, at an alpha level of 0.025 (0.05/2 comparisons), using a 2-sided paired t-test, we would have \>80% power to detect a 11% difference in Cmax.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.7||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|6.6|||t-test, 2 sided|Average Cmax for patients on the 50mg dose who were administered brand name metoprolol ER and Generic B were compared using a paired t-test (n=29)||||6.6|-1.5|0.2
90887975|NCT02417246|181639099|EQUIVALENCE|A bioequivalence (BE) test was performed for patients who were administered the 50mg dose. BE was declared if the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population geometric means of Cmax for Generic B to brand name metoprolol ER fell within 0.8 to 1.25|Geometric mean ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.79|0.95||The analysis included a total of 29 patients on Generic B and brand name metoprolol ER, which is less than the initial plan of including 38 patients||||||0.95|0.79|
90887976|NCT02417246|181639099|EQUIVALENCE|A paired t-test was used to compare the mean values of Cmax for brand name metoprolol ER and Generic A at the 50mg dose. With a sample size of 38, at an alpha level of 0.025 (0.05/2 comparisons), using a 2-sided paired t-test, we would have \>80% power to detect a 11% difference in Cmax.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.6||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|2.3|||t-test, 2 sided|Average Cmax for patients on the 50mg dose who were administered brand name metoprolol ER and Generic A were compared using a paired t-test (n=29)||||2.3|-7.3|0.3
90887977|NCT02417246|181639099|EQUIVALENCE|A bioequivalence (BE) test was performed for patients who were administered the 50mg dose. BE was declared if the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population geometric means of Cmax for Generic A to brand name metoprolol ER fell within 0.8 to 1.25|Geometric mean ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.02|1.23||The analysis included a total of 29 patients on Generic A and brand name metoprolol ER, which is less than a pre-planned sample size of 38.||||||1.23|1.02|
90887978|NCT02417246|181639100|EQUIVALENCE|A mixed effect model for repeated measures was used to model medication effect on HRV comparing brand name metoprolol ER to Generic B, adjusting for quartile, (quartile\*med) interaction, and treatment assignment.|Slope|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.0858|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0858
90887979|NCT02417246|181639100|EQUIVALENCE|A mixed effect model for repeated measures was used to model medication effect on HRV comparing brand name metoprolol ER to Generic A, adjusting for quartile,(quartile\*med) interaction, and treatment assignment.|Slope|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.0168|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||p for medication\*quartile interaction considered significant if p\<0.025.|||||0.0168
90887980|NCT02417246|181639101|EQUIVALENCE|A mixed effect model for repeated measures was performed to model the 24-hour ambulatory systolic blood pressure (SBP) by quartile for 35 patients receiving brand name metoprolol ER and Generic B.|Slope|-2.39||||0.203|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.203
90887981|NCT02417246|181639101|EQUIVALENCE|A mixed effect model for repeated measures was performed to model the 24-hour ambulatory diastolic blood pressure (DBP) by quartile for 35 patients receiving brand name metoprolol ER and Generic B.|Slope|-0.543||||0.671|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.671
90887982|NCT02417246|181639101|EQUIVALENCE|A mixed effect model for repeated measures was performed to model the 24-hour ambulatory SBP by quartile for 35 patients receiving brand name metoprolol ER and Generic A.|Slope|-2.371||||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.200
90887983|NCT02417246|181639101|EQUIVALENCE|A mixed effect model for repeated measures was performed to model the 24-hour ambulatory DBP by quartile for 35 patients receiving brand name metoprolol ER and Generic A.|Slope|-2.329||||0.068|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.068
90966419|NCT00097773|181814704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.71|||Regression, Logistic||odds of a positive culture comparing the cipro group to the placebo group|Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between pooled cipro and placebo treatment groups in the odds of a Pa positive culture over the 18 month study.||1.71|0.71|0.67
90966420|NCT00097773|181814705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.11|||Regression, Cox|No interaction with ciprofloxacin usage was observed.|Hazard ratio comparing cycled to culture based therapy|The analysis compared the pooled Cycled Therapy group (n=152) vs. the Pooled culture-based therapy group (n=152). The null hypothesis was no difference between groups in the risk of pulmonary exacerbation.||1.11|0.58|0.18
90966421|NCT00097773|181814705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.29||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.78|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio comparing cipro to placebo.|This analysis was between the pooled oral cipro (n=152)and pooled placebo groups (n=152. Null hypothesis was no difference between groups.||1.78|0.94|0.12
90966422|NCT04305275|181814718|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.533||0.0491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.14|0.0|||MMRM|MMRM model included treatment, baseline score, assessment timepoint, \& timepoint-by-treatment as explanatory variables, treated as fixed effects.||||0.00|-2.14|0.0491
90966423|NCT04305275|181814719|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.398||0.0468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.01|||MMRM|MMRM model included treatment, baseline score, assessment timepoint, \& timepoint-by-treatment as explanatory variables, treated as fixed effects.||Change From Baseline at Day 8||-0.01|-1.60|0.0468
90966424|NCT04305275|181814719|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.467||0.3124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|0.46|||MMRM|MMRM model included treatment, baseline score, assessment timepoint, \& timepoint-by-treatment as explanatory variables, treated as fixed effects.||Change From Baseline at Day 15, Pre-dose||0.46|-1.41|0.3124
90966425|NCT04305275|181814719|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.605||0.5148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|0.81|||MMRM|MMRM model included treatment, baseline score, assessment timepoint, \& timepoint-by-treatment as explanatory variables, treated as fixed effects.||Change From Baseline at Day 15, 5 Hours Post-dose||0.81|-1.61|0.5148
90966426|NCT04305275|181814719|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.6452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|0.91|||MMRM|MMRM model included treatment, baseline score, assessment timepoint, \& timepoint-by-treatment as explanatory variables, treated as fixed effects.||Change From Baseline at Day 15, 8 Hours Post-dose||0.91|-1.45|0.6452
90966427|NCT04305275|181814719|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.482||0.1171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|0.2|||MMRM|MMRM model included treatment, baseline score, assessment timepoint, \& timepoint-by-treatment as explanatory variables, treated as fixed effects.||Change From Baseline at Day 22||0.20|-1.73|0.1171
90966428|NCT04305275|181814719|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.557||0.2724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.73|||MMRM|MMRM model included treatment, baseline score, assessment timepoint, \& timepoint-by-treatment as explanatory variables, treated as fixed effects.||Change From Baseline at Day 42||1.73|-0.50|0.2724
90966429|NCT04305275|181814720|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.658||0.8784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|1.21|||MMRM|MMRM model included treatment, baseline score, assessment timepoint, \& timepoint-by-treatment as explanatory variables, treated as fixed effects.||Change From Baseline at Day 8||1.21|-1.42|0.8784
90966430|NCT04305275|181814720|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.687||0.1795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|2.3|||MMRM|MMRM model included treatment, baseline score, assessment timepoint, \& timepoint-by-treatment as explanatory variables, treated as fixed effects.||Change From Baseline at Day 15, Pre-dose||2.30|-0.44|0.1795
90966431|NCT04305275|181814720|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.829||0.5588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|1.17|||MMRM|MMRM model included treatment, baseline score, assessment timepoint, \& timepoint-by-treatment as explanatory variables, treated as fixed effects.||Change From Baseline at Day 15, 5 Hours Post-dose||1.17|-2.15|0.5588
90966432|NCT04305275|181814720|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.796||0.5036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|2.13|||MMRM|MMRM model included treatment, baseline score, assessment timepoint, \& timepoint-by-treatment as explanatory variables, treated as fixed effects.||Change From Baseline at Day 15, 8 Hours Post-dose||2.13|-1.06|0.5036
90966433|NCT04305275|181814720|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.736||0.6636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|1.79|||MMRM|MMRM model included treatment, baseline score, assessment timepoint, \& timepoint-by-treatment as explanatory variables, treated as fixed effects.||Change From Baseline at Day 22||1.79|-1.15|0.6636
90966434|NCT04305275|181814720|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.756||0.3999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|2.15|||MMRM|MMRM model included treatment, baseline score, assessment timepoint, \& timepoint-by-treatment as explanatory variables, treated as fixed effects.||Change From Baseline at Day 29||2.15|-0.87|0.3999
90966435|NCT04305275|181814720|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.776||0.3933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|2.22|||MMRM|MMRM model included treatment, baseline score, assessment timepoint, \& timepoint-by-treatment as explanatory variables, treated as fixed effects.||Change From Baseline at Day 42||2.22|-0.88|0.3933
90966436|NCT04305275|181814721|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.167||0.0193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.14|-0.47|||MMRM|MMRM model included treatment, baseline score, assessment timepoint, \& timepoint-by-treatment as explanatory variables, treated as fixed effects.||Change From Baseline at Day 8||-0.47|-5.14|0.0193
90966437|NCT04305275|181814721|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.277||0.0243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.51|-0.4|||MMRM|MMRM model included treatment, baseline score, assessment timepoint, \& timepoint-by-treatment as explanatory variables, treated as fixed effects.||Change From Baseline at Day 15||-0.40|-5.51|0.0243
90966438|NCT04305275|181814721|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.209||0.0385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.98|-0.14|||MMRM|MMRM model included treatment, baseline score, assessment timepoint, \& timepoint-by-treatment as explanatory variables, treated as fixed effects.||Change From Baseline at Day 22||-0.14|-4.98|0.0385
90966439|NCT04305275|181814721|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.221||0.2682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.81|1.08|||MMRM|MMRM model included treatment, baseline score, assessment timepoint, \& timepoint-by-treatment as explanatory variables, treated as fixed effects.||Change From Baseline at Day 29||1.08|-3.81|0.2682
90966440|NCT04305275|181814721|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.233||0.3649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|3.59|||MMRM|MMRM model included treatment, baseline score, assessment timepoint, \& timepoint-by-treatment as explanatory variables, treated as fixed effects.||Change From Baseline at Day 42||3.59|-1.34|0.3649
90966441|NCT04305275|181814722|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.078||0.2478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.41|0.9|||MMRM|MMRM model included treatment, baseline score, assessment timepoint, \& timepoint-by-treatment as explanatory variables, treated as fixed effects.||Change From Baseline at Day 8||0.90|-3.41|0.2478
90966442|NCT04305275|181814722|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.192||0.4486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.29|1.47|||MMRM|MMRM model included treatment, baseline score, assessment timepoint, \& timepoint-by-treatment as explanatory variables, treated as fixed effects.||Change From Baseline at Day 15, Pre-dose||1.47|-3.29|0.4486
90966443|NCT04305275|181814722|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.352||0.2662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.22|1.19|||MMRM|MMRM model included treatment, baseline score, assessment timepoint, \& timepoint-by-treatment as explanatory variables, treated as fixed effects.||Change From Baseline at Day 15, 5 Hours Post-dose||1.19|-4.22|0.2662
90966444|NCT04305275|181814722|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.282||0.9965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.56|2.57|||MMRM|MMRM model included treatment, baseline score, assessment timepoint, \& timepoint-by-treatment as explanatory variables, treated as fixed effects.||Change From Baseline at Day 15, 8 Hours Post-dose||2.57|-2.56|0.9965
90966445|NCT04305275|181814722|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.222||0.8437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.68|2.2|||MMRM|MMRM model included treatment, baseline score, assessment timepoint, \& timepoint-by-treatment as explanatory variables, treated as fixed effects.||Change From Baseline at Day 22||2.20|-2.68|0.8437
90966446|NCT04305275|181814722|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.232||0.796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|2.14|||MMRM|MMRM model included treatment, baseline score, assessment timepoint, \& timepoint-by-treatment as explanatory variables, treated as fixed effects.||Change From Baseline at Day 29||2.14|-2.78|0.7960
90966447|NCT04305275|181814722|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.119||0.0456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|4.52|||MMRM|MMRM model included treatment, baseline score, assessment timepoint, \& timepoint-by-treatment as explanatory variables, treated as fixed effects.||Change From Baseline at Day 42||4.52|0.05|0.0456
90966448|NCT02456662|181814761|SUPERIORITY|Based on previous work as well as anecdotal data from our clinic population, we expect vomiting to occur in approximately 30% of our patients who take their doxycycline the night before their procedure. To have 80% power to detect a 50% decrease in nausea and vomiting, we will need 122 patients in each arm of the study.||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.00
90966449|NCT01034540|181814768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.959||||||Values were not normally distributed, thus analyses were performed on ranked values and medians (IQL) are presented.|ANOVA|All tests of statistical significance were completed at the 5% level, two-tailed (p\<0.05).||An evaluable sample of 19 subjects provided 80% power (5% alpha-level, 2-tailed) to detect a 2.1 unit difference between control and active in MISI, assuming a 3.0 unit standard deviation (SD). Repeated measures ANOVA was used to assess responses to treatment. Initial repeated measures models contained terms of treatment period, and sequence as fixed effects, with subject modeled as random effect; models were reduced until only significant terms or treatment remained.||||0.959
90966450|NCT01034540|181814769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.037|||||||ANOVA|All tests of statistical significance were completed at the 5% level, two-tailed (p\<0.05).||||||0.037
90928999|NCT02307682|181737960|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|3.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 80||3.1|-4.8|
90929000|NCT02307682|181737960|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|3.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 80||3.9|-4.6|
90929001|NCT02307682|181737960|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|5.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 84||5.4|-2.6|
90929002|NCT02307682|181737960|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|4.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 84||4.4|-3.7|
90929003|NCT02307682|181737960|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|4.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 88||4.4|-3.7|
90929004|NCT02307682|181737960|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|4.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 88||4.2|-4.1|
90929005|NCT02307682|181737960|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|5.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 92||5.5|-2.2|
90929006|NCT02307682|181737960|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|5.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 92||5.1|-3.0|
90929007|NCT02307682|181737960|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|4.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 96||4.9|-2.9|
90929008|NCT02307682|181737960|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|4.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 96||4.6|-3.6|
90929009|NCT02307682|181737961|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|2.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 4||2.2|-3.7|
90929010|NCT02307682|181737961|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|3.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 4||3.4|-2.6|
90929011|NCT02307682|181737961|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|2.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 8||2.3|-3.3|
90929012|NCT02307682|181737961|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|2.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 8||2.9|-3.0|
90929013|NCT02307682|181737961|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|2.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 12||2.4|-4.6|
90929014|NCT02307682|181737961|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|3.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 12||3.6|-3.5|
90929015|NCT02307682|181737961|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|2.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 16||2.9|-4.2|
90929016|NCT02307682|181737961|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|2.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 16||2.0|-5.0|
90929017|NCT02307682|181737961|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|2.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 20||2.4|-4.1|
90929018|NCT02307682|181737961|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|4.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 20||4.7|-2.3|
90929019|NCT02307682|181737961|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|3.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 24||3.1|-3.9|
90940960|NCT00943722|181761605|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMTs be entirely contained within the interval (0.5, 2.0)|GMT ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.12|||||GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 2) divided by GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 3)|Anti-HPV 33||1.12|0.90|
90940961|NCT00943722|181761605|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMTs be entirely contained within the interval (0.5, 2.0)|GMT ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.95|||||GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) divided by GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 2)|Anti-HPV 45||0.95|0.73|
90940962|NCT00943722|181761605|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMTs be entirely contained within the interval (0.5, 2.0)|GMT ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.18|||||GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) divided by GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 3)|Anti-HPV 45||1.18|0.91|
90940963|NCT00943722|181761605|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMTs be entirely contained within the interval (0.5, 2.0)|GMT ratio|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.42|||||GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 2) divided by GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 3)|Anti-HPV 45||1.42|1.08|
90940964|NCT00943722|181761605|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMTs be entirely contained within the interval (0.5, 2.0)|GMT ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.03|||||GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) divided by GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 2)|Anti-HPV 52||1.03|0.83|
90940965|NCT00943722|181761605|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMTs be entirely contained within the interval (0.5, 2.0)|GMT ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.07|||||GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) divided by GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 3)|Anti-HPV 52||1.07|0.85|
90940966|NCT00943722|181761605|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMTs be entirely contained within the interval (0.5, 2.0)|GMT ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.16|||||GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 2) divided by GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 3)|Anti-HPV 52||1.16|0.92|
90940967|NCT00943722|181761605|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMTs be entirely contained within the interval (0.5, 2.0)|GMT ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.06|||||GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) divided by GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 2)|Anti-HPV 58||1.06|0.86|
90940968|NCT00943722|181761605|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMTs be entirely contained within the interval (0.5, 2.0)|GMT ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.2|||||GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) divided by GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 3)|Anti-HPV 58||1.20|0.96|
90940969|NCT00943722|181761605|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMTs be entirely contained within the interval (0.5, 2.0)|GMT ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.26|||||GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 2) divided by GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 3)|Anti-HPV 58||1.26|1.00|
90940970|NCT00943722|181761609|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI for the percentage point difference is greater than -5.|Percentage Point Difference|0.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) minus 16- to 26-Year-Old Females (Lot 1)|Anti-HPV 6||1.5|-0.8|< 0.001
90940971|NCT00943722|181761609|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI for the percentage point difference is greater than -5.|Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) minus 16- to 26-Year-Old Females (Lot 1)|Anti-HPV 11||1.2|-0.7|< 0.001
90940972|NCT00943722|181761609|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI for the percentage point difference is greater than -5.|Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) minus 16- to 26-Year-Old Females (Lot 1)|Anti-HPV 16||1.2|-0.7|< 0.001
90940973|NCT00943722|181761609|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI for the percentage point difference is greater than -5.|Percentage Point Difference|0.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) minus 16- to 26-Year-Old Females (Lot 1)|Anti-HPV 18||1.5|-0.8|< 0.001
90940974|NCT00943722|181761609|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI for the percentage point difference is greater than -5.|Percentage Point Difference|0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) minus 16- to 26-Year-Old Females (Lot 1)|Anti-HPV 31||1.7|-0.4|< 0.001
90940975|NCT00943722|181761609|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI for the percentage point difference is greater than -5.|Percentage Point Difference|0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) minus 16- to 26-Year-Old Females (Lot 1)|Anti-HPV 33||1.6|-0.4|< 0.001
90940976|NCT00943722|181761609|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI for the percentage point difference is greater than -5.|Percentage Point Difference|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) minus 16- to 26-Year-Old Females (Lot 1)|Anti-HPV 45||1.8|-0.6|< 0.001
90966451|NCT01034540|181814769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.073||||||All tests of statistical significance were completed at the 5% level, two-tailed (p\<0.05).|ANOVA|||||||0.073
90966452|NCT03805750|181814781|OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.52
90966453|NCT00493220|181814783|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence = 90% confidence interval of least squares mean (LSM) within 80%-125%|LSM ratio (natural log-transformed)|111.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|108.57|115.12|||Schuirmann two one-sided tests procedure||HYLENEX SC/Placebo SC|||115.12|108.57|
90966454|NCT00493220|181814783|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence = 90% confidence interval of least squares mean (LSM) within 80%-125%|LSM ratio (natural log-transformed)|60.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|59.06|62.62|||Schuirmann two one-sided tests procedure||HYLENEX SC/Intravenous|||62.62|59.06|
90966455|NCT00493220|181814783|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence = 90% confidence interval of least squares mean (LSM) within 80%-125%|LSM ratio (%; ln-transformed)|54.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|52.82|56.01|||Schuirmann two one-sided tests procedure||Placebo SC/Intravenous|||56.01|52.82|
90966456|NCT00493220|181814784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-1.0|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.25|-0.75|||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||HYLENEX SC minus Placebo SC|||-0.75|-1.25|<0.01
90966457|NCT00493220|181814784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|1.52|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.27|1.71|||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Placebo SC minus Intravenous|||1.71|1.27|<0.01
90966458|NCT00493220|181814784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|2.52|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.26|2.76|||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Placebo SC minus Intravenous|||2.76|2.26|<0.01
90929020|NCT02307682|181737961|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|6.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 24||6.2|-1.8|
90929021|NCT02307682|181737961|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|4.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 28||4.7|-3.5|
90929022|NCT02307682|181737961|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|4.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 28||4.4|-3.6|
90929023|NCT02307682|181737961|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|4.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 32||4.6|-3.2|
90929024|NCT02307682|181737961|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|4.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 32||4.5|-3.2|
90966459|NCT00493220|181814785|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence = 90% confidence interval of least squares mean (LSM) within 80%-125%|LSM ratio (%; ln-transformed)|101.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.95|105.12|||Schuirmann two one-sided tests procedure||HYLENEX SC/Placebo SC|||105.12|98.95|
90966460|NCT00493220|181814785|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence = 90% confidence interval of least squares mean (LSM) within 80%-125%|LSM ratio (%; ln-transformed)|106.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.61|110.07|||Schuirmann two one-sided tests procedure||HYLENEX SC/Intravenous|||110.07|103.61|
90966461|NCT00493220|181814785|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence = 90% confidence interval of least squares mean (LSM) within 80%-125%|LSM ratio (%; ln-transformed)|104.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.59|107.92|||Schuirmann two one-sided tests procedure||Placebo SC/Intravenous|||107.92|101.59|
90966462|NCT00493220|181814786|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence = 95% confidence interval of least squares mean (LSM) within 80%-125%|LSM ratio (%; ln-transformed)|101.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.64|104.98|||Schuirmann two one-sided tests procedure||HYLENEX SC/Placebo SC|||104.98|98.64|
90966463|NCT00493220|181814786|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence = 90% confidence interval of least squares mean (LSM) within 80%-125%|LSM ratio (%; ln-transformed)|106.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.67|110.33|||Schuirmann two one-sided tests procedure||HYLENEX SC/Intravenous|||110.33|103.67|
90966464|NCT00493220|181814786|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence = 90% confidence interval of least squares mean (LSM) within 80%-125%|LSM ratio (%; ln-transformed)|105.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.87|108.42|||Schuirmann two one-sided tests procedure||Placebo SC/Intravenous|||108.42|101.87|
90966465|NCT04360551|181814822|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.244|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.244
90966466|NCT04360551|181814823|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.5|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||>0.5
90966467|NCT02232802|181814849|EQUIVALENCE|Following logarithmic transformation, Cmax values were subjected to an analysis of variance (ANOVA), including fixed effects for sequence, period, treatment and subject nested within sequence.|least square mean difference ratio|99.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.28|102.65|||||Geometric least square means are being compared.|Statistical comparison for Anti-FXa||102.65|96.28|
90966468|NCT02232802|181814849|EQUIVALENCE|Following logarithmic transformation, Cmax was subjected to an analysis of variance (ANOVA), including fixed effects for sequence, period, treatment and subject nested within sequence|least square mean difference ratio|91.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.65|96.73|||||Geometric least square means are being compared.|Statistical comparison on Anti-FIIa||96.73|86.65|
90971278|NCT04311502|181825271|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.15|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|21.3|||Regression, Logistic|||Compares the odds of participants having maximum occurrence of QTcF change from baseline of ≥30 ms and \<60 ms, or ≥60 ms between Arm 1 and Arm 2 in the safety set using the proportional odds model.||21.30|2.40|<0.01
90966469|NCT02232802|181814850|EQUIVALENCE|Following logarithmic transformation, AUC0-t values were subjected to an analysis of variance (ANOVA), including fixed effects for sequence, period, treatment and subject nested within sequence|least square mean difference ratio|102.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|100.67|105.15|||||Geometric least square means are being compared.|Anti-FXa statistical comparison||105.15|100.67|
90966470|NCT02232802|181814850|EQUIVALENCE|Following logarithmic transformation, AUC0-t values were subjected to an analysis of variance (ANOVA), including fixed effects for sequence, period, treatment and subject nested within sequence.|least square mean difference ratio|92.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|87.72|97.25|||||Geometric least square means are being compared.|Anti-FIIa comparison||97.25|87.72|
90966471|NCT02232802|181814851|EQUIVALENCE|Following logarithmic transformation, AUC0-inf values were subjected to an analysis of variance (ANOVA), including fixed effects for sequence, period, treatment and subject nested within sequence|least square mean ratio|104.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|101.68|106.9|||||Geometric least square means are being compared.|Anti-FXA comparison||106.9|101.68|
90966472|NCT02232802|181814851|EQUIVALENCE|Following logarithmic transformation, AUC0-inf values were subjected to an analysis of variance (ANOVA), including fixed effects for sequence, period, treatment and subject nested within sequence|least square mean ratio|90.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|85.38|95.8|||||Geometric least square means are being compared.|Anti-FIIa comparison||95.8|85.38|
90966473|NCT02232802|181814852|EQUIVALENCE|An assessment of tmax was performed using the Wilcoxon matched pairs test. In addition, a 95 % non-parametric CI was constructed for the median difference in tmax based on the method of Campbell and Gardner.|least square mean ratio|0.0||||0.7642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5||An assessment of tmax was performed using the Wilcoxon matched pairs test. In addition, a 95 % non-parametric CI was constructed for the median difference in tmax based on the method of Campbell and Gardner.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Geometric least square means are being compared.|Anti-FXa comparison||0.5|-0.5|0.7642
90966474|NCT02232802|181814852|EQUIVALENCE|An assessment of tmax was performed using the Wilcoxon matched pairs test. In addition, a 95 % non-parametric CI was constructed for the median difference in tmax based on the method of Campbell and Gardner.|least square mean ratio|0.0||||0.9464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Geometric least square means are being compared.|Anti-FIIa comparison||0.5|-0.5|0.9464
90966475|NCT02232802|181814858|EQUIVALENCE|Results obtained using a fixed effects ANOVA with fixed effects for sequence, period, treatment and subject nested within sequence|Geometric least square mean ratio|103.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|101.22|106.73||||||||106.73|101.22|
90966476|NCT02232802|181814859|EQUIVALENCE|Results obtained using a fixed effects ANOVA with fixed effects for sequence, period, treatment and subject nested within sequence.|Geometric least square mean ratio|108.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|103.93|113.46||||||||113.46|103.93|
90966477|NCT02232802|181814860|EQUIVALENCE|Results obtained using a fixed effects ANOVA with fixed effects for sequence, period, treatment and subject nested within sequence.|Geometric least square mean ratio|102.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|97.51|108.28||||||||108.28|97.51|
90966478|NCT02232802|181814861|EQUIVALENCE|Results obtained using a fixed effects ANOVA with fixed effects for sequence, period, treatment and subject nested within sequence|Geometric least square mean ratio|114.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|102.29|129.08||||||||129.08|102.29|
90966479|NCT02232802|181814862|EQUIVALENCE|Results obtained using a fixed effects ANOVA with fixed effects for sequence, period, treatment and subject nested within sequence|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.8554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5|||ANOVA|||||0.5|-0.5|= 0.8554
90966480|NCT02232802|181814863|EQUIVALENCE|Results obtained using a fixed effects ANOVA with fixed effects for sequence, period, treatment and subject nested within sequence|geometric least square mean ratio|100.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.27|102.47||||||||102.47|99.27|
90966481|NCT02232802|181814864|EQUIVALENCE|Results obtained using a fixed effects ANOVA with fixed effects for sequence, period, treatment and subject nested within sequence.|geometric least square mean ratio|95.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|85.7|105.6||||||||105.6|85.7|
90966482|NCT02232802|181814865|EQUIVALENCE|An assessment of tmax was performed using the Wilcoxon matched pairs test. In addition, a 95 % nonparametric CI was constructed for the median difference in tmax based on the method of Campbell and Gardner.|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.6857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.5|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Median difference is the difference between median tmax in Test IMP versus Reference IMP arms.|||0.5|-0.25|= 0.6857
90966483|NCT02232802|181814871|EQUIVALENCE|Results obtained using a fixed effects ANOVA with fixed effects for sequence, period, treatment and subject nested within sequence|Geometric least square mean ratio|111.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|105.89|117.17||||||||117.17|105.89|
91035394|NCT03733444|181956712|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.94|||||Odds ratio and 95% confidence interval originated from a logistic regression.|||1.94|0.90|
90929025|NCT02307682|181737961|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|5.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 36||5.3|-2.6|
90929026|NCT02307682|181737961|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|5.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 36||5.9|-2.1|
90929027|NCT02307682|181737961|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|3.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 40||3.9|-4.3|
90929028|NCT02307682|181737961|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|4.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 40||4.8|-3.6|
90929029|NCT02307682|181737961|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|4.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 44||4.8|-3.7|
90929030|NCT02307682|181737961|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|4.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 44||4.7|-3.7|
90929031|NCT02307682|181737961|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|6.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 48||6.1|-2.2|
90929032|NCT02307682|181737961|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|5.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 48||5.3|-2.9|
90929033|NCT02307682|181737961|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|4.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 52||4.8|-3.5|
90929034|NCT02307682|181737961|OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|7.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 52||7.3|-1.6|
90929035|NCT02307682|181737961|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|6.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 56||6.2|-2.3|
90929036|NCT02307682|181737961|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|6.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 56||6.7|-2.2|
90929037|NCT02307682|181737961|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|3.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 60||3.8|-4.8|
90929038|NCT02307682|181737961|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|5.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 60||5.9|-3.8|
90929039|NCT02307682|181737961|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|5.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 64||5.7|-3.1|
90929040|NCT02307682|181737961|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|6.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 64||6.4|-2.8|
90929041|NCT02307682|181737961|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|5.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 68||5.2|-3.4|
90929042|NCT02307682|181737961|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|6.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 68||6.6|-2.8|
90929043|NCT02307682|181737961|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|2.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 72||2.5|-6.6|
90929044|NCT02307682|181737961|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|3.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 72||3.8|-6.1|
90929045|NCT02307682|181737961|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|3.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 76||3.1|-5.6|
90929046|NCT02307682|181737961|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|6.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 76||6.9|-2.9|
90929047|NCT02307682|181737961|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|3.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 80||3.1|-5.8|
90929048|NCT02307682|181737961|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|6.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 80||6.5|-3.2|
90929049|NCT02307682|181737961|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|5.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 84||5.0|-4.2|
90929050|NCT02307682|181737961|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|6.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 84||6.7|-3.2|
90929051|NCT02307682|181737961|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|4.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 88||4.2|-5.8|
90929052|NCT02307682|181737961|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|4.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 88||4.6|-5.2|
90929053|NCT02307682|181737961|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|4.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 92||4.1|-5.5|
90929054|NCT02307682|181737961|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|4.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 92||4.4|-5.3|
90929055|NCT02307682|181737961|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|4.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 96||4.4|-5.7|
90929056|NCT02307682|181737961|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|7.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 96||7.3|-3.4|
90929057|NCT02307682|181737962|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|5.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 4||5.5|-2.4|
90929058|NCT02307682|181737962|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|6.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 4||6.8|-1.8|
90929059|NCT02307682|181737962|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|3.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 8||3.8|-4.1|
90929060|NCT02307682|181737962|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|6.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 8||6.8|-1.7|
90929061|NCT02307682|181737962|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|6.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 12||6.5|-2.3|
90966484|NCT02232802|181814872|EQUIVALENCE|Results obtained using a fixed effects ANOVA with fixed effects for sequence, period, treatment and subject nested within sequence|Geometric least square mean ratio|113.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|107.47|120.53||||||||120.53|107.47|
90966485|NCT02232802|181814877|EQUIVALENCE|An assessment of tmax was performed using the Wilcoxon matched pairs test. In addition, a 95 % nonparametric CI was constructed for the median difference in tmax based on the method of Campbell and Gardner.|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.9217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.13|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Median difference is the difference between median tmax in Test IMP versus Reference IMP arms.|||0.13|-0.13|= 0.9217
90966486|NCT00885703|181814887|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0012||||||Analysis did not adjust for multiple comparisons.|Chi-squared|||Testing discontinuation of any dose Fluconazole (pooled by treatment and dose) versus discontinuation of Ampho B (pooled). The null hypothesis is the two treatments have the same proportion of discontinuation.||||0.0012
90966487|NCT00885703|181814888|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||Fisher Exact|||Among 4 treatment arms, comparison of three categorical groups: (CM negative, CM negative after switching treatment, and CM Positive/Died/Lost to Follow-up) at week 10. The null hypothesis is the 4 treatment arms have no differences at week 10.||||0.012
90966488|NCT00885703|181814889|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison of change in quantitative CSF culture among 4 treatment arms. The null hypothesis is the 4 treatment arms have the same change in CSF culture from entry to week 2.||||0.019
90966489|NCT00885703|181814890|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0894||||||Analysis did not adjust for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|||Comparison of survival from entry to week 24 between Fluconazole 1200mg arm and Ampho B arm. The null hypothesis is there is no difference in survival between these two arms.||||0.0894
90966490|NCT00885703|181814890|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4828||||||Analysis did not adjust for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|||Comparison of survival from entry to week 24 between Fluconazole 1600mg arm and Ampho B arm. The null hypothesis is there is no difference in survival between these two arms.||||0.4828
90966491|NCT00885703|181814890|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1766||||||Analysis did not adjust for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|||Comparison of survival from entry to week 24 between Fluconazole 2000mg arm and Ampho B arm. The null hypothesis is there is no difference in survival between these two arms.||||0.1766
90966492|NCT01462435|181814916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|446.946|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|122.2935|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|206.567|687.324|||ANCOVA|||||687.324|206.567|<0.001
90966493|NCT01462435|181814916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|316.145|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|121.5971||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|77.136|555.155|||ANCOVA|||||555.155|77.136|0.010
90966494|NCT01462435|181814916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|313.119|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|122.5676||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|72.202|554.037|||ANCOVA|||||554.037|72.202|0.011
90966495|NCT01462435|181814917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.043||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.043
90966496|NCT01462435|181814917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.109||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.109
90966497|NCT01462435|181814917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.183||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.183
90966498|NCT01462435|181814918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.009
90966499|NCT01462435|181814918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.029
90966500|NCT01462435|181814918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.050
90966501|NCT01462435|181814919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90966502|NCT01462435|181814919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004
90966503|NCT01462435|181814919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004
90966504|NCT01462435|181814920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.009
90966505|NCT01462435|181814920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.091||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.091
90966506|NCT01462435|181814920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.053||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.053
90966507|NCT01462435|181814921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.002
90966508|NCT01462435|181814921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.026
90966509|NCT01462435|181814921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.017
90966510|NCT01462435|181814922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90966511|NCT01462435|181814922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.005
90966512|NCT01462435|181814922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004
90966513|NCT01462435|181814923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90966514|NCT01462435|181814923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90966515|NCT01462435|181814923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90966516|NCT03600142|181814924|NON_INFERIORITY|For WLHIV (n=55), chi-square tests were used to assess differences between conditions in the proportion of participants who were retained in HIV care at 3 months post enrollment.||||||0.963|||||||Chi-squared|||We were aware that our resources of time and funding would not be sufficient to detect a significant difference in the HIV care outcome, and that we would only be able to detect observational signals of impact. We aimed for a minimum of 50 WLHIV, which is considered an adequate sample to assess feasibility and acceptability in a pilot intervention study. Given an estimated 5% HIV prevalence among women presenting for ANC, this required us to enroll 1000 female participants.||||0.963
90966517|NCT02687542|181814960|OTHER|Bayesian Dose Response Analysis|Bayesian Dose Reponse Estimate|-0.693|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6162||0.5776|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.713|0.304||Bayesian Predictive Test for Emax (the additive increase over Placebo in the response of PF-06649751 at a theoretically infinite dose) Monotonicity|Bayesian Dose Response Analysis|Estimate and 90% credible interval of Bayesian dose response difference from placebo||||0.304|-1.713|0.5776
90966518|NCT00857532|181814974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021||95.0|||||Spearman's Rank Order Correlation|||"P-value for Attention correlation coefficient. Null hypothesis is that there is no correlation between florbetapir SUVR and DRS-2 attention score."||||0.021
90966519|NCT00857532|181814974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.077||95.0|||||Spearman's Rank Order Correlation|||"P-value for Initiation/Perseveration correlation coefficient. Null hypothesis is that there is no correlation between florbetapir SUVR and DRS-2 initiation/perseveration score."||||0.077
90966520|NCT00857532|181814974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.364||95.0|||||Spearman's Rank Order Correlation|||"P-value for Construction correlation coefficient. Null hypothesis is that there is no correlation between florbetapir SUVR and DRS-2 construction score."||||0.364
90966521|NCT00857532|181814974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.266||95.0|||||Spearman's Rank Order Correlation|||"P-value for Conceptualization correlation coefficient. Null hypothesis is that there is no correlation between florbetapir SUVR and DRS-2 conceptualization score."||||0.266
90966522|NCT00857532|181814974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.152||95.0|||||Spearman's Rank Order Correlation|||"P-value for Memory correlation coefficient. Null hypothesis is that there is no correlation between florbetapir SUVR and DRS-2 memory score."||||0.152
90929062|NCT02307682|181737962|OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|7.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 12||7.9|-0.9|
90929063|NCT02307682|181737962|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|4.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 16||4.0|-5.4|
90929064|NCT02307682|181737962|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|3.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 16||3.2|-6.2|
90929065|NCT02307682|181737962|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|3.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 20||3.3|-5.4|
90929066|NCT02307682|181737962|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|6.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 20||6.4|-2.9|
90929067|NCT02307682|181737962|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|3.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 24||3.9|-5.2|
90929068|NCT02307682|181737962|OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|8.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 24||8.8|-1.4|
90966523|NCT00857532|181814974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.041||95.0|||||Spearman's Rank Order Correlation|||"P-value for DRS-2 Total correlation coefficient. Null hypothesis is that there is no correlation between florbetapir SUVR and DRS-2 total score."||||0.041
90929069|NCT02307682|181737962|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|2.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 28||2.3|-6.8|
90929070|NCT02307682|181737962|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|5.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 28||5.8|-4.7|
90929071|NCT02307682|181737962|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|4.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 32||4.4|-5.0|
90929072|NCT02307682|181737962|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|4.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 32||4.0|-6.1|
90929073|NCT02307682|181737962|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|7.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 36||7.7|-1.8|
90929074|NCT02307682|181737962|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|6.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 36||6.8|-2.7|
90929075|NCT02307682|181737962|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|4.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 40||4.0|-5.9|
90966524|NCT00857532|181814975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0411||95.0|||||Spearman's Rank Order Correlation|||"P-value for Amyloid beta correlation coefficient. Null hypothesis is that there is no correlation between florbetapir SUVR and amyloid beta."||||0.0411
90966525|NCT00857532|181814975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58||95.0|||||Spearman's Rank Order Correlation|||"P-value for Tau correlation coefficient. Null hypothesis is that there is no correlation between florbetapir SUVR and tau."||||0.5800
90966526|NCT00857532|181814975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8164||95.0|||||Spearman's Rank Order Correlation|||"P-value for Phospho-Tau correlation coefficient. Null hypothesis is that there is no correlation between florbetapir SUVR and phospho-tau."||||0.8164
90966527|NCT02187471|181815026|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.191||0.4601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.23|||Difference of means|||||0.23|-0.52|0.4601
90966528|NCT02187471|181815026|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.03|||Difference of means|||||-0.03|-0.77|0.0350
90966529|NCT02187471|181815026|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.191||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|-0.37|||Difference of means|||||-0.37|-1.12|0.0001
90966530|NCT02187471|181815026|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.193||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.98|||Difference of means|||||0.98|0.22|0.0019
90966531|NCT02187471|181815026|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.192||0.0761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.72|||Difference of means|||||0.72|-0.04|0.0761
90966532|NCT02187471|181815028|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.67||0.3407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.86|1.68|||Difference of means|||||1.68|-4.86|0.3407
90966533|NCT02187471|181815028|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.669||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.69|-2.15|||Difference of means|||||-2.15|-8.69|0.0012
90966534|NCT02187471|181815028|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.665||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.66|-1.13|||Difference of means|||||-1.13|-7.66|0.0083
90966535|NCT02187471|181815028|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.677||0.0946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|6.09|||Difference of means|||||6.09|-0.48|0.0946
90966536|NCT02187471|181815028|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.669||0.5384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|2.24|||Difference of means|||||2.24|-4.30|0.5384
90966537|NCT02187471|181815030|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||||-0.3|-1.5|0.0030
90966538|NCT02187471|181815030|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-1.1|||ANCOVA|||||-1.1|-2.3|<0.0001
90966539|NCT02187471|181815030|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.6|||ANCOVA|||||-0.6|-1.7|0.0001
90966540|NCT02187471|181815030|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.3562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.9|||ANCOVA|||||0.9|-0.3|0.3562
90966541|NCT02187471|181815030|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.0862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-1.1|0.0862
90966542|NCT02187471|181815031|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square means|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.5183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Anxiety: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.4|-0.7|0.5183
90966543|NCT02187471|181815031|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares mean|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.2669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Anxiety: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.2|-0.9|0.2669
90966544|NCT02187471|181815031|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Anxiety: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||0.3|-0.8|0.4630
90966545|NCT02187471|181815031|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Anxiety: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.6|-0.5|0.9280
90966546|NCT02187471|181815031|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.7089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Anxiety: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.5|-0.7|0.7089
90929076|NCT02307682|181737962|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|4.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 40||4.9|-4.7|
90929077|NCT02307682|181737962|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|4.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 44||4.5|-5.7|
90966547|NCT02187471|181815031|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.0669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Depression: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0|-1.1|0.0669
90966548|NCT02187471|181815031|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||Depression: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||-0.2|-1.3|0.0081
90966549|NCT02187471|181815031|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.0867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Depression: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||0.1|-1.0|0.0867
90966550|NCT02187471|181815031|SUPERIORITY||Difference of least squares means|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.9066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Depression: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.5|-0.6|0.9066
90966551|NCT02187471|181815031|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.3509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Depression: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.3|-0.8|0.3509
90966552|NCT02187471|181815032|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|2.187|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6203||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|3.404|||ANCOVA|||Physical Component: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||3.404|0.970|0.0004
90966553|NCT02187471|181815032|SUPERIORITY||Difference of least squares means|2.483|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6209|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.265|3.701|||ANCOVA|||Physical Component: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||3.701|1.265|<0.0001
90966554|NCT02187471|181815032|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|2.621|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6215|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.401|3.84|||ANCOVA|||Physical Component: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||3.840|1.401|<0.0001
90966555|NCT02187471|181815032|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.434|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6245||0.4877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.659|0.792|||ANCOVA|||Physical Component: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.792|-1.659|0.4877
90966556|NCT02187471|181815032|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.137|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6252||0.8263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.364|1.089|||ANCOVA|||Physical Component: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||1.089|-1.364|0.8263
90966557|NCT02187471|181815032|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.228|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7345||0.7567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.213|1.669|||ANCOVA|||Mental Component: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||1.669|-1.213|0.7567
91035395|NCT03733444|181956712|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.56|||||Odds ratio and 95% confidence interval originated from a logistic regression.|||1.56|0.72|
90929078|NCT02307682|181737962|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|3.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 44||3.3|-6.5|
90929079|NCT02307682|181737962|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|6.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 48||6.9|-2.7|
90929080|NCT02307682|181737962|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|5.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 48||5.4|-4.3|
90929081|NCT02307682|181737962|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|5.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 52||5.3|-4.6|
90929082|NCT02307682|181737962|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|6.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 52||6.6|-3.9|
90929083|NCT02307682|181737962|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|6.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 56||6.1|-4.0|
90929084|NCT02307682|181737962|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|6.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 56||6.2|-3.8|
90929085|NCT02307682|181737962|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|5.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 60||5.6|-4.5|
90929086|NCT02307682|181737962|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|6.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 60||6.8|-3.8|
90929087|NCT02307682|181737962|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|7.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 64||7.3|-2.9|
90929088|NCT02307682|181737962|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|7.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 64||7.9|-2.8|
90929089|NCT02307682|181737962|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|4.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 68||4.5|-5.5|
90929090|NCT02307682|181737962|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|5.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 68||5.3|-5.1|
90929091|NCT02307682|181737962|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|6.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 72||6.7|-4.3|
90929092|NCT02307682|181737962|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|5.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 72||5.6|-5.2|
90929093|NCT02307682|181737962|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|6.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 76||6.4|-4.6|
90929094|NCT02307682|181737962|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|6.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 76||6.3|-4.7|
90929095|NCT02307682|181737962|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|6.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 80||6.2|-4.8|
90929096|NCT02307682|181737962|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|6.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 80||6.2|-4.8|
90929097|NCT02307682|181737962|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|7.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 84||7.7|-3.1|
90929098|NCT02307682|181737962|OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|8.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 84||8.7|-2.9|
90929099|NCT02307682|181737962|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|6.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 88||6.4|-4.5|
90929100|NCT02307682|181737962|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|6.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 88||6.4|-4.6|
90929101|NCT02307682|181737962|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|6.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 92||6.9|-4.5|
90929102|NCT02307682|181737962|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|6.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 92||6.4|-4.5|
90929103|NCT02307682|181737962|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|8.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 96||8.7|-3.1|
90929104|NCT02307682|181737962|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|7.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 96||7.2|-4.7|
90929105|NCT02307682|181737963|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|3.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 4||3.5|-7.7|
90929106|NCT02307682|181737963|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|2.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 4||2.8|-8.5|
90929107|NCT02307682|181737963|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|2.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 8||2.6|-8.9|
91035396|NCT03733444|181956713|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|14.1|||||The treatment effect was determined by using estimated least square mean difference between each active treatment group and placebo from the mixed model.|||14.1|-12.4|
90929108|NCT02307682|181737963|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|3.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 8||3.6|-7.7|
90929109|NCT02307682|181737963|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|2.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 12||2.4|-8.9|
90929110|NCT02307682|181737963|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|2.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 12||2.0|-10.0|
90966558|NCT02187471|181815032|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.7349|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7349||0.0787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.149|2.735|||ANCOVA|||Mental Component: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||2.735|-0.149|0.0787
90966559|NCT02187471|181815032|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.7358|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7358||0.3516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.758|2.129|||ANCOVA|||Mental Component: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||2.129|-0.758|0.3516
90966560|NCT02187471|181815032|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.458|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7372||0.5344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.905|0.988|||ANCOVA|||Mental Component: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.988|-1.905|0.5344
90966561|NCT02187471|181815032|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.607|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7379||0.4107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|2.055|||ANCOVA|||Mental Component: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||2.055|-0.840|0.4107
90966562|NCT02187471|181815033|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.0203|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01369||0.1394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0066|0.0471|||ANCOVA|||||0.0471|-0.0066|0.1394
90966563|NCT02187471|181815033|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.0211|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01369||0.1237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0058|0.048|||ANCOVA|||||0.0480|-0.0058|0.1237
90966564|NCT02187471|181815033|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.0386|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01371||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0117|0.0655|||ANCOVA|||||0.0655|0.0117|0.0049
90966565|NCT02187471|181815033|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.0184|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01378||0.1824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0454|0.0086|||ANCOVA|||||0.0086|-0.0454|0.1824
90966566|NCT02187471|181815033|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.0175|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01378||0.2036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0446|0.0095|||ANCOVA|||||0.0095|-0.0446|0.2036
90966567|NCT02187471|181815034|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.162||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.24|-0.87|0.0006
90966568|NCT02187471|181815034|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.57|-1.20|<0.0001
90966569|NCT02187471|181815034|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.161|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|-0.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.63|-1.27|<0.0001
90966570|NCT02187471|181815034|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.162||0.0158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.71|0.07|0.0158
90966571|NCT02187471|181815034|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.161||0.6819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.38|-0.25|0.6819
90966572|NCT02187471|181815036|SUPERIORITY||Difference of least squares means|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||Worst pain: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||-0.4|-1.2|<0.0001
90966573|NCT02187471|181815036|SUPERIORITY||Difference of least squares means|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.2005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Worst pain: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.1|-0.6|0.2005
90966574|NCT02187471|181815036|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||Worst pain: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||-0.3|-1.0|0.0010
90966575|NCT02187471|181815036|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.0|||ANCOVA|||Worst pain: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||1.0|0.2|0.0030
90966576|NCT02187471|181815036|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.3351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Worst pain: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.6|-0.2|0.3351
90966577|NCT02187471|181815036|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||Least pain: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||-0.4|-1.1|<0.0001
90966578|NCT02187471|181815036|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Least pain: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.0|-0.7|0.0782
90966579|NCT02187471|181815036|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||Least pain: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||-0.1|-0.9|0.0068
90966580|NCT02187471|181815036|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Least pain: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.8|0.1|0.0169
90966581|NCT02187471|181815036|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.1481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Least pain: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.6|-0.1|0.1481
90966582|NCT02187471|181815036|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||Average pain: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||-0.4|-1.1|<0.0001
90966583|NCT02187471|181815036|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||Average pain: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||-0.1|-0.8|0.0088
90966584|NCT02187471|181815036|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||Average pain: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||-0.3|-0.9|0.0005
90966585|NCT02187471|181815036|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Average pain: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.7|-0.0|0.0627
90966586|NCT02187471|181815036|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.3064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Average pain: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.5|-0.2|0.3064
90966587|NCT02187471|181815036|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||Pain right now: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||-0.4|-1.2|<0.0001
90966588|NCT02187471|181815036|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares mean|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Pain right now: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.0|-0.7|0.0868
90966589|NCT02187471|181815036|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||Pain right now: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||-0.3|-1.1|0.0004
90966590|NCT02187471|181815036|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Pain right now: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.8|0.1|0.0271
90966591|NCT02187471|181815036|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.6838|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Pain right now: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.5|-0.3|0.6838
90966592|NCT02187471|181815036|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.791|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.172|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.129|-0.454|||ANCOVA|||Severity score: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||-0.454|-1.129|<0.0001
90929111|NCT02307682|181737963|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|5.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 16||5.5|-6.3|
90929112|NCT02307682|181737963|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|6.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 16||6.4|-6.2|
90929113|NCT02307682|181737963|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|2.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 20||2.0|-10.4|
90929114|NCT02307682|181737963|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|2.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 20||2.8|-9.4|
90929115|NCT02307682|181737963|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|6.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 24||6.9|-4.6|
90929116|NCT02307682|181737963|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|5.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 24||5.7|-6.6|
90929117|NCT02307682|181737963|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|5.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 28||5.7|-6.5|
90929118|NCT02307682|181737963|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|7.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 28||7.4|-4.9|
90929119|NCT02307682|181737963|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|7.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 32||7.5|-3.9|
90929120|NCT02307682|181737963|OTHER||Difference in proportions|5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|11.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 32||11.5|-1.0|
90929121|NCT02307682|181737963|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|3.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 36||3.4|-8.5|
90929122|NCT02307682|181737963|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|6.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 36||6.4|-6.0|
90929123|NCT02307682|181737963|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|6.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 40||6.4|-5.2|
90966593|NCT02187471|181815036|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1718||0.0552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.667|0.007|||ANCOVA|||Severity score: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.007|-0.667|0.0552
90966594|NCT02187471|181815036|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.612|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1718||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.275|||ANCOVA|||Severity score: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||-0.275|-0.950|0.0004
90929124|NCT02307682|181737963|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|5.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 40||5.0|-7.4|
90929125|NCT02307682|181737963|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|3.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 44||3.5|-8.8|
90929126|NCT02307682|181737963|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|4.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 44||4.2|-8.4|
90929127|NCT02307682|181737963|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|2.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 48||2.3|-9.5|
90929128|NCT02307682|181737963|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|3.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 48||3.6|-8.6|
90929129|NCT02307682|181737963|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|3.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 52||3.2|-8.8|
90929130|NCT02307682|181737963|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|6.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 52||6.1|-6.8|
90929131|NCT02307682|181737963|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|6.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 56||6.1|-5.9|
90929132|NCT02307682|181737963|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|6.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 56||6.0|-6.6|
90929133|NCT02307682|181737963|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|6.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 60||6.4|-5.7|
90929134|NCT02307682|181737963|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|3.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 60||3.1|-9.0|
90929135|NCT02307682|181737963|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|5.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 64||5.5|-7.2|
90966595|NCT02187471|181815036|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.462|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1729||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.122|0.801|||ANCOVA|||Severity score: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.801|0.122|0.0077
90929136|NCT02307682|181737963|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|5.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 64||5.7|-6.6|
90929137|NCT02307682|181737963|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|8.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 68||8.3|-4.3|
90929138|NCT02307682|181737963|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|6.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 68||6.1|-6.3|
90929139|NCT02307682|181737963|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|5.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 72||5.6|-7.2|
90966596|NCT02187471|181815036|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.179|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.173||0.3014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.161|0.518|||ANCOVA|||Severity score: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.518|-0.161|0.3014
90966597|NCT02187471|181815036|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|9.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|14.3|||ANCOVA|||Relief (%) by treatment of pain: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||14.3|4.9|<0.0001
90929140|NCT02307682|181737963|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|4.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 72||4.3|-8.5|
90929141|NCT02307682|181737963|OTHER||Difference in proportions|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|10.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 76||10.2|-2.4|
90929142|NCT02307682|181737963|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|7.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 76||7.8|-5.1|
90929143|NCT02307682|181737963|OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|9.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 80||9.6|-2.5|
90929144|NCT02307682|181737963|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|9.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 80||9.0|-3.5|
90929145|NCT02307682|181737963|OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|9.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 84||9.0|-3.0|
90929146|NCT02307682|181737963|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|6.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 84||6.4|-5.8|
90929147|NCT02307682|181737963|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|6.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 88||6.5|-6.6|
90929148|NCT02307682|181737963|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|6.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 88||6.1|-6.0|
90929149|NCT02307682|181737963|OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|9.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 92||9.5|-2.8|
90929150|NCT02307682|181737963|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|8.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 92||8.0|-4.3|
90929151|NCT02307682|181737963|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|7.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 96||7.8|-4.7|
90929152|NCT02307682|181737963|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|9.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 96||9.0|-3.8|
90929153|NCT02307682|181737964|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.2|8.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 4||8.4|-24.2|
90929154|NCT02307682|181737964|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-16.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.86|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.9|-1.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 4||-1.1|-31.9|
90929155|NCT02307682|181737964|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-13.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.51|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.4|3.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 8||3.0|-30.4|
90929156|NCT02307682|181737964|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-19.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.0|-2.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 8||-2.9|-35.0|
90929157|NCT02307682|181737964|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-19.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.45|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.3|-3.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 12||-3.1|-36.3|
90929158|NCT02307682|181737964|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-24.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.24|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.7|-8.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 12||-8.3|-40.7|
90929159|NCT02307682|181737964|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-19.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.24||0.0159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.0|-1.7||1-sided testing for superiority of brolucizumab 3 mg versus aflibercept 2 mg|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 16||-1.7|-38.0|0.0159
90929160|NCT02307682|181737964|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-27.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.8||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.1|-10.5||1-sided testing for superiority of brolucizumab 6 mg versus aflibercept 2 mg|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 16||-10.5|-45.1|0.0008
90929161|NCT02307682|181737964|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.69|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|22.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 20||22.3|-11.8|
90929162|NCT02307682|181737964|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|20.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 20||20.5|-14.1|
90929163|NCT02307682|181737964|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-25.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.44|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.3|-7.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 24||-7.2|-44.3|
90929164|NCT02307682|181737964|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-29.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.5|-11.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 24||-11.6|-47.5|
90929165|NCT02307682|181737964|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-11.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.96|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.2|5.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 28||5.9|-29.2|
90929166|NCT02307682|181737964|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-12.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.8|5.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 28||5.5|-29.8|
90929167|NCT02307682|181737964|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-20.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.91|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.6|-0.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 32||-0.7|-39.6|
90929168|NCT02307682|181737964|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-23.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.64|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.1|-4.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 32||-4.2|-42.1|
90929169|NCT02307682|181737964|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-17.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.24|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.5|0.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 36||0.7|-35.5|
90929170|NCT02307682|181737964|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-19.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.6|-1.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 36||-1.7|-37.6|
90966598|NCT02187471|181815036|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|8.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.39||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|13.2|||ANCOVA|||Relief (%) by treatment of pain: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||13.2|3.8|0.0004
90966599|NCT02187471|181815036|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|10.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.39|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|15.1|||ANCOVA|||Relief (%) by treatment of pain: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||15.1|5.7|<0.0001
90966600|NCT02187471|181815036|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.41||0.6449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|3.6|||ANCOVA|||Relief (%) by treatment of pain: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||3.6|-5.8|0.6449
90966601|NCT02187471|181815036|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square means|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.41||0.734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|5.5|||ANCOVA|||Relief (%) by treatment of pain: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||5.5|-3.9|0.7340
90966602|NCT02187471|181815037|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0225||0.4816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.028|||ANCOVA|||||0.028|-0.060|0.4816
90966603|NCT02187471|181815037|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square means|-0.064|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0225||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.109|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||||-0.020|-.109|0.0044
90966604|NCT02187471|181815037|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.074|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0226||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.119|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||||-0.030|-0.119|0.0010
90966605|NCT02187471|181815037|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.059|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0226||0.0094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.014|0.103|||ANCOVA|||||0.103|0.014|0.0094
90966606|NCT02187471|181815037|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0226||0.6527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.034|0.055|||ANCOVA|||||0.055|-0.034|0.6527
90966607|NCT01206062|181815038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.89|||Regression, Cox|||||0.89|0.64|<0.001
90966608|NCT01206062|181815039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.9|||Regression, Cox|||||0.90|0.60|0.003
90966609|NCT01206062|181815040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.83|||Regression, Cox|||||1.83|0.34|0.58
90966610|NCT01206062|181815042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.04|||Regression, Cox|||||1.04|0.67|.10
90966611|NCT02318667|181815051|OTHER|||||||0.0074|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0074
90966612|NCT02318667|181815052|OTHER|||||||0.1506|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1506
90966613|NCT01101438|181815080|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.21|||Log Rank|||||1.21|0.84|0.93
90966614|NCT01101438|181815081|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.17|||Log Rank|||||1.17|0.87|0.94
90966615|NCT01101438|181815082|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.24|||Log Rank|||||1.24|0.83|0.88
90966616|NCT00709111|181815107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97||||||The p-value is one-sided with a nominal level of 0.05.|Wilcoxon signed-rank, 1-sided|||The change in CD4+ T-cell count from baseline to week 24 was compared against the null hypothesis of change \<20 cells/mm\^3. The study was powered to yield 80% power to show that there was \>=20 cells/mm\^3 increase in CD4+ T-cell count assuming an underlying change in CD4+ T-cell counts induced by MVC of 50 cells/mm\^3, a standard deviation of 60 cells/mm\^3 around the mean CD4+ T-cell count change, 10% lost-to-follow-up or premature MVC discontinuation rate, and one-sided type 1 error of 0.05.||||0.97
90966617|NCT01735279|181815151|OTHER|Test t Student|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
90966618|NCT01735279|181815151|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|30.84|||<|0.01|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
90966619|NCT01735279|181815151|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.002|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.01
90966620|NCT01735279|181815151|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.4|||<|0.01|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.01
90966621|NCT00806195|181815152|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis associated with the safety objective was that the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI for this difference in the proportion of subjects experiencing at least one severe systemic reaction during the first 7 days after any vaccination (PMenACWY+Routine Vaccines-PRoutine Vaccines) was ≥ 6%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|6.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||MenACWY-CRM 197 administered concomitantly with routine vaccines was considered noninferior to routine vaccines alone with respect to severe systemic reactions if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference (MenACWY-CRM197 vaccine plus routine vaccines group minus routine vaccines only group) in the proportion of subjects experiencing at least one severe systemic reaction during the first 7 days (days 1-7) after any vaccination was \<6%.||6.4|-0.8|
90966622|NCT00806195|181815153|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis associated with the SAE safety objective was that the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference between the MenACWY and routine vaccine groups in the proportion of subjects experiencing at least one SAE (PMenACWY + Routine Vaccines - PRoutine Vaccines) was ≥5%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||MenACWY-CRM 197 administered concomitantly with routine vaccines was considered non inferior to routine vaccines alone with respect to serious adverse events if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference (MenACWY vaccine plus routine vaccines group minus routine vaccines only group) of the proportion of subjects experiencing at least one serious adverse event was \<5%.||1.5|-0.9|
90966623|NCT00806195|181815153|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis associated with the SAE safety objective was that the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference between the MenACWY and routine vaccine groups in the proportion of subjects experiencing at least one SAE (PMenACWY + Routine Vaccines - PRoutine Vaccines) was \<5%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||MenACWY-CRM 197 administered concomitantly with routine vaccines was considered non inferior to routine vaccines alone with respect to serious adverse events if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference (MenACWY vaccine plus routine vaccines group minus routine vaccines only group) of the proportion of subjects experiencing at least one serious adverse event was \<5%.||1.3|-0.8|
90966624|NCT03634397|181815158|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.73|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.31|9.14||P-values include adjustment for age, female sex, and hemisphere of brain affected by stroke.|Regression, Linear||The delta values of the outcome from baseline 2 to post-treatment 1 were directly modeled using linear regression with adjustment for age, female sex, and the hemisphere affected by the stroke.|||9.14|2.31|<.05
90929171|NCT02307682|181737964|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-27.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.83|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.6|-8.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 40||-8.0|-46.6|
90929172|NCT02307682|181737964|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-29.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.2|-10.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 40||-10.9|-48.2|
90929173|NCT02307682|181737964|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.27|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.5|8.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 44||8.9|-27.5|
90929174|NCT02307682|181737964|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-11.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.64|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.3|7.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 44||7.5|-30.3|
90929175|NCT02307682|181737964|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-23.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.79||0.0075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.1|-4.6||1-sided testing for superiority of brolucizumab 3 mg versus aflibercept 2 mg|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 48||-4.6|-43.1|0.0075
90929176|NCT02307682|181737964|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-29.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.47||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.6|-10.4||1-sided testing for superiority of brolucizumab 6 mg versus aflibercept 2 mg|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 48||-10.4|-47.6|0.0012
90929177|NCT02307682|181737964|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-15.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.17|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.6|2.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 52||2.4|-33.6|
90929178|NCT02307682|181737964|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-15.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.35|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.4|3.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 52||3.3|-33.4|
90929179|NCT02307682|181737964|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-20.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.62|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.9|-1.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 56||-1.1|-38.9|
90929180|NCT02307682|181737964|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-20.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.86|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.4|-0.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 56||-0.7|-39.4|
90929181|NCT02307682|181737964|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-18.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.0|-0.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 60||-0.5|-37.0|
90929182|NCT02307682|181737964|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-12.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.56|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.4|6.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 60||6.1|-31.4|
90929183|NCT02307682|181737964|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-27.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.96|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.7|-7.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 64||-7.6|-46.7|
90929184|NCT02307682|181737964|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-22.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.73|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.6|-3.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 64||-3.4|-41.6|
90929185|NCT02307682|181737964|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-14.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.8|3.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 68||3.9|-33.8|
90929186|NCT02307682|181737964|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-13.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.88|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.6|6.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 68||6.2|-32.6|
90929187|NCT02307682|181737964|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-29.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.89|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.3|-10.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 72||-10.5|-49.3|
90929188|NCT02307682|181737964|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-26.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.99|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.0|-6.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 72||-6.8|-46.0|
90971279|NCT04311502|181825271|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.41|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.58|||exact unconditional||Arm 1 - Arm 2|Proportion of Participants with Worst Changes in QTcF from Screening \>= 30 ms over visits at Weeks 2, 8, 13||0.58|0.17|<0.01
90929189|NCT02307682|181737964|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-19.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.62|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.2|-0.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 76||-0.4|-38.2|
90929190|NCT02307682|181737964|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-15.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.84|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.0|3.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 76||3.7|-35.0|
90929191|NCT02307682|181737964|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-24.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.34|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.0|-4.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 80||-4.5|-45.0|
90929192|NCT02307682|181737964|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-23.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.32|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.9|-3.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 80||-3.4|-43.9|
90929193|NCT02307682|181737964|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-19.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.65|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.4|-0.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 84||-0.5|-38.4|
90929194|NCT02307682|181737964|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-11.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.05|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.5|8.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 84||8.0|-31.5|
90929195|NCT02307682|181737964|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-27.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.3|-7.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 88||-7.4|-47.3|
90929196|NCT02307682|181737964|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-24.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.22|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.3|-4.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 88||-4.2|-44.3|
90929197|NCT02307682|181737964|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-15.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.2|3.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 92||3.9|-34.2|
90929198|NCT02307682|181737964|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-12.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.99|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.1|7.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 92||7.1|-32.1|
90929199|NCT02307682|181737964|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-30.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.6|-11.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 96||-11.3|-50.6|
90929200|NCT02307682|181737964|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-26.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.28|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.2|-5.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 96||-5.9|-46.2|
90966625|NCT03634397|181815160|OTHER|P-values include adjustment for age, female sex, and hemisphere of brain affected by stroke.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.83|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.58|4.24||P-values include adjustment for age, female sex, and hemisphere of brain affected by stroke.|Regression, Linear|P-values include adjustment for age, female sex, and hemisphere of brain affected by stroke.||||4.24|-2.58|<.05
90966626|NCT03634397|181815161|OTHER|P-values include adjustment for age, female sex, and hemisphere of brain affected by stroke.|Median Difference (Final Values)|1.12|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|4.53||P-values include adjustment for age, female sex, and hemisphere of brain affected by stroke.|Regression, Linear|P-values include adjustment for age, female sex, and hemisphere of brain affected by stroke.|P-values include adjustment for age, female sex, and hemisphere of brain affected by stroke.|||4.53|-2.29|<.05
90966627|NCT03901105|181815172|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.36||||0.0313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.028|1.785||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05.|log linear model|Adjusted for treatment arm (lanabecestat 20 mg, 50 mg, or placebo), baseline age, years of education (categorical), and baseline CDR-SB score.|τAD++ scans represent the numerator for risk, and τAD+/τAD- scans represent the denominator|Scan results were grouped into τAD++ vs. non-τAD++ (τAD+ and τAD-) for the analysis||1.785|1.028|0.0313
90966628|NCT03901105|181815173|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.35||||0.0833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.962|1.886||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|log linear model|Adjusted for treatment arm (lanabecestat 20 mg, 50 mg, or placebo), baseline age, years of education (categorical), and baseline score.|τAD++ scans represent the numerator for risk, and τAD+/τAD- scans represent the denominator|Risk ratio for MMSE CMD. Scan results were grouped into τAD++ vs. non-τAD++ (τAD+ and τAD-) for the analysis||1.886|0.962|.0833
90971280|NCT04311502|181825272|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.23||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|1.8||One-sided p-value|Regression, Cox|Adjusted for HIV status (positive/negative) and TB disease according to chest X-ray (advanced/not advanced)|Arm 1 vs. Arm 2|||1.80|0.84|0.18
90929201|NCT02307682|181737965|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-19.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.29||0.0183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.7|-1.2||1-sided testing for superiority of brolucizumab 3 mg versus aflibercept 2 mg|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|||-1.2|-37.7|0.0183
90929202|NCT02307682|181737965|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-22.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.19||0.0075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.4|-4.4||1-sided testing for superiority of brolucizumab 6 mg versus aflibercept 2 mg|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|||-4.4|-40.4|0.0075
90929203|NCT02307682|181737966|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-23.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.76|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.4|-4.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|||-4.1|-42.4|
90929204|NCT02307682|181737966|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-18.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.3|1.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|||1.0|-38.3|
90929205|NCT02307682|181737967|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-16.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.6|0.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 4 to Week 48||0.7|-32.6|
90929206|NCT02307682|181737967|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-19.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.45|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.5|-3.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 4 to Week 48||-3.3|-36.5|
90929207|NCT02307682|181737967|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-18.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.87|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.4|-1.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 4 to Week 96||-1.5|-36.4|
90929208|NCT02307682|181737967|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-19.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.93|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.9|-1.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 4 to Week 96||-1.8|-36.9|
90929209|NCT02307682|181737968|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline lesion size categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 12||0.1|-0.8|
90929210|NCT02307682|181737968|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline lesion size categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 12||-0.2|-1.0|
90929211|NCT02307682|181737968|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline lesion size categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 48||-0.2|-1.1|
90929212|NCT02307682|181737968|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline lesion size categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 48||0.0|-0.9|
90929213|NCT02307682|181737968|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline lesion size categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 96||-0.3|-1.3|
90929214|NCT02307682|181737968|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline lesion size categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 96||-0.3|-1.1|
90929215|NCT02307682|181737969|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.31|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|17.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 4||17.5|-3.3|
90929216|NCT02307682|181737969|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.37|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|10.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 4||10.9|-10.2|
90929217|NCT02307682|181737969|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.35|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|12.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 8||12.6|-8.4|
90929218|NCT02307682|181737969|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.52|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|9.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 8||9.2|-12.5|
90929219|NCT02307682|181737969|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.38|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|10.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 12||10.0|-11.2|
90966629|NCT03901105|181815173|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.77||||0.0141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.122|2.796||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|log linear model|Adjusted for treatment arm (lanabecestat 20 mg, 50 mg, or placebo), baseline age, years of education (categorical), and baseline score.|τAD++ scans represent the numerator for risk, and τAD+/τAD- scans represent the denominator|Risk ratio for ADAS-Cog11 CMD. Scan results were grouped into τAD++ vs. non-τAD++ (τAD+ and τAD-) for the analysis||2.796|1.122|.0141
90966630|NCT03901105|181815173|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.32||||0.0639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.984|1.776||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|log linear model|Adjusted for treatment arm (lanabecestat 20 mg, 50 mg, or placebo), baseline age, years of education (categorical), and baseline score.|τAD++ scans represent the numerator for risk, and τAD+/τAD- scans represent the denominator|Risk ratio for FAQ CMD. Scan results were grouped into τAD++ vs. non-τAD++ (τAD+ and τAD-) for the analysis||1.776|0.984|.0639
90966631|NCT03901105|181815173|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.28||||0.2814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.815|2.02||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|log linear model|Adjusted for treatment arm (lanabecestat 20 mg, 50 mg, or placebo), baseline age, years of education (categorical), and baseline score.|τAD++ scans represent the numerator for risk, and τAD+/τAD- scans represent the denominator|Risk ratio for CDR Global CMD. Scan results were grouped into τAD++ vs. non-τAD++ (τAD+ and τAD-) for the analysis||2.020|0.815|.2814
90966632|NCT03901105|181815174|OTHER|||||||0.0305||||||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline clinical score, age, years of education (categorical), and treatment arm (lanabecestat - 20mg or 50mg - or placebo).||MMRM testing the difference between CDR-SB least squares mean changes of tAD++ and Non-tAD++ (tAD+ and tAD-). The unstructured covariance structure (UN) was used.||||.0305
90966633|NCT03901105|181815174|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline clinical score, age, years of education (categorical), and treatment arm (lanabecestat - 20mg or 50mg - or placebo).||MMRM testing the difference between MMSE least squares mean changes of tAD++ and Non-tAD++ (tAD+ and tAD-). The unstructured covariance structure (UN) was used.||||<0.0001
90966634|NCT03901105|181815174|OTHER|||||||0.0006||||||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline clinical score, age, years of education (categorical), and treatment arm (lanabecestat - 20mg or 50mg - or placebo).||MMRM testing the difference between ADAS-Cog11 least squares mean changes of tAD++ and Non-tAD++ (tAD+ and tAD-). The unstructured covariance structure (UN) was used.||||0.0006
90966635|NCT03901105|181815174|OTHER|||||||0.0097||||||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline clinical score, age, years of education (categorical), and treatment arm (lanabecestat - 20mg or 50mg - or placebo).||MMRM testing the difference between FAQ least squares mean changes of tAD++ and Non-tAD++ (tAD+ and tAD-). The unstructured covariance structure (UN) was used.||||0.0097
90966636|NCT00922480|181815180|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-Inferiority||||||0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.0001
90966637|NCT00922480|181815181|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-Inferiority||||||0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.0001
90966638|NCT02446314|181815191|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.04|||||||Linear Mixed Model / Baseline Covariate|||||||= .04
90966639|NCT02446314|181815192|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Linear Mixed Model / Baseline Covariate|||||||> .05
90966640|NCT02446314|181815193|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Linear Mixed Model / Baseline Covariate|||||||> .05
90966641|NCT02446314|181815194|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Linear Mixed Model / Baseline Covariate|||||||> .05
90966642|NCT02446314|181815195|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Linear Mixed Model / Baseline Covariate|||||||> .05
90966643|NCT01671111|181815205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was from paired t-test for post treatment timepoint versus baseline.|paired t-test|||||||0.0560
90966644|NCT01671111|181815206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1232|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was from paired t-test for post treatment timepoint versus baseline.|paired t-test|||||||0.1232
90966645|NCT01671111|181815207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1319|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was from paired t-test for post treatment timepoint versus baseline.|paired t-test|||||||0.1319
90966646|NCT01671111|181815208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8061|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was from paired t-test for log-transformed data at post treatment timepoint versus baseline.|paired t-test|||||||0.8061
90966647|NCT01671111|181815209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2297|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was from paired t-test for log-transformed data at post treatment timepoint versus baseline.|paired t-test|||||||0.2297
90966648|NCT01671111|181815210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1248|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was from paired t-test for log-transformed data at post treatment timepoint versus baseline.|paired t-test|||||||0.1248
90966649|NCT01289821|181815238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of Participants|43.9||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|80.0|33.19|55.09|||One-sample exact binomial test|||"Null hypothesis: True probability p of objective tumor response does not exceed p0, p0=0.4. H0: p\<=0.4 One-sided type I error probability of alpha=10%"||55.09|33.19|0.36
90966650|NCT01022242|181815247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8861|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.8861
90966651|NCT02243865|181815248|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6938|||||||ANCOVA|In the analyses the baseline value was used as a covariate in order to adjust for initial differences at treatment start.||||||0.6938
90966652|NCT02243865|181815249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6557|||||||ANCOVA|In the analyses the baseline value was used as a covariate in order to adjust for initial differences at treatment start.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the active treatment and placebo groups in change from baseline in number of migraine days during the 1st month of the three month post treatment investigation duration||||0.6557
90966653|NCT02243865|181815249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.515|||||||ANCOVA|In the analyses the baseline value was used as a covariate in order to adjust for initial differences at treatment start.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the active treatment and placebo groups in change from baseline in number of migraine days during the 2nd month of the three month post treatment investigation duration||||0.515
90929220|NCT02307682|181737969|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.55|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|7.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 12||7.9|-13.9|
90929221|NCT02307682|181737969|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.73|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|11.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 16||11.4|-11.1|
90929222|NCT02307682|181737969|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.76|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.1|6.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 16||6.5|-16.1|
90929223|NCT02307682|181737969|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|9.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.56|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|20.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 20||20.3|-1.6|
90929224|NCT02307682|181737969|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.58|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|18.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 20||18.5|-3.4|
90929225|NCT02307682|181737969|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.68|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|7.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 24||7.6|-14.7|
90929226|NCT02307682|181737969|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.92|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.9|5.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 24||5.3|-17.9|
90929227|NCT02307682|181737969|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.51|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|12.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 28||12.9|-8.8|
90929228|NCT02307682|181737969|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.73|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|13.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 28||13.8|-8.7|
90929229|NCT02307682|181737969|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.73|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|14.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 32||14.1|-8.4|
90929230|NCT02307682|181737969|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.92|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|11.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 32||11.5|-11.7|
90929231|NCT02307682|181737969|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|13.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 36||13.6|-8.8|
90929232|NCT02307682|181737969|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.89|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|10.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 36||10.9|-12.2|
90929233|NCT02307682|181737969|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.71|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|11.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 40||11.7|-10.7|
90929234|NCT02307682|181737969|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.83|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|7.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 40||7.8|-15.0|
90929235|NCT02307682|181737969|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.62|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|15.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 44||15.9|-6.1|
90929236|NCT02307682|181737969|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.87|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|13.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 44||13.1|-10.0|
90971281|NCT04311502|181825273|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|1.71||One-sided p-value|Regression, Cox|||This comparison is adjusting for HIV-1 status (positive/negative) and TB Disease at Screening (Advanced/Not Advanced).||1.71|0.80|0.25
90929237|NCT02307682|181737969|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.76|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|12.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 48||12.1|-10.5|
90929238|NCT02307682|181737969|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.93|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|11.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 48||11.1|-12.2|
90966654|NCT02243865|181815249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3256|||||||ANCOVA|In the analyses the baseline value was used as a covariate in order to adjust for initial differences at treatment start.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the active treatment and placebo groups in change from baseline in number of migraine days during the 3rd month of the three month post treatment investigation duration||||0.3256
90929239|NCT02307682|181737969|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.77|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|13.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 52||13.2|-9.5|
90929240|NCT02307682|181737969|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.04|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|13.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 52||13.1|-10.6|
90929241|NCT02307682|181737969|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.87|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|12.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 56||12.4|-10.6|
90929242|NCT02307682|181737969|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.08|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|13.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 56||13.5|-10.4|
90929243|NCT02307682|181737969|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.89|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|11.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 60||11.2|-11.9|
90929244|NCT02307682|181737969|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.17|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|14.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 60||14.6|-9.7|
90929245|NCT02307682|181737969|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.87|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|11.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 64||11.3|-11.7|
90929246|NCT02307682|181737969|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.09|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|11.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 64||11.7|-12.2|
90929247|NCT02307682|181737969|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.91|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|13.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 68||13.9|-9.3|
90929248|NCT02307682|181737969|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.08|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|14.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 68||14.0|-9.8|
90929249|NCT02307682|181737969|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.91|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|8.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 72||8.7|-14.5|
90971282|NCT04311502|181825274|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.13||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.35|||Fisher Exact|||||0.35|-0.07|0.23
90929250|NCT02307682|181737969|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.06|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|10.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 72||10.1|-13.7|
90929251|NCT02307682|181737969|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.05|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|13.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 76||13.7|-10.0|
90929252|NCT02307682|181737969|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|11.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 76||11.8|-12.2|
90929253|NCT02307682|181737969|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.05|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|14.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 80||14.7|-9.1|
90929254|NCT02307682|181737969|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.01|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|12.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 80||12.3|-11.3|
90929255|NCT02307682|181737969|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.95|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|11.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 84||11.5|-11.9|
90929256|NCT02307682|181737969|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.04|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|11.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 84||11.7|-12.0|
90929257|NCT02307682|181737969|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.86|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|9.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 88||9.8|-13.2|
90929258|NCT02307682|181737969|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|11.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 88||11.0|-12.6|
90929259|NCT02307682|181737969|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.87|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|13.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 92||13.3|-9.8|
90929260|NCT02307682|181737969|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.09|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|12.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 92||12.8|-11.1|
90929261|NCT02307682|181737969|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.91|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.6|7.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 96||7.6|-15.6|
90929262|NCT02307682|181737969|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.07|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.8|8.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 96||8.0|-15.8|
90929263|NCT02307682|181737970|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-9.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|-3.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 4||-3.3|-16.4|
90929264|NCT02307682|181737970|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-14.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.3|-7.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 4||-7.3|-21.3|
90929265|NCT02307682|181737970|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-8.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|-2.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 8||-2.2|-14.6|
90929266|NCT02307682|181737970|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.9|-9.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 8||-9.5|-20.9|
90971283|NCT04311502|181825275|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.05||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.24|||Fisher Exact|||||0.24|-0.11|0.56
90929267|NCT02307682|181737970|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|-2.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 12||-2.4|-13.8|
90929268|NCT02307682|181737970|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-14.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9|-8.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 12||-8.7|-18.9|
90929269|NCT02307682|181737970|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-10.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.8|-3.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 16||-3.7|-16.8|
90929270|NCT02307682|181737970|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-19.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.8|-13.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 16||-13.4|-25.8|
90929271|NCT02307682|181737970|OTHER||Difference in proportions|4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|9.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 20||9.9|-2.0|
90929272|NCT02307682|181737970|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|7.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 20||7.9|-4.3|
90929273|NCT02307682|181737970|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-12.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.1|-6.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 24||-6.0|-19.1|
90929274|NCT02307682|181737970|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-23.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.7|-17.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 24||-17.6|-29.7|
90929275|NCT02307682|181737970|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|3.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 28||3.4|-8.7|
90929276|NCT02307682|181737970|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|0.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 28||0.4|-11.2|
90929277|NCT02307682|181737970|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|-1.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 32||-1.0|-14.3|
90929278|NCT02307682|181737970|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-12.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.3|-6.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 32||-6.2|-19.3|
90929279|NCT02307682|181737970|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-7.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|-2.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 36||-2.2|-13.2|
90929280|NCT02307682|181737970|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-10.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.9|-4.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 36||-4.9|-15.9|
90929281|NCT02307682|181737970|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-5.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|0.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 40||0.9|-11.5|
90929282|NCT02307682|181737970|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-11.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|-5.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 40||-5.6|-17.7|
90929283|NCT02307682|181737970|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|6.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 44||6.7|-5.1|
91035397|NCT03733444|181956713|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|17.6|||||The treatment effect was determined by using estimated least square mean difference between each active treatment group and placebo from the mixed model.|||17.6|-10.4|
90966655|NCT02243865|181815249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4086|||||||ANCOVA|In the analyses the baseline value was used as a covariate in order to adjust for initial differences at treatment start.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the active treatment and placebo groups in change from baseline in number of migraine days during the final four weeks of the three month post treatment investigation duration.||||0.4086
90966656|NCT00074581|181815282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.22|||Regression, Cox||The hazard ratio estimate presented (0.07) is a comparison of the early-ART arm (numerator) to the delayed-ART arm (denominator), thus indicating a 93% lower risk of infection among all linked partner infections, during the entire study.|||0.22|0.02|<0.0001
90966657|NCT00074581|181815283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.53|||Regression, Cox||The hazard ratio estimate presented (0.31) is a comparison of the early-ART arm (numerator) to the delayed-ART arm (denominator), thus indicating a 69% lower risk of infection among all partner infections, during the entire study.|||0.53|0.19|<0.0001
90966658|NCT04376827|181815465|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.7807|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.27|1.41|||log-rank test||Hazard ratio and 80% CI: estimated by Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for baseline UPCR level (\<3 mg/mg and \>=3 mg/mg).|||1.41|0.27|0.7807
90966659|NCT04376827|181815466|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.52||||0.4654|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.62|3.85|||long-rank test||Hazard ratio and 80% CI: estimated by Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for baseline UPCR level (\<3 mg/mg and \>=3 mg/mg).|||3.85|0.62|0.4654
90966660|NCT01798589|181815522|OTHER|Bioequivalence is assessed based on concordance between the 2 allergen using Kappa statistic|Concordance|66.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.6|90.2||||||||90.2|41.6|
90966661|NCT00346073|181815533|NON_INFERIORITY|The primary objective of non-inferiority was met if the lower limit of the 95% confidence intervals (CIs), between the two groups (Boostrix Group - Adacel Group) were greater than or equal to (≥) -10%|Difference in percentage|-0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|0.84||||||The non-inferiority of Boostrix® vaccine compared to Adacel™ vaccine, with respect to the percentage of subjects with anti-diphtheria (anti-D) antibody concentrations greater than or equal to (≥) 0.1 IU/mL, one month after vaccination.||0.84|-1.47|
90966662|NCT00346073|181815533|NON_INFERIORITY|The primary objective of non-inferiority was met if the lower limit of the 95% confidence intervals (CIs), between the two groups (Boostrix Group - Adacel Group) were greater than or equal to (≥) -10%|Difference in percentage|-0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.11||||||The non-inferiority of Boostrix® vaccine compared to Adacel™ vaccine, with respect to the percentage of subjects with anti-tetanus (anti-T) antibody concentrations greater than or equal to (≥) 0.1 IU/mL, one month after vaccination.||0.11|-0.9|
90966663|NCT00346073|181815534|NON_INFERIORITY|The primary objective of non-inferiority was met if the lower limit of the 95% confidence intervals (CIs), between the two groups (Boostrix Group - Adacel Group) were greater than or equal to (≥) -10%|Difference in percentage|-1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.97|0.0||||||The non-inferiority of Boostrix® vaccine compared to Adacel™ vaccine, with respect to the percentage of subjects with anti-tetanus (anti-T) antibody concentrations greater than or equal to (≥) 1.0 IU/mL, one month after vaccination.||0|-1.97|
90966664|NCT00346073|181815536|SUPERIORITY||Booster response|77.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|74.9|79.3||||||"Demonstration that anti-PT booster response occurred in at least 80% of adults receiving a single dose of Boostrix® vaccine, one month after vaccination.~Criterion for evaluation: one month after vaccination, the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the percentage of subjects with a booster response was greater than or equal to (≥) 80%."||79.3|74.9|
91035398|NCT03733444|181956714|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|2.35|||||Hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval originated from a Cox proportional hazards model for time to first all cause hospitalization.|||2.35|1.01|
90966665|NCT00346073|181815536|SUPERIORITY||Booster response|96.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|95.8|97.7||||||"Demonstration that anti-FHA booster response occurred in at least 80% of adults receiving a single dose of Boostrix® vaccine, one month after vaccination.~Criterion for evaluation: one month after vaccination, the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the percentage of subjects with a booster response was greater than or equal to (≥) 80%."||97.7|95.8|
90966666|NCT00346073|181815536|SUPERIORITY||Booster response|93.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.8|94.4||||||"Demonstration that anti-PRN booster response occurred in at least 80% of adults receiving a single dose of Boostrix® vaccine, one month after vaccination.~Criterion for evaluation: one month after vaccination, the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the percentage of subjects with a booster response was greater than or equal to (≥) 80%."||94.4|91.8|
90966667|NCT00980200|181815549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.094|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.049|0.14|||ANCOVA|||||0.140|0.049|<0.001
90966668|NCT00980200|181815549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.095|0.185|||ANCOVA|||||0.185|0.095|<0.001
90966669|NCT00980200|181815549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.102|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.057|0.147|||ANCOVA|||||0.147|0.057|<0.001
90966670|NCT00980200|181815549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.125|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.17|||ANCOVA|||||0.170|0.080|<0.001
90966671|NCT00139776|181815610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANOVA|Treatment as fixed effect||"Null hypothesis for primary outcome is that there is no difference in the number of flares observed between the 2 treatment arms of celecoxib 200mg continuous use and celecoxib 200mg intermittent use.~Sample size calculation: Sufficient number of participants were randomized to provide at least 80% power to detect an estimated effect size of 0.2 using a 2-sided t-test at a 0.05 significant level."||||<0.0001
91035399|NCT03733444|181956714|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|2.16|||||Hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval originated from a Cox proportional hazards model for time to all cause hospitalization.|||2.16|0.91|
90966672|NCT00139776|181815611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Log Rank|||Kaplan-Meier analysis||||<0.0001
90966673|NCT00139776|181815612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANOVA|Treatment as fixed effect||||||<0.0001
90966674|NCT00139776|181815613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANOVA|Treatment as fixed effect||||||<0.0001
90966675|NCT00139776|181815614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||Week 4||||<0.001
90966676|NCT00139776|181815614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||Week 8||||<0.001
90966677|NCT00139776|181815614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||Week 12||||<0.001
90966678|NCT00139776|181815614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.003||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||Week 16||||0.003
90966679|NCT00139776|181815614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.022||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||Week 20||||0.022
90966680|NCT00139776|181815614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.047||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||Week 24||||0.047
90966681|NCT00139776|181815615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||Week 4||||<0.001
90966682|NCT00139776|181815615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||Week 8||||0.001
90966683|NCT00139776|181815615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.096||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||Week 12||||0.096
90966684|NCT00139776|181815615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.338||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||Week 16||||0.338
90966685|NCT00139776|181815615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.832||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||Week 20||||0.832
90966686|NCT00139776|181815615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.972||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||Week 24||||0.972
90966687|NCT00139776|181815616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0046||95.0||||Overall p-value Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Test of row mean score differences based on modified ridits (standardizing the mid-rank)||||||0.0046
90966688|NCT00139776|181815617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0102||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANOVA|Treatment as fixed effect||||||0.0102
90966689|NCT00139776|181815618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0012||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANOVA|Treatment as fixed effect||||||0.0012
90966690|NCT00139776|181815619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANOVA|Treatment as fixed effect||||||<0.0001
90966691|NCT00139776|181815620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||Total WOMAC score||||<0.001
90966692|NCT00139776|181815620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||||95.0|0.21|2.99|||||Change in LSmean (score at end of Period III minus score at start of Period III)|Total WOMAC score - Continuous use||2.99|0.21|
90966693|NCT00139776|181815620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||||95.0|3.6|6.38|||||Change in LSmean (score at end of Period III minus score at start of Period III)|Total WOMAC score - Intermittent use||6.38|3.60|
90966694|NCT00139776|181815620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||WOMAC pain subscale||||<0.001
90966695|NCT00139776|181815620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||||95.0|0.06|0.67|||||Change in LSmean (score at end of Period III minus score at start of Period III)|WOMAC pain subscale - Continuous use||0.67|0.06|
90966696|NCT00139776|181815620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||||95.0|0.88|1.49|||||Change in LSmean (score at end of Period III minus score at start of Period III)|WOMAC pain subscale - Intermittent use||1.49|0.88|
90966697|NCT00139776|181815620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||WOMAC stiffness subscale||||0.004
90966698|NCT00139776|181815620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||||95.0|-0.02|0.25|||||Change in LSmean (score at end of Period III minus score at start of Period III)|WOMAC stiffness subscale - Continuous use||0.25|-0.02|
90966699|NCT00139776|181815620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||||95.0|0.26|0.53|||||Change in LSmean (score at end of Period III minus score at start of Period III)|WOMAC stiffness subscale - Intermittent use||0.53|0.26|
90929284|NCT02307682|181737970|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|2.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 44||2.4|-8.7|
90929285|NCT02307682|181737970|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-11.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|-5.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 48||-5.5|-17.8|
90929286|NCT02307682|181737970|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-15.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.2|-9.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 48||-9.7|-21.2|
90929287|NCT02307682|181737970|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|3.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 52||3.0|-8.0|
90929288|NCT02307682|181737970|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-8.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|-3.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 52||-3.4|-13.7|
90929289|NCT02307682|181737970|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-6.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|-0.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 56||-0.7|-12.6|
90929290|NCT02307682|181737970|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-9.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|-3.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 56||-3.8|-16.0|
90929291|NCT02307682|181737970|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|0.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 60||0.7|-9.9|
90929292|NCT02307682|181737970|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-8.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|-3.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 60||-3.4|-13.9|
90929293|NCT02307682|181737970|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-7.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|-1.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 64||-1.2|-13.1|
90929294|NCT02307682|181737970|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|-6.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 64||-6.0|-17.8|
90929295|NCT02307682|181737970|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|8.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 68||8.4|-2.5|
90929296|NCT02307682|181737970|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|3.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 68||3.7|-6.7|
90929297|NCT02307682|181737970|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-7.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|-1.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 72||-1.6|-12.8|
90929298|NCT02307682|181737970|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-12.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.2|-7.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 72||-7.0|-18.2|
90929299|NCT02307682|181737970|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|4.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 76||4.5|-7.0|
90929300|NCT02307682|181737970|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|-0.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 76||-0.7|-11.4|
90929301|NCT02307682|181737970|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-6.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|-0.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 80||-0.1|-11.8|
90929302|NCT02307682|181737970|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-11.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|-6.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 80||-6.4|-17.0|
90929303|NCT02307682|181737970|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|0.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 84||0.1|-10.1|
90929304|NCT02307682|181737970|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|0.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 84||-0.0|-10.0|
90929305|NCT02307682|181737970|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|0.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 88||0.5|-11.7|
90929306|NCT02307682|181737970|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-11.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|-6.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 88||-6.3|-17.3|
90929307|NCT02307682|181737970|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|6.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 92||6.5|-4.0|
90929308|NCT02307682|181737970|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|-0.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 92||-0.3|-9.7|
90929309|NCT02307682|181737970|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|-0.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 96||-0.1|-11.4|
90929310|NCT02307682|181737970|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-11.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|-6.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 96||-6.2|-16.4|
90929311|NCT02307682|181737971|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|3.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 4||3.6|-7.9|
90929312|NCT02307682|181737971|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|7.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 4||7.4|-4.1|
90929313|NCT02307682|181737971|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|1.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 8||1.3|-10.0|
90929314|NCT02307682|181737971|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|4.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 8||4.5|-7.7|
90929315|NCT02307682|181737971|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|2.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 12||2.3|-7.6|
90929316|NCT02307682|181737971|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|5.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 12||5.8|-5.4|
90929317|NCT02307682|181737971|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|3.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 16||3.6|-8.3|
90966700|NCT00139776|181815620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||WOMAC physical function subscale||||0.002
90966701|NCT00139776|181815620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||||95.0|0.13|2.14|||||Change in LSmean (score at end of Period III minus score at start of Period III)|WOMAC physical function subscale - Continuous use||2.14|0.13|
90966702|NCT00139776|181815620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||||95.0|2.42|4.43|||||Change in LSmean (score at end of Period III minus score at start of Period III)|WOMAC physical function subscale - Intermittent use||4.43|2.42|
90929318|NCT02307682|181737971|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|1.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 16||1.9|-10.0|
90966703|NCT00139776|181815621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2712||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||Sleep disturbance||||0.2712
90966704|NCT00139776|181815621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8737||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||Snoring||||0.8737
90966705|NCT00139776|181815621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7703||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||Awaken short of breath||||0.7703
90966706|NCT00139776|181815621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3769||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||Quantity of sleep||||0.3769
90966707|NCT00139776|181815621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4075||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||Sleep adequacy||||0.4075
90929319|NCT02307682|181737971|OTHER||Difference in proportions|10.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|16.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 20||16.2|5.0|
90966708|NCT00139776|181815621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5854||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||Somnolence||||0.5854
90966709|NCT00139776|181815621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8358||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||Sleep problems index I||||0.8358
90966710|NCT00139776|181815621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5878||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||Sleep problems index II||||0.5878
90966711|NCT00139776|181815622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||WOMAC total score||||<0.001
90966712|NCT00139776|181815622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||WOMAC pain subscale||||<0.001
90966713|NCT00139776|181815622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||WOMAC stiffness subscale||||<0.001
90966714|NCT00139776|181815622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||WOMAC physical function subscale||||<0.001
90966715|NCT00139776|181815623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1437||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|by general association||Analysis across all 3 sleep scores for Period III||||0.1437
90966716|NCT00139776|181815624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||Physical function||||<0.0001
90966717|NCT00139776|181815624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||Role physical||||<0.0001
90966718|NCT00139776|181815624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||Bodily pain||||<0.0001
90966719|NCT00139776|181815624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3097||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||General health||||0.3097
90966720|NCT00139776|181815624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0139||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||Vitality||||0.0139
90929320|NCT02307682|181737971|OTHER||Difference in proportions|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|15.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 20||15.4|4.7|
90929321|NCT02307682|181737971|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|1.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 24||1.7|-9.8|
90929322|NCT02307682|181737971|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|-3.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 24||-3.0|-14.9|
90929323|NCT02307682|181737971|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|8.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 28||8.4|-2.1|
90929324|NCT02307682|181737971|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|5.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 28||5.1|-6.3|
90929325|NCT02307682|181737971|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|6.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 32||6.1|-5.8|
90929326|NCT02307682|181737971|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|3.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 32||3.5|-8.4|
90929327|NCT02307682|181737971|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|4.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 36||4.4|-6.4|
90929328|NCT02307682|181737971|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|3.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 36||3.0|-7.8|
90929329|NCT02307682|181737971|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|1.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 40||1.7|-9.6|
90929330|NCT02307682|181737971|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|1.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 40||1.9|-10.2|
90929331|NCT02307682|181737971|OTHER||Difference in proportions|4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|9.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 44||9.9|-1.0|
90929332|NCT02307682|181737971|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|7.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 44||7.5|-3.3|
90929333|NCT02307682|181737971|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|5.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 48||5.1|-6.2|
90966721|NCT00139776|181815624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1303||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||Social functioning||||0.1303
90966722|NCT00139776|181815624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1404||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||Role emotional||||0.1404
90966723|NCT00139776|181815624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4015||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||Mental health||||0.4015
90966724|NCT00139776|181815624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||Physical component summary||||<0.0001
90966725|NCT00139776|181815624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0301||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||Mental component summary||||0.0301
90929334|NCT02307682|181737971|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|5.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 48||5.5|-6.4|
90929335|NCT02307682|181737971|OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|8.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 52||8.7|-2.2|
90929336|NCT02307682|181737971|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|7.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 52||7.4|-3.2|
90929337|NCT02307682|181737971|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|8.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 56||8.1|-3.5|
90929338|NCT02307682|181737971|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|5.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 56||5.8|-5.8|
90929339|NCT02307682|181737971|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|3.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 60||3.8|-6.6|
90929340|NCT02307682|181737971|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|5.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 60||5.1|-5.8|
90929341|NCT02307682|181737971|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|5.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 64||5.1|-6.4|
90929342|NCT02307682|181737971|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|2.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 64||2.6|-8.7|
90929343|NCT02307682|181737971|OTHER||Difference in proportions|5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|10.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 68||10.7|0.3|
90929344|NCT02307682|181737971|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|7.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 68||7.2|-3.2|
90929345|NCT02307682|181737971|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|4.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 72||4.7|-6.1|
90929346|NCT02307682|181737971|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|1.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 72||1.9|-9.0|
90929347|NCT02307682|181737971|OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|8.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 76||8.1|-1.9|
90966726|NCT04223843|181815636|OTHER||Difference of adjusted means|0.336|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.246|0.425|||ANCOVA|Model included fixed categorical effects of treatment and the fixed continous effect of baseline FEV1 AUC0-3.|Difference = (Tio+Olo) - (Placebo)|H0: There is no difference in the mean FEV1 AUC0-3 change from baseline between Tio+Olo and matching placebo.||0.425|0.246|<0.0001
90929348|NCT02307682|181737971|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|6.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 76||6.4|-3.9|
90929349|NCT02307682|181737971|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|6.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 80||6.6|-4.7|
90929350|NCT02307682|181737971|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|6.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 80||6.1|-5.2|
90929351|NCT02307682|181737971|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|7.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 84||7.3|-3.3|
90929352|NCT02307682|181737971|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|4.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 84||4.8|-5.7|
90929353|NCT02307682|181737971|OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|9.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 88||9.7|-1.7|
90929354|NCT02307682|181737971|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|5.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 88||5.6|-5.3|
90929355|NCT02307682|181737971|OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|8.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 92||8.9|-1.3|
90929356|NCT02307682|181737971|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|6.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 92||6.0|-4.3|
90929357|NCT02307682|181737971|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|5.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 96||5.2|-6.4|
90929358|NCT02307682|181737971|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|0.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 96||0.9|-10.8|
90929359|NCT02307682|181737972|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|3.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 4||3.6|-7.7|
90929360|NCT02307682|181737972|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|0.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 4||0.4|-11.4|
90929361|NCT02307682|181737972|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|1.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 8||1.2|-9.3|
90929362|NCT02307682|181737972|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|1.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 8||1.2|-9.8|
90929363|NCT02307682|181737972|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|-1.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 12||-1.5|-11.5|
91035400|NCT03733444|181956717|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|8.14|||||Hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval originated from a Cox proportional hazards model for time to first acute IPF exacerbation.|||8.14|1.04|
90929364|NCT02307682|181737972|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-7.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|-2.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 12||-2.3|-12.8|
90929365|NCT02307682|181737972|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|-1.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 16||-1.1|-11.8|
90929366|NCT02307682|181737972|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-8.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|-2.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 16||-2.9|-14.4|
90929367|NCT02307682|181737972|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|8.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 20||8.3|-2.8|
90929368|NCT02307682|181737972|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|7.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 20||7.5|-3.4|
90929369|NCT02307682|181737972|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|0.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 24||0.9|-9.7|
90929370|NCT02307682|181737972|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|-1.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 24||-1.3|-12.3|
90929371|NCT02307682|181737972|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|6.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 28||6.2|-4.2|
90929372|NCT02307682|181737972|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|1.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 28||1.7|-8.4|
91035401|NCT03733444|181956717|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|5.13|||||Hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval originated from a Cox proportional hazards model for time to first acute IPF exacerbation.|||5.13|0.55|
90929373|NCT02307682|181737972|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|5.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 32||5.2|-6.2|
90929374|NCT02307682|181737972|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|3.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 32||3.4|-7.5|
90929375|NCT02307682|181737972|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|0.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 36||0.7|-9.5|
90929376|NCT02307682|181737972|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|-0.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 36||-0.6|-10.6|
90929377|NCT02307682|181737972|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|1.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 40||1.3|-10.2|
90929378|NCT02307682|181737972|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|-0.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 40||-0.8|-12.2|
90929379|NCT02307682|181737972|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|4.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 44||4.3|-6.6|
91035402|NCT03733444|181956718|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|4.82|||||Hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval originated from a Cox proportional hazards model for time to first all cause mortality or hospitalization for non-elective lung transplant.|||4.82|1.06|
91035403|NCT03733444|181956718|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|4.06|||||Hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval originated from a Cox proportional hazards model for time to first all cause mortality or hospitalization for non-elective lung transplant.|||4.06|0.86|
90929380|NCT02307682|181737972|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|0.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 44||0.1|-10.0|
90929381|NCT02307682|181737972|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|1.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 48||1.4|-9.4|
90929382|NCT02307682|181737972|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|-2.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 48||-2.7|-13.6|
90929383|NCT02307682|181737972|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|4.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 52||4.5|-5.1|
90929384|NCT02307682|181737972|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|2.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 52||2.8|-6.2|
90929385|NCT02307682|181737972|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|1.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 56||1.2|-9.4|
90929386|NCT02307682|181737972|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-6.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|-0.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 56||-0.8|-11.5|
90929387|NCT02307682|181737972|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|3.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 60||3.0|-7.3|
90929388|NCT02307682|181737972|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|2.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 60||2.1|-7.9|
90929389|NCT02307682|181737972|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-5.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|0.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 64||0.7|-10.5|
90929390|NCT02307682|181737972|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|-1.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 64||-1.8|-12.5|
90929391|NCT02307682|181737972|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|4.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 68||4.0|-6.0|
91035404|NCT03733444|181956719|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|4.82|||||Hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval originated from a Cox proportional hazards model for time to first all cause mortality, hospitalization for non-elective lung transplant or hospitalization for qualifying for lung transplant.|||4.82|1.06|
90966727|NCT04223843|181815636|OTHER||Difference of adjusted means|0.321|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.233|0.409|||ANCOVA|Model included the fixed categorical effect of treatment and the fixed continuous effect of baseline FEV1 AUC0-3h.|Difference = (Tio+Olo) - (Placebo)|H0: There is no difference in the mean FEV1 AUC0-3h change from baseline between Tio+Olo and matching placebo.||0.409|0.233|<0.0001
90966728|NCT04223843|181815637|OTHER||Difference of adjusted means|0.201|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.117|0.286|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model with repeated measures including fixed categorial effect of treatment at each visit and fixed continuous effect of baseline at each visit.|Difference = (Tio+Olo) - (Placebo)|H0: There is no difference in the mean trough FEV1 change from baseline between Tio+Olo and matching placebo.||0.286|0.117|<0.0001
90966729|NCT04223843|181815637|OTHER||Difference of adjusted means|0.217|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.135|0.299|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model with repeated measures including fixed categorial effect of treatment at each visit and fixed continuous effect of baseline at each visit.|Difference = (Tio+Olo) - (Placebo)|H0: There is no difference in the mean trough FEV1 change from baseline between Tio+Olo and matching placebo.||0.299|0.135|<0.0001
90966730|NCT02161575|181815653|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-30.75|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.5|-20.5|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Confidence Interval for the Median Change form Baseline||The null hypothesis was that the change in CSRT from baseline to Day 90 was zero||-20.50|-59.50|<0.0001
90966731|NCT01970488|181815683|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Clinical equivalence was evaluated by comparing the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the difference of PASI percent improvement from baseline to Week 16 between ABP 501 and adalimumab with an equivalence margin of ± 15.|Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-2.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.39|3.02||||||||3.02|-7.39|
90966732|NCT00509067|181815722|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93||||||alpha set at P \< .05|Mixed Models Analysis|Time (0, 4, 8, 12, 16 wks) x Treatment (Drug, Placebo) Effect: F(1, 33)=0.01.||||||0.93
90966733|NCT00509067|181815723|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23||||||alpha level set at .05|Mixed Models Analysis|Time (0, 8, 16 weeks) x Group (Drug, Placebo) Effect: F(1, 32.8)=1.48..||||||0.23
90966734|NCT00509067|181815723|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23||||||alpha set at P\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Time (0, 8, 16, weeks) x Group (Drug, Placebo) Effect: F(1, 32.8)=1.48.||||||0.23
90966735|NCT01286454|181815724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|111.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.69|120.47||||||Natural log transformed AUC (0 - ∞) of 5-HMT was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. Fesoterodine 4 mg ER Tablet Fasted was reference and Fesoterodine 4 mg IR-BIC Fasted was test.||120.47|102.69|
90966736|NCT01286454|181815724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|103.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.16|111.64||||||Natural log transformed AUC (0 - ∞) of 5-HMT was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. Fesoterodine 4 mg ER Tablet Fasted was reference and Fesoterodine 4 mg 10% ER-BIC Fasted was test.||111.64|95.16|
90966737|NCT01286454|181815724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|70.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|64.52|76.74||||||Natural log transformed AUC (0 - ∞) of 5-HMT was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. Fesoterodine 4 mg ER Tablet Fasted was reference and Fesoterodine 4 mg 15% ER-BIC Fasted was test.||76.74|64.52|
90966738|NCT01286454|181815724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|113.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|105.91|121.74||||||Natural log transformed AUC (0 - ∞) of 5-HMT was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. Fesoterodine 4 mg 10% ER-BIC Fasted was reference and Fesoterodine 4 mg 10% ER-BIC Fed was test.||121.74|105.91|
90966739|NCT01286454|181815725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|112.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.85|122.52||||||Natural log transformed AUClast of 5-HMT was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. Fesoterodine 4 mg ER Tablet Fasted was reference and Fesoterodine 4 mg IR-BIC Fasted was test.||122.52|103.85|
90966740|NCT01286454|181815725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|103.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.48|112.65||||||Natural log transformed AUClast of 5-HMT was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. Fesoterodine 4 mg ER Tablet Fasted was reference and Fesoterodine 4 mg 10% ER-BIC Fasted was test.||112.65|95.48|
90966741|NCT01286454|181815725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|66.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|61.56|72.63||||||Natural log transformed AUClast of 5-HMT was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. Fesoterodine 4 mg ER Tablet Fasted was reference and Fesoterodine 4 mg 15% ER-BIC Fasted was test.||72.63|61.56|
90929392|NCT02307682|181737972|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|3.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 68||3.9|-6.3|
90929393|NCT02307682|181737972|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|-0.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 72||-0.4|-10.1|
90929394|NCT02307682|181737972|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-7.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|-2.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 72||-2.3|-12.2|
90929395|NCT02307682|181737972|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|4.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 76||4.3|-5.2|
90929396|NCT02307682|181737972|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|3.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 76||3.5|-5.8|
90929397|NCT02307682|181737972|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|1.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 80||1.8|-8.4|
90929398|NCT02307682|181737972|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|1.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 80||1.5|-8.5|
90929399|NCT02307682|181737972|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|0.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 84||0.2|-9.8|
90929400|NCT02307682|181737972|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|-0.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 84||-0.7|-10.4|
90929401|NCT02307682|181737972|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|3.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 88||3.0|-7.4|
90929402|NCT02307682|181737972|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|-1.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 88||-1.1|-11.0|
90929403|NCT02307682|181737972|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|5.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 92||5.1|-4.9|
90929404|NCT02307682|181737972|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|1.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 92||1.4|-7.6|
90929405|NCT02307682|181737972|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|5.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 96||5.1|-5.3|
90929406|NCT02307682|181737972|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|0.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 96||0.8|-8.5|
90929407|NCT02307682|181737973|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|0.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 4||0.2|-14.1|
90929408|NCT02307682|181737973|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-7.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.3|-0.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 4||-0.3|-15.3|
90966742|NCT01286454|181815725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|28.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|26.09|30.78||||||Natural log transformed AUClast of 5-HMT was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. Fesoterodine 4 mg ER Tablet Fasted was reference and Fesoterodine 4 mg 20% ER-BIC Fasted was test.||30.78|26.09|
90966743|NCT01286454|181815725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|114.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|106.99|122.97||||||Natural log transformed AUClast of 5-HMT was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. Fesoterodine 4 mg 10% ER-BIC Fasted was reference and Fesoterodine 4 mg 10% ER-BIC Fed was test.||122.97|106.99|
90966744|NCT01286454|181815726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|259.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|231.48|290.7||||||Natural log transformed Cmax of 5-HMT was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. Fesoterodine 4 mg ER Tablet Fasted was reference and Fesoterodine 4 mg IR-BIC Fasted was test.||290.70|231.48|
90966745|NCT01286454|181815726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|134.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|120.31|151.09||||||Natural log transformed Cmax of 5-HMT was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. Fesoterodine 4 mg ER Tablet Fasted was reference and Fesoterodine 4 mg 10% ER-BIC Fasted was test.||151.09|120.31|
90966746|NCT01286454|181815726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|48.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|43.35|54.44||||||Natural log transformed Cmax of 5-HMT was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. Fesoterodine 4 mg ER Tablet Fasted was reference and Fesoterodine 4 mg 15% ER-BIC Fasted was test.||54.44|43.35|
90966747|NCT01286454|181815726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|14.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|12.83|16.11||||||Natural log transformed Cmax of 5-HMT was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. Fesoterodine 4 mg ER Tablet Fasted was reference and Fesoterodine 4 mg 20% ER-BIC Fasted was test.||16.11|12.83|
90929409|NCT02307682|181737973|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-9.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|-2.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 8||-2.2|-16.6|
90929410|NCT02307682|181737973|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-12.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|-5.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 8||-5.4|-19.7|
90929411|NCT02307682|181737973|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-8.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|-1.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 12||-1.6|-14.8|
90929412|NCT02307682|181737973|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-10.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.4|-3.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 12||-3.9|-17.4|
90929413|NCT02307682|181737973|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|-10.2||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|-2.5||1-sided testing for superiority of brolucizumab 3 mg versus aflibercept 2 mg|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 16||-2.5|-17.3|0.0030
90929414|NCT02307682|181737973|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|-18.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.3|-10.9||1-sided testing for superiority of brolucizumab 6 mg versus aflibercept 2 mg|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 16||-10.9|-25.3|<0.0001
90929415|NCT02307682|181737973|OTHER||Difference in proportions|12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.2|19.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 20||19.0|5.2|
90929416|NCT02307682|181737973|OTHER||Difference in proportions|11.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|18.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 20||18.2|3.8|
90929417|NCT02307682|181737973|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-10.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|-3.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 24||-3.1|-17.7|
90929418|NCT02307682|181737973|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-23.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.5|-16.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 24||-16.1|-30.5|
90929419|NCT02307682|181737973|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|9.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 28||9.0|-4.8|
90929420|NCT02307682|181737973|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|2.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 28||2.5|-11.8|
90929421|NCT02307682|181737973|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|3.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 32||3.1|-12.0|
90929422|NCT02307682|181737973|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-10.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|-3.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 32||-3.2|-18.0|
90940977|NCT00943722|181761609|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI for the percentage point difference is greater than -5.|Percentage Point Difference|0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) minus 16- to 26-Year-Old Females (Lot 1)|Anti-HPV 52||1.7|-0.4|< 0.001
90940978|NCT00943722|181761609|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI for the percentage point difference is greater than -5.|Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) minus 16- to 26-Year-Old Females (Lot 1)|Anti-HPV 58||1.2|-0.7|< 0.001
90940979|NCT00943722|181761610|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI for the percentage point difference is greater than -5.|Percentage Point Difference|0.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Males (Lot 1) minus 16- to 26-Year-Old Females (Lot 1)|Anti-HPV 6||1.5|-0.7|< 0.001
90940980|NCT00943722|181761610|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI for the percentage point difference is greater than -5.|Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Males (Lot 1) minus 16- to 26-Year-Old Females (Lot 1)|Anti-HPV 11||1.2|-0.7|< 0.001
90940981|NCT00943722|181761610|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI for the percentage point difference is greater than -5.|Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Males (Lot 1) minus 16- to 26-Year-Old Females (Lot 1)|Anti-HPV 16||1.2|-0.7|< 0.001
90940982|NCT00943722|181761610|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI for the percentage point difference is greater than -5.|Percentage Point Difference|0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Males (Lot 1) minus 16- to 26-Year-Old Females (Lot 1)|Anti-HPV 18||1.6|-0.4|< 0.001
90940983|NCT00943722|181761610|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI for the percentage point difference is greater than -5.|Percentage Point Difference|0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Males (Lot 1) minus 16- to 26-Year-Old Females (Lot 1)|Anti-HPV 31||1.7|-0.4|< 0.001
90940984|NCT00943722|181761610|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI for the percentage point difference is greater than -5.|Percentage Point Difference|0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Males (Lot 1) minus 16- to 26-Year-Old Females (Lot 1)|Anti-HPV 33||1.6|-0.4|< 0.001
90940985|NCT00943722|181761610|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI for the percentage point difference is greater than -5.|Percentage Point Difference|0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|2.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Males (Lot 1) minus 16- to 26-Year-Old Females (Lot 1)|Anti-HPV 45||2.0|-0.1|< 0.001
90940986|NCT00943722|181761610|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI for the percentage point difference is greater than -5.|Percentage Point Difference|0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Males (Lot 1) minus 16- to 26-Year-Old Females (Lot 1)|Anti-HPV 52||1.7|-0.4|< 0.001
90940987|NCT00943722|181761610|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI for the percentage point difference is greater than -5.|Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Males (Lot 1) minus 16- to 26-Year-Old Females (Lot 1)|Anti-HPV 58||1.2|-0.7|< 0.001
90940988|NCT00943722|181761611|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages between lots be entirely contained within the interval (-5, 5).|Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.9|||||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) minus 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 2)|Anti-HPV 6||0.9|-0.9|
91035405|NCT03733444|181956719|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|4.06|||||Hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval originated from a Cox proportional hazards model for time to first all cause mortality, hospitalization for non-elective lung transplant or hospitalization for qualifying for lung transplant.|||4.06|0.86|
91035406|NCT03733444|181956720|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|3.31|||||Hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval originated from a Cox proportional hazards model for time to first all-cause mortality or hospitalization that meets \>=10% absolute decline in %FVC or respiratory-related hospitalization.|||3.31|1.20|
90929423|NCT02307682|181737973|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|0.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 36||0.8|-12.5|
90929424|NCT02307682|181737973|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-9.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|-2.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 36||-2.4|-16.2|
90929425|NCT02307682|181737973|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-8.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.7|-0.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 40||-0.6|-15.7|
90929426|NCT02307682|181737973|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.5|-5.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 40||-5.5|-20.5|
90929427|NCT02307682|181737973|OTHER||Difference in proportions|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|13.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 44||13.0|-0.8|
90929428|NCT02307682|181737973|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|6.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 44||6.6|-7.5|
90929429|NCT02307682|181737973|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|-10.5||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.4|-3.3||1-sided testing for superiority of brolucizumab 3 mg versus aflibercept 2 mg|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 48||-3.3|-17.4|0.0020
90929430|NCT02307682|181737973|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|-13.5||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.7|-6.1||1-sided testing for superiority of brolucizumab 6 mg versus aflibercept 2 mg|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 48||-6.1|-20.7|0.0001
90929431|NCT02307682|181737973|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|8.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 52||8.1|-5.4|
90929432|NCT02307682|181737973|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|1.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 52||1.2|-11.8|
91035407|NCT03733444|181956720|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.54|||||Hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval originated from a Cox proportional hazards model for time to first all-cause mortality or hospitalization that meets \>=10% absolute decline in %FVC or respiratory-related hospitalization.|||2.54|0.88|
90929433|NCT02307682|181737973|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|3.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 56||3.7|-10.3|
90929434|NCT02307682|181737973|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-6.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|0.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 56||0.4|-14.1|
90929435|NCT02307682|181737973|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|3.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 60||3.3|-10.1|
90940989|NCT00943722|181761611|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages between lots be entirely contained within the interval (-5, 5).|Percentage Point Difference|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.7|||||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) minus 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 3)|Anti-HPV 6||1.7|-0.4|
90940990|NCT00943722|181761611|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages between lots be entirely contained within the interval (-5, 5).|Percentage Point Difference|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.7|||||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 2) minus 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 3)|Anti-HPV 6||1.7|-0.4|
90929436|NCT02307682|181737973|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|-0.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 60||-0.6|-14.0|
90929437|NCT02307682|181737973|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-7.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|-0.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 64||-0.1|-14.7|
90929438|NCT02307682|181737973|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-12.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.5|-5.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 64||-5.4|-19.5|
90929439|NCT02307682|181737973|OTHER||Difference in proportions|7.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|13.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 68||13.5|0.3|
90929440|NCT02307682|181737973|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|8.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 68||8.4|-4.9|
90929441|NCT02307682|181737973|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-8.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.7|-1.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 72||-1.7|-15.7|
90929442|NCT02307682|181737973|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-12.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.8|-5.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 72||-5.6|-19.8|
90929443|NCT02307682|181737973|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|7.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 76||7.2|-5.9|
90929444|NCT02307682|181737973|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|2.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 76||2.6|-9.8|
90971169|NCT00631371|181824898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.3|||Log Rank|||P value was based on 1-sided stratified log-rank test (stratification factors: prior nephrectomy \[yes/no\] and MSKCC risk factors \[good/intermediate/poor\] at time of randomization). The hazard ratio and corresponding 95% CI from the stratified cox proportional hazard model were also presented.||1.3|0.9|0.6
90929445|NCT02307682|181737973|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|2.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 80||2.5|-11.2|
90929446|NCT02307682|181737973|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.3|-1.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 80||-1.0|-15.3|
90929447|NCT02307682|181737973|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|4.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 84||4.6|-8.9|
90929448|NCT02307682|181737973|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|1.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 84||1.7|-11.2|
90929449|NCT02307682|181737973|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|3.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 88||3.7|-10.8|
90929450|NCT02307682|181737973|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-10.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|-3.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 88||-3.5|-17.3|
90929451|NCT02307682|181737973|OTHER||Difference in proportions|4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|11.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 92||11.0|-2.3|
90929452|NCT02307682|181737973|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|2.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 92||2.6|-9.8|
90929453|NCT02307682|181737973|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-6.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|0.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 96||0.7|-13.2|
90929454|NCT02307682|181737973|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-12.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|-6.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 96||-6.6|-19.7|
90929455|NCT02307682|181737974|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0574||||||1-sided testing for superiority of brolucizumab 3 mg versus aflibercept 2 mg|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH-test row mean score (scores=table) stratified by age categories (\<75, ≥75 years) and baseline fluid status)||||||0.0574
90929456|NCT02307682|181737974|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0012||||||1-sided testing for superiority of brolucizumab 6 mg versus aflibercept 2 mg|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH-test row mean score (scores=table) stratified by age categories (\<75, ≥75 years) and baseline fluid status)||||||0.0012
90929457|NCT02307682|181737975|SUPERIORITY||difference in proportions|-6.5||||0.0331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|0.3||1-sided testing for superiority of brolucizumab 3 mg versus aflibercept 2 mg|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for age categories (\<75, \>=75 years) and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for the treatment difference estimated using bootstrap method.|||0.3|-13.2|0.0331
90929458|NCT02307682|181737975|SUPERIORITY||difference in proportions|-10.5||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|-3.5||1-sided testing for superiority of brolucizumab 6 mg versus aflibercept 2 mg|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for age categories (\<75, \>=75 years) and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for the treatment difference estimated using bootstrap method.|||-3.5|-17.1|0.0013
90966748|NCT01286454|181815726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|171.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|115.82|187.78||||||Natural log transformed Cmax of 5-HMT was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. Fesoterodine 4 mg 10% ER-BIC Fasted was reference and Fesoterodine 4 mg 10% ER-BIC Fed was test.||187.78|115.82|
90971170|NCT03354663|181824899|OTHER|Single arm trial|Proportion|0.047|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.0864|||Binomial Exact Test|||"The hypothesis is formally expressed as:~H0: P ≥ 16.2% Ha: P \< 16.2%, where P is the percentage of subjects with a primary safety endpoint event. The hypothesis will be tested based on a one-sided exact test of binomial proportions at the one-sided 0.05 alpha level."||0.0864||<0.0001
91035408|NCT03733444|181956721|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|3.31|||||Hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval originated from a Cox proportional hazards model for time to first all-cause mortality or respiratory-related hospitalizations.|||3.31|1.20|
91035409|NCT03733444|181956721|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.54|||||Hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval originated from a Cox proportional hazards model for time to first all-cause mortality or respiratory-related hospitalizations.|||2.54|0.88|
90929459|NCT02307682|181737976|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least squares mean difference|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|2.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified|ANCOVA|Analyzed using pairwise ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect factor and corresponding baseline value of the endpoint as a covariate.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 24||2.3|-0.5|
90929460|NCT02307682|181737976|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least squares mean difference|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|2.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified|ANCOVA|Analyzed using pairwise ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect factor and corresponding baseline value of the endpoint as a covariate.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 24||2.1|-0.9|
90929461|NCT02307682|181737976|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least squares mean difference|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANCOVA|Analyzed using pairwise ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect factor and corresponding baseline value of the endpoint as a covariate.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 48||1.4|-1.8|
90929462|NCT02307682|181737976|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least squares mean difference|-0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANCOVA|Analyzed using pairwise ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect factor and corresponding baseline value of the endpoint as a covariate.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 48||1.4|-1.9|
90929463|NCT02307682|181737976|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least squares mean difference|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANCOVA|Analyzed using pairwise ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect factor and corresponding baseline value of the endpoint as a covariate.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 72||1.9|-1.6|
90929464|NCT02307682|181737976|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least squares mean difference|-0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified|ANCOVA|Analyzed using pairwise ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect factor and corresponding baseline value of the endpoint as a covariate.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 72||1.7|-1.9|
90929465|NCT02307682|181737976|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least squares mean difference|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|2.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified|ANCOVA|Analyzed using pairwise ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect factor and corresponding baseline value of the endpoint as a covariate.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 96||2.7|-1.2|
91078012|NCT02542293|182041274|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.517|||||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for smoking status (never smoker Vs ever smoker) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"PD-L1-negative analysis set:~Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy to be associated with a longer PFS than SoC."||1.517|0.810|
90929466|NCT02307682|181737976|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least squares mean difference|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|3.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANCOVA|nalyzed using pairwise ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect factor and corresponding baseline value of the endpoint as a covariate.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 96||3.0|-0.9|
90929467|NCT03905694|181737983|OTHER|Not applied|Least Squares (LS) Mean|-71.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.52|-66.42|||Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)|||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) includes scheduled visits (months 3, 4, 5, and 6) and baseline spot urinary oxalate:creatine ratio as fixed effects. Autoregressive (1) was used to model the within-patient error.||-66.42|-77.52|
90929468|NCT03044158|181738006|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio (adjusted)|1.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|2.01||||||||2.01|1.21|
90929469|NCT03044158|181738007|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio (adjusted)|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.66||||||||1.66|0.99|
90929470|NCT03044158|181738008|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio (adjusted)|0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.62||||||||0.62|0.39|
90929471|NCT03044158|181738009|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio (adjusted)|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|2.12||||||||2.12|1.04|
90929472|NCT03044158|181738010|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio (adjusted)|0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.56||||||||0.56|0.21|
90929473|NCT03044158|181738011|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.35||||||||1.35|0.44|
90929474|NCT05485805|181738070|OTHER||Geometric LS means|-5.95|||=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.946|-1.954|||ANCOVA|||||-1.954|-9.946|= 0.004
90929475|NCT05485805|181738070|OTHER||Geometric LS means|6.161|||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.161|10.161|||ANCOVA|||||10.161|2.161|= 0.003
90929476|NCT05485805|181738070|OTHER||Geometric LS means|25.936|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.317|31.556|||ANCOVA|||||31.556|20.317|< 0.001
90929477|NCT05485805|181738070|OTHER||Geometric LS means|-3.476|||=|0.325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.41|3.457|||ANCOVA|||||3.457|-10.41|= 0.325
90929478|NCT05485805|181738070|OTHER||Geometric LS means|0.211|||=|0.918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.798|4.22|||ANCOVA|||||4.22|-3.798|= 0.918
90929479|NCT05485805|181738070|OTHER||Geometric LS means|32.097|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.484|37.71|||ANCOVA|||||37.71|26.484|< 0.001
90929480|NCT05485805|181738070|OTHER||Geometric LS means|22.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.753|28.166|||ANCOVA|||||28.166|16.753|< 0.001
90929481|NCT05485805|181738070|OTHER||Geometric LS means|26.147|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.529|31.765|||ANCOVA|||||31.765|20.529|< 0.001
90929482|NCT05485805|181738070|OTHER||Geometric LS means|28.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.921|34.32|||ANCOVA|||||34.32|22.921|< 0.001
90929483|NCT05485805|181738070|OTHER||Geometric LS means|22.671|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.966|28.375|||ANCOVA|||||28.375|16.966|< 0.001
90929484|NCT05485805|181738071|OTHER||Geometric LS means|-1.602|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.548|-0.656|||ANCOVA|||0-2 hours post-dose||-0.656|-2.548|< 0.001
90929485|NCT05485805|181738071|OTHER||Geometric LS means|0.976|||=|0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.029|1.923|||ANCOVA|||0-2 hours post-dose||1.923|0.029|= 0.043
90929486|NCT05485805|181738071|OTHER||Geometric LS means|6.097|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.766|7.427|||ANCOVA|||0-2 hours post-dose||7.427|4.766|< 0.001
90929487|NCT05485805|181738071|OTHER||Geometric LS means|0.31|||=|0.711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.332|1.951|||ANCOVA|||0-2 hours post-dose||1.951|-1.332|= 0.711
90929488|NCT05485805|181738071|OTHER||Geometric LS means|-0.626|||=|0.196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.575|0.323|||ANCOVA|||0-2 hours post-dose||0.323|-1.575|= 0.196
90929489|NCT05485805|181738071|OTHER||Geometric LS means|7.073|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.744|8.402|||ANCOVA|||0-2 hours post-dose||8.402|5.744|< 0.001
90929490|NCT05485805|181738071|OTHER||Geometric LS means|6.406|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.055|7.757|||ANCOVA|||0-2 hours post-dose||7.757|5.055|< 0.001
90929491|NCT05485805|181738071|OTHER||Geometric LS means|5.471|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.141|6.801|||ANCOVA|||0-2 hours post-dose||6.801|4.141|< 0.001
90929492|NCT05485805|181738071|OTHER||Geometric LS means|7.383|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.033|8.732|||ANCOVA|||0-2 hours post-dose||8.732|6.033|< 0.001
90929493|NCT05485805|181738071|OTHER||Geometric LS means|5.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.43|7.131|||ANCOVA|||0-2 hours post-dose||7.131|4.43|< 0.001
90929494|NCT05485805|181738072|OTHER||Geometric LS means|-0.586|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.903|-0.269|||ANCOVA|||0-2 hours post-dose||-0.269|-0.903|< 0.001
90929495|NCT05485805|181738072|OTHER||Geometric LS means|0.454|||=|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.136|0.771|||ANCOVA|||0-2 hours post-dose||0.771|0.136|= 0.005
90929496|NCT05485805|181738072|OTHER||Geometric LS means|2.369|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.923|2.815|||ANCOVA|||0-2 hours post-dose||2.815|1.923|< 0.001
90929497|NCT05485805|181738072|OTHER||Geometric LS means|-0.169|||=|0.548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.719|0.382|||ANCOVA|||0-2 hours post-dose||0.382|-0.719|= 0.548
90929498|NCT05485805|181738072|OTHER||Geometric LS means|-0.132|||=|0.415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.451|0.186|||ANCOVA|||0-2 hours post-dose||0.186|-0.451|= 0.415
90929499|NCT05485805|181738072|OTHER||Geometric LS means|2.823|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.377|3.268|||ANCOVA|||0-2 hours post-dose||3.268|2.377|< 0.001
90929500|NCT05485805|181738072|OTHER||Geometric LS means|2.201|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.748|2.654|||ANCOVA|||0-2 hours post-dose||2.654|1.748|< 0.001
90929501|NCT05485805|181738072|OTHER||Geometric LS means|2.237|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.791|2.683|||ANCOVA|||0-2 hours post-dose||2.683|1.791|< 0.001
90929502|NCT05485805|181738072|OTHER||Geometric LS means|2.654|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.202|3.106|||ANCOVA|||0-2 hours post-dose||3.106|2.202|< 0.001
90929503|NCT05485805|181738072|OTHER||Geometric LS means|2.068|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.615|2.521|||ANCOVA|||0-2 hours post-dose||2.521|1.615|< 0.001
90929504|NCT05485805|181738072|OTHER||Geometric LS means|-1.338|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.133|-0.542|||ANCOVA|||0-4 hours post-dose||-0.542|-2.133|< 0.001
90929505|NCT05485805|181738072|OTHER||Geometric LS means|1.016|||=|0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.813|||ANCOVA|||0-4 hours post-dose||1.813|0.22|= 0.012
90929506|NCT05485805|181738072|OTHER||Geometric LS means|5.982|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.864|7.101|||ANCOVA|||0-4 hours post-dose||7.101|4.864|< 0.001
90929507|NCT05485805|181738072|OTHER||Geometric LS means|-1.048|||=|0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.428|0.332|||ANCOVA|||0-4 hours post-dose||0.332|-2.428|= 0.136
90929508|NCT05485805|181738072|OTHER||Geometric LS means|-0.321|||=|0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.119|0.477|||ANCOVA|||0-4 hours post-dose||0.477|-1.119|= 0.43
90929509|NCT05485805|181738072|OTHER||Geometric LS means|6.999|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.881|8.116|||ANCOVA|||0-4 hours post-dose||8.116|5.881|< 0.001
90929510|NCT05485805|181738072|OTHER||Geometric LS means|4.934|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.798|6.07|||ANCOVA|||0-4 hours post-dose||6.07|3.798|< 0.001
90929511|NCT05485805|181738072|OTHER||Geometric LS means|5.661|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.543|6.779|||ANCOVA|||0-4 hours post-dose||6.779|4.543|< 0.001
90929512|NCT05485805|181738072|OTHER||Geometric LS means|5.951|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.816|7.085|||ANCOVA|||0-4 hours post-dose||7.085|4.816|< 0.001
90929513|NCT05485805|181738072|OTHER||Geometric LS means|4.613|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.478|5.749|||ANCOVA|||0-4 hours post-dose||5.749|3.478|< 0.001
90929514|NCT05485805|181738072|OTHER||Geometric LS means|-1.963|||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.254|-0.673|||ANCOVA|||0-6 hours post-dose||-0.673|-3.254|= 0.003
90929515|NCT05485805|181738072|OTHER||Geometric LS means|1.641|||=|0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|2.933|||ANCOVA|||0-6 hours post-dose||2.933|0.35|= 0.013
90929516|NCT05485805|181738072|OTHER||Geometric LS means|9.191|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.377|11.006|||ANCOVA|||0-6 hours post-dose||11.006|7.377|< 0.001
90929517|NCT05485805|181738072|OTHER||Geometric LS means|-1.642|||=|0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.881|0.597|||ANCOVA|||0-6 hours post-dose||0.597|-3.881|= 0.15
90929518|NCT05485805|181738072|OTHER||Geometric LS means|-0.322|||=|0.625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.617|0.972|||ANCOVA|||0-6 hours post-dose||0.972|-1.617|= 0.625
90929519|NCT05485805|181738072|OTHER||Geometric LS means|10.833|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.02|12.645|||ANCOVA|||0-6 hours post-dose||12.645|9.02|< 0.001
90929520|NCT05485805|181738072|OTHER||Geometric LS means|7.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.707|9.392|||ANCOVA|||0-6 hours post-dose||9.392|5.707|< 0.001
90929521|NCT05485805|181738072|OTHER||Geometric LS means|8.869|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.055|10.683|||ANCOVA|||0-6 hours post-dose||10.683|7.055|< 0.001
90929522|NCT05485805|181738072|OTHER||Geometric LS means|9.191|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.351|11.031|||ANCOVA|||0-6 hours post-dose||11.031|7.351|< 0.001
90929523|NCT05485805|181738072|OTHER||Geometric LS means|7.228|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.386|9.07|||ANCOVA|||0-6 hours post-dose||9.07|5.386|< 0.001
90929524|NCT05485805|181738072|OTHER||Geometric LS means|-2.398|||=|0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.185|-0.61|||ANCOVA|||0-8 hours post-dose||-0.61|-4.185|= 0.009
90929525|NCT05485805|181738072|OTHER||Geometric LS means|2.4|||=|0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|4.189|||ANCOVA|||0-8 hours post-dose||4.189|0.61|= 0.009
90929526|NCT05485805|181738072|OTHER||Geometric LS means|11.898|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.384|14.412|||ANCOVA|||0-8 hours post-dose||14.412|9.384|< 0.001
90929527|NCT05485805|181738072|OTHER||Geometric LS means|-2.225|||=|0.159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.327|0.877|||ANCOVA|||0-8 hours post-dose||0.877|-5.327|= 0.159
90929528|NCT05485805|181738072|OTHER||Geometric LS means|0.002|||=|0.998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.792|1.795|||ANCOVA|||0-8 hours post-dose||1.795|-1.792|= 0.998
90929529|NCT05485805|181738072|OTHER||Geometric LS means|14.298|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.787|16.809|||ANCOVA|||0-8 hours post-dose||16.809|11.787|< 0.001
90929530|NCT05485805|181738072|OTHER||Geometric LS means|9.673|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.12|12.226|||ANCOVA|||0-8 hours post-dose||12.226|7.12|< 0.001
90929531|NCT05485805|181738072|OTHER||Geometric LS means|11.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.387|14.413|||ANCOVA|||0-8 hours post-dose||14.413|9.387|< 0.001
90929532|NCT05485805|181738072|OTHER||Geometric LS means|12.073|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.523|14.623|||ANCOVA|||0-8 hours post-dose||14.623|9.523|< 0.001
90929533|NCT05485805|181738072|OTHER||Geometric LS means|9.675|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.123|12.227|||ANCOVA|||0-8 hours post-dose||12.227|7.123|< 0.001
90929534|NCT05485805|181738072|OTHER||Geometric LS means|-2.949|||=|0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.803|-0.095|||ANCOVA|||0-12 hours post-dose||-0.095|-5.803|= 0.043
90929535|NCT05485805|181738072|OTHER||Geometric LS means|3.694|||=|0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.837|6.55|||ANCOVA|||0-12 hours post-dose||6.55|0.837|= 0.011
90929536|NCT05485805|181738072|OTHER||Geometric LS means|16.504|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.49|20.517|||ANCOVA|||0-12 hours post-dose||20.517|12.49|< 0.001
90929537|NCT05485805|181738072|OTHER||Geometric LS means|-3.437|||=|0.173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.389|1.515|||ANCOVA|||0-12 hours post-dose||1.515|-8.389|= 0.173
90929538|NCT05485805|181738072|OTHER||Geometric LS means|0.744|||=|0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.119|3.608|||ANCOVA|||0-12 hours post-dose||3.608|-2.119|= 0.61
90929539|NCT05485805|181738072|OTHER||Geometric LS means|20.197|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.189|24.206|||ANCOVA|||0-12 hours post-dose||24.206|16.189|< 0.001
90929540|NCT05485805|181738072|OTHER||Geometric LS means|13.067|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.992|17.143|||ANCOVA|||0-12 hours post-dose||17.143|8.992|< 0.001
90929541|NCT05485805|181738072|OTHER||Geometric LS means|17.248|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.236|21.261|||ANCOVA|||0-12 hours post-dose||21.261|13.236|< 0.001
90929542|NCT05485805|181738072|OTHER||Geometric LS means|16.761|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.69|20.831|||ANCOVA|||0-12 hours post-dose||20.831|12.69|< 0.001
90929543|NCT05485805|181738072|OTHER||Geometric LS means|13.812|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.738|17.886|||ANCOVA|||0-12 hours post-dose||17.886|9.738|< 0.001
90929544|NCT05485805|181738072|OTHER||Geometric LS means|-2.312|||=|0.473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.635|4.011|||ANCOVA|||0-24 hours post-dose||4.011|-8.635|= 0.473
90929545|NCT05485805|181738072|OTHER||Geometric LS means|27.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.188|35.973|||ANCOVA|||0-24 hours post-dose||35.973|18.188|< 0.001
90929546|NCT05485805|181738072|OTHER||Geometric LS means|-6.928|||=|0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.9|4.044|||ANCOVA|||0-24 hours post-dose||4.044|-17.9|= 0.215
90929547|NCT05485805|181738072|OTHER||Geometric LS means|2.468|||=|0.445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.876|8.813|||ANCOVA|||0-24 hours post-dose||8.813|-3.876|= 0.445
90929548|NCT05485805|181738072|OTHER||Geometric LS means|20.152|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.122|29.183|||ANCOVA|||0-24 hours post-dose||29.183|11.122|< 0.001
90971171|NCT03354663|181824900|OTHER|"The hypothesis is formally expressed as:~H0: P \< 90% Ha: P ≥ 90%, where P is the percentage of subjects with acute success. The hypothesis will be tested based on a one-sided exact test of binomial proportions at the one-sided 0.05 alpha level. Rejection of the null hypothesis will indicate study success."|Proportion|0.98||||0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.9495||||Binomial Exact Test||||||0.9495|0.0001
90929549|NCT05485805|181738072|OTHER||Geometric LS means|24.933|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.914|33.952|||ANCOVA|||0-24 hours post-dose||33.952|15.914|< 0.001
90929550|NCT05485805|181738072|OTHER||Geometric LS means|22.621|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.594|31.648|||ANCOVA|||0-24 hours post-dose||31.648|13.594|< 0.001
90929551|NCT05485805|181738073|OTHER||||||=|0.963|||||||ANCOVA|||||||= 0.963
90929552|NCT05485805|181738073|OTHER||||||=|0.118|||||||ANCOVA|||||||= 0.118
90929553|NCT05485805|181738073|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
90929554|NCT05485805|181738073|OTHER||||||=|0.244|||||||ANCOVA|||||||= 0.244
90929555|NCT05485805|181738073|OTHER||||||=|0.139|||||||ANCOVA|||||||= 0.139
90929556|NCT05485805|181738073|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
90929557|NCT05485805|181738073|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
90929558|NCT05485805|181738073|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
90929559|NCT05485805|181738073|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
90929560|NCT05485805|181738073|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
90929561|NCT05485805|181738075|OTHER||||||=|0.647|||||||ANCOVA|||||||= 0.647
90929562|NCT05485805|181738075|OTHER||||||=|0.714|||||||ANCOVA|||||||= 0.714
90929563|NCT05485805|181738075|OTHER||||||=|0.065|||||||ANCOVA|||||||= 0.065
90929564|NCT05485805|181738075|OTHER||||||=|0.742|||||||ANCOVA|||||||= 0.742
90971172|NCT03354663|181824905|OTHER||Kaplan-Meier Survival Estimate|82.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|74.7|87.6|||||Kaplan-Meier estimate of freedom from recurrence at 1-year|Kaplan Meier Estimate of freedom from recurrence.||87.6|74.7|
90929565|NCT05485805|181738075|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
90929566|NCT05485805|181738075|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
90929567|NCT05485805|181738075|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
90929568|NCT05485805|181738075|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
90929569|NCT05485805|181738075|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
90929570|NCT05485805|181738076|OTHER||||||=|0.162|||||||ANCOVA|||||||= 0.162
90929571|NCT05485805|181738076|OTHER||||||=|0.319|||||||ANCOVA|||||||= 0.319
90929572|NCT05485805|181738076|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
90929573|NCT05485805|181738076|OTHER||||||=|0.343|||||||ANCOVA|||||||= 0.343
90929574|NCT05485805|181738076|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
90929575|NCT05485805|181738076|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
90929576|NCT05485805|181738076|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
90929577|NCT05485805|181738076|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
90929578|NCT05485805|181738076|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
90929579|NCT05485805|181738077|OTHER||||||=|0.162|||||||ANCOVA|||||||= 0.162
90929580|NCT05485805|181738077|OTHER||||||=|0.319|||||||ANCOVA|||||||= 0.319
90929581|NCT05485805|181738077|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
90929582|NCT05485805|181738077|OTHER||||||=|0.343|||||||ANCOVA|||||||= 0.343
90929583|NCT05485805|181738077|OTHER||||||=|0.772|||||||ANCOVA|||||||= 0.772
90929584|NCT05485805|181738077|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
90929585|NCT05485805|181738077|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
90929586|NCT05485805|181738077|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
90929587|NCT05485805|181738077|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
90929588|NCT05485805|181738077|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
90929589|NCT05485805|181738080|OTHER||geometric LS mean square|-0.14|||=|0.334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.15|||ANCOVA|||||0.15|-0.44|= 0.334
90929590|NCT05485805|181738080|OTHER||geometric LS mean square|0.04|||=|0.783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.33|||ANCOVA|||||0.33|-0.25|= 0.783
90929591|NCT05485805|181738080|OTHER||geometric LS mean square|-0.08|||=|0.687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.33|||ANCOVA|||||0.33|-0.5|= 0.687
90929592|NCT05485805|181738080|OTHER||geometric LS mean square|-0.02|||=|0.927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.49|||ANCOVA|||||0.49|-0.53|= 0.927
90929593|NCT05485805|181738080|OTHER||geometric LS mean square|-0.1|||=|0.492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.19|||ANCOVA|||||0.19|-0.4|= 0.492
90929594|NCT05485805|181738080|OTHER||geometric LS mean square|-0.04|||=|0.836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.37|||ANCOVA|||||0.37|-0.46|= 0.836
90929595|NCT05485805|181738080|OTHER||geometric LS mean square|-0.11|||=|0.611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.31|||ANCOVA|||||0.31|-0.53|= 0.611
90929596|NCT05485805|181738080|OTHER||geometric LS mean square|-0.19|||=|0.371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.22|||ANCOVA|||||0.22|-0.6|= 0.371
90929597|NCT05485805|181738080|OTHER||geometric LS mean square|-0.07|||=|0.752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.35|||ANCOVA|||||0.35|-0.49|= 0.752
90929598|NCT05485805|181738080|OTHER||geometric LS mean square|-0.21|||=|0.321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.21|||ANCOVA|||||0.21|-0.63|= 0.321
90929599|NCT04218357|181738088|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||GEE|Generalized Estimating Equation with standard errors, and an unstructured correlation matrix with medication and time as within-subject factors.||All outcomes were assessed in real-time in the laboratory testing probenecid compared to placebo condition during the alcohol administration procedure.||||0.05
90929600|NCT00705406|181738117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.927||||0.222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.723|1.188|||Wilcoxon-Gehan test statistic|P-value is from a Wilcoxon-Gehan test statistic controlling for smoking status and hemisphere of enrollment.|Hazard Ratio and corresponding 95% CI are based the Cox Regression Model including parameters for treatment, controlling for smoking status and hemisphere of enrollment.|||1.188|0.723|0.222
90929601|NCT00705406|181738118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||van Elteren test|P-value for comparisons at all time points. P-value was based on the van Elteren test controlling for smoking status and hemisphere of enrollment.||||||>0.05
90929602|NCT00705406|181738119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.421|TWO_SIDED||||||van Elteren test|P-value is based on van Elteren test controlling for smoking status and hemisphere of enrollment.||||||0.421
90929603|NCT00705406|181738120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.885|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon-Gehan test statistic|P-values are from a Wilcoxon-Gehan test statistic controlling for smoking status and hemisphere of enrollment.||||||0.885
90929604|NCT00705406|181738121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.306|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value is based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for smoking status and hemisphere of enrollment.||||||0.306
90929605|NCT00918333|181738161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Maximum Tolerated Dose (mg)|40.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90929606|NCT00975585|181738200|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Margin = 0.5|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.014|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|97.46|-0.058|0.031|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as senofilcon A minus lotrafilcon B. Analysis is adjusted for lens type, site, lens type by site interaction as fixed effects, subject and eye nested within subject as random effects.|The alternative hypothesis is that senofilcon A contact lenses have non-inferior (less than or equal to) average corneal staining than lotrafilcon B after two weeks of wear.||0.031|-0.058|
90929607|NCT00975585|181738201|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Margin = 0.25|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.005|||TWO_SIDED|97.46|-0.021|-0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as senofilcon A minus lotrafilcon B. Analysis adjusted for lens type, site, lens type by site interaction as fixed effects, subject and eye nested within subject as random effects.|The alternative hypothesis is that senofilcon A contact lenses are non-inferior (less than or equal to)in visual acuity to lotrafilcon B contact lenses after two weeks of wear.||-0.010|-0.021|
90929608|NCT00975585|181738202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.402|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.127|||TWO_SIDED|97.46|0.117|0.402|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as senofilcon A minus lotrafilcon B. Analysis adjusted for lens type, site, lens type by site interaction as fixed effects, subject as random effects.|The alternative hypothesis is that senofilcon A contact lenses have a higher rating of overall comfort than lotrafilcon B after two weeks of wear.||0.402|0.117|
90929609|NCT00975585|181738203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.098|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141|||TWO_SIDED|97.46|-0.218|0.098|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is lotrafilcon B at 2 weeks minus lotrafilcon B at 4 weeks. Analysis adjusted for duration of wear, stie, duration of wear by site interaction as fixed effects, subject as random effects.|The alternative hypothesis is that lotrafilcon B contact lenses have a lower rating of overall comfort after 4 weeks of wear compared to after 2 weeks of wear.||0.098|-0.218|
90929610|NCT00975585|181738204|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Margin = 0.5|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.123|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|98.2|-0.123|-0.051|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as senofilcon A minus lotrafilcon B. Analysis adjusted for lens type, site, lens type by site interaction as fixed effects, subject and eye nested within subject as random effects.|The alternative hypothesis is that senofilcon A contact lenses are non-inferior in limbal redness 5 to lotrafilcon B contact lenses after two weeks of wear.||-0.051|-0.123|
90929611|NCT00975585|181738205|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Margin = 0.5|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.068|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|||TWO_SIDED|98.2|-0.068|0.008|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as senofilcon A minus lotrafilcon B. Analysis adjusted for lens type, site, lens type by site interaction as fixed effects, subject and eye nested within subject as random effects.|The alternative hypothesis is that senofilcon A contact lenses are non-inferior in bulbar redness to lotrafilcon B contact lenses after two weeks of wear.||0.008|-0.068|
90929612|NCT00975585|181738206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.411|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.124|||TWO_SIDED|98.2|-0.411|-0.117|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as senofilcon A minus lotrafilcon B. Analysis adjusted for lens type, site, lens type by stie interaction as fixed effects, subject as random effects.|The alternative hypothesis is that senofilcon A contact lenses have less frequency of dryness than lotrafilcon B contact lenes after two weeks of wear.||-0.117|-0.411|
90929613|NCT00683800|181738207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|-1.98|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and baseline value as a covariate was used to compare DVS SR 100 mg with matching placebo. The comparison was performed at significance level of p=0.05 (two sided).||-1.98|-3.80|<0.001
90929614|NCT00683800|181738208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.77|-1.82|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and baseline value as a covariate was used to compare DVS SR 100 mg with matching placebo. The comparison was performed at significance level of p=0.05 (two sided).||-1.82|-3.77|<0.001
90929615|NCT00683800|181738209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.16|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and baseline value as a covariate was used to compare DVS SR 100 mg with matching placebo. The comparison was performed at significance level of p=0.05 (two sided).||-0.16|-0.40|<0.001
90971173|NCT03354663|181824906|OTHER||Kaplan-Meier survival estimate|68.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.9|75.1||||||Kaplan-Meier estimate of freedom from recurrence or need for anti-arrhythmic medication||75.1|59.9|
90929616|NCT00683800|181738210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.18|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and baseline value as a covariate was used to compare DVS SR 100 mg with matching placebo. The comparison was performed at significance level of p=0.05 (two sided).||-0.18|-0.44|<0.001
90929617|NCT00683800|181738211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Wald Formula|-1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.86|0.72|||||The 90% CI for excess risk was obtained using the Wald Formula.|Excess risk of DVS SR 100 mg over placebo per 1000 woman-years of exposure, defined as the difference in the exposure adjusted rates between the treatment groups, was obtained.||0.72|-2.86|
90929618|NCT00683800|181738212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The proportion of participants achieving a response as defined by minimal clinically important difference (MCID) at week 12 was compared between DVS and placebo treatment groups with a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test.||||<0.001
90929619|NCT00683800|181738213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.24|5.36|||Regression, Logistic|||The proportion of participants achieving at least 50% hot flush reduction from baseline at 4-week was compared between DVS and placebo treatment groups with a logistic regression model with treatment as factor and baseline value as a covariate.||5.36|2.24|<0.001
90929620|NCT00683800|181738213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.75|4.1|||Regression, Logistic|||The proportion of participants achieving at least 50% hot flush reduction from baseline at 12-week was compared between DVS and placebo treatment groups with a logistic regression model with treatment as factor and baseline value as a covariate.||4.10|1.75|<0.001
90929621|NCT00683800|181738214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.47|7.81|||Regression, Logistic|||The proportion of participants achieving at least 75% hot flush reduction from baseline at 4-week was compared between DVS and placebo treatment groups with a logistic regression model with treatment as factor and baseline value as a covariate.||7.81|2.47|<0.001
90929622|NCT00683800|181738214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.96|5.09|||Regression, Logistic|||The proportion of participants achieving at least 75% hot flush reduction from baseline at 12-week was compared between DVS and placebo treatment groups with a logistic regression model with treatment as factor and baseline value as a covariate.||5.09|1.96|<0.001
90929623|NCT00683800|181738215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||A log-rank test was used to compare the treatment groups.||||<0.001
90929624|NCT00683800|181738216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.07|-1.0|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and baseline value as a covariate was used to compare DVS SR 100 mg with matching placebo. The comparison was performed at significance level of p=0.05 (two sided). (At month 6)||-1.00|-3.07|<0.001
90929625|NCT00683800|181738216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.12|-1.51|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and baseline value as a covariate was used to compare DVS SR 100 mg with matching placebo. The comparison was performed at significance level of p=0.05 (two sided). (At month 12)||-1.51|-4.12|<0.001
90929626|NCT00683800|181738217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.31||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.12|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and baseline value as a covariate was used to compare DVS SR 100 mg with matching placebo. The comparison was performed at significance level of p=0.05 (two sided). (At month 6)||-0.12|-0.51|0.002
90929627|NCT00683800|181738217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.33||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and baseline value as a covariate was used to compare DVS SR 100 mg with matching placebo. The comparison was performed at significance level of p=0.05 (two sided). (At month 12)||-0.11|-0.54|0.003
90929628|NCT00683800|181738218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.05|-1.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Week 12: Change from baseline of the GCS Total score was analyzed using a Mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM), for which changes from baseline at week 12, month 6, and month 12 were outcome variables, with treatment, week, and interaction between treatment and week as fixed effects with participant as a random effect, and with the baseline score as covariate.||-1.64|-3.05|<0.001
90929629|NCT00683800|181738218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Week 12: Change from baseline of the GCS Anxiety scale subscore was analyzed using a Mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM), for which changes from baseline at week 12, month 6, and month 12 were outcome variables, with treatment, week, and interaction between treatment and week as fixed effects with participant as a random effect, and with the baseline score as covariate.||-0.51|-0.99|<0.001
90929630|NCT00683800|181738218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Week 12: Change from baseline of the GCS Depression scale subscore was analyzed using a Mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM), for which changes from baseline at week 12, month 6, and month 12 were outcome variables, with treatment, week, and interaction between treatment and week as fixed effects with participant as a random effect, and with the baseline score as covariate.||-0.45|-0.89|<0.001
90940991|NCT00943722|181761611|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages between lots be entirely contained within the interval (-5, 5).|Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.7|||||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) minus 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 2)|Anti-HPV 11||0.7|-0.7|
90940992|NCT00943722|181761611|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages between lots be entirely contained within the interval (-5, 5).|Percentage Point Difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.3|||||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) minus 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 3)|Anti-HPV 11||1.3|-0.4|
90940993|NCT00943722|181761611|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages between lots be entirely contained within the interval (-5, 5).|Percentage Point Difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.3|||||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 2) minus 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 3)|Anti-HPV 11||1.3|-0.4|
90929631|NCT00683800|181738218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.05||||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Week 12: Change from baseline of the GCS Sexual Dysfunction scale subscore was analyzed using a Mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM), for which changes from baseline at week 12, month 6, and month 12 were outcome variables, with treatment, week, and interaction between treatment and week as fixed effects with participant as a random effect, and with the baseline score as covariate.||0.02|-0.13|0.162
90929632|NCT00683800|181738218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|-1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Week 12: Change from baseline of the GCS Psychological scale subscore was analyzed using a Mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM), for which changes from baseline at week 12, month 6, and month 12 was outcome variable, with treatment, week, and interaction between treatment and week as fixed effects with participant as a random effect, and with the baseline score as covariate.||-1.00|-1.84|<0.001
90929633|NCT00683800|181738218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.22||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Week 12: Change from baseline of the GCS Somatic scale subscore was analyzed using a Mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM), for which changes from baseline at week 12, month 6, and month 12 were outcome variables, with treatment, week, and interaction between treatment and week as fixed effects with participant as a random effect, and with the baseline score as covariate.||0.01|-0.46|0.066
90929634|NCT00683800|181738218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Week 12: Change from baseline of the GCS Vasomotor scale subscore was analyzed using a Mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM), for which changes from baseline at week 12, month 6, and month 12 were outcome variables, with treatment, week, and interaction between treatment and week as fixed effects with participant as a random effect, and with the baseline score as covariate.||-0.50|-0.79|<0.001
90929635|NCT00683800|181738219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.57|-1.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Month 6: Change from baseline of the GCS Total score was analyzed using a Mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM), for which changes from baseline at week 12, month 6, and month 12 were outcome variables, with treatment, week, and interaction between treatment and week as fixed effects with participant as a random effect, and with the baseline score as covariate.||-1.18|-2.57|<0.001
90929636|NCT00683800|181738219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Month 6: Change from baseline of the GCS Anxiety scale subscore was analyzed using a Mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM), for which changes from baseline at week 12, month 6, and month 12 were outcome variables, with treatment, week, and interaction between treatment and week as fixed effects with participant as a random effect, and with the baseline score as covariate.||-0.41|-0.90|<0.001
90929637|NCT00683800|181738219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Month 6: Change from baseline of the GCS Depression scale subscore was analyzed using a Mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM), for which changes from baseline at week 12, month 6, and month 12 were outcome variables, with treatment, week, and interaction between treatment and week as fixed effects with participant as a random effect, and with the baseline score as covariate.||-0.37|-0.80|<0.001
90929638|NCT00683800|181738219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.04||||0.282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Month 6: Change from baseline of the GCS Sexual Dysfunction scale subscore was analyzed using a Mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM), for which changes from baseline at week 12, month 6, and month 12 were outcome variables, with treatment, week, and interaction between treatment and week as fixed effects with participant as a random effect, and with the baseline score as covariate.||0.04|-0.13|0.282
90929639|NCT00683800|181738219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|-0.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Month 6: Change from baseline of the GCS Psychological scale subscore was analyzed using a Mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM), for which changes from baseline at week 12, month 6, and month 12 were outcome variables, with treatment, week, and interaction between treatment and week as fixed effects with participant as a random effect, and with the baseline score as covariate.||-0.82|-1.66|<0.001
90929640|NCT00683800|181738219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.17||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Month 6: Change from baseline of the GCS Somatic scale subscore was analyzed using a Mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM), for which changes from baseline at week 12, month 6, and month 12 were outcome variables, with treatment, week, and interaction between treatment and week as fixed effects with participant as a random effect, and with the baseline score as covariate.||0.06|-0.41|0.140
90929641|NCT00683800|181738219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Month 6: Change from baseline of the GCS Vasomotor scale subscore was analyzed using a Mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM), for which changes from baseline at week 12, month 6, and month 12 were outcome variables, with treatment, week, and interaction between treatment and week as fixed effects with participant as a random effect, and with the baseline score as covariate.||-0.26|-0.56|<0.001
90929642|NCT00683800|181738220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.42|-1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Month 12: Change from baseline of the GCS Total score was analyzed using a Mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM), for which changes from baseline at week 12, month 6 and month 12 were outcome variables, with treatment, week, and interaction between treatment and week as fixed effects with participant as a random effect, and with the baseline score as covariate.||-1.00|-2.42|<0.001
90971174|NCT03860961|181824933|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9238||||||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Chi-squared, Corrected|||Cluster-randomized trial, cluster=practice, maximum 25 patients/practice. Assuming 14 pts/practice, cluster size coefficient of variation of 0.5, intra-cluster correlation (ρ) of 0.04, design effect 1.51, and 59.8% of Arm A patients meeting the criteria provides 80% power for a two-sided α=0.05 two-sample test of proportions to detect a 15% absolute improvement in percentage of patients meeting the criteria with 544 patients (after adjusted for withdrawal and loss to follow-up).||||0.9238
90929643|NCT00683800|181738220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Month 12: Change from baseline of the GCS Anxiety scale subscore was analyzed using a Mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM), for which changes from baseline at week 12, month 6 and month 12 were outcome variables, with treatment, week, and interaction between treatment and week as fixed effects with participant as a random effect, and with the baseline score as covariate.||-0.30|-0.81|<0.001
90929644|NCT00683800|181738220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Month 12: Change from baseline of the GCS Depression scale subscore was analyzed using a Mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM), for which changes from baseline at week 12, month 6 and month 12 were outcome variables, with treatment, week, and interaction between treatment and week as fixed effects with participant as a random effect, and with the baseline score as covariate.||-0.40|-0.83|<0.001
90929645|NCT00683800|181738220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.08||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Month 12: Change from baseline of the GCS Sexual Dysfunction scale subscore was analyzed using a Mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM), for which changes from baseline at week 12, month 6 and month 12 were outcome variables, with treatment, week, and interaction between treatment and week as fixed effects with participant as a random effect, and with the baseline score as covariate.||0.01|-0.17|0.082
90929646|NCT00683800|181738220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|-0.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Month 12: Change from baseline of the GCS Psychological scale subscore was analyzed using a Mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM), for which changes from baseline at week 12, month 6 and month 12 were outcome variables, with treatment, week, and interaction between treatment and week as fixed effects with participant as a random effect, and with the baseline score as covariate.||-0.75|-1.61|<0.001
90929647|NCT00683800|181738220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.02||||0.865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Month 12: Change from baseline of the GCS Somatic scale subscore was analyzed using a Mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM), for which changes from baseline at week 12, month 6 and month 12 were outcome variables, with treatment, week, and interaction between treatment and week as fixed effects with participant as a random effect, and with the baseline score as covariate.||0.21|-0.25|0.865
90929648|NCT00683800|181738220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Month 12: Change from baseline of the GCS Vasomotor scale subscore was analyzed using a Mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM), for which changes from baseline at week 12, month 6 and month 12 were outcome variables, with treatment, week, and interaction between treatment and week as fixed effects with participant as a random effect, and with the baseline score as covariate.||-0.29|-0.61|<0.001
90929649|NCT00683800|181738221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test was used to compare the treatment groups.||||<0.001
90929650|NCT00683800|181738222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test was used to compare the treatment groups.||||<0.001
90929651|NCT00683800|181738223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test was used to compare the treatment groups.||||<0.001
90929652|NCT00683800|181738224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test was used to compare the treatment groups.||||<0.001
90929653|NCT00683800|181738225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test was used to compare the treatment groups.||||<0.001
90929654|NCT00683800|181738226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test was used to compare the treatment groups.||||<0.001
90929655|NCT00683800|181738227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test was used to compare the treatment groups.||||<0.001
90929656|NCT00683800|181738228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test was used to compare the treatment groups.||||<0.001
90929657|NCT00683800|181738229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test was used to compare the treatment groups.||||<0.001
90929658|NCT00683800|181738230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test was used to compare the treatment groups.||||<0.001
90971175|NCT03860961|181824934|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5609||||||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Model included baseline CVD risk score, practice as random covariate (participants nested within practice) and treatment arm.||||||0.5609
90929659|NCT00683800|181738231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test was used to compare the treatment groups.||||<0.001
90929660|NCT00683800|181738232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test was used to compare the treatment groups.||||<0.001
90929661|NCT00683800|181738233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Wald Formula|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.68|2.9|||||The 90% CI for excess risk is obtained using the Wald Formula.|Excess risk over placebo of DVS SR 100 mg per 1000 woman-years of exposure, defined as the difference in the exposure adjusted rates between the treatment groups, was obtained.||2.9|-0.68|
90971176|NCT00493870|181824939|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.05
90966749|NCT01898689|181815753|EQUIVALENCE|The a priori equivalence region for the difference in means between the two concentrations was specified as +10 mA. This value was considered the minimal clinically relevant current since it approximates the tolerated electrical current range at baseline of the general population-in other words, natural variability and therefore a relatively small amount of current to detect.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.2|8.5||"P-values from the TOST procedure were 0.02 and 0.03 for the mean being inside the lower and upper boundaries, respectively.~(estimated mean difference of 0.2 mA; 90% CI 28.2 to 8.5)"|Mixed Models Analysis|||"The null and alternative hypotheses were thus:~H0: m0.1%-m0.4% ≤ -10 or m0.1%-m0.4% ≥ 10 and Ha: -10 , m0.1%-m0.4% , 10 where m0.1% and m0.1% are the population means for tolerance to current under 0.1% and 0.4% ropivacaine, respectively.~With 24 evaluable subjects, we had 90% power at the 0.05 significance level to detect equivalence of 0.1% and 0.4% ropivacaine concentration on the mean tolerance to transcutaneous electrical stimulation"||8.5|-8.2|0.02
90966750|NCT02887404|181815759|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|6.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||6|-6|0.92
90966751|NCT02887404|181815760|NON_INFERIORITY|Delta: 15. The significance level for non-inferiority was 0.025|Median Difference (Final Values)|-9.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|3.0|||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|||||3|-21|<0.001
90966752|NCT02887404|181815760|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-9.0||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-23.0|5.0||We adjusted for two outcomes for the superiority testing only, using a significance criterion of 0.0125 for each outcome (i.e., 0.025/2, Bonferroni correction), since superiority on either outcome would suffice.|Hodges-Lehmann estimator|||||5|-23|0.175
90966753|NCT02887404|181815761|NON_INFERIORITY|Delta: 1 The significance level for the non-inferiority test was 0.025.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.0||This is a joint hypothesis testing. We tested non-inferiority on both secondary outcomes. If both showed significant non-inferiority, we tested superiority on both outcomes.|Regression, Linear|||||1|-0.8|<0.001
90966754|NCT02887404|181815761|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.8|0.1||We adjusted for two outcomes for the superiority testing only, using a significance criterion of 0.0125 for each outcome (i.e., 0.025/2, Bonferroni correction), since superiority on either outcome would suffice|Regression, Linear|||||0.1|-0.8|0.094
90966755|NCT02887404|181815779|NON_INFERIORITY|Delta: 9; significance level was 0.025|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.1|-0.3|<0.001
90966756|NCT02887404|181815779|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.171|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.3|0.1||We adjusted for two outcomes for the superiority testing only, using a significance criterion of 0.0125 for each outcome (i.e., 0.025/2, Bonferroni correction), since superiority on either outcome would suffice|Wilcoxon sum rank test|||||0.1|-0.3|0.171
90966757|NCT02887404|181815780|NON_INFERIORITY|Delta: 1 significance level: 0.025|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.1|||Regression, Linear||||The superiority test (this is a joint-hypothesis testing) showed a mean difference of -0.5 between treatment and control group with 97.5% CI of (-1.0, 0.0) and p-value of 0.025. The significance level was 0.025.|-0.1|-1.0|<0.001
90966758|NCT02887404|181815780|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.0|0.0||We adjusted for two outcomes for the superiority testing only, using a significance criterion of 0.0125 for each outcome (i.e., 0.025/2, Bonferroni correction), since superiority on either outcome would suffice|Regression, Linear|||||0.0|-1.0|0.025
90966759|NCT03654976|181815781|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.89||||0.5412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.31|||Negative binomial regression||12 SQ-HDM SLIT-tablet as the numerator and placebo SLIT-tablet as the denominator.|The number of clinically relevant asthma exacerbations was analyzed using a negative binomial regression model with a log-link function and the logarithm of the time in years in the efficacy period as offset. The model included treatment, age group (\<12 years, \>=12 years) and region (west: DEU, ESP, FRA, GBR and USA; central: POL; east: BGR, HUN and RUS) as fixed factors. No missing data approach was applied.||1.31|0.60|0.5412
90966760|NCT03654976|181815782|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7713||||0.4156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.44|||Marginal logistic regression||12 SQ-HDM SLIT-tablet as the numerator and placebo SLIT-tablet as the denominator.|A marginal logistic regression model with a generalized estimating approach was analyzed using treatment, visit, treatment\*visit, age group (\<12 years, \>=12 years) and region (west: DEU, ESP, FRA, GBR and USA; central: POL; east: BGR, HUN and RUS) as fixed factors. Baseline visit was included as a covariate. No missing data approach was applied.||1.44|0.41|0.4156
90966761|NCT03654976|181815783|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8477||||0.4146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.26|||Marginal logistic regression||12 SQ-HDM SLIT-tablet as the numerator and placebo SLIT-tablet as the denominator.|A marginal logistic regression model with a generalized estimating approach was analyzed using treatment, visit, treatment\*visit, age group (\<12 years, \>=12 years) and region (west: DEU, ESP, FRA, GBR and USA; central: POL; east: BGR, HUN and RUS) as fixed factors. Baseline visit is included as a covariate. No missing data approach was applied.||1.26|0.57|0.4146
90966762|NCT03654976|181815784|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.8829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|1.7|||Mixed-effect model repeated measurement||12 SQ-HDM - placebo|A 'mixed-effect model repeated measurement' model was analysed using treatment, visit, treatment\*visit, age group (\<12 years, \>=12 years) and region (west: DEU, ESP, FRA, GBR and USA; central: POL; east: BGR, HUN and RUS) as fixed factors. Baseline visit was included as a covariate. No missing data approach was applied.||1.70|-1.47|0.8829
90966763|NCT03654976|181815785|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.26||||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|3.96|||Generalised linear mixed model||12 SQ-HDM SLIT-tablet as the numerator and placebo SLIT-tablet as the denominator.|The odds of having an improved outcome was analyzed using a generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) with a logit link function. The model included treatment, age group (\<12 years, \>=12 years) and region (west: DEU, ESP, FRA, GBR and USA; central: POL; east: BGR, HUN and RUS) as fixed factors. No missing data approach was applied.||3.96|1.29|0.0044
90971284|NCT04311502|181825276|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.07||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.04|0.18|||Wald chi-square test||Difference in cumulative proportions (Arm 1 - Arm 2)|The point estimate and 90% two-sided confidence intervals for the difference in cumulative proportions of participants experiencing an SAE through week 65 was compared between Arm 1 and Arm 2.||0.18|-0.04|0.27
90929662|NCT00683800|181738235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Wald Formula|2.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.08|6.71|||||The 90% CI for excess risk is obtained using the Wald Formula.|Excess risk over placebo of DVS SR 100 mg per 1000 woman-years of exposure, defined as the difference in the exposure adjusted rates between the treatment groups, was obtained.||6.71|-2.08|
90929663|NCT00683800|181738236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Wald Formula|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.51|3.67|||||The 90% CI for excess risk is obtained using the Wald Formula.|Excess risk over placebo of DVS SR 100 mg per 1000 woman-years of exposure, defined as the difference in the exposure adjusted rates between the treatment groups, was obtained.||3.67|-3.51|
90929664|NCT03542305|181738266|OTHER||Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|104.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.73|136.31|||ANOVA|The natural log transformed parameter was used.|Normal renal function was the reference group. Mild renal impairment was test group. The estimate was derived from ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means of Test and Reference.|||136.31|79.73|
90929665|NCT03542305|181738266|OTHER||Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|118.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.43|154.24|||ANOVA|The natural log transformed parameter was used.|Normal renal function was the reference group. Moderate renal impairment was test group. The estimate was derived from ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means of Test and Reference.|||154.24|91.43|
90929666|NCT03542305|181738266|OTHER||Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|141.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.82|203.66|||ANOVA|The natural log transformed parameter was used.|Normal renal function was the reference group. Severe renal impairment was test group. The estimate was derived from ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means of Test and Reference.|||203.66|97.82|
90929667|NCT03542305|181738267|OTHER||Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|100.53|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|66.48|152.02|||ANOVA|The natural log transformed parameter was used.|Normal renal function was the reference group. Mild renal impairment was test group. The estimate was derived from ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means of Test and Reference.|||152.02|66.48|
90929668|NCT03542305|181738267|OTHER||Slope|88.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|64.18|123.06|||ANOVA|The natural log transformed parameter was used.|Normal renal function was the reference group. Moderate renal impairment was test group. The estimate was derived from ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means of Test and Reference.|||123.06|64.18|
90971285|NCT04311502|181825277|SUPERIORITY|Fisher's exact test was used to test for a difference in proportions|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.13|||Fisher Exact||Difference in proportions (Arm 1 - Arm 2); exact confidence interval|||0.13|-0.10|1
90929669|NCT03542305|181738267|OTHER||Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|92.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|56.58|150.63|||ANOVA|The natural log transformed parameter was used.|Normal renal function was the reference group. Severe renal impairment was test group. The estimate was derived from ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means of Test and Reference.|||150.63|56.58|
90929670|NCT01619059|181738278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.087|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.18||Tested at alpha=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.18|-0.52|<0.0001
90929671|NCT01619059|181738279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.576||0.2014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|3.1||Secondary endpoints were tested at alpha=0.05, applying the hierarchical order for the sequential testing procedure|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.1|-14.9|0.2014
90929672|NCT01619059|181738280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.713|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|3.6||||||||3.6|-11.0|
90929673|NCT01619059|181738281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|12.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.504|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|21.0||||||||21.0|3.4|
90929674|NCT03170648|181738294|OTHER|||||||0.02||||||T2 (post) vs.T1(pre)|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
90929675|NCT03683576|181738297|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.674||||0.1425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.398|1.142|||Regression, Logistic||GB001 20 mg vs. Placebo|||1.142|0.398|0.1425
90929676|NCT03683576|181738297|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.677||||0.1482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.399|1.149|||Regression, Logistic||GB001 40 mg vs. Placebo|||1.149|0.399|0.1482
90929677|NCT03683576|181738297|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.651||||0.1086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.385|1.1|||Regression, Logistic||GB001 60 mg vs. Placebo|||1.100|0.385|0.1086
90929678|NCT03683576|181738298|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15||||0.1647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.06|||ANCOVA||GB001 20 mg vs. Placebo|||0.06|-0.36|0.1647
90929679|NCT03683576|181738298|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15||||0.1737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.07|||ANCOVA||GB001 40 mg vs. Placebo|||0.07|-0.37|0.1737
90929680|NCT03683576|181738298|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.19||||0.0879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.03|||ANCOVA||GB001 60 mg vs. Placebo|||0.03|-0.40|0.0879
90929681|NCT03683576|181738299|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.016||||0.7718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.091|0.123|||ANCOVA||GB001 20 mg vs. Placebo|||0.123|-0.091|0.7718
90929682|NCT03683576|181738299|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.041||||0.4562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.067|0.149|||ANCOVA||GB001 40 mg vs. Placebo|||0.149|-0.067|0.4562
90929683|NCT03683576|181738299|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.075||||0.1631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.18|||ANCOVA||GB001 60 mg vs. Placebo|||0.180|-0.030|0.1631
90929684|NCT03683576|181738300|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.719||||0.0466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.519|0.995|||Regression, Cox||GB001 20 mg vs. Placebo|||0.995|0.519|0.0466
90929685|NCT03683576|181738300|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.773||||0.1222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.558|1.071|||Regression, Cox||GB001 40 mg vs. Placebo|||1.071|0.558|0.1222
90929686|NCT03683576|181738300|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.698||||0.0304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.505|0.967|||Regression, Cox||GB001 60 mg vs. Placebo|||0.967|0.505|0.0304
90929687|NCT03683576|181738301|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.797||||0.3382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.501|1.268|||Negative binomial regression model||GB001 20 mg vs. Placebo|||1.268|0.501|0.3382
90929688|NCT03683576|181738301|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.748||||0.2248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.469|1.195|||Negative binomial regression model||GB001 40 mg vs. Placebo|||1.195|0.469|0.2248
90929689|NCT03683576|181738301|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.889||||0.609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.565|1.397|||Negative binomial regression model||GB001 60 mg vs. Placebo|||1.397|0.565|0.6090
90929690|NCT03683576|181738302|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.023||||0.6645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.127|0.081|||ANCOVA||GB001 20 mg vs. Placebo|||0.081|-0.127|0.6645
90971286|NCT04311502|181825278|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.39|||Regression, Cox|||Time point: Screening||1.39|0.57|0.597
90929691|NCT03683576|181738302|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.035||||0.5288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.074|0.144|||ANCOVA||GB001 40 mg vs. Placebo|||0.144|-0.074|0.5288
90929692|NCT03683576|181738302|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.079||||0.1362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.025|0.182|||ANCOVA||GB001 60 mg vs. Placebo|||0.182|-0.025|0.1362
90929693|NCT03683576|181738303|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.122||||0.3957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.007|20.251|||ANCOVA||GB001 20 mg vs. Placebo|||20.251|-8.007|0.3957
90929694|NCT03683576|181738303|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|13.948||||0.0598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.578|28.474|||ANCOVA||GB001 40 mg vs. Placebo|||28.474|-0.578|0.0598
90929695|NCT03683576|181738303|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.588||||0.4376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.522|19.698|||ANCOVA||GB001 60 mg vs. Placebo|||19.698|-8.522|0.4376
90929696|NCT02350634|181738312|OTHER||Correlation coefficient|0.429|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||A two-sided correlation test (rho ≠ 0) was performed with a significance level of alpha = 0.05 to assess a significant correlation.|Spearman's Rank Order Correlation test|||Null hypothesis is no correlation (correlation coefficient = 0)||||<0.001
90929697|NCT02350634|181738313|OTHER||Correlation coefficient|0.681|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||A two-sided correlation test (rho ≠ 0) was performed with a significance level of alpha = 0.05 to assess a significant correlation.|Spearman's Rank Order Correlation test|||Null hypothesis is no correlation (correlation coefficient = 0)||||<0.001
90929698|NCT02350634|181738314|OTHER||Correlation coefficient|0.644||||0.00278|TWO_SIDED|||||A two-sided correlation test (rho ≠ 0) was performed with a significance level of alpha = 0.05 to assess a significant correlation.|Spearman's Rank Order Correlation test|||Null hypothesis is no correlation (correlation coefficient = 0)||||0.00278
90929699|NCT02350634|181738315|OTHER||Correlation coefficient|0.437||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|||||A two-sided correlation test (rho ≠ 0) was performed with a significance level of alpha = 0.05 to assess a significant correlation.|Spearman's Rank Order Correlation test|||Null hypothesis is no correlation (correlation coefficient = 0)||||0.12
90929700|NCT02350634|181738316|OTHER||Correlation coefficient|0.324||||0.0712|TWO_SIDED|||||A two-sided correlation test (rho ≠ 0) was performed with a significance level of alpha = 0.05 to assess a significant correlation.|Spearman's Rank Order Correlation test|||Null hypothesis is no correlation (correlation coefficient = 0)||||0.0712
91035875|NCT02558491|181958308|OTHER|||||||0.744||||||No a priori sample size was determined due to the feasibility/pilot nature of the trial. Significance level was set at P-value \<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Secondary analysis followed the same format unless variables could not be considered normally distributed; in that case a related samples Wilcoxon signed-rank test is used. Data were first binned (to ensure minimum count of five per bins) and the w2 statistics was used with the expected counts given by SoC. Based on achieved recruitment, a moderate effect size (0.3) is detectable with 80% power, or a large effect size (0.4) with 95% power (G-Power 3.1.9.2). Outcome measurement was for overall.||||0.744
90929701|NCT02350634|181738317|OTHER||Correlation coefficient|0.564||||0.0958|TWO_SIDED|||||A two-sided correlation test (rho ≠ 0) was performed with a significance level of alpha = 0.05 to assess a significant correlation.|Spearman's Rank Order Correlation test|||Null hypothesis is no correlation (correlation coefficient = 0)||||0.0958
90929702|NCT02350634|181738318|OTHER||Correlation coefficient|-0.189||||0.558|TWO_SIDED|||||A two-sided correlation test (rho ≠ 0) was performed with a significance level of alpha = 0.05 to assess a significant correlation.|Spearman's Rank Order Correlation test|||Null hypothesis is no correlation (correlation coefficient = 0)||||0.558
90929703|NCT04241848|181738324|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.007|||||||ANOVA|||Within-group comparison of Five Times Sit to Stand Test (5xSTS), from Baseline to after completing 36 training sessions. Assessed while not wearing the Powered Exoskeleton.||||=0.007
90929704|NCT04241848|181738324|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.24|||||||ANOVA|||Within-group comparison of Five Times Sit to Stand Test (5xSTS), from Baseline to after completing 36 training sessions. Assessed while not wearing the Powered Exoskeleton.||||=0.240
90929705|NCT04241848|181738324|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group comparison of Five Times Sit to Stand Test (5xSTS), from Baseline to after completing 36 training sessions. Assessed while wearing the Powered Exoskeleton.||||=0.04
90929706|NCT04241848|181738327|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.129|||||||ANOVA|||Within-group comparison of Six Minute Walk Test (6MWT), from Baseline to after completing 36 training sessions. Assessed while not wearing the Powered Exoskeleton.||||0.129
90929707|NCT04241848|181738327|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||ANOVA|||Within-group comparison of Six Minute Walk Test (6MWT), from Baseline to after completing 36 training sessions. Assessed while not wearing the Powered Exoskeleton.||||0.250
90929708|NCT04241848|181738327|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.073|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group comparison of Six Minute Walk Test (6MWT), from Baseline to after completing 36 training sessions. Assessed while wearing the Powered Exoskeleton.||||=0.073
90929709|NCT04241848|181738328|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.091|||||||ANOVA|||Within-group comparison of Ten Meter Walk Test (10MWT), from Baseline to after completing 36 training sessions. Assessed while not wearing the Powered Exoskeleton.||||=0.091
90929710|NCT04241848|181738328|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.296|||||||ANOVA|||Within-group comparison of Ten Meter Walk Test (10MWT), from Baseline to after completing 36 training sessions. Assessed while not wearing the Powered Exoskeleton.||||0.296
90929711|NCT04241848|181738328|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.427|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group comparison of Ten Meter Walk Test (10MWT), from Baseline to after completing 36 training sessions. Assessed while wearing the Powered Exoskeleton.||||0.427
90929712|NCT04241848|181738329|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.063|||||||ANOVA|||Within-group comparison of Timed Up and Go (TUG) Test, from Baseline to after completing 36 training sessions. Assessed while not wearing the Powered Exoskeleton.||||0.063
90929713|NCT04241848|181738329|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.447|||||||ANOVA|||Within-group comparison of Timed Up and Go (TUG) Test, from Baseline to after completing 36 training sessions. Assessed while not wearing the Powered Exoskeleton.||||0.447
90929714|NCT04241848|181738329|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.096|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group comparison of Timed Up and Go (TUG) Test, from Baseline to after completing 36 training sessions. Assessed while wearing the Powered Exoskeleton.||||0.096
90929715|NCT04241848|181738330|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035|||||||ANOVA|||Within-group comparison of Step Length of Paretic (Pa) Lower Extremities (LE), from Baseline to after completing 36 training sessions. Assessed while not wearing the Powered Exoskeleton.||||0.035
90929716|NCT04241848|181738330|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.677|||||||ANOVA|||Within-group comparison of Step Length of Paretic (Pa) Lower Extremities (LE), from Baseline to after completing 36 training sessions. Assessed while not wearing the Powered Exoskeleton.||||=0.677
90929717|NCT04241848|181738330|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.022|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group comparison of Step Length of Paretic (Pa) Lower Extremities (LE), from Baseline to after completing 36 training sessions. Assessed while wearing the Powered Exoskeleton.||||=0.022
90929718|NCT04241848|181738331|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.098|||||||ANOVA|||Within-group comparison of Step lengths of the non-paretic (NP) Lower Extremities (LE), from Baseline to after completing 36 training sessions. Assessed while not wearing the Powered Exoskeleton.||||=0.098
90929719|NCT04241848|181738331|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.666|||||||ANOVA|||Within-group comparison of Step lengths of the non-paretic (NP) Lower Extremities (LE), from Baseline to after completing 36 training sessions. Assessed while not wearing the Powered Exoskeleton.||||0.666
90929720|NCT04241848|181738331|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group comparison of Step lengths of the non-paretic (NP) Lower Extremities (LE), from Baseline to after completing 36 training sessions. Assessed while wearing the Powered Exoskeleton.||||=0.007
90929721|NCT04241848|181738332|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Within-group comparison of the Stair Climb Power Test (SCPT), from Baseline to after completing 36 training sessions. Assessed while not wearing the Powered Exoskeleton.||||=0.001
90929722|NCT04241848|181738332|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.009|||||||ANOVA|||Within-group comparison of the Stair Climb Power Test (SCPT), from Baseline to after completing 36 training sessions. Assessed while not wearing the Powered Exoskeleton.||||=0.009
90929723|NCT04241848|181738332|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group comparison of the Stair Climb Power Test (SCPT), from Baseline to after completing 36 training sessions. Assessed while wearing the Powered Exoskeleton.||||0.018
90929724|NCT02823028|181738417|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.931||||0.779|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||.779
90929725|NCT03414684|181738425|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.84|||Log Rank|stratified log rank test|Reference level is Arm B, such that hazard ratio corresponds to the effect of treatment on Arm A|||1.84|0.49|0.88
90929726|NCT03414684|181738426|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|4.18|||Fisher Exact||Reference level is Arm B, such that the odds ratio corresponds to the effect of treatment on Arm A|||4.18|0.29|1
90929727|NCT03414684|181738428|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.5|||Log Rank|stratified log rank test|Reference level is Arm B, such that the hazard ratio corresponds to treatment on Arm A|||1.50|0.43|0.49
90929728|NCT03414684|181738429|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|3.43|||Fisher Exact||Reference level is Arm B, such that the odds ratio corresponds to treatment on Arm A|||3.43|0.32|1
90929729|NCT03414684|181738430|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|2.12|||Log Rank||Reference level is Arm B, such that the hazard ratio corresponds to treatment on Arm A|||2.12|0.13|0.36
90929730|NCT03414684|181738431|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.24||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|3.43|||Log Rank||Reference level is Arm B, such that the hazard ratio corresponds to treatment on Arm A|||3.43|0.43|0.68
90929731|NCT03414684|181738432|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.62|||Log Rank|stratified log rank test|Reference level is Arm B, such that the hazard ratio corresponds to treatment on Arm A|||1.62|0.18|0.27
90929732|NCT03414684|181738433|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|7.78|||Fisher Exact||Reference level is Arm B, such that the odds ratio corresponds to treatment on Arm A|||7.78|0.08|1
90929733|NCT03414684|181738435|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|2.16|||Log Rank|stratified log rank test|Reference level is Arm B, such that the hazard ratio corresponds to treatment on Arm A|||2.16|0.26|0.61
90929734|NCT03414684|181738436|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|5.93|||Fisher Exact||Reference level is Arm B, such that the odds ratio corresponds to treatment on Arm A|||5.93|0.10|1
90929735|NCT03414684|181738438|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|3.89|||Log Rank||Reference level is Arm B, such that the hazard ratio corresponds to treatment on Arm A|||3.89|0.14|0.73
90929736|NCT04038580|181738453|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.553||||||Statistical significance was set a-priori at p\<0.05|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis was that all sockets would have the same SCS||||0.553
90929737|NCT04038580|181738454|SUPERIORITY|Frustration sub-scale||||||0.536|||||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis was that all sockets would be the same||||0.536
90929738|NCT04038580|181738454|SUPERIORITY|Perceived Response||||||0.598|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.598
90929739|NCT04038580|181738454|SUPERIORITY|Social Burden||||||0.072|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.072
90929740|NCT04038580|181738454|SUPERIORITY|Ambulation Sub-scale||||||0.018|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.018
90929741|NCT04038580|181738454|SUPERIORITY|Prosthesis Utility||||||0.037|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.037
90929742|NCT04038580|181738454|SUPERIORITY|Residual Limb Health||||||0.254|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.254
90929743|NCT04038580|181738454|SUPERIORITY|Appearance||||||0.032|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.032
90929744|NCT04038580|181738454|SUPERIORITY|Sounds||||||0.352|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.352
90929745|NCT04038580|181738454|SUPERIORITY|Well-being||||||0.077|||||||ANOVA|||||||.077
90929746|NCT04038580|181738455|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||ANOVA|general linear model with socket as fixed factor and participant as random factor||||||0.95
90929747|NCT04038580|181738456|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.853|||||||ANOVA|general linear model with sockets as fixed effect and subjects as random effect||||||.853
90929748|NCT04038580|181738457|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.565|||||||ANOVA|general linear model with socket as a fixed factor and subjects as a random factor||||||0.565
90929749|NCT04038580|181738459|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.374|||||||ANOVA|general linear model with socket as fixed factor and subjects as random factor||||||.374
90929750|NCT04038580|181738461|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.574|||||||ANOVA|general linear model with socket as a fixed factor and subjects as a random factor||||||.574
90929751|NCT02927249|181738523|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.56||||||||1.56|0.91|
90929752|NCT02927249|181738524|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.69||||||||1.69|0.74|
90929753|NCT02927249|181738525|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.52||||||||1.52|0.83|
90929754|NCT01787032|181738533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|373.66|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|346.029|403.507|||ANOVA|A bioequivalence acceptance range was not specified and no hypothesis was tested as the main focus was on estimation.|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale: included effects accounting for following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'patients within sequence', 'period' and 'treatment'. Random effect: 'patients within sequences', others considered as fixed effects.|||403.507|346.029|
90929755|NCT01787032|181738533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|266.94|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|243.267|292.914|||ANOVA|A bioequivalence acceptance range was not specified and no hypothesis was tested as the main focus was on estimation.|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale: included effects accounting for following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'patients within sequence', 'period' and 'treatment'. Random effect: 'patients within sequences', others considered as fixed effects.|||292.914|243.267|
90929756|NCT01787032|181738534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|261.34|STANDARD_DEVIATION|37.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|211.692|322.633|||ANOVA|A bioequivalence acceptance range was not specified and no hypothesis was tested as the main focus was on estimation|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale: included effects accounting for following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'patients within sequence', 'period' and 'treatment'. Random effect: 'patients within sequences', others considered as fixed effects.|||322.633|211.692|
90929757|NCT01787032|181738534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|213.39|STANDARD_DEVIATION|34.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|175.783|259.051|||ANOVA|A bioequivalence acceptance range was not specified and no hypothesis was tested as the main focus was on estimation.|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale: included effects accounting for following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'patients within sequence', 'period' and 'treatment'. Random effect: 'patients within sequences', others considered as fixed effects.|||259.051|175.783|
90929758|NCT01787032|181738535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|372.88|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|345.456|402.477|||ANOVA|A bioequivalence acceptance range was not specified and no hypothesis was tested as the main focus was on estimation.|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale: included effects accounting for following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'patients within sequence', 'period' and 'treatment'. Random effect: 'patients within sequences', others considered as fixed effects.|||402.477|345.456|
90929759|NCT01787032|181738535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|266.56|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|242.955|292.456|||ANOVA|A bioequivalence acceptance range was not specified and no hypothesis was tested as the main focus was on estimation.|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale: included effects accounting for following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'patients within sequence', 'period' and 'treatment'. Random effect: 'patients within sequences', others considered as fixed effects.|||292.456|242.955|
90929760|NCT00853593|181738585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||One sample proportion|0.951|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.906||||||The Model 4396 lead will be considered safe if the proportion of subjects free of Model 4396 lead-related complications at one month post-implant is greater than 80% (i.e. the one sided 95% lower confidence bound must be at least 80%).||||.906|
90929761|NCT00853593|181738586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||One sample mean|1.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.4|||ONE_SIDED|95.0||1.8||||||||1.8||
90929762|NCT00853593|181738587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||One sample mean|2.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.0|||ONE_SIDED|97.5||2.7||||||||2.7||
90929763|NCT00853593|181738588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||One sample proportion|0.927|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.887|0.967||||||||.967|.887|
90929764|NCT00853593|181738589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||One sample proportion|0.969|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.944|0.993||||||||.993|.944|
90929765|NCT00853593|181738590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||One sample proportion|0.959|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|0.987||||||||.987|.930|
90929766|NCT00853593|181738591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||One sample proportion|0.948|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.917|0.979||||||||.979|.917|
90929767|NCT00853593|181738597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||One sample mean|2.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.9|||ONE_SIDED|95.0||2.7||||||||2.7||
90929768|NCT03229408|181738608|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.004|||||||Unpaired t-test, 2-Sided|||||||<0.004
90929769|NCT03229408|181738609|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.03|||||||Unpaired T-test, 2-Sided|||||||<0.03
90929770|NCT03229408|181738610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||Unpaired t-test, 2-Sided|||||||0.180
90929771|NCT03229408|181738611|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.002|||||||Unpaired T-test, 2-Sided|||||||<0.002
90929772|NCT03229408|181738612|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.04|||||||Unpaired t-test, 2-Sided|||||||<0.04
90929773|NCT03229408|181738613|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.003|||||||Unpaired t-test, 2-Sided|||||||<0.003
90929774|NCT03229408|181738614|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0004|||||||Unpaired t-test, 2-Sided|||||||<0.0004
90929775|NCT03229408|181738615|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.007|||||||Unpaired t-test, 2-Sided|||||||<0.007
90929776|NCT06193590|181738618|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.21
90929777|NCT06193590|181738619|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1
90929778|NCT06193590|181738621|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.001
90929779|NCT01367236|181738644|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||Regression, Linear|||24 weeks||||0.68
90929780|NCT01367236|181738644|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||Regression, Linear|||48 weeks||||0.43
90929781|NCT01367236|181738645|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0009|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.0009
90929782|NCT02628626|181738668|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.85
90929783|NCT02628626|181738669|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||ANCOVA|||Approximately 4 weeks||||0.24
90929784|NCT02628626|181738670|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||ANCOVA|||Approximately 4 weeks||||0.44
90929785|NCT02628626|181738671|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.35
90929786|NCT02628626|181738672|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||ANCOVA|||Approximately 4 weeks||||0.56
90929787|NCT02628626|181738673|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.55
90929788|NCT02628626|181738674|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||ANCOVA|||Small (staining only)||||0.11
90929789|NCT02628626|181738674|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||ANCOVA|||Moderate (requires change of underwear)||||0.06
90929790|NCT02628626|181738674|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||ANCOVA|||Large (requires complete change of clothes)||||0.36
90929791|NCT02628626|181738675|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.18
90929792|NCT02628626|181738676|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.04
90929793|NCT02628626|181738677|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.29
90929794|NCT02628626|181738678|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.39
90929795|NCT02628626|181738679|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.07
90929796|NCT02628626|181738680|SUPERIORITY|approximately 4 weeks post-treatment||||||0.12|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.12
90929797|NCT02628626|181738681|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||ANCOVA|||Lifestyle Score||||0.67
90929798|NCT02628626|181738681|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||ANCOVA|||Coping Score||||0.80
90929799|NCT02628626|181738681|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||ANCOVA|||Depression Score||||0.49
90929800|NCT02628626|181738681|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||ANCOVA|||Embarrassment Score||||0.60
90929801|NCT02628626|181738682|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||ANCOVA|||Approximately 4 weeks post-treatment||||0.78
90929802|NCT02962102|181738696|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.52
90929803|NCT02962102|181738696|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.58
90929804|NCT02962102|181738697|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.20
90929805|NCT02962102|181738697|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.20
90929806|NCT02962102|181738698|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.44
90929807|NCT02962102|181738698|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.29
90929808|NCT05116163|181738715|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.05|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Difference in the mean of percent of quality metrics achieved in the intervention arm minus the control arm.|||||<0.001
90929809|NCT05116163|181738716|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.1||||0.1164|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1164
90929810|NCT05116163|181738717|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.6781|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Intervention group mean - control group mean|||||0.6781
90929811|NCT05116163|181738718|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.4795|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Intervention group mean - control group mean|||||0.4795
90929812|NCT05116163|181738719|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.056|||||||Regression, Linear|||Comparison of 3-month vs. baseline adherence scores in patients of providers in the intervention arm vs. control||||0.056
90929813|NCT05116163|181738720|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33||||0.017|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.017
90929814|NCT05116163|181738721|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.3957|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Mean from intervention arm - control arm.|||||0.3957
90929815|NCT05116163|181738722|SUPERIORITY||Incidence Rate Ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.64||||||Comparing the incidence rate of ED visits for the intervention vs. control arms.||1.64|0.63|
90929816|NCT05116163|181738723|SUPERIORITY||Incidence Rate Ratio|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.36||||||Incidence rate ratio comparing incidence rates of outpatient visits in the intervention vs. control arms.||1.36|1.07|
90929817|NCT05116163|181738724|SUPERIORITY||Incidence Rate Ratio|4.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.69|9.73||||||Incidence rate ratio comparing the incidence rates of hospitalizations in the intervention vs. control arm patients.||9.73|1.69|
90929818|NCT05116163|181738725|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3882|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Post vs. pre IAT d-scores comparing the intervention vs. control arms.||||0.3882
90929819|NCT05116163|181738726|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3615|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparing post vs. pre IAT d-scores between the intervention and control groups.||||0.3615
90929820|NCT05116163|181738727|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9432|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparing post vs pre IAT d-scores in the intervention vs. control arms.||||0.9432
90929821|NCT05116163|181738728|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1453|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Post vs pre IAT d-scores for the intervention vs. control arms.||||0.1453
90929822|NCT05251363|181738732|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Exact binomial test|||Ho: SADE-free rate ≤ 87.5% Ha: SADE-free rate \> 87.5% Used an exact binomial test comparing the observed proportion (overall SADE-free rate through 3 months) to the performance goal of 87.5%. The lower, two-sided 95% confidence bound for the overall SADE-free rate must be greater than 87.5% to reject the null hypothesis (Ho), which would demonstrate evidence that the SADE-free rate is significantly higher than 87.5%.||||<0.0001
90929823|NCT05251363|181738733|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Exact binomial test|||H0: Implant Success Rate ≤ 80% Ha: Implant Success Rate \> 80% Used an exact binomial test comparing the observed proportion (implant success rate) to the performance goal of 80%. The lower, two-sided 95% confidence bound for the overall implant success rate must be greater than 80% to reject the null hypothesis (Ho), which would demonstrate evidence that the rate of successful Solia S LBBA implants is significantly higher than 80.0%.||||< 0.0001
90929824|NCT05251363|181738734|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||H0: Improvement in QOL Physical Function Scale ≤ 2.8 Ha: Improvement in QOL Physical Function Scale \> 2.8 Exact one-sample t-test comparing mean improvement in QOL from baseline to 12-mo post-implant to a goal of +2.8. The lower, two-sided 95% confidence bound for the improvement in QOL must be \> +2.8 to reject H0.||||<0.001
90929825|NCT03835754|181738752|OTHER|Confidence internal is 88.8%, upper bound limit 99.2%|Clopper Pearson exact confidence interva|96.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|88.8|99.2||||||||99.2|88.8|
90971287|NCT04311502|181825278|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.44|||Regression, Cox|||Time point: Entry||1.44|0.58|0.70
90971288|NCT04311502|181825278|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.03|||Regression, Cox|||Time point: Week 2||1.03|0.40|0.07
90929826|NCT01586104|181738773|OTHER|With 20 patients, there is 80% power to detect a difference of 100% with Standard lung RT versus 93% with IMRT assuming a standard deviation of 8 (as seen for the whole heart), a one tailed test and a Bonferroni correction for 4 statistical tests so that each test is done at p\<0.0125.|||||<|0.0125||||||The reported p value was calculated. The statistical analysis performed is attached to the outcome measure reported.|Bonferroni corrected at p<0.0125|||Feasibility will be defined as an enrolled patient receiving the IMRT treatment as planned. It is expected that the treatment will be feasible in at least 90% of patients. If the treatment is feasible in 16 or more out of 20 patients, then the treatment will be declared feasible. If the true feasibility rate is 90%, then there is a 4.3% chance that 15 or fewer feasible patients will be observed.|Lung-metastases-free survival will be estimated using Kaplan-Meier survival curves (minimum period of six months).|||<0.0125
90929827|NCT05256797|181738774|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.71||||||Hazard ratio||0.71|0.66|
90929828|NCT04484623|181738787|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.73||P-Value presented to 3 decimal places from one-sided stratified Log-Rank test adjusting for the number of lines of prior therapy (1 vs. 2/3 vs. \>=4) and prior bortezomib (yes or no) according to IVRS strata.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox Proportional Hazards model stratified by the number of lines of prior therapy (1 vs. 2/3 vs. \>=4) and prior bortezomib (yes or no) according to IVRS strata with a covariate of treatment.|||0.73|0.37|<0.001
90929829|NCT06214052|181738830|OTHER||Emax|-2.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0||||||||||||||||
90929830|NCT06214052|181738830|OTHER||EC50|1.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|26.0||||||||||||||||
90929831|NCT04649047|181738834|NON_INFERIORITY|Paired T test (pre- post-)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.92||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|-0.23|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.23|-5.6|0.036
90929832|NCT04649047|181738835|NON_INFERIORITY|Paired T test (pre- post-)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56||||-0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.10|-1.02|-0.77
90929833|NCT04649047|181738836|NON_INFERIORITY|Paired T test (pre- post-)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.42||||-0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.69|0.85|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.85|-7.69|-0.51
90929834|NCT04649047|181738837|NON_INFERIORITY|Paired T test (pre- post-)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.85||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|2.03|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.03|-0.32|0.49
90929835|NCT04649047|181738838|NON_INFERIORITY|Paired T test (pre- post-)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.54||||-0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.9|2.82|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.82|-19.9|-0.48
90929836|NCT04649047|181738839|NON_INFERIORITY|Paired T test (pre- post-)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|64.46||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-256.0|384.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||||384.7|-256|0.13
90929837|NCT04649047|181738840|NON_INFERIORITY|Paired T test (pre- post-)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.5||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|6.02|||t-test, 2 sided|||||6.02|0.98|0.88
90929838|NCT04649047|181738841|NON_INFERIORITY|Paired T test (pre- post-)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.67||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|4.94|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.94|-0.10|0.61
90929839|NCT04649047|181738842|NON_INFERIORITY|Paired T test (pre- post-)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.5||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|8.18|||t-test, 2 sided|||||8.18|0.82|0.78
90929840|NCT04649047|181738843|NON_INFERIORITY|Paired T test (pre- post-)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.42||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|7.16|||t-test, 2 sided|||||7.16|-0.32|0.58
90929841|NCT04649047|181738844|NON_INFERIORITY|Paired T test (pre- post-)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.42||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|4.94|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.94|-0.10|0.61
90929842|NCT04649047|181738845|NON_INFERIORITY|Paired T test (pre- post-)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.83||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|9.16|||t-test, 2 sided|||||9.16|-1.50|0.46
90929843|NCT04649047|181738846|NON_INFERIORITY|Paired T test (pre- post-)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.08||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|7.73|||t-test, 2 sided|||||7.73|0.43|0.71
90929844|NCT04649047|181738847|NON_INFERIORITY|Paired T test (pre- post-)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.67||||-0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.12|0.79|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.79|-8.12|-0.52
90929845|NCT05886777|181738852|NON_INFERIORITY|Null hypothesis(H0) to assess noninferiority with respect to RSVpreF was evaluated by following hypothesis for both RSV A and B as measured by NT: H0: ln(μ1)- ln(μ4) \<= ln(0.5) where ln(0.5) corresponds to a 2-fold margin for noninferiority, ln(μ1), ln(μ4) are natural log of geometric mean of NT 1 month after vaccination for Group 1, 4, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.782|1.249|||||GMRs and 2-sided confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated by exponentiating mean differences of logarithms of titers (Intervention Group \[Group 1\] minus Reference Group \[Group 4\]) and corresponding CIs (based on the Student t distribution).|||1.249|0.782|
90929846|NCT05886777|181738853|NON_INFERIORITY|Null hypothesis(H0) to assess noninferiority with respect to RSVpreF was evaluated by following hypothesis for both RSV A and B as measured by NT: H0: ln(μ1)- ln(μ4) \<= ln(0.5) where ln(0.5) corresponds to a 2-fold margin for noninferiority, ln(μ1), ln(μ4) are natural log of geometric mean of NT 1 month after vaccination for Group 1, 4, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.697|1.162|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating mean differences of the logarithms of titers (Intervention Group \[Group 1\] minus Reference Group \[Group 4\]) and corresponding CIs (based on the Student t distribution).|||1.162|0.697|
90940994|NCT00943722|181761611|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages between lots be entirely contained within the interval (-5, 5).|Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.7|||||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) minus 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 2)|Anti-HPV 16||0.7|-0.7|
90971289|NCT04311502|181825278|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.98|||Regression, Cox|||Time point: Week 4||0.98|0.34|0.04
90966764|NCT03654976|181815786|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|1.62||||0.0698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|2.74|||Generalised linear mixed model||12 SQ-HDM SLIT-tablet as the numerator and placebo SLIT-tablet as the denominator.|The odds of having an improved outcome was analysed using a generalised linear mixed model (GLMM) with a logit link function. The model included treatment, age group (\<12 years, \>=12 years) and region (west: DEU, ESP, FRA, GBR and USA; central: POL; east: BGR, HUN and RUS) as fixed factors. No missing data approach was applied.||2.74|0.96|0.0698
90929847|NCT05886777|181738854|NON_INFERIORITY|Null hypothesis (H0) to assess noninferiority with respect to BNT162b2 was evaluated by following hypothesis for both SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.4/BA.5 strain and reference strain as measured by NT: H0: ln(μ1)- ln(μ3) \<= ln(0.5) where ln(0.5) corresponds to a 2-fold margin for noninferiority, and ln(μ1) and ln(μ3) are natural log of geometric mean of NT 1 month after vaccination for Group 1, 3, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.605|1.168|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating mean differences of the logarithms of titers (Intervention Group \[Group 1\] minus Reference Group \[Group 3\]) and corresponding CIs (based on the Student t distribution).|||1.168|0.605|
90929848|NCT05886777|181738855|NON_INFERIORITY|Null hypothesis (H0) to assess noninferiority with respect to BNT162b2 was evaluated by following hypothesis for both SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.4/BA.5 strain and reference strain as measured by NT: H0: ln(μ1)- ln(μ3) \<= ln(0.5) where ln(0.5) corresponds to a 2-fold margin for noninferiority, and ln(μ1) and ln(μ3) are natural log of geometric mean of NT 1 month after vaccination for Group 1, 3, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.618|1.014|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the titers (Intervention Group \[Group 1\] minus Reference Group \[Group 3\]) and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student t distribution).|||1.014|0.618|
90929849|NCT05886777|181738856|NON_INFERIORITY|Null hypothesis (H0) to assess noninferiority with respect to QIV was evaluated by following hypothesis for each of 4 strains included in QIV as measured by HAI titer: H0: ln(μ1)- ln(μ5) \<= ln(0.5) where ln(0.5) corresponds to a 2-fold margin for noninferiority, and ln(μ1) and ln(μ5) are natural log of the geometric mean of HAI titers 1 month after vaccination for Group 1,5, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.785|1.423|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the titers (Intervention Group \[Group 1\] minus Reference Group \[Group 5\]) and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student t distribution).|||1.423|0.785|
90929850|NCT05886777|181738857|NON_INFERIORITY|Null hypothesis (H0) to assess noninferiority with respect to QIV was evaluated by following hypothesis for each of 4 strains included in QIV as measured by HAI titer: H0: ln(μ1)- ln(μ5) \<= ln(0.5) where ln(0.5) corresponds to a 2-fold margin for noninferiority, and ln(μ1) and ln(μ5) are natural log of the geometric mean of HAI titers 1 month after vaccination for Group 1,5, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.909|1.402|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the titers (Intervention Group \[Group 1\] minus Reference Group \[Group 5\]) and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student t distribution).|||1.402|0.909|
90929851|NCT05886777|181738858|NON_INFERIORITY|Null hypothesis (H0) to assess noninferiority with respect to QIV was evaluated by following hypothesis for each of 4 strains included in QIV as measured by HAI titer: H0: ln(μ1)- ln(μ5) \<= ln(0.5) where ln(0.5) corresponds to a 2-fold margin for noninferiority, and ln(μ1) and ln(μ5) are natural log of the geometric mean of HAI titers 1 month after vaccination for Group 1,5, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.773|1.434|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the titers (Intervention Group \[Group 1\] minus Reference Group \[Group 5\]) and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student t distribution).|||1.434|0.773|
90929852|NCT05886777|181738859|NON_INFERIORITY|Null hypothesis (H0) to assess noninferiority with respect to QIV was evaluated by following hypothesis for each of 4 strains included in QIV as measured by HAI titer: H0: ln(μ1)- ln(μ5) \<= ln(0.5) where ln(0.5) corresponds to a 2-fold margin for noninferiority, and ln(μ1) and ln(μ5) are natural log of the geometric mean of HAI titers 1 month after vaccination for Group 1,5, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.807|1.515|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the titers (Intervention Group \[Group 1\] minus Reference Group \[Group 5\]) and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student t distribution).|||1.515|0.807|
90929853|NCT05886777|181738860|NON_INFERIORITY|Null hypothesis(H0) to assess noninferiority with respect to RSVpreF was evaluated by following hypothesis for both RSV A, RSV B as measured by NT:H0: ln(μ2)- ln(μ4) \<=ln(0.5) where ln(0.5) corresponds to a 2-fold margin for noninferiority and ln(μ2) and ln(μ4) are natural log of geometric mean of NT 1 month after vaccination for Group 2, 4, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.769|1.288|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the titers (Intervention Group \[Group 2\] minus Reference Group \[Group 4\]) and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student t distribution).|||1.288|0.769|
90929854|NCT05886777|181738861|NON_INFERIORITY|Null hypothesis(H0) to assess noninferiority with respect to RSVpreF was evaluated by following hypothesis for both RSV A, RSV B as measured by NT:H0: ln(μ2)- ln(μ4) \<=ln(0.5) where ln(0.5) corresponds to a 2-fold margin for noninferiority and ln(μ2) and ln(μ4) are natural log of geometric mean of NT 1 month after vaccination for Group 2, 4, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.836|1.429|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the titers (Intervention Group \[Group 2\] minus Reference Group \[Group 4\]) and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student t distribution).|||1.429|0.836|
90929855|NCT05886777|181738862|NON_INFERIORITY|Null hypothesis (H0) to assess noninferiority with respect to BNT162b2 will be evaluated by following hypothesis for both SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.4/BA.5 strain and reference strain as measured by NT:H0: ln(μ2)- ln(μ3) \<= ln(0.5)where ln(0.5) corresponds to a 2-fold margin for noninferiority and ln(μ2) and ln(μ3) are natural log of geometric mean of NT 1 month after vaccination for Group 2,3, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.594|1.19|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the titers (Intervention Group \[Group 2\] minus Reference Group \[Group 3\]) and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student t distribution).|||1.190|0.594|
91078643|NCT01964716|182043068|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for a given antibody serotype was declared if lower bound of the 2-sided, 97.5% confidence interval for the geometric mean concentration ratio (GMC MDV /GMC SDS) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMC Ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.82|1.08||||||Serotype 7F: Ratio of GMCs, MDV to SDS, was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale; CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS).||1.08|0.82|
91078644|NCT01964716|182043068|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for a given antibody serotype was declared if lower bound of the 2-sided, 97.5% confidence interval for the geometric mean concentration ratio (GMC MDV /GMC SDS) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMC Ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.87|1.21||||||Serotype 9V: Ratio of GMCs, MDV to SDS, was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale; CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS).||1.21|0.87|
91078645|NCT01964716|182043068|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for a given antibody serotype was declared if lower bound of the 2-sided, 97.5% confidence interval for the geometric mean concentration ratio (GMC MDV /GMC SDS) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMC Ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.75|1.24||||||Serotype 14: Ratio of GMCs, MDV to SDS, was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale; CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS).||1.24|0.75|
90929856|NCT05886777|181738863|NON_INFERIORITY|Null hypothesis (H0) to assess noninferiority with respect to BNT162b2 will be evaluated by following hypothesis for both SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.4/BA.5 strain and reference strain as measured by NT:H0: ln(μ2)- ln(μ3) \<= ln(0.5)where ln(0.5) corresponds to a 2-fold margin for noninferiority and ln(μ2) and ln(μ3) are natural log of geometric mean of NT 1 month after vaccination for Group 2,3, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.632|1.125|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the titers (Intervention Group \[Group 2\] minus Reference Group \[Group 3\]) and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student t distribution).|||1.125|0.632|
90940995|NCT00943722|181761611|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages between lots be entirely contained within the interval (-5, 5).|Percentage Point Difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.3|||||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) minus 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 3)|Anti-HPV 16||1.3|-0.4|
90940996|NCT00943722|181761611|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages between lots be entirely contained within the interval (-5, 5).|Percentage Point Difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.3|||||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 2) minus 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 3)|Anti-HPV 16||1.3|-0.4|
90940997|NCT00943722|181761611|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages between lots be entirely contained within the interval (-5, 5).|Percentage Point Difference|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.5|||||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) minus 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 2)|Anti-HPV 18||0.5|-1.1|
90940998|NCT00943722|181761611|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages between lots be entirely contained within the interval (-5, 5).|Percentage Point Difference|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.1|||||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) minus 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 3)|Anti-HPV 18||1.1|-0.7|
90940999|NCT00943722|181761611|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages between lots be entirely contained within the interval (-5, 5).|Percentage Point Difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.3|||||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 2) minus 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 3)|Anti-HPV 18||1.3|-0.4|
90941000|NCT00943722|181761611|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages between lots be entirely contained within the interval (-5, 5).|Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.7|||||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) minus 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 2)|Anti-HPV 31||0.7|-0.7|
90941001|NCT00943722|181761611|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages between lots be entirely contained within the interval (-5, 5).|Percentage Point Difference|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.0|||||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) minus 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 3)|Anti-HPV 31||1.0|-0.6|
90941002|NCT00943722|181761611|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages between lots be entirely contained within the interval (-5, 5).|Percentage Point Difference|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.0|||||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 2) minus 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 3)|Anti-HPV 31||1.0|-0.5|
90941003|NCT00943722|181761611|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages between lots be entirely contained within the interval (-5, 5).|Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.7|||||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) minus 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 2)|Anti-HPV 33||0.7|-0.7|
90941004|NCT00943722|181761611|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages between lots be entirely contained within the interval (-5, 5).|Percentage Point Difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.3|||||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) minus 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 3)|Anti-HPV 33||1.3|-0.4|
90941005|NCT00943722|181761611|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages between lots be entirely contained within the interval (-5, 5).|Percentage Point Difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.3|||||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 2) minus 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 3)|Anti-HPV 33||1.3|-0.4|
90941006|NCT00943722|181761611|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages between lots be entirely contained within the interval (-5, 5).|Percentage Point Difference|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.5|||||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) minus 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 2)|Anti-HPV 45||0.5|-1.1|
90966765|NCT00117598|181815789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.63|||Log Rank||HR from a cox model adjusted for baseline stratification factors|Two null hypotheses (Ho) tested: 1. PFS distributions for temsirolimus 175/75 mg and investigator's choice treatment groups are identical. 2. PFS distributions for temsirolimus 175/25 mg and investigator's choice treatment groups are identical. Alternative hypothesis (Ha) for each test was that PFS distributions differed.||0.63|0.25|<0.0001
90929857|NCT05886777|181738864|NON_INFERIORITY|Null hypothesis(H0) to assess noninferiority with respect to RSVpreF was evaluated by following hypothesis for both RSV A and B as measured by NT: H0: ln(μ1)- ln(μ4) \<= ln(0.5) where ln(0.5) corresponds to a 2-fold margin for noninferiority, ln(μ1), ln(μ4) are natural log of geometric mean of NT 1 month after vaccination for Group 7, 4, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|1.42|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.123|1.801|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the titers (Intervention Group \[Group 7\] minus Reference Group \[Group 4\]) and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student t distribution).|||1.801|1.123|
90929858|NCT05886777|181738865|NON_INFERIORITY|Null hypothesis(H0) to assess noninferiority with respect to RSVpreF was evaluated by following hypothesis for both RSV A and B as measured by NT: H0: ln(μ1)- ln(μ4) \<= ln(0.5) where ln(0.5) corresponds to a 2-fold margin for noninferiority, ln(μ1), ln(μ4) are natural log of geometric mean of NT 1 month after vaccination for Group 7, 4, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.977|1.651|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the titers (Intervention Group \[Group 7\] minus Reference Group \[Group 4\]) and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student t distribution).|||1.651|0.977|
90929859|NCT05886777|181738866|NON_INFERIORITY|Null hypothesis (H0) to assess noninferiority with respect to BNT162b2 will be evaluated by following hypothesis for both SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.4/BA.5 strain and reference strain as measured by NT:H0: ln(μ2)- ln(μ3) \<= ln(0.5)where ln(0.5) corresponds to a 2-fold margin for noninferiority and ln(μ2) and ln(μ3) are natural log of geometric mean of NT 1 month after vaccination for Group 7,3, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.61|1.208|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the titers (Intervention Group \[Group 7\] minus Reference Group \[Group 3\]) and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student t distribution).|||1.208|0.610|
90929860|NCT05886777|181738867|NON_INFERIORITY|Null hypothesis (H0) to assess noninferiority with respect to BNT162b2 was evaluated by following hypothesis for both SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.4/BA.5 strain and reference strain as measured by NT: H0: ln(μ1)- ln(μ3) \<= ln(0.5) where ln(0.5) corresponds to a 2-fold margin for noninferiority, and ln(μ1) and ln(μ3) are natural log of geometric mean of NT 1 month after vaccination for Group 7, 3, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.764|1.34|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the titers (Intervention Group \[Group 7\] minus Reference Group \[Group 3\]) and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student t distribution).|||1.340|0.764|
90929861|NCT05886777|181738868|NON_INFERIORITY|Null hypothesis (H0) to assess noninferiority with respect to QIV was evaluated by following hypothesis for each of 4 strains included in QIV as measured by HAI titer: H0: ln(μ1)- ln(μ5) \<= ln(0.5) where ln(0.5) corresponds to a 2-fold margin for noninferiority, and ln(μ1) and ln(μ5) are natural log of the geometric mean of HAI titers 1 month after vaccination for Group 7,5, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|2.49|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.914|3.232|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the titers (Intervention Group \[Group 7\] minus Reference Group \[Group 5\]) and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student t distribution).|||3.232|1.914|
90929862|NCT05886777|181738869|NON_INFERIORITY|Null hypothesis (H0) to assess noninferiority with respect to QIV was evaluated by following hypothesis for each of 4 strains included in QIV as measured by HAI titer: H0: ln(μ1)- ln(μ5) \<= ln(0.5) where ln(0.5) corresponds to a 2-fold margin for noninferiority, and ln(μ1) and ln(μ5) are natural log of the geometric mean of HAI titers 1 month after vaccination for Group 7,5, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.049|1.612|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the titers (Intervention Group \[Group 7\] minus Reference Group \[Group 5\]) and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student t distribution).|||1.612|1.049|
90966766|NCT00117598|181815789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.65|||Log Rank||HR from a cox model adjusted for baseline stratification factors|||0.65|0.26|<0.0001
90966767|NCT00117598|181815790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0019
90966768|NCT00117598|181815790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6179|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6179
90966769|NCT00117598|181815791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.3053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.28|||Log Rank||HR from a cox model adjusted for baseline stratification factors|||1.28|0.46|0.3053
90966770|NCT00117598|181815791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.98||||0.9515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.62|||Log Rank||HR from a cox model adjusted for baseline stratification factors|||1.62|0.60|0.9515
90966771|NCT00117598|181815792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|9.01|||||HR from a cox model adjusted for baseline stratification factors|||9.01|0.14|
90966772|NCT00117598|181815792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|13.3|||||HR from a cox model adjusted for baseline stratification factors|||13.3|0.10|
90966773|NCT00117598|181815794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.36|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.56|||Log Rank||HR from a cox model adjusted for baseline stratification factors|||0.56|0.23|<0.0001
90966774|NCT00117598|181815794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.6|||Log Rank||HR from a cox model adjusted for baseline stratification factors|||0.60|0.26|<0.0001
90966775|NCT00117598|181815795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.39||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.67|||Log Rank||HR from a cox model adjusted for baseline stratification factors|||0.67|0.23|0.0004
90966776|NCT00117598|181815795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64||||0.0712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.04|||Log Rank||HR from a cox model adjusted for baseline stratification factors|||1.04|0.40|0.0712
90966777|NCT01500525|181815810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.0|||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Cox|||||||<0.05
90966778|NCT00545064|181815811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|20.2||0.001||95.0|-0.6|7.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||"The change is the post-baseline value minus the baseline value.~Null Hypothesis: change in GSS-SYMP-6 score = 7"||7.0|-0.6|0.001
90966779|NCT00545064|181815811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|20.2||0.097||95.0|-0.6|7.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||"The change is the post-baseline value minus the baseline value.~Null Hypothesis: change in GSS-SYMP-6 = 0"||7.0|-0.6|0.097
90966780|NCT00545064|181815814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.3|<|0.001||95.0|-12.3|-10.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||"The change is the post-baseline value minus the baseline value.~Null Hypothesis: change in IOP = -4"||-10.7|-12.3|<0.001
90966781|NCT00545064|181815814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-11.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.3|<|0.001||95.0|-12.3|-10.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||"The change is the post-baseline value minus the baseline value.~Null Hypothesis: change in IOP = 0"||-10.7|-12.3|<0.001
90966782|NCT01660451|181815815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Response rate|45.45||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|30.49|61.06||0.0001|Exact binomial test|||Response rate was statistically compared by exact binomial test if higher than 5%.||61.06|30.49|0.0001
90966783|NCT01660451|181815815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Response rate|27.08||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|16.83|39.57||0.0001|Exact binominal test|P-value was based on the original patients in the aggressive arm (for the first 34 patients), not including the additional recruited patients.||Response rate was statistically compared by exact binomial test if higher than 5%.||39.57|16.83|0.0001
90966784|NCT01660451|181815816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Response rate|59.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.6|67.32||0.001|Exact binominal test|||Response rate was statistically compared by exact binomial test if higher than 40%.||67.32|50.60|<0.0001
90966785|NCT01660451|181815817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Response rate|46.88||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|31.54|62.66||0.0001|Exact binominal test|||Response rate was statistically compared by exact binomial test if higher than 5%.||62.66|31.54|0.0001
90966786|NCT01660451|181815817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Response rate|31.25||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|20.35|43.97||0.0001|Exact binominal test|||Response rate was statistically compared by exact binomial test if higher than 5%.||43.97|20.35|0.0001
90966787|NCT01660451|181815818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Response rate|51.41||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.88|59.87||0.01|Exact binominal test|||Response rate was statistically compared by exact binomial test if higher than 40%.||59.87|42.88|0.0039
90966788|NCT01660451|181815829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann-estimate|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.5||||||Hodges-Lehmann-estimate was used to calculate change to Week 16 and 95% confidence interval.||2.5|0.5|
90966789|NCT01660451|181815830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann-estimate|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|3.2||||||Hodges-Lehmann-estimate was used to calculate change to Week 16 and 95% confidence interval.||3.2|-0.7|
90966790|NCT04688775|181815831|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.5048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|2.6|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Change From Baseline in the Number of Weekly Attacks: Eptinezumab vs. Placebo||2.6|-1.3|0.5048
90966791|NCT04688775|181815836|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.45||||0.0772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|2.17|||Regression, Cox|||||2.17|0.96|0.0772
90966792|NCT01536951|181815886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares (LS) mean difference|0.239|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.65|2.12|||||LS mean difference (LY3009104 minus placebo) of change in QTcP 1 h postdose analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model adjusted for baseline QTc, treatment, time, period, sequence, treatment-by-time, participant, and participant-by-period.|||2.12|-1.65|
90966793|NCT01536951|181815886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.079|3.69|||||LS mean difference (LY3009104 minus placebo) of change in QTcP at 1.5 h postdose was analyzed using an ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline QTc, treatment, time, period, sequence, treatment-by-time, participant, and participant-by-period.|||3.69|-0.0790|
90966794|NCT01536951|181815886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.446|3.32|||||LS mean difference (LY3009104 minus placebo) of change in QTcP at 2 h postdose was analyzed using an ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline QTc, treatment, time, period, sequence, treatment-by-time, participant, and participant-by-period.|||3.32|-0.446|
90966795|NCT01536951|181815886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.468|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.42|2.35|||||LS mean difference (LY3009104 minus placebo) of change in QTcP at 3 h postdose was analyzed using an ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline QTc, treatment, time, period, sequence, treatment-by-time, participant, and participant-by-period.|||2.35|-1.42|
90929863|NCT05886777|181738870|NON_INFERIORITY|Null hypothesis (H0) to assess noninferiority with respect to QIV was evaluated by following hypothesis for each of 4 strains included in QIV as measured by HAI titer: H0: ln(μ1)- ln(μ5) \<= ln(0.5) where ln(0.5) corresponds to a 2-fold margin for noninferiority, and ln(μ1) and ln(μ5) are natural log of the geometric mean of HAI titers 1 month after vaccination for Group 7,5, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|1.58|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.155|2.165|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the titers (Intervention Group \[Group 7\] minus Reference Group \[Group 5\]) and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student t distribution).|||2.165|1.155|
90929864|NCT05886777|181738871|NON_INFERIORITY|Null hypothesis (H0) to assess noninferiority with respect to QIV was evaluated by following hypothesis for each of 4 strains included in QIV as measured by HAI titer: H0: ln(μ1)- ln(μ5) \<= ln(0.5) where ln(0.5) corresponds to a 2-fold margin for noninferiority, and ln(μ1) and ln(μ5) are natural log of the geometric mean of HAI titers 1 month after vaccination for Group 7,5, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|3.49|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|2.64|4.604|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the titers (Intervention Group \[Group 7\] minus Reference Group \[Group 5\]) and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student t distribution).|||4.604|2.640|
90929865|NCT05886777|181738872|NON_INFERIORITY|Null hypothesis(H0) to assess noninferiority with respect to RSVpreF was evaluated by following hypothesis for both RSV A and B as measured by NT: H0: ln(μ1)- ln(μ4) \<= ln(0.5) where ln(0.5) corresponds to a 2-fold margin for noninferiority, ln(μ1), ln(μ4) are natural log of geometric mean of NT 1 month after vaccination for Group 6, 4, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.131|1.808|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the titers (Intervention Group \[Group 6\] minus Reference Group \[Group 4\]) and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student t distribution).|||1.808|1.131|
90929866|NCT05886777|181738873|NON_INFERIORITY|Null hypothesis(H0) to assess noninferiority with respect to RSVpreF was evaluated by following hypothesis for both RSV A and B as measured by NT: H0: ln(μ1)- ln(μ4) \<= ln(0.5) where ln(0.5) corresponds to a 2-fold margin for noninferiority, ln(μ1), ln(μ4) are natural log of geometric mean of NT 1 month after vaccination for Group 6, 4, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|1.37|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.06|1.773|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the titers (Intervention Group \[Group 6\] minus Reference Group \[Group 4\]) and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student t distribution).|||1.773|1.060|
90929867|NCT05886777|181738874|NON_INFERIORITY|Null hypothesis (H0) to assess noninferiority with respect to BNT162b2 will be evaluated by following hypothesis for both SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.4/BA.5 strain and reference strain as measured by NT:H0: ln(μ2)- ln(μ3) \<= ln(0.5)where ln(0.5) corresponds to a 2-fold margin for noninferiority and ln(μ2) and ln(μ3) are natural log of geometric mean of NT 1 month after vaccination for Group 6,3, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.673|1.3|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the titers (Intervention Group \[Group 6\] minus Reference Group \[Group 3\]) and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student t distribution).|||1.300|0.673|
90929868|NCT05886777|181738875|NON_INFERIORITY|Null hypothesis (H0) to assess noninferiority with respect to BNT162b2 will be evaluated by following hypothesis for both SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.4/BA.5 strain and reference strain as measured by NT:H0: ln(μ2)- ln(μ3) \<= ln(0.5)where ln(0.5) corresponds to a 2-fold margin for noninferiority and ln(μ2) and ln(μ3) are natural log of geometric mean of NT 1 month after vaccination for Group 6,3, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.74|1.281|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the titers (Intervention Group \[Group 6\] minus Reference Group \[Group 3\]) and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student t distribution).|||1.281|0.740|
90929869|NCT04172675|181738894|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.28|||=|0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.61|||Unstratified Log rank||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were estimated using a Cox proportional hazards regression model.|||0.61|0.13|=0.0007
90929870|NCT03861052|181738907|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|-0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.90|-1.27|<0.001
90929871|NCT03861052|181738907|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|-1.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.08|-1.45|<0.001
90929872|NCT03861052|181738907|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|-1.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.35|-1.71|<0.001
90929873|NCT03861052|181738908|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.53|21.55|||Regression, Logistic|||||21.55|4.53|<0.001
90929874|NCT03861052|181738908|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|20.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.73|54.71|||Regression, Logistic|||||54.71|7.73|<0.001
90929875|NCT03861052|181738908|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|85.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.8|460.58|||Regression, Logistic|||||460.58|15.80|<0.001
90929876|NCT03861052|181738909|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-25.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.7|-21.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-21.1|-30.7|<0.001
90929877|NCT03861052|181738909|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-32.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.5|-27.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-27.8|-37.5|<0.001
90929878|NCT03861052|181738909|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-35.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.6|30.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||30.9|-40.6|<0.001
90929879|NCT03861052|181738910|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-17.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.4|-13.2|||ANCOVA|||||-13.2|-21.4|<0.001
90929880|NCT03861052|181738910|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-22.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.1|-17.9|||ANCOVA|||||-17.9|-26.1|<0.001
90929881|NCT03861052|181738910|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-26.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.5|-22.2|||ANCOVA|||||-22.2|-30.5|<0.001
90929882|NCT03861052|181738911|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|-4.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.1|-6.4|<0.001
90929883|NCT03861052|181738911|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|-6.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-6.8|-9.1|<0.001
90929884|NCT03861052|181738911|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-10.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|-9.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-9.0|-11.3|<0.001
90929885|NCT03861052|181738912|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.88|26.46|||Regression, Logistic|||||26.46|7.88|<0.001
90929886|NCT03861052|181738912|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|44.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.12|87.45|||Regression, Logistic|||||87.45|23.12|<0.001
90929887|NCT03861052|181738912|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|82.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.84|171.52|||Regression, Logistic|||||171.52|39.84|<0.001
90929888|NCT03861052|181738913|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.67|-1.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.28|-3.67|<0.001
90929889|NCT03861052|181738913|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.592|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.43|-2.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.11|-4.43|<0.001
90929890|NCT03861052|181738913|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.587|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.55|-2.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.25|-4.55|<0.001
90929891|NCT03861052|181738914|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.069|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.13|-0.40|<0.001
90929892|NCT03861052|181738914|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.27|-0.53|<0.001
90929893|NCT03861052|181738914|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.25|-0.51|<0.001
90929894|NCT03861052|181738915|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|16.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.72|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.7|21.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||21.4|10.7|<0.001
90929895|NCT03861052|181738915|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|20.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.9|26.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||26.3|14.9|<0.001
90929896|NCT03861052|181738915|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|23.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.95|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.1|29.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||29.7|18.1|<0.001
90929897|NCT03861052|181738916|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|19.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.22|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.7|28.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||28.2|11.7|<0.001
90929898|NCT03861052|181738916|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|27.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.59|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.0|36.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||36.0|18.0|<0.001
90929899|NCT03861052|181738916|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|31.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.68|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.0|40.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||40.4|22.0|<0.001
90929900|NCT06307457|181738947|OTHER|||||||0.031|||||||Log Rank|||Statistical data for this outcome measure is provided combined for all age groups.||||0.031
90929901|NCT06307457|181738948|OTHER|||||||0.012|||||||Log Rank|||Statistical data for this outcome measure is provided combined for all age groups.||||0.012
90929902|NCT06307457|181738949|OTHER|||||||0.061|||||||Log Rank|||Statistical data for this outcome measure is provided combined for all CCI scores.||||0.061
90929903|NCT06307457|181738950|OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Log Rank|||Statistical data for this outcome measure is provided combined for all CCI scores.||||0.080
90929904|NCT06307457|181738951|OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||Log Rank|||Statistical data for this outcome measure is provided combined for all number of comorbidities.||||0.2
90929905|NCT06307457|181738952|OTHER|||||||0.093|||||||Log Rank|||Statistical data for this outcome measure is provided combined for all number of comorbidities.||||0.093
90929906|NCT06307457|181738953|OTHER||||||>|0.9|||||||Log Rank|||Statistical data for participants with cardiac disease comorbidity reported.||||>0.9
90929907|NCT06307457|181738953|OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||Log Rank|||Statistical data for participants with vascular disease comorbidity reported.||||0.9
90929908|NCT06307457|181738953|OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||Log Rank|||Statistical data for participants with metabolic disease comorbidity reported.||||0.4
90929909|NCT06307457|181738954|OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||Log Rank|||Statistical data for participants cardiac disease comorbidity reported.||||0.7
90929910|NCT06307457|181738954|OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||Log Rank|||Statistical data for participants with vascular disease comorbidity reported.||||0.3
90929911|NCT06307457|181738954|OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||Log Rank|||Statistical data for participants with metabolic disease comorbidity reported.||||0.7
90929912|NCT06307457|181738955|OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Log Rank|||Statistical data for this outcome measure is provided combined for visceral disease status.||||0.005
90929913|NCT06307457|181738956|OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Log Rank|||Statistical data for this outcome measure is provided combined for visceral disease status.||||0.005
90929914|NCT06307457|181738957|OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||Log Rank|||Statistical data for this outcome measure is provided combined for bone disease status.||||0.14
90929915|NCT06307457|181738958|OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||Log Rank|||Statistical data for this outcome measure is provided combined for bone disease status.||||0.2
90929916|NCT06307457|181738959|OTHER|||||||0.047|||||||Log Rank|||Statistical data for this outcome measure is provided combined for endocrine status.||||0.047
90929917|NCT06307457|181738960|OTHER|||||||0.041|||||||Log Rank|||Statistical data for this outcome measure is provided combined for endocrine status.||||0.041
90929918|NCT01700205|181739115|OTHER|A priori power analyses determined that a sample size of 94 is required to detect a difference of 0.67 with 90% power and a 5% type 1 error rate. We conducted an intention-to-treat (ITT) analyses on the 113 infants using separate generalized estimating equations that included treatment group (CMF, EHF), time (infant age), and group × time interaction for each type of Z score (0.5-12.5 mos).|Slope|-0.018|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0363|-0.0002|||Generalized Estimating Equation|GEE analysis conducted with group (CMF, EHF), time (infant age, 0.5-12.5 months) and their interaction.||||-0.0002|-0.0363|<0.05
90941007|NCT00943722|181761611|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages between lots be entirely contained within the interval (-5, 5).|Percentage Point Difference|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.1|||||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) minus 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 3)|Anti-HPV 45||1.1|-0.7|
90966796|NCT01536951|181815886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.702|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.18|2.59|||||LS mean difference (LY3009104 minus placebo) of change in QTcP at 4 h postdose was analyzed using an ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline QTc, treatment, time, period, sequence, treatment-by-time, participant, and participant-by-period.|||2.59|-1.18|
90966797|NCT01536951|181815886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.788|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.68|1.1|||||LS mean difference (LY3009104 minus placebo) of change in QTcP at 6 h postdose was analyzed using an ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline QTc, treatment, time, period, sequence, treatment-by-time, participant, and participant-by-period.|||1.10|-2.68|
90966798|NCT01536951|181815886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.182|3.6|||||LS mean difference (LY3009104 minus placebo) of change in QTcP at 12 h postdose was analyzed using an ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline QTc, treatment, time, period, sequence, treatment-by-time, participant, and participant-by-period.|||3.60|-0.182|
90966799|NCT01536951|181815886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.963|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.921|2.85|||||LS mean difference (LY3009104 minus placebo) of change in QTcP at 24 h postdose was analyzed using an ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline QTc, treatment, time, period, sequence, treatment-by-time, participant, and participant-by-period.|||2.85|-0.921|
90966800|NCT01536951|181815886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|12.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|10.0|14.5|||||LS mean difference (moxifloxacin minus placebo) of change in QTcP at 1 h postdose was analyzed using an ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline QTc, treatment, time, period, sequence, treatment-by-time, participant, and participant-by-period.|||14.5|10.0|
90966801|NCT01536951|181815886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.74|13.3|||||LS mean difference (moxifloxacin minus placebo) of change in QTcP at 2 h postdose was analyzed using an ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline QTc, treatment, time, period, sequence, treatment-by-time, participant, and participant-by-period.|||13.3|8.74|
90966802|NCT01536951|181815886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|11.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.87|13.4|||||LS mean difference (moxifloxacin minus placebo) of change in QTcP at 4 h postdose was analyzed using an ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline QTc, treatment, time, period, sequence, treatment-by-time, participant, and participant-by-period.|||13.4|8.87|
90966803|NCT01843972|181815891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (net)|97.88|STANDARD_DEVIATION|24.8|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.963|119.809|||ANOVA||The geometric mean ratio is calculated as the geometric mean of 'BI 691751 tablet extensive metabolizers (part II)' divided by the geometric mean of 'BI 691751 solution (part II)'.|Only extensive CYP2D6 metabolisers were selected: 12 (all) subjects of group 'BI 691751 tablet extensive metabolizers (part II)' and 7 (all investigated) subjects of group 'BI 691751 solution (part II) '.||119.809|79.963|
90966804|NCT01843972|181815891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (net)|111.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|24.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.596|139.576|||ANOVA||The geometric mean ratio was calculated as the geometric mean of the poor metabolisers divided by the geometric mean of the extensive metabolisers.|Comparison of poor metabolisers (5 (all) subjects of group 'BI 691751 tablet poor metabolizers (part II)') and extensive metabolisers (12 (all) subjects of group 'BI 691751 tablet extensive metabolizers (part II)').||139.576|88.596|
90966805|NCT01843972|181815892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (net)|101.31|STANDARD_DEVIATION|28.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.593|127.351|||ANOVA||The geometric mean ratio is calculated as the geometric mean of 'BI 691751 tablet extensive metabolizers (part II)' divided by the geometric mean of 'BI 691751 solution (part II)'.|Only extensive CYP2D6 metabolisers were selected: 12 (all) subjects of group 'BI 691751 tablet extensive metabolizers (part II)' and 7 (all investigated) subjects of group 'BI 691751 solution (part II) '.||127.351|80.593|
90966806|NCT01843972|181815892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (net)|92.69|STANDARD_DEVIATION|33.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|68.662|125.119|||ANOVA||The geometric mean ratio was calculated as the geometric mean of the poor metabolisers divided by the geometric mean of the extensive metabolisers.|Comparison of poor metabolisers (5 (all) subjects of group 'BI 691751 tablet poor metabolizers (part II)') and extensive metabolisers (12 (all) subjects of group 'BI 691751 tablet extensive metabolizers (part II)').||125.119|68.662|
90966807|NCT01843972|181815893|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This was non-confirmatory testing.|Slope|1.0233|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8265|1.2201|||Regression, Linear|||||1.2201|0.8265|
90966808|NCT01843972|181815894|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This was non-confirmatory testing.|Slope|0.9686|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8107|1.1266|||Regression, Linear|||Dose proportionality of BI 691751 was explored using a power model (regression model applied to log-transformed data).||1.1266|0.8107|
90966809|NCT01843972|181815895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (net)|95.48|STANDARD_DEVIATION|30.8|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.414|122.511|||ANOVA||The geometric mean ratio is calculated as the geometric mean of 'BI 691751 tablet extensive metabolizers (part II)' divided by the geometric mean of 'BI 691751 solution (part II)'.|Only extensive CYP2D6 metabolisers were selected: 12 (all) subjects of group 'BI 691751 tablet extensive metabolizers (part II)' and 7 (all investigated) subjects of group 'BI 691751 solution (part II) '.||122.511|74.414|
90966810|NCT01843972|181815895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (net)|109.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|28.8|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.376|142.894|||ANOVA||The geometric mean ratio was calculated as the geometric mean of the poor metabolisers divided by the geometric mean of the extensive metabolisers.|Comparison of poor metabolisers (5 (all) subjects of group 'BI 691751 tablet poor metabolizers (part II)') and extensive metabolisers (12 (all) subjects of group 'BI 691751 tablet extensive metabolizers (part II)').||142.894|84.376|
90966811|NCT01843972|181815895|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This was non-confirmatory testing.|Slope|1.0312|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.833|1.179|||Regression, Linear|||||1.1790|0.833|
90966812|NCT02774616|181815902|NON_INFERIORITY|A rejection of the null hypothesis (Ho) would demonstrate evidence that the complication-free rate is greater than 90.0% in the population.||||||0.0004|||||||exact binomial|||"Serious Adverse Device Effects (SADE) possibly or securely related to the Ilivia ICD family until the 3- month follow-up are counted for this primary endpoint. The following hypothesis has been defined:~Ho: SADE-free rate through 3 months post-implant ≤ 90.0% Ha: SADE-free rate through 3 months post-implant \> 90.0%"||||0.0004
90966813|NCT02774616|181815903|NON_INFERIORITY|A rejection of the null hypothesis (Ho) would demonstrate evidence that the complication-free rate is greater than 90.0% in the population.||||||0.0019|||||||exact binomial|||"Serious Adverse Device Effects (SADE) possibly or securely related to the Plexa ICD lead until the 6-month follow-up are counted for this primary endpoint. The following hypothesis has been defined:~Ho: SADE-free rate through 3 months post-implant ≤ 90.0% Ha: SADE-free rate through 3 months post-implant \> 90.0%"||||0.0019
90966814|NCT02774616|181815905|NON_INFERIORITY|This endpoint evaluates the rate of appropriate right ventricular sensing of all patients in which a sensing measurement was performed. The following hypothesis has been defined: Ho: Rate of appropriate sensing through 3 months post-implant ≤ 93.0% Ha: Rate of appropriate sensing through 3 months post-implant \> 93.0%|||||<|0.0001||||||A rejection of the null hypothesis (Ho) would demonstrate evidence that the rate of appropriate sensing is greater than 93.0% in the population.|exact binomial|||||||<0.0001
90966815|NCT02774616|181815906|NON_INFERIORITY|A rejection of the null hypothesis (Ho) would demonstrate evidence that the rate of appropriate pacing is greater than 93.0% in the population.|||||<|0.0001|||||||exact binomial|||"This secondary hypothesis evaluates the rate of appropriate right ventricular pacing of all patients in which a pacing measurement was performed. The following hypothesis has been defined:~Ho: Rate of appropriate pacing through 3 months post-implant ≤ 93.0% Ha: Rate of appropriate pacing through 3 months post-implant \> 93.0%"||||<0.0001
90966816|NCT00545402|181815915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2611|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.2611
90966817|NCT00545402|181815917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7091|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.7091
90966818|NCT00382018|181815920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.47|||Log Rank|||Hazard Ration of overall survival compared Arm C2 to Arm C1.||1.47|0.69|0.98
90966819|NCT00382018|181815921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.32|||Log Rank|||Hazard Ratio of progression free survival compared Arm C2 to Arm C1||1.32|0.64|0.64
90966820|NCT01984164|181815926|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect size|-13.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.6|-3.7|||||effect size p-value = 0.008|All analyses were conducted using the intention-to-treat principle. Results are provided as adjusted least-square means with SE and effect size (ES) estimates (calculated from mixed model with repeated measures (MMRM) as the adjusted difference in cognitive change between the 2 groups over the study period).||-3.7|-23.6|
90966821|NCT00427349|181815946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||one sample binomial test|The study result was compared to a null hypothesis of 20% 4-month progression free survival rate using one sample binomial test||The null hypothesis is that the 4-month progression free survival rate is 20%. Alternatively, AMG 706 will be considered worthy of further study if its true progression-free survival rate is 40% or better at 4 months (alternative hypothesis).||||<0.001
90966822|NCT04456764|181815993|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55||||||Test for group by time interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for clustering.||||||0.55
90966823|NCT04456764|181815994|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12||||||group x time interaction|Mixed Models Analysis|random agency and a random participant effect||||||0.12
90966824|NCT04456764|181815995|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0986|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for clustering.||||||0.0986
90966825|NCT04456764|181815996|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51||||||Group by time interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for clustering.||||||0.51
90966826|NCT04456764|181815997|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||Group by time interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for clustering.||||||0.04
90966827|NCT04456764|181815998|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||Group by time interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for clustering.||||||0.02
90966828|NCT03227471|181816005|OTHER|||||||0.9943||||||P value within treatment|Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||||0.9943
90966829|NCT03227471|181816005|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P value within treatment|Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||||<0.0001
90966830|NCT03227471|181816005|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P value within treatment|Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||||< 0.0001
90966831|NCT03227471|181816005|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P value within treatment|Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||||<0.0001
90966832|NCT03227471|181816006|OTHER|||||||0.8869||||||P value within treatment.|Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||||0.8869
90966833|NCT03227471|181816006|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P value within treatment|Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||||<0.0001
90966834|NCT03227471|181816007|OTHER|||||||0.6407||||||P value within treatment|Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||||0.6407
91035876|NCT02558491|181958308|OTHER|||||||0.248||||||No a priori sample size was determined due to the feasibility/pilot nature of the trial. Significance level was set at P-value \<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Secondary analysis followed the same format unless variables could not be considered normally distributed; in that case a related samples Wilcoxon signed-rank test is used. Data were first binned (to ensure minimum count of five per bins) and the w2 statistics was used with the expected counts given by SoC. Based on achieved recruitment, a moderate effect size (0.3) is detectable with 80% power, or a large effect size (0.4) with 95% power (G-Power 3.1.9.2). Outcome measurement was for mealtime.||||0.248
90966835|NCT03227471|181816007|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P value within treatment.|mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||||<0.0001
90966836|NCT03227471|181816022|OTHER|||||||0.5802||||||P value within treatment. These are nominal p-values without multiplicity control.|Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||||0.5802
90966837|NCT03227471|181816022|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P value within treatment. These are nominal p-values without multiplicity control.|Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||||<0.0001
90966838|NCT03227471|181816022|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P value within treatment. These are nominal p-values without multiplicity control.|Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||||<0.0001
90966839|NCT03227471|181816022|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P value within treatment. These are nominal p-values without multiplicity control.|Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||||<0.0001
90966840|NCT03227471|181816023|OTHER|||||||0.8712||||||P value within treatment. These are nominal p-values without multiplicity control.|mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||||0.8712
90966841|NCT03227471|181816023|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P value within treatment. These are nominal p-values without multiplicity control.|mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||||<0.0001
90929919|NCT01700205|181739116|OTHER|A priori power analyses determined that a sample size of 94 is required to detect a difference of 0.67 with 90% power and a 5% type 1 error rate. We conducted an intention-to-treat (ITT) analyses on the 113 infants using separate generalized estimating equations that included treatment group (CMF, EHF), time (infant age), and group × time interaction for each type of Z score (0.5-12.5 mos). We provide below the parameter estimates for WLZ scores only.|Slope|-0.023||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0362|-0.0093|||Generalized Estimating Equations|GEE analysis conducted on each type of Z score separately with group (CMF, EHF), time (infant age; 0.5-12.5 months) and their interaction.||||-0.0093|-0.0362|0.001
90929920|NCT01700205|181739117|OTHER|A priori power analyses determined that a sample size of 94 is required to detect a difference of 0.67 with 90% power and a 5% type 1 error rate. We conducted an intention-to-treat (ITT) analyses on the 113 infants using separate generalized estimating equations that included treatment group (CMF, EHF), time (infant age), and group × time interaction for each type of Z score (0.5-12.5 mos).|Slope|-0.02||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.058|0.019|||Generalized Estimating Equation|GEE analysis conducted with group (CMF, EHF), time (infant age, 0.5-12.5 months) and their interaction||||0.019|-0.058|0.32
90929921|NCT01700205|181739118|OTHER|ANOVA with group (CMF, EHF) as between-subjects factor were conducted on intent-to-treat sample|||||<|0.05|||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|We conducted a ANOVA with group (CMF, EHF) as between-subject factor.||ANOVAs were conducted with group (CMF, EHF) as the between-subjects factor.||||<0.05
90929922|NCT01700205|181739119|OTHER|ANOVA was conducted with group (CMF, EHF) as between-subjects factor on the intent-to-treat sample.||||||0.72|||||||Repeated Measure ANOVA|ANOVA was conducted with group (CMF, EHF) as between-subjects factor on the intent-to-treat sample.||Repeated Measures ANOVA conducted with group (CMF, EHF) as between-subjects factor||||0.72
90929923|NCT01700205|181739120|OTHER|Repeated Measures ANOVA conducted with group (CMF, EHF) as between-subjects factor on intent-to-treat sample||||||0.72|||||||Repeated Measure ANOVA|Repeated Measures ANOVA conducted with group (CMF, EHF) as between-subjects factor on intent-to-treat sample||Repeated Measures ANOVA conducted with group (CMF, EHF) as between-subjects factor on intent-to-treat sample||||0.72
90929924|NCT01700205|181739121|OTHER|Repeated Measures ANOVA conducted with group (CMF, EHF) as between-subjects factor on intent-to-treat sample||||||0.02|||||||Repeated Measure ANOVA|Repeated Measures ANOVA conducted with group (CMF, EHF) as between-subjects factor on intent-to-treat sample||Repeated Measures ANOVA conducted with group (CMF, EHF) as between-subjects factor on intent-to-treat sample||||0.02
90929925|NCT01728324|181739123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted response rate|81.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|76.34|85.87|||z-test|A stratified one sample z-test with 50% reference for PegIFN-ineligible and 71% for PegIFN-eligible patients was performed.|The adjusted response rate was tested against the historical control SVR rate of 68% (95% Confidence Interval (CI): 76.3, 85.9).|The proportion of patients achieving SVR12 achieved with 24 weeks of treatment with DBV/FDV/RBV in cirrhotic and non-cirrhotic patients was compared to an acceptable minimum SVR rate achieved with an approved direct acting anti-viral (DAA) in combination with PegIFN from historical data. The acceptable minimum SVR rate was an average of 71% (reference for PegIFN-eligible) and 50% (for PegIFN-ineligible patients), weighted by the sample size in each stratum.||85.87|76.34|<0.0001
90929926|NCT01728324|181739123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted response rate|75.89||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|70.63|81.14|||z-test|A stratified one sample z-test with 50% reference for PegIFN-ineligible and 71% for PegIFN-eligible patients was performed.||The proportion of patients achieving SVR12 achieved with 16 weeks of treatment of non-cirrhotic and 24 weeks of treatment of cirrhotic patients was compared to an acceptable minimum SVR rate achieved with an approved direct acting anti-viral (DAA) in combination with PegIFN from historical data. The acceptable minimum SVR rate was an average of 71% (reference for PegIFN-eligible) and 50% (for PegIFN-ineligible patients), weighted by the sample size in each stratum.||81.14|70.63|0.0020
90929927|NCT01728324|181739124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||SVR12 Rates difference|6.4||||0.0532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|14.2|||Koch's method|Adjusted for PegIFN eligibility using Koch's method, with continuity correction.||Koch's stratum-adjusted Mantel Haenszel methods were used to compare durations, adjusting for stratification factors.||14.2|-1.4|0.0532
90929928|NCT01728324|181739125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||SVR4 Rates difference|3.6||||0.1671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|10.9|||Koch´s method|Adjusted for PegIFN eligibility using Koch´s method, with continuity correction.||Koch's stratum-adjusted Mantel Haenszel methods were used to compare durations, adjusting for stratification factors.||10.9|-3.7|0.1671
90929929|NCT01728324|181739126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||SVR24 Rates difference|-6.9||||0.0447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|1.1|||Koch´s method|Adjusted for PegIFN eligibility using Koch´s method, with continuity correction.||Koch's stratum-adjusted Mantel Haenszel methods were used to compare durations, adjusting for stratification factors.||1.1|-14.8|0.0447
90929930|NCT01706159|181739154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.16||||0.3056||90.0|0.01|3.05||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Logistic|||A sample size of 90 subjects, with a 2:1 (active:placebo) randomization ratio, would ensure 80% power to detect a difference between active treatment and placebo at Week 8 with a 2-sided significance level of 10% based on a Fisher's exact test.||3.05|0.01|0.3056
90929931|NCT03371017|181739163|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.5891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.2|||Log Rank|||||1.20|0.73|0.5891
90929932|NCT03371017|181739164|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.6139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.18|||Log Rank|||||1.18|0.76|0.6139
90929933|NCT03371017|181739165|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|2.69||||0.6264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.14|13.51|||Z-test|||||13.51|-8.14|0.6264
90929934|NCT03371017|181739166|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|3.76||||0.475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.55|14.07|||Z-test|||||14.07|-6.55|0.4750
90929935|NCT03371017|181739167|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|1.15||||0.8315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.45|11.75|||Z-test|||||11.75|-9.45|0.8315
90929936|NCT03371017|181739168|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|1.37||||0.7738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.96|10.69|||Z-test|||||10.69|-7.96|0.7738
90929937|NCT03371017|181739169|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.1387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.06|||Log Rank|||||1.06|0.67|0.1387
90929938|NCT03371017|181739170|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.7317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.19|||Log Rank|||||1.19|0.78|0.7317
90929939|NCT03371017|181739171|SUPERIORITY||Difference in ORR|11.31||||0.0337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|22.37|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||22.37|0.24|0.0337
90966842|NCT03227471|181816024|OTHER|||||||0.8359||||||P value within treatment. These are nominal p-values without multiplicity control.|mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||||0.8359
90966843|NCT03227471|181816024|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P value within treatment. These are nominal p-values without multiplicity control.|mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||||<0.0001
90966844|NCT03227471|181816025|OTHER|||||||0.9453||||||P value within treatment. These are nominal p-values without multiplicity control.|Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||||0.9453
90929940|NCT03371017|181739172|SUPERIORITY||Difference in ORR|-1.15||||0.9755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.63|9.34|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||9.34|-11.63|0.9755
90929941|NCT03371017|181739173|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.1359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.11|||Log Rank|||||1.11|0.48|0.1359
90929942|NCT03371017|181739174|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.8225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.43|||Log Rank|||||1.43|0.63|0.8225
90929943|NCT03371017|181739177|SUPERIORITY||Difference in ORR|11.67||||0.0172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|21.87|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.87|1.47|0.0172
90929944|NCT03371017|181739178|SUPERIORITY||Difference in ORR|0.18||||0.8679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.41|9.77|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Stratified Analysis||9.77|-9.41|0.8679
90929945|NCT03371017|181739179|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.2846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.26|||Log Rank|||||1.26|0.46|0.2846
90929946|NCT03371017|181739180|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.9853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.61|||Log Rank|||||1.61|0.61|0.9853
90966845|NCT03227471|181816025|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P value within treatment. These are nominal p-values without multiplicity control.|Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||||<0.0001
90966846|NCT03227471|181816025|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P value within treatment. These are nominal p-values without multiplicity control.|Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||||<0.0001
90929947|NCT03371017|181739181|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.4117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.21|||Log Rank|||Stratified Analysis||1.21|0.63|0.4117
90929948|NCT03371017|181739182|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.7215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.3|||Log Rank|||Stratified Analysis||1.30|0.68|0.7215
90929949|NCT05613907|181739252|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-21.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.885||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.05|-6.15|||ANOVA|||||-6.150|-37.050|0.005
90929950|NCT05613907|181739252|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-17.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.512||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.895|-0.705|||ANOVA|||||-0.705|-34.895|0.040
90929951|NCT05613907|181739252|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.668||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.829|13.429|||ANOVA|||||13.429|-5.829|0.940
90929952|NCT05613907|181739253|SUPERIORITY||Z statistic|-0.862||||0.388|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks|||The null hypothesis is that there will be no significant difference in the EuroQol 5-D domains at 1 year compared to baseline.||||0.388
90966847|NCT03227471|181816025|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P value within treatment. These are nominal p-values without multiplicity control.|Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||||<0.0001
90929953|NCT05613907|181739254|SUPERIORITY||Z statistic|-0.033||||0.974|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank|||The null hypothesis is that there will be no statistical difference in patient self-reported ability to perform basic self-care||||0.974
90929954|NCT05613907|181739255|SUPERIORITY||Z statistic|-1.564||||0.118|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank|||The null hypothesis is no improvement in ability to perform usual activities at 1 year.||||0.118
90929955|NCT05613907|181739256|SUPERIORITY||Z statistic|-2.364||||0.018|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank|||||||0.018
90929956|NCT05613907|181739257|SUPERIORITY||Z statistic|-1.311||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis is that there will be no difference in anxiety and/or depression compared to the initial visit.|Wilcoxon signed rank|||||||0.190
90929957|NCT05613907|181739258|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-26.846|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.604||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.762|-2.39|||ANOVA|||||-2.390|-50.762|0.027
90929958|NCT05613907|181739258|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-27.615|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.715||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.837|-3.394|||ANOVA|||||-3.394|-51.837|0.024
90929959|NCT05613907|181739258|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.769|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.535||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.374|11.836|||ANOVA|||||11.836|-13.374|1.000
90929960|NCT05613907|181739259|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.052||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.05|-6.15|||ANOVA|||||-6.150|-37.050|0.048
90929961|NCT05613907|181739259|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-3.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.751||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.893|13.751|||ANOVA|||||13.751|-12.893|1.000
90929962|NCT05613907|181739259|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|12.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.186||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.762|29.333|||ANOVA|||||29.333|-4.762|0.163
90929963|NCT05080777|181739260|EQUIVALENCE|Group, Time, and Group x Time effect tests were performed using MLM.||||||0.295||||||.P-value shown is based on the Group x Time F statistic used in multilevel modeling (MLM)|Multilevel modeling (MLM)|||Null hypothesis was that there would be no group differences, no time differences, and no group x time differences, in changes over time between the two treatment groups. Because this was a pilot and feasibility study, no power calculations were conducted.||||0.295
90966848|NCT03227471|181816026|OTHER|||||||0.7849||||||P value within treatment. These are nominal p-values without multiplicity control.|mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||||0.7849
90966849|NCT03227471|181816026|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P value within treatment. These are nominal p-values without multiplicity control.|mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||||<0.0001
90966850|NCT03227471|181816027|OTHER|||||||0.7356||||||P value within treatment. These are nominal p-values without multiplicity control.|mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||||0.7356
90966851|NCT03227471|181816027|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P value within treatment. These are nominal p-values without multiplicity control.|mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||||<0.0001
90966852|NCT03227471|181816028|OTHER|||||||0.394||||||P value within treatment. These are nominal p-values without multiplicity control.|Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||||0.3940
90966853|NCT03227471|181816028|OTHER|||||||0.0003||||||P value within treatment. These are nominal p-values without multiplicity control.|Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||||0.0003
90966854|NCT03227471|181816028|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P value within treatment. These are nominal p-values without multiplicity control.|Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||||<0.0001
90929964|NCT05080777|181739261|EQUIVALENCE|Group, time, and group x time effect tests were performed using multilevel modeling (MLM).||||||0.57||||||P-value shown is based on the group x time F statistic used in MLM.|MLM|||Null hypothesis was that there would be no group differences, no time differences, and no group x time differences, in changes over time between the two treatment groups. Because this was a pilot and feasibility study, no power calculations were conducted.||||0.570
90929965|NCT05080777|181739262|EQUIVALENCE|Group, time, and time x group effect tests were performed using multilevel modeling (MLM).||||||0.461||||||P-value shown is based on the group x time F statistic used in MLM.|MLM|||Null hypothesis was that there would be no group differences, no time differences, and no group x time differences, in changes over time between the two treatment groups. Because this was a pilot and feasibility study, no power calculations were conducted.||||0.461
90929966|NCT03789656|181739305|OTHER|||||||0.6285|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||The primary efficacy endpoint was completed with the Efficacy Analysis Set (EAS), which included all treated subjects in Group 1. The median (Interquartile range) for change from baseline in IGF-1xULN to Week 13/EoT and p-value from the Wilcoxon signed rank test were presented. Baseline was defined as the mean of all IGF-1xULN values prior to first dose. Last on treatment assessment was used for EoT if subject discontinued before Week 13.||||0.6285
90929967|NCT03789656|181739306|OTHER|||||||0.3877|||||||exact binomial test assuming the null pr|Null proportion = 0.5||||||0.3877
90929968|NCT05325294|181739311|NON_INFERIORITY|The overall mean change in HbA1c from baseline to end of 3-month study period. The mean change will be estimated and compared to a threshold of -0.38% with a margin of 0.4%.|Mean difference from baseline to exit|-0.1||||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||t-test, 1 sided||This is one arm study, the differences of HbA1c from baseline to exit were summarized for this endpoint|||0.1|-0.2|0.133
90929969|NCT05325294|181739311|NON_INFERIORITY|The overall mean change in HbA1c from baseline to end of 3-month study period. The mean change will be estimated and compared to a threshold of -0.5% with a margin of 0.4%.|Mean difference from baseline to exit|-0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.3|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||This is one arm study, the differences of HbA1c from baseline to exit were summarized for this endpoint|||-0.3|-0.6|<0.001
90929970|NCT05325294|181739312|NON_INFERIORITY|The mean % of time in range (TIR 70-180 mg/dL) will be estimated and compared to a threshold of 65.3% with a margin of -7.5% and a significance level of 0.025 (one-sided).|Mean of Final Value|68.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|66.6|70.7|||t-test, 1 sided||This is one arm study, the Percent of Time in Range (TIR70-180 mg/dL) from the last 6-7 weeks of 3 month study period was summarized for this endpoint.|||70.7|66.6|<0.001
90929971|NCT05325294|181739312|NON_INFERIORITY|The mean % of time in range (TIR 70-180 mg/dL) will be estimated and compared to a threshold of 73.7% with a margin of -7.5% and a significance level of 0.025 (one-sided).|Mean of Final Value|77.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|75.7|79.4|||t-test, 1 sided||This is one arm study, the Percent of Time in Range (TIR70-180 mg/dL) from the last 6-7 weeks of 3 month study period was summarized for this endpoint.|||79.4|75.7|<0.001
90929972|NCT05325294|181739313|NON_INFERIORITY|The mean % of time in hypoglycemia (\< 54 mg/dL) will be estimated and compared to a threshold of 0.71% with a margin of 2% and a significance level of 0.025 (one-sided).|Mean of Final Value|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.5|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||This is one arm study, the Percent of Time in Hypoglycemia (\< 54 mg/dL) from the last 6-7 weeks of 3 month study period was summarized for this endpoint.|||0.5|0.3|<0.001
90929973|NCT05325294|181739313|NON_INFERIORITY|The mean % of time in hypoglycemia (\< 54 mg/dL) will be estimated and compared to a threshold of 0.86% with a margin of 2% and a significance level of 0.025 (one-sided).|Mean of Final Value|0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.3|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||This is one arm study, the Percent of Time in Hypoglycemia (\< 54 mg/dL) from the last 6-7 weeks of 3 month study period was summarized for this endpoint.|||0.3|0.2|<0.001
90929974|NCT05325294|181739314|SUPERIORITY|The mean % of time in range (TIR 70-180 mg/dL) will be estimated and compared to a threshold of 65.3% and a significance level of 0.025 (one-sided).|Mean of Final Value|68.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|66.6|70.7|||t-test, 1 sided||This is one arm study, the Percent of Time in Range (TIR70-180 mg/dL) from the last 6-7 weeks of 3 month study period was summarized for this endpoint.|||70.7|66.6|<0.001
90929975|NCT05325294|181739314|SUPERIORITY|The mean % of time in range (TIR 70-180 mg/dL) will be estimated and compared to a threshold of 73.7% and a significance level of 0.025 (one-sided).|Mean of Final Value|77.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|75.7|79.4|||t-test, 1 sided||This is one arm study, the Percent of Time in Range (TIR70-180 mg/dL) from the last 6-7 weeks of 3 month study period was summarized for this endpoint.|||79.4|75.7|<0.001
90929976|NCT04837937|181739344|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1491|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.7695||95.0|-0.856|1.15||Alpha for significance=0.05 for all tests.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Generalized Linear Mixed Model (all models evaluated in SAS 9.4) testing all levels and combinations of treatments and time as fixed effects, controlling for repeated assessments within-subjects, for effect on the outcome of change in Neuro-QoL positive affect and well being score. This result is for the physician treatment arm."||1.15|-.856|.7695
90929977|NCT04837937|181739344|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5077||0.0878||95.0|-1.88|0.13||ALPHA=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Generalized Linear Mixed Model (all models evaluated in SAS 9.4) testing all levels and combinations of treatments and time as fixed effects, controlling for repeated assessments within-subjects, for effect on the outcome of change in Neuro-QoL positive affect and well being score. This result is for the sister treatment arm."||.13|-1.88|.0878
90929978|NCT04837937|181739344|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2414|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5077||0.635||95.0|-0.76|1.25||ALPHA=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Generalized Linear Mixed Model (all models evaluated in SAS 9.4) testing all levels and combinations of treatments and time as fixed effects, controlling for repeated assessments within-subjects, for effect on the outcome of change in Neuro-QoL positive affect and well being score. This result is for the sister/physician treatment arm."||1.25|-.76|.635
90966855|NCT03227471|181816028|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P value within treatment. These are nominal p-values without multiplicity control.|Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||||<0.0001
90966856|NCT03227471|181816029|OTHER|||||||0.4757||||||P value within treatment. These are nominal p-values without multiplicity control.|mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||||0.4757
90929979|NCT04837937|181739344|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06574|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5077||0.897||95.0|-1.0709|0.9394||ALPHA=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Generalized Linear Mixed Model (all models evaluated in SAS 9.4) testing all levels and combinations of treatments and time as fixed effects, controlling for repeated assessments within-subjects, for effect on the outcome of change in Neuro-QoL positive affect and well being score. This result is for the older adult treatment arm."||.9394|-1.0709|.897
90929980|NCT04837937|181739344|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01126|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5077||0.9823||95.0|-1.0164|0.9939||ALPHA=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Generalized Linear Mixed Model (all models evaluated in SAS 9.4) testing all levels and combinations of treatments and time as fixed effects, controlling for repeated assessments within-subjects, for effect on the outcome of change in Neuro-QoL positive affect and well being score. This result is for the physician/older adult treatment arm."||.9939|-1.0164|.9823
90929981|NCT04837937|181739344|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4928|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5077||0.3337||95.0|-1.4979|0.5124||ALPHA=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Generalized Linear Mixed Model (all models evaluated in SAS 9.4) testing all levels and combinations of treatments and time as fixed effects, controlling for repeated assessments within-subjects, for effect on the outcome of change in Neuro-QoL positive affect and well being score. This result is for the sister/older adult treatment arm."||.5124|-1.4979|.3337
90929982|NCT04837937|181739344|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5077||0.694||95.0|-0.8049|1.2054||ALPHA=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Generalized Linear Mixed Model (all models evaluated in SAS 9.4) testing all levels and combinations of treatments and time as fixed effects, controlling for repeated assessments within-subjects, for effect on the outcome of change in Neuro-QoL positive affect and well being score. This result is for the sister/older adult/physician treatment arm."||1.2054|-.8049|.694
90929983|NCT04837937|181739344|SUPERIORITY||Actual Intercept value|54.9056|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5077|<|0.0001||95.0|53.9003|55.9109||this is the Intercept value for the GLMM evaluating all combinations of treatment and time- in other words, this is the mean well-being t-score across all combinations of tx and time. Estimates in these analyses are deviations from this intercept.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model (all models evaluated in SAS 9.4) testing all levels and combinations of treatments and time as fixed effects, controlling for repeated assessments within-subjects, for effect on the outcome of change in Neuro-QoL positive affect and well being score. This result is for the intercept (all tx=0).||55.9109|53.9003|<.0001
90929984|NCT04837937|181739344|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05579|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03516||0.1152||95.0|-0.1254|0.01383||alpha=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model (all models evaluated in SAS 9.4) testing all levels and combinations of treatments and time as fixed effects, controlling for repeated assessments within-subjects, for effect on the outcome of change in Neuro-QoL positive affect and well being score. This test evaluates the effect of time (measured as weeks since baseline).||.01383|-.1254|.1152
90929985|NCT04837937|181739344|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03261|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03516||0.3555||95.0|-0.1022|0.03699|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Generalized Linear Mixed Model (all models evaluated in SAS 9.4) testing all levels and combinations of treatments and time as fixed effects, controlling for repeated assessments within-subjects, for effect on the outcome of change in Neuro-QoL positive affect and well being score. This result is for the Physician treatment arm\*time."||.03699|-.1022|.3555
90929986|NCT04837937|181739344|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06825|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03516||0.0546||95.0|-0.00136|0.1379||alpha=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Generalized Linear Mixed Model (all models evaluated in SAS 9.4) testing all levels and combinations of treatments and time as fixed effects, controlling for repeated assessments within-subjects, for effect on the outcome of change in Neuro-QoL positive affect and well being score. This result is for the sister treatment arm\*time."||.1379|-.00136|.0546
90929987|NCT04837937|181739344|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02597|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03516||0.4616||95.0|-0.04364|0.09557||alpha=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Generalized Linear Mixed Model (all models evaluated in SAS 9.4) testing all levels and combinations of treatments and time as fixed effects, controlling for repeated assessments within-subjects, for effect on the outcome of change in Neuro-QoL positive affect and well being score. This result is for the Sister/Physician treatment arm\*time."||.09557|-.04364|.4616
90929988|NCT04837937|181739344|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0498|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03516||0.1592||95.0|-0.0198|0.1194||alpha=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Generalized Linear Mixed Model (all models evaluated in SAS 9.4) testing all levels and combinations of treatments and time as fixed effects, controlling for repeated assessments within-subjects, for effect on the outcome of change in Neuro-QoL positive affect and well being score. This result is for the Older Adult treatment arm\*time."||.1194|-.0198|.1592
90929989|NCT04837937|181739344|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02435|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03516||0.4899||95.0|-0.09396|0.04526|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Generalized Linear Mixed Model (all models evaluated in SAS 9.4) testing all levels and combinations of treatments and time as fixed effects, controlling for repeated assessments within-subjects, for effect on the outcome of change in Neuro-QoL positive affect and well being score. This result is for the Physician/Older Adult treatment arm\*time."||.04526|-.09396|.4899
90929990|NCT04837937|181739344|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.000697|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03516||0.9842||95.0|-0.06891|0.0703||alpha=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Generalized Linear Mixed Model (all models evaluated in SAS 9.4) testing all levels and combinations of treatments and time as fixed effects, controlling for repeated assessments within-subjects, for effect on the outcome of change in Neuro-QoL positive affect and well being score. This result is for the sister/older adult treatment arm\*time."||.0703|-.06891|.9842
90941008|NCT00943722|181761611|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages between lots be entirely contained within the interval (-5, 5).|Percentage Point Difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.3|||||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 2) minus 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 3)|Anti-HPV 45||1.3|-0.4|
90929991|NCT04837937|181739344|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01255|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03516||0.7217||95.0|-0.08216|0.05705||alpha=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Generalized Linear Mixed Model (all models evaluated in SAS 9.4) testing all levels and combinations of treatments and time as fixed effects, controlling for repeated assessments within-subjects, for effect on the outcome of change in Neuro-QoL positive affect and well being score. This result is for the Sister/Older Adult/Physician treatment arm\*time."||.05705|-.08216|.7217
90929992|NCT04837937|181739345|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.74|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.55||0.21||95.0|-1.9|0.42||Threshold for statistical significance was alpha=0.05.|2-sided paired t-Test|||Univariate ANOVA- analytic variable is change in PROMIS Anxiety score from baseline to T3. Test is a paired T-Test.||.42|-1.90|.21
90929993|NCT04837937|181739346|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.24|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.54||0.0021||95.0|-5.28|-1.2||Threshold for significance was 0.05.|2-sided dependent sample t-test|||Univariate ANOVA on change in Zarit Caregiver Burden Score, Baseline to 1-month post-intervention. Test was a 2-sided dependent samples t-test.||-1.20|-5.28|.0021
90929994|NCT04837937|181739347|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.19|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.1||0.1||95.0|-2.62|0.25||Alpha for statistical significance was 0.05|2-Sided Paired T Test|||Univariate ANOVA- analytic variable is change in PROMIS Fatigue score from baseline to T3. Test is a paired T-Test.||.25|-2.62|.10
90929995|NCT04837937|181739348|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.83||0.9754||95.0|-1.36|1.41|||2-sided paired (dependent sample) t-test|||Univariate ANOVA on change in PROMIS short form General Self Efficacy T-Score, baseline to one month post-intervention. Test is a 2-sided paired (dependent sample) t-test.||1.41|-1.36|.9754
90929996|NCT04837937|181739350|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1296|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.91||0.77||95.0|-0.74|1.0||Threshold for significance is 0.05|2-sided Paired T-Test|||Univariate ANOVA on change in T-Score between baseline and 1 month post-intervention. Test is a 2-sided paired t-test.||1.00|-.74|.77
90929997|NCT04837937|181739351|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7618|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.16||0.1694||95.0|-0.33|1.85||alpha threshold for significance was 0.05.|two-sided paired T-Test|||Univariate ANOVA on change in T-score between baseline and one month post-intervention. Test is a two-sided paired t-test.||1.85|-.33|.1694
90929998|NCT04837937|181739356|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.44||0.76||||||Alpha for Significance=0.05|ANOVA|||Univariate ANOVA on change in Avoiding Score (out of 100) between Baseline and 1 Month Post-Intervention.||||.76
90929999|NCT04837937|181739356|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.25|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.33||0.13||||||Alpha for significance=0.05|ANOVA|||Univariate ANOVA on change in Compromising Score (out of 100) between Baseline and 1 Month Post-Intervention.||||.13
90930000|NCT04837937|181739356|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.85|STANDARD_DEVIATION|18.76|<|0.0001||||||Alpha for significance=0.05|ANOVA|||Univariate ANOVA on change in Forcing Score (out of 100) between Baseline and 1 Month Post-Intervention.||||<.0001
90930001|NCT04837937|181739356|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.62||0.86||||||Alpha for Significance=0.05|ANOVA|||Univariate ANOVA on change in Problem Solving Score (out of 100) between Baseline and 1 Month Post-Intervention.||||.86
90930002|NCT04837937|181739356|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.3||0.32||||||Alpha for significance=0.05|ANOVA|||Univariate ANOVA on change in Yielding Score (out of 100) between Baseline and 1 Month Post-Intervention.||||.32
90930003|NCT04837937|181739357|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.18||0.0012||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Univariate ANOVA on change in total Negotiation Knowledge score, Baseline 1-month. Threshold for significance was alpha=0.05.||||.0012
90930004|NCT04837937|181739357|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.933|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.33||0.0018||||||alpha=0.05|ANOVA|||Univariate ANOVA on change in Negotiation Knowledge Interests score, Baseline 1-month. Threshold for significance was alpha=0.05.||||.0018
90930005|NCT04837937|181739357|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.69||0.91||||||Threshold for significance was alpha=0.05.|ANOVA|||Univariate ANOVA on change in Negotiation Knowledge Power score, Baseline 1-month.||||.91
90930006|NCT04837937|181739357|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.35||0.11||||||Threshold for significance was alpha=0.05.|ANOVA|||Univariate ANOVA on change in Negotiation Knowledge Rights score, Baseline 1-month.||||.11
90930007|NCT04837937|181739359|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.73|<|0.0001||95.0|-3.09|-1.07||Threshold for significance is alpha=0.05.|2-sided dependent sample t-test|||Univariate ANOVA on change in negative affect score, baseline-1 month post-intervention. Test is a 2 sided dependent sample t-test.||-1.07|-3.09|<.0001
90930008|NCT04837937|181739359|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.344|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.86||0.4305||95.0|-0.52|1.21|||2-sided dependent sample t-test|||Univariate ANOVA of change in positive affect score between baseline-1 month post-intervention. Test is a 2-sided dependent sample t-test.||1.21|-.52|.4305
90930009|NCT00378898|181739361|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.047|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.047
90930010|NCT01354444|181739408|OTHER||Coefficient|1.48||||0.565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.796|6.761|||Regression, Linear|||This analysis compares immediate recall before and after 6 months between the treatment and placebo group.||6.761|-3.796|0.565
90930011|NCT01354444|181739409|OTHER|||||||0.481|||||||Rank sum test|||This analysis compares the change in total Tau between the treatment and placebo group from baseline to 6 months later.||||0.481
90930012|NCT01354444|181739409|OTHER|||||||0.0562|||||||Rank sum test|||This analysis compares the change in Abeta42 between the treatment and placebo group from baseline to 6 months later.||||0.0562
90930013|NCT01354444|181739409|OTHER|||||||0.314|||||||Rank sum test|||This analysis compares the change in p-tau between the treatment and placebo group from baseline to 6 months later.||||0.314
90930014|NCT01354444|181739409|OTHER|||||||0.438|||||||Rank sum test|||This analysis compares the change in oligomeric Abeta between the treatment and placebo group from baseline to 6 months later.||||0.438
90930015|NCT00982072|181739411|OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.12
90930016|NCT03559205|181739418|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||2 Week Analysis||0.70|-0.74|0.96
90930017|NCT03559205|181739419|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.31|2.04|||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline||2.04|-2.31|0.90
90930018|NCT03559205|181739419|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.01||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|5.19|||t-test, 2 sided|||2 Week Analysis||5.19|-1.17|0.21
90930019|NCT03559205|181739419|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.94||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.95|4.83|||t-test, 2 sided|||3-Month||4.83|-2.95|0.63
90930020|NCT03559205|181739420|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.63||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|6.26|||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline||6.26|-1.00|0.15
90930021|NCT03559205|181739420|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|6.45|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 2 analysis||6.45|-2.02|0.30
90930022|NCT03559205|181739420|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.89|5.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||3-Month||5.90|-4.89|0.85
90930023|NCT03559205|181739421|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.74|||t-test, 2 sided|||Care and respect||0.74|-0.51|0.72
90930024|NCT03559205|181739421|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.83|||t-test, 2 sided|||Understanding \& engagement||0.83|-0.38|0.46
90930025|NCT03559205|181739422|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.42|||t-test, 2 sided|||2-weeks||0.42|-0.13|0.30
90930026|NCT03559205|181739422|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.52|||t-test, 2 sided|||3-months||0.52|-0.20|0.38
90930027|NCT03559205|181739423|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|0.88|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.88|-1.48|0.61
90930028|NCT01613417|181739479|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation was based on primary endpoint. 185 patients were deemed necessary for the lower limit of the observed 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference to exceed -5% with 85% power.|Percentage PH better minus GV better|0.5||||0.8516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|5.6||P-value from Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Difference in percentage ProHance better minus percentage Gadovist/Gadavist better (%)|||5.6|-4.6|0.8516
90930029|NCT01613417|181739479|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation was based on primary endpoint. 185 patients were deemed necessary for the lower limit of the observed 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference to exceed -5% with 85% power.|Percentage PH better minus GV better|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|3.8||P-value from Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Difference in percentage ProHance better minus percentage Gadovist/Gadavist better (%)|||3.8|-3.8|1.0
90930030|NCT01613417|181739479|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation was based on primary endpoint. 185 patients were deemed necessary for the lower limit of the observed 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference to exceed -5% with 85% power.|Percentage PH better minus GV better|0.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.5||P-value from Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Difference in percentage ProHance better minus percentage Gadovist/Gadavist better (%)|||1.5|-0.5|1.0
90930031|NCT01613417|181739480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value from Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.0
90930032|NCT01613417|181739480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value from Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.0
90930033|NCT01613417|181739480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value from Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.0
90930034|NCT01613417|181739481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value from Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.0
90930035|NCT01613417|181739481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6875|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value from Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6875
90930036|NCT01613417|181739481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value from Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.0
90930037|NCT01613417|181739482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value from Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.0
90930038|NCT01613417|181739482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value from Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.0
90930039|NCT01613417|181739482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value from Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.0
90930040|NCT01613417|181739483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value from Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.0
90930041|NCT01613417|181739483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value from Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.0
90930042|NCT01613417|181739483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value from Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.0
90930043|NCT01613417|181739484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2758|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with period, sequence, and IP and fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as random effect||||||0.2758
90930044|NCT01613417|181739484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0676|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with period, sequence, and IP and fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as random effect||||||0.0676
90930045|NCT01613417|181739484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5267|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with period, sequence, and IP and fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as random effect||||||0.5267
90930046|NCT01613417|181739485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6201|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Investigation product (IP) effect from mixed model with period, sequence, and IP as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect.||||||0.6201
90930047|NCT01613417|181739485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4514|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Investigation product (IP) effect from mixed model with period, sequence, and IP as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect.||||||0.4514
90966857|NCT03227471|181816029|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P value within treatment. These are nominal p-values without multiplicity control.|mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||||<0.0001
90930048|NCT01613417|181739485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7722|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Investigation product (IP) effect from mixed model with period, sequence, and IP as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect.||||||0.7722
90930049|NCT01613417|181739486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3173|TWO_SIDED||||||McNemar|||||||0.3173
90930050|NCT01613417|181739486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5637|TWO_SIDED||||||McNemar|||||||0.5637
90930051|NCT01613417|181739486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0455|TWO_SIDED||||||McNemar|||||||0.0455
90930052|NCT01613417|181739487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6949|TWO_SIDED||||||McNemar|||McNemar test of difference (ProHance minus Gadovist/Gadavist) in accuracy for tumor characterization||||0.6949
90930053|NCT01613417|181739487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1317|TWO_SIDED||||||McNemar|||McNemar test of difference (ProHance minus Gadovist/Gadavist) in accuracy for tumor characterization||||0.1317
90930054|NCT01613417|181739487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0124|TWO_SIDED||||||McNemar|||McNemar test of difference (ProHance minus Gadovist/Gadavist) in accuracy for tumor characterization||||0.0124
90930055|NCT01429454|181739488|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.36||||0.51|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||.51
90930056|NCT01429454|181739489|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.1|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>0.10
90930057|NCT02000752|181739490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.98|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|7.59||||t-test, 1 sided||||||7.59|<0.001
90930058|NCT02000752|181739491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in percentage|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||1
90930059|NCT02000752|181739492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in percentages|2.13||||0.16|ONE_SIDED|95.0|1.01||||t-test, 1 sided||||||1.01|0.16
90930060|NCT02000752|181739493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.84||||0.2|ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.84||||t-test, 2 sided||||||0.84|0.2
90930061|NCT03392194|181739507|OTHER|The purpose of this small pilot randomized control trial (RCT) was to assess feasibility and acceptability of conducting community based sleep hygiene and yoga interventions, to be scaled and tested in a future, larger RCT.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.02||||0.932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.35|50.39|||t-test, 2 sided|Due to main findings, analysis to explore potential mediators of effect were not pursued, despite original plan to explore explanatory variables.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference in change in sleep duration between the two intervention arms.||50.39|-46.35|0.932
90966858|NCT03227471|181816030|OTHER|||||||0.007||||||P value within treatment. These are nominal p-values without multiplicity control.|mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||||0.0070
90966859|NCT03227471|181816030|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P value within treatment. These are nominal p-values without multiplicity control.|mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||||<0.0001
90966860|NCT00736255|181816039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54|||||||Chi-squared|||"Null Hypothesis:LDX and NRT will not facilitate smoking cessation compared to NRT and placebo.~Alternate Hypothesis: LDX and NRT will facilitate smoking cessation compared to NRT and placebo.~This is a one tailed, proof of concept study so there is no formal power analysis, however if we see a signal for treatment effect, we would like to do further investigation by conducting a separate trial."||||0.54
90971290|NCT04311502|181825278|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.67|||Regression, Cox|||Time point: Week 6||1.67|0.41|0.60
90930062|NCT00229970|181739524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.022||95.0|0.01|0.16|||ANCOVA|The model included a factor for treatment and using the baseline Forced Expiratory Volume in One Second (FEV1) as a covariate.||||0.16|0.01|0.022
90930063|NCT00229970|181739524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|||<|0.001||95.0|0.09|0.24|||ANCOVA|The model included a factor for treatment and using the baseline Forced Expiratory Volume in One Second (FEV1) as a covariate.||||0.24|0.09|<0.001
90930064|NCT03335488|181739539|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|28.1|||Fisher Exact|||||28.1|0.0|1.0000
90930065|NCT03335488|181739541|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8464|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Initial Treatment Period Week 1||||0.8464
90930066|NCT03335488|181739541|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.104|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Initial Treatment Period Week 2||||0.1040
90930067|NCT03335488|181739541|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0979|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Initial Treatment Period Week 3||||0.0979
90930068|NCT03335488|181739541|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9808|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||End of Initial Treatment Period Week 4 - 0 Hr||||0.9808
90930069|NCT03335488|181739541|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8329|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||End of Initial Treatment Period Week 4 - 4 Hr||||0.8329
90930070|NCT03335488|181739541|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2544|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||End of Initial Treatment Period Week 4 - 8 Hr||||0.2544
90930071|NCT03335488|181739542|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8579||||||P-value is from a t-test comparing log-transformed RAVICTI vs NaPBA values.|t-test|||||||0.8579
90930072|NCT03335488|181739543|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7155||||||P-value is from a t-test comparing log-transformed RAVICTI vs NaPBA values.|t-test|||||||0.7155
90930073|NCT04941482|181739589|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|3.2||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Treatment Difference = Intervention group - Control group|We calculated that 92 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the 2 groups would have at least 80% power to detect a difference of 3.43 points in mean score in improving physical and mental health after stroke (based on J.Sims et al in 2008) between intervention and control groups from baseline to the 6th month. The sample size was determined using a 2-sided 2-sample t-test (a=0.05). Assumptions included a common standard deviation of 5.49 and a discontinuation rate of 10%.|(1) Variables with multiple measurements over time were compared using the repeated measures ANOVA test to assess changes in Patient Health Questionnaire-9 score before and after intervention in two groups, calculating the time\*group interaction; (2) Effect sizes after intervention are measured using Cohen's D, with values indicating small (d = 0.2), medium (d = 0.5), and large (d ≥ 0.8) effects.|3.2|-1.9|<0.05
90930074|NCT04941482|181739590|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|2.5||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Treatment Difference = Intervention group - Control group|We calculated that 92 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the 2 groups would have at least 80% power to detect a difference of 3.43 points in mean score in improving physical and mental health after stroke (based on J.Sims et al in 2008) between intervention and control groups from baseline to the 6th month. The sample size was determined using a 2-sided 2-sample t-test (a=0.05). Assumptions included a common standard deviation of 5.49 and a discontinuation rate of 10%.|(1) Variables with multiple measurements over time were compared using the repeated measures ANOVA test to assess changes in Fatigue Severity Scale score before and after intervention in two groups, calculating the time\*group interaction; (2) Effect sizes after intervention are measured using Cohen's D, with values indicating small (d = 0.2), medium (d = 0.5), and large (d ≥ 0.8) effects.|2.5|-7.6|<0.05
90971291|NCT04311502|181825278|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.88|||Regression, Cox|||Time point: Week 8||1.88|0.33|0.595
90971292|NCT04311502|181825278|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|2.44|||Regression, Cox|||Time point: Week 10||2.44|0.25|0.66
90966861|NCT00457015|181816046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.01||95.0||||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons. Treatment effect will be deemed statistically significant if the coefficient for the treatment group within the statistical model is significant at level 0.05.|Blocked Wilcoxon rank sum test|||The primary efficacy analysis compared the change from baseline in MSCS Score at 4 hours post-dosing for patients treated with ecallantide and placebo. Treatment effect was assessed by the nonparametric Blocked Wilcoxon Rank Sum test because of an assumed non-normal distribution.||||0.010
90966862|NCT00457015|181816047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.003||95.0||||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons. Treatment effect will be deemed statistically significant if the coefficient for the treatment group within the statistical model is significant at level 0.05.|Blocked Wilcoxon rank sum test|||The analysis compared the TOS at 4 hours post-dosing for patients treated with ecallantide and placebo. Treatment effect was assessed by the nonparametric Blocked Wilcoxon Rank Sum test because of an assumed non-normal distribution.||||0.003
90966863|NCT00457015|181816048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.102||95.0||||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons. Treatment effect will be deemed statistically significant if the coefficient for the treatment group within the statistical model is significant at level 0.05.|Log Rank|||Kaplan-Meier analysis using the Log-Rank test was used to compare the time distribution between the 2 treatment groups.||||0.102
90966864|NCT03670953|181816051|SUPERIORITY|2-sided at a significance level of alpha = 0.05|Least Squares Mean difference|0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.226||0.0194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.97||"LSM, SE, CI and p-value from a MMRM with CFB in Good on time as outcome, baseline Good on time as a covariate, treatment and visit as fixed effects, pooled center as random effect and a treatment-by-visit interaction."|MMRM|The degree-of-freedom of the denominator is estimated using the Kenward-Roger method. Unstructured covariance structure is assumed.||||0.97|0.09|0.0194
90966865|NCT03670953|181816052|SUPERIORITY|2-sided at a significance level of alpha = 0.05|Least Squares Mean difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.214||0.0252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.06||"LSM, SE, CI and p-value from a MMRM with CFB in Off time as outcome, baseline Off time as a covariate, treatment and visit as fixed effects, pooled center as random effect and a treatment-by-visit interaction."|MMRM|The degree-of-freedom of the denominator is estimated using the Kenward-Roger method. Unstructured covariance structure is assumed.||||-0.06|-0.90|0.0252
90966866|NCT03670953|181816053|SUPERIORITY|2-sided at a significance level of alpha = 0.05|Percent difference|10.9||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|18.3||"P-value from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by pooled center comparing the percentage of Much or Very Much Improved participants between the treatment groups."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||18.3|3.5|0.0015
90966867|NCT03670953|181816054|SUPERIORITY|2-sided at a significance level of alpha = 0.05|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89||0.9587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.7||LSM, SE, CI and p-value from a MMRM with CFB in MDS-UPDRS Part III Score as outcome, baseline MDS-UPDRS Part III Score as a covariate, treatment and visit as fixed effects, pooled center as random effect and a treatment-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|The degree-of-freedom of the denominator is estimated using the Kenward-Roger method. Unstructured covariance structure is assumed.||||1.7|-1.8|0.9587
90966868|NCT03670953|181816055|SUPERIORITY|2-sided at a significance level of alpha = 0.05|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.9668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|2.1||LSM, SE, CI \& p-value from MMRM with CFB in MDS-UPDRS Part II \& III Scores as outcome, baseline MDS-UPDRS Part II and III Scores as a covariate, treatment and visit as fixed effects, pooled center as random effect \& a treatment-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|The degree-of-freedom of the denominator is estimated using the Kenward-Roger method. Unstructured covariance structure is assumed.||||2.1|-2.2|0.9668
90966869|NCT00937937|181816056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||1-year overall survival estimate|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.49||||||one-year overall survival estimate.||0.49|0.27|
90966870|NCT00937937|181816057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||6-month PFS estimate|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.15||||||6-month PFS estimate.||0.15|0.03|
90966871|NCT05368961|181816101|OTHER|Null hypothesis; there is no difference in anxiety scores between usual care and distraction||||||0.44|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.44
90941009|NCT00943722|181761611|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages between lots be entirely contained within the interval (-5, 5).|Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.7|||||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) minus 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 2)|Anti-HPV 52||0.7|-0.7|
90966872|NCT05714982|181816110|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||General linear model|||||||<.001
90966873|NCT05714982|181816110|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||General linear model|||||||.78
90966874|NCT05714982|181816111|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||General linear model|||||||<.001
90966875|NCT05714982|181816111|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||General linear model|||||||.66
90966876|NCT05714982|181816112|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||General linear model|||||||<.001
90941010|NCT00943722|181761611|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages between lots be entirely contained within the interval (-5, 5).|Percentage Point Difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.3|||||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) minus 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 3)|Anti-HPV 52||1.3|-0.4|
90966877|NCT05714982|181816112|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||General linear model|||||||<.001
90966878|NCT05714982|181816113|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||General linear model|||||||.001
90966879|NCT05714982|181816113|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||General linear model|||||||.95
90966880|NCT05714982|181816114|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||General linear model|||||||<.001
90966881|NCT05714982|181816114|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||General linear model|||||||<.001
90966882|NCT05714982|181816115|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||General linear model|||||||<.0001
90966883|NCT05714982|181816115|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||General linear model|||||||<.001
90966884|NCT05714982|181816116|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||General linear model|||||||<.001
90966885|NCT05714982|181816116|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||General linear model|||||||.4
90966886|NCT05714982|181816117|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||General linear model|||||||.03
90966887|NCT05714982|181816117|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||General linear model|||||||.4
90930075|NCT04941482|181739591|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|1.3||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Treatment Difference = Intervention group - Control group|We calculated that 92 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the 2 groups would have at least 80% power to detect a difference of 3.43 points in mean score in improving physical and mental health after stroke (based on J.Sims et al in 2008) between intervention and control groups from baseline to the 6th month. The sample size was determined using a 2-sided 2-sample t-test (a=0.05). Assumptions included a common standard deviation of 5.49 and a discontinuation rate of 10%.|(1) Variables with multiple measurements over time were compared using the repeated measures ANOVA test to assess changes in Mini-Mental State Examinationscore before and after intervention in two groups, calculating the time\*group interaction; (2) Effect sizes after intervention are measured using Cohen's D, with values indicating small (d = 0.2), medium (d = 0.5), and large (d ≥ 0.8) effects.|1.3|-5.4|<0.05
90930076|NCT04941482|181739592|SUPERIORITY|Over 6 months, the number of patients who losted to follow-up of intervention and control group were respectively 9:0 (after 1 month), 9:0 (after 3 months), and 9:3 (after 6 months).|Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.4|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|14.7|||t-test, 2 sided||Treatment Difference = Intervention group - Control group|We calculated that 92 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the 2 groups would have at least 80% power to detect a difference of 3.43 points in mean score in improving physical and mental health after stroke (based on J.Sims et al in 2008) between intervention and control groups from baseline to the 6th month. The sample size was determined using a 2-sided 2-sample t-test (a=0.05). Assumptions included a common standard deviation of 5.49 and a discontinuation rate of 10%.|(1) Variables with multiple measurements over time were compared using the repeated measures ANOVA test to assess changes in Barthel Index score before and after intervention in two groups, calculating the time\*group interaction; (2) Effect sizes after intervention are measured using Cohen's D, with values indicating small (d = 0.2), medium (d = 0.5), and large (d ≥ 0.8) effects.|14.7|-14.5|<0.05
90930077|NCT04941482|181739593|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.6|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.8|3.7||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Treatment Difference = Intervention group - Control group|We calculated that 92 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the 2 groups would have at least 80% power to detect a difference of 3.43 points in mean score in improving physical and mental health after stroke (based on J.Sims et al in 2008) between intervention and control groups from baseline to the 6th month. The sample size was determined using a 2-sided 2-sample t-test (a=0.05). Assumptions included a common standard deviation of 5.49 and a discontinuation rate of 10%.|(1) Variables with multiple measurements over time were compared using the repeated measures ANOVA test to assess changes in Physical domain score of Stroke Impact Scale before and after intervention in two groups, calculating the time\*group interaction; (2) Effect sizes after intervention are measured using Cohen's D, with values indicating small (d = 0.2), medium (d = 0.5), and large (d ≥ 0.8) effects.|3.7|-18.8|<0.05
90930078|NCT04941482|181739594|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|-3.7|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|-0.3||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Treatment Difference = Intervention group - Control group|We calculated that 92 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the 2 groups would have at least 80% power to detect a difference of 3.43 points in mean score in improving physical and mental health after stroke (based on J.Sims et al in 2008) between intervention and control groups from baseline to the 6th month. The sample size was determined using a 2-sided 2-sample t-test (a=0.05). Assumptions included a common standard deviation of 5.49 and a discontinuation rate of 10%.|(1) Variables with multiple measurements over time were compared using the repeated measures ANOVA test to assess changes in Stroke Impact Scale score before and after intervention in two groups, calculating the time\*group interaction; (2) Effect sizes after intervention are measured using Cohen's D, with values indicating small (d = 0.2), medium (d = 0.5), and large (d ≥ 0.8) effects.|-0.3|-15.2|<0.05
90930079|NCT04200664|181739605|OTHER|Kendall tau b correlation analysis test was performed between the number of cognitive domains affected and the both ears 3-frequency pure tone average (at 0.5/1/2kHz) or both ears 4-frequency pure tone average (at 0.5/1/2/4kHz).|Kendall Tau-b|0.462||||0.176|TWO_SIDED||||||Kendall tau-b|Kendall tau b non-parametric correlation analysis was performed.||||||0.176
90930080|NCT00291694|181739607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.71
90930081|NCT00291694|181739608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.053||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference between groups, two-sided. Endpoint not specifically powered for effect.||||0.053
90930082|NCT00291694|181739609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.37
90930083|NCT00291694|181739610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.39
90930084|NCT00291694|181739611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.37
90930085|NCT02063659|181739666|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehman estimator of difference|-53.955|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.955|-25.119|||Wilcoxon rank sum|||The primary analysis used a blocked 2-sample Wilcoxon rank sum statistic stratified by the u5-HIAA at randomization.|Mean difference is calculated as LX1606-Placebo.|-25.119|-84.955|< 0.001
90930086|NCT02063659|181739666|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehman estimator of difference|-89.662|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-113.104|-63.863|||Wilcoxon rank sum|||The primary analysis used a blocked 2-sample Wilcoxon rank sum statistic stratified by the u5-HIAA at randomization.|Mean difference is calculated as LX1606-Placebo.|-63.863|-113.104|< 0.001
90930087|NCT00989196|181739674|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|For the comparison of the PK profile of Human-cl rhFVIII with Kogenate, the 90% confidence intervals for the ratio or log-ratio of Human-cl rhFVIII over Kogenate for selected, dose independent or dose adjusted, PK parameters will be presented. In addition a formal statistical procedure will test whether the ratio of mean AUCs is within a 80 to 125% range to show bioequivalence.|Ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.874|1.107||||||||1.107|0.874|
90941011|NCT00943722|181761611|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages between lots be entirely contained within the interval (-5, 5).|Percentage Point Difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.3|||||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 2) minus 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 3)|Anti-HPV 52||1.3|-0.4|
90966888|NCT05714982|181816118|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||General linear model|||||||.61
90966889|NCT05714982|181816118|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||General linear model|||||||.68
90930088|NCT04762277|181739684|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.7|23.4|||||Difference of Least Squares Means was calculated as: Spesolimab-Placebo.|MMRM accounting for the following sources of variation: fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit, the effect of stratum (stratification according to TNFi-naive population vs. TNFi-failure population) and the fixed continuous effects of baseline at each visit. The unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within patient measurements. To estimate denominator degrees of freedom the Kenward-Roger approximation was used.||23.4|-31.7|
90966890|NCT05714982|181816119|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||General linear model|||||||.4
90966891|NCT05714982|181816119|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||General linear model|||||||.5
90966892|NCT05714982|181816120|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||General linear model|||||||.001
90966893|NCT05714982|181816120|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||General linear model|||||||.9
90966894|NCT05714982|181816121|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.2||||||||1.2|.73|
90966895|NCT05714982|181816121|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.2||||||||1.2|.69|
90966896|NCT05714982|181816122|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.9||||||||.9|.3|
90966897|NCT05714982|181816122|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.7||||||||1.7|.6|
90966898|NCT05714982|181816123|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||General linear model|||||||.02
90966899|NCT05714982|181816123|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||General linear model|||||||.5
90966900|NCT05714982|181816124|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||General linear model|||||||<.001
90966901|NCT05714982|181816124|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||General linear model|||||||.004
90966902|NCT05714982|181816125|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||General linear model|||||||0.3
90966903|NCT05714982|181816125|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||General linear model|||||||0.5
90966904|NCT05714982|181816126|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|2.1||||||||2.1|.99|
90966905|NCT05714982|181816126|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.6||||||||2.6|1.2|
90966906|NCT00549939|181816127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||P-value was adjusted for multiplicity using the Hochberg procedure. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
90966907|NCT00549939|181816127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.91||||||P-value was adjusted for multiplicity using the Hochberg procedure. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.91
90966908|NCT00549939|181816129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference versus Placebo|-6.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8||0.104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.72|1.29||P-value was adjusted for multiplicity using the Hochberg procedure. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|||"Change in detrusor LPP was analyzed using a three-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including 3 variables as fixed effects:~* treatment group (alfuzosin 0.1 mg/kg/day, alfuzosin 0.2 mg/kg/day or placebo),~* age/formulation group (2-7 years of age on solution, 8-16 years of age on solution or 8-16 years of age on tablets),~* anticholinergic/antimuscarinic use (yes or no),~and using centered baseline detrusor LPP as covariate."||1.29|-13.72|0.1040
90966909|NCT00549939|181816129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference versus Placebo|-7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.77||0.104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.51|0.39||P-value was adjusted for multiplicity using the Hochberg procedure. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||0.39|-14.51|0.1040
90966910|NCT00549939|181816130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference versus Placebo|-11.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.54||0.1338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.27|3.53||P-values was adjusted for multiplicity using the Hochberg procedure. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|||"Change in detrusor LPP was analyzed using a three-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including 3 variables as fixed effects:~* treatment group (alfuzosin 0.1 mg/kg/day, alfuzosin 0.2 mg/kg/day or placebo),~* age/formulation group (2-7 years of age on solution, 8-16 years of age on solution or 8-16 years of age on tablets),~* anticholinergic/antimuscarinic use (yes or no),~and using centered baseline detrusor LPP as covariate."||3.53|-26.27|0.1338
90966911|NCT00549939|181816130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference versus Placebo|-14.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.48||0.1152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.1|0.47||P-value was adjusted for multiplicity using the Hochberg procedure. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||0.47|-29.10|0.1152
90966912|NCT00549939|181816132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7889||||||P-value was adjusted for multiplicity using the Hochberg procedure. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|||"Change in detrusor compliance was analyzed using a three-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including 3 variables as fixed effects:~* treatment group (alfuzosin 0.1 mg/kg/day, alfuzosin 0.2 mg/kg/day or placebo),~* age/formulation group (2-7 years of age on solution, 8-16 years of age on solution or 8-16 years of age on tablets),~* anticholinergic/antimuscarinic use (yes or no),~and using centered baseline detrusor compliance as covariate."||||0.7889
90966913|NCT00549939|181816132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7889||||||P-value was adjusted for multiplicity using the Hochberg procedure. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||||0.7889
90966914|NCT01911442|181816154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.15||0.5463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|3.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS Mean, LS mean difference and the associated 95% Cl and p-value for change from baseline are based on Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM).||3.0|-5.6|0.5463
90966915|NCT01911442|181816154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.09||0.3592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|2.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS Mean, LS mean difference, and the associated 95% CI and p-value for change from baseline are based on Mixed Model for Repeated Measures.||2.2|-6.1|0.3592
90966916|NCT01911442|181816155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.1755|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||This is due to rounding. the LSM for Lurasidone 20 mg/d at week 6 was -1.069 vs -0.734 for placebo group. So the LSM of the treatment difference between Lurasidone 20 mg/d and placebo was 0.335 if 3 decimals are reported.|||||0.1755
90966917|NCT01911442|181816155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.2402|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2402
90966918|NCT02101515|181816179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.93||||||||0.93|0.22|
90966919|NCT02101515|181816181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|8.4||||||||8.40|0.67|
90966920|NCT02101515|181816182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.45||||||||1.45|0.41|
90966921|NCT02101515|181816183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|5.62||||||||5.62|1.30|
90966922|NCT02101515|181816184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|13.92||||||||13.92|0.06|
90966923|NCT02101515|181816186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|5.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|42.9||||||||42.90|0.68|
90966924|NCT02101515|181816188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.54||||||||1.54|0.46|
90966925|NCT02101515|181816189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.49||||||||1.49|0.39|
90966926|NCT02101515|181816191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6
90966927|NCT02101515|181816195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|2.77||||||||2.77|0.03|
90966928|NCT02901574|181816196|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.87||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.55|10.3||Threshold for significance is two-sided alpha of 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||10.30|-2.55|0.24
90966929|NCT00073528|181816210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.96||p-value is from stratified log-rank test, stratifying for site of disease and time since prior adjuvant endocrine therapy at screening|Log Rank||The estimate of the treatment Hazard Ratio wase based on the log-rank test.|||0.96|0.53|0.019
91035410|NCT01940341|181956786|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Sample sizes of 130 and 260 participants in the TDF group and TAF groups, respectively were planned to give 90% power to rule out the noninferiority margin of 10% at a 1-sided significance level of 0.025. This sample size was based on the assumption that the expected difference (TAF-TDF) in proportion of participants with HBV DNA\<29 IU/mL was 0 and the proportion of participants with HBV DNA\<29 IU/mL in the TDF group was 91%. All missing data were treated as not achieving the primary endpoint.|Difference in proportions|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|7.2|||||Difference in the proportion between treatment groups and its 95% CI were calculated based on the Mantel-Haenszel (MH) proportions adjusted by baseline HBV DNA categories and oral antiviral treatment status strata.|The null hypothesis was that the TAF group is at least 10% worse than the TDF group with respect to the proportion of participants with HBV DNA \< 29 IU/mL at Week 48. The alternative hypothesis was that the TAF group is less than 10% worse than the TDF group with respect to the proportion of participants with HBV DNA \< 29 IU/mL at Week 48. Noninferiority was assessed using a 95% confidence interval (CI) approach, with a noninferiority margin of 10%.||7.2|-3.6|
91035411|NCT00304187|181956791|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.05
91035412|NCT03134222|181956820|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||Mixed-effect repeated measures model|||||||0.7500
91035413|NCT03134222|181956820|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3047|||||||Mixed-effect repeated measures model|||||||0.3047
91035414|NCT03134222|181956821|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8869|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.8869
90966930|NCT00073528|181816211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.96||p-value is from stratified log-rank test, stratifying for site of disease and time since prior adjuvant endocrine therapy at screening|Log Rank||The estimate of the treatment Hazard Ratio was based on the log-rank test.|||0.96|0.53|0.019
90966931|NCT01226459|181816261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|13.1|||ANCOVA|P-value is from ANCOVA model with treatment and center as factors and Baseline hair count as a covariate.||Intent to Treat (ITT) population defined as all participants randomly assigned to a treatment group who received dispensed investigational product. Four participants in vehicle group and 3 participants in foam group had no hair information at Baseline. Statistical analysis is of the change from baseline to week 24 data.||13.1|5.0|<0.0001
90966932|NCT01226459|181816262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|14.7|||ANCOVA|P-value is from ANCOVA model with treatment and center as factors and Baseline hair count as a covariate.||Statistical analysis is of the change from baseline to week 12 data.||14.7|7.0|<0.0001
90966933|NCT01226459|181816263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.04|||ANCOVA|||||1.04|0.35|<0.0001
90966934|NCT03770091|181816264|SUPERIORITY|ANOVA performed||||||0.6|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.6
90966935|NCT03770091|181816265|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.59
90966936|NCT03770091|181816266|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.9
90966937|NCT03770091|181816267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.45
90966938|NCT03770091|181816268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.5
90966939|NCT01092143|181816277|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean treatment differences|3.083|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.65||0.0311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.157|6.323||α=0.025 one-sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline, treatment, day, treatment by day interaction and baseline by day interaction as fixed effects and patient as a random effect.||Superiority in mean trough FEV1 % predicted change from baseline in patients treated with BI 671800 50 mg b.i.d. compared with those treated with placebo, after 6 weeks.||6.323|-0.157|0.0311
90966940|NCT01092143|181816277|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean treatment differences|3.589|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.6||0.0126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.447|6.732||α=0.025 one-sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline, treatment, day, trea||Superiority in mean trough FEV1 % predicted change from baseline in patients treated with BI 671800 200 mg b.i.d. compared with those treated with placebo, after 6 weeks.||6.732|0.447|0.0126
90966941|NCT01092143|181816277|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean treatment differences|3.977|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.64||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.756|7.197||α=0.025 one-sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline, treatment, day, treatment by day interaction and baseline by day interaction as fixed effects and patient as a random effect.||Superiority in mean trough FEV1 % predicted change from baseline in patients treated with BI 671800 400 mg b.i.d. compared with those treated with placebo, after 6 weeks.||7.197|0.756|0.0078
90966942|NCT01092143|181816277|OTHER||Adjusted mean treatment differences|8.619|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.684|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.312|11.927||α=0.025 one-sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline, treatment, day, treatment by day interaction and baseline by day interaction as fixed effects and patient as a random effect.||Superiority in mean trough FEV1 % predicted change from baseline in patients treated with fluticasone propionate 110 mcg 2 puffs b.i.d. compared with those treated with placebo, after 6 weeks.||11.927|5.312|<.0001
90971293|NCT04311502|181825278|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|6.39|||Regression, Cox|||Time point: Week 12||6.39|0.21|0.86
90930089|NCT04762277|181739685|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-96.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-154.5|-38.8|||||Difference of Least Squares Means was calculated as: Spesolimab-Placebo.|MMRM accounting for the following sources of variation: fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit, the effect of stratum (stratification according to TNFi-naive population vs. TNFi-failure population) and the fixed continuous effects of baseline at each visit. The unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within patient measurements. To estimate denominator degrees of freedom the Kenward-Roger approximation was used.||-38.8|-154.5|
90930090|NCT04762277|181739686|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.138|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.129|0.339|||||Risk difference was calculated as: Spesolimab - Placebo. 95% Confidence Interval (CI) for treatment difference is calculated by Chan and Zhang method.|The difference in the proportion of patients with a response between Spesolimab and placebo was analysed using a logistic regression model. The model included treatment and stratification factor (tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi)-naive population versus TNFi-failure population) as two categorical variables.||0.339|-0.129|
90930091|NCT04762277|181739687|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.6|-2.3|||||Difference of Least Squares Means was calculated as: Spesolimab-Placebo.|MMRM accounting for the following sources of variation: fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit, the effect of stratum (stratification according to TNFi-naive population vs. TNFi-failure population) and the fixed continuous effects of baseline at each visit. The unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within patient measurements. To estimate denominator degrees of freedom the Kenward-Roger approximation was used.||-2.3|-25.6|
90930092|NCT04762277|181739688|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-19.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.9|-2.7|||||Difference of Least Squares Means was calculated as : Spesolimab- Placebo.|MMRM accounting for the following sources of variation: fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit, the effect of stratum (stratification according to TNFi-naive population vs. TNFi-failure population) and the fixed continuous effects of baseline at each visit. The unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within patient measurements. To estimate denominator degrees of freedom the Kenward-Roger approximation was used.||-2.7|-36.9|
90930093|NCT04762277|181739689|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.057|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.132|0.186|||||Risk difference was calculated as: Spesolimab-Placebo. 95% Confidence Interval (CI) for treatment difference is calculated by Chan and Zhang method.|The difference in the proportion of patients with a response between Spesolimab and placebo was analysed using a logistic regression model. The model included treatment and stratification factor (tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi)-naive population versus TNFi-failure population) as two categorical variables.||0.186|-0.132|
90930094|NCT04762277|181739690|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.067|0.338|||||Risk Difference was calculated as: Spesolimab - Placebo. 95% Confidence Interval (CI) for treatment difference was calculated by Chan and Zhang method.|The difference in the proportion of patients with a response between Spesolimab and placebo was analysed using a logistic regression model. The model included treatment and stratification factor (tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi)-naive population versus TNFi-failure population) as two categorical variables.||0.338|-0.067|
90930095|NCT04762277|181739691|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.183|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.079|0.375|||||Risk Difference was calculated as: Spesolimab - Placebo. 95% Confidence Interval (CI) for treatment difference was calculated by Chan and Zhang method.|The difference in the proportion of patients with a response between Spesolimab and placebo was analysed using a logistic regression model. The model included treatment and stratification factor (tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi)-naive population versus TNFi-failure population) as two categorical variables.||0.375|-0.079|
90930096|NCT04762277|181739692|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.091|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.331|0.089|||||Risk Difference was calculated as: Spesolimab - Placebo. 95% Confidence Interval (CI) for treatment difference was calculated by Chan and Zhang method.|The difference in the proportion of patients with a response between Spesolimab and placebo was analysed using a logistic regression model. The model included treatment and stratification factor (tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi)-naive population versus TNFi-failure population) as two categorical variables.||0.089|-0.331|
90930097|NCT04762277|181739693|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|4.3|||||Difference of Least Squares Means was calculated as: Spesolimab-Placebo.|MMRM accounting for the following sources of variation: fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit, the effect of stratum (stratification according to TNFi-naive population vs. TNFi-failure population) and the fixed continuous effects of baseline at each visit. The unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within patient measurements. To estimate denominator degrees of freedom the Kenward-Roger approximation was used.||4.3|-4.4|
90930098|NCT04762277|181739694|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|6.9|||||Difference of Least Squares Means was calculated as: Spesolimab-Placebo.|MMRM accounting for the following sources of variation: fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit, the effect of stratum (stratification according to TNFi-naive population vs. TNFi-failure population) and the fixed continuous effects of baseline at each visit. The unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within patient measurements. To estimate denominator degrees of freedom the Kenward-Roger approximation was used.||6.9|-9.5|
90930099|NCT05785832|181739696|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.4|||Regression, Linear|||Adjusted Difference Between Groups||-0.4|-0.8|<0.001
90930100|NCT05785832|181739697|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|14.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|17.0|||Regression, Linear|||Adjusted Difference Between Groups||17|11|<0.001
90930101|NCT05785832|181739698|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-21.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.0|-15.0|||Regression, Linear|||Adjusted Difference Between Groups||-15|-26|<0.001
90966943|NCT01092143|181816277|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean treatment differences|-5.536|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.653||0.9996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.783|-2.29||α=0.025 one-sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline, treatment, day, treatment by day interaction and baseline by day interaction as fixed effects and patient as a random effect.||Superiority in mean trough FEV1 % predicted change from baseline in patients treated with BI 671800 50 mg b.i.d. compared with those treated with fluticasone propionate 220 mcg b.i.d., after 6 weeks.||-2.290|-8.783|0.9996
91035415|NCT03134222|181956821|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3293|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3293
90930102|NCT05785832|181739699|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|-11.0|||Regression, Linear|||Adjusted Difference Between Groups||-11|-17|<0.001
91035416|NCT03134222|181956822|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7456|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.7456
91035417|NCT03134222|181956822|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6407|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.6407
91035418|NCT03134222|181956823|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One sample exact binomial test|||||||<0.0001
90930103|NCT05785832|181739700|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|-6.6|||Regression, Linear|||Adjusted Difference Between Groups||-6.6|-11.7|<0.001
90930104|NCT05785832|181739701|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.4|||Regression, Linear|||Adjusted Difference Between Groups||-0.4|-1.0|<0.001
90930105|NCT05785832|181739702|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1||A hierarchical procedure was used to control for the overall type I error. Since the P value for this outcome was more than 0.05, no additional P values are provided for subsequent secondary outcomes.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted Difference Between Groups||0.1|-0.4|
90930106|NCT05785832|181739703|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.04|||Regression, Linear|||Adjusted Difference Between Groups||0.04|-0.09|
90930107|NCT05785832|181739704|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.0|||Regression, Linear|||Adjusted Difference Between Groups||0.0|-0.1|
90930108|NCT05785832|181739705|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.2|||Regression, Linear|||Adjusted Difference Between Groups||1.2|-0.5|
90930109|NCT05785832|181739706|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percent of participants.|12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|21.0|||||Estimation represents the difference in percent of participants in each arm who achieved the outcome.|||21|1|
90930110|NCT05785832|181739707|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percent of participants.|18.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|32.0|||||Estimation represents the difference in percent of participants in each arm who achieved the outcome.|||32|2|
90930111|NCT05785832|181739708|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percent of participants.|23.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|33.0|||||Estimation represents the difference in percent of participants in each arm who achieved the outcome.|||33|12|
90930112|NCT05785832|181739709|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percent of participants.|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|38.0|||||Estimation represents the difference in percent of participants in each arm who achieved the outcome.|||38|11|
90930113|NCT05785832|181739710|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percent of participants.|22.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|33.0|||||Estimation represents the difference in percent of participants in each arm who achieved the outcome.|||33|11|
90930114|NCT05785832|181739711|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percent of participants.|21.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|32.0|||||Estimation represents the difference in percent of participants in each arm who achieved the outcome.|||32|10|
90930115|NCT05785832|181739712|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percent of participants.|21.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.0|31.0|||||Estimation represents the difference in percent of participants in each arm who achieved the outcome.|||31|9|
90930116|NCT05785832|181739713|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|12.0||||||Adjusted Difference Between Groups||12|7|
90930117|NCT05785832|181739714|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.01||||||||0.01|-0.02|
90930118|NCT05785832|181739715|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.01||||||Adjusted Difference Between Groups||0.01|-0.07|
90930119|NCT05785832|181739716|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|-2.7||||||Adjusted Difference Between Groups||-2.7|-6.0|
90930120|NCT05785832|181739717|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|-10.0||||||Adjusted Difference Between Groups||-10|-18|
90930121|NCT05785832|181739718|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|-2.7||||||Adjusted Difference Between Groups||-2.7|-5.2|
90930122|NCT05785832|181739719|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percent of participants.|16.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|24.0|||||Estimation represents the difference in percent of participants in each arm who achieved the outcome.|||24|8|
90930123|NCT05785832|181739720|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percent of participants.|26.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|41.0|||||Estimation represents the difference in percent of participants in each arm who achieved the outcome.|||41|12|
90930124|NCT05785832|181739721|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percent of participants.|34.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.0|45.0|||||Estimation represents the difference in percent of participants in each arm who achieved the outcome.|||45|21|
90930125|NCT05785832|181739724|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percent of participants.|15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|22.0|||||Estimation represents the difference in percent of participants in each arm who achieved the outcome.|||22|8|
90930126|NCT05785832|181739725|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|0.0||||||Adjusted Difference Between Groups.||0|-20|
90930127|NCT05785832|181739726|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|3.4||||||Adjusted Difference Between Groups.||3.4|-4.4|
90930128|NCT05785832|181739727|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.5||||||Adjusted Difference Between Groups.||2.5|0.5|
90930129|NCT05785832|181739728|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|4.7||||||Adjusted Difference Between Groups.||4.7|-2.5|
90930130|NCT05785832|181739729|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|0.7||||||Adjusted Difference Between Groups.||0.7|-3.4|
90930131|NCT05785832|181739730|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.7||||||Adjusted Difference Between Groups.||3.7|0.5|
90930132|NCT05785832|181739731|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|11.1||||||Adjusted Difference Between Groups.||11.1|-1.4|
90930133|NCT05785832|181739732|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.0|4.0||||||Adjusted Difference Between Groups.||4|-45|
90930134|NCT06072170|181739746|OTHER|Proportionality analysis was done using a power model.|Slope|0.829|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.659|0.998||||||Statistical Analysis for Dose-Proportionality of Mitragynine Pharmacokinetic Parameters (Pharmacokinetic Population)||0.998|0.659|
90930135|NCT06072170|181739746|OTHER|Proportionality analysis was done using a power model.|Slope|0.843|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.713|0.973||||||Statistical Analysis for Dose-Proportionality of 7-Hydroxy-Mitragynine Pharmacokinetic Parameters (Pharmacokinetic Population)||0.973|0.713|
90930136|NCT06072170|181739746|OTHER|Proportionality analysis was done using a power model.|Slope|0.811|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.637|0.984||||||Statistical Analysis for Dose-Proportionality of Paynantheine Pharmacokinetic Parameters (Pharmacokinetic Population)||0.984|0.637|
90930137|NCT06072170|181739746|OTHER|Proportionality analysis was done using a power model.|Slope|0.814|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.633|0.994||||||Statistical Analysis for Dose-Proportionality of Speciogynine Pharmacokinetic Parameters (Pharmacokinetic Population)||0.994|0.633|
90930138|NCT06072170|181739746|OTHER|Proportionality analysis was done using a power model.|Slope|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.72|1.039||||||Statistical Analysis for Dose-Proportionality of Speciociliatine Dose Adjusted Pharmacokinetic Parameters (Pharmacokinetic Population)||1.039|0.720|
91035419|NCT03134222|181956823|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One sample exact binomial test|||||||<0.0001
90930139|NCT06072170|181739748|OTHER|Proportionality analysis was done using a power model.|Slope|0.946|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.768|1.123||||||Statistical Analysis for Dose-Proportionality of Mitragynine Pharmacokinetic Parameters (Pharmacokinetic Population)||1.123|0.768|
90930140|NCT06072170|181739748|OTHER|Proportionality analysis was done using a power model.|Slope|0.978|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.821|1.134||||||Statistical Analysis for Dose-Proportionality of 7-Hydroxy-Mitragynine Pharmacokinetic Parameters (Pharmacokinetic Population)||1.134|0.821|
90966944|NCT01092143|181816277|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean treatment differences|-5.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.606||0.9991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.185|-1.875||α=0.025 one-sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline, treatment, day, treatment by day interaction and baseline by day interaction as fixed effects and patient as a random effect.||Superiority in mean trough FEV1 % predicted change from baseline in patients treated with BI 671800 200 mg b.i.d. compared with those treated with fluticasone propionate 220mcg b.i.d., after 6 weeks.||-1.875|-8.185|0.9991
90966945|NCT01092143|181816277|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean treatment differences|-4.643|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.647||0.9975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.877|-1.408||α=0.025 one-sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline, treatment, day, treatment by day interaction and baseline by day interaction as fixed effects and patient as a random effect.||Superiority in mean trough FEV1 % predicted change from baseline in patients treated with BI 671800 400 mg b.i.d. compared with those treated with fluticasone propionate 220 mcg b.i.d., after 6 weeks.||-1.408|-7.877|0.9975
90966946|NCT01092143|181816278|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean treatment differences|0.073|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.113||0.7413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.149|0.295||α=0.025 one-sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline, treatment, day, treatment by day interaction and baseline by day interaction as fixed effects and patient as a random effect.||||0.295|-0.149|0.7413
90966947|NCT01092143|181816278|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean treatment differences|-0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.11||0.2335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.296|0.136||α=0.025 one-sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline, treatment, day, treatment by day interaction and baseline by day interaction as fixed effects and patient as a random effect.||||0.136|-0.296|0.2335
90966948|NCT01092143|181816278|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean treatment differences|-0.061|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.113||0.2933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.282|0.16||α=0.025 one-sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline, treatment, day, treatment by day interaction and baseline by day interaction as fixed effects and patient as a random effect.||||0.160|-0.282|0.2933
90966949|NCT01092143|181816278|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean treatment differences|-0.333|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.116||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.561|-0.105||α=0.025 one-sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline, treatment, day, treatment by day interaction and baseline by day interaction as fixed effects and patient as a random effect.||||-0.105|-0.561|0.0021
90966950|NCT01092143|181816278|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean treatment differences|0.406|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.114||0.9998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.183|0.63||α=0.025 one-sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline, treatment, day, treatment by day interaction and baseline by day interaction as fixed effects and patient as a random effect.||||0.630|0.183|0.9998
90966951|NCT01092143|181816278|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean treatment differences|0.253|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.11||0.989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.037|0.47||α=0.025 one-sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline, treatment, day, treatment by day interaction and baseline by day interaction as fixed effects and patient as a random effect.||||0.470|0.037|0.9890
90966952|NCT01092143|181816278|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean treatment differences|0.272|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.113||0.9918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.494||α=0.025 one-sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline, treatment, day, treatment by day interaction and baseline by day interaction as fixed effects and patient as a random effect.||||0.494|0.050|0.9918
90966953|NCT01854645|181816293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||At 5 min post dose||||<0.0001
90966954|NCT01854645|181816293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||At 15 min post dose||||<0.0001
91035420|NCT03134222|181956824|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One sample exact binomial test|||||||<0.0001
91035421|NCT03134222|181956824|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One sample exact binomial test|||||||<0.0001
91035422|NCT03482882|181956834|OTHER||LSM|-10.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|-9.5|||Mixed-effect model repeated measures|||||-9.5|-12.0|<0.0001
90930141|NCT06072170|181739748|OTHER|Proportionality analysis was done using a power model.|Slope|1.075|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.901|1.249||||||Statistical Analysis for Dose-Proportionality of Paynantheine Pharmacokinetic Parameters (Pharmacokinetic Population)||1.249|0.901|
90930142|NCT06072170|181739748|OTHER|Proportionality analysis was done using a power model.|Slope|1.046|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|1.222||||||Statistical Analysis for Dose-Proportionality of Speciogynine Pharmacokinetic Parameters (Pharmacokinetic Population)||1.222|0.870|
90966955|NCT01854645|181816293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||At 5 min post dose||||<0.0001
90966956|NCT01854645|181816293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||At 15 min post dose||||<0.0001
90966957|NCT01854645|181816293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||At 5 min post dose||||<0.0001
90966958|NCT01854645|181816293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||At 15 min post dose||||<0.0001
90966959|NCT00698997|181816325|OTHER|Non- equivalence.|slope difference|1.01||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||We used a generalized linear mixed model (GLMM). Change-over-Time was modeled as a linear within-subject effect of time across all observed data for each participant. We fit splines to manage the differing lengths of time in parent-training versus direct treatment. In all analyses, site was included as a categorical covariate to account for potential differences. Effect sizes were reported following Cohen's recommendations as f2.||||.03
90966960|NCT05082376|181816348|OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|7.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.6|8.8|||ANCOVA|Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, timepoint, treatment\*timepoint (interaction) and subject as terms; Baseline value as covariate.||Pairwise comparison between Treated and Untreated sites 2 hours post-treatment||8.8|6.6|<0.0001
90966961|NCT05082376|181816348|OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|6.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.8|7.9|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, timepoint, treatment\*timepoint (interaction) and subject as terms; Baseline value as covariate.||Pairwise comparison between Treated and Untreated sites 4 hours post-treatment.||7.9|5.8|<0.0001
90966962|NCT05082376|181816348|OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|5.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|6.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, timepoint, treatment\*timepoint (interaction) and subject as terms; Baseline value as covariate.||Pairwise comparison between Treated and Untreated sites 6 hours post-treatment.||6.2|4.0|<0.0001
91035423|NCT00520234|181956842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|APACHE II Stratified||||||0.14
91035424|NCT01085825|181956853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||.13
90930143|NCT06072170|181739748|OTHER|Proportionality analysis was done using a power model.|Slope|1.011|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.844|1.178||||||Statistical Analysis for Dose-Proportionality of Speciociliatine Dose Adjusted Pharmacokinetic Parameters (Pharmacokinetic Population)||1.178|0.844|
90930144|NCT06072170|181739749|OTHER|Proportionality analysis was done using a power model.|Slope|0.959|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.775|1.143||||||Statistical Analysis for Dose-Proportionality of Mitragynine Pharmacokinetic Parameters (Pharmacokinetic Population)||1.143|0.775|
90930145|NCT06072170|181739749|OTHER|Proportionality analysis was done using a power model.|Slope|0.974|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.815|1.134||||||Statistical Analysis for Dose-Proportionality of 7-Hydroxy-Mitragynine Pharmacokinetic Parameters (Pharmacokinetic Population)||1.134|0.815|
90930146|NCT06072170|181739749|OTHER|Proportionality analysis was done using a power model.|Slope|1.036|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.866|1.207||||||Statistical Analysis for Dose-Proportionality of Paynantheine Pharmacokinetic Parameters (Pharmacokinetic Population)||1.207|0.866|
90930147|NCT06072170|181739749|OTHER|Proportionality analysis was done using a power model.|Slope|0.967|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.79|1.145||||||Statistical Analysis for Dose-Proportionality of Speciogynine Pharmacokinetic Parameters (Pharmacokinetic Population)||1.145|0.790|
90930148|NCT06072170|181739749|OTHER|Proportionality analysis was done using a power model.|Slope|1.025|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.859|1.191||||||Statistical Analysis for Dose-Proportionality of Speciociliatine Dose Adjusted Pharmacokinetic Parameters (Pharmacokinetic Population)||1.191|0.859|
90930149|NCT06072170|181739753|SUPERIORITY||Least-Square Mean|18.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.06|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.16|30.78||||||||30.78|6.16|
90930150|NCT06072170|181739756|SUPERIORITY||Least-Squared Mean|45.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.74|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.2|61.67|||ANOVA|||Statistical Analysis for High Visual Analog Scale (Emax)||61.67|30.20|<0.001
90930151|NCT03070392|181739757|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.71|||Log Rank|||||0.71|0.37|<0.0001
90930152|NCT03070392|181739759|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.0139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.94|||Log Rank|||||0.94|0.58|0.0139
90930153|NCT03678688|181739768|SUPERIORITY||EBA Ratio|0.689|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.485|0.939|||||The confidence interval for the EBA ratio is estimated using Fieller's method.|||0.939|0.485|
90930154|NCT03678688|181739768|SUPERIORITY||EBA Ratio|0.689|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.467|0.911|||||The confidence interval for the EBA ratio is estimated using Taylor's method.|||0.911|0.467|
90930155|NCT03678688|181739768|SUPERIORITY||EBA Ratio|0.759|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.517|1.051|||||The confidence interval for the EBA ratio is estimated using Fieller's method.|||1.051|0.517|
90930156|NCT03678688|181739768|SUPERIORITY||EBA Ratio|0.759|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.497|1.02|||||The confidence interval for the EBA ratio is estimated using Taylor's method.|||1.020|0.497|
90930157|NCT03678688|181739768|SUPERIORITY||EBA Ratio|0.745|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.567|0.973|||||The confidence interval for the EBA ratio is estimated using Fieller's method.|||0.973|0.567|
90930158|NCT03678688|181739768|SUPERIORITY||EBA Ratio|0.745|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.547|0.943|||||The confidence interval for the EBA ratio is estimated using Taylor's method.|||0.943|0.547|
90930159|NCT03678688|181739768|SUPERIORITY||EBA Ratio|0.605|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.353|0.896|||||The confidence interval for the EBA ratio is estimated using Fieller's method.|||0.896|0.353|
90930160|NCT03678688|181739768|SUPERIORITY||EBA Ratio|0.605|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.338|0.871|||||The confidence interval for the EBA ratio is estimated using Taylor's method.|||0.871|0.338|
90930161|NCT03678688|181739808|SUPERIORITY||EBA Ratio|1.256|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.626|3.175|||||The confidence interval for the EBA ratio is estimated using Fieller's method.|||3.175|0.626|
90930162|NCT03678688|181739808|SUPERIORITY||EBA Ratio|1.256|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.362|2.151|||||The confidence interval for the EBA ratio is estimated using Taylor's method.|||2.151|0.362|
90930163|NCT03678688|181739808|SUPERIORITY||EBA Ratio|1.385|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.736|2.656|||||The confidence interval for the EBA ratio is estimated using Fieller's method.|||2.656|0.736|
91035425|NCT03290781|181956867|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion|0.451|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.296|0.572||P-value was based on CMH chi-square test stratified by status of glucocorticoid use at SHP647-303 baseline, prior anti-TNF treatment, and the degree of clinical response in the induction studies (whether remission is achieved or not).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.572|0.296|<0.001
91035426|NCT03290781|181956867|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion|0.278|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.142|0.401||P-value was based on CMH chi-square test stratified by status of glucocorticoid use at SHP647-303 baseline, prior anti-TNF treatment, and the degree of clinical response in the induction studies (whether remission is achieved or not).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.401|0.142|<0.001
91035427|NCT03290781|181956868|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion|0.463|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.585||P-value was based on CMH chi-square test stratified by status of glucocorticoid use at SHP647-303 baseline, prior anti-TNF treatment, and the degree of clinical response in the induction studies (whether remission is achieved or not).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.585|0.310|<0.001
90930164|NCT03678688|181739808|SUPERIORITY||EBA Ratio|1.385|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.564|2.206|||||The confidence interval for the EBA ratio is estimated using Taylor's method.|||2.206|0.564|
90930165|NCT02949297|181739858|OTHER|One-sided Clopper-Pearson 95% confidence interval|Clopper-Pearson|80.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||95.0|||||One-sided Clopper-Pearson 95% confidence interval|||95||
90930166|NCT00458783|181739873|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.2|||generalized estimating equation (GEE)|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) distinct-effects model||||1.2|0.50|0.08
90930167|NCT00458783|181739874|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.6||||||||1.6|0.25|
90930168|NCT00458783|181739875|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|2.0||||||||2.0|0.26|
90930169|NCT00458783|181739876|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.4||||||||1.4|0.59|
90930170|NCT00458783|181739877|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.8||||||||1.8|0.43|
90930171|NCT00458783|181739878|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio, log|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|2.8||||||||2.8|0.24|
90930172|NCT00458783|181739879|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.5||||||||1.5|0.80|
90930173|NCT00458783|181739880|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.1||||||||1.1|0.16|
90930174|NCT00458783|181739881|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.7||||||||1.7|0.39|
90930175|NCT00458783|181739882|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.3||||||||1.3|0.50|
90930176|NCT00458783|181739883|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|3.2||||||||3.2|0.18|
90930177|NCT00458783|181739884|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.29|||Regression, Cox||The 95%CI is interim adjusted.|||1.29|0.94|0.9
90930178|NCT00458783|181739885|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.18|||Regression, Cox||The 95%CI is interim adjusted.|||1.18|0.85|0.07
90930179|NCT01737398|181739886|OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-19.73||||4e-08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.43|-13.03|||MMRM|||||-13.03|-26.43|0.00000004
90930180|NCT01737398|181739887|OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-11.68||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.29|-5.06|||MMRM|||||-5.06|-18.29|0.0006
90930181|NCT00089609|181739912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.02
90930182|NCT00357994|181739916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|-1.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.05|-0.76||Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding baseline and the natural logarithm of the mean daily dose of rescue medication on valid symptom diary days as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||-0.76|-3.05|0.0015
90930183|NCT00357994|181739917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|1.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|3.17|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding baseline as a covariate.||Since the null hypothesis for the primary analysis was rejected in favor of the alternative hypothesis, hierarchical testing was performed for secondary variables on the Full Analysis data set at the 0.50 level using a gatekeeping procedure to preserve family-wise error rate.||3.17|0.56|0.0059
90930184|NCT00357994|181739918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8||0.0155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|-1.4|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding baseline as a covariate.||Since the null hypothesis for the primary analysis was rejected in favor of the alternative hypothesis, hierarchical testing was performed for secondary variables on the Full Analysis data set at the 0.50 level using a gatekeeping procedure to preserve family-wise error rate.||-1.4|-12.6|0.0155
90930185|NCT00357994|181739919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.0258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.1|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the baseline CGI-S as a covariate.||Since the null hypothesis for the primary analysis was rejected in favor of the alternative hypothesis, hierarchical testing was performed for secondary variables on the Full Analysis data set at the 0.50 level using a gatekeeping procedure to preserve family-wise error rate.||-0.1|-1.4|0.0258
90930186|NCT00357994|181739920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.0086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|-0.8|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding baseline as a covariate.||Since the null hypothesis for the primary analysis was rejected in favor of the alternative hypothesis, hierarchical testing was performed for secondary variables on the Full Analysis data set at the 0.50 level using a gatekeeping procedure to preserve family-wise error rate.||-0.8|-5.3|0.0086
90930187|NCT00357994|181739921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|5.6|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding baseline as a covariate.||Since the null hypothesis for the primary analysis was rejected in favor of the alternative hypothesis, hierarchical testing was performed for secondary variables on the Full Analysis data set at the 0.50 level using a gatekeeping procedure to preserve family-wise error rate.||5.6|-2.8|0.5020
90930188|NCT00357994|181739922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|0.146|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding Baseline as a covariate.||Since the null hypothesis for the primary analysis was rejected in favor of the alternative hypothesis, hierarchical testing was performed for secondary variables on the Full Analysis data set at the 0.50 level using a gatekeeping procedure to preserve family-wise error rate.||0.146|-0.005|0.0670
90930189|NCT00357994|181739923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treament Difference (LS Mean)|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1||0.1501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|1.7|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding baseline as a covariate.||Since the null hypothesis for the primary analysis was rejected in favor of the alternative hypothesis, hierarchical testing was performed for secondary variables on the Full Analysis data set at the 0.50 level using a gatekeeping procedure to preserve family-wise error rate.||1.7|-10.7|0.1501
90930190|NCT00357994|181739924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.8574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.82|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding baseline as a covariate.||||0.82|-0.98|0.8574
90930191|NCT00357994|181739925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|-10.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3||0.0184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.1|-1.8|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding baseline as a covariate.||||-1.8|-19.1|0.0184
90930192|NCT00357994|181739926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|-11.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.6|-2.5|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding baseline as a covariate.||||-2.5|-20.6|0.0129
90930193|NCT00357994|181739927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4||0.5246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|4.6|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding baseline as a covariate.||||4.6|-9.0|0.5246
90930194|NCT00357994|181739928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8||0.2423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|3.1|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding baseline as a covariate.||||3.1|-12.0|0.2423
90971294|NCT04311502|181825279|SUPERIORITY||Slope|20.43|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.71|35.16|||Regression, Linear|||This comparison is adjusting for HIV-1 status (positive/negative) and TB Disease at Screening (Advanced/Not Advanced).||35.16|5.71|<0.01
90930195|NCT00357994|181739929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1||0.2243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|2.4|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding baseline as a covariate.||||2.4|-9.9|0.2243
90930196|NCT00357994|181739930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4||0.2407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|2.8|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding baseline as a covariate.||||2.8|-10.8|0.2407
90930197|NCT00357994|181739931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|-13.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.8|-6.8|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding baseline as a covariate.||||-6.8|-20.8|0.0002
90930198|NCT00357994|181739932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.1||0.5213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|6.9|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding baseline as a covariate.||||6.9|-13.6|0.5213
90930199|NCT00357994|181739933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.3741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.9|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding baseline as a covariate.||||0.9|-0.4|0.3741
90930200|NCT00357994|181739934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.0361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.1|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding baseline as a covariate.||||-0.1|-2.4|0.0361
90930201|NCT00357994|181739935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.3578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.4|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding baseline as a covariate.||||0.4|-1.1|0.3578
90930202|NCT00357994|181739936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9||0.6088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|4.4|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding baseline as a covariate.||||4.4|-7.4|0.6088
90930203|NCT00357994|181739937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|11.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|18.9|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding baseline as a covariate.||||18.9|4.0|0.0033
90930204|NCT00047385|181739943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.733|0.932||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Weighted log-rank (details below)|Weights in weighted log-rank statistic increased linearly from zero at randomization to full weight at 4 years and thereafter.||"Alternative hypothesis: LDCT screening reduces lung cancer mortality relative to chest x-ray.~Power: 90% for a 20% reduction in lung cancer mortality."||0.932|0.733|0.004
90930205|NCT00047385|181739944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.933||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.864|0.988||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Only one analysis performed.|Weighted log-rank (details below)|Weights in weighted log-rank statistic increased linearly from zero at randomization to full weight at 4 years and thereafter.||Alternative hypothesis: LDCT screening reduced all-cause mortality relative to chest x-ray.||0.988|0.864|0.02
90930206|NCT00047385|181739945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.23|||||Denominator: LDCT Group Numerator: CXR Group|||1.23|1.03|
90930207|NCT02095145|181739967|OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.190
90930208|NCT02095145|181739967|OTHER|||||||0.211|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.211
90930209|NCT02095145|181739970|OTHER|||||||0.948|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Baseline to Week 13 p-value||||0.948
90966963|NCT05082376|181816348|OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|4.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.6|5.8|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, timepoint, treatment\*timepoint (interaction) and subject as terms; Baseline value as covariate.||Pairwise comparison between Treated and Untreated sites 8 hours post-treatment.||5.8|3.6|<0.0001
90966964|NCT02568475|181816350|EQUIVALENCE|Continuous scale: score compares results before and after intervention without a cut parameter.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.74||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.059|7.12|||t-test, 2 sided|||||7.12|0.059|0.046
90966965|NCT02568475|181816351|OTHER|This is a continuous scale with no clinical cut score/value. We tested mean differences between the two groups.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.78||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|10.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||10.6|2.9|0.001
90930210|NCT02095145|181739970|OTHER|||||||0.711|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Baseline to Week 26 p-value||||0.711
90930211|NCT02095145|181739970|OTHER|||||||0.038|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Baseline to Week 39 p-value||||0.038
90930212|NCT02095145|181739970|OTHER|||||||0.445|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Baseline to Week 52 p-value||||0.445
90930213|NCT02095145|181739971|OTHER|||||||0.743|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Baseline to Week 13 p-value||||0.743
90930214|NCT02095145|181739971|OTHER|||||||0.305|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Baseline to Week 26 p-value||||0.305
90930215|NCT02095145|181739971|OTHER|||||||0.111|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Baseline to Week 39 p-value||||0.111
90966966|NCT00290186|181816357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.539||95.0|-1.5|3.3|||ANCOVA|||Between-group difference: positive values represent greater improvement in HBO group.||3.3|-1.5|0.539
90930216|NCT02095145|181739971|OTHER|||||||0.395|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Baseline to Week 52 p-value||||0.395
90930217|NCT02095145|181739972|OTHER|||||||0.743|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change from Baseline PSA to Week 13||||0.743
90930218|NCT02095145|181739972|OTHER|||||||0.527|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change from Baseline PSA to Week 26||||0.527
90966967|NCT00290186|181816358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.8|||ANCOVA|||Between-group difference: positive values represent greater improvement in HBO group.||1.8|-1.6|0.921
90966968|NCT00290186|181816359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|5.1|||ANCOVA|||Between-group difference: positive values represent greater improvement in HBO group.||5.1|-3.0|0.945
90966969|NCT00290186|181816360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0.342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|2.2|||ANCOVA|||Between-group difference: positive values represent greater improvement in HBO group.||2.2|-5.1|0.342
90966970|NCT00290186|181816361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.5||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|8.6|||ANCOVA|||Between-group difference: positive values represent greater improvement in HBO group.||8.6|-1.6|0.149
90966971|NCT00290186|181816362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|5.1|||ANCOVA|||Between-group difference: positive values represent greater improvement in HBO group.||5.1|-3.0|0.685
90966972|NCT00290186|181816363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|3.0|||ANCOVA|||Between-group difference: positive values represent greater improvement in HBO group.||3.0|-2.4|0.584
90966973|NCT00290186|181816364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|3.7|||ANCOVA|||Between-group difference: positive values represent greater improvement in HBO group.||3.7|-1.5|0.498
90966974|NCT00290186|181816365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|2.2|||ANCOVA|||Between-group difference: positive values represent greater improvement in HBO group.||2.2|-2.3|0.945
90966975|NCT00290186|181816366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.4|||ANCOVA|||Between-group difference: positive values represent greater improvement in HBO group.||2.4|-2.1|0.932
90966976|NCT00290186|181816367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|4.7|||ANCOVA|||Between-group difference: positive values represent greater improvement in HBO group.||4.7|-0.2|0.051
90966977|NCT00290186|181816368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|2.8|||ANCOVA|||Between-group difference: positive values represent greater improvement in HBO group.||2.8|-4.0|0.648
90966978|NCT00290186|181816369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|1.4|||ANCOVA|||Between-group difference: positive values represent greater improvement in HBO group.||1.4|-4.7|0.473
90966979|NCT00290186|181816370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|46.0||||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|114.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Between-group difference: positive values represent greater improvement in HBO group.||114|-22|0.157
90966980|NCT00290186|181816371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|13.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Between-group difference: positive values represent greater improvement in HBO group.||13|-15|0.876
90966981|NCT00290186|181816372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-79.0||||0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-198.0|41.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Between-group difference: negative values represent greater improvement in HBO group.||41|-198|0.167
90966982|NCT00290186|181816373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-38.0||||0.468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-153.0|77.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Between-group difference: negative values represent greater improvement in HBO group.||77|-153|0.468
90966983|NCT00282295|181816392|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority objective was demonstrated if the lower limit was greater than (\>) the pre-defined limit of -10%.|Difference|2.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|4.17||||||The non-inferiority of Boostrix® vaccine co-administered with Menactra™ vaccine compared to Boostrix® vaccine administered alone at Month 0 with respect to the percentage of subjects with anti-diphtheria toxoid (anti-D) antibody concentrations equal to or greater than (≥) 1.0 IU/mL one month after vaccination.||4.17|0.79|
91035428|NCT03290781|181956868|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion|0.339|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.197|0.463||P-value was based on CMH chi-square test stratified by status of glucocorticoid use at SHP647-303 baseline, prior anti-TNF treatment, and the degree of clinical response in the induction studies (whether remission is achieved or not).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.463|0.197|<0.001
90966984|NCT00282295|181816392|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority objective was demonstrated if the lower limit was greater than (\>) the pre-defined limit of -10%.|Difference|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.48||||||Non-inferiority of Boostrix® vaccine co-administered with Menactra™ vaccine compared toBoostrix® vaccine administered alone at Month 0 with respect to the percentage of subjects with anti-tetanus toxoid (anti-T) antibody concentrations equal to or greater than (≥) 1.0 IU/mL one month after vaccination.||1.48|-1.4|
90966985|NCT00282295|181816393|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority objective was demonstrated if the lower limit was greater than (\>) the pre-defined limit of 0.67|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.03||||||Non-inferiority of Boostrix® vaccine co-administered with Menactra™ vaccine compared to Boostrix® vaccine administered alone at Month 0 with respect to anti-pertussis toxoid (anti-PT) geometric mean antibody concentrations (GMCs) one month after vaccination.||1.03|0.84|
90966986|NCT00282295|181816393|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority objective was demonstrated if the lower limit was \> the pre-defined limit of 0.67|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.84||||||Non-inferiority of Boostrix® vaccine co-administered with Menactra™ vaccine compared to Boostrix® vaccine administered alone at Month 0 with respect to anti-filamentous hemagglutinin (anti-FHA) GMCs one month after vaccination.||0.84|0.69|
90966987|NCT00282295|181816393|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority objective was demonstrated if the lower limit was \> the pre-defined limit of 0.67|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.72||||||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of Boostrix® vaccine co-administered with Menactra™ vaccine compared to Boostrix® vaccine administered alone at Month 0 with respect to anti-pertactin (anti-PRN) GMCs one month after vaccination.||0.72|0.54|
90966988|NCT00282295|181816394|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority objective was demonstrated if the lower limit was \> the pre-defined limit of -10%.|Difference in booster response rate|-4.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.91|1.15||||||Non-inferiority of Boostrix® vaccine co-administered with Menactra™ vaccine compared to Boostrix® vaccine administered alone at Month 0 with respect to a booster response to PT one month after vaccination.||1.15|-9.91|
90966989|NCT00282295|181816394|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority objective was demonstrated if the lower limit was \> the pre-defined limit of -10%.|Difference in booster response rate|-3.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.03|0.15||||||Non-inferiority of Boostrix® vaccine co-administered with Menactra™ vaccine compared to Boostrix® vaccine administered alone at Month 0 with respect to a booster response to FHA one month after vaccination.||0.15|-7.03|
90930219|NCT02095145|181739972|OTHER|||||||0.879|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change from Baseline PSA to Week 39||||0.879
90966990|NCT00282295|181816394|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority objective was demonstrated if the lower limit was \> the pre-defined limit of -10%.|Difference in booster response rate|-1.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.25|-1.25||||||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of Boostrix® vaccine co-administered with Menactra™ vaccine compared to Boostrix® vaccine administered alone at Month 0 with respect to a booster response to PRN one month after vaccination.||-1.25|-5.25|
90930220|NCT02095145|181739972|OTHER|||||||0.81|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change from Baseline PSA to Week 52||||0.810
90930221|NCT02095145|181739973|OTHER|||||||0.556|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Comparison of both arms at baseline||||0.556
90930222|NCT02095145|181739973|OTHER|||||||0.647|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||comparison of both arms at Week 26||||0.647
90930223|NCT02095145|181739973|OTHER|||||||0.948|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||comparison of both arms at end of study, week 52||||0.948
90930224|NCT02095145|181739974|OTHER|||||||0.58|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.580
90930225|NCT02095145|181739975|OTHER|||||||0.344|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Benign core p-value||||0.344
90930226|NCT02095145|181739975|OTHER|||||||0.371|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Adjacent core p-value||||0.371
90930227|NCT02095145|181739975|OTHER|||||||0.766|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Tumor core p-value||||0.766
90930228|NCT02095145|181739976|OTHER|||||||0.304|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change from Baseline: IGF-1 Benign (Nuc)||||0.304
90966991|NCT00282295|181816395|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority objective was demonstrated if the lower limit was greater than the pre-defined limit of -10%.|Difference in vaccine response rate|-0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.85|4.43||||||Non-inferiority of Menactra™ vaccine co-administered with Boostrix® vaccinecompared to Menactra™ vaccine administered alone at Month 0 with respect to a vaccine responseto meningococcal serogroup A one month after vaccination.||4.43|-4.85|
91035429|NCT03290781|181956869|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion|0.497|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.337|0.62||P-value was based on CMH chi-square test stratified by status of glucocorticoid use at SHP647-303 baseline, prior anti-TNF treatment, and the degree of clinical response in the induction studies (whether remission is achieved or not).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.620|0.337|<0.001
90930229|NCT02095145|181739976|OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change from Baseline: IGF-1 Adjacent (Nuc)||||0.230
90930230|NCT02095145|181739976|OTHER|||||||0.298|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change from Baseline: IGF-1 Tumor (Nuc)||||0.298
90930231|NCT02095145|181739976|OTHER|||||||0.247|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change from Baseline: IGF-1 Benign (Cyt)||||0.247
90930232|NCT02095145|181739976|OTHER|||||||0.093|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change from Baseline: IGF-1 Adjacent (Cyt)||||0.093
90930233|NCT02095145|181739976|OTHER|||||||0.066|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change from Baseline: IGF-1 Tumor (Cyt)||||0.066
90930234|NCT02095145|181739976|OTHER|||||||0.247|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change from Baseline: IGF-1 Benign (Cell)||||0.247
90930235|NCT02095145|181739976|OTHER|||||||0.128|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change from Baseline: IGF-1 Adjacent (Cell)||||0.128
90930236|NCT02095145|181739976|OTHER|||||||0.128|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change from Baseline: IGF-1 Tumor (Cell)||||0.128
90930237|NCT02095145|181739977|OTHER|||||||0.297|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change From Baseline: Nuc Benign p-value||||0.297
90930238|NCT02095145|181739977|OTHER|||||||0.233|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change From Baseline: Nuc Adjacent p-value||||0.233
90930239|NCT02095145|181739977|OTHER|||||||0.371|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change From Baseline: Nuc Tumor p-value||||0.371
90930240|NCT02095145|181739977|OTHER|||||||0.198|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change From Baseline: Cyt Benign p-value||||0.198
90930241|NCT02095145|181739977|OTHER|||||||0.233|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change From Baseline: Cyt Adjacent p-value||||0.233
90930242|NCT02095145|181739977|OTHER|||||||0.074|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change From Baseline: Cyt Tumor p-value||||0.074
90930243|NCT02095145|181739977|OTHER|||||||0.234|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change From Baseline: Cell Benign p-value||||0.234
90930244|NCT02095145|181739977|OTHER|||||||0.233|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change From Baseline: Cell Adjacent p-value||||0.233
90930245|NCT02095145|181739977|OTHER|||||||0.233|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change From Baseline: Cell Tumor p-value||||0.233
90930246|NCT02095145|181739978|OTHER|||||||0.167|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change From Baseline: Nuc Benign p-value||||0.167
90930247|NCT02095145|181739978|OTHER|||||||0.391|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change From Baseline: Nuc Adjacent p-value||||0.391
90930248|NCT02095145|181739978|OTHER|||||||0.713|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change From Baseline: Nuc Tumor p-value||||0.713
90930249|NCT02095145|181739978|OTHER|||||||0.452|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change From Baseline: Cyt Benign p-value||||0.452
90930250|NCT02095145|181739978|OTHER|||||||0.391|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change From Baseline: Cyt Adjacent p-value||||0.391
90930251|NCT02095145|181739978|OTHER|||||||0.713|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change From Baseline: Cyt Tumor p-value||||0.713
90930252|NCT02095145|181739978|OTHER|||||||0.344|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change From Baseline: Cell Benign p-value||||0.344
90930253|NCT02095145|181739978|OTHER|||||||0.391|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change From Baseline: Cell Adjacent p-value||||0.391
90930254|NCT02095145|181739978|OTHER|||||||0.713|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change From Baseline: Cell Tumor p-value||||0.713
90930255|NCT02095145|181739979|OTHER|||||||0.865|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change from Baseline: Benign p-value||||0.865
90930256|NCT02095145|181739979|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change from Baseline: Adjacent p-value||||1.000
90930257|NCT02095145|181739979|OTHER|||||||0.066|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change from Baseline: Tumor p-value||||0.066
90930258|NCT02095145|181739980|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change from Baseline: Nuc Benign p-value||||1.000
90930259|NCT02095145|181739980|OTHER|||||||0.903|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change from Baseline: Nuc Adjacent p-value||||0.903
90930260|NCT02095145|181739980|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change from Baseline: Nuc Tumor p-value||||1.000
90930261|NCT02095145|181739980|OTHER|||||||0.269|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change from Baseline: Cyt Benign p-value||||0.269
90930262|NCT02095145|181739980|OTHER|||||||0.066|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change from Baseline: Cyt Adjacent p-value||||0.066
90930263|NCT02095145|181739980|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change from Baseline: Cyt Tumor p-value||||1.000
91035430|NCT03290781|181956869|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion|0.294|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.148|0.425||P-value was based on CMH chi-square test stratified by status of glucocorticoid use at SHP647-303 baseline, prior anti-TNF treatment, and the degree of clinical response in the induction studies (whether remission is achieved or not).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.425|0.148|<0.001
90930264|NCT02095145|181739980|OTHER|||||||0.425|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change from Baseline: Cell Benign p-value||||0.425
90930265|NCT02095145|181739980|OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change from Baseline: Cell Adjacent p-value||||0.270
90930266|NCT02095145|181739980|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change from Baseline: Cell Tumor p-value||||1.000
90930267|NCT02095145|181739981|OTHER|||||||0.625|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change From Baseline: Nuc Benign p-value||||0.625
90930268|NCT02095145|181739981|OTHER|||||||0.128|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change From Baseline: Nuc Adjacent p-value||||0.128
90930269|NCT02095145|181739981|OTHER|||||||0.045|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change From Baseline: Nuc Tumor p-value||||0.045
90930270|NCT02095145|181739981|OTHER|||||||0.105|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change From Baseline: Cyt Benign p-value||||0.105
90930271|NCT02095145|181739981|OTHER|||||||0.066|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change From Baseline: Cyt Adjacent p-value||||0.066
90930272|NCT02095145|181739981|OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change From Baseline: Cyt Tumor p-value||||0.005
90930273|NCT02095145|181739981|OTHER|||||||0.129|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change From Baseline: Cell Benign p-value||||0.129
90930274|NCT02095145|181739981|OTHER|||||||0.066|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change From Baseline: Cell Adjacent p-value||||0.066
90930275|NCT02095145|181739981|OTHER|||||||0.013|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change From Baseline: Cell Tumor p-value||||0.013
90930276|NCT02095145|181739982|OTHER|||||||0.143|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change from Baseline: Benign p-value||||0.143
90930277|NCT02095145|181739982|OTHER|||||||0.037|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change from Baseline: Adjacent p-value||||0.037
90930278|NCT02095145|181739982|OTHER|||||||0.111|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change from Baseline: Tumor p-value||||0.111
90930279|NCT02095145|181739983|OTHER|||||||0.068|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change from Baseline Week 13||||0.068
90930280|NCT02095145|181739983|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change from Baseline Week 26||||0.004
90930281|NCT02095145|181739983|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change from Baseline Week 39||||0.002
90930282|NCT02095145|181739983|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change from Baseline Week 52||||<0.001
90930283|NCT02095145|181739984|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change from Baseline Week 13||||1.000
90930284|NCT02095145|181739984|OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change from Baseline Week 26||||0.180
90930285|NCT02095145|181739984|OTHER|||||||0.62|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change from Baseline Week 39||||0.620
90930286|NCT02095145|181739984|OTHER|||||||0.536|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change from Baseline Week 52||||0.536
90930287|NCT02095145|181739986|OTHER|||||||0.231|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change in Tumor Volume from baseline to end of study per arm||||0.231
90930288|NCT01767467|181740012|NON_INFERIORITY|The objective was met if the lower limit of the 95% CI of the Geometric Mean (GM) ratio (GSK1437173A vaccine over placebo) for anti-gE ELISA antibody concentrations at Month 2 was greater than (\>) 3.|Adjusted Geometric Mean Concentration|29.75|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.09|41.96||The p-value is relative to the null hypothesis Ho: Vaccine / Placebo = 1|Repeated measurement model|||The objective aimed to evaluate anti-gE humoral immune responses at Month 2 following a two-dose administration of the GSK1437173A vaccine, as compared to placebo, in subjects with haematologic malignancies excluding subjects with Non-Hodgkin B-cell Lymphoma and Chronic Lymphocytic Leukaemia.||41.96|21.09|<0.0001
90930289|NCT00853580|181740031|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.51
90930290|NCT00853580|181740032|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.33
90930291|NCT00853580|181740033|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.86
90930292|NCT00853580|181740034|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.04
90930293|NCT00853580|181740035|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.33
90930294|NCT00853580|181740036|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.99
90930295|NCT00853580|181740037|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.90
90930296|NCT00853580|181740038|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.37
90930297|NCT00853580|181740039|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.49
90930298|NCT00853580|181740040|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.86
90930299|NCT00853580|181740041|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.09
90930300|NCT00853580|181740042|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.37
90930301|NCT00853580|181740043|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.18
90930302|NCT00853580|181740044|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.88
90930303|NCT00853580|181740045|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.25
90930304|NCT00853580|181740046|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.20
90930305|NCT00853580|181740047|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.50
90930306|NCT00853580|181740048|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.33
90930307|NCT00853580|181740049|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.30
90930308|NCT00853580|181740050|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.73
90930309|NCT01335867|181740051|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.14
90930310|NCT01335867|181740053|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.24
90930311|NCT01335867|181740054|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.20
90930312|NCT01335867|181740055|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.64
90930313|NCT00176202|181740064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.01
90930314|NCT00176202|181740064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.01
90930315|NCT00176202|181740065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<.01
90930316|NCT00176202|181740065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.01
90930317|NCT00176202|181740066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||effect size|-1.59|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||In case of both risperidone and divalproex sodium.|Chi-squared|||||||<0.01
90930318|NCT00176202|181740066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-1.33|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.01
90930319|NCT00176202|181740067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||baseline is compared to LOCF to determine the p value.||||<0.01
90930320|NCT00176202|181740067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.01
90930321|NCT04119063|181740088|OTHER|Paired t-tests comparing change in % difference following high vs low frequency gait training.||||||0.204|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.204
90930322|NCT04119063|181740089|OTHER|Paired t-test||||||0.049|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.049
90930323|NCT04119063|181740090|OTHER|Paired t-tests comparing change in % difference following high vs low frequency gait training.||||||0.039|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.039
90930324|NCT04119063|181740091|OTHER|Paired t-tests comparing change in % difference following high vs low frequency gait training.||||||0.242|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.242
90930325|NCT04119063|181740092|OTHER|Paired t-tests comparing change in % difference following high vs low frequency gait training.||||||0.014|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.014
90930326|NCT03102034|181740124|OTHER||% vaccine recipients with solicited AEs|76.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|56.0|90.0|||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|||90|56|
90930327|NCT03102034|181740124|OTHER||% placebo recipients with solicited AEs|18.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.0|47.0|||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|||47|3|
90930328|NCT03102034|181740125|OTHER||% vaccinees with unsolicited AEs|24.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|10.0|44.0|||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|||44|10|
90930329|NCT03102034|181740125|OTHER||% placebo with unsolicited AEs|9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|36.0|||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|||36|0|
90930330|NCT03102034|181740130|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Due to unequal sample sizes, a 1-sided Fisher's exact test was used to test the hypothesis that proportions of greater than or equal to 4-fold rises were higher in the vaccinated than in the placebo group. Statistical significance level was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
90930331|NCT03102034|181740131|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Log Rank|||||||<0.001
90930332|NCT00145470|181740136|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0257||||||P-value based on the difference in the least squares (LS) means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||Change from Baseline at Day 21||||0.0257
90966992|NCT00282295|181816395|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority objective was demonstrated if the lower limit was greater than the pre-defined limit of -10%.|Difference in vaccine response rate|1.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|5.16||||||Non-inferiority of Menactra™ vaccine co-administered with Boostrix® vaccine compared to Menactra™ vaccine administered alone at Month 0 with respect to a vaccine responseto meningococcal serogroup C one month after vaccination.||5.16|-1.69|
90930333|NCT00145470|181740139|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.021||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||Change from Baseline at Day 42||||0.0210
90930334|NCT00145470|181740140|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0073||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||Change from Baseline at Day 84||||0.0073
90930335|NCT00145470|181740141|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3928|||||||Chi-squared|Based on Pearson's chi-squared test.||Day 3||||0.3928
90930336|NCT00145470|181740141|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7923|||||||Chi-squared|Based on Pearson's chi-squared test.||Day 7||||0.7923
90930337|NCT00145470|181740141|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0701|||||||Chi-squared|Based on Pearson's chi-squared test.||Day 14||||0.0701
90930338|NCT00145470|181740141|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1634|||||||Chi-squared|Based on Pearson's chi-squared test.||Day 21||||0.1634
90930339|NCT00145470|181740141|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.037|||||||Chi-squared|Based on Pearson's chi-squared test.||Day 42||||0.0370
90930340|NCT00145470|181740141|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0488|||||||Chi-squared|Based on Pearson's chi-squared test.||Day 63||||0.0488
90930341|NCT00145470|181740141|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0152|||||||Chi-squared|Based on Pearson's chi-squared test.||Day 84||||0.0152
90930342|NCT00145470|181740142|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3709|||||||Chi-squared|Based on Pearson's chi-squared test.||Day 3||||0.3709
90930343|NCT00145470|181740142|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8837|||||||Chi-squared|Based on Pearson's chi-squared test.||Day 7||||0.8837
90930344|NCT00145470|181740142|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1153|||||||Chi-squared|Based on Pearson's chi-squared test.||Day 14||||0.1153
90930345|NCT00145470|181740142|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0158|||||||Chi-squared|Based on Pearson's chi-squared test.||Day 21||||0.0158
90930346|NCT00145470|181740142|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0143|||||||Chi-squared|Based on Pearson's chi-squared test.||Day 42||||0.0143
90930347|NCT00145470|181740142|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0196|||||||Chi-squared|Based on Pearson's chi-squared test.||Day 63||||0.0196
90930348|NCT00145470|181740142|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0148|||||||Chi-squared|Based on Pearson's chi-squared test.||Day 84||||0.0148
90930349|NCT00145470|181740143|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0046||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||Change from Baseline at Day 21||||0.0046
90930350|NCT00145470|181740144|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0006||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||Change from Baseline at Day 84||||0.0006
90930351|NCT00145470|181740145|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3497||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||Change from Baseline at Day 21||||0.3497
90930352|NCT00145470|181740146|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7753||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||Change from Baseline at Day 84||||0.7753
90930353|NCT00145470|181740147|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0073||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||Change from Baseline at Day 21||||0.0073
90930354|NCT00145470|181740148|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0102||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||Change from Baseline at Day 84||||0.0102
91035431|NCT03290781|181956870|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion|0.277|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.129|0.398||P-value was based on CMH chi-square test stratified by status of glucocorticoid use at SHP647-303 baseline, prior anti-TNF treatment, and the degree of clinical response in the induction studies (whether remission is achieved or not).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.398|0.129|<0.001
90930355|NCT00145470|181740149|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3684||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||Change from Baseline at Day 21||||0.3684
90930356|NCT00145470|181740150|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.937||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||Change from Baseline at Day 84||||0.9370
90930357|NCT00145470|181740151|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2492||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||Change from Baseline at Day 21||||0.2492
90930358|NCT00145470|181740152|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4683||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||Change from Baseline at Day 84||||0.4683
90930359|NCT00145470|181740153|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5683||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||Change from Baseline at Day 21||||0.5683
90930360|NCT00145470|181740154|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9693||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||Change from Baseline at Day 84||||0.9693
90930361|NCT00145470|181740155|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6136||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||Change from Baseline at Day 21||||0.6136
90930362|NCT00145470|181740156|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1586||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||Change from Baseline at Day 84||||0.1586
90930363|NCT00145470|181740157|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.055||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||Verbal Memory - CFB at Day 21||||0.0550
90930364|NCT00145470|181740157|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7469||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||Visual Memory - CFB at Day 21||||0.7469
90930365|NCT00145470|181740157|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3253||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||Processing Speed - CFB at Day 21||||0.3253
90930366|NCT00145470|181740157|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3885||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||Social Acuity - CFB at Day 21||||0.3885
90930367|NCT00145470|181740157|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5975||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||Reasoning - CFB at Day 21||||0.5975
90930368|NCT00145470|181740157|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.069||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||Executive Functioning - CFB at Day 21||||0.0690
90930369|NCT00145470|181740157|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.797||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||Working Memory - CFB at Day 21||||0.7970
90930370|NCT00145470|181740157|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8339||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||Sustained Attention - CFB at Day 21||||0.8339
90930371|NCT00145470|181740157|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2101||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||Composite Memory - CFB at Day 21||||0.2101
90930372|NCT00145470|181740158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6914||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||Verbal Memory - CFB at Day 84||||0.6914
90930373|NCT00145470|181740158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8805||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||Visual Memory - CFB at Day 84||||0.8805
90930374|NCT00145470|181740158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4878||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||Processing Speed - CFB at Day 84||||0.4878
90930375|NCT00145470|181740158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8051||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||Social Acuity - CFB at Day 84||||0.8051
90930376|NCT00145470|181740158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1925||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||Reasoning - CFB at Day 84||||0.1925
90930377|NCT00145470|181740158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0514||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||Executive Functioning - CFB at Day 84||||0.0514
90930378|NCT00145470|181740158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9898||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||Working Memory - CFB at Day 84||||0.9898
90930379|NCT00145470|181740158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5683||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||Sustained Attention - CFB at Day 84||||0.5683
90930380|NCT00145470|181740158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8907||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||Composite Memory - CFB at Day 84||||0.8907
90930381|NCT00145470|181740159|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0613|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0613
90930382|NCT00145470|181740160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7493||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||Change from Baseline at Day 21||||0.7493
90930383|NCT00145470|181740161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4884||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||Change from Baseline at Day 84||||0.4884
90930384|NCT00145470|181740162|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.128||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||PCS - Change from Baseline at Day 21||||0.1280
90930385|NCT00145470|181740162|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0215||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||MCS - Change from Baseline at Day 21||||0.0215
90930386|NCT00145470|181740163|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1331||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||PCS - Change from Baseline at Day 84||||0.1331
90930387|NCT00145470|181740163|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2024||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||MCS - Change from Baseline at Day 84||||0.2024
90930388|NCT01701401|181740179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value for the comparison of the LDV/SOF 12 week group against the adjusted historical null rate (60%) was based on a 2-sided 1-sample binomial test.|Binomial test|||||||<0.001
91035432|NCT03290781|181956870|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion|0.191|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.067|0.305||P-value was based on CMH chi-square test stratified by status of glucocorticoid use at SHP647-303 baseline, prior anti-TNF treatment, and the degree of clinical response in the induction studies (whether remission is achieved or not).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.305|0.067|<0.001
90930389|NCT01701401|181740179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value for the comparison of the LDV/SOF+RBV 12 week group against the adjusted historical null rate (60%) was based on a 2-sided 1-sample binomial test.|Binomial test|||||||<0.001
90930390|NCT01701401|181740179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value for the comparison of the LDV/SOF 24 week group against the adjusted historical null rate (60%) was based on a 2-sided 1-sample binomial test.|Binomial test|||||||<0.001
90930391|NCT01701401|181740179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value for the comparison of the LDV/SOF+RBV 24 week group against the adjusted historical null rate (60%) was based on a 2-sided 1-sample binomial test.|Binomial test|||||||<0.001
90930392|NCT02921555|181740200|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.2||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.05
90930393|NCT02921555|181740200|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.05
90930394|NCT05293717|181740224|OTHER|This is an open-label study. No power calculation was performed.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90930395|NCT03147287|181740225|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.79|1.55||We reported two-sided p-values corresponding to two-sided α level of 0.10. The test statistic and p-value were taken from the Cox proportional hazards model score test.|Log Rank|The SAP intended stratified tests and models, however one stratum was only 9 patients making implementation of stratification questionable.|We checked the proportional hazards assumption by visually assessing the plot of log( log(survival)) vs log of survival times according to treatment assignment for parallelism. This was done overall and according to stratum.|The primary objective was investigated by comparing the PFS distributions between two treatment arms using a logrank test with one-sided α level of 0.05 (H0: PFS1≤PFS2; HA: PFS1\>PFS2). Hazard ratios were estimated from a Cox PH model (F+P / F, so that HR\<1 indicates reduced hazard of PFS event with F+P), with two sided 90% CIs (Wald) to align with the design and testing.||1.55|0.79|0.62
90930396|NCT03147287|181740226|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value is two sided, for hypothesis test with two-sided α=0.10|Fisher Exact|||The objective response was reported with two-sided 90% CI and compared between two treatment arms using a (unstratified) Fisher's exact test;||||1.000
90930397|NCT00768716|181740266|OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.52
90930398|NCT00768716|181740267|OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.42
90930399|NCT00768716|181740268|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.06
90930400|NCT00768716|181740270|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
90930401|NCT00768716|181740271|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
90930402|NCT00768716|181740272|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.003
90930403|NCT05643885|181740275|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Weighted t-test|||||||<0.0001
90930404|NCT05643885|181740276|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Weighted t-test|||||||<0.0001
90930405|NCT05643885|181740277|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Weighted t-test|||||||<0.0001
90930406|NCT05643885|181740278|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Weighted t-test|||||||<0.0001
90930407|NCT05643885|181740279|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2303|||||||Weighted t-test|||||||=0.2303
90930408|NCT05643885|181740280|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.7403|||||||Weighted t-test|||||||=0.7403
90966993|NCT00282295|181816395|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority objective was demonstrated if the lower limit was greater than the pre-defined limit of -10%.|Difference in vaccine response rate|1.82||||||95.0|-2.58|6.25||||||Non-inferiority of Menactra™ vaccine co-administered with Boostrix® vaccine compared to Menactra™ vaccine administered alone at Month 0 with respect to a vaccine response to meningococcal serogroup Y one month after vaccination.||6.25|-2.58|
90930409|NCT05643885|181740281|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2414|||||||Weighted t-test|||||||=0.2414
90930410|NCT05643885|181740282|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2592|||||||Weighted t-test|||||||=0.2592
90930411|NCT05643885|181740283|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.4837|||||||Weighted t-test|||||||=0.4837
90930412|NCT05643885|181740284|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1355|||||||Weighted t-test|||||||=0.1355
90930413|NCT05643885|181740285|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.6066|||||||Weighted t-test|||||||=0.6066
90930414|NCT05643885|181740286|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3795|||||||Weighted t-test|||||||=0.3795
90930415|NCT05643885|181740287|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.6618|||||||Weighted t-test|||||||=0.6618
90930416|NCT05643885|181740288|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2337|||||||Weighted t-test|||||||=0.2337
90930417|NCT05643885|181740289|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Weighted t-test|||Physician office visits||||<0.0001
90930418|NCT05643885|181740289|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Weighted t-test|||ER only visits||||<0.0001
90930419|NCT05643885|181740289|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Weighted t-test|||laboratory or pathology visits||||<0.0001
90930420|NCT05643885|181740289|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Weighted t-test|||Radiology||||<0.0001
90930421|NCT05643885|181740289|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Weighted t-test|||Surgical services||||<0.0001
90930422|NCT05643885|181740289|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Weighted t-test|||Ancillary/other services||||<0.0001
90930423|NCT05643885|181740290|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Weighted t-test|||||||<0.0001
90930424|NCT05643885|181740291|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.729|||||||Weighted t-test|||||||=0.7290
90930425|NCT05643885|181740292|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3686|||||||Weighted t-test|||Physician office visits||||=0.3686
90930426|NCT05643885|181740292|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2747|||||||Weighted t-test|||ER only visits||||=0.2747
90930427|NCT05643885|181740292|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1049|||||||Weighted t-test|||Laboratory or pathology visits||||=0.1049
90930428|NCT05643885|181740292|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.8425|||||||Weighted t-test|||Radiology||||=0.8425
90930429|NCT05643885|181740292|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.9755|||||||Weighted t-test|||Surgical services||||=0.9755
90930430|NCT05643885|181740292|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0582|||||||Weighted t-test|||Ancillary or other services||||=0.0582
90930431|NCT05643885|181740293|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.9796|||||||Weighted t-test|||||||=0.9796
90930432|NCT05643885|181740294|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0379|||||||Weighted t-test|||Physician office visits||||=0.0379
90930433|NCT05643885|181740294|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.9034|||||||Weighted t-test|||ER only visits||||=0.9034
90930434|NCT05643885|181740294|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5452|||||||Weighted t-test|||Laboratory or pathology visits||||=0.5452
90930435|NCT05643885|181740294|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1644|||||||Weighted t-test|||Radiology||||=0.1644
90930436|NCT05643885|181740294|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.065|||||||Weighted t-test|||Surgical services||||=0.0650
90930437|NCT05643885|181740294|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3866|||||||Weighted t-test|||Ancillary or other services||||=0.3866
90930438|NCT05643885|181740295|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.566|||||||Weighted t-test|||||||=0.5660
90930439|NCT05643885|181740296|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0425|||||||Weighted t-test|||Physician office visits||||=0.0425
90930440|NCT05643885|181740296|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.8634|||||||Weighted t-test|||ER only visits||||=0.8634
90930441|NCT05643885|181740296|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0399|||||||Weighted t-test|||Laboratory or pathology visits||||=0.0399
90930442|NCT05643885|181740296|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0996|||||||Weighted t-test|||Radiology||||=0.0996
90930443|NCT05643885|181740296|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.7655|||||||Weighted t-test|||Surgical services||||=0.7655
90930444|NCT05643885|181740296|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1499|||||||Weighted t-test|||Ancillary or other services||||=0.1499
90930445|NCT05349721|181740308|OTHER||Treatment Difference|6.86||||0.516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.86|27.59|||ANCOVA|Estimates were derived from the ANCOVA model (following multiple imputation), where participant ranks served as the response variable.||||27.59|-13.86|0.516
90930446|NCT00799409|181740326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-28.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.0|-22.3||P-values were determined by using a repeated measures mixed model with actual value as the dependent variable with terms for treatment, time, treatment by time interaction, period, sequence, and baseline score adjusted by Hochberg's step up procedure|Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo minus CONCERTA|||-22.3|-35.0|<0.0001
90930447|NCT00799409|181740327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-28.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.4|-22.2||P-values were determined by using a repeated measures mixed model with actual value as the dependent variable with terms for treatment, time, treatment by time interaction, period, sequence, and baseline score adjusted by Hochberg's step up procedure|Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo minus CONCERTA|||-22.2|-34.4|<0.0001
90930448|NCT00799409|181740328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|7.4||P-Values are determined by using a repeated measures mixed model with actual value as the dependent variable with terms for treatment, time, treatment by time interaction, period, sequence, and baseline score.|Mixed Models Analysis|P-Values at each timepoint are determined by using contrast statements in the repeated measures mixed model.|Placebo minus CONCERTA|||7.4|4.3|<0.0001
90930449|NCT00799409|181740329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|6.5||P-Values are determined by using a repeated measures mixed model with actual value as the dependent variable with terms for treatment, time, treatment by time interaction, period, sequence, and baseline score.|Mixed Models Analysis|P-Values at each timepoint are determined by using contrast statements in the repeated measures mixed model.|Placebo minus CONCERTA|||6.5|3.8|<0.0001
90930450|NCT00799409|181740330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|11.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.7|13.3||P-Values are determined by using a repeated measures mixed model with actual value as the dependent variable with terms for treatment, time, treatment by time interaction, period, sequence, and baseline score.|Mixed Models Analysis|P-Values at each timepoint are determined by using contrast statements in the repeated measures mixed model.|Placebo minus CONCERTA|||13.3|8.7|<0.0001
90930451|NCT00799409|181740331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-3.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.72|-2.59||P-Values were determined by using a general linear mixed model.|ANCOVA||Placebo minus CONCERTA|||-2.59|-3.72|<0.0001
90930452|NCT00799409|181740332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-16.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.99|-12.06||P-Values were determined by using a general linear mixed model.|ANCOVA||Placebo minus CONCERTA|||-12.06|-19.99|<0.0001
90930453|NCT00799409|181740333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-22.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.43|-17.47||P-Values were determined by using a general linear mixed model.|ANCOVA||Placebo minus CONCERTA|||-17.47|-27.43|<0.0001
90930454|NCT00799409|181740334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.93||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|-0.16||P-Values were determined by using a general linear mixed model.|ANCOVA||Placebo minus CONCERTA|||-0.16|-1.69|0.1800
90930455|NCT00799409|181740335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.32||||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|-0.4||P-Values were determined by using a general linear mixed model.|ANCOVA||Placebo minus CONCERTA|||-0.40|-2.25|0.0057
90930456|NCT00799409|181740336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.3||||0.1091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.05|1.44||P-Values were determined by using a general linear mixed model.|ANCOVA||Placebo minus CONCERTA|||1.44|-14.05|0.1091
90930457|NCT00799409|181740337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.25||||0.2653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.2||P-Values were determined by using a general linear mixed model.|ANCOVA||Placebo minus CONCERTA|||0.20|-0.70|0.2653
90930458|NCT00799409|181740338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.49||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.81|-2.17||P-Values were determined by using a general linear mixed model.|ANCOVA||Placebo minus CONCERTA|||-2.17|-10.81|0.0038
90930459|NCT00799409|181740339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.75||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.96|-2.53||P-Values were determined by using a general linear mixed model.|ANCOVA||Placebo minus CONCERTA|||-2.53|-6.96|0.0001
90930460|NCT00799409|181740340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.76||||0.0092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.04|-1.47||P-Values were determined by using a general linear mixed model.|ANCOVA||Placebo minus CONCERTA|||-1.47|-10.04|0.0092
90930461|NCT00799409|181740341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.02||||0.9195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.33||P-Values were determined by using a general linear mixed model.|ANCOVA||Placebo minus CONCERTA|||0.33|-0.37|0.9195
90930462|NCT00799409|181740342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-39.55||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.7|-19.39||P-Values were determined by using a general linear mixed model.|ANCOVA||Placebo minus CONCERTA|||-19.39|-59.70|0.0002
90930463|NCT00799409|181740343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.08||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|-0.04||P-Values were determined by using a general linear mixed model.|ANCOVA||Placebo minus CONCERTA|||-0.04|-0.13|0.0002
90930464|NCT00799409|181740344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.02||||0.4625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.03||P-Values were determined by using a general linear mixed model.|ANCOVA||Placebo minus CONCERTA|||0.03|-0.07|0.4625
90930465|NCT00799409|181740345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.02||||0.6262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.05||P-Values were determined by using a general linear mixed model.|ANCOVA||Placebo minus CONCERTA|||0.05|-0.09|0.6262
90930466|NCT00799409|181740346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.08||P-Values were determined by using a general linear mixed model.|ANCOVA||Placebo minus CONCERTA|||0.08|-0.08|0.9980
90930467|NCT00799409|181740347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.0151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|-0.02||P-Values were determined by using a general linear mixed model.|ANCOVA||Placebo minus CONCERTA|||-0.02|-0.19|0.0151
90930468|NCT00799409|181740348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.09||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|-0.03||P-Values were determined by using a general linear mixed model.|ANCOVA||Placebo minus CONCERTA|||-0.03|-0.15|0.0043
90930469|NCT00799409|181740349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.04||||0.0371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.0||P-Values were determined by using a general linear mixed model.|ANCOVA||Placebo minus CONCERTA|||0.00|-0.08|0.0371
90930470|NCT00799409|181740350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.03||||0.0965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.01||P-Values were determined by using a general linear mixed model.|ANCOVA||Placebo minus CONCERTA|||0.01|-0.06|0.0965
90930471|NCT04323800|181740351|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.01||||0.42|ONE_SIDED|95.0||||One-sided p-value|Restricted Mean Survival Test statistic|||||||0.42
90930472|NCT04323800|181740352|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.0||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.0|19.0|||Chi-squared|||||19|-31|0.67
90930473|NCT04323800|181740353|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-47.0||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|2.0|||Chi-squared|||||2|-100|0.06
90930474|NCT00731692|181740381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.95||||0.544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.12|||Regression, Cox|||||1.12|0.80|0.544
90930475|NCT02372799|181740396|SUPERIORITY||LSMD|-0.4||||0.7662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.08|2.27|||MMRM|||||2.27|-3.08|0.7662
90930476|NCT02372799|181740396|SUPERIORITY||LSMD|-2.39||||0.1433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|0.81|||MMRM|||||0.81|-5.60|0.1433
90930477|NCT02372799|181740397|SUPERIORITY||LSMD|-0.04||||0.7387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.22|||MMRM|||||0.22|-0.31|0.7387
90930478|NCT02372799|181740397|SUPERIORITY||LSMD|-0.2||||0.2158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.12|||MMRM|||||0.12|-0.52|0.2158
90930479|NCT01767688|181740410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio (GMR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.11|||Geometric least-squares mean ratio (GMR)|||||1.11|0.79|
90930480|NCT01767688|181740411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio (GMR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.1|||Geometric least-squares mean ratio (GMR)|||||1.10|0.81|
90930481|NCT01767688|181740412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio (GMR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.28|||Geometric least-squares mean ratio (GMR)|||||1.28|0.51|
90930482|NCT01767688|181740413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio (GMR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.15|||Geometric least-squares mean ratio (GMR)|||||1.15|0.93|
90930483|NCT01583166|181740445|OTHER|||||||0.837|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.837
90930484|NCT03960645|181740473|OTHER||GLSM ratio (%)|41.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|36.71|46.32||||||BIC: Second Trimester (Test) vs. Week 12 Post-partum (Reference). A 90% confidence interval (CI) was constructed for the geometric least squares mean (GLSM) ratio (%).||46.32|36.71|
90930485|NCT03960645|181740473|OTHER||GLSM ratio (%)|44.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|40.04|49.79||||||BIC: Second Trimester (Test) vs. Week 6 Post-partum (Reference). A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio (%).||49.79|40.04|
90930486|NCT03960645|181740473|OTHER||GLSM ratio (%)|40.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|36.77|44.76||||||BIC: Third Trimester (Test) vs. Week 12 Post-partum (Reference). A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio (%).||44.76|36.77|
90930487|NCT03960645|181740473|OTHER||GLSM ratio (%)|44.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|39.95|49.34||||||BIC: Third Trimester (Test) vs. Week 6 Post-partum (Reference). A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio (%).||49.34|39.95|
90930488|NCT03960645|181740474|OTHER||GLSM ratio (%)|67.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|63.45|71.56||||||FTC: Second Trimester (Test) vs. Week 12 Post-partum (Reference). A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio (%).||71.56|63.45|
90930489|NCT03960645|181740474|OTHER||GLSM ratio (%)|64.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.95|67.75||||||FTC: Second Trimester (Test) vs. Week 6 Post-partum (Reference). A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio (%).||67.75|60.95|
90930490|NCT03960645|181740474|OTHER||GLSM ratio (%)|69.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|65.88|72.66||||||FTC: Third Trimester (Test) vs. Week 12 Post-partum (Reference). A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio (%).||72.66|65.88|
90930491|NCT03960645|181740474|OTHER||GLSM ratio (%)|65.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|61.79|68.57||||||FTC: Third Trimester (Test) vs. Week 6 Post-partum (Reference). A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio (%).||68.57|61.79|
90930492|NCT03960645|181740474|OTHER||GLSM ratio (%)|77.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|65.4|92.14||||||TAF: Second Trimester (Test) vs. Week 12 Post-partum (Reference). A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio (%).||92.14|65.40|
90930493|NCT03960645|181740474|OTHER||GLSM ratio (%)|62.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|50.76|76.96||||||TAF: Second Trimester (Test) vs. Week 6 Post-partum (Reference). A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio (%).||76.96|50.76|
90966994|NCT00282295|181816395|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority objective was demonstrated if the lower limit was greater than the pre-defined limit of -10%.|Difference in vaccine response rate|3.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|6.45||||||Non-inferiority of Menactra™ vaccine co-administered with Boostrix® vaccine compared to Menactra™ vaccine administered alone at Month 0 with respect to a vaccine response to meningococcal serogroup W-135 one month after vaccination||6.45|0.96|
90966995|NCT01401842|181816426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||For the primary hypothesis, differences at follow-up between the two groups on lumbar extension muscular strength (Nm) were analyzed using linear mixed-effects regression models, accounting for the effects of cluster (platoon) and adjusting for baseline measures. The linear mixed-effects model treats the data as two levels (level 1 for individuals, level 2 for clusters), while also taking into account between-cluster variation.||||0.001
90930494|NCT03960645|181740474|OTHER||GLSM ratio (%)|69.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|58.57|82.88||||||TAF: Third Trimester (Test) vs. Week 12 Post-partum (Reference). A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio (%).||82.88|58.57|
90930495|NCT03960645|181740474|OTHER||GLSM ratio (%)|56.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|46.32|68.96||||||TAF: Third Trimester (Test) vs. Week 6 Post-partum (Reference). A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio (%).||68.96|46.32|
90930496|NCT03960645|181740476|OTHER||GLSM ratio (%)|51.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|46.48|57.97||||||BIC: Second Trimester (Test) vs. Week 12 Post-partum (Reference). A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio (%).||57.97|46.48|
90930497|NCT03960645|181740476|OTHER||GLSM ratio (%)|57.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|52.48|63.36||||||BIC: Second Trimester (Test) vs. Week 6 Post-partum (Reference). A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio (%).||63.36|52.48|
90930498|NCT03960645|181740476|OTHER||GLSM ratio (%)|48.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|43.03|53.94||||||BIC: Third Trimester (Test) vs. Week 12 Post-partum (Reference). A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio (%).||53.94|43.03|
90930499|NCT03960645|181740476|OTHER||GLSM ratio (%)|54.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|48.39|61.21||||||BIC: Third Trimester (Test) vs. Week 6 Post-partum (Reference). A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio (%).||61.21|48.39|
90930500|NCT03960645|181740476|OTHER||GLSM ratio (%)|75.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|66.7|85.7||||||FTC: Second Trimester (Test) vs. Week 12 Post-partum (Reference). A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio (%).||85.70|66.70|
90930501|NCT03960645|181740476|OTHER||GLSM ratio (%)|77.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|68.76|88.05||||||FTC: Second Trimester (Test) vs. Week 6 Post-partum (Reference). A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio (%).||88.05|68.76|
90930502|NCT03960645|181740476|OTHER||GLSM ratio (%)|77.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.33|85.29||||||FTC: Third Trimester (Test) vs. Week 12 Post-partum (Reference). A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio (%).||85.29|70.33|
90930503|NCT03960645|181740476|OTHER||GLSM ratio (%)|77.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|69.78|85.15||||||FTC: Third Trimester (Test) vs. Week 6 Post-partum (Reference). A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio (%).||85.15|69.78|
90930504|NCT03960645|181740476|OTHER||GLSM ratio (%)|69.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|56.16|87.0||||||TAF: Second Trimester (Test) vs. Week 12 Post-partum (Reference). A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio (%).||87.00|56.16|
90930505|NCT03960645|181740476|OTHER||GLSM ratio (%)|66.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|53.79|82.34||||||TAF: Second Trimester (Test) vs. Week 6 Post-partum (Reference). A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio (%).||82.34|53.79|
90930506|NCT03960645|181740476|OTHER||GLSM ratio (%)|57.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|46.04|70.91||||||TAF: Third Trimester (Test) vs. Week 12 Post-partum (Reference). A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio (%).||70.91|46.04|
90930507|NCT03960645|181740476|OTHER||GLSM ratio (%)|55.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|44.65|68.42||||||TAF: Third Trimester (Test) vs. Week 6 Post-partum (Reference). A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio (%).||68.42|44.65|
90930508|NCT03960645|181740477|OTHER||GLSM ratio (%)|26.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|21.45|31.93||||||BIC: Second Trimester (Test) vs. Week 12 Post-partum (Reference). A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio (%).||31.93|21.45|
90930509|NCT03960645|181740477|OTHER||GLSM ratio (%)|26.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|22.23|32.78||||||BIC: Second Trimester (Test) vs. Week 6 Post-partum (Reference). A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio (%).||32.78|22.23|
90966996|NCT01401842|181816427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.871|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||For the primary hypothesis, differences at follow-up between the two groups on core muscular endurance (seconds) were analyzed using linear mixed-effects regression models, accounting for the effects of cluster (platoon) and adjusting for baseline measures. The linear mixed-effects model treats the data as two levels (level 1 for individuals, level 2 for clusters), while also taking into account between-cluster variation.||||0.871
90966997|NCT01401842|181816428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||For the primary hypothesis, differences at follow-up between the two groups on core muscular endurance (seconds) were analyzed using linear mixed-effects regression models, accounting for the effects of cluster (platoon) and adjusting for baseline measures. The linear mixed-effects model treats the data as two levels (level 1 for individuals, level 2 for clusters), while also taking into account between-cluster variation.||||0.021
90966998|NCT01251653|181816455|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside interval 80% to 125%|Ratio of adjusted gmeans in percentage|81.27|STANDARD_DEVIATION|63.3||0.4815|TWO_SIDED|90.0|44.863|147.205|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of Afatinib with Gemcitabine vs. Afatinib without Gemcitabine was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|||147.205|44.863|0.4815
90966999|NCT01251653|181816455|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside interval 80% to 125%|Ratio of adjusted gmeans in percentage|95.36|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.4||0.0149|TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.139|108.077|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of Afatinib with Docetaxel vs. Afatinib without Docetaxel was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|||108.077|84.139|0.0149
90967000|NCT01251653|181816455|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside interval 80% to 125%|Ratio of adjusted gmeans in percentage|88.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.2||0.0208|TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.778|94.964|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of Afatinib with Docetaxel vs. Afatinib without Docetaxel was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|||94.964|81.778|0.0208
90967001|NCT01251653|181816456|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside interval 80% to 125%|Ratio of adjusted gmeans in percentage|141.36|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.7||0.8715|TWO_SIDED|90.0|115.848|172.495|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of Afatinib with Gemcitabine vs. Afatinib without Gemcitabine was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|||172.495|115.848|0.8715
90967002|NCT01251653|181816456|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside interval 80% to 125%|Ratio of adjusted gmeans in percentage|77.42|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.8||0.6805|TWO_SIDED|90.0|68.516|87.473|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of Afatinib with Docetaxel vs. Afatinib without Docetaxel was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|||87.473|68.516|0.6805
90967003|NCT01251653|181816456|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside interval 80% to 125%|Ratio of adjusted gmeans in percentage|83.95|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.3||0.2327|TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.794|94.217|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of Afatinib with Docetaxel vs. Afatinib without Docetaxel was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|||94.217|74.794|0.2327
90967004|NCT01251653|181816457|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside interval 80% to 125%|Ratio of adjusted gmeans in percentage|136.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|26.3||0.7759|TWO_SIDED|90.0|112.09|165.29|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of Gemcitabine with Afatinib vs. Gemcitabine without Afatinib was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|||165.29|112.09|0.7759
90967005|NCT01251653|181816458|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside interval 80% to 125%|Ratio of adjusted gmeans in percentage|118.41|STANDARD_DEVIATION|31.6||0.3359|TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.81|147.88|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of Gemcitabine with Afatinib vs. Gemcitabine without Afatinib was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|||147.88|94.81|0.3359
90967006|NCT01251653|181816461|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside interval 80% to 125%|Ratio of adjusted gmeans in percentage|93.69|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.5||0.0349|TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.352|107.89|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of Docetaxel with Afatinib vs. Docetaxel without Afatinib was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|||107.890|81.352|0.0349
90967007|NCT01251653|181816461|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside interval 80% to 125%|Ratio of adjusted gmeans in percentage|98.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|30.4||0.0405|TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.053|118.76|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of Docetaxel with Afatinib vs. Docetaxel without Afatinib was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|||118.760|81.053|0.0405
90967008|NCT01251653|181816462|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside interval 80% to 125%|Ratio of adjusted gmeans in percentage|90.78|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.8||0.0728|TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.566|104.901|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of Docetaxel with Afatinib vs. Docetaxel without Afatinib was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|||104.901|78.566|0.0728
90967009|NCT01251653|181816462|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside interval 80% to 125%|Ratio of adjusted gmeans in percentage|85.74|STANDARD_DEVIATION|48.9||0.3294|TWO_SIDED|90.0|65.561|112.138|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of Docetaxel with Afatinib vs. Docetaxel without Afatinib was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|||112.138|65.561|0.3294
90971295|NCT05032157|181825296|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.136|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.91|-5.46|||Mixed Models Analysis||MMRM adjusting for treatment arm, geographical region, prior exposure to anti-IgE biologics, week, baseline score and both interaction of treatment by week and interaction of baseline score by week.|UAS7 at Week 12 (Scenario 1 with UAS7 as primary efficacy endpoint)||-5.46|-9.91|< 0.001
90930510|NCT03960645|181740477|OTHER||GLSM ratio (%)|29.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|25.74|32.74||||||BIC: Third Trimester (Test) vs. Week 12 Post-partum (Reference). A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio (%).||32.74|25.74|
90930511|NCT03960645|181740477|OTHER||GLSM ratio (%)|29.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|26.47|33.93||||||BIC: Third Trimester (Test) vs. Week 6 Post-partum (Reference). A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio (%).||33.93|26.47|
90930512|NCT03960645|181740477|OTHER||GLSM ratio (%)|64.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|54.63|75.49||||||FTC: Second Trimester (Test) vs. Week 12 Post-partum (Reference). A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio (%).||75.49|54.63|
90930513|NCT03960645|181740477|OTHER||GLSM ratio (%)|42.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|36.55|50.34||||||FTC: Second Trimester (Test) vs. Week 6 Post-partum (Reference). A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio (%).||50.34|36.55|
90930514|NCT03960645|181740477|OTHER||GLSM ratio (%)|64.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|59.3|70.61||||||FTC: Third Trimester (Test) vs. Week 12 Post-partum (Reference). A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio (%).||70.61|59.30|
90930515|NCT03960645|181740477|OTHER||GLSM ratio (%)|46.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|39.57|55.64||||||FTC: Third Trimester (Test) vs. Week 6 Post-partum (Reference). A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio (%).||55.64|39.57|
90930516|NCT00790699|181740491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|||||||RM-ANOVA|||The results were evaluated to determine if any statistically significant changes in any of these measures between the first and final visit occurred and if these changes were associated with membership in the treatment or control group.||||>.05
90930517|NCT03732807|181740492|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of difference|29.11|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.17|37.91|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||||37.91|21.17|<0.000001
90930518|NCT03732807|181740492|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of difference|20.78|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.65|29.18|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||||29.18|13.65|<0.000001
90930519|NCT03732807|181740492|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of difference|21.85|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.65|30.23|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||||30.23|14.65|<0.000001
90930520|NCT03732807|181740492|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of difference|12.75||||0.000154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.69|20.36|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||||20.36|6.69|0.000154
90930521|NCT03732807|181740493|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of difference|19.75|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.91|27.59|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||A generalized linear mixed effect model without imputation using observed data up to Week 24 was used as the imputation model. A single complete imputed data set for Week 24 was analyzed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method as the analysis model.||27.59|11.91|<0.000001
90930522|NCT03732807|181740493|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of difference|11.33||||0.000526||95.0|4.93|17.74|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||A generalized linear mixed effect model without imputation using observed data up to Week 24 was used as the imputation model. A single complete imputed data set for Week 24 was analyzed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method as the analysis model.||17.74|4.93|0.000526
90930523|NCT03732807|181740493|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of difference|11.88||||0.000311||95.0|5.42|18.33|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||A generalized linear mixed effect model without imputation using observed data up to Week 24 was used as the imputation model. A single complete imputed data set for Week 24 was analyzed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method as the analysis model.||18.33|5.42|0.000311
90930524|NCT03732807|181740493|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of difference|9.09||||0.002922||95.0|3.1|15.07|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||A generalized linear mixed effect model without imputation using observed data up to Week 24 was used as the imputation model. A single complete imputed data set for Week 24 was analyzed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method as the analysis model.||15.07|3.10|0.002922
90930525|NCT03732807|181740494|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of difference|20.24|||<|1e-06||95.0|13.23|28.49|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||||28.49|13.23|<0.000001
90930526|NCT03732807|181740494|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of difference|11.68||||0.000337||95.0|5.82|19.07|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||||19.07|5.82|0.000337
90930527|NCT03732807|181740494|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of difference|12.17||||0.000228||95.0|6.27|19.53|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||||19.53|6.27|0.000228
90930528|NCT03732807|181740494|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of difference|9.39||||0.001875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.86|16.46|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||||16.46|3.86|0.001875
90930529|NCT03732807|181740495|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of difference|42.96|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.68|54.25|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||||54.25|31.68|<0.000001
90930530|NCT03732807|181740495|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of difference|36.18|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.22|47.14|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||||47.14|25.22|<0.000001
90930531|NCT03732807|181740495|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of difference|39.96|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.85|51.06|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||||51.06|28.85|<0.000001
90967010|NCT00847145|181816466|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The specified cut-off levels for the vaccine antigen measles is ≥255 mIU/mL to be greater than -10%.|Percentage group difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|2.0||||||The immunogenicity in 12B12M (1a) group was considered non-inferior to that in group 12M13B15B (2a), if for the measles antigen (two months after the MMRV vaccine), the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentages of subjects with antibody response greater than or equal to the specified cut-off level for Measles antigen was greater than -10%.||2|-5|
90967011|NCT00847145|181816466|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The specified cut-off level for the vaccine antigen mumps is ≥10 Enzyme Linked Immunosorbent Assay(ELISA) Antibody (Ab) units to be greater than -10%.|Percentage group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|5.0||||||The immunogenicity in 12B12M(1a) group was considered non-inferior to that in group 12M13B15B(2a), if for the mumps antigen (two months after the MMRV vaccine), the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentages of subjects with antibody response greater than or equal to the specified cut-off level for Mumps antigen was greater than -10%.||5|-5|
90967012|NCT00847145|181816466|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The specified cut-off level for the vaccine antigen rubella is ≥10 IU/mL to be greater than -10%.|Percentage group difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|1.0||||||The immunogenicity in 12B12M(1a) group was considered non-inferior to that in group 12M13B15B (2a), if for the rubella antigen(two months after the MMRV vaccine), the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentages of subjects with antibody response greater than or equal to the specified cut-off level for rubella antigen was greater than -10%.||1|-4|
90967013|NCT00847145|181816466|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The specified cut-off value for the vaccine antigen varicella is ≥1.25 gpELISA units/mL to be greater than -10%.|Percentage group difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|3.0||||||The immunogenicity in 12B12M(1a) group was considered non-inferior to that in group 12M13B15B (2a), if for the varicella antigen (two months after the MMRV vaccine), the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentages of subjects with antibody response greater than or equal to the specified cut-off level for varicella antigen was greater than -10%.||3|-6|
90967014|NCT00847145|181816466|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The specified cut-off level for the varicella vaccine antigen is ≥5 gp ELISA units/ml (seroprotection) to be greater than -10%.|Percentage group difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|7.0||||||The immunogenicity in 12B12M (1a) group was considered non-inferior to that in group 12M13B15B (2), if for the varicella antigen (two months after the MMRV vaccine), the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentages of the subjects with antibody response greater than or equal to the specified cut-off value for varicella antigen was greater than -10%.||7|-11|
90967015|NCT01439282|181816505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.108||||||1-side P value was obtained|1-sample binomial test|||||||0.1080
90967016|NCT00054704|181816525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.828|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.182||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.59|0.934||A linear mixed model included drug, visit and their interaction as fixed factors. Subject was a random factor. The test here is for the main effect of drug.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline score was a covariate. Restricted maximum likelihood estimates were used with a compound symmetry covariance structure.||The primary intent of this study was to compare the efficacy of riluzole to placebo in the treatment of overall depressive symptomatology of bipolar disorder subjects who were acutely depressed. Data from 8 riluzole and 11 placebo participants were analyzed due to missing data for one riluzole patient.||0.934|-12.590|.086
90967017|NCT01469182|181816529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|9.95||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|16.7|||Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen|Baseline asthmatic status as the factor||||16.7|3.1|0.005
90967018|NCT01469182|181816530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|5.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|8.2|||Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen|Baseline asthmatic status as the factor||||8.2|2.9|<0.001
90967019|NCT01469182|181816531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|7.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.5|10.5|||Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen|Baseline asthmatic status as the factor||||10.5|5.5|<0.001
90967020|NCT01469182|181816532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|10.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.6|13.6|||Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen|Baseline asthmatic status as the factor||||13.6|6.6|<0.001
90967021|NCT01469182|181816533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|5.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|7.4|||Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen|Baseline asthmatic status as the factor||||7.4|3.3|<0.001
90967022|NCT01469182|181816534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.17||||0.861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.9|||Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen|Baseline asthmatic status as the factor||||1.9|-2.1|0.861
90967023|NCT01469182|181816535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|1.15||||0.344||95.0|-1.5|3.3|||Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen|Baseline asthmatic status as the factor||||3.3|-1.5|0.344
90967024|NCT01469182|181816536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.99||||0.382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|3.0|||Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen|Baseline asthmatic status as the factor||||3.0|-1.5|0.382
90967025|NCT01469182|181816537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|2.46||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|4.4|||Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen|Baseline asthmatic status as the factor||||4.4|0.3|0.029
90967026|NCT01785160|181816557|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Relative bioavailability (No formal testing was performed)|Adjusted Geometric Mean ratio|272.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|67.9||0.9999||95.0|199.69|370.66||P-value for ratio outside interval 0.8-1.25|ANOVA|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|Ratio Raltegravir plus Faldaprevir and Raltegravir for the category Raltegravir||370.66|199.69|0.9999
90967027|NCT01785160|181816558|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Relative bioavailability(No formal testing was performed)|Adjusted Geometric Mean ratio|245.72|STANDARD_DEVIATION|87.1||0.9973||95.0|168.46|358.404||P-value for ratio outside interval 0.8-1.25|ANOVA|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|Ratio Raltegravir plus Faldaprevir and Raltegravir for the category Raltegravir||358.404|168.460|0.9973
90967028|NCT01360554|181816577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.933||||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.797|1.093||One-sided P-value.|1-sided stratified log-rank test|Stratified by epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) status, Kirsten Rat Sarcoma status (KRAS), baseline Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG).|The HR (Dacomitinib arm versus erlotinib arm) and 95% CI were estimated from stratified Cox regression with EGFR status, KRAS, baseline ECOG as stratification factors.|||1.093|0.797|0.195
91035433|NCT03290781|181956871|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion|0.488|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.329|0.613||P-value was based on CMH chi-square test stratified by status of glucocorticoid use at SHP647-303 baseline, prior anti-TNF treatment, and the degree of clinical response in the induction studies (whether remission is achieved or not).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.613|0.329|<0.001
90930532|NCT03732807|181740495|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of difference|32.72|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.95|43.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||||43.50|21.95|<0.000001
90930533|NCT03345979|181740519|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
90930534|NCT03345979|181740519|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
90930535|NCT00734578|181740526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Placebo-adjusted difference in LS mean|-4.5||||0.002||95.0|-7.5|-1.4||Both SPD503 groups were compared with placebo using Dunnett's adjustment. Each treatment comparison was evaluated at the 0.05 significance level (Dunnett's adjusted).|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis stated that there was no difference between SPD503 AM or placebo and that there was no difference between SPD503 PM or placebo. 90% power was needed to detect an effect size of at least 0.4 between either SPD503 group and placebo.||-1.4|-7.5|0.002
90930536|NCT00734578|181740526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Placebo-adjusted difference in LS mean|-5.3|||<|0.001||95.0|-8.3|-2.3||Both SPD503 groups were compared with placebo using Dunnett's adjustment. Each treatment comparison was evaluated at the 0.05 significance level (Dunnett's adjusted).|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis stated that there was no difference between SPD503 AM or placebo and that there was no difference between SPD503 PM or placebo. 90% power was needed to detect an effect size of at least 0.4 between either SPD503 group and placebo.||-2.3|-8.3|<0.001
90930537|NCT00734578|181740527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.024||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Not powered for secondary outcome measures.||||0.024
90930538|NCT00734578|181740527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.003||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Not powered for secondary outcome measures.||||0.003
90930539|NCT00734578|181740528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.013||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Not powered for secondary outcome measures.||||0.013
90930540|NCT00734578|181740528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Not powered for secondary outcome measures.||||<0.001
90930541|NCT00734578|181740529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Placebo-adjusted difference in LS mean|-1.7||||0.019||95.0|-3.2|-0.3||No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Not powered for secondary outcome measures.||-0.3|-3.2|0.019
90930542|NCT00734578|181740529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Placebo-adjusted difference in LS mean|-2.6|||<|0.001||95.0|-4.0|-1.1||No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Not powered for secondary outcome measures.||-1.1|-4.0|<0.001
90930543|NCT00734578|181740530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Placebo-adjusted difference in LS mean|-2.4||||0.002||95.0|-4.0|-0.9||No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Not powered for secondary outcome measures.||-0.9|-4.0|0.002
90930544|NCT00734578|181740530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Placebo-adjusted difference in LS mean|-3.0|||<|0.001||95.0|-4.5|-1.5||No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Not powered for secondary outcome measures.||-1.5|-4.5|<0.001
90930545|NCT00734578|181740531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Not powered for secondary outcome measures.||||<0.001
90930546|NCT00734578|181740531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Not powered for secondary outcome measures.||||<0.001
90930547|NCT00734578|181740532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Placebo-adjusted difference in LS mean|-2.4||||0.001||95.0|-3.9|-0.9||No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Not powered for secondary outcome measures.||-0.9|-3.9|0.001
90930548|NCT00734578|181740532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Placebo-adjusted difference in LS mean|-2.2||||0.003||95.0|-3.6|-0.7||No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Not powered for secondary outcome measures.||-0.7|-3.6|0.003
90930549|NCT00734578|181740533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Placebo-adjusted difference in LS mean|-5.1|||<|0.001||95.0|-8.0|-2.2||No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Not powered for secondary outcome measures.||-2.2|-8.0|<0.001
90930550|NCT00734578|181740533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Placebo-adjusted difference in LS mean|-4.7||||0.002||95.0|-7.6|-1.7||No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Not powered for secondary outcome measures.||-1.7|-7.6|0.002
90930551|NCT00734578|181740534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.971||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Not powered for secondary outcome measures.||||0.971
90930552|NCT00734578|181740534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.502||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Not powered for secondary outcome measures.||||0.502
90930553|NCT03883724|181740553|OTHER|ANCOVA between-group analysis was completed comparing of Pre- to Post-Intervention change adjusting for baseline value of the outcome||||||0.3|||||||ANCOVA|between-group analysis was completed comparing of Pre- to Post-Intervention change adjusting for baseline value of the outcome||Change in NPi pre- vs post-intervention comparing between group analysis||||0.3
90930554|NCT03883724|181740554|OTHER|ANCOVA between-group analysis was completed comparing of Pre- to Post-Intervention change adjusting for baseline value of the outcome|||||<|0.01||||||Change in nocturia frequency pre- vs post-intervention comparing between groups BBTI vs IC|ANCOVA|between-group analysis was completed comparing of Pre- to Post-Intervention change adjusting for baseline value of the outcome||Change in nocturia frequency pre- vs post-intervention comparing between group analysis||||<.01
90930555|NCT03883724|181740555|OTHER|ANCOVA between-group analysis was completed comparing of Pre- to Post-Intervention change adjusting for baseline value of the outcome||||||0.3|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA between-group analysis was completed comparing of Pre- to Post-Intervention change adjusting for baseline value of the outcome||between-group analysis was completed comparing of Pre- to Post-Intervention change adjusting for baseline value of the outcome||||0.3
91035434|NCT03290781|181956871|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion|0.343|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.194|0.471||P-value was based on CMH chi-square test stratified by status of glucocorticoid use at SHP647-303 baseline, prior anti-TNF treatment, and the degree of clinical response in the induction studies (whether remission is achieved or not).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.471|0.194|<0.001
90930556|NCT02909959|181740564|EQUIVALENCE|Statistical significance was measured at the 0.05 alpha level for a two-sided test, so the rejection region for a normally distributed T-score was +/-1.96\*SE(Diff), where SE(Diff) is the estimated standard error of the difference between the LS mean of sulforaphane and LS mean of the placebo group.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.03||0.331|TWO_SIDED|||||The test was considered statistically significant if the p-value \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model with random intercept and unstructured covariance matrix from baseline to week 16.|This analysis compares LS Mean Sulforaphane - LS Mean Placebo.|The null hypothesis is that the least-square mean of sulforaphane's SRS-2 T-score minus the least-square mean of placebo group's T-score is 0.||||0.331
90930557|NCT02909959|181740565|EQUIVALENCE|Statistical significance was measured at the 0.05 alpha level for a two-sided test, so the rejection region for a normally distributed T-score was +/-1.96\*SE(Diff), where SE(Diff) is the estimated standard error of the difference between the LS mean of sulforaphane and LS mean of the placebo group.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.99||0.98|TWO_SIDED|||||The test was considered statistically significant if the p-value \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model with random intercept and unstructured covariance matrix from baseline to week 16.|This analysis compares LS Mean Sulforaphane - LS Mean Placebo.|The null hypothesis is that the least-square mean of sulforaphane's SRS-2 T-score minus the least-square mean of placebo group's T-score is 0.||||0.98
90930558|NCT02909959|181740566|EQUIVALENCE|Statistical significance was measured at the 0.05 alpha level for a two-sided test, so the rejection region for a normally distributed T-score was +/-1.96\*SE(Diff), where SE(Diff) is the estimated standard error of the difference between the LS mean of sulforaphane and LS mean of the placebo group.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.774|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.99||0.797|TWO_SIDED|||||The test was considered statistically significant if the p-value \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model with random intercept and unstructured covariance matrix from baseline to week 16.|This analysis compares LS Mean Sulforaphane - LS Mean Placebo.|The null hypothesis is that the least-square mean of sulforaphane's SRS-2 T-score minus the least-square mean of placebo group's T-score is 0.||||0.797
90930559|NCT02909959|181740567|EQUIVALENCE|Statistical significance was measured at the 0.05 alpha level for a two-sided test, so the rejection region for a normally distributed T-score was +/-1.96\*SE(Diff), where SE(Diff) is the estimated standard error of the difference between the LS mean of sulforaphane and LS mean of the placebo group.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.01||0.442|TWO_SIDED|||||The test was considered statistically significant if the p-value \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model with random intercept and unstructured covariance matrix from baseline to week 16.|This analysis compares LS Mean Sulforaphane - LS Mean Placebo.|The null hypothesis is that the least-square mean of sulforaphane's SRS-2 T-score minus the least-square mean of placebo group's T-score is 0.||||0.442
90930560|NCT02909959|181740568|EQUIVALENCE|Statistical significance was measured at the 0.05 alpha level for a two-sided test, so the rejection region for a normally distributed T-score was +/-1.96\*SE(Diff), where SE(Diff) is the estimated standard error of the difference between the LS mean of sulforaphane and LS mean of the placebo group.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.05||0.373|TWO_SIDED|||||The test was considered statistically significant if the p-value \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model with random intercept and unstructured covariance matrix from baseline to week 16.|This analysis compares LS Mean Sulforaphane - LS Mean Placebo.|The null hypothesis is that the least-square mean of sulforaphane's SRS-2 T-score minus the least-square mean of placebo group's T-score is 0.||||0.373
90930561|NCT03739866|181740632|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90930562|NCT03739866|181740632|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90930563|NCT03739866|181740632|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90930564|NCT03739866|181740632|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90930565|NCT03739866|181740632|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90930566|NCT01034306|181740646|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0352||||||normal approximation to the binomial test|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0352
90930567|NCT01034306|181740647|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2472|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.2472
90930568|NCT01034306|181740648|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1972|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1972
90930569|NCT03057600|181740662|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2252|||||||exact one-sample binomial tests|||||||0.2252
90930570|NCT03057600|181740662|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9437|||||||exact one-sample binomial tests|||||||0.9437
90930571|NCT03057600|181740662|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5797|||||||exact one-sample binomial tests|||||||0.5797
90930572|NCT03057600|181740662|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0243|||||||exact one-sample binomial tests|||||||0.0243
90930573|NCT01953692|181740671|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||one-sided p value|exact binomial distribution|||Comparison to a fixed efficacy target of 10%. H0: p ≤ 0.10 versus H1: p \> 0.10||||>0.9999
90930574|NCT01953692|181740672|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||one-sided p-value|exact binomial distribution|||Comparison to a fixed efficacy target of 25%. H0: p ≤ 0.25 versus H1: p \> 0.25||||>0.9999
90930575|NCT01953692|181740673|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0306||||||one-sided p-value|exact binomial distribution|||Comparison to a fixed efficacy target of 10%. H0: p ≤ 0.10 versus H1: p \> 0.10||||0.0306
90930576|NCT01953692|181740674|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7696||||||one-sided p-value|exact binomial distribution|||Comparison to a fixed efficacy target of 25%. H0: p ≤ 0.25 versus H1: p \> 0.25||||0.7696
91035435|NCT03290781|181956872|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion|0.431|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.554||P-value was based on CMH chi-square test stratified by status of glucocorticoid use at SHP647-303 baseline, prior anti-TNF treatment, and the degree of clinical response in the induction studies (whether remission is achieved or not).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.554|0.280|<0.001
90930577|NCT00731614|181740719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.322|||||||Repeated Measure ANOVA|||Conducted a repeated measures ANOVA comparing CBT+mirror retraining with Supportive Therapy across 11 time points. The primary hypothesis was a group by time interaction. Due to missing data, a total of 9 and 14 participants, respectively could be included in analyses.||||.322
90930578|NCT02157948|181740728|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority Testing: The lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the between-group difference (denosumab CP4 - denosumab CP2) in percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at 12 months was compared with the non-inferiority margin of -1.44% for assessing non-inferiority.|Difference from CP2|-0.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.57||One-sided p-value based on the prespecified non-inferiority margin of -1.44% for lumbar spine.|ANCOVA|||The treatment comparison was analyzed using the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including treatment, baseline BMD value, machine type, and machine type-by-baseline BMD value interaction. The effect of denosumab CP4 on lumbar spine BMD at 12 months relative to the effect of denosumab CP2 was estimated by the least-squares mean of the treatment difference (denosumab CP4 - denosumab CP2) and the corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI).||0.57|-0.72|< 0.001
90930579|NCT02157948|181740728|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence Testing: The lower and upper bounds of the same 2-sided 95% CI of the between-group difference were compared with the equivalence margin of ±1.44% for assessing equivalence.|Difference from CP2|-0.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.57||Two-sided p-value based on the prespecified equivalence margin of ±1.44% for lumbar spine.|ANCOVA|||The treatment comparison was analyzed using the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including treatment, baseline BMD value, machine type, and machine type-by-baseline BMD value interaction. The effect of denosumab CP4 on lumbar spine BMD at 12 months relative to the effect of denosumab CP2 was estimated by the least-squares mean of the treatment difference (denosumab CP4 - denosumab CP2) and the corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI).||0.57|-0.72|< 0.001
90930580|NCT04701203|181740786|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||For the primary efficacy endpoint, the Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by etiology of hypoparathyroidism (postsurgical or other) was used to compare the proportion of participants meeting the composite primary endpoint in the TransCon PTH versus placebo groups. Participants without week 26 albumin-adjusted serum calcium or with \>25% (ie, \>7 days) missing diary data of active vitamin D or elemental calcium during the 4 weeks before week 26 were considered non-responders.||||<0.0001
90930581|NCT04701203|181740787|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0038|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||ANCOVA model with unequal variance was used to analyze the key secondary Endpoints. The change from baseline is variable of interest at week 26 and was included in the model as response variables. Treatment assignment and etiology of hypoparathyroidism were entered as fixed effects and baseline value of the variable of interest was entered as a covariate.||||= 0.0038
90930582|NCT04701203|181740788|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0055|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||ANCOVA model with unequal variance was used to analyze the key secondary Endpoints. The change from baseline is variable of interest at week 26 and was included in the model as response variables. Treatment assignment and etiology of hypoparathyroidism were entered as fixed effects and baseline value of the variable of interest was entered as a covariate.||||= 0.0055
90930583|NCT04701203|181740789|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0046|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||ANCOVA model with unequal variance was used to analyze the key secondary Endpoints. The change from baseline is variable of interest at week 26 and was included in the model as response variables. Treatment assignment and etiology of hypoparathyroidism were entered as fixed effects and baseline value of the variable of interest was entered as a covariate.||||= 0.0046
90930584|NCT04701203|181740790|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0061|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||ANCOVA model with unequal variance was used to analyze the key secondary Endpoints. The change from baseline is variable of interest at week 26 and was included in the model as response variables. Treatment assignment and etiology of hypoparathyroidism were entered as fixed effects and baseline value of the variable of interest was entered as a covariate.||||= 0.0061
90930585|NCT04701203|181740791|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0347|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||ANCOVA model with unequal variance was used to analyze the key secondary Endpoints. The change from baseline is variable of interest at week 26 and was included in the model as response variables. Treatment assignment and etiology of hypoparathyroidism were entered as fixed effects and baseline value of the variable of interest was entered as a covariate.||||= 0.0347
90930586|NCT02434328|181740792|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority margin was 4 letters.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.0||1-sided p-value reported. Hypothesis tested according to the pre-specified hierarchical testing that ensures the global type I error rate at 0.05.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|||1.0|-2.4|<0.0001
90930587|NCT02434328|181740793|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin was 4 letters.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|0.5||1-sided p-value reported. Hypothesis tested according to the pre-specified hierarchical testing that ensures the global type I error rate at 0.05.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|||0.5|-2.8|0.0003
90930588|NCT02434328|181740798|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 4||0.0|-2.0|
91035436|NCT03290781|181956872|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion|0.227|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.094|0.349||P-value was based on CMH chi-square test stratified by status of glucocorticoid use at SHP647-303 baseline, prior anti-TNF treatment, and the degree of clinical response in the induction studies (whether remission is achieved or not).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.349|0.094|<0.001
90967029|NCT01360554|181816578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.037||||0.643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.848|1.268||One-sided P-value|1-sided stratified log-rank test|Stratified by EGFR status and baseline ECOG.|The HR (Dacomitinib arm versus erlotinib arm) and 95% CI were estimated from stratified Cox regression with EGFR status and baseline ECOG as stratification factors.|||1.268|0.848|0.643
90967030|NCT01360554|181816579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.899||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.035||Stratified by EGFR status, KRAS status, and baseline ECOG.|1-sided stratified log-rank test|One-sided P-value|The HR (Dacomitinib arm versus erlotinib arm) and 95% CI were estimated from stratified Cox regression with EGFR status, KRAS status, and baseline ECOG as stratification factors.|||1.035|0.780|0.069
90967031|NCT01360554|181816580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.057||||0.728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.881|1.267||One-sided P-value.|1-sided stratified log-rank test|Stratified by EGFR status and baseline ECOG.|The HR (Dacomitinib arm versus erlotinib arm) and 95% CI were estimated from stratified Cox regression with EGFR status and baseline ECOG as stratification factors.|||1.267|0.881|0.728
90930589|NCT02434328|181740798|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 8||0.2|-2.2|
90930590|NCT02434328|181740798|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 12||0.4|-2.4|
90930591|NCT02434328|181740798|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 16||0.6|-2.3|
90930592|NCT02434328|181740798|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|0.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 20||0.0|-3.0|
90930593|NCT02434328|181740798|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 24||0.6|-2.5|
90930594|NCT02434328|181740798|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|0.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 28||0.5|-2.7|
90930595|NCT02434328|181740798|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 32||0.7|-2.5|
90930596|NCT02434328|181740798|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|0.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 36||0.4|-2.9|
90930597|NCT02434328|181740798|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|0.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 40||0.5|-2.9|
90967032|NCT01360554|181816581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.026||||0.638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.887|1.188||One-sided P-value.|1-sided stratified log-rank test.|Stratified by EGFR status, KRAS status, and baseline ECOG.|The HR (Dacomitinib arm versus erlotinib arm) and 95% CI were estimated from stratified Cox regression with EGFR status, KRAS status, and baseline ECOG as stratification factors.|||1.188|0.887|0.638
90930598|NCT02434328|181740798|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|0.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 44||0.1|-3.2|
90930599|NCT02434328|181740798|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 48||1.0|-2.4|
90967033|NCT01360554|181816582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.078||||0.775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.886|1.312||One-sided P-value.|1-sided stratified log-rank test.|Stratified by EGFR status and baseline ECOG.|The HR (Dacomitinib arm versus erlotinib arm) and 95% CI were estimated from stratified Cox regression with EGFR status and baseline ECOG as stratification factors.|||1.312|0.886|0.775
90967034|NCT01360554|181816590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Repeated measures mixed-effects model.|-1.9357||||||95.0|-4.278|0.407|||||This analysis represents the mean difference between the dacomitinib arm (Arm A) and the erlotinib arm (Arm B).|Analysis presented for QLQ-C30 Global QoL. Mean difference was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects). Confidence intervals provided were not adjusted for multiplicity.||0.407|-4.278|
91035437|NCT03290781|181956873|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion|0.176|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.049|0.287||P-value was based on CMH chi-square test stratified by status of glucocorticoid use at SHP647-303 baseline, prior anti-TNF treatment, and the degree of clinical response in the induction studies (whether remission is achieved or not).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.287|0.049|<0.001
90930600|NCT02434328|181740798|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 52||1.1|-2.5|
90930601|NCT02434328|181740798|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.92|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 56||1.1|-2.5|
90930602|NCT02434328|181740798|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|1.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 60||1.0|-2.7|
90930603|NCT02434328|181740798|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 64||1.2|-2.5|
90930604|NCT02434328|181740798|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 68||1.2|-2.5|
90930605|NCT02434328|181740798|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|1.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 72||1.1|-2.8|
90930606|NCT02434328|181740798|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 76||1.4|-2.5|
90930607|NCT02434328|181740798|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 80||1.8|-2.1|
90930608|NCT02434328|181740798|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|1.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 84||1.1|-2.9|
90930609|NCT02434328|181740798|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|1.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 88||1.3|-2.6|
90930610|NCT02434328|181740798|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 92||1.6|-2.4|
90930611|NCT02434328|181740798|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 96||1.6|-2.5|
90930612|NCT02434328|181740799|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 4 to Week 48||0.3|-2.4|
90930613|NCT02434328|181740799|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 4 to Week 96||0.7|-2.4|
90930614|NCT02434328|181740800|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 12 to Week 48||0.4|-2.5|
90930615|NCT02434328|181740800|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.||Week 12 to Week 96|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|0.8|-2.4|
91035438|NCT03290781|181956873|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion|0.111|||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.006|0.208||P-value was based on CMH chi-square test stratified by status of glucocorticoid use at SHP647-303 baseline, prior anti-TNF treatment, and the degree of clinical response in the induction studies (whether remission is achieved or not).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.208|0.006|<0.005
90930616|NCT02434328|181740801|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|||1.4|-2.5|
90930617|NCT02434328|181740802|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|2.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 4||2.9|-5.1|
90930618|NCT02434328|181740802|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|1.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 8||1.0|-9.5|
90930619|NCT02434328|181740802|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|0.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 12||0.3|-10.5|
90930620|NCT02434328|181740802|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|3.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 16||3.7|-8.4|
90930621|NCT02434328|181740802|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|2.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 20||2.8|-8.8|
90930622|NCT02434328|181740802|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|6.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 24||6.7|-5.2|
90930623|NCT02434328|181740802|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|2.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 28||2.3|-9.9|
90930624|NCT02434328|181740802|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|2.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 32||2.7|-10.5|
90930625|NCT02434328|181740802|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|1.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 36||1.3|-11.6|
90930626|NCT02434328|181740802|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|1.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 40||1.9|-11.5|
91035439|NCT03290781|181956874|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was based on CMH chi-square test stratified by status of glucocorticoid use at SHP647-303 baseline, prior anti-TNF treatment, and the degree of clinical response in the induction studies (whether remission is achieved or not).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90930627|NCT02434328|181740802|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|1.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 44||1.8|-11.3|
90930628|NCT02434328|181740802|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|5.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 48||5.8|-7.1|
90930629|NCT02434328|181740802|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|5.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 52||5.5|-7.0|
90930630|NCT02434328|181740802|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|5.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 56||5.4|-7.7|
90930631|NCT02434328|181740802|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|4.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 60||4.2|-8.3|
90967035|NCT01360554|181816590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Repeated measures mixed-effects model.|0.8067||||||95.0|-1.312|2.926|||||This analysis represents the mean difference between the dacomitinib arm (Arm A) and the erlotinib arm (Arm B).|Analysis presented for QLQ-C30 cognitive functioning. Mean difference was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects). Confidence intervals provided were not adjusted for multiplicity.||2.926|-1.312|
90967036|NCT01360554|181816590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Repeated measures mixed-effects model|0.73||||||95.0|-1.575|3.035|||||This analysis represents the mean difference between the dacomitinib arm (Arm A) and the erlotinib arm (Arm B).|Analysis presented for QLQ-C30 emotional functioning. Mean difference was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects). Confidence intervals provided were not adjusted for multiplicity.||3.035|-1.575|
90930632|NCT02434328|181740802|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|5.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 64||5.4|-7.9|
90930633|NCT02434328|181740802|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|3.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 68||3.1|-9.9|
90930634|NCT02434328|181740802|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|2.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 72||2.3|-10.2|
90930635|NCT02434328|181740802|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|4.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 76||4.0|-8.8|
90930636|NCT02434328|181740802|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|3.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 80||3.5|-9.0|
90930637|NCT02434328|181740802|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|2.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 84||2.8|-9.9|
90930638|NCT02434328|181740802|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-5.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|0.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 88||0.3|-11.8|
90930639|NCT02434328|181740802|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|4.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 92||4.5|-7.9|
90930640|NCT02434328|181740802|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|4.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 96||4.1|-8.8|
90930641|NCT02434328|181740803|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|3.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 4||3.8|-7.6|
90930642|NCT02434328|181740803|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|0.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 8||0.1|-13.0|
90930643|NCT02434328|181740803|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|2.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 12||2.4|-10.1|
90930644|NCT02434328|181740803|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|6.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 16||6.3|-7.3|
90930645|NCT02434328|181740803|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|2.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 20||2.2|-11.2|
90930646|NCT02434328|181740803|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|3.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 24||3.0|-10.7|
90930647|NCT02434328|181740803|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|4.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 28||4.0|-9.6|
90930648|NCT02434328|181740803|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|4.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 32||4.5|-9.4|
90930649|NCT02434328|181740803|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|1.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 36||1.1|-12.1|
90930650|NCT02434328|181740803|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|3.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 40||3.5|-9.9|
90930651|NCT02434328|181740803|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|4.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 44||4.2|-10.3|
90930652|NCT02434328|181740803|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|4.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 48||4.7|-8.7|
90930653|NCT02434328|181740803|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|5.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 52||5.7|-8.0|
90930654|NCT02434328|181740803|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|4.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 56||4.3|-9.8|
90930655|NCT02434328|181740803|OTHER|Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Difference in proportions|-2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|4.2|||Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 60||4.2|-9.6|
90930656|NCT02434328|181740803|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|5.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 64||5.4|-8.8|
90930657|NCT02434328|181740803|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|5.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 68||5.0|-8.4|
90930658|NCT02434328|181740803|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|2.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 72||2.9|-10.4|
90930659|NCT02434328|181740803|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|7.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 76||7.2|-6.5|
91035440|NCT03290781|181956874|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.005||||||P-value was based on CMH chi-square test stratified by status of glucocorticoid use at SHP647- 303 baseline, prior anti-TNF treatment, and the degree of clinical response in the induction studies (whether remission is achieved or not).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||=0.005
91035441|NCT05152576|181956886|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|41.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.5|59.3||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline investigator-rated FWS-FHL at maximum.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Confidence interval for responder rate is calculated using normal approximation.||59.3|23.5|<0.001
90930660|NCT02434328|181740803|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|6.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 80||6.1|-7.5|
91035442|NCT05152576|181956886|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|38.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.2|57.1||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline investigator-rated FWS-FHL at maximum.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Confidence interval for responder rate is calculated using normal approximation.||57.1|19.2|<0.001
91035443|NCT05152576|181956886|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|41.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.5|59.3||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline investigator-rated FWS-FHL at maximum.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Confidence interval for responder rate is calculated using normal approximation.||59.3|23.5|<0.001
90930661|NCT02434328|181740803|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|3.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 84||3.1|-10.4|
90930662|NCT02434328|181740803|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|3.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 88||3.9|-9.6|
90930663|NCT02434328|181740803|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|8.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 92||8.3|-5.0|
90930664|NCT02434328|181740803|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|6.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 96||6.8|-7.0|
90930665|NCT02434328|181740804|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|3.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 4||3.6|-10.4|
90930666|NCT02434328|181740804|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|3.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 8||3.7|-10.2|
90930667|NCT02434328|181740804|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|3.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 12||3.3|-10.7|
90930668|NCT02434328|181740804|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|5.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 16||5.7|-8.4|
90930669|NCT02434328|181740804|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|1.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 20||1.5|-12.3|
90930670|NCT02434328|181740804|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|3.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 24||3.7|-9.9|
90930671|NCT02434328|181740804|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|0.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 28||0.7|-12.8|
90930672|NCT02434328|181740804|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|4.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 32||4.8|-8.2|
90930673|NCT02434328|181740804|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|4.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 36||4.2|-9.2|
90930674|NCT02434328|181740804|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|5.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 40||5.6|-8.2|
90930675|NCT02434328|181740804|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|5.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 44||5.0|-8.5|
90930676|NCT02434328|181740804|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|6.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 48||6.2|-7.4|
90941012|NCT00943722|181761611|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages between lots be entirely contained within the interval (-5, 5).|Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.7|||||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) minus 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 2)|Anti-HPV 58||0.7|-0.7|
90967037|NCT01360554|181816590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Repeated measures mixed-effects model.|1.5289||||||95.0|-0.756|3.814|||||This analysis represents the mean difference between the dacomitinib arm (Arm A) and the erlotinib arm (Arm B).|Analysis presented for QLQ-C30 physical functioning. Mean difference was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects). Confidence intervals provided were not adjusted for multiplicity.||3.814|-0.756|
90967038|NCT01360554|181816590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Repeated measures mixed-effects model.|1.2219||||||95.0|-1.975|4.419|||||This analysis represents the mean difference between the dacomitinib arm (Arm A) and the erlotinib arm (Arm B).|Analysis presented for QLQ-C30 role functioning. Mean difference was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects). Confidence intervals provided were not adjusted for multiplicity.||4.419|-1.975|
90967039|NCT01360554|181816590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Repeated measures mixed-effects model.|-1.497||||||95.0|-4.575|1.581|||||This analysis represents the mean difference between the dacomitinib arm (Arm A) and the erlotinib arm (Arm B).|Analysis presented for QLQ-C30 social functioning. Mean difference was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects). Confidence intervals provided were not adjusted for multiplicity.||1.581|-4.575|
90967040|NCT01360554|181816591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Repeated measures mixed-effects model.|1.2851|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.416|4.986|||||This analysis represents the mean difference between the dacomitinib arm (Arm A) and the erlotinib arm (Arm B).|Analysis presented for QLQ-C30 Appetite loss. Mean difference was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects). Confidence intervals provided were not adjusted for multiplicity.||4.986|-2.416|
90967041|NCT01360554|181816591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Repeated measures mixed-effects model.|-5.923|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.432|-3.414|||||This analysis represents the mean difference between the dacomitinib arm (Arm A) and the erlotinib arm (Arm B).|Analysis presented for QLQ-C30 Constipation. Mean difference was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects). Confidence intervals provided were not adjusted for multiplicity.||-3.414|-8.432|
90967042|NCT01360554|181816591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Repeated measures mixed-effects model|20.2564|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.874|23.639|||||This analysis represents the mean difference between the dacomitinib arm (Arm A) and the erlotinib arm (Arm B).|Analysis presented for QLQ-C30 Diarrhea. Mean difference was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects). Confidence intervals provided were not adjusted for multiplicity.||23.639|16.874|
90971296|NCT05032157|181825297|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.545|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.29|-2.16|||Mixed Models Analysis||MMRM adjusting for treatment arm, geographical region, prior exposure to anti- IgE, biologics, week, baseline score, and both interaction of treatment by week and interaction of baseline score by week.|ISS7 at Week 12 (Scenario 2 with ISS7 and HSS7 as co-primary efficacy endpoints)||-2.16|-4.29|<0.001
91035444|NCT00859430|181956887|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Ratio of Geometric Means|105.0||||||90.0|98.6|112.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||112|98.6|
90930677|NCT02434328|181740804|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|4.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 52||4.0|-9.8|
90930678|NCT02434328|181740804|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|4.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 56||4.8|-8.6|
90930679|NCT02434328|181740804|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|6.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 60||6.1|-7.8|
90930680|NCT02434328|181740804|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|9.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 64||9.2|-4.5|
90930681|NCT02434328|181740804|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|4.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 68||4.9|-8.6|
90930682|NCT02434328|181740804|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|7.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 72||7.5|-5.8|
90930683|NCT02434328|181740804|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|8.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 76||8.4|-5.1|
90930684|NCT02434328|181740804|OTHER||Difference in proportions|4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|10.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 80||10.9|-2.8|
90930685|NCT02434328|181740804|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|4.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 84||4.1|-9.3|
90930686|NCT02434328|181740804|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|7.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 88||7.7|-6.1|
90930687|NCT02434328|181740804|OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|10.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 92||10.4|-3.0|
90930688|NCT02434328|181740804|OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|10.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 96||10.0|-3.9|
90930689|NCT02434328|181740805|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 4||1.4|-1.6|
90930690|NCT02434328|181740805|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 8||1.1|-2.3|
90930691|NCT02434328|181740805|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|2.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2 mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 12||2.2|-1.9|
90930692|NCT02434328|181740805|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 16||2.3|-2.1|
90930693|NCT02434328|181740805|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|3.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 20||3.3|-2.0|
90930694|NCT02434328|181740805|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|2.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 24||2.2|-3.0|
90930695|NCT02434328|181740805|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|2.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 28||2.3|-3.0|
90930696|NCT02434328|181740805|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|2.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 32||2.5|-3.2|
90930697|NCT02434328|181740805|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|3.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 36||3.3|-2.3|
90930698|NCT02434328|181740805|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|4.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 40||4.6|-1.7|
90930699|NCT02434328|181740805|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|3.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 44||3.4|-2.7|
90967043|NCT01360554|181816591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Repeated measures mixed-effects model.|-4.5499|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.719|-1.381|||||This analysis represents the mean difference between the dacomitinib arm (Arm A) and the erlotinib arm (Arm B).|Analysis presented for QLQ-C30 Dysponea. Mean difference was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects). Confidence intervals provided were not adjusted for multiplicity.||-1.381|-7.719|
90967044|NCT01360554|181816591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Repeated measures mixed-effects model.|-1.6584|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.442|1.125|||||This analysis represents the mean difference between the dacomitinib arm (Arm A) and the erlotinib arm (Arm B).|Analysis presented for QLQ-C30 Fatigue. Mean difference was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects). Confidence intervals provided were not adjusted for multiplicity.||1.125|-4.442|
90967045|NCT01360554|181816591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Repeated measures mixed-effects model.|-0.1469||||||95.0|-3.056|2.762|||||This analysis represents the mean difference between the dacomitinib arm (Arm A) and the erlotinib arm (Arm B).|Analysis presented for QLQ-C30 Financial Difficulties. Mean difference was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects). Confidence intervals provided were not adjusted for multiplicity.||2.762|-3.056|
90967046|NCT01360554|181816591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Repeated measures mixed-effects model.|-4.8711|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.998|-1.745|||||This analysis represents the mean difference between the dacomitinib arm (Arm A) and the erlotinib arm (Arm B).|Analysis presented for QLQ-C30 Insomnia. Mean difference was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects). Confidence intervals provided were not adjusted for multiplicity.||-1.745|-7.998|
90967047|NCT01360554|181816591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Repeated measures mixed-effects model.|-0.4924|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.485|1.5|||||This analysis represents the mean difference between the dacomitinib arm (Arm A) and the erlotinib arm (Arm B).|Analysis presented for QLQ-C30 Nausea and Vomiting. Mean difference was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects). Confidence intervals provided were not adjusted for multiplicity.||1.500|-2.485|
90967048|NCT01360554|181816591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Repeated measures mixed-effects model.|0.3096|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.646|3.265|||||This analysis represents the mean difference between the dacomitinib arm (Arm A) and the erlotinib arm (Arm B).|Analysis presented for QLQ-C30 Pain. Mean difference was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects). Confidence intervals provided were not adjusted for multiplicity.||3.265|-2.646|
90967049|NCT01360554|181816592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Repeated measures mixed-effects model.|2.6381||||||95.0|0.172|5.104|||||This analysis represents the mean difference between the dacomitinib arm (Arm A) and the erlotinib arm (Arm B).|Analysis presented for Trouble Swallowing as Assessed by the EORTC-QLQ-LC13. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-LC13 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects). Confidence intervals provided were not adjusted for multiplicity.||5.104|0.172|
90967050|NCT01360554|181816592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Repeated measures mixed-effects model.|-4.2504||||||95.0|-7.178|-1.322|||||This analysis represents the mean difference between the dacomitinib arm (Arm A) and the erlotinib arm (Arm B).|Analysis presented for Coughing as Assessed by the EORTC-QLQ-LC13. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-LC13 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects). Confidence intervals provided were not adjusted for multiplicity.||-1.322|-7.178|
90967051|NCT01360554|181816592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Repeated measures mixed-effects model|-1.0764||||||95.0|-3.997|1.845|||||This analysis represents the mean difference between the dacomitinib arm (Arm A) and the erlotinib arm (Arm B).|Analysis presented for Haemoptysis as Assessed by the EORTC-QLQ-LC13. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-LC13 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects). Confidence intervals provided were not adjusted for multiplicity.||1.845|-3.997|
90967052|NCT01360554|181816592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Repeated measures mixed-effects model.|9.3545||||||95.0|6.211|12.497|||||This analysis represents the mean difference between the dacomitinib arm (Arm A) and the erlotinib arm (Arm B).|Analysis presented for Sore Mouth as Assessed by the EORTC-QLQ-LC13. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-LC13 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects). Confidence intervals provided were not adjusted for multiplicity.||12.497|6.211|
90967053|NCT01360554|181816592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Repeated measures mixed-effects model.|-1.1762||||||95.0|-3.56|1.208|||||This analysis represents the mean difference between the dacomitinib arm (Arm A) and the erlotinib arm (Arm B).|Analysis presented for Shortness of Breath as Assessed by the EORTC-QLQ-LC13. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-LC13 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects). Confidence intervals provided were not adjusted for multiplicity.||1.208|-3.560|
90967054|NCT01360554|181816592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Repeated measures mixed-effects model.|-0.6378||||||95.0|-3.684|2.408|||||This analysis represents the mean difference between the dacomitinib arm (Arm A) and the erlotinib arm (Arm B).|Analysis presented for Peripheral Neuropathy as Assessed by the EORTC-QLQ-LC13. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-LC13 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects). Confidence intervals provided were not adjusted for multiplicity.||2.408|-3.684|
90930700|NCT02434328|181740805|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|2.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 48||2.2|-3.9|
90930701|NCT02434328|181740805|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|2.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 52||2.3|-4.3|
90930702|NCT02434328|181740805|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|3.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 56||3.9|-2.8|
90930703|NCT02434328|181740805|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|4.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 60||4.2|-2.5|
90930704|NCT02434328|181740805|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|4.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 64||4.5|-2.7|
90930705|NCT02434328|181740805|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|2.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 68||2.6|-4.2|
90930706|NCT02434328|181740805|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|4.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 72||4.5|-2.5|
90930707|NCT02434328|181740805|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|4.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 76||4.4|-2.5|
90930708|NCT02434328|181740805|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|4.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 80||4.6|-2.4|
90930709|NCT02434328|181740805|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|4.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 84||4.1|-3.1|
90930710|NCT02434328|181740805|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|3.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 88||3.6|-3.5|
90930711|NCT02434328|181740805|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|3.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 92||3.3|-3.8|
90930712|NCT02434328|181740805|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|3.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 96||3.3|-3.8|
90930713|NCT02434328|181740806|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|1.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 4||1.6|-2.6|
90930714|NCT02434328|181740806|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|2.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 8||2.1|-2.2|
90930715|NCT02434328|181740806|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|2.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 12||2.2|-2.8|
90930716|NCT02434328|181740806|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|1.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 16||1.7|-4.4|
90967055|NCT01360554|181816592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Repeated measures mixed-effects model.|-1.3637||||||95.0|-4.546|1.819|||||This analysis represents the mean difference between the dacomitinib arm (Arm A) and the erlotinib arm (Arm B).|Analysis presented for Alopecia as Assessed by the EORTC-QLQ-LC13. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-LC13 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects). Confidence intervals provided were not adjusted for multiplicity.||1.819|-4.546|
90967056|NCT01360554|181816592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Repeated measures mixed-effects model.|-1.2163||||||95.0|-3.885|1.452|||||This analysis represents the mean difference between the dacomitinib arm (Arm A) and the erlotinib arm (Arm B).|Analysis presented for Pain in Chest as Assessed by the EORTC-QLQ-LC13. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-LC13 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects). Confidence intervals provided were not adjusted for multiplicity.||1.452|-3.885|
90967057|NCT01360554|181816592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Repeated measures mixed-effects model.|-1.1475||||||95.0|-3.902|1.607|||||This analysis represents the mean difference between the dacomitinib arm (Arm A) and the erlotinib arm (Arm B).|Analysis presented for Pain in Arm or Shoulder as Assessed by the EORTC-QLQ-LC13. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-LC13 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects). Confidence intervals provided were not adjusted for multiplicity.||1.607|-3.902|
90967058|NCT01360554|181816592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Repeated measures mixed-effects model.|-1.0687||||||95.0|-4.488|2.351|||||This analysis represents the mean difference between the dacomitinib arm (Arm A) and the erlotinib arm (Arm B).|Analysis presented for Pain Other Parts as Assessed by the EORTC-QLQ-LC13. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-LC13 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects). Confidence intervals provided were not adjusted for multiplicity.||2.351|-4.488|
90967059|NCT01360554|181816592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Repeated measures mixed-effects model.|0.0322||||||95.0|-4.847|4.911|||||This analysis represents the mean difference between the dacomitinib arm (Arm A) and the erlotinib arm (Arm B).|Analysis presented for Any Med for Pain as Assessed by the EORTC-QLQ-LC13. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-LC13 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects). Confidence intervals provided were not adjusted for multiplicity.||4.911|-4.847|
90967060|NCT01360554|181816593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Repeated measures mixed-effects model.|-0.3886||||||95.0|-2.413|1.636|||||This analysis represents the mean difference between the dacomitinib arm (Arm A) and the erlotinib arm (Arm B).|Analysis presented for EQ-5D VAS. Mean difference was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects). Confidence intervals provided were not adjusted for multiplicity.||1.636|-2.413|
90967061|NCT00674583|181816594|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for non-inferiority evaluation: The lower limit (LL) of the two-sided standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the group difference (Nimenrix Group minus Menjugate Group) in the percentages of subjects with vaccine response to rSBA-MenC is greater than or equal to (≥) the pre-defined clinical limit of -10%.|Difference in percentage|-0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.25|5.75||||||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the Nimenrix group compared to the Menjugate group, two-sided standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for the groups difference \[Nimenrix group minus Menjugate group\] in the percentages of subjects with bactericidal vaccine response to MenC was computed.||5.75|-5.25|
90967062|NCT00111800|181816604|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.28||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.01|||ANCOVA||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of placebo and DEN 2.5 mg.|A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||0.01|-0.58|0.061
90967063|NCT00111800|181816604|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.24|||ANCOVA||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of placebo and DEN 7.5 mg.|A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||-0.24|-0.82|<0.001
90967064|NCT00111800|181816604|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.45||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.16|||ANCOVA||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of placebo and DEN 15 mg.|A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||-0.16|-0.74|0.002
90967065|NCT00111800|181816604|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|-0.5|||ANCOVA||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of placebo and DEN 30 mg.|A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||-0.50|-1.09|<0.001
91035445|NCT00859430|181956888|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Ratio of Geometric Means|98.6||||||90.0|96.2|101.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||101|96.2|
91035446|NCT00859430|181956889|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Ratio of Geometric Means|98.4||||||90.0|95.9|101.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||101|95.9|
90967066|NCT00111800|181816604|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|-0.55|||ANCOVA||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of placebo and DEN 45 mg.|A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||-0.55|-1.13|<0.001
90967067|NCT00111800|181816606|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|0.37|||ANCOVA||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of placebo and DEN 2.5 mg.|A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||0.37|-1.18|0.306
90967068|NCT00111800|181816606|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|-0.04|||ANCOVA||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of placebo and DEN 7.5 mg.|A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||-0.04|-1.56|0.039
90967069|NCT00111800|181816606|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.58||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|0.17|||ANCOVA||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of placebo and DEN 15 mg.|A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||0.17|-1.34|0.130
90967070|NCT00111800|181816606|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|-0.69|||ANCOVA||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of placebo and DEN 30 mg.|A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||-0.69|-2.23|<0.001
90967071|NCT00111800|181816606|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.22||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|-0.46|||ANCOVA||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of placebo and DEN 45 mg.|A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||-0.46|-1.99|0.002
90967072|NCT00111800|181816608|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|3.95|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo versus DEN 2.5 mg for HbA1c \<=6.5%. A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||3.95|0.21|0.909
90967073|NCT00111800|181816608|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|4.92|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo versus DEN 7.5 mg for HbA1c \<=6.5%. A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||4.92|0.27|0.852
90967074|NCT00111800|181816608|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|4.83|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo versus DEN 15 mg for HbA1c \<=6.5%. A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||4.83|0.30|0.795
90967075|NCT00111800|181816608|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.68||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|9.77|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo versus DEN 30 mg for HbA1c \<=6.5%. A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||9.77|0.74|0.135
90967076|NCT00111800|181816608|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.24||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|12.37|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo versus DEN 45 mg for HbA1c \<=6.5%. A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||12.37|0.85|0.085
91035447|NCT00834795|181956894|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|95.16||||||90.0|85.69|105.67|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||105.67|85.69|
90967077|NCT00111800|181816608|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|3.36|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo versus DEN 2.5 mg for HbA1c \<7%. A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||3.36|0.36|0.866
90967078|NCT00111800|181816608|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.99||||0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|5.76|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo versus DEN 7.5 mg for HbA1c \<7%. A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||5.76|0.69|0.202
90967079|NCT00111800|181816608|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|3.13|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo versus DEN 15 mg for HbA1c \<7%. A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||3.13|0.35|0.941
90967080|NCT00111800|181816608|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.15||||0.152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|6.13|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo versus DEN 30 mg for HbA1c \<7%. A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||6.13|0.76|0.152
91035448|NCT00834795|181956895|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|96.27||||||90.0|90.34|102.59|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||102.59|90.34|
90930717|NCT02434328|181740806|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|4.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 20||4.9|-1.7|
90930718|NCT02434328|181740806|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|2.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 24||2.8|-3.9|
90930719|NCT02434328|181740806|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|3.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 28||3.8|-3.2|
90930720|NCT02434328|181740806|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|3.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 32||3.5|-3.8|
90930721|NCT02434328|181740806|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|4.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 36||4.2|-3.0|
90930722|NCT02434328|181740806|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|5.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 40||5.1|-2.4|
90930723|NCT02434328|181740806|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|6.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 44||6.5|-1.1|
90930724|NCT02434328|181740806|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|3.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 48||3.3|-4.0|
90930725|NCT02434328|181740806|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|4.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 52||4.7|-2.8|
90930726|NCT02434328|181740806|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|5.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 56||5.5|-2.8|
90930727|NCT02434328|181740806|OTHER||Difference of proportions|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|4.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 60||4.7|-2.6|
90930728|NCT02434328|181740806|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|4.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 64||4.3|-4.0|
90930729|NCT02434328|181740806|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|3.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 68||3.6|-4.2|
90930730|NCT02434328|181740806|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|3.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 72||3.7|-4.0|
90930731|NCT02434328|181740806|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|4.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 76||4.7|-3.5|
90930732|NCT02434328|181740806|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|3.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 80||3.4|-4.5|
91035449|NCT00834795|181956896|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|96.36||||||90.0|90.2|102.93|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||102.93|90.20|
91035450|NCT00238615|181956906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||probability of survival at 2 years|0.72|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.9||The primary endpoint of 2 year overall survival was (0.72) = 72%||||2-year overall survival (OS) Our null hypothesis was a probability of survival at 2 years of 0.30. The study was powered at 80% (with α 5% two-tailed) to detect a probability of survival at 2 years of 0.55. This would require 30 patients assuming accrual over 2 years with 1 year of additional follow-up. The probability of survival at 2 years of 0.55 is based on previous studies of neoadjuvant approaches with reported 2 year survival in the 40-60% range.||0.90|0.36|
90930733|NCT02434328|181740806|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|4.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 84||4.5|-3.6|
90930734|NCT02434328|181740806|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|3.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 88||3.6|-4.5|
90930735|NCT02434328|181740806|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|2.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 92||2.6|-5.7|
90930736|NCT02434328|181740806|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|3.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 96||3.2|-4.9|
90930737|NCT02434328|181740807|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|3.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 4||3.5|-3.5|
90930738|NCT02434328|181740807|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|3.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 8||3.4|-4.4|
90930739|NCT02434328|181740807|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|3.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 12||3.1|-5.0|
90930740|NCT02434328|181740807|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|6.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 16||6.2|-1.9|
90930741|NCT02434328|181740807|OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|7.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 20||7.8|-0.4|
90930742|NCT02434328|181740807|OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|7.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Number of subjects with \>=5 letter loss from baseline in BCVA (letters read) at each post-baseline visit - Week 24||7.8|-1.3|
90930743|NCT02434328|181740807|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|7.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 28||7.3|-1.7|
90930744|NCT02434328|181740807|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|5.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 32||5.9|-3.2|
90930745|NCT02434328|181740807|OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|8.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 36||8.3|-0.7|
90930746|NCT02434328|181740807|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|5.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 40||5.6|-3.8|
90930747|NCT02434328|181740807|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|7.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 44||7.0|-1.4|
90930748|NCT02434328|181740807|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|3.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 48||3.7|-5.1|
90930749|NCT02434328|181740807|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|6.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 52||6.7|-2.5|
90930750|NCT02434328|181740807|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|6.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 56||6.4|-2.8|
90930751|NCT02434328|181740807|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|5.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 60||5.8|-3.6|
90930752|NCT02434328|181740807|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|5.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 64||5.4|-4.0|
90930753|NCT02434328|181740807|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|6.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 68||6.4|-2.8|
90930754|NCT02434328|181740807|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|5.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 72||5.7|-4.3|
90930755|NCT02434328|181740807|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|5.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 76||5.8|-4.4|
90930756|NCT02434328|181740807|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|3.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 80||3.6|-6.0|
90930757|NCT02434328|181740807|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|4.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 84||4.5|-5.2|
90967081|NCT00111800|181816608|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.24||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|9.52|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo versus DEN 45 mg for HbA1c \<7%. A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||9.52|1.11|0.032
90967082|NCT00111800|181816608|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.46||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|1.5|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo versus DEN 2.5 mg for HbA1c reduction \>=0.7%. A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||1.50|0.14|0.198
90930758|NCT02434328|181740807|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|3.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 88||3.6|-5.7|
90930759|NCT02434328|181740807|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|3.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 92||3.4|-6.5|
90930760|NCT02434328|181740807|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|4.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 96||4.8|-5.1|
90967083|NCT00111800|181816608|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|3.85|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo versus DEN 7.5 mg for HbA1c reduction \>=0.7%. A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||3.85|0.53|0.481
90930761|NCT02434328|181740808|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|1.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 4||1.6|-9.2|
90967084|NCT00111800|181816608|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|2.78|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo versus DEN 15 mg for HbA1c reduction \>=0.7%. A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||2.78|0.36|0.991
90930762|NCT02434328|181740808|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|3.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 8||3.7|-8.1|
90930763|NCT02434328|181740808|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|3.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 12||3.5|-8.4|
90930764|NCT02434328|181740808|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|6.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 16||6.7|-5.4|
90930765|NCT02434328|181740808|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|4.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 20||4.0|-8.2|
90930766|NCT02434328|181740808|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|3.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 24||3.3|-9.0|
90930767|NCT02434328|181740808|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|2.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 28||2.5|-9.3|
90930768|NCT02434328|181740808|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|2.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 32||2.8|-9.6|
90930769|NCT02434328|181740808|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|2.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 36||2.2|-9.6|
90930770|NCT02434328|181740808|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|4.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 40||4.2|-7.6|
90930771|NCT02434328|181740808|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|5.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 44||5.0|-7.5|
90930772|NCT02434328|181740808|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|6.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 48||6.1|-5.4|
90930773|NCT02434328|181740808|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|4.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 52||4.5|-7.7|
90930774|NCT02434328|181740808|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|4.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 56||4.0|-7.7|
90930775|NCT02434328|181740808|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|1.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 60||1.4|-10.8|
90930776|NCT02434328|181740808|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|3.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 64||3.2|-8.9|
90930777|NCT02434328|181740808|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|2.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 68||2.9|-9.5|
90930778|NCT02434328|181740808|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|4.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 72||4.5|-7.9|
90930779|NCT02434328|181740808|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|4.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 76||4.1|-8.1|
90930780|NCT02434328|181740808|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|6.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 80||6.6|-5.6|
90930781|NCT02434328|181740808|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|3.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 84||3.8|-8.3|
90930782|NCT02434328|181740808|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|4.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 88||4.5|-7.4|
90930783|NCT02434328|181740808|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|5.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 92||5.8|-6.5|
91035451|NCT03697109|181956914|EQUIVALENCE|Log odds is equal to 0 (null hypothesis) vs log odds not equal to 0 (alternative hypothesis).|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.17||||0.0215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.77|||Chi-squared||An odds ratio (OR) \<1 represents lower odds of loss of response under treatment with relacorilant compared with treatment with placebo.|A logistic regression model with logit link function was used in order to detect if there was a significant difference in total number of patients with a loss of response with respect to HTN under treatment with relacorilant compared with treatment with placebo in the RW Phase.||0.77|0.04|0.0215
90930784|NCT02434328|181740808|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|4.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 96||4.1|-8.1|
90930785|NCT02434328|181740809|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-17.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.57|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.6|-2.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 4||-2.9|-32.6|
90930786|NCT02434328|181740809|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-29.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.18|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.6|-13.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 8||-13.4|-45.6|
90930787|NCT02434328|181740809|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-30.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.45|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.9|-13.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 12||-13.7|-46.9|
90930788|NCT02434328|181740809|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-40.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.51|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.9|-21.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 16||-21.6|-58.9|
90930789|NCT02434328|181740809|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.9|15.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 20||15.0|-20.9|
90930790|NCT02434328|181740809|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-47.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.42|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.3|-29.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 24||-29.3|-66.3|
90930791|NCT02434328|181740809|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-23.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.34|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.0|-5.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 28||-5.4|-42.0|
90930792|NCT02434328|181740809|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-33.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.54|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.4|-15.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 32||-15.0|-52.4|
91035452|NCT02301975|181956940|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was defined if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference between mean change from Baseline in clinic visit PM FEV1 for FF/VI and FP/S was more than -100 milliliter (mL)|Least square mean change difference|0.019|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.011|0.049||||||||0.049|-0.011|
90967085|NCT00111800|181816608|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.65||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|9.48|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo versus DEN 30 mg for HbA1c reduction \>=0.7%. A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||9.48|1.41|0.008
90967086|NCT00111800|181816608|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|5.24|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo versus DEN 45 mg for HbA1c reduction \>=0.7%. A closed test procedure was used,P an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||5.24|0.76|0.161
90967087|NCT00111800|181816609|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|6.3|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo versus DEN 2.5 mg for FPG \<7mmol/L. A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||6.30|0.50|0.380
90967088|NCT00111800|181816609|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.57||||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|9.11|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo versus DEN 7.5 mg for FPG \<7mmol/L. A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||9.11|0.72|0.145
90967089|NCT00111800|181816609|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|4.62|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo versus DEN 15 mg for FPG \<7mmol/L. A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||4.62|0.26|0.906
90967090|NCT00111800|181816609|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|5.91|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo versus DEN 30 mg for FPG \<7mmol/L. A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||5.91|0.41|0.509
90967091|NCT00111800|181816609|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.14||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|11.14|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo versus DEN 45 mg for FPG \<7mmol/L. A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||11.14|0.89|0.077
90967092|NCT00111800|181816609|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|5.72|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo versus DEN 2.5 mg for FPG reduction \>=1.7 mmol/L. A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||5.72|0.63|0.254
90967093|NCT00111800|181816609|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.59||||0.396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|4.62|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo versus DEN 7.5 mg for FPG reduction \>=1.7 mmol/L. A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||4.62|0.55|0.396
90967094|NCT00111800|181816609|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|4.0|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo versus DEN 15 mg for FPG reduction \>=1.7 mmol/L. A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||4.00|0.45|0.590
90967095|NCT00111800|181816609|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.24||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|9.13|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo versus DEN 30 mg for FPG reduction \>=1.7 mmol/L. A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||9.13|1.15|0.026
90967096|NCT00111800|181816609|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.0||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|8.3|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo versus DEN 45 mg for FPG reduction \>=1.7 mmol/L. A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||8.30|1.08|0.034
90967097|NCT00111800|181816610|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.9||||0.057||95.0|-30.2|0.5|||ANCOVA||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of placebo and DEN 2.5 mg.|A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||0.5|-30.2|0.057
90967098|NCT00111800|181816610|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-22.4||||0.003||95.0|-37.1|-7.6|||ANCOVA||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of placebo and DEN 7.5 mg.|A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||-7.6|-37.1|0.003
90967099|NCT00111800|181816610|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-29.2|||<|0.001||95.0|-43.9|-14.5|||ANCOVA||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of placebo and DEN 15 mg.|A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||-14.5|-43.9|<0.001
90967100|NCT00111800|181816610|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-39.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.6|-24.6|||ANCOVA||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of placebo and DEN 30 mg.|A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||-24.6|-54.6|<0.001
90967101|NCT00111800|181816610|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-38.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.8|-23.9|||ANCOVA||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of placebo and DEN 45 mg.|A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||-23.9|-53.8|<0.001
90967102|NCT00111800|181816612|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.51||||0.489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.66|15.65|||ANCOVA||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of placebo and DEN 2.5 mg for fasting serum insulin.|Placebo versus DEN 2.5 mg for fasting serum insulin. A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||15.65|-32.66|0.489
90967103|NCT00111800|181816612|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|14.18||||0.237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.37|37.72|||ANCOVA||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of placebo and DEN 7.5 mg for fasting serum insulin.|Placebo versus DEN 7.5 mg for fasting serum insulin. A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||37.72|-9.37|0.237
90967104|NCT00111800|181816612|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|7.31||||0.534||95.0|-15.79|30.42|||ANCOVA||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of placebo and DEN 15 mg for fasting serum insulin.|Placebo versus DEN 15 mg for fasting serum insulin. A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||30.42|-15.79|0.534
90967105|NCT00111800|181816612|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.27||||0.665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.64|29.17|||ANCOVA||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of placebo and DEN 30 mg for fasting serum insulin.|Placebo versus DEN 30 mg for fasting serum insulin. A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||29.17|-18.64|0.665
90967106|NCT00111800|181816612|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|12.74||||0.295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.18|36.65|||ANCOVA||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of placebo and DEN 45 mg for fasting serum insulin.|Placebo versus DEN 45 mg for fasting serum insulin. A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||36.65|-11.18|0.295
90967107|NCT00111800|181816612|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.31||||0.327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.32|9.94|||ANCOVA||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of placebo and DEN 2.5 mg for pro-insulin.|Placebo versus DEN 2.5 mg for pro-insulin. A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||9.94|-3.32|0.327
90967108|NCT00111800|181816612|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.06||||0.345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.31|9.44|||ANCOVA||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of placebo and DEN 7.5 mg for pro-insulin.|Placebo versus DEN 7.5 mg for pro-insulin. A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||9.44|-3.31|0.345
90967109|NCT00111800|181816612|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.35||||0.914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|6.0|||ANCOVA||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of placebo and DEN 15 mg for pro-insulin.|Placebo versus DEN 15 mg for pro-insulin. A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||6.00|-6.70|0.914
90967110|NCT00111800|181816612|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.21||||0.504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.71|4.29|||ANCOVA||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of placebo and DEN 30 mg for pro-insulin.|Placebo versus DEN 30 mg for pro-insulin. A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||4.29|-8.71|0.504
90967111|NCT00111800|181816612|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.75||||0.403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.71|9.22|||ANCOVA||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of placebo and DEN 45 mg for pro-insulin.|Placebo versus DEN 45 mg for pro-insulin. A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||9.22|-3.71|0.403
90967112|NCT00111800|181816615|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03||||0.286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.08|||ANCOVA||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of placebo and DEN 2.5 mg.|A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||0.08|-0.02|0.286
91035453|NCT02301975|181956940|OTHER||Least square mean change difference|0.123|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.093|0.153|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.153|0.093|<0.001
90930793|NCT02434328|181740809|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-30.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.94|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.0|-12.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 36||-12.9|-48.0|
90930794|NCT02434328|181740809|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-44.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.57|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.5|-25.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 40||-25.9|-63.5|
90930795|NCT02434328|181740809|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-19.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.24|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.3|-1.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 44||-1.1|-37.3|
90930796|NCT02434328|181740809|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-49.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.68|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.9|-30.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 48||-30.9|-68.9|
90930797|NCT02434328|181740809|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-28.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.01|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.8|-10.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 52||-10.4|-45.8|
90930798|NCT02434328|181740809|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-43.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.86|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.4|-23.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 56||-23.7|-62.4|
90930799|NCT02434328|181740809|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-31.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.34|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.5|-12.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 60||-12.8|-49.5|
90930800|NCT02434328|181740809|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-45.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.9|-26.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 64||-26.8|-64.9|
90930801|NCT02434328|181740809|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-23.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.31|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.0|-5.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 68||-5.4|-42.0|
90930802|NCT02434328|181740809|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-47.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.69|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.4|-28.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 72||-28.3|-66.4|
90930803|NCT02434328|181740809|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-28.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.43|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.5|-9.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 76||-9.5|-46.5|
90930804|NCT02434328|181740809|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-40.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.94|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.4|-21.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 80||-21.4|-60.4|
90930805|NCT02434328|181740809|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-31.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.48|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.6|-12.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 84||-12.4|-49.6|
90930806|NCT02434328|181740809|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-42.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.84|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.9|-23.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 88||-23.3|-61.9|
90930807|NCT02434328|181740809|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-29.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.56|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.9|-10.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 92||-10.3|-47.9|
90930808|NCT02434328|181740809|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-42.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.87|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.0|-23.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 96||-23.3|-62.0|
90930809|NCT02434328|181740810|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-36.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.0|-18.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|||-18.1|-54.0|
90930810|NCT02434328|181740811|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-36.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.56|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.1|-17.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|||-17.6|-55.1|
90930811|NCT02434328|181740812|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-30.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.53|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.6|-14.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 4 to Week 48||-14.1|-47.6|
91035454|NCT02301975|181956940|OTHER||Least square mean change difference|0.104|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.074|0.134|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.134|0.074|<0.001
90930812|NCT02434328|181740812|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-33.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.84|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.8|-16.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 4 to Week 96||-16.1|-50.8|
90930813|NCT02434328|181740813|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline lesion size categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 12||0.7|0.0|
90930814|NCT02434328|181740813|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline lesion size categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 48||0.6|-0.1|
90930815|NCT02434328|181740813|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline lesion size categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 96||0.6|0.0|
90930816|NCT02434328|181740814|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|7.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-neurosensory retina categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 4||7.3|-11.6|
90930817|NCT02434328|181740814|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|6.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-neurosensory retina categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 8||6.0|-13.6|
90930818|NCT02434328|181740814|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|5.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-neurosensory retina categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 12||5.3|-14.3|
90930819|NCT02434328|181740814|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|6.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-neurosensory retina categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 16||6.4|-13.7|
90930820|NCT02434328|181740814|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|14.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-neurosensory retina categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 20||14.6|-5.5|
90930821|NCT02434328|181740814|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.35|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|4.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-neurosensory retina categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 24||4.7|-16.3|
90930822|NCT02434328|181740814|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|7.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-neurosensory retina categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 28||7.0|-13.1|
90930823|NCT02434328|181740814|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.37|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|8.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-neurosensory retina categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 32||8.5|-12.6|
90930824|NCT02434328|181740814|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.15|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|5.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-neurosensory retina categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 36||5.1|-15.2|
90930825|NCT02434328|181740814|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|3.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-neurosensory retina categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 40||3.8|-17.0|
90930826|NCT02434328|181740814|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.42|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|7.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-neurosensory retina categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 44||7.9|-13.4|
90930827|NCT02434328|181740814|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6|3.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-neurosensory retina categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 48||3.7|-17.6|
91035455|NCT02301975|181956941|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was defined if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference between mean change from Baseline in clinic visit for FF/VI and FP/S was more than -100 mL|Least square mean change difference|0.006|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.027|0.04||||||||0.040|-0.027|
91035456|NCT02301975|181956941|OTHER||Least square mean change difference|0.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.086|0.153|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.153|0.086|<0.001
91035457|NCT02301975|181956941|OTHER||Least square mean change difference|0.113|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.147|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.147|0.080|<0.001
91035458|NCT02301975|181956942|OTHER||Least square mean change difference|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|3.0||||||||3.0|-0.5|
90967113|NCT00111800|181816615|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.03|||ANCOVA||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of placebo and DEN 7.5 mg.|A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||0.03|-0.07|0.457
90967114|NCT00111800|181816615|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04||||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.01|||ANCOVA||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of placebo and DEN 15 mg.|A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||0.01|-0.09|0.136
90967115|NCT00111800|181816615|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|-0.01|||ANCOVA||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of placebo and DEN 30 mg.|A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||-0.01|-0.11|0.021
90967116|NCT00111800|181816615|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.01|||ANCOVA||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of placebo and DEN 45 mg.|A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||0.01|-0.09|0.094
90967117|NCT02752035|181816643|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.329|||Log Rank||Based on Cox proportional hazards model.|Stratification factors were age group per IRT, risk groups and baseline FLT3 mutation status, with potential of strata pooling.||1.329|0.570|0.523
90967118|NCT02752035|181816644|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.635|1.393|||Log Rank||Based on Cox proportional hazards model.|Stratification factors were age group per IRT, risk groups and baseline FLT3 mutation status, with potential of strata pooling.||1.393|0.635|0.787
90967119|NCT02752035|181816646|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|8.2||||0.249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|23.0||Based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test. Stratification factor was age group per interactive response technology.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||23.0|-6.5|0.249
90967120|NCT02752035|181816647|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|33.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.6|50.0||Based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test. Stratification factor was age group per interactive response technology.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||50.0|16.6|<0.001
90967121|NCT02752035|181816648|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|8.5||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|17.1||Based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test. Stratification factor was age group per interactive response technology.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||17.1|-0.1|0.049
90967122|NCT02752035|181816649|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|16.7||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|32.4||Based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test. Stratification factor was age group per interactive response technology.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||32.4|1.1|0.032
90967123|NCT02752035|181816650|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-9.0||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.8|11.0||Based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test. Stratification factor was age group per interactive response technology.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||11.0|-29.8|0.340
90967124|NCT02752035|181816651|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|50.0||||0.221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.0|100.0||Based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test. Stratification factor was age group per interactive response technology.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||100.0|-61.0|0.221
90967125|NCT02752035|181816652|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.844||||0.592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.451|1.58|||Log Rank||Based on Cox proportional hazards model adjusting age group per IRT.|||1.580|0.451|0.592
90967126|NCT02752035|181816653|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.573||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.198|1.658|||Log Rank||Based on Cox proportional hazards model adjusting age group per IRT.|Analysis reported for duration of CR/CRh.||1.658|0.198|0.300
90967127|NCT02752035|181816653|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.411||||0.171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.113|1.504|||Log Rank||Based on Cox proportional hazards model adjusting age group per IRT.|Analysis reported for duration of CR.||1.504|0.113|0.171
90967128|NCT02752035|181816653|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.691||||0.383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.295|1.62|||Log Rank||Based on Cox proportional hazards model adjusting age group per IRT.|Analysis reported for duration of CRc||1.620|0.295|0.383
90967129|NCT02752035|181816653|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|999.0||||0.998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001||Upper limit of 95% confidence interval was not estimable due to insufficient number of participants.||Log Rank||Based on Cox proportional hazards model adjusting age group per IRT.|Analysis reported for duration of CRh.|||0.001|0.998
90967130|NCT02752035|181816653|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.628||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.321|1.229|||Log Rank||Based on Cox proportional hazards model adjusting age group per IRT.|Analysis reported for duration of response.||1.229|0.321|0.174
91035459|NCT02301975|181956942|OTHER||Least square mean change difference|2.7||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|4.4|||ANCOVA|||||4.4|0.9|0.002
90967131|NCT02752035|181816654|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.5||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.0|||ANCOVA|Using analysis of covariance including treatment, age group per IRT and baseline score as covariate.|Least square mean difference and P-value were calculated using AZA as reference.|||2.0|-1.1|0.560
90930828|NCT02434328|181740814|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.19|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|7.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-neurosensory retina categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 52||7.5|-12.9|
90930829|NCT02434328|181740814|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.31|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|5.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-neurosensory retina categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 56||5.4|-15.4|
90930830|NCT02434328|181740814|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.15|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|5.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-neurosensory retina categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 60||5.9|-14.3|
90930831|NCT02434328|181740814|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.24|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.2|6.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-neurosensory retina categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 64||6.4|-14.2|
90930832|NCT02434328|181740814|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.17|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|9.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-neurosensory retina categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 68||9.6|-10.7|
90930833|NCT02434328|181740814|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.24|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|5.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-neurosensory retina categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 72||5.7|-14.8|
90930834|NCT02434328|181740814|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.23|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|7.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-neurosensory retina categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 76||7.4|-13.1|
90930835|NCT02434328|181740814|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.33|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|6.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-neurosensory retina categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 80||6.8|-14.1|
90930836|NCT02434328|181740814|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|7.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-neurosensory retina categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 84||7.3|-13.5|
90930837|NCT02434328|181740814|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.39|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|6.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-neurosensory retina categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 88||6.5|-14.6|
90930838|NCT02434328|181740814|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|8.0|||ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-neurosensory retina categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 92||8.0|-12.6|
90930839|NCT02434328|181740814|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.42|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|7.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-neurosensory retina categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 96||7.7|-13.6|
90930840|NCT02434328|181740815|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-6.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|-0.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 4||-0.3|-13.2|
90930841|NCT02434328|181740815|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-8.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|-3.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 8||-3.0|-13.8|
90930842|NCT02434328|181740815|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-6.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|-1.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 12||-1.7|-12.2|
90967132|NCT01263483|181816661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.002|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.166|-0.838||||||||-0.838|-1.166|
90967133|NCT01263483|181816661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.947|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.097|-0.796||||||||-0.796|-1.097|
90967134|NCT01263483|181816662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.176|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.229|-0.123||||||||-0.123|-0.229|
90930843|NCT02434328|181740815|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-14.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.8|-8.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 16||-8.3|-20.8|
90930844|NCT02434328|181740815|OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|9.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 20||9.6|-2.9|
90930845|NCT02434328|181740815|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-19.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.5|-13.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 24||-13.0|-25.5|
90930846|NCT02434328|181740815|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|-0.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 28||-0.4|-11.6|
90930847|NCT02434328|181740815|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-9.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|-3.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 32||-3.5|-16.5|
90930848|NCT02434328|181740815|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|-2.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 36||-2.5|-13.6|
90930849|NCT02434328|181740815|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-15.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.5|-9.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 40||-9.4|-21.5|
90930850|NCT02434328|181740815|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|8.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 44||8.4|-3.2|
90930851|NCT02434328|181740815|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-15.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.4|-10.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 48||-10.4|-22.4|
90930852|NCT02434328|181740815|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|3.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 52||3.1|-8.5|
90930853|NCT02434328|181740815|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.7|-2.9|||Regression, Logistic|Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 56||-2.9|-15.7|
90930854|NCT02434328|181740815|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|2.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 60||2.2|-9.8|
90967135|NCT01263483|181816662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.247|-0.133||||||||-0.133|-0.247|
90930855|NCT02434328|181740815|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-15.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.3|-8.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 64||-8.4|-21.3|
90930856|NCT02434328|181740815|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|6.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 68||6.2|-6.1|
90930857|NCT02434328|181740815|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-16.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.6|-10.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 72||-10.5|-22.6|
90930858|NCT02434328|181740815|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|5.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 76||5.1|-7.0|
90967136|NCT01263483|181816663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.421|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.507|-0.334||||||||-0.334|-0.507|
90967137|NCT01263483|181816663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.414|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.504|-0.324||||||||-0.324|-0.504|
90967138|NCT01263483|181816664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.738|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.871|-0.605||||||||-0.605|-0.871|
90930859|NCT02434328|181740815|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.4|-5.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 80||-5.0|-17.4|
90930860|NCT02434328|181740815|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|0.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 84||0.7|-11.3|
90930861|NCT02434328|181740815|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9|-5.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 88||-5.9|-18.9|
90930862|NCT02434328|181740815|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|0.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 92||0.0|-11.4|
90930863|NCT02434328|181740815|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-14.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.3|-8.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 96||-8.3|-20.3|
90930864|NCT02434328|181740816|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|5.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 4||5.4|-2.5|
90930865|NCT02434328|181740816|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|1.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 8||1.7|-6.1|
90930866|NCT02434328|181740816|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|2.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 12||2.2|-5.3|
90930867|NCT02434328|181740816|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|4.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 16||4.4|-4.5|
90930868|NCT02434328|181740816|OTHER||Difference in proportions|8.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|12.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 20||12.8|3.9|
90930869|NCT02434328|181740816|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|1.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 24||1.2|-7.9|
90930870|NCT02434328|181740816|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|6.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 28||6.4|-1.0|
90930871|NCT02434328|181740816|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|4.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 32||4.0|-5.5|
90930872|NCT02434328|181740816|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|1.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 36||1.8|-5.6|
90930873|NCT02434328|181740816|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|3.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 40||3.1|-6.0|
90930874|NCT02434328|181740816|OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|8.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 44||8.0|-0.5|
90967139|NCT01263483|181816664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.749|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.875|-0.623||||||||-0.623|-0.875|
90967140|NCT01263483|181816665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.5|-5.52||||||||-5.52|-18.50|
90967141|NCT01263483|181816665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.93|-8.73||||||||-8.73|-21.93|
90930875|NCT02434328|181740816|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|2.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 48||2.2|-6.2|
90930876|NCT02434328|181740816|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|5.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 52||5.1|-2.5|
90930877|NCT02434328|181740816|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|3.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 56||3.1|-5.9|
90930878|NCT02434328|181740816|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|3.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 60||3.4|-4.4|
90930879|NCT02434328|181740816|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|2.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 64||2.1|-6.2|
90930880|NCT02434328|181740816|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|6.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 68||6.5|-1.2|
90930881|NCT02434328|181740816|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|4.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 72||4.3|-4.2|
90930882|NCT02434328|181740816|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|4.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 76||4.2|-3.5|
90930883|NCT02434328|181740816|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|4.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 80||4.3|-4.8|
90930884|NCT02434328|181740816|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|5.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 84||5.2|-3.3|
90930885|NCT02434328|181740816|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|3.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 88||3.9|-4.5|
90930886|NCT02434328|181740816|OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|8.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 92||8.0|-0.1|
90930887|NCT02434328|181740816|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|4.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 96||4.6|-4.3|
90930888|NCT02434328|181740817|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|1.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 4||1.5|-8.9|
90930889|NCT02434328|181740817|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|2.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 8||2.5|-7.6|
90930890|NCT02434328|181740817|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|3.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 12||3.7|-6.9|
90930891|NCT02434328|181740817|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-7.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|-2.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 16||-2.7|-13.0|
90967142|NCT01263483|181816666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.02|-8.27||||||||-8.27|-23.02|
90967143|NCT01263483|181816666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.68|-14.38||||||||-14.38|-29.68|
90967144|NCT01263483|181816667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.09|-10.5||||||||-10.50|-26.09|
90967145|NCT01263483|181816667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.34|-11.34||||||||-11.34|-27.34|
90967146|NCT01263483|181816668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.46|-5.6||||||||-5.60|-21.46|
90967147|NCT01263483|181816668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.53|-4.41||||||||-4.41|-21.53|
90967148|NCT01263483|181816669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.304|0.104||||||||0.104|-0.304|
90967149|NCT01263483|181816669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.036|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.239|0.167||||||||0.167|-0.239|
90967150|NCT01263483|181816670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.013|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.267|0.292||||||||0.292|-0.267|
90967151|NCT01263483|181816670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.034|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.264|0.196||||||||0.196|-0.264|
90967152|NCT01263483|181816671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.038|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.268|0.191||||||||0.191|-0.268|
90967153|NCT01263483|181816671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.073|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.261|0.115||||||||0.115|-0.261|
90967154|NCT01263483|181816672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.035|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.183|0.252||||||||0.252|-0.183|
90967155|NCT01263483|181816672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.082|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.124|0.288||||||||0.288|-0.124|
90967156|NCT01263483|181816673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-31.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.28|-21.8||||||||-21.80|-41.28|
90967157|NCT01263483|181816673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-33.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.88|-22.57||||||||-22.57|-44.88|
90967158|NCT01263483|181816674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-70.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-90.67|-50.09||||||||-50.09|-90.67|
90967159|NCT01263483|181816674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-72.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-93.1|-51.88||||||||-51.88|-93.10|
90967160|NCT01263483|181816675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.093|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.229|11.958||||||||11.958|2.229|
90967161|NCT01263483|181816675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.967|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.521|8.455||||||||8.455|-0.521|
90967162|NCT01263483|181816676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.045|1.144||||||||1.144|-0.045|
90967163|NCT01263483|181816676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.428|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.233|1.09||||||||1.090|-0.233|
90967164|NCT01263483|181816677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.65|-0.9||||||||-0.90|-36.65|
90967165|NCT01263483|181816677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.82|-2.27||||||||-2.27|-37.82|
90967166|NCT01131676|181816682|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was chosen as 1.3 based on Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Guidance for Industry - Diabetes Mellitus - Evaluating Cardiovascular Risk in New Antidiabetic Therapies to Treat Type 2 Diabetes|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.02|0.74|0.99||One-sided test with alpha = 0.0249|Cox proportional hazards model|Cox proportional hazards model with factors for treatment, age, gender, categorised BMI, HbA1c, eGFR and geographical region.|All Empagliflozin divided by Placebo|Primary objective was to establish the non-inferiority of All empagliflozin relative to placebo for time to first 3-point MACE. A 4-step hierarchical testing strategy was followed for the non-inferiority test of the primary endpoint and then the key secondary endpoint, each at a margin of 1.3, followed by test of superiority of primary and key secondary endpoints.||0.99|0.74|<0.0001
90967167|NCT01131676|181816682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.0382|TWO_SIDED|95.02|0.74|0.99||Two-sided test with alpha=0.0498|Cox proportional hazards model|Cox proportional hazards model with factors for treatment, age, gender, categorised BMI, HbA1c, eGFR and geographical region.|All Empagliflozin divided by Placebo|||0.99|0.74|0.0382
90967168|NCT01131676|181816683|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was chosen as 1.3 based on Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Guidance for Industry - Diabetes Mellitus - Evaluating Cardiovascular Risk in New Antidiabetic Therapies to Treat Type 2 Diabetes|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.02|0.78|1.01||One-sided test with alpha = 0.0249|Cox proportional hazards model|Cox proportional hazards model with factors for treatment, age, gender, categorised BMI, HbA1c, eGFR and geographical region.|All Empagliflozin divided by Placebo|A 4-step hierarchical testing strategy was followed for the non-inferiority test of the primary endpoint and then the key secondary endpoint, each at a margin of 1.3, followed by test of superiority of primary and key secondary endpoints.||1.01|0.78|<0.0001
90967169|NCT01131676|181816683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.0795|TWO_SIDED|95.02|0.78|1.01||Two-sided test with alpha=0.0498|Cox proportional hazards model|Cox proportional hazards model with factors for treatment, age, gender, categorised BMI, HbA1c, eGFR and geographical region.|All Empagliflozin divided by Placebo|A 4-step hierarchical testing strategy was followed for the non-inferiority test of the primary endpoint and then the key secondary endpoint, each at a margin of 1.3, followed by test of superiority of primary and key secondary endpoints.||1.01|0.78|0.0795
90967170|NCT01131676|181816684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.28||||0.4172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.33||Two-sided test with alpha = 0.05.|Cox proportional hazards model|Cox proportional hazards model with factors for treatment, age, gender, categorised BMI, HbA1c, eGFR and geographical region.|All Empagliflozin divided by Placebo|||2.33|0.70|0.4172
90967171|NCT01131676|181816685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.85||Two-sided test with alpha = 0.05.|Cox proportional hazards model|Cox proportional hazards model with factors for treatment, age, gender, categorised BMI, HbA1c, eGFR and geographical region.|All Empagliflozin divided by Placebo|||0.85|0.50|0.0017
91035460|NCT02301975|181956942|OTHER||Least square mean change difference|1.4||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|3.2|||ANCOVA|||||3.2|-0.3|0.106
90967172|NCT01131676|181816686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.2547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.04||Two-sided test with alpha = 0.05.|Cox proportional hazards model|Cox proportional hazards model with factors for treatment, age, gender, categorised BMI, HbA1c, eGFR and geographical region.|All Empagliflozin divided by Placebo|||1.04|0.87|0.2547
90967173|NCT01131676|181816687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.72||Two-sided test with alpha = 0.05.|Cox proportional hazards model|Cox proportional hazards model with factors for treatment, age, gender, categorised BMI, HbA1c, eGFR and geographical region.|All Empagliflozin divided by Placebo|||0.72|0.54|<0.0001
90967174|NCT01131676|181816688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.7||Two-sided test with alpha = 0.05.|Cox proportional hazards model|Cox proportional hazards model with factors for treatment, age, gender, categorised BMI, HbA1c, eGFR and geographical region.|All Empagliflozin divided by Placebo|||0.70|0.54|<0.0001
90967175|NCT02577406|181816691|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.2288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.1|||Stratified Log Rank||The hazard ratio was from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by prior intensive therapy for AML and primary refractory|||1.10|0.67|0.2288
90967176|NCT02577406|181816692|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.32|11.14||p-value from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test comparing the response rates between the AG-221 group and the combined CCR group with stratification factors of prior intensive therapy for AML and primary refractory status|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio from logistic regression|||11.14|3.32|<0.0001
90967177|NCT02577406|181816693|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.95|||Stratified Log Rank||The hazard ratio is from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by prior intensive therapy for AML and primary refractory status.|||0.95|0.55|0.0200
90967178|NCT02577406|181816699|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
90967179|NCT02577406|181816700|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
90967180|NCT02577406|181816701|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
90967181|NCT02577406|181816703|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.67|||Stratified Log Rank||The hazard ratio was from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by prior intensive therapy for AML and primary refractory status|||0.67|0.41|<0.0001
90967182|NCT01111851|181816719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio of the LS Means|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.99|1.01|||||"The point estimate and 90% confidence interval (CI) were generated for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) \[aprepitant~165 mg/fosaprepitant 150 mg\]."|||1.01|0.99|
90967183|NCT01111851|181816720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio of the LS means|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|1.02|||||"The point estimate and 90% confidence interval (CI) were generated for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) \[aprepitant~165 mg/fosaprepitant 150 mg\]."|||1.02|0.98|
90967184|NCT01111851|181816721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio of the LS means|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.03|||||"The point estimate and 90% confidence interval (CI) were generated for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) \[aprepitant~165 mg/fosaprepitant 150 mg\]."|||1.03|0.97|
90967185|NCT01111851|181816722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio of the LS means|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|1.66|||||"The point estimate and 90% confidence interval (CI) were generated for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) \[aprepitant~165 mg/fosaprepitant 150 mg\]."|||1.66|0.50|
90967186|NCT01961349|181816736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90967187|NCT01961349|181816736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90967188|NCT01961349|181816737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
90967189|NCT01961349|181816737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
90967190|NCT02790138|181816763|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|21.6||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|37.5||The significance level was 0.05.|Fisher's Exact Test|||The Placebo IV and Vedolizumab IV 300 mg groups were analyzed using Fisher's Exact Test at Week 14.||37.5|4.9|0.013
90967191|NCT02790138|181816764|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|17.6|||=|0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|35.1||No multiplicity adjustment for inferential testing for secondary endpoints was preplanned, p-values from these tests are presented as nominal p-values. The significance level was 0.05.|Chi-squared Test|||||35.1|0.3|=0.043
90967192|NCT02790138|181816765|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|25.5|||=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|41.4||No multiplicity adjustment for inferential testing for secondary endpoints was preplanned, p-values from these tests are presented as nominal p-values. The significance level was 0.05.|Fisher's Exact Test|||Week 14||41.4|8.0|=0.004
90967193|NCT02790138|181816765|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|19.6|||=|0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|37.0||No multiplicity adjustment for inferential testing for secondary endpoints was preplanned, p-values from these tests are presented as nominal p-values. The significance level was 0.05.|Chi-squared Test|||Week 34.||37.0|1.9|=0.027
90967194|NCT02790138|181816766|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|9.4|||||Hazard ratio for achieving PDAI remission.|||9.4|1.7|
90967195|NCT02790138|181816767|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|29.4|||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|47.6||No multiplicity adjustment for inferential testing for secondary endpoints was preplanned, p-values from these tests are presented as nominal p-values. The significance level was 0.05.|Chi-squared Test|||Week 14||47.6|8.0|=0.003
90967196|NCT02790138|181816767|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|21.6|||=|0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|39.8||No multiplicity adjustment for inferential testing for secondary endpoints was preplanned, p-values from these tests are presented as nominal p-values. The significance level was 0.05.|Chi-squared Test|||Week 34||39.8|1.9|=0.026
90930892|NCT02434328|181740817|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|6.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 20||6.2|-3.6|
90930893|NCT02434328|181740817|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-7.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|-3.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 24||-3.1|-12.6|
90930894|NCT02434328|181740817|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|2.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 28||2.7|-6.8|
90930895|NCT02434328|181740817|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|-0.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 32||-0.3|-10.5|
90930896|NCT02434328|181740817|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|-0.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 36||-0.4|-10.3|
90930897|NCT02434328|181740817|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|-0.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 40||-0.5|-11.2|
90930898|NCT02434328|181740817|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|5.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 44||5.6|-4.8|
90930899|NCT02434328|181740817|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|-3.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 48||-3.9|-13.8|
90930900|NCT02434328|181740817|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|3.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 52||3.5|-7.1|
90930901|NCT02434328|181740817|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-5.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|0.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 56||0.1|-11.1|
90930902|NCT02434328|181740817|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-5.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|-0.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 60||-0.5|-10.9|
90930903|NCT02434328|181740817|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|0.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 64||0.6|-10.9|
90930904|NCT02434328|181740817|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-5.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|-0.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 68||-0.1|-11.0|
90930905|NCT02434328|181740817|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-6.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|-1.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 72||-1.2|-12.5|
90930906|NCT02434328|181740817|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|-0.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 76||-0.3|-10.7|
90930907|NCT02434328|181740817|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|-0.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 80||-0.9|-12.4|
90930908|NCT02434328|181740817|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|4.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 84||4.4|-7.0|
91035461|NCT02301975|181956943|OTHER||Least square mean change difference|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|3.1||||||||3.1|-0.7|
90930909|NCT02434328|181740817|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|1.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 88||1.3|-10.5|
90930910|NCT02434328|181740817|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-5.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|0.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 92||0.5|-11.4|
90930911|NCT02434328|181740817|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|-0.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 96||-0.3|-11.5|
90930912|NCT02434328|181740818|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-6.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.2|0.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 4||0.2|-14.2|
90930913|NCT02434328|181740818|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-9.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5|-2.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 8||-2.5|-15.5|
90930914|NCT02434328|181740818|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-8.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|-2.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 12||-2.6|-15.0|
90930915|NCT02434328|181740818|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-15.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.9|-9.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 16||-9.0|-22.9|
90930916|NCT02434328|181740818|OTHER||Difference in proportions|7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|14.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 20||14.8|0.9|
90930917|NCT02434328|181740818|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.3|-13.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 24||-13.1|-27.3|
90930918|NCT02434328|181740818|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|2.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 28||2.4|-10.4|
90930919|NCT02434328|181740818|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-9.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.7|-2.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 32||-2.5|-16.7|
90930920|NCT02434328|181740818|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-9.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.8|-3.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 36||-3.4|-15.8|
90930921|NCT02434328|181740818|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-16.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.4|-9.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 40||-9.6|-23.4|
90930922|NCT02434328|181740818|OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|10.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 44||10.4|-3.3|
90930923|NCT02434328|181740818|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-18.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.9|-11.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 48||-11.8|-24.9|
90930924|NCT02434328|181740818|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|3.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 52||3.2|-9.2|
90930925|NCT02434328|181740818|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-9.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|-2.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 56||-2.8|-16.3|
91035462|NCT02301975|181956943|OTHER||Least square mean change difference|2.7||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|4.5|||ANCOVA|||||4.5|0.8|0.004
90930926|NCT02434328|181740818|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|1.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 60||1.1|-12.5|
90930927|NCT02434328|181740818|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-15.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.9|-8.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 64||-8.5|-21.9|
90930928|NCT02434328|181740818|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|7.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 68||7.5|-5.9|
90930929|NCT02434328|181740818|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-14.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.4|-8.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 72||-8.1|-21.4|
90930930|NCT02434328|181740818|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|5.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 76||5.4|-7.5|
90930931|NCT02434328|181740818|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-10.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.2|-3.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 80||-3.4|-17.2|
90930932|NCT02434328|181740818|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|2.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 84||2.3|-11.4|
90930933|NCT02434328|181740818|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.2|-4.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 88||-4.1|-18.2|
90930934|NCT02434328|181740818|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|3.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 92||3.5|-9.4|
90930935|NCT02434328|181740818|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-14.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.3|-7.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 96||-7.2|-21.3|
90930936|NCT00108355|181740857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Log Rank|||Initial estimation: median time to recurrence of ascites of 38 days in the study group and 20 days in the control group in a fixed duration of 6 months (5% type-I error (2 sided) and an 80% power). However, due to low accrual and based on randomized trials using vasoconstrictors in the prevention of PCD and a study that showed that midodrine leads to a significant improvement in effective arterial blood volume, each of which had sample sizes of 24-25 patients,we decided on a sample size of 30.||||<0.05
90930937|NCT04921358|181740859|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.39|||||Hazard ratio and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using a Cox regression model stratified by histological subtype (nonsquamous vs squamous), race (Asian vs Non-Asian) and PD-L1 expression (\<1% Tumor Cells (TC) vs \>=1% TC).|||1.39|0.75|
90930938|NCT04921358|181740860|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.07|||||Hazard ratio and 95% CIs were estimated using a Cox regression model stratified by histological subtype (nonsquamous vs squamous), race (Asian vs Non-Asian) and PD-L1 expression (\<1% TC vs \>=1% TC).|||1.07|0.62|
90930939|NCT04921358|181740861|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.83|||||Hazard ratio and 95% CIs were estimated using a Cox regression model stratified by histological subtype (nonsquamous vs squamous), race (Asian vs Non-Asian) and PD-L1 expression (\<1% TC vs \>=1% TC).|||0.83|0.50|
91035463|NCT02301975|181956943|OTHER||Least square mean change difference|1.5||||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|3.3|||ANCOVA|||||3.3|-0.4|0.115
91035464|NCT02301975|181956944|OTHER||Least square mean change difference|5.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|9.4||||||||9.4|1.1|
91035465|NCT02301975|181956944|OTHER||Least square mean change difference|21.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.4|25.6|||ANCOVA|||||25.6|17.4|<0.001
91035466|NCT02301975|181956944|OTHER||Least square mean change difference|16.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.2|20.4|||ANCOVA|||||20.4|12.2|<0.001
91035467|NCT02301975|181956945|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.54||||||||1.54|0.53|
91035468|NCT02301975|181956945|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.9|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.90|0.69|0.595
90930940|NCT03737110|181740878|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.18||Two-sided p-value is from the log-rank test stratified by oral corticosteroid use at Run-In Baseline.|Log Rank||Calculated based on a Cox proportional-hazards model with treatment as covariate and stratified by oral corticosteroid use at run-in baseline.|||0.18|0.01|<0.0001
90930941|NCT03737110|181740879|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.727||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.438|66.428||95% confidence interval (CI) and p-value were analyzed using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted by oral corticosteroid use and diagnosis of recurrent idiopathic pericarditis at run-in baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||66.428|2.438|0.0002
90930942|NCT03737110|181740879|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|61.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.7|85.2|||||Differences between percentages are reported in percentage points. The 95% confidence intervals for the differences in percentages were based on a normal approximation.|||85.2|36.7|
90930943|NCT03737110|181740880|SUPERIORITY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|51.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.5|68.0||Two-sided p-value calculated using analysis of covariance with treatment, randomization strata and run-in baseline NRS weekly average category (NRS ≤ 2 versus NRS \>2) as covariates.|ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference (rilonacept - placebo)|||68.0|34.5|< 0.0001
90930944|NCT03737110|181740881|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.0||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.136|46.826||95% CI and p-value are analyzed using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted by oral corticosteroid use and diagnosis of recurrent idiopathic pericarditis at RI baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||46.826|2.136|0.0006
90930945|NCT03737110|181740881|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|56.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.6|81.3|||||Differences between percentages are reported in percentage points. The 95% confidence intervals for the differences in percentages were based on a normal approximation.|||81.3|30.6|
90930946|NCT03737110|181740882|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.37||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.317|53.188||95% CI and p-value were analyzed using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted by oral corticosteroid use and diagnosis of recurrent idiopathic pericarditis at run-in baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||53.188|1.317|0.0022
90930947|NCT03737110|181740883|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.906|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.051|38.981||95% CI and p-value were analyzed using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted by oral corticosteroid use and diagnosis of recurrent idiopathic pericarditis at run-in baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||38.981|3.051|< 0.0001
90930948|NCT03737110|181740884|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|51.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.8|70.1||Two-sided p-value calculated using analysis of covariance with treatment, randomization strata and run-in baseline NRS weekly average category (NRS ≤ 2 versus NRS \>2) as covariates.|ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference (rilonacept - placebo)|||70.1|33.8|< 0.0001
90930949|NCT03737110|181740885|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|40.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.3|55.8||Two-sided p-value calculated using analysis of covariance with treatment, randomization strata and run-in baseline NRS weekly average category (NRS ≤ 2 versus NRS \>2) as covariates.|ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference (rilonacept - placebo)|||55.8|25.3|< 0.0001
90930950|NCT03737110|181740886|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|30.522||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.262|218.552||95% CI and p-value are analyzed using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted by oral corticosteroid use at RI baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||218.552|4.262|0.0002
90930951|NCT03737110|181740887|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.432|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.439|60.574||95% CI and p-value are analyzed using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted by oral corticosteroid use and diagnosis of recurrent idiopathic pericarditis at RI baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||60.574|3.439|< 0.0001
90930952|NCT03737110|181740888|SUPERIORITY||Difference|75.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.8|94.6|||normal approximation|||||94.6|56.8|< 0.0001
90930953|NCT03737110|181740889|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.32||Two-sided p-value is from the log-rank test stratified by oral corticosteroid use at run-in baseline.|Log Rank||Calculated based on a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as covariate and stratified by oral corticosteroid use at run-in baseline.|||0.32|0.05|< 0.0001
90930954|NCT03737110|181740890|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.22||Two-sided p-value is from the log-rank test stratified by oral corticosteroid use at run-in baseline.|Log Rank||Calculated based on a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as covariate and stratified by oral corticosteroid use at run-in baseline.|||0.22|0.02|< 0.0001
90930955|NCT03737110|181740891|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.7447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|4.46||Two-sided p-value is from the log-rank test without stratification by randomization strata.|Log Rank||Calculated based on a Cox proportional-hazards model with treatment as covariate and without stratification by randomization strata.|||4.46|0.12|0.7447
90930956|NCT03737110|181740892|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.36||||0.2066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.87||Two-sided p-value is from the log-rank test without stratification by randomization strata.|Log Rank||Calculated based on a Cox proportional-hazards model with treatment as covariate and without stratification by randomization strata.|||1.87|0.07|0.2066
90930957|NCT03737110|181740893|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.0||||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0||Not estimable due to low number of participants with an event.|Two-sided p-value is from the log-rank test without stratification by randomization strata.|Log Rank||||||0.00|0.0059
90930958|NCT03737110|181740905|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.015|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.002|0.108||Two-sided p value calculated using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjudicated by randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Participants who used ORT, corticosteroids or bailout rilonacept during the RW Period||0.108|0.002|< 0.0001
90941013|NCT00943722|181761611|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages between lots be entirely contained within the interval (-5, 5).|Percentage Point Difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.3|||||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) minus 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 3)|Anti-HPV 58||1.3|-0.4|
91035469|NCT02301975|181956945|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.12|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.12|0.75|0.372
90930959|NCT01009645|181740963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.0167 as the p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons (three planned contrasts).|Contrast Analysis|Bonferroni correction used (3 planned contrasts)||Contrast analysis was used to assess difference in vaccination status. The first contrast assessed whether or not the three newly created messages (Fact Only (FO), Fact/Myth (FM), and Fact/Myth/Refutation (FMR)) were as a group significantly different than the control message.||||<0.05
90930960|NCT01009645|181740963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.0167 as the p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons (three planned contrasts).|Contrast Analysis|Bonferroni correction used (3 planned contrasts)||Contrast analysis was used to assess difference in vaccination status. The second contrast assessed whether the FO and FMR conditions were significantly different from the FM message.||||<0.05
90930961|NCT01009645|181740963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.0167 as the p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons (three planned contrasts).|Contrast Analysis|Bonferroni correction used (3 planned contrasts)||Contrast analysis was used to assess difference in vaccination status. The third contrast assessed whether the FO and the FMR message conditions were significantly different.||||<0.05
90930962|NCT01009645|181740964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|used Scheffe's post-hoc analysis||||||<0.05
90930963|NCT05794191|181740978|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine effectiveness percentage|22.438|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.425|36.391||||||||36.391|5.425|
90930964|NCT05794191|181740979|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine effectiveness percentage|34.985|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.249|51.275||||||||51.275|13.249|
90930965|NCT05794191|181740980|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine effectiveness percentage|-5.284|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.408|26.302||||||||26.302|-50.408|
90930966|NCT05794191|181740981|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine effectiveness percentage|9.274|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.883|43.961||||||||43.961|-46.883|
90930967|NCT05794191|181740982|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine effectiveness percentage|17.169|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.994|28.536||||||||28.536|3.994|
90930968|NCT05794191|181740983|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine effectiveness percentage|25.526|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.4|38.781||||||||38.781|9.400|
90930969|NCT05794191|181740984|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine effectiveness percentage|-7.561|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.076|18.569||||||||18.569|-42.076|
90930970|NCT05794191|181740985|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine effectiveness percentage|11.442|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.916|41.871||||||||41.871|-34.916|
90930971|NCT05794191|181740986|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine effectiveness percentage|8.435|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.705|11.086||||||||11.086|5.705|
90930972|NCT05794191|181740987|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine effectiveness percentage|11.445|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.089|14.679||||||||14.679|8.089|
90930973|NCT05794191|181740988|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine effectiveness percentage|7.125|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.427|12.493||||||||12.493|1.427|
90930974|NCT05794191|181740989|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine effectiveness percentage|-3.716|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.626|4.488||||||||4.488|-12.626|
90930975|NCT05794191|181740990|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine effectiveness percentage|13.685|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.213|17.022||||||IPTW\*IPCW + imbalanced variables: 0-3 years||17.022|10.213|
90930976|NCT05794191|181740990|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine effectiveness percentage|7.665|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.707|13.261||||||IPTW\*IPCW + imbalanced variables: 3-5 years||13.261|1.707|
90930977|NCT05794191|181740990|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine effectiveness percentage|-5.792|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.691|3.26||||||IPTW\*IPCW + imbalanced variables: 5-7 years||3.260|-15.691|
90967197|NCT02790138|181816768|SUPERIORITY||Odds Estimator|2.02|||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|2.93||No multiplicity adjustment for inferential testing for secondary endpoints was preplanned, p-values from these tests are presented as nominal p-values. The significance level was 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-value is from Wilcoxon Rank-sum Test comparing change from Baseline to relevant visits.Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney odds estimator,95% CI are presented.||Change from Baseline at Week 14||2.93|1.11|=0.002
90930978|NCT05794191|181740990|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine effectiveness percentage|9.902|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.056|12.66||||||IPTW\*IPCW + imbalanced variables: overall follow up||12.660|7.056|
90930979|NCT05794191|181740991|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine effectiveness percentage|13.631|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.149|16.978||||||IPTW\*IPCW + imbalanced variables: 0-3 years||16.978|10.149|
90930980|NCT05794191|181740991|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine effectiveness percentage|7.673|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.708|13.276||||||IPTW\*IPCW + imbalanced variables: 3-5 years||13.276|1.708|
90930981|NCT05794191|181740991|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine effectiveness percentage|-5.897|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.809|3.166||||||IPTW\*IPCW + imbalanced variables: 5-7 years||3.166|-15.809|
90930982|NCT05794191|181740991|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine effectiveness percentage|9.853|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|12.617||||||IPTW\*IPCW + imbalanced variables: overall follow up||12.617|7.000|
90930983|NCT01079806|181740998|SUPERIORITY||Difference estimate|20.2||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.1|31.4|||Normal approximation||Difference estimate is stratified by age randomization strata, using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting.|||31.4|9.1|0.0049
90930984|NCT01079806|181740999|SUPERIORITY||Difference estimate|41.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.4|54.2|||Normal approximation||Difference estimate is stratified by age randomization strata, using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting.|||54.2|29.4|<0.0001
90930985|NCT01079806|181741000|SUPERIORITY||Difference estimate|45.2|||<|0.0001||95.0|29.2|61.2|||Normal approximation||Difference estimate is stratified by age randomization strata, using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting.|||61.2|29.2|<0.0001
90930986|NCT01079806|181741001|SUPERIORITY||Difference estimate|38.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.9|50.5|||Normal approximation||Difference estimate is stratified by age randomization strata, using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting.|||50.5|25.9|<0.0001
90930987|NCT01079806|181741002|SUPERIORITY||Difference estimate|12.1||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|25.7|||Normal approximation||Difference estimate is stratified by age randomization strata, using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting.|||25.7|-1.5|0.11
90930988|NCT01604824|181741033|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-53.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.486|=|0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-79.31|-28.12||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05|ANCOVA|||||-28.12|-79.31|= 0.0009
90930989|NCT01604824|181741033|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-43.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.965|=|0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.21|17.35||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05|ANCOVA|||||17.35|-69.21|= 0.0056
91035470|NCT02301975|181956946|OTHER||Least square mean change difference|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|9.3||||||||9.3|0.7|
91035471|NCT02301975|181956946|OTHER||Least square mean change difference|19.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.9|23.5|||ANCOVA|||||23.5|14.9|<0.001
91035472|NCT02301975|181956946|OTHER||Least square mean change difference|14.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.9|18.5|||ANCOVA|||||18.5|9.9|<0.001
90930990|NCT01604824|181741034|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-49.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.05|=|0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.39|-22.7||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05|ANCOVA|||LS means (SE), mean difference, 95% CI, and p-values were derived from ANCOVA with treatment group as factor and baseline as covariate.||-22.7|-76.39|= 0.0021
90930991|NCT01604824|181741034|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-44.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.876|=|0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.36|18.92||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05|ANCOVA|||LS means (SE), mean difference, 95% CI, and p-values were derived from ANCOVA with treatment group as factor and baseline as covariate.||18.92|-70.36|= 0.0045
90930992|NCT01604824|181741035|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-49.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.487|=|0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.96|-23.77||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05|ANCOVA|||||-23.77|-74.96|= 0.0016
90930993|NCT01604824|181741035|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-40.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.471|=|0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.12|15.6||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05|ANCOVA|||||15.60|-65.12|= 0.0063
90930994|NCT01604824|181741036|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-30.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.224|=|0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.85|-14.66||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05|ANCOVA|||||-14.66|-46.85|= 0.0017
90930995|NCT01604824|181741036|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-22.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.294|=|0.0096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.11|-7.34||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05|ANCOVA|||||-7.34|-37.11|= 0.0096
90930996|NCT01604824|181741037|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-49.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.867|=|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.71|-27.74||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05|ANCOVA|||||-27.74|-71.71|= 0.0005
90930997|NCT01604824|181741037|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-49.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.545|=|0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.63|-22.03||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05|ANCOVA|||||-22.03|-76.63|= 0.0037
90930998|NCT03758742|181741051|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Binomial Test|||||||<0.0001
90930999|NCT03617835|181741085|OTHER|Relative bioavailability|Ratio of the geometric means (T1/R) [%]|93.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.48|111.8|||||The geometric means are adjusted by treatment. The geometric Coefficient of (within matched pair) Variation (gCV) \[%\] = 26.0.|Exploratory trial, no formal hypotheses were tested. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale was used which included effects accounting for sources of variation: 'treatment' (fixed effect), 'matched pair' (random effect). For each matched pair in the study (participant in test treatment group matched to participant in reference treatment group), a pair number was assigned for analysis purpose.||111.80|78.48|
90931000|NCT03617835|181741085|OTHER|Relative bioavailability|Ratio of the geometric means (T2/R) [%]|139.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|117.26|167.03|||||The geometric means are adjusted by treatment. The geometric Coefficient of (within matched pair) Variation (gCV) \[%\] = 26.0.|Exploratory trial, no formal hypotheses were tested. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale was used which included effects accounting for sources of variation: 'treatment' (fixed effect), 'matched pair' (random effect). For each matched pair in the study (participant in test treatment group matched to participant in reference treatment group), a pair number was assigned for analysis purpose.||167.03|117.26|
90931001|NCT03617835|181741086|OTHER|Relative bioavailability|Ratio of the geometric means (T3/R) [%]|121.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.08|145.41|||||The geometric means are adjusted by treatment. The geometric Coefficient of (within matched pair) Variation (gCV) \[%\] = 26.0.|Exploratory trial, no formal hypotheses were tested. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale was used which included effects accounting for sources of variation: 'treatment' (fixed effect), 'matched pair' (random effect). For each matched pair in the study (participant in test treatment group matched to participant in reference treatment group), a pair number was assigned for analysis purpose.||145.41|102.08|
90931002|NCT03617835|181741087|OTHER|Relative bioavailability|Ratio of the geometric means (T1/R) [%]|99.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.77|117.39|||||The geometric means are adjusted by treatment. The geometric Coefficient of (within matched pair) Variation (gCV) \[%\] = 24.8.|Exploratory trial, no formal hypotheses were tested. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale was used which included effects accounting for sources of variation: 'treatment' (fixed effect), 'matched pair' (random effect). For each matched pair in the study (participant in test treatment group matched to participant in reference treatment group), a pair number was assigned for analysis purpose.||117.39|83.77|
90931003|NCT03617835|181741087|OTHER|Relative bioavailability|Ratio of the geometric means (T2/R) [%]|156.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|131.95|184.9|||||The geometric means are adjusted by treatment. The geometric Coefficient of (within matched pair) Variation (gCV) \[%\] = 24.8.|Exploratory trial, no formal hypotheses were tested. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale was used which included effects accounting for sources of variation: 'treatment' (fixed effect), 'matched pair' (random effect). For each matched pair in the study (participant in test treatment group matched to participant in reference treatment group), a pair number was assigned for analysis purpose.||184.90|131.95|
90931004|NCT03617835|181741088|OTHER|Relative bioavailability|Ratio of the geometric means (T3/R) [%]|138.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|116.87|163.77|||||The geometric means are adjusted by treatment. The geometric Coefficient of (within matched pair) Variation (gCV) \[%\] = 24.8.|Exploratory trial, no formal hypotheses were tested. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale was used which included effects accounting for sources of variation: 'treatment' (fixed effect), 'matched pair' (random effect). For each matched pair in the study (participant in test treatment group matched to participant in reference treatment group), a pair number was assigned for analysis purpose.||163.77|116.87|
90931005|NCT03617835|181741089|OTHER|Relative bioavailability|Ratio of the geometric means (T1/R) [%]|93.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.11|112.11|||||The geometric means are adjusted by treatment. The geometric Coefficient of (within matched pair) Variation (gCV) \[%\] = 26.6.|Exploratory trial, no formal hypotheses were tested. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale was used which included effects accounting for sources of variation: 'treatment' (fixed effect), 'matched pair' (random effect). For each matched pair in the study (participant in test treatment group matched to participant in reference treatment group), a pair number was assigned for analysis purpose.||112.11|78.11|
91035473|NCT00835991|181956947|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|114.05||||||90.0|107.26|121.27|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||121.27|107.26|
90967198|NCT02790138|181816768|SUPERIORITY||Odds Estimator|1.71|||=|0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.49||No multiplicity adjustment for inferential testing for secondary endpoints was preplanned, p-values from these tests are presented as nominal p-values. The significance level was 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-value is from Wilcoxon Rank-sum Test comparing change from Baseline to relevant visits.Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney odds estimator,95% CI are presented.||Change from Baseline at Week 34||2.49|0.92|=0.020
90967199|NCT02790138|181816769|SUPERIORITY||Odds Estimator|1.34|||=|0.191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.94||No multiplicity adjustment for inferential testing for secondary endpoints was preplanned, p-values from these tests are presented as nominal p-values. The significance level was 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-value is from Wilcoxon Rank-sum Test comparing change from Baseline to relevant visits.Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney odds estimator,95% CI are presented.||Change from Baseline at Week 14||1.94|0.74|=0.191
90967200|NCT02790138|181816769|SUPERIORITY||Odds Estimator|1.07|||=|0.766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.54||No multiplicity adjustment for inferential testing for secondary endpoints was preplanned, p-values from these tests are presented as nominal p-values. The significance level was 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-value is from Wilcoxon Rank-sum Test comparing change from Baseline to relevant visits.Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney odds estimator,95% CI are presented.||Change from Baseline at Week 34||1.54|0.60|=0.766
90967201|NCT02790138|181816770|SUPERIORITY||Odds Estimator|1.57|||=|0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|2.31||No multiplicity adjustment for inferential testing for secondary endpoints was preplanned, p-values from these tests are presented as nominal p-values. The significance level was 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-value is from Wilcoxon Rank-sum Test comparing change from Baseline to relevant visits.Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney odds estimator,95% CI are presented.||Change from Baseline at Week 14||2.31|0.83|=0.055
90967202|NCT02790138|181816770|SUPERIORITY||Odds Estimator|1.48|||=|0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.16||No multiplicity adjustment for inferential testing for secondary endpoints was preplanned, p-values from these tests are presented as nominal p-values. The significance level was 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-value is from Wilcoxon Rank-sum Test comparing change from Baseline to relevant visits.Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney odds estimator,95% CI are presented.||Change from Baseline at Week 34||2.16|0.79|=0.095
90967203|NCT02790138|181816771|SUPERIORITY||Odds Estimator|1.14|||=|0.575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.67||No multiplicity adjustment for inferential testing for secondary endpoints was preplanned, p-values from these tests are presented as nominal p-values. The significance level was 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-value is from Wilcoxon Rank-sum Test comparing change from Baseline to relevant visits.Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney odds estimator,95% CI are presented.||Change from Baseline at Week 14||1.67|0.61|=0.575
90967204|NCT02790138|181816771|SUPERIORITY||Odds Estimator|1.21|||=|0.403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.78||No multiplicity adjustment for inferential testing for secondary endpoints was preplanned, p-values from these tests are presented as nominal p-values. The significance level was 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-value is from Wilcoxon Rank-sum Test comparing change from Baseline to relevant visits.Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney odds estimator,95% CI are presented.||Change from Baseline at Week 22||1.78|0.65|=0.403
90967205|NCT02790138|181816771|SUPERIORITY||Odds Estimator|1.6|||=|0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|2.34||No multiplicity adjustment for inferential testing for secondary endpoints was preplanned, p-values from these tests are presented as nominal p-values. The significance level was 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-value is from Wilcoxon Rank-sum Test comparing change from Baseline to relevant visits.Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney odds estimator,95% CI are presented.||Change from Baseline at Week 34||2.34|0.85|=0.047
90967206|NCT02790138|181816772|SUPERIORITY||Odds Estimator|1.44|||=|0.119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.12||No multiplicity adjustment for inferential testing for secondary endpoints was preplanned, p-values from these tests are presented as nominal p-values. The significance level was 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-value is from Wilcoxon Rank-sum Test comparing change from Baseline to relevant visits.Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney odds estimator,95% CI are presented.||Change from Baseline at Week 14||2.12|0.77|=0.119
90967207|NCT02790138|181816772|SUPERIORITY||Odds Estimator|1.15|||=|0.542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.69||No multiplicity adjustment for inferential testing for secondary endpoints was preplanned, p-values from these tests are presented as nominal p-values. The significance level was 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-value is from Wilcoxon Rank-sum Test comparing change from Baseline to relevant visits.Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney odds estimator,95% CI are presented.||Change from Baseline at Week 22||1.69|0.62|=0.542
90967208|NCT02790138|181816772|SUPERIORITY||Odds Estimator|1.22|||=|0.404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.78||No multiplicity adjustment for inferential testing for secondary endpoints was preplanned, p-values from these tests are presented as nominal p-values. The significance level was 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-value is from Wilcoxon Rank-sum Test comparing change from Baseline to relevant visits.Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney odds estimator,95% CI are presented.||Change from Baseline at Week 34||1.78|0.65|=0.404
90967209|NCT04037748|181816773|EQUIVALENCE|Bio-equivalence Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90% Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.00% - 125.00%.|Geometric least squares (LS) mean ratio|90.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.3|95.6||||||||95.6|86.3|
90967210|NCT04037748|181816774|EQUIVALENCE|Bio-equivalence Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90% Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.00% - 125.00%.|Geometric least squares (LS) mean ratio|93.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.2|99.5||||||||99.5|88.2|
90967211|NCT04037748|181816776|EQUIVALENCE|Bio-equivalence Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90% Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.00% - 125.00%.|Geometric least squares (LS) mean ratio|97.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.7|100.0||||||||100.0|94.7|
90967212|NCT04037748|181816777|EQUIVALENCE|Bio-equivalence Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90% Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.00% - 125.00%.|Geometric least squares (LS) mean ratio|94.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.0|97.8||||||||97.8|92.0|
90967213|NCT02504554|181816778|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||"no adjustment for multiple hypothesis testing since this was an exploratory study.~the p-value listed is the actual result from analysis of the study data."|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon signed rank analysis of symptoms at 10 weeks (end of treatment) vs. baseline||||<0.001
90967214|NCT02504554|181816779|OTHER|paired 2-sided t-test comparing baseline and 10 weeks (end of treatment)|||||<|0.001||||||no adjustment for multiple comparisons|t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test, 2 sided||||||<0.001
90941014|NCT00943722|181761611|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages between lots be entirely contained within the interval (-5, 5).|Percentage Point Difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.3|||||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 2) minus 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 3)|Anti-HPV 58||1.3|-0.4|
90941015|NCT01772823|181761627|OTHER|||||||0.7513||||||"The chi-squared test of homogeneity is used to assess whether the proportions of the independent variable (participant feelings on the Size of the Pill) differ between intervention arms."|Chi-squared|||||||0.7513
90941016|NCT01772823|181761628|OTHER|||||||0.8281||||||"The chi-squared test of homogeneity is used to assess whether the proportions of the independent variable (participant feelings on the Taste of the Pill) differ between intervention arms."|Chi-squared|Pearson Chi-Square||||||0.8281
90941017|NCT01772823|181761629|OTHER|||||||0.3761||||||"The chi-squared test of homogeneity is used to assess whether the proportions of the independent variable (participant feelings on the Color of the Pill) differ between intervention arms."|Chi-squared|||||||0.3761
90941018|NCT01772823|181761630|OTHER|||||||0.4359||||||"The chi-squared test of homogeneity is used to assess whether the proportions of the independent variable (participant feelings on Taking the pill every day) differ between intervention arms."|Chi-squared|||||||0.4359
90941019|NCT01772823|181761631|OTHER|||||||0.3801||||||"The chi-squared test of homogeneity is used to assess whether the proportions of the independent variable (participant feelings on Taking part in the study) differ between intervention arms."|Chi-squared|||||||0.3801
90941020|NCT01772823|181761632|OTHER|||||||0.1968||||||"The chi-squared test of homogeneity is used to assess whether the proportions of the independent variable (participant feelings on HIV test at every visit) differ between intervention arms."|Chi-squared|||||||0.1968
90941021|NCT01772823|181761633|OTHER|||||||0.1226||||||"The chi-squared test of homogeneity is used to assess whether the proportions of the independent variable (participant feelings on Risk Reduction counseling at every visit) differ between intervention arms."|Chi-squared|||||||0.1226
90941022|NCT01772823|181761634|OTHER|||||||0.0994||||||"The chi-squared test of homogeneity is used to assess whether the proportions of the independent variable (participant feelings on Questions about sexual behavior) differ between intervention arms."|Chi-squared|||||||0.0994
90941023|NCT01772823|181761635|OTHER|||||||0.5285||||||"The chi-squared test of homogeneity is used to assess whether the proportions of the independent variable (participant feelings on the Physician exam) differ between intervention arms."|Chi-squared|||||||0.5285
90941024|NCT01772823|181761639|OTHER|||||||0.0001||||||The chi-squared test of homogeneity is used to assess whether the proportions of the independent variable (participant responses to the session evaluation question) differ between intervention arms.|Chi-squared|||||||0.0001
90941025|NCT01772823|181761640|OTHER|||||||0.0098||||||The chi-squared test of homogeneity is used to assess whether the proportions of the independent variable (participant responses to the session evaluation question) differ between intervention arms.|Chi-squared|||||||0.0098
90941026|NCT01772823|181761641|OTHER|||||||0.0766||||||The chi-squared test of homogeneity is used to assess whether the proportions of the independent variable (participant responses to the session evaluation question) differ between intervention arms.|Chi-squared|||||||0.0766
90941027|NCT01772823|181761642|OTHER|||||||0.1581||||||The chi-squared test of homogeneity is used to assess whether the proportions of the independent variable (participant responses to the session evaluation question) differ between intervention arms.|Chi-squared|||||||0.1581
90941028|NCT01772823|181761643|OTHER|||||||0.43||||||The chi-squared test of homogeneity is used to assess whether the proportions of the independent variable (participant responses to the session evaluation question) differ between intervention arms.|Chi-squared|||||||0.4300
90941029|NCT01772823|181761644|OTHER|||||||0.1201||||||The chi-squared test of homogeneity is used to assess whether the proportions of the independent variable (participant responses to the session evaluation question) differ between intervention arms.|Chi-squared|||||||0.1201
90941030|NCT01772823|181761645|OTHER|||||||0.1682||||||The chi-squared test of homogeneity is used to assess whether the proportions of the independent variable (participant responses to the session evaluation question) differ between intervention arms.|Chi-squared|||||||0.1682
90941031|NCT01772823|181761646|OTHER|||||||0.2747||||||The chi-squared test of homogeneity is used to assess whether the proportions of the independent variable (participant responses to the session evaluation question) differ between intervention arms.|Chi-squared|||||||0.2747
90941032|NCT01772823|181761647|OTHER|||||||0.0046||||||The chi-squared test of homogeneity is used to assess whether the proportions of the independent variable (participant responses to the session evaluation question) differ between intervention arms.|Chi-squared|||||||0.0046
90941033|NCT01772823|181761648|OTHER|||||||0.029||||||The chi-squared test of homogeneity is used to assess whether the proportions of the independent variable (participant responses to the session evaluation question) differ between intervention arms.|Chi-squared|||||||0.0290
90941034|NCT01772823|181761649|OTHER|||||||0.107|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.1070
90941035|NCT01772823|181761651|OTHER|||||||0.2991||||||The chi-squared test of homogeneity is used to assess whether the proportions of the independent variable (participant self-identified race) differ between groups (On PrEP vs. Off PrEP).|Fisher Exact|||||||0.2991
90941036|NCT01772823|181761652|OTHER|||||||0.0298||||||The chi-squared test of homogeneity is used to assess whether the proportions of the independent variable (participant self-identified race) differ between groups (On PrEP vs. Off PrEP).|Fisher Exact|||||||0.0298
90941037|NCT01772823|181761653|OTHER|||||||0.8643||||||The chi-squared test of homogeneity is used to assess whether the proportions of the independent variable (participant self-identified ethnicity) differ between groups (On PrEP vs. Off PrEP).|Fisher Exact|||||||0.8643
90941038|NCT01772823|181761654|OTHER|||||||0.9037||||||The chi-squared test of homogeneity is used to assess whether the proportions of the independent variable (participant BMI) differ between groups (On PrEP vs. Off PrEP).|Fisher Exact|||||||0.9037
90941039|NCT01772823|181761655|OTHER|||||||0.5279|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.5279
90941040|NCT01772823|181761656|OTHER|||||||0.5369||||||The chi-squared test of homogeneity is used to assess whether the proportions of the independent variable (participation in high-risk sex acts) differ between groups (On PrEP vs. Off PrEP).|Fisher Exact|||||||0.5369
90941041|NCT01772823|181761659|OTHER|||||||0.2193||||||The chi-squared test of homogeneity is used to assess whether the proportions of the independent variable (participant responses to this question) differ between intervention arms.|Chi-squared|||||||0.2193
90931006|NCT03617835|181741089|OTHER|Relative bioavailability|Ratio of the geometric means (T2/R) [%]|139.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|116.64|167.4|||||The geometric means are adjusted by treatment. The geometric Coefficient of (within matched pair) Variation (gCV) \[%\] = 26.6.|Exploratory trial, no formal hypotheses were tested. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale was used which included effects accounting for sources of variation: 'treatment' (fixed effect), 'matched pair' (random effect). For each matched pair in the study (participant in test treatment group matched to participant in reference treatment group), a pair number was assigned for analysis purpose.||167.40|116.64|
90931007|NCT03617835|181741090|OTHER|Relative bioavailability|Ratio of the geometric means (T3/R) [%]|121.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.28|145.37|||||The geometric means are adjusted by treatment. The geometric Coefficient of (within matched pair) Variation (gCV) \[%\] = 26.6.|Exploratory trial, no formal hypotheses were tested. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale was used which included effects accounting for sources of variation: 'treatment' (fixed effect), 'matched pair' (random effect). For each matched pair in the study (participant in test treatment group matched to participant in reference treatment group), a pair number was assigned for analysis purpose.||145.37|101.28|
90931008|NCT02502461|181741219|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.7||Bonferroni correction|t-test, 2 sided|||||1.7|0.1|0.04
90931009|NCT02409680|181741236|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.89||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|0.98||A-priori threshold for statistical significance at 0.05 was specified.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The null hypothesis is there is no treatment effect on preterm delivery.||0.98|0.81|0.012
90931010|NCT02409680|181741237|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.08||||0.299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.25|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.25|0.94|0.299
90931011|NCT02409680|181741238|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.95||||0.171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.01|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.01|0.90|0.171
90931012|NCT02409680|181741239|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.86||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.00|0.73|0.048
90931013|NCT02409680|181741240|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.87||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.04|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.04|0.73|0.125
90931014|NCT02409680|181741241|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.79|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.79|0.60|0.900
90931015|NCT02409680|181741242|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.25||||0.274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.86|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.86|0.84|0.274
90931016|NCT02409680|181741243|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.75||||0.512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.78|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.78|0.32|0.512
90931017|NCT02409680|181741244|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.77||||0.331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.31|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.31|0.45|0.331
90931018|NCT02409680|181741246|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.38||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.85|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.85|0.17|0.015
90931019|NCT02409680|181741247|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.75||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.93|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.93|0.61|0.039
90931020|NCT02409680|181741248|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.93||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.01|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.01|0.87|0.073
90931021|NCT02409680|181741249|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.87||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.33|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.33|0.57|0.084
90931022|NCT02409680|181741250|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.86||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.00|0.73|0.039
90931023|NCT02409680|181741251|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.88||||0.261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.10|0.70|0.261
90931024|NCT02409680|181741252|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.85||||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.06|0.68|0.141
90931025|NCT02409680|181741253|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.4||||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.23|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.23|0.88|0.157
90931026|NCT05986617|181741278|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06429||||||2-tail t-test with non-equivalent variances|t-test, 2 sided|||Power calculation: 2 factor (group, time) ANOVA design with a group\*time interaction term to estimate the proposed sample size. Using a Cohen's effect size estimate for 2 groups with 5 time-points, a sample size of 40 per group will provide \>90% to detect a moderate effect size (0.25) for group, for time and for the group\*time interaction.||||.06429
90931027|NCT03137459|181741319|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.059|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.014|0.105|||||Analysis performed using GEE to account for clustering of participants within practices.|||.105|.014|
90931028|NCT03137459|181741319|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|2.93|||||Determined using mixed effects models, accounting for clustering of participants in practices and adjusting for unbalanced covariates: education, employment, stage of change for each ACP behavior|||2.93|1.14|
90931029|NCT03137459|181741320|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.082|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.014|0.15|||||Adjusted for clustering|||.150|.014|
90931030|NCT03137459|181741320|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|2.0|||||Accounting for clustering and adjusted for covariates as described in primary outcome|||2.0|.96|
90931031|NCT03137459|181741321|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.133|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.066|0.201|||||Accounting for clustering|||.201|.066|
90931032|NCT03137459|181741321|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|2.47|||||Accounting for clustering and adjusted for covariates as presenting for primary outcome|||2.47|1.22|
90931033|NCT03137459|181741322|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.188||||||||.188|-.05|
90931034|NCT03137459|181741322|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.85|||||Accounting for clustering and adjusting for covariates as described for primary outcome|||1.85|.72|
90941042|NCT01772823|181761660|OTHER|||||||0.1255||||||The chi-squared test of homogeneity is used to assess whether the proportions of the independent variable (participant responses to this question) differ between intervention arms.|Chi-squared|||||||0.1255
90941043|NCT01772823|181761661|OTHER|||||||0.0706||||||The chi-squared test of homogeneity is used to assess whether the proportions of the independent variable (participant responses to this question) differ between intervention arms.|Chi-squared|||||||0.0706
90967215|NCT02504554|181816781|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||"no adjustment for multiple comparisons~The p-value listed is the result for the actual analysis of the data."|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon signed-rank test comparing the baseline score vs. the score at 10 weeks (end of treatment).||||<0.001
90967216|NCT02504554|181816782|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||"no adjustment for multiple comparisons~the p-value listed is the actual result for the study results."|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon signed-rank test comparing scores at baseline vs. 10 weeks (end of treatment)||||<0.001
90967217|NCT02504554|181816784|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||"no adjustment for multiple comparisons~the p-value listed is the actual result for the analysis of the study data"|t-test, 2 sided|||2-sided t-test comparing the group at baseline vs. 18 weeks (8 weeks after end of treatment)||||<0.001
90967218|NCT02504554|181816785|OTHER|||||||0.002||||||no adjustment for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to compare scores at baseline vs. at 10 weeks (end of treatment)||||0.002
90967219|NCT02064920|181816786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Change in SD from Week 4 to Week 16|0.005|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.031|0.039|||||SD of average OCL repeated measurements after 12 weeks of treatment for Placebo + Donezepil treatment groups combined is hypothesized to be ≤ 0.1.|Change from Week 4 to Week 16 in Standard Deviation (SD) of OCL for Placebo + Donezepil treatment groups combined||0.039|-0.031|
90967220|NCT02109562|181816788|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.148|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7261||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.982|-2.314||For evaluation of treatment differences, compare against a 1-sided adjusted P value with significance at \<0.025. The P values have been adjusted for multiple comparisons using Dunnett's procedure.|repeated measure linear regression model||RBP-7000 90 mg - Placebo|Estimates, standard errors (SE), 2-sided confidence intervals (CIs), and -1-sided P values are based on a repeated-measures linear regression model of the change from baseline score, with fixed effects for visit as a categorical variable, baseline score, treatment and treatment by visit interaction, assuming an unstructured covariance matrix.||-2.314|-9.982|0.0004
90967221|NCT02109562|181816788|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.237|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7141|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.045|-3.429||For evaluation of treatment differences, compare against a 1-sided adjusted P value with significance at \<0.025. The P values have been adjusted for multiple comparisons using Dunnett's procedure.|repeated measure linear regression model||RBP-7000 120 mg - Placebo|Estimates, standard errors (SE), 2-sided confidence intervals (CIs), and -1-sided P values are based on a repeated-measures linear regression model of the change from baseline score, with fixed effects for visit as a categorical variable, baseline score, treatment and treatment by visit interaction, assuming an unstructured covariance matrix.||-3.429|-11.045|<0.0001
90967222|NCT02109562|181816789|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0934||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.557|-0.143||For evaluation of treatment differences, compare against a 1-sided adjusted P value with significance at \<0.025. The P values have been adjusted for multiple comparisons using Dunnett's procedure.|repeated measure linear regression model||RBP-7000 90 mg - Placebo|Estimates, standard errors (SE), 2-sided confidence intervals (CIs), and -1-sided P values are based on a repeated-measures linear regression model of the change from baseline score, with fixed effects for visit as a categorical variable, baseline score, treatment and treatment by visit interaction, assuming an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.143|-0.557|0.0002
90967223|NCT02109562|181816789|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.396|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0928|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.602|-0.19||For evaluation of treatment differences, compare against a 1-sided adjusted P value with significance at \<0.025. The P values have been adjusted for multiple comparisons using Dunnett's procedure.|repeated measure linear regression model||RBP-7000 120 mg - Placebo|Estimates, standard errors (SE), 2-sided confidence intervals (CIs), and -1-sided P values are based on a repeated-measures linear regression model of the change from baseline score, with fixed effects for visit as a categorical variable, baseline score, treatment and treatment by visit interaction, assuming an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.190|-0.602|<0.0001
90967224|NCT03023930|181816791|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|proc logistic||||||<0.001
90967225|NCT03023930|181816792|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||Regression, Logistic|proc logistic||||||0.011
90967226|NCT00262522|181816828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.1||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by dosing regimen was used to assess the null hypothesis of no difference between the tablet and soft gel capsule (SGC). Sample size was 600 subjects (150 each in the 4 groups). Based on a projected 48% reporting treatment-emergent diarrhea in the QD arm and 32% in the BID arm within the SGC group, with a 12% reduction in the corresponding tablet groups, this sample size provided 80% power to determine a difference between the tablet and SGC.||||>0.100
90967227|NCT00262522|181816829|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 95% confidence interval for the difference in response rates (QD minus BID, based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution) was used to assess noninferiority. The QD regimen was considered noninferior to the BID regimen if the lower limit of the confidence interval remained above -12%.|percentage of subjects responding|1.3||||0.715||95.0|-5.1|7.8|||normal approx. to the binomial distr.|||The null hypothesis was that the response rate for the once daily (QD) regimen was more than 12% lower than the response rate for the twice daily (BID) regimen. The planned sample size of 600 subjects (300 subjects in each of the QD and BID treatment regimens) provided over 90% power to reject the null hypothesis, i.e., to determine noninferiority based on the 12% margin.||7.8|-5.1|0.715
90967228|NCT00262522|181816830|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 95% confidence interval for the difference in response rates (QD minus BID, based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution) was used to assess noninferiority. The QD regimen was considered noninferior to the BID regimen if the lower limit of the confidence interval remained above -12%.|percentage of subjects responding|-4.3||||0.249||95.0|-11.5|2.8|||normal approx. to the binomial distr.|||The null hypothesis was that the response rate for the once daily (QD) regimen was more than 12% lower than the response rate for the twice daily (BID) regimen. The planned sample size of 600 subjects (300 subjects in each of the QD and BID treatment regimens) provided over 90% power to reject the null hypothesis, i.e., to determine noninferiority based on the 12% margin.||2.8|-11.5|0.249
90967229|NCT00262522|181816831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.269||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.269
91035474|NCT00835991|181956948|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|100.63||||||90.0|97.59|103.76|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||103.76|97.59|
90931035|NCT01303796|181741427|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.013|||<|0.0249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.837|1.226||one-sided|Kaplan-Meier|||The phase III part planned to randomize 485 patients, about 243 per arm (actual 241 patients per arm), over an estimated period of 24 months. Final analysis would occur at approximately 424 deaths, which was expected to be observed about 43 months after the accrual of the first patient. A stratified log rank analysis would have 90% power to detect a 27.5% reduction in the risk of death, i.e., a hazard ratio of 0.725, between Arm A and Arm C.||1.226|0.837|<0.0249
90931036|NCT01303796|181741427|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.08|||<|0.0249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.35||one-sided|Log Rank||Predictive factor adjusted; when interaction term was not significant at 10% confidence level, the interaction term was removed from the model.|"Subgroup analyses (pre-specified): Presence of antecedent MDS or MPD (covariate)~Treatment covariate: alternating sapacitabine/decitabine treatment Levels: No (i.e., de novo) vs Presence of antecedent MDS or MPD"||1.35|0.86|<0.0249
90931037|NCT01303796|181741427|SUPERIORITY|Effects of treatments compared in AML patients with baseline WBC count ≥ 10 x 109/L vs WBC count ≤ 10 x 109/L|Cox Proportional Hazard|1.57|||<|0.0249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|2.19||one-sided|Log Rank||Predictive factor adjusted; when interaction term was not significant at 10% confidence level, the interaction term was removed from the model.|"Subgroup analyses (pre-specified): Baseline peripheral WBC count ≥ 10 x 109/L (covariate)~Treatment covariate: alternating sapacitabine/decitabine treatment Levels: Baseline WBC count ≥ 10 x 109/L vs WBC count ≤ 10 x 109/L"||2.19|1.12|<0.0249
90931038|NCT01303796|181741427|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.01|||<|0.0249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.32||one-sided|Log Rank||Predictive factor adjusted; when interaction term was not significant at 10% confidence level, the interaction term was removed from the model.|"Subgroup analyses (pre-specified): Baseline bone marrow blast percentage ≥ 50% (covariate)~Treatment covariate: alternating sapacitabine/decitabine treatment Levels: Baseline bone marrow blast percentage ≥ 50% vs Blast percentage ≤ 50%"||1.32|0.77|<0.0249
90931039|NCT01303796|181741427|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.27|||<|0.0249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.73|||Log Rank||Predictive factor adjusted; when interaction term was not significant at 10% confidence level, the interaction term was removed from the model.|"Subgroup analyses (pre-specified): Unfavorable cytogenetics risk by SWOG (covariate)~Treatment covariate: alternating sapacitabine/decitabine treatment Levels: Unfavorable cytogenetics vs other"||1.73|0.94|<0.0249
90931040|NCT01303796|181741427|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.222|||<|0.0249|TWO_SIDED|||||one-sided|Log Rank||Predictive factor adjusted; when interaction term was not significant at 10% confidence level, the interaction term was removed from the model.|"Subgroup analyses (post-hoc): Region (covariate)~Treatment covariate: alternating sapacitabine/decitabine treatment (Arm A) Levels: EU vs US"||||<0.0249
90931041|NCT01303796|181741427|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.071|||<|0.0249|TWO_SIDED|||||one-sided|Log Rank||Predictive factor adjusted; when interaction term was not significant at 10% confidence level, the interaction term was removed from the model.|"Subgroup analyses (post-hoc): Age (covariate)~Treatment covariate: alternating sapacitabine/decitabine treatment (Arm A) Levels: ≥ 75 years old vs ≤ 75 years old"||||<0.0249
90931042|NCT01303796|181741427|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.956|||<|0.0249|TWO_SIDED|||||one-sided|Log Rank||Predictive factor adjusted; when interaction term was not significant at 10% confidence level, the interaction term was removed from the model.|"Subgroup analyses (post-hoc): Gender (covariate)~Treatment covariate: alternating sapacitabine/decitabine treatment (Arm A) Levels: Male vs Female"||||<0.0249
90931043|NCT01303796|181741427|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0249||||||one-sided|Log Rank|Predictive factor adjusted; when interaction term was not significant at 10% confidence level, the interaction term was removed from the model.||"Subgroup analyses (post-hoc): ECOG status (covariate)~Treatment covariate: alternating sapacitabine/decitabine treatment (Arm A) Levels: Status 2 vs \< 2"||||<0.0249
90931044|NCT01303796|181741427|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0249||||||one-sided|Log Rank|Predictive factor adjusted; when interaction term was not significant at 10% confidence level, the interaction term was removed from the model.||"Subgroup analyses (post-hoc): HCT-CI score (covariate)~Treatment covariate: alternating sapacitabine/decitabine treatment Levels: HCT-CI score 0-2 vs HCT-CI score \>2"||||<0.0249
90931045|NCT01303796|181741428|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.34||||0.1468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.645|2.782|||Fisher Exact|||||2.782|0.645|0.1468
90931046|NCT01303796|181741433|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0416|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0416
90931047|NCT01303796|181741434|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1568|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1568
90931048|NCT01303796|181741435|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.013|||<|0.0249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.837|1.226||one-sided|Log Rank|||||1.226|0.837|<0.0249
90931049|NCT02310581|181741443|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|104.973|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|39.2433||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.13|184.81|||ANCOVA|The analysis included treatment and site as main effects and Baseline pain intensity as the covariate.||||184.81|25.13|0.012
90931050|NCT02310581|181741443|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|86.316|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|37.5385||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.94|162.69|||ANCOVA|The analysis included treatment and site as main effects and Baseline pain intensity as the covariate.||||162.69|9.94|0.028
90931051|NCT02310581|181741443|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|64.485|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|39.2459||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.36|144.33|||ANCOVA|The analysis included treatment and site as main effects and Baseline pain intensity as the covariate.||||144.33|-15.36|0.110
90931052|NCT02310581|181741446|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|14.398|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.739||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.76|24.04|||ANCOVA|The analysis included treatment and site as main effects and Baseline pain intensity as the covariate.||||24.04|4.76|0.005
90967230|NCT04272892|181816832|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.35|||<|0.021|TWO_SIDED|||||p values are calculated for original data (complete case) and each of the 5 imputed datasets. The p value range was 0.002 - 0.020. This is not multiple statistical analyses- it is just one with multiple imputations.|ANCOVA|Degrees of freedom for original data (complete case): 1,64. Degrees of freedom for imputed datasets: 1,80||||||<0.021
90967231|NCT04272892|181816833|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.86||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.106|5.822|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA of score at 8 week follow up with baseline score as covariate, effect of group||||5.822|-.106|0.059
90931053|NCT02310581|181741446|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|8.056|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5331||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|17.28|||ANCOVA|The analysis included treatment and site as main effects and Baseline pain intensity as the covariate.||||17.28|-1.17|0.085
90931054|NCT02310581|181741446|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|10.063|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.7393||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|19.7|||ANCOVA|The analysis included treatment and site as main effects and Baseline pain intensity as the covariate.||||19.70|0.42|0.041
90931055|NCT02310581|181741447|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|26.665|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.1991||3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.98|43.35|||ANCOVA|The analysis included treatment and site as main effects and Baseline pain intensity as the covariate.||||43.35|9.98|0003
90931056|NCT02310581|181741447|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|21.605|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.8429||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.65|37.56|||ANCOVA|The analysis included treatment and site as main effects and Baseline pain intensity as the covariate.||||37.56|5.65|0.009
90931057|NCT02310581|181741447|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|22.143|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.1997||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.46|38.83|||ANCOVA|The analysis included treatment and site as main effects and Baseline pain intensity as the covariate.||||38.83|5.46|0.011
90931058|NCT02310581|181741448|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|63.881|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.3971||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.45|101.31|||ANCOVA|The analysis included treatment and site as main effects and Baseline pain intensity as the covariate.||||101.31|26.45|0.001
90931059|NCT02310581|181741448|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|50.284|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.5979||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.48|86.09|||ANCOVA|The analysis included treatment and site as main effects and Baseline pain intensity as the covariate.||||86.09|14.48|0.007
90931060|NCT02310581|181741448|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|56.879|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.3984||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.45|94.31|||ANCOVA|The analysis included treatment and site as main effects and Baseline pain intensity as the covariate.||||94.31|19.45|0.004
90931061|NCT00887224|181741450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Significance declared if p-value ≤0.05. The estimated probability obtained via Kaplan-Meier estimate.|Log Rank|||||||<0.001
90931062|NCT00887224|181741452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.9627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.08||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + site + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 1||0.08|-0.09|0.9627
90931063|NCT00887224|181741452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.1046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.21||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + site + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 2||0.21|-0.02|0.1046
90931064|NCT00887224|181741452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.0228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.25||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + site + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 3||0.25|0.02|0.0228
90931065|NCT00887224|181741452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.29||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + site + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 4||0.29|0.05|0.0064
90931066|NCT00887224|181741452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.39||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + site + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 6||0.39|0.11|<0.001
90931067|NCT00887224|181741452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.43||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + site + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 10||0.43|0.12|<0.001
90931068|NCT00887224|181741452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.47||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + site + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 14||0.47|0.19|<0.001
90931069|NCT00887224|181741452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.49||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + site + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 18||0.49|0.17|<0.001
90931070|NCT00887224|181741452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.62||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + site + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 22||0.62|0.25|<0.001
90931071|NCT00887224|181741452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.61||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + site + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 26||0.61|0.28|<0.001
90931072|NCT00887224|181741453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.8853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.47||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + site + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 1||0.47|-0.41|0.8853
90931073|NCT00887224|181741453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.88||||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.52||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + site + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 2||1.52|0.23|0.0081
90967232|NCT04272892|181816834|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|6.0|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA of sleep fragmentation at post-intervention with baseline as covariate, effect of group||||6.0|-3.5|0.596
90931074|NCT00887224|181741453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.88||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.47||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + site + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 3||1.47|0.28|0.0038
90931075|NCT00887224|181741453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.03||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + site + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 4||2.03|0.76|<0.001
90931076|NCT00887224|181741453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|2.39||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + site + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 6||2.39|0.86|<0.001
90931077|NCT00887224|181741453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|2.54||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + site + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 10||2.54|0.83|<0.001
90931078|NCT00887224|181741453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|2.86||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + site + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 14||2.86|1.23|<0.001
90931079|NCT00887224|181741453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.84||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + site + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 18||2.84|1.06|<0.001
90931080|NCT00887224|181741453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|3.3||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + site + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 22||3.30|1.31|<0.001
90931081|NCT00887224|181741453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|3.32||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + site + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 26||3.32|1.39|<0.001
90931082|NCT00887224|181741454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.9142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.27||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + site + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 1||0.27|-0.24|0.9142
90931083|NCT00887224|181741454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.53||||0.0069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.91||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + site + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 2||0.91|0.15|0.0069
90931084|NCT00887224|181741454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.58||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.95||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + site + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 3||0.95|0.21|0.0023
90931085|NCT00887224|181741454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.28||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + site + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 4||1.28|0.49|<0.001
90931086|NCT00887224|181741454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.32||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + site + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 6||1.32|0.43|<0.001
90931087|NCT00887224|181741454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.58||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + site + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 10||1.58|0.58|<0.001
90931088|NCT00887224|181741454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.58||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + site + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 14||1.58|0.66|<0.001
90941044|NCT01772823|181761662|OTHER|||||||0.0088||||||The chi-squared test of homogeneity is used to assess whether the proportions of the independent variable (participant responses to this question) differ between intervention arms.|Chi-squared|||||||0.0088
90941045|NCT01772823|181761663|OTHER|||||||0.2482||||||The chi-squared test of homogeneity is used to assess whether the proportions of the independent variable (participant responses to this question) differ between intervention arms.|Chi-squared|||||||0.2482
90941046|NCT01772823|181761664|OTHER|||||||0.1647||||||The chi-squared test of homogeneity is used to assess whether the proportions of the independent variable (participant responses to this question) differ between intervention arms.|Chi-squared|||||||0.1647
90931089|NCT00887224|181741454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.83||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + site + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 18||1.83|0.76|<0.001
90931090|NCT00887224|181741454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.76||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + site + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 22||1.76|0.70|<0.001
90931091|NCT00887224|181741454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.79||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + site + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 26||1.79|0.75|<0.001
90931092|NCT00887224|181741455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted odds ratio|2.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.93|4.2||Obtained from logistic regression analysis using Remission (Yes/No) at each time point as a response variable; logistic model with treatment and sites as factors and baseline HAM-D17 total score as covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Wald 95% CI for adjusted odds ratio.||4.20|1.93|<0.0001
90931093|NCT00887224|181741456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.03|-1.24||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 14||-1.24|-3.03|<0.001
90931094|NCT00887224|181741456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.29|-1.34||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 26||-1.34|-3.29|<0.001
90931095|NCT00887224|181741457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.02||||0.6772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.82|5.87||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 14 Absenteeism||5.87|-3.82|0.6772
90931096|NCT00887224|181741457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33||||0.9059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.91|5.24||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 26 Absenteeism||5.24|-5.91|0.9059
90931097|NCT00887224|181741457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.91||||0.0414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|13.55||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 14 Presenteeism||13.55|0.27|0.0414
90931098|NCT00887224|181741457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.24||||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|14.71||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + site + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 26 Presenteeism||14.71|1.77|0.0129
90931099|NCT00887224|181741457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.48||||0.0402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|14.61||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + site + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 14 Work Productivity Loss||14.61|0.34|0.0402
90931100|NCT00887224|181741457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.48||||0.0187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|15.53||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + site + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 26 Work Productivity Loss||15.53|1.43|0.0187
90931101|NCT00887224|181741457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.33|11.8||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + site + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 14 Activity Impairment||11.80|3.33|<0.001
90931102|NCT00887224|181741457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.14|12.1||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + site + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 26 Activity Impairment||12.10|3.14|<0.001
90931103|NCT03883828|181741458|SUPERIORITY||Multivariable Linear Regression|-0.45||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.15||Two-sided p-values equal to or less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant|Fisher Exact|||||-0.15|-0.75|0.004
90931104|NCT03883828|181741459|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2||||||A 2-sided P ≤ .05 was considered statistically significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Symptoms Domain||||||0.20
90931105|NCT03883828|181741459|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||A 2-sided P ≤ .05 was considered statistically significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Emotions Domain||||||0.05
90931106|NCT03883828|181741459|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73||||||A 2-sided P ≤ .05 was considered statistically significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Functioning Domain||||||0.73
90931107|NCT01256359|181741465|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.753||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.498|1.138||p value \< 0.1 one-sided considered to be significant.|Regression, Cox||HR is Adjusted for M status, performance status|||1.138|0.498|0.130
90941047|NCT01772823|181761665|OTHER|||||||0.688||||||The chi-squared test of homogeneity is used to assess whether the proportions of the independent variable (participant responses to this question) differ between intervention arms.|Chi-squared|||||||0.6880
90931108|NCT01256359|181741465|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.723||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.465|1.123|||Regression, Cox||This includes all 83 patients but the analysis additionally adjusted for LDH, target lesion sum and time interval between randomisation and baseline CT scan as well as mstatus, performance status|This is a sensitivity analysis of the primary outcome. This includes all 83 patients but the analysis additionally adjusted for LDH, target lesion sum and time interval between randomisation and baseline CT scan as well as mstatus, performance status||1.123|0.465|0.113
90931109|NCT01256359|181741465|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3016||||||This analysis assesses if allowing for interval censoring is consistent with the primary outcome results.|Generalised log-rank|Generalised log-rank taking into account interval censoring, analysed using SAS package version 9.2. Method by Zhao and Sun, 2004||This is a sensitivity analysis, including all 83 randomised patients. Patients are assessed periodically for the response (progression), the time when the event occurred is not directly observed but is known to take place within some time interval. Progression is known only to have occurred at some time between visits, the exact time is not known. We carried out interval censored analysis to demonstrate if allowing for interval censoring gives a different interpretation of the primary outcome.||||0.3016
90931110|NCT01256359|181741465|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.348||||0.305|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.602|3.016|||Regression, Cox||Adjusted for centre|Sensitivity analysis adjusting for centre. All 83 randomised patients were included in analysis. Centres were the three biggest recruiters and all other 13 centres are combined.||3.016|0.602|0.305
90931111|NCT01256359|181741466|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.0||||0.187|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.4|31.4|||Log Rank||This is the estimated difference in PFS rate i.e. % difference between arms|||31.4|-3.4|0.187
90931112|NCT01256359|181741467|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.373||||0.169|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.797|2.369|||Regression, Cox|p value \< 0.1 one-sided considered to be significant.||||2.369|0.797|0.169
90931113|NCT01256359|181741468|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.059|||||||Chi-squared|||Objective response rate calculated as number of patients with CR or PR over all patients randomised.||||0.059
90931114|NCT01256359|181741469|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||0.318|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.71|1.84|||Regression, Cox|||Analysis adjusted for with Mstatus and Performance Score||1.84|0.71|0.318
90931115|NCT01256359|181741507|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.022||||0.468|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.649|1.612|||Regression, Cox||Analysis Adjusted for M status, performance status|This is a sensitivity analysis of the primary outcome.||1.612|0.649|0.468
90931116|NCT01256359|181741508|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.721||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.468|1.109|||Regression, Cox||Analysis was adjusted for mstatus, performance status|This is the per-protocol analysis of the primary outcome.||1.109|0.468|0.106
90931117|NCT01256359|181741509|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63||||0.824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.53||p-value is for the interaction term|Regression, Cox||HRs (95% CI) between treatment groups are given for Wild type and NRAS mutated separately. The above HR is for WT.|Model with interaction term between NRAS status and treatment group and stratification variables||1.53|0.25|0.824
90931118|NCT01256359|181741510|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.6||p-value is for interaction term.|Regression, Cox|Model includes interaction term between NRAS status and treatment group and stratification variables|"HRs for treatment effect (AZD6244 vs Placebo ) are estimated for NRAS WT and NRAS mutated patients separately.~Hazard ratios (95%CI) given above are for NRAS WT patients."|||1.60|0.16|0.072
90931119|NCT01256359|181741510|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|5.33|||||HR for NRAS mutated patients|||5.33|0.73|
90931120|NCT01256359|181741512|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for with Mstatus and Performance Score|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.348|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.68|1.87|||Regression, Cox|||||1.87|0.68|0.348
90931121|NCT01256359|181741513|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61||||0.797|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.24|1.58||p-value is for interaction term.|Regression, Cox|Model includes interaction term between NRAS status and treatment group and stratification variables|"HRs for treatment effect (AZD6244 vs Placebo ) are estimated for NRAS WT and NRAS mutated patients separately.~Hazard ratios (95%CI) given above are for NRAS WT patients."|||1.58|0.24|0.797
90931122|NCT01256359|181741513|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.45|||||HR for NRAS mutated patients|||1.45|0.350|
90931123|NCT01256359|181741514|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.97||Model includes interaction term between NRAS status and treatment group and stratification variables. p-value is for interaction term.|Regression, Cox||"HRs for treatment effect (AZD6244 vs Placebo ) are estimated for NRAS WT and NRAS mutated patients separately.~Hazard ratios (95%CI) given above are for NRAS WT patients."|||1.97|0.18|0.120
90931124|NCT01256359|181741514|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|5.38|||||HR for NRAS mutated patients|||5.38|0.73|
90931125|NCT04237792|181741536|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.29|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.29|0.03|<0.001
90931126|NCT04237792|181741537|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.18||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.82|||Mantel Haenszel|||||0.82|0.04|0.022
90931127|NCT04237792|181741537|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.26|||Mantel Haenszel|||||0.26|0.01|<0.001
90931128|NCT04237792|181741538|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.11||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.59|||Mantel Haenszel|||||0.59|0.02|0.006
90931129|NCT04237792|181741538|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68||||0.597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|11.27|||Mantel Haenszel|||||11.27|0.25|0.597
90931130|NCT04237792|181741538|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.54||||0.374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|2.07|||Mantel Haenszel|||||2.07|0.14|0.374
90931131|NCT04237792|181741538|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.1||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.44|||Mantel Haenszel|||||0.44|0.02|0.001
90931132|NCT04237792|181741538|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.32||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.81|||Mantel Haenszel|||||0.81|0.13|0.015
90931133|NCT04237792|181741538|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.3||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.87|||Mantel Haenszel|||||0.87|0.10|0.024
90931134|NCT04237792|181741539|OTHER|||||||0.021|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.021
90931135|NCT04237792|181741539|OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.007
90931136|NCT04237792|181741539|OTHER|||||||0.225|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.225
90931137|NCT04237792|181741539|OTHER|||||||0.213|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.213
90931138|NCT04237792|181741539|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90931139|NCT04237792|181741539|OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.006
90931140|NCT04237792|181741539|OTHER|||||||0.011|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.011
90931141|NCT04237792|181741539|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90931142|NCT04237792|181741539|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.004
90931143|NCT04237792|181741540|OTHER|||||||0.016|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.016
90931144|NCT04237792|181741540|OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.005
90931145|NCT04237792|181741540|OTHER|||||||0.368|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.368
90931146|NCT04237792|181741540|OTHER|||||||0.358|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.358
90931147|NCT04237792|181741540|OTHER|||||||0|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.000
90931148|NCT04237792|181741540|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.001
90931149|NCT04237792|181741540|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.020
90931150|NCT04237792|181741540|OTHER|||||||0|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.000
90931151|NCT04237792|181741540|OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.005
90931152|NCT04237792|181741541|OTHER|||||||0.884|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.884
90931153|NCT04237792|181741541|OTHER|||||||0.662|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.662
90931154|NCT04237792|181741541|OTHER|||||||0.236|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.236
90931155|NCT04237792|181741541|OTHER|||||||0.733|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.733
90931156|NCT04237792|181741541|OTHER|||||||0.128|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.128
90931157|NCT04237792|181741541|OTHER|||||||0.165|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.165
90931158|NCT04237792|181741541|OTHER|||||||0.752|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.752
90931159|NCT04237792|181741541|OTHER|||||||0.139|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.139
90931160|NCT04237792|181741541|OTHER|||||||0.051|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.051
90931161|NCT04237792|181741543|OTHER|||||||0.124|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.124
90931162|NCT04237792|181741543|OTHER|||||||0.186|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.186
90931163|NCT04237792|181741543|OTHER|||||||0.47|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.470
90931164|NCT04237792|181741543|OTHER|||||||0.845|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.845
90931165|NCT04237792|181741543|OTHER|||||||0.621|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.621
90931166|NCT04237792|181741543|OTHER|||||||0.747|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.747
90931167|NCT04237792|181741543|OTHER|||||||0.218|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.218
90931168|NCT04237792|181741543|OTHER|||||||0.181|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.181
90931169|NCT04237792|181741543|OTHER|||||||0.984|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.984
90931170|NCT04237792|181741544|OTHER|||||||0.048|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.048
90931171|NCT04237792|181741544|OTHER|||||||0.106|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.106
90931172|NCT04237792|181741544|OTHER|||||||0.196|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.196
90931173|NCT04237792|181741544|OTHER|||||||0.94|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.940
90931174|NCT04237792|181741544|OTHER|||||||0.824|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.824
90931175|NCT04237792|181741544|OTHER|||||||0.678|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.678
90931176|NCT04237792|181741544|OTHER|||||||0.129|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.129
90931177|NCT04237792|181741544|OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.160
90931178|NCT04237792|181741544|OTHER|||||||0.872|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.872
90931179|NCT03052517|181741545|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.0|||Regression, Cox|The Cox regression model = treatment group+ severity of asthma + region as fixed class effects, stratified by randomization stratum|A hazard ratio \< 1 favors the treatment group in the numerator of the ratio.|Hazard Ratio = QAW039 150mg / Placebo||1.00|0.74|
90931180|NCT03052517|181741545|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.97|||Regression, Cox|The Cox regression model = treatment group+ severity of asthma + region as fixed class effects, stratified by randomization stratum|A hazard ratio \< 1 favors the treatment group in the numerator of the ratio.|Hazard Ratio = QAW039 450mg / Placebo||0.97|0.72|
90931181|NCT03052517|181741545|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.09|||Regression, Cox|The Cox regression model = treatment group+ severity of asthma + region as fixed class effects, stratified by randomization stratum|A hazard ratio \< 1 favors the treatment group in the numerator of the ratio.|Hazard Ratio = QAW039 450mg / QAW039 150mg||1.09|0.87|
90931182|NCT03052517|181741546|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.02|||Regression, Cox|The Cox regression model = treatment group+ severity of asthma + region as fixed class effects, stratified by randomization stratum|A hazard ratio \< 1 favors the treatment group in the numerator of the ratio.|Hazard Ratio = QAW039 150mg / Placebo||1.02|0.76|
90931183|NCT03052517|181741546|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.99|||Regression, Cox|The Cox regression model = treatment group+ severity of asthma + region as fixed class effects, stratified by randomization stratum|A hazard ratio \< 1 favors the treatment group in the numerator of the ratio.|Hazard Ratio = QAW039 450mg / Placebo||0.99|0.73|
90931184|NCT03052517|181741546|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.08|||Regression, Cox|The Cox regression model = treatment group+ severity of asthma + region as fixed class effects, stratified by randomization stratum|A hazard ratio \< 1 favors the treatment group in the numerator of the ratio.|Hazard Ratio = QAW039 450mg / QAW039 150mg||1.08|0.86|
90931185|NCT03052517|181741547|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.22|||Regression, Cox|The Cox regression model = treatment group+ severity of asthma + region as fixed class effects, stratified by randomization stratum|A hazard ratio \< 1 favors the treatment group in the numerator of the ratio.|Hazard Ratio = QAW039 150mg / Placebo||1.22|0.51|
90941048|NCT01772823|181761666|OTHER|||||||0.2881||||||The chi-squared test of homogeneity is used to assess whether the proportions of the independent variable (participant responses to this question) differ between intervention arms.|Chi-squared|||||||0.2881
90967233|NCT04272892|181816835|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.5||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.431|8.612|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA of sleep fragmentation at 8 week follow up with baseline as covariate, effect of group||||8.612|.431|0.031
90967234|NCT04272892|181816836|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|9.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA of wake after sleep onset post-intervention with baseline as covariate, effect of group||||9.1|-7.8|0.885
90967235|NCT04272892|181816837|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.0||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|17.0|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA of wake after sleep onset at 8 week follow up with baseline as covariate, effect of group||||17|-1|0.077
90931186|NCT03052517|181741547|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.97|||Regression, Cox|The Cox regression model = treatment group+ severity of asthma + region as fixed class effects, stratified by randomization stratum|A hazard ratio \< 1 favors the treatment group in the numerator of the ratio.|Hazard Ratio = QAW039 450mg / Placebo||0.97|0.39|
90931187|NCT03052517|181741547|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.14|||Regression, Cox|The Cox regression model = treatment group+ severity of asthma + region as fixed class effects, stratified by randomization stratum|A hazard ratio \< 1 favors the treatment group in the numerator of the ratio.|Hazard Ratio = QAW039 450mg / QAW039 150mg||1.14|0.54|
90931188|NCT03052517|181741548|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.22|||Regression, Cox|The Cox regression model = treatment group+ severity of asthma + region as fixed class effects, stratified by randomization stratum|A hazard ratio \< 1 favors the treatment group in the numerator of the ratio.|Hazard Ratio = QAW039 150mg / Placebo||1.22|0.54|
90931189|NCT03052517|181741548|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.97|||Regression, Cox|The Cox regression model = treatment group+ severity of asthma + region as fixed class effects, stratified by randomization stratum|A hazard ratio \< 1 favors the treatment group in the numerator of the ratio.|Hazard Ratio = QAW039 450mg / Placebo||0.97|0.41|
90931190|NCT03052517|181741548|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.11|||Regression, Cox|The Cox regression model = treatment group+ severity of asthma + region as fixed class effects, stratified by randomization stratum|A hazard ratio \< 1 favors the treatment group in the numerator of the ratio.|Hazard Ratio = QAW039 450mg / QAW039 150mg||1.11|0.55|
90931191|NCT03052517|181741549|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|2.23|||Regression, Cox|The Cox regression model = treatment group+ severity of asthma + region as fixed class effects, stratified by randomization stratum|A hazard ratio \< 1 favors the treatment group in the numerator of the ratio.|Hazard Ratio = QAW039 150mg / Placebo||2.23|0.47|
90931192|NCT03052517|181741549|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.64|||Regression, Cox|The Cox regression model = treatment group+ severity of asthma + region as fixed class effects, stratified by randomization stratum|A hazard ratio \< 1 favors the treatment group in the numerator of the ratio.|Hazard Ratio = QAW039 450mg / Placebo||2.64|0.59|
90931193|NCT03052517|181741549|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.1|||Regression, Cox|The Cox regression model = treatment group+ severity of asthma + region as fixed class effects, stratified by randomization stratum|A hazard ratio \< 1 favors the treatment group in the numerator of the ratio.|Hazard Ratio = QAW039 450mg / QAW039 150mg||2.10|0.70|
90931194|NCT03052517|181741550|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|2.56|||Regression, Cox|The Cox regression model = treatment group+ severity of asthma + region as fixed class effects, stratified by randomization stratum|A hazard ratio \< 1 favors the treatment group in the numerator of the ratio.|Hazard Ratio = QAW039 150mg / Placebo||2.56|0.56|
90931195|NCT03052517|181741550|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|2.95|||Regression, Cox|The Cox regression model = treatment group+ severity of asthma + region as fixed class effects, stratified by randomization stratum|A hazard ratio \< 1 favors the treatment group in the numerator of the ratio.|Hazard Ratio = QAW039 450mg / Placebo||2.95|0.67|
90931196|NCT03052517|181741550|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.96|||Regression, Cox|The Cox regression model = treatment group+ severity of asthma + region as fixed class effects, stratified by randomization stratum|A hazard ratio \< 1 favors the treatment group in the numerator of the ratio.|Hazard Ratio = QAW039 450mg / QAW039 150mg||1.96|0.70|
90931197|NCT03052517|181741551|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.626|1.047|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model: logit (proportion) = randomization stratum, treatment, severity of asthma, region as fixed effects||Statistical Analysis for Number of patients with at least one AE. Hazard Ratio = QAW039 150mg /Placebo||1.047|0.626|
90967236|NCT04272892|181816838|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.0||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|18.0|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA of sleep onset latency (median of 7 nights) at end of intervention with baseline as covariate, effect of group||||18|2|0.014
90967237|NCT04272892|181816839|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|3.5|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA of PHQ9 score post-intervention with baseline as covariate, effect of group||||3.5|.18|0.03
90967238|NCT04272892|181816840|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.29||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.149|4.44|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA of PHQ9 score at 8 week follow up with baseline as covariate, effect of group||||4.44|.149|0.036
90967239|NCT04272892|181816841|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.61||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|3.25|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA of GAD7 post-intervention, with baseline as covariate, effect of group||||3.25|-0.03|0.054
90967240|NCT04272892|181816842|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.09||||0.229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|2.87|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA of GAD7 at 8 week follow up, with baseline as covariate, effect of group||||2.87|-.70|0.229
90967241|NCT04272892|181816843|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.39||||0.502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.51|2.73|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA of SIS index at post-intervention, with baseline as covariate, effect of group||||2.73|-5.51|0.502
90967242|NCT04272892|181816844|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.183||||0.924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.63|4.0|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA of SIS index at 8 week follow up, with baseline as covariate, effect of group||||4.0|-3.63|0.924
90967243|NCT05318937|181816851|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.07||0.9934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.13|4.09||The p-value was obtained using a MMRM model which included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction as categorical covariates, and WAIS-IV at baseline as continuous covariates.|MMRM||Difference was calculated as SAGE-718 - placebo.|||4.09|-4.13|0.9934
90967244|NCT04722042|181816855|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.557|||||||ANOVA|||comparison of word recognition over time (activation, and 1, 3, 6, and 12 months post-activation) between groups (default versus place-based)||||0.557
91035475|NCT00835991|181956949|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|101.36||||||90.0|98.32|104.48|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||104.48|98.32|
90931198|NCT03052517|181741551|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.622|1.038|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model: logit (proportion) = randomization stratum, treatment, severity of asthma, region as fixed effects||Statistical Analysis for Number of patients with at least one AE. Hazard Ratio = QAW039 450mg /Placebo||1.038|0.622|
90931199|NCT03052517|181741551|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.821|1.2|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model: logit (proportion) = randomization stratum, treatment, severity of asthma, region as fixed effects||Statistical Analysis for Number of patients with at least one AE. Hazard Ratio = QAW039 450mg /QAW039 150mg||1.200|0.821|
90931200|NCT03052517|181741552|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.667|1.125|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model: logit (proportion) = randomization stratum, treatment, severity of asthma, region as fixed effects||Statistical Analysis for Number of patients with at least one AE. Hazard Ratio = QAW039 150mg /Placebo||1.125|0.667|
90931201|NCT03052517|181741552|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.643|1.082|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model: logit (proportion) = randomization stratum, treatment, severity of asthma, region as fixed effects||Statistical Analysis for Number of patients with at least one AE. Hazard Ratio = QAW039 450mg /Placebo||1.082|0.643|
90931202|NCT03052517|181741552|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.794|1.167|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model: logit (proportion) = randomization stratum, treatment, severity of asthma, region as fixed effects||Statistical Analysis for Number of patients with at least one AE. Hazard Ratio = QAW039 450mg /QAW039 150mg||1.167|0.794|
90931203|NCT00910962|181741582|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.38|||Cox' proportional hazards model|||||1.38|0.46|0.4110
90931204|NCT00910962|181741582|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.9318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.74|||Cox' proportional hazards model|||||1.74|0.60|0.9318
90931205|NCT00910962|181741582|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.6805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.46|||Cox' proportional hazards model|||||1.46|0.56|0.6805
90931206|NCT00910962|181741583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.34|||Cox' proportional hazards model|||||1.34|0.39|0.2990
90931207|NCT00910962|181741583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.8235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.9|||Cox' proportional hazards model|||||1.90|0.60|0.8235
90931208|NCT00910962|181741583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.51|||Cox' proportional hazards model|||||1.51|0.52|0.6590
90931209|NCT00910962|181741589|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|0.8||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.09|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||||1.09|0.59|0.151
90931210|NCT00910962|181741589|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|0.95||||0.744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.29|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||||1.29|0.70|0.744
90931211|NCT00910962|181741589|SUPERIORITY||test to treatment ratio|0.87||||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.14|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||||1.14|0.66|0.317
90931212|NCT00910962|181741590|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|1.03||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.32|||ANCOVA|||||1.32|0.80|0.83
90931213|NCT00910962|181741590|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|1.08||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.39|||ANCOVA|||||1.39|0.84|0.56
90931214|NCT00910962|181741590|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|1.05||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.32|||ANCOVA|||||1.32|0.84|0.65
90931215|NCT00910962|181741591|SUPERIORITY||Test to reference ratio|0.77||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.99|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg (A): For 24 hours||0.99|0.60|0.040
90931216|NCT00910962|181741591|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|0.66||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.85|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs Losmapimod 15 mg followed by Losmapimod 7.5 mg (B): For 24 hours||0.85|0.52|0.001
90931217|NCT00910962|181741591|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|0.71||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.89|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs A and B Combined (C): For 24 hours||0.89|0.57|0.003
90931218|NCT00910962|181741591|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|0.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.78|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg (A): For 48 hours||0.78|0.40|<0.001
90931219|NCT00910962|181741591|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|0.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.65|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs Losmapimod 15 mg followed by Losmapimod 7.5 mg (B): For 48 hours||0.65|0.33|<0.001
90931220|NCT00910962|181741591|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|0.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.69|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs A and B Combined (C): For 48 hours||0.69|0.38|<0.001
90931221|NCT00910962|181741591|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|0.68||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.01|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg (A): For 72 hours||1.01|0.45|0.059
90931222|NCT00910962|181741591|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|0.6||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.9|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs Losmapimod 15 mg followed by Losmapimod 7.5 mg (B): For 72 hours||0.90|0.40|0.013
90931223|NCT00910962|181741591|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|0.64||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.92|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs A and B Combined (C): For 72 hours||0.92|0.45|0.015
90931224|NCT00910962|181741591|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|0.7||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.03|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg (A): For Week 2||1.03|0.48|0.073
90931225|NCT00910962|181741591|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|0.7||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.04|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs Losmapimod 15 mg followed by Losmapimod 7.5 mg (B): For Week 2||1.04|0.48|0.075
90931226|NCT00910962|181741591|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|0.7||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.99|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs A and B Combined (C): For Week 2||0.99|0.50|0.044
90931227|NCT00910962|181741591|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|0.78||||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.1|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg (A): For Week 4||1.10|0.55|0.157
90931228|NCT00910962|181741591|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|0.9||||0.548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.28|||ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs Losmapimod 15 mg followed by Losmapimod 7.5 mg (B): For Week 4||1.28|0.63|0.548
90931229|NCT00910962|181741591|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|0.83||||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.14|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs A and B Combined (C): For Week 4||1.14|0.61|0.253
90967245|NCT04722042|181816856|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.208|||||||ANOVA|||comparison of spatial release from masking over time (1, 3, 6, and 12 months post-activation) between the groups (default versus place-based)||||0.208
90967246|NCT04722042|181816857|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.126|||||||ANOVA|||comparison of spatial release from masking between the groups over time||||0.126
90967247|NCT04722042|181816858|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.369|||||||ANOVA|||comparison of perceived benefit between the groups over time||||0.369
90967248|NCT04722042|181816859|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.006
90967249|NCT04722042|181816860|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90967250|NCT04722042|181816861|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
90967251|NCT01877915|181816869|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.05|||Log Rank|||Statistical Analysis 1||1.05|0.84|0.270
90967252|NCT01877915|181816875|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|2.59|||Log Rank|||Statistical Analysis 1 (Fatal Bleeding)||2.59|0.41|0.951
90967253|NCT01877915|181816875|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.34|||Log Rank|||Statistical Analysis 2 (Bleeding in Critical Space with Potential for Permanent Disability)||1.34|0.33|0.253
90967254|NCT05314517|181816899|OTHER||Stratified Common Risk Difference|14.1||||0.1244|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|29.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||29.2|-1.0|0.1244
90967255|NCT04714073|181816905|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means (%)|218.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|194.06|246.72|||||"The estimated parameter was the adjusted geometric mean ratio (%): BI 706321 + Itraconazole (Test Treatment(T))/BI 706321 alone (Reference Treatment (R)).~Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 18.1."|The statistical model used for the analysis of the primary PK endpoints was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. The PK endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'subjects' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subject' was considered as random, whereas 'treatment' was considered as fixed.||246.72|194.06|
90967256|NCT04714073|181816906|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means (%)|156.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|135.04|180.89|||||"The estimated parameter was the adjusted geometric mean ratio (%): BI 706321 + Itraconazole (Test Treatment(T))/BI 706321 alone (Reference Treatment (R)).~Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 22.1."|The statistical model used for the analysis of the primary PK endpoints was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. The PK endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'subjects' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subject' was considered as random, whereas 'treatment' was considered as fixed.||180.89|135.04|
90887984|NCT02417246|181639102|EQUIVALENCE|A mixed effect model for repeated measures was performed to model the 24-hour HR by quartile for 35 patients receiving brand name metoprolol ER and Generic B.|Slope|1.233||||0.333|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.333
90967257|NCT04714073|181816907|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means (%)|223.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|198.61|250.66|||||"The estimated parameter was the adjusted geometric mean ratio (%): BI 706321 + Itraconazole (Test Treatment(T))/BI 706321 alone (Reference Treatment (R)).~Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 17.5."|The statistical model used for the analysis of the primary PK endpoints was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. The PK endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'subjects' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subject' was considered as random, whereas 'treatment' was considered as fixed.||250.66|198.61|
90967258|NCT02603120|181816971|NON_INFERIORITY|A sample size of 260 participants per treatment group would provide at least 90% power to detect a noninferiority margin of 4% in difference in percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA ≥ 50 copies/mL at Wk 48, between B/F/TAF group and ABC/DTG/3TC group. Sample size was based on assumptions that both treatment groups have 2% of participants with HIV-1 RNA ≥ 50 copies/mL at Wk 48 and that the non-inferiority margin is 4%, and that the significance level of the test is at a one-sided 0.025 level.|Difference in Percentages|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.002|-1.0|2.8|||||The differences in percentages of participants between treatment groups and their 95.002% CIs were calculated based on an unconditional exact method using 2 inverted 1-sided tests.|||2.8|-1.0|
90967259|NCT02603120|181816971|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.62
90967260|NCT02603120|181816972|NON_INFERIORITY|It would be concluded that B/F/TAF is noninferior to ABC/DTG/3TC if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95.002% CI of the difference between treatment groups (B/F/TAF group -ABC/DTG/3TC group) in the percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL is greater than -10%.|Difference in Percentages|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.002|-5.5|2.6|||||The differences in percentages of participants between treatment groups and their 95.002% CIs were calculated based on an unconditional exact method using 2 inverted 1-sided tests.|||2.6|-5.5|
90967261|NCT02603120|181816972|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.59
90967262|NCT02603120|181816973|OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-35.0||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.0|-3.0|||ANOVA|||||-3|-67|0.031
90967263|NCT02603120|181816975|OTHER||Difference in least squares means|0.276||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.275|0.827|||ANOVA|||||0.827|-0.275|0.33
90967264|NCT02603120|181816977|OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.143||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.534|0.248|||ANOVA|||||0.248|-0.534|0.47
90967265|NCT00916357|181816984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0034||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog alone and Humalog + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||60 minutes after study drug injection.||||0.0034
90967266|NCT00916357|181816984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog alone and Humulin-R + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||60 minutes after study drug injection.||||0.2600
90967267|NCT00916357|181816984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20) and Humulin-R + rHuPH20.|Repeated measures Analysis of Variance|||60 minutes after study drug injection.||||0.0001
90967268|NCT00916357|181816984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0039||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog alone and Humalog + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||90 minutes after study drug injection.||||0.0039
90967269|NCT00916357|181816984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog alone and Humulin-R + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||90 minutes after study drug injection.||||0.9300
90967270|NCT00916357|181816984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0031||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20) and Humulin-R + rHuPH20.|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||90 minutes after study drug injection.||||0.0031
90967271|NCT00916357|181816984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog alone and Humalog + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||120 minutes after study drug injection.||||0.0190
90967272|NCT00916357|181816984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog alone and Humulin-R + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||120 minutes after study drug injection.||||0.9200
90967273|NCT00916357|181816984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20) and Humulin-R + rHuPH20.|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||120 minutes after study drug injection.||||0.0150
90967274|NCT00916357|181816984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.095||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog alone and Humalog + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||Peak postprandial glucose (PPG) values.||||0.0950
90967275|NCT00916357|181816984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog alone and Humulin-R + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||Peak postprandial glucose (PPG) values.||||0.6000
90967276|NCT00916357|181816984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20) and Humulin-R + rHuPH20.|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||Peak postprandial glucose (PPG) values.||||0.0310
90967277|NCT00916357|181816985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog alone and Humalog + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||||||<0.0001
90967278|NCT00916357|181816985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog alone and Humulin-R + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||||||0.1800
90967279|NCT00916357|181816985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20) and Humulin-R + rHuPH20.|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||||||<0.0001
90967280|NCT00916357|181816986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0045||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog alone and Humalog + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||||||0.0045
90967281|NCT00916357|181816986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog alone and Humulin-R + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||||||0.4800
90967282|NCT00916357|181816986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20) and Humulin-R + rHuPH20.|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||||||0.0006
90967283|NCT00916357|181816987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog alone and Humalog + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||||||<0.0001
90967284|NCT00916357|181816987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0016||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog alone and Humalog + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||||||0.0016
90967285|NCT00916357|181816987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20) and Humulin-R + rHuPH20.|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||||||0.1000
90967286|NCT00916357|181816988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog alone + Humalog + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||||||<0.0001
90967287|NCT00916357|181816988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3||||||Treatment comparison for Humalog alone and Humulin-R + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||||||0.3000
90967288|NCT00916357|181816988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20) and Humulin-R + rHuPH20.|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||||||<0.0001
90967289|NCT00916357|181816989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog alone and Humalog + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||||||<0.0001
90967290|NCT00916357|181816989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog alone and Humulin-R + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||||||0.7700
90967291|NCT00916357|181816989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20) and Humulin-R + rHuPH20.|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||||||<0.0001
90967292|NCT00916357|181816990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog alone and Humalog + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||||||0.0100
90967293|NCT00916357|181816990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog alone and Humulin-R + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||||||0.8200
90967294|NCT00916357|181816990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0056||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20) and Humulin-R + rHuPH20.|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||||||0.0056
90967295|NCT00916357|181816991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.064||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog alone and Humalog + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||Participants with blood glucose (BG) \>160 milligrams per deciliter (mg/dL)||||0.064
90967296|NCT00916357|181816991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog alone and Humulin-R + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||Participants with blood glucose (BG) \>160 milligrams per deciliter (mg/dL)||||0.47
90967297|NCT00916357|181816991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20) and Humulin-R + rHuPH20.|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||Participants with blood glucose (BG) \>160 milligrams per deciliter (mg/dL)||||0.012
90967298|NCT00916357|181816991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.099||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog alone and Humalog + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||Participants with blood glucose (BG) \>140 milligrams per deciliter (mg/dL)||||0.099
90967299|NCT00916357|181816991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog alone and Humulin-R + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||Participants with blood glucose (BG) \>140 milligrams per deciliter (mg/dL)||||0.46
90967300|NCT00916357|181816991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20) and Humulin-R + rHuPH20.|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||Participants with blood glucose (BG) \>140 milligrams per deciliter (mg/dL)||||0.020
90967301|NCT00916357|181816991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog alone and Humalog + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||Participants with blood glucose (BG) \<70 milligrams per deciliter (mg/dL)||||0.13
90967302|NCT00916357|181816991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog alone and Humulin-R + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||Participants with blood glucose (BG) \<70 milligrams per deciliter (mg/dL)||||0.41
90967303|NCT00916357|181816991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20) and Humulin-R + rHuPH20.|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||Participants with blood glucose (BG) \<70 milligrams per deciliter (mg/dL)||||0.46
90967304|NCT00916357|181816992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog alone and Humalog + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||||||0.016
90967305|NCT00916357|181816992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog alone and Humulin-R + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||||||0.8800
90967306|NCT00916357|181816992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20) and Humulin-R + rHuPH20.|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||||||0.011
90967307|NCT00916357|181816994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog alone and Humalog + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||Analysis for 10% of exposure (area under the curve \[AUC\])||||<0.0001
90967308|NCT00916357|181816994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog alone and Humulin-R + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||Analysis for 10% of exposure (area under the curve \[AUC\])||||0.1800
90967309|NCT00916357|181816994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20) and Humulin-R + rHuPH20.|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||Analysis for 10% of exposure (area under the curve \[AUC\])||||<0.0001
90967310|NCT00916357|181816994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Treatment comparison for Humalog alone and Humalog + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||Analysis for 50% of exposure (area under the curve \[AUC\])||||<0.0001
91035476|NCT00835991|181956950|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|99.05||||||90.0|94.31|104.02|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||104.02|94.31|
90967311|NCT00916357|181816994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog alone and Humulin-R + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||Analysis for 50% of exposure (area under the curve \[AUC\])||||0.7200
90967312|NCT00916357|181816994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20) and Humulin-R + rHuPH20.|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||Analysis for 50% of exposure (area under the curve \[AUC\])||||<0.0001
90967313|NCT04451161|181817039|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.591||||||We performed a chi-squared analysis comparing the study groups (BASIS vs. Attention Control) on whether participants administered the CPSS-V to at least one student beginning of the active phase.|Chi-squared|||The primary TF-CBT adoption outcome (defined as administered CPSS-V) was binary: either the participant adopted at least one of these components with a student, or they did not at the beginning of the active phase. A chi-squared test was used as a superiority test to determine whether participants in the BASIS group had higher TF-CBT adoption rates compared to the Attention Control group.||||0.591
90967314|NCT04451161|181817039|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.032||||||We performed a chi-squared analysis comparing the study groups (BASIS vs. Attention Control) on whether participants administered the CPSS-V to at least one student by the end of the active phase.|Chi-squared|||The primary TF-CBT adoption outcome (defined as administered CPSS-V) was binary: either the participant adopted at least one of these components with a student, or they did not by the end of the active phase. A chi-squared test was used as a superiority test to determine whether participants in the BASIS group had higher TF-CBT adoption rates compared to the Attention Control group.||||0.032
90967315|NCT04451161|181817039|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.054||||||We performed a chi-squared analysis comparing the study groups (BASIS vs. Attention Control) on whether participants administered the CPSS-V to at least one student by the end of the sustainment phase.|Chi-squared|||One of the primary TF-CBT adoption outcomes (defined as administered CPSS-V) was binary: either the participant adopted at least one of these components with a student at the end of the sustainment phase, or they did not. A chi-squared test was used as a superiority test to determine whether participants in the BASIS group had higher TF-CBT adoption rates compared to the Attention Control group.||||0.054
91035477|NCT00835991|181956951|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|96.55||||||90.0|93.85|99.32|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||99.32|93.85|
90931230|NCT00910962|181741591|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|0.8||||0.204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.13|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg (A): For Week 8||1.13|0.58|0.204
90931231|NCT00910962|181741591|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|0.99||||0.965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.39|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs Losmapimod 15 mg followed by Losmapimod 7.5 mg (B): For Week 8||1.39|0.71|0.965
90931232|NCT00910962|181741591|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|0.89||||0.457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.2|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs A and B Combined (C): For Week 8||1.20|0.66|0.457
90931233|NCT00910962|181741591|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|1.58||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|2.22|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg (A): For Week 14||2.22|1.13|0.008
90931234|NCT00910962|181741591|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|1.69||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|2.38|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs Losmapimod 15 mg followed by Losmapimod 7.5 mg (B): For Week 14||2.38|1.21|0.002
90931235|NCT00910962|181741591|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|1.64||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|2.21|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs A and B Combined (C): For Week 14||2.21|1.21|0.001
90931236|NCT00910962|181741592|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|0.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.69|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg (A): For 24 hours||0.69|0.43|<0.001
90931237|NCT00910962|181741592|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|0.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.82|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs Losmapimod 15 mg followed by Losmapimod 7.5 mg (B): For 24 hours||0.82|0.50|<0.001
90931238|NCT00910962|181741592|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|0.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.73|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs A and B Combined (C): For 24 hours||0.73|0.48|<0.001
90931239|NCT00910962|181741592|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|0.76||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.98|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg (A): For Week 2||0.98|0.59|0.031
90931240|NCT00910962|181741592|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|0.88||||0.315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.13|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs Losmapimod 15 mg followed by Losmapimod 7.5 mg (B): For Week 2||1.13|0.68|0.315
90931241|NCT00910962|181741592|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|0.82||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.02|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs A and B Combined (C): For Week 2||1.02|0.65|0.075
90931242|NCT00910962|181741592|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|0.81||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.02|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg (A): For Week 12||1.02|0.65|0.068
90931243|NCT00910962|181741592|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|0.97||||0.824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.22|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs Losmapimod 15 mg followed by Losmapimod 7.5 mg (B): For Week 12||1.22|0.78|0.824
90931244|NCT00910962|181741592|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|0.89||||0.246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.09|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs A and B Combined (C): For Week 12||1.09|0.73|0.246
90931245|NCT00910962|181741593|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|1.04||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.21|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg (A): For 72 hours||1.21|0.89|0.66
90931246|NCT00910962|181741593|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|1.07||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.25|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs Losmapimod 15 mg followed by Losmapimod 7.5 mg (B): For 72 hours||1.25|0.92|0.39
90931247|NCT00910962|181741593|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|1.05||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.21|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs A and B Combined (C): For 72 hours||1.21|0.92|0.47
90931248|NCT00910962|181741594|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|0.99||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.25|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||||1.25|0.78|0.92
90931249|NCT00910962|181741594|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|1.08||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.36|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||||1.36|0.85|0.52
90931250|NCT00910962|181741594|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|1.03||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.27|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||||1.27|0.84|0.76
90931251|NCT00910962|181741595|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|0.93||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.2|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg (A): For discharge/early withdrawal||1.20|0.72|0.57
90931252|NCT00910962|181741595|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|0.92||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.18|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs Losmapimod 15 mg followed by Losmapimod 7.5 mg (B): For discharge/early withdrawal||1.18|0.72|0.52
90931253|NCT00910962|181741595|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|0.92||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.16|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs A and B Combined (C): For discharge/early withdrawal||1.16|0.74|0.50
90931254|NCT00910962|181741595|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|0.73||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.96|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg (A): For Week 12||0.96|0.55|0.03
90931255|NCT00910962|181741595|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|0.81||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.07|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs Losmapimod 15 mg followed by Losmapimod 7.5 mg (B): For Week 12||1.07|0.61|0.14
90931256|NCT00910962|181741595|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|0.76||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.98|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs A and B Combined (C): For Week 12||0.98|0.60|0.04
90931257|NCT00910962|181741596|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.92||||0.254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.25|1.41|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg (A): For Day 3-5 (visit 1)||1.41|-5.25|0.254
90931258|NCT00910962|181741596|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.84||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.29|0.62|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs Losmapimod 15 mg followed by Losmapimod 7.5 mg (B): For Day 3-5 (visit 1)||0.62|-6.29|0.106
90931259|NCT00910962|181741596|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.38||||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.44|0.69|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs A and B Combined (C): For Day 3-5 (visit 1)||0.69|-5.44|0.126
90931260|NCT00910962|181741596|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.91||||0.184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.74|0.92|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg (A): For Week 12||0.92|-4.74|0.184
90931261|NCT00910962|181741596|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.47||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.37|0.43|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs Losmapimod 15 mg followed by Losmapimod 7.5 mg (B): For Week 12||0.43|-5.37|0.093
90931262|NCT00910962|181741596|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.19||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.78|0.4|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs A and B Combined (C): For Week 12||0.40|-4.78|0.096
90931263|NCT00910962|181741597|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.22||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|9.62|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||||9.62|-1.18|0.124
90931264|NCT00910962|181741597|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.05||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|11.47|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||||11.47|0.63|0.029
90931265|NCT00910962|181741597|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.14||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|10.0|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||||10.00|0.28|0.039
90931266|NCT00910962|181741598|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.53||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.27|-2.79|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg (A): For LVEDV||-2.79|-40.27|0.025
90931267|NCT00910962|181741598|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.65||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.58|0.29|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs Losmapimod 15 mg followed by Losmapimod 7.5 mg (B): For LVEDV||0.29|-37.58|0.053
90931268|NCT00910962|181741598|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.09||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.01|-3.18|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs A and B Combined (C): For LVEDV||-3.18|-37.01|0.021
90931269|NCT00910962|181741598|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.82||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.51|-2.14|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg (A): For LVESV||-2.14|-29.51|0.024
90931270|NCT00910962|181741598|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.22||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.14|-3.29|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs Losmapimod 15 mg followed by Losmapimod 7.5 mg (B): For LVESV||-3.29|-31.14|0.016
90931271|NCT00910962|181741598|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.52||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.91|-4.13|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs A and B Combined (C): For LVESV||-4.13|-28.91|0.010
90931272|NCT00910962|181741599|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.21||||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.51|5.09|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||||5.09|-49.51|0.109
90931273|NCT00910962|181741599|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.13||||0.614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.22|20.96|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||||20.96|-35.22|0.614
90931274|NCT00910962|181741599|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.67||||0.243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.52|10.18|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||||10.18|-39.52|0.243
90931275|NCT00910962|181741600|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.03|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||||-0.03|-0.44|0.023
90931276|NCT00910962|181741600|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.04|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||||-0.04|-0.45|0.021
90931277|NCT00910962|181741600|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.06|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||||-0.06|-0.42|0.011
90931278|NCT00910962|181741601|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11||||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.04|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||||0.04|-0.26|0.137
90931279|NCT00910962|181741601|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|-0.01|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||||-0.01|-0.32|0.036
90931280|NCT00910962|181741601|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.0|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||||-0.00|-0.28|0.047
90931281|NCT00195819|181741602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|20.1||||0.06||95.0|-0.5|40.7|||Chi-squared|||||40.7|-0.5|0.060
90931282|NCT00195819|181741645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.387||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.387
90931283|NCT05553366|181741659|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0002
90931284|NCT05553366|181741660|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0016|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0016
90931285|NCT05553366|181741661|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0016|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0016
90931286|NCT05553366|181741662|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1315|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.1315
90931287|NCT05553366|181741663|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0343|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0343
90931288|NCT05553366|181741664|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0014|||||||Pearson's chi-squared test|||||||0.0014
90931289|NCT05553366|181741665|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0032|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0032
90931290|NCT05553366|181741666|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8592|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.8592
90931291|NCT05553366|181741667|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9143|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.9143
90931292|NCT05553366|181741668|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0205|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum|||||||0.0205
90931293|NCT03274076|181741689|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.19|8.33|||||Tofacitinib represents the numerator, and placebo represents the denominator.|H0: Rate of grade 3 (severe) or higher adverse events that occur throughout week 48 in Placebo = Rate of grade 3 (severe) or higher adverse events that occur throughout week 48 in Tofacitinib.||8.33|0.19|
90931294|NCT03274076|181741690|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.25|1.71|||||Tofacitinib represents the numerator, and Placebo represents the denominator.|H0: Rate of grade 2 (moderate) or higher adverse events that occur throughout week 12 in Placebo = Rate of grade 2 (moderate) or higher adverse events that occur throughout week 12 in Tofacitinib||1.71|0.25|
90931295|NCT03274076|181741690|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.26|1.07|||||Tofacitinib represents the numerator, and Placebo represents the denominator.|H0: Rate of grade 2 (moderate) or higher adverse events that occur throughout week 24 in Placebo = Rate of grade 2 (moderate) or higher adverse events that occur throughout week 24 in Tofacitinib||1.07|0.26|
90967316|NCT04451161|181817039|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98||||||We performed a chi-squared analysis comparing the study groups (BASIS vs. Attention Control) on whether participants started TF-CBT with at least one student at the beginning of the active phase.|Chi-squared|||The primary TF-CBT adoption outcome (defined as started TF-CBT) was binary: either the participant adopted at least one of these components with a student, or they did not at the beginning of the active phase. A chi-squared test was used as a superiority test to determine whether participants in the BASIS group had higher TF-CBT adoption rates compared to the Attention Control group.||||0.98
90931296|NCT03274076|181741690|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.49|1.49|||||Tofacitinib represents the numerator, and Placebo represents the denominator.|H0: Rate of grade 2 (moderate) or higher adverse events that occur throughout week 36 in Placebo = Rate of grade 2 (moderate) or higher adverse events that occur throughout week 36 in Tofacitinib||1.49|0.49|
90931297|NCT03274076|181741690|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.52|1.52|||||Tofacitinib represents the numerator, and Placebo represents the denominator.|H0: Rate of grade 2 (moderate) or higher adverse events that occur throughout week 48 in Placebo = Rate of grade 2 (moderate) or higher adverse events that occur throughout week 48 in Tofacitinib||1.52|0.52|
90931298|NCT03274076|181741691|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|3.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.68|21.77|||||Tofacitinib represents the numerator, and Placebo represents the denominator.|H0: Rate of adverse events of special interest throughout week 36 in Placebo = Rate of adverse events of special interest throughout week 36 in Tofacitinib||21.77|0.68|
90931299|NCT03274076|181741691|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|1.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5169|6.7652|||||Tofacitinib represents the numerator, and Placebo represents the denominator.|H0: Rate of adverse events of special interest throughout week 48 in Placebo = Rate of adverse events of special interest throughout week 48 in Tofacitinib||6.7652|0.5169|
90931300|NCT03274076|181741692|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1978|||||||Exact Wilcoxon|||H0: The absolute change in mRSS from week 0 to week 12 in placebo = The absolute change in mRSS from week 0 to week 12 in Tofacitinib.||||0.1978
90931301|NCT03274076|181741692|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4665|||||||Exact Wilcoxon|||H0: The absolute change in mRSS from week 0 to week 24 in placebo = The absolute change in mRSS from week 0 to week 24 in Tofacitinib.||||0.4665
90931302|NCT03274076|181741692|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3063|||||||Exact Wilcoxon|||H0: The absolute change in mRSS from week 0 to week 36 in placebo = The absolute change in mRSS from week 0 to week 36 in Tofacitinib.||||0.3063
90931303|NCT03274076|181741692|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Exact Wilcoxon|||H0: The absolute change in mRSS from week 0 to week 48 in placebo = The absolute change in mRSS from week 0 to week 48 in Tofacitinib.||||0.6000
90931304|NCT03274076|181741693|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4535|||||||Exact Wilcoxon|||H0: The CRISS score at week 12 in placebo = The CRISS score at week 12 in Tofacitinib.||||0.4535
90931305|NCT03274076|181741693|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8392|||||||Exact Wilcoxon|||H0: The CRISS score at week 24 in placebo = The CRISS score at week 24 in Tofacitinib.||||0.8392
90931306|NCT03274076|181741693|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9212|||||||Exact Wilcoxon|||H0: The CRISS score at week 48 in placebo = The CRISS score at week 48 in Tofacitinib.||||0.9212
90931307|NCT00822900|181741806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.95||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.06|||Regression, Generalized linear|Adjusting for injury severity, sex, and age. the binomial distribution with the log link is used to estimate treatment effect as relative risk.|A risk ratio (equivalent to the relative risk) of less than 1.00 indicating fewer favorable outcomes in the progesterone group than in the placebo group.|Test of null hypothesis (equal proportions of subjects with favorable outcome in progesterone and placebo arms) versus alternative hypothesis (unequal proportions of subjects with favorable outcome in progesterone and placebo arms). Standard multiple imputation methods are used to account for missing data. The primary outcome measure is based on the stratified dichotomy approach.||1.06|0.85|0.35
90931308|NCT00822900|181741807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.63|||||A hazard ratio of more than 1.00 indicating higher hazard of death from the progesterone group than in the placebo group.|The Cox proportional hazards model is used to compare these curves after adjustment for age, sex and injury severity.||1.63|0.86|
90931309|NCT00822900|181741809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|3.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.96|4.66|||||A risk ratio (equivalent to the relative risk) of more than 1.00 indicating more events in the progesterone group than in the placebo group.|||4.66|1.96|
90931310|NCT01968967|181741818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-56.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.3|-54.0|||MMRM|||Least square (LS) mean difference and associated 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI), and p-value were derived from mixed effect model repeat measurement (MMRM) model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-54.0|-58.3|<0.001
90931311|NCT01968967|181741819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-35.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.5|-33.5|||MMRM|||Week 12: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI and p-value were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-33.5|-36.5|<0.001
90931312|NCT01968967|181741819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-31.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.3|-29.8||||||Week 24: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-29.8|-33.3|
90931313|NCT01968967|181741819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-24.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.6|-22.8||||||Week 52: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-22.8|-26.6|
90931314|NCT01968967|181741820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-50.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.9|-48.8|||MMRM|||Week 12: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI and p-value were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-48.8|-52.9|<0.001
90931315|NCT01968967|181741820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-46.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.19|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.5|-43.8||||||Week 24: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-43.8|-48.5|
90931316|NCT01968967|181741820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-36.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.28|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.6|-33.6||||||Week 52: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-33.6|-38.6|
90931317|NCT01968967|181741821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-50.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.1|-48.0|||MMRM|||Week 12: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI and p-value were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-48.0|-52.1|<0.001
90931318|NCT01968967|181741821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-45.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.22|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.9|-43.1||||||Week 24: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-43.1|-47.9|
90931319|NCT01968967|181741821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-35.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.33|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.5|-33.3||||||Week 52: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-33.3|-38.5|
90931320|NCT01968967|181741822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-57.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.2|-55.2|||MMRM|||Week 12: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI and p-value were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-55.2|-60.2|<0.001
90931321|NCT01968967|181741822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-53.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.55|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.1|-50.0||||||Week 24: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-50.0|-56.1|
90931322|NCT01968967|181741822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-42.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.2|-39.5||||||Week 52: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-39.5|-46.2|
90931323|NCT01968967|181741823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-51.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.9|-47.7|||MMRM|||Week 12: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI and p-value were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-47.7|-55.9|<0.001
90931324|NCT01968967|181741823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-44.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.61|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.1|-38.8||||||Week 24: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-38.8|-49.1|
90931325|NCT01968967|181741823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-34.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.83|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.2|-29.0||||||Week 52: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-29.0|-40.2|
90931326|NCT01968967|181741824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-28.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.04|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.4|-22.5|||MMRM|||Week 12: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI and p-value were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-22.5|-34.4|<0.001
90931327|NCT01968967|181741824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-31.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.86|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.6|-21.5||||||Week 24: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-21.5|-40.6|
90931328|NCT01968967|181741824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-25.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.89|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.8|-13.7||||||Week 52: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-13.7|-36.8|
90931329|NCT01968967|181741825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|7.0|||MMRM|||Week 12: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI and p-value were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||7.0|4.5|<0.001
90931330|NCT01968967|181741825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|6.8||||||Week 24: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||6.8|4.2|
90967317|NCT04451161|181817039|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.068||||||We performed a chi-squared analysis comparing the study groups (BASIS vs. Attention Control) on whether participants started TF-CBT with at least one student by the end of the active phase.|Chi-squared|||The primary TF-CBT adoption outcome (defined as started TF-CBT) was binary: either the participant adopted at least one of these components with a student, or they did not by the end of the active phase. A chi-squared test was used as a superiority test to determine whether participants in the BASIS group had higher TF-CBT adoption rates compared to the Attention Control group.||||0.068
90931331|NCT01968967|181741825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|6.7||||||Week 52: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||6.7|3.7|
90931332|NCT01968967|181741826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-50.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.34|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.3|-48.0||||||Week 24: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-48.0|-53.3|
90931333|NCT01968967|181741826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-40.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.46|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.5|-37.8||||||Week 52: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-37.8|-43.5|
90931334|NCT01968967|181741827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-16.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.73|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|-13.2||||||Week 12: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-13.2|-20.0|
90931335|NCT01968967|181741827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-16.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.05|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.7|-12.6||||||Week 24: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-12.6|-20.7|
90931336|NCT01968967|181741827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-12.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|-9.0||||||Week 52: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-9.0|-16.5|
90931337|NCT01968967|181741828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|4.3||||||Week 12: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||4.3|2.4|
90931338|NCT01968967|181741828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|4.5||||||Week 24: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||4.5|2.5|
90931339|NCT01968967|181741828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|4.9||||||Week 52: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||4.9|2.7|
90931340|NCT01968967|181741829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.4||||||Week 12: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||1.4|-0.9|
90931341|NCT01968967|181741829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|2.3||||||Week 24: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||2.3|-0.1|
90931342|NCT01968967|181741829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.7||||||Week 52: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||2.7|0.3|
90931343|NCT01968967|181741830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-16.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.73|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|-13.2||||||Week 12: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-13.2|-20.0|
90931344|NCT01968967|181741830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-16.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.05|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.7|-12.6||||||Week 24: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-12.6|-20.7|
90931345|NCT01968967|181741830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-12.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|-9.0||||||Week 52: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-9.0|-16.5|
90931346|NCT01968967|181741831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-60.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.1|-57.6||||||LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-57.6|-63.1|
90931347|NCT01968967|181741832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-62.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.3|-57.3||||||LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-57.3|-68.3|
90931348|NCT01968967|181741833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-61.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.27|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.5|-58.5||||||LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-58.5|-63.5|
90931349|NCT01968967|181741834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-63.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.46|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.6|-60.9||||||LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-60.9|-66.6|
90931350|NCT01968967|181741835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-66.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.46|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.3|-63.6||||||LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-63.6|-69.3|
90931351|NCT01968967|181741836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-45.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.7|-43.9||||||LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-43.9|-47.7|
90931352|NCT01968967|181741837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-10.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|-9.3||||||LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-9.3|-11.8|
90931353|NCT01968967|181741838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|3.3||||||LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||3.3|2.1|
90931354|NCT01968967|181741839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-1.5||||||Week 12: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-1.5|-1.6|
90931355|NCT01968967|181741839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-1.3||||||Week 24: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-1.3|-1.5|
90931356|NCT01968967|181741839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-1.0||||||Week 52: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-1.0|-1.2|
90931357|NCT01968967|181741840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.3||||||Week 12: LS mean difference and associated 95% confidence interval CI were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-0.3|-0.3|
90931358|NCT01968967|181741840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.3||||||Week 24: LS mean difference and associated 95% confidence interval CI were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-0.3|-0.3|
90931359|NCT01968967|181741840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.2||||||Week 52: LS mean difference and associated 95% confidence interval CI were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-0.2|-0.3|
90931360|NCT01968967|181741841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|27.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.21|38.02||||||Week 12: Odds ratio, associated 95% CI were derived from a logistic regression model with fixed effects for treatment group, baseline value, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup.||38.02|19.21|
90931361|NCT01968967|181741841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.84|16.86||||||Week 24: Odds ratio, associated 95% CI were derived from a logistic regression model with fixed effects for treatment group, baseline value, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup.||16.86|9.84|
90931362|NCT01968967|181741841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.99|8.06||||||Week 52: Odds ratio, associated 95% CI were derived from a logistic regression model with fixed effects for treatment group, baseline value, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup.||8.06|4.99|
90931363|NCT01968967|181741842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|86.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.74|121.25||||||Week 12: Odds ratio, associated 95% CI were derived from a logistic regression model with fixed effects for treatment group, baseline value, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup.||121.25|61.74|
90931364|NCT01968967|181741842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|35.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.83|47.96||||||Week 24: Odds ratio, associated 95% CI were derived from a logistic regression model with fixed effects for treatment group, baseline value, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup.||47.96|26.83|
90931365|NCT01968967|181741842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|25.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.9|34.47||||||Week 52: Odds ratio, associated 95% CI were derived from a logistic regression model with fixed effects for treatment group, baseline value, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup.||34.47|18.90|
90931366|NCT02060487|181741916|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of sildenafil 20 mg TID versus sildenafil 5 mg TID was to be concluded if the upper limit of the 99.7% confidence interval (CI) for hazard ratio (HR) was less than 2.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|99.7|0.31|1.49|||||Hazard ratio estimated from the Proportional Hazards model, stratified by actual previous PAH treatment and etiology of PAH.|||1.49|0.31|
90931367|NCT02060487|181741916|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of sildenafil 80 mg TID vs. sildenafil 5 mg TID was to be concluded if the upper limit of the 99.7% CI for HR was less than 2.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|99.7|0.22|1.21|||||Hazard ratio estimated from the Proportional Hazards model, stratified by actual previous PAH treatment and etiology of PAH.|||1.21|0.22|
90931368|NCT02060487|181741916|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of sildenafil 80 mg TID vs. sildenafil 20 mg TID was to be concluded if the upper limit of the 99.7% CI for HR is less than 2.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|99.7|0.3|1.84|||||Hazard ratio estimated from the Proportional Hazards model, stratified by actual previous PAH treatment and etiology of PAH.|||1.84|0.30|
90931369|NCT02060487|181741917|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|99.7|0.33|1.21|||Wald test||Hazard ratio estimated from the Proportional Hazards model, stratified by actual previous PAH treatment and etiology of PAH.|||1.21|0.33|0.035
90931370|NCT02060487|181741917|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|99.7|0.22|0.89|||Wald test||Hazard ratio estimated from the Proportional Hazards model, stratified by actual previous PAH treatment and etiology of PAH.|||0.89|0.22|<0.001
90931371|NCT02060487|181741917|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.195|TWO_SIDED|99.7|0.34|1.52|||Wald test||Hazard ratio estimated from the Proportional Hazards model, stratified by actual previous PAH treatment and etiology of PAH.|||1.52|0.34|0.195
90931372|NCT02060487|181741918|SUPERIORITY||Least-squares means difference|15.0||||0.0627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|30.81|||MMRM|||||30.81|-0.80|0.0627
90931373|NCT02060487|181741918|SUPERIORITY||Least-squares means difference|18.9||||0.0201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.99|34.86|||MMRM|||||34.86|2.99|0.0201
90931374|NCT02060487|181741918|SUPERIORITY||Least-squares means difference|3.9||||0.6254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.85|19.68|||MMRM|||||19.68|-11.85|0.6254
90931375|NCT02060487|181741919|SUPERIORITY||Least-squares means difference|21.3||||0.0286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.25|40.45|||MMRM|||||40.45|2.25|0.0286
90931376|NCT02060487|181741919|SUPERIORITY||Least-squares means difference|20.5||||0.0364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|39.65|||MMRM|||||39.65|1.30|0.0364
90931377|NCT02060487|181741919|SUPERIORITY||Least-squares means difference|-0.9||||0.9283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.94|18.19|||MMRM|||||18.19|-19.94|0.9283
90931378|NCT03387189|181741920|SUPERIORITY|Alpha - 0.05|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.39||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.91|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for length of second stage cesarean section, fetal station, delivery method, use of instrumentation , parity, and gestational age|Y = Intervention + Time + Intervention\*Time + Covariates. Provided estimation parameter is the OR from the interaction term and can be interpreted as the differential change in odds of outcome from pre to post period associated with the intervention.|||0.91|0.17|0.031
90931379|NCT03387189|181741921|SUPERIORITY|Alpha - 0.05|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46||||0.465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|4.03|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for length of second stage cesarean section, fetal station, delivery method, use of instrumentation , parity, and gestational age|Y = Intervention + Time + Intervention\*Time + Covariates. Provided estimation parameter is the OR from the interaction term and can be interpreted as the differential change in odds of outcome from pre to post period associated with the intervention.|||4.03|0.53|0.465
90931380|NCT03387189|181741922|SUPERIORITY|alpha - 0.05|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.4||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.4|-2.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-2.5|-20.4|0.01
90931381|NCT03387189|181741923|SUPERIORITY|Alpha - 0.05|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.0|5.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.5|-76.0|0.75
90931382|NCT03387189|181741924|SUPERIORITY|Alpha - 0.05|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.1|-1.0|0.02
90931383|NCT03387189|181741927|SUPERIORITY|Alpha - 0.05|Risk Difference (RD)|0.116||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.24|||Fisher Exact|||||0.24|-0.01|0.10
90931384|NCT03387189|181741929|SUPERIORITY|Alpha - 0.05|Risk Difference (RD)|0.028||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|17.8|||Fisher Exact|||||17.8|-0.12|0.81
90931385|NCT03387189|181741930|SUPERIORITY|Alpha - 0.05|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.01||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.13|||Fisher Exact|||||0.13|-0.11|1.0
90931386|NCT03697603|181741932|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0.0312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.1|||MMRM|||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 2 mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||-0.1|-2.7|0.0312
90931387|NCT03697603|181741932|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-0.4|||MMRM|||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 1 mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||-0.4|-3.0|0.0089
90931388|NCT03697603|181741933|OTHER||Diff|5.5||||0.1964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|13.8|||Chi-squared|||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 2 mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||13.8|-2.8|0.1964
90967318|NCT04451161|181817039|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.165||||||We performed a chi-squared analysis comparing the study groups (BASIS vs. Attention Control) on whether participants started TF-CBT with at least one student by the end of the sustainment phase.|Chi-squared|||The primary TF-CBT adoption outcome (defined as started TF-CBT) was binary: either the participant adopted at least one of these components with a student, or they did not by the end of the sustainment phase. A chi-squared test was used as a superiority test to determine whether participants in the BASIS group had higher TF-CBT adoption rates compared to the Attention Control group.||||0.165
90931389|NCT03697603|181741933|OTHER||Diff|5.5||||0.1969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|13.7|||Chi-squared|||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 1 mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||13.7|-2.8|0.1969
90967319|NCT04451161|181817039|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.191||||||We performed a chi-squared analysis comparing the study groups (BASIS vs. Attention Control) on whether participants completed TF-CBT with at least one student by the end of the active phase.|Chi-squared|||The primary TF-CBT adoption outcome (defined as completed TF-CBT) was binary: either the participant adopted at least one of these components with a student, or they did not by the end of the active phase. A chi-squared test was used as a superiority test to determine whether participants in the BASIS group had higher TF-CBT adoption rates compared to the Attention Control group.||||0.191
90967320|NCT04451161|181817039|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86||||||We performed a chi-squared analysis comparing the study groups (BASIS vs. Attention Control) on whether participants completed TF-CBT with at least one student at the end of the sustainment phase.|Chi-squared|||The primary TF-CBT adoption outcome (defined as completed TF-CBT) was binary: either the participant adopted at least one of these components with a student, or they did not by the end of the sustainment phase. A chi-squared test was used as a superiority test to determine whether participants in the BASIS group had higher TF-CBT adoption rates compared to the Attention Control group.||||0.86
90967321|NCT04451161|181817040|SUPERIORITY||Slope|3.425|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.783||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.064|8.915||Mixed model analysis was used (students were clustered under the providers who recruited them) to understand if BASIS+TF-CBT has a greater effect on decreasing trauma PTSD symptoms (measured using CPSS-V) over time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We compared the BASIS group (receiving TF-CBT) against Enhanced Treatment as Usual to evaluate whether TF-CBT reduced trauma-related PTSD symptoms over time, as measured by CPSS-V scores (higher scores indicate greater symptom severity).||8.915|-2.064|0.22
90931390|NCT04218864|181741934|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Threshold for statistical significance = 0.05|Regression, Linear|Results presented are unadjusted for any covariates.||Linear Mixed regression models (LMM) have been used to identify any difference between the intervention and the control groups over time with regards to the continuous outcomes. Group (intervention vs. control), a 5-category time (baseline, 6 week, 3 month, 6 month, 12 month) and group-by-time interaction are covariates in the model. A random subject intercept is used to account for clustering within subject.||||>0.05
90931391|NCT04218864|181741935|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Threshold for statistical significance = 0.05|Regression, Linear|Results presented are unadjusted for any covariates.||Statistical analysis strategy is identical to that for the primary outcome.||||>0.05
90931392|NCT04218864|181741936|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Threshold for statistical significance = 0.05|Regression, Linear|Results presented are unadjusted for any covariates.||Statistical analysis strategy is identical to that for the primary outcome.||||>0.05
90931393|NCT04218864|181741937|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Threshold for statistical significance = 0.05|Regression, Linear|Results presented are unadjusted for any covariates.||Statistical analysis strategy is identical to that for primary outcome.||||>0.05
90931394|NCT04218864|181741938|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Threshold for statistical significance = 0.05|Regression, Linear|Results presented are unadjusted for any covariates.||Statistical Analysis strategy is identical to that for primary outcome measure.||||>0.05
90931395|NCT02222493|181741946|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence test|Proportion Difference|-2.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.92|5.11||||||Score statistic method||5.11|-9.92|
90931396|NCT02222493|181741946|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence test|Proportion Difference|-2.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.75|4.02||||||Score statistic method||4.02|-8.75|
90931397|NCT02542943|181742085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square (LS) mean difference|-0.13||||0.435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.134||From ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline Schiff score as covariate. For the Week 8 comparisons of the two test groups against the control group, Dunnett's multiplicity adjustment is applied.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment. For Week 8 comparisons of the two test groups against the control group, Dunnett's multiplicity adjustment is applied.|||0.134|-0.400|0.4350
90971297|NCT05032157|181825298|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.634|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.71|-3.23|||Mixed Models Analysis||MMRM adjusting for treatment arm, geographical region, prior exposure to anti- IgE biologics, week, baseline score and both interaction of treatment by week and interaction of baseline score by week.|HSS7 at Week 12 (Scenario 2 with ISS7 and HSS7 as co-primary efficacy endpoints)||-3.23|-5.71|< 0.001
90967322|NCT04451161|181817040|SUPERIORITY||Slope|4.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.774||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.502|10.443||Mixed model analysis was used (the students were clustered under the providers who recruited them) to understand if AC+TF-CBT has a greater effect on decreasing trauma PTSD symptoms (measured using CPSS-V) over time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We compared the AC group (receiving TF-CBT) against Enhanced Treatment as Usual to evaluate whether TF-CBT reduced trauma-related PTSD symptoms over time, as measured by CPSS-V scores (higher scores indicate greater symptom severity).||10.443|-.502|0.075
90967323|NCT04451161|181817041|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.952||0.284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.855|2.904||Mixed model analysis was used (students were clustered under the providers who recruited them) to understand if BASIS+TF-CBT has a greater effect on decreasing negative mood and feelings symptoms (measured using SMFQ) over time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We compared the BASIS group (receiving TF-CBT) against Enhanced Treatment as Usual to evaluate whether TF-CBT decreased children's negative moods and feelings due to their trauma (higher score indicates more negative mood and feelings).||2.904|-.855|0.284
90967324|NCT04451161|181817041|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.908|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.951||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|3.786||Mixed model analysis was used (students were clustered under the providers who recruited them) to understand if AC+TF-CBT has a greater effect on decreasing negative mood and feelings symptoms (measured using SMFQ) over time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We compared the AC group (receiving TF-CBT) against Enhanced Treatment as Usual to evaluate whether TF-CBT decreased children's negative moods and feelings due to their trauma (higher score indicates more negative mood and feelings).||3.786|.03|.046
90967325|NCT02445651|181817042|OTHER|Correlation coefficient: The correlation between the pre-to-post change in UPDRS and the imaging findings of DAT binding in the caudate and putamen, as well as SERT binding in the midbrain, was evaluated using both Pearson and Spearman correlation coefficients to confirm any findings using both methods. Analysis of UPDRS total scores, pre-to post differences were compared between NAC and controls study groups using 2-sample t-test.||||||0.05||||||P value adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold, for a 5-10% improvement in oral and IV NAC cohort for an 80% power to detect a significant change of P = 0.05. for sample size \~ 28 subjects in the NAC arm and \~ 14 subjects in the control arm.|5-10% improvement in the oral and IV NAC|Threshold, for a 5-10% improvement in oral and IV NAC cohort for an 80% power to detect a significant change of P = 0.05.|||The primary analysis of dopamine and midbrain serotonin uptake measures from DaTscan was performed using separate linear mixed effect (LME) models with random subject effect. This method differs from a repeated measures analysis of variance because the LME is a statistical model that has both fixed effects and random effects.|||0.05
90967326|NCT02445651|181817042|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
90967327|NCT02445651|181817042|OTHER|The primary analysis of dopamine and midbrain serotonin uptake measures from DaTscan was performed using separate linear mixed effect (LME) models with random subject effect. This method differs from a repeated measures analysis of variance because the LME is a statistical model that has both fixed effects and random effects.||||||0.05||||||For a 5-10% improvement in the oral and IV NAC cohort for an 80% power to detect a significant change of P = 0.05. for sample size \~ 28 subjects in the NAC arm and \~ 14 subjects in the control arm.|t-test, 2 sided|Correlation coefficient: pre-to-post evaluated using Pearson and Spearman correlation coefficients to confirm any findings.||||||0.05
90967328|NCT03596866|181817046|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.968|||=|0.8672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.658|1.424||P-value from a 2-sided stratified log-rank test using the stratification factors: presence of intracranial central nervous system (CNS) metastases at baseline, and best prior response to crizotinib therapy as assessed by the investigator.|2-sided Stratified Log-rank Test||The hazard ratio was obtained using the stratified Cox regression model with the same stratification factors.|||1.424|0.658|=0.8672
90967329|NCT03596866|181817047|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.592|||=|0.0713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.956|2.652||P-value was based on a 2-sided stratified log-rank test using the stratification factors: presence of intracranial CNS metastases at baseline and best prior response to crizotinib therapy as assessed by the investigator.|Log Rank||The HR was obtained using the stratified Cox regression model with the same stratification factors.|||2.652|0.956|=0.0713
90967330|NCT03596866|181817048|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.232|||=|0.2501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.862|1.761||P-value was based on a 2-sided stratified log-rank test using the stratification factors: presence of intracranial CNS metastases at baseline and best prior response to crizotinib therapy as assessed by the investigator.|Log Rank||The HR was obtained using the stratified Cox regression model with the same stratification factors.|||1.761|0.862|=0.2501
90967331|NCT03596866|181817049|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7|||=|0.1555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.15||P-value was from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factors: presence of intracranial CNS metastases at baseline and best prior response to crizotinib therapy as assessed by the investigator.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio stratified by the stratification factors: presence of intracranial CNS metastases at baseline and best prior response to crizotinib therapy as assessed by the investigator.|BIRC Assessed||1.15|0.42|=0.1555
90967332|NCT03596866|181817049|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.55|||=|0.0169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.9||P-value was from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factors: presence of intracranial CNS metastases at baseline and best prior response to crizotinib therapy as assessed by the investigator.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio stratified by the stratification factors: presence of intracranial CNS metastases at baseline and best prior response to crizotinib therapy as assessed by the investigator.|Investigator Assessed||0.90|0.33|=0.0169
90967333|NCT03596866|181817052|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31|||=|0.6246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|3.84||P-value was from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by best prior response to crizotinib therapy as assessed by the investigator at randomization per IXRS.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio was stratified by best prior response to crizotinib therapy as assessed by the investigator at randomization per IXRS.|||3.84|0.44|=0.6246
90931398|NCT02542943|181742085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.07||||0.7605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.192|0.34||From ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline Schiff score as covariate. For the Week 8 comparisons of the two test groups against the control group, Dunnett's multiplicity adjustment is applied.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment. For Week 8 comparisons of the two test groups against the control group, Dunnett's multiplicity adjustment is applied.|||0.340|-0.192|0.7605
90931399|NCT02542943|181742086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.21||||0.0873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.445|0.031||From ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline Schiff score as covariate.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|||0.031|-0.445|0.0873
90967334|NCT03596866|181817054|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0778||||||P-value from a 2-sided stratified Gray's test using the stratification factors (at randomization per IxRS): presence of intracranial CNS metastases at baseline, and best prior response to crizotinib therapy as assessed by the investigator.|Gray's Test|P-value is for the event type: Intracranial Disease Progression without Prior Systemic Progression or Death.||||||=0.0778
91035478|NCT00835991|181956952|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|96.44||||||90.0|93.71|99.25|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||99.25|93.71|
90931400|NCT02542943|181742087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.07||||0.4921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.13||From ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline Schiff score as covariate.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|||0.130|-0.270|0.4921
90931401|NCT02542943|181742087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.02||||0.8728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.183|0.216||From ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline Schiff score as covariate.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|||0.216|-0.183|0.8728
90931402|NCT02542943|181742087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.09||||0.4003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.287|0.115||From ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline Schiff score as covariate.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|||0.115|-0.287|0.4003
90931403|NCT02542943|181742088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.8106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||From Van Elteren test.|Van Elteren test||Median difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment. From non-parametric Hodges-Lehmann estimations.|||0.000|0.000|0.8106
90931404|NCT02542943|181742088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.1656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|0.0||From Van Elteren test.|Van Elteren test||Median difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment. From non-parametric Hodges-Lehmann estimations.|||0.000|-5.000|0.1656
90931405|NCT02542943|181742088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.1419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|5.0|||Van Elteren test||Median difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment. From non-parametric Hodges-Lehmann estimations.|||5.000|0.000|0.1419
90931406|NCT02542943|181742089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.5631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|5.0||From Van Elteren test.|Van Elteren test||Median difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment. From non-parametric Hodges-Lehmann estimations.|||5.000|0.000|0.5631
91035479|NCT04278560|181956953|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|385.3||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|||||Repeated Measures Two-Way ANOVA: Group, Time, Group x Time, and controlled by Baseline Step Counts|ANOVA|||||||0.009
90967335|NCT01431274|181817094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.123|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.146||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.146|0.100|<0.0001
90967336|NCT01431274|181817094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.117|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001||95.0|0.094|0.14||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.140|0.094|<0.0001
90967337|NCT01431274|181817094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.109|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.086|0.132||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.132|0.086|<0.0001
90967338|NCT01431274|181817094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.093|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.116||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.116|0.070|<0.0001
90971298|NCT05032157|181825299|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.39|6.18|||Regression, Logistic||Logistic regression adjusting for treatment arm, geographical region, prior exposure to anti-IgE biologics, and baseline UAS7 score.|Disease activity control (UAS7 =\< 6) at Week 12||6.18|2.39|< 0.001
91035480|NCT04278560|181956954|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.2||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|We used change from baseline for this analysis. Two-Way Repeated Measure ANOVA: Group, Time, Group x Time, and controlled baseline.||||||0.03
91035481|NCT04278560|181956955|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.19||||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|We used change from baseline for the analysis. Two-Way Repeated Measure ANOVA: Group, Time, Group x Time, and controlled baseline.||||||0.4
90931407|NCT02542943|181742089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.8423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||From Van Elteren test.|Van Elteren test||Median difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment. From non-parametric Hodges-Lehmann estimations.|||0.000|0.000|0.8423
90931408|NCT02542943|181742089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|5.0||From Van Elteren test.|Van Elteren test||Median difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment. From non-parametric Hodges-Lehmann estimations.|||5.000|0.000|0.4390
90931409|NCT02542943|181742090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.15||||0.517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.611|0.308||From ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline Schiff stratification as factors and baseline VRS as covariate.|ANCOVA||From ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline Schiff stratification as factors and baseline VRS as covariate. Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|||0.308|-0.611|0.5170
90931410|NCT02542943|181742090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.17||||0.4538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.284|0.633||From ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline Schiff stratification as factors and baseline VRS as covariate.|ANCOVA||From ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline Schiff stratification as factors and baseline VRS as covariate. Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|||0.633|-0.284|0.4538
90931411|NCT02542943|181742090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.33||||0.1663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.788|0.136||From ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline Schiff stratification as factors and baseline VRS as covariate.|ANCOVA||From ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline Schiff stratification as factors and baseline VRS as covariate. Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|||0.136|-0.788|0.1663
90931412|NCT02542943|181742091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.1||||0.7137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.661|0.453||From ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline Schiff stratification as factors and baseline VRS as covariate.|ANCOVA||From ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline Schiff stratification as factors and baseline VRS as covariate. Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|||0.453|-0.661|0.7137
90931413|NCT02542943|181742091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.1||||0.7353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.651||From ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline Schiff stratification as factors and baseline VRS as covariate.|ANCOVA||From ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline Schiff stratification as factors and baseline VRS as covariate. Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|||0.651|-0.460|0.7353
90931414|NCT02542943|181742091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.2||||0.4843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.361||From ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline Schiff stratification as factors and baseline VRS as covariate.|ANCOVA||From ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline Schiff stratification as factors and baseline VRS as covariate. Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|||0.361|-0.760|0.4843
90931415|NCT02962284|181742134|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.1|||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.1
90931416|NCT03926026|181742171|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.0471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0|-1.5|0.0471
90931417|NCT00413283|181742183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.972|||||||Satterthwaite t-test|||||||0.972
90931418|NCT00413283|181742183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.725|||||||Satterthwaite t-test|||||||0.725
90931419|NCT00413283|181742183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.312|||||||Satterthwaite t-test|||||||0.312
90931420|NCT00413283|181742184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
90931421|NCT00413283|181742184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
90931422|NCT00413283|181742184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
90931423|NCT00413283|181742185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
90931424|NCT00413283|181742185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
90931425|NCT00413283|181742185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.342|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.342
90931426|NCT00413283|181742186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.454|||||||Satterthwaite t-test|||||||0.454
90931427|NCT00413283|181742186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.101|||||||Satterthwaite t-test|||||||0.101
90931428|NCT00413283|181742186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.199|||||||Satterthwaite t-test|||||||0.199
90931429|NCT00413283|181742187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.662|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.662
90931430|NCT00413283|181742187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
90931431|NCT00413283|181742187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.662|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.662
90931432|NCT02660086|181742191|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.0|-0.6|0.70
90931433|NCT02660086|181742192|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.4|-0.3|0.20
90931434|NCT02660086|181742193|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in systolic BP at 12 months||0.9|-3.6|0.24
90931435|NCT02660086|181742193|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.5||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|3.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in systolic BP at 24 months||3.7|-0.7|0.19
90931436|NCT02660086|181742193|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.6||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in diastolic BP at 12 months||0.1|-3.2|0.07
90931437|NCT02660086|181742193|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in diastolic BP at 24 months||1.6|-1.5|0.94
90931438|NCT02660086|181742194|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|2.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in total cholesterol at 12 months||2.9|-5.6|0.54
90931439|NCT02660086|181742194|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.6||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|6.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in total cholesterol at 24 months||6.7|-3.5|0.53
90931440|NCT02660086|181742195|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|2.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in LDL at 12 months||2.4|-4.8|0.51
90931441|NCT02660086|181742195|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.2||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|5.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in LDL at 24 months||5.7|-3.4|0.60
90931442|NCT02660086|181742196|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.9||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|5.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in triglycerides at 12 months||5.1|-10.8|0.48
90931443|NCT02660086|181742196|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.0||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|11.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in triglycerides at 24 months||11.5|-3.4|0.29
90931444|NCT02660086|181742197|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in HDL at 12 months||1.5|-1.9|0.80
90931445|NCT02660086|181742197|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in HDL at 24 months||1.3|-1.9|0.72
90931446|NCT02660086|181742198|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in hemoglobin A1C at 12 months||0.1|-0.1|0.62
90931447|NCT02660086|181742198|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in hemoglobin A1C at 24 months||0.1|0.0|0.40
90931448|NCT02660086|181742199|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|7.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.4|9.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in green labeled purchases during 12 month intervention (months 1-12) compared to baseline 12 months||9.3|5.4|<0.001
90931449|NCT02660086|181742199|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|6.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in green-labeled purhases during 12 month follow-up (months 13-24) compared to 12 month baseline||6.8|2.9|<0.001
90931450|NCT02660086|181742200|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|-2.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in red labeled purchases during 12 month intervention (months 1-12) compared to baseline 12 months||-2.7|-5.0|<0.001
90931451|NCT02660086|181742200|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|-2.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in red labeled purchases during 12-month follow up (months 13-24) compared to baseline 12 months||-2.0|-4.3|<0.001
90931452|NCT02660086|181742201|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|7.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in healthy purchasing score during 12 month intervention (months 1-12) compared to baseline 12 months||7.0|4.2|<0.001
90931453|NCT02660086|181742201|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|5.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in Healthy Purchasing Score during 12 month follow up (months 13-24) compared to baseline 12 months||5.3|2.6|<0.001
90931454|NCT02660086|181742202|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|4.1||||||Change in HEI scores at 12 months.||4.1|-0.6|
90931455|NCT02660086|181742202|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|3.8||||||Change in HEI scores at 24 months||3.8|-0.7|
90931456|NCT01653509|181742203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-911.48||||0.3061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2712.65|889.69|||ANOVA|ANOVA model with a factor for treatment group.|Difference calculated as first named treatment minus second named treatment, such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered no difference between study treatments for TEV.||889.69|-2712.65|0.3061
90931457|NCT01653509|181742203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-150.99||||0.4035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-517.97|215.99|||ANOVA|ANOVA model with a factor for treatment group.|Difference calculated as first named treatment minus second named treatment, such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered no difference between treatments for MEV.||215.99|-517.97|0.4035
90931458|NCT01653509|181742204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.48||||0.0486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|4.93|||ANOVA|ANOVA model with a factor for treatment group.|Difference calculated as first named treatment minus second named treatment, such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered no difference between study treatments for TEV (Day 1 to day 10).||4.93|0.02|0.0486
90931459|NCT01653509|181742204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.38||||0.0799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.82|||ANOVA|ANOVA model with a factor for treatment group.|Difference calculated as first named treatment minus second named treatment, such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered no difference between study treatments for MEV.||0.82|-0.05|0.0799
90931460|NCT01653509|181742205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.14||||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|5.35|||ANOVA|ANOVA model with a factor for treatment group.|Difference calculated as first named treatment minus second named treatment, such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered no difference between study treatments for TEV.||5.35|-1.06|0.1790
90931461|NCT01653509|181742205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.37||||0.2446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|1.0|||ANOVA|ANOVA model with a factor for treatment group.|Difference calculated as first named treatment minus second named treatment, such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered no difference between study treatments for MEV.||1.00|-0.27|0.2446
90931462|NCT01214200|181742210|OTHER|For the analysis of differences between pre and post treatment a student's t-test was used and was checked with the Wilcoxon signed rank test. A p\<0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||||||0.01
90931463|NCT00487240|181742233|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority limit of 0.4% using the upper limit of a two-sided test at a significance level of 0.05 with 90% power assuming a 1.1 Standard Deviations (SD)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.332||95.0|-0.29|0.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Country.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Insulin Lispro Protamine Suspension minus Detemir.|Hypothesis: basal analog insulin lispro protamine suspension (ILPS), is inferior to basal analog insulin detemir, as measured by change in HbA1c from baseline to endpoint.||0.10|-0.29|0.332
90931464|NCT00487240|181742234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03||||0.718||95.0|-0.22|0.15||P-value for 8 Week Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment+Baseline+Country.|Least Squares Mean Difference=Insulin Lispro Protamine Suspension minus Detemir.|||0.15|-0.22|0.718
90931465|NCT00487240|181742234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14||||0.187||95.0|-0.34|0.07||P-value for 16 Week Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment+Baseline+Country|Least Squares Mean Difference = Insulin Lispro Protamine Suspension minus Detemir.|||0.07|-0.34|0.187
90931466|NCT00487240|181742234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04||||0.704||95.0|-0.25|0.17||P-value for 24 Week Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment+Baseline+Country|Least Squares Mean Difference = Insulin Lispro Protamine Suspension minus Detemir.|||0.17|-0.25|0.704
90931467|NCT00487240|181742234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06||||0.599||95.0|-0.27|0.15||P-value for 32 Week Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment+Baseline+Country|Least Squares Mean Difference = Insulin Lispro Protamine Suspension minus Detemir.|||0.15|-0.27|0.599
90931468|NCT00487240|181742235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||P-value for With HbA1c ≤7.0%.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
90931469|NCT00487240|181742235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||P-value for With HbA1c \<7.0%|Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
90931470|NCT00487240|181742235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.722||95.0||||P-value for With HbA1c ≤6.5%|Fisher Exact|||||||0.722
90931471|NCT00487240|181742235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.699||95.0||||P-value for With HbA1c \<6.5%|Fisher Exact|||||||0.699
90931472|NCT00487240|181742236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.259||95.0||||P-value for Daily Mean 7-Point SMBG.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment+Baseline+Country||||||0.259
90931473|NCT00487240|181742236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.468||95.0||||P-value for Daily Mean Pre-Meal|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment+Baseline+Country||||||0.468
90931474|NCT00487240|181742236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.395||95.0||||P-value for Daily Mean Postprandial Meal|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment+Baseline+Country||||||0.395
90931475|NCT00487240|181742236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.414||95.0||||P-value for Daily Mean Morning and Evening Pre-Meal|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment+Baseline+Country||||||0.414
90931476|NCT00487240|181742236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.275||95.0||||P-value for Actual Morning Pre-Meal|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment+Baseline+Country||||||0.275
90931477|NCT00487240|181742236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.611||95.0||||P-value for Actual Morning Postprandial Meal|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment+Baseline+Country||||||0.611
90931478|NCT00487240|181742236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.763||95.0||||P-value for Actual Midday Pre-Meal|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment+Baseline+Country||||||0.763
90931479|NCT00487240|181742236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.977||95.0||||P-value for Actual Midday Postprandial Meal|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment+Baseline+Country||||||0.977
90931480|NCT00487240|181742236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.586||95.0||||P-value for Actual Evening Pre-Meal|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment+Baseline+Country||||||0.586
90931481|NCT00487240|181742236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.093||95.0||||P-value for Actual Evening Postprandial Meal|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment+Baseline+Country||||||0.093
90931482|NCT00487240|181742236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.516||95.0||||P-value for Actual 0300 Hours|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment+Baseline+Country||||||0.516
90931483|NCT00487240|181742236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.576||95.0||||P-value for Actual Morning SMBG Excursion|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment+Baseline+Country||||||0.576
90931484|NCT00487240|181742236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.876||95.0||||P-value for Midday SMBG Excursion|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment+Baseline+Country||||||0.876
90931485|NCT00487240|181742236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.261||95.0||||P-value for Evening SMBG Excursion|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment+Baseline+Country||||||0.261
90931486|NCT00487240|181742236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.567||95.0||||P-value for Daily Mean SMBG Excursion|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment+Baseline+Country||||||0.567
90931487|NCT00487240|181742237|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A noninferiority margin of 0.8 mmol/L was chosen to prove noninferiority of ILPS to detemir.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.36||||||95.0|-0.03|0.75|||||Least Squares Mean difference = Insulin Lispro Protamine Suspension - Detemir|If the primary analysis achieves statistical significance at a 0.05 level (that is, the null hypothesis for the primary analysis \[primary outcome measure\] is rejected), then the first secondary hypothesis (glycemic variability) is tested at an error rate of 0.05.||0.75|-0.03|
90931488|NCT00487240|181742237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.132||95.0||||P-value for M-Value|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment+Baseline+Country||||||0.132
90931489|NCT00487240|181742237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.179||95.0||||P-value for MODD|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment+Baseline+Country||||||0.179
90931490|NCT00487240|181742238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.737||95.0||||P-value for Endpoint Hypoglycemic Episodes|Fisher Exact|||||||0.737
90931491|NCT00487240|181742238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.724||95.0||||P-value for Overall Hypoglycemic Episodes|Fisher Exact|||||||0.724
90931492|NCT00487240|181742238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.157||95.0||||P-value for Endpoint Nocturnal Hypoglycemic Episodes|Fisher Exact|||||||0.157
90931493|NCT00487240|181742238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.287||95.0||||P-value for Overall Nocturnal Episodes|Fisher Exact|||||||0.287
90931494|NCT00487240|181742238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.664||95.0||||P-value for Endpoint Non-Nocturnal Hypoglycemic Episodes|Fisher Exact|||||||0.664
90931495|NCT00487240|181742238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73||95.0||||P-value for Overall Non-Nocturnal Hypoglycemic Episodes|Fisher Exact|||||||0.730
90931496|NCT00487240|181742238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.053||95.0||||P-value for Endpoint Severe Hypoglycemic Episodes|Fisher Exact|||||||0.053
90931497|NCT00487240|181742238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.081||95.0||||P-value for Overall Severe Hypoglycemic Episodes|Fisher Exact|||||||0.081
90931498|NCT00487240|181742239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28||95.0||||P-value for Endpoint Hypoglycemic Rate|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment+Baseline+Country. Hypoglycemic Rate (Adjusted for 1 year) was used in the analysis.||||||0.280
90931499|NCT00487240|181742239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.193||95.0||||P-value for Overall Hypoglycemic Rate|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment+Baseline+Country. Hypoglycemic Rate (Adjusted for 1 year) was used in the analysis.||||||0.193
90931500|NCT00487240|181742239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.042||95.0||||P-value for Endpoint Nocturnal Hypoglycemic Rate|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment+Baseline+Country. Hypoglycemic Rate (Adjusted for 1 year) was used in the analysis.||||||0.042
90931501|NCT00487240|181742239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||P-value for Overall Nocturnal Hypoglycemic Rate|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment+Baseline+Country. Hypoglycemic Rate (Adjusted for 1 year) was used in the analysis.||||||0.001
90931502|NCT00487240|181742239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.579||95.0||||P-value for Endpoint Non-Nocturnal Hypoglycemic Rate|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment+Baseline+Country. Hypoglycemic Rate (Adjusted for 1 year) was used in the analysis.||||||0.579
90931503|NCT00487240|181742239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.531||95.0||||P-value for Overall Non-Nocturnal Hypoglycemic Rate|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment+Baseline+Country. Hypoglycemic Rate (Adjusted for 1 year) was used in the analysis.||||||0.531
90931504|NCT00487240|181742239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017||95.0||||P-value for Endpoint Severe Hypoglycemic Rate|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment+Baseline+Country. Hypoglycemic Rate (Adjusted for 1 year) was used in the analysis.||||||0.017
90931505|NCT00487240|181742239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038||95.0||||P-value for Overall Severe Hypoglycemic Rate|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment+Baseline+Country. Hypoglycemic Rate (Adjusted for 1 year) was used in the analysis.||||||0.038
90931506|NCT00487240|181742241|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A noninferiority margin of 1.5 kg was chosen to prove noninferiority of ILPS to detemir.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.97||||0.003||95.0|0.34|1.6||P-value for Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment+Baseline+Country.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Insulin Lispro Protamine Suspension minus Detemir.|If the first secondary null hypothesis (glycemic variability) is rejected, then the second secondary hypothesis (weight change) is tested at an error rate of 0.05.||1.60|0.34|0.003
90931507|NCT00487240|181742242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023||95.0||||P-value for Total Insulin|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Variable=Treatment+Country||||||0.023
90931508|NCT00487240|181742242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0||||P-value for Total Bolus Insulin|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Variable=Treatment+Country||||||0.004
90931509|NCT00487240|181742242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.282||95.0||||P-value for Total Basal Insulin|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Variable=Treatment+Country||||||0.282
90931510|NCT00487240|181742243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82||95.0||||P-value for Total Insulin|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Variable=Treatment+Country||||||0.82
90931511|NCT00487240|181742243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19||95.0||||P-value for Total Bolus Insulin|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Variable=Treatment+Country||||||0.19
90931512|NCT00487240|181742243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.416||95.0||||P-value for Total Basal Insulin|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Variable=Treatment+Country||||||0.416
90931513|NCT02736188|181742245|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.8||||0.4287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|2.77||Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.|generalized estimating equation (GEE)|||Week 8||2.77|-1.17|0.4287
90931514|NCT02736188|181742245|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.36||||0.7031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|2.21||Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.|GEE model|||Week 16||2.21|-1.49|0.7031
90931515|NCT02736188|181742245|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.91||||0.4253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.14|1.32||Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.|GEE model|||Week 24||1.32|-3.14|0.4253
90931516|NCT02736188|181742245|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.06||||0.9747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.49|3.38||Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.|GEE model|||Week 48||3.38|-3.49|0.9747
90931517|NCT02736188|181742246|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27||||0.4721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|0.47||Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.|GEE model|||Week 8||0.47|-1.01|0.4721
90931518|NCT02736188|181742246|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.19||||0.6611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|0.64||Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.|GEE model|||Week 16||0.64|-1.02|0.6611
90931519|NCT02736188|181742246|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.44||||0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|0.35|||GEE model|Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.||Week 24||0.35|-1.22|0.2760
90931520|NCT02736188|181742246|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.28||||0.6977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|1.13||Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.|GEE model|||Week 48||1.13|-1.69|0.6977
90931521|NCT02736188|181742247|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|0.7||||0.0648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|1.45||Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.|GEE model|||Week 8||1.45|-0.04|0.0648
90931522|NCT02736188|181742247|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|0.74||||0.0692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|1.55||Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.|GEE model|||Week 16||1.55|-0.06|0.0692
90931523|NCT02736188|181742247|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|0.44||||0.4317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|1.52||Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.|GEE model|||Week 24||1.52|-0.65|0.4317
90931524|NCT02736188|181742247|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|-0.34||||0.6416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|1.1||Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.|GEE model|||Week 48||1.10|-1.78|0.6416
90931525|NCT02736188|181742248|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|0.78||||0.6546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.65|4.22||Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.|GEE model|||Week 8||4.22|-2.65|0.6546
90931526|NCT02736188|181742248|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|-0.64||||0.7054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.97|2.69||Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.|GEE model|||Week 16||2.69|-3.97|0.7054
90931527|NCT02736188|181742248|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|-0.5||||0.8441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.45|4.45||Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.|GEE model|||Week 24||4.45|-5.45|0.8441
90931528|NCT02736188|181742248|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|4.15||||0.0864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|8.9||Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.|GEE model|||Week 48||8.90|-0.59|0.0864
90931529|NCT02736188|181742249|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|0.06||||0.8603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.78||Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.|GEE model|||Week 8||0.78|-0.65|0.8603
91035482|NCT04278560|181956956|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.1||||0.016|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|We used change from baseline for this analysis. Two-Way Repeated Measure ANOVA: Group, Time, Group x Time, and controlled baseline.||||||0.016
90931530|NCT02736188|181742249|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|-0.18||||0.6154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.51||Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.|GEE model|||Week 16||0.51|-0.86|0.6154
90931531|NCT02736188|181742249|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|0.47||||0.1999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|1.2||Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.|GEE model|||Week 24||1.20|-0.25|0.1999
90931532|NCT02736188|181742249|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|-0.03||||0.9568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|1.18||Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.|GEE model|||Week 48||1.18|-1.25|0.9568
90931533|NCT02736188|181742250|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|0.45||||0.5447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.9||Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.|GEE model|||Week 8||1.90|-1.00|0.5447
90931534|NCT02736188|181742250|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|-0.56||||0.5051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|1.09||Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.|GEE model|||Week 16||1.09|-2.22|0.5051
90931535|NCT02736188|181742250|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|0.27||||0.7478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|1.9||Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.|GEE model|||Week 24||1.90|-1.36|0.7478
90931536|NCT02736188|181742250|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|-0.41||||0.7429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.86|2.04||Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.|GEE model|||Week 48||2.04|-2.86|0.7429
90931537|NCT02736188|181742251|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|2.0||||0.6434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.48|10.49||Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.|GEE model|||Week 8||10.49|-6.48|0.6434
90931538|NCT02736188|181742251|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|-1.99||||0.7118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.53|8.55||Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.|GEE model|||Week 16||8.55|-12.53|0.7118
90931539|NCT02736188|181742251|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|4.15||||0.4399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.39|14.69||Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.|GEE model|||Week 24||14.69|-6.39|0.4399
90931540|NCT02736188|181742251|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|7.98||||0.443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.41|28.37||Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.|GEE model|||Week 48||28.37|-12.41|0.4430
90931541|NCT02736188|181742252|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|0.28||||0.6428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.46||Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.|GEE model|||Week 8||1.46|-0.90|0.6428
90931542|NCT02736188|181742252|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|-0.25||||0.7334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|1.21||Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.|GEE model|||Week 16||1.21|-1.72|0.7334
90931543|NCT02736188|181742252|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|0.58||||0.4409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|2.04||Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.|GEE model|||Week 24||2.04|-0.89|0.4409
90931544|NCT02736188|181742252|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|0.99||||0.4687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|3.68||Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.|GEE model|||Week 48||3.68|-1.69|0.4687
90931545|NCT02736188|181742253|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|1.14||||0.1502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|2.69||Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.|GEE model|||Week 8||2.69|-0.41|0.1502
90931546|NCT02736188|181742253|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|-0.2||||0.8188|TWO_SIDED|-1.89|-1.89|1.49||Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.|GEE model|||Week 16||1.49|-1.89|0.8188
90931547|NCT02736188|181742253|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|0.8||||0.5122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|3.17||Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.|GEE model|||Week 24||3.17|-1.58|0.5122
90931548|NCT02736188|181742253|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|0.72||||0.7022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.96|4.4||Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.|GEE model|||Week 48||4.40|-2.96|0.7022
90931549|NCT02736188|181742254|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|0.19||||0.7906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|1.6||Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.|GEE model|||Week 8||1.60|-1.22|0.7906
90931550|NCT02736188|181742254|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|0.66||||0.3531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|2.07||Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.|GEE model|||Week 16||2.07|-0.74|0.3531
90931551|NCT02736188|181742254|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|0.15||||0.8846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.92|2.23||Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.|GEE model|||Week 24||2.23|-1.92|0.8846
90931552|NCT02736188|181742254|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|2.08||||0.0168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|3.79||Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.|GEE model|||Week 48||3.79|0.38|0.0168
90931553|NCT00768755|181742328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.831||||0.3037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.508|1.36|||Log Rank|One-sided log-rank test at alpha = 0.20 significance level was used.||P-value was calculated using 1-sided log rank test, stratified by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (0 or 1) and gender (male or female). Hazard ratio (HR): the stratified Cox model was fitted, using the same stratification variables as above.||1.360|0.508|0.3037
90931554|NCT00768755|181742328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.947||||0.3565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.546|||Log Rank|One-sided log-rank test at alpha = 0.20 significance level was used.||P-value was calculated using 1-sided log rank test, stratified by ECOG performance status (0 or 1) and gender (male or female). HR: the stratified Cox model was fitted, using the same stratification variables as above.||1.546|0.580|0.3565
90931555|NCT00768755|181742329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.046||||0.5785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.648|1.69|||Log Rank|One-sided log-rank test at alpha = 0.20 significance level was used.||P-value was calculated using 1-sided log rank test, stratified by ECOG performance status (0 or 1) and gender (male or female). HR: the stratified Cox model was fitted, using the same stratification variables as above.||1.690|0.648|0.5785
90931556|NCT00768755|181742329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.449||||0.9392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.919|2.285|||Log Rank|One-sided log-rank test at alpha = 0.20 significance level was used.||P-value was calculated using 1-sided log rank test, stratified by ECOG performance status (0 or 1) and gender (male or female). HR: the stratified Cox model was fitted, using the same stratification variables as above.||2.285|0.919|0.9392
90931557|NCT00768755|181742330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.753||||0.0143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.047|2.935|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by ECOG performance status (0 or 1) and gender (male or female).||2.935|1.047|0.0143
90931558|NCT00768755|181742330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.512||||0.0665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|2.626|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated using CMH test stratified by ECOG performance status (0 or 1) and gender (male or female).||2.626|0.870|0.0665
90931559|NCT00670488|181742336|OTHER||AUC0-48hr GMR|3.26||||||||||||||"The Last Day (Day 27)/Day 1 AUC 0-48 hr Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR) was calculated as follows: Last Day (Day 27) AUC 0-48hr Geometric Mean (GM) ÷ Day 1 AUC 0-48hr GM.~AUC 0-48hr GMR for last dose (Day 27) calculated using only data from participants who completed cycle one dosing as scheduled and had sufficient data for calculation."||||
90931560|NCT00670488|181742336|OTHER||AUC 0-48hr GMR|3.18||||||||||||||"The Last Day (Day 27)/Day 1 AUC 0-48 hr GMR was calculated as follows: Last Day (Day 27) AUC 0-48hr GM ÷ Day 1 AUC 0-48hr GM.~AUC 0-48hr GMR for last dose (Day 27) calculated using only data from participants who completed cycle one dosing as scheduled and had sufficient data for calculation."||||
90931561|NCT00670488|181742337|OTHER||Cmax GMR|2.59||||||||||||||"The Last Day (Day 27)/Day 1 Cmax GMR was calculated as follows: Last Day (Day 27) Cmax GM ÷ Day 1 Cmax GM.~Cmax GMR for last dose (Day 27) calculated using only data from participants who completed cycle one dosing as scheduled and had sufficient data for calculation."||||
90931562|NCT00670488|181742337|OTHER||Cmax GMR|2.67||||||||||||||"The Last Day (Day 27)/Day 1 Cmax GMR was calculated as follows: Last Day (Day 27) Cmax GM ÷ Day 1 Cmax GM.~Cmax GMR for last dose (Day 27) calculated using only data from participants who completed cycle one dosing as scheduled and had sufficient data for calculation."||||
90931563|NCT00670488|181742338|OTHER||C48hr GMR|4.33||||||||||||||"The Last Day (Day 27)/Day 1 C48hr GMR was calculated as follows: Last Day (Day 27) C48hr GM ÷ Day 1 C48hr GM.~C48hr GMR for last dose (Day 27) calculated using only data from participants who completed cycle one dosing as scheduled and had sufficient data for calculation."||||
90931564|NCT00670488|181742338|OTHER||C48hr GMR|3.58||||||||||||||"The Last Day (Day 27)/Day 1 C48hr GMR was calculated as follows: Last Day (Day 27) C48hr GM ÷ Day 1 C48hr GM.~C48hr GMR for last dose (Day 27) calculated using only data from participants who completed cycle one dosing as scheduled and had sufficient data for calculation."||||
90931565|NCT00670488|181742341|OTHER||AUC0-168hr GMR|1.91||||||||||||||The Last Day/Day 1 AUC 0-168 hr GMR was calculated as follows: Last Day AUC 0-168hr GM ÷ Day 1 AUC 0-48hr GM.||||
90931566|NCT00670488|181742341|OTHER||AUC 0-168hr GMR|1.54||||||||||||||The Last Day/Day 1 AUC 0-168 hr GMR was calculated as follows: Last Day AUC 0-168hr GM ÷ Day 1 AUC 0-48hr GM.||||
90931567|NCT00670488|181742342|OTHER||Cmax GMR|1.95||||||||||||||The Last Day/Day 1 Cmax GMR was calculated as follows: Last Day Cmax GM ÷ Day 1 Cmax GM.||||
90931568|NCT00670488|181742342|OTHER||Cmax GMR|1.33||||||||||||||The Last Day/Day 1 Cmax GMR was calculated as follows: Last Day Cmax GM ÷ Day 1 Cmax GM.||||
90931569|NCT00670488|181742343|OTHER||C48hr GMR|1.61||||||||||||||The Last Day/Day 1 C48hr GMR was calculated as follows: Last Day C48hr GM ÷ Day 1 C48hr GM.||||
90931570|NCT00670488|181742343|OTHER||C48hr GMR|1.86||||||||||||||The Last Day/Day 1 C48hr GMR was calculated as follows: Last Day C48hr GM ÷ Day 1 C48hr GM.||||
90931571|NCT00670488|181742343|OTHER||C48hr GMR|1.49||||||||||||||The Last Day/Day 1 C48hr GMR was calculated as follows: Last Day C48hr GM ÷ Day 1 C48hr GM.||||
90931572|NCT00670488|181742346|OTHER||GMR|0.133|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.051|0.347||||||"pAkt Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)~= Day 15 Geometric Mean (GM) ÷ Baseline GM"||0.347|0.051|
90931573|NCT00659373|181742429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.71
90931574|NCT00087022|181742450|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.737|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.737
90931575|NCT00087022|181742451|SUPERIORITY|||||||1.012|||||||Log Rank|||||||1.012
90931576|NCT00087022|181742454|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.022
90931577|NCT04399837|181742470|OTHER|The generalized MCP-Mod procedure for time to event endpoints is based on the log hazard ratio of the active doses vs. placebo obtained via a Cox regression model on the time to first GPP flare.|Multiple contrast test|3.041||||0.002|||||||MCP-Mod linear model fit|Model assumption: Dose effect is linear with the increase of dose.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of spesolimab and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 4 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, Emax 1, Emax 2 and exponential) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.002
90931578|NCT04399837|181742470|OTHER|The generalized MCP-Mod procedure for time to event endpoints is based on the log hazard ratio of the active doses vs. placebo obtained via a Cox regression model on the time to first GPP flare.|Multiple contrast test|3.033||||0.002|||||||MCP-Mod Emax2 model fit|Model assumption: 95% of the maximum effect is achieved at low dose.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of spesolimab and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 4 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, Emax 1, Emax 2 and exponential) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.002
90931579|NCT04399837|181742470|OTHER|The generalized MCP-Mod procedure for time to event endpoints is based on the log hazard ratio of the active doses vs. placebo obtained via a Cox regression model on the time to first GPP flare.|Multiple contrast test|3.088||||0.002|||||||MCP-Mod Emax1 model fit|Model assumption: 70% of the maximum effect is achieved at low dose.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of spesolimab and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 4 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, Emax 1, Emax 2 and exponential) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.002
90931580|NCT04399837|181742470|OTHER|The generalized MCP-Mod procedure for time to event endpoints is based on the log hazard ratio of the active doses vs. placebo obtained via a Cox regression model on the time to first GPP flare.|Multiple contrast test|2.977||||0.003|||||||MCP-Mod exponential model fit|Model assumption: 35% of the maximum effect is achieved at medium dose.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of spesolimab and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 4 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, Emax 1, Emax 2 and exponential) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.003
90931581|NCT04399837|181742470|SUPERIORITY|Null hypothesis: Effect of spesolimab 300 mg every 12 weeks on prolonging the time to the first GPP flare up to week 48 ≤ Placebo.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.468||||0.0269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.206|1.064||"One-sided p-value was computed from the log-rank test stratified by use of systemic GPP medication at randomisation.~Threshold for statistical significance: one-sided p-value ≤ 0.01875."|Log Rank||Hazard ratio and its 95% Confidence Interval are from Cox regression model stratified by use of systemic GPP medication at randomisation.|||1.064|0.206|0.0269
90931582|NCT04399837|181742470|SUPERIORITY|Null hypothesis: Effect of spesolimab 300 mg every 4 weeks on prolonging the time to the first GPP flare up to week 48 ≤ Placebo.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.157||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.046|0.541||"One-sided p-value is computed from the log-rank test stratified by use of systemic GPP medication at randomisation.~Threshold for statistical significance: One-sided p-value ≤0.0125."|Log Rank||Hazard ratio and its 95% CI (confidence interval) are from Cox regression model stratified by use of systemic GPP medication at randomisation.|||0.541|0.046|0.0005
90931583|NCT04399837|181742471|SUPERIORITY|Null hypothesis: The proportion of patients who do not experience a GPP flare up to week 48 on BI 655130 300 mg every 4 weeks ≤ Placebo.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.39||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.621|-0.159||"One-sided p-value was computed from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by use of systemic GPP medication at randomisation.~one-sided alpha= 0.00625"|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference=Spesolimab high dose-Placebo.|||-0.159|-0.621|0.0013
90931584|NCT04399837|181742472|SUPERIORITY|Null hypothesis: Effect of BI 655130 300 mg every 4 weeks on prolonging the time to first worsening of PSS up to week 48 ≤ Placebo.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.424||||0.0134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.197|0.914||"One-sided p-value was computed from the log-rank test stratified by use of systemic GPP medication at randomisation.~one-sided alpha= 0.00625"|Log Rank||spesolimab high dose vs. Placebo|Hazard ratio and its 95% CI (confidence interval) are from Cox regression model stratified by use of systemic GPP medication at randomisation.||0.914|0.197|0.0134
90931585|NCT04399837|181742473|SUPERIORITY|Null hypothesis: Effect of BI 655130 300 mg every 4 weeks on prolonging the time to the first worsening of DLQI up to week 48 ≤ Placebo.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.259||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.109|0.62||One sided p-value was computed from the log-rank test stratified by use of systemic GPP medication at randomisation.|Log Rank||spesolimab high dose vs. Placebo|"Hazard ratio and its 95% CI (confidence interval) are from Cox regression model stratified by use of systemic GPP medication at randomisation.~one-sided alpha= 0.00625"||0.620|0.109|0.0010
90931586|NCT02831816|181742477|NON_INFERIORITY|Investigational product cannot be more than 0.05 log10 cfu/cm2 less than the active control.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.221|0.18||||||Groin 10 minutes Average treatment effect, calculated using a linear regression model for each body site, was used for primary analysis. In the model, the response was the post-treatment log10 bacterial counts and predictors were the treatment effect as a fixed effect and the pre-treatment log10 bacterial counts as a covariate.||0.180|-0.221|
90931587|NCT02831816|181742477|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.15|2.76||||||Groin 10 minutes Average Treatment effect, calculated using a linear regression model for each body site, was used for primary analysis. In the model, the response was the post-treatment log10 bacterial counts and predictors were the treatment effect as a fixed effect and the pre-treatment log10 bacterial counts as a covariate.||2.76|2.15|
90931588|NCT02831816|181742478|NON_INFERIORITY|Investigational product cannot be more than 0.05 log10 cfu/cm2 less than the active control.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0435|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2085|0.1215||||||Abdomen 10 minutes average treatment effect, calculated using a linear regression model for each body site, was used for primary analysis. In the model, the response was the post-treatment log10 bacterial counts and predictors were the treatment effect as a fixed effect and the pre-treatment log10 bacterial counts as a covariate.||0.1215|-0.2085|
90931589|NCT02831816|181742478|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|2.25||||||Abdomen 10 minutes Average Treatment Effect, calculated using a linear regression model for each body site, was used for primary analysis. In the model, the response was the post-treatment log10 bacterial counts and predictors were the treatment effect as a fixed effect and the pre-treatment log10 bacterial counts as a covariate.||2.25|1.70|
90931590|NCT02686658|181742479|OTHER|Model for repeated measures (MRM) and square root transformation was used to compare the treatment groups.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.11||||0.0072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Model for repeated measures (MRM)|||Difference in least squares means between groups calculated as (Sham) minus (Zimura).||||0.0072
90931591|NCT02686658|181742479|OTHER|Model for repeated measures (MRM) and square root transformation was used to compare treatment groups.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.124||||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Model for repeated measures (MRM)|||Difference in least squares means between groups calculated as (Sham) minus (Zimura).||||0.0051
90931592|NCT02686658|181742480|OTHER|Model for repeated measures (MRM) was used to compare the treatment groups.|Least Squares Mean Difference|1.39||||0.3464|TWO_SIDED||||||Model for repeated measures (MRM)|||Difference in least squares mean between groups calculated as (Zimura) minus (Sham).||||0.3464
90931593|NCT02686658|181742480|OTHER|Model for repeated measures (MRM) was used to compare the treatment groups.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.28||||0.883|TWO_SIDED||||||Model for repeated measures (MRM)|||Difference in least squares mean between groups calculated as (Zimura) minus (Sham).||||0.8830
90931594|NCT02686658|181742481|OTHER|Model for repeated measures (MRM) was used to compare the treatment groups.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.38||||0.8405|TWO_SIDED||||||Model for repeated measures (MRM)|||Difference in least squares mean between groups calculated as (Zimura) minus (Sham).||||0.8405
90931595|NCT02686658|181742481|OTHER|Model for repeated measures (MRM) was used to compare the treatment groups.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.44||||0.5017|TWO_SIDED||||||Model for repeated measures (MRM)|||Difference in least squares mean between groups calculated as (Zimura) minus (Sham).||||0.5017
90931596|NCT02609048|181742543|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-60.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.814|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.85|-49.13||Difference in mean,p-value, and CIs estimated by comparing Seladelpar level with placebo by ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor,baseline AP assessment as covariate,and percent change from baseline as response variable.|ANCOVA|||||-49.13|-72.85|<0.0001
90931597|NCT02609048|181742543|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean (LSM)|-51.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.849|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.3|-39.44||Difference in mean,p-value, and confidence intervals (CIs) estimated by comparing Seladelpar level with placebo by ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor,baseline AP assessment as covariate,and percent change from baseline as response variable.|ANCOVA|||||-39.44|-63.30|<0.0001
90931598|NCT02609048|181742543|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean (LSM)|-9.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.963||0.1167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.79|2.54||Difference in mean,p-value, and CIs estimated by comparing Seladelpar 200 mg versus 50 mg by ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor,baseline AP assessment as covariate,and percent change from baseline as response variable.|ANCOVA|||||2.54|-21.79|0.1167
90931599|NCT02609048|181742544|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-values were calculated from Fisher's exact test comparing each Seladelpar group with Placebo separately.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
90931600|NCT02609048|181742544|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0036||||||The p-values were calculated from Fisher's exact test comparing each Seladelpar group with Placebo separately.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.0036
90931601|NCT02609048|181742544|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1045||||||The p-values were calculated from Fisher's exact test comparing Seladelpar 200mg versus 50 mg.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.1045
91035483|NCT04278560|181956957|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|9.94||||0.17|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|We used change from baseline for this analysis. Two-Way Repeated Measure ANOVA: Group, Time, Group x Time, and controlled baseline.||||||0.17
90931602|NCT02609048|181742545|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|234.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|104.647||0.0322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.28|448.14||Difference between means, p-value, and CIs are estimated by comparing each Seladelpar level with placebo using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor, baseline AST assessment as covariate,and percent change from baseline in AST as response variable.|ANCOVA|||||448.14|21.28|0.0322
90931603|NCT02609048|181742545|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|132.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|96.015||0.1764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.0|328.65||Difference between means, p-value, and CIs are estimated by comparing each Seladelpar level with placebo using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor, baseline AST assessment as covariate,and percent change from baseline in AST as response variable.|ANCOVA|||||328.65|-63.00|0.1764
90931604|NCT02609048|181742545|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|101.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|103.504||0.3326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-109.21|312.98||Difference between means, p-value, and CIs are estimated by comparing Seladelpar 200 mg versus 50 mg using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor, baseline AST assessment as covariate, and percent change from baseline in AST as response variable.|ANCOVA|||||312.98|-109.21|0.3326
90941049|NCT01772823|181761667|OTHER|||||||0.2223||||||The chi-squared test of homogeneity is used to assess whether the proportions of the independent variable (participant responses to this question) differ between intervention arms.|Chi-squared|||||||0.2223
90967339|NCT01431274|181817094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.102|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.125||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.125|0.080|<0.0001
90967340|NCT01431274|181817094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.014|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.2169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.008|0.037||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.037|-0.008|0.2169
90967341|NCT01431274|181817094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.108|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.085|0.13||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.130|0.085|<0.0001
90967342|NCT01431274|181817094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.5849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.017|0.029||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.029|-0.017|0.5849
90931605|NCT02609048|181742546|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|185.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|104.379||0.0849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.1|398.66||Difference between means,p-value, and CIs are estimated by comparing each Seladelpar level with placebo using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as a factor, baseline ALT assessment as covariate,and percent change from baseline in ALT as response variable.|ANCOVA|||||398.66|-27.10|0.0849
90931606|NCT02609048|181742546|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|116.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|97.437||0.2409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-82.22|315.23||Difference between means,p-value,and CIs are estimated by comparing each Seladelpar level with placebo using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as a factor,baseline ALT assessment as covariate, and percent change from baseline in ALT as response variable.|ANCOVA|||||315.23|-82.22|0.2409
90931607|NCT02609048|181742546|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|69.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|105.295||0.5154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-145.47|284.03||Difference between means,p-value,and CIs are estimated by comparing Seladelpar 200 mg versus 50 mg using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as a factor,baseline ALT assessment as covariate, and percent change from baseline in ALT as response variable.|ANCOVA|||||284.03|-145.47|0.5154
90931608|NCT02609048|181742547|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-45.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.112||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.04|-20.64||Difference between means, p-value,and CIs are estimated by comparing each Seladelpar level with placebo using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as a factor, baseline GGT assessment as covariate,and percent change from baseline in GGT as response variable.|ANCOVA|||||-20.64|-70.04|0.0007
90931609|NCT02609048|181742547|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-40.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.033||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.28|-18.28||Difference between means, p-value,and CIs are estimated by comparing each Seladelpar level with placebo using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as a factor, baseline GGT assessment as covariate,and percent change from baseline in GGT as response variable.|ANCOVA|||||-18.28|-63.28|0.0008
90931610|NCT02609048|181742547|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-4.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.401||0.7155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.85|20.73||Difference between means, p-value,and CIs are estimated by comparing Seladelpar 200 mg versus 50 mg using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as a factor, baseline GGT assessment as covariate,and percent change from baseline in GGT as response variable.|ANCOVA|||||20.73|-29.85|0.7155
90931611|NCT02609048|181742548|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-34.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.342||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.4|-11.14||Difference between means,p-value, and CIs are estimated by comparing each Seladelpar level with placebo using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as a factor, baseline 5NT assessment as covariate,and percent change from baseline in 5NT as response variable.|ANCOVA|||||-11.14|-57.40|0.0050
90931612|NCT02609048|181742548|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-24.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.116||0.0199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.47|-4.21||Difference between means,p-value, and CIs are estimated by comparing each Seladelpar level with placebo using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as a factor, baseline 5NT assessment as covariate,and percent change from baseline in 5NT as response variable.|ANCOVA|||||-4.21|-45.47|0.0199
90931613|NCT02609048|181742548|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-9.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.442||0.4161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.77|13.9||Difference between means,p-value, and CIs are estimated by comparing Seladelpar 200 mg versus 50 mg using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as a factor, baseline 5NT assessment as covariate,and percent change from baseline in 5NT as response variable.|ANCOVA|||||13.90|-32.77|0.4161
90931614|NCT02609048|181742549|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|6.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.626||0.478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|23.79||Difference between means,p-value, and CIs estimated by comparing each Seladelpar level with placebo by ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor, baseline assessment as covariate, and percent change from baseline in total bilirubin as response variable.|ANCOVA|||||23.79|-11.40|0.4780
90931615|NCT02609048|181742549|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-12.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.043||0.1459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.4|4.41||Difference between means,p-value, and CIs estimated by comparing each Seladelpar level with placebo by ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor, baseline assessment as covariate, and percent change from baseline in total bilirubin as response variable.|ANCOVA|||||4.41|-28.40|0.1459
90931616|NCT02609048|181742549|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|18.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.521||0.0407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|35.57||Difference between means,p-value, and CIs estimated by comparing Seladelpar 200 mg versus 50 mg by ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor, baseline assessment as covariate, and percent change from baseline in total bilirubin as response variable.|ANCOVA|||||35.57|0.82|0.0407
90931617|NCT02609048|181742550|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|31.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.831||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.26|59.67||Difference between means,p-value,and CIs are estimated by each Seladelpar level with placebo using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor,baseline assessment as covariate,and percent change from baseline in conjugated bilirubin as response variable.|ANCOVA|||||59.67|3.26|0.0300
90931618|NCT02609048|181742550|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-8.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.883||0.4979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.11|17.44||Difference between means,p-value,and CIs are estimated by each Seladelpar level with placebo using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor,baseline assessment as covariate,and percent change from baseline in conjugated bilirubin as response variable.|ANCOVA|||||17.44|-35.11|0.4979
90931619|NCT02609048|181742550|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|40.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.591||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.58|68.02||Difference between means,p-value,and CIs are estimated for Seladelpar 200 mg versus 50 mg using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor,baseline assessment as covariate,and percent change from baseline in conjugated bilirubin as response variable.|ANCOVA|||||68.02|12.58|0.0058
90931620|NCT02609048|181742551|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-2.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.362||0.7244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.03|14.08||Difference between means,p-value, and CIs are estimated by comparing Seladelpar level with placebo using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as a factor,baseline assessment as covariate, and percent change from baseline as the response variable.|ANCOVA|||||14.08|-20.03|0.7244
90931621|NCT02609048|181742551|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-14.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.819||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.1|1.8||Difference between means,p-value, and CIs are estimated by comparing Seladelpar level with placebo using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as a factor,baseline assessment as covariate, and percent change from baseline as the response variable.|ANCOVA|||||1.80|-30.10|0.0800
90931622|NCT02609048|181742551|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|11.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.29||0.1874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.73|28.08||Difference between means,p-value, and CIs are estimated by comparing Seladelpar 200 mg versus 50 mg using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as a factor,baseline assessment as covariate, and percent change from baseline as the response variable.|ANCOVA|||||28.08|-5.73|0.1874
90931623|NCT02609048|181742552|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-45.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.638|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.5|-32.42||Difference between means,p-value,and CIs are estimated comparing each Seladelpar level with placebo using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor,baseline bone-specific AP assessment as covariate,and percent change from baseline as response variable.|ANCOVA|||||-32.42|-59.50|<0.0001
90931624|NCT02609048|181742552|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-34.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.46|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.83|-21.48||Difference between means,p-value,and CIs are estimated comparing each Seladelpar level with placebo using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor,baseline bone-specific AP assessment as covariate,and percent change from baseline as response variable.|ANCOVA|||||-21.48|-47.83|<0.0001
90931625|NCT02609048|181742552|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-11.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.508||0.0924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.58|1.97||Difference between means,p-value,and CIs are estimated comparing Seladelpar 200 mg versus 50 mg using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor,baseline bone-specific AP assessment as covariate,and percent change from baseline as response variable.|ANCOVA|||||1.97|-24.58|0.0924
90931626|NCT02609048|181742553|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-14.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.807||0.2777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.27|11.97||Difference between means,p-value, and CIs are estimated by comparing each Seladelpar level with placebo using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor, baseline TG assessment as a covariate, and percent change from baseline in TG as response variable.|ANCOVA|||||11.97|-40.27|0.2777
90931627|NCT02609048|181742553|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-37.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.946||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.67|-12.95||Difference between means,p-value, and CIs are estimated by comparing each Seladelpar level with placebo using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor, baseline TG assessment as a covariate, and percent change from baseline in TG as response variable.|ANCOVA|||||-12.95|-61.67|0.0039
90931628|NCT02609048|181742553|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|23.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.498||0.0734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|48.65||Difference between means,p-value, and CIs are estimated by comparing Seladelpar 200 mg versus 50 mg using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor, baseline TG assessment as a covariate, and percent change from baseline in TG as response variable.|ANCOVA|||||48.65|-2.33|0.0734
90931629|NCT02609048|181742554|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-16.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.433||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.16|-7.07||Difference between means,p-value,and CIs are estimated by comparing each Seladelpar level with placebo using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor, baseline TC assessment as covariate,and percent change from baseline in TC as the response variable.|ANCOVA|||||-7.07|-25.16|0.0010
90931630|NCT02609048|181742554|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-8.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.992||0.0504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.27|0.02||Difference between means,p-value,and CIs are estimated by comparing each Seladelpar level with placebo using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor, baseline TC assessment as covariate,and percent change from baseline in TC as the response variable.|ANCOVA|||||0.02|-16.27|0.0504
90931631|NCT02609048|181742554|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-7.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.317||0.0738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.8|0.81||Difference between means,p-value,and CIs are estimated by comparing Seladelpar 200 mg versus 50 mg using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor, baseline TC assessment as covariate,and percent change from baseline in TC as the response variable.|ANCOVA|||||0.81|-16.80|0.0738
90931632|NCT02609048|181742555|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-17.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.848||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.32|-5.46||Difference between means,p-value,and CIs estimated by comparing each Seladelpar level with placebo using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor,baseline HDL-C assessment as covariate,and percent change from baseline in HDL-C as response variable.|ANCOVA|||||-5.46|-29.32|0.0057
90931633|NCT02609048|181742555|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.378||0.8703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.85|10.08||Difference between means,p-value,and CIs estimated by comparing each Seladelpar level with placebo using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor,baseline HDL-C assessment as covariate,and percent change from baseline in HDL-C as response variable.|ANCOVA|||||10.08|-11.85|0.8703
90931634|NCT02609048|181742555|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-16.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.781||0.0076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.3|-4.71||Difference between means,p-value,and CIs estimated by comparing Seladelpar 200 mg versus 50 mg using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor,baseline HDL-C assessment as covariate,and percent change from baseline in HDL-C as response variable.|ANCOVA|||||-4.71|-28.30|0.0076
90931635|NCT02609048|181742556|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-14.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.981||0.0186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.05|-2.66||Difference between means,p-value, and CIs estimated by comparing each Seladelpar level with placebo using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor,baseline LDL-C assessment as covariate,and percent change from baseline in LDL-C as response variable.|ANCOVA|||||-2.66|-27.05|0.0186
90931636|NCT02609048|181742556|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-10.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.448||0.0745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.17|1.06||Difference between means,p-value, and CIs estimated by comparing each Seladelpar level with placebo using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor,baseline LDL-C assessment as covariate,and percent change from baseline in LDL-C as response variable.|ANCOVA|||||1.06|-21.17|0.0745
90931637|NCT02609048|181742556|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.785||0.4131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|7.0||Difference between means,p-value, and CIs estimated by comparing Seladelpar 200 mg versus 50 mg using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor,baseline LDL-C assessment as covariate,and percent change from baseline in LDL-C as response variable.|ANCOVA|||||7.00|-16.60|0.4131
90931638|NCT02609048|181742557|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4667||||||Fisher's exact test between each Seladelpar level compared with placebo was used to obtain the p-value.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.4667
90931639|NCT02609048|181742557|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4667||||||Fisher's exact test between Seladelpar 200 mg versus 50 mg was used to obtain the p-value.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.4667
90931640|NCT02609048|181742558|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0824||||||Fisher's exact test between each Seladelpar level compared with placebo was used to obtain the p-value.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.0824
90931641|NCT02609048|181742558|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0537||||||Fisher's exact test between each Seladelpar level compared with placebo was used to obtain the p-value.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.0537
90931642|NCT02609048|181742558|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Fisher's exact test between Seladelpar 200 mg versus 50 mg was used to obtain the p-value.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
90931643|NCT02609048|181742559|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0101||||||Fisher's exact test between each Seladelpar level compared with placebo was used to obtain the p-value.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.0101
90931644|NCT02609048|181742559|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0198||||||Fisher's exact test between each Seladelpar level compared with placebo was used to obtain the p-value.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.0198
90931645|NCT02609048|181742559|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5165||||||Fisher's exact test between Seladelpar 200 mg versus 50 mg was used to obtain the p-value.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.5165
90931646|NCT02609048|181742560|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0101||||||Fisher's exact test between each Seladelpar level compared with placebo was used to obtain the p-value.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.0101
90931647|NCT02609048|181742560|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0055||||||Fisher's exact test between each Seladelpar level compared with placebo was used to obtain the p-value.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.0055
90931648|NCT02609048|181742560|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Fisher's exact test between Seladelpar 200 mg versus 50 mg was used to obtain the p-value.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
90931649|NCT02609048|181742562|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.82||0.5379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|2.6||Difference between means,p-value, and CIs are estimated by comparing each Seladelpar level with placebo using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor, baseline score as covariate, and change from baseline score as the response variable.|ANCOVA|||||2.6|-4.8|0.5379
90931650|NCT02609048|181742562|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.8949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|3.7||Difference between means,p-value, and CIs are estimated by comparing each Seladelpar level with placebo using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor, baseline score as covariate, and change from baseline score as the response variable.|ANCOVA|||||3.7|-3.3|0.8949
90931651|NCT02609048|181742562|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.75||0.4431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|2.2||Difference between means,p-value, and CIs are estimated by comparing Seladelpar 200 mg versus 50 mg using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor, baseline score as covariate, and change from baseline score as the response variable.|ANCOVA|||||2.2|-4.9|0.4431
90931652|NCT02609048|181742563|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-7.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.07||0.4674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.0|13.2||Difference between means,p-value, and CIs are estimated by comparing each Seladelpar level with placebo using ANCOVA model. Treatment group as factor, baseline score as a covariate, and change from baseline score as the response variable.|ANCOVA|||||13.2|-28.0|0.4674
90931653|NCT02609048|181742563|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.99||0.3236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.4|9.4||Difference between means,p-value, and CIs are estimated by comparing each Seladelpar level with placebo using ANCOVA model. Treatment group as factor, baseline score as a covariate, and change from baseline score as the response variable.|ANCOVA|||||9.4|-27.4|0.3236
90931654|NCT02609048|181742563|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.92||0.8723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.7|21.9||Difference between means,p-value, and CIs are estimated by comparing Seladelpar 200 mg versus 50 mg using ANCOVA model. Treatment group as factor, baseline score as a covariate, and change from baseline score as the response variable.|ANCOVA|||||21.9|-18.7|0.8723
90931655|NCT02609048|181742564|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25||0.0115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|6.0||Difference between means,p-value,and CIs are estimated comparing each Seladelpar level with placebo using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor,baseline PBC 40 QoL domain score as covariate, change from baseline in domain score as response variable.|ANCOVA|||Cognitive Domain Score||6.0|0.8|0.0115
90941050|NCT01772823|181761668|OTHER|||||||0.0617||||||The chi-squared test of homogeneity is used to assess whether the proportions of the independent variable (participant responses to this question) differ between intervention arms.|Chi-squared|||||||0.0617
90931656|NCT02609048|181742564|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.1256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|4.0||Difference between means,p-value,and CIs are estimated comparing each Seladelpar level with placebo using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor,baseline PBC 40 QoL domain score as covariate, change from baseline in domain score as response variable.|ANCOVA|||Cognitive Domain Score||4.0|-0.5|0.1256
90931657|NCT02609048|181742564|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.22||0.1842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|4.2||Difference between means,p-value,and CIs are estimated comparing Seladelpar 200 mg versus 50 mg using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor,baseline PBC 40 QoL domain score as covariate, change from baseline in domain score as response variable.|ANCOVA|||Cognitive Domain Score||4.2|-0.9|0.1842
90931658|NCT02609048|181742564|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|7.2||Difference between means,p-value,and CIs are estimated comparing each Seladelpar level with placebo using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor,baseline PBC 40 QoL domain score as covariate, change from baseline in domain score as response variable.|ANCOVA|||Social Domain Score||7.2|0.1|0.0420
90931659|NCT02609048|181742564|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.54||0.6384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|3.9||Difference between means,p-value,and CIs are estimated comparing each Seladelpar level with placebo using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor,baseline PBC 40 QoL domain score as covariate, change from baseline in domain score as response variable.|ANCOVA|||Social Domain Score||3.9|-2.4|0.6384
90931660|NCT02609048|181742564|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.73||0.1035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|6.5||Difference between means,p-value,and CIs are estimated comparing Seladelpar 200 mg versus 50 mg using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor,baseline PBC 40 QoL domain score as covariate, change from baseline in domain score as response variable.|ANCOVA|||Social Domain Score||6.5|-0.6|0.1035
90931661|NCT02609048|181742564|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96||0.6967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.4||Difference between means,p-value,and CIs are estimated comparing each Seladelpar level with placebo using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor,baseline PBC 40 QoL domain score as covariate, change from baseline in domain score as response variable.|ANCOVA|||Emotional Function Domain Score||2.4|-1.6|0.6967
90931662|NCT02609048|181742564|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.6164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|2.2||Difference between means,p-value,and CIs are estimated comparing each Seladelpar level with placebo using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor,baseline PBC 40 QoL domain score as covariate, change from baseline in domain score as response variable.|ANCOVA|||Emotional Function Domain Score||2.2|-1.3|0.6164
90931663|NCT02609048|181742564|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93||0.9548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.9|||ANCOVA|||Emotional Function Domain Score||1.9|-2.0|0.9548
90931664|NCT02609048|181742564|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.8286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.9||Difference between means,p-value,and CIs are estimated comparing each Seladelpar level with placebo using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor,baseline PBC 40 QoL domain score as covariate, change from baseline in domain score as response variable.|ANCOVA|||Itch Domain Score||1.9|-2.4|0.8286
90931665|NCT02609048|181742564|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.74||0.0226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|7.8||Difference between means,p-value,and CIs are estimated comparing each Seladelpar level with placebo using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor,baseline PBC 40 QoL domain score as covariate, change from baseline in domain score as response variable.|ANCOVA|||Fatigue Domain Score||7.8|0.6|0.0226
90931666|NCT02609048|181742564|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.92||0.1861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|1.4||Difference between means,p-value,and CIs are estimated comparing Seladelpar 200 mg versus 50 mg using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor,baseline PBC 40 QoL domain score as covariate, change from baseline in domain score as response variable.|ANCOVA|||Fatigue Domain Score||1.4|-6.6|0.1861
90931667|NCT02609048|181742564|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.96||0.4159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|5.7||Difference between means,p-value,and CIs are estimated comparing each Seladelpar level with placebo using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor,baseline PBC 40 QoL domain score as covariate, change from baseline in domain score as response variable.|ANCOVA|||Fatigue Domain Score||5.7|-2.4|0.4159
90931668|NCT02609048|181742564|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93||0.4848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|2.6||Difference between means,p-value,and CIs are estimated comparing each Seladelpar level with placebo using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor,baseline PBC 40 QoL domain score as covariate, change from baseline in domain score as response variable.|ANCOVA|||Itch Domain Score||2.6|-1.3|0.4848
90931669|NCT02609048|181742564|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.4048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|1.3||Difference between means,p-value,and CIs are estimated comparing Seladelpar 200 mg versus 50 mg using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor,baseline PBC 40 QoL domain score as covariate, change from baseline in domain score as response variable.|ANCOVA|||Itch Domain Score||1.3|-3.1|0.4048
90931670|NCT02609048|181742564|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.0141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|4.7||Difference between means,p-value,and CIs are estimated comparing each Seladelpar level with placebo using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor,baseline PBC 40 QoL domain score as covariate, change from baseline in domain score as response variable.|ANCOVA|||Symptoms Domain Score||4.7|0.6|0.0141
90931671|NCT02609048|181742564|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.0138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|4.2||Difference between means,p-value,and CIs are estimated comparing each Seladelpar level with placebo using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor,baseline PBC 40 QoL domain score as covariate, change from baseline in domain score as response variable.|ANCOVA|||Symptoms Domain Score||4.2|0.5|0.0138
90931672|NCT02609048|181742564|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98||0.7911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|2.3||Difference between means,p-value,and CIs are estimated comparing Seladelpar 200 mg versus 50 mg using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor,baseline PBC 40 QoL domain score as covariate, change from baseline in domain score as response variable.|ANCOVA|||Symptoms Domain Score||2.3|-1.8|0.7911
90931673|NCT01276509|181742595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentage|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121||0.3393|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.149|0.249|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference from placebo at Week 8||0.249|-0.149|0.3393
90931674|NCT01276509|181742595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentage|0.124|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.117||0.1433|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.068|0.316|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference from placebo at Week 8||0.316|-0.068|0.1433
90887985|NCT02417246|181639102|EQUIVALENCE|A mixed effect model for repeated measures was performed to model the 24-hour HR by quartile for 35 patients receiving brand name metoprolol ER and Generic A.|Slope|1.134||||0.368|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.368
90931675|NCT01276509|181742595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentage|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.113||0.0922|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.036|0.335|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference from placebo at Week 8||0.335|-0.036|0.0922
90931676|NCT01276509|181742595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentage|0.034|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.117||0.3864|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.158|0.225|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference from placebo at Week 12||0.225|-0.158|0.3864
90931677|NCT01276509|181742595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentage|0.061|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.117||0.3005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.131|0.253|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference from placebo at Week 12||0.253|-0.131|0.3005
90887986|NCT01614210|181639107|OTHER||percentage decrease in Ki67 after 7 days|||||0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0001
90887987|NCT04321460|181639130|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.564||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|16.039|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||16.039|1.66|0.007
90887988|NCT04321460|181639131|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.716||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.898|14.268|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||14.268|1.898|0.002
90887989|NCT04495712|181639144|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.71
90887990|NCT04495712|181639145|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.07
90887991|NCT04495712|181639146|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.42
90887992|NCT03669081|181639150|OTHER|The null hypothesis for the test was no difference between groups.||||||0.006||||||The significance level for this test was 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|We used an exact Wilcoxon rank sum test due to the skewed nature of the morphine equivalents data and the small sample sizes in each group.||||||0.006
90887993|NCT03669081|181639151|OTHER|The null hypothesis was no difference between groups.||||||0.029|||||||Exact Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.029
90887994|NCT03669081|181639152|NON_INFERIORITY|We conducted a 1-sided non-inferiority test using an alpha level of 0.025, for a comparison of the fold change of creatinine levels (pre-operative creatinine/post-operative creatinine) in the Toradol group. Our minimum non-inferiority margin was 0.5, ie the post-operative creatinine level could only increase to at most two times the pre-operative creatinine level.|||||<|0.0001||||||This p-value was compared to a significance threshold of 0.025.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The safety outcome was used to power our study.To achieve 90% power at a 2.5% significance level for testing that the post-surgery creatinine increase is at most two-fold (where 1.5 fold is expected), or alternatively for the pre-surgery creatinine group to be ≥0.5 times the post-surgery, we need 17 subjects in the toradol group. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority test (one sided t-test) using a coefficient of variation of 0.25 based on preliminary data.||||<0.0001
90887995|NCT03669081|181639153|OTHER|The null hypothesis was no difference between groups.||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.002
90887996|NCT03669081|181639154|OTHER|The null hypothesis was no difference between groups.|||||>|0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.99
90887997|NCT00706121|181639156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.96||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.02|||Log binomial regression|||||1.02|0.9|0.96
90887998|NCT00706121|181639157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.92||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.08|||Log binomial regression|||||1.08|0.78|0.32
90887999|NCT00706121|181639159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.91||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.07|||Log binomial regression|||||1.07|0.77|0.24
90888000|NCT00706121|181639160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.1|||Log binomial regression|||||1.10|0.96|0.38
90888001|NCT01308749|181639165|OTHER||||||||||||||||||No analyses were completed, this is descriptive only and is an absolute value (number of participants).|||
90888002|NCT01308749|181639169|EQUIVALENCE|Within group test of difference using t-scores adjusted by baseline score, no correction for multiple comparisons, nonparametric model||||||0.023|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.023
90888003|NCT01308749|181639171|EQUIVALENCE|t-test between groups||||||0.23|||||||t-test, 2 sided|no adjustment for multiple comparison. non parametric||||||0.23
90888004|NCT02223390|181639185|SUPERIORITY|A sample size of 60 was chosen as adequate to examine the feasibility and acceptability of a pilot randomized controlled trial (RCT) with two conditions.||||||0.08||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<.05. The p-value presented corresponds to the time by condition interaction parameter.|Mixed Models Analysis|To assess changes in PTSD symptoms over time by intervention condition, linear mixed models were fit using the PROC MIXED procedure in SAS.||Statistical analyses reported below is for PCL - Total at 3 months.||||0.08
90888005|NCT02223390|181639186|SUPERIORITY|A sample size of 60 was chosen as adequate to examine the feasibility and acceptability of a pilot RCT with two conditions.||||||0.05||||||A priori threshold was defined as p\<0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.05
90888006|NCT02896855|181639213|OTHER||Stratified Hazard Ratio|0.69||||0.0418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.99|||Log Rank|A two-sided log-rank test was used, stratified by disease type and hormone-receptor status.|This stratified Hazard Ratio (HR) is calculated as Arm B: Pertuzumab versus Arm A: Placebo. Cox proportional hazards model, stratified by disease type and hormone-receptor status, was used to estimate HR and its 95% CI.|This was for the primary analysis. Hypothesis testing is considered exploratory in this bridging study.||0.99|0.49|0.0418
90888007|NCT02896855|181639213|OTHER||Unstratified Hazard Ratio|0.71||||0.0556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.01|||Log Rank|This two-sided log-rank test was unstratified.|This unstratified Hazard Ratio (HR) is calculated as Arm B: Pertuzumab versus Arm A: Placebo. Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate HR and its 95% CI.|This was for the primary analysis. Hypothesis testing is considered exploratory in this bridging study.||1.01|0.50|0.0556
90931678|NCT01276509|181742595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentage|-0.011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.114||0.5385|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.198|0.176|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference from placebo at Week 12||0.176|-0.198|0.5385
90931679|NCT01276509|181742598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentage|0.124|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.107||0.1234|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.052|0.299|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference from placebo at week 8||0.299|-0.052|0.1234
90931680|NCT01276509|181742598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentage|0.071|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099||0.2378|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.092|0.234|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference from placebo at week 8||0.234|-0.092|0.2378
90931681|NCT01276509|181742598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentage|0.102|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.1529|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.062|0.266|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference from placebo at week 8||0.266|-0.062|0.1529
90931682|NCT01276509|181742598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentage|0.038|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.112||0.3661|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.146|0.222|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference from placebo at week 12||0.222|-0.146|0.3661
90931683|NCT01276509|181742598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentage|0.055|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116||0.3169|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.136|0.246|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference from placebo at week 12||0.246|-0.136|0.3169
90931684|NCT01276509|181742598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentage|0.066|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.111||0.2755|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.116|0.248|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference from placebo at week 12||0.248|-0.116|0.2755
90931685|NCT03964974|181742614|SUPERIORITY|2-sided hypothesis tests were utilized to compare ISI score over time in the two treatment conditions.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-4.307|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.612||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.51|-1.104||This is the calculated p-value. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Persons in the CBTI-CB condition were hypothesized as realizing greater reduction in insomnia severity as measured by the Insomnia Severity Index (ISI) over time compared to the Sleep Hygiene Education (SHE) condition. 80% power was estimated to detect a medium or larger effect size (d\>0.52) on sleep- and functioning-related outcomes, even with a more conservative alpha set at 0.017 (i.e., 0.05/3 for the 3 outcomes).|Parameter is estimated difference in final means, CBTi-CB - Control. Minus sign denotes greater decrease for CBTi-CB. Effect size for Time X Condition = 0.81|-1.104|-7.510|0.0041
90931686|NCT01377844|181742627|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.53||The p-value is from a 2-sided t-test for the difference in means of change from baseline. Statistical significant is set at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance, including treatment group, baseline HbA1c, site, age category, gender and race||||-0.53|-1.06|< 0.0001
90931687|NCT01377844|181742628|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-5.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.02|-3.04||The p-value is from a 2-sided t-test for the difference in means of change from baseline. Statistical significant is set at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance, including treatment group, baseline systolic BP, baseline HbA1c category, site, age category, gender and race||||-3.04|-8.02|< 0.0001
90931688|NCT01377844|181742628|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-2.67||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|-1.04||The p-value is from a 2-sided t-test for the difference in means of change from baseline. Statistical significant is set at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance, including treatment group, baseline diastolic BP, baseline HbA1c category, site, age category, gender and race||||-1.04|-4.30|0.0015
90931689|NCT01377844|181742629|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-1.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|-0.93||The p-value is from a 2-sided t-test for the difference in means of change from baseline. Statistical significant is set at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance, including treatment group, baseline weight, baseline HbA1c category, site, age category, gender and race||||-0.93|-2.52|< 0.0001
90931690|NCT01377844|181742630|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.21||The p-value is from a 2-sided t-test for the difference in means of change from baseline. Statistical significant is set at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance, including treatment group, baseline HbA1c, site, age category, gender and race||Change from baseline in HbA1c (%) at Week 2||-0.21|-0.42|< 0.0001
90931691|NCT01377844|181742630|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.41||The p-value is from a 2-sided t-test for the difference in means of change from baseline. Statistical significant is set at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance, including treatment group, baseline HbA1c, site, age category, gender and race||Change from baseline in HbA1c (%) at Week 6||-0.41|-0.78|< 0.0001
90931692|NCT01377844|181742630|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.48||The p-value is from a 2-sided t-test for the difference in means of change from baseline. Statistical significant is set at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance, including treatment group, baseline HbA1c, site, age category, gender and race||Change from baseline in HbA1c (%) at Week 12||-0.48|-0.96|< 0.0001
90931693|NCT01377844|181742630|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.44||The p-value is from a 2-sided t-test for the difference in means of change from baseline. Statistical significant is set at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance, including treatment group, baseline HbA1c, site, age category, gender and race||Change from baseline in HbA1c (%) at Week 18||-0.44|-0.97|< 0.0001
90931694|NCT01377844|181742630|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.53||The p-value is from a 2-sided t-test for the difference in means of change from baseline. Statistical significant is set at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance, including treatment group, baseline HbA1c, site, age category, gender and race||Change from baseline in HbA1c (%) at Week 24||-0.53|-1.06|< 0.0001
90931695|NCT01377844|181742630|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.93|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|-0.66||The p-value is from a 2-sided t-test for the difference in means of change from baseline. Statistical significant is set at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance, including treatment group, baseline HbA1c, site, age category, gender and race||Change from baseline in HbA1c (%) at Week 36||-0.66|-1.21|< 0.0001
90931696|NCT01377844|181742630|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|-0.7||The p-value is from a 2-sided t-test for the difference in means of change from baseline. Statistical significant is set at 0.05 level|ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance, including treatment group, baseline HbA1c, site, age category, gender and race||Change from baseline in HbA1c (%) at Week 48||-0.70|-1.28|< 0.0001
90941051|NCT01772823|181761669|OTHER|||||||0.0868||||||The chi-squared test of homogeneity is used to assess whether the proportions of the independent variable (participant responses to this question) differ between intervention arms.|Chi-squared|||||||0.0868
90967343|NCT01431274|181817094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.1863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.007|0.039||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (2.5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.039|-0.007|0.1863
90967344|NCT01431274|181817094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.009|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.4352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.032|0.014||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.014|-0.032|0.4352
90967345|NCT01431274|181817095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.082|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.059|0.106||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.106|0.059|<.0001
90967346|NCT01431274|181817095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.071|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.047|0.094||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.094|0.047|<0.0001
90967347|NCT01431274|181817095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.058|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.034|0.081||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.081|0.034|<0.0001
90967348|NCT01431274|181817095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.029|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.0174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.005|0.052||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.052|0.005|0.0174
90967349|NCT01431274|181817095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.046|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.023|0.07||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.070|0.023|0.0001
90967350|NCT01431274|181817095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.0407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.048||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.048|0.001|0.0407
90967351|NCT01431274|181817095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.053|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.077||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.077|0.030|<0.0001
90967352|NCT01431274|181817095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.3326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.012|0.035||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.035|-0.012|0.3326
90967353|NCT01431274|181817095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.029|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.0151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.006|0.053||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (2.5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.053|0.006|0.0151
90967354|NCT01431274|181817095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.018|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.1421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.041|0.006||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.006|-0.041|0.1421
90931697|NCT01377844|181742630|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|-0.68||The p-value is from a 2-sided t-test for the difference in means of change from baseline. Statistical significant is set at 0.05 level|ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance, including treatment group, baseline HbA1c, site, age category, gender and race||Change from baseline in HbA1c (%) at Week 60||-0.68|-1.27|< 0.0001
90931698|NCT01377844|181742630|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.93|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|-0.64||The p-value is from a 2-sided t-test for the difference in means of change from baseline. Statistical significant is set at 0.05 level|ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance, including treatment group, baseline HbA1c, site, age category, gender and race||Change from baseline in HbA1c (%) at Week 72||-0.64|-1.22|< 0.0001
90931699|NCT01377844|181742630|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|-0.69||The p-value is from a 2-sided t-test for the difference in means of change from baseline. Statistical significant is set at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance, including treatment group, baseline HbA1c, site, age category, gender and race||Change from baseline in HbA1c (%) at Week 84||-0.69|-1.27|< 0.0001
90931700|NCT01377844|181742630|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-1.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|-0.73||The p-value is from a 2-sided t-test for the difference in means of change from baseline. Statistical significant is set at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance, including treatment group, baseline HbA1c, site, age category, gender and race||Change from baseline in HbA1c (%) at Week 96||-0.73|-1.31|< 0.0001
90931701|NCT01377844|181742631|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-2.24|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.79|-1.7||The p-value is from a two-sided t-test for the difference in means of change from baseline|ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance, including treatment group, baseline FPG, baseline HbA1c category, site, age category, gender and race||Difference of mean-adjusted change from baseline in FPG (mmol/L) at Week 2, between EGT0001442 and Placebo group.||-1.70|-2.79|< 0.0001
90941052|NCT01772823|181761670|OTHER|||||||0.1847||||||The chi-squared test of homogeneity is used to assess whether the proportions of the independent variable (participant responses to this question) differ between intervention arms.|Chi-squared|||||||0.1847
90941053|NCT01772823|181761671|OTHER|||||||0.0226||||||The chi-squared test of homogeneity is used to assess whether the proportions of the independent variable (participant responses to this question) differ between intervention arms.|Chi-squared|||||||0.0226
90941054|NCT02367105|181761690|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.58|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline values as covariate||||||0.58
90941055|NCT02367105|181761691|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value adjusted||||||0.03
90941056|NCT02367105|181761692|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.97|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value adjusted||||||.97
90941057|NCT02367105|181761693|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.56|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value adjusted||||||0.56
90941058|NCT02367105|181761694|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.01
90941059|NCT02367105|181761695|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.91|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.91
90941060|NCT02367105|181761696|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-42.0||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value adjusted||||||0.04
90941061|NCT02367105|181761697|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.0||||0.67|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline values as covariates||||||.67
90941062|NCT02367105|181761698|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.019||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline valued adjusted||||||0.003
90941063|NCT02367105|181761699|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.003||||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value adjusted||||||0.69
90941064|NCT02367105|181761700|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.0||||0.94|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value adjusted||||||0.94
90941065|NCT02367105|181761701|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.41|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value adjusted||||||0.41
90941066|NCT02367105|181761702|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.46|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline values as covariates||||||0.46
90941067|NCT02367105|181761703|SUPERIORITY|Baseline value adjusted|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.96|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.96
90941068|NCT02367105|181761704|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.284||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.003
90941069|NCT02367105|181761705|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value and years of education as covariates||||||.16
90941070|NCT02367105|181761706|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.21|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline values and years of education as covariates||||||0.21
90941071|NCT02367105|181761707|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.41|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline values and years of education as covariates||||||0.41
90941072|NCT02367105|181761708|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value and years if education as covariates||||||.03
90941073|NCT02367105|181761709|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.6||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline values and years of education as covariates||||||.03
90941074|NCT02367105|181761710|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.8||||0.18|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline values and years of education as covariates||||||.18
90941075|NCT02367105|181761711|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline values and years of education as covariates||||||0.10
90941076|NCT02367105|181761712|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.65|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline values as covariates||||||.65
90941077|NCT02367105|181761713|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.553||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value adjusted||||||0.03
90941078|NCT02367105|181761714|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.5||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value adjusted||||||0.04
90941079|NCT02367105|181761715|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.5||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|||||Baseline value adjusted|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.35
90941080|NCT02367105|181761716|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.65|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value adjusted||||||0.65
90931702|NCT01377844|181742631|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-2.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|-1.81||The p-value is from a two-sided t-test for the difference in means of change from baseline|ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance, including treatment group, baseline FPG, baseline HbA1c category, site, age category, gender and race||Difference of mean-adjusted change from baseline in FPG (mmol/L) at Week 6, between EGT0001442 and Placebo group.||-1.81|-3.09|< 0.0001
90931703|NCT01377844|181742631|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-2.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.06|-1.77||The p-value is from a two-sided t-test for the difference in means of change from baseline|ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance, including treatment group, baseline FPG, baseline HbA1c category, site, age category, gender and race||Difference of mean-adjusted change from baseline in FPG (mmol/L) at Week 12, between EGT0001442 and Placebo group.||-1.77|-3.06|< 0.0001
90931704|NCT01377844|181742631|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-2.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-2.11||The p-value is from a two-sided t-test for the difference in means of change from baseline.|ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance, including treatment group, baseline FPG, baseline HbA1c category, site, age category, gender and race||Difference of mean-adjusted change from baseline in FPG (mmol/L) at Week 18, between EGT0001442 and Placebo group.||-2.11|-3.30|< 0.0001
90931705|NCT01377844|181742631|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-2.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.24|-2.02||The p-value is from a two-sided t-test for the difference in means of change from baseline.|ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance, including treatment group, baseline FPG, baseline HbA1c category, site, age category, gender and race||Difference of mean-adjusted change from baseline in FPG (mmol/L) at Week 24, between EGT0001442 and Placebo group.||-2.02|-3.24|< 0.0001
90931706|NCT01823224|181742636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.875|TWO_SIDED||||||Repeated analysis of variance|||||||0.875
90931707|NCT01823224|181742637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Manova|||||||> 0.05
90931708|NCT02148705|181742657|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|288.281|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.549|13984.356|||Fisher Exact|||||13984.356|35.549|<0.0001
90931709|NCT02148705|181742658|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.011|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.003|0.044|||Chi-squared|||||0.044|0.003|<0.0001
90931710|NCT02148705|181742659|SUPERIORITY||Test Statistics|23.1429|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Generalized Wilcoxon-Gehan Test|Analysis is adjusted for Overall TW Depths, TBSA Group, Center Group, and Number of TWs||||||<0.0001
90931711|NCT02148705|181742660|SUPERIORITY||estimate|6505.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|269.88|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5974.41|7037.19|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon tests pooled using Rubin´s rule||||7037.19|5974.41|<0.0001
90931712|NCT01711294|181742666|SUPERIORITY|Sample sizes were calculated using two-sample t-test for the primary endpoint and z-test for the secondary endpoint with power of 80% and two-sided alpha of 0.05. Hochberg step up procedure was used to adjust for multiple comparison. A p-value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.84||||||Hochberg step up procedure was used to adjust for multiple comparison.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon was used instead of t-test because the data was not normally distributed.||Study hypothesizes that aspiration % in the 19G Flex and 19G arms would be superior by at least 10% to 22G arm, and aspiration success rate of 19G Flex would be at least 16% greater than 22G and 19G arms. Sample size calculation was performed based on the above hypotheses reached by a consensus of all collaborators and adjusted a priori.||||0.84
90931713|NCT02824198|181742682|NON_INFERIORITY|The overall non-inferiority of the booster dose was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% Confidence Interval (CI) of the Geometric mean of titer ratios (GMTRs) (booster vs post-dose 3) was greater than (\>) 1/2 for each serotype.|Geometric mean of titer ratio|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.998|1.79||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 1||1.79|0.998|
90931714|NCT02824198|181742682|NON_INFERIORITY|The overall non-inferiority of the booster dose was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the GMTRs (booster vs post-dose 3) was \> 1/2 for each serotype.|Geometric mean of titer ratio|0.603|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.439|0.829||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 2||0.829|0.439|
90931715|NCT02824198|181742682|NON_INFERIORITY|The overall non-inferiority of the booster dose was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the GMTRs (booster vs post-dose 3) was \> 1/2 for each serotype.|Geometric mean of titer ratio|0.979|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.746|1.28||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 3||1.28|0.746|
90931716|NCT02824198|181742682|NON_INFERIORITY|The overall non-inferiority of the booster dose was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the GMTRs (booster vs post-dose 3) was \> 1/2 for each serotype.|Geometric mean of titer ratio|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.918|1.75||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 4||1.75|0.918|
90931717|NCT02605174|181742695|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.9|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.9|1.1|0.003
91035484|NCT04278560|181956958|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.6||||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|We used change from baseline for this analysis. Two-Way Repeated Measure ANOVA: Group, Time, Group x Time, and controlled baseline.||||||0.1
90931718|NCT02605174|181742695|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.2|1.3|<0.001
90931719|NCT02605174|181742695|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|3.1|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.1|1.8|<0.001
90931720|NCT02605174|181742696|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.8|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.8|1.1|0.009
90931721|NCT02605174|181742696|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.0|1.2|<0.001
90931722|NCT02605174|181742696|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|2.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.4|1.4|<0.001
90931723|NCT02605174|181742697|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.2|1.3|<0.001
90931724|NCT02605174|181742697|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|2.9|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.9|1.7|<0.001
90931725|NCT02605174|181742697|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|3.1|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.1|1.8|<0.001
90931726|NCT02605174|181742699|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.9|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.9|0.5|0.002
90931727|NCT02605174|181742699|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.7|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.7|0.4|<0.001
90931728|NCT02605174|181742699|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.4|0.3|<0.001
90931729|NCT02605174|181742700|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.5|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.5|0.7|0.917
90931730|NCT02605174|181742700|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.1|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.1|0.5|0.129
90931731|NCT02605174|181742700|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.3|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.3|0.6|0.456
90931732|NCT02605174|181742702|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.2|0.7|0.522
90931733|NCT02605174|181742702|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.4|0.8|0.622
90931734|NCT02605174|181742702|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.3|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.3|0.8|0.992
90931735|NCT02605174|181742703|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.7|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.7|1.1|0.008
90931736|NCT02605174|181742703|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.0|1.3|<0.001
90931737|NCT02605174|181742703|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.1|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.1|1.3|<0.001
90931738|NCT02605174|181742704|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.7|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.7|1.1|0.007
90931739|NCT02605174|181742704|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.1|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.1|1.3|<0.001
90931740|NCT02605174|181742704|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|2.3|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.3|1.4|<0.001
90931741|NCT04938453|181742735|OTHER||Ratio of GLSMs (%)|98.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.87|106.69|||||"Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means (GLSMs) was calculated as (GLSM of nintedanib 4 X 25 mg)/(GLSM of nintedanib 1 X 100 mg).~Standard error of the mean is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\])."|The statistical model used for the analysis of this primary endpoint was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||106.69|90.87|
90931742|NCT04938453|181742736|OTHER||Ratio of GLSMs (%)|100.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|29.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.05|118.24|||||"Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means (GLSMs) was calculated as (GLSM of nintedanib 4 X 25 mg)/(GLSM of nintedanib 1 X 100 mg).~Standard error of the mean is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\])."|The statistical model used for the analysis of this primary endpoint was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||118.24|85.05|
90931743|NCT04938453|181742737|OTHER||Ratio of GLSMs (%)|98.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.8|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.35|107.12|||||"Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means (GLSMs) was calculated as (GLSM of nintedanib 4 X 25 mg)/(GLSM of nintedanib 1 X 100 mg).~Standard error of the mean is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\])."|The statistical model used for the analysis of this primary endpoint was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||107.12|91.35|
90931744|NCT00403494|181742774|SUPERIORITY|PWT was transformed to the log ratio at Week 24:Baseline for statistical analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.021|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.379||0.727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.138|0.097|||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference represents the difference of the means of the natural log-transformed ratios between the 2 treatment groups.|||0.097|-0.138|0.727
90931745|NCT01480258|181742833|OTHER|The immune response to PR5I vaccine was considered as acceptable if the lower bounds of the 2-sided 95% CI for the response rates were greater than 75%.|||||<|0.001||||||One-sided p-value|Clopper and Pearson|||Anti-PRP ≥ 1.0 μg/mL||||<0.001
90931746|NCT01480258|181742833|OTHER|The immune response to PR5I vaccine was considered as acceptable if the lower bounds of the 2-sided 95% CI for the response rates were greater than 75%.|||||<|0.001||||||One-sided p-value|Clopper and Pearson|||Anti-HBsAg ≥10 mIU/mL||||<0.001
90931747|NCT01480258|181742833|OTHER|The immune response to PR5I vaccine was considered as acceptable if the lower bounds of the 2-sided 95% CI for the response rates were greater than 75%.|||||<|0.001||||||One-sided p-value|Clopper and Pearson|||Anti-Diphtheria ≥0.1 IU/mL||||<0.001
90931748|NCT01480258|181742833|OTHER|The immune response to PR5I vaccine was considered as acceptable if the lower bounds of the 2-sided 95% CI for the response rates were greater than 75%.|||||<|0.001||||||One-sided p-value|Clopper and Pearson|||Anti-Tetanus ≥0.1 IU/mL||||<0.001
90931749|NCT01480258|181742833|OTHER|The immune response to PR5I vaccine was considered as acceptable if the lower bounds of the 2-sided 95% CI for the response rates were greater than 75%.|||||<|0.001||||||One-sided p-value|Clopper and Pearson|||Anti-PT seroresponse||||<0.001
90931750|NCT01480258|181742833|OTHER|The immune response to PR5I vaccine was considered as acceptable if the lower bounds of the 2-sided 95% CI for the response rates were greater than 75%.|||||<|0.001||||||One-sided p-value|Clopper and Pearson|||Anti-FHA seroresponse||||<0.001
90931751|NCT01480258|181742833|OTHER|The immune response to PR5I vaccine was considered as acceptable if the lower bounds of the 2-sided 95% CI for the response rates were greater than 75%.|||||<|0.001||||||One-sided p-value|Clopper and Pearson|||Anti-FIM seroresponse||||<0.001
90931752|NCT01480258|181742833|OTHER|The immune response to PR5I vaccine was considered as acceptable if the lower bounds of the 2-sided 95% CI for the response rates were greater than 75%.|||||<|0.001||||||One-sided p-value|Clopper and Pearson|||Anti-PRN seroresponse||||<0.001
90931753|NCT01480258|181742833|OTHER|The immune response to PR5I vaccine was considered as acceptable if the lower bounds of the 2-sided 95% CI for the response rates were greater than 75%.|||||<|0.001||||||One-sided p-value|Clopper and Pearson|||Anti-IPV1 ≥1:8 dilution||||<0.001
90931754|NCT01480258|181742833|OTHER|The immune response to PR5I vaccine was considered as acceptable if the lower bounds of the 2-sided 95% CI for the response rates were greater than 75%.|||||<|0.001||||||One-sided p-value|Clopper and Pearson|||Anti-IPV2 ≥1:8 dilution||||<0.001
90931755|NCT01480258|181742833|OTHER|The immune response to PR5I vaccine was considered as acceptable if the lower bounds of the 2-sided 95% CI for the response rates were greater than 75%.|||||<|0.001||||||One-sided p-value|Clopper and Pearson|||Anti-IPV3 ≥1:8 dilution||||<0.001
90931756|NCT01480258|181742834|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) was greater than -10% (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was non-inferior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|Difference in percentages|46.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.05|51.06||Stratification by country.|Miettinen & Nurminen|||||51.06|41.05|<0.001
90931757|NCT01480258|181742835|SUPERIORITY|If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than 0, it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was superior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|Difference in percentages|46.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.05|51.06|||Miettinen & Nurminen|Stratification by country.||||51.06|41.05|<0.001
90931758|NCT01480258|181742836|NON_INFERIORITY|The estimate of the difference between PR5I \& INFANRIX hexa groups in PRP response rate (based on Ab titre ≥1.0 μg/mL) was calculated with its 1-sided P-value \& 2-sided 95% CI. If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -10% (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was non-inferior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|Difference in percentages|-1.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.13|2.52|||Miettinen & Nurminen with stratification|Statistical analysis was based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by country.||Non-inferiority for PRP||2.52|-5.13|<0.001
90931759|NCT01480258|181742836|NON_INFERIORITY|The estimate of the difference between PR5I \& INFANRIX hexa groups in HBsAg response rate (based on Ab titre ≥10 mIU/mL) was calculated with its 1-sided P-value \& 2-sided 95% CI. If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -10% (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was non-inferior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|ifference in percentages|-0.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.66|1.35|||Miettinen & Nurminen with stratification|Statistical analysis was based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by country.||Non-Inferiority for HBsAg||1.35|-2.66|<0.001
90931760|NCT01480258|181742836|NON_INFERIORITY|The estimate of the difference between PR5I \& INFANRIX hexa groups in Diphtheria response rate (based on Ab titre ≥0.1 IU/mL) was calculated with its 1-sided P-value \& 2-sided 95% CI. If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -10% (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was non-inferior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|Difference in percentages|-1.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|-0.22|||Miettinen & Nurminen with stratification|Statistical analysis was based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by country.||Non-Inferiority for Diptheria||-0.22|-2.54|<0.001
90931761|NCT01480258|181742836|NON_INFERIORITY|The estimate of the difference between PR5I \& INFANRIX hexa groups in Tetanus response rate (based on Ab titre ≥0.1 IU/mL) was calculated with its 1-sided P-value \& 2-sided 95% CI. If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -5% (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was non-inferior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|Difference in percentages|-0.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen with stratification|Statistical analysis was based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by country.||Non-Inferiority for Tetanus||0.50|-0.95|<0.001
90931762|NCT01480258|181742836|NON_INFERIORITY|The estimate of the difference between PR5I \& INFANRIX hexa groups in the percentage of seroresponder participants for PT was calculated with its 1-sided P-value \& 2-sided 95% CI. If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -10% (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was non-inferior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|Difference in percentages|-0.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|0.49|||Miettinen & Nurminen with stratification|Statistical analysis was based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by country.||Non-Inferiority for PT||0.49|-1.75|<0.001
90931763|NCT01480258|181742836|NON_INFERIORITY|The estimate of the difference between PR5I \& INFANRIX hexa groups in the percentage of seroresponder participants for FHA was calculated with its 1-sided P-value \& 2-sided 95% CI. If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -10% (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was non-inferior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|Difference in percentages|-1.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.47|-0.26|||Miettinen & Nurminen with stratification|Statistical analysis was based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by country.||Non-Inferiority for FHA||-0.26|-3.47|<0.001
90931764|NCT01480258|181742836|NON_INFERIORITY|The estimate of the difference between PR5I \& INFANRIX hexa groups in the percentage of seroresponder participants for PRN was calculated with its 1-sided P-value \& 2-sided 95% CI. If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -10% (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was non-inferior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|Difference in percentages|-1.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.42|0.39|||Miettinen & Nurminen with stratification|Statistical analysis was based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by country.||Non-Inferiority for PRN||0.39|-3.42|<0.001
90931765|NCT01480258|181742836|NON_INFERIORITY|The estimate of the difference between PR5I \& INFANRIX hexa groups in IPV1 response rate (based on Ab titre ≥8 (1/dil)) was calculated with its 1-sided P-value \& 2-sided 95% CI. If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -5% (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was non-inferior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|Difference in percentages|-0.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|0.34|||Miettinen & Nurminen with stratification|Statistical analysis was based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by country.||Non-Inferiority for IPV1||0.34|-1.59|<0.001
90941081|NCT02367105|181761717|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|||||Baseline value adjusted|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.27
90931766|NCT01480258|181742836|NON_INFERIORITY|The estimate of the difference between PR5I \& INFANRIX hexa groups in IPV2 response rate (based on Ab titre ≥8 (1/dil)) was calculated with its 1-sided P-value \& 2-sided 95% CI. If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -5% (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was non-inferior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|Difference in percentages|-0.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.49|||Miettinen & Nurminen with stratification|Statistical analysis was based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by country.||Non-Inferiority for IPV2||0.49|-0.96|<0.001
90931767|NCT01480258|181742836|NON_INFERIORITY|The estimate of the difference between PR5I \& INFANRIX hexa groups in IPV3 response rate (based on Ab titre ≥8 (1/dil)) was calculated with its 1-sided P-value \& 2-sided 95% CI. If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -5% (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was non-inferior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|Difference in percentages|-0.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.82|||Miettinen & Nurminen with stratification|Statistical analysis was based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by country.||Non-Inferiority for IPV3||0.82|-1.20|<0.001
90931768|NCT01480258|181742837|NON_INFERIORITY|The estimate for anti-rotavirus IgA GMT ratio (PR5I group/INFANRIX hexa group) was calculated with its 1-sided P-value and 2-sided 95% CI. If the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was greater than 0.50 (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that the Rotarix antigen response in the PR5I group was not inferior to the Rotarix antigen response in the INFANRIX hexa group.|Geometric Mean Titre (GMT) ratio|0.8||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.2|||ANCOVA|||||1.20|0.54|0.011
90931769|NCT01480258|181742838|OTHER|The risk differences between groups (PR5I group - INFANRIX hexa group) and their 2-sided 95% CI were calculated for the above criteria based on the unstratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method. The aim of the 95% CI was to investigate an overall trend and not any specific difference. If 0.0 was excluded from the 95% CI, the trend could not be ruled out.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.4||||||ISR or systemic AE||1.4|-0.7|
90931770|NCT01480258|181742838|OTHER|The risk differences between groups (PR5I group - INFANRIX hexa group) and their 2-sided 95% CI were calculated for the above criteria based on the unstratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method. The aim of the 95% CI was to investigate an overall trend and not any specific difference. If 0.0 was excluded from the 95% CI, the trend could not be ruled out.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.8||||||95.0|-0.3|2.0||||||ISR or V-related systemic AE||2.0|-0.3|
90931771|NCT01480258|181742838|OTHER|The risk differences between groups (PR5I group - INFANRIX hexa group) and their 2-sided 95% CI were calculated for the above criteria based on the unstratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method. The aim of the 95% CI was to investigate an overall trend and not any specific difference. If 0.0 was excluded from the 95% CI, the trend could not be ruled out.|Risk Difference (RD)|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|6.0||||||At least 1 ISR||6.0|-0.7|
90931772|NCT01480258|181742838|OTHER|The risk differences between groups (PR5I group - INFANRIX hexa group) and their 2-sided 95% CI were calculated for the above criteria based on the unstratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method. The aim of the 95% CI was to investigate an overall trend and not any specific difference. If 0.0 was excluded from the 95% CI, the trend could not be ruled out.|Risk Difference (RD)|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|5.9||||||At least 1 solicited ISR||5.9|-0.9|
90931773|NCT01480258|181742838|OTHER|The risk differences between groups (PR5I group - INFANRIX hexa group) and their 2-sided 95% CI were calculated for the above criteria based on the unstratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method. The aim of the 95% CI was to investigate an overall trend and not any specific difference. If 0.0 was excluded from the 95% CI, the trend could not be ruled out.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.4||||||At least 1 systemic AE||1.4|-1.1|
90931774|NCT01480258|181742838|OTHER|The risk differences between groups (PR5I group - INFANRIX hexa group) and their 2-sided 95% CI were calculated for the above criteria based on the unstratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method. The aim of the 95% CI was to investigate an overall trend and not any specific difference. If 0.0 was excluded from the 95% CI, the trend could not be ruled out.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|2.2||||||At least 1 vaccine-related systemic AE||2.2|-0.5|
90931775|NCT01480258|181742838|OTHER|The risk differences between groups (PR5I group - INFANRIX hexa group) and their 2-sided 95% CI were calculated for the above criteria based on the unstratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method. The aim of the 95% CI was to investigate an overall trend and not any specific difference. If 0.0 was excluded from the 95% CI, the trend could not be ruled out.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|2.2||||||At least 1 solicited systemic AE||2.2|-0.5|
90931776|NCT01480258|181742838|OTHER|The risk differences between groups (PR5I group - INFANRIX hexa group) and their 2-sided 95% CI were calculated for the above criteria based on the unstratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method. The aim of the 95% CI was to investigate an overall trend and not any specific difference. If 0.0 was excluded from the 95% CI, the trend could not be ruled out.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.9||||||95.0|-0.4|2.3||||||At least 1 vaccine-related solicited systemic AE||2.3|-0.4|
90931777|NCT01480258|181742839|OTHER|The risk differences between groups (PR5I group - INFANRIX hexa group) and their 2-sided 95% CI were calculated for the above criteria based on the unstratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method. The aim of the 95% CI was to investigate whether an overall trend of risk differences existed. If the 95% CI for the risk differences included 0.0, the numerical differences were not considered significant.|Risk Difference (RD)|8.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|13.3||||||Injection-site erythema||13.3|3.0|
90931778|NCT01480258|181742839|OTHER|The risk differences between groups (PR5I group - INFANRIX hexa group) and their 2-sided 95% CI were calculated for the above criteria based on the unstratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method. The aim of the 95% CI was to investigate whether an overall trend of risk differences existed. If the 95% CI for the risk differences included 0.0, the numerical differences were not considered significant.|Risk Difference (RD)|3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|8.3||||||Injection-site pain||8.3|-1.5|
90931779|NCT01480258|181742839|OTHER|The risk differences between groups (PR5I group - INFANRIX hexa group) and their 2-sided 95% CI were calculated for the above criteria based on the unstratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method. The aim of the 95% CI was to investigate whether an overall trend of risk differences existed. If the 95% CI for the risk differences included 0.0, the numerical differences were not considered significant.|Risk Difference (RD)|7.5||||||95.0|2.1|12.9||||||Injection-site swelling||12.9|2.1|
90941082|NCT02367105|181761718|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.6||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|||||Baseline value adjusted|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.39
90941083|NCT02367105|181761719|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.58|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.58
90967355|NCT01431274|181817096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.693|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.553||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.778|-0.608||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||-0.608|-2.778|0.0022
90967356|NCT01431274|181817096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.233|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.551||0.0252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.313|-0.153||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||-0.153|-2.313|0.0252
90967357|NCT01431274|181817096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.031|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.552||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.113|0.052||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.052|-2.113|0.0620
90967358|NCT01431274|181817096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.456|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.548||0.4051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.531|0.618||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.618|-1.531|0.4051
90967359|NCT01431274|181817096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.571|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.2988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.649|0.507||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.507|-1.649|0.2988
90967360|NCT01431274|181817096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.662|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.545||0.2249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.731|0.407||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.407|-1.731|0.2249
90967361|NCT01431274|181817096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.549||0.0418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.195|-0.042||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||-0.042|-2.195|0.0418
90967362|NCT01431274|181817096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.557||0.4097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.552|0.633||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (2.5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg)~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.633|-1.552|0.4097
90967363|NCT01431274|181817096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.575|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.556||0.3013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.664|0.515||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (2.5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.515|-1.664|0.3013
90967364|NCT01431274|181817096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.115|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.554||0.8355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|1.2||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (2.5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||1.200|-0.970|0.8355
90967365|NCT01431274|181817097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.135||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.155|0.684||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.684|0.155|0.0019
90967366|NCT01431274|181817097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.356|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.135||0.0082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.092|0.619||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.619|0.092|0.0082
90971299|NCT05032157|181825300|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.83|11.78|||Regression, Logistic||Logistic regression adjusting for treatment arm, geographical region, prior exposure to anti-IgE biologics, and baseline UAS7 score.|Complete absence of hives and itch (UAS7 = 0) at Week 12||11.78|2.83|< 0.001
90931780|NCT01480258|181742840|OTHER|The risk differences between groups (PR5I group - INFANRIX hexa group) and their 2-sided 95% CI were calculated for the above criteria based on the unstratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method. The aim of the 95% CI was to investigate an overall trend and not any specific difference. If 0.0 was excluded from the 95% CI, the trend could not be ruled out.|Risk Difference (RD)|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.3||||||Injection-site bruising||0.3|-2.5|
90931781|NCT01480258|181742840|OTHER|The risk differences between groups (PR5I group - INFANRIX hexa group) and their 2-sided 95% CI were calculated for the above criteria based on the unstratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method. The aim of the 95% CI was to investigate an overall trend and not any specific difference. If 0.0 was excluded from the 95% CI, the trend could not be ruled out.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.6||||||Injection-site haemorrhage||1.6|-1.5|
90931782|NCT01480258|181742840|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|6.4||||||Injection-site induration||6.4|-1.2|
90931783|NCT01480258|181742840|OTHER|The risk differences between groups (PR5I group - INFANRIX hexa group) and their 2-sided 95% CI were calculated for the above criteria based on the unstratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method. The aim of the 95% CI was to investigate an overall trend and not any specific difference. If 0.0 was excluded from the 95% CI, the trend could not be ruled out.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.5||||||Injection-site nodule||1.5|-0.8|
90931784|NCT01480258|181742840|OTHER|The risk differences between groups (PR5I group - INFANRIX hexa group) and their 2-sided 95% CI were calculated for the above criteria based on the unstratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method. The aim of the 95% CI was to investigate an overall trend and not any specific difference. If 0.0 was excluded from the 95% CI, the trend could not be ruled out.|Risk Difference (RD)|1.1||||||95.0|-0.4|2.7||||||Injection-site warmth||2.7|-0.4|
90931785|NCT01480258|181742841|OTHER|The risk differences between groups (PR5I group - INFANRIX hexa group) and their 2-sided 95% CI were calculated for the above criteria based on the unstratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method. The aim of the 95% CI was to investigate whether an overall trend of risk differences existed. If the 95% CI for the risk differences included 0.0, the numerical differences were not considered significant.|Risk Difference (RD)|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|5.7||||||Crying||5.7|-1.3|
90931786|NCT01480258|181742841|OTHER|The risk differences between groups (PR5I group - INFANRIX hexa group) and their 2-sided 95% CI were calculated for the above criteria based on the unstratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method. If the 95% CI for the risk differences included 0.0, the numerical differences were not considered significant.|Risk Difference (RD)|3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|8.8||||||Decreased appetite||8.8|-1.6|
90931787|NCT01480258|181742841|OTHER|The risk differences between groups (PR5I group - INFANRIX hexa group) and their 2-sided 95% CI were calculated for the above criteria based on the unstratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method. If the 95% CI for the risk differences included 0.0, the numerical differences were not considered significant.|Risk Difference (RD)|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|5.4||||||Irritability||5.4|-1.0|
90931788|NCT01480258|181742841|OTHER|The risk differences between groups (PR5I group - INFANRIX hexa group) and their 2-sided 95% CI were calculated for the above criteria based on the unstratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method. If the 95% CI for the risk differences included 0.0, the numerical differences were not considered significant.|Risk Difference (RD)|6.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|11.3||||||Pyrexia||11.3|1.5|
90931789|NCT01480258|181742841|OTHER|The risk differences between groups (PR5I group - INFANRIX hexa group) and their 2-sided 95% CI were calculated for the above criteria based on the unstratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method. The aim of the 95% CI was to investigate an overall trend and not any specific difference. If 0.0 was excluded from the 95% CI, the trend could not be ruled out.|Risk Difference (RD)|5.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|9.8||||||Somnolence||9.8|1.7|
90931790|NCT01480258|181742841|OTHER|The risk differences between groups (PR5I group - INFANRIX hexa group) and their 2-sided 95% CI were calculated for the above criteria based on the unstratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method. If the 95% CI for the risk differences included 0.0, the numerical differences were not considered significant.|Risk Difference (RD)|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|6.9||||||Vomiting||6.9|-3.2|
90931791|NCT01543204|181742848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|10.0||||0.4505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.97|35.97|||Wald asymptotic test|||||35.97|-15.97|0.4505
90931792|NCT02684136|181742878|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|baseline used as covariate||||||<0.05
90931793|NCT02684136|181742879|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||baseline used as covariate|ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
90931794|NCT03822832|181742883|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.4||0.1492|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-54.9|3.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|See endpoint description for model description.|Difference calculated as Spesolimab - Placebo.|||3.7|-54.9|0.1492
90931795|NCT03822832|181742885|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8||0.8613|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.7|7.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|See endpoint description for model description.|Difference calculated as Spesolimab - Placebo.|||7.0|-5.7|0.8613
90931796|NCT03822832|181742886|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.0||0.8754|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-25.8|21.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|See endpoint description for model description.|Difference calculated as Spesolimab - Placebo.|||21.4|-25.8|0.8754
90931797|NCT03822832|181742887|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.254|0.176||||CIs are calculated using the method of Wilson and Newcombe.|Difference calculated as Spesolimab - Placebo|Risk difference at week 4||0.176|-0.254|
90931798|NCT03822832|181742887|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.247|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.053|0.396||||CIs are calculated using the method of Wilson and Newcombe.|Difference calculated as Spesolimab - Placebo|Risk difference at week 16||0.396|0.053|
90931799|NCT03822832|181742888|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.204|0.117||||CIs are calculated using the method of Wilson and Newcombe.|Difference calculated as Spesolimab - Placebo|Risk difference at week 4||0.117|-0.204|
90931800|NCT03822832|181742888|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.096|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.08|0.232||||CIs are calculated using the method of Wilson and Newcombe.|Difference calculated as Spesolimab - Pl|Risk difference at week 16||0.232|-0.080|
90931801|NCT03822832|181742889|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.7||0.99|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.6|14.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|See endpoint description for model description.|Difference calculated as Spesolimab - Placebo.|||14.8|-14.6|0.9900
90931802|NCT03822832|181742890|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.1||0.2266|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-35.2|5.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|See endpoint description for model description.|Difference calculated as Spesolimab - Placebo.|||5.5|-35.2|0.2266
90931803|NCT03822832|181742891|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.005|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.159|0.12||||CIs are calculated using the method of Wilson and Newcombe.|Difference calculated as Spesolimab - Placebo|Risk difference at week 4||0.120|-0.159|
90967367|NCT01431274|181817097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.416|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.135||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.152|0.681||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.681|0.152|0.0020
90967368|NCT01431274|181817097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.134||0.0307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.027|0.554||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.554|0.027|0.0307
90967369|NCT01431274|181817097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.352|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.135||0.0088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.089|0.616||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.616|0.089|0.0088
90967370|NCT01431274|181817097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.134||0.9801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.259|0.266||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.266|-0.259|0.9801
90967371|NCT01431274|181817097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.294|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.134||0.0289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.557||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.557|0.030|0.0289
90931804|NCT03822832|181742891|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.091|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.05|0.207||||CIs are calculated using the method of Wilson and Newcombe.|Difference calculated as Spesolimab - Placebo|Risk difference at week 16||0.207|-0.050|
90931805|NCT01321073|181742897|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||1-sample exact test for Poisson rate|||The rate of catheter-related complications per 1000 patient-days was compared to a pre-specified value of 2.5 / 1000 days. This was calculated based on published complication rates in PAH that included central venous catheter systemic bloodstream infections (0.43-1.13), site infections (0.26-0.87), and complications from catheter thrombosis, mechanical dysfunction, or catheter dislocation in the general central venous catheter population (0.36-0.51). The sum of the upper rates is 2.5.||||<0.0001
90931806|NCT04248803|181742898|NON_INFERIORITY|From the above mentioned non inferiority clinical trial it is hypothesized that GLUMA application will reduce postoperative sensitivity during dental restorative procedures.||||||0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The sample size was estimated to be 504 using G Power software with 95% power and alpha value set to 0.05. The participants were randomly divided to 6 groups with randomizer.org. The statistical analysis was carried out using SPSS 23 software to compare the mean pain scores between the six study groups using kruskal Wallis test.||||0.05
90931807|NCT02678455|181743045|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.028|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.216|0.141|||||Adjusted proportion difference (TV005 minus Placebo) with inverse variance weighting and Newcombe Score confidence intervals.|Erythema||0.141|-0.216|
90931808|NCT02678455|181743045|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.028|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.216|0.141|||||Adjusted proportion difference (TV005 minus Placebo) with inverse variance weighting and Newcombe Score confidence intervals.|Swelling||0.141|-0.216|
90931809|NCT02678455|181743045|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.028|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.135|0.119|||||Adjusted proportion difference (TV005 minus Placebo) with inverse variance weighting and Newcombe Score confidence intervals.|ALT Increased||0.119|-0.135|
90931810|NCT02678455|181743045|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.028|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.135|0.119|||||Adjusted proportion difference (TV005 minus Placebo) with inverse variance weighting and Newcombe Score confidence intervals.|Hemoglobin Decreased||0.119|-0.135|
90931811|NCT02678455|181743045|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.205|0.121|||||Adjusted proportion difference (TV005 minus Placebo) with inverse variance weighting and Newcombe Score confidence intervals.|Leukocytosis||0.121|-0.205|
90931812|NCT02678455|181743045|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.024|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.127|0.111|||||Adjusted proportion difference (TV005 minus Placebo) with inverse variance weighting and Newcombe Score confidence intervals.|PTT Prolonged||0.111|-0.127|
90931813|NCT02678455|181743045|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.056|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.022|0.134|||||Adjusted proportion difference (TV005 minus Placebo) with inverse variance weighting and Newcombe Score confidence intervals.|Thrombocytopenia||0.134|0.022|
90931814|NCT02678455|181743045|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.051|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.018|0.118|||||Adjusted proportion difference (TV005 minus Placebo) with inverse variance weighting and Newcombe Score confidence intervals.|Fever||0.118|0.018|
90931815|NCT02678455|181743045|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.036|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.203|0.089|||||Adjusted proportion difference (TV005 minus Placebo) with inverse variance weighting and Newcombe Score confidence intervals.|Headache||0.089|-0.203|
90931816|NCT02678455|181743045|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.166|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.016|0.275|||||Adjusted proportion difference (TV005 minus Placebo) with inverse variance weighting and Newcombe Score confidence intervals.|Rash||0.275|0.016|
90931817|NCT02678455|181743045|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.063|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.126|||||Adjusted proportion difference (TV005 minus Placebo) with inverse variance weighting and Newcombe Score confidence intervals.|Arthralgia||0.126|0.030|
90931818|NCT02678455|181743045|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.023|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.155|0.118|||||Adjusted proportion difference (TV005 minus Placebo) with inverse variance weighting and Newcombe Score confidence intervals.|Fatigue||0.118|-0.155|
90931819|NCT02678455|181743045|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.041|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.105|0.105|||||Adjusted proportion difference (TV005 minus Placebo) with inverse variance weighting and Newcombe Score confidence intervals.|Myalgia||0.105|-0.105|
90931820|NCT02678455|181743045|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.019|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.114|||||Adjusted proportion difference (TV005 minus Placebo) with inverse variance weighting and Newcombe Score confidence intervals.|Nausea||0.114|-0.160|
90931821|NCT02678455|181743045|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.028|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.216|0.141|||||Adjusted proportion difference (TV005 minus Placebo) with inverse variance weighting and Newcombe Score confidence intervals.|Photophobia||0.141|-0.216|
90931822|NCT02678455|181743045|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.024|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.142|0.088|||||Adjusted proportion difference (TV005 minus Placebo) with inverse variance weighting and Newcombe Score confidence intervals.|Retro-orbital Pain||0.088|-0.142|
90931823|NCT02678455|181743045|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.028|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.216|0.141|||||Adjusted proportion difference (TV005 minus Placebo) with inverse variance weighting and Newcombe Score confidence intervals.|Decrease in Activity||0.141|-0.216|
90931824|NCT02678455|181743045|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.028|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.216|0.141|||||Adjusted proportion difference (TV005 minus Placebo) with inverse variance weighting and Newcombe Score confidence intervals.|Loss of Appetite||0.141|-0.216|
90931825|NCT02678455|181743045|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.083|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.165|0.218|||||Adjusted proportion difference (TV005 minus Placebo) with inverse variance weighting and Newcombe Score confidence intervals.|Vomiting||0.218|-0.165|
90931826|NCT02678455|181743046|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|83.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|76.0|88.0||||||All study participants seropositive to DENV-1 post TV005 Vaccination There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||88|76|
90931827|NCT02678455|181743046|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|99.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.0|100.0||||||All study participants seropositive to DENV-2 post TV005 Vaccination. There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||100|96|
90931828|NCT02678455|181743046|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm|percentage seropositive|96.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|92.0|98.0||||||All study participants seropositive to DENV-3 post TV005 Vaccination There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||98|92|
90931829|NCT02678455|181743046|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|87.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|81.0|92.0||||||All study participants seropositive to DENV-4 post TV005 Vaccination There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||92|81|
90931830|NCT02678455|181743046|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|86.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.0|94.0||||||Adult study participants seropositive to DENV-1 post TV005 Vaccination There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||94|71|
90931831|NCT02678455|181743046|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|97.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|85.0|99.0||||||Adult study participants seropositive to DENV-2 post TV005 Vaccination There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||99|85|
90931832|NCT02678455|181743046|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|97.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|85.0|99.0||||||Adult study participants seropositive to DENV-3 post TV005 Vaccination There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||99|85|
90931833|NCT02678455|181743046|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|91.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.0|97.0||||||Adult study participants seropositive to DENV-4 post TV005 Vaccination There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||97|78|
90931834|NCT02678455|181743046|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|83.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.0|92.0||||||Adolescent study participants seropositive to DENV-1 post TV005 Vaccination There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||92|67|
90931835|NCT02678455|181743046|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|90.0|100.0||||||Adolescent study participants seropositive to DENV-2 post TV005 Vaccination There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||100|90|
90931836|NCT02678455|181743046|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|97.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|85.0|99.0||||||Adolescent study participants seropositive to DENV-3 post TV005 Vaccination There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||99|85|
90931837|NCT02678455|181743046|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|86.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.0|94.0||||||Adolescent study participants seropositive to DENV-4 post TV005 Vaccination There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||94|71|
90931838|NCT02678455|181743046|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|81.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.0|90.0||||||Children study participants seropositive to DENV-1 post TV005 Vaccination There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||90|65|
90931839|NCT02678455|181743046|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|90.0|100.0||||||Children study participants seropositive to DENV-2 post TV005 Vaccination There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||100|90|
90931840|NCT02678455|181743046|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|90.0|100.0||||||Children study participants seropositive to DENV-3 post TV005 Vaccination There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||100|90|
90931841|NCT02678455|181743046|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|78.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.0|88.0||||||Children study participants seropositive to DENV-4 post TV005 Vaccination There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||88|62|
90931842|NCT02678455|181743046|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|83.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.0|92.0||||||Young Children study participants seropositive to DENV-1 post TV005 Vaccination There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||92|68|
90931843|NCT02678455|181743046|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|90.0|100.0||||||Young Children study participants seropositive to DENV-2 post TV005 Vaccination There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||100|90|
90931844|NCT02678455|181743046|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|92.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.0|97.0||||||Young Children study participants seropositive to DENV-3 post TV005 Vaccination There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||97|78|
90931845|NCT02678455|181743046|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|94.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|82.0|98.0||||||Young Children study participants seropositive to DENV-4 post TV005 Vaccination There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||98|82|
90931846|NCT02678455|181743048|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Comparison between experienced vs dengue naive volunteers post TV005 vaccination. Logistic model to adjust for age cohort provides unstable estimates due to quasi separation of data.|Fisher Exact|||DENV-1 percent seropositive post TV005 vaccination: difference between experienced at baseline and naive at baseline||||<0.001
90931847|NCT02678455|181743048|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Comparison between experienced vs. dengue naive volunteers post TV005 vaccination. Logistic model to adjust for age cohort provides unstable estimates due to quasi separation of data.|Fisher Exact|||DENV-2 percent seropositive post TV005 vaccination: difference between experienced at baseline and naive at baseline||||1.00
90931848|NCT02678455|181743048|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07||||||Comparison between experienced vs. dengue naive volunteers post TV005 vaccination. Logistic model to adjust for age cohort provides unstable estimates due to quasi separation of data.|Fisher Exact|||DENV-3 percent seropositive post TV005 vaccination: difference between experienced at baseline and naive at baseline||||0.070
90931849|NCT02678455|181743048|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Comparison between experienced vs. dengue naive volunteers post TV005 vaccination. logistic model to adjust for age cohort provides unstable estimates due to quasi separation of data.|Fisher Exact|||DENV-4 percent seropositive post TV005 vaccination: difference between experienced at baseline and naive at baseline||||1.00
90931850|NCT02678455|181743049|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|66.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.0|79.0||||||Adult cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-1 at study day 0 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||79|49|
90931851|NCT02678455|181743049|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|83.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.0|92.0||||||Adult cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-1 at study day 28 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||92|67|
91035485|NCT04278560|181956959|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.07||||0.7|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|We used change from baseline for this analysis. Two-Way Repeated Measure ANOVA: Group, Time, Group x Time, and controlled baseline||||||0.7
90931852|NCT02678455|181743049|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|80.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.0|90.0||||||Adult cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-1 at study day 56 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||90|64|
90931853|NCT02678455|181743049|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|80.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.0|90.0||||||Adult cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-1 at study day 180 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||90|64|
90931854|NCT02678455|181743049|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|80.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.0|90.0||||||Adult cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-1 at study day 360 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||90|64|
90941084|NCT02367105|181761720|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value adjusted||||||0.90
91035486|NCT04278560|181956960|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.46
90931855|NCT02678455|181743049|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|66.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.0|79.0||||||Adult cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-1 at study day 720 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||79|49|
90931856|NCT02678455|181743049|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|66.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.0|79.0||||||Adult cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-1 at study day 1080 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||79|49|
90931857|NCT02678455|181743049|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|69.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.0|81.0||||||Adult cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-2 at study day 0 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||81|52|
90931858|NCT02678455|181743049|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|94.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|81.0|98.0||||||Adult cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-2 at stud day 28 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||98|81|
90931859|NCT02678455|181743049|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|97.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|85.0|99.0||||||Adult cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-2 at study day 56 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||99|85|
90931860|NCT02678455|181743049|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|89.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|74.0|95.0||||||Adult cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-2 at study day 180. There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||95|74|
90931861|NCT02678455|181743049|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|89.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|74.0|95.0||||||Adult cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-2 at study day 360 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||95|74|
90931862|NCT02678455|181743049|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|91.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.0|97.0||||||Adult cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-2 at study day 720 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||97|78|
90931863|NCT02678455|181743049|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|86.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.0|94.0||||||Adult cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-2 at study day 1080 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||94|71|
90931864|NCT02678455|181743049|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|71.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.0|84.0||||||Adult cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-3 at study day 0 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||84|55|
90931865|NCT02678455|181743049|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|94.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|81.0|98.0||||||Adult cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-3 at study day 28 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||98|81|
90931866|NCT02678455|181743049|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|91.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.0|97.0||||||Adult cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-3 at study day 56 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||97|78|
90931867|NCT02678455|181743049|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|89.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|74.0|95.0||||||Adult cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-3 at study day 180 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||95|74|
90931868|NCT02678455|181743049|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|86.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.0|94.0||||||Adult cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-3 at study day 360 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||94|71|
90931869|NCT02678455|181743049|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|89.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|74.0|95.0||||||Adult cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-3 at study day 720 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||95|74|
90931870|NCT02678455|181743049|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|80.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.0|90.0||||||Adult cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-3 at study day 1080 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||90|64|
90931871|NCT02678455|181743049|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|36.0||||||Adult cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-4 at study day 0 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||36|10|
90931872|NCT02678455|181743049|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|77.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.0|88.0||||||Adult cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-4 at study day 28 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||88|61|
90931873|NCT02678455|181743049|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|80.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.0|90.0||||||Adult cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-4 at study day 56 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||90|64|
90931874|NCT02678455|181743049|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|74.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.0|86.0||||||Adult cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-4 at study day 180 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||86|58|
90931875|NCT02678455|181743049|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|66.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.0|79.0||||||Adult cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-4 at study day 360 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||79|49|
90931876|NCT02678455|181743049|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|60.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.0|74.0||||||Adult cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-4 at study day 720 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||74|44|
90931877|NCT02678455|181743049|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|63.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.0|77.0||||||Adult cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-4 at study day 1080 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||77|46|
90931878|NCT02678455|181743049|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|26.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.0|42.0||||||Adolescent cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-1 a study day 0 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||42|14|
90931879|NCT02678455|181743049|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|74.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.0|86.0||||||Adolescent cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-1 at study day 28 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||86|58|
90931880|NCT02678455|181743049|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|71.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.0|84.0||||||Adolescent cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-1 at study day 56 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||84|55|
90931881|NCT02678455|181743049|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|71.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.0|84.0||||||Adolescent cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-1 at study day 180 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||84|55|
90931882|NCT02678455|181743049|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|69.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.0|81.0||||||Adolescent cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-1 at study day 360 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||81|52|
90931883|NCT02678455|181743049|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|43.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.0|59.0||||||Adolescent cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-1 at study day 720 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||59|28|
90931884|NCT02678455|181743049|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|46.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.0|62.0||||||Adolescent cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-1 at study day 1080 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||62|30|
90931885|NCT02678455|181743049|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|34.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.0|51.0||||||Adolescent cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-2 at study day 0 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||51|21|
90941085|NCT02367105|181761721|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-252.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value adjusted||||||<0.001
90941086|NCT02367105|181761722|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value as covariates||||||<0.001
90941087|NCT02367105|181761723|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline values as covariates||||||<0.001
90941088|NCT02367105|181761724|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.31|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value adjusted||||||0.31
90941089|NCT02367105|181761725|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|||||Baseline values as covariates|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.42
90941090|NCT02367105|181761726|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value adjusted||||||0.69
90941091|NCT02367105|181761727|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.1||||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value adjusted||||||0.23
90941092|NCT02367105|181761728|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.3||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.01
90941093|NCT02367105|181761729|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.36|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline values as covariates||||||0.36
91035487|NCT04278560|181956961|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.16
91035488|NCT03635320|181956965|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin of -10%|95%CI|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.53|4.42|||Newcombe-Wilson scoring method|Using the Newcombe-Wilson scoring method, the difference of fracture union rate between the TFNA group and the PFNA-II group was 0.|If the lower limit of 95% CI of the difference in the rates of the study group and the control group is greater than the non-inferiority margin of -10%, then the investigational product is considered non-inferior to the control product.|||4.42|-4.53|
91035489|NCT04994535|181956975|SUPERIORITY||Difference (%)|30.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.5|37.4||P-value derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model stratified by investigator site and baseline C-APPS.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||37.4|24.5|<.0001
91035490|NCT04994535|181956976|SUPERIORITY||Difference (%)|38.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.3|46.4||P-value derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model stratified by investigator site and baseline C-APPS.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||46.4|31.3|<0.0001
91035491|NCT04994535|181956977|SUPERIORITY||Difference (%)|36.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.1|44.7||P-value derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model stratified by investigator site and baseline C-APPS.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||44.7|29.1|<0.0001
90931886|NCT02678455|181743049|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|90.0|100.0||||||Adolescent cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-2 at study day 28 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||100|90|
90931887|NCT02678455|181743049|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|97.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|85.0|99.0||||||Adolescent cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-2 at study day 56 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||99|85|
90931888|NCT02678455|181743049|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|97.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|85.0|99.0||||||Adolescent cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-2 at study day 180 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||99|85|
90931889|NCT02678455|181743049|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|85.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.0|94.0||||||Adolescent cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-2 at study day 360 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||94|71|
90931890|NCT02678455|181743049|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|74.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.0|86.0||||||Adolescent cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-2 at study day 720 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||86|58|
90931891|NCT02678455|181743049|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|69.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.0|81.0||||||Adolescent cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-2 at study day 1080 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||81|52|
90931892|NCT02678455|181743049|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|37.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.0|54.0||||||Adolescent cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-3 at study day 0 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||54|23|
90931893|NCT02678455|181743049|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|89.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|74.0|95.0||||||Adolescent cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-3 at study day 28 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||95|74|
90931894|NCT02678455|181743049|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|94.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|81.0|98.0||||||Adolescent cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-3 at study day 56 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||98|81|
90931895|NCT02678455|181743049|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|97.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|85.0|99.0||||||Adolescent cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-3 at study day 180 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||99|85|
90931896|NCT02678455|181743049|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|89.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|74.0|95.0||||||Adolescent cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-3 at study day 360 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||95|74|
90931897|NCT02678455|181743049|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|57.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.0|72.0||||||Adolescent cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-3 at study day 720 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||72|41|
90931898|NCT02678455|181743049|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|57.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.0|72.0||||||Adolescent cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-3 at study day 1080 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||72|41|
90931899|NCT02678455|181743049|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|10.0||||||Adolescent cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-4 at study day 0 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||10|0|
90931900|NCT02678455|181743049|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|83.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.0|92.0||||||Adolescent cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-4 at study day 28 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||92|67|
91035492|NCT04994535|181956980|SUPERIORITY||Difference (%)|50.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.0|58.3||P-value derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model stratified by investigator site and baseline C-APPS.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||58.3|42.0|<.0001
91035493|NCT04994535|181956981|SUPERIORITY||Difference (%)|27.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.1|36.1||P-value derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model stratified by investigator site and baseline C-APPS.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||36.1|18.1|<.0001
90931901|NCT02678455|181743049|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|77.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.0|88.0||||||Adolescent cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-4 at study day 56 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||88|61|
90931902|NCT02678455|181743049|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|71.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.0|84.0||||||Adolescent cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-4 at study day 180 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||84|55|
90931903|NCT02678455|181743049|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|66.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.0|79.0||||||Adolescent cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-4 at study day 360 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||79|49|
90931904|NCT02678455|181743049|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|60.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.0|74.0||||||Adolescent cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-4 at study day 720 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||74|44|
90931905|NCT02678455|181743049|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|43.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.0|59.0||||||Adolescent cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-4 at study day 1080 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||59|28|
90931906|NCT02678455|181743049|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|31.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.0|47.0||||||Children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-1 at study day 0 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||47|18|
90931907|NCT02678455|181743049|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|69.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.0|82.0||||||Children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-1 at study day 28 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||82|53|
90931908|NCT02678455|181743049|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|61.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.0|75.0||||||Children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-1 at study day 56 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||75|45|
90931909|NCT02678455|181743049|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|56.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.0|70.0||||||Children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-1 at study day 180 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||70|40|
90931910|NCT02678455|181743049|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|42.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.0|58.0||||||Children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-1 at study day 360 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||58|27|
90931911|NCT02678455|181743049|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|42.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.0|58.0||||||Children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-1 at study day 720 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||58|27|
90931912|NCT02678455|181743049|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|36.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.0|54.0||||||Children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-1 at study day 1080 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||54|22|
90931913|NCT02678455|181743049|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|33.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.0|50.0||||||Children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-2 at study day 0 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||50|20|
90931914|NCT02678455|181743049|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|92.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.0|97.0||||||Children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-2 at study day 28 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||97|78|
90931915|NCT02678455|181743049|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|89.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|75.0|96.0||||||Children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-2 at study day 56 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||96|75|
90931916|NCT02678455|181743049|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|92.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.0|97.0||||||Children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-2 at study day 180 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||97|78|
90931917|NCT02678455|181743049|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|78.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.0|88.0||||||children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-2 at study day 360 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||88|62|
90931918|NCT02678455|181743049|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|67.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.0|80.0||||||Children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-2 at study day 720 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||80|50|
90931919|NCT02678455|181743049|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|58.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.0|73.0||||||Children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-2 at study day 1080 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||73|42|
90931920|NCT02678455|181743049|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|36.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.0|52.0||||||Children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-3 at study day 0 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||52|22|
91035494|NCT04994535|181956982|SUPERIORITY||Difference (%)|35.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.4|44.2||P-value derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model stratified by investigator site and baseline C-APPS.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||44.2|27.4|<.0001
90931921|NCT02678455|181743049|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|92.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.0|97.0||||||Children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-3 at study day 28 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||97|78|
90931922|NCT02678455|181743049|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|92.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.0|97.0||||||Children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-3 at study day 56 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||97|78|
90931923|NCT02678455|181743049|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|97.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.0|100.0||||||Children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-3 at study day 180 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||100|86|
90931924|NCT02678455|181743049|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|72.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.0|84.0||||||Children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-3 at study day 360 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||84|56|
90931925|NCT02678455|181743049|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|72.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.0|84.0||||||Children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-3 at study day 720 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||84|56|
90931926|NCT02678455|181743049|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|67.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.0|80.0||||||Children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-3 at study day 1080 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||80|50|
90931927|NCT02678455|181743049|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|25.0||||||Children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-4 at study day 0 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||25|4|
90931928|NCT02678455|181743049|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|72.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.0|84.0||||||Children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-4 at study day 28 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||84|56|
90931929|NCT02678455|181743049|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|56.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.0|70.0||||||Children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-4 at study day 56 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||70|40|
90931930|NCT02678455|181743049|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|44.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.0|60.0||||||children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-4 at study day 180 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||60|30|
90931931|NCT02678455|181743049|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|28.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.0|44.0||||||Children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-4 at study day 360 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||44|16|
90931932|NCT02678455|181743049|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.0|41.0||||||Children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-4 at study day 720 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||41|14|
90931933|NCT02678455|181743049|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|19.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|35.0||||||children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-4 at study day 1080 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||35|10|
90931934|NCT02678455|181743049|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|25.0||||||Young children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-1 at study day 0 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||25|4|
90931935|NCT02678455|181743049|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|78.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.0|88.0||||||Young children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-1 at study day 28 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||88|62|
90931936|NCT02678455|181743049|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|42.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.0|58.0||||||young children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-1 at study day 56 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||58|27|
90931937|NCT02678455|181743049|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|53.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.0|68.0||||||young children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-1 at study day 180 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||68|37|
90931938|NCT02678455|181743049|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|28.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.0|44.0||||||Young children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-1 at study day 360 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||44|16|
90931939|NCT02678455|181743049|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|28.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.0|44.0||||||young children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-1 at study day 720 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||44|16|
90967372|NCT01431274|181817097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.064|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136||0.6382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.202|0.33||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.330|-0.202|0.6382
90967373|NCT01431274|181817097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.126|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.135||0.3525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.391||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (2.5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.391|-0.140|0.3525
90967374|NCT01431274|181817097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.062|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.135||0.6457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.327|0.203||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.203|-0.327|0.6457
90967375|NCT01431274|181817098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.033|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.009|0.056||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.056|0.009|0.0067
90967376|NCT01431274|181817098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.081|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.057|0.104||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.104|0.057|<0.0001
90967377|NCT01431274|181817098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.0746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.002|0.045||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.045|-0.002|0.0746
90967378|NCT01431274|181817098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.078|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.054|0.101||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.101|0.054|<0.0001
90967379|NCT01431274|181817098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.046|0.093||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.093|0.046|<0.0001
90967380|NCT01431274|181817098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.3549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.013|0.035||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.035|-0.013|0.3549
90967381|NCT01431274|181817098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.089|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.065|0.113||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.113|0.065|<0.0001
90967382|NCT01431274|181817098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.072|-0.025||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||-0.025|-0.072|<0.0001
90967383|NCT01431274|181817098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.056|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|-0.033||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (2.5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||-0.033|-0.080|<0.0001
90967384|NCT01431274|181817098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.5018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.016|0.032||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.032|-0.016|0.5018
90931940|NCT02678455|181743049|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|28.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.0|44.0||||||Young children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-1 at study day 1080 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||44|16|
90931941|NCT02678455|181743049|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|25.0||||||Young children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-2 at study day 0 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||25|4|
90931942|NCT02678455|181743049|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|97.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.0|100.0||||||Young children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-2 at study day 28 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||100|86|
90931943|NCT02678455|181743049|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|86.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.0|94.0||||||young children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-2 at study day 56 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||94|71|
90931944|NCT02678455|181743049|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|81.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.0|90.0||||||Young children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-2 at study day 180 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||90|65|
90931945|NCT02678455|181743049|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|83.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.0|92.0||||||young children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-2 at study day 360 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||92|68|
90931946|NCT02678455|181743049|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|Slope|72.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.0|84.0||||||young children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-2 at study day 720 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||84|56|
90931947|NCT02678455|181743049|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|69.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.0|82.0||||||Young children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-2 at study day 1080 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||82|53|
90931948|NCT02678455|181743049|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|22.0||||||Young children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-3 at study day 0 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||22|3|
90931949|NCT02678455|181743049|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|86.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.0|94.0||||||Young children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-3 at study day 28 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||94|71|
90931950|NCT02678455|181743049|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|67.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.0|80.0||||||young children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-3 at study day 56 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||80|50|
90931951|NCT02678455|181743049|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.0|66.0||||||young children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-3 at study day 180 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||66|34|
90931952|NCT02678455|181743049|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.0|41.0||||||young children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-3 at study day 360 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||41|14|
90931953|NCT02678455|181743049|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|31.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.0|47.0||||||young children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-3 at study day 720 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||47|18|
91035495|NCT04994535|181956983|SUPERIORITY||Difference (SE)|-4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|-3.4||P-value derived from ANCOVA model stratified by investigator site and baseline C-APPS with baseline value as a factor.|ANCOVA|||||-3.4|-5.4|<.0001
90931954|NCT02678455|181743049|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.0|41.0||||||young children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-3 at study day 1080 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||41|14|
90931955|NCT02678455|181743049|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|14.0||||||young children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-4 at study day 0 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||14|0|
91035496|NCT04994535|181956986|SUPERIORITY||Difference (%)|42.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.8|51.0||P-value derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model stratified by investigator site and baseline C-APPS.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||51.0|34.8|<0.0001
90931956|NCT02678455|181743049|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|89.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|75.0|96.0||||||young children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-4 at study day 28 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||96|75|
90931957|NCT02678455|181743049|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|72.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.0|96.0||||||young children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-4 at study day 56 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||96|56|
90931958|NCT02678455|181743049|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|47.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.0|63.0||||||young children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-4 at study day 180 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||63|32|
90931959|NCT02678455|181743049|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|28.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.0|44.0||||||young children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-4 at study day 360 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||44|16|
90931960|NCT02678455|181743049|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|28.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.0|44.0||||||young children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-4 at study day 720 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||44|16|
90931961|NCT02678455|181743049|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|22.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|38.0||||||young children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-4 at study day 1080 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||38|12|
90931962|NCT02713594|181743066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.28|-4.5|||Abstinence Risk Difference|||||-4.5|-11.28|<.0001
90931963|NCT02713594|181743067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-square test value = 196.1, with 5 degrees of freedom.||||||<.0001
90931964|NCT01928732|181743070|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.65|||||Odds ratios were calculated with CPT as the reference group and reflect the overall main effect of treatment across all outcome assessments (post-treatment, 3-months, and 6-months)|Overall Treatment Effect Response Odds Ratio (OR). Response is defined as greater than or equal to 10 point improvement in severity.||1.65|1.00|
90931965|NCT01928732|181743070|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.74|||||Odds ratios were calculated with CPT as the reference group and reflect the overall main effect of treatment across all outcome assessments (post-treatment, 3-months, and 6-months)|Overall Treatment Effect Loss of Diagnosis Odds Ratio (OR). Loss of Diagnosis is defined as Response, plus no longer meeting DSM-5 symptom criteria and severity less than 25.||1.74|1.12|
90931966|NCT01928732|181743070|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|2.0|||||Odds ratios were calculated with CPT as the reference group and reflect the overall main effect of treatment across all outcome assessments (post-treatment, 3-months, and 6-months)|Overall Treatment Effect Remission Odds Ratio (OR). Remission is defined as loss of diagnosis plus severity less than 12.||2.00|1.24|
90931967|NCT01185340|181743078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.751|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.751
90931968|NCT00246129|181743105|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.467|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.467
90931969|NCT00246129|181743106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.138|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.138
90931970|NCT02005172|181743124|EQUIVALENCE|The primary analysis used the TOST procedure for equivalence. A difference of less than 10% between devices on the proportion of diagnostic days during the monitoring period was considered to be equivalent. We hypothesized that the percentage of diagnostic days for the ELR and the KM would be 20% and 15%, respectively.||||||||||||||||For the primary endpoint, equivalence testing using the two one-sided test procedure was used to compare the proportion of (unpaired) days in which a diagnostic recording was made with each device during the monitoring period. For the purpose of this study, a difference of less than 10% between devices on the rate of detection of arrhythmias was taken to indicate equivalence.|"Descriptive statistics (means, standard deviation (SD), percentages) were used to summarize the demographic and clinical characteristics of the patients. The total number of tracings and the percentage of tracings with arrhythmias for each device were also calculated.~For the primary endpoint, equivalence testing using the two one-sided test (TOST) procedure was used to compare the proportion of (unpaired) days in which a diagnostic recording was made with each device during the monitoring period. Patients were asked to use both devices for the same duration. For the purpose of this study, a difference of less than 10% between devices on the rate of detection of arrhythmias was taken to indicate equivalence. The primary hypothesis was that the KM"|||
90931971|NCT00770874|181743125|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.05|||Log Rank|||||1.05|0.67|0.125
90931972|NCT00770874|181743126|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.8|||Log Rank|||||0.80|0.48|<0.001
90931973|NCT01335061|181743130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||||||<0.0001
90931974|NCT00308308|181743158|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size was set to meet regulatory requirement of 250 subjects per arm with 52-week data, resulting in \> 90% power for a non-inferiority test of the difference in 12-month change of HbA1c scores between treatment groups with non-inferiority margin of 0.4%, standard deviation of 1.2 and 1-sided alpha of 0.025. Allowing for a 15% dropout rate, 589 subjects were randomized.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.082|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.4|||ANCOVA|||||0.40|0.08|
90931975|NCT00308308|181743159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|<|0.0001||95.0|-2.7|-1.0|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with terms of pooled site and treatment as fixed effects and baseline weight as covariate||-1.0|-2.7|<0.0001
90931976|NCT00308308|181743160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-20.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.41||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.4|-6.3|||ANCOVA|||||-6.3|-35.4|0.0052
90931977|NCT00308308|181743161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.941||||0.8311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.536|1.652|||Regression, Logistic|||logistic regression analysis with the terms of treatment and baseline HbA1c in the model||1.652|0.536|0.8311
90931978|NCT00308308|181743162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.488||||0.0124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.278|0.856|||Regression, Logistic||Model: Treatment + Site|||0.856|0.278|0.0124
90931979|NCT00308308|181743163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.825||||0.2786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.582|1.169|||Regression, Logistic||Model: Treatment + Site|||1.169|0.582|0.2786
90931980|NCT00308308|181743164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1193|||||||Generalized Estimation Equation|"* Based on Poisson distribution~* Model: Treatment + Time Period"||||||0.1193
90931981|NCT00308308|181743165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2131|||||||Generalized Estimating Equation|"* Based on Poisson distribution~* Model: Treatment + Time Period"||||||0.2131
90931982|NCT03068312|181743166|OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.21||||||||-0.21|-1.10|
90931983|NCT01852045|181743167|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.276||0.9949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.549|0.545|||ANCOVA||Least squares estimates and contrast t-test were based on ANCOVA model with baseline value as covariate and treatment group, age, baseline daytime urinary incontinence episodes, anticholinergic therapy at baseline as factors.|||0.545|-0.549|0.9949
90931984|NCT01852045|181743167|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.321||0.9123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.673|0.602|||ANCOVA||Least squares estimates and contrast t-test were based on ANCOVA model with baseline value as covariate and treatment group, age, baseline daytime urinary incontinence episodes, anticholinergic therapy at baseline as factors.|||0.602|-0.673|0.9123
90931985|NCT01852045|181743169|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|12.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.694||0.5117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.12|52.064|||ANCOVA||Least squares estimates and contrast t-test are based on ANCOVA model with baseline value as covariate and treatment group, age, baseline daytime urinary incontinence episodes, anticholinergic therapy at baseline as factors.|||52.064|-26.120|0.5117
90931986|NCT01852045|181743169|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|65.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|23.101||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.711|111.421|||ANCOVA||Least squares estimates and contrast t-test are based on ANCOVA model with baseline value as covariate and treatment group, age, baseline daytime urinary incontinence episodes, anticholinergic therapy at baseline as factors.|||111.421|19.711|0.0055
90931987|NCT01852045|181743171|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-13.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.673||0.4948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.605|25.626|||ANCOVA||Least squares estimates and contrast t-test are based on ANCOVA model with baseline value as covariate and treatment group, age, baseline daytime urinary incontinence episodes, anticholinergic therapy at baseline as factors.|||25.626|-52.605|0.4948
90931988|NCT01852045|181743171|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.382||0.9471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.012|45.991|||ANCOVA||Least squares estimates and contrast t-test are based on ANCOVA model with baseline value as covariate and treatment group, age, baseline daytime urinary incontinence episodes, anticholinergic therapy at baseline as factors.|||45.991|-43.012|0.9471
90931989|NCT01852045|181743172|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk|0.7||||0.2027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.14||P-values for pairwise comparisons are obtained from 2-sided CMH test, stratified by age (\<12 years or \>=12 years), baseline daytime urinary incontinence episodes (\<=6 or \>6) and anticholinergic therapy (yes/no).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6||1.14|0.45|0.2027
90931990|NCT01852045|181743172|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk|0.8||||0.1564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.21||P-values for pairwise comparisons are obtained from a 2-sided CMH test, stratified by age (\< 12 years or \>= 12 years), baseline daytime urinary incontinence episodes (\<= 6 or \> 6) and anticholinergic therapy (yes/no).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6||1.21|0.40|0.1564
90931991|NCT01852045|181743173|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.488||0.5524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.648|10.669|||ANCOVA||Least squares estimates and contrast t-test are based on ANCOVA model with baseline value as covariate and treatment group, age, baseline daytime urinary incontinence episodes, anticholinergic therapy at baseline as factors.|||10.669|-19.648|0.5524
90931992|NCT01852045|181743173|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.181||0.8313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.427|22.795|||ANCOVA||Least squares estimates and contrast t-test are based on ANCOVA model with baseline value as covariate and treatment group, age, baseline daytime urinary incontinence episodes, anticholinergic therapy at baseline as factors.|||22.795|-18.427|0.8313
90931993|NCT01852045|181743174|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.253||0.1737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.653|3.238|||ANCOVA||Least squares estimates and contrast t-test are based on ANCOVA model with baseline value as covariate and treatment group, age, baseline daytime urinary incontinence episodes, anticholinergic therapy at baseline as factors.|||3.238|-17.653|0.1737
90931994|NCT01852045|181743174|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-14.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.85||0.0157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.061|-2.793|||ANCOVA||Least squares estimates and contrast t-test are based on ANCOVA model with baseline value as covariate and treatment group, age, baseline daytime urinary incontinence episodes, anticholinergic therapy at baseline as factors.|||-2.793|-26.061|0.0157
90931995|NCT01482091|181743188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.048
90931996|NCT01482091|181743190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||=0.05
90931997|NCT01482091|181743191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
90931998|NCT01482091|181743194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.68|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.68
90931999|NCT01482091|181743195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
90932000|NCT01482091|181743196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
90932001|NCT01482091|181743200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.05
90932002|NCT01640288|181743201|OTHER|t-test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.145|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0349|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90932003|NCT01640288|181743202|OTHER|t-test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.178|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90932004|NCT02234141|181743213|OTHER|Nonparametric pairwise comparison|||||=|0.214||||||P-value was calculated using the generalized van Elteren test/van Elteren test (gvE/vE; stratified Wilcoxon rank sum test).|gvE/vE|||The protocol-specified primary analysis was to compare each selonsertib dose group with the placebo group, using Wilcoxon (van Elteren) test, with respect to change from baseline in PVR at Week 24, stratifying by randomization stratum (the underlying etiology of PAH idiopathic/heritable \[yes/no\] and the number of background PAH therapies they were receiving {1, 2, or greater than or equal to \[≥\] 3}).||||= 0.214
90932005|NCT02234141|181743213|OTHER|Nonparametric pairwise comparison|||||=|0.27||||||P-value was calculated using the generalized van Elteren test/van Elteren test (gvE/vE; stratified Wilcoxon rank sum test).|gvE/vE|||The protocol-specified primary analysis was to compare each selonsertib dose group with the placebo group, using Wilcoxon (van Elteren) test, with respect to change from baseline in PVR at Week 24, stratifying by randomization stratum (the underlying etiology of PAH idiopathic/heritable \[yes/no\] and the number of background PAH therapies they were receiving \[1, 2, or ≥ 3\]).||||= 0.270
90932006|NCT02234141|181743213|OTHER|Nonparametric pairwise comparison|||||=|0.604||||||P-value was calculated using the generalized van Elteren test/van Elteren test (gvE/vE; stratified Wilcoxon rank sum test)|gvE/vE|||The protocol-specified primary analysis was to compare each selonsertib dose group with the placebo group, using Wilcoxon (van Elteren) test, with respect to change from baseline in PVR at Week 24, stratifying by randomization stratum (the underlying etiology of PAH idiopathic/heritable \[yes/no\] and the number of background PAH therapies they were receiving \[1, 2, or ≥ 3\]).||||= 0.604
90932007|NCT02095678|181743236|OTHER|Significance (alpha) set to 0.05||||||0.211|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.211
90932008|NCT02095678|181743239|OTHER|Significance (alpha) set to 0.05|||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
90932009|NCT02095678|181743240|OTHER|Significance (alpha) set to 0.05|||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
90932010|NCT03418545|181743241|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|67.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.9|82.0||The p-value and 95% CI are computed by pooling 5 imputed datasets using PROC MIANALYZE in SAS with normal approximation. The p-value and 95% CI for each imputed data set is based on the Fisher's exact test and the Wald test, respectively.|Fisher Exact|||||82.0|52.9|<0.0001
90932011|NCT03418545|181743242|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|73.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.2|86.8|||||The 95% CI is based on the Wald test.|||86.8|60.2|
90932012|NCT03418545|181743244|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||A 2-sided paired t-test at the 5% level was performed to demonstrate that the mean overall satisfaction score at Month 3 was statistically greater than that at Baseline for the treatment group.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90932013|NCT04660799|181743246|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower limit of the two-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) should be above 0.80 in order to show non-inferiority of Ctrough SC versus Ctrough IV.|Ratio Ctrough SC/Ctrough IV|1.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.28|1.79||||||Geometric mean ratio of Ctrough SC/Ctrough IV and 90% confidence interval were estimated based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for tumor load at baseline.||1.79|1.28|
90932014|NCT04660799|181743247|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower limit of the two-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) should be above 0.80 in order to show non-inferiority of AUCsc versus AUCiv.|Geometric mean ratio of AUCsc/AUCiv|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1|1.42||||||Geometric mean ratio of AUCsc/AUCiv and 90% confidence interval were estimated based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for tumor load at baseline.||1.42|1.10|
90932015|NCT04660799|181743252|SUPERIORITY||Difference in CRR|18.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.92|45.45||||||Stratified by IPI score: IPI 0-2 = low to low-intermediate risk versus IPI 3-5 = high-intermediate to high risk||45.45|-8.92|
90932016|NCT04660799|181743253|SUPERIORITY||Difference in ORR Investigator|17.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.86|42.11||||||Investigator; Stratified by IPI score: IPI 0-2 = low to low-intermediate risk versus IPI 3-5 = high-intermediate to high risk||42.11|-6.86|
90932017|NCT04660799|181743253|SUPERIORITY||Difference in ORR IRC|14.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.68|40.88||||||IRC; Stratified by IPI score: IPI 0-2 = low to low-intermediate risk versus IPI 3-5 = high-intermediate to high risk||40.88|-12.68|
90932018|NCT04660799|181743254|SUPERIORITY||Difference in CRR|7.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.49|36.59||||||Stratified by IPI score: IPI 0-2 = low to low-intermediate risk versus IPI 3-5 = high-intermediate to high risk||36.59|-22.49|
90932019|NCT04660799|181743255|SUPERIORITY||Difference in CRR|18.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.55|46.73||||||Stratified by IPI score: IPI 0-2 = low to low-intermediate risk versus IPI 3-5 = high-intermediate to high risk||46.73|-9.55|
90932020|NCT01228734|181743298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.629|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.498|0.794|||Log Rank|||||0.794|0.498|<0.001
90932021|NCT02356198|181743331|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.007
90932022|NCT02356198|181743332|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.102|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.102
90932023|NCT02356198|181743333|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.85
90932024|NCT02356198|181743334|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.454|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.454
90932025|NCT02356198|181743335|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.212|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.212
90932026|NCT02449902|181743340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
90932027|NCT02449902|181743341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0002
90932028|NCT02449902|181743342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0017
90932029|NCT02449902|181743343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0002
90932030|NCT02449902|181743344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9951|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.9951
90932031|NCT02449902|181743345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1429|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1429
90932032|NCT02449902|181743346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1945|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1945
90932033|NCT02449902|181743347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0001
90932034|NCT02449902|181743348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.182|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1820
90932035|NCT02449902|181743349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0401|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0401
90932036|NCT03162614|181743356|OTHER|Vaccine efficacy rate was calculated as 100\*(1-RR) with RR=relative risk of developing the disease for vaccinated people compared to unvaccinated people.|Vaccine efficacy rate|55.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.0|72.0|||Fisher Exact|||Efficacy analysis aimed at comparing RTS,S/AS01B administered as full doses at Month 0 and Month 1 and 1/5th dose at Month 7 (AduFx Group versus Control Group).||72|27|<.001
90932037|NCT03162614|181743356|OTHER|Vaccine efficacy rate was calculated as 100\*(1-RR) with RR=relative risk of developing the disease for vaccinated people compared to unvaccinated people.|Vaccine efficacy rate|76.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.0|89.0|||Fisher Exact|||Efficacy analysis aimed at comparing RTS,S/AS01E administered as double full doses at Month 0 and Month 1 and 1/5th double dose at Month 7 (2Ped Fx Group versus Control Group).||89|49|<.001
90932038|NCT03162614|181743356|OTHER|Vaccine efficacy rate was calculated as 100\*(1-RR) with RR=relative risk of developing the disease for vaccinated people compared to unvaccinated people.|Vaccine efficacy rate|64.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.0|79.0|||Fisher Exact|||Efficacy analysis aimed at comparing RTS,S/AS01E administered as full doses at Month 0 and Month 1 and 1/5th dose at Month 7 (PedFx Group versus Control Group).||79|37|<.001
91035497|NCT04994535|181956987|SUPERIORITY||Difference (%)|49.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.8|58.1||P-value derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model stratified by investigator site and baseline C-APPS.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||58.1|40.8|<0.0001
91035498|NCT04994535|181956988|SUPERIORITY||Difference (%)|28.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.4|38.2||P-value derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model stratified by investigator site and baseline C-APPS.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||38.2|19.4|<0.0001
91035499|NCT04994535|181956989|SUPERIORITY||Difference (%)|35.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.2|44.6||P-value derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model stratified by investigator site and baseline C-APPS.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||44.6|27.2|<0.0001
90941094|NCT02367105|181761730|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.6||||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline values as covariates||||||0.23
90941095|NCT02367105|181761731|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31||||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline values adjusted||||||0.69
90941096|NCT02367105|181761732|SUPERIORITY||Number of participants|0.0|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold = voxel p\<.001, cluster p\<.05, false discovery rate (FDR) whole brain correction. There is no correction for multiple seeds given small sample sizes and pre-post design.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>.05
90941097|NCT02367105|181761733|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.37|TWO_SIDED|||||Using DESeq2 R package. P values were adjusted using the Benjamini and Hochberg's approach for controlling the false discovery rate.|t-test, 2 sided|||6 months vs Baseline||||0.37
90941098|NCT02367105|181761733|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||Using DESeq2 R package. P values were adjusted using the Benjamini and Hochberg's approach for controlling the false discovery rate|t-test, 2 sided|||6 months vs Baseline||||.02
90941099|NCT02367105|181761734|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Final vs baseline||||||.05
90941100|NCT02367105|181761734|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Final vs baseline||||||0.3
90941101|NCT03247738|181761742|SUPERIORITY|The primary end point of our study was the comparison of platelet reactivity measured by VerifyNow PRU between cangrelor and placebo at 30 minutes after drugs were administered at the start of PCI. Assuming a common standard deviation of 70 PRU, a sample size of 20 patients per group would allow detection of a 70 PRU difference between groups with 85% power and a two-sided α = 0.05. Considering the 2 arms and a possible 25% rate of invalid PD results we planned to randomize up to 50 patients.|Mean Difference (Net)|152.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|108.0|195.0|||ANCOVA|the baseline value of platelet reactivity used as a covariate||||195|108|<0.001
90941102|NCT01182103|181761751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
90941103|NCT01182103|181761752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
90941104|NCT01182103|181761753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
90941105|NCT00413634|181761771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.092||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.092
90941106|NCT00413634|181761774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.857||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.857
90941107|NCT00413634|181761775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.013||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.013
90941108|NCT00413634|181761776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.378||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.378
90941109|NCT00413634|181761777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.013||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.013
90941110|NCT00413634|181761778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.035||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.035
90941111|NCT00413634|181761779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.023||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.023
90941112|NCT00413634|181761780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.557||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.557
90941113|NCT00413634|181761781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.027||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.027
90941114|NCT00413634|181761782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.007||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.007
90941115|NCT00413634|181761783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.027||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.027
90941116|NCT00413634|181761784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.011||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.011
90941117|NCT00527514|181761802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments|one-sample t-test|||The sample size of this study was not based on the statistical power consideration and was considered as sufficient for the evaluation of the efficacy and safety of the proposed olmesartan medoxomil-based treatment regimen.||||<0.0001
90941118|NCT00527514|181761803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments|One-sample t-test|||Statistical analysis parameters apply to both the daytime and nighttime rows.||||<0.0001
90941119|NCT00527514|181761804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments|One-sample t-test|||||||<0.0001
90941120|NCT00527514|181761805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments|one-sample t-test|||||||<0.0001
90941121|NCT00527514|181761806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments|One-sample t-test|||||||<0.0001
90941122|NCT00527514|181761807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments|one-sample t-test|||||||<0.0001
90941123|NCT00812838|181761808|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5154||||||This will be a pilot study; it was assessed that 10 subjects in each arm, for a total of 20 subjects, will allow us to determine if the therapy is effective. To allow for screen failures, 45 subjects are planned for screening.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5154
90941124|NCT00812838|181761809|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3009||||||This applies to 100 units of Botulinum Toxin Type A arm vs the Normal saline arm|t-test, 2 sided|||"This will be a pilot study; it was assessed that 10 subjects in each arm, for a total of 20 subjects, will allow us to determine if the therapy is effective. To allow for screen failures, 45 subjects are planned for screening.~This analysis pertains to both categories"||||0.3009
90941125|NCT00812838|181761810|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0166||||||This applies to 100 units of Botulinum Toxin Type A arm vs the Normal saline arm|t-test, 2 sided|||This will be a pilot study; it was assessed that 10 subjects in each arm, for a total of 20 subjects, will allow us to determine if the therapy is effective. To allow for screen failures, 45 subjects are planned for screening.||||0.0166
90941126|NCT00812838|181761811|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8566||||||Threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||This will be a pilot study; it was assessed that 10 subjects in each arm, for a total of 20 subjects, will allow us to determine if the therapy is effective. To allow for screen failures, 45 subjects are planned for screening.||||.8566
90932039|NCT03162614|181743356|OTHER|Vaccine efficacy rate was calculated as 100\*(1-RR) with RR=relative risk of developing the disease for vaccinated people compared to unvaccinated people.|Vaccine efficacy rate|55.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.0|72.0|||Fisher Exact|||Efficacy analysis aimed at comparing RTS,S/AS01B administered as full dose at Month 0 and 1/5th dose at Month 1 and Month 7 (Adu2Fx Group versus Control Group).||72|27|<.001
90932040|NCT03162614|181743356|OTHER|Vaccine efficacy rate was calculated as 100\*(1-RR) with RR=relative risk of developing the disease for vaccinated people compared to unvaccinated people.|Vaccine efficacy rate|29.0||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|46.0|||Fisher Exact|||Efficacy analysis aimed at comparing RTS,S/AS01B administered as full dose at Month 0 and 1/5th dose at Month 7 (Adu1Fx Group versus Control Group).||46|6|0.009
90932041|NCT00621842|181743379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.5|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|-12.9|||t-test, 2 sided|df=53||The null hypothesis is that the mean difference score between the 12 week time point or LOCF and baseline is zero.||-12.9|-18.0|<.01
90932042|NCT00621842|181743381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.2|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|-12.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the mean difference score between the 12 week time point or LOCF and baseline is zero.||-12.9|-17.5|<.01
90932043|NCT00621842|181743382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|0.88|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the mean difference score between the 12 week time point or LOCF and baseline is zero.||.88|-1.82|.49
90932044|NCT00621842|181743383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.06|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.43|-1.68|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the mean difference between the 12 week time point or LOCF and baseline is zero.||-1.68|-2.43|<.01
90932045|NCT00621842|181743384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.28|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the mean difference between the 12 week time point or LOCF and baseline is zero.||.28|-.36|.80
90932046|NCT00621842|181743385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.83||||0.36||95.0|-0.97|2.62|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the mean difference between the 12 week time point or LOCF and baseline is zero.||2.62|-.97|.36
90967385|NCT01431274|181817099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.128|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.104|0.152||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.152|0.104|<0.0001
90967386|NCT01431274|181817099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.126|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.102|0.15||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.150|0.102|<0.0001
91035500|NCT04994535|181956990|SUPERIORITY||Difference (SE)|-4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|-3.7||P-value derived from ANCOVA model stratified by investigator site and baseline C-APPS with baseline value as a factor.|ANCOVA|||||-3.7|-5.8|<0.0001
90932047|NCT00621842|181743387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.79||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|0.09|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the mean difference between the 12 week time point or LOCF and baseline is zero.||.09|-1.67|.08
90932048|NCT00621842|181743388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53||||0.04||95.0|-1.03|-0.04|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the mean difference between the 12 week time point or LOCF and baseline is zero.||-.04|-1.03|.04
90932049|NCT01989793|181743391|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin=0||||||0.97|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Two-sample T-test of between-arm difference of change in isokinetic knee strength from baseline to week 8||||0.97
90932050|NCT01989793|181743392|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin=0||||||0.48|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Two-sample T-test of between-arm difference of change in isokinetic knee strength from baseline to week 16||||0.48
90932051|NCT01989793|181743393|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin = 0||||||0.59|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Two-sample T-test of between-arm difference of change in isokinetic knee strength from baseline to week 24||||0.59
90932052|NCT01989793|181743394|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin=0||||||0.212|||||||t-test, 2 sided|assuming unequal variance between arms||Two-sample T-test of between-arm difference in fatiguability at week 8||||0.212
90932053|NCT01989793|181743395|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin=0||||||0.271|||||||t-test, 2 sided|assuming unequal variance between arms||Two-sample T-test of between-arm difference in fatiguability at week 16||||0.271
90932054|NCT01989793|181743396|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin=0||||||0.203|||||||t-test, 2 sided|assuming unequal variance between arms||Two-sample T-test of between-arm difference in fatiguability at week 24||||0.203
90932055|NCT01989793|181743397|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin = 0||||||0.82|||||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test of percentage of participants with improvement in frailty score from baseline between treatment and placebo arms||||0.82
90932056|NCT01989793|181743398|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin = 0||||||0.73|||||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test of percentage of participants with improvement in frailty score from baseline between treatment and placebo arms||||0.73
90932057|NCT01989793|181743399|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin = 0||||||0.73|||||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test of percentage of participants with improvement in frailty score from baseline between treatment and placebo arms||||0.73
90932058|NCT01957163|181743402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squared mean difference|0.124|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.093|0.154|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|Restricted maximum likelihood (REM) - based repeated measure approach (MMRM)||||0.154|0.093|< 0.001
90932059|NCT01957163|181743402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squared mean difference|0.128|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.098|0.159|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|Restricted maximum likelihood (REM) - based repeated measure approach (MMRM)||||0.159|0.098|<0.001
90932060|NCT01957163|181743403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squared mean difference|0.153|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.118|0.187|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|Restricted maximum likelihood (REM) - based repeated measure approach (MMRM)||||0.187|0.118|<0.001
90932061|NCT01957163|181743403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squared mean difference|0.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.106|0.175|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|Restricted maximum likelihood (REM) - based repeated measure approach (MMRM)||||0.175|0.106|<0.001
90967387|NCT01431274|181817099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.111|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.087|0.135||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.135|0.087|<0.0001
90967388|NCT01431274|181817099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.096|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.072|0.12||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.120|0.072|<0.0001
90967389|NCT01431274|181817099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.109|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.085|0.133||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.133|0.085|<0.0001
90967390|NCT01431274|181817099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.017|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.1569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.007|0.041||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.041|-0.007|0.1569
90967391|NCT01431274|181817099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.113|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.089|0.137||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.137|0.089|<0.0001
90967392|NCT01431274|181817099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.8834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.022|0.026||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.026|-0.022|0.8834
90967393|NCT01431274|181817099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.2129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.009|0.039||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (2.5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.039|-0.009|0.2129
90967394|NCT01431274|181817099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.013|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.2702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.037|0.01||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.010|-0.037|0.2702
90967395|NCT01431274|181817100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.141|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.117|0.166||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.166|0.117|<0.0001
90967396|NCT01431274|181817100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.115|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.139||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.139|0.090|<0.0001
90967397|NCT01431274|181817100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.119|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.094|0.143||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.143|0.094|<0.0001
90967398|NCT01431274|181817100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.099|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.074|0.123||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.123|0.074|<0.0001
91035501|NCT04994535|181956991|SUPERIORITY||Difference (SE)|-4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|-3.7||P-value derived from ANCOVA model stratified by investigator site and baseline C-APPS with baseline value as a factor.|ANCOVA|||Day 30||-3.7|-6.0|<0.0001
91035502|NCT04994535|181956991|SUPERIORITY||Difference (SE)|-4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|-3.6||P-value derived from ANCOVA model stratified by investigator site and baseline C-APPS with baseline value as a factor.|ANCOVA|||Day 60||-3.6|-5.9|<0.0001
90932062|NCT01638000|181743408|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 95% CI for difference of adjusted change from baseline between solifenacin 5 mg and mirabegron 50 mg was \> -0.20. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron 50 mg from the adjusted mean of solifenacin 5 mg. Overall power calculation was 80% for a 1-sided test and significance level of 0.025.|least squares mean difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.124||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.06||If p\<0.05, this indicated superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate||The non-inferiority of mirabegron vs. solifencacin on the change from baseline to final visit in the mean number of micturitions per 24 hours.||0.06|-0.42|0.15
91035503|NCT04994535|181956991|SUPERIORITY||Difference (SE)|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|-2.8||P-value derived from ANCOVA model stratified by investigator site and baseline C-APPS with baseline value as a factor.|ANCOVA|||Day 90||-2.8|-4.9|<0.0001
90932063|NCT01638000|181743409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|2.25||If P \<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the smallest percentage of participants with at least 1 TEAE of dry mouth, constipation or blurred vision during the double-blind period at the final visit.|Regression, Logistic|Included treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥ 2) and geographic region as factors.||Difference vs Mirabegron. Differences of the percentages were calculated by subtracting the percentage of mirabegron 50 mg group from the percentage of solifenacin 5 mg group.||2.25|1.04|0.030
90932064|NCT01638000|181743410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||least squares mean difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.117||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.27||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate||Week 4 Difference vs. Mirabegron. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron 50 mg from the adjusted mean of solifenacin 5 mg.||0.27|-0.19|0.71
90932065|NCT01638000|181743410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||least squares mean difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.119||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.0||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate||Week 8 Difference vs. Mirabegron. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron 50 mg from the adjusted mean of solifenacin 5 mg.||0.00|-0.47|0.053
90932066|NCT01638000|181743410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||least squares mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.125||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.05||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate||Week 12 Difference vs. Mirabegron. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron 50 mg from the adjusted mean of solifenacin 5 mg.||0.05|-0.44|0.12
90932067|NCT01638000|181743411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate ratio|0.9||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.11||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|Poisson regression|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline as covariates.||Week 4 Rate Ratio vs. Mirabegron.||1.11|0.73|0.33
90932068|NCT01638000|181743411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate ratio|0.84||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.1||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|Poisson regression|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline as covariates.||Week 8 Rate Ratio vs. Mirabegron.||1.10|0.64|0.21
90932069|NCT01638000|181743411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate ratio|0.97||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.32||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|Poisson regression|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline as covariates||Week 12 Rate Ratio vs. Mirabegron.||1.32|0.71|0.83
90932070|NCT01638000|181743411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate ratio|0.92||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.24||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|Poisson regression|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65,≥ 65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline as covariates.||Final Visit Rate Ratio vs. Mirabegron||1.24|0.68|0.57
90932071|NCT01638000|181743412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.089||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.1||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|ANCOVA|From stratified rank ANCOVA analysis.||Week 4 Difference vs. Mirabegron. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron 50 mg from the adjusted mean of solifenacin 5 mg.||0.10|-0.25|0.36
90932072|NCT01638000|181743412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.03||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|ANCOVA|From the stratified rank ANCOVA analysis.||Week 8 Difference vs. Mirabegron. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron 50 mg from the adjusted mean of solifenacin 5 mg.||0.03|-0.48|0.12
90941127|NCT00812838|181761812|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0286||||||Threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||This will be a pilot study; it was assessed that 10 subjects in each arm, for a total of 20 subjects, will allow us to determine if the therapy is effective. To allow for screen failures, 45 subjects are planned for screening.||||0.0286
90941128|NCT04148521|181761813|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.47|0.90|0.27
90967399|NCT01431274|181817100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.092|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.067|0.117||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.117|0.067|<0.0001
90967400|NCT01431274|181817100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.023|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.0717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.002|0.047||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.047|-0.002|0.0717
90967401|NCT01431274|181817100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.121|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.097|0.146||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.146|0.097|<0.0001
90967402|NCT01431274|181817100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.027|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.0344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.002|0.051||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.051|0.002|0.0344
90967403|NCT01431274|181817100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.1126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|0.045||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (2.5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.045|-0.005|0.1126
90967404|NCT01431274|181817100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.6009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.018|0.031||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.031|-0.018|0.6009
90967405|NCT01431274|181817101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.072|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.049|0.096||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.096|0.049|<0.0001
90967406|NCT01431274|181817101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.063|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.039|0.087||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.087|0.039|<0.0001
90967407|NCT01431274|181817101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.047|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.023|0.07||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.070|0.023|0.0001
90967408|NCT01431274|181817101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.0122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.007|0.054||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.054|0.007|0.0122
90967409|NCT01431274|181817101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.037|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.014|0.061||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.061|0.014|0.0021
90967410|NCT01431274|181817101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.026|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.0347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.002|0.049||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.049|0.002|0.0347
90967411|NCT01431274|181817101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.056|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.032|0.08||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.080|0.032|<0.0001
90967412|NCT01431274|181817101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.009|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.4407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.014|0.033||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.033|-0.014|0.4407
90967413|NCT01431274|181817101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.1777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.007|0.04||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (2.5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.040|-0.007|0.1777
90967414|NCT01431274|181817101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.5641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.031|0.017||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.017|-0.031|0.5641
90967415|NCT01431274|181817102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.057|0.104||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.104|0.057|<0.0001
90967416|NCT01431274|181817102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.075|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.051|0.099||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.099|0.051|<0.0001
90967417|NCT01431274|181817102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.038|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.014|0.062||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.062|0.014|0.0018
90967418|NCT01431274|181817102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.0517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.047||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.047|-0.000|0.0517
90967419|NCT01431274|181817102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.033|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.0072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.009|0.056||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.056|0.009|0.0072
90967420|NCT01431274|181817102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.019|0.066||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.066|0.019|0.0005
90967421|NCT01431274|181817102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.066|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.042|0.09||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.090|0.042|<0.0001
90967422|NCT01431274|181817102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.6619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.018|0.029||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.029|-0.018|0.6619
90971300|NCT05032157|181825301|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.72|16.85|||Regression, Logistic||Logistic regression adjusting for treatment arm, geographical region, prior exposure to anti-IgE biologics, and baseline UAS7 score.|Early onset of disease activity control (UAS7 =\< 6) at Week 2||16.85|3.72|< 0.001
90932073|NCT01638000|181743412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.163||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.07||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|ANCOVA|From the stratified rank ANCOVA analysis.||Week 12 Difference vs. Mirabegron. Difference of the adjusted mean is calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron from the adjusted mean of solifenacin.||0.07|-0.57|0.47
90932074|NCT01638000|181743413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate ratio|0.92||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.14||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|Poisson regression|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline as covariates.||Week 4 Rate Ratio vs. Mirabegron||1.14|0.74|0.44
90932075|NCT01638000|181743413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate ratio|0.79||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.06||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|Poisson regression|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline as covariates||Week 8 Rate Ratio vs. Mirabegron||1.06|0.60|0.11
90932076|NCT01638000|181743413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate ratio|1.05||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.45||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|Poisson regression|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline as covariates||Week 12 Rate Ratio vs. Mirabegron||1.45|0.76|0.78
90932077|NCT01638000|181743413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate ratio|0.97||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.33||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|Poisson regression|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline as covariates||Final Visit Rate Ratio vs. Mirabegron||1.33|0.71|0.85
90932078|NCT01638000|181743414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.081||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.14||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|ANCOVA|From stratified rank ANCOVA analysis.||Week 4 Difference vs. Mirabegron. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron 50 mg from the adjusted mean of solifenacin 5 mg.||0.14|-0.18|0.66
90932079|NCT01638000|181743414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|-0.03||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|ANCOVA|From the stratified rank ANCOVA analysis.||Week 8 Difference vs. Mirabegron. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron 50 mg from the adjusted mean of solifenacin 5 mg.||-0.03|-0.31|0.17
90932080|NCT01638000|181743414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.02||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|ANCOVA|From the stratified rank ANCOVA analysis.||Week 12 Difference vs. Mirabegron. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron 50 mg from the adjusted mean of solifenacin 5 mg.||0.02|-0.24|0.66
90932081|NCT01638000|181743415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.19||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate||Week 4 Difference vs. Mirabegron. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron 50 mg from the adjusted mean of solifenacin 5 mg.||0.19|-0.44|0.43
90932082|NCT01638000|181743415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.157||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.04||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate||Week 8 Difference vs. Mirabegron. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron 50 mg from the adjusted mean of solifenacin 5 mg.||-0.04|-0.66|0.027
90932083|NCT01638000|181743415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.164||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.0|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate||Week 12 Difference vs. Mirabegron. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron 50 mg from the adjusted mean of solifenacin 5 mg.||0.00|-0.64|0.053
90932084|NCT01638000|181743415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.163||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.09||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate||Final Visit Difference vs. Mirabegron. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron 50 mg from the adjusted mean of solifenacin 5 mg.||0.09|-0.55|0.16
90932085|NCT01638000|181743416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.05||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate||Week 4 Difference vs. Mirabegron. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron 50 mg from the adjusted mean of solifenacin 5 mg.||0.05|-0.05|0.99
90932086|NCT01638000|181743416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.03||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate||Week 8 Difference vs. Mirabegron. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron 50 mg from the adjusted mean of solifenacin 5 mg.||0.03|-0.07|0.47
91035877|NCT02558491|181958308|OTHER|||||||0.225||||||No a priori sample size was determined due to the feasibility/pilot nature of the trial. Significance level was set at P-value \<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Secondary analysis followed the same format unless variables could not be considered normally distributed; in that case a related samples Wilcoxon signed-rank test is used. Data were first binned (to ensure minimum count of five per bins) and the w2 statistics was used with the expected counts given by SoC. Based on achieved recruitment, a moderate effect size (0.3) is detectable with 80% power, or a large effect size (0.4) with 95% power (G-Power 3.1.9.2). Outcome measurement was for overnight.||||0.225
90932087|NCT01638000|181743416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.06||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate||Week 12 Difference vs. Mirabegron. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron 50 mg from the adjusted mean of solifenacin 5 mg.||0.06|-0.06|0.99
90932088|NCT01638000|181743416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.07||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate||Final visit Difference vs. Mirabegron. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron 50 mg from the adjusted mean of solifenacin 5 mg.||0.07|-0.05|0.74
90932089|NCT01638000|181743417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate ratio|1.03||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.2||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|Poisson regression|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline as covariates.||Week 4 Rate Ratio vs. Mirabegron||1.20|0.89|0.67
90932090|NCT01638000|181743417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate ratio|1.17||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.39||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|Poisson regression|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline as covariates.||Week 8 Rate Ratio vs. Mirabegron||1.39|0.99|0.073
90932091|NCT01638000|181743417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate ratio|1.12||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.37||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|Poisson regression|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline as covariates.||Week 12 Rate Ratio vs. Mirabegron||1.37|0.92|0.25
90932092|NCT01638000|181743417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate ratio|1.08||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.31||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|Poisson regression|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline as covariates.||Final Visit Rate Ratio vs. Mirabegron||1.31|0.90|0.40
90932093|NCT01638000|181743418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.115||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.2||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate||Week 4 Difference vs. Mirabegron. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron 50 mg from the adjusted mean of solifenacin 5 mg.||0.20|-0.25|0.84
90932094|NCT01638000|181743418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.15||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate||Week 8 Difference vs. Mirabegron. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron 50 mg from the adjusted mean of solifenacin 5 mg.||0.15|-0.24|0.63
90932095|NCT01638000|181743418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.111||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.16||if p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate||Week 12 Difference vs. Mirabegron. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron 50 mg from the adjusted mean of solifenacin 5 mg.||0.16|-0.28|0.59
90932096|NCT01638000|181743419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate ratio|1.05||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.11||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|Poisson regression|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline as covariates.||Week 4 Rate Ratio vs. Mirabegron||1.11|1.00|0.068
90932097|NCT01638000|181743419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate ratio|1.04||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.11||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|Poisson regression|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline as covariates.||Week 8 Rate Ratio vs. Mirabegron||1.11|0.98|0.21
90932098|NCT01638000|181743419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate ratio|1.02||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.1||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|Poisson regression|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline as covariates.||Week 12 Rate Ratio vs. Mirabegron||1.10|0.95|0.52
90941129|NCT04148521|181761814|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.43|0.75|0.83
90967423|NCT01431274|181817102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.014|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.2401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.038||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (2.5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.038|-0.010|0.2401
90967424|NCT01431274|181817102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.009|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.4601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.033|0.015||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.015|-0.033|0.4601
90967425|NCT01431274|181817103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.088|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.064|0.112||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.112|0.064|<0.0001
90967426|NCT01431274|181817103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.076|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.052|0.1||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.100|0.052|<0.0001
90967427|NCT01431274|181817103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.046|0.094||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.094|0.046|<0.0001
90967428|NCT01431274|181817103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.051|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.027|0.075||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.075|0.027|<0.0001
90967429|NCT01431274|181817103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.058|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.034|0.082||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.082|0.034|<0.0001
90967430|NCT01431274|181817103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.018|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.1405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.006|0.042||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.042|-0.006|0.1405
90967431|NCT01431274|181817103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.069|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.045|0.093||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.093|0.045|<0.0001
90967432|NCT01431274|181817103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.3118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.012|0.036||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.036|-0.012|0.3118
90967433|NCT01431274|181817103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.1171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|0.043||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (2.5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.043|-0.005|0.1171
90967434|NCT01431274|181817103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.5759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.031|0.017||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.017|-0.031|0.5759
90971301|NCT05032157|181825302|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|4.58|||Regression, Logistic||Logistic regression adjusting for treatment arm, geographical region, prior exposure to anti-IgE biologics and baseline DLQI score.|Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) = 0-1 at Week 12||4.58|1.65|< 0.001
91035504|NCT01011413|181957015|NON_INFERIORITY|"Only the primary endpoint is assessed in terms of non-inferiority. All other comparisons are tests for superiority and are considered statistically significant at a two-sided alpha=0.05.~Non-inferiority of EFV 400 mg was defined as the lower 95% confidence interval (CI) of the difference between groups in the proportion of viral load below 200 copies/mL at week 48 lying above -10%."||||||0.05||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons|Pearson's chi-squared|Pearson's chi-squared or Fisher's exact test derived p value was used||Sample size calculation assumes 85% of participants randomised to 600mg EFV arm will have plasma HIV RNA \<200 copies/ml at 48 weeks. Assuming no difference between randomised treatments in proportion with plasma HIV RNA \<200 copies/mL, to have 90% power to demonstrate non-inferiority in the intention to treat (ITT) analysis using a 10% non-inferiority margin will require 286 participants per arm, making a total of 572 participants. Power for modified ITT analysis was 93%.||||0.05
90932099|NCT01638000|181743419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate ratio|1.03||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.1||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|Poisson regression|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline as covariates.||Final Visit Rate Ratio vs. Mirabegron||1.10|0.96|0.44
90932100|NCT01638000|181743420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.18||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate||Week 4 Difference vs. Mirabegron. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron 50 mg from the adjusted mean of solifenacin 5 mg.||0.18|-0.00|0.058
90932101|NCT01638000|181743420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.12||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate||Week 8 Difference vs. Mirabegron. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron 50 mg from the adjusted mean of solifenacin 5 mg.||0.12|-0.06|0.50
90932102|NCT01638000|181743420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.046||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.1||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate||Week 12 Difference vs. Mirabegron. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron 50 mg from the adjusted mean of solifenacin 5 mg.||0.10|-0.08|0.81
90932103|NCT01638000|181743421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.28||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest percentage of responders at specified visit.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65,≥ 65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline value as factors.||Week 4 Odds ratio vs. Mirabegron||1.28|0.85|0.67
90932104|NCT01638000|181743421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.53||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest percentage of responders at specified visit.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65,≥ 65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline value as factors.||Week 8 Odds ratio vs. Mirabegron||1.53|1.03|0.026
90932105|NCT01638000|181743421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.44||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest percentage of responders at specified visit.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65,≥ 65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline value as factors.||Week 12 Odds ratio vs. Mirabegron||1.44|0.97|0.11
90932106|NCT01638000|181743421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.43||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest percentage of responders at specified visit.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65,≥ 65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline value as factors.||Final Visit Odds ratio vs. Mirabegron||1.43|0.97|0.093
90932107|NCT01638000|181743422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.48||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest percentage of responders at specified visit.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65,≥ 65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline value as factors.||Week 4 Odds Ratio vs. Mirabegron||1.48|0.76|0.74
90932108|NCT01638000|181743422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.63||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest percentage of responders at specified visit.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65,≥ 65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline value as factors.||Week 8 Odds Ratio vs. Mirabegron||1.63|0.71|0.74
90932109|NCT01638000|181743422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.0||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest percentage of responders at specified visit.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65,≥ 65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline value as factors.||Week 12 Odds Ratio vs. Mirabegron||2.00|0.81|0.29
90932110|NCT01638000|181743422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.9||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest percentage of responders at specified visit.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65,≥ 65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline value as factors.||Final visit Odds Ratio vs. Mirabegron||1.90|0.82|0.29
90932111|NCT01638000|181743423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.67||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest percentage of responders at specified visit.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65,≥ 65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline value as factors.||Week 4 Odds Ratio vs. Mirabegron||1.67|0.90|0.20
90932112|NCT01638000|181743423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.26||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest percentage of responders at specified visit.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65,≥ 65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline value as factors.||Week 8 Odds Ratio vs. Mirabegron||1.26|0.65|0.57
90932113|NCT01638000|181743423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.39||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest percentage of responders at specified visit.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65,≥ 65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline value as factors.||Week 12 Odds Ratio vs. Mirabegron||1.39|0.69|0.92
90932114|NCT01638000|181743423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.42||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest percentage of responders at specified visit.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65,≥ 65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline value as factors.||Final visit Odds Ratio vs. Mirabegron||1.42|0.73|0.90
90932115|NCT01638000|181743444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-1.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.817||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.29|-0.08||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as covariate.||Week 4 Difference vs. Mirabegron. Difference of the adjusted mean is calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron from the adjusted mean of solifenacin.||-0.08|-3.29|0.039
90932116|NCT01638000|181743444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.849||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.46|-0.13||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as covariate.||Week 8 Difference vs. Mirabegron. Difference of the adjusted mean is calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron from the adjusted mean of solifenacin.||-0.13|-3.46|0.034
90932117|NCT01638000|181743444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.917||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|-0.3||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as covariate.||Week 12 Difference vs. Mirabegron. Difference of the adjusted mean is calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron from the adjusted mean of solifenacin.||-0.30|-3.90|0.022
90932118|NCT01638000|181743444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-1.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.924||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.68|-0.06||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as covariate.||Final Visit Difference vs. Mirabegron. Difference of the adjusted mean is calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron from the adjusted mean of solifenacin.||-0.06|-3.68|0.043
90932119|NCT01638000|181743445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|2.65||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as covariate.||Week 4 Difference vs. Mirabegron. Difference of the adjusted mean is calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron from the adjusted mean of solifenacin.||2.65|-0.37|0.14
90932120|NCT01638000|181743445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|1.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.805||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|3.13||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as covariates.||Week 8 Difference vs. Mirabegron. Difference of the adjusted mean is calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron from the adjusted mean of solifenacin.||3.13|-0.03|0.055
90932121|NCT01638000|181743445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|1.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.866||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|3.25||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as covariates.||Week 12 Difference vs. Mirabegron. Difference of the adjusted mean is calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron from the adjusted mean of solifenacin.||3.25|-0.15|0.074
90932122|NCT01638000|181743445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|1.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.873||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|3.12||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as covariates.||Final Visit Difference vs. Mirabegron. Difference of the adjusted mean is calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron from the adjusted mean of solifenacin.||3.12|-0.30|0.11
90932123|NCT01638000|181743446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.01||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as covariate.||Week 4 Difference vs. Mirabegron. Difference of the adjusted mean is calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron from the adjusted mean of solifenacin.||0.01|-0.19|0.070
90967435|NCT01431274|181817104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.079|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.055|0.103||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.103|0.055|<0.0001
90967436|NCT01431274|181817104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.062|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.038|0.086||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.086|0.038|<0.0001
90967437|NCT01431274|181817104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.061|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.037|0.085||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.085|0.037|<0.0001
90967438|NCT01431274|181817104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.047|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.022|0.071||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.071|0.022|0.0002
90967439|NCT01431274|181817104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.044|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.019|0.068||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.068|0.019|0.0004
90967440|NCT01431274|181817104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.018|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.006|0.042||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.042|-0.006|0.1360
90967441|NCT01431274|181817104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.065|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.041|0.089||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.089|0.041|<0.0001
90967442|NCT01431274|181817104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.017|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.1617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.007|0.041||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.041|-0.007|0.1617
90967443|NCT01431274|181817104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.014|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.2476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.039||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (2.5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.039|-0.010|0.2476
90967444|NCT01431274|181817104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.8083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.021|0.027||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.027|-0.021|0.8083
90967445|NCT01431274|181817105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.075|0.124||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.124|0.075|<0.0001
90967446|NCT01431274|181817105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.064|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.039|0.088||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.088|0.039|<0.0001
90932124|NCT01638000|181743446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|-0.06||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as covariate.||Week 8 Difference vs. Mirabegron. Difference of the adjusted mean is calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron from the adjusted mean of solifenacin.||-0.06|-0.27|0.003
90932125|NCT01638000|181743446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|-0.03||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as covariate.||Week 12 Difference vs. Mirabegron.Difference of the adjusted mean is calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron from the adjusted mean of solifenacin.||-0.03|-0.26|0.015
90932126|NCT01638000|181743446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|-0.02||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as covariate.||Final Visit Difference vs. Mirabegron. Difference of the adjusted mean is calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron from the adjusted mean of solifenacin.||-0.02|-0.25|0.021
90932127|NCT01638000|181743447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.7||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as covariate.||Week 12 Difference vs. Mirabegron. Difference of the adjusted mean is calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron from the adjusted mean of solifenacin.||0.70|0.15|0.002
90932128|NCT01638000|181743447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.7||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as covariate.||Final Visit Difference vs. Mirabegron. Difference of the adjusted mean is calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron from the adjusted mean of solifenacin.||0.70|0.14|0.003
90932129|NCT01638000|181743448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean diffrence|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.29||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as covariate.||Week 12 Difference vs. Mirabegron. Difference of the adjusted mean is calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron from the adjusted mean of solifenacin.||0.29|0.02|0.027
90932130|NCT01638000|181743448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.071||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.29||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as covariate.||Final Visit Difference vs. Mirabegron. Difference of the adjusted mean is calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron from the adjusted mean of solifenacin.||0.29|0.01|0.034
90932131|NCT01638000|181743449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.81||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest percentage of responders at specified visit.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline value as factors.||Week 12 Odds Ratio vs. Mirabegron||1.81|1.08|0.010
90932132|NCT01638000|181743449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.75||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest percentage of responders at specified visit.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline value as factors.||Final visit Odds Ratio vs. Mirabegron||1.75|1.07|0.011
90932133|NCT01638000|181743450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.62||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest percentage of responders at specified visit.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline value as factors.||Week 12 Odds Ratio vs. Mirabegron||1.62|1.02|0.037
90932134|NCT01638000|181743450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.57||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest percentage of responders at specified visit.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline value as factors.||Final visit Odds Ratio vs. Mirabegron||1.57|1.01|0.045
90932135|NCT01638000|181743451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|2.06||Iif p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest percentage of responders at specified visit.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline value as factors.||Week 12 (≥1 point improvement) Odds Rato vs. Mirabegron||2.06|1.11|0.009
90932136|NCT01638000|181743451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.65||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest percentage of responders at specified visit.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65,≥ 65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline value as factors.||Week 12 (≥2 point improvement) Odds Rato vs. Mirabegron||1.65|0.99|0.065
90932137|NCT01638000|181743451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.55||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest percentage of responders at specified visit.|Regression, Logistic|treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline value as factors.||Week 12 (≥3 point improvement) Odds Rato vs. Mirabegron||1.55|1.00|0.051
90932138|NCT01638000|181743451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.47||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest percentage of responders at specified visit.|Regression, Logistic|treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline value as factors.||Week 12 (≥4 point improvement) Odds Rato vs. Mirabegron||1.47|0.95|0.14
90932139|NCT01638000|181743451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.4||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest percentage of responders at specified visit.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline value as factors.||Week 12 (≥5 point improvement) Odds Rato vs. Mirabegron||1.40|0.75|0.89
90932140|NCT01638000|181743451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|2.04||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest percentage of responders at specified visit.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline value as factors.|Participants from Canada were therefore excluded from this analysis due to low participant numbers.|Week 12 (6 point improvement) Odds Rato vs. Mirabegron||2.04|0.64|0.66
90932141|NCT01638000|181743452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.93||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest percentage of responders at specified visit.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline value as factors.||Final visit (≥1 point improvement) Odds Rato vs. Mirabegron||1.93|1.07|0.016
90932142|NCT01638000|181743452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.62||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest percentage of responders at specified visit.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline value as factors.||Final visit (≥2 point improvement) Odds Rato vs. Mirabegron||1.62|0.99|0.063
90932143|NCT01638000|181743452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.53||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest percentage of responders at specified visit.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline value as factors.||Final visit (≥3 point improvement) Odds Rato vs. Mirabegron||1.53|1.00|0.054
90932144|NCT01638000|181743452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.46||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest percentage of responders at specified visit.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline value as factors.||Final visit (≥4 point improvement) Odds Rato vs. Mirabegron||1.46|0.95|0.15
90932145|NCT01638000|181743452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.44||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest percentage of responders at specified visit.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline value as factors.||Final visit (≥5 point improvement) Odds Rato vs. Mirabegron||1.44|0.77|0.75
90932146|NCT01638000|181743452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|2.04||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest percentage of responders at specified visit.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline value as factors.|Participants from Canada were therefore excluded from this analysis due to low participant numbers.|Final visit (6 point improvement) Odds Rato vs. Mirabegron||2.04|0.64|0.66
90932147|NCT01638000|181743453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.57||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest percentage of responders at specified visit.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline value as factors.||Week 12 Odds Ratio vs. Mirabegron||1.57|0.97|0.082
90932148|NCT01638000|181743453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.49||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest percentage of responders at specified visit.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline value as factors.||Final visit Odds Ratio vs. Mirabegron||1.49|0.94|0.15
90932149|NCT01638000|181743454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.53||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest percentage of responders at specified visit.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline value as factors.||Week 12 Odds Ratio vs. Mirabegron||1.53|0.99|0.058
90932150|NCT01638000|181743454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.5||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest percentage of responders at specified visitI|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline value as factors.||Final visit Odds Ratio vs. Mirabegron||1.50|0.99|0.069
90932151|NCT03775213|181743459|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|2.58||||||||2.58|.91|
90932152|NCT03775213|181743460|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.88||||||Active Monitoring||1.88|.49|
90932153|NCT03775213|181743460|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.41||||||Lumpectomy||1.41|.79|
90932154|NCT03775213|181743460|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.3||||||Lumpectomy with Radiation||1.30|.62|
90967447|NCT01431274|181817105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.076|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.051|0.1||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.100|0.051|<0.0001
90967448|NCT01431274|181817105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.023|0.072||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.072|0.023|0.0001
90967449|NCT01431274|181817105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.015|0.064||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.064|0.015|0.0014
90967450|NCT01431274|181817105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.0554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|0.048||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.048|-0.001|0.0554
90967451|NCT01431274|181817105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.071|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.047|0.096||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.096|0.047|<0.0001
90967452|NCT01431274|181817105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.036|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.011|0.06||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.060|0.011|0.0041
90967453|NCT01431274|181817105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.028|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.0248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|0.053||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (2.5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.053|0.004|0.0248
90967454|NCT01431274|181817105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.5338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.017|0.032||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.032|-0.017|0.5338
90967455|NCT01431274|181817106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.077|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.029|0.125||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.125|0.029|0.0017
90967456|NCT01431274|181817106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.138|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.186||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.186|0.090|<0.0001
90967457|NCT01431274|181817106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||0.0426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.002|0.098||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.098|0.002|0.0426
90967458|NCT01431274|181817106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.122|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001||95.0|0.074|0.17||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.170|0.074|<0.0001
90971302|NCT05032157|181825303|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|3.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.26|4.71|||Regression, Linear||Negative binomial regression with log link includes treatment arm as fixed effect, geographical region, prior exposure to anti-IgE biologics as covariates. A rate ratio \>1 favors LOU064 25 mg b.i.d.|Disease activity control (UAS7 =\< 6) up to Week 12||4.71|2.26|< 0.001
90932155|NCT03775213|181743460|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.47||||||Mastectomy||1.47|.48|
91035878|NCT02558491|181958309|OTHER|||||||0.86||||||No a priori sample size was determined due to the feasibility/pilot nature of the trial. Significance level was set at P-value \<0.05.|ANOVA|||Secondary analysis followed the same format unless variables could not be considered normally distributed; in that case a related samples Wilcoxon signed-rank test is used. Data were first binned (to ensure minimum count of five per bins) and the w2 statistics was used with the expected counts given by SoC. Based on achieved recruitment, a moderate effect size (0.3) is detectable with 80% power, or a large effect size (0.4) with 95% power (G-Power 3.1.9.2). Outcome measurement was for overall.||||0.86
90932156|NCT03775213|181743461|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.98||||||||1.98|.59|
90932157|NCT03775213|181743462|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.45||||||||1.45|.65|
90932158|NCT03775213|181743463|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.38||||||||.38|-.20|
90932159|NCT00786188|181743480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0177||||||Week 4 frequency|Repeated measures analysis|||||||0.0177
90932160|NCT00786188|181743480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0541||||||Week 8 frequency|Reapeated measures analysis|||||||0.0541
90932161|NCT00786188|181743481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0644||||||Week 4 severity|Reapeated measures analysis|||||||0.0644
90932162|NCT00786188|181743481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0364||||||Week 8 severity|Reapeated measures analysis|||||||0.0364
90932163|NCT03787628|181743541|OTHER|Generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) testing the main effect of group and time, and the group X time interaction.|F-test|0.703||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value reflects the test of the interaction between group and time on the measure of cue-induced craving.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated value reflects the f test of the interaction between group and time on the measure of cue-induced craving (degrees of freedom = 1, 67).|||||0.41
90932164|NCT03787628|181743542|OTHER|Generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) testing the main effect of group and time, and the group X time interaction.|F-test|0.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value reflects the test of the interaction between group and time on the measure of spontaneous craving.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated value reflects the f test of the interaction between group and time on spontaneous craving (degrees of freedom = 1, 550).|||||0.99
90932165|NCT03787628|181743543|OTHER|Generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) testing the main effect of group and time, and the group X time interaction.|F-test|0.04||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value reflects the test of the interaction between group and time on the measure of state anxiety.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated value reflects the f test of the interaction between group and time on state anxiety (degrees of freedom = 1, 550)|||||0.84
90932166|NCT03787628|181743544|OTHER|Generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) testing the main effect of group and time, and the group X time interaction.|F-test|0.27||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value reflects the test of the interaction between group and time on the measure of negative affect.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated value reflects the f test of the interaction between group and time on negative affect (degrees of freedom = 1, 550).|||||0.60
90932167|NCT01000805|181743603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.33||This p-value is for the main effect of treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.33|-0.90|<0.001
90932168|NCT01000805|181743604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.83|-2.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.24|-5.83|<0.001
90932169|NCT01000805|181743605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46||||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|0.11||This is the p-value for the Disrupt Work/School Work score.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.11|-1.03|0.112
90932170|NCT01000805|181743605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.73||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|-0.22||This the p-value for the Disrupt Social Life/Leisure score.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.22|-1.24|0.005
90932171|NCT01000805|181743605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|-0.02||This is the p-value for the Disrupt Family Life/Home score.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.02|-1.04|0.040
90932172|NCT01000805|181743605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.75||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-0.29||P-value for the SDS Total score. First gated secondary outcome measure. Gatekeeper strategy controlled experiment-wise type I error for 5 secondary outcomes with stepwise comparisons of treatments until outcome failed to be significant (p\>0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.29|-3.20|0.019
90932173|NCT01000805|181743606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||This is the second gated secondary outcome measure. A gatekeeper strategy (Dmitrienko et al. 2003) controlled experiment-wise type I error for 5 secondary outcomes. Treatments were compared stepwise until an outcome failed to be significant (p\>0.05).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.001
90932174|NCT01000805|181743607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0082||95.0||||This is the third gated secondary outcome measure. A gatekeeper strategy (Dmitrienko et al. 2003) controlled experiment-wise type I error for 5 secondary outcomes. Treatments were compared stepwise until an outcome failed to be significant (p\>0.05).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0082
90932175|NCT01000805|181743608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|-2.11||This is the fourth gated secondary outcome measure. A gatekeeper strategy (Dmitrienko et al. 2003) controlled experiment-wise type I error for 5 secondary outcomes. Treatments were compared stepwise until an outcome failed to be significant (p\>0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.11|-5.20|<0.001
90932176|NCT01000805|181743609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.19||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-0.89||This is the fifth gated secondary outcome measure. A gatekeeper strategy (Dmitrienko et al. 2003) controlled experiment-wise type I error for 5 secondary outcomes. Treatments were compared stepwise until an outcome failed to be significant (p\>0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.89|-3.50|0.001
90932177|NCT01000805|181743610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.32||This is the p-value for the main effect of treatment for the BPI Severity for Worst Pain score. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.32|-0.97|<0.001
90932178|NCT01000805|181743610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.34||This is the p-value for main effect of treatment for the BPI Severity for Least Pain score. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.34|-0.90|<0.001
90941130|NCT04148521|181761815|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|2.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.26|0.91|0.12
90967459|NCT01431274|181817106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.111|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.063|0.159||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.159|0.063|<0.0001
90932179|NCT01000805|181743610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.33||This is the p-value for the main effect of treatment for the BPI Severity for Average Pain score. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.33|-0.90|<0.001
90932180|NCT01000805|181743610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.42||This is the p-value for the main effect of treatment for the BPI Severity for Pain Right Now score. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.42|-1.06|<0.001
90932181|NCT01000805|181743610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.33||This is the p-value for the main effect of treatment for the BPI Pain Interference with General Activity score. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.33|-1.03|<0.001
90932182|NCT01000805|181743610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|-0.37||This is the p-value for the main effect of treatment for the BPI Pain Interference with Mood score. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.37|-1.09|<0.001
90932183|NCT01000805|181743610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.11||This is the p-value for the main effect of treatment for the BPI Pain Interference with Walking Ability score. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.11|-0.79|0.009
90932184|NCT01000805|181743610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.21||This is the p-value for the main effect of treatment for the BPI Pain Interference with Normal Work score. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.21|-0.91|0.002
90932185|NCT01000805|181743610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.35||This is the p-value for the main effect of treatment for the BPI Pain Interference with Relations with Others score. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.35|-1.06|<0.001
90932186|NCT01000805|181743610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.01||This is the p-value for the main effect of treatment for the BPI Pain Interference with Sleep score. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.01|-0.76|0.042
90932187|NCT01000805|181743610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.31||This is the p-value for the main effect of treatment for the BPI Pain Interference with Enjoyment of Life score. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.31|-1.03|<0.001
90932188|NCT01000805|181743610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.25||This is the p-value for the main effect of treatment for the BPI Mean Pain Interference score. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.25|-0.88|<0.001
90932189|NCT01000805|181743611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.26||P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.26|-0.71|<0.001
90932190|NCT01000805|181743612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.293||95.0||||This is the p-value for suicidal ideation. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.293
90932191|NCT01000805|181743613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033||95.0||||P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.033
90932192|NCT01000805|181743614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|4.51||This is the p-value for the Change from Baseline at Week 8. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.51|1.34|<0.001
90967460|NCT01431274|181817106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.027|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.2661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.021|0.075||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.075|-0.021|0.2661
90932193|NCT01000805|181743614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|3.83||This is the p-value for the Change up to Week 8. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||3.83|0.97|0.001
90932194|NCT01000805|181743615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|4.04||This is the p-value for the Change from Baseline in SBP at Week 8. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.04|-0.25|0.083
90932195|NCT01000805|181743615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47||||0.513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|1.9||This is the p-value for the Change from Baseline in DBP at Week 8. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.90|-0.95|0.513
90932196|NCT01000805|181743615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.53||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|3.47||This is the p-value for the Change from Baseline in SBP up to Week 8. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||3.47|-0.42|0.124
90967461|NCT01431274|181817106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.102|0.198||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.198|0.102|<0.0001
90967462|NCT01431274|181817106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.061|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||0.0119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.109|-0.014||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||-0.014|-0.109|0.0119
90967463|NCT01431274|181817106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.073|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.121|-0.025||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (2.5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||-0.025|-0.121|0.0029
90967464|NCT01431274|181817106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||0.6408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.036|0.059||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.059|-0.036|0.6408
90967465|NCT01431274|181817107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.221|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.173|0.27||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.270|0.173|<0.0001
90967466|NCT01431274|181817107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.193|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.145|0.242||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.242|0.145|<0.0001
90967467|NCT01431274|181817107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.185|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.136|0.233||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.233|0.136|<0.0001
90967468|NCT01431274|181817107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.114|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.065|0.162||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.162|0.065|<0.0001
90967469|NCT01431274|181817107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.157|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.108|0.205||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.205|0.108|<0.0001
90967470|NCT01431274|181817107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.037|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.1355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.012|0.085||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.085|-0.012|0.1355
90941131|NCT04148521|181761816|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.86|0.73|0.51
90941132|NCT02287883|181761830|OTHER|Clustered two-sample t-test||||||0.8|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.80
90941133|NCT02287883|181761831|OTHER|Clustered two-sample t-test||||||0.48|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.48
90941134|NCT02287883|181761832|OTHER|Clustered two-sample t-test||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
90941135|NCT00802438|181761839|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||A two-sided p-value\<0.05 was considered significant. Analyses were conducted using SAS version 9.4 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC.).|t-test, 2 sided|||Summaries of log-transformed data were back-transformed to the original scale and reported as geometric mean with 95% confidence interval or median within 1st and 3rd quartiles. Outcomes are summarized using least squares means with 95% confidence intervals or median with 1st and 3rd quartiles.||||<0.0001
90932197|NCT01000805|181743615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31||||0.638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|1.6||This is the p-value for the Change from Baseline in DBP up to Week 8. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||1.60|-0.98|0.638
90932198|NCT01000805|181743616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|-0.54||This is the p-value for the Change from Baseline at Week 8. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.54|-1.37|<0.001
90932199|NCT01000805|181743616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|-0.51||This is the p-value for the Change from Baseline up to Week 8. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||-0.51|-1.24|<0.001
90932200|NCT03769090|181743641|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.733|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.611|0.879|||Regression, Cox|||H0 = null hypothesis. Hazard ratios, 95% confidence intervals for hazard ratios and p-values are estimated using a Cox regression model with treatment group, age group, region and number of severe exacerbations in the last 12 months prior to randomization as factors. A hazard ratio less than 1 favours BDA MDI treatment.||0.879|0.611|<0.001
90932201|NCT03769090|181743641|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.835||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.702|0.992|||Regression, Cox|||H0 = Null hypothesis. Hazard ratios, 95% confidence intervals for hazard ratios and p-values are estimated using a Cox regression model with treatment group, age group, region and number of severe exacerbations in the last 12 months prior to randomization as factors. A hazard ratio less than 1 favours BDI MDI treatment.||0.992|0.702|0.041
90932202|NCT03769090|181743642|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.76||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.93|||Negative binomial model|||Estimated from a negative binomial model with treatment, age group, region, and number of severe exacerbations in the last 12 months prior to randomization as categorical covariates. The logarithm of the time at risk is included as an offset variable. A sequential testing strategy is used for secondary endpoints. A null hypothesis can only be rejected if all preceding null hypotheses are also rejected.||0.93|0.62|0.008
90932203|NCT03769090|181743642|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.8||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.98|||Negative binomial model|||Estimated from a negative binomial model with treatment, age group, region, and number of severe exacerbations in the last 12 months prior to randomization as categorical covariates. The logarithm of the time at risk is included as an offset variable. A sequential testing strategy is used for secondary endpoints. A null hypothesis can only be rejected if all preceding null hypotheses are also rejected.||0.98|0.66|0.028
90932204|NCT03769090|181743643|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum|||P-values are calculated via a Wilcoxon rank sum test. A sequential testing strategy is used for secondary endpoints. A null hypothesis can only be rejected if all preceding null hypotheses are also rejected.||||0.002
90932205|NCT03769090|181743643|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum|||P-values are calculated via a Wilcoxon rank sum test. A sequential testing strategy is used for secondary endpoints. A null hypothesis can only be rejected if all preceding null hypotheses are also rejected.||||0.06
90932206|NCT03769090|181743644|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.221||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.016|1.467|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression model with baseline ACQ-5 as a continuous covariate and age group, region and number of severe exacerbations in the 12 months prior to randomization as categorical covariates. A sequential testing strategy is used for secondary endpoints. A null hypothesis can only be rejected if all preceding null hypotheses are also rejected.||1.467|1.016|0.033
90932207|NCT03769090|181743644|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.132||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.946|1.353|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression model with baseline ACQ-5 as a continuous covariate and age group, region and number of severe exacerbations in the 12 months prior to randomization as categorical covariates. A sequential testing strategy is used for secondary endpoints. A null hypothesis can only be rejected if all preceding null hypotheses are also rejected.||1.353|0.946|0.175
90932208|NCT03769090|181743645|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.228||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.022|1.475|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression model with baseline AQLQ-12 as a continuous covariate and age group, region and number of severe exacerbations in the 12 months prior to randomization as categorical covariates. A sequential testing strategy is used for secondary endpoints. A null hypothesis can only be rejected if all preceding null hypotheses are also rejected.||1.475|1.022|0.028
90932209|NCT03769090|181743645|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.111||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.925|1.335|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression model with baseline AQLQ-12 as a continuous covariate and age group, region and number of severe exacerbations in the 12 months prior to randomization as categorical covariates. A sequential testing strategy is used for secondary endpoints. A null hypothesis can only be rejected if all preceding null hypotheses are also rejected.||1.335|0.925|0.26
90932210|NCT02786966|181743648|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.6|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for age and sex||||0.6|0.2|0.0007
90932211|NCT02786966|181743649|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.61||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.8|||Regression, Logistic||||Adjusted for age and sex.|0.80|0.47|0.0007
90932212|NCT02786966|181743650|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||0.0093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.91|||Regression, Logistic|adjusted for age and sex||||0.91|0.52|0.0093
90932213|NCT01277302|181743665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated interaction effect|0.071|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.107||0.5091||||||This is the p-value of the treatment by time interaction in the longitudinal model. Analysis was not adjusted for multiple comparisons as there was only 1 comparison. p \< 0.05 (2-sided) was required for significance.|Longitudinal mixed model|The analysis was stratified by disease (BRVO or CRVO), randomization month, and randomization BCVA score category (≤35, \>35 to ≤50, or \>50 letters).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the trend of change from Baseline in the visual acuity scores from Month 7 to Month 15 between the 2 treatment groups as assessed by the interaction term of treatment by time in a longitudinal model.||||0.5091
90932214|NCT01190124|181743708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison between the 3 study groups, in order to determine if there are statistically significant differences concerning HIV-RNA levels at baseline||||<0.001
90932215|NCT01190124|181743711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison between the 3 study groups, in order to determine if there are statistically significant differences concerning CD4 cells count at baseline||||<0.001
90932216|NCT01190124|181743724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison between the 3 study groups, in order to determine if there are statistically significant differences concerning CD4 cells count at week 24||||0.007
90932217|NCT01190124|181743725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison between the 3 study groups, in order to determine if there are statistically significant differences concerning CD4 cells count at week 48||||0.001
90932218|NCT01523392|181743732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-183.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.68|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-213.9|-153.3||Model contained treatment group, period, and sequence as fixed effects and a random effect for patient within sequence|Mixed Models Analysis||Ticagrelor minus clopidogrel|||-153.3|-213.9|<0.001
90932219|NCT01523392|181743733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-103.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.79|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-142.5|-65.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model contained treatment group, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and a random effect for participant within sequence|Ticagrelor minus clopidogrel|Analysis at 0.5 hours after loading dose||-65.0|-142.5|<0.001
90932220|NCT01523392|181743733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-165.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.45|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-197.4|-133.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model contained treatment group, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and a random effect for participant within sequence|Ticagrelor minus clopidogrel|Analysis at 8 hours after loading dose||-133.3|-197.4|<0.001
90932221|NCT01523392|181743734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-135.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.35|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-160.4|-109.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model contained treatment group, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and a random effect for participant within sequence|Ticagrelor minus clopidogrel|Analysis at 2 hours on Day 7 after multiple doses||-109.5|-160.4|<0.001
90932222|NCT01523392|181743734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-118.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.55|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-143.9|-92.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model contained treatment group, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and a random effect for participant within sequence|Ticagrelor minus clopidogrel|Analysis at 8 hours on Day 7 after multiple doses||-92.2|-143.9|<0.001
90932223|NCT01523392|181743734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-133.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.77|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-159.7|-107.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model contained treatment group, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and a random effect for participant within sequence|Ticagrelor minus clopidogrel|Analysis at end of dosing interval on Day 8||-107.1|-159.7|<0.001
90932224|NCT01719172|181743740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value from a one-sided exact test was based on the binomial distribution, testing that the true percent success rate was ≤ 50% versus the alternative hypothesis that the success rate was \> 50%.|t-test, 1 sided|||The primary effectiveness endpoint was the percent (%) success in obtaining hemostasis at the Target Bleeding Site (TBS) within 5 minutes following Veriset™ application. An exact (Clopper-Pearson) 95% confidence interval for the true success percentage was calculated. Subjects who received rescue therapy on the target bleeding site prior to obtaining hemostasis were considered failures.||||<0.0001
90967471|NCT01431274|181817107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.151|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.102|0.199||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.199|0.102|<0.0001
90932225|NCT01719172|181743741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0214||||||The p-value from a one-sided exact test was based on the binomial distribution, testing that the true percent success rate was ≤ 50% versus the alternative hypothesis that the success rate was \> 50%.|t-test, 1 sided|||The number and percentage of subjects who achieved hemostasis within 1 minute were presented. An exact (Clopper-Pearson) 95% confidence interval for the true percentage was calculated.||||0.0214
90932226|NCT01719172|181743742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||1.0||||||Time to achieve hemostasis was analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method to estimate the survival distribution and to obtain the estimated median time to hemostasis. Additionally, A 95% Brookmeyer-Crowley confidence interval for the median was computed based on the sign test.||1.0||
90932227|NCT00087516|181743743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001||95.0|-0.96|-0.62|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, presence/absence of prior diabetes pharmacotherapy, baseline A1C||||-0.62|-0.96|<0.001
90932228|NCT00087516|181743743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001||95.0|-1.11|-0.77|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, presence/absence of prior diabetes pharmacotherapy, baseline A1C||||-0.77|-1.11|<0.001
90932229|NCT00087516|181743744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-17.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6|<|0.001||95.0|-24.1|-10.1|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, presence/absence of prior diabetes pharmacotherapy, baseline FPG||||-10.1|-24.1|<0.001
90932230|NCT00087516|181743744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-21.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5|<|0.001||95.0|-28.2|-14.4|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, presence/absence of prior diabetes pharmacotherapy, baseline FPG||||-14.4|-28.2|<0.001
90932231|NCT00087516|181743745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-46.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.5|<|0.001||95.0|-59.4|-34.1|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, presence/absence of prior diabetes pharmacotherapy, baseline 2-hr PMG||||-34.1|-59.4|<0.001
90932232|NCT00087516|181743745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-54.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.4|<|0.001||95.0|-66.7|-41.6|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, presence/absence of prior diabetes pharmacotherapy, baseline 2-hr PMG||||-41.6|-66.7|<0.001
90932233|NCT00273052|181743756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-8.026||||0.0141||95.0|-15.35|-0.67|||ANCOVA||Median difference = Coreg CR - Toprol XL|||-0.67|-15.35|0.0141
90932234|NCT00273052|181743757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.7||||0.6068||95.0|-2.4|3.9|||ANCOVA||Mean difference = Coreg CR - Toprol XL|||3.9|-2.4|0.6068
90932235|NCT00240994|181743770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion with graft loss or death|0.057|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.007|0.192|||95% Confidence Interval|95% CI using an exact binomial method||The proportion of participants with graft loss or death within 12 months post kidney transplantation is descriptively summarized with a 95% confidence interval using an exact binomial method.||0.192|0.007|
90932236|NCT03775915|181743807|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||p-value calculated for interaction between group and day|Linear Mixed Model|Linear mixed effects model adjusted for baseline, F(2,46) = 1.061, p \>0.05||||||>0.05
90932237|NCT03775915|181743808|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>0.05
90932238|NCT02037568|181743844|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.96
90932239|NCT02037568|181743845|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.007
90932240|NCT02037568|181743846|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.08
90932241|NCT02037568|181743847|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.05
90932242|NCT02037568|181743848|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.070
90932243|NCT02037568|181743849|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.96
90932244|NCT02037568|181743850|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.74
90932245|NCT02037568|181743851|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.79
90932246|NCT02037568|181743852|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.86
90932247|NCT00721734|181743853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.607||||0.4114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.129|0.914|||Regression, Linear|||"In order to estimate a possible effect of renal function, the relationship between the clearance of carfilzomib and creatinine clearance (CrCl) was explored using a mixed-effects model that included CrCl.~The slope of the regression of CL as a function of CrCL at Cycle 1, Day 1 was evaluated using a linear regression model that included CrCL as continuous variables (excluding the hemodialysis group)."||0.914|-2.129|0.4114
90932248|NCT02397707|181743880|OTHER||Geometric Least-Square Mean (GLSM)Ratio%|411.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|214.72|789.08||||||An analysis of variance (ANOVA) appropriate for a parallel design was fitted to the natural logarithmic transformation of voxilaprevir AUClast. A 90% confidence interval (CI) was constructed for the geometric least squares mean (GLSM) ratio of AUClast for the comparison groups using two 1-sided tests.||789.08|214.72|
90932249|NCT02397707|181743880|OTHER||GLSM Ratio (%)|644.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|364.67|1137.82||||||An ANOVA appropriate for a parallel design was fitted to the natural logarithmic transformation of voxilaprevir AUClast. A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio of AUClast for the comparison groups using two 1-sided tests.||1137.82|364.67|
90932250|NCT02397707|181743881|OTHER||GLSM Ratio (%)|399.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|210.89|755.81||||||An ANOVA appropriate for parallel design was fitted to the natural logarithmic transformation of voxilaprevir AUCinf. A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio of AUClast for the comparison groups using two 1-sided tests.||755.81|210.89|
90932251|NCT02397707|181743881|OTHER||GLSM Ratio (%)|599.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|342.36|1050.22||||||An ANOVA appropriate for parallel design was fitted to the natural logarithmic transformation of voxilaprevir AUCinf. A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio of AUCinf for the comparison groups using two 1-sided tests.||1050.22|342.36|
90932252|NCT02397707|181743882|OTHER||GLSM Ratio (%)|338.41|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|168.96|677.79||||||An ANOVA appropriate was fitted to the natural logarithmic transformation of voxilaprevir Cmax. A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio of AUClast for the comparison groups using two 1-sided tests.||677.79|168.96|
90932253|NCT02397707|181743882|OTHER||GLSM Ratio (%)|713.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|384.07|1327.06||||||An ANOVA appropriate was fitted to the natural logarithmic transformation of voxilaprevir Cmax. A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio of AUClast for the comparison groups using two 1-sided tests.||1327.06|384.07|
90932254|NCT03212638|181743908|EQUIVALENCE|0.80, 1.25 as the bioequivalence boundaries|Ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.946|1.15||||||Bioequivalence of single 4 mg dose of baricitinib as the suspension formulation with (T1) water compared to the commercial tablet (R).||1.15|0.946|
90932255|NCT03212638|181743908|EQUIVALENCE|0.80, 1.25 as the bioequivalence boundaries|ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.944|1.14||||||Bioequivalence of single 4 mg dose of baricitinib as the suspension formulation without (T2) water compared to the commercial tablet (R).||1.14|0.944|
90932256|NCT03212638|181743908|EQUIVALENCE|0.80, 1.25 as the bioequivalence boundaries|Ratio|0.675|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.617|0.74||||||Bioequivalence of single 4 mg dose of baricitinib as fasted vs fed.||0.740|0.617|
90932257|NCT03212638|181743909|EQUIVALENCE|0.80, 1.25 as the bioequivalence boundaries|Ratio|0.996|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.963|1.03||||||Bioequivalence of single 4 mg dose of baricitinib as the suspension formulation with (T1) water compared to the commercial tablet (R).||1.03|0.963|
90932258|NCT03212638|181743909|EQUIVALENCE|0.80, 1.25 as the bioequivalence boundaries|Ratio|0.998|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.995|1.03||||||Bioequivalence of s single 4 mg dose of baricitinib as the suspension formulation without (T2) water compared to the commercial tablet (R).||1.03|0.995|
90932259|NCT03212638|181743909|EQUIVALENCE|0.80, 1.25 as the bioequivalence boundaries|ratio|0.973|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.936|1.01||||||Bioequivalence of single 4 mg dose of baricitinib as fasted vs fed.||1.01|0.936|
90932260|NCT03212638|181743910|EQUIVALENCE|0.80, 1.25 as the bioequivalence boundaries|Ratio|0.999|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.996|1.03||||||Bioequivalence of single 4 mg dose of baricitinib as the suspension formulation with (T1) water compared to the commercial tablet (R).||1.03|0.996|
90932261|NCT03212638|181743910|EQUIVALENCE|0.80, 1.25 as the bioequivalence boundaries|Ratio|0.999|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.966|1.03||||||Bioequivalence of single 4 mg dose of baricitinib as the suspension formulation with (T1) water compared to the commercial tablet (R).||1.03|0.966|
90932262|NCT03212638|181743910|EQUIVALENCE|0.80, 1.25 as the bioequivalence boundaries|ratio|0.978|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.941|1.02||||||Bioequivalence of single 4 mg dose of baricitinib as fasted vs fed.||1.02|0.941|
90932263|NCT03205488|181743911|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3626|||||||Fisher Exact|One-sided Fisher's Exact tested the proportion of participants who met tolerability between the Nilotinib 150 group to the Placebo group.||||||0.3626
90932264|NCT03205488|181743911|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3895|||||||Fisher Exact|One-sided Fisher's Exact tested the proportion of participants who met tolerability between the Nilotinib 300 group to the Placebo group.||||||0.3895
90932265|NCT03205488|181743912|EQUIVALENCE|H0 : p1 = p2, where p represents the proportion of SAEs for each group. HA : p1 ≠ p2||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|Fisher's Exact test compared a proportion of participants who experienced any serious adverse event in the Nilotinib 150 group and the Placebo group.||||||1.00
90932266|NCT03205488|181743912|EQUIVALENCE|H0 : λ1 = λ2, where λ represents the rate of SAEs for each group. HA : λ1 ≠ λ2|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.4977||||0.5689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0451|5.489|||Regression, Poisson|Rates of serious adverse event between the Nilotinib 150 group and the placebo were also compared using a Poisson regression model||||5.489|0.0451|0.5689
90932267|NCT03205488|181743912|EQUIVALENCE|H0 : p1 = p3, where p represents the proportion of SAEs for each group. HA : p1 ≠ p3||||||0.61|||||||Fisher Exact|Fisher's Exact test compared a proportion of participants who experienced any serious adverse event in the Nilotinib 300 group and the Placebo group.||||||0.61
90932268|NCT03205488|181743912|EQUIVALENCE|H0 : λ1 = λ3, where λ represents the rate of SAEs for each group. HA : λ1 ≠ λ3|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.5206||||0.594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0472|5.7409|||Regression, Poisson|Rates of serious adverse event between the Nilotinib 300 group and the placebo were also compared using a Poisson regression model||||5.7409|0.0472|0.5940
90932269|NCT03205488|181743913|NON_INFERIORITY|The hypotheses of interest (H0: δ ≤ -9.8 (7 x 1.4) vs. HA: δ \> -9.8) where δ represents the change from baseline to 6 months using the MDS-UPDRS Part III ON in the Nilotinib 150 mg treatment group. The hypotheses of interest were evaluated based on an assessment of parameter estimates from a non-linear mixed effects model, adjusted for a participant's Levodopa Equivalent Daily Dose (LEDD) at each time point.|Slope|1.05||||0.0001|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-0.78||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The key secondary objective is to conduct a futility analysis within each treatment group which examines the observed change in the MDS-UPDRS Part III ON within the two dose groups compared to previously reported changes from the Pagan et al (2016) study (NCT02281474).|||-0.78|0.0001
90932270|NCT03205488|181743913|NON_INFERIORITY|The hypotheses of interest (H0: δ ≤ -9.8 (7 x 1.4) vs. HA: δ \> -9.8) where δ represents the change from baseline to 6 months using the MDS-UPDRS Part III ON in the Nilotinib 300 mg treatment group. The hypotheses of interest were evaluated based on an assessment of parameter estimates from a non-linear mixed effects model, adjusted for a participant's Levodopa Equivalent Daily Dose (LEDD) at each time point.|Slope|0.93||||0.0001|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-0.89||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The key secondary objective is to conduct a futility analysis within each treatment group which examines the observed change in the MDS-UPDRS Part III ON within the two dose groups compared to previously reported changes from the Pagan et al (2016) study (NCT02281474).|||-0.89|0.0001
90932271|NCT03205488|181743913|EQUIVALENCE|H0 : β1 = β 2 = β 3, where β represents the slope for each group. HA : at least one β i ≠ β j. Using the same LMM as in the key secondary analysis, a two degree of freedom test was used to test for any differences in the slopes from baseline to 1 month for the three treatment groups.||||||0.031|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Additional secondary objective #1 is to establish the degree of symptomatic effect of Nilotinib as measured by the change in the MDS\_UPDRS Part III ON score between baseline and 1 month.|In order to assess which group may be driving these findings, pairwise comparisons were also utilized (Nilotinib 150 vs PBO at 1 Month, Nilotinib 300 vs PBO at 1 month, Nilotinib 300 vs Nilotinib 150 at 1 month).|||0.031
90932272|NCT03205488|181743913|EQUIVALENCE|H0 : β1 = β 2 = β 3, where β represents the slope for each group. HA : at least one β i ≠ β j. For this analysis, a separate LMM was constructed, modeling the change from final visit on study drug to the 30 and 60 day follow up visits, while adjusting for the MDS-UPDRS Part III ON scores at the final visit on study drug as well as the Levodopa Equivalent Daily Dose (LEDD) at each visit.||||||0.47|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Additional secondary objective #2 is to establish the degree of symptomatic effect of Nilotinib as measured by the change in the MDS\_UPDRS Part III ON score between the final visit on study drug and 30 days off study drug.||||0.47
90932273|NCT03205488|181743913|EQUIVALENCE|H0 : β1 = β 2 = β 3, where β represents the slope for each group. HA : at least one β i ≠ β j. Using the same LMM as in the key secondary analysis, a two degree of freedom test was used to test for any differences in the slopes from baseline to 6 months for the three treatment groups.||||||0.077|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Additional secondary objective #3 is to assess the impact of Nilotinib on the progression of PD disability as measured by the change in the MDS\_UPDRS Part III ON score between baseline and 6 months.|Pairwise comparisons were also examined for trends (Active 150 vs PBO at 6 Months, Active 300 vs PBO at 6 months).|||0.077
90971303|NCT05032157|181825304|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|1.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|1.49|||Regression, Linear||Negative binomial regression with log link included treatment arm as fixed effect, geographical region, prior exposure to anti-IgE biologics, baseline AAS7 = 0 response as covariates. A rate ratio \> 1 favors LOU064 25 mg b.i.d.|Angioedema occurrence-free weeks (AAS7 = 0 response) up to Week 12||1.49|1.17|< 0.001
90967472|NCT01431274|181817107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.028|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.2562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.076||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.076|-0.020|0.2562
90932274|NCT03205488|181743913|EQUIVALENCE|H0 : β1 = β 2 = β 3, where β represents the slope for each group. HA : at least one β i ≠ β j. Using a similar LMM as in the key secondary analysis, except simplified to only include baseline, month 3 and month 6, a two degree of freedom test was used to test for any differences in the slopes from baseline to 6 months for the three treatment groups.||||||0.17|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Additional secondary objective #3 is to assess the impact of Nilotinib on the progression of PD disability as measured by the change in the MDS\_UPDRS Part III OFF score between baseline and 6 months.||||0.17
90932275|NCT03652610|181743914|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is concluded if the lower limit of the two sided 95% CI for the hSBA GMT ratio for serogroup A is \> 0.5|GMT ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.2|||ANCOVA|Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) including pre-vaccination titer (Day 1) as a covariate and with vaccine group and country as factors.||To demonstrate non-inferiority of the investigational MenACWY liquid vaccine with approximately 30% Men A FS (GSK3536820A ACWY\_Liq Group) to that of currently licensed MenACWY vaccine (ACWY Group), as measured by the adjusted human serum bactericidal assay (hSBA) Geometric Mean Titers (GMTs) directed against N. meningitidis serogroup A at Day 29 after a single dose vaccination||1.20|0.64|
90932276|NCT03652610|181743915|OTHER||GMT ratio|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.68|||ANCOVA|Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) including pre-vaccination titer (Day 1) as a covariate and with vaccine group and country as factors.||To compare the immunogenicity of the investigational MenACWY liquid vaccine with approximately 30% Men A FS (GSK3536820A ACWY\_Liq Group) and the currently licensed MenACWY vaccine (ACWY Group), as measured by the adjusted hSBA GMTs directed against N. meningitidis serogroup C at Day 29||1.68|0.84|
90932277|NCT03652610|181743915|OTHER||GMT ratio|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.58|||ANCOVA|Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) including pre-vaccination titer (Day 1) as a covariate and with vaccine group and country as factors.||To compare the immunogenicity of the investigational MenACWY liquid vaccine with approximately 30% Men A FS (GSK3536820A ACWY\_Liq Group) and the currently licensed MenACWY vaccine (ACWY Group), as measured by the adjusted hSBA GMTs directed against N. meningitidis serogroup W at Day 29||1.58|0.96|
90932278|NCT03652610|181743915|OTHER||GMT ratio|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.58|||ANCOVA|Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) including pre-vaccination titer (Day 1) as a covariate and with vaccine group and country as factors.||To compare the immunogenicity of the investigational MenACWY liquid vaccine with approximately 30% Men A FS (GSK3536820A ACWY\_Liq Group) and the currently licensed MenACWY vaccine (ACWY Group), as measured by the adjusted hSBA GMTs directed against N. meningitidis serogroup Y at Day 29||1.58|0.90|
90932279|NCT03652610|181743917|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|-3.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|1.52|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentage of subjects with a ≥ 4-fold rise in post-vaccination hSBA for N. meningitidis serogroup A at Day 29.||1.52|-9.30|
90932280|NCT03652610|181743917|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|1.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|8.43|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentage of subjects with a ≥ 4-fold rise in post-vaccination hSBA for N. meningitidis serogroup C at Day 29.||8.43|-4.70|
90932281|NCT03652610|181743917|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|4.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.97|11.01|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentage of subjects with a ≥ 4-fold rise in post-vaccination hSBA for N. meningitidis serogroup W at Day 29.||11.01|-1.97|
90932282|NCT03652610|181743917|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|5.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|11.57|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentage of subjects with a ≥ 4-fold rise in post-vaccination hSBA for N. meningitidis serogroup Y at Day 29.||11.57|-1.11|
90932283|NCT03652610|181743918|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|-2.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.47|1.49|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥8 for the N. meningitidis serogroup A at Day 1||1.49|-6.47|
90932284|NCT03652610|181743918|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|-0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.99|5.83|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥8 for the N. meningitidis serogroup C at Day 1||5.83|-6.99|
90932285|NCT03652610|181743918|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|-5.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.33|0.47|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥8 for the N. meningitidis serogroup W at Day 1||0.47|-12.33|
90932286|NCT03652610|181743918|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|-2.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|2.76|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥8 for the N. meningitidis serogroup Y at Day 1||2.76|-8.30|
90932287|NCT03652610|181743918|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|-3.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.65|1.21|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥8 for the N. meningitidis serogroup A at Day 29||1.21|-8.65|
90932288|NCT03652610|181743918|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.12|5.33|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥8 for the N. meningitidis serogroup C at Day 29||5.33|-6.12|
90932289|NCT03652610|181743918|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.49|6.02|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥8 for the N. meningitidis serogroup W at Day 29||6.02|-5.49|
90932290|NCT03652610|181743918|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.33|6.62|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥8 for the N. meningitidis serogroup Y at Day 29||6.62|-4.33|
90932291|NCT03652610|181743919|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|-2.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.24|1.37|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥LLOQ for the N. meningitidis serogroup A at Day 1||1.37|-7.24|
90932292|NCT03652610|181743919|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|-1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.34|5.16|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥LLOQ for the N. meningitidis serogroup C at Day 1||5.16|-7.34|
90932293|NCT03652610|181743919|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|-5.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.35|0.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥LLOQ for the N. meningitidis serogroup W at Day 1||0.50|-12.35|
90932294|NCT03652610|181743919|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|-2.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.15|3.06|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥LLOQ for the N. meningitidis serogroup Y at Day 1||3.06|-8.15|
90932295|NCT03652610|181743919|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|-3.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.87|0.96|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥LLOQ for the N. meningitidis serogroup A at Day 29||0.96|-8.87|
90932296|NCT03652610|181743919|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.52|5.65|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥LLOQ for the N. meningitidis serogroup C at Day 29||5.65|-5.52|
90932297|NCT03652610|181743919|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|-0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.92|5.57|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥LLOQ for the N. meningitidis serogroup W at Day 29||5.57|-5.92|
90932298|NCT03652610|181743919|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.89|5.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥LLOQ for the N. meningitidis serogroup Y at Day 29||5.90|-4.89|
90932299|NCT01742832|181743925|OTHER|Linear repeated measures regression models were constructed to assess trends over time between groups where the dependent variable was outcome measure (MADRS score) and independent variables included visit, treatment group, visit by treatment group interaction, and any baseline variables that were significant between groups.||||||0.342||||||P-value for linear regression assessing outcome measure (MADRS score) and treatment group.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.342
90932300|NCT02334215|181743930|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Generalized Linear Mixed Model Analysis|||Contrast of interest: Methadone plus Patient Navigation and Methadone arms compared to Enhanced Treatment as Usual||||.32
90932301|NCT02334215|181743930|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Generalized Linear Mixed Model Analysis|||Contrast of interest: Methadone plus Patient Navigation vs. Methadone||||.32
90932302|NCT02334215|181743931|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Generalized Linear Mixed Model Analysis|||Contrast of Interest: Methadone plus Patient Navigation and Methadone Conditions combined vs. Enhanced Treatment as Usual Conditions||||.001
90932303|NCT02334215|181743931|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||Generalized Linear Mixed Model Analysis|||Contrast of interest: Methadone plus Patient Navigation vs. Enhanced Treatment as Usual||||.84
90932304|NCT02334215|181743932|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Generalized Linear Mixed Model Analysis|||Contrast of interest: Methadone plus Patient Navigation and Methadone Conditions combined vs. Enhanced Treatment as Usual||||0.11
90932305|NCT02334215|181743932|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||Generalized Linear Mixed Model Analysis|||Contrast of interest: Methadone plus Patient Navigation vs. Methadone||||0.55
90932306|NCT02334215|181743933|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.55
90932307|NCT02334215|181743933|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Contrast of interest: Methadone plus Patient Navigation vs Methadone||||0.57
90932308|NCT02334215|181743934|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.997|||||||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||Contrast of interest: Methadone plus Patient Navigation and Methadone compared to Enhanced Treatment as Usual||||.997
90932309|NCT02334215|181743934|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Generalized Linear Mixed Model Analysis|||Contrast of interest: Methadone plus Patient Navigation vs Methadone||||0.26
90932310|NCT02334215|181743935|SUPERIORITY|Contrast of interest: Methadone plus Patient Navigation and Methadone compared to Enhanced Treatment as Usual||||||0.663|||||||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||||||.663
90932311|NCT02334215|181743935|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||Generalized Linear Mixed Model Analysis|||Contrast of interest: Methadone plus Patient Navigation vs Methadone||||0.33
90932312|NCT02334215|181743936|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Generalized Linear Mixed Model Analysis|||Contrast of interest: Methadone plus Patient Navigation and Methadone arms compared to Enhanced Treatment as Usual||||0.007
90932313|NCT02334215|181743936|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||Generalized Linear Mixed Model Analysis|||Contrast of interest: Methadone plus Patient Navigation vs. Methadone||||.76
90932314|NCT02334215|181743937|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Generalized Linear Mixed Model Analysis|||Contrast of interest: Methadone plus Patient Navigation vs. Enhanced Treatment as Usual||||0.60
90932315|NCT02334215|181743937|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Generalized Linear Mixed Model Analysis|||Contrast of interest: Methadone plus Patient Navigation vs. Methadone||||1.0
90932316|NCT02334215|181743938|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||Generalized Linear Mixed Model Analysis|||Contrast of interest: Methadone plus Patient Navigation and Methadone vs. Enhanced Treatment as Usual||||.09
90932317|NCT02334215|181743938|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||Generalized Linear Mixed Model Analysis|||Contrast of interest: Methadone plus Patient Navigation vs. Methadone||||.74
90932318|NCT02334215|181743939|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013|||||||Generalized Linear Mixed Model Analysis|||Contrast of interest: Methadone plus Patient Navigation and Methadone vs. Enhanced Treatment as Usual||||.013
90932319|NCT02334215|181743939|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||Generalized Linear Mixed Model Analysis|||Contrast of interest: Methadone plus Patient Navigation vs. Methadone||||.71
90932320|NCT02334215|181743940|SUPERIORITY|Contrast of interest: Methadone plus Patient Navigation and Methadone vs. Enhanced Treatment as Usual||||||0.32|||||||Generalized Linear Mixed Model Analysis|||||||.32
90932321|NCT02334215|181743940|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||Generalized Linear Mixed Model Analysis|||Contrast of interest: Methadone plus Patient Navigation vs. Methadone||||0.85
90932322|NCT02334215|181743941|SUPERIORITY|Contrast of interest: Methadone plus Patient Navigation and Methadone vs. Enhanced Treatment as Usual||||||0.1|||||||Generalized Linear Mixed Model Analysis|||||||.10
90932323|NCT02334215|181743941|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||Generalized Linear Mixed Model Analysis|||Contrast of interest: Methadone plus Patient Navigation vs. Methadone||||.74
90932324|NCT02334215|181743942|SUPERIORITY|Contrast of interest: Methadone plus Patient Navigation and Methadone vs. Enhanced Treatment as Usual||||||0.42|||||||Generalized Linear Mixed Model Analysis|||||||.42
90932325|NCT02334215|181743942|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||Generalized Linear Mixed Model Analysis|||Contrast of interest: Methadone plus Patient Navigation vs. Methadone||||0.42
90932326|NCT02334215|181743943|SUPERIORITY|Contrast of interest: Methadone plus Patient Navigation and Methadone vs. Enhanced Treatment as Usual||||||0.28|||||||Generalized Linear Mixed Model Analysis|||||||.28
90932327|NCT02334215|181743943|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||Generalized Linear Mixed Model Analysis|||Contrast of interest: Methadone plus Patient Navigation vs. Methadone||||0.44
90932328|NCT02334215|181743944|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||Generalized Linear Mixed Model Analysis|||Contrast of interest: Methadone plus Patient Navigation and Methadone combined vs. Enhanced Treatment as Usual||||.61
90932329|NCT02334215|181743944|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||Generalized Linear Mixed Model Analysis|||Contrast of interest: Methadone plus Patient Navigation vs. Methadone||||0.72
90932330|NCT02334215|181743945|SUPERIORITY|Contrast of interest: Methadone plus Patient Navigation and Methadone vs. Enhanced Treatment as Usual||||||0.71|||||||Generalized Linear Mixed Model Analysis|||||||.71
90932331|NCT02334215|181743945|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||Generalized Linear Mixed Model Analysis|||Contrast of interest: Methadone plus Patient Navigation vs. Methadone||||.86
90932332|NCT05200416|181743985|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.83|15.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||15.01|7.83|<0.001
90932333|NCT05200416|181743986|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.16||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.69|-1.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.63|-6.69|0.001
90932334|NCT02485925|181743987|OTHER||Proportion of participants|80.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|73.9|86.4|||||||95% confidence interval is based on Clopper-Pearson confidence interval|86.4|73.9|
90932335|NCT02485925|181743988|OTHER||Proportion of participants|99.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|97.2|100.0|||||||95% confidence interval is based on Clopper-Pearson confidence interval|100.0|97.2|
90932336|NCT06922643|181744009|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.73||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.63|27.8|||Regression, Logistic|||||27.8|1.63|0.008
90932337|NCT01093690|181744040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41||||||No adjustment.|Chi-squared|1-sided test||the study had 80 percent power to detect an absolute difference of 20 percent in complete response (70% for metoclopramide group vs 50% for control group)||||0.41
90932338|NCT02236611|181744042|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Alternate hypothesis: the difference between the trt means (umeclidinium minus glycopyrronium) would be \> -50 milliliters (mL). If the lower CI (2.5% 1-sided significance level) of the statistical test should fall above -50 mL, then umeclidinium may be deemed statistically non-inferior to glycopyrronium. If the lower CI (2.5% 1-sided significance) of the statistical testing exceeded 0 then, umeclidinium may be deemed statistically superior to glycopyrronium.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.024||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|0.054|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.054|-0.005|0.100
90932339|NCT02746107|181744064|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|details provided in the protocol. Noninferiority margin=+/-5%|Risk Difference (RD)|0.5||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|5.4|||Chi-squared|||||5.4|-4|0.83
90932340|NCT02746107|181744065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|3.4||||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|8.1|||Chi-squared||(risk on 5y) - (risk on 1y)|details provided in protocol;||8.1|-1.3|0.187
90932341|NCT02746107|181744066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|15.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.8|20.0|||Chi-squared||patient - (physicians themselves)|||20|10.8|<0.001
90932342|NCT02746107|181744066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.25|4.78|||Regression, Logistic|adjustment for age, gender, CHA2D2s-VASC score, nr of diagrams, nr of years, presence of someone close with stroke, graduation year, speciality||||4.78|2.25|<0.001
90932343|NCT02746107|181744067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|9.3||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|17.0|||Chi-squared|CHA2D2S-VASC risk score 1 was reference|positive value means higher proportion of prescription, CHA2D2S-VASC risk score 1 was reference|CHA2D2S-VASC risk score 1 was the reference||17|1.2|0.034
90932344|NCT02746107|181744067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|9.2||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|17.0|||Chi-squared|||||17|1.2|0.033
90932345|NCT02746107|181744067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|12.4||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|20.1|||Chi-squared|||||20.1|4.7|0.003
90932346|NCT02746107|181744067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|11.1||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|18.8|||Chi-squared|||||18.8|3.2|0.009
90932347|NCT02746107|181744067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.82||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|3.07|||Regression, Logistic|CHA2D2S-VASC risk score 1 was the reference, adjusted for nr diagrams, nr years, age, gender, smb close with stroke, speciality, professional degree||CHA2D2S-VASC risk score 1 was the reference||3.07|1.08|0.024
90932348|NCT02746107|181744067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.98|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for age, gender, medical and academic degrees, someone close with stroke, speciality, period of risk estimation, number of figures.|numerator: CHADS-VASC 1|||2.98|1.06|0.03
90932349|NCT02746107|181744067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.37||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|4.09|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for age, gender, medical and academic degrees, someone close with stroke, speciality, period of risk estimation, number of figures.|numerator = CHADS-VASC 1|||4.09|1.37|0.002
90932350|NCT02746107|181744067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.19||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|2.56|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for age, gender, medical and academic degrees, someone close with stroke, speciality, period of risk estimation, number of figures.|numerator=CHADS-VASC 1|||2.56|1.14|0.004
90932351|NCT01450007|181744068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.001
90932352|NCT01450007|181744069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.001
90932353|NCT01450007|181744070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.76
90932354|NCT01450007|181744071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison between the 3 groups for pain scores at 24 hours.||||0.61
90932355|NCT01450007|181744071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison between the 3 groups for pain scores at 48 hours.||||0.13
90932356|NCT01450007|181744071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison between the 3 groups for pain scores at 1 week.||||0.25
90932357|NCT01536704|181744099|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bio-equivalence between two dosage treatments was concluded if the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the means for AUC (0-t) lies within the interval 0.80 to 1.25.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|0.94|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Geometric mean ratio of Cherry and Mint lozenge was determined by exponentiating least-squares means of log-transformed value.|The value was log-transformed and a linear mixed effects model was applied to this value, as the dependent variable, treatment, and period as fixed effects and participants as random effect.||0.94|0.88|
90932358|NCT01536704|181744099|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bio-equivalence between two dosage treatments was concluded if the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the means for AUC (0-t) lies within the interval 0.80 to 1.25.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|1.05|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test||Geometric mean ratio of Cherry and Mint lozenge was determined by exponentiating least-squares means of log-transformed value.|The value was log-transformed and a linear mixed effects model was applied to this value, as the dependent variable, treatment, and period as fixed effects and participants as random effect.||1.05|0.98|
90932359|NCT01536704|181744100|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bio-equivalence between two dosage treatments was concluded if the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the means for Cmax lies within the interval 0.80 to 1.25.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|0.94|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Geometric mean ratio of Cherry and Mint lozenge was determined by exponentiating least-squares means of log-transformed value.|The value was log-transformed and a linear mixed effects model was applied to this value, as the dependent variable, treatment, and period as fixed effects and participants as random effect.||0.94|0.85|
90932360|NCT01536704|181744100|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bio-equivalence between two dosage treatments was concluded if the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the means for Cmax lies within the interval 0.80 to 1.25.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|1.02|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Geometric mean ratio of Cherry and Mint lozenge was determined by exponentiating least-squares means of log-transformed value.|The value was log-transformed and a linear mixed effects model was applied to this value, as the dependent variable, treatment, and period as fixed effects and participants as random effect.||1.02|0.93|
90932361|NCT01536704|181744101|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bio-equivalence between two dosage treatments was concluded if the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the means for AUC (0-inf) lies within the interval 0.80 to 1.25.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.92||||||90.0|0.88|0.95|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Geometric mean ratio of Cherry and Mint lozenge was determined by exponentiating least-squares means of log-transformed value.|The value was log-transformed and a linear mixed effects model was applied to this value, as the dependent variable, treatment, and period as fixed effects and participants as random effect.||0.95|0.88|
90932362|NCT01536704|181744101|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bio-equivalence between two dosage treatments was concluded if the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the means for AUC (0-inf) lies within the interval 0.80 to 1.25.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|1.06|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Geometric mean ratio of Cherry and Mint lozenge was determined by exponentiating least-squares means of log-transformed value.|The value was log-transformed and a linear mixed effects model was applied to this value, as the dependent variable, treatment, and period as fixed effects and participants as random effect.||1.06|0.98|
90932363|NCT01536704|181744102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0006||||0.1491||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|The value of Tmax was adjusted for this non-parametric analysis.|The median difference was calculated as Cherry minus Peppermint.|The null hypothesis considered that there is no median within-subject difference between two treatment groups.||||0.1491
90932364|NCT01536704|181744102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0005||||0.679||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|The value of Tmax was adjusted for this non-parametric analysis.|The median difference was calculated as Cherry minus Peppermint.|The null hypothesis considered that there is no median within-subject difference between two treatment groups.||||0.6790
90932365|NCT01536704|181744103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0641||||0.5619||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|The value of T (1/2) was adjusted for this non-parametric analysis.|The median difference was calculated as Cherry minus Peppermint.|The null hypothesis considered that there is no median within-subject difference between two treatment groups.||||0.5619
90932366|NCT01536704|181744103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0538||||0.4523||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|The value of T (1/2) was adjusted for this non-parametric analysis.|The median difference was calculated as Cherry minus Peppermint.|The null hypothesis considered that there is no median within-subject difference between two treatment groups.||||0.4523
90932367|NCT01536704|181744104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0025||||0.5113||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|This non-parametric analysis was performed on the unadjusted values of parameters.|The median difference was calculated as Cherry minus Peppermint.|The null hypothesis considered that there is no median within-subject difference between two treatment groups.||||0.5113
90932368|NCT01536704|181744104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.0042||||0.537||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|This non-parametric analysis was performed on the unadjusted values of parameters.|The median difference was calculated as Cherry minus Peppermint.|The null hypothesis considered that there is no median within-subject difference between two treatment groups.||||0.5370
90932369|NCT04658784|181744105|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.51||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.92||OR, 95% CI, and p-values for outcomes adjusted for baseline value and type of surgery (vaginal or vaginal + minimally invasive surgery). P-value for VAS at 6-weeks was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Logistic|||OR calculated from logistic regression model, evaluating mean change in baseline VAS to 6-weeks.||1.92|0.13|0.32
90941136|NCT00802438|181761840|OTHER|Summaries of log-transformed data were back-transformed to the original scale and reported as geometric mean with 95% confidence interval or median within 1st and 3rd quartiles. Outcomes are summarized using least squares means with 95% confidence intervals or median with 1st and 3rd quartiles.||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
90932370|NCT04658784|181744106|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.48||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|5.65||OR, 95% CI, and p-values for outcomes adjusted for baseline value and type of surgery (vaginal or vaginal + minimally invasive surgery). P-value for VAS at 6-weeks was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Logistic|||OR calculated from logistic regression model, evaluating mean change in baseline VAS to 6-weeks.||5.65|0.04|1.0
90932371|NCT04658784|181744109|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.6||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|8.7||Adjust for baseline value and type of surgery (vaginal or vaginal + minimally invasive surgery).|Regression, Linear|||Differences in mean change and 95% CI generated from general linear models. Change from baseline to 6- weeks.||8.7|-3.5|1.0
90932372|NCT04658784|181744109|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|3.2||Adjust for baseline value and type of surgery (vaginal or vaginal + minimally invasive surgery).|Regression, Linear|||Differences in mean change and 95% CI generated from general linear models. Change from baseline to 6-months.||3.2|-5.6|
90932373|NCT04658784|181744110|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|6.9||Adjust for baseline value and type of surgery (vaginal or vaginal + minimally invasive surgery).|Regression, Linear|||Differences in mean change and 95% CI generated from general linear models. Change in baseline to 6-weeks.||6.9|-6.6|1.0
90932374|NCT04658784|181744110|SUPERIORITY|Differences in mean change and 95% CI generated from general linear models. Change in baseline to 6-months.|Mean Difference (Net)|2.8||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|8.6||Adjusted for baseline value and type of surgery (vaginal or vaginal + minimally invasive surgery).|Regression, Linear|||||8.6|-3.1|1
90932375|NCT04658784|181744111|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.6||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|1.3||Adjusted for baseline value and type of surgery (vaginal or vaginal + minimally invasive surgery).|Regression, Linear|||Differences in mean change and 95% CI generated from general linear models. Change from baseline to 6 months.||1.3|-4.4|1.0
90932376|NCT00704340|181744144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.613|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The sample size was selected to provide sufficient precision for 95% confidence intervals for the incidence of neurosurgical complications in each arm. The sample size was selected so that the half-width of the normal approximation-based intervals would be no more than 0.05 percentage points. This requires a sample size of 114 evaluable patients in each arm. To allow for loss to follow-up, the sample size was increased to 125 randomized patients in each treatment arm, or a total of 250 patients.||||.613
90932377|NCT00704340|181744145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.681|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.681
90932378|NCT00704340|181744146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.619|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.619
90932379|NCT03316170|181744188|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|0.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.30|-1.75|.06
90932380|NCT01836523|181744189|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was concluded if the upper bound of 95% confidence interval was \<0.3.|Treatment difference|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|-0.07||||||Analysis was performed using MMRMs where all post-baseline measurements for the specific variable from planned visits up to week 52 and obtained no later than 1 day after withdrawal from treatment were entered as the dependent variable, and visit, treatment, country and the stratification variable (4 levels: HbA1c \< 8.5% and ≥8.5%, each intersected by BMI≤27 kg/m2 and \>27 kg/m2) were included as fixed factors and the corresponding baseline value as covariate.||-0.07|-0.32|
90932381|NCT01836523|181744189|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was concluded if the upper bound of 95% confidence interval was \<0.3.|Treatment difference|-0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|-0.03||||||Analysis was performed using MMRMs where all post-baseline measurements for the specific variable from planned visits up to week 52 and obtained no later than 1 day after withdrawal from treatment were entered as the dependent variable, and visit, treatment, country and the stratification variable (4 levels: HbA1c \< 8.5% and ≥8.5%, each intersected by BMI≤27 kg/m2 and \>27 kg/m2) were included as fixed factors and the corresponding baseline value as covariate.||-0.03|-0.27|
90932382|NCT01836523|181744189|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was concluded if the upper bound of 95% confidence interval was \<0.3.|Treatment difference|-0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.03||||||Analysis was performed using MMRMs where all post-baseline measurements for the specific variable from planned visits up to week 52 and obtained no later than 1 day after withdrawal from treatment were entered as the dependent variable, and visit, treatment, country and the stratification variable (4 levels: HbA1c \< 8.5% and ≥8.5%, each intersected by BMI≤27 kg/m2 and \>27 kg/m2) were included as fixed factors and the corresponding baseline value as covariate.||0.03|-0.21|
90932383|NCT01836523|181744190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-4.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.65|-4.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was performed using MMRMs where all post-baseline measurements for the specific variable from planned visits up to week 52 and obtained no later than 1 day after withdrawal from treatment were entered as the dependent variable, and visit, treatment, country and the stratification variable (4 levels: HbA1c \< 8.5% and ≥8.5%, each intersected by BMI≤27 kg/m2 and \>27 kg/m2) were included as fixed factors and the corresponding baseline value as covariate.||-4.16|-5.65|<0.0001
90932384|NCT01836523|181744190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-3.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.29|-2.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was performed using MMRMs where all post-baseline measurements for the specific variable from planned visits up to week 52 and obtained no later than 1 day after withdrawal from treatment were entered as the dependent variable, and visit, treatment, country and the stratification variable (4 levels: HbA1c \< 8.5% and ≥8.5%, each intersected by BMI≤27 kg/m2 and \>27 kg/m2) were included as fixed factors and the corresponding baseline value as covariate.||-2.81|-4.29|<0.0001
90932385|NCT01836523|181744190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-2.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.91|-1.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was performed using MMRMs where all post-baseline measurements for the specific variable from planned visits up to week 52 and obtained no later than 1 day after withdrawal from treatment were entered as the dependent variable, and visit, treatment, country and the stratification variable (4 levels: HbA1c \< 8.5% and ≥8.5%, each intersected by BMI≤27 kg/m2 and \>27 kg/m2) were included as fixed factors and the corresponding baseline value as covariate.||-1.47|-2.91|<0.0001
90941137|NCT02101268|181761861|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference - Stratified CMH|0.01||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.10|-0.09|0.90
90941138|NCT02101268|181761862|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference - Stratified CMH|0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.32|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.32|0.09|< 0.001
90932386|NCT01836523|181744191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment ratio|0.92|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|0.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was done using MMRMs where all post-baseline measurements for specific variable from planned visits up to week 52 and obtained no later than 1 day after withdrawal from treatment were entered as dependent variable, and visit, treatment, country and stratification variable (4 levels: HbA1c \< 8.5% and ≥8.5%, each intersected by BMI≤27 kg/m2 and \>27 kg/m2) were included as fixed factors and the corresponding baseline value as covariate. The measurements were log-transformed before analysis||0.96|0.88|<0.0001
90932387|NCT01836523|181744191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment ratio|0.95||||0.0148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|0.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was done using MMRMs where all post-baseline measurements for specific variable from planned visits up to week 52 and obtained no later than 1 day after withdrawal from treatment were entered as dependent variable, and visit, treatment, country and stratification variable (4 levels: HbA1c \< 8.5% and ≥8.5%, each intersected by BMI≤27 kg/m2 and \>27 kg/m2) were included as fixed factors and the corresponding baseline value as covariate. The measurements were log-transformed before analysis||0.99|0.91|0.0148
90932388|NCT01836523|181744191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment ratio|1.0||||0.9615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was done using MMRMs where all post-baseline measurements for specific variable from planned visits up to week 52 and obtained no later than 1 day after withdrawal from treatment were entered as dependent variable, and visit, treatment, country and stratification variable (4 levels: HbA1c \< 8.5% and ≥8.5%, each intersected by BMI≤27 kg/m2 and \>27 kg/m2) were included as fixed factors and the corresponding baseline value as covariate. The measurements were log-transformed before analysis||1.04|0.96|0.9615
90932389|NCT01836523|181744192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|1.31||||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.59|||Negative binomial regression|||The endpoint was analysed using a negative binomial regression model with a log-link function and the log of the time period in which an occurrence of a hypoglycaemic episode was considered treatment emergent as offset. The model included fixed factors (treatment, country, stratification group) and a covariate (baseline HbA1c).||1.59|1.07|0.0081
90932390|NCT01836523|181744192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|1.27||||0.0219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.55|||Negative binomial regression|||The endpoint was analysed using a negative binomial regression model with a log-link function and the log of the time period in which an occurrence of a hypoglycaemic episode was considered treatment emergent as offset. The model included fixed factors (treatment, country, stratification group) and a covariate (baseline HbA1c).||1.55|1.03|0.0219
90932391|NCT01836523|181744192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|1.17||||0.1079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.43|||Negative binomial regression|||The endpoint was analysed using a negative binomial regression model with a log-link function and the log of the time period in which an occurrence of a hypoglycaemic episode was considered treatment emergent as offset. The model included fixed factors (treatment, country, stratification group) and a covariate (baseline HbA1c).||1.43|0.97|0.1079
90932392|NCT02935673|181744199|SUPERIORITY||AUC(1-7) difference vs (pooled) placebo|-0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.24|||||||Mixed model for repeated measures, using all available viral load data of baseline and up to and including Day 7, taking missing data into account under the missing at random assumption.|0.24|-0.89|
90932393|NCT02935673|181744199|SUPERIORITY||AUC(1-7) difference vs (pooled) placebo|-0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|0.62|||||||Mixed model for repeated measures, using all available viral load data of baseline and up to and including Day 7, taking missing data into account under the missing at random assumption.|0.62|-1.33|
90932394|NCT00749944|181744234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|1.77||||||There was no hypothesis testing or power calculation in this study. Period AB: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||1.77|-0.33|
90932395|NCT00749944|181744234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.43||||||Period AC: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||1.43|-0.50|
90932396|NCT00749944|181744234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|2.11||||||Period AD: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||2.11|-0.27|
90932397|NCT00749944|181744234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|1.53||||||Period AE: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||1.53|-0.52|
90932398|NCT00749944|181744234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|0.5|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Period BC: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.50|-1.35|
90967473|NCT01431274|181817107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.071|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.022|0.119||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (2.5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.119|0.022|0.0041
90932399|NCT00749944|181744234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|1.24||||||Period BD: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||1.24|-1.18|
90932400|NCT00749944|181744234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|0.63|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Period BE: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.63|-1.37|
90932401|NCT00749944|181744235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|1.39||||||There was no hypothesis testing or power calculation in this study. Period AB: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||1.39|-0.15|
90932402|NCT00749944|181744235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|1.07||||||Period AC: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||1.07|-0.24|
90932403|NCT00749944|181744235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|1.22||||||Period AD: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||1.22|-0.26|
90932404|NCT00749944|181744235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|1.06||||||Period AE: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||1.06|-0.18|
90932405|NCT00749944|181744235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.78||||||Period BC: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.78|-0.58|
90932406|NCT00749944|181744235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.92||||||Period BD: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.92|-0.48|
90932407|NCT00749944|181744235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.72||||||Period BE: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.72|-0.26|
90932408|NCT00749944|181744236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.24||||||There was no hypothesis testing or power calculation in this study. Period AB: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||1.24|-0.00|
90932409|NCT00749944|181744236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.29||||||Period AC: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||1.29|0.18|
90932410|NCT00749944|181744236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|1.3||||||Period AD: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||1.30|0.02|
90932411|NCT00749944|181744236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|1.05||||||Period AE: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||1.05|-0.19|
90932412|NCT00749944|181744236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|1.05||||||Period BC: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||1.05|-0.09|
90932413|NCT00749944|181744236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|1.06||||||Period BD: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||1.06|-0.28|
90932414|NCT00749944|181744236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.65||||||Period BE: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.65|-0.47|
90932415|NCT00749944|181744237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|1.72|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (t; fixed), subject (random), day (d; fixed), and interaction for t-by-d.|There was no hypothesis testing or power calculation in this study. Period AB: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||1.72|-0.02|
90932416|NCT00749944|181744237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.54|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, t (fixed), subject (random), d (fixed), and interaction for t-by-d.|Period AC: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||1.54|0.16|
90932417|NCT00749944|181744237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|2.08|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, t (fixed), subject (random), d (fixed), and interaction for t-by-d.|Period AD: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||2.08|0.39|
90932418|NCT00749944|181744237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|1.52|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, t (fixed), subject (random), d (fixed), and interaction for t-by-d.|Period AE: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||1.52|0.14|
90932419|NCT00749944|181744237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|1.09|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, t (fixed), subject (random), time (fixed), d (fixed), and interactions for t-by-time, t-by-d, time-by-d and t-by-time-by-d.|Period BC: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||1.09|-0.06|
90932420|NCT00749944|181744237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|1.7|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, t (fixed), subject (random), d (fixed), and interaction for t-by-d.|Period BD: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||1.70|0.05|
90932421|NCT00749944|181744237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.88|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, t (fixed), subject (random), d (fixed), and interaction for t-by-d.|Period BE: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.88|-0.12|
90932422|NCT00749944|181744238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.07|1.43|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (t; fixed), subject (random), day (d; fixed), and interaction for t-by-d.|There was no hypothesis testing or power calculation in this study. Period AB: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||1.43|-3.07|
90932423|NCT00749944|181744238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.47|2.08|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, t (fixed), subject (random), d (fixed), and interaction for t-by-d.|Period AC: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||2.08|-2.47|
90932424|NCT00749944|181744238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-2.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.19|0.89|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, t (fixed), subject (random), d (fixed), and interaction for t-by-d.|Period AD: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.89|-5.19|
90932425|NCT00749944|181744238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.67|1.7|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, t (fixed), subject (random), d (fixed), and interaction for t-by-d.|Period AE: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||1.70|-3.67|
90932426|NCT00749944|181744238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|1.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|4.26|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, t (fixed), subject (random), time (fixed), d (fixed), and interactions for t-by-time, t-by-d, time-by-d and t-by-time-by-d.|Period BC: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||4.26|-0.36|
90932427|NCT00749944|181744238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.32|3.3|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, t (fixed), subject (random), d (fixed), and interaction for t-by-d.|Period BD: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||3.30|-3.32|
90932428|NCT00749944|181744238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|3.97|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, t (fixed), subject (random), d (fixed), and interaction for t-by-d.|Period BE: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||3.97|-1.80|
90932429|NCT00749944|181744239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|1.32|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (t; fixed), subject (random), day (d; fixed), and interaction for t-by-d.|There was no hypothesis testing or power calculation in this study. Period AB: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||1.32|-0.29|
90941139|NCT02101268|181761863|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.8||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.31|||Negative Binomial Model, Adjusted||A smaller ratio represents larger benefit.|||1.31|0.49|0.38
90941140|NCT02101268|181761864|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference - Stratified CMH|0.23||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.37|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||A larger proportion represents larger benefit.|||0.37|0.09|0.001
90967474|NCT01431274|181817107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.043|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.091|0.005||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.005|-0.091|0.0815
90967475|NCT01431274|181817108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.195|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.149|0.242||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.242|0.149|<0.0001
90967476|NCT01431274|181817108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.153|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.107|0.199||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.199|0.107|<0.0001
90967477|NCT01431274|181817108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.174|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.128|0.221||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.221|0.128|<0.0001
90967478|NCT01431274|181817108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.107|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.061|0.154||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.154|0.061|<0.0001
91035505|NCT01011413|181957015|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority will be defined as the lower 95% confidence limit of the difference in percentages of patients with undetectable viral load lying above -10% (i.e. a non-inferiority margin of 10%).||||||0.05||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons|Chi-squared|||To ensure the per protocol (PP) analysis has 90% power to demonstrate non-inferiority, the sample size was inflated for patients who switch treatment for toxicity. This is estimated to be no more than 10% randomised patients. To ensure 90% power to demonstrate non-inferiority in the ITT and PP analyses, a total of 630 (315 per arm) patients will be randomised giving 93% power for the ITT analysis. Null hypothesis: no statistically significant difference between the 600mg and 400mg EFV regimens.||||0.05
91035506|NCT01011413|181957016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||difference between proportions|0.05||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||P-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Chi-squared|||||||0.05
91035507|NCT00462228|181957072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55||95.0||||6 week comparison, alpha = 0.05.|Sign test|||Null hypothesis: The change from baseline occurring with memantine is equal to the change from baseline occurring with placebo at 6 weeks for HVLT-R total recall learning scores.||||0.55
90971304|NCT03962439|181825330|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance testing|F-value|1.61||||0.211|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline age, sex, and education.||Repeated measures ANCOVA testing whether change in episodic memory from baseline to 16 weeks interacted with condition (Time x Condition).||||.211
91035508|NCT00462228|181957072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||12 week comparison, alpha = 0.05.|Sign test|||Null hypothesis:The change from baseline occurring with memantine is equal to the change from baseline occurring with placebo at 12 weeks for HVLT-R total recall learning scores.||||1.00
91035509|NCT00462228|181957072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45||95.0||||6 week comparison, alpha = 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: The change from baseline occurring with memantine is equal to the change from baseline occurring with placebo at 6 weeks for HVLT-R total recall learning scores.||||0.45
91035510|NCT00462228|181957072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43||95.0||||12 week comparison, alpha = 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis:The change from baseline occurring with memantine is equal to the change from baseline occurring with placebo at 12 weeks for HVLT-R total recall learning scores.||||0.43
91035511|NCT00462228|181957073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23||95.0||||6 week comparison,alpha = 0.05.|Sign test|||Null hypothesis: The change from baseline occurring with memantine is equal to the change from baseline occurring with placebo at 6 weeks for HVLT-R delayed recall scores||||0.23
91035512|NCT00462228|181957073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022||95.0||||12 week comparison, alpha = 0.05.|Sign test|||Null hypothesis: The change from baseline occurring with memantine is equal to the change from baseline occurring with placebo at 12 weeks for HVLT-R delayed recall scores.||||0.022
91035513|NCT00462228|181957073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0||||6 week comparison, alpha = 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: The change from baseline occurring with memantine is equal to the change from baseline occurring with placebo at 6 weeks for HVLT-R delayed recall scores.||||0.06
90932430|NCT00749944|181744239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|1.25|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, t (fixed), subject (random), d (fixed), and interaction for t-by-d.|Period AC: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||1.25|-0.17|
90932431|NCT00749944|181744239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.92|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, t (fixed), subject (random), d (fixed), and interaction for t-by-d.|Period AD: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.92|-0.55|
90932432|NCT00749944|181744239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.99|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, t (fixed), subject (random), d (fixed), and interaction for t-by-d.|Period AE: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.99|-0.46|
90932433|NCT00749944|181744239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|1.37|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, t (fixed), subject (random), time (fixed), d (fixed), and interactions for t-by-time, t-by-d, time-by-d and t-by-time-by-d.|Period BC: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||1.37|-0.19|
90932434|NCT00749944|181744239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.76|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, t (fixed), subject (random), d (fixed), and interaction for t-by-d.|Period BD: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.76|-0.91|
90932435|NCT00749944|181744239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.85|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, t (fixed), subject (random), d (fixed), and interaction for t-by-d.|Period BE: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.85|-0.65|
90932436|NCT00749944|181744240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.65|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (t; fixed), subject (random), day (d; fixed), and interaction for t-by-d.|There was no hypothesis testing or power calculation in this study. Period AB: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.65|-0.20|
90932437|NCT00749944|181744240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.58|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, t (fixed), subject (random), d (fixed), and interaction for t-by-d.|Period AC: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.58|-0.17|
90932438|NCT00749944|181744240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.65|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, t (fixed), subject (random), d (fixed), and interaction for t-by-d.|Period AD: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.65|-0.23|
90932439|NCT00749944|181744240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.41|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, t (fixed), subject (random), d (fixed), and interaction for t-by-d.|Period AE: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.41|-0.37|
90932440|NCT00749944|181744240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.59|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, t (fixed), subject (random), time (fixed), d (fixed), and interactions for t-by-time, t-by-d, time-by-d and t-by-time-by-d.|Period BC: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.59|-0.41|
90932441|NCT00749944|181744240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.63|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, t (fixed), subject (random), d (fixed), and interaction for t-by-d.|Period BD: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.63|-0.44|
90932442|NCT00749944|181744240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.34|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, t (fixed), subject (random), d (fixed), and interaction for t-by-d.|Period BE: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.34|-0.58|
90932443|NCT00749944|181744241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|1.1|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|There was no hypothesis testing or power calculation in this study. Period AB: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||1.10|-0.66|
90932444|NCT00749944|181744241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|1.35|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period AC: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||1.35|-0.46|
90932445|NCT00749944|181744241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.71|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period AD: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.71|-1.16|
90932446|NCT00749944|181744241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.73|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period AE: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.73|-0.68|
90932447|NCT00749944|181744241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|1.96|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period BC: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||1.96|-0.79|
90932448|NCT00749944|181744241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|0.82|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period BD: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.82|-1.69|
90932449|NCT00749944|181744241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.68|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period BE: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.68|-0.86|
90932450|NCT00749944|181744242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|1.08|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|There was no hypothesis testing or power calculation in this study. Period AB: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||1.08|-0.55|
90967479|NCT01431274|181817108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.132|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.086|0.178||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.178|0.086|<0.0001
90932451|NCT00749944|181744242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|1.46|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period AC: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||1.46|-0.39|
90932452|NCT00749944|181744242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|1.25|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period AD: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||1.25|-1.08|
90932453|NCT00749944|181744242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.9|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period AE: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.90|-0.62|
90932454|NCT00749944|181744242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|1.95|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period BC: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||1.95|-0.94|
90932455|NCT00749944|181744242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|1.51|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period BD: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||1.51|-1.57|
90932456|NCT00749944|181744242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.75|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period BE: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.75|-0.91|
90932457|NCT00749944|181744243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|1.06|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|There was no hypothesis testing or power calculation in this study. Period AB: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||1.06|-1.76|
90932458|NCT00749944|181744243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|1.17|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period AC: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||1.17|-0.96|
90932459|NCT00749944|181744243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|4.91|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period AD: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||4.91|-1.94|
90932460|NCT00749944|181744243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|2.18|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period AE: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||2.18|-1.18|
90932461|NCT00749944|181744243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|2.07|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period BC: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||2.07|-0.85|
90932462|NCT00749944|181744243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|6.79|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period BD: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||6.79|-2.60|
90932463|NCT00749944|181744243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|2.96|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period BE: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||2.96|-0.70|
90932464|NCT00749944|181744244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.27|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|There was no hypothesis testing or power calculation in this study. Period AB: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.27|-0.26|
90932465|NCT00749944|181744244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.29|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period AC: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.29|-0.25|
90932466|NCT00749944|181744244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.58|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period AD: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.58|-0.37|
90932467|NCT00749944|181744244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.34|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period AE: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.34|-0.17|
90967480|NCT01431274|181817108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||0.3727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.025|0.067||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.067|-0.025|0.3727
90971305|NCT03962439|181825332|OTHER|Null hypothesis significance testing|F-value|1.66||||0.203|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline age, sex, and education.||Repeated measures ANCOVA testing whether change in speed of processing from baseline to 16 weeks interacted with condition (Time x Condition).||||.203
90967481|NCT01431274|181817108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.128|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.082|0.175||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.175|0.082|<0.0001
90967482|NCT01431274|181817108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||0.0744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.089||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.089|-0.004|0.0744
90967483|NCT01431274|181817108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.067|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.021|0.114||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (2.5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.114|0.021|0.0047
90967484|NCT01431274|181817108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.025|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||0.2945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.071|0.022||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.022|-0.071|0.2945
90967485|NCT01431274|181817109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.205|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.155|0.255||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.255|0.155|<0.0001
90967486|NCT01431274|181817109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.156|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.107|0.206||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.206|0.107|<0.0001
91035514|NCT00462228|181957073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027||95.0||||12 week comparison, alpha = 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: The change from baseline occurring with memantine is equal to the change from baseline occurring with placebo at 12 weeks for HVLT-R delayed recall scores.||||0.027
90932468|NCT00749944|181744244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.48|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period BC: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.48|-0.40|
90932469|NCT00749944|181744244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.78|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period BD: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.78|-0.44|
90932470|NCT00749944|181744244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.4|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period BE: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.40|-0.14|
90932471|NCT00749944|181744247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|1.9|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|There was no hypothesis testing or power calculation in this study. Period AB: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||1.90|-1.09|
90932472|NCT00749944|181744247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|1.71|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period AC: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||1.71|-1.54|
90932473|NCT00749944|181744247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.47|2.6|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period AD: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||2.60|-2.47|
90932474|NCT00749944|181744247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|2.15|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period AE: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||2.15|-1.57|
90932475|NCT00749944|181744247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|0.36|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period BC: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.36|-2.23|
90932476|NCT00749944|181744247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.81|1.33|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period BD: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||1.33|-2.81|
90932477|NCT00749944|181744247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|0.92|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period BE: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.92|-1.78|
90932478|NCT00749944|181744248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.19|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|There was no hypothesis testing or power calculation in this study. Period AB: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.19|-0.04|
90932479|NCT00749944|181744248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.08|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period AC: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.08|-0.11|
90932480|NCT00749944|181744248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.09|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period AD: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.09|-0.06|
90932481|NCT00749944|181744248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.02|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period AE: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.02|-0.11|
90932482|NCT00749944|181744248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|-0.01|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period BC: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||-0.01|-0.27|
90932483|NCT00749944|181744248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.01|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period BD: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.01|-0.21|
90932484|NCT00749944|181744248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|-0.03|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period BE: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||-0.03|-0.17|
90932485|NCT00749944|181744249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.12|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|There was no hypothesis testing or power calculation in this study. Period AB: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.12|-0.03|
90932486|NCT00749944|181744249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.09|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period AC: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.09|-0.08|
90932487|NCT00749944|181744249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.11|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period AD: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.11|-0.04|
90932488|NCT00749944|181744249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.05|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period AE: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.05|-0.08|
90932489|NCT00749944|181744249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.06|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period BC: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.06|-0.22|
90932490|NCT00749944|181744249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.09|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period BD: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.09|-0.14|
90932491|NCT00749944|181744249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.02|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period BE: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.02|-0.11|
90932492|NCT00749944|181744250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.09|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|There was no hypothesis testing or power calculation in this study. Period AB: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.09|-0.20|
90932493|NCT00749944|181744250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.12|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period AC: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.12|-0.15|
90932494|NCT00749944|181744250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.04|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period AD: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.04|-0.15|
90932495|NCT00749944|181744250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.04|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period AE: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.04|-0.20|
90932496|NCT00749944|181744250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.27|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period BC: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.27|-0.17|
90932497|NCT00749944|181744250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.1|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period BD: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.10|-0.21|
90941141|NCT02101268|181761865|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference - Stratified CMH|-0.13||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.03|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||A smaller proportion represents larger benefit.|||0.03|-0.29|0.10
90941142|NCT00740870|181761866|SUPERIORITY||Kaplan-Meier Rate|74.2|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|67.1||||Z test||||||67.1|<0.0001
90932498|NCT00749944|181744250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.07|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period BE: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.07|-0.17|
90932499|NCT00749944|181744251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|-0.02|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|There was no hypothesis testing or power calculation in this study. Period AB: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||-0.02|-0.58|
90932500|NCT00749944|181744251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline|-0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.19|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period AC: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||-0.19|-0.69|
90941143|NCT01196741|181761952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.23|||Regression, Cox|||||1.23|0.65|0.57
90941144|NCT01196741|181761953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81|||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.81
90941145|NCT01196741|181761956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0476|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0476
90941146|NCT01196741|181761958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.99
90941147|NCT01064856|181761984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.006|||||||Pearson's chi-square|||||||0.006
90941148|NCT01064856|181761986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|The P-value was based on an ANCOVA model adjusting for baseline with treatment as a factor.||||||<0.001
90941149|NCT01064856|181761987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.003|||||||ANCOVA|The P-value was based on an ANCOVA model adjusting for baseline with treatment as a factor.||||||0.003
90941150|NCT01064856|181761988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.051|||||||ANCOVA|The P-value was based on an ANCOVA model adjusting for baseline with treatment as a factor.||||||0.051
90941151|NCT05329402|181762001|NON_INFERIORITY|"The non-inferiority hypothesis is tenable if the lower limit of 95% confidence interval of the difference in the primary effectiveness evaluation indicator device cutting and anastomosis success rate between the test group and the control group is greater than the non-inferiority critical value (-10%)."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.9727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0285|0.0273|||Wald|||||0.0273|-0.0285|0.9727
90941152|NCT01679613|181762002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio in percentage|160.48|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.9||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|148.245|173.736||p-value for ratio outside interval 0.8 - 1.25|ANOVA|The model includes fixed effects for sequence, period, and treatment. Subjects within sequences is included as random effect.|"Ratio calculated as nintedanib+ketoconazole divided by nintedanib (in %).~The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV)."|||173.736|148.245|1.0000
90941153|NCT01679613|181762003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio in percentage|179.62|STANDARD_DEVIATION|29.9||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|157.557|204.779||p-value for ratio outside interval 0.8 - 1.25|ANOVA|The model includes fixed effects for sequence, period, and treatment. Subjects within sequences is included as random effect.|"The standard deviation is actually the gCV (in %).~Ratio calculated as nintedanib+ketoconazole divided by nintedanib"|||204.779|157.557|1.0000
90941154|NCT01679613|181762004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio in percentage|168.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.9||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|155.252|181.981||p-value for ratio outside interval 0.8 to 1.25|ANOVA|The model includes fixed effects for sequence, period, and treatment. Subjects within sequences is included as random effect.|"The standard deviation is actually the gCV.~Ratio calculated as nintedanib+ketoconazole divided by nintedanib (in %)."|||181.981|155.252|1.000
90941155|NCT03469492|181762049|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.006
90941156|NCT03469492|181762053|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.266|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.266
90941157|NCT03469492|181762056|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.20
90941158|NCT03469492|181762057|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.25
90941159|NCT02161406|181762076|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.28
90941160|NCT02161406|181762077|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.73
90941161|NCT02161406|181762078|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.03
90941162|NCT02161406|181762079|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.11
90941163|NCT02161406|181762080|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.19
90941164|NCT02161406|181762081|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.005
90941165|NCT02161406|181762082|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.19
90941166|NCT02161406|181762083|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.34
90941167|NCT02161406|181762084|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.25
90941168|NCT02161406|181762085|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.12
90941169|NCT02161406|181762086|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.82
90941170|NCT02161406|181762087|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.37
90941171|NCT02161406|181762088|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.55
90941172|NCT02161406|181762089|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.15
90941173|NCT02161406|181762090|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.21
90941174|NCT02161406|181762091|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.81
90941175|NCT02161406|181762092|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.86
90941176|NCT02161406|181762093|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.91
90941177|NCT02161406|181762094|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.13
90941178|NCT02161406|181762095|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.92
90941179|NCT02161406|181762096|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.24
90941180|NCT02161406|181762097|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.07
90941181|NCT02161406|181762098|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||van Elteren test|The van Elteren test adjusted for duration of dcSSc. Multiple imputation was used to address missing follow-up data in 5 components of CRISS.||||||0.03
90941182|NCT02161406|181762099|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1769|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1769
90941183|NCT02161406|181762100|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9075|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.9075
90932501|NCT00749944|181744251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline|-0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.2|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period AD: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.20|-0.47|
90932502|NCT00749944|181744251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline|-0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.09|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period AE: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||-0.09|-0.61|
90932503|NCT00749944|181744251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline|-0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.07|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period BC: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||-0.07|-0.83|
90932504|NCT00749944|181744251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline|-0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.34|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period BD: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.34|-0.50|
90932505|NCT00749944|181744251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline|-0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.02|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period BE: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.02|-0.57|
90932506|NCT00749944|181744252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.08|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|There was no hypothesis testing or power calculation in this study. Period AB: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.08|-0.12|
90932507|NCT00749944|181744252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.08|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period AC: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.08|-0.12|
90932508|NCT00749944|181744252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.14|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period AD: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.14|-0.04|
90932509|NCT00749944|181744252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.04|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period AE: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.04|-0.07|
91035515|NCT00462228|181957074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||6 week comparison, alpha = 0.05.|Sign test|||Null hypothesis: The change from baseline occurring with memantine is equal to the change from baseline occurring with placebo at 6 weeks for the Trail Making Test Part A.||||1.0
90932510|NCT00749944|181744252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.13|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period BC: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.13|-0.15|
90932511|NCT00749944|181744252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.1|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period BD: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.10|0.01|
90932512|NCT00749944|181744252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.04|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period BE: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.04|-0.08|
90932513|NCT00749944|181744253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.28|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|There was no hypothesis testing or power calculation in this study. Period AB: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.28|-0.05|
90932514|NCT00749944|181744253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.14|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period AC: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.14|-0.19|
90932515|NCT00749944|181744253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.22|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period AD: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.22|-0.29|
90932516|NCT00749944|181744253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.13|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period AE: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.13|-0.20|
90932517|NCT00749944|181744253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.01|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period BC: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.01|-0.40|
90932518|NCT00749944|181744253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.1|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period BD: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.10|-0.42|
90932519|NCT00749944|181744253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|8.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period BE: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||008|-0.22|
90941184|NCT02161406|181762101|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5831|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.5831
90932520|NCT00749944|181744254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.3|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|There was no hypothesis testing or power calculation in this study. Period AB: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||3.3|0.6|
90967487|NCT01431274|181817109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.192|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.142|0.242||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.242|0.142|<0.0001
90932521|NCT00749944|181744254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.7|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Period AC: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||1.7|0.4|
90932522|NCT00749944|181744254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.1|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Period AD: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||2.1|0.4|
90932523|NCT00749944|181744254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.2|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Period AE: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||2.2|0.4|
90932524|NCT00749944|181744254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.4|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Period BC: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||1.4|0.3|
90932525|NCT00749944|181744254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.4|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Period BD: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||1.4|0.3|
90932526|NCT00749944|181744254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.4|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Period BE: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||1.4|0.3|
90932527|NCT00749944|181744255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|10.4|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|There was no hypothesis testing or power calculation in this study. Period AC: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||10.4|0.6|
90932528|NCT00749944|181744255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|11.8|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Period AD: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||11.8|0.7|
90932529|NCT00749944|181744255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.9|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Period AE: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||3.9|0.5|
90932530|NCT00749944|181744255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|7.8|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Period BC: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||7.8|0.4|
90932531|NCT00749944|181744255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|9.2|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Period BD: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||9.2|0.5|
90932532|NCT00749944|181744255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.2|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Period BE: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||3.2|0.4|
90932533|NCT00749944|181744256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.9|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Period AC: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||3.9|0.5|
90932534|NCT00749944|181744256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|5.3|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Period AD: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||5.3|0.7|
90932535|NCT00749944|181744256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|4.4|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Period AE: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||4.4|0.7|
90932536|NCT00749944|181744256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|5.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Period BC: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||5.0|0.5|
90932537|NCT00749944|181744256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|6.8|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Period BD: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||6.8|0.8|
90932538|NCT00749944|181744256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|5.3|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Period BE: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||5.3|0.8|
90932539|NCT00749944|181744257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|4.9|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|There was no hypothesis testing or power calculation in this study. Period AB: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||4.9|0.5|
90932540|NCT00749944|181744257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Period AC: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||2.0|0.4|
90932541|NCT00749944|181744257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.8|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Period AD: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||1.8|0.4|
90932542|NCT00749944|181744257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.6|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Period AE: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||1.6|0.4|
90932543|NCT00749944|181744257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.6|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Period BC: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||1.6|0.3|
90932544|NCT00749944|181744257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.8|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Period BD: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||1.8|0.4|
90932545|NCT00749944|181744257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.7|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Period BE: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||1.7|0.4|
90932546|NCT00749944|181744258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.3|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|There was no hypothesis testing or power calculation in this study. Period AB: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||2.3|0.3|
90932547|NCT00749944|181744258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.9|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Period AC: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||1.9|0.4|
90932548|NCT00749944|181744258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.2|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Period AD: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||2.2|0.4|
90932549|NCT00749944|181744258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.6|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Period AE: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||2.6|0.5|
90932550|NCT00749944|181744258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.3|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Period BC: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||2.3|0.5|
90932551|NCT00749944|181744258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.7|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Period BD: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||2.7|0.6|
90932552|NCT00749944|181744258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.8|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Period BE: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||2.8|0.5|
90932553|NCT00749944|181744260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|5.6|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|There was no hypothesis testing or power calculation in this study. Period AC: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||5.6|0.0|
90932554|NCT00749944|181744260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|5.6|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Period AD: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||5.6|0.0|
90967488|NCT01431274|181817109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.124|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.074|0.174||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.174|0.074|<0.0001
90932555|NCT00749944|181744260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.6|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Period AE: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||3.6|0.3|
90932556|NCT00749944|181744260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|5.7|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Period BC: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||5.7|0.0|
90932557|NCT00749944|181744260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|5.7|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Period BD: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||5.7|0.0|
90932558|NCT00749944|181744260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.7|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Period BE: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||3.7|0.3|
90932559|NCT00749944|181744261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|23.6|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|There was no hypothesis testing or power calculation in this study. Period BC: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||23.6|0.2|
90932560|NCT01934452|181744275|SUPERIORITY||Hodges Lehmann estimator|2.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|3.8|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||3.8|2.2|<0.001
90932561|NCT01934452|181744276|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.001
90932562|NCT01934452|181744277|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Extended or partial nephrectomy||||1.000
90932563|NCT01934452|181744277|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.809|||||||Chi-squared|||Nephrectomy with or without adrenalectomy||||0.809
90932564|NCT01934452|181744277|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019|||||||Chi-squared|||Nephrectomy with or without curettage||||0.019
90932565|NCT01934452|181744277|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.734|||||||Fisher Exact|||Open or laparoscopic nephrectomy||||0.734
90932566|NCT01934452|181744278|SUPERIORITY||Hodges Lehmann estimator|-3.7||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|1.6|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.6|-13.2|0.230
90932567|NCT01934452|181744279|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.695|||||||Fisher Exact|||Sarcomatoid contingent||||0.695
90932568|NCT01934452|181744280|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.316|||||||Chi-squared|||M class||||0.316
90932569|NCT01934452|181744281|SUPERIORITY||Hodges Lehmann estimator|-2.0||||0.778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|18.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||18.0|-22.0|0.778
90932570|NCT01934452|181744282|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.812|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.812
90932571|NCT01934452|181744283|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.47||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|6.77|||Chi-squared|||Presence of necrosis||6.77|0.90|0.077
90932572|NCT01934452|181744283|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|3.52|||Chi-squared|||Vascular embolism||3.52|0.44|0.673
90932573|NCT01934452|181744283|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|3.97|||Fisher Exact|||Sarcomatoid component||3.97|0.27|1.000
90932574|NCT01934452|181744284|SUPERIORITY||Hodges Lehmann estimator|-0.2||||0.865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.6|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.6|-1.5|0.865
90932575|NCT01934452|181744285|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||Chi-squared|||Lung||||0.011
90932576|NCT01934452|181744285|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.132|||||||Chi-squared|||Bones||||0.132
90932577|NCT01934452|181744285|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.473|||||||Chi-squared|||Liver||||0.473
90932578|NCT01934452|181744285|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.101|||||||Fisher Exact|||Adrenal glands||||0.101
90932579|NCT01934452|181744285|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.445|||||||Fisher Exact|||Pancreas||||0.445
90932580|NCT01934452|181744285|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Chi-squared|||Lymph nodes||||0.040
90932581|NCT01934452|181744286|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Supradiaphragmatic||||1.000
90932582|NCT01934452|181744286|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.295|||||||Fisher Exact|||Infradiaphragmatic||||0.295
90932583|NCT01934452|181744287|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.042|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.042
90932584|NCT01934452|181744288|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.027
90932585|NCT01934452|181744289|SUPERIORITY||Hodges Lehmann estimator|-1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-1.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||-1.0|-1.0|<0.001
90932586|NCT01934452|181744290|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.009
90932587|NCT02362789|181744341|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-18.3||||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.01|-5.59|||ANCOVA|||||-5.59|-31.01|0.0055
90932588|NCT05270460|181744358|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Adjustment for multiple comparisons were made using Dunnett's test at the overall alpha = 0.05 significance level|ANCOVA|Fixed effects for treatment group (PCS12852 0.1 mg, PCS12852 0.5 mg, and Placebo) and type (IG or DG) and the baseline value as a continuous covariate||||||<0.05
90932589|NCT05270460|181744359|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects for treatment group (PCS12852 0.1 mg, PCS12852 0.5 mg, and Placebo) and type (IG or DG) and the baseline value as a continuous covariate||||||<0.05
90932590|NCT05270460|181744360|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
90932591|NCT05270460|181744361|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
90932592|NCT05270460|181744362|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
90932593|NCT05270460|181744363|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
90932594|NCT05270460|181744364|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
90932595|NCT05270460|181744365|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
90932596|NCT05270460|181744366|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
90932597|NCT05270460|181744367|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
90932598|NCT00380250|181744368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.117|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|Adjusted for center||||||0.117
90932599|NCT00380250|181744369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.006|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|Adjusted for center||||||0.006
90932600|NCT00380250|181744370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.05|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|Adjusted for center||||||0.050
90932601|NCT00380250|181744371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.159|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|Adjusted for center||||||0.159
90932602|NCT00380250|181744372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.378|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled center||||||0.378
90932603|NCT00380250|181744373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.588|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for clinical site||||||0.588
90932604|NCT00380250|181744374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.029||||||No adjustment|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled center, used to test the null hypothesis of equal rates between the 2 groups vs. the alternate hypothesis of non-equality||90% statistical power to detect 70.6% improvement in response with lubiprostone||||0.029
90932605|NCT00380250|181744375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.028||||||Sequential closed testing procedures were employed|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled center, used to test the null hypothesis of equal rates between the 2 groups vs. the alternate hypothesis of non-equality||||||0.028
90932606|NCT00380250|181744376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.069||||||Sequential closed testing procedures were employed|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled center, used to test the null hypothesis of equal rates between the 2 groups vs. the alternate hypothesis of non-equality||||||0.069
90932607|NCT00380250|181744377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.098||||||Sequential closed testing procedures were employed|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled center, used to test the null hypothesis of equal rates between the 2 groups vs. the alternate hypothesis of non-equality||||||0.098
90932608|NCT00380250|181744378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.286|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|Adjusted for center||||||0.286
90932609|NCT00380250|181744379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.337|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|Adjusted for center||||||0.337
90932610|NCT00380250|181744380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.334|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|Adjusted for center||||||0.334
90932611|NCT00380250|181744381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.242|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|Adjusted for center||||||0.242
90932612|NCT00380250|181744382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.03|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|Adjusted for center||||||0.030
90932613|NCT00380250|181744383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.13|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|Adjusted for center||||||0.130
90932614|NCT00380250|181744384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.049|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|Adjusted for center||||||0.049
90932615|NCT00380250|181744385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.348|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|Adjusted for center||||||0.348
90932616|NCT00380250|181744386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.064|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|Adjusted for center||||||0.064
90932617|NCT00380250|181744387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.111|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|||||||0.111
90932618|NCT00380250|181744388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.144|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled center||||||0.144
90932619|NCT00380250|181744389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.168|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted by pooled center||||||0.168
90932620|NCT00380250|181744390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.615|||||||van Elteren nonparametic test|Adjusted for center||||||0.615
90932621|NCT00380250|181744391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.108|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|||||||0.108
90932622|NCT00380250|181744392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.483|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|||||||0.483
90932623|NCT00380250|181744393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.491|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|||||||0.491
90932624|NCT00380250|181744394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|Adjusted for center||||||<0.001
90932625|NCT00380250|181744395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|Adjusted for center||||||<0.001
90932626|NCT00380250|181744396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|Adjusted for center||||||<0.001
90932627|NCT01450397|181744398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0013|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0013
90932628|NCT02203032|181744399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Row mean score test|||||||< 0.001
90932629|NCT02203032|181744400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Row mean score test|||||||< 0.001
90932630|NCT02203032|181744401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Row mean score test|||||||< 0.001
90932631|NCT02203032|181744402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||= 0.001
90932632|NCT01836445|181744415|SUPERIORITY||Prevalence Ratio|0.9||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.06|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.06|0.76|0.20
90932633|NCT01836445|181744416|SUPERIORITY||Prevalence Ratio|0.95||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.14|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.14|0.80|0.60
90932634|NCT01836445|181744417|SUPERIORITY||Prevalence Ratio|0.83||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.99|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.99|0.70|0.04
90932635|NCT01836445|181744419|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.6||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.95|||Z-test|||||0.95|0.38|0.01
90932636|NCT01836445|181744420|OTHER|Generalized Linear Mixed Model statistical test used||||||0.15|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.150
90932637|NCT01836445|181744421|OTHER|Generalized Linear Mixed Model statistical test used||||||0.374|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.374
90932638|NCT01836445|181744422|OTHER|Generalized Linear Mixed Model statistical test used||||||0.919|||||||Regression, Linear|||Analysis for Motivation items||||0.919
90932639|NCT01836445|181744422|OTHER|Generalized Linear Mixed Model statistical test used||||||0.493|||||||Regression, Linear|||Analysis for Social Norms items||||0.493
90932640|NCT01836445|181744422|OTHER|Generalized Linear Mixed Model statistical test used||||||0.002|||||||Regression, Linear|||Analysis for Behavioral Skills items||||0.002
90932641|NCT01836445|181744423|OTHER|Generalized Linear Mixed Model statistical test used||||||0.067|||||||Regression, Linear|||Analysis for Relationship Maintenance items||||0.067
90932642|NCT01836445|181744423|OTHER|Generalized Linear Mixed Model statistical test used||||||0.135|||||||Regression, Linear|||Analysis for Condom Use items||||0.135
90932643|NCT01836445|181744423|OTHER|Generalized Linear Mixed Model statistical test used||||||0.025|||||||Regression, Linear|||Analysis for HIV Testing items||||0.025
90932644|NCT01836445|181744424|OTHER|Generalized Linear Mixed Model statistical test used||||||0.138|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.138
90932645|NCT01836445|181744425|OTHER|Generalized Linear Mixed Model statistical test used||||||0.173|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.173
90932646|NCT01836445|181744426|OTHER|Generalized Linear Mixed Model statistical test used||||||0.567|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.567
90932647|NCT01836445|181744427|OTHER|Generalized Linear Mixed Model statistical test used||||||0.861|||||||Regression, Linear|||Analysis for motivation items||||0.861
90932648|NCT01836445|181744427|OTHER|Generalized Linear Mixed Model statistical test used||||||0.628|||||||Regression, Linear|||Analysis for social norms items||||0.628
90932649|NCT01836445|181744427|OTHER|Generalized Linear Mixed Model statistical test used||||||0.151|||||||Regression, Linear|||Analysis for behavioral skills items||||0.151
90932650|NCT01836445|181744428|OTHER|Generalized Linear Mixed Model statistical test used||||||0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|||Analysis for Relationship Maintenance items||||0.001
90932651|NCT01836445|181744428|OTHER|Generalized Linear Mixed Model statistical test used||||||0.067|||||||Regression, Linear|||Analysis for Condom Use items||||0.067
90932652|NCT01836445|181744428|OTHER|Generalized Linear Mixed Model statistical test used||||||0.637|||||||Regression, Linear|||Analysis for HIV Testing items||||0.637
90932653|NCT01836445|181744429|OTHER|Generalized Linear Mixed Model statistical test used||||||0.862|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.862
90932654|NCT01836445|181744430|OTHER|Generalized Linear Mixed Model statistical test used||||||0.762|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.762
90932655|NCT01836445|181744431|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.043|||||||Regression, Linear|||Analysis for Motivation items||||0.043
90932656|NCT01836445|181744431|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.617|||||||Regression, Linear|||Analysis for Social Norm items||||0.617
90932657|NCT01836445|181744431|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||Regression, Linear|||Analysis for Behavioral Skills items||||0.570
90932658|NCT01836445|181744432|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036|||||||Regression, Linear|||Analysis for Relationship Maintenance items||||0.036
90932659|NCT01836445|181744432|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.837|||||||Regression, Linear|||Analysis for Condom Use items||||0.837
90932660|NCT01836445|181744432|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.953|||||||Regression, Linear|||Analysis for HIV Testing items||||0.953
90932661|NCT01836445|181744433|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.719|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.719
90932662|NCT04278833|181744448|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|paired t-tests|||Analysis of change at week 2||||<0.001
90932663|NCT04278833|181744448|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|paired t-tests|||Analysis of change at month 3||||<0.001
90932664|NCT04278833|181744448|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|paired t-tests|||Analysis of change at month 6||||<0.001
90932665|NCT04278833|181744449|OTHER|||||||0.28||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Chi-squared|||Analysis of change at week 2||||0.280
90932666|NCT04278833|181744449|OTHER|||||||0.07||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Chi-squared|||Analysis of change at month 3||||0.070
90932667|NCT04278833|181744449|OTHER|||||||0.851||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Chi-squared|||Analysis of change at month 6||||0.851
90932668|NCT04278833|181744450|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|paired t-tests|||Analysis of change at week 2||||<0.001
90967489|NCT01431274|181817109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.144|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.094|0.193||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.193|0.094|<0.0001
90932669|NCT04278833|181744450|OTHER|||||||0.021||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|paired t-tests|||Analysis of change at month 3||||0.021
90932670|NCT04278833|181744450|OTHER|||||||0.044||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|paired t-tests|||Analysis of change at month 6||||0.044
90932671|NCT04278833|181744451|OTHER|||||||0.226||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|paired t-tests|||Analysis of change at week 2||||0.226
90932672|NCT04278833|181744451|OTHER|||||||0.071||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|paired t-tests|||Analysis of change at month 3||||0.071
90932673|NCT04278833|181744451|OTHER|||||||0.382||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|paired t-tests|||Analysis of change at month 6||||0.382
90932674|NCT04278833|181744452|OTHER|||||||0.152||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|paired t-tests|||Analysis of change at week 2||||0.152
90932675|NCT04278833|181744452|OTHER|||||||0.261||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|paired t-tests|||Analysis of change at month 3.||||0.261
90932676|NCT04278833|181744452|OTHER|||||||0.437||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|paired t-tests|||Analysis of change at month 6.||||0.437
90932677|NCT04278833|181744453|OTHER|||||||0.128||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.128
90932678|NCT04278833|181744453|OTHER||||||>|0.999||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
90932679|NCT04278833|181744454|OTHER|||||||0.04||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.040
90932680|NCT04278833|181744454|OTHER||||||>|0.999||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
90932681|NCT04181788|181744460|OTHER|Ratio of experimental vs control|Ratio of experimental vs control|231.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|190.09|281.21||||||Phase 2 600 mg SC Q6W (experimental) vs. Phase 2 300 mg SC Q4W (control)||281.21|190.09|
90932682|NCT04181788|181744461|OTHER|Ratio of experimental vs control|Ratio of experimental vs control|111.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.31|143.99||||||Phase 2 600 mg SC Q6W (experimental) vs. Phase 2 300 mg SC Q4W (control)||143.99|86.31|
90932683|NCT06943638|181744475|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
90932684|NCT01332266|181744523|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.46||||||||1.46|0.54|
90932685|NCT01332266|181744525|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.73||||||||1.73|0.61|
90932686|NCT01332266|181744526|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.37||||||||1.37|0.53|
90932687|NCT03302091|181744528|OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio (T/R)%|198.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|96.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.83|386.94|||ANOVA||Standard deviation is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|"The statistical model used for the analyses of the primary endpoints was an ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithmic scale including the effect degree of renal impairment as a fixed effect as well as subject pair as a random effect."||386.94|101.83|
90932688|NCT03302091|181744529|OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio (T/R)%|198.42|STANDARD_DEVIATION|77.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|116.56|337.78|||ANOVA||Standard deviation is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|"The statistical model used for the analyses of the primary endpoints was an ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithmic scale including the effect degree of renal impairment as a fixed effect as well as subject pair as a random effect."||337.78|116.56|
90932689|NCT03302091|181744530|OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio (T/R)%|226.29|STANDARD_DEVIATION|47.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|156.35|327.53|||ANOVA||Standard deviation is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|"The statistical model used for the analyses of the primary endpoints was an ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithmic scale including the effect degree of renal impairment as a fixed effect as well as subject pair as a random effect."||327.53|156.35|
90932690|NCT03302091|181744531|OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio (T/R)%|140.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|32.8|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|108.06|182.43|||ANOVA||Standard deviation is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|"The statistical model used for the analyses of the primary endpoints was an ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithmic scale including the effect degree of renal impairment as a fixed effect as well as subject pair as a random effect."||182.43|108.06|
90932691|NCT03302091|181744532|OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio (T/R)%|165.63|STANDARD_DEVIATION|56.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|107.51|255.17|||ANOVA||Standard deviation is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|"The statistical model used for the analyses of the primary endpoints was an ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithmic scale including the effect degree of renal impairment as a fixed effect as well as subject pair as a random effect."||255.17|107.51|
90932692|NCT03302091|181744533|OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio (T/R)%|128.44|STANDARD_DEVIATION|31.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.64|165.57|||ANOVA||Standard deviation is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|"The statistical model used for the analyses of the primary endpoints was an ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithmic scale including the effect degree of renal impairment as a fixed effect as well as subject pair as a random effect."||165.57|99.64|
90932693|NCT01686152|181744534|EQUIVALENCE|The test product was determined to be bioequivalent to the reference product if the 90% confidence interval was within -0.20 to 0.20.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0663|0.0913||||||||0.0913|-0.0663|
90971306|NCT03962439|181825334|OTHER|Null hypothesis significance testing|F-value|0.28||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline age, sex, and education.||Repeated measures ANCOVA testing whether change in reasoning from baseline to week 16 interacted with condition (Time x Condition).||||.760
91035516|NCT00462228|181957074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55||95.0||||12 week comparison, alpha = 0.05.|Sign test|||Null hypothesis: The change from baseline occurring with memantine is equal to the change from baseline occurring with placebo at 12 weeks for the Trail Making Test Part A.||||0.55
90932694|NCT01802333|181744535|OTHER|||||||0.84|||||||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for: Age (\< 40 vs. \>= 40) and Onset of AML (de novo vs. treatment related and/or AML arising from antecedent hematologic disease)||Arm I was compared with Arm III using a two-sided test of the null hypothesis (HR=1) at the 0.045 level.||||0.84
90932695|NCT01802333|181744535|OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for: Age (\< 40 vs. \>= 40) and Onset of AML (de novo vs. treatment related and/or AML arising from antecedent hematologic disease)||Arm II was compared with Arm III using a two-sided test of the null hypothesis (HR=1) at the 0.045 level.||||0.42
90932696|NCT01802333|181744536|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Exact binomial test, 1-sided|||||||<0.0001
90932697|NCT01802333|181744538|OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for: Age (\< 40 vs. \>= 40) and Onset of AML (de novo vs. treatment related and/or AML arising from antecedent hematologic disease)||Arm I was compared with Arm II using a two-sided test of the null hypothesis (HR=1).||||0.52
90932698|NCT02551224|181744546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.75|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.99|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.99|0.51|<0.0001
90932699|NCT02551224|181744547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.61|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.61|0.21|<0.0001
90932700|NCT01947491|181744556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90932701|NCT02224755|181744557|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority would be demonstrated if the 95% lower confidence boundary for the difference between treatment groups (HM3 - HMII) in the occurrence of the primary end point would be greater than -10 percentage points, at a one-sided alpha level of 0.025 or a two-tailed P value of less than 0.05.|Risk Difference (RD)|9.4|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-2.1||||Farrington-Manning risk difference||||||-2.1|<0.001
90932702|NCT02224755|181744558|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority would be demonstrated if the 95% lower confidence boundary for the difference between treatment groups (HM3 - HMII) in the occurrence of the primary end point would be greater than -10 percentage points, at a one-sided alpha level of 0.025 or a two-tailed P value of less than 0.05.|Risk Difference (RD)|19.2|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|9.8||||Farrington-Manning risk difference||||||9.8|<0.001
90932703|NCT02224755|181744559|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.38|||Fisher Exact|||Based on data in the Sponsor's device tracking database, 7% of patients with the HeartMate II LVAS receive a pump replacement by 24 months. The expected proportion of patients with the HeartMate 3 LVAS to receive a pump replacement by 24 months was assumed to be 3%. We estimated that to demonstrate superiority of HeartMate 3 to HeartMate II with a power of 80% and α = 0.05 (2-sided), a total of 1028 patients (514 per arm) were required using the Fisher's exact test.||.38|.11|<0.001
90932704|NCT01205126|181744587|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority was demonstrated if upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was less than the non-inferiority margin of 1.5.|Least square mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.1||P-value was calculated by ANCOVA model using Baseline as covariate for change at Day 29.|ANCOVA|||||1.1|-1.3|0.855
90932705|NCT01205126|181744588|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority was demonstrated if upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was less than the non-inferiority margin of 1.5.|Least square mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.6|||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated by ANCOVA model using Baseline as covariate for change at Day 29.||||0.6|-1.0|0.615
90932706|NCT01205126|181744589|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority was demonstrated if upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was less than the non-inferiority margin of 1.5.|Least square mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.7|||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated by ANCOVA model using Baseline as covariate for change at Day 29.||||0.7|-1.1|0.621
90932707|NCT01205126|181744590|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority was demonstrated if upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was less than the non-inferiority margin of 1.5.||||||0.832|||||||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated by ANCOVA model using Baseline as covariate for change at Day 29.||||||0.832
90932708|NCT01205126|181744591|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority was demonstrated if upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was less than the non-inferiority margin of 1.5.||||||0.304|||||||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated by ANCOVA model using Baseline as covariate for change at Day 29||||||0.304
90932709|NCT01205126|181744592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.276|||||||rank sum test, 2 sided|||||||0.276
90932710|NCT00486954|181744594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.2088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.11|||Log Rank|||||1.11|0.64|0.2088
90932711|NCT00321971|181744736|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.421|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.208|0.657|||Mixed Models Analysis|Intention-to-treat model|The CES-D data were log-transformed for analysis|Hypothesis: The experimental intervention group will endorse lower mean levels of depressive symptoms during follow-up than the study group receiving the comparison intervention.||0.657|0.208|<.05
90932712|NCT00923078|181744775|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|4.23|||Mixed Models Analysis||contrast calculated as baseline minus Auditory Training|Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between baseline and post-training scores. Linear mixed models tested fixed effects of period (3 levels; baseline, post 4-weeks, post 8 weeks), condition (3 levels; baseline, Auditory Cognitive Training, Visual Cognitive Training) and the period x condition interaction. Final model parameters were selected according to Bayesian Information Criteria. Alpha=.05 (2-sided)||4.23|0.17|<0.05
90941185|NCT02161406|181762102|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0193|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0193
90941186|NCT02161406|181762103|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0097|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0097
90941187|NCT02161406|181762104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0751|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0751
90941188|NCT02161406|181762105|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4927|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.4927
91035517|NCT00462228|181957074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81||95.0||||6 week comparison, alpha = 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: The change from baseline occurring with memantine is equal to the change from baseline occurring with placebo at 6 weeks for the Trail Making Test Part A.||||0.81
91035518|NCT00462228|181957074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57||95.0||||12 week comparison, alpha = 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: The change from baseline occurring with memantine is equal to the change from baseline occurring with placebo at 12 weeks for the Trail Making Test Part A.||||0.57
90932713|NCT00923078|181744775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.75|1.31|||Mixed Models Analysis||contrast calculated as baseline minus Visual Training|Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between baseline and post-training scores. Linear mixed models tested fixed effects of period (3 levels; baseline, post 4-weeks, post 8 weeks), condition (3 levels; baseline, Auditory Cognitive Training, Visual Cognitive Training) and the period x condition interaction. Final model parameters were selected according to Bayesian Information Criteria. Alpha=.05 (2-sided)||1.31|-2.75|0.48
90932714|NCT00923078|181744775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.95|-0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||contrast calculated as Auditory Training minus Visual Training|Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between post-training scores in Auditory vs. Visual Cognitive Training conditions. Linear mixed models tested fixed effects of period (3 levels; baseline, post 4-weeks, post 8 weeks), condition (3 levels; baseline, Auditory Cognitive Training, Visual Cognitive Training) and the period x condition interaction. Final model parameters were selected according to Bayesian Information Criteria. Alpha=.05 (2-sided)||-0.90|-4.95|<0.01
90932715|NCT00923078|181744776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.295|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|1.25|||Mixed Models Analysis||contrast calculated as baseline minus Auditory Training|Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between baseline and post-training scores. Linear mixed models tested fixed effects of period (3 levels; baseline, post 4-weeks, post 8 weeks), condition (3 levels; baseline, Auditory Cognitive Training, Visual Cognitive Training) and the period x condition interaction. Final model parameters were selected according to Bayesian Information Criteria. Alpha=.05 (2-sided)||1.25|0.08|<0.05
90932716|NCT00923078|181744776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.295||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|1.09|||Mixed Models Analysis||contrast calculated as baseline minus Visual Training|Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between baseline and post-training scores. Linear mixed models tested fixed effects of period (3 levels; baseline, post 4-weeks, post 8 weeks), condition (3 levels; baseline, Auditory Cognitive Training, Visual Cognitive Training) and the period x condition interaction. Final model parameters were selected according to Bayesian Information Criteria. Alpha=.05 (2-sided)||1.09|-0.08|0.09
90932717|NCT00923078|181744776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.295||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.43|||Mixed Models Analysis||contrast calculated as Auditory Training minus Visual Training|Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between post-training scores in Auditory vs. Visual Cognitive Training conditions. Linear mixed models tested fixed effects of period (3 levels; baseline, post 4-weeks, post 8 weeks), condition (3 levels; baseline, Auditory Cognitive Training, Visual Cognitive Training) and the period x condition interaction. Final model parameters were selected according to Bayesian Information Criteria. Alpha=.05 (2-sided)||0.43|-0.75|0.59
90932718|NCT00923078|181744777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.53|-0.52||Post-test scores following Auditory Cognitive Training as compared to baseline, tested at alpha = 0.05 (uncorrected).|Mixed Models Analysis||contrast calculated as baseline minus Auditory Training|Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between baseline and post-training scores. Linear mixed models tested fixed effects of period (3 levels; baseline, post 4-weeks, post 8 weeks), condition (3 levels; baseline, Auditory Cognitive Training, Visual Cognitive Training) and the period x condition interaction. Final model parameters were selected according to Bayesian Information Criteria. Alpha=.05 (2-sided)||-0.52|-3.53|<0.01
90941189|NCT02161406|181762106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1604|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1604
90941190|NCT02161406|181762107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7281|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7281
90941191|NCT02161406|181762108|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1679|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1679
90941192|NCT02161406|181762109|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2906|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2906
90941193|NCT01343251|181762114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.48
90941194|NCT01343251|181762115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.02
90941195|NCT01343251|181762116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|||||SF-36 Test 1 Total Score|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.49
90941196|NCT01343251|181762116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|||||SF-36 Test 2 Total Score|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.91
90941197|NCT01343251|181762116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|||||SF-36 Test 3 Total Score|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.67
90941198|NCT01343251|181762116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||SF-36 Test 4 Total Score|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90941199|NCT01343251|181762117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.04
90941200|NCT01343251|181762118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.90
90941201|NCT01468077|181762119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0164|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2685|0.2988|||||The CI (confidence interval) is calculated by Exact method based on binomial distribution.|||0.2988|-0.2685|
90941202|NCT03024996|181762139|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.15|||Log Rank|||||1.15|0.75|0.4950
90941203|NCT03024996|181762140|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.8868||95.0|0.67|1.42|||Log Rank|||||1.42|0.67|0.8868
90941204|NCT03024996|181762141|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.1|||Log Rank|||||1.10|0.63|0.2010
90941205|NCT03024996|181762142|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.2811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.12|||Log Rank|||||1.12|0.69|0.2811
90941206|NCT03024996|181762143|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.0735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.03|||Log Rank|||||1.03|0.55|0.0735
90932719|NCT00923078|181744777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.95|-0.94||Post-test scores following Visual Cognitive Training as compared to baseline, tested at alpha = 0.05 (uncorrected).|Mixed Models Analysis||contrast calculated as baseline minus Visual Training|Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between baseline and post-training scores. Linear mixed models tested fixed effects of period (3 levels; baseline, post 4-weeks, post 8 weeks), condition (3 levels; baseline, Auditory Cognitive Training, Visual Cognitive Training) and the period x condition interaction. Final model parameters were selected according to Bayesian Information Criteria. Alpha=.05 (2-sided)||-0.94|-3.95|0.01
90932720|NCT00923078|181744777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|1.08||Post-test scores following Auditory Cognitive Training as compared to Visual Cognitive Training, tested at alpha = 0.05 (uncorrected).|Mixed Models Analysis||contrast calculated as Auditory Training minus Visual Training|Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between post-training scores in Auditory vs. Visual Cognitive Training conditions. Linear mixed models tested fixed effects of period (3 levels; baseline, post 4-weeks, post 8 weeks), condition (3 levels; baseline, Auditory Cognitive Training, Visual Cognitive Training) and the period x condition interaction. Final model parameters were selected according to Bayesian Information Criteria. Alpha=.05 (2-sided)||1.08|-1.93|0.58
90932721|NCT00923078|181744778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.55||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.02|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis||contrast calculated as baseline minus Auditory Training|Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between baseline and post-training scores. Linear mixed models tested fixed effects of period (3 levels; baseline, post 4-weeks, post 8 weeks), condition (3 levels; baseline, Auditory Cognitive Training, Visual Cognitive Training) and the period x condition interaction. Final model parameters were selected according to Bayesian Information Criteria. Alpha=.05 (2-sided)||0.18|-6.02|0.06
90932722|NCT00923078|181744778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.55|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.34|-0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis||contrast calculated as baseline minus Visual Training|Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between baseline and post-training scores. Linear mixed models tested fixed effects of period (3 levels; baseline, post 4-weeks, post 8 weeks), condition (3 levels; baseline, Auditory Cognitive Training, Visual Cognitive Training) and the period x condition interaction. Final model parameters were selected according to Bayesian Information Criteria. Alpha=.05 (2-sided)||-0.14|-6.34|< 0.05
90932723|NCT00923078|181744778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.55||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.42|2.78|||Mixed Models Analysis||contrast calculated as Auditory Training minus Visual Training|Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between post-training scores in Auditory vs. Visual Cognitive Training conditions. Linear mixed models tested fixed effects of period (3 levels; baseline, post 4-weeks, post 8 weeks), condition (3 levels; baseline, Auditory Cognitive Training, Visual Cognitive Training) and the period x condition interaction. Final model parameters were selected according to Bayesian Information Criteria. Alpha=.05 (2-sided)||2.78|-3.42|0.84
90932724|NCT00923078|181744779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|2.69|||Mixed Models Analysis||contrast calculated as baseline minus Auditory Training|Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between baseline and post-training scores. Linear mixed models tested fixed effects of period (3 levels; baseline, post 4-weeks, post 8 weeks), condition (3 levels; baseline, Auditory Cognitive Training, Visual Cognitive Training) and the period x condition interaction. Final model parameters were selected according to Bayesian Information Criteria. Alpha=.05 (2-sided)||2.69|-1.45|0.55
90932725|NCT00923078|181744779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|2.07|||Mixed Models Analysis||contrast calculated as baseline minus Visual Training|Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between baseline and post-training scores. Linear mixed models tested fixed effects of period (3 levels; baseline, post 4-weeks, post 8 weeks), condition (3 levels; baseline, Auditory Cognitive Training, Visual Cognitive Training) and the period x condition interaction. Final model parameters were selected according to Bayesian Information Criteria. Alpha=.05 (2-sided)||2.07|-2.02|0.98
90932726|NCT00923078|181744779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.66|1.47|||Mixed Models Analysis||contrast calculated as Auditory Training minus Visual Training|Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between post-training scores in Auditory vs. Visual Cognitive Training conditions. Linear mixed models tested fixed effects of period (3 levels; baseline, post 4-weeks, post 8 weeks), condition (3 levels; baseline, Auditory Cognitive Training, Visual Cognitive Training) and the period x condition interaction. Final model parameters were selected according to Bayesian Information Criteria. Alpha=.05 (2-sided)||1.47|-2.66|0.57
90932727|NCT00923078|181744780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.27||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.14|1.93|||Mixed Models Analysis||contrast calculated as baseline minus Auditory Training|Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between baseline and post-training scores. Linear mixed models tested fixed effects of period (3 levels; baseline, post 4-weeks, post 8 weeks), condition (3 levels; baseline, Auditory Cognitive Training, Visual Cognitive Training) and the period x condition interaction. Final model parameters were selected according to Bayesian Information Criteria. Alpha=.05 (2-sided)||1.93|-3.14|0.63
90932728|NCT00923078|181744780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.27||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.45|1.61|||Mixed Models Analysis||contrast calculated as baseline minus Visual Training|Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between baseline and post-training scores. Linear mixed models tested fixed effects of period (3 levels; baseline, post 4-weeks, post 8 weeks), condition (3 levels; baseline, Auditory Cognitive Training, Visual Cognitive Training) and the period x condition interaction. Final model parameters were selected according to Bayesian Information Criteria. Alpha=.05 (2-sided)||1.61|-3.45|0.47
90967490|NCT01431274|181817109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.013|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.6103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.037|0.062||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.062|-0.037|0.6103
90932729|NCT00923078|181744780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.27||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.85|2.22|||Mixed Models Analysis||contrast calculated as Auditory Training minus Visual Training|Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between post-training scores in Auditory vs. Visual Cognitive Training conditions. Linear mixed models tested fixed effects of period (3 levels; baseline, post 4-weeks, post 8 weeks), condition (3 levels; baseline, Auditory Cognitive Training, Visual Cognitive Training) and the period x condition interaction. Final model parameters were selected according to Bayesian Information Criteria. Alpha=.05 (2-sided)||2.22|-2.85|0.80
90932730|NCT00923078|181744781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.06|0.85|||Mixed Models Analysis||contrast calculated as baseline minus Auditory Training|Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between baseline and post-training scores. Linear mixed models tested fixed effects of period (3 levels; baseline, post 4-weeks, post 8 weeks), condition (3 levels; baseline, Auditory Cognitive Training, Visual Cognitive Training) and the period x condition interaction. Final model parameters were selected according to Bayesian Information Criteria. Alpha=.05 (2-sided)||0.85|-3.06|0.26
90932731|NCT00923078|181744781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.41|0.46|||Mixed Models Analysis||contrast calculated as baseline minus Visual Training|Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between baseline and post-training scores. Linear mixed models tested fixed effects of period (3 levels; baseline, post 4-weeks, post 8 weeks), condition (3 levels; baseline, Auditory Cognitive Training, Visual Cognitive Training) and the period x condition interaction. Final model parameters were selected according to Bayesian Information Criteria. Alpha=.05 (2-sided)||0.46|-3.41|0.13
90932732|NCT00923078|181744781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.32|1.58|||Mixed Models Analysis||contrast calculated as Auditory Training minus Visual Training|Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between post-training scores in Auditory vs. Visual Cognitive Training conditions. Linear mixed models tested fixed effects of period (3 levels; baseline, post 4-weeks, post 8 weeks), condition (3 levels; baseline, Auditory Cognitive Training, Visual Cognitive Training) and the period x condition interaction. Final model parameters were selected according to Bayesian Information Criteria. Alpha=.05 (2-sided)||1.58|-2.32|0.71
90932733|NCT01072149|181744794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.233|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.179|0.287|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.287|0.179|<0.001
90932734|NCT01072149|181744794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.165|0.275|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.275|0.165|<0.001
90932735|NCT01072149|181744794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.236|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.181|0.291|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.291|0.181|<0.001
90932736|NCT03265132|181744810|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.0||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.0|||Fisher Exact|||||1.00|0.42|0.0022
90932737|NCT00089791|181744872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.32|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.26|0.41||Logistic regression was used to generate the p-value|Mantel Haenszel|||||0.41|0.26|<0.0001
90932738|NCT00089791|181744873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.0106||95.0|0.67|0.95|||Regression, Cox|||||0.95|0.67|0.0106
90932739|NCT00089791|181744874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.0362||95.0|0.37|0.97|||Regression, Cox|||||0.97|0.37|0.0362
90932740|NCT05074433|181744876|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.563|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.093|3.393|||Cox proportional hazard model|||||3.393|0.093|
90932741|NCT05074433|181744876|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.072|2.929|||Cox proportional hazard model|||||2.929|0.072|
90932742|NCT05074433|181744876|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.609|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.101|3.668|||Cox proportional hazard model|||||3.668|0.101|
90932743|NCT04492475|181744923|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.99||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.13|||Log Rank|||||1.13|0.87|0.880
90932744|NCT04492475|181744940|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|13.4||||||||13.4|0.9|
90932745|NCT04492475|181744940|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|23.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|43.9||||||||43.9|0.0|
90932746|NCT04492475|181744941|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|6.0||||||||6.0|-3.2|
90932747|NCT04492475|181744941|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|35.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.3|54.2||||||||54.2|12.3|
90932748|NCT04492475|181744965|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.19||||||||1.19|0.90|
90932749|NCT04492475|181744965|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.66||||||||0.66|0.21|
90932750|NCT04492475|181744966|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.19||||||||1.19|0.91|
90932751|NCT04492475|181744966|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.82||||||||0.82|0.24|
90932752|NCT04492475|181744967|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.26||||||||1.26|0.93|
90932753|NCT04492475|181744967|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.72||||||||0.72|0.21|
90932754|NCT04492475|181744968|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.19||||||||1.19|0.90|
90932755|NCT04492475|181744969|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.45||||||This analysis is for Asian participants.||1.45|0.59|
90932756|NCT04492475|181744969|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.27||||||This analysis is for Black and African American participants.||1.27|0.66|
90932757|NCT04492475|181744969|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.21||||||This analysis is for White participants.||1.21|0.86|
90932758|NCT04492475|181744969|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.19||||||This analysis is for Race of Other participants||1.19|0.59|
90932759|NCT04492475|181744970|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.19||||||This analysis is for Not Hispanic or Latino participants.||1.19|0.86|
90932760|NCT04492475|181744970|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.05||||||This analysis is for Hispanic or Latino participants.||1.05|0.65|
90932761|NCT04492475|181744971|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.1||||||This analysis is for Male participants.||1.10|0.78|
90932762|NCT04492475|181744971|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.29||||||This analysis is for Female participants.||1.29|0.86|
90932763|NCT01235936|181745010|OTHER|The primary endpoint was compared using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test, with an alpha level of 0.05.||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Analysis of change from baseline on Day 29||||0.0020
90967491|NCT01431274|181817109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.137|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.087|0.186||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.186|0.087|<0.0001
90967492|NCT01431274|181817109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.049|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|0.098||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.098|-0.001|0.0559
90967493|NCT01431274|181817109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.068|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.018|0.118||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (2.5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.118|0.018|0.0073
90967494|NCT01431274|181817109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.025||0.4368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.03||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.030|-0.070|0.4368
90967495|NCT01431274|181817110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.147|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.098|0.196||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.196|0.098|<0.0001
90967496|NCT01431274|181817110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.076|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.027|0.125||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.125|0.027|0.0023
90967497|NCT01431274|181817110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.121|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.072|0.17||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.170|0.072|<0.0001
90967498|NCT01431274|181817110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|0.097||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.097|-0.001|0.0545
90967499|NCT01431274|181817110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.099||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.099|0.001|0.0456
90967500|NCT01431274|181817110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.026|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.2949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.023|0.075||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.075|-0.023|0.2949
90967501|NCT01431274|181817110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.074|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.025|0.123||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.123|0.025|0.0029
90967502|NCT01431274|181817110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.071|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.022|0.12||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.120|0.022|0.0045
90967503|NCT01431274|181817110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.073|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.024|0.122||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (2.5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.122|0.024|0.0035
90967504|NCT01431274|181817110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.9369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.051|0.047||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.047|-0.051|0.9369
90967505|NCT01431274|181817111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.168|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.119|0.217||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.217|0.119|<0.0001
90967506|NCT01431274|181817111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.105|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.056|0.154||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.154|0.056|<0.0001
90967507|NCT01431274|181817111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.103|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.054|0.152||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.152|0.054|<0.0001
90967508|NCT01431274|181817111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.047|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.002|0.096||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.096|-0.002|0.0585
90967509|NCT01431274|181817111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.041|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.1042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.008|0.09||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.090|-0.008|0.1042
90967510|NCT01431274|181817111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.065|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.016|0.114||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.114|0.016|0.0097
90967511|NCT01431274|181817111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.112|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.063|0.161||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.161|0.063|<0.0001
90967512|NCT01431274|181817111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.063|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.014|0.112||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.112|0.014|0.0120
90967513|NCT01431274|181817111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.056|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.007|0.105||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (2.5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.105|0.007|0.0250
90967514|NCT01431274|181817111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.7889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.042|0.056||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.056|-0.042|0.7889
90971307|NCT00746252|181825343|OTHER|||||||0.495||||||Threshold of significance is p\<.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of mean weight gain between groups.||||.495
90971308|NCT01137773|181825381|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.49
90971309|NCT01137773|181825382|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.70
90971310|NCT00439946|181825383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.84||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank|||Changes between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test, comparing the values at Baseline to values at Week 8. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values.||||0.84
90932764|NCT01235936|181745011|OTHER|The test was based on Wilcoxon signed rank test, with an alpha level of 0.05.|||||=|0.0156|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Analysis of change from baseline on Day 29||||=0.0156
90932765|NCT01235936|181745012|OTHER|The test was based on Wilcoxon signed rank test, with an alpha level of 0.05.||||||0.0098|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Analysis of change from baseline on Day 29||||0.0098
90932766|NCT01235936|181745013|OTHER|The test was based on Wilcoxon signed rank test, with an alpha level of 0.05.|||||=|0.0195|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Analysis of change from baseline on Day 29||||=0.0195
90932767|NCT01235936|181745014|OTHER|The test was based on Wilcoxon signed rank test, with an alpha level of 0.05.|||||=|0.8262|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Analysis of change from baseline on Day 29||||=0.8262
90932768|NCT01235936|181745020|OTHER|The test was based on Wilcoxon signed rank test, with an alpha level of 0.05.|||||=|0.002|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Analysis of change from baseline on Day 29||||=0.0020
90932769|NCT01235936|181745021|OTHER|The test was based on Wilcoxon signed rank test, with an alpha level of 0.05.|||||=|0.2383|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Analysis of change from baseline on Day 29||||=0.2383
90932770|NCT01235936|181745022|OTHER|The test was based on Wilcoxon signed rank test, with an alpha level of 0.05.|||||=|0.0039|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Analysis of change from baseline on Day 29||||=0.0039
90932771|NCT01235936|181745023|OTHER|The test was based on Wilcoxon signed rank test, with an alpha level of 0.05.|||||=|0.0039|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Analysis of change from baseline on Day 29||||=0.0039
90932772|NCT02833948|181745030|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Fisher Exact|The Fisher's exact probability test was used to compare the percentages of patients with the primary end point between the treatment groups.||||||0.01
90932773|NCT02833948|181745034|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.01
90932774|NCT02691702|181745077|OTHER|MMRM|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|37.24|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-63.09|60.57|||||Test (Melatonin 0.5 mg PM) Reference (Placebo)|||60.57|-63.09|
90932775|NCT02691702|181745077|OTHER|MMRM|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|38.61|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-91.24|36.97|||||Test (PF-05251749 50 mg AM) Reference (Placebo)|||36.97|-91.24|
90932776|NCT02691702|181745077|OTHER|MMRM|Mean Difference (Final Values)|43.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|45.72|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-32.19|119.62|||||Test (PF-05251749 100 mg AM) Reference (Placebo)|||119.62|-32.19|
90932777|NCT02691702|181745077|OTHER|MMRM|Mean Difference (Final Values)|61.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|40.88|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.38|129.35|||||Test (PF-05251749 200 mg AM) Reference (Placebo)|||129.35|-6.38|
90932778|NCT02691702|181745077|OTHER|MMRM|Mean Difference (Final Values)|125.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|39.37|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.51|191.23|||||Test (PF-05251749 400 mg AM) Reference (Placebo)|||191.23|60.51|
90932779|NCT02691702|181745077|OTHER|MMRM|Mean Difference (Final Values)|156.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|42.91|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.99|227.45|||||Test (PF-05251749 750 mg AM) Reference (Placebo)|||227.45|84.99|
90932780|NCT02691702|181745077|OTHER|MMRM|Mean Difference (Final Values)|51.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|33.12|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.57|106.41|||||Test (PF-05251749 50 mg PM) Reference (Placebo)|||106.41|-3.57|
90932781|NCT02691702|181745077|OTHER|MMRM|Mean Difference (Final Values)|142.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|36.13|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.76|202.72|||||Test (PF-05251749 200 mg PM) Reference (Placebo)|||202.72|82.76|
90932782|NCT02691702|181745077|OTHER|MMRM|Mean Difference (Final Values)|174.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|36.01|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|115.11|234.69|||||Test (PF-05251749 500 mg PM) Reference (Placebo)|||234.69|115.11|
90932783|NCT02691702|181745078|OTHER|MMRM|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-71.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|37.24|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-133.09|-9.43|||||Test (Melatonin 0.5 mg PM) Reference (Placebo)|||-9.43|-133.09|
90932784|NCT02691702|181745078|OTHER|MMRM|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|38.61|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-76.24|51.97|||||Test (PF-05251749 50 mg AM) Reference (Placebo)|||51.97|-76.24|
90932785|NCT02691702|181745078|OTHER|MMRM|Mean Difference (Final Values)|88.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|45.72|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|12.81|164.62|||||Test (PF-05251749 100 mg AM) Reference (Placebo)|||164.62|12.81|
90932786|NCT02691702|181745078|OTHER|MMRM|Mean Difference (Final Values)|46.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|40.88|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.38|114.35|||||Test (PF-05251749 200 mg AM) Reference (Placebo)|||114.35|-21.38|
90932787|NCT02691702|181745078|OTHER|MMRM|Mean Difference (Final Values)|87.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|39.37|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|21.94|152.66|||||Test (PF-05251749 400 mg AM) Reference (Placebo)|||152.66|21.94|
90932788|NCT02691702|181745078|OTHER|MMRM|Mean Difference (Final Values)|126.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|42.91|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|54.99|197.45|||||Test (PF-05251749 750 mg AM) Reference (Placebo)|||197.45|54.99|
90932789|NCT02691702|181745078|OTHER|MMRM|Mean Difference (Final Values)|92.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|35.48|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|33.51|151.21|||||Test (PF-05251749 50 mg PM) Reference (Placebo)|||151.21|33.51|
90932790|NCT02691702|181745078|OTHER|MMRM|Mean Difference (Final Values)|107.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|36.13|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|47.31|167.27|||||Test (PF-05251749 200 mg AM) Reference (Placebo)|||167.27|47.31|
90932791|NCT02691702|181745078|OTHER|MMRM|Mean Difference (Final Values)|140.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|37.79|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.91|203.3|||||Test (PF-05251749 500 mg AM) Reference (Placebo)|||203.30|77.91|
90932792|NCT05613088|181745091|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.23||||0.4063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.0|||Log Rank|||||2.00|0.76|0.4063
90932793|NCT05163353|181745095|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|65.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.6|74.4||||||||74.4|45.6|
90941207|NCT03024996|181762144|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.1396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.06|||Log Rank|||||1.06|0.67|0.1396
90941208|NCT03024996|181762145|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.4762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.33|||Log Rank|||||1.33|0.55|0.4762
90941209|NCT03024996|181762146|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.5111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.16|||Log Rank|||||1.16|0.74|0.5111
91035519|NCT00462228|181957075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55||95.0||||6 week comparison, alpha = 0.05.|Sign test|||Null hypothesis: The change from baseline occurring with memantine is equal to the change from baseline occurring with placebo at 6 weeks for the Trail Making Test Part B.||||0.55
91035520|NCT00462228|181957075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||12 week comparison, alpha = 0.05.|Sign test|||Null hypothesis: The change from baseline occurring with memantine is equal to the change from baseline occurring with placebo at 12 weeks for the Trail Making Test Part B.||||1.0
91035521|NCT00462228|181957075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17||95.0||||6 week comparison, alpha = 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: The change from baseline occurring with memantine is equal to the change from baseline occurring with placebo at 6 weeks for the Trail Making Test Part B.||||0.17
90967515|NCT01431274|181817112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.187|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.138|0.237||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.237|0.138|<0.0001
90967516|NCT01431274|181817112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.121|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.072|0.17||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.170|0.072|<0.0001
90967517|NCT01431274|181817112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.153|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.103|0.202||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.202|0.103|<0.0001
90967518|NCT01431274|181817112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.062|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.013|0.111||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.111|0.013|0.0134
90967519|NCT01431274|181817112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.086|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.037|0.136||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.136|0.037|0.0006
91035522|NCT00462228|181957075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64||95.0||||12 week comparison, alpha = 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: The change from baseline occurring with memantine is equal to the change from baseline occurring with placebo at 12 weeks for the Trail Making Test Part B.||||0.64
91035523|NCT00462228|181957076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34||95.0||||6 week comparison, alpha = 0.05.|Sign test|||Null hypothesis: The change from baseline occurring with memantine is equal to the change from baseline occurring with placebo at 6 weeks for BVMT-R total recall scores.||||0.34
91035524|NCT00462228|181957076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||12 week comparison, alpha = 0.05.|Sign test|||Null hypothesis: The change from baseline occurring with memantine is equal to the change from baseline occurring with placebo at 12 weeks for BVLT-R total recall scores.||||1.0
91035525|NCT00462228|181957076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54||95.0||||6 week comparison, alpha = 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: The change from baseline occurring with memantine is equal to the change from baseline occurring with placebo at 6 weeks for HVLT-R total recall scores.||||0.54
91035526|NCT00462228|181957076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.91||95.0||||12 week comparison, alpha = 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: The change from baseline occurring with memantine is equal to the change from baseline occurring with placebo at 12 weeks for BVLT-R total recall scores.||||0.91
91035527|NCT00462228|181957077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34||95.0||||6 week comparison, alpha = 0.05.|Sign test|||Null hypothesis: The change from baseline occurring with memantine is equal to the change from baseline occurring with placebo at 6 weeks for BVMT-R delayed recall scores.||||0.34
90932794|NCT00824408|181745114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.045||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.271|3.292|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) from Cox proportional-hazards regression model, stratified by histology (Nonsquamous vs. NOS). P-value from log-rank test stratified by histology (one-sided for volasertib 300 mg + pemetrexed 500 mg/m2 vs. pemetrexed 500 mg; two-sided for volasertib 300 mg vs. pemetrexed 500 mg/m2).||3.292|1.271|0.0030
90932795|NCT00824408|181745114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.141||||0.2804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.735|1.771|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI from Cox proportional-hazards regression model, stratified by histology (Nonsquamous vs. NOS). P-value from log-rank test stratified by histology (one-sided for volasertib 300 mg + pemetrexed 500 mg/m2 vs. pemetrexed 500 mg/m2; two-sided for volasertib 300 mg vs. pemetrexed 500 mg/m2).||1.771|0.735|0.2804
90932796|NCT00824408|181745115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.9999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.9999
90932797|NCT00824408|181745115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2596|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2596
90932798|NCT00824408|181745116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.073||||0.8406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.538|2.14|||Log Rank|||||2.140|0.538|0.8406
90932799|NCT00824408|181745116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.081||||0.396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.599|1.949|||Log Rank|||||1.949|0.599|0.3960
90932800|NCT01263496|181745138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.401|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.618|-0.184||||||||-0.184|-0.618|
90932801|NCT01263496|181745138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.548|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.739|-0.358||||||||-0.358|-0.739|
90932802|NCT01263496|181745138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.779|-0.401||||||||-0.401|-0.779|
90932803|NCT01263496|181745138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.708|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.894|-0.522||||||||-0.522|-0.894|
90932804|NCT01263496|181745139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.316|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.538|-0.093||||||||-0.093|-0.538|
90932805|NCT01263496|181745139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.493|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.684|-0.302||||||||-0.302|-0.684|
90932806|NCT01263496|181745139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.706|-0.314||||||||-0.314|-0.706|
90932807|NCT01263496|181745139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.647|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.834|-0.461||||||||-0.461|-0.834|
90932808|NCT01263496|181745140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.263|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.479|-0.047||||||||-0.047|-0.479|
90932809|NCT01263496|181745140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.395|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.598|-0.192||||||||-0.192|-0.598|
91035528|NCT00462228|181957077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55||95.0||||12 week comparison, alpha = 0.05.|Sign test|||Null hypothesis: The change from baseline occurring with memantine is equal to the change from baseline occurring with placebo at 12 weeks for BVMT-R delayed recall scores.||||0.55
90932810|NCT01263496|181745140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.405|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.616|-0.195||||||||-0.195|-0.616|
90932811|NCT01263496|181745140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.583|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.386||||||||-0.386|-0.780|
90932812|NCT01263496|181745141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.172|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.065||||||||0.065|-0.410|
90932813|NCT01263496|181745141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.319|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.088||||||||-0.088|-0.550|
90932814|NCT01263496|181745141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.601|-0.139||||||||-0.139|-0.601|
90932815|NCT01263496|181745141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.533|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.752|-0.314||||||||-0.314|-0.752|
90932816|NCT01263496|181745142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.079|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.323|0.166||||||||0.166|-0.323|
90932817|NCT01263496|181745142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.241|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.471|-0.011||||||||-0.011|-0.471|
90932818|NCT01263496|181745142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.357|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.124||||||||-0.124|-0.590|
90932819|NCT01263496|181745142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.467|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.692|-0.242||||||||-0.242|-0.692|
90932820|NCT01263496|181745143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.321|0.162||||||||0.162|-0.321|
90932821|NCT01263496|181745143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.294|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.542|-0.046||||||||-0.046|-0.542|
90932822|NCT01263496|181745143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.341|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.579|-0.103||||||||-0.103|-0.579|
90932823|NCT01263496|181745143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.487|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.722|-0.252||||||||-0.252|-0.722|
90932824|NCT01263496|181745144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.049|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.279|0.182||||||||0.182|-0.279|
90932825|NCT01263496|181745144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.234|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.491|0.023||||||||0.023|-0.491|
90932826|NCT01263496|181745144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.375|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.605|-0.145||||||||-0.145|-0.605|
90932827|NCT01263496|181745144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.488|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.724|-0.252||||||||-0.252|-0.724|
90932828|NCT01263496|181745145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.169||||||||0.169|-0.270|
90932829|NCT01263496|181745145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.193|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.453|0.067||||||||0.067|-0.453|
90932830|NCT01263496|181745145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.374|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.596|-0.152||||||||-0.152|-0.596|
90932831|NCT01263496|181745145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.723|-0.256||||||||-0.256|-0.723|
90932832|NCT01263496|181745146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.065|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.289||||||||0.289|-0.160|
90932833|NCT01263496|181745146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.236|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.477|0.005||||||||0.005|-0.477|
90932834|NCT01263496|181745146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.608|-0.113||||||||-0.113|-0.608|
90932835|NCT01263496|181745146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.435|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.679|-0.191||||||||-0.191|-0.679|
90932836|NCT01263496|181745147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.033|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.262|0.196||||||||0.196|-0.262|
90932837|NCT01263496|181745147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.262|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.516|-0.008||||||||-0.008|-0.516|
90967520|NCT01431274|181817112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.035|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.015|0.084||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.084|-0.015|0.1670
90967521|NCT01431274|181817112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.097|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.048|0.146||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.146|0.048|0.0001
90967522|NCT01431274|181817112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.066|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.017|0.115||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.115|0.017|0.0085
90967523|NCT01431274|181817112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.041|0.14||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (2.5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.140|0.041|0.0003
90967524|NCT01431274|181817112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.3332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.074|0.025||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.025|-0.074|0.3332
90967525|NCT01431274|181817113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.153|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.105|0.201||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.201|0.105|<0.0001
90967526|NCT01431274|181817113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.077|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.029|0.125||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.125|0.029|0.0016
90967527|NCT01431274|181817113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.132|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.084|0.18||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.180|0.084|<0.0001
90932838|NCT01263496|181745147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.358|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.614|-0.103||||||||-0.103|-0.614|
90932839|NCT01263496|181745147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.432|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.174||||||||-0.174|-0.690|
90932840|NCT01263496|181745148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.118|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.346|0.11||||||||0.110|-0.346|
90932841|NCT01263496|181745148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.277|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.539|-0.015||||||||-0.015|-0.539|
90932842|NCT01263496|181745148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.373|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.637|-0.109||||||||-0.109|-0.637|
90932843|NCT01263496|181745148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.477|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.741|-0.213||||||||-0.213|-0.741|
90932844|NCT01263496|181745149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.181|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.416|0.055||||||||0.055|-0.416|
90932845|NCT01263496|181745149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.245|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.492|0.003||||||||0.003|-0.492|
90932846|NCT01263496|181745149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.408|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.654|-0.161||||||||-0.161|-0.654|
90932847|NCT01263496|181745149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.638|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.874|-0.402||||||||-0.402|-0.874|
90932848|NCT01263496|181745150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.56|0.54||||||||0.54|-17.56|
90932849|NCT01263496|181745150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.23|-4.18||||||||-4.18|-19.23|
90932850|NCT01263496|181745150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.68|-6.15||||||||-6.15|-20.68|
90932851|NCT01263496|181745150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.93|-11.83||||||||-11.83|-26.93|
90932852|NCT01263496|181745151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.67|3.8||||||||3.80|-12.67|
90932853|NCT01263496|181745151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.48|-1.3||||||||-1.30|-17.48|
90932854|NCT01263496|181745151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.58|-2.54||||||||-2.54|-18.58|
90932855|NCT01263496|181745151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.44|-3.31||||||||-3.31|-21.44|
90932856|NCT01263496|181745152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.66|1.86||||||||1.86|-15.66|
90932857|NCT01263496|181745152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.97|-2.49||||||||-2.49|-18.97|
90967528|NCT01431274|181817113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.041|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||0.0926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.007|0.089||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.089|-0.007|0.0926
90967529|NCT01431274|181817113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.055|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||0.0231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.008|0.103||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.103|0.008|0.0231
90967530|NCT01431274|181817113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||0.3802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.026|0.069||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.069|-0.026|0.3802
90967531|NCT01431274|181817113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.062|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||0.0105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.015|0.11||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.110|0.015|0.0105
90967532|NCT01431274|181817113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.076|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.028|0.125||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.125|0.028|0.0018
90967533|NCT01431274|181817113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.091|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.043|0.139||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (2.5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.139|0.043|0.0002
90967534|NCT01431274|181817113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.014|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||0.5554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.062|0.034||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.034|-0.062|0.5554
90932858|NCT01263496|181745152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.2|-1.23||||||||-1.23|-17.20|
90932859|NCT01263496|181745152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.27|-6.72||||||||-6.72|-24.27|
90932860|NCT01263496|181745153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.22|6.67||||||||6.67|-11.22|
90932861|NCT01263496|181745153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.16|5.44||||||||5.44|-12.16|
90932862|NCT01263496|181745153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|2.44||||||||2.44|-13.30|
90932863|NCT01263496|181745153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.74|-3.06||||||||-3.06|-20.74|
90932864|NCT01263496|181745154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.97|7.08||||||||7.08|-11.97|
90932865|NCT01263496|181745154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.84|3.35||||||||3.35|-15.84|
90932866|NCT01263496|181745154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.28|1.41||||||||1.41|-15.28|
90932867|NCT01263496|181745154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.67|-2.78||||||||-2.78|-22.67|
90932868|NCT01263496|181745155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.19|2.31||||||||2.31|-13.19|
90932869|NCT01263496|181745155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.53|5.99||||||||5.99|-13.53|
90932870|NCT01263496|181745155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.36|2.67||||||||2.67|-14.36|
90932871|NCT01263496|181745155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.72|-1.73||||||||-1.73|-20.72|
90932872|NCT01263496|181745156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.42|5.9||||||||5.90|-10.42|
90932873|NCT01263496|181745156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.64|3.84||||||||3.84|-15.64|
90932874|NCT01263496|181745156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.52|-0.42||||||||-0.42|-16.52|
90932875|NCT01263496|181745156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.18|-2.76||||||||-2.76|-22.18|
90932876|NCT01263496|181745157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|7.77||||||||7.77|-7.10|
90932877|NCT01263496|181745157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.16|8.21||||||||8.21|-10.16|
90932878|NCT01263496|181745157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.71|5.95||||||||5.95|-9.71|
90932879|NCT01263496|181745157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.59|-0.18||||||||-0.18|-18.59|
90932880|NCT01263496|181745158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|6.75||||||||6.75|-10.20|
90932881|NCT01263496|181745158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|5.7||||||||5.70|-13.10|
90932882|NCT01263496|181745158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.94|5.0||||||||5.00|-12.94|
90932883|NCT01263496|181745158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|-0.08||||||||-0.08|-19.40|
90932884|NCT01263496|181745159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|6.15||||||||6.15|-11.00|
90932885|NCT01263496|181745159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.53|1.94||||||||1.94|-16.53|
90932886|NCT01263496|181745159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.93|-0.67||||||||-0.67|-17.93|
90932887|NCT01263496|181745159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.83|-1.93||||||||-1.93|-21.83|
90932888|NCT01263496|181745160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.68|7.27||||||||7.27|-9.68|
90967535|NCT01431274|181817114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.178|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.127|0.228||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.228|0.127|<0.0001
90932889|NCT01263496|181745160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.34|2.24||||||||2.24|-16.34|
90932890|NCT01263496|181745160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.47|-0.26||||||||-0.26|-17.47|
90932891|NCT01263496|181745160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.12|-3.89||||||||-3.89|-23.12|
90932892|NCT01263496|181745161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.09|6.8||||||||6.80|-10.09|
90932893|NCT01263496|181745161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.66|2.25||||||||2.25|-15.66|
90932894|NCT01263496|181745161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.64|0.07||||||||0.07|-16.64|
90932895|NCT01263496|181745161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.39|-10.24||||||||-10.24|-27.39|
90932896|NCT01263496|181745162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.017|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.219|0.254||||||||0.254|-0.219|
90932897|NCT01263496|181745162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.226|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.002|0.451||||||||0.451|0.002|
90932898|NCT01263496|181745162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.008|0.453||||||||0.453|0.008|
90932899|NCT01263496|181745162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.282|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.041|0.524||||||||0.524|0.041|
90932900|NCT01263496|181745163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.173|0.353||||||||0.353|-0.173|
90932901|NCT01263496|181745163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.228|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.467||||||||0.467|-0.010|
90932902|NCT01263496|181745163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.339|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.095|0.584||||||||0.584|0.095|
90932903|NCT01263496|181745163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.468|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.184|0.752||||||||0.752|0.184|
90932904|NCT01263496|181745164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.317|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.064|0.57||||||||0.570|0.064|
90932905|NCT01263496|181745164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.511|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.236|0.786||||||||0.786|0.236|
90932906|NCT01263496|181745164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.437|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.685||||||||0.685|0.190|
90932907|NCT01263496|181745164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.718|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.413|1.022||||||||1.022|0.413|
90932908|NCT01263496|181745165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.226|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.029|0.481||||||||0.481|-0.029|
90932909|NCT01263496|181745165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.358|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.104|0.612||||||||0.612|0.104|
90932910|NCT01263496|181745165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.308|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.076|0.54||||||||0.540|0.076|
90932911|NCT01263496|181745165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.331|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.098|0.565||||||||0.565|0.098|
90932912|NCT01263496|181745166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.41||||||||0.410|-0.130|
90932913|NCT01263496|181745166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.245|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.026|0.516||||||||0.516|-0.026|
90932914|NCT01263496|181745166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.294|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.035|0.552||||||||0.552|0.035|
90932915|NCT01263496|181745166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.329|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.032|0.626||||||||0.626|0.032|
90932916|NCT01263496|181745167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.049|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.252|0.349||||||||0.349|-0.252|
90932917|NCT01263496|181745167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.138|0.703||||||||0.703|0.138|
90932918|NCT01263496|181745167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.178|0.742||||||||0.742|0.178|
90932919|NCT01263496|181745167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.384|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.085|0.683||||||||0.683|0.085|
90932920|NCT01263496|181745168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.035|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.257|0.326||||||||0.326|-0.257|
90932921|NCT01263496|181745168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.249|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.043|0.542||||||||0.542|-0.043|
90932922|NCT01263496|181745168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.111|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.196|0.417||||||||0.417|-0.196|
90932923|NCT01263496|181745168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.333|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.656||||||||0.656|0.010|
90932924|NCT01263496|181745169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.268|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.769|0.233||||||||0.233|-0.769|
90932925|NCT01263496|181745169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.349|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.156|0.855||||||||0.855|-0.156|
90932926|NCT01263496|181745169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.297|0.577||||||||0.577|-0.297|
90932927|NCT01263496|181745169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.308|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.075|0.69||||||||0.690|-0.075|
90932928|NCT01263496|181745170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.281|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.367|0.928||||||||0.928|-0.367|
90932929|NCT01263496|181745170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.579|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.035|1.194||||||||1.194|-0.035|
90932930|NCT01263496|181745170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.647|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.054|1.241||||||||1.241|0.054|
90932931|NCT01263496|181745170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.252|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.785||||||||0.785|-0.280|
90932932|NCT01263496|181745171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.246|0.646||||||||0.646|-1.246|
90932933|NCT01263496|181745171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.643|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.305|1.591||||||||1.591|-0.305|
90932934|NCT01263496|181745171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.144|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.599|0.888||||||||0.888|-0.599|
90932935|NCT01263496|181745171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.673|1.173||||||||1.173|-0.673|
90932936|NCT01263496|181745172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.462|2.562||||||||2.562|-4.462|
90932937|NCT01263496|181745172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.033|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.712|2.779||||||||2.779|-2.712|
90932938|NCT01263496|181745172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.273|2.073||||||||2.073|-3.273|
90932939|NCT01263496|181745172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.874|2.074||||||||2.074|-2.874|
90932940|NCT01263496|181745173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.159|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.458||||||||0.458|-0.140|
90932941|NCT01263496|181745173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|0.52||||||||0.520|-0.001|
90932942|NCT01263496|181745173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.136|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.126|0.398||||||||0.398|-0.126|
90932943|NCT01263496|181745173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.298|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.042|0.553||||||||0.553|0.042|
90932944|NCT01263496|181745174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.82|7.99||||||||7.99|-11.82|
90932945|NCT01263496|181745174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.45|6.4||||||||6.40|-12.45|
90932946|NCT01263496|181745174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.77|1.96||||||||1.96|-18.77|
90932947|NCT01263496|181745174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.35|0.44||||||||0.44|-18.35|
90932948|NCT01263496|181745175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.88|19.19||||||||19.19|-3.88|
90932949|NCT01263496|181745175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.41|9.24||||||||9.24|-11.41|
90932950|NCT01263496|181745175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.91|10.75||||||||10.75|-12.91|
90932951|NCT01263496|181745175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.32|9.99||||||||9.99|-11.32|
90932952|NCT01263496|181745176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.09|16.49||||||||16.49|-7.09|
90932953|NCT01263496|181745176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.63|11.89||||||||11.89|-8.63|
90932954|NCT01263496|181745176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.36|7.98||||||||7.98|-13.36|
90932955|NCT01263496|181745176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.58|2.17||||||||2.17|-20.58|
90932956|NCT01263496|181745177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.44|9.84||||||||9.84|-11.44|
90932957|NCT01263496|181745177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.74|7.66||||||||7.66|-11.74|
90932958|NCT01263496|181745177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.62|4.75||||||||4.75|-15.62|
90932959|NCT01263496|181745177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.83|-2.74||||||||-2.74|-23.83|
90932960|NCT01263496|181745178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.15|14.1||||||||14.10|-28.15|
90932961|NCT01263496|181745178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.93|13.02||||||||13.02|-23.93|
90932962|NCT01263496|181745178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.46|-0.13||||||||-0.13|-35.46|
90932963|NCT01263496|181745178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-30.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.75|-13.41||||||||-13.41|-47.75|
90932964|NCT01263496|181745179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.18|42.09||||||||42.09|-5.18|
90932965|NCT01263496|181745179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.56|33.28||||||||33.28|-13.56|
90932966|NCT01263496|181745179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.25|15.37||||||||15.37|-30.25|
90932967|NCT01263496|181745179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.75|9.15||||||||9.15|-34.75|
90932968|NCT01263496|181745180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|25.58||||||||25.58|-13.90|
90932969|NCT01263496|181745180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.2|24.9||||||||24.90|-18.20|
90932970|NCT01263496|181745180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.03|18.74||||||||18.74|-26.03|
90932971|NCT01263496|181745180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.08|0.34||||||||0.34|-47.08|
90932972|NCT01263496|181745181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.77|24.71||||||||24.71|-18.77|
90932973|NCT01263496|181745181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.21|23.94||||||||23.94|-21.21|
90932974|NCT01263496|181745181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.69|10.3||||||||10.30|-32.69|
90932975|NCT01263496|181745181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-34.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.85|-12.96||||||||-12.96|-56.85|
90932976|NCT01263496|181745182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.955|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.375|1.535||||||||1.535|0.375|
90932977|NCT01263496|181745182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.358|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.752|1.965||||||||1.965|0.752|
90932978|NCT01263496|181745182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.724|1.975||||||||1.975|0.724|
90971311|NCT00439946|181825384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank|||Changes between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test, comparing the values at Baseline to values at Week 8. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values.||||1.00
90932979|NCT01263496|181745182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.804|1.955||||||||1.955|0.804|
90932980|NCT01263496|181745183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.034|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.344|1.723||||||||1.723|0.344|
90932981|NCT01263496|181745183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.448|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.115||||||||2.115|0.780|
90932982|NCT01263496|181745183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.243|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.616|1.87||||||||1.870|0.616|
90932983|NCT01263496|181745183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.481|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.827|2.136||||||||2.136|0.827|
90932984|NCT01263496|181745184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.088|4.188||||||||4.188|-4.088|
90932985|NCT01263496|181745184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.585|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.476|6.647||||||||6.647|-3.476|
90932986|NCT01263496|181745184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.517|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.151|9.184||||||||9.184|-8.151|
90932987|NCT01263496|181745184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.277|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.191|4.744||||||||4.744|-2.191|
90932988|NCT01263496|181745185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.841|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.239|1.443||||||||1.443|0.239|
90932989|NCT01263496|181745185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.304|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.679|1.93||||||||1.930|0.679|
90932990|NCT01263496|181745185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.992|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.585||||||||1.585|0.400|
90932991|NCT01263496|181745185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.263|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.674|1.853||||||||1.853|0.674|
90932992|NCT01263496|181745186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.891|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.597|22.184||||||||22.184|9.597|
90932993|NCT01263496|181745186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.026|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.466|23.585||||||||23.585|12.466|
90932994|NCT01263496|181745186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.838|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.379|25.297||||||||25.297|14.379|
90932995|NCT01263496|181745186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.368|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.677|22.06||||||||22.060|8.677|
90932996|NCT01263496|181745187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.323|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.567|22.079||||||||22.079|6.567|
90932997|NCT01263496|181745187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.714|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.563|26.864||||||||26.864|14.563|
90932998|NCT01263496|181745187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.063|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.125|25.002||||||||25.002|13.125|
90932999|NCT01263496|181745187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.233|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.618|23.847||||||||23.847|6.618|
90933000|NCT01263496|181745188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.047|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.169|14.924||||||||14.924|1.169|
90933001|NCT01263496|181745188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.767|20.133||||||||20.133|7.767|
90933002|NCT01263496|181745188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.221|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.191|21.251||||||||21.251|9.191|
90933003|NCT01263496|181745188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.366|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.847|20.885||||||||20.885|5.847|
90933004|NCT01263496|181745189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.719|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.657|13.782||||||||13.782|1.657|
90933005|NCT01263496|181745189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.978|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.556|18.399||||||||18.399|7.556|
90933006|NCT01263496|181745189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.076|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.808|20.345||||||||20.345|9.808|
90933007|NCT01263496|181745189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.087|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.561|19.614||||||||19.614|6.561|
90933008|NCT01263496|181745190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.03|20.55||||||||20.55|-7.03|
90933009|NCT01263496|181745190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|25.19||||||||25.19|-1.49|
90933010|NCT01263496|181745190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.12|24.56||||||||24.56|-5.12|
90933011|NCT01263496|181745190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.26|14.9||||||||14.90|-13.26|
90933012|NCT01263496|181745191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.11|22.91||||||||22.91|-11.11|
90933013|NCT01263496|181745191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.21|28.35||||||||28.35|-7.21|
90933014|NCT01263496|181745191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.08|26.98||||||||26.98|-10.08|
90933015|NCT01263496|181745191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.67|24.3||||||||24.30|-10.67|
90933016|NCT01263496|181745192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.95|21.13||||||||21.13|-14.95|
90933017|NCT01263496|181745192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.61|20.57||||||||20.57|-15.61|
90933018|NCT01263496|181745192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|19.68||||||||19.68|-21.00|
90933019|NCT01263496|181745192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.47|20.05||||||||20.05|-17.47|
90933020|NCT01263496|181745193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|19.86||||||||19.86|-11.70|
90933021|NCT01263496|181745193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.14|21.03||||||||21.03|-11.14|
91035529|NCT00462228|181957077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37||95.0||||6 week comparison, alpha = 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: The change from baseline occurring with memantine is equal to the change from baseline occurring with placebo at 6 weeks for BVMT-R delayed recall scores.||||0.37
90933022|NCT01263496|181745193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.42|21.73||||||||21.73|-14.42|
90933023|NCT01263496|181745193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.24|15.89||||||||15.89|-17.24|
90933024|NCT00535626|181745248|OTHER|"To test if revision rate at 5 years is less than 10% (Ha - Alternative Hypothesis).~Note: All cases enrolled in the study had to undergo revision whether from their primary procedure or a previous revision. Based on literature, 10% is the expected rate of another revision occurring in this cohort of enrolled patients."|Revision or Pending Revision Rate|2.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.07|5.46|||||The estimated 2.43% revision rate was obtained by the Kaplan-Meier method.|||5.46|1.07|
90933025|NCT00535626|181745249|OTHER|To test if the change from the pre-operative HHS compared to the post-operative HHS at all intervals is statistically significant.|||||<|0.0001||||||This p-value applies to all intervals.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||<0.0001
90933026|NCT00535626|181745250|OTHER|To test whether the change from the pre-operative SF-36 Physical Score compared to each post-operative SF-36 Physical score is statistically significant.|||||<|0.0001||||||This p-value applies to all intervals.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||<0.0001
90933027|NCT00535626|181745250|OTHER|To test whether the change from the pre-operative SF-36 Mental Score compared to the 3 month SF-36 Mental Score is statistically significant.||||||0.0139|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.0139
90933028|NCT00535626|181745250|OTHER|To test whether the change from the pre-operative SF-36 Mental Score compared to the 1 year SF-36 Mental Score is statistically significant.||||||0.0254|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.0254
90933029|NCT00535626|181745250|OTHER|To test whether the change from the SF-36 Mental Score compared to the 2 year SF-36 Mental Score is statistically significant.||||||0.1506|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.1506
90933030|NCT00535626|181745250|OTHER|To test whether the change from the pre-operative SF-36 Mental Score compared to the 3 year SF-36 Mental Score is statistically significant.||||||0.0936|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.0936
90933031|NCT00535626|181745250|OTHER|To test if the change from the pre-operative SF-36 Mental Score compared to the 4 year SF-36 Mental Score is statistically significant.||||||0.0909|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.0909
90933032|NCT00535626|181745250|OTHER|To test whether the change from the pre-operative SF-36 Mental Score compared to the 5 year SF-36 Mental Score is statistically significant.||||||0.048|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.048
90933033|NCT00535626|181745253|OTHER|To test whether the change from the pre-operative LEAS Score compared to the 3 month LEAS Score is statistically significant.||||||0.0011|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.0011
90933034|NCT00535626|181745253|OTHER|To test whether the change from the pre-operative LEAS compared to the 1, 2 and 3 year LEAS are statistically significant.|||||<|0.0001||||||This p-value applies to pre-op to 1, 2 and 3 year intervals.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||<0.0001
90933035|NCT00535626|181745253|OTHER|To test whether the change from the pre-operative LEAS compared to the 4 year LEAS is statistically significant.||||||0.0002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.0002
90933036|NCT00535626|181745253|OTHER|To test whether the change from the pre-operative LEAS compared to the 5 year LEAS is statistically significant.||||||0.0009|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.0009
90933037|NCT01853384|181745280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5348||||||Analysis adjusted for sites, with significance being at P \< 0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||.5348
90933038|NCT01853384|181745281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9456|||||||Regression, Cox|||||||.9456
90933039|NCT01853384|181745283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6194||||||Treatment Week 01|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||.6194
90933040|NCT01853384|181745283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.793||||||Treatment Week 02|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||.7930
90933041|NCT01853384|181745283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3362||||||Treatment Week 03|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3362
90933042|NCT01853384|181745283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5263||||||Treatment Week 04|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.5263
90933043|NCT01853384|181745283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1997||||||Treatment Week 05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1997
90933044|NCT01853384|181745283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1617||||||Treatment Week 06|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1617
90933045|NCT01853384|181745283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2611||||||Treatment Week 07|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2611
90933046|NCT01853384|181745283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7232||||||Treatment Week 08|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.7232
90933047|NCT01853384|181745283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4405||||||Treatment Week 09|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4405
90933048|NCT01853384|181745283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3516||||||Treatment Week 10|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3516
90933049|NCT01853384|181745283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2821||||||Treatment Week 11|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2821
90933050|NCT01853384|181745283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3722||||||Treatment Week 12|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3722
90933051|NCT01853384|181745283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5348||||||Week 12 - Primary Endpoint|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.5348
90933052|NCT01853384|181745285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5909||||||Week 01|ANCOVA|||||||0.5909
90933053|NCT01853384|181745285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8234||||||Week 02|ANCOVA|||||||0.8234
90933054|NCT01853384|181745285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1556||||||Week 03|ANCOVA|||||||0.1556
90933055|NCT01853384|181745285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3487||||||Week 04|ANCOVA|||||||0.3487
90933056|NCT01853384|181745285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1064||||||Week 05|ANCOVA|||||||0.1064
90933057|NCT01853384|181745285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2888||||||Week 06|ANCOVA|||||||0.2888
90933058|NCT01853384|181745285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6095||||||Week 07|ANCOVA|||||||0.6095
90933059|NCT01853384|181745285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1566||||||Week 08|ANCOVA|||||||0.1566
90933060|NCT01853384|181745285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4216||||||Week 09|ANCOVA|||||||0.4216
90933061|NCT01853384|181745285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8166||||||Week10|ANCOVA|||||||0.8166
90933062|NCT01853384|181745285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9114||||||Week 11|ANCOVA|||||||0.9114
90967536|NCT01431274|181817114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.084|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.033|0.134||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.134|0.033|0.0011
90967537|NCT01431274|181817114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.142|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.091|0.192||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.192|0.091|<0.0001
90967538|NCT01431274|181817114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.041|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.1112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.009|0.091||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.091|-0.009|0.1112
90967539|NCT01431274|181817114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.0632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.003|0.098||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.098|-0.003|0.0632
90967540|NCT01431274|181817114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.036|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.1615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.014|0.086||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.086|-0.014|0.1615
90967541|NCT01431274|181817114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.077|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.027|0.127||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.127|0.027|0.0027
90967542|NCT01431274|181817114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.094|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.044|0.144||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.144|0.044|0.0003
90967543|NCT01431274|181817114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.101|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.151||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (2.5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.151|0.050|<0.0001
90967544|NCT01431274|181817114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.7925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.057|0.044||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.044|-0.057|0.7925
90967545|NCT01431274|181817115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.074|0.162||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).|||0.162|0.074|<0.0001
90967546|NCT01431274|181817115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.123|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.077|0.169||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 μg).|||0.169|0.077|<0.0001
90967547|NCT01431274|181817115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.071|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.028|0.114||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).|||0.114|0.028|0.0012
90967548|NCT01431274|181817115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.094|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.137||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).|||0.137|0.050|<0.0001
90933063|NCT01853384|181745285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9733||||||Week 12|ANCOVA|||||||0.9733
90933064|NCT01853384|181745286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7439||||||Week 01|ANCOVA|||||||0.7439
90933065|NCT01853384|181745286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6992||||||Week 02|ANCOVA|||||||0.6992
90933066|NCT01853384|181745286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0867||||||Week 03|ANCOVA|||||||0.0867
90933067|NCT01853384|181745286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5739||||||Week 04|ANCOVA|||||||0.5739
90933068|NCT01853384|181745286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6497||||||Week 05|ANCOVA|||||||0.6497
90933069|NCT01853384|181745286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1427||||||Week 06|ANCOVA|||||||0.1427
90933070|NCT01853384|181745286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0682||||||Week 07|ANCOVA|||||||0.0682
90933071|NCT01853384|181745286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0161||||||Week 08|ANCOVA|||||||0.0161
90933072|NCT01853384|181745286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0973||||||Week 09|ANCOVA|||||||0.0973
90933073|NCT01853384|181745286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4661||||||Week 10|ANCOVA|||||||0.4661
90933074|NCT01853384|181745286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.601||||||Week 11|ANCOVA|||||||0.6010
90933075|NCT01853384|181745286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3369||||||Week 12|ANCOVA|||||||0.3369
90933076|NCT00508183|181745310|OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.60
90933077|NCT00508183|181745311|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
90933078|NCT00508183|181745312|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
90933079|NCT00508183|181745314|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.05
90933080|NCT01102426|181745315|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65|||=|0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.447|0.885||Cox regression: HR p=0.0062|Log Rank|||||0.885|0.447|=0.0054
90933081|NCT01102426|181745316|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0618|||||||Normal approximation|||||||0.0618
90933082|NCT01102426|181745317|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.512|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.382|0.686||Cox regression HR: p\<0.0001|Log Rank|||||0.686|0.382|< 0.0001
90933083|NCT01102426|181745318|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||Normal approximation|||||||0.0002
90933084|NCT01102426|181745319|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.797|||=|0.1261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.596|1.067||Cox regression HR: p=0.1273|Log Rank|||Pre-specified||1.067|0.596|=0.1261
90933085|NCT01102426|181745320|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3625|||||||Normal approximation|||||||0.3625
90933086|NCT01102426|181745321|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1037|||||||Normal approximation|||||||0.1037
90933087|NCT01102426|181745322|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.384|||=|0.1015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.113|1.303||Cox regression HR: 0.1247|Log Rank|||||1.303|0.113|=0.1015
90933088|NCT01102426|181745324|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.043|||=|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|0.479||Cox regression HR: 0.0105|Log Rank|||Pre-specified||0.479|0.004|=0.0001
90933089|NCT01102426|181745327|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
90933090|NCT01102426|181745328|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0085|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0085
90933091|NCT01102426|181745330|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
90933092|NCT01102426|181745331|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0029|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0029
90933093|NCT03785756|181745332|EQUIVALENCE|The primary analysis was based on a two-sided test at the significance level of 0.05. The treatment difference is presented with a 95% confidence interval (CI).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|34.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.72|41.38|||ANCOVA|Estimates from an ANCOVA model with SPID12 score as the dependent variable. Terms for treatment and baseline pain score were included as covariates.||The primary efficacy hypothesis was that SPID12 for placebo was equal to SPID12 for ibuprofen 2 × 300 mg PR tablets.||41.38|26.72|<0.0001
90933094|NCT03879538|181745375|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.57||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|0.28||a priori threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference is Nitrous Oxide minus Control.|Null hypothesis: Mean of pain score assessed at one-week and one-month follow-up after end of treatment for Nitrous Oxide group equals that assessed at same time points for the Control group.||0.28|-1.42|0.19
90933095|NCT03879538|181745376|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.13||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.43||a priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference is Nitrous oxide minus control.|Null hypothesis for testing difference in means of physical health Z-score between two study groups: mean of physical health Z-score assessed at one-week and one-month follow-ups for Nitrous Oxide group was equal to that assessed at the same follow-up time points for Control group.||0.43|-0.16|0.36
90933096|NCT03879538|181745376|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.087||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.48||a priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference is Nitrous oxide minus control.|Null hypothesis for testing difference in means of mental health Z-score between two study groups: mean of mental health Z-score assessed at one-week and one-month follow-ups for Nitrous Oxide group was equal to that assessed at the same follow-up time points for Control group.||0.48|-0.31|0.66
90933097|NCT03879538|181745377|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|0.46||a priori threshold for statistical significance is p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference is Nitrous Oxide minus Control.|Null hypothesis: Mean of PGIC scale assessed at one-week and one-month follow-up time points for Nitrous Oxide patients is equal to that assessed at the same time points for Control patients.||0.46|-1.85|0.23
90933098|NCT00666705|181745420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (percent)|85.76||||||90.0|79.89|92.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|Natural log transformed AUCτ was analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and subject as a random effect.|Ratio (percent) (Test/Reference) of Adjusted Geometric Means|The alternate hypothesis of bioequivalence is that there is no difference between treatment groups. For maraviroc, a sample size of 18 subjects provided 99% power that the 90% confidence interval (CI) for the ratio of Test (raltegravir co-administered with maraviroc) to Reference (maraviroc administered alone) treatment for the area under the plasma concentration-time profile over the dosing interval (AUCτ) would lie within the acceptance region of (80%, 125%).||92.07|79.89|
90967549|NCT01431274|181817115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.076|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.031|0.121||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 µg).|||0.121|0.031|0.0010
90967550|NCT01431274|181817115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.047|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023||0.0384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.003|0.092||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 µg).|||0.092|0.003|0.0384
90967551|NCT01431274|181817115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.141|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.097|0.185||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).|||0.185|0.097|<0.0001
90967552|NCT01431274|181817115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023||0.8428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.049|0.04||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).|||0.040|-0.049|0.8428
90967553|NCT01431274|181817115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022||0.3048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.065|0.02||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tiotropium (2.5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).|||0.020|-0.065|0.3048
90967554|NCT01431274|181817115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.018|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023||0.4311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.027|0.063||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).|||0.063|-0.027|0.4311
90967555|NCT01431274|181817116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.098|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.057|0.139||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).|||0.139|0.057|<0.0001
90967556|NCT01431274|181817116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.106|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.063|0.149||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 μg).|||0.149|0.063|<0.0001
90967557|NCT01431274|181817116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.051|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021||0.0136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.091||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).|||0.091|0.010|0.0136
90967558|NCT01431274|181817116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.075|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.035|0.116||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).|||0.116|0.035|0.0003
90967559|NCT01431274|181817116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.059|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022||0.0065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.016|0.101||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 µg).|||0.101|0.016|0.0065
90967560|NCT01431274|181817116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.047|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021||0.0277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.005|0.089||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 µg).|||0.089|0.005|0.0277
90967561|NCT01431274|181817116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.122|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.081|0.164||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).|||0.164|0.081|<0.0001
90967562|NCT01431274|181817116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021||0.7116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.049|0.034||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).|||0.034|-0.049|0.7116
90967563|NCT01431274|181817116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.2332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.065|0.016||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tiotropium (2.5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).|||0.016|-0.065|0.2332
90967564|NCT01431274|181817116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.017|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021||0.4374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.025|0.059||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).|||0.059|-0.025|0.4374
90967565|NCT01431274|181817117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.161|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.077|0.244||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).|||0.244|0.077|0.0002
90967566|NCT01431274|181817117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.053|0.228||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 μg).|||0.228|0.053|0.0017
90967567|NCT01431274|181817117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.128|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.042||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.046|0.21||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).|||0.210|0.046|0.0022
90967568|NCT01431274|181817117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.176|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.042|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.093|0.259||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).|||0.259|0.093|<0.0001
90967569|NCT01431274|181817117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.108|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044||0.0141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.022|0.194||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 µg).|||0.194|0.022|0.0141
90967570|NCT01431274|181817117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.032|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.4581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.053|0.118||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 µg).|||0.118|-0.053|0.4581
90967571|NCT01431274|181817117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.208|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.124|0.293||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).|||0.293|0.124|<0.0001
90967572|NCT01431274|181817117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.6335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.064|0.105||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).|||0.105|-0.064|0.6335
90967573|NCT01431274|181817117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.047|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.129|0.034||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tiotropium (2.5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).|||0.034|-0.129|0.2530
90967574|NCT01431274|181817117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.068|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.1188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.017|0.153||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).|||0.153|-0.017|0.1188
90967575|NCT01431274|181817118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.137|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.057|0.217||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).|||0.217|0.057|0.0008
90967576|NCT01431274|181817118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.126|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.042|0.209||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 μg).|||0.209|0.042|0.0032
90967577|NCT01431274|181817118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.105|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.027|0.183||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).|||0.183|0.027|0.0085
90967578|NCT01431274|181817118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.156|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.077|0.235||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).|||0.235|0.077|0.0001
90967579|NCT01431274|181817118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.094|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.042||0.0255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.011|0.176||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 µg).|||0.176|0.011|0.0255
90967580|NCT01431274|181817118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.032|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041||0.4393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.049|0.113||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 µg).|||0.113|-0.049|0.4393
90967581|NCT01431274|181817118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.188|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.108|0.269||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).|||0.269|0.108|<0.0001
90967582|NCT01431274|181817118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041||0.7784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.069|0.092||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).|||0.092|-0.069|0.7784
90967583|NCT01431274|181817118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.051|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.1965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.129|0.026||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tiotropium (2.5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).|||0.026|-0.129|0.1965
90967584|NCT01431274|181817118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.063|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041||0.1315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.019|0.144||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).|||0.144|-0.019|0.1315
90967585|NCT01431274|181817119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.141|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.239|-1.043||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||-1.043|-3.239|0.0001
90967586|NCT01431274|181817119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.131|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.0435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|-0.033||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 μg).|||-0.033|-2.230|0.0435
90967587|NCT01431274|181817119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.528|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.559||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.623|-0.432||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||-0.432|-2.623|0.0063
90967588|NCT01431274|181817119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.517|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.558||0.3545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.611|0.577||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.577|-1.611|0.3545
90967589|NCT01431274|181817119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.518|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.559||0.3542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.614|0.578||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.578|-1.614|0.3542
90967590|NCT01431274|181817119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.613|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.556||0.2697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.702|0.476||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.476|-1.702|0.2697
90971312|NCT00439946|181825385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank|||Changes between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test, comparing the values at Baseline to values at Week 8. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values.||||1.00
90933099|NCT00666705|181745421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (percent)|79.48||||||90.0|67.19|94.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|Natural log transformed Cmax was analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and subject as a random effect.|Ratio (percent) (Test/Reference) of Adjusted Geometric Means|The alternate hypothesis of bioequivalence is that there is no difference between treatment groups. For maraviroc, a sample size of 18 subjects provided 91% power that the 90% CI for the ratio of Test (raltegravir co-administered with maraviroc) to Reference (maraviroc administered alone) treatment for the maximum concentration (Cmax) would lie within the acceptance region of (80%, 125%).||94.02|67.19|
90933100|NCT00666705|181745422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (percent)|63.25||||||90.0|44.27|90.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|Natural log transformed AUCτ was analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and subject as a random effect.|Ratio (percent) (Test/Reference) of Adjusted Geometric Means|For raltegravir, a sample size of 18 subjects provided 90% CIs for the difference between treatments of raltegravir (±0.205) on the natural log scale for AUCτ, with 90% coverage probability.||90.39|44.27|
90933101|NCT00666705|181745423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (percent)|90.33||||||90.0|85.28|95.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|Natural log transformed C12 was analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and subject as a random effect.|Ratio (percent) (Test/Reference) of Adjusted Geometric Means|The alternate hypothesis of bioequivalence is that there is no difference between treatment groups.||95.68|85.28|
90933102|NCT00666705|181745424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (percent)|66.77||||||90.0|41.22|108.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|Natural log transformed Cmax was analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and subject as a random effect.|Ratio (percent) (Test/Reference) of Adjusted Geometric Means|For raltegravir, a sample size of 18 subjects provided 90% CIs for the difference between treatments of raltegravir (±0.293) on the natural log scale for Cmax, with 90% coverage probability.||108.15|41.22|
90933103|NCT00666705|181745425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio (percent)|72.42||||||90.0|57.82|90.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|Natural log transformed C12 was analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and subject as a random effect.|Ratio (percent) (Test/Reference) of Adjusted Geometric Means|||90.71|57.82|
90933104|NCT01029704|181745436|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-16.923||||0.0989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.076|3.23||P-values are from two-sided test at 5% level|ANCOVA|Analysis is based on ANCOVA with change from baseline as dependent variable and treatment as fixed effect and baseline and center as covariate.||||3.230|-37.076|0.0989
90933105|NCT01029704|181745436|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-17.834||||0.0964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.909|3.242||P-values are from two-sided test at 5% level|ANCOVA|Analysis is based on ANCOVA with change from baseline as dependent variable and treatment as fixed effect and baseline and center as covariate.||||3.242|-38.909|0.0964
90933106|NCT01029704|181745436|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-19.991||||0.0465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.67|-0.312||P-values are from two-sided test at 5% level|ANCOVA|Analysis is based on ANCOVA with change from baseline as dependent variable and treatment as fixed effect and baseline and center as covariate.||||-0.312|-39.670|0.0465
90933107|NCT01029704|181745436|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-32.01||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.487|-12.533||P-values are from two-sided test at 5% level|ANCOVA|Analysis is based on ANCOVA with change from baseline as dependent variable and treatment as fixed effect and baseline and center as covariate.||||-12.533|-51.487|0.0015
90933108|NCT01029704|181745438|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-1.434||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.349|-0.52||P-values are from a two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Analysis is based on ANCOVA with change from baseline as dependent variable and treatment as fixed effect and baseline and center as covariate.||||-0.520|-2.349|0.0025
90933109|NCT01029704|181745438|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-1.037||||0.0269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.952|-0.122||P-values are from a two-sided test|ANCOVA|Analysis is based on ANCOVA with change from baseline as dependent variable and treatment as fixed effect and baseline and center as covariate.||||-0.122|-1.952|0.0269
90933110|NCT01029704|181745438|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-2.054|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.938|-1.17||P-values are from a two-sided test|ANCOVA|Analysis is based on ANCOVA with change from baseline as dependent variable and treatment as fixed effect and baseline and center as covariate.||||-1.170|-2.938|< 0.0001
90933111|NCT01029704|181745438|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-1.172||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.044|-0.301||P-values are from a two-sided test|ANCOVA|Analysis is based on ANCOVA with change from baseline as dependent variable and treatment as fixed effect and baseline and center as covariate.||||-0.301|-2.044|0.0090
90933112|NCT01029704|181745439|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.353||||0.0281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.668|-0.039||P-values are from a two-sided test|ANCOVA|Analysis is based on ANCOVA with change from baseline as dependent variable and treatment as fixed effect and baseline and center as covariate.||||-0.039|-0.668|0.0281
90933113|NCT01029704|181745439|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.155||||0.3215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.464|0.154||P-values are from a two-sided test|ANCOVA|Analysis is based on ANCOVA with change from baseline as dependent variable and treatment as fixed effect and baseline and center as covariate.||||0.154|-0.464|0.3215
90933114|NCT01029704|181745439|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.004||||0.9776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.304|0.295||P-values are from a two-sided test|ANCOVA|Analysis is based on ANCOVA with change from baseline as dependent variable and treatment as fixed effect and baseline and center as covariate.||||0.295|-0.304|0.9776
90933115|NCT01029704|181745439|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.344||||0.0242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.642|-0.046||P-values are from a two-sided test|ANCOVA|Analysis is based on ANCOVA with change from baseline as dependent variable and treatment as fixed effect and baseline and center as covariate.||||-0.046|-0.642|0.0242
90933116|NCT01029704|181745441|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|17.688||||0.1613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.21|42.587||P-values are from a two-sided test|ANCOVA|Analysis is based on ANCOVA with change from baseline as dependent variable and treatment as fixed effect and baseline and center as covariate.||||42.587|-7.210|0.1613
90933117|NCT01029704|181745441|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|17.091||||0.2079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.696|43.877||P-values are from a two-sided test|ANCOVA|Analysis is based on ANCOVA with change from baseline as dependent variable and treatment as fixed effect and baseline and center as covariate.||||43.877|-9.696|0.2079
90933118|NCT01029704|181745441|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|24.379||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.028|47.731||P-values are from a two-sided test|ANCOVA|Analysis is based on ANCOVA with change from baseline as dependent variable and treatment as fixed effect and baseline and center as covariate.||||47.731|1.028|0.0410
90933119|NCT01029704|181745441|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|20.749||||0.0862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.019|44.518||P-values are from a two-sided test|ANCOVA|Analysis is based on ANCOVA with change from baseline as dependent variable and treatment as fixed effect and baseline and center as covariate.||||44.518|-3.019|0.0862
90933120|NCT03845517|181745443|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.5||||0.8076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.5|9.5||One sided p-value.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||9.5|-24.5|0.8076
90933121|NCT03845517|181745443|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.2||||0.2189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|18.3||One sided p-value.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||18.3|-7.9|0.2189
90933122|NCT03845517|181745443|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.7||||0.401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|15.3||One sided p-value.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||15.3|-11.8|0.4010
90933123|NCT03845517|181745444|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.1||||0.595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.1|14.9||One sided p-value.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||14.9|-19.1|0.5950
90933124|NCT03845517|181745444|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.6||||0.1125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|22.6||One sided p-value.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||22.6|-5.3|0.1125
90933125|NCT03845517|181745444|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.6||||0.0891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|23.6||One sided p-value.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||23.6|-4.4|0.0891
90933126|NCT01109979|181745465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.04
90933127|NCT02580799|181745467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.137|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Site A: Site B variability assessment||||=0.137
90933128|NCT02580799|181745467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.454|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Site A: Site C variability assessment||||=0.454
90933129|NCT02580799|181745467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.211|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Site A: Site D variability assessment||||=0.211
90933130|NCT02580799|181745467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.294|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Site A: Site E variability assessment||||=0.294
90933131|NCT02580799|181745469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.054|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Site B: Site C variability assessment||||=0.054
90933132|NCT02580799|181745469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|1|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Site B: Site D variability assessment||||=1.000
90933133|NCT02580799|181745469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.968|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Site B: Site E variability assessment||||=0.968
90933134|NCT02580799|181745482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.246|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Site C: Site D variability assessment||||=0.246
90933135|NCT02580799|181745482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.032|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Site C: Site E variability assessment||||=0.032
90933136|NCT02580799|181745482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Site D: Site E variability assessment||||=0.007
90933137|NCT02580799|181745484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.988|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Abroad: Site A variability assessment||||=0.988
90933138|NCT02580799|181745484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Abroad: Site B variability assessment||||=0.008
90933139|NCT02580799|181745484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.031|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Abroad: Site C variability assessment||||=0.031
90933140|NCT02580799|181745484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.554|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Abroad: Site D variability assessment||||=0.554
90933141|NCT02580799|181745484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.709|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Abroad: Site E variability assessment||||=0.709
90933142|NCT03136861|181745489|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.89||||0.0264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|3.33|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model: logit (proportion) = treatment + stratification factor of prior exposure to TNF inhibitors (i.e. TNF-naïve or TNFα-IR).||Average Spinal Pain Score \<4 at Week 8||3.33|1.08|0.0264
90933143|NCT03136861|181745489|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|3.1|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model: logit (proportion) = treatment + stratification factor of prior exposure to TNF inhibitors (i.e. TNF-naïve or TNFα-IR)||Total Spinal Pain Score \<4 at Week 8||3.10|0.95|0.0720
90933144|NCT03136861|181745489|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.38||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|4.31|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model: logit (proportion) = treatment + stratification factor of prior exposure to TNF inhibitors (i.e. TNF-naïve or TNFα-IR)||Nocturnal Spinal Pain Score||4.31|1.31|0.0043
90933145|NCT03136861|181745490|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.75||||0.0466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|3.04|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model: logit (proportion) = treatment + stratification factor of prior exposure to TNF inhibitors (i.e. TNF-naïve or TNFα-IR).||BASDAI Score \<4 at Week 8||3.04|1.01|0.0466
90933146|NCT00186446|181745491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t(19)= -8.93||||||<.001
90933147|NCT02233998|181745515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.234|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0162|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.266|-0.202||Per statistical analysis plan, Hochberg's method at significance level 0.05 was applied to jointly evaluate Whole Mouth Mean MGI at Wk 3 and Whole Mouth Mean PI at Wk 3 for both Listerine rinses vs control. Family-wise error controlled at 0.05.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment with baseline whole mouth mean modified gingival index as a covariate.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-0.202|-0.266|<0.001
90933148|NCT02233998|181745515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.197|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0161|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.228|-0.165||Per statistical analysis plan, Hochberg's method at significance level 0.05 was applied to jointly evaluate Whole Mouth Mean MGI at Wk 3 and Whole Mouth Mean PI at Wk 3 for both Listerine rinses vs control. Family-wise error controlled at 0.05.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment with baseline whole mouth mean modified gingival index as a covariate.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-0.165|-0.228|<0.001
90967591|NCT01431274|181817119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.559||0.0434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.227|-0.033||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||-0.033|-2.227|0.0434
90967592|NCT01431274|181817119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.563||0.0732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.114|0.095||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.095|-2.114|0.0732
90967593|NCT01431274|181817119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.563||0.0724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.114|0.092||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (2.5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.092|-2.114|0.0724
90967594|NCT01431274|181817119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.563||0.9983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.102|1.104||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||1.104|-1.102|0.9983
90967595|NCT01431274|181817120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.852|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.578||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.985|-0.718||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||-0.718|-2.985|0.0014
90967596|NCT01431274|181817120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.444|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.576||0.4413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.573|0.686||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.686|-1.573|0.4413
90933149|NCT02233998|181745516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.469|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0286|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.526|-0.413||Per statistical analysis plan, Hochberg's method at significance level 0.05 was applied to jointly evaluate Whole Mouth Mean MGI at Wk 3 and Whole Mouth Mean PI at Wk 3 for both Listerine rinses vs control. Family-wise error controlled at 0.05.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment with baseline whole mouth mean plaque index as a covariate.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-0.413|-0.526|<0.001
90933150|NCT02233998|181745516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.379|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0286|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.435|-0.322||Per statistical analysis plan, Hochberg's method at significance level 0.05 was applied to jointly evaluate Whole Mouth Mean MGI at Wk 3 and Whole Mouth Mean PI at Wk 3 for both Listerine rinses vs control. Family-wise error controlled at 0.05.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment with baseline whole mouth mean plaque index as a covariate.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-0.322|-0.435|<0.001
90933151|NCT02233998|181745517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.006|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.042|-0.019||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment with baseline whole mouth mean gingival bleeding index as a covariate.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-0.019|-0.042|<0.001
90933152|NCT02233998|181745517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.026|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0059|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.038|-0.014||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment with baseline whole mouth mean gingival bleeding index as a covariate.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-0.014|-0.038|<0.001
90933153|NCT02233998|181745518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of difference|23.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.75|25.85||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|P-values were based on Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on the change from baseline.|95% Confidence limits for the location shift.|The null hypothesis was no difference between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between treatment groups.||25.85|20.75|<0.001
90933154|NCT02233998|181745518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of difference|19.444|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.09|22.22||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|P-values were based on Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on the change from baseline.|95% Confidence limits for the location shift.|The null hypothesis was no difference between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between treatment groups.||22.22|17.09|<0.001
90933155|NCT02233998|181745519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of difference|19.048|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.94|21.73||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|P-values were based on Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on the change from baseline.|95% Confidence limits for the location shift.|The null hypothesis was no difference between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between treatment groups.||21.73|15.94|<0.001
90971313|NCT00439946|181825386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank|||Changes between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test, comparing the values at Baseline to values at Week 8. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values||||0.50
90933156|NCT02233998|181745519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of difference|15.939|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.5|18.67||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|P-values were based on Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on the change from baseline.|95% Confidence limits for the location shift.|The null hypothesis was no difference between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between treatment groups.||18.67|12.50|<0.001
90933157|NCT02233998|181745520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of difference|2.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.78||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|P-values were based on Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on the change from baseline.|95% Confidence limits for the location shift.|The null hypothesis was no difference between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between treatment groups.||2.78|1.30|<0.001
90933158|NCT02233998|181745520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of difference|1.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|2.06||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|P-values were based on Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on the change from baseline.|95% Confidence limits for the location shift.|The null hypothesis was no difference between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between treatment groups.||2.06|0.93|<0.001
90933159|NCT02233998|181745521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of difference|1.316||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.78||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|P-values were based on Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on the change from baseline.|95% Confidence limits for the location shift.|The null hypothesis was no difference between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between treatment groups.||2.78|0.00|0.016
90933160|NCT02233998|181745521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of difference|0.926||||0.197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|1.85||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|P-values were based on Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on the change from baseline.|95% Confidence limits for the location shift.|The null hypothesis was no difference between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between treatment groups.||1.85|-0.16|0.197
90933161|NCT02233998|181745522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of difference|23.214|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.21|28.77||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|P-values were based on Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on the change from baseline.|95% Confidence limits for the location shift.|The null hypothesis was no difference between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between treatment groups.||28.77|18.21|<0.001
90933162|NCT02233998|181745522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of difference|18.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.69|23.81||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|P-values were based on Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on the change from baseline.|95% Confidence limits for the location shift.|The null hypothesis was no difference between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between treatment groups.||23.81|13.69|<0.001
90933163|NCT02233998|181745523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of difference|19.048|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.94|21.73||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|P-values were based on Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on the change from baseline.|95% Confidence limits for the location shift.|The null hypothesis was no difference between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between treatment groups.||21.73|15.94|<0.001
90933164|NCT02233998|181745523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of difference|15.939|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.5|18.67||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|P-values were based on Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on the change from baseline.|95% Confidence limits for the location shift.|The null hypothesis was no difference between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between treatment groups.||18.67|12.50|<0.001
91035530|NCT00462228|181957077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95||95.0||||12 week comparison, alpha = 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: The change from baseline occurring with memantine is equal to the change from baseline occurring with placebo at 12 weeks for BVMT-R delayed recall scores.||||0.95
90933165|NCT01262456|181745533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.22||A priori threshold for significance was p\<=0.05.|ANCOVA|Repeated measures ANCOVA of change from baseline at Week 1, Months 1, 2, 3, adjusted for age (\<65, ≥65 years), visit, and baseline nocturnal voids.||"Superiority to placebo was to be simultaneously demonstrated on the 2 co-primary outcomes in a step-down approach from highest (75 μg) to lowest dose (50 μg), thereby controlling the family-wise error rate at the 5% nominal significance level.~A summary of mean change in nocturnal voids, assessed longitudinally during 3 months of treatment, is presented below for the FAS using LOCF."||-0.22|-0.61|<0.0001
90933166|NCT01262456|181745533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.17||A priori threshold for significance was p\<=0.05|ANCOVA|Repeated measures ANCOVA of change from baseline at Week 1, Months 1, 2, 3, adjusted for age (\<65, ≥65 years), visit, and baseline nocturnal voids.||"Superiority to placebo was to be simultaneously demonstrated on the 2 co-primary outcomes in a step-down approach from highest (75 μg) to lowest dose (50 μg), thereby controlling the family-wise error rate at the 5% nominal significance level.~A summary of mean change in nocturnal voids, assessed longitudinally during 3 months of treatment, is presented below for the FAS using LOCF."||-0.17|-0.57|0.0003
90933167|NCT01262456|181745534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.04||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|3.03||A priori threshold for significance was p\<=0.05.|Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)|GEE Method for 33% responder status at Week 1, Month 1, Month 2, and Month 3, adjusted for age (\<65, ≥65 years), visit, and baseline nocturnal voids.||Superiority to placebo was to be simultaneously demonstrated on the 2 co-primary endpoints in a step-down approach from highest (75 μg) to lowest dose (50 μg), thereby controlling the family-wise error rate at the 5% nominal significance level.||3.03|1.38|0.0004
90971314|NCT00439946|181825387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank|||Changes between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test, comparing the values at Baseline to values at Week 8. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values||||1.00
90933168|NCT01262456|181745534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.98||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|2.96||A priori threshold for significance was p\<=0.05.|Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)|GEE Method for 33% responder status at Week 1, Month 1, Month 2, and Month 3, adjusted for age (\<65, ≥65 years), visit, and baseline nocturnal voids.||Superiority to placebo was to be simultaneously demonstrated on the 2 co-primary endpoints in a step-down approach from highest (75 μg) to lowest dose (50 μg), thereby controlling the family-wise error rate at the 5% nominal significance level.||2.96|1.32|0.0009
90933169|NCT01262456|181745535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.12||A priori threshold for significance was p\<=0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA of change from baseline adjusted for age (\<65, \>=65) and baseline nocturnal voids using last observation carried forward.||"Change from baseline in the adjusted mean number of nocturnal voids in the FAS using LOCF.~The active treatment groups were compared to placebo using a step-down approach from highest dose (75 µg) to lowest dose (50 µg)."||-0.12|-0.57|0.0029
90933170|NCT01262456|181745535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29||||0.0128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.06||A priori threshold for significance was p\<=0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA of change from baseline adjusted for age (\<65, \>=65) and baseline nocturnal voids.||"Change from baseline in the adjusted mean number of nocturnal voids in the FAS using LOCF.~The active treatment groups were compared to placebo using a step-down approach from highest dose (75 µg) to lowest dose (50 µg)."||-0.06|-0.52|0.0128
90933171|NCT01262456|181745536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.81||||0.0233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|3.02||A priori threshold for significance was p\<=0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Logistical regression of 33% responder status adjusted for age (\<65, \>=65) and baseline nocturnal voids using last observation carried forward.||The active treatment groups were compared to placebo using a step-down approach from highest dose (75 µg) to lowest dose (50 µg).||3.02|1.08|0.0233
90933172|NCT01262456|181745536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72||||0.0386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.87||A priori threshold for significance was p\<=0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Logistical regression of 33% responder status adjusted for age (\<65, \>=65) and baseline nocturnal voids using last observation carried forward.||The active treatment groups were compared to placebo using a step-down approach from highest dose (75 µg) to lowest dose (50 µg).||2.87|1.03|0.0386
90933173|NCT01262456|181745537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|42.76||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.02|70.51||A priori threshold for significance was p\<=0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA of change from baseline adjusted for age (\<65, \>=65) and baseline time to first nocturnal void using last observation carried forward.||The active treatment groups were compared to placebo using a step-down approach from highest dose (75 µg) to lowest dose (50 µg).||70.51|15.02|0.0026
90933174|NCT01262456|181745537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|38.95||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.03|66.88||A priori threshold for significance was p\<=0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA of change from baseline adjusted for age (\<65, \>=65) and baseline time to first nocturnal void using last observation carried forward.||The active treatment groups were compared to placebo using a step-down approach from highest dose (75 µg) to lowest dose (50 µg).||66.88|11.03|0.0064
90933175|NCT01262456|181745538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-86.17||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-143.69|-28.64||A priori threshold for significance was p\<=0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA of change from baseline adjusted for age (\<65, \>=65) and baseline nocturnal urine volume using last observation carried forward.||The active treatment groups were compared to placebo using a step-down approach from highest dose (75 µg) to lowest dose (50 µg).||-28.64|-143.69|0.0034
90933176|NCT01262456|181745538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-77.8||||0.0086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-135.7|-19.89||A priori threshold for significance was p\<=0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA of change from baseline adjusted for age (\<65, \>=65) and baseline nocturnal urine volume using last observation carried forward.||The active treatment groups were compared to placebo using a step-down approach from highest dose (75 µg) to lowest dose (50 µg).||-19.89|-135.70|0.0086
90933177|NCT01262456|181745539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-45.31||||0.4126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-153.94|63.32||A priori threshold for significance was p\<=0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA of change from baseline adjusted for age (\<65, \>=65) and baseline 24-hour urine volume using last observation carried forward.||The active treatment groups were compared to placebo using a step-down approach from highest dose (75 µg) to lowest dose (50 µg).||63.32|-153.94|0.4126
90933178|NCT01262456|181745539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.79||||0.7353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-127.99|90.41||A priori threshold for significance was p\<=0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA of change from baseline adjusted for age (\<65, \>=65) and baseline 24-hour urine volume using last observation carried forward.||The active treatment groups were compared to placebo using a step-down approach from highest dose (75 µg) to lowest dose (50 µg).||90.41|-127.99|0.7353
90933179|NCT03292692|181745546|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.372|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.279|0.465|||Regression, Linear|Multi-level regression|Slope of intervention group compared to slope of the control group|||0.465|0.279|<0.001
90933180|NCT03292692|181745547|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.105|0.235|||Regression, Linear|Multilevel linear modeling|Slope of the intervention group compared to slope of the control group|||0.235|0.105|<0.001
90933181|NCT03292692|181745548|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.149|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.974|-1.324|||Regression, Linear|Multilevel linear regression|Multilevel linear modeling, with time modeled as change from pre-post.|||-1.324|-2.974|<0.001
90933182|NCT03292692|181745549|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.144||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.871|-0.417|||Regression, Linear||Multilevel linear modeling, with time modeled as change from pre to post.|||-0.417|-1.871|0.002
90933183|NCT04821271|181745553|OTHER|Treatment comparison||||||0.91|||||||T-test of estimated marginal means|||The null hypothesis was that there would not be treatment differences in mean MADRS total score. Linear mixed model regression using fixed effects of time, treatment, and a time-by-treatment allowed treatment effect estimates to vary by time. The model also included period specific baseline scores, average per person baseline scores (to avoid cross level bias), and period (first or second). All continuous covariates were mean centered. Alpha level of 0.05, and hypothesis was two-sided.||||0.91
90967597|NCT01431274|181817120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.437|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.578||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.569|-0.304||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||-0.304|-2.569|0.0129
90967598|NCT01431274|181817120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.056|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.574||0.9222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.182|1.07||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||1.070|-1.182|0.9222
90967599|NCT01431274|181817120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.029|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.576||0.9602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.157|1.1||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|ANCOVA|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||1.100|-1.157|0.9602
90967600|NCT01431274|181817120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.415|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.4669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.533|0.703||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.703|-1.533|0.4669
90967601|NCT01431274|181817120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.471|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.575||0.4126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.598|0.656||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.656|-1.598|0.4126
90967602|NCT01431274|181817120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.408|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.583||0.0158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.551|-0.265||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||-0.265|-2.551|0.0158
90967603|NCT01431274|181817120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.381|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.582||0.0177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.521|-0.24||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (2.5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||-0.240|-2.521|0.0177
90967604|NCT01431274|181817120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.027|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.9624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.164|1.109||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||1.109|-1.164|0.9624
90967605|NCT01431274|181817121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.595|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.329|0.862||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.862|0.329|<0.0001
90967606|NCT01431274|181817121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.373|0.907||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.907|0.373|<0.0001
90967607|NCT01431274|181817121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.423|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.156|0.69||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.690|0.156|0.0019
90967608|NCT01431274|181817121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.446|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.179|0.712||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.712|0.179|0.0011
90971315|NCT00439946|181825388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank|||Changes between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test, comparing the values at Baseline to values at Week 8. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values||||0.50
90933184|NCT04821271|181745554|OTHER|Treatment comparison||||||0.47|||||||T-test of estimated marginal means|||The null hypothesis was that there would not be treatment differences in mean MADRS total score. Linear mixed model regression using fixed effects of time, treatment, and a time-by-treatment allowed treatment effect estimates to vary by time. The model also included period specific baseline scores, average per person baseline scores (to avoid cross level bias), and period (first or second). All continuous covariates were mean centered. Alpha level of 0.05, and hypothesis was two-sided.||||0.47
90933185|NCT04821271|181745555|OTHER|Treatment comparison||||||0.14|||||||T-test of estimated marginal means|||The null hypothesis was that there would not be treatment differences in mean MADRS total score. Linear mixed model regression using fixed effects of time, treatment, and a time-by-treatment allowed treatment effect estimates to vary by time. The model also included period specific baseline scores, average per person baseline scores (to avoid cross level bias), and period (first or second). All continuous covariates were mean centered. Alpha level of 0.05, and hypothesis was two-sided.||||0.14
90933186|NCT04821271|181745556|OTHER|Treatment comparison||||||0.12|||||||T-test of estimated marginal means|||The null hypothesis was that there would not be treatment differences in mean MADRS total score. Linear mixed model regression using fixed effects of time, treatment, and a time-by-treatment allowed treatment effect estimates to vary by time. The model also included period specific baseline scores, average per person baseline scores (to avoid cross level bias), and period (first or second). All continuous covariates were mean centered. Alpha level of 0.05, and hypothesis was two-sided.||||0.12
90933187|NCT04821271|181745557|OTHER|Treatment comparison||||||0.69|||||||T-test of estimated marginal means|||The null hypothesis was that there would not be treatment differences in mean MADRS total score. Linear mixed model regression using fixed effects of time, treatment, and a time-by-treatment allowed treatment effect estimates to vary by time. The model also included period specific baseline scores, average per person baseline scores (to avoid cross level bias), and period (first or second). All continuous covariates were mean centered. Alpha level of 0.05, and hypothesis was two-sided.||||0.69
90933188|NCT04821271|181745558|OTHER|Treatment comparison||||||0.73|||||||T-test of estimated marginal means|||The null hypothesis was that there would not be treatment differences in mean MADRS total score. Linear mixed model regression using fixed effects of time, treatment, and a time-by-treatment allowed treatment effect estimates to vary by time. The model also included period specific baseline scores, average per person baseline scores (to avoid cross level bias), and period (first or second). All continuous covariates were mean centered. Alpha level of 0.05, and hypothesis was two-sided.||||0.73
90933189|NCT04821271|181745559|OTHER|Treatment comparison||||||0.28|||||||T-test of estimated marginal means|||The null hypothesis was that there would not be treatment differences in mean MADRS total score. Linear mixed model regression using fixed effects of time, treatment, and a time-by-treatment allowed treatment effect estimates to vary by time. The model also included period specific baseline scores, average per person baseline scores (to avoid cross level bias), and period (first or second). All continuous covariates were mean centered. Alpha level of 0.05, and hypothesis was two-sided.||||0.28
90933190|NCT05640167|181745583|OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom 17||||||0.015
90933191|NCT05640167|181745584|OTHER|||||||0.114||||||Positive p = 0.114 Health-directed p = 0.028 Skill and Technique p = 0.013 Constructive attitudes p = 0.003 Self-monitoring \& insight p = 0.001 Health service navigation p = 0.077 Social Integration p = 0.126 Emotional well-being p = 0.093|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.114
90933192|NCT05640167|181745585|OTHER|||||||0.59|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.59
90933193|NCT05640167|181745586|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
90933194|NCT05640167|181745587|OTHER|||||||0.309|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.309
90933195|NCT05640167|181745588|OTHER|||||||0.827|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.827
90933196|NCT00286325|181745601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.0156||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon comparing week zero antibody value in units to week 24 antibody value in units||||=0.0156
90933197|NCT00286325|181745602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.0078|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of B cell number at week 0 to b cell number in participants at week 24||||=0.0078
90933198|NCT01213940|181745605|EQUIVALENCE|95% confidence limit from standard deviation of mean|||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||one -way ANOVA was used for the analysis||||<0.05
90933199|NCT03242863|181745621|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
90933200|NCT03242863|181745622|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0015|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0015
90933201|NCT03242863|181745623|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
90933202|NCT03242863|181745624|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
90933203|NCT00210236|181745656|EQUIVALENCE|The two groups will be considered equivalent if the 5-year survival rate for group B (without lymph node dissection) is not less than 92%. This corresponds to hazard ratio (HR) of less than 1.6.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.067||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|6.7|||Log Rank|||||6.7|1.4|0.013
90933204|NCT03854734|181745731|SUPERIORITY|Generalized estimating equations (GEE) model using the framework of a log-binomial logistic regression model.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.25|||Regression, Logistic|||Analysis for vaccine intention of Tdap||1.25|1.00|
90933205|NCT03854734|181745731|SUPERIORITY|Generalized estimating equations (GEE) model using the framework of a log-binomial logistic regression model.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.29|||Regression, Logistic|||Analysis for vaccine intention of MCV||1.29|1.00|
90933206|NCT03854734|181745731|SUPERIORITY|Generalized estimating equations (GEE) model using the framework of a log-binomial logistic regression model.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.14|||Regression, Logistic|||Analysis for vaccine intention of HPV||1.14|0.96|
90967609|NCT01431274|181817121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.468|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.201|0.735||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.735|0.201|0.0006
90967610|NCT01431274|181817121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.172|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136||0.2045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.094|0.438||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.438|-0.094|0.2045
90967611|NCT01431274|181817121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.618|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.351|0.885||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.885|0.351|<0.0001
90967612|NCT01431274|181817121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.7432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.313|0.223||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.223|-0.313|0.7432
90967613|NCT01431274|181817121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.023|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136||0.8687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.245||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (2.5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.245|-0.290|0.8687
90967614|NCT01431274|181817121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.8709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.246||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.246|-0.290|0.8709
90967615|NCT01431274|181817122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.362|0.898||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.898|0.362|<0.0001
90967616|NCT01431274|181817122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.434|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.166|0.703||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.703|0.166|0.0015
90967617|NCT01431274|181817122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.419|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.151|0.687||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.687|0.151|0.0022
90967618|NCT01431274|181817122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.227|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.0966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.041|0.495||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.495|-0.041|0.0966
90967619|NCT01431274|181817122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.223|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.1029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.045|0.492||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.492|-0.045|0.1029
90967620|NCT01431274|181817122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.211|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136||0.122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.056|0.478||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.478|-0.056|0.1220
90967621|NCT01431274|181817122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.438|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.707||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.707|0.170|0.0014
90967622|NCT01431274|181817122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.196|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.1542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.074|0.465||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.465|-0.074|0.1542
90967623|NCT01431274|181817122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.192|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.1626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.077|0.461||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (2.5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.461|-0.077|0.1626
90967624|NCT01431274|181817122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.138||0.9765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.265|0.274||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.274|-0.265|0.9765
90967625|NCT01431274|181817123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.647|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.142|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.925||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.925|0.370|<0.0001
90967626|NCT01431274|181817123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.322|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141||0.0226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.045|0.6||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.600|0.045|0.0226
90967627|NCT01431274|181817123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.371|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.142||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.093|0.649||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.649|0.093|0.0089
90967628|NCT01431274|181817123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.332|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141||0.0186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.056|0.609||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.609|0.056|0.0186
90967629|NCT01431274|181817123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.046|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.142||0.7441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.231|0.324||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.324|-0.231|0.7441
90967630|NCT01431274|181817123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.276|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.551||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.551|0.001|0.0492
90967631|NCT01431274|181817123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.608|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.332|0.884||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.884|0.332|<0.0001
90967632|NCT01431274|181817123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.325|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.143||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.045|0.605||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (2.5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg)~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.605|0.045|0.0230
90967633|NCT01431274|181817123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.039|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.142||0.7855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.317||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (2.5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.317|-0.240|0.7855
90967634|NCT01431274|181817123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.286|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.142||0.0442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.007|0.564||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (2.5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.564|0.007|0.0442
90933207|NCT00264576|181745732|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To demonstrate non-inferiority of cTIV to eTIV\_f the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) around the ratio of the postvaccination GMTs had to be \>0.5.|Ratio of GMT|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.04|||ANOVA|||"The following hypotheses were tested for A/H1N1 strain as measured by HI egg-derived assay:~H0i: log(GMTeTIV\_f(i)) - log(GMTcTIV(i)) ≥0.301 ↔ GMTcTIV(i) / GMTeTIV\_f(i) ≤0.5 (null hypothesis); H1i: log(GMTeTIV\_f(i)) - log(GMTcTIV(i)) \<0.301 ↔ GMTcTIV(i) / GMTeTIV\_f(i) \>0.5 (alternative hypothesis); With: GMTcTIV(i)=GMT for strain i in cTIV group; GMTeTIV\_f(i)=GMT for strain i in eTIV\_f group."||1.04|0.70|
90933208|NCT00264576|181745732|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To demonstrate non-inferiority of cTIV to eTIV\_f the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) around the ratio of the postvaccination GMTs had to be \>0.5.|Ratio of GMT|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.7|||ANOVA|||"The following hypotheses were tested for A/H3N2 strain as measured by HI egg-derived assay:~H0i: log(GMTeTIV\_f(i)) - log(GMTcTIV(i)) ≥0.301 ↔ GMTcTIV(i) / GMTeTIV\_f(i) ≤0.5 (null hypothesis); H1i: log(GMTeTIV\_f(i)) - log(GMTcTIV(i)) \<0.301 ↔ GMTcTIV(i) / GMTeTIV\_f(i) \>0.5 (alternative hypothesis); With: GMTcTIV(i)=GMT for strain i in cTIV group; GMTeTIV\_f(i)=GMT for strain i in eTIV\_f group."||0.70|0.46|
90933209|NCT00264576|181745732|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To demonstrate non-inferiority of cTIV to eTIV\_f the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) around the ratio of the postvaccination GMTs had to be \>0.5.|Ratio of GMT|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.36|||ANOVA|||"The following hypotheses were tested for B strain as measured by HI egg-derived assay:~H0i: log(GMTeTIV\_f(i)) - log(GMTcTIV(i)) ≥0.301 ↔ GMTcTIV(i) / GMTeTIV\_f(i) ≤0.5 (null hypothesis); H1i: log(GMTeTIV\_f(i)) - log(GMTcTIV(i)) \<0.301 ↔ GMTcTIV(i) / GMTeTIV\_f(i) \>0.5 (alternative hypothesis); With: GMTcTIV(i)=GMT for strain i in cTIV group; GMTeTIV\_f(i)=GMT for strain i in eTIV\_f group."||1.36|0.95|
90933210|NCT00264576|181745732|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To demonstrate non-inferiority of cTIV to eTIV\_f the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) around the ratio of the postvaccination geometric mean titers (GMTs) had to be \>0.5.|Ratio of GMT|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.12|||ANOVA|||"The following hypotheses were tested for A/H1N1 strain as measured by HI cell-culture-derived assay:~H0i: log(GMTeTIV\_f(i)) - log(GMTcTIV(i)) ≥0.301 ↔ GMTcTIV(i) / GMTeTIV\_f(i) ≤0.5 (null hypothesis); H1i: log(GMTeTIV\_f(i)) - log(GMTcTIV(i)) \<0.301 ↔ GMTcTIV(i) / GMTeTIV\_f(i) \>0.5 (alternative hypothesis); With: GMTcTIV(i)=GMT for strain i in cTIV group; GMTeTIV\_f(i)=GMT for strain i in eTIV\_f group."||1.12|0.76|
90933211|NCT00264576|181745732|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To demonstrate non-inferiority of cTIV to eTIV\_f the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) around the ratio of the postvaccination geometric mean titers (GMTs) had to be \>0.5.|Ratio of GMT|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.75|||ANOVA|||"The following hypotheses were tested for A/H3N2 strain as measured by HI cell-culture-derived assay:~H0i: log(GMTeTIV\_f(i)) - log(GMTcTIV(i)) ≥0.301 ↔ GMTcTIV(i) / GMTeTIV\_f(i) ≤0.5 (null hypothesis); H1i: log(GMTeTIV\_f(i)) - log(GMTcTIV(i)) \<0.301 ↔ GMTcTIV(i) / GMTeTIV\_f(i) \>0.5 (alternative hypothesis); With: GMTcTIV(i)=GMT for strain i in cTIV group; GMTeTIV\_f(i)=GMT for strain i in eTIV\_f group."||0.75|0.50|
90933212|NCT00264576|181745732|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To demonstrate non-inferiority of cTIV to eTIV\_f the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) around the ratio of the postvaccination geometric mean titers (GMTs) had to be \>0.5.|Ratio of GMT|1.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.57|||ANOVA|||"The following hypotheses were tested for B strain as measured by cell-culture-derived assay:~H0i: log(GMTeTIV\_f(i)) - log(GMTcTIV(i)) ≥0.301 ↔ GMTcTIV(i) / GMTeTIV\_f(i) ≤0.5 (null hypothesis); H1i: log(GMTeTIV\_f(i)) - log(GMTcTIV(i)) \<0.301 ↔ GMTcTIV(i) / GMTeTIV\_f(i) \>0.5 (alternative hypothesis); With: GMTcTIV(i)=GMT for strain i in cTIV group; GMTeTIV\_f(i)=GMT for strain i in eTIV\_f group."||1.57|1.09|
90933213|NCT00264576|181745738|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To demonstrate non-inferiority of cTIV to eTIV\_f the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) around the ratio of the postvaccination GMTs had to be \>0.5.|Ratio of GMT|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.03|||ANCOVA|||"The following hypotheses were tested for A/H1N1 strain as measured by HI egg-derived assay:~H0i: log(GMTeTIV\_f(i)) - log(GMTcTIV(i)) ≥0.301 ↔ GMTcTIV(i) / GMTeTIV\_f(i) ≤0.5 (null hypothesis); H1i: log(GMTeTIV\_f(i)) - log(GMTcTIV(i)) \<0.301 ↔ GMTcTIV(i) / GMTeTIV\_f(i) \>0.5 (alternative hypothesis); With: GMTcTIV(i)=GMT for strain i in cTIV group; GMTeTIV\_f(i)=GMT for strain i in eTIV\_f group."||1.03|0.70|
90933214|NCT00264576|181745738|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To demonstrate non-inferiority of cTIV to eTIV\_f the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) around the ratio of the postvaccination GMTs had to be \>0.5.|Ratio of GMT|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.76|||ANCOVA|||"The following hypotheses were tested for A/H3N2 strain as measured by HI egg-derived assay:~H0i: log(GMTeTIV\_f(i)) - log(GMTcTIV(i)) ≥0.301 ↔ GMTcTIV(i) / GMTeTIV\_f(i) ≤0.5 (null hypothesis); H1i: log(GMTeTIV\_f(i)) - log(GMTcTIV(i)) \<0.301 ↔ GMTcTIV(i) / GMTeTIV\_f(i) \>0.5 (alternative hypothesis); With: GMTcTIV(i)=GMT for strain i in cTIV group; GMTeTIV\_f(i)=GMT for strain i in eTIV\_f group."||0.76|0.52|
90933215|NCT00264576|181745738|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To demonstrate non-inferiority of cTIV to eTIV\_f the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) around the ratio of the postvaccination GMTs had to be \>0.5.|Ratio of GMT|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.38|||ANCOVA|||"The following hypotheses were tested for B strain as measured by HI egg-derived assay:~H0i: log(GMTeTIV\_f(i)) - log(GMTcTIV(i)) ≥0.301 ↔ GMTcTIV(i) / GMTeTIV\_f(i) ≤0.5 (null hypothesis); H1i: log(GMTeTIV\_f(i)) - log(GMTcTIV(i)) \<0.301 ↔ GMTcTIV(i) / GMTeTIV\_f(i) \>0.5 (alternative hypothesis); With: GMTcTIV(i)=GMT for strain i in cTIV group; GMTeTIV\_f(i)=GMT for strain i in eTIV\_f group."||1.38|0.98|
90967635|NCT04995055|181817128|SUPERIORITY||Least-square Mean Difference|-15.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.81|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.2|-9.5|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger method was used for denominator degrees of freedom.|Least-square Mean difference was calculated as senofilcon A (C3)- senofilcon A|||-9.5|-21.2|
90967636|NCT04995055|181817129|SUPERIORITY||Least-square Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.4|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger method was used for denominator degrees of freedom.|Least-square Mean difference was calculated as senofilcon A (C3)- senofilcon A|||0.4|0.2|
90967637|NCT04995055|181817130|SUPERIORITY||Least-square Mean Difference|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|-2.1|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger method was used for denominator degrees of freedom.|Least-square Mean difference was calculated as senofilcon A (C3)- senofilcon A|||-2.1|-4.9|
90967638|NCT04995055|181817131|SUPERIORITY||Least-square Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.4|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger method was used for denominator degrees of freedom.|Least-square Mean difference was calculated as senofilcon A (C3)- senofilcon A|||0.4|0.2|
90967639|NCT04995055|181817133|SUPERIORITY||Least-square Mean Difference|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|-1.9|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger method was used for denominator degrees of freedom.|Least-square Mean difference was calculated as senofilcon A (C3)- senofilcon A|||-1.9|-4.4|
90967640|NCT00053703|181817137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.05
90967641|NCT04261504|181817152|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||Threshold p\<0.05.|threshold-free cluster enhancement|||||||0.03
90967642|NCT00397033|181817156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value is based on the CMH chi-square test with modified ridit scores, stratified by concomitant medication stratum, and country.||||||0.001
90967643|NCT00397033|181817156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value is based on the CMH chi-square test with modified ridit scores, stratified by concomitant medication stratum, and country.||||||0.008
90967644|NCT00397033|181817157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|<|0.001||95.0|-5.1|-1.7|||ANCOVA|P-value is from an ANCOVA model with fixed-effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum, and country, and baseline value as a covariate.|Paliperidone Extended Release (ER) High Dose - Placebo on the Change Scores. Higher scores indicate worsening.|||-1.7|-5.1|<0.001
90967645|NCT00397033|181817157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.217||95.0|-2.8|0.6|||ANCOVA|P-value is from an ANCOVA model with fixed-effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum, and country, and baseline value as a covariate.|Paliperidone Extended Release (ER) Low Dose - Placebo on the Change Scores. Higher scores indicate worsening.|||0.6|-2.8|0.217
90967646|NCT00397033|181817158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.108||95.0|-2.3|0.2|||ANCOVA|P-value is from an ANCOVA model with fixed-effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum, and country, and baseline value as a covariate.|Paliperidone Extended Release (ER) High Dose - Placebo on the Change Scores. Higher scores indicate worsening.|||0.2|-2.3|0.108
90967647|NCT00397033|181817158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.43||95.0|-1.7|0.7|||ANCOVA|P-value is from an ANCOVA model with fixed-effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum, and country, and baseline value as a covariate.|Paliperidone Extended Release (ER) Low Dose - Placebo on the Change Scores. Higher scores indicate worsening.|||0.7|-1.7|0.430
90967648|NCT00397033|181817159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.008||95.0|-6.7|-1.0|||ANCOVA|P-value is from an ANCOVA model with fixed-effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum, and country, and baseline value as a covariate.|Paliperidone Extended Release (ER) High Dose - Placebo on the Change Scores. Higher scores indicate worsening.|||-1.0|-6.7|0.008
90967649|NCT00397033|181817159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.175||95.0|-4.8|0.9|||ANCOVA|P-value is from an ANCOVA model with fixed-effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum, and country, and baseline value as a covariate.|Paliperidone Extended Release (ER) Low Dose - Placebo on the Change Scores. Higher scores indicate worsening.|||0.9|-4.8|0.175
90967650|NCT00397033|181817160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.001||95.0|-4.6|-1.1|||ANCOVA|P-value is from an ANCOVA model with fixed-effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum and country, and baseline value as a covariate.|Paliperidone Extended Release (ER) High Dose - Placebo on the Change Scores. Higher scores indicate worsening.|||-1.1|-4.6|0.001
90967651|NCT00397033|181817160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.209||95.0|-2.8|0.6|||ANCOVA|P-value is from an ANCOVA model with fixed-effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum and country, and baseline value as a covariate.|Paliperidone Extended Release (ER) Low Dose - Placebo on the Change Scores. Higher scores indicate worsening.|||0.6|-2.8|0.209
90967652|NCT00397033|181817162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.032||95.0|-6.5|-0.3|||ANCOVA|P-value is from an ANCOVA model with fixed-effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum and country, and baseline value as a covariate.|Paliperidone Extended Release (ER) High Dose - Placebo on the Change Scores. Higher scores indicate worsening.|||-0.3|-6.5|0.032
90967653|NCT00397033|181817162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.013||95.0|-6.8|-0.8|||ANCOVA|P-value is from an ANCOVA model with fixed-effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum and country, and baseline value as a covariate.|Paliperidone Extended Release (ER) Low Dose - Placebo on the Change Scores. Higher scores indicate worsening.|||-0.8|-6.8|0.013
90967654|NCT00397033|181817163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.232||95.0|-2.0|0.5|||ANCOVA|P-value is from an ANCOVA model with fixed-effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum and country, and baseline value as a covariate.|Paliperidone Extended Release (ER) High Dose - Placebo on the Change Scores. Higher scores indicate worsening.|||0.5|-2.0|0.232
90967655|NCT00397033|181817163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.31||95.0|-1.8|0.6|||ANCOVA|P-value is from an ANCOVA model with fixed-effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum and country, and baseline value as a covariate.|Paliperidone Extended Release (ER) Low Dose - Placebo on the Change Scores. Higher scores indicate worsening.|||0.6|-1.8|0.310
90967656|NCT00397033|181817164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.004||95.0|-3.1|-0.6|||ANCOVA|P-value is from an ANCOVA model with fixed-effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum and country, and baseline value as a covariate.|Paliperidone Extended Release (ER) High Dose - Placebo on the Change Scores. Higher scores indicate worsening.|||-0.6|-3.1|0.004
90933216|NCT00264576|181745738|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To demonstrate non-inferiority of cTIV to eTIV\_f the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) around the ratio of the postvaccination GMTs had to be \>0.5.|Ratio of GMT|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.12||To demonstrate non-inferiority of cTIV to eTIV\_f the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) around the ratio of the postvaccination GMTs had to be \>0.5.|ANCOVA|||"The following hypotheses were tested for A/H1N1 strain as measured by HI cell-culture-derived assay:~H0i: log(GMTeTIV\_f(i)) - log(GMTcTIV(i)) ≥0.301 ↔ GMTcTIV(i) / GMTeTIV\_f(i) ≤0.5 (null hypothesis); H1i: log(GMTeTIV\_f(i)) - log(GMTcTIV(i)) \<0.301 ↔ GMTcTIV(i) / GMTeTIV\_f(i) \>0.5 (alternative hypothesis); With: GMTcTIV(i)=GMT for strain i in cTIV group; GMTeTIV\_f(i)=GMT for strain i in eTIV\_f group."||1.12|0.76|
90933217|NCT00264576|181745738|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To demonstrate non-inferiority of cTIV to eTIV\_f the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) around the ratio of the postvaccination GMTs had to be \>0.5.|Ratio of GMT|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.83|||ANCOVA|||"The following hypotheses were tested for A/H3N2 strain as measured by HI cell-culture-derived assay:~H0i: log(GMTeTIV\_f(i)) - log(GMTcTIV(i)) ≥0.301 ↔ GMTcTIV(i) / GMTeTIV\_f(i) ≤0.5 (null hypothesis); H1i: log(GMTeTIV\_f(i)) - log(GMTcTIV(i)) \<0.301 ↔ GMTcTIV(i) / GMTeTIV\_f(i) \>0.5 (alternative hypothesis); With: GMTcTIV(i)=GMT for strain i in cTIV group; GMTeTIV\_f(i)=GMT for strain i in eTIV\_f group."||0.83|0.57|
90933218|NCT00264576|181745738|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To demonstrate non-inferiority of cTIV to eTIV\_f the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) around the ratio of the postvaccination GMTs had to be \>0.5.|Ratio of GMT|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|1.58|||ANCOVA|||"The following hypotheses were tested for B strain as measured by HI cell-culture-derived assay:~H0i: log(GMTeTIV\_f(i)) - log(GMTcTIV(i)) ≥0.301 ↔ GMTcTIV(i) / GMTeTIV\_f(i) ≤0.5 (null hypothesis); H1i: log(GMTeTIV\_f(i)) - log(GMTcTIV(i)) \<0.301 ↔ GMTcTIV(i) / GMTeTIV\_f(i) \>0.5 (alternative hypothesis); With: GMTcTIV(i)=GMT for strain i in cTIV group; GMTeTIV\_f(i)=GMT for strain i in eTIV\_f group."||1.58|1.13|
90933219|NCT00569166|181745775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3679||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank-sum|||Treatment effectiveness was measured using pairwise comparisons of hot flash score change from baseline in each paced breathing arm.||||0.3679
90933220|NCT00569166|181745775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4715||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank-sum|||Treatment effectiveness was measured using pairwise comparisons of hot flash score change from baseline in each paced breathing arm.||||0.4715
90933221|NCT01215253|181745814|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.05|||Regression, Cox|||||1.05|0.67|0.117
90933222|NCT01215253|181745815|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.26|||Regression, Cox|||||1.26|0.76|0.891
90933223|NCT01215253|181745816|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.96|||Anderson-Gill analysis|||||0.96|0.51|0.028
90933224|NCT01215253|181745817|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.47|||Regression, Cox|||||1.47|0.38|0.398
90933225|NCT01215253|181745818|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.34|||Regression, Cox|||||1.34|0.91|0.316
90933226|NCT01215253|181745819|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.37|||Regression, Cox|||||1.37|0.84|0.577
90933227|NCT01215253|181745820|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.37|||Regression, Cox|||||1.37|0.69|0.871
90933228|NCT01215253|181745821|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.508|||||||nonparametric Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.508
90933229|NCT01215253|181745822|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.948|||||||nonparametric Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.948
90933230|NCT01215253|181745823|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.98|||Regression, Cox|||||0.98|0.55|0.038
90933231|NCT01215253|181745824|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.41|||Regression, Cox|||||1.41|0.73|0.947
90933232|NCT01215253|181745825|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.52|||Anderdon-Gill analysis|||||1.52|0.36|0.414
90933233|NCT00080119|181745826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.44||Threshold p-value for significance = 0.0492|Log Rank||Hazard ratio for INH relative to Placebo|||1.44|0.67|0.93
90933234|NCT00080119|181745827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.3||Threshold p-value for significance = 0.0493|Log Rank||Hazard ratio for INH relative to Placebo|||1.30|0.55|0.43
90933235|NCT00949234|181745836|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||There was no power calculation for this analysis. The study was mainly descriptive, but Chi-square tests were used to determine if there were differences between individuals who were retained at the 24 Week Follow-up visit from individuals who were not retained at the 24 Week Follow-up visit.||||<0.05
90933236|NCT02291861|181745869|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.9||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|-0.79||Treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit interaction, and baseline use of DRAs as fixed effects and the baseline value as a covariate. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance structure.|mixed model for repeated measures||SD-809 - placebo|"A hierarchical (fixed-sequence) testing approach was used for the analysis of the primary and key secondary endpoints to maintain the experiment-wise type I error rate of 5%.~The primary endpoint compared the change in total motor AIMS score from baseline to week 12 between the SD-809 36 mg/day group and the placebo group."||-0.79|-3.09|0.001
90933237|NCT02291861|181745869|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.8||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-0.63||Treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit interaction, and baseline use of DRAs as fixed effects and the baseline value as a covariate. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance structure.|mixed model for repeated measures||SD-809 - placebo|"A hierarchical (fixed-sequence) testing approach was used for the analysis of the primary and key secondary endpoints to maintain the experiment-wise type I error rate of 5%.~This key secondary endpoint compared the change in total motor AIMS score from baseline to week 12 between the SD-809 24 mg/day group and the placebo group, and is the third analysis in the fixed-sequence."||-0.63|-3.00|0.003
90933238|NCT02291861|181745869|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.7||||0.217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|0.42||Treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit interaction, and baseline use of DRAs as fixed effects and the baseline value as a covariate. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance structure.|mixed model for repeated measures||SD-809 - placebo|"A hierarchical (fixed-sequence) testing approach was used for the analysis of the primary and key secondary endpoints to maintain the experiment-wise type I error rate of 5%.~This key secondary endpoint compared the change in total motor AIMS score from baseline to week 12 between the SD-809 12 mg/day group and the placebo group, and is the fifth analysis in the fixed-sequence."||0.42|-1.84|0.217
90933239|NCT02291861|181745870|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.11||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|4.645|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The statistical test was a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by baseline use of dopamine receptor antagonist (DRAs).|SD-809/placebo The odds ratio was the Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the common odds ratio.|"A hierarchical (fixed-sequence) testing approach was used for the analysis of the primary and key secondary endpoints to maintain the experiment-wise type I error rate of 5%.~This key secondary endpoint compared the percentage of patients considered a treatment success at week 12 between the SD-809 36 mg/day group and the placebo group, and is the second analysis in the fixed-sequence."||4.645|0.960|0.059
90933240|NCT02291861|181745870|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.71||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.211|6.052|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The statistical test was a CMH test stratified by baseline use of DRAs.|SD-809/placebo The odds ratio was the Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the common odds ratio.|"A hierarchical (fixed-sequence) testing approach was used for the analysis of the primary and key secondary endpoints to maintain the experiment-wise type I error rate of 5%.~This key secondary endpoint compared the percentage of patients considered a treatment success at week 12 between the SD-809 24 mg/day group and the placebo group, and is the fourth analysis in the fixed-sequence."||6.052|1.211|0.014
90933241|NCT02291861|181745870|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.509|2.61|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The statistical test was a CMH test stratified by baseline use of DRAs.|SD-809/placebo The odds ratio was the Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the common odds ratio.|"A hierarchical (fixed-sequence) testing approach was used for the analysis of the primary and key secondary endpoints to maintain the experiment-wise type I error rate of 5%.~This key secondary endpoint compared the percentage of patients considered a treatment success at week 12 between the SD-809 12 mg/day group and the placebo group, and is the sixth (last) analysis in the fixed-sequence."||2.610|0.509|0.734
90933242|NCT02291861|181745871|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-3.6||||0.207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.18|2.0||5% level of significance (2-sided)|ANCOVA|The statistical model was an ANCOVA with treatment group and baseline use of DRAs as fixed effects and the baseline value as a covariate.|SD-809 - placebo|||2.00|-9.18|0.207
90933243|NCT02291861|181745871|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-3.1||||0.281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.86|2.59||5% level of significance (2-sided)|ANCOVA|The statistical model was an ANCOVA with treatment group and baseline use of DRAs as fixed effects and the baseline value as a covariate.|SD-809 - placebo|||2.59|-8.86|0.281
90933244|NCT02291861|181745871|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|1.3||||0.627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|6.79||5% level of significance (2-sided)|ANCOVA|The statistical model was an ANCOVA with treatment group and baseline use of DRAs as fixed effects and the baseline value as a covariate.|SD-809 - placebo|||6.79|-4.10|0.627
90933245|NCT02291861|181745872|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.694|3.285||5% level of significance (2-sided)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The statistical test was a CMH test stratified by baseline use of DRAs.|SD-809/placebo The odds ratio was the Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the common odds ratio.|||3.285|0.694|0.296
90933246|NCT02291861|181745872|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.82||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.826|3.994||5% level of significance (2-sided)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The statistical test was a CMH test stratified by baseline use of DRAs.|SD-809/placebo The odds ratio was the Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the common odds ratio.|||3.994|0.826|0.134
90933247|NCT02291861|181745872|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||0.372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.302|1.563||5% level of significance (2-sided)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The statistical test was a CMH test stratified by baseline use of DRAs.|SD-809/placebo The odds ratio was the Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the common odds ratio.|||1.563|0.302|0.372
90967657|NCT00397033|181817164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.269||95.0|-1.9|0.5|||ANCOVA|P-value is from an ANCOVA model with fixed-effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum and country, and baseline value as a covariate.|Paliperidone Extended Release (ER) Low Dose - Placebo on the Change Scores. Higher scores indicate worsening.|||0.5|-1.9|0.269
90967658|NCT00397033|181817165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.001||95.0|-3.2|-1.0|||ANCOVA|P-value is from an ANCOVA model with fixed-effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum and country, and baseline value as a covariate.|Paliperidone Extended Release (ER) High Dose - Placebo on the Change Scores. Higher scores indicate worsening.|||-1.0|-3.2|<0.001
90967659|NCT00397033|181817165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.314||95.0|-1.7|0.5|||ANCOVA|P-value is from an ANCOVA model with fixed-effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum and country, and baseline value as a covariate.|Paliperidone Extended Release (ER) Low Dose - Placebo on the Change Scores. Higher scores indicate worsening.|||0.5|-1.7|0.314
90967660|NCT00397033|181817166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.071||95.0|-1.8|0.1|||ANCOVA|P-value is from an ANCOVA model with fixed-effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum and country, and baseline value as a covariate.|Paliperidone Extended Release (ER) High Dose - Placebo on the Change Scores. Higher scores indicate worsening.|||0.1|-1.8|0.071
90967661|NCT00397033|181817166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.099||95.0|-1.7|0.1|||ANCOVA|P-value is from an ANCOVA model with fixed-effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum and country, and baseline value as a covariate.|Paliperidone Extended Release (ER) Low Dose - Placebo on the Change Scores. Higher scores indicate worsening.|||0.1|-1.7|0.099
90967662|NCT00397033|181817168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001||95.0|-0.9|-0.3|||ANCOVA|P-value is from an ANCOVA model with fixed-effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum and country, and baseline value as a covariate.|Paliperidone Extended Release (ER) High Dose - Placebo on the Change Scores. Higher scores indicate worsening.|||-0.3|-0.9|<0.001
90933248|NCT02291861|181745873|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.8||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.395|10.359||5% level of significance (2-sided)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The statistical test was a CMH test stratified by baseline use of DRAs.|SD-809/placebo The odds ratio was the Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the common odds ratio.|||10.359|1.395|0.007
90933249|NCT02291861|181745873|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.96||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|10.716||5% level of significance (2-sided)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The statistical test was a CMH test stratified by baseline use of DRAs.|SD-809/placebo The odds ratio was the Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the common odds ratio.|||10.716|1.460|0.005
91035531|NCT00462228|181957078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75||95.0||||6 week comparison, alpha = 0.05.|Sign test|||Null hypothesis: The change from baseline occurring with memantine is equal to the change from baseline occurring with placebo at 6 weeks for the SDMT Written Score.||||0.75
90967663|NCT00397033|181817168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.083||95.0|-0.6|0.0|||ANCOVA|P-value is from an ANCOVA model with fixed-effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum and country, and baseline value as a covariate.|Paliperidone Extended Release (ER) Low Dose - Placebo on the Change Scores. Higher scores indicate worsening.|||0.0|-0.6|0.083
90971316|NCT00439946|181825389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank|||Changes between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test, comparing the values at Baseline to values at Week 8. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values||||1.0
90933250|NCT02291861|181745873|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.383|3.316||5% level of significance (2-sided)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The statistical test was a CMH test stratified by baseline use of DRAs.|SD-809/placebo The odds ratio was the Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the common odds ratio.|||3.316|0.383|0.829
90933251|NCT02291861|181745874|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.44|-9.52||5% level of significance (2-sided). Treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit interaction, and baseline use of DRAs as fixed effects and the baseline value as a covariate. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance structure.|mixed model for repeated measures||SD-809 - placebo|||-9.52|-33.44|<0.001
90933252|NCT02291861|181745874|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.2||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.57|-7.92||5% level of significance (2-sided). Treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit interaction, and baseline use of DRAs as fixed effects and the baseline value as a covariate. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance structure.|mixed model for repeated measures||SD-809 - placebo|||-7.92|-32.57|0.001
90933253|NCT02291861|181745874|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.4||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.15|3.34||5% level of significance (2-sided). Treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit interaction, and baseline use of DRAs as fixed effects and the baseline value as a covariate. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance structure.|mixed model for repeated measures||SD-809 - placebo|||3.34|-20.15|0.160
90933254|NCT04332991|181745877|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.42|||||Odds ratios greater than 1.0 indicated more favorable outcomes for patients in the hydroxychloroquine group compared with the placebo group.|Outcome measure was adjusted for age, sex, baseline COVID Outcome Scale category, baseline Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, and duration of acute respiratory infection symptoms prior to randomization.||1.42|0.73|
90933255|NCT04332991|181745878|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.81|||||Odds ratios greater than 1.0 indicated more favorable outcomes for patients in the hydroxychloroquine group compared with the placebo group|Outcome measure was adjusted for: age, sex, baseline COVID Outcome Scale category, baseline Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, and duration of acute respiratory infection symptoms prior to randomization||1.81|0.90|
90933256|NCT04332991|181745879|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.61|||||Odds ratios greater than 1.0 indicated more favorable outcomes for patients in the hydroxychloroquine group compared with the placebo group|Outcome measure was adjusted for: age, sex, baseline COVID Outcome Scale category, baseline Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, and duration of acute respiratory infection symptoms prior to randomization||1.61|0.84|
90933257|NCT04332991|181745880|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.38|||||Odds ratios greater than 1.0 indicated more favorable outcomes for patients in the hydroxychloroquine group compared with the placebo group|Outcome measure is adjusted for : age, sex, baseline COVID Outcome Scale category, baseline Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, and duration of acute respiratory infection symptoms prior to randomization.||1.38|0.69|
90933258|NCT04332991|181745881|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|3.57|||||Odds ratios greater than 1.0 indicated less favorable outcomes for patients in the hydroxychloroquine group compared with the placebo group|||3.57|0.68|
90933259|NCT04332991|181745882|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|2.09|||||Odds ratios greater than 1.0 indicated less favorable outcomes for patients in the hydroxychloroquine group compared with the placebo group|||2.09|0.54|
90933260|NCT04332991|181745883|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.14|||||Odds ratios greater than 1.0 indicated less favorable outcomes for patients in the hydroxychloroquine group compared with the placebo group|Outcome measure was adjusted for: age, sex, baseline COVID Outcome Scale category, baseline Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, and duration of acute respiratory infection symptoms prior to randomization||2.14|0.60|
90933261|NCT04332991|181745884|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.34|||||Odds ratios greater than 1.0 indicated more favorable outcomes for patients in the hydroxychloroquine group compared with the placebo group|Outcome measure was adjusted for age, sex, baseline COVID Outcome Scale category, baseline Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, and duration of acute respiratory infection symptoms prior to randomization||1.34|0.68|
90933262|NCT04332991|181745885|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.08|||||Odds ratios greater than 1.0 indicated more favorable outcomes for patients in the hydroxychloroquine group compared with the placebo group|Outcome measure was adjusted for: age, sex, baseline COVID Outcome Scale category, baseline Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, and duration of acute respiratory infection symptoms prior to randomization||2.08|0.76|
90933263|NCT04332991|181745886|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.72|||||Odds ratios greater than 1.0 indicated more favorable outcomes for patients in the hydroxychloroquine group compared with the placebo group|Outcome measure was adjusted for: age, sex, baseline COVID Outcome Scale category, baseline Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, and duration of acute respiratory infection symptoms prior to randomization||1.72|0.61|
90933264|NCT04332991|181745887|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.88|||||Odds ratios greater than 1.0 indicated more favorable outcomes for patients in the hydroxychloroquine group compared with the placebo group|Outcome measure was adjusted for: age, sex, baseline COVID Outcome Scale category, baseline Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, and duration of acute respiratory infection symptoms prior to randomization||1.88|0.84|
90933265|NCT04332991|181745888|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.61|||||Odds ratios greater than 1.0 indicated more favorable outcomes for patients in the hydroxychloroquine group compared with the placebo group|Outcome measure was adjusted for: age, sex, baseline COVID Outcome Scale category, baseline Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, and duration of acute respiratory infection symptoms prior to randomization||1.61|0.85|
90933266|NCT04332991|181745889|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.8||||||||1.8|-1.0|
90933267|NCT04332991|181745890|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|3.02|||||Odds ratios greater than 1.0 indicated less favorable outcomes for patients in the hydroxychloroquine group compared with the placebo group|||3.02|0.61|
90933268|NCT04332991|181745891|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|2.7|||||Odds ratios greater than 1.0 indicated less favorable outcomes for patients in the hydroxychloroquine group compared with the placebo group|||2.70|0.24|
90933269|NCT04332991|181745892|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|8.12|||||Odds ratios greater than 1.0 indicated less favorable outcomes for patients in the hydroxychloroquine group compared with the placebo group|||8.12|0.78|
90933270|NCT04332991|181745893|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.05|||||Odds ratios greater than 1.0 indicated less favorable outcomes for patients in the hydroxychloroquine group compared with the placebo group|||1.05|0.45|
90933271|NCT04332991|181745894|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|2.7|||||Odds ratios greater than 1.0 indicated less favorable outcomes for patients in the hydroxychloroquine group compared with the placebo group|||2.70|0.24|
90933272|NCT04332991|181745895|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.59|||||Odds ratios greater than 1.0 indicated less favorable outcomes for patients in the hydroxychloroquine group compared with the placebo group|||1.59|0.59|
90933273|NCT04332991|181745896|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.58|||||Odds ratios greater than 1.0 indicated less favorable outcomes for patients in the hydroxychloroquine group compared with the placebo group|||1.58|0.30|
90933274|NCT04332991|181745897|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|3.18|||||Odds ratios greater than 1.0 indicated less favorable outcomes for patients in the hydroxychloroquine group compared with the placebo group|||3.18|0.48|
90933275|NCT04332991|181745898|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|3.96|||||Odds ratios greater than 1.0 indicated less favorable outcomes for patients in the hydroxychloroquine group compared with the placebo group|||3.96|0.24|
90933276|NCT04332991|181745899|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.53|||||Odds ratios greater than 1.0 indicated less favorable outcomes for patients in the hydroxychloroquine group compared with the placebo group|||1.53|0.73|
90933277|NCT04332991|181745900|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.89|||||Odds ratios greater than 1.0 indicated less favorable outcomes for patients in the hydroxychloroquine group compared with the placebo group|||1.89|0.92|
90933278|NCT04332991|181745901|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|2.94|||||Odds ratios greater than 1.0 indicated less favorable outcomes for patients in the hydroxychloroquine group compared with the placebo group|||2.94|0.21|
90933279|NCT04332991|181745902|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|15.74|||||Odds ratios greater than 1.0 indicated less favorable outcomes for patients in the hydroxychloroquine group compared with the placebo group|||15.74|0.06|
90933280|NCT04332991|181745903|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.35|||||Odds ratios greater than 1.0 indicated less favorable outcomes for patients in the hydroxychloroquine group compared with the placebo group|Outcome measure was adjusted for: age, sex, baseline COVID Outcome Scale category, baseline Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, and duration of acute respiratory infection symptoms prior to randomization||1.35|0.69|
90933281|NCT04405180|181745911|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0||0.9017|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted for baseline value of outcome as a covariate using general linear (mixed) models and with multiple imputation for missing data|ANCOVA|||||||0.9017
90933282|NCT04405180|181745912|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0342|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0417||0.4215|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Adjusted for baseline value of outcome as a covariate using general linear (mixed) models and with multiple imputation for missing data||||0.4215
90933283|NCT04405180|181745913|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|53.0||0.9024|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Adjusted for baseline value of outcome as a covariate using general linear (mixed) models and with multiple imputation for missing data||||.9024
90933284|NCT04405180|181745914|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-59.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|42.0||0.1646|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Adjusted for baseline value of outcome as a covariate using general linear (mixed) models and with multiple imputation for missing data||||0.1646
90933285|NCT04405180|181745915|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.9814|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Adjusted for baseline value of outcome as a covariate using general linear (mixed) models and with multiple imputation for missing data||||0.9814
90933286|NCT04405180|181745916|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.6217|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Adjusted for baseline value of outcome as a covariate using general linear (mixed) models and with multiple imputation for missing data||||0.6217
90933287|NCT04405180|181745917|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.7981|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Adjusted for baseline value of outcome as a covariate using general linear (mixed) models and with multiple imputation for missing data||||0.7981
90933288|NCT04405180|181745918|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.6677|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Adjusted for baseline value of outcome as a covariate using general linear (mixed) models and with multiple imputation for missing data||||0.6677
90933289|NCT04405180|181745919|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.3745|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Adjusted for baseline value of outcome as a covariate using general linear (mixed) models and with multiple imputation for missing data||||0.3745
90933290|NCT04405180|181745920|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|243.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|400.0||0.5496|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Adjusted for baseline value of outcome as a covariate using general linear (mixed) models and with multiple imputation for missing data||||0.5496
90933291|NCT02336958|181745921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
90933292|NCT02336958|181745922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.459|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.459
90933293|NCT03547154|181745923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.322||||||Analysis of Major Response|Fisher Exact|Missing data considered failures||||||0.322
90933294|NCT03547154|181745924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999||||||Analysis of Major Response|Fisher Exact|Missing data considered failures||||||>0.999
90933295|NCT03547154|181745925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.588||||||Analysis of Complete Response|Fisher Exact|Missing data considered failures||||||0.588
90933296|NCT03547154|181745926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.859|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.429|1.721|||||Overall survival was analyzed using the log-rank statistic. The HR and 95% CI for the HR were obtained using Cox's proportional hazards model.|||1.721|0.429|
90933297|NCT01328756|181745973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline to LOTA value was assessed for differences from zero using a 2-sided, 1 sample t-test at a 0.05 significance level.||||< 0.001
90933298|NCT00257309|181745977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.23||Unadjusted analysis|Chi-squared|||||1.23|0.38|0.21
90933299|NCT00849485|181745979|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|98.0||||||90.0|94.5|102.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||102|94.5|
90933300|NCT00849485|181745980|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|99.9||||||90.0|97.6|102.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||102|97.6|
90933301|NCT00849485|181745981|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|101.0||||||90.0|98.1|104.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||104|98.1|
90933302|NCT00556478|181745984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (over 3 months/Baseline)|3.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.29|4.06|||ANCOVA|||||4.06|2.29|<0.0001
90933303|NCT00556478|181745985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.61|6.34|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of IPE domain ejaculatory control||6.34|3.61|<0.0001
90933304|NCT00556478|181745985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|5.84|||ANCOVA|||IPE domain sexual satisfaction||5.84|3.30|<0.0001
90933305|NCT00556478|181745985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.86|3.2|||ANCOVA|||IPE domain distress||3.20|1.86|<0.0001
90933306|NCT03786471|181746087|SUPERIORITY||marginal difference of LS means|0.3||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.18|0.78||Alpha = 0.025; Hochberg correction for three pairwise comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.78|-0.18|0.33
90933307|NCT03786471|181746087|SUPERIORITY||marginal difference of LS means|-0.62||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.61|0.37||Alpha = 0.025; Hochberg correction for three pairwise comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.37|-1.61|0.33
90933308|NCT03786471|181746087|SUPERIORITY||marginal difference of LS means|-0.33||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.32|0.67||Alpha = 0.025; Hochberg correction for three pairwise comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.67|-1.32|0.46
90933309|NCT03786471|181746094|SUPERIORITY||marginal difference of LS means|0.25||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.16|0.66||Alpha = 0.025; Hochberg correction for three pairwise comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.66|-0.16|0.54
90933310|NCT03786471|181746094|SUPERIORITY||marginal difference of LS means|-0.1||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.94|0.74||Alpha = 0.025; Hochberg correction for three pairwise comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.74|-0.94|0.79
90933311|NCT03786471|181746094|SUPERIORITY||marginal difference of LS means|0.14||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.7|0.99||Alpha = 0.025; Hochberg correction for three pairwise comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.99|-0.70|0.79
90933312|NCT03786471|181746101|SUPERIORITY||marginal difference of LS means|0.52||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|1.13||Alpha = 0.05; Hochberg correction for three pairwise comparisons \* three secondary outcomes|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.13|-.09|0.48
90933313|NCT03786471|181746101|SUPERIORITY||marginal difference of LS means|-0.81||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|0.45||Alpha = 0.05; Hochberg correction for three pairwise comparisons \*three secondary outcomes|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.45|-2.07|0.62
90933314|NCT03786471|181746101|SUPERIORITY||marginal difference of LS means|-1.33||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.58|-0.07||Alpha = 0.05; Hochberg correction for three pairwise comparisons \* three secondary outcomes|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.07|-2.58|0.23
90933315|NCT03786471|181746108|SUPERIORITY||marginal difference of LS means|0.28||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.54||Alpha = 0.05; Hochberg correction for three pairwise comparisons \* three secondary outcomes|Mixed Models Analysis|||||.54|.01|0.23
90933316|NCT03786471|181746108|SUPERIORITY||marginal difference of LS means|0.01||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.55||Alpha = 0.05; Hochberg correction for three pairwise comparisons \*three secondary outcomes|Mixed Models Analysis|||||.55|-.53|.98
90933317|NCT03786471|181746108|SUPERIORITY||marginal difference of LS means|-0.27||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.27||Alpha = 0.05; Hochberg correction for three pairwise comparisons \* three secondary outcomes|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.27|-0.81|0.65
90933318|NCT03786471|181746113|SUPERIORITY||marginal difference of LS means|-0.16||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.06||Alpha = 0.05; Hochberg correction for three pairwise comparisons \* three secondary outcomes|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.06|-0.37|0.62
90933319|NCT03786471|181746113|SUPERIORITY||marginal difference of LS means|0.7||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.14||Alpha = 0.05; Hochberg correction for three pairwise comparisons \* three secondary outcomes|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.14|0.26|0.01
90933320|NCT03786471|181746113|SUPERIORITY||marginal difference of LS means|0.85||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.29||Alpha = 0.05; Hochberg correction for three pairwise comparisons \* three secondary outcomes|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.29|0.42|0.001
90933321|NCT03346200|181746136|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin was based on the proportion of responders and was set to 17%. That is, we defined non-inferiority to mean that the proportion of responders in the non-referent study arms is not less than one third of the responders in the 20 mg group (50% minus 33% = 17%)|Median Difference (Final Values)|52.5|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|97.5|41.9|100.0|||one-sided Wald tests|P-values were corrected for multiple comparisons using the Holm-Bonferroni method. Non-inferiority p-values were declared if less than a=0.025||||100|41.9|<0.01
90933322|NCT01513447|181746144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.67
90971317|NCT00439946|181825390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.75||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank|||Changes between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test, comparing the values at Baseline to values at Week 8. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values||||0.75
90933323|NCT01513447|181746145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|102.0||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-230.0|171.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||171|-230|0.29
90933324|NCT03141177|181746146|SUPERIORITY|Treatment A over Treatment C|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.64|||Stratified Log-Rank|||||0.64|0.41|<0.0001
90933325|NCT03141177|181746147|SUPERIORITY|Treatment A over Treatment C|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|98.89|0.4|0.89|||Stratified Log-Rank|||||0.89|0.40|0.0010
90933326|NCT03141177|181746148|SUPERIORITY|Treatment A over Treatment C|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.51|4.95|||Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.95|2.51|<0.0001
90933327|NCT03141177|181746148|OTHER|Treatment A - Treatment C|Difference of Objective Response Rates|28.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.7|35.6|||||Strata adjusted difference in objective response rate (Nivolumab+Cabozantinib - Sunitinib) based on DerSimonian and Laird.|||35.6|21.7|
90933328|NCT00092456|181746155|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If equivalence was established in all 3 pairwise comparisons for a given serotype, the 3 lots were considered consistent for that serotype. Each comparison consisted of 2 one-sided tests of equivalence with α=0.05. Statistical significance for the 2 one-sided equivalence tests for each pair of lots was established if the p-values for the hypothesis tests were each less than 0.05. This corresponds to the 2-sided 90% CI for the fold difference in the 2 lots being contained entirely within (0.5,2).|||||<|0.001||95.0||||The reported p-value is for all 5 serotypes, no multiplicity adjustment made, and Type I error rate controlled at the 0.05 level. P\<0.05 implies that the difference is statistically significantly less than the prespecified difference of 2 fold.|ANOVA|||A pairwise comparison of lots was made for each serotype, for each pair of lots.||||<0.001
90933329|NCT00092456|181746155|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If equivalence was established in all 3 pairwise comparisons for a given serotype, the 3 lots were considered consistent for that serotype. Each comparison consisted of 2 one-sided tests of equivalence with α=0.05. Statistical significance for the 2 one-sided equivalence tests for each pair of lots was established if the p-values for the hypothesis tests were each less than 0.05. This corresponds to the 2-sided 90% CI for the fold difference in the 2 lots being contained entirely within (0.5,2)|||||<|0.001||95.0||||The reported p-value is for all 5 serotypes, no multiplicity adjustment made, and Type I error rate controlled at the 0.05 level. P\<0.05 implies that the difference is statistically significantly less than the prespecified difference of 2 fold.|ANOVA|||A pairwise comparison of lots was made for each serotype, for each pair of lots.||||<0.001
90933330|NCT00092456|181746155|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If equivalence was established in all 3 pairwise comparisons for a given serotype, the 3 lots were considered consistent for that serotype. Each comparison consisted of 2 one-sided tests of equivalence with α=0.05. Statistical significance for the 2 one-sided equivalence tests for each pair of lots was established if the p-values for the hypothesis tests were each less than 0.05. This corresponds to the 2-sided 90% CI for the fold difference in the 2 lots being contained entirely within (0.5,2).|||||<|0.001||95.0||||The reported p-value is for all 5 serotypes, no multiplicity adjustment made, and Type I error rate controlled at the 0.05 level. P\<0.05 implies that the difference is statistically significantly less than the prespecified difference of 2 fold.|ANCOVA|||A pairwise comparison of lots was made for each serotype, for each pair of lots.||||<0.001
90933331|NCT02489799|181746184|EQUIVALENCE|The study was powered based on two former studies utilizing RIAS, (both powered =.8 and alpha =.05). With a 0.6 effect size, the required sample size is 72 patients (36 per group) for a one-tailed test of study hypotheses (power =.8 and alpha =.05).|Incidence Rate Ratio|1.06||||0.545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.3|||Poisson model using GEE|We fit a Poisson model using generalized estimating equations. No adjustments were made for degrees of freedom.|The incidence rate ratio compares intervention to control.|We employed two ways of interpreting this data. The first treats the outcome continuously, which is described in the results section. Here we describe the outcome treating it as a ratio. We created a variable representing the numerator of the ratio (type 1) and the denominator of the ratio (type 2) thereby treating the information in both the numerator and denominator as random (each a Poisson variable).||1.30|0.87|0.545
90933332|NCT01241448|181746240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.29||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.58|-0.01||No multiplicity adjustments were used to calculate the p-value.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Sixty-five randomized patients (45 completers) per arm were expected to provide at least 90% power to detect 0.8% HbA1c difference with placebo assuming a SD for change in HbA1c of 1.2% (0.05 1-sided type I error).||-0.01|-0.58|0.094
90933333|NCT01241448|181746240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.9|-0.34||No multiplicity adjustments were used to calculate the p-value.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Sixty-five randomized patients (45 completers) per arm were expected to provide at least 90% power to detect 0.8% HbA1c difference with placebo assuming a SD for change in HbA1c of 1.2% (0.05 1-sided type I error).||-0.34|-0.90|<0.001
90933334|NCT01241448|181746240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.77|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.05|-0.48||No multiplicity adjustments were used to calculate the p-value.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Sixty-five randomized patients (45 completers) per arm were expected to provide at least 90% power to detect 0.8% HbA1c difference with placebo assuming a SD for change in HbA1c of 1.2% (0.05 1-sided type I error).||-0.48|-1.05|<0.01
90933335|NCT02065895|181746265|OTHER|ANOVA was used to first tests the hypothesis that there is a difference among the three groups.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|66.8||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.4|80.3||The p value was adjusted for multiple comparisons using Sidak's correction. A priori the pimary outcome was defined as blood glucose AUC from 8 am - 12pm; however we used blood glucose AUC from 8am - 2pm to capture the entire meal response.|ANOVA|||Differences among the 3 groups were assessed by repeated measures ANOVA using Sidak's correction for multiple comparisons. All subjects were analyzed as a single group, no comparison group.||80.3|33.4|0.0011
90933336|NCT02065895|181746266|OTHER|||||||0.0059|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0059
90933337|NCT03740737|181746268|OTHER||Treatment difference|63.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.5|67.1|||Fisher Exact||95% exact Agresti-Min confidence intervals.|||67.1|55.5|<0.001
91035532|NCT00462228|181957078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51||95.0||||12 week comparison, alpha = 0.05.|Sign test|||Null hypothesis: The change from baseline occurring with memantine is equal to the change from baseline occurring with placebo at 12 weeks for the SDMT Written Score.||||0.51
90933338|NCT03740737|181746269|OTHER||Treatment difference|29.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.5|33.7|||Fisher Exact||95% exact Agresti-Min confidence intervals.|Ongoing Pregnancy Rate in the Fresh Cycle||33.7|22.5|<0.001
90933339|NCT03740737|181746273|OTHER||Treatment difference|31.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.7|36.0|||Fisher Exact||95% exact Agresti-Min confidence intervals.|Clinical pregnancy rate in the fresh cycle||36.0|24.7|<0.001
90933340|NCT03740737|181746273|OTHER||Treatment difference|68.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.2|72.1|||Fisher Exact||95% exact Agresti-Min confidence intervals.|Clinical pregnancy rate cumulatively||72.1|61.2|<0.001
90933341|NCT03740737|181746274|OTHER||Treatment difference|30.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.4|34.6|||Fisher Exact||95% exact Agresti-Min confidence intervals.|Vital pregnancy rate in the fresh cycle||34.6|23.4|<0.001
90933342|NCT03740737|181746274|OTHER||Treatment difference|65.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.5|69.1|||Fisher Exact||95% exact Agresti-Min confidence intervals.|Vital pregnancy rate cumulatively||69.1|57.5|<0.001
90933343|NCT03740737|181746276|OTHER||Treatment difference|35.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.1|39.2|||Fisher Exact||95% exact Agresti-Min confidence intervals.|Positive βhCG rate in the fresh cycle||39.2|28.1|<0.001
90933344|NCT03740737|181746276|OTHER||Treatment difference|72.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.3|76.2|||Fisher Exact||95% exact Agresti-Min confidence intervals.|Positive βhCG rate cumulatively||76.2|65.3|<0.001
90933345|NCT03740737|181746288|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||<0.001
90933346|NCT03740737|181746289|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||<0.001
90933347|NCT03740737|181746290|OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.220
90933348|NCT03740737|181746291|OTHER|||||||0.588|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.588
90933349|NCT03034863|181746348|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.03|TWO_SIDED|||||All p-values are two-tailed|Hierarchical Linear Modeling/MLM|Hypothesis tested using a dummy code representing group assignment (1=SAFER; 0=I-SPI) in the Level 2 equation for the slope term.|Slope represents relative unit change/month between both conditions. Positive slope terms represent relative increases in SAFER compared to I-SPI. Negative slope terms represent relative reductions in SAFER compared to I-SPI.|||||.03
90933350|NCT03034863|181746349|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||Hierarchical Linear Modeling/MLM|Hypothesis tested using a dummy code representing group assignment (1=SAFER; 0=I-SPI) in the Level 2 equation for the slope term.|Slope represents relative unit change/month between both conditions. Positive slope terms represent relative increases in SAFER compared to I-SPI. Negative slope terms represent relative reductions in SAFER compared to I-SPI.|||||.69
90933351|NCT03034863|181746350|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49||||||All p-values are two-tailed|Fisher Exact|Compares veterans who reported 1+ attempts at any follow-up wave out of total number of veterans in each group (i.e., 0/19 for SAFER; 2/20 for I-SPI).||||||.49
90933352|NCT03034863|181746351|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Hierarchical Linear Modeling/MLM|Hypothesis tested using a dummy code representing group assignment (1=SAFER; 0=I-SPI) in the Level 2 equation for the slope term.|Slope represents relative unit change/month between both conditions. Positive slope terms represent relative increases in SAFER compared to I-SPI. Negative slope terms represent relative reductions in SAFER compared to I-SPI.|||||.03
90933353|NCT03034863|181746352|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.87|TWO_SIDED||||||Hierarchical Linear Modeling/MLM|Hypothesis tested using a dummy code representing group assignment (1=SAFER; 0=I-SPI) in the Level 2 equation for the slope term.|Slope represents relative unit change/month between both conditions. Positive slope terms represent relative increases in SAFER compared to I-SPI. Negative slope terms represent relative reductions in SAFER compared to I-SPI.|||||.87
90933354|NCT03034863|181746353|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Hierarchical Linear Modeling/MLM|Hypothesis tested using a dummy code representing group assignment (1=SAFER; 0=I-SPI) in the Level 2 equation for the slope term.|Slope represents relative unit change/month between both conditions. Positive slope terms represent relative increases in SAFER compared to I-SPI. Negative slope terms represent relative reductions in SAFER compared to I-SPI.|||||.03
90933355|NCT03034863|181746354|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||Hierarchical Linear Modeling/MLM|Hypothesis tested using a dummy code representing group assignment (1=SAFER; 0=I-SPI) in the Level 2 equation for the slope term.|Slope represents relative unit change/month between both conditions. Positive slope terms represent relative increases in SAFER compared to I-SPI. Negative slope terms represent relative reductions in SAFER compared to I-SPI.|||||.16
90967664|NCT00397033|181817169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-8.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8||0.003||95.0|-13.8|-2.9||The Hochberg step-up procedure was used to address multiplicity.|ANCOVA|P-value is from an ANCOVA model with fixed-effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum and country, and baseline value as a covariate.|Paliperidone Extended Release (ER) High Dose - Placebo on the Change Scores. Higher scores indicate worsening.|One of the primary pairwise comparisons was paliperidone ER high dose vs. placebo. The Hochberg step-up procedure was used to address multiplicity. P-value for between treatment group comparisons is from an ANCOVA model with fixed-effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum and country, and baseline value as a covariate.||-2.9|-13.8|0.003
90967665|NCT00397033|181817169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7||0.187||95.0|-9.0|1.8||The Hochberg step-up procedure was used to address multiplicity.|ANCOVA|P-value is from an ANCOVA model with fixed-effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum and country, and baseline value as a covariate.|Paliperidone Extended Release (ER) Low Dose - Placebo on the Change Scores. Higher scores indicate worsening.|One of the primary pairwise comparisons was paliperidone ER low dose vs. placebo. The Hochberg step-up procedure was used to address multiplicity. P-value for between treatment group comparisons is from an ANCOVA model with fixed-effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum and country, and baseline value as a covariate.||1.8|-9.0|0.187
90967666|NCT00397033|181817170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001||95.0|-1.1|-0.4|||ANOVA|P-value is from an ANOVA model with fixed-effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum and country.|Paliperidone Extended Release (ER) High Dose - Placebo on the Change Scores. Higher Scores indicate worsening.|||-0.4|-1.1|<0.001
90967667|NCT00397033|181817170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.029||95.0|-0.7|0.0|||ANOVA|P-value is from an ANOVA model with fixed-effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum and country.|Paliperidone Extended Release (ER) Low Dose - Placebo on the Change Scores. Higher scores indicate worsening.|||0.0|-0.7|0.029
90967668|NCT00397033|181817172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6|<|0.001||95.0|-9.9|-3.7|||ANCOVA|P-value is from an ANCOVA model with fixed-effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum and country, and baseline value as a covariate.|Paliperidone Extended Release (ER) High Dose - Placebo on the Change Scores. Higher scores indicate worsening.|||-3.7|-9.9|<0.001
90967669|NCT00397033|181817172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.066||95.0|-5.8|0.2|||ANCOVA|P-value is from an ANCOVA model with fixed-effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum and country, and baseline value as a covariate.|Paliperidone Extended Release (ER) Low Dose - Placebo on the Change Scores. Higher scores indicate worsening.|||0.2|-5.8|0.066
90967670|NCT01020591|181817180|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The power and sample size calculations, based on the ability to detect treatment and evaluation group differences, were performed on Minitab™ V.15. 40 participants were estimated to be required for group allocation (20 in each group: evaluation;evaluation and treatment)for 80% power in at least 3 out of the 4 outcome measures. After 30 subjects, analysis determined that there would be no further statistically significant changes in results therefore, data collection was stopped at 30 subjects.|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||A two factor mixed model Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for Group (Evaluation vs. Treatment) with repeated measures (pre vs. post test) was employed to test for main effects and all interactions for the Resistive Index||||<0.05
90967671|NCT01202279|181817182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.025||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.025
90967672|NCT01202279|181817183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.022||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.022
90967673|NCT02426476|181817208|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||Group by Time interaction|Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed models for repeated measures (PROC MIXED in SAS) were used to assess the effects of intervention group, time, and the group by time interaction. A directional (one-sided) hypothesis was tested for the Group-by-Time interaction. The covariance matrix that minimized the Akaike Information Criterion was used. Each outcome was evaluated separately. Models were adjusted for baseline depression score and race.||||<0.01
90967674|NCT02426476|181817209|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87||||||Group by Time interaction|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.87
90967675|NCT02426476|181817210|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||Group by Time Interaction|Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed models for repeated measures (PROC MIXED in SAS) were used to assess the effects of intervention group, time, and the group by time interaction. A directional (one-sided) hypothesis was tested for the Group-by-Time interaction. The covariance matrix that minimized the Akaike Information Criterion was used. Each outcome was evaluated separately. Models were adjusted for baseline depression score and race.||||<0.01
90967676|NCT00807742|181817217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|2.63|||Chi-squared|||||2.63|0.57|.606
90967677|NCT00807742|181817218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.81||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|2.63|||Chi-squared|||||2.63|0.57|.290
90967678|NCT00807742|181817219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.03||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|8.23|||Chi-squared|||||8.23|0.49|.32
90967679|NCT00807742|181817220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.08||||0.298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|8.45|||Chi-squared|||||8.45|0.51|.298
90967680|NCT00807742|181817221|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size d|-0.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.27|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.27|-0.71|<.001
90967681|NCT00807742|181817222|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size d|-0.15||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.08|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.08|-0.38|.199
90967682|NCT00807742|181817223|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size d|-0.12||||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.33|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.33|-.57|.148
90967683|NCT00807742|181817224|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size d|-0.15||||0.249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.11|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.11|-0.40|.249
90967684|NCT00807742|181817225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|3.72|||Chi-squared|||||3.72|0.59|0.402
90967685|NCT00807742|181817226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.7|||Chi-squared|||||1.70|0.49|.772
90967686|NCT00807742|181817227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.77|||Chi-squared|||||1.77|0.60|.910
90967687|NCT00807742|181817228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.62|||Chi-squared|||||1.62|0.54|.812
90967688|NCT00807742|181817229|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.65|||Chi-squared|||||1.65|0.36|.490
90967689|NCT00807742|181817230|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|2.06|||Chi-squared|||||2.06|0.67|.511
90967690|NCT00807742|181817231|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.97|||Chi-squared|||||1.97|0.72|.499
90967691|NCT00807742|181817232|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.6|||Chi-squared|||||1.60|0.58|.876
90967692|NCT00807742|181817233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size d|-0.37||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.15|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.15|-0.59|.001
90967693|NCT00807742|181817234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size d|-0.25||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.02|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.02|-0.46|.069
90967694|NCT00807742|181817235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size d|-0.16||||0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.08|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.08|-0.40|.202
90967695|NCT00807742|181817236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size d|-0.17||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.09|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.09|-0.42|.199
90967696|NCT02044133|181817257|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
90967697|NCT04085523|181817258|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.6004|||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model using treatment (dose groups and pooled placebo) and sex as fixed effects, and baseline age and baseline height SDS as the covariates.||||= 0.6004
90967698|NCT04085523|181817258|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.7022|||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model using treatment (dose groups and pooled placebo) and sex as fixed effects, and baseline age and baseline height SDS as the covariates.||||= 0.7022
90967699|NCT04085523|181817258|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0849|||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model using treatment (dose groups and pooled placebo) and sex as fixed effects, and baseline age and baseline height SDS as the covariates.||||= 0.0849
90967700|NCT04085523|181817258|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0218|||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model using treatment (dose groups and pooled placebo) and sex as fixed effects, and baseline age and baseline height SDS as the covariates.||||= 0.0218
90971177|NCT00883337|181824956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5953||95.0||||"Hochberg testing procedure:~* a-priori threshold for statistical significance ≤0.05 for the largest p-value of the 2 pair-wise comparisons~* a-priori threshold for statistical significance ≤0.025 for the other p-value if the largest p-value \>0.05"|Log Rank|Two-sided Log Rank test with the region of enrollment and baseline EDSS stratum as stratification factors||"The study was sized to detect a difference between Teriflunomide and Rebif groups in the time to failure at a significance level of 0.025 with a power of 81%.~Null hypothesis:~* H1: No difference between Teriflunomide 14 mg and Rebif~* H2: No difference between Teriflunomide 7 mg and Rebif"||||0.5953
90971178|NCT00883337|181824956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.519||95.0||||"Hochberg testing procedure:~* a-priori threshold for statistical significance ≤0.05 for the largest p-value of the 2 pair-wise comparisons~* a-priori threshold for statistical significance ≤0.025 for the other p-value if the largest p-value \>0.05"|Log Rank|Two-sided Log Rank test with the region of enrollment and baseline EDSS stratum as stratification factors||"Null hypothesis:~* H1: No difference between Teriflunomide 14 mg and Rebif~* H2: No difference between Teriflunomide 7 mg and Rebif"||||0.5190
90971179|NCT00781456|181824966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.87|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with terms of treatment, weekly baseline migraine frequency, and center included in the model.|91-day Levonogestrel Oral Contraceptive versus placebo. Treatment Difference was estimated using logistic regression for the proportion of participants with \>=50% reduction in migraine frequency during the treatment period.|||0.87|-0.82|0.954
90971180|NCT00781456|181824967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|1.17||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with terms of treatment, baseline weekly migraine frequency and center included in the model.|91-day Levonogestrel Oral Contraceptive versus placebo. Treatment Difference was estimated using logistic regression for the proportion of participants with \>=50% reduction in migraine frequency during the treatment period.|Comparison of percentage of participants with a reduction of 50% or more in migraine frequency during the first month of treatment.||1.17|-0.55|0.479
90971181|NCT00781456|181824967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|1.37||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with terms of treatment, baseline weekly migraine frequency and center included in the model.|91-day Levonogestrel Oral Contraceptive versus placebo. Treatment Difference was estimated using logistic regression for the proportion of participants with \>=50% reduction in migraine frequency during the treatment period.|Comparison of percentage of participants with a reduction of 50% or more in migraine frequency during the second month of treatment||1.37|-0.36|0.256
90971182|NCT00781456|181824967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.88||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with terms of treatment, baseline weekly migraine frequency and center included in the model.|91-day Levonogestrel Oral Contraceptive versus placebo. Treatment Difference was estimated using logistic regression for the proportion of participants with \>=50% reduction in migraine frequency during the treatment period.|Comparison of percentage of participants with a reduction of 50% or more in migraine frequency during the third month of treatment.||0.88|-1.16|0.788
90971183|NCT00781456|181824968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|-0.19||||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.09|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparison was performed using an analysis of covariance model with baseline average migraine severity and center as covariates.|91-day Levonogestrel Oral Contraceptive versus placebo.|Comparison of change from Baseline in migraine severity during the 91-day treatment period.||0.09|-0.47|0.182
90971184|NCT00781456|181824968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|-0.04||||0.853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.19|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparison was performed using an analysis of covariance model with baseline average migraine severity and center as covariates.|91-day Levonogestrel Oral Contraceptive versus placebo.|Comparison of change from Baseline in migraine severity during the first month of treatment||0.19|-0.71|0.853
91035533|NCT00462228|181957078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31||95.0||||6 week comparison, alpha = 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: The change from baseline occurring with memantine is equal to the change from baseline occurring with placebo at 6 weeks for the SDMT Written Score.||||0.31
90933356|NCT03034863|181746355|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.81|TWO_SIDED|||||All p-values are two-tailed|Hierarchical Linear Modeling/MLM|Hypothesis tested using a dummy code representing group assignment (1=SAFER; 0=I-SPI) in the Level 2 equation for the slope term.|Slope represents relative unit change/month between both conditions. Positive slope terms represent relative increases in SAFER compared to I-SPI. Negative slope terms represent relative reductions in SAFER compared to I-SPI.|||||.81
90933357|NCT03034863|181746356|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.55|TWO_SIDED|||||All p-values are two-tailed|Hierarchical Linear Modeling/MLM|Hypothesis tested using a dummy code representing group assignment (1=SAFER; 0=I-SPI) in the Level 2 equation for the slope term.|Slope represents relative unit change/month between both conditions. Positive slope terms represent relative increases in SAFER compared to I-SPI. Negative slope terms represent relative reductions in SAFER compared to I-SPI.|||||.55
90933358|NCT03034863|181746357|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.64|TWO_SIDED|||||All p-values are two-tailed|Hierarchical Linear Modeling/MLM|Hypothesis tested using a dummy code representing group assignment (1=SAFER; 0=I-SPI) in the Level 2 equation for the slope term.|Slope represents relative unit change/month between both conditions. Positive slope terms represent relative increases in SAFER compared to I-SPI. Negative slope terms represent relative reductions in SAFER compared to I-SPI.|||||.64
90933359|NCT03034863|181746358|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.62|TWO_SIDED|||||All p-values are two-tailed|Hierarchical Linear Modeling/MLM|Hypothesis tested using a dummy code representing group assignment (1=SAFER; 0=I-SPI) in the Level 2 equation for the slope term.|Slope represents relative unit change/month between both conditions. Positive slope terms represent relative increases in SAFER compared to I-SPI. Negative slope terms represent relative reductions in SAFER compared to I-SPI.|||||.62
90933360|NCT03034863|181746359|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.16|TWO_SIDED|||||All p-values are two-tailed|Hierarchical Linear Modeling/MLM|Hypothesis tested using a dummy code representing group assignment (1=SAFER; 0=I-SPI) in the Level 2 equation for the slope term.|Slope represents relative unit change/month between both conditions. Positive slope terms represent relative increases in SAFER compared to I-SPI. Negative slope terms represent relative reductions in SAFER compared to I-SPI.|||||.16
90933361|NCT03137784|181746360|OTHER|Treatment difference|Linear Mixed Model (LMM)|0.089|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.047|0.132|||Linear Mixed Model|||||0.132|0.047|<0.001
90933362|NCT03137784|181746360|OTHER||Linear Mixed Model (LMM)|0.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.047|0.132|||Linear Mixed Model|||||0.132|0.047|<0.001
90933363|NCT03137784|181746361|OTHER|Treatment difference|Linear Mixed Model (LMM)|0.165|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.127|0.203|||Linear Mixed Model|||||0.203|0.127|<0.001
90933364|NCT03137784|181746361|OTHER|Treatment difference|Linear Mixed Model (LMM)|0.168|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.129|0.206|||Linear Mixed Model|||||0.206|0.129|<0.001
90933365|NCT03137784|181746362|OTHER|Treatment difference|Linear Mixed Model (LMM)|0.176|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.141|0.212|||Linear Mixed Model|||||0.212|0.141|<0.001
90933366|NCT03137784|181746362|OTHER|Treatment difference|Linear Mixed Model (LMM)|0.179|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.144|0.215|||Linear Mixed Model|||||0.215|0.144|<0.001
90933367|NCT03137784|181746363|OTHER|Treatment difference|Linear Mixed Model (LMM)|0.139|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.106|0.173|||Linear Mixed Model|||||0.173|0.106|<0.001
90933368|NCT03137784|181746363|OTHER|Treatment difference|Linear Mixed Model (LMM)|0.146|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.112|0.179|||Linear Mixed Model|||||0.179|0.112|<0.001
90967701|NCT00449670|181817269|EQUIVALENCE|The lot-to-lot consistency 21 days after Dose 2 was demonstrated if, for all pairs of lots, the two-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of A/Vietnam/1194/2004 HI antibody GMT was within the \[0.5 ; 2\] clinical limit interval.|Adjusted GMT ratio|0.81||||||95.0|0.66|1.01|||ANCOVA|||Demonstration of the consistency of the immune response (in terms of geometric mean titer \[GMT\] ratio for anti-hemagglutinin (anti-HA) antibody response against the A/Vietnam/1194/2004 strain 21 days after the second vaccination) elicited by two compositions of H5N1 adjuvanted vaccine (Lot 1 and Lot 2).||1.01|0.66|
90933369|NCT03137784|181746364|OTHER|Treatment difference|Linear Mixed Model (LMM)|0.164|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.127|0.201|||Linear Mixed Model|||||0.201|0.127|<0.001
90933370|NCT03137784|181746364|OTHER|Treatment difference|Linear Mixed Model (LMM)|0.174|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.137|0.211|||Linear Mixed Model|||||0.211|0.137|<0.001
90933371|NCT03137784|181746365|OTHER|Treatment difference|Linear Mixed Model (LMM)|0.036||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.077|||Linear Mixed Model|||||0.077|-0.004|0.079
90933372|NCT03137784|181746365|OTHER|Treatment difference|Linear Mixed Model (LMM)|0.058||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.017|0.099|||Linear Mixed Model|||||0.099|0.017|0.006
90933373|NCT03137784|181746367|OTHER|Treatment difference|Linear Mixed Model (LMM)|25.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.22|31.79|||Linear Mixed Model||LS Mean of change from baseline in mean morning PEF is calculated with the ANCOVA model using treatment, stratification group, dosing schedule, gender, center grouping, smoking status, and baseline mean morning PEF as covariates|||31.79|19.22|<0.001
90933374|NCT03137784|181746367|OTHER|Treatment difference|Linear Mixed Model (LMM)|24.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.99|30.59|||Linear Mixed Model|||||30.59|17.99|<0.001
90933375|NCT03137784|181746368|OTHER|Treatment difference|Linear Mixed Model (LMM)|30.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.07|36.82|||Linear Mixed Model||LS Mean of change from baseline in mean morning PEF is calculated with the ANCOVA model using treatment, stratification group, dosing schedule, gender, center grouping, smoking status, and baseline mean morning PEF as covariates|||36.82|25.07|<0.001
90933376|NCT03137784|181746368|OTHER|Treatment difference|Linear Mixed Model (LMM)|29.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.47|35.26|||Linear Mixed Model||LS Mean of change from baseline in mean morning PEF is calculated with the ANCOVA model using treatment, stratification group, dosing schedule, gender, center grouping, smoking status, and baseline mean morning PEF as covariates|||35.26|23.47|<0.001
90933377|NCT03137784|181746369|OTHER|Treatment difference|Linear Mixed Model (LMM)|-0.15||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.0|||Linear Mixed Model|||||0.00|-0.31|0.053
90933378|NCT03137784|181746369|OTHER|Treatment difference|Linear Mixed Model (LMM)|-0.11||||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.05|||Linear Mixed Model|||||0.05|-0.27|0.163
90933379|NCT02753075|181746379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|0.09||||0.829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.289|0.461||For the Week 8 comparisons of two Oral Rinses against the Placebo Rinse, Dunnett's multiplicity adjustment is applied.|ANCOVA||From ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline Schiff score as covariate. Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|||0.461|-0.289|0.8290
90933380|NCT02753075|181746379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.01||||0.9993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.372|0.362||For the Week 8 comparisons of two Oral Rinses against the Placebo Rinse, Dunnett's multiplicity adjustment is applied.|ANCOVA||From ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline Schiff score as covariate. Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|||0.362|-0.372|0.9993
90933381|NCT02753075|181746380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.09||||0.5892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.242|0.424|||ANCOVA||From ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline Schiff score as covariate. Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|||0.424|-0.242|0.5892
90933382|NCT02753075|181746381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.14||||0.2825|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.116|0.396|||ANCOVA||From ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline Schiff score as covariate. Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|||0.396|-0.116|0.2825
90933383|NCT02753075|181746381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.03||||0.8448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.229|0.28|||ANCOVA||From ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline Schiff score as covariate. Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|||0.280|-0.229|0.8448
90933384|NCT02753075|181746381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.11||||0.3784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.141|0.371|||ANCOVA||From ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline Schiff score as covariate. Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|||0.371|-0.141|0.3784
90933385|NCT02753075|181746382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.1688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|0.0||Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Wilcoxon rank sum test||Median difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment. Median Difference has been calculated from non-parametric Hodges-Lehmann estimations.|||0.000|-10.00|0.1688
90933386|NCT02753075|181746382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|0.0||Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Wilcoxon rank sum test||Median difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment. Median Difference has been calculated from non-parametric Hodges-Lehmann estimations.|||0.000|-5.000|0.4380
90933387|NCT02753075|181746382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.5693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|0.0||Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Wilcoxon rank sum test||Median difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment. Median Difference has been calculated from non-parametric Hodges-Lehmann estimations.|||0.000|-5.000|0.5693
90933388|NCT02753075|181746383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.7789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|0.0||Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Wilcoxon rank sum test||Median difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment. From non-parametric Hodges-Lehmann estimations.|||0.000|-5.000|0.7789
90933389|NCT02753075|181746383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.7214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|0.0||Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Wilcoxon rank sum test||Median difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment. From non-parametric Hodges-Lehmann estimations.|||0.000|-5.000|0.7214
90933390|NCT02753075|181746383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|5.0||Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Wilcoxon rank sum test||Median difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment. From non-parametric Hodges-Lehmann estimations.|||5.000|-5.000|0.8960
90933391|NCT02753075|181746384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.45||||0.0978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.084|0.987|||ANCOVA||From ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline Schiff stratification as factors and baseline VRS as covariate. Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|||0.987|-0.084|0.0978
90933392|NCT02753075|181746384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.2||||0.4607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.333|0.732|||ANCOVA||From ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline Schiff stratification as factors and baseline VRS as covariate. Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|||0.732|-0.333|0.4607
90933393|NCT02753075|181746384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.25||||0.3542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.283|0.787|||ANCOVA||From ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline Schiff stratification as factors and baseline VRS as covariate. Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|||0.787|-0.283|0.3542
90933394|NCT02753075|181746385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.02||||0.9474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.665|0.711|||ANCOVA||From ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline Schiff stratification as factors and baseline VRS as covariate. Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|||0.711|-0.665|0.9474
90933395|NCT02753075|181746385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.09||||0.7987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.586|||ANCOVA||From ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline Schiff stratification as factors and baseline VRS as covariate. Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|||0.586|-0.760|0.7987
90933396|NCT02753075|181746385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.11||||0.7525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.578|0.798|||ANCOVA||From ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline Schiff stratification as factors and baseline VRS as covariate. Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|||0.798|-0.578|0.7525
90933397|NCT01762982|181746407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.0654||95.0|||||Signed Rank Test|||Null hypothesis considered no treatment difference between the treatments being compared.||||0.0654
90933398|NCT01762982|181746410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.0078||95.0|||||Signed Rank Test|||Null hypothesis considered no treatment difference between the treatments being compared.||||0.0078
90933399|NCT01762982|181746411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.0547||95.0|||||Signed Rank Test|||Null hypothesis considered no treatment difference between the treatments being compared.||||0.0547
90933400|NCT03692871|181746455|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|7.9|||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|12.8|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Injection-site erythema||12.8|2.8|= 0.003
90888008|NCT02896855|181639213|OTHER||Stratified Hazard Ratio|0.6||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.81|||Log Rank|A two-sided log-rank test was used, stratified by disease type and hormone-receptor status.|This stratified Hazard Ratio (HR) is calculated as Arm B: Pertuzumab versus Arm A: Placebo. Cox proportional hazards model, stratified by disease type and hormone-receptor status, was used to estimate HR and its 95% CI.|This was for the final analysis. Hypothesis testing is considered exploratory in this bridging study.||0.81|0.45|0.0008
90888009|NCT02896855|181639213|OTHER||Unstratified Hazard Ratio|0.63||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.85|||Log Rank|This two-sided log-rank test was unstratified.|This unstratified Hazard Ratio (HR) is calculated as Arm B: Pertuzumab versus Arm A: Placebo. Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate HR and its 95% CI.|This was for the final analysis. Hypothesis testing is considered exploratory in this bridging study.||0.85|0.47|0.0019
90888010|NCT02896855|181639215|OTHER||Stratified Hazard Ratio|0.68||||0.0658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.03|||Log Rank|A two-sided log-rank test was used, stratified by disease type and hormone-receptor status.|This stratified Hazard Ratio (HR) is calculated as Arm B: Pertuzumab versus Arm A: Placebo. Cox proportional hazards model, stratified by disease type and hormone-receptor status, was used to estimate HR and its 95% CI.|Hypothesis testing is considered exploratory in this bridging study.||1.03|0.45|0.0658
90888011|NCT02896855|181639215|OTHER||Unstratified Hazard Ratio|0.7||||0.0864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.06|||Log Rank|This two-sided log-rank test was unstratified.|This unstratified Hazard Ratio (HR) is calculated as Arm B: Pertuzumab versus Arm A: Placebo. Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate HR and its 95% CI.|Hypothesis testing is considered exploratory in this bridging study.||1.06|0.46|0.0864
90888012|NCT02896855|181639217|OTHER||Difference in Objective Response|9.98||||0.1126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.65|22.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Statistical test is stratified by disease type and hormone receptor status.|The difference in objective response is calculated as Arm B: Pertuzumab minus Arm A: Placebo. 95% CI was calculated using Hauck-Anderson method.|Hypothesis testing is considered exploratory in this bridging study.||22.60|-2.65|0.1126
90888013|NCT02896855|181639217|OTHER||Difference in Objective Response|9.98||||0.1108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.65|22.6|||Fisher Exact|Unadjusted|The difference in objective response is calculated as Arm B: Pertuzumab minus Arm A: Placebo. 95% CI was calculated using Hauck-Anderson method.|Hypothesis testing is considered exploratory in this bridging study.||22.60|-2.65|0.1108
90888014|NCT02896855|181639218|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.78||||0.2867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.24|||Log Rank|Two-sided log-rank test was used, stratified by disease type and hormone-receptor status.|This stratified Hazard Ratio (HR) is calculated as Arm B: Pertuzumab versus Arm A: Placebo. Cox proportional hazards model, stratified by disease type and hormone-receptor status, was used to estimate HR and its 95% CI.|Hypothesis testing is considered exploratory in this bridging study.||1.24|0.49|0.2867
90888015|NCT02896855|181639225|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|0.75|||||The treatment difference for change from baseline to maximum on-treatment decrease in LVEF is defined as Arm B: Pertuzumab minus Arm A: Placebo.|||0.75|-1.96|
90888016|NCT01666002|181639235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
90888017|NCT01666002|181639236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
90888018|NCT02585895|181639253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|74.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.6|86.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by screening LDL-C level|Treatment difference used apheresis as the reference.|||86.8|44.6|< 0.0001
90888019|NCT02585895|181639254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|-52.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.64|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.18|-41.3|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Model included treatment group, screening LDL-C level, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference used apheresis as the reference.|||-41.30|-64.18|< 0.0001
90888020|NCT02585895|181639255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|-46.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.67|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.85|-36.9|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Model included treatment group, screening LDL-C level, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference used apheresis as the reference.|||-36.90|-55.85|< 0.0001
90888021|NCT02585895|181639256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|-35.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.74|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.39|-28.21|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Model included treatment group, screening LDL-C level, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit as covariates.||||-28.21|-43.39|< 0.0001
90888022|NCT01169467|181639261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.395|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.395
90888023|NCT03108924|181639266|OTHER||GMR|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.53|1.13||||Categorical Analysis|GMR = GM for ESRD HD / GM for ESRD Non-HD|||1.13|0.53|
90888024|NCT03108924|181639269|OTHER||GMR|2.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.01|4.41||||Categorical Analysis|GMR = GM for Moderate RI / GM for Healthy Controls|||4.41|2.01|
90888025|NCT03108924|181639269|OTHER||GMR|4.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.82|6.96||||Categorical Analysis|GMR = GM for Severe RI / GM for Healthy Controls|||6.96|2.82|
90888026|NCT03108924|181639269|OTHER||GMR|4.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.95|7.59||||Categorical Analysis|GMR = GM for ESRD HD / GM for Healthy Controls|||7.59|2.95|
90888027|NCT03108924|181639271|OTHER||GMR|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.54|1.08||||Categorical Analysis|GMR = GM for ESRD HD / GM for ESRD Non-HD|||1.08|0.54|
90888028|NCT03108924|181639274|OTHER||GMR|3.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.01|5.2||||Categorical Analysis|GMR = GM for Moderate RI / GM for Healthy Controls|||5.20|2.01|
90888029|NCT03108924|181639274|OTHER||GMR|4.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.49|6.7||||Categorical Analysis|GMR = GM for Severe RI / GM for Healthy Controls|||6.70|2.49|
90888030|NCT03108924|181639274|OTHER||GMR|4.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.65|7.39||||Categorical Analysis|GMR = GM for ESRD Non-HD / GM for Healthy Controls|||7.39|2.65|
90888031|NCT03108924|181639276|OTHER||GMR|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.52|1.03||||Categorical Analysis|GMR = GM for ESRD HD / GM for ESRD Non-HD|||1.03|0.52|
90888032|NCT03108924|181639279|OTHER||GMR|2.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.22|3.56||||Categorical Analysis|GMR = GM for Moderate RI / GM for Healthy Controls|||3.56|1.22|
90967702|NCT00449670|181817269|EQUIVALENCE|The lot-to-lot consistency 21 days after Dose 2 was demonstrated if, for all pairs of lots, the two-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of A/Vietnam/1194/2004 HI antibody GMT was within the \[0.5 ; 2\] clinical limit interval.|Adjusted GMT ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.06|||ANCOVA|||Demonstration of the consistency of the immune response (in terms of geometric mean titer \[GMT\] ratio for anti-hemagglutinin (anti-HA) antibody response against the A/Vietnam/1194/2004 strain 21 days after the second vaccination) elicited by two compositions of H5N1 adjuvanted vaccine (Lot 1 and Lot 3).||1.06|0.69|
90967703|NCT00449670|181817269|EQUIVALENCE|The lot-to-lot consistency 21 days after Dose 2 was demonstrated if, for all pairs of lots, the two-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of A/Vietnam/1194/2004 HI antibody GMT was within the \[0.5 ; 2\] clinical limit interval.|Adjusted GMT ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.05|||ANCOVA|||Demonstration of the consistency of the immune response (in terms of geometric mean titer \[GMT\] ratio for anti-hemagglutinin (anti-HA) antibody response against the A/Vietnam/1194/2004 strain 21 days after the second vaccination) elicited by two compositions of H5N1 adjuvanted vaccine (Lot 1 and Lot 4).||1.05|0.68|
90967704|NCT00449670|181817269|EQUIVALENCE|The lot-to-lot consistency 21 days after Dose 2 was demonstrated if, for all pairs of lots, the two-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of A/Vietnam/1194/2004 HI antibody GMT was within the \[0.5 ; 2\] clinical limit interval.|Adjusted GMT ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.3|||ANCOVA|||Demonstration of the consistency of the immune response (in terms of geometric mean titer \[GMT\] ratio for anti-hemagglutinin (anti-HA) antibody response against the A/Vietnam/1194/2004 strain 21 days after the second vaccination) elicited by two compositions of H5N1 adjuvanted vaccine (Lot 2 and Lot 3).||1.3|0.85|
90967705|NCT00449670|181817269|EQUIVALENCE|The lot-to-lot consistency 21 days after Dose 2 was demonstrated if, for all pairs of lots, the two-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of A/Vietnam/1194/2004 HI antibody GMT was within the \[0.5 ; 2\] clinical limit interval.|Adjusted GMT ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.29|||ANCOVA|||Demonstration of the consistency of the immune response (in terms of geometric mean titer \[GMT\] ratio for anti-hemagglutinin (anti-HA) antibody response against the A/Vietnam/1194/2004 strain 21 days after the second vaccination) elicited by two compositions of H5N1 adjuvanted vaccine (Lot 2 and Lot 4).||1.29|0.84|
90967706|NCT00449670|181817269|EQUIVALENCE|The lot-to-lot consistency 21 days after Dose 2 was demonstrated if, for all pairs of lots, the two-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of A/Vietnam/1194/2004 HI antibody GMT was within the \[0.5 ; 2\] clinical limit interval.|Adjusted GMT ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.23|||ANCOVA|||Demonstration of the consistency of the immune response (in terms of geometric mean titer \[GMT\] ratio for anti-hemagglutinin (anti-HA) antibody response against the A/Vietnam/1194/2004 strain 21 days after the second vaccination) elicited by two compositions of H5N1 adjuvanted vaccine (Lot 3 and Lot 4).||1.23|0.8|
90967707|NCT03577730|181817346|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|55.0||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|118.0|||Generalized estimating equations||The median difference (+55) is an estimated difference between groups - rather than the actual difference - based on the pre-specified generalized estimated equations modeling.|||118|-9|0.092
90967708|NCT03577730|181817347|OTHER|||||||0.802|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis for visual analog scale scores at rest presented.||||0.802
90967709|NCT03577730|181817348|OTHER|||||||0.32|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.320
90967710|NCT03577730|181817349|OTHER|||||||0.67|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.670
90967711|NCT03577730|181817350|OTHER|||||||0.595|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.595
90967712|NCT03577730|181817351|OTHER|||||||0.985|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.985
90967713|NCT03577730|181817352|OTHER|||||||0.417|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.417
90967714|NCT03577730|181817353|OTHER|||||||0.432|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.432
90967715|NCT03577730|181817354|OTHER|||||||0.673|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.673
90967716|NCT03577730|181817355|OTHER|||||||0.058|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.058
90967717|NCT06098248|181817397|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin was set at 0.05 for sensitivity. A power calculation was conducted assuming a 30% missing data rate, with final missing data at approximately 10%|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.0123|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0132|<|0.4049|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.0164||A one-sided significance level of 0.05 was used for the non-inferiority tests.|McNemar|McNemar's test was chosen due to paired nominal data (specimens tested by both methods). Degrees of freedom = 1|Lower Limit reflects estimated value due to 1-sided CI requirement and system constraints. True lower bound is theoretically -∞.|We performed a paired comparison within the same participant population, evaluating both cCeLL - Ex vivo and Frozen Section on each specimen.|If any secondary analyses could not fit into the above format (e.g., AUC analysis, time efficiency), they were reported as descriptive statistics rather than hypothesis testing|0.0164||<0.4049
90967718|NCT06098248|181817398|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin was set at 0.10 for specificity|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1071|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.4103|<|0.3075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1628|0.0557||A one-sided significance level of 0.10 was used for the non-inferiority tests.|McNemar|McNemar's test was chosen due to paired nominal data (specimens tested by both methods). Degrees of freedom = 1|Lower Limit reflects estimated value due to 1-sided CI requirement and system constraints. True lower bound is theoretically -∞.|We performed a paired comparison within the same participant population, evaluating both cCeLL - Ex vivo and Frozen Section on each specimen.|f any secondary analyses could not fit into the above format (e.g., AUC analysis, time efficiency), they were reported as descriptive statistics rather than hypothesis testing|0.0557|-0.1628|<0.3075
90967719|NCT00253643|181817399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1521|TWO_SIDED|||||Utilized a priori threshold for statistical significance of 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects model to assess the effect time (pre vs. post) and treatment (GTFO, GT, FO and Placebo) on FAS summary scores||||0.1521
90967720|NCT00253643|181817400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1573|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects model to assess the effect of time (pre vs. post) and treatment (GTFO, GT, FO and Placebo) on Ki-67||||0.1573
90967721|NCT04770532|181817407|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of insulin icodec was considered confirmed if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for mean treatment difference (insulin icodec minus insulin degludec) was strictly below 0.3%.|Treatment difference|-0.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.08|||ANCOVA|||The response and change from baseline in response after 26 weeks were analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, region and personal continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) device use as fixed factors, and baseline response as covariate.||-0.08|-0.37|<0.0001
90967722|NCT04707157|181817435|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-1.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.76|-0.38|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||-0.38|-2.76|
90933401|NCT03692871|181746455|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-0.3|||=|0.882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|4.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Injection-site induration||4.0|-5.0|= 0.882
90933402|NCT03692871|181746455|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|6.4|||=|0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|11.3|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Injection-site pain||11.3|1.3|= 0.014
90933403|NCT03692871|181746455|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|4.6|||=|0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|8.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Injection-site swelling||8.9|0.0|= 0.051
90933404|NCT03692871|181746456|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|5.5|||=|0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|10.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Decreased appetite||10.5|0.4|= 0.033
90933405|NCT03692871|181746456|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|5.6|||=|0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|10.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Irritability||10.5|1.0|= 0.016
90933406|NCT03692871|181746456|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.4|||=|0.878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|5.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Somnolence||5.6|-4.7|= 0.878
90933407|NCT03692871|181746456|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-0.8|||=|0.503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|1.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Urticaria||1.5|-3.8|= 0.503
90933408|NCT03692871|181746457|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.4||||||Percentage of participants with a vaccine-related SAE||0.4|-0.8|
90933409|NCT00257894|181746469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57||||||Effect size close to zero (eta squared of .01)|ANOVA|Interaction effect term from group by time ANOVA||||||.57
90933410|NCT00257894|181746470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6||||||Effect size about zero (eta squared = .01)|ANOVA|Interaction term from a group by time ANOVA||||||.60
90933411|NCT00257894|181746471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79||||||Effect size (eta squared) = 0|ANOVA|Interaction term of a group by time ANOVA||||||.79
90933412|NCT00257894|181746472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21||||||For test of drug by time interaction effect|ANOVA|Medium effect size, eta squared = .061||Analysis of variance, group by time (Day 0 vs. Day 10).||||.21
90933413|NCT02852824|181746475|OTHER||Slope|0.9058|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0523|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7973|1.0142||||||Dose proportionality was explored using a regression model. A 95% confidence interval (CI) for the slope was computed. Power model is used a statistical method.||1.0142|0.7973|
90933414|NCT02852824|181746476|OTHER||Slope|0.9528|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0454|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8581|1.0475||||||Dose proportionality was explored using a regression model. A 95% confidence interval (CI) for the slope was computed. Power model is used as statistical method.||1.0475|0.8581|
90933415|NCT02852824|181746477|OTHER||Slope|0.9439|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0358|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8697|1.0182||||||Dose proportionality was explored using a regression model. A 95% confidence interval (CI) for the slope was computed. Power model is used as statistical method.||1.0182|0.8697|
90933416|NCT02852824|181746478|OTHER||Slope|0.9708|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0351|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8975|1.044||||||Dose proportionality was explored using a regression model. A 95% confidence interval (CI) for the slope was computed. Power model is used as statistical method.||1.0440|0.8975|
90933417|NCT01316913|181746479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.022||||0.377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.027|0.072|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least squares mean difference=UMEC/VI 62.5/25 µg minus UMEC 125 µg.|||0.072|-0.027|0.377
90933418|NCT01316913|181746479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.06||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.109||nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least squares mean difference=UMEC/VI 62.5/25 µg minus TIO 18 µg.|||0.109|0.010|0.018
90933419|NCT01316913|181746479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.037||||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.012|0.087|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least squares mean difference=UMEC/VI 125/25 µg minus UMEC 125 µg.|||0.087|-0.012|0.142
90933420|NCT01316913|181746479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.074||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.025|0.123|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least squares mean difference=UMEC/VI 125/25 µg minus TIO 18 µg.|||0.123|0.025|0.003
90933421|NCT01860079|181746482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Categorical data were analyzed with χ2.Comparisons were also analyzed by χ2 between the early discharge and standard treatment arm for the primary outcomes.||||<0.05
90933422|NCT02102724|181746483|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypotheses were that there are no differences between the two groups' change scores for any study outcomes. The power analysis was based on a study of krill oil for reducing CRP levels in persons with arthritis (N = 90) that yielded an effect size (Cohen's d) of 1.2. A sample size of 37 was determined to yield a power of 0.80 to detect an effect size of 1.0 with a two-tailed alpha of 0.05.|The change scores of the two groups (week 12 minus baseline) were compared using Wilcoxon rank sum tests.|||< 0.05
90933423|NCT02008916|181746484|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.41||||0.0093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|4.69|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.69|1.24|0.0093
90933424|NCT02008916|181746484|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.68||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|5.21|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.21|1.38|0.0037
90933425|NCT02008916|181746485|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.59||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|5.35|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.35|1.26|0.0100
90933426|NCT02008916|181746485|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.81||||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|5.78|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.78|1.36|0.0051
90933427|NCT02008916|181746486|SUPERIORITY||Relative treatment effect|0.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.68|||Mixed Models Analysis||Relative treatment effect = exponential of the difference in LSM on the log e scale or the geometric LSM ratio on the original scale. For values less than 1, AIN457 has a greater reduction than Placebo.|||0.68|0.38|<0.0001
90933428|NCT02008916|181746486|SUPERIORITY||Relative treatment effect|0.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||Relative treatment effect = exponential of the difference in LSM on the log e scale or the geometric LSM ratio on the original scale. For values less than 1, AIN457 has a greater reduction than Placebo.|||0.60|0.33|<0.0001
90933429|NCT02008916|181746487|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.46||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.01|9.92|||Regression, Logistic|||||9.92|2.01|0.0002
90933430|NCT02008916|181746487|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.21||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.89|9.38|||Regression, Logistic|||||9.38|1.89|0.0004
90933431|NCT02008916|181746488|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.0347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.06|-1.60|0.0347
90933432|NCT02008916|181746488|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.46|-2.00|0.0018
90933433|NCT02008916|181746492|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.71||||0.0593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|64.42|||Regression, Logistic|||||64.42|0.92|0.0593
90933434|NCT02008916|181746492|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|19.39||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.49|150.79|||Regression, Logistic|||||150.79|2.49|0.0046
90933435|NCT00046475|181746498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is based on an ANOVA model with post-treatment responses for OHSA Item 1 as dependent variable, treatment, sequence, period (Visit 5 or 6), as fixed effects, and patient within sequence as random effect.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90933436|NCT00046475|181746499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is based on an ANOVA model with post-treatment responses for OHSA Item as dependent variable, treatment, sequence, period (Visit 5 or 6), as fixed effects, and patient within sequence as random effect.|ANOVA|||||||0.011
90933437|NCT00046475|181746500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is based on an ANOVA model with post-treatment responses for OHSA Item 2 as dependent variable, treatment, sequence, period (Visit 5 or 6), as fixed effects, and patient within sequence as random effect.|ANOVA|||Analysis of Item 2||||<0.001
90933438|NCT00046475|181746500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is based on an ANOVA model with post-treatment responses for OHSA Item 3 as dependent variable, treatment, sequence, period (Visit 5 or 6), as fixed effects, and patient within sequence as random effect.|ANOVA|||Analysis of Item 3||||0.002
90933439|NCT00046475|181746500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is based on an ANOVA model with post-treatment responses for OHSA Item 4 as dependent variable, treatment, sequence, period (Visit 5 or 6), as fixed effects, and patient within sequence as random effect.|ANOVA|||Analysis of Item 4||||0.004
90933440|NCT00046475|181746500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is based on an ANOVA model with post-treatment responses for OHSA Item 5 as dependent variable, treatment, sequence, period (Visit 5 or 6), as fixed effects, and patient within sequence as random effect.|ANOVA|||Analysis of Item 5||||0.026
90933441|NCT00046475|181746500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.226|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is based on an ANOVA model with post-treatment responses for OHSA Item 6 as dependent variable, treatment, sequence, period (Visit 5 or 6), as fixed effects, and patient within sequence as random effect.|ANOVA|||Analysis of Item 6||||0.226
90933442|NCT00046475|181746501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is based on an ANOVA model with post-treatment composite symptom score as dependent variable, treatment, sequence, period (Visit 5 or 6), as fixed effects, and patient within sequence as random effect.|ANOVA|||||||0.002
90933443|NCT00046475|181746502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is based on an ANOVA model with post-treatment responses for OHDAS Item 1 as dependent variable, treatment, sequence, period (Visit 5 or 6), as fixed effects, and patient within sequence as random effect.|ANOVA|||Analysis of Item 1||||<0.001
90933444|NCT00046475|181746502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is based on an ANOVA model with post-treatment responses for OHDAS Item 2 as dependent variable, treatment, sequence, period (Visit 5 or 6), as fixed effects, and patient within sequence as random effect.|ANOVA|||Analysis of Item 2||||<0.001
90933445|NCT00046475|181746502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is based on an ANOVA model with post-treatment responses for OHDAS Item 3 as dependent variable, treatment, sequence, period (Visit 5 or 6), as fixed effects, and patient within sequence as random effect.|ANOVA|||Analysis of Item 3||||<0.001
90933446|NCT00046475|181746502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is based on an ANOVA model with post-treatment responses for OHDAS Item 4 as dependent variable, treatment, sequence, period (Visit 5 or 6), as fixed effects, and patient within sequence as random effect.|ANOVA|||Analysis of Item 4||||0.001
90933447|NCT00046475|181746503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is based on an ANOVA model with post-treatment global daily activity score as dependent variable, treatment, sequence, period (Visit 5 or 6), as fixed effects, and patient within sequence as random effect.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90933448|NCT00046475|181746506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is based on an ANOVA model with change from baseline standing systolic blood pressure as dependent variable, treatment, sequence, period (Visit 5 or 6), as fixed effects, and patient within sequence as random effect.|ANOVA|||Analysis of standing systolic blood pressure||||0.002
90933449|NCT00046475|181746506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is based on an ANOVA model with change from baseline standing diastolic blood pressure as dependent variable, treatment, sequence, period (Visit 5 or 6), as fixed effects, and patient within sequence as random effect.|ANOVA|||Analysis of standing diastolic blood pressure||||0.010
90933450|NCT00046475|181746507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is based on an ANOVA model with change from baseline supine systolic blood pressure as dependent variable, treatment, sequence, period (Visit 5 or 6), as fixed effects, and patient within sequence as random effect.|ANOVA|||Analysis of supine systolic blood pressure||||<0.001
90967723|NCT04707157|181817436|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.14|0.08|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.08|-2.14|
91035534|NCT00462228|181957078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46||95.0||||12 week comparison, alpha = 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: The change from baseline occurring with memantine is equal to the change from baseline occurring with placebo at 12 weeks for the SDMT Written Score.||||0.46
91035535|NCT00462228|181957079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34||95.0||||6 week comparison, alpha = 0.05.|Sign test|||Null hypothesis: The change from baseline occurring with memantine is equal to the change from baseline occurring with placebo at 6 weeks for the SDMT Oral Score.||||0.34
91035536|NCT00462228|181957079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75||95.0||||12 week comparison, alpha = 0.05.|Sign test|||Null hypothesis: The change from baseline occurring with memantine is equal to the change from baseline occurring with placebo at 12 weeks for the SDMT Oral Score.||||0.75
91035537|NCT00462228|181957079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37||95.0||||6 week comparison, alpha = 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: The change from baseline occurring with memantine is equal to the change from baseline occurring with placebo at 6 weeks for the SDMT Oral Score.||||0.37
90888033|NCT03108924|181639279|OTHER||GMR|1.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|3.25||||Categorical Analysis|GMR = GM for Severe RI / GM for Healthy Controls|||3.25|1.10|
90888034|NCT03108924|181639279|OTHER||GMR|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.13|3.19||||Categorical Analysis|GMR = GM for ESRD Non-HD / GM for Healthy Controls|||3.19|1.13|
90888035|NCT03108924|181639281|OTHER||GMR|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.9||||Categorical Analysis|GMR = GM for ESRD / GM for ESRD Non-HD|||1.90|0.88|
91035538|NCT00462228|181957079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45||95.0||||12 week comparison, alpha = 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: The change from baseline occurring with memantine is equal to the change from baseline occurring with placebo at 12 weeks for the SDMT Oral Score.||||0.45
91035539|NCT00567320|181957080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||HLM analysis of % of Cocaine Positive Urines per week over 12 weeks. Subjects were used as a Random variable, with medication dosing set to 'Fixed'.||||0.84
91035540|NCT01299454|181957087|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was claimed for a PK parameter if the 90% CI for the ratio of the geometric means of a PK variable fell within the interval \[0.5, 2.0\]. Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach was equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.166|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.776|1.751|||Mixed effect analysis of variance||Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach is equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|The primary comparison was each hepatic disease group (mild, moderate or severe) versus the control (normal group). To compare the primary PK parameters between each hepatic disease group and the control group, the 90% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in the means of the log-transformed data was calculated using a mixed effect analysis of variance.||1.751|0.776|
90888036|NCT03108924|181639284|OTHER||GMR|0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.5||||Categorical Analysis|GMR = GM for Moderate RI / GM for Healthy Controls|||0.50|0.23|
90888037|NCT03108924|181639284|OTHER||GMR|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.35||||Categorical Analysis|GMR = GM for Severe RI / GM for Healthy Controls|||0.35|0.14|
90888038|NCT03108924|181639284|OTHER||GMR|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.34||||Categorical Analysis|GMR = GM for ESRD Non-HD / GM for Healthy Controls|||0.34|0.13|
90888039|NCT03108924|181639286|OTHER||GMR|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.25|0.39||||Categorical Analysis|GMR = GM for Moderate RI / GM for Healthy Controls|||0.39|0.25|
90888040|NCT03108924|181639286|OTHER||GMR|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.07|0.16||||Categorical Analysis|GMR = GM for Severe RI / GM for Healthy Controls|||0.16|0.07|
90888041|NCT00941603|181639300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percent|-3.5||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|0.2|||ANOVA|Least-square (LS) means and LS standard errors based on ANOVA model extracting effects due to treatment, gender, and primary diagnosis.||||0.2|-7.2|0.06
90888042|NCT00941603|181639300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percent|-3.1||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|0.6||LS means and LS standard errors based on ANOVA model extracting effects due to treatment, gender, and primary diagnosis.|ANOVA|||||0.6|-6.7|0.10
90888043|NCT00941603|181639300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percent|-5.7|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|-2.0|||ANOVA|||LS means and LS standard errors based on ANOVA model extracting effects due to treatment, gender, and primary diagnosis.||-2.0|-9.4|<0.01
90888044|NCT00941603|181639300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percent|-1.3||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|2.4|||ANOVA|LS means and LS standard errors based on ANOVA model extracting effects due to treatment, gender, and primary diagnosis.||||2.4|-5.0|0.48
90888045|NCT00941603|181639300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percent|-0.4||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|3.3|||ANOVA|LS means and LS standard errors based on ANOVA model extracting effects due to treatment, gender, and primary diagnosis.||||3.3|-4.0|0.85
90888046|NCT00941603|181639301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percent|-3.0||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|0.4|||ANOVA|LS means and LS standard errors based on ANOVA model extracting effects due to treatment, gender, and primary diagnosis.||||0.4|-6.5|0.09
90888047|NCT00941603|181639301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percent|-3.6||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|-0.2|||ANOVA|LS means and LS standard errors based on ANOVA model extracting effects due to treatment, gender, and primary diagnosis.||||-0.2|-7.1|0.04
90888048|NCT00941603|181639301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percent|-4.4||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|-1.0|||ANOVA|LS means and LS standard errors based on ANOVA model extracting effects due to treatment, gender, and primary diagnosis.||||-1.0|-7.9|0.01
90888049|NCT00941603|181639301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percent|-1.4||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|2.0|||ANOVA|LS means and LS standard errors based on ANOVA model extracting effects due to treatment, gender, and primary diagnosis.||||2.0|-4.9|0.41
90888050|NCT00941603|181639301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percent|0.7||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|4.2|||ANOVA|LS means and LS standard errors based on ANOVA model extracting effects due to treatment, gender, and primary diagnosis.||||4.2|-2.7|0.68
90888051|NCT00791765|181639364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||van Elteren's test|Stratified by baseline body mass index group||||||<0.0001
90888052|NCT00791765|181639365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline body mass index group||||||<0.0001
90888053|NCT00791765|181639366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||2-sided pairwise van Elteren's test|Stratified by baseline body mass index group||Comparison of week 24 outcome to week 12 outcome (see Outcome Measure 1)||||<0.0001
90933451|NCT00046475|181746507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is based on an ANOVA model with change from baseline supine diastolic blood pressure as dependent variable, treatment, sequence, period (Visit 5 or 6), as fixed effects, and patient within sequence as random effect.|ANOVA|||Analysis of supine diastolic blood pressure||||0.002
90933452|NCT00046475|181746508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.569|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is based on an ANOVA model with SF-36 general health score as dependent variable, treatment, sequence, period (Visit 5 or 6), as fixed effects, and patient within sequence as random effect.|ANOVA|||Analysis of general health||||0.569
90933453|NCT00046475|181746508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.578|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is based on an ANOVA model with SF-36 physical functioning score as dependent variable, treatment, sequence, period (Visit 5 or 6), as fixed effects, and patient within sequence as random effect.|ANOVA|||Analysis of physical functioning||||0.578
90933454|NCT00046475|181746512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value is based on an ANOVA model with post-treatment responses for OHSA Item 1 as dependent variable, treatment, sequence, period (Visit 5 or 6), as fixed effects, and subject-within sequence as random effect.|ANOVA|||Analysis of US participants with mild or moderate disease severity||||0.370
90933455|NCT00046475|181746513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value is based on an ANOVA model with post-treatment responses for OHSA Item 1 as dependent variable, treatment, sequence, period (Visit 5 or 6), as fixed effects, and subject-within sequence as random effect.|ANOVA|||Analysis of US participants with marked or severe disease severity||||0.007
90933456|NCT01915914|181746543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|13.4993|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1113|44.325|||Log Rank|||||44.3250|4.1113|<0.0001
90933457|NCT01915914|181746544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.9524|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4258|10.1105|||Log Rank|||||10.1105|2.4258|<0.0001
90933458|NCT01915914|181746545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
90933459|NCT01915914|181746546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
90933460|NCT01915914|181746548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
90933461|NCT01915914|181746549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
90933462|NCT01915914|181746554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.701||95.0||||Week 20, CA|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7010
90933463|NCT01915914|181746554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0042||95.0||||Week 20, ET/L|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0042
90933464|NCT01915914|181746554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.081||95.0||||Week 20, AP|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0810
90933465|NCT01915914|181746554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2799||95.0||||Week 32, CA|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2799
90933466|NCT01915914|181746554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1375||95.0||||Week 32, ET/L|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1375
90933467|NCT01915914|181746554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11||95.0||||Week 32, AP|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1100
90933468|NCT01915914|181746554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0394||95.0||||Week 20, Total VAS Score|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0394
90933469|NCT01915914|181746554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2237||95.0||||Week 32, Total VAS Score|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2237
90933470|NCT02432274|181746576|OTHER||||||=|0.20359|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||C2D1: FGF 19 (PFS-4, Yes) vs. C2D1: FGF 19 (PFS-4, No)||||=0.20359
90933471|NCT02432274|181746576|OTHER||||||=|0.50068|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||C2D1: FGF 19 (PFS-4, Yes) vs. C2D1: FGF 19 (PFS-4, No)||||=0.50068
90933472|NCT02432274|181746576|OTHER||||||=|0.05512|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||C3D1: FGF 19 (PFS-4, Yes) vs. C3D1: FGF 19 (PFS-4, No)||||=0.05512
90933473|NCT02432274|181746576|OTHER||||||=|0.50382|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||C4D1: FGF 19 (PFS-4, Yes) vs. C4D1: FGF 19 (PFS-4, No)||||=0.50382
90933474|NCT02432274|181746576|OTHER||||||=|0.0476|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||C2D1: FGF 21 (PFS-4, Yes) vs. C2D1: FGF 21 (PFS-4, No)||||=0.04760
90933475|NCT02432274|181746576|OTHER||||||=|0.2142|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||C2D1: FGF 21 (PFS-4, Yes) vs. C2D1: FGF 21 (PFS-4, No)||||=0.21420
90933476|NCT02432274|181746576|OTHER||||||=|0.42542|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||C3D1: FGF 21 (PFS-4, Yes) vs. C3D1: FGF 21 (PFS-4, No)||||=0.42542
90933477|NCT02432274|181746576|OTHER||||||=|0.73573|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||C4D1: FGF 21 (PFS-4, Yes) vs. C4D1: FGF 21 (PFS-4, No)||||=0.73573
90933478|NCT02432274|181746576|OTHER||||||=|0.35754|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||C2D1: VEGF (PFS-4, Yes) vs. C2D1: VEGF (PFS-4, No)||||=0.35754
90933479|NCT02432274|181746576|OTHER||||||=|0.59903|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||C2D1: VEGF (PFS-4, Yes) vs. C2D1: VEGF (PFS-4, No)||||=0.59903
90933480|NCT02432274|181746576|OTHER||||||=|1|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||C3D1: VEGF (PFS-4, Yes) vs. C3D1: VEGF (PFS-4, No)||||=1.00000
90933481|NCT03365622|181746617|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.306|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.379||0.3938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.242|20.854|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, sex, BMI, type of surgery and TAP block.|"The estimate reflects the adjusted difference in mean outcome between arms/groups, with the placebo IV + oral acetaminophen serving as the reference group."|A multiple linear regression model was used to examine the association between treatment assignment and the total opioid dose administered intraoperatively and postoperatively, adjusting for patient age, gender, body mass index (BMI), type of surgery (laparoscopic donor nephrectomy or laparoscopic nephrectomy for renal cancer), and whether the patient received a TAP block during surgery.||20.854|-8.242|0.3938
90933482|NCT03365622|181746618|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.107|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.283||0.7051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.451|0.666|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, sex, BMI, type of surgery and TAP block.|"The estimate reflects the adjusted difference in mean outcome between arms/groups, with the placebo IV + oral acetaminophen serving as the reference group."|A multiple linear regression model was used to examine the association between treatment assignment and the 20-24 hours post-op average surgical pain, adjusting for patient age, gender, body mass index (BMI), type of surgery (laparoscopic donor nephrectomy or laparoscopic nephrectomy for renal cancer), and whether the patient received a TAP block during surgery.||0.666|-0.451|0.7051
90967724|NCT04707157|181817437|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|-0.25|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||-0.25|-1.56|
90967725|NCT04707157|181817438|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-1.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.22|-0.77|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||-0.77|-3.22|
90967726|NCT04707157|181817439|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-19.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.22|-6.97|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||-6.97|-31.22|
90933483|NCT03365622|181746619|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.276|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.317||0.3852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.349|0.901|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, sex, BMI, type of surgery and TAP block.|"The estimate reflects the adjusted difference in mean outcome between arms/groups, with the placebo IV + oral acetaminophen serving as the reference group."|A multiple linear regression model was used to examine the association between treatment assignment and the 1-2 hours post-op average surgical pain, adjusting for patient age, gender, body mass index (BMI), type of surgery (laparoscopic donor nephrectomy or laparoscopic nephrectomy for renal cancer), and whether the patient received a TAP block during surgery.||0.901|-0.349|0.3852
90933484|NCT03365622|181746620|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.534|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.816||0.8498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.02|6.088|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, sex, BMI, type of surgery and TAP block.|"The estimate reflects the adjusted difference in mean outcome between arms/groups, with the placebo IV + oral acetaminophen serving as the reference group."|A multiple linear regression model was used to examine the association between treatment assignment and the 1-2 hours post-op inspiratory capacity percentage, adjusting for patient age, gender, body mass index (BMI), type of surgery (laparoscopic donor nephrectomy or laparoscopic nephrectomy for renal cancer), and whether the patient received a TAP block during surgery.||6.088|-5.02|0.8498
90933485|NCT03365622|181746621|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.007||0.5839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.579|4.28|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, sex, BMI, type of surgery and TAP block.|"The estimate reflects the adjusted difference in mean outcome between arms/groups, with the placebo IV + oral acetaminophen serving as the reference group."|A multiple linear regression model was used to examine the association between treatment assignment and the 20-24 hours post-op inspiratory capacity percentage, adjusting for patient age, gender, body mass index (BMI), type of surgery (laparoscopic donor nephrectomy or laparoscopic nephrectomy for renal cancer), and whether the patient received a TAP block during surgery.||4.28|-7.579|0.5839
90933486|NCT03365622|181746622|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.399|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.344||0.2479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|1.078|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, sex, BMI, type of surgery and TAP block.|"The estimate reflects the adjusted difference in mean outcome between arms/groups, with the placebo IV + oral acetaminophen serving as the reference group."|A multiple linear regression model was used to examine the association between treatment assignment and the 1-2 hours post-op dynamic pain score, adjusting for patient age, gender, body mass index (BMI), type of surgery (laparoscopic donor nephrectomy or laparoscopic nephrectomy for renal cancer), and whether the patient received a TAP block during surgery.||1.078|-0.280|0.2479
90933487|NCT03365622|181746623|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.484|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.335||0.1502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.177|1.145|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, sex, BMI, type of surgery and TAP block.|"The estimate reflects the adjusted difference in mean outcome between arms/groups, with the placebo IV + oral acetaminophen serving as the reference group."|A multiple linear regression model was used to examine the association between treatment assignment and the 20-24 hours post-op dynamic pain score, adjusting for patient age, gender, body mass index (BMI), type of surgery (laparoscopic donor nephrectomy or laparoscopic nephrectomy for renal cancer), and whether the patient received a TAP block during surgery.||1.145|-0.177|0.1502
90933488|NCT03365622|181746624|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.339|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.313||0.2797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.278|0.955|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, sex, BMI, type of surgery and TAP block.|"The estimate reflects the adjusted difference in mean outcome between arms/groups, with the placebo IV + oral acetaminophen serving as the reference group."|A multiple linear regression model was used to examine the association between treatment assignment and the 20-24 hours post-op surgical pain score, adjusting for patient age, gender, body mass index (BMI), type of surgery (laparoscopic donor nephrectomy or laparoscopic nephrectomy for renal cancer), and whether the patient received a TAP block during surgery.||0.955|-0.278|0.2797
90933489|NCT03365622|181746625|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.333|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.739||0.6527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.792|1.125|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, sex, BMI, type of surgery and TAP block.|"The estimate reflects the adjusted difference in mean outcome between arms/groups, with the placebo IV + oral acetaminophen serving as the reference group."|A multiple linear regression model was used to examine the association between treatment assignment and time to first narcotic use, adjusting for patient age, gender, body mass index (BMI), type of surgery (laparoscopic donor nephrectomy or laparoscopic nephrectomy for renal cancer), and whether the patient received a TAP block during surgery.||1.125|-1.792|0.6527
90933490|NCT03365622|181746626|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.465||||0.0499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.217|1.0|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for age, sex, BMI, type of surgery and TAP block.||A logistic regression model was used to examine the association between treatment assignment and incidence of nausea, adjusting for patient age, gender, body mass index (BMI), type of surgery (laparoscopic donor nephrectomy or laparoscopic nephrectomy for renal cancer), and whether the patient received a TAP block during surgery.||1.000|0.217|0.0499
90933491|NCT03365622|181746627|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.492|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.165||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.321|60.304|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, sex, BMI, type of surgery and TAP block.|"The estimate reflects the adjusted difference in mean outcome between arms/groups, with the placebo IV + oral acetaminophen serving as the reference group."|A multiple linear regression model was used to examine the association between treatment assignment and time to discharge from PACU, adjusting for patient age, gender, body mass index (BMI), type of surgery (laparoscopic donor nephrectomy or laparoscopic nephrectomy for renal cancer), and whether the patient received a TAP block during surgery.||60.304|-11.321|0.179
90967727|NCT04707157|181817440|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.64|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.64|-0.86|
90967728|NCT04707157|181817441|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-269.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-624.98|86.24|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||86.24|-624.98|
90933492|NCT03365622|181746628|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.274|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.253||0.2811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.226|0.773|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, sex, BMI, type of surgery and TAP block.|"The estimate reflects the adjusted difference in mean outcome between arms/groups, with the placebo IV + oral acetaminophen serving as the reference group."|A multiple linear regression model was used to examine the association between treatment assignment and time to hospital discharge, adjusting for patient age, gender, body mass index (BMI), type of surgery (laparoscopic donor nephrectomy or laparoscopic nephrectomy for renal cancer), and whether the patient received a TAP block during surgery.||0.773|-0.226|0.2811
90933493|NCT02834624|181746686|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Sample size calculations used a Chi-square for independence, u = 1, p =.05, power = .80, effect size = .60, which required 22 total subjects.||||<.05
90933494|NCT02834624|181746688|OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.63
90933495|NCT01250717|181746706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.12||||||||0.12|0|
90933496|NCT02164578|181746707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA for repeated measurements with baseline as covariate||The hypothesis H0 is tested against the one-sided alternative hypothesis H1 H0: µ∆FBF,Riva, week 20 ≤ µ∆FBF, ASA, week 20 versus H1: µΔFBF, Riva, week 20 \> µΔFBF, ASA, week 20 by test procedures for continuous data.||||0.004
90933497|NCT02164578|181746708|OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.070
90933498|NCT02164578|181746709|OTHER|||||||0.045|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA for repeated measurements with baseline as covariate||||||0.045
90933499|NCT02164578|181746710|OTHER|||||||0.125|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.125
90933500|NCT02164578|181746711|OTHER|||||||0.217|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.217
90933501|NCT02164578|181746712|OTHER|||||||0.589|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.589
90933502|NCT02507297|181746720|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.367|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 8 weeks after baseline||||.367
90933503|NCT02507297|181746720|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 12 weeks postpartum||||.48
90933504|NCT02507297|181746721|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.136|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 8 weeks after baseline||||.136
90933505|NCT02507297|181746721|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.324|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 12 weeks postpartum||||.324
90933506|NCT02507297|181746722|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.916|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 8 weeks after baseline||||.916
90933507|NCT02507297|181746722|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.752|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 12 weeks postpartum||||.752
90933508|NCT02507297|181746723|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.568|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 8 weeks after baseline||||.568
90933509|NCT02507297|181746723|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.568|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 12 weeks postpartum||||.568
90933510|NCT02507297|181746724|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.486|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.486
90933511|NCT00070707|181746740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.101|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline (AM)||||0.101
90933512|NCT00070707|181746740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.168|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 1 (AM)||||0.168
90933513|NCT00070707|181746740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.93|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 2 (AM)||||0.930
90933514|NCT00070707|181746740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.487|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 3 (AM)||||0.487
90933515|NCT00070707|181746740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.914|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 4 (AM)||||0.914
90933516|NCT00070707|181746740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.977|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Final Week (AM)||||0.977
90933517|NCT00070707|181746740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.109|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline (PM)||||0.109
90933518|NCT00070707|181746740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.291|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 1 (PM)||||0.291
90933519|NCT00070707|181746740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.984|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 2 (PM)||||0.984
90933520|NCT00070707|181746740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.373|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 3 (PM)||||0.373
90933521|NCT00070707|181746740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.623|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 4 (PM)||||0.623
90933522|NCT00070707|181746740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.978|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Final Week (PM)||||0.978
90933523|NCT00070707|181746741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.023|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline (AM)||||0.023
90933524|NCT00070707|181746741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.693|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 1 (AM)||||0.693
90933525|NCT00070707|181746741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.483|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 2 (AM)||||0.483
90933526|NCT00070707|181746741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.088|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 3 (AM)||||0.088
90933527|NCT00070707|181746741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.21|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 4 (AM)||||0.210
90933528|NCT00070707|181746741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.178|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Final Week (AM)||||0.178
90933529|NCT00070707|181746741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.055|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline (PM)||||0.055
90933530|NCT00070707|181746741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.915|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 1 (PM)||||0.915
90933531|NCT00070707|181746741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.471|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 2 (PM)||||0.471
90933532|NCT00070707|181746741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.11|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 3 (PM)||||0.110
90933533|NCT00070707|181746741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.305|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 4 (PM)||||0.305
90933534|NCT00070707|181746741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.461|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Final Week (PM)||||0.461
90933535|NCT00070707|181746742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.068|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline (AM)||||0.068
90933536|NCT00070707|181746742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.116|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 1 (AM)||||0.116
90933537|NCT00070707|181746742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.749|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 2 (AM)||||0.749
90933538|NCT00070707|181746742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.289|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 3 (AM)||||0.289
90967729|NCT04707157|181817442|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.29|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.29|-0.22|
90967730|NCT01748942|181817478|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.25
90933539|NCT00070707|181746742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.982|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 4 (AM)||||0.982
90933540|NCT00070707|181746742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.941|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Final Week (AM)||||0.941
90933541|NCT00070707|181746742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.128|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline (PM)||||0.128
90933542|NCT00070707|181746742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.484|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 1 (PM)||||0.484
90933543|NCT00070707|181746742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.673|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 2 (PM)||||0.673
90933544|NCT00070707|181746742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.25|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 3 (PM)||||0.250
90933545|NCT00070707|181746742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.45|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 4 (PM)||||0.450
90933546|NCT00070707|181746742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.774|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Final Week (PM)||||0.774
90933547|NCT00070707|181746743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.078|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline (AM)||||0.078
90933548|NCT00070707|181746743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.492|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 1 (AM)||||0.492
90933549|NCT00070707|181746743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.945|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 2 (AM)||||0.945
90933550|NCT00070707|181746743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.359|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 3 (AM)||||0.359
90933551|NCT00070707|181746743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.802|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 4 (AM)||||0.802
90933552|NCT00070707|181746743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.716|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Final Week (AM)||||0.716
90933553|NCT00070707|181746743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.158|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline (PM)||||0.158
90933554|NCT00070707|181746743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.281|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 1 (PM)||||0.281
90933555|NCT00070707|181746743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.901|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 2 (PM)||||0.901
90933556|NCT00070707|181746743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.433|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 3 (PM)||||0.433
90933557|NCT00070707|181746743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.73|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 4 (PM)||||0.730
90933558|NCT00070707|181746743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.819|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Final Week (PM)||||0.819
90933559|NCT00070707|181746744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.629|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline (AM)||||0.629
90933560|NCT00070707|181746744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.038|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 1 (AM)||||0.038
90933561|NCT00070707|181746744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.182|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 2 (AM)||||0.182
90933562|NCT00070707|181746744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.149|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 3 (AM)||||0.149
90933563|NCT00070707|181746744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.035|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 4 (AM)||||0.035
90933564|NCT00070707|181746744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.056|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Final Week (AM)||||0.056
90933565|NCT00070707|181746744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.711|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline (PM)||||0.711
90933566|NCT00070707|181746744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.098|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 1 (PM)||||0.098
90933567|NCT00070707|181746744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.356|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 2 (PM)||||0.356
90933568|NCT00070707|181746744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.529|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 3 (PM)||||0.529
90933569|NCT00070707|181746744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.617|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 4 (PM)||||0.617
90933570|NCT00070707|181746744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.422|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Final Week (PM)||||0.422
90933571|NCT00070707|181746745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Baseline||||||0.532|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.532
90933572|NCT00070707|181746745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Day 15||||||0.739|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.739
90933573|NCT00070707|181746745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Day 29||||||0.227|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.227
90933574|NCT00070707|181746746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.104|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline (AM)||||0.104
90933575|NCT00070707|181746746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.022|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 1 (AM)||||0.022
90933576|NCT00070707|181746746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.012|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 2 (AM)||||0.012
90933577|NCT00070707|181746746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 3 (AM)||||0.001
90933578|NCT00070707|181746746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.033|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 4 (AM)||||0.033
90933579|NCT00070707|181746746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.047|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Final Week (AM)||||0.047
90933580|NCT00070707|181746746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.269|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline (PM)||||0.269
90933581|NCT00070707|181746746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.308|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 1 (PM)||||0.308
90933582|NCT00070707|181746746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 2 (PM)||||0.050
90933583|NCT00070707|181746746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.014|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 3 (PM)||||0.014
90933584|NCT00070707|181746746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 4 (PM)||||0.100
90933585|NCT00070707|181746746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.139|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Final Week (PM)||||0.139
90933586|NCT00070707|181746747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.136|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline (AM)||||0.136
90933587|NCT00070707|181746747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.126|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 1 (AM)||||0.126
90933588|NCT00070707|181746747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.107|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 2 (AM)||||0.107
90933589|NCT00070707|181746747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.006|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 3 (AM)||||0.006
90933590|NCT00070707|181746747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.03|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 4 (AM)||||0.030
90933591|NCT00070707|181746747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.037|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Final Week (AM)||||0.037
90933592|NCT00070707|181746747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.146|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline (PM)||||0.146
90933593|NCT00070707|181746747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.426|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 1 (PM)||||0.426
90933594|NCT00070707|181746747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.259|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 2 (PM)||||0.259
90933595|NCT00070707|181746747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.026|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 3 (PM)||||0.026
90933596|NCT00070707|181746747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.022|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 4 (PM)||||0.022
90967731|NCT01748942|181817481|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.001
90967732|NCT01748942|181817482|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.009
90933597|NCT00070707|181746747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.043|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Final Week (PM)||||0.043
90933598|NCT00070707|181746748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.181|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline (AM)||||0.181
90933599|NCT00070707|181746748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.014|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 1 (AM)||||0.014
90933600|NCT00070707|181746748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 2 (AM)||||0.004
90933601|NCT00070707|181746748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 3 (AM)||||0.002
90933602|NCT00070707|181746748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.027|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 4 (AM)||||0.027
90933603|NCT00070707|181746748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.069|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Final Week (AM)||||0.069
90933604|NCT00070707|181746748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.373|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline (PM)||||0.373
90933605|NCT00070707|181746748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.148|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 1 (PM)||||0.148
90933606|NCT00070707|181746748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.009|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 2 (PM)||||0.009
90933607|NCT00070707|181746748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.016|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 3 (PM)||||0.016
90933608|NCT00070707|181746748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.113|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 4 (PM)||||0.113
90933609|NCT00070707|181746748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.173|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Final Week (PM)||||0.173
90933610|NCT00070707|181746749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.089|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline (AM)||||0.089
90933611|NCT00070707|181746749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.014|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 1 (AM)||||0.014
90933612|NCT00070707|181746749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 2 (AM)||||0.004
90933613|NCT00070707|181746749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 3 (AM)||||0.001
90933614|NCT00070707|181746749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.041|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 4 (AM)||||0.041
90933615|NCT00070707|181746749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.036|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Final Week (AM)||||0.036
90933616|NCT00070707|181746749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.17|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline (PM)||||0.170
90933617|NCT00070707|181746749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.237|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 1 (PM)||||0.237
90933618|NCT00070707|181746749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.019|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 2 (PM)||||0.019
90933619|NCT00070707|181746749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.018|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 3 (PM)||||0.018
90933620|NCT00070707|181746749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.149|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 4 (PM)||||0.149
90933621|NCT00070707|181746749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.231|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Final Week (PM)||||0.231
90933622|NCT00070707|181746750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.745|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline (AM)||||0.745
90933623|NCT00070707|181746750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.25|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 1 (AM)||||0.250
90933624|NCT00070707|181746750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Change at Week 2 (AM)||||||0.202|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.202
90933625|NCT00070707|181746750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Change at Week 3 (AM)||||||0.104|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.104
90933626|NCT00070707|181746750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Change at Week 4 (AM)||||||0.348|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.348
90933627|NCT00070707|181746750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Change at Final Week (AM)||||||0.355|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.355
90933628|NCT00070707|181746750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Baseline (PM)||||||0.851|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.851
90933629|NCT00070707|181746750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Change at Week 1 (PM)||||||0.993|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.993
90933630|NCT00070707|181746750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Change at Week 2 (PM)||||||0.476|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.476
90933631|NCT00070707|181746750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Change at Week 3 (PM)||||||0.149|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.149
90933632|NCT00070707|181746750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Change at Week 4 (PM)||||||0.616|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.616
90933633|NCT00070707|181746750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Change at Final Week (PM)||||||0.527|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.527
90933634|NCT00070707|181746751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.116|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline (AM)||||0.116
90933635|NCT00070707|181746751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.994|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 1 (AM)||||0.994
90933636|NCT00070707|181746751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.961|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 2 (AM)||||0.961
90933637|NCT00070707|181746751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.183|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 3 (AM)||||0.183
90933638|NCT00070707|181746751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.44|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 4 (AM)||||0.440
90933639|NCT00070707|181746751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.838|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Final Week (AM)||||0.838
90933640|NCT00070707|181746751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.096|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline (PM)||||0.096
90933641|NCT00070707|181746751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.362|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 1 (PM)||||0.362
90933642|NCT00070707|181746751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.693|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 2 (PM)||||0.693
90933643|NCT00070707|181746751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.603|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 3 (PM)||||0.603
90933644|NCT00070707|181746751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.579|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 4 (PM)||||0.579
90933645|NCT00070707|181746751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.413|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Final Week (PM)||||0.413
90933646|NCT00070707|181746752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.823|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline||||0.823
90933647|NCT00070707|181746752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.744|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Day 15||||0.744
90933648|NCT00070707|181746752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.675|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Day 29||||0.675
90933649|NCT00070707|181746753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.693|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline||||0.693
90933650|NCT00070707|181746753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.818|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Day 15||||0.818
90967733|NCT01748942|181817483|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.33
90967734|NCT01748942|181817484|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.96
90967735|NCT01748942|181817485|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.15
90967736|NCT03437564|181817486|EQUIVALENCE|The difference in the least square (LS) means between the formulations (dosing of one Vortioxetine 20 mg tablet - dosing of two Vortioxetine 10 mg tablets) and the two-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) were provided using a crossover analysis of variance (ANOVA) model. The shown data were anti-logs of LS means difference and CI. The ANOVA model included log-transformed (natural log) PK parameters AUClast as dependent variable, and treatment condition, group, and period as independent variables.|Point Estimate|0.996|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.967|1.026|||ANOVA|||||1.026|0.967|
90967737|NCT03437564|181817487|EQUIVALENCE|The difference in the LS means between the formulations (dosing of one vortioxetine 20 mg tablet - dosing of two vortioxetine 10 mg tablets) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The shown data were anti-logs of LS means difference and CI. The ANOVA model included log-transformed (natural log) PK parameters Cmax as dependent variable, and treatment condition, group, and period as independent variables.|Point Estimate|0.972|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.937|1.008|||ANOVA|||||1.008|0.937|
90967738|NCT00243386|181817498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6016||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||A t-test was used to compare the means of the transformed data. The null-hypothesis tested was H0: X'A(PK-driven prophylaxis) - X'B (standard prophylaxis) = 0 (i.e., no difference for treatment under the 2 prophylactic regimens. X' = (ABR+0.5)\^(1/2)||||0.6016
90967739|NCT00243386|181817499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||2-sided paired T-tests were done comparing transformed annualized bleeding rates between On-Demand and Prophylaxis regimens.|Paired t-Test|||||||<0.0001
90967740|NCT00243386|181817500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||2-sided paired T-tests were done comparing transformed annualized bleeding rates between On-Demand and Prophylaxis regimens.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.0001
90967741|NCT00243386|181817501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||2-sided paired T-tests were done comparing transformed annualized bleeding rates between On-Demand and Prophylaxis regimens.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.0001
90967742|NCT00243386|181817502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4924||95.0|||||Wilcoxon-Rank Sum (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4924
90967743|NCT00243386|181817523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1467||95.0|||||Wilcoxon-Rank Sum (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1467
90967744|NCT00243386|181817524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0007||95.0||||Due to multiple hypotheses testing results, adjusted alpha values are set to α\*=0.005 (0.05/10). Adjustments take into account 10 hypotheses tests between On-Demand and any Prophylaxis. Statistically significant results are considered p-values \< α\*|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.0007
90967745|NCT00243386|181817525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0002||95.0||||Due to multiple hypotheses testing results, adjusted alpha values are set to α\*=0.005 (0.05/10). Adjustments take into account 10 hypotheses tests between On-Demand and any Prophylaxis. Statistically significant results are considered p-values \< α\*|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.0002
90967746|NCT00243386|181817526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|||||||<0.0001
90967747|NCT03418129|181817533|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.2331|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2176||0.2852|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA||Multilevel modeling was used to model outcome at baseline and 3-month follow-up. Resulting slopes capture change in outcome from baseline to follow-up, with relaxation set as the comparison.|||||0.2852
90967748|NCT03418129|181817533|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.03057|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2132||0.8861|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA||Multilevel modeling was used to model outcome at baseline and 3-month follow-up. Resulting slopes capture change in outcome from baseline to follow-up, with relaxation set as the comparison.|||||0.8861
90967749|NCT03418129|181817534|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.03844|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09424||0.6842|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA||Multilevel modeling was used to model outcomes at two time points (3-month follow-up and baseline) and across three treatment groups (Mindfulness, Neurofeedback, and Relaxation).|||||0.6842
90967750|NCT03418129|181817534|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.1432|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09427||0.132|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA||Multilevel modeling was used to model outcomes at two time points (3-month follow-up and baseline) and across three treatment groups (Mindfulness, Neurofeedback, and Relaxation).|||||0.132
90967751|NCT03418129|181817535|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.1911|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2551||0.4542|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.4542
90967752|NCT03418129|181817535|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.3761|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2454||0.1261|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1261
90967753|NCT01940471|181817553|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Sample sizes of 288 and 576 participants in the TDF and TAF groups, respectively, were planned to give 84% power to rule out the noninferiority margin of 10% at a 1-sided significance level of 0.025. This sample size based on the assumption that the expected difference (TAF - TDF) in the proportion of participants with HBV DNA \< 29 IU/mL was 0 and the proportion of participants with HBV DNA \< 29 IU/mL in the TDF group was 69%. Missing data were treated as not achieving the primary endpoint.|Difference in proportions|-3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|2.6|||||Difference in the proportion between treatment groups and its 95% CI were calculated based on the Mantel-Haenszel (MH) proportions adjusted by baseline HBV DNA categories and oral antiviral treatment status strata.|The null hypothesis was that the TAF group is at least 10% worse than the TDF group with respect to the proportion of participants with HBV DNA \< 29 IU/mL at Week 48. The alternative hypothesis was that the TAF group is less than 10% worse than the TDF group with respect to the proportion of participants with HBV DNA \< 29 IU/mL at Week 48. Noninferiority was assessed using a 95% confidence interval (CI) approach, with a noninferiority margin of 10%.||2.6|-9.8|
90967754|NCT01806857|181817577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|||||||Random Effects Model|||||||0.0003
90967755|NCT01806857|181817581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Random Effects Model|||||||0.0001
90888054|NCT00791765|181639367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Two-sided test with modified ridit scores stratified by baseline body mass index group||||||<0.0001
90967756|NCT01721057|181817593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.001
90967757|NCT00789880|181817630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||ANOVA|P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.||Testing whether the change in CAMP expression in lesional skin of AD participants differs by treatment group.||||0.7
90967758|NCT00789880|181817630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||ANOVA|P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.||Testing whether the change in CAMP mRNA expression in non-lesional skin of AD participants differs by treatment group.||||0.12
90967759|NCT00789880|181817631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||ANOVA|P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.||Testing whether the change in CAMP mRNA expression in non-lesional skin of Non-AD participants differs by treatment group.||||0.3
90967760|NCT00789880|181817632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||ANOVA|P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.||Testing whether change in CAMP mRNA expression in lesional skin of psoriatic participants differs by treatment group.||||0.4
90967761|NCT00789880|181817632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||ANOVA|P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.||Testing whether change in CAMP mRNA expression in non-lesional skin of psoriatic participants differs by treatment group.||||0.2
90967762|NCT00789880|181817633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||ANOVA|P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.||Testing whether change in HBD-3 mRNA expression in lesional skin of AD participants differs by treatment group.||||0.8
90933651|NCT00070707|181746753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.915|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Day 29||||0.915
90933652|NCT00070707|181746754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.823|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline||||0.823
90933653|NCT00070707|181746754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.202|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Day 15||||0.202
90933654|NCT00070707|181746754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.199|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Day 29||||0.199
90933655|NCT00070707|181746755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.375|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline||||0.375
90933656|NCT00070707|181746755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.71|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 1||||0.710
90933657|NCT00070707|181746755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.597|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 2||||0.597
90933658|NCT00070707|181746755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.242|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 3||||0.242
90933659|NCT00070707|181746755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.696|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 4||||0.696
90933660|NCT00070707|181746755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.67|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Final Week||||0.670
90967763|NCT00789880|181817633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||ANOVA|P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.||Testing whether change in HBD-3 mRNA expression in non-lesional skin of AD participants differs by treatment group.||||0.2
90967764|NCT00789880|181817634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4||||||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||Testing whether change in HBD-3 mRNA expression in non-lesional skin of Non-AD participants differs by treatment group.||||0.4
90967765|NCT00789880|181817635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4||||||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||Testing whether change in HBD-3 mRNA expression in lesional skin of psoriatic participants differs by treatment group.||||0.4
90967766|NCT00789880|181817635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||Testing whether change in HBD-3 mRNA expression in non-lesional skin of psoriatic participants differs by treatment group.||||1.0
90967767|NCT00789880|181817636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2||||||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||Testing whether change in IL-13 mRNA expression in lesional skin of AD participants differs by treatment group.||||0.2
90933661|NCT00070707|181746756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.865|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline||||0.865
90933662|NCT00070707|181746756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.025|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 1||||0.025
90933663|NCT00070707|181746756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.288|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 2||||0.288
90933664|NCT00070707|181746756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.79|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 3||||0.790
90933665|NCT00070707|181746756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.211|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 4||||0.211
90933666|NCT00070707|181746756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.136|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Final Week||||0.136
90933667|NCT00070707|181746757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.667|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline||||0.667
90933668|NCT00070707|181746757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.656|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 1||||0.656
90933669|NCT00070707|181746757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.458|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 2||||0.458
90933670|NCT00070707|181746757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.22|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 3||||0.220
90933671|NCT00070707|181746757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.775|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 4||||0.775
90933672|NCT00070707|181746757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.994|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Final Week||||0.994
90933673|NCT00070707|181746758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.363|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline||||0.363
90933674|NCT00070707|181746758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.262|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 1||||0.262
90933675|NCT00070707|181746758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.386|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 2||||0.386
90933676|NCT00070707|181746758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.167|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 3||||0.167
90933677|NCT00070707|181746758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.505|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 4||||0.505
90933678|NCT00070707|181746758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.725|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Final Week||||0.725
90933679|NCT00070707|181746759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.954|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by center||Asthma Symptoms: Day 15||||0.954
90933680|NCT00070707|181746759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.295|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by center||Asthma Symptoms: Day 29||||0.295
90933681|NCT00070707|181746760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.268|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by center||SAR Nasal Symptoms: Day 15||||0.268
90933682|NCT00070707|181746760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.154|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by center||SAR Nasal Symptoms: Day 29||||0.154
90933683|NCT00307489|181746767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.544||95.0||||P-values were from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, controlling for baseline HBeAg status and prior lamivudine use.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||.544
90933684|NCT00307489|181746768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.208||95.0||||Controlling for baseline HBeAg status and prior lamivudine use.|van Elteren|||||||0.208
90933685|NCT00307489|181746769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.712||95.0||||Controlling for baseline HBeAg and prior lamivudine use.|van Elteren|||||||0.712
90933686|NCT00307489|181746770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.988||95.0||||Controlling for baseline HBeAg status and prior lamivudine use.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.988
90933687|NCT00307489|181746771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.423||95.0||||Controlling for baseline HBeAg status and prior lamivudine use|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.423
90933688|NCT00307489|181746772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.109||95.0||||Controlling for baseline HBeAg status and prior lamivudine use.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.109
90933689|NCT00307489|181746773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.952||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for baseline HBeAg and prior lamivudine use.||||||0.952
90933690|NCT00307489|181746774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.655||95.0||||Controlling for baseline HBeAg status and prior lamivudine use.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.655
90933691|NCT00307489|181746775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.401||95.0||||Controlling for baseline HBeAg status and prior lamivudine use.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.401
90933692|NCT00307489|181746776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.401||95.0||||Controlling for baseline HBeAg status and prior lamivudine use.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.401
90933693|NCT00307489|181746777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.103||95.0||||Controlling for baseline HBeAg status and prior lamivudine use.|van Elteren|||||||0.103
90933694|NCT00307489|181746778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.999||95.0||||Controlling for baseline HBeAg status and prior lamivudine use.|van Elteren|||||||0.999
90933695|NCT00307489|181746779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.781||95.0||||Controlling for baseline HBeAg status and prior lamivudine use.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.781
90933696|NCT00307489|181746780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.936||95.0||||Controlling for baseline HBeAg status and prior lamivudine use.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.936
90933697|NCT00307489|181746781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.784||95.0||||Controlling for baseline HBeAg status and prior lamivudine use.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.784
90933698|NCT00307489|181746782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.703||95.0||||Controlling for baseline HBeAg status and prior lamivudine use.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.703
90933699|NCT00307489|181746783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.254||95.0||||Controlling for baseline HBeAg status and prior lamivudine use.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.254
90933700|NCT00307489|181746784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.254||95.0||||Controlling for baseline HBeAg status and prior lamivudine use.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.254
90933701|NCT00307489|181746785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.878||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.878
90933702|NCT00507429|181746789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.223|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.223
90933703|NCT03331978|181746806|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.91||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|14.61|||Regression, Linear|Model is adjusted for participant sex, which was found to be significantly associated with adherence in a similar repeated measures model.|Values entered are for regression coefficient for intervention indicator (versus control) and represents the adjusted difference across all follow-up time points.|Tested with repeated measures linear regression where all 6 past-month post-intervention measurements of adherence were stacked together such that each participant could contribute up to 6 records. Standard errors were adjusted for clustering on participant, and weights for presence of data were used. Fixed effects were an intervention indicator and continuous adherence measured at baseline. Model included all participants with adherence data (a) at baseline and (b) at least one follow-up month.||14.61|-0.82|.08
90933704|NCT03331978|181746807|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.98||||0.0257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|3.6||Per above, p-value is from repeated measures logistic regression with standard errors adjusted for clustering on participant.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio is for intervention indicator (versus controls).|Tested with repeated measures logistic regression where all 6 past-month post-intervention measurements of adherence were stacked together such that each participant could contribute up to 6 records. Standard errors were adjusted for clustering on participant, and weights for presence of data were used. Fixed effects were an intervention indicator and baseline dichotomous adherence. Model included all participants with adherence data (a) at baseline and (b) at least one follow-up month.||3.60|1.09|.0257
90933705|NCT03331978|181746808|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.82||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|5.18||As mentioned above, p-value comes from repeated measures regression with standard errors adjusted for clustering on participant.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio is for intervention indicator (versus controls).|Tested with repeated measures logistic regression where both post-intervention measurements were stacked together such that each participant could contribute up to 2 records. Standard errors were adjusted for clustering on participant, and weights for presence of viral suppression data were used. Fixed effects were an intervention indicator and baseline viral suppression. Model included all viral suppression data (a) at baseline and (b) close to either of the two follow-up surveys.||5.18|0.64|.26
90933706|NCT03331978|181746809|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.57||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.0||As mentioned above, p-value is from repeated measures regression with standard errors adjusted for clustering on participant.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio is for intervention indicator (versus controls).|Tested with repeated measures logistic regression where both post-intervention responses were stacked together such that each participant could contribute up to 2 records. Standard errors were adjusted for clustering on participant, and weights for follow-up response were used. Fixed effects were an intervention indicator and baseline stigma. Model included all participants with responses (a) at baseline and (b) at least one of the two follow-up surveys.||1.00|0.32|.05
90933707|NCT03331978|181746810|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.215|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.091||0.0199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.395|-0.034||As described above, p-value is from repeated measures regression with standard errors adjusted for clustering on participant|Regression, Linear||Estimation parameter is the regression coefficient for intervention indicator (vs. control) and represents the adjusted difference across both follow-up time points.|Tested with repeated measures linear regression where both post-intervention responses were stacked together such that each participant could contribute up to 2 records. Standard errors were adjusted for clustering on participant, and weights for follow-up response were used. Fixed effects were an intervention indicator and baseline stigma. Model included all participants with responses (a) at baseline and (b) at least one of the two follow-up surveys.||-0.034|-0.395|.0199
90967768|NCT00789880|181817636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5||||||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||Testing whether change in IL-13 mRNA expression in non-lesional skin of AD participants differs by treatment group.||||0.5
90967769|NCT00789880|181817637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7||||||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||Testing whether change in IL-13 mRNA expression in non-lesional skin of Non-AD participants differs by treatment group.||||0.7
90967770|NCT00789880|181817638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2||||||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||Testing whether change in IL-13 mRNA expression in lesional skin of psoriatic participants differs by treatment group.||||0.2
90967771|NCT00789880|181817638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3||||||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||Testing whether change in IL-13 mRNA expression in non-lesional skin of psoriatic participants differs by treatment group.||||0.3
90967772|NCT03159091|181817656|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0422|||||||G-test (Chi-square)|||||||0.0422
90967773|NCT03159091|181817657|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1101|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis applies to ∆ between initial and 4 weeks total scores row.||||0.1101
90967774|NCT03159091|181817658|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1373|||||||G-test (Chi-square)|||||||0.1373
90967775|NCT03159091|181817659|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.087|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0870
90967776|NCT03159091|181817660|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
90967777|NCT02046096|181817664|OTHER||12-month rate (%)|97.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|95.6|99.1||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.025|One-tailed Exact binomial test||The 95% confidence interval was computed using Exact method.|Null Hypothesis: The rate of technical placement success and 12-month freedom from new symptomatic PE while a filter is indwelling, π, does not meet the performance goal (90%).||99.1|95.6|<0.0001
90967778|NCT02046096|181817665|OTHER||Cumulative probability|81.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5||0.369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|72.6|90.4||the threshold for statistical significance is 0.025.|Z-statistic|The hypothesis is assessed using a Z-statistic. The Z-statistic is given by Z = (Ŝ(t) - 0.8) / SE where SE is the Standard Error|The estimate of the variance of the Kaplan-Meier estimate used the methods described by Peto et al.|"the null hypotheses is: H0: S(t) ≤ 80%(Performance Goal) where,~* t is time through 12 months~* S(t) is the true rate of freedom from major adverse events at time t."||90.4|72.6|0.369
90967779|NCT02046096|181817666|OTHER||12-month freedom from MAE rate (%)|86.7||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|82.5|90.2||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.025|One-tailed exact binomial test|||Null Hypothesis: The 12-month freedom from MAE, π, does not meet the performance goal (80%).||90.2|82.5|0.001
90967780|NCT00487396|181817679|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||McNemar|||"Pathologies were including in the analysis as follows:~* combination of CE+IC procedures but not detected by the combination of SBFT+IC procedures were marked as CE+IC new finding ;~* Pathologies detected by the combination of SBFT+IC procedures but not detected by the combination of CE+IC procedures were marked as SBFT+IC new finding event;~* Pathologies detected by the combination of CE+IC procedures and by the combination of SBFT+IC procedures were marked as same findings event."||||<0.0001
90967781|NCT00487396|181817680|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||McNemar|||"For each category, the numbers of found and missed pathologies were including in the analysis as follows:~* Pathologies detected by CE procedure but not detected by SBFT procedure were marked as CE new finding event;~* Pathologies detected by SBFT procedure but not detected by CE procedure were marked as SBFT new finding event;~* Pathologies detected by both procedures (i.e., CE and SBFT) were marked as same findings event."||||<0.0001
90967782|NCT00487396|181817681|OTHER|||||||0.085|||||||McNemar|||"Pathologies were including in the analysis as follows:~* Pathologies detected by CE procedure but not detected by IC procedure were marked as CE new finding event;~* Pathologies detected by IC procedure but not detected by CE procedure were marked as IC new finding event;~* Pathologies detected by both procedures (i.e., CE and IC) were marked as same findings event."||||0.085
90967783|NCT00943579|181817701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Chi-square analyses were used to assess CGI-I scores. there were no transformations.||||>.05
90967784|NCT00418665|181817710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||||95.0|0.07|5.136|||||Romiplostim/placebo|||5.136|0.070|
90967785|NCT00418665|181817710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.154||||||95.0|0.022|1.071|||||Romiplostim/placebo|||1.071|0.022|
90967786|NCT00418665|181817711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|0.154||||||95.0|0.022|1.071|||||Romiplostim/placebo|||1.071|0.022|
90967787|NCT00418665|181817711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.514||||||95.0|0.102|2.589|||||Romiplostim/placebo|||2.589|0.102|
90967788|NCT00418665|181817712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.0||||||95.0|0.227|39.608|||||Romiplostim/placebo|||39.608|0.227|
90967789|NCT00418665|181817712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.714||||||95.0|0.144|20.473|||||Romiplostim/placebo|||20.473|0.144|
90967790|NCT00418665|181817713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.911||||||95.0|0.097|8.529|||||Romiplostim/placebo|||8.529|0.097|
90967791|NCT00418665|181817713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.866||||||95.0|0.175|4.278|||||Romiplostim/placebo|||4.278|0.175|
90967792|NCT05470465|181817716|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.5|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5||-3.1||To demonstrate an effect of oxycodone with paroxetine compared to oxycodone alone, it is necessary that the upper bound of the one-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) in the least-square mean VE55 difference between treatments \< 0 L/min.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation will be used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom for tests of fixed effects.|Comparison was the effect of oxycodone and paroxetine compared to oxycodone and placebo.|Sample size and power were calculated based on 2 primary outcomes (day 20 and day 21) with adjustment for multiplicity (α=.025). The assessments with paroxetine or escitalopram were considered as separate experiments. A sample size of 20 participants was determined to have 90 percent power at a 1-sided significance level to detect a 4 L/min decrease in the primary end point (ventilation at 55 mmHg end-tidal carbon dioxide) assuming a standard deviation of 5 L/min.||-3.1||<0.001
90971185|NCT00781456|181824968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|-0.26||||0.249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.19|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparison was performed using an analysis of covariance model with baseline average migraine severity and center as covariates.|91-day Levonogestrel Oral Contraceptive versus placebo.|Comparison of change from Baseline in migraine severity during the second month of treatment||0.19|-0.71|0.249
90971186|NCT00781456|181824968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|-0.4||||0.119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.1|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparison was performed using an analysis of covariance model with baseline average migraine severity and center as covariates.|91-day Levonogestrel Oral Contraceptive versus placebo.|Comparison of change from Baseline in migraine severity during the third month of treatment||0.10|-0.90|0.119
90933708|NCT04803734|181746813|EQUIVALENCE|To establish bioequivalence of albuterol under fasting conditions, the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the geometric means between the products should fall within the FDA defined acceptance range of 80.00%-125.00% interval for ln-transformed Cmax.|Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.862||||0.0328|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.807|0.922|||ANOVA|||||0.922|0.807|0.0328
90933709|NCT04803734|181746814|EQUIVALENCE|To establish bioequivalence of albuterol under fasting conditions, the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the geometric means between the products should fall within the FDA defined acceptance range of 80.00%-125.00% interval for ln-transformed AUC(0-t).|Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.941|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.909|0.976|||ANOVA|||||0.976|0.909|<0.0001
90933710|NCT04803734|181746815|EQUIVALENCE|To establish bioequivalence of albuterol under fasting conditions, the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the geometric means between the products should fall within the FDA defined acceptance range of 80.00%-125.00% interval for ln-transformed AUC(0-inf).|Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.942|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|0.975|||ANOVA|||||0.975|0.910|<0.0001
90933711|NCT00854594|181746883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: pre-intervention efficacies will be equal in the two study arms.||||0.26
90933712|NCT00854594|181746884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: post-intervention efficacies will be equal in the two study arms.||||0.74
90933713|NCT04471805|181746893|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||Post hoc analyses (paired t-tests and Bonferroni correction) and effect size (Cohen's d) were calculated to clarify significant main effects and interactions.|ANOVA|Normality and sphericity evaluated with Shapiro-Wilk test and Mauchly's test. Greenhouse-Geisser corrections used when sphericity was violated.||||||<0.05
90933714|NCT04471805|181746894|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||Post hoc analyses (paired t-tests and Bonferroni correction) and effect size (Cohen's d) were calculated to clarify significant main effects and interactions.|ANOVA|Normality and sphericity evaluated with Shapiro-Wilk test and Mauchly's test. Greenhouse-Geisser corrections used when sphericity was violated.||||||<0.05
90933715|NCT01393600|181746896|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|1.9|||ANOVA|||||1.9|-3.3|0.5880
90933716|NCT01393600|181746896|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.4184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|1.6|||ANOVA|||||1.6|-3.8|0.4184
90933717|NCT01393600|181746898|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.6761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.6|||ANOVA|||||1.6|-2.4|0.6761
90933718|NCT01393600|181746898|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|-1.8|||ANOVA|||||-1.8|-6.6|0.0015
90933719|NCT04540952|181746903|SUPERIORITY|Power analysis indicated that with a sample size of 34 per arm, would provide 81% power to detect an effect size of 0.7 (0.7\*SD of fluid deficit) with a two-sided, two sample t test (a=0.05).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.3||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-260.7|283.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||||283.4|-260.7|0.93
90933720|NCT01163214|181746907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.78
90933721|NCT01163214|181746907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.58
90933722|NCT01163214|181746908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.76
90933723|NCT01163214|181746908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.59
90933724|NCT01163214|181746909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of arms for intraoperative narcotic use.||||<0.001
90933725|NCT01163214|181746909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of arms for narcotic use on day of surgery as needed.||||<0.001
90933726|NCT01163214|181746909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of arms for narcotic use on post operative day 1 as needed.||||0.17
90933727|NCT01163214|181746909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of arms for narcotic use on post operative day 2 as needed.||||0.51
90933728|NCT01163214|181746910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between arms for postoperative day 1 morning.||||<0.001
90933729|NCT01163214|181746910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between arms for postoperative day 1 afternoon.||||<0.001
90933730|NCT01163214|181746910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between arms for postoperative day 2 morning.||||0.002
90933731|NCT01163214|181746910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between arms for postoperative day 2 afternoon.||||0.97
90933732|NCT01163214|181746911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between the arms for length of stay in the hospital.||||0.02
90933733|NCT01163214|181746912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between arms for femoral nerve.||||0.49
90933734|NCT01163214|181746912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between arms for common peroneal nerve.||||0.01
90933735|NCT01163214|181746912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between arms for tibial nerve.||||0.62
90933736|NCT01163214|181746912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between arms for femoral, peroneal, or tibial nerves.||||0.009
90933737|NCT02964234|181746913|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.59||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.01|56.31||We clustered by cohort, given both interventions used a group format, and adjusted for age, socioeconomic status (education, income, insurance status) baseline mammography history, and baseline mammography intention.|Regression, Logistic|||We conducted logistic regressions, clustering by cohort, given both interventions used a group format, and adjusting for age, education, income, insurance status, baseline mammography history, and baseline mammography intention. The null hypothesis was there would be no study arm differences. A priori power analysis suggested that a sample size of 150, assuming alpha = .05, power = .80 would lead us to detect medium/large effects (OR = 2.8).||56.31|2.01|.005
90933738|NCT02964234|181746914|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.19||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|-0.04|||Regression, Linear|With GEE. Models had exchangeable correlation structure, a gamma distribution, and log link.||Analyses were conducted using GEE with an exchangeable correlation structure and a gamma distribution with log link. All models included study arm, time, and the study arm\*time. Covariates included age, education, and mammography history. With 150 Latinas, alpha = 0.05, power = 0.80, ICC = 0.0-0.05, we expected to detect small/medium interaction effects.||-0.04|-0.34|0.03
90933739|NCT02964234|181746915|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.82|13.32||Analyses clustered by cohort and adjusted for age, SES (education, income, insurance), mammography history, mammography intention, and baseline supportive breast cancer social network size.|Ordinal regression|||We used ordinal regression, given the non-normal distribution revealed by preliminary analyses. Analyses clustered by cohort and adjusted for age, SES (education, income, insurance), mammography history, mammography intention, and baseline supportive breast cancer social network size. Power analyses suggested that with 150 Latinas, alpha = .05, power = .80, we would be able to detect a small effect (Cohen's f = 0.05).||13.32|2.82|<0.0001
90933740|NCT01799993|181746916|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.841||||0.4263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.554|1.277|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.277|0.554|0.4263
90933741|NCT01799993|181746917|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6421|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.6421
90933742|NCT01799993|181746918|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7984|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7984
90933743|NCT01799993|181746919|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7144|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.7144
90933744|NCT01799993|181746920|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4278|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.4278
90933745|NCT01263223|181746936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|12.0||P-value is for the Mean Change in ABPM heart rate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||12.0|7.4|<0.0001
90933746|NCT01263223|181746936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.9|30.9||P-value is for the Maximum Change in ABPM heart rate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||30.9|17.9|<0.0001
90933747|NCT01263223|181746937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|8.8||P-value is for the Mean Change in ABPM systolic BP.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.8|3.9|<0.0001
90933748|NCT01263223|181746937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.1||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|11.6||P-value is for the Maximum Change in ABPM systolic BP.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.6|2.6|0.0025
90933749|NCT01263223|181746937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.81|7.21||P-value is for the Mean Change in ABPM diastolic BP.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.21|3.81|<0.0001
90933750|NCT01263223|181746937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.66||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.13|9.2||P-value is for the Maximum Change in ABPM diastolic BP.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.20|2.13|0.0020
90933751|NCT01263223|181746938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.9||||0.0224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.418|5.38||P-value is for the Mean Change in ABPM systolic BP.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.38|0.418|0.0224
90933752|NCT01263223|181746938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.7||||0.2453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|7.29||P-value is for the Maximum Change in ABPM systolic BP.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.29|-1.88|0.2453
90933753|NCT01263223|181746938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.37|6.82||P-value if for the Mean Change in ABPM diastolic BP.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.82|3.37|<0.0001
90933754|NCT01263223|181746938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.53||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.95|10.1||P-value is for the Maximum Change in ABPM diastolic BP.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||10.1|2.95|0.0005
90971187|NCT00781456|181824969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.457|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of percentage of participants requiring rescue medication during the first month of treatment.||||0.457
90933755|NCT01263223|181746939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.7|16.9||P-value is for the Mean Change in ABPM heart rate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||16.9|8.7|<0.0001
90933756|NCT01263223|181746939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.0||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.4|34.5||P-value is for the Maximum Change in ABPM heart rate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||34.5|11.4|0.0001
90933757|NCT01263223|181746940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8||||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|7.2||P-value is for the Mean Change in ABPM Systolic BP.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.2|-1.6|0.2120
90933758|NCT01263223|181746940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.6||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|15.5||P-value is for the Maximum Change in ABPM Systolic BP.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||15.5|-0.4|0.0640
90933759|NCT01263223|181746940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.6||||0.0211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|6.7||P-value is for the Mean Change in ABPM Diastolic BP.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.7|0.5|0.0211
90933760|NCT01263223|181746940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.8719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|6.8||P-value is for the Maximum Change in ABPM Diastolic BP.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.8|-5.7|0.8719
90933761|NCT01263223|181746941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.7133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|3.7||P-value is for the Mean Change in ABPM heart rate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.7|-5.3|0.7133
90933762|NCT01263223|181746941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.7||||0.4638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.2|7.9||P-value is for the Maximum Change in ABPM heart rate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.9|-17.2|0.4638
90933763|NCT01263223|181746942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.3|15.9||P-value is for the Mean Change in ABPM heart rate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||15.9|11.3|<0.0001
90933764|NCT01263223|181746942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.1|34.2||P-value is for the Maximum Change in ABPM heart rate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||34.2|21.1|<0.0001
90933765|NCT01263223|181746943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.9609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|4.7||P-value is for the Mean Change in ABPM Systolic BP.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.7|-4.9|0.9609
90933766|NCT01263223|181746943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.8||||0.2731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|13.6||P-value is for the Maximum Change in ABPM Systolic BP.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||13.6|-3.9|0.2731
90933767|NCT01263223|181746943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.3779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|1.8||P-value is for the Mean Change in ABPM Diastolic BP.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.8|-4.8|0.3779
90933768|NCT01263223|181746943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.0||||0.0828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|0.8||P-value is for the Maximum Change in ABPM Diastolic BP.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.8|-12.8|0.0828
90933769|NCT02246647|181746944|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.87|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.87
90933770|NCT04387773|181746958|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We hypothesized that GOCOVRI would result in an increase of daily activity due to improvement in LID symptoms.||||>.05
90933771|NCT04387773|181746959|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.98|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We hypothesized that GOCOVRI would result in an increase of daily activity due to improvement in LID symptoms.||||>.05
90933772|NCT04387773|181746960|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2393.2||||0.037|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.037
90933773|NCT04387773|181746961|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.012|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.012
90933774|NCT04387773|181746962|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.047|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.047
90933775|NCT01918033|181746998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares (LS) Means|-0.09||||0.661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.31|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model with terms for visit, visit-by-treatment, visit-by-age strata, visit-by-severity interactions; visit treated as a categorical variable|Difference in LS Means for Change from Baseline in TNSS at Week 2|||0.31|-0.49|0.661
90933776|NCT01918033|181746998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.08||||0.707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.32|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model with terms for visit, visit-by-treatment, visit-by-age strata, visit-by-severity interactions; visit treated as a categorical variable|Difference in LS Means for Change from Baseline in TNSS at Week 2|||0.32|-0.48|0.707
90933777|NCT01918033|181747001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.48||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.11|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model with terms for visit, visit-by-treatment, visit-by-age strata, visit-by-severity interactions; visit treated as a categorical variable|Difference in LS Means for Change from Baseline in TNSS at Day 3|||-0.11|-0.84|0.010
90933778|NCT01918033|181747001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.46||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.1|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model with terms for visit, visit-by-treatment, visit-by-age strata, visit-by-severity interactions; visit treated as a categorical variable|Difference in LS Means for Change from Baseline in TNSS at Day 3|||-0.10|-0.82|0.013
90933779|NCT01918033|181747001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.12||||0.569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.53|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model with terms for visit, visit-by-treatment, visit-by-age strata, visit-by-severity interactions; visit treated as a categorical variable|Difference in LS Means for Change from Baseline in TNSS at Week 1|||0.53|-0.29|0.569
90933780|NCT01918033|181747001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.09||||0.685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.5|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model with terms for visit, visit-by-treatment, visit-by-age strata, visit-by-severity interactions; visit treated as a categorical variable|Difference in LS Means for Change from Baseline in TNSS at Week 1|||0.50|-0.33|0.685
90933781|NCT01918033|181747002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.03||||0.547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.08|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model with terms for visit, visit-by-treatment, visit-by-age strata, visit-by-severity interactions; visit treated as a categorical variable|Difference in LS Means for Change From Baseline in Sneezing Nasal Symptom Sub-Score at Week 2|||0.08|-0.15|0.547
90933782|NCT01918033|181747002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.1||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.01|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model with terms for visit, visit-by-treatment, visit-by-age strata, visit-by-severity interactions; visit treated as a categorical variable|Difference in LS Means for Change From Baseline in Sneezing Nasal Symptom Sub-Score at Week 2|||0.01|-0.22|0.067
90933783|NCT01918033|181747002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.01||||0.895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.13|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model with terms for visit, visit-by-treatment, visit-by-age strata, visit-by-severity interactions; visit treated as a categorical variable|Difference in LS Means for Change From Baseline in Rhinorrhea Nasal Symptom Sub-Score at Week 2|||0.13|-0.15|0.895
90971188|NCT00781456|181824969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.361|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of percentage of participants requiring rescue medication during the second month of treatment.||||0.361
90933784|NCT01918033|181747002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.03||||0.627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.17|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model with terms for visit, visit-by-treatment, visit-by-age strata, visit-by-severity interactions; visit treated as a categorical variable|Difference in LS Means for Change From Baseline in Rhinorrhea Nasal Symptom Sub-Score at Week 2|||0.17|-0.10|0.627
90933785|NCT01918033|181747002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.04||||0.535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.18|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model with terms for visit, visit-by-treatment, visit-by-age strata, visit-by-severity interactions; visit treated as a categorical variable|Difference in LS Means for Change From Baseline in Nasal Congestion Nasal Symptom Sub-Score at Week 2|||0.18|-0.09|0.535
90933786|NCT01918033|181747002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.04||||0.557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.18|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model with terms for visit, visit-by-treatment, visit-by-age strata, visit-by-severity interactions; visit treated as a categorical variable|Difference in LS Means for Change From Baseline in Nasal Congestion Nasal Symptom Sub-Score at Week 2|||0.18|-0.10|0.557
90933787|NCT01918033|181747002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.11||||0.119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.03|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model with terms for visit, visit-by-treatment, visit-by-age strata, visit-by-severity interactions; visit treated as a categorical variable|Difference in LS Means for Change From Baseline in Nasal Itching Nasal Symptom Sub-Score at Week 2|||0.03|-0.25|0.119
90933788|NCT01918033|181747002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.06||||0.403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.08|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model with terms for visit, visit-by-treatment, visit-by-age strata, visit-by-severity interactions; visit treated as a categorical variable|Difference in LS Means for Change From Baseline in Nasal Itching Nasal Symptom Sub-Score at Week 2|||0.08|-0.20|0.403
90971189|NCT00781456|181824969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of percentage of participants requiring rescue medication during the third month of treatment.||||0.018
90933789|NCT01918033|181747003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.06||||0.376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.07|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model with terms for visit, visit-by-treatment, visit-by-age strata, visit-by-severity interactions; visit treated as a categorical variable|Difference in LS Means for Change From Baseline in Swelling of INCM at Week 2|||0.07|-0.20|0.376
90933790|NCT01918033|181747003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.03||||0.714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.11|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model with terms for visit, visit-by-treatment, visit-by-age strata, visit-by-severity interactions; visit treated as a categorical variable|Difference in LS Means for Change From Baseline in Swelling of INCM at Week 2|||0.11|-0.16|0.714
90933791|NCT01918033|181747003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.03||||0.725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.13|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model with terms for visit, visit-by-treatment, visit-by-age strata, visit-by-severity interactions; visit treated as a categorical variable|Difference in LS Means for Change From Baseline in Coloring of INCM at Week 2|||0.13|-0.19|0.725
90933792|NCT01918033|181747003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.03||||0.708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.13|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model with terms for visit, visit-by-treatment, visit-by-age strata, visit-by-severity interactions; visit treated as a categorical variable|Difference in LS Means for Change From Baseline in Coloring of INCM at Week 2|||0.13|-0.19|0.708
90933793|NCT01918033|181747003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.03||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.16|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model with terms for visit, visit-by-treatment, visit-by-age strata, visit-by-severity interactions; visit treated as a categorical variable|Difference in LS Means for Change From Baseline in NDP at Week 2|||0.16|-0.10|0.680
90933794|NCT01918033|181747003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.06||||0.373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.19|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model with terms for visit, visit-by-treatment, visit-by-age strata, visit-by-severity interactions; visit treated as a categorical variable|Difference in LS Means for Change From Baseline in NDP at Week 2|||0.19|-0.07|0.373
90933795|NCT01918033|181747004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.01||||0.849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.12|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model with terms for visit, visit-by-treatment, visit-by-age strata, visit-by-severity interactions; visit treated as a categorical variable|Difference in LS Means for Change From Baseline in Eye Symptom Score at Week 2|||0.12|-0.14|0.849
90933796|NCT01918033|181747004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.07||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.06|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model with terms for visit, visit-by-treatment, visit-by-age strata, visit-by-severity interactions; visit treated as a categorical variable|Difference in LS Means for Change From Baseline in Eye Symptom Score at Week 2|||0.06|-0.20|0.260
90933797|NCT01918033|181747005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.826||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.558|1.223|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic model with global improvement rate as response variable and treatment, age strata, and severity as factors|Difference in the number of participants with moderate or remarkable improvement at Week 2. An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first group of the pairwise comparison.|||1.223|0.558|0.340
90933798|NCT01918033|181747005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.755||||0.159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.116|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic model with global improvement rate as response variable and treatment, age strata, and severity as factors|Difference in the number of participants with moderate or remarkable improvement at Week 2. An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first group of the pairwise comparison.|||1.116|0.510|0.159
90933799|NCT01918033|181747006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.02||||0.705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.14|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model with terms for visit, visit-by-treatment, visit-by-age strata, visit-by-severity interactions; visit treated as a categorical variable|Difference in LS Means for Change from Baseline in Interference with Daily Activities at Week 2|||0.14|-0.09|0.705
90933800|NCT01918033|181747006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.02||||0.782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.1|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model with terms for visit, visit-by-treatment, visit-by-age strata, visit-by-severity interactions; visit treated as a categorical variable|Difference in LS Means for Change from Baseline in Interference with Daily Activities at Week 2|||0.10|-0.13|0.782
90933801|NCT01918033|181747007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.1||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.04|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model with terms for visit, visit-by-treatment, visit-by-age strata, visit-by-severity interactions; visit treated as a categorical variable|Difference in LS Means for Change from Baseline in Sneezing at Week 2|||0.04|-0.24|0.175
90933802|NCT01918033|181747007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.12||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.02|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model with terms for visit, visit-by-treatment, visit-by-age strata, visit-by-severity interactions; visit treated as a categorical variable|Difference in LS Means for Change from Baseline in Sneezing at Week 2|||0.02|-0.26|0.098
90933803|NCT01918033|181747007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.12||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.27|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model with terms for visit, visit-by-treatment, visit-by-age strata, visit-by-severity interactions; visit treated as a categorical variable|Difference in LS Means for Change from Baseline in Rhinorrhea at Week 2|||0.27|-0.04|0.130
90933804|NCT01918033|181747007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.07||||0.375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.22|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model with terms for visit, visit-by-treatment, visit-by-age strata, visit-by-severity interactions; visit treated as a categorical variable|Difference in LS Means for Change from Baseline in Rhinorrhea at Week 2|||0.22|-0.08|0.375
90933805|NCT01918033|181747007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.08||||0.285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.24|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model with terms for visit, visit-by-treatment, visit-by-age strata, visit-by-severity interactions; visit treated as a categorical variable|Difference in LS Means for Change from Baseline in Nasal Congestion at Week 2|||0.24|-0.07|0.285
90933806|NCT01918033|181747007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.05||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.21|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model with terms for visit, visit-by-treatment, visit-by-age strata, visit-by-severity interactions; visit treated as a categorical variable|Difference in LS Means for Change from Baseline in Nasal Congestion at Week 2|||0.21|-0.10|0.490
90971190|NCT00781456|181824969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.709|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of percentage of participants requiring rescue medication during the 91-day treatment period.||||0.709
91079121|NCT05153148|182043938|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.9|||=|0.446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|21.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel (MH) risk difference was summarized along with the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) using MH stratum weights and the Sato variance estimator.||Comparisons of ACR20 responder rates at Week 12 were made independently between each dose group and the placebo group using two-sided MH tests stratified on randomization stratification factors: prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and region.|21.1|-9.3|=0.446
90933807|NCT01918033|181747007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.08||||0.345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.08|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model with terms for visit, visit-by-treatment, visit-by-age strata, visit-by-severity interactions; visit treated as a categorical variable|Difference in LS Means for Change from Baseline in Nasal Itching at Week 2|||0.08|-0.23|0.345
90933808|NCT01918033|181747007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.03||||0.699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.13|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model with terms for visit, visit-by-treatment, visit-by-age strata, visit-by-severity interactions; visit treated as a categorical variable|Difference in LS Means for Change from Baseline in Nasal Itching at Week 2|||0.13|-0.19|0.699
90933809|NCT01918033|181747008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.06||||0.414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.08|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model with terms for visit, visit-by-treatment, visit-by-age strata, visit-by-severity interactions; visit treated as a categorical variable|Difference in LS Means for Change from Baseline in Eye Symptom Score at Week 2|||0.08|-0.20|0.414
90933810|NCT01918033|181747008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.08||||0.281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.06|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model with terms for visit, visit-by-treatment, visit-by-age strata, visit-by-severity interactions; visit treated as a categorical variable|Difference in LS Means for Change from Baseline in Eye Symptom Score at Week 2|||0.06|-0.22|0.281
90933811|NCT04679675|181747009|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.3||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|1.36|||Poisson Regression with GEE|||Primary analysis stratified by screening history. These results are for Screening-Adherent (population):Direct-Mail versus Education analysis.||1.36|1.23|0.05
90933812|NCT04679675|181747009|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.07||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.12|||Poisson Regression with GEE|||Primary analysis stratified by screening history. These results are for Screening-Adherent (population):Opt-In versus Education analysis.||1.12|1.02|.05
90933813|NCT04679675|181747009|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.9||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.68|2.16|||Poisson Regression with GEE|||Primary analysis stratified by screening history. These results are for Screening-Overdue (population):Direct-Mail versus Education analysis.||2.16|1.68|.05
90933814|NCT04679675|181747009|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.14||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.25|||Poisson Regression with GEE|||Primary analysis stratified by screening history. These results are for Screening-Unknown (population):Opt-In versus Education analysis.||1.25|1.03|.05
90933815|NCT01702259|181747033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
90933816|NCT01702259|181747034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
90933817|NCT01702259|181747035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
90933818|NCT01702259|181747036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
90933819|NCT00687297|181747039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test with two-sided Type I error of 5% was used to test the null hypothesis of no difference in response rate between arms.||||1.00
90933820|NCT00687297|181747040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.49||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|2.07||p-value from Wald test|Regression, Cox|The model was adjusted for gender (male vs. female) and stage (Stage IIIB vs. Stage IV/Recurrent)||There was 80% power to detect a 50% improvement in median progression-free survival, using a stratified log-rank test with one-sided Type I error of 10%.||2.07|1.07|0.02
90933821|NCT00700999|181747076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.92|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.9||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|-0.45|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.45|-1.38|.001
90933822|NCT00700999|181747076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.78||0.869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.99|||t-test, 2 sided|||||.99|-.84|.869
90933823|NCT00244751|181747077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3608|||||||reduced regression model|||||||0.3608
90933824|NCT00244751|181747077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3575|||||||reduced regression model|||||||0.3575
90933825|NCT00244751|181747078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9157|||||||reduced regression model|||||||0.9157
90933826|NCT00244751|181747078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9501|||||||reduced regression model|||||||0.9501
90933827|NCT00244751|181747079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6483|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Test|||Comparison for Ranked assessment (fibrosis)||||0.6483
90933828|NCT00244751|181747079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1776|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Test|||Comparison for Ranked assessment (necrosis)||||0.1776
90933829|NCT03031782|181747107|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.63|||Log Rank|Hazard ratios and associated 95% confidence intervals are based on a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment and analysis factors||Survival analysis of time to flare - TP2 (FAS2)||0.63|0.13|<0.001
90933830|NCT04867382|181747128|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.63|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.63
90933831|NCT04867382|181747129|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.27|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.27
90933832|NCT04867382|181747130|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.37|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.37
90933833|NCT04867382|181747131|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.75||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|3.57|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.57|0.86|.12
90933834|NCT01323790|181747138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.188||||0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.911|1.548|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis via Cochran Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by response to laxatives at baseline (LIR, LAR, LUR).||1.548|0.911|0.202
90933835|NCT01323790|181747138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.348||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.045|1.739|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis via Cochran Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by response to laxatives at baseline (LIR, LAR, LUR).||1.739|1.045|0.021
90933836|NCT01323790|181747139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.35||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.967|1.884||Response rate over Weeks 1 to 12 in the LIR subgroup is a key secondary endpoint included in the multiple testing procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.884|0.967|0.074
90933837|NCT01323790|181747139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.489||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.078|2.058||Response rate over Weeks 1 to 12 in the LIR subgroup is a key secondary endpoint included in the multiple testing procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.058|1.078|0.014
90933838|NCT01323790|181747141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.39||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response, treatment and treatment time interaction. Study pooled center is included as a random effect.||0.69|0.09|0.010
90933839|NCT01323790|181747141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ls mean difference|0.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via MMRM with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response, treatment and treatment time interaction. Study pooled center is included as a random effect.||0.98|0.37|<0.001
90933840|NCT01323790|181747142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.19||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|-0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via MMRM with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response (LIR, non-LIR), treatment and treatment time interaction. Study pooled center is included as a random effect.||-0.06|-0.32|0.005
90933841|NCT01323790|181747142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via MMRM with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response (LIR, non-LIR), treatment and treatment time interaction. Study pooled center is included as a random effect.||-0.18|-0.45|<0.001
90933842|NCT01323790|181747143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.28||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via MMRM with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response (LIR, non-LIR), treatment and treatment time interaction. Study pooled center is included as a random effect.||0.45|0.12|0.001
90933843|NCT01323790|181747143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via MMRM with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response (LIR, non-LIR), treatment and treatment time interaction. Study pooled center is included as a random effect.||0.62|0.29|<0.001
90933844|NCT01323790|181747144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|6.72||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.37|11.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via MMRM with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response (LIR, non-LIR), treatment and treatment time interaction. Study pooled center is included as a random effect.||11.06|2.37|0.002
90933845|NCT01323790|181747144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|10.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.03|14.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via MMRM with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response (LIR, non-LIR), treatment and treatment time interaction. Study pooled center is included as a random effect.||14.84|6.03|<0.001
90933846|NCT01323790|181747145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.52||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via MMRM with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response (LIR, non-LIR), treatment and treatment time interaction. Study pooled center is included as a random effect.||0.98|0.06|0.028
90933847|NCT01323790|181747145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via MMRM with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response (LIR, non-LIR), treatment and treatment time interaction. Study pooled center is included as a random effect.||1.51|0.58|<0.001
90933848|NCT01323790|181747147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.12||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.01||Analysis for change in PAC-SYM total score from baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 12)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via MMRM with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response, treatment and treatment time interaction. Study pooled center is included as a random effect.||0.01|-0.26|0.080
90933849|NCT01323790|181747147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.18||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|-0.04||Analysis for change in PAC-SYM total score from baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 12)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via MMRM with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response, treatment and treatment time interaction. Study pooled center is included as a random effect.||-0.04|-0.32|0.011
90933850|NCT01323790|181747147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.05||||0.552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.2||Analysis for change in PAC-SYM abdominal symptoms subscore from baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 12)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via MMRM with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response, treatment and treatment time interaction. Study pooled center is included as a random effect.||0.20|-0.11|0.552
90933851|NCT01323790|181747147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.09||||0.236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.25||Analysis for change in PAC-SYM abdominal symptoms subscore from baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 12)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via MMRM with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response, treatment and treatment time interaction. Study pooled center is included as a random effect.||0.25|-0.06|0.236
90933852|NCT01323790|181747147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.11||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.02||Analysis for change in PAC-SYM rectal symptoms subscore from baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 12)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via MMRM with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response, treatment and treatment time interaction. Study pooled center is included as a random effect.||0.02|-0.24|0.095
90933853|NCT01323790|181747147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.1||Analysis for change in PAC-SYM rectal symptoms subscore from baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 12)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via MMRM with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response, treatment and treatment time interaction. Study pooled center is included as a random effect.||-0.10|-0.37|<0.001
90933854|NCT01323790|181747147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.27||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.1||Analysis for change in PAC-SYM stool symptoms subscore from baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 12)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via MMRM with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response, treatment and treatment time interaction. Study pooled center is included as a random effect.||-0.10|-0.44|0.002
90933855|NCT01323790|181747147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.21||Analysis for change in PAC-SYM stool symptoms subscore from baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 12)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via MMRM with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response, treatment and treatment time interaction. Study pooled center is included as a random effect.||-0.21|-0.56|<0.001
90967793|NCT05470465|181817716|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.5||||0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5||-2.1||To demonstrate an effect of oxycodone with escitalopram compared to oxycodone alone, it is necessary that the upper bound of the one-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) in the least-square mean VE55 difference between treatments \< 0 L/min.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation will be used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom for tests of fixed effects.|Comparison was the effect of oxycodone and escitalopram compared to oxycodone and placebo.|Sample size and power were calculated based on 2 primary outcomes (day 20 and day 21) with adjustment for multiplicity (α=.025). The assessments with paroxetine or escitalopram were considered as separate experiments. A sample size of 20 participants was determined to have 90 percent power at a 1-sided significance level to detect a 4 L/min decrease in the primary end point (ventilation at 55 mmHg end-tidal carbon dioxide) assuming a standard deviation of 5 L/min.||-2.1||0.001
90933856|NCT01323790|181747148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.31||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via MMRM with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response, treatment and treatment time interaction. Study pooled center is included as a random effect.||-0.07|-0.54|0.011
90933857|NCT01323790|181747148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via MMRM with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response, treatment and treatment time interaction. Study pooled center is included as a random effect.||-0.25|-0.73|<0.001
90933858|NCT01736475|181747149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of means|0.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.19|||Regression, Negative binomial|||Ratio Annualized Bleeding Rate (ABR) Prophylaxis/On-demand: Prophylaxis treatment w ill be considered to be successful if the upper limit of the 95% CI for the ratio between treatment regimen does not exceed 0.5 (corresponding to a 50% reduction of the mean ABR compared to the on-demand treatment). H01: μ1 ≥0.5\*μ2 Ha1: μ1\<0.5\*μ2 w here μ1 and μ2 are the mean ABRs in on prophylaxis and on-demand, respectively||0.19|0.06|<0.0001
90933859|NCT02144285|181747191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Absolute Bioavailability|0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.34|0.6||||||||0.60|0.34|
90933860|NCT01366976|181747217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||We hypothesized that acetaminophen would reduce peak isofuran concentrations by 22 pg/mL (40% reduction from peak concentrations). If the true difference in the acetaminophen and placebo group means is 22 pg/mL (SD=30 pg/mL), we would need to study 30 experimental subjects and 30 control subjects to be able to reject the null hypothesis that the population means of the acetaminophen and placebo groups are equal with probability (power) 0.8.||||0.05
90933861|NCT01366976|181747219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.12
90933862|NCT01286311|181747256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.86|||Generalized Logistic Regression|||||1.86|0.54|0.99
90933863|NCT01286311|181747257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.85|||Generalized Logistic Regression|||||1.85|0.84|0.27
90933864|NCT01286311|181747258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.13||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|4.32|||Generalized Logistic Regression|||||4.32|1.05|0.038
90933865|NCT01286311|181747259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.72||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|10.1|||Generalized Logistic Regression|||||10.1|0.73|0.13
90933866|NCT01286311|181747260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.18||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|9.5|||Generalized Logistic Regression|||||9.5|0.50|0.30
90933867|NCT00805792|181747330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||The statistical significance of the change was assessed by the P value associated with estimated regression coefficient (beta coefficient or slope).||||<.001
90933868|NCT00805792|181747331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||The statistical significance of the change was assessed by the P value associated with estimated regression coefficient (beta coefficient or slope).||||<.001
90933869|NCT00805792|181747332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||The statistical significance of the change was assessed by the P value associated with estimated regression coefficient (beta coefficient or slope).||||<.001
90933870|NCT04351243|181747334|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.05||||0.1885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.17||one-sided p value|Mantel Haenszel|||||0.17|-0.06|0.1885
90933871|NCT01690000|181747338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||The p-value was calculated|t-test, 2 sided|||The p-value was calculated||||<0.05
90933872|NCT00813709|181747377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.555||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.378|0.816|||Log Rank|||||0.816|0.378|0.002
90933873|NCT00813709|181747377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.573||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.391|0.839|||Log Rank|||||0.839|0.391|0.006
90933874|NCT00813709|181747377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.993||||0.941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.654|1.51|||Log Rank|||||1.510|0.654|0.941
90933875|NCT00813709|181747378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.205||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.205
90933876|NCT00813709|181747378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.263||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.263
90933877|NCT00813709|181747378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.629||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.629
90933878|NCT01301183|181747404|OTHER|ANCOVA||||||0.109||||||Adjusted for baseline age, height, bone density and 12-month weight change|ANCOVA|||||||.109
90933879|NCT01301183|181747405|OTHER|||||||0.344||||||Adjusted for age, height, baseline trabecular number and change in weight over 12 months|ANCOVA|||||||0.344
90933880|NCT00988429|181747409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.058||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.058
90933881|NCT00988429|181747409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.004
90933882|NCT00988429|181747410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.068|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.068
90933883|NCT00988429|181747410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.001
90933884|NCT01877720|181747459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
90933885|NCT01877720|181747460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.001
90933886|NCT01877720|181747461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.74
90933887|NCT01877720|181747462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.003
90933888|NCT01877720|181747463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.002
90933889|NCT01877720|181747464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.003
90933890|NCT01877720|181747465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.012
90933891|NCT01877720|181747466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.67
90933892|NCT01877720|181747467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||<0.001
90933893|NCT01877720|181747468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||<0.001
90933894|NCT00267956|181747481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The study is designed to maintain a Type I error of 0.05 or less for the primary analysis|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi-square|Stratified by subject's prior anti-Tumor Necrosis Factor (TNF) exposure status (Yes/No).||Hypothesis: No difference between ustekinumab x 4 and placebo at a significant level of 0.05. Sample Size and power: With 70 partcipants in each treatment group, 5000 repetitions. Assuming a 20% ACR20 response in placebo participants regardless of prior anti-TNF exposure and a 35% ACR 20 and 45% ACR20 response in ustekinumab group for participants who had prior anti-TNF exposure, and who had no prior anti-TNF exposures, the power to detect the treatment difference is 0.85.||||<0.001
90933895|NCT00267956|181747482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustment was made and nominal p-value was reported.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi-square|Stratified by participant's prior anti-TNF exposure status (Yes/No).||Hypothesis: No difference between Group II and Group I at a significant level of 0.05.||||0.004
90933896|NCT00267956|181747483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustment was made and nominal p-value was reported.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi-square|Stratified by participant's prior anti-TNF exposure status (Yes/No).||Hypothesis: No difference between ustekinumab x 4 and placebo at a significant level of 0.05.||||0.005
90933897|NCT00267956|181747484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustment was made and nominal p-value was reported.|ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores|Treatment and prior anti-TNF exposure (Yes/No) as factors in the model.||Hypothesis: No difference between ustekinumab x 4 and placebo at a significant level of 0.05.||||<0.001
90933898|NCT00267956|181747485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustment was made and nominal p-value was reported.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi-square|Stratified by participant's prior anti-TNF exposure status (Yes/No).||Hypothesis: No difference between ustekinumab x 4 and placebo at a significant level of 0.05.||||<0.001
90933899|NCT00267956|181747486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustment was made and nominal p-value was reported.|ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores|Treatment and prior anti-TNF exposure (Yes/No) as factors in the model.||Hypothesis: No difference between ustekinumab x 4 and placebo at asignificant level of 0.05.||||<0.001
90933900|NCT01393964|181747491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|104.096||||0.704|TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.983|124.576|||ANOVA|||The reference arm is NRF participants.||124.576|86.983|0.704
90933901|NCT01393964|181747491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted means|100.454||||0.965|TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.453|119.488|||ANOVA|||The reference arm is NRF participants.||119.488|84.453|0.965
90933902|NCT01393964|181747492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|126.596||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.52|167.783|||ANOVA|||AUC(0-T). The reference arm is NRF participants.||167.783|95.52|0.164
90933903|NCT01393964|181747492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|116.123||||0.355|TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.458|152.439|||ANOVA|||AUC(0-T). The reference arm is NRF participants.||152.439|88.458|0.355
90933904|NCT01393964|181747492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|129.858||||0.228|TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.366|186.609|||ANOVA|||AUC (INF). The reference arm is NRF participants.||186.609|90.366|0.228
90933905|NCT01393964|181747492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|110.4||||0.642|TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.825|158.647|||ANOVA|||AUC(INF). The reference arm is NRF participants.||158.647|76.825|0.642
90933906|NCT01494467|181747519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90933907|NCT01494467|181747520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.18|-6.25|||ANCOVA|||||-6.25|-10.18|<0.001
90933908|NCT01494467|181747521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90933909|NCT02077374|181747524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-17.0||||0.0195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.7|-2.5|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Based on Hodges-Lehmann estimator|Statistical Analysis for the difference in mean change in alanine aminotransferase (ALT) from Baseline to Day28/ET between IDN-6556 and placebo||-2.5|-30.7|0.0195
90933910|NCT02077374|181747526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.8||||0.8724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|11.2|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Based on Hodges-Lehmann estimator|Statistical Analysis for the difference in change in aspartate aminotransferase (AST) from baseline to Day 28/ET between IDN-6556 and placebo||11.2|-14.5|0.8724
90933911|NCT02077374|181747527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-145.0||||0.1149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-336.0|55.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Based on Hodges-Lehmann estimator|Statistical Analysis for the difference in change for cCK18/M30 from Baseline to Day 28/ET between IDN-6556 and Placebo||55|-336|0.1149
90933912|NCT02077374|181747528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-250.0||||0.1365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-590.0|63.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Based on Hodges-Lehmann estimator|Statistical Analysis for the difference in change for caspase 3/7 from Baseline to Day 28/ET between IDN-6556 and Placebo||63|-590|0.1365
90933913|NCT02077374|181747529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-327.0||||0.0471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-628.0|-7.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Based on Hodges-Lehmann estimator|Statistical Analysis of the difference in the change in full-length cytokeratine 18 (flCK18/M65) from Baseline to Day 28/ET between IDN-6556 and placebo||-7|-628|0.0471
90933914|NCT04604652|181747541|OTHER||||||=|0.077|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||A t-test was performed to test for the percent change from baseline to Week 12. This analysis was based on observed data without imputation. Testing was one sided using a 5% alpha level. No multiplicity adjustment was used, and the p-values reported for the endpoints were descriptive in nature.||||=0.077
90933915|NCT00068107|181747552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||eGFR measured pre-study was compared to eGFR during the study||||0.01
90967794|NCT05470465|181817717|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.5||||0.002|ONE_SIDED|97.5||-2.1||To demonstrate an effect of paroxetine compared to placebo, it is necessary that the upper bound of the one-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) in the least-square mean VE55 difference between treatments \< 0 L/min.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation will be used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom for tests of fixed effects.|Comparison was the effect of paroxetine compared to placebo.|Sample size and power were calculated based on 2 primary outcomes (day 20 and day 21) with adjustment for multiplicity (α=.025). The assessments with paroxetine or escitalopram were considered as separate experiments. A sample size of 20 participants was determined to have 90 percent power at a 1-sided significance level to detect a 4 L/min decrease in the primary end point (ventilation at 55 mmHg end-tidal carbon dioxide) assuming a standard deviation of 5 L/min.||-2.1||0.002
90967795|NCT05470465|181817717|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.9||||0.003|ONE_SIDED|97.5||-2.5||To demonstrate an effect of escitalopram compared to placebo, it is necessary that the upper bound of the one-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) in the least-square mean VE55 difference between treatments \< 0 L/min.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation will be used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom for tests of fixed effects.|Comparison was the effect of escitalopram compared to placebo.|Sample size and power were calculated based on 2 primary outcomes (day 20 and day 21) with adjustment for multiplicity (α=.025). The assessments with paroxetine or escitalopram were considered as separate experiments. A sample size of 20 participants was determined to have 90 percent power at a 1-sided significance level to detect a 4 L/min decrease in the primary end point (ventilation at 55 mmHg end-tidal carbon dioxide) assuming a standard deviation of 5 L/min.||-2.5||0.003
90967796|NCT05470465|181817718|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.1|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5||-4.1||Secondary analyses are not adjusted for multiplicity. To demonstrate an effect of oxycodone and paroxetine compared to oxycodone, the upper bound of the one-sided 97.5% CI in the least-square mean VE55 difference between treatments \< 0 L/min.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation will be used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom for tests of fixed effects.|Comparison was the effect of oxycodone and paroxetine compared to oxycodone and placebo at day 6 at 5 hours.|Sample size and power were calculated based on 2 primary outcomes (day 20 and day 21) with adjustment for multiplicity (α=.025). The assessments with paroxetine or escitalopram were considered as separate experiments. A sample size of 20 participants was determined to have 90 percent power at a 1-sided significance level to detect a 4 L/min decrease in the primary end point (ventilation at 55 mmHg end-tidal carbon dioxide) assuming a standard deviation of 5 L/min.||-4.1||<0.001
90967797|NCT05470465|181817718|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.6|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5||-2.6||Secondary analyses are not adjusted for multiplicity. To demonstrate an effect of oxycodone and escitalopram compared to oxycodone, the upper bound of the one-sided 97.5% CI in the least-square mean VE55 difference between treatments \< 0 L/min.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation will be used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom for tests of fixed effects.|Comparison was the effect of oxycodone and escitalopram compared to oxycodone and placebo at day 6 at 5 hours.|Sample size and power were calculated based on 2 primary outcomes (day 20 and day 21) with adjustment for multiplicity (α=.025). The assessments with paroxetine or escitalopram were considered as separate experiments. A sample size of 20 participants was determined to have 90 percent power at a 1-sided significance level to detect a 4 L/min decrease in the primary end point (ventilation at 55 mmHg end-tidal carbon dioxide) assuming a standard deviation of 5 L/min.||-2.6||<0.001
90971318|NCT00439946|181825391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank|||Changes between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test, comparing the values at Baseline to values at Week 8. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values||||1.0
91035879|NCT02558491|181958309|OTHER|||||||0.522||||||No a priori sample size was determined due to the feasibility/pilot nature of the trial. Significance level was set at P-value \<0.05.|ANOVA|||Secondary analysis followed the same format unless variables could not be considered normally distributed; in that case a related samples Wilcoxon signed-rank test is used. Data were first binned (to ensure minimum count of five per bins) and the w2 statistics was used with the expected counts given by SoC. Based on achieved recruitment, a moderate effect size (0.3) is detectable with 80% power, or a large effect size (0.4) with 95% power (G-Power 3.1.9.2). Outcome measurement was for mealtime.||||0.522
90888055|NCT04295564|181639368|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|82.1|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.3|155.9||This is a calculate p value|Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for the correlation between twin pairs and gestational age at birth (stratification variable), sex, and length at outpatient testing||||155.9|8.3|<0.05
90888056|NCT04295564|181639369|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|||<|0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.1||This is a calculated p value|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for correlation between twin pairs and gestational age at birth (stratification variable), sex, and length at outpatient test.||||1.1|0.1|<0.02
90888057|NCT04295564|181639370|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|62.7|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|121.0||This is a calculated p value|Mixed Models Analysis|P-value adjusted for correlation between twin pairs and gestational age at birth (stratification variable), sex, and length at outpatient testing.||||121|4.5|<0.05
90933916|NCT00068107|181747552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Average Delay in time to ESRD|166.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.4|323.8|||||The average delay in end stage renal disease (ESRD) calculated from the eGFR values and represents the estimated difference in time to ESRD between Relagal administered every 2 weeks and Relagal administered weekly. Units = months|||323.8|8.4|
90933917|NCT03989232|181747564|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-0.23||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||On-treatment without rescue medication observation period: Imputation of missing data was handled by multiple imputation (MI) assuming that missing data were missed at random (MAR). The imputation was performed separately within each treatment group defined by randomised treatment.||-0.11|-0.36|0.0003
90933918|NCT03989232|181747564|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-0.18||||0.0098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||In-trial observation period: Imputation of missing data was handled by MI assuming that missing data were missed at random. The imputation was performed by imputing missing week 40 data separately within groups defined by randomised treatment and treatment status at week 40.||-0.04|-0.31|0.0098
90933919|NCT00424476|181747612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.83||||0.0006||95.0|1.3|2.59||For the primary analysis of the primary efficacy endpoint, a step-down sequential testing procedure was used to control the type 1 error.|Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline stratification factors (SELENA SLEDAI Score: ≤9 vs ≥10; proteinuria: \<2g vs ≥2g per 24hr; Race: African/indig-American vs Other)||||2.59|1.30|0.0006
90933920|NCT00424476|181747612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.19||After superiority of 10 mg/kg vs placebo was established, the 1 mg/kg group was tested vs placebo (2-sided alpha=0.05).|Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline stratification factors.||||2.19|1.10|0.0129
90933921|NCT00424476|181747613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|2.41|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline stratification factors.||||2.41|1.21|0.0024
90933922|NCT00424476|181747613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.0189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|2.14|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline stratification factors.||||2.14|1.07|0.0189
90933923|NCT00424476|181747614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline PGA score and baseline stratification factors.||||||0.0003
90933924|NCT00424476|181747614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2712||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline PGA score and baseline stratification factors.||||||0.2712
90933925|NCT00424476|181747615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.887|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for the baseline PCS score and baseline stratification factors.||||||0.8870
90933926|NCT00424476|181747615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8127|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for the baseline PCS score and baseline stratification factors.||||||0.8127
90933927|NCT00424476|181747616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.75||||0.0526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|3.08|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline prednisone dose level and baseline stratification factors.||||3.08|0.99|0.0526
90933928|NCT00424476|181747616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.89||||0.0252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|3.31|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline prednisone dose level and baseline stratification factors.||||3.31|1.08|0.0252
90933929|NCT01930188|181747618|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was concluded if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the estimated treatment difference between semaglutide 1.0 mg and sitagliptin was below the pre-specified non-inferiority margin (0.3 %).|treatment difference|-1.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|-0.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|Post-baseline responses analysed with mixed model for repeated measurements-treatment \& country (fixed) \& baseline (covariate) all nested within visit||||-0.91|-1.21|<0.0001
90933930|NCT01930188|181747618|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was concluded if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the estimated treatment difference between semaglutide 0.5 mg and sitagliptin was below the pre-specified non-inferiority margin (0.3 %).|treatment difference|-0.92|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|-0.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis done with mixed model for repeated measurements (treatment \& country as fixed factors \& baseline value as covariate) all nested within visit||||-0.62|-1.21|<0.0001
90933931|NCT01020435|181747630|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|9.2||||||Tx 1 - SBP (Unadjusted)||9.2|-0.9|
90933932|NCT01020435|181747630|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|5.3||||||Tx 1 - DBP (Unadjusted)||5.3|-0.4|
90933933|NCT01020435|181747630|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|5.6||||||Wk 3 - SBP (Unadjusted)||5.6|-6.2|
90933934|NCT01020435|181747630|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|3.5||||||Wk 3 - DBP (Unadjusted)||3.5|-4.0|
90933935|NCT01020435|181747630|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|8.9||||||Wk 6 - SBP (Unadjusted)||8.9|-1.9|
90933936|NCT01020435|181747630|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|5.0||||||Wk 6 - DBP (Unadjusted)||5.0|-2.1|
90888058|NCT04295564|181639371|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.31||This is a calculated p value|Regression, Logistic|||||1.31|0.27|>0.05
90888059|NCT04295564|181639371|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.31|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for gestational age at birth (stratification variable)||||1.31|0.27|>0.05
90933937|NCT01020435|181747630|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|9.8||||||Tx 1 - SBP (Adjusted)||9.8|-0.4|
90933938|NCT01020435|181747630|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|6.5||||||Tx 1 - DBP (Adjusted)||6.5|0.6|
90933939|NCT01020435|181747630|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|6.9||||||Wk 3 - SBP (Adjusted)||6.9|-5.0|
90933940|NCT01020435|181747630|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|4.9||||||Wk 3 - DBP (Adjusted)||4.9|-2.8|
90933941|NCT01020435|181747630|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|10.0||||||Wk 6 - SBP (Adjusted)||10.0|-0.4|
90933942|NCT01020435|181747630|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|5.8||||||Wk 6 - DBP (Adjusted)||5.8|-1.2|
90888060|NCT04537923|181639373|NON_INFERIORITY|0.3% noninferiority margin.|LS Mean Difference|-1.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|-0.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.97|-1.24|<0.001
90888061|NCT04537923|181639374|NON_INFERIORITY|0.3% noninferiority margin.|LS Mean Difference|-0.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.70|-1.08|<0.001
90888062|NCT04537923|181639374|NON_INFERIORITY|0.3% noninferiority margin.|LS Mean Difference|-1.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.92|-1.30|<0.001
90888063|NCT04537923|181639374|NON_INFERIORITY|0.3% noninferiority margin.|LS Mean Difference|-1.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|-1.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.11|-1.49|<0.001
90888064|NCT04537923|181639375|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.25|4.36|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.36|2.25|<0.0001
90888065|NCT04537923|181639375|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.27|8.88|||Regression, Logistic|||||8.88|4.27|<0.0001
90888066|NCT04537923|181639375|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.94|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.37|11.75|||Regression, Logistic|||||11.75|5.37|<0.0001
90888067|NCT04537923|181639376|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-10.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|-9.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-9.9|-11.5|<0.001
90888068|NCT04537923|181639376|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-13.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|-12.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-12.9|-14.5|<0.001
90888069|NCT04537923|181639376|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-15.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.7|-15.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-15.0|-16.7|<0.001
90888070|NCT04537923|181639377|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-23.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.8|-15.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-15.7|-30.8|<0.001
90888071|NCT04537923|181639377|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-33.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.6|-25.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-25.4|-40.6|<0.001
90888072|NCT04537923|181639377|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-31.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.3|-23.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-23.8|-39.3|<0.001
90888073|NCT04537923|181639378|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9||||0.682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|3.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.3|-5.0|0.682
90888074|NCT04537923|181639378|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.6||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|-1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.4|-9.9|0.010
90888075|NCT04537923|181639378|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-11.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|-7.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-7.5|-16.0|<0.001
90888076|NCT04537923|181639379|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.66|11.83|||Regression, Logistic|||||11.83|5.66|<0.001
90888077|NCT04537923|181639379|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.44|24.96|||Regression, Logistic|||||24.96|11.44|<0.001
90888078|NCT04537923|181639379|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|21.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.49|32.93|||Regression, Logistic|||||32.93|14.49|<0.001
90888079|NCT04537923|181639380|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|28.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.36|43.46|||Regression, Logistic|||||43.46|18.36|<0.001
90888080|NCT04537923|181639380|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|58.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.76|94.39|||Regression, Logistic|||||94.39|36.76|<0.001
90888081|NCT04537923|181639380|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|77.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.49|127.33|||Regression, Logistic|||||127.33|47.49|<0.001
90888082|NCT04537923|181639381|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.5||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.6|||ANCOVA|||||2.6|0.5|0.005
90888083|NCT04537923|181639381|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|3.3|||ANCOVA|||||3.3|1.2|<0.001
90888084|NCT04537923|181639381|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|3.3|||ANCOVA|||||3.3|1.2|<0.001
90888085|NCT04537923|181639382|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.6||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.9|||ANCOVA|||||2.9|0.3|0.020
90888086|NCT04537923|181639382|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|4.2|||ANCOVA|||||4.2|1.5|<0.001
90888087|NCT04537923|181639382|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.1||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|3.5|||ANCOVA|||||3.5|0.7|0.004
90888088|NCT01261611|181639383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|An ANCOVA on the change from baseline, baseline TWSTRS Total score, baseline BTX status and pooled centre as explanatory variables was performed.||A pre-specified analysis of the LS mean difference between the Dysport NG and Placebo arms was performed. A total of 210 subjects were included in the analysis.||||<0.0001
90933943|NCT00346398|181747633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|10.5||Odds Ratios are calculated using a logistic regression with a Wald chi square test. Experimental group participants had a higher proportion of allergic sensitization than participants who received placebo|Chi-squared|||Participants who drop out (have missing efficacy endpoints) are considered treatment failures.||10.5|0.5|0.28
90933944|NCT00346398|181747634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|6.1||Odds Ratios are calculated using unadjusted exact logistic regression with mid p-value to adjust for the discreteness of the distribution|Chi-squared|||Participants who drop out (have missing efficacy endpoints) are considered treatment failures.||6.1|0.2|0.85
90933945|NCT00346398|181747635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.8||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|5.6||P-value is calculated using a log-rank test|Regression, Logistic||Hazard ratio and 95% confidence intervals are calculated using an unadjusted Cox regression|||5.6|0.6|0.28
90933946|NCT03979040|181747636|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of -.5 was set for outcome analysis with a one-sided alpha of .025.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.025|ONE_SIDED|97.5||||P value = .025 (one-sided) and sign test below|Sign test|||||||.025
90933947|NCT03979040|181747637|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of -.5 was set for outcome analysis with a one-sided alpha of .025.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.025|ONE_SIDED|97.5|||||Sign test|||||||.025
90933948|NCT03979040|181747638|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of -.5 was set for outcome analysis with a one-sided alpha of .025.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.025|ONE_SIDED|97.5|||||Sign test|||||||.025
90933949|NCT02607956|181747639|NON_INFERIORITY|A sample of approximately 600 participants randomized 1:1 achieves at least 95% power using a non-inferiority margin of 12% assuming a response rate in both groups of 91% (Reference Genvoya studies) and a one-sided alpha level of 0.025.|Difference in Percentages|-3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.002|-7.9|1.0|||||Differences in percentages of participants between groups and their 95.002% CIs were calculated based on Mantel-Haenszel (MH) proportions adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL) and region stratum (US vs. Ex-US).|||1.0|-7.9|
90933950|NCT02607956|181747639|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p-value was calculated from CMH test stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL) and region stratum (US vs. Ex-US).||||||0.12
90933951|NCT02607956|181747640|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|3.2|||||Differences in percentages of participants between groups and their 95% CIs were calculated based on MH proportions adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL) and region stratum (US vs. Ex-US).|||3.2|-7.9|
90933952|NCT02607956|181747640|OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p-value was calculated from CMH test stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL) and region stratum (US vs. Ex-US).||||||0.41
90933953|NCT02607956|181747641|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|3.9|||||Differences in percentages of participants between groups and their 95% CIs were calculated based on MH proportions adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL) and region stratum (US vs. Ex-US).|||3.9|-7.8|
90933954|NCT02607956|181747641|OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p-value was calculated from CMH test stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL) and region stratum (US vs. Ex-US).||||||0.52
90933955|NCT02607956|181747642|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|1.5|||||The differences in percentages of participants between treatment groups and their 95% CIs were calculated based on the MH proportions adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL) and region stratum (US vs. Ex-US).|||1.5|-9.4|
90933956|NCT02607956|181747642|OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p-value was calculated from CMH test stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL) and region stratum (US vs. Ex-US).||||||0.16
90933957|NCT02607956|181747643|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|3.8|||||The differences in percentages of participants between treatment groups and their 95% CIs were calculated based on the MH proportions adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL) and region stratum (US vs. Ex-US).|||3.8|-8.8|
90933958|NCT02607956|181747643|OTHER|||||||0.44|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p-value was calculated from CMH test stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL) and region stratum (US vs. Ex-US).||||||0.44
90933959|NCT02607956|181747644|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|5.3|||||The differences in percentages of participants between treatment groups and their 95% CIs were calculated based on the MH proportions adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL) and region stratum (US vs. Ex-US).|||5.3|-7.4|
90933960|NCT02607956|181747644|OTHER|||||||0.74|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p-value was calculated from CMH test stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL) and region stratum (US vs. Ex-US).||||||0.74
90933961|NCT02607956|181747645|OTHER||Difference in LSM|0.08||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.17|||ANOVA|p-value was adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum and region stratum.|Difference in least-squares mean (LSM), and its 95% confidence interval (CI) were adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum and region stratum.|||0.17|-0.01|0.081
90933962|NCT02607956|181747646|OTHER||Difference in LSM|0.06||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.15|||ANOVA|p-value was adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum and region stratum.|Difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum and region stratum.|||0.15|-0.03|0.18
90933963|NCT02607956|181747647|OTHER||Difference in LSM|0.09||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.18|||ANOVA|p-value was adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum and region stratum.|Difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum and region stratum.|||0.18|0.00|0.054
90933964|NCT02607956|181747648|OTHER||Difference in LSM|-23.0||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.0|4.0|||ANOVA|P-value was adjusted by the baseline HIV-1 RNA and region stratum.|Difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were adjusted by the baseline HIV-1 RNA and region stratum.|||4|-49|0.096
90933965|NCT02607956|181747649|OTHER||Difference in LSM|-47.0||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-81.0|-12.0|||ANOVA|P-value was adjusted by the baseline HIV-1 RNA and region stratum.|Difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were adjusted by the baseline HIV-1 RNA and region stratum.|||-12|-81|0.008
90933966|NCT02607956|181747650|OTHER||Difference in LSM|-14.0||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.0|25.0|||ANOVA|p-value was adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum and region stratum.|Difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum and region stratum.|||25|-52|0.48
90933967|NCT00090519|181747672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.714|0.686|||ANOVA|||||0.686|-0.714|0.969
90933968|NCT00090519|181747673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.09||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.97||P-value is for change from baseline.|ANCOVA|||||1.97|0.21|0.015
90933969|NCT00090519|181747674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.577||95.0||||P-value is for first occurrence of focal/grid photocoagulation yes versus no.|Chi-squared|||||||0.577
90933970|NCT00090519|181747675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.87||P-value is for change from baseline.|ANCOVA|||||0.87|0.02|0.041
90933971|NCT00090519|181747676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.475||95.0||||P-value is for progression of nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy (DR) by seven-field stereo fundus photography progression versus no progression.|Chi-squared|||||||0.475
90933972|NCT00090519|181747677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.52||||0.211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|3.92||P-value is for change from baseline.|ANCOVA|||||3.92|-0.87|0.211
90933973|NCT00090519|181747678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|63.22||||0.365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.68|200.12||P-value is for change from baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|||||200.12|-73.68|0.365
90933974|NCT00090519|181747679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.52||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|2.66||P-value is for change from baseline.|ANCOVA|||||2.66|0.38|0.009
90933975|NCT00090519|181747681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.47||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.12||P-value is for occurrence of sustained moderate visual loss (SMVL) in a diabetic retinopathy (DR) study eye yes versus no.|Chi-squared|||||1.12|0.20|0.081
90933976|NCT00960206|181747682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0832|||||||Log Rank|||To compare the Kaplan-Meier survivorship between the two systems||||0.0832
90933977|NCT00960206|181747682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1657|||||||Log Rank|||To compare the Kaplan-Meier survivorship between the two systems||||0.1657
90933978|NCT00960206|181747683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3701|||||||Fisher Exact|||To compare the # of cases at 10 years for those that have a HHS ≥ 80 to those that have \< 80 for all three arms||||0.3701
90933979|NCT00960206|181747685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6011|||||||Fisher Exact|||Compare the # of cases at 10 years satisfied with their total hip replacement for all three groups||||0.6011
90933980|NCT00960206|181747685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.206|||||||Fisher Exact|||Compare the # of cases at 10 years for having pain in their hip for all three groups||||0.2060
90933981|NCT01094106|181747703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||In a previous non-randomised study at our institution, the mean oxycodone consumption in the control group was 60.7 mg (SD, 22.2 mg) during the first 48 h after caesarean section. At α = 0.05, 31 patients would be needed in each group to achieve a power of 90% for detecting a 30% reduction in the need for rescue opioids, which we considered a clinically meaningful effect. We decided to enrol 70 patients. The final study population was 67 patients.||||0.10
90933982|NCT01094106|181747704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Highest recorded pain scores at rest, 0-6 h||||0.08
90933983|NCT01094106|181747704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Highest recorded pain scores at rest, 6-12 h||||0.86
90933984|NCT01094106|181747704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Highest recorded pain scores at rest, 12-24 h||||0.66
90933985|NCT01094106|181747704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Highest recorded pain scores at rest, 24-36 h||||0.79
90933986|NCT01094106|181747704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Highest recorded pain scores at rest, 36-48 h||||0.20
90933987|NCT01094106|181747704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Highest recorded pain scores when moving, 0-6 h||||0.36
90933988|NCT01094106|181747704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Highest recorded pain scores when moving, 6-12 h||||0.43
90933989|NCT01094106|181747704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Highest recorded pain scores when moving, 12-24 h||||0.68
90933990|NCT01094106|181747704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Highest recorded pain scores when moving, 24-36 h||||0.37
90933991|NCT01094106|181747704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Highest recorded pain scores when moving, 36-48 h||||0.06
90933992|NCT01094106|181747705|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.30
90933993|NCT02725372|181747720|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.99||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.47|26.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||26.45|-22.47|0.87
90933994|NCT02725372|181747721|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.55
90933995|NCT02725372|181747723|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-89.1||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-156.0|-22.1|||ANCOVA|||||-22.1|-156.0|0.01
90933996|NCT02725372|181747724|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.41|||ANCOVA|||||0.41|-0.89|0.47
90933997|NCT02725372|181747725|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|2.29|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.29|0.48|0.26
90933998|NCT00824850|181747726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|10.0||||||7vPnC serotype 4: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.0|-9.5|
90933999|NCT00824850|181747726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|10.0||||||7vPnC serotype 6B: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.0|-9.5|
90934000|NCT00824850|181747726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|10.0||||||7vPnC serotype 9V: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.0|-9.5|
90934001|NCT00824850|181747726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|14.9||||||7vPnC serotype 14: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||14.9|-6.9|
90934002|NCT00824850|181747726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|10.0||||||7vPnC serotype 18C: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.0|-9.5|
90888089|NCT01261611|181639383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|An ANCOVA on the change from baseline, baseline TWSTRS Total score, baseline BTX status and pooled centre as explanatory variables was performed.||A pre-specified analysis of the LS mean difference between the Dysport and Placebo arms was performed. A total of 213 subjects were included in the analysis.||||<0.0001
90888090|NCT01261611|181639383|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|An ANCOVA on the change from baseline with treatment, baseline TWSTRS Total score, BTX status at baseline and pooled centre as explanatory variables had been performed. The non-inferiority margin was 3 points.|LS mean difference|1.532|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.819|3.883||||||A pre-specified analysis of the LS mean difference between the Dysport NG and Dysport arms was performed. A total of 315 subjects were included in the analysis.||3.883|-0.819|
90888091|NCT01808690|181639467|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||Threshold for statistical significance P=0.05|Regression, Linear|We also fitted multivariable models, which included sex, pubertal status, change in BMI, and baseline M/I.||Insulin function was defined as M/I (mg/kg/min)/(insulin). Power calculations were based on data from a small study in youth with poorly controlled T1DM, which reported a significant increase in M/I in the 11 participants treated with Metformin. On the basis of the effect size reported in that study, a sample size of 25 per group and an alpha of 0.05 provided us with 93% power to detect a difference of 1 SD in the primary outcome of M/I.||||0.005
90888092|NCT01808690|181639468|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46||||||Threshold for statistical significance P=0.05|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for the baseline value of the variable, sex, age, change in VO2peak, change in insulin sensitivity, and treatment condition.||||||0.46
90888093|NCT01808690|181639469|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||Threshold for statistical significance P=0.05|Regression, Linear|We also fitted mutlivariable models, which included changed in SBP, change in BMI, and change in M/I.||||||0.04
90888094|NCT01808690|181639470|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||Threshold for significance P=0.05|Regression, Linear|We also fitted mutlivariable models, which included changed in systolic blood pressure, change in BMI, and change in M/I.||||||0.04
90888095|NCT01808690|181639471|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||Threshold for statistical significance P=0.05|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for the baseline value of BMI percentile, diabetes duration, and A1c.||||||0.01
90888096|NCT01808690|181639472|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||Threshold for statistical significance P=0.05|Regression, Linear|We also fitted mutlivariable models, which included changed in SBP, change in BMI, and change in M/I.||||||0.03
90888097|NCT01808690|181639473|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8||||||Threshold for significance P=0.05|Regression, Linear|We also fitted mutlivariable models, which included changed in systolic blood pressure, change in BMI, and change in M/I.||||||0.8
90888098|NCT00674986|181639476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.54|||Fisher Exact|||||0.54|0.01|0.0416
90888099|NCT00674986|181639477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
90888100|NCT00674986|181639478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2777||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2777
90888101|NCT00674986|181639479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.116||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1160
90888102|NCT00674986|181639480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1146||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1146
90888103|NCT00674986|181639481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0470
90888104|NCT00674986|181639482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0003
90888105|NCT00377234|181639484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Null hypothesis: Preference rate (including patients not expressing treatment preference and considering order treatments were received) for monthly ibandronate = 50%. Null hypothesis is rejected if P-value was below significance threshold of P \<0.05|Garts Test|||||||<0.0001
90888106|NCT00377234|181639484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The reported p-values for the primary analysis test whether the overall preference rate for ibandronate equals 50%. Preference within each sequence is not tested.|Prescott Test|||||||<0.0001
90888107|NCT01024569|181639503|SUPERIORITY||MIXREG Estimate|-1.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|-2.21||0.027|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Effects Random Regression|||||||0.027
90888108|NCT01024569|181639504|SUPERIORITY||MIXREG Estimate|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.37||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Effects Random Regression|||Mixed Effects Random Regression analysis was used to assess the effects of study condition on Hope outcomes.||||0.020
90888109|NCT01024569|181639505|SUPERIORITY||MIXREG Estimate|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.029|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Effects Random Regression|||||||0.029
90888110|NCT01024569|181639506|SUPERIORITY||MIXREG Estimate|1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.042|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Effects Random Regression|||||||0.042
90888111|NCT01024569|181639507|SUPERIORITY||MIXREG Estimate|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Effects Random Regression|||||||.001
90888112|NCT03521635|181639526|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.68||0.688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|4.0|||REML-based repeated measures approach|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML) - based repeated measures approach was applied.|Mean difference was calculated as Pramipexole Sustained Release minus Pramipexole immediate Release|Mean changes from baseline of PDSS-2 score were analysed using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML) - based repeated measures approach. Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit in the maintenance period, and treatment-by-visit interaction, and the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline and baseline-by-visit interaction.||4.0|-2.7|0.688
90934003|NCT00824850|181747726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|10.3||||||7vPnC serotype 19F: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.3|-9.4|
91079122|NCT05153148|182043938|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|24.1|||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.6|39.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||MH risk difference was summarized along with the 2-sided 95% CI using MH stratum weights and the Sato variance estimator.||Comparisons of ACR20 responder rates at Week 12 were made independently between each dose group and the placebo group using two-sided MH tests stratified on randomization stratification factors: prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region.|39.6|8.6|=0.002
90934004|NCT00824850|181747726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|10.0||||||7vPnC serotype 23F: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.0|-9.5|
90934005|NCT00824850|181747726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|10.0||||||Additional serotype 1: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.0|-9.5|
90934006|NCT00824850|181747726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.7|10.9||||||Additional serotype 3: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.9|-15.7|
90934007|NCT00824850|181747726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|10.0||||||Additional serotype 5: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.0|-9.5|
90934008|NCT00824850|181747726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|10.0||||||Additional serotype 6A: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.0|-9.5|
90934009|NCT00824850|181747726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|10.0||||||Additional serotype 7F: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.0|-9.5|
90934010|NCT00824850|181747726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|10.0||||||Additional serotype 19A: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.0|-9.5|
90934011|NCT00824850|181747727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|25.5||||||7vPnC serotype 4: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||25.5|-5.6|
90934012|NCT00824850|181747727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|10.0||||||7vPnC serotype 6B: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.0|-9.5|
90934013|NCT00824850|181747727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|14.9||||||7vPnC serotype 9V: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||14.9|-6.9|
90934014|NCT00824850|181747727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|19.2||||||7vPnC serotype 14: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||19.2|-4.2|
90934015|NCT00824850|181747727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|17.0||||||7vPnC serotype 18C: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||17.0|-9.3|
90934016|NCT00824850|181747727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|10.3||||||7vPnC serotype 19F: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.3|-9.4|
90934017|NCT00824850|181747727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|10.0||||||7vPnC serotype 23F: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.0|-9.5|
90934018|NCT00824850|181747727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|14.9||||||Additional serotype 1: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||14.9|-6.9|
90934019|NCT00824850|181747727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|6.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|23.4||||||Additional serotype 3: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||23.4|-7.4|
90934020|NCT00824850|181747727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|10.0||||||Additional serotype 5: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.0|-9.5|
90934021|NCT00824850|181747727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|10.0||||||Additional serotype 6A: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.0|-9.5|
91079123|NCT05153148|182043938|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|24.5|||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.0|39.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||MH risk difference was summarized along with the 2-sided 95% CI using MH stratum weights and the Sato variance estimator.||Comparisons of ACR20 responder rates at Week 12 were made independently between each dose group and the placebo group using two-sided MH tests stratified on randomization stratification factors: prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region.|39.9|9.0|=0.002
91079124|NCT05153148|182043939|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.7|||=|0.312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|16.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||MH risk difference was summarized along with the 2-sided 95% CI using MH stratum weights and the Sato variance estimator.||Comparisons of ACR50 responder rates at Week 12 were made independently between each dose group and the placebo group using two-sided MH tests stratified on randomization stratification factors: prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region.|16.6|-5.3|=0.312
90934022|NCT00824850|181747727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|10.0||||||Additional serotype 7F: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.0|-9.5|
90934023|NCT00824850|181747727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|10.0||||||Additional serotype 19A: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.0|-9.5|
90934024|NCT00824850|181747728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|10.9||||||7vPnC serotype 4: difference in proportions, \[7vPnC / 13vPnC) - (MnCC / 13vPnC), expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.9|-10.2|
90934025|NCT00824850|181747728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|10.1||||||7vPnC serotype 6B: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.1|-10.0|
90934026|NCT00824850|181747728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|10.3||||||7vPnC serotype 9V: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.3|-9.4|
90934027|NCT00824850|181747728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|10.3||||||7vPnC serotype 14: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.3|-9.4|
90934028|NCT00824850|181747728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|10.0||||||7vPnC serotype 18C: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.0|-9.5|
90934029|NCT00824850|181747728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|8.0||||||7vPnC serotype 19F: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||8.0|-13.9|
90934030|NCT00824850|181747728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|10.1||||||7vPnC serotype 23F: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.1|-10.0|
90934031|NCT00824850|181747728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|15.3||||||Additional serotype 1: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||15.3|-6.7|
90934032|NCT00824850|181747728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|10.0||||||Additional serotype 3: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.0|-9.5|
90934033|NCT00824850|181747728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|17.6||||||Additional serotype 5: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||17.6|-15.0|
90934034|NCT00824850|181747728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|10.3||||||Additional serotype 6A: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.3|-9.4|
90934035|NCT00824850|181747728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|10.1||||||Additional serotype 7F: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.1|-10.0|
90934036|NCT00824850|181747728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|7.6||||||Additional serotype 19A: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||7.6|-13.9|
90934037|NCT00824850|181747729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|8.0||||||7vPnC serotype 4: difference in proportions, \[7vPnC / 13vPnC) - (MnCC / 13vPnC), expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||8.0|-13.9|
90934038|NCT00824850|181747729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|10.6||||||7vPnC serotype 6B: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.6|-10.2|
90934039|NCT00824850|181747729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|10.3||||||7vPnC serotype 9V: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.3|-9.4|
90934040|NCT00824850|181747729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|10.3||||||7vPnC serotype 14: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.3|-9.5|
90934041|NCT00824850|181747729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|10.1||||||7vPnC serotype 18C: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.1|-10.0|
90934042|NCT00824850|181747729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.8|10.1||||||7vPnC serotype 19F: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.1|-16.8|
90934043|NCT00824850|181747729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|16.6||||||7vPnC serotype 23F: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||16.6|-9.1|
90934044|NCT00824850|181747729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|15.0||||||Additional serotype 1: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||15.0|-7.1|
90934045|NCT00824850|181747729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|8.0||||||Additional serotype 3: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||8.0|-13.9|
90934046|NCT00824850|181747729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|18.2||||||Additional serotype 5: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||18.2|-14.8|
90934047|NCT00824850|181747729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|10.0||||||Additional serotype 6A: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.0|-9.5|
90934048|NCT00824850|181747729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|15.8||||||Additional serotype 7F: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||15.8|-6.8|
90934049|NCT00824850|181747729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|7.6||||||Additional serotype 19A: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||7.6|-13.9|
90934050|NCT00824850|181747730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|29.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.61|49.33|||||Confidence intervals (CI) for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 4: Geometric mean fold rises (GMFRs) were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||49.33|17.61|
90934051|NCT00824850|181747730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|11.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.49|15.13|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 6B: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||15.13|8.49|
90934052|NCT00824850|181747730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|5.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.06|7.67|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 9V: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||7.67|4.06|
90934053|NCT00824850|181747730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|71.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.74|124.08|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 14: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||124.08|40.74|
90934054|NCT00824850|181747730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|7.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.92|12.73|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 18C: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||12.73|4.92|
90934055|NCT00824850|181747730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|4.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.87|7.26|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 19F: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||7.26|2.87|
90934056|NCT00824850|181747730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|6.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.51|10.42|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 23F: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||10.42|4.51|
90934057|NCT00824850|181747730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|11.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.98|17.64|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 1: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||17.64|6.98|
90934058|NCT00824850|181747730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|1.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|2.07|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 3: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||2.07|1.37|
90934059|NCT00824850|181747730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|2.9|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 5: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||2.90|1.52|
90934060|NCT00824850|181747730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.77|12.42|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 6A: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||12.42|4.77|
90934061|NCT00824850|181747730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|7.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.95|10.48|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 7F: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||10.48|4.95|
90934062|NCT00824850|181747730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|3.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.23|4.1|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 19A: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||4.10|2.23|
90967798|NCT05470465|181817719|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.1|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5||-5.9||Secondary analyses are not adjusted for multiplicity. To demonstrate an effect of oxycodone and paroxetine compared to oxycodone, the upper bound of the one-sided 97.5% CI in the least-square mean VE55 difference between treatments \< 0 L/min.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation will be used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom for tests of fixed effects.|Comparison was the effect of oxycodone and paroxetine compared to oxycodone and placebo at day 12 at 5 hours.|Sample size and power were calculated based on 2 primary outcomes (day 20 and day 21) with adjustment for multiplicity (α=.025). The assessments with paroxetine or escitalopram were considered as separate experiments. A sample size of 20 participants was determined to have 90 percent power at a 1-sided significance level to detect a 4 L/min decrease in the primary end point (ventilation at 55 mmHg end-tidal carbon dioxide) assuming a standard deviation of 5 L/min.||-5.9||<0.001
90934063|NCT00824850|181747731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|19.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.99|38.77|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 4: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||38.77|9.99|
90934064|NCT00824850|181747731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|8.33|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 6B: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||8.33|3.90|
90967799|NCT05470465|181817719|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.9||||0.003|ONE_SIDED|97.5||-2.7||Secondary analyses are not adjusted for multiplicity. To demonstrate an effect of oxycodone and escitalopram compared to oxycodone, the upper bound of the one-sided 97.5% CI in the least-square mean VE55 difference between treatments \< 0 L/min.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation will be used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom for tests of fixed effects.|Comparison was the effect of oxycodone and paroxetine compared to oxycodone and placebo at day 12 at 5 hours.|Sample size and power were calculated based on 2 primary outcomes (day 20 and day 21) with adjustment for multiplicity (α=.025). The assessments with paroxetine or escitalopram were considered as separate experiments. A sample size of 20 participants was determined to have 90 percent power at a 1-sided significance level to detect a 4 L/min decrease in the primary end point (ventilation at 55 mmHg end-tidal carbon dioxide) assuming a standard deviation of 5 L/min.||-2.7||0.003
90967800|NCT05470465|181817720|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.6|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5||-6.5||Secondary analyses are not adjusted for multiplicity. To demonstrate an effect of paroxetine compared to placebo, the upper bound of the one-sided 97.5% CI in the least-square mean VE55 difference between treatments \< 0 L/min.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation will be used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom for tests of fixed effects.|Comparison was the effect of paroxetine compared to placebo at day 5 at 5 hours.|Sample size and power were calculated based on 2 primary outcomes (day 20 and day 21) with adjustment for multiplicity (α=.025). The assessments with paroxetine or escitalopram were considered as separate experiments. A sample size of 20 participants was determined to have 90 percent power at a 1-sided significance level to detect a 4 L/min decrease in the primary end point (ventilation at 55 mmHg end-tidal carbon dioxide) assuming a standard deviation of 5 L/min.||-6.5||<0.001
91035880|NCT02558491|181958309|OTHER|||||||0.522||||||No a priori sample size was determined due to the feasibility/pilot nature of the trial. Significance level was set at P-value \<0.05.|ANOVA|||Secondary analysis followed the same format unless variables could not be considered normally distributed; in that case a related samples Wilcoxon signed-rank test is used. Data were first binned (to ensure minimum count of five per bins) and the w2 statistics was used with the expected counts given by SoC. Based on achieved recruitment, a moderate effect size (0.3) is detectable with 80% power, or a large effect size (0.4) with 95% power (G-Power 3.1.9.2). Outcome measurement was for overnight.||||0.522
90967801|NCT05470465|181817720|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.0|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5||-9.0||Secondary analyses are not adjusted for multiplicity. To demonstrate an effect of escitalopram compared to placebo, the upper bound of the one-sided 97.5% CI in the least-square mean VE55 difference between treatments \< 0 L/min.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation will be used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom for tests of fixed effects.|Comparison was the effect of escitalopram compared to placebo at day 5 at 5 hours.|Sample size and power were calculated based on 2 primary outcomes (day 20 and day 21) with adjustment for multiplicity (α=.025). The assessments with paroxetine or escitalopram were considered as separate experiments. A sample size of 20 participants was determined to have 90 percent power at a 1-sided significance level to detect a 4 L/min decrease in the primary end point (ventilation at 55 mmHg end-tidal carbon dioxide) assuming a standard deviation of 5 L/min.||-9.0||<0.001
90967802|NCT05470465|181817721|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.1|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5||-8.5||Secondary analyses are not adjusted for multiplicity. To demonstrate an effect of paroxetine compared to placebo, the upper bound of the one-sided 97.5% CI in the least-square mean VE55 difference between treatments \< 0 L/min.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation will be used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom for tests of fixed effects.|Comparison was the effect of paroxetine compared to placebo at day 11 at 5 hours.|Sample size and power were calculated based on 2 primary outcomes (day 20 and day 21) with adjustment for multiplicity (α=.025). The assessments with paroxetine or escitalopram were considered as separate experiments. A sample size of 20 participants was determined to have 90 percent power at a 1-sided significance level to detect a 4 L/min decrease in the primary end point (ventilation at 55 mmHg end-tidal carbon dioxide) assuming a standard deviation of 5 L/min.||-8.5||<0.001
90967803|NCT05470465|181817721|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.5|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5||-3.8||Secondary analyses are not adjusted for multiplicity. To demonstrate an effect of escitalopram compared to placebo, the upper bound of the one-sided 97.5% CI in the least-square mean VE55 difference between treatments \< 0 L/min.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation will be used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom for tests of fixed effects.|Comparison was the effect of escitalopram compared to placebo at day 11 at 5 hours.|Sample size and power were calculated based on 2 primary outcomes (day 20 and day 21) with adjustment for multiplicity (α=.025). The assessments with paroxetine or escitalopram were considered as separate experiments. A sample size of 20 participants was determined to have 90 percent power at a 1-sided significance level to detect a 4 L/min decrease in the primary end point (ventilation at 55 mmHg end-tidal carbon dioxide) assuming a standard deviation of 5 L/min.||-3.8||<0.001
90967804|NCT01538628|181817724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0001|||||||Exact binomial test|testing the null hypothesis that the proportion for SpaceOAR is less than or equal to 0.70.||||||.0001
90967805|NCT00307151|181817747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|18.6||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|33.6||P-value not adjusted for multiple interim analyses, but adjustment would be negligible because Peto-Haybittle spending function used as basis for calculating repeated confidence intervals used in interim monitoring.|t-test, 2 sided|Risk difference estimate stratified by age (\<12 months vs. \>=12 months)and reports rate on NVP arm minus rate on LPV/r arm|Endpoint rates with standard errors calculated from Kaplan-Meier curves for each treatment group and age stratum. Differences in week 24 failure proportions by treatment calculated weighted by the inverse of the variance in each age stratum.|||33.6|3.7|0.015
90971319|NCT00439946|181825392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank|||Changes between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test, comparing the values at Baseline to values at Week 8. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values||||1.00
90934065|NCT00824850|181747731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|2.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.16|3.57|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 9V: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||3.57|2.16|
90934066|NCT00824850|181747731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|23.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.17|41.79|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 14: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||41.79|13.17|
90934067|NCT00824850|181747731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|13.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.94|20.92|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 18C: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||20.92|8.94|
90934068|NCT00824850|181747731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|8.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.21|12.97|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 19F: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||12.97|6.21|
90934069|NCT00824850|181747731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.91|13.72|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 23F: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||13.72|5.91|
90934070|NCT00824850|181747731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|7.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.36|10.72|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 1: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||10.72|5.36|
90934071|NCT00824850|181747731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|1.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|1.86|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 3: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||1.86|1.30|
90934072|NCT00824850|181747731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|1.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|2.6|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 5: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||2.60|1.43|
90934073|NCT00824850|181747731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|4.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.09|6.45|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 6A: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||6.45|3.09|
90934074|NCT00824850|181747731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|5.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.65|7.75|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 7F: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||7.75|3.65|
90934075|NCT00824850|181747731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|3.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.49|4.28|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 19A: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||4.28|2.49|
90934076|NCT00824850|181747732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|15.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.16|27.46|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 4: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||27.46|9.16|
90934077|NCT00824850|181747732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|5.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|7.16|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 6B: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||7.16|3.50|
90934078|NCT00824850|181747732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|3.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.93|5.09|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 9V: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||5.09|2.93|
90934079|NCT00824850|181747732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|17.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.11|27.79|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 14: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||27.79|11.11|
90934080|NCT00824850|181747732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|4.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.86|6.23|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 18C: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||6.23|2.86|
90934081|NCT00824850|181747732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|2.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|3.62|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 19F: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||3.62|1.78|
90934082|NCT00824850|181747732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|4.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.86|6.19|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 23F: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||6.19|2.86|
90934083|NCT00824850|181747732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|4.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.79|6.42|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 1: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||6.42|2.79|
90934084|NCT00824850|181747732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|1.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.05|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 3: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||2.05|1.30|
90934085|NCT00824850|181747732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|1.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.14|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 5: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||2.14|1.30|
90934086|NCT00824850|181747732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.39|5.42|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 6A: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||5.42|2.39|
90934087|NCT00824850|181747732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|3.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.42|4.82|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 7F: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||4.82|2.42|
90934088|NCT00824850|181747732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|2.26|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 19A: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||2.26|1.60|
90934089|NCT00824850|181747733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|8.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|15.56|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 4: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||15.56|4.50|
90934090|NCT00824850|181747733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|2.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|3.16|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 6B: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||3.16|1.78|
90967806|NCT00307151|181817747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|21.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.2|31.8||P-value not adjusted for multiple interim analyses, but adjustment would be negligible because Peto-Haybittle spending function used as basis for calculating repeated confidence intervals used in interim monitoring.|t-test, 2 sided|Risk difference estimate stratified by age (\<12 months vs. \>=12 months) and reports rate on NVP arm minus rate on LPV/r arm|Endpoint rates with standard errors calculated from Kaplan-Meier curves for each treatment group and age stratum. Differences in week 24 failure proportions by treatment calculated weighted by the inverse of the variance in each age stratum.|||31.8|11.2|<0.001
90967807|NCT01761292|181817830|OTHER||mean|13.906|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.5657|16.2466||The paired t-test or non-parametric signed rank test for 2 means (paired observations) (as is appropriate) was applied for testing the statistical significance of the Change From Baseline to End of Study. MFA% P \< 0.05 was set as significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||||16.2466|11.5657|<0.0001
90967808|NCT01761292|181817831|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||< 0.0001
90967809|NCT05611671|181817845|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|6.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.76|21.18||||||||21.18|-7.76|
90967810|NCT05611671|181817845|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.99|13.17||||||||13.17|-13.99|
90967811|NCT05611671|181817845|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.74|5.88||||||||5.88|-19.74|
90967812|NCT05611671|181817846|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|7.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.77|22.86||||||||22.86|-8.77|
90967813|NCT05611671|181817846|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.74|14.88||||||||14.88|-16.74|
90934091|NCT00824850|181747733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|2.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.63|2.49|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 9V: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||2.49|1.63|
90967814|NCT05611671|181817846|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|3.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.78|18.92||||||||18.92|-12.78|
90967815|NCT00309465|181817855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.332||95.0||||P-value for three dosing strategies in insulin glargine only group in fasting blood glucose achievement of 100-179 mg/dl range.|Chi-squared|||Comparison for Target Blood Glucose Achievement of 100-179 mg/dl||||0.332
90934092|NCT00824850|181747733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|6.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.31|10.15|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 14: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||10.15|4.31|
90934093|NCT00824850|181747733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|4.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.34|7.26|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 18C: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||7.26|3.34|
90934094|NCT00824850|181747733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|2.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.08|3.57|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 19F: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||3.57|2.08|
90934095|NCT00824850|181747733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|2.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.08|3.83|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 23F: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||3.83|2.08|
90967816|NCT00309465|181817855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.294||95.0||||P value is for three strategies in insulin glargine plus bolus group for fasting blood glucose achievement of 100-179 mg/dl|Chi-squared|||Comparison for Target Achievement of blood glucose values of 100-179 mg/dl||||0.294
90967817|NCT00309465|181817855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.162||95.0||||P value is for three strategies in insulin glargine only group for achievement of 80-249 mg/dl|Chi-squared|||Comparison of Achievement of blood glucose values of 80-249 mg/dl||||0.162
90967818|NCT00309465|181817855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031||95.0||||P value is for three strategies in insulin glargine plus bolus group in achievement of fasting blood glucose value of 80-249 mg/dl.|Chi-squared|||Comparison of Achievement of blood glucose values of 80-249 mg/dl.||||0.031
90967819|NCT02113436|181817860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least square means|-0.97||||0.206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.47|0.54|||ANCOVA|||||0.54|-2.47|0.206
90967820|NCT02113436|181817861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least sqaure means|-0.49||||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|0.32|||ANCOVA|||||0.32|-1.29|0.235
90967821|NCT02113436|181817862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least-Sqaure means|-0.48||||0.236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|0.31|||ANCOVA|||||0.31|-1.27|0.236
90967822|NCT02113436|181817863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|1.6||||||||1.60|0.14|
90967823|NCT02113436|181817864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least-Square Means|0.7||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.4|||ANCOVA|||||1.4|0.0|0.041
90967824|NCT02113436|181817865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|-0.06||||0.335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.07|||ANCOVA|||||0.07|-0.20|0.335
90967825|NCT02113436|181817866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|2.6||||0.389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|8.6|||ANCOVA|||||8.6|-3.3|0.389
90967826|NCT01486927|181817870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.1|||Poisson, regression|||A test of the null hypothesis of no difference on AsBR between the 2 comparison groups was based on the Poisson Regression method. The corresponding prophylaxis/on-demand ratio with 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated.||0.10|0.07|< 0.0001
90934096|NCT00824850|181747733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|3.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|5.13|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 1: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||5.13|2.80|
90934097|NCT00824850|181747733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|1.57|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 3: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||1.57|1.11|
90934098|NCT00824850|181747733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.61|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 5: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||1.61|1.05|
90934099|NCT00824850|181747733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|2.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|2.75|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 6A: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||2.75|1.51|
90934100|NCT00824850|181747733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|2.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.19|3.77|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 7F: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||3.77|2.19|
90934101|NCT00824850|181747733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|1.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|2.39|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 19A: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||2.39|1.59|
90934102|NCT00824850|181747734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|201.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.11|739.05|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 4: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||739.05|55.11|
90934103|NCT00824850|181747734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|11.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.2|26.1|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 6B: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||26.10|5.20|
90934104|NCT00824850|181747734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|156.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.72|501.86|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 9V: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||501.86|48.72|
90934105|NCT00824850|181747734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|37.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.71|102.31|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 14: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||102.31|13.71|
90934106|NCT00824850|181747734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|93.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.99|284.31|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 18C: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||284.31|30.99|
90934107|NCT00824850|181747734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|48.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.27|101.97|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 19F: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||101.97|23.27|
90934108|NCT00824850|181747734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|32.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.99|85.81|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 23F: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||85.81|11.99|
90934109|NCT00824850|181747734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|78.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.42|120.94|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 1: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||120.94|50.42|
90967827|NCT02636582|181817894|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.71
90967828|NCT02636582|181817895|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.964|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.964
90967829|NCT02636582|181817896|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1
90967830|NCT02636582|181817897|OTHER|||||||0.172||||||HER2 expression - biopsy|Fisher Exact|||||||0.172
90967831|NCT02636582|181817897|OTHER|||||||0.38||||||HER2 expression - resection|Fisher Exact|||||||0.38
90967832|NCT05895552|181817909|SUPERIORITY|The mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) model includes treatment group, baseline NPRS score, visit, interaction of visit and treatment group, and interaction of baseline NPRS score and visit.|Least square (LS) mean difference|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.351|<|0.5224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.468|0.918|||MMRM|||||0.918|-0.468|<0.5224
90967833|NCT05895552|181817909|SUPERIORITY|The MMRM model includes treatment group, baseline NPRS score, visit, interaction of visit and treatment group, and interaction of baseline NPRS score and visit.|LS mean difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.351|<|0.8223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.772|0.614|||MMRM|||||0.614|-0.772|<0.8223
90967834|NCT00829179|181818020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Mean|11.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.3||0.005||95.0|||||Sign test|||||||0.005
90967835|NCT00271596|181818024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.166|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.098||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.361|0.028|||2-tailed linear treatment contrast|This was a predefined 2-tailed linear treatment contrast of intention-to-treat, with Kenward-Rogers correction (t statistic).||Mixed linear model with treatment-group-specific random subject effects: Predefined 2-tailed linear treatment contrast of intention-to-treat, with Kenward-Rogers correction (t statistic).||0.028|-0.361|0.092
90967836|NCT00271596|181818025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.337|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.168||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.672|-0.003|||2-tailed linear treatment contrast|This was a predefined 2-tailed linear treatment contrast of intention-to-treat, with Kenward-Rogers correction (t statistic).||Mixed linear model with treatment-group-specific random subject effects: Predefined 2-tailed linear treatment contrast of intention-to-treat, with Kenward-Rogers correction (t statistic).||-0.003|-0.672|0.048
90967837|NCT00271596|181818026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.278|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.268||0.302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.254|||2-tailed linear treatment contrast|This was a predefined 2-tailed linear treatment contrast of intention-to-treat, with Kenward-Rogers correction (t statistic)||Mixed linear model with treatment-group-specific random subject effects: Predefined 2-tailed linear treatment contrast of intention-to-treat, with Kenward-Rogers correction (t statistic).||0.254|-0.810|0.302
90967838|NCT00271596|181818027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.057|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.153||0.708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.361|0.246|||2-tailed linear treatment contrast|This was a predefined 2-tailed linear treatment contrast of intention-to-treat, with Kenward-Rogers correction (t statistic).||Mixed linear model with treatment-group-specific random subject effects: Predefined 2-tailed linear treatment contrast of intention-to-treat, with Kenward-Rogers correction (t statistic).||0.246|-0.361|0.708
90967839|NCT00271596|181818028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.069|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.229|0.367|||2-tailed linear treatment contrast|This was a predefined 2-tailed linear treatment contrast of intention-to-treat, with Kenward-Rogers correction (t statistic).||Mixed linear model with treatment-group-specific random subject effects: Predefined 2-tailed linear treatment contrast of intention-to-treat, with Kenward-Rogers correction (t statistic).||0.367|-0.229|0.646
90934110|NCT00824850|181747734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|10.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|15.72|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 3: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||15.72|6.80|
90967840|NCT00271596|181818029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.174||0.23||95.0|-0.554|0.135|||2-tailed linear treatment contrast|This was a predefined 2-tailed linear treatment contrast of intention-to-treat, with Kenward-Rogers correction (t statistic).||Mixed linear model with treatment-group-specific random subject effects: Predefined 2-tailed linear treatment contrast of intention-to-treat, with Kenward-Rogers correction (t statistic).||0.135|-0.554|0.230
90967841|NCT00271596|181818030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.317|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.482||0.512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.276|0.642|||2-tailed linear treatment contrast|This was a predefined 2-tailed linear treatment contrast of intention-to-treat, with Kenward-Rogers correction (t statistic).||Mixed linear model with treatment-group-specific random subject effects: Predefined 2-tailed linear treatment contrast of intention-to-treat, with Kenward-Rogers correction (t statistic).||0.642|-1.276|0.512
90967842|NCT00271596|181818031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|0.5|||2-tailed linear treatment contrast|This was a predefined 2-tailed linear treatment contrast of intention-to-treat, with Kenward-Rogers correction (t statistic).||Mixed linear model with treatment-group-specific random subject effects: Predefined 2-tailed linear treatment contrast of intention-to-treat, with Kenward-Rogers correction (t statistic).||0.50|-4.30|0.12
90967843|NCT00271596|181818032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|0.91|||2-tailed linear treatment contrast|This was a predefined 2-tailed linear treatment contrast of intention-to-treat, with Kenward-Rogers correction (t statistic).||Mixed linear model with treatment-group-specific random subject effects: Predefined 2-tailed linear treatment contrast of intention-to-treat, with Kenward-Rogers correction (t statistic).||0.91|-1.87|0.49
90967844|NCT00271596|181818033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.23||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.04|0.04||Predefined 2-tailed linear treatment contrast of intention-to-treat, with Kenward-Rogers correction (t statistic).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed linear model with treatment-group-specific random subject effects: Predefined 2-tailed linear treatment contrast of intention-to-treat, with Kenward-Rogers correction (t statistic).||0.04|-5.04|0.05
90967845|NCT02969915|181818041|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|2.26||||||||2.26|0.64|
90967846|NCT02969915|181818042|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.9||||||||1.90|0.91|
90934111|NCT00824850|181747734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|61.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.75|116.34|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 5: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||116.34|32.75|
90934112|NCT00824850|181747734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|536.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|212.04|1357.19|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 6A: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||1357.19|212.04|
90934113|NCT00824850|181747734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|116.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.28|410.33|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 7F: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||410.33|33.28|
90934114|NCT00824850|181747734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|24.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.3|53.42|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 19A: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||53.42|11.30|
90934115|NCT00824850|181747735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|168.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.22|1409.76|||||CI for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 4: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||1409.76|20.22|
90934116|NCT00824850|181747735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|40.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.97|148.44|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 6B: GMRFs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||148.44|10.97|
90934117|NCT00824850|181747735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|61.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.83|203.72|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 9V: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||203.72|18.83|
90934118|NCT00824850|181747735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|26.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.67|73.84|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 14: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||73.84|9.67|
90934119|NCT00824850|181747735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|226.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|79.81|645.29|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 18C: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||645.29|79.81|
90934120|NCT00824850|181747735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|116.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.54|250.13|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 19F: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||250.13|54.54|
90934121|NCT00824850|181747735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|481.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|207.01|1117.69|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 23F: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||1117.69|207.01|
90967847|NCT02969915|181818043|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.95||||||||1.95|0.70|
90967848|NCT02969915|181818044|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.95||||||||1.95|0.85|
90934122|NCT00824850|181747735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|66.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.8|105.75|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 1: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||105.75|41.80|
90967849|NCT02969915|181818045|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.75||||||||1.75|0.79|
90967850|NCT02969915|181818046|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|5.76||||||||5.76|0.38|
90967851|NCT02969915|181818047|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.36||||||||1.36|0.68|
90967852|NCT02969915|181818048|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio, log|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.46||||||||2.46|0.77|
90934123|NCT00824850|181747735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|8.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.36|13.94|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 3: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||13.94|5.36|
90934124|NCT00824850|181747735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|78.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.38|147.8|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 5: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||147.80|41.38|
90934125|NCT00824850|181747735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|438.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|169.52|1132.43|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 6A: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||1132.43|169.52|
90934126|NCT00824850|181747735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|80.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.28|274.82|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 7F: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||274.82|23.28|
90934127|NCT00824850|181747735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|61.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.73|131.76|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 19A: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||131.76|28.73|
90934128|NCT00824850|181747736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|281.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|76.65|1035.49|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 4: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||1035.49|76.65|
90934129|NCT00824850|181747736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|7.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.47|16.75|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 6B: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||16.75|3.47|
90934130|NCT00824850|181747736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|151.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.01|545.84|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 9V: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||545.84|42.01|
90934131|NCT00824850|181747736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|23.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.67|64.54|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 14: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||64.54|8.67|
90934132|NCT00824850|181747736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|102.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.0|325.4|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 18C: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||325.40|32.00|
90934133|NCT00824850|181747736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|31.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.71|76.13|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 19F: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||76.13|12.71|
90934134|NCT00824850|181747736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|18.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.82|51.39|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 23F: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||51.39|6.82|
90934135|NCT00824850|181747736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|64.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.33|111.18|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 1: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||111.18|37.33|
90967853|NCT02969915|181818049|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.8||||||||1.80|0.09|
90934136|NCT00824850|181747736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|11.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.64|18.52|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 3: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||18.52|6.64|
90934137|NCT00824850|181747736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|41.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.09|73.48|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 5: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||73.48|23.09|
90934138|NCT00824850|181747736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|479.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|171.63|1339.96|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 6A: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||1339.96|171.63|
90934139|NCT00824850|181747736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|76.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.63|270.02|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 7F: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||270.02|21.63|
90934140|NCT00824850|181747736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|17.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.61|41.08|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 19A: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||41.08|7.61|
90934141|NCT00824850|181747737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|170.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.24|1301.79|||||CI for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 4: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||1301.79|22.24|
90934142|NCT00824850|181747737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|17.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.27|59.91|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 6B: GMRFs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||59.91|5.27|
90934143|NCT00824850|181747737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|67.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.45|249.02|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 9V: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||249.02|18.45|
90934144|NCT00824850|181747737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|22.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.94|61.88|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 14: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||61.88|7.94|
90934145|NCT00824850|181747737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|205.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|70.04|602.78|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 18C: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||602.78|70.04|
90934146|NCT00824850|181747737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|90.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.28|203.27|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 19F: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||203.27|40.28|
90934147|NCT00824850|181747737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|91.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.25|232.13|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 23F: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||232.13|36.25|
90934148|NCT00824850|181747737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|75.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.32|120.91|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 1: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||120.91|47.32|
90934149|NCT00824850|181747737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|8.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.21|14.4|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 3: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||14.40|5.21|
90934150|NCT00824850|181747737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|60.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.06|115.92|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 5: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||115.92|31.06|
90934151|NCT00824850|181747737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|269.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|105.09|692.6|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 6A: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||692.60|105.09|
90934152|NCT00824850|181747737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|37.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.85|131.09|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 7F: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||131.09|10.85|
90934153|NCT00824850|181747737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|44.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.31|94.01|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 19A: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||94.01|21.31|
90934154|NCT00824850|181747738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean concentrations|1.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|2.95|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|7vPnC serotype 4: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||2.95|1.31|
90934155|NCT00824850|181747738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean concentrations|2.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|4.9|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|7vPnC serotype 6B: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||4.90|1.78|
90934156|NCT00824850|181747738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean concentrations|1.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|2.75|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|7vPnC serotype 9V: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||2.75|1.25|
90971320|NCT00439946|181825393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.95||95.0||||p-value for: Gather/set-up|Wilcoxon signed rank|||Changes in mean times between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test, comparing the values at Baseline to values at Week 8. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values.||||0.95
90934157|NCT00824850|181747738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean concentrations|2.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|4.53|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|7vPnC serotype 14: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||4.53|1.11|
90934158|NCT00824850|181747738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean concentrations|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.05|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|7vPnC serotype 18C: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||1.05|0.38|
90934159|NCT00824850|181747738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean concentrations|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.62|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|7vPnC serotype 19F: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||1.62|0.50|
90967854|NCT04580446|181818053|OTHER|Descriptive analysis used to identify the dose level associated with ≤1 of 6 participants experiencing a dose-limiting toxicity (DLT), consistent with standard 3+3 design methodology.|Maximally Tolerated Dose/Fractionation|46.5|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||MTD/fractionation determined as 46.5 Gy in 15 fractions based on incidence of DLTs during dose escalation (3 + 3 design)|"Estimation Parameter: Maximally Tolerated Dose/Fractionation Description: The maximally tolerated dose (MTD)/fractionation of hypofractionated radiation therapy was determined based on the incidence of dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) observed during the dose-escalation phase.~Estimate: 46.5 Gy × 15 fractions"||||
90967855|NCT04206605|181818076|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|1.02|||=|0.899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.47||P-value was from Wald-based chi-square test; unadjusted for multiple testing.|Chi-squared|||||1.47|0.71|=0.899
90967856|NCT04206605|181818077|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.003|||=|1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.153|0.114||P-value was from the corresponding Mantel-Haenszel estimate for the common risk difference from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test; unadjusted for multiple testing.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.114|-0.153|=1.000
90967857|NCT04206605|181818078|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.96|||=|0.852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.48||P-value was from Wald-based chi-square test; unadjusted for multiple testing.|Chi-squared|||||1.48|0.62|=0.852
90967858|NCT04206605|181818079|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|1.1|||=|0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.7||P-value was from Wald-based chi-square test; unadjusted for multiple testing.|Chi-squared|||||1.70|0.72|=0.660
90967859|NCT04206605|181818080|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.087|||=|0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.063||P-value was from the corresponding Mantel-Haenszel estimate for the common risk difference from CMH test; unadjusted for multiple testing.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.063|-0.280|=0.250
90967860|NCT04206605|181818082|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.97|||=|0.896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.61||P-value was from Wald-based chi-square test; unadjusted for multiple testing.|Chi-squared|||||1.61|0.58|=0.896
91079125|NCT05153148|182043939|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.0|||=|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|29.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||MH risk difference was summarized along with the 2-sided 95% CI using MH stratum weights and the Sato variance estimator.||Comparisons of ACR50 responder rates at Week 12 were made independently between each dose group and the placebo group using two-sided MH tests stratified on randomization stratification factors: prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region.|29.1|5.0|=0.005
90934160|NCT00824850|181747738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean concentrations|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.43|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|7vPnC serotype 23F: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||1.43|0.48|
90934161|NCT00824850|181747738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean concentrations|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|3.0|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|Additional serotype 1: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||3.00|0.96|
90934162|NCT00824850|181747738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean concentrations|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.96|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|Additional serotype 3: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||1.96|0.79|
90934163|NCT00824850|181747738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean concentrations|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.52|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|Additional serotype 5: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||1.52|0.54|
90967861|NCT04206605|181818084|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.498||||||P-value comparing lanadelumab to placebo was from a log rank test stratified by baseline strata.|Log Rank|||||||=0.498
90967862|NCT04206605|181818085|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.184||||||P-value comparing lanadelumab to placebo was from a log rank test stratified by baseline strata.|Log Rank|||||||=0.184
90967863|NCT00853749|181818143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions (percentage)|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|14.2||||||Comparison between treatments for common serotype 4||14.2|-5.0|
90934164|NCT00824850|181747738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean concentrations|1.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|3.34|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|Additional serotype 6A: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||3.34|0.98|
90934165|NCT00824850|181747738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean concentrations|1.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|2.83|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|Additional serotype 7F: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||2.83|1.05|
90967864|NCT00853749|181818143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions (percentage)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|9.5||||||Comparison between treatments for common serotype 6B||9.5|-7.3|
90967865|NCT00853749|181818143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions (percentage)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|9.5||||||Comparison between treatments for common serotype 9V||9.5|-7.3|
90967866|NCT00853749|181818143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions (percentage)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|9.5||||||Comparison between treatments for common serotype 14||9.5|-7.8|
91079126|NCT05153148|182043939|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.4|||=|0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|28.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||MH risk difference was summarized along with the 2-sided 95% CI using MH stratum weights and the Sato variance estimator.||Comparisons of ACR50 responder rates at Week 12 were made independently between each dose group and the placebo group using two-sided MH tests stratified on randomization stratification factors: prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region.|28.6|4.2|=0.009
91079127|NCT05153148|182043940|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.9|||=|0.532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|12.7|||Fisher Exact||Comparisons of ACR70 responder rates at Week 12 were made independently between each dose group and the placebo group using Fischer's exact Method.|||12.7|-6.6|=0.532
91079128|NCT05153148|182043940|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.1|||=|0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|20.1|||Fisher Exact||Comparisons of ACR70 responder rates at Week 12 were made independently between each dose group and the placebo group using Fischer's exact Method.|||20.1|-1.0|=0.101
90934166|NCT00824850|181747738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean concentrations|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.66|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|Additional serotype 19A: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||1.66|0.67|
90934167|NCT00824850|181747739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean concentrations|2.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|3.79|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|7vPnC serotype 4: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||3.79|1.26|
90934168|NCT00824850|181747739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean concentrations|3.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.84|5.32|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|7vPnC serotype 6B: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||5.32|1.84|
90934169|NCT00824850|181747739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean concentrations|1.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|2.51|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|7vPnC serotype 9V: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||2.51|1.13|
90934170|NCT00824850|181747739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean concentrations|1.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|4.07|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|7vPnC serotype 14: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||4.07|0.95|
90934171|NCT00824850|181747739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean concentrations|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.56|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|7vPnC serotype 18C: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||1.56|0.51|
90934172|NCT00824850|181747739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean concentrations|1.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|2.66|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|7vPnC serotype 19F: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||2.66|0.93|
90934173|NCT00824850|181747739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean concentrations|1.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|2.73|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|7vPnC serotype 23F: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||2.73|0.97|
90934174|NCT00824850|181747739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean concentrations|1.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|2.39|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|Additional serotype 1: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||2.39|0.83|
90934175|NCT00824850|181747739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean concentrations|1.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|2.34|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|Additional serotype 3: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||2.34|0.89|
90934176|NCT00824850|181747739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean concentrations|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.64|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|Additional serotype 5: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||1.64|0.68|
90934177|NCT00824850|181747739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean concentrations|1.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|3.35|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|7vPnC serotype 6A: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||3.35|1.05|
90934178|NCT00824850|181747739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean concentrations|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.44|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|Additional serotype 7F: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||2.44|0.90|
90934179|NCT00824850|181747739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean concentrations|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.66|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|Additional serotype 19A: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||1.66|0.75|
90934180|NCT00824850|181747740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titers|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.17|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|7vPnC serotype 4: ratio of GMTs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||1.17|0.50|
90934181|NCT00824850|181747740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titers|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.73|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|7vPnC serotype 6B: ratio of GMTs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||1.73|0.70|
90934182|NCT00824850|181747740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titers|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.15|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|7vPnC serotype 9V: ratio of GMTs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||1.15|0.61|
90967867|NCT00853749|181818143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions (percentage)|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|14.2||||||Comparison between treatments for common serotype 18C||14.2|-5.0|
90967868|NCT00853749|181818143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions (percentage)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|9.5||||||Comparison between treatments for common serotype 19F||9.5|-7.3|
90967869|NCT00853749|181818143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions (percentage)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|9.5||||||Comparison between treatments for common serotype 23F||9.5|-7.3|
90967870|NCT00853749|181818143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions (percentage)|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|14.2||||||Comparison between treatments for additional serotype 1||14.2|-5.0|
90967871|NCT00853749|181818143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions (percentage)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|9.5||||||Comparison between treatments for additional serotype 3||9.5|-7.3|
90967872|NCT00853749|181818143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions (percentage)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|9.5||||||Comparison between treatments for additional serotype 5||9.5|-7.3|
90967873|NCT00853749|181818143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions (percentage)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|9.5||||||Comparison between treatments for additional serotype 6A||9.5|-7.3|
90967874|NCT00853749|181818143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions (percentage)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|9.5||||||Comparison between treatments for additional serotype 7F||9.5|-7.3|
90967875|NCT00853749|181818143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions (percentage)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|9.5||||||Comparison between treatments for additional serotype 19A||9.5|-7.3|
90967876|NCT00853749|181818144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions (percentage)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|12.7||||||Comparison between treatments for common serotype 4||12.7|-8.6|
90967877|NCT00853749|181818144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions (percentage)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|9.7||||||Comparison between treatments for common serotype 6B||9.7|-7.5|
90934183|NCT00824850|181747740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titers|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.25|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|7vPnC serotype 14: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||1.25|0.56|
90934184|NCT00824850|181747740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titers|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.4|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|7vPnC serotype 18C: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||1.40|0.51|
90934185|NCT00824850|181747740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titers|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.12|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|7vPnC serotype 19F: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||1.12|0.32|
90967878|NCT00853749|181818144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions (percentage)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|9.7||||||Comparison between treatments for common serotype 9V||9.7|-7.5|
90967879|NCT00853749|181818144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions (percentage)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|9.7||||||Comparison between treatments for common serotype 14||9.7|-7.5|
90967880|NCT00853749|181818144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions (percentage)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|10.0||||||Comparison between treatments for common serotype 18C||10.0|-7.4|
90934186|NCT00824850|181747740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titers|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.85|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|7vPnC serotype 23F: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||0.85|0.38|
90967881|NCT00853749|181818144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions (percentage)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|10.0||||||Comparison between treatments for common serotype 19F||10.0|-7.5|
90967882|NCT00853749|181818144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions (percentage)|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|8.1||||||Comparison between treatments for common serotype 23F||8.1|-10.8|
90967883|NCT00853749|181818144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions (percentage)|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|14.2||||||Comparison between treatments for additional serotype 1||14.2|-5.0|
90967884|NCT00853749|181818144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions (percentage)|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|7.9||||||Comparison between treatments for additional serotype 3||7.9|-11.1|
90967885|NCT00853749|181818144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions (percentage)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|12.2||||||Comparison between treatments for additional serotype 5||12.2|-8.5|
90967886|NCT00853749|181818144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions (percentage)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|9.5||||||Comparison between treatments for additional serotype 6A||9.5|-7.3|
90967887|NCT00853749|181818144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions (percentage)|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|7.7||||||Comparison between treatments for additional serotype 7F||7.7|-11.3|
90934187|NCT00824850|181747740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titers|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.22|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|Additional serotype 1: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||2.22|0.75|
90934188|NCT00824850|181747740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titers|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.61|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|Additional serotype 3: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||1.61|0.82|
90934189|NCT00824850|181747740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titers|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|2.13|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|Additional serotype 5: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||2.13|0.36|
90934190|NCT00824850|181747740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titers|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.39|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|Additional serotype 6A: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||1.39|0.55|
90934191|NCT00824850|181747740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titers|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.7|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|Additional serotype 7F: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||1.70|0.73|
90934192|NCT00824850|181747740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titers|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.63|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|Additional serotype 19A: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||1.63|0.50|
90934193|NCT00824850|181747741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titers|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.27|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|7vPnC serotype 4: ratio of GMTs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||1.27|0.35|
90934194|NCT00824850|181747741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titers|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.05|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|7vPnC serotype 6B: ratio of GMTs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||2.05|0.77|
90934195|NCT00824850|181747741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titers|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.44|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|7vPnC serotype 9V: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||1.44|0.54|
90934196|NCT00824850|181747741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titers|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.95|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|7vPnC serotype 14: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||0.95|0.38|
90934197|NCT00824850|181747741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titers|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.91|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|7vPnC serotype 18C: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||1.91|0.64|
90934198|NCT00824850|181747741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titers|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.62|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|7vPnC serotype 19F: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||1.62|0.28|
90934199|NCT00824850|181747741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titers|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|2.81|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|7vPnC serotype 23F: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||2.81|0.68|
90934200|NCT00824850|181747741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titers|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.77|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|Additional serotype 1: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||1.77|0.53|
90934201|NCT00824850|181747741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titers|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.81|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|Additional serotype 3: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||1.81|0.69|
90967888|NCT00853749|181818144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions (percentage)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|9.5||||||Comparison between treatments for additional serotype 19A||9.5|-7.3|
90967889|NCT00853749|181818145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of geometric means|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.42|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).|Serotype 1: Ratio of geometric mean avidity (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).||0.42|0.22|
90967890|NCT00853749|181818145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of geometric means|0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.44|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures ((PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).|Serotype 5: Ratio of geometric mean avidity (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).||0.44|0.23|
90967891|NCT00853749|181818145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of geometric means|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.67|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).|Serotype 6B: Ratio of geometric mean avidity (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).||0.67|0.29|
90967892|NCT00853749|181818145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of geometric means|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.27|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).|Serotype 19F: Ratio of geometric mean avidity (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).||1.27|0.61|
90967893|NCT00853749|181818145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of geometric means|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.65|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).|Serotype 23F: Ratio of geometric mean avidity (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).||0.65|0.34|
90967894|NCT00853749|181818146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of GMTs|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.12|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).|Serotype 4: Ratio of GMTs (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).||1.12|0.35|
90967895|NCT00853749|181818146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of GMTs|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.38|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).|Serotype 6B: Ratio of GMTs (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).||1.38|0.68|
90967896|NCT00853749|181818146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of GMTs|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.81|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).|Serotype 9V: Ratio of GMTs (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).||1.81|0.51|
90967897|NCT00853749|181818146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of GMTs|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.48|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).|Serotype 14: Ratio of GMTs (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).||1.48|0.67|
90967898|NCT00853749|181818146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of GMTs|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.98|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures(PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).|Serotype 18C: Ratio of GMTs (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).||0.98|0.33|
90967899|NCT00853749|181818146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of GMTs|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.56|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).|Serotype 19F: Ratio of GMTs (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).||1.56|0.72|
90967900|NCT00853749|181818146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of GMTs|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.99|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).|Serotype 23F: Ratio of GMTs (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).||0.99|0.39|
90934202|NCT00824850|181747741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titers|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.85|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|Additional serotype 5: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||1.85|0.32|
90967901|NCT00853749|181818146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of GMTs|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.32|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).|Serotype 1: Ratio of GMTs (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).||0.32|0.12|
90967902|NCT00853749|181818146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of GMTs|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.18|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).|Serotype 3: Ratio of GMTs (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).||1.18|0.56|
90967903|NCT00853749|181818146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of GMTs|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.63|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).|Serotype 5: Ratio of GMTs (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).||0.63|0.21|
90967904|NCT00853749|181818146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of GMTs|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.25|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).|Serotype 6A: Ratio of GMTs (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).||2.25|0.88|
90934203|NCT00824850|181747741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titers|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.36|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|Additional serotype 6A: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||2.36|0.80|
90934204|NCT00824850|181747741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titers|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|2.44|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|Additional serotype 7F: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||2.44|0.65|
90934205|NCT00824850|181747741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titers|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.57|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|Additional serotype 19A: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||1.57|0.46|
90934206|NCT00824850|181747744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|10.9||||||7vPnC serotype 4: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.9|-10.2|
90934207|NCT00824850|181747744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|10.1||||||7vPnC serotype 6B: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.1|-10.0|
90934208|NCT00824850|181747744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|10.3||||||7vPnC serotype 9V: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.3|-9.4|
90967905|NCT00853749|181818146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of GMTs|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.14|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).|Serotype 7F: Ratio of GMTs (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).||1.14|0.48|
90967906|NCT00853749|181818146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of GMTs|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.2|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).|Serotype 19A: Ratio of GMTs (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).||1.20|0.54|
90967907|NCT00853749|181818147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of GMCs|0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.55|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).|Serotype 4: Ratio of GMCs (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).||0.55|0.25|
90934209|NCT00824850|181747744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|10.3||||||7vPnC serotype 14: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.3|-9.4|
90934210|NCT00824850|181747744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|10.0||||||7vPnC serotype 18C: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.0|-9.5|
90934211|NCT00824850|181747744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|10.3||||||7vPnC serotype 19F: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.3|-9.4|
90934212|NCT00824850|181747744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|10.1||||||7vPnC serotype 23F: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.1|-10.0|
90934213|NCT00824850|181747744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|10.3||||||Additional serotype 1: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.3|-9.4|
90934214|NCT00824850|181747744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|10.0||||||Additional serotype 3: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.0|-9.5|
90967908|NCT00853749|181818147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of GMCs|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.15|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).|Serotype 6B: Ratio of GMCs (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).||1.15|0.44|
90967909|NCT00853749|181818147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of GMCs|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.75|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).|Serotype 9V: Ratio of GMCs (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).||0.75|0.45|
90967910|NCT00853749|181818147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of GMCs|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.24|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).|Serotype 14: Ratio of GMCs (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).||1.24|0.48|
91035541|NCT01299454|181957087|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was claimed for a PK parameter if the 90% CI for the ratio of the geometric means of a PK variable fell within the interval \[0.5, 2.0\]. Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach was equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.375|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.915|2.066|||Mixed effect analysis of variance||Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach is equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|The primary comparison was each hepatic disease group (mild, moderate or severe) versus the control (normal group). To compare the primary PK parameters between each hepatic disease group and the control group, the 90% CI for the difference in the means of the log-transformed data was calculated using a mixed effect analysis of variance.||2.066|0.915|
91035542|NCT01299454|181957087|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was claimed for a PK parameter if the 90% CI for the ratio of the geometric means of a PK variable fell within the interval \[0.5, 2.0\]. Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach was equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.929|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.581|1.488|||Mixed effect analysis of variance||Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach is equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|The primary comparison was each hepatic disease group (mild, moderate or severe) versus the control (normal group). To compare the primary PK parameters between each hepatic disease group and the control group, the 90% CI for the difference in the means of the log-transformed data was calculated using a mixed effect analysis of variance.||1.488|0.581|
90967911|NCT00853749|181818147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of GMCs|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.85|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).|Serotype 18C: Ratio of GMCs (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).||0.85|0.38|
90967912|NCT00853749|181818147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of GMCs|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.27|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).|Serotype 19F: Ratio of GMCs (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).||1.27|0.56|
90967913|NCT00853749|181818147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of GMCs|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.95|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).|Serotype 23F: Ratio of GMCs (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).||0.95|0.44|
91079129|NCT05153148|182043940|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.3|||=|0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|19.4|||Fisher Exact||Comparisons of ACR70 responder rates at Week 12 were made independently between each dose group and the placebo group using Fischer's exact Method.|||19.4|-1.7|=0.158
90934215|NCT00824850|181747744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|17.0||||||Additional serotype 5: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||17.0|-9.3|
91079130|NCT05153148|182043941|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-1.7|||=|0.268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|1.3|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure (MMRM)||Point estimate and 95% CI were obtained from a MMRM model.||MMRM model included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction, with baseline value and the randomization stratification factors (prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region) as covariates, and the change from baseline as the dependent variable.|1.3|-4.8|=0.268
91079131|NCT05153148|182043941|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-3.0|||=|0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|0.0|||MMRM||Point estimate and 95% CI were obtained from a MMRM model.||MMRM model included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction, with baseline value and the randomization stratification factors (prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region) as covariates, and the change from baseline as the dependent variable.|0.0|-6.1|=0.051
91079132|NCT05153148|182043941|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-2.5|||=|0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|0.6|||MMRM||Point estimate and 95% CI were obtained from a MMRM model.||MMRM model included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction, with baseline value and the randomization stratification factors (prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region) as covariates, and the change from baseline as the dependent variable.|0.6|-5.6|=0.112
91079133|NCT05153148|182043942|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.9|||=|0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.7|||MMRM||Point estimate and 95% CI were obtained from a MMRM model.||MMRM model included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction, with baseline value and the randomization stratification factors (prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region) as covariates, and the change from baseline as the dependent variable.|0.7|-2.4|=0.280
90934216|NCT00824850|181747744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|10.3||||||Additional serotype 6A: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.3|-9.4|
90934217|NCT00824850|181747744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|10.1||||||Additional serotype 7F: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.1|-10.0|
90934218|NCT00824850|181747744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|10.0||||||Additional serotype 19A: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.0|-9.5|
90934219|NCT00824850|181747745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|8.0||||||7vPnC serotype 4: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||8.0|-13.9|
90934220|NCT00824850|181747745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|10.6||||||7vPnC serotype 6B: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.6|-10.2|
91079134|NCT05153148|182043942|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-1.1|||=|0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.5|||MMRM||Point estimate and 95% CI were obtained from a MMRM model.||MMRM model included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction, with baseline value and the randomization stratification factors (prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region) as covariates, and the change from baseline as the dependent variable.|0.5|-2.6|=0.177
91079135|NCT05153148|182043942|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-1.0|||=|0.196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.5|||MMRM||Point estimate and 95% CI were obtained from a MMRM model.||MMRM model included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction, with baseline value and the randomization stratification factors (prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region) as covariates, and the change from baseline as the dependent variable.|0.5|-2.6|=0.196
91079136|NCT05153148|182043943|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-1.9|||=|0.637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|5.9|||MMRM||Point estimate and 95% CI were obtained from a MMRM model.||MMRM model included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction, with baseline value and the randomization stratification factors (prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region) as covariates, and the change from baseline as the dependent variable.|5.9|-9.6|=0.637
91079137|NCT05153148|182043943|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-9.2|||=|0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|-1.4|||MMRM||Point estimate and 95% CI were obtained from a MMRM model.||MMRM model included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction, with baseline value and the randomization stratification factors (prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region) as covariates, and the change from baseline as the dependent variable.|-1.4|-17.0|=0.021
91079138|NCT05153148|182043943|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-8.7|||=|0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|-0.9|||MMRM||Point estimate and 95% CI were obtained from a MMRM model.||MMRM model included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction, with baseline value and the randomization stratification factors (prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region) as covariates, and the change from baseline as the dependent variable.|-0.9|-16.5|=0.030
91079139|NCT05153148|182043944|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.9|||=|0.812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|6.6|||MMRM||Point estimate and 95% CI were obtained from a MMRM model.||MMRM model included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction, with baseline value and the randomization stratification factors (prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region) as covariates, and the change from baseline as the dependent variable.|6.6|-8.4|=0.812
90967914|NCT00853749|181818147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of GMCs|0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.4|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).|Serotype 1: Ratio of GMCs (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).||0.40|0.18|
90967915|NCT00853749|181818147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of GMCs|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.72|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).|Serotype 3: Ratio of GMCs (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).||1.72|0.76|
90967916|NCT00853749|181818147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of GMCs|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.51|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).|Serotype 5: Ratio of GMCs (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).||0.51|0.25|
90967917|NCT00853749|181818147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of GMCs|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.14|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).|Serotype 6A: Ratio of GMCs (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).||1.14|0.55|
90967918|NCT00853749|181818147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of GMCs|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.28|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).|Serotype 7F: Ratio of GMCs (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).||1.28|0.61|
90967919|NCT00853749|181818147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of GMCs|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.23|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).|Serotype 19A: Ratio of GMCs (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).||1.23|0.60|
90967920|NCT00853749|181818148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.253|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for any tenderness||||0.253
90967921|NCT00853749|181818148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.38|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for significant tenderness||||0.380
90967922|NCT00853749|181818148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.135|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for any redness||||0.135
90967923|NCT00853749|181818148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.52|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for mild redness||||0.520
90967924|NCT00853749|181818148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.283|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for moderate redness||||0.283
90967925|NCT00853749|181818148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.225|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for severe redness||||0.225
90967926|NCT00853749|181818148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.202|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for any swelling||||0.202
90967927|NCT00853749|181818148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.294|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for mild swelling||||0.294
90967928|NCT00853749|181818148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.175|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for moderate swelling||||0.175
90967929|NCT00853749|181818148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.314|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for severe swelling||||0.314
90967930|NCT00853749|181818149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for fever ≥ 38 degrees C but ≤ 39 degrees C||||> .99
90967931|NCT00853749|181818149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for decreased appetite||||> .99
90967932|NCT00853749|181818149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.543|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for irritability||||0.543
90967933|NCT00853749|181818149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.233|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for increased sleep||||0.233
90967934|NCT00853749|181818149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.198|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for decreased sleep||||0.198
90967935|NCT00853749|181818149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.628|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for rash||||0.628
90967936|NCT01392677|181818154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1022|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.49||Significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). A hierarchical closed testing procedure was used to control Type I error across the primary \& key secondary objectives|Mixed Models Analysis|Longitudinal repeated measures model using mixed model with treatment group, baseline value, week and week\*treatment and week\*baseline||H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-0.49|-0.89|<0.0001
90967937|NCT01392677|181818155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-33.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.8846|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.08|-23.82||Significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). A hierarchical closed testing procedure was used to control Type I error across the primary \& key secondary objectives|ANCOVA|with treatment group as effect and baseline value as covariate||H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-23.82|-43.08|<0.0001
90967938|NCT01392677|181818156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3651|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.79|-1.35||Significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). A hierarchical closed testing procedure was used to control Type I error across the primary \& key secondary objectives|ANCOVA|with treatment group as effect and baseline value as covariate||H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-1.35|-2.79|<0.0001
90967939|NCT01392677|181818157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|20.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.056|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.7|30.6||Significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). A hierarchical closed testing procedure was used to control Type I error across the primary \& key secondary objectives|Regression, Logistic|Based on methodology of Zhang, Tsiatis \& Davidian and Tsiatis, Davidian, Zhang \& Lu, with adjustment for baseline value||H0: proportion(treat) minus proportion (placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: proportion (treat) minus proportion (placebo) =/= 0||30.6|10.7|<0.0001
90967940|NCT01392677|181818158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6677||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.05|-0.48||Significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). A hierarchical closed testing procedure was used to control Type I error across the primary \& key secondary objectives|ANCOVA|with treatment group as effect and baseline value as covariate||H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-0.48|-7.05|0.025
90967941|NCT01357577|181818167|OTHER|||||||0.48||||||P-Value show above is for post-assessment time point.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-model p-values are adjusted for study site and the baseline total CAPS score.||||||.48
90967942|NCT01357577|181818167|OTHER|||||||0.12||||||The p-value shown above is for the 6-month time point.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-model p-values are adjusted for study site and the baseline total CAPS score.||||||.12
90967943|NCT01357577|181818167|OTHER|||||||0.65||||||The p-value shown above refers to the treatment main effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.65
90967944|NCT01357577|181818167|OTHER|||||||0.072||||||The p-value shown above refers to the timepoint main effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.072
90967945|NCT01357577|181818167|OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The p-value shown above refers to the interaction.||||||.0050
90967946|NCT01357577|181818167|OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The p-value shown above refers to the site main effect.||||||.12
90967947|NCT01357577|181818168|OTHER|mixed-effects linear regression model adjusted for study site and the baseline value of the dependent variable.||||||0.12||||||Post-treatment P-value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-model p-values are adjusted for study site and baseline ASI (Alcohol Use) score.||||||.12
90967948|NCT01357577|181818168|OTHER|||||||0.84||||||6-month P-Value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-model p-values adjusted for study site and Baseline ASI (Alcohol Use) score.||||||.84
90967949|NCT01357577|181818168|OTHER|||||||0.26||||||treatment main effect|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-model p-values adjusted for study site and Baseline ASI (Alcohol Use) score.||||||.26
90967950|NCT01357577|181818168|OTHER|||||||0.14||||||Timepoint main effect P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-model p-values adjusted for study site and Baseline ASI (Alcohol Use) score.||||||.14
90967951|NCT01357577|181818168|OTHER|||||||0.29||||||interaction|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-model p-values adjusted for study site and Baseline ASI (Alcohol Use) score.||||||.29
90967952|NCT01357577|181818168|OTHER|||||||0.16||||||Site main effect P-Value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-model p-values adjusted for study site and Baseline ASI (Alcohol Use) score.||||||.16
90967953|NCT01357577|181818169|OTHER|||||||0.66||||||Post-treatment p-value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-model p-values are adjusted for study site and baseline ASI (drug score).||||||.66
90967954|NCT01357577|181818169|OTHER|||||||0.53||||||6-month P-Value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model p-values are adjusted for study site and baseline ASI (Drug Use) score.||||||.53
90967955|NCT01357577|181818169|OTHER|||||||0.86||||||Treatment main effect P-Value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model p-values are adjusted for study site and baseline ASI (Drug Use) score.||||||.86
90967956|NCT01357577|181818169|OTHER|||||||0.16||||||Timepoint main effect P-Value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model p-values are adjusted for study site and baseline ASI (Drug Use) score.||||||.16
90967957|NCT01357577|181818169|OTHER|||||||0.47||||||Interaction P-Value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model p-values are adjusted for study site and baseline ASI (Drug Use) score.||||||.47
90967958|NCT01357577|181818169|OTHER|||||||0.19||||||Site main effect P-Value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model p-values are adjusted for study site and baseline ASI (Drug Use) score.||||||.19
90967959|NCT01357577|181818170|OTHER|||||||0.18||||||Post-Treatment P-Value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model p-values are adjusted for study site and baseline PCL score.||||||.18
90967960|NCT01357577|181818170|OTHER|||||||0.45||||||P-value at 6 months.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model p-values are adjusted for study site and baseline PCL score.||||||.45
90967961|NCT01357577|181818170|OTHER|||||||0.73||||||Treatment main effect P-Value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model p-values are adjusted for study site and baseline PCL score.||||||.73
90967962|NCT01357577|181818170|OTHER|||||||0.63||||||Timepoint main effect P-Value|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model p-values are adjusted for study site and baseline PCL score.||||||.63
90967963|NCT01357577|181818170|OTHER|||||||0.024||||||Interaction P-Value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model p-values are adjusted for study site and baseline PCL score.||||||.024
90967964|NCT01357577|181818170|OTHER|||||||0.15||||||Site main effect P-Value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model p-values are adjusted for study site and baseline PCL score.||||||.15
90967965|NCT01357577|181818171|OTHER|||||||0.48||||||Post-Treatment P-Value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model p-values are adjusted for study site and baseline PHQ score.||||||.48
90967966|NCT01357577|181818171|OTHER|||||||0.2||||||6-Month P-Value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model p-values are adjusted for study site and baseline PHQ score.||||||.20
90967967|NCT01357577|181818171|OTHER|||||||0.26||||||Treatment main effect P-Value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model p-values are adjusted for study site and baseline PHQ score.||||||.26
90967968|NCT01357577|181818171|OTHER|||||||0.71||||||Timepoint main effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model p-values are adjusted for study site and baseline PHQ score.||||||.71
90967969|NCT01357577|181818171|OTHER|||||||0.56||||||Interaction main effect P-Value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model p-values are adjusted for study site and baseline PHQ score.||||||.56
90967970|NCT01357577|181818171|OTHER|||||||0.51||||||Site main effect P-Value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model p-values are adjusted for study site and baseline PHQ score.||||||.51
90967971|NCT06689527|181818190|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean (%)|83.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.08|93.59|||||The linear mixed model was applied to log-transformed PK parameter AUC0-tlast, of midazolam based on the PK Set to assess treatment differences on the log scale of midazolam with vamorolone vs midazolam alone (Day 14 vs Day 1).|Linear model with treatment as fixed effect and subjects as random effect||93.59|74.08|
90967972|NCT06689527|181818191|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean (|83.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.18|95.0|||||The linear mixed model was applied to log-transformed PK parameter AUC0-inf of midazolam based on the PK Set to assess treatment differences on the log scale of midazolam with vamorolone vs midazolam alone (Day 14 vs Day 1)|Linear model with treatment as fixed effect and subjects as random effect||95.00|74.18|
90967973|NCT06689527|181818192|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean (%)|88.59|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.44|98.79|||||The linear mixed model was applied to log-transformed PK parameter Cmax of midazolam based on the PK Set to assess treatment differences on the log scale of midazolam with vamorolone vs midazolam alone (Day 14 vs Day 1).|Linear model with treatment as fixed effect and subject as random effect||98.79|79.44|
90967974|NCT06689527|181818193|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean (%)|114.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.59|129.18|||||The linear mixed model was applied to log-transformed PK parameter AUC0-tlast of 1'-hydroxymidazolam based on the PK Set to assess treatment differences on the log scale of midazolam with vamorolone vs midazolam alone (Day 14 vs Day 1)|Linear model with treatment as fixed effect and subject as random effect||129.18|101.59|
90967975|NCT06689527|181818194|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean (%)|113.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.29|127.63|||||The linear mixed model was applied to log-transformed PK parameter AUC0-inf, of 1'-hydroxymidazolam based on the PK Set to assess treatment differences on the log scale of midazolam with vamorolone vs midazolam alone (Day 14 vs Day 1)|Linear model with treatment as fixed effect and subject as random effect||127.63|101.29|
90967976|NCT06689527|181818195|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean (%)|128.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|105.36|157.13|||||The linear mixed model was applied to log-transformed PK parameter Cmax of 1'-hydroxymidazolam based on the PK Set to assess treatment differences on the log scale of midazolam with vamorolone vs midazolam alone (Day 14 vs Day 1)|Linear model with treatment as fixed effect and subject as random effect||157.13|105.36|
90967977|NCT00666458|181818224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.2||||||||0.20|-0.01|
90967978|NCT00666458|181818225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent|-2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|3.5||||||||3.5|-9.0|
90967979|NCT00666458|181818226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.064|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|9.47||||||||9.47|1.37|
90967980|NCT00666458|181818227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.115|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.53||||||||0.53|0.08|
90967981|NCT01035099|181818241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Nonparametric Wilcoxon rank-sum test confirmed these results.||||||0.31
90967982|NCT01035099|181818242|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Nonparametric Wilcoxon rank-sum test confirmed these results.||||||0.19
90967983|NCT01035099|181818245|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Nonparametric Wilcoxon rank-sum test confirmed these results.||||||0.12
90967984|NCT01035099|181818246|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Nonparametric Wilcoxon rank-sum test confirmed these results.||||||0.77
90967985|NCT01035099|181818247|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Nonparametric Wilcoxon rank-sum test confirmed these results.||||||0.63
90967986|NCT01035099|181818249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Nonparametric Wilcoxon rank-sum test confirmed these results.||||||0.14
90967987|NCT01035099|181818250|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Nonparametric Wilcoxon rank-sum test confirmed these results.||||||<0.0001
90967988|NCT01035099|181818251|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Nonparametric Wilcoxon rank-sum test confirmed these results.||||||0.58
90967989|NCT01035099|181818253|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Nonparametric Wilcoxon rank-sum test confirmed these results.||||||0.42
90967990|NCT01148537|181818259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.4|8.4|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with baseline QTci as a covariate and with sex and treatment as effects in the model.||||8.4|3.4|< .001
90967991|NCT01148537|181818260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.39||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.8|2.6|||ANCOVA||For the comparison of BTDS to placebo, the subjects randomized to moxifloxacin were excluded.|||2.6|-1.8|.770
90934221|NCT00824850|181747745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|10.3||||||7vPnC serotype 9V: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.3|-9.4|
90967992|NCT01148537|181818261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.3|8.4|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with baseline QTci as a covariate and with sex and treatment as effects in the model.||Day 13 analysis||8.4|3.3|< .001
90934222|NCT00824850|181747745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|10.3||||||7vPnC serotype 14: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.3|-9.5|
90934223|NCT00824850|181747745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|10.1||||||7vPnC serotype 18C: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.1|-10.0|
90934224|NCT00824850|181747745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|10.5||||||7vPnC serotype 19F: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.5|-10.1|
90934225|NCT00824850|181747745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|16.6||||||7vPnC serotype 23F: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||16.6|-9.1|
90934226|NCT00824850|181747745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|10.1||||||Additional serotype 1: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.1|-10.0|
90934227|NCT00824850|181747745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|10.3||||||Additional serotype 3: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.3|-9.4|
90934228|NCT00824850|181747745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|17.2||||||Additional serotype 5: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||17.2|-8.6|
90934229|NCT00824850|181747745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|10.0||||||Additional serotype 6A: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.0|-9.5|
90934230|NCT00824850|181747745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|10.6||||||Additional serotype 7F: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.6|-9.7|
90934231|NCT00824850|181747745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|10.0||||||Additional serotype 19A: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.0|-9.5|
90934232|NCT02548585|181747746|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|p-value was based on pairwise comparison using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) adjusted by baseline value.||||||< 0.0001
91079140|NCT05153148|182043944|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-6.7|||=|0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.2|0.8|||MMRM||Point estimate and 95% CI were obtained from a MMRM model.||MMRM model included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction, with baseline value and the randomization stratification factors (prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region) as covariates, and the change from baseline as the dependent variable.|0.8|-14.2|=0.079
91079141|NCT05153148|182043944|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-6.3|||=|0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|1.3|||MMRM||Point estimate and 95% CI were obtained from a MMRM model.||MMRM model included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction, with baseline value and the randomization stratification factors (prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region) as covariates, and the change from baseline as the dependent variable.|1.3|-13.9|=0.102
91079142|NCT05153148|182043945|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-8.9|||=|0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|-1.7|||MMRM||Point estimate and 95% CI were obtained from a MMRM model.||MMRM model included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction, with baseline value and the randomization stratification factors (prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region) as covariates, and the change from baseline as the dependent variable.|-1.7|-16.2|=0.016
90934233|NCT02548585|181747747|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0008|||||||ANCOVA|p-value was based on pairwise comparison using ANCOVA adjusted by baseline value.||||||0.0008
90934234|NCT01075152|181747772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.73||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.82||A Lan-DeMets spending function analog of the O'Brien-Fleming boundaries was proposed to control the type-I error resulting from multiple interim analyses.|Regression, Cox||Hazard Ratio describes the risk of earlier HIV therapy in comparison to deferred HIV therapy initiation as the reference group.|"We compared the randomization arms for the primary endpoint of survival using time-to-event methods of Cox proportional hazards models by the intention-to-treat principle, based on two-sided type-I error with alpha=0.05.~The trial was statistically powered to detect a 25% relative survival benefit (15% absolute benefit) with 90% power and overall two-sided alpha=0.05 with an intended sample size of 500 participants. The trial was halted early by the Data and Safety Monitoring Board."||2.82|1.06|0.03
90934235|NCT01075152|181747773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.32|||||||Gray's method of cumulative incidence|||To account for the competing risk of death, the cumulative incidence function compared the randomized groups for endpoints of IRIS, relapse, and adverse events (Gray's method).||||0.32
90967993|NCT01148537|181818262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.4|9.9|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with average baseline as a covariate, and with gender and treatment as main effects||||9.9|5.4|< .001
90967994|NCT01148537|181818263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.936|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.9|2.6|||ANCOVA|||Day 6 analysis||2.6|-2.9|.936
90967995|NCT01148537|181818263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.2|10.1|||ANCOVA|||Day 13 analysis||10.1|4.2|< .001
90967996|NCT01148537|181818264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.5|10.9|||ANCOVA|||Day 6 analysis||10.9|5.5|< .001
90967997|NCT01148537|181818264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.3|10.5|||ANCOVA|||Day 13 analysis||10.5|4.3|< .001
90967998|NCT01148537|181818265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.29||||0.427|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.4|4.0|||ANCOVA|||Day 6 analysis||4.0|-1.4|.427
90967999|NCT01148537|181818265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.01||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.2|8.8|||ANCOVA|||Day 13 analysis||8.8|3.2|.001
90968000|NCT01148537|181818266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.2|9.6|||ANCOVA|||Day 6 analysis||9.6|4.2|< .001
90968001|NCT01148537|181818266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.68||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.9|7.4|||ANCOVA|||Day 13 analysis||7.4|1.9|.006
90968002|NCT00896779|181818273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
90968003|NCT00896779|181818273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.06
90968004|NCT01843842|181818274|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016|||||||Global Test Statistic|See O'Brien 1984, Pocock 1997.||||||0.016
90968005|NCT01843842|181818275|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
90968006|NCT01843842|181818276|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.05
90968007|NCT01843842|181818277|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0283||||||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Kruskal-Wallis|||Fever (Day 3, doctor's examination)||||0.0283
90968008|NCT01843842|181818277|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3264|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Non-specific (Day 3, doctor's examination)||||0.3264
90968009|NCT01843842|181818277|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.706|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Nasal/Throat/Chest (Day 3, doctor's examination)||||0.7060
90968010|NCT01843842|181818277|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||All symptoms (Day 3, doctor's examination)||||0.25
90968011|NCT01843842|181818277|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.244|||||||ANCOVA|||Severity of clinical manifestations of acute respiratory infection (ARI) by Total Symptom Score on Days 2, 3, 4 and 5 of Observation (Based on Patient Diary Data)||||0.244
90968012|NCT01843842|181818278|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1158|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Duration of fever based on Patient Diary Data||||0.1158
90968013|NCT01843842|181818278|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5755|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Duration of non-specific symptoms based on Patient Diary Data||||0.5755
90968014|NCT01843842|181818278|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4331|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Duration of nasal/ throat/ chest symptoms based on Patient Diary Data||||0.4331
90968015|NCT01843842|181818278|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.356|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Duration of all acute respiratory infection symptoms (fever, non-specific symptoms and nasal/ throat/ chest symptoms) based on Patient Diary Data||||0.3560
90968016|NCT01843842|181818279|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0166||||||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Kruskal-Wallis|||Fever (Days 1, 3, 6 doctor's examination)||||0.0166
90968017|NCT01843842|181818279|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.082|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Non-specific (Days 1, 3, 6 doctor's examination)||||0.0820
90968018|NCT01843842|181818279|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7227|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Nasal/Throat/Chest (Days 1, 3, 6 doctor's examination)||||0.7227
90968019|NCT01843842|181818279|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2645|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||All symptoms (Days 1, 3, 6 doctor's examination)||||0.2645
90968020|NCT01843842|181818279|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0142||||||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Kruskal-Wallis|||Fever (Days 1-5, patient diary data)||||0.0142
90968021|NCT01843842|181818279|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0145||||||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Kruskal-Wallis|||Non-specific (Days 1-5, patient diary data)||||0.0145
90968022|NCT01843842|181818279|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2963|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Nasal/Throat/Chest (Days 1-5, patient diary data)||||0.2963
90968023|NCT01843842|181818279|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0364||||||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Kruskal-Wallis|||All symptoms (Days 1-5, patient diary data)||||0.0364
90968024|NCT01843842|181818280|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.40
90968025|NCT02953340|181818282|NON_INFERIORITY|The study used non inferiority margin of 0.62 days for the above comparison. The non-inferiority of SPI-2012 to Pegfilgrastim was declared if the upper bound of 95% confidence interval (CI) of the difference in mean DSN between the treatment arms was \<0.62 days.|Mean difference|-0.074|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.292|0.129|||t-statistics|The p-values are based on the calculated t-statistics from the bootstrapped sample mean and standard deviation.||||0.129|-0.292|< 0.0001
90968026|NCT01376778|181818292|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.17||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.72|||Chi-squared|||||1.72|0.80|0.42
90968027|NCT01376778|181818297|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|3.03||||||||3.03|0.86|
90968028|NCT01376778|181818298|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|72.42||||||||72.42|0.29|
90968029|NCT01376778|181818299|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90968030|NCT01376778|181818300|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.67||||||||2.67|0.81|
90968031|NCT01376778|181818301|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|4.01||||||||4.01|0.65|
90968032|NCT01376778|181818303|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|5.41||||||||5.41|0.66|
90968033|NCT01376778|181818304|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.15||||||||0.15|-0.66|
90968034|NCT01376778|181818305|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-35.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-157.0|87.0||||||||87|-157|
90968035|NCT01376778|181818306|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|3.99||||||||3.99|0.92|
90968036|NCT01376778|181818310|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|31.5||||||||31.5|0.03|
90968037|NCT01376778|181818311|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.38||||||||1.38|0.17|
90968038|NCT01376778|181818314|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.23||||||||1.23|0.32|
90968039|NCT01376778|181818315|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.68||||||||1.68|0.42|
90968040|NCT01376778|181818316|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|5.23||||||||5.23|0.17|
90968041|NCT01376778|181818324|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.3||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.5|||Chi-squared|||||2.5|0.7|0.37
90968042|NCT01376778|181818325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.26
90968043|NCT01376778|181818326|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.84
90934236|NCT01075152|181747774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.06|||||||Gray's method of cumulative incidence|||To account for the competing risk of death, the cumulative incidence function compared the randomized groups for endpoints of IRIS, relapse, and adverse events (Gray's method).||||0.06
90934237|NCT01075152|181747775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.98|||||||Fisher Exact|||Categorical secondary endpoints were compared with Fisher's exact tests.||||0.98
90934238|NCT01075152|181747776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.66||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.68|||Regression, Cox|||We compared the randomization arms for survival using time-to-event methods of Cox proportional hazards models.||2.68|1.03|0.04
90934239|NCT01075152|181747777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.26|||||||Fisher Exact|||Categorical secondary endpoints were compared with Fisher's exact tests.||||0.26
90934240|NCT01075152|181747778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.23|||||||Fisher Exact|||Categorical secondary endpoints were compared with Fisher's exact tests.||||0.23
90934241|NCT01075152|181747779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.34|||||||repeated measure analysis|||The overall change from baseline in Karnofsky performance status scores was compared between groups via a repeated measure analysis, unstructured covariance matrix, adjusted for baseline value.||||0.34
90934242|NCT01075152|181747780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.44|||||||Regression, Linear|a linear mixed effects regression model fit with a random intercept and slope estimated the rate of clearance||To describe early fungicidal activity, a linear mixed effects regression model fit with a random intercept and slope estimated the rate of clearance of log10 colony forming units (CFU) of Cryptococcus, per mL of CSF per day, for all participants with \>2 cultures obtained.||||0.44
90934243|NCT01075152|181747781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.02||||||This is the interaction p-value for CSF white cell count at randomization (implying there is a statistical difference in the outcome by arm based on this parameter).|Regression, Cox|||Pre-specified subgroups formed by baseline characteristics were compared for 26 week survival with models including an interaction term between treatment arm and subgroup.||||0.02
90934244|NCT01079949|181747785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5739||95.0|||||Wilcoxon two sample test|||||||0.5739
90934245|NCT01079949|181747790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1734||95.0|||||Wilcoxon two sample test|||||||0.1734
90934246|NCT01079949|181747791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0642||95.0|||||Wilcoxon two sample test|||||||0.0642
90934247|NCT01079949|181747795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.408||95.0|||||Wilcoxon two sample test|||||||0.4080
90934248|NCT01079949|181747798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0648||95.0|||||Wilcoxon two sample test|||||||0.0648
90934249|NCT01079949|181747799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6799||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.6799
90934250|NCT01079949|181747800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0634||95.0|||||Wilcoxon two sample test|||||||0.0634
90934251|NCT01079949|181747802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0166||95.0|||||Wilcoxon two sample test|||||||0.0166
90934252|NCT01079949|181747803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8812||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.8812
90934253|NCT03659136|181747809|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19||||0.6534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|2.59|||Log-rank test|Two-sided log-rank test stratified for presence of baseline bone-only metastases, prior (CDK) 4/6 inhibitor treatment and menopause status.|Comparison vs. Placebo+Everolimus+Exemestane.|Cox proportional hazards model stratified for presence of baseline bone-only metastases, prior cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK) 4/6 inhibitor treatment and menopause status.||2.59|0.55|0.6534
90934254|NCT03659136|181747810|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5||||0.1797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.4|||Log rank test|Two-sided log-rank test stratified for presence of baseline bone-only metastases, prior CDK 4/6 inhibitor treatment and menopause status.|Comparison vs. Placebo+Everolimus+Exemestane.|Cox proportional hazards model stratified for presence of baseline bone-only metastases, prior cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK) 4/6 inhibitor treatment and menopause status.||1.40|0.18|0.1797
90934255|NCT03659136|181747811|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.4932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.86|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model adjusted for presence of baseline bone-only metastases, prior CDK 4/6 inhibitor treatment and menopause status.|Comparison vs. Placebo+everolimus+exemestane. An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit to the xentuzumab arm.|||2.86|0.60|0.4932
90934256|NCT03659136|181747813|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.7759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|4.43|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model adjusted for presence of baseline bone-only metastases, prior CDK 4/6 inhibitor treatment and menopause status.|Comparison vs. Placebo+everolimus+exemestane. An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit to the xentuzumab arm.|||4.43|0.34|0.7759
90934257|NCT03659136|181747814|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.97||||0.9279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.76|||Log Rank|Two-sided log-rank test stratified for presence of baseline bone-only metastases, prior CDK4/6 inhibitor treatment and menopause status.|Comparison versus Placebo+everolimus+exemestane.|Cox proportional hazards model stratified for presence of baseline bone-only metastases, prior cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK) 4/6 inhibitor treatment and menopause status.||1.76|0.54|0.9279
90934258|NCT05066230|181747815|SUPERIORITY||Difference of weighted percentages|39.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.02|31.3|48.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haentzel test stratified by baseline DRSS level (≤level 47 vs. ≥level 53) and HbA1c level (≤8.5% vs. \>8.5%).|Weighted percentages are based on weighted average of observed estimates across strata using CMH weights. The CI are based on the normal approximation to the binomial proportions.|||48.1|31.3|<0.0001
90934259|NCT05066230|181747816|SUPERIORITY||Difference of weighted percentages|-18.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.02|-26.2|-11.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haentzel test stratified by baseline DRSS level (≤level 47 vs. ≥level 53) and HbA1c level (≤8.5% vs. \>8.5%).|Weighted percentages are based on weighted average of observed estimates across strata using CMH weights. The CI are based on the normal approximation to the binomial proportions.|||-11.2|-26.2|<0.0001
90934260|NCT05066230|181747817|SUPERIORITY||Difference of weighted percentages|5.6||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.02|1.6|9.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haentzel test stratified by baseline DRSS level (≤level 47 vs. ≥level 53), HbA1c level (≤8.5% vs. \>8.5%).|Weighted percentages are based on weighted average of observed estimates across strata using CMH weights. The CI are based on the normal approximation to the binomial proportions.|||9.5|1.6|0.0058
90934261|NCT05066230|181747818|SUPERIORITY||Difference of weighted percentages|-6.5||||0.0149|TWO_SIDED|95.02|-11.8|-1.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haentzel test stratified by baseline DRSS level (≤level 47 vs. ≥level 53) and HbA1c level (≤8.5% vs. \>8.5%).|Weighted percentages are based on weighted average of observed estimates across strata using CMH weights. The CI are based on the normal approximation to the binomial proportions.|||-1.3|-11.8|0.0149
90934262|NCT00759681|181747830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.208|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0538||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.103|0.314|||Exact binomial confidence limit|Effectiveness: 95% confidence limits of the difference between groups, and ensuring that the lower limit of the difference was greater than 10%.||Effectiveness was evaluated using a superiority hypothesis, comparing treatment sites with regards to the proportion achieving immediate suture line sealing between the groups. Effectiveness was based on a two-tailed, 0.05 hypothesis test, with a minimum effect size set at 10%. The mean difference in the proportion of sites achieving immediate suture line sealing was compared between the Control and Investigation Device groups.||0.314|0.103|0.05
90934263|NCT00759681|181747831|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Safety was evaluated using non-inferiority hypothesis evaluating the proportion of cases with any instance of sign. bleeding, neurological deficit or immune/inflammatory allergic response. Safety based on one-tailed, 0.05 alpha, with equivalence limit set at 15%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.135|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0671||0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0||-0.003|||Exact binomial confidence limit|Safety: 95% confidence limits of the difference between groups, and ensuring that the upper limit of the difference was less than or equal to 15%.|The cumulative incidence of safety endpoints for the Investigational Treatment group was an average of 13.5% less than for the Control group.|The mean difference is equivalent to the proportion of Investigational Device patients minus the proportion of Control patients experiencing any instance of significant bleeding, neurological deficit or immune/inflammatory allergic response.||-0.003||0.05
90934264|NCT02410278|181747833|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.931||||0.0617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.938|20.832|||weighted logistic regression model|||Odds ratio is the odds of an event in the Montelukast treatment group divided by the odds of an event in the placebo treatment group. P-value is from the likelihood ratio test that the odds ratio is 1. CI = profile likelihood confidence interval.||20.832|0.938|0.0617
90934265|NCT02410278|181747834|SUPERIORITY||adjusted mean difference|0.084||||0.3753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.104|0.273|||ANCOVA|||Results are obtained from an ANCOVA model for comparing average change of the GSRS score in the two treatment groups, adjusted for age, weight and baseline GSRS score. Weights, defined as the proportions of days with GSRS score recorded during the Day 1 - Day 10 period are applied to adjust for missing data.||0.273|-0.104|0.3753
90934266|NCT02410278|181747835|SUPERIORITY||adjusted mean difference|0.081||||0.0376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.005|0.158|||Repeated measures model|||Results are obtained from a repeated measures model for change from baseline (Day 0) in the GSRS score. The model includes treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, adjusted for age, weight and baseline GSRS score, and has spatial-exponential variance-covariance structure. The P-value is for testing the null hypothesis of no difference between the two treatment groups in the average change from baseline (Day 0) between Day 1 and Week 10.||0.158|0.005|0.0376
90934267|NCT02410278|181747836|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.094||||0.7952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.554|2.164|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard ratio and the P-value are based on the Cox's proportional hazard regression model, adjusted for age, weight and baseline GSRS score. Hazard ratio (HR) is the ratio of hazard rates of Montelukast and placebo treatment groups. P-value is from the Wald test that HR is 1. CI = Wald confidence interval.||2.164|0.554|0.7952
90934268|NCT02410278|181747837|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.946||||0.8328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.563|1.589|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard ratio and the P-value are based on the Cox's proportional hazard regression model, adjusted for age, weight and baseline GSRS score. Hazard ratio (HR) is the ratio of hazard rates of Montelukast and placebo treatment groups. P-value is from the Wald test that HR is 1. CI = Wald confidence interval.||1.589|0.563|0.8328
90934269|NCT02410278|181747838|SUPERIORITY||adjusted mean difference|0.115||||0.1743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.052|0.283|||Repeated measures model|||Change from Day 1 to Week 1: Results are obtained from a repeated measures model for change from baseline (Day 0) in the GSRS score. The model includes treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, adjusted for age, weight(kg) and baseline GSRS score, and has spatial-exponential variance-covariance structure. The P-value is for testing the null hypothesis of no difference between the two treatment groups in the average change from baseline (Day 0) between Day 1 and the specified time point.||0.283|-0.052|0.1743
90968044|NCT00632099|181818327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
90968045|NCT02018822|181818351|NON_INFERIORITY|Assuming that the success rate of the control composite resin is 95% based on clinical data, for a non-inferiority test with a non-inferiority margin of 15%, a sample size of 27 is required in each group to allow 80% power at an alpha level of 0.05. We aimed to have 30 subjects/teeth remaining in each group after attrition at the end of the study.||||||0.2552|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2552
90968046|NCT02018822|181818352|NON_INFERIORITY|Assuming that the success rate of the control composite resin is 95% based on clinical data, for a non-inferiority test with a non-inferiority margin of 15%, a sample size of 27 is required in each group to allow 80% power at an alpha level of 0.05. We aimed to have 30 subjects/teeth remaining in each group after attrition at the end of the study.||||||0.2235|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2235
90968047|NCT02018822|181818353|NON_INFERIORITY|Assuming that the success rate of the control composite resin is 95% based on clinical data, for a non-inferiority test with a non-inferiority margin of 15%, a sample size of 27 is required in each group to allow 80% power at an alpha level of 0.05. We aimed to have 30 subjects/teeth remaining in each group after attrition at the end of the study.||||||0.3891|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3891
90968048|NCT02018822|181818354|NON_INFERIORITY|Assuming that the success rate of the control composite resin is 95% based on clinical data, for a non-inferiority test with a non-inferiority margin of 15%, a sample size of 27 is required in each group to allow 80% power at an alpha level of 0.05. We aimed to have 30 subjects/teeth remaining in each group after attrition at the end of the study.||||||0.3883|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3883
90968049|NCT02018822|181818355|NON_INFERIORITY|Assuming that the success rate of the control composite resin is 95% based on clinical data, for a non-inferiority test with a non-inferiority margin of 15%, a sample size of 27 is required in each group to allow 80% power at an alpha level of 0.05. We aimed to have 30 subjects/teeth remaining in each group after attrition at the end of the study.||||||0.3883|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3883
90968050|NCT02018822|181818356|NON_INFERIORITY|Assuming that the success rate of the control composite resin is 95% based on clinical data, for a non-inferiority test with a non-inferiority margin of 15%, a sample size of 27 is required in each group to allow 80% power at an alpha level of 0.05. We aimed to have 30 subjects/teeth remaining in each group after attrition at the end of the study.||||||0.2707|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2707
90968051|NCT03201458|181818357|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.35|0.93||One-sided test|Log Rank|||||0.93|0.35|0.027
90968052|NCT03201458|181818358|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3||||0.22|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.22
90968053|NCT03201458|181818360|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41||||||One-sided test|Log Rank|||||||0.410
90968054|NCT02184195|181818384|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.531||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.346|0.815|||Log-rank test|||||0.815|0.346|0.0038
90968055|NCT02184195|181818385|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.831||||0.3487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.564|1.224|||Log-rank test|||||1.224|0.564|0.3487
90968056|NCT02184195|181818386|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.659||||0.0613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.426|1.02|||Log-rank test|||||1.020|0.426|0.0613
90968057|NCT02184195|181818387|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.611||||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.418|0.894|||Log-rank test|||||0.894|0.418|0.0111
90968058|NCT02184195|181818388|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.442|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.297|0.658|||Log-rank test|||||0.658|0.297|<0.0001
90968059|NCT02184195|181818389|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.425|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.289|0.627|||Log-rank test|||||0.627|0.289|<0.0001
90968060|NCT02184195|181818390|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.52||||0.3273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.668|3.61|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.610|0.668|0.3273
90968061|NCT02184195|181818392|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.21||||0.355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.917|2.496|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.496|-6.917|0.355
90968062|NCT03002155|181818399|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons due to the pilot nature of the study, alpha level was 0.10.|ANOVA|||||||.26
90968063|NCT03002155|181818400|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.38
90968064|NCT03002155|181818401|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||ANOVA|||For PROMIS Global Physical||||0.24
90968065|NCT03002155|181818401|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8||||||p-value is interaction of group and time. Alpha level= 0.10; not adjusted for multiple comparisons (pilot study)|ANOVA|||For PROMIS Global Mental||||0.80
90968066|NCT03002155|181818402|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81||||||p-value is interaction of group and time. Alpha level= 0.10; not adjusted for multiple comparisons (pilot study)|ANOVA|||||||0.81
90968067|NCT03002155|181818403|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||p-value is interaction of group and time. Alpha level= 0.10; not adjusted for multiple comparisons (pilot study)|ANOVA|||||||0.03
91035881|NCT02558491|181958310|OTHER|||||||0.301||||||No a priori sample size was determined due to the feasibility/pilot nature of the trial. Significance level was set at P-value \<0.05.|ANOVA|||Secondary analysis followed the same format unless variables could not be considered normally distributed; in that case a related samples Wilcoxon signed-rank test is used. Data were first binned (to ensure minimum count of five per bins) and the w2 statistics was used with the expected counts given by SoC. Based on achieved recruitment, a moderate effect size (0.3) is detectable with 80% power, or a large effect size (0.4) with 95% power (G-Power 3.1.9.2). Outcome measurement was for overall.||||0.301
90934270|NCT02410278|181747838|SUPERIORITY||adjusted mean difference|0.079||||0.2677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.063|0.221|||Repeated measures model|||Change from Day 1 to Week 2: Results are obtained from a repeated measures model for change from baseline (Day 0) in the GSRS score. The model includes treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, adjusted for age, weight(kg) and baseline GSRS score, and has spatial-exponential variance-covariance structure. The P-value is for testing the null hypothesis of no difference between the two treatment groups in the average change from baseline (Day 0) between Day 1 and the specified time point.||0.221|-0.063|0.2677
90934271|NCT02410278|181747838|SUPERIORITY||adjusted mean difference|0.085||||0.1788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.211|||Repeated measures model|||Change from Day 1 to Week 3: Results are obtained from a repeated measures model for change from baseline (Day 0) in the GSRS score. The model includes treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, adjusted for age, weight(kg) and baseline GSRS score, and has spatial-exponential variance-covariance structure. The P-value is for testing the null hypothesis of no difference between the two treatment groups in the average change from baseline (Day 0) between Day 1 and the specified time point.||0.211|-0.040|0.1788
90934272|NCT02410278|181747838|SUPERIORITY||adjusted mean difference|0.1||||0.0866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.015|0.216|||Repeated measures model|||Change from Day 1 to Week 4: Results are obtained from a repeated measures model for change from baseline (Day 0) in the GSRS score. The model includes treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, adjusted for age, weight(kg) and baseline GSRS score, and has spatial-exponential variance-covariance structure. The P-value is for testing the null hypothesis of no difference between the two treatment groups in the average change from baseline (Day 0) between Day 1 and the specified time point.||0.216|-0.015|0.0866
90934273|NCT02410278|181747838|SUPERIORITY||adjusted mean difference|0.1||||0.0509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.201|||Repeated measures model|||Change from Day 1 to Week 5: Results are obtained from a repeated measures model for change from baseline (Day 0) in the GSRS score. The model includes treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, adjusted for age, weight(kg) and baseline GSRS score, and has spatial-exponential variance-covariance structure. The P-value is for testing the null hypothesis of no difference between the two treatment groups in the average change from baseline (Day 0) between Day 1 and the specified time point.||0.201|-0.000|0.0509
90934274|NCT02410278|181747838|SUPERIORITY||adjusted mean difference|0.088||||0.0649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.006|0.182|||Repeated measures model|||Change from Day 1 to Week 6: Results are obtained from a repeated measures model for change from baseline (Day 0) in the GSRS score. The model includes treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, adjusted for age, weight(kg) and baseline GSRS score, and has spatial-exponential variance-covariance structure. The P-value is for testing the null hypothesis of no difference between the two treatment groups in the average change from baseline (Day 0) between Day 1 and the specified time point.||0.182|-0.006|0.0649
90934275|NCT02410278|181747838|SUPERIORITY||adjusted mean difference|0.088||||0.0479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.176|||Repeated measures model|||Change from Day 1 to Week 7: Results are obtained from a repeated measures model for change from baseline (Day 0) in the GSRS score. The model includes treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, adjusted for age, weight(kg) and baseline GSRS score, and has spatial-exponential variance-covariance structure. The P-value is for testing the null hypothesis of no difference between the two treatment groups in the average change from baseline (Day 0) between Day 1 and the specified time point.||0.176|0.001|0.0479
90934276|NCT02410278|181747838|SUPERIORITY||adjusted mean difference|0.082||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|0.166|||Repeated measures model|||Change from Day 1 to Week 8: Results are obtained from a repeated measures model for change from baseline (Day 0) in the GSRS score. The model includes treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, adjusted for age, weight(kg) and baseline GSRS score, and has spatial-exponential variance-covariance structure. The P-value is for testing the null hypothesis of no difference between the two treatment groups in the average change from baseline (Day 0) between Day 1 and the specified time point.||0.166|-0.001|0.0540
90934277|NCT02410278|181747839|SUPERIORITY||adjusted mean difference|0.129||||0.2469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.092|0.349|||Repeated measures model|||Results are obtained from a repeated measures model for change from baseline (Day 0) in the GSRS score. The model includes treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, adjusted for age, weight (kg) and baseline GSRS score, and has unstructured variance-covariance structure. The P-value is for testing the null hypothesis of no difference between the two treatment groups in the average change from baseline (Day 0) between Day 1 and Day 3.||0.349|-0.092|0.2469
90934278|NCT02410278|181747840|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.0000
90934279|NCT02410278|181747841|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher's Exact|||||||1.0000
90934280|NCT02410278|181747842|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2604|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2604
90934281|NCT02584257|181747843|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means Differences|3.171|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.238|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.732|3.61||Fixed effects of dose, week, and sequence and the random effect of the patient was carried out to ensure that the overall treatment effect was significant at p\<0.05|Brief Mixed Models Analysis|For this model, the dependent variable was log2(PC20FEV1) values where PC20FEV1 was measured in mg/mL||||3.610|2.732|<0.0001
90934282|NCT02584257|181747843|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means Differences|3.824|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.238|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.384|4.263||Fixed effects of dose, week, and sequence and the random effect of the patient was carried out to ensure that the overall treatment effect was significant at p\<0.05.|Brief Mixed Models Analysis|For this model, the dependent variable was log2(PC20FEV1) values where PC20FEV1 was measured in mg/mL||||4.263|3.384|<0.0001
90934283|NCT02584257|181747843|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means Differences|3.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.241|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.876|3.764||Fixed effects of dose, week, and sequence and the random effect of the patient was carried out to ensure that the overall treatment effect was significant at p\<0.05.|Brief Mixed Models Analysis|For this model, the dependent variable was log2(PC20FEV1) values where PC20FEV1 was measured in mg/mL.||||3.764|2.876|<0.0001
90968068|NCT01412554|181818427|OTHER|Only descriptive statistics|||||<|0.05|||||||Spearman|The degree of tracking was assessed by Spearman's rank or Pearson's correlation coefficient||Only an observational follow-up study|The degree of tracking was assessed by Spearman's rank or Pearson's correlation coefficient|||<0.05
90968069|NCT03302975|181818432|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.001
90934284|NCT02584257|181747843|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means Differences|3.872|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.43|4.315||Fixed effects of dose, week, and sequence and the random effect of the patient was carried out to ensure that the overall treatment effect was significant at p\<0.05.|Brief Mixed Models Analysis|For this model, the dependent variable was log2(PC20FEV1) values where PC20FEV1 was measured in mg/mL||||4.315|3.430|<0.0001
90934285|NCT02584257|181747843|EQUIVALENCE|A blinded interim analysis was performed after 60 patients completed all treatment visits which determined that 80 subjects would be sufficient to complete the study with 90% power.|Frel|1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|1.48|||||Frel is the relative bioavailability of the test versus reference product. The CI was a bias corrected and accelerated CI based on a bootstrapping procedure. The FDA acceptable CI was between 0.67 and 1.50.|An Emax model was developed and the 90% confidence interval of Frel was a bias corrected accelerated confidence interval based on a bootstrapping procedure. The bootstrapping procedure used for this analysis was residual resampling. The Per-Protocol population was the primary population for bioequivalence analysis. Patients in the PP population must have completed at least 2 treatment periods with valid PC20FEV1 measurements and had no major protocol deviations within those intervals.||1.48|0.93|
90934286|NCT01137682|181747909|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.63||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.32||infinity||Regression, Logistic|An exact logistic regression model that adjusts for the randomization stratification factors was used to test the null hypothesis.|||||3.32|0.0006
90968070|NCT05998148|181818436|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p= 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Since 2 hypothesis tests are conducted, we applied a Bonferroni correction. Our new adjusted threshold level is 0.05/2= 0.025.|Treatment Difference = Virtual - Standard In-person|The null hypothesis states that the virtual group and in-person group exhibit no difference in mean PROMIS physical score. From the literature, an effect size of 0.618 was obtained from the PROMIS physical. Using a power of 80% and a significance level of 0.05, it was determined that a sample size of 34 per group would detect a statistical difference between the groups. An intention-to-treat analysis was conducted on the scores at the 6-month follow-up appointment.||||0.91
90968071|NCT05998148|181818436|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.7||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p= 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Since 2 hypothesis tests are conducted, we applied a Bonferroni correction. Our new adjusted threshold level is 0.05/2= 0.025.|Treatment Difference = Virtual - Standard In-person|The null hypothesis states that the virtual group and in-person group exhibit no difference in mean PROMIS mental score. The minimum sample size determined for the PROMIS physical score was applied to this outcome score. An intention-to-treat analysis was conducted on the scores at the 6-month follow-up appointment.||||0.077
90968072|NCT05998148|181818436|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.56||||0.75|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Treatment Difference = Virtual - Standard In-person|The null hypothesis states that the virtual group and in-person group exhibit no difference in mean PROMIS physical score. From the literature, effect size of 0.618 was obtained from PROMIS physical. Using a power of 80% and a significance level of 0.05, it was determined that a sample size of 34 per group would detect a statistical difference between the groups. A per-protocol analysis was conducted on the scores at the 6-month follow-up appointment. There were 34 patients in each group.||||0.75
90968073|NCT05998148|181818436|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.49||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Since 2 hypothesis tests are conducted, we applied a Bonferroni correction. Our new adjusted threshold level is 0.05/2= 0.025.|Treatment Difference = Virtual - Standard In-person|The null hypothesis states that the virtual group and in-person group exhibit no difference in mean PROMIS mental score. The minimum sample size determined for the PROMIS physical score was used for this analysis. A per-protocol analysis was conducted on the scores at the 6-month follow-up appointment. There were 34 patients in each group.||||0.049
90968074|NCT05998148|181818437|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.84||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Treatment Difference = Virtual - Standard In-person|There were 27 patients in the virtual phone group. There were 26 patients in the standard in-person group.||||0.49
90968075|NCT05998148|181818438|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.65||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Treatment Difference = Virtual - Standard In-person|There are 18 patients in the virtual group. There are 9 patients in the standard in-person group.||||0.54
90968076|NCT05998148|181818439|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.13||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|t-test, 2 sided||Treatment Difference = Virtual - Standard In-person|There are 45 patients in the virtual phone group. There are 35 patients in the standard in-person group.||||0.39
90934287|NCT01137682|181747909|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|23.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.72||infinity||Regression, Logistic|An exact logistic regression model that adjusts for the randomization stratification factors was used to test the null hypothesis.|||||4.72|<0.0001
90968077|NCT03834519|181818441|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.2616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.14|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by measurable disease status and prior NHA treatment.|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by measurable disease status and prior NHA treatment.|Treatment difference in survival assessed by the stratified log-rank test stratified by measurable disease status and prior NHA treatment.||1.14|0.77|0.2616
90934288|NCT02009332|181747924|OTHER||maximum deliverable dose (MDD)|400.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Maximum deliverable dose (MDD) was not reached in the Phase 1 study as no DLTs were observed in any of the dose groups up to ABI-009 400 mg/week.|||||
90934289|NCT03386344|181747954|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares (LS) Means|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.102|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.649|-0.25|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of sex (male, female), and country as fixed effects, and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||-0.250|-0.649|<0.0001
90968078|NCT03834519|181818442|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.5544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.25|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by measurable disease status and prior NHA treatment.|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by measurable disease status and prior NHA treatment.|Treatment difference in rPFS assessed by the stratified log-rank test stratified by measurable disease status and prior NHA treatment.||1.25|0.82|0.5544
90968079|NCT03834519|181818443|OTHER|Treatment difference in TFST|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||||95.0|0.71|1.03|||||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by measurable disease status and prior NHA treatment.|||1.03|0.71|
90968080|NCT03834519|181818444|OTHER|Treatment difference in ORR|Difference in percentage|10.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|17.1||||||||17.1|4.0|
90968081|NCT03834519|181818446|OTHER|Treatment difference in time to PSA progression|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.38|||||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by measurable disease status and prior NHA treatment.|||1.38|0.89|
90968082|NCT03834519|181818447|OTHER|Treatment difference in SSRE|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.78|||||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by measurable disease status and prior NHA treatment.|||0.78|0.38|
90968083|NCT03834519|181818448|OTHER|Treatment difference in time to radiographic soft tissue progression|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.0|||||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by measurable disease status and prior NHA treatment.|||1.00|0.62|
90968084|NCT03834519|181818449|OTHER|Treatment difference in TTPE|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.3643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.26|||Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by measurable disease status and prior NHA treatment.|||1.26|0.72|0.3643
90968085|NCT01380379|181818462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Single group comparison pre-post change score, compared to a value of 0 (no change)||||||<.01
90968086|NCT01380379|181818463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.04
90968087|NCT06608368|181818491|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-6.2108|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0959||0.1332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3568|1.9353|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Least Square Mean Difference was calculated as Positive Control Dentifrice value minus Test Dentifrice value.|||1.9353|-14.3568|0.1332
90968088|NCT06608368|181818491|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.9623|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1021||0.4722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1207|5.196|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Least Square Mean Difference was calculated as Positive Control Dentifrice value minus Reference Dentifrice value.|||5.1960|-11.1207|0.4722
90968089|NCT06608368|181818491|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|3.2484|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9692||0.4155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6456|11.1425|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Least Square Mean Difference was calculated as Test Dentifrice value minus Reference Dentifrice value.|||11.1425|-4.6456|0.4155
90968090|NCT06608368|181818492|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-4.739|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.383||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4672|1.9891|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Least Square Mean Difference was calculated as Positive Control Dentifrice value minus Test Dentifrice value.|LMS Intensity||1.9891|-11.4672|0.1650
90968091|NCT06608368|181818492|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-4.4392|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3248||0.1855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0516|2.1732|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Least Square Mean Difference was calculated as Positive Control Dentifrice value minus Reference Dentifrice value.|LMS Intensity||2.1732|-11.0516|0.1855
90968092|NCT06608368|181818492|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.2998|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2234||0.9261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1107|6.7104|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Least Square Mean Difference was calculated as Test Dentifrice value minus Reference Dentifrice value.|LMS Intensity||6.7104|-6.1107|0.9261
90968093|NCT06608368|181818492|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.7189|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2406||0.4039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1643|3.7265|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Least Square Mean Difference was calculated as Positive Control Dentifrice value minus Test Dentifrice value.|LMS Duration||3.7265|-9.1643|0.4039
90968094|NCT06608368|181818492|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.6986|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1959||0.2505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0548|2.6577|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Least Square Mean Difference was calculated as Positive Control Dentifrice value minus Reference Dentifrice value.|LMS Duration||2.6577|-10.0548|0.2505
90968095|NCT06608368|181818492|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.9797|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1648||0.7577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2744|5.3151|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Least Square Mean Difference was calculated as Test Dentifrice value minus Reference Dentifrice value.|LMS Duration||5.3151|-7.2744|0.7577
90968096|NCT06608368|181818492|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.8461|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9755||0.5367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7642|4.072|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Least Square Mean Difference was calculated as Positive Control Dentifrice value minus Test Dentifrice value.|LMS Tolerability||4.0720|-7.7642|0.5367
90968097|NCT06608368|181818492|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.0435|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9907||0.4963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9916|3.9047|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Least Square Mean Difference was calculated as Positive Control Dentifrice value minus Reference Dentifrice value.|LMS Tolerability||3.9047|-7.9916|0.4963
90968098|NCT06608368|181818492|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.1974|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8888||0.9457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9429|5.5481|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Mean Difference was calculated as Test Dentifrice value minus Reference Dentifrice value.|LMS Tolerability||5.5481|-5.9429|0.9457
90968099|NCT06608368|181818492|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-4.8837|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0222||0.2281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8837|3.1163|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Least Square Mean Difference was calculated as Positive Control Dentifrice value minus Test Dentifrice value.|LMS Description||3.1163|-12.8837|0.2281
90968100|NCT06608368|181818492|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.9754|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0489||0.329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0283|4.0775|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Least Square Mean Difference was calculated as Positive Control Dentifrice value minus Reference Dentifrice value.|LMS Description||4.0775|-12.0283|0.3290
90968101|NCT06608368|181818492|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.9083|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9297||0.8178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9076|8.7243|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Least Square Mean Difference was calculated as Test Dentifrice value minus Reference Dentifrice value.|LMS Description||8.7243|-6.9076|0.8178
90968102|NCT06608368|181818493|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.6315|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.351||0.0756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3296|0.06658|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Mean Difference was calculated as Positive Control Dentifrice value minus Test Dentifrice value.|||0.06658|-1.3296|0.0756
90968103|NCT06608368|181818493|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.6447|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3589||0.0761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3586|0.06924|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Least Square Mean Difference was calculated as Positive Control Dentifrice value minus Reference Dentifrice value.|||0.06924|-1.3586|0.0761
90968104|NCT06608368|181818493|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.01316|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3469||0.9698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7031|0.6767|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Least Square Mean Difference was calculated as Test Dentifrice value minus Reference Dentifrice value.|||0.6767|-0.7031|0.9698
90968105|NCT06608368|181818496|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-6.0228|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.9481||0.3142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8534|5.8078|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Least Square Mean Difference was calculated as Positive Control Dentifrice value minus Test Dentifrice value.|||5.8078|-17.8534|0.3142
90968106|NCT06608368|181818496|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-9.3856|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.9568||0.1189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.2335|2.4624|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Least Square Mean Difference was calculated as Positive Control Dentifrice value minus Reference Dentifrice value.|||2.4624|-21.2335|0.1189
90968107|NCT06608368|181818496|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.3627|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7636||0.5612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8264|8.1009|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Least Square Mean Difference was calculated as Test Dentifrice value minus Reference Dentifrice value.|||8.1009|-14.8264|0.5612
90968108|NCT06608368|181818497|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.9595|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.7895||0.8417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4856|8.5665|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Least Square Mean Difference was calculated as Positive Control Dentifrice value minus Test Dentifrice value.|LMS Intensity||8.5665|-10.4856|0.8417
90968109|NCT06608368|181818497|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.5821|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.7059||0.4487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.942|5.7777|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Least Square Mean Difference was calculated as Positive Control Dentifrice value minus Reference Dentifrice value.|LMS Intensity||5.7777|-12.9420|0.4487
90968110|NCT06608368|181818497|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.6226|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5624||0.567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.697|6.4517|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Least Square Mean Difference was calculated as Test Dentifrice value minus Reference Dentifrice value.|LMS Intensity||6.4517|-11.6970|0.5670
90968111|NCT06608368|181818497|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.4045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9029||0.5395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1672|5.3583|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Least Square Mean Difference was calculated as Positive Control Dentifrice value minus Test Dentifrice value.|LMS Duration||5.3583|-10.1672|0.5395
90968112|NCT06608368|181818497|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-4.1471|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8479||0.2843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8005|3.5062|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Least Square Mean Difference was calculated as Positive Control Dentifrice value minus Reference Dentifrice value.|LMS Duration||3.5062|-11.8005|0.2843
90968113|NCT06608368|181818497|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.7427|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8124||0.6488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3255|5.8401|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Least Square Mean Difference was calculated as Test Dentifrice value minus Reference Dentifrice value.|LMS Duration||5.8401|-9.3255|0.6488
90968114|NCT06608368|181818497|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.6984|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7493||0.8527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7589|8.1556|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Least Square Mean Difference was calculated as Positive Control Dentifrice value minus Test Dentifrice value.|LMS Tolerability||8.1556|-6.7589|0.8527
90968115|NCT06608368|181818497|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.2212|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7677||0.395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7149|4.2726|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Least Square Mean Difference was calculated as Positive Control Dentifrice value minus Reference Dentifrice value.|LMS Tolerability||4.2726|-10.7149|0.3950
90968116|NCT06608368|181818497|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.9195|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6397||0.2847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1588|3.3198|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Least Square Mean Difference was calculated as Test Dentifrice value minus Reference Dentifrice value.|LMS Tolerability||3.3198|-11.1588|0.2847
90968117|NCT06608368|181818497|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.4837|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.6595||0.5954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7512|6.7839|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Least Square Mean Difference was calculated as Positive Control Dentifrice value minus Test Dentifrice value.|LMS Description||6.7839|-11.7512|0.5954
90968118|NCT06608368|181818497|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.9779|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.6891||0.5271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3044|6.3485|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Least Square Mean Difference was calculated as Positive Control Dentifrice value minus Reference Dentifrice value.|LMS Description||6.3485|-12.3044|0.5271
90968119|NCT06608368|181818497|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.4942|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5519||0.9138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5478|8.5593|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Least Square Mean Difference was calculated as Test Dentifrice value minus Reference Dentifrice value.|LMS Description||8.5593|-9.5478|0.9138
90968120|NCT06608368|181818498|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.2639|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4455||0.5551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|0.6221|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Least Square Mean Difference was calculated as Positive Control Dentifrice value minus Test Dentifrice value.|||0.6221|-1.1500|0.5551
90968121|NCT06608368|181818498|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.5044|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4555||0.2714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4104|0.4016|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Least Square Mean Difference was calculated as Positive Control Dentifrice value minus Reference Dentifrice value.|||0.4016|-1.4104|0.2714
90968122|NCT06608368|181818498|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.2404|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4402||0.5864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.116|0.6351|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Least Square Mean Difference was calculated as Test Dentifrice value minus Reference Dentifrice value.|||0.6351|-1.1160|0.5864
90968123|NCT06608368|181818501|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.3597|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4238||0.3984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2026|0.4831|||ANCOVA||Least Square Mean Difference was calculated as Positive Control Dentifrice minus Test Dentifrice value.|||0.4831|-1.2026|0.3984
90968124|NCT06608368|181818501|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.3827|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4277||0.3734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2332|0.4678|||ANCOVA||Least Square Mean Difference was calculated as Positive Control Dentifrice value minus Reference Dentifrice.|||0.4678|-1.2332|0.3734
90968125|NCT06608368|181818501|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.02296|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4099||0.9555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8382|0.7923|||ANCOVA||Least Square Mean Difference was calculated as Test Dentifrice value minus Reference Dentifrice value.|||0.7923|-0.8382|0.9555
90968126|NCT03080883|181818509|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.3117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.37|||Gray Test P-value|||||1.37|0.38|0.3117
90968127|NCT03080883|181818510|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.53|||Gray Test P-value|||||2.53|0.40|0.9970
90968128|NCT01999465|181818520|OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|We applied Wilcoxon-Mann Whitney test with the Null hypothesis that there is no difference between 2 arms.||||||0.40
90968129|NCT01999465|181818521|OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.20
90934290|NCT03386344|181747954|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.102|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.634|-0.235|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of sex (male, female), and country as fixed effects, and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||-0.235|-0.634|<0.0001
90934291|NCT03386344|181747955|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.423||0.5707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|0.59|||ANCOVA|||Percent change from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of sex (male, female), and country as fixed effects, and baseline BMD as a covariate.||0.590|-1.070|0.5707
90934292|NCT03386344|181747955|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.419||0.7247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.969|0.674|||ANCOVA|||Percent change from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of sex (male, female), and country as fixed effects, and baseline BMD as a covariate.||0.674|-0.969|0.7247
90934293|NCT03386344|181747956|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.308||0.6454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.462|0.745|||ANCOVA|||Percent change from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of sex (male, female), and country as fixed effects, and baseline lumbar spine as a covariate.||0.745|-0.462|0.6454
90934294|NCT03386344|181747956|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.308||0.5289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.798|||ANCOVA|||Percent change from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of sex (male, female), and country as fixed effects, and baseline lumbar spine as a covariate.||0.798|-0.410|0.5289
90934295|NCT03386344|181747957|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.462||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.157|1.654|||ANCOVA|||Percent change from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of sex (male, female), and country as fixed effects, and baseline BMD as a covariate.||1.654|-0.157|0.1050
90934296|NCT03386344|181747957|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.4804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.577|1.226|||ANCOVA|||Percent change from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of sex (male, female), and country as fixed effects, and baseline BMD as a covariate.||1.226|-0.577|0.4804
90934297|NCT03386344|181747958|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.336|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.568|-1.252|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of sex (male, female), and country as fixed effects, and baseline body weight as a covariate.||-1.252|-2.568|<0.0001
90934298|NCT03386344|181747958|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.335|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.36|-1.046|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of sex (male, female), and country as fixed effects, and baseline body weight as a covariate.||-1.046|-2.360|<0.0001
90934299|NCT03386344|181747959|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-18.891|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5766|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.8605|-9.9205|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of sex (male, female), and country as fixed effects, baseline fasting plasma glucose as a covariate.||-9.9205|-27.8605|<0.0001
90934300|NCT03386344|181747959|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-21.333|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5902|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.3294|-12.336|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of sex (male, female), and country as fixed effects, baseline fasting plasma glucose as a covariate.||-12.3360|-30.3294|<0.0001
90934301|NCT03386344|181747960|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.48||0.5864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.705|2.095|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 12 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of sex (male, female), and country as fixed effects, and baseline SBP as a covariate.||2.095|-3.705|0.5864
90934302|NCT03386344|181747960|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.478||0.4315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.058|1.734|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 12 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of sex (male, female), and country as fixed effects, and baseline SBP as a covariate.||1.734|-4.058|0.4315
90934303|NCT03386344|181747961|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|10.5||||0.0172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|19.23|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage difference between treatment groups from randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening and randomization strata of sex (male, female) using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.||19.23|1.78|0.0172
90934304|NCT03386344|181747961|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|12.0||||0.0076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.23|20.86|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage difference between treatment groups from randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening and randomization strata of sex (male, female) using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.||20.86|3.23|0.0076
90934305|NCT01077284|181747963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Hochberg's method for multiple comparisons was used to ensure that the overall 0.050 level of significance was maintained for comparisons of febuxostat to allopurinol and to placebo.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90934306|NCT01077284|181747963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||Hochberg's method for multiple comparisons was used to ensure that the overall 0.050 level of significance was maintained for comparisons of febuxostat to allopurinol and to placebo.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.003
90934307|NCT01077284|181747964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13||||||Hochberg's method for multiple comparisons was used to ensure that the overall 0.050 level of significance was maintained for comparisons of febuxostat to allopurinol and to placebo.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.130
90934308|NCT01077284|181747964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.348||||||Hochberg's method for multiple comparisons was used to ensure that the overall 0.050 level of significance was maintained for comparisons of febuxostat to allopurinol and to placebo.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.348
90934309|NCT01077284|181747965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.403||||||Hochberg's method for multiple comparisons was used to ensure that the overall 0.050 level of significance was maintained for comparisons of febuxostat to allopurinol and to placebo.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.403
90934310|NCT01077284|181747965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.413||||||Hochberg's method for multiple comparisons was used to ensure that the overall 0.050 level of significance was maintained for comparisons of febuxostat to allopurinol and to placebo.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.413
90934311|NCT01077284|181747966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5535||||||Hochberg's method for multiple comparisons was used to ensure that the overall 0.050 level of significance was maintained for comparisons of febuxostat to allopurinol and to placebo.|ANOVA|P-values are from ANOVA with treatment as a fixed effect.||||||0.5535
90934312|NCT01077284|181747966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.94||||||Hochberg's method for multiple comparisons was used to ensure that the overall 0.050 level of significance was maintained for comparisons of febuxostat to allopurinol and to placebo.|ANOVA|P-values are from ANOVA with treatment as a fixed effect.||||||0.9400
90934313|NCT02791308|181747967|EQUIVALENCE|Proportion of Subjects with Treatment Success at Visit 4/Day 15|Other|0.407|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.57|3.53||||||Percentage of Subjects with Treatment Success at Visit 4/Day 15||3.53|-15.57|
90934314|NCT01180400|181747971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91||0.944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|1.73||The adjusted p-value protects the overall family-wise error rate by taking into account the multiple comparisons between the TC-5214 doses for both the primary efficacy variable (MADRS) and the key secondary efficacy variable (SDS).|MMRM|||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||1.73|-1.86|0.944
90934315|NCT01180400|181747972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.66|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||1.66|0.61|0.974
90934316|NCT01180400|181747973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.53|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||2.53|0.84|0.184
90934317|NCT01180400|181747974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|3.78|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||3.78|0.55|0.461
90934318|NCT01180400|181747975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.75|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||1.75|0.43|0.689
90934319|NCT01180400|181747976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|2.32|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||2.32|0.35|0.831
90934320|NCT01180400|181747977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|1.89|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with randomization HAMD-17 total score as covariate, treatment as a fixed effect and pooled center as a random effect.||1.89|-0.96|0.525
90934321|NCT01180400|181747978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.964||95.0|-0.28|0.26|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization CGI-S total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.26|-0.28|0.964
90934322|NCT01180400|181747979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.58|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization Clinical Global Impression Severity (CGI-S) as a covariate.||1.58|0.54|0.783
90934323|NCT01180400|181747980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|1.11||Analysis for change in MADRS total score from randomization to Week 9.|MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||1.11|-0.89|0.832
90934324|NCT01180400|181747981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67||0.468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|1.82|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||1.82|-0.84|0.468
90934325|NCT01180400|181747982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|2.52|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||2.52|-0.49|0.187
90934326|NCT01180400|181747983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|2.95|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects the model; pooled center is a random effect.||2.95|-0.44|0.145
90968130|NCT01308008|181818527|SUPERIORITY||coefficient|0.05||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.13|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.13|-0.02|0.16
90968131|NCT01308008|181818528|SUPERIORITY||coefficient|34.0||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|83.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||83|-15|0.17
90968132|NCT01308008|181818529|SUPERIORITY||coefficient|-8.7||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.0|17.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||17|-35|0.5
90968133|NCT02325219|181818530|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
90968134|NCT02325219|181818530|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
90968135|NCT02325219|181818531|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
90968136|NCT02325219|181818531|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
90968137|NCT02187172|181818577|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2456|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3873|-0.104|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||-0.1040|-0.3873|0.0012
90968138|NCT02187172|181818577|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0151|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0353||0.6718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0867|0.0565|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment.||0.0565|-0.0867|0.6718
90968139|NCT02187172|181818578|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-64.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|44.88||0.1159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-115.83|25.89|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||25.89|-115.83|0.1159
90968140|NCT02187172|181818578|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.24||0.7666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.41|51.72|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment.||51.72|-38.41|0.7666
90968141|NCT02187172|181818579|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-80.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|30.46||0.0115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-142.55|-19.23|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||-19.23|-142.55|0.0115
90968142|NCT02187172|181818579|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.11||0.8883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.58|26.59|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment.||26.59|-30.58|0.8883
90968143|NCT02187172|181818580|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3027.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3180.58||0.3472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9465.95|3411.54|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||3411.54|-9465.95|0.3472
90968144|NCT02187172|181818580|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1974.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1659.11||0.2416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5336.3|1387.04|||Regression, Linear|||Combined ustekinumab and placebo groups for active treatment period analysis.||1387.04|-5336.30|0.2416
90968145|NCT02187172|181818581|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|24.75||0.6742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.03|119.34|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||119.34|-78.03|0.6742
90968146|NCT02187172|181818581|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|47.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|35.84||0.1979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.63|11963.0|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment.||11963|-25.63|0.1979
90968147|NCT02187172|181818582|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7884.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7780.29||0.3173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23634.67|7566.1|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||7566.10|-23634.67|0.3173
90968148|NCT02187172|181818582|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3782.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4073.25||0.3591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12035.72|4470.64|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment.||4470.64|-12035.72|0.3591
90968149|NCT02187172|181818583|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.54||0.9767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.22|5.07|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||5.07|-5.22|0.9767
90968150|NCT02187172|181818583|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09||0.3205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.29|1.11|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment.||1.11|-3.29|0.3205
90968151|NCT02187172|181818584|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.96||0.4632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.19|25.61|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||25.61|-55.19|0.4632
90968152|NCT02187172|181818584|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.47||0.5316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.47|15.99|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment.||15.99|-30.47|0.5316
90968153|NCT02187172|181818585|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.1928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.27|0.47|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||0.47|-2.27|0.1928
90968154|NCT02187172|181818585|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|0.02|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment.||0.02|-1.36|0.0580
90968155|NCT02187172|181818586|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.41||0.7185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.24|18.96|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||18.96|-27.24|0.7185
90968156|NCT02187172|181818586|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.41||0.3271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.4|8.69|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment.||8.69|-25.40|0.3271
90968157|NCT02187172|181818587|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.3124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|0.51|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||0.51|-1.56|0.3124
90968158|NCT02187172|181818587|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.08|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment.||-0.08|-0.54|0.0106
90968159|NCT02187172|181818588|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-70.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|33.42||0.0408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-138.42|-3.11|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||-3.11|-138.42|0.0408
90968160|NCT02187172|181818588|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|71.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|132.87||0.5926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-197.5|340.93|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment.||340.93|-197.50|0.5926
90968161|NCT02187172|181818589|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|191.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|46.1||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.18|284.81|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||284.81|98.18|0.0002
90968162|NCT02187172|181818589|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|171.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|130.08|212.34|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment.||212.34|130.08|<0.0001
90968163|NCT02187172|181818590|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.62|-0.64|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||-0.64|-4.62|0.0110
90968164|NCT02187172|181818590|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.79|-0.51|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment.||-0.51|-1.79|0.0008
90968165|NCT02187172|181818591|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-155.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|688.28||0.8227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1548.66|1238.04|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||1238.04|-1548.66|0.8227
90968166|NCT02187172|181818591|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-407.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|180.7||0.0302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-773.57|-41.29|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment.||-41.29|-773.57|0.0302
90968167|NCT02187172|181818592|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|-0.47||0.2333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|0.32|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||0.32|-1.25|0.2333
90968168|NCT02187172|181818592|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.03|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment.||0.03|-0.80|0.0713
90968169|NCT02187172|181818593|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.62||0.2869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.48|14.75|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||14.75|-48.48|0.2869
90968170|NCT02187172|181818593|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.71||0.1988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.69|1.22|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment.||1.22|-5.69|0.1988
90968171|NCT02187172|181818594|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.91||0.8744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.09|28.2|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||28.20|-24.09|0.8744
90968172|NCT02187172|181818594|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.26||0.2093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.18|27.29|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment.||27.29|-6.18|0.2093
90968173|NCT02187172|181818595|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.41||0.0135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.21|34.2|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||34.20|4.21|0.0135
90968174|NCT02187172|181818595|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.14||0.8499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.19|7.61|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment.||7.61|-9.19|0.8499
90968175|NCT02187172|181818596|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.96||0.0693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|7.62|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||7.62|-0.30|0.0693
90968176|NCT02187172|181818596|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.42||0.1841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|4.8|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment.||4.80|-0.96|0.1841
90968177|NCT02187172|181818597|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.2305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|3.34|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||3.34|-0.83|0.2305
90968178|NCT02187172|181818597|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.2189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|2.37|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment.||2.37|-0.53|0.2189
90968179|NCT02187172|181818598|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.3212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.11|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||0.11|-0.34|0.3212
90968180|NCT02187172|181818598|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.0137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.31|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment.||0.31|0.04|0.0137
90968181|NCT02187172|181818599|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.8383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|1.33|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||1.33|-1.09|0.8383
90968182|NCT02187172|181818599|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.1651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|1.24|||Regression, Logistic|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment.||1.24|-0.22|0.1651
90968183|NCT02187172|181818600|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.1502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|5.93|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||5.93|-0.94|0.1502
90968184|NCT02187172|181818600|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.8054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|1.91|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment.||1.91|-1.49|0.8054
90968185|NCT02187172|181818601|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.69||0.4235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.79|2.05|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||2.05|-4.79|0.4235
90968186|NCT02187172|181818601|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||0.8653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|2.13|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||2.13|-1.80|0.8653
90968187|NCT02187172|181818602|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.89||0.558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.95|2.71|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||2.71|-4.95|0.5580
90968188|NCT02187172|181818602|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.4454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|2.8|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment.||2.80|-1.25|0.4454
90968189|NCT02187172|181818603|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.67||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.86|34.87|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||34.87|7.86|0.0027
90968190|NCT02187172|181818603|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.07||0.4775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.17|5.33|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment.||5.33|-11.17|0.4775
90968191|NCT02187172|181818604|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|230.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|69.8||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.47|372.08|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||372.08|89.47|0.0021
90968192|NCT02187172|181818604|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-31.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|41.71||0.4493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-116.4|52.61|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment.||52.61|-116.40|0.4493
90968193|NCT02187172|181818605|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.8008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.38|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||0.38|-0.30|0.8008
90968194|NCT02187172|181818605|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.8068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.24|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment.||0.24|-0.19|0.8068
90968195|NCT02187172|181818606|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|46.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|56.12||0.4079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.65|160.57|||Regression, Logistic|||Comparison during RCT period||160.57|-66.65|0.4079
90968196|NCT02187172|181818606|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|33.85||0.8907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.91|73.28|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment.||73.28|-63.91|0.8907
90968197|NCT02187172|181818607|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|48.81||0.8866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-91.8|105.81|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||105.81|-91.80|0.8866
90968198|NCT02187172|181818607|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|32.59||0.4527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-90.78|41.3|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment.||41.30|-90.78|0.4527
90968199|NCT02187172|181818608|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|194.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|66.23||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.61|328.77|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||328.77|60.61|0.0056
90968200|NCT02187172|181818608|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|38.01||0.4478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-106.17|47.85|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment.||47.85|-106.17|0.4478
90968201|NCT02187172|181818609|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.81||0.2704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.55|8.83|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||8.83|-2.55|0.2704
90968202|NCT02187172|181818609|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.41||0.295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|4.36|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment||4.36|-1.36|0.2950
90968203|NCT02187172|181818610|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.57||0.0149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.03|-3.45|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||-3.45|-30.03|0.0149
90968204|NCT02187172|181818610|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.37||0.9734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.93|6.71|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment||6.71|-6.93|0.9734
90968205|NCT02187172|181818611|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.76||0.4384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.03|14.6|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||14.60|-33.03|0.4384
90968206|NCT02187172|181818611|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.33||0.1373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.72|25.99|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment||25.99|-3.72|0.1373
90968207|NCT02187172|181818612|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.77||0.0097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.39|-4.03|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||-4.03|-27.39|0.0097
90968208|NCT02187172|181818612|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.07||0.8119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.69|3.7|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment||3.70|-4.69|0.8119
90968209|NCT02187172|181818613|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.57||0.9415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.91|9.59|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||9.59|-8.91|0.9415
90968210|NCT02187172|181818613|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.43||0.4485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.77|3.06|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment||3.06|-6.77|0.4485
90968211|NCT02187172|181818614|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.16||0.988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.37|10.53|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||10.53|-10.37|0.9880
90968212|NCT02187172|181818614|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.59||0.8836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.86|5.63|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment||5.63|-4.86|0.8836
90968213|NCT02187172|181818615|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.8321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.91|2.36|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||2.36|-2.91|0.8321
90968214|NCT02187172|181818615|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08||0.0394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|4.48|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment||4.48|0.12|0.0394
90968215|NCT02187172|181818616|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|152.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|43.76||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.07|241.23|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||241.23|64.07|0.0012
90968216|NCT02187172|181818616|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|25.7||0.9085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.04|49.09|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment||49.09|-55.04|0.9085
90968217|NCT02187172|181818617|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.1792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.14|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||0.14|-0.03|0.1792
90968218|NCT02187172|181818617|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.2559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.1|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment||0.10|-0.03|0.2559
90968219|NCT02187172|181818618|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.2453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.41|||Regression, Linear|||||0.41|-0.11|0.2453
90968220|NCT02187172|181818618|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.1087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.23|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment||0.23|-0.02|0.1087
90968221|NCT02187172|181818619|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|48.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|61.62||0.4368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.31|173.16|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||173.16|-76.31|0.4368
90968222|NCT02187172|181818619|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-49.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|27.84||0.0833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-105.97|6.85|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment||6.85|-105.97|0.0833
90968223|NCT02187172|181818620|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.8036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|1.97|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||1.97|-2.52|0.8036
90968224|NCT02187172|181818620|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.4608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|1.4|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment||1.40|-0.65|0.4608
90968225|NCT02187172|181818621|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3320.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3414.9||0.337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3592.52|10233.67|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||10233.67|-3592.52|0.3370
90968226|NCT02187172|181818621|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6926.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2257.84||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2351.43|11501.07|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment||11501.07|2351.43|0.0040
90968227|NCT02187172|181818622|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-68.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|131.9||0.6042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-335.97|198.08|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||198.08|-335.97|0.6042
90968228|NCT02187172|181818622|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|85.98||0.9267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-182.18|166.26|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment||166.26|-182.18|0.9267
90968229|NCT02187172|181818623|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.18||0.4226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.28|14.68|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||14.68|-6.28|0.4226
90968230|NCT02187172|181818623|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.43||0.327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.54|10.36|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment||10.36|-3.54|0.3270
90968231|NCT02187172|181818624|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52||0.7507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.56|2.59|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||2.59|-3.56|0.7507
90968232|NCT02187172|181818624|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89||0.9348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|1.73|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment||1.73|-1.88|0.9348
90968233|NCT02187172|181818625|SUPERIORITY||Difference of proportions|0.67||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.89|||Chi-squared|||||0.89|0.45|0.0005
90968234|NCT02187172|181818625|OTHER|95% CI of proportion achieving PASI75 at end of study|Proportion|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.85||||||||0.85|0.55|
90968235|NCT02187172|181818626|SUPERIORITY||Difference of proportions|0.41||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.62|||Chi-squared|||||0.62|0.20|0.0016
90968236|NCT02187172|181818626|OTHER|95% CI of proportion achieving PASI90 at end of study|Proportion|0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.65||||||||0.65|0.32|
90968237|NCT02187172|181818627|SUPERIORITY||Difference of proportions|0.53||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.78|||Chi-squared|||Comparison during RCT period for binary Physician Global Assessment||0.78|0.29|0.0005
90968238|NCT02187172|181818627|OTHER|95% CI of proportion achieving PGA clear/almost clear at end of study|Proportion|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.63||||||||0.63|0.30|
90968239|NCT02187172|181818628|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.3||0.1944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.42|21.06|||Regression, Linear|||||21.06|-4.42|0.1944
90968240|NCT02187172|181818628|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|-5.25|||Regression, Linear|||||-5.25|-19.40|0.0011
90968241|NCT02187172|181818629|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-779.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1049.99||0.4628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2911.19|1352.01|||Regression, Linear|||||1352.01|-2911.19|0.4628
90968242|NCT02187172|181818629|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-910.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|729.96||0.2209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2395.95|574.27|||Regression, Linear|||||574.27|-2395.95|0.2209
90968243|NCT00880399|181818630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.47||||0.4295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|0.7|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitatnt 30 mg at Week 1||0.70|-1.65|0.4295
90968244|NCT00880399|181818630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.15||||0.0586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|0.04|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitatnt 60 mg at Week 1||0.04|-2.34|0.0586
90968245|NCT00880399|181818630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.89||||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.34|-0.43|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitatnt 30 mg at Week 2||-0.43|-3.34|0.0111
90968246|NCT00880399|181818630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.84||||0.0141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-0.37|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitatnt 60 mg at Week 2||-0.37|-3.30|0.0141
90968247|NCT00880399|181818630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.22||||0.0152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-0.43|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitatnt 30 mg at Week 4||-0.43|-4.00|0.0152
90968248|NCT00880399|181818630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.06||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.86|-1.25|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitatnt 60 mg at Week 4||-1.25|-4.86|0.0010
90968249|NCT00880399|181818630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.41||||0.0245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|-0.31|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitatnt 30 mg at Week 6||-0.31|-4.50|0.0245
90968250|NCT00880399|181818630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.86||||0.0082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.97|-0.75|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitatnt 60 mg at Week 6||-0.75|-4.97|0.0082
90968251|NCT00880399|181818632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.6||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|3.19|||Log Rank|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg at Week 6||3.19|0.80|0.51
90968252|NCT00880399|181818632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.66||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|3.3|||Log Rank|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 6||3.30|0.84|0.37
90968253|NCT00880399|181818633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09||||0.7859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.55|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg at Week 1||0.55|-0.72|0.7859
90968254|NCT00880399|181818633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.6429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.49|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 1||0.49|-0.79|0.6429
90968255|NCT00880399|181818633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.04||||0.0092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|-0.26|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg at Week 2||-0.26|-1.82|0.0092
90968256|NCT00880399|181818633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.91||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|-0.13|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 2||-0.13|-1.69|0.0230
90968257|NCT00880399|181818633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.29||||0.0104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.27|-0.31|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg at Week 4||-0.31|-2.27|0.0104
90968258|NCT00880399|181818633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.68||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.67|-0.69|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 4||-0.69|-2.67|0.0010
90968259|NCT00880399|181818633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.22||||0.0361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.37|-0.08|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg at Week 6||-0.08|-2.37|0.0361
90968260|NCT00880399|181818633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.54||||0.0092||95.0|-2.69|-0.38|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 6||-0.38|-2.69|0.0092
90968261|NCT00880399|181818634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.72||||0.1662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|0.3|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg at Week 1||0.30|-1.74|0.1662
90968262|NCT00880399|181818634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.66||||0.2116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|0.38|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 1||0.38|-1.69|0.2116
90968263|NCT00880399|181818634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.02||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.17|0.13|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg at Week 2||0.13|-2.17|0.0820
90968264|NCT00880399|181818634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.55||||0.3498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|0.61|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 2||0.61|-1.71|0.3498
90968265|NCT00880399|181818634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.69||||0.0107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.99|-0.4|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg at Week 4||-0.40|-2.99|0.0107
90968266|NCT00880399|181818634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.1||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-0.79|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 4||-0.79|-3.40|0.0017
90968267|NCT00880399|181818634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.29||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|0.19|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg at Week 6||0.19|-2.78|0.0880
90968268|NCT00880399|181818634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.68||||0.0282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.17|-0.18|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 6||-0.18|-3.17|0.0282
90968269|NCT00880399|181818635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.9854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.44|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg at Week 1||0.44|-0.45|0.9854
90968270|NCT00880399|181818635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.21||||0.3476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.23|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 1||0.23|-0.66|0.3476
90968271|NCT00880399|181818635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.44||||0.0898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.07|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg at Week 2||0.07|-0.94|0.0898
90968272|NCT00880399|181818635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.44||||0.0928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.07|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 2||0.07|-0.95|0.0928
90968273|NCT00880399|181818635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.32||||0.2937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.28|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg at Week 4||0.28|-0.93|0.2937
90968274|NCT00880399|181818635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.59||||0.0587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.02|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 4||0.02|-1.20|0.0587
90968275|NCT00880399|181818635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.45||||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|0.23|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg at Week 6||0.23|-1.14|0.1950
90968276|NCT00880399|181818635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.0498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.0|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 6||-0.00|-1.40|0.0498
90968277|NCT00880399|181818636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|2.14||||0.1731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|6.4|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg at Week 1||6.40|0.72|0.1731
90968278|NCT00880399|181818636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.77||||0.7084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.97|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 1||2.97|0.20|0.7084
90968279|NCT00880399|181818636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|2.6||||0.0247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|5.98|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg at Week 2||5.98|1.13|0.0247
90968280|NCT00880399|181818636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.8||||0.1862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|4.3|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 2||4.30|0.75|0.1862
90968281|NCT00880399|181818636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.87||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|3.61|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg at Week 4||3.61|0.97|0.0630
90968282|NCT00880399|181818636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.65||||0.1413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|3.23|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 4||3.23|0.85|0.1413
90968283|NCT00880399|181818636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.77||||0.0806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|3.37|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg at Week 6||3.37|0.93|0.0806
90968284|NCT00880399|181818636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.53||||0.2007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.92|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 6||2.92|0.80|0.2007
90968285|NCT00880399|181818637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09||||0.2523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.07|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg at Week 1||0.07|-0.25|0.2523
90968286|NCT00880399|181818637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09||||0.2639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.07|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 1||0.07|-0.25|0.2639
90968287|NCT00880399|181818637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.37||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|-0.17|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg at Week 2||-0.17|-0.58|0.0004
90968288|NCT00880399|181818637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.22||||0.0348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.02|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 2||-0.02|-0.43|0.0348
90968289|NCT00880399|181818637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.34||||0.0166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.06|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg at Week 4||-0.06|-0.62|0.0166
90968290|NCT00880399|181818637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.46||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.18|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 4||-0.18|-0.75|0.0014
90968291|NCT00880399|181818637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.45||||0.0099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.11|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg at Week 6||-0.11|-0.79|0.0099
90968292|NCT00880399|181818637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.49||||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.14|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 6||-0.14|-0.83|0.0059
90968293|NCT00880399|181818638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.48||||0.5473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|1.08|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg at Week 1||1.08|-2.04|0.5473
90968294|NCT00880399|181818638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02||||0.9814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|1.6|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 1||1.60|-1.56|0.9814
90968295|NCT00880399|181818638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.51||||0.0515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.03|0.01|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg at Week 2||0.01|-3.03|0.0515
90968296|NCT00880399|181818638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.56||||0.468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|0.96|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 2||0.96|-2.09|0.4680
90968297|NCT00880399|181818638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.22||||0.1757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.98|0.55|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg at Week 4||0.55|-2.98|0.1757
90968298|NCT00880399|181818638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.15||||0.2048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.93|0.63|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 4||0.63|-2.93|0.2048
90968299|NCT00880399|181818638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.16||||0.0312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.12|-0.2|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg at Week 6||-0.20|-4.12|0.0312
90968300|NCT00880399|181818638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.34||||0.0202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.31|-0.37|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 6||-0.37|-4.31|0.0202
90968301|NCT00880399|181818639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.45||||0.7246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.38|29.28|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg, TST at Week 1||29.28|-20.38|0.7246
90934327|NCT01180400|181747984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.766||0.956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.549|1.466||The adjusted p-value protects the overall family-wise error rate by taking into account the multiple comparisons between the TC-5214 doses for both the primary efficacy variable (MADRS) and the key secondary efficacy variable (SDS).|MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization SDS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||1.466|-1.549|0.956
90968302|NCT00880399|181818639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|27.36||||0.0332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|52.52|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg, TST at Week 1||52.52|2.20|0.0332
90968303|NCT00880399|181818639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.12||||0.5439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.18|34.41|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg, TST at Week 2||34.41|-18.18|0.5439
90968304|NCT00880399|181818639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|13.52||||0.3127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|39.85|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg, TST at Week 2||39.85|-12.80|0.3127
90968305|NCT00880399|181818639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-17.51||||0.2419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.9|11.89|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg, TST at Week 4||11.89|-46.90|0.2419
90968306|NCT00880399|181818639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|21.11||||0.1606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.43|50.64|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg, TST at Week 4||50.64|-8.43|0.1606
90968307|NCT00880399|181818639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.48||||0.7412||95.0|-22.21|31.16|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg, TST at Week 6||31.16|-22.21|0.7412
90968308|NCT00880399|181818639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.47||||0.3974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.19|38.14|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg, TST at Week 6||38.14|-15.19|0.3974
90968309|NCT00880399|181818639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.52||||0.1397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.83|3.79|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg, SOL at Week 1||3.79|-26.83|0.1397
90968310|NCT00880399|181818639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-23.9||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.4|-8.41|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg, SOL at Week 1||-8.41|-39.40|0.0026
90968311|NCT00880399|181818639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.67||||0.3206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.85|7.5|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg, SOL at Week 2||7.50|-22.85|0.3206
90968312|NCT00880399|181818639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-24.67||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.86|-9.49|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg, SOL at Week 2||-9.49|-39.86|0.0015
90968313|NCT00880399|181818639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.71||||0.2157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.7|6.28|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg, SOL at Week 4||6.28|-27.70|0.2157
90968314|NCT00880399|181818639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-15.31||||0.0784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.37|1.75|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg, SOL at Week 4||1.75|-32.37|0.0784
90968315|NCT00880399|181818639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.84||||0.3345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.09|20.78|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg, SOL at Week 6||20.78|-7.09|0.3345
90968316|NCT00880399|181818639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.25||||0.6471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.19|10.7|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg, SOL at Week 6||10.70|-17.19|0.6471
90968317|NCT00880399|181818639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.4||||0.8071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.95|21.75|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg, WTSO at Week 1||21.75|-16.95|0.8071
90968318|NCT00880399|181818639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.3||||0.3564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.11|10.52|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg, WTSO at Week 1||10.52|-29.11|0.3564
90968319|NCT00880399|181818639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-15.86||||0.122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.0|4.28|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg, WTSO at Week 2||4.28|-36.00|0.1220
90968320|NCT00880399|181818639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-22.25||||0.0313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.49|-2.01|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg, WTSO at Week 2||-2.01|-42.49|0.0313
90968321|NCT00880399|181818639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.15||||0.8861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.45|31.76|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg, WTSO at Week 4||31.76|-27.45|0.8861
90968322|NCT00880399|181818639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.67||||0.9132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.87|28.53|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg, WTSO at Week 4||28.53|-31.87|0.9132
90968323|NCT00880399|181818639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.09||||0.7844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.55|25.37|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg, WTSO at Week 6||25.37|-33.55|0.7844
90968324|NCT00880399|181818639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.9||||0.8497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.33|33.14|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg, WTSO at Week 6||33.14|-27.33|0.8497
90968325|NCT00880399|181818640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.22||||0.4814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.39|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg at Week 1||0.39|-0.83|0.4814
90968326|NCT00880399|181818640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.16||||0.6179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.79|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 1||0.79|-0.47|0.6179
90968327|NCT00880399|181818640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11||||0.5022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.21|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg at Week 2||0.21|-0.44|0.5022
90968328|NCT00880399|181818640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.25||||0.1389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.08|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 2||0.08|-0.57|0.1389
90968329|NCT00880399|181818640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.9663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.38|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg at Week 4||0.38|-0.36|0.9663
90968330|NCT00880399|181818640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.29||||0.1311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.09|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 4||0.09|-0.67|0.1311
90968331|NCT00880399|181818640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.31||||0.1362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.1|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg at Week 6||0.10|-0.73|0.1362
90968332|NCT00880399|181818640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.48||||0.0275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.05|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 6||-0.05|-0.91|0.0275
90968333|NCT00880399|181818641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.52||||0.0606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|1.06|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg, SQ at Week 1||1.06|-0.02|0.0606
90968334|NCT00880399|181818641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.69||||0.0132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.24|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg, SQ at Week 1||1.24|0.15|0.0132
90968335|NCT00880399|181818641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.94||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.5|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg, SQ at Week 2||1.50|0.38|0.0010
90968336|NCT00880399|181818641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.84||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.4|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg, SQ at Week 2||1.40|0.28|0.0034
90968337|NCT00880399|181818641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.13||||0.6692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.72|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg, SQ at Week 4||0.72|-0.47|0.6692
90968338|NCT00880399|181818641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.82||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.42|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg, SQ at Week 4||1.42|0.22|0.0078
90968339|NCT00880399|181818641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.66||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|1.3|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg, SQ at Week 6||1.30|0.02|0.0440
90968340|NCT00880399|181818641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.77||||0.0181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.41|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg, SQ at Week 6||1.41|0.13|0.0181
90968341|NCT00880399|181818641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.39||||0.1484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.92|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg, RVS at Week 1||0.92|-0.14|0.1484
90968342|NCT00880399|181818641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.7||||0.0108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.24|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg, RVS at Week 1||1.24|0.16|0.0108
90968343|NCT00880399|181818641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6||||0.0361||95.0|0.04|1.16|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg, RVS at Week 2||1.16|0.04|0.0361
90968344|NCT00880399|181818641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.58||||0.0418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|1.15|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg, RVS at Week 2||1.15|0.02|0.0418
90968345|NCT00880399|181818641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03||||0.9305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.58|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg, RVS at Week 4||0.58|-0.64|0.9305
90968346|NCT00880399|181818641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.77||||0.0141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.39|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg, RVS at Week 4||1.39|0.16|0.0141
90968347|NCT00880399|181818641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.65||||0.0562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|1.31|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg, RVS at Week 6||1.31|-0.02|0.0562
90968348|NCT00880399|181818641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.74||||0.0296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.4|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg, RVS at Week 6||1.40|0.07|0.0296
90968349|NCT00880399|181818645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.2||||0.0735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|4.61|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg at Week 1||4.61|-0.21|0.0735
90968350|NCT00880399|181818645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.35||||0.2905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|3.86|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 1||3.86|-1.17|0.2905
90968351|NCT00880399|181818645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.05||||0.4327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|3.7|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg at Week 2||3.70|-1.60|0.4327
90968352|NCT00880399|181818645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.01||||0.4642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|3.75|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 2||3.75|-1.73|0.4642
90968353|NCT00880399|181818645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.48||||0.285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|4.23|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg at Week 4||4.23|-1.26|0.2850
90968354|NCT00880399|181818645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.75||||0.5984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.08|3.59|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 4||3.59|-2.08|0.5984
90934328|NCT01180400|181747985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.21||Analysis for change in SDS work/school domain score from randomization (Week 8) to end of treatment (Week 16)|MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization SDS work/school domain score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.21|-0.98|0.201
90968355|NCT00880399|181818645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.21||||0.4192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|4.19|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg at Week 6||4.19|-1.76|0.4192
90968356|NCT00880399|181818645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.64||||0.6766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.42|3.71|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 6||3.71|-2.42|0.6766
90968357|NCT00880399|181818646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.9951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|1.25|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg at Week 1||1.25|-1.26|0.9951
90968358|NCT00880399|181818646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.08||||0.894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|1.34|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 1||1.34|-1.17|0.8940
90968359|NCT00880399|181818646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17||||0.8195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|1.28|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg at Week 2||1.28|-1.61|0.8195
90968360|NCT00880399|181818646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6||||0.4106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|2.05|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 2||2.05|-0.84|0.4106
90968361|NCT00880399|181818646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07||||0.9403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|1.85|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg at Week 4||1.85|-1.71|0.9403
90968362|NCT00880399|181818646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.58||||0.5206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.36|1.2|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 4||1.20|-2.36|0.5206
90968363|NCT00880399|181818646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.36||||0.714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.58|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg at Week 6||1.58|-2.30|0.7140
90968364|NCT00880399|181818646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.26||||0.0234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.22|-0.31|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 6||-0.31|-4.22|0.0234
90968365|NCT01040351|181818689|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|. The aggregate result of 6 studies reporting the pregnancy rate of patients with ultrasound visible hydrosalpinx revealed that clinical pregnancy rate among the patients with ultrasound-visible hydrosalpinges was 12.6%. We assumed that the aspiration of hydrosalpinx could restore clinical pregnancy rate to that expected for patients with tubal factor of infertility but without hydrosalpinges (about 36.5% in our hospital)|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.02||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|8.0|||Chi-squared|||||8.0|1.13|0.023
90968366|NCT01648790|181818698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|0.983|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.819|1.18|||||Least Squares (LS) means were determined by mixed-effect linear models with treatment, period, sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within sequence as random effect.|||1.18|0.819|
90968367|NCT01648790|181818699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|0.987|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.918|1.06|||||LS means were determined by mixed-effect linear models with treatment, period, sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within sequence as random effect.|||1.06|0.918|
90968368|NCT01648790|181818700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.233|0.335|||||LS means were determined by mixed-effect linear models with treatment, period, sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within sequence as random effect.|||0.335|0.233|
90968369|NCT01648790|181818701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|0.779|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.724|0.837|||||LS means were determined by mixed-effect linear models with treatment, period, sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within sequence as random effect.|||0.837|0.724|
90968370|NCT01761084|181818764|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.94||||||||1.94|.58|
90968371|NCT01761084|181818765|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.74||||||||1.74|.99|
90968372|NCT01761084|181818766|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|1.07|||t-test, 2 sided|Intention-to-treat analysis|Intention-to-treat analysis|Baseline||1.07|-0.84|0.811
90968373|NCT01761084|181818766|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.09|||t-test, 2 sided||Per-protocol analysis|Month 12||1.09|-0.80|0.765
90968374|NCT01761084|181818767|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.61|||t-test, 2 sided||Intention-to-treat analysis|Baseline||0.61|-0.80|0.796
90968375|NCT01761084|181818767|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.65|||t-test, 2 sided||Per-protocol analysis|Month 12||0.65|-0.75|0.888
90968376|NCT01761084|181818768|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.78|||t-test, 2 sided||Intention-to-treat analysis|Baseline||0.78|-0.54|0.719
90968377|NCT01761084|181818768|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.79|||t-test, 2 sided||Per-protocol analysis|Month 12||0.79|-0.56|0.745
90968378|NCT01761084|181818769|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.59||||0.854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.66|6.83|||t-test, 2 sided||Intention-to-treat analysis|Comparison of change from baseline in EQ5D - VAS||6.83|-5.66|0.854
90968379|NCT01761084|181818769|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.78||||0.585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.66|8.22|||t-test, 2 sided||Per-protocol analysis|Comparison of change from baseline in EQ5D-VAS||8.22|-4.66|0.585
90968380|NCT01761084|181818769|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16||||0.335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.47|||t-test, 2 sided||Intention-to-treat analysis|Comparison of change from baseline in OQLQ Average Score||0.47|-0.16|0.335
90934329|NCT01180400|181747986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.45|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization SDS social life domain score. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.45|-0.62|0.756
90934330|NCT01180400|181747987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.68|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization SDS family life/home responsibilities domain score. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.68|-0.40|0.620
90934331|NCT01180400|181747988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.592||0.924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.981|3.286|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA with randomization Q-LES-Q-SF % maximum total score as covariate, treatment as a fixed effect and pooled center as a random effect.||3.286|-2.981|0.924
90934332|NCT01180400|181747989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with randomization Q-LES-Q-SF item 15 score as covariate, treatment as a fixed effect and pooled center as a random effect.||0.10|-0.30|0.345
90934333|NCT01180400|181747990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.19|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with randomization Q-LES-Q-SF item 16 as a fixed effect and pooled center as a random effect.||0.19|-0.20|0.942
90934334|NCT01180400|181747991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0198||0.576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.0279||Analysis for change in EQ-5D index score from randomization (Week 8) to end of treatment (Week 16)|MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization EQ-5D total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.0279|-0.0500|0.576
90968381|NCT01761084|181818769|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.5|||t-test, 2 sided||Per-protocol analysis|Comparison of change from baseline in OQLQ Average Score||0.50|-0.15|0.285
90968382|NCT01761084|181818769|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52||||0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|0.32|||t-test, 2 sided||Intention-to-treat analysis|Comparison of change from baseline in pain VAS at rest||0.32|-1.36|0.225
90968383|NCT01761084|181818769|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.56|||t-test, 2 sided||Per-protocol analysis|Comparison of change from baseline in pain VAS at rest||0.56|-1.16|0.488
90968384|NCT01761084|181818769|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.88|||t-test, 2 sided||Intention-to-treat analysis|Comparison of change from baseline in pain VAS during movement||0.88|-0.68|0.808
91035882|NCT02558491|181958311|OTHER|||||||0.189||||||No a priori sample size was determined due to the feasibility/pilot nature of the trial. Significance level was set at P-value \<0.05.|ANOVA|||Secondary analysis followed the same format unless variables could not be considered normally distributed; in that case a related samples Wilcoxon signed-rank test is used. Data were first binned (to ensure minimum count of five per bins) and the w2 statistics was used with the expected counts given by SoC. Based on achieved recruitment, a moderate effect size (0.3) is detectable with 80% power, or a large effect size (0.4) with 95% power (G-Power 3.1.9.2). Outcome measurement was for overall.||||0.189
90934335|NCT01180400|181747991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.11||0.842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.58|3.73||Analysis of change in EQ-5D VAS score from randomization (Week 8) to end of treatment (Week 16)|MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization EQ-5D VAS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||3.73|-4.58|0.842
90934336|NCT00795639|181748004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.0||||0.0104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|26.0||Significance test performed using non-parametric analysis of covariance controlling for Baseline 6MWD and PAH etiology and PAH not secondary to a connective tissue disease (other).|ANCOVA||Missing value at Week 12 assigned as zero if the subject had a predefined clinical worsening event, otherwise, missing value at Week 12 imputed with the last non-missing 6MWD based on LOCF.|||26|3|0.0104
90934337|NCT00795639|181748005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2908|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance tests of WHO Functional Class performed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, stratified by Baseline 6MWD (less than 310 meters and greater than or equal to 310 meters) and PAH Etiology (Connective Tissue Disease and others).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH test used modified ridit scores, and the p-value corresponding to ANCOVA (row mean scores) statistics were used.||Week 12||||0.2908
90934338|NCT00674765|181748018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.388|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t=.87||||||.388
90934339|NCT03449979|181748019|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0852|||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = (1,39); F-statistic = 3.119||Interaction in the effect of tACS on left frontal alpha oscillation in the depressed group. Two-way interaction of within-participant factor of before/after tACS and between-participant factor of alpha-tACS/placebo.||||0.0852
90934340|NCT03449979|181748019|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6676|||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = (1,39); F-statistic = 0.187||Interaction in the effect of tACS on left frontal alpha oscillation in the healthy group. Two-way interaction of within-participant factor of before/after tACS and between-participant factor of alpha-tACS/placebo.||||0.6676
90934341|NCT03449979|181748019|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.929||||||degrees of freedom = (1,41); F-statistic = 0.008|ANOVA|||Main effect of alpha-tACS on session (before and after) on left frontal alpha oscillations across both groups (healthy and patient).||||0.929
90934342|NCT03449979|181748019|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.195|||||||t-test, 1 sided|degrees of freedom = 20; t-statistic = -0.08789||Difference in alpha oscillations after versus before in the depressed cohort (one-tailed Student's t-test) with the hypothesis to decrease pathologically elevate left frontal alpha oscillations||||0.1950
90968385|NCT01761084|181818769|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23||||0.566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|1.04|||t-test, 2 sided||Per-protocol analysis|Comparison of change from baseline in pain VAS during movement||1.04|-0.57|0.566
90968386|NCT01761084|181818772|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.045||||0.951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.412|1.501|||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline||1.501|-1.412|.951
90968387|NCT01761084|181818772|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.396||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.721|-0.071|||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 12||-0.071|-2.721|0.039
90934343|NCT03449979|181748019|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8603|||||||t-test, 1 sided|degrees of freedom = 20; t-statistic = 1.1117||Difference in alpha oscillations after versus before in the healthy cohort (one-tailed Student's t-test) run as a control analysis||||0.8603
90934344|NCT02379078|181748027|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0246
90934345|NCT02379078|181748028|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
90934346|NCT02379078|181748029|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.12
90934347|NCT02379078|181748030|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.468|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.468
90968388|NCT01761084|181818773|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-65.9|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-91.8|-40.0||Month 6 strength and balance physical activity|t-test, 2 sided|||Only Month 6 and Month 12 strength and balance physical activity differences were significant.||-40.0|-91.8|<0.05
90968389|NCT01761084|181818773|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-49.3|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.8|-28.8||Month 12 strength and balance physical activity|t-test, 2 sided|||Only Month 6 and Month 12 strength and balance physical activity differences were significant.||-28.8|-69.8|<0.05
90968390|NCT01761084|181818778|SUPERIORITY||Incident Rate Ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.63||||||Negative Binomial Regression.||1.63|.58|
90968391|NCT01761084|181818781|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.53|||t-test, 2 sided||Intention-to-treat analysis|Comparison of change from baseline in height||0.53|-0.28|0.536
90934348|NCT02379078|181748031|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.60
90934349|NCT01133678|181748076|OTHER|||||||0.19||||||A recommendation to stop the trial early was stipulated if the conditional power at the interim analysis (after 50 patients) was \<10% using a stochastic curtailment approach.. This would occur if the interim test statistic is t \< -0.287.|t-test, 2 sided|t-statistic = -1.330, exceeding threshold (\<-0.287, conditional power\<10%) for early termination.||||||0.190
90934350|NCT00657709|181748105|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the hSBA GMT at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for each of the two co-primary comparisons, rMenB Lot1 and rMenB Lot2 would be equivalent for 44/76-SL strain with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|hSBA GMT ratios|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|0.99|||ANOVA|95% CIs for the GMTs ratios was obtained by exponentiating difference of least square means of log-transformed titers and both the limits of 95% CIs.||The study would be considered a success if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the hSBA GMT ratios comparing rMenB Lot1 to rMenB Lot2 for 44/76-SL strain at one month after the third vaccination was contained within the equivalence interval (0.5, 2.0).||0.99|0.81|
90934351|NCT00657709|181748105|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the hSBA GMT at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for each of the two co-primary comparisons, rMenB Lot1 and rMenB Lot3 would be equivalent for 44/76-SL strain with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|hSBA GMT ratios|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.13|||ANOVA|95% CIs for the GMTs ratios was obtained by exponentiating difference of least square means of log-transformed titers and both the limits of 95% CIs.||The study would be considered a success if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the hSBA GMT ratios comparing rMenB Lot1 to rMenB Lot3 for 44/76-SL strain at one month after the third vaccination was contained within the equivalence interval (0.5, 2.0).||1.13|0.93|
90968392|NCT01761084|181818782|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.055||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.917|0.807|||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 12 scores.||0.807|-0.917|.900
90968393|NCT01761084|181818783|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.9||0.712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.6|23.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline||23.2|-33.6|.712
90968394|NCT01761084|181818783|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.3||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.3|39.5|||t-test, 1 sided|||Month 12||39.5|-23.3|.60
90968395|NCT01761084|181818785|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.55|||t-test, 2 sided||Per-protocol analysis|Comparison of change from baseline in weight||0.55|-0.25|0.461
90968396|NCT00940589|181818787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.045|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.045
90934352|NCT00657709|181748105|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the hSBA GMT at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for each of the two co-primary comparisons, rMenB Lot2 and rMenB Lot3 would be equivalent for 44/76-SL strain with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|hSBA GMT ratios|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.27|||ANOVA|95% CIs for the GMTs ratios was obtained by exponentiating difference of least square means of log-transformed titers and both the limits of 95% CIs.||The study would be considered a success if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the hSBA GMT ratios comparing rMenB Lot2 to rMenB Lot3 for 44/76-SL strain at one month after the third vaccination was contained within the equivalence interval (0.5, 2.0).||1.27|1.03|
90934353|NCT00657709|181748105|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the hSBA GMT at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for each of the two co-primary comparisons, rMenB Lot1 and rMenB Lot2 would be equivalent for 5/99 strain with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|hSBA GMT ratios|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|0.98|||ANOVA|95% CIs for the GMTs ratios was obtained by exponentiating difference of least square means of log-transformed titers and both the limits of 95% CIs.||The study would be considered a success if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the hSBA GMT ratios comparing rMenB Lot1 to rMenB Lot2 for 5/99 strain at one month after the third vaccination was contained within the equivalence interval (0.5, 2.0).||0.98|0.78|
90968397|NCT00940589|181818788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.044|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.044
90968398|NCT01278745|181818789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0019|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline PAV||||||0.0019
90968399|NCT01923285|181818805|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin, which is pre-specified at 10%. If non-inferiority is achieved at a one-sided alpha of 0.05, a one-sided superiority test is performed at the significance level of 0.025.|||||<|0.0001||||||The non-inferiority margin, which is pre-specified at 10%. If non-inferiority is achieved at a one-sided alpha of 0.05, a one-sided superiority test is performed at the significance level of 0.025.|Chi-squared|||"The primary hypothesis tested was: H0: p1 ≤ p0 - δ vs. H1: p1\> p0 - δ, where p0 is the success rate in the Control group, p1 is the success rate in the Axium group, and δ is the non-inferiority margin, which is pre-specified at 10%.~If non-inferiority is achieved at a one-sided alpha of 0.05, a one-sided superiority test is performed at the significance level of 0.025."||||<0.0001
90934354|NCT00657709|181748105|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the hSBA GMT at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for each of the two co-primary comparisons, rMenB Lot1 and rMenB Lot3 would be equivalent for 5/99 strain with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|hSBA GMT ratios|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.1|||ANOVA|95% CIs for the GMTs ratios was obtained by exponentiating difference of least square means of log-transformed titers and both the limits of 95% CIs.||The study would be considered a success if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the hSBA GMT ratios comparing rMenB Lot1 to rMenB Lot3 for 5/99 strain at one month after the third vaccination was contained within the equivalence interval (0.5, 2.0).||1.1|0.88|
90934355|NCT00657709|181748105|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the hSBA GMT at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for each of the two co-primary comparisons, rMenB Lot2 and rMenB Lot3 would be equivalent for 5/99 strain with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|hSBA GMT ratios|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.26|||ANOVA|95% CIs for the GMTs ratios was obtained by exponentiating difference of least square means of log-transformed titers and both the limits of 95% CIs||The study would be considered a success if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the hSBA GMT ratios comparing rMenB Lot2 to rMenB Lot3 for 5/99 strain at one month after the third vaccination was contained within the equivalence interval (0.5, 2.0).||1.26|1.0|
90968400|NCT01923285|181818805|SUPERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin, which is pre-specified at 10%. If non-inferiority is achieved at a one-sided alpha of 0.05, a one-sided superiority test is performed at the significance level of 0.025|||||=|0.0004|||||||Chi-squared|||The primary hypothesis tested was: H0: p1 ≤ p0 - δ vs. H1: p1\> p0 - δ, where p0 is the success rate in the Control group, p1 is the success rate in the Axium group, and δ is the non-inferiority margin, which is pre-specified at 10%.||||=0.0004
90971191|NCT04852848|181824991|EQUIVALENCE|In our original power calculation, we expected to randomly assign 200 individuals to the Connect2Test (n = 100) and control conditions (n = 100). Power calculations were conducted using G\*Power assuming a two-tailed test with alpha = .05, power = .80, and an estimated COVID-19 testing rate in the Connect2Test condition of 20%. With these assumptions, the minimum detectable effect size (odds ratio) is 2.46, which corresponds to a moderate Cohen's d (0.49).|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.6298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|2.27|||Chi-squared||The control condition was the reference category (Connect2Test intervention = 1, Control = 0).|||2.27|0.61|.6298
90934356|NCT00657709|181748105|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the hSBA GMT at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for each of the two co-primary comparisons, rMenB Lot1 and rMenB Lot2 would be equivalent for for NZ98/254 strain with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|hSBA GMT ratios|1.04||||||95.0|0.88|1.23|||ANOVA|95% CIs for the GMTs ratios was obtained by exponentiating difference of least square means of log-transformed titers and both the limits of 95% CIs.||The study would be considered a success if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the hSBA GMT ratios comparing rMenB Lot1 to rMenB Lot2 for NZ98/254 strain at one month after the third vaccination was contained within the equivalence interval (0.5, 2.0).||1.23|0.88|
90934357|NCT00657709|181748105|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the hSBA GMT at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for each of the two co-primary comparisons, rMenB Lot1 and rMenB Lot3 would be equivalent for for NZ98/254 strain with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|hSBA GMT ratios|0.96||||||95.0|0.81|1.13|||ANOVA|95% CIs for the GMTs ratios was obtained by exponentiating difference of least square means of log-transformed titers and both the limits of 95% CIs.||The study would be considered a success if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the hSBA GMT ratios comparing rMenB Lot1 to rMenB Lot3 for NZ98/254 strain at one month after the third vaccination was contained within the equivalence interval (0.5, 2.0).||1.13|0.81|
90934358|NCT00657709|181748105|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the hSBA GMT at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for each of the two co-primary comparisons, rMenB Lot2 and rMenB Lot3 would be equivalent for for NZ98 /254 strain with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|hSBA GMT ratios|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.08|||ANOVA|95% CIs for the GMTs ratios was obtained by exponentiating difference of least square means of log-transformed titers and both the limits of 95% CIs.||"The study would be considered a success if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the hSBA GMT ratios comparing rMenB Lot2 to rMenB Lot3 for NZ98~/254 strain at one month after the third vaccination was contained within the equivalence interval (0.5, 2.0)."||1.08|0.78|
90934359|NCT00657709|181748107|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs of the differences in the percentages of subjects at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for each of the two comparisons, rMenB Lot1 and rMenB Lot2 would be equivalent for 44/76-SL strain.|Vaccines Group Differences|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|The lot-to-lot differences in these percentages and associated 95% CIs were computed for each pair of rMenB+OMV lots.||The three vaccine lots would be considered equivalent if for each of the three strains and each pair of vaccine lots, the 95% CIs of the differences in the percentage of subjects with hSBA titers ≥ 1:5 at one month after the third vaccination, were entirely within the interval \[-10%, 10%\].||1|-1|
90934360|NCT00657709|181748107|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs of the differences in the percentages of subjects at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for each of the two comparisons, rMenB Lot1 and rMenB Lot3 would be equivalent for 44/76-SL strain.|Vaccines Group Differences|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|The lot-to-lot differences in these percentages and associated 95% CIs were computed for each pair of rMenB+OMV lots.||The three vaccine lots would be considered equivalent if for each of the three strains and each pair of vaccine lots, the 95% CIs of the differences in the percentage of subjects with hSBA titers ≥ 1:5 at 1month after the third dose, were entirely within the interval \[-10%, 10%\].||2|0|
90934361|NCT00657709|181748107|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs of the differences in the percentages of subjects at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for each of the two comparisons, rMenB Lot2 and rMenB Lot3 would be equivalent for 44/76-SL strain.|Vaccines Group Differences|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|The lot-to-lot differences in these percentages and associated 95% CIs were computed for each pair of rMenB+OMV lots.||The three vaccine lots would be considered equivalent if for each of the three strains and each pair of vaccine lots, the 95% CIs of the differences in the percentage of subjects with hSBA titers ≥ 1:5 at 1month after the third dose, were entirely within the interval \[-10%, 10%\].||2|0|
90934362|NCT00657709|181748107|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs of the differences in the percentages of subjects at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for each of the two comparisons, rMenB Lot1 and rMenB Lot2 would be equivalent for 5/99 strain.|Vaccines Group Differences|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|The lot-to-lot differences in these percentages and associated 95% CIs were computed for each pair of rMenB+OMV lots.||The three vaccine lots would be considered equivalent if for each of the three strains and each pair of vaccine lots, the 95% CIs of the differences in the percentage of subjects with hSBA titers ≥ 1:5 at 1month after the third dose, were entirely within the interval \[-10%, 10%\].||1|-1|
90934363|NCT00657709|181748107|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs of the differences in the percentages of subjects at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for each of the two comparisons, rMenB Lot1 and rMenB Lot3 would be equivalent for 5/99 strain.|Vaccines Group Differences|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|The lot-to-lot differences in these percentages and associated 95% CIs were computed for each pair of rMenB+OMV lots.||The three vaccine lots would be considered equivalent if for each of the three strains and each pair of vaccine lots, the 95% CIs of the differences in the percentage of subjects with hSBA titers ≥ 1:5 at 1month after the third dose, were entirely within the interval \[-10%, 10%\].||2|0|
90971192|NCT04091087|181825010|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) mean difference|-14.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.47||0.0299|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-26.87|-1.86||1-sided|ANOVA|||||-1.86|-26.87|0.0299
90971193|NCT04091087|181825011|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|3.33||||0.1546|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.06|8.72||1-sided|Normal approximation test|||||8.72|-2.06|0.1546
90971194|NCT04091087|181825012|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|9.0||||0.0819|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.63|19.62||1-sided|Normal approximation test|||Week 1||19.62|-1.63|0.0819
90934364|NCT00657709|181748107|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs of the differences in the percentages of subjects at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for each of the two comparisons, rMenB Lot2 and rMenB Lot3 would be equivalent for 5/99 strain.|Vaccines Group Differences|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|The lot-to-lot differences in these percentages and associated 95% CIs were computed for each pair of rMenB+OMV lots.||The three vaccine lots would be considered equivalent if for each of the three strains and each pair of vaccine lots, the 95% CIs of the differences in the percentage of subjects with hSBA titers ≥ 1:5 at 1month after the third dose, were entirely within the interval \[-10%, 10%\].||2|0|
90934365|NCT00657709|181748107|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs of the differences in the percentages of subjects at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for each of the two comparisons, rMenB Lot1 and rMenB Lot2 would be equivalent for NZ98/254 strain.|Percentage group difference|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|8.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|The lot-to-lot differences in these percentages and associated 95% CIs were computed for each pair of rMenB+OMV lots.||The three vaccine lots would be considered equivalent if for each of the three strains and each pair of vaccine lots, the 95% CIs of the differences in the percentages of subjects with hSBA titers ≥ 1:5 at 1 month after the third dose, were entirely within the interval \[-10%, 10%\].||8|-2|
90934366|NCT00657709|181748107|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs of the differences in the percentages of subjects at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for each of the two comparisons, rMenB Lot1 and rMenB Lot3 would be equivalent for NZ 98/254 strain.|Percentage group difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|4.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|The lot-to-lot difference in these percentages and associated 95% CIs were computed for each pair of rMenB+OMV lots.||The three vaccine lots would be considered equivalent if for each of the three strains and each pair of vaccine lots, the 95% CIs of the differences in the percentage of subjects with hSBA titers ≥ 1:5 at 1 month after the third dise, were entirely within the interval \[-10%, 10%\].||4|-6|
90934367|NCT00657709|181748107|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided (5% CIs of the differences in the percentages of subjects at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for each of the two comparisons, rMenB Lot2 and rMenB Lot3 would be equivalent for NZ98/254 strain.|Percentage group difference|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|1.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|The lot-to-lot differences in these percentages and associated 95% CIs were computed for each pair of rMenB+OMV lots.||The three vaccine lots would be considered equivalent if for each of the three strains and each pair of vaccine lots, the 95% CIs of the differences in the percentage of subjects with hSBA titers ≥ 1:5 at one month after the third dose, were entirely within the interval \[-10%, 10%\].||1|-9|
90934368|NCT00657709|181748110|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|GMCs (GMCrMenB+OMV NZ lot1+lot2+lot3+InfanrixHexa / GMCInfanrixHexa)|Geometric group difference|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.94|||ANOVA|GMCs and 95% CIs were constructed by exponentiating (base 10) the least squares means of the log10-transformed titers and their associated 95% CIs.||Immunogenicity of the pertussis components (FHA) of DTPa-HBV-IPV when given concomitantly with rMenB and PCV7 would be considered non-inferior to that of routine vaccines given alone if the lower limit of the two-sided CI for the ratio of GMCs one month after the third vaccination is ≥0.67.||0.94|0.76|
90934369|NCT00657709|181748110|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|GMCs (GMCrMenB+OMV NZ lot1+lot2+lot3+InfanrixHexa / GMCInfanrixHexa)|Geometric group difference|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.89|||ANOVA|GMCs and 95% CIs were constructed by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means of the log10-transformed titers and their associated 95% CIs.||Immunogenicity of the pertussis component (Pertactin) of DTPa-HBV-IPV when given concomitantly with rMenB and PCV7 would be considered non-inferior to that of the routine vaccines given alone if the lower limit of the two-sided CI for the ratio of GMCs one month after the third vaccination is ≥0.67.||0.89|0.67|
90934370|NCT00657709|181748110|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|GMCs (GMCrMenB+OMV NZ lot1+lot2+lot3+InfanrixHexa / GMCInfanrixHexa)|Geometric group difference|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.91|||ANOVA|GMCs and 95% CIs were constructed by exponentiating (base 10) the least squares means of the log10-transformed titers and their associated 95% CIS.||Immunogenicity of the pertussis components (PT) of DTPa-HBV-IPV when given concomitantly with rMenB and PCV7 would be considered non-inferior to that of the routine vaccines given alone if the lower limit of the two-sided CI for the ratio of GMCs one month after the third vaccination is ≥0.67.||0.91|0.71|
90934371|NCT00657709|181748111|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|{PConcomitant Vaccine +rMenB+OMV NZ lot1+lot2+lot3 minus PConcomitant Vaccine}|Percentage group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Immunogenicity of the routine infant vaccines, when given concomitantly with rMenB+OMV NZ at 2, 4, and 6 months of age,would be considered non-inferior to that of routine infant vaccines given alone, for diphtheria toxoids antigen, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response greater than or equal to the cut-off level ≥0.1 IU/mL for that antigen.||2|-1|
90934372|NCT00657709|181748111|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|{PConcomitant Vaccine +rMenB+OMV NZ lot1+lot2+lot3 minus PConcomitant Vaccine}|Percentage group difference|-5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|1.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Immunogenicity of the routine infant vaccines, when given concomitantly with rMenB+OMV NZ at 2, 4, and 6 months of age, would be considered non-inferior to that of routine infant vaccines given alone, for diphtheria toxoids antigen, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response greater than or equal to the cut-off level ≥1.0 IU/mL for that antigen.||1|-12|
90934373|NCT00657709|181748111|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|{PConcomitant Vaccine +rMenB+OMV NZ lot1+lot2+lot3 minus PConcomitant Vaccine}|Percentage group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|2.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Immunogenicity of the routine infant vaccines, when given concomitantly with rMenB+OMV NZ at 2, 4, and 6 months of age, would be considered non-inferior to that of routine infant vaccines given alone, for Tetanus toxoids antigen, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response greater than or equal to the cut-off level ≥0.1 IU/mL for that antigen.||2|-2|
90934374|NCT00657709|181748111|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|{PConcomitant Vaccine +rMenB+OMV NZ lot1+lot2+lot3 minus PConcomitant Vaccine}|Percentage group difference|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|1.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Immunogenicity of the routine infant vaccines, when given concomitantly with rMenB+OMV NZ at 2, 4, and 6 months of age, would be considered non-inferior to that of routine infant vaccines given alone, for Tetanus toxoids antigen, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response greater than or equal to the cut-off level ≥1.0 IU/mL for that antigen.||1|-9|
90934375|NCT00657709|181748111|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|{PConcomitant Vaccine +rMenB+OMV NZ lot1+lot2+lot3 minus PConcomitant Vaccine}|Percentage group difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|2.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Immunogenicity of the polio type 1 of Diphtheria-Tetanus-Acellular Pertussis, Hepatitis B, Inactivated Poliovirus and Haemophilus influenzae type b (DTPa-HBV-IPV) when given concomitantly with rMenB and Pneumococcal 7-valent conjugate vaccine (PCV7) at 2, 4, and 6 months of age would be considered non-inferior to that of the confidence interval for the difference in the percentage of subjects with NT titers ≥1:8 was greater than -10%.||2|-5|
90934376|NCT00657709|181748111|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|{PConcomitant Vaccine +rMenB+OMV NZ lot1+lot2+lot3 minus PConcomitant Vaccine}|vaccine group difference|-5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|-1.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Immunogenicity of the polio type 2 of Diphtheria-Tetanus-Acellular Pertussis, Hepatitis B, Inactivated Poliovirus and Haemophilus influenzae type b (DTPa-HBVIPV) when given concomitantly with rMenB and Pneumococcal 7-valent conjugate vaccine (PCV7) at 2, 4, and 6 months of age would be considered non-inferior to that of the confidence interval for the difference in the percentage of subjects with NT titers ≥1:8 was greater than -10%.||-1|-11|
90934377|NCT00657709|181748111|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|{PConcomitant Vaccine +rMenB+OMV NZ lot1+lot2+lot3 minus PConcomitant Vaccine}|Percentage group difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|2.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Immunogenicity of the polio type 3 of DTPa-HBV-IPV when given concomitantly with rMenB and PCV7 at 2,4, and 6 months of age would be considered non-inferior to that of the routine vaccinations given alone, if the lower limit of the two sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in the percentage of subjects with NT titers ≥1:8 was greater than -10%.||2|-4|
90934378|NCT00657709|181748111|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|{PConcomitant Vaccine +rMenB+OMV NZ lot1+lot2+lot3 minus PConcomitant Vaccine}|percentage group difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|-1.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Immunogenicity of the hepatitis B surface antigen component of DTPa-HBV-IPV when given concomitantly with rMenB and PCV7 vaccine at 2, 4, and 6 months of age would be considered non-inferior to that of the routine vaccinations given alone, if the lower limit of the two sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in the percentage of subjects with NT ≥10.0 mIU/ml was greater than -10%||-1|-5|
90934379|NCT00657709|181748111|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|{PConcomitant Vaccine +rMenB+OMV NZ lot1+lot2+lot3 minus PConcomitant Vaccine}|percentage group difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|1.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Immunogenicity of the PRP-Hib component of DTPa-HBV-IPV when given concomitantly with rMenB and PCV7 vaccine at 2, 4, and 6 months of age would be considered non-inferiority that of the routine vaccinations given alone, if the lower limit of the two sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in the percentage of subjects with Hib capsular polysaccharide (PRP) antibody response greater than the protective cutoff of ≥0.15 μg/mL was greater than -10%.||1|-3|
90934380|NCT00657709|181748111|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|{PConcomitant Vaccine +rMenB+OMV NZ lot1+lot2+lot3 minus PConcomitant Vaccine}|vaccine group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|7.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Immunogenicity of the PRP-Hib component of DTPa-HBV-IPV when given concomitantly with rMenB and PCV7 vaccine at 2, 4, and 6 months of age would be considered non-inferior to that of the routine vaccinations given alone, if the lower limit of the two sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in the percentage of subjects with Hib capsular polysaccharide (PRP) antibody response greater than the protective cutoff of ≥1.0 μg/mL was greater than -10%.||7|-7|
90934381|NCT00657709|181748111|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|{PConcomitant Vaccine +rMenB+OMV NZ lot1+lot2+lot3 minus PConcomitant Vaccine}|percentage group difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|0.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Immunogenicity of the 7 components of PCV7 when given concomitantly with rMenB and DTPa-HBV-IPV at 2, 4 and 6 months of age would be considered non-inferior to that of the routine vaccinations given alone, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response greater than the cutoff of ≥0.35 μg/mL was, for the pneumococcal antigen PnC4.||0|-4|
90934382|NCT00657709|181748111|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|{PConcomitant Vaccine +rMenB+OMV NZ lot1+lot2+lot3 minus PConcomitant Vaccine}|Percentage group difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|8.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Immunogenicity of the 7 components of PCV7 when given concomitantly with rMenB and DTPa-HBV-IPV at 2, 4, and 6 months of age would be considered non-inferior to that of the routine vaccinations given alone, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response greater than the cutoff of ≥0.35 μg/mL, was, for PnC 6B antigen greater than -10%.||8|-4|
90934383|NCT00657709|181748111|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|{PConcomitant Vaccine +rMenB+OMV NZ lot1+lot2+lot3 minus PConcomitant Vaccine}|Percentage group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Immunogenicity of the 7 components of PCV7 when given concomitantly with rMenB and DTPa\_HBV-IPV vaccine at 2, 4, and 6 months of age would be considered non-inferior to that of the routine vaccinations given alone, if the lower limit of the two sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response greater than the cutoff of ≥0.35 μg/mL, was, for PnC 9V, greater than -10%.||1|-2|
90934384|NCT00657709|181748111|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|{PConcomitant Vaccine +rMenB+OMV NZ lot1+lot2+lot3 minus PConcomitant Vaccine}|Percentage group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|3.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Immunogenicity of the 7 components of PCV7 vaccine when given concomitantly with rMenB and DTPa-HBV-IPV at 2, 4, and 6 months of age would be considered non-inferior to that of the routine vaccinations given alone, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response greater than the cutoff of ≥0.35 μg/mL, was, for PnC14 antigen, greater than -10%.||3|-4|
90934385|NCT00657709|181748111|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|{PConcomitant Vaccine +rMenB+OMV NZ lot1+lot2+lot3 minus PConcomitant Vaccine}|Percentage group difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|1.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Immunogenicity of the 7 components of PCV7 when given concomitantly with rMenB and DTPa-HBV-IPV vaccine at 2, 4, and 6 months of age would be considered non-inferior to that of the routine vaccinations given alone, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response greater than the cutoff of ≥0.35 μg/mL, was, for PnC 18C antigen greater than -10%.||1|-3|
90934386|NCT00657709|181748111|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|{PConcomitant Vaccine +rMenB+OMV NZ lot1+lot2+lot3 minus PConcomitant Vaccine}|Percentage group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|4.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Immunogenicity of the 7 components of PCV7 when given concomitantly with rMenB and DTPa-HBV-IPV vaccine at 2, 4 and 6 months of age would be considered non-inferior to that of the routine vaccinations given alone, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response greater than the cutoff of ≥0.35 μg/mL, was for PnC 19F antigen, greater than -10%.||4|-3|
90934387|NCT00657709|181748111|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|{PConcomitant Vaccine +rMenB+OMV NZ lot1+lot2+lot3 minus PConcomitant Vaccine}|Percentage group difference|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|2.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Immunogenicity of the 7 components of PCV7 when given concomitantly with rMenB and DTPa-HBV-IPV vaccine at 2, 4, and 6 months of age would be considered non-inferior to that of the routine vaccinations given alone, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response greater than the cutoff of ≥0.35 μg/mL, was for PnC 23F antigen, greater than -10%.||2|-8|
90934388|NCT00657709|181748112|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|{PConcomitant Vaccine +rMenB+OMV NZ lot1+lot2+lot3 minus PConcomitant Vaccine}|Percentage group difference|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|4.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Immunogenicity of the FHA antigen of DTPa-HBV-IPV when given concomitantly with rMenB and PCV7 vaccine at 2, 4 and 6 months of age would be considered non-inferior to that of the routine vaccinations given alone, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects was greater than -10%.||4|-9|
90968401|NCT01923285|181818806|OTHER|Comparison of the mean difference. Difference in intensities is calculated as the supine paresthesia intensity minus the upright paresthesia intensity.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.8|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Difference in paresthesia intensities is calculated as the supine paresthesia score minus the upright paresthesia score for each subject.|"Secondary endpoint compared the mean differences in upright and supine paresthesia scores between the Axium and Control groups at three months post INS implant. This endpoint was evaluated at a two-sided significance level of 0.05.~The primary hypothesis tested was: H0: μ0- μ1≤0 vs. H1: μ0- μ1\>0 where μ0 is the mean difference in paresthesia intensities in the Control group and μ1 is the mean difference in the Axium group."||2.8|1.0|<0.0001
90968402|NCT01923285|181818807|NON_INFERIORITY|If non-inferiority is achieved at a one-sided alpha of 0.05, a one-sided superiority test is performed at the significance level of 0.025.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||The primary hypothesis tested was: H0: p1 ≤ p0 - δ vs. H1: p1\> p0 - δ, where p0 is the success rate in the Control group, p1 is the success rate in the Axium group, and δ is the non-inferiority margin, which is pre-specified at 10%.||||<0.0001
90934389|NCT00657709|181748112|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|{PConcomitant Vaccine +rMenB+OMV NZ lot1+lot2+lot3 minus PConcomitant Vaccine}|Percentage group difference|-9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|-3.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Immunogenicity of the Pertactin antigen of DTPa-HBV-IPV when given concomitantly with rMenB and PCV7 at 2, 4 and 6 months of age would be considered non-inferior to that of the routine vaccinations given alone, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects was greater than -10%.||-3|-16|
90934390|NCT00657709|181748112|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|{PConcomitant Vaccine +rMenB+OMV NZ lot1+lot2+lot3 minus PConcomitant Vaccine}|Percentage group difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|2.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Immunogenicity of the PT antigen of DTPa-HBV-IPV vaccine given concomitantly with rMenB and PCV7 vaccine at 2, 4, and 6 months of age would be considered non-inferior to that of the routine vaccinations given alone if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects was greater than -10%.||2|-7|
90934391|NCT03122860|181748116|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.46||||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|0.21|||ANCOVA|||||0.21|-1.13|0.179
90934392|NCT03122860|181748116|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|-0.06|||ANCOVA|||||-0.06|-1.34|0.031
90934393|NCT03122860|181748116|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.52|||ANCOVA|||||0.52|-0.81|0.675
90934394|NCT03122860|181748116|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.82||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|-0.12|||ANCOVA|||||-0.12|-1.51|0.022
90934395|NCT03122860|181748116|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.59|||ANCOVA|||||0.59|-0.79|0.780
90934396|NCT03122860|181748117|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.32|4.91|||ANCOVA|||||4.91|-8.32|0.612
90934397|NCT03122860|181748117|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.01||||0.223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.47|2.46|||ANCOVA|||||2.46|-10.47|0.223
90934398|NCT03122860|181748117|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.84||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.89|8.57|||ANCOVA|||||8.57|-4.89|0.590
90934399|NCT03122860|181748117|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.36||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.03|-0.69|||ANCOVA|||||-0.69|-14.03|0.031
90934400|NCT03122860|181748117|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.89||||0.403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|3.92|||ANCOVA|||||3.92|-9.70|0.403
90934401|NCT03122860|181748118|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.58||||0.432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.04|3.88|||ANCOVA|||||3.88|-9.04|0.432
90934402|NCT03122860|181748118|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.34||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.69|2.02|||ANCOVA|||||2.02|-10.69|0.180
90934403|NCT03122860|181748118|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.19||||0.718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.33|7.72|||ANCOVA|||||7.72|-5.33|0.718
90934404|NCT03122860|181748118|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.99||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.54|-1.45|||ANCOVA|||||-1.45|-14.54|0.017
90934405|NCT03122860|181748118|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.39||||0.682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.06|5.29|||ANCOVA|||||5.29|-8.06|0.682
90934406|NCT03122860|181748119|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.21|||ANCOVA|||||0.21|-0.16|0.822
90934407|NCT03122860|181748119|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11||||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.04|||ANCOVA|||||0.04|-0.27|0.162
90934408|NCT03122860|181748119|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.09|||ANCOVA|||||0.09|-0.34|0.267
90934409|NCT03122860|181748119|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.12|||ANCOVA|||||0.12|-0.18|0.685
90934410|NCT03122860|181748119|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.24|||ANCOVA|||||0.24|-0.09|0.342
90934411|NCT03122860|181748120|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.13||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.36|4.1|||ANCOVA|||||4.10|-8.36|0.500
90934412|NCT03122860|181748120|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.54||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|0.72|||ANCOVA|||||0.72|-11.80|0.082
90934413|NCT03122860|181748120|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.94||||0.552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.36|4.48|||ANCOVA|||||4.48|-8.36|0.552
90934414|NCT03122860|181748120|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.86||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.16|-0.56|||ANCOVA|||||-0.56|-13.16|0.033
90934415|NCT03122860|181748120|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45||||0.887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.79|6.68|||ANCOVA|||||6.68|-5.79|0.887
90968403|NCT01923285|181818807|SUPERIORITY|If non-inferiority is achieved at a one-sided alpha of 0.05, a one-sided superiority test is performed at the significance level of 0.025.|||||=|0.0047|||||||Chi-squared|||||||=0.0047
90968404|NCT01923285|181818808|NON_INFERIORITY|If non-inferiority is achieved at a one-sided alpha of 0.05, a one-sided superiority test is performed at the significance level of 0.025.||||||0.0003|||||||Non-inferiority|||The primary hypothesis tested was: H0: p1 ≤ p0 - δ vs. H1: p1\> p0 - δ, where p0 is the success rate in the Control group, p1 is the success rate in the Axium group, and δ is the non-inferiority margin, which is pre-specified at 10%.||||0.0003
90968405|NCT00941668|181818838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
90968406|NCT00941668|181818839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
90968407|NCT05879107|181818843|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the GMT ratio (as measured by the OP assay) between the Control group (at Day 31) versus Co-administration group (at Day 31) was \<=2.|GMT ratio|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|1.81|||||The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model, for logarithm-transformed titers, included the treatment group and age category at vaccination as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|Strep pneumoniae - serotype 1||1.81|1.22|
90968408|NCT05879107|181818843|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio (as measured by the OP assay) between the Control group (at Day 31) versus Co-administration group (at Day 31) was \<=2.|GMT ratio|1.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.54|||||The ANCOVA model, for logarithm-transformed titers, included the treatment group and age category at vaccination as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|Strep pneumoniae - serotype 3||1.54|1.12|
90968409|NCT05879107|181818843|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio (as measured by the OP assay) between the Control group (at Day 31) versus Co-administration group (at Day 31) was \<=2.|GMT ratio|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|1.58|||||The ANCOVA model, for logarithm-transformed titers, included the treatment group and age category at vaccination as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|Strep pneumoniae - serotype 4||1.58|1.13|
90968410|NCT05879107|181818843|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio (as measured by the OP assay) between the Control group (at Day 31) versus Co-administration group (at Day 31) was \<=2.|GMT ratio|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.71|||||The ANCOVA model, for logarithm-transformed titers, included the treatment group and age category at vaccination as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|Strep pneumoniae - serotype 5||1.71|1.08|
90968411|NCT05879107|181818843|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio (as measured by the OP assay) between the Control group (at Day 31) versus Co-administration group (at Day 31) was \<=2.|GMT ratio|1.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.69|||||The ANCOVA model, for logarithm-transformed titers, included the treatment group and age category at vaccination as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|Strep pneumoniae - serotype 6A||1.69|1.12|
90968412|NCT05879107|181818843|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio (as measured by the OP assay) between the Control group (at Day 31) versus Co-administration group (at Day 31) was \<=2.|GMT ratio|1.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|1.7|||||The ANCOVA model, for logarithm-transformed titers, included the treatment group and age category at vaccination as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|Strep pneumoniae - serotype 6B||1.70|1.17|
90968413|NCT05879107|181818843|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio (as measured by the OP assay) between the Control group (at Day 31) versus Co-administration group (at Day 31) was \<=2.|GMT ratio|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|1.55|||||The ANCOVA model, for logarithm-transformed titers, included the treatment group and age category at vaccination as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|Strep pneumoniae - serotype 7F||1.55|1.16|
90968414|NCT05879107|181818843|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio (as measured by the OP assay) between the Control group (at Day 31) versus Co-administration group (at Day 31) was \<=2.|GMT ratio|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|1.64|||||The ANCOVA model, for logarithm-transformed titers, included the treatment group and age category at vaccination as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|Strep pneumoniae - serotype 8||1.64|1.17|
90968415|NCT05879107|181818843|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio (as measured by the OP assay) between the Control group (at Day 31) versus Co-administration group (at Day 31) was \<=2.|GMT ratio|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.47|||||The ANCOVA model, for logarithm-transformed titers, included the treatment group and age category at vaccination as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|Strep pneumoniae - serotype 9V||1.47|1.05|
90968416|NCT05879107|181818843|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio (as measured by the OP assay) between the Control group (at Day 31) versus Co-administration group (at Day 31) was \<=2.|GMT ratio|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.44|||||The ANCOVA model, for logarithm-transformed titers, included the treatment group and age category at vaccination as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|Strep pneumoniae - serotype 10A||1.44|1.03|
90968417|NCT05879107|181818843|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio (as measured by the OP assay) between the Control group (at Day 31) versus Co-administration group (at Day 31) was \<=2.|GMT ratio|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.42|||||The ANCOVA model, for logarithm-transformed titers, included the treatment group and age category at vaccination as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|Strep pneumoniae - serotype 11A||1.42|0.98|
90968418|NCT05879107|181818843|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio (as measured by the OP assay) between the Control group (at Day 31) versus Co-administration group (at Day 31) was \<=2.|GMT ratio|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.46|||||The ANCOVA model, for logarithm-transformed titers, included the treatment group and age category at vaccination as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|Strep pneumoniae - serotype 12F||1.46|0.99|
90968419|NCT05879107|181818843|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio (as measured by the OP assay) between the Control group (at Day 31) versus Co-administration group (at Day 31) was \<=2.|GMT ratio|1.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|1.67|||||The ANCOVA model, for logarithm-transformed titers, included the treatment group and age category at vaccination as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|Strep pneumoniae - serotype 14||1.67|1.21|
90968420|NCT05879107|181818843|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio (as measured by the OP assay) between the Control group (at Day 31) versus Co-administration group (at Day 31) was \<=2.|GMT ratio|1.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|1.76|||||The ANCOVA model, for logarithm-transformed titers, included the treatment group and age category at vaccination as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|Strep pneumoniae - serotype 15B||1.76|1.22|
90968421|NCT05879107|181818843|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio (as measured by the OP assay) between the Control group (at Day 31) versus Co-administration group (at Day 31) was \<=2.|GMT ratio|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.55|||||The ANCOVA model, for logarithm-transformed titers, included the treatment group and age category at vaccination as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|Strep pneumoniae - serotype 18C||1.55|1.07|
90934416|NCT03122860|181748121|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.14||||0.473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.99|3.72|||ANCOVA|||||3.72|-7.99|0.473
90934417|NCT03122860|181748121|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.31||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.33|-0.29|||ANCOVA|||||-0.29|-12.33|0.040
90934418|NCT03122860|181748121|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.72||||0.577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.35|7.79|||ANCOVA|||||7.79|-4.35|0.577
90934419|NCT03122860|181748121|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.95||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|-3.01|||ANCOVA|||||-3.01|-14.90|0.003
90934420|NCT03122860|181748121|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21||||0.947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.37|5.96|||ANCOVA|||||5.96|-6.37|0.947
90934421|NCT03122860|181748122|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.05||||0.299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.83|2.73|||ANCOVA|||||2.73|-8.83|0.299
90934422|NCT03122860|181748122|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.18||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.24|-1.12|||ANCOVA|||||-1.12|-13.24|0.021
90934423|NCT03122860|181748122|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.29||||0.675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.75|7.33|||ANCOVA|||||7.33|-4.75|0.675
90934424|NCT03122860|181748122|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.63||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|-2.55|||ANCOVA|||||-2.55|-14.70|0.006
90934425|NCT03122860|181748122|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.99|6.59|||ANCOVA|||||6.59|-5.99|0.925
90934426|NCT03122860|181748123|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.58||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|0.03|||ANCOVA|||||0.03|-1.18|0.062
90934427|NCT03122860|181748123|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.96||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|-0.37|||ANCOVA|||||-0.37|-1.54|0.001
90934428|NCT03122860|181748123|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.5|||ANCOVA|||||0.50|-0.75|0.693
90934429|NCT03122860|181748123|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.78||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|-0.17|||ANCOVA|||||-0.17|-1.39|0.012
90934430|NCT03122860|181748123|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.74|||ANCOVA|||||0.74|-0.49|0.697
90934431|NCT03122860|181748124|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.32||||0.254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.04|2.4|||ANCOVA|||||2.40|-9.04|0.254
90968422|NCT05879107|181818843|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio (as measured by the OP assay) between the Control group (at Day 31) versus Co-administration group (at Day 31) was \<=2.|GMT ratio|1.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|1.61|||||The ANCOVA model, for logarithm-transformed titers, included the treatment group and age category at vaccination as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|Strep pneumoniae - serotype 19A||1.61|1.20|
90968423|NCT05879107|181818843|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio (as measured by the OP assay) between the Control group (at Day 31) versus Co-administration group (at Day 31) was \<=2.|GMT ratio|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.57|||||The ANCOVA model, for logarithm-transformed titers, included the treatment group and age category at vaccination as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|Strep pneumoniae - serotype 19F||1.57|1.12|
90968424|NCT05879107|181818843|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio (as measured by the OP assay) between the Control group (at Day 31) versus Co-administration group (at Day 31) was \<=2.|GMT ratio|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.6|||||The ANCOVA model, for logarithm-transformed titers, included the treatment group and age category at vaccination as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|Strep pneumoniae - serotype 22F||1.60|1.12|
90968425|NCT05879107|181818843|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio (as measured by the OP assay) between the Control group (at Day 31) versus Co-administration group (at Day 31) was \<=2.|GMT ratio|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.71|||||The ANCOVA model, for logarithm-transformed titers, included the treatment group and age category at vaccination as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|Strep pneumoniae - serotype 23F||1.71|1.09|
90968426|NCT05879107|181818843|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio (as measured by the OP assay) between the Control group (at Day 31) versus Co-administration group (at Day 31) was \<=2.|GMT ratio|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|1.64|||||The ANCOVA model, for logarithm-transformed titers, included the treatment group and age category at vaccination as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|Strep pneumoniae - serotype 33F||1.64|1.20|
90968427|NCT05879107|181818844|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio between the Control group (at Day 61) versus Co-administration group (at Day 31) for RSV-A neutralizing titer was \<=1.5.|GMT ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.2|||||The ANCOVA model, for logarithm-transformed titers, included the treatment group and age category at vaccination as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|RSV-A||1.20|0.94|
90968428|NCT05879107|181818845|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio between the Control group (at Day 61) versus Co-administration group (at Day 31) for RSV-B neutralizing titer was \<=1.5.|GMT ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.13|||||The ANCOVA model, for logarithm-transformed titers, included the treatment group and age category at vaccination as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|RSV-B||1.13|0.89|
90968429|NCT00916149|181818854|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||For each group (levetiracetam and no treatment), the change in IEDs/hour from pre to post-intervention: p \>0.05. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||Change in frequency of IEDs/per hour was assessed for each group (levetiracetam and no treatment)||||>0.05
90968430|NCT00916149|181818855|OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the CVLT Trial 1 Learning Score from pre to post time points in the no treatment group.||||0.005
90968431|NCT00916149|181818855|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the CVLT Trial 1 Learning Score from pre to post time points in the levetiracetam group.||||>0.05
90968432|NCT00916149|181818856|OTHER|||||||0.016|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the CVLT Total Learning Score from pre to post time points in the no treatment group.||||0.016
90968433|NCT00916149|181818856|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the CVLT Total Learning Score from pre to post time points in the levetiracetam treatment group.||||>0.05
90968434|NCT00916149|181818857|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the CVLT Short Delay score from pre to post time points in the no treatment group.||||>0.05
90968435|NCT00916149|181818857|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the CVLT Short Delay score from pre to post time points in the levetiracetam treatment group.||||>0.05
90968436|NCT00916149|181818858|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the CVLT Long Delay score from pre to post time points in the no treatment group.||||>0.05
90968437|NCT00916149|181818858|OTHER|||||||0.045|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the CVLT Long Delay score from pre to post time points in the levetiracetam treatment group.||||0.045
90968438|NCT00916149|181818859|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the BVMT-R Learning score from pre to post time points in the no treatment group.||||>0.05
90968439|NCT00916149|181818859|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the BVMT-R Learning score from pre to post time points in the levetiracetam treatment group.||||>0.05
90968440|NCT00916149|181818860|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the BVMT-R Total Learning score from pre to post time points in the no treatment group||||>0.05
90968441|NCT00916149|181818860|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the BVMT-R Total Learning score from pre to post time points in the levetiracetam treatment group||||>0.05
90968442|NCT00916149|181818861|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the BVMT-R Delayed Recall score from pre to post time points in the no treatment group||||>0.05
90968443|NCT00916149|181818861|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the BVMT-R Delayed Recall score from pre to post time points in the levetiracetam treatment group||||>0.05
90968444|NCT00916149|181818862|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the QOLIE score from pre to post time points in the levetiracetam treatment group||||>0.05
90968445|NCT00916149|181818863|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the Letter Number Sequencing score from pre to post time points in the no treatment group||||>0.05
90968446|NCT00916149|181818863|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the Letter Number Sequencing score from pre to post time points in the levetiracetam treatment group||||>0.05
90968447|NCT00916149|181818864|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the Spatial Span score from pre to post time points in the no treatment group||||>0.05
90968448|NCT00916149|181818864|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the Spatial Span score from pre to post time points in the levetiracetam treatment group||||>0.05
90968449|NCT00916149|181818865|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the Digit Span score from pre to post time points in the no treatment group||||>0.05
90968450|NCT00916149|181818865|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the Digit Span score from pre to post time points in the levetiracetam treatment group||||>0.05
90968451|NCT00916149|181818866|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the Verbal Fluency score from pre to post time points in the no treatment group||||>0.05
90968452|NCT00916149|181818866|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the Verbal Fluency score from pre to post time points in the levetiracetam treatment group||||>0.05
90968453|NCT00916149|181818867|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in Stroop performance from pre to post time points in the no treatment group||||>0.05
90968454|NCT00916149|181818867|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in Stroop performance from pre to post time points in the levetiracetam treatment group||||>0.05
90968455|NCT00916149|181818868|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the Design Fluency score from pre to post time points in the no treatment group||||>0.05
90968456|NCT00916149|181818868|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the Design Fluency score from pre to post time points in the levetiracetam treatment group||||>0.05
90968457|NCT00916149|181818869|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in performance on the Trails Test from pre to post time points in the no treatment group||||>0.05
90968458|NCT00916149|181818869|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in performance on the Trails Test from pre to post time points in the levetiracetam treatment group||||>0.05
90968459|NCT00916149|181818870|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in performance on the Grooved Pegboard task from pre to post time points in the no treatment group||||>0.05
90968460|NCT00916149|181818870|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in performance on the Grooved Pegboard task from pre to post time points in the levetiracetam treatment group||||>0.05
90968461|NCT00916149|181818871|OTHER|||||||0.014|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the Digit Symbol score from pre to post time points in the no treatment group||||0.014
90968462|NCT00916149|181818871|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the Digit Symbol score from pre to post time points in the levetiracetam treatment group||||>0.05
90968463|NCT00916149|181818872|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the CPT Accuracy score from pre to post time points in the no treatment group||||>0.05
90968464|NCT00916149|181818872|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the CPT Accuracy score from pre to post time points in the levetiracetam treatment group||||>0.05
90968465|NCT00916149|181818873|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the CPT reaction time from pre to post time points in the no treatment group||||>0.05
90968466|NCT00916149|181818873|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the CPT reaction time from pre to post time points in the levetiracetam treatment group||||>0.05
90968467|NCT00916149|181818874|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the Choice Accuracy score from pre to post time points in the no treatment group||||>0.05
90968468|NCT00916149|181818875|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the Choice Reaction Time score from pre to post time points in the no treatment group||||0.05
90968469|NCT00916149|181818876|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the Verbal Working Memory Accuracy score from pre to post time points in the no treatment group||||>0.05
90968470|NCT00916149|181818876|OTHER|||||||0.039|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the Verbal Working Memory Accuracy score from pre to post time points in the levetiracetam treatment group||||0.039
90968471|NCT00916149|181818877|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the Verbal Working Memory Reaction Time from pre to post time points in the no treatment group||||>0.05
90968472|NCT00916149|181818877|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the Verbal Working Memory Reaction Time from pre to post time points in the levetiracetam treatment group||||>0.05
90968473|NCT00916149|181818878|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the Non-verbal Working Memory Accuracy score from pre to post time points in the no treatment group||||>0.05
90968474|NCT00916149|181818878|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the Non-verbal Working Memory Accuracy score from pre to post time points in the levetiracetam treatment group||||>0.05
90968475|NCT00916149|181818879|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the Non-verbal Working Memory Reaction Time from pre to post time points in the no treatment group||||>0.05
90968476|NCT00916149|181818879|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the Non-verbal Working Memory Reaction Time from pre to post time points in the levetiracetam treatment group||||>0.05
91035543|NCT01299454|181957088|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was claimed for a PK parameter if the 90% CI for the ratio of the geometric means of a PK variable fell within the interval \[0.5, 2.0\]. Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach was equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|Geometic Mean Ratio|1.255|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.702|2.244|||Mixed effect analysis of variance||Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach is equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|The primary comparison was each hepatic disease group (mild, moderate or severe) versus the control (normal group). To compare the primary PK parameters between each hepatic disease group and the control group, the 90% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in the means of the log-transformed data was calculated using a mixed effect analysis of variance.||2.244|0.702|
90968477|NCT00916149|181818880|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the Verbal Recognition Accuracy score from pre to post time points in the no treatment group||||>0.05
90968478|NCT00916149|181818880|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the Verbal Recognition Accuracy score from pre to post time points in the levetiracetam treatment group||||>0.05
90968479|NCT00916149|181818881|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the Verbal Recognition Reaction Time from pre to post time points in the no treatment group||||>0.05
90968480|NCT00916149|181818881|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the Verbal Recognition Reaction Time from pre to post time points in the levetiracetam treatment group||||>0.05
90968481|NCT00916149|181818882|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the Facial Recognition Accuracy score from pre to post time points in the no treatment group||||>0.05
90968482|NCT00916149|181818882|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the Facial Recognition Accuracy score from pre to post time points in the levetiracetam treatment group||||>0.05
90968483|NCT00916149|181818883|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the Facial Recognition Reaction Time from pre to post time points in the no treatment group||||>0.05
90968484|NCT00916149|181818883|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the Facial Recognition Reaction Time from pre to post time points in the levetiracetam treatment group||||>0.05
90968485|NCT00916149|181818884|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the NDDIE score from pre to post time points in the no treatment group||||>0.05
90968486|NCT00916149|181818884|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the NDDIE score from pre to post time points in the levetiracetam treatment group||||>0.05
90968487|NCT00916149|181818885|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the AEP score from pre to post time points in the no treatment group||||>0.05
90968488|NCT00916149|181818885|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the AEP score from pre to post time points in the levetiracetam treatment group||||>0.05
90968489|NCT00978029|181818888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|6.9||||0.486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.17|23.97|||Fisher Exact|||||23.97|-10.17|0.486
90968490|NCT00978029|181818888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|16.9||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|33.83|||Fisher Exact|||||33.83|0.01|0.078
90934432|NCT03122860|181748124|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.86||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|-0.63|||ANCOVA|||||-0.63|-13.10|0.031
90934433|NCT03122860|181748124|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.46||||0.616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|4.28|||ANCOVA|||||4.28|-7.20|0.616
90934434|NCT03122860|181748124|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.62||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.41|-1.82|||ANCOVA|||||-1.82|-13.41|0.010
90934435|NCT03122860|181748124|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.74|5.46|||ANCOVA|||||5.46|-5.74|0.961
90934436|NCT01138657|181748125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.7|||Log Rank|||The primary analysis of the primary endpoint was performed on Main Study data, excluding the Japanese sub-study. The statistical test was performed at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05. The hazard ratio of adalimumab versus placebo was calculated using proportional hazards regression with treatment as factor.||0.70|0.36|<0.001
90934437|NCT01138657|181748125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.76|||Log Rank|||An additional analysis of the primary endpoint was performed using the Integrated Study data (Main Study + Japan sub-study). The statistical test was performed at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05. The hazard ratio of adalimumab versus placebo was calculated using proportional hazards regression with treatment and race (Japanese versus non-Japanese) as factors.||0.76|0.40|< 0.001
90934438|NCT01138657|181748126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference|-0.29||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.07|||ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment as factor adjusted for clustered observations (i.e., observations from each of the participant's eyes).|The mean difference between treatment groups with its 95% confidence interval is based on individual data from all eyes adjusted for correlated measurements within a subject in an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model.|The statistical test for the ranked secondary variables was carried out in hierarchical order at the significance level of 5%.||-0.07|-0.51|0.011
90934439|NCT01138657|181748126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference|-0.25||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.04|||ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment and race (Japanese versus non-Japanese) as factors adjusted for clustered observations (from each of the participant's eyes).|The mean difference between treatment groups with its 95% confidence interval is based on individual data from all eyes adjusted for correlated measurements within a subject in an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model.|The statistical test for the ranked secondary variables was carried out in hierarchical order at the significance level of 5%.||-0.04|-0.46|0.019
90934440|NCT01138657|181748127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference|-0.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.11|||ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment as factor adjusted for clustered observations.|The mean difference between treatment groups with its 95% confidence interval is based on individual data from all eyes adjusted for correlated measurements within a subject in an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model.|The statistical test for the ranked secondary variables was carried out in hierarchical order at the significance level of 5%.||-0.11|-0.43|<0.001
90934441|NCT01138657|181748127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference|-0.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.12|||ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment and race (Japanese versus non-Japanese) as factors adjusted for clustered observations.|The mean difference between treatment groups with its 95% confidence interval is based on individual data from all eyes adjusted for correlated measurements within a subject in an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model.|The statistical test for the ranked secondary variables was carried out in hierarchical order at the significance level of 5%.||-0.12|-0.43|<0.001
90934442|NCT01138657|181748128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference|-0.07||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|-0.02|||ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment as factor adjusted for clustered observations.|The mean difference between treatment groups with its 95% confidence interval is based on individual data from all eyes adjusted for correlated measurements within a subject in an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model.|The statistical test for the ranked secondary variables was carried out in hierarchical order at the significance level of 5%.||-0.02|-0.11|0.003
90934443|NCT01138657|181748128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference|-0.06||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|-0.02|||ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment and race (Japanese versus non-Japanese) as factors adjusted for clustered observations.|The mean difference between treatment groups with its 95% confidence interval is based on individual data from all eyes adjusted for correlated measurements within a subject in an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model.|The statistical test for the ranked secondary variables was carried out in hierarchical order at the significance level of 5%.||-0.02|-0.10|0.008
90934444|NCT01138657|181748129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.26|||Log Rank||The hazard ratio of adalimumab versus placebo was calculated using proportional hazards regression with treatment as factor.|The statistical test for the ranked secondary variables was carried out in hierarchical order at the significance level of 5%.||1.26|0.39|0.231
90934445|NCT01138657|181748129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.21|||Log Rank||The hazard ratio of adalimumab versus placebo was calculated using proportional hazards regression with treatment and race (Japanese versus non-Japanese) as factors.|The statistical test for the ranked secondary variables was carried out in hierarchical order at the significance level of 5%.||1.21|0.38|0.191
90934446|NCT01138657|181748130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference|-11.4||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.9|-1.8|||ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment and OCT machine as factors adjusted for clustered observations.|The mean difference between treatment groups with its 95% confidence interval is based on individual data from all eyes adjusted for correlated measurements within a subject in an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model.|The statistical test for the ranked secondary variables was carried out in hierarchical order at the significance level of 5%.||-1.8|-20.9|0.020
90934447|NCT01138657|181748130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference|-5.1||||0.428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|7.5|||Chi-squared, Corrected|ANOVA with treatment, race (Japanese versus non-Japanese) and OCT machine as factors adjusted for clustered observations.|The mean difference between treatment groups with its 95% confidence interval is based on individual data from all eyes adjusted for correlated measurements within a subject in an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model.|The statistical test for the ranked secondary variables was carried out in hierarchical order at the significance level of 5%.||7.5|-17.7|0.428
90934448|NCT01138657|181748131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference|4.2||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|7.38|||ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment as a factor.||The statistical test for the ranked secondary variables was carried out in hierarchical order at the significance level of 5%.||7.38|1.02|0.010
90934449|NCT01138657|181748131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference|3.67||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|6.71|||ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment and race (Japanese versus non-Japanese) as factors.||The statistical test for the ranked secondary variables was carried out in hierarchical order at the significance level of 5%.||6.71|0.62|0.019
90934450|NCT01138657|181748132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference|1.86||||0.346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.03|5.75|||ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment as a factor.||The statistical test for the ranked secondary variables was carried out in hierarchical order at the significance level of 5%.||5.75|-2.03|0.346
90934451|NCT01138657|181748132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference|1.31||||0.496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.47|5.09|||ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment and race (Japanese versus non-Japanese) as factors.||The statistical test for the ranked secondary variables was carried out in hierarchical order at the significance level of 5%.||5.09|-2.47|0.496
90934452|NCT01138657|181748133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference|5.12||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|9.9|||ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment as a factor.||The statistical test for the ranked secondary variables was carried out in hierarchical order at the significance level of 5%.||9.90|0.34|0.036
90934453|NCT01138657|181748133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference|4.14||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|8.72|||ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment and race (Japanese versus non-Japanese) as factors.||The statistical test for the ranked secondary variables was carried out in hierarchical order at the significance level of 5%.||8.72|-0.45|0.077
90934454|NCT01138657|181748134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference|10.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.86|15.19|||ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment as a factor.||The statistical test for the ranked secondary variables was carried out in hierarchical order at the significance level of 5%.||15.19|4.86|<0.001
90934455|NCT01138657|181748134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference|8.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.88|13.79|||ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment and race (Japanese versus non-Japanese) as factors.||The statistical test for the ranked secondary variables was carried out in hierarchical order at the significance level of 5%||13.79|3.88|<0.001
90934456|NCT04012970|181748149|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|2-way, repeated measures||||||<0.05
90934457|NCT04012970|181748149|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANCOVA|||Stiffness change ran with covariates (baseline stiffness, BMI, ODI, waist circumference, height and gender).||||<0.01
90934458|NCT04012970|181748150|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|2-way, repeated measures||||||<0.01
90934459|NCT04012970|181748150|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANCOVA|||Stiffness change ran with covariates (baseline stiffness, BMI, ODI, waist circumference, height and gender).||||<0.01
90934460|NCT04012970|181748151|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|2-way, repeated measures||||||<0.01
90934461|NCT04012970|181748151|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||Tone change ran with covariates (baseline stiffness, BMI, ODI, waist circumference, height and gender).||||<0.05
90934462|NCT04012970|181748152|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|2-way, repeated measures||||||<0.01
90934463|NCT04012970|181748152|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||Tone change ran with covariates (baseline stiffness, BMI, ODI, waist circumference, height and gender).||||<0.05
90934464|NCT04012970|181748153|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|2-way, repeated measures||||||<0.01
90934465|NCT04012970|181748154|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|2-way, repeated measures||||||<0.001
90934466|NCT03055988|181748155|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.537|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12||0.6331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.779|1.705|||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference means the treatment difference vs. F+S (i.e. T+O 5/5 - F+S 1000/100).|Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) model included treatment and period as fixed effects, patient as a random effect and baseline as covariate. Unstructured covariance structure was used for within patient variation. H0: Mean change from baseline in LVEDVI for (Tiotropium + Olodaterol) = Mean change from baseline in LVEDVI for (Fluticasone propionate + Salmeterol)||1.705|-2.779|0.6331
90934467|NCT03055988|181748156|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||0.9817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.072|0.074|||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference means the treatment difference vs. F+S (i.e. T+O 5/5 - F+S 1000/100).|MMRM model included treatment and period as fixed effects, patient as a random effect and baseline as covariate. Unstructured covariance structure was used for within patient variation.||0.074|-0.072|0.9817
90934468|NCT03055988|181748157|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|1.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.995||0.5238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.719|5.279|||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference means the treatment difference vs. F+S (i.e. T+O 5/5 - F+S 1000/100).|MMRM model included treatment and period as fixed effects, patient as a random effect and baseline as covariate. Unstructured covariance structure was used for within patient variation.||5.279|-2.719|0.5238
90934469|NCT03055988|181748158|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|2.069|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.853||0.2687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|5.779|||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference means the treatment difference vs. F+S (i.e. T+O 5/5 - F+S 1000/100).|MMRM model included treatment and period as fixed effects, patient as a random effect and baseline as covariate. Unstructured covariance structure was used for within patient variation.||5.779|-1.640|0.2687
90934470|NCT03055988|181748159|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.409|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.335||0.7604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.264|3.082|||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference means the treatment difference vs. F+S (i.e. T+O 5/5 - F+S 1000/100).|MMRM model included treatment and period as fixed effects, patient as a random effect and baseline as covariate. Unstructured covariance structure was used for within patient variation.||3.082|-2.264|0.7604
90968491|NCT02662036|181818902|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||Mann Whitney U Test|||Statistical analysis #1 is for intraoperative opioid use||||0.76
90968492|NCT02662036|181818902|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||Mann Whitney U Test|||Statistical analysis #2 is for postoperative acute care unit opioid use||||0.38
90934471|NCT03055988|181748160|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.509||0.833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.341|2.702|||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference means the treatment difference vs. F+S (i.e. T+O 5/5 - F+S 1000/100).|MMRM model included treatment and period as fixed effects, patient as a random effect and baseline as covariate. Unstructured covariance structure was used for within patient variation.||2.702|-3.341|0.8330
90968493|NCT02662036|181818902|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Mann Whitney U Test|||Statistical analysis #3 is for postoperative floor opioid use||||0.69
90968494|NCT02662036|181818902|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||Mann Whitney U Test|||Statistical analysis #4 is for total opioid use||||0.98
90934472|NCT03055988|181748161|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-7.957|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.452||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.865|-3.05|||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference means the treatment difference vs. F+S (i.e. T+O 5/5 - F+S 1000/100).|MMRM model included treatment and period as fixed effects, patient as a random effect and baseline as covariate. Unstructured covariance structure was used for within patient variation.||-3.050|-12.865|0.0019
90934473|NCT03055988|181748162|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.121|0.24|||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference means the treatment difference vs. F+S (i.e. T+O 5/5 - F+S 1000/100).|MMRM model included treatment and period as fixed effects, patient as a random effect and baseline as covariate. Unstructured covariance structure was used for within patient variation.||0.240|0.121|<0.0001
90934474|NCT03055988|181748163|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.286|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.171|0.4|||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference means the treatment difference vs. F+S (i.e. T+O 5/5 - F+S 1000/100).|MMRM model included treatment and period as fixed effects, patient as a random effect and baseline as covariate. Unstructured covariance structure was used for within patient variation.||0.400|0.171|<0.0001
90934475|NCT02326220|181748208|SUPERIORITY||H-L estimate of median difference|0.75|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.667|0.833||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA||Alirocumab 150 mg Q2W (Double Blind Period) vs. Placebo Q2W (Double Blind Period)|"Analysis was performed using the ranked analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline frequency of the apheresis procedure (QW or Q2W) and Lp(a) levels (normal or elevated) as fixed effect and the baseline LDL-C level as a covariate. Hodges-Lehmann estimator of median difference (median of all pairwise differences; CI is Moses distribution free CI.~p-value is derived from the rank-based ANCOVA model. The model includes the baseline LDL-C value and stratification factors per IVRS."||0.833|0.667|< 0.0001
90934476|NCT02326220|181748209|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-55.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.0|-47.5||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|MMRM: Mixed-effect model with repeated measures|Alirocumab 150 mg Q2W (Double Blind Period) vs. Placebo Q2W (Double Blind Period)|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||-47.5|-63.0|< 0.0001
90934477|NCT02326220|181748210|SUPERIORITY||H-L estimate of median difference|0.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.0||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA||Alirocumab 150 mg Q2W (Double Blind Period) vs. Placebo Q2W (Double Blind Period)|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||1.000|0.500|<.0001
90934478|NCT02326220|181748211|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-44.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.3|-36.6||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM||Alirocumab 150 mg Q2W (Double Blind Period) vs. Placebo Q2W (Double Blind Period)|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-36.6|-51.3|< 0.0001
90934479|NCT02326220|181748212|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-50.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.3|-42.7||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM||Alirocumab 150 mg Q2W (Double Blind Period) vs. Placebo Q2W (Double Blind Period)|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-42.7|-57.3|< 0.0001
90934480|NCT02326220|181748213|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-39.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.6|-33.2||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM||Alirocumab 150 mg Q2W (Double Blind Period) vs. Placebo Q2W (Double Blind Period)|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-33.2|-45.6|< 0.0001
90968495|NCT02662036|181818903|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Mann Whitney U Test|||Statistical analysis #1 is for postoperative acute care unit antiemetic use||||0.28
90934481|NCT02326220|181748214|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.2||||0.3012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|12.3||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM||Alirocumab 150 mg Q2W (Double Blind Period) vs. Placebo Q2W (Double Blind Period)|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||12.3|-3.9|0.3012
90934482|NCT02699099|181748231|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority (1 month post-Dose 3 of SB257049) was defined as the upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio (RTS,S group/Coad group) for anti-CS, being below a limit of 2.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.07|||ANOVA|||Adjusted GMC ratios for anti-CS antibody: To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the antibody response to the CS antigen when SB257049 is co-administered with YF vaccine and a combined measles and rubella vaccine versus SB257049 administered alone.||1.07|0.81|
90968496|NCT02662036|181818903|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||Mann Whitney U Test|||Statistical analysis #2 is for floor antiemetic use||||0.62
90968497|NCT02662036|181818903|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Mann Whitney U Test|||Statistical analysis #3 is for total antiemetic use||||0.50
90968498|NCT02662036|181818904|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Mann Whitney U Test|||||||0.20
90968499|NCT02662036|181818905|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||Mann Whitney U Test|||||||0.64
90968500|NCT02662036|181818906|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||Mann Whitney U Test|||||||0.38
90934483|NCT02699099|181748236|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was defined as the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in seroconversion rate of the anti-measles antibody, being below 10% for the two groups (Control Group minus Coad Group).|Difference in percentage|2.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|5.89|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|Miettinen and Nurminen method was used to construct 95%CI for difference between groups||Difference in seroconversion rates against measles antibodies: To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the antibody response to the measles vaccine antigen when YF vaccine and a combined measles and rubella vaccine are coadministered with SB257049 versus administration without SB257049.||5.89|-1.29|
90934484|NCT02699099|181748239|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was defined as the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in seroconversion rates of the anti-rubella antibody, being below 10% for the two groups (Control Group minus Coad Group).|Difference in percentage|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|2.78|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|Miettinen and Nurminen method was used to construct 95%CI for difference between groups||"Difference in seroconversion rates against Rubella antibodies: To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the antibody response to the rubella vaccine antigen when YF vaccine and a combined measles and rubella vaccine are coadministered.~with SB257049 versus administration without SB257049."||2.78|-1.29|
90934485|NCT02699099|181748242|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was defined as the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in seropositivity rates of the anti-yellow fever antibody , being below 10% for the two groups (Control Group minus Coad Group).|Difference in percentage|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|3.65|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|Miettinen and Nurminen method was used to construct 95%CI for difference between groups||Difference in seropositivity rates against Yellow Fever antibodies: To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the antibody response to the YF vaccine antigen when YF vaccine and a combined measles and rubella vaccine are coadministered with SB257049 versus administration without SB257049.||3.65|-2.30|
90934486|NCT02699099|181748268|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority (1 month post-Dose 3 of SB257049) was defined as the upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio (RTS,S group/Coad group) for anti-CS, being below a limit of 2.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.07|||ANOVA|||Adjusted GMC ratios for anti-CS antibody: To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the antibody response to the CS antigen when SB257049 is co-administered with YF vaccine and a combined measles and rubella vaccine versus SB257049 administered alone.||1.07|0.81|
90934487|NCT01782209|181748270|OTHER||Incidence|17.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.4|21.8|||||95% Clopper-Pearson Confidence Interval|||21.8|13.4|
90934488|NCT04620733|181748318|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|41.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.7|53.4||Two-sided p-value for pair-wise comparison was based on the CMH test adjusted for both randomization stratification variables (baseline ALP level: \< 350 U/L and ≥ 350 U/L; baseline Pruritus NRS: \< 4 and ≥ 4).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||53.4|27.7|< 0.0001
90934489|NCT04620733|181748321|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|25.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.3|33.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Two-sided p-value for pair-wise comparison is based on the Cochran Mantel Haenszel test adjusted for both stratification variables (baseline ALP level: \< 350 U/L and \>= 350 U/L; baseline pruritus NRS: \< 4 and \>= 4).|||33.2|18.3|< 0.0001
90934490|NCT04620733|181748322|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-1.5||||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-0.5|||MMRM|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure (MMRM)||||-0.5|-2.5|0.0047
90934491|NCT02221934|181748323|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.176||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.283|||Regression, Logistic||Difference in Responders between groups presented.|||0.283|0.070|0.002
90934492|NCT03072238|181748354|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.0335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.98|||Log Rank|||||0.98|0.61|0.0335
90934493|NCT03072238|181748355|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.0431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.99|||Log Rank|||||0.99|0.71|0.0431
90934494|NCT03072238|181748356|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.5698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.17|||Log Rank|||||1.17|0.76|0.5698
90934495|NCT03072238|181748357|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.2515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.07|||Log Rank|||||1.07|0.79|0.2515
90934496|NCT03072238|181748358|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.01|||Log Rank|||||1.01|0.58|0.6010
90934497|NCT03072238|181748359|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.1723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.06|||Log Rank|||||1.06|0.72|0.1723
90934498|NCT03072238|181748360|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.1566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.07|||Log Rank|||||1.07|0.65|0.1566
90934499|NCT03072238|181748361|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.0419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.99|||Log Rank|||||0.99|0.69|0.0419
90934500|NCT03072238|181748362|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.3198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.45|||Log Rank|||||1.45|0.89|0.3198
90934501|NCT03072238|181748363|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.25||||0.0071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.47|||Log Rank|||||1.47|1.06|0.0071
90934502|NCT03072238|181748364|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.91|||Log Rank|||||0.91|0.59|0.0045
90934503|NCT03072238|181748365|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.83|||Log Rank|||||0.83|0.61|< 0.0001
90934504|NCT03072238|181748366|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.1359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.08|||Log Rank|||||1.08|0.57|0.1359
90934505|NCT03072238|181748367|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.1398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.06|||Log Rank|||||1.06|0.68|0.1398
90934506|NCT03072238|181748368|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.8239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.48|||Log Rank|||||1.48|0.61|0.8239
90934507|NCT03072238|181748369|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.6018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.27|||Log Rank|||||1.27|0.66|0.6018
90934508|NCT03072238|181748370|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Overall Response Rate|20.93||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.2|35.65|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||35.65|6.20|0.0030
90934509|NCT03072238|181748371|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Overall Response Rate|16.46||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.66|26.27|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||26.27|6.66|0.0008
90934510|NCT03072238|181748374|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Overall Response Rate|11.81||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.34|19.29|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||19.29|4.34|0.0012
90934511|NCT03072238|181748375|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Overall Response Rate|5.87||||0.0178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|10.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.90|0.83|0.0178
90934512|NCT03072238|181748376|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||0.0246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.95|||Log Rank|||||0.95|0.45|0.0246
90934513|NCT01574105|181748381|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample sizes of 26 in heparin resistant group and 26 in heparin sensitive group achieve 90% power at the 0.025 level of significance to detect a non-inferiority using a one-sided two-sample t-test, assuming a noninferiority margin is 200 milliliters in the postoperative chest tube loss.|||||<|0.1||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||For the analysis of the patient characteristics Wilcoxon, Chi-square and Fischer's exact tests were used. An upper bound of a two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the mean difference between resistant and sensitive groups for all values of chest tube losses was computed by analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), and compared with pre-specified noninferiority limits. Covariates in the ANCOVA model included patient characteristics differing between two groups with a p-value \<0.1.||||<0.1
90934514|NCT00608959|181748392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.91|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.563|<|0.001||95.0|-2.55|-1.26|||t-test, 2 sided|||Based on a two-sided test at the 5% level of significance, and assuming a SD of 1.3, a sample size of 20 subjects would provide 90% power to detect a mean change of 0.942. No information was available concerning the within-subject variability between the arms.||-1.26|-2.55|<0.001
90934515|NCT00608959|181748392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.87|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.656|<|0.001||95.0|-2.57|-1.17|||t-test, 2 sided|||Based on a two-sided test at the 5% level of significance, and assuming a SD of 1.3, a sample size of 20 subjects would provide 90% power to detect a mean change of 0.942. No information was available concerning the within-subject variability between the arms.||-1.17|-2.57|<0.001
90934516|NCT01416285|181748395|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Kaplan-Meier and COX regression|Univariate and multi-variable||All-cause death||||0.004
90934517|NCT01416285|181748395|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Kaplan-Meier and COX regression|Univariate and multi-variable||Heart failure-related re-hospitalizations||||0.003
90934518|NCT01416285|181748395|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kaplan-Meier and COX regression|Univariate and multi-variable||a composite outcome of both death and heart failure-related re-hospitalizations||||<0.001
90934519|NCT01248715|181748402|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.460
90934520|NCT01248715|181748403|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9999|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.9999
90934521|NCT01248715|181748404|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.732|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.732
90934522|NCT01248715|181748405|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9999|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.9999
90934523|NCT01248715|181748406|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.685|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.685
90934524|NCT01248715|181748407|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.796|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.796
90934525|NCT01248715|181748408|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9999|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.9999
90934526|NCT00828139|181748528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||3-month PFS|0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.14|0.37|||||The estimated value corresponds to the probability of PFS at month 3.|3-month PFS was estimated using the method of Kaplan-Meier. The 3-month PFS estimated value corresponds to the probability of PFS at month 3.||0.37|0.14|
90934527|NCT00828139|181748528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||3-month PFS|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.07|0.27|||||The estimated value corresponds to the probability of PFS at month 3.|3-month PFS was estimated using the method of Kaplan-Meier.||0.27|0.07|
90934528|NCT00828139|181748528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||3-month PFS|0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.18|0.39|||||The estimated value corresponds to the probability of PFS at month 3.|3-month PFS was estimated using the method of Kaplan-Meier.||0.39|0.18|
90934529|NCT00828139|181748528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||3-month PFS|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.04|0.2|||||The estimated value corresponds to the probability of PFS at month 3.|3-month PFS was estimated using the method of Kaplan-Meier.||0.2|0.04|
90934530|NCT00828139|181748528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.92||||||Hazard Ratio was evaluated using a logrank test.||1.92|0.91|
90934531|NCT00828139|181748528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.08|2.1||||||Hazard Ratio was evaluated using log-rank test.||2.10|1.08|
90934532|NCT01345253|181748535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.99||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|2.82|||Regression, Logistic||Odds Ratio (95% CI) and p-value were estimated by a logistic regression model with independent variables treatment group, country, Baseline SELENA SLEDAI score (\<=9 vs. \>=10) and complement (C) levels (low C3 and/or C4 vs. no low C3 or C4).|||2.82|1.40|0.0001
90934533|NCT01345253|181748536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|2.83|||Regression, Logistic||Odds Ratio (95% CI) and p-value were estimated by a logistic regression model with independent variables treatment group, country, Baseline SELENA SLEDAI score (\<=9 vs. \>=10) and complement levels (low C3 and/or C4 vs. no low C3 or C4).|||2.83|1.41|0.0001
90934534|NCT01345253|181748537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76||||0.0116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|2.74|||Regression, Logistic||Odds Ratio (95% CI) and p-value were estimated by a logistic regression model with independent variables treatment group, country, baseline SELENA SLEDAI score (\<=9 vs. \>=10) and complement levels (low C3 and/or C4 vs. no low C3 or C4).|||2.74|1.13|0.0116
90934535|NCT01345253|181748538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0288|||||||Rank ANCOVA|||||||0.0288
90934536|NCT01345253|181748539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.73|||Regression, Cox|||||0.73|0.34|0.0004
90968501|NCT02090413|181818918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|11.2|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Weeks 1-4 combined||11.2|-6.4|
90968502|NCT02090413|181818918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|8.3|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Weeks 1-4 combined||8.3|-10.8|
90968503|NCT02090413|181818918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|13.2|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Week 1||13.2|-9.3|
90968504|NCT02090413|181818918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|11.4|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Week 1||11.4|-11.4|
91079143|NCT05153148|182043945|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-10.6|||=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|-3.4|||MMRM||Point estimate and 95% CI were obtained from a MMRM model.||MMRM model included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction, with baseline value and the randomization stratification factors (prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region) as covariates, and the change from baseline as the dependent variable.|-3.4|-17.8|=0.004
91079144|NCT05153148|182043945|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-10.9|||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.2|-3.6|||MMRM||Point estimate and 95% CI were obtained from a MMRM model.||MMRM model included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction, with baseline value and the randomization stratification factors (prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region) as covariates, and the change from baseline as the dependent variable.|-3.6|-18.2|=0.003
90934537|NCT01129011|181748584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||proportions|11.9||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.9|17.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by use of low-dose aspirin (Yes/No) at randomization.||The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of subjetcs developing gastric ulcers throughout 6 months of study treatment. A summary, including cumulative frequency and percentage with associated 95% confidence intervals was produced for the observational incidences of gastric ulcers at 6 months. The cumulative proportion of subjects developing gastric ulcers at 6 months was analyzed using the CMH test stratified by use of low-dose aspirin (Yes/No) at randomization.||17.1|7.9|0.001
90934538|NCT01129011|181748585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.001
90934539|NCT01129011|181748586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.009
90934540|NCT01129011|181748587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.007
90934541|NCT01129011|181748588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.001
90934542|NCT00248794|181748628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.97|||||||ANOVA|||||||<.97
90934543|NCT00248794|181748629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77|||||||ANOVA|||||||.77
90934544|NCT04908488|181748635|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority in distance VA was declared if upper confidence limit was less than 0.05.|Least Squares Means Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.004|||ONE_SIDED|95.0||-0.01|||Mixed effects repeated measures model|Within subject correlation due to eye and the crossover design were accounted for in the model.|Lens difference (P1fA minus AMfA)|||-0.01||
90934545|NCT01694199|181748636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3529|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3529
90934546|NCT01694199|181748637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2766|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2766
90934547|NCT01694199|181748638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1467|||||||ANOVA|||P=0.1467||||0.1467
90934548|NCT01694199|181748639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5009|||||||ANOVA|||P = 0.5009||||0.5009
90934549|NCT01694199|181748640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9038|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.9038
90934550|NCT01107912|181748641|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The difference of median MPA to 20 μM ADP of a prasugrel 5-mg in the elderly group to the 75th percentile of the MPA to 20 μM ADP of a prasugrel 10 mg MD in the non-elderly group at the end of Period 1 was estimated from the observed data. The upper limit of the one-sided 97.5% confidence interval for the difference was estimated from resampling data with replacement through bootstrap methodology and was used to compare with the non-inferiority margin of 15 percentage points.|Estimate of the difference|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|9.0||||||||9.00|1.00|
90934551|NCT01124916|181748648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8728.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|853.129|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7028.846|10427.154|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the total cost of care between standard and robotic-assisted laparoscopic abdominal sacrocolpopexy six weeks after surgery.||10427.154|7028.846|<.001
90934552|NCT01124916|181748649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.846||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.769|9.369|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in urinary distress between women assigned to LASC and those assigned to RASC six months after intervention as measured by the UDI.||9.369|-21.769|.43
90934553|NCT02206607|181748650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio MR1/IR|31.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|28.09|34.8||||||||34.80|28.09|
90934554|NCT02206607|181748650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio MR2/IR|25.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|23.11|28.27||||||||28.27|23.11|
90934555|NCT02206607|181748650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio MR3/IR|32.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|28.93|35.49||||||||35.49|28.93|
90934556|NCT02206607|181748651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean|15.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.357||1|TWO_SIDED|80.0|11.39|20.06||1-sided p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, period, sequence as fixed effects and subjects-within-sequence as random effects.||||20.06|11.39|1.0000
90968505|NCT02090413|181818918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-14.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.2|-0.3|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Week 2||-0.3|-29.2|
90968506|NCT02090413|181818918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.9|6.9|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Week 2||6.9|-20.9|
90968507|NCT02090413|181818918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-17.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.8|-2.4|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Week 3||-2.4|-32.8|
90968508|NCT02090413|181818918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-19.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.1|-3.9|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Week 3||-3.9|-34.1|
90968509|NCT02090413|181818918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|11.4|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Week 4||11.4|-21.0|
90968510|NCT02090413|181818918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|11.4|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Week 4||11.4|-21.0|
90968511|NCT02090413|181818919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|12.4|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Overall flushing events||12.4|-2.6|
90968512|NCT02090413|181818919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|12.5|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Overall flushing events||12.5|-2.5|
90968513|NCT02090413|181818919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|8.1|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Overall redness events||8.1|-11.2|
90968514|NCT02090413|181818919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|8.3|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Overall redness events||8.3|-10.8|
90968515|NCT02090413|181818919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|11.7|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Overall warmth events||11.7|-1.8|
90968516|NCT02090413|181818919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|11.7|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Overall warmth events||11.7|-1.7|
90968517|NCT02090413|181818919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|17.3|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Overall tingling events||17.3|-5.4|
90968518|NCT02090413|181818919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|16.4|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Overall tingling events||16.4|-6.4|
90968519|NCT02090413|181818919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.5|3.5|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Overall itching events||3.5|-19.5|
90968520|NCT02090413|181818919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-11.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.1|0.6|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Overall itching events||0.6|-23.1|
90968521|NCT02090413|181818922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.8|13.0|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Weeks 5-8 combined||13.0|-15.8|
90968522|NCT02090413|181818922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|19.1|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Weeks 5-8 combined||19.1|-8.4|
90968523|NCT02090413|181818922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|23.0|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Weeks 9-12 combined||23.0|-9.9|
90968524|NCT02090413|181818922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|15.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|31.3|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Weeks 9-12 combined||31.3|0.2|
90968525|NCT02090413|181818923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|15.4|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Overall flushing, Weeks 5-8 combined||15.4|-10.2|
90968526|NCT02090413|181818923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|16.6|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Overall flushing, Weeks 5-8 combined||16.6|-8.6|
90968527|NCT02090413|181818923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|18.9|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Overall flushing, Weeks 9-12 combined||18.9|-12.8|
90968528|NCT02090413|181818923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|12.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|27.3|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Overall flushing, Weeks 9-12 combined||27.3|-2.8|
90934557|NCT02206607|181748651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean|16.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.399||1|TWO_SIDED|80.0|11.93|20.7||1-sided p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, period, sequence as fixed effects and subjects-within-sequence as random effects.||||20.70|11.93|1.000
90934558|NCT02206607|181748651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean|20.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.291||1|TWO_SIDED|80.0|16.13|24.62||1-sided p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||||24.62|16.13|1.0000
90934559|NCT02206607|181748652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio MR1/IR|25.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|23.28|27.31||||||||27.31|23.28|
90934560|NCT02206607|181748652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio MR2/IR|26.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|24.36|28.57||||||||28.57|24.36|
90934561|NCT02206607|181748652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio MR3/IR|36.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|34.09|40.02||||||||40.02|34.09|
90934562|NCT02206607|181748658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio MR1/IR|31.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|28.28|34.1||||||||34.10|28.28|
90934563|NCT02206607|181748658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio MR2/IR|24.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|22.73|27.4||||||||27.40|22.73|
90934564|NCT02206607|181748658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio MR3/IR|31.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|28.86|34.81||||||||34.81|28.86|
90934565|NCT03014726|181748690|OTHER|Recurrence \< 0.5 as defined by an IPSS score of less than or equal to 11. The performance goal is met if the upper limit of the one-sided 95% confidence interval for recurrence is less than 50%.|||||<|0.001|||||||1-sample binomial z-test|||||||<0.001
90934566|NCT02159352|181748698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|0.384|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.348|0.423||||||A general linear mixed effect model (restricted maximum likelihood) with treatment as fixed effect and measurements within each participant as repeated measures was fitted to the log-transformed Cmax.||0.423|0.348|
90934567|NCT02159352|181748698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|0.337|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.306|0.371||||||A general linear mixed effect model (restricted maximum likelihood) with treatment as fixed effect and measurements within each participant as repeated measures was fitted to the log-transformed Cmax.||0.371|0.306|
90934568|NCT02159352|181748699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|0.703|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.658|0.75||||||A general linear mixed effect model (restricted maximum likelihood) with treatment as fixed effect and measurements within each participant as repeated measures was fitted to the log-transformed AUC(TAU).||0.750|0.658|
90934569|NCT02159352|181748699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|0.577|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.535|0.622||||||A general linear mixed effect model (restricted maximum likelihood) with treatment as fixed effect and measurements within each participant as repeated measures was fitted to the log-transformed AUC(TAU).||0.622|0.535|
90934570|NCT02159352|181748702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|0.768|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.697|0.846||||||A general linear mixed effect model (restricted maximum likelihood) with treatment as fixed effect and measurements within each participant as repeated measures was fitted to the log-transformed Cmax/D.||0.846|0.697|
90934571|NCT02159352|181748702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|0.673|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.611|0.742||||||A general linear mixed effect model (restricted maximum likelihood) with treatment as fixed effect and measurements within each participant as repeated measures was fitted to the log-transformed Cmax/D.||0.742|0.611|
90934572|NCT02159352|181748703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|1.406|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.317|1.501||||||A general linear mixed effect model (restricted maximum likelihood) with treatment as fixed effect and measurements within each participant as repeated measures was fitted to the log-transformed (AUC(TAU)/D).||1.501|1.317|
90934573|NCT02159352|181748703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|1.154|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.07|1.244||||||A general linear mixed effect model (restricted maximum likelihood) with treatment as fixed effect and measurements within each participant as repeated measures was fitted to the log-transformed (AUC(TAU)/D).||1.244|1.070|
90934574|NCT00337610|181748726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.19|<|0.001||95.0|-1.36|-0.67|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment; baseline; prior anti-hyperglycemic agent (AHA) \[medication\] (on Monotherapy AHA or on Metformin-based combination therapy)||||-0.67|-1.36|<0.001
90934575|NCT00337610|181748727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-25.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|42.2|<|0.001||95.0|-37.7|-13.3|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment; baseline; prior anti-hyperglycemic medication (on Monotherapy AHA or on Metformin-based combination therapy)||||-13.3|-37.7|<0.001
90934576|NCT00337610|181748728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-54.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|63.8|<|0.001||95.0|-74.7|-33.6|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment; baseline; prior anti-hyperglycemic medication (on Monotherapy AHA or on Metformin-based combination therapy)||||-33.6|-74.7|<0.001
90934577|NCT00337610|181748729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.34|<|0.001||95.0|-1.4|-0.62|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment; baseline; prior anti-hyperglycemic medication (on Monotherapy AHA or on Metformin-based combination therapy)||||-0.62|-1.40|<0.001
90934578|NCT02978183|181748733|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0882||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: Pre-CAC||||0.0882
90934579|NCT02978183|181748733|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8032||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 5 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.8032
90934580|NCT02978183|181748733|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9003||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 7 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.9003
90934581|NCT02978183|181748733|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9523||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 10 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.9523
90934582|NCT02978183|181748733|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9071||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 15 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.9071
90934583|NCT02978183|181748733|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7509||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 20 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.7509
90934584|NCT02978183|181748733|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2824||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 25 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.2824
90934585|NCT02978183|181748733|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4017||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 30 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.4017
90934586|NCT02978183|181748733|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4497||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: All Post-CAC Time Points||||0.4497
90934587|NCT02978183|181748733|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.165||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: Pre-CAC||||0.1650
90934588|NCT02978183|181748733|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3494||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 5 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.3494
90934589|NCT02978183|181748733|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4781||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 7 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.4781
90934590|NCT02978183|181748733|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9847||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 10 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.9847
90934591|NCT02978183|181748733|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9731||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 15 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.9731
90934592|NCT02978183|181748733|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6984||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 20 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.6984
90934593|NCT02978183|181748733|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6265||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 25 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.6265
90934594|NCT02978183|181748733|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7848||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 30 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.7848
90934595|NCT02978183|181748733|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5789||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: All Post-CAC Time Points||||0.5789
90934596|NCT02978183|181748734|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8165||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: Pre-CAC||||0.8165
90934597|NCT02978183|181748734|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.659||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 10 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.6590
90934598|NCT02978183|181748734|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7455||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 15 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.7455
90934599|NCT02978183|181748734|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9212||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 20 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.9212
90934600|NCT02978183|181748734|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9509||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 25 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.9509
90934601|NCT02978183|181748734|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7897||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 30 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.7897
90934602|NCT02978183|181748734|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3183||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: All Post-CAC Time Points||||0.3183
90934603|NCT02978183|181748734|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7604||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: Pre-CAC||||0.7604
90934604|NCT02978183|181748734|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7343||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 10 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.7343
90934605|NCT02978183|181748734|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.153||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 15 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.1530
90934606|NCT02978183|181748734|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3307||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 20 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.3307
90934607|NCT02978183|181748734|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3399||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 25 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.3399
90934608|NCT02978183|181748734|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5137||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 30 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.5137
90934609|NCT02978183|181748734|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9962||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: All Post-CAC Time Points||||0.9962
90934610|NCT02978183|181748735|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3259||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: Pre-CAC||||0.3259
90934611|NCT02978183|181748735|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9785||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 10 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.9785
90934612|NCT02978183|181748735|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5112||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 15 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.5112
90934613|NCT02978183|181748735|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7771||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 20 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.7771
90934614|NCT02978183|181748735|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6232||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 25 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.6232
90934615|NCT02978183|181748735|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8895||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 30 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.8895
90934616|NCT02978183|181748735|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8974||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: All Post-CAC Time Points||||0.8974
90934617|NCT02978183|181748735|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9604||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: Pre-CAC||||0.9604
90934618|NCT02978183|181748735|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5301||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 10 minutes Post-CAC||||0.5301
90934619|NCT02978183|181748735|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0386||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 15 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.0386
90934620|NCT02978183|181748735|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1034||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 20 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.1034
90934621|NCT02978183|181748735|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0985||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 25 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.0985
90934622|NCT02978183|181748735|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2342||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 30 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.2342
90934623|NCT02978183|181748735|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3016||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: All Post-CAC Time Points||||0.3016
90934624|NCT02978183|181748736|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4927||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: Pre-CAC||||0.4927
90934625|NCT02978183|181748736|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8686||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 10 minutes Post-CAC||||0.8686
90934626|NCT02978183|181748736|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5772||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 15 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.5772
90934627|NCT02978183|181748736|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 20 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.9700
90934628|NCT02978183|181748736|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7516||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 25 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.7516
90934629|NCT02978183|181748736|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9532||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 30 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.9532
90968529|NCT02090413|181818923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.7|12.2|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Redness, Weeks 5-8 combined||12.2|-15.7|
90934630|NCT02978183|181748736|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7522||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: All Post-CAC Time Points||||0.7522
90934631|NCT02978183|181748736|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6804||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: Pre-CAC||||0.6804
90934632|NCT02978183|181748736|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6267||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 10 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.6267
90934633|NCT02978183|181748736|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0976||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 15 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.0976
90934634|NCT02978183|181748736|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4687|||||||ANCOVA|||Day 8: 20 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.4687
90934635|NCT02978183|181748736|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0421||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 25 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.0421
90934636|NCT02978183|181748736|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6085||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 30 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.6085
90934637|NCT02978183|181748736|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9634||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: All Post-CAC Time Points||||0.9634
90934638|NCT02978183|181748737|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3322||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: Pre-CAC||||0.3322
90934639|NCT02978183|181748737|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8026||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 10 Minutes Pre-CAC||||0.8026
90934640|NCT02978183|181748737|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9981||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 15 Minutes Pre-CAC||||0.9981
90968530|NCT02090413|181818923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|17.3|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Redness, Weeks 5-8 combined||17.3|-9.4|
90968531|NCT02090413|181818923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.1|7.0|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Redness, Weeks 9-12 combined||7.0|-25.1|
90968532|NCT02090413|181818923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|18.5|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Redness, Weeks 9-12 combined||18.5|-12.0|
90968533|NCT02090413|181818923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|12.9|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Warmth, Weeks 5-8 combined||12.9|-13.5|
90968534|NCT02090413|181818923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|15.4|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Warmth, Weeks 5-8 combined||15.4|-10.2|
90934641|NCT02978183|181748737|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5645||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 20 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.5645
90934642|NCT02978183|181748737|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5455||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 25 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.5455
90934643|NCT02978183|181748737|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.698||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 30 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.6980
90934644|NCT02978183|181748737|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6115||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: All Post-CAC Time Points||||0.6115
90934645|NCT02978183|181748737|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4528||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: Pre-CAC||||0.4528
90934646|NCT02978183|181748737|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7551||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 10 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.7551
90934647|NCT02978183|181748737|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5318||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 15 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.5318
90934648|NCT02978183|181748737|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9748||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 20 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.9748
90934649|NCT02978183|181748737|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7706||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 25 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.7706
90934650|NCT02978183|181748737|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3414||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 30 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.3414
90934651|NCT02978183|181748737|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4361||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: All Post-CAC Time Points||||0.4361
90934652|NCT02978183|181748738|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0603||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: Pre-CAC||||0.0603
90934653|NCT02978183|181748738|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4857||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 10 minutes Post-CAC||||0.4857
90934654|NCT02978183|181748738|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9815||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 15 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.9815
90934655|NCT02978183|181748738|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6213||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 20 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.6213
90934656|NCT02978183|181748738|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1831||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 25 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.1831
90934657|NCT02978183|181748738|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6489||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 30 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.6489
90934658|NCT02978183|181748738|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2622||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: All Post-CAC Time Points||||0.2622
90968535|NCT02090413|181818923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.3|15.7|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Warmth, Weeks 9-12 combined||15.7|-15.3|
90934659|NCT02978183|181748738|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2397||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: Pre-CAC||||0.2397
90934660|NCT02978183|181748738|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3202||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 10 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.3202
90934661|NCT02978183|181748738|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2663||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 15 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.2663
90934662|NCT02978183|181748738|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5672||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 20 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.5672
90934663|NCT02978183|181748738|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5055||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 25 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.5055
90934664|NCT02978183|181748738|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8143||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 30 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.8143
90934665|NCT02978183|181748738|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6901||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: All Post-CAC Time Points||||0.6901
90934666|NCT02978183|181748739|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4032||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: Pre-CAC||||0.4032
90934667|NCT02978183|181748739|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2946||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 10 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.2946
90934668|NCT02978183|181748739|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2863||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 15 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.2863
90934669|NCT02978183|181748739|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0891||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 20 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.0891
90934670|NCT02978183|181748739|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5347||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 25 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.5347
90934671|NCT02978183|181748739|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3733||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 30 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.3733
90934672|NCT02978183|181748739|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2506||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: All Post-CAC Time Points||||0.2506
90934673|NCT02978183|181748739|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8667||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: Pre-CAC||||0.8667
90934674|NCT02978183|181748739|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.764||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 10 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.7640
90934675|NCT02978183|181748739|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8008||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 15 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.8008
90934676|NCT02978183|181748739|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4729||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 20 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.4729
90934677|NCT02978183|181748739|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4742||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 25 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.4742
90934678|NCT02978183|181748739|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2922||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 30 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.2922
90934679|NCT02978183|181748739|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3657||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: All Post-CAC Time Points||||0.3657
90934680|NCT02978183|181748740|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: Pre-CAC||||0.6600
90934681|NCT02978183|181748740|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6877||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 10 minutes Post-CAC||||0.6877
90934682|NCT02978183|181748740|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.334||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 15 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.3340
90934683|NCT02978183|181748740|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7874||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 20 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.7874
90934684|NCT02978183|181748740|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3812||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 25 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.3812
90934685|NCT02978183|181748740|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6987|||||||ANCOVA|||Day 7: 30 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.6987
90934686|NCT02978183|181748740|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6832||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: All Post-CAC Time Points||||0.6832
90934687|NCT02978183|181748740|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8521||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: Pre-CAC||||0.8521
90934688|NCT02978183|181748740|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7516||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 10 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.7516
90934689|NCT02978183|181748740|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6252||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 15 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.6252
90934690|NCT02978183|181748740|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8321||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 20 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.8321
90934691|NCT02978183|181748740|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8173||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 25 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.8173
90934692|NCT02978183|181748740|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5445||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 30 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.5445
90934693|NCT02978183|181748740|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.681||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: All Post-CAC Time Points||||0.6810
90934694|NCT02978183|181748741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0111||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: Pre-CAC||||0.0111
90934695|NCT02978183|181748741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3391||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 10 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.3391
90934696|NCT02978183|181748741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.239||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 15 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.2390
90934697|NCT02978183|181748741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3068||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 20 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.3068
90968536|NCT02090413|181818923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|19.9|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Warmth, Weeks 9-12 combined||19.9|-10.3|
90968537|NCT02090413|181818923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.4|14.3|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Tingling, Weeks 5-8 combined||14.3|-18.4|
90968538|NCT02090413|181818923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|13.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|29.3|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Tingling, Weeks 5-8 combined||29.3|-1.9|
90968539|NCT02090413|181818923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-5.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.1|11.8|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Tingling, Weeks 9-12 combined||11.8|-22.1|
90968540|NCT02090413|181818923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|23.9|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Tingling, Weeks 9-12 combined||23.9|-9.6|
90968541|NCT02090413|181818923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|9.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|25.5|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Itching, Weeks 5-8 combined||25.5|-6.8|
90968542|NCT02090413|181818923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|9.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|25.5|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Itching, Weeks 5-8||25.5|-6.8|
91079145|NCT05153148|182043946|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.07|||=|0.357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.08|||MMRM||Point estimate and 95% CI were obtained from a MMRM model.||MMRM model included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction, with baseline value and the randomization stratification factors (prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region) as covariates, and the change from baseline as the dependent variable.|0.08|-0.21|=0.357
90934698|NCT02978183|181748741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4914||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 25 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.4914
90934699|NCT02978183|181748741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5185||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 30 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.5185
90968543|NCT02090413|181818923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|20.8|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Itching, Weeks 9-12 combined||20.8|-13.2|
90968544|NCT02090413|181818923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|8.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|25.3|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Itching, Weeks 9-12 combined||25.3|-8.5|
90968545|NCT02090413|181818927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.145|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.414|0.125|||||Analysis of variance model (ANCOVA) model was used with treatment, center as effects and baseline characteristics as covariates.|Weeks 1-4 combined||0.125|-0.414|
90968546|NCT02090413|181818927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.392|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.656|-0.128|||||ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as effects and baseline characteristics as covariates.|Weeks 1-4 combined||-0.128|-0.656|
90968547|NCT02090413|181818927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.247|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.507|0.012|||||ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as effects and baseline characteristics as covariates.|Weeks 1-4 combined||0.012|-0.507|
90968548|NCT02090413|181818927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.376|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.193|0.945|||||ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as effects and baseline characteristics as covariates.|Weeks 5-8 combined||0.945|-0.193|
90968549|NCT02090413|181818927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.069|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.498|0.635|||||ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as effects and baseline characteristics as covariates.|Weeks 5-8 combined||0.635|-0.498|
90934700|NCT02978183|181748741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5262||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: All Post-CAC Time Points||||0.5262
90934701|NCT02978183|181748741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6098||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: Pre-CAC||||0.6098
90934702|NCT02978183|181748741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8849||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 10 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.8849
90934703|NCT02978183|181748741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6941||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 15 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.6941
90934704|NCT02978183|181748741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5728||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 20 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.5728
90934705|NCT02978183|181748741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5931||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 25 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.5931
90934706|NCT02978183|181748741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7513||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 30 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.7513
90934707|NCT02978183|181748741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7297||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: All Post-CAC Time Points||||0.7297
90934708|NCT02978183|181748742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1259||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: Pre-CAC||||0.1259
90934709|NCT02978183|181748742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9234||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 10 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.9234
90934710|NCT02978183|181748742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8816||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 15 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.8816
90968550|NCT02090413|181818927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.308|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.867|0.251|||||ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as effects and baseline characteristics as covariates.|Weeks 5-8 combined||0.251|-0.867|
90968551|NCT02090413|181818927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.024|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.308|0.355|||||ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as effects and baseline characteristics as covariates.|Weeks 9-12 combined||0.355|-0.308|
90968552|NCT02090413|181818927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.374|0.254|||||ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as effects and baseline characteristics as covariates.|Weeks 9-12 combined||0.254|-0.374|
90968553|NCT02090413|181818927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.084|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.232|||||ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as effects and baseline characteristics as covariates.|Weeks 9-12 combined||0.232|-0.4|
90934711|NCT02978183|181748742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5703||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 20 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.5703
90934712|NCT02978183|181748742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5428||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 25 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.5428
90934713|NCT02978183|181748742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7454||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 30 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.7454
90934714|NCT02978183|181748742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8195||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: All Post-CAC Time Points||||0.8195
90934715|NCT02978183|181748742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0909||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: Pre-CAC||||0.0909
90934716|NCT02978183|181748742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4881||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 10 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.4881
90934717|NCT02978183|181748742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3391||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 15 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.3391
90934718|NCT02978183|181748742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6065||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 20 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.6065
90934719|NCT02978183|181748742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3393||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 25 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.3393
90971195|NCT04091087|181825012|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-0.47||||0.4789|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.2|14.25||1-sided|Normal approximation test|||Week 2||14.25|-15.20|0.4789
90934720|NCT02978183|181748742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8364||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 30 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.8364
90934721|NCT02978183|181748742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8858||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: All Post-CAC Time Points||||0.8858
90934722|NCT02978183|181748743|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8818||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: Pre-CAC||||0.8818
90934723|NCT02978183|181748743|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8679||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 10 minutes Post-CAC||||0.8679
90934724|NCT02978183|181748743|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7856||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 15 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.7856
90934725|NCT02978183|181748743|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7507||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 20 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.7507
90934726|NCT02978183|181748743|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8189||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 25 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.8189
90934727|NCT02978183|181748743|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9206||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 30 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.9206
90934728|NCT02978183|181748743|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9591||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: All Post-CAC Time Points||||0.9591
90934729|NCT02978183|181748743|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5302||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: Pre-CAC||||0.5302
90934730|NCT02978183|181748743|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7591||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 10 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.7591
90971196|NCT04091087|181825012|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-0.38||||0.4815|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.79|13.03||1-sided|Normal approximation test|||Week 3||13.03|-13.79|0.4815
90934731|NCT02978183|181748743|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8978||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 15 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.8978
90934732|NCT02978183|181748743|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7179||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 20 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.7179
90934733|NCT02978183|181748743|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7262||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 25 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.7262
90934734|NCT02978183|181748743|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8275||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 30 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.8275
90934735|NCT02978183|181748743|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.618||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: All Post-CAC Time Points||||0.6180
90934736|NCT02978183|181748744|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|Fisher Exact|||Day 7: 10 minutes post-CAC||||>0.9999
90934737|NCT02978183|181748744|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Adjustments for multiplicity will not be employed|Fisher Exact|||Day 7: 15 minutes post-CAC||||>0.9999
90934738|NCT02978183|181748744|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Adjustments for multiplicity will not be employed|Fisher Exact|||Day 7: 20 minutes post-CAC||||>0.9999
90934739|NCT02978183|181748744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7312||||||Adjustments for multiplicity will not be employed|Fisher Exact|||Day 7: 25 minutes post-CAC||||0.7312
90934740|NCT02978183|181748744|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Adjustments for multiplicity will not be employed|Fisher Exact|||Day 7: 30 minutes post-CAC||||>0.9999
90934741|NCT02978183|181748744|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Adjustments for multiplicity will not be employed|Fisher Exact|||Day 8: 10 minutes post-CAC||||>0.9999
90934742|NCT02978183|181748744|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Adjustments for multiplicity will not be employed|Fisher Exact|||Day 8: 15 minutes post-CAC||||>0.9999
90934743|NCT02978183|181748744|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Adjustments for multiplicity will not be employed|Fisher Exact|||Day 8: 20 minutes post-CAC||||>0.9999
90934744|NCT02978183|181748744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4297||||||Adjustments for multiplicity will not be employed|Fisher Exact|||Day 8: 25 minutes post-CAC||||0.4297
90934745|NCT02978183|181748744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4791||||||Adjustments for multiplicity will not be employed|Fisher Exact|||Day 8: 30 minutes post-CAC||||0.4791
90934746|NCT01326455|181748748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Lancaster et. al. (2004) quoted the number 30 as a general sample size for a pilot study. Each arm of this study had 25 people (due to time constraints), giving a total of 75 people. The data were analyzed using t-tests for equality of means, a two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), and chi-square. Significance was set at p \< 0.05.||||0.25
90934747|NCT01326455|181748749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.47|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.47
90934748|NCT01326455|181748750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.002
90934749|NCT01326455|181748750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90934750|NCT01326455|181748750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.144|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.144
90934751|NCT01326455|181748751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.372|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.372
90934752|NCT01326455|181748752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.468|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.468
90934753|NCT03884478|181748795|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||As detailed in the statistical analysis plan, a multi-level model which held constant participant age, race, ethnicity, relationship status, sexual identity, and sexual minority interpersonal stigma exposure in examining Time\*Arm interactions on weekly drinks. To probe the significant Alcohol+Coping Arm\*T2 interaction, a Tukey post-hoc test examined the change in weekly drinks from baseline to the 2 month follow-up in the Alcohol+Coping Arm versus the Control Arm.||||.0001
90934754|NCT03884478|181748795|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||As detailed in the statistical analysis plan, a multi-level model held constant participant age, race, ethnicity, relationship status, sexual identity, and sexual minority interpersonal stigma exposure in examining Time\*Arm interactions on weekly drinks. To probe the significant Alcohol+Control Arm\*T2 interaction, a Tukey post-hoc test examined the change in weekly drinks from baseline to the 2 month follow-up in the Alcohol+Control Arm versus the Control Arm.||||.005
90934755|NCT03884478|181748795|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||As detailed in the statistical analysis plan, a multi-level model which held constant participant age, race, ethnicity, relationship status, sexual identity, and sexual minority interpersonal stigma exposure in examining Time\*Arm interactions on weekly drinks. To probe the significant Alcohol+Coping Arm\*Time interaction, a Tukey post-hoc test examined the change in weekly drinks from baseline to the 2 month follow-up in the Alcohol+Coping Arm versus the Alcohol Only Arm.||||.25
90968554|NCT05248295|181818941|OTHER|Separate regression models were used within each group (People with aphasia and Controls) to independently assess the effects of the variables. Below, the results are reported for the effect of production condition (Unison vs. Solo) for the group of interest, People with aphasia.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.077|TWO_SIDED|||||Results are reported for production condition for people with aphasia (experimental group).|Regression, Logistic||OR computed with Unison as the numerator and Solo as the denominator|People with aphasia (PWA) were not directly compared to controls since the finding of a lower % syllables correct in any condition in PWA would be trivial. Instead, within-groups analyses were conducted to understand how the experimental variables affected syllable accuracy within each group.||||0.077
90934756|NCT03884478|181748796|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.025|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||As detailed in the statistical analysis plan, a multi-level model which held constant participant age, race, ethnicity, relationship status, sexual identity, and sexual minority interpersonal stigma exposure in examining Time\*Arm interactions on weekly drinks. To probe the significant Alcohol+Coping Arm\*Time interaction, a Tukey post-hoc test examined the change in weekly drinks from baseline to the 4 month follow-up in the Alcohol+Coping Arm versus the Control Arm.||||.025
90934757|NCT03884478|181748796|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||As detailed in the statistical analysis plan, a multi-level model which held constant participant age, race, ethnicity, relationship status, sexual identity, and sexual minority interpersonal stigma exposure in examining Time\*Arm interactions on weekly drinks. To probe the significant Alcohol+Coping Arm\*T2 interaction, a Tukey post-hoc test examined the change in weekly drinks from baseline to the 4 month follow-up in the Alcohol+Control Arm versus the Control Arm.||||.11
90934758|NCT03884478|181748796|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.66|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||As detailed in the statistical analysis plan, a multi-level model which held constant participant age, race, ethnicity, relationship status, sexual identity, and sexual minority interpersonal stigma exposure in examining Time\*Arm interactions on weekly drinks. To probe the significant Alcohol+Coping Arm\*Time interaction, a Tukey post-hoc test examined the change in weekly drinks from baseline to the 4 month follow-up in the Alcohol+Coping Arm versus the Alcohol+Control Arm.||||.66
90934759|NCT03884478|181748797|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||As detailed in the statistical analysis plan, a multi-level model which held constant participant age, race, ethnicity, relationship status, sexual identity, and sexual minority interpersonal stigma exposure in examining Time\*Arm interactions on weekly drinks. To probe the significant Alcohol+Coping Arm\*Time interaction, a Tukey post-hoc test examined the change in peak drinks from baseline to the 2 month follow-up in the Alcohol+Coping Arm versus the Control Arm.||||<.001
90934760|NCT03884478|181748797|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||As detailed in the statistical analysis plan, a multi-level model which held constant participant age, race, ethnicity, relationship status, sexual identity, and sexual minority interpersonal stigma exposure in examining Time\*Arm interactions on peak drinks. To probe the significant Alcohol+Control Arm\*Time interaction, a Tukey post-hoc test examined the change in peak drinks at the 2 month follow-up in the Alcohol+Control Arm versus the Control Arm.||||<.001
90934761|NCT03884478|181748797|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.88|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||As detailed in the statistical analysis plan, a multi-level model which held constant participant age, race, ethnicity, relationship status, sexual identity, and sexual minority interpersonal stigma exposure in examining Time\*Arm interactions on peak drinks. To probe the significant Alcohol+Coping Arm\*Time interaction, a Tukey post-hoc test examined the change in peak drinks at the 2 month follow-up in the Alcohol+Coping Arm versus the Alcohol+Control Arm.||||.88
90934762|NCT03884478|181748798|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||As detailed in the statistical analysis plan, a multi-level model which held constant participant age, race, ethnicity, relationship status, sexual identity, and sexual minority interpersonal stigma exposure in examining Time\*Arm interactions on weekly drinks. To probe the significant Alcohol+Coping Arm\*Time interaction, a Tukey post-hoc test examined the change in weekly drinks from baseline to the 4 month follow-up in the Alcohol+Coping Arm versus the Control Arm.||||.03
90934763|NCT03884478|181748798|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.059|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||As detailed in the statistical analysis plan, a multi-level model which held constant participant age, race, ethnicity, relationship status, sexual identity, and sexual minority interpersonal stigma exposure in examining Time\*Arm interactions on peak drinks. To probe the significant Alcohol+Control Arm\*Time interaction, a Tukey post-hoc test examined the change in weekly drinks from baseline to the 4 month follow-up in the Alcohol+Control Arm versus the Control Arm.||||.059
90934764|NCT03884478|181748798|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.71|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||As detailed in the statistical analysis plan, a multi-level model which held constant participant age, race, ethnicity, relationship status, sexual identity, and sexual minority interpersonal stigma exposure in examining Time\*Arm interactions on weekly drinks. To probe the significant Alcohol+Coping Arm\*Time interaction, a Tukey post-hoc test examined the change in peak drinks from baseline to the 4 month follow-up in the Alcohol+Coping Arm versus the Alcohol+Control Arm.||||.71
90934765|NCT03884478|181748799|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||As detailed in the statistical analysis plan, a multi-level model which held constant participant age, race, ethnicity, relationship status, sexual identity, and sexual minority interpersonal stigma exposure in examining Time\*Arm interactions on negative consequences. To probe the significant Alcohol+Coping Arm\*Time interaction, a Tukey post-hoc test examined the change in negative consequences from baseline to the 2 month follow-up in the Alcohol+Coping Arm versus the Control Arm.||||<.001
90934766|NCT03884478|181748799|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||As detailed in the statistical analysis plan, a multi-level model which held constant participant age, race, ethnicity, relationship status, sexual identity, and sexual minority interpersonal stigma exposure in examining Time\*Arm interactions on negative consequences. To probe the significant Alcohol+Control Arm\*Time interaction, a Tukey post-hoc test examined the change in negative consequences from baseline to the 2 month follow-up in the Alcohol+Control Arm versus the Control Arm.||||<.001
90934767|NCT03884478|181748799|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.87|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||As detailed in the statistical analysis plan, a multi-level model which held constant participant age, race, ethnicity, relationship status, sexual identity, and sexual minority interpersonal stigma exposure in examining Time\*Arm interactions on negative consequences. To probe the significant Alcohol+Coping Arm\*Time interaction, a Tukey post-hoc test examined the change in negative consequences from baseline to the 2 month follow-up in the Alcohol+Coping Arm versus the Alcohol+Control Arm.||||.87
90934768|NCT03884478|181748800|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||As detailed in the statistical analysis plan, a multi-level model which held constant participant age, race, ethnicity, relationship status, sexual identity, and sexual minority interpersonal stigma exposure in examining Time\*Arm interactions on negative consequences. To probe the significant Alcohol+Coping Arm\*Time interaction, a Tukey post-hoc test examined the change in negative consequences from baseline to the 4 month follow-up in the Alcohol+Coping Arm versus the Control Arm.||||<.001
90934769|NCT03884478|181748800|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||As detailed in the statistical analysis plan, a multi-level model which held constant participant age, race, ethnicity, relationship status, sexual identity, and sexual minority interpersonal stigma exposure in examining Time\*Arm interactions on negative consequences. To probe the significant Alcohol+Control Arm\*Time interaction, a Tukey post-hoc test examined the change in negative consequences from baseline to the 4 month follow-up in the Alcohol+Control Arm versus the Control Arm.||||.002
90934770|NCT03884478|181748800|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.43|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||As detailed in the statistical analysis plan, a multi-level model which held constant participant age, race, ethnicity, relationship status, sexual identity, and sexual minority interpersonal stigma exposure in examining Time\*Arm interactions on negative consequences. To probe the significant Alcohol+Coping Arm\*Time interaction, a Tukey post-hoc test examined the change in negative consequences from baseline to the 4 month follow-up in the Alcohol+Coping Arm versus the Alcohol+Control Arm.||||.43
90968555|NCT05248295|181818941|OTHER|Below, the results are reported for the effect of timing condition (Metrical vs. Conversational) for the group of interest, People with aphasia.|||||>|0.1||||||Results are reported for Timing Condition for the People with aphasia.|Regression, Logistic|||||||>.1
90934771|NCT03693989|181748803|OTHER|||||||0.065|||||||t-test, 2 sided|The study analysis was comparative, it was only sought to determine if the difference between treatments is statistically significant or not.||||||0.065
90934772|NCT03693989|181748804|OTHER|The study analysis was comparative, it was only sought to determine if the difference between treatments is statistically significant or not.||||||0.223|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.223
90968556|NCT05248295|181818941|OTHER|Below, the results are reported for the interaction effect between production condition and timing condition for the group of interest, People with aphasia.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic||OR computed as ((Unison Metrical)/(Unison Conversational)) / ((Solo Metrical)/(Solo Conversational))|||||<0.001
90968557|NCT05248295|181818941|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.036|TWO_SIDED|||||Results are reported for Production Condition for the Control group.|Regression, Logistic||OR computed with Unison as the numerator and Solo as the denominator|Separate regression models were used within each group. Here, the results are reported for the Control group.||||0.036
90971197|NCT04091087|181825012|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-0.38||||0.4815|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.79|13.03||1-sided|Normal approximation test|||Week 4||13.03|-13.79|0.4815
91035883|NCT02558491|181958312|OTHER|||||||0.271||||||No a priori sample size was determined due to the feasibility/pilot nature of the trial. Significance level was set at P-value \<0.05.|ANOVA|||Secondary analysis followed the same format unless variables could not be considered normally distributed; in that case a related samples Wilcoxon signed-rank test is used. Data were first binned (to ensure minimum count of five per bins) and the w2 statistics was used with the expected counts given by SoC. Based on achieved recruitment, a moderate effect size (0.3) is detectable with 80% power, or a large effect size (0.4) with 95% power (G-Power 3.1.9.2). Outcome measurement was for overall.||||0.271
90968558|NCT05248295|181818941|OTHER|Below, the results are reported for the effect of timing condition (Metrical vs. Conversational) for the control group.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic||OR computed with Metrical as the numerator and Conversational as the denominator|||||<0.001
90934773|NCT03693989|181748805|OTHER|The study analysis was comparative, it was only sought to determine if the difference between treatments is statistically significant or not.||||||0.621|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.621
90968559|NCT05248295|181818941|OTHER|Below, the results are reported for the interaction effect between production condition and timing condition for the control group.|||||>|0.1|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||>.1
90934774|NCT03693989|181748806|OTHER|The study analysis was comparative, it was only sought to determine if the difference between treatments is statistically significant or not.||||||0.246|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.246
90934775|NCT03693989|181748807|OTHER|The study analysis was comparative, it was only sought to determine if the difference between treatments is statistically significant or not.||||||0.497|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.497
90934776|NCT03693989|181748808|OTHER|The study analysis was comparative, it was only sought to determine if the difference between treatments is statistically significant or not.||||||0.047|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.047
90934777|NCT03693989|181748809|OTHER|The study analysis was comparative, it was only sought to determine if the difference between treatments is statistically significant or not.||||||0.3|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.300
90934778|NCT03693989|181748810|OTHER|The study analysis was comparative, it was only sought to determine if the difference between treatments is statistically significant or not.||||||0.045|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.045
90934779|NCT03693989|181748811|OTHER|The study analysis was comparative, it was only sought to determine if the difference between treatments is statistically significant or not.||||||0.346|||||||Fisher Exact|||burning eyes comparison||||0.346
90934780|NCT03693989|181748811|OTHER|The study analysis was comparative, it was only sought to determine if the difference between treatments is statistically significant or not.||||||0.489|||||||Fisher Exact|||Itching eyes comparison||||0.489
90934781|NCT03693989|181748811|OTHER|The study analysis was comparative, it was only sought to determine if the difference between treatments is statistically significant or not.||||||0.497|||||||Fisher Exact|||foreign body sensation eyes comparison||||0.497
90971198|NCT04091087|181825012|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|8.9||||0.1197|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.55|21.35||1-sided|Normal approximation test|||Week 5||21.35|-3.55|0.1197
90971199|NCT04091087|181825012|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|18.18||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.14|29.23||1-sided|Normal approximation test|||Week 6||29.23|7.14|0.0034
90971200|NCT04091087|181825013|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|5.13||||0.2896|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.09|20.34||1-sided|Normal approximation test|||||20.34|-10.09|0.2896
90934782|NCT03693989|181748811|OTHER|The study analysis was comparative, it was only sought to determine if the difference between treatments is statistically significant or not.||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||blurred vision comparison||||1.000
90934783|NCT03403153|181748848|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.01
90934784|NCT03403153|181748849|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<.01
90934785|NCT03403153|181748850|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<.01
90934786|NCT03403153|181748851|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<.01
90934787|NCT03403153|181748852|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<.01
90934788|NCT03403153|181748853|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<.01
90934789|NCT03403153|181748854|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<.01
90934790|NCT00113529|181748864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Objective Response Rate (ORR) (percent)|37.1||||||95.0|21.5|55.1|||||ORR=proportion of subjects with confirmed CR or PR, relative to total subjects who received at least 1 dose of study medication, had a baseline disease assessment, and had the correct histological cancer type.|||55.1|21.5|
90934791|NCT00113529|181748870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||probability|82.4||||||95.0|64.9|91.7||||||||91.7|64.9|
90934792|NCT00113529|181748879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.075||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 1, Day 1||||0.075
90934793|NCT00113529|181748879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.749||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 1, Day 28||||0.749
90934794|NCT00113529|181748879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.834||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 2, Day 1||||0.834
90934795|NCT00113529|181748879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 2, Day 28||||1.000
90934796|NCT00113529|181748879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.332||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 3, Day 1||||0.332
90934797|NCT00113529|181748880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.473||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 1, Day 1||||0.473
90934798|NCT00113529|181748880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.286||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 1, Day 28||||0.286
90934799|NCT00113529|181748880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.277||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 2, Day 1||||0.277
90934800|NCT00113529|181748880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.956||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 2, Day 28||||0.956
90934801|NCT00113529|181748880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.278||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 3, Day 1||||0.278
90971201|NCT04091087|181825014|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|7.77||||0.2648|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.55|28.08||1-sided|Normal approximation test|||Week 1||28.08|-12.55|0.2648
91035884|NCT04189848|181958360|OTHER|Treatment comparison|Treatment difference|-5.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|-3.6|||ANOVA|||Intensity of injection site pain was analysed by a fixed analysis of variance model with VAS pain score as the dependent variable, and product, injection side (right side, left side), injection number (first injection, second injection), and participant as fixed effects.||-3.6|-8.2|<0.0001
90934802|NCT00113529|181748881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.275||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 1, Day 1||||0.275
90934803|NCT00113529|181748881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.227||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 1, Day 28||||0.227
90934804|NCT00113529|181748881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 2, Day 1||||0.029
90934805|NCT00113529|181748881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 2, Day 28||||1.000
90934806|NCT00113529|181748881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 3, Day 1||||1.000
90971202|NCT04091087|181825014|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|17.05||||0.0809|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.99|37.08||1-sided|Normal approximation test|||Week 2||37.08|-2.99|0.0809
90934807|NCT00113529|181748882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.435||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 1, Day 1||||0.435
90934808|NCT00113529|181748882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.722||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 1, Day 28||||0.722
90934809|NCT00113529|181748882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.645||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 2, Day 1||||0.645
90934810|NCT00113529|181748882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 2, Day 28||||0.140
90934811|NCT00113529|181748882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.046||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 3, Day 1||||0.046
90934812|NCT00113529|181748883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.734||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 1, Day 1||||0.734
90934813|NCT00113529|181748883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.854||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 1, Day 28||||0.854
90934814|NCT00113529|181748883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 2, Day 1||||0.230
90934815|NCT00113529|181748883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.067||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 2, Day 28||||0.067
90934816|NCT00113529|181748883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.164||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 3, Day 1||||0.164
90934817|NCT00113529|181748883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.121||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 3, Day 28||||0.121
90934818|NCT00113529|181748884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.734||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 1, Day 1||||0.734
90934819|NCT00113529|181748884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.462||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 1, Day 28||||0.462
90934820|NCT00113529|181748884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.423||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 2, Day 1||||0.423
90934821|NCT00113529|181748884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 2, Day 28||||0.510
90934822|NCT00113529|181748884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.608||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 3, Day 1||||0.608
90934823|NCT00113529|181748884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.121||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 3, Day 28||||0.121
90934824|NCT00113529|181748885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.91||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 1, Day 1||||0.910
90934825|NCT00113529|181748885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 1, Day 28||||0.020
90934826|NCT00113529|181748885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 2, Day 1||||1.000
90934827|NCT00113529|181748885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.509||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 2, Day 28||||0.509
90934828|NCT00113529|181748885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.883||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 3, Day 1||||0.883
90934829|NCT00113529|181748885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.582||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 3, Day 28||||0.582
90934830|NCT00113529|181748886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.428||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 1, Day 1||||0.428
90934831|NCT00113529|181748886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.075||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 1, Day 28||||0.075
90934832|NCT00113529|181748886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 2, Day 1||||1.000
90934833|NCT00113529|181748886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 2, Day 28||||0.019
90934834|NCT00113529|181748886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.124||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 3, Day 1||||0.124
90934835|NCT00113529|181748886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.055||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 3, Day 28||||0.055
90934836|NCT00113529|181748887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.734||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 1, Day 1||||0.734
90934837|NCT00113529|181748887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.854||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 1, Day 28||||0.854
90934838|NCT00113529|181748887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 2, Day 1||||0.230
90934839|NCT00113529|181748887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.067||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 2, Day 28||||0.067
90934840|NCT00113529|181748887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.164||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 3, Day 1||||0.164
90934841|NCT00113529|181748887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.121||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 3, Day 28||||0.121
90934842|NCT00113529|181748888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.734||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 1, Day 1||||0.734
90934843|NCT00113529|181748888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.462||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 1, Day 28||||0.462
90934844|NCT00113529|181748888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.423||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 2, Day 1||||0.423
90934845|NCT00113529|181748888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 2, Day 28||||0.510
90934846|NCT00113529|181748888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.608||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 3, Day 1||||0.608
90934847|NCT00113529|181748888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.121||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 3, Day 28||||0.121
90934848|NCT00113529|181748889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.91||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 1, Day 1||||0.910
90934849|NCT00113529|181748889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 1, Day 28||||0.020
90934850|NCT00113529|181748889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 2, Day 1||||1.000
90934851|NCT00113529|181748889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.509||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 2, Day 28||||0.509
90934852|NCT00113529|181748889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.883||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 3, Day 1||||0.883
90934853|NCT00113529|181748889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.582||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 3, Day 28||||0.582
90934854|NCT00113529|181748890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.428||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 1, Day 1||||0.428
90934855|NCT00113529|181748890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.075||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 1, Day 28||||0.075
90934856|NCT00113529|181748890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 2, Day 1||||1.000
90934857|NCT00113529|181748890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 2, Day 28||||0.019
90934858|NCT00113529|181748890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.124||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 3, Day 1||||0.124
90934859|NCT00113529|181748890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.055||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 3, Day 28||||0.055
90934860|NCT00841321|181748908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1||Nominal value. Per protocol univariate tests would only be considered significant in the multivariate test was significant.|ANCOVA|||PASAT Exit Z-score least square means difference adjusted for baseline. Positive values indicate a beneficial effect from treatment with Ginkgo.||0.1|-0.5|.1
90934861|NCT00841321|181748908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.1||Not adjusted for multiple comparison. Nominal value. Per protocol univariate tests would only be considered significant in the multivariate test was significant.|ANCOVA|||Stroop Exit Z-score least square means difference adjusted for baseline.Positive values indicate a beneficial effect from treatment with Ginkgo.||-0.1|-0.9|0.007
90971203|NCT04091087|181825014|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|1.7||||0.445|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.58|21.99||1-sided|Normal approximation test|||Week 3||21.99|-18.58|0.4450
90934862|NCT00841321|181748908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.3||Not adjusted for multiple comparison. Nominal value. Per protocol univariate tests would only be considered significant in the multivariate test was significant.|ANCOVA|||COWAT Exit Z-score least square means difference adjusted for baseline. Positive values indicate a beneficial effect from treatment with Ginkgo.||0.3|-0.2|0.5
90971204|NCT04091087|181825014|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|1.7||||0.445|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.58|21.99||1-sided|Normal approximation test|||Week 4||21.99|-18.58|0.4450
91035885|NCT01588236|181958361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||p value for multiple comparison among 3 arms and comparison between investigational drug and placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>0.05
90934863|NCT00841321|181748908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.5||95.0|-0.3|0.3||Not adjusted for multiple comparison. Nominal value. Per protocol univariate tests would only be considered significant in the multivariate test was significant.|ANCOVA|||CVLT-II Delayed Recall Exit Z-score least square means difference adjusted for baseline. Positive values indicate a beneficial effect from treatment with Ginkgo.||0.3|-0.3|0.5
90934864|NCT00841321|181748908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||MANCOVA|MANCOVA||MANCOVA for all four cognitive tests at exit adjusting for baseline. Individual ANOVAs were to follow if the multivariate test was significant.||||0.19
90934865|NCT00841321|181748909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|4.7|||ANCOVA||Positive values indicate a beneficial effect from Ginkgo.|Perceived Deficits Questionnaire||4.7|-5.7|0.4
90934866|NCT00841321|181748909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.7||95.0|-3.2|4.8|||ANCOVA||Positive values indicate a beneficial effect from Ginkgo.|Multiple Sclerosis Neuropsychological Questionnaire||4.8|-3.2|0.7
90934867|NCT00841321|181748909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.4||95.0|-1.3|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Community Integration Questionnaire||0.8|-1.3|0.4
90934868|NCT04421456|181748914|SUPERIORITY|The repeated measures model includes stratification factors (sex and region), associated baseline, visit, randomised treatment arm and visit by treatment arm interaction as fixed effects and visit repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. For the PANSS-T score, baseline PANSS-P, baseline PANSS-N, and baseline PANSS-G are included in the model as fixed effects for the associated baseline instead of baseline PANSS-T.|Least square mean difference|-1.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.33||0.4528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.35|2.84|||Mixed-effects repeated measures model|||||2.84|-6.35|0.4528
90934869|NCT04421456|181748914|SUPERIORITY|The repeated measures model includes stratification factors (sex and region), associated baseline, visit, randomised treatment arm and visit by treatment arm interaction as fixed effects and visit repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. For the PANSS-T score, baseline PANSS-P, baseline PANSS-N, and baseline PANSS-G are included in the model as fixed effects for the associated baseline instead of baseline PANSS-T.|Least square mean difference|-1.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.44||0.4226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.76|2.85|||Mixed-effects repeated measures model|||||2.85|-6.76|0.4226
90934870|NCT04421456|181748915|SUPERIORITY|The repeated measures model includes stratification factors (sex and region), associated baseline, visit, randomised treatment arm and visit by treatment arm interaction as fixed effects and visit repeated within each participant as a repeated effect.|Least square mean difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.4479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|1.0|||Mixed-effects repeated measures model|||||1.00|-2.25|0.4479
90971205|NCT04091087|181825014|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|20.45||||0.0385|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.43|39.48||1-sided|Normal approximation test|||Week 5||39.48|1.43|0.0385
90971206|NCT04091087|181825014|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|29.64||||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|90.0|10.95|48.33||1 sided|Normal approximation test|||Week 6||48.33|10.95|0.0045
91035886|NCT01588236|181958362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||p value for multiple comparison among 3 arms and comparison between investigational drug and placebo||||>0.05
91035887|NCT01588236|181958363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||p value for comparison between overall drug group vs placebo, and between high dose vs placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.01
90934871|NCT04421456|181748915|SUPERIORITY|The repeated measures model includes stratification factors (sex and region), associated baseline, visit, randomised treatment arm and visit by treatment arm interaction as fixed effects and visit repeated within each participant as a repeated effect.|Least square mean difference|-1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.1616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.92|0.49|||Mixed-effects repeated measures model|||||0.49|-2.92|0.1616
90934872|NCT04421456|181748916|SUPERIORITY|The repeated measures model includes stratification factors (sex and region), associated baseline, visit, randomised treatment arm and visit by treatment arm interaction as fixed effects and visit repeated within each participant as a repeated effect.|Least square mean difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.6787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.18|||Mixed-effects repeated measures model|||||1.18|-1.80|0.6787
90934873|NCT04421456|181748916|SUPERIORITY|The repeated measures model includes stratification factors (sex and region), associated baseline, visit, randomised treatment arm and visit by treatment arm interaction as fixed effects and visit repeated within each participant as a repeated effect.|Least square mean difference|0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.3351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|2.3|||Mixed-effects repeated measures model|||||2.30|-0.79|0.3351
90934874|NCT04421456|181748917|SUPERIORITY|The repeated measures model includes stratification factors (sex and region), associated baseline, visit, randomised treatment arm and visit by treatment arm interaction as fixed effects and visit repeated within each participant as a repeated effect.|Least square mean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45||0.4504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.96|1.76|||Mixed-effects repeated measures model|||||1.76|-3.96|0.4504
90934875|NCT04421456|181748917|SUPERIORITY|The repeated measures model includes stratification factors (sex and region), associated baseline, visit, randomised treatment arm and visit by treatment arm interaction as fixed effects and visit repeated within each participant as a repeated effect.|Least square mean difference|-1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52||0.4195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.22|1.76|||Mixed-effects repeated measures model|||||1.76|-4.22|0.4195
90934876|NCT04421456|181748918|SUPERIORITY|The repeated measures model includes stratification factors (sex and region), associated baseline, visit, randomised treatment arm, visit by treatment arm interaction and visit by associated baseline interaction as fixed effects and visit repeated within each participant as a repeated effect.|Least square mean difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.3|||Mixed-effects repeated measures model|||||0.30|-0.35|0.8850
90934877|NCT04421456|181748918|SUPERIORITY|The repeated measures model includes stratification factors (sex and region), associated baseline, visit, randomised treatment arm, visit by treatment arm interaction and visit by associated baseline interaction as fixed effects and visit repeated within each participant as a repeated effect.|Least square mean difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.7808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.27|||Mixed-effects repeated measures model|||||0.27|-0.36|0.7808
90934878|NCT04421456|181748919|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.412||||0.6707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.288|6.924|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.924|0.288|0.6707
90934879|NCT04421456|181748919|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.576||||0.4883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.121|2.744|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.744|0.121|0.4883
90934880|NCT00379210|181748930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Statistical tests are evaluated at an alpha level of 0.05 (corrected, when appropriate, for multiple comparisons). Analyses are performed on both response latency and accuracy on behavioral data. For latency analyses, mean response times for correct trials are calculated for each subject. Repeated-measures ANOVA are used for omnibus tests; paired t-tests are used for individual planned contrasts, with Bonferroni-corrected significance levels to maintain a .05 alpha level||||<0.01
90934881|NCT01358175|181748931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|6.42|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.42|2.20|<0.0001
90934882|NCT01358175|181748931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.89|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.28|6.65|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.65|2.28|<0.0001
90934883|NCT02432183|181748939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0061|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|post-hoc comparison with Dunn's multiple comparison test: p=0.0326 between arm 1 and 2; p=0.0147 between arm 1 and 3||||||0.0061
90934884|NCT03875729|181748942|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1253|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0852|0.1653||ITT: The ANCOVA model included treatment, age group at randomization, and baseline C-peptide ln(AUC+1) as independent variables. Missing data at Week 78 were multiply imputed using pattern-mixture model under the missing not at random assumption.|ANCOVA||Least squares mean (LSmean) difference = Teplizumab - Placebo|This study was designed to show a difference of at least a 40% in C-peptide response between teplizumab and placebo. In geometric means, this translates to a value of (1.4×0.28) = 0.392. Consequently, approximately 300 participants were planned for enrollment, assuming 2-sided α=0.05, 90% power, 2:1 randomization, and a 10% dropout rate.||0.1653|0.0852|<0.001
90934885|NCT03875729|181748942|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1385|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0994|0.1776||PP: The ANCOVA model included treatment, age group at randomization, and baseline C-peptide ln(AUC+1) as independent variables. Missing data at Week 78 were multiply imputed using a pattern-mixture model under the missing not at random assumption.|ANCOVA||Least squares mean (LSmean) difference = teplizumab - placebo|||0.1776|0.0994|<0.001
90934886|NCT03875729|181748943|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.131||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.018||ITT: ANCOVA model included treatment, age group at randomization, and screening peak C-peptide category as independent variables. Missing data at Week 78 were multiply imputed using a pattern-mixture model under the missing not at random assumption.|ANCOVA||LSmean difference = teplizumab - placebo.|||0.018|-0.280|0.085
90934887|NCT03875729|181748943|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.167|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.256|-0.078||PP: ANCOVA model included treatment, age group at randomization, and screening peak C-peptide category as independent variables. Missing data at Week 78 were multiply imputed using a pattern-mixture model under the missing not at random assumption.|ANCOVA||LSmean difference = teplizumab - placebo.|||-0.078|-0.256|<0.001
90934888|NCT03875729|181748944|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.24||ITT: ANCOVA model included treatment, age group at randomization, screening peak C-peptide category, baseline HbA1c as independent variables. Missing data were multiply imputed using a pattern-mixture model under the missing not at random assumption.|ANCOVA|||||0.24|-0.42|0.606
90934889|NCT03875729|181748944|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.2||PP: ANOVA model included treatment, age group at randomization, screening peak C-peptide category, baseline HbA1c as independent variables. Missing data were multiply imputed using a pattern-mixture model under the missing not at random assumption.|ANCOVA||LSmean difference = teplizumab - placebo.|||0.20|-0.46|0.454
90934890|NCT03875729|181748945|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.71||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|11.15||ITT: The ANCOVA model included treatment, age group at randomization, and screening peak C-peptide category as independent variables. Missing data were multiply imputed using a pattern-mixture model under the missing not at random assumption.|ANCOVA||LSmean difference = teplizumab - placebo.|||11.15|-1.72|0.151
90934891|NCT03875729|181748945|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.17||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|12.22||PP: The ANCOVA model included treatment, age group at randomization, and screening peak C-peptide category as independent variables. Missing data were multiply imputed using a pattern-mixture model under the missing not at random assumption.|ANCOVA||LSmean difference = teplizumab - placebo.|||12.22|0.13|0.045
90934892|NCT03875729|181748946|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|1.1||||0.634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.64||ITT: Estimates and p-values were obtained from a negative binomial regression model using rate of hypoglycemic episodes as dependent variable and treatment, age group at randomization, and screening peak C-peptide category as independent variables.|Negative binomial regression model||Rate ratio = teplizumab / placebo.|||1.64|0.74|0.634
90934893|NCT03875729|181748946|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|1.09||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.65||PP: Estimates and p-values were obtained from a negative binomial regression model using rate of hypoglycemic episodes as dependent variable and treatment age group at randomization, and screening peak C-peptide category as independent variables.|Rate ratio||Rate ratio = teplizumab / placebo.|||1.65|0.72|0.690
90934894|NCT01280656|181748962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.003
90934895|NCT01280656|181748963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.693|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.693
90934896|NCT01280656|181748965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.573|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.573
90934897|NCT01280656|181748967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.982|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Mean at the site||||0.982
90934898|NCT01280656|181748967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Mean at home||||0.012
90934899|NCT01280656|181748968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.476|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Responders vs Non-responders||||0.476
90934900|NCT01280656|181748968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Responders vs Non-Responders||||0.320
90934901|NCT01280656|181748969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.792|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.792
90934902|NCT01280656|181748970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.202|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.202
90934903|NCT01280656|181748971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.921|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.921
90934904|NCT01280656|181748972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.202|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.202
90934905|NCT01280656|181748973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.973|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Total||||0.973
90934906|NCT05265247|181748977|EQUIVALENCE|The two formulations were considered to be bioequivalent if the point estimate for the ratio lies completely within the range of 0.8-1.25.|Ratio of Geometric least squares mean|0.9531|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.851|1.0673||||||||1.0673|0.8510|
90934907|NCT05265247|181748978|EQUIVALENCE|The two formulations were considered to be bioequivalent if the 90% 2-sided confidence interval (CI) for the ratio lies completely within the range of 0.8-1.25.|Ratio of Geometric least squares mean|0.9538|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.898|1.0132||||||||1.0132|0.8980|
90934908|NCT02516202|181748986|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25||||||P-values from active treatment vs. placebo contrasts in a repeated measures linear model of outcome as a function of treatment arm, clinical site, week, and baseline outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|Regression, Linear|Robust standard errors were calculated using generalized estimating equations to account for within-participant correlation between repeated measures||||||0.25
90934909|NCT02516202|181748986|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31||||||P-values from active treatment vs. placebo contrasts in a repeated measures linear model of outcome as a function of treatment arm, clinical site, week, and baseline outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.025|Regression, Linear|Robust standard errors were calculated using generalized estimating equations to account for within-participant correlation between repeated measures||||||0.31
90934910|NCT02516202|181748987|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99||||||P-values from active treatment vs. placebo contrasts in a repeated measures linear model of outcome as a function of treatment arm, clinical site, week, and baseline outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|Regression, Linear|Robust standard errors were calculated using generalized estimating equations to account for within-participant correlation between repeated measures||||||0.99
90934911|NCT02516202|181748987|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||P-values from active treatment vs. placebo contrasts in a repeated measures linear model of outcome as a function of treatment arm, clinical site, week, and baseline outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|Regression, Linear|Robust standard errors were calculated using generalized estimating equations to account for within-participant correlation between repeated measures||||||0.05
90971207|NCT04091087|181825015|SUPERIORITY||LS mean Difference|3.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.49||0.3874|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.67|26.43||1-sided|Normal approximation test|||Week 1||26.43|-18.67|0.3874
91035888|NCT01588236|181958364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||p value for comparison between overall drug group vs placebo, and between low dose vs placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
90934912|NCT02516202|181748988|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64||||||P-values from active treatment vs. placebo contrasts in a repeated measures linear model of outcome as a function of treatment arm, clinical site, week, and baseline outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|Regression, Linear|Robust standard errors were calculated using generalized estimating equations to account for within-participant correlation between repeated measures||||||0.64
90934913|NCT02516202|181748988|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17||||||P-values from active treatment vs. placebo contrasts in a repeated measures linear model of outcome as a function of treatment arm, clinical site, week, and baseline outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|Regression, Linear|Robust standard errors were calculated using generalized estimating equations to account for within-participant correlation between repeated measures||||||0.17
90934914|NCT02516202|181748990|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||p-value calculation includes 195 participants with known responses at week 12.|Chi-squared|||||||0.02
90934915|NCT02516202|181748991|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
90934916|NCT02516202|181748991|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.60
90934917|NCT02516202|181748992|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
90934918|NCT02516202|181748992|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.95
90934919|NCT02841449|181748993|OTHER|||||||0.886|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired sample||||||0.886
90934920|NCT02841449|181748993|OTHER|||||||0.43||||||The above is the trial\*time interaction. trial, p = 0.627; time, p \< 0.001|ANOVA|repeated measures||||||0.430
90934921|NCT02841449|181748994|OTHER|||||||0.369|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired samples||||||0.369
90934922|NCT02841449|181748994|OTHER|||||||0.859||||||The above is the trial\*time interaction. trial p = 0.200; time p \< 0.001|ANOVA|repeated measures||||||0.859
90934923|NCT02841449|181748995|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired samples||||||<0.001
90934924|NCT02841449|181748995|OTHER|||||||0.261||||||The above is the trial\*time interaction. trial p = 0.002; time p = 0.282|ANOVA|repeated measures||||||0.261
90934925|NCT02841449|181748996|OTHER|||||||0.736|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired samples||||||0.736
90934926|NCT02841449|181748997|OTHER|||||||0.542|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired samples||||||0.542
90934927|NCT02841449|181748998|OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired samples||||||0.400
90934928|NCT02841449|181748999|OTHER|||||||0.646|||||||ANOVA|repeated measures||Visual analogue scale for thirst||||0.646
91035889|NCT00199901|181958379|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.913|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.532|1.568||||||||1.568|0.532|
91035890|NCT00199901|181958381|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.532|1.455||||||||1.455|0.532|
91035891|NCT00199901|181958382|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.911|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.514|1.614||||||||1.614|0.514|
90934929|NCT02841449|181748999|OTHER|||||||0.403|||||||ANOVA|repeated measures||visual analogue scale for desire for savoury||||0.403
90934930|NCT02841449|181748999|OTHER|||||||0.022|||||||ANOVA|repeated measures||visual analogue scale for desire for salt||||0.022
90934931|NCT02841449|181748999|OTHER|||||||0.849|||||||ANOVA|repeated measures||visual analogue scale for hunger||||0.849
90934932|NCT02841449|181748999|OTHER|||||||0.062|||||||ANOVA|repeated measures||visual analogue scale for fullness||||0.062
90934933|NCT02841449|181748999|OTHER|||||||0.549|||||||ANOVA|repeated measures||visual analogue scale for how much participants felt they could eat||||0.549
90934934|NCT02841449|181748999|OTHER|||||||0.402|||||||ANOVA|repeated measures||visual analogue scale for sweet desire||||0.402
90934935|NCT02841449|181748999|OTHER|||||||0.138|||||||ANOVA|repeated measures||visual analogue scale for fatty food desire||||0.138
90934936|NCT02841449|181749000|OTHER|||||||0.055||||||Above is trial\*time effect. trial p = 0.135; time p = 0.011|ANOVA|repeated measures||||||0.055
90934937|NCT02841449|181749001|OTHER|||||||0.226|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired sample||||||0.226
90934938|NCT02841449|181749002|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired samples||||||< 0.001
90934939|NCT02707952|181749047|NON_INFERIORITY|The percentage of participants achieving SVR12 was calculated for each arm and a 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in SVR12 rates (Arm A minus Arm B) was calculated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution to assess non-inferiority in SVR12 rates of arm A to arm B. If the lower bound of the confidence interval (CI) for the difference was above the non-inferiority margin of -10%, then arm A was considered non-inferior to arm B.|Rate Difference|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|0.9|||||95% CI was calculated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||0.9|-2.8|
90934940|NCT03015220|181749119|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.5||||0.2963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|3.2||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for the test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox||"Oral Semaglutide 3 mg~/Dulaglutide 0.75 mg"|Time to initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment and strata as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Withdrawal for any reason or lost to follow-up contributed to the analysis as events (initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication). Censoring time was one day before planned end of treatment.||3.20|0.70|0.2963
90971208|NCT04091087|181825015|SUPERIORITY||LS mean Difference|-4.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.59||0.3506|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.85|14.91||1-sided|Normal approximation test|||Week 2||14.91|-23.85|0.3506
90968560|NCT05248295|181818942|OTHER|Separate regression models were used within each group (People with aphasia and Controls) to independently assess the effects of Timing Condition. Production Condition is not included in the analysis since all timing data are from the unison production condition, by definition.|Slope|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Results are reported for people with aphasia (experimental group).|Regression, Linear|||People with aphasia were not directly compared to Controls since the Control group is a context-providing reference group rather than a true comparator. Instead, within-groups analyses were conducted to understand how the experimental variable affected timing alignment in each group.||||<0.001
90934941|NCT03015220|181749119|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.5997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.83||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for the test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox||"Oral Semaglutide 7 mg~/Dulaglutide 0.75 mg"|Time to initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment and strata as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Withdrawal for any reason or lost to follow-up contributed to the analysis as events (initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication). Censoring time was one day before planned end of treatment.||1.83|0.35|0.5997
90934942|NCT03015220|181749119|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.55||||0.1871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.33||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox||"Oral Semaglutide 14 mg~/Dulaglutide 0.75 mg"|Time to initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment and strata as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Withdrawal for any reason or lost to follow-up contributed to the analysis as events (initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication). Censoring time was one day before planned end of treatment.||1.33|0.23|0.1871
90934943|NCT03015220|181749120|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.9||||0.1672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|4.72||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox||"Oral Semaglutide 3 mg~/Dulaglutide 0.75 mg"|Time to initiation of rescue medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment and strata as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Censoring time was one day before last day on trial product.||4.72|0.76|0.1672
90968561|NCT05248295|181818942|OTHER||Slope|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Results are reported for the Control group.|Regression, Linear|||People with aphasia were not directly compared to Controls since the Control group is a context-providing reference group and not a true comparator. Instead, within-groups analyses were conducted to understand how experimental variables affected timing alignment in each group.||||<0.001
90968562|NCT04490018|181818943|NON_INFERIORITY|The two-sided 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) was calculated based on the Wilson score method without continuity correction. The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI of the percentage difference between compared groups was greater than (\>) -10%.|Difference in Percentage|4.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|10.36||||||Serogroup A||10.36|0.06|
90968563|NCT04490018|181818943|NON_INFERIORITY|The two-sided 95% CI was calculated based on the Wilson score method without continuity correction. The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI of the percentage difference between compared groups was greater \> -10%.|Difference in Percentage|4.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|9.5||||||Serogroup C||9.50|1.58|
90968564|NCT04490018|181818943|NON_INFERIORITY|The two-sided 95% CI was calculated based on the Wilson score method without continuity correction. The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI of the percentage difference between compared groups was greater \> -10%.|Difference in Percentage|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|4.42||||||Serogroup W||4.42|-1.28|
90968565|NCT04490018|181818943|NON_INFERIORITY|The two-sided 95% CI was calculated based on the Wilson score method without continuity correction. The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI of the percentage difference between compared groups was greater \> -10%.|Difference in Percentage|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|4.77||||||Serogroup Y||4.77|-1.88|
90968566|NCT02321930|181818971|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis performed to test for the change in values from Baseline to 3 months||||<0.0001
90968567|NCT02321930|181818972|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis performed to test for the change in values from Baseline to 3 months||||<0.0001
90968568|NCT02321930|181818973|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis performed to test for the change in values from Baseline to 3 months||||<0.0001
90968569|NCT02321930|181818974|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis performed to test for the change in values from Baseline to 3 months||||<0.0001
90968570|NCT02321930|181818975|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis performed to test for the change in values from Baseline to 3 months||||<0.0001
90968571|NCT01484977|181818978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Retention Rate|73.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.42|81.25||||||"Analyses of the primary efficacy variable will be descriptive only. No hypothesis tests are planned.~The number and percentage of subjects remaining in the study through the 21-Week Treatment Period will be calculated. Subjects with retention will be counted in the numerator. All subjects in the relevant population will be used as the denominator.~This percentage will be known as the retention rate, along with the 95 % confidence interval based on the normal approximation."||81.25|65.42|
90968572|NCT01133379|181818979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.75||0.811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|8.24||Per statistical analysis plan, if experimental rinse (12027-019) was better than vehicle control at Week 6 (p\<0.05), testing for 12027-019 versus vehicle control proceeded to Week 4. Family-wise error rate was controlled at 0.05.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean tactile sensitivity (Yeaple probe) score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||8.24|-10.5|0.811
90968573|NCT01133379|181818979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.75||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|1.63||Per statistical analysis plan, if experimental rinse (12027-020) was better than vehicle control at Week 6 (p\<0.05), testing for 12027-020 versus vehicle control proceeded to Week 4. Family-wise error rate was controlled at 0.05.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean tactile sensitivity (Yeaple probe) score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||1.63|-17.1|0.105
90934944|NCT03015220|181749120|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.3391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.72||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox||"Oral Semaglutide 7 mg~/Dulaglutide 0.75 mg"|Time to initiation of rescue medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment and strata as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Censoring time was one day before last day on trial product.||1.72|0.21|0.3391
90934945|NCT03015220|181749120|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.12||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.62||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox||"Oral Semaglutide 14 mg~/Dulaglutide 0.75 mg"|Time to initiation of rescue medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment and strata as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Censoring time was one day before last day on trial product.||0.62|0.02|0.0110
90934946|NCT02312258|181749143|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09|||=|0.473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.861|1.381|||Log Rank||||"P-value comparing OS between treatment groups was based on log-rank test stratified by initial therapy (proteasome inhibitor-containing or not), International Staging System (ISS) stage before initial therapy (stage I or II vs stage III), age (\<75 versus \[vs\] \>=75 years) at randomization, and best response to initial therapy (complete response (CR) or very good partial response (VGPR) vs partial response (PR)).~Hazard ratio was based on an unadjusted Cox's proportional hazard regression model stratified by initial therapy (proteasome inhibitor-containing or not), ISS stage before initial therapy (stage I or II vs stage III), age (\<75 versus\[vs\] \>=75 years) at randomization, and best response to initial therapy (CR or VGPR vs PR), comparing the hazard rate of ixazomib arm over the hazard rate of placebo arm. A less than 1 hazard ratio was to be considered statistically significant."|1.381|0.861|=0.473
90934947|NCT02312258|181749145|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.655|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.537|0.799|||Log Rank||||"P-value comparing TTP between treatment groups was based on log-rank test stratified by initial therapy (proteasome inhibitor-containing or not), ISS stage before initial therapy (stage I or II vs stage III), age (\<75 vs \>=75 years) at randomization, and best response to initial therapy (CR or VGPR vs PR).~Hazard ratio was based on an unadjusted Cox's proportional hazard regression model stratified by initial therapy (proteasome inhibitor-containing or not), ISS stage before initial therapy (stage I or II vs stage III), age (\<75 vs \>=75 years) at randomization, and best response to initial therapy (CR or VGPR vs PR), comparing the hazard rate of ixazomib arm over the hazard rate of placebo arm. A less than 1 hazard ratio was to be considered statistically significant."|0.799|0.537|<0.001
90934948|NCT02312258|181749146|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.984|||=|0.893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.777|1.246|||Log Rank||||"P-value comparing PFS2 between treatment groups was based on log-rank test stratified by initial therapy (proteasome inhibitor-containing or not), ISS stage before initial therapy (stage I or II vs stage III), age (\<75 vs \>=75 years) at randomization, and best response to initial therapy (CR or VGPR vs PR).~Hazard ratio was based on an unadjusted Cox's proportional hazard regression model stratified by initial therapy (proteasome inhibitor-containing or not), ISS stage before initial therapy (stage I or II vs stage III), age (\<75 vs \>=75 years) at randomization, and best response to initial therapy (CR or VGPR vs PR), comparing the hazard rate of ixazomib arm over the hazard rate of placebo arm. A less than 1 hazard ratio was to be considered statistically significant."|1.246|0.777|=0.893
90934949|NCT02312258|181749147|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.777|||=|0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.631|0.957|||Log Rank||||"P-value comparing TTNT between treatment groups was based on log-rank test stratified by initial therapy (proteasome inhibitor-containing or not), ISS stage before initial therapy (stage I or II vs stage III), age (\<75 vs \>=75 years) at randomization, and best response to initial therapy (CR or VGPR vs PR).~Hazard ratio was based on an unadjusted Cox's proportional hazard regression model stratified by initial therapy (proteasome inhibitor-containing or not), ISS stage before initial therapy (stage I or II vs stage III), age (\<75 vs \>=75 years) at randomization, and best response to initial therapy (CR or VGPR vs PR), comparing the hazard rate of ixazomib arm over the hazard rate of placebo arm. A less than 1 hazard ratio was to be considered statistically significant."|0.957|0.631|=0.018
90934950|NCT02312258|181749148|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.111|||=|0.462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.839|1.47|||Log Rank||||"P-value comparing Time to End of Next Line Therapy between treatment groups was based on log-rank test stratified by initial therapy (proteasome inhibitor-containing or not), ISS stage before initial therapy (stage I or II vs stage III), age (\<75 vs \>=75 years) at randomization, and best response to initial therapy (CR or VGPR vs PR).~Hazard ratio was based on an unadjusted Cox's proportional hazard regression model stratified by initial therapy (proteasome inhibitor-containing or not), ISS stage before initial therapy (stage I or II vs stage III), age (\<75 vs \>=75 years) at randomization, and best response to initial therapy (CR or VGPR vs PR), comparing the hazard rate of ixazomib arm over the hazard rate of placebo arm. A less than 1 hazard ratio was to be considered statistically significant."|1.470|0.839|=0.462
90971209|NCT04091087|181825015|SUPERIORITY||LS mean Difference|9.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.23||0.2466|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.97|33.6||1-sided|Normal approximation test|||Week 3||33.60|-13.97|0.2466
91035892|NCT06298396|181958454|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin (NIM) of 10% was applied. In the sample size calculation, a 90% power to detect non-inferiority was used with a significance level α = 0.025 (one-tailed) was applied.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.92|2.81|||||Treatment difference = LP1 - Default Non-inferiority demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval was above -10% (i.e. LP1 - Default \> -10%).|||2.81|-2.92|
90968574|NCT01133379|181818980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.969||0.779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.72|8.95||Per statistical analysis plan, if experimental rinse (12027-019) was better than vehicle control at Week 4 (p\<0.05), testing for 12027-019 versus vehicle control proceeded to Week 2. Family-wise error rate was controlled at 0.05.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean tactile sensitivity (Yeaple probe) score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||8.95|-6.72|0.779
90968575|NCT01133379|181818980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.969||0.217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|2.92||Per statistical analysis plan, if experimental rinse (12027-020) was better than vehicle control at Week 4 (p\<0.05), testing for 12027-020 versus vehicle control proceeded to Week 2. Family-wise error rate was controlled at 0.05.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean tactile sensitivity (Yeaple probe) score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||2.92|-12.8|0.217
90968576|NCT01133379|181818981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.613||0.904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.84|5.47||Per statistical analysis plan, if experimental rinse (12027-019) was better than vehicle control at Week 2 (p\<0.05), testing for 12027-019 versus vehicle control proceeded to Week 1. Family-wise error rate was controlled at 0.05.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean tactile sensitivity (Yeaple probe) score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||5.47|-4.84|0.904
90934951|NCT02312258|181749149|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.293|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.968|1.727|||||||Hazard ratio was based on an unadjusted Cox's proportional hazard regression model stratified by initial therapy (proteasome inhibitor-containing or not), ISS stage before initial therapy (stage I or II vs stage III), age (\<75 vs \>=75 years) at randomization, and best response to initial therapy (CR or VGPR vs PR), comparing the hazard rate of ixazomib arm over the hazard rate of placebo arm. A less than 1 hazard ratio was to be considered statistically significant.|1.727|0.968|
90971210|NCT04091087|181825015|SUPERIORITY||LS mean Difference|34.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.74||0.0157|TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.43|61.05||1-sided|Normal approximation test|||Week 4||61.05|8.43|0.0157
90934952|NCT02312258|181749152|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.582|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.425|0.796|||Log Rank|||PFS for Participants with Known MRD+ at Study Entry|"P-value comparing PFS between treatment groups was based on log-rank test stratified by initial therapy (proteasome inhibitor-containing or not), ISS stage before initial therapy (stage I or II vs stage III), age (\<75 vs \>=75 years) at randomization, and best response to initial therapy (CR or VGPR vs PR).~Hazard ratio was based on an unadjusted Cox's proportional hazard regression model stratified by initial therapy (proteasome inhibitor-containing or not), ISS stage before initial therapy (stage I or II vs stage III), age (\<75 vs \>=75 years) at randomization, and best response to initial therapy (CR or VGPR vs PR), comparing the hazard rate of ixazomib arm over the hazard rate of placebo arm. A less than 1 hazard ratio was to be considered statistically significant."|0.796|0.425|=0.001
90934953|NCT02312258|181749152|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.537|||=|0.398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.563|4.194|||Log Rank|||PFS for Participants with Known MRD- at Study Entry|"P-value comparing PFS between treatment groups was based on log-rank test stratified by initial therapy (proteasome inhibitor-containing or not), ISS stage before initial therapy (stage I or II vs stage III), age (\<75 vs \>=75 years) at randomization, and best response to initial therapy (CR or VGPR vs PR).~Hazard ratio was based on an unadjusted Cox's proportional hazard regression model stratified by initial therapy (proteasome inhibitor-containing or not), ISS stage before initial therapy (stage I or II vs stage III), age (\<75 vs \>=75 years) at randomization, and best response to initial therapy (CR or VGPR vs PR), comparing the hazard rate of ixazomib arm over the hazard rate of placebo arm. A less than 1 hazard ratio was to be considered statistically significant."|4.194|0.563|=0.398
90934954|NCT02312258|181749152|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|10.173|||=|0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.194|86.649|||Log Rank|||OS for Participants with Known MRD Status (MRD- Status, MRD+ Status) at Study Entry|"P-value comparing OS between treatment groups was based on log-rank test stratified by initial therapy (proteasome inhibitor-containing or not), ISS stage before initial therapy (stage I or II vs stage III), age (\<75 vs \>=75 years) at randomization, and best response to initial therapy (CR or VGPR vs PR).~Hazard ratio was based on an unadjusted Cox's proportional hazard regression model stratified by initial therapy (proteasome inhibitor-containing or not), ISS stage before initial therapy (stage I or II vs stage III), age (\<75 vs \>=75 years) at randomization, and best response to initial therapy (CR or VGPR vs PR), comparing the hazard rate of ixazomib arm over the hazard rate of placebo arm. A less than 1 hazard ratio was to be considered statistically significant."|86.649|1.194|=0.012
90934955|NCT02312258|181749154|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.011|||=|0.963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.631|1.621|||Log Rank||||"P-value comparing PFS between treatment groups was based on log-rank test stratified by initial therapy (proteasome inhibitor-containing or not), ISS stage before initial therapy (stage I or II vs stage III), age (\<75 vs \>=75 years) at randomization, and best response to initial therapy (CR or VGPR vs PR).~Hazard ratio was based on an unadjusted Cox's proportional hazard regression model stratified by initial therapy (proteasome inhibitor-containing or not), ISS stage before initial therapy (stage I or II vs stage III), age (\<75 vs \>=75 years) at randomization, and best response to initial therapy (CR or VGPR vs PR), comparing the hazard rate of ixazomib arm over the hazard rate of placebo arm. A less than 1 hazard ratio was to be considered statistically significant."|1.621|0.631|=0.963
90934956|NCT02312258|181749158|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.387|0.727|||Log Rank|||PFS Based on Frailty Status of Fit|"P-value comparing PFS between treatment groups was based on Log-rank test stratified by initial therapy (proteasome inhibitor-containing or not), ISS stage before initial therapy (stage I or II vs stage III), and age (\<75 vs \>=75 years) at randomization.~Hazard ratio was based on an unadjusted Cox's proportional hazard regression model stratified by initial therapy (proteasome inhibitor-containing or not), ISS stage before initial therapy (stage I or II vs stage III), and age (\<75 vs \>=75 years) at randomization, comparing the hazard rate of ixazomib arm over the hazard rate of placebo arm. A less than 1 hazard ratio was to be considered statistically significant."|0.727|0.387|<0.001
90971211|NCT04091087|181825015|SUPERIORITY||LS mean Difference|-1.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.55||0.4548|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-25.99|22.68||1-sided|Normal approximation test|||Week 5||22.68|-25.99|0.4548
90934957|NCT02312258|181749158|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.746|||=|0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.526|1.058|||Log Rank|||PFS Based on Frailty Status of Unfit|"P-value comparing PFS between treatment groups was based on Log-rank test stratified by initial therapy (proteasome inhibitor-containing or not), ISS stage before initial therapy (stage I or II vs stage III), and age (\<75 vs \>=75 years) at randomization.~Hazard ratio was based on an unadjusted Cox's proportional hazard regression model stratified by initial therapy (proteasome inhibitor-containing or not), ISS stage before initial therapy (stage I or II vs stage III), and age (\<75 vs \>=75 years) at randomization, comparing the hazard rate of ixazomib arm over the hazard rate of placebo arm. A less than 1 hazard ratio was to be considered statistically significant."|1.058|0.526|=0.098
90934958|NCT02312258|181749158|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.733|||=|0.147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.481|1.117|||Log Rank|||PFS Based on Frailty Status of Frail|"P-value comparing PFS between treatment groups was based on Log-rank test stratified by initial therapy (proteasome inhibitor-containing or not), ISS stage before initial therapy (stage I or II vs stage III), and age (\<75 vs \>=75 years) at randomization.~Hazard ratio was based on an unadjusted Cox's proportional hazard regression model stratified by initial therapy (proteasome inhibitor-containing or not), ISS stage before initial therapy (stage I or II vs stage III), and age (\<75 vs \>=75 years) at randomization, comparing the hazard rate of ixazomib arm over the hazard rate of placebo arm. A less than 1 hazard ratio was to be considered statistically significant."|1.117|0.481|=0.147
90934959|NCT02312258|181749158|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.897|||=|0.714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.502|1.602|||Log Rank|||OS Based on Frailty Status of Fit|"P-value comparing OS between treatment groups was based on log-rank test stratified by initial therapy (proteasome inhibitor-containing or not), ISS stage before initial therapy (stage I or II vs stage III), age (\<75 vs \>=75 years) at randomization, and best response to initial therapy (CR or VGPR vs PR).~Hazard ratio was based on an unadjusted Cox's proportional hazard regression model stratified by initial therapy (proteasome inhibitor-containing or not), ISS stage before initial therapy (stage I or II vs stage III), age (\<75 vs \>=75 years) at randomization, and best response to initial therapy (CR or VGPR vs PR), comparing the hazard rate of ixazomib arm over the hazard rate of placebo arm. A less than 1 hazard ratio was to be considered statistically significant."|1.602|0.502|=0.714
90934960|NCT02312258|181749158|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.75|||=|0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|3.601|||Log Rank|||OS Based on Frailty Status of Unfit|"P-value comparing OS between treatment groups was based on log-rank test stratified by initial therapy (proteasome inhibitor-containing or not), ISS stage before initial therapy (stage I or II vs stage III), age (\<75 vs \>=75 years) at randomization, and best response to initial therapy (CR or VGPR vs PR).~Hazard ratio was based on an unadjusted Cox's proportional hazard regression model stratified by initial therapy (proteasome inhibitor-containing or not), ISS stage before initial therapy (stage I or II vs stage III), age (\<75 vs \>=75 years) at randomization, and best response to initial therapy (CR or VGPR vs PR), comparing the hazard rate of ixazomib arm over the hazard rate of placebo arm. A less than 1 hazard ratio was to be considered statistically significant."|3.601|0.850|=0.124
90934961|NCT02312258|181749158|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.854|||=|0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.448|1.627|||Log Rank|||OS Based on Frailty Status of Frail|"P-value comparing OS between treatment groups was based on log-rank test stratified by initial therapy (proteasome inhibitor-containing or not), ISS stage before initial therapy (stage I or II vs stage III), age (\<75 vs \>=75 years) at randomization, and best response to initial therapy (CR or VGPR vs PR).~Hazard ratio was based on an unadjusted Cox's proportional hazard regression model stratified by initial therapy (proteasome inhibitor-containing or not), ISS stage before initial therapy (stage I or II vs stage III), age (\<75 vs \>=75 years) at randomization, and best response to initial therapy (CR or VGPR vs PR), comparing the hazard rate of ixazomib arm over the hazard rate of placebo arm. A less than 1 hazard ratio was to be considered statistically significant."|1.627|0.448|=0.630
90934962|NCT01697956|181749162|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the geometric mean ratio of BDP nasal aerosol versus placebo was greater than 0.80.|ratio of BDP nasal aerosol to placebo|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.03||||||The standard deviation of the logarithmically transformed data on the change from baseline (expressed as a ratio) in 24-hr serum cortisol weighted mean is assumed to be 0.30. Using this standard deviation, 90 subjects (approximately 60 and 30 subjects in the BDP Nasal Aerosol and placebo groups, respectively) will yield approximately 90% power to demonstrate non-inferiority between BDP Nasal Aerosol and placebo, if there is no true difference between treatment groups.||1.03|0.81|
90934963|NCT01528605|181749172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis was no group difference||||<0.05
90934964|NCT01528605|181749173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis was no group difference||||<0.05
90934965|NCT01528605|181749174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||"The null hypothesis is no group difference"||||>0.05
90934966|NCT01970527|181749191|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.67
90934967|NCT01970527|181749193|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.71
90934968|NCT03060525|181749194|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.51||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.32|-0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference in weight change from Baseline to 6months, between Immediate Intervention participants (group and videophone combined) vs. Delayed Intervention participants (group and videophone combined). \[analysis of 2 arms, immediate intervention vs. delayed intervention\]||-0.41|-6.32|0.026
90934969|NCT03060525|181749195|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.42|-0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference in Body Mass Index (BMI) change from Baseline to 6months, between Immediate Intervention participants (group and videophone combined) vs. Delayed Intervention participants (group and videophone combined). \[analysis of 2 arms, immediate intervention vs. delayed intervention\]||-0.12|-2.42|0.03
90971212|NCT04091087|181825015|SUPERIORITY||LS mean Difference|-42.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.99||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-62.24|-22.15||1-sided|Normal approximation test|||Week 6||-22.15|-62.24|0.0004
90971213|NCT04091087|181825016|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|6.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.65||0.2383|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.23|23.06||1 sided|ANOVA|||||23.06|-9.23|0.2383
91035893|NCT06298396|181958455|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin (NIM) of 1 dB was applied. In the sample size calculation, a 90% power to detect non-inferiority was used with a significance level α = 0.025 (one-tailed) was applied.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.24|||||The non-inferiority margin is 1 dB. Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval is \< 1 dB.|||0.24|-0.87|
90934970|NCT03060525|181749196|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|247.5||||0.63|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||change in amount of physical activity = 6-month MET-minutes/week - baseline MET-minutes/week (change from pre to post intervention), using the International Physical Activity Questionnaire. IPAQ score is a continuous measure and reports median MET-minutes per week (a combination of walking met-minutes/week + moderate activity MET-minutes/week + vigorous activity MET-minutes/week). \[analysis of 2 arms, immediate intervention vs. delayed intervention\]||||0.63
90934971|NCT01964547|181749197|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The sample size is adequate to confirm the non-inferiority of Sativex with a clinical relevant reduction delta of 10%, assuming there is no difference between treatments in the actual change in cognition and also assuming a standard deviation for treatment difference of 10, using a one-tailed 2.5% significance level and power of 90%. Sativex is deemed to be non-inferior to placebo if the lower 1-sided 97.5% CI of the estimated mean treatment difference (Sativex-Placebo) is greater than -10%.|Estimated mean treatment difference|-1.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.492|||ONE_SIDED|97.5|-6.41||||ANCOVA|||The change at end of treatment was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment group and center grouping as factors and the baseline score as covariate. The planned sample size was 120 participants(60 patients in the Sativex arm and 60 in the placebo arm).|||-6.41|
90934972|NCT01964547|181749198|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Sativex is deemed to be non-inferior to placebo if the upper 1-sided 97.5% CI of the estimated mean treatment difference (Sativex-Placebo) is less than +5%.|Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.323|||ONE_SIDED|97.5||2.33|||ANCOVA|||The change at end of treatment was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment group and center grouping as factors and the baseline score as covariate.||2.33||
90934973|NCT01964547|181749199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.02||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.96|8.22|||Regression, Logistic|||Data were analysed using ordinal logistic regression using the cumulative proportional odds model, with global impression of change as the dependent variable and treatment group as factor.||8.22|1.96|0.0001
90968577|NCT01133379|181818981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.613||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.15|1.17||Per statistical analysis plan, if experimental rinse (12027-020) was better than vehicle control at Week 2 (p\<0.05), testing for 12027-020 versus vehicle control proceeded to Week 1. Family-wise error rate was controlled at 0.05.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean tactile sensitivity (Yeaple probe) score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||1.17|-9.15|0.129
90934974|NCT01964547|181749200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.79||||0.0142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|6.31|||Regression, Logistic|||Data were analysed using ordinal logistic regression using the cumulative proportional odds model, with global impression of change as the dependent variable and treatment group as factor.||6.31|1.23|0.0142
90934975|NCT01964547|181749201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.07||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|6.21|||Regression, Logistic|||Data were analysed using ordinal logistic regression using the cumulative proportional odds model, with global impression of change as the dependent variable and treatment group as factor.||6.21|1.51|0.0019
90934976|NCT01964547|181749202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-2.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.88||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.09|1.37|||ANCOVA|||The change at end of treatment was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment group and center grouping as factors and the baseline score as covariate.||1.37|-6.09|0.212
90934977|NCT01964547|181749205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|4.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.25||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.51|21.27|||ANCOVA|||The change at end of treatment was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment group and centre grouping as factors and baseline score as covariate.||21.27|-11.51|0.556
90934978|NCT01964547|181749205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann median difference|-1.0||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The change at end of treatment was compared between treatment groups using non-parametric methods as the distribution of data was non-normal.||0|-3|0.088
90934979|NCT04447287|181749223|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|89.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.21|99.11||||||||99.11|81.21|
90934980|NCT04447287|181749224|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|92.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.22|105.86||||||||105.86|80.22|
90934981|NCT04447287|181749225|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|109.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.1|117.71||||||||117.71|101.10|
90934982|NCT04447287|181749226|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|117.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|106.41|130.34||||||||130.34|106.41|
90934983|NCT04447287|181749227|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|79.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|68.1|92.55||||||||92.55|68.10|
90934984|NCT04447287|181749228|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|74.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|59.28|93.5||||||||93.50|59.28|
90934985|NCT02978716|181749267|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.7048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.5||A Hochberg-based gatekeeping procedure was used to control the global family-wise error rate across the multiple null hypotheses in the strong sense at a 1-sided 0.025 level.|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA)|||Duration of SN in Cycle 1 in Group 3 vs Group 1.||1.5|-0.8|0.7048
90934986|NCT02978716|181749267|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.3364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|2.3||2-sided p-value was calculated using a ANCOVA with study baseline ANC value as covariate, stratification factors of lines of systemic therapy, liver involvement and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Duration of SN in Cycle 1 in Group 2 vs Group 1.||2.3|-0.6|0.3364
91035544|NCT01299454|181957088|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was claimed for a PK parameter if the 90% CI for the ratio of the geometric means of a PK variable fell within the interval \[0.5, 2.0\]. Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach was equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.727|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.977|3.052|||Mixed effect analysis of variance||Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach is equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|The primary comparison was each hepatic disease group (mild, moderate or severe) versus the control (normal group). To compare the primary PK parameters between each hepatic disease group and the control group, the 90% CI for the difference in the means of the log-transformed data was calculated using a mixed effect analysis of variance.||3.052|0.977|
90934987|NCT02978716|181749268|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted rate ratio|0.776|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2762||0.7048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.386|1.559||A 1-sided p-value was calculated using Hochberg-based gatekeeping procedure to control the global familywise error rate across the multiple null hypotheses.|Modified Poisson method|||Number of participants with SN in Group 3 vs Group 1.||1.559|0.386|0.7048
90934988|NCT02978716|181749268|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted rate ratio|0.961|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.364||0.9154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.457|2.019||The p-value was calculated using modified Poisson method adjusting for number of cycles, accounting for the number of prior lines of therapy (0 versus 1 - 2) and liver involvement as the stratification factors and baseline ANC as a covariate.|Modified Poisson Regression|||Number of participants with SN in Group 2 vs Group 1.||2.019|0.457|0.9154
90934989|NCT02978716|181749271|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted hazard ratio (HR)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.125||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.74||P-value was calculated using the stratified log-rank test to account for the number of prior lines of therapy (0 versus 1 - 2) and liver involvement as the stratification factors.|stratified log-rank test||Cox regression model.|Overall survival in Group 3 vs Group 1.||0.74|0.22|0.0004
90934990|NCT02978716|181749271|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted HR|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.111||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.63||P-value was calculated using the stratified log-rank test to account for the number of prior lines of therapy (0 versus 1 - 2) and liver involvement as the stratification factors.|stratified log-rank test||Cox regression model.|Overall survival in Group 2 vs Group 1.||0.63|0.15|0.0016
90934991|NCT02978716|181749291|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted HR|0.493|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1957||0.7048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.226|1.073||A 1-sided p-value was calculated using Hochberg-based gatekeeping procedure to control the global familywise error rate across the multiple null hypotheses.|modified Poisson regression|||RBC Transfusions in Group 3 vs Group 1.||1.073|0.226|0.7048
90934992|NCT02978716|181749291|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted rate ratio|0.885|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3089||0.7272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.447|1.754||P-value was calculated using modified Poisson method adjusting for duration of treatment in days accounting for number of prior lines of therapy (0 versus 1 - 2); liver involvement as the stratification factors and baseline hemoglobin as a covariate.|Modified Poisson Regression|||RBC Transfusions in Group 2 vs Group 1.||1.754|0.447|0.7272
90934993|NCT02978716|181749292|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted rate ratio|0.988|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6105||0.7048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.294|3.317||A 1-sided p-value was calculated using Hochberg-based gatekeeping procedure to control the global familywise error rate across the multiple null hypotheses.|modified Poisson regression|||Platelet Transfusions in Group 3 vs Group 1.||3.317|0.294|0.7048
90934994|NCT02978716|181749292|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted rate ratio|0.527|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4077||0.4078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.116|2.399||P-value: calculated using modified Poisson method adjusting for duration of treatment in days accounting for number of prior lines of therapy (0 versus 1 - 2); liver involvement as stratification factors and baseline platelet count as a covariate.|Modified Poisson Regression|||Platelet Transfusions in Group 2 vs Group 1.||2.399|0.116|0.4078
90934995|NCT02978716|181749293|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted rate ratio|0.645|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1902||0.7048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.362|1.15||A 1-sided p-value was calculated using Hochberg-based gatekeeping procedure to control the global familywise error rate across the multiple null hypotheses.|modified Poisson regression|||G-CSF Administration in Group 3 vs Group 1.||1.150|0.362|0.7048
90934996|NCT02978716|181749293|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted rate ratio|0.936|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.226||0.7835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.583|1.502||P-value was calculated using modified Poisson method adjusting for number of cycles, accounting for the number of prior lines of therapy (0 versus 1 - 2) and liver involvement as the stratification factors and baseline ANC as a covariate.|Modified Poisson Regression|||G-CSF Administration in Group 2 vs Group 1.||1.502|0.583|0.7835
90934997|NCT02978716|181749296|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted rate ratio|0.991|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3718||0.7048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.475|2.067||The 1-sided p-value was calculated using Hochberg-based gatekeeping procedure to control the global family wise error rate across the multiple null hypotheses.|negative binomial regression|||All-cause Dose Reductions in Group 3 vs Group 1.||2.067|0.475|0.7048
90934998|NCT02978716|181749296|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted rate ratio|0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2744||0.5541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.426|1.58||P-value was calculated using negative binomial method adjusting for number of cycles, accounting for the number of prior lines of therapy (0 versus 1 - 2) and liver involvement as the stratification factors.|negative binomial regression|||All-cause Dose Reductions in Group 2 vs Group 1.||1.580|0.426|0.5541
90934999|NCT01974102|181749307|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.015|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.015
90935000|NCT01974102|181749308|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.03
90935001|NCT00866619|181749316|SUPERIORITY|Criterion for success = lower limit (LL) of 97.5% confidence interval (CI) of VE \> 0.|Vaccine efficacy|55.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|50.6|60.4|||Regression, Cox|||The analysis aimed to compare RfoCPFMI between groups over the Months 2.5-14 time period. Using RfoCFPMI, a Cox regression model was used to evaluate vaccine efficacy (VE) allowing for adjustment by factors. VE was calculated as 1 minus \[Hazard Ratio (HR) in GSK257049 \[5-17M\] Group (HR1) divided by HR in control VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group (HR2)\]; i. e. 1 - (HR1/HR2).||60.4|50.6|<0.0001
90935002|NCT00866619|181749317|SUPERIORITY|Point estimate of efficacy was adjusted for study site as stratification factor for the analysis. Criterion for success = lower limit (LL) of 97.5% confidence interval (CI) of VE \> 0.|Vaccine efficacy|31.315|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|23.556|38.286|||Regression, Cox|||The analysis aimed to compare RfoCPFMI between groups over the Months 2.5-14 time period. Using RfoCFPMI, a Cox regression model was used to evaluate vaccine efficacy (VE) allowing for adjustment by factors. VE was calculated as 1 minus \[Hazard Ratio (HR) in GSK257049 \[6-12W\] Group (HR1) divided by HR in control Menjugate Comparator \[6-12W\] Group (HR2)\]; i. e. 1 - (HR1/HR2).||38.286|23.556|<0.0001
90935003|NCT00882050|181749387|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Regression, Logistic|||logistic regression|Because we tested interventions against the placebo arm, we increased our subjects to overcome loss of power. 23 per group will provide 80% power assuming a reduced alpha of 0.01 to accommodate the multiple testing issues.|||0.05
90935004|NCT00882050|181749387|SUPERIORITY|Demographic data analyzed with nominal data tested by chi-square, ordinal data by Mann-Whitney, and normal data by t-test. Further, a linear regression analysis to determine the effect of intervention dose on glucose level and typical confounders such as age, weight, and type of surgery was completed. Adverse and SAEs were analyzed by chi-square for occurrence.||||||0.05||||||Due to have 3 trial groups our p value was adjusted for multiple comparisons as a a priori threshold (if a single comparison) was 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|The regression (see above) is a secondary analysis. Groups had been stratified on diabetic (y/n) to balance this potential confounder||Primary t tests of glucose between the 3 groups at 90 minutes post. Secondary MANOVA to determine the effect over time. Change in mean glucose of 20 mg/dl between all groups detectable by 18 subjects per group assuming a SD of 20mg/dl., an 82% power with an alpha of 0.05. Because we tested interventions against the placebo arm, we increased our subjects to overcome loss of power. 23 per group will provide 80% power assuming a reduced alpha of 0.01 to accommodate the multiple testing issues.||||0.05
90935005|NCT00946998|181749415|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.82
90935006|NCT00946998|181749416|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28||||||Represents the response outcome.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.28
90935007|NCT00946998|181749416|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86||||||Represents remission outcome.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.86
90935008|NCT00946998|181749417|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.32
90935009|NCT00946998|181749418|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.61
90935010|NCT00946998|181749419|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99||||||For death|Chi-squared|||||||>.99
90935011|NCT00946998|181749419|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77||||||For comparison of dialysis initiation between groups.|Chi-squared|||||||0.77
90935012|NCT00946998|181749419|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99||||||Hospitalization other than dialysis initiation|Chi-squared|||||||>0.99
90935013|NCT00946998|181749419|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5||||||For comparison of acute suicidal intent.|Chi-squared|||||||0.5
90935014|NCT00946998|181749419|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99||||||For comparison of bleeding requiring blood transfusion or hospitalization.|Chi-squared|||||||>0.99
90935015|NCT00674609|181749450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||estimated mean treatment difference|-0.67||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|-0.14|||ANCOVA|||The change in mean pain NRS score (average pain) was analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with the baseline value as a covariate and region and treatment group as factors. The null hypothesis was that of no treatment difference.||-0.14|-1.21|0.014
90935016|NCT00674609|181749450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.32||||0.244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.22|||ANCOVA|||The change in mean pain NRS score (average pain) was analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with the baseline value as a covariate and region and treatment group as factors. The null hypothesis was that of no treatment difference.||0.22|-0.86|0.244
90935017|NCT00674609|181749451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.31||||0.346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|0.34|||ANCOVA|||Each secondary variable was tested using a two-sided significance level of α=0.05, unless otherwise specified. P-values of \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant. If the overall treatment effect for the secondary variables was statistically significant then treatment comparisons was made between active treatments and placebo.||0.34|-0.97|0.346
90935018|NCT00674609|181749451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|0.02||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.68|||ANCOVA|||Each secondary variable was tested using a two-sided significance level of α=0.05, unless otherwise specified. P-values of \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant. If the overall treatment effect for the secondary variables was statistically significant then treatment comparisons was made between active treatments and placebo.||0.68|-0.64|0.95
90935019|NCT00674609|181749452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|0.49||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|1.09|||ANCOVA|||Each secondary variable was tested using a two-sided significance level of α=0.05, unless otherwise specified. P-values of \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant. If the overall treatment effect for the secondary variables was statistically significant then treatment comparisons was made between active treatments and placebo.||1.09|-0.11|0.11
90935020|NCT00674609|181749452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|0.46||||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|1.05|||ANCOVA|||Each secondary variable was tested using a two-sided significance level of α=0.05, unless otherwise specified. P-values of \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant. If the overall treatment effect for the secondary variables was statistically significant then treatment comparisons was made between active treatments and placebo.||1.05|-0.13|0.126
90971214|NCT04091087|181825017|SUPERIORITY||LS mean Difference|-29.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.01||0.0797|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-65.09|5.18||1-sided|Normal approximation test|||Week 1||5.18|-65.09|0.0797
90968578|NCT01133379|181818982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.336||0.477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.59|1.69||The significance threshold was 0.05. Family-wise error rate was controlled at 0.05.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean tactile sensitivity (Yeaple probe) score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||1.69|-3.59|0.477
90935021|NCT00674609|181749453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|0.65||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|1.28|||ANCOVA|||Each secondary variable was tested using a two-sided significance level of α=0.05, unless otherwise specified. P-values of \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant. If the overall treatment effect for the secondary variables was statistically significant then treatment comparisons was made between active treatments and placebo.||1.28|0.01|0.045
90935022|NCT00674609|181749453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|0.62||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|1.25|||ANCOVA|||Each secondary variable was tested using a two-sided significance level of α=0.05, unless otherwise specified. P-values of \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant. If the overall treatment effect for the secondary variables was statistically significant then treatment comparisons was made between active treatments and placebo.||1.25|-0.01|0.053
90935023|NCT00674609|181749454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||estimated mean treatment difference|0.83||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.51|||ANCOVA|||Each secondary variable was tested using a two-sided significance level of α=0.05, unless otherwise specified. P-values of \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant. If the overall treatment effect for the secondary variables was statistically significant then treatment comparisons was made between active treatments and placebo.||1.51|0.16|0.016
90935024|NCT00674609|181749454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|0.66||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|1.33|||ANCOVA|||Each secondary variable was tested using a two-sided significance level of α=0.05, unless otherwise specified. P-values of \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant. If the overall treatment effect for the secondary variables was statistically significant then treatment comparisons was made between active treatments and placebo.||1.33|-0.02|0.056
90935025|NCT00674609|181749455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|0.68||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.25|||ANCOVA|||Each secondary variable was tested using a two-sided significance level of α=0.05, unless otherwise specified. P-values of \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant. If the overall treatment effect for the secondary variables was statistically significant then treatment comparisons was made between active treatments and placebo.||1.25|0.10|0.021
90935026|NCT00674609|181749455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated treatment difference|0.64||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.22|||ANCOVA|||Each secondary variable was tested using a two-sided significance level of α=0.05, unless otherwise specified. P-values of \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant. If the overall treatment effect for the secondary variables was statistically significant then treatment comparisons was made between active treatments and placebo.||1.22|0.07|0.028
90935027|NCT00674609|181749456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||estimated mean treatment difference|2.47||||0.443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.87|8.81|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of the change from baseline was assessed using ANCOVA, adjusting for the effects of the baseline value. The significance of the treatment effect, after adjusting for the baseline value, was assessed using the F-test from the ANCOVA. If found significant at the 5% level, then the mean difference between treatments together with 95% CI were presented.||8.81|-3.87|0.443
90935028|NCT00674609|181749456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||estimated mean treatment difference|0.84||||0.793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.46|7.13|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of the change from baseline was assessed using ANCOVA, adjusting for the effects of the baseline value. The significance of the treatment effect, after adjusting for the baseline value, was assessed using the F-test from the ANCOVA. If found significant at the 5% level, then the mean difference between treatments together with 95% CI were presented.||7.13|-5.46|0.793
90935029|NCT00674609|181749457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-1.04||||0.619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.23|3.15|||ANCOVA|||Change in pain scores on-treatment were be compared between groups using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). The baseline pain score was fitted as a covariate in the model. The significance of the treatment effect after adjusting for baseline pain score was assessed using the F-test from the ANCOVA. If this was significant at the 5% level, then the mean difference between treatments together with the 95% confidence interval was presented for Sativex versus placebo and THC versus placebo.||3.15|-5.23|0.619
90935030|NCT00674609|181749457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-4.07||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||Change in pain scores on-treatment were be compared between groups using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). The baseline pain score was fitted as a covariate in the model. The significance of the treatment effect after adjusting for baseline pain score was assessed using the F-test from the ANCOVA. If this was significant at the 5% level, then the mean difference between treatments together with the 95% confidence interval was presented for Sativex versus placebo and THC versus placebo.||-0.05|-8.10|0.048
90935031|NCT00674609|181749458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||estimated mean treatment difference|-0.04||||0.688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.16|||Regression, Logistic|||The on-treatment data was calculated from all available data during the last three days. The number of days the escape medication was used out of the last three days taken in the study was compared between treatments using logistic regression with a cumulative logit model. From this analysis the frequency distribution (%) of number days escape medication was used was presented together with the odds ratio, p-value and 95% CI for the treatment contrasts.||0.16|-0.25|0.688
90935032|NCT00674609|181749458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|0.01||||0.899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.22|||Regression, Logistic|||The on-treatment data was calculated from all available data during the last three days. The number of days the escape medication was used out of the last three days taken in the study was compared between treatments using logistic regression with a cumulative logit model. From this analysis the frequency distribution (%) of number days escape medication was used was presented together with the odds ratio, p-value and 95% CI for the treatment contrasts.||0.22|-0.19|0.899
90935033|NCT02301299|181749469|OTHER|For power calculation, we assumed that the intervention would be almost fully implemented in May 2016 and the early hospital arrival would be observed until Dec 2017. Therefore, a post-intervention period would be 20 months. To have one-third of the study period as an intervention period, we planned to analyze five-year (60-month) data from January 2013 to December 2017.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Linear|Using the seasonally adjusted time series data, we conducted linear regression analysis for time series data in PROC AUTOREG.||The effect size was defined as the sum of expected slope change in monthly early hospital arrival rate over the standard deviation. Assuming an autocorrelation level of 0.3, both level and trend change effect size of 0.5 would be detectable at 90% power at a significance level of 0.05.|Using SAS PROC TIMESERIES, individual admission data were aggregated into monthly time series data to calculate a monthly early arrival rate. In this procedure, we also generated seasonally adjusted time series data to take into account a seasonal pattern. Using the seasonally adjusted time series data, we conducted linear regression analysis for time series data in PROC AUTOREG. The statistical hypothesis of the regression model was that there are a level change and a slope change after the intervention. In the regression model, we included a time variable to account for a natural trend prior to the intervention introduction (or in absence of the intervention). We assumed that the patient population was stable during the five-year period and no other factors than the intervention affected the outcome; no other potential confounding factors were not considered. A backward elimination was used to correct for autocorrelation. Maximum likelihood method was used to estimate parameters.|||<.0001
90941210|NCT03119688|181762220|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-Inferiority margin is set at 0.25. The upper limit of the 90% CI is less than this and hence NI is met.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.077||||0.1769|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1707|0.0169||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made.|ANOVA|ANOVA model with change from baseline in examiner assessment on dryness as response and treatment, site as fixed effects; participant as random effect|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors first named treatment.|The null hypothesis (non-inferiority setting) is that the population mean dryness for Test minus Baxter Sterile Water (negative control) is at least 0.25.||0.0169|-0.1707|0.1769
90941211|NCT03119688|181762220|SUPERIORITY|This is a superiority test setting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.2565|0.4441||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made.|ANOVA|ANOVA model with change from baseline in examiner assessment on dryness as response and treatment, site as fixed effects;participant as random effect|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors first named treatment.|The null hypothesis is that the difference in population mean dryness is zero.||0.4441|0.2565|<.0001
90941212|NCT03119688|181762220|SUPERIORITY|This is a superiority test setting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.427|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.3333|0.5211||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made.|ANOVA|ANOVA model with change from baseline in examiner assessment on dryness as response and treatment, site as fixed effects; participant as random effect|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors first named treatment.|The null hypothesis is that the difference in population mean dryness is zero.||0.5211|0.3333|<.0001
90968579|NCT01133379|181818982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.336||0.472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|1.67||The significance threshold was 0.05. Family-wise error rate was controlled at 0.05.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean tactile sensitivity (Yeaple probe) score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||1.67|-3.60|0.472
90968580|NCT01133379|181818983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.726||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.86|4.9||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean tactile sensitivity VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||4.90|-5.86|0.860
90968581|NCT01133379|181818983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.723||0.763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|4.55||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean tactile sensitivity VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||4.55|-6.20|0.763
90968582|NCT01133379|181818984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.856||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.62|3.66||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean tactile sensitivity VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||3.66|-7.62|0.488
90968583|NCT01133379|181818984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.854||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.54|2.73||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean tactile sensitivity VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups||2.73|-8.54|0.311
90968584|NCT01133379|181818985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.478||0.604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.68|5.06||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean tactile sensitivity VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||5.06|-8.68|0.604
90968585|NCT01133379|181818985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.477||0.583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.95|8.78||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean tactile sensitivity VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||8.78|-4.95|0.583
90968586|NCT01133379|181818986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.61||0.847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.83|6.43||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean tactile sensitivity VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||6.43|-7.83|0.847
90968587|NCT01133379|181818986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.61||0.708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.77|8.48||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean tactile sensitivity VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||8.48|-5.77|0.708
90968588|NCT01133379|181818987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.678||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.75|2.83||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean cold air VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||2.83|-7.75|0.360
90968589|NCT01133379|181818987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.679||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.17|1.41||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean cold air VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||1.41|-9.17|0.149
90968590|NCT01133379|181818988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.235||0.421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|3.78||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean cold air VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||3.78|-9.00|0.421
90968591|NCT01133379|181818988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.235||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|2.73||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean cold air VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||2.73|-10.0|0.260
90968592|NCT01133379|181818989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.601||0.989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.16|7.06||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean cold air VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||7.06|-7.16|0.989
90968593|NCT01133379|181818989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.599||0.721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.39|5.82||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean cold air VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||5.82|-8.39|0.721
90968594|NCT01133379|181818990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.69||0.743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|6.07||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean cold air VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||6.07|-8.50|0.743
90968595|NCT01133379|181818990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.688||0.928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.61|6.95||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean cold air VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||6.95|-7.61|0.928
90968596|NCT01133379|181818991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.369||0.683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.71|5.65||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline global subjective VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||5.65|-3.71|0.683
90968597|NCT01133379|181818991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.371||0.914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.94|4.42||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline global subjective VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||4.42|-4.94|0.914
91035894|NCT06298396|181958456|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin (NIM) of 10% was applied. In the sample size calculation, a 90% power to detect non-inferiority was used with a significance level α = 0.025 (one-tailed) was applied.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.75|||||Treatment difference = LP2 - LP1 Non-inferiority demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval was above -10% (i.e. LP2 - LP1 \> -10%).|||0.75|-0.55|
90968598|NCT01133379|181818992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.994||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|-0.27||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline global subjective VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-0.27|-12.1|0.040
90968599|NCT01133379|181818992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.997||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|-0.18||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline global subjective VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-0.18|-12.0|0.043
90968600|NCT01133379|181818993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.522||0.511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.27|4.64||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline global subjective VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||4.64|-9.27|0.511
90968601|NCT01133379|181818993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.526||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|2.89||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline global subjective VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||2.89|-11.0|0.250
90968602|NCT01133379|181818994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.684||0.233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|2.86||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline global subjective VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||2.86|-11.7|0.233
90968603|NCT01133379|181818994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.687||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|1.44||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline global subjective VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||1.44|-13.1|0.115
90968604|NCT00841204|181818998|OTHER|||||||0.0056|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0056
90968605|NCT00841204|181818999|OTHER|||||||0.386|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.386
90968606|NCT00841204|181819000|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
90968607|NCT00841204|181819001|OTHER|||||||0.58|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.58
90968608|NCT00841204|181819002|OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.12
90968609|NCT00255970|181819003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||This study had been designed as a superiority study. The null hypothesis had been that there would be no significant difference in probing depth between groups at the time points measured.||||>.05
90968610|NCT00255970|181819003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The power analysis had been computed for a threshold of 0.05 with a power of 0.8.|ANOVA|||A power analysis, prior to data collection, determined that a minimum of 18 in each arm would be needed for this study.||||>0.05
90968611|NCT00255970|181819004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||This study had been designed as a superiority study. The a priori power analysis had been designed with an effect size based on historical data. Thus, a minimal sample size of 34 patients would be necessary to determine if there was a true difference between groups, α =.05, power= 0.8. This number was then rounded to 40 patients, 20/ group (DFDBA and Regenafil).||||>.05
90968612|NCT00255970|181819005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||The change in recession, measured in mm, had been designed as a superiority study. The a priori power analysis had been designed with an effect size based on historical data. Thus, a minimal sample size of 34 patients would be necessary to determine if there was a true difference between groups, α =.05, power= 0.8. This number was then rounded to 40 patients, 20/ group (DFDBA and Regenafil).||||>0.05
90968613|NCT00255970|181819006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Each gingival unit (buccal, lingual, mesiobuccal, distobuccal, mesiolingual, and distolingual) of the individual tooth will be given a score from 0-3, called the gingival index for the area. The scores from the 6 areas of the tooth are added and divided by 6 to give the gingival index for the tooth.||||>0.05
90968614|NCT00255970|181819007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||This study had been designed as a superiority study. The a priori power analysis had been designed with an effect size based on historical data. Thus, a minimal sample size of 34 patients would be necessary to determine if there was a true difference between groups, α =.05, power= 0.8. This number was then rounded to 40 patients, 20/ group (DFDBA and Regenafil).||||>0.05
90971215|NCT04091087|181825017|SUPERIORITY||LS mean Difference|-14.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.79||0.2236|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-45.81|17.04||1-sided|Normal approximation test|||Week 2||17.04|-45.81|0.2236
90935034|NCT02301299|181749470|OTHER|For power calculation, we assumed that the intervention would be almost fully implemented in May 2016 and the EMS use would be observed until Dec 2017. Therefore, a post-intervention period would be 20 months. To have one-third of the study period as an intervention period, we planned to analyze five-year (60-month) data from January 2013 to December 2017.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Linear|||The effect size was defined as the sum of expected slope change in monthly EMS use rate over the standard deviation. Assuming an autocorrelation level of 0.3, both level and trend change effect size of 0.5 would be detectable at 90% power at a significance level of 0.05. The effect size is measured in slope of change over time (negative values indicate a decrease while positive values indicate an increase in % EMS use/month).|Using SAS PROC TIMESERIES, individual admission data were aggregated into monthly time series data to calculate a monthly EMS arrival rate. In this procedure, we also generated seasonally adjusted time series data to take into account a seasonal pattern. Using the seasonally adjusted time series data, we conducted linear regression analysis for time series data in PROC AUTOREG. The statistical hypothesis of the regression model was that there are a level change and a slope change after the intervention. In the regression model, we included a time variable to account for a natural trend prior to the intervention introduction (or in absence of the intervention). We assumed that the patient population was stable during the five-year period and no other factors than the intervention affected the outcome; no other potential confounding factors were not considered. A backward elimination was used to correct for autocorrelation. Maximum likelihood method was used to estimate parameters.|||<.0001
90935035|NCT00476151|181749503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.083
90935036|NCT02068352|181749506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference|11.93||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|23.95||P-value was derived using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by age group (\< 18 or ≥ 18) and region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||23.95|-0.08|0.0690
90935037|NCT02068352|181749506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference|18.23||||0.0165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.99|31.46||P-value was derived using CMH test stratified by age group (\< 18 or ≥ 18) and region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||31.46|4.99|0.0165
90935038|NCT02068352|181749506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference|12.3||||0.0617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|24.53||P-value was derived using CMH test stratified by age group (\< 18 or ≥ 18) and region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||24.53|0.06|0.0617
90935039|NCT02068352|181749507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47||||0.0128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, region, visit, age group, and interaction of treatment by visit as terms, Baseline score as a covariate.||||-0.10|-0.84|0.0128
90935040|NCT02068352|181749507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46||||0.0134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, region, visit, age group, interaction of treatment by visit, Baseline score as a covariate.||||-0.10|-0.81|0.0134
90935041|NCT02068352|181749508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.16|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, region, age group as terms, and Baseline score as a covariate for change from Baseline.||||-0.16|-0.85|0.0048
90935042|NCT02068352|181749508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.16|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, region, age group as terms, and Baseline score as a covariate for change from Baseline.||||-0.16|-0.84|0.0045
90935043|NCT02068352|181749510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.26||||0.4173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.99|21.52||P-value was derived using CMH test stratified by age group (\< 18 or ≥ 18) and region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.52|-8.99|0.4173
90971216|NCT04091087|181825017|SUPERIORITY||LS mean Difference|-9.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.05||0.2559|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-35.12|15.24||1-sided|Normal approximation test|||Week 3||15.24|-35.12|0.2559
90935044|NCT02068352|181749510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.47||||0.4895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.43|20.36||P-value was derived using CMH test stratified by age group (\< 18 or ≥ 18) and region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||20.36|-9.43|0.4895
90935045|NCT02068352|181749510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.19||||0.2677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.74|25.12||P-value was derived using CMH test stratified by age group (\< 18 or ≥ 18) and region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||25.12|-6.74|0.2677
90935046|NCT02068352|181749510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.12||||0.2319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.63|25.87||P-value was derived using CMH test stratified by age group (\< 18 or ≥ 18) and region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||25.87|-5.63|0.2319
90935047|NCT02068352|181749511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.11||||0.3213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.33|1.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, region, visit, age group, interaction of treatment by visit, Baseline score as a covariate.||||1.11|-3.33|0.3213
90935048|NCT02068352|181749511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.09||||0.0594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.27|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, region, visit, age group, interaction of treatment by visit, Baseline score as a covariate.||||0.08|-4.27|0.0594
90935049|NCT02068352|181749511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.03||||0.396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.43|1.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, region, visit, age group, interaction of treatment by visit, Baseline score as a covariate.||||1.37|-3.43|0.396
90935050|NCT02068352|181749511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||0.1135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.26|0.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, region, visit, age group, interaction of treatment by visit, Baseline score as a covariate.||||0.46|-4.26|0.1135
90935051|NCT02068352|181749512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.49||||0.1703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.63|0.65|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, region, age group as terms, and Baseline score as a covariate for change from Baseline.||||0.65|-3.63|0.1703
90935052|NCT02068352|181749512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.56||||0.0176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.67|-0.45|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, region, age group as terms, and Baseline score as a covariate for change from Baseline.||||-0.45|-4.67|0.0176
90935053|NCT02068352|181749512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.41||||0.2381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.78|0.95|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, region, age group as terms, and Baseline score as a covariate for change from Baseline.||||0.95|-3.78|0.2381
90935054|NCT02068352|181749512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.36||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.68|-0.03|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, region, age group as terms, and Baseline score as a covariate for change from Baseline.||||-0.03|-4.68|0.047
90935055|NCT02068352|181749513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0.8196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|10.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, region, visit, age group, interaction of treatment by visit, Baseline score as a covariate.||||10.7|-13.5|0.8196
90935056|NCT02068352|181749513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.83||||0.0503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.69|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, region, visit, age group, interaction of treatment by visit, Baseline score as a covariate.||||0.02|-23.69|0.0503
90935057|NCT02068352|181749513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.68||||0.5902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.22|9.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, region, visit, age group, interaction of treatment by visit, Baseline score as a covariate.||||9.85|-17.22|0.5902
90935058|NCT02068352|181749513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.42||||0.0482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.73|-0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, region, visit, age group, interaction of treatment by visit, Baseline score as a covariate.||||-0.11|-26.73|0.0482
90935059|NCT02068352|181749514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.8633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.48|10.48|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, region, age group as terms, and Baseline score as a covariate for change from Baseline.||||10.48|-12.48|0.8633
90935060|NCT02068352|181749514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.54||||0.0452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.83|-0.25|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, region, age group as terms, and Baseline score as a covariate for change from Baseline.||||-0.25|-22.83|0.0452
90935061|NCT02068352|181749514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.73||||0.6746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.58|10.12|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, region, age group as terms, and Baseline score as a covariate for change from Baseline.||||10.12|-15.58|0.6746
90935062|NCT02068352|181749514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.05||||0.0432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.69|-0.4|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, region, age group as terms, and Baseline score as a covariate for change from Baseline.||||-0.4|-25.69|0.0432
90935063|NCT01767376|181749517|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was defined as the lower limit (LL) of the two-sided standardised asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for rSBA GMT ratios for serogroup A between the two groups (Nimenrix+Boostrix Group minus Nimenrix Group) being greater than or equal to (≥) the pre-defined limit of 0.5.|Adjusted GMT ratio|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.48|||ANCOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of Nimenrix co-administered with Boostrix (Nimenrix+Boostrix Group) compared to Nimenrix administered alone (Nimenrix Group) with respect to serum bactericidal assay using rabbit complement (rSBA) geometric mean titers (GMTs) for serogroup A, one month after Nimenrix vaccination.||1.48|0.97|
90941213|NCT03119688|181762220|SUPERIORITY|This is a superiority test setting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.065||||0.2518|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0287|0.1592||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made.|ANOVA|ANOVA model with change from baseline in examiner assessment on dryness as response and treatment, site as fixed effects;participant as random effect|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors first named treatment.|The null hypothesis is that the difference in population mean dryness is zero.||0.1592|-0.0287|0.2518
90935064|NCT01767376|181749517|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was defined as the lower limit (LL) of the two-sided standardised asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for rSBA GMT ratios for serogroup C between the two groups (Nimenrix+Boostrix Group minus Nimenrix Group) being greater than or equal to (≥) the pre-defined limit of 0.5.|Adjusted GMT ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.47|||ANCOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of Nimenrix co-administered with Boostrix (Nimenrix+Boostrix Group) compared to Nimenrix administered alone (Nimenrix Group) with respect to serum bactericidal assay using rabbit complement (rSBA) geometric mean titers (GMTs) for serogroup C, one month after Nimenrix vaccination.||1.47|0.85|
90968615|NCT03996876|181819010|SUPERIORITY|Given the relatively small sample size, results of our inferential statistical tests should be interpreted with caution.|F Statistic|1.032||||0.322|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|ANOVA|We conducted a two-way mixed ANOVA with intervention as the between-subjects and time as the within-subjects variable.|The F Statistic reported is for the interaction between Intervention and Time.|||||0.322
90968616|NCT00121108|181819013|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk|0.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.21|||Fisher Exact|||||0.21|0.08|<0.001
90968617|NCT02726971|181819024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
90968618|NCT00597753|181819053|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A non-inferiority margin of -1.0 g/dL was used in the primary efficacy assessments. Non-inferiority was established if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference between the means of the primary endpoint (peginesatide minus control ESA) was ≥ -1.0 g/dL.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.072|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.01|||ANOVA|The ANOVA cell means model was used to estimate primary efficacy endpoint within the specified cells formed by the combination of treatment and strata||The sample size for this study was determined based on a two group evaluation of non-inferiority using the t-distribution (one-sided significance level 0.025) with a non inferiority margin of -1.0 g/dL. A sample size of approximately 750 (peginesatide group of 500 and epoetin alfa group of 250) provided at least 99% power for the evaluation of non-inferiority, assuming an expected treatment difference of 0.0 g/dL and a standard deviation of 1.5 g/dL.||-0.01|-0.30|
90968619|NCT00597753|181819054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.92|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.92|0.76|
90968620|NCT00597753|181819055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.97|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.97|0.79|
90968621|NCT04342871|181819089|OTHER|Pre-post comparison from baseline to 2-weeks post-intervention||||||0.2|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2
90968622|NCT01417195|181819107|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The pre-defined non-inferiority margin for the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference in fertilization rate was below -12%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|11.5|||||"Mean difference = Menopur/Bravelle - Menopur.~95% CI is based on Student's t-distribution, assuming equal variances."|||11.5|-4.3|
90968623|NCT02257372|181819129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.123|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.071|0.174|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||0.174|0.071|<0.001
90968624|NCT02257372|181819130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.148|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.099|0.197|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||0.197|0.099|<0.001
90968625|NCT02634151|181819131|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-11.05||||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.81|-3.29|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.||-3.29|-18.81|0.0057
90968626|NCT02634151|181819132|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-11.8||||0.0648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.35|0.75|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group and baseline diabetes status are included as factors, and the outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||High-Intensity.||0.75|-24.35|0.0648
90968627|NCT02634151|181819132|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-10.64||||0.0398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.77|-0.51|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group and baseline diabetes status are included as factors, and the outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Moderate Intensity.||-0.51|-20.77|0.0398
90968628|NCT02634151|181819133|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-10.09||||0.0275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.04|-1.14|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 2||-1.14|-19.04|0.0275
90968629|NCT02634151|181819133|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-9.4||||0.0524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9|0.1|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 4.||0.10|-18.90|0.0524
90968630|NCT02634151|181819133|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|0.89||||0.8602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.12|10.9|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 8||10.90|-9.12|0.8602
90968631|NCT02634151|181819133|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-12.63||||0.0115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.37|-2.89|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 12||-2.89|-22.37|0.0115
90968632|NCT02634151|181819133|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-5.87||||0.1945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.79|3.05|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Average of week 8 and 12||3.05|-14.79|0.1945
90968633|NCT02634151|181819134|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-5.88||||0.0991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.89|1.13|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||||1.13|-12.89|0.0991
90968634|NCT02634151|181819135|OTHER|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-7.58||||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.32|-1.84|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 2||-1.84|-13.32|0.0101
90968635|NCT02634151|181819135|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-9.56||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.94|-3.18|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 4||-3.18|-15.94|0.0037
90968636|NCT02634151|181819135|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-0.94||||0.7839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.72|5.84|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 8||5.84|-7.72|0.7839
90968637|NCT02634151|181819135|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-10.69||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.53|-3.84|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 12||-3.84|-17.53|0.0025
90968638|NCT02634151|181819136|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-12.66||||0.0117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.45|-2.88|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 2||-2.88|-22.45|0.0117
90968639|NCT02634151|181819136|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-15.55||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.88|-5.21|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 4||-5.21|-25.88|0.0036
90968640|NCT02634151|181819136|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-0.59||||0.9147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.48|10.31||Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||10.31|-11.48|0.9147
90968641|NCT02634151|181819136|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-16.59||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.24|-5.93|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 12||-5.93|-27.24|0.0026
90935065|NCT01767376|181749517|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was defined as the lower limit (LL) of the two-sided standardised asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for rSBA GMT ratios for serogroup W-135 between the two groups (Nimenrix+Boostrix Group minus Nimenrix Group) being greater than or equal to (≥) the pre-defined limit of 0.5.|Adjusted GMT ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.32|||ANCOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of Nimenrix co-administered with Boostrix (Nimenrix+Boostrix Group) compared to Nimenrix administered alone (Nimenrix Group) with respect to serum bactericidal assay using rabbit complement (rSBA) geometric mean titers (GMTs) for serogroup W-135, one month after Nimenrix vaccination.||1.32|0.86|
90968642|NCT02634151|181819137|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-6.13||||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.77|-1.5|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 2||-1.50|-10.77|0.0101
90968643|NCT02634151|181819137|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-7.73||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.89|-2.58|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 4||-2.58|-12.89|0.0036
90968644|NCT02634151|181819137|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|0.12||||0.9653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.27|5.51|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 8||5.51|-5.27|0.9653
90968645|NCT02634151|181819137|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-6.89||||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|-1.68|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 12||-1.68|-12.10|0.0101
90968646|NCT02634151|181819138|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-12.74||||0.0173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.19|-2.3|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 2||-2.30|-23.19|0.0173
90968647|NCT02634151|181819138|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-16.29||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.17|-5.4|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 4||-5.40|-27.17|0.0038
90968648|NCT02634151|181819138|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|1.58||||0.7846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.85|13.01|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 8||13.01|-9.85|0.7846
90968649|NCT02634151|181819138|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-13.98||||0.0121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.83|-3.13|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 12||-3.13|-24.83|0.0121
90968650|NCT02634151|181819139|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-13.32||||0.0108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.32|-3.12|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 2||-3.12|-23.32|0.0108
90968651|NCT02634151|181819139|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-23.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.78|-12.42|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 4||-12.42|-34.78|<0.0001
90968652|NCT02634151|181819139|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-6.71||||0.1376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.6|2.18|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 8||2.18|-15.60|0.1376
90935066|NCT01767376|181749517|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was defined as the lower limit (LL) of the two-sided standardised asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for rSBA GMT ratios for serogroup Y between the two groups (Nimenrix+Boostrix Group minus Nimenrix Group) being greater than or equal to (≥) the pre-defined limit of 0.5.|Adjusted GMT ratio|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.59|||ANCOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of Nimenrix co-administered with Boostrix (Nimenrix+Boostrix Group) compared to Nimenrix administered alone (Nimenrix Group) with respect to serum bactericidal assay using rabbit complement (rSBA) geometric mean titers (GMTs) for serogroup Y, one month after Nimenrix vaccination.||1.59|1.02|
90968653|NCT02634151|181819139|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-15.64||||0.0144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.1|-3.18|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||||-3.18|-28.10|0.0144
90968654|NCT02634151|181819140|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-19.53||||0.0113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.55|-4.51|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 2||-4.51|-34.55|0.0113
90968655|NCT02634151|181819140|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-33.64||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.58|-16.69|||ANCOVA|||Week 4||-16.69|-50.58|0.0002
90968656|NCT02634151|181819140|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-8.33||||0.1873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.77|4.12|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 8||4.12|-20.77|0.1873
90968657|NCT02634151|181819140|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-29.58||||0.0172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.8|-5.37|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 12||-5.37|-53.80|0.0172
90968658|NCT02634151|181819141|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-11.52||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.27|-1.77|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 2||-1.77|-21.27|0.0210
90968659|NCT02634151|181819141|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-23.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.02|-12.01|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 4||-12.01|-34.02|<0.0001
90968660|NCT02634151|181819141|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-6.43||||0.1483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.19|2.33|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 8||2.33|-15.19|0.1483
90968661|NCT02634151|181819141|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-11.63||||0.0214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.5|-1.76|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 12||-1.76|-21.50|0.0214
90968662|NCT02634151|181819142|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-2.95||||0.0308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.62|-0.28|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 2||-0.28|-5.62|0.0308
90968663|NCT02634151|181819142|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-6.3||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.56|-3.04|||ANCOVA|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.||Week 4||-3.04|-9.56|0.0002
90968664|NCT02634151|181819142|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-1.58||||0.2056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.03|0.88|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 8||0.88|-4.03|0.2056
90971217|NCT04091087|181825017|SUPERIORITY||LS mean Difference|-16.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.44||0.2392|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-53.54|21.52||1-sided|Normal approximation test|||Week 4||21.52|-53.54|0.2392
90968665|NCT02634151|181819142|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.0||||0.0103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.04|-0.96|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 12||-0.96|-7.04|0.0103
90968666|NCT02634151|181819143|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.13||||0.3193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.36|2.09|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||||2.09|-6.36|0.3193
90968667|NCT02634151|181819143|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-2.4||||0.2932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.91|2.11|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 4||2.11|-6.91|0.2932
90968668|NCT02634151|181819143|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|1.98||||0.4383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.06|7.02|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 8||7.02|-3.06|0.4383
90935067|NCT01767376|181749518|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was defined as the lower limit (LL) of the two-sided standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) between the two groups (Nimenrix+Boostrix Group minus Boostrix Group), in terms of percentage of subjects with anti-D concentrations ≥ 1.0 IU/mL, being greater than or equal to (≥) the pre-defined limit of -10%.|Difference in percentage|-2.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.88|3.53||||||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of Boostrix co-administered with Nimenrix (Nimenrix+Boostrix Group) compared to Boostrix administered alone (Boostrix Group) in terms of anti-diphtheria toxoid (anti-D) antibody concentrations one month after Boostrix vaccination.||3.53|-7.88|
90935068|NCT01767376|181749518|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was defined as the lower limit (LL) of the two-sided standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) between the two groups (Nimenrix+Boostrix Group minus Boostrix Group), in terms of percentage of subjects with anti-T concentrations ≥ 1.0 IU/mL, being greater than or equal to (≥) the pre-defined limit of -10%.|Difference in percentage|-0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|1.26||||||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of Boostrix co-administered with Nimenrix (Nimenrix+Boostrix Group) compared to Boostrix administered alone (Boostrix Group) in terms of anti-tetanus toxoid (anti-T) antibody concentrations one month after Boostrix vaccination.||1.26|-2.48|
90968669|NCT02634151|181819143|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|2.78||||0.2814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.31|7.86|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 12||7.86|-2.31|0.2814
90968670|NCT02634151|181819144|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-0.92||||0.4278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.23|1.38|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 2||1.38|-3.23|0.4278
90968671|NCT02634151|181819144|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-1.13||||0.3529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.53|1.27|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 4||1.27|-3.53|0.3529
90968672|NCT02634151|181819144|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|1.24||||0.3522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|3.86|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 8||3.86|-1.39|0.3522
90968673|NCT02634151|181819144|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|1.6||||0.2635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|4.42|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 12||4.42|-1.22|0.2635
90968674|NCT02634151|181819145|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.23||||0.0464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|4.93|||Regression, Logistic|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 4||4.93|1.01|0.0464
90968675|NCT02634151|181819145|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.5278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.92|||Regression, Logistic|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 8||2.92|0.58|0.5278
90968676|NCT02634151|181819145|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.36||||0.0359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|5.27|||Regression, Logistic|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 12||5.27|1.06|0.0359
90968677|NCT02634151|181819146|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.5||||0.0268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|5.61|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||5.61|1.11|0.0268
90968678|NCT02634151|181819146|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.2755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|3.41|||Regression, Logistic|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 8||3.41|0.70|0.2755
90971218|NCT04091087|181825017|SUPERIORITY||LS mean Difference|-13.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.65||0.2553|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-45.87|19.85||1-sided|Normal approximation test|||Week 5||19.85|-45.87|0.2553
90968679|NCT02634151|181819146|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.74||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.05|10.94|||Regression, Logistic|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 12||10.94|2.05|0.0003
90968680|NCT02634151|181819147|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.26||||0.0079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|7.8|||Regression, Logistic|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 4||7.80|1.36|0.0079
90968681|NCT02634151|181819147|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.4002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|3.35|||Regression, Logistic|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 8||3.35|0.62|0.4002
90968682|NCT02634151|181819147|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.09||||0.0142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|7.59|||Regression, Logistic|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 12||7.59|1.25|0.0142
90968683|NCT02634151|181819148|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.7||||0.0115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|10.2|||Regression, Logistic|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 4||10.20|1.34|0.0115
90968684|NCT02634151|181819148|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.7566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|2.75|||Regression, Logistic|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 8||2.75|0.48|0.7566
90968685|NCT02634151|181819148|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.96||||0.0298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|7.88|||Regression, Logistic|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 12||7.88|1.11|0.0298
90968686|NCT02634151|181819149|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-10.4||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.2|-3.7|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 4||-3.7|-17.2|0.0029
90968687|NCT02634151|181819149|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-4.3||||0.1666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|1.8|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 8||1.8|-10.4|0.1666
90968688|NCT02634151|181819149|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-11.5||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.2|-4.8|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 12||-4.8|-18.2|0.0010
90968689|NCT02634151|181819150|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-10.7||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|-4.1|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 4||-4.1|-17.3|0.0018
90968690|NCT02634151|181819150|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-3.8||||0.2437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|2.6|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 8||2.6|-10.1|0.2437
90968691|NCT02634151|181819150|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-11.6||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.5|-4.7|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 12||-4.7|-18.5|0.0012
90968692|NCT02634151|181819151|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-0.7||||0.6832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|2.8|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 4||2.8|-4.2|0.6832
90968693|NCT02634151|181819151|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|0.8||||0.674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|4.5|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 8||4.5|-2.9|0.6740
90968694|NCT02634151|181819151|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|1.9||||0.3379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|5.7|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 12||5.7|-2.0|0.3379
90968695|NCT02634151|181819152|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-0.7||||0.7753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|4.4|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 4||4.4|-5.9|0.7753
90968696|NCT02634151|181819152|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|1.7||||0.5472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|7.4|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 8||7.4|-3.9|0.5472
90968697|NCT02634151|181819152|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|3.6||||0.2406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|9.6|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 12||9.6|-2.4|0.2406
90968698|NCT02634151|181819153|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.9028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|3.8|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 4||3.8|-3.3|0.9028
90935069|NCT01767376|181749519|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was defined as the lower limit (LL) of the two-sided standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) between the two groups (Nimenrix+Boostrix Group minus Boostrix Group) for GMC ratios of antibodies against the pertussis (PT) antigen, being greater than or equal to (≥) the predefined limit of 0.67.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.89|||ANCOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of Boostrix co-administered with Nimenrix (Nimenrix+Boostrix Group) compared to Boostrix administered alone (Boostrix Group) with respect to geometric mean concentrations (GMCs) of antibodies against pertussis toxoid (PT), one month after Boostrix vaccination.||0.89|0.66|
90935070|NCT01767376|181749519|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was defined as the lower limit (LL) of the two-sided standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) between the two groups (Nimenrix+Boostrix Group minus Boostrix Group) for GMC ratios of antibodies against the filamentous haemagglutinin (FHA) antigen, being greater than or equal to (≥) the predefined limit of 0.67.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.65|||ANCOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of Boostrix co-administered with Nimenrix (Nimenrix+Boostrix Group) compared to Boostrix administered alone (Boostrix Group) with respect to geometric mean concentrations (GMCs) of antibodies against filamentous haemagglutinin (FHA), one month after Boostrix vaccination.||0.65|0.50|
90935071|NCT01767376|181749519|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was defined as the lower limit (LL) of the two-sided standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) between the two groups (Nimenrix+Boostrix Group minus Boostrix Group) for GMC ratios of antibodies against the pertactin (PRN) antigen, being greater than or equal to (≥) the predefined limit of 0.67.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.88|||ANCOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of Boostrix co-administered with Nimenrix (Nimenrix+Boostrix Group) compared to Boostrix administered alone (Boostrix Group) with respect to geometric mean concentrations (GMCs) of antibodies against pertactin (PRN), one month after Boostrix vaccination.||0.88|0.59|
90935072|NCT03557307|181749531|OTHER||percentage|62.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.86|66.76|||Clopper-Pearson Exact CI|One sample Confidence Interval|Percentage of patients who achieved 100% reduction in daily OCS dose that are sustained over at least 4 weeks without worsening of asthma|||66.76|58.86|
90935073|NCT03557307|181749532|OTHER||percentage|81.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.62|84.94|||Clopper-Pearson Exact CI|One sample Confidence Interval|Percentage of patients who achieve 100% reduction or a daily OCS dose of \<=5mg, if reason for no further OCS reduction is Adrenal Insufficiency, that are sustained over at least 4 weeks without worsening of asthma|||84.94|78.62|
90935074|NCT03557307|181749533|OTHER||percentage|91.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|88.94|93.58|||Clopper-Pearson Exact CI|One sample Confidence Interval|Percentage of patients who achieve a daily OCS dose of ≤5 mg (regardless of reason for no further OCS reduction), that are sustained over at least 4 weeks without worsening of asthma|||93.58|88.94|
90935075|NCT03557307|181749534|OTHER||percentage|64.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.06|67.9|||Clopper-Pearson Exact CI|One sample Confidence Interval (≥90% reduction)|Percentage of patients who achieve \>=90% reduction in daily OCS dose that are sustained over at least 4 weeks without worsening of asthma|||67.90|60.06|
90971219|NCT04091087|181825017|SUPERIORITY||LS mean Difference|-53.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|30.05||0.0416|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-103.26|-2.75||1-sided|Normal approximation test|||Week 6||-2.75|-103.26|0.0416
90935076|NCT03557307|181749534|OTHER||percentage|68.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.02|72.59|||Clopper-Pearson Exact CI|One sample Confidence Interval (\>=75% reduction)|Percentage of patients who achieve \>=75% reduction in daily OCS dose that are sustained over at least 4 weeks without worsening of asthma|||72.59|65.02|
90935077|NCT03557307|181749534|OTHER||percentage|81.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.44|84.79|||Clopper-Pearson Exact CI|One sample Confidence Interval (\>=50% reduction)|Percentage of patients who achieve \>=50% reduction in daily OCS dose that are sustained over at least 4 weeks without worsening of asthma|||84.79|78.44|
90935078|NCT03557307|181749535|OTHER||percentage change from baseline|-76.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-79.9|-73.94|||Clopper-Pearson Exact CI|One sample Confidence Interval|Percentage change from baseline in daily OCS dose at the end of OCS reduction phase|||-73.94|-79.90|
90935079|NCT03745651|181749540|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.84|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.125|21.202||The unadjusted p-values between each treatment group and vehicle were calculated based on Exact Logistic Regression including treatment and stratification factors to test the treatment difference.|Exact Logistic Regression|||||21.202|4.125|< 0.0001
90935080|NCT03745651|181749540|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|15.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.354|38.061||The unadjusted p-values between each treatment group and vehicle were calculated based on Exact Logistic Regression including treatment and stratification factors to test the treatment difference.|Exact Logistic Regression|||||38.061|7.354|< 0.0001
90935081|NCT03745651|181749541|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.84|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.723|13.184||The unadjusted p-values between each treatment group and vehicle were calculated based on Exact Logistic Regression including treatment and stratification factors to test the treatment difference.|Exact Logistic Regression|||||13.184|3.723|< 0.0001
90935082|NCT03745651|181749541|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.67|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.775|20.732||The unadjusted p-values between each treatment group and vehicle were calculated based on Exact Logistic Regression including treatment and stratification factors to test the treatment difference.|Exact Logistic Regression|||||20.732|5.775|< 0.0001
90935083|NCT03745651|181749542|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.045|9.036||The unadjusted p-values between each treatment group and vehicle were calculated based on Exact Logistic Regression including treatment and stratification factors to test the treatment difference.|Exact Logistic Regression|||||9.036|2.045|< 0.0001
90935084|NCT03745651|181749542|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.833|12.657||The unadjusted p-values between each treatment group and vehicle were calculated based on Exact Logistic Regression including treatment and stratification factors to test the treatment difference.|Exact Logistic Regression|||||12.657|2.833|< 0.0001
90935085|NCT03745651|181749543|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.8553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.598|2.094||The unadjusted p-values between each treatment group and vehicle were calculated based on Exact Logistic Regression including treatment and stratification factors to test the treatment difference.|Exact Logistic Regression|||||2.094|0.598|0.8553
90935086|NCT03745651|181749543|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.2359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.805|2.741||The unadjusted p-values between each treatment group and vehicle were calculated based on Exact Logistic Regression including treatment and stratification factors to test the treatment difference.|Exact Logistic Regression|||||2.741|0.805|0.2359
90935087|NCT03745651|181749544|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.62||||0.1784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.827|3.342||The unadjusted p-values between each treatment group and vehicle were calculated based on Exact Logistic Regression including treatment and stratification factors to test the treatment difference.|Exact Logistic Regression|||||3.342|0.827|0.1784
90935088|NCT03745651|181749544|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.96||||0.0472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.007|4.0||The unadjusted p-values between each treatment group and vehicle were calculated based on Exact Logistic Regression including treatment and stratification factors to test the treatment difference.|Exact Logistic Regression|||||4.000|1.007|0.0472
90935089|NCT03745651|181749554|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-31.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.92|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.57|-22.25|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Percent change from Baseline in EASI score at Week 2||-22.25|-41.57|<0.0001
90935090|NCT03745651|181749554|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-35.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.93|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.81|-25.44|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Percent change from Baseline in EASI score at Week 2||-25.44|-44.81|<0.0001
90935091|NCT03745651|181749554|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-44.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.19|-35.92|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Percent change from Baseline in EASI score at Week 4||-35.92|-53.19|<0.0001
90935092|NCT03745651|181749554|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-45.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.55|-37.26|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Percent change from Baseline in EASI score at Week 4||-37.26|-54.55|<0.0001
90935093|NCT03745651|181749554|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-44.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.35|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.08|-35.98|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Percent change from Baseline in EASI score at Week 8||-35.98|-53.08|<0.0001
90935094|NCT03745651|181749554|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-46.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.33|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.51|-37.48|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Percent change from Baseline in EASI score at Week 8||-37.48|-54.51|<0.0001
90935095|NCT03745651|181749555|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-39.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.59|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.48|-32.38|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Percent change from Baseline in SCORAD score at Week 8||-32.38|-46.48|<0.0001
90935096|NCT03745651|181749555|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-43.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.56|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.51|-36.53|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Percent change from Baseline in SCORAD score at Week 8||-36.53|-50.51|<0.0001
90935097|NCT03745651|181749556|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|-1.01|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Change from Baseline in Itch NRS score at Week 2||-1.01|-2.02|<0.0001
90935098|NCT03745651|181749556|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.24|-1.24|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Change from Baseline in Itch NRS score at Week 2||-1.24|-2.24|<0.0001
90935099|NCT03745651|181749556|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.36|-1.23|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Change from Baseline in Itch NRS score at Week 4||-1.23|-2.36|<0.0001
90935100|NCT03745651|181749556|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.53|-1.4|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Change from Baseline in Itch NRS score at Week 4||-1.40|-2.53|<0.0001
90935101|NCT03745651|181749556|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.49|-1.29|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Change from Baseline in Itch NRS score at Week 8||-1.29|-2.49|<0.0001
90935102|NCT03745651|181749556|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-1.1|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Change from Baseline in Itch NRS score at Week 8||-1.10|-2.30|<0.0001
90968699|NCT02634151|181819153|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|5.2||||0.0199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|9.6|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 8||9.6|0.8|0.0199
90968700|NCT02634151|181819153|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|4.6||||0.0369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|8.9|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 12||8.9|0.3|0.0369
91035545|NCT01299454|181957088|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was claimed for a PK parameter if the 90% CI for the ratio of the geometric means of a PK variable fell within the interval \[0.5, 2.0\]. Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach was equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|Geometic Mean Ratio|1.041|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.506|2.142|||Mixed effect analysis of variance||Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach is equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|The primary comparison was each hepatic disease group (mild, moderate or severe) versus the control (normal group). To compare the primary PK parameters between each hepatic disease group and the control group, the 90% CI for the difference in the means of the log-transformed data was calculated using a mixed effect analysis of variance||2.142|0.506|
90935103|NCT03745651|181749558|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|-0.97|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Change from Baseline in Skin Pain NRS score at Week 8||-0.97|-1.94|<0.0001
90935104|NCT03745651|181749558|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|-0.76|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Change from Baseline in Skin Pain NRS score at Week 8||-0.76|-1.72|<0.0001
90935105|NCT03745651|181749561|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.2903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|0.51|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Change from Baseline in PROMIS Short Form-Sleep Disturbance (8b) 24-hour recall score at Week 2||0.51|-1.71|0.2903
90935106|NCT03745651|181749561|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.0837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|0.13|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Change from Baseline in PROMIS Short Form-Sleep Disturbance (8b) 24-hour recall score at Week 2||0.13|-2.09|0.0837
90935107|NCT03745651|181749561|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.6272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.91|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Change from Baseline in PROMIS Short Form-Sleep Disturbance (8b) 24-hour recall score at Week 4||0.91|-1.50|0.6272
90935108|NCT03745651|181749561|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.1609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|0.34|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Change from Baseline in PROMIS Short Form-Sleep Disturbance (8b) 24-hour recall score at Week 4||0.34|-2.07|0.1609
90935109|NCT03745651|181749561|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.3362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|0.73|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Change from Baseline in PROMIS Short Form-Sleep Disturbance (8b) 24-hour recall score at Week 8||0.73|-2.13|0.3362
90968701|NCT02634151|181819154|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.4|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 4||1.4|-1.2|0.9110
90968702|NCT02634151|181819154|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|1.9||||0.0243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.5|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 8||3.5|0.3|0.0243
90935110|NCT03745651|181749561|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|0.62|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Change from Baseline in PROMIS Short Form-Sleep Disturbance (8b) 24-hour recall score at Week 8||0.62|-2.23|0.2690
90935111|NCT03745651|181749562|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.0482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|-0.01|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Change from Baseline in PROMIS Short Form - Sleep-Related Impairment (8a) 24-hour recall score at Week 2||-0.01|-2.13|0.0482
90935112|NCT03745651|181749562|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.0271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|-0.14|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Change from Baseline in PROMIS Short Form - Sleep-Related Impairment (8a) 24-hour recall score at Week 2||-0.14|-2.26|0.0271
90935113|NCT03745651|181749562|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.2091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|0.42|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Change from Baseline in PROMIS Short Form - Sleep-Related Impairment (8a) 24-hour recall score at Week 4||0.42|-1.94|0.2091
90935114|NCT03745651|181749562|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.71|-0.35|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Change from Baseline in PROMIS Short Form - Sleep-Related Impairment (8a) 24-hour recall score at Week 4||-0.35|-2.71|0.0111
90971220|NCT04152161|181825019|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine Efficacy|-0.049|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.431|0.23|||||Vaccine Efficacy (VE) = 1 - Hazard Ratio, with 95%CI equal to (VE lower limit, VE upper limit) = (1 - Hazard Ratio upper limit, 1 - Hazard Ratio lower limit)|||0.230|-0.431|
90968703|NCT02634151|181819154|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|1.7||||0.0388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|3.2|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 12||3.2|0.1|0.0388
90968704|NCT02634151|181819155|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|7.0||||0.2799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|19.6|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 4||19.6|-5.7|0.2799
90968705|NCT02634151|181819155|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|26.8||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.2|43.3|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 8||43.3|10.2|0.0018
90968706|NCT02634151|181819155|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|20.1||||0.0197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|36.9|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 12||36.9|3.3|0.0197
90935115|NCT03745651|181749562|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.0802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|0.14|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Change from Baseline in PROMIS Short Form - Sleep-Related Impairment (8a) 24-hour recall score at Week 8||0.14|-2.51|0.0802
90935116|NCT03745651|181749562|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67||0.0666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.56|0.09|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Change from Baseline in PROMIS Short Form - Sleep-Related Impairment (8a) 24-hour recall score at Week 8||0.09|-2.56|0.0666
90935117|NCT03745651|181749565|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.84|-2.97|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Change from Baseline in %BSA at Week 8||-2.97|-4.84|<0.0001
90935118|NCT03745651|181749565|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.47|-3.63|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Change from Baseline in %BSA at Week 8||-3.63|-5.47|<0.0001
90935119|NCT03745651|181749567|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.38|-4.86|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Change from Baseline in POEM score at Week 8||-4.86|-7.38|<0.0001
90935120|NCT03745651|181749567|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.17|-4.67|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Change from Baseline in POEM score at Week 8||-4.67|-7.17|<0.0001
90935121|NCT03745651|181749569|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.19|-2.32|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Change from Baseline in total DLQI score at Week 8||-2.32|-4.19|<0.0001
90935122|NCT03745651|181749569|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.67|-1.83|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Change from Baseline in total DLQI score at Week 8||-1.83|-3.67|<0.0001
90935123|NCT03745651|181749571|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.55||0.0099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.24|-1.03|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Change from Baseline in total CDLQI score at Week 8||-1.03|-7.24|0.0099
90935124|NCT03745651|181749571|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.59||0.0542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|0.06|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Change from Baseline in total CDLQI score at Week 8||0.06|-6.30|0.0542
90935125|NCT03745651|181749575|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.987|9.049||The unadjusted p-values between each treatment group and vehicle were calculated based on Exact Logistic Regression including treatment and stratification factors to test the treatment difference.|Exact Logistic Regression|||Percentage of participants with a score of either 1 or 2 on the PGIC at Week 8||9.049|2.987|<0.0001
90935126|NCT03745651|181749575|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.23|13.415||The unadjusted p-values between each treatment group and vehicle were calculated based on Exact Logistic Regression including treatment and stratification factors to test the treatment difference.|Exact Logistic Regression|||Percentage of participants with a score of either 1 or 2 on the PGIC at Week 8||13.415|4.230|<0.0001
90935127|NCT03745651|181749576|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.78||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|7.86|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Change from Baseline in EQ VAS score at Week 8||7.86|0.85|0.0150
90968707|NCT02634151|181819156|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|0.6||||0.0179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.0|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 4||1.0|0.1|0.0179
90968708|NCT02634151|181819156|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|1.1||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.7|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 8||1.7|0.5|0.0003
91035895|NCT06298396|181958457|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin (NIM) of 1 dB was applied. In the sample size calculation, a 90% power to detect non-inferiority was used with a significance level α = 0.025 (one-tailed) was applied.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.75|||||Treatment difference = LP2 - LP1 Non-inferiority demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval was \< 1 dB (i.e. LP2- LP1 \< 1 dB)|||0.75|-0.55|
90968709|NCT02634151|181819156|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|0.8||||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.5|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 12||1.5|0.2|0.0095
90968710|NCT02634151|181819157|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-12.2||||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.8|-3.6|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 4||-3.6|-20.8|0.0057
90968711|NCT02634151|181819157|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.9665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|8.6|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 8||8.6|-8.3|0.9665
90968712|NCT02634151|181819157|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-6.2||||0.2358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|4.1|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 12||4.1|-16.4|0.2358
90968713|NCT02634151|181819158|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-1.3||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.4|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 4||-0.4|-2.3|0.0048
90968714|NCT02634151|181819158|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.9064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.8|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 8||0.8|-0.9|0.9064
90968715|NCT02634151|181819158|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.2505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.4|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 12||0.4|-1.7|0.2505
90968716|NCT02634151|181819159|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-15.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.6|-9.0|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 4||-9.0|-22.6|<0.0001
90968717|NCT02634151|181819159|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-7.2||||0.0406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|-0.3|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 8||-0.3|-14.0|0.0406
90968718|NCT02634151|181819159|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-15.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.8|-7.8|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 12||-7.8|-22.8|<0.0001
90968719|NCT02634151|181819160|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-0.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.3|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 4||-0.3|-0.9|<0.0001
90968720|NCT02634151|181819160|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.0771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.0|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 8||0.0|-0.6|0.0771
90968721|NCT02634151|181819160|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.3|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 12||-0.3|-1.0|0.0006
90968722|NCT02634151|181819161|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|8.6||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|19.6|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 4||19.6|-2.3|0.1210
90968723|NCT02634151|181819161|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|8.0||||0.0948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|17.3|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 8||17.3|-1.4|0.0948
90935128|NCT03745651|181749576|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.77||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|8.54|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Change from Baseline in EQ VAS score at Week 8||8.54|1.59|0.0044
90935129|NCT03745651|181749577|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.81||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.12|1.89|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Percent work time missed due to AD: Change from Baseline in WPAI-SHP v2.0 at Week 8||1.89|-13.12|0.1420
90935130|NCT03745651|181749577|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.82||0.0375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.51|-0.47|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Percent work time missed due to AD: Change from Baseline in WPAI-SHP v2.0 at Week 8||-0.47|-15.51|0.0375
90935131|NCT03745651|181749577|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.75||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.48|-3.63|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Percent impairment while working due to AD: Change from Baseline in WPAI-SHP v2.0 at Week 8||-3.63|-14.48|0.0012
90935132|NCT03745651|181749577|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.74||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.58|-1.77|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Percent impairment while working due to AD: Change from Baseline in WPAI-SHP v2.0 at Week 8||-1.77|-12.58|0.0095
90935133|NCT03745651|181749577|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-15.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.69|-7.73|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Percent overall work impairment due to AD: Change from Baseline in WPAI-SHP v2.0 at Week 8||-7.73|-22.69|<0.0001
90935134|NCT03745651|181749577|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-12.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.79||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.1|-5.18|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Percent overall work impairment due to AD: Change from Baseline in WPAI-SHP v2.0 at Week 8||-5.18|-20.10|0.0010
90935135|NCT03745651|181749577|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-12.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.18|-7.95|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Percent activity impairment due to AD: Change from Baseline in WPAI-SHP v2.0 at Week 8||-7.95|-16.18|<0.0001
90935136|NCT03745651|181749577|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-10.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.53|-6.37|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Percent activity impairment due to AD: Change from Baseline in WPAI-SHP v2.0 at Week 8||-6.37|-14.53|<0.0001
90935137|NCT01322347|181749599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means between SFP & PBO|3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.39||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||LS Mean (SE) and p-value are from ANCOVA model with baseline Hgb as covariate. Model also includes indicator variable for baseline ESA dose stratum.|ANCOVA|||||||0.011
90935138|NCT04883541|181749618|SUPERIORITY|the t-test in independent groups|Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.8|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|0.05|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
90968724|NCT02634151|181819161|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|4.1||||0.5113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|16.4|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 12||16.4|-8.2|0.5113
90968725|NCT02634151|181819162|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|1.7||||0.7276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|11.1|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 4||11.1|-7.8|0.7276
90968726|NCT02634151|181819162|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|4.7||||0.2218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|12.2|||ANCOVA|||Week 8||12.2|-2.9|0.2218
90968727|NCT02634151|181819162|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|9.8|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 12||9.8|-9.2|0.9420
90968728|NCT02634151|181819163|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|32.57||||0.6786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-122.98|188.12|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||||188.12|-122.98|0.6786
90968729|NCT02634151|181819164|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-0.84||||0.1648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.03|0.35|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||||0.35|-2.03|0.1648
90935139|NCT04239911|181749622|EQUIVALENCE|A p\<0.05 considered the threshold for statistical significance.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|6.85|||Regression, Logistic||The comparison group is enhanced usual care arm|"Outcome measures workers' intentions of leaving their current job. Responses included 7-point likert scale of very strongly disagree-very strongly agree. Dichotomized into agree, strongly agree, and very strongly vs. other responses. We used logistic mixed regression model to compare outcome between and within study arm. Mixed effects included a variable for time point (baseline/90 days), indicator for study arm, a study arm by time point interaction and subject random intercept."||6.85|0.14|0.974
90968730|NCT02634151|181819165|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|41.5||||0.4701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.1|155.1|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||||155.1|-72.1|0.4701
90968731|NCT02634151|181819166|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-32.4||||0.0517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.1|0.2|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||||0.2|-65.1|0.0517
90968732|NCT02634151|181819167|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-9.5||||0.9111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-177.8|158.8|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||||158.8|-177.8|0.9111
90968733|NCT02634151|181819168|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-3.0||||0.3864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|3.9|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||||3.9|-10.0|0.3864
90968734|NCT02634151|181819169|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|12.2||||0.0145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|22.0|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||||22.0|2.5|0.0145
90968735|NCT02634151|181819170|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|0.8||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.5|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||||1.5|-0.0|0.0510
90968736|NCT02347098|181819175|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2533|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2533
90968737|NCT02347098|181819176|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.779|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7790
90968738|NCT02347098|181819177|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4549||||||The p-value reported compares the trends of outcome across time (baseline pre-PCI, baseline post-PCI, 30-day follow-up, and 90-day follow-up) between treatment groups using the repeated measurement analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.4549
90968739|NCT02347098|181819178|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2663|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2663
90968740|NCT02605187|181819190|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.882||||||Final parameter estimates would be considered significant at P \< 0.05.|ANOVA|||Comparison of pain at rest 24 hours after delivery. Null Hypothesis: all the means are the same.||||0.882
90968741|NCT02605187|181819190|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.565||||||Final parameter estimates would be considered significant at P \< 0.05.|ANOVA|||Comparison of pain at movement 24 hours after delivery. Null Hypothesis: all the means are the same.||||0.565
90968742|NCT02605187|181819190|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022||||||Final parameter estimates would be considered significant at P \< 0.05.|ANOVA|||Comparison of pain at rest 48 hours after delivery. Null Hypothesis: all the means are the same.||||0.022
90968743|NCT02605187|181819190|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14||||||Final parameter estimates would be considered significant at P \< 0.05.|ANOVA|||Comparison of pain at movement 48 hours after delivery. Null Hypothesis: all the means are the same.||||0.140
90968744|NCT02605187|181819191|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.311||||||Final parameter estimates would be considered significant at P \< 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Comparison of opioid use 0-24 hours after delivery.||||0.311
90968745|NCT02605187|181819191|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008||||||Final parameter estimates would be considered significant at P \< 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Comparison of opioid use 24-48 hours after delivery.||||0.008
90935140|NCT04239911|181749622|EQUIVALENCE|A p\< 0.05 considered the threshold for statistical significance|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|7.72|||Regression, Logistic||The comparison group is enhanced usual care arm|"Outcome measures workers' intentions of searching for a new job. Responses included 7-point likert scale of very strongly disagree-very strongly agree. Dichotomized into agree, strongly agree, and very strongly vs. other responses. We used logistic mixed regression model to compare outcome between and within study arm. Mixed effects included a variable for time point (baseline/90 days), indicator for study arm, a study arm by time point interaction and subject random intercept."||7.72|0.08|0.846
90935141|NCT04239911|181749625|EQUIVALENCE|A p\<0.05 was considered the threshold for statistical significance.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.18||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.94|||Regression, Logistic||The comparison group is enhanced usual care arm|"Preventable 911 calls if had been able to reach the doctor. Dichotomized into agree, strongly agree, and very strongly vs. all other responses. We used logistic mixed regression model to compare trajectory of all outcomes between and within study arms. Mixed effects included a fixed effects categorical variable for time point (baseline/90days), and indicator for study arm (enhanced usual care/intervention), a study arm by time point interaction and subject specific random intercept."||0.94|0.03|0.043
90935142|NCT04239911|181749625|EQUIVALENCE|A p\<0.05 considered the threshold for statistical significance.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|4.58|||Regression, Logistic|||"Preventable 911 calls if had been able to reach the nurse/supervisor. Dichotomized into agree, strongly agree, and very strongly vs. other responses. We used logistic mixed regression model to compare trajectory of all outcomes between and within study arms. Mixed effects included a fixed effects categorical variable for time point (baseline/90days), and indicator for study arm (enhanced usual care/intervention), a study arm by time point interaction and subject specific random intercept."||4.58|0.22|0.99
90935143|NCT02137785|181749626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Analysis uses observed data only. Missing data was not imputed except for subjects with missing CCR are classified as not having a CCR (ie non-responder).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by analysis center||A hierarchical procedure was used to control the level of significance. If the primary analysis was sig (p≤0.05), then AKCR at Week 12 were to be compared. If this analysis was significant, then the AKCR at Week 8 were to be compared. If this analysis was significant, then the CCR at Week 8 was to be compared.||||0.0001
90935144|NCT02137785|181749627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|linear mixed model with fixed effects for treatment group, time point, and treatment group by time point interaction||||||<0.0001
90935145|NCT02137785|181749628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|linear mixed model with fixed effects for treatment group, time point, and treatment group by time point interaction||||||<0.0001
90935146|NCT02137785|181749629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Analysis uses observed data only. Missing data was not imputed except for subjects with missing CCR are classified as not having a CCR (ie non-responder).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by analysis center||||||0.0001
90935147|NCT03345407|181749689|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|-0.022|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.143|0.103|||||Treatment comparison (posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI) of Nemiralisib 12.5 mcg and placebo for Day 84 change from Baseline FEV1 measured post-bronchodilator has been presented.|||0.103|-0.143|
90935148|NCT03345407|181749689|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|-0.027|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.098|0.036|||||Treatment comparison (posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI) of Nemiralisib 50 mcg and placebo for Day 84 change from Baseline FEV1 measured post-bronchodilator has been presented.|||0.036|-0.098|
90935149|NCT03345407|181749689|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|-0.038|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.102|0.028|||||Treatment comparison (posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI) of Nemiralisib 100 mcg and placebo for Day 84 change from Baseline FEV1 measured post-bronchodilator has been presented.|||0.028|-0.102|
90935150|NCT03345407|181749689|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|0.005|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.064|0.071|||||Treatment comparison (posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI) of Nemiralisib 250 mcg and placebo for Day 84 change from Baseline FEV1 measured post-bronchodilator has been presented.|||0.071|-0.064|
90935151|NCT03345407|181749689|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|-0.003|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.075|0.061|||||Treatment comparison (posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI) of Nemiralisib 500 mcg and placebo for Day 84 change from Baseline FEV1 measured post-bronchodilator has been presented.|||0.061|-0.075|
90935152|NCT03345407|181749689|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|-0.004|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.051|0.042|||||Treatment comparison (posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI) of Nemiralisib 750 mcg and placebo for Day 84 change from Baseline FEV1 measured post-bronchodilator has been presented.|||0.042|-0.051|
90935153|NCT03345407|181749690|OTHER||Posterior median exacerbation rate ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.4|||||Treatment comparison (posterior median exacerbation rate ratio and 95% HPD CrI) of Nemiralisib 50 mcg and placebo for moderate/severe exacerbations has been presented.|||1.40|0.60|
90935154|NCT03345407|181749690|OTHER||Posterior median exacerbation rate ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.35|||||Treatment comparison (posterior median exacerbation rate ratio and 95% HPD CrI) of Nemiralisib 100 mcg and placebo for moderate/severe exacerbations has been presented.|||1.35|0.57|
90935155|NCT03345407|181749690|OTHER||Posterior median exacerbation rate ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.5|||||Treatment comparison (posterior median exacerbation rate ratio and 95% HPD CrI) of Nemiralisib 250 mcg and placebo for moderate/severe exacerbations has been presented.|||1.50|0.65|
90935156|NCT03345407|181749690|OTHER||Posterior median exacerbation rate ratio|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.02|||||Treatment comparison (posterior median exacerbation rate ratio and 95% HPD CrI) of Nemiralisib 500 mcg and placebo for moderate/severe exacerbations has been presented.|||1.02|0.37|
90935157|NCT03345407|181749690|OTHER||Posterior median exacerbation rate ratio|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.52|||||Treatment comparison (posterior median exacerbation rate ratio and 95% HPD CrI) of Nemiralisib 750 mcg and placebo for moderate/severe exacerbations has been presented.|||1.52|0.85|
90935158|NCT03345407|181749691|OTHER||Posterior median hazard ratio|0.455|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.054|1.103|||||Treatment comparison (Hazard Ratio and 95% HPD CrI) of Nemiralisib 12.5 mcg and placebo for time to next moderate/severe exacerbations has been presented.|||1.103|0.054|
90935159|NCT03345407|181749691|OTHER||Posterior median hazard ratio|0.991|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.5|||||Treatment comparison (Hazard Ratio and 95% HPD CrI) of Nemiralisib 50 mcg and placebo for time to next moderate/severe exacerbations has been presented.|||1.500|0.580|
90935160|NCT03345407|181749691|OTHER||Posterior median hazard ratio|0.975|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.581|1.467|||||Treatment comparison (Hazard Ratio and 95% HPD CrI) of Nemiralisib 100 mcg and placebo for time to next moderate/severe exacerbations has been presented.|||1.467|0.581|
90968746|NCT02605187|181819192|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.092|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of presence of pruritus 0-24 hours after delivery.||||0.092
90935161|NCT03345407|181749691|OTHER||Posterior median hazard ratio|1.132|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.682|1.709|||||Treatment comparison (Hazard Ratio and 95% HPD CrI) of Nemiralisib 250 mcg and placebo for time to next moderate/severe exacerbations has been presented.|||1.709|0.682|
90935162|NCT03345407|181749691|OTHER||Posterior median hazard ratio|0.556|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.268|0.902|||||Treatment comparison (Hazard Ratio and 95% HPD CrI) of Nemiralisib 500 mcg and placebo for time to next moderate/severe exacerbations has been presented.|||0.902|0.268|
90935163|NCT03345407|181749691|OTHER||Posterior median hazard ratio|1.149|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.539|||||Treatment comparison (Hazard Ratio and 95% HPD CrI) of Nemiralisib 750 mcg and placebo for time to next moderate/severe exacerbations has been presented.|||1.539|0.800|
90935164|NCT03345407|181749694|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|2.3|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 12.5 mcg at Day 14 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||2.30|0.21|
90935165|NCT03345407|181749694|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|1.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.17|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 50 mcg at Day 14 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||2.17|0.76|
90935166|NCT03345407|181749694|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.61|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 100 mcg at Day 14 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.61|0.54|
90935167|NCT03345407|181749694|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.49|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 250 mcg at Day 14 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.49|0.50|
90935168|NCT03345407|181749694|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.25|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 500 mcg at Day 14 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.25|0.38|
90935169|NCT03345407|181749694|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.63|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 750 mcg at Day 14 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.63|0.77|
90935170|NCT03345407|181749694|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|2.69|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 12.5 mcg at Day 28 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||2.69|0.36|
90935171|NCT03345407|181749694|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|1.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|2.33|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 50 mcg at Day 28 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||2.33|0.82|
90935172|NCT03345407|181749694|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.79|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 100 mcg at Day 28 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.79|0.67|
90968747|NCT02605187|181819192|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.269|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of presence of pruritus 24-48 hours after delivery.||||0.269
90968748|NCT02605187|181819193|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison of pruritus score 24 hours after delivery. Null Hypothesis: all means are equal||||0.006
90968749|NCT02605187|181819193|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.296|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison of pruritus score 48 hours after delivery. Null Hypothesis: all means are equal||||0.296
90968750|NCT02605187|181819194|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.759|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of participants who need medical treatment of pruritus 0-24 hours after delivery.||||0.759
90968751|NCT02605187|181819194|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.761|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of participants who need medical treatment of pruritus 24-48 hours after delivery.||||0.761
90968752|NCT02605187|181819195|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.281|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.281
90968753|NCT02605187|181819196|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.786|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison of nausea score 24 hours after delivery. Null Hypothesis: all means are equal||||0.786
90968754|NCT02605187|181819196|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.985|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison of nausea score at 48 hours after delivery. Null Hypothesis: all means are equal||||0.985
90968755|NCT02605187|181819197|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.057|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of participants who need nausea treatment from 0-24 hours after delivery.||||0.057
90968756|NCT02605187|181819197|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.246|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of participants who need nausea treatment from 24-48 hours after delivery.||||0.246
90968757|NCT02605187|181819198|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.226|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison of average number of vomiting episodes 0-24 hours after delivery. Null Hypothesis: all means are equal||||0.226
90968758|NCT02605187|181819199|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.036
90968759|NCT02605187|181819200|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison of satisfaction with pain medication 24 hours after delivery.||||0.019
91035896|NCT06298396|181958458|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin (NIM) of 10% was applied. In the sample size calculation, a 90% power to detect non-inferiority was used with a significance level α = 0.025 (one-tailed) was applied.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.15|1.95|||||||Treatment difference = LP3 - LP1 Non-inferiority demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval was \< 1 dB (i.e. LP3 - LP1 \< 1 dB)|1.95|-5.15|
90968760|NCT02605187|181819200|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.873|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison of satisfaction with pain medication 48 hours after delivery.||||0.873
90968761|NCT01261507|181819201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in areas under the LROC curve|-0.059|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.086|-0.031|||mixed model:Dorfman, Berbaum, Metz|||Measure is the difference between the radiologists working without the software less the value for the radiologists working with the software. Thus a negative value would indicate that the the radiologists showed better results when using the software.||-0.031|-0.086|<0.05
90968762|NCT03129321|181819204|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin: +/-20%|Difference in proportions|4.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.05|13.54||||||||13.54|-5.05|
90968763|NCT03129321|181819205|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
90968764|NCT03129321|181819205|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0004
90968765|NCT03129321|181819206|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin: +/-20%|Difference in proportions|2.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.29|11.98||||||||11.98|-6.29|
90968766|NCT03129321|181819207|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin: +/-20%|Difference in proportions|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.29|8.26||||||||8.26|-8.29|
90968767|NCT03129321|181819208|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0020
90968768|NCT03129321|181819208|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0076|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0076
90968769|NCT03129321|181819209|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
90968770|NCT03129321|181819209|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
90968771|NCT03503877|181819220|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank testing|||||||0.07
90968772|NCT03503877|181819221|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank testing|||||||0.89
90968773|NCT03503877|181819222|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54||||||High mosaicism|Wilcoxon signed-rank testing|||||||0.54
90968774|NCT03503877|181819222|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2||||||Low mosaicism|Wilcoxon signed-rank|||||||.20
90968775|NCT03503877|181819223|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||Time to Expanded Blastocyst|Wilcoxon signed-rank testing|||||||0.01
90968776|NCT01977599|181819224|OTHER|Chi Square|||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
90968777|NCT02700412|181819239|OTHER|Single group.|||||<|0.0001||||||P-value reported above is the global test for change in seizure frequency over a 12-month period.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed rank test with Bonferonni multiple comparison correction was used as a post-hoc analysis to indicate direction of change.||Null hypothesis is that there was no change in seizure frequency between any two assessment time points during this period of analysis. Alternative hypothesis is that there were two or more assessment time points for which change in seizure frequency was different from zero.|Generalized least squares statistical techniques were used for modeling longitudinal data after normality of seizure frequency outcome measures were achieved through log-transformations methods. The following baseline clinical variables were adjusted for: AEDs, AEDs tried, epileptic surgery, and gender. Reported results were geometric least squares mean and its associated 95% Confidence Interval. Percentage reduction in seizure frequency relative to baseline were obtained by subtracting from 1 and then multiplying by 100 at all post-baseline timepoints.|||<0.0001
90971221|NCT04152161|181825019|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.049||||0.6193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.431|||Log Rank|The 1-sided p-value from the log-rank test was stratified by sex and age group.|Hazard ratio was calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, with sex and age group (10-11 years, 12-14 years, and \>14 years) as stratification variables.|||1.431|0.770|0.6193
90935173|NCT03345407|181749694|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.74|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 250 mcg at Day 28 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.74|0.63|
90935174|NCT03345407|181749694|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.88|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 500 mcg at Day 28 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||0.88|0.28|
90935175|NCT03345407|181749694|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.49|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 750 mcg at Day 28 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.49|0.72|
90935176|NCT03345407|181749694|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.17|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 12.5 mcg at Day 56 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||2.17|0.30|
90935177|NCT03345407|181749694|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|1.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.27|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 50 mcg at Day 56 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||2.27|0.84|
90935178|NCT03345407|181749694|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.78|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 100 mcg at Day 56 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.78|0.65|
90935179|NCT03345407|181749694|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.67|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 250 mcg at Day 56 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.67|0.62|
90935180|NCT03345407|181749694|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.77|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 500 mcg at Day 56 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||0.77|0.26|
90935181|NCT03345407|181749694|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.42|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 750 mcg at Day 56 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.42|0.71|
90935182|NCT03345407|181749694|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|2.38|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 12.5 mcg at Day 84 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||2.38|0.32|
90935183|NCT03345407|181749694|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.0|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 50 mcg at Day 84 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||2.00|0.70|
90935184|NCT03345407|181749694|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.71|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 100 mcg at Day 84 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.71|0.63|
90935185|NCT03345407|181749694|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.48|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 250 mcg at Day 84 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.48|0.55|
90935186|NCT03345407|181749694|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.87|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 500 mcg at Day 84 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||0.87|0.31|
90935187|NCT03345407|181749694|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.47|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 750 mcg at Day 84 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.47|0.73|
90935188|NCT03345407|181749695|OTHER||Posterior median hazard ratio|1.053|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.477|1.765|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 12.5 mcg was performed and posterior median hazard ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.765|0.477|
90935189|NCT03345407|181749695|OTHER||Posterior median hazard ratio|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.597|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 50 mcg was performed and posterior median hazard ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.597|0.840|
90935190|NCT03345407|181749695|OTHER||Posterior median hazard ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.734|1.432|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 100 mcg was performed and posterior median hazard ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.432|0.734|
90935191|NCT03345407|181749695|OTHER||Posterior median hazard ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.719|1.413|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 250 mcg was performed and posterior median hazard ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.413|0.719|
90935192|NCT03345407|181749695|OTHER||Posterior median hazard ratio|0.751|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.487|1.057|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 500 mcg was performed and posterior median hazard ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.057|0.487|
90935193|NCT03345407|181749695|OTHER||Posterior median hazard ratio|1.149|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.899|1.426|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 750 mcg was performed and posterior median hazard ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.426|0.899|
90935194|NCT03345407|181749697|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|2.7|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 12.5 mcg at Day 28 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||2.70|0.35|
90935195|NCT03345407|181749697|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.77|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 50 mcg at Day 28 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.77|0.63|
90935196|NCT03345407|181749697|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|1.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.17|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 100 mcg at Day 28 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||2.17|0.77|
90935197|NCT03345407|181749697|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.0|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 250 mcg at Day 28 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||2.00|0.71|
90935198|NCT03345407|181749697|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.75|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 500 mcg at Day 28 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.75|0.61|
90935199|NCT03345407|181749697|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.99|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 750 mcg at Day 28 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||0.99|0.46|
90935200|NCT03345407|181749697|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.41|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 12.5 mcg at Day 56 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.41|0.20|
90935201|NCT03345407|181749697|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|1.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.46|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 50 mcg at Day 56 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||2.46|0.84|
90935202|NCT03345407|181749697|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.48|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 100 mcg at Day 56 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.48|0.53|
90935203|NCT03345407|181749697|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|2.16|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 250 mcg at Day 56 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||2.16|0.74|
90935204|NCT03345407|181749697|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.17|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 500 mcg at Day 56 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.17|0.43|
90935205|NCT03345407|181749697|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.27|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 750 mcg at Day 56 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.27|0.63|
90935206|NCT03345407|181749697|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.2|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 12.5 mcg at Day 84 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.20|0.16|
90935207|NCT03345407|181749697|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|1.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.56|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 50 mcg at Day 84 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||2.56|0.79|
90935208|NCT03345407|181749697|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.3|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 100 mcg at Day 84 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.30|0.46|
90935209|NCT03345407|181749697|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.86|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 250 mcg at Day 84 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.86|0.62|
90935210|NCT03345407|181749697|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.02|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 500 mcg at Day 84 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.02|0.36|
90935211|NCT03345407|181749697|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.17|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 750 mcg at Day 84 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.17|0.57|
90935212|NCT03345407|181749698|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|5.2|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 12.5 mcg at Day 28 was performed and posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||5.2|-0.5|
90935213|NCT03345407|181749698|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|2.3|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 50 mcg at Day 28 was performed and posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||2.3|-0.8|
90935214|NCT03345407|181749698|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|2.4|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 100 mcg at Day 28 was performed and posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||2.4|-0.8|
90935215|NCT03345407|181749698|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.2|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 250 mcg at Day 28 was performed and posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.2|-2.0|
90935216|NCT03345407|181749698|OTHER||Posterior adjacent median difference|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.3|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 500 mcg at Day 28 was performed and posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||3.3|0.0|
90935217|NCT03345407|181749698|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.1|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 750 mcg at Day 28 was performed and posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.1|-1.1|
90935218|NCT03345407|181749698|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|5.4|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 12.5 mcg at Day 56 was performed and posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||5.4|-0.5|
90935219|NCT03345407|181749698|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|2.4|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 50 mcg at Day 56 was performed and posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||2.4|-0.9|
90935220|NCT03345407|181749698|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.4|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 100 mcg at Day 56 was performed and posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.4|-1.9|
90968778|NCT02700412|181819240|OTHER|Single group.|||||<|0.0001||||||P-value reported above is the global test for change in seizure severity scores over a 12-month period.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed rank test with Bonferonni multiple comparison correction was used as a post-hoc analysis to indicate direction of change.||Null hypothesis is that there was no change in seizure severity scores between any two assessment time points during this period of analysis. Alternative hypothesis is that there were two or more assessment time points for which change in seizure severity scores was different from zero.|Generalized least squares statistical techniques were used for modeling longitudinal data after normality of seizure severity score outcome measures were achieved through log-transformations methods. The following baseline clinical variables were adjusted for: AEDs, AEDs tried, epileptic surgery, and gender. Reported results were geometric least squares mean and its associated 95% Confidence Interval. Percentage reduction in seizure severity relative to baseline were obtained by subtracting from 1 and then multiplying by 100 at all post-baseline timepoints.|||<0.0001
90968779|NCT04416555|181819242|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.391|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.391
90968780|NCT04416555|181819243|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.608|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.608
90935221|NCT03345407|181749698|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.0|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 250 mcg at Day 56 was performed and posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.0|-2.3|
90935222|NCT03345407|181749698|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|2.2|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 500 mcg at Day 56 was performed and posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||2.2|-1.2|
90935223|NCT03345407|181749698|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.0|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 750 mcg at Day 56 was performed and posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.0|-1.4|
90935224|NCT03345407|181749698|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|5.1|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 12.5 mcg at Day 84 was performed and posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||5.1|-1.4|
90935225|NCT03345407|181749698|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|2.8|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 50 mcg at Day 84 was performed and posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||2.8|-0.7|
90935226|NCT03345407|181749698|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.1|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 100 mcg at Day 84 was performed and posterior adjsted median difference and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.1|-2.3|
90935227|NCT03345407|181749698|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.7|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 250 mcg at Day 84 was performed and posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.7|-1.9|
90935228|NCT03345407|181749698|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|2.8|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 500 mcg at Day 84 was performed and posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||2.8|-0.9|
90935229|NCT03345407|181749698|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.7|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 750 mcg at Day 84 was performed and posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.7|-0.8|
90935230|NCT03345407|181749699|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|1.41|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 12.5 mcg at Day 28 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.41|0.03|
90935231|NCT03345407|181749699|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.47|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 50 mcg at Day 28 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.47|0.42|
90935232|NCT03345407|181749699|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|1.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|2.24|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 100 mcg at Day 28 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||2.24|0.69|
90935233|NCT03345407|181749699|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|1.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.91|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 250 mcg at Day 28 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||2.91|0.95|
90935234|NCT03345407|181749699|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|2.08|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 500 mcg at Day 28 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||2.08|0.61|
90935235|NCT03345407|181749699|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.4|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 750 mcg at Day 28 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.40|0.60|
90935236|NCT03345407|181749699|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|1.16|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 12.5 mcg at Day 56 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.16|0.14|
90935237|NCT03345407|181749699|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.98|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 50 mcg at Day 56 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.98|0.74|
90935238|NCT03345407|181749699|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.97|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 100 mcg at Day 56 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.97|0.73|
90968781|NCT04416555|181819244|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.768|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.768
90968782|NCT04416555|181819245|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.244|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.244
90935239|NCT03345407|181749699|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|1.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|2.27|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 250 mcg at Day 56 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||2.27|0.83|
90935240|NCT03345407|181749699|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.62|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 500 mcg at Day 56 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.62|0.57|
90935241|NCT03345407|181749699|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.5|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 750 mcg at Day 56 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.50|0.75|
90935242|NCT03345407|181749699|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.39|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 12.5 mcg at Day 84 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.39|0.17|
90935243|NCT03345407|181749699|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.01|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 50 mcg at Day 84 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||2.01|0.72|
90935244|NCT03345407|181749699|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.79|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 100 mcg at Day 84 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.79|0.64|
90935245|NCT03345407|181749699|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.14|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 250 mcg at Day 84 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||2.14|0.75|
90935246|NCT03345407|181749699|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.45|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 500 mcg at Day 84 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.45|0.53|
90935247|NCT03345407|181749699|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.43|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 750 mcg at Day 84 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.43|0.71|
90935248|NCT03345407|181749700|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|8.3|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 12.5 mcg at Day 28 was performed and posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||8.3|-4.8|
90935249|NCT03345407|181749700|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|3.1|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 50 mcg at Day 28 was performed and posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||3.1|-4.0|
90935250|NCT03345407|181749700|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|-2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|1.1|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 100 mcg at Day 28 was performed and posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.1|-6.2|
90935251|NCT03345407|181749700|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|0.4|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 250 mcg at Day 28 was performed and posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||0.4|-6.7|
90935252|NCT03345407|181749700|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|3.5|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 500 mcg at Day 28 was performed and posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||3.5|-4.0|
90935253|NCT03345407|181749700|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|2.3|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 750 mcg at Day 28 was performed and posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||2.3|-2.7|
90935254|NCT03345407|181749700|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|11.0|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 12.5 mcg at Day 56 was performed and posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||11.0|-2.5|
90935255|NCT03345407|181749700|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|2.5|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 50 mcg at Day 56 was performed and posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||2.5|-4.8|
90935256|NCT03345407|181749700|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|1.1|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 100 mcg at Day 56 was performed and posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.1|-6.3|
90935257|NCT03345407|181749700|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|-3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|0.4|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 250 mcg at Day 56 was performed and posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||0.4|-7.3|
90935258|NCT03345407|181749700|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|3.0|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 500 mcg at Day 56 was performed and posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||3.0|-4.6|
90935259|NCT03345407|181749700|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|2.5|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 750 mcg at Day 56 was performed and posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||2.5|-2.9|
90935260|NCT03345407|181749700|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|9.4|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 12.5 mcg at Day 84 was performed and posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||9.4|-4.8|
90968783|NCT04416555|181819246|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.191|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.191
90935261|NCT03345407|181749700|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|3.6|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 50 mcg at Day 84 was performed and posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||3.6|-4.1|
90935262|NCT03345407|181749700|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|1.8|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 100 mcg at Day 84 was performed and posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.8|-6.1|
90935263|NCT03345407|181749700|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|2.3|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 250 mcg at Day 84 was performed and posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||2.3|-5.7|
90935264|NCT03345407|181749700|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|3.8|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 500 mcg at Day 84 was performed and posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||3.8|-4.5|
90935265|NCT03345407|181749700|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|4.0|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 750 mcg at Day 84 was performed and posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||4.0|-1.7|
90935266|NCT01584648|181749715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.91|||||Hazard ratios (HRs) were estimated using a Pike estimator.|||0.91|0.59|
90935267|NCT01584648|181749716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.02|||||Hazard ratios (HRs) were estimated using a Pike estimator.|||1.02|0.64|
90935268|NCT00065611|181749723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9074||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.9074
90935269|NCT00065611|181749724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4566||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.4566
90935270|NCT00065611|181749725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3792||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.3792
90935271|NCT00595959|181749730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||||||No adjustments|t-test, 1 sided|||Comparing to an expected value of 20% reduction from initial to post-laser||||0.001
90935272|NCT00886834|181749742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.64
90935273|NCT00999336|181749749|OTHER|Geometric least squares means, ratios, and confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) of natural log transformed values.|Ratio|1.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.18|3.03|||||Statistical comparison of AUC0-24 on Day 8 for participants grouped using 186 as a multiplier in the Modified Diet in Renal Disease Study Group (MDRD) equation.|||3.03|1.18|
90935274|NCT00999336|181749749|OTHER|Geometric least squares means, ratios, and CIs were estimated from an ANCOVA of natural log transformed values.|Ratio|2.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.43|3.59|||||Statistical comparison of AUC0-24 on Day 8 for participants grouped using 186 as multiplier in the MDRD equation.|||3.59|1.43|
90935275|NCT00999336|181749749|OTHER|Geometric least squares means, ratios, and CIs were estimated from an ANCOVA of natural log transformed values.|Ratio|2.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.71|4.06|||||Statistical comparison of AUC0-24 on Day 8 for participants grouped using 186 as multiplier in the MDRD equation.|||4.06|1.71|
90935276|NCT00999336|181749749|OTHER|Geometric least squares means, ratios, and CIs were estimated from an ANCOVA of natural log transformed values.|Ratio|1.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.888|2.18|||||Statistical comparison of AUC0-24 on Day 8 for participants grouped using 186 as multiplier in the MDRD equation.|||2.18|0.888|
90935277|NCT00999336|181749749|OTHER|Geometric least squares means, ratios, and CIs were estimated from an ANCOVA of natural log transformed values.|Ratio|1.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.14|3.31|||||Statistical comparison of AUC0-24 on Day 8 for participants grouped using 175 as multiplier in the MDRD equation.|||3.31|1.14|
90935278|NCT00999336|181749749|OTHER|Geometric least squares means, ratios, and CIs were estimated from an ANCOVA of natural log transformed values.|Ratio|2.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.41|4.22|||||Statistical comparison of AUC0-24 on Day 8 for participants grouped using 175 as multiplier in the MDRD equation.|||4.22|1.41|
90935279|NCT00999336|181749749|OTHER|Geometric least squares means, ratios, and CIs were estimated from an ANCOVA of natural log transformed values.|Ratio|2.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.74|4.7|||||Statistical comparison of AUC0-24 on Day 8 for participants grouped using 175 as multiplier in the MDRD equation.|||4.7|1.74|
90935280|NCT00999336|181749749|OTHER|Geometric least squares means, ratios, and CIs were estimated from an ANCOVA of natural log transformed values.|Ratio|1.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.944|2.3|||||Statistical comparison of AUC0-24 on Day 8 for participants grouped using 175 as multiplier in the MDRD equation.|||2.3|0.944|
90935281|NCT00999336|181749750|OTHER|Geometric least squares means, ratios, and CIs were estimated from an ANCOVA of natural log transformed values.|Ratio|1.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.05|3.35|||||Statistical comparison of Cmax on Day 8 for participants grouped using 186 as multiplier in the MDRD equation.|||3.35|1.05|
90935282|NCT00999336|181749750|OTHER|Geometric least squares means, ratios, and CIs were estimated from an ANCOVA of natural log transformed values.|Ratio|2.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.32|4.07|||||Statistical comparison of Cmax on Day 8 for participants grouped using 186 as multiplier in the MDRD equation.|||4.07|1.32|
90935283|NCT00999336|181749750|OTHER|Geometric least squares means, ratios, and CIs were estimated from an ANCOVA of natural log transformed values.|Ratio|2.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.48|4.29|||||Statistical comparison of Cmax on Day 8 for participants grouped using 186 as multiplier in the MDRD equation.|||4.29|1.48|
90935284|NCT00999336|181749750|OTHER|Geometric least squares means, ratios, and CIs were estimated from an ANCOVA of natural log transformed values.|Ratio|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.772|2.32|||||Statistical comparison of Cmax on Day 8 for participants grouped using 186 as multiplier in the MDRD equation.|||2.32|0.772|
90935285|NCT00999336|181749750|OTHER|Geometric least squares means, ratios, and CIs were estimated from an ANCOVA of natural log transformed values.|Ratio|1.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.01|3.78|||||Statistical comparison of Cmax on Day 8 for participants grouped using 175 as multiplier in the MDRD equation.|||3.78|1.01|
90971222|NCT04152161|181825020|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine Efficacy|-0.009|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.395|0.27|||||Vaccine Efficacy (VE) = 1 - Hazard Ratio, with 95%CI equal to (VE lower limit, VE upper limit) = (1 - Hazard Ratio upper limit, 1 - Hazard Ratio lower limit)|||0.270|-0.395|
90935286|NCT00999336|181749750|OTHER|Geometric least squares means, ratios, and CIs were estimated from an ANCOVA of natural log transformed values.|Ratio|2.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.21|4.67|||||Statistical comparison of Cmax on Day 8 for participants grouped using 175 as multiplier in the MDRD equation.|||4.67|1.21|
90935287|NCT00999336|181749750|OTHER|Geometric least squares means, ratios, and CIs were estimated from an ANCOVA of natural log transformed values.|Ratio|2.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.46|4.96|||||Statistical comparison of Cmax on Day 8 for participants grouped using 175 as multiplier in the MDRD equation.|||4.96|1.46|
90935288|NCT00999336|181749750|OTHER|Geometric least squares means, ratios, and CIs were estimated from an ANCOVA of natural log transformed values.|Ratio|1.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.793|2.38|||||Statistical comparison of Cmax on Day 8 for participants grouped using 175 as multiplier in the MDRD equation.|||2.38|0.793|
90935289|NCT01297595|181749764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|99.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.08|108.87||||||Natural log transformed AUC (0 - ∞) of crizotinib was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as a fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. This was an estimation study and there was no formal statistical hypothesis.||108.87|91.08|
90935290|NCT01297595|181749766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|99.35|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.51|109.07||||||Natural log transformed AUClast of crizotinib was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as a fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. This was an estimation study and there was no formal statistical hypothesis.||109.07|90.51|
90935291|NCT01297595|181749767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|96.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.22|106.32||||||Natural log transformed Cmax of crizotinib was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as a fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. This was an estimation study and there was no formal statistical hypothesis.||106.32|88.22|
90935292|NCT01115309|181749779|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Paired t-tests were used to evaluate whether the change in outcomes from baseline to follow-up were statistically different from zero. A p value \<0.05 is considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90968784|NCT00530270|181819252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.127||95.0||||A two-sided alpha of 0.05 was used. No multiple comparison adjustments were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The null hypothesis of no difference in the log duration of signs and symptoms or hospitalization between the two treatment groups was tested using an F test from a generalized mixed model with fixed effects for treatment group, age group and ACS severity. Please note that the study was stopped prematurely so only 11 of the 112 originally planned were included in the analysis.||||0.127
90968785|NCT00530270|181819253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.801||||||A two-sided alpha of 0.05 was used. No multiple comparison adjustments were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The null hypothesis of no difference in the log duration of signs and symptoms or hospitalization between the two treatment groups was tested using an F test from a generalized mixed model with fixed effects for treatment group, age group and ACS severity. Please note that the study was stopped prematurely so only 11 of the 112 originally planned were included in the analysis.||||0.801
90968786|NCT00530270|181819254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0||||A two-sided alpha of 0.05 was used. No multiple comparison adjustments were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|Different error variance estimates were allowed for the two treatment groups.||The null hypothesis of no difference in the log duration of signs and symptoms or hospitalization between the two treatment groups was tested using an F test from a generalized mixed model with fixed effects for treatment group, age group and ACS severity. Please note that the study was stopped prematurely so only 11 of the 112 originally planned were included in the analysis.||||0.02
90968787|NCT00530270|181819255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.876||95.0||||A two-sided alpha of 0.05 was used. No multiple comparison adjustments were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|Different error variance estimates were allowed for the two treatment groups.||The null hypothesis of no difference in the log duration of signs and symptoms or hospitalization between the two treatment groups was tested using an F test from a generalized mixed model with fixed effects for treatment group, age group and ACS severity. Please note that the study was stopped prematurely so only 11 of the 112 originally planned were included in the analysis.||||0.876
90968788|NCT00530270|181819256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77||95.0||||A two-sided alpha of 0.05 was used. No multiple comparison adjustments were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|Different error variance estimates were allowed for the two treatment groups.||The null hypothesis of no difference in the log duration of signs and symptoms or hospitalization between the two treatment groups was tested using an F test from a generalized mixed model with fixed effects for treatment group, age group and ACS severity. Please note that the study was stopped prematurely so only 11 of the 112 originally planned were included in the analysis.||||0.770
90968789|NCT01118273|181819257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.54
90968790|NCT01118273|181819258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.31
90968791|NCT01118273|181819259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.45
90968792|NCT01118273|181819260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.001
90968793|NCT01118273|181819261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.05
90968794|NCT01118273|181819262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.019
90968795|NCT01118273|181819263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.018
90968796|NCT01118273|181819264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.03
90968797|NCT01118273|181819265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.76
90968798|NCT01118273|181819266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.015
90968799|NCT01118273|181819267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.04
90968800|NCT01118273|181819268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.95
90968801|NCT01118273|181819269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.05
90968802|NCT01118273|181819271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.42
90968803|NCT01118273|181819272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.35
90968804|NCT01118273|181819273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.35
90968805|NCT01118273|181819274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.72
90968806|NCT01118273|181819275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.001
90968807|NCT01118273|181819277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.35
90968808|NCT01118273|181819279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.53
90968809|NCT01118273|181819280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.55
90968810|NCT01118273|181819281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.59
90968811|NCT01118273|181819282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.25
90968812|NCT01197521|181819285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|0.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.22||Week 24|Mantel Haenszel|Treatment difference in proportion of responders with a Mantel Haenszel approach stratified by pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.22|0.08|<0.001
90971223|NCT04152161|181825020|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.009||||0.5224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.395|||Log Rank|The 1-sided p-value from the log-rank test was stratified by sex and age group.|Hazard ratio was calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, with sex and age group (10-11 years, 12-14 years, and \>14 years) as stratification variables.|||1.395|0.730|0.5224
90968813|NCT01197521|181819285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|0.1||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.18||Week 24|Mantel Haenszel|Treatment difference in proportion of responders with a Mantel Haenszel approach stratified by pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.18|0.03|0.006
90935293|NCT01115309|181749780|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Paired t-tests were used to evaluate whether the change in outcomes from baseline to follow-up were statistically different from zero. A p value \<0.05 is considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90968814|NCT01197521|181819286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.252||||||Week 24|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The residuals from the ANCOVA are analysed using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel approach, adjusting for the effects of pooled country.||This analysis is performed using an ANCOVA model on the ranks of the change from baseline, by pooled country, including a term for the ranks of the baseline score as a covariate.||||0.252
90968815|NCT01197521|181819286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17||||||Week 24|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The residuals from the ANCOVA are analysed using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel approach, adjusting for the effects of pooled country.||This analysis is performed using an ANCOVA model on the ranks of the change from baseline, by pooled country, including a term for the ranks of the baseline score as a covariate.||||0.170
90968816|NCT01197521|181819287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportion|0.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.17||Nominal p-values presented. Formal statistical testing could not be carried out due to the predefined multiplicity procedure (as the primary variable comparisons were non-significant).|Mantel Haenszel|95% confidence intervals and p-values are calculated using a Mantel Haenszel approach stratified by pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.17|0.10|<0.001
90968817|NCT01197521|181819288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|0.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.22||Nominal p-values presented. Formal statistical testing could not be carried out due to the predefined multiplicity procedure (as the primary variable comparisons were non-significant).|Mantel Haenszel|95% confidence intervals and p-values are calculated using a Mantel Haenszel approach stratified by pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.22|0.11|<0.001
90968818|NCT01197521|181819288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|0.09||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.14||Nominal p-values presented. Formal statistical testing could not be carried out due to the predefined multiplicity procedure (as the primary variable comparisons were non-significant).|Mantel Haenszel|95% confidence intervals and p-values are calculated using a Mantel Haenszel approach stratified by pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.14|0.03|0.002
90968819|NCT01197521|181819289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|0.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.12||Nominal p-values presented. Formal statistical testing could not be carried out due to the predefined multiplicity procedure (as the primary variable comparisons were non-significant).|Mantel Haenszel|95% confidence intervals and p-values are calculated using a Mantel Haenszel approach stratified by pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.12|0.05|<0.001
90968820|NCT01197521|181819289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|0.04||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.07||Nominal p-values presented. Formal statistical testing could not be carried out due to the predefined multiplicity procedure (as the primary variable comparisons were non-significant).|Mantel Haenszel|95% confidence intervals and p-values are calculated using a Mantel Haenszel approach stratified by pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.07|0.01|0.015
90968821|NCT01197521|181819290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Nominal p-value presented for treatment comparison. ACRn was not formally tested within the predefined multiplicity procedure. As this is a non-parametric test p-values alone are presented rather than an estimated treatment difference.|Van Elteren|The treatment differences, 95% CIs and p-values are estimated using the Van Elteren test stratified by pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||||<0.001
90971224|NCT04152161|181825021|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine Efficacy|-0.049|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.431|0.23|||||Vaccine Efficacy (VE) = 1 - Hazard Ratio, with 95%CI equal to (VE lower limit, VE upper limit) = (1 - Hazard Ratio upper limit, 1 - Hazard Ratio lower limit)|||0.230|-0.431|
90935294|NCT03246724|181749789|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 0.5, will assure that, if non-inferiority is proven, the mean patient satisfaction with oral sedation will correspond to scores corresponding to satisfied or higher. A 0.5 margin to be considered clinically similar enough to declare non-inferiority because it allows for expected patient satisfaction variability, and demonstrates ample justification for providers to offer oral sedation as a safe alternative.|||||<|0.05||||||As a sensitivity analysis, an ANCOVA model will be fit to the data adjusting for factors that are out of balance following randomization. The mean difference between the adjusted means will be calculated.|ANCOVA|If lower bound of the 90% two-sided Confidence Interval of mean difference is higher than -0.5, the oral sedation will be deemed non-inferior to IV.||"Testable hypothesis: Patient satisfaction mean will be non-inferior when given oral triazolam in comparison to IV midazolam during all basic cataracts, retina, cornea, and glaucoma ocular procedures.~Null hypothesis: The null hypothesis is that the oral sedation group will have a primary endpoint mean equal to or less than that of the IV sedation group by the non-inferiority margin or more."||||<0.05
90935295|NCT03246724|181749790|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 0.5, will assure that, if non-inferiority is proven, the mean patient satisfaction with oral sedation will correspond to scores corresponding to satisfied or higher. We determined a 0.5 margin to be considered clinically similar enough to declare non-inferiority because it allows for expected patient satisfaction variability, and demonstrates ample justification for providers to offer oral sedation as a safe alternative.|||||<|0.05||||||Surgeon satisfaction score will be independently analyzed. Summary statistics including, means, standard deviations along with points estimates of the mean difference between the two groups and 90% Confidence Intervals.|ANCOVA|If lower bound of the 90% two-sided Confidence Interval of mean difference is higher than -0.5, oral sedation will be deemed non-inferior to IV.||"Null hypothesis: Mean surgeon satisfaction score for oral triazolam will be statistically significant in comparison to mean surgeon satisfaction score for IV midazolam during all cataracts, retina, cornea, and glaucoma ocular procedures.~Alternate hypothesis: Mean surgeon satisfaction score for oral triazolam will not be statistically significant in comparison to mean surgeon satisfaction score for IV midazolam during all cataracts, retina, cornea, and glaucoma ocular procedures."||||<0.05
90968822|NCT01197521|181819290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||||||Nominal p-value presented for treatment comparison. ACRn was not formally tested within the predefined multiplicity procedure. As this is a non-parametric test p-values alone are presented rather than an estimated treatment difference.|Van Elteren|The treatment differences, 95% CIs and p-values are estimated using the Van Elteren test stratified by pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||||0.002
90968823|NCT01197521|181819291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.44|14.64||Nominal p-values presented. Formal statistical testing could not be carried out due to the predefined multiplicity procedure (as the primary variable comparisons were non-significant).|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals are calculated using Logistic Regression with treatment and pooled country as factors.|An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit towards Fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||14.64|2.44|<0.001
90968824|NCT01197521|181819291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.4||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.76|11.02||Nominal p-values presented. Formal statistical testing could not be carried out due to the predefined multiplicity procedure (as the primary variable comparisons were non-significant).|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals are calculated using Logistic Regression with treatment and pooled country as factors.|An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit towards Fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||11.02|1.76|0.002
90968825|NCT01197521|181819292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.63|5.67||Nominal p-values presented. Formal statistical testing could not be carried out due to the predefined multiplicity procedure (as the primary variable comparisons were non-significant).|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals are calculated using Logistic Regression with treatment and pooled country as factors.|An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit towards Fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||5.67|1.63|<0.001
90968826|NCT01197521|181819292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|3.5||Nominal p-values presented. Formal statistical testing could not be carried out due to the predefined multiplicity procedure (as the primary variable comparisons were non-significant).|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals are calculated using Logistic Regression with treatment and pooled country as factors.|An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit towards Fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||3.50|0.93|0.083
90968827|NCT01197521|181819293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.79|3.3||Nominal p-value presented for treatment comparison. This was not formally tested within the predefined multiplicity procedure.|Proportional odds model|No response, moderate response and good response are included in the proportional odds model with treatment and pooled country as factors.|An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||3.30|1.79|<0.001
90971225|NCT04152161|181825021|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.049||||0.6193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.431|||Log Rank|The 1-sided p-value from the log-rank test was stratified by sex and age group.|Calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, with sex and age group (10-11 years, 12-14 years, and \>14 years) as stratification variables.|||1.431|0.770|0.6193
90941214|NCT02705625|181762250|SUPERIORITY|"For the primary endpoint, the Type I error for the tests of the two doses was protected by performing a fixed-sequence multiple-testing procedure in the following order:~Step 1: 200 mg versus placebo Step 2: 100 mg versus placebo The second step was only considered as confirmatory provided the previous step was significant at a one-sided 5%-level (p\<0.05).~If the previous step was not significant, the analysis of the following step was considered descriptive."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0761||||0.4055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.703|0.55||The p-values reported is from Step 1 (comparing 200 mg versus placebo). The corresponding p-value from Step 2 (comparing 100 mg versus placebo) was 0.1458.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A linear mixed model based on the mITT population was used. The model included fixed factors for treatment, time (measured in weeks), the interaction for treatment by time, baseline analgesic user (Yes/No), and random effect for clinical site. Baseline NRS was included as a covariate for adjustment. An unstructured covariance matrix was used to model the covariance pattern in the mixed effects model.||0.55|-0.703|0.4055
90935296|NCT03246724|181749791|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 0.5, will assure that, if non-inferiority is proven, the mean patient satisfaction with oral sedation will correspond to scores corresponding to satisfied or higher. We determined a 0.5 margin to be considered clinically similar enough to declare non-inferiority because it allows for expected patient satisfaction variability, and demonstrates ample justification for providers to offer oral sedation as a safe alternative.|||||<|0.05||||||Anesthesiologist/CRNA satisfaction score will be independently analyzed. Summary statistics including, means, standard deviations along with points estimates of the mean difference between the two groups and 90% Confidence Intervals.|ANCOVA|If lower bound of the 90% two-sided Confidence Interval of mean difference is higher than -0.5, the oral sedation will be deemed non-inferior to IV.||"Null hypothesis: Mean anesthesiologist/CRNA satisfaction score for oral triazolam will be statistically significant in comparison to mean anesthesiologist/CRNA satisfaction score for IV midazolam during cataracts, retina, cornea, and glaucoma procedures.~Alternate hypothesis:Mean anesthesiologist/CRNA satisfaction score for oral triazolam will not be statistically significant in comparison to mean satisfaction score for IV midazolam during cataracts, retina, cornea, and glaucoma procedures."||||<0.05
90935297|NCT03246724|181749792|OTHER|Additional anesthesia intervention will be using summary statistics including, counts and proportions along with point's estimates of the proportion difference between the two groups and 90% Confidence Intervals.|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Null hypothesis:The total additional anesthesia interventions for oral triazolam will be statistically significant in comparison to additional anesthesia interventions for IV midazolam during cataracts, retina, cornea, and glaucoma procedures.~Alternate hypothesis:The total additional anesthesia interventions for oral triazolam will not be statistically significant in comparison to additional anesthesia interventions for IV midazolam during cataracts, retina, cornea, and glaucoma procedures"||||<0.05
90935298|NCT03246724|181749793|OTHER|Surgical complications will be using summary statistics including, counts and proportions along with point's estimates of the proportion difference between the two groups and 90% Confidence Intervals.|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Null hypothesis: The total surgical complications for oral triazolam will be statistically significant in comparison to total surgical complications for IV midazolam during all cataracts, retina, cornea, and glaucoma ocular procedures.~Alternate hypothesis: The total surgical complications for oral triazolam will not be statistically significant in comparison to total surgical complications for IV midazolam during all cataracts, retina, cornea, and glaucoma ocular procedures."||||<0.05
90935299|NCT02470806|181749799|NON_INFERIORITY|Stepwise regression method - Primary efficacy analysis, difference between treatment groups in percentage change in wound area from baseline visit to end of 12-week treatment period for the PP population.||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Stepwise regression|||Percentage change in wound area from Baseline to end of 12-week treatment period (PP population - all wounds)||||0.001
90935300|NCT00623714|181749851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Fold Difference|0.34||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.16|0.7||1-sided, alpha = 0.05|ANOVA|Analysis performed on log-transformed fold change from baseline and results were back-transformed for reporting.||||0.70|0.16|0.011
90935301|NCT00623714|181749852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Fold Difference|0.4||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.63||1-sided, alpha = 0.05|ANOVA|Analysis performed on log-transformed fold change from baseline and results were back-transformed for reporting.||||0.63|0.26|0.002
90935302|NCT02033174|181749862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.05
90935303|NCT04919499|181749902|OTHER|A mixed model with repeated measurements (MMRM) was used for the analysis with fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit and the fixed continuous effects of baseline at each visit. Visit was treated as the repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure used to model the within-patient measurements. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors.|Adjusted mean difference|-0.0252|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0376|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1048|0.0545|||||Calculated as \[high-dose BI 765128\] - \[Sham\]|||0.0545|-0.1048|
90935304|NCT04919499|181749903|OTHER|A mixed model with repeated measurements (MMRM) was used for the analysis with fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit and the fixed continuous effects of baseline at each visit. Visit was treated as the repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure used to model the within-patient measurements. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors.|Adjusted mean difference|-0.0101|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0236|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0625|0.0422|||||Calculated as \[high-dose BI 765128\] - \[Sham\]|||0.0422|-0.0625|
90935305|NCT04919499|181749904|OTHER|A mixed model with repeated measurements (MMRM) was used for the analysis with fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit and the fixed continuous effects of baseline at each visit. Visit was treated as the repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure used to model the within-patient measurements. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors.|Adjusted mean difference|0.0016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0181|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0504|0.0536|||||Calculated as \[high-dose BI 765128\] - \[Sham\]|||0.0536|-0.0504|
90935306|NCT04919499|181749905|OTHER|A mixed model with repeated measurements (MMRM) was used for the analysis with fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit and the fixed continuous effects of baseline at each visit. Visit was treated as the repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure used to model the within-patient measurements. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors.|Adjusted mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|5.0|||||"Calculated as \[high-dose BI 765128\] - \[Sham\]~Results were rounded to one decimal place."|||5.0|-4.7|
90935307|NCT03456856|181749907|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|-1.0|||repeated measures linear model|||The estimated mean treatment difference (95% CI) takes into account a presumed -5 bpm change from baseline heart rate in the absence of ivabradine (as seen in the placebo group in the SHIFT study, (NCT02441218, PMID 20801500).||-1.0|-8.0|0.013
90935308|NCT02469155|181749950|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.1||||0.972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.39|3.51|||Mixed Models for Repeated Measure|||||3.51|-3.39|0.972
90935309|NCT02469155|181749950|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.5||||0.789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.92|3.84|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||3.84|-2.92|0.789
90935310|NCT02991118|181749952|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-17.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.951|-13.896|||ANCOVA|||||-13.896|-20.951|<0.001
90935311|NCT02991118|181749953|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-14.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.418|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.504|-10.027|||ANCOVA|||||-10.027|-19.504|<0.001
90935312|NCT02991118|181749954|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-13.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.652|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.27|-9.794|||ANCOVA|||||-9.794|-16.270|<0.001
90935313|NCT02991118|181749955|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-11.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.224|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.599|-8.801|||ANCOVA|||||-8.801|-13.599|<0.001
90935314|NCT02991118|181749956|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-13.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.587|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.13|-9.907|||ANCOVA|||||-9.907|-16.130|<0.001
90968828|NCT01197521|181819293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.57||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|2.14||Nominal p-value presented for treatment comparison. This was not formally tested within the predefined multiplicity procedure.|Proportional odds model|No response, moderate response and good response are included in the proportional odds model with treatment and pooled country as factors.|An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit towards Fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||2.14|1.16|0.004
90971226|NCT00983983|181825050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change over time in the ALSFRS-R was analyzed using random-slopes models||||0.07
90935315|NCT02991118|181749957|SUPERIORITY||Location shift|-8.733|||<|0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.238|-0.434|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test||The location shift and asymptotic 95% confidence interval are based on Hodges-Lehman estimation.|||-0.434|-17.238|<0.039
90935316|NCT02991118|181749960|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|4.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.258||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.504|11.292|||ANCOVA|||||11.292|-1.504|0.134
90935317|NCT02991118|181749961|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-6.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.139|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.369|-3.896|||ANCOVA|||||-3.896|-8.369|<0.001
90935318|NCT02991118|181749962|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-12.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.314|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.813|-7.722|||ANCOVA|||||-7.722|-16.813|<0.001
90935319|NCT02991118|181749963|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-12.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.01|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.58|-8.682|||ANCOVA|||||-8.682|-16.580|<0.001
90971227|NCT00983983|181825052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.06
90971228|NCT00983983|181825053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0005
90971229|NCT00983983|181825054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.03
90935320|NCT02991118|181749964|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-9.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.976|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.803|-6.037|||ANCOVA|||||-6.037|-13.803|<0.001
90935321|NCT02991118|181749965|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-10.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.489|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.698|-7.848|||ANCOVA|||||-7.848|-13.698|<0.001
90935322|NCT02991118|181749966|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-8.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.458|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.223|-5.493|||ANCOVA|||||-5.493|-11.223|<0.001
90935323|NCT02991118|181749967|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-13.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.451|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.829|-8.175|||ANCOVA|||||-8.175|-17.829|<0.001
90935324|NCT02991118|181749968|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-9.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.796|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.107|-6.047|||ANCOVA|||||-6.047|-13.107|<0.001
90935325|NCT02991118|181749969|SUPERIORITY||Location shift|-21.278|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.25|-10.034|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test||The location shift and asymptotic 95% confidence interval are based on Hodges-Lehman estimation.|||-10.034|-32.250|<0.001
90935326|NCT02991118|181749970|SUPERIORITY||Location shift|-7.587||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.978|1.653|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test||The location shift and asymptotic 95% confidence interval are based on Hodges-Lehman estimation.|||1.653|-16.978|0.102
90935327|NCT02991118|181749971|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-15.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.641|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.26|-9.878|||ANCOVA|||||-9.878|-20.260|<0.001
90935328|NCT01214109|181750008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares means|82.62||||||90.0|74.45|91.69|||ANOVA|||0.125 mg t.i.d. IR is the reference treatment, 0.375 mg q.d. ER is the test treatment||91.69|74.45|
90935329|NCT01214109|181750008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares means|96.17||||||90.0|69.33|133.42|||ANOVA|||0.5 mg t.i.d. IR is the reference treatment, 1.5 mg q.d. ER is the test treatment||133.42|69.33|
90935330|NCT01214109|181750009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares means|88.01||||||90.0|80.76|95.92|||ANOVA|||0.125 mg t.i.d. IR vs. 0.375 mg q.d. ER 0.125 mg t.i.d. IR is the reference treatment, 0.375 mg q.d. ER is the test treatment||95.92|80.76|
90935331|NCT01214109|181750009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares means|89.37||||||90.0|81.16|98.42|||ANOVA|||0.5 mg t.i.d. IR vs. 1.5 mg q.d. ER 0.5 mg t.i.d. IR is the reference treatment, 1.5 mg q.d. ER is the test treatment||98.42|81.16|
90935332|NCT01214109|181750010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares means|88.82||||||90.0|79.89|98.76|||ANOVA|||0.125 mg t.i.d. IR vs. 0.375 mg q.d. ER 0.125 mg t.i.d. IR is the reference treatment, 0.375 mg q.d. ER is the test treatment||98.76|79.89|
90935333|NCT01214109|181750010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares means|91.97||||||90.0|60.07|140.25|||ANOVA|||0.5 mg t.i.d. IR vs. 1.5 mg q.d. ER 0.5 mg t.i.d. IR is the reference treatment, 1.5 mg q.d. ER is the test treatment||140.25|60.07|
90935334|NCT01214109|181750011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares means|92.84||||||90.0|83.8|102.86|||ANOVA|||0.125 mg t.i.d. IR is the reference treatment, 0.375 mg q.d. ER is the test treatment||102.86|83.8|
90935335|NCT01214109|181750011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares means|95.05||||||90.0|84.88|106.43|||ANOVA|||0.5 mg t.i.d. IR is the reference treatment, 1.5 mg q.d. ER is the test treatment||106.43|84.88|
90935336|NCT01989156|181750028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|12.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.27|17.05||The primary endpoints were tested using a multiple testing procedure to preserve the overall alpha level by simultaneously testing the endpoints using a closed procedure with each test performed at an alpha level of 2.5% one sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on MHBMA levels with product, sex, cigarette consumption, and baseline value as covariates.|Geometric LS Mean Ratio mTHS 2.2:mCC|"The hypothesis to be tested is that the geometric mean level on Day 5 of the biomarker of exposure for mTHS 2.2 is lower relative to mCC.~Analysis of the biomarkers of exposure (BoExp) was conducted on the natural log scale in order to test the following hypothesis (one sided test with 2.5% type I error probability):~* Null hypothesis (H0): m1≥m2~* Alternative hypothesis (H1): m1\<m2 Where m1 and m2 are the geometric means of the BoExp levels on Day 5 for mTHS 2.2 and mCC respectively."||17.05|9.27|<0.001
90935337|NCT01989156|181750029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|45.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.22|53.41||The primary endpoints were tested using a multiple testing procedure to preserve the overall alpha level by simultaneously testing the endpoints using a closed procedure with each test performed at an alpha level of 2.5% one sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on 3-HPMA levels with product, sex, cigarette consumption, and baseline value as covariates.|Geometric LS mean ratio mTHS 2.2:mCC|"The hypothesis to be tested is that the geometric mean level on Day 5 of the biomarker of exposure for mTHS 2.2 is lower relative to mCC.~Analysis of the BoExp was conducted on the natural log scale in order to test the following hypothesis (one sided test with 2.5% type I error probability):~* Null hypothesis (H0): m1≥m2~* Alternative hypothesis (H1): m1\<m2 Where m1 and m2 are the geometric means of the BoExp levels on Day 5 for mTHS 2.2 and mCC respectively."||53.41|39.22|<0.001
90935338|NCT01989156|181750030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|12.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.54|16.58||The primary endpoints were tested using a multiple testing procedure to preserve the overall alpha level by simultaneously testing the endpoints using a closed procedure with each test performed at an alpha level of 2.5% one sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on S-PMA levels with product, sex, cigarette consumption, and baseline value as covariates.|Geometric LS mean ratio mTHS 2.2:mCC|"The hypothesis to be tested is that the geometric mean level on Day 5 of the biomarker of exposure for mTHS 2.2 is lower relative to mCC.~Analysis of the BoExp was conducted on the natural log scale in order to test the following hypothesis (one sided test with 2.5% type I error probability):~* Null hypothesis (H0): m1≥m2~* Alternative hypothesis (H1): m1\<m2 Where m1 and m2 are the geometric means of the BoExp levels on Day 5 for mTHS 2.2 and mCC respectively."||16.58|9.54|<0.001
90968829|NCT01197521|181819294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.68|3.26||Nominal p-values presented. Formal statistical testing could not be carried out due to the predefined multiplicity procedure (as the primary variable comparisons were non-significant).|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals are calculated using Logistic Regression with treatment and pooled country as factors.|An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit towards Fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||3.26|1.68|<0.001
90968830|NCT01197521|181819294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|2.68||Nominal p-values presented. Formal statistical testing could not be carried out due to the predefined multiplicity procedure (as the primary variable comparisons were non-significant).|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals are calculated using Logistic Regression with treatment and pooled country as factors.|An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit towards Fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||2.68|1.38|<0.001
90968831|NCT01197521|181819295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|2.24|||<|0.001||95.0|1.16|3.31||Nominal p-value presented for treatment comparison. This was not formally tested within the predefined multiplicity procedure.|ANCOVA|Including terms for baseline as a continuous covariate and treatment and pooled country as factors.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||3.31|1.16|<0.001
90968832|NCT01197521|181819295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|1.27||||0.02||95.0|0.2|2.35||Nominal p-value presented for treatment comparison. This was not formally tested within the predefined multiplicity procedure.|ANCOVA|Including terms for baseline as a continuous covariate and treatment and pooled country as factors.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||2.35|0.20|0.020
90968833|NCT01197521|181819296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|1.8||||0.005||95.0|0.54|3.07||Nominal p-value presented for treatment comparison. This was not formally tested within the predefined multiplicity procedure.|ANCOVA|Including terms for baseline as a continuous covariate and treatment and pooled country as factors.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||3.07|0.54|0.005
90968834|NCT01197521|181819296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|1.56||||0.017||95.0|0.28|2.83||Nominal p-value presented for treatment comparison. This was not formally tested within the predefined multiplicity procedure.|ANCOVA|Including terms for baseline as a continuous covariate and treatment and pooled country as factors.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||2.83|0.28|0.017
90968835|NCT01309659|181819301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.308|TWO_SIDED|||||Correlation between ferritin and change in hemoglobin in the immediate intervention group. Testing the correlation equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.308
90968836|NCT01309659|181819301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.601|TWO_SIDED|||||Correlation between ferritin and change in hemoglobin in the waitlist group. Testing the correlation = 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.601
90968837|NCT01309659|181819301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.396|TWO_SIDED|||||Correlation between iron and change in hemoglobin in the intermediate intervention group. Testing the correlation = 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.396
90968838|NCT01309659|181819301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|||||Correlation between iron and change in hemoglobin in the waitlist group. Testing the correlation = 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.106
90968839|NCT01309659|181819301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.606|TWO_SIDED|||||Correlation between transferrin saturation and change in hemoglobin in the immediate intervention group. Testing the correlation = 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.606
90968840|NCT01309659|181819301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|||||Correlation between transferrin saturation and change in hemoglobin in the waitlist group. Testing the correlation = 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.077
90968841|NCT01309659|181819310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.649|TWO_SIDED|||||Correlation between soluble transfer receptor and change in hemoglobin in the immediate intervention group. Testing the correlation =0.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.649
90968842|NCT01309659|181819310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Correlation between soluble transfer receptor and change in hemoglobin in the wait list group. Testing the correlation =0.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
90968843|NCT01309659|181819311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.391|TWO_SIDED|||||Correlation between baseline soluble transferrin receptor index (soluble receptor/log ferritin) and the change in hemoglobin in the immediate intervention group. Testing correlation =0.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.391
90968844|NCT01309659|181819311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|||||Correlation between baseline soluble transferrin receptor index (soluble receptor/log ferritin) and the change in hemoglobin in the wait list control group. Testing correlation =0.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.111
90935339|NCT01989156|181750031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|26.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.31|40.26||The primary endpoints were tested using a multiple testing procedure to preserve the overall alpha level by simultaneously testing the endpoints using a closed procedure with each test performed at an alpha level of 2.5% one sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on Total NNAL levels with product, sex, cigarette consumption, and baseline value as covariates|Geometric LS mean ratio mTHS 2.2:mCC|"The hypothesis to be tested is that the geometric mean level on Day 90 of the biomarker of exposure for mTHS 2.2 is lower relative to mCC.~Analysis of the BoExp was conducted on the natural log scale in order to test the following hypothesis (one sided test with 2.5% type I error probability):~* Null hypothesis (H0): m1≥m2~* Alternative hypothesis (H1): m1\<m2 Where m1 and m2 are the geometric means of the BoExp levels on Day 90 for mTHS 2.2 and mCC respectively."||40.26|17.31|<0.001
90935340|NCT01989156|181750032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|38.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.24|42.47||The primary endpoints were tested using a multiple testing procedure to preserve the overall alpha level by simultaneously testing the endpoints using a closed procedure with each test performed at an alpha level of 2.5% one sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on COHb levels with product, sex, cigarette consumption, and baseline value as covariates.|Geometric LS mean ratio mTHS 2.2:mCC|"The hypothesis to be tested is that the geometric mean level on Day 90 of the biomarker of exposure for mTHS 2.2 is lower relative to mCC.~Analysis of the BoExp was conducted on the natural log scale in order to test the following hypothesis (one sided test with 2.5% type I error probability):~* Null hypothesis (H0): m1≥m2~* Alternative hypothesis (H1): m1\<m2 Where m1 and m2 are the geometric means of the BoExp levels on Day 90 for mTHS 2.2 and mCC respectively."||42.47|34.24|<0.001
90935341|NCT00696241|181750055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.75|||<|0.001||95.0|-13.17|-8.34||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons controlled using stepwise testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||-8.34|-13.17|<0.001
90935342|NCT00696241|181750055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.48|-9.67||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons controlled using stepwise testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||-9.67|-14.48|<0.001
90935343|NCT00696241|181750055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.62|-10.81||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons controlled using stepwise testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||-10.81|-15.62|<0.001
90935344|NCT00696241|181750055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|2.35||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons controlled using stepwise testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||2.35|-1.55|0.687
90935345|NCT00696241|181750055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.92||||0.352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.87|1.02||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons controlled using stepwise testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||1.02|-2.87|0.352
90968845|NCT01309659|181819312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|||||Correlation between baseline serum ferritin and the change in 6 Minute Walk Test distance in the immediate intervention group. Testing correlation =0.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.077
90968846|NCT01309659|181819312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.798|TWO_SIDED|||||Correlation between baseline serum ferritin and the change in 6 Minute Walk Test distance in the wait list group. Testing correlation =0.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.798
90935346|NCT00696241|181750055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.06||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-0.12||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons controlled using stepwise testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||-0.12|-4.00|0.038
90935347|NCT00696241|181750056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.45|-9.0||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons controlled using stepwise testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||-9.00|-15.45|<0.001
90935348|NCT00696241|181750056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.64|-9.2||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons controlled using stepwise testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||-9.20|-15.64|<0.001
90935349|NCT00696241|181750056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.74|-12.31||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons controlled using stepwise testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||-12.31|-18.74|<0.001
90935350|NCT00696241|181750056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.59||||0.662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|3.22||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons controlled using stepwise testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||3.22|-2.05|0.662
90935351|NCT00696241|181750056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.24|3.03||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons controlled using stepwise testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||3.03|-2.24|0.768
90935352|NCT00696241|181750056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.71||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.34|-0.09||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons controlled using stepwise testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||-0.09|-5.34|0.043
90935353|NCT00696241|181750057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.34|-5.22||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-5.22|-8.34|<0.001
90935354|NCT00696241|181750057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.24|-6.13||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-6.13|-9.24|<0.001
90935355|NCT00696241|181750057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.47|-6.36||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-6.36|-9.47|<0.001
90935356|NCT00696241|181750057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27||||0.679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|1.52||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.52|-0.99|0.679
90935357|NCT00696241|181750057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.64||||0.319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|0.62||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||0.62|-1.89|0.319
90935358|NCT00696241|181750057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.87||||0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|0.38||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||0.38|-2.13|0.172
90935359|NCT00696241|181750058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.83|-5.22||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-5.22|-8.83|<0.001
90935360|NCT00696241|181750058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.87|-5.27||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-5.27|-8.87|<0.001
90968847|NCT01309659|181819312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.383|TWO_SIDED|||||Correlation between baseline iron and the change in 6 Minute Walk Test distance in the immediate intervention group. Testing correlation =0.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.383
90935361|NCT00696241|181750058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.42|-6.82||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-6.82|-10.42|<0.001
90935362|NCT00696241|181750058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|1.56||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.56|-1.39|0.908
90935363|NCT00696241|181750058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|1.52||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.52|-1.43|0.956
90935364|NCT00696241|181750058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.51||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.98|-0.04||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.04|-2.98|0.044
90935365|NCT00696241|181750059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.59|-8.48||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-8.48|-13.59|<0.001
90935366|NCT00696241|181750059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.75|-9.65||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-9.65|-14.75|<0.001
90968848|NCT01309659|181819312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.732|TWO_SIDED|||||Correlation between baseline iron and the change in 6 Minute Walk Test distance in the wait list group. Testing correlation =0.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.732
90968849|NCT01309659|181819312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.286|TWO_SIDED|||||Correlation between baseline transferrin saturation and the change in 6 Minute Walk Test distance in the immediate intervention group. Testing correlation =0.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.286
90968850|NCT01309659|181819312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.356|TWO_SIDED|||||Correlation between baseline transferrin saturation and the change in 6 Minute Walk Test distance in the wait list group. Testing correlation =0.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.356
90968851|NCT01309659|181819313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.649|TWO_SIDED|||||Correlation between baseline soluble transferrin receptor and the change in the 6 Meter Walk Test distance of the immediate intervention group. Testing correlation =0.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.649
90968852|NCT01309659|181819313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.396|TWO_SIDED|||||Correlation between baseline soluble transferrin receptor and the change in the 6 Meter Walk Test distance of the wait list group. Testing correlation =0.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.396
90968853|NCT01309659|181819314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.624|TWO_SIDED|||||Correlation between baseline soluble transferrin receptor index (soluble receptor/log ferritin) and the change in the 6 Minute Walk Test Distance in the intermediate intervention group. Testing correlation =0.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.624
90968854|NCT01309659|181819314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.329|TWO_SIDED|||||Correlation between baseline soluble transferrin receptor index (soluble receptor/log ferritin) and the change in the 6 Minute Walk Test Distance in the wait list group. Testing correlation =0.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.329
90968855|NCT03029143|181819325|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6|||=|0.401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.8|||Chi-squared||||Chi-squared test was used to estimate P-value from the logistic regression model where Endoscopic Mucosal Healing was the response variable and Treatment and TNF stratification were factors. Baseline complete Mayo Score and natural logarithm of trough concentration at week 6 were covariates.|1.8|0.2|=0.401
90968856|NCT03029143|181819326|OTHER||Adjusted risk difference|-0.4|||=|0.943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|10.6|||CMH Chi-square test||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi-square test was stratified by TNF antagonist status.|10.6|-11.4|=0.943
90968857|NCT03029143|181819327|OTHER||Adjusted risk difference|-1.2|||=|0.893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.7|16.3|||CMH Chi-square test||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi-square test was stratified by TNF antagonist status.|16.3|-18.7|=0.893
90968858|NCT03029143|181819328|OTHER||Adjusted risk difference|6.0|||=|0.525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|24.3|||CMH Chi-square test||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi-square test was stratified by TNF antagonist status.|24.3|-12.4|=0.525
90968859|NCT03029143|181819329|OTHER||Adjusted risk difference|-6.6|||=|0.623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.0|20.8|||CMH Chi-square test||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi-square test was stratified by TNF antagonist status.|20.8|-34.0|=0.623
90968860|NCT03029143|181819330|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|8.1|||=|0.344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|24.7|||CMH Chi-square test||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi-square test was stratified by TNF antagonist status.|24.7|-8.5|=0.344
90968861|NCT04744207|181819331|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean estimate|0.81|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|4.1|||ANCOVA|||||4.10|-2.48|<0.05
90968862|NCT00258674|181819356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.307||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||We used a three-stage hierarchical model estimate the effect of the interventions on the change in endpoint from baseline to follow-up. Change scores for dichotomous measures were scored as -1, 0, or 1, with a positive value indicating increased guideline adherence or increased incidence of that process. We used ordered logistic models to test the hypothesis that patients in the intervention groups were more likely to meet guidelines or to receive these processes of care.||||0.307
90968863|NCT00258674|181819357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.551||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||We used a three-stage hierarchical model estimate the effect of the interventions on the change in endpoint from baseline to follow-up. Change scores for dichotomous measures were scored as -1, 0, or 1, with a positive value indicating increased guideline adherence or increased incidence of that process. We used ordered logistic models to test the hypothesis that patients in the intervention groups were more likely to meet guidelines or to receive these processes of care.||||0.551
90971230|NCT02599961|181825056|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-82.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.363|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-105.0|-60.46||From the GEE model which includes the reduction from baseline for each visit period as the response variable, baseline as covariates, visit period as a factor, identity link function and exchangeable within subject working correlation matrix.|generalized estimating equation (GEE)|||Month 0-3||-60.46|-105.00|< 0.0001
90935367|NCT00696241|181750059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.97|-10.86||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-10.86|-15.97|<0.001
90935368|NCT00696241|181750059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16||||0.879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|2.22||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||2.22|-1.90|0.879
90935369|NCT00696241|181750059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.01||||0.334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.07|1.04||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.04|-3.07|0.334
90935370|NCT00696241|181750059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.22||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.28|-0.16||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.16|-4.28|0.034
90935371|NCT00696241|181750060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.79|-5.45||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-5.45|-8.79|<0.001
90935372|NCT00696241|181750060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.51|-6.18||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-6.18|-9.51|<0.001
90935373|NCT00696241|181750060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.94|-6.61||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-6.61|-9.94|<0.001
90935374|NCT00696241|181750060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|1.45||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.45|-1.24|0.877
90935375|NCT00696241|181750060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62||||0.369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|0.73||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||0.73|-1.96|0.369
90935376|NCT00696241|181750060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.05||||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.39|0.3||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||0.30|-2.39|0.126
90935377|NCT00696241|181750061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.79|-7.48||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-7.48|-12.79|<0.001
90935378|NCT00696241|181750061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.07|-8.78||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-8.78|-14.07|<0.001
90968864|NCT00258674|181819358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.927||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||We used a three-stage hierarchical model estimate the effect of the interventions on the change in endpoint from baseline to follow-up. Change scores for dichotomous measures were scored as -1, 0, or 1, with a positive value indicating increased guideline adherence or increased incidence of that process. We used ordered logistic models to test the hypothesis that patients in the intervention groups were more likely to meet guidelines or to receive these processes of care.||||0.927
90935379|NCT00696241|181750061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.03|-9.73||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-9.73|-15.03|<0.001
90935380|NCT00696241|181750061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.03||||0.346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|3.18||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||3.18|-1.12|0.346
90935381|NCT00696241|181750061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26||||0.811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.88||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.88|-2.40|0.811
90935382|NCT00696241|181750061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.21||||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.35|0.93||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||0.93|-3.35|0.267
90935383|NCT00696241|181750062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.84|-4.21||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-4.21|-7.84|<0.001
90935384|NCT00696241|181750062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.75|-5.13||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-5.13|-8.75|<0.001
90935385|NCT00696241|181750062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.65|-5.03||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-5.03|-8.65|<0.001
90935386|NCT00696241|181750062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.64||||0.394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|2.1||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||2.10|-0.83|0.394
90935387|NCT00696241|181750062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27||||0.712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|1.19||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.19|-1.74|0.712
90935388|NCT00696241|181750062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|1.29||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.29|-1.63|0.818
90968865|NCT00258674|181819359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.308||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||We used a three-stage hierarchical model estimate the effect of the interventions on the change in endpoint from baseline to follow-up. Change scores for dichotomous measures were scored as -1, 0, or 1, with a positive value indicating increased guideline adherence or increased incidence of that process. We used ordered logistic models to test the hypothesis that patients in the intervention groups were more likely to meet guidelines or to receive these processes of care.||||0.308
90971231|NCT02599961|181825056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|-54.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.097||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-86.46|-23.36||From the GEE model which includes the reduction from baseline for each visit period as the response variable, baseline as covariates, visit period as a factor, identity link function and exchangeable within subject working correlation matrix.|GEE model|||Month 4-6||-23.36|-86.46|0.0006
90935389|NCT00696241|181750063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.05|-8.64||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-8.64|-14.05|<0.001
90935390|NCT00696241|181750063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.38|-9.98||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-9.98|-15.38|<0.001
90935391|NCT00696241|181750063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.51|-11.11||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-11.11|-16.51|<0.001
90935392|NCT00696241|181750063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.35||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|2.54||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||2.54|-1.83|0.750
90935393|NCT00696241|181750063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.98||||0.378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.16|1.2||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.20|-3.16|0.378
90935394|NCT00696241|181750063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.28|0.08||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||0.08|-4.28|0.059
90935395|NCT00696241|181750064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.02|-5.48||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-5.48|-9.02|<0.001
90935396|NCT00696241|181750064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.92|-6.4||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-6.40|-9.92|<0.001
90935397|NCT00696241|181750064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.17|-6.65||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-6.65|-10.17|<0.001
90935398|NCT00696241|181750064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|1.57||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.57|-1.29|0.845
90935399|NCT00696241|181750064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.77||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.19|0.65||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||0.65|-2.19|0.290
90935400|NCT00696241|181750064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.02||||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|0.41||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||0.41|-2.44|0.161
90935401|NCT00696241|181750065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.88|-8.0||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-8.00|-13.88|<0.001
90935402|NCT00696241|181750065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.11|-8.24||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-8.24|-14.11|<0.001
90935403|NCT00696241|181750065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.15|-9.28||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-9.28|-15.15|<0.001
90935404|NCT00696241|181750065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.05||||0.385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.43|1.33||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.33|-3.43|0.385
90935405|NCT00696241|181750065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.29||||0.285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.66|1.08||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.08|-3.66|0.285
90935406|NCT00696241|181750065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.33||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|0.04||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||0.04|-4.70|0.054
90935407|NCT00696241|181750066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.93|-4.75||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-4.75|-8.93|<0.001
90935408|NCT00696241|181750066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.89|-4.72||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-4.72|-8.89|<0.001
90935409|NCT00696241|181750066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.64|-5.47||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-5.47|-9.64|<0.001
90968866|NCT00258674|181819360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.867||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||We used a three-stage hierarchical model estimate the effect of the interventions on the change in endpoint from baseline to follow-up. Change scores for dichotomous measures were scored as -1, 0, or 1, with a positive value indicating increased guideline adherence or increased incidence of that process. We used ordered logistic models to test the hypothesis that patients in the intervention groups were more likely to meet guidelines or to receive these processes of care.||||0.867
90968867|NCT00258674|181819361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.98||||0.807||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||We used a three-stage hierarchical model estimate the effect of the interventions on the change in endpoint from baseline to follow-up. Change scores for dichotomous measures were scored as -1, 0, or 1, with a positive value indicating increased guideline adherence or increased incidence of that process. We used ordered logistic models to test the hypothesis that patients in the intervention groups were more likely to meet guidelines or to receive these processes of care.||||0.807
90968868|NCT00258674|181819362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55||||0.702||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||We used a three-stage hierarchical model estimate the effect of the interventions on the change in endpoint from baseline to follow-up. Change scores for dichotomous measures were scored as -1, 0, or 1, with a positive value indicating increased guideline adherence or increased incidence of that process. We used ordered logistic models to test the hypothesis that patients in the intervention groups were more likely to meet guidelines or to receive these processes of care.||||0.702
90968869|NCT00258674|181819363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.413||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||We used a three-stage hierarchical model estimate the effect of the interventions on the change in endpoint from baseline to follow-up. Change scores for dichotomous measures were scored as -1, 0, or 1, with a positive value indicating increased guideline adherence or increased incidence of that process. We used ordered logistic models to test the hypothesis that patients in the intervention groups were more likely to meet guidelines or to receive these processes of care.||||0.413
90968870|NCT00258674|181819364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.996||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||We used a three-stage hierarchical model estimate the effect of the interventions on the change in endpoint from baseline to follow-up. Change scores for dichotomous measures were scored as -1, 0, or 1, with a positive value indicating increased guideline adherence or increased incidence of that process. We used ordered logistic models to test the hypothesis that patients in the intervention groups were more likely to meet guidelines or to receive these processes of care.||||0.996
90968871|NCT00258674|181819365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.451||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||We used a three-stage hierarchical model estimate the effect of the interventions on the change in endpoint from baseline to follow-up. Change scores for dichotomous measures were scored as -1, 0, or 1, with a positive value indicating increased guideline adherence or increased incidence of that process. We used ordered logistic models to test the hypothesis that patients in the intervention groups were more likely to meet guidelines or to receive these processes of care.||||0.451
90968872|NCT00258674|181819366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.447||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||We used a three-stage hierarchical model estimate the effect of the interventions on the change in endpoint from baseline to follow-up. Change scores for dichotomous measures were scored as -1, 0, or 1, with a positive value indicating increased guideline adherence or increased incidence of that process. We used ordered logistic models to test the hypothesis that patients in the intervention groups were more likely to meet guidelines or to receive these processes of care.||||0.447
90968873|NCT00258674|181819367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.936||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||We used a three-stage hierarchical model estimate the effect of the interventions on the change in endpoint from baseline to follow-up. Change scores for dichotomous measures were scored as -1, 0, or 1, with a positive value indicating increased guideline adherence or increased incidence of that process. We used ordered logistic models to test the hypothesis that patients in the intervention groups were more likely to meet guidelines or to receive these processes of care.||||0.936
90968874|NCT00258674|181819368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.332||95.0||||A comparison of the claims vs. claims+MR arms was also conducted, giving a p-value of 0.537.|Regression, Logistic|||We used a three-stage hierarchical model estimate the effect of the interventions on the change in endpoint from baseline to follow-up. Change scores for dichotomous measures were scored as -1, 0, or 1, with a positive value indicating increased guideline adherence or increased incidence of that process. We used ordered logistic models to test the hypothesis that patients in the intervention groups were more likely to meet guidelines or to receive these processes of care.||||0.332
90935410|NCT00696241|181750066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|1.29||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.29|-2.09|0.642
90935411|NCT00696241|181750066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36||||0.672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|1.32||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.32|-2.05|0.672
90968875|NCT00258674|181819369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.86||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||We used a three-stage hierarchical model estimate the effect of the interventions on the change in endpoint from baseline to follow-up. Change scores for dichotomous measures were scored as -1, 0, or 1, with a positive value indicating increased guideline adherence or increased incidence of that process. We used ordered logistic models to test the hypothesis that patients in the intervention groups were more likely to meet guidelines or to receive these processes of care.||||0.860
90968876|NCT00258674|181819370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.382||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||We used a three-stage hierarchical model estimate the effect of the interventions on the change in endpoint from baseline to follow-up. Change scores for dichotomous measures were scored as -1, 0, or 1, with a positive value indicating increased guideline adherence or increased incidence of that process. We used ordered logistic models to test the hypothesis that patients in the intervention groups were more likely to meet guidelines or to receive these processes of care.||||0.382
90968877|NCT00258674|181819371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.988||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||We used a three-stage hierarchical model estimate the effect of the interventions on the change in endpoint from baseline to follow-up. Change scores for dichotomous measures were scored as -1, 0, or 1, with a positive value indicating increased guideline adherence or increased incidence of that process. We used ordered logistic models to test the hypothesis that patients in the intervention groups were more likely to meet guidelines or to receive these processes of care.||||0.988
90968878|NCT00258674|181819372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.685||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||We used a three-stage hierarchical model estimate the effect of the interventions on the change in endpoint from baseline to follow-up. Change scores for dichotomous measures were scored as -1, 0, or 1, with a positive value indicating increased guideline adherence or increased incidence of that process. We used ordered logistic models to test the hypothesis that patients in the intervention groups were more likely to meet guidelines or to receive these processes of care.||||0.685
90968879|NCT03710486|181819438|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.61|||=|0.13202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.16|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by propensity scores inverse probability treatment weighting (PS-IPTW).|Estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|||1.16|0.32|=0.13202
90935412|NCT00696241|181750066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.11||||0.196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|0.57||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||0.57|-2.80|0.196
90968880|NCT03710486|181819439|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18|||=|0.5861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|2.13|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|Estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|||2.13|0.65|=0.5861
90968881|NCT03710486|181819442|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65|||=|0.1648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.19|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|Estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|||1.19|0.35|=0.1648
90968882|NCT03710486|181819443|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.66|||=|0.1732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.2|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|Estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|||1.20|0.36|=0.1732
90968883|NCT03710486|181819446|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2011|||||||Log Rank Test Adjusted by PS-IPTW|p-value was estimated with Log Rank test adjusted by PS-IPTW. Multiple Imputation has been performed to estimate PS-IPTW.||CD: Vedolizumab Versus Other Biological||||=0.2011
90968884|NCT03710486|181819447|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.6939|||||||Log Rank Test Adjusted by PS-IPTW|p-value was estimated with Log Rank test adjusted by PS-IPTW. Multiple Imputation has been performed to estimate PS-IPTW.||||||=0.6939
90968885|NCT03710486|181819448|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.29|||=|0.0071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.71|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|Estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|||0.71|0.12|=0.0071
90968886|NCT03710486|181819449|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28|||=|0.4809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|2.55|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|Estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|||2.55|0.64|=0.4809
90968887|NCT03710486|181819450|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05|||=|0.915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|2.36|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|Estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|||2.36|0.46|=0.9150
90968888|NCT03710486|181819451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13|||=|0.7254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|2.28|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|Estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|||2.28|0.56|=0.7254
90968889|NCT03710486|181819452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.34|||=|0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.72|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|Estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|||0.72|0.16|=0.0051
91035546|NCT01299454|181957089|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was claimed for a PK parameter if the 90% CI for the ratio of the geometric means of a PK variable fell within the interval \[0.5, 2.0\]. Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach was equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.904|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.707|1.156|||Mixed effect analysis of variance||Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach is equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|The primary comparison was each hepatic disease group (mild, moderate or severe) versus the control (normal group). To compare the primary PK parameters between each hepatic disease group and the control group, the 90% CI for the difference in the means of the log-transformed data was calculated using a mixed effect analysis of variance||1.156|0.707|
91035897|NCT06298396|181958459|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin (NIM) of 1 dB was applied. In the sample size calculation, a 90% power to detect non-inferiority was used with a significance level α = 0.025 (one-tailed) was applied.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.32|||||Treatment difference = LP3 - LP1 Non-inferiority demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval was \< 1 dB (i.e. LP3- LP1 \< 1 dB)|||0.32|-1.10|
90968890|NCT03710486|181819453|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.53|||=|0.0653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.04|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|Estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|||1.04|0.27|=0.0653
90968891|NCT03710486|181819454|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9|||=|0.7629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.74|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|Estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|||1.74|0.47|=0.7629
90968892|NCT03710486|181819455|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8|||=|0.4895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.5|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|Estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|||1.50|0.43|=0.4895
90968893|NCT03710486|181819456|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76|||=|0.4458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.54|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|Estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|||1.54|0.38|=0.4458
90968894|NCT03710486|181819457|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98|||=|0.9471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|2.04|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|Estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|||2.04|0.47|=0.9471
90968895|NCT03710486|181819458|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.42|||=|0.0104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.81|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|Estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|||0.81|0.21|=0.0104
90968896|NCT03710486|181819459|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.26|||=|0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.59|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|Estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|||0.59|0.12|=0.0011
90968897|NCT03710486|181819460|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98|||=|0.9471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|2.04|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|Estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|CD Participants||2.04|0.47|=0.9471
90968898|NCT03710486|181819461|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.3|||=|0.0104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.75|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|Estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|||0.75|0.12|=0.0104
90968899|NCT03710486|181819462|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.26|||=|0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.59|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|Estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|||0.59|0.12|=0.0011
90968900|NCT03710486|181819463|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28|||=|0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.78|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|Estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|||2.78|0.59|=0.5400
90935413|NCT00696241|181750067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.71|7.39||P-value for response criteria for systolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||7.39|2.71|<0.001
90935414|NCT00696241|181750067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.01|8.2||P-value for response criteria for systolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||8.20|3.01|<0.001
90935415|NCT00696241|181750067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.95|10.79||P-value for response criteria for systolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||10.79|3.95|<0.001
90935416|NCT00696241|181750067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.11||P-value for response criteria for systolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.11|0.57|0.173
90935417|NCT00696241|181750067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.23||P-value for response criteria for systolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.23|0.63|0.449
90935418|NCT00696241|181750067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.62||P-value for response criteria for systolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.62|0.83|0.402
90935419|NCT00696241|181750068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.82|4.48||P-value for response criteria for diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic diastolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||4.48|1.82|<0.001
90935420|NCT00696241|181750068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.15|5.35||P-value for response criteria for diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic diastolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||5.35|2.15|<0.001
90935421|NCT00696241|181750068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.41|6.02||P-value for response criteria for diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic diastolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||6.02|2.41|<0.001
90935422|NCT00696241|181750068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.13||P-value for response criteria for diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic diastolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.13|0.52|0.177
90935423|NCT00696241|181750068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.35||P-value for response criteria for diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic diastolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.35|0.61|0.628
90935424|NCT00696241|181750068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.52||P-value for response criteria for diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic diastolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.52|0.68|0.928
90935425|NCT00696241|181750069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.66|7.72||P-value for joint response criteria for systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||7.72|2.66|<0.001
90935426|NCT00696241|181750069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.96|8.58||P-value for joint response criteria for systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||8.58|2.96|<0.001
90935427|NCT00696241|181750069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.96|11.48||P-value for joint response criteria for systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||11.48|3.96|<0.001
90935428|NCT00696241|181750069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.13||P-value for joint response criteria for systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.13|0.58|0.217
91079146|NCT05153148|182043946|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.1|||=|0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.05|||MMRM||Point estimate and 95% CI were obtained from a MMRM model.||MMRM model included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction, with baseline value and the randomization stratification factors (prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region) as covariates, and the change from baseline as the dependent variable.|0.05|-0.24|=0.195
90935429|NCT00696241|181750069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.26||P-value for joint response criteria for systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.26|0.64|0.537
90935430|NCT00696241|181750069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.68||P-value for joint response criteria for systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.68|0.86|0.276
90935431|NCT00762853|181750081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
90935432|NCT02429115|181750093|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
90935433|NCT02429115|181750094|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
90935434|NCT02429115|181750095|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
90935435|NCT01047709|181750116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||relative % difference|19.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|23.0||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|31.9|||GEE||SD of control night|Relative treatment effect on AHI, using GEE modeling, accounting for crossover design.||31.9|4.9|0.011
90935436|NCT01047709|181750116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative % difference|19.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.0||0.011||95.0|4.9|31.9|||GEE||SD of intervention night|Relative treatment effect on AHI, using GEE modeling, accounting for crossover design.||31.9|4.9|0.011
90935437|NCT02291549|181750152|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0.0074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|-0.06||The 2-sided alpha was 0.05. P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparison.|ANCOVA|Where appropriate, confidence intervals of the difference were constructed using the estimate of the least-squares means||ANCOVA model with site and treatment group as fixed effects and contrasts constructed to estimate the difference between treatment groups. The primary efficacy hypothesis was that the use of the S8 Sinus Implant would reduce the Nasal Obstruction/Congestion score compared to the control group. The null hypothesis was H0: β1=0 and alternative hypothesis was H1: β1 ≠ 0. Only a statistically significant, negative estimate of β1 was to constitute evidence of effectiveness.||-0.06|-0.39|0.0074
90935438|NCT02291549|181750153|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35||||0.0073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.09||The 2-sided alpha was 0.05. P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with site and treatment group as fixed effects and contrasts constructed to estimate the difference between treatment groups.||The between treatment group difference was estimated using the ANCOVA model with site and treatment group as fixed effects. The primary efficacy hypothesis was that the use of the S8 Sinus Implant would reduce the bilateral polyp grade compared to the control group. The null hypothesis was H0: β1=0 and alternative hypothesis was H1: β1 ≠ 0. Only a statistically significant, negative estimate of β1 was to constitute evidence of effectiveness.||-0.09|-0.60|0.0073
90935439|NCT02291549|181750154|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.69||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.63|4.44||P-value adjusted for multiplicity using the Holm's step-down procedure at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted p-value is presented.||Test: H0: OR = 1 vs. OR ≠ 1 by Cochrane-Mantel-Haenszel test||4.44|1.63|0.0004
90935440|NCT02291549|181750155|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.96||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|-3.83||P-value adjusted for multiplicity using the Holm's step-down procedure at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Adjusted p-value is presented.||ANCOVA model with site and treatment group as fixed effects and contrasts constructed to estimate the difference between treatment groups.The null hypothesis was H0: β1 = 0 and the alternative hypothesis was H1: β1 ≠ 0. Although the alternative hypothesis was specified as 2-sided, only a statistically significant, negative estimate of β1 constituted evidence of effectiveness. The 2-sided alpha for this test was 0.05.||-3.83|-12.10|0.0007
90935441|NCT02291549|181750156|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27||||0.0248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.07||P-value adjusted for multiplicity using the Holm's step-down procedure at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Adjusted p-value is presented.||ANCOVA model with site and treatment group as fixed effects and contrasts constructed to estimate the difference between treatment groups. The null hypothesis was H0: β1=0 and the alternative hypothesis was H1: β1 ≠ 0. Only a statistically significant, negative estimate of β1 was to constitute evidence of effectiveness.||-0.07|-0.48|0.0248
90935442|NCT02291549|181750157|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.06||P-value adjusted for multiplicity using the Holm's step-down procedure at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The adjusted p-value is presentenced.||ANCOVA model with site and treatment group as fixed effects and contrasts constructed to estimate the difference between treatment groups. The null hypothesis was H0: β1=0 and alternative hypothesis was H1: β1 ≠ 0. Only a statistically significant, negative estimate of β1 was to constitute evidence of effectiveness.||-0.06|-0.85|0.0470
90935443|NCT02291549|181750158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.913||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity using the Holm's step-down procedure at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Adjusted p-value is presented.||ANCOVA model with site and treatment group as fixed effects and contrasts constructed to estimate the difference between treatment groups. The null hypothesis was H0: β1=0 and alternative hypothesis was H1: β1 ≠ 0. Only a statistically significant, negative estimate of β1 was to constitute evidence of effectiveness.||||0.9130
90935444|NCT05062343|181750179|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.91
90935445|NCT05062343|181750180|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
90935446|NCT05062343|181750181|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.0
90935447|NCT05062343|181750182|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.89
90935448|NCT05062343|181750183|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.98
90935449|NCT05062343|181750184|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.045|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.045
90935450|NCT05062343|181750185|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1
90935451|NCT05062343|181750186|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
90935452|NCT01307800|181750187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|8.8||The comparison between 80 mg LY2140023, BID and placebo was conducted at a 1-sided alpha level of 0.025, with adjustment for multiplicity by applying the Step-down Dunnett procedure.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.8|-0.5|0.994
90935453|NCT01307800|181750187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|7.9||The comparison between 40 mg LY2140023, BID and placebo was conducted at a 1-sided alpha level of 0.025, with adjustment for multiplicity by applying the Step-down Dunnett procedure.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.9|-1.9|0.973
90935454|NCT01307800|181750187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2||0.896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|7.2||The p-value was 1-sided without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.2|-1.6|0.896
90935455|NCT01307800|181750188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|9.3||The p-value was 1-sided without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.3|-0.7|0.955
90935456|NCT01307800|181750188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|8.4||The p-value was 1-sided without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.4|-1.6|0.912
90935457|NCT01307800|181750188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|7.7||The p-value was 1-sided without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.7|-1.8|0.223
90935458|NCT01307800|181750189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|2.6||The p-value was 1-sided without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.6|-3.5|0.610
90935459|NCT01307800|181750189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|4.6||The p-value was 1-sided without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.6|-2.0|0.223
90935460|NCT01307800|181750189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|1.7||The p-value was 2-sided without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.7|-4.2|0.414
90935461|NCT01307800|181750190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|2.8||The p-value was 1-sided without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.8|-3.7|0.603
90935462|NCT01307800|181750190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|4.8||The p-value was 1-sided without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.8|-1.9|0.192
90935463|NCT01307800|181750190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|2.3||The p-value was 2-sided without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.3|-3.9|0.619
90935464|NCT01307800|181750191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|9.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|17.6||The p-value was 2-sided without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||17.6|1.4|0.022
90935465|NCT01307800|181750191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|8.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.6||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|17.8||The p-value was 2-sided without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||17.8|-0.4|0.061
90935466|NCT01307800|181750191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1||0.304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|12.3||The p-value was 2-sided without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||12.3|-3.9|0.304
90935467|NCT01307800|181750192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|3.1||The comparison between 80 mg LY2140023, BID and placebo for the change from baseline in PANSS positive subscores was 2-sided without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.1|0.1|0.036
90935468|NCT01307800|181750192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|2.0||The comparison between 40 mg LY2140023, BID and placebo for change from baseline in PANSS positive subscores was 2-sided without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.0|-1.2|0.616
90935469|NCT01307800|181750192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|2.2||The comparison between 10 mg LY2140023, BID and placebo for change from baseline in PANSS positive subscores was 2-sided without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.2|-0.7|0.307
90935470|NCT01307800|181750192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|2.1||The comparison between 80 mg LY2140023, BID and placebo for the change from baseline in PANSS negative subscores was 2-sided without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.1|-0.8|0.382
90935471|NCT01307800|181750192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|2.8||The comparison between 40 mg LY2140023, BID and placebo for the change from baseline in PANSS negative subscores was 2-sided without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.8|-0.3|0.107
90935472|NCT01307800|181750192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|2.0||The comparison between 10 mg LY2140023, BID and placebo for the change from baseline in PANSS negative subscores was 2-sided without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.0|-0.9|0.436
90935473|NCT01307800|181750192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|4.9||The comparison between 80 mg LY2140023, BID and placebo for the change from baseline in PANSS general psychopathology subscores was 2-sided without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.9|-0.2|0.073
90935474|NCT01307800|181750192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|4.2||The comparison between 40 mg LY2140023, BID and placebo for the change from baseline in PANSS general psychopathology subscores was 2-sided without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.2|-1.2|0.280
90935475|NCT01307800|181750192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|4.0||The comparison between 10 mg LY2140023, BID and placebo for the change from baseline in PANSS general psychopathology subscores was 2-sided without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.0|-0.9|0.209
90935476|NCT01307800|181750193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.137||95.0||||The p-value was 2-sided without adjustment for multiplicity.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.137
90935477|NCT01307800|181750193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.824||95.0||||The p-value was 2-sided without adjustment for multiplicity.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.824
90935478|NCT01307800|181750193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.999||95.0||||The p-value was 2-sided without adjustment for multiplicity.|Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
90935479|NCT01307800|181750195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.38||The p-value was 2-sided without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.38|-0.13|0.340
90935480|NCT01307800|181750195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.21||The p-value was 2-sided without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.21|-0.33|0.659
90935481|NCT01307800|181750195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.35||The p-value was 2-sided without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.35|-0.14|0.413
90935482|NCT01307800|181750196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|2.7||The p-value was 2-sided without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.7|-3.1|0.910
90935483|NCT01307800|181750196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|1.3||The p-value was 2-sided without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.3|-4.9|0.265
90935484|NCT01307800|181750196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|1.9||The p-value was 2-sided without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.9|-3.7|0.531
90935485|NCT01307800|181750197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.62||0.983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.21|5.1||The comparison between 80 mg LY2140023, BID and placebo for the change from baseline in EQ-5D Questionnaire (VAS) was 2-sided without adjustment for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||5.10|-5.21|0.983
90935486|NCT01307800|181750197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-2.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.74||0.351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.94|2.83||The comparison between 40 mg LY2140023, BID and placebo for the change from baseline in EQ-5D Questionnaire (VAS) was 2-sided without adjustment for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||2.83|-7.94|0.351
90935487|NCT01307800|181750197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.54||0.403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.86|7.11||The comparison between 10 mg LY2140023, BID and placebo for the change from baseline in EQ-5D Questionnaire (VAS) was 2-sided without adjustment for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||7.11|-2.86|0.403
90935488|NCT01307800|181750200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|-0.8||The p-value was 2-sided without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.8|-10.4|0.021
90935489|NCT01307800|181750200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6||0.487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|6.9||The p-value was 2-sided without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.9|-3.3|0.487
90935490|NCT01307800|181750200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|3.7||The p-value was 2-sided without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.7|-5.6|0.693
90935491|NCT01307800|181750201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.06||The comparison between 80 mg LY2140023, BID and placebo was conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.06|-0.10|0.661
90935492|NCT01307800|181750201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.03||The comparison between 40 mg LY2140023, BID and placebo was conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.03|-0.14|0.201
90935493|NCT01307800|181750201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.06||The comparison between 10 mg LY2140023, BID and placebo was conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.06|-0.09|0.697
90935494|NCT01307800|181750202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.31||The comparison between 80 mg LY2140023, BID and placebo was conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.31|-0.20|0.694
90935495|NCT01307800|181750202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.2||The comparison between 40 mg LY2140023, BID and placebo was conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.20|-0.34|0.596
90935496|NCT01307800|181750202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.49||The comparison between 10 mg LY2140023, BID and placebo was conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.49|0.00|0.055
90935497|NCT01307800|181750203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.29||The comparison between 80 mg LY2140023, BID and placebo was conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.29|-0.27|0.929
90935498|NCT01307800|181750203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.38||The comparison between 40 mg LY2140023, BID and placebo was conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.38|-0.19|0.519
90935499|NCT01307800|181750203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.4||The comparison between 10 mg LY2140023, BID and placebo was conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.40|-0.13|0.323
90935500|NCT01307800|181750204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.758||95.0||||The comparison between 80 mg LY2140023, BID and placebo in the percentage of participants with a change from baseline in C-SSRS suicidal ideation was conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.758
90935501|NCT01307800|181750204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.576||95.0||||The comparison between 40 mg LY2140023, BID and placebo in the percentage of participants with a change from baseline in C-SSRS suicidal ideation was conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.576
90935502|NCT01307800|181750204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.425||95.0||||The comparison between 10 mg LY2140023, BID and placebo in the percentage of participants with a change from baseline in C-SSRS suicidal ideation was conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.425
90935503|NCT01307800|181750207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.444||95.0||||The comparison between 80 mg LY2140023, BID and placebo was conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05 without adjustment for multiplicity.|ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on rank-transformed change.||||||0.444
90935504|NCT01307800|181750207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.799||95.0||||The comparison between 40 mg LY2140023, BID and placebo was conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05 without adjustment for multiplicity.|ANOVA|ANOVA model on rank-transformed change.||||||0.799
90935505|NCT01307800|181750207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.073||95.0||||The comparison between 10 mg LY2140023, BID and placebo was conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05 without adjustment for multiplicity.|ANOVA|ANOVA model on rank-transformed change.||||||0.073
90935506|NCT01307800|181750208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|1.04||The comparison between 80 mg LY2140023, BID and placebo was conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.04|-0.76|0.761
90935507|NCT01307800|181750208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|1.06||The comparison between 40 mg LY2140023, BID and placebo was conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.06|-0.78|0.761
90935508|NCT01307800|181750208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|0.56||The comparison between 10 mg LY2140023, BID and placebo was conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.56|-1.17|0.489
90968901|NCT03710486|181819464|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21|||=|0.8123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|5.66|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|Estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|||5.66|0.26|=0.8123
90968902|NCT03710486|181819465|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.22|||=|0.0282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.85|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|Estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|||0.85|0.06|=0.0282
90968903|NCT03710486|181819466|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13|||=|0.8584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|4.36|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|Estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|||4.36|0.29|=0.8584
90968904|NCT03710486|181819467|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95|||=|0.9474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|3.78|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|Estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|||3.78|0.24|=0.9474
90968905|NCT03710486|181819468|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73|||=|0.3103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.34|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|The incidence comparison was estimated by using a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW. Multiple Imputation has been performed to estimate PS-IPTW.|Adverse event||1.34|0.40|=0.3103
90935509|NCT00689351|181750212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.97|||Student t distribution|Geometric mean ratio computed using Student t distribution for the mean difference of the measures on the log scale.|CI for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC, 7vPnC).|Serotype 4: Ratio of geometric means (13vPnC, 7vPnC)||0.97|0.62|
90935510|NCT00689351|181750212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.57|||Student t distribution|Geometric mean ratio computed using Student t distribution for the mean difference of the measures on the log scale.|CI for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC, 7vPnC).|Serotype 6B: Ratio of geometric means (13vPnC, 7vPnC)||1.57|0.87|
90935511|NCT00689351|181750212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.07|||Student t distribution|Geometric mean ratio computed using Student t distribution for the mean difference of the measures on the log scale.|CI for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC, 7vPnC).|Serotype 9V: Ratio of geometric means (13vPnC, 7vPnC)||1.07|0.73|
90935512|NCT00689351|181750212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.19|||Student t distribution|Geometric mean ratio computed using Student t distribution for the mean difference of the measures on the log scale.|CI for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC, 7vPnC).|Serotype 14: Ratio of geometric means (13vPnC, 7vPnC)||1.19|0.70|
90935513|NCT00689351|181750212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.18|||Student t distribution|Geometric mean ratio computed using Student t distribution for the mean difference of the measures on the log scale.|CI for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC, 7vPnC).|Serotype 18C: Ratio of geometric means (13vPnC, 7vPnC)||1.18|0.79|
90935514|NCT00689351|181750212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.19|||Student t distribution|Geometric mean ratio computed using Student t distribution for the mean difference of the measures on the log scale.|CI for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC, 7vPnC).|Serotype 19F: Ratio of geometric means (13vPnC, 7vPnC)||1.19|0.71|
90935515|NCT00689351|181750212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.36|||Student t distribution|Geometric mean ratio computed using Student t distribution for the mean difference of the measures on the log scale.|CI for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC, 7vPnC).|Serotype 23F: Ratio of geometric means (13vPnC, 7vPnC)||1.36|0.80|
90968906|NCT03710486|181819468|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.41|||=|0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.76|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|The incidence comparison was estimated by using a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW. Multiple Imputation has been performed to estimate PS-IPTW.|Adverse event||0.76|0.22|=0.0045
90968907|NCT03710486|181819468|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19|||=|0.6287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.42|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|The incidence comparison was estimated by using a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW. Multiple Imputation has been performed to estimate PS-IPTW.|Serious adverse event||2.42|0.59|=0.6287
90968908|NCT03710486|181819468|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65|||=|0.2495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.36|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|The incidence comparison was estimated by using a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW. Multiple Imputation has been performed to estimate PS-IPTW.|Serious adverse event||1.36|0.31|=0.2495
90968909|NCT03710486|181819469|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.89|||=|0.4784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.22|||Poisson Regression|p-value was estimated with a Poisson regression including the following time adjusted by PS-IPTW.|The incidence rate comparison was estimated by using a Poisson regression adjusted by PS-IPTW. Multiple Imputation has been performed to estimate PS-IPTW.|Adverse event||1.22|0.66|=0.4784
90968910|NCT03710486|181819469|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.83|||=|0.2616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.15|||Poisson Regression|p-value was estimated with a Poisson regression including the following time adjusted by PS-IPTW.|The incidence rate comparison was estimated by using a Poisson regression adjusted by PS-IPTW. Multiple Imputation has been performed to estimate PS-IPTW.|Adverse event||1.15|0.60|=0.2616
90968911|NCT03710486|181819469|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.01|||=|0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|3.34|||Poisson Regression|p-value was estimated with a Poisson regression including the following time adjusted by PS-IPTW.|The incidence rate comparison was estimated by using a Poisson regression adjusted by PS-IPTW. Multiple Imputation has been performed to estimate PS-IPTW.|Serious adverse event||3.34|1.20|=0.0077
90968912|NCT03710486|181819469|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.3|||=|0.3046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.14|||Poisson Regression|p-value was estimated with a Poisson regression including the following time adjusted by PS-IPTW.|The incidence rate comparison was estimated by using a Poisson regression adjusted by PS-IPTW. Multiple Imputation has been performed to estimate PS-IPTW.|Serious adverse event||2.14|0.79|=0.3046
90968913|NCT03710486|181819470|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.54|||=|0.1681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.3|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|The incidence comparison was estimated by using a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW. Multiple Imputation has been performed to estimate PS-IPTW.|Adverse events related to treatment||1.30|0.22|=0.1681
90968914|NCT03710486|181819470|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.23|||=|0.0645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|1.09|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|The incidence comparison was estimated by using a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW. Multiple Imputation has been performed to estimate PS-IPTW.|Adverse events related to treatment||1.09|0.05|=0.0645
90968915|NCT03710486|181819470|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.38|||=|0.3145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|2.51|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|The incidence comparison was estimated by using a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW. Multiple Imputation has been performed to estimate PS-IPTW.|Serious adverse events related to treatment||2.51|0.06|=0.3145
90968916|NCT03710486|181819470|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49|||=|0.8197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|47.11|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|The incidence comparison was estimated by using a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW. Multiple Imputation has been performed to estimate PS-IPTW.|Serious adverse events related to treatment||47.11|0.05|=0.8197
90935516|NCT00689351|181750212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|329.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|242.98|446.67|||Student t distribution|Geometric mean ratio computed using Student t distribution for the mean difference of the measures on the log scale.|CI for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC, 7vPnC).|Serotype 1: Ratio of geometric means (13vPnC, 7vPnC)||446.67|242.98|
90935517|NCT00689351|181750212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|40.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.27|54.97|||Student t distribution|Geometric mean ratio computed using Student t distribution for the mean difference of the measures on the log scale.|CI for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC, 7vPnC).|Serotype 3: Ratio of geometric means (13vPnC, 7vPnC)||54.97|30.27|
90935518|NCT00689351|181750212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|13.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.92|17.34|||Student t distribution|Geometric mean ratio computed using Student t distribution for the mean difference of the measures on the log scale.|CI for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC, 7vPnC).|Serotype 5: Ratio of geometric means (13vPnC, 7vPnC)||17.34|9.92|
90935519|NCT00689351|181750212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|9.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.46|12.56|||Student t distribution|Geometric mean ratio computed using Student t distribution for the mean difference of the measures on the log scale.|CI for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC, 7vPnC).|Serotype 6A: Ratio of geometric means (13vPnC, 7vPnC)||12.56|6.46|
90935520|NCT00689351|181750212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|165.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|122.95|223.85|||Student t distribution|Geometric mean ratio computed using Student t distribution for the mean difference of the measures on the log scale.|CI for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC, 7vPnC).|Serotype 7F: Ratio of geometric means (13vPnC, 7vPnC)||223.85|122.95|
90935521|NCT00689351|181750212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|2.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.83|2.75|||Student t distribution|Geometric mean ratio computed using Student t distribution for the mean difference of the measures on the log scale.|CI for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC, 7vPnC).|Serotype 19A: Ratio of geometric means (13vPnC, 7vPnC)||2.75|1.83|
90935522|NCT00689351|181750213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.02|||Student t distribution|Geometric mean ratio computed using Student t distribution for the mean difference of the measures on the log scale.|CI for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC, 7vPnC).|Serotype 4: Ratio of geometric means (13vPnC, 7vPnC)||1.02|0.60|
90935523|NCT00689351|181750213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.48|||Student t distribution|Geometric mean ratio computed using Student t distribution for the mean difference of the measures on the log scale.|CI for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC, 7vPnC).|Serotype 6B: Ratio of geometric means (13vPnC, 7vPnC)||1.48|0.83|
90968917|NCT03710486|181819471|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.43|||=|0.0239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.89|||Poisson Regression|p-value was estimated with a Poisson regression including the following time adjusted by PS-IPTW.|The incidence rate comparison was estimated by using a Poisson regression adjusted by PS-IPTW. Multiple Imputation has been performed to estimate PS-IPTW.|Adverse events related to treatment||0.89|0.20|=0.0239
90968918|NCT03710486|181819471|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.21|||=|0.0373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.91|||Poisson Regression|p-value was estimated with a Poisson regression including the following time adjusted by PS-IPTW.|The incidence rate comparison was estimated by using a Poisson regression adjusted by PS-IPTW. Multiple Imputation has been performed to estimate PS-IPTW.|Adverse events related to treatment||0.91|0.05|=0.0373
90968919|NCT03710486|181819471|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.54|||=|0.426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|2.49|||Poisson Regression|p-value was estimated with a Poisson regression including the following time adjusted by PS-IPTW.|The incidence rate comparison was estimated by using a Poisson regression adjusted by PS-IPTW. Multiple Imputation has been performed to estimate PS-IPTW.|Serious adverse events related to treatment||2.49|0.12|=0.4260
90968920|NCT03710486|181819471|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.56|||=|0.8012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|48.44|||Poisson Regression||The incidence rate comparison was estimated by using a Poisson regression adjusted by PS-IPTW. Multiple Imputation has been performed to estimate PS-IPTW.|Serious adverse events related to treatment||48.44|0.05|=0.8012
91079147|NCT05153148|182043946|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.05|||=|0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.09|||MMRM||Point estimate and 95% CI were obtained from a MMRM model.||MMRM model included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction, with baseline value and the randomization stratification factors (prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region) as covariates, and the change from baseline as the dependent variable.|0.09|-0.20|=0.467
90935524|NCT00689351|181750213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.19|||Student t distribution|Geometric mean ratio computed using Student t distribution for the mean difference of the measures on the log scale.|CI for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC, 7vPnC).|Serotype 9V: Ratio of geometric means (13vPnC, 7vPnC)||1.19|0.76|
90935525|NCT00689351|181750213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.95|||Student t distribution|Geometric mean ratio computed using Student t distribution for the mean difference of the measures on the log scale.|CI for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC, 7vPnC).|Serotype 14: Ratio of geometric means (13vPnC, 7vPnC)||0.95|0.57|
90935526|NCT00689351|181750213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.19|||Student t distribution|Geometric mean ratio computed using Student t distribution for the mean difference of the measures on the log scale.|CI for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC, 7vPnC).|Serotype 18C: Ratio of geometric means (13vPnC, 7vPnC)||1.19|0.72|
90935527|NCT00689351|181750213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|1.88|||Student t distribution|Geometric mean ratio computed using Student t distribution for the mean difference of the measures on the log scale.|CI for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC, 7vPnC).|Serotype 19F: Ratio of geometric means (13vPnC, 7vPnC)||1.88|1.11|
90935528|NCT00689351|181750213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.4|||Student t distribution|Geometric mean ratio computed using Student t distribution for the mean difference of the measures on the log scale.|CI for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC, 7vPnC).|Serotype 23F: Ratio of geometric means (13vPnC, 7vPnC)||1.40|0.78|
90935529|NCT00689351|181750213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|234.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|176.33|311.41|||Student t distribution|Geometric mean ratio computed using Student t distribution for the mean difference of the measures on the log scale.|CI for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC, 7vPnC).|Serotype 1: Ratio of geometric means (13vPnC, 7vPnC)||311.41|176.33|
90935530|NCT00689351|181750213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|16.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.19|22.69|||Student t distribution|Geometric mean ratio computed using Student t distribution for the mean difference of the measures on the log scale.|CI for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC, 7vPnC).|Serotype 3: Ratio of geometric means (13vPnC, 7vPnC)||22.69|12.19|
90935531|NCT00689351|181750213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|6.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.39|8.67|||Student t distribution|Geometric mean ratio computed using Student t distribution for the mean difference of the measures on the log scale.|CI for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC, 7vPnC).|Serotype 5: Ratio of geometric means (13vPnC, 7vPnC)||8.67|5.39|
90935532|NCT00689351|181750213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|4.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.07|5.43|||Student t distribution|Geometric mean ratio computed using Student t distribution for the mean difference of the measures on the log scale.|CI for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC, 7vPnC).|Serotype 6A: Ratio of geometric means (13vPnC, 7vPnC)||5.43|3.07|
90935533|NCT00689351|181750213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|110.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|77.09|159.59|||Student t distribution|Geometric mean ratio computed using Student t distribution for the mean difference of the measures on the log scale.|CI for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC, 7vPnC).|Serotype 7F: Ratio of geometric means (13vPnC, 7vPnC)||159.59|77.09|
90935534|NCT00689351|181750213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|4.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.39|5.33|||Student t distribution|Geometric mean ratio computed using Student t distribution for the mean difference of the measures on the log scale.|CI for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC, 7vPnC).|Serotype 19A: Ratio of geometric means (13vPnC, 7vPnC)||5.33|3.39|
90935535|NCT00689351|181750214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.862|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for any tenderness.||||0.862
90935536|NCT00689351|181750214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.157|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for significant tenderness.||||0.157
90935537|NCT00689351|181750214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for any swelling.||||0.550
90935538|NCT00689351|181750214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.052|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for mild swelling.||||0.052
90935539|NCT00689351|181750214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.366|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for moderate swelling.||||0.366
90935540|NCT00689351|181750214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.301|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for any redness.||||0.301
90935541|NCT00689351|181750214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.362|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for mild redness.||||0.362
91079148|NCT05153148|182043947|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|1.3|||=|0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.4|||MMRM||Point estimate and 95% CI were obtained from a MMRM model.||MMRM model included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction, with baseline value and the randomization stratification factors (prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region) as covariates, and the change from baseline as the dependent variable.|2.4|0.1|=0.031
90935542|NCT00689351|181750214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.718|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for moderate redness.||||0.718
90935543|NCT00689351|181750215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for any tenderness.||||>0.99
90935544|NCT00689351|181750215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.245|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for significant tenderness.||||0.245
90935545|NCT00689351|181750215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.447|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for any swelling.||||0.447
90935546|NCT00689351|181750215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.684|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for mild swelling.||||0.684
90968921|NCT03710486|181819472|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.17|||=|0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.58|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|The incidence comparison was estimated by using a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW. Multiple Imputation has been performed to estimate PS-IPTW.|||0.58|0.05|=0.0044
90968922|NCT03710486|181819472|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.32|||=|0.0215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.84|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|The incidence comparison was estimated by using a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW. Multiple Imputation has been performed to estimate PS-IPTW.|||0.84|0.12|=0.0215
90935547|NCT00689351|181750215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for moderate swelling.||||>0.99
90935548|NCT00689351|181750215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.578|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for any redness.||||0.578
90935549|NCT00689351|181750215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.451|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for mild redness.||||0.451
90935550|NCT00689351|181750215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.712|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for moderate redness.||||0.712
90935551|NCT00689351|181750216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.681|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for any tenderness.||||0.681
90935552|NCT00689351|181750216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.482|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for significant tenderness.||||0.482
90935553|NCT00689351|181750216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.683|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for any swelling.||||0.683
90935554|NCT00689351|181750216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for mild swelling.||||>0.99
90935555|NCT00689351|181750216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.533|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for moderate swelling.||||0.533
90935556|NCT00689351|181750216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.692|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for any redness.||||0.692
90935557|NCT00689351|181750216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.662|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for mild redness.||||0.662
90935558|NCT00689351|181750216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.331|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for moderate redness.||||0.331
90935559|NCT00689351|181750217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.409|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for any tenderness.||||0.409
90935560|NCT00689351|181750217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.617|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for significant tenderness.||||0.617
90935561|NCT00689351|181750217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.807|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for any swelling.||||0.807
90935562|NCT00689351|181750217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.527|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for mild swelling.||||0.527
90935563|NCT00689351|181750217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.144|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for moderate swelling.||||0.144
90935564|NCT00689351|181750217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.495|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for severe swelling.||||0.495
90968923|NCT03710486|181819473|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.27|||=|0.0152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.78|||Poisson Regression|p-value was estimated with a Poisson regression including the following time adjusted by PS-IPTW.|The incidence rate comparison was estimated by using a Poisson regression adjusted by PS-IPTW. Multiple Imputation has been performed to estimate PS-IPTW.|||0.78|0.10|=0.0152
90968924|NCT03710486|181819473|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.56|||=|0.8012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|48.44|||Poisson Regression|p-value was estimated with a Poisson regression including the following time adjusted by PS-IPTW.|The incidence rate comparison was estimated by using a Poisson regression adjusted by PS-IPTW. Multiple Imputation has been performed to estimate PS-IPTW.|||48.44|0.05|=0.8012
90935565|NCT00689351|181750217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.506|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for any redness.||||0.506
90935566|NCT00689351|181750217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for mild redness.||||>0.99
90935567|NCT00689351|181750217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for moderate redness.||||0.200
90935568|NCT00689351|181750218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.633|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for fever ≥38 degrees C but but less than or equal to (≤)39 degrees C.||||0.633
90935569|NCT00689351|181750218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.721|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for decreased appetite.||||0.721
90935570|NCT00689351|181750218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for irritability.||||0.009
90935571|NCT00689351|181750218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.253|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for increased sleep.||||0.253
90935572|NCT00689351|181750218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.143|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for decreased sleep.||||0.143
90935573|NCT00689351|181750219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.781|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for fever ≥38 degrees C but ≤39 degrees C.||||0.781
90935574|NCT00689351|181750219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for decreased appetite.||||0.060
90935575|NCT00689351|181750219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.159|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for irritability.||||0.159
90935576|NCT00689351|181750219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.839|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for increased sleep.||||0.839
90935577|NCT00689351|181750219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.264|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for decreased sleep.||||0.264
90935578|NCT00689351|181750220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.563|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for fever ≥38 degrees C but ≤39 degrees C.||||0.563
90935579|NCT00689351|181750220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.468|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for fever \>39 degrees C but ≤40 degrees C.||||0.468
90935580|NCT00689351|181750220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.535|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for decreased appetite.||||0.535
90935581|NCT00689351|181750220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for irritability.||||0.019
90935582|NCT00689351|181750220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.398|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for increased sleep.||||0.398
90935583|NCT00689351|181750220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.125|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for decreased sleep.||||0.125
90935584|NCT00689351|181750221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.596|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for fever ≥38 degrees C but ≤39 degrees C.||||0.596
90935585|NCT00689351|181750221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for fever \>39 degrees C but ≤40 degrees C.||||>0.99
90935586|NCT00689351|181750221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.663|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for decreased appetite.||||0.663
90935587|NCT00689351|181750221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.439|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for irritability.||||0.439
90935588|NCT00689351|181750221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.613|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for increased sleep.||||0.613
90935589|NCT00689351|181750221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.138|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for decreased sleep.||||0.138
90935590|NCT01313663|181750232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.32|2.65|||||HRs were estimated using the Pike estimator. The hazard ratio and p-value from the stratified log-rank test were adjusted for disease stage at Baseline only, due to sparse data.|||2.65|0.32|
90935591|NCT00780741|181750255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.21|||Point estimate on mean difference|Bootstrap sampling with replacement (N=10,000) was used to calculate the 95% confidence interval.|Mean difference calculated as the proportion with success in immediate group minus proportion with success in deferred group. 95% confidence interval obtained using bootstrap sampling with replacement.|||0.21|-0.01|0.09
90935592|NCT00780741|181750256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-139.0||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-377.0|94.0|||Point estimate on mean difference|Bootstrap sampling with replacement (N=10,000) was used to calculate the 95% confidence interval.|Mean difference calculated as the average cost in immediate group minus average cost in deferred group. 95% confidence interval obtained using bootstrap sampling with replacement.|||94|-377|0.24
90935593|NCT00780741|181750257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-1.8|||Point estimate on mean difference|Bootstrap sampling with replacement (N=10,000) was used to calculate the 95% confidence interval.|Mean difference calculated as the average months of symptoms in immediate group minus average months of symptoms in deferred group. 95% confidence interval obtained using bootstrap sampling with replacement.|||-1.8|-4.0|<0.0001
90935594|NCT02367794|181750260|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.88|||Log Rank|||||0.88|0.64|0.0006
90935595|NCT02367794|181750261|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.1581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.05|||Log Rank|||||1.05|0.73|0.1581
90935596|NCT02367794|181750262|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.876||||0.4451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.623|1.231|||Log Rank|||Teff \>=-1.91 in ITT||1.231|0.623|0.4451
90935597|NCT02367794|181750262|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.941||||0.7343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.664|1.335|||Log Rank|||Teff \>=-1.91 in ITT||1.335|0.664|0.7343
90935598|NCT02367794|181750262|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.942||||0.661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.232|||Log Rank|||Teff \<-1.91 Negative in ITT||1.232|0.720|0.6610
90935599|NCT02367794|181750262|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.253||||0.0893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.965|1.627|||Log Rank|||Teff \<-1.91 Negative in ITT||1.627|0.965|0.0893
90935600|NCT02367794|181750263|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.81|||Log Rank|||Teff\>=-1.91||0.81|0.46|0.0006
90935601|NCT02367794|181750263|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.33|||Log Rank|||Teff\>=-1.91||1.33|0.84|0.630
90935602|NCT02367794|181750263|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.1|||Log Rank|||Teff\<-1.91||1.10|0.70|0.258
90935603|NCT02367794|181750263|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.33|||Log Rank|||Teff\<-1.91||1.33|0.84|0.630
90935604|NCT02367794|181750264|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.72|||Log Rank|||||0.72|0.40|<.0001
90935605|NCT02367794|181750264|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.84|||Log Rank|||||0.84|0.45|0.0018
90935606|NCT02367794|181750265|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.77|||Log Rank|||||0.77|0.48|<.0001
90935607|NCT02367794|181750265|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.77|||Log Rank|||||0.77|0.48|<.0001
90935608|NCT02367794|181750266|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.725||||0.0518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.524|1.004|||Log Rank|||||1.004|0.524|0.0518
90935609|NCT02367794|181750266|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.832||||0.2841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.594|1.165|||Log Rank|||||1.165|0.594|0.2841
90935610|NCT02367794|181750267|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.871||||0.2956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.671|1.129|||Log Rank|||||1.129|0.671|0.2956
90935611|NCT02367794|181750267|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.861||||0.2473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.668|1.109|||Log Rank|||||1.109|0.668|0.2473
90935612|NCT02367794|181750268|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.0248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.91|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.91|1.04|0.0248
90935613|NCT02367794|181750268|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.0308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.90|1.03|0.0308
90935614|NCT02367794|181750269|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.408|0.689|||Log Rank|||||0.689|0.408|<.0001
90935615|NCT02367794|181750269|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.493|0.831|||Log Rank|||||0.831|0.493|0.0007
90935616|NCT02367794|181750270|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|0.06||||0.9871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.48|7.61|||Z-test|||Event Free Rate (%) at Year 1||7.61|-7.48|0.9871
90935617|NCT02367794|181750270|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|5.93||||0.1133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|13.26|||Z-test|||Event Free Rate (%) at Year 2||13.26|-1.41|0.1133
91079149|NCT05153148|182043947|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.1|||=|0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.3|||MMRM||Point estimate and 95% CI were obtained from a MMRM model.||MMRM model included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction, with baseline value and the randomization stratification factors (prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region) as covariates, and the change from baseline as the dependent variable.|1.3|-1.1|=0.860
90935618|NCT02367794|181750270|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|-3.97||||0.3072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|3.65|||Z-test|||Event Free Rate (%) at Year 1||3.65|-11.60|0.3072
90935619|NCT02367794|181750270|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|1.21||||0.743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.01|8.42|||Z-test|||Event Free Rate (%) at Year 2||8.42|-6.01|0.7430
90935620|NCT02367794|181750271|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.797||||0.0461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.638|0.996|||Log Rank|||||0.996|0.638|0.0461
90935621|NCT02367794|181750271|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.7295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.834|1.296|||Log Rank|||||1.296|0.834|0.7295
90935622|NCT02367794|181750272|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.828||||0.0942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.663|1.033|||Log Rank|||||1.033|0.663|0.0942
90935623|NCT02367794|181750272|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.968||||0.7709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.776|1.207|||Log Rank|||||1.207|0.776|0.7709
90935624|NCT02367794|181750274|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.4007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.784|1.102|||Log Rank|||||1.102|0.784|0.4007
90935625|NCT02158806|181750334|SUPERIORITY|Participants analysed in the groups to which they were randomised (intention to treat analysis).|Cox Proportional Hazard|0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.146||0.246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.13|||Log Rank||Placebo group = reference group|Placebo group = reference group||1.13|0.64|0.246
90935626|NCT02158806|181750335|SUPERIORITY|Participants analysed in the groups to which they were randomised (intention to treat analysis).|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.88||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.01|||Chi-squared|||||1.01|0.76|0.073
90935627|NCT02158806|181750336|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.5||Adjusted for baseline values.|ANCOVA|One participant in aspirin group had missing data for 24 week endpoint visit; we used the baseline value for imputation.|Placebo group = reference group.|||0.5|-1.9|0.25
90935628|NCT02158806|181750337|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.1||||0.714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|7.2|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline values||Change in Physical Functioning||7.2|-5.0|0.714
90935629|NCT02158806|181750337|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.4||||0.768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|10.8|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline values||Change in Role Physical||10.8|-8.0|0.768
90935630|NCT02158806|181750337|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.3||||0.449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|8.4|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline values||Change in Bodily Pain||8.4|-3.7|0.449
90935631|NCT02158806|181750337|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|3.6|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline values||Change in General Health||3.6|-4.3|0.873
90935632|NCT02158806|181750337|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.2||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|8.5|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline values||Change in Vitality||8.5|-0.1|0.057
90935633|NCT02158806|181750337|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0||||0.756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|7.0|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline values||Change in Social Functioning||7.0|-5.1|0.756
90935634|NCT02158806|181750337|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.7||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|12.3|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline values||Change in Role Emotional||12.3|-4.9|0.400
90935635|NCT02158806|181750337|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.3||||0.236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|1.5|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline values||Change in Mental Health||1.5|-6.2|0.236
90935636|NCT02158806|181750338|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.4||||0.156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|8.0||Adjusted for baseline values|Regression, Linear|||||8.0|-1.3|0.156
90935637|NCT02158806|181750339|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.5||||0.438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|2.2|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline values||Change in social function||2.2|-5.2|0.438
90935638|NCT02158806|181750339|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3||||0.408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|1.9|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline values||Change in domestic activities||1.9|-4.5|0.408
90935639|NCT02158806|181750339|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3||||0.568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|3.1|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline values||Change in cosmesis||3.1|-5.6|0.568
90935640|NCT02158806|181750339|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.0||||0.257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|2.2|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline values||Change in emotional status||2.2|-8.1|0.257
90935641|NCT02158806|181750339|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.9||||0.273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|1.5|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline values||||1.5|-5.2|0.273
90935642|NCT02158806|181750340|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01||||0.917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.17|||Chi-squared|||||1.17|0.87|0.917
91079150|NCT05153148|182043947|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.2|||=|0.758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.3|||MMRM||Point estimate and 95% CI were obtained from a MMRM model.||MMRM model included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction, with baseline value and the randomization stratification factors (prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region) as covariates, and the change from baseline as the dependent variable.|1.3|-0.9|=0.758
91079151|NCT05153148|182043948|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.5|||=|0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.2|||MMRM||Point estimate and 95% CI were obtained from a MMRM model.||MMRM model included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction, with baseline value and the randomization stratification factors (prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region) as covariates, and the change from baseline as the dependent variable.|0.2|-1.2|=0.131
91079152|NCT05153148|182043948|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.7|||=|0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.0|||MMRM||Point estimate and 95% CI were obtained from a MMRM model.||MMRM model included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction, with baseline value and the randomization stratification factors (prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region) as covariates, and the change from baseline as the dependent variable.|0.0|-1.3|=0.043
90968925|NCT01147744|181819489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.056||||0.326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.17||The study type I error rate was controlled at 5% level for primary efficacy analyses using the Week 8 trough FEV1 endpoint, by performing statistical tests of GSK2190915 versus placebo, sequentially from highest dose (300 mg) to lowest dose (10 mg).|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model used with covariates of Baseline trough FEV1, age, gender, country and smoking status. The LOCF method used to impute missing data.||||0.17|-0.06|0.326
90968926|NCT01147744|181819489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.104||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.22||The study type I error rate was controlled at 5% level for primary efficacy analyses using the Week 8 trough FEV1 endpoint, by performing statistical tests of GSK2190915 versus placebo, sequentially from highest dose (300 mg) to lowest dose (10 mg).|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model used with covariates of Baseline trough FEV1, age, gender, country and smoking status. The LOCF method used to impute missing data.||||0.22|-0.01|0.066
90968927|NCT01147744|181819489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.069||||0.224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.18||The study type I error rate was controlled at 5% level for primary efficacy analyses using the Week 8 trough FEV1 endpoint, by performing statistical tests of GSK2190915 versus placebo, sequentially from highest dose (300 mg) to lowest dose (10 mg).|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model used with covariates of Baseline trough FEV1, age, gender, country and smoking status. The LOCF method used to impute missing data.||||0.18|-0.04|0.224
90968928|NCT01147744|181819489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.062||||0.271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.17||The study type I error rate was controlled at 5% level for primary efficacy analyses using the Week 8 trough FEV1 endpoint, by performing statistical tests of GSK2190915 versus placebo, sequentially from highest dose (300 mg) to lowest dose (10 mg).|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model used with covariates of Baseline trough FEV1, age, gender, country and smoking status. The LOCF method used to impute missing data.||||0.17|-0.05|0.271
90968929|NCT01147744|181819489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.189|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.3||The study type I error rate was controlled at 5% level for primary efficacy analyses using the Week 8 trough FEV1 endpoint, by performing statistical tests of GSK2190915 versus placebo, sequentially from highest dose (300 mg) to lowest dose (10 mg).|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model used with covariates of Baseline trough FEV1, age, gender, country and smoking status. The LOCF method used to impute missing data.||||0.30|0.08|<0.001
90968930|NCT01147744|181819489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.18||The study type I error rate was controlled at 5% level for primary efficacy analyses using the Week 8 trough FEV1 endpoint, by performing statistical tests of GSK2190915 versus placebo, sequentially from highest dose (300 mg) to lowest dose (10 mg).|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model used with covariates of Baseline trough FEV1, age, gender, country and smoking status. The LOCF method used to impute missing data.||||0.18|-0.04|0.220
90968931|NCT01147744|181819490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.385||||0.932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.25|8.48|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline trough PM PEF, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||8.48|-9.25|0.932
90968932|NCT01147744|181819490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.367||||0.762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|10.23|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline trough PM PEF, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||10.23|-7.50|0.762
90968933|NCT01147744|181819490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-1.798||||0.689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.62|7.03|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline trough PM PEF, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||7.03|-10.62|0.689
90968934|NCT01147744|181819490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.321||||0.605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.49|11.13|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline trough PM PEF, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||11.13|-6.49|0.605
90968935|NCT01147744|181819490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.46||||0.584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.36|11.28|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline trough PM PEF, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||11.28|-6.36|0.584
90968936|NCT01147744|181819490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.529||||0.907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|9.45|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline trough PM PEF, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||9.45|-8.40|0.907
90968937|NCT01147744|181819491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.463||||0.753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.65|10.58|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline trough PM PEF, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||10.58|-7.65|0.753
90968938|NCT01147744|181819491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.75||||0.419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.36|12.87|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline trough PM PEF, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||12.87|-5.36|0.419
90968939|NCT01147744|181819491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.046||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.12|6.03|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline trough PM PEF, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||6.03|-12.12|0.510
90968940|NCT01147744|181819491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.585||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.47|13.64|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline trough PM PEF, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||13.64|-4.47|0.320
90968941|NCT01147744|181819491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.484||||0.452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.61|12.58|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline trough PM PEF, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||12.58|-5.61|0.452
90968942|NCT01147744|181819491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.615||||0.229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.55|14.78|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline trough PM PEF, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||14.78|-3.55|0.229
90968943|NCT01147744|181819492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.169||||0.771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.73|9.07|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||9.07|-6.73|0.771
90968944|NCT01147744|181819492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.56||||0.257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.33|12.45|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||12.45|-3.33|0.257
90968945|NCT01147744|181819492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.326||||0.741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.54|9.19|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||9.19|-6.54|0.741
90968946|NCT01147744|181819492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.083||||0.983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.76|7.93|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||7.93|-7.76|0.983
90968947|NCT01147744|181819492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.204||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|16.07|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||16.07|0.34|0.041
90968948|NCT01147744|181819492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.891||||0.475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.05|10.83|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||10.83|-5.05|0.475
90968949|NCT01147744|181819493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.837||||0.838|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.22|8.89|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||8.89|-7.22|0.838
90968950|NCT01147744|181819493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.715||||0.508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.33|10.76|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||10.76|-5.33|0.508
90968951|NCT01147744|181819493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.124||||0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|10.14|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||10.14|-5.90|0.603
90968952|NCT01147744|181819493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|-1.781||||0.662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.78|6.22|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||6.22|-9.78|0.662
90968953|NCT01147744|181819493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.949||||0.146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.08|13.98|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||13.98|-2.08|0.146
90968954|NCT01147744|181819493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.394||||0.191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.69|13.48|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||13.48|-2.69|0.191
90968955|NCT01147744|181819494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.106||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|14.71|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||14.71|-2.50|0.164
90968956|NCT01147744|181819494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.106||||0.349||95.0|-4.49|12.7|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||12.70|-4.49|0.349
90968957|NCT01147744|181819494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.148||||0.623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.42|10.72|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||10.72|-6.42|0.623
90968958|NCT01147744|181819494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.713||||0.694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.84|10.26|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||10.26|-6.84|0.694
90968959|NCT01147744|181819494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.592||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|18.15|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||18.15|1.03|0.028
90968960|NCT01147744|181819494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.75||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|15.38|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||15.38|-1.89|0.125
90968961|NCT01147744|181819495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.346||||0.585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.09|10.78|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||10.78|-6.09|0.585
90968962|NCT01147744|181819495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.431||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|8.86|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||8.86|-8.00|0.920
90968963|NCT01147744|181819495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.702||||0.528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|11.11|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||11.11|-5.70|0.528
90968964|NCT01147744|181819495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.218||||0.776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|7.17|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||7.17|-9.60|0.776
90968965|NCT01147744|181819495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.49||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|15.9|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||15.90|-0.92|0.081
90968966|NCT01147744|181819495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.611||||0.403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.87|12.09|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||12.09|-4.87|0.403
90968967|NCT01147744|181819496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.005||||0.951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.16|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||0.16|-0.17|0.951
90968968|NCT01147744|181819496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.166||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|-0.01|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||-0.01|-0.33|0.043
91079153|NCT05153148|182043948|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.1|||=|0.687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.5|||MMRM||Point estimate and 95% CI were obtained from a MMRM model.||MMRM model included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction, with baseline value and the randomization stratification factors (prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region) as covariates, and the change from baseline as the dependent variable.|0.5|-0.8|=0.687
90968969|NCT01147744|181819496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.028||||0.734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.13|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||0.13|-0.19|0.734
90968970|NCT01147744|181819496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.003||||0.972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.16|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||0.16|-0.16|0.972
90968971|NCT01147744|181819496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.097||||0.238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.06|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||0.06|-0.26|0.238
90968972|NCT01147744|181819496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.075||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.09|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||0.09|-0.24|0.360
90968973|NCT01147744|181819497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.028||||0.692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.17|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||0.17|-0.11|0.692
90968974|NCT01147744|181819497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.096||||0.176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.04|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||0.04|-0.24|0.176
90968975|NCT01147744|181819497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.021||||0.768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.12|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||0.12|-0.16|0.768
90968976|NCT01147744|181819497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.15|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||0.15|-0.13|0.887
90968977|NCT01147744|181819497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.051||||0.471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.09|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||0.09|-0.19|0.471
90968978|NCT01147744|181819497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.083||||0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.06|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||0.06|-0.22|0.248
90968979|NCT01147744|181819498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.131||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.07|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||0.07|-0.33|0.209
90968980|NCT01147744|181819498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.264||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.06|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||-0.06|-0.47|0.011
90968981|NCT01147744|181819498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.076||||0.464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.13|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||0.13|-0.28|0.464
90968982|NCT01147744|181819498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.045||||0.662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.16|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||0.16|-0.25|0.662
90968983|NCT01147744|181819498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.245||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.04|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||-0.04|-0.45|0.018
90968984|NCT01147744|181819498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.207||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.0|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||-0.00|-0.41|0.047
90968985|NCT01147744|181819499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.098||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.09|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||0.09|-0.28|0.300
91079154|NCT05153148|182043949|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.6|||=|0.349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|17.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||MH risk difference was summarized along with the 2-sided 95% CI using MH stratum weights and the Sato variance estimator.||Comparisons of MDA responder rates at Week 12 were made independently between each dose group and the placebo group using two-sided MH tests stratified on randomization stratification factors: prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region.|17.4|-6.1|=0.349
91079155|NCT05153148|182043949|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.5|||=|0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|28.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||MH risk difference was summarized along with the 2-sided 95% CI using MH stratum weights and the Sato variance estimator.||Comparisons of MDA responder rates at Week 12 were made independently between each dose group and the placebo group using two-sided MH tests stratified on randomization stratification factors: prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region.|28.3|2.8|=0.017
91079156|NCT05153148|182043949|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.3|||=|0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|29.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||MH risk difference was summarized along with the 2-sided 95% CI using MH stratum weights and the Sato variance estimator.||Comparisons of MDA responder rates at Week 12 were made independently between each dose group and the placebo group using two-sided MH tests stratified on randomization stratification factors: prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region.|29.3|3.3|=0.014
90935643|NCT02158806|181750341|SUPERIORITY||Incidence Rate Ratio|1.1||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.7|||IRR test statistic|Incidence Rate Ratio (IRR) test statistic compared to probability of the same obtained from standard normal distribution tables.||||1.7|0.7|0.71
91079157|NCT05153148|182043950|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-3.73|||=|0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.04|1.57|||MMRM||Point estimate and 95% CI were obtained from a MMRM model.||MMRM model included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction, with baseline value and the randomization stratification factors (prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region) as covariates, and the change from baseline as the dependent variable.|1.57|-9.04|=0.167
90935644|NCT01898299|181750342|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d effectsize|0.48||||0.036|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Control for Chlopromazine equivalents||||||0.036
90935645|NCT02340806|181750344|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||.67
90935646|NCT02340806|181750345|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.08
90935647|NCT02340806|181750346|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.21
90935648|NCT02340806|181750347|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.14
90935649|NCT02340806|181750348|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.66
90935650|NCT02340806|181750350|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.92
90935651|NCT02340806|181750351|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.58
90935652|NCT02340806|181750352|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.67
90935653|NCT02340806|181750353|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.99
90935654|NCT02340806|181750354|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.37
90935655|NCT01159600|181750357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference|-1.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.17|-1.08||Each of the hypotheses (10mg vs placebo and 25mg vs placebo) were tested (two-sided test) at the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline HbA1c and baseline body weight as linear covariates and baseline eGFR, geographical region and treatment as fixed effects|Difference calculated as Met: empa 10mg minus Met: placebo|Null hypothesis: No difference in change from baseline to week 24 in body weight between Empagliflozin 10mg and placebo. A hierarchical testing approach was applied to each of the two dose comparisons (10mg vs placebo and 25mg vs placebo) within each background therapy group (metformin and metformin + SU). If for a specific dose the null hypothesis was rejected for the primary endpoint, the same dose was tested against placebo for the change from baseline in body weight.||-1.08|-2.17|<0.0001
90935656|NCT01159600|181750357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference|-2.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.56|-1.46||Each of the hypotheses (10mg vs placebo and 25mg vs placebo) were tested (two-sided test) at the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline HbA1c and baseline body weight as linear covariates and baseline eGFR, geographical region and treatment as fixed effects|Difference calculated as Met: empa 25mg minus Met: placebo|Null hypothesis: No difference in change from baseline to week 24 in body weight between Empagliflozin 25mg and placebo. A hierarchical testing approach was applied to each of the two dose comparisons (10mg vs placebo and 25mg vs placebo) within each background therapy group (metformin and metformin + SU). If for a specific dose the null hypothesis was rejected for the primary endpoint, the same dose was tested against placebo for the change from baseline in body weight.||-1.46|-2.56|<0.0001
90935657|NCT01159600|181750357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference|-1.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.25|-1.28||Each of the hypotheses (10mg vs placebo and 25mg vs placebo) were tested (two-sided test) at the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline HbA1c and baseline body weight as linear covariates and baseline eGFR, geographical region and treatment as fixed effects|Difference calculated as Met+SU: empa 10mg minus Met+SU: placebo|Null hypothesis: No difference in change from baseline to week 24 in body weight between Empagliflozin 10mg and placebo. A hierarchical testing approach was applied to each of the two dose comparisons (10mg vs placebo and 25mg vs placebo) within each background therapy group (metformin and metformin + SU). If for a specific dose the null hypothesis was rejected for the primary endpoint, the same dose was tested against placebo for the change from baseline in body weight.||-1.28|-2.25|<0.0001
90935658|NCT01159600|181750357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference|-1.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.48|-1.5||Each of the hypotheses (10mg vs placebo and 25mg vs placebo) were tested (two-sided test) at the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline HbA1c and baseline body weight as linear covariates and baseline eGFR, geographical region and treatment as fixed effects|Difference calculated as Met+SU: empa 25mg minus Met+SU: placebo|Null hypothesis: No difference in change from baseline to week 24 in body weight between Empagliflozin 25mg and placebo. A hierarchical testing approach was applied to each of the two dose comparisons (10mg vs placebo and 25mg vs placebo) within each background therapy group (metformin and metformin + SU). If for a specific dose the null hypothesis was rejected for the primary endpoint, the same dose was tested against placebo for the change from baseline in body weight.||-1.50|-2.48|<0.0001
90935659|NCT01159600|181750358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference|-7.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.74||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-13.81|-1.48||Each of the hypotheses (10mg vs placebo and 25mg vs placebo) were tested (two-sided test) at the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with baseline HbA1c and baseline MDG as linear covariates and baseline eGFR, geographical region and treatment as fixed effects.|Difference calculated as Met: empa 10mg minus Met: placebo|Null hypothesis (H0): No difference in change from baseline to week 24 in MDG between Empa 10mg and placebo. A hierarchical testing approach was applied to each of the two dose comparisons within each background therapy group. If for a specific dose H0 was rejected for the primary endpoint, the same dose was tested against placebo for change from baseline in body weight. If superiority over placebo was shown at this gate level, then testing proceeded to change from baseline in MDG with that dose||-1.48|-13.81|0.0055
90968986|NCT01147744|181819499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.138||||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.05|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||0.05|-0.32|0.145
90968987|NCT01147744|181819499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.123||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.06|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||0.06|-0.31|0.190
90968988|NCT01147744|181819499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.002||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.18|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||0.18|-0.19|0.980
90935660|NCT01159600|181750358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference|-12.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.75|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-18.55|-6.19||Each of the hypotheses (10mg vs placebo and 25mg vs placebo) were tested (two-sided test) at the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with baseline HbA1c and baseline MDG as linear covariates and baseline eGFR, geographical region and treatment as fixed effects.|Difference calculated as Met: empa 25mg minus Met: placebo|Null hypothesis (H0): No difference in change from baseline to week 24 in MDG between Empa 25mg and placebo. A hierarchical testing approach was applied to each of the two dose comparisons within each background therapy group. If for a specific dose H0 was rejected for the primary endpoint, the same dose was tested against placebo for change from baseline in body weight. If superiority over placebo was shown at this gate level, then testing proceeded to change from baseline in MDG with that dose||-6.19|-18.55|<0.0001
90935661|NCT01159600|181750358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference|-10.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.53|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-15.72|-4.32||Each of the hypotheses (10mg vs placebo and 25mg vs placebo) were tested (two-sided test) at the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with baseline HbA1c and baseline MDG as linear covariates and baseline eGFR, geographical region and treatment as fixed effects.|Difference calculated as Met+SU: empa 10mg minus Met+SU: placebo|Null hypothesis (H0): No difference in change from baseline to week 24 in MDG between Empa 10mg and placebo. A hierarchical testing approach was applied to each of the two dose comparisons within each background therapy group. If for a specific dose H0 was rejected for the primary endpoint, the same dose was tested against placebo for change from baseline in body weight. If superiority over placebo was shown at this gate level, then testing proceeded to change from baseline in MDG with that dose||-4.32|-15.72|<0.0001
90935662|NCT01159600|181750358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference|-13.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-19.15|-6.98||Each of the hypotheses (10mg vs placebo and 25mg vs placebo) were tested (two-sided test) at the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with baseline HbA1c and baseline MDG as linear covariates and baseline eGFR, geographical region and treatment as fixed effects.|Difference calculated as Met+SU: empa 25mg minus Met+SU: placebo|Null hypothesis (H0): No difference in change from baseline to week 24 in MDG between Empa 25mg and placebo. A hierarchical testing approach was applied to each of the two dose comparisons within each background therapy group. If for a specific dose H0 was rejected for the primary endpoint, the same dose was tested against placebo for change from baseline in body weight. If superiority over placebo was shown at this gate level, then testing proceeded to change from baseline in MDG with that dose||-6.98|-19.15|<0.0001
90935663|NCT01159600|181750359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.72|-0.42||Each of the hypotheses (10mg vs placebo and 25mg vs. placebo) were tested (two-sided test) at the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate and baseline eGFR (renal function), geographical region and treatment as fixed effects.|Difference calculated as Met: empa 10mg minus Met: placebo|Null hypothesis: No difference in change from baseline to week 24 in HbA1c between Empagliflozin 10mg and placebo. The study consisted of two substudies as defined by the two background medications 'metformin' and 'metformin + SU'. Within each group of background medication, each of the two hypotheses (10mg vs placebo and 25mg vs. placebo) was tested in a two-sided test.||-0.42|-0.72|<0.0001
90935664|NCT01159600|181750359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.79|-0.48||Each of the hypotheses (10mg vs placebo and 25mg vs. placebo) were tested (two-sided test) at the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate and baseline eGFR, geographical region and treatment as fixed effects.|Difference calculated as Met: empa 25mg minus Met: placebo|Null hypothesis: No difference in change from baseline to week 24 in HbA1c between Empagliflozin 25mg and placebo. The study consisted of two substudies as defined by the two background medications 'metformin' and 'metformin + SU'. Within each group of background medication, each of the two hypotheses (10mg vs placebo and 25mg vs. placebo) was tested in a two-sided test.||-0.48|-0.79|<0.0001
90968989|NCT01147744|181819499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.171||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.01|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||0.01|-0.36|0.070
90968990|NCT01147744|181819499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.158||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.03|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||0.03|-0.34|0.095
90968991|NCT01147744|181819500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
91079158|NCT05153148|182043950|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-6.43|||=|0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.73|-1.13|||MMRM||Point estimate and 95% CI were obtained from a MMRM model.||MMRM model included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction, with baseline value and the randomization stratification factors (prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region) as covariates, and the change from baseline as the dependent variable.|-1.13|-11.73|=0.018
90935665|NCT01159600|181750359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.79|-0.49||Each of the hypotheses (10mg vs placebo and 25mg vs. placebo) were tested (two-sided test) at the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate and baseline eGFR, geographical region and treatment as fixed effects.|Difference calculated as Met+SU: empa 10mg minus Met+SU: placebo|Null hypothesis: No difference in change from baseline to week 24 in HbA1c between Empagliflozin 10mg and placebo. The study consisted of two substudies as defined by the two background medications 'metformin' and 'metformin + SU'. Within each group of background medication, each of the two hypotheses (10mg vs placebo and 25mg vs. placebo) was tested in a two-sided test.||-0.49|-0.79|<0.0001
90935666|NCT01159600|181750359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.74|-0.44||Each of the hypotheses (10mg vs placebo and 25mg vs. placebo) were tested (two-sided test) at the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate and baseline eGFR, geographical region and treatment as fixed effects.|Difference calculated as Met+SU: empa 25mg minus Met+SU: placebo|Null hypothesis: No difference in change from baseline to week 24 in HbA1c between Empagliflozin 25mg and placebo. The study consisted of two substudies as defined by the two background medications 'metformin' and 'metformin + SU'. Within each group of background medication, each of the two hypotheses (10mg vs placebo and 25mg vs. placebo) was tested in a two-sided test.||-0.44|-0.74|<0.0001
90935667|NCT05356130|181750363|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||"We conducted the same two independent planned comparisons: Enhanced BLT Encouragement + Adherence Promotion compared to Minimal BLT Encouragement; Minimal BLT Encouragement and Enhanced BLT Encouragement + Adherence Promotion compared to TAU."||||0.014
90935668|NCT02680314|181750365|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.202|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.202
90935669|NCT00234832|181750438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.162||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.029|1.311||No adjustment for multiple testing or interim analysis was performed. The primary outcome was tested at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|Log Rank||The Cox model included factors for treatment, country, gender, and age (continuous) at Lead-in Period baseline. For the calculation of risk, the sibutramine arm is the numerator and the placebo arm is the denominator.|For the sample size calculation, a two-tailed alpha level of 0.05 was used along with power of 90%. The annual composite event rate in the placebo arm was assumed to be 7.0%. A sample of 3983 subjects in each of the 2 groups, corrected for a 30% noncompliance rate (15% in Year 1 and 6.3% in each year, Years 2 to 4), followed for at least 3 years was expected to have 90% power to detect a relative risk reduction of 15% with sibutramine relative to placebo.||1.311|1.029|0.015
90935670|NCT00234832|181750438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.01||||0.948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.738|1.384|||Log Rank|||This analysis included only subjects with DM only in a comparison of sibutramine and placebo.||1.384|0.738|0.948
90935671|NCT00234832|181750438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.276||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.916|1.776|||Log Rank|||This analysis included only subjects with CV only in a comparison of sibutramine and placebo.||1.776|0.916|0.149
90935672|NCT00234832|181750438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.182||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.024|1.365|||Log Rank|||This analysis included only subjects with CV + DM in a comparison of sibutramine and placebo.||1.365|1.024|0.022
90935673|NCT00234832|181750439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.043||||0.543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.196|||Log Rank|||||1.196|0.910|0.543
90935674|NCT00234832|181750440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.097||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.999|1.204|||Log Rank|||||1.204|0.999|0.051
90935675|NCT00234832|181750441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.276||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.036|1.571|||Log Rank|||||1.571|1.036|0.022
90935676|NCT00234832|181750442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.355||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.038|1.767|||Log Rank|||||1.767|1.038|0.025
90935677|NCT00234832|181750443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.582||||0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.613|4.081|||Log Rank|||||4.081|0.613|0.343
90935678|NCT00234832|181750444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.988||||0.899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.822|1.188|||Log Rank|||||1.188|0.822|0.899
90935679|NCT04454125|181750445|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.61||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.61|||Generalized linear model, repeat measure|Generalized linear model (GLM) fitted with binomial distribution and logit link|Estimate is for the control group (Routine Care) obtained from generalized linear model with repeat measures including group arm, visit, interaction term (arm\*visit) and adjusting for visit 2 severe asthma exacerbation.|Outcome= severe asthma exacerbation at visit (yes, no), collected via questionnaire at visits 2-7(exit). Does not include randomization (visit 1).||1.61|0.23|0.32
90968992|NCT01147744|181819500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.814|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.814
90935680|NCT04454125|181750445|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.31||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|2.76|||generalized linear model, repeat measure|GLM fitted with binomial distribution and logit link|Estimate is for the intervention group (AQI intervention) obtained from generalized linear model with repeat measures including group, visit, interaction term (group\*visit) and adjusting for visit 2 severe asthma exacerbation.|Outcome= severe asthma exacerbation at visit (yes, no), collected via questionnaire at visits 2-7(exit). Does not include randomization (visit 1).||2.76|0.03|0.29
90968993|NCT01147744|181819500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
90968994|NCT01147744|181819500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.828|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.828
90968995|NCT01147744|181819500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.477|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.477
90968996|NCT01147744|181819500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.460
90971232|NCT02599961|181825056|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-52.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.882||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-85.62|-19.45||From the GEE model which includes the reduction from baseline for each visit period as the response variable, baseline as covariates, visit period as a factor, identity link function and exchangeable within subject working correlation matrix.|GEE model|||Month 7-9||-19.45|-85.62|0.0019
90968997|NCT01342484|181819507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.3295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|0.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean Difference (Net Values) is actually the adjusted mean difference calculated as Linagliptin 1 mg minus Placebo.|Superiority of Linagliptin 1 mg vs. placebo: change from baseline in HbA1c using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML) - based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach. Model includes baseline HbA1c and age as linear covariates; treatment, gender, pharmacokinetic (PK) / pharmacodynamics (PD) subgroup, background therapy, visit and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and patient as a random effect. The unstructured covariance structure has been used to fit the mixed model.||0.51|-1.47|0.3295
90968998|NCT01342484|181819507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.1447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean Difference (Net Values) is actually the adjusted mean difference calculated as Linagliptin 5 mg minus Placebo.|Superiority of Linagliptin 5 mg vs. placebo: change from baseline in HbA1c using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML) - based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach. Model includes baseline HbA1c and age as linear covariates; treatment, gender, PK/PD subgroup, background therapy, visit and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and patient as a random effect. The unstructured covariance structure has been used to fit the mixed model.||0.23|-1.50|0.1447
90968999|NCT01342484|181819509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36||0.8216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.08|2.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean Difference (Net Values) is actually the adjusted mean difference calculated as Linagliptin 1 mg minus Placebo.|Superiority of Linagliptin 1 mg vs. placebo: change from baseline in FPG using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML) - based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach. Model includes baseline HbA1c, baseline FPG and age as linear covariates; treatment, gender, PK/PD subgroup, background therapy, visit and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and patient as a random effect. The unstructured covariance structure has been used to fit the mixed model.||2.46|-3.08|0.8216
90969000|NCT01342484|181819509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18||0.1189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.31|0.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean Difference (Net Values) is actually the adjusted mean difference calculated as Linagliptin 5 mg minus Placebo.|Superiority of Linagliptin 5 mg vs. placebo: change from baseline in FPG using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML) - based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach. Model includes baseline HbA1c, baseline FPG and age as linear covariates; treatment, gender, PK/PD subgroup, background therapy, visit and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and patient as a random effect. The unstructured covariance structure has been used to fit the mixed model.||0.52|-4.31|0.1189
90969001|NCT00432042|181819510|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Measles difference|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|4.82|||||Non-inferiority was declared when the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI of the difference is \> -10%.|||4.82|-1.62|
90969002|NCT00432042|181819510|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mumps difference|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.21|1.1|||||Non-inferiority was declared when the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI of the difference is \> -10%.|||1.10|-4.21|
90969003|NCT00432042|181819510|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Rubella difference|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.19|1.35|||||Non-inferiority was declared when the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI of the difference is \> -10%.|||1.35|-3.19|
90969004|NCT00432042|181819510|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Varicella difference|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|6.58|||||Non-inferiority was declared when the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI of the difference is \> -10%.|||6.58|-0.41|
90969005|NCT00432042|181819511|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Hepatitis B difference|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|4.24|||||Non-inferiority was declared when the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI of the difference is \> -5%.|||4.24|-0.29|
90969006|NCT00432042|181819511|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Haemophilus Influenza type B difference|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|6.89|||||Non-inferiority was declared when the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI of the difference is \> -5%.|||6.89|-0.17|
90969007|NCT00432042|181819512|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Anti-PT difference|GMT ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.08|||||Non-inferiority was declared when the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI of the difference is \> -5%.|||1.08|0.88|
90969008|NCT00432042|181819512|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Anti-FHA difference|GMT ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.23|||||Non-inferiority was declared when the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI of the difference is \> -5%.|||1.23|0.98|
90969009|NCT00432042|181819512|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Anti-PRN difference|GMT ratio|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.36|||||Non-inferiority was declared when the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI of the difference is \> -5%.|||1.36|1.03|
90969010|NCT00492752|181819555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6783||||0.014144||95.0|0.4962|0.9272|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio is for Sorafenib vs placebo.|||0.9272|0.4962|0.014144
90935681|NCT04454125|181750445|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.51||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|5.68|||generalized linear model, repeat measure|GLM fitted with binomial distribution and logit link||Outcome= severe asthma exacerbation at visit (yes, no), collected via questionnaire at visits 2-7(exit). Does not include randomization (visit 1).|Estimate is for the interaction term (group\*visit) obtained from generalized linear model with repeat measures including group, visit, interaction term (group\*visit) and adjusting for visit 2 severe asthma exacerbation.|5.68|0.05|0.58
90935682|NCT04454125|181750445|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.91|||generalized linear model, repeat measure|GLM fitted with binomial distribution and logit link|Estimate is for the control group (Routine Care) obtained from generalized linear model with repeat measures including group, visit, interaction term (group\*visit) and adjusting for visit 2 moderate asthma exacerbation.|Outcome= moderate asthma exacerbation at visit (yes, no), collected via questionnaire at visits 2-7(exit). Does not include randomization (visit 1).||0.91|0.27|0.02
90935683|NCT04454125|181750445|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.23||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.86|||generalized linear model, repeat measure|GLM fitted with binomial distribution and logit link|Estimate is for the intervention group (AQI Intervention) obtained from generalized linear model with repeat measures including group, visit, interaction term (group\*visit) and adjusting for visit 2 moderate asthma exacerbation.|Outcome= moderate asthma exacerbation at visit (yes, no), collected via questionnaire at visits 2-7(exit). Does not include randomization (visit 1).||0.86|0.06|0.03
90935684|NCT04454125|181750445|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.47||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|1.95|||generalized linear model, repeat measure|GLM fitted with binomial distribution and logit link|Estimate is for the interaction term (group\*visit) obtained from generalized linear model with repeat measures including group, visit, interaction term (group\*visit) and adjusting for visit 2 moderate asthma exacerbation.|Outcome= moderate asthma exacerbation at visit (yes, no), collected via questionnaire at visits 2-7(exit). Does not include randomization (visit 1).||1.95|0.11|0.30
90935685|NCT04454125|181750446|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|1.51|||generalized linear model, repeat measure|GLM fitted with Normal/Gaussian distribution and identity link|Estimate is for the control group (Routine Care) obtained from generalized linear model with repeat measures including group, visit, interaction term (group\*visit).|Outcome=Asthma Control Test Score. Obtained at all visits.||1.51|-1.17|0.80
90935686|NCT04454125|181750446|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.02||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|3.15|||generalized linear model, repeat measure|GLM fitted with Normal/Gaussian distribution and identity link|Estimate is for the intervention group (AQI Intervention) obtained from generalized linear model with repeat measures including group, visit, interaction term (group\*visit).|Outcome=Asthma Control Test Score. Obtained at all visits.||3.15|0.88|0.001
90935687|NCT04454125|181750446|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.85||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|3.61|||generalized linear model, repeat measure|GLM fitted with Normal/Gaussian distribution and identity link|Estimate is for the interaction term (group\*visit) obtained from generalized linear model with repeat measures including group, visit, interaction term (group\*visit).|Outcome=Asthma Control Test Score. Obtained at all visits.||3.61|0.09|0.04
90935688|NCT04454125|181750446|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.31||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|1.25|||generalized linear model, repeat measure|GLM fitted with Normal/Gaussian distribution and identity link|Estimate is for the control group (Routine Care) obtained from generalized linear model with repeat measures including group, visit, interaction term (group\*visit).|Outcome=Childhood Asthma Control Test Score. Obtained at all visits.||1.25|-1.87|0.70
90935689|NCT04454125|181750446|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.96||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|9.2|||generalized linear model, repeat measure|GLM fitted with Normal/Gaussian distribution and identity link|Estimate is for the intervention group (AQI Intervention) obtained from generalized linear model with repeat measures including group, visit, interaction term (group\*visit).|Outcome=Childhood Asthma Control Test Score. Obtained at all visits.||9.20|-1.27|0.14
90935690|NCT04454125|181750446|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.27||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|9.73|||generalized linear model, repeat measure|GLM fitted with Normal/Gaussian distribution and identity link|Estimate is for the interaction term (group\*visit) obtained from generalized linear model with repeat measures including group, visit, interaction term (group\*visit).|Outcome=Childhood Asthma Control Test Scores.||9.73|-1.19|0.13
90969011|NCT00492752|181819555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6208||||0.003464||95.0|0.4498|0.8568|||Log Rank|log rank test stratified by country, tumor burden, and ECOG.|Hazard ratio is for Sorafenib vs placebo|||0.8568|0.4498|0.003464
90969012|NCT00492752|181819556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9032||||0.497537||95.0|0.6705|1.2165|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio is for Sorafenib vs placebo.|||1.2165|0.6705|0.497537
90935691|NCT04454125|181750447|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.25||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.55|||generalized linear model, repeat measure|GLM fitted with Normal/Gaussian distribution and identity link|Estimate is for the control group (Routine Care) obtained from generalized linear model with repeat measures including group, visit, interaction term (group\*visit).|Outcome: Pediatric Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire. Obtained at randomization and exit visits (visit 1 and visit 7).||0.55|-0.06|0.11
90935692|NCT04454125|181750447|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.54||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.88|||generalized linear model, repeat measure|GLM fitted with Normal/Gaussian distribution and identity link|Estimate is for the intervention group (AQI Intervention) obtained from generalized linear model with repeat measures including group, visit, interaction term (group\*visit).|Outcome: Pediatric Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire. Obtained at randomization and exit visits (visit 1 and visit 7).||0.88|0.20|0.002
90935693|NCT04454125|181750447|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.75|||generalized linear model, repeat measure|GLM fitted with Normal/Gaussian distribution and identity link|Estimate is for the interaction term (group\*visit) obtained from generalized linear model with repeat measures including group, visit, interaction term (group\*visit).|Outcome: Pediatric Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire. Obtained at randomization and exit visits (visit 1 and visit 7).||0.75|-0.16|0.20
90935694|NCT04454125|181750448|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.96|||generalized linear model, repeat measure|GLM fitted with binomial distribution and logit link|Estimate is control group (Routine Care) obtained from generalized linear model with repeat measures including group, visit, interaction term (group\*visit).|Outcome: Reported checking the AQI prior to going outside to be active||1.96|0.45|0.87
90935695|NCT04454125|181750448|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.89||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.85|25.6|||generalized linear model, repeat measure|GLM fitted with binomial distribution and logit link|Estimate is for the intervention group (AQI Intervention) obtained from generalized linear model with repeat measures including group, visit, interaction term (group\*visit).|Outcome: Reported checking the AQI prior to going outside to be active||25.6|1.85|0.004
90935696|NCT04454125|181750448|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.31||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.62|32.9|||generalized linear model, repeat measure|GLM fitted with binomial distribution and logit link|Estimate is for the interaction term (group\*visit) obtained from generalized linear model with repeat measures including group, visit, interaction term (group\*visit).|Outcome: Reported checking the AQI prior to going outside to be active||32.9|1.62|0.01
90935697|NCT04454125|181750449|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.34||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|1.47|||generalized linear model, repeat measure|GLM fitted with binomial distribution and logit link|Estimate is for the control group (Routine Care) obtained from generalized linear model with repeat measures including group, visit, interaction term (group\*visit).|Outcome: Reported outdoor activity behavioral change in response to the AQI, obtained at all visits.||1.47|0.08|0.15
90935698|NCT04454125|181750449|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|2.68|||generalized linear model, repeat measure|GLM fitted with binomial distribution and logit link|Estimate is for the intervention group (AQI Intervention) obtained from generalized linear model with repeat measures including group, visit, interaction term (group\*visit).|Outcome: Reported outdoor activity behavioral change in response to the AQI, obtained at all visits.||2.68|0.35|0.94
90969013|NCT00492752|181819556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8831||||0.437926||95.0|0.6449|1.2093|||Log Rank|log rank test stratified by country, tumor burden, and ECOG.|Hazard ratio is for Sorafenib vs placebo|||1.2093|0.6449|0.437926
90969014|NCT00492752|181819557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5744||||0.000537||95.0|0.4154|0.7942|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio is for Sorafenib vs placebo|||0.7942|0.4154|0.000537
90969015|NCT00492752|181819557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5375||||0.00054||95.0|0.3763|0.7677|||Log Rank|log rank test stratified by country, tumor burden, and ECOG.|Hazard ratio is for Sorafenib vs placebo|||0.7677|0.3763|0.000540
90969016|NCT00492752|181819558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Disease control rate|0.3533||||||95.0|0.2771|0.4355||||||||0.4355|0.2771|
90969017|NCT00492752|181819558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Disease control rate|0.1579||||||95.0|0.0843|0.2596||||||||0.2596|0.0843|
90969018|NCT00492752|181819561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|||||||Fisher Exact|based on tumor response rate (CR+PR)||||||0.67
90969019|NCT04649255|181819595|OTHER||Exact binomial|96.4|||<|0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.4|100.0|||One-sided exact binomial test|Exact binomial one-sided lower 97.5% CI for performance goal test \>72% for primary effectiveness and \>82% for primary safety.||Descriptive assessment; H0: Ps ≤ PGS, versus HA: PS \> PGS, where where Ps is the population primary safety success rate in the Test group and PGS is the safety performance goal of 82%.||100|96.4|<0.025
90969020|NCT04649255|181819596|OTHER||Exact binomial|89.1|||<|0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.1|97.5|||One-sided exact binomial test|Exact binomial one-sided lower 97.5% CI for performance goal test \>72% for primary effectiveness and \>82% for primary safety.||Descriptive assessment; H0: PE ≤ PGE, versus HA: PE \> PGE, where PE is the proportion of target lesions with clinical success and PGE is the effectiveness performance goal of 72%.||97.5|89.1|<0.025
90969021|NCT03357731|181819668|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9242||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0432|-0.257|||Kenward-Roger degree of freedom|Kenward-Roger degree of freedom is used to adjust the standard error of treatment effect|The modelled mean difference uses treatment sequence and difference of baselines as a covariates of the treatment effect.|||-0.2570|-4.0432|0.027
90969022|NCT03357731|181819669|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.193|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9832||0.846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8176|2.2042|||Kenward-Roger degree of freedom|Kenward-Roger degree of freedom is used to adjust the standard error of treatment effect|The modelled mean difference uses treatment sequence and difference of baselines as a covariates of the treatment effect.|||2.2042|-1.8176|0.846
90969023|NCT03357731|181819670|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|3.19|||Kenward-Roger degree of freedom|Kenward-Roger degree of freedom is used to adjust the standard error of treatment effect|The modelled mean difference uses treatment sequence and difference of baselines as a covariates of the treatment effect.|||3.19|-0.62|0.177
90969024|NCT03357731|181819670|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|0.88|||Kenward-Roger degree of freedom|Kenward-Roger degree of freedom is used to adjust the standard error of treatment effect|The modelled mean difference uses treatment sequence and difference of baselines as a covariates of the treatment effect.|||0.88|-1.08|0.839
90969025|NCT03357731|181819671|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0977|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03308||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16634|-0.02915|||Kenward-Roger degree of freedom|Kenward-Roger degree of freedom is used to adjust the standard error of treatment effect|The modelled mean difference uses treatment sequence and difference of baselines as a covariates of the treatment effect.|||-0.02915|-0.16634|0.007
90969026|NCT03357731|181819671|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0371|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02194||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08243|0.00814|||Kenward-Roger degree of freedom|Kenward-Roger degree of freedom is used to adjust the standard error of treatment effect|The modelled mean difference uses treatment sequence and difference of baselines as a covariates of the treatment effect.|||0.00814|-0.08243|0.103
90969027|NCT03357731|181819672|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.205|-0.051|||Kenward-Roger degree of freedom|Kenward-Roger degree of freedom is used to adjust the standard error of treatment effect|The modelled mean difference uses treatment sequence and difference of baselines as a covariates of the treatment effect.|E/A ratio||-0.051|-0.205|0.003
90969028|NCT03357731|181819672|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.051|0.057|||Kenward-Roger degree of freedom|Kenward-Roger degree of freedom is used to adjust the standard error of treatment effect|The modelled mean difference uses treatment sequence and difference of baselines as a covariates of the treatment effect.|E/A ratio||0.057|-0.051|0.904
90935699|NCT04454125|181750449|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.79||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|16.5|||generalized linear model, repeat measure|GLM fitted with binomial distribution and logit link|Estimate is for the interaction term (group\*visit) obtained from generalized linear model with repeat measures including group, visit, interaction term (group\*visit).|Outcome: Reported outdoor activity behavioral change in response to the AQI, obtained at all visits.||16.5|0.47|0.26
90935700|NCT04454125|181750450|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.42||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.76|||generalized linear model, repeat measure|GLM fitted with binomial distribution and logit link|Estimate is for the control group (Routine Care) obtained from generalized linear model with repeat measures including group, visit, interaction term (group\*visit).|Obtained at all visits||0.76|0.24|0.004
90935701|NCT04454125|181750450|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.31|||generalized linear model, repeat measure|GLM fitted with binomial distribution and logit link|Estimate is for the intervention group (AQI Intervention) obtained from generalized linear model with repeat measures including group, visit, interaction term (group\*visit).|Obtained at all visits.||0.31|0.05|<0.0001
90969029|NCT03357731|181819672|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.527||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.763|-0.549|||Kenward-Roger degree of freedom|Kenward-Roger degree of freedom is used to adjust the standard error of treatment effect|The modelled mean difference uses treatment sequence and difference of baselines as a covariates of the treatment effect.|E/e' ratio||-0.549|-2.763|0.006
90935702|NCT04454125|181750450|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.29||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.87|||generalized linear model, repeat measure|GLM fitted with binomial distribution and logit link|Estimate is for the interaction term (group\*visit) obtained from generalized linear model with repeat measures including group, visit, interaction term (group\*visit).|Obtained at all visits.||0.87|0.10|0.03
90969030|NCT03357731|181819672|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.392||0.503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.085|0.55|||Kenward-Roger degree of freedom|Kenward-Roger degree of freedom is used to adjust the standard error of treatment effect|The modelled mean difference uses treatment sequence and difference of baselines as a covariates of the treatment effect.|E/e' ratio||0.550|-1.085|0.503
90969031|NCT03357731|181819673|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.398||0.994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.827|0.82|||Kenward-Roger degree of freedom|Kenward-Roger degree of freedom is used to adjust the standard error of treatment effect|The modelled mean difference uses treatment sequence and difference of baselines as a covariates of the treatment effect.|annular e' velocity||0.820|-0.827|0.994
90969032|NCT03357731|181819673|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.258||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.049|1.013|||Kenward-Roger degree of freedom|Kenward-Roger degree of freedom is used to adjust the standard error of treatment effect|The modelled mean difference uses treatment sequence and difference of baselines as a covariates of the treatment effect.|annular e' velocity||1.013|-0.049|0.073
90969033|NCT03357731|181819674|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.976|||Kenward-Roger degree of freedom|Kenward-Roger degree of freedom is used to adjust the standard error of treatment effect|The modelled mean difference uses treatment sequence and difference of baselines as a covariates of the treatment effect.|||0.976|-0.670|0.705
90969034|NCT03357731|181819674|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.404||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.504|0.151|||Kenward-Roger degree of freedom|Kenward-Roger degree of freedom is used to adjust the standard error of treatment effect|The modelled mean difference uses treatment sequence and difference of baselines as a covariates of the treatment effect.|||0.151|-1.504|0.105
90969035|NCT04673292|181819701|EQUIVALENCE|The fixed site SOC testing study arm was the standard of care and reference group. The null hypothesis was that there is not a statistically significant difference in the proportion of participants who complete PCR COVID-19 testing within 30 days of randomization when comparing community-based testing to the fixed site SOC testing.|Prevalence Ratio|1.04||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.27|||Poisson Regression|Adjusted poisson regression was performed using Study Arm as a nominal variable in the model with the Fixed Site SOC Testing as the reference group.|||Models were adjusted for employment.|1.27|0.86|0.67
90969036|NCT04673292|181819701|EQUIVALENCE|The fixed site SOC testing study arm was the standard of care and reference group. The null hypothesis was that there is not a statistically significant difference in the proportion of participants who complete PCR COVID-19 testing within 30 days of randomization when comparing self-collected testing to the fixed site SOC testing.|Prevalence Ratio|1.08||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.31|||Poisson Regression|Adjusted poisson regression was performed using Study Arm as a nominal variable in the model with the Fixed Site SOC Testing as the reference group.|||Models were adjusted for employment.|1.31|0.89|0.43
90969037|NCT04673292|181819702|EQUIVALENCE|Testing for equivalence in the difference in time from randomization to completion of SARS-CoV-2 PCR testing when comparing the community-based testing to fixed site SOC testing. Alpha threshold of 0.05.|Time Ratio|0.87||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.05||aprior significance threshold: p-value\<0.05|Accelerated Failure Time|Study Arm included as a nominal (dummy) variable in accelerated failure time models. Models adjusted for employment.||Times were censored at 30 days.|Models adjusted for employment|1.05|0.73|0.14
90969038|NCT04673292|181819702|EQUIVALENCE|Testing for equivalence in the difference in time from randomization to completion of SARS-CoV-2 PCR testing when comparing the self-collected testing arm to the fixed site SOC testing Alpha threshold of 0.05.|Time Ratio|0.86||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.03||aprior significance threshold: p-value\<0.05|Accelerated Failure Time|Study Arm included as a nominal (dummy) variable in accelerated failure time models. Models adjusted for employment.||Times were censored at 30 days.|Models adjusted for employment|1.03|0.71|0.09
90969039|NCT04673292|181819703|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: There is no significant difference in time from completion of SARS-CoV-2 test to receipt of SARS-CoV-2 test results when comparing the community-based testing to fixed site SOC testing.|Time Ratio|0.96||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.1||aprior threshold for significance: p\<0.05|Accelerated Failure Time|Study arm included as a nominal (dummy) variable in accelerated failure time models. Models adjusted for employment.||Times were censored at 10 days.|Models adjusted for employment|1.10|0.83|0.56
90969040|NCT04673292|181819703|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: There is no significant difference in time from completion of SARS-CoV-2 test to receipt of SARS-CoV-2 test results when comparing the self-collected testing arm to the fixed site SOC testing.|Time Ratio|0.93||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.07||aprior significance threshold: p-value\<0.05|Accelerated Failure Time|Study Arm included as a nominal (dummy) variable in accelerated failure time models. Models adjusted for employment.||Times were censored at 10 days.|Models adjusted for employment|1.07|0.81|0.32
90969041|NCT02535715|181819708|SUPERIORITY|ANOVA Bonferroni adjustment|||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
90969042|NCT04353284|181819709|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.74||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|1.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis compares the change from baseline between treatment arms.||1.51|-0.03|0.06
90969043|NCT04353284|181819710|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.06||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.83|-0.70|0.87
90969044|NCT04353284|181819711|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.23||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.4|-0.94|0.69
91035898|NCT02718963|181958490|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to compare the Videofluoroscopic swallowing study(VFSS) kinematic variables, VDS, PAS, and high resolution manometry (HRM) variables between the neuromuscular electrical stimulation session and the control session in swallowing thin fluid and thick fluid for healthy, dysphagic and whole participants. Mann-Whitney test was used to compare the differences of VFSS variables, VDS, PAS, and HRM variables between the healthy participants and dysphagic participants.||||< 0.05
90969045|NCT04353284|181819712|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|5.09|||GEE|||Nasopharyngeal Swab Samples analyzed.||5.09|0.33|0.71
90969046|NCT04353284|181819712|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|1.47|||GEE|Within subject correlation is controlled by specifying a compound symmetry R-side structure in the model.||Saliva RT-PCR samples analyzed.||1.47|0.11|0.17
90969047|NCT04353284|181819713|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.05||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|8.26|||GEE|Within subject correlation is controlled by specifying a compound symmetry R-side structure in the model.||||8.26|1.12|0.03
90969048|NCT04353284|181819713|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|3.23|||GEE|Within subject correlation is controlled by specifying a compound symmetry R-side structure in the model.||Saliva RT-PCR samples analyzed.||3.23|0.47|0.68
90969049|NCT04353284|181819714|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.28||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|56.6|||GEE|Within subject correlation is controlled by specifying a compound symmetry R-side structure in the model.||||56.60|0.70|0.10
90969050|NCT04353284|181819714|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|3.23|||GEE|Within subject correlation is controlled by specifying a compound symmetry R-side structure in the model.||Saliva RT-PCR samples analyzed.||3.23|0.25|0.87
90969051|NCT04353284|181819715|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.6||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|-1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.2|-12.1|0.02
90969052|NCT04353284|181819716|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.1||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|3.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.7|-7.9|0.48
90969053|NCT04353284|181819717|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.3|-0.4|0.16
90969054|NCT04353284|181819718|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.7||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|2.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.1|-0.7|0.34
90969055|NCT03448068|181819721|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
90969056|NCT03448068|181819722|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2252|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2252
90969057|NCT03448068|181819723|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.061|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0610
91035547|NCT01299454|181957089|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was claimed for a PK parameter if the 90% CI for the ratio of the geometric means of a PK variable fell within the interval \[0.5, 2.0\]. Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach was equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.665|1.087|||Mixed effect analysis of variance||Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach is equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|The primary comparison was each hepatic disease group (mild, moderate or severe) versus the control (normal group). To compare the primary PK parameters between each hepatic disease group and the control group, the 90% CI for the difference in the means of the log-transformed data was calculated using a mixed effect analysis of variance||1.087|0.665|
90969058|NCT03448068|181819724|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.272|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2720
91035899|NCT03673670|181958506|OTHER|A hierarchical fixed-sequence testing strategy was employed to test the significance of the treatment effect for each of the two RPL554 doses against placebo, starting with the highest dose (6 mg). If a statistically significant difference was found at the 2-sided α level of 5%, the testing proceeded with the next highest dose. Otherwise, testing was stopped, and the remaining null hypotheses were accepted without testing.|GeoMean Ratio|1.021||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.991|1.052|||ANCOVA|||||1.052|0.991|0.168
90969059|NCT03448068|181819725|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7298|||||||Chi-squared|||Nausea 1st 12 hours for Ketamine Therapy vs Standard Therapy||||0.7298
90969060|NCT03448068|181819725|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1058|||||||Chi-squared|||Nausea 2nd 12 hours for Ketamine Therapy vs Standard Therapy||||0.1058
90969061|NCT03448068|181819725|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||Nausea 2nd 24 hours for Ketamine Therapy vs Standard Therapy||||1.000
90969062|NCT03448068|181819726|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2
90969063|NCT01438489|181819730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.38||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.33|4.26|||Regression, Logistic|||All-comers||4.26|1.33|0.014
90969064|NCT01438489|181819730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.94||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.08|3.49|||Regression, Logistic|||All-comers||3.49|1.08|0.063
90969065|NCT01438489|181819731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.55||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.72|7.32|||Regression, Logistic|||High||7.32|1.72|0.004
90969066|NCT01438489|181819731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.65||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.27|5.53|||Regression, Logistic|||High||5.53|1.27|0.029
90969067|NCT01372384|181819764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.045|TWO_SIDED||||||"Clopper-Pearson exact method"|||Response assessment of Stable Disease Vs Partial Response at Visit 4 (Two proportions for Stable Disease Vs Partial Response of Erlotinib): The observed significance value of performed test for differences between two proportions for Stable Disease Vs Partial Response was analyzed.||||0.045
90969068|NCT01372384|181819764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||"Clopper-Pearson exact method"|||Response assessment of Stable Disease Vs Partial Response at Visit 6 (Two proportions for Stable Disease Vs Partial Response of Erlotinib): The observed significance value of performed test for differences between two proportions for Stable Disease Vs Partial Response was analyzed||||1.000
90969069|NCT01372384|181819764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||"Clopper-Pearson exact method"|||Response assessment of Partial Response Vs Progression of disease at Visit 6 (Two proportions for of Partial Response Vs Progression of disease of Erlotinib): The observed significance value of performed test for differences between two proportions for of Partial Response Vs Progression of disease was analyzed||||1.000
90969070|NCT01372384|181819764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||"Clopper-Pearson exact method"|||Response assessment of Stable Disease Vs Progression of disease at Visit 6 (Two proportions for of Stable Disease Vs Progression of disease of Erlotinib): The observed significance value of performed test for differences between two proportions for of Stable Disease Vs Progression of disease was analyzed||||1.000
90969071|NCT01372384|181819764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.274|TWO_SIDED||||||"Clopper-Pearson exact method"|||Response assessment of Partial Response Vs Progression of disease at Visit 10 (Two proportions for of Partial Response Vs Progression of disease of Erlotinib): The observed significance value of performed test for differences between two proportions for of Partial Response Vs Progression of disease was analyzed||||0.274
90969072|NCT02375724|181819774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-1.02||||0.0306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline and age as covariates; treatment group, sex, visit, smoking-status and treatment group-by-visit interaction as fixed effect factors||||-0.10|-1.94|0.0306
90969073|NCT02375724|181819775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.22||||0.0793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline and age as covariates; treatment group, sex, visit, smoking-status and treatment group-by-visit interaction as fixed effect factors||||0.03|-0.46|0.0793
90969074|NCT02375724|181819776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.06||||0.844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline and age as covariates; treatment group, sex, visit, smoking-status and treatment group-by-visit interaction as fixed effect factors||||0.52|-0.64|0.844
90969075|NCT02285777|181819812|OTHER|Pre-specified.|Vaccine Effectiveness|71.0||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|69.0|73.0|||Generalized Linear Model|To obtain the VE measure which is a measure based on RR, BINOMIAL DISTRIBUTION \& LOG LINK options were used to compute log10 RR \& corresponding CI.||The Vaccine Effectiveness (VE) at 1 month after the 3-dose vaccination series for each strain is defined as \[1 - (percentage of subjects without bactericidal activity at 1:4 dilution in MenABCWY group/percentage of subjects without bactericidal activity at 1:4 dilution in MenACWY group)\] x 100.The combined VE across all strains was computed by mean of a generalized linear model.||73|69|0.0001
90969076|NCT02285777|181819813|OTHER|Pre-specified.|Vaccine Effectiveness|51.0||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.0|55.0|||Generalized Linear Model|To obtain the VE measure which is a measure based on RR, BINOMIAL DISTRIBUTION \& LOG LINK options were used to compute log10 RR \& corresponding CI.||The Vaccine Effectiveness (VE) at 4 months after the 3-dose vaccination series for each strain is defined as \[1 - (percentage of subjects without bactericidal activity at 1:4 dilution in MenABCWY group/percentage of subjects without bactericidal activity at 1:4 dilution in MenACWY group)\] x 100. The combined VE across all strains was computed by mean of a generalized linear model.||55|48|0.0001
90969077|NCT02285777|181819814|OTHER|Pre-specified.|Vaccine Effectiveness|51.0||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.0|54.0|||Generalized Linear Model|To obtain the VE measure which is a measure based on RR, BINOMIAL DISTRIBUTION \& LOG LINK options were used to compute log10 RR \& corresponding CI.||The Vaccine Effectiveness (VE) at 1 month after the 3-dose vaccination series for each strain is defined as \[1 - (percentage of subjects without bactericidal activity at 1:8 dilution in MenABCWY group/percentage of subjects without bactericidal activity at 1:8 dilution in MenACWY group)\] x 100. The combined VE across all strains was computed by mean of a generalized linear model.||54|48|0.0001
90969078|NCT02285777|181819814|OTHER|Pre-specified.|Vaccine Effectiveness|24.0||||0.0001||95.0|20.0|28.0|||Generalized Linear Model|To obtain the VE measure which is a measure based on RR, BINOMIAL DISTRIBUTION \& LOG LINK options were used to compute log10 RR \& corresponding CI.||The Vaccine Effectiveness (VE) at 4 months after the 3-dose vaccination series for each strain is defined as \[1 - (percentage of subjects without bactericidal activity at 1:8 dilution in MenABCWY group/percentage of subjects without bactericidal activity at 1:8 dilution in MenACWY group)\] x 100. The combined VE across all strains was computed by mean of a generalized linear model.||28|20|0.0001
90969079|NCT01074190|181819840|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.34
90969080|NCT01074190|181819841|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.1
91035548|NCT01299454|181957089|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was claimed for a PK parameter if the 90% CI for the ratio of the geometric means of a PK variable fell within the interval \[0.5, 2.0\]. Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach was equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.531||||||90.0|0.399|0.705|||Mixed effect analysis of variance||Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach is equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|The primary comparison was each hepatic disease group (mild, moderate or severe) versus the control (normal group). To compare the primary PK parameters between each hepatic disease group and the control group, the 90% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in the means of the log-transformed data was calculated using a mixed effect analysis of variance||0.705|0.399|
90969081|NCT01074190|181819842|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Chi-squared|||A sample size of 315 achieves 80% power to detect a difference among groups using a 2 degrees of freedom Chi-Square Test with a significance level (alpha) of 0.05.||||.1
90969082|NCT00290342|181819854|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess the non-inferiority of the Infanrix-IPV Group compared to the Infanrix + IMOVAX Polio Group in terms of vaccine response to diphtheria, standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the groups'difference (Infanrix-IPV Group minus Infanrix + IMOVAX Polio Group) was computed. Objective of non-inferiority was met since the LL of the 95% CI was above -10%.|Difference in seroprotection rate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|1.79||||||Non-inferiority in terms of vaccine response to diphteria||1.79|-1.85|
90969083|NCT00290342|181819854|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess the non-inferiority of the Infanrix-IPV Group compared to the Infanrix + IMOVAX Polio Group in terms of vaccine response to tetanus, standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the groups'difference (Infanrix-IPV Group minus Infanrix + IMOVAX Polio Group) was computed. Objective of non-inferiority was met since the LL of the 95% CI was above -10%.|Difference in seroprotection rate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|1.79||||||Non-inferiority in terms of vaccine response to tetanus||1.79|-1.85|
90969084|NCT00290342|181819855|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess the non-inferiority of the Infanrix-IPV Group compared to the Infanrix + IMOVAX Polio Group in terms of vaccine response to poliovirus type 1, standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the groups' difference (Infanrix-IPV Group minus Infanrix + IMOVAX Polio Group) was computed. Objective of non-inferiority was met since the LL of the 95% CI was above -10%.|Difference in seroprotection rate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|1.82||||||Immune response non-inferiority - Anti-Polio 1||1.82|-1.85|
90969085|NCT00290342|181819855|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess the non-inferiority of the Infanrix-IPV Group compared to the Infanrix + IMOVAX Polio Group in terms of vaccine response to poliovirus type 2, standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the groups' difference (Infanrix-IPV Group minus Infanrix + IMOVAX Polio Group) was computed. Objective of non-inferiority was met since the LL of the 95% CI was above -10%.|Difference in seroprotection rate|0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|2.71||||||Immune response non-inferiority - Anti-Polio 2||2.71|-1.36|
90969086|NCT00290342|181819855|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess the non-inferiority of the Infanrix-IPV Group compared to the Infanrix + IMOVAX Polio Group in terms of vaccine response to poliovirus type 3, standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the groups' difference (Infanrix-IPV Group minus Infanrix + IMOVAX Polio Group) was computed. Objective of non-inferiority was met since the LL of the 95% CI was above -10%.|Difference in seroprotection rate|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28|2.24||||||Immune response non-inferiority - Anti-Polio 3||2.24|-2.28|
90969087|NCT00290342|181819856|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess the non-inferiority of the Infanrix-IPV Group compared to the Infanrix + IMOVAX Polio Group in terms of vaccine response to pertussis toxoid, standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the groups' difference (Infanrix-IPV Group minus Infanrix + IMOVAX Polio Group) was computed. Objective of non-inferiority was met since the LL of the 95% CI was above -10%.|Difference in seroprotection rate|1.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|4.13||||||Immune response non-inferiority - Anti-PT||4.13|-0.46|
90969088|NCT00290342|181819856|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess the non-inferiority of the Infanrix-IPV Group compared to the Infanrix + IMOVAX Polio Group in terms of vaccine response to filamentous haemagglutinin, standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the groups' difference (Infanrix-IPV Group minus Infanrix + IMOVAX Polio Group) was computed. Objective of non-inferiority was met since the LL of the 95% CI was above -10%.|Difference in seroprotection rate|0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|2.95||||||Immune response non-inferiority - Anti-FHA||2.95|-1.88|
90969089|NCT00290342|181819856|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess the non-inferiority of the Infanrix-IPV Group compared to the Infanrix + IMOVAX Polio Group in terms of vaccine response to pertactin, standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the groups' difference (Infanrix-IPV Group minus Infanrix + IMOVAX Polio Group) was computed. Objective of non-inferiority was met since the LL of the 95% CI was above -10%.|Difference in seroprotection rate|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|2.64||||||Immune response non-inferiority - Anti-PRN||2.64|-1.4|
90969090|NCT02997735|181819870|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.81|27.9|||Chi-squared||ORs from multivariable logistic regression model of characteristics associated with successful quitline enrollment.|||27.90|2.81|<0.001
90969091|NCT02997735|181819871|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.48||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.72|||Chi-squared||1-5 years Row (\<1 Ref)|||1.72|0.13|0.15
90969092|NCT02997735|181819871|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|2.12|||||6-12 years Row (\<1 Ref)|||2.12|0.18|
90969093|NCT02997735|181819871|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|6.94|||||13 or Older Row (\<1 Ref)|||6.94|0.49|
90969094|NCT02997735|181819872|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.38||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|6.5|||Chi-squared||35-49 years Row (18-34 Ref)|||6.50|0.92|0.028
90969095|NCT02997735|181819872|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|17.32|||||50 or older Row (18-34 Ref)|||17.32|1.46|
90969096|NCT02997735|181819873|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.8|||Chi-squared||Asthma Row (No asthma Ref)|||2.80|0.40|0.85
90969097|NCT02997735|181819874|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.07||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|6.5|||Chi-squared||10 or more cigarettes Row (\<10 cigarettes Ref)|||6.50|0.90|0.086
90969098|NCT02997735|181819875|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.47||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.27|||Chi-squared||Less than 6 months Row (30 days Ref)|||1.27|0.15|0.35
90969099|NCT02997735|181819875|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|2.21|||||||6 or more months Row (30 days Ref)|2.21|0.15|
90969100|NCT02285998|181819882|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size required to achieve 80% power was calculated based on a one-sided alpha level of 0.025 and an attack rate of 2% in the IIV4 and 1.53% for the Flublok groups respectively.|Relative Vaccine Efficacy (rVE)|30.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|47.0||||||The primary efficacy analysis was based on the numbers of protocol-defined influenza-like illnesses with rtPCR-positive nasopharyngeal swabs detecting influenza virus of any strain. The Relative Vaccine Efficacy was 30% (10, 47). Non-inferiority would be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for rVE was \> -20%. Superiority of RIV4 in a pre-specified exploratory analysis required that the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI of rVE be \> +9%.||47|10|
90969101|NCT02651584|181819897|NON_INFERIORITY|The p-value was based on the chi square test for non-inferiority with the margin of 10% point.|||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
90969102|NCT02651584|181819898|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum|||including subject self-reported opioid use||||0.004
90969103|NCT02651584|181819898|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum|||not including self-reported opioid use||||0.008
90969104|NCT02651584|181819900|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The p-value was based on the chi square test for non-inferiority with the margin of 15%.||||||0.006|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.006
90969105|NCT04041284|181819901|OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.16|-1.21|||ANCOVA|||||-1.21|-3.16|<0.0001
90969106|NCT04041284|181819902|OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.0205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|-0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.22|-2.61|0.0205
90969107|NCT04041284|181819903|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.89|5.62|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.62|1.89|<0.0001
90969108|NCT04041284|181819904|OTHER||LS mean difference|11.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.21|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.91|15.59|||Mixed Models Analysis||Restrictive score: Fremanezumab versus placebo|||15.59|6.91|<0.0001
90969109|NCT04041284|181819904|OTHER||LS mean difference|9.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.73|14.08|||Mixed Models Analysis||Preventive score: Fremanezumab versus placebo|||14.08|5.73|<0.0001
90969110|NCT04041284|181819905|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis||Change at Week 4: Fremanezumab versus Placebo|||0.03|-0.39|0.0915
90969111|NCT04041284|181819905|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis||Change at Week 8: Fremanezumab versus Placebo|||-0.16|-0.59|0.0006
90969112|NCT04041284|181819905|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|-0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis||Change at Week 12: Fremanezumab versus Placebo|||-0.12|-0.58|0.0030
90969113|NCT04041284|181819906|OTHER||LS mean difference|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.15|-1.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.96|-5.15|<0.0001
90969114|NCT03455491|181819915|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3541|||||||Gekhan-Wilcoxon test|||||||0.3541
90969115|NCT03455491|181819916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3597|||||||Gekhan-Wilcoxon test|||||||0.3597
90969116|NCT03455491|181819918|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4551|||||||ANOVA|one-way ANOVA||||||0.4551
90969117|NCT00884273|181819925|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Non-inferiority was to be established if the treatment difference in adjusted (for baseline volume, and baseline total IPSS) mean percentage reduction was significantly greater (two-sided at α=0.05 level) than Δ = 10 points (non-inferiority margin) in both the FAS and PP analyses sets.~If the Week 12 treatment assessment of prostate volume was missing the LOCF approach was used, i.e., the prostate volume value closest to and before Week 12 was used."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.37||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|7.52||FAS.|ANCOVA|The baseline IPSS and baseline Prostate volume were used as covariates and treatment was used as a factor in the analysis.||Estimates from analysis of variance with treatment as factors and baseline IPSS and baseline Prostate volume as covariates.||7.52|-2.78|0.36
90969118|NCT00884273|181819934|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Non-inferiority was to be established if the treatment difference in adjusted (for baseline volume, and baseline total IPSS) mean percentage reduction was significantly greater (two-sided at α=0.05 level) than Δ = 10 points (non-inferiority margin) in both the FAS and PP analyses sets.~If the Week 12 treatment assessment of prostate volume was missing the LOCF approach was used, i.e., the prostate volume value closest to and before Week 12 was used."|Mean Difference (Net)|2.24||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|7.58||PP.|ANCOVA|The baseline IPSS and baseline Prostate volume were used as covariates and treatment was used as a factor in the analysis.||Estimates from analysis of variance with treatment as factors and baseline IPSS and baseline Prostate volume as covariates.||7.58|-3.10|0.41
90969119|NCT03803059|181819940|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Calculated using Wilcoxon signed rank test. Testing hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is zero||||<0.01
90969120|NCT03803059|181819941|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Calculated using Wilcoxon signed rank test. Testing hypothesis is that the mean score is equal to 4 (no change).||||<0.01
90969121|NCT03803059|181819942|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Calculated using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. Testing hypothesis is that the mean score is equal to 4.||||<0.01
90969122|NCT03803059|181819943|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.051|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Calculated using paired t-test. The testing hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is zero.||||0.051
90969123|NCT03803059|181819944|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Calculated from paired t-test. The testing hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is zero.||||<0.01
90969124|NCT03803059|181819945|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.331|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Calculated from paired t-test. The testing hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is zero.||||0.331
90969125|NCT03803059|181819946|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.863|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Calculated using the paired t test. Testing hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is zero.||||0.863
90969126|NCT03803059|181819947|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.048|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Calculated using the paired t-test. The testing hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is zero.||||0.048
90969127|NCT03803059|181819948|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.355||||||P-value reported is for viscoelastic deformation.|t-test, 2 sided|at significance level alpha+0.05||Calculated using the paired t-test. The testing hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is zero.||||0.355
90969128|NCT03803059|181819949|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.859||||||Calculated with a paired T test. Testing hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is zero.|t-test, 2 sided|||Calculated using the paired t test. Testing hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is zero.||||0.859
90969129|NCT03803059|181819950|EQUIVALENCE|.A binomial (sign) test was performed to test if the the proportion of the combined designated favorable evaluations/responses is equal to the combined designated negative evaluations/responses for each question|||||<|0.01|||||||Sign test|||Patient satisfaction questionnaires were tabulated, and the frequency and percentage of all response options were reported for each question and time point calculated from the binomial (sign) test. The testing hypothesis is that the proportion of favorable responses is equal to the unfavorable||||<0.01
90969130|NCT03803059|181819951|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.031||||||All statistical tests were 2-sided at significance level alpha=0.05. No multiple testing corrections were considered in the study.|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis that the mean change from baseline is zero was tested using a paired t-test||||0.031
90969131|NCT02904915|181819952|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.59
90969132|NCT02904915|181819953|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.39
90969133|NCT02904915|181819954|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.23
90969134|NCT03118232|181820054|OTHER|The risk ratios reflect the risk of transfer to a hospital during the intervention period relative to the baseline period in each trial group.|Difference in Risk Ratio|16.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|21.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||21.8|11.0|<0.001
90969135|NCT03118232|181820055|OTHER|The risk ratios reflect the risk of transfer to a hospital during the intervention period relative to the baseline period in each trial group.|Difference in Risk Ratio|14.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.7|19.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||19.2|9.7|<0.001
90969136|NCT04036708|181820060|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm difference at month 6 in linear mixed effects model.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.33||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.93|5.32||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome, household material possessions, and the HOME score were adjusted for in the model.|WTM only minus MISC and WTM|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that the means of two groups were not equal. Planned sample size of total 100 analyzed was determined by feasibility considerations for this exploratory developmental R21 study. With planned n=66 in MISC+WTM arm and n=34 in WTM only arm, the unadjusted effect size of 0.60 was detectable as statistically significant with power of 0.80 and 0.05 level of significance in two-tailed tests.||5.32|-3.93|.77
90969137|NCT04036708|181820060|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm difference at month 12 in linear mixed effects model.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.44||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.14|4.54||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome, household material possessions, and the HOME score were adjusted for in the model.|WTM only minus MISC and WTM|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that the means of two groups were not equal. Planned sample size of total 100 analyzed was determined by feasibility considerations for this exploratory developmental R21 study. With planned n=66 in MISC+WTM arm and n=34 in WTM only arm, the unadjusted effect size of 0.60 was detectable as statistically significant with power of 0.80 and 0.05 level of significance in two-tailed tests.||4.54|-5.14|.90
90969138|NCT04036708|181820061|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm difference at month 6 in linear mixed effects model.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|64.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|24.55||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.26|112.8||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome, household material possessions, the HOME score, child's age and sex were adjusted for in the model.|WTM only minus MISC and WTM|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that the means of two groups were not equal. Planned sample size of total 100 analyzed was determined by feasibility considerations for this exploratory developmental R21 study. With planned n=66 in MISC+WTM arm and n=34 in WTM only arm, the unadjusted effect size of 0.60 was detectable as statistically significant with power of 0.80 and 0.05 level of significance in two-tailed tests.||112.8|15.26|.01
90969139|NCT04036708|181820061|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm difference at month 12 in linear mixed effects model.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-37.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|24.86||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-86.92|11.85||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome, household material possessions, the HOME score, and child's age and sex were adjusted for in the model.|WTM only minus MISC and WTM|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that the means of two groups were not equal. Planned sample size of total 100 analyzed was determined by feasibility considerations for this exploratory developmental R21 study. With planned n=66 in MISC+WTM arm and n=34 in WTM only arm, the unadjusted effect size of 0.60 was detectable as statistically significant with power of 0.80 and 0.05 level of significance in two-tailed tests.||11.85|-86.92|.13
90969140|NCT04036708|181820062|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm difference at month 6 in linear mixed effects model.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.97||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.65|4.13||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome and household material possessions were adjusted for in the model.|WTM only minus MISC and WTM|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. Sample size was determined by considerations for the primary outcomes.||4.13|-7.65|.55
90969141|NCT04036708|181820062|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm difference at month 12 in linear mixed effects model.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.05||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.48|2.63||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome and household material possessions were adjusted for in the model.|WTM only minus MISC and WTM|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. Sample size was determined by considerations for the primary outcomes.||2.63|-9.48|.26
90969142|NCT04036708|181820063|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm difference at month 6 in linear mixed effects model.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.16||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome, household material possessions, and the HOME score were adjusted for in the model.|WTM only minus MISC and WTM|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. Sample size was determined by considerations for the primary outcomes.||0.16|-0.48|.32
90969143|NCT04036708|181820063|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm difference at month 12 in linear mixed effects model.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.06||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome, household material possessions, and the HOME score were adjusted for in the model.|WTM only minus MISC and WTM|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. Sample size was determined by considerations for the primary outcomes.||-0.06|-0.72|.02
90971233|NCT02599961|181825056|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-82.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.55|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-113.13|-52.17||From the GEE model which includes the reduction from baseline for each visit period as the response variable, baseline as covariates, visit period as a factor, identity link function and exchangeable within subject working correlation matrix.|GEE model|||Month 10-12||-52.17|-113.13|< 0.0001
90969144|NCT04036708|181820064|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm difference at month 6 in linear mixed effects model.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.01||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome, household material possessions, and the HOME score were adjusted for in the model.|WTM only minus MISC and WTM|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. Sample size was determined by considerations for the primary outcomes.||0.01|-0.78|.06
90969145|NCT04036708|181820064|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm difference at month 12 in linear mixed effects model.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.28||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome, household material possessions, and the HOME score were adjusted for in the model.|WTM only minus MISC and WTM|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. Sample size was determined by considerations for the primary outcomes.||-0.28|-1.11|.001
90969146|NCT04036708|181820065|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm difference at month 6 in linear mixed effects model.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|2.03||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome, household material possessions, and the HOME score were adjusted for in the model.|WTM only minus MISC and WTM|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. Sample size was determined by considerations for the primary outcomes.||2.03|0.07|.04
90969147|NCT04036708|181820065|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm difference at month 12 in linear mixed effects model.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|1.96||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome, household material possessions, and the HOME score were adjusted for in the model.|WTM only minus MISC and WTM|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. Sample size was determined by considerations for the primary outcomes.||1.96|-0.08|.07
90969148|NCT04036708|181820066|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm difference at month 6 in linear mixed effects model.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|3.06||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome, household material possessions, and the HOME score were adjusted for in the model.|WTM only minus MISC and WTM|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. Sample size was determined by considerations for the primary outcomes.||3.06|1.02|<.01
90969149|NCT04036708|181820066|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm difference at month 12 in linear mixed effects model.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|2.79||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome, household material possessions, and the HOME score were adjusted for in the model.|WTM only minus MISC and WTM|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. Sample size was determined by considerations for the primary outcomes.||2.79|0.67|<.01
90969150|NCT02918864|181820067|SUPERIORITY||Beta Coefficient|-0.22||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value reported for Group\*Time, primary comparison in linear mixed effects model (SB=Group+Time+Group\*Time+ADHD+ γ + ε; ADHD, CASI T-score significant covariate), not adjusted for multiple tests (with different time points)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Ho=No significant interaction of Group\*Time||||0.037
90969151|NCT02918864|181820069|SUPERIORITY||Beta Coefficient|-0.23||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value reported for Group\*Time, primary comparison in linear mixed effects model (SB=Group+Time+Group\*Time+ADHD+ γ + ε; ADHD, CASI T-score significant covariate), not adjusted for multiple tests (with different time points)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Ho=No significant interaction of Group\*Time||||0.016
90969152|NCT02918864|181820071|SUPERIORITY||Beta Coefficient|-0.16||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value reported for Group\*Time, primary comparison in linear mixed effects model (SB=Group+Time+Group\*Time+ADHD+ γ + ε; ADHD, CASI T-score significant covariate), not adjusted for multiple tests (with different time points)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Ho=No significant interaction of Group\*Time||||0.061
90969153|NCT02918864|181820073|SUPERIORITY||Beta Coefficient|0.03||||0.674|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value reported for Group\*Time, primary comparison in linear mixed effects model (SC=Group+Time+Group\*Time+Group\*VIQ+ γ + ε; VIQ, verbal intelligence quotient (VIQ) significant moderator), not adjusted for multiple tests (with different time points)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Ho=No significant interaction of Group\*Time||||0.674
90969154|NCT02918864|181820075|SUPERIORITY||Beta Coefficient|0.09||||0.191|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value reported for Group\*Time, primary comparison in linear mixed effects model (SC=Group+Time+Group\*Time+Group\*VIQ+ γ + ε; VIQ, verbal intelligence quotient (VIQ) significant moderator), not adjusted for multiple tests (with different time points)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Ho=No significant interaction of Group\*Time||||0.191
91079159|NCT05153148|182043950|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-5.23|||=|0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.59|0.13|||MMRM||Point estimate and 95% CI were obtained from a MMRM model.||MMRM model included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction, with baseline value and the randomization stratification factors (prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region) as covariates, and the change from baseline as the dependent variable.|0.13|-10.59|=0.056
90969155|NCT02918864|181820077|SUPERIORITY||Beta Coefficient|0.04||||0.599|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value reported for Group\*Time, primary comparison in linear mixed effects model (SC=Group+Time+Group\*Time+Group\*VIQ+ γ + ε; VIQ, verbal intelligence quotient (VIQ) significant moderator), not adjusted for multiple tests (with different time points)|Mixed Models Analysis|||H0=No significant interaction of Group\*Time||||0.599
90969156|NCT02918864|181820079|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.462||||||2-sided p-value; p-value reported not adjusted for multiple tests (with different time points)|Fisher Exact|||"Ho=Group and response are independent (responders=improved scores of 1-2; non-responders=worsened scores of 5-7 on the CGI-I) at week 12"||||0.462
90969157|NCT02918864|181820080|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||2-sided p-value; p-value reported not adjusted for multiple tests (with different time points)|Fisher Exact|||"Ho=Group and response are independent (responders=improved scores of 1-2; non-responders=worsened scores of 5-7 on the CGI-I) at week 16"||||1.000
90969158|NCT02918864|181820081|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.607||||||2-sided p-value; p-value reported not adjusted for multiple tests (with different time points)|Fisher Exact|||"Ho=Group and response are independent (responders=improved scores of 1-2; non-responders=worsened scores of 5-7 on the CGI-I) at week 24"||||0.607
90969159|NCT02918864|181820082|SUPERIORITY||Beta Coefficient|-0.15||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value reported for Group\*Time, primary comparison in linear mixed effects model (SRS=Group+Time+Group\*Time+VIQ+ γ + ε; VIQ, verbal IQ significant covariate), not adjusted for multiple tests (with different time points)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Ho=No significant interaction of Group\*Time||||0.310
90969160|NCT02918864|181820084|SUPERIORITY||Beta Coefficient|-0.2||||0.115|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value reported for Group\*Time, primary comparison in linear mixed effects model (SRS=Group+Time+Group\*Time+VIQ+ γ + ε; VIQ, verbal IQ significant covariate), not adjusted for multiple tests (with different time points)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Ho=No significant interaction of Group\*Time||||0.115
90969161|NCT02918864|181820086|SUPERIORITY||Beta Coefficient|-0.08||||0.455|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value reported for Group\*Time, primary comparison in linear mixed effects model (SRS=Group+Time+Group\*Time+VIQ+ γ + ε; VIQ, verbal IQ significant covariate), not adjusted for multiple tests (with different time points)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Ho=No significant interaction of Group\*Time||||0.455
90969162|NCT02918864|181820088|SUPERIORITY||Beta Coefficient|-0.14||||0.379|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value reported for Group\*Time, primary comparison in linear mixed effects model (CGS=Group+Time+Group\*Time+ γ + ε), not adjusted for multiple tests (with different time points)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Ho=No significant interaction of Group\*Time||||0.379
90935703|NCT01922102|181750451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|7.1||Superiority could be claimed if the corresponding one-sided p-value was ≤ 0.025/2 = 0.0125, or if both one-sided p-values were ≤ 0.025.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Differences in LS means and the two-sided 95% CIs are estimated from pairwise ANOVA (stratified) model.|2 one-sided hypotheses were tested under the Type I error rate of 0.025, using the Hochberg procedure: H01: μRanibizumab-I - μvPDT ≤ 0 vs. HA1: μRanibizumab-I - μvPDT \> 0 and H02: μRanibizumab-II - μvPDT ≤ 0 vs. HA2: μRanibizumab-II - μvPDT \> 0, where μRanibizumab-I, μRanibizumab-II and μvPDT were the means of the primary efficacy variable for ranibizumab treatment Group I, ranibizumab treatment Group II, and vPDT treatment Group III, respectively.||7.1|3.3|<0.001
90935704|NCT01922102|181750451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|7.6||Superiority could be claimed if the corresponding one-sided p-value was ≤ 0.025/2 = 0.0125, or if both one-sided p-values were ≤ 0.025.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Differences in LS means and the two-sided 95% CIs are estimated from pairwise ANOVA (stratified) model.|"The following 2 one-sided hypotheses were tested under the Type I error rate of 0.025, using the Hochberg procedure:~H01: μRanibizumab-I - μvPDT ≤ 0 vs. HA1: μRanibizumab-I - μvPDT \> 0 and H02: μRanibizumab-II - μvPDT ≤ 0 vs. HA2: μRanibizumab-II - μvPDT \> 0, where μRanibizumab-I, μRanibizumab-II and μvPDT were the means of the primary efficacy variable for ranibizumab treatment Group I, ranibizumab treatment Group II, and vPDT treatment Group III, respectively."||7.6|3.5|<0.001
90935705|NCT01922102|181750452|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"one-sided hypotheses were tested under the Type I error rate of 0.025, if H01 and H02 were rejected: H03: μRanibizumab-II - μRanibizumab-I ≤ -5 vs. HA3: μRanibizumab-II - μRanibizumab-I \> -5.~Otherwise, H03 was not to be considered as rejected."|Mean Difference (Net)|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|2.1||Non-inferiority could be claimed if the corresponding one-sided p-value was ≤ 0.025.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Differences in LS means and the two-sided 95% CIs are estimated from pairwise ANOVA (stratified) model.|||2.1|-1.3|<0.001
90935706|NCT01383616|181750520|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of 3 month ODI Score between Unipedicular and Bipedicular kyphoplasty groups||||0.85
90935707|NCT01383616|181750521|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.008
90935708|NCT01383616|181750522|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.17
90935709|NCT01383616|181750523|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.93
90935710|NCT01383616|181750524|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.17
90935711|NCT01383616|181750525|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.67
90935712|NCT01383616|181750526|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.90
90935713|NCT01383616|181750527|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.36
90935714|NCT01383616|181750528|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.87
90935715|NCT01383616|181750529|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.24
90969163|NCT02918864|181820090|SUPERIORITY||Beta Coefficient|-0.14||||0.275|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value reported for Group\*Time, primary comparison in linear mixed effects model (CGS=Group+Time+Group\*Time+ γ + ε), not adjusted for multiple tests (with different time points)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Ho=No significant interaction of Group\*Time||||0.275
90935716|NCT00896389|181750530|OTHER|Association between genotypes and phenotypes were tested using a linear mixed model, coding genotype as an independent variable with an additive genetic effect, and including age, age\^2, and sex as covariates in the model. All association analyses were run using the Mixed Models for Pedigree Analysis (MMAP) software program to account for the relatedness among study subjects. MMAP User Guide is available from http://edn.som.umaryland.edu/mmap/index.php.|||||>|0.05||||||Because no P-values less than 0.05 was observed, we did not adjust them for multiple comparison to avoid false positives.|Chi-squared|||Null hypothesis: There is no association between STK39 SNP rs35929607 genotype group and phenotypes collected in this study.||||>0.05
90935717|NCT00896389|181750531|OTHER|Association between genotype and phenotype were tested using a linear mixed model, coding genotype as an independent variable with an additive genetic effect, and including age, age\^2, and sex as covariates in the model. All association analyses were run using the Mixed Models for Pedigree Analysis (MMAP) software program to account for the relatedness among study subjects. MMAP User Guide is available from http://edn.som.umaryland.edu/mmap/index.php.|||||<|0.05||||||Because no P-values less than 0.05 was observed, we did not adjust them for multiple comparison to avoid false positives.|Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
90935718|NCT00896389|181750532|OTHER|Association between genotype and phenotype were tested using a linear mixed model, coding genotype as an independent variable with an additive genetic effect, and including age, age\^2, and sex as covariates in the model. All association analyses were run using the Mixed Models for Pedigree Analysis (MMAP) software program to account for the relatedness among study subjects. MMAP User Guide is available from http://edn.som.umaryland.edu/mmap/index.php.|||||>|0.05||||||Because no P-values less than 0.05 was observed, we did not adjust them for multiple comparison to avoid false positives.|Chi-squared|||Null hypothesis: There is no association between STK39 SNP rs35909607 genotype group and phenotypes collected in this study.||||>0.05
90969164|NCT02918864|181820092|SUPERIORITY||Beta Coefficient|-0.2||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value reported for Group\*Time, primary comparison in linear mixed effects model (CGS=Group+Time+Group\*Time+ γ + ε), not adjusted for multiple tests (with different time points)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.087
90969165|NCT02104583|181820103|SUPERIORITY||Eleclazine : Placebo Incident Rate Ratio|1.52||||0.152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|2.71|||generalized linear model|||The primary analysis of overall occurrence of appropriate ICD interventions through Week 24 was performed using a generalized linear model assuming a negative binomial distribution and log link. This model included terms for treatment, implanted device (ICD or CRT-D) and region \[US or rest of world (ROW)\].||2.71|0.86|0.152
90935719|NCT00896389|181750533|OTHER|Association between genotype and phenotype were tested using a linear mixed model, coding genotype as an independent variable with an additive genetic effect, and including age, age\^2, and sex as covariates in the model. All association analyses were run using the Mixed Models for Pedigree Analysis (MMAP) software program to account for the relatedness among study subjects. MMAP User Guide is available from http://edn.som.umaryland.edu/mmap/index.php.|||||>|0.05||||||Because no P-values less than 0.05 was observed, we did not adjust them for multiple comparison to avoid false positives.|Chi-squared|||Null hypothesis: There is no association between STK39 SNP rs35909607 genotype group and phenotypes collected in this study.||||>0.05
90935720|NCT00896389|181750534|OTHER|Association between genotype and phenotype were tested using a linear mixed model, coding genotype as an independent variable with an additive genetic effect, and including age, age\^2, and sex as covariates in the model. All association analyses were run using the Mixed Models for Pedigree Analysis (MMAP) software program to account for the relatedness among study subjects. MMAP User Guide is available from http://edn.som.umaryland.edu/mmap/index.php.|||||>|0.05||||||Because no P-values less than 0.05 was observed, we did not adjust them for multiple comparison to avoid false positives.|Chi-squared|||Null hypothesis: There is no association between STK39 SNP rs35909607 genotype group and phenotypes collected in this study.||||>0.05
90935721|NCT00896389|181750535|OTHER|Association between genotype and phenotype were tested using a linear mixed model, coding genotype as an independent variable with an additive genetic effect, and including age, age\^2, and sex as covariates in the model. All association analyses were run using the Mixed Models for Pedigree Analysis (MMAP) software program to account for the relatedness among study subjects. MMAP User Guide is available from http://edn.som.umaryland.edu/mmap/index.php.|||||>|0.05||||||Because no P-values less than 0.05 was observed, we did not adjust them for multiple comparison to avoid false positives.|Chi-squared|||Null hypothesis: There is no association between STK39 SNP rs35929607 genotype group and phenotypes collected in this study.||||>0.05
90935722|NCT00896389|181750536|OTHER|Association between genotype and phenotype were tested using a linear mixed model, coding genotype as an independent variable with an additive genetic effect, and including age, age\^2, and sex as covariates in the model. All association analyses were run using the Mixed Models for Pedigree Analysis (MMAP) software program to account for the relatedness among study subjects. MMAP User Guide is available from http://edn.som.umaryland.edu/mmap/index.php.|||||>|0.05||||||Because no P-values less than 0.05 was observed, we did not adjust them for multiple comparison to avoid false positives.|Chi-squared|||Null hypothesis: There is no association between STK39 SNP rs35929607 genotype group and phenotypes collected in this study.||||>0.05
90935723|NCT00896389|181750537|OTHER|Association between genotype and phenotype were tested using a linear mixed model, coding genotype as an independent variable with an additive genetic effect, and including age, age\^2, and sex as covariates in the model. All association analyses were run using the Mixed Models for Pedigree Analysis (MMAP) software program to account for the relatedness among study subjects. MMAP User Guide is available from http://edn.som.umaryland.edu/mmap/index.php.|||||>|0.05||||||Because no P-values less than 0.05 was observed, we did not adjust them for multiple comparison to avoid false positives.|Chi-squared|||Null hypothesis: There is no association between STK39 SNP rs35929607 genotype group and phenotypes collected in this study.||||>0.05
90935724|NCT00896389|181750538|OTHER|Association between genotype and phenotype were tested using a linear mixed model, coding genotype as an independent variable with an additive genetic effect, and including age, age\^2, and sex as covariates in the model. All association analyses were run using the Mixed Models for Pedigree Analysis (MMAP) software program to account for the relatedness among study subjects. MMAP User Guide is available from http://edn.som.umaryland.edu/mmap/index.php.|||||>|0.05||||||Because no P-values less than 0.05 was observed, we did not adjust them for multiple comparison to avoid false positives.|Chi-squared|||Null hypothesis: There is no association between STK39 SNP rs35929607 genotype group and phenotypes collected in this study.||||>0.05
90935725|NCT00896389|181750539|OTHER|Association between genotype and phenotype were tested using a linear mixed model, coding genotype as an independent variable with an additive genetic effect, and including age, age\^2, and sex as covariates in the model. All association analyses were run using the Mixed Models for Pedigree Analysis (MMAP) software program to account for the relatedness among study subjects. MMAP User Guide is available from http://edn.som.umaryland.edu/mmap/index.php.|||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|Because no P-values less than 0.05 was observed, we did not adjust them for multiple comparison to avoid false positives.||Null hypothesis: There is no association between STK39 SNP rs35929607 genotype group and phenotypes collected in this study.||||>0.05
90935726|NCT03184519|181750547|SUPERIORITY||Area Under Curve|0.79||||0.025|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.025
90935727|NCT02823574|181750553|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.68||||0.2897|TWO_SIDED|95.5|0.33|1.43|||Mantel Haenszel|||Treatment A over Treatment B||1.43|0.33|0.2897
90935728|NCT02823574|181750558|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.41|||||computed using a cox proportional hazard model stratified by randomization PD-L1 and HPV status|||1.41|0.78|
90935729|NCT02823574|181750559|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.41|||||computed using a cox proportional hazard model stratified by randomization PDL-1 and HPV status|||1.41|0.78|
90935730|NCT02823574|181750560|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.36|||||computed using a cox proportional hazard model stratified by randomization PDL-1 and HPV status|||1.36|0.87|
90935731|NCT02823574|181750561|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.45|||||computed using a cox proportional hazard model stratified by randomization PDL-1 and HPV status|||1.45|0.81|
90935732|NCT02823574|181750562|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.61|||||computed using a cox proportional hazard model stratified by randomization PDL-1 and HPV status|||1.61|0.81|
90935733|NCT02823574|181750587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.29|||Mantel Haenszel|||Treatment A over Treatment B||1.29|0.32|
90935734|NCT01580306|181750592|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing)|Geometric Mean Ratio|113.57|STANDARD_DEVIATION|93.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|41.58|310.17|||ANOVA||the standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|relative bioavailability comparison mild : normal||310.17|41.58|
90935735|NCT01580306|181750592|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing)|Geometric Mean Ratio|178.31|STANDARD_DEVIATION|78.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.23|373.03|||ANOVA||the standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|relative bioavailability comparison moderate : normal||373.03|85.23|
90935736|NCT01580306|181750592|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing)|Geometric Mean Ratio|169.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|97.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|73.19|391.17|||ANOVA||the standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|relative bioavailability comparison severe : normal||391.17|73.19|
90935737|NCT01580306|181750593|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing)|Geometric Mean Ratio|107.22|STANDARD_DEVIATION|107.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|35.16|327.01|||ANOVA||the standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|relative bioavailability comparison mild : normal||327.01|35.16|
90935738|NCT01580306|181750593|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing)|Geometric Mean Ratio|175.52|STANDARD_DEVIATION|70.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.55|344.06|||ANOVA||the standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|relative bioavailability comparison moderate : normal||344.06|89.55|
90935739|NCT01580306|181750593|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing)|Geometric Mean Ratio|120.98|STANDARD_DEVIATION|115.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|47.257|309.736|||ANOVA||the standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|relative bioavailability comparison severe : normal||309.736|47.257|
90935740|NCT02105688|181750617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||One-sided exact test|||A one-sided exact test was used to test the null hypothesis, which was that the SVR12 rate for the ITA was less than 67% (historical reference rate derived from NCT01667731). The p-value was based on a one-sided exact test for a binomial proportion. A one-sided p-value \<0.025 supports a conclusion that the true SVR12 is \>67%.||||<0.001
90935741|NCT02105688|181750618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentage|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|10.0||||||Categorical AE parameters were assessed via point estimates with 95% confidence intervals provided for between-treatment differences in the percentage of participants with events using the Miettinen and Nurminen method, an unconditional, asymptotic method.||10.0|-8.3|
90935742|NCT02105688|181750619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentage|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|1.9||||||Categorical AE parameters were assessed via point estimates with 95% confidence intervals provided for between-treatment differences in the percentage of participants with events using the Miettinen and Nurminen method, an unconditional, asymptotic method.||1.9|-5.0|
90935743|NCT00887471|181750624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was P\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The relationship of surgical group with AHI change was evaluated by constructing a mixed linear model (MLM). The dependent variable was the logarithm of the ratio of postoperative AHI score to preoperative AHI score; this transformation was chosen in order to minimize skew of model residuals. Surgical group was introduced as a fixed factor; subject pairs constituted levels of a random blocking) factor.||||.590
90969166|NCT02104583|181820103|SUPERIORITY||Eleclazine : Placebo Incident Rate Ratio|0.82||||0.662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.97|||generalized linear model|||The primary analysis of overall occurrence of appropriate ICD interventions through Week 24 was performed using a generalized linear model assuming a negative binomial distribution and log link. This model included terms for treatment, implanted device (ICD or CRT-D) and region \[US or ROW\].||1.97|0.34|0.662
90935744|NCT00887471|181750624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022||||||P value for the variances. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was P \< .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed linear model was constructed as described above. Variance was estimated separately for each group.||||.022
90935745|NCT00887471|181750625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||The relationship of surgical group with postoperative AHI ≤ 5 was evaluated by exact conditional logistic regression, predicting AHI ≤ 5 from surgical group with subject pairs as strata.||||1.00
90935746|NCT04791917|181750630|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||ANCOVA|F(1,41) = 1.32, partial eta squared = .03||2 (Sex: men vs. women) X 2 (Time: Pre- vs. post-exercise) x 2 (Group: DOMS vs. sham DOMS) mixed general linear model on breakpoint for alcohol including baseline urge to consume alcohol and AUDIT score as covariates. Here we report the results of the analysis of the Sex X Time X Group interaction.||||.26
90935747|NCT04791917|181750631|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||ANCOVA|F(1,43) = 2.60, partial eta squared = .06||2 (Sex: men vs. women) X 2 (Time: Pre- vs. post-exercise) x 2 (Group: DOMS vs. sham DOMS) mixed general linear model on Omax for alcohol including baseline urge to consume alcohol and AUDIT score as covariates. Here we report the results of the analysis of the Sex X Time X Group interaction.||||.11
90969167|NCT02104583|181820103|SUPERIORITY||Eleclazine : Placebo Incident Rate Ratio|1.24||||0.618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|2.86|||generalized linear model|||The primary analysis of overall occurrence of appropriate ICD interventions through Week 24 was performed using a generalized linear model assuming a negative binomial distribution and log link. This model included terms for treatment, implanted device (ICD or CRT-D) and region \[US or ROW.||2.86|0.54|0.618
90969168|NCT00129766|181820113|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Confidence interval and relative risk adjusted for the stratification factor of presence or absence of CLD of prematurity as specified on the CRF.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.503|1.083|||t-test, 2 sided||Relative risk was calculated as (Pn/Ps) where Pn is the proportion of patients with RSV hospitalization in the motavizumab group and Ps is the proportion of patients with RSV hospitalization in the palivizumab group.|ITT population||1.083|0.503|
90969169|NCT00129766|181820122|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A CMH approach stratified by presence or absence of CLD of prematurity requiring medical intervention was used.||||||0.11||95.0||||Test stratified by presence or absence of CLD of prematurity specified on the CRF|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.110
90969170|NCT00129766|181820123|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A CMH approach stratified by presence or absence of CLD of prematurity requiring medical intervention was used.||||||0.005||95.0||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH test was stratified by presence or absence of CLD of prematurity as specified on the CRF||||||0.005
90935748|NCT04791917|181750632|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||ANCOVA|F(1,42) = 1.95, partial eta squared = .04||2 (Sex: men vs. women) X 2 (Time: Pre- vs. post-exercise) x 2 (Group: DOMS vs. sham DOMS) mixed general linear model on alcohol Pmax including baseline urge to consume alcohol and AUDIT score as covariates. Here we report the results of the analysis of the Sex X Time X Group interaction.||||.17
90935749|NCT04791917|181750633|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91|||||||ANCOVA|F(1,43)=.01, partial eta squared = .00||2 (Sex: men vs. women) X 2 (Time: Pre- vs. post-exercise) x 2 (Group: DOMS vs. sham DOMS) mixed general linear model on alcohol essential value including baseline urge to consume alcohol and AUDIT score as covariates. Here we report the results of the analysis of the Sex X Time X Group interaction.||||.91
90935750|NCT04791917|181750634|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||ANCOVA|F(1,41) = 2.24, partial eta squared = .05||2 (Sex: men vs. women) X 2 (Time: Pre- vs. post-exercise) x 2 (Group: DOMS vs. sham DOMS) mixed general linear model on intensity of cannabis demand including baseline urge to consume cannabis and CUDIT score as covariates. Here we report the results of the analysis of the Sex X Time X Group interaction.||||.14
90935751|NCT04791917|181750635|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||ANCOVA|F(1,41) = .04, partial eta squared = .001||2 (Sex: men vs. women) X 2 (Time: Pre- vs. post-exercise) x 2 (Group: DOMS vs. sham DOMS) mixed general linear model on breakpoint of cannabis demand including baseline urge to consume cannabis and CUDIT score as covariates. Here we report the results of the analysis of the Sex X Time X Group interaction.||||.83
90935752|NCT04791917|181750636|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||ANCOVA|F(1,41) = 2.20, partial eta squared = .05||2 (Sex: men vs. women) X 2 (Time: Pre- vs. post-exercise) x 2 (Group: DOMS vs. sham DOMS) mixed general linear model on Omax for cannabis including baseline urge to consume cannabis and CUDIT score as covariates. Here we report the results of the analysis of the Sex X Time X Group interaction.||||.15
90935753|NCT04791917|181750637|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||ANCOVA|F(1,41) = 1.41, partial eta squared = .03||2 (Sex: men vs. women) X 2 (Time: Pre- vs. post-exercise) x 2 (Group: DOMS vs. sham DOMS) mixed general linear model on Omax for cannabis including baseline urge to consume cannabis and CUDIT score as covariates. Here we report the results of the analysis of the Sex X Time X Group interaction.||||.24
90969171|NCT00129766|181820124|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A CMH approach stratified by presence or absence of CLD of prematurity requiring medical intervention was used.||||||0.476||95.0|||||Van Eleteren test|Test stratified by presence or absence of CLD of prematurity specified on the CRF||P-value is for overall incidence||||0.476
90969172|NCT00129766|181820125|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A CMH approach stratified by presence or absence of CLD of prematurity requiring medical intervention was used.||||||0.493||95.0||||Test stratified by presence or absence of CLD of prematurity specified on the CRF|Van Eleteren test|||||||0.493
90969173|NCT00129766|181820126|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A CMH approach stratified by presence or absence of CLD of prematurity requiring medical intervention was used.||||||0.652||95.0||||Test stratified by presence or absence of CLD of prematurity specified on the CRF|Van Eleteren test|||||||0.652
90969174|NCT02933034|181820133|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of infarct size using MEMRI versus DEMRI scan||||0.001
90969175|NCT02819635|181820156|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|8.4||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|16.8||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by previous biologic use, baseline corticosteroid use and baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 and \> 7)|Difference = Upadacitinib 7.5 mg - Placebo|Substudy 1: Upadacitinib 7.5 mg vs Placebo||16.8|0.0|0.049
90971234|NCT01857869|181825072|OTHER||1-Relative Risk|86.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|66.8|94.6||Two-sided Fisher Exact test was used for the comparison of malaria incidence after first/second CHMI between the compared groups.|Mantel Haenszel|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) was defined as 100\*(1-Relative Risk \[RR\]).||94.6|66.8|<0.0001
91035549|NCT01299454|181957090|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was claimed for a PK parameter if the 90% CI for the ratio of the geometric means of a PK variable fell within the interval \[0.5, 2.0\]. Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach was equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.103|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.774|1.573|||Mixed effect analysis of variance||Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach is equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|The secondary comparisons were each hepatic disease group (mild, moderate or severe) versus the control (normal group). To compare the secondary PK parameters between each hepatic disease group and the control group, the 90% CI for the difference in the means of the log-transformed data was calculated using a mixed effect analysis of variance.||1.573|0.774|
90935754|NCT04791917|181750638|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||ANCOVA|F(1,41) = .001, partial eta squared = .00||2 (Sex: men vs. women) X 2 (Time: Pre- vs. post-exercise) x 2 (Group: DOMS vs. sham DOMS) mixed general linear model on Essential Value for cannabis including baseline urge to consume cannabis and CUDIT score as covariates. Here we report the results of the analysis of the Sex X Time X Group interaction.||||.97
90935755|NCT04791917|181750638|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||ANCOVA|F(1,41) = 4.86, partial eta squared = .11||2 (Sex: men vs. women) X 2 (Time: Pre- vs. post-exercise) x 2 (Group: DOMS vs. sham DOMS) mixed general linear model on Essential Value for cannabis including baseline urge to consume cannabis and CUDIT score as covariates. Here we report the results of the analysis of the Time X Group interaction.||||.03
90935756|NCT04791917|181750639|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||ANCOVA|F(1,42) = 4.66, partial eta squared = .10||2 (Sex: men vs. women) X 2 (Time: Pre- vs. post-exercise) x 2 (Group: DOMS vs. sham DOMS) mixed general linear model on intensity of alcohol demand including baseline urge to consume alcohol and AUDIT score as covariates. Here we report the results of the analysis of the Sex X Time X Group interaction.||||.04
90935757|NCT04791917|181750639|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.1||||0.26|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||2 (Sex: men vs. women) X 2 (Time: Pre- vs. post-exercise) x 2 (Group: DOMS vs. sham DOMS) mixed general linear model on Intensity of alcohol demand including baseline urge to consume alcohol and AUDIT score as covariates. Here we report the results of the analysis of the effect of Time on Intensity for men in the DOMS group.||||.26
90935758|NCT04791917|181750639|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.09||||0.22|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||2 (Sex: men vs. women) X 2 (Time: Pre- vs. post-exercise) x 2 (Group: DOMS vs. sham DOMS) mixed general linear model on Intensity of alcohol demand including baseline urge to consume alcohol and AUDIT score as covariates. Here we report the results of the analysis of the effect of Time on Intensity for women in the DOMS group.||||.22
90935759|NCT04791917|181750639|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.1||||0.27|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||2 (Sex: men vs. women) X 2 (Time: Pre- vs. post-exercise) x 2 (Group: DOMS vs. sham DOMS) mixed general linear model on Intensity of alcohol demand including baseline urge to consume alcohol and AUDIT score as covariates. Here we report the results of the analysis of the effect of Time on Intensity for men in the sham DOMS group.||||.27
90969176|NCT02819635|181820156|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|13.5||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|23.8||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by previous biologic use, baseline corticosteroid use and baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 and \> 7)|Difference = Upadacitinib 15 mg - Placebo|Substudy 1: Upadacitinib 15 mg vs Placebo||23.8|3.3|0.010
90969177|NCT02819635|181820156|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|13.8||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|23.9||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by previous biologic use, baseline corticosteroid use and baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 and \> 7)|Difference = Upadacitinib 30 mg - Placebo|Substudy 1: Upadacitinib 30 mg vs Placebo||23.9|3.8|0.007
90969178|NCT02819635|181820156|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|21.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.6|33.6||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by previous biologic use, baseline corticosteroid use and baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 and \> 7)|Difference = Upadacitinib 45 mg - Placebo|Substudy 1: Upadacitinib 45 mg vs Placebo||33.6|8.6|<0.001
90969179|NCT02819635|181820157|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|21.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.8|27.4||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by bio-IR status (bio-IR vs. non-bio-IR), Baseline corticosteroid use (yes vs. no) and Baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 vs. \> 7)|Difference = Upadacitinib 45 mg - Placebo|Substudy 2: Upadacitinib 45 mg vs Placebo||27.4|15.8|<0.001
90969180|NCT02819635|181820158|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|30.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.7|39.8||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Bio-IR (Bio-IR/Non-Bio-IR) at Baseline of Induction Study; clinical remission at Week 0 (yes/no); corticosteroid use at Week 0 (yes/no)|Difference = Upadacitinib 15 mg - Placebo|Substudy 3: Upadacitinib 15 mg vs Placebo||39.8|21.7|<0.001
90969181|NCT02819635|181820158|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|39.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.7|48.2||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Bio-IR (Bio-IR/Non-Bio-IR) at Baseline of Induction Study; clinical remission at Week 0 (yes/no); corticosteroid use at Week 0 (yes/no)|Difference = Upadacitinib 30 mg - Placebo|Substudy 3: Upadacitinib 30 mg vs Placebo||48.2|29.7|<0.001
90969182|NCT02819635|181820159|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|13.1||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|25.0||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by previous biologic use, baseline corticosteroid use and baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 and \> 7)|Difference = Upadacitinib 7.5 mg - Placebo|Substudy 1: Upadacitinib 7.5 mg vs Placebo||25.0|1.2|0.030
90969183|NCT02819635|181820159|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|27.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.1|42.1||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by previous biologic use, baseline corticosteroid use and baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 and \> 7)|Difference = Upadacitinib 15 mg - Placebo|Substudy 1: Upadacitinib 15 mg vs Placebo||42.1|13.1|<0.001
91035550|NCT01299454|181957090|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was claimed for a PK parameter if the 90% CI for the ratio of the geometric means of a PK variable fell within the interval \[0.5, 2.0\]. Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach was equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.199|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.841|1.71|||Mixed effect analysis of variance||Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach is equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|The secondary comparisons were each hepatic disease group (mild, moderate or severe) versus the control (normal group). To compare the secondary PK parameters between each hepatic disease group and the control group, the 90% CI for the difference in the means of the log-transformed data was calculated using a mixed effect analysis of variance.||1.710|0.841|
90969184|NCT02819635|181820159|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|26.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.3|40.8||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by previous biologic use, baseline corticosteroid use and baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 and \> 7)|Difference = Upadacitinib 30 mg - Placebo|Substudy 1: Upadacitinib 30 mg vs Placebo||40.8|12.3|<0.001
90969185|NCT02819635|181820159|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|35.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.2|51.7||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by previous biologic use, baseline corticosteroid use and baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 and \> 7)|Difference = Upadacitinib 45 mg - Placebo|Substudy 1: Upadacitinib 45 mg vs Placebo||51.7|19.2|<0.001
90969186|NCT02819635|181820160|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|11.0||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|20.4||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by previous biologic use, baseline corticosteroid use and baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 and \> 7)|Difference = Upadacitinib 7.5 mg - Placebo|Substudy 1: Upadacitinib 7.5 mg vs Placebo||20.4|1.7|0.021
90969187|NCT02819635|181820160|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|9.6||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|18.0||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by previous biologic use, baseline corticosteroid use and baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 and \> 7)|Difference = Upadacitinib 15 mg - Placebo|Substudy 1: Upadacitinib 15 mg vs Placebo||18.0|1.3|0.024
90969188|NCT02819635|181820160|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|12.2||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|22.0||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by previous biologic use, baseline corticosteroid use and baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 and \> 7)|Difference = Upadacitinib 30 mg - Placebo|Substudy 1: Upadacitinib 30 mg vs Placebo||22.0|2.3|0.015
90969189|NCT02819635|181820160|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|20.1||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|32.1||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by previous biologic use, baseline corticosteroid use and baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 and \> 7)|Difference = Upadacitinib 45 mg - Placebo|Substudy 1: Upadacitinib 45 mg vs Placebo||32.1|8.0|0.001
90969190|NCT02819635|181820161|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|16.7||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|32.5||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by previous biologic use, baseline corticosteroid use and baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 and \> 7)|Difference = Upadacitinib 7.5 mg - Placebo|Substudy 1: Upadacitinib 7.5 mg vs Placebo||32.5|0.9|0.038
90969191|NCT02819635|181820161|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|35.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.5|52.8||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by previous biologic use, baseline corticosteroid use and baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 and \> 7)|Difference = Upadacitinib 15 mg - Placebo|Substudy 1: Upadacitinib 15 mg vs Placebo||52.8|17.5|<0.001
90969192|NCT02819635|181820161|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|33.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.3|50.8||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by previous biologic use, baseline corticosteroid use and baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 and \> 7)|Difference = Upadacitinib 30 mg - Placebo|Substudy 1: Upadacitinib 30 mg vs Placebo||50.8|16.3|<0.001
90969193|NCT02819635|181820161|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|45.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.2|63.9||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by previous biologic use, baseline corticosteroid use and baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 and \> 7)|Difference = Upadacitinib 45 mg - Placebo|Substudy 1: Upadacitinib 45 mg vs Placebo||63.9|26.2|<0.001
90935760|NCT04791917|181750639|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.06||||0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||2 (Sex: men vs. women) X 2 (Time: Pre- vs. post-exercise) x 2 (Group: DOMS vs. sham DOMS) mixed general linear model on Intensity of alcohol demand including baseline urge to consume alcohol and AUDIT score as covariates. Here we report the results of the analysis of the effect of Time on Intensity for women in the sham DOMS group.||||.49
90935761|NCT00636168|181750640|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.9|||Log Rank|stratified 2-sided log-rank test||The hazard ratio, and its 95 % confidence interval was estimated using a Cox proportional hazards model, stratified by stage (IIIa vs. IIIb vs. IIIc with 1-3 positive lymph-nodes vs. IIIc with \>= 4 positive lymph-nodes) as indicated at randomization, with treatment as the single covariate.. The analysis was performed after 528 RFS events per IRC were reported. Two-sided, 95% confidence intervals for median RFS were computed by the Brookmeyer and Crowley method using log-log transformation.||0.90|0.64|0.0013
90935762|NCT00636168|181750643|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.8|0.64|0.92|||Log Rank|stratified 2-sided log-rank test||Medians and associated 2-sided 95% confidence intervals are calculated using the method of Brookmeyer and Crowley. Analysis was stratified for stage (IIIa vs. IIIb vs. IIIc with 1-3 positive lymph-nodes vs. IIIc with \>= 4 positive lymph-nodes) as recorded at randomization. P-value was based on stratified 2-sided log-rank test. Hazard of 10 mg/kg Ipilimumab over hazard of Placebo, with 2-sided 95.8% confidence interval are based on a stratified Cox proportional hazards model||0.92|0.64|0.0024
90935763|NCT00636168|181750646|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.1|0.58|0.88|||Log Rank|stratified 2-sided log-rank test||Medians and associated 2-sided 95% confidence intervals are calculated using the method of Brookmeyer and Crowley. Analysis was stratified for stage (IIIa vs. IIIb vs. IIIc with 1-3 positive lymph-nodes vs. IIIc with \>= 4 positive lymph-nodes) as recorded at randomization. P-value was based on stratified 2-sided log-rank test. Hazard of 10 mg/kg Ipilimumab over hazard of Placebo, with 2-sided 95.1% confidence interval are based on a stratified Cox proportional hazards model||0.88|0.58|0.0013
90935764|NCT02006641|181750681|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.92||Corrected for multiplicity|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, country, MMSE stratum, week as fixed effects, baseline score, treatment-by-week, MMSE stratum-by-week, and baseline-by-week interactions|A negative mean difference indicates a treatment effect in favour of idalopirdine|For demonstrating efficacy of a dose, change in cognition (ADAS-cog) and either change in daily functioning (ADCS-ADL23) or change in global clinical impression (ADCS-CGIC) at Week 24 had to show statistically significant favourable differences compared to placebo at Week 24. Overall, type 1 error was controlled at 5% by multiplicity adjustment. Testing of the doses was done in a gated manner, first testing 30 mg at a 5% significance level, and only if found efficacious, then moving on to 10 mg.||0.92|-1.10|1.000
90969194|NCT02819635|181820162|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|5.9||||0.495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|22.9||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by previous biologic use, baseline corticosteroid use and baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 and \> 7)|Difference = Upadacitinib 7.5 mg - Placebo|Substudy 1: Upadacitinib 7.5 mg vs Placebo||22.9|-11.1|0.495
90969195|NCT02819635|181820162|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|15.9||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|33.4||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by previous biologic use, baseline corticosteroid use and baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 and \> 7)|Difference = Upadacitinib 15 mg - Placebo|Substudy 1: Upadacitinib 15 mg vs Placebo||33.4|-1.6|0.074
90969196|NCT02819635|181820162|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|19.2||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|36.9||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by previous biologic use, baseline corticosteroid use and baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 and \> 7)|Difference = Upadacitinib 30 mg - Placebo|Substudy 1: Upadacitinib 30 mg vs Placebo||36.9|1.6|0.033
90969197|NCT02819635|181820162|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|40.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.5|59.7||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by previous biologic use, baseline corticosteroid use and baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 and \> 7)|Difference = Upadacitinib 45 mg - Placebo|Substudy 1: Upadacitinib 45 mg vs Placebo||59.7|20.5|<0.001
90969198|NCT02819635|181820163|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.142|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2323|-1.052||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|ANCOVA|Stratified by previous biologic use, Baseline corticosteroid use, Baseline Adapted Mayo score (\<= 7 and \> 7)), and Baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib 7.5 mg - Placebo|Substudy 1: Upadacitinib 7.5 mg vs Placebo||-1.0520|-3.2323|<0.001
90969199|NCT02819635|181820163|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.938|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0284|-1.8478||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|ANCOVA|Stratified by previous biologic use, Baseline corticosteroid use, Baseline Adapted Mayo score (\<= 7 and \> 7)), and Baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib 15 mg - Placebo|Substudy 1: Upadacitinib 15 mg vs Placebo||-1.8478|-4.0284|<0.001
90969200|NCT02819635|181820163|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.736|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8247|-2.647||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|ANCOVA|Stratified by previous biologic use, Baseline corticosteroid use, Baseline Adapted Mayo score (\<= 7 and \> 7)), and Baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib 30 mg - Placebo|Substudy 1: Upadacitinib 30 mg vs Placebo||-2.6470|-4.8247|<0.001
90969201|NCT02819635|181820163|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.061|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1252|-2.9974||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|ANCOVA|Stratified by previous biologic use, Baseline corticosteroid use, Baseline Adapted Mayo score (\<= 7 and \> 7)), and Baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib 45 mg - Placebo|Substudy 1: Upadacitinib 45 mg vs Placebo||-2.9974|-5.1252|<0.001
90969202|NCT02819635|181820164|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|6.6||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|13.9||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by previous biologic use, baseline corticosteroid use and baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 and \> 7)|Difference = Upadacitinib 7.5 mg - Placebo|Substudy 1: Upadacitinib 7.5 mg vs Placebo||13.9|-0.7|0.075
90969203|NCT02819635|181820164|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|3.8||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|9.6||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by previous biologic use, baseline corticosteroid use and baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 and \> 7)|Difference = Upadacitinib 15 mg - Placebo|Substudy 1: Upadacitinib 15 mg vs Placebo||9.6|-2.0|0.199
90969204|NCT02819635|181820164|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|11.1||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|20.0||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by previous biologic use, baseline corticosteroid use and baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 and \> 7)|Difference = Upadacitinib 30 mg - Placebo|Substudy 1: Upadacitinib 30 mg vs Placebo||20.0|2.2|0.015
90969205|NCT02819635|181820164|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|17.8||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.8|29.9||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by previous biologic use, baseline corticosteroid use and baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 and \> 7)|Difference = Upadacitinib 45 mg - Placebo|Substudy 1: Upadacitinib 45 mg vs Placebo||29.9|5.8|0.004
90969206|NCT02819635|181820165|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|25.6||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.9|42.3||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by previous biologic use, baseline corticosteroid use and baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 and \> 7)|Difference = Upadacitinib 7.5 mg - Placebo|Substudy 1: Upadacitinib 7.5 mg vs Placebo||42.3|8.9|0.003
90971235|NCT01857869|181825072|OTHER||1-Relative Risk|62.5||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.4|80.1||Two-sided Fisher Exact test was used for the comparison of malaria incidence after first/second CHMI between the compared groups.|Mantel Haenszel|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) was defined as 100\*(1-Relative Risk \[RR\]).||80.1|29.4|0.0009
90935765|NCT02006641|181750681|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.2223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|1.65||Corrected for multiplicity according to the multiple testing procedure|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, country, MMSE stratum, week as fixed effects, baseline score, treatment-by-week, MMSE stratum-by-week, and baseline-by-week interactions|A negative mean difference indicates a treatment effect in favour of idalopirdine.|For demonstrating efficacy of a dose, change in cognition (ADAS-cog) and either change in daily functioning (ADCS-ADL23) or change in global clinical impression (ADCS-CGIC) at Week 24 had to show statistically significant favourable differences compared to placebo at Week 24. Overall, type 1 error was controlled at 5% by multiplicity adjustment. Testing of the doses was done in a gated manner, first testing 30 mg at a 5% significance level, and only if found efficacious, then moving on to 10 mg.||1.65|-0.38|0.2223
90935766|NCT02006641|181750682|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|1.46||Corrected for multiplicity according to the multiple testing procedure|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, country, MMSE stratum, week as fixed effects, baseline score, treatment-by-week, MMSE stratum-by-week, and baseline-by-week interactions|A positive mean difference indicates a treatment effect in favour of idalopirdine.|For demonstrating efficacy of a dose, change in cognition (ADAS-cog) and either change in daily functioning (ADCS-ADL23) or change in global clinical impression (ADCS-CGIC) at Week 24 had to show statistically significant favourable differences compared to placebo at Week 24. Overall, type 1 error was controlled at 5% by multiplicity adjustment. Testing of the doses was done in a gated manner, first testing 30 mg at a 5% significance level, and only if found efficacious, then moving on to 10 mg.||1.46|-1.11|1.000
90935767|NCT02006641|181750682|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|1.33||Corrected for multiplicity according to the multiple testing procedure|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, country, MMSE stratum, week as fixed effects, baseline score, treatment-by-week, MMSE stratum-by-week, and baseline-by-week interactions|A positive mean difference indicates a treatment effect in favour of idalopirdine.|For demonstrating efficacy of a dose, change in cognition (ADAS-cog) and either change in daily functioning (ADCS-ADL23) or change in global clinical impression (ADCS-CGIC) at Week 24 had to show statistically significant favourable differences compared to placebo at Week 24. Overall, type 1 error was controlled at 5% by multiplicity adjustment. Testing of the doses was done in a gated manner, first testing 30 mg at a 5% significance level, and only if found efficacious, then moving on to 10 mg.||1.33|-1.27|1.000
90935768|NCT02006641|181750683|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.1||Corrected for multiplicity according to the multiple testing procedure|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, country, MMSE stratum, week as fixed effects, baseline score, treatment-by-week, MMSE stratum-by-week, and baseline-by-week interactions|A negative mean difference indicates a treatment effect in favour of idalopirdine.|For demonstrating efficacy of a dose, change in cognition (ADAS-cog) and either change in daily functioning (ADCS-ADL23) or change in global clinical impression (ADCS-CGIC) at Week 24 had to show statistically significant favourable differences compared to placebo at Week 24. Overall, type 1 error was controlled at 5% by multiplicity adjustment. Testing of the doses was done in a gated manner, first testing 30 mg at a 5% significance level, and only if found efficacious, then moving on to 10 mg.||0.10|-0.23|1.000
90935769|NCT02006641|181750683|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.21||Corrected for multiplicity according to the multiple testing procedure|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, country, MMSE stratum, week as fixed effects, baseline score, treatment-by-week, MMSE stratum-by-week, and baseline-by-week interactions|A negative mean difference indicates a treatment effect in favour of idalopirdine.|For demonstrating efficacy of a dose, change in cognition (ADAS-cog) and either change in daily functioning (ADCS-ADL23) or change in global clinical impression (ADCS-CGIC) at Week 24 had to show statistically significant favourable differences compared to placebo at Week 24. Overall, type 1 error was controlled at 5% by multiplicity adjustment. Testing of the doses was done in a gated manner, first testing 30 mg at a 5% significance level, and only if found efficacious, then moving on to 10 mg.||0.21|-0.12|1.000
90935770|NCT03905512|181750770|SUPERIORITY|Statistical significance was tested at a level of 0.05.||||||0.181|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.181
90935771|NCT03293238|181750781|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.527|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.527
90935772|NCT03293238|181750782|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.749|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.749
90935773|NCT02138838|181750833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|8.1||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|29.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline age group|SOC+Cinacalcet - SOC|||29.9|-13.7|0.48
90935774|NCT02138838|181750834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|-9.9||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.3|13.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel stratified by baseline age group (6-\<12 years, 12-\<18 years)|SOC+Cinacalcet - SOC|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to test the primary and biochemical secondary endpoints. The primary endpoint was tested at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05. The secondary endpoints were tested using Holm's method at 0.05 (2-sided) should the primary endpoint achieve a significant result.||13.4|-33.3|0.42
90935775|NCT02138838|181750835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|-10.4||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.7|6.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline age group|SOC+Cinacalcet - SOC|||6.8|-27.7|0.25
90935776|NCT02138838|181750836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|19.0||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|50.5|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline age group as the covariate.|SOC+Cinacalcet - SOC|||50.5|-12.5|0.23
90935777|NCT02138838|181750837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|-0.34||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.01|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline age group as the covariate.||||0.01|-0.70|0.059
90935778|NCT02138838|181750838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|0.76||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|1.48|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline age group as the covariate.|SOC+Cinacalcet - SOC|||1.48|0.04|0.039
90969207|NCT02819635|181820165|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|43.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.4|61.8||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by previous biologic use, baseline corticosteroid use and baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 and \> 7)|Difference = Upadacitinib 15 mg - Placebo|Substudy 1: Upadacitinib 15 mg vs Placebo||61.8|25.4|<0.001
90935779|NCT01294644|181750853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|4.43|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression analysis with treatment and Baseline CR-SMFRS value in the model.|The odds ratio was based on a logistic regression model adjusted for the Baseline score. Odds ratios \>1 indicate a positive treatment effect.|"The null hypothesis was there was no difference between deoxycholic acid 1 mg/cm² and placebo.~An adjustment for multiplicity was performed for the two co-primary endpoints. This was accounted for by using the larger of the two P-values in the Bonferroni-Holm scheme."||4.43|1.52|<0.001
90969208|NCT02819635|181820165|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|39.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.3|57.5||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by previous biologic use, baseline corticosteroid use and baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 and \> 7)|Difference = Upadacitinib 30 mg - Placebo|Substudy 1: Upadacitinib 30 mg vs Placebo||57.5|21.3|<0.001
90969209|NCT02819635|181820165|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|43.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.4|61.9||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by previous biologic use, baseline corticosteroid use and baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 and \> 7)|Difference = Upadacitinib 45 mg - Placebo|Substudy 1: Upadacitinib 45 mg vs Placebo||61.9|24.4|<0.001
90969210|NCT02819635|181820166|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|29.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.6|35.9||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by bio-IR status (bio-IR vs. non-bio-IR), Baseline corticosteroid use (yes or no) and Baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 vs. \> 7)|Difference = Upadacitinib 45 mg - Placebo|Substudy 2: Upadacitinib 45 mg vs Placebo||35.9|22.6|<0.001
90969211|NCT02819635|181820167|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|12.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.4|17.0||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by bio-IR status (bio-IR vs. non-bio-IR), Baseline corticosteroid use (yes or no) and Baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 vs. \> 7)|Difference = Upadacitinib 45 mg - Placebo|Substudy 2: Upadacitinib 45 mg vs Placebo||17.0|8.4|<0.001
90969212|NCT02819635|181820168|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|46.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.4|54.2||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by bio-IR status (bio-IR vs. non-bio-IR), Baseline corticosteroid use (yes or no) and Baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 vs. \> 7)|Difference = Upadacitinib 45 mg - Placebo|Substudy 2: Upadacitinib 45 mg vs Placebo||54.2|38.4|<0.001
90969213|NCT02819635|181820169|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|33.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.8|41.8||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by bio-IR status (bio-IR vs. non-bio-IR), Baseline corticosteroid use (yes or no) and Baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 vs. \> 7)||Substudy 2: Upadacitinib 45 mg vs Placebo|Difference = Upadacitinib 45 mg - Placebo|41.8|24.8|<0.001
90969214|NCT02819635|181820170|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|23.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.5|30.0||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by bio-IR status (bio-IR vs. non-bio-IR), Baseline corticosteroid use (yes or no) and Baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 vs. \> 7)|Difference = Upadacitinib 45 mg - Placebo|Substudy 2: Upadacitinib 45 mg vs Placebo||30.0|17.5|<0.001
90969215|NCT02819635|181820171|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|27.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.2|35.6||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by bio-IR status (bio-IR vs. non-bio-IR), Baseline corticosteroid use (yes or no) and Baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 vs. \> 7)|Difference = Upadacitinib 45 mg - Placebo|Substudy 2: Upadacitinib 45 mg vs Placebo||35.6|19.2|<0.001
90971236|NCT03341962|181825115|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0188||||0.5836|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|1-sided exact test adjusted for stratification factors (prior use of any biologics and concurrent use of corticosteroids), α=0.097||||||0.5836
91035551|NCT01299454|181957090|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was claimed for a PK parameter if the 90% CI for the ratio of the geometric means of a PK variable fell within the interval \[0.5, 2.0\]. Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach was equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.524|1.189|||Mixed effect analysis of variance||Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach is equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|The secondary comparisons were each hepatic disease group (mild, moderate or severe) versus the control (normal group). To compare the secondary PK parameters between each hepatic disease group and the control group, the 90% CI for the difference in the means of the log-transformed data was calculated using a mixed effect analysis of variance.||1.189|0.524|
90935780|NCT01294644|181750853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.83|5.36|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression analysis with treatment and Baseline CR-SMFRS value in the model.|The odds ratio was based on a logistic regression model adjusted for the Baseline score. Odds ratios \>1 indicate a positive treatment effect.|"The null hypothesis was there was no difference between deoxycholic acid 2 mg/cm² and placebo.~An adjustment for multiplicity was performed for the two co-primary endpoints. This was accounted for by using the larger of the two P-values in the Bonferroni-Holm scheme."||5.36|1.83|<0.001
90935781|NCT01294644|181750854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.71||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|92.67|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression analysis with treatment and Baseline CR-SMFRS value in the model.|Odds ratio was based on a logistic regression model adjusted for the Baseline score. Odds ratios \>1 indicate a positive treatment effect.|||92.67|1.48|0.020
90935782|NCT01294644|181750854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.53||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|91.24|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression analysis with treatment and Baseline CR-SMFRS value in the model.|Odds ratio was based on a logistic regression model adjusted for the Baseline score. Odds ratios \>1 indicate a positive treatment effect.|||91.24|1.46|0.021
90935783|NCT01294644|181750855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.06|9.44|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression analysis with treatment and Baseline SSRS value in the model.|Odds ratio was based on a logistic regression model adjusted for Baseline score. Odds ratios \>1 indicate a positive treatment effect.|"The null hypothesis was there was no difference between deoxycholic acid 1 mg/cm² and placebo.~An adjustment for multiplicity was performed for the two co-primary endpoints. This was accounted for by using the larger of the two P-values in the Bonferroni-Holm scheme."||9.44|3.06|<0.001
90935784|NCT01294644|181750855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.65|8.04|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression analysis with treatment and Baseline SSRS value in the model|Odds ratio was based on a logistic regression model adjusted for Baseline score. Odds ratios \>1 indicate a positive treatment effect.|"The null hypothesis was there was no difference between deoxycholic acid 2 mg/cm² and placebo.~An adjustment for multiplicity was performed for the two co-primary endpoints. This was accounted for by using the larger of the two P-values in the Bonferroni-Holm scheme."||8.04|2.65|<0.001
90935785|NCT01294644|181750856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.19|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|The model included the fixed effect factors visit and treatment, the visit\*treatment interaction, and the Baseline CR-SMFRS values as covariate.||||-0.19|-0.51|<0.001
90935786|NCT01294644|181750856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.24|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|The model included the fixed effect factors visit and treatment, the visit\*treatment interaction, and the baseline CR-SMFRS values as covariate.||||-0.24|-0.56|<0.001
90935787|NCT01294644|181750857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.75|||ANCOVA|The model includes the fixed effect factor treatment and the Baseline values as covariate.||||1.75|0.97|<0.001
90935788|NCT01294644|181750857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.65|||ANCOVA|The model includes the fixed effect factor treatment and the Baseline values as covariate.||||1.65|0.87|<0.001
91035552|NCT01299454|181957091|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was claimed for a PK parameter if the 90% CI for the ratio of the geometric means of a PK variable fell within the interval \[0.5, 2.0\]. Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach was equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.241|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.719|2.143|||Mixed effect analysis of variance||Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach is equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|The secondary comparisons were each hepatic disease group (mild, moderate or severe) versus the control (normal group). To compare the secondary PK parameters between each hepatic disease group and the control group, the 90% CI for the difference in the means of the log-transformed data was calculated using a mixed effect analysis of variance.||2.143|0.719|
90935789|NCT01294644|181750858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.8||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|0.13|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|The model includes the fixed effect factors visit and treatment, the visit\*treatment interaction, and the Baseline values as covariate.||||0.13|-1.72|0.090
90935790|NCT01294644|181750858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.97||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|-0.05|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|The model includes the fixed effect factors visit and treatment, the visit\*treatment interaction, and the Baseline values as covariate.||||-0.05|-1.89|0.040
90935791|NCT01294644|181750859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's chi-square test|||||||0.009
90935792|NCT01294644|181750859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's chi-square test|||||||0.001
90935793|NCT03444298|181750864|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.67
90935794|NCT03444298|181750865|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.43
90935795|NCT03444298|181750866|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.27
90935796|NCT03444298|181750867|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.92
90935797|NCT03444298|181750868|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.99
90935798|NCT03444298|181750868|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.04
90935799|NCT03444298|181750869|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.98
90935800|NCT03444298|181750869|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.02
90935801|NCT03444298|181750870|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.84
90935802|NCT03444298|181750871|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.59
90935803|NCT03444298|181750872|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.83
90935804|NCT03444298|181750873|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.51
90935805|NCT03444298|181750874|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.48
90935806|NCT03444298|181750875|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
90935807|NCT03444298|181750876|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90935808|NCT02591056|181750877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t=+7.45; df=26||||||<0.0001
90935809|NCT04520256|181750878|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.001
90935810|NCT04520256|181750879|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Change|-0.27||||0.693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.01|-.54|0.693
90935811|NCT04520256|181750879|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Change|0.09||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.18|0.01|0.900
90935812|NCT04520256|181750879|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Change|-0.03||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.01|-0.06|0.960
90935813|NCT04520256|181750879|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Change|0.44||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.88|0.01|0.113
91035900|NCT03673670|181958506|OTHER|A hierarchical fixed-sequence testing strategy was employed to test the significance of the treatment effect for each of the two RPL554 doses against placebo, starting with the highest dose (6 mg). If a statistically significant difference was found at the 2-sided α level of 5%, the testing proceeded with the next highest dose. Otherwise, testing was stopped, and the remaining null hypotheses were accepted without testing.|GeoMean Ratio|0.995||||0.731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.966|1.025|||ANCOVA|||||1.025|0.966|0.731
90935814|NCT04520256|181750879|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Change|0.92||||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|1.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.84|0.01|0.187
90935815|NCT04520256|181750880|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.999
90935816|NCT04520256|181750881|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Proportion|0.12||||0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||.56|0|.999
90935817|NCT04520256|181750881|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Proportion|0.15||||0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||.68|0|.999
90935818|NCT04520256|181750881|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Proportion|0.11||||0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||.52|0|.999
90935819|NCT04520256|181750881|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Proportion|0.11||||0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||.50|0|.999
90935820|NCT04520256|181750881|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Proportion|0.1||||0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||.47|0|.999
90935821|NCT00760877|181750882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.096||||0.1083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.766|5.738|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.738|0.766|0.1083
90935822|NCT01612221|181750888|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.65
90935823|NCT01612221|181750889|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||ANCOVA|||GCLM Biomarker analysis.||||0.76
90935824|NCT01612221|181750889|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||ANCOVA|||SLC1A4 Biomarker analysis.||||0.63
90935825|NCT01612221|181750889|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||ANCOVA|||SLC7A11 Biomarker analysis.||||0.27
90935826|NCT02878590|181750892|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0093|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0093
90935827|NCT01857362|181750897|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ratio is completely within the acceptance range (0.80-1.25)|Ratio of geomectric means|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.988|1.045|||ANOVA|||||1.045|0.988|
90935828|NCT01857362|181750898|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ratio is completely within the acceptance range (0.80-1.25)|ratio of geometric means|0.989|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.945|1.034|||ANOVA|||||1.034|0.945|
90935829|NCT01020487|181750940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|27.8||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.5|52.8|||Fisher Exact|||Treatment effects were evaluated based on a two-sided significance level of 0.050. The primary efficacy analysis was a comparison between the paricalcitol capsules and placebo groups in the percentage of participants achieving 2 consecutive ≥ 30% reductions in iPTH from baseline regardless of CKD stage conducted using Fisher's exact test.||52.8|7.5|0.045
90935830|NCT01020487|181750941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.128|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CHM) test, adjusting for CKD Stage.||||||0.128
90935831|NCT01020487|181750942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Differenbce|-72.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-108.05|-36.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Overall Comparison (all time points): A mixed effects repeated measures analysis using all the longitudinal observations across the visits including the fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, and the continuous covariate of baseline measurement.||-36.75|-108.05|< 0.001
90935832|NCT01020487|181750942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-62.55||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-105.6|-19.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2 Comparison: a mixed effects repeated measures analysis using all the longitudinal observations across the visits including the fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, and the continuous covariate of baseline measurement.||-19.49|-105.60|0.006
91035553|NCT01299454|181957091|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was claimed for a PK parameter if the 90% CI for the ratio of the geometric means of a PK variable fell within the interval \[0.5, 2.0\]. Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach was equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.604|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.942|2.732|||Mixed effect analysis of variance||Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach is equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|The secondary comparisons were each hepatic disease group (mild, moderate or severe) versus the control (normal group). To compare the secondary PK parameters between each hepatic disease group and the control group, the 90% CI for the difference in the means of the log-transformed data was calculated using a mixed effect analysis of variance.||2.732|0.942|
90935833|NCT01020487|181750942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-68.43||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-130.39|-6.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4 Comparison: a mixed effects repeated measures analysis using all the longitudinal observations across the visits including the fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, and the continuous covariate of baseline measurement.||-6.47|-130.39|0.032
90935834|NCT01020487|181750942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-70.09||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-137.82|-2.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8 Comparison: A mixed effects repeated measures analysis using all the longitudinal observations across the visits including the fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, and the continuous covariate of baseline measurement.||-2.37|-137.82|0.043
91035554|NCT01299454|181957091|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was claimed for a PK parameter if the 90% CI for the ratio of the geometric means of a PK variable fell within the interval \[0.5, 2.0\]. Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach was equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.077|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.54|2.146|||Mixed effect analysis of variance||Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach is equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|The secondary comparisons were each hepatic disease group (mild, moderate or severe) versus the control (normal group). To compare the secondary PK parameters between each hepatic disease group and the control group, the 90% CI for the difference in the means of the log-transformed data was calculated using a mixed effect analysis of variance.||2.146|0.540|
90935835|NCT01020487|181750942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-88.52||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-142.04|-35.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12 Comparison: A mixed effects repeated measures analysis using all the longitudinal observations across the visits including the fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, and the continuous covariate of baseline measurement.||-35.01|-142.04|0.002
90935836|NCT01020487|181750943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.327|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CHM) test, adjusting for CKD Stage.||||||0.327
90935837|NCT01020487|181750944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.194|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CHM) test, adjusting for CKD Stage.||||||0.194
90935838|NCT01020487|181750945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.14||||0.469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Overall Comparison (all time points): a mixed effects repeated measures analysis using all the longitudinal observations across the visits including the fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, and the continuous covariate of baseline measurement||0.53|-0.25|0.469
90935839|NCT01020487|181750945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-0.01||||0.975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4 Comparison: a mixed effects repeated measures analysis using all the longitudinal observations across the visits including the fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, and the continuous covariate of baseline measurement.||0.37|-0.39|0.975
90935840|NCT01020487|181750945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.12||||0.567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8 Comparison: a mixed effects repeated measures analysis using all the longitudinal observations across the visits including the fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, and the continuous covariate of baseline measurement||0.56|-0.32|0.567
90935841|NCT01020487|181750945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.3||||0.462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|1.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12 Comparison: a mixed effects repeated measures analysis using all the longitudinal observations across the visits including the fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, and the continuous covariate of baseline measurement||1.12|-0.53|0.462
90935842|NCT01074229|181750984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|Using Dunns test with Bonferroni conrrection for individual comparisons.||||||.05
90935843|NCT01074229|181750984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|28.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.0|37.0|||Dunns test|Bonferonni correction||||37|9|.05
90935844|NCT01074229|181750984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|28.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.0|42.0|||Dunns Test|Bonferroni correction||||42|14|.05
90935845|NCT01074229|181750985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|With Dunns test and Bonferonni correction.||||||.05
90935846|NCT01074229|181750985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|10.0||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|15.0|||Dunns test|||||15|3|0.003
90935847|NCT01074229|181750985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.0||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|12.0|||Dunns test|||||12|-1|0.14
90935848|NCT01183013|181750986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.1571||95.0|-0.41|0.07||The model includes fixed effects for treatment, continuous baseline HbA1c, prior anti-diabetic medication and country.|ANCOVA|||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||0.07|-0.41|0.1571
90935849|NCT01183013|181750986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.14|||ANCOVA|The model includes fixed effects for treatment, continuous baseline HbA1c, prior anti-diabetic medication and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||-0.14|-0.60|0.0016
90935850|NCT01183013|181750986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|-0.18|||ANCOVA|The model includes fixed effects for treatment, continuous baseline HbA1c, prior anti-diabetic medication and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||-0.18|-0.64|0.0006
90935851|NCT01183013|181750986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.2|||ANCOVA|The model includes fixed effects for treatment, continuous baseline HbA1c, prior anti-diabetic medication and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||-0.20|-0.67|0.0003
90935852|NCT01183013|181750986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.44|||ANCOVA|The model includes fixed effects for treatment, continuous baseline HbA1c, prior anti-diabetic medication and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||-0.44|-0.91|<0.0001
90935853|NCT01183013|181750986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.89|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|-0.66|||ANCOVA|The model includes fixed effects for treatment, continuous baseline HbA1c, prior anti-diabetic medication and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||-0.66|-1.12|<0.0001
90935854|NCT01183013|181750987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.246||||0.4639||95.0|0.692|2.242|||Regression, Logistic|A logistic regression model with terms for treatment, continuous HbA1c baseline, prior use of antidiabetic agents and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||2.242|0.692|0.4639
90935855|NCT01183013|181750987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.746||||0.0546||95.0|0.989|3.083|||Regression, Logistic|A logistic regression model with terms for treatment, continuous HbA1c baseline, prior use of antidiabetic agents and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||3.083|0.989|0.0546
90935856|NCT01183013|181750987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.903||||0.0254||95.0|1.083|3.345|||Regression, Logistic|A logistic regression model with terms for treatment, continuous HbA1c baseline, prior use of antidiabetic agents and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||3.345|1.083|0.0254
90935857|NCT01183013|181750987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.804||||0.0009||95.0|1.524|5.159|||Regression, Logistic|A logistic regression model with terms for treatment, continuous HbA1c baseline, prior use of antidiabetic agents and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||5.159|1.524|0.0009
90935858|NCT01183013|181750987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.429|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.947|10.001|||Regression, Logistic|A logistic regression model with terms for treatment, continuous HbA1c baseline, prior use of antidiabetic agents and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||10.001|2.947|<0.0001
90935859|NCT01183013|181750987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.614|||<|0.0001||95.0|5.187|17.821|||Regression, Logistic|A logistic regression model with terms for treatment, continuous HbA1c baseline, prior use of antidiabetic agents and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||17.821|5.187|<0.0001
90935860|NCT01183013|181750988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.126||||0.7359||95.0|0.565|2.243|||Regression, Logistic|A logistic regression model with terms for treatment, continuous HbA1c baseline, prior use of antidiabetic agents and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||2.243|0.565|0.7359
90935861|NCT01183013|181750988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.905||||0.0363||95.0|1.042|3.484|||Regression, Logistic|A logistic regression model with terms for treatment, continuous HbA1c baseline, prior use of antidiabetic agents and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||3.484|1.042|0.0363
90935862|NCT01183013|181750988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.269||||0.4039||95.0|0.726|2.217|||Regression, Logistic|A logistic regression model with terms for treatment, continuous HbA1c baseline, prior use of antidiabetic agents and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||2.217|0.726|0.4039
90935863|NCT01183013|181750988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.22||||0.0345||95.0|1.06|4.649|||Regression, Logistic|A logistic regression model with terms for treatment, continuous HbA1c baseline, prior use of antidiabetic agents and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||4.649|1.060|0.0345
90935864|NCT01183013|181750988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.58|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.263|9.266|||Regression, Logistic|A logistic regression model with terms for treatment, continuous HbA1c baseline, prior use of antidiabetic agents and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||9.266|2.263|<0.0001
90935865|NCT01183013|181750988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.066|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.53|10.145|||Regression, Logistic|A logistic regression model with terms for treatment, continuous HbA1c baseline, prior use of antidiabetic agents and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||10.145|2.530|<0.0001
90935866|NCT01183013|181750989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.754||95.0|0.637|1.863|||Regression, Logistic|A logistic regression model with terms for treatment, continuous HbA1c baseline, prior use of antidiabetic agents and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||1.863|0.637|0.7540
90935867|NCT01183013|181750989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.707||||0.0506||95.0|0.999|2.918|||Regression, Logistic|A logistic regression model with terms for treatment, continuous HbA1c baseline, prior use of antidiabetic agents and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||2.918|0.999|0.0506
90935868|NCT01183013|181750989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.966||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.604|5.485|||Regression, Logistic|A logistic regression model with terms for treatment, continuous HbA1c baseline, prior use of antidiabetic agents and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||5.485|1.604|0.0005
90935869|NCT01183013|181750989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.696||||0.0002||95.0|1.594|4.559|||Regression, Logistic|A logistic regression model with terms for treatment, continuous HbA1c baseline, prior use of antidiabetic agents and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||4.559|1.594|0.0002
90971321|NCT00439946|181825393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.02||95.0||||p-value for: Prepare drug|Wilcoxon signed rank|||Changes in mean times between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test, comparing the values at Baseline to values at Week 8. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values.||||0.02
90935870|NCT01183013|181750989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.017|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.348|6.873|||Regression, Logistic|A logistic regression model with terms for treatment, continuous HbA1c baseline, prior use of antidiabetic agents and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||6.873|2.348|<0.0001
90935871|NCT01183013|181750989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.521|||<|0.0001||95.0|4.63|15.681|||Regression, Logistic|A logistic regression model with terms for treatment, continuous HbA1c baseline, prior use of antidiabetic agents and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||15.681|4.630|<0.0001
90969216|NCT02819635|181820172|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|23.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.1|32.1||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by bio-IR status (bio-IR vs. non-bio-IR), Baseline corticosteroid use (yes or no) and Baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 vs. \> 7)|Difference = Upadacitinib 45 mg - Placebo|Substudy 2: Upadacitinib 45 mg vs Placebo||32.1|15.1|<0.001
90969217|NCT02819635|181820173|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|32.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.8|40.7||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by bio-IR status (bio-IR vs. non-bio-IR), Baseline corticosteroid use (yes or no) and Baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 vs. \> 7)|Difference = Upadacitinib 45 mg - Placebo|Substudy 2: Upadacitinib 45 mg vs Placebo||40.7|23.8|<0.001
90969218|NCT02819635|181820174|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|33.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.39|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.02|40.36||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Mixed-effect model repeated measurement|MMRM with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and strata (Baseline Adapted Mayo score, corticosteroid use, and bio-IR status).|Difference = Upadacitinib 45 mg - Placebo|Substudy 2: Upadacitinib 45 mg vs Placebo||40.36|27.02|<0.001
90969219|NCT02819635|181820175|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|9.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|13.7||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Baseline corticosteroid use (yes or no), Baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 or \> 7), and bio-IR status (bio-IR or non-bio-IR)|Difference = Upadacitinib 45 mg - Placebo|Substudy 2: Upadacitinib 45 mg vs Placebo||13.7|5.7|<0.001
91035901|NCT03673670|181958507|OTHER|A hierarchical fixed-sequence testing strategy was employed to test the significance of the treatment effect for each of the two RPL554 doses against placebo, starting with the highest dose (6 mg). If a statistically significant difference was found at the 2-sided α level of 5%, the testing proceeded with the next highest dose. Otherwise, testing was stopped, and the remaining null hypotheses were accepted without testing.|GeoMean Ratio|1.024||||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.994|1.055|||ANCOVA|||||1.055|0.994|0.115
90935872|NCT01183013|181750991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.68||||0.4275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.77|5.42|||ANCOVA|The model includes fixed effects for treatment, continuous baseline HbA1c, continuous baseline FPG, prior anti-diabetic medication and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||5.42|-12.77|0.4275
90935873|NCT01183013|181750991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.84||||0.6839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.69|7.02|||ANCOVA|The model includes fixed effects for treatment, continuous baseline HbA1c, continuous baseline FPG, prior anti-diabetic medication and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||7.02|-10.69|0.6839
90935874|NCT01183013|181750991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.5||||0.1466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.29|2.28|||ANCOVA|The model includes fixed effects for treatment, continuous baseline HbA1c, continuous baseline FPG, prior anti-diabetic medication and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||2.28|-15.29|0.1466
90935875|NCT01183013|181750991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.38||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.35|-8.41|||ANCOVA|The model includes fixed effects for treatment, continuous baseline HbA1c, continuous baseline FPG, prior anti-diabetic medication and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||-8.41|-26.35|0.0002
90935876|NCT01183013|181750991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.77|-16.98|||ANCOVA|The model includes fixed effects for treatment, continuous baseline HbA1c, continuous baseline FPG, prior anti-diabetic medication and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||-16.98|-34.77|<0.0001
90935877|NCT01183013|181750991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-33.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.57|-24.89|||ANCOVA|The model includes fixed effects for treatment, continuous baseline HbA1c, continuous baseline FPG, prior anti-diabetic medication and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||-24.89|-42.57|<0.0001
90935878|NCT01183013|181750993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-36.61||||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.42|-10.8|||ANCOVA|The model includes fixed effects for treatment, continuous baseline HbA1c and 2-hour PPG, prior anti-diabetic medication and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||-10.80|-62.42|0.0057
90935879|NCT01183013|181750993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.94||||0.7021||95.0|-30.39|20.51|||ANCOVA|The model includes fixed effects for treatment, continuous baseline HbA1c and 2-hour PPG, prior anti-diabetic medication and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||20.51|-30.39|0.7021
90935880|NCT01183013|181750993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.78||||0.8932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.95|24.38|||ANCOVA|The model includes fixed effects for treatment, continuous baseline HbA1c and 2-hour PPG, prior anti-diabetic medication and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||24.38|-27.95|0.8932
90935881|NCT01183013|181750993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.65||||0.2706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.6|12.3|||ANCOVA|The model includes fixed effects for treatment, continuous baseline HbA1c and 2-hour PPG, prior anti-diabetic medication and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||12.30|-43.60|0.2706
90935882|NCT01183013|181750993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-36.33||||0.0126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.78|-7.89|||ANCOVA|The model includes fixed effects for treatment, continuous baseline HbA1c and 2-hour PPG, prior anti-diabetic medication and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||-7.89|-64.78|0.0126
90969220|NCT02819635|181820176|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.79|8.59||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Mixed-effect model repeated measurement|MMRM with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and strata (Baseline Adapted Mayo score, corticosteroid use, and bio-IR status)|Difference = Upadacitinib 45 mg - Placebo|Substudy 2: Upadacitinib 45 mg vs Placebo||8.59|4.79|<0.001
90969221|NCT02819635|181820177|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|34.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.1|43.7||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with graphical multiplicity adjustment to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level α= 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Bio-IR (Bio-IR/Non-Bio-IR) at Induction Study Baseline; clinical remission at Week 0 (yes/no); corticosteroid use at Week 0 (yes/no)|Difference = Upadacitinib 15 mg - Placebo|Substudy 3: Upadacitinib 15 mg vs Placebo||43.7|25.1|<0.001
90969222|NCT02819635|181820177|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|46.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.7|55.8||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with graphical multiplicity adjustment to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level α= 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Bio-IR (Bio-IR/Non-Bio-IR) at Induction Study Baseline; clinical remission at Week 0 (yes/no); corticosteroid use at Week 0 (yes/no)|Difference = Upadacitinib 30 mg - Placebo|Substudy 3: Upadacitinib 30 mg vs Placebo||55.8|36.7|<0.001
90969223|NCT02819635|181820178|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|37.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.3|54.6||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with graphical multiplicity adjustment to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level α= 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Bio-IR (Bio-IR/Non-Bio-IR) at Induction Study Baseline; clinical remission at Week 0 (yes/no); corticosteroid use at Week 0 (yes/no)|Difference = Upadacitinib 15 mg - Placebo|Substudy 3: Upadacitinib 15 mg vs Placebo||54.6|20.3|<0.001
90969224|NCT02819635|181820178|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|47.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.7|63.3||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with graphical multiplicity adjustment to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level α= 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Bio-IR (Bio-IR/Non-Bio-IR) at Induction Study Baseline; clinical remission at Week 0 (yes/no); corticosteroid use at Week 0 (yes/no)|Difference = Upadacitinib 30 mg - Placebo|Substudy 3: Upadacitinib 30 mg vs Placebo||63.3|30.7|<0.001
90969225|NCT02819635|181820179|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|35.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.2|52.7||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with graphical multiplicity adjustment to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level α= 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Bio-IR (Bio-IR/Non-Bio-IR) at Induction Study Baseline; clinical remission at Week 0 (yes/no); corticosteroid use at Week 0 (yes/no)|Difference = Upadacitinib 15 mg - Placebo|Substudy 3: Upadacitinib 15 mg vs Placebo||52.7|18.2|<0.001
90969226|NCT02819635|181820179|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|45.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.7|61.6||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with graphical multiplicity adjustment to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level α= 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Bio-IR (Bio-IR/Non-Bio-IR) at Induction Study Baseline; clinical remission at Week 0 (yes/no); corticosteroid use at Week 0 (yes/no)|Difference = Upadacitinib 30 mg - Placebo|Substudy 3: Upadacitinib 30 mg vs Placebo||61.6|28.7|<0.001
90969227|NCT02819635|181820180|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|42.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.8|56.2||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with graphical multiplicity adjustment to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level α= 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Bio-IR (Bio-IR/Non-Bio-IR) at Induction Study Baseline; clinical remission at Week 0 (yes/no); corticosteroid use at Week 0 (yes/no)|Difference = Upadacitinib 15 mg - Placebo|Substudy 3: Upadacitinib 15 mg vs Placebo||56.2|27.8|<0.001
90969228|NCT02819635|181820180|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|48.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.5|61.7||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with graphical multiplicity adjustment to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level α= 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Bio-IR (Bio-IR/Non-Bio-IR) at Induction Study Baseline; clinical remission at Week 0 (yes/no); corticosteroid use at Week 0 (yes/no)|Difference = Upadacitinib 30 mg - Placebo|Substudy 3: Upadacitinib 30 mg vs Placebo||61.7|35.5|<0.001
90969229|NCT02819635|181820181|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|18.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|26.4||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with graphical multiplicity adjustment to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level α= 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Bio-IR (Bio-IR/Non-Bio-IR) at Induction Study Baseline; clinical remission at Week 0 (yes/no); corticosteroid use at Week 0 (yes/no)|Difference = Upadacitinib 15 mg - Placebo|Substudy 3: Upadacitinib 15 mg vs Placebo||26.4|11.0|<0.001
90971322|NCT00439946|181825393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2||95.0||||p-value for: Connect drug|Wilcoxon signed rank|||Changes in mean times between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test, comparing the values at Baseline to values at Week 8. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values.||||0.20
90969230|NCT02819635|181820181|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|19.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.7|27.2||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with graphical multiplicity adjustment to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level α= 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Bio-IR (Bio-IR/Non-Bio-IR) at Induction Study Baseline; clinical remission at Week 0 (yes/no); corticosteroid use at Week 0 (yes/no)|Difference = Upadacitinib 30 mg - Placebo|Substudy 3: Upadacitinib 30 mg vs Placebo||27.2|11.7|<0.001
90969231|NCT02819635|181820182|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|44.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.5|54.7||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with graphical multiplicity adjustment to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level α= 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Bio-IR (Bio-IR/Non-Bio-IR) at Induction Study Baseline; clinical remission at Week 0 (yes/no); corticosteroid use at Week 0 (yes/no)|Difference = Upadacitinib 15 mg - Placebo|Substudy 3: Upadacitinib 15 mg vs Placebo||54.7|34.5|<0.001
90969232|NCT02819635|181820182|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|56.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.2|66.0||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with graphical multiplicity adjustment to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level α= 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Bio-IR (Bio-IR/Non-Bio-IR) at Induction Study Baseline; clinical remission at Week 0 (yes/no); corticosteroid use at Week 0 (yes/no)|Difference = Upadacitinib 30 mg - Placebo|Substudy 3: Upadacitinib 30 mg vs Placebo||66.0|47.2|<0.001
90969233|NCT02819635|181820183|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|23.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.8|32.8||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with graphical multiplicity adjustment to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level α= 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Bio-IR (Bio-IR/Non-Bio-IR) at Induction Study Baseline; clinical remission at Week 0 (yes/no); corticosteroid use at Week 0 (yes/no)|Difference = Upadacitinib 15 mg - Placebo|Substudy 3: Upadacitinib 15 mg vs Placebo||32.8|14.8|<0.001
90969234|NCT02819635|181820183|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|37.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.8|46.8||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with graphical multiplicity adjustment to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level α= 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Bio-IR (Bio-IR/Non-Bio-IR) at Induction Study Baseline; clinical remission at Week 0 (yes/no); corticosteroid use at Week 0 (yes/no)|Difference = Upadacitinib 30 mg - Placebo|Substudy 3: Upadacitinib 30 mg vs Placebo||46.8|27.8|<0.001
90969235|NCT02819635|181820184|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|31.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.77|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.98|40.7||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with graphical multiplicity adjustment to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level α= 0.05 (2-sided).|ANCOVA|Stratified by corticosteroid use at Week 0 (yes/no); clinical remission status at Week 0 (yes/ no); Bio-IR status at Baseline (Bio-IR or Non-Bio-IR)|Difference = Upadacitinib 15 mg - Placebo|Substudy 3: Upadacitinib 15 mg vs Placebo||40.70|21.98|<0.001
90935883|NCT01183013|181750993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-33.16||||0.0167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.23|-6.08|||ANCOVA|The model includes fixed effects for treatment, continuous baseline HbA1c and 2-hour PPG, prior anti-diabetic medication and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||-6.08|-60.23|0.0167
90935884|NCT01183013|181750995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.649||||0.3052||95.0|0.284|1.482|||Regression, Logistic|A logistic regression model with terms for treatment, continuous HbA1c baseline, prior use of antidiabetic agents and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||1.482|0.284|0.3052
90969236|NCT02819635|181820184|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|41.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.88|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.39|50.55||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with graphical multiplicity adjustment to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level α= 0.05 (2-sided).|ANCOVA|Stratified by corticosteroid use at Week 0 (yes/no); clinical remission status at Week 0 (yes/ no); Bio-IR status at Baseline (Bio-IR or Non-Bio-IR)|Difference = Upadacitinib 30 mg - Placebo|Substudy 3: Upadacitinib 30 mg vs Placebo||50.55|31.39|<0.001
90969237|NCT02819635|181820185|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|13.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|20.0||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with graphical multiplicity adjustment to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level α= 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Bio-IR (Bio-IR/Non-Bio-IR) at Induction Study Baseline; clinical remission at Week 0 (yes/no); corticosteroid use at Week 0 (yes/no)|Difference = Upadacitinib 15 mg - Placebo|Substudy 3: Upadacitinib 15 mg vs Placebo||20.0|6.0|<0.001
90969238|NCT02819635|181820185|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|13.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.6|20.6||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with graphical multiplicity adjustment to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level α= 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Bio-IR (Bio-IR/Non-Bio-IR) at Induction Study Baseline; clinical remission at Week 0 (yes/no); corticosteroid use at Week 0 (yes/no)|Difference = Upadacitinib 30 mg - Placebo|Substudy 3: Upadacitinib 30 mg vs Placebo||20.6|6.6|<0.001
90935885|NCT01183013|181750995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.456||||0.0844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.187|1.112|||Regression, Logistic|A logistic regression model with terms for treatment, continuous HbA1c baseline, prior use of antidiabetic agents and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||1.112|0.187|0.0844
91035555|NCT01299454|181957092|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was claimed for a PK parameter if the 90% CI for the ratio of the geometric means of a PK variable fell within the interval \[0.5, 2.0\]. Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach was equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|Geometric mean ratio|0.856|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.691|1.059|||Mixed effect analysis of variance||Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach is equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|The secondary comparisons were each hepatic disease group (mild, moderate or severe) versus the control (normal group). To compare the secondary PK parameters between each hepatic disease group and the control group, the 90% CI for the difference in the means of the log-transformed data was calculated using a mixed effect analysis of variance.||1.059|0.691|
90969239|NCT02819635|181820186|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|38.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.9|48.5||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with graphical multiplicity adjustment to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level α= 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Bio-IR (Bio-IR/Non-Bio-IR) at Induction Study Baseline; clinical remission at Week 0 (yes/no); corticosteroid use at Week 0 (yes/no)|Difference = Upadacitinib 15 mg - Placebo|Substudy 3: Upadacitinib 15 mg vs Placebo||48.5|28.9|<0.001
90969240|NCT02819635|181820186|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|45.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.5|54.8||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with graphical multiplicity adjustment to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level α= 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Bio-IR (Bio-IR/Non-Bio-IR) at Induction Study Baseline; clinical remission at Week 0 (yes/no); corticosteroid use at Week 0 (yes/no)|Difference = Upadacitinib 30 mg - Placebo|Substudy 3: Upadacitinib 30 mg vs Placebo||54.8|35.5|<0.001
90935886|NCT01183013|181750995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.443||||0.1561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.143|1.365|||Regression, Logistic|A logistic regression model with terms for treatment, continuous HbA1c baseline, prior use of antidiabetic agents and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||1.365|0.143|0.1561
90935887|NCT01183013|181750995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.368||||0.0146||95.0|0.165|0.821|||Regression, Logistic|A logistic regression model with terms for treatment, continuous HbA1c baseline, prior use of antidiabetic agents and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||0.821|0.165|0.0146
90935888|NCT01183013|181750995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.238||||0.0009||95.0|0.102|0.557|||Regression, Logistic|A logistic regression model with terms for treatment, continuous HbA1c baseline, prior use of antidiabetic agents and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||0.557|0.102|0.0009
90935889|NCT01183013|181750995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.141||||0.0002||95.0|0.05|0.397|||Regression, Logistic|A logistic regression model with terms for treatment, continuous HbA1c baseline, prior use of antidiabetic agents and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||0.397|0.050|0.0002
90935890|NCT01951105|181750997|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
90935891|NCT00237718|181751001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
90935892|NCT00237718|181751002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
90969241|NCT02819635|181820187|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|24.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.2|34.5||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with graphical multiplicity adjustment to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level α= 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Bio-IR (Bio-IR/Non-Bio-IR) at Induction Study Baseline; clinical remission at Week 0 (yes/no); corticosteroid use at Week 0 (yes/no)|Difference = Upadacitinib 15 mg - Placebo|Substudy 3: Upadacitinib 15 mg vs Placebo||34.5|14.2|<0.001
90969242|NCT02819635|181820187|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|33.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.6|43.9||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with graphical multiplicity adjustment to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level α= 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Bio-IR (Bio-IR/Non-Bio-IR) at Induction Study Baseline; clinical remission at Week 0 (yes/no); corticosteroid use at Week 0 (yes/no)|Difference = Upadacitinib 30 mg - Placebo|Substudy 3: Upadacitinib 30 mg vs Placebo||43.9|23.6|<0.001
90935893|NCT00901459|181751006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|2.43||A Holm correction to p values was made to control for type 1 error.|t-test, 2 sided|df=14|The parameter estimated is the difference in craving change between smoking cues and neutral cues in the 10Hz sfg condition (Frequency control)and the corresponding craving change in the 1Hz sfg condition (active).|A pairwise t-test was performed to contrast the active rTMS condition with the frequency control condition.||2.43|0.51|0.014
90935894|NCT00901459|181751006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|1.22|||t-test, 2 sided|df=13|The parameter estimated is the difference in craving change between smoking cues and neutral cues in the 1Hz sfg condition (active)and the corresponding craving change in the 1Hz moc condition (location control).|A pairwise t-test was performed to contrast the active rTMS condition with the location control condition.||1.22|-0.64|0.49
90935895|NCT00901459|181751006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.39||A Holm correction to p values was made to control for type 1 error.|t-test, 2 sided|df=13|The parameter estimated is the difference in craving change between smoking cues and neutral cues in the 10Hz sfg condition (frequency control)and the corresponding craving change in the 1Hz moc condition (location control).|A pairwise t-test was performed to contrast the location control rTMS condition with the frequency control condition.||1.39|0.52|0.09
90935896|NCT00850993|181751021|OTHER|Pairwise comparison for each Stannsoporfin treatment group versus placebo.|LS Mean Difference|-13.45|||=|0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.27|-0.62|||ANCOVA|||Last Observation Carry Forward (LOCF) is used to impute missing post-baseline TSB. Least-squares means are from an ANCOVA model for adjusted TSB with treatment and gestational age as fixed effects and baseline adjusted TSB as a covariate. TSB is calculated as \[(TSB - Phototherapy(PT) threshold)/ PT threshold \] X 100%.||-0.62|-26.27|=0.040
90935897|NCT00850993|181751021|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-10.02|||=|0.117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.61|2.58|||ANCOVA|||||2.58|-22.61|=0.117
90935898|NCT00850993|181751021|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-14.93|||=|0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.31|0.44|||ANCOVA|||||0.44|-30.31|=0.057
90935899|NCT00850993|181751022|OTHER|Pairwise comparison for Change from Baseline at 48 hours (Row 3) for Stannsoporfin treatment group versus placebo|LS Mean Difference|-1.81|||=|0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.71|0.09|||ANCOVA|||Last Observation Carry Forward (LOCF) is used to impute missing post-baseline TSB. Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) is conducted for TSB including treatment and gestational age as fixed effects and baseline TSB as a covariate. Least-squares means (LS means) and standard errors (SEM) are estimated for each treatment group and placebo. LS mean difference, 95% Confidence Interval, and p-value are estimated based on LS mean difference between each stannsoporfin group and placebo.||0.09|-3.71|=0.061
90935900|NCT00850993|181751022|OTHER|Pairwise comparison for Change from Baseline at 48 hours (Row 3) for Stannsoporfin treatment group versus placebo|LS Mean Difference|-1.34|||=|0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.24|0.56|||ANCOVA|||Last Observation Carry Forward (LOCF) is used to impute missing post-baseline TSB. Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) is conducted for TSB including treatment and gestational age as fixed effects and baseline TSB as a covariate. Least-squares means (LS means) and standard errors (SEM) are estimated for each treatment group and placebo. LS mean difference, 95% Confidence Interval, and p-value are estimated based on LS mean difference between each stannsoporfin group and placebo.||0.56|-3.24|=0.163
90935901|NCT00850993|181751022|OTHER|Pairwise comparison for Change from Baseline at 48 hours (Row 3) for Stannsoporfin treatment group versus placebo|LS Mean Difference|-2.63|||=|0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.97|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||Last Observation Carry Forward (LOCF) is used to impute missing post-baseline TSB. Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) is conducted for TSB including treatment and gestational age as fixed effects and baseline TSB as a covariate. Least-squares means (LS means) and standard errors (SEM) are estimated for each treatment group and placebo. LS mean difference, 95% Confidence Interval, and p-value are estimated based on LS mean difference between each stannsoporfin group and placebo.||-0.3|-4.97|=0.028
90935902|NCT03032965|181751028|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||Log Rank|Kaplan Meier log rank||||||.83
90935903|NCT03032965|181751029|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.35
90935904|NCT03032965|181751031|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.09
90935905|NCT01842360|181751064|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
90935906|NCT01842360|181751065|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Poisson|||||||<0.001
90935907|NCT01842360|181751066|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The mean of health care consumption was 17.5±34.7 points in the placebo group versus 9.2±27.9 points in the MV130 group.||||0.0094
90935908|NCT01842360|181751067|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.3917
90935909|NCT01842360|181751068|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As for the previous index the number of days with any of these drugs is used.||||0.0232
90935910|NCT01842360|181751069|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0319
90935911|NCT01842360|181751070|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0264|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0264
90935912|NCT01842360|181751071|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The mean number of emergency room visits was 0.37 (±1.15) for the MV130 group and 0.87 (±1.61) for the placebo group.||||0.0037
90935913|NCT01842360|181751072|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The mean number of medical consultations was 0.08 (±0.31) for the MV130 group and 0.31 (±0.88) for the placebo group.||||0.1008
90935914|NCT01842360|181751073|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0367
90935915|NCT01842360|181751075|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.3234
90935916|NCT01842360|181751076|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.001
90935917|NCT04206501|181751082|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.064||||||The rate of change in HF medications (beta-blocker, diuretic, and Sacubitril/Valsartan) was compared betweenICM Guidedand usual care control group using chi-square analysis.|Chi-squared|||Due to the unexpected low enrollment during COVID pandemic, we aimed to primarily focus the limited analysis/description on the primary endpoint and exploratory analysis related to QOL||||0.064
90935918|NCT00872339|181751091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.45
90935919|NCT00872339|181751093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<.001
90935920|NCT02066389|181751101|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.153||||||Statistical tests were 1-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.153
90935921|NCT02066389|181751101|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018||||||Statistical tests were 1-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.018
90935922|NCT02066389|181751101|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||Statistical tests were 1-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.001
90935923|NCT02066389|181751101|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008||||||Statistical tests were 1-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.008
90935924|NCT02066389|181751101|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||Statistical tests were 1-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.001
90935925|NCT02066389|181751102|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.034||||||Statistical tests were 1-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.034
90935926|NCT02066389|181751102|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||Statistical tests were 1-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.003
90935927|NCT02066389|181751102|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||Statistical tests were 1-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.002
90935928|NCT02066389|181751102|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||Statistical tests were 1-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.010
90935929|NCT02066389|181751102|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012||||||Statistical tests were 1-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.012
90935930|NCT02066389|181751103|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.023||||||Statistical tests were 1-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.023
90935931|NCT02066389|181751103|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||Statistical tests were 1-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.003
90935932|NCT02066389|181751103|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.145||||||Statistical tests were 1-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.145
90935933|NCT02066389|181751103|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007||||||Statistical tests were 1-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.007
90935934|NCT02066389|181751103|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014||||||Statistical tests were 1-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.014
90935935|NCT02066389|181751104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||Statistical tests were 1-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.005
90935936|NCT02066389|181751104|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical tests were 1-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
90935937|NCT02066389|181751104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||Statistical tests were 1-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.010
90935938|NCT02066389|181751104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||Statistical tests were 1-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.002
90935939|NCT02066389|181751104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024||||||Statistical tests were 1-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.024
90935940|NCT02066389|181751105|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015||||||Statistical tests were 1-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.015
90935941|NCT02066389|181751105|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008||||||Statistical tests were 1-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.008
90935942|NCT02066389|181751105|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029||||||Statistical tests were 1-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.029
90935943|NCT02066389|181751105|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||Statistical tests were 1-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.003
90935944|NCT02066389|181751105|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.343||||||Statistical tests were 1-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.343
90935945|NCT02066389|181751106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.039||||||Statistical tests were 1-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.039
90935946|NCT02066389|181751106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.039||||||Statistical tests were 1-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.039
90935947|NCT02066389|181751106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046||||||Statistical tests were 1-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.046
90935948|NCT02066389|181751106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||Statistical tests were 1-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.005
90935949|NCT02066389|181751106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.096||||||Statistical tests were 1-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.096
90935950|NCT02066389|181751107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.269||||||Statistical tests were 1-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.269
90935951|NCT02066389|181751107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16||||||Statistical tests were 1-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.160
90935952|NCT02066389|181751107|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Statistical tests were 1-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||1.000
90935953|NCT02066389|181751107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16||||||Statistical tests were 1-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.160
90935954|NCT02066389|181751107|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Statistical tests were 1-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||1.000
90935955|NCT02169089|181751166|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-7.78||||0.0293|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0293
90935956|NCT02169089|181751167|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The mean reported -3.5 and 2.1 represents the mean change between follow-up \& baseline visit. The statistical test (Mann-Whitney) reported Median difference of -2.6, which corresponds to the difference between the spironolactone and placebo group.|||||<0.0001
90935957|NCT02169089|181751168|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-40.7||||0.0189|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The mean reported -10.3 and 17.1 represents the mean change between follow-up \& baseline visit. The statistical test (Mann-Whitney) reported Median difference of -2.6, which corresponds to the difference between the spironolactone and placebo group.|||||0.0189
90935958|NCT02169089|181751169|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-7.5||||0.1276|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The mean reported -5.95 and 2 represents the mean change between follow-up \& baseline visit. The statistical test (Mann-Whitney) reported Median difference of -2.6, which corresponds to the difference between the spironolactone and placebo group.|||||0.1276
90935959|NCT05361304|181751177|NON_INFERIORITY||Least square Mean (LSM) Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.0|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger method was used for denominator degrees of freedom.|LSM difference was calculated as Senofilcon A contact lenses made with a novel manufacturing technology minus Senofilcon A contact lenses made with the current manufacturing technology|It was calculated using a 2 independent sample means t-test with a 2-sided type I error rate of 5% with at least 80% statistical power, that 100 subjects were required to test for non-inferiority of the Senofilcon A contact lenses made with a novel manufacturing technology compared to the Senofilcon A contact lenses made with the current manufacturing technology for distance (4m) under HLLC.||0.000|-0.040|
90935960|NCT05361304|181751177|NON_INFERIORITY||Least square Mean (LSM) Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.02|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger method was used for denominator degrees of freedom.|LSM difference was calculated as Senofilcon A contact lenses made with a novel manufacturing technology minus Senofilcon A contact lenses made with the current manufacturing technology|It was calculated using a 2 independent sample means t-test with a 2-sided type I error rate of 5% with at least 80% statistical power, that 100 subjects were required to test for non-inferiority of the Senofilcon A contact lenses made with a novel manufacturing technology compared to the Senofilcon A contact lenses made with the current manufacturing technology for distance (4m) under LLHC.||0.020|-0.030|
90969243|NCT02819635|181820188|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.67|7.52||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with graphical multiplicity adjustment to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level α= 0.05 (2-sided).|ANCOVA|Stratified by corticosteroid use at Week 0 (yes/no); clinical remission status at Week 0 (yes/no); Bio-IR status at Baseline (Bio-IR or Non-Bio-IR)|Difference = Upadacitinib 15 mg - Placebo|Substudy 3: Upadacitinib 15 mg vs Placebo||7.52|2.67|<0.001
90935961|NCT05361304|181751178|NON_INFERIORITY||Least square Mean (LSM) Difference|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|1.01|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger method was used for denominator degrees of freedom.|LSM difference was calculated as Senofilcon A contact lenses made with a novel manufacturing technology minus Senofilcon A contact lenses made with the current manufacturing technology|It was calculated using a 2 independent sample means t-test with a 2-sided type I error rate of 5% with at least 80% statistical power, that 100 subjects were required to test for non-inferiority of the Senofilcon A contact lenses made with a novel manufacturing technology compared to the Senofilcon A contact lenses made with the current manufacturing technology.||1.010|-0.460|
90935962|NCT05361304|181751179|NON_INFERIORITY||LSM Difference|4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.06|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|12.0|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger method was used for denominator degrees of freedom.|LSM difference was calculated as Senofilcon A contact lenses made with a novel manufacturing technology minus Senofilcon A contact lenses made with the current manufacturing technology|||12.0|-4.1|
90935963|NCT05361304|181751180|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower bound of the confidence interval of the mean difference between Senofilcon A contact lenses made with a novel manufacturing technology and Senofilcon A contact lenses made with the current manufacturing technology is greater than -5.|LSM Differences|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.44|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|6.5|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger method was used for denominator degrees of freedom.|LSM difference was calculated as Senofilcon A contact lenses made with a novel manufacturing technology minus Senofilcon A contact lenses made with the current manufacturing technology|||6.5|-7.1|
90935964|NCT03320941|181751181|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.92|-0.21||||||||-0.21|-2.92|
90935965|NCT03320941|181751181|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.15|-1.7||||||||-1.70|-4.15|
90935966|NCT03320941|181751181|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.54|-2.26||||||||-2.26|-4.54|
90935967|NCT03320941|181751181|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.01|-2.77||||||||-2.77|-5.01|
90935968|NCT03320941|181751182|OTHER|Dose Finding|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.299||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.344|15.35|||Regression, Logistic|||\>= 3% Percent decrease in body weight||15.350|0.344|0.390
90935969|NCT03320941|181751182|OTHER|Dose Finding|Odds Ratio (OR)|15.78||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.844|87.552|||Regression, Logistic|||\>= 3% Percent decrease in body weight||87.552|2.844|0.002
90935970|NCT03320941|181751182|OTHER|Dose Finding|Odds Ratio (OR)|12.708||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.511|64.32|||Regression, Logistic|||\>= 3% Percent decrease in body weight||64.320|2.511|0.002
90935971|NCT03320941|181751182|OTHER|Dose Finding|Odds Ratio (OR)|16.813|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.362|84.085|||Regression, Logistic|||\>= 3% Percent decrease in body weight||84.085|3.362|<0.001
90935972|NCT03320941|181751182|OTHER|Dose Finding|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.697||||0.727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.087|33.006|||Regression, Logistic|||\>= 3% Percent decrease in body weight (Dysglycemic)||33.006|0.087|0.727
90935973|NCT03320941|181751182|OTHER|Dose Finding|Odds Ratio (OR)|28.26||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.066|386.473|||Regression, Logistic|||\>= 3% Percent decrease in body weight (Dysglycemic)||386.473|2.066|0.012
90935974|NCT03320941|181751182|OTHER|Dose Finding|Odds Ratio (OR)|10.333||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.914|116.82|||Regression, Logistic|||\>= 3% Percent decrease in body weight (Dysglycemic)||116.820|0.914|0.059
90935975|NCT03320941|181751182|OTHER|Dose Finding|Odds Ratio (OR)|9.456||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.891|100.292|||Regression, Logistic|||\>= 3% Percent decrease in body weight (Dysglycemic)||100.292|0.891|0.062
90935976|NCT03320941|181751182|OTHER|Dose Finding|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.59||||0.336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.265|48.552|||Regression, Logistic|||\>= 3% Percent decrease in body weight (T2DM)||48.552|0.265|0.336
90935977|NCT03320941|181751182|OTHER|Dose Finding|Odds Ratio, log|9.112||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.799|103.872|||Regression, Logistic|||\>= 3% Percent decrease in body weight (T2DM)||103.872|0.799|0.075
90935978|NCT03320941|181751182|OTHER|Dose Finding|Odds Ratio (OR)|29.312||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.665|322.412|||Regression, Logistic|||\>= 3% Percent decrease in body weight (T2DM)||322.412|2.665|0.006
90935979|NCT03320941|181751182|OTHER|Dose Finding|Odds Ratio (OR)|37.949||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.477|414.232|||Regression, Logistic|||\>= 3% Percent decrease in body weight (T2DM)||414.232|3.477|0.003
90935980|NCT03320941|181751183|OTHER|Dose Finding|Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.56|-0.19||||||Dysglycemic||-0.19|-3.56|
90935981|NCT03320941|181751183|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.56|-1.46||||||Dysglycemic||-1.46|-4.56|
90935982|NCT03320941|181751183|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.71|-1.82||||||Dysglycemic||-1.82|-4.71|
90935983|NCT03320941|181751183|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.93|-1.74||||||Dysglycemic||-1.74|-4.93|
90935984|NCT03320941|181751183|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.12|-0.15||||||T2DM||-0.15|-3.12|
90935985|NCT03320941|181751183|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.37|-0.61||||||T2DM||-0.61|-4.37|
90935986|NCT03320941|181751183|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|-1.52||||||T2DM||-1.52|-5.20|
90935987|NCT03320941|181751183|OTHER|Dose Finding|Median Difference (Final Values)|-4.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.93|-2.79||||||T2DM||-2.79|-5.93|
90935988|NCT03320941|181751184|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.011||0.278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.104|0.9|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||0.900|-3.104|0.278
90935989|NCT03320941|181751184|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.013||0.216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.265|0.747|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||0.747|-3.265|0.216
90935990|NCT03320941|181751184|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.902||0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.069|0.504|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||0.504|-3.069|0.158
90935991|NCT03320941|181751184|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.401|0.022|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||0.022|-3.401|0.053
90935992|NCT03320941|181751184|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.534||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.444|0.717|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||0.717|-5.444|0.130
90935993|NCT03320941|181751184|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.534||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.156|-0.994|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||-0.994|-7.156|0.011
90969244|NCT02819635|181820188|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.44|8.27||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with graphical multiplicity adjustment to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level α= 0.05 (2-sided).|ANCOVA|Stratified by corticosteroid use at Week 0 (yes/no); clinical remission status at Week 0 (yes/no); Bio-IR status at Baseline (Bio-IR or Non-Bio-IR)|Difference = Upadacitinib 30 mg - Placebo|Substudy 3: Upadacitinib 30 mg vs Placebo||8.27|3.44|<0.001
90969245|NCT05433571|181820200|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was tested for Senofilcon A (C3) Multifocal Toric lens with UV/HEV filter (Low DC) and concluded if the lower limit of a 95% confidence interval was above 0.80|Mean Population Estimate|0.917|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0194|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.878|0.955|||Bootstrapping Methods|bias adjusted confidence intervals||||0.955|0.878|
90969246|NCT05433571|181820200|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was tested for Senofilcon A (C3) Multifocal Toric lens with UV/HEV filter (High DC) and concluded if the lower limit of a 95% confidence interval was above 0.80|Mean Population Estimate|0.887|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0219|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.845|0.93|||Bootstrapping Methods|bias adjusted confidence intervals||||0.930|0.845|
90969247|NCT01476475|181820215|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority of insulin glargine/lixisenatide FRC versus insulin glargine was tested first, at alpha level of 0.025 (1-sided) and a non-inferiority margin of 0.4% HbA1c. If non-inferiority was established, then a test of superiority of insulin glargine/lixisenatide FRC over insulin glargine would be performed, at alpha level of 0.05 (2-sided). The non-inferiority was assessed using upper bound of 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) at ≤0.4%.|Least square (LS) mean difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.312|-0.037|||ANCOVA||Insulin glargine/Lixisenatide FRC vs Insulin glargine|Analysis was performed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment groups, randomization strata of screening HbA1c (\<8.0, ≥8.0%), randomization strata of screening BMI (\<30 kg/m\^2, ≥30 kg/m\^2), and country as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c value as covariates. A step-down testing procedure described by Hochberg and Tamhane was used to control type-1 error.||-0.037|-0.312|
90969248|NCT01476475|181820215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.312|-0.037||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA||Insulin glargine/Lixisenatide FRC vs Insulin glargine|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of screening HbA1c (\<8.0, ≥8.0%), randomization strata of screening BMI (\<30 kg/m\^2, ≥30 kg/m\^2), and country as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c value as covariates. If non-inferiority was established, then a test of superiority of insulin glargine/lixisenatide FRC over insulin glargine would be performed, at alpha level of 0.05 (2-sided).||-0.037|-0.312|0.0130
90969249|NCT01476475|181820216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.337|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.832|-2.504||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA||Insulin glargine/Lixisenatide FRC vs Insulin glargine|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with treatment groups,randomization strata of screening HbA1c(\<8.0, ≥8.0%)\& screening BMI(\<30 kg/m\^2, ≥30 kg/m\^2),country as fixed effects and baseline 2-hour PPG value as covariates.A step-down testing procedure used to control type-1 error.If non-inferiority demonstrated for primary endpoint,superiority testing on secondary endpoints was performed sequentially in order endpoints are reported(continued only if previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-2.504|-3.832|<0.0001
90969250|NCT01476475|181820217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.331|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.895|-2.592||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA||Insulin glargine/Lixisenatide FRC vs Insulin glargine|Testing according to the step-down testing procedure (continued only if previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of screening HbA1c (\<8.0, ≥8.0%), randomization strata of screening BMI (\<30 kg/m\^2, ≥30 kg/m\^2), and country as fixed effects and baseline 2-hour plasma glucose excursion value as covariates.||-2.592|-3.895|<0.0001
90969251|NCT01476475|181820218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.125||0.0154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.058||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA||Insulin glargine/Lixisenatide FRC vs Insulin glargine|Testing according to the step-down testing procedure (continued only if previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of screening HbA1c (\<8.0, ≥8.0%), randomization strata of screening BMI (\<30 kg/m\^2, ≥30 kg/m\^2), and country as fixed effects and baseline average 7-point SMPG value as covariates.||-0.058|-0.550|0.0154
90969252|NCT01476475|181820219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|-0.773||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA||Insulin glargine/Lixisenatide FRC vs Insulin glargine|Testing according to the step-down testing procedure (continued only if previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of screening HbA1c (\<8.0, ≥8.0%), randomization strata of screening BMI (\<30 kg/m\^2, ≥30 kg/m\^2), and country as fixed effects and baseline body weight value as covariates.||-0.773|-2.110|<0.0001
90969253|NCT01476475|181820220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.704||0.0583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.592|0.114||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA||Insulin glargine/Lixisenatide FRC vs Insulin glargine|Testing according to the step-down testing procedure (continued only if previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of screening HbA1c (\<8.0, ≥8.0%), randomization strata of screening BMI (\<30 kg/m\^2, ≥30 kg/m\^2), and country as fixed effects.||0.114|-6.592|0.0583
90935994|NCT03320941|181751184|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.325||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.322|0.996|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||0.996|-4.322|0.215
90935995|NCT03320941|181751184|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.346||0.184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.515|0.888|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||0.888|-4.515|0.184
90935996|NCT03320941|181751184|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.292||0.982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.611|2.552|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||2.552|-2.611|0.982
90935997|NCT03320941|181751184|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.304||0.544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.809|3.401|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||3.401|-1.809|0.544
90935998|NCT03320941|181751184|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.188||0.552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.084|1.663|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||1.663|-3.084|0.552
90935999|NCT03320941|181751184|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.139||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.964|0.588|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||0.588|-3.964|0.143
90936000|NCT03320941|181751185|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.206|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.086||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.376|-0.035|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||-0.035|-0.376|0.018
90936001|NCT03320941|181751185|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.276|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0863||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.447|-0.105|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||-0.105|-0.447|0.002
90936002|NCT03320941|181751185|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.287|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.076|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.437|-0.136|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||-0.136|-0.437|<0.001
90936003|NCT03320941|181751185|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.338|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0747|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.486|-0.19|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||-0.190|-0.486|<0.001
90936004|NCT03320941|181751185|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.089|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0775||0.258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.245|0.067|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||0.067|-0.245|0.258
90936005|NCT03320941|181751185|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.134|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0774||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.021|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||0.021|-0.290|0.088
90936006|NCT03320941|181751185|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.146|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0673||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.282|-0.011|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||-0.011|-0.282|0.035
90936007|NCT03320941|181751185|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.113|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0673||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.248|0.022|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||0.022|-0.248|0.100
90969254|NCT00676676|181820229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline versus 2-week||||0.002
90969255|NCT00676676|181820229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline versus 8-week||||0.004
90969256|NCT01918007|181820241|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.3|||Chi-squared|||||3.3|0.5|0.54
90969257|NCT01918007|181820242|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|68.4|||Chi-squared|||||68.4|2.9|<0.001
90969258|NCT01918007|181820243|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.27|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.27|-0.35|<0.001
90936008|NCT03320941|181751185|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.313|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1399||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.592|-0.033|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||-0.033|-0.592|0.029
90936009|NCT03320941|181751185|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.399|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1411||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.681|-0.117|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||-0.117|-0.681|0.006
90936010|NCT03320941|181751185|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.409|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1253||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.159|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||-0.159|-0.660|0.002
90936011|NCT03320941|181751185|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.526|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1217|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.769|-0.282|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||-0.282|-0.769|<0.001
90936012|NCT03320941|181751186|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.174|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2094||0.408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.589|0.241|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||0.241|-0.589|0.408
90936013|NCT03320941|181751186|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.505|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2115||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.924|-0.087|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||-0.087|-0.924|0.018
90936014|NCT03320941|181751186|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.587|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1866||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.956|-0.217|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||-0.217|-0.956|0.002
90936015|NCT03320941|181751186|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.826|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1831|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.188|-0.463|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||-0.463|-1.188|<0.001
90936016|NCT03320941|181751186|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.218|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2054||0.293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.194|0.631|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||0.631|-0.194|0.293
90936017|NCT03320941|181751186|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2068||0.665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.325|0.506|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||0.506|-0.325|0.665
90936018|NCT03320941|181751186|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1791||0.803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.405|0.315|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||0.315|-0.405|0.803
90936019|NCT03320941|181751186|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.256|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1787||0.159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.615|0.103|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||0.103|-0.615|0.159
90936020|NCT03320941|181751186|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.527|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3249||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.176|0.122|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||0.122|-1.176|0.110
90936021|NCT03320941|181751186|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.032|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3296||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.691|-0.373|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||-0.373|-1.691|0.003
90936022|NCT03320941|181751186|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.065|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2946|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.654|-0.476|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||-0.476|-1.654|<0.001
90936023|NCT03320941|181751186|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.298|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2855|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.869|-0.728|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||-0.728|-1.869|<0.001
90969259|NCT01918007|181820244|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90969260|NCT01918007|181820245|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.63|-1.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-1.90|-3.63|<0.001
90969261|NCT01918007|181820246|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.16||||0.553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.89|||Chi-squared|||||1.89|0.71|0.553
90969262|NCT01918007|181820247|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.79||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|3.27|||Chi-squared|||||3.27|0.98|0.057
90969263|NCT01918007|181820248|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.29||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|6.25|||Chi-squared|||||6.25|0.84|0.084
90936024|NCT03320941|181751187|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.707||0.865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.898|5.822|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||5.822|-4.898|0.865
90936025|NCT03320941|181751187|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.765||0.931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.235|5.716|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||5.716|-5.235|0.931
90936026|NCT03320941|181751187|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.433||0.682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.817|3.82|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||3.820|-5.817|0.682
90936027|NCT03320941|181751187|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.387||0.508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.312|3.142|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||3.142|-6.312|0.508
90936028|NCT03320941|181751187|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.206||0.757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.138|9.749|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||9.749|-7.138|0.757
90936029|NCT03320941|181751187|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.267||0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.571|8.563|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||8.563|-8.571|0.999
90936030|NCT03320941|181751187|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.668||0.342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.848|10.88|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||10.880|-3.848|0.342
90936031|NCT03320941|181751187|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.673||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.454|10.292|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||10.292|-4.454|0.430
90936032|NCT03320941|181751187|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.461||0.909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.312|6.52|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||6.520|-7.312|0.909
90936033|NCT03320941|181751187|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.563||0.821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.311|7.93|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||7.930|-6.311|0.821
90936034|NCT03320941|181751187|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.19||0.132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.24|1.508|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||1.508|-11.240|0.132
90936035|NCT03320941|181751187|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.07||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.367|0.905|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||0.905|-11.367|0.093
90936036|NCT03320941|181751188|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.013||0.769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.579|3.393|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||3.393|-4.579|0.769
90936037|NCT03320941|181751188|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.043||0.839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.462|3.63|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||3.630|-4.462|0.839
90936038|NCT03320941|181751188|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.807||0.496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.811|2.345|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||2.345|-4.811|0.496
90936039|NCT03320941|181751188|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.774||0.237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.622|1.402|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||1.402|-5.622|0.237
90936040|NCT03320941|181751188|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2||0.758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.435|7.415|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||7.415|-5.435|0.758
90936041|NCT03320941|181751188|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.23||0.978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.574|6.397|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||6.397|-6.574|0.978
90936042|NCT03320941|181751188|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.79||0.512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.758|7.444|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||7.444|-3.758|0.512
90936043|NCT03320941|181751188|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.792||0.985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.552|5.657|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||5.657|-5.552|0.985
90936044|NCT03320941|181751188|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.599||0.428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.268|3.121|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||3.121|-7.268|0.428
90936045|NCT03320941|181751188|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.669||0.846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.853|4.812|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||4.812|-5.853|0.846
90936046|NCT03320941|181751188|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.388||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.825|0.721|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||0.721|-8.825|0.095
90936047|NCT03320941|181751188|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.31||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.61|0.623|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||0.623|-8.610|0.089
90936048|NCT03320941|181751189|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.561|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.4808||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.106|26.985|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||26.985|-58.106|0.470
90936049|NCT03320941|181751189|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.343|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.6316||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.187|36.501|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||36.501|-49.187|0.770
90936050|NCT03320941|181751189|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|26.527|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.1803||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.462|64.516|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||64.516|-11.462|0.169
90936051|NCT03320941|181751189|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.094|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.8076||0.521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.345|25.157|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||25.157|-49.345|0.521
90936052|NCT03320941|181751189|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.115|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|38.7858||0.571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.058|55.828|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||55.828|-100.058|0.571
90936053|NCT03320941|181751189|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.948|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|39.4994||0.564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-102.325|56.429|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||56.429|-102.325|0.564
90936054|NCT03320941|181751189|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|31.322|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|33.855||0.359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.712|99.356|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||99.356|-36.712|0.359
90936055|NCT03320941|181751189|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.901|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|34.4309||0.842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.093|62.29|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||62.290|-76.093|0.842
90936056|NCT03320941|181751189|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|24.3259||0.601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.417|35.836|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||35.836|-61.417|0.601
90969264|NCT01918007|181820249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.547|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.547
90969265|NCT01918007|181820250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.062|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.062
90969266|NCT01918007|181820251|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.208|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.208
90969267|NCT01918007|181820252|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.585|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.585
90969268|NCT01918007|181820253|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.074|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.074
90936057|NCT03320941|181751189|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.302|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|24.422||0.705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.517|58.121|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||58.121|-39.517|0.705
90936058|NCT03320941|181751189|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.0444||0.346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.126|65.007|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||65.007|-23.126|0.346
90936059|NCT03320941|181751189|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.863|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.2205||0.516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.283|28.556|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||28.556|-56.283|0.516
90936060|NCT03320941|181751190|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.955|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.605||0.792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.185|8.095|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||8.095|-6.185|0.792
90936061|NCT03320941|181751190|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.739|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7167||0.843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|6.623|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||6.623|-8.100|0.843
90936062|NCT03320941|181751190|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.128|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2564||0.339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.322|9.578|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||9.578|-3.322|0.339
90936063|NCT03320941|181751190|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.546|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1859||0.426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.764|8.856|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||8.856|-3.764|0.426
90936064|NCT03320941|181751190|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.504|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.8734||0.932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.299|12.307|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||12.307|-11.299|0.932
90936065|NCT03320941|181751190|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.458|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.3493||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.217|10.302|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||10.302|-15.217|0.700
90936066|NCT03320941|181751190|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.832|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0946||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.406|18.07|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||18.070|-2.406|0.131
90936067|NCT03320941|181751190|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.825|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.197||0.727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.619|12.269|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||12.269|-8.619|0.727
90936068|NCT03320941|181751190|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.828|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5876||0.857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.342|9.999|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||9.999|-8.342|0.857
90969269|NCT03070470|181820258|OTHER|The appropriateness of the linear model will be assessed. Projected estimates will be computed only if the linear model is found acceptable.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.5|12.0||The degrees of freedom for the model estimates were determined by the Kenward-Rogers method as prespecified in the SAP.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Upper bound of the 2-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) to be \<10 msec for the projected placebo-corrected change from baseline J-Tpeakc effect at the peak plasma level on Day 3 using a linear mixed-effects exposure response model||12.0|-9.5|
90969270|NCT03070470|181820258|OTHER|The appropriateness of the linear model will be assessed. Projected estimates will be computed only if the linear model is found acceptable.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.4|6.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|The degrees of freedom for the model estimates were determined by the Kenward-Rogers method as prespecified in the SAP.||Upper bound of the 2-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) to be \<10 msec for the projected placebo-corrected change from baseline J-Tpeakc effect at the peak plasma level on Day 3 using a linear mixed-effects exposure response model||6.1|-11.4|
90936069|NCT03320941|181751190|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.696|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.7173||0.883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.126|8.734|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||8.734|-10.126|0.883
90936070|NCT03320941|181751190|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.975|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.2883||0.821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.547|7.597|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||7.597|-9.547|0.821
90936071|NCT03320941|181751190|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.488|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1111||0.547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.73|10.706|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||10.706|-5.730|0.547
90936072|NCT03320941|181751191|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.954|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4006||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.781|11.689|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||11.689|-1.781|0.148
90936073|NCT03320941|181751191|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.993|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4645||0.775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.869|7.855|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||7.855|-5.869|0.775
90936074|NCT03320941|181751191|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.799|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0432||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.826|4.229|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||4.229|-7.826|0.556
90936075|NCT03320941|181751191|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.566|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0079||0.238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.391|9.524|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||9.524|-2.391|0.238
90936076|NCT03320941|181751191|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.811|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4552||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.152|14.774|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||14.774|-7.152|0.488
90936077|NCT03320941|181751191|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.659|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4845||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.363|15.68|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||15.680|-6.363|0.400
90936078|NCT03320941|181751191|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.7651||0.826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.525|10.626|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||10.626|-8.525|0.826
90936079|NCT03320941|181751191|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.182|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.7627||0.384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.389|13.753|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||13.753|-5.389|0.384
90936080|NCT03320941|181751191|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.563|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.4636||0.217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.36|14.486|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||14.486|-3.360|0.217
90936081|NCT03320941|181751191|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5491||0.659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.112|7.074|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||7.074|-11.112|0.659
90936082|NCT03320941|181751191|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.316|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0556||0.291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.423|3.791|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||3.791|-12.423|0.291
90936083|NCT03320941|181751191|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.913|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0035||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.09|10.916|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||10.916|-5.090|0.470
90969271|NCT03070470|181820258|OTHER|The appropriateness of the linear model will be assessed. Projected estimates will be computed only if the linear model is found acceptable.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.6|8.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|The degrees of freedom for the model estimates were determined by the Kenward-Rogers method as prespecified in the SAP.||Upper bound of the 2-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) to be \<10 msec for the projected placebo-corrected change from baseline J-Tpeakc effect at the peak plasma level on Day 3 using a linear mixed-effects exposure response model||8.8|-14.6|
90936084|NCT03320941|181751192|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.308|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.2049||0.802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.001|11.617|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||11.617|-9.001|0.802
90936085|NCT03320941|181751192|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.812|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4301||0.739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.567|8.943|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||8.943|-12.567|0.739
90936086|NCT03320941|181751192|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.588|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.7125||0.901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.745|9.922|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||9.922|-8.745|0.901
90936087|NCT03320941|181751192|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.278|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.6095||0.255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.852|14.407|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||14.407|-3.852|0.255
90936088|NCT03320941|181751192|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.928|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.5585||0.914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.271|18.127|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||18.127|-16.271|0.914
90936089|NCT03320941|181751192|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.2308||0.959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.03|18.07|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||18.070|-19.030|0.959
90936090|NCT03320941|181751192|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.572|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.422||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.343|21.487|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||21.487|-8.343|0.380
90936091|NCT03320941|181751192|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.121|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.5174||0.419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.986|21.228|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||21.228|-8.986|0.419
90936092|NCT03320941|181751192|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.785|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.6209||0.906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.45|14.02|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||14.020|-12.450|0.906
90936093|NCT03320941|181751192|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.504|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.8489||0.513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.195|9.187|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||9.187|-18.195|0.513
90936094|NCT03320941|181751192|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.237|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.23||0.499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.691|8.216|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||8.216|-16.691|0.499
90936095|NCT03320941|181751192|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.9073||0.516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.948|15.669|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||15.669|-7.948|0.516
90936096|NCT03320941|181751193|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|44.82||||0.625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-136.644|226.284|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||226.284|-136.644|0.625
90936097|NCT03320941|181751193|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|162.273||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.326|343.871|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||343.871|-19.326|0.079
90969272|NCT03070470|181820259|OTHER|The appropriateness of the linear model will be assessed. Projected estimates will be computed only if the linear model is found acceptable.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|30.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|22.6|38.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|The degrees of freedom for the model estimates were determined by the Kenward-Rogers method as prespecified in the SAP.||Upper bound of the 2-sided 90% CI to be ≥10 msec for the projected placebo-corrected change from baseline QTc effect at the peak plasma level on Day 1 using a linear mixed-effects exposure response model.||38.9|22.6|
90969273|NCT01471015|181820262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.006
90969274|NCT01471015|181820263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.003
90936098|NCT03320941|181751193|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|69.062||||0.384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-87.493|225.617|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||225.617|-87.493|0.384
90936099|NCT03320941|181751193|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|37.733||||0.627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-115.58|191.045|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||191.045|-115.580|0.627
90936100|NCT03320941|181751193|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.879||||0.797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-155.244|201.003|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||201.003|-155.244|0.797
90969275|NCT04962022|181820266|OTHER|PF-07321332/ritonavir administered alone was the Reference treatment and PF-07321332/ritonavir co-administered with itraconazole was the Test treatment.|Specified in comments|118.57||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|112.5|124.97|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Mixed Model was fitted to obtain:~1.Ratio of geometric means 2.90% CI of ratio of geometric means"|||124.97|112.50|0.05
90969276|NCT04962022|181820267|OTHER|PF-07321332/ritonavir administered alone was the Reference treatment and PF-07321332/ritonavir co-administered with itraconazole was the Test treatment.|Specified in comments|138.82||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|129.25|149.11|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Mixed Model was fitted to obtain:~1.Ratio of geometric means 2.90% CI of ratio of geometric means"|||149.11|129.25|0.05
90969277|NCT00330382|181820290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Correlation Coefficient|0.11|||>|0.45|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank Correlation|||Correlation of percent change in buccal-cell Neu with relative percent change in total lesion area||||>0.45
90936101|NCT03320941|181751193|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.891||||0.882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-160.215|185.996|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||185.996|-160.215|0.882
90936102|NCT03320941|181751193|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-30.447||||0.675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-175.796|114.902|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||114.902|-175.796|0.675
90936103|NCT03320941|181751193|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-37.264||||0.607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-182.099|107.571|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||107.571|-182.099|0.607
90936104|NCT03320941|181751193|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|84.822||||0.591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-229.131|398.775|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||398.775|-229.131|0.591
90936105|NCT03320941|181751193|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|287.328||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.533|594.19|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||594.190|-19.533|0.066
90936106|NCT03320941|181751193|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|156.017||||0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-113.963|425.997|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||425.997|-113.963|0.252
90936107|NCT03320941|181751193|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|103.135||||0.431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-157.287|363.556|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||363.556|-157.287|0.431
90936108|NCT03320941|181751194|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-65.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.03|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-90.864|-39.251|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||-39.251|-90.864|<0.001
90936109|NCT03320941|181751194|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-67.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.21|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-93.848|-41.542|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||-41.542|-93.848|<0.001
90936110|NCT03320941|181751194|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-70.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.67|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-93.942|-47.735|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||-47.735|-93.942|<0.001
90936111|NCT03320941|181751194|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-74.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.47|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-97.117|-51.704|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||-51.704|-97.117|<0.001
90936112|NCT03320941|181751194|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-86.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|24.35|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-135.78|-38.013|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||-38.013|-135.780|<0.001
90936113|NCT03320941|181751194|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-86.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|24.01|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-134.266|-37.874|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||-37.874|-134.266|<0.001
90936114|NCT03320941|181751194|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-81.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.04|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-123.369|-38.883|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||-38.883|-123.369|<0.001
90936115|NCT03320941|181751194|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-84.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.03|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-127.104|-42.669|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||-42.669|-127.104|<0.001
90936116|NCT03320941|181751194|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-47.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.52|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.493|-20.461|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||-20.461|-74.493|<0.001
90936117|NCT03320941|181751194|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-53.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.93|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.914|-25.251|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||-25.251|-80.914|<0.001
90936118|NCT03320941|181751194|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-61.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.43|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-86.627|-36.937|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||-36.937|-86.627|<0.001
90936119|NCT03320941|181751194|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-65.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-89.291|-40.713|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||-40.713|-89.291|<0.001
90936120|NCT03320941|181751195|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.556|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.845||0.764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.21|3.098|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||3.098|-4.210|0.764
90936121|NCT03320941|181751195|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.289|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8741||0.493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.423|5.001|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||5.001|-2.423|0.493
90936122|NCT03320941|181751195|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.621|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6596||0.117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.908|0.666|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||0.666|-5.908|0.117
90936123|NCT03320941|181751195|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.818|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6349||0.269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.056|1.421|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||1.421|-5.056|0.269
90969278|NCT00330382|181820290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Correlation Coefficient|0.92|||>|0.88|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank Correlation|||Correlation of percent change in protease activity with relative percent change in total lesion area||||> 0.88
90969279|NCT00330382|181820290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Correlation Coefficient|0.07|||>|0.66|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank Correlation|||Correlation of percent change in serum Neu with relative percent change in total lesion area||||> 0.66
91035902|NCT03673670|181958507|OTHER|A hierarchical fixed-sequence testing strategy was employed to test the significance of the treatment effect for each of the two RPL554 doses against placebo, starting with the highest dose (6 mg). If a statistically significant difference was found at the 2-sided α level of 5%, the testing proceeded with the next highest dose. Otherwise, testing was stopped, and the remaining null hypotheses were accepted without testing.|GeoMean Ratio|1.024||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.994|1.055|||ANCOVA|||||1.055|0.994|0.111
90936124|NCT03320941|181751195|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.671|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1677||0.159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.676|4.017|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||4.017|-0.676|0.159
90936125|NCT03320941|181751195|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.641|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1678|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.294|7.988|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||7.988|3.294|<0.001
90936126|NCT03320941|181751195|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.155|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0371||0.271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.929|3.239|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||3.239|-0.929|0.271
90969280|NCT02684604|181820291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90969281|NCT03548935|181820314|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-12.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.37|-11.51|||ANCOVA|||Treatment policy estimand||-11.51|-13.37|<.0001
90969282|NCT03548935|181820314|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-14.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.29|-13.55|||ANCOVA|||Hypothetical estimand||-13.55|-15.29|<0.0001
90936127|NCT03320941|181751195|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.206|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.019||0.841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.842|2.253|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||2.253|-1.842|0.841
90936128|NCT03320941|181751195|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.725|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.518||0.144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.758|1.309|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||1.309|-8.758|0.144
90936129|NCT03320941|181751195|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.877|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5906||0.736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.055|4.302|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||4.302|-6.055|0.736
90936130|NCT03320941|181751195|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.431|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3113||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.051|1.19|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||1.190|-8.051|0.143
90936131|NCT03320941|181751195|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.991|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2659||0.383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.521|2.538|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||2.538|-6.521|0.383
90936132|NCT03320941|181751196|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.654|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1543||0.572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.632|2.941|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||2.941|-1.632|0.572
90936133|NCT03320941|181751196|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.655|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1738||0.578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|2.98|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||2.980|-1.670|0.578
90936134|NCT03320941|181751196|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0479||0.319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.124|1.028|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||1.028|-3.124|0.319
91035903|NCT03673670|181958508|OTHER|A hierarchical fixed-sequence testing strategy was employed to test the significance of the treatment effect for each of the two RPL554 doses against placebo, starting with the highest dose (6 mg). If a statistically significant difference was found at the 2-sided α level of 5%, the testing proceeded with the next highest dose. Otherwise, testing was stopped, and the remaining null hypotheses were accepted without testing.|GeoMean Ratio|1.014||||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.987|1.043|||ANCOVA|||||1.043|0.987|0.303
90936135|NCT03320941|181751196|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.374|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0303||0.717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.416|1.667|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||1.667|-2.416|0.717
90936136|NCT03320941|181751196|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.563||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.562|1.701|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||1.701|-0.562|0.317
90936137|NCT03320941|181751196|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.609|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5716||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|2.758|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||2.758|0.460|0.007
90936138|NCT03320941|181751196|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.352|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5029||0.487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.659|1.362|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||1.362|-0.659|0.487
90936139|NCT03320941|181751196|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.104|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4917||0.833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.884|1.092|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||1.092|-0.884|0.833
90936140|NCT03320941|181751196|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.605|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.073||0.771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.541|4.752|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||4.752|-3.541|0.771
90936141|NCT03320941|181751196|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1453||0.991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.315|4.267|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||4.267|-4.315|0.991
90936142|NCT03320941|181751196|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.166|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9486||0.271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.064|1.732|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||1.732|-6.064|0.271
90936143|NCT03320941|181751196|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.792|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8889||0.676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.57|2.986|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||2.986|-4.570|0.676
90936144|NCT03320941|181751197|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.7535||0.968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.603|9.222|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||9.222|-9.603|0.968
90936145|NCT03320941|181751197|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.883|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.7545||0.693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.297|7.531|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||7.531|-11.297|0.693
90936146|NCT03320941|181751197|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.236|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.2623||0.222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.676|3.203|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||3.203|-13.676|0.222
90936147|NCT03320941|181751197|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.403|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1637||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.648|0.841|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||0.841|-15.648|0.078
90936148|NCT03320941|181751197|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.142|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.0033||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.194|10.91|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||10.910|-13.194|0.850
90936149|NCT03320941|181751197|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7919||0.301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.676|5.58|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||5.580|-17.676|0.301
90936150|NCT03320941|181751197|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.587|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.2598||0.293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.147|4.972|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||4.972|-16.147|0.293
90936151|NCT03320941|181751197|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.943|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.2191||0.189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.421|3.535|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||3.535|-17.421|0.189
90936152|NCT03320941|181751197|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.676|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.2441||0.926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|15.152|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||15.152|-13.800|0.926
90936153|NCT03320941|181751197|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.202|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.5086||0.873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.802|16.207|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||16.207|-13.802|0.873
90936154|NCT03320941|181751197|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.779|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.6977||0.391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.164|7.605|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||7.605|-19.164|0.391
90936155|NCT03320941|181751197|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.591|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.3822||0.239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.345|5.163|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||5.163|-20.345|0.239
90936156|NCT03320941|181751198|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.086|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8326||0.278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.696|2.525|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||2.525|-8.696|0.278
90936157|NCT03320941|181751198|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.977|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.859||0.733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.639|4.686|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||4.686|-6.639|0.733
90936158|NCT03320941|181751198|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.507|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5118||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.482|0.468|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||0.468|-9.482|0.075
90936159|NCT03320941|181751198|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.268|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4659||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.152|2.616|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||2.616|-7.152|0.360
90936160|NCT03320941|181751198|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.147|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1699||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.792|4.959|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||4.959|-11.792|0.416
90936161|NCT03320941|181751198|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.634|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1121||0.693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.893|6.625|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||6.625|-9.893|0.693
90936162|NCT03320941|181751198|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.906|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6351||0.428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.207|4.396|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||4.396|-10.207|0.428
90936163|NCT03320941|181751198|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.201|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6414||0.548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.113|9.515|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||9.515|-5.113|0.548
90936164|NCT03320941|181751198|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.636|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8828||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|5.128|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||5.128|-10.400|0.500
90936165|NCT03320941|181751198|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.826|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9906||0.837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.805|7.154|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||7.154|-8.805|0.837
90936166|NCT03320941|181751198|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.594|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4818||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.556|1.368|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||1.368|-12.556|0.113
90936167|NCT03320941|181751198|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3512||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.361|1.041|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||1.041|-12.361|0.096
90936168|NCT01114217|181751237|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90936169|NCT01837719|181751244|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was concluded if the 90% CI for the ratios of geometric means of the test formulation (fixed-dose combination \[FDC\] tablet of 300/150 mg atazanavir/cobicistat) to the reference formulation (300-mg atazanavir capsule coadministered with 150-mg cobicistat) were contained within 0.80 to 1.25 for atazanavir Cmax, area under the plasma concentration-time curve from time 0 to time of last quantifiable concentration (AUC\[0-T\]) and AUC from time 0 to infinity. (AUC\[0-T\])|Geometric mean ratio|1.073|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.012|1.137|||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as Treatment B/Treatment A|To demonstrate bioequivalence for atazanavir between the test (Treatment B) and reference (Treatment A) formulations, a linear mixed-effects model was applied to the natural logarithms of atazanavir Cmax, with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participant (sequence) as a random effect.||1.137|1.012|
90936170|NCT01837719|181751244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.423|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.273|1.59|||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric mean ratio was calculated as Treatment B/Treatment D|A linear mixed-effect model with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect will be used to estimate the effect of a light meal and the fasted state on the natural logarithms of exposure of atazanavir when given as an FDC||1.590|1.273|
90936171|NCT01837719|181751244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.137|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.292|||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as Treatment D/Treatment C|To assess the relative bioavailability of atazanavir under fasted (Treatment D) versus fed (Treatment C) states, a linear mixed-effects model was applied to the natural logarithms of atazanavir Cmax with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant (sequence) as a random effect.||1.292|1.000|
90936172|NCT01837719|181751244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.862|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.701|1.059|||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as Treatment E/Treatment D|A linear mixed-effect model with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect will be used to estimate the effect of a high fat meal and the fasted state on the natural logarithms of exposure of atazanavir when given as an FDC||1.059|0.701|
90936173|NCT01837719|181751244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.643|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.545|0.759|||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as Treatment E/Treatment B|A linear mixed-effect model with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect will be used to estimate the effect of high fat and light meals on the natural logarithms of exposure of atazanavir when given as an FDC||0.759|0.545|
90936174|NCT01837719|181751245|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To demonstrate bioequivalence for atazanavir between the test (Treatment B) and reference (Treatment A) formulations, a linear mixed-effects model was applied to the natural logarithms of atazanavir AUC(0-T), with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participant (sequence) as a random effect.|Geometric mean ratio|1.065|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.012|1.12|||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric mean ratio for AUC(0-T) is calculated as Treatment B/Treatment A|Bioequivalence was concluded if the 90% confidence intervals for the ratios of geometric means of the test formulation (FDC tablet of 300/150 mg atazanavir/cobicistat) to the reference formulation (300-mg atazanavir capsule coadministered with 150-mg cobicistat) were contained within 0.80 to 1.25 for atazanavir Cmax, AUC(0-T) and AUC(INF).||1.120|1.012|
90936175|NCT01837719|181751245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.275|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.166|1.393|||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric mean ratio for AUC(0-T) was calculated as Treatment B/Treatment D|A linear mixed-effect model with treatment as fixed effect and patient as a random effect was used to estimate the effect of a light meal and the fasted state on the natural logarithms of exposure of atazanavir when administered as an FDC||1.393|1.166|
90936176|NCT01837719|181751245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.113|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.993|1.248|||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric mean ratio for AUC(0-T) is calculated as Treatment D/Treatment C|To assess the relative bioavailability of atazanavir under fasted (Treatment D) versus fed (Treatment C) states, a linear mixed-effects model was applied to the natural logarithms of atazanavir AUC(0-T) with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant (sequence) as a random effect||1.248|0.993|
90936177|NCT01837719|181751245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.804|1.122|||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric mean ratio of AUC(0-T) was calculated as Treatment E/Treatment D|A linear mixed-effect model with treatment as fixed effect and participant as a random effect will be used to estimate the effect of a high fat meal and the fasted state on the natural logarithms of exposure of atazanavir when given as an FDC.||1.122|0.804|
90936178|NCT01837719|181751245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.746|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.655|0.849|||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric mean ratio of AUC(0-T) was calculated as Treatment E/Treatment B|A linear mixed-effect model with treatment as fixed effect and participant as a random effect will be used to estimate the effect of high fat and light meals on the natural logarithms of exposure of atazanavir when given as an FDC||0.849|0.655|
90969283|NCT03548935|181820315|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.88|14.19|||Regression, Logistic|||Treatment policy estimand||14.19|8.88|<0.0001
90969284|NCT03548935|181820315|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|37.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.02|48.95|||Regression, Logistic|||Hypothetical estimand||48.95|28.02|<0.0001
90969285|NCT02919436|181820356|SUPERIORITY|We found observed rate of postoperative urinary retention in male spine surgery patients to historically be 17%. We hypothesize that the use of tamsulosin can reduce this rate by 50%. A two group continuity corrected chi-square test with a .05 two-sided significance level will have 80% power to detect the difference between a control group proportion of .17 and a treatment group proportion of .085 (odds ratio of .454) when the sample size in each group is 264 and a total sample size of 528.||||||0.96|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||.96
90969286|NCT00804570|181820359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.3||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.72|1.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.13|-9.72|0.120
90969287|NCT00804570|181820360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|-0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.15|-1.27|0.013
90969288|NCT00804570|181820361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.37||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|10.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||10.77|-0.02|0.051
90969289|NCT00804570|181820362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.28|-1.07|0.249
90936179|NCT01837719|181751245|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was concluded if the 90% confidence intervals for the ratios of geometric means of the test formulation (FDC tablet of 300/150 mg atazanavir/cobicistat) to the reference formulation (300-mg atazanavir capsule coadministered with 150-mg cobicistat) were contained within 0.80 to 1.25 for atazanavir Cmax, AUC(0-T) and AUC(INF).|Geometric mean ratio|1.064||||||90.0|1.011|1.12|||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric mean ration for AUC(INF) is calculated as Treatment B/Treatment A|To demonstrate bioequivalence for atazanavir between the test (Treatment B) and reference (Treatment A) formulations, a linear mixed-effects model was applied to the natural logarithms of atazanavir AUC(0-INF), with treatment period and sequence as fixed effects, and patient (sequence) as a random effect.||1.120|1.011|
90936180|NCT01837719|181751245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.171|1.398|||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric mean ratio for AUC(INF) was calculated as Treatment B/Treatment D|A linear mixed-effect model with treatment as fixed effect and participant as a random effect was used to estimate the effect of a light meal and fthe fasted state on the natural logarithms of exposure of atazanavir when given as an FDC||1.398|1.171|
90936181|NCT01837719|181751245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.991|1.244|||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric mean ratio of AUC(INF) was calculated as Treatment D/Treatment C|To assess the relative bioavailability of atazanavir under fasted (Treatment D) versus fed (Treatment C) states, a linear mixed-effects model was applied to the natural logarithms of atazanavir AUC(0-INF) with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant (sequence) as a random effect||1.244|0.991|
90936182|NCT01837719|181751245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.956|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|1.128|||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric mean of AUC(INF) was calculated as Treatment E/Treatment D|||1.128|0.810|
90969290|NCT00804570|181820363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.23|-1.12|0.199
90969291|NCT00804570|181820364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68||||0.318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.03|0.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.66|-2.03|0.318
90969292|NCT00804570|181820365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.01||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|-0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.22|-5.80|0.034
90969293|NCT00804570|181820366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||GMR over Baseline relative to placebo|0.9||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|0.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.96|0.85|0.001
90969294|NCT00804570|181820367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||GMR over Baseline relative to placebo|0.96||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.01|0.91|0.103
90969295|NCT00804570|181820368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||GMR over Baseline relative to placebo|0.94||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|0.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.99|0.89|0.012
90969296|NCT00804570|181820369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32||||0.392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.41|-1.05|0.392
90969297|NCT00804570|181820370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44||||0.185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.21|-1.10|0.185
90969298|NCT00804570|181820371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.25||||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|2.92|||ANCOVA|||||2.92|-0.42|0.142
90969299|NCT00804570|181820372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|0.04||P-value is for desire to stop drinking at this time.|ANCOVA|||||0.04|-1.01|0.69
90969300|NCT00804570|181820372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.45||P-value is for expectation of success in quitting alcohol.|ANCOVA|||||0.45|-0.85|0.545
90969301|NCT00804570|181820372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.24||P-value is for difficulty to quit and remain abstinent.|ANCOVA|||||0.24|-1.20|0.190
90969302|NCT00804570|181820372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.4||P-value is for goal related to alcohol use.|ANCOVA|||||0.40|-0.49|0.856
90969303|NCT00804570|181820373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.77||||0.297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|2.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.22|-0.68|0.297
90969304|NCT00804570|181820374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.46||||0.633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|2.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.36|-1.44|0.633
90969305|NCT00804570|181820377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.77||||0.409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.62|1.07||P-value is for supine systolic blood pressure.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.07|-2.62|0.409
90969306|NCT00804570|181820377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45||||0.452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|0.73||P-value is for supine diastolic blood pressure.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.73|-1.63|0.452
90969307|NCT00804570|181820378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53||||0.456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|0.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.87|-1.93|0.456
90969308|NCT00804570|181820379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.08||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.41|0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.26|-4.41|0.081
90969309|NCT00804570|181820380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.122||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.122
90969310|NCT00804570|181820381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.002
91035904|NCT03673670|181958509|OTHER|A hierarchical fixed-sequence testing strategy was employed to test the significance of the treatment effect for each of the two RPL554 doses against placebo, starting with the highest dose (6 mg). If a statistically significant difference was found at the 2-sided α level of 5%, the testing proceeded with the next highest dose. Otherwise, testing was stopped, and the remaining null hypotheses were accepted without testing.|GeoMean Ratio|1.027||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.998|1.057|||ANCOVA|||||1.057|0.998|0.067
90969311|NCT00804570|181820382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69||||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|0.45||P-value is for orthostatic systolic blood pressure.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.45|-1.82|0.235
90969312|NCT00804570|181820382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|0.42||P-value is for orthostatic diastolic blood pressure.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.42|-1.05|0.400
90969313|NCT00804570|181820383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.74||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|1.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.57|-0.08|0.077
90969314|NCT00804570|181820385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.90|0.24|<0.001
90969315|NCT01056510|181820386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||Based on one-sided continuity corrected Chi-Square Test for participants achieving CR confirmed with biopsy versus those not achieving CR confirmed with biopsy|Chi-squared, Corrected|||The first-line subpopulation became the focus of the primary statistical analysis following the protocol amendment dated 21-May-2012.||||0.002
90969316|NCT01056510|181820387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Based on one-sided continuity corrected Chi-Square Test for participants achieving CR confirmed with biopsy versus those not achieving CR confirmed with biopsy|Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||< 0.001
90969317|NCT01056510|181820388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|||||Based on one-sided continuity corrected Chi-Square Test for participants achieving CR confirmed with biopsy versus those not achieving CR confirmed with biopsy|Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.009
90969318|NCT01056510|181820389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|||||Based on two-sided continuity corrected Chi-Square Test|Chi-squared, Corrected|||After 3 cycles||||0.900
90969319|NCT01056510|181820389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.563|TWO_SIDED|||||Based on two-sided continuity corrected Chi-Square Test|Chi-squared, Corrected|||After 6 cycles||||0.563
90969320|NCT01056510|181820389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.304|TWO_SIDED|||||Based on two-sided continuity corrected Chi-Square Test|Chi-squared, Corrected|||At the EOT visit||||0.304
90969321|NCT01056510|181820392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.525||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.341|0.809|||Log Rank|||Unstratified analysis||0.809|0.341|0.003
90969322|NCT01056510|181820392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.523||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.339|0.806|||Log Rank|||Stratified analysis: by baseline Binet stage||0.806|0.339|0.003
90969323|NCT01056510|181820394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.029
90969324|NCT01056510|181820396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.006
90969325|NCT01056510|181820398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.037|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.037
90969326|NCT01056510|181820400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.007
90969327|NCT01056510|181820402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.994||||0.986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.517|1.911||Unstratified analysis|Log Rank|||||1.911|0.517|0.986
90969328|NCT01056510|181820402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.975||||0.939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.505|1.88|||Log Rank|||Stratified analysis: by baseline Binet stage||1.880|0.505|0.939
90969329|NCT01056510|181820403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Based on two-sided continuity corrected Chi-Square Test|Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||< 0.001
90969330|NCT00619255|181820414|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.38||||0.71|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|DF=3||||||0.71
90969331|NCT00619255|181820415|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.02||||0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|DF=3||||||0.80
90969332|NCT00619255|181820416|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||Chi-squared|"DF = 1~Chi-Square Value = 0.18"||||||0.67
90936183|NCT01837719|181751245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.749|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.658|0.852|||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric mean ratio of AUC(INF) was calculated as Treatment E/Treatment B|A linear mixed-effect model with treatment as fixed effect and participant as a random effect was used to estimate the effect of high fat and light meals on the natural logarithms of exposure of atazanavir when administered as an FDC.||0.852|0.658|
90969333|NCT00619255|181820417|SUPERIORITY||Slope|9.0||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|DF=3||||||0.03
90969334|NCT00619255|181820418|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.35||||0.72|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|DF=3||||||0.72
90969335|NCT02121262|181820419|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|1.5||||0.7431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|8.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) general association test stratified by baseline BCVA categories.||||8.9|-5.9|0.7431
90969336|NCT02121262|181820420|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean (LSM) Difference|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|4.66|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included the treatment group as the main effect and baseline BCVA score as the covariate.|Null hypothesis-there was no difference in treatment groups of average BCVA CFB in 12-months. Hypothesis test-based on 2-sided test at 0.05 significance level,confidence interval(CI) was constructed between treatment groups in LSM using ANCOVA model.|||4.66|1.17|0.0011
90969337|NCT02121262|181820421|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-89.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.89|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-122.53|-56.01|||ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline BCVA categories as main effects and baseline retinal thickness as the covariate.|Null hypothesis was there was no difference in treatment groups in average BCVA CFB in 12-months. Hypothesis test was based on 2-sided test at 0.05 significance level. 2-sided 95% CI was constructed between treatment groups in LSM using ANCOVA model.|||-56.01|-122.53|<0.0001
90969338|NCT02121262|181820422|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.729|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0443|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7855|-5.6733|||ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline BCVA categories as main effects and baseline total leakage area as the covariate.|Null hypothesis was there was no difference in treatment groups in average BCVA CFB in 12-months. Hypothesis test was based on 2-sided test at 0.05 significance level. 2-sided 95% CI was constructed between treatment groups in LSM using ANCOVA model.|||-5.6733|-9.7855|<0.0001
90936184|NCT01837719|181751250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.084|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.014|1.158|||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric mean ratio was calculated as Treatment B/Treatment A|A linear mixed-effect model with treatment as fixed effect and patient as random effect will be used to estimate the effect of a light meal and the fasted state on the natural logarithms of exposure of atazanavir when administered as a fixed-dose combination.||1.158|1.014|
90969339|NCT01553188|181820436|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||Log rank two-tailed p-value|||||||0.44
90969340|NCT01553188|181820438|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Log rank two-tailed p-value|||||||0.26
90969341|NCT05376215|181820500|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin of -12.5 was used per the findings from Chisolm, et al (2005), see attached article. In that study, the smallest critical difference for the short term retest difference was 12.5 for the APHAB global score at the 90th percentile. For this study, non-inferiority is confirmed if Fitting Method B is no more than 12.5 percentage points below the mean global benefit score of Fitting Method A.||||||0.806|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.806
90969342|NCT05376215|181820501|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is -1.8 dB. This is based off of work by Killion (2004) in which the critical difference for 4 lists is 1.9 dB at the 95% confidence interval. Killion also found that if all 12 lists are presented, the mean SNR scores will differ by 1.8 dB 5% of the time.||||||0.889|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.889
90936185|NCT01837719|181751250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.349|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.215|1.498|||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric mean ratio of C24 was calculated as Treatment B/Treatment D|A linear mixed-effect model with treatment as fixed effect and patient as random effect will be used to estimate the effect of a light meal and the fasted state on the natural logarithms of exposure of atazanavir when administered as a fixed-dose combination.||1.498|1.215|
90969343|NCT01301950|181820502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54|||||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis was no difference in skin-to-skin time. The alternative hypothesis was that the TruMatch group time was less than the conventional group. Statistical power was anticipated to be 86% with 40 enrolled subjects based upon a Cohen's D effect size of 1. The Sponsor had difficulty identifying and recruiting sites suitable for participation. The statistically required sample size (N=40) was therefore not obtained, causing the group comparison to be statistically underpowered.||||0.54
90969344|NCT00942175|181820507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6106|0.8026|||||The mean difference refers to the point estimates of the relative bioavailability. With its confidence intervals, it was obtained from the ANOVA model on the natural logarithm transformed data.|||0.8026|0.6106|
90969345|NCT00942175|181820507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.734|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6516|0.8269|||||The mean difference refers to the point estimates of the relative bioavailability. With its confidence intervals, it was obtained from the ANOVA model on the natural logarithm transformed data.|||0.8269|0.6516|
90969346|NCT00942175|181820507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5564|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4877|0.6347|||||The mean difference refers to the point estimates of the relative bioavailability. With its confidence intervals, it was obtained from the ANOVA model on the natural logarithm transformed data.|||0.6347|0.4877|
90969347|NCT00942175|181820507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6783|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5063|0.9087|||||The mean difference refers to the point estimates of the relative bioavailability. With its confidence intervals, it was obtained from the ANOVA model on the natural logarithm transformed data.|||0.9087|0.5063|
90969348|NCT00942175|181820508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8573|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.802|0.9165|||||The mean difference refers to the point estimates of the relative bioavailability. With its confidence intervals, it was obtained from the ANOVA model on the natural logarithm transformed data.|||0.9165|0.8020|
90969349|NCT00942175|181820508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9103|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8567|0.9672|||||The mean difference refers to the point estimates of the relative bioavailability. With its confidence intervals, it was obtained from the ANOVA model on the natural logarithm transformed data.|||0.9672|0.8567|
90969350|NCT00942175|181820508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6943|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6438|0.7487|||||The mean difference refers to the point estimates of the relative bioavailability. With its confidence intervals, it was obtained from the ANOVA model on the natural logarithm transformed data.|||0.7487|0.6438|
90969351|NCT00942175|181820508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8389|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.644|1.0928|||||The mean difference refers to the point estimates of the relative bioavailability. With its confidence intervals, it was obtained from the ANOVA model on the natural logarithm transformed data.|||1.0928|0.6440|
90936186|NCT01837719|181751250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.144||||||90.0|1.006|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric mean ratio was calculated as Treatment D/Treatment C|A linear mixed-effect model with treatment as fixed effect and patient as random effect will be used to estimate the effect of a light meal and the fasted state on the natural logarithms of exposure of atazanavir when administered as an FDC||1.300|1.006|
90936187|NCT01837719|181751250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.231|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.023|1.483|||||Geometric mean ratio was calculated as Treatment E/Treatment D|A linear mixed-effect model with treatment as fixed effect and patient as random effect will be used to estimate the effect of a light meal and the fasted state on the natural logarithms of exposure of atazanavir when administered as a fixed-dose combination.||1.483|1.023|
90936188|NCT01837719|181751250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.912||||||90.0|0.789|1.054|||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric mean ratio was calculated as Treatment E/Treatment B|A linear mixed-effect model with treatment as fixed effect and patient as random effect will be used to estimate the effect of a light meal and the fasted state on the natural logarithms of exposure of atazanavir when administered as a fixed-dose combination.||1.054|0.789|
90936189|NCT01837719|181751252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.023|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.991|1.057|||||Geometric mean ratio was calculated as Treatment B/Treatment A|A linear mixed-effect model with treatment as fixed effect and patient as random effect will be used to estimate the effect of a light meal and the fasted state on the natural logarithms of exposure of cobicistat when administered as a fixed-dose combination.||1.057|0.991|
90936190|NCT01837719|181751252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.305|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.215|1.402|||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric mean ratio was calculated as Treatment B/Treatment D|A linear mixed-effect model with treatment as fixed effect and patient as random effect will be used to estimate the effect of a light meal and the fasted state on the natural logarithms of exposure of cobicistat when administered as a fixed-dose combination.||1.402|1.215|
90936191|NCT01837719|181751252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.085|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.925|1.273|||||Geometric mean ratio was calculated as Treatment D/Treatment C|A linear mixed-effect model with treatment as fixed effect and patient as random effect will be used to estimate the effect of a light meal and the fasted state on the natural logarithms of exposure of atazanavir cobicistat||1.273|0.925|
90936192|NCT01837719|181751252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.937|1.154|||||Geometric mean ratio was calculated asTreatment E/Treatment D|A linear mixed-effect model with treatment as fixed effect and patient as random effect will be used to estimate the effect of a light meal and the fasted state on the natural logarithms of exposure of cobicistat when administered as a fixed-dose combination.||1.154|0.937|
90936193|NCT01837719|181751252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.784|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.717|0.858|||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric mean ratio was calculated as Treatment E/Treatment B|A linear mixed-effect model with treatment as fixed effect and patient as random effect will be used to estimate the effect of a light meal and the fasted state on the natural logarithms of exposure of cobicistat when administered as a fixed-dose combination.||0.858|0.717|
90936194|NCT01837719|181751254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.019|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.983|1.057|||||Geometric mean ratio of AUC(0-T) was calculated as Treatment B/Treatment A|A linear mixed-effect model was applied to the natural logarithms of cobicistat AUC(0-T) with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant (sequence) as a random effect.||1.057|0.983|
90936195|NCT01837719|181751254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.232||||||90.0|1.141|1.331|||||Geometric mean ratio of AUC(0-T) was calculated as Treatment B/Treatment D|A linear mixed-effect model with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect will be used to estimate the effect of a light meal and the fasted state on the natural logarithms of exposure of cobicistat when given as an FDC||1.331|1.141|
90936196|NCT01837719|181751254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.102|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.929|1.307|||||Geometric mean ratio of AUC(0-T) was calculated as Treatment D/Treatment C|A linear mixed-effect model was applied to the natural logarithms of cobicistat AUC(0-T) with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant (sequence) as a random effect.||1.307|0.929|
90936197|NCT01837719|181751254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.127||||||90.0|1.017|1.248|||||Geometric mean ratio of AUC(0-T) was calculated asTreatment E/Treatment D|A linear mixed-effect model with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect will be used to estimate the effect of a high fat meal and the fasted state on the natural logarithms of exposure of cobicistat when given as an FDC.||1.248|1.017|
90936198|NCT01837719|181751254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.825|0.96|||||Geometric mean ratio of AUC(0-T) was calculated asTreatment E/Treatment B|A linear mixed-effect model with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect will be used to estimate the effect of a high fat meal and a light meal on the natural logarithms of exposure of cobicistat when given as an FDC||0.960|0.825|
90969352|NCT00942175|181820509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.1016|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0348|8.1684|||||Included only participants with complete data for both regimens. Values are least squares mean difference.|||8.1684|0.0348|
90969353|NCT00942175|181820509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0474|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8555|4.9503|||||Included only participants with complete data for both regimens. Values are least squares mean difference.|||4.9503|-0.8555|
90969354|NCT00942175|181820509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.0407|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.5219|15.5595|||||Included only participants with complete data for both regimens. Values are least squares mean difference.|||15.5595|6.5219|
90969355|NCT00942175|181820509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.4437|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.1791|15.7083|||||Included only participants with complete data for both regimens. Values are least squares mean difference.|||15.7083|7.1791|
90969356|NCT00942175|181820510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035||95.0||||From ANOVA models in which the least-square means between two regimens are compared.|ANOVA|||||||0.035
90969357|NCT00942175|181820510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.445||90.0||||From ANOVA models in which the least-square means between two regimens are compared.|ANOVA|||||||0.445
90969358|NCT00942175|181820510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||90.0||||From ANOVA models in which the least-square means between two regimens are compared.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90969359|NCT00942175|181820510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||90.0||||From ANOVA models in which the least-square means between two regimens are compared.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90969360|NCT00942175|181820511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||90.0||||From ANOVA models in which the least-square means between two regimens are compared.|ANOVA|||||||0.004
90969361|NCT00942175|181820511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.148||90.0||||From ANOVA models in which the least-square means between two regimens are compared.|ANOVA|||||||0.148
90969362|NCT00942175|181820511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||90.0||||From ANOVA models in which the least-square means between two regimens are compared.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90969363|NCT00942175|181820511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||90.0||||From ANOVA models in which the least-square means between two regimens are compared.|ANOVA|||||||<.0001
90969364|NCT00578136|181820548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|The Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used because the study did not have a normal distribution using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test (p\<0.01).||Assuming the opioid requirement in the local infiltration group to be 0.2mg kg-1 and in the rectus sheath block group to be 0.1mg kg-1, a sample size of 44 patients (22 in each group) will have a power of 80% to detect a difference in means of 0.1mg kg-1 with a 0.005 two-sided significance level.||||0.008
90969365|NCT02822885|181820605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||All included p-values are calculated from collected data and not threshold values for statical significance|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
90969366|NCT02822885|181820606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||All included p-values are calculated from collected data and not threshold values for statical significance|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
90969367|NCT02822885|181820607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||All included p-values are calculated from collected data and not threshold values for statical significance|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
90969368|NCT02822885|181820608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||All included p-values are calculated from collected data and not threshold values for statical significance|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
90969369|NCT02822885|181820609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||All included p-values are calculated from collected data and not threshold values for statical significance|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
90969370|NCT04013529|181820639|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.9|||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.90
90969371|NCT04013529|181820640|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.88|||||||ANCOVA|||||||= 0.88
90969372|NCT04013529|181820641|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.17|||||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.17
90969373|NCT04013529|181820642|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.05
90969374|NCT04013529|181820643|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.81|||||||ANCOVA|||||||= 0.81
90969375|NCT02971631|181820664|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired analysis||||||0.008
90969376|NCT02971631|181820665|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired analysis||||||0.03
90969377|NCT02971631|181820666|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired analysis||For meal consumption rate||||0.79
90969378|NCT02971631|181820668|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired analysis||Baseline||||0.20
90969379|NCT02971631|181820668|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired analysis||Post-OGTT||||0.58
90969380|NCT02971631|181820668|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired analysis||Pre-meal||||0.39
90969381|NCT02971631|181820668|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired analysis||Post-meal||||0.20
90969382|NCT02971631|181820669|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired analysis||Baseline||||0.26
90969383|NCT02971631|181820669|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06||||||Paired analysis|t-test, 2 sided|||Post-OGTT||||0.06
90969384|NCT02971631|181820669|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired analysis||Pre-meal||||0.95
90969385|NCT02971631|181820669|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired analysis||Post-meal||||0.88
90969386|NCT02971631|181820670|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Other|0 events over whole study, no statistical test appropriate||||||1
90969387|NCT02971631|181820671|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.84
90936199|NCT01837719|181751254|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was concluded if the 90% CI for the ratios of geometric means of the test formulation (FDC tablet of 300/150 mg atazanavir/cobicistat) to the reference formulation (300-mg atazanavir capsule coadministered with 150-mg cobicistat) were contained within 0.80 to 1.25 for atazanavir Cmax, AUC(0-T), and AUC(INF).|Geometric mean ratio|1.019|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.982|1.058|||||Geometric mean ratio of AUC(INF) was calculated as Treatment B/Treatment A|To demonstrate bioequivalence for atazanavir between the test (Treatment B) and reference (Treatment A) formulations, a linear mixed-effects model was applied to the natural logarithms of atazanavir AUC(0-INF), with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participant (sequence) as a random effect.||1.058|0.982|
90936200|NCT01837719|181751254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.148|1.34|||||Geometric mean ratio of AUC(INF) was calculated as Treatment B/Treatment D|A linear mixed-effect model with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect will be used to estimate the effect of a light meal and the fasted state on the natural logarithms of exposure of cobicistat when given as an FDC||1.340|1.148|
91035905|NCT03673670|181958509|OTHER|A hierarchical fixed-sequence testing strategy was employed to test the significance of the treatment effect for each of the two RPL554 doses against placebo, starting with the highest dose (6 mg). If a statistically significant difference was found at the 2-sided α level of 5%, the testing proceeded with the next highest dose. Otherwise, testing was stopped, and the remaining null hypotheses were accepted without testing.|GeoMean Ratio|1.012||||0.395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.984|1.042|||ANCOVA|||||1.042|0.984|0.395
90936201|NCT01837719|181751254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.976|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.886|1.075|||||Geometric mean ratio of AUC(INF) was calculated as Treatment D/Treatment C|A linear mixed-effect model was applied to the natural logarithms of cobicistat AUC(INF) with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant (sequence) as a random effect.||1.075|0.886|
90936202|NCT01837719|181751254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.116|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.012|1.231|||||Geometric mean ratio of AUC(INF) was calculated as Treatment E/Treatment D|A linear mixed-effect model with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect will be used to estimate the effect of a high fat meal and fasted on the natural logarithms of exposure of cobicistat when given as an FDC.||1.231|1.012|
90936203|NCT01837719|181751254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.904|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.836|0.978|||||Geometric mean ratio of AUC(INF) was calculated as Treatment E/Treatment B|A linear mixed-effect model with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect will be used to estimate the effect of a high fat meal and light meal on the natural logarithms of exposure of atazanavir when given as an FDC||0.978|0.836|
90936204|NCT04739306|181751273|EQUIVALENCE|Predefined equivalence margin: -3 letters to +3 letters|Estimated difference in LS means|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.52|1.67|||ANCOVA|Analysis conducted for study eye. Primary endpoint as the dependent variable, treatment as a factor, baseline BCVA and country as covariates.||||1.67|-0.52|
90936205|NCT05072795|181751286|OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.005
90936206|NCT00422162|181751293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline. A priori alpha threshold was 0.05 with no adjustment for multiple testing.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with stratification factors (country and pretreatment for MDD) and MADRS baseline as covariates and treatment regimen as the main factor.||||||0.88
90936207|NCT00422162|181751303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline (within group)|t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||||<0.0001
90936208|NCT00422162|181751303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline (within group)|t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||||0.001
90936209|NCT00422162|181751303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline (within group)|t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||||<0.0001
90969388|NCT00609791|181820672|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0057||0.055|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression of ln AUC24 on age in years||||0.055
90936210|NCT00422162|181751303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline (within group)|t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||||0.28
90936211|NCT00848198|181751314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Sensitivity|87.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|83.2|90.9||||||||90.9|83.2|
90936212|NCT00848198|181751314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Specificity|72.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|66.9|77.1||||||||77.1|66.9|
90936213|NCT00848198|181751315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Sensitivity|39.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.2|45.3||||||||45.3|34.2|
90936214|NCT00848198|181751315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Specificity|82.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.4|87.0||||||||87.0|78.4|
90936215|NCT00848198|181751316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Sensitivity|71.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|66.8|77.0||||||||77.0|66.8|
90936216|NCT00848198|181751316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Specificity|82.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.4|87.0||||||||87.0|78.4|
90936217|NCT00848198|181751317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Sensitivity|27.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.2|32.3||||||||32.3|22.2|
90936218|NCT00848198|181751317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Specificity|98.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|97.4|100.0||||||||100.0|97.4|
90936219|NCT00848198|181751318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Sensitivity|51.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.7|57.0||||||||57.0|45.7|
90936220|NCT00848198|181751318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Specificity|94.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|92.1|97.2||||||||97.2|92.1|
90936221|NCT00848198|181751319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Sensitivity|61.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.6|66.7||||||||66.7|55.6|
90936222|NCT00848198|181751319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Specificity|78.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|74.0|83.3||||||||83.3|74.0|
90936223|NCT00848198|181751320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Sensitivity|58.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.9|64.1||||||||64.1|52.9|
90936224|NCT00848198|181751320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Specificity|73.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.3|78.3||||||||78.3|68.3|
90936225|NCT02213458|181751373|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.539||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.259|1.337|||Mixed Models Analysis|Controlling for dementia severity (QDRS)||Linear mixed effects model||1.337|.259|0.04
90936226|NCT02213458|181751374|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.138||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.295|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model controlling for dementia severity (QDRS)||||-.020|-.295|.05
90936227|NCT02213458|181751375|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.902||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.885|-0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model controlling for dementia severity (QDRS)||||-0.080|-3.885|0.07
90936228|NCT02213458|181751377|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.143||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.154|-0.132|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.132|-2.154|0.03
90936229|NCT02213458|181751378|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.635||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.135|1.405|||Mixed Models Analysis|Controlling for dementia severity (QDRS)||||1.405|-0.135|0.11
90936230|NCT02971683|181751390|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|3.5|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.5|0.9|0.083
90936231|NCT02907489|181751420|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.083||||||0.083 for 24 hours, Significant at P ≤ 0.05|Chi-squared|||||||0.083
90936232|NCT02907489|181751420|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.041||||||0.041 for 48 hours, Significant at P ≤ 0.05|Chi-squared|||||||0.041
90936233|NCT02907489|181751420|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.063||||||0.063 for 72 hours, Significant at P ≤ 0.05|Chi-squared|||||||0.063
90936234|NCT02907489|181751421|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.982||||||0.982 for S1, Significant at P ≤ 0.05|Chi-squared|||||||0.982
90936235|NCT02907489|181751421|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.467||||||0.467 for S2, Significant at P ≤ 0.05|Chi-squared|||||||0.467
90936236|NCT02907489|181751421|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||0.01 for S3 Significant at P ≤ 0.05|Chi-squared|||||||0.01
90936237|NCT00828178|181751422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis system (SAS) software was used (SAS Institute Inc. Cary, North Carolina, SAS 9.2). Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics were summarized using appropriate descriptive statistics and compared across treatment groups using Chi-square. Two-sample t tests were used in the statistical analysis of the FMD outcomes. ANCOVA was used to compare the groups with respect to changes in clinical variables adjusting for baseline values.||||0.87
90936238|NCT00828178|181751423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1801||||||This Statistical Analysis applies category SELENA-SLEDAI|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1801
90969389|NCT00609791|181820672|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.013|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression of ln AUC24 on chemotherapy toxicity risk score||||0.013
90969390|NCT00609791|181820673|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.0074|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0063||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression of ln CL on age in years||||0.25
90969391|NCT00609791|181820673|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression of ln CL versus chemotherapy toxicity risk score||||0.04
90969392|NCT00609791|181820674|OTHER|||||||0.041|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.041
90969393|NCT00609791|181820677|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.89||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|6.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in age based on whether there was need for a dose reduction.||6.7|-16.5|.38
90969394|NCT00609791|181820677|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.058||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.44|||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in AUC24 based on the need of a dose reduction.||0.44|-0.33|0.76
90936239|NCT00912964|181751427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.06||The response variable for the stratified rank ANCOVA was standardized ranks on change from Baseline to Final Visit value with baseline standardized ranks and gender as covariates and geographic region as a stratum.|Stratified rank ANCOVA|LS mean difference was derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, gender, and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.||Since there were 2 coprimary efficacy endpoints and 6 key secondary efficacy endpoints, the multiplicity among the endpoints was controlled at a type I error rate at the alpha = 0.05 level using a stepwise parallel gatekeeping procedure (8 stages). In addition, since two mirabegron treatment groups were compared with placebo per endpoint, the Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity. A stratified rank ANCOVA model was utilized for hypothesis testing.||-0.06|-0.74|0.005
90936240|NCT00912964|181751427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.42||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.08||The response variable for the stratified rank ANCOVA was standardized ranks on change from Baseline to Final Visit value with baseline standardized ranks and gender as covariates and geographic region as a stratum.|Stratified rank ANCOVA|LS mean difference was derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, gender, and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.||Since there were 2 coprimary efficacy endpoints and 6 key secondary efficacy endpoints, the multiplicity among the endpoints was controlled at a type I error rate at the alpha = 0.05 level using a stepwise parallel gatekeeping procedure (8 stages). In addition, since two mirabegron treatment groups were compared with placebo per endpoint, the Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity. A stratified rank ANCOVA model was utilized for hypothesis testing.||-0.08|-0.76|0.001
90936241|NCT00912964|181751428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|4.6||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|10.8||LS mean difference and p-value were derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, gender, and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Since there were 2 coprimary efficacy endpoints and 6 key secondary efficacy endpoints, the multiplicity among the endpoints was controlled at a type I error rate at the alpha = 0.05 level using a stepwise parallel gatekeeping procedure (8 stages). In addition, since two mirabegron treatment groups were compared with placebo per endpoint, the Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity. An ANCOVA model was used for hypothesis testing.||10.8|-1.6|0.15
90936242|NCT00912964|181751428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|12.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|18.6||LS mean difference and p-value were derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, gender, and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Since there were 2 coprimary efficacy endpoints and 6 key secondary efficacy endpoints, the multiplicity among the endpoints was controlled at a type I error rate at the alpha = 0.05 level using a stepwise parallel gatekeeping procedure (8 stages). In addition, since two mirabegron treatment groups were compared with placebo per endpoint, the Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity. An ANCOVA model was used for hypothesis testing.||18.6|6.3|<0.001
90936243|NCT00912964|181751429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.47||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.13||LS mean difference and p-value were derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, gender, and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Since there were 2 coprimary efficacy endpoints and 6 key secondary efficacy endpoints, the multiplicity among the endpoints was controlled at a type I error rate at the alpha = 0.05 level using a stepwise parallel gatekeeping procedure (8 stages). In addition, since two mirabegron treatment groups were compared with placebo per endpoint, the Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity. An ANCOVA model was used for hypothesis testing.||-0.13|-0.82|0.007
90936244|NCT00912964|181751429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.42||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.08||LS mean difference and p-value were derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, gender, and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Since there were 2 coprimary efficacy endpoints and 6 key secondary efficacy endpoints, the multiplicity among the endpoints was controlled at a type I error rate at the alpha = 0.05 level using a stepwise parallel gatekeeping procedure (8 stages). In addition, since two mirabegron treatment groups were compared with placebo per endpoint, the Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity. An ANCOVA model was used for hypothesis testing.||-0.08|-0.76|0.015
90969395|NCT00609791|181820677|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.063||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.36|||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in clearance based on whether there was a need for dose reduction.||0.36|-0.49|0.75
90969396|NCT00609791|181820678|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.81||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|13.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in age based on whether there was need for a dose omission.||13.9|-2.3|0.15
90969397|NCT00609791|181820678|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.079||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.23|||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in AUC24 based on whether there was need for a dose omission.||0.23|-0.39|0.61
90936245|NCT00912964|181751430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.34||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.01||The response variable for the stratified rank ANCOVA was standardized ranks on change from Baseline to Final Visit value with baseline standardized ranks and gender as covariates and geographic region as a stratum.|Stratified rank ANCOVA|LS mean difference was derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, gender, and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.||Since there were 2 coprimary efficacy endpoints and 6 key secondary efficacy endpoints, the multiplicity among the endpoints was controlled at a type I error rate at the alpha = 0.05 level using a stepwise parallel gatekeeping procedure (8 stages). In addition, since two mirabegron treatment groups were compared with placebo per endpoint, the Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity. A stratified rank ANCOVA model was utilized for hypothesis testing.||-0.01|-0.68|0.039
90936246|NCT00912964|181751430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.17||The response variable for the stratified rank ANCOVA was standardized ranks on change from Baseline to Final Visit value with baseline standardized ranks and gender as covariates and geographic region as a stratum.|Stratified rank ANCOVA|LS mean difference was derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, gender, and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.||Since there were 2 coprimary efficacy endpoints and 6 key secondary efficacy endpoints, the multiplicity among the endpoints was controlled at a type I error rate at the alpha = 0.05 level using a stepwise parallel gatekeeping procedure (8 stages). In addition, since two mirabegron treatment groups were compared with placebo per endpoint, the Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity. A stratified rank ANCOVA model was utilized for hypothesis testing.||-0.17|-0.85|<0.001
90936247|NCT00912964|181751431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Difference|-0.18||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.16||LS mean difference and p-value were derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, gender, and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Since there were 2 coprimary efficacy endpoints and 6 key secondary efficacy endpoints, the multiplicity among the endpoints was controlled at a type I error rate at the alpha = 0.05 level using a stepwise parallel gatekeeping procedure (8 stages). In addition, since two mirabegron treatment groups were compared with placebo per endpoint, the Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity. An ANCOVA model was used for hypothesis testing.||0.16|-0.53|0.30
90936248|NCT00912964|181751431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean Difference|-0.37||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.03||LS mean difference and p-value were derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, gender, and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Since there were 2 coprimary efficacy endpoints and 6 key secondary efficacy endpoints, the multiplicity among the endpoints was controlled at a type I error rate at the alpha = 0.05 level using a stepwise parallel gatekeeping procedure (8 stages). In addition, since two mirabegron treatment groups were compared with placebo per endpoint, the Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity. An ANCOVA model was used for hypothesis testing.||-0.03|-0.71|0.035
90936249|NCT00912964|181751432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean Difference|-0.07||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.01||LS mean difference and p-value were derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, gender, and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Since there were 2 coprimary efficacy endpoints and 6 key secondary efficacy endpoints, the multiplicity among the endpoints was controlled at a type I error rate at the alpha = 0.05 level using a stepwise parallel gatekeeping procedure (8 stages). In addition, since two mirabegron treatment groups were compared with placebo per endpoint, the Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity. An ANCOVA model was used for hypothesis testing.||0.01|-0.15|0.083
90936250|NCT00912964|181751432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|-0.06||LS mean difference and p-value were derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, gender, and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Since there were 2 coprimary efficacy endpoints and 6 key secondary efficacy endpoints, the multiplicity among the endpoints was controlled at a type I error rate at the alpha = 0.05 level using a stepwise parallel gatekeeping procedure (8 stages). In addition, since two mirabegron treatment groups were compared with placebo per endpoint, the Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity. An ANCOVA model was used for hypothesis testing.||-0.06|-0.22|<0.001
90936251|NCT00912964|181751433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.36||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.05||The response variable for the stratified rank ANCOVA was standardized ranks on change from Baseline to Final Visit value with baseline standardized ranks and gender as covariates and geographic region as a stratum.|Stratified rank ANCOVA|||Since there were 2 coprimary efficacy endpoints and 6 key secondary efficacy endpoints, the multiplicity among the endpoints was controlled at a type I error rate at the alpha = 0.05 level using a stepwise parallel gatekeeping procedure (8 stages). In addition, since two mirabegron treatment groups were compared with placebo per endpoint, the Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity. A stratified rank ANCOVA model was utilized for hypothesis testing.||-0.05|-0.67|0.004
90969398|NCT00609791|181820678|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.42|||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in clearance based on whether there was a need for a dose omission.||0.42|-0.22|0.51
90969399|NCT00609791|181820679|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.68||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|12.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in age based on whether a participant experienced grade 3 toxicity.||12.7|-9.3|0.75
90936252|NCT00912964|181751433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.39||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.08||The response variable for the stratified rank ANCOVA was standardized ranks on change from Baseline to Final Visit value with baseline standardized ranks and gender as covariates and geographic region as a stratum.|Stratified rank ANCOVA|||Since there were 2 coprimary efficacy endpoints and 6 key secondary efficacy endpoints, the multiplicity among the endpoints was controlled at a type I error rate at the alpha = 0.05 level using a stepwise parallel gatekeeping procedure (8 stages). In addition, since two mirabegron treatment groups were compared with placebo per endpoint, the Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity. A stratified rank ANCOVA model was utilized for hypothesis testing.||-0.08|-0.69|0.002
90936253|NCT00912964|181751434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.33||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.1||LS mean difference and p-value were derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, gender, and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Since there were 2 coprimary efficacy endpoints and 6 key secondary efficacy endpoints, the multiplicity among the endpoints was controlled at a type I error rate at the alpha = 0.05 level using a stepwise parallel gatekeeping procedure (8 stages). In addition, since two mirabegron treatment groups were compared with placebo per endpoint, the Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity. An ANCOVA model was used for hypothesis testing.||0.10|-0.76|0.13
90936254|NCT00912964|181751434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.59||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.16||LS mean difference and p-value were derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, gender, and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Since there were 2 coprimary efficacy endpoints and 6 key secondary efficacy endpoints, the multiplicity among the endpoints was controlled at a type I error rate at the alpha = 0.05 level using a stepwise parallel gatekeeping procedure (8 stages). In addition, since two mirabegron treatment groups were compared with placebo per endpoint, the Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity. An ANCOVA model was used for hypothesis testing.||-0.16|-1.01|0.007
90936255|NCT00645411|181751468|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Cell derived vaccine was considered non-inferior to egg-derived vaccine in post vaccination HI GMTs if, for all three influenza strains, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for day 50 ratio of GMTs (cTIV/eTIV) was \>0.667.|Ratio of GMTs|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.01|||ANOVA|||Non-inferiority of cTIV to eTIV against A/H1N1 influenza strain as measured by HI egg-derived antigen assay||1.01|0.72|
90936256|NCT00645411|181751468|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Cell derived vaccine (cTIV ) was considered non-inferior to egg-derived vaccine (eTIV) in postvaccination HI GMTs if, for all three influenza strains, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for day 50 ratio of GMTs(cTIV/eTIV) was \>0.667.|Ratio of GMTs|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.72|||ANOVA|||Non-inferiority of cTIV to eTIV against A/H3N2 influenza strain as measured by HI egg-derived antigen assay.||0.72|0.49|
90936257|NCT00645411|181751468|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Cell derived vaccine (cTIV ) was considered non-inferior to egg-derived vaccine (eTIV)in post vaccination HI GMTs if, for all three influenza strains, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for day 50 ratio of GMTs (cTIV/eTIV) was \>0.667.|Ratio of GMTs|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.68|||ANOVA|||Non-inferiority of cTIV to eTIV against influenza B strain as measured by HI egg-derived antigen assay.||0.68|0.46|
90936258|NCT00645411|181751468|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Cell derived vaccine (cTIV) was considered non-inferior to egg-derived vaccine (eTIV) in post vaccination HI GMTs if, for all three influenza strains, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for day 50 ratio of GMTs (cTIV/eTIV) was \>0.667.|Ratio of GMTs|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.08|||ANOVA|||Non-inferiority of cTIV to eTIV against A/H1N1 influenza strain as measured by HI cell-derived antigen assay.||1.08|0.79|
90936259|NCT00645411|181751468|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Cell derived vaccine (cTIV) was considered non-inferior to egg-derived vaccine (eTIV)in post vaccination HI GMTs if, for all three influenza strains, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for day 50 ratio of GMTs (cTIV/eTIV) was \>0.667.|Ratio of GMTs|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.78|||ANOVA|||Non-inferiority of cTIV to eTIV against A/H3N2 influenza strain as measured by HI cell-derived antigen assay.||0.78|0.54|
90936260|NCT00645411|181751468|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Cell derived vaccine (cTIV) was considered non-inferior to egg-derived vaccine (eTIV)in post vaccination HI GMTs if, for all three influenza strains, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for day 50 ratio of GMTs (cTIV/eTIV)was \>0.667.|Ratio of GMTs|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.06|||ANOVA|||Non-inferiority of cTIV to eTIV against B influenza strain as measured by HI cell-derived antigen assay.||1.06|0.71|
90936261|NCT00645411|181751469|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|cTIV was considered non-inferior to eTIV in terms of the percentages of subjects achieving seroconversion or significant increase in antibody titer at day 50 if for all three strains, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the differences in the percentages of subjects achieving seroconversion and significant increase (cTIV minus eTIV) was \>-10%.|Difference in % (cTIV minus eTIV)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|1.0|||binomial or the method of Miettinen and|||Non-inferiority of cTIV to eTIV against A/H1N1 influenza strain as measured by HI egg-derived antigen assay.||1|-4|
90969400|NCT00609791|181820679|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.81|||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in AUC based on whether a participant experienced grade 3 toxicity.||0.81|-0.12|0.13
90969401|NCT00609791|181820679|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.25|||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in clearance based on whether a participant experienced grade 3 toxicity.||0.25|-0.67|0.34
90969402|NCT02484911|181820683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.397|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.397
90969403|NCT02484911|181820684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.0
90969404|NCT02484911|181820686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.397|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.397
90969405|NCT02484911|181820687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.02
90969406|NCT02484911|181820688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.0
90969407|NCT02484911|181820689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.005
90969408|NCT02484911|181820691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.0
90969409|NCT02484911|181820692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.283|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.283
90969410|NCT02484911|181820693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.0
90969411|NCT02484911|181820694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.246|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.246
90969412|NCT04129528|181820697|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric means CFZ533/placebo|1.173||||0.1817|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.94|1.47||one-sided P-value|Mixed model repeated measure analysis|||||1.47|0.94|0.1817
90969413|NCT01757678|181820807|OTHER||Difference in Probability|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.19||||||||.19|.09|
90969414|NCT01757678|181820808|OTHER||Difference in Probability|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.14||||||||.14|.04|
90969415|NCT01146873|181820812|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is that efavirenz is inferior to ritonavir-boosted lopinavir.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.107|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Kaplan-Meier methods|||||||<0.001
90969416|NCT01146873|181820813|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is that efavirenz is inferior to ritonavir-boosted lopinavir.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.007|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Kaplan-Meier methods|||||||<0.001
90969417|NCT01146873|181820814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90969418|NCT01146873|181820816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.003
90969419|NCT00552175|181820859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|-0.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of average pain score, type of Diabetes, Duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|The primary objective and primary efficacy analysis for the study was the analysis between the combined duloxetine arms and placebo.||-0.56|-1.17|<0.0001
90969420|NCT00552175|181820861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.96|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|-0.64||P-value for Worst Pain.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of worst pain score, type of Diabetes, Duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|||-0.64|-1.27|<0.0001
90969421|NCT00552175|181820861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|-0.51||P-value for Night Pain.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of night pain score, type of Diabetes, Duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|||-0.51|-1.15|<0.0001
90969422|NCT00552175|181820862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|-0.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of worst pain score, type of diabetes, and duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|Worst Pain analysis||-0.49|-1.26|
90969423|NCT00552175|181820862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|-0.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of worst pain score, type of diabetes, and duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|Worst Pain analysis||-0.66|-1.43|
90936262|NCT00645411|181751469|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|cTIV was considered non-inferior to eTIV in terms of the percentages of subjects achieving seroconversion or significant increase in antibody titer at day 50 if for all three strains, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the differences in the percentages of subjects achieving seroconversion and significant increase (cTIV minus eTIV) was \>-10%.|Difference % (cTIV - eTIV)|-9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|-4.0|||binomial or Miettinen & Nurimen method|||Non-inferiority of cTIV to eTIV against A/H3N2 influenza strain as measured by HI egg-derived antigen assay.||-4|-13|
90936263|NCT00645411|181751469|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|cTIV was considered non-inferior to eTIV in terms of the percentages of subjects achieving seroconversion or significant increase in antibody titer at day 50 if for all three strains, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the differences in the percentages of subjects achieving seroconversion and significant increase (cTIV minus eTIV) was \>-10%.|Difference % (cTIV minus eTIV)|-15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|-9.0|||binominal or Miettinen &Nurimen method|||Non-inferiority of cTIV to eTIV against B influenza strain as measured by HI egg-derived antigen assay.||-9|-21|
90936264|NCT00645411|181751469|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|cTIV was considered non-inferior to eTIV in terms of the percentages of subjects achieving seroconversion or significant increase in antibody titer at day 50 if for all three strains, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the differences in the percentages of subjects achieving seroconversion and significant increase (cTIV minus eTIV) was \>-10%|Difference % (cTIV minus eTIV)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|2.0|||binominal or Miettinen &Nurimen method|||Non-inferiority of cTIV to eTIV against A/H1N1 influenza strain as measured by HI cell-derived antigen assay.||2|-3|
90936265|NCT00645411|181751469|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|cTIV was considered non-inferior to eTIV in terms of the percentages of subjects achieving seroconversion or significant increase in antibody titer at day 50 if for all three strains, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the differences in the percentages of subjects achieving seroconversion and significant increase (cTIV minus eTIV) was \>-10%.|Difference % (cTIV minus eTIV)|-5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|0.0|||binominal or Miettinen &Nurimen method|||Non-inferiority of cTIV to eTIV against A/H3N2 influenza strain as measured by HI cell-derived antigen assay.||0|-9.5|
90969424|NCT00552175|181820862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|-0.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of night pain score, type of diabetes, and duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|Night Pain analysis||-0.39|-1.17|
90969425|NCT00552175|181820862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|-0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of night pain score, type of diabetes, and duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|Night Pain analysis||-0.5|-1.28|
90969426|NCT00552175|181820863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of average pain score, type of Diabetes, Duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|||-0.44|-0.85|<0.0001
90969427|NCT00552175|181820864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of average pain score, type of diabetes, and duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|||-0.39|-0.9|
90969428|NCT00552175|181820864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of average pain score, type of diabetes, and duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|||-0.4|-0.91|
90969429|NCT00552175|181820865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|-0.61||P-value for Worst Pain.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of worst pain score, type of Diabetes, Duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|||-0.61|-1.34|<0.0001
90969430|NCT00552175|181820865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|-0.48||P-value for Least Pain.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of least pain score, type of Diabetes, Duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|||-0.48|-1.21|<0.0001
90969431|NCT00552175|181820865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.67||P-value for Average Pain.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of average pain score, type of Diabetes, Duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|||-0.67|-1.33|<0.0001
90969432|NCT00552175|181820865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.92|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|-0.54||P-value for Pain Right Now.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of pain right now score, type of Diabetes, Duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|||-0.54|-1.29|<0.0001
90969433|NCT00552175|181820866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|-0.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of worst pain score, type of diabetes, and duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|Worst Pain Score analysis||-0.44|-1.34|
90969434|NCT00552175|181820866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|-0.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of worst pain score, type of diabetes, and duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|Worst Pain Score analysis||-0.62|-1.51|
90936266|NCT00645411|181751469|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|cTIV was considered non-inferior to eTIV in terms of the percentages of subjects achieving seroconversion or significant increase in antibody titer at day 50 if for all three strains, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the differences in the percentages of subjects achieving seroconversion and significant increase (cTIV minus eTIV) was \>-10%.|Difference % (cTIV minus eTIV)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|6.0|||binominal or Miettinen &Nurimen method|||Non-inferiority of cTIV to eTIV against B influenza strain as measured by HI cell-derived antigen assay.||6|-6|
90936267|NCT01044901|181751546|OTHER|||||||0.0039||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline as mean +/- standard deviation based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with a Student t-test.||||0.0039
90936268|NCT01044901|181751547|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline as median (interquartile range) based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with a Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney test).||||<0.0001
90936269|NCT01044901|181751548|OTHER|||||||0.0137|||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05.||Primary outcome was presented at baseline as mean +/- standard deviation based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with a Student t-test.||||0.0137
90936270|NCT01044901|181751549|OTHER|||||||0.0039||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline as mean +/- standard deviation based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with a Student t-test.||||0.0039
90936271|NCT01044901|181751550|OTHER|||||||0.16||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline as mean +/- standard deviation based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with a Student t-test.||||0.16
90936272|NCT01044901|181751551|OTHER|||||||0.0039||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline as mean +/- standard deviation based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with a Student t-test.||||0.0039
90936273|NCT01044901|181751552|OTHER|||||||0.0011||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline as median (interquartile range) based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with a Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney) test.||||0.0011
90936274|NCT01044901|181751553|OTHER|||||||0.1||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline as median (interquartile range) based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with a Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney) test.||||0.10
90936275|NCT01044901|181751554|OTHER|||||||0.48||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline as mean +/- standard deviation based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with a Student t-test.||||0.48
90936276|NCT01044901|181751555|OTHER|||||||0.08||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Primary outcome was presented as frequencies and percentages, and then analyzed with a Fisher exact test.||||0.08
90936277|NCT01044901|181751556|OTHER|||||||0.91||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline as mean +/- standard deviation based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with a Student t-test.||||0.91
90936278|NCT01044901|181751557|OTHER|||||||0.0038||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline as median (interquartile range) based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with a Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney) test.||||0.0038
90936279|NCT01044901|181751558|OTHER|||||||0.034||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline as mean +/- standard deviation based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with a Student t-test.||||0.034
90936280|NCT01044901|181751559|OTHER|||||||0.25||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Primary outcome was presented was as frequencies and percentages, and then analyzed with a Fisher exact test.||||0.25
90936281|NCT01044901|181751560|OTHER|||||||0.0288||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline as median (interquartile range) based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with a Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney) test.||||0.0288
90936282|NCT01044901|181751561|OTHER|||||||0.14||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline as median (interquartile range) based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with a Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney) test.||||0.14
90936283|NCT01044901|181751562|OTHER|||||||0.13||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline as mean +/- standard deviation based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with a Student t-test.||||0.13
90936284|NCT01044901|181751563|OTHER|||||||0.81||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline as mean +/- standard deviation based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with a Student t-test.||||0.81
90936285|NCT01044901|181751564|OTHER|||||||0.3||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline as mean +/- standard deviation based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with a Student t-test.||||0.30
90936286|NCT06091982|181751573|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|16.2|||Chi-squared|||Bivariable analysis of both groups||16.2|7.0|<0.0001
90936287|NCT06091982|181751573|OTHER|Multiple logistic regression|Odds Ratio, log|3.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|6.1|||Regression, Logistic|||Multivariable analysis||6.1|2.0|<0.0001
90936288|NCT06091982|181751574|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.1|17.1|||Chi-squared|||||17.1|9.1|<0.0001
90936289|NCT06091982|181751574|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|4.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|7.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||7.0|2.8|<0.0001
90936290|NCT06091982|181751575|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|15.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.3|21.6|||Chi-squared|||||21.6|11.3|<0.0001
90936291|NCT06091982|181751575|OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|5.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|8.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||8.2|3.3|<0.0001
90936292|NCT04198428|181751591|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-model regression adjusted for site and clinic factors balanced at randomization||||||<0.05
90936293|NCT04198428|181751592|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-model regression adjusted for site and clinic factors balanced at randomization||||||<0.05
90936294|NCT04198428|181751593|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-model regression adjusted for site and clinic factors balanced at randomization||||||<0.05
90936295|NCT04198428|181751594|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Zero-inflated negative binomial mixed-model regression adjusted for site and clinic factors balanced at randomization||||||<0.05
90936296|NCT04198428|181751595|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.93|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized estimating equation comparing post- to pre-index rates in OUD-CDS vs. Usual Care, adjusted for site and balancing factors||||||<0.05
90936297|NCT04198428|181751596|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized estimating equation comparing post- to pre-index rates in OUD-CDS vs. Usual Care, adjusted for site and balancing factors||||||<0.05
90936298|NCT04198428|181751597|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1068.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Generalized estimating equation comparing post- to pre-index costs in OUD-CDS vs. Usual Care, adjusted for site and balancing factors|||||<0.05
90936299|NCT04198428|181751598|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
90936300|NCT04198428|181751599|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.08|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Generalized estimating equation comparing post- to pre-index rates in OUD-CDS vs. Usual Care, adjusted for site and balancing factors|||||<0.05
90936301|NCT03512041|181751608|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.172|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.172
90936302|NCT03512041|181751609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.169|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.169
90936303|NCT03512041|181751610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.501|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.501
90936304|NCT04694300|181751611|SUPERIORITY|Lower the maximum pain intensity score the more effective the analgesic|||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
90936305|NCT04694300|181751612|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
90936306|NCT04694300|181751613|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.12
90936307|NCT04694300|181751614|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
90936308|NCT04694300|181751617|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.29
90936309|NCT04694300|181751618|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
90936310|NCT04694300|181751619|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Higher percentage inhibition relates to greater selectivity for COX-2||||||0.59
90936311|NCT04694300|181751620|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.14
90936312|NCT02069366|181751621|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||RM-ANOVA. Significance threshold p\<0.05, FWE-corrected.|ANOVA|RM-ANOVA with group and stimulus factors.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Extinction Learning CS+E Amygdala- Visit 3' in the Brain Measures outcome table. RM-ANOVA including stimulus (CS+E, CS-, CS+U).||||>0.05
90936313|NCT02069366|181751621|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.041||||||Repeated-measures ANOVA (SPM12, ROI small-volume corrected). Significance threshold p\<0.05, FWE-corrected.|ANOVA|RM-ANOVA with group and stimulus factors.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Extinction Learning CS+E Hippocampus- Visit 3' in the Brain Measures outcome table. RM-ANOVA including stimulus (CS+E, CS-, CS+U).||||0.041
90936314|NCT02069366|181751621|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||Repeated-measures ANOVA (SPM12, ROI small-volume corrected). Significance threshold p\<0.05, FWE-corrected.|ANOVA|RM-ANOVA with group and stimulus factors.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Extinction Learning CS+E vmPFC- Visit 3' in the Brain Measures outcome table. RM-ANOVA including stimulus (CS+E, CS-, CS+U)||||0.040
90936315|NCT02069366|181751621|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||RM-ANOVA. Significance threshold p\<0.05, FWE-corrected.|ANOVA|RM-ANOVA with group and stimulus factors.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Extinction Learning CS- Amygdala- Visit 3' in the Brain Measures outcome table. RM-ANOVA including stimulus (CS+E, CS-, CS+U).||||>0.05
90936316|NCT02069366|181751621|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.041||||||Repeated-measures ANOVA (SPM12, ROI small-volume corrected). Significance threshold p\<0.05, FWE-corrected.|ANOVA|RM-ANOVA with group and stimulus factors.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Extinction Learning CS- Hippocampus- Visit 3' in the Brain Measures outcome table. RM-ANOVA including stimulus (CS+E, CS-, CS+U).||||0.041
90936317|NCT02069366|181751621|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||Repeated-measures ANOVA (SPM12, ROI small-volume corrected). Significance threshold p\<0.05, FWE-corrected.|ANOVA|RM-ANOVA with group and stimulus time factors.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Extinction Learning CS- vmPFC- Visit 3' in the Brain Measures outcome table. RM-ANOVA including stimulus (CS+E, CS-, CS+U).||||0.040
90936318|NCT02069366|181751621|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||RM-ANOVA. Significance threshold p\<0.05, FWE-corrected.|ANOVA|RM-ANOVA with group and stimulus factors.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Recall CS+E Amygdala- Visit 4' in the Brain Measures outcome table. RM-ANOVA including stimulus (CS+E, CS-, CS+U).||||>0.05
90936319|NCT02069366|181751621|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027||||||Repeated-measures ANOVA (SPM12, ROI small-volume corrected). Significance threshold p\<0.05, FWE-corrected.|ANOVA|RM-ANOVA with group and stimulus factors.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Recall CS+E Hippocampus-Visit 4' in the Brain Measures outcome table. RM-ANOVA including stimulus (CS+E, CS-, CS+U).||||0.027
90936320|NCT02069366|181751621|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019||||||Repeated-measures ANOVA (SPM12, ROI small-volume corrected). Significance threshold p\<0.05, FWE-corrected.|ANOVA|RM-ANOVA with group and stimulus factors.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Recall CS+E vmPFC-Visit 4' in the Brain Measures outcome table. RM-ANOVA including stimulus (CS+E, CS-, CS+U).||||0.019
90936321|NCT02069366|181751621|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||RM-ANOVA. Significance threshold p\<0.05, FWE-corrected.|ANOVA|RM-ANOVA with group and stimulus factors.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Recall CS- Amygdala-Visit 4' in the Brain Measures outcome table. RM-ANOVA including stimulus (CS+E, CS-, CS+U).||||>0.05
90936322|NCT02069366|181751621|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027||||||Repeated-measures ANOVA (SPM12, ROI small-volume corrected). Significance threshold p\<0.05, FWE-corrected.|ANOVA|RM-ANOVA with group and stimulus factors.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Recall CS- Hippocampus-Visit 4' in the Brain Measures outcome table. RM-ANOVA including stimulus (CS+E, CS-, CS+U).||||0.027
90936323|NCT02069366|181751621|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019||||||Repeated-measures ANOVA (SPM12, ROI small-volume corrected). Significance threshold p\<0.05, FWE-corrected.|ANOVA|RM-ANOVA with group and stimulus factors.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Recall CS- vmPFC-Visit 4' in the Brain Measures outcome table. RM-ANOVA including stimulus (CS+E, CS-, CS+U).||||0.019
90936324|NCT02069366|181751621|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||RM-ANOVA. Significance threshold p\<0.05, FWE-corrected.|ANOVA|RM-ANOVA with group and stimulus factors.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Recall CS+U Amygdala-Visit 4' in the Brain Measures outcome table. RM-ANOVA including stimulus (CS+E, CS-, CS+U).||||>0.05
90936325|NCT02069366|181751621|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027||||||Repeated-measures ANOVA (SPM12, ROI small-volume corrected). Significance threshold p\<0.05, FWE-corrected.|ANOVA|RM-ANOVA with group and stimulus factors.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Recall CS+U Hippocampus-Visit 4' in the Brain Measures outcome table. RM-ANOVA including stimulus (CS+E, CS-, CS+U).||||0.027
90936326|NCT02069366|181751621|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019||||||Repeated-measures ANOVA (SPM12, ROI small-volume corrected). Significance threshold p\<0.05, FWE-corrected.|ANOVA|RM-ANOVA with group and stimulus factors.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Recall CS+U vmPFC-Visit 4' in the Brain Measures outcome table. RM-ANOVA including stimulus (CS+E, CS-, CS+U).||||0.019
90936327|NCT02069366|181751621|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||RM-ANOVA. Significance threshold p\<0.05, FWE-corrected.|ANOVA|RM-ANOVA with group and stimulus factors.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Renewal CS+E Amygdala-Visit 4' in the Brain Measures outcome table. RM-ANOVA including stimulus (CS+E, CS-, CS+U).||||>0.05
90936328|NCT02069366|181751621|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||RM-ANOVA. Significance threshold p\<0.05, FWE-corrected.|ANOVA|RM-ANOVA with group and stimulus factors.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Renewal CS+E Hippocampus- Visit 4' in the Brain Measures outcome table. RM-ANOVA including stimulus (CS+E, CS-, CS+U).||||>0.05
90936329|NCT02069366|181751621|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.025||||||Repeated-measures ANOVA (SPM12, ROI small-volume corrected). Significance threshold p\<0.05, FWE-corrected.|ANOVA|RM-ANOVA with group and stimulus factors.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Renewal CS+E vmPFC- Visit 4' in the Brain Measures outcome table. RM-ANOVA including stimulus (CS+E, CS-, CS+U).||||0.025
90936330|NCT02069366|181751621|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||RM-ANOVA. Significance threshold p\<0.05, FWE-corrected.|ANOVA|RM-ANOVA with group and stimulus factors.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Renewal CS- Amygdala- Visit 4' in the Brain Measures outcome table. RM-ANOVA including stimulus (CS+E, CS-, CS+U).||||>0.05
90936331|NCT02069366|181751621|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||RM-ANOVA. Significance threshold p\<0.05, FWE-corrected.|ANOVA|RM-ANOVA with group and stimulus factors.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Renewal CS- Hippocampus-Visit 4' in the Brain Measures outcome table. RM-ANOVA including stimulus (CS+E, CS-, CS+U).||||>0.05
90936332|NCT02069366|181751621|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||RM-ANOVA. Significance threshold p\<0.05, FWE-corrected.|ANOVA|RM-ANOVA with group and stimulus factors.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Renewal CS- vmPFC-Visit 4' in the Brain Measures outcome table. RM-ANOVA including stimulus (CS+E, CS-, CS+U).||||>0.05
90936333|NCT02069366|181751621|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||RM-ANOVA. Significance threshold p\<0.05, FWE-corrected.|ANOVA|RM-ANOVA with group and stimulus factors.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Renewal CS+U Amygdala-Visit 4' in the Brain Measures outcome table. RM-ANOVA including stimulus (CS+E, CS-, CS+U).||||>0.05
90936334|NCT02069366|181751621|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||RM-ANOVA. Significance threshold p\<0.05, FWE-corrected.|ANOVA|RM-ANOVA with group and stimulus factors.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Renewal CS+U Hippocampus-Visit 4' in the Brain Measures outcome table. RM-ANOVA including stimulus (CS+E, CS-, CS+U).||||>0.05
90936335|NCT02069366|181751621|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.025||||||Repeated-measures ANOVA (SPM12, ROI small-volume corrected). Significance threshold p\<0.05, FWE-corrected.|ANOVA|RM-ANOVA with group and stimulus factors.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Renewal CS+U vmPFC-Visit 4' in the Brain Measures outcome table. RM-ANOVA including stimulus (CS+E, CS-, CS+U).||||0.025
90936336|NCT02069366|181751622|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Chi-square test of independence; significance threshold p\<0.05.|Chi-squared|3 (response categories) × 6 (groups) contingency table; df=10.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Acquisition CS+E Early- Visit 2' in the Expectancy Ratings outcome table. Chi-square test comparing distribution of Yes/No/I don't know responses across 6 groups.||||>0.05
90936337|NCT02069366|181751622|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Chi-square test of independence; significance threshold p\<0.05.|Chi-squared|3 (response categories) × 6 (groups) contingency table; df=10.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Acquisition CS+U Early- Visit 2' in the Expectancy Ratings outcome table. Chi-square test comparing distribution of Yes/No/I don't know responses across 6 groups.||||>0.05
90936338|NCT02069366|181751622|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Chi-square test of independence; significance threshold p\<0.05.|Chi-squared|3 (response categories) × 6 (groups) contingency table; df=10.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Acquisition CS-Early- Visit 2' in the Expectancy Ratings outcome table. Chi-square test comparing distribution of Yes/No/I don't know responses across 6 groups.||||>0.05
90936339|NCT02069366|181751622|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Chi-square test of independence; significance threshold p\<0.05.|Chi-squared|3 (response categories) × 6 (groups) contingency table; df=10.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Acquisition CS+E Late- Visit 2' in the Expectancy Ratings outcome table. Chi-square test comparing distribution of Yes/No/I don't know responses across 6 groups.||||>0.05
90936340|NCT02069366|181751622|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Chi-square test of independence; significance threshold p\<0.05.|Chi-squared|3 (response categories) × 6 (groups) contingency table; df=10.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Acquisition CS+U Late- Visit 2' in the Expectancy Ratings outcome table. Chi-square test comparing distribution of Yes/No/I don't know responses across 6 groups.||||>0.05
90936341|NCT02069366|181751622|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Chi-square test of independence; significance threshold p\<0.05.|Chi-squared|3 (response categories) × 6 (groups) contingency table; df=10.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Acquisition CS- Late- Visit 2' in the Expectancy Ratings outcome table. Chi-square test comparing distribution of Yes/No/I don't know responses across 6 groups.||||>0.05
90936342|NCT02069366|181751622|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Chi-square test of independence; significance threshold p\<0.05.|Chi-squared|3 (response categories) × 6 (groups) contingency table; df=10.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Extinction CS+E Early- Visit 3' in the Expectancy Ratings outcome table. Chi-square test comparing distribution of Yes/No/I don't know responses across 6 groups.||||>0.05
90936343|NCT02069366|181751622|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Chi-square test of independence; significance threshold p\<0.05.|Chi-squared|3 (response categories) × 6 (groups) contingency table; df=10.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Extinction CS- Early- Visit 3' in the Expectancy Ratings outcome table. Chi-square test comparing distribution of Yes/No/I don't know responses across 6 groups.||||>0.05
90936344|NCT02069366|181751622|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Chi-square test of independence; significance threshold p\<0.05.|Chi-squared|3 (response categories) × 6 (groups) contingency table; df=10.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Extinction CS+E Late-Visit 3' in the Expectancy Ratings outcome table. Chi-square test comparing distribution of Yes/No/I don't know responses across 6 groups.||||>0.05
90969435|NCT00552175|181820866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|-0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of least pain score, type of diabetes, and duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|Least Pain Score analysis||-0.33|-1.23|
90969436|NCT00552175|181820866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Mean Squares Difference|-0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|-0.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of least pain score, type of diabetes, and duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|Least Pain Score analysis||-0.46|-1.36|
90936345|NCT02069366|181751622|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||Chi-square test of independence; significance threshold p\<0.05.|Chi-squared|3 (response categories) × 6 (groups) contingency table; df=10.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Extinction CS- Late- Visit 3' in the Expectancy Ratings outcome table. Chi-square test comparing distribution of Yes/No/I don't know responses across 6 groups.||||0.04
90936346|NCT02069366|181751622|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Chi-square test of independence; significance threshold p\<0.05.|Chi-squared|3 (response categories) × 6 (groups) contingency table; df=10||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Recall CS+E Early-Visit 4' in the Expectancy Ratings outcome table. Chi-square test comparing distribution of Yes/No/I don't know responses across 6 groups.||||>0.05
90969437|NCT00552175|181820866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|-0.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of average pain score, type of diabetes, and duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|Average Pain Score analysis||-0.58|-1.39|
90969438|NCT00552175|181820866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|-0.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of average pain score, type of diabetes, and duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|Average Pain Score analysis||-0.61|-1.41|
90969439|NCT00552175|181820866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|-0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of pain right now score, type of diabetes, and duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|Pain Right Now Score analysis||-0.41|-1.35|
90969440|NCT00552175|181820866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|-0.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of pain right now score, type of diabetes, and duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|Pain Right Now Score analysis||-0.48|-1.41|
90969441|NCT00552175|181820867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.41||||0.0676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.03||P-value for General Activity.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of general activity score, type of Diabetes, Duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|||0.03|-0.85|0.0676
90969442|NCT00552175|181820867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.37||||0.0933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.06||P-value for Mood.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of mood score, type of Diabetes, Duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|||0.06|-0.8|0.0933
90969443|NCT00552175|181820867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.49||||0.0228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.07||P-value for Walking Ability.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of walking ability score, type of Diabetes, Duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|||-0.07|-0.91|0.0228
90969444|NCT00552175|181820867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.38||||0.0783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.04||P-value for Normal Work.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of normal work score, type of Diabetes, Duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|||0.04|-0.8|0.0783
90969445|NCT00552175|181820867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.55||||0.0076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.15||P-value for Relation to People.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of relation to people score, type of Diabetes, Duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|||-0.15|-0.96|0.0076
90969446|NCT00552175|181820867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.46||||0.0378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.03||P-value for Sleep.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of sleep score, type of Diabetes, Duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|||-0.03|-0.9|0.0378
90969447|NCT00552175|181820867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.56||||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.14||P-value for Enjoyment of Life.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of enjoyment of life score, type of Diabetes, Duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|||-0.14|-0.98|0.0089
90936347|NCT02069366|181751622|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Chi-square test of independence; significance threshold p\<0.05.|Chi-squared|3 (response categories) × 6 (groups) contingency table; df=10||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Recall CS+U Early-Visit 4' in the Expectancy Ratings outcome table. Chi-square test comparing distribution of Yes/No/I don't know responses across 6 groups.||||>0.05
90936348|NCT02069366|181751622|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Chi-square test of independence; significance threshold p\<0.05.|Chi-squared|3 (response categories) × 6 (groups) contingency table; df=10||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Recall CS- Early-Visit 4' in the Expectancy Ratings outcome table. Chi-square test comparing distribution of Yes/No/I don't know responses across 6 groups.||||>0.05
90936349|NCT02069366|181751622|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Chi-square test of independence; significance threshold p\<0.05.|Chi-squared|3 (response categories) × 6 (groups) contingency table; df=10||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Recall CS+E Late-Visit 4' in the Expectancy Ratings outcome table. Chi-square test comparing distribution of Yes/No/I don't know responses across 6 groups.||||>0.05
90936350|NCT02069366|181751622|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Chi-square test of independence; significance threshold p\<0.05.|Chi-squared|3 (response categories) × 6 (groups) contingency table; df=10||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Recall CS+U Late-Visit 4' in the Expectancy Ratings outcome table. Chi-square test comparing distribution of Yes/No/I don't know responses across 6 groups.||||>0.05
90936351|NCT02069366|181751622|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.033||||||Chi-square test of independence; significance threshold p\<0.05.|Chi-squared|3 (response categories) × 6 (groups) contingency table; df=10||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Recall CS- Late-Visit 4' in the Expectancy Ratings outcome table. Chi-square test comparing distribution of Yes/No/I don't know responses across 6 groups.||||0.033
90936352|NCT02069366|181751622|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Chi-square test of independence; significance threshold p\<0.05.|Chi-squared|3 (response categories) × 6 (groups) contingency table; df=10||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Renewal CS+E Early-Visit 4' in the Expectancy Ratings outcome table. Chi-square test comparing distribution of Yes/No/I don't know responses across 6 groups.||||>0.05
90936353|NCT02069366|181751622|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Chi-square test of independence; significance threshold p\<0.05.|Chi-squared|3 (response categories) × 6 (groups) contingency table; df=10||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Renewal CS+U Early-Visit 4' in the Expectancy Ratings outcome table. Chi-square test comparing distribution of Yes/No/I don't know responses across 6 groups.||||>0.05
90936354|NCT02069366|181751622|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Chi-square test of independence; significance threshold p\<0.05.|Chi-squared|3 (response categories) × 6 (groups) contingency table; df=10||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Renewal CS- Early-Visit 4' in the Expectancy Ratings outcome table. Chi-square test comparing distribution of Yes/No/I don't know responses across 6 groups.||||>0.05
90969448|NCT00552175|181820867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.48||||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.12||P-value for Average of Interference Scores|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of average of interference scores, type of Diabetes, Duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|||-0.12|-0.85|0.0095
90969449|NCT00552175|181820868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|-0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of general activity, type of diabetes, and duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|General Activity score analysis||-0.06|-1.14|
90969450|NCT00552175|181820868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of general activity, type of diabetes, and duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|General Activity score analysis||0.32|-0.77|
90969451|NCT00552175|181820868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of mood score, type of diabetes, and duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|Mood score analysis||0.27|-0.8|
90969452|NCT00552175|181820868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of mood score, type of diabetes, and duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|Mood score analysis||0.05|-1.01|
90969453|NCT00552175|181820868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of walking ability, type of diabetes, and duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|Walking Ability score analysis||0.02|-1.02|
90969454|NCT00552175|181820868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of walking ability, type of diabetes, and duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|Walking Ability score analysis||0.03|-1.01|
90969455|NCT00552175|181820868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of normal work score, type of diabetes, and duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|Normal Work score analysis||0.16|-0.86|
90969456|NCT00552175|181820868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of normal work score, type of diabetes, and duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|Normal Work score analysis||0.11|-0.92|
90969457|NCT00552175|181820868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of relation to people, type of diabetes, and duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|Relation to People score analysis||0.11|-0.89|
90969458|NCT00552175|181820868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|-0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of relation to people, type of diabetes, and duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|Relation to People score analysis||-0.22|-1.21|
90969459|NCT00552175|181820868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of sleep score, type of diabetes, and duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|Sleep score analysis||-0.03|-1.11|
90969460|NCT00552175|181820868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of sleep score, type of diabetes, and duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|Sleep score analysis||0.18|-0.9|
90969461|NCT00552175|181820868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of enjoyment of life, type of diabetes, and duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|Enjoyment of Life score analysis||0.15|-0.88|
90969462|NCT00552175|181820868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|-0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of enjoyment of life, type of diabetes, and duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|Enjoyment of Life score analysis||-0.24|-1.27|
90969463|NCT00552175|181820868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of average of interference scores, type of diabetes, and duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|Average of Interference scores analysis||0|-0.9|
90969464|NCT00552175|181820868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of average of interference scores, type of diabetes, and duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|Average of Interference scores analysis||-0.07|-0.97|
90969465|NCT00552175|181820869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.11||||0.8517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|1.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of BDI-II, type of diabetes, and duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|||1.01|-1.22|0.8517
90969466|NCT00552175|181820870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|1.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of BDI-II, type of diabetes, and duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|||1.71|-1.03|
90969467|NCT00552175|181820870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.92|0.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of BDI-II, type of diabetes, and duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|||0.81|-1.92|
90936355|NCT02069366|181751622|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Chi-square test of independence; significance threshold p\<0.05.|Chi-squared|3 (response categories) × 6 (groups) contingency table; df=10||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Renewal CS+E Late-Visit 4' in the Expectancy Ratings outcome table. Chi-square test comparing distribution of Yes/No/I don't know responses across 6 groups.||||>0.05
90936356|NCT02069366|181751622|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Chi-square test of independence; significance threshold p\<0.05.|Chi-squared|3 (response categories) × 6 (groups) contingency table; df=10||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Renewal CS+U Late-Visit 4' in the Expectancy Ratings outcome table. Chi-square test comparing distribution of Yes/No/I don't know responses across 6 groups.||||>0.05
90936357|NCT02069366|181751622|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Chi-square test of independence; significance threshold p\<0.05.|Chi-squared|3 (response categories) × 6 (groups) contingency table; df=10||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Renewal CS- Late-Visit 4' in the Expectancy Ratings outcome table. Chi-square test comparing distribution of Yes/No/I don't know responses across 6 groups.||||>0.05
90936358|NCT02069366|181751623|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Significance threshold p\<0.05.|ANOVA|Group factor at specified phase/timepoint.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Extinction Learning Pre- Visit 3' in the SUDS outcome table. ANOVA comparing mean SUDS ratings across 6 groups at the specified phase/timepoint.||||>0.05
90936359|NCT02069366|181751623|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Significance threshold p\<0.05.|ANOVA|Group factor at specified phase/timepoint.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Extinction Learning Mid-Visit 3' in the SUDS outcome table. ANOVA comparing mean SUDS ratings across 6 groups at the specified phase/timepoint.||||>0.05
90936360|NCT02069366|181751623|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Significance threshold p\<0.05.|ANOVA|Group factor at specified phase/timepoint.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Extinction Learning Post-Visit 3' in the SUDS outcome table. ANOVA comparing mean SUDS ratings across 6 groups at the specified phase/timepoint.||||>0.05
90936361|NCT02069366|181751623|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Significance threshold p\<0.05.|ANOVA|Group factor at specified phase/timepoint.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Recall Pre-Visit 4' in the SUDS outcome table. ANOVA comparing mean SUDS ratings across 6 groups at the specified phase/timepoint.||||>0.05
90936362|NCT02069366|181751623|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Significance threshold p\<0.05.|ANOVA|Group factor at specified phase/timepoint.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Recall Mid-Visit 4' in the SUDS outcome table. ANOVA comparing mean SUDS ratings across 6 groups at the specified phase/timepoint.||||>0.05
90936363|NCT02069366|181751623|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Significance threshold p\<0.05.|ANOVA|Group factor at specified phase/timepoint.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Recall Post-Visit 4' in the SUDS outcome table. ANOVA comparing mean SUDS ratings across 6 groups at the specified phase/timepoint.||||>0.05
90936364|NCT02069366|181751623|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Significance threshold p\<0.05.|ANOVA|Group factor at specified phase/timepoint.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Renewal Pre-Visit 4' in the SUDS outcome table. ANOVA comparing mean SUDS ratings across 6 groups at the specified phase/timepoint.||||>0.05
90936365|NCT02069366|181751623|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Significance threshold p\<0.05.|ANOVA|Group factor at specified phase/timepoint.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Renewal Mid-Visit 4' in the SUDS outcome table. ANOVA comparing mean SUDS ratings across 6 groups at the specified phase/timepoint.||||>0.05
90936366|NCT02069366|181751623|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Significance threshold p\<0.05.|ANOVA|Group factor at specified phase/timepoint.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Renewal Post-Visit 4' in the SUDS outcome table. ANOVA comparing mean SUDS ratings across 6 groups at the specified phase/timepoint.||||>0.05
90969468|NCT04677959|181820884|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||The 95% credible intervals of the odds ratio from the posterior distributions were calculated and presented.||||
90936367|NCT00168805|181751634|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority Analysis with NI margin 9.2%. This results from the null-hypotheses of non-inferiority testing, where the absolute risk difference has to be below 9.2%. Non-inferiority can only be shown with CI.|Risk Difference (Percentage)|-1.3||||0.6648||95.0|-7.3|4.6||p-value is for superiority testing|Normal approximation|Normal approximation of independent binomial distribution without stratification||Risk difference versus Enoxaparin||4.6|-7.3|0.6648
90936368|NCT00168805|181751634|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority Analysis with NI margin 9.2%. This results from the null-hypotheses of non-inferiority testing, where the absolute risk difference has to be below 9.2%. Non-inferiority can only be shown with CI.|Risk Difference (Percentage)|2.8||||0.3553||95.0|-3.1|8.7||p-value is for superiority testing|Normal approximation|Normal approximation of independent binomial distribution without stratification||Risk difference versus Enoxaparin||8.7|-3.1|0.3553
90936369|NCT00168805|181751635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (Percentage)|-1.0||||0.376||95.0|-3.1|1.2|||Normal approximation|Normal approximation of independent binomial distribution without stratification||Risk difference versus Enoxaparin||1.2|-3.1|0.3760
90936370|NCT00168805|181751635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (Percentage)|0.3||||0.8151||95.0|-2.0|2.6|||Normal approximation|Normal approximation of independent binomial distribution without stratification||Risk difference versus Enoxaparin||2.6|-2.0|0.8151
90936371|NCT00168805|181751636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (Percentage)|-0.8||||0.4715||95.0|-2.8|1.3|||Normal approximation|Normal approximation of independent binomial distribution without stratification||Risk difference versus Enoxaparin||1.3|-2.8|0.4715
90936372|NCT00168805|181751636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (Percentage)|0.1||||0.9325||95.0|-2.1|2.3|||Normal approximation|Normal approximation of independent binomial distribution without stratification||Risk difference versus Enoxaparin||2.3|-2.1|0.9325
90936373|NCT00168805|181751637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (Percentage)|-1.4||||0.6463||95.0|-7.3|4.5|||Normal approximation|Normal approximation of independent binomial distribution without stratification||Risk difference versus Enoxaparin||4.5|-7.3|0.6463
90936374|NCT00168805|181751637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (Percentage)|2.7||||0.374||95.0|-3.2|8.6|||Normal approximation|Normal approximation of independent binomial distribution without stratification||Risk difference versus Enoxaparin||8.6|-3.2|0.3740
90936375|NCT00168805|181751638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0385||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison versus Enoxaparin||||0.0385
90936376|NCT00168805|181751638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1414||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison versus Enoxaparin||||0.1414
90936377|NCT00168805|181751639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison versus Enoxaparin||||1.0000
90936378|NCT00168805|181751639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison versus Enoxaparin||||1.0000
90936379|NCT00168805|181751640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison versus Enoxaparin||||1.0000
90936380|NCT00168805|181751640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison versus Enoxaparin||||1.0000
90936381|NCT00168805|181751642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8209||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison versus Enoxaparin||||0.8209
90936382|NCT00168805|181751642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison versus Enoxaparin||||1.0000
90936383|NCT02995733|181751646|SUPERIORITY|Asthma exacerbation rates during follow-up between two randomized treatment arms are compared using the Andersen-Gill adaptation of time-to-event Cox proportional hazard model with robust standard errors to account for multiple occurrences of the outcome in each patient (Andersen Gill, 1982). This analysis is based on intention-to-treat (ITT) patient population.|Cox Proportional Hazard|0.85||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.999|||Cox proportional hazard model|Pre-specified baseline covariates are adjusted in the model. A time-dependent covariate for the COVID pandemic is also included in adjustments.||||0.999|0.720|0.048
90936384|NCT02995733|181751647|SUPERIORITY|Mixed model is used to compare the treatment effects. The response variable is ACT change at each monthly assessment from baseline. The covariates (included as fixed effects) include randomized treatment arm, continuous time of assessment as a linear and quadratic term and the interactions of the treatment arm with the time variables. Independent random effects include intercept and time variables. The model adjusts for all the baseline covariates included in the primary analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.2||||||||1.2|0.5|
90936385|NCT02995733|181751648|SUPERIORITY|Mixed model is used to compare the treatment effects. The response variable is ASUI change at each monthly assessment from baseline. The covariates (included as fixed effects) include randomized treatment arm, continuous time of assessment as a linear and quadratic term and the interactions of the treatment arm with the time variables. Independent random effects include intercept and time variables. The model adjusts for all the baseline covariates included in the primary analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.05||||||||0.05|0.02|
90936386|NCT02995733|181751649|SUPERIORITY|Negative binomial regression model is used, with time as an offset to account for differential duration of follow-up. The model adjusts for all the baseline covariates included in the primary analysis.|Rate ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.95||||||||0.95|0.67|
90936387|NCT04468633|181751654|OTHER|||||||0.687|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline||||0.687
90936388|NCT04468633|181751654|OTHER|||||||0.384|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 1||||0.384
90936389|NCT04468633|181751654|OTHER|||||||0.597|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 1||||0.597
90936390|NCT04468633|181751654|OTHER|||||||0.86|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4||||0.860
90936391|NCT04468633|181751654|OTHER|||||||0.032|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 6||||0.032
90936392|NCT04468633|181751654|OTHER|||||||0.026|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 3||||0.026
90936393|NCT04468633|181751654|OTHER|||||||0.172|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 6||||0.172
90936394|NCT04468633|181751654|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Year 1||||0.010
90936395|NCT04468633|181751658|OTHER|||||||0.759|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.759
90936396|NCT04468633|181751659|OTHER|||||||0.603|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.603
90936397|NCT04468633|181751668|OTHER|||||||0.833|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.833
90936398|NCT01469819|181751716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
90936399|NCT01469819|181751717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
90936400|NCT01469819|181751718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
90936401|NCT01469819|181751719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
90936402|NCT01403805|181751727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Fisher's test 'Vaccine' versus 'Oral Care and Vaccines' and 'phumonia' and 'not pneumonia'|Fisher Exact|||The results were analyzed as means ± standard deviation (SD) or numbers (%). Differences between the 2 nursing homes were compared using Fisher's test.||||<0.001
90936403|NCT01403805|181751728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||The results are expressed as means ± standard deviation (SD) or numbers (%). Differences between the 2 nursing homes were compared using Fisher's test.||||0.05
90936404|NCT03082196|181751733|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.1|||t-test, 2 sided||The direction of the comparison (difference) is the test varnish to the standard varnish. A negative value for the difference indicates a lower caries increment in the test varnish as compared to the standard varnish.|||-0.1|-1.9|0.037
90936405|NCT03082196|181751734|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.1|||t-test, 2 sided||The direction of the comparison (difference) is the test varnish to the standard varnish. A negative value for the difference indicates a lower caries increment in the test varnish as compared to the standard varnish.|||0.1|-1.5|0.062
90936406|NCT03082196|181751735|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1|||t-test, 2 sided||"The direction of the comparison (difference) is the test varnish to the standard varnish. A negative value for the difference indicates a happier response in the test varnish as compared to the standard varnish."|||0.1|-0.5|0.11
90936407|NCT03082196|181751736|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.3|||t-test, 2 sided||"The direction of the comparison (difference) is the test varnish to the standard varnish. A positive value for the difference indicates an unhappier response in the test varnish as compared to the standard varnish."|||0.3|-0.2|0.74
90936408|NCT01695993|181751737|OTHER|Primary Analysis: The Primary Aim to determine whether acupressure bands provided with efficacy-enhancing supplementary material are more effective in controlling chemotherapy-induced nausea than acupressure bands provided with neutral supplementary material was examined using ANCOVA with Peak Nausea after the first chemotherapy as the response, Arm (Arms 2 and 3) as the factor and expectancy of acupressure bands as the covariate.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.9||0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Not adjusted|ANCOVA|||||||.05
90936409|NCT00472199|181751738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.0077||95.0|-4.6|-0.7|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance for changes from baseline with factors treatment and country and using baseline as covariate||-0.7|-4.6|0.0077
90936410|NCT00472199|181751739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0010
90936411|NCT00472199|181751740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0044||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0044
90936412|NCT00472199|181751741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0011||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0011
90936413|NCT00472199|181751742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.0489||95.0|-1.1|-0.9|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||-0.9|-1.1|0.0489
90936414|NCT00472199|181751743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.0315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.0|-0.0|0.0315
90936415|NCT00472199|181751744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.0735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.0|-0.0|0.0735
90936416|NCT00472199|181751745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.0|-0.0|0.8410
90936417|NCT00472199|181751746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.9241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.0|-0.0|0.9241
90936418|NCT00472199|181751747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.8093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.0|-0.0|0.8093
90936419|NCT00472199|181751748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.0583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.0|-0.0|0.0583
90936420|NCT00472199|181751749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-5.0||||0.0916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|-4.5|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||-4.5|-5.5|0.0916
90936421|NCT00472199|181751750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.5||||0.5905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|2.8|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||2.8|2.2|0.5905
90936422|NCT00472199|181751751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.0179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|2.4|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||2.4|1.6|0.0179
90936423|NCT00472199|181751752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|2.3|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||2.3|1.7|0.5450
90936424|NCT00472199|181751753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.1456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.3|-0.3|0.1456
90936425|NCT00472199|181751754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.2915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.4|-0.4|0.2915
90936426|NCT00472199|181751755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.3131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.4|-0.4|0.3131
90936427|NCT00472199|181751756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.5713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.4|-0.4|0.5713
90936428|NCT00472199|181751757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.8432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.4|-0.4|0.8432
90936429|NCT00472199|181751758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|6.3||||0.0206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.9|6.6|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||6.6|5.9|0.0206
90936430|NCT00472199|181751759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.5602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.8|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.8|0.4|0.5602
90936431|NCT00472199|181751760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.1|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.1|0.8|0.1360
90936432|NCT00472199|181751762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0022||95.0|||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.0022
90936433|NCT01601821|181751779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|-2.0||||0.341|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.5|1.5|||Chi-squared|||Chi-square test was used to test superiority of arm CsA+Rapamune+CS versus arm CsA+MMF+CS.||1.5|-5.5|0.341
90936434|NCT01601821|181751780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was based on 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||Month 3: One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test the difference.||||0.870
90936435|NCT01601821|181751780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.381|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was based on 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||Month 6: One-way ANOVA was used to test the difference.||||0.381
90936436|NCT01601821|181751780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was based on 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||Month 12: One-way ANOVA was used to test the difference.||||0.096
90936437|NCT01601821|181751781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.979|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was based on 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||Month 3: One-way ANOVA was used to test the difference.||||0.979
90936438|NCT01601821|181751781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was based on 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||Month 6: One-way ANOVA was used to test the difference.||||0.660
90936439|NCT01601821|181751781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.518|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was based on 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||Month 12: One-way ANOVA was used to test the difference.||||0.518
90936440|NCT01601821|181751782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.786|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was based on 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||Month 3: One-way ANOVA was used to test the difference.||||0.786
90936441|NCT01601821|181751782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.738|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was based on 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||Month 6: One-way ANOVA was used to test the difference.||||0.738
90936442|NCT01601821|181751782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.977|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was based on 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||Month 12: One-way ANOVA was used to test the difference.||||0.977
90936443|NCT01601821|181751783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.999|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was based on 5% significance level.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to test the difference.||||0.999
90936444|NCT01601821|181751785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.276|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was based on 5% significance level.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to test the difference.||||0.276
90936445|NCT01601821|181751786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.999|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was based on 5% significance level.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to test the difference.||||0.999
90936446|NCT01601821|181751787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.868|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was based on 5% significance level.|Chi-squared|||Chi-square test was used to test the difference.||||0.868
90936447|NCT01601821|181751788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.999|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was based on 5% significance level.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to test the difference.||||0.999
90936448|NCT01601821|181751789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.985|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was based on 5% significance level.|Chi-squared|||Chi-square test was used to test the difference.||||0.985
90936449|NCT01601821|181751790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.172|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was based on 5% significance level.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to test the difference.||||0.172
90936450|NCT01601821|181751791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.978|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was based on 5% significance level.|Chi-squared|||Chi-square test was used to test the difference.||||0.978
90936451|NCT02342275|181751812|NON_INFERIORITY|Assuming that the atenolol on the propranolol response rate does not fall by greater than 15%, the noninferiority margin was selected to be -15%.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.15|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment Difference=Propranolol vs Atenolol|The sample size required to compare propranolol and atenolol at month 6 was calculated before enrollment. Assuming the ulceration rate in both groups to be 10%, a sample size of180 patients was required for each group to show the noninferiority ofatenolol treatment with a 2-sidedα level of .05 and approximately 90% power||||<0.05
90971323|NCT00439946|181825393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.48||95.0||||p-value for: Change dressing|Wilcoxon signed rank|||Changes in mean times between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test, comparing the values at Baseline to values at Week 8. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values.||||0.48
90936452|NCT01357564|181751863|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.72||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|-0.13|||t-test, 2 sided|||Sample size calculation was based on the main study hypothesis tested at 80% power for a 2-sided alternative hypothesis using a t-test comparing the treatment groups on 4-month values. Based on previous trials, we sought a medium effect size of 0.50 using a type I error rate of .05.||-0.13|-1.23|.02
90936453|NCT01357564|181751864|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|-0.01|||t-test, 2 sided|||Sample size calculation was based on the main study hypothesis tested at 80% power for a 2-sided alternative hypothesis using a t-test comparing the treatment groups on 4-month values. Based on previous trials, we sought a medium effect size of 0.50 using a type I error rate of .05.||-0.01|-0.14|.03
90936454|NCT02282761|181751878|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.83||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.17|1.05|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||1.05|-6.17|0.182
90936455|NCT02282761|181751878|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.82||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.75|-0.6|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-0.60|-7.75|0.045
90936456|NCT02282761|181751879|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.12|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-0.12|-0.54|0.045
90936457|NCT00515281|181751881|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.017
90936458|NCT00515281|181751882|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.288|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.288
90936459|NCT00515281|181751883|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.009
90936460|NCT00515281|181751884|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.97
90936461|NCT00515281|181751885|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.72
90936462|NCT00515281|181751886|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
90936463|NCT00515281|181751887|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.28
90936464|NCT06312566|181751891|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence between the BRV tablet (reference) and BRV dry syrup (test) formulations were concluded if the 92.016% CI limits for Cmax,ss was within the 0.80 to 1.25 range.|Ratio of Dry Syrup/ Tablet|0.9726|||||TWO_SIDED|92.016|0.9257|1.022|||Linear mixed model analysis|||||1.022|0.9257|
90936465|NCT06312566|181751892|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence between the BRV tablet (reference) and BRV dry syrup (test) formulations were concluded if the 90% CI limits for AUC(tau) was within the 0.80 to 1.25 range.|Ratio of Dry Syrup/ Tablet|0.9999|||||TWO_SIDED|92.016|0.9881|1.012||||||||1.012|0.9881|
90936466|NCT04551053|181751896|SUPERIORITY|p-value for superiority is half of the CMH p-value.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.2567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|5.02||CMH test for un-equality stratified by Dynamic International Prognostic Scoring System (DIPSS) category (intermediate 1 versus intermediate 2 and high) and Baseline platelet count (≥100 × 10\^9/Liters \[L\] versus 50 to \<100 × 10\^9/L inclusive)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.02|0.65|0.2567
90936467|NCT04551053|181751897|SUPERIORITY|p-value for superiority is half of the CMH p-value.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.5349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|3.39||calculated from Cochran Mantel-Haenszel test for un-equality stratified by DIPSS category (intermediate 1 versus intermediate 2 and high) and Baseline platelet count (≥100 × 10\^9/L versus 50 to \<100 × 10\^9/L inclusive)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.39|0.53|0.5349
90936468|NCT04551053|181751899|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2224||||||calculated from log-rank test stratified by DIPSS category (intermediate 1 versus intermediate 2 and high) and Baseline platelet count (≥100 x 10\^9/L versus 50 to \<100 x 10\^9/L inclusive)|Log Rank|||||||0.2224
90936469|NCT04016415|181751920|SUPERIORITY|Two-sided tests with the null hypothesis of no difference in chg from Baseline to 6MO between the two arms. The power calculation assumed a clinically meaningful diff of 0.5% and standard deviation of 0.9%. Assuming an avg class cohort size of 18 pts and an intraclass correlation coefficient estimate of 0.08 for correlation within cohorts yielded a design effect that inflated the sample size by 1+((18-1) multiplied by 0.08)=2.36. A 15% dropout rate was assumed. 145 pts per arm yielded 80% power.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.34||A priori significance level = 0.05; two-sided. Analyses were based upon pre-specified hypotheses, and therefore corrections for multiple testing were not made.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear; Fixed: arm+visit\[base,2MO,6MO\]+insulin at base+(armXvisit interact); Random: subjects, cohort(arm); Residual: longitudinal repeated measures|Change = 6MO - Baseline; Difference = SME - MBSR; Contrasts were constructed from the linear mixed model to estimate the changes.|||0.34|-0.36|0.96
90936470|NCT04016415|181751921|SUPERIORITY|All hypothesis tests are two-sided (any difference), with the null hypothesis of no difference in change from Baseline to 2MO between the two arms.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.25||A priori significance level = 0.05; two-sided. Analyses were based upon pre-specified hypotheses, and therefore corrections for multiple testing were not made.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear; Fixed: arm+visit\[base,2MO,6MO\]+insulin at base+(armXvisit interact); Random: subjects, cohort(arm); Residual: longitudinal repeated measures|Change = 2MO - Baseline; Difference = SME - MBSR; Contrasts were constructed from the linear mixed model to estimate the changes.|||0.25|-0.38|0.68
90936471|NCT04016415|181751922|SUPERIORITY|All hypothesis tests are two-sided (any difference), with the null hypothesis of no difference in change from Baseline to 2MO between the two arms.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.06||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.21||A priori significance level = 0.05; two-sided. Analyses were based upon pre-specified hypotheses, and therefore corrections for multiple testing were not made.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear; Fixed: arm+visit\[base,2MO,6MO\]+insulin at base+(armXvisit interact); Random: subjects, cohort(arm); Residual: longitudinal repeated measures|Change = 2MO - Baseline; Difference = SME - MBSR; Contrasts were constructed from the linear mixed model to estimate the changes.|||0.21|-0.09|0.41
90936472|NCT04016415|181751923|SUPERIORITY|All hypothesis tests are two-sided (any difference), with the null hypothesis of no difference in change from Baseline to 6MO between the two arms.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.12||A priori significance level = 0.05; two-sided. Analyses were based upon pre-specified hypotheses, and therefore corrections for multiple testing were not made.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear; Fixed: arm+visit\[base,2MO,6MO\]+insulin at base+(armXvisit interact); Random: subjects, cohort(arm); Residual: longitudinal repeated measures|Change = 6MO - Baseline; Difference = SME - MBSR; Contrasts were constructed from the linear mixed model to estimate the changes.|||0.12|-0.22|0.59
90936473|NCT04016415|181751924|SUPERIORITY|All hypothesis tests are two-sided (any difference), with the null hypothesis of no difference in change from Baseline to 2MO between the two arms.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.57||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|3.06||A priori significance level = 0.05; two-sided. Analyses were based upon pre-specified hypotheses, and therefore corrections for multiple testing were not made.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear; Fixed: arm+visit\[base,2MO,6MO\]+insulin at base+(armXvisit interact); Random: subjects, cohort(arm); Residual: longitudinal repeated measures|Change = 2MO - Baseline; Difference = SME - MBSR; Contrasts were constructed from the linear mixed model to estimate the changes.|||3.06|0.07|0.04
90936474|NCT04016415|181751925|SUPERIORITY|All hypothesis tests are two-sided (any difference), with the null hypothesis of no difference in change from Baseline to 6MO between the two arms.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.83||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|2.4||A priori significance level = 0.05; two-sided. Analyses were based upon pre-specified hypotheses, and therefore corrections for multiple testing were not made.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear; Fixed: arm+visit\[base,2MO,6MO\]+insulin at base+(armXvisit interact); Random: subjects, cohort(arm); Residual: longitudinal repeated measures|Change = 6MO - Baseline; Difference = SME - MBSR; Contrasts were constructed from the linear mixed model to estimate the changes.|||2.40|-0.74|0.30
90936475|NCT01885559|181751948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.42|||Regression, Cox|Analyses were adjusted for age, sex, race, baseline estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate (eGFR) and clinical site|ACE+ARB (Lisinopril-telmisartan) compared to ACE+placebo (Lisinopril-placebo)|||1.42|0.82|0.58
90936476|NCT01885559|181751949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|2.8|||shared parameter model|shared parameter models used due to informative censoring that occurred when patients did not have secondary outcomes measured after reaching endpoint||||2.8|-3.2|0.88
90936477|NCT01885559|181751950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|0.7||controlling for age, sex, race, and clinical site|Mixed Models Analysis||ACE-I+ARB annual percent change minus ACE-I + placebo annual percent change|||0.7|-3.9|0.17
90936478|NCT01885559|181751951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.32|||Regression, Cox|adjusting for age, sex, race, and clinical site and recurrent events|Hazard ratio compares ACE-I + ARB compared to ACE-I + placebo|||1.32|0.80|0.85
90936479|NCT01885559|181751952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.6|||Regression, Cox|adjusting for age, sex, race, and clinical site and accounting for recurrent events|Hazard ratio is comparing ACE-I + ARB to ACE-I + placebo|||1.6|0.42|0.57
90936480|NCT01885559|181751953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.032||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.16|||shared parameter model|Shared parameter models were used due to informed censoring when patients who reached the primary endpoint were no longer assessed on the measure.||||0.16|-0.23|0.75
90936481|NCT01885559|181751954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.047||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.16|||shared parameter model|Shared parameter models were used due to the informative censoring when patients who reached endpoint were not longer assessed on this measure.||||0.16|-0.26|0.66
90936482|NCT01885559|181751955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed models are used with a logit link. Model controlled for baseline age, sex, race, and clinical site.|"Odds ratio represents the multiplicative effect of ACE-I + ARB group compared to the ACE-I + placebo group in change in pain over time.~ACE-I + ARB OR per month was 1.01 (1.00, 1.01) and ACE-I + placebo OR was 1.01 (1.01, 1.01)."|||1.01|0.99|0.64
90936483|NCT01867307|181751956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-220.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|55.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-440.6|-202.7||P-value is from a paired t-test.|Paired t- test||Difference calculated as (Day 14 - baseline) values|Point estimates of the changes from baseline and 95% Confidence interval around the estimates on treatment day 14 were computed.||-202.7|-440.6|<0.0001
90936484|NCT01867307|181751956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-234.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|25.8|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-312.3|-201.5||P-value is from a paired t-test|Paired t-test||Difference calculated as (Day 14 - baseline) values|Point estimates of the changes from baseline and 95% Confidence interval around the estimates on treatment day 14 were computed.||-201.5|-312.3|<0.0001
90936485|NCT02168855|181751962|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|3.29|||Regression, Logistic|This is a logistic regression model of the active versus placebo arm, while controlling for age and cigarettes smoked per day at enrollment.|The active arm is the numerator and the placebo arm is the denominator of the odds ratio|||3.29|0.58|0.46
90936486|NCT02168855|181751963|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.83|1.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes random subject intercept effect|Reflects an odds ratio relative to a 10-unit increase in craving. Temptations are the numerator and background is the denominator.|||1.98|1.83|<0.0001
90936487|NCT02168855|181751964|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|1.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes random subject intercept effect|Reflects an odds ratio relative to a 10-unit increase in negative affect T-score. Temptations are the numerator and background is the denominator.|||1.83|1.51|<0.0001
90936488|NCT02168855|181751965|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.21|||Regression, Logistic|Includes random subject intercept effect|Odds ratio where temptations are the numerator and background is the denominator, that no smoking cues were seen.|||0.21|0.14|<0.0001
90969469|NCT01399788|181820908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|103.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.2|108.64||||||Rifampicin; 32 participants (16 per sequence) provided at least 99% power that 90% confidence interval (CI) for ratio of test to reference for AUClast lie within acceptance region of 80% - 125%. An intra-subject coefficient of variation (CV) estimate of approximately 14.5% for AUClast was used for this power calculation. Natural log transformed AUClast was analyzed using mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||108.64|99.20|
90969470|NCT01399788|181820908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|107.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.95|112.9||||||Isoniazid; 32 participants (16 per sequence) provided at least 99% power that 90% CI for ratio of test to reference for AUClast lie within acceptance region of 80% - 125%. An intra-subject CV estimate of approximately 12.0% for AUClast was used for this power calculation. Natural log transformed AUClast was analyzed using mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||112.90|101.95|
90969471|NCT01399788|181820908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|99.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.92|104.25||||||Ethambutol; 32 participants (16 per sequence) provided at least 99% power that 90% CI for ratio of test to reference for AUClast lie within acceptance region of 80% - 125%. An intra-subject CV estimate of approximately 12.9% for AUClast was used for this power calculation. Natural log transformed AUClast was analyzed using mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||104.25|94.92|
90969472|NCT01399788|181820909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|102.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.36|110.71||||||Rifampicin: 32 participants (16 per sequence) provided at least 98% power that 90% CI for ratio of test to reference for Cmax lie within acceptance region of 80% - 125%. An intra-subject CV estimate of approximately 18.2% for Cmax was used for this power calculation. Natural log transformed Cmax was analyzed using mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||110.71|95.36|
90969473|NCT01399788|181820909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|103.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.13|117.07||||||Isoniazid; 32 participants (16 per sequence) provided at least 98% power that 90% CI for ratio of test to reference for Cmax lie within acceptance region of 80% - 125%. An intra-subject CV estimate of approximately 18.2% for Cmax was used for this power calculation. Natural log transformed Cmax was analyzed using mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||117.07|92.13|
90969474|NCT01399788|181820909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|99.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.92|104.25||||||Ethambutol; 32 participants (16 per sequence) provided at least 99% power that 90% CI for ratio of test to reference for Cmax lie within acceptance region of 80% - 125%. An intra-subject CV estimate of approximately 16.0% for Cmax was used for this power calculation. Natural log transformed Cmax was analyzed using mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||104.25|94.92|
90969475|NCT01399788|181820910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|101.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.12|104.4||||||Pyrazinamide; 32 participants (16 per sequence) provided at least 99% power that 90% CI for ratio of test to reference for AUClast lie within acceptance region of 80% - 125%. An intra-subject CV estimate of approximately 5.2% for AUClast was used for this power calculation. Natural log transformed AUClast(dn) was analyzed using mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||104.40|99.12|
90969476|NCT01399788|181820911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|95.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.6|102.22||||||Pyrazinamide; 32 participants (16 per sequence) provided at least 99% power that 90% CI for ratio of test to reference for Cmax lie within acceptance region of 80% - 125%. An intra-subject CV estimate of approximately 6.7% for Cmax was used for this power calculation. Natural log transformed Cmax(dn) was analyzed using mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||102.22|88.60|
90969477|NCT01399788|181820912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|104.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.7|109.1||||||Rifampicin; Natural log transformed AUC(0-∞) was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||109.10|99.70|
90936489|NCT02168855|181751966|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.23|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio where temptations are the numerator and background is the denominator, that no other people were seen smoking nearby.|||0.23|0.15|<0.0001
90936490|NCT03000829|181751967|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.41
90936491|NCT03000829|181751968|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.86
90936492|NCT03000829|181751969|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.97
90936493|NCT03000829|181751970|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.87
90936494|NCT03000829|181751971|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.63
90936495|NCT03000829|181751972|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.62
90936496|NCT03000829|181751973|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.84
90936497|NCT03000829|181751974|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.40
90936498|NCT03000829|181751977|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.92
90936499|NCT00091572|181751979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.2663||95.0|0.8|1.06|||Log Rank||Temozolomide events (progressions/deaths) = 401. Dacarbazine events (progressions/deaths) = 398.|||1.06|0.80|0.2663
90969478|NCT01399788|181820912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|105.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.32|111.46||||||Isoniazid; Natural log transformed AUC(0-∞) was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||111.46|100.32|
90936500|NCT00091572|181751980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.9999||95.0|0.86|1.17|||Log Rank||Temozolomide events (deaths) = 320. Dacarbazine events (deaths) = 325.|||1.17|0.86|0.9999
90936501|NCT00091572|181751981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.0718||95.0|0.97|2.12|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Temozolomide numerator (responders) = 55. Dacarbazine numerator (responders) = 37.|||2.12|0.97|0.0718
90936502|NCT00267774|181751984|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||A 2-sided value of P\<0.05 was considered to indicate statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90936503|NCT03677986|181751993|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|4.14|||GEE|||||4.14|.21|0.914
90936504|NCT00424502|181751995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.017|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.34|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|2.64|||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline to Week 24||2.64|1.39|<0.0001
90936505|NCT00424502|181751996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.276|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.259|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.151|0.401|||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline to Week 24||0.401|0.151|<0.0001
90936506|NCT00424502|181751999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|23.24||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.52|25.28|||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline to Week 24||25.28|3.52|0.012
90936507|NCT00424502|181752000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.81|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.21||0.337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.03|5.65|||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline to Week 24||5.65|-2.03|0.337
90936508|NCT00635609|181752007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.765||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified on investigational site.||Study not adequately powered to detect differences in efficacy outcomes. Results to provide estimates of safety and efficacy outcomes.||||0.765
90936509|NCT00635609|181752008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified on investigational site.||Study not adequately powered to detect differences in efficacy outcomes. Results to provide estimates of safety and efficacy outcomes.||||0.290
90936510|NCT00635609|181752009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified on investigational site||Study not adequately powered to detect differences in efficacy outcomes. Results to provide estimates of safety and efficacy outcomes.||||0.033
90941215|NCT02705625|181762251|SUPERIORITY|One model is fit for all comparison groups (MIV-711 200 mg, MIV-711 100 mg and placebo). This analysis reports the contrast that compares 200 mg versus placebo with respect to mean change from baseline in knee joint MRI bone area at Week 26.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.7||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.3|-4.02||p-values reported are unadjusted p-values for tests of significance for the upper one-tailed alternative hypothesis Ha: bone area increase is lower in the active treatment arm compared to placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"A linear mixed model based on the mITT population was used. The model included fixed factors for treatment, time (measured in weeks), the interaction for treatment-by-time, baseline analgesic user (Yes/No), and random effect for clinical site. Baseline knee joint MRI bone area was included as a covariate for adjustment.~An unstructured covariance matrix was used to model the covariance pattern in the mixed effects model."||-4.02|-25.3|0.0036
90969479|NCT01399788|181820912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|100.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.28|105.88||||||Ethambutol; Natural log transformed AUC(0-∞) was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||105.88|96.28|
90969480|NCT01399788|181820913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|101.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.24|104.43||||||Pyrazinamide; Natural log transformed AUC (0 -∞)(dn) was analyzed using mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||104.43|99.24|
90969481|NCT01389752|181820916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.61|0.68||The outcome was measured as a ratio of geometric means between the two treatments (LY2216684 in combination with activated charcoal/LY2216684 alone), and the 90% Confidence Interval for the ratio.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.68|0.61|
90969482|NCT01389752|181820917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|0.98||The outcome was measured as a ratio of geometric means between the two treatments (LY2216684 in combination with activated charcoal/LY2216684 alone), and the 90% Confidence Interval for the ratio.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.98|0.83|
90941216|NCT02705625|181762251|SUPERIORITY|One model is fit for all comparison groups (MIV-711 200 mg, MIV-711 100 mg and placebo). This analysis reports the contrast that compares 100 mg versus placebo with respect to mean change from baseline in knee joint MRI bone area at Week 26.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.4||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.0|-4.83||p-values reported are unadjusted p-values for tests of significance for the upper one-tailed alternative hypothesis Ha: bone area increase is lower in the active treatment arm compared to placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"A linear mixed model based on the mITT population was used. The model included fixed factors for treatment, time (measured in weeks), the interaction for treatment-by-time, baseline analgesic user (Yes/No), and random effect for clinical site. Baseline knee joint MRI bone area was included as a covariate for adjustment.~An unstructured covariance matrix was used to model the covariance pattern in the mixed effects model."||-4.83|-26|0.0023
90941217|NCT02705625|181762252|SUPERIORITY|One model is fit for all comparison groups (MIV-711 200 mg, MIV-711 100 mg and placebo). This analysis reports the contrast that compares 200 mg versus placebo with respect to mean change from baseline in MRI of cartilage thickness (Femur Region) at Week 26.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0436||||0.1253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.031|0.118||p-values reported are unadjusted p-values for tests of significance for the upper one-tailed alternative hypothesis Ha: MRI of cartilage thinning (Femur Region) is lower in the active treatment arm compared to placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"A linear mixed model based on the mITT population was used. The model included fixed factors for treatment, time (measured in weeks), the interaction for treatment-by-time, baseline analgesic user (Yes/No), and random effect for clinical site. Baseline MRI of cartilage thickness was included as a covariate for adjustment.~An unstructured covariance matrix was used to model the covariance pattern in the mixed effects model."||0.118|-0.031|0.1253
90969483|NCT01389752|181820918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.55||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.04|-0.5||The outcome was measured using the median of paired differences between the 2 treatment groups: LY2216684 administered alone (reference) versus LY2216684 co-administered with charcoal (test).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||-0.50|-1.04|0.0010
90969484|NCT02409290|181820930|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.2||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.61|||Log Rank|||||0.61|0.07|0.0016
90969485|NCT02409290|181820931|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.11||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.5|||Log Rank|||Control regimen (arm B) uses concurrent controls only||0.50|0.03|0.0005
90969486|NCT04251910|181820937|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0813|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-30 mcg BXCL501 V/S Part A-Placebo (2 hours)||||0.0813
90969487|NCT04251910|181820937|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0011|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-60 mcg BXCL501 V/S Part A-Placebo (2 hours)||||0.0011
90936511|NCT03322514|181752014|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.8
90936512|NCT03322514|181752014|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 12 weeks||||0.04
90936513|NCT03322514|181752014|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 12 weeks||||0.1
90936514|NCT03322514|181752015|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.8
90936515|NCT03322514|181752015|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 12 weeks||||0.3
90936516|NCT03322514|181752015|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 12 weeks||||0.3
90936517|NCT03322514|181752016|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.9
90936518|NCT03322514|181752016|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 12 weeks||||0.4
90969488|NCT04251910|181820937|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part B-40 mcg-BXCL501 v/s Part B-Placebo (2 hours)||||0.0002
90969489|NCT04251910|181820939|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9616|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A 30 mcg BXCL501 v/s Part A-Placebo (30 minutes)||||0.9616
90936519|NCT03322514|181752016|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||baseline to 12 weeks||||0.7
90936520|NCT00088452|181752017|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|4.28|||Chi-squared||odds ratio with ethosuximide vs. lamotrigine|Calculations of sample size were based on the ability to detect a 20% difference in freedom-from failure rates (three pairwise comparisons) at 16 weeks with 80% power at a two-sided P value of 0.017 and one interim analysis. Sample size of 398 was increased to 446 subjects to account for two stratification factors and a 5% dropout rate; this sample size allowed the detection of a difference of 0.5 SD in the Confidence Index on the Conners' Continuous Performance Test with a power exceeding 80%.||4.28|1.65|<0.001
90936521|NCT00088452|181752017|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.06|5.42|||Chi-squared||odds ratio with valproic acid vs. lamotrigine|Calculations of sample size were based on the ability to detect a 20% difference in freedom-from failure rates (three pairwise comparisons) at 16 weeks with 80% power at a two-sided P value of 0.017 and one interim analysis. Sample size of 398 was increased to 446 subjects to account for two stratification factors and a 5% dropout rate; this sample size allowed the detection of a difference of 0.5 SD in the Confidence Index on the Conners' Continuous Performance Test with a power exceeding 80%.||5.42|2.06|<0.001
90936522|NCT00088452|181752018|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.95||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|3.41|||Chi-squared||Percentage of subjects with a Confidence Index score of 0.60 or higher in the valproic acid group than in the ethosuximide group|||3.41|1.12|0.03
90936523|NCT00088452|181752018|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.69|5.49|||Chi-squared||Percentage of subjects with a Confidence Index score of 0.60 or higher in the valproic acid group than in the lamotrigine group|||5.49|1.69|<0.001
90936524|NCT00088452|181752019|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.81|5.33|||Fisher Exact||Odds ratio for FFF for ethosuximide versus lamotrigine|||5.33|1.81|<0.001
90936525|NCT00088452|181752019|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.68|5.02|||Fisher Exact||odds ratio for FFF for valproic acid versus lamotrigine|||5.02|1.68|<0.001
90936526|NCT02081196|181752026|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.45|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.08|4.77|||||Treatment Effect =Control Flank Change-Treated Flank Change such (a positive results indicates treated area had a larger reduction in fat thickness than control area, and a negative result indicates that a greater reduction was seen in control area).|H0: μ(Control - Treated) \< +1 versus H1: μ(Control - Treated) \> +1||4.77|3.08|
90936527|NCT02081196|181752027|OTHER||sucess proportion|0.8476|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.784|0.913|||||||Descriptive statistics (tabulation of Independent Panel Reviewer ratings) were used to analyze data.|.913|.784|
90969490|NCT04251910|181820939|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.546|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-30 mcg BXCL501 v/s Part A-Placebo (Day 1; 1 hour)||||0.5460
90969491|NCT04251910|181820939|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0961|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-30 mcg BXCL501 V/s Part A-Placebo (2 hours)||||0.0961
90969492|NCT04251910|181820939|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1359|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-30 mcg BXCL501 v/s Part A-Placebo (4 hours)||||0.1359
90969493|NCT04251910|181820939|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1688|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-30 mcg BXCL501 v/s Part A-Placebo (8 hours)||||0.1688
90969494|NCT04251910|181820939|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.667|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-30 mcg BXCL501 v/s Part A-Placebo (24 hours)||||0.6670
90969495|NCT04251910|181820939|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8695|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-30 mcg BXCL501 v/s Part A-Placebo (Day 3)||||0.8695
90969496|NCT04251910|181820939|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5002|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-30 mcg BXCL501 v/s Part A-Placebo (Day 7)||||0.5002
90969497|NCT04251910|181820939|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5631|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-60 mcg BXCL501 v/s Part A-Placebo (30 minutes)||||0.5631
90969498|NCT04251910|181820939|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0089|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-60 mcg BXCL501 v/s Part A-Placebo (1 hour)||||0.0089
90969499|NCT04251910|181820939|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-60 mcg BXCL501 v/s Part A-Placebo (2 hours)||||<.0001
90969500|NCT04251910|181820939|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0011|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-60 mcg BXCL501 v/s Part A-Placebo (4 hours)||||0.0011
90969501|NCT04251910|181820939|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0008|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-60 mcg BXCL501 v/s Part A-Placebo (8 hours)||||0.0008
90969502|NCT04251910|181820939|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2847|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-60 mcg BXCL501 v/s Part A-Placebo (24 hours)||||0.2847
90969503|NCT04251910|181820939|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2616|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-60 mcg BXCL501 v/s Part A-Placebo (Day 3)||||0.2616
90969504|NCT04251910|181820939|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1989|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-60 mcg BXCL501 v/s Part A-Placebo (Day 7)||||0.1989
90969505|NCT04251910|181820939|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4585|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part B-40 mcg-BXCL501 v/s Part B-Placebo (30 minutes)||||0.4585
90969506|NCT04251910|181820939|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part B-40 mcg-BXCL501 v/s Part B-Placebo (1 hour)||||0.0005
90969507|NCT04251910|181820939|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part B-40 mcg-BXCL501 v/s Part B-Placebo (2 hours)||||0.0004
90969508|NCT04251910|181820939|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0025|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part B-40 mcg-BXCL501 v/s Part B-Placebo (4 hours)||||0.0025
90969509|NCT04251910|181820939|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed effects model|||Part B-40 mcg-BXCL501 v/s Part B-Placebo (8 hours)||||0.1027
90969510|NCT04251910|181820939|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7953|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part B-40 mcg-BXCL501 v/s Part B-Placebo (24 hours)||||0.7953
90969511|NCT04251910|181820939|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1416|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part B-40 mcg-BXCL501 v/s Part B-Placebo (Day 3)||||0.1416
90969512|NCT04251910|181820939|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0658|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part B-40 mcg-BXCL501 v/s Part B-Placebo (Day 7)||||0.0658
90969513|NCT04251910|181820940|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.876|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A -30 mcg BXCL501 v/s Part A-Placebo (Day 1; 1 hour)||||0.8760
90936528|NCT00097708|181752029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.4|||ANCOVA|||||1.4|-2.2|0.6540
90936529|NCT00097708|181752029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.2||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|-1.4|||ANCOVA|||||-1.4|-5.0|0.0005
90936530|NCT00097708|181752029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.8||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|4.5|||ANCOVA|||||4.5|1.1|0.0015
90969514|NCT04251910|181820940|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9077|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A 30 mcg BXCL501 v/s Part A-Placebo (Day 1; 2 hours)||||0.9077
90969515|NCT04251910|181820940|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7208|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A 30 mcg BXCL501 vs Part A-Placebo (Day1; 4 hours)||||0.7208
90969516|NCT04251910|181820940|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3666|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A BXCL501 30 mcg v/s Part A-Placebo(Day 1;8 hours)||||0.3666
90936531|NCT00627523|181752061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.59||ANCOVA model, fitting treatment as a factor, and the baseline parameter value as covariate was used. All hypotheses were tested at a 5% level of significance.|ANCOVA|No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the mean change from Baseline after 24 months in height SDS between the Genotropin® and the untreated control groups. The alternative hypothesis was that there was a difference between the treatment groups.||1.59|0.82|<0.001
90969517|NCT04251910|181820940|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0191|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A BXCL501 60 mcg v/s Placebo-Part A (Day1; 1 hour)||||0.0191
90969518|NCT04251910|181820940|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0006|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A BXCL501 60 mcg v/s Part A-Placebo (Day 1; 2 hours)||||0.0006
90969519|NCT04251910|181820940|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-60 mcg BXCL501 v/s Part A-Placebo (Day 1; 4 hours)||||<.0001
90969520|NCT04251910|181820940|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-60 mcg BXCL501 V/S Part A-Placebo (Day 1;8 hours)||||0.0003
90969521|NCT04251910|181820940|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0006|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part B-40 mcg-BXCL501 v/s Part B-Placebo (Day 1; 1 hour)||||0.0006
90969522|NCT04251910|181820940|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part B-40 mcg-BXCL501 v/s Part B-Placebo (Day 1; 2 hours)||||0.0002
90969523|NCT04251910|181820940|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0029|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part B-40 mcg-BXCL501 v/s Part B-Placebo (Day 1; 4 hours)||||0.0029
90969524|NCT04251910|181820940|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2446|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part B-40 mcg-BXCL501 v/s Part B-Placebo (Day 1; 8 hours)||||0.2446
90969525|NCT04251910|181820941|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0926|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-30 mcg BXCL501 V/S Part A-Placebo (Day 1; 30 minutes)||||0.0926
90969526|NCT04251910|181820941|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3976|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-30 mcg BXCL501 V/S Part A-Placebo (Day 1; 1 hour)||||0.3976
90969527|NCT04251910|181820941|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1169|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-30 mcg BXCL501 V/S Part A-Placebo (Day 1; 4 hours)||||0.1169
90969528|NCT04251910|181820941|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3786|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-30 mcg BXCL501 V/S Part A-Placebo (Day 1; 8 hours)||||0.3786
90969529|NCT04251910|181820941|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.564|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-30 mcg BXCL501 V/S Part A-Placebo (Day 2; 24hours)||||0.5640
90969530|NCT04251910|181820941|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.602|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-30 mcg BXCL501 V/S Part A-Placebo (Day 3)||||0.6020
90969531|NCT04251910|181820941|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5875|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-30 mcg BXCL501 V/S Part A-Placebo (Day 7)||||0.5875
90969532|NCT04251910|181820941|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1055|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-60 mcg BXCL501 V/S Part A-Placebo (Day 1; 30 minutes)||||0.1055
90969533|NCT04251910|181820941|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0024|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-60 mcg BXCL501 V/S Part A-Placebo (Day 1; 1 hour)||||0.0024
90969534|NCT04251910|181820941|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0016|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-60 mcg BXCL501 V/S Part A-Placebo (Day 1; 4 hours)||||0.0016
90969535|NCT04251910|181820941|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-60 mcg BXCL501 V/S Part A-Placebo (Day 1; 8 hours)||||0.0002
90969536|NCT04251910|181820941|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2039|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-60 mcg BXCL501 V/S Part A-Placebo (Day 2; 24 hours)||||0.2039
90969537|NCT04251910|181820941|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1948|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-60 mcg BXCL501 V/S Part A-Placebo (Day 3)||||0.1948
90969538|NCT04251910|181820941|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5615|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-60 mcg BXCL501 V/S Part A-Placebo (Day 7)||||0.5615
90969539|NCT04251910|181820941|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8266|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part B-40 mcg-BXCL501 v/s Part B-Placebo (Day 1; 30 minutes)||||0.8266
90969540|NCT04251910|181820941|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part B-40 mcg-BXCL501 v/s Part B-Placebo (Day 1; 1 hour)||||0.0002
90969541|NCT04251910|181820941|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part B-40 mcg-BXCL501 v/s Part B-Placebo (Day 1; 4 hours)||||0.0004
90969542|NCT04251910|181820941|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1037|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part B-40 mcg-BXCL501 v/s Part B-Placebo (Day 1; 8 hours)||||0.1037
90969543|NCT04251910|181820941|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3267|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part B-40 mcg-BXCL501 v/s Part B-Placebo (Day 2; 24 hours)||||0.3267
90936532|NCT00627523|181752062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|2.42||ANCOVA model, fitting treatment as a factor, and the baseline parameter value as covariate was used. All hypotheses were tested at a 5% level of significance.|ANCOVA|No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the Genotropin® and the untreated control group in terms of the relevant secondary endpoints. The alternative hypothesis was that a difference existed.||2.42|-0.87|0.348
90936533|NCT00627523|181752063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.23||ANCOVA model, fitting treatment as a factor, and the baseline parameter value as covariate was used. All hypotheses were tested at a 5% level of significance.|ANCOVA|No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the Genotropin® and the untreated control group in terms of the relevant secondary endpoints. The alternative hypothesis was that a difference existed.||1.23|0.55|<0.001
90936534|NCT00627523|181752064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.63|4.85||ANCOVA model, fitting treatment as a factor, and the baseline parameter value as covariate was used. All hypotheses were tested at a 5% level of significance.|ANCOVA|No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the Genotropin® and the untreated control group in terms of the relevant secondary endpoints. The alternative hypothesis was that a difference existed.||4.85|1.63|<0.001
90936535|NCT00627523|181752065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.19||0.738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.27|17.12||ANCOVA model, fitting treatment as a factor, and the baseline parameter value, age, and gender as covariates were used. All hypotheses were tested at a 5% level of significance.|ANCOVA|No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the Genotropin® and the untreated control group in terms of the relevant secondary endpoints. The alternative hypothesis was that a difference existed.||17.12|-12.27|0.738
90936536|NCT00627523|181752066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.27||0.301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.27|4.26||ANCOVA model, fitting treatment as a factor, and the baseline parameter value, age, and gender as covariates were used. All hypotheses were tested at a 5% level of significance.|ANCOVA|No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the Genotropin® and the untreated control group in terms of the relevant secondary endpoints. The alternative hypothesis was that a difference existed.||4.26|-13.27|0.301
90936537|NCT05030467|181752071|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.31||||||We used generalized estimating equations (GEE) to adjust for the cluster design with an identify link function and normally-distributed errors||0.31|-0.39|
90936538|NCT05030467|181752072|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.02||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.03|||Regression, Logistic|||Outcomes were evaluated using generalized estimating equations with a log link and Poisson-distributed errors, adjusting for clinic-level clustering.||1.03|1.00|0.011
90936539|NCT05030467|181752075|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.15|||Regression, Linear|||We used generalized estimating equations (GEE) to adjust for the cluster design with an identify link function and normally-distributed errors||0.15|-0.38|0.383
90936540|NCT05129592|181752098|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.3||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|33.3||Sidak's adjusted p-value contrasting marginal linear predictions for the Nicotine corrective control and Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence|ANCOVA|Controlling for baseline nicotine misperception (df=4)|Comparing Nicotine corrective control to the Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence|||33.30|-1.87|0.095
90936541|NCT05129592|181752098|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.3||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|35.33||Sidak's adjustment for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|Controlling for baseline nicotine misperception (df=4)|Comparing Nicotine corrective control to the Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence|Sidak's adjusted p-value contrasting marginal linear predictions for the Nicotine corrective with causal explanation and Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence||35.33|2.02|0.022
90936542|NCT05129592|181752098|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.3||0.931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.76|20.15||Sidak's adjustment for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|Controlling for baseline nicotine misperception (df=4)|Comparing Nicotine corrective with reason for misperception to the Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence|Sidak's adjusted p-value contrasting marginal linear predictions for the Nicotine corrective with reason for misperception and Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence||20.15|-12.76|0.931
90936543|NCT05129592|181752099|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.54||||0.402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|4.24|||Regression, Logistic||Odds of believing e-cigarettes are less harmful than cigarettes in the Nicotine corrective with causal explanation/odds of believing e-cigarettes are less harmful than cigarettes in the condition with both component of coherence|Unadjusted logistic regression showing the effect of condition (Nicotine corrective with causal explanation compared to the Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence (reference group)) on e-cigarette relative harm beliefs||4.24|0.56|0.402
90936544|NCT05129592|181752099|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.83||||0.292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|5.62|||Regression, Logistic||Odds of believing e-cigarettes are somewhat or much less harmful than cigarettes in the control condition/odds of believing e-cigarettes are somewhat or much less harmful than cigarettes in the condition with both component of coherence|Unadjusted logistic regression showing the effect of condition (Nicotine corrective control compared to the Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence (reference group)) on e-cigarette relative harm beliefs||5.62|0.59|0.292
90936545|NCT05129592|181752099|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77||||0.571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.93|||Regression, Logistic||Odds of believing e-cigarettes are less harmful than cigarettes in the Nicotine corrective with reason for misperception/odds of believing e-cigarettes are less harmful than cigarettes in the condition with both component of coherence|Unadjusted logistic regression showing the effect of condition (Nicotine corrective with reason for misperception compared to the Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence (reference group)) on e-cigarette relative harm beliefs||1.93|0.30|0.571
90936546|NCT05129592|181752099|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.44||0.349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|8.26|||Regression, Logistic||Odds of believing e-cigarettes are less harmful than cigarettes in the control condition/odds of believing e-cigarettes are less harmful than cigarettes in the condition with both component of coherence|Adjusted logistic regression showing the effect of condition (Nicotine corrective control compared to the Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence (reference group)) on e-cigarette relative harm beliefs controlling for baseline beliefs and e-cigarette use||8.26|0.47|0.349
91035906|NCT03673670|181958510|OTHER|A hierarchical fixed-sequence testing strategy was employed to test the significance of the treatment effect for each of the two RPL554 doses against placebo, starting with the highest dose (6 mg). If a statistically significant difference was found at the 2-sided α level of 5%, the testing proceeded with the next highest dose. Otherwise, testing was stopped, and the remaining null hypotheses were accepted without testing.|GeoMean Ratio|1.012||||0.404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.984|1.039|||ANCOVA|||||1.039|0.984|0.404
90936547|NCT05129592|181752099|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.07||0.355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|5.81|||Regression, Logistic||Odds of believing e-cigarettes are less harmful than cigarettes in the Nicotine corrective with causal explanation/odds of believing e-cigarettes are less harmful than cigarettes in the condition with both component of coherence|Adjusted logistic regression showing the effect of condition (Nicotine corrective with causal explanation compared to the Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence (reference group)) on e-cigarette relative harm beliefs controlling for baseline beliefs and e-cigarette use||5.81|0.53|0.355
90936548|NCT05129592|181752099|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|2.25|||Regression, Logistic||Odds of believing e-cigarettes are less harmful than cigarettes in the Nicotine corrective with reason for misperception/odds of believing e-cigarettes are less harmful than cigarettes in the condition with both component of coherence|Adjusted logistic regression showing the effect of condition (Nicotine corrective with reason for misperception compared to the Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence (reference group)) on e-cigarette relative harm beliefs controlling for baseline beliefs and e-cigarette use||2.25|0.24|0.591
90936549|NCT05129592|181752100|SUPERIORITY|Unadjusted logistic regression showing the effect of condition (Nicotine corrective control compared to the Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence (reference group)) on NRT relative harm beliefs|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|7.27|||Regression, Logistic||Odds of believing NRT is less harmful than cigarettes in the control condition/odds of believing NRT is less harmful than cigarettes in the condition with both component of coherence|||7.27|0.13|0.980
90936550|NCT05129592|181752100|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|2.56|||Regression, Logistic||Odds of believing NRT is less harmful than cigarettes in the Nicotine corrective with causal explanation/odds of believing NRT is less harmful than cigarettes in the condition with both component of coherence|Unadjusted logistic regression showing the effect of condition (Nicotine corrective with causal explanation compared to the Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence (reference group)) on NRT relative harm beliefs||2.56|0.09|0.382
90936551|NCT05129592|181752100|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|5.23|||Regression, Logistic||Odds of believing NRT is less harmful than cigarettes in the Nicotine corrective with reason for misperception/odds of believing NRT is less harmful than cigarettes in the condition with both component of coherence|Unadjusted logistic regression showing the effect of condition (Nicotine corrective with reason for misperception compared to the Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence (reference group)) on NRT relative harm beliefs||5.23|0.13|0.846
90936552|NCT05129592|181752100|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|7.74|||Regression, Logistic||Odds of believing NRT is less harmful than cigarettes in the control condition/odds of believing NRT is less harmful than cigarettes in the condition with both component of coherence|Adjusted logistic regression showing the effect of condition (Nicotine corrective control compared to the Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence (reference group)) on NRT relative harm beliefs controlling for NRT use||7.74|0.13|0.990
90936553|NCT05129592|181752100|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|3.01|||Regression, Logistic||Odds of believing NRT is less harmful than cigarettes in the Nicotine corrective with causal explanation/odds of believing NRT is less harmful than cigarettes in the condition with both component of coherence|Adjusted logistic regression showing the effect of condition (Nicotine corrective with causal explanation compared to the Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence (reference group)) on NRT relative harm beliefs controlling for NRT use||3.01|0.09|0.458
90936554|NCT05129592|181752100|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|4.76|||Regression, Logistic||Odds of believing NRT is less harmful than cigarettes in the Nicotine corrective with reason for misperception/odds of believing NRT is less harmful than cigarettes in the condition with both component of coherence|Adjusted logistic regression showing the effect of condition (Nicotine corrective with reason for misperception compared to the Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence (reference group)) on NRT relative harm beliefs controlling for NRT use||4.76|0.12|0.754
90936555|NCT05129592|181752101|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|1.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|4.15|||Regression, Logistic||Odds of believing VLNC are less harmful than cigarettes in the control condition/odds of believing VLNC are less harmful than cigarettes in the condition with both component of coherence|Unadjusted logistic regression showing the effect of condition (Nicotine corrective control compared to the Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence (reference group)) on VLNC relative harm beliefs||4.15|0.68|0.256
90936556|NCT05129592|181752101|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.32|||Regression, Logistic||Odds of believing VLNC are less harmful than cigarettes in the Nicotine corrective with causal explanation/odds of believing VLNC are less harmful than cigarettes in the condition with both component of coherence|Unadjusted logistic regression showing the effect of condition (Nicotine corrective with causal explanation compared to the Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence (reference group)) on VLNC relative harm beliefs||2.32|0.45|0.961
90936557|NCT05129592|181752101|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.53|||Regression, Logistic||Odds of believing VLNC are less harmful than cigarettes in the Nicotine corrective with reason for misperception/odds of believing VLNC are less harmful than cigarettes in the condition with both component of coherence|Unadjusted logistic regression showing the effect of condition (Nicotine corrective with reason for misperception compared to the Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence (reference group)) on VLNC relative harm beliefs||1.53|0.30|0.345
90936558|NCT05129592|181752101|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|4.04|||Regression, Logistic||Odds of believing VLNC are less harmful than cigarettes in the control condition/odds of believing VLNC are less harmful than cigarettes in the condition with both component of coherence|Adjusted logistic regression showing the effect of condition (Nicotine corrective control compared to the Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence (reference group)) on VLNC relative harm beliefs controlling for baseline beliefs and VLNC use||4.04|0.60|0.360
90936559|NCT05129592|181752101|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|2.7|||Regression, Logistic||Odds of believing VLNC are less harmful than cigarettes in the Nicotine corrective with causal explanation/odds of believing VLNC are less harmful than cigarettes in the condition with both component of coherence|Adjusted logistic regression showing the effect of condition (Nicotine corrective with causal explanation compared to the Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence (reference group)) on VLNC relative harm beliefs controlling for baseline beliefs and VLNC use||2.70|0.48|0.765
90936560|NCT05129592|181752101|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.43|||Regression, Logistic||Odds of believing VLNC are less harmful than cigarettes in the Nicotine corrective with reason for misperception/odds of believing VLNC are less harmful than cigarettes in the condition with both component of coherence|Adjusted logistic regression showing the effect of condition (Nicotine corrective with reason for misperception compared to the Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence (reference group)) on VLNC relative harm beliefs controlling for baseline beliefs and VLNC use||1.43|0.25|0.252
90936561|NCT05129592|181752102|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.09|||Regression, Logistic||Odds of believing smokeless tobacco is less harmful than cigarettes in the control condition/odds of believing smokeless tobacco is less harmful than cigarettes in the condition with both component of coherence|Unadjusted logistic regression showing the effect of condition (Nicotine corrective control compared to the Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence (reference group)) on smokeless tobacco relative harm beliefs||1.09|0.18|0.077
90936562|NCT05129592|181752102|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.15|||Regression, Logistic|||Unadjusted logistic regression showing the effect of condition (Nicotine corrective with causal explanation compared to the Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence (reference group)) on smokeless tobacco relative harm beliefs|Odds of believing smokeless tobacco is less harmful than cigarettes in the Nicotine corrective with causal explanation/odds of believing smokeless tobacco is less harmful than cigarettes in the condition with both component of coherence|2.15|0.40|0.853
90936563|NCT05129592|181752102|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.95|||Regression, Logistic||Odds of believing smokeless tobacco is less harmful than cigarettes in the Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence/odds of believing smokeless tobacco is less harmful than cigarettes in the condition with both component of coherence|Unadjusted logistic regression showing the effect of condition (Nicotine corrective with reason for misperception compared to the Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence (reference group)) on smokeless tobacco relative harm beliefs||0.95|0.18|0.037
90936564|NCT05129592|181752102|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.75|||Regression, Logistic||Odds of believing smokeless tobacco is less harmful than cigarettes in the control condition/odds of believing smokeless tobacco is less harmful than cigarettes in the condition with both component of coherence|Adjusted logistic regression showing the effect of condition (Nicotine corrective control compared to the Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence (reference group)) on smokeless relative harm beliefs controlling for baseline beliefs and smokeless tobacco use||1.75|0.21|0.349
90936565|NCT05129592|181752102|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|3.93|||Regression, Logistic||Odds of believing smokeless tobacco is less harmful than cigarettes in the Nicotine corrective with causal explanation/odds of believing smokeless tobacco is less harmful than cigarettes in the condition with both component of coherence|Adjusted logistic regression showing the effect of condition (Nicotine corrective with causal explanation compared to the Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence (reference group)) on smokeless relative harm beliefs controlling for baseline beliefs and smokeless tobacco use||3.93|0.54|0.464
90936566|NCT05129592|181752102|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.4|||Regression, Logistic||Odds of believing smokeless tobacco is less harmful than cigarettes in the Nicotine corrective with reason for misperception/odds of believing smokeless tobacco is less harmful than cigarettes in the condition with both component of coherence|Adjusted logistic regression showing the effect of condition (Nicotine corrective with reason for misperception compared to the Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence (reference group)) on smokeless relative harm beliefs controlling for baseline beliefs and smokeless tobacco use||1.40|0.18|0.187
91035556|NCT01299454|181957092|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was claimed for a PK parameter if the 90% CI for the ratio of the geometric means of a PK variable fell within the interval \[0.5, 2.0\]. Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach was equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.742|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.599|0.918|||Mixed effect analysis of variance||Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach is equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|The secondary comparisons were each hepatic disease group (mild, moderate or severe) versus the control (normal group). To compare the secondary PK parameters between each hepatic disease group and the control group, the 90% CI for the difference in the means of the log-transformed data was calculated using a mixed effect analysis of variance.||0.918|0.599|
91035557|NCT01299454|181957092|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was claimed for a PK parameter if the 90% CI for the ratio of the geometric means of a PK variable fell within the interval \[0.5, 2.0\]. Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach was equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.451|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.352|0.577|||Mixed effect analysis of variance||Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach is equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|The secondary comparisons were each hepatic disease group (mild, moderate or severe) versus the control (normal group). To compare the secondary PK parameters between each hepatic disease group and the control group, the 90% CI for the difference in the means of the log-transformed data was calculated using a mixed effect analysis of variance.||0.577|0.352|
91035558|NCT01299454|181957101|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was claimed for a PK parameter if the 90% CI for the ratio of the geometric means of a PK variable fell within the interval \[0.5, 2.0\]. Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach was equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.509|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.346|0.748|||Mixed effect analysis of variance|||The secondary comparisons were each hepatic disease group (mild, moderate or severe) versus the control (normal group). To compare the secondary PK parameters between each hepatic disease group and the control group, the 90% CI for the difference in the means of the log-transformed data was calculated using a mixed effect analysis of variance.||0.748|0.346|
91035559|NCT01299454|181957101|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was claimed for a PK parameter if the 90% CI for the ratio of the geometric means of a PK variable fell within the interval \[0.5, 2.0\]. Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach was equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.586|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.399|0.861|||Mixed effect analysis of variance||Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach is equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|The secondary comparisons were each hepatic disease group (mild, moderate or severe) versus the control (normal group). To compare the secondary PK parameters between each hepatic disease group and the control group, the 90% CI for the difference in the means of the log-transformed data was calculated using a mixed effect analysis of variance.||0.861|0.399|
90936567|NCT05129592|181752103|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|3.62|||Regression, Logistic||Odds of believing cigarillos are less harmful than cigarettes in the control condition/odds of believing cigarillos are less harmful than cigarettes in the condition with both component of coherence|Unadjusted logistic regression showing the effect of condition (Nicotine corrective control compared to the Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence (reference group)) on cigarillo relative harm beliefs||3.62|0.31|0.925
90936568|NCT05129592|181752103|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|2.35|||Regression, Logistic||Odds of believing cigarillos are less harmful than cigarettes in the Nicotine corrective with causal explanation/odds of believing cigarillos are less harmful than cigarettes in the condition with both component of coherence|Unadjusted logistic regression showing the effect of condition (Nicotine corrective with causal explanation compared to the Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence (reference group)) on cigarillo relative harm beliefs||2.35|0.19|0.525
90936569|NCT05129592|181752103|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|2.4|||Regression, Logistic||Odds of believing cigarillos are less harmful than cigarettes in the Nicotine corrective with reason for misperception/odds of believing cigarillos are less harmful than cigarettes in the condition with both component of coherence|Unadjusted logistic regression showing the effect of condition (Nicotine corrective with reason for misperception compared to the Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence (reference group)) on cigarillo relative harm beliefs||2.40|0.21|0.586
91035560|NCT01299454|181957101|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was claimed for a PK parameter if the 90% CI for the ratio of the geometric means of a PK variable fell within the interval \[0.5, 2.0\]. Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach was equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.334|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.214|0.521|||Mixed effect analysis of variance||Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach is equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|The secondary comparisons were each hepatic disease group (mild, moderate or severe) versus the control (normal group). To compare the secondary PK parameters between each hepatic disease group and the control group, the 90% CI for the difference in the means of the log-transformed data was calculated using a mixed effect analysis of variance.||0.521|0.214|
91035561|NCT01299454|181957102|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was claimed for a PK parameter if the 90% CI for the ratio of the geometric means of a PK variable fell within the interval \[0.5, 2.0\]. Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach was equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.716|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.445|1.153|||Mixed effect analysis of variance|||The secondary comparisons were each hepatic disease group (mild, moderate or severe) versus the control (normal group). To compare the secondary PK parameters between each hepatic disease group and the control group, the 90% CI for the difference in the means of the log-transformed data was calculated using a mixed effect analysis of variance.||1.153|0.445|
90936570|NCT05129592|181752103|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|3.9|||Regression, Logistic||Odds of believing cigarillos are less harmful than cigarettes in the control condition/odds of believing cigarillos are less harmful than cigarettes in the condition with both component of coherence|Adjusted logistic regression showing the effect of condition (Nicotine corrective control compared to the Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence (reference group)) on cigarillo relative harm beliefs controlling for smokeless tobacco use||3.90|0.31|0.883
90936571|NCT05129592|181752103|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|2.41|||Regression, Logistic||Odds of believing cigarillos are less harmful than cigarettes in the Nicotine corrective with causal explanation/odds of believing cigarillos are less harmful than cigarettes in the condition with both component of coherence|Adjusted logistic regression showing the effect of condition (Nicotine corrective with causal explanation compared to the Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence (reference group)) on cigarillo relative harm beliefs controlling for smokeless tobacco use||2.41|0.18|0.534
90936572|NCT05129592|181752103|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|2.62|||Regression, Logistic||Odds of believing cigarillos are less harmful than cigarettes in the Nicotine corrective with reason for misperception/odds of believing cigarillos are less harmful than cigarettes in the condition with both component of coherence|Adjusted logistic regression showing the effect of condition (Nicotine corrective with reason for misperception compared to the Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence (reference group)) on cigarillo relative harm beliefs controlling for smokeless tobacco use||2.62|0.22|0.661
90936573|NCT05129592|181752104|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.66||0.965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.25|13.19|||ANCOVA|Sidak's adjusted p-value (df=4)|Nicotine corrective control - Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence|ANCOVA adjusted for baseline consideration of switching||13.19|-9.25|0.965
90936574|NCT05129592|181752104|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.44||0.979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.13|12.27|||ANCOVA|Sidak's adjusted p-value (df=4)||ANCOVA adjusted for baseline consideration of switching|Nicotine corrective with causal explanation - Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence|12.27|-9.13|0.979
90936575|NCT05129592|181752104|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.37||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.46|14.59|||ANCOVA|Sidak's adjusted p-value (df=4)||ANCOVA adjusted for baseline consideration of switching|Nicotine corrective with reason for misperception - Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence|14.59|-6.46|0.73
90936576|NCT00331799|181752121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.00365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test on the difference between the baseline and endpoint score on the CD-RISC.||||0.00365
90936577|NCT02889809|181752122|OTHER||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.462|0.142|||||Analysis was performed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model adjusting for Baseline growth velocity, age at Visit 1, gender and country.|||0.142|-0.462|
90936578|NCT02889809|181752125|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.059|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.455|0.572|||||Analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model adjusting for Baseline growth velocity, age at Visit 1(wk -16), gender and country|||0.572|-0.455|
90936579|NCT00113880|181752138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||||||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple confidence intervals (CIs) were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Exact method or Cox model|||Breast lump/cyst event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months. If the control group has no event, the relative risk (RR) or hazard ratio (HR) is not estimable.||||0.01
90936580|NCT00113880|181752138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||||||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment|Exact method or Cox model|||Breast lump/cyst event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months. If the control group has no event, the RR or HR is not estimable.||||0.01
90936581|NCT00113880|181752138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||||||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Exact method or Cox model|||Breast lump/cyst event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months. If the control group has no event, the RR or HR is not estimable.||||0.02
90936582|NCT00113880|181752138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.59||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|3.92||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox|||Mastitis event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||3.92|0.64|0.02
90936583|NCT00113880|181752138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|7.35||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|24.54||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox|||Mastitis event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||24.54|2.20|0.01
90936584|NCT00113880|181752138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|7.17||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.13|24.13||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox|||Mastitis event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||24.13|2.13|0.01
90936585|NCT00113880|181752139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.05||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.79||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox|||Heart murmur event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.79|0.00|0.03
90936586|NCT00113880|181752139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.13||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|1.0||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment|Regression, Cox|||Heart murmur event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||1.00|0.02|0.05
90936587|NCT00113880|181752139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.11||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.86||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox|||Heart murmur event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.86|0.01|0.04
90969544|NCT04251910|181820941|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0339|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part B-40 mcg-BXCL501 v/s Part B-Placebo (Day 3)||||0.0339
90936588|NCT00113880|181752139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.37||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.7||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox||Population was the 18-49 year age group.|Pregnancy exam/supervision event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.70|0.20|0.01
90969545|NCT04251910|181820941|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1892|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part B-40 mcg-BXCL501 v/s Part B-Placebo (Day7)||||0.1892
90969546|NCT04251910|181820942|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3359|||||||Fisher Exact|||Part A-30 mcg BXCL501 V/S Part A-Placebo (2 hours post administration)||||0.3359
90969547|NCT04251910|181820942|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004|||||||Fisher Exact|||Part A-60 mcg BXCL501 V/S Part A-Placebo (2 hours post administration)||||0.0004
90969548|NCT04251910|181820942|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0351|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0351
90969549|NCT04251910|181820943|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0952|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-30 mcg BXCL501 V/S Part A-Placebo (2 hours)||||0.0952
90969550|NCT04251910|181820943|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8977|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-30 mcg BXCL501 V/S Part A-Placebo (Day 2; 24 hours)||||0.8977
90936589|NCT00113880|181752139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.4||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.74||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox||Population was the all ages combined group.|Pregnancy exam/supervision event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.74|0.22|0.01
90969551|NCT04251910|181820943|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-60 mcg BXCL501 V/S Part A-Placebo (Day 1; 2 hours)||||0.0002
90969552|NCT04251910|181820943|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3147|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-60 mcg BXCL501 V/S Part A-Placebo (Day 2; 24 hours)||||0.3147
91035907|NCT03673670|181958511|OTHER|A hierarchical fixed-sequence testing strategy was employed to test the significance of the treatment effect for each of the two RPL554 doses against placebo, starting with the highest dose (6 mg). If a statistically significant difference was found at the 2-sided α level of 5%, the testing proceeded with the next highest dose. Otherwise, testing was stopped, and the remaining null hypotheses were accepted without testing.|GeoMean Ratio|1.082||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.043|1.123|||ANCOVA|||||1.123|1.043|0.001
90936590|NCT00113880|181752139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.05||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.08||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox||Population was the 18-49 year age and the all ages combined groups.|Pregnancy exam/supervision event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.08|0.03|0.01
90969553|NCT04251910|181820943|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part B-40 mcg-BXCL501 v/s Part B-Placebo (Day 1; 2 hours)||||<.0001
90969554|NCT04251910|181820943|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1241|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part B-40 mcg-BXCL501 v/s Part B-Placebo (Day 2; 24 hours)||||0.1241
90969555|NCT04251910|181820944|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.408|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-30 mcg BXCL501 V/S Part A-Placebo (Day 1; 30 minutes)||||0.4080
90969556|NCT04251910|181820944|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4198|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-30 mcg BXCL501 V/S Part A-Placebo (Day 1; 1 hour)||||0.4198
90969557|NCT04251910|181820944|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.037|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-30 mcg BXCL501 V/S Part A-Placebo (Day1; 2 hours)||||0.0370
90969558|NCT04251910|181820944|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1324|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-30 mcg BXCL501 V/S Part A-Placebo (Day 1; 4 hours)||||0.1324
90969559|NCT04251910|181820944|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0624|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-30 mcg BXCL501 V/S Part A-Placebo (Day 1; 8 hours)||||0.0624
90969560|NCT04251910|181820944|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6334|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-60 mcg BXCL501 V/S Part A-Placebo (Day 1; 30 minutes)||||0.6334
90969561|NCT04251910|181820944|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0275|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-60 mcg BXCL501 V/S Part A-Placebo (Day 1; 1 hour)||||0.0275
90969562|NCT04251910|181820944|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-60 mcg BXCL501 V/S Part A-Placebo (Day 1; 2 hours)||||<.0001
90969563|NCT04251910|181820944|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-60 mcg BXCL501 V/S Part A-Placebo (Day 1; 4 hours)||||0.0001
90969564|NCT04251910|181820944|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-60 mcg BXCL501 V/S Part A-Placebo (Day1; 8 hours)||||<.0001
90969565|NCT04251910|181820944|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2806|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part B-40 mcg-BXCL501 v/s Part B-Placebo (Day 1; 30 minutes)||||0.2806
90969566|NCT04251910|181820944|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part B-40 mcg-BXCL501 v/s Part B-Placebo (Day 1; 1 hour)||||0.0002
90969567|NCT04251910|181820944|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part B-40 mcg-BXCL501 v/s Part B-Placebo (Day 1; 2 hour)||||<.0001
90969568|NCT04251910|181820944|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0009|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part B-40 mcg-BXCL501 v/s Part B-Placebo (Day 1; 4 hours)||||0.0009
90969569|NCT04251910|181820944|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0081|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part B-40 mcg-BXCL501 v/s Part B-Placebo (Day 1; 8 hours)||||0.0081
90969570|NCT04251910|181820945|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0591|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-30 mcg BXCL501 V/S Part A-Placebo (Day 1; 2 hours)||||0.0591
90969571|NCT04251910|181820945|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0966|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-30 mcg BXCL501 V/S Part A-Placebo (Day 7)||||0.0966
90969572|NCT04251910|181820945|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-60 mcg BXCL501 V/S Part A-Placebo (Day 1; 2 hours)||||<.0001
90969573|NCT04251910|181820945|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-60 mcg BXCL501 V/S Part A-Placebo (Day 7)||||0.0290
90969574|NCT04251910|181820945|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0937|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part B-40 mcg-BXCL501 v/s Part B-Placebo (Day 1; 2 hours)||||0.0937
90969575|NCT04251910|181820945|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2747|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part B-40 mcg-BXCL501 v/s Part B-Placebo (Day 7)||||0.2747
90969576|NCT04251910|181820948|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part B-40 mcg-BXCL501 v/s Part B-Placebo (2 hours post administration)||||0.0002
90969577|NCT01765920|181820988|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0174||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance α=0.0221 (Pocock boundary for 3 interim analyses).|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0174
90969578|NCT01765920|181820989|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0719||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance α=0.0221 (Pocock boundary for 3 interim analyses).|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0719
90969579|NCT01765920|181820990|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||Total score analysis. A priori threshold for statistical significance α=0.0221 (Pocock boundary for 3 interim analyses).|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.02
90969580|NCT01765920|181820990|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0099||||||"Symptoms domain analysis. A priori threshold for statistical significance α=0.0221 (Pocock boundary for 3 interim analyses)."|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0099
90969581|NCT01765920|181820990|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.037||||||"Ability domain analysis. A priori threshold for statistical significance α=0.0221 (Pocock boundary for 3 interim analyses)."|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.037
90969582|NCT01765920|181820991|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22||||||Day 1 analysis.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.22
90969583|NCT01765920|181820991|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32||||||Day 2 analysis.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.32
90969584|NCT01765920|181820991|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47||||||Day 3 analysis.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.47
90936591|NCT00113880|181752139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.02||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.03|||Regression, Cox||Population was the 18-49 year age and all ages combined groups.|Pregnancy exam/supervision event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.03|0.01|0.01
90936592|NCT00113880|181752140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.06||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|4.13||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox|||Urticaria event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||4.13|1.02|0.04
90936593|NCT00113880|181752142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.71||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.89||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||Population: all ages combined within 21 days. The rate of events during the risk period represents the numerator; the rate of events during the control period represents the denominator.|Any asthma or wheezing event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.89|0.56|0.01
90936594|NCT00113880|181752142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.59||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.83||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||Population: 5-8 years within 21 days. The rate of events during the risk period represents the numerator; the rate of events during the control period represents the denominator.|Any asthma or wheezing event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.83|0.41|0.01
90936595|NCT00113880|181752142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.68||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.99||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||Population: 18-49 years within 42 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in unvaccinated controls represents the denominator.|Any asthma or wheezing event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.99|0.46|0.04
90936596|NCT00113880|181752143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.33||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.41||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||Population: all ages combined within 21 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Any asthma or wheezing event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.41|0.27|0.01
90969585|NCT01765920|181820991|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72||||||Day 4 analysis.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.72
90969586|NCT01765920|181820991|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25||||||Day 5 analysis.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.25
90969587|NCT01765920|181820992|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.68
90969588|NCT00777101|181820993|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of neratinib vs lapatinib + capecitabine was to be concluded if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the hazard ratio was 1.15 or less.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19||||0.231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.6|||Log Rank|The log-rank test comparing treatment groups is stratified by region.|The hazard ratio is estimated by stratified Cox model. The Cox model is stratified by region.|||1.60|0.89|0.231
90969589|NCT01947816|181821005|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 24||||< 0.0001
90969590|NCT01947816|181821005|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 52||||< 0.0001
90969591|NCT01947816|181821005|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5512|||||||paired t-test|||Change from Baseline When Discontinued||||0.5512
90969592|NCT01947816|181821005|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Final Assessment||||< 0.0001
90969593|NCT01947816|181821007|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 4||||< 0.0001
90969594|NCT01947816|181821007|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 8||||< 0.0001
90969595|NCT01947816|181821007|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 16||||< 0.0001
90969596|NCT01947816|181821007|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 24||||< 0.0001
90969597|NCT01947816|181821007|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 52||||< 0.0001
90969598|NCT01947816|181821007|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||Change from Baseline when discontinued||||< 0.0001
90969599|NCT01947816|181821007|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Final Assessment||||< 0.0001
90969600|NCT00841789|181821011|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.10
90969601|NCT00841789|181821012|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||Regression, Cox|||We applied a Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) model to determine z score change values (see Protocol page 36 in Supplement).||||0.86
90969602|NCT00841789|181821013|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||GEE|||General Estimating Equation||||.83
90969603|NCT00841789|181821013|OTHER|Generallzed Estimating Equation was used for z-score change within groups compared to baseline|General Estimating Equation|||||0.1279|||||||GEE|||We analyzed change from baseline for both etanercept and placebo. LS mean change J(standard error) reported||||0.1279
91035562|NCT01299454|181957102|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was claimed for a PK parameter if the 90% CI for the ratio of the geometric means of a PK variable fell within the interval \[0.5, 2.0\]. Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach was equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.594|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.378|0.934|||Mixed effect analysis of variance|||The secondary comparisons were each hepatic disease group (mild, moderate or severe) versus the control (normal group). To compare the secondary PK parameters between each hepatic disease group and the control group, the 90% CI for the difference in the means of the log-transformed data was calculated using a mixed effect analysis of variance.||0.934|0.378|
91035563|NCT01299454|181957102|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was claimed for a PK parameter if the 90% CI for the ratio of the geometric means of a PK variable fell within the interval \[0.5, 2.0\]. Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach was equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.561|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.308|1.022|||Mixed effect analysis of variance|||The secondary comparisons were each hepatic disease group (mild, moderate or severe) versus the control (normal group). To compare the secondary PK parameters between each hepatic disease group and the control group, the 90% CI for the difference in the means of the log-transformed data was calculated using a mixed effect analysis of variance.||1.022|0.308|
91035564|NCT01299454|181957103|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was claimed for a PK parameter if the 90% CI for the ratio of the geometric means of a PK variable fell within the interval \[0.5, 2.0\]. Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach was equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.558|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.368|0.845|||Mixed effect analysis of variance|||The secondary comparisons were each hepatic disease group (mild, moderate or severe) versus the control (normal group). To compare the secondary PK parameters between each hepatic disease group and the control group, the 90% CI for the difference in the means of the log-transformed data was calculated using a mixed effect analysis of variance.||0.845|0.368|
91035565|NCT01299454|181957103|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was claimed for a PK parameter if the 90% CI for the ratio of the geometric means of a PK variable fell within the interval \[0.5, 2.0\]. Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach was equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.516|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.341|0.781|||Mixed effect analysis of variance|||The secondary comparisons were each hepatic disease group (mild, moderate or severe) versus the control (normal group). To compare the secondary PK parameters between each hepatic disease group and the control group, the 90% CI for the difference in the means of the log-transformed data was calculated using a mixed effect analysis of variance.||0.781|0.341|
91035566|NCT01299454|181957103|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was claimed for a PK parameter if the 90% CI for the ratio of the geometric means of a PK variable fell within the interval \[0.5, 2.0\]. Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach was equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.314|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.195|0.507|||Mixed effect analysis of variance|||The secondary comparisons were each hepatic disease group (mild, moderate or severe) versus the control (normal group). To compare the secondary PK parameters between each hepatic disease group and the control group, the 90% CI for the difference in the means of the log-transformed data was calculated using a mixed effect analysis of variance.||0.507|0.195|
91035908|NCT03673670|181958511|OTHER|A hierarchical fixed-sequence testing strategy was employed to test the significance of the treatment effect for each of the two RPL554 doses against placebo, starting with the highest dose (6 mg). If a statistically significant difference was found at the 2-sided α level of 5%, the testing proceeded with the next highest dose. Otherwise, testing was stopped, and the remaining null hypotheses were accepted without testing.|GeoMean Ratio|1.061||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.023|1.101|||ANCOVA|||||1.101|1.023|0.002
90936597|NCT00113880|181752143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.3||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.42||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||Population: 5-8 years within 21 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Any asthma or wheezing event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months||0.42|0.22|0.01
90936598|NCT00113880|181752143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.34||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.47||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||Population: 9-17 years within 21 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Any asthma or wheezing event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.47|0.24|0.01
90936599|NCT00113880|181752143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.42||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.75||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||Population: 18-49 years within 21 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Any asthma or wheezing event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.75|0.23|0.01
90936600|NCT00113880|181752143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.38||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.44||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||Population: all ages combined within 42 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Any asthma or wheezing event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.44|0.33|0.01
90936601|NCT00113880|181752143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.4||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.5||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||Population: 5-8 years within 42 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Any asthma or wheezing event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.50|0.32|0.01
90969604|NCT00841789|181821014|OTHER|General Estimating Equation for 3 coronary arteries.||||||0.03|||||||GEE|||General Estimating Equation|Generalize estimating equation for 3 coronary arteries evaluated in each patient by echocardiography|||0.03
90969605|NCT00841789|181821014|OTHER|see above||||||0.619|||||||GEE|||GEE performed to compare with change in coronary z score from baseline||||0.619
90969606|NCT03317795|181821035|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.11
90969607|NCT03317795|181821037|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.64
90969608|NCT03317795|181821038|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Physical composite score||||0.32
90969609|NCT03317795|181821038|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mental composite score||||0.26
90969610|NCT03317795|181821039|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.33
90969611|NCT03317795|181821040|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.40
90936602|NCT00113880|181752143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.36||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.45||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||Population: 9-17 years within 42 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Any asthma or wheezing event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.45|0.28|0.01
90969612|NCT02424253|181821055|SUPERIORITY||LS Difference|-0.35|||=|0.249|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.21|0.51||1-sided p-value.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included baseline value and treatment.||Change from baseline||0.51|-1.21|= 0.249
90969613|NCT02424253|181821056|SUPERIORITY||LS Difference|-5.06|||=|0.01|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.66|-1.46||1-sided p-value.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included baseline EASI, stratification variable (worst daily pruritus NRS ≤ 7.5 or \> 7.5) and treatment.||Change from baseline analysis||-1.46|-8.66|= 0.01
90969614|NCT02290873|181821063|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Rates|0.8961|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8505|0.9416||P-value calculated from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test accounting for fentanyl strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.9416|0.8505|<0.0001
90969615|NCT02290873|181821064|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|6.133|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.416|8.517|||Log Rank|||||8.517|4.416|<0.0001
90969616|NCT03715153|181821067|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of the adjusted difference|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|1.75|||t-test, 2 sided|General Linear Model including the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, country, gender, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline.|Estimate of the adjusted difference was based on 211 patients (Missing data were imputed).|||1.75|-1.04|0.617
90969617|NCT03715153|181821068|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of the adjusted difference|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.26|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.91|6.88|||||General Linear Model including the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, country, gender, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline. Estimate of the adjusted difference was based on 211 patients (Missing data were imputed).|||6.88|-5.91|
90969618|NCT03715153|181821069|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of the adjusted difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.16|||||Rank-based analysis (Wilcoxon scores) including terms for fixed categorical effects of treatment, country and gender. Estimate of the adjusted difference was based on 211 patients (Missing data were imputed).|||0.16|-0.24|
90969619|NCT03715153|181821070|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of the adjusted difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|1.75|||||General Linear Model including the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, country, gender, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline. Estimate of the adjusted difference was based on 211 patients (Missing data were imputed).|||1.75|-1.42|
90969620|NCT03715153|181821074|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of the adjusted difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.48|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.12|4.59||||||||4.59|-5.12|
90969621|NCT01519765|181821076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1611|||||||Fisher Exact|||A consecutive sample will be used as women are recruited. Based on an 80% power and an alpha of 0.05, a sample size of 103 subjects in each arm is required to detect a 20% difference between deliveries within 24hrs between the two treatment arms. An effect size of 20% was selected as this is thought to be a clinically significant difference. This is based on the Wing study showing 50% delivery within 24 hrs with vaginal misoprostol.||||0.1611
90969622|NCT01519765|181821077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.018
90969623|NCT01519765|181821078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0623|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0623
90969624|NCT01519765|181821079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1141|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.1141
90969625|NCT01519765|181821080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4469|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4469
90969626|NCT01519765|181821081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4469|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4469
90969627|NCT01519765|181821082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.093|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.093
90969628|NCT01519765|181821083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2417|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2417
90969629|NCT01519765|181821084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
90969630|NCT01519765|181821085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1054|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1054
90969631|NCT01519765|181821086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8043|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.8043
90969632|NCT01519765|181821087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.797|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.797
90936603|NCT00113880|181752143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.41||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.6||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||Population: 18-49 years within 42 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Any asthma or wheezing event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.60|0.27|0.01
90936604|NCT00113880|181752143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.47||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.99||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||Population: 5-8 years, PD2 within 42 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Any asthma or wheezing event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.99|0.21|0.05
90936605|NCT00113880|181752144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.92||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|0.98||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||Population: all ages combined, within 180 days, PD1. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the unvaccinated controls represents the denominator.|Any asthma or wheezing event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.98|0.86|0.01
90936606|NCT00113880|181752144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.83||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|0.92||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||Population: 9-17 yrs., within 180 days, PD1. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the unvaccinated controls represents the denominator.|Any asthma or wheezing event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months||0.92|0.75|0.01
90969633|NCT01519765|181821088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.751|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.751
90969634|NCT01519765|181821089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6244|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6244
90969635|NCT01519765|181821090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7906|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.7906
90936607|NCT00113880|181752144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.87||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|0.94||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||Population: All ages, within 180 days, PD1. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the unvaccinated controls represents the denominator.|Asthma/RAD event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.94|0.81|0.01
90969636|NCT01519765|181821091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5118|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.5118
90969637|NCT01519765|181821092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
90969638|NCT01519765|181821093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.741|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.741
90969639|NCT01519765|181821094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.579|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.579
90936608|NCT00113880|181752144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.79||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.88||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||Population: 9-17 yrs, within 180 days, PD1. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the unvaccinated controls represents the denominator.|Asthma/RAD event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.88|0.70|0.01
90969640|NCT01519765|181821095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8062|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Score for Nausea and vomiting||||.8062
90969641|NCT01519765|181821095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1505|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Effectiveness||||0.1505
90969642|NCT01519765|181821095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1223|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Patient concern||||0.1223
90969643|NCT01519765|181821095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.538||||||Patient satisfaction|Kruskal-Wallis|||Labor satisfaction||||0.5380
90969644|NCT01519765|181821096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2868||||||This is the overall p value of all rows.|Chi-squared|||||||0.2868
90969645|NCT02258451|181821108|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.891||||0.4843|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.72|1.102||1-sided SSE-FS hypotheses were tested using a log-rank test with a 2-sided alpha of 0.2, stratified by the randomization stratification factors.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio (radium-223 dichloride / placebo) for SSE-FS was calculated using Cox Proportional Hazards Model, stratified by the same stratification factors as randomization.|The 1-sided null hypothesis that treatment with radium-223 dichloride does not result in superior SSE-FS to treatment with placebo in participant population was tested against the 1-sided alternative hypothesis that the treatment with radium-223 dichloride results in superior SSE-FS time to treatment the placebo. H0: SSE-FS Radium-223+Exemestane/Everolimus \<= SSE-FS Placebo+Exemestane/Everolimus, versus HA: SSE-FSRadium-223+Exemestane/Everolimus \> SSE-FS Placebo+Exemestane/Everolimus||1.102|0.720|0.4843
90969646|NCT02258451|181821109|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.968||||0.8438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.697|1.343||P-value was calculated using a 2-sided log-rank test stratified by the same stratification factors as randomization. No alpha adjustment for multiplicity was applied.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio (radium-223 dichloride / placebo) was calculated using Cox Proportional Hazards Model , stratified by the same stratification factors as randomization.|||1.343|0.697|0.8438
90969647|NCT02258451|181821110|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.962||||0.8811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.577|1.604||P-value was calculated using a 2-sided log-rank test stratified by the same stratification factors as randomization. No alpha adjustment for multiplicity was applied.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio (radium-223 dichloride / placebo) was calculated using Cox Proportional Hazards Model , stratified by the same stratification factors as randomization.|||1.604|0.577|0.8811
90969648|NCT02258451|181821111|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.928||||0.6537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.667|1.289||P-value was calculated using a 2-sided log-rank test stratified by the same stratification factors as randomization. No alpha adjustment for multiplicity was applied.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio (radium-223 dichloride / placebo) was calculated using Cox Proportional Hazards Model , stratified by the same stratification factors as randomization.|Participants with baseline WPS \> 8 were included in the analysis population but censored at Day 1.||1.289|0.667|0.6537
90969649|NCT02258451|181821112|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.884||||0.4496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.641|1.219||P-value was calculated using a 2-sided log-rank test stratified by the same stratification factors as randomization. No alpha adjustment for multiplicity was applied.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio (radium-223 dichloride / placebo) was calculated using Cox Proportional Hazards Model , stratified by the same stratification factors as randomization.|||1.219|0.641|0.4496
90936609|NCT00113880|181752144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.49||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.79||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||Population: 5-8yrs, within 180 days, PD2. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the unvaccinated controls represents the denominator.|Asthma/RAD event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.79|0.29|0.01
90936610|NCT00113880|181752145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.48||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.51||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||Population: all ages combined, within 180 days, PD1. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Any asthma or wheezing event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.51|0.45|0.01
90936611|NCT00113880|181752145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.51||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.56||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||Population: 5-8 yrs, within 180 days, PD1. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Any asthma or wheezing event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months||0.56|0.47|0.01
90936612|NCT00113880|181752145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.42||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.46||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||Population: 9-17 yrs, within 180 days, PD1. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Any asthma or wheezing event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.46|0.38|0.01
90936613|NCT00113880|181752145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.57||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.67||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||Population: 18-49yrs, within 180 days, PD1. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Any asthma or wheezing event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.67|0.49|0.01
90936614|NCT00113880|181752145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.51||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.76||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||Population: 5-8 yrs, within 180 days, PD2. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Any asthma or wheezing event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.76|0.33|0.01
90936615|NCT00113880|181752145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.42||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.45||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||Population: all ages, within 180 days, PD1. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Asthma/RAD event rates event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.45|0.39|0.01
90936616|NCT00113880|181752145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.42||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.47||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||Population: 5-8 yrs, within 180 days, PD1. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Asthma/RAD event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.47|0.38|0.01
90936617|NCT00113880|181752145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.37||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.41||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||Population: 9-17 yrs, within 180 days, PD1. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Asthma/RAD event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.41|0.34|0.01
90936618|NCT00113880|181752145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.58||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.68||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||Population: 18-49 yrs, within 180 days, PD1. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Asthma/RAD event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.68|0.49|0.05
90936619|NCT00113880|181752145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.28||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.52||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||Population: 5-8 yrs, within 180 days, PD2. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Asthma/Rad event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.52|0.15|0.01
90936620|NCT00113880|181752145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.75||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.85||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||Population: all ages, within 180 days, PD1. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Wheezing/SOB event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.85|0.66|0.01
90936621|NCT00113880|181752145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.83||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.97||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||Population: 5-8 yrs, within 180 days, PD1. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Wheezing/SOB event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.97|0.70|0.02
90936622|NCT00113880|181752145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.72||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.88||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||Population: 9-17 yrs, within 180 days, PD1. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Wheezing/SOB event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.88|0.58|0.01
90969650|NCT02258451|181821113|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.874||||0.3467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.157||P-value was calculated using a 2-sided log-rank test stratified by the same stratification factors as randomization. No alpha adjustment for multiplicity was applied.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio (radium-223 dichloride / placebo) was calculated using Cox Proportional Hazards Model , stratified by the same stratification factors as randomization.|||1.157|0.660|0.3467
90969651|NCT02258451|181821114|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.1||||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|18.4||P-value was calculated using a 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by the same stratification factors as randomization. No alpha adjustment for multiplicity was applied.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||18.4|-10.2|0.556
90969652|NCT02958007|181821153|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.544|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.544
90969653|NCT03021499|181821154|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.64|4.27|||Regression, Logistic|The model is based on a logistic regression with terms for treatment, baseline UPCR, biopsy class, MMF use at baseline and Region.||The primary endpoint was the proportion of subjects showing renal response at Week 52 as adjudicated by the Clinical Endpoints Committee.||4.27|1.64|<0.001
90969654|NCT03021499|181821155|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|2.7|||Log Rank|||||2.7|1.51|<0.001
90969655|NCT03021499|181821157|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.23||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|3.72|||Regression, Cox||The hazard ratios are from a Cox's proportional hazards model with terms for treatment arm, baseline UPCR, biopsy class, MMF use at baseline and Region|||3.72|1.34|0.002
90969656|NCT03021499|181821158|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|3.79||Week 24|Regression, Logistic||Week 24|Week 24||3.79|1.56|<0.001
90969657|NCT03021499|181821158|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|3.51||Week 52|Regression, Logistic||Week 52|Week 52||3.51|1.45|<0.001
90969658|NCT03021499|181821159|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.25|||Regression, Cox|||||1.25|0.53|0.349
90969659|NCT03021499|181821159|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.646|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.646
90969660|NCT03021499|181821162|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.62|2.6|||Log Rank|||||2.6|1.62|<0.001
90969661|NCT03021499|181821163|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Least Squares)|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.39|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|-1.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2||-1.9|-7.3|< 0.001
90969662|NCT03021499|181821163|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Least Squares)|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.39||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|-0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4||-0.7|-6.1|0.014
90969663|NCT03021499|181821163|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Least Squares)|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.39|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|-1.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8||-1.9|-7.3|< 0.001
90969664|NCT03021499|181821163|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Least Squares)|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.39||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12||-0.6|-6|0.017
90969665|NCT03021499|181821163|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Least Squares)|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16||0.3|-5.1|0.085
90969666|NCT03021499|181821163|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Least Squares)|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 20||-0.2|-5.7|0.035
90969667|NCT03021499|181821163|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Least Squares)|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.41||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24||0.6|-5|0.121
90969668|NCT03021499|181821163|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Least Squares)|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.42||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 30||0.6|-5|0.12
90969669|NCT03021499|181821163|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Least Squares)|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.43||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 36||0.5|-5.1|0.102
90969670|NCT03021499|181821163|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Least Squares)|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.44||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 42||0.5|-6.1|0.022
90969671|NCT03021499|181821163|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Least Squares)|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|-1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48||-1.3|-7|0.004
90969672|NCT03021499|181821163|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Least Squares)|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.46||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52||0.1|-5.7|0.055
90969673|NCT03021499|181821164|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Least Squares)|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.181||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2||-0.13|-1|0.011
90969674|NCT03021499|181821164|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Least Squares)|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.187|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4||-0.4|-1.13|<0.001
90969675|NCT03021499|181821164|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Least Squares)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.181|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8||-0.34|-1.05|<0.001
90969676|NCT03021499|181821164|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Least Squares)|-0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.196|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12||-0.55|-1.33|<0.001
90969677|NCT03021499|181821164|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Least Squares)|-1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.214|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16||-0.76|-1.6|<0.001
90969678|NCT03021499|181821164|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Least Squares)|-1.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.241|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|-0.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 20||-0.68|-1.63|<0.001
90969679|NCT03021499|181821164|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Least Squares)|-1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.222|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|-0.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24||-0.72|-1.59|<0.001
90969680|NCT03021499|181821164|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Least Squares)|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.284|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|-0.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 30||-0.46|-1.58|<0.001
90969681|NCT03021499|181821164|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Least Squares)|-1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.264|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|-0.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 36||-0.69|-1.73|<0.001
90969682|NCT03021499|181821164|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Least Squares)|-1.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.256|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|-0.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 42||-0.86|-1.87|<0.001
90969683|NCT03021499|181821164|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Least Squares)|-1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.256|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|-0.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48||-0.55|-1.56|<0.001
90936623|NCT00113880|181752145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.47||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.78||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||Population: 18-49 yrs, within 180 days, PD1. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Wheezing/SOB event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.78|0.27|0.01
90936624|NCT00113880|181752146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.0||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.82||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Encephalitis/encephalopathy event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.82|0.00|0.04
90936625|NCT00113880|181752147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.91||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple confidence intervals (CIs) were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox||Population: all ages, within 21 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the unvaccinated controls represents the denominator.|SAE event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.91|0.47|0.01
90936626|NCT00113880|181752147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.34||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.57||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment|Regression, Cox||Population: 18-49 yrs, within 21 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the unvaccinated controls represents the denominator.|SAE event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.57|0.21|0.01
90936627|NCT00113880|181752147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.77||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox||Population: all ages, within 42 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the unvaccinated controls represents the denominator.|SAE event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.77|0.47|0.01
90936628|NCT00113880|181752147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.33||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.48||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox||Population: 18-49 yrs, within 42 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the unvaccinated controls represents the denominator.|SAE event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.48|0.23|0.01
90936629|NCT00113880|181752148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.91||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple confidence intervals (CIs) were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox||Population: all ages, within 21 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the unvaccinated controls represents the denominator.|SAE event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.91|0.47|0.01
90969684|NCT03021499|181821164|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Least Squares)|-0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|-0.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52||-0.46|-1.52|<0.001
90936630|NCT00113880|181752148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.34||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.57||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment|Regression, Cox||Population: 18-49 yrs, within 21 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the unvaccinated controls represents the denominator.|SAE event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.57|0.21|0.01
90936631|NCT00113880|181752148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.77||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox||Population: all ages, within 42 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the unvaccinated controls represents the denominator.|SAE event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.77|0.47|0.01
90936632|NCT00113880|181752148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.33||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.48||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox||Population: 18-49 yrs, within 42 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the unvaccinated controls represents the denominator.|SAE event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.48|0.23|0.01
90936633|NCT00113880|181752149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.73||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple confidence intervals (CIs) were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox||Population: all ages, within 180 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the unvaccinated controls represents the denominator.|Hospitalization or death event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.73|0.57|0.01
90936634|NCT00113880|181752149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.43||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.51||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment|Regression, Cox||Population: 18-49 yrs, within 180 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the unvaccinated controls represents the denominator.|Hospitalization or death event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.51|0.36|0.01
90936635|NCT00113880|181752150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.29||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.33||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple confidence intervals (CIs) were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox||Population: all ages, within 180 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Hospitalization or death event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.33|0.26|0.01
90936636|NCT00113880|181752150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.16||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.18||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment|Regression, Cox||Population: 18-49 yrs, within 180 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Hospitalization or death event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.18|0.13|0.01
90936637|NCT00113880|181752151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.16||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.93||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox||Population: 18-49 within 21 days. The rate of events during the risk period represents the numerator; the rate of events during the control period represents the denominator.|Sinusitis event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.93|0.03|0.04
90936638|NCT00113880|181752151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.92||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox||Population: all ages, within 21 days. The rate of events during the risk period represents the numerator; the rate of events during the control period represents the denominator.|URI event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.92|0.40|0.02
90969685|NCT03021499|181821165|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.44||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|4.71||Week 24|Regression, Logistic||Week 24|Week 24||4.71|1.26|0.008
90936639|NCT00113880|181752151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.49||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.84||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||Population: 9-17 years, within 21 days. The rate of events during the risk period represents the numerator; the rate of events during the control period represents the denominator.|URI event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.84|0.28|0.01
90936640|NCT00113880|181752151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.29||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.78||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox||Population: 18-49 years, within 21 days. The rate of events during the risk period represents the numerator; the rate of events during the control period represents the denominator.|URI event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.78|0.10|0.02
90969686|NCT03021499|181821165|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|4.0||Week 52|Regression, Logistic||Week 52|Week 52||4.00|1.48|<0.001
90969687|NCT03021499|181821166|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean difference|-0.5||||0.373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.6||Week 24|Mixed Models Analysis||Week 24|Week 24||0.6|-1.6|0.373
90969688|NCT03021499|181821166|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean difference|-0.5||||0.277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.4||Week 52|Mixed Models Analysis||Week 52|Week 52||0.4|-1.4|0.277
90969689|NCT03021499|181821167|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.389||0.733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.21|2.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||SF-36 Change from Baseline Week 24||2.26|-3.21|0.733
90969690|NCT03021499|181821167|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Least Squares)|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.481||0.801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.29|2.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||SF-36 Change from Baseline at Week 52||2.54|-3.29|0.801
90936641|NCT00113880|181752151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.78||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.96||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||Population: all ages, within 21 days. The rate of events during the risk period represents the numerator; the rate of events during the control period represents the denominator.|Any acute resp. tract event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.96|0.63|0.02
90969691|NCT03021499|181821167|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Least Squares)|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.442||0.239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|4.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LupusPRO HRQOL Change from Baseline at Week 24||4.54|-1.14|0.239
90936642|NCT00113880|181752151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.69||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.97||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||Population: 9-17 years, within 21 days. The rate of events during the risk period represents the numerator; the rate of events during the control period represents the denominator.|Any acute resp. tract event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.97|0.50|0.03
90936643|NCT00113880|181752151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.41||||0.01||95.0|0.21|0.79||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox||Population: 18-49 years, within 21 days. The rate of events during the risk period represents the numerator; the rate of events during the control period represents the denominator.|Any acute resp. tract event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.79|0.21|0.01
90936644|NCT00113880|181752152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.95||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|3.34||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox||Population: all ages, within 42 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the unvaccinated controls represents the denominator.|Sinusitis event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||3.34|1.14|0.02
90936645|NCT00113880|181752152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Exact method or Cox model|||Irritable bowel syndrome event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months. If the control group has no event, the RR or HR is not estimable.||||0.02
90936646|NCT00113880|181752153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.3||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.57||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox||Population: all ages, within 42 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Asthma/RAD event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.57|0.15|0.01
90936647|NCT00113880|181752153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.33||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.92||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox||Population: 5-8, within 42 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Asthma/RAD event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.92|0.12|0.03
90936648|NCT00113880|181752153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.31||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.74||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox||Population: 9-17, within 42 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Asthma/RAD event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.74|0.13|0.01
90936649|NCT00113880|181752153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.99||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox||Population: all ages, within 42 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Pharyngitis event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.99|0.55|0.04
90936650|NCT00113880|181752153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.36||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.93||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox||Population: 18-49 years, within 42 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Pharyngitis event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.93|0.14|0.04
90936651|NCT00113880|181752153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.97||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox||Population: all ages, within 42 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Any acute respiratory tract event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.97|0.71|0.02
90969692|NCT03021499|181821167|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Least Squares)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.535||0.695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.62|2.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LupusPRO HRQOL Change from Baseline at Week 52||2.42|-3.62|0.695
90969693|NCT03021499|181821167|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Least Squares)|-1.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.439||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.72|0.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LupusPRO non-HRQOL Change from Baseline at Week 24||0.94|-4.72|0.19
91035567|NCT00968812|181957119|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation: assuming a difference between canagliflozin and glimepiride of 0.0% and a common standard deviation of 1.0%, and using a 2-sample, 1-sided t-test with a Type I error rate of 0.0125, and assuming a drop-out rate of 35% in 52 weeks, it was estimated that approximately 427 patients per group would provide 90% power to demonstrate non-inferiority with the non-inferiority margin of 0.3, comparing canagliflozin with glimepiride.|Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.109|0.085|||ANCOVA|||If the hypothesis of non-inferiority of canagliflozin to glimepiride at Week 52 was demonstrated (ie, upper bound of the 95% Confidence Interval of the treatment difference \[canagliflozin minus glimepiride\] was less than 0.3) and the upper bound was less than 0.0, the superiority of the canagliflozin dose relative to glimepiride would be concluded.||0.085|-0.109|
90936652|NCT00113880|181752153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.92||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox||Population: 9-17, within 42 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Any acute respiratory tract event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.92|0.57|0.01
90936653|NCT00113880|181752153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.36||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.61||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox||Population: all ages, within 42 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Any asthma or wheezing event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.61|0.22|0.01
90936654|NCT00113880|181752153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.33||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.68||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox||Population: 9-17, within 42 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Any asthma or wheezing event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.68|0.16|0.01
90936655|NCT00113880|181752153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.0||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.82|||Fisher Exact||Population: 18-49, within 42 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Any asthma or wheezing event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.82|0.00|0.03
90936656|NCT00113880|181752154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.91||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox||Population: all ages, within 180 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the unvaccinated controls represents the denominator.|Asthma/RAD event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.91|0.58|0.01
90936657|NCT00113880|181752154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.91||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox||Population: 9-17 years, within 180 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the unvaccinated controls represents the denominator.|Asthma/RAD event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.91|0.49|0.01
90936658|NCT00113880|181752154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.92||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox||Population: all ages, within 180 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the unvaccinated controls represents the denominator.|Any asthma or wheezing event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.92|0.61|0.01
90936659|NCT00113880|181752154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.91||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox||Population: 9-17 years, within 180 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the unvaccinated controls represents the denominator.|Any asthma or wheezing event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.91|0.52|0.01
90936660|NCT00113880|181752155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.41||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.51||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox||Population: all ages, within 180 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Asthma/RAD event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.51|0.33|0.01
90936661|NCT00113880|181752155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.37||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.55||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox||Population: 5-8 years, within 180 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Asthma/RAD event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.55|0.26|0.01
90936662|NCT00113880|181752155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.42||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.56||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox||Population: 9-17 years, within 180 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Asthma/RAD event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.56|0.31|0.01
90936663|NCT00113880|181752155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.29||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.91||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox||Population: 18-49 years, within 180 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Asthma/RAD event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.91|0.26|0.02
90936664|NCT00113880|181752155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.45||||0.01||95.0|0.37|0.55||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox||Population: all ages, within 180 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Any asthma or wheezing event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.55|0.37|0.01
90936665|NCT00113880|181752155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.49||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.67||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox||Population: 5-8 years, within 180 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Any asthma or wheezing event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.67|0.35|0.01
90936666|NCT00113880|181752155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.43||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.56||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox||Population: 9-17 years, within 180 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Any asthma or wheezing event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.56|0.33|0.01
90936667|NCT00113880|181752155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.46||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.85||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox||Population: 18-49 years, within 180 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Any asthma or wheezing event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.85|0.25|0.01
90936668|NCT00113880|181752156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.47||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.69||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple confidence intervals (CIs) were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox||Population: all ages, within 180 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Hospitalization or death event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.69|0.32|0.01
90936669|NCT00113880|181752156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.31||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.54||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment|Regression, Cox||Population: 18-49 yrs, within 180 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Hospitalization or death event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.54|0.17|0.01
90936670|NCT01838499|181752164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.051|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.067|0.169|||Mixed Models Analysis||MEDI8968 - placebo|Analysis of proportion of Responders for Physician's Global Assessment (PGA score 0, 1 or 2) at Week 12 - LOCF. Difference in proportions MEDI8968 - placebo. Wald asymptotic confidence limits calculated.||0.169|-0.067|>0.05
90936671|NCT01838499|181752165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.065|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.205|0.076|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference in proportions MEDI8968 - placebo. Wald asymptotic confidence limits calculated.||0.076|-0.205|>0.05
90936672|NCT01838499|181752166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Change from baseline (at week 12)|-0.03||||0.945|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.63|0.57|||ANCOVA||MEDI8968 - Placebo|Analysis of change from baseline (Week 12) estimated from ANCOVA model with tmt group and PGA stratum at randomisation included in the model and average daily pain at baseline as a covariate||0.57|-0.63|0.945
90936673|NCT03614923|181752167|SUPERIORITY|Statistical significance for the co-primary efficacy endpoints would be declared if both p-values for the tests of the individual hypotheses were \< 0.05.|Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.319||0.2364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|0.25||Testing was conducted in a hierarchical manner such that the comparison of etokimab Q4W versus placebo was conducted first. If the results of this comparison were statistically significant, the etokimab Q8W treatment arm would be compared to placebo.|General linear MMRM|||A general linear mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM) was used including the change from Baseline in NPS as dependent variable; treatment group, stratification factor, time (Weeks 4, 8, 12, and 16), treatment by stratification factor, and treatment by time interaction as fixed effect factors; Baseline NPS as covariate; and subject as random effect.||0.25|-1.01|0.2364
90936674|NCT03614923|181752167|SUPERIORITY|Statistical significance for the co-primary efficacy endpoints was to be declared if both p-values for the tests of the individual hypotheses were \< 0.05.|LS Mean Difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.316||0.2024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|0.22||Testing was conducted in a hierarchical manner such that the comparison of etokimab Q4W versus placebo was conducted first. If the results of this comparison were statistically significant, the etokimab Q8W treatment arm would be compared to placebo.|General linear MMRM|||A general linear mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM) was used including the change from Baseline in NPS as dependent variable; treatment group, stratification factor, time (Weeks 4, 8, 12, and 16), treatment by stratification factor, and treatment by time interaction as fixed effect factors; Baseline NPS as covariate; and subject as random effect.||0.22|-1.03|0.2024
90969694|NCT03021499|181821167|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Least Squares)|0.826|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.531||0.826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.67|3.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LupusPRO non-HRQOL Change from Baseline at Week 52||3.35|-2.67|0.826
90969695|NCT00495820|181821168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
90969696|NCT00495820|181821169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||=0.01
90971237|NCT01087905|181825171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.61|||Regression, Logistic|||"Null hypothesis: No difference in abstinence rates for participants receiving Two Weeks of Nicotine Replacement Therapy (NRT) versus Six Weeks of Nicotine Replacement Therapy (NRT). We hypothesized that Six Weeks of NRT would result in statistically significantly higher abstinence rates compared to Two Weeks of NRT.~The study was originally powered to detect at least a 6.4% increase in the abstinence rate due to an enhanced intervention (e.g., 6 wks NRT)."||1.61|0.98|.076
90936675|NCT03614923|181752168|SUPERIORITY|Statistical significance for the co-primary efficacy endpoints was to be declared if both p-values for the tests of the individual hypotheses were \< 0.05.|LS Mean Difference|-6.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.383||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.34|2.06||Testing was conducted in a hierarchical manner such that the comparison of etokimab Q4W versus placebo was conducted first. If the results of this comparison were statistically significant, the etokimab Q8W treatment arm would be compared to placebo.|General linear MMRM|||A general linear mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM) was used including the change from Baseline in SNOT-22 as dependent variable; treatment group, stratification factor, time (Weeks 4, 8, 12, and 16), treatment by stratification factor, and treatment by time interaction as fixed effect factors; Baseline SNOT-22 as covariate; and subject as random effect.||2.06|-15.34|0.1330
90936676|NCT03614923|181752168|SUPERIORITY|Statistical significance for the co-primary efficacy endpoints was to be declared if both p-values for the tests of the individual hypotheses were \< 0.05.|LS Mean Difference|-2.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.375||0.6464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|6.67||Testing was conducted in a hierarchical manner such that the comparison of etokimab Q4W versus placebo was conducted first. If the results of this comparison were statistically significant, the etokimab Q8W treatment arm would be compared to placebo.|General linear MMRM|||A general linear mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM) was used including the change from Baseline in SNOT-22 as dependent variable; treatment group, stratification factor, time (Weeks 4, 8, 12, and 16), treatment by stratification factor, and treatment by time interaction as fixed effect factors; Baseline SNOT-22 as covariate; and subject as random effect.||6.67|-10.70|0.6464
90936677|NCT01136733|181752172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.4|||=|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.68|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio between treatment groups and corresponding 95% CI was estimated using the stratified Cox regression model (stratified by hemoglobin and corrected serum calcium) with treatment as a factor.|Null hypothesis of no difference in PFS was analyzed using the stratified log-rank test with hemoglobin (less than or equal to 13 g/dL vs greater than 13 g/dL for males; and less than or equal to 11.5 g/dL vs greater than 11.5 g/dL for females) and corrected serum calcium (greater than or equal to 10 mg/dL vs less than 10 mg/dL) as stratification factors. Each null hypothesis was tested at a nominal alpha=0.05.||0.68|0.24|=0.0005
90936678|NCT01136733|181752172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61||||0.0479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.98|||Log Rank|||||0.98|0.38|0.0479
90936679|NCT01136733|181752172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.1209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.1|||Log Rank|||||1.10|0.39|0.1209
90936680|NCT01136733|181752173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.514|||=|0.0242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.299|0.884|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio between treatment groups and corresponding 95% CI was estimated using the stratified Cox regression model (stratified by hemoglobin and corrected serum calcium) with treatment as a factor.|Planned analyses were performed to test null hypothesis of treatment difference in OS at a nominal significance level of 0.05 (2-sided) using the stratified log-rank test using stratification factors.||0.884|0.299|=0.0242
90936681|NCT01136733|181752173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.684|||=|0.1181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.411|1.138|||Log Rank|||||1.138|0.411|=0.1181
90936682|NCT01136733|181752173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.751|||=|0.3157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.433|1.301|||Log Rank|||||1.301|0.433|=0.3157
90936683|NCT01136733|181752174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|7.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|22.5||Analysis performed after database lock. P-value was based on the 2-sided Fisher's exact P-value.|Fisher Exact||Rate ratio was based on the normal approximation.|||22.5|2.3|<0.0001
90936684|NCT01136733|181752174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|4.5||||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|14.7||Analysis performed after database lock. P-value was based on the 2-sided Fisher's exact P-value.|Fisher Exact|||||14.7|1.4|0.0067
90971238|NCT01087905|181825171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.75|||Regression, Logistic|||"Null hypothesis: No difference in abstinence rates for participants receiving NRT Monotherapy (Nicotine Patch Only) versus NRT Combination Therapy (Nicotine Patch plus Nicotine Gum). We hypothesized that Combination NRT would result in statistically significantly higher abstinence rates compared to NRT Monotherapy.~The study was originally powered to detect at least a 6.4% increase in the abstinence rate due to an enhanced intervention (e.g., Combination NRT)."||1.75|1.06|.017
90936685|NCT01136733|181752174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|1.6|||=|0.1007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.8||Analysis performed after database lock. P-value was based on the 2-sided Fisher's exact P-value.|Fisher Exact|||||2.8|0.9|=0.1007
90936686|NCT01882088|181752187|EQUIVALENCE|Data were analyzed using Statistica 10 software. Wilcoxon matched pairs test of non-parametric module was used to assess changes of the studied parameters after the course of fiber supplementation in comparison to baseline. A P value of 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Sample size calculation was performed using 1-Way ANOVA. Effect size calculation was performed for every comparison.||||||2e-06|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Data were analyzed using Statistica 10 software. Wilcoxon matched pairs test of non-parametric module was used to assess changes of the studied parameters after the course of fiber supplementation in comparison to baseline. A P value of 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Sample size calculation was performed using 1-Way ANOVA. Effect size calculation was performed for every comparison.||||0.000002
90936687|NCT01882088|181752188|EQUIVALENCE|Data were analyzed using Statistica 10 software. Wilcoxon matched pairs test of non-parametric module was used to assess changes of the studied parameters after the course of fiber supplementation in comparison to baseline. A P value of 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Sample size calculation was performed using 1-Way ANOVA. Effect size calculation was performed for every comparison.||||||0.2|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Data were analyzed using Statistica 10 software. Wilcoxon matched pairs test of non-parametric module was used to assess changes of the studied parameters after the course of fiber supplementation in comparison to baseline. A P value of 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Sample size calculation was performed using 1-Way ANOVA. Effect size calculation was performed for every comparison.||||0.2
90936688|NCT01882088|181752189|EQUIVALENCE|Data were analyzed using Statistica 10 software. Wilcoxon matched pairs test of non-parametric module was used to assess changes of the studied parameters after the course of fiber supplementation in comparison to baseline. A P value of 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Sample size calculation was performed using 1-Way ANOVA. Effect size calculation was performed for every comparison.||||||0.002415|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002415
90936689|NCT01882088|181752190|EQUIVALENCE|Data were analyzed using Statistica 10 software. Wilcoxon matched pairs test of non-parametric module was used to assess changes of the studied parameters after the course of fiber supplementation in comparison to baseline. A P value of 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Sample size calculation was performed using 1-Way ANOVA. Effect size calculation was performed for every comparison.||||||0.000438|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.000438
90936690|NCT01882088|181752191|EQUIVALENCE|Data were analyzed using Statistica 10 software. Wilcoxon matched pairs test of non-parametric module was used to assess changes of the studied parameters after the course of fiber supplementation in comparison to baseline. A P value of 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Sample size calculation was performed using 1-Way ANOVA. Effect size calculation was performed for every comparison.||||||0.023|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.023
90936691|NCT01882088|181752192|EQUIVALENCE|Data were analyzed using Statistica 10 software. Wilcoxon matched pairs test of non-parametric module was used to assess changes of the studied parameters after the course of fiber supplementation in comparison to baseline. A P value of 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Sample size calculation was performed using 1-Way ANOVA. Effect size calculation was performed for every comparison.||||||0.11|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.11
90936692|NCT01882088|181752193|EQUIVALENCE|Data were analyzed using Statistica 10 software. Wilcoxon matched pairs test of non-parametric module was used to assess changes of the studied parameters after the course of fiber supplementation in comparison to baseline. A P value of 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Sample size calculation was performed using 1-Way ANOVA. Effect size calculation was performed for every comparison.||||||0.008|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.008
90936693|NCT01882088|181752194|EQUIVALENCE|Data were analyzed using Statistica 10 software. Wilcoxon matched pairs test of non-parametric module was used to assess changes of the studied parameters after the course of fiber supplementation in comparison to baseline. A P value of 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Sample size calculation was performed using 1-Way ANOVA. Effect size calculation was performed for every comparison.||||||0.94|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.94
90936694|NCT01882088|181752195|EQUIVALENCE|Data were analyzed using Statistica 10 software. Wilcoxon matched pairs test of non-parametric module was used to assess changes of the studied parameters after the course of fiber supplementation in comparison to baseline. A P value of 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Sample size calculation was performed using 1-Way ANOVA. Effect size calculation was performed for every comparison.||||||0.37|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.37
90936695|NCT01882088|181752196|EQUIVALENCE|Data were analyzed using Statistica 10 software. Wilcoxon matched pairs test of non-parametric module was used to assess changes of the studied parameters after the course of fiber supplementation in comparison to baseline. A P value of 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Sample size calculation was performed using 1-Way ANOVA. Effect size calculation was performed for every comparison.||||||2e-05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.00002
90936696|NCT02186015|181752197|SUPERIORITY|A Wilcoxon signed rank test was performed.|||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||The null hypothesis is that there is 0 change in serum 25(OH)D from week 0 to week 8.||||<0.01
90936697|NCT02186015|181752198|SUPERIORITY|A Wilcoxon signed rank test was performed.||||||0.24|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||The null hypothesis is that there is 0 change in worst pain rating from week 0 to week 8.||||0.24
90936698|NCT02186015|181752199|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||The null hypothesis is that there is 0 change in fatigue score from week 0 to week 8.||||0.09
90936699|NCT02186015|181752200|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||The null hypothesis is that there is 0 change in mood score from week 0 to week 8.||||0.17
90971239|NCT01087905|181825171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.14|||Regression, Logistic|||"Null hypothesis: No difference in abstinence rates for participants receiving Standard Cessation Counseling (No CMAC) versus Standard Cessation Counseling plus CMAC. We hypothesized that Standard Counseling plus CMAC would result in statistically significantly higher abstinence rates compared to Standard Counseling Only.~The study was originally powered to detect at least a 6.4% increase in the abstinence rate due to an enhanced intervention (e.g., Standard Counseling plus CMAC)."||1.14|0.69|.343
90936700|NCT02186015|181752201|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||The null hypothesis is that there is 0 change in dominant handgrip strength from week 0 to week 8.||||0.50
90936701|NCT02186015|181752202|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||The null hypothesis is that there is 0 change in sleep quality assessment from week 0 to week 8.||||0.16
90936702|NCT02186015|181752203|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||The null hypothesis is that there is 0 change in functional assessment of cancer therapy-breast score from week 0 to week 8.||||0.75
90936703|NCT02186015|181752204|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||The null hypothesis is that there is 0 change in functional assessment of cancer therapy-endocrine score from week 0 to week 8.||||0.19
90936704|NCT00125619|181752205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Between group comparison of Robot (Lokomat) vs. Manual (therapist-assisted) training.||||0.72
90936705|NCT00125619|181752205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks|||Within group test for change pre- vs. post-training due to Robot (Lokomat) training.||||<.05
90936706|NCT00125619|181752205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks|||Within group test for change pre- vs. post-training due to Manual (Therapist Assisted) training.||||>.05
90936707|NCT00125619|181752206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Between-groups comparison of Robot vs. Manual training.||||>0.05
90936708|NCT00125619|181752206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks|||Within groups comparison (pre- vs. post-treatment) due to Manual (therapist-assisted) treatment.||||>.05
90936709|NCT00125619|181752206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks|||Within-groups comparison of pre- vs. post-treatment effects for Robot (Lokomat) training.||||<.05
90936710|NCT00125619|181752207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Between-groups comparison of robot vs. manual training.||||>.05
90936711|NCT00125619|181752207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks|||Within group comparison of pre- vs. post-treatment effects for manual training.||||>.05
90936712|NCT00125619|181752207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon signed ranks|||Within group comparison of pre- vs. post-treatment effects of robot training.||||>.05
90936713|NCT00125619|181752208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Between groups comparison of effects of robot vs. manual training.||||>.05
90936714|NCT00125619|181752208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks|||Within groups comparison of pre- vs. post-treatment effects of manual training.||||>.05
90936715|NCT00125619|181752208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks|||Within group comparison of pre- vs. post-training effects of robot training.||||<.05
90936716|NCT00125619|181752209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Between groups comparison of robot vs. manual training.||||>.05
90936717|NCT00125619|181752209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Within groups comparison for pre- vs. post-training effects of manual training.||||>.05
90936718|NCT00125619|181752209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Within group comparison for pre- vs. post-training effects of robot training.||||>.05
90936719|NCT00125619|181752210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Between groups comparison of robot vs. manual training.||||>.05
90936720|NCT00125619|181752210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks|||Within group comparison of pre- vs. post-training effects of manual training.||||>.05
90936721|NCT00125619|181752210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks|||Within group comparison of pre- vs. post-treatment effects of robot training.||||<.05
90936722|NCT00125619|181752211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Between groups comparison of robot vs. manual training.||||>.05
90936723|NCT00125619|181752211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks|||Within group comparison of pre- vs. post-training effects of manual training.||||<.05
90936724|NCT00125619|181752211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks|||Within group comparison of pre- vs. post-treatment effects of robot training.||||<.05
90936725|NCT01533181|181752212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.9||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|8.1|||Kaplan-Meier|||||8.1|1.9|0.0001
90936726|NCT01533181|181752215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.2|||Kaplan-Meier|||||2.2|0.6|0.71
90936727|NCT02720198|181752217|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.159|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.834||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.518|4.836|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.836|-2.518|0.53
90936728|NCT02720198|181752218|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.492|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.806||0.428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.101|2.388|||Mantel Haenszel|||||2.388|0.101|0.428
90936729|NCT02720198|181752219|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.451|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.724||0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.109|1.866|||Mantel Haenszel|||||1.866|0.109|0.272
90936730|NCT02720198|181752220|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.624|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.428||0.664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.484|2.236|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.236|-3.484|0.664
90936731|NCT02720198|181752221|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.199||0.292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|6.75|||t-test, 2 sided|||||6.750|-2.070|0.292
90936732|NCT02720198|181752222|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.063|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.525||0.884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|2.971|||Mantel Haenszel|||||2.971|0.380|0.884
90936733|NCT02720198|181752223|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.875|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.245|3.129|||Mantel Haenszel|||||3.129|0.245|0.905
90936734|NCT02720198|181752224|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.423||0.254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.211|4.492|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.492|-1.211|0.254
90936735|NCT02720198|181752225|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.693|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.52|0.134|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.134|-7.520|0.058
90936736|NCT02720198|181752226|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.236|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.158||0.913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.559|4.088|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.088|-4.559|0.913
90936737|NCT02720198|181752227|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.459|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.035||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|1.623|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.623|-2.540|0.660
90936738|NCT03897075|181752228|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.00311|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.00311
90936739|NCT03897075|181752229|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.00079|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.00079
90936740|NCT03897075|181752230|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09892|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.09892
90936741|NCT02592434|181752239|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-23.69||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.41|-7.97||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Normal approximation to the binomial|||In order to preserve type I error, each endpoint assessed sequentially using gate-keeping or step-down approach where statistical significance was claimed for the second endpoint only if the first endpoint in the sequence meets the requirements for significance.||-7.97|-39.41|0.0031
90936742|NCT02592434|181752240|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|19.52||||0.0166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.55|35.5||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Normal approximation to the binomial|||In order to preserve type I error, each endpoint assessed sequentially using gate-keeping or step-down approach where statistical significance was claimed for the second endpoint only if the first endpoint in the sequence meets the requirements for significance.||35.50|3.55|0.0166
90936743|NCT02592434|181752241|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|23.69||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.97|39.41||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Normal approximation to the binomial|||In order to preserve type I error, each endpoint assessed sequentially using gate-keeping or step-down approach where statistical significance was claimed for the second endpoint only if the first endpoint in the sequence meets the requirements for significance.||39.41|7.97|0.0031
90936744|NCT02592434|181752242|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|17.02||||0.0387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|33.17||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Normal approximation to the binomial|||In order to preserve type I error, each endpoint assessed sequentially using gate-keeping or step-down approach where statistical significance was claimed for the second endpoint only if the first endpoint in the sequence meets the requirements for significance.||33.17|0.88|0.0387
90936745|NCT02592434|181752243|SUPERIORITY||Ls mean difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.0292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|-0.01||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||In order to preserve type I error, each endpoint assessed sequentially using gate-keeping or step-down approach where statistical significance was claimed for the second endpoint only if the first endpoint in the sequence meets the requirements for significance. Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the Double-Blind baseline value.||-0.01|-0.22|0.0292
90936746|NCT02592434|181752245|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-1.71||||0.741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.82|8.41|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||at Week 20||8.41|-11.82|0.7410
90936747|NCT02592434|181752245|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-18.93||||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.22|-5.64|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||at Week 24||-5.64|-32.22|0.0052
90936748|NCT02592434|181752245|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-19.09||||0.0093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.48|-4.7|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||at Week 28||-4.70|-33.48|0.0093
90936749|NCT02592434|181752245|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-22.1||||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.35|-6.86|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||at Week 32||-6.86|-37.35|0.0045
90936750|NCT02592434|181752245|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-23.57||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.97|-8.17|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||at Week 36||-8.17|-38.97|0.0027
90936751|NCT02592434|181752245|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-25.08||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.69|-9.47|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||at Week 40||-9.47|-40.69|0.0016
90936752|NCT02592434|181752249|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|6.03||||0.301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|17.46|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||at Week 20||17.46|-5.40|0.3010
90936753|NCT02592434|181752249|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|17.54||||0.0108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.05|31.03|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||at Week 24||31.03|4.05|0.0108
90936754|NCT02592434|181752249|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|19.13||||0.0103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.51|33.74|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||at Week 28||33.74|4.51|0.0103
90936755|NCT02592434|181752249|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|23.53||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.27|38.8|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||at Week 32||38.80|8.27|0.0025
90936756|NCT02592434|181752249|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|25.04||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.52|40.56|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||at Week 36||40.56|9.52|0.0016
90936757|NCT02592434|181752249|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|23.69||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.97|39.41|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||at Week 40||39.41|7.97|0.0031
90936758|NCT02592434|181752251|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-1.15||||0.8119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.63|8.33|||Normal approximation for binomial|||Double Blind Baseline (Week 18)||8.33|-10.63|0.8119
90936759|NCT02592434|181752251|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|7.66||||0.2682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|21.21|||Normal approximation for binomial|||Week 20||21.21|-5.90|0.2682
90936760|NCT02592434|181752251|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|21.98||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.26|36.71|||Normal approximation for binomial|||Week 24||36.71|7.26|0.0034
90936761|NCT02592434|181752251|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|17.9||||0.0233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.44|33.36|||Normal approximation for binomial|||Week 28||33.36|2.44|0.0233
90936762|NCT02592434|181752251|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|25.16||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.39|40.93|||Normal approximation for binomial|||Week 32||40.93|9.39|0.0018
90936763|NCT02592434|181752251|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|20.91||||0.0099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.01|36.81|||Normal approximation for binomial|||Week 36||36.81|5.01|0.0099
90936764|NCT02592434|181752251|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|22.34||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.46|38.22|||Normal approximation for binomial|||Week 40||38.22|6.46|0.0058
90936765|NCT02592434|181752253|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|3.77||||0.6348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.79|19.33|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Double Blind Baseline (Week 18)||19.33|-11.79|0.6348
90936766|NCT02592434|181752253|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|2.62||||0.7525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.66|18.9|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 20||18.90|-13.66|0.7525
90936767|NCT02592434|181752253|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|14.05||||0.0908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|30.33|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 24||30.33|-2.23|0.0908
90936768|NCT02592434|181752253|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|7.02||||0.4026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.38|23.43|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 28||23.43|-9.38|0.4026
90936769|NCT02592434|181752253|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|18.37||||0.0258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.22|34.52|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 32||34.52|2.22|0.0258
90936770|NCT02592434|181752253|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|19.88||||0.0149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.88|35.88|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 36||35.88|3.88|0.0149
90936771|NCT02592434|181752253|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|19.88||||0.0149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.88|35.88|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 40||35.88|3.88|0.0149
90936772|NCT02592434|181752255|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-5.24||||0.515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|10.53|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Double Blind Baseline (Week 18)||10.53|-21.00|0.5150
90936773|NCT02592434|181752255|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|9.01||||0.24||95.0|-6.02|24.03|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 20||24.03|-6.02|0.2400
90936774|NCT02592434|181752255|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|8.93||||0.2557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.47|24.33|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 24||24.33|-6.47|0.2557
90936775|NCT02592434|181752255|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|8.97||||0.2481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.25|24.19|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 28||24.19|-6.25|0.2481
90936776|NCT02592434|181752255|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|16.03||||0.0356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|30.98|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 32||30.98|1.08|0.0356
90936777|NCT02592434|181752255|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|18.89||||0.0115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.24|33.54|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 36||33.54|4.24|0.0115
90936778|NCT02592434|181752255|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|11.87||||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.89|26.62|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 40||26.62|-2.89|0.1150
90936779|NCT02592434|181752255|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|13.29||||0.0744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|27.9|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 44||27.90|-1.31|0.0744
90936780|NCT02592434|181752257|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-16.15||||0.0207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.84|-2.46|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Double Blind Baseline (Week 18)||-2.46|-29.84|0.0207
90936781|NCT02592434|181752257|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|10.63||||0.1254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.97|24.24|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 20||24.24|-2.97|0.1254
90936782|NCT02592434|181752257|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|3.49||||0.635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.93|17.91|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 24||17.91|-10.93|0.6350
90936783|NCT02592434|181752257|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|2.1||||0.7732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|16.41|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 28||16.41|-12.20|0.7732
90936784|NCT02592434|181752257|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|6.35||||0.3782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.77|20.47|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 32||20.47|-7.77|0.3782
90936785|NCT02592434|181752257|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|11.98||||0.0936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|25.99|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 36||25.99|-2.02|0.0936
90936786|NCT02592434|181752257|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|9.17||||0.2017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.91|23.24|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 40||23.24|-4.91|0.2017
90936787|NCT02592434|181752257|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|12.02||||0.0858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|25.74|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 44||25.74|-1.69|0.0858
90936788|NCT02592434|181752259|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.0088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|-0.53|||MMRM|||Week 20; Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||-0.53|-3.60|0.0088
90936789|NCT02592434|181752259|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.28||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.17|-1.1|||MMRM|||Week 24: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||-1.10|-6.17|0.0054
90936790|NCT02592434|181752259|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.38|-1.32|||MMRM|||Week 28: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||-1.32|-6.38|0.0039
90936791|NCT02592434|181752259|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|-1.29|||MMRM|||Week 32: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||-1.29|-5.30|0.0022
90936792|NCT02592434|181752259|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-6.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.57||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.42|-3.0|||MMRM|||Week 36: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||-3.00|-9.42|0.0005
90936793|NCT02592434|181752259|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-6.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|-2.92|||MMRM|||Week 40: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||-2.92|-9.60|0.0006
90936794|NCT02592434|181752259|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-4.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.27||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.02|-1.71|||MMRM|||Week 44: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||-1.71|-7.02|0.0027
90936795|NCT02592434|181752261|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.0172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.32|-0.33|||MMRM|||Week 20: Analysis was based on Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the Double-Blind baseline value.||-0.33|-3.32|0.0172
90936796|NCT02592434|181752261|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.81|-1.01|||MMRM|||Week 24: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the Double-Blind baseline value.||-1.01|-5.81|0.0057
90936797|NCT02592434|181752261|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.94|-1.23|||MMRM|||Week 28: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the Double-Blind baseline value.||-1.23|-5.94|0.0038
90936798|NCT02592434|181752261|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.01||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.47|-1.36|||MMRM|||Week 32: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the Double-Blind baseline value.||-1.36|-5.47|0.0020
90936799|NCT02592434|181752261|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.74|-2.57|||MMRM|||Week 36: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the Double-Blind baseline value.||-2.57|-8.74|0.0007
90936800|NCT02592434|181752261|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.49||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.66|-2.58|||MMRM|||Week 40: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the Double-Blind baseline value.||-2.58|-8.66|0.0007
90936801|NCT02592434|181752261|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.99|-1.82|||MMRM|||Week 44:Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the Double-Blind baseline value.||-1.82|-6.99|0.0018
90936802|NCT02592434|181752263|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|1.47||||0.861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.96|17.9|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Double Blind Baseline (Week 18)||17.90|-14.96|0.8610
90971324|NCT00439946|181825393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.11||95.0||||p-value for: Total time|Wilcoxon signed rank|||Changes in mean times between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test, comparing the values at Baseline to values at Week 8. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values.||||0.11
90969697|NCT05885737|181821182|EQUIVALENCE|Testing of primary efficacy endpoint was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% significance level. The efficacy of difelikefalin was to be declared for this study if null hypothesis of no treatment difference in the primary efficacy analysis was rejected in favor of the alternative that participants randomized to difelikefalin experience significantly different itching compared to participants randomized to placebo. The null hypothesis was to be rejected if the 2-sided p value was less than (\<) 0.05.|Least square mean difference|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.223||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|-0.37|||MMRM|||The null hypothesis in this study was that there was no treatment difference in the primary efficacy analysis of the primary endpoint. The alternative hypothesis was that in participants randomized to difelikefalin there was a significant treatment difference in change in itching compared to participants randomized to placebo. The assessment was based on the mean change from baseline in the weekly mean of the daily 24-hour WI-NRS score at Week 4 of the DB period.||-0.37|-1.25|0.0003
90969698|NCT01870401|181821209|NON_INFERIORITY|The protocol identified a non-inferiority bound equal to 0.12 (12%).|||||<|0.025|||||||Farrington and Manning|||The primary safety hypothesis is as follows: H0: pControl - pDCB ≥ and H1: pControl (alpha) pDCB \< where p is the success rate in each arm and (alpha) is the non-inferiority bound.||||<0.025
90969699|NCT01870401|181821210|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0222|||||||Wald Test|One-sided Wald test based on model estimate of DCB treatment effect and subject as a random effect.||||||0.0222
90969700|NCT01192022|181821245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.55|9.29||Logistic regression model with treatment and pooled center as factors.|Regression, Logistic|||||9.29|2.55|<0.001
90936803|NCT02592434|181752263|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|10.12||||0.2173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.96|26.2|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 20||26.20|-5.96|0.2173
90936804|NCT02592434|181752263|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|12.94||||0.1135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.08|28.96|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 24||28.96|-3.08|0.1135
90936805|NCT02592434|181752263|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|11.51||||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.58|27.6|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 28||27.60|-4.58|0.1610
90936806|NCT02592434|181752263|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|7.42||||0.3571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.37|23.21|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 32||23.21|-8.37|0.3571
90936807|NCT02592434|181752263|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|14.44||||0.0716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|30.16|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 36||30.16|-1.27|0.0716
90936808|NCT02592434|181752263|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|14.4||||0.0746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|30.24|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 40||30.24|-1.43|0.0746
90936809|NCT02592434|181752263|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|14.37||||0.0773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|30.3|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 44||30.30|-1.57|0.0773
90969701|NCT03045861|181821295|OTHER||Emax|-1.822|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.333|1.31||||||||1.310|-2.333|
90969702|NCT03045861|181821295|OTHER||ED50|1020.755|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|100.786|1940.724||||||||1940.724|100.786|
90969703|NCT03045861|181821295|OTHER||s2e|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.095|0.306||||||||0.306|0.095|
90969704|NCT03045861|181821296|OTHER||Emax|-1.801|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.319|-1.283||||||||-1.283|-2.319|
90969705|NCT03045861|181821296|OTHER||ED50|55.572|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.565|107.579||||||||107.579|3.565|
90969706|NCT03045861|181821296|OTHER||s2e|0.206|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.097|0.314||||||||0.314|0.097|
90936810|NCT02592434|181752265|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-3.06||||0.5131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.21|6.1|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Double Blind Baseline (Week 18)||6.10|-12.21|0.5131
90936811|NCT02592434|181752265|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|6.87||||0.0876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|14.74|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 20||14.74|-1.01|0.0876
90936812|NCT02592434|181752265|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|6.79||||0.1561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.59|16.16|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 24||16.16|-2.59|0.1561
90936813|NCT02592434|181752265|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|2.58||||0.5795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.54|11.7|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 28||11.70|-6.54|0.5795
90936814|NCT02592434|181752265|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|5.4||||0.2435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.67|14.47|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 32||14.47|-3.67|0.2435
90936815|NCT02592434|181752265|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|9.52||||0.0758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|20.04|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 36||20.04|-0.99|0.0758
90936816|NCT02592434|181752265|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|10.91||||0.0464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|21.65|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 40||21.65|0.17|0.0464
90936817|NCT02592434|181752265|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|8.06||||0.1634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.27|19.38|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 44||19.38|-3.27|0.1634
90936818|NCT02592434|181752266|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-17.42||||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.88|-4.96|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Double Blind baseline (Week 18)||-4.96|-29.88|0.0062
90936819|NCT02592434|181752266|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-0.44||||0.9427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.34|11.47|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 20||11.47|-12.34|0.9427
90969707|NCT03045861|181821297|OTHER||Emax|-1.846|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.352|-1.34||||||||-1.340|-2.352|
90969708|NCT03045861|181821297|OTHER||ED50|32.415|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.687|60.143||||||||60.143|4.687|
90969709|NCT03045861|181821297|OTHER||s2e|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.094|0.305||||||||0.305|0.094|
90969710|NCT01549275|181821356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|degrees of freedom =1||Null hypothesis: There is no significant difference in the incidence of patients with rapidly proliferative cultured cells between two groups.||||< 0.005
90969711|NCT01549275|181821356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|degrees of freedom = 1||Null hypothesis: There is no significant difference in the incidence of patients with rapidly proliferative cultured HCC cells with or without concomitant cancer-associated fibroblasts between two groups.||||< 0.005
91035909|NCT03673670|181958512|OTHER|A hierarchical fixed-sequence testing strategy was employed to test the significance of the treatment effect for each of the two RPL554 doses against placebo, starting with the highest dose (6 mg). If a statistically significant difference was found at the 2-sided α level of 5%, the testing proceeded with the next highest dose. Otherwise, testing was stopped, and the remaining null hypotheses were accepted without testing.|GeoMean Ratio|1.02||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.997|1.043|||ANCOVA|||||1.043|0.997|0.096
90936820|NCT02592434|181752266|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-0.6||||0.9308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.03|12.84|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 24||12.84|-14.03|0.9308
90936821|NCT02592434|181752266|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|0.87||||0.8945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.03|13.78|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 28||13.78|-12.03|0.8945
90936822|NCT02592434|181752266|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|2.22||||0.7455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|15.64|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 32||15.64|-11.20|0.7455
90936823|NCT02592434|181752266|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|9.25||||0.1787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.23|22.72|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 36||22.72|-4.23|0.1787
90936824|NCT02592434|181752266|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|12.1||||0.0695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|25.17|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 40||25.17|-0.97|0.0695
90936825|NCT02592434|181752266|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|9.25||||0.1787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.23|22.72|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 44||22.72|-4.23|0.1787
90936826|NCT02592434|181752267|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-0.12||||0.9719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.74|6.5|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||||6.50|-6.74|0.9719
90936827|NCT02592434|181752269|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.1595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.08|0.35|||MMRM|||Week 20: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||0.35|-2.08|0.1595
90936828|NCT02592434|181752269|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-1.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96||0.1421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.32|0.48|||MMRM|||Week 24: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||0.48|-3.32|0.1421
90936829|NCT02592434|181752269|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-1.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.0552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.37|0.04|||MMRM|||Week 28: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||0.04|-3.37|0.0552
90936830|NCT02592434|181752269|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.0822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.17|||MMRM|||Week 32: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||0.17|-2.50|0.0822
90936831|NCT02592434|181752269|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-3.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.22||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.53|-1.43|||MMRM|||Week 36: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||-1.43|-6.53|0.0041
90936832|NCT02592434|181752269|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-3.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.22||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.12|-1.02|||MMRM|||Week 40: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||-1.02|-6.12|0.0085
90936833|NCT02592434|181752269|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-2.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.0384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.36|-0.13|||MMRM|||Week 44: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||-0.13|-4.36|0.0384
90936834|NCT02592434|181752271|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.2595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.19|||MMRM|||Week 20: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||0.19|-0.72|0.2595
90936835|NCT02592434|181752271|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.0674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|0.05|||MMRM|||Week 24: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||0.05|-1.42|0.0674
90936836|NCT02592434|181752271|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|0.03|||MMRM|||Week 28: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||0.03|-1.93|0.0580
90936837|NCT02592434|181752271|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.0751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|0.08|||MMRM|||Week 32: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||0.08|-1.67|0.0751
90936838|NCT02592434|181752271|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.0251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|-0.13|||MMRM|||Week 36: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||-0.13|-1.88|0.0251
90936839|NCT02592434|181752271|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.0331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|-0.09|||MMRM|||Week 40: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||-0.09|-2.07|0.0331
90936840|NCT02592434|181752271|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.0549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|0.02|||MMRM|||Week 44: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||0.02|-1.66|0.0549
90936841|NCT02592434|181752273|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.0353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|-0.04|||MMRM|||Week 20: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||-0.04|-1.04|0.0353
90936842|NCT02592434|181752273|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.0094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|-0.21|||MMRM|||Week 24: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||-0.21|-1.47|0.0094
90969712|NCT01549275|181821356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|degrees of freedom = 1||Null hypothesis: There is no significant difference in the incidence of patients with rapidly proliferative cultured cancer-associated fibroblasts alone between two groups.||||> 0.1
90936843|NCT02592434|181752273|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.0065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|-0.23|||MMRM|||Week 28: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||-0.23|-1.36|0.0065
90936844|NCT02592434|181752273|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|-0.34|||MMRM|||Week 32: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||-0.34|-1.43|0.0018
90969713|NCT01549275|181821357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|degrees of freedom = 1||null hypothesis: There is no significant difference in the incidence of change in AJCC TNM stages and survivals 6 months after plating of cells between patients with rapidly and slowly proliferative cultured cells.||||1
90969714|NCT01549275|181821357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.032|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|degrees of freedom = 1||Null hypothesis: There is no significant difference in the incidence of change in AJCC TNM stages and survivals 6 months after plating of cells between patients with rapidly and slowly proliferative cultured cells.||||0.032
90936845|NCT02592434|181752273|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-1.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.24|-0.61|||MMRM|||Week 36: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||-0.61|-2.24|0.0010
90936846|NCT02592434|181752273|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.42|-0.81|||MMRM|||Week 40: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||-0.81|-2.42|0.0002
90936847|NCT02592434|181752273|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-1.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|-0.71|||MMRM|||Week 44: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||-0.71|-2.44|0.0007
90936848|NCT02592434|181752275|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.02|||MMRM|||Week 20: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||-0.02|-0.83|0.0398
90936849|NCT02592434|181752275|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|-0.39|||MMRM|||Week 24: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||-0.39|-1.49|0.0011
90936850|NCT02592434|181752275|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.0131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|-0.18|||MMRM|||Week 28: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||-0.18|-1.47|0.0131
90936851|NCT02592434|181752275|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|-0.33|||MMRM|||Week 32: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||-0.33|-1.62|0.0039
90936852|NCT02592434|181752275|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.0711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.05|||MMRM|||Week 36: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||0.05|-1.10|0.0711
90936853|NCT02592434|181752275|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.0658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.04|||MMRM|||Week 40: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||0.04|-1.30|0.0658
90936854|NCT02592434|181752275|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.0154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|-0.15|||MMRM|||Week 44: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||-0.15|-1.31|0.0154
90969715|NCT01549275|181821357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|degrees of freedom = 1||Null hypothesis: There is no significant difference in the incidence of change in AJCC TNM stages and survivals 6 months after plating of cells between patients with rapidly and slowly proliferative cultured cells.||||0.048
90969716|NCT01549275|181821357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.176|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|degrees of freedom = 1||Null hypothesis: There is no significant difference in the incidence of change in AJCC TNM stages and survivals 6 months after plating of cells between patients with rapidly and slowly proliferative cultured cells.||||0.176
90969717|NCT01549275|181821357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|degrees of freedom = 1||Null hypothesis: There is no significant difference in the incidence of change in AJCC TNM stages and survivals 6 months after plating of cells between patients with rapidly and slowly proliferative HCC cultured cells.||||0.021
90969718|NCT01549275|181821357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.129|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|degrees of freedom = 1||Null hypothesis: There is no significant difference in the incidence of change in AJCC TNM stages and survivals 6 months after plating of cells between patients with rapidly and slowly proliferative cultured cells.||||0.129
90969719|NCT00122681|181821358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||1-Rate Ratio|92.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|79.9|98.3||||||Vaccine efficacy against CIN2+ associated with HPV-16 or HPV-18 (by PCR) in HPV DNA negative and seronegative subjects at baseline, using conditional exact method. The VE was defined as follows: VE = 1-Rate Ratio (RR), where RR = incidence rate in HPV Group (vaccine)/ incidence rate in HAV Group (control); Incidence rate = n/T(per 100); n= number of subjects reporting at least one event in each group and T(years) = sum of follow-up period (censored at the first occurrence of an event) expressed.||98.3|79.9|
90936855|NCT02592434|181752277|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.4777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.06|||MMRM|||Week 20: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||0.06|-0.12|0.4777
90936856|NCT02592434|181752277|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.01|||MMRM|||Week 24: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||0.01|-0.16|0.0779
90936857|NCT02592434|181752277|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.0324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|-0.01|||MMRM|||Week 28: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||-0.01|-0.19|0.0324
90936858|NCT02592434|181752277|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.1061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.02|||MMRM|||Week 32: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||0.02|-0.20|0.1061
90936859|NCT02592434|181752277|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.0572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.0|||MMRM|||Week 36: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||0.00|-0.24|0.0572
90936860|NCT02592434|181752277|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.0689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.01|||MMRM|||Week 40: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||0.01|-0.24|0.0689
90936861|NCT02592434|181752277|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.0292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|-0.01|||MMRM|||Week 44: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||-0.01|-0.22|0.0292
90936862|NCT02592434|181752279|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.77||0.3179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.72|11.31|||MMRM|||Global Health: Analysis based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the Double-Blind baseline value.||11.31|-3.72|0.3179
90936863|NCT02592434|181752279|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.27||0.4452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.23|11.78|||MMRM|||Physical Functioning: Analysis based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the Double-Blind baseline value.||11.78|-5.23|0.4452
90936864|NCT02592434|181752279|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|5.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.76||0.2539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.01|14.95|||MMRM|||Social Limitations: Emotional: Analysis based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the Double-Blind baseline value.||14.95|-4.01|0.2539
90936865|NCT02592434|181752279|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|7.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.56||0.1981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.86|18.3|||MMRM|||Social Limitations: Physical Subscale: Analysis based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the Double-Blind baseline value.||18.30|-3.86|0.1981
90936866|NCT02592434|181752279|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|8.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.36||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|16.94|||MMRM|||Bodily Pain: Analysis based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the Double-Blind baseline value.||16.94|-0.43|0.0620
90936867|NCT02592434|181752279|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.83||0.2291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.06|2.2|||MMRM|||Behavior: Analysis based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the Double-Blind baseline value.||2.20|-9.06|0.2291
90936868|NCT02592434|181752279|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9||0.353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.43|4.13|||MMRM|||Global Behavior: Analysis based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the Double-Blind baseline value.||4.13|-11.43|0.3530
90936869|NCT02592434|181752279|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.41||0.3114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.26|3.32|||MMRM|||Mental Health: Analysis based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the Double-Blind baseline value.||3.32|-10.26|0.3114
90936870|NCT02592434|181752279|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.46||0.8736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.18|9.61|||MMRM|||Self Esteem: Analysis based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the Double-Blind baseline value.||9.61|-8.18|0.8736
90936871|NCT02592434|181752279|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.48||0.4778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.18|6.72|||MMRM|||General Health Subscale: Analysis based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the Double-Blind baseline value.||6.72|-3.18|0.4778
90936872|NCT02592434|181752279|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.8909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.25|||MMRM|||Change in Health: Analysis based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the Double-Blind baseline value.||0.25|-0.28|0.8909
90936873|NCT02592434|181752279|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|8.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.81||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|20.55|||MMRM|||Emotional Impact on Parent: Analysis based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the Double-Blind baseline value.||20.55|-2.61|0.1270
90936874|NCT02592434|181752279|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-6.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.96||0.0944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.62|1.18|||MMRM|||Time Impact on Parent: Analysis based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the Double-Blind baseline value.||1.18|-14.62|0.0944
90936875|NCT02592434|181752279|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-8.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.23||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.03|-2.17|||MMRM|||Family Activities: Analysis based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the Double-Blind baseline value.||-2.17|-15.03|0.0095
90936876|NCT02592434|181752279|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.29||0.5474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.96|11.14|||MMRM|||Family Cohesion: Analysis based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the Double-Blind baseline value.||11.14|-5.96|0.5474
90969720|NCT00122681|181821358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||1-Rate Ratio|95.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|82.9|99.6||||||Vaccine efficacy against CIN2+ associated with HPV-16 (by PCR) in HPV DNA negative and seronegative subjects at baseline, using conditional exact method. The VE was defined as follows: VE = 1-Rate Ratio (RR), where RR = incidence rate in HPV Group (vaccine)/ incidence rate in HAV Group (control); Incidence rate = n/T(per 100); n= number of subjects reporting at least one event in each group and T(years) = sum of follow-up period (censored at the first occurrence of an event) expressed.||99.6|82.9|
90969721|NCT00122681|181821358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||1-Rate Ratio|86.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.7|98.7||||||Vaccine efficacy against CIN2+ associated with HPV-18 (by PCR) in HPV DNA negative and seronegative subjects at baseline, using conditional exact method. The VE was defined as follows: VE = 1-Rate Ratio (RR), where RR = incidence rate in HPV Group (vaccine)/ incidence rate in HAV Group (control); Incidence rate = n/T(per 100); n= number of subjects reporting at least one event in each group and T(years) = sum of follow-up period (censored at the first occurrence of an event) expressed.||98.7|39.7|
90936877|NCT02592434|181752279|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.03||0.0902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|7.52|||MMRM|||Physical Health Summary: Analysis based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the Double-Blind baseline value.||7.52|-0.56|0.0902
90936878|NCT02592434|181752279|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.67||0.6539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.07|2.57|||MMRM|||Psychosocial Health Summary : Analysis based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the Double-Blind baseline value.||2.57|-4.07|0.6539
90936879|NCT02592434|181752281|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.1894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.16|||MMRM|||Week 20: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||0.16|-0.80|0.1894
90936880|NCT02592434|181752281|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|-0.34|||MMRM|||Week 24: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||-0.34|-1.56|0.0026
90969722|NCT00122681|181821358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||1-Rate Ratio|90.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.1|96.9||||||Vaccine efficacy against CIN2+ for HPV-16 or HPV-18 (by PCR) in HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline, regardless of initial serostatus, using conditional exact method. The VE was defined as follows: VE = 1-Rate Ratio (RR), where RR = incidence rate in HPV Group (vaccine)/ incidence rate in HAV Group (control); Incidence rate = n/T(per 100); n= number of subjects reporting at least one event in each group and T(years) = sum of follow-up period (censored at the first occurrence of an event).||96.9|78.1|
90969723|NCT00122681|181821358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||1-Rate Ratio|92.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|79.3|98.2||||||Vaccine efficacy against CIN2+ for HPV-16 (by PCR) in HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline, regardless of initial serostatus, using conditional exact method. The VE was defined as follows: VE = 1-Rate Ratio (RR), where RR = incidence rate in HPV Group (vaccine)/ incidence rate in HAV Group (control); Incidence rate = n/T(per 100); n= number of subjects reporting at least one event in each group and T(years) = sum of follow-up period (censored at the first occurrence of an event).||98.2|79.3|
90936881|NCT02592434|181752281|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.25|||MMRM|||Week 28: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||-0.25|-1.50|0.0067
90936882|NCT02592434|181752281|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|-0.25|||MMRM|||Week 32: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||-0.25|-1.73|0.0091
90936883|NCT02592434|181752281|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.0632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|0.03|||MMRM|||Week 36: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||0.03|-1.09|0.0632
90969724|NCT00122681|181821358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||1-Rate Ratio|87.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.1|98.8||||||Vaccine efficacy against CIN2+ for HPV-18 (by PCR) in HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline, regardless of initial serostatus, using conditional exact method. The VE was defined as follows: VE = 1-Rate Ratio (RR), where RR = incidence rate in HPV Group (vaccine)/ incidence rate in HAV Group (control); Incidence rate = n/T(per 100); n= number of subjects reporting at least one event in each group and T(years) = sum of follow-up period (censored at the first occurrence of an event).||98.8|44.1|
90936884|NCT02592434|181752281|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.0306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|-0.07|||MMRM|||Week 40: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||-0.07|-1.35|0.0306
90936885|NCT02592434|181752281|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.0118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|-0.18|||MMRM|||Week 44: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||-0.18|-1.41|0.0118
90936886|NCT00147745|181752311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.5499||95.0|-0.1|0.19|||ANCOVA|||||0.19|-0.10|0.5499
90936887|NCT00147745|181752311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.5723||95.0|-0.23|0.13|||ANCOVA|||||0.13|-0.23|0.5723
90936888|NCT00147745|181752311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.091||0.3138||95.0|-0.09|0.28|||ANCOVA|||||0.28|-0.09|0.3138
90936889|NCT00147745|181752312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.065||0.2042||95.0|-0.05|0.22|||ANCOVA|||||0.22|-0.05|0.2042
90936890|NCT00147745|181752312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.083||0.6855||95.0|-0.2|0.14|||ANCOVA|||||0.14|-0.20|0.6855
90936891|NCT00147745|181752312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.085||0.1727||95.0|-0.05|0.29|||ANCOVA|||||0.29|-0.05|0.1727
90936892|NCT00147745|181752313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-44.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|53.17||0.4104||95.0|-152.8|64.1|||ANCOVA|||||64.1|-152.8|0.4104
90936893|NCT00147745|181752313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|69.98||0.8857||95.0|-132.6|152.9|||ANCOVA|||||152.9|-132.6|0.8857
90969725|NCT00122681|181821359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||1-Rate Ratio|94.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|87.7|98.4||||||Vaccine efficacy against CIN2+ associated with HPV-16 or HPV-18 (by PCR) in HPV DNA negative and seronegative subjects at baseline, using conditional exact method. The VE was defined as follows: VE = 1-Rate Ratio (RR), where RR = incidence rate in HPV Group (vaccine)/ incidence rate in HAV Group (control); Incidence rate = n/T(per 100); n= number of subjects reporting at least one event in each group and T(years) = sum of follow-up period (censored at the first occurrence of an event) expressed||98.4|87.7|
90936894|NCT00147745|181752313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-54.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|67.08||0.4226||95.0|-191.3|82.3|||ANCOVA|||||82.3|-191.3|0.4226
90936895|NCT00147745|181752314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.366||0.2286||95.0|-1.2|0.3|||ANCOVA|||||0.30|-1.20|0.2286
90936896|NCT00147745|181752314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.515||0.3184||95.0|-0.53|1.57|||ANCOVA|||||1.57|-0.53|0.3184
90936897|NCT00147745|181752314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.0613||95.0|-1.99|0.05|||ANCOVA|||||0.05|-1.99|0.0613
90936898|NCT00147745|181752315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0362||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0362
90936899|NCT02100189|181752333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Sensitivity|13.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.76|30.72|||Sensitivity||Exact Binomial confidence interval.|||30.72|3.76|
90936900|NCT02100189|181752334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Specificity|94.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.051|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|73.97|99.87|||Specificity||Exact binomial confidence interval|||99.87|73.97|
90936901|NCT00738400|181752429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.76|||<|0.0001||95.0|-9.03|-4.49|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA, baseline covariate, endpoint week 8 or LOCF. Factors: treatment, pooled centers. Ls mean at endpoint||-4.49|-9.03|<0.0001
90936902|NCT00738400|181752430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.71|||<|0.0001||95.0|-30.66|-10.76|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA, baseline covariate, endpoint week 8 or LOCF. Factors: treatment, pooled centers. Ls mean at endpoint||-10.76|-30.66|<0.0001
90936903|NCT00738400|181752431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.16|||<|0.0001||95.0|-37.48|-14.83|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA, baseline covariate, endpoint week 8 or LOCF. Factors: treatment, pooled centers. Ls mean at endpoint||-14.83|-37.48|<0.0001
90936904|NCT00738400|181752432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||Mantel-Haenszel Test||||0.0004
90936905|NCT00738400|181752433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.57||||0.0003||95.0|-23.8|-7.34|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA, baseline covariate, endpoint week 8 or LOCF. Factors: treatment, pooled centers. Ls mean at endpoint||-7.34|-23.80|0.0003
90936906|NCT00738400|181752434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.33|||<|0.0001||95.0|-37.24|-17.43|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA, baseline covariate, endpoint week 8 or LOCF. Factors: treatment, pooled centers. Ls mean at endpoint||-17.43|-37.24|<0.0001
90936907|NCT02255474|181752436|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.01|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons, treatment group p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||Both eyes used in analysis adjusting for correlation.||||<0.01
90971325|NCT00439946|181825394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.31||95.0||||p-value for: CAMPHOR Symptom Score|Wilcoxon signed rank|||Changes in mean TSQM and CAMPHOR scores between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test, comparing the values at Baseline to values at Week 8. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values.||||0.31
90969726|NCT00122681|181821359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||1-Rate Ratio|97.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.0|99.7||||||Vaccine efficacy against CIN2+ associated with HPV-16 (by PCR) in HPV DNA negative and seronegative subjects at baseline, using conditional exact method. The VE was defined as follows: VE = 1-Rate Ratio (RR), where RR = incidence rate in HPV Group (vaccine)/ incidence rate in HAV Group (control); Incidence rate = n/T(per 100); n= number of subjects reporting at least one event in each group and T(years) = sum of follow-up period (censored at the first occurrence of an event) expressed||99.7|91.0|
90969727|NCT00122681|181821359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||1-Rate Ratio|87.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.2|97.5||||||Vaccine efficacy against CIN2+ associated with HPV-18 (by PCR) in HPV DNA negative and seronegative subjects at baseline, using conditional exact method. The VE was defined as follows: VE = 1-Rate Ratio (RR), where RR = incidence rate in HPV Group (vaccine)/ incidence rate in HAV Group (control); Incidence rate = n/T(per 100); n= number of subjects reporting at least one event in each group and T(years) = sum of follow-up period (censored at the first occurrence of an event) expressed.||97.5|57.2|
90969728|NCT00122681|181821359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||1-Rate Ratio|93.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.3|97.5||||||Vaccine efficacy against CIN2+ for HPV-16 or HPV-18 (by PCR) in HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline, regardless of initial serostatus, using conditional exact method. The VE was defined as follows: VE = 1-Rate Ratio (RR), where RR = incidence rate in HPV Group (vaccine)/ incidence rate in HAV Group (control); Incidence rate = n/T(per 100); n= number of subjects reporting at least one event in each group and T(years) = sum of follow-up period (censored at the first occurrence of an event).||97.5|86.3|
90969729|NCT00122681|181821359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||1-Rate Ratio|95.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|88.5|98.9||||||Vaccine efficacy against CIN2+ for HPV-16 (by PCR) in HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline, regardless of initial serostatus, using conditional exact method. The VE was defined as follows: VE = 1-Rate Ratio (RR), where RR = incidence rate in HPV Group (vaccine)/ incidence rate in HAV Group (control); Incidence rate = n/T(per 100); n= number of subjects reporting at least one event in each group and T(years) = sum of follow-up period (censored at the first occurrence of an event).||98.9|88.5|
90936908|NCT02255474|181752437|SUPERIORITY||quadratic coefficient|0.02||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Individual subject eye length profiles were fit using quadratic equations as a function of gaze angle. The analysis of quadratic coefficients included treatment group, study year (categorical variable), and their interaction adjusted for age, study site, and ethnicity.||||0.05
90936909|NCT02255474|181752438|SUPERIORITY||regression coefficient|-0.12||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Models control for age, sex, axial length at baseline, race, treatment group, treatment group by race interaction.||This analysis looks at the three-year change in spherical equivalent refractive error for different eccentricities of peripheral defocus measured with contact lenses in place||||0.05
90936910|NCT02255474|181752439|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.62||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|||Both eyes used in the analysis controlling for the correlation.||||0.05
90936911|NCT01232569|181752559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|29.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.0|37.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysis adjusted for the randomization stratification factors applied at Baseline (region and weight category).||||37.0|22.0|<0.001
90936912|NCT04044352|181752577|OTHER|Likelihood ratio test was the statistical test.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.06|||Wald Chi-Square||A two-fold increase in HAI pre-challenge titer (i.e. one unit increase in log-2 titer) corresponds to a 19% decrease in the odds of developing MMID during the study challenge period (Day 2 through Day 8).|Pre-challenge (baseline) HAI geometric mean titer was log-2 transformed and treated as a continuous variable in the model.||1.06|0.62|0.126
90936913|NCT00409006|181752672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0618||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.0618
90936914|NCT00409006|181752673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.369||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|Used the Wald Chi-squared statistic from a logistic regression analysis.||||||0.369
90936915|NCT02123797|181752677|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.03||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|3.06||Conditional logistic regression adjusted for the matched study design, sex, age, and histology.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio comparing Multidisciplinary Clinic patients with and without invasive stage confirmation (numerator=108/70) to Serial Care patients with and without invasive stage confirmation (denominator=168/180) after adjustment for matched study.|||3.06|1.35|0.0007
90936916|NCT02123797|181752678|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.87||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|2.8||Conditional logistic regression adjusted for the matched study design, sex, age, and histology.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio comparing Multidisciplinary Clinic patients with and without invasive mediastinal staging (numerator=91/87) to Serial Care patients with and without mediastinal invasive staging (denominator=126/222) after adjustment for matched study.|||2.80|1.25|0.0022
90936917|NCT02123797|181752679|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.12||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.67|5.85||Conditional logistic regression adjusted for the matched study design, sex, age, and histology.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio comparing Multidisciplinary Clinic patients with and without bi-modal staging (numerator=161/17) to Serial Care patients with and without bi-modal staging (denominator=267/81) after adjustment for matched study design.|||5.85|1.67|0.0004
90936918|NCT02123797|181752680|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|3.36||Conditional logistic regression adjusted for the matched study design, sex, age, and histology.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio comparing Multidisciplinary Clinic patients with and without tri-modal staging (numerator=99/79) to Serial Care patients with and without tri-modal staging (denominator=132/216) after adjustment for matched study design.|||3.36|1.50|<0.0001
90936919|NCT02123797|181752681|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.58||||0.0366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.665|3.996||Conditional logistic regression adjusted for the matched study design, sex, age, and histology.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio comparing Multidisciplinary Clinic patients with and without invasive staging (numerator=108/70) to Serial Care patients not in conference with and without invasive staging (denominator=122/150) after adjustment for matched study design.|||3.996|1.665|0.0366
90936920|NCT02123797|181752681|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.621||||0.0779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.473|4.665||Conditional logistic regression adjusted for the matched study design, sex, age, and histology.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio comparing Serial Care patients in conference with and without invasive staging (numerator=46/30) to Serial Care patients not in conference with and without invasive staging (denominator=122/150) after adjustment for matched study design.|||4.665|1.473|0.0779
90936921|NCT02123797|181752682|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.358||||0.0703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.536|3.621||Conditional logistic regression adjusted for the matched study design, sex, age, and histology.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio comparing Multidisciplinary Clinic patients with and without mediastinal staging (numerator=91/87) to Serial Care patients not in conference with and without mediastinal staging (denominator=86/186) after adjustment for matched study.|||3.621|1.536|0.0703
90969730|NCT00122681|181821359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||1-Rate Ratio|87.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.2|97.6||||||Vaccine efficacy against CIN2+ for HPV-18 (by PCR) in HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline, regardless of initial serostatus, using conditional exact method. The VE was defined as follows: VE = 1-Rate Ratio (RR), where RR = incidence rate in HPV Group (vaccine)/ incidence rate in HAV Group (control); Incidence rate = n/T(per 100); n= number of subjects reporting at least one event in each group and T(years) = sum of follow-up period (censored at the first occurrence of an event).||97.6|59.2|
90936922|NCT02123797|181752682|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.535||||0.0631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.446|4.444||Conditional logistic regression adjusted for the matched study design, sex, age, and histology.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio comparing Serial Care patients in conference with and without mediastinal staging (numerator=40/36) to Serial Care patients not in conference with and without mediastinal staging (denominator=86/186) after adjustment for matched study.|||4.444|1.446|0.0631
90936923|NCT02123797|181752683|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.191||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.671|6.093||Conditional logistic regression adjusted for the matched study design, sex, age, and histology.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio comparing Multidisciplinary Clinic patients with and without bi-modal staging (numerator=161/17) to Serial Care patients not in conference with and without bi-modal staging (denominator=205/67) after adjustment for matched study.|||6.093|1.671|0.0010
90936924|NCT02123797|181752683|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.103||||0.1972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.526|2.314||Conditional logistic regression adjusted for the matched study design, sex, age, and histology.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio comparing Serial Care patients in conference with and without bi-modal staging (numerator=62/14) to Serial Care patients not in conference with and without bi-modal staging (denominator=205/67) after adjustment for matched study.|||2.314|0.526|0.1972
90936925|NCT02123797|181752684|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.739||||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.785|4.203|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio comparing Multidisciplinary Clinic patients with and without tri-modal staging (numerator=99/79) to Serial Care patients not in conference with and without tri-modal staging (denominator=93/179) after adjustment for matched study.|||4.203|1.785|0.0055
90936926|NCT02123797|181752684|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.242||||0.2572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.287|3.905||Conditional logistic regression adjusted for the matched study design, sex, age, and histology.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio comparing Serial Care patients in conference with and without tri-modal staging (numerator=39/37) to Serial Care patients not in conference with and without tri-modal staging (denominator=93/179) after adjustment for matched study.|||3.905|1.287|0.2572
90936927|NCT02123797|181752685|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.01||||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|3.25||Conditional logistic regression adjusted for the matched study design, sex, age, and histology.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio comparing MD patients with and without stage appropriate treatment (numerator=140/33) to SC patients with and without stage appropriate treatment (denominator=232/106) after adjustment for matched study.|||3.25|1.24|0.0045
90936928|NCT02123797|181752686|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.249||||0.0474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.368|3.699||Conditional logistic regression adjusted for the matched study design, sex, age, and histology.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio comparing MD patients with and without stage appropriate treatment (numerator=140/33) to SC patients not in conference with and without stage appropriate treatment (denominator=174/91) after adjustment for matched study.|We examined treatment selection practices with or without MD care in a single healthcare system.||3.699|1.368|0.0474
90936929|NCT02123797|181752686|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.751||||0.6353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|3.37||Conditional logistic regression adjusted for the matched study design, sex, age, and histology.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio comparing SC patients in conference with and without stage appropriate treatment (numerator=58/15) to SC patients not in conference with and without stage appropriate treatment (denominator=174/91) after adjustment for matched study.|||3.370|0.910|0.6353
90936930|NCT02123797|181752688|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.955||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|5.747||Conditional logistic regression adjusted for the matched study design, sex, age, and histology.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio comparing MD patients with and without concordance to recommendations (numerator=140/37) to SC conference patients with and without concordance to recommendations (denominator=45/30) after adjustment for matched study design.|||5.747|1.520|0.0014
90936931|NCT02123797|181752689|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.093||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.519|6.299||Conditional logistic regression adjusted for the matched study design, sex, age, and histology.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio comparing MD patients with and without concordance to recommendations (numerator=145/32) to SC conference patients with and without concordance to recommendations (denominator=49/26) after adjustment for matched study design.|||6.299|1.519|0.0019
90936932|NCT02123797|181752690|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|40.892||||0.0499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.002|999.999||Conditional logistic regression adjusted for the matched study design, sex, age, and histology.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio comparing MD patients with and without concordance to recommendations (numerator=174/3) to SC conference patients with and without concordance to recommendations (denominator=71/4) after adjustment for matched study design.|||999.999|1.002|0.0499
90936933|NCT02123797|181752691|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.663||||0.0263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.123|6.319||Conditional logistic regression adjusted for the matched study design, sex, age, and histology.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio comparing MD patients with and without concordance to recommendations (numerator=158/19) to SC conference patients with and without concordance to recommendations (denominator=60/15) after adjustment for matched study design.|||6.319|1.123|0.0263
90969731|NCT00122681|181821384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.798||||0.391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.476|1.337|||Chi-squared|||Hazard ratio of anti-HPV-16 GMTs at Month 7 (by ELISA) in subjects without 6-month persistent infection compared to subjects with 6-month persistent infection||1.337|0.476|0.3910
90969732|NCT00122681|181821386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.778||||0.3796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.444|1.362|||Chi-squared|||Hazard ratio of anti-HPV-16 GMTs at Month 7 (by ELISA) in subjects without 12-month persistent infection compared to subjects with 12-month persistent infection.||1.362|0.444|0.3796
90969733|NCT00122681|181821388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61||||0.1035||95.0|0.337|1.106|||Chi-squared|||Hazard ratio of anti-HPV-18 GMTs at Month 7 (by ELISA) in subjects without 6-month persistent infection compared to subjects with 6-month persistent infection.||1.106|0.337|0.1035
90969734|NCT00122681|181821390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.635||||0.2111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.312|1.293|||Chi-squared|||Hazard ratio of anti-HPV-18 GMTs at Month 7 (by ELISA) in subjects without 12-month persistent infection compared to subjects with 12-month persistent infection.||1.293|0.312|0.2111
90936934|NCT02123797|181752692|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.566||||0.1503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.711|9.269||Conditional logistic regression adjusted for the matched study design, sex, age, and histology.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio comparing MD patients with and without concordance to recommendations (numerator=87/14) to SC conference patients with and without concordance to recommendations (denominator=38/8) after adjustment for matched study design.|||9.269|0.711|0.1503
90936935|NCT02123797|181752705|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0042|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Time from Initial Detection of Lesion to Diagnostic Biopsy||||0.0042
90936936|NCT02123797|181752705|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0805|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Time from Initial Detection of Lesion to Non-invasive Staging Test||||0.0805
90936937|NCT02123797|181752705|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0073|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Time from Initial Detection of Lesion to Invasive Staging Test||||0.0073
90936938|NCT02123797|181752705|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0579|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Time from Initial Detection of Lesion to Definitive Treatment||||0.0579
90936939|NCT02123797|181752706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0146|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Time from Initial Detection of Lesion to Diagnostic Biopsy||||0.0146
90936940|NCT02123797|181752706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Time from Initial Detection of Lesion to Non-invasive Staging Test||||0.16
90936941|NCT02123797|181752706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0014|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Time from Initial Detection of Lesion to Invasive Staging Test||||0.0014
90936942|NCT02123797|181752706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0037|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Time from Initial Detection of Lesion to Definitive Treatment||||0.0037
90936943|NCT02123797|181752713|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7506|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.7506
90936944|NCT02123797|181752713|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.36|||Regression, Cox||Comparison is Multidisciplinary/Serial Care.|||1.36|0.85|0.54
90936945|NCT02123797|181752714|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4847|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.4847
90936946|NCT02123797|181752714|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.43|||Regression, Cox||Comparison is Multidisciplinary/Serial Care Patients Not Presented in Conference|||1.43|0.87|0.51
90936947|NCT02123797|181752714|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.67|||Regression, Cox||Comparison is Serial Care Patients Presented in Conference/Serial Care Patients Not Presented in Conference|||1.67|0.84|0.51
90936948|NCT02123797|181752715|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9874|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.9874
90936949|NCT02123797|181752715|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.29|||Regression, Cox||Comparison is Multidisciplinary/Serial Care|||1.29|0.82|0.80
90969735|NCT00783094|181821406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.4|||ANCOVA|With effects for treatment, prior alpha blocker use (yes/no), and baseline value.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Tadalafil 2.5 mg - Placebo|||0.4|-1.8|0.201
90969736|NCT00783094|181821406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.1|||ANCOVA|With effects for treatment, prior alpha blocker use (yes/no) and baseline value.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Tadalafil 5 mg - Placebo.|||0.1|-2.2|0.062
90936950|NCT02123797|181752716|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5377|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.5377
90936951|NCT02123797|181752716|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.34|||Regression, Cox||Comparison is Multidisciplinary/Serial Care Patients Not Presented in Conference|||1.34|0.83|0.73
90936952|NCT02123797|181752716|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.57|||Regression, Cox||Comparison is Serial Care Patients Presented in Conference/Serial Care Patients Not Presented in Conference|||1.57|0.82|0.73
90936953|NCT01375777|181752767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-47.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.52|-39.93||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and the stratification factor.|Placebo is the reference|The null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-39.93|-54.52|<0.001
90969737|NCT00783094|181821407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.2|||ANCOVA|With effects for treatment, prior alpha blocker use (yes/no) and baseline value.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Tadalafil 2.5 mg - Placebo.|||0.2|-0.7|0.356
90969738|NCT00783094|181821407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.3|||ANCOVA|With effects for treatment, prior alpha blocker use (yes/no) and baseline value.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Tadalafil 5 mg - Placebo.|||0.3|-0.6|0.487
90969739|NCT00783094|181821408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.3|||ANCOVA|With effects for treatment, prior alpha blocker use (yes/no) and baseline value.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Tadalafil 2.5 mg - Placebo|||0.3|-1.3|0.228
90936954|NCT01375777|181752767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-40.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.66|<|0.001||95.0|-47.38|-32.95||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and the stratification factor.|Placebo is the reference|The null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-32.95|-47.38|<0.001
90936955|NCT01375777|181752767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-32.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.68|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.53|-30.02||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and the stratification factor.|Placebo is the reference|The null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-30.02|-44.53|<0.001
90936956|NCT01375777|181752767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-52.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.62|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.67|-45.38||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and the stratification factor.|Placebo is the reference|The null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-45.38|-59.67|<0.001
90936957|NCT01375777|181752767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-47.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.62|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.89|-40.6||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and the stratification factor.|Placebo is the reference|The null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-40.60|-54.89|<0.001
90936958|NCT01375777|181752767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-43.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.62|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.71|-36.42||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and the stratification factor.|Placebo is the reference|The null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-36.42|-50.71|<0.001
90936959|NCT01375777|181752768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-65.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.3|-55.6||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and the stratification factor.|Placebo is the reference|||-55.6|-76.3|<0.001
90936960|NCT01375777|181752768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-62.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.3|<|0.001||95.0|-73.2|-52.2||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and the stratification factor.|Placebo is the reference|||-52.2|-73.2|<0.001
90936961|NCT01375777|181752768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-52.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.7|-41.9||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and the stratification factor.|Placebo is the reference|||-41.9|-62.7|<0.001
90936962|NCT01375777|181752768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-72.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-82.2|-62.4||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and the stratification factor.|Placebo is the reference|||-62.4|-82.2|<0.001
90936963|NCT01375777|181752768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-63.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.9|-54.0||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and the stratification factor.|Placebo is the reference|||-54.0|-73.9|<0.001
90936964|NCT01375777|181752768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-60.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.7|-50.9||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and the stratification factor.|Placebo is the reference|||-50.9|-70.7|<0.001
90936965|NCT01375777|181752769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-45.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.33|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.72|-38.58||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and the stratification factor.|Placebo is the reference|||-38.58|-51.72|<0.001
90936966|NCT01375777|181752769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-36.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.29|<|0.001||95.0|-43.29|-30.29||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and the stratification factor.|Placebo is the reference|||-30.29|-43.29|<0.001
90936967|NCT01375777|181752769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-35.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.31|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.59|-28.52||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and the stratification factor.|Placebo is the reference|||-28.52|-41.59|<0.001
90969740|NCT00783094|181821408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.1|||ANCOVA|With effects for treatment, prior alpha blocker use (yes/no) and baseline value.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Tadalafil 5 mg - Placebo.|||-0.1|-1.7|0.033
90969741|NCT00783094|181821409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1|||ANCOVA|With effects for treatment,BPH severity (moderate/severe), prior alpha blocker use (yes/no), and baseline value.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Tadalafil 2.5 mg - Placebo.|||0.1|-0.4|0.249
90969742|NCT00783094|181821409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.0|||ANCOVA|With effects for treatment,BPH severity (moderate/severe), prior alpha blocker use (yes/no) and baseline value.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Tadalafil 5 mg - Placebo.|||-0.0|-0.6|0.022
90969743|NCT00783094|181821410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.3|||ANCOVA|with effects for treatment,BPH severity (moderate/severe), prior alpha blocker use (yes/no), and baseline value.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Tadalafil 2.5 mg - Placebo.|||0.3|-0.4|0.904
90969744|NCT00783094|181821410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.3|||ANCOVA|With effects for treatment, BPH severity(moderate/severe), prior alpha blocker use (yes/no), and baseline value.||||0.3|-0.4|0.800
90936968|NCT01375777|181752769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-47.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.33|-40.89||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and the stratification factor.|Placebo is the reference|||-40.89|-53.33|<0.001
90936969|NCT01375777|181752769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-41.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.11|-35.67||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and the stratification factor.|Placebo is the reference|||-35.67|-48.11|<0.001
90936970|NCT01375777|181752769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-37.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.92|-31.47||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and the stratification factor.|Placebo is the reference|||-31.47|-43.92|<0.001
90936971|NCT01375777|181752770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-44.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.45|-37.94||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and the stratification factor.|Placebo is the reference|||-37.94|-50.45|<0.001
90936972|NCT01375777|181752770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-35.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.13|<|0.001||95.0|-42.06|-29.69||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and the stratification factor.|Placebo is the reference|||-29.69|-42.06|<0.001
90936973|NCT01375777|181752770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-32.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.55|-26.11||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and the stratification factor.|Placebo is the reference|||-26.11|-38.55|<0.001
90936974|NCT01375777|181752770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-42.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.63|-36.32||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and the stratification factor.|Placebo is the reference|||-36.32|-48.63|<0.001
90936975|NCT01375777|181752770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-37.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.07|-31.76||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and the stratification factor.|Placebo is the reference|||-31.76|-44.07|<0.001
90936976|NCT01375777|181752770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-33.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.38|-27.07||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and the stratification factor.|Placebo is the reference|||-27.07|-39.38|<0.001
90936977|NCT01375777|181752771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-37.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.01|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.43|-31.54||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and the stratification factor.|Placebo is the reference|||-31.54|-43.43|<0.001
90936978|NCT01375777|181752771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-31.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.98|<|0.001||95.0|-37.79|-26.04||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and the stratification factor.|Placebo is the reference|||-26.04|-37.79|<0.001
90936979|NCT01375777|181752771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-28.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.99|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.77|-22.95||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and the stratification factor.|Placebo is the reference|||-22.95|-34.77|<0.001
90936980|NCT01375777|181752771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-36.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.89|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.29|-30.88||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and the stratification factor.|Placebo is the reference|||-30.88|-42.29|<0.001
90969745|NCT00783094|181821411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.2|||ANCOVA|With effects for treatment, BPH severity (moderate/severe), prior alpha blocker use (yes/no), and baseline value.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Tadalafil 2.5 mg - Placebo.|||0.2|-1.5|0.147
90969746|NCT00783094|181821411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.1|||ANCOVA|With effects for treatment, BPH severity (moderate/severe), prior alpha blocker use (yes/no), and baseline value.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Tadalafil 5 mg - Placebo.|||0.1|-1.6|0.094
90969747|NCT00783094|181821414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.342||95.0||||P-Value for systolic blood pressure.|Wilcoxin rank-sum test|||||||0.342
90969748|NCT00783094|181821414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.127||95.0||||P-Value for systolic blood pressure.|Wilcoxin rank sum test|||||||0.127
90969749|NCT00783094|181821414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.705||95.0||||P-Value for diastolic blood pressure.|Wilcoxin rank-sum test|||||||0.705
90969750|NCT00783094|181821414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.173||95.0||||P-Value for diastolic blood pressure.|Wilcoxin rank-sum test|||||||0.173
90969751|NCT00783094|181821415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.606||95.0|||||Wilcoxin rank-sum test|||||||0.606
90969752|NCT00783094|181821415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.149||95.0|||||Wilcoxin rank-sum test|||||||0.149
90969753|NCT00783094|181821416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.428||95.0|||||Wilcoxin rank-sum test|||||||0.428
90969754|NCT00783094|181821416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.426||95.0|||||Wilcoxin rank-sum test|||||||0.426
90969755|NCT00783094|181821417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0|||||Wilcoxin rank-sum|||||||0.060
90969756|NCT00783094|181821417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.212||95.0|||||Wilcoxin rank-sum|||||||0.212
90969757|NCT01324232|181821429|SUPERIORITY||Pearson correlation|0.0019|||=|0.9827|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis that the true correlation between the change from Baseline PRS scores and the DM plasma concentration was equal to zero and was tested using a 2-sided test at the 5% level of significance within active treatment groups. The regression line was fitted using change from baseline in average PRS during Day 57-84 as the dependent variable and the average of log-transformed DM Plasma Concentration at Day 22 and Day 50 as the independent variable.||||= 0.9827
90969758|NCT01324232|181821431|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.8869|||||||ANCOVA|||Test of dose trend (overall P value)||||=0.8869
90969759|NCT01324232|181821431|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46|=|0.9381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.87|||ANCOVA|||Pairwise treatment group vs placebo||0.87|-0.94|=0.9381
90969760|NCT01324232|181821431|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46|=|0.4128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|0.53|||ANCOVA|||Pairwise treatment group vs placebo||0.53|-1.28|=0.4128
90969761|NCT01324232|181821431|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.461|=|0.9427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.94|||ANCOVA|||Pairwise treatment group vs placebo||0.94|-0.88|=0.9427
90969762|NCT01324232|181821431|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.401|=|0.6075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.58|||ANCOVA|||Pairwise treatment group vs placebo||0.58|-1.0|=0.6075
90969763|NCT01324232|181821431|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.402|=|0.669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.62|||ANCOVA|||Pairwise treatment group vs placebo||0.62|-0.96|=0.6690
90969764|NCT01324232|181821431|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38|=|0.7394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.62|||ANCOVA|||Pairwise treatment group vs placebo||0.62|-0.88|=0.7394
90969765|NCT01324232|181821432|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.9731|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value presented tests the hypothesis for overall treatment effect versus no treatment effect.|ANCOVA|||||||=0.9731
90969766|NCT01324232|181821432|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference (final values)|1.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.42|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.46|6.09||||||||6.09|-3.46|
90969767|NCT01324232|181821432|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference (final values)|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.394|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.72|1.72||||||||1.72|-7.72|
90969768|NCT01324232|181821432|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference (final values)|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.408|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.54|5.95||||||||5.95|-3.54|
90969769|NCT01324232|181821434|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.4778||||||The p-value presented tests the hypothesis for overall treatment effect versus no treatment effect.|ANCOVA|||The p-value presented tests the hypothesis for overall treatment effect versus no treatment effect.||||=0.4778
90969770|NCT01324232|181821434|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.676|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.76|7.74||||||||7.74|-6.76|
90969771|NCT01324232|181821434|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-1.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.663|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.89|5.56||||||||5.56|-8.89|
90969772|NCT01324232|181821434|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|3.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.681|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.83|10.68||||||||10.68|-3.83|
90969773|NCT01324232|181821435|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0685|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value presented tests the hypothesis for overall treatment effect versus no treatment effect.|ANCOVA|||||||=0.0685
90969774|NCT01324232|181821435|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference (final values)|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|0.83||||||||0.83|-1.85|
90969775|NCT01324232|181821435|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference (final values)|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.677|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.19|0.48||||||||0.48|-2.19|
90969776|NCT01324232|181821435|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference (final values)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.681|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|0.15||||||||0.15|-2.54|
90969777|NCT01324232|181821436|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.4201|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value presented tests the hypothesis for overall treatment effect versus no treatment effect.|ANCOVA|||||||=0.4201
90969778|NCT01324232|181821436|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.473|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|2.41||||||||2.41|-3.40|
90969779|NCT01324232|181821436|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.454|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.76|1.97||||||||1.97|-3.76|
90969780|NCT01324232|181821436|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|1.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.46|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|4.34||||||||4.34|-1.42|
90969781|NCT01324232|181821437|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.8068||||||The p-value presented tests the hypothesis for overall treatment effect versus no treatment effect.|ANCOVA|||The p-value presented tests the hypothesis for overall treatment effect versus no treatment effect.||||=0.8068
90969782|NCT01324232|181821437|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.205|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.47|1.28||||||||1.28|-3.47|
91035910|NCT03673670|181958512|OTHER|A hierarchical fixed-sequence testing strategy was employed to test the significance of the treatment effect for each of the two RPL554 doses against placebo, starting with the highest dose (6 mg). If a statistically significant difference was found at the 2-sided α level of 5%, the testing proceeded with the next highest dose. Otherwise, testing was stopped, and the remaining null hypotheses were accepted without testing.|GeoMean Ratio|1.002||||0.862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.979|1.025|||ANCOVA|||||1.025|0.979|0.862
90969783|NCT01324232|181821437|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.99|1.74||||||||1.74|-2.99|
90969784|NCT01324232|181821437|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.207|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|2.69||||||||2.69|-2.07|
90969785|NCT01324232|181821438|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.6315||||||The p-value presented tests the hypothesis for overall treatment effect versus no treatment effect. Oral responses.|ANCOVA|||||||=0.6315
90969786|NCT01324232|181821438|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|2.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.772|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.19|7.93||||||||7.93|-3.19|
90969787|NCT01324232|181821438|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.562|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.83|6.45||||||||6.45|-3.83|
90969788|NCT01324232|181821438|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|1.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.728|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.01|6.94||||||||6.94|-4.01|
90936981|NCT01375777|181752771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-31.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.89|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.92|-25.51||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and the stratification factor.|Placebo is the reference|||-25.51|-36.92|<0.001
90969789|NCT01324232|181821438|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1485|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value presented tests the hypothesis for overall treatment effect versus no treatment effect. Written responses.|ANCOVA|||||||=0.1485
90969790|NCT01324232|181821438|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference (final values)|1.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.558|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|4.85||||||||4.85|-1.31|
90936982|NCT01375777|181752771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-28.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.89|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.39|-22.98||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and the stratification factor.|Placebo is the reference|||-22.98|-34.39|<0.001
90936983|NCT01375777|181752772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-50.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.34|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.75|-43.58||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and the stratification factor.|Placebo is the reference|||-43.58|-56.75|<0.001
90936984|NCT01375777|181752772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-40.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3|<|0.001||95.0|-46.84|-33.82||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and the stratification factor.|Placebo is the reference|||-33.82|-46.84|<0.001
90936985|NCT01375777|181752772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-34.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.32|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.38|-28.28||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and the stratification factor.|Placebo is the reference|||-28.28|-41.38|<0.001
90936986|NCT01375777|181752772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-45.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.37|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.12|-38.82||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and the stratification factor.|Placebo is the reference|||-38.82|-52.12|<0.001
90936987|NCT01375777|181752772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-40.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.37|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.22|-33.92||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and the stratification factor.|Placebo is the reference|||-33.92|-47.22|<0.001
90969791|NCT01324232|181821438|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference (final values)|-1.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.605|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.86|1.49||||||||1.49|-4.86|
90969792|NCT01324232|181821438|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference (final values)|-1.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.549|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.71|1.41||||||||1.41|-4.71|
90969793|NCT01324232|181821439|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1404|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the true correlation between NRS scores and DM plasma concentration is equal to zero. Only 158 of the 209 participants in the mITT Population were analyzed at Day 22.||||=0.1404
90969794|NCT01324232|181821439|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0805|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis that the true correlation between NRS scores and DM plasma concentration is equal to zero. Only 152 of the 209 participants in the mITT Population were analyzed at Day 50.||||=0.0805
90969795|NCT01324232|181821439|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0551|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis that the true correlation between NRS scores and DM plasma concentration is equal to zero. Only 185 of the 209 participants in the mITT Population were analyzed at Day 85.||||=0.0551
90969796|NCT01324232|181821440|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.9207|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value presented tests the hypothesis for overall treatment effect versus no treatment effect.|ANCOVA|||||||=0.9207
90969797|NCT01265615|181821450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
90969798|NCT01265615|181821451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
90969799|NCT01265615|181821452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
90969800|NCT01265615|181821453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
90969801|NCT01265615|181821454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
90969802|NCT01265615|181821455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91035911|NCT03673670|181958513|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.945|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.945
90936988|NCT01375777|181752772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-36.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.37|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.9|-29.6||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and the stratification factor.|Placebo is the reference|||-29.60|-42.90|<0.001
90936989|NCT00376935|181752783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Shift parameter|-9.0||||0.1996|ONE_SIDED|98.4||14.0||P-value reported here was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A 98.4% confidence upper bound for the shift parameter for each comparison adjusted the multiple comparison issues and restricted the familywise Type I error rate at 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|One-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to test the null hypothesis.A 98.4% confidence upper bound for the primary shift parameter was calculated.|The shift parameter (say, X), was calculated as the difference between the distribution of the primary endpoint in the placebo arm and that of in the palifermin arm. X\<0 indicates that palifermen is beneficial.|The null hypothesis is that the distribution of the change in absolute CD4+ lymphocyte counts from baseline to week 12 is the same in the placebo arm and palifermin (20 mcg/kg) arm. The 1-sided alternative hypothesis is that the endpoint distribution is shifted higher in the palifermin (20 mcg/kg) arm.||14||0.1996
90936990|NCT00376935|181752783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Shift parameter|-4.0||||0.3135|ONE_SIDED|98.4||17.0||P-value reported here was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A 98.4% confidence upper bound for the shift parameter for each comparison adjusted the multiple comparison issues and restricted the familywise Type I error rate at 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|One-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to test the null hypothesis.A 98.4% confidence upper bound for the primary shift parameter was calculated.|The shift parameter (say, X), was calculated as the difference between the distribution of the primary endpoint in the placebo arm and that of in the palifermin arm. X\<0 indicates that palifermen is beneficial.|The null hypothesis is that the distribution of the change in absolute CD4+ lymphocyte counts from baseline to week 12 is the same in the placebo arm and palifermin (40 mcg/kg) arm. The 1-sided alternative hypothesis is that the endpoint distribution is shifted higher in the palifermin (40 mcg/kg) arm.||17||0.3135
90936991|NCT00376935|181752783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Shift parameter|-4.0||||0.3662|ONE_SIDED|98.4||22.0||P-value reported here was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A 98.4% confidence upper bound for the shift parameter for each comparison adjusted the multiple comparison issues and restricted the familywise Type I error rate at 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|One-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to test the null hypothesis.A 98.4% confidence upper bound for the primary shift parameter was calculated.|The shift parameter (say, X), was calculated as the difference between the distribution of the primary endpoint in the placebo arm and that of in the palifermin arm. X\<0 indicates that palifermen is beneficial.|The null hypothesis is that the distribution of the change in absolute CD4+ lymphocyte counts from baseline to week 12 is the same in the placebo arm and palifermin (60 mcg/kg) arm. The 1-sided alternative hypothesis is that the endpoint distribution is shifted higher in the palifermin (60 mcg/kg) arm.||22||0.3662
90936992|NCT03602053|181752793|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower limit of the 95% CI of the ratio of GMCs between the ROTAVAC 5D® and ROTAVAC® groups was larger than 1/2 (i.e. \> 0.5), ROTAVAC 5D® would be considered non-inferior to ROTAVAC®.|GMC ratio|1.294|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.862|1.924|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.924|0.862|
91035912|NCT03673670|181958513|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.501|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.501
91035913|NCT01058668|181958520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|-3.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||cariprazine (3-6 mg/day) - placebo|||-3.8|-8.4|<0.001
90969803|NCT01265615|181821456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
90969804|NCT01265615|181821457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
90969805|NCT01265615|181821458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
90969806|NCT01265615|181821459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
90969807|NCT01732796|181821460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted response rate|81.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|76.6|86.2|||Stratified one sample z-test||Adjusted response rate will tested against 71%. It is calculated as a weighted average (non-cirrhotic: 89% times response rate+ cirrhotic: 11% times response rate), 11% is the highest rate of cirrhotic from historical trials with approved DAA+PegIFN|The proportion of patients achieving SVR12 was compared to an acceptable minimum SVR rate achieved with an approved direct acting anti-viral (DAA) in combination with pegylated interferon-alfa (PegIFN) from historical data. The acceptable minimum SVR rate was 71% (reference for PegIFN-eligible).||86.2|76.6|<0.0001
90969808|NCT01732796|181821460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted response rate|71.7||||0.3989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|66.1|77.4|||Stratified one sample z-test||Adjusted response rate will tested against 71%. It is calculated as a weighted average (non-cirrhotic: 89% times response rate+ cirrhotic: 11% times response rate), 11% is the highest rate of cirrhotic from historical trials with approved DAA+PegIFN|The proportion of patients achieving SVR12 was compared to an acceptable minimum SVR rate achieved with an approved direct acting anti-viral (DAA) in combination with pegylated interferon-alfa (PegIFN) from historical data. The acceptable minimum SVR rate was 71% (reference for PegIFN-eligible).||77.4|66.1|0.3989
90969809|NCT01732796|181821461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Koch's method with continuity correction|10.8||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|18.8|||z-test|based on two sample z-test with continuity correction for variance.||||18.8|2.8|0.0040
90969810|NCT01732796|181821462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Koch's method with continuity correction|6.0||||0.0575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|13.5|||z-test|based on two sample z-test with continuity correction for variance.||Category: Percentage of patient with response||13.5|-1.5|0.0575
91035568|NCT00968812|181957119|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation: assuming a difference between canagliflozin and glimepiride of 0.0% and a common standard deviation of 1.0%, and using a 2-sample, 1-sided t-test with a Type I error rate of 0.0125, and assuming a drop-out rate of 35% in 52 weeks, it was estimated that approximately 427 patients per group would provide 90% power to demonstrate non-inferiority with the non-inferiority margin of 0.3, comparing canagliflozin with glimepiride|Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.217|-0.023|||ANCOVA|||If the hypothesis of non-inferiority of canagliflozin to glimepiride at Week 52 was demonstrated (ie, upper bound of the 95% Confidence Interval of the treatment difference \[canagliflozin minus glimepiride\] was less than 0.3) and the upper bound was less than 0.0, the superiority of the canagliflozin dose relative to glimepiride would be concluded.||-0.023|-0.217|
90936993|NCT01234675|181752814|SUPERIORITY||Paired difference|4.6||||0.424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|16.6|||Paired T test|||||16.6|-7.3|0.424
90936994|NCT01234675|181752815|SUPERIORITY||Paired difference|-6.1||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|-0.04|||Paired T test|||||-0.04|-12.2|0.049
90936995|NCT01234675|181752816|SUPERIORITY||Paired difference|22.6||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|45.8|||Paired T test|||||45.8|-0.6|0.056
90969811|NCT01732796|181821463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Koch's method with continuity correction|9.9||||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|18.1|||z-test|based on two sample z-test with continuity correction for variance.||Category: Percentage of patient with response||18.1|1.7|0.0089
90969812|NCT00876187|181821465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference and 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) was based on least squares (LS) mean. Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.08|-0.74|0.113
90969813|NCT00876187|181821465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|-0.42|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference and 95% CI was based on LS mean. ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.42|-1.19|<0.001
90969814|NCT00876187|181821465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|-0.54|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference and 95% CI was based on LS mean. ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.54|-1.31|<0.001
91035569|NCT00968812|181957120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.16|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.16|0.06|<0.001
90936996|NCT01234675|181752817|SUPERIORITY||Paired difference|-6.1||||0.683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|18.5|||Paired T test|||||18.5|-12.5|0.683
90936997|NCT01234675|181752818|SUPERIORITY||Paired difference|-1.502||||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.1|10.4|||Paired T test|||||10.4|-59.1|0.155
90936998|NCT01234675|181752819|SUPERIORITY||Paired difference|-1.0||||0.805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|7.8|||Paired T test|||||7.8|-9.8|0.805
90936999|NCT01234675|181752820|SUPERIORITY||Paired difference|-1.0||||0.844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|9.6|||Paired T test|||||9.6|-11.6|0.844
90937000|NCT01234675|181752821|SUPERIORITY||Paired difference|2.9||||0.509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|12.2|||Paired T test|||||12.2|-6.4|0.509
90937001|NCT01234675|181752822|SUPERIORITY||Paired difference|0.32||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.6|||Paired T test|||||0.6|-0.3|0.3
90969815|NCT00876187|181821465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.47|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference and 95% CI was based on LS mean. ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.47|-0.31|0.688
90969816|NCT00876187|181821465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference and 95% CI was based on LS mean. ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.03|-0.76|0.035
90969817|NCT00876187|181821465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.15|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference and 95% CI was based on LS mean. ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.15|-0.88|0.006
91035570|NCT00968812|181957120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.14|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.14|0.05|<0.001
90969818|NCT00876187|181821468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.13|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Treatment difference and 95% CI was based on LS mean. ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.13|-0.57|0.221
90969819|NCT00876187|181821468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Treatment difference and 95% CI was based on LS mean. ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.24|-0.90|<0.001
90969820|NCT00876187|181821468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Treatment difference and 95% CI was based on LS mean. ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.04|-0.70|0.027
90969821|NCT00876187|181821468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.62|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Treatment difference and 95% CI was based on LS mean. ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.62|-0.04|0.082
90969822|NCT00876187|181821468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.25|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Treatment difference and 95% CI was based on LS mean. ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.25|-0.37|0.703
90969823|NCT00876187|181821468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.45|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Treatment difference and 95% CI was based on LS mean. ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.45|-0.17|0.379
90969824|NCT00876187|181821468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Treatment difference and 95% CI was based on LS mean. ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.11|-0.87|0.012
90969825|NCT00876187|181821468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|-0.67|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Treatment difference and 95% CI was based on LS mean. ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.67|-1.39|<0.001
90969826|NCT00876187|181821468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|-0.58|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Treatment difference and 95% CI was based on LS mean. ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.58|-1.31|<0.001
90969827|NCT00876187|181821468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.39|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Treatment difference and 95% CI was based on LS mean. ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.39|-0.33|0.862
90969828|NCT00876187|181821468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.17|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Treatment difference and 95% CI was based on LS mean. ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.17|-0.85|0.003
90969829|NCT00876187|181821468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.09|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Treatment difference and 95% CI was based on LS mean. ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.09|-0.76|0.014
90969830|NCT00876187|181821468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|-0.08|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Treatment difference and 95% CI was based on LS mean. ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.08|-0.86|0.019
90969831|NCT00876187|181821468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|-0.51|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Treatment difference and 95% CI was based on LS mean. ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.51|-1.25|<0.001
90969832|NCT00876187|181821468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|-0.56|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Treatment difference and 95% CI was based on LS mean. ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.56|-1.29|<0.001
90969833|NCT00876187|181821468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.29|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Treatment difference and 95% CI was based on LS mean. ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.29|-0.45|0.668
90969834|NCT00876187|181821468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.15|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Treatment difference and 95% CI was based on LS mean. ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.15|-0.84|0.005
90969835|NCT00876187|181821468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.19|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Treatment difference and 95% CI was based on LS mean. ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.19|-0.88|0.002
90969836|NCT00876187|181821468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Treatment difference and 95% CI was based on LS mean. ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.04|-0.89|0.032
90969837|NCT00876187|181821468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|-0.41|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Treatment difference and 95% CI was based on LS mean. ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.41|-1.21|<0.001
90969838|NCT00876187|181821468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|-0.48|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Treatment difference and 95% CI was based on LS mean. ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.48|-1.28|<0.001
90969839|NCT00876187|181821468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.34|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Treatment difference and 95% CI was based on LS mean. ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.34|-0.46|0.773
90969840|NCT00876187|181821468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Treatment difference and 95% CI was based on LS mean. ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.03|-0.78|0.035
90969841|NCT00876187|181821468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Treatment difference and 95% CI was based on LS mean. ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.10|-0.85|0.014
90969842|NCT05074251|181821487|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.41|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.75|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.75|1.14|<0.05
90969843|NCT05112536|181821504|OTHER|||||||0.101|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.101
90969844|NCT03972969|181821509|SUPERIORITY||Incidence Rate Ratio|0.13|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.32|||negative binomial regression|||||0.32|0.05|<0.05
90969845|NCT03972969|181821509|SUPERIORITY||Incidence Rate Ratio|0.25|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.61|||negative binomial regression|||||0.61|0.10|<0.05
90937002|NCT01234675|181752823|SUPERIORITY||Paired difference|-1.03||||0.685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|5.6|||Paired T test|||||5.6|-8.2|0.685
90937003|NCT01234675|181752824|SUPERIORITY||Paired difference|-5.3||||0.349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|6.4|||Paired T test|||||6.4|-17.0|0.349
90937004|NCT01234675|181752825|SUPERIORITY||Paired difference|-0.6||||0.305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|5.6|||Paired T test|||||5.6|-1.8|0.305
90937005|NCT01234675|181752826|SUPERIORITY||Paired difference|-0.5||||0.425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.8|||Paired T test|||||0.8|-1.8|0.425
90937006|NCT03034772|181752856|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||ANCOVA|Mean difference between the 2 groups derived using analysis of covariance, with the baseline value and type of anti-VEGF drug used as covariates.||||||0.04
90969846|NCT03972969|181821509|SUPERIORITY||Incidence Rate Ratio|0.52|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.38|||negative binomial regression|||||1.38|0.19|<0.05
90969847|NCT03972969|181821510|SUPERIORITY||Incidence Rate Ratio|0.15|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.33|||negative binomial regression|||||0.33|0.07|<0.05
90969848|NCT03972969|181821510|SUPERIORITY||Incidence Rate Ratio|0.26|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.58|||negative binomial regression|||||0.58|0.11|<0.05
90969849|NCT03972969|181821510|SUPERIORITY||Incidence Rate Ratio|0.58|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.38|||negative binomial regression|||||1.38|0.25|<0.05
90969850|NCT02459795|181821516|EQUIVALENCE|provides 85% power of success|Equivalence ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.0|12.92|||Yates correction|||||12.92|-7.00|
90969851|NCT03259074|181821522|SUPERIORITY||Marginal difference|1.51||||0.7164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.63|9.64||Logistic regression model with treatment as a factor and baseline mSASSS score as a covariate using marginal standardization method.|Regression, Logistic|||||9.64|-6.63|0.7164
90969852|NCT03259074|181821522|SUPERIORITY||Marginal difference|1.67||||0.6925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.61|9.95|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with treatment as a factor and baseline mSASSS score as a covariate using marginal standardization method.||||9.95|-6.61|0.6925
90969853|NCT03259074|181821523|SUPERIORITY|Due to to the pre-defined hierarchical testing strategy, p values beyond the primary endpoint which was not met were not presented.|LS mean difference|-0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.646|0.293|||||ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline mSASSS score as a covariate.|||0.293|-0.646|
90969854|NCT03259074|181821523|SUPERIORITY|Due to to the pre-defined hierarchical testing strategy, p values beyond the primary endpoint which was not met were not presented.|LS mean difference|-0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.639|0.315|||||ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline mSASSS score as a covariate.|||0.315|-0.639|
90969855|NCT03259074|181821524|SUPERIORITY|Due to to the pre-defined hierarchical testing strategy, p values beyond the primary endpoint which was not met were not presented.|Marginal difference|4.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.62|14.27|||||Logistic regression model with treatment as a factor and baseline count of vertebral corners with syndesmophyte as a covariate using marginal standardization method.|||14.27|-5.62|
90969856|NCT03259074|181821524|SUPERIORITY|Due to to the pre-defined hierarchical testing strategy, p values beyond the primary endpoint which was not met were not presented.|Marginal difference|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.13|11.31|||||Logistic regression model with treatment as a factor and baseline count of vertebral corners with syndesmophyte as a covariate using marginal standardization method.|||11.31|-9.13|
90969857|NCT03259074|181821525|OTHER|Due to to the pre-defined hierarchical testing strategy, p values beyond the primary endpoint which was not met were not presented.|LS Means|0.183|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1517|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.48|||||LS Means and 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor, baseline Berlin SI joint edema score as a covariate.|Week 104 - 150 mg||0.48|-0.12|
90969858|NCT03259074|181821525|OTHER|Due to to the pre-defined hierarchical testing strategy, p values beyond the primary endpoint which was not met were not presented|LS Means|0.332|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1545|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.64|||||LS Means and 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor, baseline Berlin SI joint edema score as a covariate.|Week 104 - 300 mg||0.64|0.03|
90937007|NCT03034772|181752857|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||ANCOVA|Mean difference between the 2 groups derived using analysis of covariance, with the baseline value and type of anti-VEGF drug used as covariates.||||||0.11
90937008|NCT03034772|181752858|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||ANCOVA|Mean difference between the 2 groups derived using analysis of covariance, with the baseline value and type of anti-VEGF drug used as covariates.||||||0.01
90937009|NCT03034772|181752859|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.78
90937010|NCT03034772|181752860|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.24
90937011|NCT00116584|181752861|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
90937012|NCT00116584|181752862|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
90937013|NCT00116584|181752863|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
90937014|NCT00385697|181752894|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.963||||0.904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.521|1.779|||Mantel Haenszel|||||1.779|0.521|0.904
90937015|NCT00385697|181752894|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.629||||0.222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.297|1.33|||Mantel Haenszel|||||1.330|0.297|0.222
90937016|NCT00385697|181752894|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.054||||0.885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.521|2.129|||Mantel Haenszel|||||2.129|0.521|0.885
90937017|NCT00385697|181752896|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.061||||0.814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.572|||ANCOVA|||||0.572|-0.450|0.814
90937018|NCT00385697|181752896|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.161||||0.593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.433|0.755|||ANCOVA|||||0.755|-0.433|0.593
90937019|NCT00385697|181752896|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.594|0.513|||ANCOVA|||||0.513|-0.594|0.886
90937020|NCT00385697|181752898|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.047||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.093|||ANCOVA|||||0.093|0.000|0.049
90937021|NCT00385697|181752898|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.002||||0.937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.061|0.056|||ANCOVA|||||0.056|-0.061|0.937
90937022|NCT00385697|181752898|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.026||||0.382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.032|0.084|||ANCOVA|||||0.084|-0.032|0.382
90937023|NCT00385697|181752900|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.881||||0.775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.372|2.089|||Mantel Haenszel|||||2.089|0.372|0.775
90937024|NCT00385697|181752900|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.628||||0.402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.212|1.861|||Mantel Haenszel|||||1.861|0.212|0.402
90937025|NCT00385697|181752900|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.093||||0.859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|2.912|||Mantel Haenszel|||||2.912|0.410|0.859
90937026|NCT00385697|181752902|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.265||||0.404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.727|2.2|||Mantel Haenszel|||||2.200|0.727|0.404
90937027|NCT00385697|181752902|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.805||||0.528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.412|1.576|||Mantel Haenszel|||||1.576|0.412|0.528
90937028|NCT00385697|181752902|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.133||||0.706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.594|2.164|||Mantel Haenszel|||||2.164|0.594|0.706
90937029|NCT00385697|181752904|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.455|0.536|||ANCOVA|||||0.536|-0.455|0.872
90937030|NCT00385697|181752904|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.008||||0.979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.581|0.556|||ANCOVA|||||0.556|-0.581|0.979
90937031|NCT00385697|181752904|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.225||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.301|||ANCOVA|||||0.301|-0.750|0.400
90937032|NCT02790788|181752923|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|11.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||Independent Samples t-test||11.8|-5.2|0.44
90937033|NCT02790788|181752925|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|12.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||||12.2|-2.2|0.17
90937034|NCT02790788|181752926|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|20.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||||20.8|0.4|0.043
90937035|NCT02790788|181752927|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|5.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.3|-9.3|0.59
90937036|NCT02790788|181752928|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|5.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.0|-3.1|0.64
90937037|NCT02790788|181752929|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|2.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.1|-10.1|0.20
90937038|NCT02790788|181752930|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|6.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||6.6|-0.9|0.14
90937039|NCT02790788|181752931|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|7.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||7.3|-6.4|0.90
90937040|NCT02790788|181752932|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|6.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||||6.4|-2.2|0.33
90937041|NCT02790788|181752933|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|5.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||REPORTED RESULTS CORRESPOND TO LVEDA WITHIN 12 HOURS AFTER ROSC||5.8|-5.3|0.92
90937042|NCT02790788|181752933|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|1.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||REPORTED RESULTS CORRESPOND TO RVEDA WITHIN 12 HOURS AFTER ROSC||1.8|-3.4|0.54
90937043|NCT02790788|181752933|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.17||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|9.15|||t-test, 2 sided|||REPORTED RESULTS CORRESPOND TO LVEDA AT 72 HOURS AFTER ROSC||9.15|0.04|0.048
90937044|NCT02790788|181752933|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|4.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||REPORTED RESULTS CORRESPOND TO RVEDA AT 72 HOURS AFTER ROSC||4.7|-1.0|0.18
90937045|NCT02790788|181752934|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|3.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||REPORTED RESULTS CORRESPOND TO LVEF WITHIN 12 HOURS AFTER ROSC||3.7|-10.9|0.32
90937046|NCT02790788|181752934|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|5.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||REPORTED RESULTS CORRESPOND TO RVEF WITHIN 12 HOURS AFTER ROSC||5.3|-7.2|0.76
90937047|NCT02790788|181752934|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.2||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|3.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||REPORTED RESULTS CORRESPOND TO LVEF AT 72 HOURS AFTER ROSC||3.7|-13.5|0.25
90969859|NCT03259074|181821526|OTHER|Due to to the pre-defined hierarchical testing strategy, p values beyond the primary endpoint which was not met were not presented.|LS Means|0.877|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3316|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.53|||||LS Means and 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor, baseline Berlin SI joint edema score as a covariate.|Week 104 - 150 mg||1.53|0.22|
90937048|NCT02790788|181752934|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|5.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||REPORTED RESULTS CORRESPOND TO RVEF WITHIN 72 HOURS AFTER ROSC||5.5|-9.1|0.61
90937049|NCT02790788|181752935|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.11|||t-test, 2 sided|||RESULTS CORRESPOND TO END-DIASTOLIC ECCI WITHIN 12 HOURS OF ROSC.||0.11|-0.25|0.41
90937050|NCT02790788|181752935|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||RESULTS CORRESPOND TO END-SYSTOLIC ECCI WITHIN 12 HOURS AFTER ROSC.||0.10|-0.26|0.38
90937051|NCT02790788|181752935|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.14|||t-test, 2 sided|||RESULTS CORRESPOND TO END-DIASTOLIC ECCI AT 72 HOURS AFTER ROSC.||0.14|-0.29|0.46
90937052|NCT02790788|181752935|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.12|||t-test, 2 sided|||RESULTS CORRESPOND TO END-SYSTOLIC ECCI AT 72 HOURS AFTER ROSC.||0.12|-0.33|0.34
90937053|NCT02790788|181752936|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.3|-1.5|0.90
90937054|NCT02790788|181752937|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.94|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.94|-0.54|0.59
90937055|NCT02790788|181752938|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.93|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.93|-0.60|0.67
90937056|NCT02790788|181752939|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|1.02|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.02|-0.64|0.65
90937057|NCT02790788|181752940|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|2.8||RESULTS CORRESPOND TO CORE BODY TEMPERATURE AVERAGED OVER 0-6 HOURS AFTER ROSC.|t-test, 2 sided|||||2.8|-1.2|0.41
90937058|NCT02790788|181752940|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.19|||t-test, 2 sided|||RESULTS CORRESPOND TO CORE BODY TEMPERATURE AVERAGED OVER 12-18 HOURS AFTER ROSC.||0.19|-0.92|0.20
90937059|NCT02790788|181752940|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.04|||t-test, 2 sided|||RESULTS CORRESPOND TO CORE BODY TEMPERATURE AVERAGED OVER 12-18 HOURS AFTER ROSC.||0.04|-1.00|0.07
90937060|NCT02790788|181752940|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.31|||t-test, 2 sided|||RESULTS CORRESPOND TO CORE BODY TEMPERATURE AVERAGED OVER 18-24 HOURS AFTER ROSC.||0.31|-0.85|0.36
90937061|NCT02790788|181752940|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.35|||t-test, 2 sided|||RESULTS CORRESPOND TO CORE BODY TEMPERATURE AVERAGED OVER 24-30 HOURS AFTER ROSC.||0.35|-0.66|0.54
90937062|NCT02790788|181752940|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.42|||t-test, 2 sided|||RESULTS CORRESPOND TO CORE BODY TEMPERATURE AVERAGED OVER 30-36 HOURS AFTER ROSC.||0.42|-0.69|0.62
90937063|NCT02790788|181752940|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.41|||t-test, 2 sided|||RESULTS CORRESPOND TO CORE BODY TEMPERATURE AVERAGED OVER 36-42 HOURS AFTER ROSC.||0.41|-0.71|0.60
90937064|NCT02790788|181752940|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.36|||t-test, 2 sided|||RESULTS CORRESPOND TO CORE BODY TEMPERATURE AVERAGED OVER 42-48 HOURS AFTER ROSC.||0.36|-0.69|0.54
90937065|NCT02790788|181752941|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||RESULTS CORRESPOND TO CBFI AT 4 HOURS AFTER ROSC AND AT A MEAN MAP LEVEL OF 75.5 MMHG||1.1|-2.5|0.42
90937066|NCT02790788|181752941|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|2.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||RESULTS CORRESPOND TO CBFI AT 4 HOURS AFTER ROSC AND AT A MEAN MAP LEVEL OF 96.0 MMHG||2.30|-0.94|0.40
90969860|NCT03259074|181821526|OTHER|Due to to the pre-defined hierarchical testing strategy, p values beyond the primary endpoint which was not met were not presented|LS Means|0.419|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3357|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|1.08|||||LS Means and 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor, baseline Berlin SI joint edema score as a covariate.|Week 104 - 300 mg||1.08|-0.24|
91035571|NCT00968812|181957121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|-4.7|||ANCOVA|||||-4.7|-5.7|<0.001
90937067|NCT02790788|181752941|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|3.28|||t-test, 2 sided|||RESULTS CORRESPOND TO CBFI AT 72 HOURS AFTER ROSC AND AT A MEAN MAP LEVEL OF 75.5 MMHG||3.28|-1.49|0.44
90937068|NCT02790788|181752941|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.23||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|3.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||RESULTS CORRESPOND TO CBFI AT 72 HOURS AFTER ROSC AND AT A MEAN MAP LEVEL OF 97.0 MMHG||3.70|-1.40|0.36
90937069|NCT02790788|181752942|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||Mann Whitney|||||||0.84
90969861|NCT03259074|181821527|OTHER|Due to to the pre-defined hierarchical testing strategy, p values beyond the primary endpoint which was not met were not presented.|Marginal difference|1.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|8.18|||||Estimated mean, marginal difference and 95% confidence interval are from a logistic regression model with treatment as a factor using marginal standardization method|||8.18|-5.10|
90937070|NCT02790788|181752943|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.025|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.144||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.311|0.262|||t-test, 2 sided|||RESULTS CORRESPOND TO IL-6 AT 4 HOURS AFTER ROSC||0.262|-0.311|0.86
90937071|NCT02790788|181752943|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.064|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.111||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.287|0.158|||t-test, 2 sided|||RESULTS CORRESPOND TO TNF-α AT 4 HOURS AFTER ROSC||0.158|-0.287|0.56
90937072|NCT02790788|181752943|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.034|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.071|0.139|||t-test, 2 sided|||RESULTS CORRESPOND TO IL-1β AT 4 HOURS AFTER ROSC||0.139|-0.071|0.52
90937073|NCT02790788|181752943|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.041|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.107||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.254|0.172|||t-test, 2 sided|||RESULTS CORRESPOND TO IL-8 AT 4 HOURS AFTER ROSC||0.172|-0.254|0.70
90937074|NCT02790788|181752943|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.167||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.326|0.34|||t-test, 2 sided|||RESULTS CORRESPOND TO IL-10 AT 4 HOURS AFTER ROSC||0.340|-0.326|0.97
90937075|NCT02790788|181752943|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.067|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.192|0.326|||t-test, 2 sided|||RESULTS CORRESPOND TO IL-6 AT 24 HOURS AFTER ROSC||0.326|-0.192|0.61
90937076|NCT02790788|181752943|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.014|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.126||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.238|0.267|||t-test, 2 sided|||RESULTS CORRESPOND TO TNFα AT 24 HOURS AFTER ROSC||0.267|-0.238|0.91
90937077|NCT02790788|181752943|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.021|||t-test, 2 sided|||RESULTS CORRESPOND TO IL-1β AT 24 HOURS AFTER ROSC||0.021|-0.100|0.19
90937078|NCT02790788|181752943|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.111||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.244|0.201|||t-test, 2 sided|||RESULTS CORRESPOND TO IL-8 AT 24 HOURS AFTER ROSC||0.201|-0.244|0.85
90937079|NCT02790788|181752943|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.147|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.162||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.179|0.473|||t-test, 2 sided|||RESULTS CORRESPOND TO IL-10 AT 24 HOURS AFTER ROSC||0.473|-0.179|0.37
90969862|NCT03259074|181821528|OTHER|Due to to the pre-defined hierarchical testing strategy, p values beyond the primary endpoint which was not met were not presented.|Marginal difference|-2.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.18|5.51|||||Estimated mean, marginal difference and 95% confidence interval are from a logistic regression model with treatment as a factor using marginal standardization method.|||5.51|-10.18|
91035572|NCT00968812|181957121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|-5.1|||ANCOVA|||||-5.1|-6.2|<0.001
91035573|NCT00968812|181957122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.01|||ANCOVA|||||0.010|-0.200|
90937080|NCT02790788|181752943|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.043|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.127||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.298|0.212|||t-test, 2 sided|||RESULTS CORRESPOND TO IL-6 AT 48 HOURS AFTER ROSC||0.212|-0.298|0.74
90937081|NCT02790788|181752943|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.036|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.246|0.318|||t-test, 2 sided|||RESULTS CORRESPOND TO ΤΝFα AT 48 HOURS AFTER ROSC||0.318|-0.246|0.80
90937082|NCT02790788|181752943|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.056|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.142|||t-test, 2 sided|||RESULTS CORRESPOND TO IL-1β AT 48 HOURS AFTER ROSC||0.142|-0.030|0.20
90937083|NCT02790788|181752943|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.111||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.246|0.198|||t-test, 2 sided|||RESULTS CORRESPOND TO IL-8 AT 48 HOURS AFTER ROSC||0.198|-0.246|0.83
90969863|NCT03259074|181821529|OTHER|Due to to the pre-defined hierarchical testing strategy, p values beyond the primary endpoint which was not met were not presented|Marginal difference|2.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.34|9.69|||Marginal difference||Estimated mean, marginal difference and 95% confidence interval are from a logistic regression model with treatment as a factor using marginal standardization method|||9.69|-5.34|
90969864|NCT03259074|181821530|OTHER||Marginal difference|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.08|7.74||Due to to the pre-defined hierarchical testing strategy, p values beyond the primary endpoint which was not met were not presented.|||Estimated mean, marginal difference and 95% confidence interval are from a logistic regression model with treatment as a factor using marginal standardization method|||7.74|-7.08|
90969865|NCT01594515|181821537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.9702|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0151|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.0005|||||Dose proportionality was explored using the power model (ANCOVA). The perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope β of 1. PK endpoints on the log-transformed scale.|This was non confirmatory testing (Single dose). Dose proportionality of the drug for Cmax was analysed.(N=50)||1.0005|0.9400|
90937084|NCT02790788|181752943|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.027|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.124||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.223|0.276|||t-test, 2 sided|||RESULTS CORRESPOND TO IL-10 AT 48 HOURS AFTER ROSC||0.276|-0.223|0.83
90937085|NCT02790788|181752943|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.161||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.294|0.354|||t-test, 2 sided|||RESULTS CORRESPOND TO IL-6 AT 72 HOURS AFTER ROSC||0.354|-0.294|0.85
90937086|NCT02790788|181752943|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.243|0.339|||t-test, 2 sided|||RESULTS CORRESPOND TO ΤΝFα AT 72 HOURS AFTER ROSC||0.339|-0.243|0.74
90937087|NCT02790788|181752943|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.013|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.066|0.091|||t-test, 2 sided|||RESULTS CORRESPOND TO IL-1β AT 72 HOURS AFTER ROSC||0.091|-0.066|0.75
90937088|NCT02790788|181752943|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.096||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.238|0.149|||t-test, 2 sided|||RESULTS CORRESPOND TO IL-8 AT 72 HOURS AFTER ROSC||0.149|-0.238|0.64
90937089|NCT02790788|181752943|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.179|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.147||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.116|0.475|||t-test, 2 sided|||RESULTS CORRESPOND TO IL-10 AT 72 HOURS AFTER ROSC||0.475|-0.116|0.23
91035574|NCT00968812|181957122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.289|-0.078|||ANCOVA|||||-0.078|-0.289|
90937090|NCT02790788|181752944|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|4.9||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|14.6|||Fisher Exact|||||14.6|-4.8|0.45
90937091|NCT02790788|181752945|SUPERIORITY||Mann-Whitney U|50903.5||||0.68|TWO_SIDED||||||Mann Whitney|||RESULTS CORRESPOND TO THE NUMBER OF EPISODES OF HYPERGLYCEMIA||||0.68
90937092|NCT02790788|181752945|SUPERIORITY||Mann Whitney U|52188.5||||0.68|TWO_SIDED||||||Mann-Whitney|||RESULTS CORRESPOND TO THE NUMBER OF EPISODES OF HYPERNATREMIA||||0.68
90937093|NCT02790788|181752945|SUPERIORITY||Mann-Whitney U|1128.5||||0.37|TWO_SIDED||||||Mann-Whitney|||RESULTS CORRESPOND TO THE NUMBER OF EPISODES OF INFECTION||||0.37
90937094|NCT01721109|181752954|EQUIVALENCE|A sample size of 14 participants was estimated to provide over 95% power to show pharmacokinetic equivalence between adult and adolescent participants. EVG population PK from historical adult data was used for comparison. The inter-subject standard deviation (natural log scale) of EVG AUCtau observed in the population PK data was 0.31 (historical data).|Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.3029|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0479|1.62||||||||1.6200|1.0479|
90969866|NCT01594515|181821538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.0442|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0148|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0145|1.074|||||"Dose proportionality was explored using the power model (ANCOVA). The perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope β of 1.~PK endpoints on the log-transformed scale."|This was non confirmatory testing (Single dose). Dose proportionality of the drug for AUC0-inf was analysed. (N=48)||1.0740|1.0145|
90969867|NCT00705783|181821539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.199|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.125|0.317|||Log Rank||Aripiprazole depot/placebo depot|Based on 6-month IR rates of 55% for placebo and 35% for aripiprazole, sample sizes were estimated to achieve 90% power to detect a hazard ratio of 0.54 and to preserve an overall nominal alpha level of 0.05 (2-sided), allowing for 2 interim looks at 50% and 75% of events. Assuming that each subject was followed for 12 months after randomization and allowing for a 25% loss to follow-up, the projected total number of subjects to be randomly assigned to treatment in the trial was 225.||0.317|0.125|<0.0001
91035575|NCT00834340|181957123|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|101.0||||||90.0|92.2|111.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||111|92.2|
91035576|NCT00834340|181957124|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|98.5||||||90.0|94.0|103.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||103|94.0|
91035577|NCT00834340|181957125|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|102.0||||||90.0|98.7|105.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||105|98.7|
91035578|NCT00395694|181957126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|11.1|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with rash events.|||11.1|1.6|
90969868|NCT00705783|181821540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||The alpha levels for this key secondary Outcome Measure were the same as used for the primary Outcome Measure.|Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
90969869|NCT00705783|181821541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
90969870|NCT00705783|181821542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1756||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1756
90969871|NCT00705783|181821543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.68|-7.54|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA included treatment as a term and baseline as a covariate.||||-7.54|-12.68|<0.0001
90969872|NCT00705783|181821544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.35|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA included treatment as a term and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.35|-0.70|<0.0001
90969873|NCT00705783|181821545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.72|-2.91|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA included treatment as a term and baseline as a covariate.||Positive Subscale Score||-2.91|-4.72|<0.0001
90969874|NCT00705783|181821546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.36||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|-0.67|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA included treatment as a term and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.67|-2.04|0.0001
90937095|NCT00134056|181752965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.19|||Log Rank|||The primary analysis was by intention to treat and the Hochberg procedure was used for multiple testing of co-primary endpoints. Assuming a 4 year accrual, 2.5 years of follow-up, and 930 eligible patients, the study was designed to have 87% power to detect a 25% increase from 18.0 months to 22.5 months in median overall survival with a one-sided log rank with alpha of 0.0125.||1.19|0.90|0.64
90937096|NCT00134056|181752966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.16|||Log Rank|||The primary analysis was by intention to treat and the Hochberg procedure was used for multiple testing of co-primary endpoints. Assuming a 4 year accrual, 2.5 years of follow-up, and 930 eligible patients, the study was designed to have 87% power to detect a 25% increase from 6.0 months to 7.5 months in median overall survival with a one-sided log rank with alpha of 0.0125.||1.16|0.89|0.81
90937097|NCT02267746|181752996|EQUIVALENCE|Estimates of mean percent change from baseline were calculated (separately for inflammatory and non-inflammatory lesions) for the Test and Reference treatment, and then the 90% confidence interval (CI) for the mean ratio was constructed using Fieller's method.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.86|1.02|||||Therapeutic equivalence was established if the 90% CIs for the ratio of Test/Reference means, for both lesion types, were contained within the interval \[0.80, 1.25\] for the PP population.|||1.02|0.86|
90969875|NCT00705783|181821547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
90969876|NCT00705783|181821548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
90969877|NCT02411539|181821582|SUPERIORITY|Assuming that a common standard deviation of change (measured as difference of log10 transformed HIV-1 RNA/DNA ratios) in both arms was 0.30, with a sample size of 36 evaluable participants (18 in each arm), the study had 88% power to detect an effect size of 0.30 log10 (2-fold) in change of cell-associated HIV-1 RNA/DNA from baseline to week 6 using a two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test at 10% type I error rate assuming a normal distribution||||||0.16||||||Two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test at 10% significance level. Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The primary efficacy analysis compared the change in cell-associated HIV-1 RNA/DNA ratio (log-transformed) from baseline to week 6 between the two randomized arms, testing the null hypothesis of no difference in changes in cell-associated HIV-1 RNA/DNA ratio between the two arms using a Wilcoxon rank sum test at 10% significance level.||||0.16
90969878|NCT01664559|181821622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.99
90969879|NCT01664559|181821623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||1\) Anticipated pain||||0.31
90969880|NCT01664559|181821623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||2\) pain with injection||||0.33
90969881|NCT01664559|181821623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||3\) speculum insertion||||0.72
90969882|NCT01664559|181821623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||4\) tenaculum placement||||0.36
90969883|NCT01664559|181821623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||5\) uterine sounding||||0.64
90969884|NCT01664559|181821623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||6\) 5 min after placement||||<0.001
90969885|NCT01664559|181821623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||7\) 15 min after placement||||<0.001
90969886|NCT01664559|181821624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||1\) anticipated pain||||0.6
90969887|NCT01664559|181821624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||2\) pain with injection||||1.0
90969888|NCT01664559|181821624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||3\) speculum insertion||||0.34
90969889|NCT01664559|181821624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||4\) tenaculum placement||||0.32
90969890|NCT01664559|181821624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||5\) uterine sounding||||0.04
90969891|NCT01664559|181821624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||6\) IUD placement||||0.02
90969892|NCT01664559|181821624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||7\) 5 min after placement||||0.32
90969893|NCT01664559|181821624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||8\) 15 min after placement||||0.02
90969894|NCT01664559|181821625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Reported side effects (nausea, vomiting, dyspepsia, headache, dizziness, drowsiness, injection site itchiness, swelling or pain)||||> 0.05
90969895|NCT01664559|181821625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Injection site pain (just as bad or worse than IUD procedure)||||0.76
90969896|NCT01664559|181821625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Satisfied or very satisfied with IUD placement procedure||||0.76
90969897|NCT01664559|181821625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Would recommend IUD placement to a friend||||0.35
90969898|NCT01664559|181821625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Desires additional pain medication||||0.02
90969899|NCT01664559|181821626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Level of training, PGY 1, 2, 3, 4 and Attending||||0.2
91035579|NCT01175018|181957157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
90937098|NCT02267746|181752997|EQUIVALENCE|Estimates of mean percent change from baseline were calculated (separately for inflammatory and non-inflammatory lesions) for the Test and Reference treatment, and then the 90% confidence interval (CI) for the mean ratio was constructed using Fieller's method.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.89|1.04|||||Therapeutic equivalence was established if the 90% CIs for the ratio of Test/Reference means, for both lesion types, were contained within the interval \[0.80, 1.25\] for the PP population.|||1.04|0.89|
90937099|NCT02267746|181752998|EQUIVALENCE|Therapeutic equivalence was established if the 90% CI for the difference was contained within the interval \[-0.20, +0.20\] for PP population.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.073|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.15|0.004|||||Therapeutic equivalence was established if the 90% CI for the difference was contained within the interval \[-0.20, +0.20\] for the PP population.|Success was defined as an IGA score at Week 12 that was at least two grades less than the baseline assessment. Failure was defined as an IGA score that was the same, higher, or one grade lower than the baseline assessment.||0.004|-0.150|
90937100|NCT00348283|181753006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.056||||||The P value is from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with clinical response (CR-70 responder status) at Week 4 as the stratification factor.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Because of the hierarchical testing scheme used for testing the ranked secondary endpoints, alpha level of 0.05 was used at each stage of testing.||ITT population: all subjects randomized at Week 4 who had at least 1 dose of blinded therapy. The sample-size (placebo = 65 subjects; adalimumab = 65 subjects) for the primary efficacy analysis was calculated using 88% power at 0.05 alpha level based on the assumption that 25% and 5% of subjects were without mucosal ulceration at Week 12 in adalimumab 40 mg eow and placebo groups, respectively. However, subjects without mucosal ulceration at Screening were excluded from the primary analysis.||||0.056
90937101|NCT00348283|181753007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021||||||The P value is from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with clinical response (CR-70 responder status) at Week 4 as the stratification factor.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The null hypothesis was that there is no difference in proportion of subjects with clinical remission at Week 12 in the two treatment groups.||||0.021
90937102|NCT00348283|181753008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The P value is from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with clinical response (CR-70 responder status) at Week 4 as the stratification factor.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The null hypothesis was that there is no difference between proportions of subjects without mucosal ulceration at Week 52 in the two treatment groups.||||<0.001
90937103|NCT00348283|181753009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||||||The P value is from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with clinical response (CR-70 responder status) at Week 4 as the stratification factor.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The null hypothesis was that there is no difference in proportion of subjects with clinical remission at Week 52 in the two treatment groups.||||0.001
90937104|NCT00348283|181753010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15||||||The P value is from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with clinical response (CR-70 responder status) at Week 4 as the stratification factor.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The null hypothesis was that there is no difference between proportions of subjects without mucosal ulceration at both Week 12 and Week 52 in the two treatment groups.||||0.150
90937105|NCT00348283|181753011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The P value is from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with clinical response (CR-70 responder status) at Week 4 as the stratification factor.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The null hypothesis was that there is no difference in proportion of subjects with clinical remission at Week 12 in the two treatment groups.||||<0.001
90937106|NCT05878522|181753041|OTHER||LS Mean difference|11.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.89|14.58||||||3- hours post-dose||14.58|8.89|
90937107|NCT05878522|181753041|OTHER||LS Mean difference|11.35|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.5|14.2||||||4-hours post-dose||14.20|8.50|
90937108|NCT05878522|181753041|OTHER||LS Mean difference|8.35||||||90.0|5.51|11.2||||||5-hours post-dose||11.20|5.51|
90937109|NCT01082159|181753082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||change from baseline|3.59|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.87|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.76|4.42|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.42|2.76|<0.0001
90937110|NCT01082159|181753083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Change from Baseline|12.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.64|17.71|||t-test, 2 sided|||||17.71|6.64|<0.0001
90937111|NCT01542502|181753085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.009
90937112|NCT01542502|181753086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.87
90937113|NCT02009865|181753092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-14.2||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.2|-2.8|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The estimated median difference and its 95% CI were based on Hodges Lehmann procedure|Missing values were imputed using probabilities of missing estimated from logistic regression||-2.8|-26.2|0.017
90937114|NCT02009865|181753093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-26.3||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.5|-11.5|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The estimated median difference and its 95% CI were based on Hodges Lehmann procedure.|Main analysis with missing values imputed using probabilities of missing estimated from logistic regression||-11.5|-40.5|0.0008
90937115|NCT02009865|181753094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-9.0||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|-2.8||Adjusted by using Hommel's procedure|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The estimated median difference and its 95% CI were based on Hodges Lehmann procedure.|Missing values were imputed using probabilities of missing estimated from logistic regression||-2.8|-14.8|0.0180
90937116|NCT02009865|181753095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.7117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|4.9||Adjusted by using Hommel's procedure|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The estimated median difference and its 95% CI were based on Hodges Lehmann procedure.|Missing values were imputed using probabilities of missing estimated from logistic regression||4.9|-3.5|0.7117
90937117|NCT02009865|181753096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-10.3||||0.3034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.9|3.5||Adjusted by using Hommel's procedure|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The estimated median difference and its 95% CI were based on Hodges Lehmann procedure.|Missing values were imputed using probabilities of missing estimated from logistic regression||3.5|-23.9|0.3034
91035580|NCT01175018|181957158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
91035581|NCT01175018|181957159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
91035582|NCT01175018|181957160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
91035583|NCT01175018|181957161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.05
91035584|NCT01175018|181957162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
90937118|NCT01755598|181753133|OTHER|Vaccine efficacy (VE) has been estimated from a Cox proportional hazard regression model (VE=1-hazard ratio) and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) and Wald p-value has been derived. The lower limit of the 90% two-sided CI for the VE against first occurrence of Definite pulmonary TB disease not associated with HIV-infection, meeting the case definition 1, is to be above 0%.|Vaccine efficacy rate|49.7||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|90.0|12.1|71.2|||Regression, Cox|||To evaluate the protective efficacy of two doses of the M72/AS01E candidate vaccine against Definite pulmonary TB disease not associated with HIV-infection, meeting the case definition 1, as compared to placebo.||71.2|12.1|0.0430
90937119|NCT01755598|181753134|OTHER|Vaccine efficacy (VE) has been estimated from a Cox proportional hazard regression model (VE=1-hazard ratio) and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) and Wald p-value has been derived. If the primary objective is met, this secondary objective is to be analysed using the following success criterion: The lower limit of the 90% two-sided CI for the VE against first occurrence of Definite pulmonary TB disease not associated with HIV infection, meeting the case definition 2, is to be above 0%.|Vaccine efficacy rate|61.67||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|90.0|24.084|80.647|||Regression, Cox|||To evaluate the protective efficacy of two doses of the M72/AS01E candidate vaccine against Definite Xpert MTB/Rif positive pulmonary TB disease not associated with HIV-infection, meeting the case definition 2, as compared to placebo.||80.647|24.084|0.0210
90937120|NCT01178281|181753173|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
90937121|NCT01178281|181753175|OTHER|||||||0.929|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.929
90937122|NCT01184859|181753183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.211||95.0||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, because this study was not a confirmatory trial. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.211
90937123|NCT01184859|181753183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, because this study was not a confirmatory trial. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.010
90937124|NCT01184859|181753183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, because this study was not a confirmatory trial. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90937125|NCT01184859|181753183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, because this study was not a confirmatory trial. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90937126|NCT01184859|181753184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.272||||0.194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.685|-0.141||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, because this study was not a confirmatory trial. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Gender is a factor, and duration of action and baseline number of nocturnal voids are covariates.||||-0.141|-0.685|0.194
90937127|NCT01184859|181753184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.547||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.985|-0.108||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, because this study was not a confirmatory trial. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Gender is a factor, and duration of action and baseline number of nocturnal voids are covariates.||||-0.108|-0.985|0.015
90937128|NCT01184859|181753184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.854|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.317|-0.391||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, because this study was not a confirmatory trial. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Gender is a factor, and duration of action and baseline number of nocturnal voids are covariates.||||-0.391|-1.317|<0.001
90937129|NCT01184859|181753184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.888||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.426|-0.351||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, because this study was not a confirmatory trial. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Gender is a factor, and duration of action and baseline number of nocturnal voids are covariates.||||-0.351|-1.426|0.001
90937130|NCT03722485|181753227|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.292||||||Confounding variables of image capture techniques, image quality and image analysis noted throughout study conduct prohibits any definitive conclusions to be drawn from this analysis.|Regression, Linear|Test of treatment effect using a generalized linear model with treatment arm, baseline values, and clinical site as factors.||||||0.2920
90937131|NCT03722485|181753228|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0213||||||Confounding variables of image capture techniques, image quality and image analysis noted throughout study conduct prohibits any definitive conclusions to be drawn from this analysis.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0213
90937132|NCT03722485|181753229|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7422||||||Confounding variables of image capture techniques, image quality and image analysis noted throughout study conduct prohibits any definitive conclusions to be drawn from this analysis.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7422
90937133|NCT03722485|181753230|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6322|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6322
90937134|NCT01636258|181753294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.1||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|2.0||P-value less than 0.05 considered statistically significant a priori. No multiple comparison adjustment made.|t-test, 2 sided|||No sample size calculation performed since it was a pilot study. Null hypothesis was no difference between groups.||2.0|-1.4|0.72
90937135|NCT01636258|181753295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.31|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||No sample study calculation performed since it was a pilot study. Null hypothesis was no difference between groups.||||0.31
90937136|NCT01636258|181753296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.31|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.31
90937137|NCT01636258|181753297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.53|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.53
90937138|NCT04879823|181753363|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Null hypothesis: Average pain scores before medication will not be lower in the dexamethasone group compared with the placebo group.||||0.03
90937139|NCT04879823|181753364|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis: There will be no difference in the proportion of patients visiting the emergency department or urgent care (at least 1 time) post-operatively between dexamethasone and placebo groups.||||0.07
90937140|NCT04879823|181753365|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: Average pain scores after medication will not be lower in the dexamethasone group compared with the placebo group.||||0.98
90937141|NCT02137239|181753384|SUPERIORITY||Incidence of Change|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9|16.7||||||Change in Incidence of Treatment A as compared to Treatment B at 6 Months||16.7|-18.9|
90937142|NCT02137239|181753384|SUPERIORITY||Incidence of Change|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.2|18.9||||||Change in Incidence of Treatment A as compared to Treatment B at 12 Months||18.9|-19.2|
90937143|NCT02137239|181753384|SUPERIORITY||Incidence of Change|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.1|23.9||||||Change in Incidence of Treatment A as compared to Treatment B at 24 Months||23.9|-16.1|
90937144|NCT04057937|181753411|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference:Apremilast-Placebo|37.4||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.6|56.1||Two-sided 0.10 significant level|Chi-squared||Confidence Intervals calculated using the Wald method (normal approximation).|||56.1|18.6|0.0003
90937145|NCT01072396|181753462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.0087||95.0|0.02|0.11||Based on mixed effect model with repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed categorical effects for treatment, period and random effect for patient. Period baseline and patient baseline (average of two period baselines) were covariates in the model.|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML) based MMRM||Placebo versus Tiotropium - crossover design||0.11|0.02|0.0087
90937146|NCT01072396|181753463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean ratio|1.0685||||0.067||95.0|0.9953|1.147||Based on mixed effect model with repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed categorical effects for treatment, period and random effect for patient. Period baseline and patient baseline (average of two period baselines) were covariates in the model.|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML) based MMRM||Placebo versus Tiotropium - corssover design||1.1470|0.9953|0.0670
90937147|NCT01072396|181753464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2059||||0.2417||95.0|-0.5527|0.1408||Based on mixed effect model with repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed categorical effects for treatment, period and random effect for patient. Period baseline and patient baseline (average of two period baselines) were covariates in the model.|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML) based MMRM||Placebo versus Tiotropium - corssover design||0.1408|-0.5527|0.2417
90937148|NCT02446912|181753465|SUPERIORITY|The difference in estimates and associated 95% CI are weighted and are calculated using a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) approach, with stratification factors (SLEDAI-2K score at screening \[\<10 points vs \>= 10 points\], Week 0 OCS dose \[\<10 mg/day vs \>=10 mg/day prednisone or equivalent\] and type I IFN gene signature test result at screening \[high vs low\]).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.2||||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.2|5.8||Nominal p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.8|-14.2|0.412
90937149|NCT02446912|181753465|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|9.6||||||||9.6|-14.7|
90937150|NCT02446912|181753466|SUPERIORITY|The difference in estimates and associated 95% CI are weighted and are calculated using a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) approach, with stratification factors (SLEDAI-2K score at screening \[\<10 points vs \>= 10 points\], Week 0 OCS dose \[\<10 mg/day vs \>=10 mg/day prednisone or equivalent\] and type I IFN gene signature test result at screening \[high vs low\]).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.9||||0.455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|14.1||Nominal p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||14.1|-6.3|0.455
90937151|NCT02446912|181753466|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|17.8||||||||17.8|-6.7|
90937152|NCT02446912|181753467|SUPERIORITY|The difference in estimates and associated 95% CI are weighted and are calculated using a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) approach, with stratification factors (SLEDAI-2K score at screening \[\<10 points vs \>= 10 points\], Week 0 OCS dose \[\<10 mg/day vs \>=10 mg/day prednisone or equivalent\] and type I IFN gene signature test result at screening \[high vs low\]).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.4||||0.549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|7.6||Nominal p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||7.6|-14.4|0.549
90937153|NCT02446912|181753468|SUPERIORITY|The difference in estimates and associated 95% CI are weighted and are calculated using a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) approach, with stratification factors (SLEDAI-2K score at screening \[\<10 points vs \>= 10 points\], Week 0 OCS dose \[\<10 mg/day vs \>=10 mg/day prednisone or equivalent\] and type I IFN gene signature test result at screening \[high vs low\]).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.4||||0.261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|17.7||Nominal p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||17.7|-4.8|0.261
90937154|NCT02446912|181753469|SUPERIORITY|The difference in estimates and associated 95% CI are weighted and are calculated using a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) approach, with stratification factors (SLEDAI-2K score at screening \[\<10 points vs \>= 10 points\], Week 0 OCS dose \[\<10 mg/day vs \>=10 mg/day prednisone or equivalent\] and type I IFN gene signature test result at screening \[high vs low\]).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.9||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|21.9||Nominal p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.9|-4.1|0.180
90937155|NCT02446912|181753470|SUPERIORITY|The difference in estimates and associated 95% CI are weighted and are calculated using a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) approach, with stratification factors (SLEDAI-2K score at screening \[\<10 points vs \>= 10 points\], Week 0 OCS dose \[\<10 mg/day vs \>=10 mg/day prednisone or equivalent\] and type I IFN gene signature test result at screening \[high vs low\]).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.7||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|29.8||Nominal p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||29.8|3.5|0.013
90969900|NCT01664559|181821626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||IUD type (levonorgestrel or copper)||||0.09
90937156|NCT02446912|181753471|SUPERIORITY|The difference in estimates and associated 95% CI are weighted and are calculated using a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) approach, with stratification factors (SLEDAI-2K score at screening \[\<10 points vs \>= 10 points\], Week 0 OCS dose \[\<10 mg/day vs \>=10 mg/day prednisone or equivalent\] and type I IFN gene signature test result at screening \[high vs low\]).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.0||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|34.3||Nominal p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||34.3|-0.3|0.054
90937157|NCT02446912|181753472|SUPERIORITY|The difference in estimates and associated 95% CI are weighted and are calculated using a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) approach, with stratification factors (SLEDAI-2K score at screening \[\<10 points vs \>= 10 points\], Week 0 OCS dose \[\<10 mg/day vs \>=10 mg/day prednisone or equivalent\] and type I IFN gene signature test result at screening \[high vs low\]).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.7||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|36.0||Nominal p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||36.0|1.4|0.034
90937158|NCT02446912|181753473|SUPERIORITY|The difference in estimates and associated 95% CI are weighted and are calculated using a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) approach, with stratification factors (SLEDAI-2K score at screening \[\<10 points vs \>= 10 points\], Week 0 OCS dose \[\<10 mg/day vs \>=10 mg/day prednisone or equivalent\] and type I IFN gene signature test result at screening \[high vs low\]).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|10.6||Nominal p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.6|-9.4|0.905
90937159|NCT02446912|181753474|SUPERIORITY|The difference in estimates and associated 95% CI are weighted and are calculated using a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) approach, with stratification factors (SLEDAI-2K score at screening \[\<10 points vs \>= 10 points\], Week 0 OCS dose \[\<10 mg/day vs \>=10 mg/day prednisone or equivalent\] and type I IFN gene signature test result at screening \[high vs low\]).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.3||||0.515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|13.4||Nominal p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||13.4|-6.7|0.515
90937160|NCT02446912|181753475|SUPERIORITY|Analysed using a negative binomial regression model. The response variable in the model is the number of flares over the 52-week treatment period. The model includes covariates of treatment group, and the stratification factors (SLEDAI-2K score at screening \[\<10 points vs \>=10 points\], Week 0 OCS dose \[\<10 mg/day vs \>=10 mg/day prednisone or equivalent\] and type I IFN gene signature test result at screening \[high vs low\]). The logarithm of the follow-up time is used as an offset variable.|Rate Ratio|0.83||||0.258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.14||Nominal p-value|Negative binomial regression|||||1.14|0.60|0.258
90937161|NCT02446912|181753476|SUPERIORITY|The difference in estimates and associated 95% CI are weighted and are calculated using a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) approach, with stratification factors (SLEDAI-2K score at screening \[\<10 points vs \>= 10 points\], Week 0 OCS dose \[\<10 mg/day vs \>=10 mg/day prednisone or equivalent\] and type I IFN gene signature test result at screening \[high vs low\]).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|19.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||19.7|0.6|
90937162|NCT02446912|181753477|SUPERIORITY|The difference in estimates and associated 95% CI are weighted and are calculated using a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) approach, with stratification factors (SLEDAI-2K score at screening \[\<10 points vs \>= 10 points\], Week 0 OCS dose \[\<10 mg/day vs \>=10 mg/day prednisone or equivalent\] and type I IFN gene signature test result at screening \[high vs low\]).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.7|26.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||26.2|6.7|
90937163|NCT01106586|181753493|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A total of 700 HIV-1 infected participants, randomized in a 1:1 ratio to 2 groups would achieve at least 95% power to establish noninferiority in Week 48 response (HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL per the FDA-defined snapshot analysis) rate difference between the 2 groups. For sample size and power computation, it was assumed that both treatment groups have a response rate of 0.795, a noninferiority margin of 0.12, and that the significance level of the test is at a one-sided, 0.025 level.|Difference in response rates|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.2|-1.9|7.8|||||To preserve the overall alpha level: 0.05, accounting for 2 interim analyses for Independent Data Monitoring Committee meetings, the 95.2% CI was computed using normal approximation stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA (≤ 100,000 or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|The null hypothesis was that the Stribild group is at least 12% worse than the ATV/r + Truvada group with respect to percentage of participants achieving HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL (response rate as defined by the snapshot analysis algorithm) at Week 48; the alternative hypothesis was that the response rate in the Stribild group is less than 12% worse than that in the ATV/r + Truvada Group.||7.8|-1.9|
90937164|NCT04864236|181753509|EQUIVALENCE|We compared particle number counts between intervention and control groups using the Wilcoxon test. Analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS V28 and p-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90937165|NCT04864236|181753510|EQUIVALENCE|Patient characteristics were summarized between groups using mean (SD) and formally compared using the t-test.||||||0.073|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.073
90937166|NCT04864236|181753511|EQUIVALENCE|Patient characteristics and study variables were summarized between groups using mean (SD) and formally compared using the t-test.||||||0.67|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.670
90937167|NCT04864236|181753512|EQUIVALENCE|Patient characteristics were summarized between groups using mean (SD) and formally compared using the t-test.||||||0.167|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.167
90937168|NCT04864236|181753513|EQUIVALENCE|Patient characteristics were summarized between groups using mean (SD) and formally compared using the t-test.||||||0.198|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.198
90937169|NCT04864236|181753514|EQUIVALENCE|Patient characteristics were summarized between groups using mean (SD) and formally compared using the t-test.||||||0.442|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.442
90937170|NCT00724750|181753515|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was 5%/day. For 80% power and a significance (alpha) level of 0.05; and assuming a common standard deviation of 9%, 41 subjects per group were needed.||||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|||||The rate of change for the 2 groups was compared by testing the treatment-by-time interaction in the model.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.60
90937171|NCT00724750|181753516|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was 5%/day.||||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|||||The rate of change for the 2 groups was compared by testing the treatment-by-time interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.19
90937172|NCT00724750|181753518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
90937173|NCT00724750|181753519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.02
90937174|NCT00724750|181753520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
90937175|NCT03906240|181753524|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|1.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.49|||t-test, 2 sided|t = 5.78||Paired-samples t-test to conduct within-person comparison between baseline and follow-up.||2.49|1.00|<.001
90937176|NCT03906240|181753524|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|0.78||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.38|||t-test, 2 sided|t = 3.48||Paired-samples t-test to conduct within-person comparison between baseline and follow-up.||1.38|0.35|.002
90937177|NCT03906240|181753525|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|0.01||||0.957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.91|||t-test, 2 sided|t = 0.06||Paired-samples t-test to conduct within-person comparison between baseline and follow-up.||0.91|-0.45|.957
90937178|NCT03906240|181753525|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|0.51||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|1.25|||t-test, 2 sided|t = 2.30||Paired-samples t-test to conduct within-person comparison between baseline and follow-up.||1.25|0.08|.033
90937179|NCT03906240|181753526|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|0.71||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.31|||t-test, 2 sided|t = 2.76||Physical Domain: Paired-samples t-test to conduct within-person comparison between baseline and follow-up.||1.31|0.32|.015
90937180|NCT03906240|181753526|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|0.74||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.55|||t-test, 2 sided|t = 2.87||Psychological Domain: Paired-samples t-test to conduct within-person comparison between baseline and follow-up.||1.55|0.26|.012
90937181|NCT03906240|181753526|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|0.02||||0.941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.55|||t-test, 2 sided|t = 0.08||Physical Domain: Paired-samples t-test to conduct within-person comparison between baseline and follow-up.||0.55|-0.43|.941
90937182|NCT03906240|181753526|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|0.25||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.79|||t-test, 2 sided|t = 1.14||Psychological Domain: Paired-samples t-test to conduct within-person comparison between baseline and follow-up.||0.79|-0.17|.270
90937183|NCT03906240|181753527|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|0.08||||0.768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.71|||t-test, 2 sided|t = 0.30||Paired-samples t-test to conduct within-person comparison between baseline and follow-up.||0.71|-0.45|.768
90937184|NCT03906240|181753527|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|0.01||||0.975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.42|||t-test, 2 sided|t = 0.05||Paired-samples t-test to conduct within-person comparison between baseline and follow-up.||0.42|-0.53|.975
90937185|NCT01426217|181753528|OTHER|Efficacy|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.98||||||||0.98|0.63|
90937186|NCT01426217|181753529|OTHER|Efficacy|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.35||||||||1.35|0.62|
90937187|NCT01075815|181753559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0235||||0.8762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1546|0.1568|||Wilcoxon two sample test|||||0.1568|-0.1546|0.8762
90937188|NCT01075815|181753560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3589||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.3589
90937189|NCT01075815|181753561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0629||95.0|||||Wilcoxon two sample test|||||||0.0629
90937190|NCT01075815|181753562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4728||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.4728
90937191|NCT01075815|181753563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.095||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0950
90937192|NCT01075815|181753565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9625||||0.9179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4655|1.99|||Chi-squared|||||1.9900|0.4655|0.9179
90937193|NCT01075815|181753566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.875||||0.7271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4133|1.8524|||Chi-squared|||||1.8524|0.4133|0.7271
90937194|NCT01075815|181753567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3267||95.0|||||Wilcoxon two sample test|||||||0.3267
90937195|NCT01075815|181753568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4164||95.0|||||Wilcoxon two sample test|||||||0.4164
90937196|NCT01075815|181753569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5952||95.0|||||Wilcoxon two sample test|||||||0.5952
90937197|NCT01075815|181753571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9444||||0.8852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4347|2.0518|||Chi-squared|||||2.0518|0.4347|0.8852
90937198|NCT02991456|181753580|OTHER|||||||0.2734|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2734
90937199|NCT02991456|181753581|OTHER|||||||0.7091|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7091
90937200|NCT02991456|181753582|EQUIVALENCE|This was tested as patients who preferred rolapitant + ondansetron vs. patients who did not prefer rolapitant + ondansetron. Patients who reported no preference and preference to Ondansetron were combined.||||||0.0004|||||||Exact Binomial|||||||0.0004
90937201|NCT02991456|181753582|EQUIVALENCE|Three outcomes tested by sequence.||||||0.5207|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.5207
90937202|NCT02991456|181753583|EQUIVALENCE|Effectiveness during weeks 1-3 between sequences.||||||0.0406|||||||t-test, 1 sided|T-test using the Satterthwaite method for unequal variances.||||||0.0406
90937203|NCT02991456|181753584|EQUIVALENCE|Convenience during weeks 1-3 between sequences.||||||0.0541|||||||t-test, 1 sided|T-test using the pooled method for equal variances.||||||0.0541
90937204|NCT02991456|181753585|EQUIVALENCE|Overall satisfaction during weeks 1-3 between sequences.||||||0.0781|||||||t-test, 1 sided|T-test using the pooled method for equal variances.||||||0.0781
90937205|NCT02991456|181753586|EQUIVALENCE|Effectiveness during weeks 4-6 between sequences.||||||0.4146|||||||t-test, 1 sided|T-test using the pooled method for equal variances.||||||0.4146
90937206|NCT02991456|181753587|EQUIVALENCE|Convenience during weeks 4-6 between sequences.||||||0.2214|||||||t-test, 1 sided|T-test using the pooled method for equal variances.||||||0.2214
90937207|NCT02991456|181753588|EQUIVALENCE|Overall satisfaction during weeks 4-6 between sequences.||||||0.2028|||||||t-test, 1 sided|T-test using the Satterthwaite method for unequal variances.||||||0.2028
90937208|NCT01292005|181753600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from Day 0 to Day 1. p\<0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||0.62
90969901|NCT01664559|181821626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Purpose of IUD (contraception or heavy menstrual bleeding)||||1.0
90969902|NCT01664559|181821626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Position of uterus (anteverted, retroverted, midpositioned)||||0.92
90969903|NCT01664559|181821626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Need for cervical dilation||||1.0
90969904|NCT01664559|181821626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Able to complete the IUD insertion||||1.0
90969905|NCT01664559|181821626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Significant bleeding||||0.24
90937209|NCT01292005|181753600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from Day 0 to Day 3. p\<0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||1.0
90937210|NCT01292005|181753601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from Day 0 to Day 1. p\<0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||0.72
90937211|NCT01292005|181753601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from Day 0 to Day 3. p\<0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||0.50
90937212|NCT01292005|181753602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from Day 0 to Day 1. p\<0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||0.58
90937213|NCT01292005|181753602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from Day 0 to Day 3. p\<0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||0.80
90969906|NCT01664559|181821626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Major complications||||1.0
90969907|NCT01664559|181821626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Took acetaminophen prior to leaving the office||||0.02
90969908|NCT03631732|181821627|NON_INFERIORITY|B/F/TAF is non-inferior to SBR if the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the difference between treatment groups \[B/F/TAF - SBR\] in the percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA ≥ 50 copies/mL is less than 6% (i.e., a margin of 6% is applied to non-inferiority assessment).|Difference in percentages|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|0.9|||||Differences in percentages of participants with HIV-1 RNA \>= 50 copies/mL between treatment groups and 95% CI were calculated based on exact method.|||0.9|-4.8|
90969909|NCT03631732|181821627|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3399|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.3399
90969910|NCT03631732|181821629|NON_INFERIORITY|B/F/TAF is non-inferior to SBR if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between treatment groups \[B/F/TAF - SBR\] in the percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL is greater than -10% (i.e., a margin of 10% is applied to non-inferiority assessment).|Difference in percentages|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|6.8|||||Differences in percentages of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL between treatment groups and 95% CI were calculated based on exact method.|||6.8|-2.0|
90969911|NCT03631732|181821629|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3532|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.3532
90969912|NCT03631732|181821630|NON_INFERIORITY|B/F/TAF is non-inferior to SBR if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between treatment groups \[B/F/TAF - SBR\] in the percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL is greater than -10% (i.e., a margin of 10% is applied to non-inferiority assessment).|Difference in percentages|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|5.3|||||Differences in percentages of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL between treatment groups and 95% CI were calculated based on exact method.|||5.3|-1.0|
90969913|NCT03631732|181821630|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3356|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.3356
90969914|NCT03631732|181821632|OTHER||Difference in LSM|11.0||||0.5618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.0|49.0|||ANOVA|P-value was calculated from ANOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect.|Difference in LSM (Least square mean) and its 95% C.I. was calculated from ANOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect.|||49|-27|0.5618
90969915|NCT03631732|181821633|OTHER||Difference in LSM|9.0||||0.6632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.0|48.0|||ANOVA|P-value was calculated from ANOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect.|Difference in LSM and its 95% C.I. was calculated from ANOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect.|||48|-31|0.6632
90969916|NCT02255409|181821684|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|9.7||||||Vaccine Group Difference (aQIV - QIV) for A/H1N1 at Day 22||9.7|-6.7|
90969917|NCT02255409|181821684|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.2|2.3||||||Vaccine Group Difference (aQIV - QIV) for A/H3N2 at Day 22||2.3|-14.2|
90969918|NCT02255409|181821684|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.4|24.1||||||Vaccine Group Difference (aQIV - QIV) for B/Yamagata at Day 22||24.1|8.4|
90969919|NCT02255409|181821684|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|22.0||||||Vaccine Group Difference (aQIV - QIV) for B/Victoria at Day 22||22.0|6.3|
90969920|NCT02255409|181821685|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|2.2||||||Vaccine Group Difference (aQIV - QIV) for A/H1N1 at Day 22||2.2|-0.9|
90969921|NCT02255409|181821685|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.2||||||Vaccine Group Difference (aQIV - QIV) for A/H3N2 at Day 22||1.2|-1.9|
90969922|NCT02255409|181821685|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.3|20.0||||||Vaccine Group Difference (aQIV - QIV) for B/Yamagata at Day 22||20.0|9.3|
90969923|NCT02255409|181821685|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|26.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.6|32.0||||||Vaccine Group Difference (aQIV - QIV) for B/Victoria at Day 22||32.0|20.6|
90969924|NCT02255409|181821689|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|13.0||||||Vaccine Group Difference (aQIV - QIV) for A/H1N1 at Day 181||13.0|-1.6|
90969925|NCT02255409|181821689|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|9.8||||||Vaccine Group Difference (aQIV - QIV) for A/H3N2 at Day 181||9.8|-5.5|
90969926|NCT02255409|181821689|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|18.3||||||Vaccine Group Difference (aQIV - QIV) for B/Yamagata at Day 181||18.3|5.3|
90969927|NCT02255409|181821689|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|5.7||||||Vaccine Group Difference (aQIV - QIV) for B/Victoria at Day 181||5.7|-8.4|
90969928|NCT02255409|181821690|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|8.4||||||Vaccine Group Difference (aQIV - QIV) for A/H1N1 at Day 181||8.4|2.4|
90969929|NCT02255409|181821690|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|9.3||||||Vaccine Group Difference (aQIV - QIV) for A/H3N2 at Day 181||9.3|3.1|
90969930|NCT02255409|181821690|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.0|40.9||||||Vaccine Group Difference (aQIV - QIV) for B/Yamagata at Day 181||40.9|25.0|
90969931|NCT02255409|181821690|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|37.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.6|44.7||||||Vaccine Group Difference (aQIV - QIV) for B/Victoria at Day 181||44.7|29.6|
90969932|NCT02255409|181821691|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|2.4||||||The ratio of GMT (GMTr) values between aQIV vs. QIV (ie, GMT\[aQIV\]:GMT\[QIV\]) for A/H1N1 at Day 1.||2.4|1.6|
90969933|NCT02255409|181821691|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|1.7||||||GMTr values between aQIV vs. QIV (ie, GMT\[aQIV\]:GMT\[QIV\]) for A/H1N1 at Day 22.||1.7|1.3|
90969934|NCT02255409|181821691|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|1.7||||||GMTr values between aQIV vs. QIV (ie, GMT\[aQIV\]:GMT\[QIV\]) for A/H1N1 at Day 181.||1.7|1.3|
90969935|NCT02255409|181821691|OTHER||GMT Ratio|2.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|2.7||||||GMTr values between aQIV vs. QIV (ie, GMT\[aQIV\]:GMT\[QIV\]) for A/H3N2 at Day 1.||2.7|1.7|
90969936|NCT02255409|181821691|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|1.5||||||GMTr values between aQIV vs. QIV (ie, GMT\[aQIV\]:GMT\[QIV\]) for A/H3N2 at Day 22.||1.5|1.2|
90969937|NCT02255409|181821691|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|1.6||||||GMTr values between aQIV vs. QIV (ie, GMT\[aQIV\]:GMT\[QIV\]) for A/H3N2 at Day 181.||1.6|1.2|
90969938|NCT02255409|181821691|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|2.2||||||GMTr values between aQIV vs. QIV (ie, GMT\[aQIV\]:GMT\[QIV\]) for B/Yamagata at Day 1.||2.2|1.5|
90969939|NCT02255409|181821691|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|2.0||||||GMTr values between aQIV vs. QIV (ie, GMT\[aQIV\]:GMT\[QIV\]) for B/Yamagata at Day 22.||2.0|1.5|
90969940|NCT02255409|181821691|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|2.2||||||GMTr values between aQIV vs. QIV (ie, GMT\[aQIV\]:GMT\[QIV\]) for B/Yamagata at Day 181.||2.2|1.6|
90969941|NCT02255409|181821691|OTHER||GMT Ratio|3.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|4.0||||||GMTr values between aQIV vs. QIV (ie, GMT\[aQIV\]:GMT\[QIV\]) for B/Victoria at Day 1.||4.0|2.7|
90969942|NCT02255409|181821691|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|1.8||||||GMTr values between aQIV vs. QIV (ie, GMT\[aQIV\]:GMT\[QIV\]) for B/Victoria at Day 22.||1.8|1.2|
90969943|NCT02255409|181821691|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.5||||||GMTr values between aQIV vs. QIV (ie, GMT\[aQIV\]:GMT\[QIV\]) for B/Victoria at Day 181.||1.5|1.1|
90969944|NCT02255409|181821693|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|16.3||||||Vaccine Group Difference (aQIV - QIV) for A/H3N2 at Day 181||16.3|-5.2|
90969945|NCT02255409|181821693|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|23.6||||||Vaccine Group Difference (aQIV - QIV) for B/Yamagata at Day 181||23.6|5.3|
90969946|NCT02255409|181821694|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.5|24.1||||||Vaccine Group Difference (aQIV - QIV) for A/H3N2 at Day 181||24.1|9.5|
90969947|NCT02255409|181821694|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|46.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.9|55.8||||||Vaccine Group Difference (aQIV - QIV) for B/Yamagata at Day 181||55.8|35.9|
90969948|NCT02255409|181821695|OTHER||GMT Ratio|2.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|3.8||||||GMTr values between aQIV vs. QIV (ie, GMT\[aQIV\]:GMT\[QIV\]) for A/H3N2 at Day 1.||3.8|1.8|
90969949|NCT02255409|181821695|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.9||||||GMTr values between aQIV vs. QIV (ie, GMT\[aQIV\]:GMT\[QIV\]) for A/H3N2 at Day 22.||2.9|1.3|
90969950|NCT02255409|181821695|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.2||||||GMTr values between aQIV vs. QIV (ie, GMT\[aQIV\]:GMT\[QIV\]) for A/H3N2 at Day 181.||2.2|1.3|
90969951|NCT02255409|181821695|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|2.6||||||GMTr values between aQIV vs. QIV (ie, GMT\[aQIV\]:GMT\[QIV\]) for B/Yamagata at Day 1.||2.6|1.5|
90969952|NCT02255409|181821695|OTHER||GMT Ratio|2.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|2.7||||||GMTr values between aQIV vs. QIV (ie, GMT\[aQIV\]:GMT\[QIV\]) for A/H3N2 at Day 22.||2.7|1.8|
90969953|NCT02255409|181821695|OTHER||GMT Ratio|2.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|3.2||||||GMTr values between aQIV vs. QIV (ie, GMT\[aQIV\]:GMT\[QIV\]) for A/H3N2 at Day 181.||3.2|2.1|
90969954|NCT00135668|181821701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.16|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.44|-13.97|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test used.||Paired t-test used to test the null hypothesis of no change in MAP from baseline.||-13.97|-18.44|<0.001
90969955|NCT00135668|181821701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.68|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.45|-6.55|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||||-6.55|-15.45|<0.001
90969956|NCT00135668|181821701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.88|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.7|-13.3|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||||-13.30|-20.70|<0.001
91035585|NCT01175018|181957163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
90969957|NCT00135668|181821701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.95|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.38|-15.58|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||||-15.58|-24.38|<0.001
90969958|NCT00135668|181821701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|18.63|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.87|-11.39|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||-11.39|-21.87|<0.001
90969959|NCT02370615|181821712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (Day 10/Day 1)|2.012|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.632|2.481||||||Analysis for TAK 272F||2.481|1.632|
90969960|NCT02370615|181821712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (Day 10/Day 1)|0.089|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.064|0.123||||||Analysis for TAK 272-M-I||0.123|0.064|
90969961|NCT02370615|181821713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (Day 10/Day 1)|4.888|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.137|5.777||||||Analysis for TAK 272F||5.777|4.137|
90969962|NCT02370615|181821714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (Day 10/Day 1)|4.702|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.969|5.569||||||Analysis for TAK 272F||5.569|3.969|
90969963|NCT02370615|181821714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (Day 10/Day 1)|0.023|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.012|0.045||||||Analysis for TAK 272-M-I||0.045|0.012|
90937214|NCT01292005|181753603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from Day 0 to Day 1. p\<0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||0.90
90937215|NCT01292005|181753603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.56||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from Day 0 to Day 3. p\<0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||0.56
90937216|NCT01292005|181753604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||p\<0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||0.09
90937217|NCT01292005|181753605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||p\<0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||0.22
90937218|NCT01292005|181753606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between arms for length of hospitalization \> 4 days. P \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||0.04
90937219|NCT01292005|181753606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison was for length of hospitalization \>10 days. P \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||0.03
90937220|NCT01292005|181753607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||P \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||0.06
90937221|NCT01292005|181753608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||P \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||0.03
90937222|NCT01292005|181753609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||P \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||0.04
90969964|NCT02370615|181821716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (Day 7/Day 1)|1.349|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.117|1.628||||||||1.628|1.117|
90969965|NCT02370615|181821717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (Day 7/Day 1)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.919|1.131||||||||1.131|0.919|
90969966|NCT02370615|181821718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (Day 7/Day 1)|1.155|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.035|1.289||||||||1.289|1.035|
90969967|NCT02370615|181821720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (Day 7/Day 1)|1.235|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1|1.387||||||Analysis for Midazolam||1.387|1.100|
90969968|NCT02370615|181821720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (Day 7/Day 1)|0.887|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.781|1.008||||||Analysis for 1'Hydroxymidazolam||1.008|0.781|
90969969|NCT02370615|181821721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (Day 7/Day 1)|1.422|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.29|1.568||||||Analysis for Midazolam||1.568|1.290|
90969970|NCT02370615|181821721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (Day 7/Day 1)|1.081|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.008|1.16||||||Analysis for 1'Hydroxymidazolam||1.160|1.008|
90969971|NCT02370615|181821722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (Day 7/Day 1)|1.425|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.291|1.574||||||Analysis for Midazolam||1.574|1.291|
90969972|NCT02370615|181821722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (Day 7/Day 1)|1.061|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.986|1.143||||||Analysis for 1'Hydroxymidazolam||1.143|0.986|
90969973|NCT00078325|181821729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||ANOVA|Treatment and country as factors.||||||0.0001
90969974|NCT00078325|181821729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0008|||||||ANOVA|Treatment and country as factors.||||||0.0008
90969975|NCT00078325|181821730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for country.||||||<0.0001
90969976|NCT00078325|181821730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for country.||||||<0.0001
90969977|NCT02943564|181821762|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.1||||0.8862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.73|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||1.73|-1.50|0.8862
90969978|NCT02943564|181821762|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.5772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|1.16|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||1.16|-2.07|0.5772
90969979|NCT02943564|181821763|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.8967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|1.29|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||1.29|-1.48|0.8967
90969980|NCT02943564|181821763|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0||||0.9963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|1.39|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||1.39|-1.38|0.9963
90969981|NCT02012621|181821800|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|73.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.7|210.5|||Regression, Logistic|||||210.5|25.7|<0.0001
90969982|NCT02012621|181821801|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.5||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|30.9|||Regression, Logistic|||||30.9|2.3|0.0012
90969983|NCT02012621|181821802|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|8.7|||Regression, Logistic|||||8.7|2.6|<0.0001
90969984|NCT00533442|181821832|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Log Rank|||Biopsy-Proven Acute Rejection of the Kidney (logrank test).||||0.01
90969985|NCT00533442|181821832|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Log Rank|||Biopsy-Proven Acute Rejection of the Pancreas (logrank test).||||0.01
90969986|NCT00533442|181821832|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Log Rank|||Death-Censored Kidney Graft Failure (logrank test).||||0.16
90969987|NCT00533442|181821832|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Log Rank|||Death-Censored Pancreas Graft Failure (logrank test).||||0.12
90969988|NCT00533442|181821832|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||Log Rank|||Death-Uncensored (Kidney \& Pancreas) Graft Survival (logrank test).||||0.96
90969989|NCT00533442|181821832|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99||||||Patient Death (logrank test).|Log Rank|||||||>0.99
90969990|NCT00533442|181821833|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Mean eGFR at 12 Months Post-Transplant (t-test).||||0.21
90969991|NCT00533442|181821833|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Mean eGFR at 36 Months Post-Transplant (t-test).||||0.71
90969992|NCT00533442|181821833|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Mean eGFR at 60 Months Post-Transplant (t-test).||||0.33
90969993|NCT00533442|181821834|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Mean Log {C-Peptide Level} at 12 Months Post-Transplant (t-test).||||.47
90969994|NCT00533442|181821834|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Mean Log {C-Peptide Level} at 36 Months Post-Transplant (t-test).||||0.97
90969995|NCT00533442|181821834|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Mean Log {C-Peptide Level} at 60 Months Post-Transplant (t-test).||||0.75
90969996|NCT00874120|181821854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||residual error term from the ANOVA|-0.5||||0.548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.1||P-value is based on an ANOVA model including sequence, subject within sequence, period and treatment as factors.|ANOVA|||||1.1|-2.0|0.5480
90969997|NCT03615183|181821855|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted by Placebo data pooled from historical placebo data from recent monotherapy studies in HIV-1 infected participants (NCT00100048, NCT01466985, NCT01152255, and NCT01353898) and fitted with a longitudinal data analysis (LDA) model containing fixed effects for study and time, and a random effect for participants.|Posterior Mean Difference|-1.36|||||||||||||Posterior Probability (PP) of true mean difference in the plasma HIV-1 RNA change from baseline between MK-8527 and placebo ≤ -1.0 copies/mL was 99.72%.|It was hypothesized that the true mean difference in the plasma HIV-1 RNA reduction from baseline between MK- 8527 and placebo is at least 1.0 log10 copies/mL.||||
90969998|NCT03615183|181821855|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted by Placebo data pooled from historical placebo data from recent monotherapy studies in HIV-1 infected participants (NCT00100048, NCT01466985, NCT01152255, and NCT01353898) and fitted with a LDA model containing fixed effects for study and time, and a random effect for participants.|Posterior Mean Difference|-1.63|||||||||||||PP of true mean difference in the plasma HIV-1 RNA change from baseline between MK-8527 and placebo ≤ -1.0 copies/mL was 99.86%.|It was hypothesized that the true mean difference in the plasma HIV-1 RNA reduction from baseline between MK- 8527 and placebo is at least 1.0 log10 copies/mL.||||
90969999|NCT03615183|181821855|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted by Placebo data pooled from historical placebo data from recent monotherapy studies in HIV-1 infected participants (NCT00100048, NCT01466985, NCT01152255, and NCT01353898) and fitted with a LDA model containing fixed effects for study and time, and a random effect for participants.|Posterior Mean Difference|-0.92|||||||||||||PP of true mean difference in the plasma HIV-1 RNA change from baseline between MK-8527 and placebo ≤ -1.0 copies/mL was 9.42%.|It was hypothesized that the true mean difference in the plasma HIV-1 RNA reduction from baseline between MK- 8527 and placebo is at least 1.0 log10 copies/mL.||||
90970000|NCT00105443|181821872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6931||||0.00583||95.0|0.5549|0.8658||According to the pre-specified O'Brien-Fleming alpha spending function, the alpha value for this second interim analysis was 0.0073 (corresponding to a nominal value of 0.0077 after taking into account the first interim analysis).|Log Rank||This is the sorafenib to placebo hazard ratio.|"The 2 arms were compared using a 1-sided log-rank test with an overall alpha of 0.02 stratified by region, ECOG PS and tumor burden. In addition to the final analysis at the end of the study, 2 formal interim analyses of overall survival were planned. An alpha spending function was used to ensure that the false positive rate is less than or equal to 0.02 (1-sided). The study was stopped at the second interim analysis, the results of which are reported here."||0.8658|0.5549|0.00583
90970001|NCT00105443|181821873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0764||||0.7676||95.0|0.8837|1.311|||Log Rank||This is the sorafenib to placebo hazard ratio.|"The 2 arms were compared using a 1-sided log-rank test with an overall alpha of 0.005 stratified by region, ECOG PS and tumor burden. This was a co-primary endpoint with overall survival. No alpha-spending adjustments were necessary as it was only to be analyzed at the end of study."||1.3110|0.8837|0.7676
90970002|NCT00105443|181821874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5764||||7e-06||95.0|0.4484|0.741|||Log Rank||This is the sorafenib to placebo hazard ratio.|"In the analysis of TTP, based on independent radiological review performed to review data up to 12 May 2006, the 2 treatment groups were compared using a 1-sided log rank test with an alpha of 0.025, stratified by region, ECOG PS, and tumor burden."||0.7410|0.4484|0.000007
90970003|NCT00105443|181821875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-11.95||||0.001641||95.0|-19.56|-4.35|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Sorafenib minus placebo difference|"Disease control rates were compared between treatment groups using the Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test with a 1-sided alpha of 0.025, adjusting for region, ECOG PS, and tumor burden."||-4.35|-19.56|0.001641
90970004|NCT03187769|181821882|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.87||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.33|-0.41|||ANCOVA|||||-.41|-3.33|.012
90970005|NCT01623271|181821888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91035586|NCT01175018|181957164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
90970006|NCT03776175|181821902|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-44.52||||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-54.97|-31.65|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference was not a simple subtraction between LS means of groups but through statistical model.|Natural log-transformed of individual relative change from baseline to Day 42 was analyzed using the ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect, natural log-transformed baseline whole liver fat by MRI-PDFF as covariate. Values were back-transformed from the log scale. 90% CI was calculated on difference in least square (LS) mean between groups||-31.65|-54.97|0.0000
90971326|NCT00439946|181825394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.84||95.0||||p-value for CAMPHOR Activity Score|Wilcoxon signed rank|||Changes in mean TSQM and CAMPHOR scores between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test, comparing the values at Baseline to values at Week 8. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values.||||0.84
91035587|NCT01175018|181957165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
91035588|NCT01175018|181957166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
91035589|NCT01175018|181957167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
91035590|NCT01175018|181957168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
91035591|NCT01175018|181957169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
90937223|NCT02924051|181753616|EQUIVALENCE|With an alpha level of .05 and effective (post-attrition) sample size of approximately 25 participants per county, and 3 counties per treatment group, the power of the group comparison was at least 80%, assuming an ICC of .01 or less, and an observed difference in proportions of .25. The anticipated power for the longitudinal comparison of continuous outcomes was expected to be even greater under these assumptions given the greater power for the parametric tests.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.12||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.26
91035592|NCT01175018|181957170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
90937224|NCT02924051|181753618|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison of Cooking Skills/Nutrition Education/MI at baseline and 12 months.||||0.36
90937225|NCT00936065|181753634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0672|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall treatment difference||||0.0672
90937226|NCT00936065|181753635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall treatment difference Week 2||||1.0000
90937227|NCT00936065|181753635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0229|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall treatment difference Week 4||||0.0229
90937228|NCT00936065|181753635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0256|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall treatment difference Week 8||||0.0256
90937229|NCT00936065|181753635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall treatment difference Week 12||||0.0004
90937230|NCT00936065|181753635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0105|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall treatment difference Week 18||||0.0105
90937231|NCT00936065|181753635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0366|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall treatment difference Week 24||||0.0366
90937232|NCT00936065|181753636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall treatment difference at Week 8||||1.0000
90937233|NCT00936065|181753636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.323|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall treatment difference at Week 12||||0.3230
90937234|NCT00936065|181753636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall treatment difference at Week 18||||1.0000
90937235|NCT00936065|181753636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall treatment difference at Week 24||||1.0000
90937236|NCT00936065|181753637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3103|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall treatment difference at Week 2||||0.3103
90937237|NCT00936065|181753637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4763|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall treatment difference at Week 4||||0.4763
90937238|NCT00936065|181753637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1961|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall treatment difference at Week 8||||0.1961
90937239|NCT00936065|181753637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0272|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall treatment difference at Week 12||||0.0272
90937240|NCT00936065|181753637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5038|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall treatment difference at Week 18||||0.5038
90937241|NCT00936065|181753637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0374|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall treatment difference at Week 24||||0.0374
90937242|NCT00936065|181753638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6061|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall treatment difference at Baseline||||0.6061
90937243|NCT00936065|181753638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2971|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall treatment difference at Week 2||||0.2971
90937244|NCT00936065|181753638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1119|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall treatment difference at Week 4||||0.1119
90937245|NCT00936065|181753638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1081|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall treatment difference at Week 8||||0.1081
90937246|NCT00936065|181753638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall treatment difference at Week 12||||0.0063
90937247|NCT00936065|181753638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0055|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall treatment difference at Week 18||||0.0055
90937248|NCT00936065|181753638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall treatment difference at Week 24||||0.0031
90937249|NCT00936065|181753639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Overall treatment difference||||0.0033
90937250|NCT00936065|181753640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0448|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Overall treatment difference||||0.0448
90937251|NCT00936065|181753641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0041|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Overall treatment difference||||0.0041
90937252|NCT00936065|181753642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3536|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Overall treatment difference||||0.3536
90937253|NCT00936065|181753643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0203|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Overall treatment difference at Week 2||||0.0203
90937254|NCT00936065|181753643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0102|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Overall treatment difference at Week 4||||0.0102
90937255|NCT00936065|181753643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0056|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Overall treatment difference at Week 8||||0.0056
90937256|NCT00936065|181753643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Overall treatment difference at Week 12||||0.0006
90937257|NCT00936065|181753643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0066|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Overall treatment difference at Week 18||||0.0066
90937258|NCT00936065|181753643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Overall treatment difference at Week 24||||0.0058
90937259|NCT00936065|181753644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0329|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Overall treatment difference at Week 2||||0.0329
90937260|NCT00936065|181753644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Overall treatment difference at Week 4||||0.0003
90937261|NCT00936065|181753644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0598|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Overall treatment difference at Week 8||||0.0598
90937262|NCT00936065|181753644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0241|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Overall treatment difference at Week 12||||0.0241
90937263|NCT00936065|181753644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0543|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Overall treatment difference at Week 18||||0.0543
91035593|NCT01175018|181957171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
91035594|NCT01175018|181957172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
91035914|NCT01058668|181958520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|-3.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||cariprazine (6-12 mg/day) - placebo|||-3.6|-8.2|<0.001
90937264|NCT00936065|181753644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1205|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Overall treatment difference at Week 24||||0.1205
90937265|NCT00936065|181753645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1385|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Overall treatment difference at Week 2||||0.1385
90937266|NCT00936065|181753645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Overall treatment difference at Week 4||||0.0019
90937267|NCT00936065|181753645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0442|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Overall treatment difference at Week 8||||0.0442
90937268|NCT00936065|181753645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Overall treatment difference at Week 12||||0.0034
90937269|NCT00936065|181753645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0454|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Overall treatment difference at Week 18||||0.0454
90937270|NCT00936065|181753645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0539|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Overall treatment difference at Week 24||||0.0539
90937271|NCT00936065|181753646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1723|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Overall treatment difference at Week 2||||0.1723
90937272|NCT00936065|181753646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0292|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Overall treatment difference at Week 4||||0.0292
90937273|NCT00936065|181753646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0908|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Overall treatment difference at Week 8||||0.0908
90937274|NCT00936065|181753646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5678|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Overall treatment difference at Week 12||||0.5678
90937275|NCT00936065|181753646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.482|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Overall treatment difference at Week 18||||0.4820
90937276|NCT00936065|181753646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0394|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Overall treatment difference at Week 24||||0.0394
90937277|NCT00936065|181753647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1079|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Overall treatment difference at Week 2||||0.1079
90937278|NCT00936065|181753647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Overall treatment difference at Week 4||||0.0004
90937279|NCT00936065|181753647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0146|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Overall treatment difference at Week 8||||0.0146
90937280|NCT00936065|181753647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Overall treatment difference at Week 12||||0.0019
90937281|NCT00936065|181753647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0062|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Overall treatment difference at Week 18||||0.0062
90937282|NCT00936065|181753647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0197|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Overall treatment difference at Week 24||||0.0197
90937283|NCT00936065|181753648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1229|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Overall treatment difference at Week 2||||0.1229
90937284|NCT00936065|181753648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0136|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Overall treatment difference at Week 4||||0.0136
90937285|NCT00936065|181753648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1578|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Overall treatment difference at Week 8||||0.1578
90937286|NCT00936065|181753648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0565|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Overall treatment difference at Week 12||||0.0565
90937287|NCT00936065|181753648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0685|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Overall treatment difference at Week 18||||0.0685
90937288|NCT00936065|181753648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0493|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Overall treatment difference at Week 24||||0.0493
90937289|NCT00936065|181753649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3112|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 2||||0.3112
90937290|NCT00936065|181753649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0196|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 4||||0.0196
90937291|NCT00936065|181753649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0109|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 8||||0.0109
90937292|NCT00936065|181753649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 12||||0.0035
90937293|NCT00936065|181753649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0603|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 18||||0.0603
90937294|NCT00936065|181753649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2184|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 24||||0.2184
90937295|NCT00936065|181753650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1774|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 2||||0.1774
90937296|NCT00936065|181753650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1195|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 4||||0.1195
90937297|NCT00936065|181753650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0606|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 8||||0.0606
90937298|NCT00936065|181753650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 12||||0.0030
90937299|NCT00936065|181753650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1567|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 18||||0.1567
90937300|NCT00936065|181753650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2094|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 24||||0.2094
90937301|NCT00936065|181753651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0302|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 2||||0.0302
90937302|NCT00936065|181753651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.098|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 4||||0.0980
90937303|NCT00936065|181753651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0711|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 8||||0.0711
90937304|NCT00936065|181753651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0077|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 12||||0.0077
90937305|NCT00936065|181753651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1553|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 18||||0.1553
90937306|NCT00936065|181753651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.041|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 24||||0.0410
90937307|NCT00936065|181753652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 2||||0.0060
90937308|NCT00936065|181753652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 4||||0.0058
90937309|NCT00936065|181753652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0127|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 8||||0.0127
90937310|NCT00936065|181753652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0068|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 12||||0.0068
90937311|NCT00936065|181753652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0096|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 18||||0.0096
90937312|NCT00936065|181753652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0132|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 24||||0.0132
90937313|NCT00936065|181753653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6904|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 2||||0.6904
90970007|NCT03776175|181821902|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-35.4||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-47.4|-20.68|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference was not a simple subtraction between LS means of groups but through statistical model.|Natural log-transformed of individual relative change from baseline to Day 42 was analyzed using the ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect, natural log-transformed baseline whole liver fat by MRI-PDFF as covariate. Values were back-transformed from the log scale. 90% CI was calculated on difference LS mean between groups.||-20.68|-47.40|0.0007
90970008|NCT03776175|181821902|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-44.64||||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-54.8|-32.19|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference was not a simple subtraction between LS means of groups but through statistical model.|Natural log-transformed of individual relative change from baseline to Day 42 was analyzed using the ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect, natural log-transformed baseline whole liver fat by MRI-PDFF as covariate. Values were back-transformed from the log scale. 90% CI was calculated on difference in LS mean between groups.||-32.19|-54.80|0.0000
90970009|NCT03776175|181821902|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.21||||0.9836|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.66|18.08|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference was not a simple subtraction between LS means of groups but through statistical model.|Natural log-transformed of individual relative change from baseline to Day 42 was analyzed using the ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect, natural log-transformed baseline whole liver fat by MRI-PDFF as covariate. Values were back-transformed from the log scale. 90% CI was calculated on difference in LS mean between groups.||18.08|-15.66|0.9836
90970010|NCT03776175|181821902|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-14.3||||0.1233|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.32|1.06|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference was not a simple subtraction between LS means of groups but through statistical model.|Natural log-transformed of individual relative change from baseline to Day 42 was analyzed using the ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect, natural log-transformed baseline whole liver fat by MRI-PDFF as covariate. Values were back-transformed from the log scale. 90% CI was calculated on difference in LS mean between groups.||1.06|-27.32|0.1233
90970011|NCT03776175|181821902|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|50.0|-6.82|6.87|||||LS mean difference was not a simple subtraction between LS means of groups but through statistical model.|Natural log-transformed of individual relative change from baseline to Day 42 was analyzed using the ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect, natural log-transformed baseline whole liver fat by MRI-PDFF as covariate. Values were back-transformed from the log scale. 50% CI was calculated on difference in LS mean between groups.||6.87|-6.82|
90937314|NCT00936065|181753653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7021|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 4||||0.7021
90937315|NCT00936065|181753653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2199|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 8||||0.2199
90970012|NCT03776175|181821902|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-14.3|||||TWO_SIDED|50.0|-19.86|-8.35|||||LS mean difference was not a simple subtraction between LS means of groups but through statistical model.|Natural log-transformed of individual relative change from baseline to Day 42 was analyzed using the ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect, natural log-transformed baseline whole liver fat by MRI-PDFF as covariate. Values were back-transformed from the log scale. 50% CI was calculated on difference in LS mean between groups.||-8.35|-19.86|
90970013|NCT00393887|181821926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Two-sided Fisher's exact test||||0.11
90970014|NCT02324920|181821927|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.46|||Regression, Cox||||Additional models were implemented to control for country and investigational sites effect on primary endpoint.|0.46|0.11|<0.001
90970015|NCT02324920|181821928|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.45||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.75|||Regression, Cox|||||0.75|0.27|0.002
90970016|NCT03703102|181821933|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
90970017|NCT03703102|181821933|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
90970018|NCT03703102|181821933|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
90937316|NCT00936065|181753653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5071|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 12||||0.5071
90937317|NCT00936065|181753653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4765|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 18||||0.4765
90937318|NCT00936065|181753653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8662|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 24||||0.8662
90937319|NCT00936065|181753654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1144|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 2||||0.1144
90937320|NCT00936065|181753654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4509|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 4||||0.4509
90937321|NCT00936065|181753654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.435|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 8||||0.4350
90937322|NCT00936065|181753654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6085|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 12||||0.6085
90937323|NCT00936065|181753654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2582|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 18||||0.2582
90937324|NCT00936065|181753654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.549|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 24||||0.5490
90937325|NCT00936065|181753655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3287|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 2||||0.3287
90937326|NCT00936065|181753655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4149|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 4||||0.4149
90937327|NCT00936065|181753655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3837|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 8||||0.3837
90937328|NCT00936065|181753655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6777|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 12||||0.6777
90937329|NCT00936065|181753655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4976|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 18||||0.4976
90937330|NCT00936065|181753655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4189|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 24||||0.4189
90937331|NCT00936065|181753656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.476|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 2||||0.4760
90937332|NCT00936065|181753656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.404|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 4||||0.4040
90970019|NCT03703102|181821933|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
90970020|NCT02017327|181821972|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
90970021|NCT02017327|181821972|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0045|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0045
90937333|NCT00936065|181753656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4753|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 8||||0.4753
90937334|NCT00936065|181753656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5084|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 12||||0.5084
90937335|NCT00936065|181753656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2293|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 18||||0.2293
90937336|NCT00936065|181753656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3822|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 24||||0.3822
90937337|NCT00936065|181753657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2691|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 2||||0.2691
90937338|NCT00936065|181753657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0142|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 4||||0.0142
90937339|NCT00936065|181753657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0383|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 8||||0.0383
90937340|NCT00936065|181753657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 12||||0.0026
90937341|NCT00936065|181753657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0475|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 18||||0.0475
90937342|NCT00936065|181753657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0205|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 24||||0.0205
90937343|NCT00936065|181753658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0512|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 2||||0.0512
90937344|NCT00936065|181753658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 4||||0.0024
90937345|NCT00936065|181753658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0946|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 8||||0.0946
90937346|NCT00936065|181753658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0935|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 12||||0.0935
90937347|NCT00936065|181753658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2073|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 18||||0.2073
90937348|NCT00936065|181753658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3415|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 24||||0.3415
90937349|NCT00936065|181753659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0202|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 2||||0.0202
90937350|NCT00936065|181753659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 4||||0.0090
90937351|NCT00936065|181753659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0742|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 8||||0.0742
90937352|NCT00936065|181753659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0445|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 12||||0.0445
90937353|NCT00936065|181753659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2211|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 18||||0.2211
90937354|NCT00936065|181753659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1982|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 24||||0.1982
90937355|NCT00936065|181753660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0409|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 2||||0.0409
90937356|NCT00936065|181753660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.145|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 4||||0.1450
90937357|NCT00936065|181753660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.201|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 8||||0.2010
90937358|NCT00936065|181753660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0424|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 12||||0.0424
90937359|NCT00936065|181753660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 18||||0.0090
90937360|NCT00936065|181753660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0116|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 24||||0.0116
90937361|NCT00936065|181753661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3355|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 2||||0.3355
90937362|NCT00936065|181753661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0341|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 4||||0.0341
90937363|NCT00936065|181753661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0899|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 8||||0.0899
90937364|NCT00936065|181753661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0062|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 12||||0.0062
90937365|NCT00936065|181753661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1241|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 18||||0.1241
90937366|NCT00936065|181753661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0393|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 24||||0.0393
90937367|NCT00936065|181753662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3402|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 2||||0.3402
90937368|NCT00936065|181753662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1184|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 4||||0.1184
90937369|NCT00936065|181753662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0104|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 8||||0.0104
90937370|NCT00936065|181753662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 12||||0.0010
90937371|NCT00936065|181753662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 18||||0.0250
90937372|NCT00936065|181753662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.041|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 24||||0.0410
90937373|NCT00936065|181753663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0894|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 2||||0.0894
90937374|NCT00936065|181753663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0084|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 4||||0.0084
90937375|NCT00936065|181753663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0727|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 8||||0.0727
90937376|NCT00936065|181753663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0337|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 12||||0.0337
90937377|NCT00936065|181753663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.138|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 18||||0.1380
90937378|NCT00936065|181753663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3415|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 24||||0.3415
90937379|NCT00936065|181753664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4407|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 2||||0.4407
90937380|NCT00936065|181753664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1768|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 4||||0.1768
90937381|NCT00936065|181753664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4636|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 8||||0.4636
90937382|NCT00936065|181753664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.334|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 12||||0.3340
90937383|NCT00936065|181753664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1785|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 18||||0.1785
90937384|NCT00936065|181753664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7428|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 24||||0.7428
90937385|NCT00936065|181753665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5377|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall treatment difference at Baseline||||0.5377
90937386|NCT00936065|181753665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1419|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall treatment difference at Week 2||||0.1419
90937387|NCT00936065|181753665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5391|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall treatment difference at Week 4||||0.5391
90937388|NCT00936065|181753665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2589|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall treatment difference at Week 8||||0.2589
90937389|NCT00936065|181753665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0635|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall treatment difference at Week 12||||0.0635
90937390|NCT00936065|181753665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1172|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall treatment difference at Week 18||||0.1172
90937391|NCT00936065|181753665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1247|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall treatment difference at Week 24||||0.1247
90937392|NCT00936065|181753666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9429|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall treatment difference at Baseline||||0.9429
90937393|NCT00936065|181753666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0927|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall treatment difference at Week 2||||0.0927
90937394|NCT00936065|181753666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0151|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall treatment difference at Week 4||||0.0151
90937395|NCT00936065|181753666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1124|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall treatment difference at Week 8||||0.1124
90937396|NCT00936065|181753666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0242|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall treatment difference at Week 12||||0.0242
90937397|NCT00936065|181753666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0237|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall treatment difference at Week 18||||0.0237
90937398|NCT00936065|181753666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0176|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall treatment difference at Week 24||||0.0176
90937399|NCT01154699|181753679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The difference in the change in asthma control during the Usual care and the Bilevel PAP period were compared.||||0.8
90937400|NCT01154699|181753680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in PC20 between the two arms||||0.20
90937401|NCT01154699|181753681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.78
90937402|NCT01154699|181753682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.61
90937403|NCT01154699|181753683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.94|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.94
90937404|NCT01154699|181753684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.76
90937405|NCT02819141|181753685|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Generalized estimating equations|Controlling for age, daily sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score, sedation intensity, and time of day of assessment||We estimated the power for multilevel models approximating our study design. A sample size of 95 patients per arm, 190 total (at a minimum 7 data collection points for each, resulting in \~1,050 observations) will have greater than 80% power to detect small to moderate effects (i.e., 0.11 or greater) in between-group differences in anxiety, delirium, and duration of mechanical ventilation at alpha = .05 for all proposed models.||||0.30
90937406|NCT02819141|181753685|SUPERIORITY|Controlling for time of day, study day, age, sex, illness severity, and sedation frequency||||||0.9858|||||||Generalized Estimating equations|||||||0.9858
90937407|NCT02819141|181753686|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||a priori threshold for significance p \< 0.05.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.02
90937408|NCT02819141|181753687|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||Generalized estimating equations|Controlling for sedation intensity, age, daily Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score, study day, and time of day assessment||||||0.97
90937409|NCT02819141|181753687|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5647|||||||Generalized estimating equations|Controlling for sedation frequency, age, sex, illness severity, study day, and time of day assessment.||||||0.5647
90937410|NCT02819141|181753688|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Generalized estimating equation|controlling for age, daily Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score, time of day of assessment||||||0.39
90937411|NCT02819141|181753689|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||GEE|||||||0.37
90937412|NCT02819141|181753690|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.17
90937413|NCT02819141|181753690|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.81
90937414|NCT02819141|181753691|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.47
90937415|NCT02819141|181753691|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.82
90937416|NCT02819141|181753692|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.164|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||3 months after ICU discharge||||0.164
90937417|NCT02819141|181753692|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||6 months after ICU discharge||||0.84
90937418|NCT02819141|181753693|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.26
90937419|NCT02819141|181753694|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.82
90937420|NCT02819141|181753695|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.018
90937421|NCT02819141|181753696|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.66
90937422|NCT02819141|181753697|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.63
90937423|NCT02819141|181753698|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.41
90937424|NCT02819141|181753699|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.06
90937425|NCT02819141|181753700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.93
90937426|NCT02819141|181753701|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.43
90970022|NCT01265797|181821982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4||||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|The Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare outcome measures between two treatment groups in the run-in month minus blinded month||The a priori alpha level was set at p \< 0.05, and a power of 0.80 (80%) was used to compute the number of subjects needed to find a meaningful difference between the verum and sham groups. Assuming that 20% of persons with the sham device and 60% of persons with CES device will meet the primary end point of ≥50% decrease in the frequency of headache days over the course of the study, 27 subjects are enrolled per group.||||0.30
90970023|NCT01265797|181821983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.89|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|The Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare secondary outcome measures between two treatment groups in the run-in month minus open label month||||||0.89
90937427|NCT02819141|181753702|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.69
90937428|NCT02819141|181753703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.94
90937429|NCT02819141|181753704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.50
90937430|NCT02819141|181753705|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.03
90937431|NCT02819141|181753706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.17
90937432|NCT02819141|181753707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.85
90937433|NCT02819141|181753708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.95
90937434|NCT00925288|181753719|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Since the standard schedule is at (0, 2, 6 months), and the modified schedule at (0, 3, 6 months), we will consider this a non-inferiority study. With 80% power, type 1 error of 0.05, standard deviations of 0.6, and an equivalence margin of 0.3, 64 women are needed per group to detect non-inferiority. Having 100 women in each study arm will yield over 94% power to detect non-inferiority of the modified schedule.|||||>|0.2||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||The null hypothesis is that both schedules will provide an equivalent antibody response.||||>0.20
90970024|NCT01265797|181821984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.96||||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.30
90937435|NCT00925288|181753720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Completion rates compared in the 2 study arms||||0.60
90937436|NCT00925288|181753721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||comparison of differences in HPV DNA prevalence by study arm.||||0.53
90937437|NCT01537120|181753808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|0.96||||||||0.96|0.85|
90937438|NCT01537120|181753809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.36|-0.23||||||||-0.23|-0.36|
90937439|NCT01537120|181753810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.62|-0.3||||||||-0.30|-0.62|
90937440|NCT02151643|181753811|OTHER|The primary analysis was a linear model which attempted to explain change from Baseline (Visit 7) to Day 29 (Visit 11) in serum phosphate concentration based on log-transformed dose level (assuming that placebo was equally spaced below the lowest dose level), and stratified by pre-randomisation serum phosphate level (\< 7.5 mg/dL or ≥ 7.5 mg/dL). Missing assessments were imputed using the subject's last observed phosphate concentration value (Last Observation Carried Forward \[LOCF\] imputation).||||||0.784|||||||F-test|||"ITT population - statistical analysis of linear model fit using an F-test at the 0.05 level.~It was determined that 150 subjects randomised at a ratio of 8:8:8:13:13 (low dose to high dose, placebo) would have \>90% power to detect either a statistically significant slope for the dose-response relationship, or, if the relationship was not linear, a statistically significant difference between the highest-dose group and the placebo group, using a two-sided 0.05 significance level."||||0.784
90937441|NCT02151643|181753811|OTHER|Sensitivity analysis of ITT primary analysis using baseline observation carried forward (BOCF) for any missing Day 29 (Visit 11) serum phosphate values.||||||0.905|||||||F-test|||"ITT population sensitivity analysis using baseline observation carried forward (BOCF) to assess statistical analysis of linear model fit using an F-test at the 0.05 level."||||0.905
90937442|NCT02151643|181753811|OTHER|Sensitivity analysis of ITT primary analysis using multiple imputation (MI) for any missing Day 29 (Visit 11) serum phosphate values.||||||0.976|||||||F-test|||"ITT population sensitivity analysis using multiple imputation (MI) to assess statistical analysis of linear model fit using an F-test at the 0.05 level."||||0.976
90937443|NCT02151643|181753811|OTHER|Sensitivity analysis of the primary ITT analysis using the Per Protocol (PP) population.||||||0.914|||||||F-test|||"Per protocol (PP) population sensitivity analysis to assess statistical analysis of linear model fit using an F-test at the 0.05 level."||||0.914
90971327|NCT00439946|181825394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.03||95.0||||p-value for CAMPHOR Quality of Life Score|Wilcoxon signed rank|||Changes in mean TSQM and CAMPHOR scores between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test, comparing the values at Baseline to values at Week 8. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values.||||0.03
91035595|NCT00835263|181957191|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|103.23||||||90.0|100.78|105.73|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||105.73|100.78|
90937444|NCT02151643|181753811|OTHER|The primary analysis was a linear model which attempted to explain change from Baseline (Visit 7) to Day 29 (Visit 11) in serum phosphate concentration based on log-transformed dose level (assuming that placebo was equally spaced below the lowest dose level), and stratified by pre-randomisation serum phosphate level (\< 7.5 mg/dL or ≥ 7.5 mg/dL). Missing assessments were imputed using the subject's last observed phosphate concentration value (Last Observation Carried Forward \[LOCF\] imputation).|Slope|-0.329|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||linear model - log (dose) - response|||ITT population - statistical analysis of the linear model log(PT20 dose)-response relationship to examine whether the linear trend of the change in phosphate level as a function of the log-transformed dose was statistically significant.||||<0.001
90937445|NCT02151643|181753811|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||ITT population supportive analysis - Type 3 tests of fixed effects - treatment group||||<0.001
90937446|NCT02151643|181753811|OTHER|||||||0.436|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||ITT population supportive analysis - Type 3 tests of fixed effects - visit||||0.436
90937447|NCT02151643|181753811|OTHER|||||||0.959|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||ITT population supportive analysis - Type 3 tests of fixed effects - treatment group versus Visit interaction||||0.959
90937448|NCT02151643|181753811|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||ITT population supportive analysis - Type 3 tests of fixed effects - baseline serum phosphate concentration||||<0.001
91035915|NCT01058668|181958521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||cariprazine (3-6 mg/day) - placebo|||-0.4|-0.9|<0.001
90970025|NCT01265797|181821985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.98|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|The Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare the primary and secondary outcome measures between the two treatment groups.||The a priori alpha level was set at p \< 0.05, and beta 0.2. Assuming that 20% of persons with the sham device and 60% of persons with CES device will meet the primary end point of ≥50% decrease in the frequency of headache days over the course of the study, 27 subjects are enrolled per group. The null hypothesis: No difference in the depression score/14 day recall between the two groups.||||0.98
90970026|NCT01265797|181821986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.91||||0.75|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.75
90970027|NCT01265797|181821987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.73|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.73
90937449|NCT02151643|181753811|OTHER|||||||0.144|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||ITT population supportive analysis - Type 3 tests of fixed effects - baseline serum phosphate concentration versus Visit interaction||||0.144
90937450|NCT02151643|181753811|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.117|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2847|||ONE_SIDED|97.5||0.761||||||ITT population supportive analysis - mixed model repeated measures for change in serum phosphate concentration||0.761||
90937451|NCT02151643|181753811|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2881|||ONE_SIDED|97.5||0.659||||||ITT population supportive analysis - mixed model repeated measures for change in serum phosphate concentration||0.659||
90937452|NCT02151643|181753811|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.705|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2891|||ONE_SIDED|97.5||-0.05||||||ITT population supportive analysis - mixed model repeated measures for change in serum phosphate concentration||-0.05||
90937453|NCT02151643|181753811|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.195|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.255|||ONE_SIDED|97.5||-0.618||||||ITT population supportive analysis - mixed model repeated measures for change in serum phosphate concentration||-0.618||
90937454|NCT02151643|181753812|OTHER|||||||0.497|||||||ANCOVA|||Repeated measures ANCOVA for change in haemoglobin concentration from Baseline by PT20 dose group.||||0.497
90937455|NCT02151643|181753812|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||Repeated measures ANCOVA for change in haemoglobin concentration from Baseline by baseline hemoglobin.||||<0.001
90937456|NCT02151643|181753813|OTHER|||||||0.243|||||||ANCOVA|||Repeated measures ANCOVA for change in serum ferritin concentration from Baseline by PT20 dose group.||||0.243
90937457|NCT02151643|181753813|OTHER|||||||0.867|||||||ANCOVA|||Repeated measures ANCOVA for change in serum ferritin concentration from Baseline by Visit.||||0.867
90937458|NCT02151643|181753813|OTHER|||||||0.186|||||||ANCOVA|||Repeated measures ANCOVA for change in serum ferritin concentration from Baseline by baseline serum ferritin concentration||||0.186
90970028|NCT01265797|181821988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.74||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||Change in mean anxiety score/ 14 day recall from the blinded period to open label period|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.02
90970029|NCT01265797|181821989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.98|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.98
90970030|NCT01265797|181821990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.97|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.97
90970031|NCT01265797|181821991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16||||0.87|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.87
90970032|NCT01265797|181821992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16||||0.83|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.83
90970033|NCT01265797|181821993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.92|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.92
90937459|NCT02151643|181753814|OTHER|||||||0.068|||||||ANCOVA|||Repeated measures ANCOVA for change in transferrin saturation from Baseline by PT20 dose group.||||0.068
90937460|NCT02151643|181753814|OTHER|||||||0.013|||||||ANCOVA|||Repeated measures ANCOVA for change in transferrin saturation from Baseline by Visit.||||0.013
90937461|NCT02151643|181753814|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||Repeated measures ANCOVA for change in transferrin saturation from Baseline by Baseline Transferrin Saturation.||||<0.001
90937462|NCT02151643|181753815|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||ANCOVA|||Repeated measures ANCOVA for change in Calcium x Phosphate Product from Baseline by PT20 dose group.||||0.004
90937463|NCT02151643|181753815|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||Repeated measures ANCOVA for change in transferrin saturation from Baseline by Baseline Calcium x Phosphate Product.||||<0.001
90937464|NCT02151643|181753816|OTHER|||||||0.292|||||||paired z-test|||||||0.292
90937465|NCT02151643|181753816|OTHER|||||||0.047|||||||paired z-test|||||||0.047
90937466|NCT02151643|181753816|OTHER|||||||0.872|||||||paired z-test|||||||0.872
90937467|NCT02151643|181753816|OTHER|||||||0.288|||||||paired z-test|||||||0.288
90937468|NCT00644332|181753821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||||||||||||Mean change in angina frequency from Baseline to Week 4||||
90937469|NCT00644332|181753822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||||||||||||Mean change in NTG use from Baseline to Week 4||||
90937470|NCT00644332|181753823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||||||||||||||||
90970034|NCT01923129|181822011|NON_INFERIORITY|The primary outcome of interest was the rate of AUR, defined as the number of patients with AUR within each study group. A 15% non-inferiority margin was chosen according to clinical relevance estimation. The expected difference between the two groups was 0%. Non-inferiority analysis was performed by calculation of risk difference and its 95% confidence interval according to Newcombe \& Altman.|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
90970035|NCT03998046|181822040|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.85
90970036|NCT03998046|181822042|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.20
90970037|NCT03998046|181822043|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.38
90970038|NCT03998046|181822044|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.02
90970039|NCT03998046|181822045|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.01
90970040|NCT03998046|181822046|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.13
90970041|NCT03998046|181822047|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.61
90970042|NCT03998046|181822048|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.56
90970043|NCT01699542|181822112|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.159|||||||Generalized Linear Model|||||||0.159
90970044|NCT01692275|181822197|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.7||||||All sites combined (week 6) - Between-group differences of mean in LBP||-0.7|-1.4|
90937471|NCT03694210|181753833|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values of \<0.05 are considered significant.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Physical Functioning: 21 Day Post Necrosectomy SF-36v1 Score is compared to Baseline score for improvement.||||0.0011
90937472|NCT03694210|181753833|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.1152|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values of \<0.05 are considered significant|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Role Limitations due to Physical Health: 21 Day Post Necrosectomy SF-36v1 Score is compared to Baseline score for improvement.||||0.1152
90937473|NCT03694210|181753833|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.0552|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values of \<0.05 are considered significant|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Role Limitations due to Emotional Problems: 21 Day Post Necrosectomy SF-36v1 Score is compared to Baseline score for improvement.||||0.0552
90937474|NCT03694210|181753833|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values of \<0.05 are considered significant|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Energy/Fatigue: 21 Day Post Necrosectomy SF-36v1 Score is compared to Baseline score for improvement.||||0.039
90937475|NCT03694210|181753833|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.0223|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values of \<0.05 are considered significant|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Emotional Well Being: 21 Day Post Necrosectomy SF-36v1 Score is compared to Baseline score for improvement.||||0.0223
90937476|NCT03694210|181753833|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.4664|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values of \<0.05 are considered significant|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Social Functioning: 21 Day Post Necrosectomy SF-36v1 Score is compared to Baseline score for improvement.||||0.4664
90937477|NCT03694210|181753833|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values of \<0.05 are considered significant|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Pain: 21 Day Post Necrosectomy SF-36v1 Score is compared to Baseline score for improvement.||||0.0001
90937478|NCT03694210|181753833|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.0639|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values of \<0.05 are considered significant|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||General Health: 21 Day Post Necrosectomy SF-36v1 Score is compared to Baseline score for improvement.||||0.0639
90937479|NCT03050372|181753841|EQUIVALENCE|Significance level alpha=0.05; CI=95%.||||||0.329|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"This is a crossover study; we use a paired t-test to test the hypothesis:~H0: Means of SOL for active/sham LFMS are equal; Ha: Means differ~Note this paired t-test is equivalent to:~H0: Mean changes from Baseline SOL for active/sham LFMS are equal Ha: Means differ"||||0.329
90937480|NCT03050372|181753841|EQUIVALENCE|Significance level alpha=0.05; CI=95%||||||0.321|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"This is a crossover study; we use a paired t-test to test the hypothesis:~H0: Means of SOL for Baseline and Active LFMS are equal Ha: Means differ~Note this paired t-test is equivalent to a one-sample t-test:~H0: Mean changes from Baseline SOL for Active LFMS is equal 0 Ha: Mean is not equal zero"||||0.321
90937481|NCT03050372|181753841|EQUIVALENCE|Significance level alpha=0.05; CI=95%||||||0.687|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"This is a crossover study; we use a paired t-test to test the hypothesis:~H0: Means of SOL for Baseline and Sham LFMS are equal Ha: Means differ~Note this paired t-test is equivalent to a one-sample t-test:~H0: Mean changes from Baseline SOL for Sham LFMS is equal 0 Ha: Mean is not equal zero"||||0.687
90937482|NCT03050372|181753842|EQUIVALENCE|Significance level alpha=0.05; CI=95%||||||0.925|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"This is a crossover study; we use a paired t-test to test the hypothesis:~H0: Means of WASO for active/sham LFMS are equal Ha: Means differ~Note this paired t-test is equivalent to:~H0: Mean changes from Baseline WASO for active/sham LFMS are equal Ha: Means differ"||||0.925
90937483|NCT03050372|181753842|EQUIVALENCE|Significance level alpha=0.05; CI=95%||||||0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"This is a crossover study; we use a paired t-test to test the hypothesis:~H0: Means of WASO for Baseline and Active LFMS are equal Ha: Means differ~Note this paired t-test is equivalent to a one-sample t-test:~H0: Mean changes from Baseline WASO for Active LFMS is equal 0 Ha: Mean is not equal zero"||||0.08
90937484|NCT03050372|181753842|EQUIVALENCE|Significance level alpha=0.05; CI=95%||||||0.221|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"This is a crossover study; we use a paired t-test to test the hypothesis:~H0: Means of WASO for Baseline and Sham LFMS are equal Ha: Means differ~Note this paired t-test is equivalent to a one-sample t-test:~H0: Mean changes from Baseline WASO for Sham LFMS is equal 0 Ha: Mean is not equal zero"||||0.221
90937485|NCT03050372|181753843|EQUIVALENCE|Significance level alpha=0.05; CI=95%||||||0.197|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"This is a crossover study; we use a paired t-test to test the hypothesis:~H0: Means of TST for active/sham LFMS are equal Ha: Means differ~Note this paired t-test is equivalent to:~H0: Mean changes from Baseline TST for active/sham LFMS are equal Ha: Means differ"||||0.197
90937486|NCT03050372|181753843|EQUIVALENCE|Significance level alpha=0.05; CI=95%||||||0.586|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"This is a crossover study; we use a paired t-test to test the hypothesis:~H0: Means of TST for Baseline and Active LFMS are equal Ha: Means differ~Note this paired t-test is equivalent to a one-sample t-test:~H0: Mean changes from Baseline TST for Active LFMS is equal 0 Ha: Mean is not equal zero"||||0.586
90937487|NCT03050372|181753843|EQUIVALENCE|Significance level alpha=0.05; CI=95%||||||0.298|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"This is a crossover study; we use a paired t-test to test the hypothesis:~H0: Means of TST for Baseline and Sham LFMS are equal Ha: Means differ~Note this paired t-test is equivalent to a one-sample t-test:~H0: Mean changes from Baseline TST for Sham LFMS is equal 0 Ha: Mean is not equal zero"||||0.298
90970045|NCT01692275|181822197|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.5||||||All sites combined (week 12) - Between-group differences of mean in LBP||-0.5|-1.2|
90970046|NCT01692275|181822197|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.1||||||Walter Reed site (week 6) - Between-group differences of mean in LBP||-0.1|-1.3|
90937488|NCT03050372|181753844|EQUIVALENCE|Significance level alpha=0.05; CI=95%||||||0.424|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"This is a crossover study; we use a paired t-test to test the hypothesis:~H0: Means of SE for active/sham LFMS are equal Ha: Means differ~Note this paired t-test is equivalent to:~H0: Mean changes from Baseline SE for active/sham LFMS are equal Ha: Means differ"||||0.424
90937489|NCT03050372|181753844|EQUIVALENCE|Significance level alpha=0.05; CI=95%||||||0.21|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"This is a crossover study; we use a paired t-test to test the hypothesis:~H0: Means of SE for Baseline and Active LFMS are equal Ha: Means differ~Note this paired t-test is equivalent to a one-sample t-test:~H0: Mean changes from Baseline SE for Active LFMS is equal 0 Ha: Mean is not equal zero"||||0.210
90937490|NCT03050372|181753844|EQUIVALENCE|Significance level alpha=0.05; CI=95%||||||0.19|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"This is a crossover study; we use a paired t-test to test the hypothesis:~H0: Means of SE for Baseline and Sham LFMS are equal Ha: Means differ~Note this paired t-test is equivalent to a one-sample t-test:~H0: Mean changes from Baseline SE for Sham LFMS is equal 0 Ha: Mean is not equal zero"||||0.190
90937491|NCT03050372|181753845|EQUIVALENCE|Significance level alpha=0.05; CI=95%||||||0.535|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"This is a crossover study; we use a paired t-test to test the hypothesis:~H0: Means of EOS for active/sham LFMS are equal Ha: Means differ~Note this paired t-test is equivalent to:~H0: Mean changes from Baseline EOS for active/sham LFMS are equal Ha: Means differ"||||0.535
90937492|NCT03050372|181753845|EQUIVALENCE|Significance level alpha=0.05; CI=95%||||||0.196|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"This is a crossover study; we use a paired t-test to test the hypothesis:~H0: Means of EOS for Baseline and Active LFMS are equal Ha: Means differ~Note this paired t-test is equivalent to a one-sample t-test:~H0: Mean changes from Baseline EOS for Active LFMS is equal 0 Ha: Mean is not equal zero"||||0.196
90937493|NCT03050372|181753845|EQUIVALENCE|Significance level alpha=0.05; CI=95%||||||0.092|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"This is a crossover study; we use a paired t-test to test the hypothesis:~H0: Means of EOS for Baseline and Sham LFMS are equal Ha: Means differ~Note this paired t-test is equivalent to a one-sample t-test:~H0: Mean changes from Baseline EOS for Sham LFMS is equal 0 Ha: Mean is not equal zero"||||0.092
90937494|NCT03050372|181753846|EQUIVALENCE|Significance level alpha=0.05; CI=95%||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"This is a crossover study; we use a paired t-test to test the hypothesis:~H0: Means of SQS for active/sham LFMS are equal Ha: Means differ~Note this paired t-test is equivalent to:~H0: Mean changes from Baseline SQS for active/sham LFMS are equal Ha: Means differ"||||1.00
90937495|NCT03050372|181753846|EQUIVALENCE|Significance level alpha=0.05; CI=95%||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"This is a crossover study; we use a paired t-test to test the hypothesis:~H0: Means of SQS for Baseline and Active LFMS are equal Ha: Means differ~Note this paired t-test is equivalent to a one-sample t-test:~H0: Mean changes from Baseline SQS for Active LFMS is equal 0 Ha: Mean is not equal zero"||||0.004
90937496|NCT03050372|181753846|EQUIVALENCE|Significance level alpha=0.05; CI=95%||||||0.042|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"This is a crossover study; we use a paired t-test to test the hypothesis:~H0: Means of SQS for Baseline and Sham LFMS are equal Ha: Means differ~Note this paired t-test is equivalent to a one-sample t-test:~H0: Mean changes from Baseline SQS for Sham LFMS is equal 0 Ha: Mean is not equal zero"||||0.042
90937497|NCT03050372|181753847|EQUIVALENCE|Significance level alpha=0.05; CI=95%||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"This is a crossover study; we use a paired t-test to test the hypothesis:~H0: Means of #awake for active/sham LFMS are equal Ha: Means differ~Note this paired t-test is equivalent to:~H0: Mean changes from Baseline #awake for active/sham LFMS are equal Ha: Means differ"||||0.05
90937498|NCT03050372|181753847|EQUIVALENCE|Significance level alpha=0.05; CI=95%||||||0.379|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"This is a crossover study; we use a paired t-test to test the hypothesis:~H0: Means of #awake for Baseline and Active LFMS are equal Ha: Means differ~Note this paired t-test is equivalent to a one-sample t-test:~H0: Mean changes from Baseline #awake for Active LFMS is equal 0 Ha: Mean is not equal zero"||||0.379
90937499|NCT03050372|181753847|EQUIVALENCE|Significance level alpha=0.05; CI=95%||||||0.284|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"This is a crossover study; we use a paired t-test to test the hypothesis:~H0: Means of #awake for Baseline and Sham LFMS are equal Ha: Means differ~Note this paired t-test is equivalent to a one-sample t-test:~H0: Mean changes from Baseline #awake for Sham LFMS is equal 0 Ha: Mean is not equal zero"||||0.284
90937500|NCT03050372|181753848|EQUIVALENCE|Significance level alpha=0.05; CI=95%||||||0.226|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"This is a crossover study; we use a paired t-test to test the hypothesis:~H0: Means of Fatigue for active/sham LFMS are equal Ha: Means differ~Note this paired t-test is equivalent to:~H0: Mean changes from Baseline Fatigue for active/sham LFMS are equal Ha: Means differ"||||0.226
90970047|NCT01692275|181822197|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.2||||||Walter Reed site (week 12) - Between-group differences of mean in LBP||0.2|-1.0|
90970048|NCT01692275|181822197|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.6||||||Naval Hospital Pensacola site (week 6) - Between-group differences of mean in LBP||-0.6|-1.8|
90937501|NCT03050372|181753848|EQUIVALENCE|Significance level alpha=0.05; CI=95%||||||0.156|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"This is a crossover study; we use a paired t-test to test the hypothesis:~H0: Means of Fatigue for Baseline and Active LFMS are equal Ha: Means differ~Note this paired t-test is equivalent to a one-sample t-test:~H0: Mean changes from Baseline Fatigue for Active LFMS is equal 0 Ha: Mean is not equal zero"||||0.156
90937502|NCT03050372|181753848|EQUIVALENCE|Significance level alpha=0.05; CI=95%||||||0.117|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"This is a crossover study; we use a paired t-test to test the hypothesis:~H0: Means of Fatigue for Baseline and Sham LFMS are equal Ha: Means differ~Note this paired t-test is equivalent to a one-sample t-test:~H0: Mean changes from Baseline Fatigue for Sham LFMS is equal 0 Ha: Mean is not equal zero"||||0.117
90937503|NCT03050372|181753849|EQUIVALENCE|Significance level alpha=0.05; CI=95%||||||0.13|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"This is a crossover study; we use a paired t-test to test the hypothesis:~H0: Means of Concentration for active/sham LFMS are equal Ha: Means differ~Note this paired t-test is equivalent to:~H0: Mean changes from Baseline Concentration for active/sham LFMS are equal Ha: Means differ"||||0.130
90937504|NCT03050372|181753849|EQUIVALENCE|Significance level alpha=0.05; CI=95%||||||0.249|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"This is a crossover study; we use a paired t-test to test the hypothesis:~H0: Means of Concentration for Baseline and Active LFMS are equal Ha: Means differ~Note this paired t-test is equivalent to a one-sample t-test:~H0: Mean changes from Baseline Concentration for Active LFMS is equal 0 Ha: Mean is not equal zero"||||0.249
90937505|NCT03050372|181753849|EQUIVALENCE|Significance level alpha=0.05; CI=95%||||||0.114|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"This is a crossover study; we use a paired t-test to test the hypothesis:~H0: Means of Concentration for Baseline and Sham LFMS are equal Ha: Means differ~Note this paired t-test is equivalent to a one-sample t-test:~H0: Mean changes from Baseline Concentration for Sham LFMS is equal 0 Ha: Mean is not equal zero"||||0.114
90937506|NCT00443755|181753853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90937507|NCT00443755|181753854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90937508|NCT00443755|181753855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.02
90937509|NCT00443755|181753856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90937510|NCT00443755|181753857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||P-value is for comparison between groups of the mean change in triglyceride levels.||||0.03
90970049|NCT01692275|181822197|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.5||||||Naval Hospital Pensacola site (week 12) - Between-group differences of mean in LBP||-0.5|-1.8|
90970050|NCT01692275|181822197|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.8||||||Naval Medical Center San Diego site (week 6) - Between-group differences of mean in LBP||-0.8|-1.9|
90970051|NCT01692275|181822197|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.5||||||Naval Medical Center San Diego (week 12) - Between-group differences of mean in LBP||-0.5|-1.7|
90937511|NCT00443755|181753857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||P-value is for comparison between groups of the mean change in HDL-C levels.||||0.06
90937512|NCT00443755|181753857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||P-value is for comparison between groups of mean change in non-HDL-C levels.||||0.06
90937513|NCT00443755|181753858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.23
90937514|NCT00443755|181753859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
90937515|NCT00443755|181753860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.13
90937516|NCT00443755|181753861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
90937517|NCT00443755|181753862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.02
90937518|NCT00443755|181753863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90937519|NCT00443755|181753864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.006
90937520|NCT00443755|181753865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.18
90937521|NCT00443755|181753866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.76
90937522|NCT02706834|181753869|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence interval of 0.80 to 1.25|Point estimate|0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.38|0.487|||||Exponentiated Least Square Means TAK-828 100 mg Fed/TAK-828 100 mg Fasted|Food Effect: A linear mixed effect model on the natural log (ln)-transformed parameters was performed with dosing condition as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect using the Kenward-Roger estimation for computing the denominator degrees of freedom. The least squares means and difference of least squared means for the ln-transformed parameters were exponentiated to obtain the geometric means on the original scale.||0.487|0.380|
90970052|NCT01692275|181822198|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-1.2||||||All sites combined (week 6) - RMDQ Between-Group Differences in Disability||-1.2|-3.1|
90970053|NCT01692275|181822198|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-1.0||||||All sites combined (week 12) - RMDQ Between-Group Differences in Disability||-1.0|-3.0|
90970054|NCT01692275|181822198|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-0.2||||||Walter Reed site (week 6) - RMDQ Between-Group Differences in Disability||-0.2|-3.4|
90970055|NCT01692275|181822198|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|0.2||||||Walter Reed site (week 12) - RMDQ Between-Group Differences in Disability||0.2|-3.2|
90970056|NCT01692275|181822198|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|-0.4||||||Pensacola site (week 6) - RMDQ Between-Group Differences in Disability||-0.4|-3.8|
90937523|NCT02706834|181753876|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence interval of 0.80 to 1.25|Point estimate|0.896|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.833|0.964|||||Exponentiated Least Square Means TAK-828 100 mg Fed/TAK-828 100 mg Fasted|Food Effect: A linear mixed effect model on the natural log (ln)-transformed parameters was performed with dosing condition as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect using the Kenward-Roger estimation for computing the denominator degrees of freedom. The least squares means and difference of least squared means for the ln-transformed parameters were exponentiated to obtain the geometric means and ratios of geometric means on the original scale.||0.964|0.833|
90937524|NCT05065918|181753886|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.536||||0.448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.929|0.857|||Regression, Linear|||Pilot sample size considerations: Assessing 70 students per arm (total n=140) that have completed the program and follow up would provide sufficient data on the full RCT protocol across multiple campuses as well as estimates of intervention effects. Assuming a retention rate of 70% for the three-month follow up, we would need to enroll 200 participants at baseline. We do not anticipate sufficient power to detect statistically and clinically significant results.||0.857|-1.929|0.448
90970057|NCT01692275|181822198|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|-0.2||||||Pensacola site (week 12) - RMDQ Between-Group Differences in Disability||-0.2|-3.7|
90970058|NCT01692275|181822198|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|-1.1||||||San Diego site (week 6) - RMDQ Between-Group Differences in Disability||-1.1|-4.3|
90970059|NCT01692275|181822198|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|-1.1||||||San Diego site (week 12) - RMDQ Between-Group Differences in Disability||-1.1|-4.4|
90970060|NCT01692275|181822199|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.2||||||All sites combined (week 6) - Between-Group Differences of Means in score of bothersomeness of LBP||-0.2|-0.6|
90970061|NCT01692275|181822199|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.2||||||All sites combined (week 12) - Between-Group Differences of Means in score of bothersomeness of LBP||-0.2|-0.6|
90937525|NCT05065918|181753887|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.99||||0.969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.152|1.108|||Regression, Linear|||Pilot sample size considerations: Assessing 70 students per arm (total n=140) that have completed the program and follow up would provide sufficient data on the full RCT protocol across multiple campuses as well as estimates of intervention effects. Assuming a retention rate of 70% for the three-month follow up, we would need to enroll 200 participants at baseline. We do not anticipate sufficient power to detect statistically and clinically significant results.||1.108|-1.152|0.969
90970062|NCT01692275|181822199|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1||||||Walter Reed site (week 6) - Between-Group Differences of Means in score of bothersomeness of LBP||0.1|-0.5|
90970063|NCT01692275|181822199|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1||||||Walter Reed site (week 12) - Between-Group Differences of Means in score of bothersomeness of LBP||0.1|-0.5|
90970064|NCT01692275|181822199|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.2||||||Pensacola site (week 6) - Between-Group Differences of Means in score of bothersomeness of LBP||-0.2|-0.8|
90970065|NCT01692275|181822199|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.2||||||Pensacola site (week 12) - Between-Group Differences of Means in score of bothersomeness of LBP||-0.2|-0.8|
90970066|NCT01692275|181822199|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.2||||||San Diego site (week 6) - Between-Group Differences of Means in score of bothersomeness of LBP||-0.2|-0.7|
90970067|NCT01692275|181822199|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.1||||||San Diego site (week 12) - Between-Group Differences of Means in score of bothersomeness of LBP||-0.1|-0.7|
90970068|NCT01692275|181822200|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.8||||||All sites combined (week 6) - NRS score for worst LBP in past 24 hours - Between-Group Differences of Mean||-0.8|-1.6|
90970069|NCT01692275|181822200|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.7||||||All sites combined (week 12) - NRS score for worst LBP in past 24 hours - Between-Group Differences of Mean||-0.7|-1.6|
90970070|NCT01692275|181822200|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.02||||||Walter Reed site (week 6) - NRS score for worst LBP in past 24 hours - Between-Group Differences of Mean||-0.02|-1.3|
90970071|NCT01692275|181822200|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.1||||||Walter Reed site (week 12) - NRS score for worst LBP in past 24 hours - Between-Group Differences of Mean||-0.1|-1.5|
90970072|NCT01692275|181822200|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.7||||||Pensacola site (week 6) - NRS score for worst LBP in past 24 hours - Between-Group Differences of Mean||-0.7|-2.0|
90970073|NCT01692275|181822200|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.8||||||Pensacola site (week 12) - NRS score for worst LBP in past 24 hours - Between-Group Differences of Mean||-0.8|-2.3|
90970074|NCT01692275|181822200|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-1.0||||||San Diego site (week 6) - NRS score for worst LBP in past 24 hours - Between-Group Differences of Mean||-1.0|-2.3|
90970075|NCT01692275|181822200|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.5||||||San Diego site (week 12) - NRS score for worst LBP in past 24 hours - Between-Group Differences of Mean||-0.5|-1.9|
90970076|NCT01692275|181822201|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.97||||||Week 6: All 3 sites combined||0.97|0.54|
90937526|NCT05065918|181753888|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.5||||0.231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.322|0.322|||Regression, Linear|||Pilot sample size considerations: Assessing 70 students per arm (total n=140) that have completed the program and follow up would provide sufficient data on the full RCT protocol across multiple campuses as well as estimates of intervention effects. Assuming a retention rate of 70% for the three-month follow up, we would need to enroll 200 participants at baseline. We do not anticipate sufficient power to detect statistically and clinically significant results.||.322|-1.322|0.231
90937527|NCT05065918|181753889|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.319||||0.398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.064|0.425|||Regression, Linear|||Pilot sample size considerations: Assessing 70 students per arm (total n=140) that have completed the program and follow up would provide sufficient data on the full RCT protocol across multiple campuses as well as estimates of intervention effects. Assuming a retention rate of 70% for the three-month follow up, we would need to enroll 200 participants at baseline. We do not anticipate sufficient power to detect statistically and clinically significant results.||.425|-1.064|0.398
90937528|NCT05065918|181753890|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.284||||0.382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.356|0.924|||Regression, Linear|||Pilot sample size considerations: Assessing 70 students per arm (total n=140) that have completed the program and follow up would provide sufficient data on the full RCT protocol across multiple campuses as well as estimates of intervention effects. Assuming a retention rate of 70% for the three-month follow up, we would need to enroll 200 participants at baseline. We do not anticipate sufficient power to detect statistically and clinically significant results.||.924|-.356|0.382
90937529|NCT05065918|181753891|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.382||||0.266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.284|1.025|||Regression, Linear|||Pilot sample size considerations: Assessing 70 students per arm (total n=140) that have completed the program and follow up would provide sufficient data on the full RCT protocol across multiple campuses as well as estimates of intervention effects. Assuming a retention rate of 70% for the three-month follow up, we would need to enroll 200 participants at baseline. We do not anticipate sufficient power to detect statistically and clinically significant results.||1.025|-.284|0.266
90937530|NCT05065918|181753892|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.53||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.089|0.97|||Regression, Linear|||||.970|0.089|0.019
90937531|NCT05065918|181753893|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.277||||0.284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.232|0.787|||Regression, Linear|||Pilot sample size considerations: Assessing 70 students per arm (total n=140) that have completed the program and follow up would provide sufficient data on the full RCT protocol across multiple campuses as well as estimates of intervention effects. Assuming a retention rate of 70% for the three-month follow up, we would need to enroll 200 participants at baseline. We do not anticipate sufficient power to detect statistically and clinically significant results.||0.787|-.232|0.284
90937532|NCT05065918|181753894|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.709||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.076|1.494|||Regression, Linear|||Pilot sample size considerations: Assessing 70 students per arm (total n=140) that have completed the program and follow up would provide sufficient data on the full RCT protocol across multiple campuses as well as estimates of intervention effects. Assuming a retention rate of 70% for the three-month follow up, we would need to enroll 200 participants at baseline. We do not anticipate sufficient power to detect statistically and clinically significant results.||1.494|-.076|0.076
90937533|NCT05065918|181753895|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.625||||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.199|1.449|||Regression, Linear|||Pilot sample size considerations: Assessing 70 students per arm (total n=140) that have completed the program and follow up would provide sufficient data on the full RCT protocol across multiple campuses as well as estimates of intervention effects. Assuming a retention rate of 70% for the three-month follow up, we would need to enroll 200 participants at baseline. We do not anticipate sufficient power to detect statistically and clinically significant results.||1.449|-.199|0.136
90937534|NCT03149887|181753896|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.66
90937535|NCT03149887|181753897|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.54
90937536|NCT03149887|181753898|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.07
90937537|NCT03149887|181753899|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
90937538|NCT03149887|181753900|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.53
90970077|NCT01692275|181822201|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.0||||||Week 12: All 3 sites combined||1.0|0.58|
90970078|NCT01692275|181822202|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.25||||||All sites combined: 6 weeks||0.25|0.13|
90970079|NCT01692275|181822202|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.42||||||Walter Reed site: 6 weeks||0.42|0.16|
90970080|NCT01692275|181822202|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.33||||||Naval Hospital Pensacola site: 6 weeks||0.33|0.10|
90970081|NCT01692275|181822202|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.21||||||Naval Medical Center San Diego site: 6 weeks||0.21|0.08|
90970082|NCT01692275|181822203|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|2.8||||||All sites combined: 6 weeks||2.8|2.1|
90970083|NCT01692275|181822203|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|2.6||||||Walter Reed site: 6 weeks||2.6|1.4|
90970084|NCT01692275|181822203|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|3.0||||||Naval Hospital Pensacola site: 6 weeks||3.0|1.6|
90970085|NCT01692275|181822203|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|3.7||||||Naval Medical Center San Diego site: 6 weeks||3.7|2.5|
90970086|NCT03924752|181822206|OTHER|A two-way repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on different walking conditions (including the baseline of not wearing the exoskeleton) on the subject's overground self-selected walking speed across different locomotion modes by setting the significant value to 0.05. Two independent variables were assistance type (Exo vs No Exo) and different locomotion modes.||||||0.9547||||||This presents the effect of exoskeleton assistance on the user's preferred overground walking speed across different locomotion modes.|ANOVA|||||||0.9547
90970087|NCT03787472|181822233|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority of the Test lens relative to the Control will be concluded if the lower confidence limit of LSM difference is above the non-inferiority margin -5.|Least-Square Mean Difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|6.6|||Linear Mixed Model|The Kenward and Roger method was used for the calculation of the denominator of degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|||6.6|-5.5|
91035596|NCT00835263|181957192|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|103.31||||||90.0|100.75|105.93|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||105.93|100.75|
90970088|NCT03787472|181822234|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority of the Test lens relative to the Control will be concluded if the upper confidence limit of LSM difference is below the non-inferiority margin 0.05 logMAR.|Least-Square Mean Difference|0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0166|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.025|0.041|||Linear Mixed Model||Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|Distance Standard High Contrast Bright||0.041|-0.025|
90970089|NCT03787472|181822234|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority of the Test lens relative to the Control will be concluded if the upper confidence limit of LSM difference is below the non-inferiority margin 0.05 logMAR.|Least-Square Mean Difference|-0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0155|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.043|0.019|||Linear Mixed Model||Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|Intermediate Standard High Contrast Bright||0.019|-0.043|
90970090|NCT03787472|181822234|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority of the Test lens relative to the Control will be concluded if the upper confidence limit of LSM difference is below the non-inferiority margin 0.05 logMAR.|Least-Square Mean Difference|0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0169|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.037|||Linear Mixed Model||Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|Near Standard High Contrast Bright||0.037|-0.030|
90937539|NCT03149887|181753901|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.84
90937540|NCT03149887|181753902|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.76
90937541|NCT03149887|181753903|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.44
90937542|NCT03327051|181753908|OTHER|An increase in relative abundance of VSL3 bacterial strains at week 4 compared to week 0 (baseline) is considered significant if p\<0.05.||||||0.04|||||||ANOVA|Two-way ANOVA with Bonferroni post-test was used for multi-variable analysis||Within group difference between week 0 and week 4 was analyzed.||||0.04
90937543|NCT03327051|181753908|OTHER|An increase in relative abundance of VSL3 bacterial strains at week 4 compared to week 0 (baseline) is considered significant if p\<0.05.|||||>|0.99|||||||ANOVA|Two-way ANOVA with Bonferroni post-test was used for multi-variable analysis||Within group difference between week 0 and week 4 was analyzed.||||>0.99
90937544|NCT01014013|181753961|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The primary efficacy endpoint was based on the proportion of patients who had a favorable microbiological response assessment at follow-up 5 to 9 days post-therapy visit. The definition of non-inferiority is that the 95%(two-sided) confidence interval for the difference in response rate between the 2 treatment groups(MK0826 minus control group) contains zero and the lower limit of the CI is not less than -20 percentage points.|the difference between two response rate|-0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.9||||95.0|-11.7|10.2||||||||10.2|-11.7|
90937545|NCT01014013|181753963|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The secondary efficacy endpoint was based on the proportion of patients who had a favorable clinical response assessment at follow-up 5 to 9 days post-therapy visit. The definition of non-inferiority is that the 95%(two-sided) confidence interval for the difference in response rate between the 2 treatment groups(MK0826 minus control group) contains zero and the lower limit of the CI is not less than -20 percentage points.|the difference between two response rate|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.9||||95.0|-6.6|3.2||||||||3.2|-6.6|
90937546|NCT05319756|181753964|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0|<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|26.1||||Mixed Models Analysis|||"The sensitivity and integrity of the study was validated by comparing the mean responses of oxycodone HCl, the positive control (C), to the placebo (P):~H0: μC - μP ≤ δ1 versus Ha: μC - μP \> δ1 where δ1 =15"|||26.1|<.0001
90970091|NCT02227693|181822235|OTHER||Difference of responder rate vs. placebo|19.5||||0.146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.1|57.0|||Shirley-Williams test|P-value is based on Shirley-Williams test at a one-sided significance level of α = 0.025.|Difference of responder rate vs. placebo = responder rate for avatrombopag - responder rate for placebo; 95% CI is calculated based on normal approximation.|||57.0|-18.1|0.146
90970092|NCT02227693|181822235|OTHER||Difference of responder rate vs. placebo|54.5||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.4|87.7|||Shirley-Williams test|P-value is based on Shirley-Williams test at a one-sided significance level of α = 0.025.|Difference of responder rate vs. placebo = responder rate for avatrombopag - responder rate for placebo; 95% CI is calculated based on normal approximation.|||87.7|21.4|0.004
90970093|NCT02227693|181822235|OTHER||Difference of responder rate vs. placebo|30.9||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|65.7|||Shirley-Williams test|P-value is based on Shirley-Williams test at a one-sided significance level of α = 0.025.|Difference of responder rate vs. placebo = responder rate for avatrombopag - responder rate for placebo; 95% CI is calculated based on normal approximation.|||65.7|-3.9|0.024
90970094|NCT02227693|181822236|OTHER||Difference of proportion vs. placebo|14.3||||0.388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|40.2||P-value is based on Fisher's exact test at a two-sided significance level of α = 0.05.|Fisher Exact||Difference of proportion vs. placebo = proportion of responders for avatrombopag - proportion of responders for placebo; 95% CI is calculated based on normal approximation.|Visit 3 (Day 4 or Day 5)||40.2|-11.6|0.388
90970095|NCT02227693|181822236|OTHER||Difference of proportion vs. placebo|27.3||||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|53.6||P-value is based on Fisher's exact test at a two-sided significance level of α = 0.05.|Fisher Exact||Difference of proportion vs. placebo = proportion of responders for avatrombopag - proportion of responders for placebo; 95% CI is calculated based on normal approximation.|Visit 3 (Day 4 or Day 5)||53.6|1.0|0.214
90970096|NCT02227693|181822236|OTHER||Difference of proportion vs. placebo|62.3||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.8|99.9||P-value is based on Fisher's exact test at a two-sided significance level of α = 0.05.|Fisher Exact||Difference of proportion vs. placebo = proportion of responders for avatrombopag - proportion of responders for placebo; 95% CI is calculated based on normal approximation.|Visit 4 (Day 10)||99.9|24.8|0.012
90970097|NCT02227693|181822236|OTHER||Difference of proportion vs. placebo|72.7||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.3|100.0||P-value is based on Fisher's exact test at a two-sided significance level of α = 0.05.|Fisher Exact||Difference of proportion vs. placebo = proportion of responders for avatrombopag - proportion of responders for placebo; 95% CI is calculated based on normal approximation.|Visit 4 (Day 10)||100.0|44.3|0.001
90937547|NCT05319756|181753964|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin = 0|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.46||0.1041|ONE_SIDED|95.0||1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"The primary analysis evaluated whether gabapentin plus oxycodone HCl (T) produced mean responses that showed abuse potential that was no higher than oxycodone HCl (C). The margin for showing no significant difference was defined as 20% of the difference between oxycodone HCl (C) and Placebo (P):~H0: μT - μC ≥ 0.2(μC - μP) versus Ha: μT - μC \<0.2(μC - μP)."||1.7||0.1041
90937548|NCT05319756|181753964|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin = 0|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.46||0.3373|ONE_SIDED|95.0||5.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"The primary analysis evaluated whether gabapentin plus oxycodone HCl (T) produced mean responses that showed abuse potential that was no higher than oxycodone HCl (C). The margin for showing no significant difference was defined as 20% of the difference between oxycodone HCl (C) and Placebo (P):~H0: μT - μC ≥ 0.2(μC - μP) versus Ha: μT - μC \<0.2(μC - μP)."||5.5||0.3373
90937549|NCT05319756|181753964|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin = 10|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.63|<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||-6.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"The null and alternative hypotheses for evaluating whether gabapentin (G) produced mean responses that show less abuse potential than oxycodone HCl (C) were:~H0: μC - μG ≤ 0.2(μC - 50) versus Ha: μC - μG \>0.2(μC - 50)"||-6.3||<.0001
90937550|NCT05319756|181753964|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin = 10|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.64|<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"The null and alternative hypotheses for evaluating whether gabapentin (G) produced mean responses that show less abuse potential than oxycodone HCl (C) were:~H0: μC - μG ≤ 0.2(μC - 50) versus Ha: μC - μG \>0.2(μC - 50)"||-0.6||<0.0001
90937551|NCT05319756|181753964|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin = 11|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0||0.0232|ONE_SIDED|95.0||9.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"The null and alternative hypotheses for evaluating whether gabapentin (G) produced mean responses that show abuse potential similar to placebo(P) were:~H0: μG - μP ≥ δ2 versus Ha: μG - μP \< δ2 where δ2 =11"||9.6||0.0232
90937552|NCT05319756|181753964|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin = 11|Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.01||0.2767|ONE_SIDED|95.0||15.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"The null and alternative hypotheses for evaluating whether gabapentin (G) produced mean responses that show abuse potential similar to placebo(P) were:~H0: μG - μP ≥ δ2 versus Ha: μG - μP \< δ2 where δ2 =11."||15.2||0.2767
90937553|NCT05319756|181753966|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|267.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|83.688||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|90.0|128.8|405.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||405.4|128.8|0.0016
90937554|NCT05319756|181753966|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|29.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|83.688||0.7276|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-109.0|167.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||167.5|-109|0.7276
90937555|NCT05319756|181753966|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|50.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|83.785||0.5481|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-88.0|188.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||188.9|-88.0|0.5481
90937556|NCT05319756|181753966|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|350.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|84.023|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|211.8|489.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||489.5|211.8|<0.0001
90937557|NCT05319756|181753966|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|364.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|83.785|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|225.9|502.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||502.8|225.9|<0.0001
90937558|NCT05319756|181753966|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-238.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|83.785||0.005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-376.0|-99.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-99.4|-376|0.0050
90937559|NCT05319756|181753966|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-217.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|84.023||0.0106|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-356.0|-77.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-77.8|-356|0.0106
90937560|NCT05319756|181753966|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|83.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|83.785||0.3196|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-54.9|222.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||222.1|-54.9|0.3196
90937561|NCT05319756|181753966|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|97.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|83.688||0.2464|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-41.0|235.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||235.6|-41.0|0.2464
90937562|NCT05319756|181753972|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|64.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.581|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|52.15|77.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||77.20|52.15|<.0001
90937563|NCT05319756|181753972|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.581||0.0546|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.13|27.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||27.1|2.13|0.0546
90937564|NCT05319756|181753972|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.589||0.1286|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.96|24.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||24.12|-0.96|0.1286
90937565|NCT05319756|181753972|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|68.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.611|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|56.42|81.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||81.57|56.42|<.0001
90937566|NCT05319756|181753972|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|76.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.589|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|63.83|88.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||88.91|63.83|<.0001
90937567|NCT05319756|181753972|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-50.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.589|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-62.6|-37.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-37.5|-62.6|<.0001
90937568|NCT05319756|181753972|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-53.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.611|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-65.7|-40.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-40.5|-65.7|<.0001
90937569|NCT05319756|181753972|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.589||0.5699|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.22|16.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||16.86|-8.22|0.5699
90937570|NCT05319756|181753972|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.581||0.1243|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.83|24.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||24.23|-0.83|0.1243
90937571|NCT05319756|181753974|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|286.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|50.879|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|202.6|370.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||370.8|202.6|<.0001
91035916|NCT01058668|181958521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||cariprazine (6-12 mg/day) - placebo|||-0.3|-0.9|<0.001
90937572|NCT05319756|181753974|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|53.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|50.879||0.2912|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-30.2|137.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||137.9|-30.2|0.2912
90937573|NCT05319756|181753974|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|97.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|50.938||0.0563|TWO_SIDED|90.0|13.62|182.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||182.0|13.62|0.0563
90937574|NCT05319756|181753974|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|484.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|51.083|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|400.1|569.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||569.0|400.1|<.0001
90937575|NCT05319756|181753974|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|396.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|50.938|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|312.4|480.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||480.8|312.4|<.0001
90937576|NCT05319756|181753974|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-233.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|50.938|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-317.0|-149.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-149|-317|<.0001
90937577|NCT05319756|181753974|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-189.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|51.083||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-273.0|-105.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-105|-273|0.0003
90937578|NCT05319756|181753974|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|197.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|50.938||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|113.7|282.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||282.0|113.7|0.0001
90937579|NCT05319756|181753974|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|109.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|50.879||0.032|TWO_SIDED|90.0|25.8|194.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||194.0|25.80|0.0320
90937580|NCT05319756|181753975|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.276|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|14.98|22.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||22.48|14.98|<0.0001
90937581|NCT05319756|181753975|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.302||0.5056|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.03|5.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.56|-2.03|0.5056
90937582|NCT05319756|181753975|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.307||0.076|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.82|8.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.42|0.82|0.0760
90937583|NCT05319756|181753975|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.315|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|21.92|29.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||29.54|21.92|<0.0001
91035597|NCT00835263|181957193|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|102.14||||||90.0|100.06|104.26|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||104.26|100.06|
90937584|NCT05319756|181753975|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.27|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|20.68|28.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||28.16|20.68|<0.0001
90937585|NCT05319756|181753975|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.297|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.8|-13.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-13.2|-20.8|<0.0001
90937586|NCT05319756|181753975|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.299|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.9|-10.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-10.3|-17.9|<0.0001
90937587|NCT05319756|181753975|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.298||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.22|10.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||10.79|3.22|0.0024
90937588|NCT05319756|181753975|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.255||0.0118|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.98|9.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.41|1.98|0.0118
90937589|NCT05319756|181753976|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.246|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|16.61|24.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||24.01|16.61|<0.0001
90937590|NCT05319756|181753976|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.271||0.2439|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.09|6.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.39|-1.09|0.2439
90937591|NCT05319756|181753976|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.276||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.75|10.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||10.25|2.75|0.0044
90937592|NCT05319756|181753976|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.284|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|20.39|27.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||27.91|20.39|<0.0001
90937593|NCT05319756|181753976|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.24|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|24.5|31.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||31.88|24.50|<0.0001
90937594|NCT05319756|181753976|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.266|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.4|-13.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-13.9|-21.4|<0.0001
90937595|NCT05319756|181753976|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.268|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.5|-10.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-10.1|-17.5|<0.0001
90937596|NCT05319756|181753976|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.267||0.0907|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.11|7.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.57|0.11|0.0907
90937597|NCT05319756|181753976|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.225||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.22|11.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.55|4.22|0.0004
90937598|NCT05319756|181753977|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.528|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|22.86|27.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||27.88|22.86|<0.0001
90937599|NCT05319756|181753977|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.529||0.0189|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.08|6.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.11|1.08|0.0189
90937600|NCT05319756|181753977|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.536|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.66|8.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.71|3.66|<0.0001
90937601|NCT05319756|181753977|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.537|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|29.65|34.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||34.71|29.65|<0.0001
90937602|NCT05319756|181753977|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|30.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.525|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|27.66|32.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||32.68|27.66|<0.0001
90937603|NCT05319756|181753977|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.522|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-24.3|-19.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-19.3|-24.3|<0.0001
90937604|NCT05319756|181753977|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.53|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.7|-16.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-16.7|-21.7|<0.0001
90937605|NCT05319756|181753977|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.524|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.3|9.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.31|4.30|<0.0001
90937606|NCT05319756|181753977|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.514||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.31|7.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.29|2.31|0.0015
90937607|NCT05319756|181753978|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.743|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.01|5.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.45|3.01|<.0001
91035917|NCT02294786|181958531|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|-4.8||||0.775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.2|20.0|||Chi-squared|||Cycle 1-3 (up to 9 weeks)||20.0|-29.2|0.775
90937608|NCT05319756|181753978|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.743||0.3933|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.59|1.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.86|-0.59|0.3933
90937609|NCT05319756|181753978|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.747||0.2916|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.44|2.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.02|-0.44|0.2916
90937610|NCT05319756|181753978|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.748|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.69|5.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.15|2.69|<.0001
90937611|NCT05319756|181753978|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.742|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.0|4.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.44|2.00|<.0001
90937612|NCT05319756|181753978|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.81|-2.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.38|-4.81|<.0001
90937613|NCT05319756|181753978|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.744|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.66|-2.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.22|-4.66|<.0001
90937614|NCT05319756|181753978|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.741||0.6765|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.53|0.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.91|-1.53|0.6765
90937615|NCT05319756|181753978|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.737||0.1712|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.22|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.20|-2.22|0.1712
90937616|NCT05319756|181753979|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.526|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|22.19|27.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||27.21|22.19|<.0001
90937617|NCT05319756|181753979|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.527||0.0606|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.35|5.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.38|0.35|0.0606
90937618|NCT05319756|181753979|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.534||0.0074|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.59|6.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.64|1.59|0.0074
90937619|NCT05319756|181753979|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|30.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.536|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|28.05|33.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||33.10|28.05|<.0001
90937620|NCT05319756|181753979|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|29.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.524|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|27.48|32.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||32.50|27.48|<.0001
90937621|NCT05319756|181753979|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.521|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-24.3|-19.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-19.3|-24.3|<.0001
90937622|NCT05319756|181753979|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.529|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.1|-18.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-18.1|-23.1|<.0001
90937623|NCT05319756|181753979|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.523||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.37|8.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.38|3.37|0.0001
90937624|NCT05319756|181753979|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.513||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.8|7.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.78|2.80|0.0005
90937625|NCT00442559|181753990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|-0.03|||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from BL to Week 12 - Montelukast. The difference in mean change from baseline to 12 weeks in daytime asthma symptom score was tested by paired t-test (H0: difference =0) for the Montelukast treatment group. Subjects in this analysis: N=24 subjects for the within arm (single arm) comparison between BL and Week 12 scores.||-0.03|-0.29|0.015
90937626|NCT00442559|181753990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.02|||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from BL to Week 12 - ICS. The difference in mean change from baseline to 12 weeks in daytime asthma symptom score was tested by paired t-test (H0: difference =0) for the ICS treatment group. Subjects in this analysis: N=29 subjects for the within arm (single arm) comparison between BL and Week 12 scores.||-0.02|-0.3|0.027
90937627|NCT00442559|181753991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.07|||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from BL to Week 12 - Montelukast. The difference in mean change from baseline to 12 weeks in daily allergic rhinitis symptom score was tested by paired t-test (H0: difference =0) for the Montelukast treatment group. Subjects in this analysis: N=24 subjects for the within arm (single arm) comparison between BL and Week 12 scores.||-0.07|-0.36|0.006
90937628|NCT00442559|181753991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|-0.01|||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from BL to Week 12 - ICS. The difference in mean change from baseline to 12 weeks in daily allergic rhinitis symptom score was tested by paired t-test (H0: difference =0) for the ICS treatment group. Subjects in this analysis: N=28 subjects for the within arm (single arm) comparison between BL and Week 12 scores.||-0.01|-0.24|0.032
90937629|NCT03575572|181753997|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.007
90937630|NCT03575572|181753997|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.17
90937631|NCT03575572|181753999|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.005
90937632|NCT03575572|181753999|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.13
90937633|NCT03594266|181754000|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test, two-sided|||||||<0.0001
90937634|NCT03594266|181754000|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test, two-sided|||||||<0.0001
90937635|NCT03594266|181754001|OTHER|||||||0.5482|||||||two-sample t-test, 2-sided|||||||0.5482
90937636|NCT03647709|181754008|OTHER||mean score|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.2|||||Represents patients pain score post operative day 1 best with rest|Comparison of change in patient's reported pain with rest or during activity at various time intervals. Patients reported best and worst pain scores at rest and during activity.||1.2|0.9|
90937637|NCT03647709|181754008|OTHER||mean score|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|2.6|||||Represents patients reported pain score post operative day 1 worst at rest|Comparison of change in patient's reported pain with rest or during activity at various time intervals. Patients reported best and worst pain scores at rest and during activity.||2.6|2.2|
91035918|NCT03261167|181958551|OTHER||Difference|18.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|35.0||||||||35.0|1.1|
90937638|NCT03647709|181754008|OTHER||mean score|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|3.1|||||Represents patients reported pain score post operative day 1 best with activity|Comparison of change in patient's reported pain with rest or during activity at various time intervals. Patients reported best and worst pain scores at rest and during activity||3.1|2.7|
90937639|NCT03647709|181754008|OTHER||mean score|4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|4.8|||||Represents patients reported pain score post operative day 1 worst with activity|Comparison of change in patient's reported pain with rest or during activity at various time intervals. Patients reported best and worst pain scores at rest and during activity||4.8|4.4|
90937640|NCT03647709|181754008|OTHER||mean score|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|2.0|||||Represents patients reported pain score post operative day 2 best at rest|Comparison of change in patient's reported pain with rest or during activity at various time intervals. Patients reported best and worst pain scores at rest and during activity||2.0|1.6|
90937641|NCT03647709|181754008|OTHER||mean score|3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|3.6|||||Represents patients reported pain score post operative day 2 worst at rest|Comparison of change in patient's reported pain with rest or during activity at various time intervals. Patients reported best and worst pain scores at rest and during activity||3.6|3.2|
90937642|NCT03647709|181754008|OTHER||mean score|4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|4.4|||||Represents patients reported pain score post operative day 2 best with activity|Comparison of change in patient's reported pain with rest or during activity at various time intervals. Patients reported best and worst pain scores at rest and during activity||4.4|4.0|
90937643|NCT03647709|181754008|OTHER||mean score|5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|6.1|||||Represents patients reported pain score post operative day 2 worst with activity|Comparison of change in patient's reported pain with rest or during activity at various time intervals. Patients reported best and worst pain scores at rest and during activity||6.1|5.7|
90937644|NCT03647709|181754008|OTHER||mean score|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.2|||||Represents patients reported pain score post operative day 3 best at rest|Comparison of change in patient's reported pain with rest or during activity at various time intervals. Patients reported best and worst pain scores at rest and during activity||1.2|0.8|
90937645|NCT03647709|181754008|OTHER||mean score|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|2.6|||||Represents patients reported pain score post operative day 3 worst at rest|Comparison of change in patient's reported pain with rest or during activity at various time intervals. Patients reported best and worst pain scores at rest and during activity||2.6|2.2|
91035919|NCT03261167|181958552|OTHER||Adjusted rate difference|33.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.0|49.2|||||Week 2, Elbow flexion. Analysis was based on the Mantel-Haenszel method using Baseline MAS score of the elbow flexors.|||49.2|17.0|
90937646|NCT03647709|181754008|OTHER||mean score|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|3.5|||||Represents patients reported pain score post operative day 3 best with activity|Comparison of change in patient's reported pain with rest or during activity at various time intervals. Patients reported best and worst pain scores at rest and during activity||3.5|3.1|
90937647|NCT03647709|181754008|OTHER||mean score|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.8|5.2|||||Represents patients reported pain score post operative day 3 worst with activity|Comparison of change in patient's reported pain with rest or during activity at various time intervals. Patients reported best and worst pain scores at rest and during activity||5.2|4.8|
90937648|NCT03647709|181754008|OTHER||mean score|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.7|||||Represents patients reported pain score post operative days 10-14 best at rest|Comparison of change in patient's reported pain with rest or during activity at various time intervals. Patients reported best and worst pain scores at rest and during activity||0.7|0.4|
90937649|NCT03647709|181754008|OTHER||mean score|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|2.3|||||Represents patients reported pain score post operative days 10-14 worst at rest|Comparison of change in patient's reported pain with rest or during activity at various time intervals. Patients reported best and worst pain scores at rest and during activity||2.3|1.9|
90937650|NCT03647709|181754008|OTHER||mean score|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|2.2|||||Represents patients reported pain score post operative days 10-14 best with activity|Comparison of change in patient's reported pain with rest or during activity at various time intervals. Patients reported best and worst pain scores at rest and during activity||2.2|1.8|
90937651|NCT03647709|181754008|OTHER||mean score|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|4.2|||||Represents patients reported pain score post operative days 10-14 worst with activity|Comparison of change in patient's reported pain with rest or during activity at various time intervals. Patients reported best and worst pain scores at rest and during activity||4.2|3.8|
90937652|NCT03647709|181754008|OTHER||mean score|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.4|||||Represents patients reported pain score post operative week 3 best at rest|Comparison of change in patient's reported pain with rest or during activity at various time intervals. Patients reported best and worst pain scores at rest and during activity||0.4|0.2|
90937653|NCT03647709|181754008|OTHER||mean score|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|1.7|||||Represents patients reported pain score post operative week 3 worst at rest|Comparison of change in patient's reported pain with rest or during activity at various time intervals. Patients reported best and worst pain scores at rest and during activity||1.7|1.3|
90937654|NCT03647709|181754008|OTHER||mean score|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|1.5|||||Represents patients reported pain score post operative week 3 best with activity|Comparison of change in patient's reported pain with rest or during activity at various time intervals. Patients reported best and worst pain scores at rest and during activity||1.5|1.2|
90937655|NCT03647709|181754008|OTHER||mean score|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|3.3|||||Represents patients reported pain score post operative week 3 worst with activity|Comparison of change in patient's reported pain with rest or during activity at various time intervals. Patients reported best and worst pain scores at rest and during activity||3.3|2.9|
90970098|NCT02227693|181822236|OTHER||Difference of proportion vs. placebo|40.9||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.6|76.2||P-value is based on Fisher's exact test at a two-sided significance level of α = 0.05.|Fisher Exact||Difference of proportion vs. placebo = proportion of responders for avatrombopag - proportion of responders for placebo; 95% CI is calculated based on normal approximation.|Visit 4 (Day 10)||76.2|5.6|0.063
90970099|NCT02227693|181822236|OTHER||Difference of proportion vs. placebo|-27.3||||0.245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.6|-1.0||P-value is based on Fisher's exact test at a two-sided significance level of α = 0.05.|Fisher Exact||Difference of proportion vs. placebo = proportion of responders for avatrombopag - proportion of responders for placebo; 95% CI is calculated based on normal approximation.|Visit 5 (Day 17)||-1.0|-53.6|0.245
90970100|NCT02227693|181822236|OTHER||Difference of proportion vs. placebo|27.3||||0.386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|66.8||P-value is based on Fisher's exact test at a two-sided significance level of α = 0.05.|Fisher Exact||Difference of proportion vs. placebo = proportion of responders for avatrombopag - proportion of responders for placebo; 95% CI is calculated based on normal approximation.|Visit 5 (Day 17)||66.8|-12.2|0.386
90937656|NCT03647709|181754008|OTHER||mean score|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.2|||||Represents patients reported pain score post operative week 6 best at rest|Comparison of change in patient's reported pain with rest or during activity at various time intervals. Patients reported best and worst pain scores at rest and during activity||0.2|0.0|
90937657|NCT03647709|181754008|OTHER||mean score|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.8|||||Represents patients reported pain score post operative week 6 worst at rest|Comparison of change in patient's reported pain with rest or during activity at various time intervals. Patients reported best and worst pain scores at rest and during activity||0.8|0.5|
90937658|NCT03647709|181754008|OTHER||mean score|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.6|||||Represents patients reported pain score post operative week 6 best with activity|Comparison of change in patient's reported pain with rest or during activity at various time intervals. Patients reported best and worst pain scores at rest and during activity||0.6|0.4|
90937659|NCT03647709|181754008|OTHER||mean score|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|2.0|||||Represents patients reported pain score post operative week 6 worst with activity|Comparison of change in patient's reported pain with rest or during activity at various time intervals. Patients reported best and worst pain scores at rest and during activity||2.0|1.7|
90937660|NCT03647709|181754008|OTHER||mean score|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||||Represents patients reported pain score post operative week 12 best at rest|Comparison of change in patient's reported pain with rest or during activity at various time intervals. Patients reported best and worst pain scores at rest and during activity||0.0|-0.0|
90937661|NCT03647709|181754008|OTHER||mean score|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.2|||||Represents patients reported pain score post operative week 12 worst at rest|Comparison of change in patient's reported pain with rest or during activity at various time intervals. Patients reported best and worst pain scores at rest and during activity||0.2|0.1|
91035920|NCT03261167|181958552|OTHER||Adjusted rate difference|21.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|38.5|||||Week 4, Elbow flexion. Analysis was based on the Mantel-Haenszel method using Baseline MAS score of the elbow flexors.|||38.5|4.9|
90937662|NCT03647709|181754008|OTHER||mean score|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.1|||||Represents patients reported pain score post operative week 12 best with activity|Comparison of change in patient's reported pain with rest or during activity at various time intervals. Patients reported best and worst pain scores at rest and during activity||0.1|-0.0|
90937663|NCT03647709|181754008|OTHER||mean score|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.7|||||Represents patients reported pain score post operative week 12 worst with activity|Comparison of change in patient's reported pain with rest or during activity at various time intervals. Patients reported best and worst pain scores at rest and during activity||0.7|0.4|
90937664|NCT03647709|181754011|OTHER|||||||0.0015|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0015
90937665|NCT03647709|181754012|OTHER|||||||0.6398|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.6398
90937666|NCT03647709|181754013|OTHER|||||||0.0658|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.0658
90937667|NCT03647709|181754014|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
90937668|NCT04799587|181754086|SUPERIORITY|Sample size for the study was determined by assuming a baseline rate of 33% of IONV and that there will be a relative decrease of 50% in the group that receives P6 acupressure during CD. A two-sided Fisher's Exact Test, with a significance level of 0.05, group sizes of 98 are needed to achieve 80% power to detect a difference between the group proportions of 0.18. Group sizes were rounded up to 100. Statistical analyses were two-sided, and a P\<0.05 was required to reject the null hypothesis.||||||0.94|||||||Chi-squared|||The incidence of nausea and vomiting and the number of episodes between the P6 acupressure and sham acupressure groups were compared using a chi-square statistic (nominal data) or the Wilcoxon test (continuous data).||||.94
90937669|NCT04799587|181754087|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Chi-squared|||The sample size for the study was determined by assuming a baseline rate of 33% of intraoperative nausea and vomiting and that there will be a relative decrease of 50% in the group that receives P6 acupressure during CD.20 Using a two-sided Fisher's Exact Test, with a significance level of 0.05, group sizes of 98 are needed to achieve 80% power to detect a difference between the group proportions of 0.18. Group sizes were rounded up to 100||||.95
90937670|NCT02849509|181754113|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||p-value of paired t-test compared to baseline|Paired t-test|||Convenience dimension score of PACT-Q2 at the second assessment (Visit 2) were compared with the baseline assessment (Visit 1). There was no (confirmatory) hypothesis testing foreseen in a strict statistical sense. Analyses were descriptive in nature and p-values from statistical models were used for exploratory purposes.||||<0.0001
90937671|NCT02849509|181754113|OTHER|||||||0.0174||||||p-value of paired t-test compared to baseline|Paired t-test|||Satisfaction dimension score of PACT-Q2 at the second assessment (Visit 2) were compared with the baseline assessment (Visit 1). There was no (confirmatory) hypothesis testing foreseen in a strict statistical sense. Analyses were descriptive in nature and p-values from statistical models were used for exploratory purposes.||||0.0174
90937672|NCT02849509|181754114|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||p-value of paired t-test compared to baseline|Paired t-test|||Convenience dimension score of PACT-Q2 at the last assessment (Visit 3) were compared with the baseline assessment (Visit 1). There was no (confirmatory) hypothesis testing foreseen in a strict statistical sense. Analyses were descriptive in nature and p-values from statistical models were used for exploratory purposes.||||<0.0001
90937673|NCT02849509|181754114|OTHER|||||||0.0004||||||p-value of paired t-test compared to baseline|Paired t-test|||Satisfaction dimension score of PACT-Q2 at the last assessment (Visit 3) were compared with the baseline assessment (Visit 1). There was no (confirmatory) hypothesis testing foreseen in a strict statistical sense. Analyses were descriptive in nature and p-values from statistical models were used for exploratory purposes.||||0.0004
90937674|NCT02849509|181754115|OTHER|||||||0.0423||||||p-value of paired t-test compared between matched Pradaxa® and VKA patients|Paired t-test|||Convenience dimension score of PACT-Q2 for patients in Cohort B, were compared between matched Pradaxa® and VKA patients at the second assessment. There was no (confirmatory) hypothesis testing foreseen in a strict statistical sense. Analyses were descriptive in nature and p-values from statistical models were used for exploratory purposes.||||0.0423
90970101|NCT02227693|181822236|OTHER||Difference of proportion vs. placebo|-7.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.4|28.9||P-value is based on Fisher's exact test at a two-sided significance level of α = 0.05.|Fisher Exact||Difference of proportion vs. placebo = proportion of responders for avatrombopag - proportion of responders for placebo; 95% CI is calculated based on normal approximation.|Visit 5 (Day 17)||28.9|-43.4|1.000
90970102|NCT02227693|181822236|OTHER||Difference of proportion vs. placebo|-18.2||||0.496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.0|4.6||P-value is based on Fisher's exact test at a two-sided significance level of α = 0.05.|Fisher Exact||Difference of proportion vs. placebo = proportion of responders for avatrombopag - proportion of responders for placebo; 95% CI is calculated based on normal approximation.|Visit 6 (Day 35)||4.6|-41.0|0.496
90970103|NCT02227693|181822236|OTHER||Difference of proportion vs. placebo|-9.1||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.5|19.3||P-value is based on Fisher's exact test at a two-sided significance level of α = 0.05.|Fisher Exact||Difference of proportion vs. placebo = proportion of responders for avatrombopag - proportion of responders for placebo; 95% CI is calculated based on normal approximation.|Visit 6 (Day 35)||19.3|-37.5|1.000
90937675|NCT02849509|181754115|OTHER|||||||0.2226||||||p-value of paired t-test compared between matched Pradaxa® and VKA patients|Paired t-test|||Satisfaction dimension score of PACT-Q2 for patients in Cohort B, were compared between matched Pradaxa® and VKA patients at the second assessment. There was no (confirmatory) hypothesis testing foreseen in a strict statistical sense. Analyses were descriptive in nature and p-values from statistical models were used for exploratory purposes.||||0.2226
90937676|NCT02849509|181754116|OTHER|||||||0.0287||||||p-value of paired t-test compared between matched Pradaxa® and VKA patients|Paired t-test|||Convenience dimension score of PACT-Q2 for patients in Cohort B, were compared between matched Pradaxa® and VKA patients at the second assessment. There was no (confirmatory) hypothesis testing foreseen in a strict statistical sense. Analyses were descriptive in nature and p-values from statistical models were used for exploratory purposes.||||0.0287
90937677|NCT02849509|181754116|OTHER|||||||0.03||||||p-value of paired t-test compared between matched Pradaxa® and VKA patients|Paired t-test|||Satisfaction dimension score of PACT-Q2 for patients in Cohort B, were compared between matched Pradaxa® and VKA patients at the second assessment. There was no (confirmatory) hypothesis testing foreseen in a strict statistical sense. Analyses were descriptive in nature and p-values from statistical models were used for exploratory purposes.||||0.0300
90937678|NCT02849509|181754122|OTHER|||||||0.1234||||||p-value of paired t-test compared between second assessment (Visit 2) and last assessment (Visit 3)|Paired t-test|||Convenience dimension score of PACT-Q2 for patients in Cohort A, were compared between second assessment (Visit 2) and last assessment (Visit 3). There was no (confirmatory) hypothesis testing foreseen in a strict statistical sense. Analyses were descriptive in nature and p-values from statistical models were used for exploratory purposes.||||0.1234
90937679|NCT02849509|181754122|OTHER|||||||0.974||||||p-value of paired t-test compared between second assessment (Visit 2) and last assessment (Visit 3)|Paired t-test|||Satisfaction dimension score of PACT-Q2 for patients in Cohort A, were compared between second assessment (Visit 2) and last assessment (Visit 3). There was no (confirmatory) hypothesis testing foreseen in a strict statistical sense. Analyses were descriptive in nature and p-values from statistical models were used for exploratory purposes.||||0.9740
90937680|NCT00763919|181754127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Sign test|||The null hypothesis is that the median difference between 6 months and baseline equals zero.||||<.001
90937681|NCT00763919|181754128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||Sign test|||The null hypothesis is that the median difference between 6 months and baseline equals zero.||||.01
90937682|NCT00763919|181754129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Sign test|||The null hypothesis is that the median difference between 6 months and baseline equals zero.||||<.001
90937683|NCT00763919|181754130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Sign test|||The null hypothesis is that the median difference between 3 months and baseline equals zero.||||<.001
90937684|NCT00763919|181754131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the mean difference between 3 months and baseline equals zero.||||<.001
90937685|NCT00763919|181754132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.042||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the mean difference between 6 months and baseline equals zero.||||.042
90937686|NCT00763919|181754133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.044||95.0|||||Sign test|||The null hypothesis is that the median difference between 6 months and baseline equals zero.||||.044
90937687|NCT00763919|181754134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the mean difference between 6 months and baseline equals zero.||||.002
90970104|NCT02227693|181822236|OTHER||Difference of proportion vs. placebo|-18.2||||0.476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.0|4.6||P-value is based on Fisher's exact test at a two-sided significance level of α = 0.05.|Fisher Exact||Difference of proportion vs. placebo = proportion of responders for avatrombopag - proportion of responders for placebo; 95% CI is calculated based on normal approximation.|Visit 6 (Day 35)||4.6|-41.0|0.476
90937688|NCT00763919|181754135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Sign test|||The null hypothesis is that the median difference between 6 months and baseline equals zero.||||.001
90937689|NCT00763919|181754136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the mean difference between 6 months and baseline equals zero.||||.001
90937690|NCT00763919|181754137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the mean difference between 6 months and baseline equals zero.||||.001
90937691|NCT00763919|181754138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.827||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the mean difference between 6 months and baseline equals zero.||||.827
90937692|NCT00763919|181754139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the mean difference between 6 months and baseline equals zero.||||.002
90937693|NCT00763919|181754140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.246||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the mean difference between 3 months and baseline equals zero.||||.246
90937694|NCT00763919|181754141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.101||95.0|||||Sign test|||The null hypothesis is that the median difference between 3 months and baseline equals zero.||||.101
90937695|NCT00763919|181754142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||Sign test|||The null hypothesis is that the median difference between 3 months and baseline equals zero.||||.003
90937696|NCT00763919|181754143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.096||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the mean difference between 3 months and baseline equals zero.||||.096
90937697|NCT00763919|181754144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.072||95.0|||||Sign test|||The null hypothesis is that the median difference between 3 months and baseline equals zero.||||.072
90937698|NCT00763919|181754145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the mean difference between 3 months and baseline equals zero.||||<.001
90937699|NCT00763919|181754146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.078||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the mean difference between 3 months and baseline equals zero.||||.078
90937700|NCT00763919|181754147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Sign test|||The null hypothesis is that the median difference between 3 months and baseline equals zero.||||.002
90937701|NCT00763919|181754148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.562||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the mean difference between 3 months and baseline equals zero.||||.562
90937702|NCT00763919|181754149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the mean difference between 3 months and baseline equals zero.||||.12
90937703|NCT05431543|181754156|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|83.988|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||||<0.0001
90937704|NCT05431543|181754156|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|102.093|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||||<0.0001
90970105|NCT02227693|181822237|OTHER||Difference of proportion vs. placebo|63.6||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.2|92.1||P-value is based on Fisher's exact test at a two-sided significance level of α= 0.05.|Fisher Exact||Difference of proportion vs. placebo = proportion of responders for avatrombopag - proportion of responders for placebo; 95% CI is calculated based on normal approximation.|Visit 4 (Day 10)||92.1|35.2|0.003
91035921|NCT03261167|181958552|OTHER||Adjusted rate difference|18.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|35.5|||||Week 6, Elbow flexion. Analysis was based on the Mantel-Haenszel method using Baseline MAS score of the elbow flexors.|||35.5|1.3|
90937705|NCT00914732|181754162|NON_INFERIORITY|The mean difference in log2 transformed peak titers between IMVAMUNE® (1x10\^8 TCID50) liquid formulation (Liquid SC Group) and IMVAMUNE® (1x10\^8 TCID50) lyophilized formulation (Lyophilized SC) with its associated two-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) was computed. If the upper limit of the 97.5% CI was less than 1, then the Lyophilized SC was considered non-inferior to the Liquid SC group. The difference and the CI are reported on the log2 scale.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.23|-0.25||||||The sample size calculations targeted at least 80% power to test non-inferiority for the primary and secondary immunogenicity end points for two investigational arms in reference to a control arm. Assuming a standard deviation of 2.8 for log2 peak PRNT or ELISA titer in each group, a non-inferiority margin of 2.0-fold, a type I error rate of 1.25% (Bonferroni adjusted for 2 comparisons), and drop-out rate of 10%, 165 participants in each group were to be enrolled to achieve 148 evaluable||-0.25|-1.23|
90937706|NCT00914732|181754163|NON_INFERIORITY|The mean difference in log2 transformed peak titers between IMVAMUNE® (1x10\^8 TCID50) liquid formulation (Liquid SC Group) and IMVAMUNE® (1x10\^8 TCID50) lyophilized formulation (Lyophilized SC) with its associated two-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) was computed. If the upper limit of the 97.5% CI was less than 1, then the Lyophilized SC was considered non-inferior to the Liquid SC group. The difference and the CI are reported on the log2 scale.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.32|-0.33||||||The sample size calculations targeted at least 80% power to test non-inferiority for the primary and secondary immunogenicity end points for two investigational arms in reference to a control arm. Assuming a standard deviation of 2.8 for log2 peak PRNT or ELISA titer in each group, a non-inferiority margin of 2.0-fold, a type I error rate of 1.25% (Bonferroni adjusted for 2 comparisons), and drop-out rate of 10%, 165 participants in each group were to be enrolled to achieve 148 evaluable||-0.33|-1.32|
90937707|NCT00914732|181754164|NON_INFERIORITY|The mean difference in log2 transformed peak titers between IMVAMUNE® (1x10\^8 TCID50) liquid formulation subcutaneously (Liquid SC Group) and IMVAMUNE® (2x10\^7 TCID50) formulation intradermally (Liquid ID) with its associated two-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) was computed. If the upper limit of the 97.5% CI was less than 1, then the Liquid ID was considered non-inferior to the Liquid SC group. The difference and the CI are reported on the log2 scale.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.43|0.52||||||The sample size calculations targeted at least 80% power to test non-inferiority for the primary and secondary immunogenicity end points for two investigational arms in reference to a control arm. Assuming a standard deviation of 2.8 for log2 peak PRNT or ELISA titer in each group, a non-inferiority margin of 2.0-fold, a type I error rate of 1.25% (Bonferroni adjusted for 2 comparisons), and drop-out rate of 10%, 165 participants in each group were to be enrolled to achieve 148 evaluable.||0.52|-0.43|
90937708|NCT00914732|181754165|NON_INFERIORITY|The mean difference in log2 transformed peak titers between IMVAMUNE® (1x10\^8 TCID50) liquid formulation subcutaneously (Liquid SC Group) and IMVAMUNE® (2x10\^7 TCID50) formulation intradermally (Liquid ID) with its associated two-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) was computed. If the upper limit of the 97.5% CI was less than 1, then the Liquid ID was considered non-inferior to the Liquid SC group. The difference and the CI are reported on the log2 scale.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.77|0.23||||||The sample size calculations targeted at least 80% power to test non-inferiority for the primary and secondary immunogenicity end points for two investigational arms in reference to a control arm. Assuming a standard deviation of 2.8 for log2 peak PRNT or ELISA titer in each group, a non-inferiority margin of 2.0-fold, a type I error rate of 1.25% (Bonferroni adjusted for 2 comparisons), and drop-out rate of 10%, 165 participants in each group were to be enrolled to achieve 148 evaluable.||0.23|-0.77|
90937709|NCT00914732|181754168|NON_INFERIORITY|The mean difference in log2 transformed peak titers between IMVAMUNE® (1x10\^8 TCID50) liquid formulation subcutaneously (Liquid SC Group) and IMVAMUNE® (2x10\^7 TCID50) formulation intradermally (Liquid ID) with its associated two-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) was computed. If the upper limit of the 97.5% CI was less than 1, then the Liquid ID was considered non-inferior to the Liquid SC group. The difference and the CI are reported on the log2 scale.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.3|0.71||||||The sample size calculations targeted at least 80% power to test non-inferiority for the primary and secondary immunogenicity end points for two investigational arms in reference to a control arm. Assuming a standard deviation of 2.8 for log2 peak PRNT or ELISA titer in each group, a non-inferiority margin of 2.0-fold, a type I error rate of 1.25% (Bonferroni adjusted for 2 comparisons), and drop-out rate of 10%, 165 participants in each group were to be enrolled to achieve 148 evaluable.||0.71|-0.3|
90937710|NCT00914732|181754169|NON_INFERIORITY|The mean difference in log2 transformed peak titers between IMVAMUNE® (1x10\^8 TCID50) liquid formulation subcutaneously (Liquid SC Group) and IMVAMUNE® (2x10\^7 TCID50) formulation intradermally (Liquid ID) with its associated two-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) was computed. If the upper limit of the 97.5% CI was less than 1, then the Liquid ID was considered non-inferior to the Liquid SC group. The difference and the CI are reported on the log2 scale.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.31|0.35||||||The sample size calculations targeted at least 80% power to test non-inferiority for the primary and secondary immunogenicity end points for two investigational arms in reference to a control arm. Assuming a standard deviation of 2.8 for log2 peak PRNT or ELISA titer in each group, a non-inferiority margin of 2.0-fold, a type I error rate of 1.25% (Bonferroni adjusted for 2 comparisons), and drop-out rate of 10%, 165 participants in each group were to be enrolled to achieve 148 evaluable.||0.35|-0.31|
90970106|NCT02227693|181822237|OTHER||Difference of proportion vs. placebo|30.0||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|58.4||P-value is based on Fisher's exact test at a two-sided significance level of α= 0.05.|Fisher Exact||Difference of proportion vs. placebo = proportion of responders for avatrombopag - proportion of responders for placebo; 95% CI is calculated based on normal approximation.|Visit 4 (Day 10)||58.4|1.6|0.090
90970107|NCT02227693|181822237|OTHER||Difference of proportion vs. placebo|10.0||||0.476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|28.6||P-value is based on Fisher's exact test at a two-sided significance level of α= 0.05.|Fisher Exact||Difference of proportion vs. placebo = proportion of responders for avatrombopag - proportion of responders for placebo; 95% CI is calculated based on normal approximation.|Visit 5 (Day 17)||28.6|-8.6|0.476
90937711|NCT00914732|181754170|NON_INFERIORITY|The mean difference in log2 transformed peak titers between IMVAMUNE® (1x10\^8 TCID50) liquid formulation (Liquid SC Group) and IMVAMUNE® (1x10\^8 TCID50) lyophilized formulation (Lyophilized SC) with its associated two-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) was computed. If the upper limit of the 97.5% CI was less than 1, then the Lyophilized SC was considered non-inferior to the Liquid SC group. The difference and the CI are reported on the log2 scale.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.74|0.04||||||The sample size calculations targeted at least 80% power to test non-inferiority for the primary and secondary immunogenicity end points for two investigational arms in reference to a control arm. Assuming a standard deviation of 2.8 for log2 peak PRNT or ELISA titer in each group, a non-inferiority margin of 2.0-fold, a type I error rate of 1.25% (Bonferroni adjusted for 2 comparisons), and drop-out rate of 10%, 165 participants in each group were to be enrolled to achieve 148 evaluable.||0.04|-0.74|
90937712|NCT00914732|181754171|NON_INFERIORITY|The mean difference in log2 transformed peak titers between IMVAMUNE® (1x108 TCID50) liquid formulation (Liquid SC Group) and IMVAMUNE® (1x108 TCID50) lyophilized formulation (Lyophilized SC) with its associated two-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) was computed. If the upper limit of the 97.5% CI was less than 1, then the Lyophilized SC was considered non-inferior to the Lyophilized SC group. The difference and the CI are reported on the log2 scale.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.81|-0.12||||||The sample size calculations targeted at least 80% power to test non-inferiority for the primary and secondary immunogenicity end points for two investigational arms in reference to a control arm. Assuming a standard deviation of 2.8 for log2 peak PRNT or ELISA titer in each group, a non-inferiority margin of 2.0-fold, a type I error rate of 1.25% (Bonferroni adjusted for 2 comparisons), and drop-out rate of 10%, 165 participants in each group were to be enrolled to achieve 148 evaluable.||-0.12|-0.81|
90937713|NCT05615870|181754172|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.41||||0.537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.77|22.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis: mean of SFDs in the HEPA filtration home intervention group will not differ from the mean of SFDs in the control group||22.60|-11.77|0.537
90937714|NCT05615870|181754173|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis: mean of counts of hospitalizations for respiratory symptoms in the intervention group will not differ from the mean of counts of hospitalizations for respiratory symptoms in the control group||0.30|-0.07|0.205
90937715|NCT05615870|181754173|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis: mean of counts of emergency department or urgent care visits for respiratory symptoms in the intervention group will not differ from the mean of counts of emergency department or urgent care visits for respiratory symptoms in the control group||0.35|-0.35|0.992
90937716|NCT05615870|181754173|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37||||0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis: mean of counts of other unscheduled healthcare visits for respiratory symptoms in the intervention group will not differ from the mean of counts of other unscheduled healthcare visits for respiratory symptoms in the control group||0.16|-0.90|0.172
90937717|NCT05615870|181754173|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|0.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis: mean of counts (or total counts) of visits of all metrics for respiratory symptoms in the intervention group will not differ from the mean of counts of visits of all metrics for respiratory symptoms in the control group||0.52|-1.02|0.530
90937718|NCT05615870|181754174|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.75|2.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis: mean of the Child QOL score in the HEPA intervention group will not differ from the mean of Child QOL score in the control group||2.16|-3.75|0.598
90937719|NCT05615870|181754175|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.98|-3.42|||Mixed Models Analysis||The results were based on the average PM2.5 level of common room and sleep space.|Null hypothesis: the mean of the PM2.5 level of the common room and sleep space in the intervention group will not differ from the mean of the PM2.5 level in the control group||-3.42|-10.98|<0.001
90937720|NCT03163472|181754176|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90937721|NCT03163472|181754177|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
90937722|NCT03163472|181754178|OTHER|||||||0.022|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.022
90937723|NCT03163472|181754179|OTHER|||||||0.011|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.011
90937724|NCT00145496|181754182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7177||95.0||||The test of hypothesis was a 2-tailed test with alpha=0.05 (0.049 to adjust for one interim analysis).|Mixed Model for Repeated Measurements|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in change from baseline in NSA Scale total score between asenapine and olanzapine at Day 182.||||0.7177
90937725|NCT00145496|181754183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0565||95.0||||The test of hypothesis was a 2-tailed test with alpha=0.025 nominal significance using the Bonferroni adjustment to account for multiplicity of the key secondary comparisons.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measurements|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in change from baseline in QLS total score between asenapine and olanzapine at Day 182.||||0.0565
90937726|NCT00145496|181754184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||The test of hypothesis was a 2-tailed test with alpha=0.025 nominal significance using the Bonferroni adjustment to account for multiplicity of the key secondary comparisons.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measurements|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in change from baseline in body weight between asenapine and olanzapine at Day 182.||||<0.0001
90937727|NCT06466655|181754229|EQUIVALENCE||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
90937728|NCT06466655|181754230|EQUIVALENCE||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
90937729|NCT00635570|181754254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|Yates's chi-squared test with 1 degree of freedom was used for analysis||The trial sample size of 300 participants total (150 participants each group) was based on two-sided 5% significance testing with 80% power to detect a difference of 10% in adherence between students in the contraceptive vaginal ring group and oral contraceptive pill group.||||0.05
90937730|NCT00635570|181754255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|0.0|||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||>0.05
90937731|NCT00635570|181754256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||>0.05
90937732|NCT00635570|181754257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||>0.05
90937733|NCT02255435|181754268|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Net)|0.1||||0.1524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment group, time, and the interaction between treatment and time were used as fixed factors.|Difference is omaveloxolone - placebo|||0.23|-0.04|0.1524
90937734|NCT02255435|181754268|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Net)|0.03||||0.7086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment group, time, and the interaction between treatment and time were used as fixed factors.|Difference is omaveloxolone - placebo|||0.16|-0.11|0.7086
90970108|NCT02227693|181822240|OTHER|||||||0.296||||||P-value is based on Wilcoxon rank sum test at a two-sided significance level of α = 0.05 for each avatrombopag treatment group vs. placebo.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Visit 3 (Day 4 or Day 5)||||0.296
90937735|NCT02255435|181754268|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Net)|-0.13||||0.0651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment group, time, and the interaction between treatment and time were used as fixed factors.|Difference is omaveloxolone - placebo|||0.01|-0.26|0.0651
90937736|NCT02255435|181754268|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Net)|0.02||||0.7937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment group, time, and the interaction between treatment and time were used as fixed factors.|Difference is omaveloxolone - placebo|||0.15|-0.12|0.7937
90937737|NCT02255435|181754268|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Net)|-0.04||||0.5587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment group, time, and the interaction between treatment and time were used as fixed factors.|Difference is omaveloxolone - placebo|||0.10|-0.18|0.5587
90937738|NCT02255435|181754268|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.7285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment group, time, and the interaction between treatment and time were used as fixed factors.|Difference is omaveloxolone - placebo|||0.09|-0.13|0.7285
90937739|NCT02255435|181754268|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Net)|0.03||||0.5802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment group, time, and the interaction between treatment and time were used as fixed factors.|Difference is omaveloxolone - placebo|||0.15|-0.09|0.5802
90937740|NCT02255435|181754268|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Net)|0.0||||0.9698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment group, time, and the interaction between treatment and time were used as fixed factors.|Difference is omaveloxolone - placebo|Comparison of Omaveloxolone capsules pooled with Placebo capsules||0.08|-0.08|0.9698
90937741|NCT02255435|181754269|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Net)|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.956||0.0141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.31|-0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed factors: treatment group, time, interaction between treatment and time, interaction between baseline and time; covariates: site, baseline mFARS|Difference is omaveloxolone - placebo.|||-0.50|-4.31|0.0141
90937742|NCT02255435|181754270|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Net)|-1.81||||0.231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|1.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment group, time, and the interaction between treatment and time were used as fixed factors.|Difference is omaveloxolone - placebo.|||1.18|-4.80|0.2310
90937743|NCT02255435|181754270|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Net)|-0.52||||0.7298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.51|2.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment group, time, and the interaction between treatment and time were used as fixed factors.|Difference is omaveloxolone - placebo.|||2.47|-3.51|0.7298
90937744|NCT02255435|181754270|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Net)|-0.99||||0.5102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.99|2.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment group, time, and the interaction between treatment and time were used as fixed factors.|Difference is omaveloxolone - placebo.|||2.00|-3.99|0.5102
90937745|NCT02255435|181754270|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Net)|-0.95||||0.5281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.94|2.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment group, time, and the interaction between treatment and time were used as fixed factors.|Difference is omaveloxolone - placebo.|||2.04|-3.94|0.5281
90970109|NCT02227693|181822240|OTHER|||||||0.07||||||P-value is based on Wilcoxon rank sum test at a two-sided significance level of α = 0.05 for each avatrombopag treatment group vs. placebo.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Visit 3 (Day 4 or Day 5)||||0.070
90937746|NCT02255435|181754270|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Net)|-1.42||||0.3458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.42|1.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment group, time, and the interaction between treatment and time were used as fixed factors.|Difference is omaveloxolone - placebo.|||1.57|-4.42|0.3458
90937747|NCT02255435|181754270|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Net)|-2.3||||0.0587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.68|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment group, time, and the interaction between treatment and time were used as fixed factors.|Difference is omaveloxolone - placebo.|||0.09|-4.68|0.0587
90937748|NCT02255435|181754270|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Net)|0.58||||0.648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|3.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment group, time, and the interaction between treatment and time were used as fixed factors.|Difference is omaveloxolone - placebo.|||3.10|-1.94|0.6480
90937749|NCT02255435|181754270|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Net)|-1.1||||0.2174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.87|0.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment group, time, and the interaction between treatment and time were used as fixed factors.|Difference is omaveloxolone - placebo.|Comparison of Omaveloxolone capsules pooled with Placebo capsules||0.66|-2.87|0.2174
90937750|NCT04307134|181754299|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|999.99|||=|0.9509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|999.99||Statistical data presented based on Multiple logistic regression including Allergic history as factor and was performed to assess whether allergic history status influenced occurrence of AEs. This model produced one effect estimate for association.|Regression, Logistic|||||999.99|0.01|=0.9509
90937751|NCT04307134|181754306|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03|||=|0.1488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.07||Multiple logistic regression including age as factor.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical data for this outcome measure is combined for all age groups in accordance with local regulations.||1.07|0.99|=0.1488
90937752|NCT01809691|181754317|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.02|||Regression, Cox|||||1.02|0.72|.080
90970110|NCT02227693|181822240|OTHER|||||||0.138||||||P-value is based on Wilcoxon rank sum test at a two-sided significance level of α = 0.05 for each avatrombopag treatment group vs. placebo.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Visit 3 (Day 4 or Day 5)||||0.138
90970111|NCT02227693|181822240|OTHER|||||||0.012||||||P-value is based on Wilcoxon rank sum test at a two-sided significance level of α = 0.05 for each avatrombopag treatment group vs. placebo.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Visit 4 (Day 10)||||0.012
90970112|NCT02227693|181822240|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||P-value is based on Wilcoxon rank sum test at a two-sided significance level of α = 0.05 for each avatrombopag treatment group vs. placebo.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Visit 4 (Day 10)||||0.001
91035922|NCT03261167|181958552|OTHER||Adjusted rate difference|12.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|30.1|||||Week 12, Elbow flexion. Analysis was based on the Mantel-Haenszel method using Baseline MAS score of the elbow flexors.|||30.1|-4.2|
90937753|NCT01809691|181754318|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.67|||Regression, Cox|||||0.67|0.51|<0.001
90937754|NCT04908800|181754401|EQUIVALENCE|Study was not powered and confidence intervals were assessed for containing unity (1) within them.|Ratio of geometric least squares mean|1.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.74|2.04|||||"Data were analyzed using a mixed model which included actual treatment as fixed effect and participant as a random effect.~Within-subject coefficient of variation was 10.7."|||2.04|1.74|
90937755|NCT04908800|181754402|EQUIVALENCE|Study was not powered and confidence intervals were assessed for containing unity (1) within them.|Ratio of geometric least squares mean|1.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.57|1.79|||||"Data were analyzed using a mixed model which included actual treatment as fixed effect and participant as a random effect.~Within-subject coefficient of variation was 9.01."|||1.79|1.57|
90937756|NCT04908800|181754403|EQUIVALENCE|Study was not powered and confidence intervals were assessed for containing unity (1) within them.|Ratio of geometric least squares mean|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.09|1.21|||||Data were analyzed using a mixed model which included actual treatment as fixed effect and participant as a random effect. Within-subject coefficient of variation was 7.18.|||1.21|1.09|
90937757|NCT04908800|181754408|EQUIVALENCE|Study was not powered and confidence intervals were assessed for containing unity (1) within them.|Slope|0.971|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.882|1.06|||||Between-subject geometric coefficient of variation was 26.1. Data were analyzed using a power model.|Dose Proportionality Assessment||1.06|0.882|
90937758|NCT04908800|181754408|EQUIVALENCE|Study was not powered and confidence intervals were assessed for containing unity (1) within them.|Ratio of geometric least squares mean|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.926|1.11|||||Geometric least squares mean was 600 (fasted) and 607 (fed). Within-subject coefficient of variation was 6.01. Data were analyzed using mixed model which included actual treatment as fixed effect and participant as a random effect.|Food Effect Assessment||1.11|0.926|
90937759|NCT04908800|181754408|EQUIVALENCE|Study was not powered and confidence intervals were assessed for containing unity (1) within them.|Ratio of geometric least squares mean|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.701|1.59|||||Geometric least squares mean was 600 (fasted male) and 634 (fasted female). Between subject coefficient of variation was 32.7. Data were analyzed using an ANOVA model which included actual treatment as a factor.|Sex Effect Assessment||1.59|0.701|
90937760|NCT04908800|181754409|EQUIVALENCE|Study was not powered and confidence intervals were assessed for containing unity (1) within them.|Slope|0.977|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.891|1.06|||||Between-subject geometric coefficient of variation was 25.4. Data were analyzed using a power model.|Dose Proportionality Assessment||1.06|0.891|
90937761|NCT04908800|181754409|EQUIVALENCE|Study was not powered and confidence intervals were assessed for containing unity (1) within them.|Ratio of geometric least squares mean|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.905|1.12|||||"Geometric least squares mean was 575 (fasted) and 578 (fed). Within-subject coefficient of variation was 7.05.~Data were analyzed using mixed model which included actual treatment as fixed effect and participant as a random effect."|Food Effect Assessment||1.12|0.905|
90937762|NCT04908800|181754409|EQUIVALENCE|Study was not powered and confidence intervals were assessed for containing unity (1) within them.|Ratio of geometric least squares mean|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.707|1.54|||||"Geometric least squares mean was 575 (fasted male) and 600 (fasted female). Between subject coefficient of variation was 31.1.~Data were analyzed using an ANOVA model which included actual treatment as a factor."|Sex Effect Assessment||1.54|0.707|
90937763|NCT04908800|181754410|EQUIVALENCE|Study was not powered and confidence intervals were assessed for containing unity (1) within them.|Slope|0.989|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.909|1.07|||||Between-subject geometric coefficient of variation was 23.0. Data were analyzed using a power model.|Dose Proportionality Assessment||1.07|0.909|
90937764|NCT04908800|181754410|EQUIVALENCE|Study was not powered and confidence intervals were assessed for containing unity (1) within them.|Ratio of geometric least squares mean|0.948|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.824|1.09|||||"Geometric least squares mean was 31.6 (fasted) and 30.0 (fed). Within-subject coefficient of variation was 9.44.~Data were analyzed using mixed model which included actual treatment as fixed effect and participant as a random effect."|Food Effect Assessment||1.09|0.824|
90937765|NCT04908800|181754410|EQUIVALENCE|Study was not powered and confidence intervals were assessed for containing unity (1) within them.|Ratio of geometric least squares mean|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.928|1.62|||||"Geometric least squares mean was 31.6 (fasted male) and 38.8 (fasted female). Between subject coefficient of variation was 22.0.~Data were analyzed using an ANOVA model which included actual treatment as a factor."|Sex Effect Assessment||1.62|0.928|
90937766|NCT04908800|181754415|EQUIVALENCE|Study was not powered and confidence intervals were assessed for containing unity (1) within them.|Slope|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.966|1.26|||||Between-subject geometric coefficient of variation was 26.9. Data were analyzed using a power model.|"Dose Proportionality Assessment. KRP-A218 assessed across the following dose levels: 2 mg, 4 mg, 8 mg, and 11 mg.~Dose proportionality results for Part B are only for the Day 14 profile (not Day 1)."||1.26|0.966|
90937767|NCT04908800|181754417|EQUIVALENCE|Study was not powered and confidence intervals were assessed for containing unity (1) within them.|Slope|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.945|1.29|||||Between-subject geometric coefficient of variation was 32.1. Data were analyzed using a power model.|"Dose Proportionality Assessment. KRP-A218 assessed across the following dose levels: 2 mg, 4 mg, 8 mg, and 11 mg.~Dose proportionality results for Part B are only for the Day 14 profile (not Day 1)."||1.29|0.945|
90937768|NCT04908800|181754418|EQUIVALENCE|Study was not powered and confidence intervals were assessed for containing unity (1) within them.|Slope|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.971|1.23|||||Between-subject geometric of coefficient variation was 23.2. Data were analyzed using a power model.|"Dose Proportionality Assessment. KRP-A218 assessed across the following dose levels: 2 mg, 4 mg, 8 mg, and 11 mg.~Dose proportionality results for Part B are only for the Day 14 profile (not Day 1)."||1.23|0.971|
90937769|NCT03751280|181754427|OTHER||Comparison of adjusted least square mean|0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.4|2.6|||||mixed effects model with treatment, visit as fixed effects, baseline and disease duration at baseline as continuous covariates, treatment \* visit and baseline \* visit interaction effects.|Day 29||2.6|-1.4|
91035598|NCT01020474|181957208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|0.18||Missing data for week 15 mean pain score are imputed based on distribution of baseline pain scores if participants discontinue due to adverse events/ abnormal laboratory test results or lack of efficacy.|ANCOVA|Based on LS Means using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model (including Treatment, Center, Baseline value as covariate).||||0.18|-1.51|0.121
91035599|NCT01020474|181957209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.63|||ANCOVA|Based on LS Means using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model (including Treatment, Center, Baseline value as covariate).||||0.63|-1.00|0.655
91035600|NCT01020474|181957210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of Week 1.||0.61|-0.75|0.842
91035601|NCT01020474|181957210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.63||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of Week 2||0.05|-1.32|0.070
90937770|NCT03751280|181754427|OTHER||Comparison of adjusted least square mean|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.279|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.3|2.9|||||mixed effects model with treatment, visit as fixed effects, baseline and disease duration at baseline as continuous covariates, treatment \* visit and baseline \* visit interaction effects.|Day 57||2.9|-1.3|
90937771|NCT03751280|181754427|OTHER||Comparison of adjusted least square mean|2.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.611||0.0931|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.1|5.4|||t-test, 2 sided||mixed effects model with treatment, visit as fixed effects, baseline and disease duration at baseline as continuous covariates, treatment \* visit and baseline \* visit interaction effects.|Day 85||5.4|0.1|0.0931
90937772|NCT03751280|181754429|OTHER||Comparison of adjusted least square mean|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.501|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|1.0|||||mixed effects model with treatment, visit as fixed effects, baseline and disease duration at baseline as continuous covariates, treatment \* visit and baseline \* visit interaction effects.|Day 29||1|-0.6|
90937773|NCT03751280|181754429|OTHER||Comparison of adjusted least square mean|0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.538|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|1.5|||||mixed effects model with treatment, visit as fixed effects, baseline and disease duration at baseline as continuous covariates, treatment \* visit and baseline \* visit interaction effects.|Day 57||1.5|-0.3|
90937774|NCT03751280|181754429|OTHER||Comparison of adjusted least square mean|0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.648||0.2069|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|1.9|||t-test, 2 sided||mixed effects model with treatment, visit as fixed effects, baseline and disease duration at baseline as continuous covariates, treatment \* visit and baseline \* visit interaction effects.|Day 85||1.9|-0.3|0.2069
90937775|NCT03751280|181754430|OTHER||Comparison of adjusted least square mean|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.849|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.9|1.9|||||mixed effects model with treatment, visit as fixed effects, baseline and disease duration at baseline as continuous covariates, treatment \* visit and baseline \* visit interaction effects.|Day 29||1.9|-0.9|
90937776|NCT03751280|181754430|OTHER||Comparison of adjusted least square mean|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.4|1.6|||||mixed effects model with treatment, visit as fixed effects, baseline and disease duration at baseline as continuous covariates, treatment \* visit and baseline \* visit interaction effects.|Day 57||1.6|-1.4|
90937777|NCT03751280|181754430|OTHER||Comparison of adjusted least square mean|1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.071||0.1368|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|3.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 85||3.4|-0.2|0.1368
90937778|NCT03751280|181754431|OTHER||Comparison of adjusted least square mean|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8|0.6|||||mixed effects model with treatment, visit as fixed effects, baseline and disease duration at baseline as continuous covariates, treatment \* visit and baseline \* visit interaction effects.|Day 29||0.6|-0.8|
90937779|NCT03751280|181754431|OTHER||Comparison of adjusted least square mean|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.453|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|0.9|||||mixed effects model with treatment, visit as fixed effects, baseline and disease duration at baseline as continuous covariates, treatment \* visit and baseline \* visit interaction effects.|Day 57||0.9|-0.6|
91035602|NCT01020474|181957210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.83||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|-0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of Week 3.||-0.14|-1.51|0.019
90937780|NCT03751280|181754431|OTHER||Comparison of adjusted least square mean|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.581||0.3798|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|1.5|||t-test, 2 sided||mixed effects model with treatment, visit as fixed effects, baseline and disease duration at baseline as continuous covariates, treatment \* visit and baseline \* visit interaction effects.|||1.5|-0.5|0.3798
90937781|NCT03751280|181754432|OTHER||Comparison of adjusted least square mean|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|-0.79|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.2|1.6|||||mixed effects model with treatment, visit as fixed effects, baseline and disease duration at baseline as continuous covariates, treatment \* visit and baseline \* visit interaction effects.|Day 29||1.6|-3.2|
90937782|NCT03751280|181754432|OTHER||Comparison of adjusted least square mean|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.006|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.9|1.7|||||mixed effects model with treatment, visit as fixed effects, baseline and disease duration at baseline as continuous covariates, treatment \* visit and baseline \* visit interaction effects.|Day 57||1.7|-4.9|
91035603|NCT01020474|181957210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|-0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of Week 4.||-0.21|-1.59|0.011
91035604|NCT01020474|181957210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of Week 5.||0.02|-1.38|0.056
91035605|NCT01020474|181957210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.96||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|-0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of Week 6.||-0.26|-1.66|0.008
91035606|NCT01020474|181957210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.89||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of Week 7.||-0.19|-1.60|0.013
91035607|NCT01020474|181957210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.06||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|-0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of Week 8.||-0.35|-1.77|0.004
91035608|NCT01020474|181957210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.95||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|-0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of Week 9.||-0.24|-1.67|0.009
91035609|NCT01020474|181957210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.97||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|-0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of Week 10.||-0.25|-1.69|0.008
91035610|NCT01020474|181957210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.86||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|-0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of Week 11.||-0.13|-1.59|0.021
91035611|NCT01020474|181957210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.97||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|-0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of Week 12.||-0.23|-1.71|0.010
90937783|NCT03751280|181754432|OTHER||Comparison of adjusted least square mean|-4.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.78||0.0245|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.0|-1.1|||t-test, 2 sided||mixed effects model with treatment, visit as fixed effects, baseline and disease duration at baseline as continuous covariates, treatment \* visit and baseline \* visit interaction effects.|Day 85||-1.1|-7.0|0.0245
90937784|NCT03751280|181754433|OTHER||Comparison of adjusted least square mean|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.516|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|0.7|||||mixed effects model with treatment, visit as fixed effects, baseline and disease duration at baseline as continuous covariates, treatment \* visit and baseline \* visit interaction effects.|Day 29-Domain 1||0.7|-1.0|
90937785|NCT02162771|181754505|EQUIVALENCE|The 90% CIs of the ratios of geometric means of log-transformed values were used to assess the bioequivalence between CT-P10 and Rituxan (bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%)|Ratio of geometric least square means|102.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.05|111.17|||ANCOVA|Country, gender, race, the value of ECOG status and the FLIPI score (0 to 2 versus 3 to 5) at baseline were fitted as covariates.||Equivalence in AUCtau between CT-P10 and Rituxan||111.17|94.05|
90937786|NCT02162771|181754506|EQUIVALENCE|The 90% CIs of the ratios of geometric means of log-transformed transformed values were used to assess the bioequivalence between CT-P10 and Rituxan (bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%)|Ratio of geometric least square means|100.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.84|108.0|||ANCOVA|Country, gender, race, the value of ECOG status and the FLIPI score (0 to 2 versus 3 to 5) at baseline were fitted as covariates.||Equivalence in Cmax,ss between CT-P10 and Rituxan||108.00|93.84|
90937787|NCT02162771|181754507|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of -7% was predefined.|Point estimate difference|4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90937788|NCT00449033|181754571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.401||95.0|0.83|1.16|||Log Rank|Two treatment groups compared using a log-rank test with one-sided alpha of 0.025 stratified by the same stratification factors as randomization.||Sample size based on the primary efficacy endpoint of OS in the ITT (non-squamous) population. Clinically meaningful improvement defined as 30% increase in median OS (that is, a hazard ratio of 0.76923, Sorafenib+GC over Placebo+GC). With one-sided alpha of 0.025, power of 86% and a randomization ratio of 1:1 between Sorafenib+GC and Placebo+GC, and one formal final analysis of OS performed, a total of 544 events (deaths) were required.||1.16|0.83|0.401
90937789|NCT00449033|181754572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.563||95.0|0.87|1.18|||Log Rank|Two treatment groups compared using a log-rank test with one-sided alpha of 0.025 stratified by the same factors as randomization plus histology.||||1.18|0.87|0.563
90937790|NCT00449033|181754574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.008||95.0|0.71|0.97|||Log Rank|Two treatment groups compared using a log-rank test with one-sided alpha of 0.025 stratified by the same stratification factors as randomization.||||0.97|0.71|0.008
90937791|NCT00449033|181754575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.0004||95.0|0.6|0.88|||Log Rank|Two treatment groups compared using a log-rank test with one-sided alpha of 0.025 stratified by the same stratification factors as randomization.||||0.88|0.60|0.0004
90937792|NCT00449033|181754576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Tumour Response (CR+PR)|-1.92||||0.2733||95.0|-8.19|4.34|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Two treatment groups compared using a CMH test with one-sided alpha of 0.025 stratified by the same stratification factors as randomization.||||4.34|-8.19|0.2733
90937793|NCT00449033|181754577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Disease Control|0.97||||0.3902||95.0|-5.87|7.81|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Two treatment groups compared using a CMH test with one-sided alpha of 0.025 stratified by the same stratification factors as randomization.||||7.81|-5.87|0.3902
90937794|NCT05045638|181754594|OTHER||Ratio of GLSMs|1.6999|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.186|2.4363||||||The ratios of geometric least squares means (GLSMs) and confidence intervals (CIs) were obtained by taking the exponential of the corresponding differences and CIs on the natural-log (ln) scale.||2.4363|1.1860|
91035612|NCT01020474|181957210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.74||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of Week 13.||0.00|-1.49|0.051
90937795|NCT05045638|181754595|OTHER||Ratio of GLSMs|1.3389|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0334|1.7347||||||The ratios of GLSMs and CIs were obtained by taking the exponential of the corresponding differences and CIs on the ln scale.||1.7347|1.0334|
90937796|NCT05045638|181754596|OTHER||Ratio of GLSMs|1.3382|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9856|1.8169||||||The ratios of GLSMs and CIs were obtained by taking the exponential of the corresponding differences and CIs on the ln scale.||1.8169|0.9856|
90937797|NCT04803214|181754612|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90937798|NCT04803214|181754613|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90937799|NCT04803214|181754614|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90937800|NCT03005106|181754641|OTHER|Difference between treatment and control sites|Mean Difference (Final Values)|97.77|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Difference is (percent area of Autograft treatment site requiring autografting by Month 3) - (percent area of StrataGraft treatment site requiring autografting by Month 3).|one-sided Wilcoxin Signed RankTtest|||||||<0.0001
90937801|NCT03005106|181754642|OTHER||Percentage of participants|83.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|74.4|91.8|||||95% confidence interval is derived using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution|||91.8|74.4|
90937802|NCT03005106|181754643|OTHER|Difference is Autograft - StrataGraft|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||1-sided, paired t-test|p-value from 1-sided, paired t-test on the mean difference(Autograft - StrataGraft)||||||<0.0001
90937803|NCT03005106|181754644|OTHER|Difference is Autograft - StrataGraft|Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Missing total score data were imputed using a multiple imputation analysis assuming a monotone missing data pattern. A linear regression model with ethnicity, race and age as predictive variables was used in the imputation.|1-sided, paired t-test|p-value from 1-sided, paired t-test on the difference (Autograft - StrataGraft)||||||<0.0001
91035613|NCT01020474|181957210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|-0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of Week 14.||-0.14|-1.66|0.020
91035614|NCT01020474|181957210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.74||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of Week 15.||0.03|-1.51|0.060
90937804|NCT00321672|181754646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0967||95.0||||All stastical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance.|ANCOVA|Treatment differences were compared by a gender stratified analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with Baseline pain score as the only covariate.||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the average percent change in NPRS scores from baseline to weeks 2-12 between the total control and total NGX-4010 groups. The ratio of means between the 30- and 60-minute control group \[1.57 (90% CI: 1.12-2.35)\] was \> than the pre-specified equivalence margin ratio of 80-125%. Hence, the control groups could not be pooled and comparisons were performed between the 30- and 60-minute NGX-4010 groups and their respective control groups.||||0.0967
90937805|NCT00321672|181754646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4884||95.0||||All stastical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. No multiplicity adjustment were made.|ANCOVA|Treatment differences were compared by a gender stratified analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with Baseline pain score as the only covariate.||||||0.4884
90937806|NCT00321672|181754646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1031||95.0||||All stastical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. No multiplicity adjustment were made.|ANCOVA|Treatment differences were compared by a gender stratified analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with Baseline pain score as the only covariate.||||||0.1031
90937807|NCT00321672|181754647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0831||95.0||||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance.|ANCOVA|Treatment differences were compared by a gender stratified analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with Baseline pain score as the only covariate.||"The null hypothesis was: There is no difference between the total Control and total NGX-4010 in the absolute change in NPRS scores from Baseline during Weeks 2-12."||||0.0831
90937808|NCT00321672|181754647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.468||95.0||||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. No multiplicity adjustments were made.|ANCOVA|Treatment differences were compared by a gender stratified analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with Baseline pain score as the only covariate.||||||0.4680
90937809|NCT00321672|181754647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0896||95.0||||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. No multiplicity adjustments were made.|ANCOVA|Treatment differences were compared by a gender stratified analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with Baseline pain score as the only covariate.||||||0.0896
90937810|NCT00321672|181754648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0662||95.0||||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance.|Regression, Logistic|A logistic regression analysis, with the Baseline NPRS score and gender as covariates, was performed.||"The null hypothesis was: There is no difference between the total Control and total NGX-4010 group in the Proportion of Subjects Reaching 30% Decrease in Their Mean Average Pain for the Past 24 Hours NPRS Score From Baseline During Weeks 2 to 12."||||0.0662
90937811|NCT00321672|181754648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5582||95.0||||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. No multiplicity adjustments were made.|Regression, Logistic|A logistic regression analysis, with the Baseline NPRS score and gender as covariates, was performed.||||||0.5582
90937812|NCT00321672|181754648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0553||95.0||||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. No multiplicity adjustments were made.|Regression, Logistic|A logistic regression analysis, with the Baseline NPRS score and gender as covariates, was performed.||||||0.0553
90937813|NCT02389894|181754658|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.9||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|17.9|||Chi-squared|The primary end point analysis used an iterative hot-deck multiple imputation approach, assuming a nonignorable missing data mechanism.|The absolute difference in the percentage of patients with freedom from clinical or radiographic central nervous system (CNS) infarction was computed as Embol-x minus control|A sample size of 165 patients in each group ensured that each comparison had a power of approximately 90% to detect a between-group difference of 17.5% from an assumed control rate of 50% in the incidence of postoperative CNS infarcts. A single interim analysis was prespecified and performed. Based on the recommendation of the DSMB, randomization but not follow-up was halted due to low conditional power of observing any between-group differences for the primary endpoint.||17.9|-4.2|0.22
90937814|NCT02389894|181754658|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.3||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|13.8||The primary end point analysis used an iterative hot-deck multiple imputation approach, assuming a nonignorable missing data mechanism.|Chi-squared||The absolute difference in the percentage of patients with freedom from clinical or radiographic central nervous system (CNS) infarction was computed as Cardiogard minus control.|A sample size of 165 patients in each group ensured that each comparison had a power of approximately 90% to detect a between-group difference of 17.5% from an assumed control rate of 50% in the incidence of postoperative CNS infarcts. A single interim analysis was prespecified and performed. Based on the recommendation of the DSMB, randomization but not follow-up was halted due to low conditional power of observing any between-group differences for the primary endpoint.||13.8|-11.2|0.84
90937815|NCT02389894|181754659|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.7||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|20.5|||Chi-squared||The absolute difference was computed as Embol-x minus control|||20.5|-1.2|0.08
90937816|NCT02389894|181754659|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.8||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|7.9|||Chi-squared||The absolute difference was computed as Cardiogard minus control|||7.9|-13.5|0.61
90937817|NCT00924833|181754715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||||||"Within subjects effects. Time: P \< 0.01. Time \* treatment: P=0.25~Bonferroni correction. Within the placebo, carvedilol and nebivolol group, p \< 0.01 for Time 3 - Time 1, and Time 3 - Time 2."|ANOVA|||"Differences among groups, changes over time and interactions: two-way repeated measures ANOVA with unpaired Student's t-test, Bonferroni correction.~No previous studies have compared carvedilol, nebivolol, and placebo with respecto to exercise performance in hypobaric hypoxia. The sample size set for each treatment arm was defined on the basis of the sample size of previous investigations showing significant changes in exercise performance in normal subjects."||||0.01
90937818|NCT00924833|181754716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||P \< 0.05. Bonferroni correction: p \< 0.05 nebivolol versus carvedilol|ANOVA|||No previous studies have compared carvedilol, nebivolol, and placebo with respecto to exercise performance in hypobaric hypoxia. The sample size set for each treatment arm was defined on the basis of the sample size of previous investigations showing significant changes in exercise performance in normal subjects.||||<0.05
91035615|NCT01020474|181957211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of Week 1.||0.47|-0.90|0.540
90937819|NCT00924833|181754717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93||||||Within subjects effects. Time: p = 0.03. Time \* treatment: p = 0.12.|ANOVA|||"Differences among groups, changes over time and interactions: two-way repeated measures ANOVA with unpaired Student's t-test, Bonferroni correction.~No previous studies have compared carvedilol, nebivolol, and placebo with respecto to exercise performance in hypobaric hypoxia. The sample size set for each treatment arm was defined on the basis of the sample size of previous investigations showing significant changes in exercise performance in normal subjects."||||0.93
90937820|NCT00924833|181754720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||ANOVA with unpaired Student's t-test, Bonferroni correction. Bonferroni correction. p = 0.05.|ANOVA|||No previous studies have compared carvedilol, nebivolol, and placebo with respecto to exercise performance in hypobaric hypoxia. The sample size set for each treatment arm was defined on the basis of the sample size of previous investigations showing significant changes in exercise performance in normal subjects.||||<0.05
90937821|NCT01245699|181754728|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
90937822|NCT01245699|181754729|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
90937823|NCT01245699|181754730|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.1
90937824|NCT01245699|181754731|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.65
90937825|NCT02938520|181754745|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority in the proportion of participants with virologic failure at Week 48 (per FDA's snapshot algorithm for assessing HIV-1 RNA \>=50 c/mL) can be concluded if the upper bound of a two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in failure rates between the two treatment arms (CAB - ABC/DTG/3TC) is less than 6%.|Adjusted difference in proportion|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|2.1|||||||Adjusted difference in proportion was based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel stratified analysis adjusting for the following baseline stratification factors: sex at birth (Male, Female) and Induction Baseline (Week -20) HIV-1 RNA (\<100,000 \>=100,000 c/mL)|2.1|-2.8|
90937826|NCT02938520|181754746|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority in the proportion of participants with HIV-1 RNA\<50 c/mL at Week 48 (per FDA's snapshot algorithm) can be concluded if the lower bound of a two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in success rates between the two treatment arms (CAB - ABC/DTG/3TC) is more than -10%|Adjusted difference in proportion|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|4.5|||||Adjusted difference in proportion was based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel stratified analysis adjusting for the following baseline stratification factors: sex at birth (Male, Female) and Induction Baseline (Week -20) HIV-1 RNA (\<100,000 \>=100,000 c/mL)|||4.5|-3.7|
90937827|NCT02938520|181754799|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Week 41/48 was compared with the 1st visit (Week 5) based on Wilcoxon signed-rank test, respectively. p-values are derived for 'Acceptance' only and not adjusted for multiple testing.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90937828|NCT02938520|181754801|OTHER||Adjusted difference|1.2||||0.307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|3.6|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison at Week 24 is presented, adjusted for Maintenance Baseline (Day 1) Score, Induction Baseline (Week -20) HIV-1 RNA (\<100,000, \>=100,000 c/mL), gender at birth, age (\<50, \>= 50 Years) and race (white, non-white).|||3.6|-1.1|0.307
90937829|NCT02938520|181754801|OTHER||Adjusted difference|0.9||||0.472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|3.2|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison at Week 48 is presented, adjusted for Maintenance Baseline (Day 1) Score, Induction Baseline (Week -20) HIV-1 RNA (\<100,000, \>=100,000 c/mL), gender at birth, age (\<50, \>= 50 Years) and race (white, non-white).|||3.2|-1.5|0.472
90937830|NCT02938520|181754802|OTHER||Adjusted difference|1.8||||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|3.9|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison at Week 24 is presented, adjusted for Maintenance Baseline (Day 1) Score, Induction Baseline (Week -20) HIV-1 RNA (\<100,000, \>=100,000 c/mL), gender at birth, age (\<50, \>= 50 Years) and race (white, non-white).|||3.9|-0.4|0.116
90937831|NCT02938520|181754802|OTHER||Adjusted difference|0.1||||0.944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|2.5|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison at Week 48 is presented, adjusted for Maintenance Baseline (Day 1) Score, Induction Baseline (Week -20) HIV-1 RNA (\<100,000, \>=100,000 c/mL), gender at birth, age (\<50, \>= 50 Years) and race (white, non-white).|||2.5|-2.3|0.944
90937832|NCT02938520|181754803|OTHER||Adjusted difference|-1.3||||0.552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|3.0|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison at Week 24 is presented, adjusted for Maintenance Baseline (Day 1) Score, Induction Baseline (Week -20) HIV-1 RNA (\<100,000, \>=100,000 c/mL), gender at birth, age (\<50, \>= 50 Years) and race (white, non-white).|||3.0|-5.7|0.552
90937833|NCT02938520|181754803|OTHER||Adjusted difference|-4.6||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|-0.4|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison at Week 48 is presented, adjusted for Maintenance Baseline (Day 1) Score, Induction Baseline (Week -20) HIV-1 RNA (\<100,000, \>=100,000 c/mL), gender at birth, age (\<50, \>= 50 Years) and race (white, non-white).|||-0.4|-8.9|0.033
90937834|NCT02938520|181754804|OTHER||Adjusted difference|1.021||||0.122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.275|2.318|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison of SF-12 MCS at Week 24 is presented, adjusted for Maintenance Baseline (Day 1) Score, Induction Baseline (Week -20) HIV-1 RNA (\<100,000, \>=100,000 c/mL), gender at birth, age (\<50, \>= 50 Years) and race (white, non-white).|||2.318|-0.275|0.122
90937835|NCT02938520|181754804|OTHER||Adjusted difference|1.103||||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.248|2.453|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison of SF-12 MCS at Week 48 is presented, adjusted for Maintenance Baseline (Day 1) Score, Induction Baseline (Week -20) HIV-1 RNA (\<100,000, \>=100,000 c/mL), gender at birth, age (\<50, \>= 50 Years) and race (white, non-white).|||2.453|-0.248|0.109
90937836|NCT02938520|181754804|OTHER||Adjusted difference|0.182||||0.645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.594|0.958|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison of SF-12 PCS at Week 24 is presented, adjusted for Maintenance Baseline (Day 1) Score, Induction Baseline (Week -20) HIV-1 RNA (\<100,000, \>=100,000 c/mL), gender at birth, age (\<50, \>= 50 Years) and race (white, non-white).|||0.958|-0.594|0.645
90970113|NCT02227693|181822240|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||P-value is based on Wilcoxon rank sum test at a two-sided significance level of α = 0.05 for each avatrombopag treatment group vs. placebo.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Visit 4 (Day 10)||||0.001
90937837|NCT02938520|181754804|OTHER||Adjusted difference|-0.169||||0.689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.994|0.657|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison of SF-12 PCS at Week 48 is presented, adjusted for Maintenance Baseline (Day 1) Score, Induction Baseline (Week -20) HIV-1 RNA (\<100,000, \>=100,000 c/mL), gender at birth, age (\<50, \>= 50 Years) and race (white, non-white).|||0.657|-0.994|0.689
90937838|NCT02938520|181754805|OTHER||Adjusted difference|2.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|3.4|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison at Week 24 is presented, adjusted for Maintenance Baseline (Day 1) Score, Induction Baseline (Week -20) HIV-1 RNA (\<100,000, \>=100,000 c/mL), gender at birth, age (\<50, \>= 50 Years) and race (white, non-white).|||3.4|1.0|<0.001
90937839|NCT02938520|181754805|OTHER||Adjusted difference|0.7||||0.217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.9|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison at Week 44 is presented, adjusted for Maintenance Baseline (Day 1) Score, Induction Baseline (Week -20) HIV-1 RNA (\<100,000, \>=100,000 c/mL), gender at birth, age (\<50, \>= 50 Years) and race (white, non-white).|||1.9|-0.4|0.217
90937840|NCT02938520|181754806|OTHER||Difference|4.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|5.5|||ANOVA||Treatment comparison of HIVTSQc-total treatment satisfaction score at Week 48 is presented, adjusted for Induction Baseline (Week -20) HIV-1 RNA (\<100,000, \>=100,000 c/mL), gender at birth, age (\<50, \>= 50 Years) and race (white, non-white).|||5.5|2.8|<0.001
90937841|NCT02938520|181754808|OTHER||Adjusted difference|2.2||||0.232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|5.7|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison at Week 8 is presented, adjusted for Maintenance Baseline (Day 1) Score, Induction Baseline (Week -20) HIV-1 RNA (\<100,000, \>=100,000 c/mL), gender at birth, age (\<50, \>= 50 Years) and race (white, non-white).|||5.7|-1.4|0.232
90937842|NCT02938520|181754808|OTHER||Adjusted difference|2.7||||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|6.4|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison Week 24 is presented, adjusted for Maintenance Baseline (Day 1) Score, Induction Baseline (Week -20) HIV-1 RNA (\<100,000, \>=100,000 c/mL), gender at birth, age (\<50, \>= 50 Years) and race (white, non-white).|||6.4|-1.0|0.154
90970114|NCT02227693|181822240|OTHER|||||||0.624||||||P-value is based on Wilcoxon rank sum test at a two-sided significance level of α = 0.05 for each avatrombopag treatment group vs. placebo.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Visit 5 (Day 17)||||0.624
90937843|NCT02938520|181754808|OTHER||Adjusted difference|2.2||||0.236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|5.8|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison at Week 48 is presented, adjusted for Maintenance Baseline (Day 1) Score, Induction Baseline (Week -20) HIV-1 RNA (\<100,000, \>=100,000 c/mL), gender at birth, age (\<50, \>= 50 Years) and race (white, non-white).|||5.8|-1.4|0.236
90937844|NCT05492786|181754835|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.517||||||The p-value reported is 2-tailed and based on heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in flu shots for patients whose clinicians were shown alerts with information about their risk status (patients randomized to the High-risk Alert or High-risk Alert with Risk Factors arms) compared with those whose clinicians were shown the standard alert. Alternative hypothesis: patients in the High-risk Alert and High-risk Alert with Risk Factors arms will exhibit improved flu vaccination rates compared with those in the standard Alert arm.||||0.517
90937845|NCT05492786|181754835|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.226||||||The p-value reported is 2-tailed and based on heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in flu shots for patients whose clinicians were shown alerts the factors that contributed to a patient's high risk (High-risk Alert with Risk Factors arm) compared with those whose clinicians were shown the alert with risk level only (High-risk Alert arm). Alternative hypothesis: patients in the High-risk Alert with Risk Factors arm will exhibit improved flu vaccination rates compared with those in the High-risk Alert arm.||||0.226
90937846|NCT02236598|181754846|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5582|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.5582
90937847|NCT02236598|181754847|SUPERIORITY|Change in Fasting Glucose||||||0.0963|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0963
90937848|NCT02236598|181754847|SUPERIORITY|Change in 1-hour Glucose||||||0.6671|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.6671
90970115|NCT02227693|181822240|OTHER|||||||0.009||||||P-value is based on Wilcoxon rank sum test at a two-sided significance level of α = 0.05 for each avatrombopag treatment group vs. placebo.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Visit 5 (Day 17)||||0.009
90937849|NCT02236598|181754847|SUPERIORITY|Change in 2-hour Glucose||||||0.7913|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.7913
90937850|NCT02236598|181754848|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5294|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.5294
90937851|NCT02236598|181754849|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1604|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1604
90937852|NCT02032420|181754931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Repeated-measures MANOVA|The reported p value is for the effect of group assignment across three iterations of the assigned task.||||||<0.001
90937853|NCT02032420|181754932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||Repeated-measures MANOVA|The p value is for the effect of group assignment across three iterations of the assigned task.||||||0.004
90937854|NCT02032420|181754933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.038
90937855|NCT02032420|181754934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.003
90937856|NCT00980954|181754973|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.65|1.68||One-sided significance level = 0.05.|Log Rank||Reference level = Arm I|Sample size calculations are based on the primary hypothesis that 4 additional cycles of carboplatin and paclitaxel following concurrent radiation and weekly cisplatin will increase 4-year DFS from 80% to 90% for patients with cervical carcinoma with positive nodes and/or positive margins after a radical hysterectomy. One-sided alpha=0.05, statistical power=80%, 5.5 years of accrual with 4 years of follow-up, 2 interim significance tests. 50 DFS events are required to trigger this analysis.||1.68|0.65|0.56
90970116|NCT02227693|181822240|OTHER|||||||0.01||||||P-value is based on Wilcoxon rank sum test at a two-sided significance level of α = 0.05 for each avatrombopag treatment group vs. placebo.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Visit 5 (Day 17)||||0.010
90970117|NCT02227693|181822240|OTHER|||||||0.154||||||P-value is based on Wilcoxon rank sum test at a two-sided significance level of α = 0.05 for each avatrombopag treatment group vs. placebo.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Visit 6 (Day 35)||||0.154
90970118|NCT02227693|181822240|OTHER|||||||0.216||||||P-value is based on Wilcoxon rank sum test at a two-sided significance level of α = 0.05 for each avatrombopag treatment group vs. placebo.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Visit 6 (Day 35)||||0.216
90937857|NCT00980954|181754974|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.49|1.69||One-sided significance level = 0.05.|Log Rank|||The 4-year overall survival rate for the control arm is expected to be approximately 85%. The overall survival will be compared between the two arms. The final targeted sample size of 235 patients with the longer accrual time, will provide 64% and 78% power to detect an increase in overall survival to 92% and 93% respectively, with a 1- sided alpha of 0.05.||1.69|0.49|0.40
90970119|NCT02227693|181822240|OTHER|||||||0.901||||||P-value is based on Wilcoxon rank sum test at a two-sided significance level of α = 0.05 for each avatrombopag treatment group vs. placebo.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Visit 6 (Day 35)||||0.901
91035616|NCT01020474|181957211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of Week 2||0.50|-0.87|0.593
90937858|NCT00581009|181755006|EQUIVALENCE|repeated measure ANOVA|t-value|3.34|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
90937859|NCT02256488|181755007|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The lot-to-lot consistency was claimed if the 2-sided 95% CIs of all the three pairwise comparisons was within the equivalence ranges, that is:~(μlot A - μlot B) \> -0.176 and (μlot A - μlot B) \< 0.176 and (μlot A - μlot C) \> -0.176 and (μlot A - μlot C) \< 0.176 and (μlot B - μlot C) \> -0.176 and (μlot B - μlot C) \< 0.176"|Ratio of GMTs|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.667|1.5|||ANCOVA|||To demonstrate immunologic equivalence of three consecutive TIVc production lots as evaluated by HI antibody responses after vaccination for all 3 influenza strains at day 22.||1.5|0.667|
90937860|NCT02256488|181755007|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The lot-to-lot consistency was claimed if the 2-sided 95% CIs of all the three pairwise comparisons was within the equivalence ranges, that is:~(μlot A - μlot B) \> -0.176 and (μlot A - μlot B) \< 0.176 and (μlot A - μlot C) \> -0.176 and (μlot A - μlot C) \< 0.176 and (μlot B - μlot C) \> -0.176 and (μlot B - μlot C) \< 0.176"|Ratio of GMTs|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.667|1.5|||ANCOVA|||To demonstrate immunologic equivalence of three consecutive TIVc production lots as evaluated by HI antibody responses after vaccination for for all 3 influenza strains at day 22||1.5|0.667|
90937861|NCT02256488|181755007|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The lot-to-lot consistency was claimed if the 2-sided 95% CIs of all the three pairwise comparisons was within the equivalence ranges, that is:~(μlot A - μlot B) \> -0.176 and (μlot A - μlot B) \< 0.176 and (μlot A - μlot C) \> -0.176 and (μlot A - μlot C) \< 0.176 and (μlot B - μlot C) \> -0.176 and (μlot B - μlot C) \< 0.176"|Ratio of GMTs|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.667|1.5|||ANCOVA|||To demonstrate immunologic equivalence of three consecutive TIVc production lots as evaluated by HI antibody responses after vaccination for all 3 influenza strains at day 22||1.5|0.667|
90937862|NCT01261793|181755210|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.024|||=|0.899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.477||p-values for the comparison of treatment groups have been calculated using logistic regression with factors for treatment, pooled region, and baseline disease status.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio: Epratuzumab/Placebo calculated using logistic regression with factors for treatment, pooled region, and baseline disease status.|||1.477|0.710|=0.899
90937863|NCT01261793|181755210|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07|||=|0.716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.743|1.539||p-values for the comparison of treatment groups have been calculated using logistic regression with factors for treatment, pooled region, and baseline disease status.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio: Epratuzumab/Placebo calculated using logistic regression with factors for treatment, pooled region, and baseline disease status.|||1.539|0.743|=0.716
90937864|NCT03305458|181755216|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||To determine if child and caregiver engagement is affected by overall SPARK use, a 2-level MLM (level-1 child, level-2 provider) will be used. Engagement scores will be calculated per child and caregiver participant. An aggregate engagement score will determine if there are differences across conditions (SPARK + TF CBT vs standard TF-CBT) while accounting for the nesting providers.|||
90937865|NCT03305458|181755217|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||To determine if provider fidelity is affected by overall SPARK use, a 2-level MLM (level-1 child; level-2 provider) will be used. Fidelity will be measured by the TF-CBT TPOCS-S. Providers' overall use of the toolkit will be calculated per child participant and averaged across toolkit content. Fidelity scores will be calculated per child participant such that each provider will have three ratings. An aggregate fidelity score will determine if there are differences across conditions (SPARK + TF-CBT vs. standard TF-CBT) while accounting for the nesting of providers.|||
90937866|NCT03305458|181755218|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||Response to the intervention will be evaluated with a piecewise longitudinal MLM that contains an additional level corresponding to time. Level-1 will correspond to time, level-2 to child, and level-to provider.|||
90937867|NCT03305458|181755219|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||Response to the intervention will be evaluated with a piecewise longitudinal MLM that contains an additional level corresponding to time. Level-1 will correspond to time, level-2 to child, and level-3 to provider|||
90970120|NCT00132132|181822259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|This analysis is the per protocol unadjusted value||||||0.03
90970121|NCT00132132|181822259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Age adjusted per protocol||||||0.14
91035617|NCT01020474|181957211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44||||0.206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of Week 3.||0.25|-1.13|0.206
91035618|NCT01020474|181957211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of Week 4.||0.21|-1.18|0.168
90937868|NCT03305458|181755220|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||Response to the intervention will be evaluated with a piecewise longitudinal MLM that contains an additional level corresponding to time. Level-1 will correspond to time, level-2 to child, and level-3 to provider|||
90937869|NCT03305458|181755221|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||Response to the intervention will be evaluated with a piecewise longitudinal MLM that contains an additional level corresponding to time. Level-1 will correspond to time, level-2 to child, and level-3 to provider|||
90937870|NCT03305458|181755222|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||Response to the intervention will be evaluated with a piecewise longitudinal MLM that contains an additional level corresponding to time. Level-1 will correspond to time, level-2 to child, and level-3 to provider|||
90937871|NCT03305458|181755223|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||Response to the intervention will be evaluated with a piecewise longitudinal MLM that contains an additional level corresponding to time. Level-1 will correspond to time, level-2 to child, and level-3 to provider|||
90937872|NCT03305458|181755224|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||Response to the intervention will be evaluated with a piecewise longitudinal MLM that contains an additional level corresponding to time. Level-1 will correspond to time, level-2 to child, and level-3 to provider.|||
90937873|NCT03305458|181755225|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||Response to the intervention will be evaluated with a piecewise longitudinal MLM that contains an additional level corresponding to time. Level-1 will correspond to time, level-2 to child, and level-3 to provider.|||
90937874|NCT03305458|181755226|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||Response to the intervention will be evaluated with a piecewise longitudinal MLM that contains an additional level corresponding to time. Level-1 will correspond to time, level-2 to child, and level-3 to provider.|||
90937875|NCT03305458|181755227|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||Response to the intervention will be evaluated with a piecewise longitudinal MLM that contains an additional level corresponding to time. Level-1 will correspond to time, level-2 to child, and level-3 to provider|||
90937876|NCT03305458|181755228|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||Response to the intervention will be evaluated with a piecewise longitudinal MLM that contains an additional level corresponding to time. Level-1 will correspond to time, level-2 to child, and level-3 to provider|||
90937877|NCT03305458|181755229|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||Response to the intervention will be evaluated with a piecewise longitudinal MLM that contains an additional level corresponding to time. Level-1 will correspond to time, level-2 to child, and level-3 to provider|||
90937878|NCT03305458|181755230|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||Response to the intervention will be evaluated with a piecewise longitudinal MLM that contains an additional level corresponding to time. Level-1 will correspond to time, level-2 to child, and level-3 to provider|||
90937879|NCT03305458|181755231|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||response to the intervention will be evaluated with a piecewise longitudinal MLM that contains an additional level corresponding to time. Level-1 will correspond to time, level-2 to child, and level-3 to provider.|||
90937880|NCT03305458|181755232|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||Response to the intervention will be evaluated with a piecewise longitudinal MLM that contains an additional level corresponding to time. Level-1 will correspond to time, level-2 to child, and level-3 to provider|||
90937881|NCT03305458|181755233|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||Response to the intervention will be evaluated with a piecewise longitudinal MLM that contains an additional level corresponding to time. Level-1 will correspond to time, level-2 to child, and level-3 to provider|||
90937882|NCT03305458|181755234|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||Response to the intervention will be evaluated with a piecewise longitudinal MLM that contains an additional level corresponding to time. Level-1 will correspond to time, level-2 to child, and level-3 to provider|||
90937883|NCT03305458|181755235|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||Response to the intervention will be evaluated with a piecewise longitudinal MLM that contains an additional level corresponding to time. Level-1 will correspond to time, level-2 to child, and level-3 to provider|||
90937884|NCT03305458|181755236|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||Response to the intervention will be evaluated with a piecewise longitudinal MLM that contains an additional level corresponding to time. Level-1 will correspond to time, level-2 to child, and level-3 to provider|||
90970122|NCT00132132|181822259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Per protocol adjusted for age and paternal education. Given the small number of participants with complete data, this model may be overfit.||||||0.006
90937885|NCT02332824|181755237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.325|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4845|-0.1649||In the primary analysis, each TAK-272 group will be compared with placebo group based on a step-down testing procedure, which will be employed for multiple comparison adjustment.|ANCOVA||Estimated Value was for LS mean differences (TAK-272 5 mg-placebo) in log-transformed UACR changes from baseline to the end of treatment period.|||-0.1649|-0.4845|<0.0001
90937886|NCT02332824|181755237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.469|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6251|-0.3132||In the primary analysis, each TAK-272 group will be compared with placebo group based on a step-down testing procedure, which will be employed for multiple comparison adjustment.|ANCOVA||Estimated Value was for LS mean differences (TAK-272 20 mg-placebo) in log-transformed UACR changes from baseline to the end of treatment period.|||-0.3132|-0.6251|<0.0001
90937887|NCT02332824|181755237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7897|-0.4711||In the primary analysis, each TAK-272 group will be compared with placebo group based on a step-down testing procedure, which will be employed for multiple comparison adjustment.|ANCOVA||Estimated Value was for LS mean differences (TAK-272 40 mg -placebo) in log-transformed UACR changes from baseline to the end of treatment period.|||-0.4711|-0.7897|<0.0001
90937888|NCT02332824|181755237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8083|-0.4908||In the primary analysis, each TAK-272 group will be compared with placebo group based on a step-down testing procedure, which will be employed for multiple comparison adjustment.|ANCOVA||Estimated Value was for LS mean differences (TAK-272 80 mg -placebo) in log-transformed UACR changes from baseline to the end of treatment period.|||-0.4908|-0.8083|<0.0001
90937889|NCT02332824|181755237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6874|-0.3719||In the primary analysis, each TAK-272 group will be compared with placebo group based on a step-down testing procedure, which will be employed for multiple comparison adjustment.|ANCOVA||Estimated Value was for LS mean differences (Candesartan cilexetil 8 mg -placebo group) in log-transformed UACR changes from baseline to the end of treatment period.|||-0.3719|-0.6874|<0.0001
90970123|NCT00132132|181822260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.02
91035619|NCT01020474|181957211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of Week 5.||0.32|-1.08|0.280
90937890|NCT03926117|181755299|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-66.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-86.15|-49.12|||Hodges-Lehmann method|||Percent change from baseline is analyzed using nonparametric Hodges-Lehmann estimator. The nonparametric analysis accounts for covariates baseline hemoglobin (greater than or equal to (\>=) 11 or less than (\<) 11 grams per deciliter (g/dL)) and chronic kidney disease stage (3, 4 or 5) by aligning responses within each stratum defined by the covariates prior to analysis.||-49.12|-86.15|<0.0001
90937891|NCT03926117|181755299|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-77.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-94.98|-62.97|||Hodges-Lehmann method|||Percent change from baseline is analyzed using nonparametric Hodges-Lehmann estimator. The nonparametric analysis accounts for covariates baseline hemoglobin (\>= 11 or \< 11 g/dL) and chronic kidney disease stage (3, 4 or 5) by aligning responses within each stratum defined by the covariates prior to analysis.||-62.97|-94.98|<0.0001
90937892|NCT03926117|181755299|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-87.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-101.0|-70.54|||Hodges-Lehmann method|||Percent change from baseline is analyzed using nonparametric Hodges-Lehmann estimator. The nonparametric analysis accounts for covariates baseline hemoglobin (\>= 11 or \< 11 g/dL) and chronic kidney disease stage (3, 4 or 5) by aligning responses within each stratum defined by the covariates prior to analysis.||-70.54|-101.00|<0.0001
90937893|NCT03247985|181755325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between groups for bilateral operative time.||||0.17
90937894|NCT03247985|181755325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between groups for unilateral operative time.||||0.09
90937895|NCT03247985|181755328|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A p-value of 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||0.02
90937896|NCT02577315|181755330|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means (gMeans) with acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%|Ratio of geometric means|100.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.466|102.804|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) on log scale was used with subjects within sequences as random, whereas sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects.|Relative bioavailability of Empagliflozin was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean).|Empagliflozin / Metformin (FDC) vs. Empagliflozin + Metformin free combination||102.804|97.466|
90937897|NCT02577315|181755331|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means (gMeans) with acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%|Ratio of geometric means|95.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.29|102.16|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) on log scale was used with subjects within sequences as random, whereas sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects.|Relative bioavailability of Metformin was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean).|Empagliflozin / Metformin (FDC) vs. Empagliflozin + Metformin free combination||102.16|89.29|
90937898|NCT02577315|181755332|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means (gMeans) with acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%|Ratio of geometric means|102.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.309|108.413|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) on log scale was used with subjects within sequences as random, whereas sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects.|Relative bioavailability of Empagliflozin was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean).|Empagliflozin / Metformin (FDC) vs. Empagliflozin + Metformin free combination||108.413|97.309|
90937899|NCT02577315|181755333|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means (gMeans) with acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%|Ratio of geometric means|101.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.565|106.902|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) on log scale was used with subjects within sequences as random, whereas sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects.|Relative bioavailability of Metformin was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean).|Empagliflozin / Metformin (FDC) vs. Empagliflozin + Metformin free combination||106.902|95.565|
90937900|NCT02577315|181755334|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means (gMeans) with acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%|Ratio of geometric means|100.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.532|103.149|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) on log scale was used with subjects within sequences as random, whereas sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects.|Relative bioavailability of Empagliflozin was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean).|Empagliflozin / Metformin (FDC) vs. Empagliflozin + Metformin free combination||103.149|97.532|
90937901|NCT02577315|181755335|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means (gMeans) with acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%|Ratio of geometric means|93.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.86|105.61|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) on log scale was used with subjects within sequences as random, whereas sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects.|Relative bioavailability of Metformin was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean).|Empagliflozin / Metformin (FDC) vs. Empagliflozin + Metformin free combination||105.61|82.86|
90937902|NCT01636778|181755337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|88.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|74.0|96.0||||||||96|74|
90937903|NCT03530345|181755400|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.404||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|-0.26||2-sided p-value for testing superiority of neridronic acid 400 mg compared to placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|The degrees of freedom of the denominator are estimated using the Kenward-Roger approximation.|The primary endpoint estimate was the least squares mean differences of change from baseline in pain NRS (electronic diary) at Week 12 between neridronate and Placebo.|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) defined with baseline pain intensity as covariate, the factors geographic region, week, treatment and treatment-by-week as fixed effects, and an unstructured covariance matrix to model the covariance structure of the repeated measurements.||-0.26|-1.89|0.0111
91035620|NCT01020474|181957211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.64||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of Week 6.||0.06|-1.34|0.075
90937904|NCT00748098|181755410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference versus placebo|-26.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.64|-16.36|||ANCOVA|Estimates were obtained using an ANCOVA model with period, group center, and treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect.||||-16.36|-35.64|<0.0001
90937905|NCT00748098|181755411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference versus placebo|-3.07||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.04|-1.1|||ANCOVA|Estimates were obtained using an ANCOVA model with period, group center, and treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect.||||-1.10|-5.04|0.002
90937906|NCT04448561|181755458|OTHER||Geometric Least square (LS) mean ratio|100.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.37|102.96|||||Assessment based on analysis of variance performed on natural log-transformed parameters with treatment as fixed effect and participant as random effect. Ratios and confidence limits: transformed back to raw scale and values expressed as percentages.|||102.96|98.37|
90937907|NCT04448561|181755459|OTHER||Geometric LS mean ratio|94.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.29|99.54|||||Assessment based on analysis of variance performed on natural log-transformed parameters with treatment as fixed effect and participant as random effect. Ratios and confidence limits: transformed back to raw scale and values expressed as percentages.|||99.54|89.29|
90937908|NCT04448561|181755461|OTHER||Geometric LS mean ratio|100.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.35|121.88|||||Assessment based on an analysis of variance performed on natural log-transformed parameters with treatment as a fixed effect. Ratios and confidence limits were transformed back to raw scale and values were expressed as percentages.|||121.88|83.35|
90937909|NCT04448561|181755462|OTHER||Geometric LS mean ratio|100.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.35|124.36|||||Assessment based on an analysis of variance performed on natural log-transformed parameters with treatment as a fixed effect. Ratios and confidence limits were transformed back to raw scale and values were expressed as percentages.|||124.36|81.35|
90937910|NCT04448561|181755464|OTHER||Geometric LS mean ratio|89.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.58|99.71|||||Assessment based on an analysis of variance performed on natural log-transformed parameters with treatment as a fixed effect. Ratios and confidence limits were transformed back to raw scale and values were expressed as percentages.|||99.71|79.58|
90937911|NCT04448561|181755465|OTHER||Geometric LS mean ratio|96.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.03|111.25|||||Assessment based on an analysis of variance performed on natural log-transformed parameters with treatment as a fixed effect. Ratios and confidence limits are transformed back to raw scale and values are expressed as percentages.|||111.25|83.03|
90937912|NCT04448561|181755467|OTHER||Geometric LS mean ratio|86.54|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.01|98.52|||||Assessment based on an analysis of variance performed on natural log-transformed parameters with treatment as a fixed effect. Ratios and confidence limits are transformed back to raw scale and values are expressed as percentages.|||98.52|76.01|
90937913|NCT04448561|181755468|OTHER||Geometric LS mean ratio|95.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.52|109.6|||||Assessment based on an analysis of variance performed on natural log-transformed parameters with treatment as a fixed effect. Ratios and confidence limits were transformed back to raw scale and values were expressed as percentages.|||109.60|82.52|
90937914|NCT05244226|181755473|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.045|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|Dunn's Kruskal Wallis with Bonferroni correction||||||0.045
90937915|NCT05244226|181755473|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.023|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|Dunn's Kruskal Wallis with Bonferroni correction||||||0.023
90937916|NCT05244226|181755477|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.144|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.144
90937917|NCT05244226|181755477|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.322|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.322
90937918|NCT05244226|181755478|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.061|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|Dunn's Kruskal Wallis with Bonferroni correction||||||0.061
90937919|NCT05244226|181755478|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.021|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|Dunn's Kruskal Wallis with Bonferroni correction||||||0.021
91035621|NCT01020474|181957211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of Week 7.||0.21|-1.21|0.168
90937920|NCT00197106|181755493|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is considered to be shown if the upper limit of the one-sided 95% confidence interval of the difference uflixotide-useretide does not exceed +15% (uflixotide-useretide represent the mean percentages of asthma symptom-free days of the two respective treatment groups).|Adjusted difference|2.6||||0.63||95.0|-8.1|13.4|||Repeated Measurements Anal. of Variance|Anal. = Analysis||||13.4|-8.1|0.63
90937921|NCT04050722|181755508|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|-0.04||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product group, gender, and baseline MGI stratification (low/high) as factors and the baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-0.04|-0.08|<0.0001
90937922|NCT00382408|181755527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||vaccine efficacy (VE)|99.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.02|99.88||||||The vaccine efficacy (VE) was defined as: VE = 1 - R, where R = P(vaccine)/P(placebo) was the relative risk of ARD attack in subjects who received vaccines compared to placebos (Blackwelder 1993). The 95% confidence interval of the VE was obtained by inverting the Chi Square method proposed by Koopman for the ratio of two binomial proportions (Koopman 1984). The goal of the analysis of efficacy was to demonstrate a VE of at least 80% with a lower 95% confidence bound at least 60%.||99.88|96.02|
90937923|NCT00382408|181755532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||vaccine efficacy (VE)|98.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|95.39|99.49||||||The vaccine efficacy (VE) was defined as: VE = 1 - R, where R = P(vaccine)/P(placebo) was the relative risk of ARD attack in subjects who received vaccines compared to placebos (Blackwelder 1993). The 95% confidence interval of the VE was obtained by inverting the Chi Square method proposed by Koopman for the ratio of two binomial proportions (Koopman 1984). The goal of the analysis of efficacy was to demonstrate a VE of at least 80% with a lower 95% confidence bound at least 60%.||99.49|95.39|
90937924|NCT00609245|181755611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.016
90937925|NCT01090076|181755612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.023
90937926|NCT01090076|181755613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.877||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.877
90937927|NCT01090076|181755614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.44
90937928|NCT00694564|181755632|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No power calculation was calculated as this was a pilot study to determine such parameters.||||||0.004||95.0|||||MANOVA|||||||0.004
90937929|NCT01284634|181755634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.454||0.222|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.35|2.56|||Regression, Linear|||The EOT liver triglyceride levels were analyzed using a linear regression model, with EOT liver triglyceride levels as the dependent variable, dose of GWP42003 as regressor, baseline liver triglyceride levels as a covariate, and gender as a factor.||2.56|-16.35|0.222
90937930|NCT01284634|181755634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.943||0.133|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-19.66|0.95|||Regression, Linear|||The EOT liver triglyceride levels were analyzed using a linear regression model, with EOT liver triglyceride levels as the dependent variable, dose of GWP42003 as regressor, baseline liver triglyceride levels as a covariate, and gender as a factor.||0.95|-19.66|0.133
90937931|NCT01284634|181755634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.158||0.302|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.22|4.14|||Regression, Linear|||The EOT liver triglyceride levels were analyzed using a linear regression model, with EOT liver triglyceride levels as the dependent variable, dose of GWP42003 as regressor, baseline liver triglyceride levels as a covariate, and gender as a factor.||4.14|-17.22|0.302
90937932|NCT03807700|181755640|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.4769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|0.74|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product as a fixed effect and Baseline overall score as a covariate.|Difference is experimental adhesive minus no adhesive.|||0.74|-1.56|0.4769
90937933|NCT01614899|181755705|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-4.8||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.52|0.0|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.00|-9.52|0.050
90937934|NCT01614899|181755705|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-4.2||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.91|0.5|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.50|-8.91|0.080
90937935|NCT01614899|181755706|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.08||||0.594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.354|0.203|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.203|-0.354|0.594
90937936|NCT01614899|181755706|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.18||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.453|0.095|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.095|-0.453|0.199
90937937|NCT01614899|181755707|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-1.1||||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.38|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.38|-2.60|0.143
90937938|NCT01614899|181755707|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-1.9||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-0.46|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||-0.46|-3.40|0.010
90937939|NCT01614899|181755708|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-1.0||||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.27|0.25|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.25|-2.27|0.116
90937940|NCT01614899|181755708|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.5||||0.388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.7|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.70|-1.80|0.388
90937941|NCT01614899|181755709|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-2.5||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.87|-0.17|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||-0.17|-4.87|0.036
90937942|NCT01614899|181755709|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-1.6||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.93|0.72|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.72|-3.93|0.174
90937943|NCT04150250|181755722|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Median|-7.1||||0.2254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.9|28.6||The threshold to define success on the primary efficacy endpoint at the final analysis is one-sided alpha = 0.0238.|Van Elteren test|Stratified by blood type group (O vs. Non-O)||||28.6|-30.9|0.2254
90937944|NCT04150250|181755723|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Median|-3.8||||0.2751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.3|27.4|||Van Elteren test|Stratified by blood type group||||27.4|-26.3|0.2751
90937945|NCT04150250|181755725|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-11.3||||0.5145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.1|21.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by blood type group.||||21.6|-44.1|0.5145
90937946|NCT04150250|181755726|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-6.3||||0.2636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.1|5.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by blood type group.||||5.6|-18.1|0.2636
90937947|NCT04150250|181755727|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Median|1.1||||0.5992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|7.8|||Van Elteren test|Stratified by blood type group||||7.8|-4.5|0.5992
90937948|NCT04150250|181755729|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6527|||||||Log Rank|Stratified by blood type group||||||0.6527
90937949|NCT04150250|181755730|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Median|1.5||||0.5377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|5.5|||Van Elteren test|Stratified by blood type group||||5.5|-7.0|0.5377
90937950|NCT04150250|181755731|SUPERIORITY||Difference|1.3||||0.8705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|16.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by blood type group.||||16.5|-14.0|0.8705
90937951|NCT04150250|181755732|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-18.8||||0.1404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.1|3.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by blood type group||||3.6|-41.1|0.1404
90937952|NCT01436045|181755735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Change|-15.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||RBANS Line Orientation|t-test, 2 sided||Response to intranasal Insulin Glulisine \[(result post-insulin - result post-placebo)/(result post-placebo)\] x 100%|Response to intranasal Insulin Gluiline \[(result post-insulin - result post-placebo)/(result post-placebo)\] x 100%||||<0.05
90937953|NCT01436045|181755738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in errors \[result post-insulin - result post-placebo\]||||<0.05
90937954|NCT01184755|181755765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.561256|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.216403||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.987999|-0.134513||This is an intention-to-treat analysis|Mixed effects regression analysis|||This is the change in Systolic BP at 8 weeks||-.134513|-.987999|.01
90937955|NCT01184755|181755765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.391195|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.140034||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.667312|-0.115079|||mixed effects regression analysis|||This is the analysis of change in diastolic BP from Ambulatory BP monitoring.||-.115079|-.667312|.006
90971328|NCT00439946|181825394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.22||95.0||||p-value for CAMPHOR Total Score|Wilcoxon signed rank|||Changes in mean TSQM and CAMPHOR scores between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test, comparing the values at Baseline to values at Week 8. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values.||||0.22
90937956|NCT05379023|181755766|OTHER|Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC)|IntraClassCorrelation|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.78||"ICC estimates and 95% CIs were interpreted as agreement across condition type, where estimates of 0-\<0.50 are considered poor, 0.50≤-\<0.75 moderate, 0.75≤-\<0.90 good, and 0.90≤-1 excellent.~ICCs were adjusted for age and sex."||Not applicable, ICC level of agreements interpreted.|ICC with 95% CI for Memory, CVLT delayed recall shown.|"Unadjusted intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) estimates and their 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each outcome measure to assess the reliability of measures across condition type based on a single-rating, absolute-agreement, two-way random-effects model.~Results for Memory: CVLT shown below."||0.78|0.50|
90937957|NCT05379023|181755766|OTHER|Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC)|Intraclass Correlation|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.84||"ICC estimates and 95% CIs were interpreted as agreement across condition type, where estimates of 0-\<0.50 are considered poor, 0.50≤-\<0.75 moderate, 0.75≤-\<0.90 good, and 0.90≤-1 excellent.~ICCs were adjusted for age and sex."||Not applicable, ICC level of agreements interpreted.|ICC with 95% CI for Memory, RBANS delayed recall shown|"Unadjusted intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) estimates and their 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each outcome measure to assess the reliability of measures across condition type based on a single-rating, absolute-agreement, two-way random-effects model.~Results for Memory: RBANS shown below."||0.84|0.71|
90937958|NCT05379023|181755766|OTHER|Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC)|Intraclass correlation|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.9||"ICC estimates and 95% CIs were interpreted as agreement across condition type, where estimates of 0-\<0.50 are considered poor, 0.50≤-\<0.75 moderate, 0.75≤-\<0.90 good, and 0.90≤-1 excellent.~ICCs were adjusted for age and sex."||Not applicable, ICC level of agreements interpreted.|ICC with 95% CI for Language, BNT-15 shown.|"Unadjusted intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) estimates and their 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each outcome measure to assess the reliability of measures across condition type based on a single-rating, absolute-agreement, two-way random-effects model.~Results for Memory: BNT-15 shown below."||0.90|0.76|
90937959|NCT05379023|181755766|OTHER|Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC)|intraclass correlation|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.85||"ICC estimates and 95% CIs were interpreted as agreement across condition type, where estimates of 0-\<0.50 are considered poor, 0.50≤-\<0.75 moderate, 0.75≤-\<0.90 good, and 0.90≤-1 excellent.~ICCs were adjusted for age and sex."||Not applicable, ICC level of agreements interpreted.|ICC with 95% CI for Language, Category Fluency shown.|"Unadjusted intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) estimates and their 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each outcome measure to assess the reliability of measures across condition type based on a single-rating, absolute-agreement, two-way random-effects model.~Results for Lang8age: Category Fluency shown below."||0.85|0.63|
90937960|NCT05379023|181755766|OTHER|Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC)|Intraclass correlation|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.75||"ICC estimates and 95% CIs were interpreted as agreement across condition type, where estimates of 0-\<0.50 are considered poor, 0.50≤-\<0.75 moderate, 0.75≤-\<0.90 good, and 0.90≤-1 excellent.~ICCs were adjusted for age and sex."||Not applicable, ICC level of agreements interpreted.|ICC with 95% CI for Spatial, JoLO-15 item shown.|"Unadjusted intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) estimates and their 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each outcome measure to assess the reliability of measures across condition type based on a single-rating, absolute-agreement, two-way random-effects model.~Results for Spatial: JoLO 15-item Total"||0.75|0.45|
91035622|NCT01020474|181957211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.01||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of Week 8.||-0.30|-1.73|0.006
90971329|NCT00439946|181825395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.55||95.0||||p-value for TSQM Effectiveness Score|Wilcoxon signed rank|||Changes in mean TSQM and CAMPHOR scores between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test, comparing the values at Baseline to values at Week 8. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values.||||0.55
91035623|NCT01020474|181957211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.57||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of Week 9.||0.15|-1.29|0.120
90937961|NCT05379023|181755766|OTHER|Intraclass correlation|Intraclass correlation|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.72||"ICC estimates and 95% CIs were interpreted as agreement across condition type, where estimates of 0-\<0.50 are considered poor, 0.50≤-\<0.75 moderate, 0.75≤-\<0.90 good, and 0.90≤-1 excellent.~ICCs were adjusted for age and sex."||Not applicable, ICC level of agreements interpreted.|ICC with 95% CI for Spatial, RBANS Figure Copy shown.|"Unadjusted intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) estimates and their 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each outcome measure to assess the reliability of measures across condition type based on a single-rating, absolute-agreement, two-way random-effects model.~Results for Spatial: RBANS Figure Copy shown below."||0.72|0.38|
90937962|NCT05379023|181755767|OTHER|Cohen's Kappa|Cohen's Kappa|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.88||Not applicable, Cohen's Kappa with level of agreement between neuropsychologists used.||||"We constructed 3x3 tables for the diagnostic considerations by core battery and syndrome impression by condition. Agreement between each question and impression category was determined using Cohen's kappa (unweighted). Kappa values were interpreted using the agreement categories as follows: 0-.20 as None, .21-.39 as Minimal, .40-.59"||0.88|0.60|
91035624|NCT01020474|181957211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.77||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|-0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of Week 10.||-0.05|-1.49|0.037
90937963|NCT05379023|181755768|OTHER|Cohen's Kappa|Cohen's Kappa|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.99||Not applicable, Cohen's Kappa with level of agreement between neuropsychologists used.||||"We constructed 3x3 tables for the diagnostic considerations by core battery and severity impression by condition. Agreement between each question and impression category was determined using Cohen's kappa (unweighted). Kappa values were interpreted using the agreement categories as follows: 0-.20 as None, .21-.39 as Minimal, .40-.59"||0.99|0.79|
90937964|NCT05379023|181755771|OTHER|Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC)|Intraclass correlation|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.89||"ICC estimates and 95% CIs were interpreted as agreement across condition type, where estimates of 0-\<0.50 are considered poor, 0.50≤-\<0.75 moderate, 0.75≤-\<0.90 good, and 0.90≤-1 excellent.~ICCs were adjusted for age and sex."||Not applicable, ICC level of agreements interpreted.|ICC with 95% CI for Executive Functions, DKEFS Color Word-Inhibition shown.|"Unadjusted intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) estimates and their 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each outcome measure to assess the reliability of measures across condition type based on a single-rating, absolute-agreement, two-way random-effects model.~Results for Executive Functions: DKEFS Color Word Inhibition shown below."||0.89|0.71|
90937965|NCT05379023|181755771|OTHER|Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC)|Intraclass correlation|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|0.93||"ICC estimates and 95% CIs were interpreted as agreement across condition type, where estimates of 0-\<0.50 are considered poor, 0.50≤-\<0.75 moderate, 0.75≤-\<0.90 good, and 0.90≤-1 excellent.~ICCs were adjusted for age and sex."||Not applicable, ICC level of agreements interpreted.|ICC with 95% CI for Executive Functions, Oral Trail Making Test B shown.|"Unadjusted intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) estimates and their 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each outcome measure to assess the reliability of measures across condition type based on a single-rating, absolute-agreement, two-way random-effects model.~Results for Executive Functions:Oral Trail Making Test B shown below."||0.93|0.81|
90937966|NCT03602859|181755781|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.0351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.99|||Stratified log-rank test||Hazard ratio and p-value from the stratified Cox proportional hazards model and log-rank test (2-sided) are adjusted for the randomization stratification factors: concurrent bevacizumab use and homologous recombinant repair (HRR) mutation status.|||0.99|0.73|0.0351
90937967|NCT00377312|181755803|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The study was designed as a standard dose-escalation study, dose-finding pilot study. The primary outcome measures were safety (hypercalcemia, hypophosphatemia and symptoms/hemodynamic measurements). A modified Fibronacci dose-escalation scheme was employed.|||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value corresponds to the increase over time for the PTH 2 pmol group.|Mixed Models Analysis|The level of statistical significance was set at .05 (two-tailed)||||||<.0001
91035625|NCT01020474|181957211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43||||0.246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of Week 11.||0.30|-1.16|0.246
91035626|NCT01020474|181957211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of Week 12.||0.13|-1.36|0.105
91035627|NCT01020474|181957211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0.376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of Week 13.||0.41|-1.09|0.376
91035628|NCT01020474|181957211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41||||0.285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of Week 14.||0.35|-1.18|0.285
91035629|NCT01020474|181957211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of Week 15.||0.61|-0.95|0.663
91035630|NCT01020474|181957212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.87||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|-0.05|||ANCOVA|Based on LS Means using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model (including Treatment, Center, Baseline value as covariate).||||-0.05|-1.68|0.037
90937968|NCT00377312|181755804|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The study was designed as a standard dose-escalation study, dose-finding pilot study. The primary outcome measures were safety (hypercalcemia, hypophosphatemia and symptoms/hemodynamic measurements). A modified Fibronacci dose-escalation scheme was employed.|||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value corresponds to the increase over time for the PTH 2 pmol group.|Mixed Models Analysis|The level of statistical significance was set at .05 (two-tailed)||||||<.0001
90937969|NCT00377312|181755805|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The study was designed as a standard dose-escalation study, dose-finding pilot study. The primary outcome measures were safety (hypercalcemia, hypophosphatemia and symptoms/hemodynamic measurements). A modified Fibronacci dose-escalation scheme was employed.|||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value corresponds to change over time for the PTH 2 and PTH 4 pmol groups|Mixed Models Analysis|The level of statistical significance was set at .05 (two-tailed)||||||>0.05
90937970|NCT00377312|181755806|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The study was designed as a standard dose-escalation study, dose-finding pilot study. The primary outcome measures were safety (hypercalcemia, hypophosphatemia and symptoms/hemodynamic measurements). A modified Fibronacci dose-escalation scheme was employed.||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value corresponds to change over time for the PTH 2 and PTH 4 pmol groups|Mixed Models Analysis|The level of statistical significance was set at .05 (two-tailed)||||||.01
90937971|NCT00377312|181755807|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The study was designed as a standard dose-escalation study, dose-finding pilot study. The primary outcome measures were safety (hypercalcemia, hypophosphatemia and symptoms/hemodynamic measurements). A modified Fibronacci dose-escalation scheme was employed.|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||the reported p-values correspond to the decrease compared to baseline in all arms/groups at Days 2-8|Mixed Models Analysis|The level of statistical significance was set at .05 (two-tailed)||||||<.05
90937972|NCT00377312|181755808|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The study was designed as a standard dose-escalation study, dose-finding pilot study. The primary outcome measures were safety (hypercalcemia, hypophosphatemia and symptoms/hemodynamic measurements). A modified Fibronacci dose-escalation scheme was employed.||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||the reported p-value corresponds to the increase compared to baseline over time (days 2-8) in the PTH 2 pmol group|Mixed Models Analysis|The level of statistical significance was set at .05 (two-tailed)||||||.002
90937973|NCT00377312|181755810|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The study was designed as a standard dose-escalation study, dose-finding pilot study. The primary outcome measures were safety (hypercalcemia, hypophosphatemia and symptoms/hemodynamic measurements). A modified Fibronacci dose-escalation scheme was employed.||||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value corresponds to change over time for the PTH 2 and PTH 4 pmol groups|Mixed Models Analysis|The level of statistical significance was set at .05 (two-tailed)||||||.61
91035631|NCT01020474|181957213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|2.58|||Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis at Week 15.||2.58|0.53|0.694
91035632|NCT01020474|181957214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.25||||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|7.02|||Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis at Week 15.||7.02|0.72|0.162
91035923|NCT03261167|181958552|OTHER||Adjusted rate difference|-5.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.9|9.8|||||Week 2, Wrist flexion. Analysis was based on the Mantel-Haenszel method using Baseline MAS score of the elbow flexors.|||9.8|-20.9|
90937974|NCT00377312|181755811|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The study was designed as a standard dose-escalation study, dose-finding pilot study. The primary outcome measures were safety (hypercalcemia, hypophosphatemia and symptoms/hemodynamic measurements). A modified Fibronacci dose-escalation scheme was employed.|||||<|0.008|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value corresponds to the % increase compared to baseline in all Arms/groups on Days 2-8|Mixed Models Analysis|The level of statistical significance was set at .05 (two-tailed)||||||<.008
90937975|NCT00377312|181755811|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The study was designed as a standard dose-escalation study, dose-finding pilot study. The primary outcome measures were safety (hypercalcemia, hypophosphatemia and symptoms/hemodynamic measurements). A modified Fibronacci dose-escalation scheme was employed.|||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value corresponds the the % change from baseline at follow-up in all Arms/groups|Mixed Models Analysis|The level of statistical significance was set at .05 (two-tailed)||||||>0.05
90937976|NCT00377312|181755812|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The study was designed as a standard dose-escalation study, dose-finding pilot study. The primary outcome measures were safety (hypercalcemia, hypophosphatemia and symptoms/hemodynamic measurements). A modified Fibronacci dose-escalation scheme was employed.|||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value corresponds to % change (increase) from baseline in all Arms/groups at Days 2-8.|Mixed Models Analysis|The level of statistical significance was set at .05 (two-tailed)||||||<.0001
90937977|NCT00377312|181755812|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The study was designed as a standard dose-escalation study, dose-finding pilot study. The primary outcome measures were safety (hypercalcemia, hypophosphatemia and symptoms/hemodynamic measurements). A modified Fibronacci dose-escalation scheme was employed.|||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value corresponds the the % change from baseline at follow-up in all Arms/groups|Mixed Models Analysis|The level of statistical significance was set at .05 (two-tailed)||||||>0.05
90937978|NCT00377312|181755813|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The study was designed as a standard dose-escalation study, dose-finding pilot study. The primary outcome measures were safety (hypercalcemia, hypophosphatemia and symptoms/hemodynamic measurements). A modified Fibronacci dose-escalation scheme was employed.|||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||the reported p-value corresponds to % decrease compared to baseline at Days 2-8 in all Arms/groups|Mixed Models Analysis|The level of statistical significance was set at .05 (two-tailed)||||||<.0001
90937979|NCT00377312|181755813|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The study was designed as a standard dose-escalation study, dose-finding pilot study. The primary outcome measures were safety (hypercalcemia, hypophosphatemia and symptoms/hemodynamic measurements). A modified Fibronacci dose-escalation scheme was employed.||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||the reported p-value corresponds to % change from baseline at the follow-up visit in all Arms/groups|Mixed Models Analysis|the reported p-value corresponds to % change from baseline at the follow-up visit in all Arms/groups||||||.01
90937980|NCT00377312|181755814|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The study was designed as a standard dose-escalation study, dose-finding pilot study. The primary outcome measures were safety (hypercalcemia, hypophosphatemia and symptoms/hemodynamic measurements). A modified Fibronacci dose-escalation scheme was employed.|||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||the reported p-value corresponds to % change compared to baseline at Days 2-8 in all Arms/groups|Mixed Models Analysis|The level of statistical significance was set at .05 (two-tailed)||||||>.05
90937981|NCT03924947|181755818|NON_INFERIORITY|The pre-specified non-inferiority margin of upper bound of the two-sided 99% confidence interval for the treatment difference was 12%.|Least Squares (LS) Mean of Difference|0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.176|||TWO_SIDED|99.0|-2.37|4.259|||||LS mean (standard error \[SE\]) and LS mean confidence interval (CI) are based on a mixed effects model including sequence, period and regimen as fixed effects and participants within sequence as a random effect.|Double Blind Creon - Double Blind Creon MP||4.259|-2.370|
90937982|NCT03924947|181755819|OTHER|Descriptive|LS Mean of Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.169|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.456|2.392|||||LS mean (SE) and LS mean CI are based on a mixed effects model including sequence, period and regimen as fixed effects and participants within sequence as a random effect.|Creon - Creon MP||2.392|-2.456|
90937983|NCT03924947|181755819|OTHER|Descriptive|LS Mean of Difference|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.035|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.005|1.345|||||LS mean (SE) and LS mean CI are based on a mixed effects model including sequence, period and regimen as fixed effects and participants within sequence as a random effect.|Creon - Creon AAPIS||1.345|-3.005|
90937984|NCT03924947|181755820|OTHER|Descriptive|LS Mean of Difference|-3.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.541|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.699|3.987|||||LS mean (SE) and LS mean CI are based on a mixed effects model including sequence, period and regimen as fixed effects and participants within sequence as a random effect.|Creon - Creon MP||3.987|-10.699|
90937985|NCT03924947|181755820|OTHER|Descriptive|LS Mean of Difference|3.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.016|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.172|11.702|||||LS mean (SE) and LS mean CI are based on a mixed effects model including sequence, period and regimen as fixed effects and participants within sequence as a random effect.|DB Creon - DB Creon AAPIS||11.702|-5.172|
90937986|NCT03924947|181755821|OTHER|Descriptive|LS Mean of Difference|34.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|62.253|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-94.424|163.786|||||LS mean (SE) and LS mean CI are based on a mixed effects model including sequence, period and regimen as fixed effects and participants within sequence as a random effect.|Creon - Creon MP||163.786|-94.424|
90937987|NCT03924947|181755821|OTHER|Descriptive|LS Mean of Difference|-16.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|60.858|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-144.418|111.298|||||LS mean (SE) and LS mean CI are based on a mixed effects model including sequence, period and regimen as fixed effects and participants within sequence as a random effect.|DB Creon - DB Creon AAPIS||111.298|-144.418|
90937988|NCT03924947|181755822|NON_INFERIORITY|The pre-specified non-inferiority margin of upper bound of the two-sided 99% confidence interval for the treatment difference was 12%.|LS Mean of Difference|-1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.302|||TWO_SIDED|99.0|-4.892|2.602|||||LS mean (SE) and LS mean CI are based on a mixed effects model including sequence, period and regimen as fixed effects and participants within sequence as a random effect.|Double Blind Creon - Double Blind Creon AAPIS||2.602|-4.892|
90937989|NCT03451292|181755823|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.1|||Cox Proportional- Hazards (PH) model|||Stratification factors included were the region (Europe or North America) and history of hospitalization for acute decompensation of liver cirrhosis (yes or no).||1.10|0.58|0.17
91035633|NCT01020474|181957215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.013|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value uses the row mean score statistic based on Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test with modified ridit transformation.||Statistical analysis at Week 15.||||0.013
90937990|NCT02253147|181755886|NON_INFERIORITY|"A WSRS change of 1 grade is considered to be clinically significant. A difference of ≤0.5 grade between the two treatment groups (i.e., half of the clinically significant difference) = non-inferiority margin.~The primary efficacy endpoint uses a paired-design and is analyzed by calculating two-sided confidence intervals of the mean difference between TEOSYAL® RHA UD and the control device, between the V1 enrollment visit (baseline) and V7 (24 weeks after baseline)."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|-0.11|||||The decision is based on the upper limit of the 2-sided confidence interval for the difference for the change from baseline, between test and comparator treatment. For achieving non-inferiority, the upper confidence limit of a 95.0% CI must be ≤0.5|"Efficacy of TEOSYAL® RHA Ultra Deep versus control is analyzed in a non-inferiority statistical model using the 5-grade Wrinkle Severity Rating Scale (WSRS) as rated by the Blinded Live Evaluator at 24 weeks after baseline.~The primary endpoint is the aesthetic improvement from pre-injection of the NLF at the side of the face treated with TEOSYAL® RHA Ultra Deep compared to the one at the side of the face treated with the control device, as assessed by the BLE at 24 weeks after baseline."||-0.11|-0.34|
90937991|NCT02973477|181755900|OTHER|Mixed effects model|Coefficient|0.28||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.8||Adjusted analysis used a linear mixed effects model with unstructured covariance matrix controlled for possible period and sequence (carryover) effects for the outcome.|Mixed Models Analysis||The outcome was logged in the model. The outcome was the natural log of that variable and the coefficient and CI are for the relationship with the log of the outcome.|This is the adjusted mixed models analysis for both periods, both arms, comparing each treatment's change.||0.8|-0.24|0.28
90937992|NCT02973477|181755901|OTHER||Coefficient|-0.003||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.15||Adjusted analysis used a linear mixed effects model with unstructured covariance matrix controlled for possible period and sequence (carryover) effects for the outcome.|Mixed Models Analysis||The outcome was logged in the model. The outcome was the natural log of that variable and the coefficient and CI are for the relationship with the log of the outcome.|This is the adjusted analysis to compare the difference between the values from baseline to 12 weeks between each intervention for SDNN.||0.15|-0.16|0.97
90937993|NCT02973477|181755901|OTHER||Coefficient|-0.02||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.16||Adjusted analysis used a linear mixed effects model with unstructured covariance matrix controlled for possible period and sequence (carryover) effects for the outcome.|Mixed Models Analysis||The outcome was logged in the model. The outcome was the natural log of that variable and the coefficient and CI are for the relationship with the log of the outcome.|This is the adjusted analysis to compare the difference between the values from baseline to 12 weeks between each intervention for rmsSD.||0.16|-0.21|0.79
90937994|NCT02973477|181755902|OTHER||Coefficient|0.01||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.04||Adjusted analysis used a linear mixed effects model with unstructured covariance matrix controlled for possible period and sequence (carryover) effects for the outcome.|Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the adjusted analysis for both periods, both arms, comparing each treatment's change of EI ratio.||0.04|-0.02|0.58
90937995|NCT02973477|181755902|OTHER||Coefficient|0.02||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.09||Adjusted analysis used a linear mixed effects model with unstructured covariance matrix controlled for possible period and sequence (carryover) effects for the outcome. Coefficient provided for Valsalva ratio.|Mixed Models Analysis||The outcome was logged in the model. The outcome was the natural log of that variable and the coefficient and CI are for the relationship with the log of the outcome.|This is the adjusted analysis for both periods, both arms, comparing each treatment's change of Valsalva ratio.||0.09|-0.05|0.58
90937996|NCT02973477|181755902|OTHER||Coefficient|-0.01||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.03||Adjusted analysis used a linear mixed effects model with unstructured covariance matrix controlled for possible period and sequence (carryover) effects for the outcome. Coefficient provided for 30:15 ratio.|Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the adjusted analysis for both periods, both arms, comparing each treatment's change of 30:15 ratio.||0.03|-0.05|0.56
90937997|NCT02973477|181755903|OTHER||Coefficient|0.01||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.25||Adjusted analysis used a linear mixed effects model with unstructured covariance matrix controlled for possible period and sequence (carryover) effects for the outcome.|Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the adjusted analysis for both periods, both arms, comparing each treatment's change of BNP.||0.25|-0.23|0.92
90937998|NCT02402465|181755905|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|37.0|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA||Mean difference is related to albumin levels in nasal lavages: Unit= ng/ml|||||>0.05
90937999|NCT02402465|181755906|SUPERIORITY||Friedman's Q|14.2||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni correction was used to adjust for the fact that each day was tested separately yielding alpha=0.05/3.|Friedman|Non-parametric repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.001
90938000|NCT02402465|181755906|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|24.5||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.02
90938001|NCT02402465|181755906|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|4.5||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.003
90938002|NCT02402465|181755906|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|48.5||||0.53|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.53
90938003|NCT02402465|181755907|SUPERIORITY||Friedman's Q|5.22||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha=0.05/3 since 3 days are compared|Friedman's Test|||We used Friedman test to compare the distribution of total nasal symptom scores among three treatment groups (Placebo, Fluticasone propionate, Dymista) in each of the three days (day 1, day 2, and day 3).||||0.07
90938004|NCT02402465|181755908|SUPERIORITY||Friedman's Q|5.06||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni correction was used to adjust for the fact that each day was tested separately, giving alpha=0.05/3.|Friedman's Test|||||||0.08
90938005|NCT02402465|181755910|SUPERIORITY||Friedman's Q|6.53||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni correction was used to adjust for the fact that each day was tested separately, giving alpha=0.05/3.|Friedman's Test|||||||0.04
90938006|NCT02402465|181755911|SUPERIORITY||Friedman's Q|0.53|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni correction was used to adjust for the fact that each day was tested separately, giving alpha=0.05/3.|Friedman's Test|||||||>0.05
90938007|NCT02402465|181755912|SUPERIORITY||Friedman's Q|0.33||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni correction was used to adjust for the fact that each day was tested separately, giving alpha=0.05/3.|Friedman's Test|||||||0.85
90938008|NCT02720081|181755921|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-4.775||||0.352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.92|5.37|||ANOVA|Terms for treatment, number of C alleles at the pre-specified SNP, and prior inhaled corticosteroid use.||||5.370|-14.92|0.352
90938009|NCT02720081|181755922|OTHER||Difference in percentages|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|14.3|||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen|||14.3|-15.0|
90938010|NCT02720081|181755923|OTHER||Difference in percentages|-4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|1.0|||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen|||1.0|-12.1|
90938011|NCT02720081|181755945|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.107||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.015|0.199|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Terms for treatment, time, interaction of time by treatment, number of C alleles at the pre-specified SNP, and prior inhaled corticosteroid use.||||0.199|0.015|0.023
90938012|NCT03042559|181755954|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Data analysis was performed using SPSS Statistics Software version 24.0. We compared mean age (years), Body Mass Index (kg/m2) (BMI), pain duration, and the outcome measures at baseline in both groups at baseline using independent t-test when the distribution of the variable was approximately normal and Mann-Whitney test when the distribution was not normal. The distribution of qualitative variables (gender, affected leg) by group type was examined using Chi Square test.|a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|||
90938013|NCT03042559|181755961|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
90938014|NCT01855997|181755995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||5.59e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs1876154||||0.00000559
90938015|NCT01855997|181755995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||7.66e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs2812338||||0.00000766
90938016|NCT01855997|181755995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||9.82e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs10824875||||0.00000982
90938017|NCT01855997|181755995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1.27e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs1831559||||0.00000127
90938018|NCT01855997|181755995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||3.96e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs10851257||||0.00000396
90938019|NCT01855997|181755995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||6.48e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs6492344||||0.00000648
90938020|NCT01855997|181755995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||2.21e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs12584550||||0.00000221
90938021|NCT01855997|181755995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||9.02e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs9555773||||0.00000902
90938022|NCT01855997|181755995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||7.7e-07|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs7983441||||0.00000077
90938023|NCT01855997|181755995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||4.8e-07|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs12446868||||0.00000048
90938024|NCT01855997|181755995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||3.7e-07|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs247878||||0.00000037
90938025|NCT01855997|181755996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||9.87e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs1876154||||0.00000987
90938026|NCT01855997|181755996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||6.05e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs7753766||||0.00000605
90938027|NCT01855997|181755996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||9.46e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs604241||||0.00000946
90938028|NCT01855997|181755996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||7.7e-07|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs12446868||||0.00000077
90938029|NCT01855997|181755996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1.97e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs247878||||0.00000197
90938030|NCT01855997|181755997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||6.77e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs12210761||||0.00000677
90938031|NCT01855997|181755997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||7.98e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs1831559||||0.00000798
90938032|NCT01855997|181755997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||5.12e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs7983441||||0.00000512
90938033|NCT01855997|181755997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||3.45e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs12446868||||0.00000345
90938034|NCT01855997|181755997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||3.72e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs247878||||0.00000372
90938035|NCT01855997|181755998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||4.59e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs12210761||||0.00000459
90938036|NCT01855997|181755998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||9.25e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs1411283||||0.00000925
90938037|NCT01855997|181755998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||7.72e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs12446868||||0.00000772
90938038|NCT01855997|181755999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||4.7e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs11163805||||0.00000470
90938039|NCT01855997|181755999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||6.74e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs6443144||||0.00000674
90938040|NCT01855997|181755999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||9.52e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs11139349||||0.00000952
90938041|NCT01855997|181755999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||6.08e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs1831559||||0.00000608
90938042|NCT01855997|181755999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||4.04e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs7983441||||0.00000404
90938043|NCT01855997|181755999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||4.07e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs11868362||||0.00000407
90938044|NCT01855997|181756000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||6.66e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs1384010||||0.00000666
90938045|NCT01855997|181756000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||8.44e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs1351518||||0.00000844
90938046|NCT01855997|181756000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||7.94e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs1157322||||0.00000794
90938047|NCT01855997|181756000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||3.1e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs11868362||||0.00000310
90938048|NCT01855997|181756001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||2.07e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs11139349||||0.00000207
90938049|NCT01855997|181756001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||8.99e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs1157322||||0.00000899
90938050|NCT01855997|181756002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||5.73e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs1384010||||0.00000573
90938051|NCT01855997|181756002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||9.46e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs1351518||||0.00000946
90938052|NCT01855997|181756002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||7.31e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs1157322||||0.00000731
90938053|NCT01855997|181756002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||9.45e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs646097||||0.00000945
90938054|NCT01855997|181756003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1.6e-07|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs17037122||||0.00000016
90938055|NCT01855997|181756004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||8.8e-07|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs17037122||||0.00000088
90938056|NCT01855997|181756005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||8.79e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs2464266||||0.00000879
90938057|NCT01855997|181756006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||4.52e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs9496139||||0.00000452
90938058|NCT01855997|181756006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||4.97e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs2014238||||0.00000497
90938059|NCT01855997|181756006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||4.97e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs2980231||||0.00000497
90938060|NCT01855997|181756007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||7.48e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||exm2237722||||0.00000748
90938061|NCT01855997|181756007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||7.3e-07|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs16924016||||0.00000073
90938062|NCT01855997|181756007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||2.89e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs2899723||||0.00000289
91035634|NCT00840411|181957280|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using PROC GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|100.0||||||90.0|93.3|107.1|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||107.1|93.3|
90938063|NCT01855997|181756007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||9.12e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs8027115||||0.00000912
90938064|NCT01855997|181756007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||4.94e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||exm2267780||||0.00000494
90938065|NCT01855997|181756008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||6.27e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs9973954||||0.00000627
90938066|NCT01855997|181756008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||6.96e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||exm2237722||||0.00000696
90938067|NCT01855997|181756008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||4.26e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs1040084||||0.00000426
90938068|NCT01855997|181756008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||4.35e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs1913484||||0.00000435
90938069|NCT01855997|181756008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||2.21e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs16924016||||0.00000221
90938070|NCT01855997|181756008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||5.23e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||exm1010813||||0.00000523
90938071|NCT01855997|181756008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||7.57e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs6576456||||0.00000757
90938072|NCT01855997|181756009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1.53e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs17037122||||0.00000153
90938073|NCT01855997|181756009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||7.08e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs10475403||||0.00000708
90938074|NCT01855997|181756009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||7.27e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs715243||||0.00000727
90938075|NCT01855997|181756010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||3.97e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs17037122||||0.00000397
90938076|NCT01855997|181756011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||6.86e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs6443144||||0.00000686
90938077|NCT01855997|181756011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||5.96e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs2189452||||0.00000596
90938078|NCT01855997|181756011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||4.89e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs9324018||||0.00000489
90938079|NCT01855997|181756012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||8.34e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs2189452||||0.00000834
90938080|NCT01855997|181756012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||4.87e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs7968170||||0.00000487
90938081|NCT01855997|181756012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||9.18e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs9324018||||0.00000918
90938082|NCT01855997|181756013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1.37e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs9287655||||0.00000137
90938083|NCT01855997|181756013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||3.39e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs2803073||||0.00000339
90938084|NCT01855997|181756013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||9.27e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs1937590||||0.00000927
90938085|NCT01855997|181756013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1.66e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs2945861||||0.00000166
90938086|NCT01855997|181756013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||4.55e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs1997894||||0.00000455
90938087|NCT01855997|181756013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||5.68e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs1495471||||0.00000568
90938088|NCT01855997|181756013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1.25e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs9324018||||0.00000125
90938089|NCT01855997|181756013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||9.82e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs1152537||||0.00000982
90938090|NCT01855997|181756014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||8.46e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs10236906||||0.00000846
90938091|NCT01855997|181756014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||5.62e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs2945861||||0.00000562
90938092|NCT01855997|181756014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||4.97e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs7042473||||0.00000497
90938093|NCT01855997|181756014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||9.97e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs2077415||||0.00000997
90938094|NCT01855997|181756014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||8.64e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs9324018||||0.00000864
90938095|NCT01855997|181756015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||3.68e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs17037122||||0.00000368
90938096|NCT01855997|181756015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||5.77e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs715243||||0.00000577
90938097|NCT01855997|181756016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||9.5e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs2302503||||0.00000950
90938098|NCT01855997|181756016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||7.41e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs6015181||||0.00000741
90938099|NCT01855997|181756017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||8.05e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs1550116||||0.00000805
90938100|NCT01855997|181756017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||7.02e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs1550115||||0.00000702
90938101|NCT01855997|181756017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||7.02e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs2082881||||0.00000702
90938102|NCT01855997|181756017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||7.43e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||exm2265462||||0.00000743
90938103|NCT01855997|181756017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||7.8e-07|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs6443144||||0.00000078
90938104|NCT01855997|181756017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||8.94e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs1403069||||0.00000894
90938105|NCT01855997|181756017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||5.71e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs9691873||||0.00000571
90938106|NCT01855997|181756017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||7.29e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs8012912||||0.00000729
90938107|NCT01855997|181756017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||8.28e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs11158827||||0.00000828
90938108|NCT01855997|181756017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||8.85e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs11870323||||0.00000885
90938109|NCT01855997|181756017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||7.17e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs4821558||||0.00000717
90938110|NCT01855997|181756018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||6.29e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs6443144||||0.00000629
90938111|NCT01855997|181756018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||5.79e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs1692421||||0.00000579
90938112|NCT01855997|181756018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||5.53e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs1692423||||0.00000553
90938113|NCT01855997|181756018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||9.46e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs9691873||||0.00000946
90938114|NCT01855997|181756018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||4.5e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs7968170||||0.00000450
90938115|NCT01855997|181756019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1.18e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs9287655||||0.00000118
90938116|NCT01855997|181756019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||5.31e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs216312||||0.00000531
90938117|NCT01855997|181756020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||5.93e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs993147||||0.00000593
90938118|NCT01855997|181756020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||9.97e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs10978436||||0.00000997
90938119|NCT01855997|181756020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||5.81e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs2370220||||0.00000581
90938120|NCT01855997|181756020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||8.02e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs2279519||||0.00000802
90938121|NCT01855997|181756021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||5.58e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs12992677||||0.00000558
90938122|NCT01855997|181756022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||9.9e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs12992677||||0.00000990
90938123|NCT01855997|181756023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||4.8e-07|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs7549785||||0.00000048
90938124|NCT01855997|181756024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||4.8e-07|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs7549785||||0.00000048
90938125|NCT01855997|181756025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||7.38e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs10814834||||0.00000738
90938126|NCT01855997|181756025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||4.51e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs10491723||||0.00000451
90938127|NCT01855997|181756025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||8.78e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs6592052||||0.00000878
90938128|NCT01855997|181756025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||5.21e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs16943470||||0.00000521
90938129|NCT01855997|181756026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||7.2e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs6592052||||0.00000720
90938130|NCT00404547|181756053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This is an analysis of the change in Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ) after 12 weeks of treatment.||||<0.0001
90938131|NCT01485991|181756057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.1||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|5.5||based on the asymptotic distribution of the generalized Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistic controlling for stratification factors, using a non-inferiority margin of 12 percent|Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.5|-7.8|0.001
90938132|NCT00125853|181756062|OTHER|"Linear Mixed effect Modelling, adjusted for baseline values and period effect~Difference of LSMeans treatment effect (SE) = 0.05 (0.09)"||||||0.6|||||||Linear Mixed effect Modelling, adjusted|||Comparing treatment effects on ISI||||0.60
90938133|NCT00125853|181756063|OTHER|"Linear Mixed effect Model, adjusted for baseline values and period effect~Difference of LSMeans treatment effect (SE)~= -2.59 (1.34)"||||||0.06|||||||Linear Mixed effect Model, adjusted for|||Comparing treatment effects on ABPM||||0.06
90938134|NCT00125853|181756064|OTHER|"Linear Mixed effect Model, adjusted for baseline values and period effect~Difference of LSMeans treatment effect (SE)~= -0/09 (0.14)"||||||0.51|||||||Linear Mixed effect Modelling, adjusted|||Comparing treatment effects on total cholesterol||||0.51
90938135|NCT00125853|181756065|OTHER|"Linear Mixed effect Model, adjusted for baseline values and period effect~Difference of LSMeans treatment effect (SE) =0.02 (0.03)"||||||0.48|||||||Linear Mixed effect Modelling, adjusted|||Comparing treatment effects on HbA1c||||0.48
90938136|NCT00125853|181756066|OTHER|"Linear Mixed effect Model, adjusted for baseline values and period effect~Difference of LSMeans treatment effect (SE)~= -0.21(0.13)"||||||0.09|||||||Linear Mixed effect Modelling, adjusted|||Comparing treatment effects on BMI||||0.09
90938137|NCT00157209|181756076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.745||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.533|1.042|||Log Rank|||||1.042|0.533|0.045
90938138|NCT04474691|181756080|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.1||||0.67|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|df = 7|Traditional treatment condition - visual-acoustic biofeedback treatment condition. Because more accurate productions have lower acoustic values, a positive difference would indicate an advantage for biofeedback.|||||.67
90938139|NCT04736472|181756093|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.224|||||||Fisher Exact|||Severe TRAEs||||.224
90938140|NCT04736472|181756093|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.025|||||||Fisher Exact|||Severe TRAEs||||.025
90938141|NCT02268526|181756094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.891|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.606|1.305||||||||1.305|0.606|
90938142|NCT02268526|181756094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.941|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.639|1.377||||||||1.377|0.639|
90938143|NCT02680145|181756122|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline score vs Follow-up score||||0.001
90938144|NCT02680145|181756123|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline score vs Follow-up score||||0.001
90938145|NCT02680145|181756124|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline score vs Follow-up score||||0.005
90938146|NCT01052714|181756128|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.001
90938147|NCT01052714|181756129|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.718|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.718
90938148|NCT01052714|181756130|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.001
90938149|NCT01052714|181756131|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.676|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.676
90938150|NCT01052714|181756132|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.141|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.141
90938151|NCT01052714|181756133|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.92
90938152|NCT01052714|181756134|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.322|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.322
90938153|NCT01052714|181756135|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.652|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.652
90938154|NCT01052714|181756136|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.663|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.663
90938155|NCT01052714|181756137|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.9
90938156|NCT01052714|181756138|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.415|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.415
90938157|NCT01052714|181756139|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.687|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.687
90938158|NCT01052714|181756140|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.22
90938159|NCT01052714|181756141|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.059|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.059
90938160|NCT01052714|181756142|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.79
90938161|NCT01052714|181756143|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.146|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.146
90938162|NCT01052714|181756144|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.001
90938163|NCT01052714|181756145|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.763|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.763
90938164|NCT00417989|181756152|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Superiority test with margin of 0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.35|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.2||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.46||Confidence Interval 95%|ANCOVA|ANVOCA is adjusted by study group, gender, pooled site, continuous age, duration of diabetes, BMI, and Baseline glycated hemoglobin level (A1C)||Null - There is no treatment group difference in A1c change from baseline to Week 52. Calculated that the enrollment of 495 patients would provide a power of 90% to detect an absolute difference of 0.35 percentage points in the primary outcome, assuming a SD of 1.2%.||0.46|0.24|0.05
90938165|NCT00417989|181756154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.0||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|2.41|||Mantel Haenszel|||||2.41|0.64|0.84
90938166|NCT00417989|181756155|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No power calculation based on this endpoint. Results will be calculated on testing for statistical difference between arms.||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANVOCA is adjusted by study group, gender, pooled site, continuous age, duration of diabetes, BMI, and Baseline AUC||||||0.05
90938167|NCT00417989|181756156|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No power calculation based on this endpoint. Results will be calculated on testing for statistical difference between arms.||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANVOCA is adjusted by study group, gender, pooled site, continuous age, duration of diabetes, BMI, and Baseline AUC||||||0.05
90938168|NCT00417989|181756157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.0|<|0.001||95.0|-9.76|-3.273|||ANCOVA|||||-3.273|-9.760|< 0.001
90938169|NCT00417989|181756159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.75|||||||||Mean difference|||||||
90938170|NCT00417989|181756160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|25.53|||TWO_SIDED||||||Mean Difference|||||||
90938171|NCT02951052|181756197|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority in the proportion of participants with virologic failure at Week 48 (per FDA's snapshot algorithm for assessing HIV-1 RNA \>=50 copies/mL) can be concluded if the upper bound of a two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in failure rates between the two treatment arms (CAB - current ART) is not more than 6%.|Adjusted difference in proportion|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|2.5|||||Adjusted difference in proportion was based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel stratified analysis adjusting for the following baseline stratification factors: sex at birth (Male, Female) and Baseline third agent (PI, NNRTI, INI).|||2.5|-1.2|
90938172|NCT02951052|181756198|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority in the proportion of participants with HIV-1 RNA\<50 c/mL at Week 48 (per FDA's snapshot algorithm) can be concluded if the lower bound of a two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in success rates between the two treatment arms (CAB - current ART) is more than -10%.|Adjusted difference in proportion|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|0.7|||||Adjusted difference in proportion was based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel stratified analysis adjusting for the following baseline stratification factors: sex at birth (Male, Female) and Baseline third agent (PI, NNRTI, INI).|||0.7|-6.7|
90938173|NCT02951052|181756272|OTHER||Adjusted difference|-0.1||||0.944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|2.2|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison at Week 24 for the groups CAB LA+ RPV LA and current ART is presented.|||2.2|-2.4|0.944
90938174|NCT02951052|181756272|OTHER||Adjusted difference|1.0||||0.385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|3.4|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison at Week 48 for the groups CAB LA+ RPV LA and current ART is presented.|||3.4|-1.3|0.385
90938175|NCT02951052|181756273|OTHER||Adjusted difference|4.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|7.1|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison at Week 24 for the groups CAB LA+ RPV LA and current ART is presented.|||7.1|2.8|<0.001
90938176|NCT02951052|181756273|OTHER||Adjusted difference|6.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|8.8|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison at Week 48 for the groups CAB LA+ RPV LA and current ART is presented.|||8.8|4.0|<0.001
90938177|NCT02951052|181756274|OTHER||Adjusted difference|5.3||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|9.1|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison at Week 24 for the groups CAB LA+ RPV LA and current ART is presented.|||9.1|1.4|0.008
90938178|NCT02951052|181756274|OTHER||Adjusted difference|2.0||||0.347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|6.2|||ANCOVA||||Treatment comparison at Week 48 for the groups CAB LA+ RPV LA and current ART is presented.|6.2|-2.2|0.347
90938179|NCT02951052|181756275|OTHER||Adjusted difference|0.2||||0.344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.7|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison of SF-12 total scores at Week 24 for the groups CAB LA+ RPV LA and current ART is presented.|||0.7|-0.2|0.344
90938180|NCT02951052|181756275|OTHER||Adjusted difference|-0.1||||0.785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.4|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison of SF-12 total scores at Week 48 for the groups CAB LA+ RPV LA and current ART is presented.|||0.4|-0.6|0.785
90938181|NCT02951052|181756275|OTHER||Adjusted difference|0.676||||0.282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.557|1.909|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison of SF-12 MCS at Week 24 for the groups CAB LA+ RPV LA and current ART is presented.|||1.909|-0.557|0.282
90938182|NCT02951052|181756275|OTHER||Adjusted difference|0.635||||0.327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.637|1.907|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison of SF-12 MCS at Week 48 for the groups CAB LA+ RPV LA and current ART is presented.|||1.907|-0.637|0.327
90938183|NCT02951052|181756275|OTHER||Adjusted difference|0.697||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.494|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison of SF-12 PCS at Week 24 for the groups CAB LA+ RPV LA and current ART is presented.|||1.494|-0.100|0.086
90938184|NCT02951052|181756275|OTHER||Adjusted difference|0.696||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.113|1.505|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison of SF-12 PCS at Week 48 for the groups CAB LA+ RPV LA and current ART is presented.|||1.505|-0.113|0.092
90938185|NCT02951052|181756278|OTHER||Adjusted difference|7.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|11.7|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison at Week 8 for the groups CAB LA+ RPV LA and current ART is presented.|||11.7|4.1|<0.001
90938186|NCT02951052|181756278|OTHER||Adjusted difference|6.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|10.4|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison Week 24 for the groups CAB LA+ RPV LA and current ART is presented.|||10.4|3.3|<0.001
90938187|NCT02951052|181756278|OTHER||Adjusted difference|10.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.1|14.4|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison at Week 48 for the groups CAB LA+ RPV LA and current ART is presented.|||14.4|7.1|<0.001
90938188|NCT02924350|181756284|OTHER||Least square (LS) mean difference|-0.924|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0547|-0.7927|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA: change from baseline in Schiff sensitivity score as response and treatment as a factor and baseline Schiff sensitivity score as a covariate|Difference is first named dentifrice minus second named dentifrice such that a negative difference favors first named dentifrice.|||-0.7927|-1.0547|<.0001
90938189|NCT00552513|181756303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.06|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.06|0.68|0.15
90938190|NCT00552513|181756304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.89|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.89|0.58|0.003
90938191|NCT00552513|181756305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.99|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.99|0.71|0.04
90938192|NCT01589523|181756322|EQUIVALENCE|paired t-test||||||0.342|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.342
90938193|NCT01589523|181756323|EQUIVALENCE|paired t-test||||||0.116|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.116
90938194|NCT01589523|181756324|EQUIVALENCE|paired t-test||||||0.065|||||||t-test, 2 sided|vitamin D||||||0.065
90938195|NCT00332488|181756325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.27|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA fitting model change from baseline in A1c with fixed effects for treatment and pooled site and baseline A1c as a covariate||0.27|-0.11|0.420
90938196|NCT00332488|181756326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.14|||ANCOVA|Type III||ANCOVA fitting model change from baseline in A1c with fixed effects for treatment and pooled site and baseline A1c as a covariate||1.14|0.69|< 0.001
90938197|NCT03721978|181756330|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the one-sided p-value was \<0.025 and the corresponding lower bound of the 95% CI exceeded zero (0).|Difference in Percentage|28.6||||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.6|50.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||||50.4|-24.6|0.115
90938198|NCT03721978|181756335|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the one-sided p-value was \<0.025 and the corresponding lower bound of the 95% CI exceeded zero (0).|Difference in Percentage|18.9||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.8|28.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||||28.6|7.8|0.001
90938199|NCT03721978|181756336|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|13.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.7|46.0||||||||46.0|-37.7|
90938200|NCT03721978|181756337|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|12.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|24.5||||||||24.5|-0.8|
90938201|NCT03721978|181756338|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|38.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.7|59.5||||||||59.5|-15.7|
90970124|NCT00930761|181822267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.22||||0.06||95.0|0.99|1.51|||Chi-squared|||Null hypothesis: Music therapy does not increase the rate of maternal breastfeeding. Sample size: considering 75% as the expected rate at the time of the infant hospital discharge and an absolute difference of 30% between groups, 95% confidence level (5% alpha error) and 80% power (20% beta error), 94 subjects would need to be enrolled (47 in each study arm). Expecting a 7.5% loss after randomization, 101 was the total number of subjects considered necessary to conduct the study.||1.51|0.99|0.06
90938202|NCT03721978|181756339|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|27.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.0|38.2||||||||38.2|16.0|
90938203|NCT03721978|181756340|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|13.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.7|46.0||||||||46.0|-37.7|
90938204|NCT03721978|181756341|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|17.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.2|28.5||||||||28.5|5.2|
90938205|NCT03721978|181756342|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|28.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.6|50.4||||||||50.4|-24.6|
90938206|NCT03721978|181756343|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|20.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.1|29.5||||||||29.5|10.1|
90938207|NCT03721978|181756344|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.2|50.5||||||||50.5|-31.2|
90938208|NCT03721978|181756345|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|17.9||||||||17.9|-6.0|
90938209|NCT03721978|181756346|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.7|25.8||||||||25.8|-54.7|
90938210|NCT03721978|181756347|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|12.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|21.9||||||||21.9|1.1|
90938211|NCT03721978|181756348|OTHER||Location Shift|449.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|18224.0||||||Week 15: HPV-16 E7||18224.0|0.0|
90938212|NCT03721978|181756348|OTHER||Location Shift|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18224.0|674.0||||||Week 36: HPV-16 E7||674.0|-18224.0|
90938213|NCT03721978|181756348|OTHER||Location Shift|4049.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|224.0|18224.0||||||Week 15: HPV-18 E7||18224.0|224.0|
90938214|NCT03721978|181756348|OTHER||Location Shift|74.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18000.0|6074.0||||||Week 36: HPV-18 E7||6074.0|-18000.0|
90938215|NCT03721978|181756349|OTHER||Location Shift|224.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|224.0|674.0||||||Week 15: HPV-16 E7||674.0|224.0|
90938216|NCT03721978|181756349|OTHER||Location Shift|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|24.0||||||Week 36: HPV-16 E7||24.0|0.0|
90938217|NCT03721978|181756349|OTHER||Location Shift|2024.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2024.0|6074.0||||||Week 15: HPV-18 E7||6074.0|2024.0|
90938218|NCT03721978|181756349|OTHER||Location Shift|674.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|224.0|674.0||||||Week 36: HPV-18 E7||674.0|224.0|
90938219|NCT03721978|181756350|OTHER||Location Shift|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|73.33||||||HPV-16 E6: Week 15||73.33|0.00|
90938220|NCT03721978|181756350|OTHER||Location Shift|15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|38.33||||||HPV-16 E6: Week 36||38.33|0.00|
90938221|NCT03721978|181756350|OTHER||Location Shift|16.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|85.0||||||HPV-16 E7: Week 15||85.00|0.00|
90938222|NCT03721978|181756350|OTHER||Location Shift|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|36.67||||||HPV-16 E7: Week 36||36.67|0.00|
90938223|NCT03721978|181756350|OTHER||Location Shift|26.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|181.67||||||HPV-18 E6: Week 15||181.67|0.00|
90938224|NCT03721978|181756350|OTHER||Location Shift|11.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|31.67||||||HPV-18 E6: Week 36||31.67|0.00|
90938225|NCT03721978|181756350|OTHER||Location Shift|3.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|46.67||||||HPV-18 E7: Week 15||46.67|0.00|
90938226|NCT03721978|181756350|OTHER||Location Shift|4.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|20.0||||||HPV-18 E7: Week 36||20.00|0.00|
90938227|NCT03721978|181756351|OTHER||Location Shift|8.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.33|11.67||||||HPV-16 E6: Week 15||11.67|3.33|
90938228|NCT03721978|181756351|OTHER||Location Shift|5.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.33|11.67||||||HPV-16 E6: Week 36||11.67|3.33|
90938229|NCT03721978|181756351|OTHER||Location Shift|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.67|11.67||||||HPV-16 E7: Week 15||11.67|1.67|
90938230|NCT03721978|181756351|OTHER||Location Shift|1.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|5.0||||||HPV-16 E7: Week 36||5.00|0.00|
90938231|NCT03721978|181756351|OTHER||Location Shift|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.0|40.0||||||HPV-18 E6: Week 15||40.00|15.00|
90938232|NCT03721978|181756351|OTHER||Location Shift|16.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|28.33||||||HPV-18 E6: Week 36||28.33|10.00|
90938233|NCT03721978|181756351|OTHER||Location Shift|3.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.67|6.67||||||HPV-18 E7: Week 15||6.67|1.67|
90938234|NCT03721978|181756351|OTHER||Location Shift|1.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.33||||||HPV-18 E7: Week 36||3.33|0.00|
90938235|NCT03721978|181756352|OTHER||Location Shift|0.033|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.325||||||Parameter: CD8+CD137+Perforin+||0.325|-0.004|
90938236|NCT03721978|181756352|OTHER||Location Shift|0.005|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.208||||||Parameter: CD8+CD38+Perforin+||0.208|0.000|
90938237|NCT03721978|181756352|OTHER||Location Shift|0.014|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.055|0.31||||||Parameter: CD8+CD69+Perforin+||0.310|-0.055|
90938238|NCT03721978|181756353|OTHER||Location Shift|0.041|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|0.077||||||Parameter: CD8+CD137+Perforin+||0.077|0.004|
90938239|NCT03721978|181756353|OTHER||Location Shift|0.011|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.003|0.028||||||Parameter: CD8+CD38+Perforin+||0.028|0.003|
90938240|NCT03721978|181756353|OTHER||Location Shift|0.034|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.022|0.053||||||Parameter: CD8+CD69+Perforin+||0.053|0.022|
90938241|NCT02675998|181756354|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.01
90938242|NCT02675998|181756355|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90938243|NCT02675998|181756355|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90938244|NCT02675998|181756355|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90938245|NCT02552810|181756356|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size calculation, 30 (effect size: 0.5, alpha error: 0.05, power: 0.80).|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
90938246|NCT02097849|181756362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-0.04||||0.692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.19|||Clopper-Pearson Exact|||||0.19|-0.27|0.692
90938247|NCT02097849|181756363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-0.19||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.05|||Clopper-Pearson Exact|||Responders at Day 28||0.05|-0.41|0.120
90938248|NCT02097849|181756364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.13||||0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.1|||Clopper-Pearson Exact|||||0.10|-0.35|0.225
90938249|NCT02097849|181756365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.22||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.01|||Clopper-Pearson Exact|||||0.01|-0.44|0.057
90938250|NCT02097849|181756366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.07||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.3|||Clopper-Pearson Exact|||||0.30|-0.16|0.300
90938251|NCT02097849|181756367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.03||||0.714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.2|||Clopper-Pearson Exact|||||0.20|-0.26|0.714
90938252|NCT02097849|181756368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.0||||0.967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.23|||Clopper-Pearson Exact|||||0.23|-0.24|0.967
90938253|NCT02097849|181756369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.01||||0.955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.22|||Clopper-Pearson Exact|||||0.22|-0.24|0.955
90938254|NCT02561078|181756381|NON_INFERIORITY|The test for the primary objective of noninferiority was performed at the 0.05 significance level using the LS Mean estimate of the difference in change in HbA1c between the 2 treatments at Week 26. Noninferiority was established if the upper limit of a 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference (U 500R CSII minus U 500R MDI) was below the noninferiority margin (NIM) of 0.4%.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.22|-0.62|<0.001
90938255|NCT02561078|181756382|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-35.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.4|-21.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-21.7|-49.4|<0.001
90938256|NCT02561078|181756383|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.97||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|3.39|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.39|1.14|0.015
90938257|NCT02561078|181756384|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.94||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|3.07|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.07|1.23|0.005
90938258|NCT02561078|181756385|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-22.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.1|-12.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pre Morning Meal||-12.8|-32.1|<0.001
90938259|NCT02561078|181756385|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-17.2||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.9|-4.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2 Hours Post Morning Meal||-4.6|-29.9|0.008
90938260|NCT02561078|181756385|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.9||||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.6|2.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pre Mid-Day Meal||2.9|-20.6|0.138
90938261|NCT02561078|181756385|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|8.3||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|19.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2 Hours Post Mid-Day Meal||19.8|-3.3|0.160
90938262|NCT02561078|181756385|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|9.1||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|20.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pre Evening Meal||20.4|-2.2|0.113
90938263|NCT02561078|181756385|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|16.7||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|28.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2 Hours Post Evening Meal||28.2|5.3|0.004
90938264|NCT02561078|181756385|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6||||0.905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|10.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Overnight (3:00 AM)||10.8|-9.5|0.905
90938265|NCT02561078|181756386|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-48.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.1|-22.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-22.8|-74.1|<0.001
90938266|NCT02561078|181756387|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|2.86|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.86|0.39|0.919
90938267|NCT02561078|181756388|SUPERIORITY||Relative Rate|1.21||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.42|||Negative binomial regression|||||1.42|1.02|0.025
90938268|NCT02561078|181756389|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.8|-0.2|0.100
90938269|NCT00043186|181756397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.87|||<|0.001||95.0|4.59|7.16|||ANCOVA|||||7.16|4.59|<0.001
90938270|NCT00043186|181756397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.33|||<|0.001||95.0|5.01|7.65|||ANCOVA|||||7.65|5.01|<0.001
90938271|NCT00043186|181756397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.35|||<|0.001||95.0|4.07|6.64|||ANCOVA|||||6.64|4.07|<0.001
90938272|NCT00043186|181756397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.84|||<|0.001||95.0|2.6|5.07|||ANCOVA|||||5.07|2.60|<0.001
90938273|NCT00043186|181756397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.5|||<|0.001||95.0|6.13|8.87|||ANCOVA|||||8.87|6.13|<0.001
90938274|NCT00043186|181756397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.52|||<|0.001||95.0|4.19|6.85|||ANCOVA|||||6.85|4.19|<0.001
90938275|NCT00043186|181756397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.21|||<|0.001||95.0|3.88|6.55|||ANCOVA|||||6.55|3.88|<0.001
90938276|NCT00043186|181756398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90938277|NCT00043186|181756398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90938278|NCT00043186|181756398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90938279|NCT00043186|181756398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90938280|NCT00043186|181756398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.166|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.166
90938281|NCT00043186|181756398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90938282|NCT00043186|181756398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90938283|NCT00043186|181756398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90938284|NCT00043186|181756399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90938285|NCT00043186|181756399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90938286|NCT00043186|181756399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90938287|NCT00043186|181756399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90938288|NCT00043186|181756399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90938289|NCT00043186|181756399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90938290|NCT00043186|181756399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.020
90938291|NCT00043186|181756399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90938292|NCT00043186|181756401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.34|||<|0.001||95.0|5.56|9.12|||ANCOVA|||||9.12|5.56|<0.001
90938293|NCT00043186|181756401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.11|||<|0.001||95.0|7.31|10.91|||ANCOVA|||||10.91|7.31|<0.001
90938294|NCT00043186|181756401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.56|||<|0.001||95.0|6.71|10.41|||ANCOVA|||||10.41|6.71|<0.001
90938295|NCT00043186|181756401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.44|||<|0.001||95.0|6.69|10.19|||ANCOVA|||||10.19|6.69|<0.001
90938296|NCT00043186|181756401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.19|||<|0.001||95.0|3.43|6.94|||ANCOVA|||||6.94|3.43|<0.001
90938297|NCT00043186|181756401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.08|||<|0.001||95.0|8.14|12.01|||ANCOVA|||||12.01|8.14|<0.001
90938298|NCT00043186|181756401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.46|||<|0.001||95.0|6.62|10.3|||ANCOVA|||||10.30|6.62|<0.001
90938299|NCT00043186|181756401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.66|||<|0.001||95.0|6.8|10.53|||ANCOVA|||||10.53|6.80|<0.001
90938300|NCT00043186|181756402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.5|||<|0.001||95.0|4.32|8.67|||ANCOVA|||||8.67|4.32|<0.001
90938301|NCT00043186|181756402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.65||||0.013||95.0|0.55|4.75|||ANCOVA|||||4.75|0.55|0.013
90938302|NCT00043186|181756402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.43|||<|0.001||95.0|10.19|14.68|||ANCOVA|||||14.68|10.19|<0.001
90938303|NCT00043186|181756402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.84|||<|0.001||95.0|8.74|12.94|||ANCOVA|||||12.94|8.74|<0.001
90938304|NCT00043186|181756402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.79|||<|0.001||95.0|7.69|11.89|||ANCOVA|||||11.89|7.69|<0.001
90938305|NCT00043186|181756402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.74|||<|0.001||95.0|1.37|6.12|||ANCOVA|||||6.12|1.37|<0.001
90938306|NCT00043186|181756402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.97|||<|0.001||95.0|8.63|13.32|||ANCOVA|||||13.32|8.63|<0.001
90938307|NCT00043186|181756402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.37|||<|0.001||95.0|8.16|12.59|||ANCOVA|||||12.59|8.16|<0.001
90938308|NCT00043186|181756403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.42||||0.02||95.0|0.89|9.95|||ANCOVA|||||9.95|0.89|0.02
90938309|NCT00043186|181756403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.992||95.0|-5.07|5.02|||ANCOVA|||||5.02|-5.07|0.992
90938310|NCT00043186|181756403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.9||||0.004||95.0|3.72|14.09|||ANCOVA|||||14.09|3.72|0.004
90938311|NCT00043186|181756403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.5||||0.001||95.0|4.15|12.86|||ANCOVA|||||12.86|4.15|0.001
90938312|NCT00043186|181756403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.37||||0.001||95.0|4.11|12.63|||ANCOVA|||||12.63|4.11|0.001
90938313|NCT00043186|181756403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.98||||0.292||95.0|-1.42|9.37|||ANCOVA|||||9.37|-1.42|0.292
90938314|NCT00043186|181756403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.95||||0.004||95.0|3.94|13.96|||ANCOVA|||||13.96|3.94|0.004
90938315|NCT00043186|181756403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.12||||0.094||95.0|0.57|11.67|||ANCOVA|||||11.67|0.57|0.094
90938316|NCT00043186|181756404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.93|||<|0.001||95.0|3.97|9.89|||ANCOVA|||||9.89|3.97|<0.001
90938317|NCT00043186|181756404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.89|||<|0.001||95.0|1.92|7.85|||ANCOVA|||||7.85|1.92|<0.001
90938318|NCT00043186|181756404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.15|||<|0.001||95.0|11.08|17.21|||ANCOVA|||||17.21|11.08|<0.001
90938319|NCT00043186|181756404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.73|||<|0.001||95.0|9.94|15.52|||ANCOVA|||||15.52|9.94|<0.001
90938320|NCT00043186|181756404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.49|||<|0.001||95.0|9.66|15.32|||ANCOVA|||||15.32|9.66|<0.001
90938321|NCT00043186|181756404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.42|||<|0.001||95.0|8.12|14.73|||ANCOVA|||||14.73|8.12|<0.001
90938322|NCT00043186|181756404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.32|||<|0.001||95.0|9.15|15.49|||ANCOVA|||||15.49|9.15|<0.001
90938323|NCT00043186|181756404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.74|||<|0.001||95.0|8.72|14.76|||ANCOVA|||||14.76|8.72|<0.001
90938324|NCT00043186|181756405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90938325|NCT00043186|181756405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90938326|NCT00043186|181756405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90938327|NCT00043186|181756405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90938328|NCT00043186|181756405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.622|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.622
90938329|NCT00043186|181756405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90938330|NCT00043186|181756405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90938331|NCT00043186|181756405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90938332|NCT00043186|181756406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.011
90938333|NCT00043186|181756406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90938334|NCT00043186|181756406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.026
90938335|NCT00043186|181756406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.003
90938336|NCT00043186|181756406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90938337|NCT00043186|181756406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90938338|NCT00043186|181756406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90938339|NCT00043186|181756406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90938340|NCT00043186|181756407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90938341|NCT00043186|181756407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.012
90938342|NCT00043186|181756407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.012
90938343|NCT00043186|181756407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
90938344|NCT00043186|181756407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.012
90938345|NCT00043186|181756407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.012
90938346|NCT00043186|181756407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.004
90938347|NCT00043186|181756407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90938348|NCT00043186|181756408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.015
90938349|NCT00043186|181756408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.050
90938350|NCT00043186|181756408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.029
90938351|NCT00043186|181756408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
90938352|NCT00043186|181756408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.032|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.032
90938353|NCT00043186|181756408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.050
90938354|NCT00043186|181756408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.050
90938355|NCT00043186|181756408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.073|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.073
90938356|NCT00043186|181756409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90938357|NCT00043186|181756409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90938358|NCT00043186|181756409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
90938359|NCT00043186|181756409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90938360|NCT00043186|181756409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.409|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.409
90938361|NCT00043186|181756409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90938362|NCT00043186|181756409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
90938363|NCT00043186|181756409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.003
90938364|NCT00043186|181756410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.011
90938365|NCT00043186|181756410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90938366|NCT00043186|181756410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.077|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.077
90938367|NCT00043186|181756410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
90938368|NCT00043186|181756410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90938369|NCT00043186|181756410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
90938370|NCT00043186|181756410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
90938371|NCT00043186|181756410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.005
90938372|NCT00043186|181756411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.053|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.053
90938373|NCT00043186|181756411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.053|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.053
90938374|NCT00043186|181756411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.022
90938375|NCT00043186|181756411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.032|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.032
90938376|NCT00043186|181756411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.053|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.053
90938377|NCT00043186|181756411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.053|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.053
90938378|NCT00043186|181756411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.020
90938379|NCT00043186|181756411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.053|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.053
90938380|NCT00043186|181756412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.010
90938381|NCT00043186|181756412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.172|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.172
90938382|NCT00043186|181756412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.029
90938383|NCT00043186|181756412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.047
90938384|NCT00043186|181756412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.015
90970125|NCT00930761|181822268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.21||||0.13||95.0|0.73|5.66|||Chi-squared|||||5.66|0.73|0.13
90938385|NCT00043186|181756412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.168|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.168
90938386|NCT00043186|181756412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.168|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.168
90938387|NCT00043186|181756412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.172|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.172
91035635|NCT00840411|181957281|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using PROC GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Ratio of Least Squares Means|86.5||||||90.0|80.1|93.4|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||93.4|80.1|
91035636|NCT00840411|181957282|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using PROC GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Ratio of Least Squares Means|87.2||||||90.0|81.0|93.8|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||93.8|81.0|
90938388|NCT00043186|181756413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.67|||<|0.001||95.0|1.7|3.64|||ANCOVA|||||3.64|1.70|<0.001
90938389|NCT00043186|181756413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.9|||<|0.001||95.0|1.9|3.89|||ANCOVA|||||3.89|1.90|<0.001
90938390|NCT00043186|181756413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.09|||<|0.001||95.0|2.07|4.11|||ANCOVA|||||4.11|2.07|<0.001
90938391|NCT00043186|181756413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.12|||<|0.001||95.0|3.13|5.11|||ANCOVA|||||5.11|3.13|<0.001
90938392|NCT00043186|181756413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5|||<|0.001||95.0|1.55|3.46|||ANCOVA|||||3.46|1.55|<0.001
90938393|NCT00043186|181756413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.89|||<|0.001||95.0|2.83|4.95|||ANCOVA|||||4.95|2.83|<0.001
90938394|NCT00043186|181756413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.01|||<|0.001||95.0|1.99|4.04|||ANCOVA|||||4.04|1.99|<0.001
90938395|NCT00043186|181756413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.46|||<|0.001||95.0|2.43|4.48|||ANCOVA|||||4.48|2.43|<0.001
90938396|NCT00043186|181756414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.19|||<|0.001||95.0|4.04|6.34|||ANCOVA|||||6.34|4.04|<0.001
90938397|NCT00043186|181756414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.1|||<|0.001||95.0|4.93|7.27|||ANCOVA|||||7.27|4.93|<0.001
90938398|NCT00043186|181756414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.59|||<|0.001||95.0|4.4|6.78|||ANCOVA|||||6.78|4.40|<0.001
90938399|NCT00043186|181756414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.89|||<|0.001||95.0|5.76|8.01|||ANCOVA|||||8.01|5.76|<0.001
90971330|NCT00439946|181825395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5||95.0||||p-value for TSQM Side-Effects Score|Wilcoxon signed rank|||Changes in mean TSQM and CAMPHOR scores between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test, comparing the values at Baseline to values at Week 8. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values.||||0.50
91035637|NCT00119015|181957332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8
91035638|NCT00119015|181957333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.70
91035639|NCT00119015|181957334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.86
91035640|NCT00119015|181957335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.48
90938400|NCT00043186|181756414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.54|||<|0.001||95.0|3.41|5.67|||ANCOVA|||||5.67|3.41|<0.001
90938401|NCT00043186|181756414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.95|||<|0.001||95.0|5.69|8.21|||ANCOVA|||||8.21|5.69|<0.001
90938402|NCT00043186|181756414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.48|||<|0.001||95.0|4.29|6.67|||ANCOVA|||||6.67|4.29|<0.001
90938403|NCT00043186|181756414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.97|||<|0.001||95.0|4.76|7.17|||ANCOVA|||||7.17|4.76|<0.001
90938404|NCT00043186|181756415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.78|||<|0.001||95.0|2.19|5.36|||ANCOVA|||||5.36|2.19|<0.001
90938405|NCT00043186|181756415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.41||||0.07||95.0|-0.12|2.94|||ANCOVA|||||2.94|-0.12|0.07
90938406|NCT00043186|181756415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.17|||<|0.001||95.0|5.54|8.8|||ANCOVA|||||8.80|5.54|<0.001
90938407|NCT00043186|181756415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.67|||<|0.001||95.0|7.13|10.21|||ANCOVA|||||10.21|7.13|<0.001
90938408|NCT00043186|181756415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.15|||<|0.001||95.0|5.62|8.69|||ANCOVA|||||8.69|5.62|<0.001
90938409|NCT00043186|181756415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.61||||0.07||95.0|-0.12|3.35|||ANCOVA|||||3.35|-0.12|0.07
90938410|NCT00043186|181756415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.26|||<|0.001||95.0|5.56|8.95|||ANCOVA|||||8.95|5.56|<0.001
90938411|NCT00043186|181756415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.63|||<|0.001||95.0|6.02|9.24|||ANCOVA|||||9.24|6.02|<0.001
90938412|NCT00043186|181756416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.94||||0.002||95.0|1.86|8.02|||ANCOVA|||||8.02|1.86|0.002
90938413|NCT00043186|181756416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71||||0.677||95.0|-4.1|2.68|||ANCOVA|||||2.68|-4.10|0.677
90938414|NCT00043186|181756416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.66||||0.001||95.0|3.14|10.18|||ANCOVA|||||10.18|3.14|0.001
90938415|NCT00043186|181756416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.29|||<|0.001||95.0|5.26|11.33|||ANCOVA|||||11.33|5.26|<0.001
90938416|NCT00043186|181756416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.5|||<|0.001||95.0|3.59|9.41|||ANCOVA|||||9.41|3.59|<0.001
90938417|NCT00043186|181756416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.33||||0.047||95.0|0.61|8.05|||ANCOVA|||||8.05|0.61|0.047
90938418|NCT00043186|181756416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.94||||0.003||95.0|2.53|9.36|||ANCOVA|||||9.36|2.53|0.003
90938419|NCT00043186|181756416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.97||||0.001||95.0|3.28|10.66|||ANCOVA|||||10.66|3.28|0.001
90938420|NCT00043186|181756417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.69|||<|0.001||95.0|2.97|6.41|||ANCOVA|||||6.41|2.97|<0.001
90938421|NCT00043186|181756417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.16||||0.015||95.0|0.43|3.89|||ANCOVA|||||3.89|0.43|0.015
90938422|NCT00043186|181756417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.52|||<|0.001||95.0|6.74|10.3|||ANCOVA|||||10.30|6.74|<0.001
90938423|NCT00043186|181756417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.58|||<|0.001||95.0|7.95|11.21|||ANCOVA|||||11.21|7.95|<0.001
90938424|NCT00043186|181756417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.34|||<|0.001||95.0|6.7|9.99|||ANCOVA|||||9.99|6.70|<0.001
90938425|NCT00043186|181756417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.38|||<|0.001||95.0|5.45|9.31|||ANCOVA|||||9.31|5.45|<0.001
90938426|NCT00043186|181756417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.55|||<|0.001||95.0|5.72|9.38|||ANCOVA|||||9.38|5.72|<0.001
90938427|NCT00043186|181756417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.97|||<|0.001||95.0|7.23|10.72|||ANCOVA|||||10.72|7.23|<0.001
90938428|NCT00043186|181756418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.44||||0.033||95.0|0.11|2.76|||ANCOVA|||||2.76|0.11|0.033
90938429|NCT00043186|181756418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.06|||<|0.001||95.0|1.69|4.42|||ANCOVA|||||4.42|1.69|<0.001
90938430|NCT00043186|181756418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.04|||<|0.001||95.0|1.68|4.4|||ANCOVA|||||4.40|1.68|<0.001
90938431|NCT00043186|181756418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.26|||<|0.001||95.0|1.94|4.57|||ANCOVA|||||4.57|1.94|<0.001
90938432|NCT00043186|181756418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.91|||<|0.001||95.0|1.6|4.21|||ANCOVA|||||4.21|1.60|<0.001
90938433|NCT00043186|181756418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.07|||<|0.001||95.0|1.65|4.49|||ANCOVA|||||4.49|1.65|<0.001
90938434|NCT00043186|181756418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.37|||<|0.001||95.0|0.99|3.76|||ANCOVA|||||3.76|0.99|<0.001
90938435|NCT00043186|181756418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.86|||<|0.001||95.0|1.47|4.24|||ANCOVA|||||4.24|1.47|<0.001
90938436|NCT00043186|181756419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.99||||0.009||95.0|0.49|3.49|||ANCOVA|||||3.49|0.49|0.009
90938437|NCT00043186|181756419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.58|||<|0.001||95.0|2.06|5.1|||ANCOVA|||||5.10|2.06|<0.001
90938438|NCT00043186|181756419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.26|||<|0.001||95.0|2.73|5.78|||ANCOVA|||||5.78|2.73|<0.001
90938439|NCT00043186|181756419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.09|||<|0.001||95.0|2.55|5.62|||ANCOVA|||||5.62|2.55|<0.001
90938440|NCT00043186|181756419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.67|||<|0.001||95.0|3.23|6.11|||ANCOVA|||||6.11|3.23|<0.001
90938441|NCT00043186|181756419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.26|||<|0.001||95.0|3.78|6.73|||ANCOVA|||||6.73|3.78|<0.001
90938442|NCT00043186|181756419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.08|||<|0.001||95.0|2.48|5.68|||ANCOVA|||||5.68|2.48|<0.001
90938443|NCT00043186|181756419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.39|||<|0.001||95.0|1.86|4.93|||ANCOVA|||||4.93|1.86|<0.001
90938444|NCT00043186|181756420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.69||||0.002||95.0|1.01|4.38|||ANCOVA|||||4.38|1.01|0.002
90938445|NCT00043186|181756420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.77|||<|0.001||95.0|2.14|5.39|||ANCOVA|||||5.39|2.14|<0.001
90938446|NCT00043186|181756420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.56|||<|0.001||95.0|3.87|7.26|||ANCOVA|||||7.26|3.87|<0.001
90938447|NCT00043186|181756420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.33|||<|0.001||95.0|4.75|7.92|||ANCOVA|||||7.92|4.75|<0.001
90938448|NCT00043186|181756420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.73|||<|0.001||95.0|4.12|7.33|||ANCOVA|||||7.33|4.12|<0.001
90938449|NCT00043186|181756420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.7|||<|0.001||95.0|2.89|6.5|||ANCOVA|||||6.50|2.89|<0.001
91035641|NCT00119015|181957336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.99
90938450|NCT00043186|181756420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.7|||<|0.001||95.0|2.92|6.49|||ANCOVA|||||6.49|2.92|<0.001
90938451|NCT00043186|181756420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.63|||<|0.001||95.0|3.96|7.3|||ANCOVA|||||7.30|3.96|<0.001
90938452|NCT00043186|181756421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.27||||0.496||95.0|-7.16|13.7|||ANCOVA|||||13.7|-7.16|0.496
90938453|NCT00043186|181756421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.6||||0.527||95.0|-6.38|19.59|||ANCOVA|||||19.59|-6.38|0.527
90938454|NCT00043186|181756421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.72||||0.503||95.0|-2.9|14.33|||ANCOVA|||||14.33|-2.90|0.503
90938455|NCT00043186|181756421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.68||||0.527||95.0|-6.54|11.89|||ANCOVA|||||11.89|-6.54|0.527
90938456|NCT00043186|181756421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.41||||0.503||95.0|-2.19|17.01|||ANCOVA|||||17.01|-2.19|0.503
90938457|NCT00043186|181756421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.59||||0.503||95.0|-1.85|17.03|||ANCOVA|||||17.03|-1.85|0.503
90938458|NCT00043186|181756421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.18||||0.503||95.0|-2.45|16.81|||ANCOVA|||||16.81|-2.45|0.503
90938459|NCT00043186|181756421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.88||||0.233||95.0|0.78|14.97|||ANCOVA|||||14.97|0.78|0.233
90938460|NCT00043186|181756422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.41|||<|0.001||95.0|4.48|8.34|||ANCOVA|||||8.34|4.48|<0.001
90938461|NCT00043186|181756422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.44|||<|0.001||95.0|4.19|8.7|||ANCOVA|||||8.70|4.19|<0.001
90938462|NCT00043186|181756422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.09|||<|0.001||95.0|3.91|8.26|||ANCOVA|||||8.26|3.91|<0.001
90938463|NCT00043186|181756422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.72|||<|0.001||95.0|3.7|7.73|||ANCOVA|||||7.73|3.70|<0.001
90938464|NCT00043186|181756422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.054||95.0|-0.04|4.04|||ANCOVA|||||4.04|-0.04|0.054
90938465|NCT00043186|181756422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.74|||<|0.001||95.0|1.71|5.77|||ANCOVA|||||5.77|1.71|<0.001
90938466|NCT00043186|181756422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.05|||<|0.001||95.0|4.0|8.1|||ANCOVA|||||8.10|4.00|<0.001
90938467|NCT00043186|181756422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.39|||<|0.001||95.0|4.49|8.28|||ANCOVA|||||8.28|4.49|<0.001
90938468|NCT00043186|181756423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3||||0.001||95.0|1.09|3.51|||ANCOVA|||||3.51|1.09|0.001
90938469|NCT00043186|181756423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.73||||0.005||95.0|0.52|2.93|||ANCOVA|||||2.93|0.52|0.005
90938470|NCT00043186|181756423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.004||95.0|0.74|3.25|||ANCOVA|||||3.25|0.74|0.004
90938471|NCT00043186|181756423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.72|||<|0.001||95.0|1.54|3.91|||ANCOVA|||||3.91|1.54|<0.001
90938472|NCT00043186|181756423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.77||||0.202||95.0|-0.41|1.95|||ANCOVA|||||1.95|-0.41|0.202
90938473|NCT00043186|181756423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.95|||<|0.001||95.0|1.65|4.26|||ANCOVA|||||4.26|1.65|<0.001
90938474|NCT00043186|181756423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.02||||0.004||95.0|0.78|3.26|||ANCOVA|||||3.26|0.78|0.004
91035642|NCT00787254|181957345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.251|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.4499|||Log Rank|||||0.4499|0.1400|<0.0001
91035643|NCT00787254|181957346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0002
91035644|NCT00787254|181957347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0041||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0041
91035645|NCT00787254|181957348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0652||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0652
90938475|NCT00043186|181756423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.03||||0.004||95.0|0.8|3.27|||ANCOVA|||||3.27|0.80|0.004
90938476|NCT00043186|181756424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.14|||<|0.001||95.0|1.71|4.56|||ANCOVA|||||4.56|1.71|<0.001
90938477|NCT00043186|181756424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.4|||<|0.001||95.0|2.95|5.84|||ANCOVA|||||5.84|2.95|<0.001
90938478|NCT00043186|181756424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.64|||<|0.001||95.0|3.19|6.09|||ANCOVA|||||6.09|3.19|<0.001
90938479|NCT00043186|181756424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.22|||<|0.001||95.0|2.85|5.58|||ANCOVA|||||5.58|2.85|<0.001
90938480|NCT00043186|181756424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.53|||<|0.001||95.0|1.13|3.94|||ANCOVA|||||3.94|1.13|<0.001
90938481|NCT00043186|181756424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.09|||<|0.001||95.0|4.53|7.64|||ANCOVA|||||7.64|4.53|<0.001
90938482|NCT00043186|181756424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.55|||<|0.001||95.0|3.12|5.98|||ANCOVA|||||5.98|3.12|<0.001
90938483|NCT00043186|181756424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.23|||<|0.001||95.0|2.76|5.69|||ANCOVA|||||5.69|2.76|<0.001
90938484|NCT00043186|181756425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.16|||<|0.001||95.0|3.63|8.68|||ANCOVA|||||8.68|3.63|<0.001
90938485|NCT00043186|181756425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.32||||0.275||95.0|-1.06|3.7|||ANCOVA|||||3.7|-1.06|0.275
90938486|NCT00043186|181756425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.2||||0.005||95.0|1.65|6.75|||ANCOVA|||||6.75|1.65|0.005
90938487|NCT00043186|181756425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.41||||0.002||95.0|2.07|6.75|||ANCOVA|||||6.75|2.07|0.002
90938488|NCT00043186|181756425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.65||||0.009||95.0|1.25|6.05|||ANCOVA|||||6.05|1.25|0.009
90938489|NCT00043186|181756425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.95||||0.009||95.0|1.22|6.68|||ANCOVA|||||6.68|1.22|0.009
90938490|NCT00043186|181756425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.65||||0.003||95.0|2.05|7.24|||ANCOVA|||||7.24|2.05|0.003
90938491|NCT00043186|181756425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.75||||0.001||95.0|2.28|7.22|||ANCOVA|||||7.22|2.28|0.001
90938492|NCT00043186|181756426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.18||||0.949||95.0|-8.73|13.1|||ANCOVA|||||13.10|-8.73|0.949
90938493|NCT00043186|181756426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.3||||0.949||95.0|-2.7|9.31|||ANCOVA|||||9.31|-2.70|0.949
90938494|NCT00043186|181756426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.24||||0.709||95.0|-6.81|9.29|||ANCOVA|||||9.29|-6.81|0.709
90938495|NCT00043186|181756426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.36||||0.949||95.0|-8.55|3.83|||ANCOVA|||||3.83|-8.55|0.949
90938496|NCT00043186|181756426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1||||0.949||95.0|-4.51|8.72|||ANCOVA|||||8.72|-4.51|0.949
90938497|NCT00043186|181756426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.23||||0.484||95.0|-0.83|15.3|||ANCOVA|||||15.3|-0.83|0.484
90938498|NCT00043186|181756426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.44||||0.949||95.0|-3.77|8.66|||ANCOVA|||||8.66|-3.77|0.949
90938499|NCT00043186|181756426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29||||0.949||95.0|-10.82|11.4|||ANCOVA|||||11.40|-10.82|0.949
90938500|NCT00043186|181756427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.02|||<|0.001||95.0|4.35|9.69|||ANCOVA|||||9.69|4.35|<0.001
90938501|NCT00043186|181756427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.25||||0.092||95.0|-0.37|4.87|||ANCOVA|||||4.87|-0.37|0.092
90938502|NCT00043186|181756427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.22|||<|0.001||95.0|3.5|8.94|||ANCOVA|||||8.94|3.50|<0.001
90938503|NCT00043186|181756427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.97|||<|0.001||95.0|3.51|8.43|||ANCOVA|||||8.43|3.51|<0.001
90938504|NCT00043186|181756427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.96|||<|0.001||95.0|3.44|8.48|||ANCOVA|||||8.48|3.44|<0.001
90938505|NCT00043186|181756427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.29|||<|0.001||95.0|3.25|9.34|||ANCOVA|||||9.34|3.25|<0.001
90938506|NCT00043186|181756427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.91|||<|0.001||95.0|3.13|8.7|||ANCOVA|||||8.70|3.13|<0.001
90938507|NCT00043186|181756427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.22|||<|0.001||95.0|3.58|8.87|||ANCOVA|||||8.87|3.58|<0.001
90938508|NCT00043186|181756428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90938509|NCT00043186|181756428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90938510|NCT00043186|181756428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90938511|NCT00043186|181756428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90938512|NCT00043186|181756428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90938513|NCT00043186|181756428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90938514|NCT00043186|181756428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90938515|NCT00043186|181756428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90938516|NCT00043186|181756429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90938517|NCT00043186|181756429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90938518|NCT00043186|181756429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90938519|NCT00043186|181756429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90938520|NCT00043186|181756429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
90938521|NCT00043186|181756429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90938522|NCT00043186|181756429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90938523|NCT00043186|181756429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90938524|NCT00043186|181756430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.049
91035646|NCT00787254|181957349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9836||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.9836
91035647|NCT00787254|181957351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0001
91035648|NCT00787254|181957352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0161||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0161
91035649|NCT00787254|181957353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0068||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0068
91035650|NCT00787254|181957354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2363||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2363
91035651|NCT00787254|181957356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
91035652|NCT00787254|181957357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4788||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4788
90938525|NCT00043186|181756430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.008
90938526|NCT00043186|181756430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90938527|NCT00043186|181756430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90938528|NCT00043186|181756430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90938529|NCT00043186|181756430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.146|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.146
90938530|NCT00043186|181756430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
90938531|NCT00043186|181756430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90938532|NCT00043186|181756431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.061|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.061
90938533|NCT00043186|181756431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.058|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.058
90938534|NCT00043186|181756431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
90938535|NCT00043186|181756431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90938536|NCT00043186|181756431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90938537|NCT00043186|181756431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.003
90938538|NCT00043186|181756431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.003
90938539|NCT00043186|181756431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
90938540|NCT00043186|181756432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.142|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.142
90938541|NCT00043186|181756432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.218|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.218
90938542|NCT00043186|181756432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.003
91035653|NCT00787254|181957358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6607||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6607
91035654|NCT00787254|181957359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8811||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8811
91035655|NCT00787254|181957360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.0000
91035656|NCT00787254|181957362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.206||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2060
91035657|NCT00787254|181957363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5099||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5099
91035658|NCT00787254|181957364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7794||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7794
91035659|NCT00787254|181957365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.0000
91035660|NCT00787254|181957367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.698||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6980
91035661|NCT00787254|181957368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4599||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4599
91035662|NCT00787254|181957369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0355||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0355
91035663|NCT00787254|181957370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7325||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7325
91035664|NCT00787254|181957372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8262||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8262
91035665|NCT00787254|181957373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7244||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7244
91035666|NCT00787254|181957374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9566||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.9566
91035667|NCT00787254|181957375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2008||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2008
91035668|NCT00787254|181957377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0703||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0703
91035669|NCT00787254|181957378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3046||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3046
91035670|NCT00787254|181957379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7121||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7121
91035671|NCT00787254|181957380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1522||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1522
91035672|NCT00787254|181957382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5328||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5328
91035673|NCT00787254|181957383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7223||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7223
91035674|NCT00787254|181957384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3117||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3117
91035675|NCT00787254|181957385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4344||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4344
91035676|NCT00787254|181957387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1571||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1571
91035677|NCT00787254|181957388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2503||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2503
91035678|NCT00787254|181957389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4028||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4028
91035679|NCT00787254|181957390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.0000
91035680|NCT04523168|181957607|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0137|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline, 120 days||||0.0137
90938543|NCT00043186|181756432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.010
90938544|NCT00043186|181756432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90938545|NCT00043186|181756432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.010
90938546|NCT00043186|181756432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.020
90938547|NCT00043186|181756432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.020
90938548|NCT03619889|181756433|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90938549|NCT03619889|181756433|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90938550|NCT03619889|181756440|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90938551|NCT03619889|181756440|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90938552|NCT05012280|181756460|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.221||||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.953|1.564||only one primary endpoint, p value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori treshold or statistical significance: p=0.05|Regression, Logistic|conditional logistic regression for matched case control||||1.564|0.953|0.1150
90938553|NCT05012280|181756460|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.221||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.953|1.564|||Regression, Logistic|conditional logistic regression for matched case control study.||||1.564|0.953|0.12
90938554|NCT02469077|181756521|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to change after 6 week intervention period||||0.12
90938555|NCT02469077|181756522|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to change after 6 week intervention period||||.04
90938556|NCT02469077|181756523|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to change after 6 week intervention period||||.03
90938557|NCT02469077|181756524|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to change after 6 week intervention period||||0.17
90938558|NCT02469077|181756525|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to change after 6 week intervention period||||0.13
90938559|NCT02469077|181756526|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to change after 6 week intervention period||||.98
90938560|NCT02469077|181756527|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to change after 6 week intervention period||||0.52
90938561|NCT02469077|181756528|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to change after 6 week intervention period||||0.65
90938562|NCT02469077|181756529|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to change after 6 week intervention period||||0.1
90938563|NCT02469077|181756530|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046|||||||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to change after 6 week intervention period||||.046
90938564|NCT02469077|181756531|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to change after 6 week intervention period||||0.61
90938565|NCT02469077|181756532|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to change after 6 week intervention period||||0.4
90938566|NCT02469077|181756533|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to change after 6 week intervention period||||0.57
90938567|NCT03334747|181756539|OTHER|||||||0.391|||||||Fisher Exact|2-sided p-value results from Fisher exact test for each KAE609 treatment group compared to Pooled Coartem||||||0.391
91035681|NCT04523168|181957609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
91035682|NCT00804856|181957626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.91||||0.0523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|8.58|||Regression, Logistic||Ratio calculated as Phase II Schedule A Volasertib 350mg+LDAC divided by Phase II Schedule C LDAC.|Analysis for Objective Response||8.58|0.99|0.0523
91035683|NCT00804856|181957630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57||||0.0208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.92|||Log Rank||Ratio calculated as Phase II Schedule A Volasertib 350mg+LDAC divided by Phase II Schedule C LDAC.|An exploratory (non-stratified) logrank test was used to compare the different treatment arms.||0.92|0.35|0.0208
91035684|NCT00804856|181957631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63||||0.0465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.0|||Log Rank||Ratio calculated as Phase II Schedule A Volasertib 350mg+LDAC divided by Phase II Schedule C LDAC.|An exploratory (non-stratified) logrank test was used to compare the different treatment arms.||1.00|0.40|0.0465
91035685|NCT00761813|181957661|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.09||||||||1.09|.63|
91035686|NCT00761813|181957662|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.05
91035687|NCT03049748|181957663|OTHER|This is a pilot randomized trial with a purpose of establishing preliminary efficacy data to inform future studies.|||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91035688|NCT03049748|181957664|OTHER|Same rationale as the primary outcome.|||||>|0.05||||||All p-values across time periods, between groups, were \> .05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>.05
91035689|NCT03049748|181957665|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||All p values between groups across time periods were \> .05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>.05
91035690|NCT03049748|181957666|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||All p-values between groups across time periods were \>.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>.05
91035691|NCT03049748|181957667|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||All p-values between group differences across time periods were \> .05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>.05
91035692|NCT03049748|181957668|OTHER|||||||0.05||||||Differences in group hospitalization rates p-values: T1 = .093; T2 = .008; T3 = .029|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
90938568|NCT03334747|181756539|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|2-sided p-value results from Fisher exact test for each KAE609 treatment group compared to Pooled Coartem||||||1
90938569|NCT03334747|181756539|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|2-sided p-value results from Fisher exact test for each KAE609 treatment group compared to Pooled Coartem||||||1
90938570|NCT03334747|181756539|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|2-sided p-value results from Fisher exact test for each KAE609 treatment group compared to Pooled Coartem||||||1
90938571|NCT03334747|181756539|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|2-sided p-value results from Fisher exact test for each KAE609 treatment group compared to Pooled Coartem||||||1
90938572|NCT03334747|181756539|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|2-sided p-value results from Fisher exact test for each KAE609 treatment group compared to Pooled Coartem||||||1
90938573|NCT03334747|181756539|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|2-sided p-value results from Fisher exact test for each KAE609 treatment group compared to Pooled Coartem||||||1
90938574|NCT03334747|181756539|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|2-sided p-value results from Fisher exact test for each KAE609 treatment group compared to Pooled Coartem||||||1
90938575|NCT03303521|181756553|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|68.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.85|2810.85|||Fisher Exact|||||2810.85|10.85|<0.001
90938576|NCT03303521|181756555|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|35.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.53|309.48|||Fisher Exact|||||309.48|8.53|<0.001
90938577|NCT04086576|181756574|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Yes, used Tukey Kramer pairwise comparisons to adjust for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|ANOVA in repeated measures||Each breathalyzer is compared to the percentage of alcohol in the blood during the time of blood draw (90 minutes).||||<.0001
91035693|NCT03437265|181957685|OTHER||||||||||||||||||PK parameters were estimated for each subject by non-compartmental analysis methods using Phoenix® WinNonlin® software (v8.0, Certara USA, Inc., USA). Summary statistics (n, mean, SD, CV%, median, minimum, maximum, geometric n, geometric mean (geometric SD) and geometric CV%) were presented.|||
90938578|NCT04748445|181756576|OTHER||Slope|0.065|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.046|0.083|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Chills||0.083|0.046|<.0001
90938579|NCT04748445|181756576|OTHER||Slope|0.281|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.221|0.341|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cough||0.341|0.221|<.0001
90938580|NCT04748445|181756576|OTHER||Slope|0.036|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.023|0.048|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Diarrhea||0.048|0.023|<.0001
90938581|NCT04748445|181756576|OTHER||Slope|0.113|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.069|0.156|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difficulty breathing||0.156|0.069|<.0001
90938582|NCT04748445|181756576|OTHER||Slope|0.259|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.206|0.312|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Fatigue||0.312|0.206|<.0001
91035694|NCT03437265|181957686|OTHER||||||||||||||||||PK parameters were estimated for each subject by non-compartmental analysis methods using Phoenix® WinNonlin® software (v8.0, Certara USA, Inc., USA). Summary statistics (n, mean, SD, CV%, median, minimum, maximum, geometric n, geometric mean (geometric SD) and geometric CV%) were presented.|||
90938583|NCT04748445|181756576|OTHER||Slope|0.029|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.02|0.037|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Fever||0.037|0.020|<.0001
90938584|NCT04748445|181756576|OTHER||Slope|0.194|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.148|0.241|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Headache||0.241|0.148|<.0001
90938585|NCT04748445|181756576|OTHER||Slope|0.103||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.059|0.148|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Loss of taste or smell||0.148|0.059|0.0002
90938586|NCT04748445|181756576|OTHER||Slope|0.181|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.137|0.226|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Muscle pain||0.226|0.137|<.0001
90938587|NCT04748445|181756576|OTHER||Slope|0.044|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.028|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Nausea||0.060|0.028|<.0001
90938588|NCT04748445|181756576|OTHER||Slope|0.03||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.016|0.044|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Rigors||0.044|0.016|0.0007
90938589|NCT04748445|181756576|OTHER||Slope|0.159|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.123|0.195|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Runny nose||0.195|0.123|<.0001
90938590|NCT04748445|181756576|OTHER||Slope|0.222|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.168|0.277|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sore throat||0.277|0.168|<.0001
90938591|NCT04748445|181756576|OTHER||Slope|0.337|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.264|0.411|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Stuffy/blocked nose||0.411|0.264|<.0001
90938592|NCT04748445|181756576|OTHER||Slope|0.005||||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.002|0.007|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Vomiting||0.007|0.002|0.0053
90938593|NCT04748445|181756576|OTHER||Slope|0.049||||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.02|0.078|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Wheezing||0.078|0.020|0.0057
90938594|NCT04748445|181756576|OTHER||Slope|2.644|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.101|3.188|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mean of daily total symptom score||3.188|2.101|<.0001
90938595|NCT04748445|181756577|OTHER||Slope|-1.519|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.769|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.978|-1.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AHH\_Max Phonation Time (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit and estimated value it was 10\^-1. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||-1.060|-1.978|<.0001
90938596|NCT04748445|181756577|OTHER||Slope|6.899|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_Jitter Local Absolute (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For estimated value it was 10\^-8).||||<.0001
90938597|NCT04748445|181756577|OTHER||Slope|-1.743|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_Jitter Local Absolute (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For estimated value it was 10\^-7).||||<.0001
90938598|NCT04748445|181756578|OTHER||Slope|-1.326|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.174||0.9103|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.079|1.814|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_Cepstral Peak Prominence (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit and dispersion value it was 10\^-2. For estimated value it was 10\^-3).||1.814|-2.079|0.9103
90938599|NCT04748445|181756578|OTHER||Slope|0.007667|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.741||0.6605|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.02119|0.03653|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_Harmonicity (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||0.03653|-0.02119|0.6605
91035695|NCT03437265|181957687|OTHER||||||||||||||||||PK parameters were estimated for each subject by non-compartmental analysis methods using Phoenix® WinNonlin® software (v8.0, Certara USA, Inc., USA). Summary statistics (n, mean, SD, CV%, median, minimum, maximum, geometric n, geometric mean (geometric SD) and geometric CV%) were presented.|||
91035924|NCT03261167|181958552|OTHER||Adjusted rate difference|-8.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.0|5.9|||||Week 4, Wrist flexion. Analysis was based on the Mantel-Haenszel method using Baseline MAS score of the elbow flexors.|||5.9|-23.0|
90938600|NCT04748445|181756578|OTHER||Slope|1.268|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.82|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8012|1.736|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC mean 01 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-1).||1.736|0.8012|<.0001
90938601|NCT04748445|181756578|OTHER||Slope|-1.752|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.127||0.4117|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.276|1.773|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC mean 02 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-1).||1.773|-5.276|0.4117
90938602|NCT04748445|181756578|OTHER||Slope|1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.262||0.2728|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.012|3.482|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC mean 03 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-1. For lower limit it was 10\^-2).||3.482|-7.012|0.2728
90938603|NCT04748445|181756578|OTHER||Slope|-1.407|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.194||0.2411|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.385|5.724|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC mean 04 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For lower limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-1. For upper limit it was 10\^-2).||5.724|-3.385|0.2411
90938604|NCT04748445|181756578|OTHER||Slope|-0.004466|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.869||0.9599|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1514|0.1425|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC mean 05 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||0.1425|-0.1514|0.9599
90938605|NCT04748445|181756578|OTHER||Slope|-0.1572|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.127||0.0875|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3084|-0.005942|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC mean 06 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||-0.005942|-0.3084|0.0875
90938606|NCT04748445|181756578|OTHER||Slope|1.248|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.598||0.1029|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.072|2.507|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC mean 07 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit and estimated value it was 10\^-1. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2 and for lower limit it was 10\^-3).||2.507|-1.072|0.1029
90938607|NCT04748445|181756578|OTHER||Slope|-1.054|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.218||0.1468|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.25|1.423|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC mean 08 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For lower limit and estimated value it was 10\^-1. For upper limit and dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||1.423|-2.250|0.1468
90938608|NCT04748445|181756578|OTHER||Slope|0.05944|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.536||0.3649|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.04887|0.1678|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC mean 09 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||0.1678|-0.04887|0.3649
90938609|NCT04748445|181756578|OTHER||Slope|-0.03115|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.007||0.605|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1307|0.06839|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC mean 10 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||0.06839|-0.1307|0.6050
90938610|NCT04748445|181756578|OTHER||Slope|-0.01908|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.932||0.7483|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1174|0.07922|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC mean 11 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||0.07922|-0.1174|0.7483
91035696|NCT03437265|181957688|OTHER||||||||||||||||||PK parameters were estimated for each subject by non-compartmental analysis methods using Phoenix® WinNonlin® software (v8.0, Certara USA, Inc., USA). Summary statistics (n, mean, SD, CV%, median, minimum, maximum, geometric n, geometric mean (geometric SD) and geometric CV%) were presented.|||
90938611|NCT04748445|181756578|OTHER||Slope|-6.574|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.105||0.9897|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.526|8.394|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC mean 12 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit and dispersion value it was 10\^-2. For estimated value it was 10\^-4).||8.394|-8.526|0.9897
90938612|NCT04748445|181756578|OTHER||Slope|5.026|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.176||0.9228|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.074|9.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC mean 13 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit and dispersion value it was 10\^-2. For estimated value it was 10\^-3).||9.080|-8.074|0.9228
90938613|NCT04748445|181756578|OTHER||Slope|0.08365|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.873||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.03604|0.1313|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC std 01 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||0.1313|0.03604|0.0043
90938614|NCT04748445|181756578|OTHER||Slope|0.02906|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.181||0.0153|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.009486|0.04863|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC std 02 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||0.04863|0.009486|0.0153
90938615|NCT04748445|181756578|OTHER||Slope|3.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.447||0.0071|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.563|6.357|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC std 03 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||6.357|1.563|0.0071
90938616|NCT04748445|181756578|OTHER||Slope|2.816|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.026||0.007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.115|4.516|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC std 04 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||4.516|1.115|0.0070
90938617|NCT04748445|181756578|OTHER||Slope|0.007814|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.034||0.4513|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.009323|0.02495|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC std 05 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||0.02495|-0.009323|0.4513
90938618|NCT04748445|181756578|OTHER||Slope|1.151|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.443||0.1753|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.483|2.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC std 06 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit and estimated value it was 10\^-2. For lower limit and dispersion value it was 10\^-3).||2.550|-2.483|0.1753
90938619|NCT04748445|181756578|OTHER||Slope|2.528|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.228||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.164|3.891|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC std 07 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit and estimated value it was 10\^-2. For dispersion it was 10\^-3).||3.891|1.164|0.0026
90938620|NCT04748445|181756578|OTHER||Slope|0.01755|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.204||0.0162|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.005616|0.02949|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC std 08 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-3).||0.02949|0.005616|0.0162
90938621|NCT04748445|181756578|OTHER||Slope|2.673|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.892|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.697|3.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC std 09 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit and estimated value it was 10\^-2. For dispersion value it was 10\^-3).||3.650|1.697|<.0001
91035925|NCT03261167|181958552|OTHER||Adjusted rate difference|-12.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.5|3.2|||||Week 6, Wrist flexion. Analysis was based on the Mantel-Haenszel method using Baseline MAS score of the elbow flexors.|||3.2|-27.5|
90938622|NCT04748445|181756578|OTHER||Slope|0.01394|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.642||0.0148|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.004595|0.02329|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC std 10 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-3).||0.02329|0.004595|0.0148
90938623|NCT04748445|181756578|OTHER||Slope|0.01547|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.666||0.0219|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.004425|0.02652|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC std 11 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-3).||0.02652|0.004425|0.0219
91035926|NCT03261167|181958552|OTHER||Adjusted rate difference|-9.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.2|7.9|||||Week 12, Wrist flexion. Analysis was based on the Mantel-Haenszel method using Baseline MAS score of the elbow flexors.|||7.9|-27.2|
90938624|NCT04748445|181756578|OTHER||Slope|1.118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.122||0.0703|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.032|2.132|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC std 12 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit and estimated value it was 10\^-2. For lower limit and dispersion value it was 10\^-3).||2.132|1.032|0.0703
90938625|NCT04748445|181756578|OTHER||Slope|0.0116|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.226||0.0282|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.00294|0.02026|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC std 13 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-3).||0.02026|0.002940|0.0282
90938626|NCT04748445|181756578|OTHER||Slope|0.04771|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.351||0.157|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.007823|0.1032|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_SNR (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||0.1032|-0.007823|0.1570
90938627|NCT04748445|181756578|OTHER||Slope|0.0008053|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.807||0.4131|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0008199|0.002431|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_Shimmer Local dB (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||0.002431|-0.0008199|0.4131
91035927|NCT03261167|181958552|OTHER||Adjusted rate difference|-8.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.9|4.7|||||Week 2, Finger flexion. Analysis was based on the Mantel-Haenszel method using Baseline MAS score of the elbow flexors.|||4.7|-21.9|
90938628|NCT04748445|181756578|OTHER||Slope|-0.03945|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.892||0.0391|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0708|-0.008096|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_Spectral Flatness (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||-0.008096|-0.07080|0.0391
90938629|NCT04748445|181756578|OTHER||Slope|-0.07075|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.409||0.4018|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2101|0.0686|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_Third Octave Band (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||0.06860|-0.2101|0.4018
90938630|NCT04748445|181756578|OTHER||Slope|1.658|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.607||0.6466|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.319|7.635|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_VLHR (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||7.635|-4.319|0.6466
90938631|NCT04748445|181756578|OTHER||Slope|1.172|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.423||0.4118|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.186|3.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_Cepstral Peak Prominence (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||3.530|-1.186|0.4118
90938632|NCT04748445|181756578|OTHER||Slope|-1.282|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.965||0.9481|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.385|3.129|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_Harmonicity (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit and dispersion value it was 10\^-2. For estimated value it was 10\^-3).||3.129|-3.385|0.9481
90938633|NCT04748445|181756578|OTHER||Slope|0.9159|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.641||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4783|1.354|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC mean 01 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-1).||1.354|0.4783|0.0007
90938634|NCT04748445|181756578|OTHER||Slope|-2.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.894||0.2519|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.319|9.585|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC mean 02 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For lower limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-1. For upper limit it was 10\^-2).||9.585|-5.319|0.2519
90938635|NCT04748445|181756578|OTHER||Slope|1.821|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.028||0.0791|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.166|3.524|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC mean 03 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-1. For lower limit it was 10\^-2).||3.524|1.166|0.0791
90938636|NCT04748445|181756578|OTHER||Slope|-0.2064|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.474||0.0163|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3468|-0.06599|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC mean 04 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||-0.06599|-0.3468|0.0163
90938637|NCT04748445|181756578|OTHER||Slope|-1.265|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.67||0.1932|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.867|3.375|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC mean 05 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit and dispersion value it was 10\^-2. For lower limit and estimated value it was 10\^-1).||3.375|-2.867|0.1932
90938638|NCT04748445|181756578|OTHER||Slope|0.02851|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.96||0.7752|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1365|0.1936|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC mean 06 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||0.1936|-0.1365|0.7752
90938639|NCT04748445|181756578|OTHER||Slope|1.209|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.569||0.1126|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.48|2.464|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC mean 07 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit and estimated value it was 10\^-1. For lower limit it was 10\^-3. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||2.464|-4.480|0.1126
90938640|NCT04748445|181756578|OTHER||Slope|-0.2215|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.498||0.0102|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3624|-0.08072|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC mean 08 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||-0.08072|-0.3624|0.0102
90938641|NCT04748445|181756578|OTHER||Slope|0.0556|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.072||0.4332|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.06159|0.1728|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC mean 09 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||0.1728|-0.06159|0.4332
90938642|NCT04748445|181756578|OTHER||Slope|0.01214|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.19||0.8448|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.09044|0.1147|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC mean 10 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||0.1147|-0.09044|0.8448
90938643|NCT04748445|181756578|OTHER||Slope|-0.1106|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.852||0.0244|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.191|-0.03016|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC mean 11 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||-0.03016|-0.1910|0.0244
90938644|NCT04748445|181756578|OTHER||Slope|-0.04884|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.827||0.3136|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1288|0.03115|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC mean 12 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||0.03115|-0.1288|0.3136
90938645|NCT04748445|181756578|OTHER||Slope|0.036|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.634||0.524|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.05736|0.1294|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC mean 13 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||0.1294|-0.05736|0.5240
90938646|NCT04748445|181756578|OTHER||Slope|2.909|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.096||0.3493|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.222|8.039|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC std 01 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||8.039|-2.222|0.3493
90938647|NCT04748445|181756578|OTHER||Slope|1.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.595||0.5087|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.58|6.019|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC std 02 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||6.019|-2.580|0.5087
90938648|NCT04748445|181756578|OTHER||Slope|0.004403|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.503||0.7701|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.02051|0.02931|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC std 03 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||0.02931|-0.02051|0.7701
90938649|NCT04748445|181756578|OTHER||Slope|0.007542|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.639||0.6461|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.01961|0.0347|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC std 04 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||0.03470|-0.01961|0.6461
90938650|NCT04748445|181756578|OTHER||Slope|2.386|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.233||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.022|3.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC std 05 (The statistical data given below have (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit and estimated value it was 10\^-2. For dispersion value it was 10\^-3).||3.750|1.022|0.0044
90938651|NCT04748445|181756578|OTHER||Slope|1.593|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.243||0.2022|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.663|3.652|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC std 06 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-2. For lower limit it was 10\^-3).||3.652|-4.663|0.2022
90938652|NCT04748445|181756578|OTHER||Slope|0.002902|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.082||0.789|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.01503|0.02084|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC std 07 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||0.02084|-0.01503|0.7890
90938653|NCT04748445|181756578|OTHER||Slope|1.615|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.118||0.151|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.371|3.467|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC std 08 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-2. For lower limit it was 10\^-3).||3.467|-2.371|0.1510
90938654|NCT04748445|181756578|OTHER||Slope|1.116|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.104||0.3138|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.126|2.945|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC std 09 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-2. For lower limit it was 10\^-3).||2.945|-7.126|0.3138
90938655|NCT04748445|181756578|OTHER||Slope|-0.002168|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.632||0.8223|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.01813|0.01379|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC std 10 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-3).||0.01379|-0.01813|0.8223
90938656|NCT04748445|181756578|OTHER||Slope|1.394|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.081||0.1997|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.978|3.185|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC std 11 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-2. For lower limit it was 10\^-3).||3.185|-3.978|0.1997
90938657|NCT04748445|181756578|OTHER||Slope|0.01375|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.622||0.0398|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.00278|0.02473|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC std 12 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-3).||0.02473|0.002780|0.0398
90938658|NCT04748445|181756578|OTHER||Slope|-0.002892|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.205||0.8107|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.02286|0.01707|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC std 13 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||0.01707|-0.02286|0.8107
90938659|NCT04748445|181756578|OTHER||Slope|-3.105|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.256||0.9242|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.706|5.085|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_SNR (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit and dispersion value it was 10\^-2. For estimated value it was 10\^-3).||5.085|-5.706|0.9242
90938660|NCT04748445|181756578|OTHER||Slope|0.0006145|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.704||0.5277|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0009936|0.002223|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_Shimmer Local dB (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||0.002223|-0.0009936|0.5277
90938661|NCT04748445|181756578|OTHER||Slope|-2.911|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.969||0.1418|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.174|3.522|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_Spectral Flatness (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For lower limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-2. For upper limit it was 10\^-3).||3.522|-6.174|0.1418
90938662|NCT04748445|181756578|OTHER||Slope|-0.1487|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.77||0.0924|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.294|-0.003375|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_Third Octave Band (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||-0.003375|-0.2940|0.0924
90970126|NCT00930761|181822269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.26||||0.03||95.0|1.01|1.57|||Chi-squared|||Null hypothesis: Music therapy does not increase the rate of maternal breastfeeding. Sample size: considering 75% as the expected rate at the time of the first follow-up visit and an absolute difference of 30% between groups, 95% confidence level (5% alpha error) and 80% power (20% beta error), 94 subjects would need to be enrolled (47 in each study arm). Expecting a 7.5% loss after randomization, 101 was the total number of subjects considered necessary to conduct the study.||1.57|1.01|0.03
90938663|NCT04748445|181756578|OTHER||Slope|3.089|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.396||0.9277|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.318|5.936|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_VLHR (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit and dispersion value it was 10\^-2. For estimated value it was 10\^-3).||5.936|-5.318|0.9277
90970127|NCT00930761|181822270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.28||||0.09||95.0|0.95|1.71|||Chi-squared|||||1.71|0.95|0.09
90970128|NCT03699007|181822297|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
90970129|NCT03699007|181822298|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
90970130|NCT01970995|181822299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|13.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.96|16.6||The primary endpoints were tested using a multiple testing procedure to preserve the overall alpha level by simultaneously testing the endpoints using a closed procedure with each test performed at an alpha level of 2.5% one sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on MHBMA levels with product, sex, cigarette consumption, and baseline value as covariates.|Geometric LS mean ratio mTHS 2.2:mCC|"The hypothesis to be tested is that the geometric mean level on Day 5 of the biomarker of exposure for mTHS 2.2 is lower relative to mCC.~Analysis of the biomarker of exposure (BoExp) was conducted on the natural log scale in order to test the following hypothesis (one sided test with 2.5% type I error probability):~* Null hypothesis (H0): m1≥m2~* Alternative hypothesis (H1): m1\<m2 Where m1 and m2 are the geometric means of the BoExp levels on Day 5 for mTHS 2.2 and mCC respectively."||16.60|10.96|<.001
90938664|NCT04748445|181756578|OTHER||Slope|0.8362|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.077|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.492|1.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC mean 01 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-1).||1.180|0.4920|<.0001
90938665|NCT04748445|181756578|OTHER||Slope|0.03559|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.147||0.7568|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1545|0.2256|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC mean 02 (The statistical data given below have (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-1).||0.2256|-0.1545|0.7568
90938666|NCT04748445|181756578|OTHER||Slope|0.2043|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.752||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.07585|0.3328|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC mean 03 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||0.3328|0.07585|0.0095
90938667|NCT04748445|181756578|OTHER||Slope|-0.0828|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.413||0.1991|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1891|0.02348|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC mean 04 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||0.02348|-0.1891|0.1991
90938668|NCT04748445|181756578|OTHER||Slope|-0.02415|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.26||0.6469|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1113|0.06301|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC mean 05 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||0.06301|-0.1113|0.6469
90938669|NCT04748445|181756578|OTHER||Slope|-0.1209|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.904||0.015|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2022|-0.03967|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC mean 06 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||-0.03967|-0.2022|0.0150
90938670|NCT04748445|181756578|OTHER||Slope|0.02617|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.639||0.5736|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0507|0.103|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC mean 07 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||0.1030|-0.05070|0.5736
90938671|NCT04748445|181756578|OTHER||Slope|-0.07305|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.267||0.0894|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1438|-0.002335|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC mean 08 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||-0.002335|-0.1438|0.0894
90938672|NCT04748445|181756578|OTHER||Slope|-2.369|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.428||0.5936|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.706|4.968|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC mean 09 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||4.968|-9.706|0.5936
90938673|NCT04748445|181756578|OTHER||Slope|-0.07377|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.339||0.029|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1291|-0.01844|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC mean 10 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||-0.01844|-0.1291|0.0290
90938674|NCT04748445|181756578|OTHER||Slope|0.008703|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.665||0.8127|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.05203|0.06944|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC mean 11 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||0.06944|-0.05203|0.8127
90970131|NCT01970995|181822300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|50.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.88|57.2||The primary endpoints were tested using a multiple testing procedure to preserve the overall alpha level by simultaneously testing the endpoints using a closed procedure with each test performed at an alpha level of 2.5% one sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on 3-HPMA levels with product, sex, cigarette consumption, and baseline value as covariates.|Geometric LS mean ratio mTHS 2.2:mCC|"The hypothesis to be tested is that the geometric mean level on Day 5 of the biomarker of exposure for mTHS 2.2 is lower relative to mCC.~Analysis of the BoExp was conducted on the natural log scale in order to test the following hypothesis (one sided test with 2.5% type I error probability):~* Null hypothesis (H0): m1≥m2~* Alternative hypothesis (H1): m1\<m2 Where m1 and m2 are the geometric means of the BoExp levels on Day 5 for mTHS 2.2 and mCC respectively."||57.20|44.88|<.001
90971331|NCT00439946|181825395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.01||95.0||||p-value for TSQM Convenience Score|Wilcoxon signed rank|||Changes in mean TSQM and CAMPHOR scores between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test, comparing the values at Baseline to values at Week 8. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values.||||0.01
90938675|NCT04748445|181756578|OTHER||Slope|-0.07414|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.294||0.0262|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1287|-0.01955|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC mean 12 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||-0.01955|-0.1287|0.0262
90938676|NCT04748445|181756578|OTHER||Slope|2.929|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.705||0.2809|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.553|7.412|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC mean 13 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||7.412|-1.553|0.2809
90938677|NCT04748445|181756578|OTHER||Slope|-2.717|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.612|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.812|-1.621|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC std 01 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit and estimated value it was 10\^-1. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||-1.621|-3.812|<.0001
90938678|NCT04748445|181756578|OTHER||Slope|-0.05798|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.961||0.0524|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.107|-0.008915|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC std 02 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||-0.008915|-0.1070|0.0524
90938679|NCT04748445|181756578|OTHER||Slope|-1.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.778||0.5716|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.955|1.938|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC std 03 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||1.938|-3.955|0.5716
90938680|NCT04748445|181756578|OTHER||Slope|-0.0223|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.193||0.064|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.04208|-0.002526|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC std 04 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||-0.002526|-0.04208|0.0640
90938681|NCT04748445|181756578|OTHER||Slope|-1.336|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.176||0.2584|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.285|6.138|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC std 05 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For lower limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-2. For upper limit it was 10\^-3).||6.138|-3.285|0.2584
90938682|NCT04748445|181756578|OTHER||Slope|-0.006497|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.413||0.6465|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.02992|0.01692|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC std 06 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||0.01692|-0.02992|0.6465
90938683|NCT04748445|181756578|OTHER||Slope|-1.213|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.7||0.1177|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.489|6.297|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC std 07 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For lower limit and estimated value it was 10\^-2. For dispersion value it was 10\^-3 and for upper limit it was 10\^-4).||6.297|-2.489|0.1177
90971240|NCT01087905|181825172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|2.14|||Regression, Logistic||Inclusion of the Cognitive Medication Adherence Counseling (CMAC) factor (No CMAC versus CMAC) as a control variable did not change the results of this analysis.|"Null hypothesis: No difference in abstinence rates for participants receiving Two Weeks of Nicotine Replacement Therapy (NRT) Monotherapy (Nicotine Patch Only) versus Two Weeks of Combination NRT (Patch+Gum). We hypothesized that Two Weeks of Combination NRT would result in statistically significantly higher abstinence rates compared to Two Weeks of NRT Monotherapy.~The study was originally powered to detect at least a 6.4% increase in the abstinence rate due to an enhanced intervention."||2.14|1.04|.029
90938684|NCT04748445|181756578|OTHER||Slope|-0.007959|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.743||0.4155|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.02411|0.008187|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC std 08 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-3).||0.008187|-0.02411|0.4155
90938685|NCT04748445|181756578|OTHER||Slope|-0.004137|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.017||0.6067|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.01742|0.009148|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC std 09 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-3).||0.009148|-0.01742|0.6067
90938686|NCT04748445|181756578|OTHER||Slope|0.000376|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.531||0.9603|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0121|0.01286|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC std 10 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-3).||0.01286|-0.01210|0.9603
90938687|NCT04748445|181756578|OTHER||Slope|-0.002185|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.703||0.7022|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.01164|0.007265|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC std 11 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-3).||0.007265|-0.01164|0.7022
90938688|NCT04748445|181756578|OTHER||Slope|0.007716|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.746||0.1818|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.001806|0.01724|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC std 12 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-3).||0.01724|-0.001806|0.1818
90938689|NCT04748445|181756578|OTHER||Slope|-0.004019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.419||0.5324|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.01466|0.006618|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC std 13 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-3).||0.006618|-0.01466|0.5324
90938690|NCT04748445|181756578|OTHER||Slope|0.005103|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.737||0.8524|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.04025|0.05046|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_SNR (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||0.05046|-0.04025|0.8524
91035697|NCT03437265|181957689|OTHER||||||||||||||||||PK parameters were estimated for each subject by non-compartmental analysis methods using Phoenix® WinNonlin® software (v8.0, Certara USA, Inc., USA). Summary statistics (n, mean, SD, CV%, median, minimum, maximum, geometric n, geometric mean (geometric SD) and geometric CV%) were presented.|||
90938691|NCT04748445|181756579|OTHER||Slope|2.975|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.383||0.3809|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.631|8.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_Coefficient of Variation F0 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-4.||8.580|-2.631|0.3809
90938692|NCT04748445|181756579|OTHER||Slope|-0.005601|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.751||0.0438|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.01016|-0.001043|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC 1st order delta 01 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-3.||-0.001043|-0.01016|0.0438
90938693|NCT04748445|181756579|OTHER||Slope|4.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.464||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.694|6.546|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC 1st order delta 02 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-3.||6.546|1.694|0.0057
90938694|NCT04748445|181756579|OTHER||Slope|-3.067|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.053||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.811|-1.323|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC 1st order delta 03 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-3.||-1.323|-4.811|0.0042
90938695|NCT04748445|181756579|OTHER||Slope|2.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.751||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.164|4.396|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC 1st order delta 04 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit and estimated value it was 10\^-3. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||4.396|1.164|0.0051
90938696|NCT04748445|181756579|OTHER||Slope|-1.324|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.289||0.1128|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.698|4.973|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC 1st order delta 05 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For lower limit and estimated value it was 10\^-3. For upper limit it was 10\^-5 and for dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||4.973|-2.698|0.1128
90938697|NCT04748445|181756579|OTHER||Slope|-0.0002606|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.707||0.7888|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.001869|0.001348|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC 1st order delta 06 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||0.001348|-0.001869|0.7888
90938698|NCT04748445|181756579|OTHER||Slope|-0.0005071|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.593||0.5055|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.001765|0.0007512|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC 1st order delta 07 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||0.0007512|-0.001765|0.5055
90938699|NCT04748445|181756579|OTHER||Slope|0.0003067|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.273||0.6257|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0007328|0.001346|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC 1st order delta 08 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||0.001346|-0.0007328|0.6257
90938700|NCT04748445|181756579|OTHER||Slope|-0.001649|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.998||0.0413|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.002974|-0.0003238|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC 1st order delta 09 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||-0.0003238|-0.002974|0.0413
90938701|NCT04748445|181756579|OTHER||Slope|0.0008236|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.053||0.2451|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0003452|0.001992|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC 1st order delta 10 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||0.001992|-0.0003452|0.2451
90938702|NCT04748445|181756579|OTHER||Slope|-0.000292|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.839||0.6702|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.001425|0.0008413|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC 1st order delta 11 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||0.0008413|-0.001425|0.6702
90938703|NCT04748445|181756579|OTHER||Slope|-0.0003363|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.312||0.5951|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.001382|0.0007097|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC 1st order delta 12 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||0.0007097|-0.001382|0.5951
90938704|NCT04748445|181756579|OTHER||Slope|0.0007281|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.677||0.202|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0002126|0.001669|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC 1st order delta 13 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||0.001669|-0.0002126|0.2020
90938705|NCT04748445|181756579|OTHER||Slope|0.0005153|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.523||0.7356|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.002008|0.003038|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC 2nd order delta 01 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-3).||0.003038|-0.002008|0.7356
91035698|NCT03437265|181957690|OTHER||||||||||||||||||PK parameters were estimated for each subject by non-compartmental analysis methods using Phoenix® WinNonlin® software (v8.0, Certara USA, Inc., USA). Summary statistics (n, mean, SD, CV%, median, minimum, maximum, geometric n, geometric mean (geometric SD) and geometric CV%) were presented. The Geometric CV for glycolic acid was Not Calculated (appears as 0%).|||
90938706|NCT04748445|181756579|OTHER||Slope|-0.00133|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.782||0.0522|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.002453|-0.0002057|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC 2nd order delta 02 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||-0.0002057|-0.002453|0.0522
90938707|NCT04748445|181756579|OTHER||Slope|-0.000156|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.763||0.818|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.001277|0.0009647|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC 2nd order delta 03 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||0.0009647|-0.001277|0.8180
90938708|NCT04748445|181756579|OTHER||Slope|-0.0000971|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.18||0.8754|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.001121|0.000927|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC 2nd order delta 04 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4.||0.0009270|-0.001121|0.8754
90938709|NCT04748445|181756579|OTHER||Slope|0.000452|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.576||0.4192|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0004721|0.001376|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC 2nd order delta 05 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||0.001376|-0.0004721|0.4192
90938710|NCT04748445|181756579|OTHER||Slope|-0.0001528|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.586||0.7849|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.001079|0.0007729|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC 2nd order delta 06 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||0.0007729|-0.001079|0.7849
90938711|NCT04748445|181756579|OTHER||Slope|-5.254|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.217||0.901|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.513|6.463|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC 2nd order delta 07 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit and dispersion value it was 10\^-4. For estimated value it was 10\^-5).||6.463|-7.513|0.9010
90938712|NCT04748445|181756579|OTHER||Slope|-0.0004591|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.83||0.2329|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.001094|0.0001755|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC 2nd order delta 08 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||0.0001755|-0.001094|0.2329
91035699|NCT03437265|181957691|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Summary of the number of bowel movements per time period for the PD analysis set|||
90938713|NCT04748445|181756579|OTHER||Slope|0.0007046|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.687||0.0583|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.00009366|0.001315|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC 2nd order delta 09 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||0.001315|0.00009366|0.0583
90938714|NCT04748445|181756579|OTHER||Slope|-1.564|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.606||0.6654|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.54|4.413|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC 2nd order delta 10 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||4.413|-7.540|0.6654
90938715|NCT04748445|181756579|OTHER||Slope|0.00006573|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.81||0.8154|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0003998|0.0005313|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC 2nd order delta 11 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||0.0005313|-0.0003998|0.8154
90938716|NCT04748445|181756579|OTHER||Slope|-0.0004071|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.664||0.2687|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.001014|0.0002001|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC 2nd order delta 12 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||0.0002001|-0.001014|0.2687
90938717|NCT04748445|181756579|OTHER||Slope|2.799|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.317||0.4005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.698|8.296|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC 2nd order delta 13 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||8.296|-2.698|0.4005
90938718|NCT04748445|181756579|OTHER||Slope|1.123|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.676||0.504|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.654|3.901|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_Coefficient of Variation F0 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||3.901|-1.654|0.5040
90938719|NCT04748445|181756579|OTHER||Slope|0.00007586|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.882||0.979|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.004701|0.004852|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC 1st order delta 01 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-3).||0.004852|-0.004701|0.9790
90938720|NCT04748445|181756579|OTHER||Slope|0.0008249|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.815||0.6503|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.002183|0.003833|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC 1st order delta 02 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-3).||0.003833|-0.002183|0.6503
90938721|NCT04748445|181756579|OTHER||Slope|-1.188|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.322||0.3705|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.379|1.003|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC 1st order delta 03 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-3).||1.003|-3.379|0.3705
90938722|NCT04748445|181756579|OTHER||Slope|-0.0007258|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.101||0.5111|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.002551|0.001099|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC 1st order delta 04 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-3).||0.001099|-0.002551|0.5111
90938723|NCT04748445|181756579|OTHER||Slope|-0.001326|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.555||0.0816|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.002578|-0.0000744|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC 1st order delta 05 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||-0.0000744|-0.002578|0.0816
91035700|NCT03437265|181957692|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The time (in minutes) to achieve clear effluent/time to turbid contents is presented for the PD analysis set.|||
91035928|NCT03261167|181958552|OTHER||Adjusted rate difference|-10.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.3|3.4|||||Week 4, Finger flexion. Analysis was based on the Mantel-Haenszel method using Baseline MAS score of the elbow flexors.|||3.4|-24.3|
90938724|NCT04748445|181756579|OTHER||Slope|0.0005502|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.056||0.6034|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0012|0.002301|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC 1st order delta 06 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-3).||0.002301|-0.001200|0.6034
90938725|NCT04748445|181756579|OTHER||Slope|-0.0004691|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.305||0.522|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.00168|0.0007415|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC 1st order delta 07 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||0.0007415|-0.001680|0.5220
90938726|NCT04748445|181756579|OTHER||Slope|-0.00153|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.82||0.0526|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.002826|-0.0002344|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC 1st order delta 08 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||-0.0002344|-0.002826|0.0526
90938727|NCT04748445|181756579|OTHER||Slope|0.0004166|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.294||0.5689|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.000792|0.001625|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC 1st order delta 09 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||0.001625|-0.0007920|0.5689
90938728|NCT04748445|181756579|OTHER||Slope|-0.002112|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.299||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.003321|-0.000902|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC 1st order delta 10 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||-0.0009020|-0.003321|0.0045
90938729|NCT04748445|181756579|OTHER||Slope|-0.0007706|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.494||0.3058|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.002013|0.0004713|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC 1st order delta 11 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||0.0004713|-0.002013|0.3058
90938730|NCT04748445|181756579|OTHER||Slope|0.0002388|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.494||0.7137|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0008374|0.001315|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC 1st order delta 12 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||0.001315|-0.0008374|0.7137
90971332|NCT00439946|181825395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.52||95.0||||p-value for TSQM Global Satisfaction Score|Wilcoxon signed rank|||Changes in mean TSQM and CAMPHOR scores between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test, comparing the values at Baseline to values at Week 8. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values.||||0.52
91035701|NCT04859517|181957693|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.0||||0.0123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.87|-1.08|||Regression, Logistic||||A statistical method described in Ge et al. (2011) was used to compute a population-level estimate for the treatment difference (in terms of difference in proportion) with adjustment for the pre-defined prognostic factors. The variance of the estimated treatment difference or relative risk reduction was estimated using the delta method.|-1.08|-8.87|0.0123
90938731|NCT04748445|181756579|OTHER||Slope|0.0002121|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.877||0.7583|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0009275|0.001352|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC 1st order delta 13 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||0.001352|-0.0009275|0.7583
90938732|NCT04748445|181756579|OTHER||Slope|-2.784|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.667||0.0974|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.547|-2.155|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC 2nd order delta 01 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit it was 10\^-5. For lower limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-3).||-2.155|-5.547|0.0974
90938733|NCT04748445|181756579|OTHER||Slope|-1.368|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.117||0.881|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.648|1.374|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC 2nd order delta 02 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit and lower limit it was 10\^-3. For estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||1.374|-1.648|0.8810
90938734|NCT04748445|181756579|OTHER||Slope|-0.001551|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.294||0.0151|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.002594|-0.0005077|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC 2nd order delta 03 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||-0.0005077|-0.002594|0.0151
90938735|NCT04748445|181756579|OTHER||Slope|0.00184|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.343||0.0135|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0006233|0.003057|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC 2nd order delta 04 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||0.003057|0.0006233|0.0135
90938736|NCT04748445|181756579|OTHER||Slope|0.00129|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.029||0.0115|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0004563|0.002123|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC 2nd order delta 05 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||0.002123|0.0004563|0.0115
90938737|NCT04748445|181756579|OTHER||Slope|-0.0001473|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.891||0.8029|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.001123|0.0008288|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC 2nd order delta 06 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||0.0008288|-0.001123|0.8029
90938738|NCT04748445|181756579|OTHER||Slope|-0.0005556|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.647||0.2342|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.001326|0.0002146|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC 2nd order delta 07 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||0.0002146|-0.001326|0.2342
90938739|NCT04748445|181756579|OTHER||Slope|0.001128|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.339||0.0366|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0002436|0.002013|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC 2nd order delta 08 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||0.002013|0.0002436|0.0366
90938740|NCT04748445|181756579|OTHER||Slope|-0.0003297|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.134||0.522|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.00118|0.0005212|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC 2nd order delta 09 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||0.0005212|-0.001180|0.5220
91035702|NCT04859517|181957694|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.75|-2.01|||Regression, Logistic|||||-2.01|-5.75|<0.0001
91035929|NCT03261167|181958552|OTHER||Adjusted rate difference|-8.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.8|6.0|||||Week 6, Finger flexion. Analysis was based on the Mantel-Haenszel method using Baseline MAS score of the elbow flexors.|||6.0|-23.8|
90970132|NCT01970995|181822301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|10.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.26|12.99||The primary endpoints were tested using a multiple testing procedure to preserve the overall alpha level by simultaneously testing the endpoints using a closed procedure with each test performed at an alpha level of 2.5% one sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on S-PMA levels with product, sex, cigarette consumption, and baseline value as covariates.|Geometric LS mean ratio mTHS 2.2:mCC|"The hypothesis to be tested is that the geometric mean level on Day 5 of the biomarker of exposure for mTHS 2.2 is lower relative to mCC.~Analysis of the BoExp was conducted on the natural log scale in order to test the following hypothesis (one sided test with 2.5% type I error probability):~* Null hypothesis (H0): m1≥m2~* Alternative hypothesis (H1): m1\<m2 Where m1 and m2 are the geometric means of the BoExp levels on Day 5 for mTHS 2.2 and mCC respectively."||12.99|9.26|<.001
90970133|NCT01970995|181822302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|44.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.11|47.97||The primary endpoints were tested using a multiple testing procedure to preserve the overall alpha level by simultaneously testing the endpoints using a closed procedure with each test performed at an alpha level of 2.5% one sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on COHb levels with product, sex, cigarette consumption, and baseline value as covariates.|Geometric LS mean ratio mTHS 2.2:mCC|"The hypothesis to be tested is that the geometric mean level on Day 5 of the biomarker of exposure for mTHS 2.2 is lower relative to mCC.~Analysis of the BoExp was conducted on the natural log scale in order to test the following hypothesis (one sided test with 2.5% type I error probability):~* Null hypothesis (H0): m1≥m2~* Alternative hypothesis (H1): m1\<m2 Where m1 and m2 are the geometric means of the BoExp levels on Day 5 for mTHS 2.2 and mCC respectively."||47.97|42.11|<.001
90970134|NCT01970995|181822303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|23.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.38|31.11||The primary endpoints were tested using a multiple testing procedure to preserve the overall alpha level by simultaneously testing the endpoints using a closed procedure with each test performed at an alpha level of 2.5% one sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on Total NNAL levels with product, sex, cigarette consumption, and baseline value as covariates|Geometric LS mean ratio mTHS 2.2:mCC|"The hypothesis to be tested is that the geometric mean level on Day 90 of the biomarker of exposure for mTHS 2.2 is lower relative to mCC.~Analysis of the BoExp was conducted on the natural log scale in order to test the following hypothesis (one sided test with 2.5% type I error probability):~* Null hypothesis (H0): m1≥m2~* Alternative hypothesis (H1): m1\<m2 Where m1 and m2 are the geometric means of the BoExp levels on Day 90 for mTHS 2.2 and mCC respectively."||31.11|17.38|<.001
90970135|NCT03882970|181822336|NON_INFERIORITY|The study was powered for superiority in HbA1c. The sample size provided \>99% power to show noninferiority assuming a 0.3% NI boundary, 0.35% greater mean reduction in tirzepatide doses compared to insulin degludec, 1:1:1:1 randomization, a common SD of 1.1%, 1 sided significance level of 0.0125, and a dropout rate of 28%.|LS Mean Difference|-0.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.72|-1.00|<0.001
90970136|NCT03882970|181822336|NON_INFERIORITY|The study was powered for superiority in HbA1c. The sample size provided \>99% power to show noninferiority assuming a 0.3% NI boundary, 0.35% greater mean reduction in tirzepatide doses compared to insulin degludec, 1:1:1:1 randomization, a common SD of 1.1%, 1 sided significance level of 0.0125, and a dropout rate of 28%.|LS Mean Difference|-1.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|-0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.90|-1.17|<0.001
90970137|NCT03882970|181822337|NON_INFERIORITY|The study was powered for superiority in HbA1c. The sample size provided \>99% power to show noninferiority assuming a 0.3% NI boundary, 0.35% greater mean reduction in tirzepatide doses compared to insulin degludec, 1:1:1:1 randomization, a common SD of 1.1%, 1 sided significance level of 0.0125, and a dropout rate of 28%.|LS Mean Difference|-0.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.45|-0.73|<0.001
90970138|NCT03882970|181822338|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|-8.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.8|-10.8|<0.001
90970139|NCT03882970|181822338|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-13.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|-11.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-11.9|-14.0|<0.001
90970140|NCT03882970|181822338|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-15.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|-14.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-14.2|-16.2|<0.001
90970141|NCT03882970|181822339|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|7.5||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|12.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||12.5|2.4|0.004
90970142|NCT03882970|181822339|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.8||||0.751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|5.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.9|-4.3|0.751
90970143|NCT03882970|181822339|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.6||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.5|-8.7|0.168
90970144|NCT03882970|181822340|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.38|5.01|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.01|2.38|<0.001
90970145|NCT03882970|181822340|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.55|10.84|||Regression, Logistic|||||10.84|4.55|<0.001
90970146|NCT03882970|181822340|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.65|17.48|||Regression, Logistic|||||17.48|6.65|<0.001
90970147|NCT03882970|181822342|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|29.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.35|48.35|||Regression, Logistic|||||48.35|18.35|<0.001
90970148|NCT03882970|181822342|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|79.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.56|134.17|||Regression, Logistic|||||134.17|47.56|<0.001
90970149|NCT03882970|181822342|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|110.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.73|189.55|||Regression, Logistic|||||189.55|64.73|<0.001
90938741|NCT04748445|181756579|OTHER||Slope|-2.104|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.528||0.552|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.95|3.742|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC 2nd order delta 10 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||3.742|-7.950|0.5520
90938742|NCT04748445|181756579|OTHER||Slope|0.0005126|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.289||0.2343|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0001981|0.001223|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC 2nd order delta 11 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For ldispersion value it was 10\^-4).||0.001223|-0.0001981|0.2343
90938743|NCT04748445|181756579|OTHER||Slope|2.703|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.094||0.5103|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.081|9.487|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC 2nd order delta 12 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||9.487|-4.081|0.5103
90938744|NCT04748445|181756579|OTHER||Slope|-0.000202|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.334||0.7056|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.001086|0.0006819|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC 2nd order delta 13 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||0.0006819|-0.001086|0.7056
90938745|NCT04748445|181756579|OTHER||Slope|-2.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.22||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.188|-1.132|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC 1st order delta 01 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit and dispersion value it was 10\^-3. For estimated value it was 10\^-4).||-1.132|-4.188|0.0046
90938746|NCT04748445|181756579|OTHER||Slope|0.000649|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.448||0.1471|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0000881|0.001386|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC 1st order delta 02 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||0.001386|-0.0000881|0.1471
90938747|NCT04748445|181756579|OTHER||Slope|1.355|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.323||0.6842|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.152|6.862|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC 1st order delta 03 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||6.862|-4.152|0.6842
90938748|NCT04748445|181756579|OTHER||Slope|0.00007664|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.574||0.7664|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0003499|0.0005032|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC 1st order delta 04 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||0.0005032|-0.0003499|0.7664
90938749|NCT04748445|181756579|OTHER||Slope|-1.708|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.028||0.4015|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.069|1.654|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC 1st order delta 05 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||1.654|-5.069|0.4015
90938750|NCT04748445|181756579|OTHER||Slope|2.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.904||0.1897|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.446|5.665|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC 1st order delta 06 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-4. For lower limit it was 10\^-5).||5.665|-6.446|0.1897
90938751|NCT04748445|181756579|OTHER||Slope|2.393|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.627||0.1439|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.035|5.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC 1st order delta 07 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-4. For lower limit it was 10\^-5).||5.090|-3.035|0.1439
90938752|NCT04748445|181756579|OTHER||Slope|4.111|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.553||0.0092|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.537|6.685|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC 1st order delta 08 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||6.685|1.537|0.0092
90938753|NCT04748445|181756579|OTHER||Slope|-0.0000415|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.134||0.715|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0002294|0.0001464|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC 1st order delta 09 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||0.0001464|-0.0002294|0.7150
90938754|NCT04748445|181756579|OTHER||Slope|1.593|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.291||0.2194|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.457|3.731|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC 1st order delta 10 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-4. For lower limit it was 10\^-5).||3.731|-5.457|0.2194
90938755|NCT04748445|181756579|OTHER||Slope|0.0001893|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.442||0.0471|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.00003283|0.0003458|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC 1st order delta 11 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-5).||0.0003458|0.00003283|0.0471
90938756|NCT04748445|181756579|OTHER||Slope|0.000138|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.614||0.039|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0000284|0.0002476|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC 1st order delta 12 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-5).||0.0002476|0.00002840|0.0390
90938757|NCT04748445|181756579|OTHER||Slope|1.166|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.2645|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.579|2.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC 1st order delta 13 (The statistical data given below have (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-4. For lower limit it was 10\^-5).||2.890|-5.579|0.2645
90938758|NCT04748445|181756579|OTHER||Slope|-0.00119|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.79||0.042|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.002149|-0.0002303|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC 2nd order delta 01 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||-0.0002303|-0.002149|0.0420
90938759|NCT04748445|181756579|OTHER||Slope|-4.504|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.04||0.141|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.542|5.341|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC 2nd order delta 02 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For lower limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-4. For upper limit it was 10\^-5).||5.341|-9.542|0.1410
90970150|NCT03882970|181822343|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.26||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Hyperglycemia||0.05|-0.57|0.096
90970151|NCT03882970|181822343|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.25||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Hyperglycemia||0.06|-0.57|0.113
90938760|NCT04748445|181756579|OTHER||Slope|2.968|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.334||0.3751|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.557|8.492|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC 2nd order delta 03 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||8.492|-2.557|0.3751
90938761|NCT04748445|181756579|OTHER||Slope|-0.0000796|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.101||0.7053|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0004277|0.0002685|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC 2nd order delta 04 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||0.0002685|-0.0004277|0.7053
90938762|NCT04748445|181756579|OTHER||Slope|5.075|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.878||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.964|8.187|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC 2nd order delta 05 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||8.187|1.964|0.0078
90938763|NCT04748445|181756579|OTHER||Slope|-1.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.174||0.1119|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.826|6.611|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC 2nd order delta 06 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For lower limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-4. For upper limit it was 10\^-6).||6.611|-3.826|0.1119
90938764|NCT04748445|181756579|OTHER||Slope|1.667|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.164||0.1545|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.615|3.596|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC 2nd order delta 07 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-4. For lower limit it was 10\^-5).||3.596|-2.615|0.1545
90970152|NCT03882970|181822343|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.47||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.16|||ANCOVA|||Hyperglycemia||-0.16|-0.78|0.003
90970153|NCT03882970|181822343|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.41||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.08|||ANCOVA|||Hypoglycemia||-0.08|-0.74|0.014
90970154|NCT03882970|181822343|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.15|||ANCOVA|||Hypoglycemia||0.15|-0.51|0.280
90938765|NCT04748445|181756579|OTHER||Slope|1.531|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.552||0.1114|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.164|3.114|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC 2nd order delta 08 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit and estimated value it was 10\^-4. For lower limit it was 10\^-6 and for dispersion value it was 10\^-5).||3.114|-5.164|0.1114
90938766|NCT04748445|181756579|OTHER||Slope|0.0001989|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.076||0.0668|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.00002067|0.0003772|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC 2nd order delta 09 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||0.0003772|0.00002067|0.0668
90938767|NCT04748445|181756579|OTHER||Slope|0.00005573|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.318||0.5509|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0000986|0.0002101|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC 2nd order delta 10 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-5).||0.0002101|-0.0000986|0.5509
90970155|NCT03882970|181822343|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.26||||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Hypoglycemia||0.07|-0.59|0.129
90970156|NCT03882970|181822343|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.26|3.75|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Satisfaction Score||3.75|2.26|<0.001
90938768|NCT04748445|181756579|OTHER||Slope|0.00001774|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.677||0.8383|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.000126|0.0001615|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC 2nd order delta 11 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-5).||0.0001615|-0.0001260|0.8383
90938769|NCT04748445|181756579|OTHER||Slope|0.00007327|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.63||0.2713|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0000366|0.0001831|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC 2nd order delta 12 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-5).||0.0001831|-0.0000366|0.2713
90938770|NCT04748445|181756579|OTHER||Slope|0.0001534|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.067||0.0931|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.00000317|0.0003037|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC 2nd order delta 13 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-5).||0.0003037|0.00000317|0.0931
90938771|NCT04748445|181756580|OTHER||Slope|-1.931|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.554||0.5878|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.82|3.958|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_Entropy (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-3).||3.958|-7.820|0.5878
90970157|NCT03882970|181822343|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.15|3.65|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Satisfaction Score||3.65|2.15|<0.001
90970158|NCT03882970|181822343|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.24|3.74|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Satisfaction Score||3.74|2.24|<0.001
90938772|NCT04748445|181756580|OTHER||Slope|-1.479|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.847||0.9587|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.866|4.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_Entropy (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For estimated value it was 10\^-4. For dispersion value, lower limit and upper limit it was 10\^-3).||4.570|-4.866|0.9587
90938773|NCT04748445|181756581|OTHER||Slope|-3.262|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.487||0.9421|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.761|7.109|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_Formant 1 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit and dispersion value it was 10\^-1. For estimated value it was 10\^-2).||7.109|-7.761|0.9421
90938774|NCT04748445|181756581|OTHER||Slope|-0.06912|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.997||0.9084|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.063|0.9247|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_Formant 1 Bandwidth (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-1).||0.9247|-1.063|0.9084
90938775|NCT04748445|181756581|OTHER||Slope|1.985|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.23||0.8721|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.841|2.238|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_Formant 2 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit and dispersion value it was 10\^0. For estimated value it was 10\^-1).||2.238|-1.841|0.8721
90938776|NCT04748445|181756581|OTHER||Slope|0.6573|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.191||0.7647|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.974|4.288|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_Formant 2 Bandwidth (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^0).||4.288|-2.974|0.7647
90938777|NCT04748445|181756581|OTHER||Slope|0.6504|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.958||0.4692|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8341|2.135|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_Formant 3 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-1).||2.135|-0.8341|0.4692
90938778|NCT04748445|181756581|OTHER||Slope|-0.09459|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.255||0.94|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.174|1.985|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_Formant 3 Bandwidth (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^0).||1.985|-2.174|0.9400
90938779|NCT04748445|181756581|OTHER||Slope|0.6945|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.972||0.3853|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6265|2.015|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_Formant 1 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-1).||2.015|-0.6265|0.3853
90938780|NCT04748445|181756581|OTHER||Slope|0.02424|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.021||0.9811|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.667|1.716|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_Formant 1 Bandwidth (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^0).||1.716|-1.667|0.9811
90938781|NCT04748445|181756581|OTHER||Slope|-0.9256|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.083||0.3944|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.72|0.869|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_Formant 2 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^0).||0.8690|-2.720|0.3944
90938782|NCT04748445|181756581|OTHER||Slope|0.935|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.289||0.4696|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.201|3.071|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_Formant 2 Bandwidth (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^0).||3.071|-1.201|0.4696
90938783|NCT04748445|181756581|OTHER||Slope|2.105|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.231||0.0896|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.06596|4.145|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_Formant 3 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^0).||4.145|0.06596|0.0896
90938784|NCT04748445|181756581|OTHER||Slope|1.664|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.358||0.2227|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.864|3.915|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_Formant 3 Bandwidth (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^0. For lower limit it was 10\^-1).||3.915|-5.864|0.2227
90938785|NCT04748445|181756582|OTHER||Slope|-4.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.122||0.8977|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.577|4.772|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_Voiced Frames (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit, and dispersion value it was 10\^-3. For estimated value it was 10\^-4).||4.772|-5.577|0.8977
90938786|NCT04748445|181756582|OTHER||Slope|-0.0006624|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.961||0.407|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.001982|0.0006569|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_Voiced Frames (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||0.0006569|-0.001982|0.4070
90938787|NCT04748445|181756583|OTHER||Slope|0.0008654|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.441||0.5491|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.001522|0.003253|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_Jitter Local (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-3).||0.003253|-0.001522|0.5491
90938788|NCT04748445|181756583|OTHER||Slope|-2.206|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.176||0.9447|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.483|5.042|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_Jitter Local (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit, and dispersion value it was 10\^-3. For estimated value it was 10\^-4).||5.042|-5.483|0.9447
91035930|NCT03261167|181958552|OTHER||Adjusted rate difference|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|17.4|||||Week 12, Finger flexion. Analysis was based on the Mantel-Haenszel method using Baseline MAS score of the elbow flexors.|||17.4|-17.7|
90970159|NCT02813694|181822356|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin= 10%|Treatment difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|4.5|||||Difference in percentage of Responders for ECR (Lefamulin - Moxifloxacin). Confidence interval computed using continuity-corrected Z-statistic|||4.5|-4.4|
90970160|NCT02813694|181822357|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin = 10%|Treatment difference|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|3.1|||||Difference in Percentage of Success for IACR at test of cure visit (Lefamulin - Moxifloxacin). CI computed via Miettinen-Nurminen method, adjusted for prior antibiotic use \[Y vs. N\] and PORT risk class \[III vs. IV/V\], using CMH stratum weights.|||3.1|-6.3|
90970161|NCT02813694|181822357|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margain = 10%|Treatment difference|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|3.3|||||Difference in percentage of Success for IACR at test of cure visit. Confidence interval computed using a continuity-corrected Z-test.|||3.3|-6.5|
90970162|NCT02813694|181822358|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margain = 10%|Treatment difference|-3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|0.5|||||Difference in percentage of success for IACR at test of cure visit (Lefamulin - Moxifloxacin). CI computed via Miettinen-Nurminen method, adjusted for prior antibiotic use \[Y vs. N\]; PORT risk class \[III vs. IV/V\], using CMH stratum weights.|||0.5|-8.2|
90970163|NCT02813694|181822358|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin = 10%|Treatment difference|-3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|0.7|||||Difference in Percentage of Success for IACR at test of cure visit (Lefamulin - Moxifloxacin). Confidence interval computed using continuity-corrected Z-statistic.|||0.7|-8.4|
90970164|NCT04474795|181822359|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon paired signed rank test|||Compared pre and post training scores||||<0.0001
90970165|NCT04474795|181822360|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon paired signed rank test|||Comparison of scores pre and post training in individuals who completed training modules||||<0.0001
90970166|NCT04474795|181822361|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.606|||||||Wilcoxon paired signed rank test|||Patient autonomy||||0.606
90970167|NCT04474795|181822361|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon paired signed rank test|||Value of tight control||||0.003
90938789|NCT04748445|181756584|OTHER||Slope|0.007567|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12||0.5004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.01099|0.02612|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_Shimmer Local (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||0.02612|-0.01099|0.5004
90970168|NCT04474795|181822361|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.475|||||||Wilcoxon paired signed rank test|||Need for Special Training||||0.475
90970169|NCT04474795|181822362|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||Wilcoxon paired signed rank test|||||||0.009
90970170|NCT00814775|181822368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|2.37|||Regression, Cox||CTrach vs. Fastrach|||2.37|0.55|0.72
90970171|NCT00814775|181822369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.76||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.54|||Regression, Cox||CTrach vs. Fastrach|||1.54|0.38|0.45
90938790|NCT04748445|181756584|OTHER||Slope|0.00606|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.101||0.5831|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.01219|0.02431|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_Shimmer Local (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||0.02431|-0.01219|0.5831
90970172|NCT00749996|181822388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.61||||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|0.38|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null-hypothesis: Ho: Δ VAS DIAM = Δ VAS Control will be tested against the alternative hypothesis:HA: Δ VAS DIAM ≠ Δ VAS Control.Where Δ is the average decrease in VAS score (baseline - 6 months). A minimal sample size of 240 analyzable patients is required to demonstrate with 80% power a difference in back pain reduction that is significant at the 95% level, comparing DIAM and Control groups. 268 patients will be enroll to allow of up to 10% attrition.||0.38|-1.59|0.228
90970173|NCT00749996|181822389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.36||||0.719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|6.08|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null-hypothesis(Ho: Δ ODI DIAM = Δ ODI Control) will be tested against the alternative hypothesis (HA: Δ ODI DIAM ≠ Δ ODI Control). Δ ODI DIAM = average change in the ODI (12 months - baseline) in the DIAM treated patient group and Δ VAS Control =average change in the ODI in the Control group.||6.08|-8.80|0.719
90970174|NCT02189213|181822409|OTHER|The parameters were the CGI-Improvement scale which comprises a one-item measures evaluating the following change from the initiation of treatment on a seven-point scale. The hypothesis is that \~50% of subjects receiving treatment will not respond.|||||=|0.0002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||At least 50% of subjects will respond to Sertraline treatment (CGI greater than or equal to 2).||||=0.0002
90970175|NCT00768521|181822441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.18||||0.008||90.0|7.58|41.06||1-sided, alpha = 0.05|ANCOVA|Baseline used as covariate.|Primary Hypothesis: Tolterodine LA 4 mg is superior to placebo with respect to change from baseline in maximum cystometric capacity at 4 hours post Dose 7 (i.e., steady state). The expected treatment effect is targeted at 40 mL.|||41.06|7.58|0.008
90970176|NCT00768521|181822442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.63||||0.422||90.0|-11.5|16.71||1-sided, alpha = 0.05|ANCOVA|Baseline used as covariate.||||16.71|-11.5|0.422
90970177|NCT01445951|181822459|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority with 0.4 margin|Mean Difference (Net)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.086|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.36||||||MMRM (mixed model repeated measures) model with auto-regression (1): HbA1c = Baseline HbA1c + region + basal insulin stratum + visit + treatment + (visit\*treatment)||0.36|0.02|
90970178|NCT01445951|181822460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.04|||||Mixed Model Repeated Measure (MMRM): FEV1 = Baseline FEV1 + Age + Gender + Race + Baseline Height + Visit + Treatment + (Visit\*Treatment)|||0.04|-0.02|
90970179|NCT01445951|181822461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-35.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.622|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.25|-14.59|||||MMRM: FPG = Baseline FPG + Region + Basal insulin stratum + Visit + Treatment + (Visit\*Treatment)|||-14.59|-56.25|
90971333|NCT03548051|181825401|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportions|0.05|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.65||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in proportions between study arms, with a two-sided alternative.||0.65|-0.58|>0.999
90938791|NCT04748445|181756585|OTHER||Slope|2.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.211|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.598|2.662|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_Speaking Rate (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit, and estimated value it was 10\^-2. For dispersion value it was 10\^-3).||2.662|1.598|<.0001
90938792|NCT00938041|181756619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|40.0|||||The estimated value reflects the percentage of participants with complete response. Percentages are calculated using the number of participants in the ITT-Exposed Population as the denominator.|||40|10|
90938793|NCT00938041|181756619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|40.0|||||The estimated value reflects the percentage of participants with confirmed complete response. Percentages are calculated using the number of participants in the ITT-Exposed Population as the denominator.|||40|10|
90938794|NCT00577096|181756625|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA|||||<|0.025||95.0||||Bonferroni adjusted p-value for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|This is minus 9 (4 exercise, 5 usual care) participants who were unresponsive to Epoetin Alfa and included participants in short and long study.||The null hypothesis was that there would be no difference between groups for the number of RBC transfusions.||||<0.025
90938795|NCT00577096|181756626|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA|||||<|0.025||95.0||||Bonferroni adjusted p-value for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|This is minus 9 (4 exercise, 5 usual care) participants who were unresponsive to Epoetin Alfa and included participants in short and long study.||The null hypothesis is that there was no difference in the number of RBC tranfusions in the exercise versus usual care groups. Data was combined from the short and long term RBC transfusions.||||<0.025
90970180|NCT01445951|181822464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.512||0.0102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|-0.31|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA: Weight change from baseline = Baseline weight + Change from baseline in HbA1c + Region + Basal insulin stratum + Treatment|ANCOVA: Weight change from baseline = Baseline weight + Change from baseline in HbA1c + Region + Basal insulin stratum + Treatment|||-0.31|-2.33|0.0102
90970181|NCT01445951|181822464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4955|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within treatment analysis of change from Baseline comparing if change was different from zero||||0.4955
90970182|NCT01445951|181822464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6807|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within treatment analysis of change from Baseline comparing if change was different from zero||||0.6807
90970183|NCT01445951|181822464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0079|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within treatment analysis of change from Baseline comparing if change was different from zero||||0.0079
90970184|NCT01445951|181822466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5328||||0.0156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3198|0.8877|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic model with affects for Region, Basal insulin stratum, and Treatment||||0.8877|0.3198|0.0156
90970185|NCT01445951|181822467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Negative Binomial Regression|Model: Region + Basal Insulin Stratum + Treatment + Exposure Time||||||<0.0001
90938796|NCT00577096|181756627|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|T-test and chi-squared test to check for equivalence of groups for age, race and gender.|||||<|0.025||95.0||||Bonferroni adjusted p-value for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|Analysis included short and long term participants.||||||<0.025
90938797|NCT00577096|181756628|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|T-test and chi-squared to check for equivalence of groups for age, race and gender.|||||<|0.025||95.0||||Bonferroni adjusted p-value for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|This is minus 9 (4 exercise, 5 usual care) participants who were unresponsive to Epoetin Alfa and included participants in short and long study.||The null hypothesis was that there would be no difference between groups for the number of platelet transfusions.||||<0.025
90938798|NCT00577096|181756629|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA|||||<|0.025||95.0||||Bonferroni adjusted p-value for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|This is minus 9 (4 exercise, 5 usual care) participants who were unresponsive to Epoetin Alfa and included participants in short and long study.||||||<0.025
90970186|NCT01445951|181822468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1022|||||||Negative Binomial Regression|Model: Region + Basal Insulin Stratum + Treatment + Exposure Time||||||0.1022
90970187|NCT01445951|181822469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.449||||0.0158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.86|||Regression, Logistic|Model: Treatment + Basal insulin stratum + Region + Baseline HbA1c|Gen2 in the numerator, Aspart in the denominator|||0.86|0.23|0.0158
90970188|NCT04341441|181822487|SUPERIORITY|Sample size was determined with one planned interim analysis when 50% of participants had completed their 8 weeks of treatment using an O'Brien-Fleming alpha spending method to ensure an overall type 1 error of 0.05. With a sample size of 900 per group and alpha = 0.0492, the power to detect a 32% reduction in COVID-19 disease rate (10% vs 6.8%) between the placebo and HCQ treated groups, determined at 87%. Study required 1000 per group with a total of 3000 patients to complete the trial.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.32||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value for the comparison between groups, including the non-randomized active comparator, was 0.75.|Mantel Haenszel||Low number of primary events precluded estimated value of risk ratio.|||||0.75
90938799|NCT00577096|181756630|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA|||||<|0.025||95.0||||Bonferroni adjusted p-value for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|This is minus 9 (4 exercise, 5 usual care) participants who were unresponsive to Epoetin Alfa and included participants in short and long study.||The null hypothesis was that there would be no difference between groups for the number of stem cell collection attempts.||||<0.025
90938800|NCT00577096|181756631|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|T-test and chi-squared to check for equivalence of groups for age, race and gender.|||||<|0.025||95.0||||Bonferroni adjusted p-value for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|This is minus 9 (4 exercise, 5 usual care) participants who were unresponsive to Epoetin Alfa and included participants in short and long study.||The null hypothesis was that there would be no difference between groups for the number of days of stem cell collections.||||<0.025
90938801|NCT00577096|181756632|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|T-test and chi-squared to check for equivalence of groups for age, race and gender.|||||<|0.025||95.0||||Bonferroni adjusted p-value for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|This is minus 9 (4 exercise, 5 usual care) participants who were unresponsive to Epoetin Alfa and included participants in short and long study.||The null hypothesis was that there would be no difference between groups for the number of days of stem cell collections.||||<0.025
90970189|NCT03099187|181822531|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Group Means|-134.6||||0.6777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-772.4|503.3||p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity and is provided for descriptive purpose only|t-test, 2 sided|||Primary Analysis in 2019. Mean FVC decline comparison between treatment groups using a Student's t-test with a two-sided significance level of 0.05||503.3|-772.4|0.6777
90970190|NCT03099187|181822531|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Group Means|-216.0||||0.4682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-803.6|371.7||p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity and is provided for descriptive purpose only|Student's t-test|||Final Analysis in 2020. Mean FVC decline comparison between treatment groups using a Student's t-test with a two-sided significance level of 0.05||371.7|-803.6|0.4682
90970191|NCT03099187|181822532|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0383|||||||rank ANCOVA|||Primary Analysis in 2019||||0.0383
90970192|NCT03099187|181822532|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0239|||||||rank ANCOVA|||Final Analysis in 2020||||0.0239
90938802|NCT00577096|181756633|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|T-test and chi-squared to check for equivalence of groups for age, race and gender.|||||<|0.025||95.0||||Bonferroni adjusted p-value for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis was that there would be no difference between groups for the number of platelet transfusions.||||<0.025
90938803|NCT00832650|181756635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.051|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.334|0.436|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean was calculated based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline values, age and Body Mass Index (BMI) as covariates.|Null H10: μF8mg=μS10mg where μF8mg and μS10mg are means of GC24 for fesoterodine 8mg and solifenacin 10mg, respectively.||0.436|-0.334|
90938804|NCT01370564|181756644|OTHER|There was no specific hypothesis tested. The method of Rao and Scott for clustered binary data was used to construct a point estimate and 95% confidence interval for the number of days during the follow-up period across all subjects in which the patient instruction set was based on the subject's pressure state as measured by the Chronicle IHM/ICD system.|Rao-Scott estimator for clustered data|72.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.0|78.0||||||||78|65|
90938805|NCT03740919|181756661|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority margin \[NIM\]=0.4% for HbA1c|Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.02||||0.783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.13|-0.17|0.783
90970193|NCT03099187|181822533|SUPERIORITY||Overall Mean Difference|95.3||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.9|154.6||p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity and was provided for descriptive purpose only|Student's t-test|||Primary Analysis in 2019||154.6|35.9|0.0018
90938806|NCT03740919|181756662|NON_INFERIORITY|NIM of 0.4%|LS Mean Difference|-0.02||||0.867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.17|-0.20|0.867
90938807|NCT03740919|181756663|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.61||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|2.3|||Regression, Logistic|||\< 54 mg/dL 1 hour post-dose||2.30|1.13|0.008
90938808|NCT03740919|181756663|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.83|||Regression, Logistic|||\< 54 mg/dL 1 hour post-dose||1.83|0.75|0.487
90970194|NCT03099187|181822533|SUPERIORITY||Overall Mean Difference|84.3||||0.0096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.7|147.8||p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity and was provided for descriptive purpose only|Student's t-test|||Final Analysis in 2020||147.8|20.7|0.0096
90970195|NCT03099187|181822534|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.42||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.69||p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity and was provided for descriptive purpose only|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Primary Analysis in 2019||0.69|0.25|0.0006
90970196|NCT03099187|181822534|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.43||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.71||p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity and was provided for descriptive purpose only|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Final Analysis in 2020||0.71|0.26|0.0009
90970197|NCT03099187|181822535|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.44||||0.0114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.84||p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity and was provided for descriptive purpose only|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Primary Analysis in 2019||0.84|0.23|0.0114
90970198|NCT03099187|181822535|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.46||||0.0168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.88||p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity and was provided for descriptive purpose only|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Final Analysis in 2020||0.88|0.24|0.0168
90970199|NCT03099187|181822536|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0874||||||p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity and was provided for descriptive purpose only|rank ANCOVA|||Primary Analysis in 2019||||0.0874
90938809|NCT03740919|181756663|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.13|||Regression, Logistic|||\< 54 mg/dL 1 hour post-dose||1.13|0.47|0.153
90970200|NCT03099187|181822536|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1191||||||p-values are not adjusted for multiplicity and are provided for descriptive purpose only.|rank ANCOVA|||Final Analysis in 2020||||0.1191
90938810|NCT03740919|181756663|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.08|||Regression, Logistic|||\< 54 mg/dL 2 hour post-dose||2.08|1.06|0.020
90938811|NCT03740919|181756663|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.76|||Regression, Logistic|||\< 54 mg/dL 2 hour post-dose||1.76|0.78|0.455
90938812|NCT03740919|181756663|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.19|||Regression, Logistic|||\< 54 mg/dL 2 hour post-dose||1.19|0.52|0.259
90938813|NCT03740919|181756663|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|2.51|||Regression, Logistic|||≤ 70 mg/dL 1 hour post-dose||2.51|1.29|<0.001
90938814|NCT03740919|181756663|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.43|||Regression, Logistic|||≤ 70 mg/dL 1 hour post-dose||1.43|0.64|0.822
90938815|NCT03740919|181756663|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.53||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.8|||Regression, Logistic|||≤ 70 mg/dL 1 hour post-dose||0.80|0.35|0.003
90938816|NCT03740919|181756663|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|2.14|||Regression, Logistic|||≤ 70 mg/dL 2 hour post-dose||2.14|0.94|0.092
90938817|NCT03740919|181756663|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71||||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.11|||Regression, Logistic|||≤ 70 mg/dL 2 hour post-dose||1.11|0.45|0.133
90938818|NCT03740919|181756663|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.8|||Regression, Logistic|||≤ 70 mg/dL 2 hour post-dose||0.80|0.31|0.004
90938819|NCT03740919|181756664|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||Negative binomial regression|Treatment and age group as covariates, log (exposure/365.25 days) as the offset in the model.||\< 54 mg/dL 1 hour post-dose||||0.220
90970201|NCT03099187|181822537|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0395||||||p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity and was provided for descriptive purpose only|rank ANCOVA|||Primary Analysis in 2019||||0.0395
90970202|NCT03099187|181822537|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0299||||||p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity and was provided for descriptive purpose only|rank ANCOVA|||Final Analysis in 2020||||0.0299
90970203|NCT03099187|181822538|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Median Difference|0.0||||0.7788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|5.0|||rank ANCOVA|Analysis of Covariance Changes from baseline to week 24 are compared between the treatment arms using a rank ANCOVA.||Primary Analysis in 2019||5.00|-5.00|0.7788
90970204|NCT03099187|181822538|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Median Difference|0.0||||0.8289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|5.0||Analysis of Covariance Changes from baseline to week 24 or early discontinuation visit are compared between the treatment arms using a rank ANCOVA with change from baseline as outcome variable and standardized rank baseline value as covariate|rank ANCOVA|||Final Analysis in 2020||5.00|-5.00|0.8289
90938820|NCT03740919|181756664|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.599|||||||Negative binomial regression|Treatment and age group as covariates, log (exposure/365.25 days) as the offset in the model.||\< 54 mg/dL 1 hour post-dose||||0.599
90938821|NCT03740919|181756664|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.112|||||||Negative binomial regression|Treatment and age group as covariates, log (exposure/365.25 days) as the offset in the model.||\< 54 mg/dL 1 hour post-dose||||0.112
90938822|NCT03740919|181756664|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.034|||||||Negative binomial regression|Treatment and age group as covariates, log (exposure/365.25 days) as the offset in the model.||\< 54 mg/dL 2 hour post-dose||||0.034
90938823|NCT03740919|181756664|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.055|||||||Negative binomial regression|Treatment and age group as covariates, log (exposure/365.25 days) as the offset in the model.||\< 54 mg/dL 2 hour post-dose||||0.055
90938824|NCT03740919|181756664|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.814|||||||Negative binomial regression|Treatment and age group as covariates, log (exposure/365.25 days) as the offset in the model.||\< 54 mg/dL 2 hour post-dose||||0.814
90938825|NCT03740919|181756664|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.194|||||||Negative binomial regression|||≤70 mg/dL 1 hour post-dose||||0.194
90970205|NCT03099187|181822539|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Median difference|0.29||||0.1872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|1.04||p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity and was provided for descriptive purpose only|rank ANCOVA|Analysis of Covariance Changes from baseline to week 24 are compared between the treatment arms using a rank ANCOVA.||Primary Analysis in 2019||1.04|-0.45|0.1872
90970206|NCT03099187|181822539|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Median Difference|0.27||||0.2019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|1.02||Analysis of Covariance Changes from baseline to week 24 or early discontinuation visit are compared between the treatment arms using a rank ANCOVA with change from baseline as outcome variable and standardized rank baseline value as covariate.|rank ANCOVA|||Final Analysis in 2020||1.02|-0.48|0.2019
91035931|NCT03261167|181958552|OTHER||Adjusted rate difference|-9.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.4|6.5|||||Week 2, Thumb flexion. Analysis was based on the Mantel-Haenszel method using Baseline MAS score of the elbow flexors.|||6.5|-26.4|
90938826|NCT03740919|181756664|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.428|||||||Negative binomial regression|Treatment and age group as covariates, log (exposure/365.25 days) as the offset in the model.||≤70 mg/dL 1 hour post-dose||||0.428
90938827|NCT03740919|181756664|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.057|||||||Negative binomial regression|Treatment and age group as covariates, log (exposure/365.25 days) as the offset in the model.||≤70 mg/dL 1 hour post-dose||||0.057
90938828|NCT03740919|181756664|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.056|||||||Negative binomial regression|Treatment and age group as covariates, log (exposure/365.25 days) as the offset in the model||≤70 mg/dL 2 hour post-dose||||0.056
90938829|NCT03740919|181756664|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.435|||||||Negative binomial regression|Treatment and age group as covariates, log (exposure/365.25 days) as the offset in the model.||≤70 mg/dL 2 hour post-dose||||0.435
90938830|NCT03740919|181756664|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.404|||||||Negative binomial regression|Treatment and age group as covariates, log (exposure/365.25 days) as the offset in the model.||≤70 mg/dL 2 hour post-dose||||0.404
90938831|NCT03740919|181756665|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.57|||Regression, Logistic|||\<54 mg/dL||1.57|0.68|0.864
90938832|NCT03740919|181756665|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||0.132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.12|||Regression, Logistic|||\<54 mg/dL||1.12|0.43|0.132
90938833|NCT03740919|181756665|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67||||0.104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.09|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.09|0.41|0.104
90938834|NCT03740919|181756665|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.52|||Regression, Logistic|||≤70 mg/dL||1.52|0.42|0.489
90938835|NCT03740919|181756665|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.45||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.9|||Regression, Logistic|||≤70 mg/dL||0.90|0.23|0.025
90938836|NCT03740919|181756665|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.57||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.11|||Regression, Logistic|||≤70 mg/dL||1.11|0.29|0.099
90938837|NCT03740919|181756666|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.732|||||||Negative binomial regression|||\< 54 mg/dL||||0.732
90938838|NCT03740919|181756666|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.638|||||||Negative binomial regression|||\< 54 mg/dL||||0.638
90938839|NCT03740919|181756666|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.462|||||||Negative binomial regression|||\<54 mg/dL||||0.462
90938840|NCT03740919|181756666|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.632|||||||Negative binomial regression|||≤ 70 mg/dL||||0.632
90938841|NCT03740919|181756666|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Negative binomial regression|||≤ 70 mg/dL||||0.800
90938842|NCT03740919|181756666|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.889|||||||Negative binomial regression|||≤ 70 mg/dL||||0.889
90938843|NCT03740919|181756668|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.6||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Total Daily Basal Insulin||1.4|-0.2|0.130
90938844|NCT03740919|181756668|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Total Daily Basal Insulin||1.4|-0.5|0.404
90938845|NCT03740919|181756668|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Total Daily Basal Insulin||0.8|-1.2|0.693
90938846|NCT03740919|181756668|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.5||||0.625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Total Daily Insulin Dose||2.3|-1.4|0.625
90938847|NCT03740919|181756668|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|1.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Total Daily Insulin Dose||1.9|-2.6|0.758
90938848|NCT03740919|181756668|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Total Daily Insulin Dose||1.5|-3.1|0.485
90938849|NCT03740919|181756669|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.0|||Regression, Logistic|||HbA1c \< 7%||2.00|0.76|0.396
90938850|NCT03740919|181756669|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.75|||Regression, Logistic|||HbA1c \< 7%||1.75|0.49|0.814
90938851|NCT03740919|181756669|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.43|||Regression, Logistic|||HbA1c \< 7%||1.43|0.39|0.384
90938852|NCT03740919|181756669|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.27|||Regression, Logistic|||HbA1c \< 7.5%||1.27|0.55|0.400
90938853|NCT03740919|181756669|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.62||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.08|||Regression, Logistic|||HbA1c \< 7.5%||1.08|0.36|0.094
90938854|NCT03740919|181756669|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.31|||Regression, Logistic|||HbA1c \< 7.5%||1.31|0.43|0.306
90938855|NCT01207453|181756676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The difference between the change measured during placebo versus the change during milnacipran treatment. Calculated using Wilcoxon signed rank tests.||||0.42
90938856|NCT01207453|181756676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|||||Linear mixed models including treatment, crossover period and treatment sequence. Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The difference between the change measured during placebo versus the change during milnacipran treatment. Calculated using linear mixed models.||||0.37
90938857|NCT01207453|181756677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The difference between the change measured during placebo versus the change during milnacipran treatment. Calculated using the Wilcoxon signed-rank tests.||||0.39
90938858|NCT01207453|181756677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|||||Linear mixed models including treatment, crossover period and treatment sequence. Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The difference between the change measured during placebo versus the change during milnacipran treatment. Calculated using linear mixed models.||||0.96
90938859|NCT01207453|181756678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The difference between the change measured during placebo versus the change during milnacipran treatment. Calculated using Wilcoxon signed-rank tests.||||0.89
90938860|NCT01207453|181756678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|||||Linear mixed models including treatment, crossover period and treatment sequence. Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The difference between the change measured during placebo versus the change during milnacipran treatment. Calculated using linear mixed models.||||0.83
90938861|NCT01207453|181756679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The difference between the change measured during placebo versus the change during milnacipran treatment. Calculated using Wilcoxon signed-rank tests.||||0.04
90938862|NCT01207453|181756679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||Linear mixed models including treatment, crossover period and treatment sequence. Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The difference between the change measured during placebo versus the change during milnacipran treatment. Calculated using linear mixed models.||||0.04
90938863|NCT01207453|181756680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The difference between the change measured during placebo versus the change during milnacipran treatment. Calculated using Wilcoxon signed-rank tests.||||0.89
90938864|NCT01207453|181756680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|||||Linear mixed models including treatment, crossover period and treatment sequence. Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The difference between the change measured during placebo versus the change during milnacipran treatment. Calculated using linear mixed models.||||0.44
90938865|NCT01207453|181756681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The difference between the change measured during placebo versus the change during milnacipran treatment. Calculated using Wilcoxon signed-rank tests.||||0.35
90938866|NCT01207453|181756681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|||||Linear mixed models including treatment, crossover period and treatment sequence. Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The difference between the change measured during placebo versus the change during milnacipran treatment. Calculated using linear mixed models.||||0.34
90938867|NCT01207453|181756682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The difference between the change measured during placebo versus the change during milnacipran treatment. Calculated using Wilcoxon signed-rank tests.||||0.72
90938868|NCT01207453|181756682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|||||Linear mixed models including treatment, crossover period and treatment sequence. Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The difference between the change measured during placebo versus the change during milnacipran treatment. Calculated using linear mixed models.||||0.82
90938869|NCT02168153|181756705|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.49||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.75|18.77|||ANCOVA|adjusted for age||Between group differences||18.77|-25.75|0.76
90970207|NCT03099187|181822540|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Median Difference|-2.0||||0.2995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|4.0|||rank ANCOVA|Analysis of Covariance Changes from baseline to week 24 are compared between the treatment arms using a rank ANCOVA.||Primary Analysis in 2019||4.00|-10.00|0.2995
91035703|NCT04859517|181957697|SUPERIORITY||Standardized Risk Difference|-7.6||||0.0153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.74|-1.46|||Regression, Logistic||||A statistical method described in Ge et al. (2011) was used to compute a population-level estimate for the treatment difference (in terms of difference in proportion) with adjustment for the pre-defined prognostic factors. The variance of the estimated treatment difference or relative risk reduction was estimated using the delta method.|-1.46|-13.74|0.0153
90938870|NCT02168153|181756706|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.97||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.04|19.98|||ANCOVA|adjusted for age||Between group differences||19.98|-18.04|0.92
90938871|NCT02168153|181756707|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.49||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|21.39|||ANCOVA|adjusted for age||Between group differences||21.39|-14.4|0.70
90938872|NCT02168153|181756708|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.988||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.373|2.349|||ANCOVA|adjusted for age||Between group differences||2.349|-0.373|0.15
90938873|NCT02168153|181756709|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|0.41|||ANCOVA|adjusted for age||Between group differences||0.41|-1.24|0.32
90938874|NCT04382053|181756710|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.297||0.467|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.0|2.3|||ANCOVA|||||2.3|-2.0|0.467
90938875|NCT04382053|181756711|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.237||||||One-sided|Mixed Models Analysis|p-value reported is for the treatment factor across all time points||||||0.237
90938876|NCT01524887|181756742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least square means|1.4||||0.243||95.0|-1.0|3.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.9|-1.0|0.243
90938877|NCT01524887|181756742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least square means|1.0||||0.37||95.0|-1.2|3.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.3|-1.2|0.370
90938878|NCT01524887|181756743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least square means|-3.9||||0.033||95.0|-7.4|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.3|-7.4|0.033
90938879|NCT01524887|181756743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least square means|-0.9||||0.586||95.0|-4.2|2.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.4|-4.2|0.586
90938880|NCT01524887|181756744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least square means|-0.2||||0.501||95.0|-1.0|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.5|-1.0|0.501
90938881|NCT01524887|181756744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least square means|-0.1||||0.783||95.0|-0.7|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.5|-0.7|0.783
90938882|NCT01524887|181756745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least square means|1.1||||0.571||95.0|-2.6|4.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.7|-2.6|0.571
90938883|NCT01524887|181756745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least square means|3.7||||0.032||95.0|0.3|7.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.1|0.3|0.032
91035932|NCT03261167|181958552|OTHER||Adjusted rate difference|-6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.6|10.3|||||Week 4, Thumb flexion. Analysis was based on the Mantel-Haenszel method using Baseline MAS score of the elbow flexors.|||10.3|-23.6|
90970208|NCT03099187|181822540|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Median Difference|-2.0||||0.3372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|4.0||Analysis of Covariance Changes from baseline to week 24 or early discontinuation visit are compared between the treatment arms using a rank ANCOVA with change from baseline as outcome variable and standardized rank baseline value as covariate.|rank ANCOVA|||Final Analysis in 2020||4.00|-10.00|0.3372
90938884|NCT01524887|181756746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least square means|-0.00026||||0.593||95.0|-0.00126|0.00073|||ANCOVA|||||0.00073|-0.00126|0.593
90938885|NCT01524887|181756746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least square means|0.00003||||0.94||95.0|-0.0008|0.00086|||ANCOVA|||||0.00086|-0.00080|0.940
90938886|NCT01524887|181756747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least square means|-0.5||||0.633||95.0|-2.8|1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.7|-2.8|0.633
90938887|NCT01524887|181756747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least square means|0.0||||0.981||95.0|-2.0|2.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.0|-2.0|0.981
90938888|NCT04572997|181756780|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Signed-rank test||||||< 0.0001
90938889|NCT04572997|181756785|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-rank test|||||||< 0.001
90938890|NCT01967719|181756808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|56.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.21|72.39|||ANOVA|The model included terms for sequence, subject nested within sequence, period, and product as fixed effect factors.|LS mean ratio (mTHS 2.2 - Group 1:mCC - Group 1)|The objective of this study was to determine the point estimate and precision of the nicotine bioavailability (ratio of mTHS 2.2:mCC) for Cmax, therefore, there was no statistical hypothesis to be tested for this objective.||72.39|44.21|
90938891|NCT01967719|181756809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|55.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.3|71.5|||ANOVA|The model included terms for sequence, subject nested within sequence, period, and product as fixed effect factors.|LS mean ratio (mTHS 2.2 - Group 1:mCC - Group 1)|The objective of this study was to determine the point estimate and precision of the nicotine bioavailability (ratio of mTHS 2.2:mCC) for AUC(0-last), therefore, there was no statistical hypothesis to be tested for this objective.||71.50|43.30|
90938892|NCT02329223|181756810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.815|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.31|-2.098|||Mixed Model with repeated measures(MMRM)|||||-2.098|-5.310|<0.001
90970209|NCT03099187|181822541|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Median Difference|-1.86||||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.06|1.38|||rank ANCOVA|Analysis of Covariance Changes from baseline to week 24 are compared between the treatment arms using a rank ANCOVA.||Primary Analysis in 2019||1.38|-5.06|0.1630
90970210|NCT03099187|181822541|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Median Difference|-1.74||||0.1851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|1.55||Analysis of Covariance Changes from baseline to week 24 or early discontinuation visit are compared between the treatment arms using a rank ANCOVA with change from baseline as outcome variable and standardized rank baseline value as covariate.|rank ANCOVA|||Final Analysis in 2020||1.55|-5.00|0.1851
91035933|NCT03261167|181958552|OTHER||Adjusted rate difference|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.8|15.7|||||Week 6, Thumb flexion. Analysis was based on the Mantel-Haenszel method using Baseline MAS score of the elbow flexors.|||15.7|-18.8|
90938893|NCT02329223|181756810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.828||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.921|-0.654|||Mixed Model with repeated measures(MMRM)|||||-0.654|-3.921|0.006
90938894|NCT03443063|181756830|OTHER||Percent (%) ratio of geometric means|104.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.41|141.97|||||"Percent ratio was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Severe Renal Impairment by geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Normal Renal Function, then multiplying the value by 100."|||141.97|77.41|
90938895|NCT03443063|181756831|OTHER||Percent (%) ratio of geometric means|133.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|107.3|164.93|||||"Percent ratio was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Severe Renal Impairment by geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Normal Renal Function, then multiplying the value by 100."|||164.93|107.30|
90938896|NCT03443063|181756832|OTHER||Percent (%) ratio of geometric means|150.53|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|113.16|200.26|||||"Percent ratio was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Severe Renal Impairment by geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Normal Renal Function, then multiplying the value by 100."|||200.26|113.16|
90938897|NCT03443063|181756833|OTHER||Percent (%) ratio of geometric means|149.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|113.06|198.58|||||"Percent ratio was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Severe Renal Impairment by geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Normal Renal Function, then multiplying the value by 100."|||198.58|113.06|
90938898|NCT03443063|181756834|OTHER||Percent (%) ratio of geometric means|80.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|56.07|114.4|||||"Percent ratio was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Severe Renal Impairment by geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Normal Renal Function, then multiplying the value by 100."|Metabolite M4||114.40|56.07|
90938899|NCT03443063|181756834|OTHER||Percent (%) ratio of geometric means|79.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|54.48|116.03|||||"Percent ratio was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Severe Renal Impairment by geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Normal Renal Function, then multiplying the value by 100."|Metabolite M9||116.03|54.48|
90938900|NCT03443063|181756834|OTHER||Percent (%) ratio of geometric means|72.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|48.08|109.29|||||"Percent ratio was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Severe Renal Impairment by geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Normal Renal Function, then multiplying the value by 100."|Metabolite M10||109.29|48.08|
90938901|NCT03443063|181756836|OTHER||Percent (%) ratio of geometric mean|111.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.69|134.99|||||"Percent ratio was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Severe Renal Impairment by geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Normal Renal Function, then multiplying the value by 100."|Lemborexant||134.99|91.69|
90970211|NCT03099187|181822542|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.22||||0.5922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.49|||Log Rank|Log-rank tests based on the time to the first event are to compare the two treatment arms.|Hazard ratios and corresponding 95% CI are calculated by applying Cox-proportional hazard models.|Primary Analysis in 2019. All-cause non-elective hospitalization.||2.49|0.59|0.5922
90938902|NCT03443063|181756836|OTHER||Percent (%) ratio of geometric means|80.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|56.81|113.46|||||"Percent ratio was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Severe Renal Impairment by geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Normal Renal Function, then multiplying the value by 100."|Metabolite M4||113.46|56.81|
90938903|NCT03443063|181756836|OTHER||Percent (%) ratio of geometric means|86.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|64.92|115.81|||||"Percent ratio was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Severe Renal Impairment by geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Normal Renal Function, then multiplying the value by 100."|Metabolite M9||115.81|64.92|
90938904|NCT03443063|181756836|OTHER||Percent (%) ratio of geometric means|65.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|41.08|104.04|||||"Percent ratio was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Severe Renal Impairment by geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Normal Renal Function, then multiplying the value by 100."|Metabolite M10||104.04|41.08|
90938905|NCT03443063|181756837|OTHER||Percent (%) ratio of geometric means|114.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.45|139.28|||||"Percent ratio was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Severe Renal Impairment by geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Normal Renal Function, then multiplying the value by 100."|Metabolite M4||139.28|94.45|
90938906|NCT03443063|181756837|OTHER||Percent (%) ratio of geometric means|124.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.27|155.67|||||"Percent ratio was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Severe Renal Impairment by geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Normal Renal Function, then multiplying the value by 100."|Metabolite M9||155.67|100.27|
90938907|NCT03443063|181756837|OTHER||Percent (%) ratio of geometric means|92.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|66.87|126.71|||||"Percent ratio was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Severe Renal Impairment by geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Normal Renal Function, then multiplying the value by 100."|Metabolite M10||126.71|66.87|
90938908|NCT03443063|181756838|OTHER||Percent (%) ratio of geometric means|136.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|105.62|175.85|||||"Percent ratio was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Severe Renal Impairment by geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Normal Renal Function, then multiplying the value by 100."|Metabolite M4||175.85|105.62|
90938909|NCT03443063|181756838|OTHER||Percent (%) ratio of geometric means|154.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|117.53|202.57|||||"Percent ratio was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Severe Renal Impairment by geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Normal Renal Function, then multiplying the value by 100."|Metabolite M9||202.57|117.53|
90938910|NCT03443063|181756838|OTHER||Percent (%) ratio of geometric means|118.54|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.84|159.97|||||"Percent ratio was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Severe Renal Impairment by geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Normal Renal Function, then multiplying the value by 100."|Metabolite M10||159.97|87.84|
90938911|NCT03443063|181756839|OTHER||Percent (%) ratio of geometric means|138.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|109.1|176.14|||||"Percent ratio was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Severe Renal Impairment by geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Normal Renal Function, then multiplying the value by 100."|Metabolite M4||176.14|109.10|
90938912|NCT03443063|181756839|OTHER||Percent (%) ratio of geometric means|147.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|109.06|198.22|||||"Percent ratio was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Severe Renal Impairment by geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Normal Renal Function, then multiplying the value by 100."|Metabolite M9||198.22|109.06|
90938913|NCT03443063|181756839|OTHER||Percent (%) ratio of geometric means|136.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.19|189.54|||||"Percent ratio was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Severe Renal Impairment by geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Normal Renal Function, then multiplying the value by 100."|Metabolite M10||189.54|98.19|
90938914|NCT03443063|181756840|OTHER||Percent (%) ratio of geometric means|141.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.79|191.73|||||"Percent ratio was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Severe Renal Impairment by geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Normal Renal Function, then multiplying the value by 100."|Lemborexant||191.73|103.79|
90938915|NCT03443063|181756840|OTHER||Percent (%) ratio of geometric means|124.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.58|154.06|||||"Percent ratio was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Severe Renal Impairment by geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Normal Renal Function, then multiplying the value by 100."|Metabolite M4||154.06|100.58|
90938916|NCT03443063|181756840|OTHER||Percent (%) ratio of geometric means|143.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|107.72|190.65|||||"Percent ratio was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Severe Renal Impairment by geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Normal Renal Function, then multiplying the value by 100."|Metabolite M9||190.65|107.72|
90938917|NCT03443063|181756840|OTHER||Percent (%) ratio of geometric means|140.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.11|200.35|||||"Percent ratio was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Severe Renal Impairment by geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Normal Renal Function, then multiplying the value by 100."|Metabolite M10||200.35|98.11|
90970212|NCT03099187|181822542|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.8057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|2.83|||Log Rank|Log-rank tests based on the time to the first event are to compare the two treatment arms.|Hazard ratios and corresponding 95% CI are calculated by applying Cox-proportional hazard models.|Primary Analysis in 2019. Respiratory non-elective hospitalization.||2.83|0.26|0.8057
90970213|NCT03099187|181822542|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.31||||0.4613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.73|||Log Rank|Log-rank tests based on the time to the first event are to compare the two treatment arms.|Hazard ratios and corresponding 95% CI are calculated by applying Cox-proportional hazard models|Final Analysis in 2020. All-cause non-elective hospitalization.||2.73|0.63|0.4613
90970214|NCT03099187|181822542|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.9523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.59|||Log Rank|Log-rank tests based on the time to the first event are to compare the two treatment arms.|Hazard ratios and corresponding 95% CI are calculated by applying Cox-proportional hazard models.|Final Analysis in 2020. Respiratory non-elective hospitalization.||3.59|0.30|0.9523
90938918|NCT02507687|181756864|NON_INFERIORITY|"Statistical non-inferiority of Bimatoprost SR 10 µg to SLT was demonstrated if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the least squares (LS) mean difference between the Bimatoprost SR 10 µg eyes and SLT eyes was ≤ 1.5 mmHg at Weeks 4, 12, and 24.~Clinical non-inferiority of Bimatoprost SR 10 µg to SLT was considered if the upper limit of the 95% CI was ≤ 1.0 mmHg at 2 out of the 3 visits of Weeks 4, 12, and 24."|LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.08|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|The model includes treatment, visit, eye, baseline IOP, treatment-by-visit, visit-by-baseline, and visit-by-eyes interactions as covariates.||||-0.08|-1.03|0.0231
90938919|NCT02507687|181756865|NON_INFERIORITY|"Statistical non-inferiority of Bimatoprost SR 10 µg to SLT was demonstrated if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the least squares (LS) mean difference between the Bimatoprost SR 10 µg eyes and SLT eyes was ≤ 1.5 mmHg at Weeks 4, 12, and 24.~Clinical non-inferiority of Bimatoprost SR 10 µg to SLT was considered if the upper limit of the 95% CI was ≤ 1.0 mmHg at 2 out of the 3 visits of Weeks 4, 12, and 24."|LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.1615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|0.18|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|The model includes treatment, visit, eye, baseline IOP, treatment-by-visit, visit-by-baseline, and visit-by-eyes interactions as covariates.||||0.18|-1.04|0.1615
90938920|NCT02507687|181756866|NON_INFERIORITY|"Statistical non-inferiority of Bimatoprost SR 10 µg to SLT was demonstrated if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the least squares (LS) mean difference between the Bimatoprost SR 10 µg eyes and SLT eyes was ≤ 1.5 mmHg at Weeks 4, 12, and 24.~Clinical non-inferiority of Bimatoprost SR 10 µg to SLT was considered if the upper limit of the 95% CI was ≤ 1.0 mmHg at 2 out of the 3 visits of Weeks 4, 12, and 24."|LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.1673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|0.17|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|The model includes treatment, visit, eye, baseline IOP, treatment-by-visit, visit-by-baseline, and visit-by-eyes interactions as covariates.||||0.17|-0.97|0.1673
90970215|NCT03099187|181822544|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.7871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|2.78|||Log Rank|||||2.78|0.26|0.7871
90970216|NCT03099187|181822545|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.84||||0.366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.24|||Log Rank|Log-rank tests based on the time to the first event are to compare the two treatment arms.||Primary Analysis in 2019||1.24|0.56|0.3660
90938921|NCT00275301|181756870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Examination of relationship between Borderline Personality Disorder symptoms and brain metabolism at baseline.||||<0.05
90938922|NCT04357964|181756871|EQUIVALENCE|Statistical significance was defined as p\< 0.05 for determining difference between groups at baseline in this observational study. There was no treatment intervention in this study, so there is no true equivalence margin.|||||<|0.01||||||Statistical significance was defined as p\< 0.05|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.01
90938923|NCT04357964|181756872|EQUIVALENCE|Statistical significance was defined as p \< 0.05. There was no intervention in this study, so there is no true equivalence margin.|||||<|0.01|||||||Pearson correlation|||||||<0.01
90938924|NCT04357964|181756873|EQUIVALENCE|Statistical significance was defined as p\< 0.05 for determining difference between groups in this observational study. There was no treatment intervention in this study, so there is no true equivalence margin.||||||0.52||||||Statistical significance was defined as p\< 0.05|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.52
90938925|NCT01540162|181756874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.23||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.73|||Chi-squared|||||0.73|0.05|0.05
90938926|NCT02288364|181756887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.30
90938927|NCT02288364|181756888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.08
90970217|NCT03099187|181822545|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.85||||0.4173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.26|||Log Rank|Log-rank tests based on the time to the first event are to compare the two treatment arms.||Final Analysis in 2020||1.26|0.57|0.4173
90970218|NCT03099187|181822546|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.79||||0.2726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.2|||Log Rank|Log-rank tests based on the time to the first event are to compare the two treatment arms.||Primary Analysis in 2019||1.20|0.52|0.2726
90970219|NCT03099187|181822546|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.82||||0.3386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.24|||Log Rank|Log-rank tests based on the time to the first event are to compare the two treatment arms.||Final Analysis in 2020||1.24|0.54|0.3386
90970220|NCT03099187|181822547|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.01||||0.9969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|16.08|||Log Rank|Log-rank tests based on the time to the first event are to compare the two treatment arms.||||16.08|0.06|0.9969
90970221|NCT03099187|181822548|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3231|||||||Log Rank|Log-rank tests based on the time to the first event are to compare the two treatment arms.||||||0.3231
90970222|NCT04869345|181822599|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67||||0.684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|3.05||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05.|Boschloo Test||Maximum likelihood estimate of the Odds Ratio comparing retention rate in LARKSPUR group to Attention Control group|||3.05|0.13|.684
90971334|NCT03548051|181825404|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportions|0.05|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.65||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in proportions between study arms, with a two-sided alternative.||0.65|-0.58|>0.999
90938928|NCT02288364|181756889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.29
90938929|NCT00821119|181756911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.14|||risk ratio (RR)|||"Based on previous data from our NICU, 40 - 45% of our preterm infants administered early NCPAP for RDS needed intubation and mechanical ventilation within the first 72h of life. We estimated a 20% absolute reduction in the need of using ETT ventilation with the early use of NIPPV. A sample size of 100 infants per group was calculated with a power of 80% and an alpha error of 5%.~The analysis was performed according to the intention-to-treat principle."||1.14|0.48|<0.05
90938930|NCT00821119|181756912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.14|||risk ratio (RR)|||Based on previous data from our NICU, 40 - 45% of our preterm infants administered early NCPAP for RDS needed intubation and mechanical ventilation within the first 72h of life. We estimated a 20% absolute reduction in the need of using ETT ventilation with the early use of NIPPV. A sample size of 100 infants per group was calculated with a power of 80% and an alpha error of 5%.||1.14|0.48|0.05
90938931|NCT00821119|181756913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.78|||risk ratio (RR)|||The study was not powered for this outcome. However this analysis was done with this limitation||1.78|0.62|< 0.05
90938932|NCT00871143|181756924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||An alpha level of .05 (two-sided) was set.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed models were conducted to determine the predictive value of treatment group and/or time on the outcome variable scores.||||<.001
90938933|NCT00871143|181756924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni correction was used to decrease the risk of type I error.|t-test, 2 sided|||Investigating the difference in BDD YBOCS score between baseline and week 12||||<.001
90938934|NCT00871143|181756924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni corrections were used to reduce risk of Type 1 error.|t-test, 2 sided|||Investigating the difference in BDD YBOCS score between between baseline and 1 month follow up||||< .001
90938935|NCT00871143|181756924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni correction was used to decrease the risk of type I error.|t-test, 2 sided|||Investigating the difference in BDD YBOCS score between baseline and week 12||||<.01
91035934|NCT03261167|181958552|OTHER||Adjusted rate difference|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.8|17.9|||||Week 12, Thumb flexion. Analysis was based on the Mantel-Haenszel method using Baseline MAS score of the elbow flexors.|||17.9|-18.8|
90938936|NCT00871143|181756924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni correction was used to decrease risk of type I error|t-test, 2 sided|||Investigating the difference in BDD YBOCS score between baseline and 1 month follow up||||< 0.05
90938937|NCT00871143|181756925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||An alpha level of .05 was set (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed models were conducted to determine the predictive value of treatment group and/or time on the outcome variable scores.||||<.05
90938938|NCT00871143|181756925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni correction was used to decrease the risk of type I error.|t-test, 2 sided|||T-tests were used to investigate significant differences between baseline and 12 week measures||||<0.01
90938939|NCT00871143|181756925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni corrections were implemented to adjust for type I error|t-test, 2 sided|||T-tests were used to investigate significant differences between baseline and 1 month follow up.||||< 0.001
90938940|NCT00871143|181756925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni correction was used to decrease the risk of type I error.|t-test, 2 sided|||T-tests were used to investigate significant differences between baseline and 12 week assessment measures and baseline and 1 month follow up measures.||||>0.05
90970223|NCT04869345|181822602|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.28||0.835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|2.27||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|P-value adjusted using the Kenward-Roger (1997) degrees of freedom method.|The estimated Mean Difference compares the LARKSPUR intervention minus the Attention Control.|The treatment difference (LARKSPUR Intervention vs. Attention Control) at Week 11 (Post-Intervention) was tested using a mixed effects model with two treatment groups and two time points (Week 11, Week 16) and their interaction adjusting for baseline PROMIS Pain Intensity scores. Sample size was chosen based on feasibility indicators (recruitment, retention, adherence) rather than on formal power analyses.||2.27|-2.80|0.835
90938941|NCT00871143|181756925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni corrections were used to reduce risk of type I error|t-test, 2 sided|||T-tests were used to investigate significant differences between baseline and 1 month follow up measures.||||>0.05
90938942|NCT00871143|181756926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||An alpha level of .05 was set (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|||A Linear mixed model was conducted to determine the predictive value of treatment group and/or time on the outcome variable MADRS scores.||||>0.05
90938943|NCT00871143|181756926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni correction was used to decrease the risk of type I error.|t-test, 2 sided|||Investigating the difference in MADRS score between baseline and week 12.||||<0.01
90938944|NCT00871143|181756926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferonni corrections used to reduce risk of type I error|t-test, 2 sided|||Investigating the difference in MADRS score between baseline and 1 month follow up.||||>0.05
90938945|NCT00871143|181756926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni correction was used to decrease the risk of type I error.|t-test, 2 sided|||Investigating the difference in MADRS score between baseline and week 12.||||>0.05
90938946|NCT00871143|181756926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni corrections used to decrease risk of type I error|t-test, 2 sided|||Investigating the difference in MADRS score between baseline and 1 month follow up.||||> 0.05
90938947|NCT00871143|181756927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||An alpha level of .05 (two-sided) was set.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed models were conducted to determine the predictive value of treatment group and/or time on the outcome variable of AAI scores.||||<0.05
90938948|NCT00871143|181756927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni corrections were applied to decrease the risk of type I error.|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated- measures t tests were used to determine where significant differences in AAI scores occurred from baseline to 12 week .||||<0.001
90938949|NCT00871143|181756927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni corrections were used to reduce risk of type 1 error|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated- measures t tests were used to determine where significant differences in AAI scores occurred from baseline to 2 month follow up.||||< 0.001
90938950|NCT00871143|181756927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni Correction was used in an attempt to reduce risk of type I error.|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated- measures t tests were used to determine where significant differences in AAI scores occurred from baseline to 12 week .||||<0.05
90938951|NCT00871143|181756927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni corrections were used to adjust for type 1 error|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated- measures t tests were used to determine where significant differences in AAI scores occurred from baseline to 2 month follow up.||||>0.05
90938952|NCT00871143|181756928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||An alpha level of .05 was set (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed models were conducted to determine the predictive value of treatment group and/or time on the PHQ-9 score.||||>0.05
90938953|NCT00871143|181756928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Where more than 1 t test had been conducted on each variable, a Bonferroni correction was used to decrease the risk of type I error.|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated- measures t tests were used to determine where significant differences occurred from baseline to end of treatment (12 weeks).||||<0.05
90938954|NCT00871143|181756928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni corrections were used to reduce risk of type I error|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated- measures t tests were used to determine where significant differences occurred from baseline to 2 month follow up.||||> 0.05
90938955|NCT00871143|181756928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||A Bonferroni correction was used to decrease the risk of type I error.|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated- measures t tests were used to determine where significant differences occurred from baseline to end of treatment (12 weeks).||||>0.05
90938956|NCT00871143|181756928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni corrections were used to reduce risk of type I error.|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated- measures t tests were used to determine where significant differences occurred from baseline to 2 month follow up.||||> 0.05
90938957|NCT00871143|181756929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||An alpha level of .05 was set (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed models were conducted to determine the predictive value of treatment group and/or time on GAD-7 scores.||||<0.05
90938958|NCT00871143|181756929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||A Bonferroni correction was used to decrease the risk of type I error.|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated- measures t tests were used to determine where significant differences occurred from baseline to 12 week assessment.||||<0.01
90938959|NCT00871143|181756929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni corrections were implemented to reduce the risk of type I error|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated- measures t tests were used to determine where significant differences occurred from baseline to 2 month follow up assessment.||||> 0.05
90938960|NCT00871143|181756929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||A Bonferroni correction was used to decrease the risk of type I error.|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated- measures t tests were used to determine where significant differences occurred from baseline to 12 week assessment.||||>0.05
90938961|NCT00871143|181756929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni corrections were used to reduce risk of type I error|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated- measures t tests were used to determine where significant differences occurred from baseline to 2 month follow up assessment.||||> 0.05
90938962|NCT00871143|181756930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||An alpha level of .05 was set (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed models were conducted to determine the predictive value of treatment group and/or time on BIQLI scores.||||<0.05
90938963|NCT00871143|181756930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||A Bonferroni correction was used to decrease the risk of type I error.|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated-measures t tests were then used to determine where significant differences in BIQLI occurred between baseline and end of treatment (12 weeks).||||<0.05
90938964|NCT00871143|181756930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni corrections were used to reduce risk of type 1 error|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated-measures t tests were then used to determine where significant differences in BIQLI occurred between baseline and 1 month follow up.||||< 0.05
90938965|NCT00871143|181756930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||A Bonferroni correction was used to decrease the risk of type I error.|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated-measures t tests were then used to determine where significant differences in BIQLI occurred between baseline and end of treatment (12 weeks).||||>0.05
90938966|NCT00871143|181756930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni corrections were used|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated-measures t tests were then used to determine where significant differences in BIQLI occurred between baseline and 1 month follow up.||||> 0.05
90938967|NCT03930238|181756937|SUPERIORITY||Group effect from Bayesian linear mixed|1646.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||We did perform a Bayesian analysis which provided a posterior probability of 99.76% that the daily mean steps in the intervention group exceeded the daily mean steps in the comparison group.|Bayesian linear mixed effects regression||Posterior standard deviation = 578. We have 95% credible intervals - the interval that contains 95% of the posterior probability distribution of the parameter of interest - which ranges from 511 to 2781.|||||
90938968|NCT03930238|181756938|OTHER||Percentage|53.3|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90938969|NCT03341312|181756946|SUPERIORITY||ratio of LS Means|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.16||||||||1.16|0.42|
90938970|NCT03341312|181756946|SUPERIORITY||ratio of LS Means|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.01||||||||1.01|0.49|
90938971|NCT01212952|181756950|OTHER||Maximum Tolerated Dose (MTD) (mg/m^2)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Maximum Tolerated Dose Level is Dose Level 2 (1.3 mg/m\^2 Bortezomib).|||||
90938972|NCT05372913|181756956|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) test for the secondary outcome (i.e., PHQ-8 Week 4 EOT score) was assessed using the pre-specified NI margin of 2.0. NI of W-GenZD to CBT-Lite was declared if the upper bound of the one-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) was less than 2.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.96||||||||0.96|-2.30|
90938973|NCT05135156|181756959|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.0||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|25.0|||Regression, Linear||Difference = intervention - control|||25|3|0.02
90938974|NCT05135156|181756960|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|6.6|||Regression, Linear||Difference = intervention - control|||6.6|-1.0|0.15
90938975|NCT05135156|181756961|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|8.5|||Regression, Linear||Estimation parameter is regression parameter comparing intervention to control|||8.5|-10.9|0.81
90938976|NCT05135156|181756962|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.8|||Regression, Linear||Difference = intervention - control|||0.8|-0.1|0.15
90971241|NCT01087905|181825172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.97|||Regression, Logistic||Inclusion of the Cognitive Medication Adherence Counseling (CMAC) factor (No CMAC versus CMAC) as a control variable did not change the results of this analysis.|"Null hypothesis: No difference in abstinence rates for participants receiving Two Weeks of Nicotine Replacement Therapy (NRT) Monotherapy (Nicotine Patch Only) versus SIx Weeks of NRT Monotherapy. We hypothesized that Six Weeks of NRT Monotherapy would result in statistically significantly higher abstinence rates compared to Two Weeks of NRT Monotherapy.~The study was originally powered to detect at least a 6.4% increase in the abstinence rate due to an enhanced intervention."||1.97|0.96|.079
90938977|NCT05135156|181756963|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|3.7|||Regression, Linear||Estimation parameter is regression parameter comparing intervention to control|||3.7|-2.0|0.54
90938978|NCT05135156|181756965|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.7|||Regression, Linear||Difference = intervention - control|||2.7|-2.1|0.82
90938979|NCT05135156|181756967|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|7.0|||Regression, Linear||Estimation parameter is regression parameter comparing intervention to control|||7|-15|0.44
90938980|NCT05135156|181756968|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.3||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|3.9|||Regression, Linear||Estimation parameter is regression parameter comparing intervention to control|||3.9|-1.3|0.31
90938981|NCT05135156|181756969|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.0||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|17.4|||Regression, Linear||Difference = intervention - control||Estimation parameter is regression parameter comparing intervention to control|17.4|-7.4|0.42
90938982|NCT05135156|181756970|OTHER|Pearson's chi-squared test of independence||||||0.39||||||p=0.39 at baseline, 0.39 at 2 weeks and 0.23 at 4 weeks|Chi-squared|||||||0.39
90938983|NCT05135156|181756971|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.94|||Regression, Linear||Parameters are for a 60-minute greater amount of time spent on the website (range was 21-418 minutes in the first 2 weeks).|Outcome = change in confidence-weighted true false knowledge about lung transplant (14-question investigator-designed survey) from baseline to 2-week study visit||0.94|-0.84|0.91
90938984|NCT05135156|181756971|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.16|||Regression, Linear||Parameters are for a 60-minute greater amount of time spent on the website (range was 21-418 minutes in the first 2 weeks).|Outcome = change in Likert preparedness to discuss transplant from baseline to 2-week study visit||0.16|-0.08|0.53
90970224|NCT04869345|181822602|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29||0.732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|3.0||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom and standard error estimates were adjusted using the Kenward-Roger (1997) method.|The estimated Mean Difference compares the LARKSPUR intervention minus the Attention Control.|The treatment difference (LARKSPUR Intervention vs. Attention Control) at Week 16 (1 Month Post-Intervention) was tested using a mixed effects model with two treatment groups and two time points (Week 11, Week 16) and their interaction adjusting for baseline PROMIS Pain Intensity scores. Sample size was chosen based on feasibility indicators (recruitment, retention, adherence) rather than on formal power analyses.||3.00|-2.12|0.732
90971242|NCT01087905|181825172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.45|||Regression, Logistic||Inclusion of the Cognitive Medication Adherence Counseling (CMAC) factor (No CMAC versus CMAC) as a control variable did not change the results of this analysis.|"Null hypothesis: No difference in abstinence rates for participants receiving Two Weeks of Nicotine Replacement Therapy (NRT) Monotherapy (Nicotine Patch Only) versus Six Weeks of Combination NRT (Patch+Gum). We hypothesized that Six Weeks of Combination NRT would result in statistically significantly higher abstinence rates compared to Two Weeks of NRT Monotherapy.~The study was originally powered to detect at least a 6.4% increase in the abstinence rate due to an enhanced intervention."||2.45|1.20|.003
90938985|NCT05135156|181756971|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.3||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|-0.3|||Regression, Linear||Parameters are for a 60-minute greater amount of time spent on the website (range was 21-418 minutes in the first 2 weeks).|Outcome = change in Decisional Conflict Scale from baseline to 2-week study visit||-0.3|-8.4|0.04
90938986|NCT05135156|181756971|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|5.0||Outcome = mean PrepDM Scale at 2-weeks|Regression, Linear||Parameters are for a 60-minute greater amount of time spent on the website (range was 21-418 minutes in the first 2 weeks).|||5.0|-3.6|0.74
90938987|NCT02389725|181756979|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.95
90938988|NCT02389725|181756980|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.87
90938989|NCT02389725|181756981|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.67
90938990|NCT02389725|181756982|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.32
90938991|NCT00475735|181756988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.341||95.0||||Since this is a proof of concept study with one primary hypothesis (AISRS total score for MK-0249 vs. placebo), there is no multiplicity adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis|The terms were tobacco use, prior stimulant use, time, site, period, sequence, treatment, period-by-time, sequence-by-time, and treatment-by-time.||||||0.341
90938992|NCT00475735|181756988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||Since this is a proof of concept study with one primary hypothesis (AISRS total score for MK-0249 vs. placebo), there is no multiplicity adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis|The terms were tobacco use, prior stimulant use, time, site, period, sequence, treatment, period-by-time, sequence-by-time, and treatment-by-time.||||||0.001
90938993|NCT01187407|181756996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.997||||||Primary comparison.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.997
90938994|NCT01187407|181756996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.769||||||Secondary comparison.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.769
90938995|NCT02350127|181757038|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.22||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|4.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||adjusted for participant baseline MOCA, robust VCE||4.18|-0.59|0.14
90938996|NCT02350127|181757038|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|5.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||restricted to completers||5.6|0.2|0.03
90938997|NCT02350127|181757039|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusting for baseline participant MOCA scores, robust vce.|||0.80|-1.23|0.68
90938998|NCT02350127|181757040|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|2.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||adjusting for baseline participant MOCA, robust VCE||2.08|-3.09|0.70
90938999|NCT02350127|181757041|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|9.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.4|0.8|0.02
90939000|NCT02350127|181757042|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|11.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.6|-5.4|0.47
90939001|NCT02350127|181757043|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.1|-1.1|0.99
90939002|NCT02350127|181757044|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|7.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.2|-7.4|0.98
90939003|NCT02350127|181757045|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|3.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.3|-2.5|0.80
90939004|NCT02350127|181757046|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.2|-3.1|0.38
90939005|NCT02350127|181757047|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.1|-1.7|0.075
90939006|NCT02350127|181757048|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|5.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.0|-1.7|0.35
90939007|NCT02350127|181757049|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|2.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.1|-6.1|0.35
90939008|NCT02350127|181757050|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.8|-0.4|0.54
90939009|NCT02350127|181757051|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.2|-1.5|0.69
90939010|NCT02350127|181757052|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.2||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|9.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.3|-10.9|0.88
90939011|NCT02350127|181757053|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|2.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.5|-0.7|0.26
90939012|NCT02350127|181757054|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.2|-3.9|0.08
90939013|NCT00024102|181757056|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The primary measure of efficacy was the hazard ratio for disease recurrence or death in the capecitabine group as compared with the standard chemotherapy group. Capecitabine would be considered noninferior to standard chemotherapy if the hazard ratio was greater than 0.8046. (With the use of a 5-year landmark for descriptive purposes, this ratio corresponds to a 5-year rate of relapse-free survival of 60% for standard chemotherapy and 53% for capecitabine.)|Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|3.17||Multivariate proportional hazards regression used to test for an arm effect was adjusted for tumor size, number of lymph nodes and hormone-receptor status. A priori formal monitoring for futility and noninferiority was planned at accrual milestones|Regression, Cox|||||3.17|1.38|<0.001
90939014|NCT00024102|181757057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.85||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|3.08||Multivariate proportional hazards regression used to test for an arm effect was adjusted for tumor size, number of lymph nodes and hormone-receptor status. There is no adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox|||||3.08|1.11|0.02
90939015|NCT03418701|181757131|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.67|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|4.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.40|0.93|<0.05
90939016|NCT03418701|181757132|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.47|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|A multilevel logistic regression with participants nested within clinic.||||1.15|0.22|<0.05
90971335|NCT03548051|181825405|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Log Rank|||A Log-Rank permutation test for small samples was used to test the null hypothesis that there is no difference in the time to first CDAD recurrence between treatment arms.||||>0.999
90939017|NCT04754594|181757142|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.9||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs was calculated by exponentiating the mean difference of the logarithms of the assay and the corresponding CIs.||0.90|0.50|
90939018|NCT04754594|181757143|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.77||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs was calculated by exponentiating the mean difference of the logarithms of the assay and the corresponding CIs.||1.77|0.91|
90939019|NCT04754594|181757143|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.3||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs was calculated by exponentiating the mean difference of the logarithms of the assay and the corresponding CIs.||1.30|0.69|
90939020|NCT04754594|181757144|OTHER|Vaccine efficacy was estimated by 100\*(1 - illness rate ratio \[IRR\]), where IRR=calculated ratio of confirmed COVID-19 illness per 1000 person-years of blinded follow-up in the active vaccine group to the corresponding illness rate in the placebo group.|Vaccine efficacy|3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1227.8|93.0||||||||93.0|-1227.8|
90939021|NCT04754594|181757145|OTHER|Vaccine efficacy was estimated by 100\*(1 - IRR), where IRR=calculated ratio of confirmed COVID-19 illness per 1000 person-years of blinded follow-up in the active vaccine group to the corresponding illness rate in the placebo group.|Vaccine efficacy|35.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-466.5|94.6||||||||94.6|-466.5|
90939022|NCT04754594|181757146|OTHER|Vaccine efficacy was estimated by 100\*(1 - IRR), where IRR=calculated ratio of confirmed COVID-19 illness per 1000 person-years of blinded follow-up in the active vaccine group to the corresponding illness rate in the placebo group.|Vaccine efficacy|40.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-104.9|86.5||||||||86.5|-104.9|
90939023|NCT02418819|181757244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean difference from placebo|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.032||0.8243|ONE_SIDED|92.0|-4.78||||ANCOVA|One(1)-sided P-values were obtained from an ANCOVA model on change from baseline with baseline, treatment, site, gender and age as fixed effects.||Baseline is defined as the Day -2 assessment.|||-4.78|0.8243
90939024|NCT02418819|181757244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean difference from placebo|-2.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.252||0.8277|ONE_SIDED|92.0|-5.33||||ANCOVA|One(1)-side P-values were obtained from an ANCOVA model on change from baseline with baseline, treatment, site, gender and age as fixed effects.||Baseline is defined as the Day -2 assessment.|||-5.33|0.8277
90939025|NCT02418819|181757244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean difference from placebo|-4.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.902||0.981|ONE_SIDED|92.0|-6.7||||ANCOVA|One(1)-side P-values were obtained from an ANCOVA model on change from baseline with baseline, treatment, site, gender and age as fixed effects.||Baseline is defined as the Day -2 assessment.|||-6.70|0.9810
90970225|NCT04869345|181822602|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38||0.609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|3.47||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom and standard error estimates were adjusted using the Kenward-Roger (1997) method.|The estimated Mean Difference (Net) compares the change for the LARKSPUR intervention (Week 16 minus Week 11) minus the change for the Attention Control (Week 16 minus Week 11).|The treatment difference (LARKSPUR Intervention vs. Attention Control) in change from Week 11 (Post-Intervention) to Week 16 (1 Month Post-Intervention) was tested using a mixed effects model with two treatment groups and two time points (Week 11, Week 16) and their interaction adjusting for baseline PROMIS Pain Intensity scores. Sample size was chosen based on feasibility indicators (recruitment, retention, adherence) rather than on formal power analyses.||3.47|-2.05|0.609
90970226|NCT04869345|181822603|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08||0.445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.97|1.31||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom and standard error estimates were adjusted using the Kenward-Roger (1997) method.|The estimated Mean Difference compares the LARKSPUR intervention minus the Attention Control.|The treatment difference (LARKSPUR Intervention vs. Attention Control) at Week 11 (Post-Intervention) was tested using a mixed effects model with two treatment groups and two time points (Week 11, Week 16) and their interaction adjusting for baseline PROMIS Pain Interference scores. Sample size was chosen based on feasibility indicators (recruitment, retention, adherence) rather than on formal power analyses.||1.31|-2.97|0.445
90970227|NCT04869345|181822603|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|3.54||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom and standard error estimates were adjusted using the Kenward-Roger (1997) method.|The estimated Mean Difference compares the LARKSPUR intervention minus the Attention Control.|The treatment difference (LARKSPUR Intervention vs. Attention Control) at Week 16 (1 Month Post-Intervention) was tested using a mixed effects model with two treatment groups and two time points (Week 11, Week 16) and their interaction adjusting for baseline PROMIS Pain Interference scores. Sample size was chosen based on feasibility indicators (recruitment, retention, adherence) rather than on formal power analyses.||3.54|-0.78|0.209
90971243|NCT01087905|181825173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||incremental cost-effectiveness ratio|357.0||||||95.0||||There is no p-value for the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).|Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio|Unit of measurement for ICER is U.S. dollars.||In this analysis, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) is computed. ICER is a measure of the added cost per added quit for two treatments. ICER was computed as the cost difference between the least intensive treatment group (2 weeks of nicotine patch only) and a more intensive comparison group divided by the difference in the quit rates of the two groups being compared; ICER for the group that received 2 weeks of nicotine patch and nicotine gum = (213-178)/(.482-.384) = $357.||||
91035704|NCT04859517|181957698|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.4||||0.0612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.03|0.21|||Regression, Logistic||||A statistical method described in Ge et al. (2011) was used to compute a population-level estimate for the treatment difference (in terms of difference in proportion) with adjustment for the pre-defined prognostic factors. The variance of the estimated treatment difference or relative risk reduction was estimated using the delta method.|0.21|-9.03|0.0612
90939026|NCT02418819|181757245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean difference from placebo|0.0129|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.286||0.4821|ONE_SIDED|99.0|-0.6682||||ANCOVA|One (1)-side P-values were obtained from an ANCOVA model on change from baseline with baseline, treatment, site, gender and age as fixed effects.||Baseline is defined as the Day 0 assessment.|||-0.6682|0.4821
90939027|NCT02418819|181757245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean difference from placebo|-0.2974|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.276||0.8576|ONE_SIDED|99.0|-0.9547||||ANCOVA|One (1)-side P-values were obtained from an ANCOVA model on change from baseline with baseline, treatment, site, gender and age as fixed effects.||Baseline is defined as the Day 0 assessment.|||-0.9547|0.8576
90939028|NCT02418819|181757245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean difference from placebo|0.0498|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2403||0.4182|ONE_SIDED|99.0|-0.5226||||ANCOVA|One(1)-side P-values were obtained from an ANCOVA model on change from baseline with baseline, treatment, site, gender and age as fixed effects.||Baseline is defined as the Day 0 assessment.|||-0.5226|0.4182
90939029|NCT01332318|181757252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||||95.0|0.08|0.42|||||An Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model, including terms for treatment, pooled study site, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, was used to calculate the adjusted mean difference and confidence interval. Arm 2 minus Arm 1.|||0.42|0.08|
90939030|NCT01332318|181757252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||||95.0|0.09|0.41|||||An Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model, including terms for treatment, pooled study site, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, was used to calculate the adjusted mean difference and confidence interval. Arm 3 minus Arm 1.|||0.41|0.09|
90939031|NCT01332318|181757252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||||95.0|0.09|0.42|||||An Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model, including terms for treatment, pooled study site, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, was used to calculate the adjusted mean difference and confidence interval. Arm 4 minus Arm 1.|||0.42|0.09|
90939032|NCT00318591|181757288|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The additional explanatory variables were removed using backwards-elimination removing the least significant additional variable for each iteration, until the effect of all included additional variables was significant on α=0.05 significant level. The null-hypothesis of no catheter difference was to be rejected on α=0.05 significant level.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.502||||0.0383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.022|2.207||p-value is adjusted for the following explanatory variables: catheterization frequency, technique (clean/sterile), procedure (participant/nurse), setting (hospital/community) and demographic measures.|Kaplan-Meier|||The analysis was done by comparing Kaplan-Meier estimates of the survival function of the two groups. The analysis was refined by a Cox proportional hazards regression model for survival data.||2.207|1.022|0.0383
90939033|NCT00318591|181757290|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|ANOVA analysis. Limit of significant difference \<0.05||||||0.767||95.0||||baseline characteristics were used as covariates, catheterization procedure (participant or caregiver) as well as technique (sterile or clean). Backward elimination was used.|ANOVA|||||||0.7670
90939034|NCT00318591|181757291|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|ANOVA. Level of significant difference \<0.05||||||0.0074||95.0||||baseline characteristics were used as covariates, catheterization procedure (participant or caregiver) as well as technique (sterile or clean). Backward elimination was used.|ANOVA|||||||0.0074
90939035|NCT00733226|181757342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-1.1||P value was not need to adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The sample size was computed to prove that a 30% decrease of the rate of virus provoked wheezing attacks in the OM-85 group compared with placebo is statistically significant. Approximately 29 analyzable participants in each group were required, with α=0.05 and β=0.10 (ie, with a power of 90%), respectively. The difference of 30% was taken from both pilot study and clinical experience. Sample size estimation was performed by using NCSS and PASS 2000 software.||-1.10|-3.20|0.05
90939036|NCT00733226|181757343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.06|-1.01||P value was not need to adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||-1.01|-3.06|<0.001
90939037|NCT00733226|181757344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.94|-1.27|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P value was not need to adjusted for multiple comparisons||||-1.27|-2.94|<0.001
90939038|NCT00733226|181757345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.11||P value was not need to adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.11|-0.77|0.110
90939039|NCT00733226|181757346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.03||P value was not need to adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.03|-0.55|0.195
90939040|NCT00733226|181757347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.87|0.42||P value was not need to adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.42|-2.87|0.452
90939041|NCT03511378|181757349|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was assessed using a margin of -0.10|Difference in proportions|-0.0296||||0.007|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.076||||Difference in proportion|Binomial proportion used to present difference in proportion in treatments||Analysis population : ITT|||-0.076|0.007
90939042|NCT03511378|181757350|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority is assessed using a margin of 10 percentage points.|Difference in proportions|0.0145|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.0092||||Difference in proportion||Difference of proportion analysed with one sided 95% confidence interval|Analysis population: ITT|||-0.0092|<0.001
90939043|NCT02229396|181757356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, region, baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9.0% or ≥9.0%), week, and treatment by week interaction as fixed factors; baseline value as covariate.||||-0.13|-0.63|0.003
90939044|NCT02229396|181757356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.127|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, region, baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9.0% or ≥9.0%), week, and treatment by week interaction as fixed factors; baseline value as covariate.||||-0.34|-0.84|<0.001
90939045|NCT02229396|181757357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.406|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.79|-1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, region, baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9.0% or ≥9.0%), week, and treatment by week interaction as fixed factors; baseline value as covariate.||||-1.20|-2.79|<0.001
91035705|NCT04859517|181957717|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.22||||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.76|||Log Rank|||||0.76|0.06|0.0077
90939046|NCT02229396|181757357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|-0.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, region, baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9.0% or ≥9.0%), week, and treatment by week interaction as fixed factors; baseline value as covariate.||||-0.55|-2.12|<0.001
90939047|NCT02229396|181757358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.007|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.95|-12.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, region, baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9.0% or ≥9.0%), week, and treatment by week interaction as fixed factors; baseline value as covariate.||||-12.20|-27.95|<0.001
90939048|NCT02229396|181757358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.947|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.39|-8.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, region, baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9.0% or ≥9.0%), week, and treatment by week interaction as fixed factors; baseline value as covariate.||||-8.89|-24.39|<0.001
90939049|NCT02229396|181757359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.168|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.89|-17.59|||ANCOVA|Treatment, region, and baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9.0% or ≥9.0%), as fixed factors; baseline value as covariate.||||-17.59|-37.89|<0.001
90939050|NCT02229396|181757359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.78|-16.78|||ANCOVA|Treatment, region, and baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9.0% or ≥9.0%), as fixed factors; baseline value as covariate.||||-16.78|-36.78|<0.001
90939051|NCT02229396|181757360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|19.7|||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline HbA1c (\<9.0% or ≥9.0%).||||||<0.001
90939052|NCT02229396|181757360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|13.3||||0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline HbA1c (\<9.0% or ≥9.0%).||||||0.001
90939053|NCT02229396|181757361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.494|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.12|-13.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, region, baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9.0% or ≥9.0%), week, and treatment by week interaction as fixed factors; baseline value as covariate.||||-13.40|-27.12|<0.001
90939054|NCT02229396|181757361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.477|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.85|-8.2||This is a nominal p-value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, region, baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9.0% or ≥9.0%), week, and treatment by week interaction as fixed factors; baseline value as covariate.||||-8.20|-21.85|<0.001
90939055|NCT02229396|181757362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|17.9|||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline HbA1c (\<9.0% or ≥9.0%).||||||<0.001
91035706|NCT04859517|181957718|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.49|||Log Rank|||||0.49|0.14|<0.0001
90970228|NCT04869345|181822603|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|4.54||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom and standard error estimates were adjusted using the Kenward-Roger (1997) method.|The estimated Mean Difference (Net) compares the change for the LARKSPUR intervention (Week 16 minus Week 11) minus the change for the Attention Control (Week 16 minus Week 11).|The treatment difference (LARKSPUR Intervention vs. Attention Control) in change from Week 11 (Post-Intervention) to Week 16 (1 Month Post-Intervention) was tested using a mixed effects model with two treatment groups and two time points (Week 11, Week 16) and their interaction adjusting for baseline PROMIS Pain Interference scores. Sample size was chosen based on feasibility indicators (recruitment, retention, adherence) rather than on formal power analyses.||4.54|-0.12|0.063
90970229|NCT04869345|181822604|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|2.13||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom and standard error estimates were adjusted using the Kenward-Roger (1997) method.|The estimated Mean Difference compares the LARKSPUR intervention minus the Attention Control.|The treatment difference (LARKSPUR Intervention vs. Attention Control) at Week 11 (Post-Intervention) was tested using a mixed effects model with two treatment groups and two time points (Week 11, Week 16) and their interaction adjusting for baseline PROMIS Physical Functioning scores. Sample size was chosen based on feasibility indicators (recruitment, retention, adherence) rather than on formal power analyses.||2.13|-1.63|0.792
90970230|NCT04869345|181822604|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|3.09||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom and standard error estimates were adjusted using the Kenward-Roger (1997) method.|The estimated Mean Difference compares the LARKSPUR intervention minus the Attention Control.|The treatment difference (LARKSPUR Intervention vs. Attention Control) at Week 16 (1 Month Post-Intervention) was tested using a mixed effects model with two treatment groups and two time points (Week 11, Week 16) and their interaction adjusting for baseline PROMIS Physical Functioning scores. Sample size was chosen based on feasibility indicators (recruitment, retention, adherence) rather than on formal power analyses.||3.09|-0.69|0.209
90970231|NCT04869345|181822604|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|2.26||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom and standard error estimates were adjusted using the Kenward-Roger (1997) method.|The estimated Mean Difference (Net) compares the change for the LARKSPUR intervention (Week 16 minus Week 11) minus the change for the Attention Control (Week 16 minus Week 11).|The treatment difference (LARKSPUR Intervention vs. Attention Control) in change from Week 11 (Post-Intervention) to Week 16 (1 Month Post-Intervention) was tested using a mixed effects model with two treatment groups and two time points (Week 11, Week 16) and their interaction adjusting for baseline PROMIS Pain Intensity scores. Sample size was chosen based on feasibility indicators (recruitment, retention, adherence) rather than on formal power analyses.||2.26|-0.35|0.151
90970232|NCT04869345|181822605|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.47||0.601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.14|3.69||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom and standard error estimates were adjusted using the Kenward-Roger (1997) method.|The estimated Mean Difference compares the LARKSPUR intervention minus the Attention Control.|The treatment difference (LARKSPUR Intervention vs. Attention Control) at Week 11 (Post-Intervention) was tested using a mixed effects model with two treatment groups and two time points (Week 11, Week 16) and their interaction adjusting for baseline PROMIS Fatigue scores. Sample size was chosen based on feasibility indicators (recruitment, retention, adherence) rather than on formal power analyses.||3.69|-2.14|0.601
90970233|NCT04869345|181822605|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.49||0.269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|1.29||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom and standard error estimates were adjusted using the Kenward-Roger (1997) method.|The estimated Mean Difference compares the LARKSPUR intervention minus the Attention Control.|The treatment difference (LARKSPUR Intervention vs. Attention Control) at Week 16 (1 Month Post-Intervention) was tested using a mixed effects model with two treatment groups and two time points (Week 11, Week 16) and their interaction adjusting for baseline PROMIS Fatigue scores. Sample size was chosen based on feasibility indicators (recruitment, retention, adherence) rather than on formal power analyses.||1.29|-4.60|0.269
90970234|NCT04869345|181822605|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.53||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.47|0.61||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom and standard error estimates were adjusted using the Kenward-Roger (1997) method.|The estimated Mean Difference (Net) compares the change for the LARKSPUR intervention (Week 16 minus Week 11) minus the change for the Attention Control (Week 16 minus Week 11).|The treatment difference (LARKSPUR Intervention vs. Attention Control) in change from Week 11 (Post-Intervention) to Week 16 (1 Month Post-Intervention) was tested using a mixed effects model with two treatment groups and two time points (Week 11, Week 16) and their interaction adjusting for baseline PROMIS Fatigue scores. Sample size was chosen based on feasibility indicators (recruitment, retention, adherence) rather than on formal power analyses.||0.61|-5.47|0.116
90970235|NCT04869345|181822606|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.22||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom and standard error estimates were adjusted using the Kenward-Roger (1997) method.|The estimated Mean Difference compares the LARKSPUR intervention minus the Attention Control.|The treatment difference (LARKSPUR Intervention vs. Attention Control) at Week 11 (Post-Intervention) was tested using a mixed effects model with two treatment groups and two time points (Week 11, Week 16) and their interaction adjusting for baseline CESD-R-10 scores. Sample size was chosen based on feasibility indicators (recruitment, retention, adherence) rather than on formal power analyses.||0.22|-0.10|0.479
90970236|NCT04869345|181822606|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.29||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom and standard error estimates were adjusted using the Kenward-Roger (1997) method.|The estimated Mean Difference compares the LARKSPUR intervention minus the Attention Control.|The treatment difference (LARKSPUR Intervention vs. Attention Control) at Week 16 (1 Month Post-Intervention) was tested using a mixed effects model with two treatment groups and two time points (Week 11, Week 16) and their interaction adjusting for baseline CESD-R-10 scores. Sample size was chosen based on feasibility indicators (recruitment, retention, adherence) rather than on formal power analyses.||0.29|-0.04|0.126
90970237|NCT04869345|181822606|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.25||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom and standard error estimates were adjusted using the Kenward-Roger (1997) method.|The estimated Mean Difference (Net) compares the change for the LARKSPUR intervention (Week 16 minus Week 11) minus the change for the Attention Control (Week 16 minus Week 11).|The treatment difference (LARKSPUR Intervention vs. Attention Control) in change from Week 11 (Post-Intervention) to Week 16 (1 Month Post-Intervention) was tested using a mixed effects model with two treatment groups and two time points (Week 11, Week 16) and their interaction adjusting for baseline CESD-R-10 scores. Sample size was chosen based on feasibility indicators (recruitment, retention, adherence) rather than on formal power analyses.||0.25|-0.12|0.457
90970238|NCT04869345|181822607|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.38||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom and standard error estimates were adjusted using the Kenward-Roger (1997) method.|The estimated Mean Difference compares the LARKSPUR intervention minus the Attention Control.|The treatment difference (LARKSPUR Intervention vs. Attention Control) at Week 11 (Post-Intervention) was tested using a mixed effects model with two treatment groups and two time points (Week 11, Week 16) and their interaction adjusting for baseline mDES scores. Sample size was chosen based on feasibility indicators (recruitment, retention, adherence) rather than on formal power analyses.||0.38|-0.15|0.389
90939056|NCT02229396|181757362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|25.6|||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline HbA1c (\<9.0% or ≥9.0%).||||||<0.001
90971336|NCT00812214|181825420|SUPERIORITY|For the purpose of the power calculation, it was assumed that the difference in total sleep time between the treatment groups is 40 minutes, with a standard deviation of 60. The pilot nature of the study allowed the use of alpha = 0.05 and beta = 0.2, with two-sided comparison, generating a required sample size of 37 subjects per arm.||||||0.33|||||||t-test, 2 sided|two-tailed student's t-test for independent samples||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the 6 week average total sleep time||||0.33
90939057|NCT02229396|181757363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|-0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, region, baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9.0% or ≥9.0%), week, and treatment by week interaction as fixed factors; baseline value as covariate.||||-0.9|-5.2|0.005
90970239|NCT04869345|181822607|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.46||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom and standard error estimates were adjusted using the Kenward-Roger (1997) method.|The estimated Mean Difference compares the LARKSPUR intervention minus the Attention Control.|The treatment difference (LARKSPUR Intervention vs. Attention Control) at Week 16 (1 Month Post-Intervention) was tested using a mixed effects model with two treatment groups and two time points (Week 11, Week 16) and their interaction adjusting for baseline mDES scores. Sample size was chosen based on feasibility indicators (recruitment, retention, adherence) rather than on formal power analyses.||0.46|-0.07|0.157
90970240|NCT04869345|181822607|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.36||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom and standard error estimates were adjusted using the Kenward-Roger (1997) method.|The estimated Mean Difference (Net) compares the change for the LARKSPUR intervention (Week 16 minus Week 11) minus the change for the Attention Control (Week 16 minus Week 11).|The treatment difference (LARKSPUR Intervention vs. Attention Control) in change from Week 11 (Post-Intervention) to Week 16 (1 Month Post-Intervention) was tested using a mixed effects model with two treatment groups and two time points (Week 11, Week 16) and their interaction adjusting for baseline mDES scores. Sample size was chosen based on feasibility indicators (recruitment, retention, adherence) rather than on formal power analyses.||0.36|-0.21|0.593
90970241|NCT04869345|181822608|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.24||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom and standard error estimates were adjusted using the Kenward-Roger (1997) method.|The estimated Mean Difference compares the LARKSPUR intervention minus the Attention Control.|The treatment difference (LARKSPUR Intervention vs. Attention Control) at Week 11 (Post-Intervention) was tested using a mixed effects model with two treatment groups and two time points (Week 11, Week 16) and their interaction adjusting for baseline PANAS-GEN scores. Sample size was chosen based on feasibility indicators (recruitment, retention, adherence) rather than on formal power analyses.||0.24|-0.26|0.933
90971337|NCT00812214|181825421|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the eszopiclone and placebo groups in the number of awakenings/night at 6 weeks.||||0.03
90971338|NCT00812214|181825423|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between Eszopiclone and placebo groups in sleep quality averaged over 6 weeks of treatment.||||0.1
91035707|NCT01667679|181957731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.824|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.76|5.01|||ANCOVA|||||5.01|1.76|<0.0001
91035708|NCT01667679|181957732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.105||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|5.85|||ANCOVA||mild attacks|||5.85|1.47|0.0013
91035709|NCT01667679|181957732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.971||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.84|5.68|||ANCOVA||moderate/severe attacks|||5.68|1.84|0.0002
90970242|NCT04869345|181822608|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.31||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom and standard error estimates were adjusted using the Kenward-Roger (1997) method.|The estimated Mean Difference compares the LARKSPUR intervention minus the Attention Control.|The treatment difference (LARKSPUR Intervention vs. Attention Control) at Week 16 (1 Month Post-Intervention) was tested using a mixed effects model with two treatment groups and two time points (Week 11, Week 16) and their interaction adjusting for baseline PANAS-GEN scores. Sample size was chosen based on feasibility indicators (recruitment, retention, adherence) rather than on formal power analyses.||0.31|-0.19|0.642
90970243|NCT04869345|181822608|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.32||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom and standard error estimates were adjusted using the Kenward-Roger (1997) method.|The estimated Mean Difference (Net) compares the change for the LARKSPUR intervention (Week 16 minus Week 11) minus the change for the Attention Control (Week 16 minus Week 11).|The treatment difference (LARKSPUR Intervention vs. Attention Control) in change from Week 11 (Post-Intervention) to Week 16 (1 Month Post-Intervention) was tested using a mixed effects model with two treatment groups and two time points (Week 11, Week 16) and their interaction adjusting for baseline PANAS-GEN scores. Sample size was chosen based on feasibility indicators (recruitment, retention, adherence) rather than on formal power analyses.||0.32|-0.18|0.577
90970244|NCT04869345|181822609|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.13||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom and standard error estimates were adjusted using the Kenward-Roger (1997) method.|The estimated Mean Difference compares the LARKSPUR intervention minus the Attention Control.|The treatment difference (LARKSPUR Intervention vs. Attention Control) at Week 11 (Post-Intervention) was tested using a mixed effects model with two treatment groups and two time points (Week 11, Week 16) and their interaction adjusting for baseline PSS scores. Sample size was chosen based on feasibility indicators (recruitment, retention, adherence) rather than on formal power analyses.||0.13|-0.32|0.403
90970245|NCT04869345|181822609|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.01||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom and standard error estimates were adjusted using the Kenward-Roger (1997) method.|The estimated Mean Difference compares the LARKSPUR intervention minus the Attention Control.|The treatment difference (LARKSPUR Intervention vs. Attention Control) at Week 16 (1 Month Post-Intervention) was tested using a mixed effects model with two treatment groups and two time points (Week 11, Week 16) and their interaction adjusting for baseline PROMIS PSS scores. Sample size was chosen based on feasibility indicators (recruitment, retention, adherence) rather than on formal power analyses.||0.01|-0.44|0.062
90970246|NCT04869345|181822609|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.09||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom and standard error estimates were adjusted using the Kenward-Roger (1997) method.|The estimated Mean Difference (Net) compares the change for the LARKSPUR intervention (Week 16 minus Week 11) minus the change for the Attention Control (Week 16 minus Week 11).|The treatment difference (LARKSPUR Intervention vs. Attention Control) in change from Week 11 (Post-Intervention) to Week 16 (1 Month Post-Intervention) was tested using a mixed effects model with two treatment groups and two time points (Week 11, Week 16) and their interaction adjusting for baseline PSS scores. Sample size was chosen based on feasibility indicators (recruitment, retention, adherence) rather than on formal power analyses.||0.09|-0.33|0.269
90971244|NCT01087905|181825173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio|712.0||||||95.0||||There is no p-value for the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).|Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio|Unit of measurement for ICER is U.S. dollars.||In this analysis, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) is computed. ICER is a measure of the added cost per added quit for two treatments. ICER was computed as the cost difference between the least intensive treatment group (2 weeks of nicotine patch only) and a more intensive comparison group divided by the difference in the quit rates of the two groups being compared; ICER for the group that received 6 weeks of nicotine patch only = (233-178)/(.462-.384) = $712.||||
90970247|NCT04869345|181822610|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.33||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom and standard error estimates were adjusted using the Kenward-Roger (1997) method.|The estimated Mean Difference (Net) compares the change for the LARKSPUR intervention (Week 11 minus Baseline) minus the change for the Attention Control (Week 11 minus Baseline).|The treatment difference (LARKSPUR Intervention vs. Attention Control) in change from Baseline to Week 11 (Post-Intervention) was tested using a mixed effects model with two treatment groups and three time points (Baseline, Week 11, Week 16) and their interaction while accounting for heterogeneous (random slopes) linear daily trends. Sample size was chosen based on feasibility indicators (recruitment, retention, adherence) rather than on formal power analyses.||0.33|0.07|0.003
90970248|NCT04869345|181822610|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.31||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom and standard error estimates were adjusted using the Kenward-Roger (1997) method.|The estimated Mean Difference (Net) compares the change for the LARKSPUR intervention (Week 16 minus Baseline) minus the change for the Attention Control (Week 16 minus Baseline).|The treatment difference (LARKSPUR Intervention vs. Attention Control) in change from Baseline to Week 16 (1 Month Post-Intervention) was tested using a mixed effects model with two treatment groups and three time points (Baseline, Week 11, Week 16) and their interaction while accounting for heterogeneous (random slopes) linear daily trends. Sample size was chosen based on feasibility indicators (recruitment, retention, adherence) rather than on formal power analyses.||0.31|0.05|0.006
90970249|NCT04869345|181822610|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.12||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom and standard error estimates were adjusted using the Kenward-Roger (1997) method.|The estimated Mean Difference (Net) compares the change for the LARKSPUR intervention (Week 16 minus Week 11) minus the change for the Attention Control (Week 16 minus Week 11).|The treatment difference (LARKSPUR Intervention vs. Attention Control) in change from Week 11 (Post-Intervention) to Week 16 (1 Month Post-Intervention) was tested using a mixed effects model with two treatment groups and three time points (Baseline, Week 11, Week 16) and their interaction while accounting for heterogeneous (random slopes) linear daily trends. Sample size was chosen based on feasibility indicators (recruitment, retention, adherence) rather than on formal power analyses.||0.12|-0.15|0.796
90970250|NCT04869345|181822611|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.05||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom and standard error estimates were adjusted using the Kenward-Roger (1997) method.|The estimated Mean Difference (Net) compares the change for the LARKSPUR intervention (Week 11 minus Baseline) minus the change for the Attention Control (Week 11 minus Baseline).|The treatment difference (LARKSPUR Intervention vs. Attention Control) in change from Baseline to Week 11 (Post-Intervention) was tested using a mixed effects model with two treatment groups and three time points (Baseline, Week 11, Week 16) and their interaction while accounting for heterogeneous (random slopes) linear daily trends. Sample size was chosen based on feasibility indicators (recruitment, retention, adherence) rather than on formal power analyses.||0.05|-0.03|0.758
90970251|NCT04869345|181822611|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.04||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom and standard error estimates were adjusted using the Kenward-Roger (1997) method.|The estimated Mean Difference (Net) compares the change for the LARKSPUR intervention (Week 16 minus Baseline) minus the change for the Attention Control (Week 16 minus Baseline).|The treatment difference (LARKSPUR Intervention vs. Attention Control) in change from Baseline to Week 16 (1 Month Post-Intervention) was tested using a mixed effects model with two treatment groups and three time points (Baseline, Week 11, Week 16) and their interaction while accounting for heterogeneous (random slopes) linear daily trends. Sample size was chosen based on feasibility indicators (recruitment, retention, adherence) rather than on formal power analyses.||0.04|-0.04|0.880
90970252|NCT04869345|181822611|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.652|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.03||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom and standard error estimates were adjusted using the Kenward-Roger (1997) method.|The estimated Mean Difference (Net) compares the change for the LARKSPUR intervention (Week 16 minus Week 11) minus the change for the Attention Control (Week 16 minus Week 11).|The treatment difference (LARKSPUR Intervention vs. Attention Control) in change from Week 11 (Post-Intervention) to Week 16 (1 Month Post-Intervention) was tested using a mixed effects model with two treatment groups and three time points (Baseline, Week 11, Week 16) and their interaction while accounting for heterogeneous (random slopes) linear daily trends. Sample size was chosen based on feasibility indicators (recruitment, retention, adherence) rather than on formal power analyses.||0.03|-0.05|0.652
90970253|NCT01500759|181822637|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
90970254|NCT01500759|181822638|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
90970255|NCT01500759|181822639|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90970256|NCT01500759|181822640|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
90970257|NCT01290874|181822641|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.31
90970258|NCT02813551|181822731|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.1||||||||1.10|0.53|
90970259|NCT02813551|181822732|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.3||||||||3.3|0.4|
90970260|NCT02813551|181822733|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|28.0||||||||28|0.3|
90970261|NCT02813551|181822734|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.3||||||||1.3|1.0|
90970262|NCT02813551|181822737|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.2||||||||1.2|1.0|
90970263|NCT02813551|181822738|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.9||||||||1.9|0.5|
90970264|NCT02813551|181822739|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.9||||||||2.9|0.1|
90970265|NCT00102960|181822744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.93|||Regression, Cox|||Statistical analysis compares early therapy 40 weeks (ART-40W) relative to deferred therapy (ART-Def)||0.93|0.38|0.02
90970266|NCT00102960|181822744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.47||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.76|||Regression, Cox|||Statistical analysis compares early therapy 96 weeks (ART-96W) relative to deferred therapy (ART-Def)||0.76|0.27|0.002
90970267|NCT00102960|181822749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier Cummulative Probability|0.13||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.25|||Proportion test|||Relative to ART-Def, ART-40W had a 13% difference in the cumulative probability of clinical disease progression or death at 3·5 years||0.25|0.01|0.03
90939058|NCT02229396|181757363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, region, baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9.0% or ≥9.0%), week, and treatment by week interaction as fixed factors; baseline value as covariate.||||-0.4|-4.5|0.022
90939059|NCT02679079|181757379|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|3.8||Nominal p-value is considered statistically significant if less than 0.05. To control for multiplicity, comparisons were tested sequentially.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.8|-4.4|0.89
91035710|NCT01667679|181957733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.3549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.6|||ANCOVA||10 minutes post-dose|||1.60|0.85|0.3549
90939060|NCT02679079|181757379|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|5.6||To control for multiplicity, comparisons were tested sequentially. Nominal p-value was not evaluated for statistical significance since first comparison was not statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.6|-2.6|0.47
90939061|NCT02679079|181757380|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.2||To control for multiplicity, comparisons were tested sequentially. Nominal p-value was not evaluated for statistical significance since first comparison was not statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.2|-1.0|0.21
90939062|NCT02679079|181757380|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.8||To control for multiplicity, comparisons were tested sequentially. Nominal p-value was not evaluated for statistical significance since first comparison was not statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.8|-0.5|0.67
91035711|NCT01667679|181957733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|1.9|||ANCOVA||15 minutes post-dose|||1.90|1.20|0.0005
91035712|NCT01667679|181957733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|2.21|||ANCOVA||30 minutes post-dose|||2.21|1.45|<0.0001
90939063|NCT02679079|181757381|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.9||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|||||Comparison was not included in multiplicity adjustment procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by age group (6 to 11 years, 12 to 17 years)|Risk difference expressed as percentage.|||||0.24
90939064|NCT02679079|181757381|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.5||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|||||Comparison was not included in multiplicity adjustment procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by age group (6 to 11 years, 12 to 17 years).|Risk difference expressed as a percentage.|||||0.71
90939065|NCT02679079|181757382|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|3.9||Comparison was not included in multiplicity adjustment procedure.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.9|-7.7|0.52
90939066|NCT02679079|181757382|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|7.2||Comparison was not included in multiplicity adjustment procedure.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.2|-4.5|0.64
91035713|NCT01667679|181957733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|1.96|||ANCOVA||45 minutes post-dose|||1.96|1.24|0.0002
90939067|NCT02679079|181757383|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|6.5||Comparison was not included in multiplicity adjustment procedure.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.5|-11.2|0.60
90939068|NCT02679079|181757383|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|11.7||Comparison was not included in multiplicity adjustment procedure.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.7|-6.1|0.54
90939069|NCT02679079|181757384|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|1.6||Comparison was not included in multiplicity adjustment procedure.|ANCOVA|||||1.6|-2.6|0.64
90939070|NCT02679079|181757384|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.9||Comparison was not included in multiplicity adjustment procedure.|ANCOVA|||||1.9|-2.5|0.77
90939071|NCT02679079|181757385|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|3.2||Comparison was not included in multiplicity adjustment procedure.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.2|-1.4|0.45
90939072|NCT02679079|181757385|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|1.9||Comparison was not included in multiplicity adjustment procedure.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.9|-2.7|0.72
90939073|NCT02679079|181757386|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.7||Comparison was not included in multiplicity adjustment procedure.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.7|-0.3|0.41
90939074|NCT02679079|181757386|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.1||Comparison was not included in multiplicity adjustment procedure.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.1|0.2|0.01
90939075|NCT02679079|181757387|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.8||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|||||Comparison was not included in multiplicity adjustment procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by age group (6 to 11 years, 12 to 17 years).|Risk difference expressed as a percentage.|||||0.18
90939076|NCT02679079|181757387|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.7||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|||||Comparison was not included in multiplicity adjustment procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by age group (6 to 11 years, 12 to 17 years).|Risk difference expressed as a percentage.|||||0.95
90939077|NCT03009019|181757388|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|2.03|||Fisher Exact|||Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF)||2.03|0.97|0.075
90970268|NCT00102960|181822749|SUPERIORITY||Kaplan-Meier Cummulative Probability|0.2||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.31|||Proportion test|||Relative to ART-Def, ART-96W had a 13% difference in the cumulative probability of clinical disease progression or death at 3·5 years||0.31|0.09|0.0006
90970269|NCT00102960|181822750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate per 100 person years|0.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value compares event rates per 100 person-years across the three arms|Poisson Regression|||The CHER study compared Grade 3 or 4 clinical event rates per 100 person-years between the three arms using Poisson regression modeling over the study duration of 4.8 years.|The rates per 100 person-years were 33.8 (Arm 1), 21.6 (Arm 2) and 16 (Arm 3)|||<0.0001
90970270|NCT00102960|181822751|SUPERIORITY||Rate per 100 person years|0.0||||0.46|TWO_SIDED||||||Poisson regression|||The event rates per 100 person years were compared across the three arms|The laboratory events per 100 person years across the three arms were: 7 (Deferred arm), 8.1 (early therapy for 40 weeks) and 6 (early therapy for 96 weeks).|||0.46
90970271|NCT00102960|181822754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.48||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.84|||Regression, Cox||Hazard rate reported above compares early therapy 40 weeks relative to the deferred therapy arm.|The analysis compares ART-40W relative to the ART-Def arm.||0.84|0.27|0.011
90970272|NCT00102960|181822754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.34||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.64|||Regression, Cox||The hazard ratio compares ART-96W relative to the ART-Def arm.|The analysis compares ART-96 Weeks relative to ART-Deferred||0.64|0.18|0.0009
90970273|NCT00102960|181822756|SUPERIORITY||Count of days|0.0||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value here compares the days spent in hospital across the three arms|Poisson regression||||The total number of days/count of days: 1018 (Arm 1), 533 (Arm 2) and 414 (Arm 3) were compared across the three groups by Poisson regression analysis.|||0.004
90970274|NCT00102960|181822757|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.562||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.389|0.811|||Regression, Cox|||||0.811|0.389|0.0021
90970275|NCT00102960|181822757|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.583||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.405|0.84|||Regression, Cox|||||0.840|0.405|0.0038
90970276|NCT03040999|181822758|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.1997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.15|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by human papilloma virus (HPV) status and overall cancer stage.|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by HPV status and overall cancer stage.|||1.15|0.71|0.1997
90970277|NCT03040999|181822761|OTHER||Difference in Least squares mean|-4.24||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.85|-1.63|||cLDA||Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment, time, treatment by time interaction, and stratification factors of HPV status and overall cancer stage.|Difference in Least Squares Mean||-1.63|-6.85|0.0015
90939078|NCT03009019|181757388|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.14|||Fisher Exact|||Observed cases (OC)||2.14|1.00|0.055
90939079|NCT03009019|181757389|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.75||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|2.52|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.52|1.22|0.003
90939080|NCT03009019|181757389|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|2.55|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.55|1.22|0.003
90939081|NCT01812707|181757415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for significance ≤0.05|ANCOVA|||"Each treatment group was compared to placebo using ANCOVA-derived contrasts.~A hierarchical testing procedure was applied to ensure strong control of overall Type-I error rate at 0.05 level. Order was following:~1. Alirocumab 150 mg Q2W versus placebo~2. Alirocumab 75 mg Q2W versus placebo~3. Alirocumab 50 mg Q2W versus placebo~Testing continued only when high-order test was statistically significant at 5% level."||||<0.0001
90939082|NCT01812707|181757415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for significance ≤0.05|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
90939083|NCT01812707|181757415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for significance ≤0.05|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
90939084|NCT01066897|181757439|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.002
90939085|NCT01066897|181757440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.368|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.44||0.067|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|One sample t-test to determine if the % change in HAMD was different from 0||For the 2 dropouts, used LOCF.||||.067
90939086|NCT01697592|181757454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-0.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.75|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Constrained longitudinal data analysis with terms for treatment, basal AHA medication, prior AHA therapy status except for basal medication, and time.||||-0.75|-1.10|<0.001
90939087|NCT01697592|181757454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-0.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|-0.6|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Constrained longitudinal data analysis with terms for treatment, basal AHA medication, prior AHA therapy status except for basal medication, and time.||||-0.60|-1.37|<0.001
90939088|NCT01697592|181757454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-0.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|-0.56|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Constrained longitudinal data analysis with terms for treatment, basal AHA medication, prior AHA therapy status except for basal medication, and time.||||-0.56|-1.29|<0.001
90939089|NCT01697592|181757454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-1.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|-0.88|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Constrained longitudinal data analysis with terms for treatment, basal AHA medication, prior AHA therapy status except for basal medication, and time.||||-0.88|-1.45|<0.001
90939090|NCT01697592|181757454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.54|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Constrained longitudinal data analysis with terms for treatment, basal AHA medication, prior AHA therapy status except for basal medication, and time.||||-0.54|-1.06|<0.001
90939091|NCT00265096|181757515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The positive test is concluded if there is a significant difference between combined golimumab and placebo groups and at least one of the pair-wise conparisons at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) with stratification (stratified by baseline MTX usage).||Null Hypothesis: No difference in ACR 20 response comparing Groups I vs II and Groups I vs III. Sample size (n=396; 110 placebo, 286 combined golimumab) provided \>98% power to detect a significant difference (alpha=0.05) in ACR 20 response between treatment groups, assuming equal proportions of subjects receiving methotrexate (MTX) at baseline and the difference in ACR 20 response of 27% in subjects without MTX and 17-27% in subjects with MTX, between placebo and combined golimumab groups.||||<0.001
90939092|NCT00265096|181757515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) with stratification (stratified by baseline MTX usage).||||||<0.001
90939093|NCT00265096|181757515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) with stratification (stratified by baseline MTX usage).||||||<0.001
90939094|NCT00265096|181757516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) with stratification (stratified by baseline MTX usage)||||||<0.001
90939095|NCT00265096|181757516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) with stratification (stratified by baseline MTX usage)||||||<0.001
90939096|NCT00265096|181757516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) with stratification (stratified by baseline MTX usage)||||||<0.001
90939097|NCT00265096|181757517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores|With 2 factors (treatment group and subject's baseline Methotrexate (MTX) usage)||||||<0.001
90939098|NCT00265096|181757517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores|With 2 factors (treatment group and subject's baseline MTX usage)||||||<0.001
90939099|NCT00265096|181757517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores|With 2 factors (treatment group and subject's baseline MTX usage)||||||<0.001
90939100|NCT00265096|181757518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores|With 2 factors (treatment and subject's baseline Methotrexate (MTX) usage)||||||<0.001
90939101|NCT00265096|181757518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores|With 2 factors (with treatment and subject's baseline MTX usage)||||||<0.001
90939102|NCT00265096|181757518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores|With 2 factors (treatment and subject's baseline MTX usage)||||||<0.001
90939103|NCT00265096|181757519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015||||||The test was not to be performed if the test of ACR 20 at Week 24 was not significant.|ANOVA|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) on van der Waerden scores with 2 factors: treatment group and participant's baseline methotrexate (MTX) usage||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in change from baseline among 3 treatment groups. Sample size (n=396, 110 placebo, 286 combined golimumab) provided \>93% power to detect a significant difference (alpha=0.05) in change from baseline between treatment groups, assuming 50% of subjects received MTX at baseline, and mean change from baseline for combined golimumab of 0, and a mean increase for placebo of 0.1 in subjects who received MTX at baseline and 0.6 in subjects who did not receive MTX||||0.015
90939104|NCT00265096|181757519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011||||||The test was not to be performed if the test of ACR 20 at Week 24 was not significant|ANOVA|ANOVA on van der Waerden scores with 2 factors: treatment group and participant's baseline Methotrexate (MTX) usage||||||0.011
90939105|NCT00265096|181757519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.086||||||The test was not to be performed if the test of ACR 20 at Week 24 was not significant|ANOVA|ANOVA on van der Waerden scores with 2 factors: treatment group and participant's baseline Methotrexate (MTX) usage||||||0.086
90939106|NCT00265096|181757520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) with stratification (stratified by baseline Methotrexate (MTX) usage)||||||<0.001
90939107|NCT00265096|181757520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) with stratification (stratified by baseline MTX usage)||||||<0.001
90939108|NCT00265096|181757520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) with stratification (stratified by baseline MTX usage)||||||<0.001
90970278|NCT03040999|181822762|OTHER||Difference in Least squares mean|-0.51||||0.7719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.98|2.96|||cLDA||Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment, time, treatment by time interaction, and stratification factors of HPV status and overall cancer stage.|Difference in Least Squares Mean||2.96|-3.98|0.7719
90970279|NCT03040999|181822763|OTHER||Difference in Least squares mean|-1.29||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.64|2.06|||cLDA||Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment, time, treatment by time interaction, and stratification factors of HPV status and overall cancer stage.|Difference in Least Squares Mean||2.06|-4.64|0.4500
91035714|NCT01667679|181957733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.71|||ANCOVA||60 minutes post-dose|||1.71|1.10|0.0057
90939109|NCT00666835|181757547|EQUIVALENCE|Therapeutic equivalence was defined as the two-sided 95 % confidence interval of the difference between the two treatment groups lying entirely in the interval -0.5 to 0.5 g/dL. The confidence interval of the difference was calculated based on the least square means (LSMEANS) from an analysis of co-variance model including factors treatment, center, mean baseline Hb level (\<11.5 and T11.5 g/dL) as factors and change of the mean weekly dose as a covariate.|Point estimate of difference (ANCOVA)|0.084|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.338||||||||0.338|-0.170|
90939110|NCT00666835|181757548|EQUIVALENCE|Therapeutic equivalence was defined as the two-sided 95 % confidence interval of the difference between the two treatment groups lying entirely in the interval -0.5 to 0.5 g/dL. The confidence interval of the difference was calculated based on the least square means (LSMEANS) from an analysis of co-variance model including factors treatment, center, mean baseline Hb level (\<11.5 and T11.5 g/dL) as factors and change of the mean weekly dose as a covariate.|Difference LSM of Epo Hexal & Erypo|0.189|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.039|0.418||||||||0.418|-0.039|
90939111|NCT03861429|181757549|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.32||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|14.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Multilevel logistic regression (generalized estimating equations \[GEE\] with an autoregressive (1) working correlation matrix, logit link function) were fitted to assess the primary hypotheses. The models account for the repeated measures (3 or 4 time points), correlated, data structure per person. An additive model was conducted with contrast coding for each time point, treatment, and follow-up effects.||14.15|.78|.105
90939112|NCT03861429|181757550|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.022|1.178|||Mixed Models Analysis||Calculation of mean differences were derived from mixed model analyses|||1.178|.022|.04
90939113|NCT03861429|181757551|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.46|||Mixed Models Analysis||Calculation of mean differences were derived from mixed model analyses|||.46|.12|.001
90939114|NCT03861429|181757552|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.35||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.48|||Mixed Models Analysis||Calculation of mean differences were derived from mixed model analyses|||.48|.21|.001
90939115|NCT03861429|181757553|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||.19|-.01|.081
90939116|NCT03861429|181757554|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||Calculation of mean differences were derived from mixed model analyses|||.3|.11|.033
91035715|NCT01667679|181957733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.0654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.61|||ANCOVA||90 minutes post-dose|||1.61|0.99|0.0654
91035716|NCT01667679|181957733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.2894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.49|||ANCOVA||120 minutes post-dose|||1.49|0.89|0.2894
90939117|NCT01763346|181757563|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||35 subjects per group provided 80% power to detect an effect size of 0.59, assuming a 2-sided p=0.05, adjustment for baseline measures using ANCOVA, and correlation of 0.5 between baseline and end-study measures.|General Linear Models|Differences in primary outcomes between groups at 24-months were compared using general linear models with baseline values included as covariates.||We selected a sample size that would allow detection of an effect size of \~0.6 or greater between gastric band and metformin groups for measures of β-cell function after two years, hypothesizing greater function in the gastric band group.||||0.05
90939118|NCT01797822|181757600|OTHER|Statistical comparison between groups was made with t-test. A sample size of 20 subjects was calculates to have 90% power of detecting a statistical difference (P\<0.05) in change in corneal staining pre and post low humidity challenge.|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.05
90939119|NCT00396097|181757687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033||0.5762|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-0.071||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was that the individualized treatment arm was not superior to the standard treatment arm; alternative hypothesis that the individualized treatment arm was superior to the standard treatment arm with respect to the mean 24-month AOTD. Using a 2:1 randomization, a two sided sample t-test comparing the root AOTD between the 2 treatment arms with 80% power at a 5% level required 260 subjects. Assuming a 20% attrition rate, approximately 312 subjects were needed for this study.|||-0.071|0.5762
90939120|NCT00396097|181757688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.627|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA (Levene's Test)|||||||0.627
90939121|NCT00396097|181757689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.033||||0.8016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.802|1.33|||Regression, Cox|||||1.330|0.802|0.8016
90939122|NCT00396097|181757690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.822|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.25||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.395|10.249|||ANCOVA|||||10.249|1.395|0.0101
90939123|NCT00396097|181757690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.281|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.471||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.417|14.145|||ANCOVA|||||14.145|4.417|0.0002
90939124|NCT00396097|181757690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.204|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.495||0.2001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.707|8.114|||ANCOVA|||||8.114|-1.707|0.2001
90939125|NCT00396097|181757691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|36.899|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.414|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.181|43.618|||ANCOVA|||||43.618|30.181|<0.0001
90939126|NCT00396097|181757691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|48.517|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.284|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.054|54.98|||ANCOVA|||||54.980|42.054|<.0001
90939127|NCT00396097|181757691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|34.443|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.306|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.936|40.951|||ANCOVA|||||40.951|27.936|<.0001
90939128|NCT00396097|181757692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.091|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.081||0.2618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.068|0.249|||ANCOVA|||||0.249|-0.068|0.2618
90939129|NCT00396097|181757692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.013|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094||0.8926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.172|0.198|||ANCOVA|||||0.198|-0.172|0.8926
90939130|NCT00396097|181757692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.095||0.9566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.192|0.181|||ANCOVA|||||0.181|-0.192|0.9566
90939131|NCT03209050|181757698|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Clopper-Pearson 95% CI|||||||0.5
90939132|NCT02959177|181757707|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-3.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|-2.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.22|-3.80|<0.001
90939133|NCT02959177|181757707|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.53|-1.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.94|-3.53|<0.001
90939134|NCT02959177|181757708|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.71|5.57||||||||5.57|2.71|
90939135|NCT02959177|181757708|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.664|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.54|5.23||||||||5.23|2.54|
90939136|NCT02959177|181757709|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.14|4.89||||||||4.89|2.14|
90939137|NCT02959177|181757709|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.08|4.8||||||||4.80|2.08|
90939138|NCT02959177|181757710|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.03|5.93||||||||5.93|2.03|
90939139|NCT02959177|181757710|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.79|5.44||||||||5.44|1.79|
90939140|NCT02959177|181757711|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|7.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.54|9.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.46|4.54|<0.001
90939141|NCT02959177|181757711|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.79|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.33|8.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.24|3.33|<0.01
90939142|NCT02959177|181757712|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.61|-2.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.19|-3.61|<0.001
90939143|NCT02959177|181757712|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.41|-1.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.99|-3.41|<0.001
90939144|NCT02959177|181757714|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-11.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.14|-7.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-7.51|-16.14|<0.001
90939145|NCT02959177|181757714|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-13.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.05|-9.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-9.40|-18.05|<0.001
90939146|NCT02959177|181757715|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-4.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.06|-1.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.73|-8.06|<0.001
90939147|NCT02959177|181757715|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.08|0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.14|-6.08|<.001
90971339|NCT00812214|181825423|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between Eszopiclone and placebo groups in daytime alertness averaged over 6 weeks of treatment.||||0.29
90939148|NCT02642159|181757727|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-32.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-38.1|-27.0||Threshold for significance \<=0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. usual care|Alirocumab group was compared to usual care group using an appropriate contrast statement.||-27.0|-38.1|<0.0001
90939149|NCT02642159|181757728|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-33.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-46.6|-19.9||Threshold for significance \<=0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab (intent to prescribe fenofibrate) vs. usual care (intent to prescribe fenofibrate)|Alirocumab group was compared to usual care group for the intent to prescribe fenofibrate using an appropriate contrast statement.||-19.9|-46.6|<0.0001
90939150|NCT02642159|181757729|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-43.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-49.7|-36.3||Threshold for significance \<=0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. usual care|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses for overall ITT analysis. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.025 level.||-36.3|-49.7|<0.0001
90939151|NCT02642159|181757730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-55.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-71.8|-39.6||Threshold for significance \<=0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab (intent to prescribe fenofibrate) vs. usual care (intent to prescribe fenofibrate)|A separate hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses for ITT-intent to prescribe fenofibrate stratum. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.025 level.||-39.6|-71.8|<0.0001
90939152|NCT02642159|181757731|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-26.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-31.5|-20.7||Threshold for significance \<=0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. usual care|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint of overall ITT analysis was statistically significant).||-20.7|-31.5|<0.0001
90939153|NCT02642159|181757732|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-27.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-40.0|-14.8||Threshold for significance \<=0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab (intent to prescribe fenofibrate) vs. usual care (intent to prescribe fenofibrate)|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint of ITT-intent to prescribe fenofibrate stratum was statistically significant).||-14.8|-40.0|<0.0001
90939154|NCT02642159|181757733|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-34.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-40.8|-28.6||Threshold for significance \<=0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. usual care|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint of overall ITT analysis was statistically significant).||-28.6|-40.8|<0.0001
90939155|NCT02642159|181757734|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-49.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-63.7|-35.8||Threshold for significance \<=0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab (intent to prescribe fenofibrate) vs. usual care (intent to prescribe fenofibrate)|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint of ITT-intent to prescribe fenofibrate stratum was statistically significant).||-35.8|-63.7|<0.0001
90939156|NCT02642159|181757735|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-32.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-37.3|-27.2||Threshold for significance \<=0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. usual care|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint of overall ITT analysis was statistically significant).||-27.2|-37.3|<0.0001
90939157|NCT02642159|181757736|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-35.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-47.4|-22.9||Threshold for significance \<=0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab (intent to prescribe fenofibrate) vs. usual care (intent to prescribe fenofibrate)|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint of ITT- intent to prescribe fenofibrate stratum was statistically significant).||-22.9|-47.4|<0.0001
90939158|NCT02642159|181757737|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-24.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-28.8|-20.3||Threshold for significance \<=0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. usual care|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint of overall ITT analysis was statistically significant).||-20.3|-28.8|<0.0001
90939159|NCT02642159|181757738|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-25.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-35.4|-15.1||Threshold for significance \<=0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab (intent to prescribe fenofibrate) vs. usual care (intent to prescribe fenofibrate)|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint of ITT- intent to prescribe fenofibrate stratum was statistically significant).||-15.1|-35.4|<0.0001
90939160|NCT02642159|181757739|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-27.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-34.6|-20.1||Threshold for significance \<=0.025.|Regression, Robust|Multiple imputation approach followed by robust regression model.|Alirocumab vs. usual care|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint of overall ITT analysis was statistically significant).||-20.1|-34.6|<0.0001
90939161|NCT02642159|181757740|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-22.8||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-40.6|-5.0||Threshold for significance \<=0.025.|Regression, Robust|Multiple imputation approach followed by robust regression model.|Alirocumab (intent to prescribe fenofibrate) vs. usual care (intent to prescribe fenofibrate)|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint of ITT- intent to prescribe fenofibrate stratum was statistically significant).||-5.0|-40.6|0.0040
90939162|NCT02642159|181757741|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-4.2||||0.2191|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-11.8|3.4||Threshold for significance \<=0.025.|Regression, Robust|Multiple imputation approach followed by robust regression.|Alirocumab vs. usual care|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint of overall ITT analysis was statistically significant).||3.4|-11.8|0.2191
90970280|NCT03040999|181822764|OTHER||Difference in Least squares mean|1.29||||0.3524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|4.02|||cLDA||Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment, time, treatment by time interaction, and stratification factors of HPV status and overall cancer stage.|Difference in Least Squares Mean||4.02|-1.43|0.3524
90939163|NCT02642159|181757742|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|9.0||||0.2651|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-9.1|27.1||Threshold for significance \<=0.025.|Regression, Robust|Multiple imputation approach followed by robust regression.||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint of ITT- intent to prescribe fenofibrate stratum was statistically significant).|Alirocumab (intent to prescribe fenofibrate) vs. usual care (intent to prescribe fenofibrate)|27.1|-9.1|0.2651
90939164|NCT02864147|181757766|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.043||||||Control is used as the referent using one-sided Fisher's exact tests with a multiple comparison-adjusted p\<0.025 significance level.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.043
90939165|NCT02864147|181757766|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.384||||||Control is used as the referent using one-sided Fisher's exact tests with a multiple comparison-adjusted p\<0.025 significance level.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.384
90939166|NCT02864147|181757767|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.177||||||Control is used as the referent using one-sided Fisher's exact tests with a multiple comparison-adjusted p\<0.025 significance level.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.177
90939167|NCT02864147|181757767|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.592||||||Control is used as the referent using one-sided Fisher's exact tests with a multiple comparison-adjusted p\<0.025 significance level.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.592
90939168|NCT02269917|181757768|NON_INFERIORITY|4|Difference in percentage|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.2|||Stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel (MH)|||||2.2|-1.5|<0.001
90939169|NCT02269917|181757773|OTHER||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.623|=|0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|1.57|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24||1.57|-0.88|=0.580
90939170|NCT02269917|181757773|OTHER||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.646|=|0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|1.88|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 48||1.88|-0.65|=0.340
90939171|NCT02269917|181757774|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.874|=|0.506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.13|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24||1.13|-2.30|=0.506
90939172|NCT02269917|181757774|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.862|=|0.392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.43|0.95|||ANCOVA|||Change Week 48||0.95|-2.43|=0.392
90939173|NCT02269917|181757775|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.624|=|0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.14|0.31|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24||0.31|-2.14|=0.143
90939174|NCT02269917|181757775|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.646|=|0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.36|0.18|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 48||0.18|-2.36|=0.092
90939175|NCT02269917|181757776|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59|=|0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|2.29|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24||2.29|-0.02|=0.054
90939176|NCT02269917|181757776|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63|=|0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.57|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 48||2.57|0.10|=0.034
90939177|NCT02269917|181757777|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Van Elteren Test|||UACR - Change at Week 24||||<0.001
90939178|NCT02269917|181757777|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Van Elteren Test|||UACR - Change at Week 48||||<0.001
90939179|NCT02269917|181757777|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Van Elteren Test|||UPCR - Change at Week 24||||<0.001
90939180|NCT02269917|181757777|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Van Elteren Test|||UPCR - Change at Week 48||||<0.001
90939181|NCT02269917|181757778|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Van Elteren Test|||URBPCR: Change at Week 24||||<0.001
90939182|NCT02269917|181757778|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Van Elteren Test|||URBPCR: Change at Week 48||||<0.001
90939183|NCT02269917|181757778|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Van Elteren Test|||UB2MGCR: Change at Week 24||||<0.001
90939184|NCT02269917|181757778|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Van Elteren Test|||UB2MGCR: Change at Week 48||||<0.001
90939185|NCT02269917|181757779|OTHER||||||=|0.288|||||||Van Elteren Test|||FEPO4 - Change at Week 24||||=0.288
90939186|NCT02269917|181757779|OTHER||||||=|0.148|||||||Van Elteren Test|||FEPO4 - Change at Week 48||||=0.148
90939187|NCT02269917|181757790|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.697|2.037|||ANCOVA|||Spine BMD: Percent change at Week 24||2.037|0.697|<0.001
90939188|NCT02269917|181757790|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.277|2.814|||ANCOVA|||Spine BMD: Percent change at Week 48||2.814|1.277|<0.001
90939189|NCT02269917|181757790|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.272|=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.366|1.436|||ANCOVA|||Hip BMD: Percent change at Week 24||1.436|0.366|=0.001
90939190|NCT02269917|181757790|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.144|2.248|||ANCOVA|||Hip BMD: Percent change at Week 48||2.248|1.144|<0.001
90939191|NCT01770509|181757825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.652|||||||ANOVA|General Linear Model ANOVA with repeated measures||||||0.652
90939192|NCT01770509|181757826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.645|||||||ANOVA|General Linear Model ANOVA with repeated measures||||||0.645
90939193|NCT00985621|181757848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|-0.44|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using analysis of co-variance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as main effect, baseline value, index joint, previous opioid use as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.44|-1.49|<0.001
90939194|NCT00985621|181757848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.43|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using analysis of co-variance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as main effect, baseline value, index joint, previous opioid use as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.43|-1.50|<0.001
90939195|NCT00985621|181757849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|-0.45|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with treatment as main effect, baseline value, index joint, previous opioid use as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.45|-1.49|<0.001
90939196|NCT00985621|181757849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with treatment as main effect, baseline value, index joint, previous opioid use as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.11|-1.16|0.018
90970281|NCT03040999|181822765|OTHER||Difference in Least squares mean|-2.05||||0.0963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.47|0.37|||cLDA||Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment, time, treatment by time interaction, and stratification factors of HPV status and overall cancer stage.|Difference in Least Squares Mean||0.37|-4.47|0.0963
90939197|NCT00985621|181757849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.65|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with treatment as main effect, baseline value, index joint, previous opioid use as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.65|-0.43|0.700
90970282|NCT03040999|181822766|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.0429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.03||P-value crossing boundary of 0.0242 required for statistical significance.|Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by human papilloma virus (HPV) status and overall cancer stage.|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by HPV status and overall cancer stage.|||1.03|0.68|0.0429
90970283|NCT02831673|181822823|NON_INFERIORITY|Treatment with DTG+ 3TC was to be declared non-inferior to treatment with DTG+TDF/FTC if the lower end of a two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference between the two groups in response rates at Week 48 greater than -10%.|Adjusted difference in proportion|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|1.5|||||Difference in proportion was based on CMH stratified analysis adjusting for Baseline stratification factors: Plasma HIV-1 RNA (\<=versus \[vs.\]\>100,000 c/mL) and cluster of differentiation 4+ (CD4+) cell count (\<= vs. \>200 cells per cubic millimeter).|||1.5|-6.7|
90970284|NCT02831673|181822824|OTHER||Adjusted difference in proportion|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|3.4|||||Difference in proportion was based on CMH stratified analysis adjusting for Baseline stratification factors: Plasma HIV-1 RNA (\<=vs.\>100,000 c/mL) and CD4+ cell count (\<= vs. \>200 cells per cubic millimeter).|||3.4|-4.2|
90970285|NCT02831673|181822825|OTHER||Adjusted difference in proportion|-4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|0.0|||||Week 96. Difference in proportion was based on CMH stratified analysis adjusting for Baseline stratification factors: Plasma HIV-1 RNA (\<= vs. \>100,000 c/mL) and CD4+ cell count (\<= vs. \>200 cells/mm\^3).|||0.0|-9.8|
90970286|NCT02831673|181822826|OTHER||Adjusted difference in proportion|-3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|2.1|||||Week 144. Difference in proportion was based on CMH stratified analysis adjusting for Baseline stratification factors: Plasma HIV-1 RNA (\<= vs. \>100,000 c/mL) and CD4+ cell count (\<= vs. \>200 cells/mm\^3).|||2.1|-9.4|
90970287|NCT02831673|181822827|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.16||The generalized Wilcoxon procedure was used to estimate a p-value for detecting a difference in cumulative incidence curves between treatment groups.|Generalized Wilcoxon procedure||Hazard ratios were estimated using the Cox proportional hazard regression model.|||1.16|0.86|0.658
90970288|NCT02831673|181822831|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|17.1||||0.206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|43.6|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Week 24. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: treatment, visit, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, treatment and visit interaction and Baseline CD4+ cell count and visit interaction with visit as the repeated factor.|||43.6|-9.4|0.206
90970289|NCT02831673|181822831|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.6||||0.754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.9|33.0|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Week 48. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: treatment, visit, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, treatment and visit interaction and Baseline CD4+ cell count and visit interaction with visit as the repeated factor.|||33.0|-23.9|0.754
90970290|NCT02831673|181822832|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|10.8||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.7|42.4|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Week 96. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: treatment, visit, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, treatment and visit interaction and Baseline CD4+ cell count and visit interaction with visit as the repeated factor.|||42.4|-20.7|0.500
90970291|NCT02831673|181822833|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.4||||0.934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.2|31.5|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Week 144.Following covariates/factors were adjusted: treatment, visit, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, treatment and visit interaction and Baseline CD4+ cell count and visit interaction with visit as the repeated factor.|||31.5|-34.2|0.934
91035717|NCT01667679|181957734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.85||||0.1771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|4.54|||ANCOVA||10 minutes post-dose|||4.54|0.76|0.1771
90939198|NCT00985621|181757850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.14|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with treatment as main effect, baseline value, index joint, previous opioid use as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.14|-0.78|0.177
90939199|NCT00985621|181757850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.28|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with treatment as main effect, baseline value, index joint, previous opioid use as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.28|-0.66|0.416
90970292|NCT02831673|181822844|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.0|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Serum Cystatin C, Week 24|||0.00|-0.04|0.025
90970293|NCT02831673|181822844|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|-0.01|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Serum Cystatin C, Week 48|||-0.01|-0.05|0.001
90970294|NCT02831673|181822844|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.0|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Serum RBP, Week 24|||1.0|-1.6|0.683
90970295|NCT02831673|181822844|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.2|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Serum RBP, Week 48|||1.2|-1.4|0.930
91035718|NCT01667679|181957734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.03||||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|3.42|||ANCOVA||15 minutes post-dose|||3.42|1.21|0.0077
91035719|NCT01667679|181957734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.82||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|2.5|||ANCOVA||30 minutes post-dose|||2.50|1.32|0.0003
90939200|NCT00985621|181757850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.46|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with treatment as main effect, baseline value, index joint, previous opioid use as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.46|-1.50|<0.001
90939201|NCT00985621|181757850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|-0.43|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with treatment as main effect, baseline value, index joint, previous opioid use as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.43|-1.48|<0.001
90939202|NCT00985621|181757851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.22|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with treatment as main effect, baseline value, index joint, previous opioid use as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.22|-0.69|0.319
90939203|NCT00985621|181757851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.48|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with treatment as main effect, baseline value, index joint, previous opioid use as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.48|-0.43|0.916
90939204|NCT00985621|181757851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.32|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with treatment as main effect, baseline value, index joint, previous opioid use as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.32|-0.63|0.526
90939205|NCT00985621|181757851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with treatment as main effect, baseline value, index joint, previous opioid use as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.24|-1.26|0.004
90939206|NCT00985621|181757851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.12|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with treatment as main effect, baseline value, index joint, previous opioid use as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.12|-0.90|0.134
90939207|NCT00985621|181757851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.35|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with treatment as main effect, baseline value, index joint, previous opioid use as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.35|-0.71|0.497
90939208|NCT00676663|181757918|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.09|||Log Rank|P-value is stratified by the randomization stratification factors and is 1-sided, with a 0.10 threshold for significance.||||1.09|0.49|0.06
90939209|NCT00676663|181757922|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.97||P-value is stratified by the randomization stratification factors and is 1-sided.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated from a Cox proportional hazards model. Placebo serves as the reference treatment group for the interpretation of the hazard ratio.|||0.97|0.36|0.018
90939210|NCT00513292|181757925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in percentages between arms|2.3||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|13.9|||Chi-squared|||The difference in pCR rates between treatment arms for pCR within the Breast, Defined as no Evidence of Invasive Tumor Remaining in the Breast at Surgery Following Completion of Chemotherapy||13.9|-9.3|.7
90939211|NCT00714688|181757943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least-Squares Means|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.51||0.136||95.0|-6.04|0.67||The p value was adjusted for multiplicity via Dunnett's test procedure.|ANCOVA|Treatment, gender and country were used as factors and baseline value and age were used as covariates.||Statistical analysis of change from baseline at endpoint.||0.67|-6.04|0.136
90939212|NCT00714688|181757943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least-Squares Means|-4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.002||95.0|-8.22|-1.55||The p value was adjusted for multiplicity via Dunnett's test procedure.|ANCOVA|Treatment, gender and country were used as factors and baseline value and age were used as covariates.||Statistical analysis of change from baseline at endpoint.||-1.55|-8.22|0.002
90939213|NCT00714688|181757944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.216||||||Comparison with placebo was performed without multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model was performed on ranked data. Treatment, gender \& country were used as factors and baseline value \& age were used as covariates.||Statistical analysis of change from baseline at endpoint.||||0.216
90939214|NCT00714688|181757944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Comparison with placebo was performed without multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model has been performed on ranked data. Treatment, gender \& country were used as factors and baseline value \& age were used as covariates.||Statistical analysis of change from baseline at endpoint.||||<0.001
90939215|NCT00714688|181757945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.052||||||Comparison with placebo was performed without multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model has been performed on ranked data. Treatment, gender and country were used as factors and age was used as a covariate.||||||0.052
90939216|NCT00714688|181757945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||||||Comparison with placebo was performed without multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model has been performed on ranked data. Treatment, gender and country were used as factors and age was used as a covariate.||||||0.002
90939217|NCT00714688|181757946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least-Squares Means|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86||0.023||||||Comparison with placebo was performed without multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Treatment, gender and country were used as factors and baseline value and age were used as covariates.||Statistical analysis of change from baseline at endpoint.||||0.023
90970296|NCT02831673|181822845|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|-0.01|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 96. Serum Cystatin C.|||-0.01|-0.04|0.009
91035720|NCT01667679|181957734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|2.09|||ANCOVA||45 minutes post-dose|||2.09|1.29|<0.0001
90939218|NCT00714688|181757946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least-Squares Means|-4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.83||0.016||||||Comparison with placebo was performed without multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Treatment, gender and country were used as factors and baseline value and age were used as covariates.||Statistical analysis of change from baseline at endpoint.||||0.016
90939219|NCT04853394|181757950|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.33|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects modified Poisson regression model with random intercepts for participant and network cluster|Effect of MASLIHAT vs. comparison TANSIHAT condition at 12-month follow-up|||.51|.21|<.01
90939220|NCT04853394|181757951|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.67||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects modified Poisson regression model with random intercepts for participant and network cluster|Effect of MASLIHAT vs. comparison TANSIHAT condition at 12-month follow-up|||.97|.46|.01
90939221|NCT04853394|181757952|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.86||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects Poisson regression model with random intercepts for participant and network cluster|Effect of MASLIHAT vs. comparison TANSIHAT condition at 6-month follow-up|||.95|.77|.01
90939222|NCT04853394|181757952|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.19||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects Poisson regression model with random intercepts for participant and network cluster|Effect of MASLIHAT vs. comparison TANSIHAT condition at 12-month follow-up|||1.45|.98|.01
90939223|NCT04853394|181757955|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.12||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects Poisson regression model with random intercepts for participant and network cluster|Effect of MASLIHAT vs. comparison TANSIHAT condition at 12-month follow-up|||.19|.07|.01
90939224|NCT01772147|181757957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.127|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.089|0.164|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.164|0.089|<0.001
90939225|NCT01772147|181757957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.148|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.111|0.185|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.185|0.111|<0.001
90939226|NCT00993798|181757970|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.27|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.5||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|-0.28|||t-test in ANOVA model|||Exploratory comparison between SABER-Bupivacaine and Bupivacaine HCl not analyzed inferentially||-0.28|-2.25|0.012
90939227|NCT00993798|181757971|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-8.0||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Exploratory comparison between SABER-Bupivacaine and Bupivacaine HCl not analyzed inferentially||0.0|-12.0|0.010
90939228|NCT00993798|181757972|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||Log Rank|||Exploratory comparison between SABER-Bupivacaine and Bupivacaine HCl not analyzed inferentially||||0.014
90939229|NCT00993798|181757973|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.08||0.773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.14|||ANOVA|||Exploratory comparison between SABER-Bupivacaine and Bupivacaine HCl not analyzed inferentially||0.14|-0.18|0.773
90939230|NCT00843115|181757984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Binomial test of proportions|Holms multiplicity adjustment (Stepdown Bonferroni) for statistical significance of each p-value, while controlling experiment wise error rate at 0.05||null hypothesis: the proportion of subjects who improved or stabilized, among those who had the symptom at baseline, is less than or equal to 0.5; the alternative hypothesis: this proportion is greater than 0.5.||||<0.0001
90939231|NCT00843115|181757985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Binomial test of proportions|Holms multiplicity adjustment Stepdown Bonferroni) for statistical significance of each p-value, while controlling experiment wise error rate at 0.05||null hypothesis: the proportion of subjects who improved or stabilized, among those who had the symptom at baseline, is less than or equal to 0.5; the alternative hypothesis: this proportion is greater than 0.5.||||<0.0001
90970297|NCT02831673|181822846|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.0|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 144. Serum Cystatin C.|||-0.00|-0.03|0.108
90970298|NCT02831673|181822849|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.2||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|4.0|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||GFR-cystatin C adjusted, Week 24|||4.0|0.5|0.011
91035721|NCT01667679|181957734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.74|||ANCOVA||60 minutes post-dose|||1.74|1.14|0.0016
91035722|NCT01667679|181957734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.69|||ANCOVA||90 minutes post-dose|||1.69|1.09|0.0059
91035723|NCT01667679|181957734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.2717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.42|||ANCOVA||120 minutes post-dose|||1.42|0.91|0.2717
90970299|NCT02831673|181822849|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|4.5|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||GFR-cystatin C adjusted, Week 48|||4.5|1.2|<0.001
90970300|NCT02831673|181822849|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|4.8|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||GFR-creatinine adjusted, Week 24|||4.8|1.6|<0.001
90970301|NCT02831673|181822849|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|5.1|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||GFR- creatinine adjusted, Week 48|||5.1|2.0|<0.001
90970302|NCT02831673|181822852|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.62|-1.75|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 24|||-1.75|-4.62|<0.001
90970303|NCT02831673|181822852|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.54|-1.91|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 48|||-1.91|-4.54|<0.001
90970304|NCT02831673|181822853|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.96|-1.72|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 96. Serum or Plasma creatinine|||-1.72|-4.96|<0.001
90970305|NCT02831673|181822854|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.57|-1.4|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 144. Serum or Plasma creatinine|||-1.40|-4.57|<0.001
90970306|NCT02831673|181822855|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.915|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.887|0.943|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 24. Serum B2M|||0.943|0.887|<0.001
90970307|NCT02831673|181822855|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.904|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|0.929|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 48. Serum B2M|||0.929|0.880|<0.001
90970308|NCT02831673|181822855|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.656||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.491|0.877|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 24. Urine B2M|||0.877|0.491|0.005
90970309|NCT02831673|181822855|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.672|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.551|0.821|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 48. Urine B2M|||0.821|0.551|<0.001
90939232|NCT00843115|181757986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Binomial test of proportions|Holms multiplicity adjustment (Stepdown Bonferroni) for statistical significance of each p-value, while controlling experiment wise error rate at 0.05||null hypothesis: the proportion of subjects who improved or stabilized, among those who had the symptom at baseline, is less than or equal to 0.5; the alternative hypothesis: this proportion is greater than 0.5||||<0.0001
90939233|NCT00843115|181757987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Binomial test of proportions|Holms multiplicity adjustment (Stepdown Bonferroni) for statistical significance of each p-value, while controlling experiment wise error rate at 0.05||null hypothesis: the proportion of subjects who improved or stabilized, among those who had the symptom at baseline, is less than or equal to 0.5; the alternative hypothesis: this proportion is greater than 0.5||||<0.0001
90970310|NCT02831673|181822855|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.965||||0.575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.853|1.092|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 24. Urine Albumin/Creatinine|||1.092|0.853|0.575
90939234|NCT00843115|181757988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Binomial test of proportions|Holms multiplicity adjustment (Stepdown Bonferroni) for statistical significance of each p-value, while controlling experiment wise error rate at 0.05||null hypothesis: the proportion of subjects who improved or stabilized, among those who had the symptom at baseline, is less than or equal to 0.5; the alternative hypothesis: this proportion is greater than 0.5||||<0.0001
90970311|NCT02831673|181822855|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.891||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.793|1.001|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 48. Urine Albumin/Creatinine|||1.001|0.793|0.051
90970312|NCT02831673|181822855|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.493|0.831|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 24. Urine B2M/Urine Creatinine|||0.831|0.493|<0.001
90970313|NCT02831673|181822855|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.695|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.576|0.839|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 48. Urine B2M/Urine Creatinine|||0.839|0.576|<0.001
90970314|NCT02831673|181822855|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|1.102||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.982|1.237|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 24. Urine Phosphate|||1.237|0.982|0.099
90970315|NCT02831673|181822855|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.987||||0.816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.886|1.1|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 48. Urine Phosphate|||1.100|0.886|0.816
90970316|NCT02831673|181822855|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.836|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.774|0.904|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 24. Urine Protein/Creatinine|||0.904|0.774|<0.001
90970317|NCT02831673|181822855|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.829|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.773|0.888|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 48. Urine Protein/Creatinine|||0.888|0.773|<0.001
90970318|NCT02831673|181822855|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.871||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.743|1.02|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 24. Urine RBP 4|||1.020|0.743|0.087
90970319|NCT02831673|181822855|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.748|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.644|0.87|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 48. Urine RBP 4|||0.870|0.644|<0.001
90970320|NCT02831673|181822855|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.828||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.727|0.944|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 24. Urine RBP 4/Urine Creatinine|||0.944|0.727|0.005
90970321|NCT02831673|181822855|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.765|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.677|0.864|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 48. Urine RBP 4/Urine Creatinine|||0.864|0.677|<0.001
90970322|NCT02831673|181822856|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.839||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.742|0.95|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 96. Urine Albumin/Creatinine.|||0.950|0.742|0.006
90970323|NCT02831673|181822856|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.551|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.445|0.682|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 96. Urine B2M/Urine Creatinine.|||0.682|0.445|<0.001
90970324|NCT02831673|181822856|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|1.045||||0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.928|1.175|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 96. Urine Phosphate.|||1.175|0.928|0.467
90970325|NCT02831673|181822856|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.824|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.764|0.889|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 96. Urine Protein/Creatinine.|||0.889|0.764|<0.001
90970326|NCT02831673|181822856|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.651|0.84|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 96. Urine RBP 4/Urine Creatinine|||0.840|0.651|<0.001
90970327|NCT02831673|181822857|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.916||||0.205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.799|1.05|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 144. Urine Albumin/Creatinine.|||1.050|0.799|0.205
90939235|NCT00843115|181757989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Binomial test of proportions|Holms multiplicity adjustment (Stepdown Bonferroni) for statistical significance of each p-value, while controlling experiment wise error rate at 0.05||null hypothesis: the proportion of subjects who improved or stabilized, among those who had the symptom at baseline, is less than or equal to 0.5; the alternative hypothesis: this proportion is greater than 0.5||||<0.0001
90939236|NCT00843115|181757990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Binomial test of proportions|Holms multiplicity adjustment (Stepdown Bonferroni) for statistical significance of each p-value, while controlling experiment wise error rate at 0.05||null hypothesis: the proportion of subjects who improved or stabilized, among those who had the symptom at baseline, is less than or equal to 0.5; the alternative hypothesis: this proportion is greater than 0.5||||<0.0001
90939237|NCT00843115|181757991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Binomial test of proportions|Holms multiplicity adjustment (Stepdown Bonferroni) for statistical significance of each p-value, while controlling experiment wise error rate at 0.05||null hypothesis: the proportion of subjects who improved or stabilized, among those who had the symptom at baseline, is less than or equal to 0.5; the alternative hypothesis: this proportion is greater than 0.5||||<0.0001
90970328|NCT02831673|181822857|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.495|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.406|0.603|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 144. Urine B2M/Urine Creatinine.|||0.603|0.406|<0.001
90970329|NCT02831673|181822857|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|1.089||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.967|1.226|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 144. Urine Phosphate.|||1.226|0.967|0.160
90970330|NCT02831673|181822857|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.817|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.753|0.885|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 144. Urine Protein/Creatinine.|||0.885|0.753|<0.001
90970331|NCT02831673|181822857|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.679|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.607|0.76|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 144. Urine RBP 4/Urine Creatinine|||0.760|0.607|<0.001
90970332|NCT02831673|181822858|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.75|-1.7|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 24. Bone ALP|||-1.70|-2.75|<0.001
90970333|NCT02831673|181822858|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.19|-1.98|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 48. Bone ALP|||-1.98|-3.19|<0.001
90970334|NCT02831673|181822858|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.15|-3.23|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 28. Serum Osteocalcin|||-3.23|-5.15|<0.001
90970335|NCT02831673|181822858|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.22|-4.23|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 48. Serum Osteocalcin|||-4.23|-6.22|<0.001
90970336|NCT02831673|181822858|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|-11.1|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 24. Serum PINP|||-11.1|-16.5|<0.001
90970337|NCT02831673|181822858|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|-10.3|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 48. Serum PINP|||-10.3|-15.0|<0.001
90970338|NCT02831673|181822858|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1628|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2015|-0.1241|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 24. CTX-1|||-0.1241|-0.2015|<0.001
90970339|NCT02831673|181822858|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2015|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.246|-0.1569|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 48. CTX-1|||-0.1569|-0.2460|<0.001
90970340|NCT02831673|181822859|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.63|-1.5|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 96, Bone ALP|||-1.50|-2.63|<0.001
90970341|NCT02831673|181822859|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|-3.14|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 96, Serum Osteocalcin|||-3.14|-5.20|<0.001
90970342|NCT02831673|181822859|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6|-8.9|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 96, Serum PINP|||-8.9|-17.6|<0.001
90970343|NCT02831673|181822859|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1592|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.208|-0.1104|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 96, CTX-1|||-0.1104|-0.2080|<0.001
90939238|NCT00843115|181757992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Binomial test of proportions|Holms multiplicity adjustment (Stepdown Bonferroni) for statistical significance of each p-value, while controlling experiment wise error rate at 0.05||null hypothesis: the proportion of subjects who improved or stabilized, among those who had the symptom at baseline, is less than or equal to 0.5; the alternative hypothesis: this proportion is greater than 0.5||||<0.0001
90970344|NCT02831673|181822860|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|-1.14|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 144, Bone ALP|||-1.14|-2.23|<0.001
90970345|NCT02831673|181822860|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-1.83|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 144, Serum Osteocalcin|||-1.83|-4.00|<0.001
90970346|NCT02831673|181822860|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|-6.2|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 144, Serum PINP|||-6.2|-12.3|<0.001
90939239|NCT00843115|181757993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Binomial test of proportions|Holms multiplicity adjustment (Stepdown Bonferroni) for statistical significance of each p-value, while controlling experiment wise error rate at 0.05||null hypothesis: the proportion of subjects who improved or stabilized, among those who had the symptom at baseline, is less than or equal to 0.5; the alternative hypothesis: this proportion is greater than 0.5||||<0.0001
90970347|NCT02831673|181822860|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1414|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1771|-0.1056|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 144, CTX-1|||-0.1056|-0.1771|<0.001
91035724|NCT01667679|181957735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.2426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.77|||ANCOVA||10 minutes post-dose|||1.77|0.87|0.2426
90970348|NCT02831673|181822861|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|-3.0|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 24|||-3.0|-9.9|<0.001
90970349|NCT02831673|181822861|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|-3.4|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 48|||-3.4|-9.0|<0.001
90970350|NCT02831673|181822862|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.9||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|0.0|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 96|||0.0|-5.8|0.048
90970351|NCT02831673|181822863|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.9||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|-1.6|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 144|||-1.6|-8.3|0.004
90970352|NCT02831673|181822870|OTHER||Difference in percentage|2.0||||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|4.6||Fisher's exact p-value.|Fisher Exact||Week 24|||4.6|-0.6|0.157
90970353|NCT02831673|181822870|OTHER||Difference in percentage|1.3||||0.414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|4.2||Fisher's exact p-value.|Fisher Exact||Week 48|||4.2|-1.7|0.414
90970354|NCT02831673|181822871|OTHER||Difference in percentage|1.0||||0.562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|4.1||Fisher's exact p-value.|Fisher Exact||Week 96|||4.1|-2.1|0.562
90970355|NCT02831673|181822872|OTHER||Difference in percentage|0.9||||0.587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|4.3||Fisher's exact p-value.|Fisher Exact||Week 144|||4.3|-2.4|0.587
90970356|NCT02831673|181822877|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|19.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.23|49.83|||||Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA,\<=100000. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, and treatment and HIV-1 RNA interaction.|||49.83|-10.23|
90970357|NCT02831673|181822877|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.07|58.4|||||Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA,\>100000. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, and treatment and HIV-1 RNA interaction.|||58.40|-57.07|
90970358|NCT02831673|181822877|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|36.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.94|129.63|||||Baseline CD4+ cell count,\<=200. Following covariates were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, and treatment and Baseline CD4+ cell count interaction.|||129.63|-55.94|
90970359|NCT02831673|181822877|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|14.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.38|42.12|||||Baseline CD4+ cell count,\>200. Following covariates were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, and treatment and Baseline CD4+ cell count interaction.|||42.12|-13.38|
90970360|NCT02831673|181822877|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|25.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.56|59.85|||||Age\<35. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, age, and treatment and age interaction.|||59.85|-9.56|
90970361|NCT02831673|181822877|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.98|40.34|||||Age 35 to \<50. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, age, and treatment and age interaction.|||40.34|-55.98|
90970362|NCT02831673|181822877|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|29.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.47|114.38|||||Age\>=50. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, age, and treatment and age interaction.|||114.38|-55.47|
90970363|NCT02831673|181822877|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|17.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.89|85.23|||||Female. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, gender, and treatment and gender interaction.|||85.23|-49.89|
91035725|NCT01667679|181957735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.0069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.99|||ANCOVA||15 minutes post-dose|||1.99|1.12|0.0069
91035726|NCT01667679|181957735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.94|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|2.56|||ANCOVA||30 minutes post-dose|||2.56|1.47|<0.0001
90939240|NCT00843115|181757994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Binomial test of proportions|Holms multiplicity adjustment (Stepdown Bonferroni) for statistical significance of each p-value, while controlling experiment wise error rate at 0.05||null hypothesis: the proportion of subjects who improved or stabilized, among those who had the symptom at baseline, is less than or equal to 0.5; the alternative hypothesis: this proportion is greater than 0.5||||<0.0001
90939241|NCT00843115|181757995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Binomial test of proportions|Holms multiplicity adjustment (Stepdown Bonferroni) for statistical significance of each p-value, while controlling experiment wise error rate at 0.05||null hypothesis: the proportion of subjects who improved or stabilized, among those who had the symptom at baseline, is less than or equal to 0.5; the alternative hypothesis: this proportion is greater than 0.5||||<0.0001
90939242|NCT00843115|181757996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Binomial test of proportions|Holms multiplicity adjustment (Stepdown Bonferroni) for statistical significance of each p-value, while controlling experiment wise error rate at 0.05||null hypothesis: the proportion of subjects who improved or stabilized, among those who had the symptom at baseline, is less than or equal to 0.5; the alternative hypothesis: this proportion is greater than 0.5||||<0.0001
90939243|NCT00843115|181757997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Binomial test of proportions|Holms multiplicity adjustment (Stepdown Bonferroni) for statistical significance of each p-value, while controlling experiment wise error rate at 0.05||null hypothesis: the proportion of subjects who improved or stabilized, among those who had the symptom at baseline, is less than or equal to 0.5; the alternative hypothesis: this proportion is greater than 0.5||||<0.0001
90939244|NCT00843115|181757998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Binomial test of proportions|Holms multiplicity adjustment (Stepdown Bonferroni) for statistical significance of each p-value, while controlling experiment wise error rate at 0.05||null hypothesis: the proportion of subjects who improved or stabilized, among those who had the symptom at baseline, is less than or equal to 0.5; the alternative hypothesis: this proportion is greater than 0.5||||<0.0001
90939245|NCT00843115|181757999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Binomial test of proportions|Holms multiplicity adjustment (Stepdown Bonferroni) for statistical significance of each p-value, while controlling experiment wise error rate at 0.05||null hypothesis: the proportion of subjects who improved or stabilized, among those who had the symptom at baseline, is less than or equal to 0.5; the alternative hypothesis: this proportion is greater than 0.5||||<0.0001
90939246|NCT00843115|181758000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Binomial test of proportions|Holms multiplicity adjustment (Stepdown Bonferroni) for statistical significance of each p-value, while controlling experiment wise error rate at 0.05||null hypothesis: the proportion of subjects who improved or stabilized, among those who had the symptom at baseline, is less than or equal to 0.5; the alternative hypothesis: this proportion is greater than 0.5||||<0.0001
90939247|NCT00843115|181758001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Binomial test of proportions|Holms multiplicity adjustment (Stepdown Bonferroni) for statistical significance of each p-value, while controlling experiment wise error rate at 0.05||null hypothesis: the proportion of subjects who improved or stabilized, among those who had the symptom at baseline, is less than or equal to 0.5; the alternative hypothesis: this proportion is greater than 0.5||||<0.0001
90939248|NCT00843115|181758002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Binomial test of proportions|Holms multiplicity adjustment (Stepdown Bonferroni) for statistical significance of each p-value, while controlling experiment wise error rate @ 0.05||null hypothesis: the proportion of subjects who improved or stabilized, among those who had the symptom at baseline, is less than or equal to 0.5; the alternative hypothesis: this proportion is greater than 0.5||||<0.0001
90939249|NCT00843115|181758003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Binomial test of proportions|Holms multiplicity adjustment (Stepdown Bonferroni) for statistical significance of each p-value, while controlling experiment wise error rate at 0.05||null hypothesis: the proportion of subjects who improved or stabilized, among those who had the symptom at baseline, is less than or equal to 0.5; the alternative hypothesis: this proportion is greater than 0.5||||<0.0001
90939250|NCT00843115|181758004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Binomial test of proportions|Holms multiplicity adjustment (Stepdown Bonferroni) for statistical significance of each p-value, while controlling experiment wise error rate at 0.05||null hypothesis: the proportion of subjects who improved or stabilized, among those who had the symptom at baseline, is less than or equal to 0.5; the alternative hypothesis: this proportion is greater than 0.5||||<0.0001
90970364|NCT02831673|181822877|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|15.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|44.21|||||Male. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, gender, and treatment and gender interaction.|||44.21|-13.90|
90970365|NCT02831673|181822877|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|22.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.52|54.54|||||Race group white. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, race group, and treatment and race group interaction.|||54.54|-9.52|
90970366|NCT02831673|181822877|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-26.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-110.64|57.3|||||Race group African Am/African H.. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, race group, and treatment and race group interaction.|||57.30|-110.64|
90939251|NCT00843115|181758005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|One sample t-test, testing whether mean change from baseline is significantly different from zero.||Change from baseline in total score at Week 12||||<0.0001
90939252|NCT00843115|181758006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|One sample t-test, testing whether mean change from baseline is significantly different from zero||Change from baseline in total score at Week 12 Last Observation Carried Forward||||<0.0001
90939253|NCT00843115|181758007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||correlation coefficient|P value tests whether Pearson Product Correlation Coefficient is significantly different from zero||||||<0.0001
90939254|NCT00843115|181758008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||correlation coefficient|p-value tests whether Pearson Product Correlation Coefficient is significantly different from zero||||||<0.0001
90939255|NCT00843115|181758009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|One sample t-test, testing whether mean change from baseline is significantly different from zero.||||||<0.0001
90939256|NCT00843115|181758010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|One sample t-test, testing whether mean change from baseline is significantly different from zero||||||<0.0001
90939257|NCT00843115|181758011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0713|||||||correlation coefficient|||||||0.0713
90939258|NCT00843115|181758012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0225|||||||Correlation coefficient|||||||0.0225
90939259|NCT00843115|181758013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0152|||||||t-test, 2 sided|One sample t-test, testing whether mean change from baseline is significantly different from zero.||||||0.0152
90939260|NCT00843115|181758014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0229|||||||t-test, 2 sided|One sample t-test, testing whether mean change from baseline is significantly different from zero||||||0.0229
90939261|NCT00843115|181758015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|One sample t-test, testing whether mean change from baseline is significantly different from zero.||||||<0.0001
90939262|NCT00843115|181758016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|One sample t-test, testing whether mean change from baseline is significantly different from zero.||||||<0.0001
90939263|NCT00843115|181758017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7963|||||||McNemar|"McNemar's Test for paired proportions tested the difference between the proportion of subjects with Any problem at baseline versus Week 12."||||||0.7963
90939264|NCT00843115|181758018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||McNemar|"McNemar's Test for paired proportions tested the difference between the proportion of subjects with Any problem at baseline versus Week 12 LOCF."||||||1.0000
90939265|NCT00843115|181758019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0719|||||||McNemar|"McNemar's Test for paired proportions tested the difference between the proportion of subjects with Any problem at baseline versus Week 12"||||||0.0719
90939266|NCT00843115|181758020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1779|||||||McNemar|"McNemar's Test for paired proportions tested the difference between the proportion of subjects with Any problem at baseline versus Week 12 LOCF."||||||0.1779
90939267|NCT00843115|181758021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||McNemar|"McNemar's Test for paired proportions tested the difference between the proportion of subjects with Any problem at baseline versus Week 12"||||||1.0000
90939268|NCT00843115|181758022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8575|||||||McNemar|"McNemar's Test for paired proportions tested the difference between the proportion of subjects with Any problem at baseline versus Week 12 LOCF"||||||0.8575
90970367|NCT02831673|181822877|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.44||||||95.0|-76.18|85.06|||||Race group Asian. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, race group, and treatment and race group interaction.|||85.06|-76.18|
90970368|NCT02831673|181822877|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|24.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.68|110.59|||||Race group Other. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, race group, and treatment and race group interaction.|||110.59|-60.68|
90939269|NCT00843115|181758023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||McNemar|"McNemar's Test for paired proportions tested the difference between the proportion of subjects with Any problem at baseline versus Week 12"||||||1.0000
90939270|NCT00843115|181758024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||McNemar|"McNemar's Test for paired proportions tested the difference between the proportion of subjects with Any problem at baseline versus Week 12 LOCF"||||||1.0000
90939271|NCT00843115|181758025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0131|||||||McNemar|"McNemar's Test for paired proportions tested the difference between the proportion of subjects with Any problem at baseline versus Week 12"||||||0.0131
90939272|NCT00843115|181758026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0078|||||||McNemar|"McNemar's Test for paired proportions tested the difference between the proportion of subjects with Any problem at baseline versus Week 12 LOCF"||||||0.0078
90939273|NCT02005029|181758027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.036
90939274|NCT02005029|181758028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Erythromycin:Placebo AUC ratio|1.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.43|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90939275|NCT02005029|181758029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.65
90939276|NCT02005029|181758030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.18
90939277|NCT02005029|181758031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4405|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4405
90939278|NCT02005029|181758032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6011|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6011
90939279|NCT02005029|181758033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8923|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.8923
90939280|NCT02005029|181758034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.832|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.832
90939281|NCT02005029|181758035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1546|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1546
90939282|NCT02005029|181758036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.0||0.0314|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||"Mean difference in on score versus off score from the MDS UPDRS Part 3 on day of erythromycin minus the mean difference in 'on score versus off score on day of placebo."|||||0.0314
90939283|NCT02005029|181758037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Erythromycin:Placebo Cmax ratio|0.83|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.24|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90970369|NCT02831673|181822878|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.6|39.8|||||Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA,\<=100000. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count and treatment and HIV-1 RNA interaction.|||39.8|-24.6|
91035727|NCT01667679|181957735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|2.23|||ANCOVA||45 minutes post-dose|||2.23|1.26|0.0004
90939284|NCT02621047|181758038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio Percentage (%)|128.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.5|188.0||||||||188|86.5|
90939285|NCT02621047|181758038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio %|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|55.1|183.0||||||||183|55.1|
90939286|NCT02621047|181758039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio %|148.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|106.0|208.0||||||||208|106|
90939287|NCT02621047|181758039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio %|130.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.4|225.0||||||||225|75.4|
90939288|NCT02621047|181758040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio %|160.0||||||90.0|105.0|243.0||||||||243|105|
90939289|NCT02621047|181758040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio %|220.0||||||90.0|131.0|369.0||||||||369|131|
90939290|NCT02621047|181758041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio %|186.0||||||90.0|122.0|281.0||||||||281|122|
90939291|NCT02621047|181758041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio %|285.0||||||90.0|175.0|466.0||||||||466|175|
90939292|NCT02621047|181758042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio %|162.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|104.0|254.0||||||||254|104|
90939293|NCT02621047|181758042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio %|228.0||||||90.0|129.0|403.0||||||||403|129|
90939294|NCT02621047|181758043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio %|189.0||||||90.0|121.0|293.0||||||||293|121|
90939295|NCT02621047|181758043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio %|296.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|174.0|506.0||||||||506|174|
90939296|NCT02621047|181758044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio %|64.6||||||90.0|36.2|115.0||||||||115|36.2|
90939297|NCT02621047|181758044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio %|60.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|26.6|139.0||||||||139|26.6|
90939298|NCT02621047|181758045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio %|85.1||||||90.0|55.5|130.0||||||||130|55.5|
90939299|NCT02621047|181758045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio %|59.0||||||90.0|34.2|102.0||||||||102|34.2|
90939300|NCT02621047|181758046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio %|116.0||||||90.0|78.6|172.0||||||||172|78.6|
90939301|NCT02621047|181758046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio %|98.1||||||90.0|51.7|186.0||||||||186|51.7|
90939302|NCT02621047|181758047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio %|115.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.2|154.0||||||||154|85.2|
90939303|NCT02621047|181758047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio %|96.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|55.6|168.0||||||||168|55.6|
90939304|NCT02621047|181758048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio %|80.6||||||90.0|50.2|130.0||||||||130|50.2|
90939305|NCT02621047|181758048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio %|65.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|26.9|160.0||||||||160|26.9|
90939306|NCT02621047|181758049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio %|104.0||||||90.0|76.8|141.0||||||||141|76.8|
90939307|NCT02621047|181758049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio %|63.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|34.0|119.0||||||||119|34.0|
90939308|NCT02621047|181758050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio %|136.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.7|196.0||||||||196|94.7|
90939309|NCT02621047|181758050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio %|176.0||||||90.0|98.4|315.0||||||||315|98.4|
90970370|NCT02831673|181822878|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.8|65.9|||||Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA,\>100000. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count and treatment and HIV-1 RNA interaction.|||65.9|-59.8|
90970371|NCT02831673|181822878|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|22.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.3|123.5|||||Baseline CD4+ cell count,\<=200. Following covariates were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, and treatment and Baseline CD4+ cell count interaction.|||123.5|-78.3|
90939310|NCT02621047|181758051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio %|134.0||||||90.0|99.6|181.0||||||||181|99.6|
90939311|NCT02621047|181758051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio %|157.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.8|268.0||||||||268|91.8|
90939312|NCT02621047|181758052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio %|73.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|46.2|116.0||||||||116|46.2|
90939313|NCT02621047|181758052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio %|57.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|20.0|165.0||||||||165|20.0|
90939314|NCT02621047|181758053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio %|96.6||||||90.0|69.9|134.0||||||||134|69.9|
90939315|NCT02621047|181758053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio %|55.8||||||90.0|26.0|120.0||||||||120|26.0|
90939316|NCT02621047|181758054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio %|139.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.8|203.0||||||||203|94.8|
90939317|NCT02621047|181758054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio %|180.0||||||90.0|97.2|334.0||||||||334|97.2|
90939318|NCT02621047|181758055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio %|137.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.0|186.0||||||||186|100|
90939319|NCT02621047|181758055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio %|158.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.2|274.0||||||||274|91.2|
90939320|NCT02853305|181758124|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.93|||Stratified Log-Rank|The treatment difference in PFS was assessed by the stratified log-rank test.||PFS in all participants of the pembro combo arm was compared to PFS in all participants of the chemo arm to address the first primary hypothesis (superiority to chemo). The hazard ratio (HR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI) were estimated using a stratified Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by investigator's choice of chemotherapy (cisplatin or carboplatin) and PD-L1 status (CPS\<10 vs. CPS≥10) at baseline.||0.93|0.65|0.0033
90939321|NCT02853305|181758125|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.0407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.02|||Stratified Log-Rank|The treatment difference in OS was assessed by the stratified log-rank test.||OS in all participants of the pembro combo arm was compared to OS in all participants of the chemo arm to address the second primary hypothesis (superiority to chemo). The HR and its 95% CI were estimated using a stratified Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by investigator's choice of chemotherapy (cisplatin or carboplatin) and PD-L1 status (CPS\<10 vs. CPS≥10) at baseline.||1.02|0.72|0.0407
90939322|NCT02853305|181758126|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.32||No formal hypothesis testing was performed.||||OS in CPS≥10 participants of the pembro arm was compared to OS in CPS≥10 participants of the chemo arm. The comparison was based on a Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by investigator's choice of chemotherapy (cisplatin or carboplatin) at baseline.||1.32|0.77|
90939323|NCT02853305|181758127|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.11||No formal hypothesis testing was performed.||||OS in all participants of the pembro arm was compared to OS in all participants of the chemo arm. The comparison was based on a Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by investigator's choice of chemotherapy (cisplatin or carboplatin) and PD-L1 status (CPS\<10 vs. CPS≥10) at baseline.||1.11|0.77|
90971340|NCT00812214|181825423|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between Eszopiclone and placebo groups in daytime fatigue averaged over 6 weeks of treatment.||||0.05
90939324|NCT02853305|181758128|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.58||No formal hypothesis testing was performed.||||PFS in all participants of the pembro arm was compared to PFS in all participants of the chemo arm. The comparison was based on a Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by investigator's choice of chemotherapy (cisplatin or carboplatin) and PD-L1 status (CPS\<10 vs. CPS≥10) at baseline.||1.58|1.09|
90939325|NCT02853305|181758131|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|9.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|17.1||No formal hypothesis testing was performed.||||ORR in participants of the pembro combo arm was compared to ORR in participants of the chemo arm. The comparison was based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by investigator's choice of chemotherapy (cisplatin or carboplatin) and PD-L1 status (CPS\<10 vs. CPS≥10) at baseline.||17.1|2.4|
90939326|NCT02853305|181758133|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|10.6||No formal hypothesis testing was performed.||||DCR in participants of the pembro combo arm was compared to DCR in participants of the chemo arm based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by investigator's choice of chemotherapy (cisplatin or carboplatin) and PD-L1 status (CPS\<10 vs. CPS≥10) at baseline.||10.6|-1.6|
90939327|NCT02853305|181758134|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|-14.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|-7.4||No formal hypothesis testing was performed.||||ORR in participants of the pembro arm was compared to ORR in participants of the chemo arm. The comparison was based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by investigator's choice of chemotherapy (cisplatin or carboplatin) and PD-L1 status (CPS\<10 vs. CPS≥10) at baseline.||-7.4|-22.0|
90939328|NCT02853305|181758136|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-28.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.9|-21.6||No formal hypothesis testing was performed.||||DCR in participants of the pembro arm was compared to DCR in participants of the chemo arm based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by investigator's choice of chemotherapy (cisplatin or carboplatin) and PD-L1 status (CPS\<10 vs. CPS≥10) at baseline.||-21.6|-35.9|
90939329|NCT02853305|181758140|OTHER||Difference in LS Means|2.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|6.12||No formal hypothesis testing was performed.||||Change from baseline to Week 18 in EORTC-QLQ-C30 GHS/QoL combined score was compared between all participants of the pembro combo arm and the chemo arm. Comparison based on constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model with GHS/QoL score as response variable, and with treatment by study visit interactions and stratification factors (investigator's choice of chemotherapy \[cisplatin or carboplatin\] and PD-L1 status \[CPS\<10 vs. CPS≥10\]) at baseline as covariates.||6.12|-0.76|
90939330|NCT02853305|181758141|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.0||No formal hypothesis testing was performed.||||TTD in GHS/QoL combined score was compared between all participants of the pembro combo arm and the chemo arm. Comparison based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by investigator's choice of chemotherapy (cisplatin or carboplatin) and PD-L1 status (CPS\<10 vs. CPS≥10) at baseline.||1.00|0.62|
90939331|NCT02853305|181758142|OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.06|3.18||No formal hypothesis testing was performed.||||Change from baseline to Week 18 in EORTC-QLQ-C30 GHS/QoL combined score was compared between all participants of the pembro arm and the chemo arm. Comparison based on cLDA model with GHS/QoL score as response variable, and with treatment by study visit interactions and stratification factors (investigator's choice of chemotherapy \[cisplatin or carboplatin\] and PD-L1 status \[CPS\<10 vs. CPS≥10\]) at baseline as covariates.||3.18|-5.06|
90939332|NCT02853305|181758143|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.49||No formal hypothesis testing was performed.||||TTD in GHS/QoL combined score was compared between all participants of the pembro arm and the chemo arm. Comparison based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by investigator's choice of chemotherapy (cisplatin or carboplatin) and PD-L1 status (CPS\<10 vs. CPS≥10) at baseline.||1.49|0.93|
90939333|NCT02381652|181758146|OTHER|Statistical test to see if there is a difference||||||0.3108|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.3108
90939334|NCT03544229|181758147|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|=|0.618|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.34|0.49||1-sided p-values were obtained using MMRM Model. It was based on the one-sided alternative hypothesis testing that the treatment difference (TAK-906 - Placebo) in ANMS GCSI-DD composite score was \<0.|MMRM||MMRM included week, treatment, participant disease population (DG/IG), treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline score-by-week interaction as covariates, with an unstructured working covariance matrix as default.|||0.49|-0.34|=0.618
90939335|NCT03544229|181758147|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|=|0.533|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.27|0.29||1-sided p-values were obtained using MMRM Model. It was based on the one-sided alternative hypothesis testing that the treatment difference (TAK-906 - Placebo) in ANMS GCSI-DD composite score was \<0.|MMRM||MMRM model included week, treatment, participant disease population (DG/IG), treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline score-by-week interaction as covariates, with an unstructured working covariance matrix as default.|||0.29|-0.27|=0.533
90939336|NCT03544229|181758147|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.167|=|0.447|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|0.25||1-sided p-values were obtained using MMRM Model. It was based on the one-sided alternative hypothesis testing that the treatment difference (TAK-906 - Placebo) in ANMS GCSI-DD composite score was \<0.|MMRM||MMRM model included week, treatment, participant disease population (DG/IG), treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline score-by-week interaction as covariates, with an unstructured working covariance matrix as default.|||0.25|-0.30|=0.447
90939337|NCT03544229|181758148|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87|||=|0.607|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.39|1.96|||Logistic Regression||Comparisons of TAK-906 to Placebo was based on logistic regression with at least 50% reduction of participants from baseline in weekly composite score with baseline composite score, disease population at randomization, and treatment as covariates.|||1.96|0.39|=0.607
90939338|NCT03544229|181758148|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21|||=|0.283|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7|2.1|||Logistic Regression||Comparisons of TAK-906 to Placebo was based on logistic regression with at least 50% reduction of participants from baseline in weekly composite score with baseline composite score, disease population at randomization, and treatment as covariates.|||2.10|0.70|=0.283
90939339|NCT03544229|181758148|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98|||=|0.527|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.56|1.69|||Logistic Regression||Comparisons of TAK-906 to Placebo was based on logistic regression with at least 50% reduction of participants from baseline in weekly composite score with baseline composite score, disease population at randomization, and treatment as covariates.|||1.69|0.56|=0.527
90939340|NCT03544229|181758149|SUPERIORITY||Least-Squares Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.279|=|0.584|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|0.52||1-sided p-values were obtained using MMRM Model. It was based on the one-sided alternative hypothesis testing that the treatment difference (TAK-906 - Placebo) in ANMS GCSI-DD nausea symptom score was \<0.|MMRM||MMRM model included week, treatment, participant disease population (DG/IG), treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline score-by-week interaction as covariates, with an unstructured working covariance matrix as default.|||0.52|-0.40|=0.584
90939341|NCT03544229|181758149|SUPERIORITY||Least-Squares Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.189|=|0.625|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.25|0.37||1-sided p-values were obtained using MMRM Model. It was based on the one-sided alternative hypothesis testing that the treatment difference (TAK-906 - Placebo) in ANMS GCSI-DD nausea symptom score was \<0.|MMRM||MMRM model included week, treatment, participant disease population (DG/IG), treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline score-by-week interaction as covariates, with an unstructured working covariance matrix as default.|||0.37|-0.25|=0.625
90939342|NCT03544229|181758149|SUPERIORITY||Least-Squares Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.187|=|0.54|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.29|0.33||1-sided p-values were obtained using MMRM Model. It was based on the one-sided alternative hypothesis testing that the treatment difference (TAK-906 - Placebo) in ANMS GCSI-DD nausea symptom score was \<0.|MMRM||MMRM model included week, treatment, participant disease population (DG/IG), treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline score-by-week interaction as covariates, with an unstructured working covariance matrix as default.|||0.33|-0.29|=0.540
90939343|NCT03544229|181758150|SUPERIORITY||Least-Squares Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.283|=|0.51|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.46|0.47||1-sided p-values were obtained using MMRM Model. It was based on the one-sided alternative hypothesis testing that the treatment difference (TAK-906 - Placebo) in ANMS GCSI-DD early satiety symptom score was \<0.|MMRM||MMRM model included week, treatment, participant disease population (DG/IG), treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline score-by-week interaction as covariates, with an unstructured working covariance matrix as default.|||0.47|-0.46|=0.510
90939344|NCT03544229|181758150|SUPERIORITY||Least-Squares Mean Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.192|=|0.674|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.23|0.4||1-sided p-values were obtained using MMRM Model. It was based on the one-sided alternative hypothesis testing that the treatment difference (TAK-906 - Placebo) in ANMS GCSI-DD early satiety symptom score was \<0.|MMRM||MMRM model included week, treatment, participant disease population (DG/IG), treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline score-by-week interaction as covariates, with an unstructured working covariance matrix as default.|||0.40|-0.23|=0.674
90939345|NCT03544229|181758150|SUPERIORITY||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.189|=|0.367|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.38|0.25||1-sided p-values were obtained using MMRM Model. It was based on the one-sided alternative hypothesis testing that the treatment difference (TAK-906 - Placebo) in ANMS GCSI-DD early satiety symptom score was \<0.|MMRM||MMRM model included week, treatment, participant disease population (DG/IG), treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline score-by-week interaction as covariates, with an unstructured working covariance matrix as default.|||0.25|-0.38|=0.367
90939346|NCT03544229|181758151|SUPERIORITY||Least-Squares Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.289|=|0.587|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.41|0.54||1-sided p-values were obtained using MMRM Model. It was based on the one-sided alternative hypothesis testing that the treatment difference (TAK-906 - Placebo) in ANMS GCSI-DD postprandial fullness symptom score was \<0.|MMRM||MMRM model included week, treatment, participant disease population (DG/IG), treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline score-by-week interaction as covariates, with an unstructured working covariance matrix as default.|||0.54|-0.41|=0.587
90939347|NCT03544229|181758151|SUPERIORITY||Least-Squares Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.196|=|0.6|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.27|0.37||1-sided p-values were obtained using MMRM Model. It was based on the one-sided alternative hypothesis testing that the treatment difference (TAK-906 - Placebo) in ANMS GCSI-DD postprandial fullness symptom score was \<0.|MMRM||MMRM model included week, treatment, participant disease population (DG/IG), treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline score-by-week interaction as covariates, with an unstructured working covariance matrix as default.|||0.37|-0.27|=0.600
90939348|NCT03544229|181758151|SUPERIORITY||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.193|=|0.446|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.34|0.29||1-sided p-values were obtained using MMRM Model. It was based on the one-sided alternative hypothesis testing that the treatment difference (TAK-906 - Placebo) in ANMS GCSI-DD postprandial fullness symptom score was \<0.|MMRM||MMRM model included week, treatment, participant disease population (DG/IG), treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline score-by-week interaction as covariates, with an unstructured working covariance matrix as default.|||0.29|-0.34|=0.446
90939349|NCT03544229|181758152|SUPERIORITY||Least-Squares Mean Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.245|=|0.562|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.37|0.44||1-sided p-values were obtained using MMRM Model. It was based on the one-sided alternative hypothesis testing that the treatment difference (TAK-906 - Placebo) in ANMS GCSI-DD upper abdominal pain symptom score was \<0.|MMRM||MMRM model included week, treatment, participant disease population (DG/IG), treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline score-by-week interaction as covariates, with an unstructured working covariance matrix as default.|||0.44|-0.37|=0.562
90939350|NCT03544229|181758152|SUPERIORITY||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.166|=|0.138|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.46|0.09||1-sided p-values were obtained using MMRM Model. It was based on the one-sided alternative hypothesis testing that the treatment difference (TAK-906 - Placebo) in ANMS GCSI-DD upper abdominal pain symptom score was \<0.|MMRM||MMRM model included week, treatment, participant disease population (DG/IG), treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline score-by-week interaction as covariates, with an unstructured working covariance matrix as default.|||0.09|-0.46|=0.138
90970372|NCT02831673|181822878|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.7|35.1|||||Baseline CD4+ cell count,\>200. Following covariates were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, and treatment and Baseline CD4+ cell count interaction.|||35.1|-24.7|
90939351|NCT03544229|181758152|SUPERIORITY||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.164|=|0.394|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.32|0.23||1-sided p-values were obtained using MMRM Model. It was based on the one-sided alternative hypothesis testing that the treatment difference (TAK-906 - Placebo) in ANMS GCSI-DD upper abdominal pain symptom score was \<0.|MMRM||MMRM model included week, treatment, participant disease population (DG/IG), treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline score-by-week interaction as covariates, with an unstructured working covariance matrix as default.|||0.23|-0.32|=0.394
90939352|NCT03544229|181758153|SUPERIORITY||Least-Squares Mean Difference|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.484|=|0.709|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.53|1.07||1-sided p-values were obtained using MMRM Model. It was based on the one-sided alternative hypothesis testing that the treatment difference (TAK-906 - Placebo) in ANMS GCSI-DD recorded vomiting frequency was \<0.|MMRM||MMRM model included week, treatment, participant disease population (DG/IG), treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline score-by-week interaction as covariates, with an unstructured working covariance matrix as default.|||1.07|-0.53|=0.709
90939353|NCT03544229|181758153|SUPERIORITY||Least-Squares Mean Difference|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.332|=|0.76|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.31|0.78||1-sided p-values were obtained using MMRM Model. It was based on the one-sided alternative hypothesis testing that the treatment difference (TAK-906 - Placebo) in ANMS GCSI-DD recorded vomiting frequency was \<0.|MMRM||MMRM model included week, treatment, participant disease population (DG/IG), treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline score-by-week interaction as covariates, with an unstructured working covariance matrix as default.|||0.78|-0.31|=0.760
90939354|NCT03544229|181758153|SUPERIORITY||Least-Squares Mean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|=|0.591|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.47|0.62||1-sided p-values were obtained using MMRM Model. It was based on the one-sided alternative hypothesis testing that the treatment difference (TAK-906 - Placebo) in ANMS GCSI-DD recorded vomiting frequency was \<0.|MMRM||MMRM model included week, treatment, participant disease population (DG/IG), treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline score-by-week interaction as covariates, with an unstructured working covariance matrix as default.|||0.62|-0.47|=0.591
90939355|NCT03544229|181758154|SUPERIORITY||Least-Squares Mean Difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|=|0.742|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.27|0.62||1-sided p-values were obtained using MMRM Model. It was based on the one-sided alternative hypothesis testing that the treatment difference (TAK-906 - Placebo) in ANMS GCSI-DD overall severity of gastroparesis symptoms score was \<0.|MMRM||MMRM model included week, treatment, participant disease population (DG/IG), treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline score-by-week interaction as covariates, with an unstructured working covariance matrix as default.|||0.62|-0.27|=0.742
90939356|NCT03544229|181758154|SUPERIORITY||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.183|=|0.461|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.32|0.28||1-sided p-values were obtained using MMRM Model. It was based on the one-sided alternative hypothesis testing that the treatment difference (TAK-906 - Placebo) in ANMS GCSI-DD overall severity of gastroparesis symptoms score was \<0.|MMRM||MMRM model included week, treatment, participant disease population (DG/IG), treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline score-by-week interaction as covariates, with an unstructured working covariance matrix as default.|||0.28|-0.32|=0.461
90939357|NCT03544229|181758154|SUPERIORITY||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.181|=|0.376|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.36|0.24||1-sided p-values were obtained using MMRM Model. It was based on the one-sided alternative hypothesis testing that the treatment difference (TAK-906 - Placebo) in ANMS GCSI-DD overall severity of gastroparesis symptoms score was \<0.|MMRM||MMRM model included week, treatment, participant disease population (DG/IG), treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline score-by-week interaction as covariates, with an unstructured working covariance matrix as default.|||0.24|-0.36|=0.376
90939358|NCT03544229|181758155|SUPERIORITY||Least-Squares Mean Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.286|=|0.591|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.41|0.54||1-sided p-values were obtained using MMRM Model. It was based on the one-sided alternative hypothesis testing that the treatment difference (TAK-906 - Placebo) in ANMS GCSI-DD bloating severity scale score was \<0.|MMRM||MMRM model included week, treatment, participant disease population (DG/IG), treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline score-by-week interaction as covariates, with an unstructured working covariance matrix as default.|||0.54|-0.41|=0.591
90939359|NCT03544229|181758155|SUPERIORITY||Least-Squares mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.193|=|0.291|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.43|0.21||1-sided p-values were obtained using MMRM Model. It was based on the one-sided alternative hypothesis testing that the treatment difference (TAK-906 - Placebo) in ANMS GCSI-DD bloating severity scale score was \<0.|MMRM||MMRM model included week, treatment, participant disease population (DG/IG), treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline score-by-week interaction as covariates, with an unstructured working covariance matrix as default.|||0.21|-0.43|=0.291
90939360|NCT03544229|181758155|SUPERIORITY||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.191|=|0.476|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.33|0.3||1-sided p-values were obtained using MMRM Model. It was based on the one-sided alternative hypothesis testing that the treatment difference (TAK-906 - Placebo) in ANMS GCSI-DD bloating severity scale score was \<0.|MMRM||MMRM model included week, treatment, participant disease population (DG/IG), treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline score-by-week interaction as covariates, with an unstructured working covariance matrix as default.|||0.30|-0.33|=0.476
90939361|NCT03544229|181758156|SUPERIORITY||Least-Squares Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.224|=|0.675|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.27|0.47||1-sided p-values were obtained using MMRM Model. It was based on the one-sided alternative hypothesis testing that the treatment difference (TAK-906 - Placebo) in ANMS GCSI-DD total score was \<0.|MMRM||MMRM model included week, treatment, participant disease population (DG/IG), treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline score-by-week interaction as covariates, with an unstructured working covariance matrix as default.|||0.47|-0.27|=0.675
90939362|NCT03544229|181758156|SUPERIORITY||Least-Squares Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.152|=|0.531|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.24|0.26||1-sided p-values were obtained using MMRM Model. It was based on the one-sided alternative hypothesis testing that the treatment difference (TAK-906 - Placebo) in ANMS GCSI-DD total score was \<0.|MMRM||MMRM model included week, treatment, participant disease population (DG/IG), treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline score-by-week interaction as covariates, with an unstructured working covariance matrix as default.|||0.26|-0.24|=0.531
90939363|NCT03544229|181758156|SUPERIORITY||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|=|0.473|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.26|0.24||1-sided p-values were obtained using MMRM Model. It was based on the one-sided alternative hypothesis testing that the treatment difference (TAK-906 - Placebo) in ANMS GCSI-DD total score was \<0.|MMRM||MMRM model included week, treatment, participant disease population (DG/IG), treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline score-by-week interaction as covariates, with an unstructured working covariance matrix as default.|||0.24|-0.26|=0.473
90939364|NCT03544229|181758157|SUPERIORITY||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-8.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.71|=|0.192|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-24.5|7.57||The 1-sided p-value was based on the one-sided alternative hypothesis testing that the treatment difference (TAK-906 -Placebo) in symptomatic weeks was \<0.|ANOVA|||||7.57|-24.50|=0.192
90939365|NCT03544229|181758157|SUPERIORITY||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-4.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.736|=|0.236|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.98|6.27||The 1-sided p-value was based on the one-sided alternative hypothesis testing that the treatment difference (TAK-906 - Placebo) in symptomatic weeks was \<0.|ANOVA|||||6.27|-15.98|=0.236
90939366|NCT03544229|181758157|SUPERIORITY||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-3.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.689|=|0.297|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.62|7.47||The 1-sided p-value was based on the one-sided alternative hypothesis testing that the treatment difference (TAK-906 - Placebo) in symptomatic weeks was \<0.|ANOVA|||||7.47|-14.62|=0.297
90939367|NCT03544229|181758158|SUPERIORITY||Least-Squares Mean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|=|0.601|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.42|0.57||1-sided p-values were obtained using MMRM of PAGI-SYM total score. It was based on the one-sided alternative hypothesis testing that the treatment difference (TAK-906 - Placebo) in PAGI-SYM total score was \<0.|MMRM||MMRM model included week, treatment, participant disease population (DG/IG), treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline score-by-week interaction as covariates, with an unstructured working covariance matrix as default.|||0.57|-0.42|=0.601
90939368|NCT03544229|181758158|SUPERIORITY||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|=|0.181|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.51|0.15||1-sided p-values were obtained using MMRM of PAGI-SYM total score. It was based on the one-sided alternative hypothesis testing that the treatment difference (TAK-906 - Placebo) in PAGI-SYM total score was \<0.|MMRM||MMRM model includes week, treatment, participant disease population (DG/IG), treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline score-by-week interaction as covariates, with an unstructured working covariance matrix as default.|||0.15|-0.51|=0.181
90939369|NCT03544229|181758158|SUPERIORITY||Least-Squares Mean Diferrence|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.196|=|0.114|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.56|0.09||1-sided p-values were obtained using MMRM of PAGI-SYM total score. It was based on the one-sided alternative hypothesis testing that the treatment difference (TAK-906 - Placebo) in PAGI-SYM total score was \<0.|MMRM||MMRM model includes week, treatment, participant disease population (DG/IG), treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline score-by-week interaction as covariates, with an unstructured working covariance matrix as default.|||0.09|-0.56|=0.114
90939370|NCT01163955|181758172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.92|<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|9.0|||t-test, 2 sided|DF=50||Start total score at 0 minutes is being compared to the end total score at 5 minutes while sitting in the floor.||9|0|<.0005
90939371|NCT01163955|181758172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.99|<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|9.0|||t-test, 2 sided|DF=50||Start total score at 0 minutes is being compared to the end total score at 5 minutes while sitting in a chair.||9|0|<.0005
90939372|NCT02460562|181758173|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||Mean salivary fluoride concentrations (part per million) between groups were assessed at different time points using repeated measures analysis of variance. Saliva fluoride concentration from each groups were compared with baseline using a t-test.|ANOVA|||Mean saliva fluoride concentration (part per million) collected at different time points was compared in order to assess the change in capacity for fluoride release and recharge from the resin denture base and to assess differences between the control and the intervention group.||||<0.05
90939373|NCT02460562|181758174|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.45|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Caries assessments were performed to examine the difference in mean number of surface caries (DMFS) ± standard deviation between the control and the intervention groups at baseline and at 1.5 years.The transition (∆Q) of developed new caries surfaces (ICDAS score 1-3) from baseline to 1.5 years of follow-up for the two groups was analyzed with respect to arrest or progress rates. Numbers of new caries surfaces were compared by independent t-test, Pearson chi-square and correlation coefficient.||||<0.05
90939374|NCT01061775|181758175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.05
90939375|NCT01061775|181758176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
90939376|NCT01061775|181758177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
90939377|NCT01061775|181758178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
90939378|NCT01954771|181758197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Correlation coefficient|0.726|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Correlation analysis|||The correlation study between HbA1c and MBG (mean blood glucose) from SMBG measurements.||||<0.001
90939379|NCT01954771|181758197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Correlation coefficient|0.522||||0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||Correlation analysis|||The correlation study between HbA1c and MBG (mean blood glucose) from SMBG measurements.||||0.004
90939380|NCT01954771|181758197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Correlation Coefficient|0.784|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Correlation analysis|||The correlation study between HbA1c and MBG (mean blood glucose) from SMBG measurements.||||<0.001
90939381|NCT01954771|181758197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Correlation Coefficient|0.533||||0.011|TWO_SIDED||||||Correlation analysis|||The correlation study between HbA1c and MBG (mean blood glucose) from CGMS measurements.||||0.011
90939382|NCT01954771|181758197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Correlation Coefficient|0.479||||0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||Correlation analysis|||The correlation study between HbA1c and MBG (mean blood glucose) from CGMS measurements.||||0.009
91035728|NCT01667679|181957735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|2.11|||ANCOVA||60 minutes post-dose|||2.11|1.22|0.0008
90970373|NCT02831673|181822878|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.1|45.9|||||Age\<35. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, age, and treatment and age interaction.|||45.9|-29.1|
90970374|NCT02831673|181822878|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.9|48.9|||||Age 35 to \<50. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, age, and treatment and age interaction.|||48.9|-53.9|
90970375|NCT02831673|181822878|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|17.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.6|110.1|||||Age\>=50. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, age, and treatment and age interaction.|||110.1|-74.6|
90970376|NCT02831673|181822878|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|10.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.3|83.1|||||Female. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, gender, and treatment and gender interaction.|||83.1|-62.3|
90939383|NCT01954771|181758197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Correlation Coefficient|0.801|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Correlation analysis|||The correlation study between HbA1c and MBG (mean blood glucose) from CGMS measurements.||||<0.001
90939384|NCT02498418|181758210|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was demonstrated if 90% confidence interval (CI) of percentage difference between generic rifaximin 200 mg tablets and xifaxan 200 mg tablets was within the equivalence range (-20%, +20%).|Difference in percentage of participants|-0.0193|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.11|0.07||||||Bioequivalence was evaluated based on the PP analysis set using Z-test with Yates correction.||0.07|-0.11|
90939385|NCT02498418|181758213|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-0.0195||||0.7899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.13||Threshold of significance at 0.05 level.|Z-test|||95% CIs was calculated using Z-test with Yates' correction.||0.13|-0.09|0.7899
90939386|NCT02498418|181758213|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|0.033||||0.5987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.14||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Z-test|||95% CIs was calculated using Z-test with Yates' correction.||0.14|-0.07|0.5987
90939387|NCT00999141|181758278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||two-sided paired t-test|alpha = 5%||||||<0.0001
90939388|NCT00999141|181758281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|0.04||||0.257||95.0|-0.039|0.125|||McNemar|alpha = 5%|Difference in Proportions = (SoC) - (FS VH S/D 4 s-apr)|||0.125|-0.039|0.257
90939389|NCT00999141|181758282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.373|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.524|-0.193|||McNemar|alpha = 5%|Difference in proportions = SoC - FS VH S/D 4 s-apr|||-0.193|-0.524|<0.001
90939390|NCT00999141|181758283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.387|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.538|-0.205|||McNemar||Difference in Proportions = SoC - FS VH S/D 4 s-apr|||-0.205|-0.538|<0.001
90939391|NCT00999141|181758284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.356||||0.001||95.0|-0.521|-0.161|||McNemar|alpha = 5%|Difference in proportions = SoC - FS VH S/D 4 s-apr|||-0.161|-0.521|0.001
90939392|NCT00999141|181758285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.189||||0.027||95.0|-0.342|-0.023|||McNemar|alpha = 5%|Difference in proportions = SoC - FS VH S/D 4 s-apr|||-0.023|-0.342|0.027
90970377|NCT02831673|181822878|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.6|36.9|||||Male. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, gender, and treatment and gender interaction.|||36.9|-25.6|
90970378|NCT02831673|181822878|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.2|40.9|||||Race group white. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, race group, and treatment and race group interaction.|||40.9|-28.2|
90970379|NCT02831673|181822878|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-30.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-122.7|62.4|||||Race group African Am/African H.. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, race group, and treatment and race group interaction.|||62.4|-122.7|
90970380|NCT02831673|181822878|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|49.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.3|134.7|||||Race group Asian. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, race group, and treatment and race group interaction.|||134.7|-36.3|
90939393|NCT00999141|181758288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|-0.413||||||95.0|-0.577|-0.213|||||Difference in Proportions = (SoC) - (FS VH S/D 4 s-apr)|||-0.213|-0.577|
90939394|NCT00999141|181758289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|-0.227||||||95.0|-0.413|-0.02|||||Difference in Proportions = (SoC) - (FS VH S/D 4 s-apr)|||-0.020|-0.413|
90939395|NCT00999141|181758290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|-0.347||||||95.0|-0.518|-0.145|||||Difference in Proportions = (SoC) - (FS VH S/D 4 s-apr)|||-0.145|-0.518|
90939396|NCT00999141|181758291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|-0.365||||||95.0|-0.528|-0.171|||||Difference in Proportions = (SoC) - (FS VH S/D 4 s-apr)|||-0.171|-0.528|
90939397|NCT03866434|181758319|EQUIVALENCE|90% CIs of geometric mean ratios being within 80% to 125%.|% ratio of Geometric LSmeans|64.225|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|53.212|77.516|||ANOVA|A 2-factor analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with fixed factors for treatment and participant was fitted to the natural logtransformed PK parameters.|This analysis was performed based on the ratio of geometric LS means and 90% confidence interval for ratio of geometric means expressed as percent.|The means of the log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters were compared between the two treatments (anagrelide with omeprazole \[Day 8\] versus anagrelide alone \[Day 1\]). In order to estimate the magnitude of the treatment regimen differences, the geometric mean ratio (i.e., the least squares (LS) mean difference in the log-transformed parameters back transformed to the original scale) and their 90 percent (%) confidence intervals (CI) were calculated.||77.516|53.212|
90970381|NCT02831673|181822878|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-94.7|89.7|||||Race group Other. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, race group, and treatment and race group interaction.|||89.7|-94.7|
90970382|NCT02831673|181822879|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.5|38.2|||||Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA,\<=100000. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA, and treatment and relevant Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA interaction.|||38.2|-34.5|
90970383|NCT02831673|181822879|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|40.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.2|111.5|||||Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA,\>100000. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, and treatment and HIV-1 RNA interaction.|||111.5|-31.2|
90971341|NCT00812214|181825423|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between Eszopiclone and placebo groups in daytime functioning averaged over 6 weeks of treatment.||||0.76
90939398|NCT03866434|181758320|EQUIVALENCE|90% CIs of geometric mean ratios being within 80% to 125%.|%ratio of Geometric LeastSquare(LS)means|82.203|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|71.501|94.507|||ANOVA|A 2-factor analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with fixed factors for treatment and participant was fitted to the natural logtransformed PK parameters.|This analysis was performed based on the ratio of geometric LS means and 90% confidence interval for ratio of geometric means expressed as percent.|The means of the log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters were compared between the two treatments (anagrelide with omeprazole \[Day 8\] versus anagrelide alone \[Day 1\]). In order to estimate the magnitude of the treatment regimen differences, the geometric mean ratio (i.e., the LS mean difference in the log-transformed parameters back transformed to the original scale) and their 90% CI were calculated.||94.507|71.501|
90939399|NCT03866434|181758321|EQUIVALENCE|90% CIs of geometric mean ratios being within 80% to 125%.|% ratio of Geometric LS means|73.705|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|64.555|84.152|||ANOVA|A 2-factor analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with fixed factors for treatment and participant was fitted to the natural logtransformed PK parameters.|This analysis was performed based on the ratio of geometric LS means and 90% confidence interval for ratio of geometric means expressed as percent.|The means of the log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters were compared between the two treatments (anagrelide with omeprazole \[Day 8\] versus anagrelide alone \[Day 1\]). In order to estimate the magnitude of the treatment regimen differences, the geometric mean ratio (i.e., the LS mean difference in the log-transformed parameters back transformed to the original scale) and their 90% CI were calculated.||84.152|64.555|
90939400|NCT03866434|181758322|EQUIVALENCE|90% CIs of geometric mean ratios being within 80% to 125%.|% ratio of Geometric LS means|85.527|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.163|93.584|||ANOVA|A 2-factor analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with fixed factors for treatment and participant was fitted to the natural logtransformed PK parameters.|This analysis was performed based on the ratio of geometric LS means and 90% confidence interval for ratio of geometric means expressed as percent.|The means of the log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters were compared between the two treatments (anagrelide with omeprazole \[Day 8\] versus anagrelide alone \[Day 1\]). In order to estimate the magnitude of the treatment regimen differences, the geometric mean ratio (i.e., the LS mean difference in the log-transformed parameters back transformed to the original scale) and their 90% CI were calculated.||93.584|78.163|
90939401|NCT03866434|181758323|EQUIVALENCE|90% CIs of geometric mean ratios being within 80% to 125%.|% ratio of Geometric LS means|73.007|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|62.528|85.243|||ANOVA|A 2-factor analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with fixed factors for treatment and participant was fitted to the natural logtransformed PK parameters.|This analysis was performed based on the ratio of geometric LS means and 90% confidence interval for ratio of geometric means expressed as percent.|The means of the log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters were compared between the two treatments (anagrelide with omeprazole \[Day 8\] versus anagrelide alone \[Day 1\]). In order to estimate the magnitude of the treatment regimen differences, the geometric mean ratio (i.e., the LS mean difference in the log-transformed parameters back transformed to the original scale) and their 90% CI were calculated.||85.243|62.528|
90939402|NCT03866434|181758324|EQUIVALENCE|90% CIs of geometric mean ratios being within 80% to 125%.|% ratio of Geometric LS means|86.504|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.462|95.371|||ANOVA|A 2-factor analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with fixed factors for treatment and participant was fitted to the natural logtransformed PK parameters.|This analysis was performed based on the ratio of geometric LS means and 90% confidence interval for ratio of geometric means expressed as percent.|The means of the log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters were compared between the two treatments (anagrelide with omeprazole \[Day 8\] versus anagrelide alone \[Day 1\]). In order to estimate the magnitude of the treatment regimen differences, the geometric mean ratio (i.e., the LS mean difference in the log-transformed parameters back transformed to the original scale) and their 90% CI were calculated.||95.371|78.462|
90939403|NCT03638258|181758403|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and last observation carried forward (LOCF) where linear interpolation was not computationally possible.|||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline IGA score.||||||<0.001
90939404|NCT03638258|181758403|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpolation was not computationally possible.||||||0.004|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline IGA score.||||||0.004
90939405|NCT03638258|181758404|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and last observation carried forward where linear interpolation was not computationally possible.||||||0.015|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline IGA score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 4||||0.015
90939406|NCT03638258|181758404|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.174|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline IGA score.||Difference from placebo at Week 4||||0.174
90939407|NCT03638258|181758404|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.|||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline IGA score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 8||||<0.001
90939408|NCT03638258|181758404|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline IGA score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 8||||0.001
90939409|NCT03638258|181758404|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.|||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline IGA score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 12||||<0.001
90939410|NCT03638258|181758404|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.008|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline IGA score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 12||||0.008
90939411|NCT03638258|181758405|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline mPASI score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 4||||<0.001
90971342|NCT00812214|181825425|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in average days/week between eszopiclone and placebo groups at 6 weeks.||||0.89
90939412|NCT03638258|181758405|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline mPASI score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 4||||<0.001
90939413|NCT03638258|181758405|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline mPASI score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 6||||<0.001
90939414|NCT03638258|181758405|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline mPASI score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 6||||<0.001
90939415|NCT03638258|181758405|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.x|||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline mPASI score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 8||||<0.001
90939416|NCT03638258|181758405|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline mPASI score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 8||||<0.001
90939417|NCT03638258|181758405|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.|||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline mPASI score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 12||||<0.001
90939418|NCT03638258|181758405|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline mPASI score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 12||||<0.001
90939419|NCT03638258|181758406|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.|||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline BSA score.||Difference from vehicle cream on Week 4||||<0.001
90939420|NCT03638258|181758406|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.|||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline BSA score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 4||||<0.001
90939421|NCT03638258|181758406|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline BSA score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 6||||<0.001
90939422|NCT03638258|181758406|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline BSA score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 6||||<0.001
90939423|NCT03638258|181758406|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline BSA score.||Difference from vehicle at Week 8||||<0.001
90970384|NCT02831673|181822879|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-122.3|114.5|||||Baseline CD4+ cell count,\<=200. Following covariates were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, and treatment and Baseline CD4+ cell count interaction.|||114.5|-122.3|
90970385|NCT02831673|181822879|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.9|44.5|||||Baseline CD4+ cell count,\>200. Following covariates were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, and treatment and Baseline CD4+ cell count interaction.|||44.5|-22.9|
90970386|NCT02831673|181822879|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.0|49.6|||||Age Group,\<35. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, age, and treatment and age interaction.|||49.6|-35.0|
90939424|NCT03638258|181758406|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline BSA score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 8||||<0.001
90939425|NCT03638258|181758406|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline BSA score.||Difference from vehicle at Week 12||||<0.001
90939426|NCT03638258|181758406|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline BSA score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 12||||<0.001
90939427|NCT03638258|181758407|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and last observation carried forward where linear interpolation was not computationally possible.||||||0.116|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline IGA score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 4||||0.116
90939428|NCT03638258|181758407|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and last observation carried forward where linear interpolation was not computationally possible.||||||0.423|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline IGA score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 4||||0.423
90939429|NCT03638258|181758407|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and last observation carried forward where linear interpolation was not computationally possible.||||||0.002|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline IGA score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 6||||0.002
90939430|NCT03638258|181758407|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and last observation carried forward where linear interpolation was not computationally possible.||||||0.038|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline IGA score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 6||||0.038
90970387|NCT02831673|181822879|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.7|55.7|||||Age Group,35 to \<50. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, age, and treatment and age interaction.|||55.7|-60.7|
90939431|NCT03638258|181758407|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and last observation carried forward where linear interpolation was not computationally possible.|||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline IGA score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 8||||<0.001
90939432|NCT03638258|181758407|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and last observation carried forward where linear interpolation was not computationally possible.||||||0.005|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline IGA score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 8||||0.005
90939433|NCT03638258|181758407|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and last observation carried forward where linear interpolation was not computationally possible.||||||0.002|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline IGA score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 12||||0.002
90939434|NCT03638258|181758407|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and last observation carried forward where linear interpolation was not computationally possible.||||||0.013|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline IGA score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 12||||0.013
90939435|NCT03638258|181758408|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.086|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline I-IGA score.||Difference form vehicle cream at Week 4||||0.086
90939436|NCT03638258|181758408|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.123|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline I-IGA score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 4||||0.123
90939437|NCT03638258|181758408|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.017|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline I-IGA score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 6||||0.017
90939438|NCT03638258|181758408|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.415|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline I-IGA score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 6||||0.415
90939439|NCT03638258|181758408|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.007|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline I-IGA score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 8||||0.007
90939440|NCT03638258|181758408|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.175|||||||Regression, Linear|Logistic regression with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline I-IGA score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 8||||0.175
90939441|NCT03638258|181758408|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline I-IGA score.||Difference from vehicle at Week 12||||0.001
90939442|NCT03638258|181758408|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.619|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline I-IGA score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 12||||0.619
90939443|NCT03638258|181758409|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline WI-NRS score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 4||||<0.001
90939444|NCT03638258|181758409|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.002|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline WI-NRS score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 4||||0.002
90939445|NCT03638258|181758409|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline WI-NRS score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 6||||<0.001
90939446|NCT03638258|181758409|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline WI-NRS score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 6||||<0.001
90939447|NCT03638258|181758409|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline WI-NRS score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 8||||<0.001
90939448|NCT03638258|181758409|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline WI-NRS score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 8||||<0.001
90939449|NCT03638258|181758409|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline WI-NRS score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 12||||<0.001
90939450|NCT03638258|181758409|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline WI-NRS score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 12||||<0.001
90939451|NCT03638258|181758410|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.002|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline WI-NRS score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 4||||0.002
90939452|NCT03638258|181758410|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.203|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline WI-NRS score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 4||||0.203
90971343|NCT00812214|181825426|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in headache duration between eszopiclone and placebo groups at 6 weeks.||||0.98
90939453|NCT03638258|181758410|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.034|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline WI-NRS score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 6||||0.034
90939454|NCT03638258|181758410|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.012|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline WI-NRS score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 6||||0.012
90939455|NCT03638258|181758410|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.01|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline WI-NRS score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 8||||0.010
90939456|NCT03638258|181758410|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.075|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline WI-NRS score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 8||||0.075
90939457|NCT03638258|181758410|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.|||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline WI-NRS score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 12||||<0.001
90939458|NCT03638258|181758410|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.|||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline WI-NRS score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 12||||<0.001
90939459|NCT03638258|181758411|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.527|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression (Firth's penalized likelihood) with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline PASI score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 4||||0.527
90939460|NCT03638258|181758411|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.444|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression (Firth's penalized likelihood) with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline PASI score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 4||||0.444
90939461|NCT03638258|181758411|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.006|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression (Firth's penalized likelihood) with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline PASI score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 6||||0.006
90970388|NCT02831673|181822879|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|41.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.2|144.5|||||Age\>=50. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, age, and treatment and age interaction.|||144.5|-61.2|
90939462|NCT03638258|181758411|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.013|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression (Firth's penalized likelihood) with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline PASI score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 6||||0.013
90970389|NCT02831673|181822879|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|18.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.2|101.8|||||Female. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, gender, and treatment and gender interaction.|||101.8|-64.2|
90939463|NCT03638258|181758411|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.002|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression (Firth's penalized likelihood) with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline PASI score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 8||||0.002
90939464|NCT03638258|181758411|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.064|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression (Firth's penalized likelihood) with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline PASI score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 8||||0.064
90939465|NCT03638258|181758411|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.002|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression (Firth's penalized likelihood) with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline PASI score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 12||||0.002
91035729|NCT01667679|181957735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.0272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.83|||ANCOVA||90 minutes post-dose|||1.83|1.04|0.0272
91035730|NCT01667679|181957735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.2085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.62|||ANCOVA||120 minutes post-dose|||1.62|0.90|0.2085
90939466|NCT03638258|181758411|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.009|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression (Firth's penalized likelihood) with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline PASI score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 12||||0.009
90939467|NCT03638258|181758412|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.188|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression (Firth's penalized likelihood) with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline PASI score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 4||||0.188
90939468|NCT03638258|181758412|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.577|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression (Firth's penalized likelihood) with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline PASI score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 4||||0.577
90939469|NCT03638258|181758412|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.008|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression (Firth's penalized likelihood) with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline PASI score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 6||||0.008
90939470|NCT03638258|181758412|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.664|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression (Firth's penalized likelihood) with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline PASI score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 6||||0.664
90939471|NCT03638258|181758412|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.015|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression (Firth's penalized likelihood) with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline PASI score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 8||||0.015
90939472|NCT03638258|181758412|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.666|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression (Firth's penalized likelihood) with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline PASI score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 8||||0.666
90939473|NCT03638258|181758412|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.009|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression (Firth's penalized likelihood) with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline PASI score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 12||||0.009
90939474|NCT03638258|181758412|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.163|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression (Firth's penalized likelihood) with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline PASI score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 12||||0.163
90939475|NCT03638258|181758413|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible. ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline PSD score.||||||0.002|||||||ANOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline PSD score.||Difference from vehicle cream on Week 4||||0.002
90939476|NCT03638258|181758413|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.002|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline PSD score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 4||||0.002
90939477|NCT03638258|181758413|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline PSD score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 6||||<0.001
90939478|NCT03638258|181758413|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline PSD score.||Difference from placebo at Week 6||||<0.001
90939479|NCT03638258|181758413|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline PSD score.||Difference from placebo at Week 8||||<0.001
90939480|NCT03638258|181758413|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline PSD score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 8||||<0.001
90939481|NCT03638258|181758413|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline PSD score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 12||||<0.001
91035731|NCT01667679|181957737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021||0.3562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.02|||ANCOVA||10 minutes post-dose|||0.02|-0.06|0.3562
91035732|NCT01667679|181957737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|94.0|-0.14|-0.02|||ANCOVA||15 minutes post-dose|||-0.02|-0.14|0.0063
90939482|NCT03638258|181758413|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline PSD score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 12||||<0.001
90939483|NCT03638258|181758414|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.184|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline Itch-Related Sleep Loss score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 4||||0.184
90939484|NCT03638258|181758414|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.207|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline Itch-Related Sleep Loss NRS score.||Difference from placebo at Week 4||||0.207
90939485|NCT03638258|181758414|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.004|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline Itch-Related Sleep Loss NRS score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 6||||0.004
90939486|NCT03638258|181758414|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.022|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline Itch-Related Sleep Loss NRS score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 6||||0.022
90939487|NCT03638258|181758414|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.003|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline Itch-Related Sleep Loss NRS score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 8||||0.003
90939488|NCT03638258|181758414|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline Itch-Related Sleep Loss NRS score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 8||||<0.001
90939489|NCT03638258|181758414|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible. ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline Itch-Related Sleep Loss NRS score.||||||0.003|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline Itch-Related Sleep Loss NRS score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 12||||0.003
90939490|NCT03638258|181758414|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.01||||||ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline Itch-Related Sleep Loss NRS score.|ANCOVA|||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 12||||0.01
90939491|NCT03638258|181758415|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.255|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline DLQI score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 4||||0.255
90970390|NCT02831673|181822879|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.4|43.1|||||Male. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, gender, and treatment and gender interaction.|||43.1|-27.4|
90970391|NCT02831673|181822879|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|15.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.6|54.0|||||Race group-white. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, race, and treatment and race interaction.|||54.0|-23.6|
90970392|NCT02831673|181822879|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-106.3|103.0|||||Race group-African Am/African H. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, race, and treatment and race interaction.|||103.0|-106.3|
90970393|NCT02831673|181822879|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-32.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-132.2|66.9|||||Race group-Asian. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, race, and treatment and race interaction.|||66.9|-132.2|
90939492|NCT03638258|181758415|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.687|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline DLQI score.||Difference from vehicle cream on Week 4||||0.687
90939493|NCT03638258|181758415|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.045|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline DLQI score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 6||||0.045
90939494|NCT03638258|181758415|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.059|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline DLQI score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 6||||0.059
90939495|NCT03638258|181758415|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.051|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline DLQI score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 8||||0.051
90939496|NCT03638258|181758415|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.013|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline DLQI score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 8||||0.013
90939497|NCT03638258|181758415|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.036|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline DLQI score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 12||||0.036
90939498|NCT03638258|181758415|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.001|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline DLQI score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 12||||0.001
90939499|NCT04405089|181758435|OTHER||Linear regression|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Linear regression (number of traumatic brain injuries versus Binge Eating Scale score at baseline).||||
90970394|NCT02831673|181822879|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|26.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.3|129.5|||||Race group-Other. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, race, and treatment and race interaction.|||129.5|-77.3|
90971344|NCT00812214|181825427|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in headache intensity between eszopiclone and placebo groups at 6 weeks.||||0.82
90939500|NCT04405089|181758436|OTHER||Linear regression|-0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Linear regression (number of traumatic brain injuries versus NIH Flanker score at baseline).||||
90970395|NCT02831673|181822880|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.2|38.3|||||Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA,\<=100000. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA, and treatment and relevant Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA interaction.|||38.3|-39.2|
91035733|NCT01667679|181957737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|-0.11|||ANCOVA||30 minutes post-dose|||-0.11|-0.26|< 0.0001
90939501|NCT04405089|181758437|OTHER||Linear regression|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Linear regression (number of traumatic brain injuries versus NIH Set Shifting score at baseline).||||
90939502|NCT00179478|181758438|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||Based on adjusted Hazard Ratio (HR)|Regression, Cox|HR adjusted for age, onset event type, baseline brain MRI T2 lesion and number and baseline number of gad enhancing lesions||||||0.001
90970396|NCT02831673|181822880|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.4|78.8|||||Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA,\>100000. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA, and treatment and Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA interaction.|||78.8|-69.4|
90939503|NCT00179478|181758439|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was a p value less than 0.01|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.02
90939504|NCT00179478|181758440|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was a p value \< 0.01|Fisher Exact|||||||0.61
90939505|NCT00179478|181758441|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5||||||a priori threshold for statistical significant was a p value less than 0.01|Fisher Exact|||||||0.50
90971345|NCT03325673|181825438|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.116|||||||Independent t-test|||||||0.116
91035734|NCT01667679|181957737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.046||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|-0.07|||ANCOVA||45 minutes post-dose|||-0.07|-0.26|0.0005
90970397|NCT02831673|181822880|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|17.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-111.1|145.8|||||Baseline CD4+ cell count,\<=200. Following covariates were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, and treatment and Baseline CD4+ cell count interaction.|||145.8|-111.1|
90970398|NCT02831673|181822880|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.2|34.1|||||Baseline CD4+ cell count,\>200. Following covariates were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, and treatment and Baseline CD4+ cell count interaction.|||34.1|-37.2|
90970399|NCT02831673|181822880|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-18.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.2|27.1|||||Age Group,\<35. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, age, and treatment and age interaction.|||27.1|-63.2|
90970400|NCT02831673|181822880|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.0|64.0|||||Age Group,35 to \<50. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, age, and treatment and age interaction.|||64.0|-57.0|
90970401|NCT02831673|181822880|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|95.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|205.2|||||Age Group,\>=50. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, age, and treatment and age interaction.|||205.2|-14.8|
90970402|NCT02831673|181822880|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|24.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.5|112.3|||||Female. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, gender, and treatment and gender interaction.|||112.3|-62.5|
90970403|NCT02831673|181822880|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.5|33.1|||||Male. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, gender, and treatment and gender interaction.|||33.1|-41.5|
90970404|NCT02831673|181822880|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.6|41.1|||||Race group-white. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, race, and treatment and race interaction.|||41.1|-40.6|
90970405|NCT02831673|181822880|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-51.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-163.6|60.9|||||Race group-African Am/African H. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, race, and treatment and race interaction.|||60.9|-163.6|
90970406|NCT02831673|181822880|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-20.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-125.3|85.0|||||Race group-Asian. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, race, and treatment and race interaction|||85.0|-125.3|
90970407|NCT02831673|181822880|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|66.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.7|176.2|||||Race group-Other. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, race, and treatment and race interaction.|||176.2|-43.7|
90970408|NCT02831673|181822881|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0052||||0.302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0047|0.0152|||MMRM||Week 4. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count (factor), and Baseline EQ-5D utility, treatment\*visit and Baseline EQ-5D utility\*visit with visit as the repeated factor|||0.0152|-0.0047|0.302
90970409|NCT02831673|181822881|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0038||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0136|0.006|||MMRM||Week24. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count (factor), and Baseline EQ-5D utility, treatment\*visit and Baseline EQ-5D utility\*visit with visit as the repeated factor|||0.0060|-0.0136|0.450
90970410|NCT02831673|181822881|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0004||||0.934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0098|0.0106|||MMRM||Week48. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count (factor), and Baseline EQ-5D utility, treatment\*visit and Baseline EQ-5D utility\*visit with visit as the repeated factor|||0.0106|-0.0098|0.934
90970411|NCT02831673|181822882|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0012||||0.842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0132|0.0107|||MMRM||Week 96. Covariates adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA, Baseline CD4+ cell count, and Baseline EQ-5D utility, treatment\*visit and Baseline EQ-5D utility\*visit as factors and covariate, with visit as the repeated factor.|||0.0107|-0.0132|0.842
90970412|NCT02831673|181822883|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0008||||0.879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0097|0.0113|||MMRM||Week 144. Covariates adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA, Baseline CD4+ cell count, and Baseline EQ-5D utility, treatment\*visit and Baseline EQ-5D utility\*visit as factors and covariate, with visit as the repeated factor.|||0.0113|-0.0097|0.879
90970413|NCT02831673|181822884|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.1||||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|2.4|||MMRM||Week 4. Covariates adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor),Baseline CD4+ cell count (factor), Baseline EQ-5D thermometer, treatment\*visit and Baseline EQ-5D thermometer\*visit with visit as the repeated factor|||2.4|-0.3|0.137
90970414|NCT02831673|181822884|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6||||0.458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|2.0|||MMRM||Week24. Covariates adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor),Baseline CD4+ cell count (factor), Baseline EQ-5D thermometer, treatment\*visit and Baseline EQ-5D thermometer\*visit with visit as the repeated factor|||2.0|-0.9|0.458
90970415|NCT02831673|181822884|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.5||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.8|||MMRM||Week48. Covariates adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor),Baseline CD4+ cell count (factor), Baseline EQ-5D thermometer, treatment\*visit and Baseline EQ-5D thermometer\*visit with visit as the repeated factor|||2.8|0.1|0.031
90970416|NCT02831673|181822885|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.7||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|3.2|||MMRM||Week 96. Covariates adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA, Baseline CD4+ cell count and Baseline EQ-5D utility, treatment\*visit and Baseline EQ-5D utility\*visit as factors and covariate, with visit as the repeated factor.|||3.2|0.2|0.027
90970417|NCT02831673|181822886|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.3||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|3.6|||MMRM||Week 144. Covariates adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA, Baseline CD4+ cell count and Baseline EQ-5D utility, treatment\*visit and Baseline EQ-5D utility\*visit as factors and covariate, with visit as the repeated factor.|||3.6|0.9|0.001
90970418|NCT00150592|181822887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.844||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.844
90970419|NCT00150592|181822888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.274||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Mean reaction time (adjusted) for each randomized treatment group at endpoint.||||||0.274
90970420|NCT00150592|181822890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.307||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Between errors||||0.307
90970421|NCT00150592|181822890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.552||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Within errors||||0.552
90970422|NCT00150592|181822890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.917||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Double errors||||0.917
90970423|NCT00150592|181822890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.068||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Strategy||||0.068
90970424|NCT00150592|181822891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.001
90970425|NCT00150592|181822892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.007||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.007
90970426|NCT00150592|181822893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.02||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.02
90970427|NCT00150592|181822894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.231||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.231
90970428|NCT01157078|181822900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08||0.349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.14|1.11||The adjusted p-value protects the overall family-wise error rate by taking into account the multiple comparisons between the TC-5214 doses for both the primary efficacy variable (MADRS) and the key secondary efficacy variable (SDS).|MMRM|||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||1.11|-3.14|0.349
90970429|NCT01157078|181822901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.92|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||1.92|0.75|0.444
90970430|NCT01157078|181822902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.61|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||2.61|0.88|0.130
90970431|NCT01157078|181822903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96||0.307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|5.14|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||5.14|0.60|0.307
90970432|NCT01157078|181822904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.94|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||2.94|0.71|0.313
90970433|NCT01157078|181822905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|4.24|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||4.24|0.74|0.201
90970434|NCT01157078|181822906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.12|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with randomization HAMD-17 total score as covariate, treatment as a fixed effect and pooled center as a random effect.||1.12|-2.10|0.552
90970435|NCT01157078|181822907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.803||95.0|-0.31|0.24|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization CGI-S total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.24|-0.31|0.803
90970436|NCT01157078|181822908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.91|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization Clinical Global Impression Severity (CGI-S) as a covariate.||1.91|0.75|0.440
90970437|NCT01157078|181822909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|1.23||Analysis for change in MADRS total score from randomization to Week 9.|MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||1.23|-0.91|0.768
90970438|NCT01157078|181822910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|2.24|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||2.24|-0.84|0.373
90970439|NCT01157078|181822911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.47|1.07|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||1.07|-2.47|0.435
90970440|NCT01157078|181822912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||0.501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.56|1.25|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects the model; pooled center is a random effect.||1.25|-2.56|0.501
90971346|NCT03325673|181825439|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.468|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Insertion||||0.468
90971347|NCT03325673|181825439|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.235|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||After 2 hours||||0.235
90971348|NCT03325673|181825439|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.152|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||End of Day||||0.152
90971349|NCT03325673|181825440|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.488|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.488
90971350|NCT03325673|181825441|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.072|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.072
90970441|NCT01157078|181822913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.771||0.424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.134|0.901||The adjusted p-value protects the overall family-wise error rate by taking into account the multiple comparisons between the TC-5214 doses for both the primary efficacy variable (MADRS) and the key secondary efficacy variable (SDS).|MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization SDS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.901|-2.134|0.424
90970442|NCT01157078|181822914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.22||Analysis for change in SDS work/school domain score from randomization (Week 8) to end of treatment (Week 16)|MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization SDS work/school domain score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.22|-0.96|0.214
90970443|NCT01157078|181822915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.54|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization SDS social life domain score. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.54|-0.59|0.931
90970444|NCT01157078|181822916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.44|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization SDS family life/home responsibilities domain score. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.44|-0.60|0.755
90970445|NCT01157078|181822917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.789||0.646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.699|4.346|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA with randomization Q-LES-Q-SF % maximum total score as covariate, treatment as a fixed effect and pooled center as a random effect.||4.346|-2.699|0.646
90970446|NCT01157078|181822918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.14|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with randomization Q-LES-Q-SF item 15 score as covariate, treatment as a fixed effect and pooled center as a random effect.||0.14|-0.31|0.446
90970447|NCT01157078|181822919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.33|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with randomization Q-LES-Q-SF item 16 as a fixed effect and pooled center as a random effect.||0.33|-0.06|0.178
90970448|NCT01157078|181822920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.61||0.515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.22|2.12|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization SIS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||2.12|-4.22|0.515
90970449|NCT01157078|181822921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0226||0.298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0209|0.068||Analysis for change in EQ-5D index score from randomization (Week 8) to end of treatment (Week 16)|MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization EQ-5D total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.0680|-0.0209|0.298
90970450|NCT01157078|181822921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.34||0.484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.98|6.26||Analysis of change in EQ-5D VAS score from randomization (Week 8) to end of treatment (Week 16)|MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization EQ-5D VAS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||6.26|-2.98|0.484
90970451|NCT02495844|181822924|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.14|||=|0.0679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|19.06|||Regression, Logistic|||||19.06|0.90|=0.0679
90970452|NCT00847912|181822947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.93|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.93
90970453|NCT00847912|181822948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.24|||Regression, Cox|||||1.24|0.82|0.93
90970454|NCT01560780|181822997|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.78
90970455|NCT01560780|181822998|EQUIVALENCE|safety end-point with p-value of \<0.05|||||>|0.99|||||||Log Rank|||||||>0.99
90970456|NCT01560780|181822999|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.19
90970457|NCT01560780|181823000|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.85
90970458|NCT01560780|181823001|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.97
90970459|NCT01560780|181823003|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.97
90970460|NCT01500278|181823004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9|||=|0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.2||The odds ratio, CI, and p-value are from a logistic regression model with RTG, gender, Baseline duration of RA (\<2 years or \>=2 years), and geographic region as factors and age as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.20|0.67|=0.467
90970461|NCT01500278|181823005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09|||=|0.532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.45||The odds ratio, CI and p-value are from a logistic regression model with RTG, gender, Baseline duration of RA (\<2 years or \>=2 years), and geographic region as factors and Baseline DAS28(ESR) and age as covariates.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.45|0.82|=0.532
90970462|NCT00595556|181823039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.012
90970463|NCT00595556|181823040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.94||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.94
90970464|NCT00595556|181823041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.004
90970465|NCT00595556|181823042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.006
90970466|NCT00595556|181823043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.3
90970467|NCT00689572|181823063|EQUIVALENCE|Mixed-effects linear regression model|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.43|5.25|||Regression, Linear|Mixed-effects linear regression model included random intercept and slope (for temporal trend)||Difference between ondansetron and placebo groups regarding percentage of cocaine-free days (PCFD)||5.25|-5.43|0.972
90970468|NCT00689572|181823064|EQUIVALENCE|Mixed-effects linear regression model|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44||||0.909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.08|7.95|||Regression, Linear|Mixed-effects linear regression model included random intercept and slope (for temporal trend)||Difference between ondansetron and placebo groups regarding percentage of cocaine free urines (PCFU)||7.95|-7.08|0.909
90970469|NCT04770389|181823069|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean|-44.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.183|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.2|-34.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-34.63|-55.20|<0.0001
90970470|NCT04770389|181823070|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean|-44.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.183|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.2|-34.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-34.63|-55.20|<0.0001
90970471|NCT04770389|181823071|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean|-44.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.183|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.2|-34.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-34.63|-55.20|<0.0001
90970472|NCT04770389|181823072|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean|-43.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.517|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.29|-32.36|||ANCOVA|||||-32.36|-54.29|<0.0001
90970473|NCT04770389|181823073|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean|-43.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.517|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.29|-32.36|||ANCOVA|||||-32.36|-54.29|<0.0001
90970474|NCT04770389|181823074|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean|-43.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.517|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.29|-32.36|||ANCOVA|||||-32.36|-54.29|<0.0001
90970475|NCT04770389|181823075|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-33.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.176|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.63|-23.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-23.09|-43.63|<0.0001
90970476|NCT04770389|181823076|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean|-33.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.176|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.63|-23.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-23.09|-43.63|<0.0001
90970477|NCT04770389|181823077|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean|-33.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.176|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.63|-23.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-23.09|-43.63|<0.0001
90970478|NCT04770389|181823078|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean|-28.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.596|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.32|-17.08|||ANCOVA|||||-17.08|-39.32|<0.0001
90970479|NCT04770389|181823079|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean|-28.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.596|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.32|-17.08|||ANCOVA|||||-17.08|-39.32|<0.0001
90970480|NCT04770389|181823080|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean|-28.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.596|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.32|-17.08|||ANCOVA|||||-17.08|-39.32|<0.0001
90970481|NCT04770389|181823081|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-29.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.78|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.12|-22.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-22.12|-37.12|<0.0001
90970482|NCT04770389|181823082|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean|-29.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.78|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.12|-22.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-22.12|-37.12|<0.0001
90970483|NCT04770389|181823083|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-29.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.78|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.12|-22.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-22.12|-37.12|<0.0001
90970484|NCT04770389|181823084|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean|-22.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.768|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.83|-14.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-14.88|-29.83|<0.0001
90970485|NCT04770389|181823085|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean|-22.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.768|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.83|-14.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-14.88|-29.83|<0.0001
90970486|NCT04770389|181823086|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean|-22.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.768|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.83|-14.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-14.88|-29.83|<0.0001
90970487|NCT04770389|181823087|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-30.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.254|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.55|-19.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-19.71|-40.55|<0.0001
90970488|NCT04770389|181823088|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean|-30.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.254|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.55|-19.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-19.71|-40.55|<0.0001
90970489|NCT04770389|181823089|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean|-30.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.254|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.55|-19.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-19.71|-40.55|<0.0001
90970490|NCT04770389|181823090|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-18.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.196||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.88|-8.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-8.27|-28.88|0.0005
90970491|NCT04770389|181823091|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean|-18.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.196||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.88|-8.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-8.27|-28.88|0.0005
90970492|NCT04770389|181823092|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean|-18.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.196||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.88|-8.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-8.27|-28.88|0.0005
90970493|NCT04770389|181823093|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-14.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.165||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.03|-4.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-4.54|-25.03|0.0051
90970494|NCT04770389|181823094|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean|-14.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.165||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.03|-4.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-4.54|-25.03|0.0051
90970495|NCT04770389|181823095|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean|-14.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.165||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.03|-4.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-4.54|-25.03|0.0051
90970496|NCT04770389|181823096|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean|-12.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.58||0.0245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.86|-1.68|||ANCOVA|||||-1.68|-23.86|0.0245
90970497|NCT04770389|181823097|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean|-12.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.58||0.0245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.86|-1.68|||ANCOVA|||||-1.68|-23.86|0.0245
90970498|NCT04770389|181823098|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean|-12.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.58||0.0245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.86|-1.68|||ANCOVA|||||-1.68|-23.86|0.0245
90970499|NCT04770389|181823099|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean|-20.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.822|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.39|-13.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-13.22|-28.39|<0.0001
90970500|NCT04770389|181823100|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean|-20.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.822|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.39|-13.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-13.22|-28.39|<0.0001
90970501|NCT04770389|181823101|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean|-20.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.822|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.39|-13.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-13.22|-28.39|<0.0001
90970502|NCT03817775|181823112|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
90970503|NCT03817775|181823113|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
90970504|NCT03817775|181823114|OTHER|||||||0.7215|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7215
90970505|NCT03817775|181823115|OTHER|||||||0.5675|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5675
90970506|NCT03817775|181823116|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
90970507|NCT02374099|181823183|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87|||=|0.599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.42|||Log Rank||||Hazard ratio and associated two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated by the Cox proportional hazard models.|1.42|0.54|= 0.599
90970508|NCT02374099|181823184|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|6.3|||=|0.1479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.47|15.06|||Fisher Exact||||The two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in ORR was estimated by the Wilson method.|15.06|-2.47|= 0.1479
90970509|NCT02374099|181823185|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Clinical Benefit Rate|0.7|||=|0.1732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.76|19.04|||Fisher Exact||||The two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in clinical benefit rate was estimated by the Wilson method.|19.04|-17.76|= 0.1732
90970510|NCT02374099|181823186|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59|||=|0.2725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.53|||Log Rank||||Hazard Ratio and associated two-sided 95% CI were estimated by the Cox proportional hazard model.|1.53|0.23|= 0.2725
90970511|NCT01033825|181823217|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be demonstrated if the 95% CI upper bound for the difference between ciclesonide and placebo with placebo dexamethasone (placebo minus ciclesonide) is \<Margin. In order to have 90% power to demonstrate non-inferiority of ciclesonide 320 μg to HFA placebo, 46 evaluable subjects per group are needed using a 1-sided alpha level of 0.025, a standard deviation of 55 μg h/dL, a non-inferiority margin of 38 μh /dL, assuming no true difference exists.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|13.0|||ANCOVA||Null Hypothesis: the difference in serum cortisol levels between placebo and active (placebo-active)\>=38 Alternative Hypothesis: the difference in serum cortisol levels between placebo and active (placebo-active)\<38|Standard bioequivalence bounds of a 20% difference based on the clinical judgment was used to determine the delta.||13.0|-13.9|>0.05
90970512|NCT01033825|181823217|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be demonstrated if the 95% CI upper bound for the difference between ciclesonide and placebo with placebo dexamethasone (placebo minus ciclesonide) is \<Margin. In order to have 90% power to demonstrate non-inferiority of ciclesonide 320 μg to HFA placebo, 46 evaluable subjects per group are needed using a 1-sided alpha level of 0.025, a standard deviation of 55 μg h/dL, a non-inferiority margin of 38 μh /dL, assuming no true difference exists.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.1|10.2|||ANCOVA|||Standard bioequivalence bounds of a 20% difference based on the clinical judgment was used to determine the delta.||10.2|-15.1|0.025
90970513|NCT01033825|181823217|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be demonstrated if the 95% CI upper bound for the difference between ciclesonide and placebo with placebo dexamethasone (placebo minus ciclesonide) is \<Margin. In order to have 90% power to demonstrate non-inferiority of ciclesonide nasal spray 200 μg to placebo nasal spray 46 evaluable (per protocol) subjects per group are needed using a 1-sided alpha level of 0.025, a standard deviation of 55 μg h/dL, a non-inferiority margin of 38 μh /dL|Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.4|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|25.5|||ANCOVA|||Standard bioequivalence bounds of a 20% difference based on the clinical judgment was used to determine the delta.||25.5|-4.7|>0.05
90971351|NCT02684981|181825442|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed rank test has been used for this analysis||Statistical analysis for median change in PACT-Q2 scores from V1 to V2||||< 0.0001
90971352|NCT02684981|181825442|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed rank test has been used for this analysis||Statistical analysis for median change in convenience PACT-Q2 scores from V1 to V3||||< 0.0001
90971353|NCT02684981|181825443|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed rank test has been used for this analysis||Statistical analysis for median change in satisfaction PACT-Q2 scores from V1 to V2||||< 0.0001
91035735|NCT01667679|181957737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|-0.05|||ANCOVA||60 minutes post-dose|||-0.05|-0.24|0.0040
91035736|NCT01667679|181957737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.0333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|-0.01|||ANCOVA||90 minutes post-dose|||-0.01|-0.21|0.0333
91035737|NCT01667679|181957737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.4031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.06|||ANCOVA||120 minutes post-dose|||0.06|-0.15|0.4031
90939506|NCT04089332|181758512|OTHER||Slope|-0.4465||||0.162|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||WASI II (Verbal IQ) vs HOMA-IR|Adjusted R-squared = 0.117|||0.162
90939507|NCT04089332|181758512|OTHER||Slope|0.6704||||0.082|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||WASI II (Performance IQ) vs HOMA-IR|Adjusted R-squared = 0.221|||0.082
90939508|NCT04089332|181758512|OTHER||Slope|-0.8486||||0.286|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||NIH Toolbox (Flanker Inhibitory Control and Attention) vs HOMA-IR|Adjusted R-squared = 0.0503|||0.286
90939509|NCT04089332|181758512|OTHER||Slope|-0.0266||||0.635|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||NIH Toolbox (Pattern Comparison) vs HOMA-IR|Adjusted R-squared = 0|||0.635
90939510|NCT04089332|181758512|OTHER||Slope|-0.1588||||0.061|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||NIH Toolbox (Picture Sequence) vs HOMA-IR|Adjusted R-squared = 0.381|||0.061
90939511|NCT04089332|181758512|OTHER||Slope|0.099||||0.479|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||WRAML (Picture Memory) vs. HOMA-IR|Adjusted R-squared = 0|||0.479
90939512|NCT04089332|181758512|OTHER||Slope|0.0676||||0.965|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||D-KEFS (Color-Word Interference) vs. HOMA-IR|Adjusted R-squared = 0|||0.965
90939513|NCT04089332|181758512|OTHER||Slope|-0.0091||||0.039|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||D-KEFS (Trail Making Test) vs. HOMA-IR|Adjusted R-squared = 0.324|||0.039
90939514|NCT04089332|181758512|OTHER||Slope|-4.2085||||0.018|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||PedsQL (Child 8-12 / Teen 13-18) vs. HOMA-IR|Adjusted R-squared = 0.0423|||0.018
90939515|NCT04089332|181758513|OTHER||Slope|-1.1138||||0.558|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Change in Gray Matter Perfusion vs. HOMA-IR|Adjusted R-square = 0|||0.558
90939516|NCT04089332|181758513|OTHER||Slope|-5.8089||||0.057|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline Gray Matter vs. HOMA-IR|Adjusted R-squared = 0.18|||0.057
90939517|NCT04089332|181758514|OTHER||Slope|-0.4465||||0.377|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||WASI II (Verbal IQ) vs. Cerebral Blood Flow|Adjusted R-squared = 0|||0.377
90939518|NCT04089332|181758514|OTHER||Slope|0.6704||||0.402|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||WASI II (Performance IQ) vs. Cerebral Blood Flow|Adjusted R-squared = 0|||0.402
90939519|NCT04089332|181758514|OTHER||Slope|-0.8486||||0.203|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||NIH Toolbox (Flanker Inhibitory Control and Attention) vs. Cerebral Blood Flow|Adjusted R-squared = 0.207|||0.203
90939520|NCT04089332|181758514|OTHER||Slope|-0.0266||||0.967|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||NIH Toolbox (Pattern Comparison) vs. Cerebral Blood Flow|Adjusted R-squared = 0|||0.967
90939521|NCT04089332|181758514|OTHER||Slope|-0.1588||||0.616|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||NIH Toolbox (Picture Sequence) vs. Cerebral Blood Flow|Adjusted R-squared = 0|||0.616
90939522|NCT04089332|181758514|OTHER||Slope|0.099||||0.287|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||WRAML (Picture Memory) vs. Cerebral Blood Flow|Adjusted R-squared = 0.0497|||0.287
90939523|NCT04089332|181758514|OTHER||Slope|0.0676||||0.225|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||D-KEFS (Color-Word Interference) vs. Cerebral Blood Flow|Adjusted R-squared = 0.106|||0.225
90939524|NCT04089332|181758514|OTHER||Slope|-0.0091||||0.872|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||D-KEFS (Trail Making Test) vs. Cerebral Blood Flow|Adjusted R-squared = 0|||0.872
90939525|NCT04089332|181758514|OTHER||Slope|-4.2085||||0.66|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||PedsQL (Child 8-12 / Teen 13-18) vs. Cerebral Blood Flow|Adjusted R-squared = 0|||0.66
90939526|NCT05401149|181758521|OTHER|Odds Ratio (OR) (95% CI) and P values for this outcome were derived from the conditional logistic regression models with stratification by matching pairs and adjustment for prior modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score (≤ 1 or not), baseline National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score, and time from symptom onset to hospital admission.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|2.59|||Regression, Logistic||IV rt-PA cohort/Non-reperfusion cohort|||2.59|1.35|<0.001
90939527|NCT05401149|181758522|OTHER|OR (95% CI) and P values were derived from the conditional logistic regression models with stratification by matching pairs and adjustment for prior mRS score (≤ 1 or not), baseline NIHSS score, and time from symptom onset to hospital admission.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|2.06|||Regression, Logistic||IV rt-PA cohort/Non-reperfusion cohort|||2.06|0.99|0.054
90939528|NCT05401149|181758523|OTHER|OR (95% CI) and P values were derived from the conditional logistic regression models with stratification by matching pairs and adjustment for prior mRS score (≤ 1 or not), baseline NIHSS score, and time from symptom onset to hospital admission.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.07||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|4.86|||Regression, Logistic||IV rt-PA cohort/Non-reperfusion cohort|||4.86|0.88|0.097
90939529|NCT05401149|181758524|OTHER|Odds Ratio (OR) (95% CI) and P values for this outcome were derived from the conditional logistic regression models with stratification by matching pairs and adjustment for prior modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score (≤ 1 or not), baseline National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score, and time from symptom onset to hospital admission.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|2.75|||Regression, Logistic||IV rt-PA cohort/Non-reperfusion cohort|||2.75|1.48|<0.001
90970514|NCT02572752|181823277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||gMean Ratio|97.478|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.57|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.545|100.502|||ANOVA||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the ratios of the gMean of nin Test treatment (T) divided by nin Reference treatment (R1 \& R2). Standard Error of the mean is actually the intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|An Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model was used on the logarithmic scale in order to compare the Test treatment vs. the Reference treatment (without differentiation between R1 and R2). This model included effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. For the two 1-sided t-test procedure, the effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered to be random, whereas the other effects were considered to be fixed||100.502|94.545|<0.0001
90970515|NCT02572752|181823278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||gMean Ratio|97.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.77|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.948|103.463|||ANOVA||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the ratios of the gMean of nin Test treatment (T) divided by nin Reference treatment (R1 \& R2). Standard Error of the mean is actually the intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|An ANOVA model was used on the logarithmic scale in order to compare the Test treatment vs. the Reference treatment (without differentiation between R1 and R2). This model included effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. For the two 1-sided t-test procedure, the effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered to be random, whereas the other effects were considered to be fixed.||103.463|90.948|<0.0001
90970516|NCT02572752|181823279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||gMean Ratio|97.149|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.223|100.166|||ANOVA||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the ratios of the gMean of nin Test treatment (T) divided by nin Reference treatment (R1 \& R2). Standard Error of the mean is actually the intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|An ANOVA model was used on the logarithmic scale in order to compare the Test treatment vs. the Reference treatment (without differentiation between R1 and R2). This model included effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. For the two 1-sided t-test procedure, the effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered to be random, whereas the other effects were considered to be fixed||100.166|94.223|<0.0001
90970517|NCT01464307|181823280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|0.0||||0.777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2|||Mixed-Model Repeated Measures|||The number of subjects included in the MMRM analysis was only 286 because a covariate was missing for 3 subjects.||0.2|-0.1|0.777
90970518|NCT01464307|181823281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.804||||||worst-case analysis.|Wilcoxon's Rank-Sum Test|||The statistical analysis provided was for all categories of this outcome measure.||||0.804
90970519|NCT01464307|181823282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.74||observed cases analysis.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4. Number of subjects included in analysis was three less than the observed cases because of a missing covariate for the logistic regression analysis, that is, n=283 for week 4.||1.74|0.63|0.845
90970520|NCT01464307|181823282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.04||observed cases analysis.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8. Number of subjects included in analysis was three less than the observed cases because of a missing covariate for the logistic regression analysis, that is, n=279 for week 8.||2.04|0.73|0.437
90970521|NCT01464307|181823282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.21||observed cases analysis.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12. Number of subjects included in analysis was three less than the observed cases because of a missing covariate for the logistic regression analysis, that is, n=273 for week 12.||2.21|0.59|0.698
90970522|NCT00159861|181823292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier estimate|0.095|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.059|0.132||||||1 Year: Proportion of participants who died.||0.132|0.059|
90970523|NCT00159861|181823292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier estimate|0.194|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.144|0.243||||||2 Years: Proportion of participants who died.||0.243|0.144|
90970524|NCT00159861|181823292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier estimate|0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.205|0.315||||||3 Years: Proportion of participants who died.||0.315|0.205|
90970525|NCT00159861|181823292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier estimate|0.291|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.234|0.348||||||4 Years: Proportion of participants who died.||0.348|0.234|
90970526|NCT00159861|181823292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier estimate|0.369|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.302|0.437||||||5 Years: Proportion of participants who died.||0.437|0.302|
90970527|NCT02701387|181823308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||"A 2-factor (implant type x time interval) nonparametric analysis for longitudinal data (Brunner et al. 2002) was used to compare test and control implants across time (baseline + four intervals). The R package nparLD was used (Noguchi et al. 2012)."|nonparametric for longitudinal|||Comparison of ISQ over time. Due to the high number of intervals (T0-T8) relative to the number of observations, data were combined for analysis purposes into 5 comparable intervals as follows: Baseline (T0, unchanged); Tr1=Average of follow-up weeks T1 and T2, Tr2=Average of follow-up weeks T3 and T4; Tr3=Average of follow-up weeks T5 and T6; Tr4=Average of follow-up weeks T7 and T8||||<0.01
90970528|NCT00894556|181823309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLIMMIX)|An unstructured covariance matrix was used to model the correlation among repeated measurements within patient.||||||<0.001
90970529|NCT00894556|181823310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLIMMIX)|An unstructured covariance matrix was used to model the correlation among repeated measurements within patient.||||||<0.001
90970530|NCT02116777|181823339|OTHER|Maximum Tolerate Dose Level was determined by the rolling-6 design.|Maximum Tolerate Dose Level|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Maximum Tolerate Dose Level is Dose Level 4 (600 mcg/m²/dose +30 mg/m2/dose (BMN 673) BID + 30 mg/m²/dose (TEM), Max 1000 mcg/day). MTD determined by using the Rolling-6 Design.|||||
90970531|NCT01964352|181823391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.331|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.293|0.369|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.369|0.293|<0.0001
90970532|NCT01964352|181823391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.111|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.075|0.148|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.148|0.075|<0.0001
90970533|NCT01964352|181823391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.262|0.337|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.337|0.262|<0.0001
90970534|NCT01964352|181823391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.044|0.116|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.116|0.044|<0.0001
90970535|NCT01964352|181823391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.219|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.181|0.258|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.258|0.181|<0.0001
90970536|NCT01964352|181823391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.031|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018||0.0872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|0.067|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.067|-0.005|0.0872
90970537|NCT01964352|181823392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.162|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0124|0.2|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.200|0.0124|<0.0001
90970538|NCT01964352|181823392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.028|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.1381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.009|0.066|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.066|-0.009|0.1381
90970539|NCT01964352|181823392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.113|0.188|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.188|0.113|<0.0001
90970540|NCT01964352|181823392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.017|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.3872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.021|0.054|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.054|-0.021|0.3872
90970541|NCT01964352|181823392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.134|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.096|0.172|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.172|0.096|<0.0001
90970542|NCT01964352|181823392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.5333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.025|0.049|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.049|-0.025|0.5333
90970543|NCT01964352|181823393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.894|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.024|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.904|-2.884|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-2.884|-6.904|<0.0001
90970544|NCT01964352|181823393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.493|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.009||0.0136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.473|-0.513|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-0.513|-4.473|0.0136
90970545|NCT01964352|181823393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.122|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.023|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.129|-2.114|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-2.114|-6.129|<0.0001
90970546|NCT01964352|181823393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.721|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.008||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.698|0.256|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.256|-3.698|0.0880
90970547|NCT01964352|181823393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.401|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.029||0.0198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.419|-0.382|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-0.382|-4.419|0.0198
90970548|NCT01964352|181823393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.772|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.003||0.4415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.741|1.196|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||1.196|-2.741|0.4415
90970549|NCT01964352|181823394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.157|0.282|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.282|0.157|<0.0001
90970550|NCT01964352|181823394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032||0.5052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.041|0.084|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.084|-0.041|0.5052
90970551|NCT01964352|181823394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.208|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.146|0.271|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.271|0.146|<0.0001
90970552|NCT01964352|181823394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032||0.7566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.052|0.072|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.072|-0.052|0.7566
90970553|NCT01964352|181823394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.198|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.136|0.261|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.261|0.136|<0.0001
90970554|NCT01964352|181823394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032||0.7199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.051|0.073|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.073|-0.051|0.7199
90970555|NCT01964352|181823395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.052|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.273|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.516|2.588|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||2.588|1.516|<0.0001
90970556|NCT01964352|181823395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.607|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.0246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.078|1.137|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||1.137|0.078|0.0246
90970557|NCT01964352|181823395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.952|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.272|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.417|2.487|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||2.487|1.417|<0.0001
90970558|NCT01964352|181823395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.507|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.269||0.0599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.021|1.035|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||1.035|-0.021|0.0599
90970559|NCT01964352|181823395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.445|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.274|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.907|1.983|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||1.983|0.907|<0.0001
90970560|NCT01964352|181823395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.268||0.7081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.425|0.626|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.626|-0.425|0.7081
90970561|NCT01964352|181823396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.457|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.524|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.524|0.390|<0.0001
90970562|NCT01964352|181823396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.095|0.225|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.225|0.095|<0.0001
90970563|NCT01964352|181823396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.398|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.331|0.465|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.465|0.331|<0.0001
90970564|NCT01964352|181823396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.101|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.036|0.165|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.165|0.036|0.0023
90970565|NCT01964352|181823396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.297|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.229|0.365|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.365|0.229|<0.0001
90970566|NCT01964352|181823396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.059|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033||0.0701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|0.123|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.123|-0.005|0.0701
90970567|NCT00166205|181823397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of ITT subjects|69.6||||||95.0|63.8|74.9||||||A sample size of 215, the adverse event (AE) rate at three years could be estimated with precision as determined by the interval half-width of approximately ± 7%.||74.9|63.8|
90970568|NCT00166205|181823398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|75.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|39.8||||95.0|70.5|80.8||||||||80.8|70.5|
90970569|NCT00166205|181823399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|35.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.2||||95.0|34.9|36.5||||||||36.5|34.9|
90970570|NCT00166205|181823400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|51.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|45.8||||95.0|47.6|54.9||||||||54.9|47.6|
90970571|NCT00166205|181823401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|10.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.3||||95.0|9.2|11.7|||||Value at 36 months minus value at baseline. Positive values indicate improved Quality of Life (QOL)|||11.7|9.2|
90970572|NCT00166205|181823402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|5.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.7||||95.0|5.6|5.8||||||||5.8|5.6|
90970573|NCT00166205|181823404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||A one-sided paired t-test would have 80% power to reject the null hypothesis in favor of the alternative (i.e., that the SAGB system is not inferior to the clinically meaningful result of 36.2 for 224 subjects) assuming: a standard deviation (SD) of (21.6), an equivalent limit difference of (3.6), and a significance level of 0.05.||||<0.001
90970574|NCT00166205|181823405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|56.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.7||||95.0|54.5|58.4||||||||58.4|54.5|
90970575|NCT00166205|181823406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|114.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|32.3||||95.0|110.1|118.8||||||||118.8|110.1|
90970576|NCT00166205|181823407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|193.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|36.9||||95.0|188.6|198.4||||||||198.4|188.6|
90970577|NCT00477165|181823411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.687|1.196||p\<0.05 for statistical significance|t-test, 2 sided||Repeated-measures logistic regression model, assuming the citalopram effect builds linearly over time starting at week 3.|Null hypothesis: number of patients achieving adequate relief is the same in both Citalopram and Placebo groups||1.196|0.687|0.59
90970578|NCT01977781|181823415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0019|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Only the statistical analysis results for burning sensation at 10 weeks are reported below as they where the only tolerability results found to be significantly different between the two arms. All other tolerability measures were found to be the same between the two groups.||||0.0019
90970579|NCT01097746|181823442|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.71||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|4.98|||t-test, 2 sided|||Participants for optimal ≤ 1 cm||4.98|0.58|0.33
90970580|NCT01097746|181823442|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.75||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|13.34|||t-test, 2 sided|||suboptimal \> 1 cm||13.34|1.05|0.04
90970581|NCT00623480|181823454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (On-Demand vs. Prophylaxis)|14.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.1|26.5|||Negative Binomial Regression Model|Adjusted for time of follow-up||||26.5|8.1|<0.0001
90970582|NCT00623480|181823455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||estimated diff (prohylaxis vs. OD)|-0.17||||0.6614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.59|||Based on cLDA model|Adjusted for presence/absence of target joint and prior 6 month bleeding frequency||||0.59|-0.92|0.6614
91035738|NCT01667679|181957738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.0181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|-0.01|||ANCOVA||10 minutes post-dose|||-0.01|-0.08|0.0181
91035739|NCT01667679|181957738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|-0.04|||ANCOVA||15 minutes post-dose|||-0.04|-0.14|0.0003
91035740|NCT01667679|181957738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|-0.09|||ANCOVA||30 minutes post-dose|||-0.09|-0.23|< 0.0001
90970583|NCT00623480|181823456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||estimated diff (prohylaxis vs. OD)|-0.94||||0.0072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|-0.26|||Based on cLDA model|Adjusted for presence/absence of target joint and prior 6 month bleeding frequency||||-0.26|-1.61|0.0072
90970584|NCT00623480|181823457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||estimated diff (prohylaxis vs. OD)|13.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.23|21.08||no p-values computed|Based on cLDA model|Adjusted for presence/absence of target joint and prior 6 month bleeding frequency||||21.08|5.23|
90970585|NCT00960661|181823458|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority was concluded if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the treatment contrast (BET minus BBT) at week 30 was less than the non inferiority margin.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.6273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.11||The primary mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM) model included baseline HbA1c as covariate, treatment, country, prior use of SUs, week of visit, and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and patient and error as random effects.|Mixed model repeated measures|||The primary objective is to test the hypothesis that BET is non inferior to BBT with respect to change in HbA1c from baseline to Week 30.||0.11|-0.18|0.6273
90970586|NCT02797808|181823525|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0083||||||Independent-sample t tests were used to compare the RSFC metrics between groups at baseline and 12 weeks. Bonferroni correction was applied to the alpha level (2-tailed, p\<.05/6= .0083) for multiple testing.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0083
90970587|NCT00535132|181823530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.4|<|0.001||||||p-value based on a paired t-test for a within-group comparison.|t-test, 2 sided|||Sample size for this study was based on changes in the MSQ scores within subjects from baseline to endpoint using a one-sample paired t-test. A sample size of 97 subjects was shown to have 90% power at endpoint to detect a mean change from baseline of 0.5 units on the MSQ score, with a standard deviation of 1.5. Allowing for extra variability from subjects with prior generic risperidone (instead of branded risperidone) use, this number was increased to 150 subjects.||||<0.001
90970588|NCT00535132|181823531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.4|<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|p-value for within-group comparison based on a paired t-test.||||||<0.001
90970589|NCT00535132|181823532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.4|<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90970590|NCT00535132|181823533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.3|<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|p-value for within-group comparison based on a paired t-test.||||||<0.001
90970591|NCT00535132|181823534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Fisher Exact|P-values for the study group comparisons using dichotomized categories are based on Fisher's Exact Test.||||||0.002
90970592|NCT00535132|181823535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|P-values for the study group comparisons using dichotomized categories are based on Fisher's Exact Test.||||||0.033
90970593|NCT00535132|181823536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.1|<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|p-value for within-group comparison based on a paired t-test.||||||<0.001
91035741|NCT01667679|181957738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|-0.08|||ANCOVA||45 minutes post-dose|||-0.08|-0.25|0.0001
91035742|NCT01667679|181957738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|-0.07|||ANCOVA||60 minutes post-dose|||-0.07|-0.26|0.0006
91035743|NCT01667679|181957738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.0189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|-0.02|||ANCOVA||90 minutes post-dose|||-0.02|-0.21|0.0189
91035744|NCT01667679|181957738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.1704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.03|||ANCOVA||120 minutes post-dose|||0.03|-0.17|0.1704
90939530|NCT05401149|181758525|OTHER|Odds Ratio (OR) (95% CI) and P values for this outcome were derived from the ordinal logistic regression models with adjustment for prior modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score (≤ 1 or not), baseline National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score, and time from symptom onset to hospital admission.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.93|||Regression, Logistic||IV rt-PA cohort/Non-reperfusion cohort|||0.93|0.64|0.007
90970594|NCT00535132|181823537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.9|<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|p-value for within-group comparison based on a paired t-test.||||||<0.001
90970595|NCT00535132|181823538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.123||95.0||||P-values for the study group comparisons using dichotomized categories are based on Fisher's Exact Test.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.123
90970596|NCT00535132|181823539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.125||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|P-values for the study group comparisons using dichotomized categories are based on Fisher's Exact Test.||||||0.125
90970597|NCT00535132|181823540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|23.1|<|0.001||||||p-value for within-group comparison based on a paired t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90970598|NCT00535132|181823541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.5||0.009|||||||t-test, 2 sided|p-value for within-group comparison based on a paired t-test.||||||0.009
90970599|NCT00535132|181823542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.4|<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|p-value for within-group comparison based on a paired t-test.||||||<0.001
90970600|NCT00535132|181823543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.3|<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|p-value for within-group comparison based on a paired t-test.||||||<0.001
90970601|NCT00535132|181823544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.0|<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|p-value for within-group comparison based on a paired t-test.||||||<0.001
90970602|NCT05051904|181823554|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.402|0.622|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional hazard model with s-IPTW. 'Treatment' is the only Independent variable used to estimate the hazard ratios.|Hazard ratio \<1 favors Dabigatran.|||0.622|0.402|<0.0001
90970603|NCT05051904|181823554|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.784||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.686|0.896|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional hazard model with s-IPTW. 'Treatment' is the only Independent variable used to estimate the hazard ratios.|Hazard ratio \<1 favors Rivaroxaban.|||0.896|0.686|0.0004
90939531|NCT05401149|181758526|OTHER|Hazard ratio (HR) (95% Confidence Interval) and P values were derived from the cox proportional hazards models with stratification by matching pairs and adjustment for prior mRS score (≤ 1 or not), baseline NIHSS score, and time from symptom onset to hospital admission.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.26||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.64|||Regression, Cox||IV rt-PA cohort/Non-reperfusion cohort|||1.64|0.98|0.077
90970604|NCT05051904|181823554|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.637|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.514|0.791|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional hazard model with s-IPTW. 'Treatment' is the only Independent variable used to estimate the hazard ratios.|Hazard ratio \<1 favors Dabigatran.|||0.791|0.514|<0.0001
90970605|NCT05051904|181823555|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.714|0.851|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional hazard model with s-IPTW. 'Treatment' is the only Independent variable used to estimate the hazard ratios.|Hazard ratio \<1 favors Dabigatran.|||0.851|0.714|<0.0001
90970606|NCT05051904|181823555|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.827|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.777|0.88|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional hazard model with s-IPTW. 'Treatment' is the only Independent variable used to estimate the hazard ratios.|Hazard ratio\<1 favors Rivaroxaban|||0.88|0.777|<0.0001
90970607|NCT00143312|181823564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude IFI Rate (percent) at 12 months|7.0||||||95.0|2.0|19.0||||||||19|2|
90970608|NCT00143312|181823564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||IFI Rate (percent) at 12 months|10.0||||||95.0|2.0|27.0||||||||27|2|
90970609|NCT00143312|181823565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||IFI Rate (percent) at 6 months|8.82||||||95.0|2.0|24.0|||||Exact 95% Confidence Interval For Proportion; Expressed as a percentage|||24|2|
90939532|NCT04281875|181758533|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6905|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6905
90939533|NCT00603278|181758557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.207|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.096|0.318|||ANCOVA|||||0.318|0.096|<0.001
90939534|NCT00603278|181758557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.238|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.127|0.349|||ANCOVA|||||0.349|0.127|<0.001
90970610|NCT00143312|181823566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||IFI Rate (percent) at End of Prophylaxis|8.82||||||95.0|2.0|24.0|||||Exact 95% Confidence Interval For Proportion; Expressed as a percentage|||24|2|
90970611|NCT00143312|181823570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||survive free of IFI (percent): 6 months|79.0||||||95.0|64.0|91.0|||||Exact 95% Confidence Interval For Proportion; Expressed as a percentage|||91|64|
90970612|NCT00143312|181823570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||survive free of IFI (percent): 12 months|69.0||||||95.0|52.0|83.0|||||Exact 95% Confidence Interval For Proportion; Expressed as a percentage|||83|52|
90970613|NCT01827670|181823576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|-1.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|-1.06|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model: Treatment as fixed factor \& baseline Schiff score as covariate.|Difference was 0.454% stannous fluoride minus 0.76% sodium monofluorophosphate such that a negative difference favours first named treatment.|"The principal null hypothesis tested was as follows:~H0: The change from baseline was same for both treatments. H1: The change from baseline was different for both the treatments"||-1.06|-1.53|<0.0001
90971354|NCT02684981|181825443|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed rank test has been used for this analysis||Statistical analysis for median change in satisfaction PACT-Q2 scores from V1 to V3||||< 0.0001
90939535|NCT00603278|181758557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.293|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.182|0.404|||ANCOVA|||||0.404|0.182|<0.001
90939536|NCT00603278|181758557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.279|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.167|0.392|||ANCOVA|||||0.392|0.167|<0.001
90939537|NCT00603278|181758557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.225|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.114|0.337|||ANCOVA|||||0.337|0.114|<0.001
90970614|NCT01827670|181823577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|-0.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.62|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model: Treatment as fixed factor \& baseline Schiff score as covariate.|Difference was 0.454% Stannous Fluoride minus 0.76% Sodium MonoFluorophosphate such that a negative difference favored first named treatment|"The principal null hypothesis tested was as follows:~H0: The change from baseline was same for both treatments. H1: The change from baseline was different for both the treatments"||-0.62|-1.00|<0.0001
90970615|NCT01827670|181823578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|27.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.4|35.1|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model: Treatment and baseline Schiff stratification value as fixed factor and baseline tactile threshold as covariate|Difference was 0.454% Stannous Fluoride minus 0.76% Sodium MonoFluorophosphate such that a positive difference favours first named treatment.|"The principal null hypothesis tested was as follows:~H0: The change from baseline was same for both treatments. H1: The change from baseline was different for both the treatments"||35.1|19.4|<0.0001
90970616|NCT01827670|181823579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|7.5||||0.0138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|13.4|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model: Treatment and baseline Schiff stratification value as fixed factor and baseline tactile threshold as covariate|Difference was 0.454% Stannous Fluoride minus 0.76% Sodium MonoFluorophosphate such that a positive difference favours first named treatment.|"The principal null hypothesis tested was as follows:~H0: The change from baseline was same for both treatments. H1: The change from baseline was different for both the treatments"||13.4|1.6|0.0138
90970617|NCT01827670|181823580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|-12.14||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.51|-5.77|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model: Treatment and baseline Schiff stratification value as fixed factor and baseline VAS as covariate.|Difference was 0.454% Stannous Fluoride minus 0.76% Sodium MonoFluorophosphate such that a negative difference favored first named treatment|"The principal null hypothesis tested was as follows:~H0: The change from baseline was same for both treatments. H1: The change from baseline was different for both the treatments"||-5.77|-18.51|0.0003
90939538|NCT00796614|181758600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.5388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.8|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression model was used with treatment variable and three covariates: age group, concomitant use of anti-cholinergic medication and geographic region. The first two covariates were used in the stratification of the randomisation. On treatment (OT) analyses approach was used.||3.80|0.50|0.5388
90939539|NCT00796614|181758600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59||||0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.76|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression model was used with treatment variable and three covariates: age group, concomitant use of anti-cholinergic medication and geographic region. The first two covariates were used in the stratification of the randomisation. On treatment (OT) analyses approach was used.||1.76|0.20|0.3430
90939540|NCT00796614|181758600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.5209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.97|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression model was used with treatment variable and three covariates: age group, concomitant use of anti-cholinergic medication and geographic region. The first two covariates were used in the stratification of the randomisation. On treatment (OT) analyses approach was used.||3.97|0.50|0.5209
90939541|NCT00796614|181758600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9436|||||||Cochran-Armitage trend test|||A test of trend across the four treatment groups was performed as a secondary analysis in the proportion of responders across the dose levels using Cochran-Armitage trend test.||||0.9436
90939542|NCT00796614|181758601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3097|||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model was used with covariates of age group, anti-cholinergic use at baseline and geographic region. On treatment (OT) analyses approach was used.||||0.3097
90939543|NCT00796614|181758601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2676|||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model was used with covariates of age group, anti-cholinergic use at baseline and geographic region. On treatment (OT) analyses approach was used.||||0.2676
90939544|NCT00796614|181758601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6265|||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model was used with covariates of age group, anti-cholinergic use at baseline and geographic region. On treatment (OT) analyses approach was used.||||0.6265
91035745|NCT00840073|181957866|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Ratio of Geometric Means|96.0||||||90.0|85.13|108.27|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||108.27|85.13|
90939545|NCT00796614|181758602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4359|||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model was used with covariates of age group, anti-cholinergic use at baseline and geographic region. On treatment (OT) analyses approach was used.||||0.4359
90939546|NCT00796614|181758602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0658|||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model was used with covariates of age group, anti-cholinergic use at baseline and geographic region. On treatment (OT) analyses approach was used.||||0.0658
90939547|NCT00796614|181758602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6709|||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model was used with covariates of age group, anti-cholinergic use at baseline and geographic region. On treatment (OT) analyses approach was used.||||0.6709
90939548|NCT00796614|181758603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5672|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Patient responded to tamsulosin-low dose (Left Kidney) was compared to placebo. Logistic regression model was used with age group, anti-cholinergic use, and geographic region as covariates. On treatment (OT) analyses approach was used.||||0.5672
90939549|NCT00796614|181758603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8724|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Patient responded to tamsulosin-medium dose (Left Kidney) was compared to placebo. Logistic regression model was used with age group, anti-cholinergic use, and geographic region as covariates. On treatment (OT) analyses approach was used.||||0.8724
90939550|NCT00796614|181758603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7674|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Patient responded to tamsulosin-high dose (Left Kidney) was compared to placebo. Logistic regression model was used with age group, anti-cholinergic use, and geographic region as covariates. On treatment (OT) analyses approach was used.||||0.7674
90939551|NCT00796614|181758603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5545|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Patient responded to tamsulosin-low dose (Right Kidney) was compared to placebo. Logistic regression model was used with age group, anti-cholinergic use, and geographic region as covariates. On treatment (OT) analyses approach was used.||||0.5545
90939552|NCT00796614|181758603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4774|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Patient responded to tamsulosin-Medium dose (Right Kidney) was compared to placebo. Logistic regression model was used with age group, anti-cholinergic use, and geographic region as covariates. On treatment (OT) analyses approach was used.||||0.4774
90939553|NCT00796614|181758603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8626|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Patient responded to tamsulosin-High dose (Right Kidney) was compared to placebo. Logistic regression model was used with age group, anti-cholinergic use,and geographic region as covariates. On treatment (OT) analyses approach was used.||||0.8626
90939554|NCT00796614|181758604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9669|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Patient responded to tamsulosin-low dose (Left Kidney) was compared to placebo. Logistic regression model was used with age group, anti-cholinergic use, and geographic region as covariates. On treatment (OT) analyses approach was used.||||0.9669
90939555|NCT00796614|181758604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9231|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Patient responded to tamsulosin-medium dose (Left Kidney) was compared to placebo. Logistic regression model was used with age group, anti-cholinergic use, and geographic region as covariates. On treatment (OT) analyses approach was used.||||0.9231
90939556|NCT00796614|181758604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.636|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Patient responded to tamsulosin-high dose (Left Kidney) was compared to placebo. Logistic regression model was used with age group, anti-cholinergic use, and geographic region as covariates. On treatment (OT) analyses approach was used.||||0.6360
90939557|NCT00796614|181758604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Patient responded to tamsulosin-low dose (Right Kidney) was compared to placebo. Fisher's exact test was used for this analysis.||||1.0000
90939558|NCT00796614|181758604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4925|||||||Fisher Exact|||Patient responded to tamsulosin-medium dose (Right Kidney) was compared to placebo. Fisher's exact test was used for this analysis.||||0.4925
90939559|NCT00796614|181758604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4977|||||||Fisher Exact|||Patient responded to tamsulosin-high dose (Right Kidney) was compared to placebo. Fisher's exact test was used for this analysis.||||0.4977
90939560|NCT00796614|181758605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1373|||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model was used with age group, anti-cholinergic use, and geographic region as covariates. On treatment (OT) analyses approach was used.||||0.1373
90939561|NCT00796614|181758605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.744|||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model was used with age group, anti-cholinergic use, and geographic region as covariates. On treatment (OT) analyses approach was used.||||0.7440
90939562|NCT00796614|181758605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7703|||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model was used with age group, anti-cholinergic use, and geographic region as covariates. On treatment (OT) analyses approach was used.||||0.7703
90939563|NCT00796614|181758606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0808|||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model was used with age group, anti-cholinergic use, and geographic region as covariates. On treatment (OT) analyses approach was used.||||0.0808
90939564|NCT00796614|181758606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8244|||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model was used with age group, anti-cholinergic use, and geographic region as covariates. On treatment (OT) analyses approach was used.||||0.8244
90939565|NCT00796614|181758606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5045|||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model was used with age group, anti-cholinergic use, and geographic region as covariates. On treatment (OT) analyses approach was used.||||0.5045
90939566|NCT01231464|181758613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.498|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.897|-1.009|||ANCOVA||Besides treatment, the ANCOVA analysis also adjusted for baseline, center, gender, age, and classification of AR (Intermittent Allergic Rhinitis \[IAR\] or Persistent Allergic Rhinitis \[PER\]).|||-1.009|-1.897|<0.0001
90939567|NCT02983877|181758629|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Friedman test|3 degrees of freedom||||||<0.001
90970618|NCT01827670|181823581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|-21.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.55|-14.09|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model: Treatment and baseline Schiff stratification value as fixed factor and baseline VAS as covariate.|Difference was 0.454% Stannous Fluoride minus 0.76% Sodium MonoFluorophosphate such that a negative difference favored first named treatment|"The principal null hypothesis tested was as follows:~H0: The change from baseline was same for both treatments. H1: The change from baseline was different for both the treatments."||-14.09|-29.55|<0.0001
90939568|NCT02983877|181758630|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|3 degrees of freedom||||||<0.001
90939569|NCT02983877|181758631|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Friedman test|3 degrees of freedom||||||<0.001
90939570|NCT02983877|181758632|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|||||||ANOVA|2 degrees of freedom||||||0.89
90939571|NCT02762500|181758701|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.1||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.6|2.5||one-sided p-value|Chi-squared|Statistical test was a one-sided performed at the 5% level of significance. Pearson chi-square test was used to test the null hypothesis.|90% CI obtained based on normal approximation.|The response rate difference is the mean difference in response rates between the treatment and placebo responders. The p-value is based on one-sided Pearson chi-square test.||2.5|-18.6|0.106
90939572|NCT02762500|181758702|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.1||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.6|2.5||one-sided p-value|Chi-squared|Statistical test was a one-sided performed at the 5% level of significance. Pearson chi-square test was used to test the null hypothesis.|90% CI obtained based on normal approximation.|The response rate difference is the mean difference in response rates between the treatment and placebo responders. The p-value is based on one-sided Pearson chi-square test.||2.5|-18.6|0.106
90939573|NCT02762500|181758703|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.5||||0.235|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.1|8.2||one-sided p-value|Chi-squared|Statistical test was a one-sided performed at the 5% level of significance. Pearson chi-square test was used to test the null hypothesis.|90% CI obtained based on normal approximation.|The response rate difference is the mean difference in response rates between the treatment and placebo responders. The p-value is based on one-sided Pearson chi-square test.||8.2|-21.1|0.235
90939574|NCT02762500|181758704|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-9.7||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-24.3|5.0||one-sided p-value|Chi-squared|Statistical test was a one-sided performed at the 5% level of significance. Pearson chi-square test was used to test the null hypothesis.|90% CI obtained based on normal approximation.|The response rate difference is the mean difference in response rates between the treatment and placebo responders. The p-value is based on one-sided Pearson chi-square test.||5.0|-24.3|0.140
90939575|NCT02762500|181758705|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-44.59||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-78.66|-10.53|||ANCOVA|The mean change from baseline at Week 8 was analyzed using ANCOVA with a factor for treatment and a covariate for baseline scores.||Subjects included in this analysis were those with a baseline fecal calprotectin value ≥ 250 µg/g.||-10.53|-78.66|0.032
90939576|NCT02762500|181758706|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.708|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|0.95|||ANCOVA|The mean change from baseline at Week 8 was analyzed using ANCOVA with a factor for treatment and a covariate for baseline scores.||||0.95|-0.60|0.708
90939577|NCT03245762|181758728|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.93|TWO_SIDED||||||Ordinal Categorical Analysis|||||||0.930
90939578|NCT00637247|181758729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||Log Rank|||The hypothesis that survival curves were equal in the two treatment groups was tested with a one-sided logrank test at the alpha-0.2 level, one sided. The power of this test is 80% for detecting the hypothesized increase in median survival of 2.4 months for subjects in the experimental arm.||||0.2
90939579|NCT01907113|181758767|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ratio calculated as mild renal function divided by normal renal function|Geometric mean ratio|118.24|STANDARD_DEVIATION|25.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.17|145.38|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with fixed effect for treatment (corresponding to renal impairment status).|Standard deviation is actually the geometric Coefficient of Variation \[%\].|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability||145.38|96.17|
90939580|NCT01907113|181758767|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ratio calculated as moderate renal function divided by normal renal function|Geometric mean ratio|119.94|STANDARD_DEVIATION|25.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.25|149.47|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with fixed effect for treatment (corresponding to renal impairment status).|Standard deviation is actually the geometric Coefficient of Variation \[%\].|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability||149.47|96.25|
90939581|NCT01907113|181758767|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ratio calculated as severe renal function divided by normal renal function|Geometric mean ratio|166.29|STANDARD_DEVIATION|25.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|134.44|205.68|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with fixed effect for treatment (corresponding to renal impairment status).|Standard deviation is actually the geometric Coefficient of Variation \[%\].|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability||205.68|134.44|
90939582|NCT01907113|181758767|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ratio calculated as kidney failure divided by normal renal function|Geometric mean ratio|148.29|STANDARD_DEVIATION|25.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|119.89|183.42|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with fixed effect for treatment (corresponding to renal impairment status).|Standard deviation is actually the geometric Coefficient of Variation \[%\].|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability||183.42|119.89|
90939583|NCT01907113|181758768|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ratio calculated as mild renal function divided by normal renal function|Geometric mean ratio|118.83|STANDARD_DEVIATION|29.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.62|150.84|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with fixed effect for treatment (corresponding to renal impairment status).|Standard deviation is actually the geometric Coefficient of Variation \[%\].|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability||150.84|93.62|
90939584|NCT01907113|181758768|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ratio calculated as moderate renal function divided by normal renal function|Geometric mean ratio|102.27|STANDARD_DEVIATION|29.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.33|131.85|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with fixed effect for treatment (corresponding to renal impairment status).|Standard deviation is actually the geometric Coefficient of Variation \[%\].|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability||131.85|79.33|
90939585|NCT01907113|181758768|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ratio calculated as severe renal function divided by normal renal function|Geometric mean ratio|120.68|STANDARD_DEVIATION|29.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.42|154.25|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with fixed effect for treatment (corresponding to renal impairment status).|Standard deviation is actually the geometric Coefficient of Variation \[%\].|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability||154.25|94.42|
90939586|NCT01907113|181758768|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ratio calculated as kidney failure divided by normal renal function|Geometric mean ratio|103.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|29.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|81.18|132.61|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with fixed effect for treatment (corresponding to renal impairment status).|Standard deviation is actually the geometric Coefficient of Variation \[%\].|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability||132.61|81.18|
90939587|NCT00632931|181758783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0||||||90.0|-0.28|6.28||||||||6.28|-0.28|
90939588|NCT00632931|181758784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.45||||||90.0|-1.38|4.72||||||||4.72|-1.38|
90939589|NCT00632931|181758785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.07||||||90.0|-0.17|6.31||||||||6.31|-0.17|
90939590|NCT00632931|181758786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.84||||||90.0|-0.4|6.08||||||||6.08|-0.40|
90939591|NCT00632931|181758787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.44||||||90.0|3.21|9.68||||||||9.68|3.21|
90939592|NCT00632931|181758788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.33||||||90.0|1.05|7.6||||||||7.60|1.05|
90939593|NCT00632931|181758789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.66||||||90.0|-0.7|6.02||||||||6.02|-0.70|
90939594|NCT00632931|181758790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.51||||||90.0|3.19|9.82||||||||9.82|3.19|
91035935|NCT03261167|181958553|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.22|||||Week 2, Elbow flexion. Analysis method was MMRM with Treatment, Visit, Treatment by visit interation, Baseline, and Baseline by visit interaction as fixed effects.|||-0.22|-0.75|
90939595|NCT01057888|181758798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.7|||Regression, Cox|It is a robust, clustered stratified Cox regression model|The control group serves as the denominator. The telephone reminder group serves as the numerator.|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in total immunization status between the control group and the group receiving telephone (autodialer) reminders. This was analyzed using a clustered, stratified Cox model.||1.7|1.0|<0.05
90970619|NCT00563186|181823589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|This statistical analysis applies to the overall VRE, CDI and MRSA infection and colonization events expressed as incidence density (per 1000 patient-days at risk).|Incidence Rate ratio|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|3.22|||Poisson||Numerator is novel ward and denominator is traditional ward.|"It was calculated that this study will require 9750 patient days of observation in the traditional design wards and 19,500 patient days of observation in the novel design ward to ensure 80% statistical power to detect a 60% difference in the rates of incident cases of selected HAIs and ARO colonizations (the primary outcome measure) with an α level of 0.05 assuming that incident cases in each unit follow Poisson distribution based on well established historic trends on these units"||3.22|0.80|0.18
90970620|NCT00563186|181823591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.929|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.493||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|4.9|||Large test for person-time analysis|||||4.9|0.76|0.175
90970621|NCT01136655|181823597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.114|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.087|0.142|||ANCOVA|LOCF was performed if missing data were post last non-missing post-baseline assessment||Factors in the ANCOVA model included: patient, visit, treatment, and the covariate pre-dose FEV1 from each visit.||0.142|0.087|<0.0001
90939596|NCT01057888|181758798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.6|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.1|||Regression, Cox|We used a robust, clustered, stratified Cox regression model.|The control group represents the denominator. The letter reminder group represents the numerator.|||2.1|1.3|<0.01
90970622|NCT01136655|181823597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.105|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.078|0.133|||ANCOVA|LOCF was performed if missing data were post last non-missing post-baseline assessment.||Factors in the ANCOVA model included: patient, visit, treatment, and the covariate pre-dose FEV1 from each visit.||0.133|0.078|<0.0001
90970623|NCT01136655|181823597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.058|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0141||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.085|||ANCOVA|LOCF was performed if missing data were post last non-missing post-baseline assessment.||Factors in the ANCOVA model included: patient, visit, treatment, and the covariate pre-dose FEV1 from each visit.||0.085|0.030|0.0001
90939597|NCT01057888|181758798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.6|||Regression, Cox||The mail reminder arm represents the numerator and the telephone reminder arm represents the denominator.|The null hypothesis was that there is no difference in the percentage of fully vaccinated adolescents between the mailed reminder versus the telephone reminder arms||1.6|1.0|0.075
90939598|NCT01057888|181758799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.3|||Regression, Cox||The control group represents the denominator and the mailed reminder group represents the numerator.|The null hypothesis was that a difference in well child care rates among adolescents whose families received a mailed reminder compared to the control group||1.3|1.1|<0.01
90939599|NCT01057888|181758799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.3|||Regression, Cox||The control group represents the denominator and the telephone reminder group represents the numerator|The null hypothesis is the the well child care rates of adolescents in the telephone reminder group would not differ from those of the control group||1.3|1.0|<0.05
91035746|NCT00840073|181957867|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Ratio of Geometric Means|103.81||||||90.0|96.72|111.41|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||111.41|96.72|
90939600|NCT01057888|181758799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.2|||Regression, Cox||The mail reminder arm represents the numerator and the telephone reminder arm represents the denominator|The null hypothesis was that there would be no difference in the well child care rate among adolescents in the mailed reminder arm versus adolescents in the telephone reminder arm of the intervention||1.2|1.0|0.234
90939601|NCT03319719|181758820|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.88|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.42|-2.33||p-value from paired two-sided t-tests of no difference between test and control groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||-2.33|-3.42|<0.0001
90939602|NCT00991029|181758839|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.95|||Log Rank|||||0.95|0.59|0.02
90939603|NCT00991029|181758840|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.32||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|4.87|||Log Rank|||||4.87|1.10|0.02
90939604|NCT00991029|181758841|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.92|||Log Rank|||||0.92|0.56|0.01
90939605|NCT00991029|181758842|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.44||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|3.78|||Log Rank|||||3.78|0.55|0.46
90939606|NCT00991029|181758843|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.51||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|5.35|||Log Rank|||||5.35|0.43|0.52
90939607|NCT00991029|181758844|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.94|||Log Rank|||||0.94|0.58|0.01
90939608|NCT00991029|181758845|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.05|||Log Rank|||||1.05|0.67|0.13
90970624|NCT01136655|181823597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.009|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0139||0.5223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.036|0.018|||ANCOVA|LOCF was performed if missing data were post last non-missing post-baseline assessment.||Factors in the ANCOVA model included: patient, visit, treatment, and the covariate pre-dose FEV1 from each visit.||0.018|-0.036|0.5223
90970625|NCT01136655|181823597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.057|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0139||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.084|-0.029|||ANCOVA|LOCF was performed if missing data were post last non-missing post-baseline assessment.||Factors in the ANCOVA model included: patient, visit, treatment, and the covariate pre-dose FEV1 from each visit.||-0.029|-0.084|0.0001
90939609|NCT00991029|181758846|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.68||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|7.03|||Log Rank|||||7.03|0.4|0.47
90939610|NCT00991029|181758847|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|7.14|||Log Rank|||||7.14|0.14|0.99
90939611|NCT00991029|181758848|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.16
90939612|NCT00991029|181758849|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.45||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|5.9|||Log Rank|||||5.9|1.01|0.04
90939613|NCT00991029|181758850|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.67|5.83|||Log Rank|||||5.83|1.67|<0.001
90939614|NCT00991029|181758851|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.51||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|3.13|||Log Rank|||||3.13|0.73|0.27
90970626|NCT01136655|181823597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0138||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.075|-0.02|||ANCOVA|LOCF was performed if missing data were post last non-missing post-baseline assessment.||Factors in the ANCOVA model included: patient, visit, treatment, and the covariate pre-dose FEV1 from each visit.||-0.020|-0.075|0.0007
90970627|NCT01136655|181823597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.114|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0141|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.142|-0.086|||ANCOVA|LOCF was performed if missing data were post last non-missing post-baseline assessment.||Factors in the ANCOVA model included: patient, visit, treatment, and the covariate pre-dose FEV1 from each visit.||-0.086|-0.142|<0.0001
90939615|NCT01947153|181758875|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence test|Geometric mean ratio|102.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.027|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.37|107.688||The p-value relates to the null hypothesis of non-equivalence.|ANOVA||The geometric mean ratio is calculated as the geometric mean of 'Fixed dose combination' divided by the geometric mean of 'Free combination '.|||107.688|98.370|<0.0001
90939616|NCT01947153|181758876|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence test|Geometric mean ratio|105.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.032|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.645|110.941||The p-value relates to the null hypothesis of non-equivalence.|ANOVA||The geometric mean ratio is calculated as the geometric mean of 'Fixed dose combination' divided by the geometric mean of 'Free combination '.|||110.941|99.645|<0.0001
90939617|NCT01947153|181758877|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence test|Geometric mean ratio|109.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.063||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.299|120.968||The p-value relates to the null hypothesis of non-equivalence.|ANOVA||The geometric mean ratio is calculated as the geometric mean of 'Fixed dose combination' divided by the geometric mean of 'Free combination '.|||120.968|98.299|0.0014
90939618|NCT01947153|181758878|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence test|Geometric mean ratio|105.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.043|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.471|113.692||The p-value relates to the null hypothesis of non-equivalence.|ANOVA||The geometric mean ratio is calculated as the geometric mean of 'Fixed dose combination' divided by the geometric mean of 'Free combination '.|||113.692|98.471|<0.0001
90939619|NCT01947153|181758879|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence test|Geometric mean ratio|98.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.177|105.208||The p-value relates to the null hypothesis of non-equivalence.|ANOVA||The geometric mean ratio is calculated as the geometric mean of 'Fixed dose combination' divided by the geometric mean of 'Free combination '.|||105.208|92.177|<0.0001
90939620|NCT01947153|181758880|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence test|Geometric mean ratio|104.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.031|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.274|110.254||The p-value relates to the null hypothesis of non-equivalence.|ANOVA||The geometric mean ratio is calculated as the geometric mean of 'Fixed dose combination' divided by the geometric mean of 'Free combination '.|||110.254|99.274|<0.0001
90939621|NCT01947153|181758881|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence test|Geometric mean ratio|102.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.027|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.37|107.688||The p-value relates to the null hypothesis of non-equivalence.|ANOVA||The geometric mean ratio is calculated as the geometric mean of 'Fixed dose combination' divided by the geometric mean of 'Free combination '.|||107.688|98.370|<0.0001
90939622|NCT00784277|181758895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least-Squares Means|55.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.37||0.007||95.0|15.11|95.13||P-value is adjusted for multiplicity for comparison against placebo using Hochberg's test.|ANCOVA|The model includes treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline pain intensity score as covariate.|The 95% confidence interval is unadjusted for multiplicity.|||95.13|15.11|0.007
90939623|NCT00784277|181758895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least-Squares Means|63.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.23||0.004||95.0|23.67|103.13||P-value is adjusted for multiplicity for comparison against placebo using Hochberg's test.|ANCOVA|The model includes treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline pain intensity score as covariate.|The 95% confidence interval is unadjusted for multiplicity.|||103.13|23.67|0.004
90939624|NCT00784277|181758896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least-Squares Means|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46|<|0.001||95.0|2.22|4.01||P-value is adjusted for multiplicity for comparison against Oxycodone using Hochberg's test.|ANCOVA|The model includes treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline value as covariate.|The 95% confidence interval is unadjusted for multiplicity.|||4.01|2.22|<0.001
90939625|NCT00784277|181758896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least-Squares Means|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45|<|0.001||95.0|1.34|3.12||P-value is adjusted for multiplicity for comparison against Oxycodone using Hochberg's test.|ANCOVA|The model includes treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline value as covariate.|The 95% confidence interval is unadjusted for multiplicity.|||3.12|1.34|<0.001
90939626|NCT00784277|181758896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least-Squares Means|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45|<|0.001||95.0|0.72|2.5||P-value is adjusted for multiplicity for comparison against Oxycodone using Hochberg's test.|ANCOVA|The model includes treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline value as covariate.|The 95% confidence interval is unadjusted for multiplicity.|||2.50|0.72|<0.001
90939627|NCT02567227|181758911|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|1.54|||||Estimates with standard errors are from linear mixed effect models adjusted for age, sex, education years, comorbidities, pain, cardiac fitness, and cognitive status.|Linear mixed effects model adjusted for age, sex, education (school years), comorbidities score (0-10), pain, Duke score (cardiac fitness), and cognitive status (Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) or cognitively normal) were used to compare changes in speed during normal pace walking pre and post intervention.||1.54|-3.60|
90939628|NCT02567227|181758911|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.61|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.59|3.76||P-values from linear mixed effects models adjusted for age, sex, education years, comorbidities, pain, cardiac fitness, and cognitive status|||Estimates with standard errors are from linear mixed effect models adjusted for age, sex, education years, comorbidities, pain, cardiac fitness, and cognitive status.|Linear mixed effects model adjusted for age, sex, education (school years), comorbidities score (0-10), pain, Duke score (cardiac fitness), and cognitive status (MCI or cognitively normal) were used to compare changes in speed during walking while talking pre and post intervention.||3.76|-2.59|
90939629|NCT02567227|181758912|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.2|||||Estimates with standard errors are from linear mixed effect models adjusted for age, sex, education years, comorbidities, pain, cardiac fitness, and cognitive status.|Linear mixed effects model adjusted for age, sex, education (school years), comorbidities score (0-10), pain, Duke score (cardiac fitness), and cognitive status (MCI or cognitively normal) were used to compare changes in SPPB scores pre and post intervention.||0.20|-0.49|
90939630|NCT02567227|181758913|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|3.79|||||Estimates with standard errors are from linear mixed effect models adjusted for age, sex, education years, comorbidities, pain, cardiac fitness, and cognitive status.|Linear mixed effects model adjusted for age, sex, education (school years), comorbidities score (0-10), pain, Duke score (cardiac fitness), and cognitive status (MCI or cognitively normal) were used to compare changes in stride length during walking while talking pre and post intervention.||3.79|-2.13|
90939631|NCT02567227|181758913|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Estimates with standard errors are from linear mixed effect models.|Unadjusted linear mixed effects models were used to compare changes in stride length during normal walking pre and post intervention.||||
90939632|NCT02567227|181758914|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.43|||||Estimates with standard errors are from linear mixed effect models adjusted for age, sex, education years, comorbidities, pain, cardiac fitness, and cognitive status.|Linear mixed effects model adjusted for age, sex, education (school years), comorbidities score (0-10), pain, Duke score (cardiac fitness), and cognitive status (MCI or cognitively normal) were used to compare changes in stride length variability during normal walking pre and post intervention.||0.43|-0.91|
90939633|NCT02567227|181758914|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.27|||||Estimates with standard errors are from linear mixed effect models adjusted for age, sex, education years, comorbidities, pain, cardiac fitness, and cognitive status.|Linear mixed effects model adjusted for age, sex, education (school years), comorbidities score (0-10), pain, Duke score (cardiac fitness), and cognitive status (MCI or cognitively normal) were used to compare changes in stride length variability during walking while talking pre and post intervention.||0.27|-1.16|
90939634|NCT02567227|181758915|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.19|||||Estimates with standard errors are from linear mixed effect models adjusted for age, sex, education years, comorbidities, pain, cardiac fitness, and cognitive status.|Linear mixed effects model adjusted for age, sex, education (school years), comorbidities score (0-10), pain, Duke score (cardiac fitness), and cognitive status (MCI or cognitively normal) were used to compare changes in the pace domain during normal pace walking pre and post intervention.||0.19|-0.51|
90939635|NCT02567227|181758915|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.41|||||Estimates with standard errors are from linear mixed effect models adjusted for age, sex, education years, comorbidities, pain, cardiac fitness, and cognitive status.|Linear mixed effects model adjusted for age, sex, education (school years), comorbidities score (0-10), pain, Duke score (cardiac fitness), and cognitive status (MCI or cognitively normal) were used to compare changes in the rhythm domain during normal pace walking pre and post intervention.||0.41|-0.20|
90939636|NCT02567227|181758915|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.32|||||Estimates with standard errors are from linear mixed effect models adjusted for age, sex, education years, comorbidities, pain, cardiac fitness, and cognitive status.|Linear mixed effects model adjusted for age, sex, education (school years), comorbidities score (0-10), pain, Duke score (cardiac fitness), and cognitive status (MCI or cognitively normal) were used to compare changes in the variation domain during normal pace walking pre and post intervention.||0.32|-0.53|
90939637|NCT02567227|181758915|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.56|||||Estimates with standard errors are from linear mixed effect models adjusted for age, sex, education years, comorbidities, pain, cardiac fitness, and cognitive status.|Linear mixed effects model adjusted for age, sex, education (school years), comorbidities score (0-10), pain, Duke score (cardiac fitness), and cognitive status (MCI or cognitively normal) were used to compare changes in the pace domain during walking while talking pre and post intervention.||0.56|-0.27|
90970628|NCT01136655|181823597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.056|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0141||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.084|-0.028|||ANCOVA|LOCF was performed if missing data were post last non-missing post-baseline assessment.||Factors in the ANCOVA model included: patient, visit, treatment, and the covariate pre-dose FEV1 from each visit.||-0.028|-0.084|0.0001
90970629|NCT01136655|181823597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.009|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0141||0.5394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.036|0.019|||ANCOVA|LOCF was performed if missing data were post last non-missing post-baseline assessment.||Factors in the ANCOVA model included: patient, visit, treatment, and the covariate pre-dose FEV1 from each visit.||0.019|-0.036|0.5394
90970630|NCT01136655|181823597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014||0.9863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.027|0.028|||ANCOVA|LOCF was performed if missing data were post last non-missing post-baseline assessment.||Factors in the ANCOVA model included: patient, visit, treatment, and the covariate pre-dose FEV1 from each visit.||0.028|-0.027|0.9863
90970631|NCT01136655|181823598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.105|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.056|0.155|||ANCOVA|LOCF was performed if missing data were post last non-missing post-baseline assessment.||Factors in the ANCOVA model included: patient, visit, treatment, and the covariate pre-dose FEV1 from each visit.||0.155|0.056|<0.0001
90970632|NCT01136655|181823598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.066|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0252||0.0092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.017|0.116|||ANCOVA|LOCF was performed if missing data were post last non-missing post-baseline assessment.||Factors in the ANCOVA model included: patient, visit, treatment, and the covariate pre-dose FEV1 from each visit.||0.116|0.017|0.0092
90970633|NCT01136655|181823598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0252||0.5509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.035|0.065|||ANCOVA|LOCF was performed if missing data were post last non-missing post-baseline assessment.||Factors in the ANCOVA model included: patient, visit, treatment, and the covariate pre-dose FEV1 from each visit.||0.065|-0.035|0.5509
91035747|NCT00840073|181957868|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Ratio of Geometric Means|102.37||||||90.0|97.34|107.65|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||107.65|97.34|
90970634|NCT01136655|181823598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.039|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0249||0.1163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.088|0.01|||ANCOVA|LOCF was performed if missing data were post last non-missing post-baseline assessment.||Factors in the ANCOVA model included: patient, visit, treatment, and the covariate pre-dose FEV1 from each visit.||0.010|-0.088|0.1163
90970635|NCT01136655|181823598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|-0.041|||ANCOVA|LOCF was performed if missing data were post last non-missing post-baseline assessment.||Factors in the ANCOVA model included: patient, visit, treatment, and the covariate pre-dose FEV1 from each visit.||-0.041|-0.140|0.0004
90970636|NCT01136655|181823598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.051|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0247||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|-0.002|||ANCOVA|LOCF was performed if missing data were post last non-missing post-baseline assessment.||Factors in the ANCOVA model included: patient, visit, treatment, and the covariate pre-dose FEV1 from each visit.||-0.002|-0.100|0.0400
91035748|NCT00840073|181957869|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Ratio of Geometric Means|103.76||||||90.0|100.08|107.57|||||Informational Purposes Only|||107.57|100.08|
91035749|NCT00840073|181957870|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Ratio of Least Squares Means|103.34||||||90.0|100.84|105.92|||||Informational Purposes Only|||105.92|100.84|
90970637|NCT01136655|181823598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.083|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0252||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.133|-0.034|||ANCOVA|LOCF was performed if missing data were post last non-missing post-baseline assessment.||Factors in the ANCOVA model included: patient, visit, treatment, and the covariate pre-dose FEV1 from each visit.||-0.034|-0.133|0.0011
90970638|NCT01136655|181823598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.068|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0254||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.118|-0.018|||ANCOVA|LOCF was performed if missing data were post last non-missing post-baseline assessment.||Factors in the ANCOVA model included: patient, visit, treatment, and the covariate pre-dose FEV1 from each visit.||-0.018|-0.118|0.0077
90970639|NCT01136655|181823598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.017|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0252||0.4957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.067|0.033|||ANCOVA|LOCF was performed if missing data were post last non-missing post-baseline assessment.||Factors in the ANCOVA model included: patient, visit, treatment, and the covariate pre-dose FEV1 from each visit.||0.033|-0.067|0.4957
90970640|NCT01136655|181823598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.027|0.071|||ANCOVA|LOCF was performed if missing data were post last non-missing post-baseline assessment.||Factors in the ANCOVA model included: patient, visit, treatment, and the covariate pre-dose FEV1 from each visit.||0.071|-0.027|0.3800
90970641|NCT01136655|181823599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.107|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.073|0.14|||ANCOVA|||Factors in the Analysis of Covariance model included: patient, visit, treatment, and the covariate pre-dose FEV1 from each visit.||0.140|0.073|<0.0001
91035750|NCT02964039|181957891|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.047||||||A priori threshold: 0.05|ANOVA|0.047 is the main effect of group from a 2-way ANOVA that also included time (p=0.77) as a within-subjects factor.||||||0.047
90970642|NCT01136655|181823599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.112|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0171|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.078|0.146|||ANCOVA|||Factors in the Analysis of Covariance model included: patient, visit, treatment, and the covariate pre-dose FEV1 from each visit.||0.146|0.078|<0.0001
90970643|NCT01136655|181823599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.057|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0172||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.023|0.09|||ANCOVA|||Factors in the Analysis of Covariance model included: patient, visit, treatment, and the covariate pre-dose FEV1 from each visit.||0.090|0.023|0.0011
90970644|NCT01136655|181823599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0169||0.7589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.028|0.039|||ANCOVA|||Factors in the Analysis of Covariance model included: patient, visit, treatment, and the covariate pre-dose FEV1 from each visit.||0.039|-0.028|0.7589
90970645|NCT01136655|181823599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.084|-0.017|||ANCOVA|||Factors in the Analysis of Covariance model included: patient, visit, treatment, and the covariate pre-dose FEV1 from each visit.||-0.017|-0.084|0.0035
90970646|NCT01136655|181823599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.055|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0168||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.089|-0.022|||ANCOVA|||Factors in the Analysis of Covariance model included: patient, visit, treatment, and the covariate pre-dose FEV1 from each visit.||-0.022|-0.089|0.0011
90970647|NCT01136655|181823599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.115|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0171|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.149|-0.081|||ANCOVA|||Factors in the Analysis of Covariance model included: patient, visit, treatment, and the covariate pre-dose FEV1 from each visit.||-0.081|-0.149|<0.0001
90970648|NCT01136655|181823599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.058|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0172||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.092|-0.024|||ANCOVA|||Factors in the Analysis of Covariance model included: patient, visit, treatment, and the covariate pre-dose FEV1 from each visit.||-0.024|-0.092|0.0008
90970649|NCT01136655|181823599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0172||0.8582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.037|0.031|||ANCOVA|||Factors in the Analysis of Covariance model included: patient, visit, treatment, and the covariate pre-dose FEV1 from each visit.||0.031|-0.037|0.8582
90970650|NCT01136655|181823599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017||0.6276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.042|0.025|||ANCOVA|||Factors in the Analysis of Covariance model included: patient, visit, treatment, and the covariate pre-dose FEV1 from each visit.||0.025|-0.042|0.6276
90970651|NCT01136655|181823600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.393|0.7|||ANOVA|A shift log transformation was performed on the response variable in the ANOVA model, using log(response) \[log(response + 1) if response is 0\].||Factors in the ANOVA model included: patient, period and treatment.||0.700|0.393|<0.0001
90970652|NCT01136655|181823600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.194|0.347|||ANOVA|A shift log transformation was performed on the response variable in the ANOVA model, using log(response) \[log(response + 1) if response is 0\].||Factors in the ANOVA model included: patient, period and treatment.||0.347|0.194|<0.0001
90970653|NCT01136655|181823600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.214|0.396|||ANOVA|A shift log transformation was performed on the response variable in the ANOVA model, using log(response) \[log(response + 1) if response is 0\].||Factors in the ANOVA model included: patient, period and treatment.||0.396|0.214|<0.0001
90970654|NCT01136655|181823600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.371|0.659|||ANOVA|A shift log transformation was performed on the response variable in the ANOVA model, using log(response) \[log(response + 1) if response is 0\].||Factors in the ANOVA model included: patient, period and treatment.||0.659|0.371|<0.0001
90970655|NCT01136655|181823600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.56||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.409|0.755|||ANOVA|A shift log transformation was performed on the response variable in the ANOVA model, using log(response) \[log(response + 1) if response is 0\].||Factors in the ANOVA model included: patient, period and treatment.||0.755|0.409|0.0002
90970656|NCT01136655|181823600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.12||||0.4512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.827|1.528|||ANOVA|A shift log transformation was performed on the response variable in the ANOVA model, using log(response) \[log(response + 1) if response is 0\].||Factors in the ANOVA model included: patient, period and treatment.||1.528|0.827|0.4512
90970657|NCT01970501|181823656|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.45|||Log Rank|||||1.45|.72|0.905
90939638|NCT02567227|181758915|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.45|||||Estimates with standard errors are from linear mixed effect models adjusted for age, sex, education years, comorbidities, pain, cardiac fitness, and cognitive status.|Linear mixed effects model adjusted for age, sex, education (school years), comorbidities score (0-10), pain, Duke score (cardiac fitness), and cognitive status (MCI or cognitively normal) were used to compare changes in the rhythm domain during walking while talking pre and post intervention.||0.45|-0.48|
90939639|NCT02567227|181758915|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.35|||||Estimates with standard errors are from linear mixed effect models adjusted for age, sex, education years, comorbidities, pain, cardiac fitness, and cognitive status.|Linear mixed effects model adjusted for age, sex, education (school years), comorbidities score (0-10), pain, Duke score (cardiac fitness), and cognitive status (MCI or cognitively normal) were used to compare changes in the variation domain during walking while talking pre and post intervention.||0.35|-0.40|
90939640|NCT02567227|181758916|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.925|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.369|2.319||||||Logistic model for treatment effect on substantial improvement in normal velocity adjusted for age, sex, education (school years), comorbidities score (0-10), pain, Duke score (cardiac fitness), and cognitive status (MCI or cognitively normal).||2.319|0.369|
90939641|NCT02567227|181758916|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.961|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.516|1.789||||||Logistic model for treatment effect on substantial improvement in walking while talking velocity adjusted for age, sex, education (school years), comorbidities score (0-10), pain, Duke score (cardiac fitness), and cognitive status (MCI or cognitively normal).||1.789|0.516|
90939642|NCT02567227|181758917|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.17|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.45|20.41|||||Estimates with standard errors are from linear mixed effect models adjusted for age, sex, education years, comorbidities, pain, cardiac fitness, and cognitive status.|Linear mixed effects model adjusted for age, sex, education (school years), comorbidities score (0-10), pain, Duke score (cardiac fitness), and cognitive status (MCI or cognitively normal) were used to compare changes in Flanker performance (milliseconds) pre and post intervention.||20.41|-35.45|
90939643|NCT02567227|181758918|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|2.31|||||Estimates with standard errors are from linear mixed effect models adjusted for age, sex, education years, comorbidities, pain, cardiac fitness, and cognitive status.|Linear mixed effects model adjusted for age, sex, education (school years), comorbidities score (0-10), pain, Duke score (cardiac fitness), and cognitive status (MCI or cognitively normal) were used to compare changes on the Digit Symbol Substitution Test pre and post intervention.||2.31|-0.30|
90939644|NCT02567227|181758919|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Estimates with standard errors are from unadjusted linear mixed effect models.|Unadjusted linear mixed effects model was used to compare performance on Trail Making Test form A pre and post intervention.||||
90939645|NCT02567227|181758920|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.06|||||Estimates with standard errors are from linear mixed effect models adjusted for age, sex, education years, comorbidities, pain, cardiac fitness, and cognitive status.|Linear mixed effects model adjusted for age, sex, education (school years), comorbidities score (0-10), pain, Duke score (cardiac fitness), and cognitive status (MCI or cognitively normal) were used to compare changes in performance on Trail Making Test form B pre and post intervention.||0.06|-0.07|
90970658|NCT01970501|181823657|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.42|||Log Rank|||||1.42|0.71|0.961
90939646|NCT02567227|181758921|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|2.2|||||Estimates with standard errors are from linear mixed effect models adjusted for age, sex, education years, comorbidities, pain, cardiac fitness, and cognitive status.|Linear mixed effects model adjusted for age, sex, education (school years), comorbidities score (0-10), pain, Duke score (cardiac fitness), and cognitive status (MCI or cognitively normal) were used to compare changes performance on the Controlled Oral Word Association Test pre and post intervention.||2.20|-0.86|
90939647|NCT02567227|181758924|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.42|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|3.91|||||Estimates with standard errors are from linear mixed effect models adjusted for age, sex, education years, comorbidities, pain, cardiac fitness, and cognitive status.|Linear mixed effects model adjusted for age, sex, education (school years), comorbidities score (0-10), pain, Duke score (cardiac fitness), and cognitive status (MCI or cognitively normal) were used to compare changes in gait speed during normal walking pre and 6 months post intervention.||3.91|-1.65|
90970659|NCT00708123|181823660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|3.97||||0.0265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|7.48||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons as primary comparisons were pre-defined.|ANOVA|The analysis included factors treatment, period and subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments being compared. Tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||7.48|0.47|0.0265
90970660|NCT00708123|181823660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|5.66||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.15|9.18||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons as primary comparisons were pre-defined.|ANOVA|The analysis included factors as treatment, period and subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments being compared. Tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||9.18|2.15|0.0017
90939648|NCT02567227|181758924|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.79|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|4.91|||||Estimates with standard errors are from linear mixed effect models adjusted for age, sex, education years, comorbidities, pain, cardiac fitness, and cognitive status.|Linear mixed effects model adjusted for age, sex, education (school years), comorbidities score (0-10), pain, Duke score (cardiac fitness), and cognitive status (MCI or cognitively normal) were used to compare changes in gait speed during walking while talking pre and 6 months post intervention.||4.91|-2.12|
90970661|NCT00708123|181823661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean DIfference|-1.69||||0.3413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.19|1.8||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparisons were pre-defined.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and subject as random effect|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments being compared. Tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||1.80|-5.19|0.3413
90970662|NCT00708123|181823661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|10.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.76|13.76||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and subject as random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments being compared. Tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||13.76|6.76|<0.0001
90970663|NCT00708123|181823661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|13.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.69|16.68||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparisons were pre-defined.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and subject as random effect|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments being compared. Tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||16.68|9.69|<0.0001
90970664|NCT00708123|181823661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|8.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.09|12.05||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparisons were pre-defined.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and subject as random effect|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments being compared. Tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||12.05|5.09|<0.0001
90970665|NCT00708123|181823661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|11.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.01|14.98||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparisons were pre-defined.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and subject (random effect).|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments being compared. Tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||14.98|8.01|<0.0001
90970666|NCT00708123|181823661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-4.59||||0.0104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|-1.09||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparisons were pre-defined.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and subject as random effect|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments being compared. Tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||-1.09|-8.10|0.0104
90970667|NCT00708123|181823661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|7.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.04|11.01||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparisons were pre-defined.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and subject as random effect|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments being compared. Tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||11.01|4.04|<0.0001
90970668|NCT00708123|181823661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean DIfference|2.93||||0.0986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|6.41||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparisons were pre-defined.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and subject as random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments being compared. Tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||6.41|-0.55|0.0986
90939649|NCT02567227|181758925|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Estimates with standard errors are from unadjusted linear mixed effect models.|Unadjusted linear mixed effects model was used to compare changes in stair climbing time pre and post intervention.||||
90939650|NCT02567227|181758926|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Estimates with standard errors are from unadjusted linear mixed effect models.|Unadjusted linear mixed effects model was used to compare changes in activities of daily living pre and post intervention.||||
90939651|NCT02567227|181758927|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.93|||||Estimates with standard errors are from linear mixed effect models adjusted for age, sex, education years, comorbidities, pain, cardiac fitness, and cognitive status.|Linear mixed effects model adjusted for age, sex, education (school years), comorbidities score (0-10), pain, Duke score (cardiac fitness), and cognitive status (MCI or cognitively normal) were used to compare changes in depressive symptoms measured using the GDS pre and post intervention.||0.93|-0.40|
90939652|NCT02567227|181758929|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|2.16|||||Estimates with standard errors are from linear mixed effect models adjusted for age, sex, education years, comorbidities, pain, cardiac fitness, and cognitive status.|Linear mixed effects model adjusted for age, sex, education (school years), comorbidities score (0-10), pain, Duke score (cardiac fitness), and cognitive status (MCI or cognitively normal) were used to compare changes in reported fear of falling measured on the Falls Efficacy Scale pre and post intervention.||2.16|-1.38|
90939653|NCT02567227|181758930|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|1.04|||||Estimates with standard errors are from linear mixed effect models adjusted for age, sex, education years, comorbidities, pain, cardiac fitness, and cognitive status.|Linear mixed effects model adjusted for age, sex, education (school years), comorbidities score (0-10), pain, Duke score (cardiac fitness), and cognitive status (MCI or cognitively normal) were used to compare changes in the physical health score of the SF-12 pre and post intervention.||1.04|-1.46|
90939654|NCT02567227|181758930|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|1.85|||||Estimates with standard errors are from linear mixed effect models adjusted for age, sex, education years, comorbidities, pain, cardiac fitness, and cognitive status.|Linear mixed effects model adjusted for age, sex, education (school years), comorbidities score (0-10), pain, Duke score (cardiac fitness), and cognitive status (MCI or cognitively normal) were used to compare changes in the mental health score of the SF-12 pre and post intervention.||1.85|-1.04|
90939655|NCT00187135|181758936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5||95.0||||To adjust for multiple comparisons, p-values less than 0.0167 are considered statistically significant.|McNemar|||The study was designed to achieve statistical power of 80% for this comparison. Due to the early termination of the study, the sample size needed to ensure adequate statistical power for this comparison was not obtained.||||0.5
90939656|NCT00187135|181758936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5||95.0||||To adjust for multiple comparisons, p-values less than 0.0167 are considered statistically significant.|McNemar|||The study was designed to achieve statistical power of 80% for this comparison. The sample size needed to ensure adequate statistical power for this comparison was obtained.||||0.5
90939657|NCT00187135|181758937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5||95.0||||To adjust for multiple comparisons, p-values less than 0.0167 are considered statistically significant.|McNemar|||The study was designed to achieve statistical power of 80% for this comparison. Due to the early termination of the study, the sample size needed to ensure adequate statistical power for this comparison was not obtained.||||0.5
90939658|NCT00187135|181758938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87||95.0|||||GEE Model|||The generalized estimation equation (GEE) approach by Liang and Zeger was used to model the effects of 20% change in heart rate (HR) on pain (Y/N) while controlling for treatment.||||0.87
90939659|NCT00187135|181758939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67||95.0|||||GEE Model|||The generalized estimation equation (GEE) approach by Liang and Zeger was used to model the effects of 20% change in respiratory rate (RR) on pain (Y/N) while controlling for treatment.||||0.67
90939660|NCT00187135|181758940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52||95.0|||||GEE Model|||The generalized estimation equation (GEE) approach by Liang and Zeger was used to model the effects of 20% change in blood presure (BP) on pain (Y/N) while controlling for treatment.||||0.52
90939661|NCT00187135|181758941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99||95.0|||||GEE Model|||The generalized estimation equation (GEE) approach by Liang and Zeger was used to model the effects of motion (Y/N)on pain (Y/N) while controlling for treatment.||||0.99
90939662|NCT03280108|181758964|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority based on the observed 95% Upper Confidence Limit of the difference in Least Squares Means (LSM) between the 2 groups (TFNT00 - SN60AT). Non-inferiority margin = 0.10 logMAR.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0103|||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.041||||||||0.041||
90939663|NCT03280108|181758965|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
90939664|NCT03280108|181758971|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.257|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0153|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.287|-0.227|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.227|-0.287|<0.001
90939665|NCT03280108|181758972|SUPERIORITY||Mantel-Haenszel common difference|71.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.87|80.46||||||||80.46|61.87|
90939666|NCT00139659|181759008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.034|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028||||90.0|-0.08|0.011|||longitudinal data analysis model|Confidence interval of least squares (LS) mean difference (INH - SC) between annual rates of change for the two treatment groups.|Primary analysis model includes terms of Treatment, Time, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on day of randomization.|Treatment group difference (Exubera minus subcutaneous insulin): annualized rate of change over time. Longitudinal data analysis methods with random effects were used to model the pulmonary function test (PFT) measurements. Random effects included the intercept and slope with respect to time (visit); all remaining effects were fixed. The estimated rate of change over time for each treatment group was derived from this model.||0.011|-0.080|
90939667|NCT00139659|181759009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.025|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||||90.0|-0.065|0.015|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||0.015|-0.065|
90939668|NCT00139659|181759009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.034|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||||90.0|-0.073|0.006|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||0.006|-0.073|
90939669|NCT00139659|181759009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||||90.0|-0.063|0.016|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||0.016|-0.063|
90971355|NCT02684981|181825444|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|18.377|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.514|<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis||The primary analysis of PACT-Q2 scores was based on the random intercept model, where the matched group is considered as a random effect, the treatment as a fixed effect and the score as the response variable.|Mean change in convenience PACT-Q2 scores between VKA and Pradaxa therapy at initiation stage (V2)||||< 0.001
90970669|NCT00708123|181823662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|196.74||||0.0148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.89|354.6||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparisons were pre-defined.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and subject as random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments. Tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||354.60|38.89|0.0148
90970670|NCT00708123|181823662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|246.7||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|88.3|405.1||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparisons were pre-defined.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and subject as random effect|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments being compared. Tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||405.10|88.30|0.0024
90970671|NCT00708123|181823662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-49.96||||0.5328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-207.62|107.71||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparisons were pre-defined.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and subject as random effect|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments being compared. Tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||107.71|-207.62|0.5328
90970672|NCT00708123|181823662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-406.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-564.0|-248.37||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparisons were pre-defined.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and subject as random effect|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments being compared. Tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||-248.37|-564.00|<0.0001
90970673|NCT00708123|181823662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|602.93|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|445.97|759.9||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparisons were pre-defined.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and subject as random effect|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments being compared. Tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||759.90|445.97|<0.0001
90970674|NCT00708123|181823662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|652.89|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|495.05|810.72||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparisons were pre-defined.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and subject as random effect|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments being compared. Tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||810.72|495.05|<0.0001
90970675|NCT00708123|181823662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|847.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|690.54|1004.55||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparisons were pre-defined.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and subject as random effect|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments being compared. Tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||1004.55|690.54|<0.0001
90971356|NCT02684981|181825444|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|23.341|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.509|<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis||The primary analysis of PACT-Q2 scores was based on the random intercept model, where the matched group is considered as a random effect, the treatment as a fixed effect and the score as the response variable.|Mean change in convenience PACT-Q2 scores between VKA and Pradaxa therapy at continuation stage (V3)||||< 0.001
90970676|NCT00708123|181823662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|897.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|739.92|1055.08||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparisons were pre-defined.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors treatment, period and subject as random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments being compared. Tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||1055.08|739.92|<0.0001
91035751|NCT02964039|181957892|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16||||||A priori threshold: 0.05|ANOVA|0.16 is the main effect of group from a 2-way ANOVA that also included time (p=0.023) as a within-subjects factor.||||||0.16
90970677|NCT00708123|181823662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|650.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|493.61|808.0||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparisons were pre-defined.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and subject as random effect|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments being compared. Tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||808.00|493.61|<0.0001
90970678|NCT00708123|181823662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|244.62||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|87.62|401.61||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparisons were pre-defined.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and subject as random effect|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments being compared. Tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||401.61|87.62|0.0024
90970679|NCT02970292|181823663|SUPERIORITY||Difference in MMRM LSMs|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.24||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|0.4|||mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||0.4|-4.5|0.0940
91035752|NCT02964039|181957893|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64||||||A priori threshold: 0.05|ANOVA|0.64 is the main effect of group from a 2-way ANOVA that also included time (p=0.024) as a within-subjects factor.||||||0.64
90939670|NCT00139659|181759009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.035|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||||90.0|-0.075|0.004|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||0.004|-0.075|
90970680|NCT00531752|181823700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|0.7947|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8848||0.6749|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.649|3.2383||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis||Positive value for the LS mean difference indicates the estimate favors placebo.|Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||3.2383|-1.649|0.6749
90970681|NCT00531752|181823700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.4176|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0343||0.4886|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.218|4.0533||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis||Positive value for the LS mean difference indicates the estimate favors placebo.|Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||4.0533|-1.218|0.4886
90970682|NCT00531752|181823701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.025|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7713||0.5643|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.262|3.3121|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||3.3121|-1.262|0.5643
90939671|NCT00139659|181759009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.027|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||||90.0|-0.067|0.012|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||0.012|-0.067|
90939672|NCT00139659|181759009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.033|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||||90.0|-0.073|0.008|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||0.008|-0.073|
90939673|NCT00139659|181759009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.018|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||||90.0|-0.059|0.023|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 18; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||0.023|-0.059|
90939674|NCT00139659|181759009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||||90.0|-0.052|0.031|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 26; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||0.031|-0.052|
90939675|NCT00139659|181759009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.025|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||||90.0|-0.068|0.017|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 39; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||0.017|-0.068|
90939676|NCT00139659|181759009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.073|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||||90.0|-0.117|-0.029|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||-0.029|-0.117|
90939677|NCT00139659|181759009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.061|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028||||90.0|-0.108|-0.015|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52 (LOCF); Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||-0.015|-0.108|
90970683|NCT00531752|181823701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.9146|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8777||0.3107|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.51|4.3392|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||4.3392|-0.5100|0.3107
90970684|NCT00531752|181823701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.3154|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4638||0.1196|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.41601|4.2148|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||4.2148|0.41601|0.1196
90970685|NCT00531752|181823701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.3288|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.524||0.3872|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.649|3.3065|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||3.3065|-0.6490|0.3872
90970686|NCT00531752|181823706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1677|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0269||0.8708|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.162|1.4971|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1 (Inattention): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||1.4971|-1.162|0.8708
90939678|NCT00139659|181759010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.327|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.214||||90.0|-0.679|0.026|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||0.026|-0.679|
90939679|NCT00139659|181759010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.378|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.213||||90.0|-0.729|-0.027|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||-0.027|-0.729|
90939680|NCT00139659|181759010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.346|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.213||||90.0|-0.696|0.004|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||0.004|-0.696|
90939681|NCT00139659|181759010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.496|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.213||||90.0|-0.847|-0.145|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||-0.145|-0.847|
90939682|NCT00139659|181759010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.213||||90.0|-0.96|-0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||-0.260|-0.960|
90939683|NCT00139659|181759010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.219||||90.0|-0.721|0.001|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||0.001|-0.721|
90939684|NCT00139659|181759010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.291|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.221||||90.0|-0.655|0.073|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 18; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||0.073|-0.655|
90939685|NCT00139659|181759010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.224||||90.0|-0.788|-0.052|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 26; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||-0.052|-0.788|
90939686|NCT00139659|181759010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.337|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.231||||90.0|-0.717|0.042|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 39; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||0.042|-0.717|
90939687|NCT00139659|181759010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.789|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.238||||90.0|-1.181|-0.397|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||-0.397|-1.181|
90939688|NCT00139659|181759010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.786|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.238||||90.0|-1.178|-0.393|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52 (LOCF); Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||-0.393|-1.178|
90939689|NCT00139659|181759013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||||90.0|-0.066|0.023|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model): includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||0.023|-0.066|
90939690|NCT00139659|181759013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||||90.0|-0.044|0.044|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model): includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||0.044|-0.044|
90939691|NCT00139659|181759013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||||90.0|-0.056|0.032|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model): includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||0.032|-0.056|
90939692|NCT00139659|181759013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||||90.0|-0.048|0.041|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model): includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||0.041|-0.048|
90939693|NCT00139659|181759013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||||90.0|-0.089|-0.001|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model): includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||-0.001|-0.089|
90939694|NCT00139659|181759013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028||||90.0|-0.035|0.056|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model): includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||0.056|-0.035|
90939695|NCT00139659|181759013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.018|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028||||90.0|-0.028|0.064|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 18; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model): includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||0.064|-0.028|
90939696|NCT00139659|181759013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028||||90.0|-0.051|0.041|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 26; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model): includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||0.041|-0.051|
90939697|NCT00139659|181759013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029||||90.0|-0.07|0.026|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 39; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model): includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||0.026|-0.070|
90939698|NCT00139659|181759013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||||90.0|-0.064|0.034|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model): includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||0.034|-0.064|
90970687|NCT00531752|181823706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.8607|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0912||0.0927|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.44874|3.2726|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1 (Inattention): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||3.2726|0.44874|0.0927
90970688|NCT00531752|181823706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.866|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9037||0.3405|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.3008|2.0329|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1 (Hyperactivity/Impulsivity): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||2.0329|-0.3008|0.3405
90939699|NCT00139659|181759013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031||||90.0|-0.067|0.037|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52 (LOCF); Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model): includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||0.037|-0.067|
90939700|NCT00139659|181759014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.632|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.697||||90.0|-1.778|0.514|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model): includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||0.514|-1.778|
90939701|NCT00139659|181759014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.668||||90.0|-1.079|1.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model): includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||1.120|-1.079|
90970689|NCT00531752|181823706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1623|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9622||0.8665|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.08|1.4047|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1 (Hyperactivity/Impulsivity): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||1.4047|-1.080|0.8665
90939702|NCT00139659|181759014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.582|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.679||||90.0|-0.535|1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model): includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||1.700|-0.535|
90939703|NCT00139659|181759014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.054|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.687||||90.0|-1.184|1.077|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model): includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||1.077|-1.184|
90970690|NCT00531752|181823706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3886|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9694||0.6901|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.8694|1.6466|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2 (Inattention): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||1.6466|-0.8694|0.6901
90939704|NCT00139659|181759014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.535|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.694||||90.0|-1.677|0.608|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model): includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||0.608|-1.677|
90939705|NCT00139659|181759014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.905|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.674||||90.0|-2.014|0.203|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model): includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||0.203|-2.014|
90939706|NCT00139659|181759014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.212|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.675||||90.0|-0.899|1.323|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 18; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model): includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||1.323|-0.899|
90939707|NCT00139659|181759014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.044|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.683||||90.0|-1.08|1.169|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 26; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model): includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||1.169|-1.080|
90939708|NCT00139659|181759014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.694||||90.0|-1.382|0.902|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 39; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model): includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||0.902|-1.382|
90939709|NCT00139659|181759014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.503|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.711||||90.0|-1.673|0.668|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model): includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||0.668|-1.673|
90939710|NCT00139659|181759028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.503|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.216||||90.0|-0.858|-0.148|||Longitudinal data analysis model|Confidence interval of least squares (LS) mean difference (INH - SC) between annual rates of change for the two treatment groups.|Primary analysis model includes terms of Treatment, Time, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on day of randomization.|Treatment group difference (Exubera minus subcutaneous insulin): annualized rate of change over time. Longitudinal data analysis methods with random effects were used to model the pulmonary function test (PFT) measurements. Random effects included the intercept and slope with respect to time (visit); all remaining effects were fixed. The estimated rate of change over time for each treatment group was derived from this model.||-0.148|-0.858|
90970691|NCT00531752|181823706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.3779|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0114||0.179|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.06498|2.6908|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2 (Inattention): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||2.6908|0.06498|0.1790
91035753|NCT02964039|181957894|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92||||||A priori threshold: 0.92|ANOVA|0.92 is the main effect of group from a 2-way ANOVA that also included time (p=0.076) as a within-subjects factor.||||||0.92
91035754|NCT02964039|181957895|SUPERIORITY||||||>=|0.22||||||A priori threshold: 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|We compared incident rates assuming a negative binomial distribution with leas squares means estimates predicted via generalized linear model.||||||>=0.22
91035755|NCT02964039|181957896|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99||||||A priori threshold: 0.05|Chi-squared|||||||0.99
90970692|NCT00531752|181823706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.8759|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7508||0.0156|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.90156|2.8502|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2 (Hyperactivity/Impulsivity): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||2.8502|0.90156|0.0156
90939711|NCT00139659|181759032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||||90.0|-0.06|0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of treatment, Week, Baseline HbA1c, Center, and Type of Diabetes.||0.28|-0.06|
90939712|NCT00139659|181759032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||||90.0|0.04|0.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of treatment, Week, Baseline HbA1c, Center, and Type of Diabetes.||0.38|0.04|
90939713|NCT00139659|181759032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||||90.0|-0.01|0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 26; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of treatment, Week, Baseline HbA1c, Center, and Type of Diabetes.||0.34|-0.01|
90939714|NCT00139659|181759032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||||90.0|-0.03|0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 39; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of treatment, Week, Baseline HbA1c, Center, and Type of Diabetes.||0.32|-0.03|
90939715|NCT00139659|181759032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||||90.0|-0.12|0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of treatment, Week, Baseline HbA1c, Center, and Type of Diabetes.||0.24|-0.12|
90939716|NCT00139659|181759032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||||90.0|-0.19|0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52 (LOCF); Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of treatment, Week, Baseline HbA1c, Center, and Type of Diabetes.||0.22|-0.19|
90939717|NCT00139659|181759033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.615|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.874||||90.0|-2.351|23.581|||Mixed Models Analysis|Confidence interval for the LS mean of that particular treatment.||Week 6; Analysis of change from Baseline in fasting plasma glucose: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneouas Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model): includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline, Fasting Plasma Glucose, Center, and Type of Diabetes.||23.581|-2.351|
90939718|NCT00139659|181759033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.942|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.804||||90.0|-19.79|5.909|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12; Analysis of change from Baseline in fasting plasma glucose: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneouas Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model): includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline, Fasting Plasma Glucose, Center, and Type of Diabetes.||5.909|-19.79|
90939719|NCT00139659|181759033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.622|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.897||||90.0|-17.63|8.382|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 26; Analysis of change from Baseline in fasting plasma glucose: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneouas Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model): includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline, Fasting Plasma Glucose, Center, and Type of Diabetes.||8.382|-17.63|
90970693|NCT00531752|181823706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.04217|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7842||0.9573|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.06|0.97559|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2 (Hyperactivity/Impulsivity): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.97559|-1.060|0.9573
90970694|NCT00531752|181823706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1602|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2517||0.8986|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.462|1.782|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (Inattention): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||1.7820|-1.462|0.8986
90970695|NCT00531752|181823706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.6688|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3437||0.6204|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.071|2.4086|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (Inattention): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||2.4086|-1.071|0.6204
90970696|NCT00531752|181823706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.492|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8742||0.5759|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.6421|1.6261|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (Hyperactivity/Impulsivity): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||1.6261|-0.6421|0.5759
90970697|NCT00531752|181823706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.875|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9488||0.3603|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.3552|2.1051|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (Hyperactivity/Impulsivity): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||2.1051|-0.3552|0.3603
90939720|NCT00139659|181759033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.828|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.888||||90.0|-11.16|14.817|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 39; Analysis of change from Baseline in fasting plasma glucose: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneouas Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model): includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline, Fasting Plasma Glucose, Center, and Type of Diabetes.||14.817|-11.16|
90939721|NCT00139659|181759033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.149|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.991||||90.0|-12.01|14.307|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52; Analysis of change from Baseline in fasting plasma glucose: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneouas Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model): includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline, Fasting Plasma Glucose, Center, and Type of Diabetes.||14.307|-12.01|
90939722|NCT00139659|181759033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.247|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.816||||90.0|-8.664|17.157|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52 (LOCF); Analysis of change from Baseline in fasting plasma glucose: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneouas Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model): includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline, Fasting Plasma Glucose, Center, and Type of Diabetes.||17.157|-8.664|
90939723|NCT00139659|181759034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.455||||90.0|-1.829|-0.331|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1; adjusted mean difference between inhaled insulin and subcutaneous insulin groups. Primary analysis model includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Body Weight, Center, and Type of Diabetes.||-0.331|-1.829|
90939724|NCT00139659|181759034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.475|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.461||||90.0|-1.233|0.284|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2; adjusted mean difference between inhaled insulin and subcutaneous insulin groups. Primary analysis model includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Body Weight, Center, and Type of Diabetes.||0.284|-1.233|
90939725|NCT00139659|181759034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.185|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.454||||90.0|-0.931|0.562|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3; adjusted mean difference between inhaled insulin and subcutaneous insulin groups. Primary analysis model includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Body Weight, Center, and Type of Diabetes.||0.562|-0.931|
90939726|NCT00139659|181759034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.189|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.449||||90.0|-0.929|0.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4; adjusted mean difference between inhaled insulin and subcutaneous insulin groups. Primary analysis model includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Body Weight, Center, and Type of Diabetes.||0.550|-0.929|
90939727|NCT00139659|181759034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.558|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.447||||90.0|-1.294|0.178|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6; adjusted mean difference between inhaled insulin and subcutaneous insulin groups. Primary analysis model includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Body Weight, Center, and Type of Diabetes.||0.178|-1.294|
90939728|NCT00139659|181759034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.748|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.467||||90.0|-1.517|0.022|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 9; adjusted mean difference between inhaled insulin and subcutaneous insulin groups. Primary analysis model includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Body Weight, Center, and Type of Diabetes.||0.022|-1.517|
90939729|NCT00139659|181759034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.053|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.886||||90.0|-2.51|0.405|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 11; adjusted mean difference between inhaled insulin and subcutaneous insulin groups. Primary analysis model includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Body Weight, Center, and Type of Diabetes.||0.405|-2.510|
90939730|NCT00139659|181759034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.891|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.451||||90.0|-1.634|-0.149|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12; adjusted mean difference between inhaled insulin and subcutaneous insulin groups. Primary analysis model includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Body Weight, Center, and Type of Diabetes.||-0.149|-1.634|
90939731|NCT00139659|181759034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.453||||90.0|-1.725|-0.234|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 18; adjusted mean difference between inhaled insulin and subcutaneous insulin groups. Primary analysis model includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Body Weight, Center, and Type of Diabetes.||-0.234|-1.725|
90939732|NCT00139659|181759034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.663|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.448||||90.0|-1.4|0.075|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 26; adjusted mean difference between inhaled insulin and subcutaneous insulin groups. Primary analysis model includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Body Weight, Center, and Type of Diabetes.||0.075|-1.400|
90939733|NCT00139659|181759034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.537|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.451||||90.0|-1.279|0.205|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 39; adjusted mean difference between inhaled insulin and subcutaneous insulin groups. Primary analysis model includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Body Weight, Center, and Type of Diabetes.||0.205|-1.279|
90939734|NCT00139659|181759034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.322|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.027||||90.0|-3.012|0.369|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 50; adjusted mean difference between inhaled insulin and subcutaneous insulin groups. Primary analysis model includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Body Weight, Center, and Type of Diabetes.||0.369|-3.012|
90970698|NCT00531752|181823707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.5306|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6664||0.0392|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.3659|5.6952|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||5.6952|1.3659|0.0392
91035756|NCT00465270|181957924|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.49||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.11|||Log Rank|||||1.11|0.22|0.08
91035757|NCT00465270|181957926|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.55||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.999|||Log Rank|||||0.999|0.31|0.046
91035758|NCT00651820|181957937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Paired-Prentice Wilcoxon (PPW)|Time to complete wound closure Drug(T1)and Vehicle(T2)Hypothesis, Ho: T1=T2,using paired Prentice-Wilcoxon at significant level of 5%, 2-sided.||Each subject served as their own control, each receiving duplicate dermatome-induced wounds with 1 wound treated with active drug and the other treated with vehicle. Mean time to wound closure was calculated for the wounds treated with drug, the wounds treated with vehicle, and an over-all mean time to wound closure||||<0.05
90939735|NCT00139659|181759034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.063|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.552||||90.0|-0.847|0.972|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 51; adjusted mean difference between inhaled insulin and subcutaneous insulin groups. Primary analysis model includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Body Weight, Center, and Type of Diabetes.||0.972|-0.847|
91035759|NCT00651820|181957938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.2|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Stiffness: Paired t-test and Wilcoxon signed rank test were used for testing any significant differences (Sig. diff.) between the two treatments||||<0.05
91035760|NCT00651820|181957938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.88|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Energy Absorption: Paired t-test and Wilcoxon signed rank test were used for testing any significant differences (Sig. diff.) between the two treatments||||<0.05
91035761|NCT01249651|181958003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilocoxon signed-rank test|||Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to check whether the change in the frequency of heartburn during the 7-day period prior to the 8 week visit (Visit 3) compared to the frequency of heartburn during the 7-day period prior to baseline (Visit 1) was statistically significant or not.||||<0.001
91035762|NCT01581658|181958008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|128.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|105.962|156.604|||ANOVA|The model includes fixed effect for the renal function group||||156.604|105.962|
90939736|NCT00139659|181759034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.193|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.469||||90.0|-0.964|0.579|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52; adjusted mean difference between inhaled insulin and subcutaneous insulin groups. Primary analysis model includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Body Weight, Center, and Type of Diabetes.||0.579|-0.964|
90939737|NCT00139659|181759034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.526||||90.0|-1.298|0.438|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52 (LOCF); adjusted mean difference between inhaled insulin and subcutaneous insulin groups. Primary analysis model includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Body Weight, Center, and Type of Diabetes.||0.438|-1.298|
90939738|NCT00139659|181759042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.039|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||||90.0|-0.079|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (primary analysis model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline pulmonary function test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||-0.000|-0.079|
90939739|NCT00139659|181759042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.029|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||||90.0|-0.068|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (primary analysis model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline pulmonary function test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||0.010|-0.068|
90939740|NCT00139659|181759042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||||90.0|-0.084|-0.006|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (primary analysis model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline pulmonary function test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||-0.006|-0.084|
90939741|NCT00139659|181759042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.046|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||||90.0|-0.085|-0.007|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (primary analysis model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline pulmonary function test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||-0.007|-0.085|
91035763|NCT01581658|181958008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|143.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|118.306|174.848|||ANOVA|The model includes fixed effect for the renal function group||||174.848|118.306|
91035764|NCT01581658|181958008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|152.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|125.287|185.166|||ANOVA|The model includes fixed effect for the renal function group||||185.166|125.287|
91035765|NCT01581658|181958009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|93.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|72.236|121.015|||ANOVA|The model includes fixed effect for the renal function group||||121.015|72.236|
91035766|NCT01581658|181958009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|92.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|71.216|119.305|||ANOVA|The model includes fixed effect for the renal function group||||119.305|71.216|
91035767|NCT01581658|181958009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|94.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|72.63|121.674|||ANOVA|The model includes fixed effect for the renal function group||||121.674|72.630|
91035936|NCT03261167|181958553|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.13|||||Week 4, Elbow flexion. Analysis method was MMRM with Treatment, Visit, Treatment by visit interation, Baseline, and Baseline by visit interaction as fixed effects.|||-0.13|-0.71|
90970699|NCT00531752|181823707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.9344|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7848||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|80.0|4.6177|9.2512|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||9.2512|4.6177|0.0003
90970700|NCT00531752|181823707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.2888|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1861||0.0547|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.4544|7.1232|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 2: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||7.1232|1.4544|0.0547
90970701|NCT00531752|181823707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.6799|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3261||0.0176|TWO_SIDED|80.0|2.6655|8.6943|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 2: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||8.6943|2.6655|0.0176
90970702|NCT00531752|181823707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.7203|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5085||0.775|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.53|3.9704|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 3: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||3.9704|-2.530|0.7750
90970703|NCT00531752|181823707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.04276|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6874||0.9874|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.521|3.4357|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 3: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||3.4357|-3.521|0.9874
90970704|NCT00531752|181823707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.6252|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2268||0.7799|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.513|2.2629|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 4: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||2.2629|-3.513|0.7799
90970705|NCT00531752|181823707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.1136|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3365||0.1881|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.08338|6.1438|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 4: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||6.1438|0.08338|0.1881
90970706|NCT00531752|181823707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.6575|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9677||0.4032|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.8944|4.2094|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 5: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||4.2094|-0.8944|0.4032
90939742|NCT00139659|181759042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.046|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||||90.0|-0.085|-0.007|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (primary analysis model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline pulmonary function test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||-0.007|-0.085|
90970707|NCT00531752|181823707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.9254|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0796||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|80.0|3.2314|8.6193|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 5: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||8.6193|3.2314|0.0059
90970708|NCT00531752|181823707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.0921|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1098||0.6067|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.643|3.8273|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 6: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||3.8273|-1.643|0.6067
90970709|NCT00531752|181823707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.2785|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2424||0.0614|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.3709|7.186|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 6: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||7.1860|1.3709|0.0614
90939743|NCT00139659|181759042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.023|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||||90.0|-0.063|0.017|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (primary analysis model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline pulmonary function test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||0.017|-0.063|
90939744|NCT00139659|181759042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||||90.0|-0.062|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 18; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (primary analysis model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline pulmonary function test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||0.020|-0.062|
90939745|NCT00139659|181759042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.014|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||||90.0|-0.055|0.027|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 26; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (primary analysis model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline pulmonary function test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||0.027|-0.055|
90939746|NCT00139659|181759042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||||90.0|-0.085|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 39; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (primary analysis model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline pulmonary function test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||0.000|-0.085|
90939747|NCT00139659|181759042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.065|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||||90.0|-0.109|-0.022|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (primary analysis model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline pulmonary function test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||-0.022|-0.109|
90939748|NCT00139659|181759042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028||||90.0|-0.097|-0.003|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52 Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (primary analysis model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline pulmonary function test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||-0.003|-0.097|
90939749|NCT00139659|181759043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.279|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.199||||90.0|-0.606|0.048|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (primary analysis model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline pulmonary function test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||0.048|-0.606|
90939750|NCT00139659|181759043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.336|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.198||||90.0|-0.661|-0.011|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (primary analysis model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline pulmonary function test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||-0.011|-0.661|
90939751|NCT00139659|181759043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.384|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.196||||90.0|-0.707|-0.061|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (primary analysis model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline pulmonary function test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||-0.061|-0.707|
90939752|NCT00139659|181759043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.516|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.198||||90.0|-0.842|-0.191|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (primary analysis model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline pulmonary function test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||-0.191|-0.842|
90939753|NCT00139659|181759043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.474|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.196||||90.0|-0.797|-0.152|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (primary analysis model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline pulmonary function test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||-0.152|-0.797|
90939754|NCT00139659|181759043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.533|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.202||||90.0|-0.866|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (primary analysis model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline pulmonary function test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||-0.200|-0.866|
90939755|NCT00139659|181759043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.509|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.204||||90.0|-0.845|-0.174|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 18; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (primary analysis model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline pulmonary function test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||-0.174|-0.845|
90970710|NCT00531752|181823707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.7149|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2086||0.7476|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.584|2.1546|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||2.1546|-3.584|0.7476
90970711|NCT00531752|181823707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.3355|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4396||0.5863|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.499|1.8284|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||1.8284|-4.499|0.5863
90970712|NCT00531752|181823707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1058|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0529||0.9591|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.771|2.5593|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 8: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||2.5593|-2.771|0.9591
91035768|NCT05776901|181958029|OTHER|Descriptive statistics and measures of central tendency, including mean, median, and standard deviation of the System Usability Scores collected from the baseline and week 3 were computed. Then, a two-sided, paired sample t-test was conducted to evaluate the change in mean System Usability Scores from baseline at week 3.|Mean diff in SUS from baseline at week 3|34.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.49|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.04|96.37|||t-test, 2 sided|||||96.37|-28.04|<0.05
90939756|NCT00139659|181759043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.412|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.204||||90.0|-0.749|-0.076|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 26; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (primary analysis model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline pulmonary function test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||-0.076|-0.749|
90939757|NCT00139659|181759043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.707|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.212||||90.0|-1.056|-0.358|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 39; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (primary analysis model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline pulmonary function test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||-0.358|-1.056|
90939758|NCT00139659|181759043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.219||||90.0|-1.04|-0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (primary analysis model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline pulmonary function test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||-0.320|-1.040|
90939759|NCT00139659|181759043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.765|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.212||||90.0|-1.116|-0.415|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52 Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF); Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (primary analysis model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline pulmonary function test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||-0.415|-1.116|
90939760|NCT01209936|181759085|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.87
90939761|NCT01209936|181759086|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.17
90939762|NCT01209936|181759087|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.55
90970713|NCT00531752|181823707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4352|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2048||0.8442|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.294|2.4238|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 8: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||2.4238|-3.294|0.8442
90970714|NCT00531752|181823707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.6876|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0533||0.1977|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.01391|5.3613|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 9: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||5.3613|0.01391|0.1977
91035769|NCT04517604|181958034|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.984||0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.52|6.47||no adjustment for multiple comparisons as was a pilot|Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.47|-16.52|.343
90939763|NCT02391116|181759095|OTHER||Percentage Difference|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-28.7|32.9|||Exact confidence intervals (CI)||ORR difference in FAS (N=54): ORR in CD79b mutant subgroup minus ORR in CD79b wild-type subgroup|||32.9|-28.7|
90939764|NCT02391116|181759095|OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-33.5|33.5|||Exact confidence intervals (CI)||ORR difference in PPS (N=40): ORR in CD79b mutant subgroup minus ORR in CD79b wild-type subgroup|||33.5|-33.5|
90939765|NCT02391116|181759096|OTHER||Percentage Difference|16.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.2|39.1|||Exact confidence intervals (CI)||ORR difference in FAS (N=52): ORR in ABC subgroup minus ORR in non-ABC group (i.e. combined GCB subgroup and Unclassifiable subgroup)|||39.1|-7.2|
90939766|NCT02391116|181759096|OTHER||Percentage Difference|20.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.8|46.2|||Exact confidence intervals (CI)||ORR difference in PPS (N=40): ORR in ABC subgroup minus ORR in non-ABC group (i.e. combined GCB subgroup and Unclassifiable subgroup)|||46.2|-6.8|
90970715|NCT00531752|181823707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.8149|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2467||0.4235|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.108|4.7375|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 9: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||4.7375|-1.108|0.4235
90939767|NCT02391116|181759096|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-18.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-40.1|4.6|||Exact confidence intervals (CI)||ORR difference in FAS (N=52): ORR in GCB subgroup minus ORR in non-GCB subgroup (i.e. combined ABC subgroup and Unclassifiable subgroup)|||4.6|-40.1|
90939768|NCT02391116|181759096|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-25.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-49.1|1.1|||Exact confidence intervals (CI)||ORR difference in PPS (N=40): ORR in GCB subgroup minus ORR in non-GCB subgroup (i.e. combined ABC subgroup and Unclassifiable subgroup)|||1.1|-49.1|
90939769|NCT02391116|181759096|OTHER||Percentage Difference|12.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-42.4|63.2|||Exact confidence intervals (CI)||ORR difference in FAS (N=52): ORR in Unclassifiable subgroup minus ORR in ABC / GCB subgroup (i.e. combined ABC subgroup and GCB subgroup)|||63.2|-42.4|
90939770|NCT02391116|181759096|OTHER||Percentage Difference|26.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-44.3|77.6|||Exact confidence intervals (CI)||ORR difference in PPS (N=40): ORR in Unclassifiable subgroup minus ORR in ABC / GCB subgroup (i.e. combined ABC subgroup and GCB subgroup)|||77.6|-44.3|
90939771|NCT01747629|181759116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.163|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.24||Significance at the 0.05 level.|mixed-model repeated-measures (MMRM)|Fixed effects- pooled center, treatment group, study day, and study day by drug interaction, with baseline measured at each study day as covariate.||||1.24|0.59|<0.0001
90939772|NCT01747629|181759117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.249|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.55||To adjust for multiplicity, so that the overall alpha level for all tests was controlled at the 0.05 level, tests were done sequentially \[day 1, then day 8, then day 85\] and terminated if individual results were not significant at the 0.05 level.|mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|Fixed effects- pooled center, treatment group, study day, and study day by drug interaction, with baseline measured at each study day as covariate.||||1.55|0.56|<0.0001
90939773|NCT01747629|181759118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.212||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.19||To adjust for multiplicity, so that the overall alpha level for all tests was controlled at the 0.05 level, tests were done sequentially \[day 1, then day 8, then day 85\] and terminated if individual results were not significant at the 0.05 level.|mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|Fixed effects- pooled center, treatment group, study day, and study day by drug interaction, with baseline measured at each study day as covariate.||||1.19|0.35|0.0004
90939774|NCT01747629|181759119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.28||To adjust for multiplicity, so that the overall alpha level for all tests was controlled at the 0.05 level, tests were done sequentially \[day 1, then day 8, then day 85\] and terminated if individual results were not significant at the 0.05 level.|mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|Fixed effects- pooled center, treatment group, study day, and study day by drug interaction, with baseline measured at each study day as covariate.||||1.28|0.57|<0.0001
90939775|NCT00607789|181759130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.7|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The primary efficacy analysis was a longitudinal analysis comparing the rate of change of binge day frequency during the treatment period between groups. The same analysis was applied to binge episode frequency, weight, BMI, and scores on the CGI-Severity, YBOCS-BE, and IDS scales. The difference in rate of change was estimated by random regression methods||||<0.05
90939776|NCT00922441|181759150|OTHER|Efficacy, Safety|||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|comparison between the groups||||||<0.05
90939777|NCT03214250|181759174|SUPERIORITY|One-sided|probability|0.577||||0.006|ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.417|||one-sided p-value|z-test|One-sided, one-sample z-test of the Kaplan-Meier estimate of the 1-year OS rate (and its standard error) against the historical rate of 35%||Each treatment arm was analyzed independently and compared to a historical 1-year OS reference rate of 35%.|||0.417|0.006
90939778|NCT03214250|181759174|SUPERIORITY|One-sided|probability|0.481||||0.062|ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.337|||one-sided p-value|z-test|One-sided, one-sample z-test of the Kaplan-Meier estimate of the 1-year OS rate (and its standard error) against the historical rate of 35%||Each treatment arm was analyzed independently and compared to a historical 1-year OS reference rate of 35%.|||0.337|0.062
90939779|NCT03214250|181759174|SUPERIORITY|One-sided|probability|0.413||||0.233|ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.27|||one-sided p-value|z-test|One-sided, one-sample z-test of the Kaplan-Meier estimate of the 1-year OS rate (and its standard error) against the historical rate of 35%||Each treatment arm was analyzed independently and compared to a historical 1-year OS reference rate of 35%.|||0.270|0.233
90939780|NCT02487251|181759186|EQUIVALENCE|Phase 1 sought to determine effect sizes. For Phase 2, sample size was set at 125 per arm which, with 20% attrition, would enable detection of small to medium effect sizes of d = 0.40SD for continuous outcomes and 38% relative risk reduction for binary outcomes with a power of 80% and α = .05.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|||||p \< .05 reflects the threshold for statistical significance. The calculated p value for change in BMIz is p = .34.|Mixed Models Analysis||The reported estimation parameter is the effect size (cohen's d) for the change in BMIz (particularly in the Phase 2 sample)|We tested change in BMIz for each of the four study arms/groups.||||.34
90939781|NCT02487251|181759187|EQUIVALENCE|Sample size was set at 125 per arm which, with 20% attrition, would enable detection of small to medium effect sizes of d = 0.40SD for continuous outcomes and 38% relative risk reduction for binary outcomes with a power of 80% and α = .05. Phase 2 analyses included mixed modeling. Negative mean change values reflect a decrease in intake; positive values reflect an increase.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|||||p \< .05 reflects the threshold for statistical significance. The calculated p value for change in observed fruit intake is p = .62.|Mixed Models Analysis||The reported estimation parameter is a standardized mean difference between the groups, specifically cohen's d.|We tested change in observed fruit intake for each of the two study arms/groups in Phase 2 and compared change between the usual care and intervention groups.||||.62
90939782|NCT02487251|181759188|EQUIVALENCE|Sample size was set at 125 per arm which, with 20% attrition, would enable detection of small to medium effect sizes of d = 0.40SD for continuous outcomes and 38% relative risk reduction for binary outcomes with a power of 80% and α = .05.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|||||p \< .05 reflects the threshold for statistical significance. The calculated p value for change in observed vegetable intake is p = .009.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We tested pre to post change in observed vegetable intake for each of the two study arms/groups in Phase 2 and compared change between the usual care and intervention groups. Positive Observed dietary quality data was not collected in Phase 1.||||.009
90939783|NCT02487251|181759189|EQUIVALENCE|Phase 1 sought to determine effect sizes. For Phase 2, sample size was set at 125 per arm which, with 20% attrition, enabled detection of small-medium effect sizes, d = 0.40SD for continuous outcomes and 38% relative risk reduction for binary outcomes, power of 80%, α = .05. Phase 1 analyses included paired t-tests \& examination of pre-post effect size change. Phase 2 analyses included mixed modeling. Negative mean change values reflect a decrease in intake; positive values reflect an increase.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|||||p \< .05 reflects the threshold for statistical significance. The calculated p value for change in parent reported fruit is p = .21.|Mixed Models Analysis||The reported estimation parameter is a standardized mean difference between the groups, specifically cohen's d.|We tested pre to post change in parent reported child fruit intake for each of the four study arms/groups.||||.21
90939784|NCT02487251|181759190|EQUIVALENCE|Phase 1 sought to determine effect sizes. For Phase 2, sample size was set at 125 per arm which, with 20% attrition, enabled detection of small-medium effect sizes, d = 0.40SD for continuous outcomes and 38% relative risk reduction for binary outcomes, power of 80%, α = .05. Phase 1 analyses included paired t-tests \& examination of pre-post effect size change. Phase 2 analyses included mixed modeling. Negative mean change values reflect a decrease in intake; positive values reflect an increase.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|||||p \< .05 reflects the threshold for statistical significance. The calculated p value for change in parent reported vegetables is p = .55.|Mixed Models Analysis||The reported estimation parameter is a standardized mean difference between the groups, specifically cohen's d.|We tested change in vegetable intake for each of the four study arms/groups.||||.55
90939785|NCT02487251|181759191|EQUIVALENCE|Phase 1 sought to determine effect sizes. For Phase 2, sample size was set at 125 per arm which, with 20% attrition, would enable detection of small to medium effect sizes of d = 0.40SD for continuous outcomes and 38% relative risk reduction for binary outcomes with a power of 80% and α = .05.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|||||p \< .05 reflects the threshold for statistical significance. The calculated p value for change in mealtime frequency is p = .84.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We tested change in frequency of family mealtimes for each of the four study arms/groups.||||.84
90939786|NCT02845375|181759216|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.299|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.299
90939787|NCT00225277|181759217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.886||||0.002||95.0|-1.448|-0.325|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone - Glimepiride|2 Way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), treatment and center effects with baseline value as covariate. Least Squares (LS) mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||-0.3250|-1.4480|0.002
90939788|NCT00225277|181759218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.048||||0.064||95.0|-8.3336|0.2374|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone - Glimepiride|2 Way ANCOVA, treatment and center effects with baseline value as covariate. LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||0.2374|-8.3336|0.064
90939789|NCT00225277|181759219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.744||||||Kaplan-Meier methodology was used to estimate the time to event for each composite endpoint. The p-value was based on a log-rank test.|Log Rank|||||||0.744
90939790|NCT00225277|181759220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.883||95.0||||Kaplan-Meier methodology was used to estimate the time to event for each composite endpoint. The p-value was based on a log-rank test.|Log Rank|||||||0.883
90939791|NCT00225277|181759221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.663||95.0||||Kaplan-Meier methodology was used to estimate the time to event for each composite endpoint. The p-value was based on a log-rank test.|Log Rank|||||||0.663
90939792|NCT02109107|181759251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|t=21.33; df=53||||||<.0001
90939793|NCT02109107|181759252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|t=2.95; df=53||||||<0.05
90939794|NCT02109107|181759253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|t+3.34; df=53||||||<0.005
90939795|NCT02264353|181759269|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.576|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.576
90939796|NCT02264353|181759270|OTHER|||||||0.394|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.394
90939797|NCT02264353|181759271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.089|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.089
90939798|NCT02963922|181759356|SUPERIORITY|The treatment policy estimand evaluated the treatment effect (liraglutide 3.0 mg vs placebo) at week 56 for all randomised participants regardless of premature discontinuation of trial product.|Treatment difference|-4.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.48|-3.16|||ANCOVA||Liraglutide 3.0 mg - placebo|Analysis of in-trial data with missing observations imputed from the placebo arm based on a jump to reference multiple (x100) imputation approach. Week 56 responses were analysed using an analysis of covariance model with treatment, body mass index (BMI) groups and sex as factors and baseline body weight as covariate.||-3.16|-5.48|< .0001
90970716|NCT00531752|181823707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.6424|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9753||0.1882|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.07015|5.2147|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 10: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||5.2147|0.07015|0.1882
90970717|NCT00531752|181823707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.2105|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0376||0.5555|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.44|3.8615|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 10: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||3.8615|-1.440|0.5555
90970718|NCT00531752|181823707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.1804|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1934||0.1533|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.33169|6.0292|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 11: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||6.0292|0.33169|0.1533
90970719|NCT00531752|181823707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.0511|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2662||0.3697|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.8912|4.9934|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 11: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||4.9934|-0.8912|0.3697
90970720|NCT00531752|181823707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.764|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3939||0.4652|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.352|4.8801|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 12: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||4.8801|-1.352|0.4652
90970721|NCT00531752|181823707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4377|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5148||0.8626|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.83|3.7058|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 12: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||3.7058|-2.830|0.8626
91035770|NCT04517604|181958035|SUPERIORITY|This was a pilot study funded under a pilot funding mechanism which specifically did not require a power analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.42||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.63|-0.77||no test for multiple comparisons as this was a pilot study|Mixed Models Analysis|||This was an open-label, single group study using a within subject design. We compared pre-treatment values to post-treatment values.||-.77|-2.63|.0026
90970722|NCT00531752|181823707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.7114|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6168||0.0261|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.6105|5.8122|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 13: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||5.8122|1.6105|0.0261
90970723|NCT00531752|181823707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.2644|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7026||0.1895|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.0533|4.4756|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 13: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||4.4756|0.05330|0.1895
91035771|NCT00526188|181958036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.46||||||95.0|6.0|12.93|||Test performed based on the 95% CI||Comparison was post-contrast MRI minus pre-contrast MRI|Difference in sensitivity of lesion detection between post- and pre-contrast MRI image set was calculated. Null hypothesis: No difference between post- and pre-contrast MRI image set. Test was performed based on a normal-approximated confidence interval (CI) for the average blinded reader difference. This CI had a confidence level of 95% and was two-sided. The study was planned with a power of 80%.||12.93|6.00|
90970724|NCT00531752|181823707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.1151|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0732||0.4994|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.961|6.1913|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||6.1913|-1.961|0.4994
90970725|NCT00531752|181823707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.5616|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3113||0.2945|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.8226|7.9458|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||7.9458|-0.8226|0.2945
90970726|NCT00531752|181823707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.7306|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9257||0.8056|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.622|3.1613|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 21: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||3.1613|-4.622|0.8056
91035772|NCT00526188|181958037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.81||||||95.0|1.84|7.78|||Test performed based on the 95% CI||Comparison was post-contrast MRI minus pre-contrast MRI (for investigator's result)|Difference in sensitivity of lesion detection between post- and pre-contrast MRI image sets, based on investigators assessments was calculated. Null hypothesis: No difference between post and pre contrast MRI image set. Test was performed based on a normal-approximated confidence interval (CI) for the investigators difference. This CI had a confidence level of 95% and was two-sided.||7.78|1.84|
90970727|NCT00531752|181823707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.3672|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8657||0.3922|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.725|8.4592|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 21: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||8.4592|-1.725|0.3922
90970728|NCT00531752|181823708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.5069|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8744||0.0913|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.643|-0.3705|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||-0.3705|-2.643|0.0913
90970729|NCT00531752|181823708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2078|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9165||0.8216|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.399|0.98326|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 3: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.98326|-1.399|0.8216
90970730|NCT00531752|181823709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4181|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6887||0.5466|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.313|0.47668|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.47668|-1.313|0.5466
90970731|NCT00531752|181823709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.02518|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6772||0.9705|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.9035|0.85312|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.85312|-0.9035|0.9705
91035937|NCT03261167|181958553|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.04|||||Week 6, Elbow flexion. Analysis method was MMRM with Treatment, Visit, Treatment by visit interation, Baseline, and Baseline by visit interaction as fixed effects.|||-0.04|-0.71|
90939799|NCT02963922|181759356|SUPERIORITY|The hypothetical estimand evaluated the treatment effect (liraglutide 3.0 mg vs placebo) for all randomised participants assuming that all participants remained on trial product (on-treatment principle).|Treatment difference|-5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|-3.91|||MMRM||Liraglutide 3.0 mg - placebo|Analysis of on-drug before first drug discontinuation date using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment, BMI groups and sex as factors and baseline body weight as covariate, all nested within visit.||-3.91|-6.30|< .0001
90939800|NCT02963922|181759357|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.19|5.31|||Regression, Logistic||Liraglutide 3.0 mg/Placebo|Analysis of in-trial data with missing observations imputed from the placebo arm based on a jump to reference multiple (x100) imputation approach. Week 56 responses were analysed using a logistic regression model with treatment, BMI groups and sex as factors and baseline body weight as covariate.||5.31|2.19|<.0001
90939801|NCT02963922|181759357|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.04|7.36|||Mixed model for repeated measurements||Liraglutide 3.0 mg/Placebo|Analysis of on-drug before first drug discontinuation date using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment, BMI groups and sex as factors and baseline body weight as covariate, all nested within visit. The MMRM was used to classify responders and analysed with a logistic regression with treatment as the only factor.||7.36|3.04|<.0001
90939802|NCT02181400|181759411|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.04
90939803|NCT02181400|181759412|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.04
90939804|NCT02181400|181759413|OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.12
90939805|NCT02181400|181759414|OTHER|||||||0.32|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.32
90970732|NCT00531752|181823710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.09953|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3001||0.7415|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.4892|0.29012|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (CQoL): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.29012|-0.4892|0.7415
90970733|NCT00531752|181823710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.04804|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3227||0.8822|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.3703|0.4664|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (CQoL): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.46640|-0.3703|0.8822
90970734|NCT00531752|181823710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.125|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1302||0.3414|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.0439|0.29385|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (GLI): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.29385|-0.0439|0.3414
90970735|NCT00531752|181823710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1044|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1418||0.4642|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.0793|0.28814|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (GLI): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.28814|-0.0793|0.4642
90970736|NCT00531752|181823710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.06109|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09093||0.5049|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.0571|0.17926|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (RTI): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.17926|-0.0571|0.5049
90970737|NCT00531752|181823710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.07917|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1002||0.4332|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.051|0.2093|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (RTI): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.20930|-0.0510|0.4332
90970738|NCT00531752|181823710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2453|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1753||0.1678|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.473|-0.0177|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (More GD than BD): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||-0.0177|-0.4730|0.1678
90939806|NCT02181400|181759415|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.02
91035938|NCT03261167|181958553|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.02|||||Week 12, Elbow flexion. Analysis method was MMRM with Treatment, Visit, Treatment by visit interation, Baseline, and Baseline by visit interaction as fixed effects.|||-0.02|-0.51|
90939807|NCT02181400|181759416|OTHER|||||||0.49|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.49
90939808|NCT01180790|181759434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.003||||||To control for multiplicity, the proportion in each treatment group achieving RVR4 is analyzed using a Cochran-Armitage test for trend among the ordered groups: placebo (considered zero dose), 200 mg, 400 mg, and 800 mg ACH-0141625.|exact Cochran-Armitage test|Only if overall test for trend is significant are pairwise comparisons evaluated using p-values for the difference in proportions (placebo - active).||The null hypothesis is no difference between proportions of participants in each treatment group achieving RVR4 at Week 4 of the study, while the alternative hypothesis is that the proportion of participants achieving RVR4 at Week 4 increases with increasing doses of ACH-0141625.||||0.003
90939809|NCT01180790|181759434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004|||||||Fisher Exact|||To control for multiplicity, the proportion in each treatment group achieving RVR4 is analyzed using a Cochran-Armitage test for trend among the ordered groups: placebo (considered zero dose), 200 mg ACH-0141625, 400 mg ACH-0141625, and 800 mg ACH-0141625. Only if overall test for trend is significant are pairwise comparisons evaluated using p-values for the difference in proportions (placebo - active).||||0.004
90939810|NCT01180790|181759434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004|||||||Fisher Exact|||To control for multiplicity, the proportion in each treatment group achieving RVR4 is analyzed using a Cochran-Armitage test for trend among the ordered groups: placebo (considered zero dose), 200 mg ACH-0141625, 400 mg ACH-0141625, and 800 mg ACH-0141625. Only if overall test for trend is significant are pairwise comparisons evaluated using p-values for the difference in proportions (placebo - active).||||0.004
90939811|NCT01180790|181759434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004|||||||Fisher Exact|||To control for multiplicity, the proportion in each treatment group achieving RVR4 is analyzed using a Cochran-Armitage test for trend among the ordered groups: placebo (considered zero dose), 200 mg ACH-0141625, 400 mg ACH-0141625, and 800 mg ACH-0141625. Only if overall test for trend is significant are pairwise comparisons evaluated using p-values for the difference in proportions (placebo - active).||||0.004
90939812|NCT01180790|181759436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.34||||||To control for multiplicity, the proportion of participants in each treatment group achieving cEVR is analyzed using a Cochran-Armitage test for trend among the ordered treatment groups: 200 mg ACH-0141625, 400 mg ACH-0141625, and 800 mg ACH-0141625.|Exact Cochran-Armitage test|Only if overall test for trend is significant are pairwise comparisons evaluated using p-values for the difference in proportions (placebo - active).||The null hypothesis is no difference between proportions of participants in each treatment group achieving cEVR at Week 12 of the study, while the alternative hypothesis is that the proportion of participants achieving cEVR at Week 12 increases with increasing doses of ACH-0141625.||||0.34
90939813|NCT04167085|181759451|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16||||||Threshold p\<0.0167 - Because 3 primary outcomes were prespecified, the familywise error rate was adjusted for 3 endpoints: 0.05/3|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.16
90939814|NCT04167085|181759452|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||Threshold p\<0.0167 - Because 3 primary outcomes were prespecified, the familywise error rate was adjusted for 3 endpoints: 0.05/3|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
90939815|NCT04167085|181759453|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19||||||Threshold p\<0.0167 - Because 3 primary outcomes were prespecified, the familywise error rate was adjusted for 3 endpoints: 0.05/3|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.19
90939816|NCT04167085|181759454|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24||||||Threshold p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||SF-12 Physical||||0.24
90939817|NCT04167085|181759454|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35||||||Threshold p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||SF-12 Mental||||0.35
90939818|NCT04167085|181759455|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5||||||Threshold p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.50
90939819|NCT04167085|181759456|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3||||||Threshold p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.30
90939820|NCT04167085|181759457|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Threshold p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.00
90939821|NCT00257556|181759462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.045||||||95.0|-0.17|0.26|||||A two-sided 95% continuity-corrected confidence interval for the difference in percentages, based on the normal approximation|||0.260|-0.170|
90939822|NCT03873038|181759482|OTHER|Geometric mean ratio (GMR) was derived using the geometric mean (GM) for participants with ESRD and the GM from historical data obtained from a study of MK-2060 in healthy participants (PN001).|GMR|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.54|1.18|||||GMR=GM ESRD/GM Healthy|||1.18|0.54|
90939823|NCT03873038|181759482|OTHER|GMR was derived using GM for participants with ESRD and the GM from historical data obtained from a study of MK-2060 in healthy participants (PN001).|GMR|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.37|0.76|||||GMR=GM ESRD/GM Healthy|||0.76|0.37|
90939824|NCT03873038|181759482|OTHER||GMR|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.55|1.21|||||GMR=GM ESRD/GM Healthy|GMR was derived using GM for participants with ESRD and the GM from historical data obtained from a study of MK-2060 in healthy participants (PN001).||1.21|0.55|
90939825|NCT03873038|181759483|OTHER||GMR|1.41|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.07|1.85|||||GMR=GM ESRD/GM Healthy|GMR was derived using GM for participants with ESRD and the GM from historical data obtained from a study of MK-2060 in healthy participants (PN001).||1.85|1.07|
90939826|NCT03873038|181759483|OTHER||GMR|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.67|1.11|||||GMR=GM ESRD/GM Healthy|GMR was derived using GM for participants with ESRD and the GM from historical data obtained from a study of MK-2060 in healthy participants (PN001)||1.11|0.67|
90939827|NCT03873038|181759483|OTHER||GMR|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.62|1.08|||||GMR=GM ESRD/GM Healthy|GMR was derived using GM for participants with ESRD and the GM from historical data obtained from a study of MK-2060 in healthy participants (PN001).||1.08|0.62|
90970739|NCT00531752|181823710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.07717|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1925||0.6901|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.1726|0.32695|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (More GD than BD): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.32695|-0.1726|0.6901
90970740|NCT00531752|181823710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1702|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.354||0.9005|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.587|1.9274|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (Living with ADHD): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||1.9274|-1.587|0.9005
90970741|NCT00531752|181823710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.4317|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4667||0.333|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.333|0.46937|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (Living with ADHD): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.46937|-3.333|0.3330
90970742|NCT00531752|181823710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.6537|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0857||0.7551|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.051|3.3584|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (General well-being): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||3.3584|-2.051|0.7551
90970743|NCT00531752|181823710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.8639|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2354||0.0334|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-7.759|-1.968|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (General well-being): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||-1.968|-7.759|0.0334
90970744|NCT00531752|181823710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.6389|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6119||0.6519|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.05|6.3281|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (PDF): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||6.3281|-3.050|0.6519
90970745|NCT00531752|181823710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.2007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9647||0.7631|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.941|6.3423|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (PDF): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||6.3423|-3.941|0.7631
91035773|NCT00526188|181958038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.36||||||95.0|7.45|15.28|||Test performed based on the 95% CI||Comparison was combined pre- and post-contrast MRI minus pre-contrast MRI|Difference in precision of lesion characterization between combined pre and post contrast MRI and pre contrast MRI image set was calculated. Null hypothesis: No difference between combined pre- and post-contrast MRI and pre contrast MRI image set. Test was performed based on a normal-approximated confidence interval (CI) for the average blinded reader difference. This CI had a confidence level of 95% and was two-sided.||15.28|7.45|
91035774|NCT00373256|181958040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.6299||||0.9986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1793|2.2527||p-value from 1-sided log-rank stratified for prior adjuvant chemotherapy, hormone receptor status, disease-free interval from prior adjuvant treatment. Stratification factors from Interactive Voice Randomization System.|Log Rank||Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio greater than 1 indicated a reduction in hazard rate in favor Bevacizumab + Paclitaxel.|||2.2527|1.1793|0.9986
90939828|NCT03873038|181759484|OTHER||GMR|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|1.46|||||GMR=GM ESRD/GM Healthy|GMR was derived using GM for participants with ESRD and the GM from historical data obtained from a study of MK-2060 in healthy participants (PN001).||1.46|0.84|
90939829|NCT03873038|181759484|OTHER||GMR|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.52|0.87|||||GMR=GM ESRD/GM Healthy|GMR was derived using GM for participants with ESRD and the GM from historical data obtained from a study of MK-2060 in healthy participants (PN001).||0.87|0.52|
90939830|NCT03873038|181759484|OTHER||GMR|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6|1.03|||||GMR=GM ESRD/GM Healthy|GMR was derived using GM for participants with ESRD and the GM from historical data obtained from a study of MK-2060 in healthy participants (PN001).||1.03|0.60|
90970746|NCT00531752|181823710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.9211|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8206||0.3034|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.7227|6.5648|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (R/C): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||6.5648|-0.7227|0.3034
90970747|NCT00531752|181823710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.0968|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0022||0.0933|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-8.975|-1.218|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (R/C): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||-1.218|-8.975|0.0933
90970748|NCT00531752|181823710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.0675|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9778||0.0949|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-8.934|-1.201|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (IS-B/C): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||-1.201|-8.934|0.0949
90970749|NCT00531752|181823710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.3274|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2552||0.0283|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-11.55|-3.106|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (IS-B/C): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||-3.106|-11.55|0.0283
90970750|NCT00531752|181823710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.1505|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5974||0.1852|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.229|-0.0719|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (IS-I): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||-0.0719|-4.229|0.1852
90970751|NCT00531752|181823710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.5178|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7732||0.1623|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.823|-0.2127|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (IS-I): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||-0.2127|-4.823|0.1623
91035775|NCT00373256|181958041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Objective Response Rate (ORR) (percent)|32.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.4|38.5||||||||38.5|26.4|
90939831|NCT03873038|181759485|OTHER||GMR|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.05|2.14|||||GMR=GM ESRD/GM Healthy|GMR was derived using GM for participants with ESRD and the GM from historical data obtained from a study of MK-2060 in healthy participants (PN001).||2.14|1.05|
90939832|NCT03873038|181759485|OTHER||GMR|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.67|1.25|||||GMR=GM ESRD/GM Healthy|GMR was derived using GM for participants with ESRD and the GM from historical data obtained from a study of MK-2060 in healthy participants (PN001).||1.25|0.67|
90939833|NCT03873038|181759485|OTHER||GMR|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.62|1.2|||||GMR=GM ESRD/GM Healthy|GMR was derived using GM for participants with ESRD and the GM from historical data obtained from a study of MK-2060 in healthy participants (PN001).||1.20|0.62|
90939834|NCT00595764|181759496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||With an effect size of 0.46, a sample size of 140 will provide a power of \>.84 with p\<.05 to detect overall differences between the two treatments on the primary outcome measures.||||.91
90939835|NCT00595764|181759498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.29
90939836|NCT00595764|181759499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Analysis to evaluate interaction of group by time.||||||.58
90939837|NCT00595764|181759500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.63||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Analysis to evaluate interaction of group by time.||||||.24
90939838|NCT01350388|181759507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.84
90939839|NCT01350388|181759508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.73
90939840|NCT01350388|181759509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.23
90939841|NCT01350388|181759510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.88
90939842|NCT01350388|181759511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.13
90939843|NCT01350388|181759512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.35
90939844|NCT02820298|181759513|EQUIVALENCE|The acceptance range for bioequivalence is 80.0 - 125.00%.|Ratio of Geometric LSM|131.41|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|117.03|147.56|||||Ratio of Geometric LSM is the ratio of exponentiated mean difference of log-transformed PK parameter. Confidence interval from ANOVA (linear mixed-effects model) with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect.|||147.56|117.03|
90939845|NCT02820298|181759515|EQUIVALENCE|The acceptance range for bioequivalence is 80.0 - 125.00%.|Ratio of Geometric LSM|110.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.91|117.06|||||Ratio of Geometric LSM is the ratio of exponentiated mean difference of log-transformed PK parameter. Confidence interval from ANOVA (linear mixed-effects model) with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect.|||117.06|103.91|
90939846|NCT02820298|181759516|EQUIVALENCE|The acceptance range for bioequivalence is 80.0 - 125.00%.|Ratio of Geometric LSM|108.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.48|114.54|||||Ratio of Geometric LSM is the ratio of exponentiated mean difference of log-transformed PK parameter. Confidence interval from ANOVA (linear mixed-effects model) with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect.|||114.54|102.48|
90939847|NCT01780584|181759522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|3.0||Repeated Anova was used to determine whether there was difference of FT3 levels between groups|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: no difference of free T3 (FT3) levels will be found between placebo, low dose and high dose group. We anticipated a difference of 2 pg/ml in FT3 with a standard deviation of 0.8 pg/ml between groups. For a statistical power of 80% to identify a treatment effect and at a level significance of 0.05 (2-sided).||3|1|<0.05
90939848|NCT01780584|181759524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|5.0||||0.31||95.0|3.0|10.0||Kruskal Wallis test was used to determine any difference of time of extubation between groups.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Null hypothesis: no difference of time to extubation between group. Statistical power 80% and level of significance 0.05||10|3|0.31
90939849|NCT01780584|181759525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|50.0||||0.4||95.0|40.0|60.0|||Kruskal-Wallis|||Null hypothesis: there is no difference of length of stay in Intensive Care Unit. Statistical power 80% and level of significance 0.05.||60|40|0.4
90939850|NCT01780584|181759526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|10.0||||0.06||95.0|5.0|15.0|||Kruskal-Wallis|||Null hypothesis: there is no difference of postoperative hospital length of stay between groups. Statistical power 80% and level of significance 0.05.||15|5|0.06
90939851|NCT02825849|181759528|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.824|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.824
91035776|NCT00373256|181958041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Objective Response Rate (ORR) (percent)|32.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.3|38.4||||||||38.4|26.3|
91035777|NCT00373256|181958044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|76.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.7|83.0||||||1 year||83.0|68.7|
91035778|NCT00373256|181958044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|35.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.9|50.3||||||2 years||50.3|20.9|
91035779|NCT00373256|181958044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|83.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|76.0|89.1||||||1 year||89.1|76.0|
91035780|NCT00373256|181958044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|61.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.2|74.7||||||2 years||74.7|43.2|
91035781|NCT02925884|181958083|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis: No difference between the Gunnar OTC Condition and the Control Condition on the factor score of Decreased Cognitive Functions.||||0.011
91035782|NCT02925884|181958083|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis: No difference between the Gunnar OTC Condition and the Control Condition on the factor score of Eyestrain.||||<0.001
90939852|NCT00546884|181759529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.16|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
90939853|NCT00141271|181759530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6409||||||Hochberg's adjustment was used for multiple comparisons adjustment|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 1||||0.6409
90939854|NCT00141271|181759530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.014||||||Hochberg's adjustment used for multiple comparisons adjustment|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 1||||0.0140
90939855|NCT00141271|181759530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.484||||||Hochberg's adjustment used for multiple comparisons adjustment|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 2||||0.4840
90939856|NCT00141271|181759530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4444||||||Hochberg's adjustment used for multiple comparisons adjustment|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 2||||0.4444
90939857|NCT00141271|181759530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8129||||||Hochberg's adjustment used for multiple comparisons adjustment|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 3||||0.8129
90939858|NCT00141271|181759530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1105||||||Hochberg's adjustment used for multiple comparisons adjustment|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 3||||0.1105
90939859|NCT00141271|181759530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9582||||||Hochberg's adjustment used for multiple comparisons adjustment|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 4||||0.9582
90939860|NCT00141271|181759530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1893||||||Hochberg's adjustment used for multiple comparisons adjustment|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 4||||0.1893
90939861|NCT00141271|181759530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2924||||||Hochberg's adjustment used for multiple comparisons adjustment|Mixed Models Analysis|Hochberg's adjustment used for multiple comparisons adjustment||Week 5||||0.2924
90939862|NCT00141271|181759530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1897||||||Hochberg's adjustment used for multiple comparisons adjustment|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 5||||0.1897
90939863|NCT00141271|181759530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6608||||||Hochberg's adjustment used for multiple comparisons adjustment|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||"Week 6 An estimated sample size of 180 was needed per treatment arm in order to achieve 85% power to detect a treatment difference of 3.5 in the mean change from baseline to Week 6 in MADRS total score with a two-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level. The common standard deviation was estimated as 11.0.~The null hypotheses for the primary parameter is equality of mean change from baseline to Week 6 in MADRS total score between ziprasidone and placebo groups."||||0.6608
90939864|NCT00141271|181759530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2148||||||Hochberg's adjustment used for multiple comparisons adjustment|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||"Week 6 An estimated sample size of 180 was needed per treatment arm in order to achieve 85% power to detect a treatment difference of 3.5 in the mean change from baseline to Week 6 in MADRS total score with a two-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level. The common standard deviation was estimated as 11.0.~The null hypotheses for the primary parameter is equality of mean change from baseline to Week 6 in MADRS total score between ziprasidone and placebo groups."||||0.2148
90939865|NCT00141271|181759530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.529||||||Hochberg's adjustment used for multiple comparisons adjustment|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Overall||||0.5290
91035783|NCT02925884|181958083|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis: No difference between the Gunnar OTC Condition and the Control Condition on the factor score of Physical Discomfort.||||0.009
91035784|NCT02925884|181958083|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis: No difference between the Gunnar OTC Condition and the Control Condition on the factor score of Deceased Visual Function.||||<0.001
91035785|NCT02925884|181958083|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis: No difference between the Gunnar OTC Condition and the Control Condition on the factor score of Poor Balance.||||0.28
91035786|NCT02925884|181958084|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.903|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.903
91035787|NCT02925884|181958085|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis: No difference between the Gunna OTC Glasses condition and the Control condition on Red Color Perception.||||0.009
91035788|NCT02925884|181958085|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.446|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis: No difference between the Gunna OTC Glasses condition and the Control condition on Green Color Perception.||||0.446
91035789|NCT02925884|181958085|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.953|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis: No difference between the Gunna OTC Glasses condition and the Control condition on Blue Color Perception.||||0.953
91035790|NCT02925884|181958086|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.266|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.266
90970752|NCT00531752|181823711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-11.5791|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.0449||0.5241|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-35.02|11.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (Life productivity): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||11.860|-35.02|0.5241
90970753|NCT00531752|181823711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-20.3367|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.6995||0.3065|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-45.89|5.2183|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (Life productivity): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||5.2183|-45.89|0.3065
90970754|NCT00531752|181823711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-11.7878|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.4438||0.3831|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-29.15|5.5793|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (Psychological health): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||5.5793|-29.15|0.3831
90970755|NCT00531752|181823711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-13.1401|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.4478||0.3657|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-31.8|5.5241|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (Psychological health): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||5.5241|-31.80|0.3657
90970756|NCT00531752|181823711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.666|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.5818||0.8188|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-12.36|17.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (Life outlook): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||17.690|-12.36|0.8188
90970757|NCT00531752|181823711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|24.1011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.405||0.0566|TWO_SIDED|80.0|8.0305|40.172|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (Life outlook): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||40.172|8.0305|0.0566
90970758|NCT00531752|181823711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.7559|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.7164||0.9312|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-10.55|12.057|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (Relationships): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||12.057|-10.55|0.9312
90970759|NCT00531752|181823711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.1138|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.4361||0.5194|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.108|18.336|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (Relationships): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||18.336|-6.108|0.5194
90970760|NCT00531752|181823712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3255|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.332||0.332|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.7573|0.10622|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (Work/school): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.10622|-0.7573|0.3320
91035791|NCT02925884|181958087|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.424|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.424
91035792|NCT02925884|181958088|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.343|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.343
90970761|NCT00531752|181823712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4255|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3871||0.2767|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.0769|0.92804|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (Work/school): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.92804|-0.0769|0.2767
90970762|NCT00531752|181823712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3661|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4028||0.3675|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.8887|0.1566|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (Social life): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.15660|-0.8887|0.3675
90970763|NCT00531752|181823712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1033|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4372||0.8141|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.67|0.46345|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (Social life): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.46345|-0.6700|0.8141
90970764|NCT00531752|181823712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1854|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3702||0.6186|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.6657|0.29495|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (Family life/home): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.29495|-0.6657|0.6186
90970765|NCT00531752|181823712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3623|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4028||0.372|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.1597|0.88432|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (Family life/home): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.88432|-0.1597|0.3720
90970766|NCT00531752|181823713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|25.0781|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0238|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|18.565|31.591|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1 (Sleep disturbance): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||31.591|18.565|<0.0001
90970767|NCT00531752|181823713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|15.6481|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.3551||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|80.0|8.711|22.585|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1 (Sleep disturbance): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||22.585|8.7110|0.0049
90970768|NCT00531752|181823713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.627|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5248||0.3078|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-8.196|0.94237|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1 (Snoring): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.94237|-8.196|0.3078
91035793|NCT02925884|181958089|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.489|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.489
91035794|NCT02925884|181958090|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.885|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.885
91035795|NCT02925884|181958091|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.001
91035796|NCT02925884|181958092|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.359|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.359
91035797|NCT04516434|181958093|OTHER|Descriptive analysis||||||1|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to after the pressure-flow study||||1
91035798|NCT04516434|181958093|OTHER|Descriptive analysis||||||0.99|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to after the pressure-flow study||||0.99
91035799|NCT04516434|181958094|OTHER|Descriptive analysis||||||0.08|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to after the pressure-flow study||||0.08
90970769|NCT00531752|181823713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.1594|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8022||0.0644|TWO_SIDED|80.0|2.2344|12.084|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1 (Snoring): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||12.084|2.2344|0.0644
90970770|NCT00531752|181823713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.5601|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1318||0.1517|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.49198|8.6281|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1 (ASoB): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||8.6281|0.49198|0.1517
90970771|NCT00531752|181823713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.7384|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3281||0.8252|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.056|3.5789|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1 (ASoB): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||3.5789|-5.056|0.8252
90970772|NCT00531752|181823713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.6228|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2203||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.9082|-0.3375|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1 (Sleep quantity): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||-0.3375|-0.9082|0.0063
90970773|NCT00531752|181823713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2301|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2303||0.3217|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.5283|0.06822|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1 (Sleep quantity): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.06822|-0.5283|0.3217
90970774|NCT00531752|181823713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1291|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1065||0.2307|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.0091|0.26716|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1 (Optimal sleep): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.26716|-0.0091|0.2307
90970775|NCT00531752|181823713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.08114|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1087||0.4585|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.0598|0.22209|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1 (Optimal sleep): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.22209|-0.0598|0.4585
90970776|NCT00531752|181823713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.6629|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8642||0.3477|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-8.681|1.3549|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1 (Sleep adequacy): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||1.3549|-8.681|0.3477
90970777|NCT00531752|181823713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.8688|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0842||0.1565|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-11.17|-0.5693|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1 (Sleep adequacy): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||-0.5693|-11.17|0.1565
90970778|NCT00531752|181823713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.4319|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9541||0.1088|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-11.55|-1.311|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1 (Somnolence): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||-1.311|-11.55|0.1088
90970779|NCT00531752|181823713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.7208|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1517||0.8627|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.654|6.0952|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1 (Somnolence): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||6.0952|-4.654|0.8627
90970780|NCT00531752|181823713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|56.631|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.8056||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|80.0|33.532|79.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1 (SPI I): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||79.730|33.532|0.0024
90970781|NCT00531752|181823713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|49.1543|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.7622||0.0112|TWO_SIDED|80.0|24.831|73.478|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1 (SPI I): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||73.478|24.831|0.0112
90970782|NCT00531752|181823713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|10.9197|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0912||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|80.0|6.9105|14.929|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1 (SPI II): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||14.929|6.9105|0.0008
90970783|NCT00531752|181823713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|8.4691|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3037||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|80.0|4.1876|12.751|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1 (SPI II): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||12.751|4.1876|0.0129
90939866|NCT00141271|181759530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0811||||||Hochberg's adjustment used for multiple comparisons adjustment|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Overall||||0.0811
91035800|NCT04516434|181958094|OTHER|Descriptive analysis||||||0.045|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to after the pressure-flow study||||0.045
91035801|NCT04516434|181958096|OTHER|Descriptive analysis||||||1|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||First sensation of bladder filling - change in cystometry before stimulation and after stimulation (up to 60 minutes).||||1
91035802|NCT04516434|181958096|OTHER|Descriptive analysis||||||0.41|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||First sensation of bladder filling - change in cystometry before stimulation and after stimulation (up to 60 minutes).||||0.41
91035803|NCT04516434|181958096|OTHER|Descriptive analysis||||||1|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Maximum cystometric capacity - change in cystometry before stimulation and after stimulation (up to 60 minutes).||||1
90939867|NCT00141271|181759531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2287||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 1||||0.2287
90939868|NCT00141271|181759531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4734||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week1||||0.4734
90939869|NCT00141271|181759531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7401||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 2||||0.7401
90939870|NCT00141271|181759531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7904||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 2||||0.7904
90939871|NCT00141271|181759531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5274||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 3||||0.5274
90939872|NCT00141271|181759531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1059||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 3||||0.1059
90939873|NCT00141271|181759531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8871||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 4||||0.8871
90939874|NCT00141271|181759531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6939|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 4||||0.6939
90939875|NCT00141271|181759531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1044||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 5||||0.1044
90939876|NCT00141271|181759531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3132||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 5||||0.3132
90939877|NCT00141271|181759531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6978||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 6||||0.6978
90939878|NCT00141271|181759531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3228||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 6||||0.3228
91035804|NCT04516434|181958096|OTHER|Descriptive analysis||||||0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Maximum cystometric capacity - change in cystometry before stimulation and after stimulation (up to 60 minutes).||||0.01
91035805|NCT04516434|181958097|OTHER|Descriptive analysis||||||1|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to after the pressure-flow study||||1
91035806|NCT04516434|181958097|OTHER|Descriptive analysis||||||1|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to after the pressure-flow study||||1
90970784|NCT00531752|181823713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|14.1078|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3667||0.002|TWO_SIDED|80.0|8.4492|19.766|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2 (Sleep disturbance): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||19.766|8.4492|0.0020
90970785|NCT00531752|181823713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|14.3485|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5692||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|80.0|8.4275|20.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2 (Sleep disturbance): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||20.270|8.4275|0.0026
90970786|NCT00531752|181823713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2989|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4103||0.9305|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.729|4.1309|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2 (Snoring): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||4.1309|-4.729|0.9305
90970787|NCT00531752|181823713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.7062|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5839||0.1178|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-10.36|-1.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2 (Snoring): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||-1.050|-10.36|0.1178
90970788|NCT00531752|181823713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.4586|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5231||0.3339|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.8124|5.7295|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2 (ASoB): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||5.7295|-0.8124|0.3339
90970789|NCT00531752|181823713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.859|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.63||0.0698|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.4493|8.2686|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2 (ASoB): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||8.2686|1.4493|0.0698
90970790|NCT00531752|181823713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3364|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1859||0.0762|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.5777|-0.095|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2 (Sleep quantity): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||-0.0950|-0.5777|0.0762
91035807|NCT04516434|181958098|OTHER|Descriptive analysis||||||1|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to after the pressure-flow study||||1
90970791|NCT00531752|181823713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1591|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1913||0.4096|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.4075|0.08935|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2 (Sleep quantity): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.08935|-0.4075|0.4096
90970792|NCT00531752|181823713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2115|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1033||0.0455|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.07751|0.3455|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2 (Optimal sleep): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.34550|0.07751|0.0455
90970793|NCT00531752|181823713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.08114|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1087||0.4585|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.0598|0.22209|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2 (Optimal sleep): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.22209|-0.0598|0.4585
90970794|NCT00531752|181823713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.5433|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.6662||0.9078|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.513|6.5995|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2 (Sleep adequacy): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||6.5995|-5.513|0.9078
90970795|NCT00531752|181823713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.1848|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.7892||0.6502|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-8.403|4.0338|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2 (Sleep adequacy): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||4.0338|-8.403|0.6502
90970796|NCT00531752|181823713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.9029|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7234||0.809|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.716|3.9101|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2 (Somnolence): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||3.9101|-5.716|0.8090
91035808|NCT04516434|181958098|OTHER|Descriptive analysis||||||0.99|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to after the pressure-flow study||||0.99
91035809|NCT00834522|181958112|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|103.79||||||90.0|99.4|108.37|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||108.37|99.40|
90970797|NCT00531752|181823713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.4351|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8429||0.5282|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.532|7.4025|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2 (Somnolence): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||7.4025|-2.532|0.5282
90970798|NCT00531752|181823713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|25.3231|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.8604||0.1848|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.86393|49.782|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2 (SPI I): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||49.782|0.86393|0.1848
90970799|NCT00531752|181823713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|50.4054|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.481||0.0124|TWO_SIDED|80.0|25.134|75.677|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2 (SPI I): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||75.677|25.134|0.0124
90970800|NCT00531752|181823713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.8658|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0205||0.0267|TWO_SIDED|80.0|2.9504|10.781|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2 (SPI II): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||10.781|2.9504|0.0267
90970801|NCT00531752|181823713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|8.0855|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1677||0.0134|TWO_SIDED|80.0|3.9787|12.192|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2 (SPI II): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||12.192|3.9787|0.0134
90970802|NCT00531752|181823713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|9.5242|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7993||0.0152|TWO_SIDED|80.0|4.5949|14.453|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (Sleep disturbance): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||14.453|4.5949|0.0152
90970803|NCT00531752|181823713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|19.9806|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1501|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|14.602|25.359|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (Sleep disturbance): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||25.359|14.602|<.0001
90970804|NCT00531752|181823713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.7667|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9402||0.3516|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.59|1.0562|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (Snoring): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||1.0562|-6.590|0.3516
90970805|NCT00531752|181823713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.0838|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2323||0.3448|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.116|7.2838|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (Snoring): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||7.2838|-1.116|0.3448
90970806|NCT00531752|181823713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.5882|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3902||0.5583|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-8.294|3.1175|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (ASoB): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||3.1175|-8.294|0.5583
90970807|NCT00531752|181823713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.6547|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.7652||0.1141|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.4717|13.838|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (ASoB): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||13.838|1.4717|0.1141
90970808|NCT00531752|181823713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5882|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1903||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.8356|-0.3408|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (Sleep quantity): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||-0.3408|-0.8356|0.0034
90970809|NCT00531752|181823713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1722|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2064||0.4083|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.4403|0.09599|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (Sleep quantity): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.09599|-0.4403|0.4083
90970810|NCT00531752|181823713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2744|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1055||0.012|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.13746|0.41127|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (Optimal sleep): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.41127|0.13746|0.0120
90970811|NCT00531752|181823713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1136||0.375|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.0457|0.24881|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (Optimal sleep): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.24881|-0.0457|0.3750
90970812|NCT00531752|181823713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4367|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9301||0.9119|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.665|5.5387|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (Sleep adequacy): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||5.5387|-4.665|0.9119
90970813|NCT00531752|181823713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.3429|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1977||0.1367|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-11.79|-0.896|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (Sleep adequacy): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||-0.8960|-11.79|0.1367
90970814|NCT00531752|181823713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.0062|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1094||0.0595|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-10.05|-1.964|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (Somnolence): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||-1.964|-10.05|0.0595
90939879|NCT00141271|181759531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6432||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Endpoint||||0.6432
90970815|NCT00531752|181823713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.0362|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3182||0.1356|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.72505|9.3473|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (Somnolence): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||9.3473|0.72505|0.1356
90970816|NCT00531752|181823713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.1569|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.2884||0.7528|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-15.99|26.303|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (SPI I): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||26.303|-15.99|0.7528
90970817|NCT00531752|181823713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|67.7022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.4066||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|80.0|45.114|90.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (SPI I): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||90.290|45.114|0.0003
90939880|NCT00141271|181759531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5989||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Endpoint||||0.5989
90939881|NCT00141271|181759532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8921||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 3||||0.8921
90970818|NCT00531752|181823713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.8582|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6389||0.2837|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.567|6.2835|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (SPI II): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||6.2835|-0.5670|0.2837
90970819|NCT00531752|181823713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|12.9251|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8913|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|9.1761|16.674|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (SPI II): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||16.674|9.1761|<0.0001
90970820|NCT00531752|181823714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|26.8615|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9167|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|21.777|31.946|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||31.946|21.777|<0.0001
90970821|NCT00531752|181823714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.3455|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1817||0.3034|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.08|9.7713|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||9.7713|-1.080|0.3034
90939882|NCT00141271|181759532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.435||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 3||||0.4350
90939883|NCT00141271|181759532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.562||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 6||||0.5620
90939884|NCT00141271|181759532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6959||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 6||||0.6959
90939885|NCT00141271|181759532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7865||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Endpoint||||0.7865
90939886|NCT00141271|181759532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7564||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Endpoint||||0.7564
90939887|NCT00141271|181759533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4327||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.4327
90939888|NCT00141271|181759533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7041||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.7041
90939889|NCT00141271|181759534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2076||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 1||||0.2076
90939890|NCT00141271|181759534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7449||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 1||||0.7449
90939891|NCT00141271|181759534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4399||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 2||||0.4399
90939892|NCT00141271|181759534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7107||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 2||||0.7107
90939893|NCT00141271|181759534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4765||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 3||||0.4765
90939894|NCT00141271|181759534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2564||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 3||||0.2564
90939895|NCT00141271|181759534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8063||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 4||||0.8063
90939896|NCT00141271|181759534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9855||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 4||||0.9855
90939897|NCT00141271|181759534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0599||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 5||||0.0599
90939898|NCT00141271|181759534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7364||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 5||||0.7364
90939899|NCT00141271|181759534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3048||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups.||Week 6||||0.3048
90939900|NCT00141271|181759534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5139||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups.||Week 6||||0.5139
90939901|NCT00141271|181759534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9356||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Endpoint||||0.9356
90939902|NCT00141271|181759534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9428||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Endpoint||||0.9428
90939903|NCT00141271|181759535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3888||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 3||||0.3888
90939904|NCT00141271|181759535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3122||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 3||||0.3122
90939905|NCT00141271|181759535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3323||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 6||||0.3323
90939906|NCT00141271|181759535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8781||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 6||||0.8781
90939907|NCT00141271|181759535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9485||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Endpoint||||0.9485
90939908|NCT00141271|181759535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7331||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Endpoint||||0.7331
90939909|NCT00141271|181759536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4869||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate.||Week 3||||0.4869
90939910|NCT00141271|181759536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5813||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate.||Week 3||||0.5813
90939911|NCT00141271|181759536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3303||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate.||Week 6||||0.3303
90939912|NCT00141271|181759536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1546||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate.||Week 6||||0.1546
90939913|NCT00141271|181759536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8982||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate.||Endpoint||||0.8982
90939914|NCT00141271|181759536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3586||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.3586
90939915|NCT00141271|181759537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0896||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Week 3||||0.0896
90939916|NCT00141271|181759537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6534||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Week 3||||0.6534
90939917|NCT00141271|181759537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.327||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Week 6||||0.3270
90939918|NCT00141271|181759537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4099||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Week 6||||0.4099
90939919|NCT00141271|181759537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6104||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.6104
90939920|NCT00141271|181759537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9359||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.9359
90939921|NCT00141271|181759538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6924||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 1||||0.6924
90939922|NCT00141271|181759538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.08||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 1||||0.0800
91035810|NCT00834522|181958113|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|104.37||||||90.0|97.04|112.25|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||112.25|97.04|
90939923|NCT00141271|181759538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4238||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 2||||0.4238
90939924|NCT00141271|181759538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7714||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 2||||0.7714
90939925|NCT00141271|181759538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8731||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 3||||0.8731
90939926|NCT00141271|181759538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8926||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 3||||0.8926
90939927|NCT00141271|181759538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2072||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 4||||0.2072
90939928|NCT00141271|181759538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1042||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 4||||0.1042
90939929|NCT00141271|181759538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2695||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 5||||0.2695
90939930|NCT00141271|181759538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3245||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 5||||0.3245
90939931|NCT00141271|181759538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7791||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 6||||0.7791
90939932|NCT00141271|181759538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0999||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 6||||0.0999
90939933|NCT00141271|181759538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9543||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Overall||||0.9543
90939934|NCT00141271|181759538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3153||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Overall||||0.3153
90939935|NCT00141271|181759539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2878||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 1||||0.2878
90939936|NCT00141271|181759539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4481||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 1||||0.4481
90939937|NCT00141271|181759539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4099||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 2||||0.4099
90939938|NCT00141271|181759539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5093||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value.||Week 2||||0.5093
90939939|NCT00141271|181759539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8048||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value.||Week 3||||0.8048
90939940|NCT00141271|181759539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0552||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 3||||0.0552
91035811|NCT00834522|181958114|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|104.22||||||90.0|96.9|112.08|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||112.08|96.90|
91035939|NCT03261167|181958553|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.42|||||Week 2, Wrist flexion. Analysis method was MMRM with Treatment, Visit, Treatment by visit interation, Baseline, and Baseline by visit interaction as fixed effects.|||0.42|-0.27|
90939941|NCT00141271|181759539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9795||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 4||||0.9795
90970822|NCT00531752|181823714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.9558|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9408||0.0223|TWO_SIDED|80.0|3.132|10.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||10.780|3.1320|0.0223
91035812|NCT00834132|181958137|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using PROC GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|94.81||||||90.0|84.77|106.04|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||106.04|84.77|
91035813|NCT00834132|181958138|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using PROC GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|100.89||||||90.0|96.0|106.03|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||106.03|96.00|
91035814|NCT00834132|181958139|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using PROC GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|101.14||||||90.0|96.05|106.49|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||106.49|96.05|
90939942|NCT00141271|181759539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5073||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 4||||0.5073
90939943|NCT00141271|181759539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4882||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 5||||0.4882
90939944|NCT00141271|181759539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3967||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 5||||0.3967
90939945|NCT00141271|181759539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8276||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 6||||0.8276
90939946|NCT00141271|181759539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8502||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 6||||0.8502
90939947|NCT00141271|181759539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6343||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Overall||||0.6343
90939948|NCT00141271|181759539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3082||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Overall||||0.3082
90939949|NCT00141271|181759540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6932||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 1||||0.6932
90939950|NCT00141271|181759540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0287||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 1||||0.0287
90939951|NCT00141271|181759540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2128||95.0||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 2||||0.2128
90939952|NCT00141271|181759540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1118||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 2||||0.1118
90939953|NCT00141271|181759540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6144||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 3||||0.6144
90939954|NCT00141271|181759540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0899||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 3||||0.0899
90970823|NCT00531752|181823714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.7518|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0743||0.2284|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.2442|7.7479|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||7.7479|-0.2442|0.2284
91035815|NCT00835484|181958158|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model containing factors for sequence of products, subjects within sequence, periods, and products was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|97.15||||||90.0|91.77|102.83|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||102.83|91.77|
91035816|NCT00835484|181958159|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model containing factors for sequence of products, subjects within sequence, periods, and products was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|100.8||||||90.0|95.1|106.84|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||106.84|95.1|
90939955|NCT00141271|181759540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8819||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 4||||0.8819
90939956|NCT00141271|181759540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8374||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 4||||0.8374
90939957|NCT00141271|181759540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3925||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 5||||0.3925
90939958|NCT00141271|181759540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4182||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 5||||0.4182
90939959|NCT00141271|181759540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8586||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 6||||0.8586
90939960|NCT00141271|181759540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.549||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 6||||0.5490
90939961|NCT00141271|181759540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6292||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Overall||||0.6292
90939962|NCT00141271|181759540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1473||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Overall||||0.1473
90939963|NCT00141271|181759541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2058||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Week 3||||0.2058
90939964|NCT00141271|181759541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9254||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Week 3||||0.9254
90939965|NCT00141271|181759541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5071||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Week 6||||0.5071
90939966|NCT00141271|181759541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2858||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Week 6||||0.2858
90970824|NCT00531752|181823714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|8.5752|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5848||0.0201|TWO_SIDED|80.0|3.9265|13.224|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||13.224|3.9265|0.0201
91035817|NCT00835484|181958160|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model containing factors for sequence of products, subjects within sequence, periods, and products was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|101.39||||||90.0|95.89|107.2|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||107.2|95.89|
90939967|NCT00141271|181759541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6298||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.6298
90939968|NCT00141271|181759541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6034||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.6034
90939969|NCT00141271|181759542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1454||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 1||||0.1454
90939970|NCT00141271|181759542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2672||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups.||Week 1||||0.2672
90939971|NCT00141271|181759542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2614||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups.||Week 2||||0.2614
90939972|NCT00141271|181759542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2143||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 2||||0.2143
90939973|NCT00141271|181759542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6997||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 3||||0.6997
90939974|NCT00141271|181759542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0128||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 3||||0.0128
90939975|NCT00141271|181759542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1144||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 4||||0.1144
90939976|NCT00141271|181759542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1483||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 4||||0.1483
90939977|NCT00141271|181759542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0674||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 5||||0.0674
90939978|NCT00141271|181759542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.29||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 5||||0.2900
90939979|NCT00141271|181759542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5482||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 6||||0.5482
90939980|NCT00141271|181759542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0303||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 6||||0.0303
90939981|NCT00141271|181759542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6143||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Endpoint||||0.6143
90939982|NCT00141271|181759542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3385||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Endpoint||||0.3385
90939983|NCT00141271|181759543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3299||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made.|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.3299
90939984|NCT00141271|181759543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1915||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made.|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.1915
90939985|NCT00141271|181759544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5407||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.5407
90939986|NCT00141271|181759544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6079||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.6079
90939987|NCT00141271|181759545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8464||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Week 3||||0.8464
90939988|NCT00141271|181759545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4023||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Week 3||||0.4023
90939989|NCT00141271|181759545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.287||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Week 6||||0.2870
90939990|NCT00141271|181759545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2537||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Week 6||||0.2537
90939991|NCT00141271|181759545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7909||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made.|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.7909
90939992|NCT00141271|181759545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3308||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made.|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.3308
90939993|NCT00141271|181759546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3355||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Week 3||||0.3355
90939994|NCT00141271|181759546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8447||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Week 3||||0.8447
90939995|NCT00141271|181759546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8959||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Week 6||||0.8959
90939996|NCT00141271|181759546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4826||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Week 6||||0.4826
90939997|NCT00141271|181759546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4178||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.4178
90939998|NCT00141271|181759546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8277||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.8277
90939999|NCT00141271|181759547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7758||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made.|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Week 3||||0.7758
90940000|NCT00141271|181759547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8737||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made.|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Week 3||||0.8737
90940001|NCT00141271|181759547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1151||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Week 6||||0.1151
91035818|NCT04383587|181958167|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.18|||||||Fisher Exact|||Participants were grouped by age (18-35 vs. 36-50 vs. 51-65 vs. \>65), Sex at birth (Female vs. Male). and Occupational Role (Technician vs Anesthesiologist vs Advanced Practice Provider vs. Attendant Aide vs. CRNA vs. OR nurse vs Perfusionist vs Surgeon).||||>0.18
90940002|NCT00141271|181759547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.129||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Week 6||||0.1290
90940003|NCT00141271|181759547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4432||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.4432
90940004|NCT00141271|181759547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2988||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.2988
90940005|NCT00141271|181759548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8598||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Week 3||||0.8598
90940006|NCT00141271|181759548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6513||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Week 3||||0.6513
90940007|NCT00141271|181759548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6272||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Week 6||||0.6272
90940008|NCT00141271|181759548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6467||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Week 6||||0.6467
90940009|NCT00141271|181759548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8049||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.8049
90940010|NCT00141271|181759548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9411||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate.||Endpoint||||0.9411
90940011|NCT00141271|181759549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.926||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.9260
90940012|NCT00141271|181759549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.71||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.7100
90940013|NCT00141271|181759550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1836||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.1836
90940014|NCT00141271|181759550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1374||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.1374
90940015|NCT00141271|181759551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9237||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.9237
90940016|NCT00141271|181759551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3786||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.3786
90940017|NCT00141271|181759552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4624||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.4624
90940018|NCT00141271|181759552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5971|||||||ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.5971
90940019|NCT00141271|181759553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1378||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.1378
90940020|NCT00141271|181759553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7665||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.7665
90940021|NCT00141271|181759554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4767||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate.||Endpoint||||0.4767
90940022|NCT00141271|181759554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2066||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate.||Endpoint||||0.2066
90940023|NCT00141271|181759555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1667||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.1667
90940024|NCT00141271|181759555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6727||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made.|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.6727
90940025|NCT00141271|181759556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7019||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.7019
90940026|NCT00141271|181759556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.102||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.1020
90940027|NCT00141271|181759557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4749||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.4749
90940028|NCT00141271|181759557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4491||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.4491
90940029|NCT00141271|181759558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4398||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made.|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.4398
90940030|NCT00141271|181759558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3331||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made.|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.3331
90940031|NCT00141271|181759559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2763||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.2763
90940032|NCT00141271|181759559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2048||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.2048
90940033|NCT00141271|181759560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.434||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.4340
90940034|NCT00141271|181759560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7774||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate.||Endpoint||||0.7774
90940035|NCT00141271|181759561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5195||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate.||Endpoint||||0.5195
90940036|NCT00141271|181759561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0153||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate.||Endpoint||||0.0153
90940037|NCT00141271|181759562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2847||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate.||Endpoint||||0.2847
90940038|NCT00141271|181759562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1958||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made.|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.1958
90940039|NCT00141271|181759563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1652||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.1652
90940040|NCT00141271|181759563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5997||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.5997
90940041|NCT00141271|181759564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0082||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.0082
90940042|NCT00141271|181759564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7037||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.7037
90940043|NCT00141271|181759565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2718||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.2718
90940044|NCT00141271|181759565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7077||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.7077
90940045|NCT00141271|181759566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5057||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.5057
90940046|NCT00141271|181759566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3654||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.3654
90940047|NCT00141271|181759567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6227||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.6227
91035819|NCT03123094|181958170|OTHER||Slope|0.9533|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0803|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.781|1.1256|||||Standard error of mean is actually standard error of slope.|Dose proportionality was explored using the power model. Dose proportionality of spesolimab was to be assessed based on the exposure parameter AUC0-∞, determined for the 3 intravenous dose levels (perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1).||1.1256|0.7810|
90940048|NCT00141271|181759567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7737||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.7737
90940049|NCT00390806|181759575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.1862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.07||p-value from a stratified log-rank test is adjusted for Recursive Partitioning Analysis (RPA) class and the number of brain lesions at Screening.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio is estimated using a Pike estimator. The hazard ratio from a stratified log-rank test is adjusted for RPA class and the number of brain lesions at Screening.|||1.07|0.73|0.1862
90940050|NCT04783519|181759607|SUPERIORITY|Regression model with TIME × CONDITION Interactions, with AOC as reference category was run using sample of N=150.|beta coefficient|-0.39||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.127|||Regression, Linear|Models control for age, sex, race, and ethnicity.||Changes from Baseline to Post Assessment for BASICS+SLEEP vs. AOC reported in this section.||-0.127|-0.650|.004
90940051|NCT04783519|181759607|SUPERIORITY|Regression model with TIME × CONDITION Interactions, with AOC as reference category was run using sample of N=150.|beta coefficient|-0.21||||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.482|0.054|||Regression, Linear|Models control for age, sex, race, and ethnicity.||Changes from Baseline to Post Assessment for BASICS vs. AOC reported in this section.||.054|-.482|.118
90940052|NCT04783519|181759607|SUPERIORITY|Regression model with TIME × CONDITION Interactions, with AOC as reference category was run using sample of N=150.|beta coefficient|-0.41||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.674|-0.142|||Regression, Linear|Models control for age, sex, race, and ethnicity.||Changes from Baseline to 3 Month Follow-up for BASICS+SLEEP vs. AOC reported in this section.||-0.142|-0.674|.003
90940053|NCT04783519|181759607|SUPERIORITY||beta coefficient|-0.16||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.428|0.107|||Regression, Linear|Models control for age, sex, race, and ethnicity.||Changes from Baseline to 3 Month Follow-up for BASICS vs. AOC reported in this section.||0.107|-0.428|.240
90940054|NCT04783519|181759608|SUPERIORITY|Regression model with TIME × CONDITION Interactions, with AOC as reference category was run using sample of N=150.|beta coefficient|-4.88||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|-1.65|||Regression, Linear|Models control for age, sex, race, and ethnicity.||Changes from Baseline to Post Assessment for BASICS+SLEEP vs. AOC reported in this section.||-1.65|-8.10|.003
90940055|NCT04783519|181759608|SUPERIORITY|Regression model with TIME × CONDITION Interactions, with AOC as reference category was run using sample of N=150.|beta coefficient|-1.71||||0.308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.98|1.57|||Regression, Linear|Models control for age, sex, race, and ethnicity.||"Changes from Baseline to Post Assessment for BASICS vs. AOC reported in this section.~Score on measure (T-score method https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3261577/)"||1.57|-4.98|.308
90940056|NCT04783519|181759608|SUPERIORITY|Regression model with TIME × CONDITION Interactions, with AOC as reference category was run using sample of N=150.|beta coefficient|-4.52||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|-1.25|||Regression, Linear|Models control for age, sex, race, and ethnicity.||"Changes from Baseline to 3 Month for BASICS+SLEEP vs. AOC reported in this section.~Score on measure (T-score method https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3261577/)"||-1.25|-7.8|.007
90940057|NCT04783519|181759608|SUPERIORITY|Regression model with TIME × CONDITION Interactions, with AOC as reference category was run using sample of N=150.|beta coefficient|-0.83||||0.621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.12|2.46|||Regression, Linear|Models control for age, sex, race, and ethnicity.||Changes from Baseline to 3 Month for BASICS vs. AOC reported in this section. Score on measure (T-score method https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3261577/ )||2.46|-4.12|.621
90940058|NCT04783519|181759609|SUPERIORITY|Regression model with TIME × CONDITION Interactions, with AOC as reference category was run using sample of N=150.|count/rate ratio|0.802||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.641|1.003|||Mixed Models Analysis|Models control for age, sex, race, and ethnicity. Negative binomial model to address overdispersion.||Changes from Baseline to Post Assessment for BASICS+SLEEP vs. AOC reported in this section.||1.003|0.641|.054
90940059|NCT04783519|181759609|SUPERIORITY|Regression model with TIME × CONDITION Interactions, with AOC as reference category was run using sample of N=150.|count/rate ratio|0.75||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.946|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models control for age, sex, race, and ethnicity. Negative binomial model to address overdispersion.||Changes from Baseline to Post Assessment for BASICS vs. AOC reported in this section.||0.946|0.600|.015
90940060|NCT04783519|181759609|SUPERIORITY|Regression model with TIME × CONDITION Interactions, with AOC as reference category was run using sample of N=150.|count/rate ratio|0.736||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.578|0.937|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models control for age, sex, race, and ethnicity. Negative binomial model to address overdispersion.||Changes from Baseline to 3 Month Follow-up for BASICS+SLEEP vs. AOC reported in this section.||0.937|0.578|.013
90940061|NCT04783519|181759609|SUPERIORITY|Regression model with TIME × CONDITION Interactions, with AOC as reference category was run using sample of N=150.|count/rate ratio|0.658||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.513|0.844|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models control for age, sex, race, and ethnicity. Negative binomial model to address overdispersion.||Changes from Baseline to 3 Month Follow-up for BASICS vs. AOC reported in this section.||0.844|0.513|.001
90940062|NCT04783519|181759610|SUPERIORITY|Regression model with TIME × CONDITION Interactions, with AOC as reference category was run using sample of N=150.|count/rate ratio|0.992||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.716|1.374|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models control for age, sex, race, and ethnicity. Poisson model to address overdispersion (Negative binomial would not converge).||Changes from Baseline to Post Assessment for BASICS+SLEEP vs. AOC reported in this section.||1.374|0.716|.960
90940063|NCT04783519|181759610|SUPERIORITY|Regression model with TIME × CONDITION Interactions, with AOC as reference category was run using sample of N=150.|count/rate ratio|0.782||||0.152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.506|1.094|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models control for age, sex, race, and ethnicity. Poisson model to address overdispersion (Negative binomial would not converge).||Changes from Baseline to Post Assessment for BASICS vs. AOC reported in this section.||1.094|0.506|.152
90940064|NCT04783519|181759610|SUPERIORITY|Regression model with TIME × CONDITION Interactions, with AOC as reference category was run using sample of N=150.|count/rate ratio|0.887||||0.482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.634|1.24|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models control for age, sex, race, and ethnicity. Poisson model to address overdispersion (Negative binomial would not converge).||Changes from Baseline to 3 Month Follow-up for BASICS+SLEEP vs. AOC reported in this section.||1.240|0.634|.482
90940065|NCT04783519|181759610|SUPERIORITY|Regression model with TIME × CONDITION Interactions, with AOC as reference category was run using sample of N=150.|count/rate ratio|0.67||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.634|1.24|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models control for age, sex, race, and ethnicity. Poisson model to address overdispersion (Negative binomial would not converge).||Changes from Baseline to 3 Month Follow-up for BASICS vs. AOC reported in this section.||1.240|0.634|.020
90940066|NCT04783519|181759611|SUPERIORITY|Regression model with TIME × CONDITION Interactions, with AOC as reference category was run using sample of N=150.|count/rate ratio|0.724||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.973|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models control for age, sex, race, and ethnicity. Negative binomial model to address overdispersion.||Changes from Baseline to 3 Month Follow-up for BASICS+SLEEP vs. AOC reported in this section.||0.973|0.540|.032
90940067|NCT04783519|181759611|SUPERIORITY|Regression model with TIME × CONDITION Interactions, with AOC as reference category was run using sample of N=150.|count/rate ratio|0.588|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.432|0.8|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models control for age, sex, race, and ethnicity. Negative binomial model to address overdispersion.||Changes from Baseline to 3 Month Follow-up for BASICS vs. AOC reported in this section.||0.800|0.432|<.001
90940068|NCT04783519|181759612|SUPERIORITY|Regression model with TIME × CONDITION Interactions, with AOC as reference category was run using sample of N=150.|count/rate ratio|0.699||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.535|0.914|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models control for age, sex, race, and ethnicity. Poisson model to address overdispersion (Negative binomial would not converge).||Changes from Baseline to Post Assessment for BASICS+SLEEP vs. AOC reported in this section.||0.914|0.535|.009
90940069|NCT04783519|181759612|SUPERIORITY|Regression model with TIME × CONDITION Interactions, with AOC as reference category was run using sample of N=150.|count/rate ratio|0.675||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.512|0.888|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models control for age, sex, race, and ethnicity. Poisson model to address overdispersion (Negative binomial would not converge).||Changes from Baseline to Post Assessment for BASICS vs. AOC reported in this section.||0.888|0.512|.005
90940070|NCT04783519|181759612|SUPERIORITY|Regression model with TIME × CONDITION Interactions, with AOC as reference category was run using sample of N=150.|count/rate ratio|0.698||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.526|0.928|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models control for age, sex, race, and ethnicity. Poisson model to address overdispersion (Negative binomial would not converge).||Changes from Baseline to 3 Month Follow-up for BASICS+SLEEP vs. AOC reported in this section.||0.928|0.526|.013
90940071|NCT04783519|181759612|SUPERIORITY|Regression model with TIME × CONDITION Interactions, with AOC as reference category was run using sample of N=150.|count/rate ratio|0.525|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.385|0.715|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models control for age, sex, race, and ethnicity. Poisson model to address overdispersion (Negative binomial would not converge).||Changes from Baseline to 3 Month Follow-up for BASICS vs. AOC reported in this section.||0.715|0.385|<.001
90940072|NCT04783519|181759613|SUPERIORITY|Regression model with TIME × CONDITION Interactions, with AOC as reference category was run using sample of N=150.|count/rate ratio|0.598||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.404|0.885|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models control for age, sex, race, and ethnicity. Poisson model to address overdispersion (Negative binomial would not converge).||Changes from Baseline to Post Assessment for BASICS+SLEEP vs. AOC reported in this section.||0.885|0.404|.010
90940073|NCT04783519|181759613|SUPERIORITY|Regression model with TIME × CONDITION Interactions, with AOC as reference category was run using sample of N=150.|count/rate ratio|0.502||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.331|0.76|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models control for age, sex, race, and ethnicity. Poisson model to address overdispersion (Negative binomial would not converge).||Changes from Baseline to Post Assessment for BASICS vs. AOC reported in this section.||0.760|0.331|.001
90940074|NCT04783519|181759613|SUPERIORITY|Regression model with TIME × CONDITION Interactions, with AOC as reference category was run using sample of N=150.|count/rate ratio|0.516||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.337|0.79|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models control for age, sex, race, and ethnicity. Poisson model to address overdispersion (Negative binomial would not converge).||Changes from Baseline to 3 Month Follow-up for BASICS+SLEEP vs. AOC reported in this section.||0.790|0.337|.002
90940075|NCT04783519|181759613|SUPERIORITY|Regression model with TIME × CONDITION Interactions, with AOC as reference category was run using sample of N=150.|count/rate ratio|0.506||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.774|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models control for age, sex, race, and ethnicity. Poisson model to address overdispersion (Negative binomial would not converge).||Changes from Baseline to 3 Month Follow-up for BASICS vs. AOC reported in this section.||0.774|0.330|.002
90940076|NCT04783519|181759614|SUPERIORITY|Regression model with TIME × CONDITION Interactions, with AOC as reference category.|count/rate ratio|0.628||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.462|0.853|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models control for age, sex, race, and ethnicity. Negative binomial model to address overdispersion.||Changes from Baseline to Post Assessment for BASICS+SLEEP vs. AOC reported in this section.||0.853|0.462|.003
90940077|NCT04783519|181759614|SUPERIORITY|Regression model with TIME × CONDITION Interactions, with AOC as reference category.|count/rate ratio|0.744||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.538|1.028|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models control for age, sex, race, and ethnicity. Negative binomial model to address overdispersion.||Changes from Baseline to Post Assessment for BASICS vs. AOC reported in this section.||1.028|0.538|.073
90940078|NCT04783519|181759614|SUPERIORITY|Regression model with TIME × CONDITION Interactions, with AOC as reference category.|count/rate ratio|0.764||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.559|1.043|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models control for age, sex, race, and ethnicity. Negative binomial model to address overdispersion.||Changes from Baseline to Post Assessment for BASICS+SLEEP vs. AOC reported in this section.||1.043|0.559|.090
91035820|NCT03123094|181958171|OTHER||Slope|1.0014|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0568|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8809|1.1219|||||Standard error of mean is actually standard error of slope.|Dose proportionality was explored using the power model. Dose proportionality of spesolimab was to be assessed based on the exposure parameter Cmax, determined for the 3 intravenous dose levels (perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1).||1.1219|0.8809|
90940079|NCT04783519|181759614|SUPERIORITY|Regression model with TIME × CONDITION Interactions, with AOC as reference category.|count/rate ratio|0.656||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.469|0.916|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models control for age, sex, race, and ethnicity. Negative binomial model to address overdispersion.||Changes from Baseline to Post Assessment for BASICS vs. AOC reported in this section.||0.916|0.469|.013
90940080|NCT04783519|181759615|SUPERIORITY|Regression model with TIME × CONDITION Interactions, with AOC as reference category was run using sample of N=150.|count/rate ratio|0.753||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.546|1.041|||Generalized linear mixed model|Model controls for age, sex, race, and ethnicity. Negative binomial model to address overdispersion.||Changes from Baseline to Post Assessment for BASICS+SLEEP vs. AOC reported in this section.||1.041|0.546|.087
90940081|NCT04783519|181759615|SUPERIORITY|Regression model with TIME × CONDITION Interactions, with AOC as reference category was run using sample of N=150.|count/rate ratio|0.739||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.528|1.034|||Generalized linear mixed model|Model controls for age, sex, race, and ethnicity. Negative binomial model to address overdispersion.||Changes from Baseline to Post Assessment for BASICS vs. AOC reported in this section.||1.034|0.528|.078
90940082|NCT04783519|181759615|SUPERIORITY|Regression model with TIME × CONDITION Interactions, with AOC as reference category was run using sample of N=150.|count/rate ratio|0.773||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.569|1.05|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models control for age, sex, race, and ethnicity. Negative binomial model to address overdispersion.||Changes from Baseline to 3 Month Follow-up for BASICS+SLEEP vs. AOC reported in this section.||1.050|0.569|.099
90940083|NCT04783519|181759615|SUPERIORITY|Regression model with TIME × CONDITION Interactions, with AOC as reference category was run using sample of N=150.|count/rate ratio|0.704||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.512|0.969|||Generalized linear mixed model|Model controls for age, sex, race, and ethnicity. Negative binomial model to address overdispersion.||Changes from Baseline to 3 Month Follow-up for BASICS vs. AOC reported in this section.||0.969|0.512|.031
90940084|NCT02273180|181759645|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of SAR342434 over Humalog was demonstrated if upper bound of 2-sided 95% confidence interval(CI) of difference between SAR342434 \& Humalog was \<0.3%.Inverse non-inferiority of Humalog over SAR342434 was tested using hierarchical step-down testing procedure:if non-inferiority of SAR342434 over Humalog was demonstrated,then inverse non-inferiority of Humalog over SAR342434 was tested, demonstrated if lower bound of 2-sided 95%CI of difference between SAR342434 \& Humalog was \>-0.3%.|Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.071|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.084|0.197|||||SAR342434 vs. Humalog|Analysis was performed using a MMRM approach with treatment groups, randomization strata, visits and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed categorical effects, and baseline HbA1c value and baseline HbA1c value-by-visit interaction as continuous fixed covariates. An unstructured correlation matrix was used to model within-participant errors.||0.197|-0.084|
90940085|NCT04341584|181759680|SUPERIORITY||Median posterior HR|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.62|1.52|||Bayesian Cox model|adjusted for age and centre|% Confidence Interval is % Credible Interval here|||1.52|0.62|
90940086|NCT04341584|181759681|SUPERIORITY||Median posterior absolute risk differenc|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.1|12.0|||Bayesian analysis||% Confidence Interval is % Credible Interval here|||12|-17.1|
90940087|NCT04341584|181759682|SUPERIORITY||Median posterior HR|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.59|2.81||adjusted for age and centre|Bayesian Fine and Gray analysis||% Confidence interval is % Credible Interval here|||2.81|0.59|
90940088|NCT04341584|181759683|SUPERIORITY||Median posterior absolute risk differenc|24.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.9|43.5|||Bayesian analysis||% Confidence interval is % Credible interval here|||43.5|3.9|
90940089|NCT04341584|181759684|SUPERIORITY||Median posterior OR|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.68|||Bayesian Proportionnal odds model|Adjusted for age and centre|% Confidence interval is % Credible interval here|Day 4||1.68|0.38|
90940090|NCT04341584|181759684|SUPERIORITY||Median posterior OR|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.43|||Bayesian Proportionnal odds model|Adjusted for age and centre|% Confidence interval is % Credible interval here|Day 14||1.43|0.33|
91035821|NCT03246503|181958186|OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.87||statistical significance of Pearson correlation coefficient|Pearson correlation coefficient||Bootstrapping with 1000 replications was used to estimate 95% confidence intervals.|Bootstrapping with 1000 replications was used to estimate 95% confidence intervals.||.87|0.77|<.001
91035822|NCT03246503|181958187|OTHER|t-statistic from regression analysis|intercept of regression line|4.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.35|4.91|||Regression, Linear|||||4.91|3.35|<.001
90940091|NCT04341584|181759684|SUPERIORITY||Median posterior OR|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.38|||Bayesian Proportionnal odds model|Adjusted for age and centre|% Confidence interval is % Credible interval here|Day 28||1.38|0.35|
90940092|NCT04341584|181759684|SUPERIORITY||Median posterior OR|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|2.39|||Bayesian Proportionnal odds model|Adjusted for age and centre|% Confidence Interval is % Credible interval here|Day 4||2.39|0.22|
90940093|NCT04341584|181759684|SUPERIORITY||Median posterior HR|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|2.8|||Bayesian Proportionnal odds model|Adjusted for age and centre|% Confidence Interval is % Credible interval here|Day 7||2.80|0.28|
90940094|NCT04341584|181759684|SUPERIORITY||Median posterior HR|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.75||Day 14|Bayesian Proportionnal odds model|Adjusted for afe and centre|% Confidence Interval is % Credible interval here|||1.75|0.18|
90940095|NCT04341584|181759685|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.29|||Regression, Cox|adjusted for age and centre||14 days||1.29|0.23|
90940096|NCT04341584|181759685|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.77|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for age and centre||28 days||1.77|0.33|
90940097|NCT04341584|181759685|SUPERIORITY|90 days|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|2.04|||Regression, Cox|adjusted on age and centre|% Confidence interval is % Credible interval here|||2.04|0.46|
90940098|NCT04341584|181759685|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|3.86|||Regression, Cox|adjusted on age and centre||||3.86|0.11|
90940099|NCT04341584|181759685|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|4.68|||Regression, Cox|adjusted on age and centre||||4.68|0.19|
90940100|NCT04341584|181759685|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|4.87|||Regression, Cox|adjusted on age and centre||||4.87|0.31|
91035823|NCT03246503|181958188|OTHER|t-statistic from regression analysis|Slope|0.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.76|||Regression, Linear|||||0.76|0.60|<.001
90940101|NCT04341584|181759686|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|6.4||||adjusted on age and centre||||6.4|-8.3|
90940102|NCT04341584|181759688|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.61|||Fine-Gray model|Adjusted for age and centre||||1.61|0.64|
90940103|NCT04341584|181759688|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|3.07||Adjusted for age and centre|Fine-Gray model|Adjusted for age and centre||||3.07|0.58|
90940104|NCT04341584|181759689|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.48|||Fine-Gray model|adjusted on age and centre||||1.48|0.56|
90940105|NCT04341584|181759689|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|2.34||adjusted on age and centre|Fine-Gray model|||||2.34|0.35|
90940106|NCT04341584|181759690|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|2.32||adjusted on age and centre|Fine-Gray model|||Day 28||2.32|0.43|
90940107|NCT04341584|181759690|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|2.29||adjusted on age and centre|Fine-Gray model|||Day 90||2.29|0.52|
91035824|NCT00075478|181958214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.1|||Regression, Cox|||Reference arm is Arm 2.||1.1|0.3|.09
90940108|NCT03449134|181759704|OTHER||Estimated Percent Change Difference|-18.45||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.92|-0.86||Comparison based on a longitudinal ANCOVA model that included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, region, log-transformed baseline value, and log-transformed baseline value-by-visit as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Estimated relative reduction (ERR) relative to Placebo (i.e. estimated percent change difference) was calculated by 100 (e\*\*DIFF -1), where e = exponent of difference; and DIFF= treatment difference in change from baseline at Week 12 based on log transformed data.||-0.86|-32.92|0.041
90940109|NCT03449134|181759704|OTHER||Estimated Percent Change Difference|1.56||||0.874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.13|22.99||Comparison based on a longitudinal ANCOVA model that included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, region, log-transformed baseline value, and log-transformed baseline value-by-visit as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Estimated relative reduction (ERR) relative to Placebo (i.e. estimated percent change difference) was calculated by 100 (e\*\*DIFF -1), where e = exponent of difference; and DIFF= treatment difference in change from baseline at Week 12 based on log transformed data.||22.99|-16.13|0.874
90940110|NCT03449134|181759707|OTHER||Estimated Percent Change Difference|-17.68||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.57|0.5||Comparison based on a longitudinal ANCOVA model that included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, region, log-transformed baseline value, and log-transformed baseline value-by-visit as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Estimated relative reduction (ERR) relative to Placebo (i.e. estimated percent change difference) was calculated by 100 (e\*\*DIFF -1), where e = exponent of difference; and DIFF= treatment difference in change from baseline at Week 12 based on log transformed data.||0.50|-32.57|0.056
90940111|NCT03449134|181759707|OTHER||Estimated Percent Change Difference|2.95||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.33|25.19||Comparison based on a longitudinal ANCOVA model that included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, region, log-transformed baseline value, and log-transformed baseline value-by-visit as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Estimated relative reduction (ERR) relative to Placebo (i.e. estimated percent change difference) was calculated by 100 (e\*\*DIFF -1), where e = exponent of difference; and DIFF= treatment difference in change from baseline at Week 12 based on log transformed data.||25.19|-15.33|0.770
90940112|NCT03449134|181759708|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.86|||Regression, Logistic|||Comparison based on a logistic regression model that included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, region, baseline, and the interaction of baseline (underlying continuous response) by visit as covariates.||1.86|0.77|0.416
90940113|NCT03449134|181759708|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.55|||Regression, Logistic|||Comparison based on a logistic regression model that included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, region, baseline, and the interaction of baseline (underlying continuous response) by visit as covariates.||1.55|0.66|0.948
90940114|NCT03449134|181759709|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|2.05||||||Comparison based on a logistic regression model that included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, region, baseline CSD score, and the interaction of baseline (underlying continuous response) by visit as covariates.||2.05|0.94|
90940115|NCT03449134|181759709|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|2.18||||||Comparison based on a logistic regression model that included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, region, baseline CSD score, and the interaction of baseline (underlying continuous response) by visit as covariates.||2.18|1.01|
90940116|NCT03449134|181759710|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|2.54||||||Comparison based on a logistic regression model that included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, region, baseline CSD score, and the interaction of baseline (underlying continuous response) by visit as covariates.||2.54|1.11|
90940117|NCT03449134|181759710|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|2.3||||||Comparison based on a logistic regression model that included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, region, baseline CSD score, and the interaction of baseline (underlying continuous response) by visit as covariates.||2.30|1.01|
91035825|NCT00075478|181958215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|3.0|||Regression, Cox|||||3.0|0.1|0.59
91035826|NCT00075478|181958216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.55||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.0|||Regression, Cox|||||1.0|0.3|0.06
91035827|NCT00075478|181958217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.1|||Regression, Cox|||||1.1|0.3|0.09
90940118|NCT03449134|181759711|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.3||||||Comparison based on a logistic regression model that included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, region, baseline VAS score, and the interaction of baseline (underlying continuous response) by visit as covariates.||2.30|1.03|
90940119|NCT03449134|181759711|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.89||||||Comparison based on a logistic regression model that included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, region, baseline VAS score, and the interaction of baseline (underlying continuous response) by visit as covariates.||1.89|0.86|
90940120|NCT03449134|181759712|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.98||||||Comparison based on a logistic regression model that included visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, region, baseline LCQ score, and the interaction of baseline (underlying continuous response) by visit as covariates.||1.98|0.85|
90940121|NCT03449134|181759712|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.12||||||Comparison based on a logistic regression model that included visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, region, baseline LCQ score, and the interaction of baseline (underlying continuous response) by visit as covariates.||2.12|0.92|
90940122|NCT01990313|181759729|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.038
90940123|NCT02412111|181759731|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) mean difference|0.3|||=|0.5846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.4|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||1.4|-0.8|= 0.5846
90940124|NCT02412111|181759732|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.8|||=|0.386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.6|||Mixed models Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||2.6|-1.0|= 0.3860
90940125|NCT02412111|181759733|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|2.8|||=|0.1236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|6.4|||Mixed models Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||6.4|-0.8|= 0.1236
90940126|NCT02412111|181759734|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-5.8|||=|0.0216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|-0.9|||Mixed models Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||-0.9|-10.7|= 0.0216
90940127|NCT00510198|181759796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The log-rank test was conducted at an alpha level of 0.05. The study was terminated early due to enrollment significantly below protocol expectation. Due to the low sample size and consequently low statistical power, no conclusion can be drawn.|Log Rank|||This is a log-rank test, which uses the time from randomization to first composite endpoint event to compare the risk of event between Access and Control arms.||||0.23
90940128|NCT00510198|181759797|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Pre-specified non-inferiority margin was 7.5%|Risk Difference (RD)|4.7||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|20.3||The study was terminated early due to enrollment significantly below protocol expectation. Due to the low sample size and consequently low statistical power, no conclusion can be drawn.|Two-sample test of proportions||The risk difference estimate is the difference between the Access Arm and Control arm.|||20.3|-10.9|0.36
90940129|NCT03935932|181759821|OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank|||||||0.11
90940130|NCT03935932|181759822|OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.11
90940131|NCT03935932|181759823|OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank|||||||0.35
90940132|NCT00352053|181759840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Van Elteren test|P-value is from a Van Elteren test stratified by baseline genotypic sensitivity score (GSS) (without tenofovir DF) \<= or \> median (median GSS is 2).||Null hypothesis: Time-weighted average changes from baseline through Week 24 in plasma HIV-1 RNA for the tenofovir DF and placebo groups are equal. Alternative hypothesis: Time-weighted average changes from baseline through Week 24 in plasma HIV-1 RNA for the tenofovir DF and placebo groups are different (two-sided).||||0.55
90940133|NCT00352053|181759841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Van Elteren test|P-value is from a Van Elteren test stratified by baseline GSS (without tenofovir DF) \<= or \> median (median GSS is 2).||Null hypothesis: Time-weighted average changes from baseline through Week 48 in plasma HIV-1 RNA for the tenofovir DF and placebo groups are equal. Alternative hypothesis: Time-weighted average changes from baseline through Week 48 in plasma HIV-1 RNA for the tenofovir DF and placebo groups are different (two-sided).||||0.40
90940134|NCT00352053|181759842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Van Elteren test|P-value is from a Van Elteren test stratified by baseline GSS (without tenofovir DF) \<= or \> median (median GSS is 2).||Null hypothesis: Changes from baseline through Week 24 in plasma HIV-1 RNA for the tenofovir DF and placebo groups are equal. Alternative hypothesis: Changes from baseline through Week 24 in plasma HIV-1 RNA for the tenofovir DF and placebo groups are different (two-sided).||||0.58
90940135|NCT00352053|181759843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Van Elteren test|P-value is from a Van Elteren test stratified by baseline GSS (without tenofovir DF) \<= or \> median (median GSS is 2).||Null hypothesis: Changes from baseline through Week 48 in plasma HIV-1 RNA for the tenofovir DF and placebo groups are equal. Alternative hypothesis: Changes from baseline through Week 48 in plasma HIV-1 RNA for the tenofovir DF and placebo groups are different (two-sided).||||0.37
90940136|NCT00352053|181759850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Van Elteren test|P-value is from a Van Elteren test stratified by baseline GSS (without tenofovir DF) \<= or \> median (median GSS is 2).||Null hypothesis: Changes from baseline through Week 24 in plasma CD4 count for the tenofovir DF and placebo groups are equal. Alternative hypothesis: Changes from baseline through Week 24 in CD4 count for the tenofovir DF and placebo groups are different (two-sided).||||0.71
90970825|NCT00531752|181823714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.0229|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8154||0.1931|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.07753|9.9683|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||9.9683|0.07753|0.1931
90940137|NCT00352053|181759851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Van Elteren test|P-value is from a Van Elteren test stratified by baseline GSS (without tenofovir DF) \<= or \> median (median GSS is 2).||Null hypothesis: Changes from baseline through Week 48 in plasma CD4 count for the tenofovir DF and placebo groups are equal. Alternative hypothesis: Changes from baseline through Week 48 in CD4 count for the tenofovir DF and placebo groups are different (two-sided).||||0.47
90940138|NCT00352053|181759858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Van Elteren test|P-value is from a Van Elteren test stratified by baseline GSS (without tenofovir DF) \<= or \> median (median GSS is 2).||Null hypothesis: Changes from baseline through Week 24 in plasma CD4% for the tenofovir DF and placebo groups are equal. Alternative hypothesis: Changes from baseline through Week 24 in CD4% for the tenofovir DF and placebo groups are different (two-sided).||||0.26
91035828|NCT00075478|181958218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.6||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|3.1|||Regression, Cox|||||3.1|0.8|0.16
90940139|NCT00352053|181759859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Van Elteren test|P-value is from a Van Elteren test stratified by baseline GSS (without tenofovir DF) \<= or \> median (median GSS is 2).||Null hypothesis: Changes from baseline through Week 48 in plasma CD4% for the tenofovir DF and placebo groups are equal. Alternative hypothesis: Changes from baseline through Week 48 in CD4% for the tenofovir DF and placebo groups are different (two-sided).||||0.63
90940140|NCT00352053|181759866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Fisher Exact|No adjustments were made.||Null hypothesis: Percentage of participants who had at least a 1.0 log10 copies/mL decrease from baseline to Week 24 in HIV-1 RNA for the tenofovir DF and placebo groups is equal. Alternative hypothesis: Percentage of participants who had at least a 1.0 log10 copies/mL decrease from baseline to Week 24 in HIV-1 RNA for the tenofovir DF and placebo groups is different (two-sided).||||0.67
90940141|NCT00352053|181759867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Fisher Exact|No adjustments were made.||Null hypothesis: Percentage of participants who had at least a 1.0 log10 copies/mL decrease from baseline to Week 48 in HIV-1 RNA for the tenofovir DF and placebo groups is equal. Alternative hypothesis: Percentage of participants who had at least a 1.0 log10 copies/mL decrease from baseline to Week 48 in HIV-1 RNA for the tenofovir DF and placebo groups is different (two-sided).||||0.67
90940142|NCT00352053|181759874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Fisher Exact|No adjustments were made.||Null hypothesis: Percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 400 copies/mL at Week 24 for the tenofovir DF and placebo groups is equal. Alternative hypothesis: Percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 400 copies/mL at Week 24 for the tenofovir DF and placebo groups is different (two-sided).||||1.00
90940143|NCT00352053|181759875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Fisher Exact|No adjustments were made.||Null hypothesis: Percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 400 copies/mL at Week 48 for the tenofovir DF and placebo groups is equal. Alternative hypothesis: Percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 400 copies/mL at Week 48 for the tenofovir DF and placebo groups is different (two-sided).||||0.38
90940144|NCT00352053|181759882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Fisher Exact|No adjustments were made.||Null hypothesis: Percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL at Week 24 for the tenofovir DF and placebo groups is equal. Alternative hypothesis: Percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL at Week 24 for the tenofovir DF and placebo groups is different (two-sided).||||0.22
90940145|NCT00352053|181759883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Fisher Exact|No adjustments were made.||Null hypothesis: Percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL at Week 48 for the tenofovir DF and placebo groups is equal. Alternative hypothesis: Percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL at Week 48 for the tenofovir DF and placebo groups is different (two-sided).||||0.48
90940146|NCT00352053|181759890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Log Rank|No adjustments were made.||Null hypothesis: The survival functions for the tenofovir DF and placebo groups up to Week 48 are equal. Alternative hypothesis: The survival functions for the tenofovir DF and placebo groups up to Week 48 are different (two-sided).||||0.29
91035829|NCT00075478|181958219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.52||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.7|||Regression, Cox|||||2.7|0.9|0.14
90970826|NCT00531752|181823715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.6766|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1759||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.9046|-0.4487|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||-0.4487|-0.9046|0.0003
90970827|NCT00531752|181823715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3075|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1871||0.1055|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.5499|-0.065|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||-0.0650|-0.5499|0.1055
90970828|NCT00531752|181823715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4684|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1791||0.0119|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.7012|-0.2356|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||-0.2356|-0.7012|0.0119
90970829|NCT00531752|181823715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1263|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1866||0.5016|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.3687|0.11608|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.11608|-0.3687|0.5016
90970830|NCT00531752|181823715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3451|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1738||0.0531|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.5711|-0.1191|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||-0.1191|-0.5711|0.0531
90970831|NCT00531752|181823715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4137|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1856||0.0306|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.6549|-0.1725|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||-0.1725|-0.6549|0.0306
90970832|NCT00531752|181823716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.7671|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1731|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.5426|0.99157|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.99157|0.54260|<0.0001
90970833|NCT00531752|181823716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.5285|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1847||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.28911|0.76798|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.76798|0.28911|0.0059
90970834|NCT00531752|181823716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1526|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1431||0.2921|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.0336|0.33878|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.33878|-0.0336|0.2921
90970835|NCT00531752|181823716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.198|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1498||0.1929|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.00319|0.39272|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.39272|0.00319|0.1929
90970836|NCT00531752|181823716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3433|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1565||0.0332|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.13988|0.54663|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.54663|0.13988|0.0332
90970837|NCT00531752|181823716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4184|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1681||0.0162|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.20006|0.63674|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.63674|0.20006|0.0162
90970838|NCT00531752|181823717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.5103|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1103|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.36707|0.65345|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.65345|0.36707|<0.0001
90970839|NCT00531752|181823717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3643|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1174||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.21189|0.51664|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.51664|0.21189|0.0031
90970840|NCT00531752|181823717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1362|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09408||0.1553|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.01366|0.25882|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.25882|0.01366|0.1553
90940147|NCT00833898|181759897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.020
90940148|NCT00833898|181759898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.15
90940149|NCT00833898|181759899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.029
90970841|NCT00531752|181823717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.107|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09797||0.2809|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.0205|0.23458|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.23458|-0.0205|0.2809
91035830|NCT00075478|181958221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.0|||Regression, Cox|||||1.0|0.3|0.05
90940150|NCT00833898|181759900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.003
90940151|NCT00833898|181759901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.012
90940152|NCT00833898|181759902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.40
90940153|NCT00833898|181759903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.44
90940154|NCT00833898|181759904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.75
90940155|NCT00833898|181759905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.17
90940156|NCT00833898|181759906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.97
90940157|NCT00833898|181759907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.55
90940158|NCT00833898|181759908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.30
90940159|NCT00833898|181759909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.67
90940160|NCT00833898|181759910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.013
90940161|NCT00833898|181759911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.80
90940162|NCT00833898|181759912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.26
90940163|NCT00833898|181759913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values represent separate wilcoxon paired sample signed rank test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.58
90940164|NCT00833898|181759913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values represent separate wilcoxon paired sample signed rank test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.33
90970842|NCT00531752|181823717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2195|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1146||0.0603|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.07101|0.36803|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.36803|0.07101|0.0603
90940165|NCT00833898|181759914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.53
90940166|NCT00833898|181759915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values represent separate wilcoxon paired sample signed rank test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.18
90940167|NCT00833898|181759915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values represent separate wilcoxon paired sample signed rank test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.00
90970843|NCT00531752|181823717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4278|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1212||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.27079|0.58479|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.58479|0.27079|0.0008
90970844|NCT00531752|181823718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-13.3264|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6944|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-16.83|-9.828|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||-9.828|-16.83|<0.0001
91035831|NCT00824291|181958248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.12||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|3.46|||ANCOVA|||||3.46|0.78|0.002
90970845|NCT00531752|181823718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-8.126|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8841||0.0068|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-11.87|-4.382|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||-4.382|-11.87|0.0068
90970846|NCT00531752|181823718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.5341|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3172||0.1346|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.551|-0.5175|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||-0.5175|-6.551|0.1346
90970847|NCT00531752|181823718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.0911|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4268||0.6552|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.067|4.2494|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||4.2494|-2.067|0.6552
90970848|NCT00531752|181823718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.2001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7614||0.0765|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.494|-0.9063|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||-0.9063|-5.494|0.0765
90970849|NCT00531752|181823718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.8781|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8976||0.0473|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.349|-1.407|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||-1.407|-6.349|0.0473
90970850|NCT01883635|181823724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|degrees of freedom=40||||||0.14
90970851|NCT01883635|181823725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|degrees of freedom=40||||||0.65
90970852|NCT01883635|181823726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|degrees of freedom=40||||||0.51
90970853|NCT04294901|181823762|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|Binary mixed effect model with patients nested in providers nested in facilities||It is pre-specified in the Study Protocol and Statistical Analysis Plan to assess all medication groups combined within the Intervention and Control Arms/Groups.||1.38|1.05|0.008
91035832|NCT00824291|181958249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.33||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|2.76|||ANCOVA|||||2.76|-0.09|0.067
91035833|NCT00824291|181958250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.001
90970854|NCT01733628|181823764|OTHER|Type of statistical Test: Inequality|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.8166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.59|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.59|0.56|0.8166
90970855|NCT02909985|181823782|SUPERIORITY||F|23.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|(9, 129)||||||<0.0001
90970856|NCT02909985|181823782|SUPERIORITY||F|9.4394|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|(11, 52)||||||<0.0001
90970857|NCT01908101|181823792|OTHER|comparison analysis|Median Difference (Final Values)|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|4.6||comparison analysis; no P value|||The estimated value is 3.5 months, not years.|Progression free survival (PFS). We hypothesize that metronomic dosing of eribulin will result in a PFS of 4-6 months.||4.6|2.6|
90970858|NCT00590590|181823826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||||||||||||Ha: Drug 1 \< Drug 2||||
90970859|NCT00590590|181823826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||||||||||||Ha: Drug 1 \< Placebo||||
90970860|NCT00590590|181823826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||||||||||||Ha: Drug 2 \< Placebo||||
90970861|NCT00590590|181823827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||||||||||||Ha: Drug 1 \< Drug 2||||
90970862|NCT00590590|181823827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||||||||||||Ha: Drug 1 \< Placebo||||
90970863|NCT00590590|181823827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||||||||||||Ha: Drug 2 \< Placebo||||
90970864|NCT00590590|181823828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.1||||||||||||||Ha: Drug 1 \< Drug 2||||
90970865|NCT00590590|181823828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.7||||||||||||||Ha: Drug 1 \< Placebo||||
90970866|NCT00590590|181823828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.8||||||||||||||Ha: Drug 2 \< Placebo||||
90970867|NCT00590590|181823829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.3||||||||||||||Ha: Drug 1 \< Drug 2||||
90970868|NCT00590590|181823829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.0||||||||||||||Ha: Drug 1 \< Placebo||||
90970869|NCT00590590|181823829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||||||||||||Ha: Drug 2 \< Placebo||||
90970870|NCT00590590|181823830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.1||||||||||||||Ha: Drug 1 \< Drug 2||||
90970871|NCT00590590|181823830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.9||||||||||||||Ha: Drug 1 \< Placebo||||
90970872|NCT00590590|181823830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.0||||||||||||||Ha: Drug 2 \< Placebo||||
90970873|NCT00590590|181823831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||||||||||||Ha: Drug 1 \< Drug 2||||
90970874|NCT00590590|181823831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||||||||||||Ha: Drug 1 \< Placebo||||
90970875|NCT00590590|181823831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||||||||||||Ha: Drug 2 \< Placebo||||
90970876|NCT03605680|181823836|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS ) Mean Difference|-3.15|||=|0.0193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.79|-0.51|||MMRM||||The comparison between the centanafadine and the placebo group was tested at a significance level of 0.05.|-0.51|-5.79|=0.0193
90970877|NCT03605680|181823836|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.74|||=|0.0392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.35|-0.14|||MMRM|||||-0.14|-5.35|=0.0392
91035834|NCT00824291|181958251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.002
91035835|NCT00824291|181958252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.23||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.44|||ANCOVA|||||0.44|0.01|0.040
91035836|NCT00824291|181958253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.26||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|4.37|||ANCOVA|||||4.37|0.16|0.035
91035837|NCT00824291|181958254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.44||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|4.78|||ANCOVA|||||4.78|0.10|0.041
91035838|NCT00824291|181958255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.39||||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.91|||ANCOVA|||||0.91|-0.13|0.145
90940168|NCT00833898|181759916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values represent separate wilcoxon paired sample signed rank test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.43
90940169|NCT00833898|181759916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values represent separate wilcoxon paired sample signed rank test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.72
90970878|NCT03605680|181823837|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|||=|0.0232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.04|||MMRM||||The comparison between the centanafadine and the placebo group was tested at a significance level of 0.05.|-0.04|-0.50|=0.0232
90970879|NCT03605680|181823837|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.28|||=|0.0162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.05|||MMRM||||The comparison between the centanafadine and the placebo group was tested at a significance level of 0.05.|-0.05|-0.51|=0.0162
90940170|NCT00833898|181759917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values represent separate wilcoxon paired sample signed rank test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.43
90940171|NCT00833898|181759917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values represent separate wilcoxon paired sample signed rank test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.72
90940172|NCT00307164|181759936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.64||95.0|||||Stratified Wilcoxon rank-sum test|Treatment groups were compared for change in limb fat using a two-sided stratified Wilcoxon rank-sum test (stratified by ARV used)||||||0.64
90970880|NCT01877187|181823877|OTHER|||||||0.06||||||Statistical significance defined as p \<= .05. Result is for Day 30 timepoint.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Sample size of 60 achieves 80% power to detect a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.35 with a two-sided significant level of 0.05. Sample size of 30 will allow for detecting a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.49 in each subgroup.||||.06
90970881|NCT01877187|181823877|OTHER|||||||0.09||||||Statistical significance defined as p \<= 0.05. Data for 90 day timepoint.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Sample size of 60 achieves 80% power to detect a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.35 with a two-sided significant level of 0.05. Sample size of 30 will allow for detecting a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.49 in each subgroup.||||.09
91035839|NCT02115347|181958257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Test/Reference) of Adjusted Means|87.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|68.01|112.08|||||ANOVA model with hepatic function group as a fixed effect, ratios (and 90% confidence intervals \[CIs\]) were expressed as percentages, Moderate Hepatic Impairment (Test), Normal Hepatic Function (Reference).|||112.08|68.01|
90940173|NCT00307164|181759937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.17||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.17
90940174|NCT00307164|181759939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.25||95.0|||||Stratified Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.25
90940175|NCT00307164|181759941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.88||95.0|||||Stratified Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.88
90940176|NCT00307164|181759942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6||95.0|||||Stratified Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.60
90940177|NCT00307164|181759943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.13||95.0|||||Stratified Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.13
90940178|NCT00307164|181759944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.17||95.0|||||Stratified Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.17
90940179|NCT00307164|181759945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.034||95.0|||||Stratified Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.034
90940180|NCT00307164|181759946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.76||95.0|||||Stratified Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.76
90940181|NCT00307164|181759947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1||95.0|||||Stratified Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.10
90940182|NCT00307164|181759948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.43||95.0|||||Stratified Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.43
90940183|NCT00307164|181759949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.17||95.0|||||Stratified Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.17
90940184|NCT00307164|181759950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8||95.0|||||Stratified Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.80
90940185|NCT00307164|181759951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.42||95.0|||||Stratified Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.42
90970882|NCT01877187|181823877|OTHER|||||||0.034||||||Statistical significance defined as p \<= 0.05. Data for 180 day timepoint.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Sample size of 60 achieves 80% power to detect a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.35 with a two-sided significant level of 0.05. Sample size of 30 will allow for detecting a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.49 in each subgroup.||||0.034
90970883|NCT01877187|181823879|OTHER|||||||0.19||||||Statistical significance defined as p \<= 0.05. Data for 30 day timepoint.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Sample size of 60 achieves 80% power to detect a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.35 with a two-sided significant level of 0.05. Sample size of 30 will allow for detecting a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.49 in each subgroup.||||0.19
90970884|NCT01877187|181823879|OTHER|||||||0.011||||||Statistical significance defined as p \<= 0.05. Data for 90 day timepoint.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Sample size of 60 achieves 80% power to detect a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.35 with a two-sided significant level of 0.05. Sample size of 30 will allow for detecting a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.49 in each subgroup.||||0.011
91035840|NCT02115347|181958258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Test/Reference) of Adjusted Means|87.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|68.11|112.22|||||ANOVA model with hepatic function group as a fixed effect, ratios (and 90% confidence intervals \[CIs\]) were expressed as percentages, Moderate Hepatic Impairment (Test), Normal Hepatic Function (Reference).|||112.22|68.11|
90940186|NCT03972137|181759961|OTHER|A paired-samples t-test was conducted to compare changes in cigarettes smoked per day from Baseline (BL) to Quit Day.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.42|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.08||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.79|17.05||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference represents the difference of mean cigarettes smoked per day at Baseline and Quit Date (Mean CPD at Baseline - Mean CPD at Quit Date).|||17.05|5.79|.003
90940187|NCT03972137|181759961|OTHER|A paired-samples t-test was used to evaluate smoking reduction in participants from baseline (BL) to 3-month follow-up session (3MFU).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.45||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|25.35||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference represents the difference of mean cigarettes smoked per day at Baseline and 3-month follow-up. Estimated value reported is reflective of the n=4 participants that attended the 3-month follow-up session.|||25.35|-1.55|.067
90940188|NCT03972137|181759962|OTHER|A paired-samples t-test was conducted to examine the difference in the DASS-21 total score from baseline (BL) to 2-weeks post-quit (2W).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.67|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.91||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.17|32.17||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference represents the difference of mean DASS-21 total scores at Baseline and 2-weeks post-quit. Estimated value reported is reflective of the n=6 participants that attended the 2-weeks post quit session.|||32.17|7.17|.010
90940189|NCT03972137|181759962|OTHER|A paired-samples t-test was conducted to examine the difference in DASS-21 Total scores from baseline (BL) to 1-month post-quit (1M).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|31.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|20.4||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.88|56.52||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference represents the difference of mean DASS-21 total scores at Baseline and 1-month post-quit. Estimated value reported is reflective of the n=5 participants that attended the 1-month post-quit session.|||56.52|5.88|.027
90940190|NCT03972137|181759962|OTHER|A paired-samples t-test was conducted to evaluate the difference in DASS-21 total scores from baseline (BL) to 3-month follow up (3MFU).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.5||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|50.41||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference represents the difference of mean DASS-21 total scores at Baseline and 3-month follow-up. Estimated value reported is reflective of the n=4 participants that attended the 3-month follow-up session.|||50.41|1.09|.045
90940191|NCT02747121|181759973|OTHER|The intervention was external inspections. This is an organizational level intervention and it does not replace any existing intervention.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.8||We used calculated P-values, however only confidence intervals were reported in the published article.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.80|0.86|0.24
90940192|NCT03029234|181759977|OTHER|The prespecified threshold that the primary endpoint would be met was if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) was greater than 18%.|Overall response rate|35.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.3|44.9||||||||44.9|27.3|
90940193|NCT01960114|181760024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|25.241|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8344|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.669|30.813||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||30.813|19.669|<0.001
90940194|NCT01960114|181760025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided). p-Values are based on the Wilcoxon test from PROC LIFETEST that compared survival curves.|Wilcoxon test, from SAS PROC LIFETEST|||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
90940195|NCT01960114|181760026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided). p-Values are based on the Wilcoxon test from PROC LIFETEST that compared survival curves.|Wilcoxon test, from SAS PROC LIFETEST|||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
90940196|NCT01960114|181760027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided). p-Values are based on the log-rank test from PROC LIFETEST that compared survival curves.|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups. Subjects who withdrew from the study before 12 hours, but did not use rescue therapy, were censored at the time of withdrawal. Subjects not rescuing during the 12-hour study period had their time to rescue set to 12 hours and were censored.||||<0.001
90940197|NCT01960114|181760028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Used row-mean scores based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline categorical pain score.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.001
90940198|NCT01340300|181760084|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||One-sided un-adjusted p-values to test if the decrease in treatment arm is greater than the control arm. Holm's method was performed for multiple comparisons to provide an overall significance level of 5%. Only significant p-values were reported.|Mixed Models Analysis|An intention-to-treat analysis, with a mixed model that was adjusted for baseline outcome value, BMI (\< 30 or \> 30), gender, cancer, and study site.||Null hypothesis: decrease of insulin in treatment arm is greater than the control arm.||||<0.0001
90940199|NCT01340300|181760084|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||One-sided un-adjusted p-values to test if the decrease in treatment arm is greater than the control arm. Holm's method was performed for multiple comparisons to provide an overall significance level of 5%. Only significant p-values were reported.|Mixed Models Analysis|An intention-to-treat analysis, with a mixed model that was adjusted for baseline outcome value, BMI (\< 30 or \> 30), gender, cancer, and study site.||Null hypothesis: decrease of insulin in treatment arm is greater than the control arm.||||0.003
90970885|NCT01877187|181823879|OTHER|||||||0.94||||||Statistical significance defined as p \<= 0.05. Data for 180 day timepoint.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Sample size of 60 achieves 80% power to detect a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.35 with a two-sided significant level of 0.05. Sample size of 30 will allow for detecting a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.49 in each subgroup.||||0.94
90940200|NCT01340300|181760084|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||One-sided un-adjusted p-values to test if the decrease in treatment arm is greater than the control arm. Holm's method was performed for multiple comparisons to provide an overall significance level of 5%. Only significant p-values were reported.|Mixed Models Analysis|An intention-to-treat analysis, with a mixed model that was adjusted for baseline outcome value, BMI (\< 30 or \> 30), gender, cancer, and study site.||Null hypothesis: decrease of insulin in treatment arm is greater than the control arm.||||0.01
90940201|NCT01340300|181760084|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||One-sided un-adjusted p-values to test if the decrease in treatment arm is greater than the control arm. Holm's method was performed for multiple comparisons to provide an overall significance level of 5%. Only significant p-values were reported.|Mixed Models Analysis|An intention-to-treat analysis, with a mixed model that was adjusted for baseline outcome value, BMI (\< 30 or \> 30), gender, cancer, and study site.||Null hypothesis: decrease of Insulin in combined arm is greater than the exercise-only or metformin-only arm.||||0.03
90940202|NCT01340300|181760085|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002||||||One-sided un-adjusted p-values to test if the decrease in treatment arm is greater than the control arm. Holm's method was performed for multiple comparisons to provide an overall significance level of 5%. Only significant p-values were reported.|Mixed Models Analysis|An intention-to-treat analysis, with a mixed model that was adjusted for baseline outcome value, BMI (\< 30 or \> 30), gender, cancer, and study site.||Null hypothesis: decrease of leptin in treatment arm is greater than the control arm.||||0.0002
90940203|NCT01340300|181760085|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||One-sided un-adjusted p-values to test if the decrease in treatment arm is greater than the control arm. Holm's method was performed for multiple comparisons to provide an overall significance level of 5%. Only significant p-values were reported.|Mixed Models Analysis|An intention-to-treat analysis, with a mixed model that was adjusted for baseline outcome value, BMI (\< 30 or \> 30), gender, cancer, and study site.||Null hypothesis: decrease of IGFBP\_1 in treatment arm is greater than the control arm.||||0.002
90940204|NCT01340300|181760085|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||One-sided un-adjusted p-values to test if the decrease in treatment arm is greater than the control arm. Holm's method was performed for multiple comparisons to provide an overall significance level of 5%. Only significant p-values were reported.|Mixed Models Analysis|An intention-to-treat analysis, with a mixed model that was adjusted for baseline outcome value, BMI (\< 30 or \> 30), gender, cancer, and study site.||Null hypothesis: decrease of IGFBP\_1 in treatment arm is greater than the control arm.||||0.02
90940205|NCT01340300|181760085|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002||||||One-sided un-adjusted p-values to test if the decrease in treatment arm is greater than the control arm. Holm's method was performed for multiple comparisons to provide an overall significance level of 5%. Only significant p-values were reported.|Mixed Models Analysis|An intention-to-treat analysis, with a mixed model that was adjusted for baseline outcome value, BMI (\< 30 or \> 30), gender, cancer, and study site.||Null hypothesis: decrease of Leptin in combined arm is greater than the exercise-only or metformin-only arm.||||0.0002
90940206|NCT01340300|181760085|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||One-sided un-adjusted p-values to test if the decrease in treatment arm is greater than the control arm. Holm's method was performed for multiple comparisons to provide an overall significance level of 5%. Only significant p-values were reported.|Mixed Models Analysis|An intention-to-treat analysis, with a mixed model that was adjusted for baseline outcome value, BMI (\< 30 or \> 30), gender, cancer, and study site.||Null hypothesis: decrease of Leptin in combined arm is greater than the exercise-only or metformin-only arm.||||0.02
90940207|NCT01340300|181760086|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004||||||One-sided un-adjusted p-values to test if the decrease in treatment arm is greater than the control arm. Holm's method was performed for multiple comparisons to provide an overall significance level of 5%. Only significant p-values were reported.|Mixed Models Analysis|An intention-to-treat analysis, with a mixed model that was adjusted for baseline outcome value, BMI (\< 30 or \> 30), gender, cancer, and study site.||Null hypothesis: decrease of Glucose in treatment arm is greater than the control arm.||||0.0004
90940208|NCT01340300|181760086|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007||||||One-sided un-adjusted p-values to test if the decrease in treatment arm is greater than the control arm. Holm's method was performed for multiple comparisons to provide an overall significance level of 5%. Only significant p-values were reported.|Mixed Models Analysis|An intention-to-treat analysis, with a mixed model that was adjusted for baseline outcome value, BMI (\< 30 or \> 30), gender, cancer, and study site.||Null hypothesis: decrease of Glucose in treatment arm is greater than the control arm.||||0.007
90940209|NCT01340300|181760087|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||One-sided un-adjusted p-values to test if the decrease in treatment arm is greater than the control arm. Holm's method was performed for multiple comparisons to provide an overall significance level of 5%. Only significant p-values were reported.|Mixed Models Analysis|An intention-to-treat analysis, with a mixed model that was adjusted for baseline outcome value, BMI (\< 30 or \> 30), gender, cancer, and study site.||Null hypothesis: decrease of Weight in treatment arm is greater than the control arm.||||<0.0001
90940210|NCT01340300|181760087|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||One-sided un-adjusted p-values to test if the decrease in treatment arm is greater than the control arm. Holm's method was performed for multiple comparisons to provide an overall significance level of 5%. Only significant p-values were reported.|Mixed Models Analysis|An intention-to-treat analysis, with a mixed model that was adjusted for baseline outcome value, BMI (\< 30 or \> 30), gender, cancer, and study site.||Null hypothesis: decrease of Weight in treatment arm is greater than the control arm.||||<0.0001
90940211|NCT01340300|181760087|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||One-sided un-adjusted p-values to test if the decrease in treatment arm is greater than the control arm. Holm's method was performed for multiple comparisons to provide an overall significance level of 5%. Only significant p-values were reported.|Mixed Models Analysis|An intention-to-treat analysis, with a mixed model that was adjusted for baseline outcome value, BMI (\< 30 or \> 30), gender, cancer, and study site.||Null hypothesis: decrease of Weight in treatment arm is greater than the control arm.||||0.01
90940212|NCT01340300|181760088|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||One-sided un-adjusted p-values to test if the decrease in treatment arm is greater than the control arm. Holm's method was performed for multiple comparisons to provide an overall significance level of 5%. Only significant p-values were reported.|Mixed Models Analysis|An intention-to-treat analysis, with a mixed model that was adjusted for baseline outcome value, BMI (\< 30 or \> 30), gender, cancer, and study site.||Null hypothesis: decrease of BMI in treatment arm is greater than the control arm.||||<0.0001
90971375|NCT00763815|181825533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.088|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.731|-0.386||Statistical testing: 2-sided at significance level=0.05. Analysis of co-variance (ANCOVA) included treatment arms; randomization strata of screening HbA1c (\<8.0, \>=8.0%), metformin use (yes, no); country as fixed effects; baseline HbA1c as covariate.|ANCOVA|||To detect a difference of 0.5% (or 0.4%) in change from baseline to Week 24 in HbA1c between lixisenatide and placebo, 300 patients in lixisenatide arm and 150 patients in placebo arm would provide a power of 96% (or 86%) assuming common standard deviation of 1.3% with a 2-sided test at 5% significance level.||-0.386|-0.731|<0.0001
91050376|NCT04168190|181987004|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.85|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 9N||1.85|0.57|
91050377|NCT04168190|181987004|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|1.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.97|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 9N||2.97|0.90|
90971376|NCT02429414|181825587|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90971377|NCT02429414|181825588|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0209|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0209
90971378|NCT02429414|181825589|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.078|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.078
90971379|NCT01849172|181825591|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.05
90971380|NCT04442230|181825607|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6602|||||||Fisher Exact|||The p-values from significance tests were obtained at a one-sided significance level of 0.025.||||0.6602
90971381|NCT01604265|181825610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-1.25||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|-0.39|||ANCOVA|||The change was compared between treatment groups using a one way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). The significance of the treatment effect, after adjusting for baseline pain score, was assessed using the F-test from the ANCOVA. The model was as follows: Change in 0-10 Numerical Rating Scale Pain Score = Baseline Pain Score + Treatment||-0.39|-2.11|0.005
90971382|NCT01604265|181825611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-1.39||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.27|-0.5|||ANCOVA|||"The change was compared between treatment groups using a one way ANCOVA. The significance of the treatment effect, after adjusting for baseline sleep score, was assessed using the F-test from the ANCOVA. The model was as follows:~Change in 0-10 Numerical Rating Scale sleep Score = Baseline Sleep Score + Treatment"||-0.50|-2.27|0.003
90971383|NCT01604265|181825612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.896||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|10.055|||Regression, Logistic|||"The proportion of patients who considered their condition Very Much Improved or Much Improved was compared between treatment groups using a Fisher's Exact Test. Results were presented in terms of difference in percentages, and 95% CI based on the normal approximation to the binomial, and p-value."||10.055|1.510|0.005
90971384|NCT01604265|181825613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||estimated mean treatment difference|-6.82||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.28|-0.37|||ANCOVA|||The change was compared between treatment groups using a one way ANCOVA. The significance of the treatment effect, after adjusting for baseline score, was assessed using the F-test from the ANCOVA.||-0.37|-13.28|0.039
90971385|NCT01604265|181825614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-6.95||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.12|-1.77|||ANCOVA|||The change was compared between treatment groups using a one way ANCOVA. The significance of the treatment effect, after adjusting for baseline score, was assessed using the F-test from the ANCOVA.||-1.77|-12.12|0.009
90971386|NCT01604265|181825615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|2.54||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|6.71|||ANCOVA|||The change was compared between treatment groups using a one way ANCOVA. The significance of the treatment effect, after adjusting for baseline score, was assessed using the F-test from the ANCOVA.||6.71|-1.64|0.230
90971387|NCT01604265|181825616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-2.53||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.22|0.15|||ANCOVA|||The change was compared between treatment groups using a one way ANCOVA. The significance of the treatment effect, after adjusting for baseline score, was assessed using the F-test from the ANCOVA.||0.15|-5.22|0.064
90971388|NCT01604265|181825617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.44||0.905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|5.18|||ANCOVA|||The change was compared between treatment groups using a one way ANCOVA. The significance of the treatment effect, after adjusting for baseline score, was assessed using the F-test from the ANCOVA.||5.18|-4.60|0.905
90971389|NCT01604265|181825618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|2.68||||0.257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.01|7.37|||ANCOVA|||The change was compared between treatment groups using a one way ANCOVA. The significance of the treatment effect, after adjusting for baseline score, was assessed using the F-test from the ANCOVA.||7.37|-2.01|0.257
90971390|NCT01604265|181825619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-1.5||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.64|0.63|||ANCOVA|||The change was compared between treatment groups using a one way ANCOVA. The significance of the treatment effect, after adjusting for baseline score, was assessed using the F-test from the ANCOVA.||0.63|-3.64|0.164
90971391|NCT01604265|181825621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|0.09||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|1.23|||ANCOVA|||The change was compared between treatment groups using a one way ANCOVA. The significance of the treatment effect, after adjusting for baseline score, was assessed using the F-test from the ANCOVA.||1.23|-1.06|0.880
90971392|NCT01604265|181825622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.64||||0.249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|0.46|||ANCOVA|||The change was compared between treatment groups using a one way ANCOVA. The significance of the treatment effect, after adjusting for baseline score, was assessed using the F-test from the ANCOVA.||0.46|-1.75|0.249
90971393|NCT01604265|181825623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|0.06||||0.535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.24|||ANCOVA|||The change was compared between treatment groups using a one way ANCOVA. The significance of the treatment effect, after adjusting for baseline score, was assessed using the F-test from the ANCOVA.||0.24|-0.13|0.535
90971394|NCT01903837|181825625|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin of 10 points|Least Square Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|2.6|||Least Square Mean Difference|||||2.6|-2.0|0.3
90971395|NCT01903837|181825626|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.006
91035956|NCT05630885|181958583|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.984||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.916|1.056||A-priori threshold for statistical significance is at p \< 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were done.|Regression, Linear|Outcome was log10-transformed. Model adjusted for statin-use. Analysis used multiple imputation for missing data.|Estimate obtained from regression on log10-transformed scale was back-transformed to the original scale and rounded to 3 decimal places. It reflects the relative geometric mean fold-change in the TBR from baseline for CVC compared to placebo.|Evaluates whether CVC, compared to placebo, changes arterial inflammation in the MDS of the index vessel, adjusting for statin-use. The study was powered to detect a between-group difference of 0.046 in log10 MDS TBR (10% relative fold-change), assuming a null difference of 0 in log10 MDS TBR (a ratio of 1 in absolute-scale), a standard deviation of 0.065 of change in log10 TBR, and 75 evaluable participants.||1.056|0.916|0.65
91035957|NCT05630885|181958583|OTHER|Statistical test for interaction.||||||0.4||||||P-value for modification of the CVC treatment effect by subgroups defined by statin-use is presented. A-priori threshold for statistical significance is at p \< 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were done.|Regression, Linear|Outcome was log10-transformed. Model adjusted for statin-use and its interaction with treatment. Analysis used multiple imputation for missing data.||Evaluates whether CVC, compared to placebo, changes arterial inflammation in the MDS of the index vessel differently by statin-use at study entry (use versus no-use).||||0.40
91035958|NCT05630885|181958583|OTHER|Statistical test for interaction.||||||0.63||||||P-value for modification of the CVC treatment effect by subgroups defined by sex is presented. A-priori threshold for statistical significance is at p \< 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were done.|Regression, Linear|Outcome was log10-transformed. Model adjusted for sex (F vs M) and its interaction with treatment. Analysis used multiple imputation for missing data.||Evaluates whether CVC, compared to placebo, changes arterial inflammation in the MDS of the index vessel differently by sex (female versus male).||||0.63
91035959|NCT05630885|181958583|OTHER|Statistical test for interaction.||||||0.71||||||P-value for modification of the CVC treatment effect by subgroups defined by race is presented. A-priori threshold for statistical significance is at p \< 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were done.|Regression, Linear|Outcome was log10-transformed. Model adjusted for race and its interaction with treatment. Analysis used multiple imputation for missing data.||Evaluates whether CVC, compared to placebo, changes arterial inflammation in the MDS of the index vessel differently by race (Black/African-American versus Non-Black/African-American).||||0.71
91035960|NCT05630885|181958584|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.996||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.067||A-priori threshold for statistical significance is at p \< 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were done.|Regression, Linear|Outcome was log10-transformed. Model adjusted for statin-use.|Estimate obtained from regression on log10-transformed scale was back-transformed to the original scale and rounded to 3 decimal places. It reflects the relative geometric mean fold-change in the TBR from baseline for CVC compared to placebo.|Evaluates whether CVC, compared to placebo, changes arterial inflammation in the aorta adjusting for statin-use.||1.067|0.930|0.91
91035961|NCT05630885|181958584|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.98||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.901|1.066||A-priori threshold for statistical significance is at p \< 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were done.|Regression, Linear|Outcome was log10-transformed. Model adjusted for statin-use.|Estimate obtained from regression on log10-transformed scale was back-transformed to the original scale and rounded to 3 decimal places. It reflects the relative geometric mean fold-change in the TBR from baseline for CVC compared to placebo.|Evaluates whether CVC, compared to placebo, changes arterial inflammation in the right and left carotid arteries adjusting for statin-use.||1.066|0.901|0.64
91035962|NCT05630885|181958585|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.01||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.939|1.087||A-priori threshold for statistical significance is at p \< 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were done.|Regression, Linear|Outcome was log10-transformed. Model adjusted for statin-use.|Estimate obtained from regression on log10-transformed scale was back-transformed to the original scale and rounded to 3 decimal places. It reflects the relative geometric mean fold-change in the SUV from baseline for CVC compared to placebo.|Evaluates whether CVC, compared to placebo, changes arterial inflammation in the aorta adjusting for statin-use.||1.087|0.939|0.79
91035963|NCT05630885|181958585|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.017||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.935|1.106||A-priori threshold for statistical significance is at p \< 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were done.|Regression, Linear|Outcome was log10-transformed. Model adjusted for statin-use.|Estimate obtained from regression on log10-transformed scale was back-transformed to the original scale and rounded to 3 decimal places. It reflects the relative geometric mean fold-change in the SUV from baseline for CVC compared to placebo.|Evaluates whether CVC, compared to placebo, changes arterial inflammation in the right and left carotid arteries adjusting for statin-use.||1.106|0.935|0.69
91035964|NCT05630885|181958586|SUPERIORITY||Slope|2.5||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|9.6||A-priori threshold for statistical significance is at p \< 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were done.|Regression, Linear|Model adjusted for statin-use.|Estimate reflects the relative mean change in fasting glucose from baseline for CVC compared to placebo.|Evaluates whether CVC, compared to placebo, changes levels of fasting glucose adjusting for statin-use.||9.6|-4.6|0.49
91035965|NCT05630885|181958587|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.07||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.43||A-priori threshold for statistical significance is at p \< 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were done.|Regression, Linear|Outcome was log10-transformed. Model adjusted for statin-use.|Estimate obtained from regression on log10-transformed scale was back-transformed to the original scale. It reflects the relative geometric mean fold-change in fasting insulin from baseline for CVC compared to placebo.|Evaluates whether CVC, compared to placebo, changes levels of fasting insulin adjusting for statin-use.||1.43|0.81|0.62
90971396|NCT01903837|181825626|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
90971397|NCT01903837|181825627|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.018
90941218|NCT02705625|181762252|SUPERIORITY|One model is fit for all comparison groups (MIV-711 200 mg, MIV-711 100 mg and placebo). This analysis reports the contrast that compares 100 mg versus placebo with respect to mean change from baseline in MRI of cartilage thickness (Femur Region) at Week 26.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0761||||0.0225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.00173|0.15||p-values reported are unadjusted p-values for tests of significance for the upper one-tailed alternative hypothesis Ha: MRI of cartilage thinning (Femur Region) is lower in the active treatment arm compared to placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"A linear mixed model based on the mITT population was used. The model included fixed factors for treatment, time (measured in weeks), the interaction for treatment-by-time, baseline analgesic user (Yes/No), and random effect for clinical site. Baseline MRI of cartilage thickness was included as a covariate for adjustment.~An unstructured covariance matrix was used to model the covariance pattern in the mixed effects model."||0.15|0.00173|0.0225
91050378|NCT04168190|181987004|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|2.32|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 10A||2.32|0.67|
90941219|NCT02705625|181762253|SUPERIORITY|One model is fit for all comparison groups (MIV-711 200 mg, MIV-711 100 mg and placebo). This analysis reports the contrast that compares 200 mg versus placebo with respect to mean change from baseline in WOMAC Pain score at Week 26.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.77||||0.2887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.02|4.48||p-values reported are unadjusted p-values for tests of significance for the lower one-tailed alternative hypothesis Ha: Reduction in WOMAC Pain score is higher in the active treatment arm compared to placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"A linear mixed model based on the mITT population was used. The model included fixed factors for treatment, time (measured in weeks), the interaction for treatment-by-time,baseline analgesic user (Yes/No), and random effect for clinical site. Baseline WOMAC Pain score was included as a covariate for adjustment.~An unstructured covariance matrix was used to model the covariance pattern in the mixed effects model."||4.48|-8.02|0.2887
90941220|NCT02705625|181762253|SUPERIORITY|One model is fit for all comparison groups (MIV-711 200 mg, MIV-711 100 mg and placebo). This analysis reports the contrast that compares 100 mg versus placebo with respect to mean change from baseline in WOMAC Pain score at Week 26.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.55||||0.0753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|1.67||p-values reported are unadjusted p-values for tests of significance for the lower one-tailed alternative hypothesis Ha: Reduction in WOMAC Pain score is higher in the active treatment arm compared to placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"A linear mixed model based on the mITT population was used. The model included fixed factors for treatment, time (measured in weeks), the interaction for treatment-by-time, baseline analgesic (Yes/No) and random effect for clinical site. Baseline WOMAC Pain score was included as a covariate for adjustment.~An unstructured covariance matrix was used to model the covariance pattern in the mixed effects model."||1.67|-10.8|0.0753
90941221|NCT02705625|181762254|SUPERIORITY|One model is fit for all comparison groups (MIV-711 200 mg, MIV-711 100 mg and placebo). This analysis reports the contrast that compares 200 mg versus placebo with respect to mean change from baseline in WOMAC difficulty score at Week 26.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.84||||0.2898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.38|4.7||p-values reported are unadjusted p-values for tests of significance for the lower one-tailed alternative hypothesis Ha: Reduction in WOMAC Difficulty score is higher in the active treatment arm compared to placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"A linear mixed model based on the mITT population was used. The model included fixed factors for treatment, time (measured in weeks), the interaction for treatment-by-time, baseline analgesic (Yes/No) and random effect for clinical site. Baseline WOMAC Difficulty score was included as a covariate for adjustment.~An unstructured covariance matrix was used to model the covariance pattern in the mixed effects model."||4.7|-8.38|0.2898
90941222|NCT02705625|181762254|SUPERIORITY|One model is fit for all comparison groups (MIV-711 200 mg, MIV-711 100 mg and placebo). This analysis reports the contrast that compares 100 mg versus placebo with respect to mean change from baseline in WOMAC difficulty score at Week 26.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.78||||0.1262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|2.72||p-values reported are unadjusted p-values for tests of significance for the lower one-tailed alternative hypothesis Ha: Reduction in WOMAC Difficulty score is higher in the active treatment arm compared to placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"A linear mixed model based on the mITT population was used. The model included fixed factors for treatment, time (measured in weeks), the interaction for treatment-by-time, baseline analgesic (Yes/No) and random effect for clinical site. Baseline WOMAC difficulty score was included as a covariate for adjustment.~An unstructured covariance matrix was used to model the covariance pattern in the mixed effects model."||2.72|-10.3|0.1262
90941223|NCT02705625|181762255|SUPERIORITY|One model is fit for all comparison groups (MIV-711 200 mg, MIV-711 100 mg and placebo). This analysis reports the contrast that compares 200 mg versus placebo with respect to mean change from baseline in WOMAC stiffness score at Week 26.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.07||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|4.1||p-values reported are unadjusted p-values for tests of significance for the lower one-tailed alternative hypothesis Ha: Reduction in WOMAC Stiffness score is higher in the active treatment arm compared to placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"A linear mixed model based on the mITT population was used. The model included fixed factors for treatment, time (measured in weeks), the interaction for treatment-by-time, baseline analgesic (Yes/No) and random effect for clinical site. Baseline WOMAC Stiffness score was included as a covariate for adjustment.~An unstructured covariance matrix was used to model the covariance pattern in the mixed effects model."||4.1|-10.2|0.2
90971398|NCT01903837|181825627|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
90971399|NCT02706873|181825630|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two upadacitinib doses (15 mg and 30 mg) was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure defined separately for US/FDA, European Union/European Medicines Agency and Japan/Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency regulatory purposes.|Response Rate Difference|23.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.3|31.1||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for geographic region (North America, South/central America, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Asia/other).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|For the global analysis, comparisons of the primary and key secondary efficacy endpoints were made between the upadacitinib 15 mg and 30 mg groups versus the methotrexate group.||31.1|16.3|<0.001
90971400|NCT02706873|181825630|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two upadacitinib doses (15 mg and 30 mg) was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure defined separately for US/FDA, European Union/European Medicines Agency and Japan/Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency regulatory purposes.|Response Rate Difference|28.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.6|35.4||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for geographic region (North America, South/central America, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Asia/other).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|For the global analysis, comparisons of the primary and key secondary efficacy endpoints were made between the upadacitinib 15 mg and 30 mg groups versus the methotrexate group.||35.4|20.6|<0.001
90941224|NCT02705625|181762255|SUPERIORITY|One model is fit for all comparison groups (MIV-711 200 mg, MIV-711 100 mg and placebo). This analysis reports the contrast that compares 100 mg versus placebo with respect to mean change from baseline in WOMAC stiffness score at Week 26.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.95||||0.0861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|2.17||p-values reported are unadjusted p-values for tests of significance for the lower one-tailed alternative hypothesis Ha: Reduction in WOMAC Stiffness score is higher in the active treatment arm compared to placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"A linear mixed model based on the mITT population was used. The model included fixed factors for treatment, time (measured in weeks), the interaction for treatment-by-time, baseline analgesic user (Yes/No), and random effect for clinical site. Baseline WOMAC stiffness score was included as a covariate for adjustment.~An unstructured covariance matrix was used to model the covariance pattern in the mixed effects model."||2.17|-12.1|0.0861
90941225|NCT02705625|181762256|SUPERIORITY|One model is fit for all comparison groups (MIV-711 200 mg, MIV-711 100 mg and placebo). This analysis reports the contrast that compares 200 mg versus placebo with respect to mean change from baseline in CTX-I score at Week 26.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.254|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.302|-0.206||p-values reported are unadjusted p-values for tests of significance for the upper one-tailed alternative hypothesis Ha: CTX-I score is lower in the active treatment arm compared to placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"A linear mixed model based on the mITT population was used. The model included fixed factors for treatment, time (measured in weeks), the interaction for treatment-by-time, baseline analgesic user (Yes/No), and random effect for clinical site. Baseline CTX-I score was included as a covariate for adjustment.~An unstructured covariance matrix was used to model the covariance pattern in the mixed effects model."||-0.206|-0.302|<0.0001
90941226|NCT02705625|181762256|SUPERIORITY|One model is fit for all comparison groups (MIV-711 200 mg, MIV-711 100 mg and placebo). This analysis reports the contrast that compares 100 mg versus placebo with respect to mean change from baseline in CTX-I score at Week 26.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.145|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.193|-0.0983||p-values reported are unadjusted p-values for tests of significance for the upper one-tailed alternative hypothesis Ha: CTX-I score is lower in the active treatment arm compared to placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"A linear mixed model based on the mITT population was used. The model included fixed factors for treatment, time (measured in weeks), the interaction for treatment-by-time, baseline analgesic user (Yes/No), and random effect for clinical site. Baseline CTX-I score was included as a covariate for adjustment.~An unstructured covariance matrix was used to model the covariance pattern in the mixed effects model."||-0.0983|-0.193|<0.0001
90941227|NCT02705625|181762257|SUPERIORITY|One model is fit for all comparison groups (MIV-711 200 mg, MIV-711 100 mg and placebo). This analysis reports the contrast that compares 200 mg versus placebo with respect to mean change from baseline in CTX-II score at Week 26.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-270.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-339.0|-201.0||p-values reported are unadjusted p-values for tests of significance for the upper one-tailed alternative hypothesis Ha: CTX-II score is lower in the active treatment arm compared to placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"A linear mixed model based on the mITT population was used. The model included fixed factors for treatment, time (measured in weeks), the interaction for treatment-by-time, baseline analgesic user (Yes/No), and random effect for clinical site. Baseline CTX-II score was included as a covariate for adjustment.~An unstructured covariance matrix was used to model the covariance pattern in the mixed effects model."||-201|-339|<0.0001
90941228|NCT02705625|181762257|SUPERIORITY|One model is fit for all comparison groups (MIV-711 200 mg, MIV-711 100 mg and placebo). This analysis reports the contrast that compares 100 mg versus placebo with respect to mean change from baseline in CTX-II score at Week 26.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-193.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-262.0|-124.0||p-values reported are unadjusted p-values for tests of significance for the upper one-tailed alternative hypothesis Ha: CTX-II score is lower in the active treatment arm compared to placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"A linear mixed model based on the mITT population was used. The model included fixed factors for treatment, time (measured in weeks), the interaction for treatment-by- time, baseline analgesic user (Yes/No), and random effect for clinical site. Baseline CTX-II score was included as a covariate for adjustment.~An unstructured covariance matrix was used to model the covariance pattern in the mixed effects model."||-124|-262|<0.0001
90941229|NCT03677245|181762277|OTHER|Wilcoxon signed ranks test used to compared pre-intervention to post-intervention means of the Pediatric Balance Scale. No power calculation performed or utilized.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
90941230|NCT01850823|181762339|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence based on Test/Reference Ratio and 90% confidence interval (as per OGD guidance)|Ratio Test/Reference LS Mean|114.723|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.077|134.286||||||Conducted on Per Protocol Population||134.286|99.077|
90941231|NCT01850823|181762340|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||The superiority of treatment over the placebo will be concluded if the treatment's mean change from baseline is statistically significantly greater (p\<0.05, 2-sided) than that of the placebo in the ANCOVA based on the treatment and placebo results. The superiority of Test and Reference treatments over the placebo will be evaluated identically in a separate ANCOVA.||||<0.0001
90941232|NCT01850823|181762340|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||ANCOVA|||The superiority of treatment over the placebo will be concluded if the treatment's mean change from baseline is statistically significantly greater (p\<0.05, 2-sided) than that of the placebo in the ANCOVA based on the treatment and placebo results. The superiority of Test and Reference treatments over the placebo will be evaluated identically in a separate ANCOVA.||||0.0002
91006650|NCT00935701|181897642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mean change in score from pre to post on Bedtime Resistance subscale||||0.08
91035966|NCT05630885|181958587|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.09||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.54||A-priori threshold for statistical significance is at p \< 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were done.|Regression, Linear|Outcome was log10-transformed. Model adjusted for statin-use.|Estimate obtained from regression on log10-transformed scale was back-transformed to the original scale. It reflects the relative geometric mean fold-change in HOMA-IR from baseline for CVC compared to placebo.|Evaluates whether CVC, compared to placebo, changes levels of HOMA-IR adjusting for statin-use.||1.54|0.78|0.61
91035967|NCT05630885|181958588|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.97||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.52||A-priori threshold for statistical significance is at p \< 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were done.|Regression, Linear|Outcome was log10-transformed. Model adjusted for statin-use.|Estimate obtained from regression on log10-transformed scale was back-transformed to the original scale. It reflects the relative geometric mean fold-change in hsCRP from baseline for CVC compared to placebo.|Evaluates whether CVC, compared to placebo, changes levels of hsCRP adjusting for statin-use.||1.52|0.62|0.91
91035968|NCT05630885|181958588|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.01||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.33||A-priori threshold for statistical significance is at p \< 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were done.|Regression, Linear|Outcome was log10-transformed. Model adjusted for statin-use.|Estimate obtained from regression on log10-transformed scale was back-transformed to the original scale. It reflects the relative geometric mean fold-change in IL-6 from baseline for CVC compared to placebo.|Evaluates whether CVC, compared to placebo, changes the levels of IL-6 adjusted for statin-use.||1.33|0.77|0.94
91035969|NCT05630885|181958588|SUPERIORITY||Slope|4.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.89|5.77||A-priori threshold for statistical significance is at p \< 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were done.|Regression, Linear|Outcome was log10-transformed. Model adjusted for statin-use.|Estimate obtained from regression on log10-transformed scale was back-transformed to the original scale. It reflects the relative geometric mean fold-change in MCP-1 from baseline for CVC compared to placebo.|Evaluates whether CVC, compared to placebo, changes the levels of MCP-1 adjusting for statin-use.||5.77|3.89|<0.001
91035970|NCT05630885|181958589|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-49.0||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-158.0|60.0||A-priori threshold for statistical significance is at p \< 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were done.|Regression, Linear|Model adjusted for statin-use.|Estimate reflects the relative mean change in sCD14 from baseline for CVC compared to placebo.|Evaluates whether CVC, compared to placebo, changes levels of sCD14 adjusting for statin-use.||60|-158|0.38
91035971|NCT05630885|181958589|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-6.3||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-87.0|75.0||A-priori threshold for statistical significance is at p \< 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were done.|Regression, Linear|Model adjusted for statin-use.|Estimate reflects the relative mean change in sCD163 from baseline for CVC compared to placebo.|Evaluates whether CVC, compared to placebo, changes the levels of sCD163 adjusting for statin-use.||75|-87|0.88
91035972|NCT05630885|181958590|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|2.12||A-priori threshold for statistical significance is at p \< 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were done.|Regression, Linear|Outcome was log10-transformed. Model adjusted for statin-use.|Estimate obtained from regression on log10-transformed scale was back-transformed to the original scale. It reflects the relative geometric mean fold-change in MIP-1 beta from baseline for CVC compared to placebo.|Evaluates whether CVC, compared to placebo, changes the levels of MIP-1 beta adjusting for statin-use.||2.12|1.28|<0.001
91035973|NCT05630885|181958590|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.02||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.28||A-priori threshold for statistical significance is at p \< 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were done.|Regression, Linear|Outcome was log10-transformed. Model adjusted for statin-use.|Estimate obtained from regression on log10-transformed scale was back-transformed to the original scale. It reflects the relative geometric mean fold-change in RANTES from baseline for CVC compared to placebo.|Evaluates whether CVC, compared to placebo, changes levels of RANTES adjusting for statin-use.||1.28|0.82|0.85
91035974|NCT02354339|181958614|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of fasting glucose on Irvingia gabonensis group||||0.240
91035975|NCT02354339|181958614|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of fasting glucose on placebo group||||0.850
91035976|NCT02354339|181958615|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of triglycerides on Irvingia gabonensis group||||0.012
91035977|NCT02354339|181958615|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.391||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of triglycerides on placebo group||||0.391
91035978|NCT02354339|181958616|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.206||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of HDL-c on Irvingia gabonensis group||||0.206
91035979|NCT02354339|181958616|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.721||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of HDL-c on placebo group||||0.721
91035980|NCT02354339|181958617|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.371||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of systolic blood pressure on Irvingia gabonensis group||||0.371
90971401|NCT02706873|181825631|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two upadacitinib doses (15 mg and 30 mg) was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure defined separately for US/FDA, European Union/European Medicines Agency and Japan/Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency regulatory purposes.|Response Rate Difference|29.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.8|36.8||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for geographic region (North America, South/central America, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Asia/other).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|For the global analysis, comparisons of the primary and key secondary efficacy endpoints were made between the upadacitinib 15 mg and 30 mg groups versus the methotrexate group.||36.8|22.8|<0.001
90971402|NCT02706873|181825631|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two upadacitinib doses (15 mg and 30 mg) was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure defined separately for US/FDA, European Union/European Medicines Agency and Japan/Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency regulatory purposes.|Response Rate Difference|31.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.5|38.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for geographic region (North America, South/central America, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Asia/other).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|For the global analysis, comparisons of the primary and key secondary efficacy endpoints were made between the upadacitinib 15 mg and 30 mg groups versus the methotrexate group.||38.5|24.5|<0.001
90971403|NCT02706873|181825632|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two upadacitinib doses (15 mg and 30 mg) was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure defined separately for US/FDA, European Union/European Medicines Agency and Japan/Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency regulatory purposes.|Response Rate Difference|21.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.3|28.8||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for geographic region (North America, South/central America, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Asia/other).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|For the global analysis, comparisons of the primary and key secondary efficacy endpoints were made between the upadacitinib 15 mg and 30 mg groups versus the methotrexate group.||28.8|14.3|<0.001
90971404|NCT02706873|181825632|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two upadacitinib doses (15 mg and 30 mg) was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure defined separately for US/FDA, European Union/European Medicines Agency and Japan/Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency regulatory purposes.|Response Rate Difference|22.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.7|30.1||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for geographic region (North America, South/central America, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Asia/other).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|For the global analysis, comparisons of the primary and key secondary efficacy endpoints were made between the upadacitinib 15 mg and 30 mg groups versus the methotrexate group.||30.1|15.7|<0.001
90971405|NCT02706873|181825633|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two upadacitinib doses (15 mg and 30 mg) was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure defined separately for US/FDA, European Union/European Medicines Agency and Japan/Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency regulatory purposes.|Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.53||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.2||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as the covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|For the global analysis, comparisons of the primary and key secondary efficacy endpoints were made between the upadacitinib 15 mg and 30 mg groups versus the methotrexate group.||-0.20|-0.85|0.001
90971406|NCT02706873|181825633|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two upadacitinib doses (15 mg and 30 mg) was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure defined separately for US/FDA, European Union/European Medicines Agency and Japan/Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency regulatory purposes.|LS Mean Difference|-0.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.27||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as fixed factors and Baseline value as the covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|For the global analysis, comparisons of the primary and key secondary efficacy endpoints were made between the upadacitinib 15 mg and 30 mg groups versus the methotrexate group.||-0.27|-0.91|<0.001
90971407|NCT02706873|181825634|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure. This endpoint was a ranked key secondary endpoint for US/FDA and Japan/PMDA regulatory purposes.|LS Mean Difference|-0.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|-0.67||The nominal p-value is reported|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as fixed factors and Baseline value as the covariate.||||-0.67|-1.09|<0.001
90941233|NCT01649297|181762350|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypotheses for non-inferiority:~H10: Mean change from baseline in HbA1c (%) after 16 weeks of treatment with empagliflozin 5 mg twice daily ≥ mean change from baseline in HbA1c (%) after 16 weeks of treatment with empagliflozin 10 mg once daily + 0.35%~H20: Mean change from baseline in HbA1c (%) after 16 weeks of treatment with empagliflozin 12.5 mg twice daily ≥ mean change from baseline in HbA1c (%) after 16 weeks of treatment with empagliflozin 25 mg once daily + 0. 35%"|Adjusted mean difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.16|0.13||The two non-inferiority hypotheses H10 and H20 were tested using the Hochberg procedure in order to control the family-wise type I error at 0.025 (one-sided).|ANCOVA|ANCOVA: Treatment, geographical region, renal function (screening eGFR \[MDRD\] value)- fixed effects and baseline HbA1c- linear covariate.||The primary objective was to test the non-inferiority of empagliflozin 5 mg BID versus empagliflozin 10 mg QD, and non-inferiority of empagliflozin 12.5 mg BID versus empagliflozin 25 mg QD, assuming a non-inferiority margin of 0.35%||0.13|-0.16|<0.0001
90941234|NCT01649297|181762350|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypotheses for non-inferiority:~H10: Mean change from baseline in HbA1c (%) after 16 weeks of treatment with empagliflozin 5 mg twice daily ≥ mean change from baseline in HbA1c (%) after 16 weeks of treatment with empagliflozin 10 mg once daily + 0.35%~H20: Mean change from baseline in HbA1c (%) after 16 weeks of treatment with empagliflozin 12.5 mg twice daily ≥ mean change from baseline in HbA1c (%) after 16 weeks of treatment with empagliflozin 25 mg once daily + 0. 35%"|Adjusted mean difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.26|0.03||The two non-inferiority hypotheses H10 and H20 were tested using the Hochberg procedure in order to control the family-wise type I error at 0.025 (one-sided).|ANCOVA|ANCOVA: Treatment, geographical region, renal function (screening eGFR \[MDRD\] value)- fixed effects and baseline HbA1c- linear covariate.||The primary objective was to test the non-inferiority of empagliflozin 5 mg BID versus empagliflozin 10 mg QD, and non-inferiority of empagliflozin 12.5 mg BID versus empagliflozin 25 mg QD, assuming a non-inferiority margin of 0.35%||0.03|-0.26|<0.0001
90941235|NCT01649297|181762350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.79|-0.44|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA: Treatment, geographical region, renal function (screening eGFR \[MDRD\] value)- fixed effects and baseline HbA1c- linear covariate.||Superiority of once daily dose of empagliflozin (10 mg and 25 mg) versus placebo and superiority of twice daily dose of empagliflozin (5 mg and 12.5 mg) versus placebo in reducing HbA1c after 16 weeks of treatment was tested in an exploratory manner, to demonstrate assay sensitivity against placebo at 0.05 level (two-sided).||-0.44|-0.79|<0.0001
90941236|NCT01649297|181762350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.68|-0.32|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA: Treatment, geographical region, renal function (screening eGFR \[MDRD\] value)- fixed effects and baseline HbA1c- linear covariate.||Superiority of once daily dose of empagliflozin (10 mg and 25 mg) versus placebo and superiority of twice daily dose of empagliflozin (5 mg and 12.5 mg) versus placebo in reducing HbA1c after 16 weeks of treatment was tested in an exploratory manner, to demonstrate assay sensitivity against placebo at 0.05 level (two-sided).||-0.32|-0.68|<0.0001
90941237|NCT01649297|181762350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.62|-0.27|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA: Treatment, geographical region, renal function (screening eGFR \[MDRD\] value)- fixed effects and baseline HbA1c- linear covariate.||Superiority of once daily dose of empagliflozin (10 mg and 25 mg) versus placebo and superiority of twice daily dose of empagliflozin (5 mg and 12.5 mg) versus placebo in reducing HbA1c after 16 weeks of treatment was tested in an exploratory manner, to demonstrate assay sensitivity against placebo at 0.05 level (two-sided).||-0.27|-0.62|<0.0001
90941238|NCT01649297|181762350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.6|-0.25|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA: Treatment, geographical region, renal function (screening eGFR \[MDRD\] value)- fixed effects and baseline HbA1c- linear covariate.||Superiority of once daily dose of empagliflozin (10 mg and 25 mg) versus placebo and superiority of twice daily dose of empagliflozin (5 mg and 12.5 mg) versus placebo in reducing HbA1c after 16 weeks of treatment was tested in an exploratory manner, to demonstrate assay sensitivity against placebo at 0.05 level (two-sided).||-0.25|-0.60|<0.0001
90941239|NCT01649297|181762351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8||||95.0|-9.0|1.8|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA: Treatment, geographical region, renal function (screening (eGFR)\[MDRD\]value)-fixed effects and baseline HbA1c,baseline FPG-linear covariates||||1.8|-9.0|
90941240|NCT01649297|181762351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8||||95.0|-10.4|0.5||The two non-inferiority hypotheses H10 and H20 were tested using the Hochberg procedure in order to control the family-wise type I error at 0.025 (one-sided).|ANCOVA|ANCOVA: Treatment, geographical region, renal function (screening (eGFR)\[MDRD\]value)-fixed effects and baseline HbA1c,baseline FPG-linear covariates||||0.5|-10.4|
90941241|NCT01649297|181762351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-27.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4|<|0.0001||95.0|-34.2|-20.9|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA:'Treatment','geographical region','renal function'(screening(eGFR)\[MDRD\]value)-fixed effects and 'baseline HbA1c',baseline FPG-linear covariate||Superiority of once daily dose of empagliflozin (10 mg and 25 mg) versus placebo and superiority of twice daily dose of empagliflozin (5 mg and 12.5 mg) versus placebo in reducing FPG after 16 weeks of treatment was tested in an exploratory manner, to demonstrate assay sensitivity against placebo at 0.05 level (two-sided)||-20.9|-34.2|<0.0001
90941242|NCT01649297|181762351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-22.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4|<|0.0001||95.0|-29.2|-15.9|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA:'Treatment','geographical region','renal function'(screening(eGFR)\[MDRD\]value)-fixed effects and 'baseline HbA1c',baseline FPG-linear covariate||Superiority of once daily dose of empagliflozin (10 mg and 25 mg) versus placebo and superiority of twice daily dose of empagliflozin (5 mg and 12.5 mg) versus placebo in reducing FPG after 16 weeks of treatment was tested in an exploratory manner, to demonstrate assay sensitivity against placebo at 0.05 level (two-sided)||-15.9|-29.2|<0.0001
90971408|NCT02706873|181825634|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure. This endpoint was a ranked key secondary endpoint for US/FDA and Japan/PMDA regulatory purposes.|LS Mean Difference|-1.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|-0.8||The nominal p-value is reported|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as fixed factors and Baseline value as the covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||-0.80|-1.21|<0.001
91006651|NCT00935701|181897642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mean change in score from pre to post on Sleep Onset Delay subscale||||0.03
90941243|NCT01649297|181762351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-21.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4|<|0.0001||95.0|-27.7|-14.4|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA:'Treatment','geographical region','renal function'(screening(eGFR)\[MDRD\]value)-fixed effects and 'baseline HbA1c',baseline FPG-linear covariate||Superiority of once daily dose of empagliflozin (10 mg and 25 mg) versus placebo and superiority of twice daily dose of empagliflozin (5 mg and 12.5 mg) versus placebo in reducing FPG after 16 weeks of treatment was tested in an exploratory manner, to demonstrate assay sensitivity against placebo at 0.05 level (two-sided)||-14.4|-27.7|<0.0001
90941244|NCT01649297|181762351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-17.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4|<|0.0001||95.0|-24.1|-10.8|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA:'Treatment','geographical region','renal function'(screening(eGFR)\[MDRD\]value)-fixed effects and 'baseline HbA1c',baseline FPG-linear covariate||Superiority of once daily dose of empagliflozin (10 mg and 25 mg) versus placebo and superiority of twice daily dose of empagliflozin (5 mg and 12.5 mg) versus placebo in reducing FPG after 16 weeks of treatment was tested in an exploratory manner, to demonstrate assay sensitivity against placebo at 0.05 level (two-sided)||-10.8|-24.1|<0.0001
90941245|NCT01685047|181762352|OTHER|There were no formal pre-specified statistical hypotheses for the endpoints of the study due to the exploratory nature of this study. Datasets (Device info at Baseline versus 15 minutes prior to the event) were compared using a 2-sided t-test.|||||<|0.05||||||All events with p \<0.05 were visually inspected to confirm they were evaluable; additional criteria for exclusion from further analysis included inappropriate therapy, aberrant conduction, and occurrence of VT/VF within 24h prior to the event.|t-test, 2 sided|||There were no formal pre-specified statistical hypotheses for the endpoints of the study due to the exploratory nature of this study. Some data was excluded from the primary analysis. All device detections resulting in therapy have been reviewed for appropriateness of the therapy. VT/VF therapy delivered from the device as a result of a non-ventricular arrhythmia or as a result of oversensing by the device has not been included in the primary data analysis.||||<0.05
90941246|NCT03036150|181762389|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.51|0.72|||Regression, Cox|Stratified by randomization stratification of Type 2 Diabetes and urine albumin creatinine ratio and adjusting for baseline eGFR.||||0.72|0.51|< 0.0001
90941247|NCT03036150|181762390|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.45|0.68|||Regression, Cox|Stratified by randomization stratification of Type 2 Diabetes and urine albumin creatinine ratio and adjusting for baseline eGFR.||||0.68|0.45|< 0.0001
90941248|NCT03036150|181762391|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.0089||95.0|0.55|0.92|||Regression, Cox|Stratified by randomization stratification of Type 2 Diabetes and urine albumin creatinine ratio and adjusting for baseline eGFR.||||0.92|0.55|0.0089
90941249|NCT03036150|181762392|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||0.0035||95.0|0.53|0.88|||Regression, Cox|Stratified by randomization stratification of Type 2 Diabetes and urine albumin creatinine ratio and adjusting for baseline eGFR.||||0.88|0.53|0.0035
90941250|NCT01318538|181762398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||loglinear (negative binomial) regression|Analyzed using loglinear (negative binomial) regression models with estimation via generalized estimating equations (relative changes i.e. % change)||The models included the effects of treatment group, phase (3 levels), and the treatment group by phase interaction.The study was powered for the primary analysis concerning treatment group differences in the degree of improvement in the number of days of any substance use and in the Addiction Severity Index (ASI) composite scores. With a total of 100 women, the study was adequately powered to detect a minimum 5 day benefit in the # of days of any substance use (power = 83%).||||0.821
90941251|NCT01318538|181762399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.519|||||||loglinear (negative binomial) regression|We used loglinear (negative binomial) regression models with estimation via generalized estimating equations (GEE).||The models included the effects of treatment group, phase (3 levels), and the treatment group by phase interaction. Note: Women in both WRG and GDC groups had significant (p\<0.0001 reductions in mean # of alcohol use days during treatment (9.9 and 12.4 day reductions for WRG and GDC respectively) and at 6 months post-treatment (8.3 and 12.2 day reductions).||||0.519
90941252|NCT01318538|181762400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Linear mixed effect models|This measure was analyzed using using linear mixed effect models with estimation via restricted maximum likelihood (absolute changes in the mean).||The models included the effects of treatment group, phase (3 levels), and the treatment group by phase interaction. The study was powered for the primary analysis concerning treatment group differences in the degree of improvement in the number of days of any substance use and in the Addiction Severity Index (ASI) composite scores.With 100 women (50 in each treatment group), the study was adequately powered to detect a 0.2 benefit in the ASI drug and alcohol composite scores (power = 94%).||||0.253
90941253|NCT01318538|181762401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Linear mixed effect models|This measure was analyzed using using linear mixed effect models with estimation via restricted maximum likelihood (absolute changes in the mean).||The models included the effects of treatment group, phase (3 levels), and the treatment group by phase interaction. The study was powered for the primary analysis concerning treatment group differences in the degree of improvement in the number of days of any substance use and in the Addiction Severity Index (ASI) composite scores.With 100 women (50 in each treatment group), the study was adequately powered to detect a 0.2 benefit in the ASI drug and alcohol composite scores (power = 94%).||||0.667
90941254|NCT01318538|181762403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
90941255|NCT01318538|181762404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91006652|NCT00935701|181897642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mean change in score from pre to post on Sleep Duration subscale||||0.82
91006653|NCT00935701|181897642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mean change in score from pre to post on Sleep Anxiety subscale||||0.58
91006654|NCT00935701|181897642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mean change in score from pre to post on Night Wakings subscale||||0.66
91006655|NCT00935701|181897642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mean change in score from pre to post on Parasomnias subscale||||0.18
91006656|NCT00935701|181897642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mean change in score from pre to post on Daytime Sleepiness subscale||||0.31
91006657|NCT00935701|181897642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mean change in score from pre to post on Total Disturbance||||0.07
90971409|NCT02706873|181825635|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure. This endpoint was a ranked key secondary endpoint for US/FDA and Japan/PMDA regulatory purposes.|LS Mean Difference|-0.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.25||The nominal p-value is reported|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as fixed factors and Baseline value as the covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||-0.25|-0.44|<0.001
91035981|NCT02354339|181958617|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.238||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of systolic blood pressure on placebo group||||0.238
91035982|NCT02354339|181958618|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.452||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of diastolic blood pressure on Irvingia gabonensis group||||0.452
91035983|NCT02354339|181958618|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.801||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of diastolic blood pressure on placebo group||||0.801
91035984|NCT02354339|181958619|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of waist circumference on Irvingia gabonensis group||||0.005
91035985|NCT02354339|181958619|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.752||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of waist circumference on placebo group||||0.752
91035986|NCT02354339|181958620|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.791|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of first phase of insulin secretion on Irvingia gabonensis group||||0.791
91035987|NCT02354339|181958620|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of first phase of insulin secretion on placebo group||||0.910
91035988|NCT02354339|181958621|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.458||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of total insulin secretion on Irvingia gabonensis group||||0.458
91035989|NCT02354339|181958621|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.953||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of total insulin secretion on placebo group||||0.953
91035990|NCT02354339|181958622|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of insulin sensitivity on Irvingia gabonensis group||||0.470
91035991|NCT02354339|181958622|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.807||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of insulin sensitivity on placebo group||||0.807
90971410|NCT02706873|181825635|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure. This endpoint was a ranked key secondary endpoint for US/FDA and Japan/PMDA regulatory purposes.|LS Mean Difference|-0.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.28||The nominal p-value is reported|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as fixed factors and Baseline value as the covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||-0.28|-0.47|<0.001
91035992|NCT02354339|181958623|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.604||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of body weight on Irvingia gabonensis group||||0.604
91035993|NCT02354339|181958623|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of body weight on placebo group||||0.350
91035994|NCT02354339|181958624|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.727||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of BMI on Irvingia gabonensis group||||0.727
91035995|NCT02354339|181958624|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.229||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of BMI on placebo group||||0.229
91035996|NCT02354339|181958625|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.151||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of total cholesterol on Irvingia gabonensis group||||0.151
91035997|NCT02354339|181958625|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.955||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of total cholesterol on placebo group||||0.955
91035998|NCT02354339|181958626|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of LDL-c on Irvingia gabonensis group||||0.350
91035999|NCT02354339|181958626|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of LDL-c on placebo group||||0.470
91036000|NCT02354339|181958627|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of AST on Irvingia gabonensis group||||0.910
91036001|NCT02354339|181958627|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.436||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of AST on placebo group||||0.436
91036002|NCT02354339|181958628|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.989||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of ALT on Irvingia gabonensis group||||0.989
91036003|NCT02354339|181958628|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.949||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of ALT on placebo group||||0.949
91036004|NCT02354339|181958629|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.095||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of creatinine on Irvingia gabonensis group||||0.095
91036005|NCT02354339|181958629|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.401||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of creatinine on placebo group||||0.401
91036006|NCT02354339|181958630|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of uric acid on Irvingia gabonensis group||||0.910
91036007|NCT02354339|181958630|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.791||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of uric acid on placebo group||||0.791
91036008|NCT00841698|181958668|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of LS Means x 100|97.34||||||90.0|91.67|103.35|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||103.35|91.67|
91036009|NCT00841698|181958669|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of LS Means x 100|94.46||||||90.0|90.22|98.89|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||98.89|90.22|
91036010|NCT00841698|181958670|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of LS Means x 100|94.83||||||90.0|89.96|99.96|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||99.96|89.96|
91036011|NCT01149733|181958671|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of Geometric Means|97.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.0|105.32|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the test (T) and reference (R) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||105.32|91.00|
91036012|NCT01149733|181958672|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of Geometric Means|91.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.72|96.1|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the test (T) and reference (R) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||96.10|87.72|
90941256|NCT01318538|181762405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.464|||||||loglinear (negative binomial) regression|We used loglinear (negative binomial) regression models with estimation via generalized estimating equations (GEE).||The models included the effects of treatment group, phase (3 levels), and the treatment group by phase interaction. Note: Women in both WRG and GDC groups had significant (p\<0.05) reductions in mean number of drug use days during treatment (3.0 and 1.5 day reductions for WRG and GDC respectively); however at 6 months post-treatment, the reductions were significant for WRG (2.8 day reduction; p\<0.05) but not for GDC (1.5 day reduction; p\>0.01).||||0.464
90941257|NCT01318538|181762406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.904|||||||loglinear (negative binomial) regression|We used loglinear (negative binomial) regression models with estimation via generalized estimating equations (GEE).||The models included the effects of treatment group, phase (3 levels), and the treatment group by phase interaction. Note: Women in both WRG and GDC groups had significant (p\<0.0001) reductions in mean number of heavy drinking days during treatment (8.6 and 12.1 days reduction for WRG and GDC, respectively) and at 6 months post-treatment (8.0 and 11.8 day reductions).||||0.904
90941258|NCT01318538|181762407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.799|||||||linear mixed effect model|This measure was analyzed using using linear mixed effect models with estimation via restricted maximum likelihood (absolute changes in the mean).||The models included the effects of treatment group, phase (3 levels), and the treatment by phase interaction. Note: Women in both the WRG and GDC groups had significant (p\<0.05) reductions in mean number of drinks per drinking day only during the in treatment phase (2.0 and 2.9 reductions for WRG and GDC, respectively).||||0.799
90941259|NCT00570921|181762445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Time to Progression|7.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|12.1||||||We hypothesized that median time to progression (TTP) in our trial will increase from 3.7 months for the historical fulvestrant-only control to 7.0 months on the combination of fulvestrant and everolimus in the current trial. A sample of 40 evaluable patients was calculated to show the increase in TTP with 80% power and 5% significance level based on a two sided test of differences in survival times between historical controls and treated group.||12.1|1.9|
90941260|NCT00570921|181762446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response Rate Percentage|12.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.63|29.83|||||Percentage of Patients with a complete or partial response with 95% exact binomial proportion confidence interval|||29.83|3.63|
90941261|NCT00570921|181762447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage with clinical benefit|48.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.15|66.94|||||Percentage of patients that had a complete response, partial response, or stable disease for 24 weeks or more as defined by RECIST v1.0.|||66.94|30.15|
90941262|NCT00510146|181762525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.15||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.93|-0.36||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in change from baseline to endpoint in MADRS total score from the following ANCOVA model: Change=Treatment+Baseline+Geographic Region.|ANCOVA|||||-0.36|-3.93|0.018
91036013|NCT01149733|181958673|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of Geometric Means|90.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.59|94.89|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the test (T) and reference (R) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||94.89|86.59|
91036014|NCT01929863|181958702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-28.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.4|-5.86|||||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of Treatment A-GSK2330672 + Metformin and Treatment B-Placebo + Metformin for Fasting Value.|Treatment A-GSK2330672 + Metformin versus Treatment B-Placebo + Metformin for Fasting Value.||-5.86|-50.40|
91036015|NCT01929863|181958702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-29.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.68|-6.64|||||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of Treatment A-GSK2330672 + Metformin and Treatment B-Placebo + Metformin for Maximum (0-4 h) Value.|Treatment A-GSK2330672 + Metformin versus Treatment B-Placebo + Metformin for Maximum (0-4 h) Value.||-6.64|-51.68|
90971411|NCT02706873|181825636|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure. This endpoint was a ranked key secondary endpoint for US/FDA and Japan/PMDA regulatory purposes.|Response Rate Difference|25.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.6|32.4||The nominal p-value is reported|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for geographic region (North America, South/central America, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Asia/other).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||32.4|17.6|<0.001
90971412|NCT02706873|181825636|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure. This endpoint was a ranked key secondary endpoint for US/FDA and Japan/PMDA regulatory purposes.|Response Rate Difference|26.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.0|33.9||The nominal p-value is reported|Chi-squared, Corrected|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for geographic region (North America, South/central America, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Asia/other).|||Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|33.9|19.0|<0.001
90971413|NCT02706873|181825637|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure. This endpoint was a ranked key secondary endpoint for US/FDA and Japan/PMDA regulatory purposes.|LS Mean Difference|4.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|5.5||The nominal p-value is reported|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as fixed factors and Baseline value as the covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||5.50|3.00|<0.001
90971414|NCT02706873|181825637|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure. This endpoint was a ranked key secondary endpoint for US/FDA and Japan/PMDA regulatory purposes.|LS Mean Difference|4.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.09|5.59||The nominal p-value is reported|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as fixed factors and Baseline value as the covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||5.59|3.09|<0.001
90971415|NCT02706873|181825638|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure. This endpoint was a ranked key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes.|LS Mean Difference|-0.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|-0.71||The nominal p-value is reported|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as fixed factors and Baseline value as the covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||-0.71|-1.12|<0.001
90971416|NCT02706873|181825638|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure. This endpoint was a ranked key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes.|LS Mean Difference|-1.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.99||The nominal p-value is reported|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as fixed factors and Baseline value as the covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||-0.99|-1.40|<0.001
90971417|NCT02706873|181825639|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure. This endpoint was a ranked key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes.|LS Mean Difference|-0.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.17||The nominal p-value is reported|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as fixed factors and Baseline value as the covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||-0.17|-0.37|<0.001
90941263|NCT00510146|181762526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in percentage of participants with symptomatic response at endpoint from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using geographic region as strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.050
90941264|NCT00510146|181762527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.367||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in percentage of participants with symptomatic remission at any time from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using region as strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.367
90941265|NCT00510146|181762528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.11||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|-0.03||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in change from baseline to endpoint in CGI-BP Mania score from the following ANCOVA model: Change=Treatment+Baseline+Geographic Region.|ANCOVA|||||-0.03|-0.20|0.008
90941266|NCT00510146|181762528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.01||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in change from baseline to endpoint in CGI-BP Depression score from the following ANCOVA model: Change=Treatment+Baseline+Geographic Region.|ANCOVA|||||-0.01|-0.47|0.037
90941267|NCT00510146|181762528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.08||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in change from baseline to endpoint in CGI-BP Overall score from the following ANCOVA model: Change=Treatment+Baseline+Geographic Region.|ANCOVA|||||-0.08|-0.53|0.008
90941268|NCT00510146|181762529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.156||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in percentage of participants with recovery from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using region as strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.156
90971418|NCT02706873|181825639|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure. This endpoint was a ranked key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes.|LS Mean Difference|-0.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.21||The nominal p-value is reported|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as fixed factors and Baseline value as the covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||-0.21|-0.41|<0.001
90971419|NCT02706873|181825640|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure. This endpoint was a ranked key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes.|Response Rate Difference|26.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.3|34.3||The nominal p-value is reported|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for geographic region (North America, South/central America, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Asia/other).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||34.3|19.3|<0.001
91006658|NCT00935701|181897643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mean change in score from pre to post on Child Domain Total||||0.04
91006659|NCT00935701|181897643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mean change in score from pre to post on Parent Domain Total||||0.31
90941269|NCT00510146|181762530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|-0.43||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in change from baseline to endpoint from the following ANCOVA model: Change=Treatment+Baseline+Geographic Region.|ANCOVA|||||-0.43|-1.56|<0.001
90941270|NCT00510146|181762531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.21||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.61|-0.81||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in change from baseline to endpoint from the following ANCOVA model: Change=Treatment+Baseline+Geographic Region.|ANCOVA|||||-0.81|-3.61|0.002
90941271|NCT00510146|181762532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.297||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in percentage of participants with major depressive episode from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using geographic region as strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.297
90941272|NCT00510146|181762532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.264||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in percentage of participants with major depressive episode with melancholic features from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using geographic region as strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.264
90941273|NCT00510146|181762533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.195||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in percentage of participants with current hypomanic episode from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using geographic region as strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.195
90941274|NCT00510146|181762534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.163||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in percentage of participants with current psychotic disorders from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using geographic region as strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.163
90941275|NCT00510146|181762534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.442||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in percentage of participants with current mood disorders with psychotic features from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using geographic region as strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.442
90971420|NCT02706873|181825640|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure. This endpoint was a ranked key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes.|Response Rate Difference|32.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.8|39.6||The nominal p-value is reported|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for geographic region (North America, South/central America, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Asia/other).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||39.6|24.8|<0.001
90971421|NCT02706873|181825641|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure. This endpoint was a ranked key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes.|Response Rate Difference|27.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.3|35.2||The nominal p-value is reported|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for geographic region (North America, South/central America, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Asia/other).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||35.2|20.3|<0.001
90971422|NCT02706873|181825641|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure. This endpoint was a ranked key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes.|Response Rate Difference|32.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.4|40.2||The nominal p-value is reported|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for geographic region (North America, South/central America, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Asia/other).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||40.2|25.4|<0.001
90971423|NCT02706873|181825642|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure. This endpoint was a ranked key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes.|LS Mean Difference|3.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.42|5.03||The nominal p-value is reported|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as fixed factors and Baseline value as the covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||5.03|2.42|<0.001
90971424|NCT02706873|181825642|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure. This endpoint was a ranked key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes.|LS Mean Difference|4.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.12|5.72||The nominal p-value is reported|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as fixed factors and Baseline value as the covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||5.72|3.12|<0.001
90971425|NCT02706873|181825643|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure. This endpoint was a ranked key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes.|Response Rate Difference|9.8||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|16.2||The nominal p-value is reported|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for geographic region (North America, South/central America, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Asia/other).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||16.2|3.5|0.002
91006660|NCT00935701|181897643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mean change in score from pre to post on Total Stress||||0.07
91036016|NCT01929863|181958702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-36.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.25|-10.9|||||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of Treatment A-GSK2330672 + Metformin and Treatment B-Placebo + Metformin for Maximum (4-10 h) Value.|Treatment A-GSK2330672 + Metformin versus Treatment B-Placebo + Metformin for Maximum (4-10 h) Value.||-10.90|-62.25|
91036017|NCT01929863|181958702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-45.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.8|-18.03|||||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of Treatment A-GSK2330672 + Metformin and Treatment B-Placebo + Metformin for Maximum (10-14 h) Value.|Treatment A-GSK2330672 + Metformin versus Treatment B-Placebo + Metformin for Maximum (10-14 h) Value.||-18.03|-72.80|
90941276|NCT00510146|181762535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in percentage of participants with current alcohol dependence from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using geographic region as strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||1.00
90941277|NCT00510146|181762535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.324||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in percentage of participants with current alcohol abuse from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using geographic region as strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.324
90941278|NCT00510146|181762537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in percentage of participants with emergence of mania at endpoint from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using geographic region as strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.031
90941279|NCT00510146|181762538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.269||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in percentage of participants with EPS symptoms (akathisia) at endpoint from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using geographic region as strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.269
90941280|NCT00510146|181762538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.736||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in percentage of participants with EPS symptoms (parkinsonism) at endpoint from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using geographic region as strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.736
90941281|NCT00510146|181762539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.146||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in change from baseline to endpoint-standing systolic blood pressure from the following ANCOVA model: Change=Treatment+Baseline+Geographic Region.|ANCOVA|||||||0.146
90941282|NCT00510146|181762539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.249||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in change from baseline to endpoint-sitting systolic blood pressure from the following ANCOVA model: Change=Treatment+Baseline+Geographic Region.|ANCOVA|||||||0.249
90941283|NCT00510146|181762539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.146||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in change from baseline to endpoint-standing diastolic blood pressure from the following ANCOVA model: Change=Treatment+Baseline+Geographic Region.|ANCOVA|||||||0.146
90941284|NCT00510146|181762539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.271||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in change from baseline to endpoint-sitting diastolic blood pressure from the following ANCOVA model: Change=Treatment+Baseline+Geographic Region.|ANCOVA|||||||0.271
90941285|NCT00510146|181762539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.284||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in change from baseline to endpoint-orthostatic change in systolic blood pressure from the following ANCOVA model: Change=Treatment+Baseline+Geographic Region.|ANCOVA|||||||0.284
90941286|NCT00510146|181762539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.067||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in change from baseline to endpoint-orthostatic change in diastolic blood pressure from the following ANCOVA model: Change=Treatment+Baseline+Geographic Region.|ANCOVA|||||||0.067
90941287|NCT00510146|181762540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in change from baseline to endpoint-in weight from the following ANCOVA model: Change=Treatment+Baseline+Geographic Region.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90941288|NCT00510146|181762541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.179||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in change from baseline to endpoint-in fasting glucose from the following ANCOVA model: Change=Treatment+Baseline+Geographic Region.|ANCOVA|||||||0.179
90941289|NCT00510146|181762541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in change from baseline to endpoint-in cholesterol from the following ANCOVA model: Change=Treatment+Baseline+Geographic Region.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90941290|NCT00510146|181762541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in change from baseline to endpoint-in triglycerides from the following ANCOVA model: Change=Treatment+Baseline+Geographic Region.|ANCOVA|||||||0.003
90941291|NCT00510146|181762541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in change from baseline to endpoint-in LDL cholesterol from the following ANCOVA model: Change=Treatment+Baseline+Geographic Region.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90941292|NCT00510146|181762541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.095||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in change from baseline to endpoint-in HDL cholesterol from the following ANCOVA model: Change=Treatment+Baseline+Geographic Region.|ANCOVA|||||||0.095
90941293|NCT00510146|181762542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in change from baseline to endpoint in albumin from Wilcoxon's rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
90941294|NCT00510146|181762543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in change from baseline to endpoint in ALT/SGPT from Wilcoxon's rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90941295|NCT00510146|181762543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in change from baseline to endpoint in AST/SGOT from Wilcoxon's rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
90941296|NCT00510146|181762543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in change from baseline to endpoint in GGT from Wilcoxon's rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90941297|NCT00510146|181762544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in change from baseline to endpoint in direct bilirubin from Wilcoxon's rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90941298|NCT00510146|181762544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in change from baseline to endpoint in total bilirubin from Wilcoxon's rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90971426|NCT02706873|181825643|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure. This endpoint was a ranked key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes.|Response Rate Difference|11.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.4|17.8||The nominal p-value is reported|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for geographic region (North America, South/central America, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Asia/other).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||17.8|5.4|<0.001
90971427|NCT02706873|181825644|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|18.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.1|24.9||The nominal p-value is reported|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for geographic region (North America, South/central America, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Asia/other).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||24.9|12.1|<0.001
90971428|NCT02706873|181825644|OTHER||Response Rate Difference|22.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.4|29.5||The nominal p-value is reported|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for geographic region (North America, South/central America, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Asia/other).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||29.5|16.4|<0.001
90971429|NCT02706873|181825645|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|20.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.2|27.3||The nominal p-value is reported|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for geographic region (North America, South/central America, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Asia/other).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||27.3|13.2|<0.001
90971430|NCT02706873|181825645|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|19.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.3|26.5||The nominal p-value is reported|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for geographic region (North America, South/central America, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Asia/other).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||26.5|12.3|<0.001
90971431|NCT02706873|181825646|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|26.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.1|33.0||The nominal p-value is reported|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for geographic region (North America, South/central America, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Asia/other).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||33.0|19.1|<0.001
90971432|NCT02706873|181825646|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|31.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.2|38.2||The nominal p-value is reported|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for geographic region (North America, South/central America, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Asia/other).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||38.2|24.2|<0.001
90971433|NCT02706873|181825647|SUPERIORITY|For the Japan sub-study, no multiplicity adjustments were applied and only nominal p-values were provided for all efficacy analyses.|Response Rate Difference|28.3||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|48.9|||Chi-squared||Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||48.9|7.7|0.004
90971434|NCT02706873|181825647|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|28.0||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|50.7|||Chi-squared||Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||50.7|5.3|0.022
90971435|NCT02706873|181825647|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|21.4||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|45.2|||Chi-squared||Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||45.2|-2.4|0.086
90941299|NCT00510146|181762544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in change from baseline to endpoint in uric acid from Wilcoxon's rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90941300|NCT00510146|181762545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in change from baseline to endpoint in erythrocyte count from Wilcoxon's rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.003
90941301|NCT00510146|181762546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in change from baseline to endpoint in hematocrit from Wilcoxon's rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
90941302|NCT00510146|181762547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in change from baseline to endpoint in hemoglobin A1c from Wilcoxon's rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.009
90941303|NCT00510146|181762548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in change from baseline to endpoint in hemoglobin from Wilcoxon's rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90971436|NCT02706873|181825648|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|38.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.6|58.5|||Chi-squared||Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||58.5|18.6|<0.001
90971437|NCT02706873|181825648|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|45.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.8|68.6|||Chi-squared||Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||68.6|21.8|<0.001
90971438|NCT02706873|181825648|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|50.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.4|72.6|||Chi-squared||Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||72.6|27.4|<0.001
90971439|NCT02706873|181825649|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|34.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.0|47.1|||Chi-squared||Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||47.1|22.0|<0.001
90971440|NCT02706873|181825649|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|51.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.0|70.7|||Chi-squared||Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||70.7|33.0|<0.001
90971441|NCT02706873|181825649|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|64.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.5|82.0|||Chi-squared||Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||82.0|46.5|<0.001
90971442|NCT02706873|181825650|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.92|-0.95|||ANOVA|ANOVA model with Baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||-0.95|-1.92|<0.001
90941304|NCT00510146|181762549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in change from baseline to endpoint in prolactin from Wilcoxon's rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90941305|NCT00510146|181762550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in change from baseline to endpoint in urinalysis-specific gravity from Wilcoxon's rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90941306|NCT00510146|181762551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.104||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in change from baseline to endpoint in QTcF interval from the following ANCOVA model: Change=Treatment+Baseline+Geographic Region.|ANCOVA|||||||0.104
90941307|NCT00510146|181762551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in change from baseline to endpoint in QTcB interval from the following ANCOVA model: Change=Treatment+Baseline+Geographic Region.|ANCOVA|||||||0.006
90941308|NCT00510146|181762552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in change from baseline to endpoint in heart rate from the following ANCOVA model: Change=Treatment+Baseline+Geographic Region.|ANCOVA|||||||0.035
90941309|NCT00510146|181762553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.64||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in change from baseline to endpoint for MINI Suicidality Total Score from the following ANCOVA model: Change=Treatment+Baseline+Geographic Region.|ANCOVA|||||0.64|-0.59|0.943
90941310|NCT00510146|181762561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.736||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to endpoint-standing diastolic blood pressure from t-tests on change.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.736
90941311|NCT00510146|181762561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.944||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to endpoint-sitting diastolic blood pressure from t-tests on change.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.944
90941312|NCT00510146|181762561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to endpoint-standing systolic blood pressure from t-tests on change.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.080
90941313|NCT00510146|181762561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.612||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to endpoint-sitting systolic blood pressure from t-tests on change.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.612
90941314|NCT00510146|181762561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to endpoint-orthostatic change in diastolic blood pressure from t-tests on change.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.640
90941315|NCT00510146|181762561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.122||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to endpoint-orthostatic change in systolic blood pressure from t-tests on change.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.122
90941316|NCT00510146|181762562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to endpoint for weight from t-tests on change.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90941317|NCT00510146|181762563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to endpoint for albumin from Wilcoxon's signed-rank test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90941318|NCT00510146|181762563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to endpoint for total protein from Wilcoxon's signed-rank test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
90941319|NCT00510146|181762564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to endpoint for alkaline phosphatase from Wilcoxon's signed-rank test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
90941320|NCT00510146|181762564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to endpoint for CPK from Wilcoxon's signed-rank test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.010
90971443|NCT02706873|181825650|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.42|-1.3|||ANOVA|ANOVA model with Baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||-1.30|-2.42|<0.001
90941321|NCT00510146|181762564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.354||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to endpoint for GGT from Wilcoxon's signed-rank test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.354
90941322|NCT00510146|181762565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to endpoint for chlorine from Wilcoxon's signed-rank test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.010
90941323|NCT00510146|181762566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to endpoint for creatinine from Wilcoxon's signed-rank test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90941324|NCT00510146|181762567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to endpoint for erythrocyte count from Wilcoxon's signed-rank test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.021
90941325|NCT00510146|181762568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to endpoint for hemoglobin from Wilcoxon's signed-rank test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.035
90941326|NCT00510146|181762569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to endpoint for platelet count from Wilcoxon's signed-rank test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.024
90941327|NCT00510146|181762570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to endpoint for prolactin from Wilcoxon's signed-rank test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90941328|NCT00510146|181762571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to endpoint for uric acid from Wilcoxon's signed-rank test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90941329|NCT00510146|181762572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to endpoint for fasting glucose from t-tests on change.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.047
90941330|NCT00510146|181762572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to endpoint for cholesterol from t-tests on change.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.130
90941331|NCT00510146|181762572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.055||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to endpoint for triglycerides from t-tests on change.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.055
90941332|NCT00510146|181762572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to endpoint for LDL cholesterol from t-tests on change.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.049
90941333|NCT00510146|181762572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to endpoint for HDL cholesterol from t-tests on change.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90941334|NCT00510146|181762573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to endpoint for QTcF from t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.023
90941335|NCT00510146|181762573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.044||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to endpoint for QTcB from t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.044
90941336|NCT00510146|181762574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.919||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to endpoint for heart rate from t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.919
90941337|NCT03640754|181762578|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
90941338|NCT03640754|181762578|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
90941339|NCT03640754|181762579|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
90941340|NCT03640754|181762579|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
90941341|NCT03640754|181762580|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
90971444|NCT02706873|181825650|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|-1.36|||ANOVA|ANOVA model with Baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||-1.36|-2.48|<0.001
90971445|NCT02706873|181825651|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.34|||ANOVA|ANOVA model with Baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||-0.34|-0.75|<0.001
90941342|NCT03640754|181762580|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
90941343|NCT03640754|181762581|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.199|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.199
90941344|NCT03640754|181762581|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.189|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.189
90941345|NCT03640754|181762582|SUPERIORITY|Least squares means (LS Means) from a mixed effects repeated measures model with baseline M+S score, current smoking status, bmi, and parity as covariates||||||0.398|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.398
90941346|NCT03640754|181762582|SUPERIORITY|Least squares means (LS Means) from a mixed effects repeated measures model with baseline M+S score, current smoking status, bmi, and parity as covariates||||||0.391|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.391
90941347|NCT03640754|181762583|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.232|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Least squares means (LS Means) from a mixed effects repeated measures model with baseline M+S score, current smoking status, bmi, and parity as covariates||||0.232
90941348|NCT03640754|181762583|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.085|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Least squares means (LS Means) from a mixed effects repeated measures model with baseline M+S score, current smoking status, bmi, and parity as covariates||||0.085
90941349|NCT03640754|181762584|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.501|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.501
90941350|NCT03640754|181762584|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.370
90941351|NCT03640754|181762585|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.333|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.333
90941352|NCT03640754|181762585|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.014
90941353|NCT03640754|181762586|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.124|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.124
90941354|NCT03640754|181762586|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.175|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.175
90941355|NCT03640754|181762587|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.032|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.032
90941356|NCT03640754|181762587|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.077|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.077
90941357|NCT03640754|181762591|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.047|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.047
90941358|NCT03640754|181762591|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.139|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.139
90941359|NCT03640754|181762591|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.395|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.395
90941360|NCT03640754|181762592|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.147|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.147
90941361|NCT03640754|181762592|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.160
90941362|NCT03640754|181762592|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.152|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.152
90941363|NCT03640754|181762593|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.286|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.286
90941364|NCT03640754|181762593|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.107|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.107
91036018|NCT01929863|181958702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-29.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.84|-7.86|||||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of Treatment A-GSK2330672 + Metformin and Treatment B-Placebo + Metformin for Maximum (0-24 h) Value.|Treatment A-GSK2330672 + Metformin versus Treatment B-Placebo + Metformin for Maximum (0-24 h) Value.||-7.86|-50.84|
91036019|NCT01929863|181958702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-26.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.8|-6.49|||||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of Treatment A-GSK2330672 + Metformin and Treatment B-Placebo + Metformin for AUC (0-4 h) Weighted Mean.|Treatment A-GSK2330672 + Metformin versus Treatment B-Placebo + Metformin for AUC (0-4 h) Weighted Mean||-6.49|-45.80|
90941365|NCT03640754|181762594|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.289|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.289
90941366|NCT03640754|181762594|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.338|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.338
90941367|NCT03640754|181762595|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.393|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.393
90941368|NCT03640754|181762595|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.365|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.365
90941369|NCT03640754|181762596|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.406|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.406
90941370|NCT03640754|181762596|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.494|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.494
90941371|NCT04380688|181762605|OTHER|No formal hypothesis testing for this endpoint.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.553|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.145|1.952||P-value not generated.|Regression, Cox|Adjusting for age (\<65 vs \>=65 years) and comorbidities (present vs absent). Ties handled by Efron approach. HR CI using profile likelihood approach.||||1.952|0.145|
90941372|NCT04380688|181762613|OTHER|No formal hypothesis testing for this endpoint.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.314|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.794|2.183||P-value not generated.|Regression, Cox|Adjusting for age (\<65 vs \>=65 years) and comorbidities (present vs absent). Ties handled by Efron approach. HR CI using profile likelihood approach.||||2.183|0.794|
90941373|NCT05294328|181762618|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|34.262|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||||<0.0001
90941374|NCT05294328|181762618|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|73.443|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||||<0.0001
90941375|NCT02056873|181762619|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.05|ONE_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"At 6 months post-surgery the YGTSS scores of each subjects is statistically tested against their baseline scores.~A decrease in this tic severity scale means that the severity of the tics have reduced.~Hence, we performed a superiority test, which statistically verifies if the reduction in the tic severity scale was meaningful."||||0.05
90941376|NCT01387815|181762646|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison does not include missing.||||<0.001
90941377|NCT01387815|181762647|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.001
90941378|NCT01387815|181762648|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
90941379|NCT01387815|181762649|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
90941380|NCT01387815|181762650|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
90941381|NCT01387815|181762651|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
90941382|NCT01387815|181762652|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
90941383|NCT01387815|181762653|OTHER|||||||0.016|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.016
90941384|NCT01387815|181762654|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.060
90941385|NCT01387815|181762655|OTHER|||||||0.056|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.056
90941386|NCT01387815|181762656|OTHER|||||||0.755|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.755
90941387|NCT01387815|181762657|OTHER|||||||0.091|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.091
90941388|NCT01387815|181762658|OTHER|||||||0.106|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.106
90941389|NCT01387815|181762659|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
90941390|NCT01387815|181762660|OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.008
90941391|NCT01387815|181762661|OTHER|||||||0.083|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.083
90941392|NCT01387815|181762662|OTHER|||||||0.495|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.495
90941393|NCT01387815|181762663|OTHER|||||||0.097|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.097
90941394|NCT01387815|181762664|OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.006
90941395|NCT01387815|181762665|OTHER|||||||0.037|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.037
90941396|NCT01387815|181762666|OTHER|||||||0.084|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.084
90941397|NCT01387815|181762667|OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.090
90941398|NCT01387815|181762668|OTHER|||||||0.059|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.059
90941399|NCT01387815|181762669|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004
90941400|NCT01387815|181762670|OTHER|||||||0.115|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.115
90941401|NCT01387815|181762671|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.002
90941402|NCT01387815|181762672|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Chi-squared|||"Comparison does not include the Missing category."||||0.002
90941403|NCT01387815|181762673|OTHER|"Comparison does not include the Missing category."||||||0.017|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.017
90941404|NCT01387815|181762674|OTHER|||||||0.01||||||"Comparison does not include the Missing category."|Chi-squared|||||||0.010
90941405|NCT01387815|181762675|OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||Chi-squared|||"Comparison does not include the Missing category."||||0.015
90941406|NCT01387815|181762676|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||Chi-squared|||"Comparison does not include the Missing category."||||0.060
90941407|NCT01387815|181762677|OTHER|||||||0.501|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.501
90941408|NCT01387815|181762678|OTHER|||||||0.807|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.807
90941409|NCT01387815|181762679|OTHER|||||||0.479|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.479
90941410|NCT01387815|181762680|OTHER|||||||0.918|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.918
90941411|NCT01387815|181762681|OTHER|||||||0.609|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.609
90941412|NCT01387815|181762682|OTHER|||||||0.367|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.367
91036020|NCT01929863|181958702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-32.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.41|-8.58|||||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of Treatment A-GSK2330672 + Metformin and Treatment B-Placebo + Metformin for AUC (4-10 h) Weighted Mean.|Treatment A-GSK2330672 + Metformin versus Treatment B-Placebo + Metformin for AUC (4-10 h) Weighted Mean.||-8.58|-55.41|
91036021|NCT01929863|181958702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-40.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.64|-15.29|||||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of Treatment A-GSK2330672 + Metformin and Treatment B-Placebo + Metformin for AUC (10-14 h) Weighted Mean.|Treatment A-GSK2330672 + Metformin versus Treatment B-Placebo + Metformin for AUC (10-14 h) Weighted Mean.||-15.29|-66.64|
91036022|NCT01929863|181958702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-34.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.67|-14.85|||||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of Treatment A-GSK2330672 + Metformin and Treatment B-Placebo + Metformin for AUC (0-24 h) Weighted Mean.|Treatment A-GSK2330672 + Metformin versus Treatment B-Placebo + Metformin for AUC (0-24 h) Weighted Mean.||-14.85|-54.67|
90941413|NCT01387815|181762683|OTHER|||||||0.521|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.521
90941414|NCT01387815|181762684|OTHER|||||||0.793|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.793
90941415|NCT01387815|181762685|OTHER|||||||0.442|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.442
90941416|NCT01387815|181762686|OTHER|||||||0.434|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.434
90941417|NCT01387815|181762687|OTHER|||||||0.752|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.752
90941418|NCT01387815|181762688|OTHER|||||||0.469|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.469
90941419|NCT01387815|181762689|OTHER|||||||0.419|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.419
90941420|NCT01387815|181762690|OTHER|||||||0.695|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.695
90941421|NCT01387815|181762691|OTHER|||||||0.452|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.452
90941422|NCT01387815|181762692|OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.008
90941423|NCT01387815|181762693|OTHER|||||||0.181|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.181
90941424|NCT01387815|181762694|OTHER|||||||0.252|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.252
90941425|NCT01387815|181762698|OTHER|||||||0.143|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.143
90941426|NCT01387815|181762699|OTHER|||||||0.415|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.415
90941427|NCT01387815|181762700|OTHER|||||||0.604|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.604
91036023|NCT01929863|181958703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.013|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.912|1.125|||||The point estimate was calculated as geometric least square mean ratio of Treatment A-GSK2330672 + Metformin and Treatment B-Placebo + Metformin for AUC (0-10 h).|||1.125|0.912|
90941428|NCT01387815|181762701|OTHER|||||||0.504|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.504
90941429|NCT01387815|181762702|OTHER|||||||0.92|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.920
90941430|NCT01387815|181762703|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
90941431|NCT01387815|181762704|OTHER|||||||0.575|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.575
90941432|NCT01387815|181762707|OTHER|||||||0.856|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.856
90941433|NCT01387815|181762708|OTHER|||||||0.623|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.623
90941434|NCT01387815|181762709|OTHER|||||||0.732|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.732
90941435|NCT01387815|181762710|OTHER|||||||0.896|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.896
90941436|NCT01387815|181762711|OTHER|||||||0.879|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.879
90941437|NCT01387815|181762712|OTHER|||||||0.763|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.763
90941438|NCT01387815|181762713|OTHER|||||||0.657|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.657
90941439|NCT01387815|181762714|OTHER|||||||0.987|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.987
90941440|NCT01387815|181762715|OTHER|||||||0.011|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.011
90941441|NCT01387815|181762716|OTHER|||||||0.351|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.351
90941442|NCT01387815|181762717|OTHER|||||||0.835|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.835
90941443|NCT01387815|181762719|OTHER|||||||0.714|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.714
90941444|NCT01387815|181762720|OTHER|||||||0.737|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.737
90941445|NCT01387815|181762721|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
90941446|NCT01387815|181762725|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
90941447|NCT01387815|181762726|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
90941448|NCT01387815|181762728|OTHER|||||||0.714|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.714
90941449|NCT01387815|181762729|OTHER|||||||0.747|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.747
90941450|NCT01387815|181762730|OTHER|||||||0.495|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.495
90941451|NCT01387815|181762734|OTHER|||||||0.364|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.364
90941452|NCT01387815|181762735|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
90941453|NCT01387815|181762736|OTHER|||||||0.723|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.723
90941454|NCT01387815|181762743|OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.006
90941455|NCT01387815|181762744|OTHER|||||||0.672|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.672
90941456|NCT01387815|181762745|OTHER|||||||0.482|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.482
90941457|NCT01387815|181762746|OTHER|||||||0.938|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.938
90941458|NCT01387815|181762747|OTHER|||||||0.144|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.144
90941459|NCT01387815|181762748|OTHER|||||||0.36|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.360
90941460|NCT01387815|181762749|OTHER|||||||0.808|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.808
90941461|NCT01387815|181762750|OTHER|||||||0.208|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.208
90941462|NCT01387815|181762751|OTHER|||||||0.184|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.184
90941463|NCT01387815|181762752|OTHER|||||||0.305|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.305
90941464|NCT01387815|181762754|OTHER|||||||0.757|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.757
90941465|NCT01387815|181762755|OTHER|||||||0.321|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.321
90941466|NCT01387815|181762756|OTHER|||||||0.181|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.181
90941467|NCT01387815|181762757|OTHER|||||||0.395|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.395
90941468|NCT01387815|181762759|OTHER|||||||0.739|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.739
90941469|NCT01387815|181762760|OTHER|||||||0.291|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.291
90941470|NCT02847637|181762799|SUPERIORITY||ABR Ratio|0.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.075||Statistical significance is controlled at the 2-sided, 0.05 alpha level. The p-value was obtained via a global model with a 3-level categorical effect for treatment (emicizumab 1.5 mg/kg/week, emicizumab 3 mg/kg/2 weeks, or no prophylaxis).|Stratified Wald test||Arm A is the numerator and Arm C is the denominator for this ABR Ratio.|H0 (null hypothesis): ABR Ratio for Arm A versus Arm C = 1. H1 (alternative hypothesis): ABR Ratio for Arm A versus Arm C ≠ 1.||0.075|0.020|<0.0001
90971446|NCT02706873|181825651|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.51|||ANOVA|ANOVA model with Baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||-0.51|-0.99|<0.001
90971447|NCT02706873|181825651|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.51|||ANOVA|ANOVA model with Baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||-0.51|-0.99|<0.001
90971448|NCT02706873|181825652|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.15|8.8|||ANOVA|ANOVA model with Baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||8.80|3.15|<0.001
90971449|NCT02706873|181825652|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|7.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.66|11.19|||ANOVA|ANOVA model with Baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||11.19|4.66|<0.001
90971450|NCT02706873|181825652|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|6.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.33|10.2|||ANOVA|ANOVA model with Baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||10.20|3.33|<0.001
90971451|NCT02706873|181825653|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|51.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.5|70.0|||Chi-squared||Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||70.0|32.5|<0.001
90971452|NCT02706873|181825653|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|59.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.8|81.1|||Chi-squared||Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||81.1|38.8|<0.001
90971453|NCT02706873|181825653|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|60.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.9|81.5|||Chi-squared||Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||81.5|39.9|<0.001
91036024|NCT01929863|181958704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.036|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.937|1.145|||||The point estimate was calculated as geometric least square mean ratio of Treatment A-GSK2330672 + Metformin and Treatment B-Placebo + Metformin for Cmax.|||1.145|0.937|
90971454|NCT02706873|181825654|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|49.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.6|68.3|||Chi-squared||Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||68.3|30.6|<0.001
90971455|NCT02706873|181825654|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|52.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.2|74.8|||Chi-squared||Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||74.8|30.2|<0.001
90971456|NCT02706873|181825654|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|64.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.2|84.3|||Chi-squared||Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||84.3|44.2|<0.001
90971457|NCT02706873|181825655|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.69||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.47|0.09|||ANOVA|ANOVA model with Baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||0.09|-3.47|0.063
90971458|NCT02706873|181825655|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.4||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.45|-0.35|||ANOVA|ANOVA model with Baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||-0.35|-4.45|0.022
90971459|NCT02706873|181825655|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.45||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.54|-0.35|||ANOVA|ANOVA model with Baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||-0.35|-4.54|0.022
90971460|NCT02706873|181825656|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|36.2||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.4|58.0|||Chi-squared||Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||58.0|14.4|0.001
90971461|NCT02706873|181825656|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|34.6||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.2|59.0|||Chi-squared||Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||59.0|10.2|0.010
90971462|NCT02706873|181825656|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|33.0||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.9|58.1|||Chi-squared||Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||58.1|7.9|0.016
90971463|NCT01857713|181825657|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|It was assumed that the study would be successful if the mean % reduction is significantly greater than 25%. Assuming a 35% reduction in RSI, a power of 80%, one-sided significance level of 0.05, 85 subjects are required for the study. It was decided to recruit up to 100 subjects for this study.|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||The sample size was based on the primary effectiveness variable (% reduction in RSI from Baseline to Week 4). It was assumed that the study would be successful if the mean % reduction is significantly greater than 25%. Assuming a 35% reduction in RSI, a power of 80%, one-sided significance level of 0.05, 85 subjects are required for the study. It was decided to recruit up to 100 subjects for this study.||||<0.05
90971464|NCT05098041|181825663|OTHER|Linear mixed-effects model was used for analysis. The model included treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect. The point estimates and 90 percent (%) confidence intervals (CIs) for the Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR) of Cmax for Soticlestat and Rifampin versus Soticlestat alone were calculated using the exponentiation of the point estimates of the difference between treatment regimen and the corresponding 90% CIs from the analyses on the natural-log (ln)-transformed Cmax.|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|13.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.73|17.79|||||GMR (%) was calculated as 100\*(Soticlestat + Rifampin/Soticlestat Alone).|||17.79|9.73|
90971465|NCT05098041|181825664|OTHER|Linear mixed-effects model was used for analysis. The model included treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect. The point estimates and 90% CIs for the GMR of AUC∞ for Soticlestat and Rifampin versus Soticlestat alone were calculated using the exponentiation of the point estimates of the difference between treatment regimen and the corresponding 90% CIs from the analyses on the ln-transformed AUC∞.|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|16.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|12.53|21.5|||||GMR (%) was calculated as 100\*(Soticlestat + Rifampin/Soticlestat Alone).|||21.50|12.53|
90971466|NCT05098041|181825665|OTHER|Linear mixed-effects model was used for analysis. The model included treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect. The point estimates and 90% CIs for the GMR of AUClast for Soticlestat and Rifampin versus Soticlestat alone were calculated using the exponentiation of the point estimates of the difference between treatment regimen and the corresponding 90% CIs from the analyses on the ln-transformed AUClast.|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|14.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|11.94|18.64|||||GMR (%) was calculated as 100\*(Soticlestat + Rifampin/Soticlestat Alone).|||18.64|11.94|
90971467|NCT05098041|181825666|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.117|||=|0.0791|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.202|0.0|||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test||Difference was calculated as (Soticlestat + Rifampin) - Soticlestat Alone. The difference of medians (treatment effect) and the corresponding 90% CI was estimated using the Hodges-Lehmann method and Walsh Averages.|||0.000|-0.202|=0.07910
90971468|NCT03759665|181825674|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Estimator|0.75||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|1.5|||1-sided Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||1.50|0.00|0.044
90971469|NCT03759665|181825676|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Estimator|0.13||||0.206|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.13|0.25|||1-sided Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.25|-0.13|0.206
90971470|NCT03759665|181825679|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Estimator|0.0327||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0327|0.104|||1-sided Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Treatment With IB1001||0.1040|-0.0327|0.210
90971471|NCT03759665|181825679|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Estimator|-0.0291||||0.212|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0863|0.0262|||1-sided Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Post-Treatment Washout||0.0262|-0.0863|0.212
90971472|NCT03759665|181825680|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Estimator|-1.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.75|-0.75|||1-sided Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Treatment With IB1001||-0.75|-1.75|<0.001
90971473|NCT03759665|181825680|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Estimator|1.25||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|2.0|||1-sided Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Post-Treatment Washout||2.00|0.50|0.001
90971474|NCT03759665|181825682|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Estimator|-0.031||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.063|0.0|||1-sided Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Treatment with IB1001||0.000|-0.063|0.020
90971475|NCT03759665|181825682|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Estimator|0.042|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.021|0.063|||1-sided Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Post-Treatment Washout||0.063|0.021|<0.001
90971476|NCT03759665|181825683|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Estimator|3.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.0|3.5|||1-sided Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Treatment With IB1001||3.5|3.0|<0.001
91036025|NCT00730691|181958707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.843||0.255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.62|0.69||This treatment arm is not in the pre-specified testing sequence, a nominal p-value is provided.|Mixed model for repeated measurements|P-values are from an MMRM model with week, Baseline score-by-week and treatment-by-week interaction as factors.||P-values were tested at the 5% level of significance (ie, statistical significance if P\<0.05) comparing each of the 3 doses of vortioxetine to placebo.||0.69|-2.62|0.255
90971477|NCT03759665|181825683|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Estimator|5.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.5|5.0|||1-sided Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Post-Treatment Washout||5.0|4.5|<0.001
90971478|NCT00797732|181825689|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.17
90971479|NCT01297270|181825704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.7|30.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Estimate adjusted for genotype and race using Koch's method, with continuity correction|||30.6|10.7|<0.0001
90971480|NCT01297270|181825704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.4||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.3|27.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Estimate adjusted for genotype and race using Koch's method, with continuity correction|||27.4|7.3|0.0007
90971481|NCT01297270|181825705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.7|30.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Estimate adjusted for genotype and race using Koch's method, with continuity correction|||30.6|10.7|<0.0001
90971482|NCT01297270|181825705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.6||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|26.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Estimate adjusted for genotype and race using Koch's method, with continuity correction|||26.7|6.5|0.0014
90971483|NCT02112370|181825715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||||||threshold p value for significance \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Swallowing difficulty||||0.008
90971484|NCT02112370|181825715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016||||||threshold p value for significance \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Anterior neck pain||||0.016
90971485|NCT02112370|181825715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019||||||threshold p value for significance \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Right chest pain||||0.019
90971486|NCT02112370|181825715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035||||||threshold p value for significance \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Left chest pain||||0.035
90971487|NCT02112370|181825715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.089||||||threshold p value for significance \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Back pain||||0.089
90971488|NCT02112370|181825715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.634||||||threshold p value for significance \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Posterior neck pain||||0.634
90971489|NCT02873936|181825755|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|34.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.5|46.3||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12||46.3|23.5|<0.001
90971490|NCT02873936|181825755|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|26.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.0|37.9||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12||37.9|15.0|<0.001
90971491|NCT02873936|181825756|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.19||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. Least squares (LS)-Mean, 95% confidence interval (CI), and P-value were provided from mixed effects model for repeated measure (MMRM). Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.19|-0.45|<0.001
90971492|NCT02873936|181825756|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.065|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.14||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.14|-0.40|<0.001
90971493|NCT02873936|181825757|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|25.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.7|35.8||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12||35.8|14.7|<0.001
90971494|NCT02873936|181825757|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|21.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.4|32.0||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12||32.0|11.4|<0.001
90971495|NCT02873936|181825758|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.92|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|6.1||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||6.1|2.5|<0.001
90941471|NCT02847637|181762799|SUPERIORITY||ABR Ratio|0.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.017|0.066||Statistical significance is controlled at the 2-sided, 0.05 alpha level. The p-value was obtained via a global model with a 3-level categorical effect for treatment (emicizumab 1.5 mg/kg/week, emicizumab 3 mg/kg/2 weeks, or no prophylaxis).|Stratified Wald test||Arm B is the numerator and Arm C is the denominator for this ABR Ratio.|H0 (null hypothesis): ABR Ratio for Arm B versus Arm C = 1. H1 (alternative hypothesis): ABR Ratio for Arm B versus Arm C ≠ 1.||0.066|0.017|<0.0001
90941472|NCT02847637|181762800|SUPERIORITY||ABR Ratio|0.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.028|0.099||Statistical significance is controlled at the 2-sided, 0.05 alpha level. The p-value was obtained via a global model with a 3-level categorical effect for treatment (emicizumab 1.5 mg/kg/week, emicizumab 3 mg/kg/2 weeks, or no prophylaxis).|Stratified Wald test||Arm A is the numerator and Arm C is the denominator for this ABR Ratio.|H0 (null hypothesis): ABR Ratio for Arm A versus Arm C = 1. H1 (alternative hypothesis): ABR Ratio for Arm A versus Arm C ≠ 1.||0.099|0.028|<0.0001
90941473|NCT02847637|181762800|SUPERIORITY||ABR Ratio|0.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.103||Statistical significance is controlled at the 2-sided, 0.05 alpha level. The p-value was obtained via a global model with a 3-level categorical effect for treatment (emicizumab 1.5 mg/kg/week, emicizumab 3 mg/kg/2 weeks, or no prophylaxis).|Stratified Wald test||Arm B is the numerator and Arm C is the denominator for this ABR Ratio.|H0 (null hypothesis): ABR Ratio for Arm B versus Arm C = 1. H1 (alternative hypothesis): ABR Ratio for Arm B versus Arm C ≠ 1.||0.103|0.030|<0.0001
90941474|NCT02847637|181762801|SUPERIORITY||ABR Ratio|0.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.019|0.085||Statistical significance is controlled at the 2-sided, 0.05 alpha level. The p-value is obtained via a global model with a 3-level categorical effect for treatment (emicizumab 1.5 mg/kg/week, emicizumab 3 mg/kg/2 weeks, or no prophylaxis).|Stratified Wald test||Arm A is the numerator and Arm C is the denominator for this ABR Ratio.|H0 (null hypothesis): ABR Ratio for Arm A versus Arm C = 1. H1 (alternative hypothesis): ABR Ratio for Arm A versus Arm C ≠ 1.||0.085|0.019|<0.0001
90941475|NCT02847637|181762801|SUPERIORITY||ABR Ratio|0.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.015|0.07||Statistical significance is controlled at the 2-sided, 0.05 alpha level. The p-value is obtained via a global model with a 3-level categorical effect for treatment (emicizumab 1.5 mg/kg/week, emicizumab 3 mg/kg/2 weeks, or no prophylaxis).|Stratified Wald test||Arm B is the numerator and Arm C is the denominator for this ABR Ratio.|H0 (null hypothesis): ABR Ratio for Arm B versus Arm C = 1. H1 (alternative hypothesis): ABR Ratio for Arm B versus Arm C ≠ 1.||0.070|0.015|<0.0001
90941476|NCT02847637|181762802|SUPERIORITY||ABR Ratio|0.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.025|0.151||Statistical significance is controlled at the 2-sided, 0.05 alpha level. The p-value is obtained via a global model with a 3-level categorical effect for treatment (emicizumab 1.5 mg/kg/week, emicizumab 3 mg/kg/2 weeks, or no prophylaxis).|Stratified Wald test||Arm A is the numerator and Arm C is the denominator for this ABR Ratio.|H0 (null hypothesis): ABR Ratio for Arm A versus Arm C = 1. H1 (alternative hypothesis): ABR Ratio for Arm A versus Arm C ≠ 1.||0.151|0.025|<0.0001
90941477|NCT02847637|181762802|SUPERIORITY||ABR Ratio|0.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.006|0.056||Statistical significance is controlled at the 2-sided, 0.05 alpha level. The p-value is obtained via a global model with a 3-level categorical effect for treatment (emicizumab 1.5 mg/kg/week, emicizumab 3 mg/kg/2 weeks, or no prophylaxis).|Stratified Wald test||Arm B is the numerator and Arm C is the denominator for this ABR Ratio.|H0 (null hypothesis): ABR Ratio for Arm B versus Arm C = 1. H1 (alternative hypothesis): ABR Ratio for Arm B versus Arm C ≠ 1.||0.056|0.006|<0.0001
90941478|NCT02847637|181762803|SUPERIORITY||ABR Ratio|0.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.016|0.143||Not controlled for type I error|Stratified Wald test||Arm A is the numerator and Arm C is the denominator for this ABR Ratio.|H0 (null hypothesis): ABR Ratio for Arm A versus Arm C = 1. H1 (alternative hypothesis): ABR Ratio for Arm A versus Arm C ≠ 1.||0.143|0.016|<0.0001
90941479|NCT02847637|181762803|SUPERIORITY||ABR Ratio|0.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.018|0.147||Not controlled for type I error|Stratified Wald test||Arm B is the numerator and Arm C is the denominator for this ABR Ratio.|H0 (null hypothesis): ABR Ratio for Arm B versus Arm C = 1. H1 (alternative hypothesis): ABR Ratio for Arm B versus Arm C ≠ 1.||0.147|0.018|<0.0001
90941480|NCT02847637|181762804|SUPERIORITY||ABR Ratio|0.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.195|0.514||Statistical significance is controlled at the 2-sided, 0.05 alpha level.|Non-stratified Wald test||Dnisp: Emicizumab Prophylaxis is the numerator and Dnisp: Pre-Study FVIII Prophylaxis is the denominator for this ABR ratio.|H0 (null hypothesis): ABR Ratio = 1. H1 (alternative hypothesis): ABR Ratio ≠ 1.||0.514|0.195|<0.0001
90941481|NCT02847637|181762805|SUPERIORITY||ABR Ratio|0.37||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.626||Statistical significance is controlled at the 2-sided, 0.05 alpha level.|Non-stratified Wald test||Dnisp: Emicizumab Prophylaxis is the numerator and Dnisp: Pre-Study FVIII Prophylaxis is the denominator for this ABR ratio.|H0 (null hypothesis): ABR Ratio = 1. H1 (alternative hypothesis): ABR Ratio ≠ 1.||0.626|0.220|0.0002
90941482|NCT02847637|181762806|SUPERIORITY||ABR Ratio|0.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.014|0.067||Not controlled for type I error|Non-stratified Wald test||Arm A+Bnise: Emicizumab Prophylaxis is the numerator and Arm A+Bnise: Pre-Study Episodic FVIII is the denominator for this ABR Ratio.|H0 (null hypothesis): ABR Ratio = 1. H1 (alternative hypothesis): ABR Ratio ≠ 1.||0.067|0.014|<0.0001
90971496|NCT02873936|181825758|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.92|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|5.2||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||5.2|1.6|<0.001
90971497|NCT02873936|181825759|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|18.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.6|28.3||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24||28.3|8.6|<0.001
91036026|NCT00730691|181958707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.843||0.719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|1.35||Pre-specified sequential statistical testing procedure indicates that when p-value \>0.025, hierarchical testing stops and for subsequent endpoints in the sequence a nominal p-value is provided.|Mixed model for repeated measurements|P-values are from an MMRM model with week, Baseline score-by-week and treatment-by-week interaction as factors.||To control for multiplicity, a pre-specified sequential testing procedure was applied to compare 10 mg and 5 mg vortioxetine to placebo; as soon as an endpoint was non-significant at 0.025, the testing procedure stopped for all subsequent endpoints.||1.35|-1.96|0.719
90971498|NCT02873936|181825759|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|14.0||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.6|23.4||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24||23.4|4.6|0.003
90971499|NCT02873936|181825760|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|7.3||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||7.3|2.6|<0.001
90971500|NCT02873936|181825760|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|5.5||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||5.5|0.9|0.007
90971501|NCT02873936|181825761|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|15.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.4|23.7||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4||23.7|6.4|<0.001
90971502|NCT02873936|181825761|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|14.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|22.6||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4||22.6|5.7|<0.001
90971503|NCT02873936|181825761|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|28.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.5|38.5||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12||38.5|17.5|<0.001
90971504|NCT02873936|181825761|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|17.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.1|27.2||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12||27.2|7.1|<0.001
90971505|NCT02873936|181825761|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|26.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.8|37.6||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24||37.6|15.8|<0.001
90971506|NCT02873936|181825761|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|16.4||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.9|26.9||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24||26.9|5.9|0.002
90971507|NCT02873936|181825762|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|3.4||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|8.8||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4||8.8|-1.9|0.16
90971508|NCT02873936|181825762|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|5.8||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|11.6||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4||11.6|-0.0|0.039
90971509|NCT02873936|181825762|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|15.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|23.5||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12||23.5|6.5|<0.001
90971510|NCT02873936|181825762|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|7.6||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|15.2||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12||15.2|0.1|0.036
90971511|NCT02873936|181825762|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|23.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.5|33.3||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24||33.3|14.5|<0.001
90971512|NCT02873936|181825762|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|12.2||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|20.6||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24||20.6|3.7|0.004
90971513|NCT02873936|181825763|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|26.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.6|37.4||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4||37.4|14.6|<0.001
90971514|NCT02873936|181825763|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|18.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.5|30.0||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4||30.0|7.5|<0.001
90971515|NCT02873936|181825763|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|34.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.6|46.3||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24||46.3|23.6|<0.001
90971516|NCT02873936|181825763|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|20.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.8|32.1||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24||32.1|8.8|<0.001
90971517|NCT02873936|181825764|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|-1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.0|-7.0|0.003
90941483|NCT02847637|181762807|SUPERIORITY||ABR Ratio|0.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.023|0.068||Not controlled for type I error|Non-stratified Wald test||Arm A+Bnise: Emicizumab Prophylaxis is the numerator and Arm A+Bnise: Pre-Study Episodic FVIII is the denominator for this ABR Ratio.|H0 (null hypothesis): ABR Ratio = 1. H1 (alternative hypothesis): ABR Ratio ≠ 1.||0.068|0.023|<0.0001
90941484|NCT02847637|181762808|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.51||||0.0891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|26.98||Statistical significance is controlled at the 2-sided, 0.05 alpha level.|ANCOVA||The difference in adjusted means was analyzed as Arm C minus Arm A.|||26.98|-1.96|0.0891
90941485|NCT02847637|181762808|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.97||||0.0349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|30.78||Not controlled for type I error|ANCOVA||The difference in adjusted means was analyzed as Arm C minus Arm B.|||30.78|1.16|0.0349
90941486|NCT02847637|181762809|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.91||||0.1269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|13.55||Not controlled for type I error|ANCOVA||The difference in adjusted means was analyzed as Arm C minus Arm A.|||13.55|-1.72|0.1269
90941487|NCT02847637|181762809|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.56||||0.0317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|16.35||Not controlled for type I error|ANCOVA||The difference in adjusted means was analyzed as Arm C minus Arm B.|||16.35|0.77|0.0317
90941488|NCT02847637|181762810|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.04||||0.3402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.43|4.35||Not controlled for type I error|ANCOVA||The difference in adjusted means was analyzed as Arm C minus Arm A.|||4.35|-12.43|0.3402
90941489|NCT02847637|181762810|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.15||||0.0373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.74|-0.55||Not controlled for type I error|ANCOVA||The difference in adjusted means was analyzed as Arm C minus Arm B.|||-0.55|-17.74|0.0373
90941490|NCT02847637|181762811|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|-0.04||Not controlled for type I error|ANCOVA||The difference in adjusted means was analyzed as Arm C minus Arm A.|||-0.04|-0.22|0.0060
90941491|NCT02847637|181762811|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|-0.04||Not controlled for type I error|ANCOVA||The difference in adjusted means was analyzed as Arm C minus Arm B.|||-0.04|-0.23|0.0059
90941492|NCT00496626|181762841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|101.6|||<=|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|88.1|117.2||The ANCOVA models showed the lower bounds of two-sided 95% CI on the GMT ratio \[GARDASIL™/placebo\] were greater than 1 for each HPV type, so the null hypothesis was rejected. The CI reported is for HPV18, the type with the smallest CI lower bound.|ANCOVA||Superiority of GARDASIL™ to placebo was claimed if, for each of the four HPV types, the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI on the GMT ratio \[GARDASIL™/placebo\] being \>1, or equivalently, the two-sided p-value \<0.05.|An Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model was used for each HPV type, based on the pooled data from all age groups and genders. The natural-log-transformed titer was the response variable, and vaccination group, gender and age group were covariates. The null hypothesis was that the GMT ratio (Gardasil/Placebo) was equal to 1.||117.2|88.1|<=0.05
90941493|NCT00496626|181762842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Seroconversion Rate|96.65|||<=|0.05||95.0|93.74|98.46||The lower bound of the 95% CI for the seroconversion rate was greater than 90% for each type so the null hypothesis was rejected. The CI reported is for HPV6, the type with the smallest lower bound.|Exact Binomial CI|||The null hypothesis was that the seroconversion rate in the Gardasil® Group was less than 90% for each HPV type.||98.46|93.74|<=0.05
90941494|NCT03231969|181762885|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.791||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.203|-0.378|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference (95%CI): Bilastine 0.2% arm minus Bilastine 0% (Vehicle) arm at Visit 4b (including all time points).||-0.378|-1.203|0.0002
90941495|NCT03231969|181762885|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.851|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.263|-0.439|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference (95%CI): Bilastine 0.4% arm minus Bilastine 0% (Vehicle) arm at Visit 4b (including all time points).||-0.439|-1.263|<.0001
90941496|NCT03231969|181762885|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.545|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.954|-1.135|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference (95%CI): Bilastine 0.6% arm minus Bilastine 0% (Vehicle) arm at Visit 4b (including all time points).||-1.135|-1.954|<.0001
90941497|NCT03231969|181762885|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.208|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.639|-0.778|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference (95%CI): Bilastine 0.2% arm minus Bilastine 0% (Vehicle) arm at Visit 5b (including all time points).||-0.778|-1.639|<.0001
90941498|NCT03231969|181762885|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.245|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.679|-0.811|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference (95%CI): Bilastine 0.4% arm minus Bilastine 0% (Vehicle) arm at Visit 5b (including all time points).||-0.811|-1.679|<.0001
90941499|NCT03231969|181762885|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.846|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.273|-1.418|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference (95%CI): Bilastine 0.6% arm minus Bilastine 0% (Vehicle) arm at Visit 5b (including all time points).||-1.418|-2.273|<.0001
90941500|NCT03231969|181762885|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.696|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.08|-1.312|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference (95%CI): Bilastine 0.2% arm minus Bilastine 0% (Vehicle) arm at Visit 6 (including all time points).||-1.312|-2.080|<.0001
90971518|NCT02873936|181825764|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|0.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.0|-6.0|0.027
90971519|NCT02873936|181825764|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|-3.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-3.0|-8.0|<0.001
90971520|NCT02873936|181825764|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|-2.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-2.0|-7.0|<0.001
90971521|NCT02873936|181825764|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|-4.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-4.0|-10.0|<0.001
90971522|NCT02873936|181825764|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|-1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.0|-7.0|0.006
90971523|NCT02873936|181825765|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|-1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.0|-5.0|0.008
90971524|NCT02873936|181825765|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||1.0|-2.0|0.65
90971525|NCT02873936|181825765|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|-2.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-2.0|-5.0|<0.001
90971526|NCT02873936|181825765|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.0|-4.0|0.008
91036027|NCT00730691|181958707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.848||0.642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|1.27||Pre-specified sequential statistical testing procedure indicates that when p-value \>0.025, hierarchical testing stops and for subsequent endpoints in the sequence a nominal p-value is provided.|Mixed model for repeated measurements|P-values are from an MMRM model with week, Baseline score-by-week and treatment-by-week interaction as factors.||To control for multiplicity, a pre-specified sequential testing procedure was applied to compare 10 mg and 5 mg vortioxetine to placebo; as soon as an endpoint was non-significant at 0.025, the testing procedure stopped for all subsequent endpoints.||1.27|-2.06|0.642
91036028|NCT00730691|181958707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.869||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|-0.89|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|P-values are from an MMRM model with week, Baseline score-by-week and treatment-by-week interaction as factors.||||-0.89|-4.30|0.003
91036029|NCT00730691|181958708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.511||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|1.11|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|P-values are from an MMRM model with week, Baseline score-by-week and treatment-by-week interaction as factors.||||1.11|-0.89|0.830
91036030|NCT00730691|181958708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|0.77||Hierarchical testing stopped at the primary endpoint in the testing sequence, a nominal p-value is provided.|Mixed model for repeated measurements|P-values are from an MMRM model with week, Baseline score-by-week and treatment-by-week interaction as factors.||||0.77|-1.24|0.643
90971527|NCT02873936|181825765|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|-2.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-2.0|-5.0|<0.001
90971528|NCT02873936|181825765|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|0.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.0|-4.0|0.039
90971529|NCT02873936|181825766|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-12.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|-7.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-7.0|-17.0|<0.001
90971530|NCT02873936|181825766|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-11.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|-5.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-5.0|-16.0|<0.001
90971531|NCT02873936|181825766|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-18.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.0|-12.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-12.0|-24.0|<0.001
90971532|NCT02873936|181825766|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-13.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|-7.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-7.0|-19.0|<0.001
90971533|NCT02873936|181825766|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-18.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.0|-12.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-12.0|-25.0|<0.001
91036031|NCT00730691|181958708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.517||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.07||Hierarchical testing stopped at the primary endpoint in the testing sequence, a nominal p-value is provided.|Mixed model for repeated measurements|P-values are from an MMRM model with week, Baseline score-by-week and treatment-by-week interaction as factors.||||-0.07|-2.10|0.036
90941501|NCT03231969|181762885|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.617|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.001|-1.232|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference (95%CI): Bilastine 0.4% arm minus Bilastine 0% (Vehicle) arm at Visit 6 (including all time points).||-1.232|-2.001|<.0001
90941502|NCT03231969|181762885|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.009|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.387|-1.63|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference (95%CI): Bilastine 0.6% arm minus Bilastine 0% (Vehicle) arm at Visit 6 (including all time points).||-1.630|-2.387|<.0001
90941503|NCT00129649|181762894|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.004
90941504|NCT02561806|181762959|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin was -12.6% for 97.5% confidence interval|Risk Difference (RD)|0.321|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.198|0.445|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.445|0.198|<0.001
90941505|NCT02561806|181762960|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.285|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|1.439|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.439|1.130|<0.001
90941506|NCT02561806|181762961|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.699||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.423|3.975|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.975|1.423|0.009
90941507|NCT02561806|181762962|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.469|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.244|1.695|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.695|1.244|<0.001
90941508|NCT02561806|181762963|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|3.421||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.353|5.488|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.488|1.353|0.021
90941509|NCT02561806|181762970|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.391||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.085|1.698|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.698|1.085|0.012
90941510|NCT02547441|181762983|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.043|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.043
90941511|NCT02547441|181762984|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.019
90941512|NCT01322009|181762990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|Analysis run over study period but data entered only for the 6 h time point||||||>0.05
90941513|NCT01657877|181762993|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The success criterion for this study was to observe the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for difference in % change in SMHR to be \<= 6 units SMHR i.e. 1500 ppm fluoride as SMFP + 5% CSP is no more than 6 units inferior to the 1500 ppm fluoride as SMFP + 0 % CSP dentifrice.|Adjusted mean difference|-2.23||||0.2601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.11|1.66|||ANOVA|Based on the mixed effects ANOVA considering treatment and study period as factors, and subject as random effect|Difference is 1500 ppm fluoride as SMFP and 0 % CSP minus 1500 ppm fluoride as SMFP and 5 % CSP such that a positive difference favors 1500 ppm fluoride as SMFP and 0 % CSP|The null hypothesis states that the population mean for the 1500 ppm fluoride as SMFP + 0% CSP minus the population mean for the 1500 ppm fluoride as SMFP and 5% CSP dentifrice is more than 6 %.||1.66|-6.11|0.2601
90941514|NCT01670188|181763129|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
90971534|NCT02873936|181825766|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-13.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|-6.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-6.0|-19.0|<0.001
90971535|NCT02873936|181825767|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-12.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|-7.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|Mixed effects model for repeated measure|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-7.0|-17.0|<0.001
90971536|NCT02873936|181825767|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-10.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|-5.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-5.0|-15.0|<0.001
91036032|NCT00730691|181958708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean Difference|-1.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.527||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.58|-0.5|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|P-values are from an MMRM model with week, Baseline score-by-week and treatment-by-week interaction as factors.||||-0.50|-2.58|0.004
91036033|NCT00730691|181958709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129||0.407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.15|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|P-values are from an MMRM model with week, Baseline score-by-week and treatment-by-week interaction as factors.||||0.15|-0.36|0.407
91036034|NCT00730691|181958709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129||0.533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.17|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|P-values are from an MMRM model with week, Baseline score-by-week and treatment-by-week interaction as factors.||||0.17|-0.33|0.533
91036035|NCT00730691|181958709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.17|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|P-values are from an MMRM model with week, Baseline score-by-week and treatment-by-week interaction as factors.||||0.17|-0.34|0.491
91036036|NCT00730691|181958709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.133||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.17|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|P-values are from an MMRM model with week, Baseline score-by-week and treatment-by-week interaction as factors.||||-0.17|-0.70|0.001
90941515|NCT00241969|181763130|SUPERIORITY|Some data were missing for energy intake (n=3 baseline, n=13 post-treatment), thus the PROC MIXED procedure (SAS) with maximum likelihood estimation was used to analyze this outcome with time as a repeated measure factor.|maximum likelihood estimation|431.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|282.0|581.0|||ANCOVA||||All analyses were performed on the full intention-to-treat sample (defined a priori as attending the first treatment session). Some data were missing for energy intake (N = 3 baseline; 13 post treatment), and thus the PROC MIXED procedure (SAS) with maximum likelihood estimation was used to analyze this outcome with time as a repeated measures factor, no group main effect at baseline for energy intake, and sex, baseline Pseudomonas aeruginosa status, and treatment modality as covariates in the statistical model. This model is similar to an analysis of covariance model with baseline energy intake included as an additional covariate, but the PROC MIXED model employs maximum likelihood estimation and consequently allows for data to be missing at random. The test of the time by group interaction within this PROC MIXED model indicated whether the behavioral and nutrition treatment was efficacious relative to our control treatment.|581|282|<0.001
90941516|NCT00241969|181763131|SUPERIORITY|All analyses were performed on the full intention-to-treat sample (defined a priori as attending the first treatment session). Analyses of WAZ change scores were carried out within the PROC GLM procedure (SAS Institute Inc.) using an analysis of covariance model with sex, Pseudomonas aeruginosa status at baseline, treatment modality, and baseline value of the corresponding outcome variable as covariates.|maximum likelihood|0.09||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.24|||ANCOVA||||All analyses were performed on the full intention-to-treat sample (defined a priori as attending the first treatment session). Analyses of WAZ change scores were carried out within the PROC GLM procedure (SAS Institute Inc.) using an analysis of covariance model with sex, Pseudomonas aeruginosa status at baseline, treatment modality, and baseline value of the corresponding outcome variable as covariates. Group main effects on these change scores in the presence of covariates were examined to determine the efficacy of the behavioral and nutrition treatment.|0.24|-0.06|0.25
90941517|NCT00241969|181763132|SUPERIORITY|All analyses were performed on the full intention-to-treat sample (defined a priori as attending the first treatment session). Analyses of HAZ change scores were carried out within the PROC GLM procedure (SAS Institute Inc.) using an analysis of covariance model with sex, Pseudomonas aeruginosa status at baseline, treatment modality, and baseline value of the corresponding outcome variable as covariates.|maximum likelihood|0.14||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.27|||ANCOVA||||All analyses were performed on the full intention-to-treat sample (defined a priori as attending the first treatment session). Analyses of WAZ and HAZ change scores were carried out within the PROC GLM procedure (SAS Institute Inc.) using an analysis of covariance model with sex, Pseudomonas aeruginosa status at baseline, treatment modality, and baseline value of the corresponding outcome variable as covariates. Group main effects on these change scores in the presence of covariates were examined to determine the efficacy of the behavioral and nutrition treatment.|0.27|0.001|0.049
90941518|NCT00874497|181763184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0824||||0.1761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0378|0.2025||P-values are based on Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model of the change FEV1 from baseline to the specified study week using treatment group and current smoking status as fixed effects and the baseline FEV1 value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 104.||0.2025|-0.0378|0.1761
90941519|NCT00874497|181763185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.904||||0.139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.77|0.97|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of Right Upper region of the lung at Week 104.||0.97|-6.77|0.139
90941520|NCT00874497|181763185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.21||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.46|2.04|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of Right Middle region of the Lung at Week 104.||2.04|-4.46|0.460
90941521|NCT00874497|181763185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.176||||0.457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.98|3.63|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of Right Lower region of the Lung at Week 104.||3.63|-7.98|0.457
90941522|NCT00874497|181763185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.167||||0.362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.88|2.54|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of Left Upper region of the Lung at Week 104.||2.54|-6.88|0.362
90941523|NCT00874497|181763185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.225||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.94|4.48|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of Left Lower region of the Lung at Week 104.||4.48|-6.94|0.670
90941524|NCT00874497|181763185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.218||||0.244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.98|1.55|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of Right Whole region of the Lung at Week 104.||1.55|-5.98|0.244
90941525|NCT00874497|181763185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.374||||0.574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.23|3.48|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of Left Whole region of the Lung at Week 104.||3.48|-6.23|0.574
90941526|NCT00874497|181763187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.97||||0.436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|3.47|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of Right Upper region of the Lung at Week 104.||3.47|-1.53|0.436
90941527|NCT00874497|181763187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.31||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|4.79|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of Right Middle region of the Lung at Week 104.||4.79|-0.17|0.067
90941528|NCT00874497|181763187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.97||||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|4.77|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of Right Lower region of the Lung at Week 104.||4.77|-0.83|0.163
90941529|NCT00874497|181763187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.27||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|5.02|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of Left Upper region of the Lung at Week 104.||5.02|-0.48|0.102
90941530|NCT00874497|181763187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.11||||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|5.12|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of Left Lower region of the Lung at Week 104.||5.12|-0.89|0.162
90941531|NCT00874497|181763187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.78||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|4.29|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of Right Whole region of the Lung at Week 104.||4.29|-0.73|0.160
90941532|NCT00874497|181763187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.08||||0.122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|4.75|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of Left Whole region of the Lung at Week 104.||4.75|-0.58|0.122
90941533|NCT00874497|181763187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.05||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|4.56|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of Whole Lung region of the Lung at Week 104.||4.56|-0.46|0.106
90941534|NCT00874497|181763188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.423||||0.469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.32|2.48|||ANCOVA|||LS Mean Difference between Tetomilast and Placebo at Week 104.||2.48|-5.32|0.469
90941535|NCT00874497|181763189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.07||||0.519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.42|2.27|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of right upper region of the lung at Week 104.||2.27|-4.42|0.519
90941536|NCT00874497|181763189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.05||||0.463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.92|1.82|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of right middle region of the lung at Week 104.||1.82|-3.92|0.463
90941537|NCT00874497|181763189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0.598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.74|3.94|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of right lower region of the lung at Week 104.||3.94|-6.74|0.598
90941538|NCT00874497|181763189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.94||||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.92|1.03|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of left upper region of the lung at Week 104.||1.03|-6.92|0.142
90941539|NCT00874497|181763189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.83||||0.757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.26|4.59|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of left lower region of the lung at Week 104.||4.59|-6.26|0.757
90941540|NCT00874497|181763189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.27||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.03|2.5|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of right whole region of the lung at Week 104.||2.50|-5.03|0.500
90941541|NCT00874497|181763189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.93||||0.353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.09|2.23|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of left whole region of the lung at Week 104.||2.23|-6.09|0.353
90941542|NCT00874497|181763189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.52||||0.438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.43|2.4|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of whole region of the lung at Week 104.||2.40|-5.43|0.438
90941543|NCT00874497|181763190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|351487.0||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-219976.0|922951.0|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of right upper region of the lung at Week 104.||922951|-219976|0.220
90941544|NCT00874497|181763190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|103036.0||||0.146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37651.0|243723.0|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of right middle region of the lung at Week 104||243723|-37651|0.146
90941545|NCT00874497|181763190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|247358.0||||0.322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-252728.0|747444.0|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of right lower region of the lung at Week 104||747444|-252728|0.322
90941546|NCT00874497|181763190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|362384.0||||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-126518.0|851286.0|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of left upper region of the lung at Week 104.||851286|-126518|0.141
90941547|NCT00874497|181763190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|294202.0||||0.325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-303329.0|891733.0|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of left lower region of the lung at Week 104.||891733|-303329|0.325
90941548|NCT00874497|181763190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|575882.0||||0.258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-439692.0|1591457.0|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of right whole region of the lung at Week 104.||1591457|-439692|0.258
90941549|NCT00874497|181763190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|589373.0||||0.247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-426928.0|1605673.0|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of left whole region of the lung at Week 104.||1605673|-426928|0.247
90941550|NCT00874497|181763190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1156318.0||||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-855009.0|3167645.0|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of whole lung region of the lung at Week 104.||3167645|-855009|0.251
90941551|NCT00874497|181763191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|77.9||||0.181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.0|193.8|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of right upper lung region (RV) at Week 104.||193.8|-38.0|0.181
90941552|NCT00874497|181763191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.9||||0.781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.8|36.9|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of right middle lung region (RV) at Week 104.||36.9|-48.8|0.781
90941553|NCT00874497|181763191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|47.7||||0.445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.8|173.2|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of right lower lung region (RV) at Week 104.||173.2|-77.8|0.445
90941554|NCT00874497|181763191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|62.6||||0.259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.1|173.2|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of left upper lung region (RV) at Week 104.||173.2|-48.1|0.259
90941555|NCT00874497|181763191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.0||||0.639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-105.6|169.6|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of left lower lung region (RV) at Week 104.||169.6|-105.6|0.639
90941556|NCT00874497|181763191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|102.3||||0.408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-145.9|350.5|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of right whole lung region (RV) at Week 104.||350.5|-145.9|0.408
90941557|NCT00874497|181763191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|85.2||||0.445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-138.8|309.2|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of left whole lung region (RV) at Week 104.||309.2|-138.8|0.445
90941558|NCT00874497|181763191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|187.6||||0.421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-279.6|654.8|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of whole lung region (RV) at Week 104.||654.8|-279.6|0.421
90941559|NCT00874497|181763191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|50.7||||0.353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.5|159.9|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of right upper lung region (TLC) at Week 104.||159.9|-58.5|0.353
90941560|NCT00874497|181763191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.9||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.3|55.0|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of right middle lung region (TLC) at Week 104.||55.0|-35.3|0.660
90941561|NCT00874497|181763191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.7||||0.859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-110.7|132.1|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of right lower lung region (TLC) at Week 104.||132.1|-110.7|0.859
90941562|NCT00874497|181763191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|51.5||||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.4|141.4|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of left upper lung region (TLC)at Week 104.||141.4|-38.4|0.253
90941563|NCT00874497|181763191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.3||||0.754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-126.0|172.6|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of left lower lung region (TLC) at Week 104.||172.6|-126.0|0.754
90941564|NCT00874497|181763191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|62.2||||0.546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-145.1|269.5|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of right whole lung region (TLC) at Week 104.||269.5|-145.1|0.546
90941565|NCT00874497|181763191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|64.9||||0.554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-155.5|285.3|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of left whole lung region (TLC) at Week 104.||285.3|-155.5|0.554
90941566|NCT00874497|181763191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|132.2||||0.524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-284.9|549.4|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of whole lung region (TLC) at Week 104.||549.4|-284.9|0.524
90941567|NCT00874497|181763192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.5843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.04|||ANCOVA|||||0.04|-0.07|0.5843
90941568|NCT00874497|181763193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.249||||0.1252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.073|0.571|||ANCOVA|||||0.571|-0.073|0.1252
90941569|NCT00874497|181763194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1835||||0.4661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6892|0.3221|||ANCOVA|||||0.3221|-0.6892|0.4661
90941570|NCT00874497|181763195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|1.4|||ANCOVA|||||1.40|-0.19|0.134
90941571|NCT00874497|181763196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis for sRaw||0.07|-1.50|0.074
90971537|NCT02873936|181825767|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-16.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|-11.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-11.0|-22.0|<0.001
90971538|NCT02873936|181825767|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-13.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|-7.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-7.0|-18.0|<0.001
90971539|NCT02873936|181825767|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-13.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|-8.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-8.0|-18.0|<0.001
90941572|NCT00874497|181763196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22||||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.52|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis for sGaw||0.52|-0.09|0.155
90941573|NCT00874497|181763197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.64|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis for mean prior daily breath symptoms||0.64|-0.77|0.845
90941574|NCT00874497|181763197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||0.549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.94|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis for mean prior daily cough symptoms||0.94|-0.52|0.549
90941575|NCT00874497|181763197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.65|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis for mean prior daily sputum symptoms||0.65|-0.93|0.717
90941576|NCT00874497|181763199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for level I (self management) at week 104.||||1.000
90941577|NCT00874497|181763199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for level II (physician visit) at week 104.||||1.0000
90941578|NCT00874497|181763199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5092|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for level III (hospital visit) at week 104.||||0.5092
90941579|NCT00874497|181763200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63||||||Fisher's Exact test was used to determine whether the tetomilast and placebo groups differ in the proportion of participants who experienced Level 2 or higher COPD exacerbations during the study.|Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis at Week 104||||0.630
90941580|NCT01013740|181763206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||||95.0|0.53|1.35|||||The Pike estimator of the treatment HR was based on the log rank test.|||1.35|0.53|
90941581|NCT01013740|181763211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|3.58||||||||3.58|0.63|
90941582|NCT00002597|181763215|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.0309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.35|||Log Rank||Reference level = Hormone Therapy + Radiation Therapy|Null hypothesis: 8-year OS rate of 60% radiation therapy (RT) alone vs. 67% with hormone therapy. The study was designed with 90% power to detect a 7-percentage- point absolute difference in the 8-year survival rate, with the use of a one-sided log-rank test at the 0.025 significance level, requiring 1980 patients and 716 deaths for definitive analysis.||1.35|1.01|0.0309
90941583|NCT00002597|181763216|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.86||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|2.74|||Gray's test||Reference level = Hormone Therapy + Radiation Therapy|Gray's test was used to compare cumulative incidence between treatment arms (1-sided significance level of 0.025) and the Fine-Gray model was used to calculate hazard ratios.||2.74|1.27|0.001
90941584|NCT00002597|181763217|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.5||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|1.93|||Gray's test||Reference level = Hormone Therapy + Radiation Therapy|Gray's test was used to compare cumulative incidence between treatment arms (1-sided significance level of 0.025) and the Fine-Gray model was used to calculate hazard ratios.||1.93|1.17|0.0013
90941585|NCT00002597|181763218|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.45||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.06|||Gray's test||Reference level = Hormone Therapy + Radiation Therapy|Gray's test was used to compare cumulative incidence between treatment arms (1-sided significance level of 0.025) and the Fine-Gray model was used to calculate hazard ratios.||2.06|1.03|0.035
90941586|NCT00002597|181763219|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|2.04|||Gray's test||Reference level = Hormone Therapy + Radiation Therapy|Gray's test was used to compare cumulative incidence between treatment arms (1-sided significance level of 0.025) and the Fine-Gray model was used to calculate hazard ratios.||2.04|1.48|<0.001
90941587|NCT00002597|181763220|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|1.85|||Gray's test||Reference level = Hormone Therapy + Radiation Therapy|Gray's test was used to compare cumulative incidence between treatment arms (1-sided significance level of 0.025) and the Fine-Gray model was used to calculate hazard ratios.||1.85|1.21|<0.001
90941588|NCT00002597|181763221|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|3.16|||Gray's test||Reference level = Hormone Therapy + Radiation Therapy|Gray's test was used to compare cumulative incidence between treatment arms (1-sided significance level of 0.025) and the Fine-Gray model was used to calculate hazard ratios.||3.16|1.34|<0.001
90941589|NCT00002597|181763222|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|1.56|||Log Rank||Reference level = Hormone Therapy + Radiation Therapy|Treatment arms were compared using the log-rank test (one-sided significance level of 0.025).||1.56|1.22|<0.001
90941590|NCT00002597|181763223|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
90941591|NCT00776984|181763330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.154|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|<|0.0001||95.0|0.091|0.217||Step-wise testing for co-primary endpoints, confirmatory only if previous hypotheses had been successful, significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.217|0.091|<0.0001
90941592|NCT00776984|181763331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.111|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0002||95.0|0.053|0.169||Step-wise testing for co-primary endpoints, confirmatory only if previous hypotheses had been successful, significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.169|0.053|0.0002
90971540|NCT02873936|181825767|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|0.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||0.0|-11.0|0.052
90971541|NCT02873936|181825768|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-16.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|-10.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-10.0|-21.0|<0.001
90971542|NCT02873936|181825768|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-14.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|-8.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-8.0|-19.0|<0.001
90941593|NCT00776984|181763332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.0343||||||Confirmatory only if previous hypotheses for each of the 2 twin studies had been successful, significance level of alpha=0.05 (2-sided). A pre-specified interim analysis was performed. Cui et al (Biometrics,1999) was used to calculate the p-value.|Regression, Cox|Parameter estimates of Cox proportional hazard model regression regarding. Only treatment was fitted as an effect in the model.|If HR is below 1 then favours tiotropium.|||||0.0343
90941594|NCT00776984|181763333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.094|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.042||0.0275||95.0|0.01|0.177||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.177|0.010|0.0275
90941595|NCT00776984|181763334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.106|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041||0.0099||95.0|0.025|0.186||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.186|0.025|0.0099
90941596|NCT00776984|181763335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.143|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001||95.0|0.084|0.202||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.202|0.084|<0.0001
90941597|NCT00776984|181763336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.109|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0063||95.0|0.031|0.187||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.187|0.031|0.0063
90941598|NCT00776984|181763337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.152|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033|<|0.0001||95.0|0.087|0.217||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.217|0.087|<0.0001
90941599|NCT00776984|181763338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.092|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0026||95.0|0.032|0.151||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.151|0.032|0.0026
90941600|NCT00776984|181763339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.138|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031|<|0.0001||95.0|0.078|0.199||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.199|0.078|<0.0001
90941601|NCT00776984|181763340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.114|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044||0.0088||95.0|0.029|0.2||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.200|0.029|0.0088
90941602|NCT00776984|181763341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.071|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.042||0.0933||95.0|-0.012|0.153||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.153|-0.012|0.0933
90941603|NCT00776984|181763342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.109|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041||0.0074||95.0|0.029|0.189||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.189|0.029|0.0074
90941604|NCT00776984|181763343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.654|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.807|<|0.0001||95.0|11.199|30.108||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||30.108|11.199|<0.0001
90941605|NCT00776984|181763344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.453|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.044|<|0.0001||95.0|22.532|42.374||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||42.374|22.532|<0.0001
90971543|NCT02873936|181825768|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-17.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.0|-11.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-11.0|-23.0|<0.001
90971544|NCT02873936|181825768|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-13.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|-7.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-7.0|-19.0|<0.001
90971545|NCT02873936|181825768|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-16.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.0|-10.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-10.0|-23.0|<0.001
90971546|NCT02873936|181825768|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-12.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|-5.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-5.0|-19.0|<0.001
90971547|NCT02873936|181825769|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|-0.11||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.11|-0.33|<0.001
90971548|NCT02873936|181825769|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|-0.04||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.04|-0.26|0.006
90971549|NCT02873936|181825769|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.075|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.21||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.21|-0.51|<0.001
90971550|NCT02873936|181825769|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.075||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.08||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.08|-0.37|0.003
90971551|NCT02873936|181825770|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-10.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.578|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.61|-7.41||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-7.41|-13.61|<0.001
90971552|NCT02873936|181825770|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-8.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.577|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.02|-5.82||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-5.82|-12.02|<0.001
90971553|NCT02873936|181825770|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-10.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.652|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.19|-7.69||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-7.69|-14.19|<0.001
90971554|NCT02873936|181825770|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-8.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.651|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.22|-5.73||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-5.73|-12.22|<0.001
90971555|NCT02873936|181825770|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.964|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.73|-6.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-6.00|-13.73|<0.001
90971556|NCT02873936|181825770|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.987|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|-2.98||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-2.98|-10.80|<0.001
90971557|NCT02873936|181825771|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|20.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.1|32.1||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4.||32.1|8.1|<0.001
90971558|NCT02873936|181825771|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|14.5||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|26.5||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4.||26.5|2.4|0.013
90971559|NCT02873936|181825771|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|22.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.3|34.1||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12.||34.1|10.3|<0.001
90971560|NCT02873936|181825771|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|21.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|33.6||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12.||33.6|10.0|<0.001
90971561|NCT02873936|181825771|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|33.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.8|44.9||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24.||44.9|21.8|<0.001
90971562|NCT02873936|181825771|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|18.6||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|30.5||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24.||30.5|6.8|0.001
90971563|NCT02873936|181825772|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.6||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.6|-1.1|<0.001
90971564|NCT02873936|181825772|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.4||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.4|-0.9|<0.001
90971565|NCT02873936|181825772|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.9||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.9|-1.5|<0.001
90971566|NCT02873936|181825772|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.7||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.7|-1.3|<0.001
90971567|NCT02873936|181825772|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.8||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.8|-1.5|<0.001
90971568|NCT02873936|181825772|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.4||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.4|-1.1|<0.001
90971569|NCT02873936|181825773|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|12.3||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|21.2||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4.||21.2|3.5|0.004
90971570|NCT02873936|181825773|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|12.8||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|21.5||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4.||21.5|4.0|0.003
90971571|NCT02873936|181825773|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|27.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.3|38.4||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24.||38.4|16.3|<0.001
90971572|NCT02873936|181825773|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|17.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.2|27.7||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24.||27.7|6.2|0.001
90971573|NCT02873936|181825774|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|7.5||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|13.7||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4.||13.7|1.3|0.012
90971574|NCT02873936|181825774|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|9.1||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|15.5||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4.||15.5|2.7|0.006
90971575|NCT02873936|181825774|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|14.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.6|23.1||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12.||23.1|5.6|<0.001
90971576|NCT02873936|181825774|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|17.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.5|26.2||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12.||26.2|8.5|<0.001
90971577|NCT02873936|181825777|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.47|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|-4.2||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-4.2|-10.0|<0.001
90971578|NCT02873936|181825777|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.46|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|-2.2||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-2.2|-7.9|<0.001
90971579|NCT02873936|181825777|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.56|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|-6.5||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-6.5|-12.6|<0.001
90971580|NCT02873936|181825777|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.55|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|-4.5||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-4.5|-10.6|<0.001
90971581|NCT02873936|181825777|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-8.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.64|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|-5.5||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-5.5|-11.9|<0.001
90971582|NCT02873936|181825777|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.66||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|-1.6||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.6|-8.2|0.003
90971583|NCT02873936|181825778|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-8.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|-5.1||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-5.1|-11.1|<0.001
90971584|NCT02873936|181825778|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|-2.9||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-2.9|-8.9|<0.001
90941606|NCT00776984|181763345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0027||95.0|0.031|0.149||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.149|0.031|0.0027
90971585|NCT02873936|181825778|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-10.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|-7.5||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-7.5|-13.8|<0.001
90941607|NCT00776984|181763346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.137|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|<|0.0001||95.0|0.074|0.2||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.200|0.074|<0.0001
90941608|NCT00776984|181763347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.197|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.741||0.1073||95.0|-0.261|2.655||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||2.655|-0.261|0.1073
90941609|NCT00776984|181763348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.4788||95.0|0.65|1.23||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Regression, Cox|Parameter estimates of Cox proportional hazard model regarding. Only treatment was fitted as an effect in the model.|If HR is below 1 then favours tiotropium.|||1.23|0.65|0.4788
90941610|NCT00776984|181763349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.1007||95.0|0.61|1.04||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Poisson Regression|Parameter estimates of Poisson regression model. Log exposure was used as offset and adjusted for overdispersion.|Tio R5 - Placebo|||1.04|0.61|0.1007
90941611|NCT00776984|181763350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.7906||95.0|0.71|1.3||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Poisson Regression|Parameter estimates of Poisson regression model. Log exposure was used as offset and adjusted for overdispersion.|Tio R5 - Placebo|||1.30|0.71|0.7906
90941612|NCT00776984|181763351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.57||||0.004||95.0|0.38|0.84||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Fisher Exact|Exact 95 percent confidence interval by Clopper and Pearson.|Tio R5 vs Placebo|||0.84|0.38|0.0040
90941613|NCT00776984|181763352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.5481||95.0|0.58|1.32||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Fisher Exact|Exact 95 percent confidence interval by Clopper and Pearson.|Tio R5 vs Placebo|||1.32|0.58|0.5481
90941614|NCT00776984|181763353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.7188||95.0|0.33|2.14||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Regression, Cox|Parameter estimates of Cox proportional hazard model regarding. Only treatment was fitted as an effect in the model.|If HR is below 1 then favours tiotropium.|||2.14|0.33|0.7188
90941615|NCT00776984|181763354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.8503||95.0|0.59|1.54||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Poisson Regression|Parameter estimates of Poisson regression model. Log exposure was used as offset and adjusted for overdispersion.|Tio R5 - Placebo.|||1.54|0.59|0.8503
90941616|NCT00776984|181763355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.8129||95.0|0.29|2.46||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Fisher Exact|Exact 95 percent confidence interval by Clopper and Pearson.|Tio R5 vs Placebo|||2.46|0.29|0.8129
90941617|NCT00776984|181763356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.178|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.078||0.0225||95.0|0.025|0.331||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.331|0.025|0.0225
90941618|NCT00776984|181763357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.0803||95.0|-0.017|0.296||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.296|-0.017|0.0803
90941619|NCT00776984|181763358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.199|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067||0.003||95.0|-0.33|-0.068||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||-0.068|-0.330|0.0030
90941620|NCT00776984|181763359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.133|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.069||0.0533||95.0|-0.267|0.002||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.002|-0.267|0.0533
90941621|NCT00776984|181763360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028||0.6632||95.0|-0.043|0.067||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.067|-0.043|0.6632
90941622|NCT00776984|181763361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.263|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.189||0.1664||95.0|-0.635|0.11||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.110|-0.635|0.1664
90941623|NCT00776984|181763362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.0427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.73||Calculated as 2\*one-sided-p-value in the direction corresponding to testing the null hypothesis|Fisher Exact||Tio R5 / Placebo|Comparison at 24 weeks||1.73|1.01|0.0427
90971586|NCT02873936|181825778|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-8.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.59|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|-5.5||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-5.5|-11.8|<0.001
90971587|NCT02873936|181825778|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-10.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|-6.8||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-6.8|-13.5|<0.001
90971588|NCT02873936|181825778|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.71|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|-2.7||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-2.7|-9.4|<0.001
90971589|NCT02873936|181825780|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|3.9||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||3.9|1.1|<0.001
90971590|NCT02873936|181825780|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.4||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||3.4|0.6|0.005
90971591|NCT02873936|181825780|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|5.9||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||5.9|1.9|<0.001
90971592|NCT02873936|181825780|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|5.2||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||5.2|1.1|0.002
90971593|NCT02873936|181825782|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|4.2||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||4.2|0.4|0.019
90971594|NCT02873936|181825782|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|3.6||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||3.6|-0.2|0.073
90971595|NCT02873936|181825782|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|4.1||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||4.1|0.0|0.045
90971596|NCT02873936|181825782|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|3.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||3.0|-1.0|0.32
90941624|NCT00776984|181763362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|2.21||Calculated as 2\*one-sided-p-value in the direction corresponding to testing the null hypothesis|Fisher Exact||Tio R5 / Placebo|Comparison at 48 weeks||2.21|1.28|0.0001
90971597|NCT02873936|181825782|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.19||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|4.2||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||4.2|-0.5|0.12
90941625|NCT03790878|181763363|OTHER|||||||0.018|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.018
90941626|NCT03790878|181763364|OTHER|||||||0.396|||||||Multilevel modeling|||||||0.396
90941627|NCT03790878|181763365|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Multilevel modeling|||||||0.002
90941628|NCT02573883|181763378|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.007
90941629|NCT02573883|181763379|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.014
90941630|NCT02573883|181763381|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.011
90941631|NCT02573883|181763383|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.46
90941632|NCT00582114|181763394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.36||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|4.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cardiovascular events were counted by subject and included the following: myocardial infarction, stroke, hospitalization for congestive heart failure, hospitalized angina, arrhythmias, cardiac arrest, coronary revascularization and heart valve replacement. The duration of participation in the study per subject, which according to the trial design could be up to 12 months, was determined. Incidence rate ratio (IRR) by treatment was then determined along with the 95%confidence intervals (95% CIs).||4.23|1.36|0.001
90971598|NCT02873936|181825782|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|2.4||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||2.4|-2.3|0.96
90941633|NCT00582114|181763394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.29||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|5.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||As a post hoc analysis, we determined the narrower definition of cardiovascular events per group that included myocardial infarction, stroke, congestive heart failure or cardiovascular death. The duration of participation in the study per subject, which according to the trial design could be up to 12 months, was determined. Incidence rate ratio (IRR) by treatment was then determined along with the 95%confidence intervals (95% CIs).||5.21|1.07|0.02
90971599|NCT02873936|181825784|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|5.7||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||5.7|1.6|<0.001
90971600|NCT02873936|181825784|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|5.4||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||5.4|1.2|0.002
90941634|NCT00582114|181763394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.13||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|10.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hospitalization for congestive heart failure between groups was analyzed. The duration of participation in the study per subject, which according to the trial design could be up to 12 months, was determined. Incidence rate ratio (IRR) by treatment was then determined along with the 95%confidence intervals.||10.99|1.08|0.02
90941635|NCT00582114|181763394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.61||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|2.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||All-cause hospitalizations between groups were analyzed. The duration of participation in the study per subject, which according to the trial design could be up to 12 months, was determined. Incidence rate ratio (IRR) by treatment was then determined along with the 95%confidence intervals.||2.19|1.18|0.002
90941636|NCT00130728|181763410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.7583||95.0|0.799|1.177||relative to placebo arm|Log Rank||Stratified analysis; Hazard ratio is relative to placebo arm.|||1.177|0.799|0.7583
90941637|NCT00130728|181763411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.623|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.519|0.748||relative to placebo arm|Log Rank||Stratified analysis; hazard ratio is relative to placebo arm.|||0.748|0.519|<.0001
90941638|NCT00130728|181763412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage difference|6.4||||0.0068||95.0|1.8|11.3||Relative to placebo arm|Mantel Haenszel||Difference in objective response rates relative to placebo arm|||11.3|1.8|0.0068
90941639|NCT01355471|181763420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||GEE: Logit link function|Generalized Estimation Equation (GEE) methods with Logit link function and marginal expectation model.||||||<0.001
90941640|NCT00276016|181763479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.561||95.0|||||ANOVA|||For endpoint||||0.561
90941641|NCT00276016|181763480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||For endpoint||||<.001
90971601|NCT02873936|181825784|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|7.1||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||7.1|2.1|<0.001
90971602|NCT02873936|181825784|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|4.7||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||4.7|-0.5|0.11
90971603|NCT02873936|181825787|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|11.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||11.0|2.0|0.009
90971604|NCT02873936|181825787|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|12.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||12.0|3.0|0.003
90971605|NCT02873936|181825787|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|13.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||13.0|3.0|0.003
90971606|NCT02873936|181825787|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|12.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||12.0|2.0|0.006
90971607|NCT02873936|181825787|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|15.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||15.0|3.0|0.002
90971608|NCT02873936|181825787|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|14.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||14.0|2.0|0.007
90971609|NCT01505634|181825796|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority for the relebactam 250 mg + imipenem/cilastatin group versus the Placebo for relebactam + imipenem/cilastatin group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 95% CI was not lower than the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of -15%.|Percent Difference|-3.1||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|3.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Relebactam minus Placebo|Percent Difference (Diff) in Favorable MR||3.2|-11.2|0.005
90971610|NCT01505634|181825796|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority for the relebactam 125 mg + imipenem/cilastatin group versus the Placebo for relebactam + imipenem/cilastatin group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 95% CI was not lower than the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of -15%.|Percent Difference|-0.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|5.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Relebactam minus Placebo|Percent Diff in Favorable MR||5.9|-6.4|< 0.001
90971611|NCT01505634|181825797|OTHER|ECI #1 is a confirmed elevated AST or ALT ≥5X ULN. Inferential testing for statistical significance with p-values and 95% confidence intervals was performed to provide a comparison between the relebactam 250 mg + imipenem/cilastatin group versus the Placebo for relebactam + imipenem/cilastatin group.|Percent Difference|1.0||||0.315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|5.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Relebactam minus Placebo|Percent Diff in Participants with Event of Clinical Interest (ECI) #1||5.5|-2.7|0.315
90971612|NCT01505634|181825797|OTHER|ECI #1 is a confirmed elevated AST or ALT ≥5X ULN. Inferential testing for statistical significance with p-values and 95% confidence intervals was performed to provide a comparison between the relebactam 125 mg + imipenem/cilastatin group versus the Placebo for relebactam + imipenem/cilastatin group.|Percent Difference|1.0||||0.315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|5.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Relebactam minus Placebo|Percent Diff in Participants with ECI #1||5.5|-2.7|0.315
90971613|NCT01505634|181825798|OTHER|Event of Clinical Interest (ECI) #2 is elevated AST or ALT ≥3X ULN, elevated total bilirubin ≥2X ULN, and with an ALP \<2X ULN. Inferential testing for statistical significance with p-values and 95% confidence intervals was performed to provide a comparison between the relebactam 250 mg + imipenem/cilastatin group versus the Placebo for relebactam + imipenem/cilastatin group.|Percent Difference|0.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|3.8||No participants met the criteria for ECI #2.|Miettinen and Nurminen||Relebactam minus Placebo|Percent Diff Participants with ECI #2||3.8|-3.7|> 0.999
90971614|NCT01505634|181825798|OTHER|Event of Clinical Interest (ECI) #2 is elevated AST or ALT ≥3X ULN, elevated total bilirubin ≥2X ULN, and with an ALP \<2X ULN. Inferential testing for statistical significance with p-values and 95% confidence intervals was performed to provide a comparison between the relebactam 125 mg + imipenem/cilastatin group versus the Placebo for relebactam + imipenem/cilastatin group.|Percent Difference|0.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|3.8||No participants met the criteria for ECI #2.|Miettinen and Nurminen||Relebactam minus Placebo|Percent Diff in Participants with ECI #2||3.8|-3.7|> 0.999
91036037|NCT00730691|181958710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.765||0.652|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|1.85|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|P-values are from an MMRM model with week, Baseline score-by-week and treatment-by-week interaction as factors.||||1.85|-1.16|0.652
91036038|NCT00730691|181958710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.754||0.511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|0.98|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|P-values are from an MMRM model with week, Baseline score-by-week and treatment-by-week interaction as factors.||||0.98|-1.98|0.511
91036039|NCT00730691|181958710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.736||0.204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.38|0.51|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|P-values are from an MMRM model with week, Baseline score-by-week and treatment-by-week interaction as factors.||||0.51|-2.38|0.204
90971615|NCT01505634|181825799|OTHER|Difference in percentage and 95% CI are based on unconditional and asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Percent Difference|-1.7||||||95.0|-14.3|10.9|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Percent Diff in Participants with AEs||10.9|-14.3|
90971616|NCT01505634|181825799|OTHER|Difference in percentage and 95% CI are based on unconditional and asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Percent Difference|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|12.0|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Percent Diff in Participants with AEs||12.0|-13.4|
90971617|NCT01505634|181825800|OTHER|Difference in percentage and 95% CI are based on unconditional and asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|5.9|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Percent Diff in Participants with SAEs||5.9|-5.8|
90971618|NCT01505634|181825800|OTHER|Difference in percentage and 95% CI are based on unconditional and asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Percent Difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|2.8|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Percent Diff in Participants with SAEs||2.8|-7.6|
90971619|NCT01505634|181825801|OTHER|Difference in percentage and 95% CI are based on unconditional and asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Percent Difference|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|9.8|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Percent Diff in Participants with DR AEs||9.8|-7.5|
90971620|NCT01505634|181825801|OTHER|Difference in percentage and 95% CI are based on unconditional and asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Percent Difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|8.6|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Percent Diff in Participants with DR AEs||8.6|-8.4|
90971621|NCT01505634|181825802|OTHER|Difference in percentage and 95% CI are based on unconditional and asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|4.6|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Percent Diff in Participants with DR SAEs||4.6|-4.5|
90971622|NCT01505634|181825802|OTHER|Difference in percentage and 95% CI are based on unconditional and asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Percent Difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|2.8|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Percent Diff in Participants with DR SAEs||2.8|-5.5|
90971623|NCT01505634|181825803|OTHER|Difference in percentage and 95% CI are based on unconditional and asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Percent Difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|6.8|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Percent Diff in Participants with Discons Due to AEs||6.8|-4.4|
90971624|NCT01505634|181825803|OTHER|Difference in percentage and 95% CI are based on unconditional and asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Percent Difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|3.7|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Percent Diff in Participants with Discons Due to AEs||3.7|-6.1|
90971625|NCT01505634|181825804|OTHER|Difference in percentage and 95% CI are based on unconditional and asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Percent Difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|6.2|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Percent Diff in Participants with Discons Due to DR AEs||6.2|-3.6|
90971626|NCT01505634|181825804|OTHER|Difference in percentage and 95% CI are based on unconditional and asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|4.6|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Percent Diff in Participants with Discons Due to DR AEs||4.6|-4.5|
91036040|NCT00730691|181958710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.781||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|-1.03|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|P-values are from an MMRM model with week, Baseline score-by-week and treatment-by-week interaction as factors.||||-1.03|-4.10|0.001
90971627|NCT01505634|181825805|OTHER|Difference in percentage and 95% CI are based on unconditional and asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Percent Difference|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|7.8|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Percent Diff in Participants with AEs with Rate ≥4: Diarrhoea||7.8|-5.5|
90971628|NCT01505634|181825805|OTHER|Difference in percentage and 95% CI are based on unconditional and asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Percent Difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|3.6|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Percent Diff in Participants with AEs with Rate ≥4: Diarrhoea||3.6|-8.1|
90971629|NCT01505634|181825805|OTHER|Difference in percentage and 95% CI are based on unconditional and asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|6.5|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Percent Diff in Participants with AEs with Rate ≥4: Nausea||6.5|-6.4|
90971630|NCT01505634|181825805|OTHER|Difference in percentage and 95% CI are based on unconditional and asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Percent Difference|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|9.2|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Percent Diff in Participants with AEs with Rate ≥4: Nausea||9.2|-4.6|
90971631|NCT01505634|181825805|OTHER|Difference in percentage and 95% CI are based on unconditional and asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Percent Difference|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|1.9|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Percent Diff in Participants with AEs with Rate ≥4: Bacteriuria||1.9|-9.0|
91036041|NCT00730691|181958711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.114||||0.641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.709|1.75|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with explanatory variables for treatment and Baseline HAM-A score.||||1.750|0.709|0.641
91036042|NCT00730691|181958711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.016||||0.945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.643|1.605|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with explanatory variables for treatment and Baseline HAM-A score.||||1.605|0.643|0.945
91036043|NCT00730691|181958711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.114||||0.641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.709|1.749|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with explanatory variables for treatment and Baseline HAM-A score.||||1.749|0.709|0.641
90971632|NCT01505634|181825805|OTHER|Difference in percentage and 95% CI are based on unconditional and asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Percent Difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|3.6|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Percent Diff in Participants with AEs with Rate ≥4: Bacteriuria||3.6|-8.1|
90971633|NCT01505634|181825805|OTHER|Difference in percentage and 95% CI are based on unconditional and asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Percent Difference|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|1.9|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Percent Diff in Participants with AEs with Rate ≥4: White blood cells urine positive||1.9|-9.0|
90971634|NCT01505634|181825805|OTHER|Difference in percentage and 95% CI are based on unconditional and asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Percent Difference|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|1.9|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Percent Diff in Participants with AEs with Rate ≥4: White blood cells urine positive||1.9|-9.0|
90971635|NCT01505634|181825805|OTHER|Difference in percentage and 95% CI are based on unconditional and asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Percent Difference|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|10.4|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Percent Diff in Participants with AEs with Rate ≥4: Headache||10.4|-3.7|
91036044|NCT00730691|181958711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.427||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.907|2.246|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with explanatory variables for treatment and Baseline HAM-A score.||||2.246|0.907|0.124
90971636|NCT01505634|181825805|OTHER|Difference in percentage and 95% CI are based on unconditional and asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Percent Difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|5.1|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Percent Diff in Participants with AEs with Rate ≥4: Headache||5.1|-7.2|
90971637|NCT02054897|181825812|SUPERIORITY|Superiority for change in HbA1c was claimed if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the estimated difference was below 0%.|Treatment difference|-1.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|-1.25|||Mixed Models Analysis||Semaglutide 1.0 mg minus Placebo|For the primary HbA1c endpoint, superiority was planned to be tested for semaglutide 1.0 mg versus placebo. The post-baseline responses were analysed using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment and country as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||-1.25|-1.81|< 0.0001
90971638|NCT02054897|181825812|SUPERIORITY|Superiority for change in HbA1c was claimed if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the estimated difference was below 0%.|Treatment difference|-1.43|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|-1.15|||Mixed Models Analysis||Semaglutide 0.5 mg minus Placebo|For the primary HbA1c endpoint, superiority was planned to be tested for semaglutide 0.5 mg versus placebo, if superiority for semaglutide 1.0 mg was concluded. The post-baseline responses were analysed using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment and country as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||-1.15|-1.71|< 0.0001
91036045|NCT00730691|181958712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.346||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.15|0.14|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|P-values are from an MMRM model with week, Baseline score-by-week and treatment-by-week interaction as factors.||||0.14|-5.15|0.064
91036046|NCT00730691|181958712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.353||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.92|0.4|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|P-values are from an MMRM model with week, Baseline score-by-week and treatment-by-week interaction as factors.||||0.40|-4.92|0.096
90971639|NCT00960843|181825818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.052||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis was no difference between arms. Original power calculation specified 24 per group and this was achieved under initial randomization. However, due to failure to follow protocol specified adjustment criteria, pressure and weight data from one site had to be excluded.||||0.0520
90971640|NCT00960843|181825819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0225||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0225
90971641|NCT00960843|181825820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0193||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0193
90971642|NCT00254501|181825821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0757||||||Adjusted for baseline Hemoglobin A-1C.|ANCOVA|||"Null hypothesis is mean change in usual care group equals mean change in Empower group.~Power calculation required 150 per group assuming 25% would withdraw prior to 12 months."||||0.0757
90971643|NCT00254501|181825822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison of change in LDL from baseline to 12 months between groups.||||0.44
90971644|NCT00254501|181825822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison of change in HDL from baseline to 12 months between groups.||||0.16
90971645|NCT00254501|181825822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison of change in total cholesterol from baseline to 12 months between groups.||||0.14
90971646|NCT00254501|181825822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison of change in triglycerides from baseline to 12 months between groups.||||0.92
90971647|NCT00254501|181825823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3856|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of change in cost of total health care from baseline to 12 months between groups. Analyses not adjusted for other variables.||||.3856
90971648|NCT00254501|181825823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6413|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of change in cost of diabetes medications from baseline to 12 months between groups. Analyses not adjusted for other variables.||||.6413
90971649|NCT00254501|181825823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4303|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analyses not adjusted for other variables.||||.4303
90971650|NCT00254501|181825824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.785|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison of change in Diabetes Empowerment Scale from baseline to 12 months between groups.||||0.785
91036047|NCT00730691|181958712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.397||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.36|1.14|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|P-values are from an MMRM model with week, Baseline score-by-week and treatment-by-week interaction as factors.||||1.14|-4.36|0.250
91036048|NCT00730691|181958712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.425||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.34|-1.73|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|P-values are from an MMRM model with week, Baseline score-by-week and treatment-by-week interaction as factors.||||-1.73|-7.34|0.002
90971651|NCT00254501|181825824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.302|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison of change in Adherence Starts with Knowledge (ASK-20) from baseline to 12 months between groups.||||0.302
90971652|NCT00254501|181825824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0024|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison of change in Understanding of Diabetes from baseline to 12 months between groups.||||0.0024
91036049|NCT01521780|181958725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Within subject coefficient of variation|0.0803|||||ONE_SIDED|90.0||0.1163||||||||0.1163||
91036050|NCT01521780|181958726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Within subject coefficient of variation|0.0555|||||ONE_SIDED|90.0||0.0733||||||||0.0733||
91036051|NCT04870606|181958731|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.025||||0.0181|ONE_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0181
91036052|NCT04870606|181958732|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.025||||0.1223|ONE_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1223
91036053|NCT04870606|181958733|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.025||||0.0038|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0038
91036054|NCT00128219|181958752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy, VE=1-RR=1-exp(ß)|36.0||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|58.0||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Regression, Cox|The study was multi-center, and the Cox model was stratified by geographic region of the participating clinical sites.|Vaccine efficacy (VE) was defined as one minus the relative risk (RR), which was estimated by exponentiating the treatment parameter (ß) from the Cox model fit.|Time to first acquisition of vaginal type III GBS was analyzed by fitting a Cox Proportional Hazards model stratified by region to the data. The null hypothesis of no vaccine efficacy was tested by the stratified log-rank test (score test). The point and interval estimates for vaccine efficacy were obtained by transforming those for treatment effect in the model.||58|1|0.044
91036055|NCT00128219|181958777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.917|2.34||The a priori threshold for statistical significance for the analysis of secondary endpoints was set at .05 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Fisher Exact|Fisher's exact test was used to test no difference in proportions always vaginal GBS-III negative by arm to a two-sided alternative of a difference.|The OR was calculated from the 2x2 contingency table, and the 95% CI was obtained by inverting the 2-sided 5% level Fisher's exact, with GBS III-TT arm in the numerator and Td arm in the denominator so \<1 favors the GBS III-TT arm.|A two-sided 5% level Fisher's exact test was used to test the null hypothesis of no difference in proportion of participants who were vaginal type III GBS negative throughout the study between treatment arms. The two-sided 5% Fisher's exact test was inverted to obtain a 95% confidence interval for the odds ratio.||2.34|0.917|0.120
90971653|NCT00879697|181825831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The effect of training in both groups were assessed by a 2-way ANOVA (Time x Group) for repeated measures. When significance was obtained, the Newman-Keuls post hoc test was used to identify the differences.||||<0.05
90971654|NCT03649061|181825839|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||To compare the two randomization groups, a linear mixed model with DAS28-CRP as outcome (Bell et al. 2014), including random intercepts per patient, adjusted for baseline DAS28-CRP, randomization timepoint, and RF and/or ACPA seropositivity was used.||||<0.05
90971655|NCT03649061|181825840|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A binomial generalized linear mixed effect model for repeated measures of remission from randomization up until 28 weeks after was carried out, with adjustment for baseline DAS28-CRP, moment of randomization, and RF and/or ACPA seropositivity.||||<0.05
90971656|NCT01295216|181825877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|1.4|||||Systolic blood pressure at 12 months|||1.40|-2.15|
91036056|NCT00128219|181958778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy, VE=1-RR=1-exp(ß)|36.0||||0.089||95.0|-7.0|61.0||Significance was set at .05 without adjustment for multiplicity. Exchangeable correlation structure and GEE were used for repeated measures.|Binomial regression, log-linear link|The Wald test of treatment effect was used to test no difference in proportion of GBS III pos. by arm against a 2-sided alternative of a difference.|Estimate of vaccine efficacy and 95% CI were obtained by transforming the estimate of log relative risk for treatment effect and the robust Wald CI in the log-linear binomial regression model fit to the proportion of vaginal type III GBS swabs.|The proportion of vaginal swabs that were GBS III culture positive was estimated from a GEE model fit with binomial family, log-link, and exchangeable correlation. Point and robust interval estimates for vaccine efficacy, were obtained by transforming those for treatment effect in this model, and used to test the hypothesis of no efficacy.||61|-7|0.089
91036057|NCT00128219|181958779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.53||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.45||The a priori threshold for statistical significance for the analysis of secondary endpoints was set at .05 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Fisher Exact|Fisher's exact test was used to test no difference in proportion persistently colonized by arm against a two-sided alternative of a difference.|The OR was calculated from the 2x2 contingency table, and the 95% CI was obtained by inverting the two-sided 5% level Fisher's exact test. The GBS III-TT arm is in the numerator and Td arm in the denominator, so a value \<1 favors the GBS III-TT arm.|A two-sided 5% level Fisher's exact test was used to test the null hypothesis of no difference in proportion of participants who were vaginal type III GBS negative throughout the study between treatment arms. The two-sided 5% Fisher's exact test was inverted to obtain a 95% confidence interval for the odds ratio.||1.45|0.18|0.256
91036058|NCT05710718|181958791|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.076|||||||paired T-test|No formal hypothesis test was planned for this pilot study. P-values are provided for exploratory purposes and are unadjusted for multiplicity.||||||0.076
91036059|NCT02591420|181958803|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.645|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Pairwise Wilcoxon rank-sum test using 10,000 bootstrapped samples.||||.645
91036060|NCT02591420|181958803|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.007
91036061|NCT02591420|181958803|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.003
91036062|NCT02591420|181958804|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.347|||||||Log Rank|||||||.347
90941642|NCT02979613|181763485|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was assessed using a 95% confidence interval (CI) approach, with a non-inferiority margin of 4%.|Difference in the Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|2.0|||||Difference in the percentages of participants between treatment groups and its 95% CI were calculated based on the stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel (MH) percentage, adjusted by baseline age groups (\< 50, ≥ 50 years) and baseline HBeAg status strata.|The null hypothesis was that the TAF group is at least 4% worse than the TDF group with respect to the percentage of participants with HBV DNA ≥ 20 IU/mL at Week 48. The alternative hypothesis was that the TAF group is less than 4% worse than the TDF group with respect to the percentage of participants with HBV DNA ≥ 20 IU/mL at Week 48.||2.0|-1.9|
90941643|NCT02979613|181763486|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was assessed using a 95% confidence interval (CI) approach, with a non-inferiority margin of 4%.|Difference in the Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.9|||||Difference in the percentage of participants between treatment groups and its 95% CI were calculated based on the stratum-adjusted MH percentage, adjusted by baseline age groups (\< 50, ≥ 50 years) and baseline HBeAg status strata.|||1.9|-1.9|
90941644|NCT02979613|181763486|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9953||||||P-value for the superiority tests compared the percentage of each HBV DNA outcome was from CMH tests stratified by baseline age groups and baseline HBeAg status strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.9953
90941645|NCT02979613|181763487|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was assessed using a 95% CI approach, with a non-inferiority margin of 4%.|Difference in the Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|3.7|||||Difference in the percentage of participants between treatment groups and its 95% CI were calculated based on the stratum-adjusted MH percentage, adjusted by baseline age groups (\< 50, ≥ 50 years) and baseline HBeAg status strata.|||3.7|-3.7|
90971657|NCT01295216|181825877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|1.32|||||Diastolic blood pressure for 12 months|||1.32|-1.29|
90971658|NCT00328627|181825892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.41||For the primary analysis, the overall average HbA1c response of the Alogliptin/pioglitazone combination groups was compared with that of the pioglitazone alone groups at the 2-sided 0.05 significance level with no adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as class variables, and baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c as continuous covariates.||The null hypothesis was that the doses of alogliptin do not have any additive effect on glycemic control (HbA1c) in addition to the effect produced by pioglitazone alone. The alternative hypothesis was that at least the higher dose of alogliptin would have an additive effect on glycemic control (HbA1c) in addition to the effect produced by pioglitazone alone.||-0.41|-0.67|<0.001
90971659|NCT00328627|181825892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.41|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as class variables, and baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c as continuous covariates.||||-0.41|-0.66|<0.001
91036063|NCT02591420|181958805|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.369|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.369
90941646|NCT02979613|181763487|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98||||||P-value for the superiority tests compared the percentage of each HBV DNA outcome was from CMH tests stratified by baseline age groups and baseline HBeAg status strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.98
90971660|NCT00328627|181825924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|-0.48||As a supportive analysis, each of the individual combination treatment groups was compared with the component treatment groups receiving aloliptin alone and pioglitazone alone at the 2-sided 0.05 significance level with no multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as class variables, and baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c as continuous covariates.||||-0.48|-0.93|<0.001
90971661|NCT00328627|181825924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.38|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as class variables, and baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c as continuous covariates.||||-0.38|-0.81|<0.001
90971662|NCT00328627|181825924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.37||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.15|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as class variables, and baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c as continuous covariates.||||-0.15|-0.59|0.001
91036064|NCT02591420|181958806|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.645||||||p-value calculated using 10,000 bootstrap samples for day 7 data|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of groups 1 and 2 for data from day 7||||.645
91036065|NCT02591420|181958806|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028||||||p-value calculated using 10,000 bootstrap samples for day 7 data|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between groups 1 and 3 for data from day 7||||0.028
90941647|NCT02979613|181763489|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was assessed using a 95% confidence interval (CI) approach, with a non-inferiority margin of 4%.|Difference in the Percentages|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|5.2|||||Difference in the percentages of participants between treatment groups and its 95% CI were calculated based on the stratum-adjusted MH percentage, adjusted by baseline age groups (\< 50, ≥ 50 years) and baseline HBeAg status strata.|||5.2|-3.5|
90941648|NCT02979613|181763489|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6863||||||P-value for the superiority tests compared the percentage of each HBV DNA outcome was from CMH tests stratified by baseline age groups and baseline HBeAg status strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.6863
90941649|NCT02979613|181763491|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Percentages|1.4||||0.7258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|10.1||P-value was from the CMH test, stratified by baseline age groups (\< 50, ≥ 50 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in the percentage of participants between the treatment groups and its 95% CI were calculated based on the stratum-adjusted MH percentage, adjusted by baseline age groups.|||10.1|-7.2|0.7258
90941650|NCT02979613|181763492|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Percentages|2.7||||0.1348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|7.7||P-value was from the CMH test, stratified by baseline age groups (\< 50, ≥ 50 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in the percentage of participants between the treatment groups and its 95% CI were calculated based on the stratum-adjusted MH percentage, adjusted by baseline age groups.|||7.7|-2.3|0.1348
90941651|NCT02979613|181763493|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Percentages|9.0||||0.1005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|20.1||P-value was from CMH tests stratified by baseline age groups (\< 50, ≥ 50 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in the percentages of participants between treatment groups and its 95% CI were calculated based on the stratum-adjusted MH percentage, adjusted by baseline age groups.|||20.1|-2.0|0.1005
90941652|NCT02979613|181763494|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Percentages|2.5||||0.4154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|9.5||P-value was from CMH tests stratified by baseline age groups (\< 50, ≥ 50 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in the percentages of participants between treatment groups and its 95% CI were calculated based on the stratum-adjusted MH percentage, adjusted by baseline age groups.|||9.5|-4.5|0.4154
90941653|NCT02979613|181763495|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Percentages|-2.0||||0.0281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|0.3||P-value was from the CMH test, stratified by baseline age groups (\< 50, ≥ 50 years) and baseline HBeAg status strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in the percentage of participants between the treatment groups and its 95% CI were calculated based on the stratum-adjusted MH percentage, adjusted by baseline age groups (\< 50, ≥ 50 years) and baseline HBeAg status strata.|||0.3|-4.4|0.0281
90941654|NCT02979613|181763497|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Percentages|-0.8||||0.5373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|2.1||P-value was from CMH tests stratified by baseline age groups (\< 50, ≥ 50 years) and baseline HBeAg status strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in the percentages of participants between treatment groups and its 95% CI were calculated based on the stratum-adjusted MH percentage, adjusted by baseline age groups (\< 50, ≥ 50 years) and baseline HBeAg status strata.|||2.1|-3.7|0.5373
90941655|NCT02979613|181763498|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Percentages|0.4||||0.5845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|2.5||P-value was from CMH tests stratified by baseline age groups (\< 50, ≥ 50 years) and baseline HBeAg status strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in the percentages of participants between treatment groups and its 95% CI were calculated based on the stratum-adjusted MH percentage, adjusted by baseline age groups (\< 50, ≥ 50 years) and baseline HBeAg status strata.|||2.5|-1.7|0.5845
90941656|NCT02979613|181763499|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Percentages|4.5||||0.1405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|10.6||P-value was from the CMH test, stratified by baseline age groups (\< 50, ≥ 50 years) and baseline HBeAg status strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in the percentage of participants between the treatment groups and its 95% CI were calculated based on the stratum-adjusted MH percentage, adjusted by baseline age groups (\< 50, ≥ 50 years) and baseline HBeAg status strata.|Central Laboratory Criteria||10.6|-1.6|0.1405
90941657|NCT02979613|181763499|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Percentages|3.8||||0.3133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|11.4||P-value was from the CMH test, stratified by baseline age groups (\< 50, ≥ 50 years) and baseline HBeAg status strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in the percentage of participants between the treatment groups and its 95% CI were calculated based on the stratum-adjusted MH percentage, adjusted by baseline age groups (\< 50, ≥ 50 years) and baseline HBeAg status strata.|AASLD Criteria||11.4|-3.7|0.3133
90941658|NCT02979613|181763500|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Percentages|14.1||||0.3381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|44.6||P-value was from the CMH test, stratified by baseline age groups (\< 50, ≥ 50 years) and baseline HBeAg status strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in the percentage of participants between the treatment groups and its 95% CI were calculated based on the stratum-adjusted MH percentage, adjusted by baseline age groups (\< 50, ≥ 50 years) and baseline HBeAg status strata.|Central Laboratory criteria||44.6|-16.4|0.3381
90941659|NCT02979613|181763500|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Percentages|23.8||||0.0136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|42.3||P-value was from the CMH test, stratified by baseline age groups (\< 50, ≥ 50 years) and baseline HBeAg status strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in the percentage of participants between the treatment groups and its 95% CI were calculated based on the stratum-adjusted MH percentage, adjusted by baseline age groups (\< 50, ≥ 50 years) and baseline HBeAg status strata.|AASLD Criteria||42.3|5.3|0.0136
90971663|NCT00328627|181825924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.3|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as class variables, and baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c as continuous covariates.||||-0.30|-0.74|<0.001
90971664|NCT00328627|181825924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.53|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as class variables, and baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c as continuous covariates.||||-0.53|-0.98|<0.001
90971665|NCT00328627|181825924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.25|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as class variables, and baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c as continuous covariates.||||-0.25|-0.70|<0.001
90971666|NCT00328627|181825924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.27|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as class variables, and baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c as continuous covariates.||||-0.27|-0.71|<0.001
90971667|NCT00328627|181825924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.25|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as class variables, and baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c as continuous covariates.||||-0.25|-0.70|<0.001
90971668|NCT00328627|181825924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|-0.68|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as class variables, and baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c as continuous covariates.||||-0.68|-1.13|<0.001
90971669|NCT00328627|181825924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.33|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as class variables, and baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c as continuous covariates.||||-0.33|-0.77|<0.001
90971670|NCT00328627|181825924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|-0.48|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as class variables, and baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c as continuous covariates.||||-0.48|-0.92|<0.001
91036066|NCT02591420|181958806|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.798||||||p-value calculated using 10,000 bootstrap samples for day 14 data|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of groups 1 and 2 for data from day 14||||0.798
90941660|NCT02979613|181763501|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Percentages|-2.9||||0.2803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|2.6||P-value was from CMH tests stratified by baseline age groups (\< 50, ≥ 50 years) and baseline HBeAg status strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in the percentages of participants between treatment groups and its 95% CI were calculated based on the stratum-adjusted MH percentage, adjusted by baseline age groups (\< 50, ≥ 50 years) and baseline HBeAg status strata.|Central Laboratory Criteria||2.6|-8.4|0.2803
90941661|NCT02979613|181763501|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Percentages|-5.9||||0.0788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|0.7||P-value was from CMH tests stratified by baseline age groups (\< 50, ≥ 50 years) and baseline HBeAg status strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in the percentages of participants between treatment groups and its 95% CI were calculated based on the stratum-adjusted MH percentage, adjusted by baseline age groups (\< 50, ≥ 50 years) and baseline HBeAg status strata.|AASLD Criteria||0.7|-12.6|0.0788
90941662|NCT02979613|181763502|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Percentages|-23.9||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.2|3.4||P-value was from CMH tests stratified by baseline age groups (\< 50, ≥ 50 years) and baseline HBeAg status strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in the percentages of participants between treatment groups and its 95% CI were calculated based on the stratum-adjusted MH percentage, adjusted by baseline age groups (\< 50, ≥ 50 years) and baseline HBeAg status strata.|Central Laboratory Criteria||3.4|-51.2|0.0880
90941663|NCT02979613|181763502|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Percentages|-18.6||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.4|0.2||P-value was from CMH tests stratified by baseline age groups (\< 50, ≥ 50 years) and baseline HBeAg status strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in the percentages of participants between treatment groups and its 95% CI were calculated based on the stratum-adjusted MH percentage, adjusted by baseline age groups (\< 50, ≥ 50 years) and baseline HBeAg status strata.|AASLD Criteria||0.2|-37.4|0.0510
90971671|NCT00328627|181825924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.39|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as class variables, and baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c as continuous covariates.||||-0.39|-0.83|<0.001
90971672|NCT02049944|181826048|OTHER|we used t-test on the regression coefficient for the group indicator to test for differences in means categorical variables were evaluated using fisher's exact test of association linear regression for log transformed start adipose concentrations were calculated by dose specific group|Median Difference (Final Values)|80.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||To detect the number of subjects who obtained a minimal inhibitory concentration (\>4mg/ml) following increased 3g dose of cefazolin. Compare this number to the historical cohort who had received 2g of cefazolin (standard dosing)||||
90971673|NCT03691974|181826056|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|0.4||||0.4192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|1.32||Analyses are based on Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) model with terms for baseline nerve conduction test score, treatment, screening Kellgren-Lawrence score, index joint, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||1.32|-0.55|0.4192
90971674|NCT03691974|181826057|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.0521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.8||Analyses are based on MMRM model with terms for baseline nerve conduction test score, treatment, screening Kellgren-Lawrence score, index joint, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||0.80|-0.00|0.0521
90971675|NCT03691974|181826058|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.3||||0.1593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|3.15||Analyses are based on MMRM model with terms for baseline nerve conduction test score, treatment, screening Kellgren-Lawrence score, index joint, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||3.15|-0.52|0.1593
90971676|NCT03691974|181826059|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.7757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|1.19||Analyses are based on MMRM model with terms for baseline nerve conduction test score, treatment, screening Kellgren-Lawrence score, index joint, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||1.19|-1.59|0.7757
90971677|NCT03691974|181826060|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.6063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|1.09||Analyses are based on MMRM model with terms for baseline nerve conduction test score, treatment, screening Kellgren-Lawrence score, index joint, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||1.09|-1.87|0.6063
90971678|NCT03691974|181826061|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0||||0.4203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|1.39||Analyses are based on MMRM model with terms for baseline nerve conduction test score, treatment, screening Kellgren-Lawrence score, index joint, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||1.39|-3.30|0.4203
90971679|NCT03691974|181826062|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.33||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.123|-0.538||Analyses are based on multiple imputation with MMRM model with terms for baseline WOMAC subscale score, treatment, screening Kellgren-Lawrence score, index joint, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||-0.538|-2.123|0.0010
90971680|NCT03691974|181826063|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.42||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.212|-0.625||Analyses were based on multiple imputation with MMRM model with terms for baseline WOMAC subscale score, treatment, screening Kellgren-Lawrence score, index joint, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||-0.625|-2.212|0.0005
91007676|NCT04223778|181899561|NON_INFERIORITY|Doravirine/Islatravir (DOR/ISL) - Baseline Antiretroviral Therapy (ART). Non-inferiority was concluded if the upper bound of the 2-sided multiplicity-adjusted 95% CI was less than 4 percentage points.|Estimated Difference|-1.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.44|-0.34|||Miettinen and Nurminen|The Miettinen and Nurminen method was stratified by corrected baseline ART regimen with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights.||||-0.34|-3.44|<.001
91007677|NCT04223778|181899562|OTHER|Difference in percentage versus Baseline Antiretroviral Therapy (ART). Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated Difference|9.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|16.3|||||Difference in percentage versus (vs) Baseline ART was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||16.3|3.3|
90971681|NCT00691483|181826084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|9.56||To preserve the type I family-wise error rate of 0.05, a step-down procedure to be used for the analysis of CA for Week 9 through Week 12 and the CA for Week 9 through Week 24.|Regression, Logistic|Model to include the main effects of treatment and pooled center.||Sample size to be based on a continuity-corrected Chi-square 2-sided test with a 0.05 significance level and a 3:1 randomization ratio of Varenicline to placebo. 652 subjects to provide \>=90% power to detect Varenicline versus placebo differences in primary and key secondary efficacy endpoints (assuming placebo CA rates of 0.24 \[Weeks 9-12\] and 0.18 \[Weeks 9-24\] and Varenicline CA rates of 0.46 \[Weeks 9-12\] and 0.31 \[Weeks 9-24\]) (odds ratio of \>=2.67 \[Weeks 9-12\] and \>=2.10 \[Weeks 9-24\]).||9.56|3.80|<0.0001
90971682|NCT00691483|181826085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.62|7.55||To preserve the type I family-wise error rate of 0.05, a step-down procedure to be used for the analysis of CA for Week 9 through Week 12 and the CA for Week 9 through Week 24.|Regression, Logistic|Model to include the main effects of treatment and pooled center.||Sample size to be based on a continuity-corrected Chi-square 2-sided test with a 0.05 significance level and a 3:1 randomization ratio of Varenicline to placebo. 652 subjects to provide \>=90% power to detect Varenicline versus placebo differences in primary and key secondary efficacy endpoints (assuming placebo CA rates of 0.24 \[Weeks 9-12\] and 0.18 \[Weeks 9-24\] and Varenicline CA rates of 0.46 \[Weeks 9-12\] and 0.31 \[Weeks 9-24\]) (odds ratio of \>=2.67 \[Weeks 9-12\] and \>=2.10 \[Weeks 9-24\]).||7.55|2.62|<0.0001
90971683|NCT00691483|181826086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.91|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.96|8.13||A 0.05 level of significance without adjustment for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|Model to include the main effects of treatment and pooled center.||Statistical testing to be 2-sided and use a 0.05 level of significance. Confidence intervals to have a 95% confidence level. Statistical significance to be declared unless a p-value \>0.05 was obtained.||8.13|2.96|<0.0001
90971684|NCT00691483|181826087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.66|8.75||A 0.05 level of significance without adjustment for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|Model to include the main effects of treatment and pooled center.||Week 12. Statistical testing to be 2-sided and use a 0.05 level of significance. Confidence intervals to have a 95% confidence level. Statistical significance to be declared unless a p-value \>0.05 was obtained.||8.75|3.66|<0.0001
90971685|NCT00691483|181826087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.58|6.58||A 0.05 level of significance without adjustment for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|Model to include the main effects of treatment and pooled center.||Week 24. Statistical testing to be 2-sided and use a 0.05 level of significance. Confidence intervals to have a 95% confidence level. Statistical significance to be declared unless a p-value \>0.05 was obtained.||6.58|2.58|<0.0001
90971686|NCT00691483|181826088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.58|6.67||A 0.05 level of significance without adjustment for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|Model to include the main effects of treatment and pooled center.||Statistical testing to be 2-sided and use a 0.05 level of significance. Confidence intervals to have a 95% confidence level. Statistical significance to be declared unless a p-value \>0.05 was obtained.||6.67|2.58|<0.0001
90971687|NCT04623242|181826090|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|1.063|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.059|||TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance||||||||
90971688|NCT04623242|181826090|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|1.255|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.061|||TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance||||||||
90971689|NCT04623242|181826091|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.094||0.805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.46|1.92|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.92|-2.46|0.805
90971690|NCT04623242|181826092|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.823||0.512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.83|2.43|||t-test, 2 sided|||Test of equality (any treatment difference)||2.43|-4.83|0.512
90971691|NCT04623242|181826093|OTHER|Test of equality (any treatment difference)|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.641|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1115|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.864|-0.417|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.417|-0.864|<0.001
90971692|NCT04623242|181826094|OTHER|Test of equality (any difference in the proportion of increase in the endpoint)|Ratio|0.3443||||0.5573|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5573
90971693|NCT04623242|181826095|OTHER|Test of equality (any treatment difference)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.092||0.707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|2.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.60|-1.77|0.707
90971694|NCT04623242|181826096|OTHER|Test of equality (any treatment difference)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|0.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.40|-1.35|0.283
90971695|NCT04623242|181826097|OTHER|Test of equality (any treatment difference)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.859||0.674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|2.07|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.07|-1.34|0.674
90971696|NCT04623242|181826098|OTHER|Test of equality (any treatment difference)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.828||0.507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.86|2.42|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.42|-4.86|0.507
90971697|NCT04623242|181826099|OTHER|Test of equality (any treatment difference)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.706||0.553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.41|2.38|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.38|-4.41|0.553
90971698|NCT04623242|181826100|OTHER|Test of equality (any treatment difference)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.596||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|0.19|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.19|-2.18|0.098
90971699|NCT04623242|181826101|OTHER|Test of equality (any treatment difference)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.98||0.173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|6.68|||t-test, 2 sided|||||6.68|-1.22|0.173
90971700|NCT04623242|181826102|OTHER|Test of equality (any treatment difference)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.998||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|8.71|||t-test, 2 sided|||||8.71|-8.10|0.940
90971701|NCT04623242|181826103|OTHER|Test of equality (any treatment difference)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.524||0.854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.49|36.62|||t-test, 2 sided|||||36.62|-30.49|0.854
90971702|NCT04623242|181826104|OTHER|Test of equality (any treatment difference)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.448||0.781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.0|39.75|||t-test, 2 sided|||||39.75|-30.00|0.781
90971703|NCT04623242|181826105|OTHER|Test of equality (any treatment difference)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.21||0.689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.05|6.67|||t-test, 2 sided|||||6.67|-10.05|0.689
90971704|NCT04623242|181826106|OTHER|Test of equality (any treatment difference)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.689||0.474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|0.87|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.87|-1.86|0.474
90971705|NCT04623242|181826107|OTHER|Test of equality (any treatment difference)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.637||0.886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|1.17|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.17|-1.36|0.886
91036067|NCT02591420|181958806|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.505||||||p-value calculated using 10,000 bootstrap samples for day 14 data|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of groups 1 and 3 for data from day 14||||.505
91036068|NCT02591420|181958806|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999||||||p-value calculated using 10,000 bootstrap samples for day 168 data|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of groups 1 and 2 at study day 168 (week 24)||||>.999
91036069|NCT02591420|181958806|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.497||||||p-value calculated using 10,000 bootstrap samples for day 168 data|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of groups 1 and 3 at study day 168||||0.497
91036070|NCT02591420|181958811|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>.999
91036071|NCT02591420|181958811|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Barnard's test|||This test compares group 1 to groups 2 and 3 combined (1 vs. 2 \& 3)||||0.390
91036072|NCT02591420|181958812|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.694||||||Comparison of change in CD4+ T cells in Groups 1 and 2 from baseline to Nadir p-value calculated using 10,000 bootstrapped samples|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of change in CD4+ T cells in Groups 1 and 2 from baseline to Nadir||||0.694
91036073|NCT02591420|181958812|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.729|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Comparison of change in CD4+ T cells in Groups 1 and 3 from baseline to Nadir p-value calculated using 10,000 bootstrapped samples||Comparison of change in CD4+ T cells in Groups 1 and 3 from baseline to Nadir||||0.729
90971706|NCT04623242|181826108|OTHER|Test of equality (any treatment difference)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.556||0.873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|1.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.20|-1.03|0.873
90971707|NCT04623242|181826109|OTHER|Test of equality (any treatment difference)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.66||0.394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.71|1.87|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.87|-4.71|0.394
90971708|NCT04623242|181826110|OTHER|Test of equality (any treatment difference)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.063||0.776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|1.81|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.81|-2.41|0.776
90971709|NCT04623242|181826111|OTHER|Test of equality (any treatment difference)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.909||0.283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|0.82|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.82|-2.78|0.283
90971710|NCT04623242|181826112|OTHER|Test of equality (any treatment difference)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.947||0.634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|1.42|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.42|-2.33|0.634
90971711|NCT04623242|181826113|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|1.155|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.074|||TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance||||||||
90971712|NCT04623242|181826114|OTHER|Test of equality (any treatment difference)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0562||0.726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.093|0.132|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.132|-0.093|0.726
90971713|NCT04623242|181826115|OTHER|Test of equality (any treatment difference)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.082|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1056||0.439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.295|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.295|-0.130|0.439
90971714|NCT04623242|181826116|OTHER|Test of equality (any treatment difference)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0168||0.967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.034|0.033|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.033|-0.034|0.967
90971715|NCT04623242|181826117|OTHER|Test of equality (any treatment difference)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0377||0.669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.059|0.092|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.092|-0.059|0.669
91036074|NCT02591420|181958812|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.694|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Comparison of change in CD4+ T cells in Groups 1 and 2 from Nadir to Day 168 p-value calculated using 10,000 bootstrapped samples||Comparison of change in CD4+ T cells in Groups 1 and 2 from Nadir to Day 168||||0.694
91036075|NCT02591420|181958812|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.393|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Comparison of change in CD4+ T cells in Groups 1 and 3 from Nadir to Day 168 p-value calculated using 10,000 bootstrapped samples||Comparison of change in CD4+ T cells in Groups 1 and 3 from Nadir to Day 168||||0.393
91036076|NCT02591420|181958812|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Comparison of change in CD4+ T cells in Groups 1 and 2 from Baseline to Day 168 p-value calculated using 10,000 bootstrapped samples||Comparison of change in CD4+ T cells in Groups 1 and 2 from Baseline to Day 168||||>.999
91036077|NCT02591420|181958812|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Comparison of change in CD4+ T cells in Groups 1 and 3 from Baseline to Day 168 p-value calculated using 10,000 bootstrapped samples||Comparison of change in CD4+ T cells in Groups 1 and 3 from Baseline to Day 168 p-value calculated using 10,000 bootstrapped samples||||>.999
91036078|NCT02591420|181958813|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8629||||||Multiple comparisons are not required|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.8629
91036079|NCT04970810|181958884|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8
91036080|NCT04970810|181958884|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.3
91036081|NCT04970810|181958884|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.5
91036082|NCT04970810|181958885|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Chi-squared|||Documented goals at baseline for all three arms.||||0.2
91036083|NCT04970810|181958885|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||Documented goals after Baseline in all three arms.||||<0.001
91036084|NCT04970810|181958886|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Chi-squared|||Initial goal at baseline.||||0.7
91036085|NCT04970810|181958886|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Chi-squared|||Modified goal after Month 1 call with nurse.||||0.6
91036086|NCT04970810|181958887|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Chi-squared|||Achieved goal at baseline across three arms.||||0.2
91036087|NCT04970810|181958887|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Chi-squared|||Achieved goal at 12 months across all three arms.||||0.9
91036088|NCT04970810|181958888|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.9
91036089|NCT04970810|181958888|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2
91036090|NCT04970810|181958888|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1
91036091|NCT05056376|181958889|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was defined a priori as the lower bound of the one-sided 95% CI for the risk difference being greater than or equal to -15%.|||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Logistic|||The primary analysis was conducted in all randomized participants. Those who did not attend the 12-month study visit were classified as not achieving the primary composite outcome, providing a conservative estimate of intervention effectiveness. The risk difference was estimated using binomial regression.||||<0.05
91036092|NCT04742491|181958906|SUPERIORITY||Percentage|73.1||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.89|80.3|||Chi-squared||||The estimates and C.I. (In percentage) are derived using Chi-squared test.|80.30|65.89|0.80
90941664|NCT02979613|181763503|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-0.02||||0.0186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.0|||ANOVA|||P-value, difference in least squares mean (LSM), and its 95% CI were derived from analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with baseline age groups (\< 50, ≥ 50 years), baseline HBeAg status, and treatment group as fixed effects in the model.||0.00|-0.03|0.0186
90941665|NCT02979613|181763504|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|0.0||||0.6956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.01|||ANOVA|||P-value, difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were from ANOVA with baseline age groups (\<50, ≥ 50 years), baseline HBeAg status, and treatment group as fixed effects in the model.||0.01|-0.02|0.6956
90941666|NCT02979613|181763505|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|1.167|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.797|1.536|||ANOVA|||P-value, difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were from ANOVA with baseline age groups (\<50, ≥ 50 years), baseline HBeAg status, and treatment group as fixed effects in the model.||1.536|0.797|< 0.0001
90941667|NCT02979613|181763506|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|0.977||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.465|1.49|||ANOVA|||P-value, difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were from ANOVA with baseline age groups (\<50, ≥ 50 years), baseline HBeAg status, and treatment group as fixed effects in the model.||1.490|0.465|0.0002
90941668|NCT02979613|181763507|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|1.881|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.275|2.486|||ANOVA|||P-value, difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were from ANOVA with baseline age groups (\<50, ≥ 50 years), baseline HBeAg status, and treatment group as fixed effects in the model.||2.486|1.275|< 0.0001
90941669|NCT02979613|181763508|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|0.604||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|1.317|||ANOVA|||P-value, difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were from ANOVA with baseline age groups (\<50, ≥ 50 years), baseline HBeAg status, and treatment group as fixed effects in the model.||1.317|-0.110|0.0970
90941670|NCT02979613|181763509|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-values were from the 2-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test to compare the 2 treatment groups.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||< 0.0001
90941671|NCT02979613|181763510|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7535||||||P-values were from the 2-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test to compare the 2 treatment groups.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.7535
90941672|NCT01751165|181763576|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-nferiority criteria: The upper limit (UL) of the 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the anti-gE ELISA geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio (0,2-month schedule over 0,6-month schedule) at one month post-dose 2 had to be below 1.5.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.98|1.39|||ANCOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority in terms of anti-gE humoral immune response one month post-dose 2 given according to a 0,6-month schedule compared to a 0,2-month schedule.||1.39|0.98|
90941673|NCT01751165|181763576|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-nferiority criteria: The upper limit (UL) of the 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the anti-gE ELISA geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio (0,2-month schedule over 0,6-month schedule) at one month post-dose 2 had to be below 1.5.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.93|1.53|||ANCOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority in terms of anti-gE humoral immune response one month post-dose 2 given according to a 0,12-month schedule compared to a 0,2-month schedule.||1.53|0.93|
90941674|NCT01036165|181763587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean positive response|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.86|||||Confidence Interval calculated from normal approximation to the binomial. The primary objective was met if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval was \>0.50.|||0.86|0.70|
90971716|NCT04623242|181826118|OTHER|Test of equality (any treatment difference)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-34.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|116.419||0.768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-264.14|195.22|||t-test, 2 sided|||||195.22|-264.14|0.768
91036093|NCT04742491|181958906|SUPERIORITY||Percentage|71.81||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.59|79.04|||Chi-squared||The estimates and C.I. (In percentage) are derived using Chi-squared test.|||79.04|64.59|0.80
91036094|NCT04742491|181958911|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||Binomial Distribution|||||||0.59
91036095|NCT04742491|181958913|OTHER||Percentage|85.23||||0.6381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|79.54|90.93|||Binomial Distribution||The estimates and C.I. (In percentage) are derived using binomial distribution.|||90.93|79.54|0.6381
91036096|NCT04742491|181958913|OTHER||Percentage|87.1||||0.6381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|81.82|92.37|||Binomial Distribution||The estimates and C.I. (In percentage) are derived using binomial distribution.|||92.37|81.82|0.6381
91036097|NCT04742491|181958918|OTHER|The odds ratio was calculated with the deferred intervention arm as the reference group.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.03|||Regression, Logistic|||Calculating the odds of Gonorrhea.||2.03|0.45|0.91
91036098|NCT04742491|181958918|OTHER|The odds ratio was calculated with the deferred intervention arm as the reference group.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.03|||Regression, Logistic|||Calculating the odds of Chlamydia Trachomatis.||2.03|0.45|0.91
91036099|NCT04742491|181958918|OTHER|The odds ratio was calculated with the deferred intervention arm as the reference group.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.3|||Regression, Logistic|||Calculating the odds of a syphilis positive/reactive test.||1.30|0.45|0.32
91036100|NCT04742491|181958919|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|8.81|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression results of Hepatitis C infection at baseline.||8.81|0.24|0.69
91036101|NCT04742491|181958926|SUPERIORITY||Incidence Rate|1.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|5.12||||||Poisson regression models with person time were used to estimate HIV incidence for the immediate intervention arm.||5.12|0.72|
90941675|NCT01475461|181763593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares (LS) Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.172||0.5206|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.21|0.23||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons among treatment groups.||Week 12: Treatment difference and 80 percent(%) confidence interval (CI) were based on least squares (LS) mean. A mixed model repeated measure (MMRM) analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant. Null hypothesis stated there was no difference between PF 04937319 and placebo, alternative hypothesis stated PF 04937319 was superior to placebo.||0.23|-0.21|0.5206
90971717|NCT04623242|181826120|OTHER|Test of equality (any treatment difference)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2737.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6558.467||0.677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15678.06|10202.81|||t-test, 2 sided|||||10202.81|-15678.06|0.677
90971718|NCT04623242|181826121|OTHER|Test of equality (any treatment difference)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1078.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1788.474||0.547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4603.28|2446.64|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2446.64|-4603.28|0.547
90941676|NCT01475461|181763593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.178||0.1645|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.4|0.05||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons among treatment groups.||Week 12: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant. Null hypothesis stated there was no difference between PF 04937319 and placebo, alternative hypothesis stated PF 04937319 was superior to placebo||0.05|-0.40|0.1645
90941677|NCT01475461|181763593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.172||0.1592|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.39|0.05||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons among treatment groups.||Week 12: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant. Null hypothesis stated there was no difference between PF 04937319 and placebo, alternative hypothesis stated PF 04937319 was superior to placebo.||0.05|-0.39|0.1592
90941678|NCT01475461|181763593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.174||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.68|-0.23||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 12: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant. Null hypothesis stated there was no difference between PF 04937319 and placebo, alternative hypothesis stated PF 04937319 was superior to placebo.||-0.23|-0.68|0.0049
90971719|NCT04623242|181826122|OTHER|Test of equality (any treatment difference)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1935.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|385.538|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2717.64|-1154.18|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-1154.18|-2717.64|<0.001
90971720|NCT04623242|181826123|OTHER|Test of equality (any treatment difference)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-77.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|23.014||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-124.56|-29.68|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-29.68|-124.56|0.003
90971721|NCT04623242|181826124|OTHER|Test of equality (any treatment difference)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|30.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|35.54||0.388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.04|101.83|||t-test, 2 sided|||||101.83|-40.04|0.388
90971722|NCT04623242|181826125|OTHER|Test of equality (any treatment difference)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.624||0.909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.97|12.45|||t-test, 2 sided|||||12.45|-13.97|0.909
91036102|NCT04742491|181958926|SUPERIORITY||Incidence Rate|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|3.39||||||Poisson regression models with person time was used to estimate HIV incidence for the deferred intervention arm.||3.39|0.07|
90941679|NCT01475461|181763593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.173||0.0068|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.65|-0.21||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 12: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant. Null hypothesis stated there was no difference between PF 04937319 and placebo, alternative hypothesis stated PF 04937319 was superior to placebo.||-0.21|-0.65|0.0068
90971723|NCT04623242|181826126|OTHER|Test of equality (any treatment difference)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.178|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0593||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.059|0.296|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.296|0.059|0.004
90971724|NCT04623242|181826127|OTHER|Test of equality (any treatment difference)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.355||0.754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.21|2.35|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.35|-3.21|0.754
90971725|NCT04623242|181826129|OTHER|Test of equality (any treatment difference)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|229362.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14863.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|199264.32|259460.27|||t-test, 2 sided|||||259460.27|199264.32|<0.001
90971726|NCT04623242|181826130|OTHER|Test of equality (any treatment difference)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|32906.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1697.541|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29406.49|36406.72|||t-test, 2 sided|||||36406.72|29406.49|<0.001
90971727|NCT04623242|181826131|OTHER|Test of equality (any treatment difference)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1286.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|140.692|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1002.79|1569.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1569.90|1002.79|<0.001
90971728|NCT04623242|181826132|OTHER|Test of equality (any treatment difference)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|9867.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1212.232|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7419.38|12315.15|||t-test, 2 sided|||||12315.15|7419.38|<0.001
90971729|NCT02921971|181826135|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) Mean difference|-2.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21||0.0291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.71|0.08||Above p-value is one-sided p-value. Threshold for significance is at 0.05 level.|Mixed-effect model with repeated measure|||Analysis was performed using mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) model. The model included fixed categorical effects of treatment group, randomization strata as per IVRS, timepoint, treatment-by-timepoint and strata-by-timepoint interactions, as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline and baseline-by-timepoint interactions.||0.08|-4.71|0.0291
90971730|NCT00326898|181826143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.85|1.23|||Stratified logrank test|Stratified logrank test was performed. Stratification factors include basis of risk group, histologic subtype, performance status and type of surgery.||||1.23|0.85|0.80
91036103|NCT04742491|181958927|SUPERIORITY||Incidence Rate|31.47||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.86|41.51|||Poisson Regression||Incidence Rate of any STI Incidence per Person-Years using Poisson Regression was calculated.|Incidence rate of STIs for immediate intervention arm||41.51|23.86|0.93
90941680|NCT01475461|181763594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.097||0.3434|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.16|0.09||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 80 percent(%) confidence interval (CI) were based on least squares (LS) mean. A mixed model repeated measure (MMRM) analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.09|-0.16|0.3434
90941681|NCT01475461|181763594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.101||0.0892|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.27|-0.01||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||-0.01|-0.27|0.0892
90941682|NCT01475461|181763594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.097||0.0826|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.26|-0.01||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||-0.01|-0.26|0.0826
90941683|NCT01475461|181763594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.098||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.4|-0.15||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||-0.15|-0.40|0.0031
90941684|NCT01475461|181763594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.098||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.45|-0.2||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-0.20|-0.45|0.0005
90941685|NCT01475461|181763594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.144||0.5133|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.18|0.19||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.19|-0.18|0.5133
90941686|NCT01475461|181763594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.1873|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.33|0.06||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.06|-0.33|0.1873
90941687|NCT01475461|181763594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145||0.212|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.3|0.07||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.07|-0.30|0.2120
90941688|NCT01475461|181763594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.146||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.73|-0.35||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||-0.35|-0.73|0.0001
90941689|NCT01475461|181763594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.146||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.61|-0.23||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-0.23|-0.61|0.0021
90941690|NCT01475461|181763595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.823||0.724|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.32|9.07||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 80 percent(%) confidence interval (CI) were based on least squares (LS) mean. A mixed model repeated measure (MMRM) analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||9.07|-3.32|0.7240
90941691|NCT01475461|181763595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.952||0.3608|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-8.13|4.59||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||4.59|-8.13|0.3608
90941692|NCT01475461|181763595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.816||0.2511|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-9.42|2.95||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||2.95|-9.42|0.2511
90971731|NCT00326898|181826143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.8|1.17|||Stratified logrank test|Stratified logrank test was performed. Stratification factors include basis of risk group, histologic subtype, performance status and type of surgery.||||1.17|0.80|0.72
90941693|NCT01475461|181763595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.851||0.0673|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-13.51|-1.05||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-1.05|-13.51|0.0673
90971732|NCT00326898|181826144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.9|1.52|||||Hazard ratio was estimated using stratified proportional hazards model with Arm C (placebo arm) as the reference group.|||1.52|0.90|
90971733|NCT00326898|181826144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.75|1.28|||||Hazard ratio was estimated using stratified proportional hazards model with Arm C (placebo arm) as the reference group.|||1.28|0.75|
90971734|NCT01166230|181826180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.141|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.141
90971735|NCT01166230|181826181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.041|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.041
90971736|NCT01166230|181826182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|99.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.056
90971737|NCT01968460|181826192|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.28||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|-2.13||The overall significance level for this study will be 5% using two-tailed tests utilizing the hierarchical gate keeping approach to control the overall Type-I error rate in the strong sense.|MMRM|||||-2.13|-7.20|0.0004
90971738|NCT01968460|181826192|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.32|-1.36||The overall significance level for this study will be 5% using two-tailed tests utilizing the hierarchical gate keeping approach to control the overall Type-I error rate in the strong sense.|MMRM|||||-1.36|-6.32|0.0027
90971739|NCT01968460|181826193|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.86|-0.84||The overall significance level for this study will be 5% using two-tailed tests utilizing the hierarchical gate keeping approach to control the overall Type-I error rate in the strong sense.|MMRM|||||-0.84|-2.86|0.0004
90971740|NCT01968460|181826193|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|0.44||The overall significance level for this study will be 5% using two-tailed tests utilizing the hierarchical gate keeping approach to control the overall Type-I error rate in the strong sense.|MMRM|||||0.44|-2.41|0.005
90971741|NCT01968460|181826194|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.1||||0.0165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|44.77||The overall significance level for this study was 5% using two-tailed tests.|Regression, Logistic|||A subject will be defined as a treatment responder in case that the improvement from baseline to the Week12 / Last Observed Value (LOV) in the CGI-S will be of 1 point or more. Baseline adjusted logistic regression (SAS® LOGISTIC procedure) stratified by GeoSite using the STRATA sub-command with the following effects: treatment group and baseline CGI-S measurement was used to test the between the active groups and placebo contrasts.||44.77|1.47|0.0165
90971742|NCT01968460|181826194|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|24.9||The overall significance level for this study will be 5% using two-tailed tests.|Regression, Logistic|||||24.90|0.72|0.111
90971743|NCT01968460|181826195|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|-0.83||The overall significance level for this study will be 5% using two-tailed tests utilizing the hierarchical gate keeping approach to control the overall Type-I error rate in the strong sense.|MMRM|||||-0.83|-4.80|0.0058
90971744|NCT01968460|181826195|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98||0.0191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.26|-0.39||The overall significance level for this study will be 5% using two-tailed tests utilizing the hierarchical gate keeping approach to control the overall Type-I error rate in the strong sense.|MMRM|||||-0.39|-4.26|0.0191
90971745|NCT01968460|181826196|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.24||0.0097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.72|-0.8||The overall significance level for this study will be 5% using two-tailed tests utilizing the hierarchical gate keeping approach to control the overall Type-I error rate in the strong sense.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.80|-5.72|0.0097
90971746|NCT01968460|181826196|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.24||0.0509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.91|-0.012||The overall significance level for this study will be 5% using two-tailed tests utilizing the hierarchical gate keeping approach to control the overall Type-I error rate in the strong sense.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.012|-4.91|0.0509
90971747|NCT02597855|181826199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||The difference of polyp regression rate between two groups were compared.||||<0.05
90971748|NCT02597855|181826200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|The Mann-Whitney test was used for a comparison of best corrected visual acuity assessed at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months between type1 and type2.||best corrected visual acuity was compared between two groups||||<0.05
90971749|NCT04283123|181826214|OTHER|Wilcoxon-signed rank test to compare differences from pretest to posttest for the treatment group. The standardized effect size was interpreted using Cohen's criteria.|Cohen's d|0.41|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Wilcoxon-signed rank test to compare differences from pretest to posttest for the treatment group. The standardized effect size was interpreted using Cohen's criteria.|||||
90971750|NCT04283123|181826214|OTHER|Wilcoxon-signed rank test to compare differences from pretest to posttest for the waitlist control group. The standardized effect size was interpreted using Cohen's criteria.|Cohen's d|0.45|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Wilcoxon-signed rank test to compare differences from pretest to posttest for the waitlist control group. The standardized effect size was interpreted using Cohen's criteria.|||||
90971751|NCT04283123|181826215|OTHER|Wilcoxon-signed rank test to compare differences from pretest to posttest for the treatment group. The standardized effect size was interpreted using Cohen's criteria.|Cohen's d|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Wilcoxon-signed rank test to compare differences from pretest to posttest for the treatment group. The standardized effect size was interpreted using Cohen's criteria.|||||
90971752|NCT04283123|181826215|OTHER|Wilcoxon-signed rank test to compare differences from pretest to posttest for the waitlist control group. The standardized effect size was interpreted using Cohen's criteria.|Cohen's d|0.32|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Wilcoxon-signed rank test to compare differences from pretest to posttest for the waitlist control group. The standardized effect size was interpreted using Cohen's criteria.|||||
90971753|NCT04283123|181826216|OTHER|Wilcoxon-signed rank test to compare differences from pretest to posttest for the treatment group. The standardized effect size was interpreted using Cohen's criteria.|Cohen's d|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Wilcoxon-signed rank test to compare differences from pretest to posttest for the treatment group. The standardized effect size was interpreted using Cohen's criteria.|||||
90971754|NCT04283123|181826216|OTHER|Wilcoxon-signed rank test to compare differences from pretest to posttest for the waitlist control group. The standardized effect size was interpreted using Cohen's criteria.|Cohen's d|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Wilcoxon-signed rank test to compare differences from pretest to posttest for the waitlist control group. The standardized effect size was interpreted using Cohen's criteria.|||||
90971755|NCT01485627|181826233|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference in difference|0.34||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.62|||Mixed Models Analysis||Models included fixed-effects terms for phase (pre- vs postrandomization), study arm, and the Phase\*Arm interaction. Estimated effect is the between-arm difference in adjusted mean difference from prerandomization to postrandomization samples.|The primary outcome was a composite of 4 prespecified communication measures matched to the goals of communication training, as follows: Active Patient Participation Coding \[APPC\], Verona VR-CoDES, Prognostic and Treatment Choices \[PTCC\] Informing subscale, and PTCC Balanced Framing subscale. The 4 measures were z-score transformed and averaged to produce the composite measure.||0.62|0.06|0.05
90971756|NCT01485627|181826234|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.214|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.214
90971757|NCT01485627|181826235|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.37|-0.56|0.05
90971758|NCT01485627|181826237|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.677|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.677
90971759|NCT01485627|181826238|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.19
90971760|NCT04749459|181826239|OTHER|A minimum of 10 valid results was defined as the number required to produce mean study product (or control standard) SPF with 95% confidence interval (CI) within +/- 17% of the measured mean SPF of the study product (or control standard).|||||||||||||||||CSM Classic: CIs +/- 13.7% P2 Control Standard (vs. CSM Classic) CIs +/- 16.4%|||
90971761|NCT04749459|181826239|OTHER|A minimum of 10 valid results was defined as the number required to produce mean study product (or control standard) SPF with 95% confidence interval (CI) within +/- 17% of the measured mean SPF of the study product (or control standard).|||||||||||||||||CSM Strawberry Flavor: CIs +/- 16.6% P2 Control Standard (vs CSM Strawberry Flavour): CIs +/- 16.0%|||
90971762|NCT00267748|181826240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.089||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.423|2.803|||Log Rank|||For High risk factor, the hazard ratio of TTP was estimated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazard model with the MSKCC prognostic factors (low, intermediate, high), used in the randomization, as a stratum and median TTP was estimated using Kaplan-Meier method. Log rank method was used to calculate p value.||2.803|0.423|0.860
90971763|NCT00267748|181826240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.902||||0.583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.623|1.306|||Log Rank|||For intermediate risk factor, the hazard ratio of TTP was estimated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazard model with the MSKCC prognostic factors (low, intermediate, high), used in the randomization, as a stratum and median TTP was estimated using Kaplan-Meier method. Log rank method was used to calculate p value.||1.306|0.623|0.583
90971764|NCT00267748|181826240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.556||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.288|1.074|||Log Rank|||For low risk factor, the hazard ratio of TTP was estimated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazard model with the MSKCC prognostic factors (low, intermediate, high), used in the randomization, as a stratum and median TTP was estimated using Kaplan-Meier method. Log rank method was used to calculate p value.||1.074|0.288|0.075
90971765|NCT00267748|181826240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.827||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.609|1.124|||Log Rank|||For overall stratified analysis, the hazard ratio of TTP was estimated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazard model with the MSKCC prognostic factors (low, intermediate, high), used in the randomization, as a stratum and median TTP was estimated using Kaplan-Meier method. Log rank method was used to calculate p value.||1.124|0.609|0.220
90971766|NCT00267748|181826240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.773||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.572|1.044|||Log Rank|||For overall unstratified analysis, the hazard ratio of TTP was estimated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazard model. Two-sided unstratified Log rank method was used to calculate p value.||1.044|0.572|0.090
90971767|NCT00267748|181826241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.11||||0.444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|14.6|||Chi-squared|||Response rate was estimated for each treatment group, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) on the difference in response rate between the 2 treatments was computed. P-value was calculated from a Pearson chi-square test.||14.6|-6.4|0.444
90971768|NCT00267748|181826243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.071||||0.866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.481|2.387|||Log Rank|||For high risk factor, the hazard ratio of OS was estimated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazard model with the MSKCC prognostic factors (low, intermediate, high), used in the randomization, as a stratum and median OS was estimated using Kaplan-Meier method. Log rank method was used to calculate p value.||2.387|0.481|0.866
90971769|NCT00267748|181826243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.169||||0.439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.785|1.741|||Log Rank|||For intermediate risk factor,the hazard ratio of OS was estimated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazard model with the MSKCC prognostic factors (low, intermediate, high), used in the randomization, as a stratum and median OS was estimated using Kaplan-Meier method. Log rank method was used to calculate p value.||1.741|0.785|0.439
91036104|NCT04742491|181958927|SUPERIORITY||Incidence Rate|32.01||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.92|42.83|||Poisson Regression||Incidence Rate of any STI Incidence per Person-Years using Poisson Regression was calculated.|Incidence rate of STIs for deferred intervention arm||42.83|23.92|0.93
90971770|NCT00267748|181826243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.238||||0.614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.538|2.851|||Log Rank|||For low risk factor, the hazard ratio of OS was estimated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazard model with the MSKCC prognostic factors (low, intermediate, high), used in the randomization, as a stratum and median OS was estimated using Kaplan-Meier method. Log rank method was used to calculate p value.||2.851|0.538|0.614
90971771|NCT00267748|181826243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.162||||0.365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.838|1.612|||Log Rank|||For overall stratified analysis, the hazard ratio of OS was estimated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazard model with the MSKCC prognostic factors (low, intermediate, high), used in the randomization, as a stratum and median OS was estimated using Kaplan-Meier method. Log rank method was used to calculate p value.||1.612|0.838|0.365
90971772|NCT00267748|181826244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6737|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||P value was calculated using sample t-test.||||0.6737
90971773|NCT00267748|181826245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1967|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||P value was calculated using sample t-test.||||0.1967
90971774|NCT03603496|181826260|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.18||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.5|||Chi-squared||Comparing TTCM as numerator, QL as denominator (reference group)|Two-stage multiple imputation techniques were used to estimate the missing smoking outcomes. 1st stage: we imputed missing data from surveys. 2nd stage: we imputed missing data from biochemical sample collection. Null hypothesis was no difference between arms in biochemically-validated past 7-day abstinence from cigarettes and other conventional tobacco products at 6-months. Sample of 1350 (675/group) was planned to detect a 6.5% difference (23.0% vs. 16.5%) with 84% power and 2-sided p\<0.05.||1.50|0.92|.19
90971775|NCT03603496|181826261|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.22||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.35|||Chi-squared||Numerator is TTCM, denominator (reference group) is QL|Multiple imputation techniques were used to estimate the missing smoking outcomes. The null hypothesis was no difference between study arms.||1.35|1.08|.002
90971776|NCT03603496|181826262|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.23||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.37|||Chi-squared||Numerator is TTCM, denominator (reference group) is QL|Multiple imputation techniques were used to estimate the missing smoking outcomes. The null hypothesis was no difference between study arms.||1.37|1.09|.001
90971777|NCT03603496|181826263|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.13||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.29|||Chi-squared||Numerator is TTCM, denominator (reference group) is QL|Multiple imputation techniques were used to estimate the missing smoking outcomes. The null hypothesis was no difference between study arms.||1.29|0.98|.079
90971778|NCT03603496|181826264|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|1.44|||Chi-squared|||Participants lost to follow-up or with missing data are counted as having received no treatment. The null hypothesis was no difference between study arms.||1.44|1.21|<.0001
90971779|NCT03603496|181826265|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|1.5|||Chi-squared|||Participants lost to follow-up or with missing data are counted as having received no treatment. The null hypothesis was no difference between study arms.||1.50|1.23|<.0001
90971780|NCT03603496|181826266|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.31||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.66|||Chi-squared||Numerator is TTCM, denominator (reference group) is QL|Multiple imputation techniques were used to estimate the missing smoking outcomes. The null hypothesis was no difference between study arms.||1.66|1.02|.033
90971781|NCT00004259|181826271|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.32|||Log Rank|||The hypothesized median survival time was 36 months for the RT+BCNU/CCNU arm and 54 months for the RT+TMZ arm, corresponding to a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.67. A sample size of 216 evaluable patients per arm would provide 90% power with a one-sided significance level of 0.05. The final analysis was planned after 155 deaths were observed. Interim efficacy analyses were planned after 52 and 104 deaths, with an interim futility analysis planned at 128 deaths.||1.32|0.67|0.36
90971782|NCT00004259|181826273|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.16||2-sided|Gray's test||Reference level = RT + BCNU/CCNU|||1.16|0.55|0.46
90971783|NCT00004259|181826274|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||2-sided|Chi-squared|||Overall toxicity||||<0.001
90971784|NCT00004259|181826274|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76||||||2-sided|Chi-squared|||Non-hematologic toxicity||||0.76
90971785|NCT00004259|181826275|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.78||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|3.4|||Log Rank|Two-side significance level = 0.05|Reference level = Methylated MGMT|||3.40|0.93|0.08
90971786|NCT00004259|181826276|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.29||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.35|||Log Rank|Two-sided confidence interval = 0.5|Reference level = Methylated|||2.35|0.70|0.41
90971787|NCT03594227|181826277|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-19.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.02||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.98|-4.54||All statistical testing was two-sided and performed using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The planned sample size is approximately 95 enrolled subjects with approximately 45 subjects enrolled with AT or AU. Because the primary efficacy analysis of mean percent reduction in hair loss using SALT scores is expected to be more sensitive than the SALT50 responder analysis, the power for the primary analysis is also expected to be no less than 80%.||-4.54|-33.98|0.011
90971788|NCT03594227|181826277|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.02||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.8|-9.36||All statistical testing was two-sided and performed using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The planned sample size is approximately 95 enrolled subjects with approximately 45 subjects enrolled with AT or AU. Because the primary efficacy analysis of mean percent reduction in hair loss using SALT scores is expected to be more sensitive than the SALT50 responder analysis, the power for the primary analysis is also expected to be no less than 80%.||-9.36|-38.80|0.001
90971789|NCT03594227|181826277|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.133||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.41|-4.67||All statistical testing was two-sided and performed using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The planned sample size is approximately 95 enrolled subjects with approximately 45 subjects enrolled with AT or AU. Because the primary efficacy analysis of mean percent reduction in hair loss using SALT scores is expected to be more sensitive than the SALT50 responder analysis, the power for the primary analysis is also expected to be no less than 80%.||-4.67|-34.41|0.010
90971790|NCT03594227|181826278|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.165||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.33|-4.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.02|-34.33|0.013
90971791|NCT03594227|181826278|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-24.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.165||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.69|-9.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-9.38|-39.69|0.002
90971792|NCT03594227|181826278|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-19.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.281||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.48|-3.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.86|-34.48|0.014
90971793|NCT03594227|181826279|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.359||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.14|-1.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.45|-21.14|0.025
90971794|NCT03594227|181826279|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-15.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.359||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.1|-5.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.40|-25.10|0.003
90971795|NCT03594227|181826279|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-17.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.434|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.49|-7.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-7.60|-27.49|<0.001
91036105|NCT04742491|181958927|SUPERIORITY||Poisson Regression|31.74||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.96|38.8|||Poisson Regression||Incidence Rate of any STI Incidence per Person-Years using Poisson Regression was calculated.|Poisson regression was used to compare the incidence rate of STIs by arm.||38.80|25.96|0.93
91036106|NCT04742491|181958928|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.44||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|6.69|||Regression, Logistic||Estimates are for age group 26+ compared to 25 or less.|Multivariable logistic regression modeled PrEP uptake using age, highest level of education, and physical violence, adjusting for site. Only predictors significant in univariable analysis were included-study arm was excluded due to lack of significance. Analysis was limited to participants with complete data (N = 190 of 304). This section presents p-values and odds ratios for age.||6.69|0.89|0.08
90971796|NCT03594227|181826280|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.599||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.95|-3.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.84|-24.95|0.008
90971797|NCT03594227|181826280|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-19.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.599|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.56|-8.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.45|-29.56|<0.001
90971798|NCT03594227|181826280|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-17.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.679||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.18|-6.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-6.86|-28.18|0.001
90971799|NCT03594227|181826281|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.6||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|31.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||31.8|0.7|0.124
90971800|NCT03594227|181826281|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.6||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|38.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||38.3|0.8|0.079
90971801|NCT03594227|181826281|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.9||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|27.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||27.7|0.5|0.177
90971802|NCT03594227|181826282|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.6||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|31.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||31.8|0.7|0.124
90971803|NCT03594227|181826282|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.6||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|38.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||38.3|0.8|0.079
90971804|NCT03594227|181826282|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.9||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|27.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||27.7|0.5|0.177
90971805|NCT03594227|181826283|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.471|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.471
90971806|NCT03594227|181826283|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.457|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.457
90971807|NCT03594227|181826283|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.367|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.367
90971808|NCT03594227|181826284|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.187|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.187
90971809|NCT03594227|181826284|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.375|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.375
90971810|NCT03594227|181826284|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.581|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.581
90971811|NCT03594227|181826285|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.444|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.444
90971812|NCT03594227|181826285|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.861|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.861
90971813|NCT03594227|181826285|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.182|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.182
90971814|NCT03594227|181826286|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.258|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.258
90971815|NCT03594227|181826286|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.263|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.263
90971816|NCT03594227|181826286|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.101|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.101
90971817|NCT03594227|181826287|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.999
90971818|NCT03594227|181826287|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.277|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.277
90971819|NCT03594227|181826287|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.159|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.159
90971820|NCT03594227|181826288|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.407|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.407
90971821|NCT03594227|181826288|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.894|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.894
90971822|NCT03594227|181826288|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.179|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.179
90971823|NCT03594227|181826289|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.691|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.691
90971824|NCT03594227|181826289|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.521|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.521
90971825|NCT03594227|181826289|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.262|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.262
90971826|NCT03594227|181826290|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.009
90971827|NCT03594227|181826290|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.154|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.154
90971828|NCT03594227|181826290|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.289|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.289
90971829|NCT03594227|181826291|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.073|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.073
90971830|NCT03594227|181826291|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.660
90971831|NCT03594227|181826291|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.704|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.704
90971832|NCT03594227|181826292|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.999
90971833|NCT03594227|181826292|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.911|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.911
90971834|NCT03594227|181826292|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.110
90971835|NCT03594227|181826293|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.430
90971836|NCT03594227|181826293|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.288|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.288
90971837|NCT03594227|181826293|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.582|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.582
90971838|NCT03594227|181826294|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.194|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.194
90971839|NCT03594227|181826294|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.999
90971840|NCT03594227|181826294|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.011
90971841|NCT03594227|181826295|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.248|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.248
90971842|NCT03594227|181826295|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.150
90971843|NCT03594227|181826295|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.546|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.546
90971844|NCT03594227|181826296|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.341|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.341
90971845|NCT03594227|181826296|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.999
90971846|NCT03594227|181826296|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.068|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.068
90971847|NCT03594227|181826298|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.098|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.098
90971848|NCT03594227|181826298|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.082|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.082
90971849|NCT03594227|181826298|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.313|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.313
90971850|NCT03594227|181826299|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.883|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.883
90971851|NCT03594227|181826299|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.954|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.954
90971852|NCT03594227|181826299|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.295|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.295
90971853|NCT03594227|181826300|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.361|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.361
90971854|NCT03594227|181826300|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.182|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.182
90971855|NCT03594227|181826300|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.815|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.815
90971856|NCT03594227|181826301|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.522|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.522
90971857|NCT03594227|181826301|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.104|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.104
90971858|NCT03594227|181826301|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.414|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.414
90971859|NCT03594227|181826302|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93||0.882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.53|2.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.94|-2.53|0.882
90971860|NCT03594227|181826302|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.31|-0.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.84|-6.31|0.011
90971861|NCT03594227|181826302|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.951||0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.76|2.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.76|-2.76|0.999
90971862|NCT03594227|181826303|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.270
90971863|NCT03594227|181826303|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.319|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.319
90971864|NCT03594227|181826303|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.094|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.094
90971865|NCT03594227|181826304|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.584|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.584
90971866|NCT03594227|181826304|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.287|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.287
90971867|NCT03594227|181826304|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.144|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.144
90971868|NCT03594227|181826305|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.341|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.341
90971869|NCT03594227|181826305|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.203|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.203
90971870|NCT03594227|181826305|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.327|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.327
90971871|NCT03594227|181826306|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.827|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.827
90971872|NCT03594227|181826306|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.742|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.742
90971873|NCT03594227|181826306|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.462|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.462
90971874|NCT03594227|181826307|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.836|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.836
90971875|NCT03594227|181826307|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.540
90971876|NCT03594227|181826307|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.672|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.672
90971877|NCT03594227|181826308|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.469|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.469
90971878|NCT03594227|181826308|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.219|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.219
90971879|NCT03594227|181826308|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.196|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.196
90971880|NCT03389854|181826313|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Control group vs Penile Traction Therapy Group at 3 months||||0.001
90971881|NCT03389854|181826313|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Control group vs Penile Traction Therapy Group at 6 months||||0.90
90971882|NCT03389854|181826314|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Control group vs Penile Traction Therapy Group at 3 months||||0.001
90971883|NCT03389854|181826314|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Control group vs. Penile Traction Therapy Group at 6 months||||0.40
90971884|NCT03389854|181826315|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Control group vs Penile Traction Therapy Group at 3 months||||0.01
90971885|NCT03389854|181826315|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Control group vs. Penile Traction Therapy Group at 6 months||||0.64
90971886|NCT03389854|181826316|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Control group vs Penile Traction Therapy Group at 3 months||||0.06
90971887|NCT03389854|181826316|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Control group vs Penile Traction Therapy Group at 6 months||||0.66
90971888|NCT03389854|181826317|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.09
90971889|NCT03389854|181826318|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.26
90971890|NCT03389854|181826319|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.07
90971891|NCT01618214|181826330|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was considered confirmed if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval was below or equal to 0.4%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.08||||95.0|-0.19|0.14|||Regression, Linear|||FAS||0.14|-0.19|
90971892|NCT02500628|181826353|OTHER|||||||0.77|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparison between fibromyalgia and non-fibromyalgia group||||0.77
90971893|NCT02500628|181826354|OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.27
90971894|NCT02500628|181826355|OTHER|||||||0.92|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||difference between fibromyalgia and non-fibromyalgia patients.||||0.92
90971895|NCT04074928|181826365|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority criterion was that the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI did not exceed the prespecified non-inferiority margin of 1.5 for the Day 29/57 GMT ratio (adjusted analysis).|GMT ratio|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.645|0.836||||||"Non-inferiority, A/H1N1, GMT ratio, Day 29/57~Non-inferiority of the Day 29/57 immune response to the A/H1N1 vaccine strain calculated by GMT ratio (Comparator QIV GMT divided by QIVc GMT)"||0.836|0.645|
90971896|NCT04074928|181826365|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority criterion was that the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI did not exceed the prespecified non-inferiority margin of 1.5 for the Day 29/57 GMT ratio (adjusted analysis).|GMT ratio|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.656|0.809||||||"Non-inferiority, B/Yamagata, GMT ratio, Day 29/57~Non-inferiority of the Day 29/57 immune response to the B/Yamagata vaccine strain calculated by GMT ratio (Comparator QIV GMT divided by QIVc GMT)"||0.809|0.656|
90971897|NCT04074928|181826365|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority criterion was that the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI did not exceed the prespecified non-inferiority margin of 1.5 for the Day 29/57 GMT ratio (adjusted analysis).|GMT ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.791|0.972||||||"Non-inferiority, B/Victoria, GMT ratio, Day 29/57~Non-inferiority of the Day 29/57 immune response to the B/Victoria vaccine strain calculated by GMT ratio (Comparator QIV GMT divided by QIVc GMT)"||0.972|0.791|
90971898|NCT04074928|181826366|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority criterion was that the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI did not exceed the prespecified non-inferiority margin of 10% for the Day 29/57 SCR difference.|SCR difference|-11.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.447|-6.423||||||"Non-inferiority, A/H1N1, SCR difference, Day 29/57~Non-inferiority of the immune response to the A/H1N1 vaccine strain by SCR difference (Comparator QIV SCR minus QIVc SCR)"||-6.423|-16.447|
90971899|NCT04074928|181826366|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority criterion was that the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI did not exceed the prespecified non-inferiority margin of 10% for the Day 29/57 SCR difference.|SCR difference|-14.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.61|-9.983||||||"Non-inferiority, B/Yamagata, SCR difference, Day 29/57~Non-inferiority of the immune response to the B/Yamagata vaccine strain by SCR difference (Comparator QIV SCR minus QIVc SCR)"||-9.983|-19.610|
90971900|NCT04074928|181826366|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority criterion was that the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI did not exceed the prespecified non-inferiority margin of 10% for the Day 29/57 SCR difference.|SCR difference|-5.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.327|-1.44||||||"Non-inferiority, B/Victoria, SCR difference, Day 29/57~Non-inferiority of the immune response to the B/Victoria vaccine strain by SCR difference (Comparator QIV SCR minus QIVc SCR)"||-1.440|-10.327|
90971901|NCT04074928|181826367|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority criterion was that the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI did not exceed the prespecified noninferiority margin of 1.5 for the Day 29/57 GMT ratio (adjusted analysis).|GMT ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.927|1.16||||||"Non-inferiority, A/H3N2, GMT ratio, Day 29/57~Non-inferiority of the Day 29/57 immune response to the A/H3N2 vaccine strain calculated by GMT ratio (Comparator QIV GMT divided by QIVc GMT)"||1.160|0.927|
90971902|NCT04074928|181826368|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority criterion was that the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI did not exceed the prespecified non-inferiority margin of 10% for the Day 29/57 SCR difference.|SCR difference|3.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.443|7.812||||||"Non-inferiority, A/H3N2, SCR difference, Day 29/57~Non-inferiority of the immune response to the A/H3N2 vaccine strain by SCR difference (Comparator QIV SCR minus QIVc SCR)"||7.812|-1.443|
90971903|NCT04074928|181826369|OTHER|No formal statistical testing was planned for this secondary outcome measure.|GMT ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.024||||||A/H1N1, GMT ratio, Day 29/57||1.024|0.790|
91036107|NCT04742491|181958928|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.38||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|3.16|||Regression, Logistic||Estimates are for comparison of highest level of education primary school vs. college.|Multivariable logistic regression modeled PrEP uptake using age, highest level of education, and physical violence, adjusting for site. Only predictors significant in univariable analysis were included-study arm was excluded due to lack of significance. Analysis was limited to participants with complete data (N = 190 of 304). This section provides p-values and odds ratio estimates for education.||3.16|0.05|0.37
91036108|NCT04742491|181958928|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.41||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.98|||Regression, Logistic||Estimates are for comparison of highest level of education high school vs. college|Multivariable logistic regression modeled PrEP uptake using age, highest level of education, and physical violence, adjusting for site. Only predictors significant in univariable analysis were included-study arm was excluded due to lack of significance. Analysis was limited to participants with complete data (N = 190 of 304). This section provides p-values and odds ratio estimates for education.||0.98|0.17|0.04
90971904|NCT04074928|181826369|OTHER|No formal statistical testing was planned for this secondary outcome measure.|GMT ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.968|1.195||||||B/Yamagata, GMT ratio, Day 29/57||1.195|0.968|
90971905|NCT04074928|181826369|OTHER|No formal statistical testing was planned for this secondary outcome measure.|GMT ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.986|1.202||||||B/Victoria, GMT ratio, Day 29/57||1.202|0.986|
90971906|NCT04074928|181826370|OTHER|No formal statistical testing was planned for this secondary outcome measure.|SCR difference|-2.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.526|2.461||||||A/H1N1, SCR difference, Day 29/57||2.461|-7.526|
90971907|NCT04074928|181826370|OTHER|No formal statistical testing was planned for this secondary outcome measure.|SCR difference|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.912|4.911||||||B/Yamagata, SCR difference, Day 29/57||4.911|-4.912|
90971908|NCT04074928|181826370|OTHER|No formal statistical testing was planned for this secondary outcome measure.|SCR difference|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.805|5.353||||||B/Victoria, SCR difference, Day 29/57||5.353|-2.805|
90971909|NCT04074928|181826371|OTHER|No formal statistical testing was planned for this secondary outcome measure.|GMT ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.914|1.165||||||A/H3N2, GMT ratio, Day 29/57||1.165|0.914|
90971910|NCT04074928|181826372|OTHER|No formal statistical testing was planned for this secondary outcome measure.|SCR difference|1.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.006|6.856||||||A/H3N2, SCR difference, Day 29/57||6.856|-3.006|
90971911|NCT00610987|181826385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||=0.12
90971912|NCT04249687|181826386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.05
90971913|NCT04249687|181826387|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.05
90971914|NCT01508702|181826388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.37|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.37|0.19|<0.0001
90971915|NCT04472429|181826389|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.84||tested at the 1-sided 2.5% level|stratified log-rank test||A stratified Cox regression with Efron's method for tie handling was used to estimate the hazard ratio.|||0.84|0.47|0.0006
90971916|NCT01180660|181826402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|19.0||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|27.0|||Regression, Linear|||A sample size of 22 subjects per group was estimated to achieve 90% power to detect a 16 point difference in the aggregated Qor-40 score for the two study groups to be compared assuming an overall standard deviation of 16 points similar to what was observed in a previous investigation.||27|3|.01
90971917|NCT03461757|181826410|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|14.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||14.2|6.5|< 0.0001
90971918|NCT03461757|181826411|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.3||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|13.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||13.2|3.4|0.0009
90971919|NCT03461757|181826412|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.8|21.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.3|10.8|< 0.0001
90971920|NCT03461757|181826413|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.1|25.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||25.2|15.1|< 0.0001
90971921|NCT03461757|181826414|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.1|25.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||25.2|15.1|< 0.0001
90971922|NCT03461757|181826415|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|13.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||13.7|4.9|< 0.0001
90971923|NCT03461757|181826416|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-15.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.3|-10.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-10.7|-19.3|< 0.0001
90971924|NCT03461757|181826417|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.3|17.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||17.2|8.3|< 0.0001
90971925|NCT03461757|181826418|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|21.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.9|12.0|< 0.0001
90971926|NCT03461757|181826419|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.8||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|11.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||11.0|2.5|0.0018
90971927|NCT03461757|181826420|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|14.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||14.9|6.3|< 0.0001
90971928|NCT03461757|181826421|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.8||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|13.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||13.9|3.7|0.0007
90971929|NCT03461757|181826422|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.9||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|13.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||13.6|4.3|0.0002
90971930|NCT03461757|181826423|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.1|17.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||17.6|7.1|< 0.0001
90971931|NCT03461757|181826424|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|13.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||13.4|6.9|< 0.0001
90971932|NCT03461757|181826425|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.8||||0.0128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|10.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.4|1.2|0.0128
90971933|NCT03461757|181826426|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|11.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||11.1|4.4|< 0.0001
90971934|NCT03461757|181826427|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.5||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|17.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||17.7|5.3|0.0003
90971935|NCT03461757|181826428|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|11.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||11.1|4.9|< 0.0001
90971936|NCT03461757|181826429|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.5||||0.0314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|10.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.6|0.5|0.0314
90971937|NCT03461757|181826430|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.4||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|10.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.6|2.3|0.0025
90971938|NCT03461757|181826431|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.9||||0.0898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|12.7||P-Value ≥ 0.05; therefore, all secondary endpoints listed after this endpoint in the hierarchy were not tested.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||12.7|-0.9|0.0898
90971939|NCT03861559|181826433|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.01
90971940|NCT03861559|181826434|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
90971941|NCT03861559|181826436|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
90971942|NCT03861559|181826437|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
90971943|NCT03861559|181826438|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
90971944|NCT03861559|181826440|OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.14
90971945|NCT03861559|181826441|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.02
90971946|NCT03861559|181826442|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
90971947|NCT03861559|181826444|OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.15
90971948|NCT03861559|181826445|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
90971949|NCT03861559|181826446|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
90971950|NCT03861559|181826448|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
90971951|NCT03861559|181826449|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
90971952|NCT03861559|181826450|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
91036109|NCT04742491|181958928|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.21||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|5.28|||Regression, Logistic||Estimates are for comparison of physical violence yes vs. no|Multivariable logistic regression modeled PrEP uptake using age, highest level of education, and physical violence, adjusting for site. Only predictors significant in univariable analysis were included-study arm was excluded due to lack of significance. Analysis was limited to participants with complete data (N = 190 of 304). This section provides p-values and odds ratio estimates for physical violence.||5.28|0.98|0.07
90971953|NCT03861559|181826451|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
90971954|NCT03861559|181826452|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
90971955|NCT03861559|181826453|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
90971956|NCT02997904|181826454|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.0058|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2131|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5829|1.4288|||ANOVA|||Ho: Total Number of lice and eggs removed with Resultz® ≤ Total number of lice and eggs removed with sham control Ha: Total Number of lice and eggs removed with Resultz® \> Total Number of lice and eggs removed with sham control||1.4288|0.5829|<0.0001
90971957|NCT02997904|181826455|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.2084|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0467|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1157|1.3011||The P-Values were \<0.0001 in both comparison groups; total number lice removed and total number of eggs removed|GLIMMX|||Comparison of total number of lice removed and total number of eggs removed were analyzed separately||1.3011|1.1157|<0.0001
90971958|NCT02997904|181826455|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.7899|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04565|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6993|0.8805|||GLIMMX|||||0.8805|0.6993|<0.0001
90971959|NCT00631748|181826483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|We compared TLFB at baseline and at end of study.||We used a repeated-measures ANCOVA to compare cocaine usage between the two groups. This incorporated the multiple administrations of the Timeline Followback measure.||||<0.25
90971960|NCT00631748|181826484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65||95.0|||||Regression, Cox|||End-of-trial abstinence was defined as a negative urine drug screen (for cocaine) for three consecutive weeks at the end of the study.||||.65
90971961|NCT03829657|181826489|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.29|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.29|0.27|0.196
90971962|NCT00562588|181826492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.067||||0.683||95.0|0.78|1.461|||Regression, Logistic|||The primary endpoint tele-mRS on day 90 was available in 527 of 543 treated patients (97.1%).||1.461|0.78|0.683
90971963|NCT00562588|181826493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.607||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for treatment, age, weight, baseline SBP, diabetes, previous stroke and baseline NIHSS||Early treatment initiation (immediately after the index event) with Aggrenox was compared to late initiation of Aggrenox after 7 days of treatment with ASA mono||||0.607
90971964|NCT00562588|181826494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.725||||0.202||95.0|0.442|1.189|||Cox proportional hazards model|||Early treatment initiation (immediately after the index event) with Aggrenox was compared to late initiation of Aggrenox after 7 days of treatment with ASA mono||1.189|0.442|0.202
90971965|NCT03257267|181826510|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.665|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.555|0.796||One-sided p-value|Stratified Log-rank Test|||||0.796|0.555|<0.00001
90971966|NCT03257267|181826511|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.741||||0.00031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.623|0.882|||Stratified Log-rank Test|||||0.882|0.623|0.00031
90971967|NCT03257267|181826512|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.136||||2e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.798|5.468|||Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test|||||5.468|1.798|0.00002
90971968|NCT03257267|181826517|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.698||||0.00024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.855||One-sided p-value|Stratified Log-rank Test|||||0.855|0.570|0.00024
90971969|NCT01982292|181826523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|0.5|||>|0.9999|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.38|10.38|||Fisher Exact|||Difference in percentage of patients with positive antibody status||10.38|-9.38|>0.9999
90971970|NCT01982292|181826523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.38|9.38||||||Difference in percentage of patients with negative antibody status||9.38|-10.38|
90971971|NCT04872101|181826543|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|22.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.8|28.5||5% significance level (two-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data, subjects who received rescue treatment, or subjects who permanently discontinued IMP were considered non-responders.||28.5|15.8|<0.001
90971972|NCT04872101|181826544|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|22.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.0|29.8||Evaluated at a 5% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting, and alpha recycling to control overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data, subjects who received rescue treatment, or subjects who permanently discontinued IMP were considered non-responders.||29.8|16.0|<0.001
90971973|NCT04872101|181826545|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.5||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|12.3||Evaluated at a 5% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting, and alpha recycling to control overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data, subjects who received rescue treatment, or subjects who permanently discontinued IMP were considered non-responders.||12.3|0.8|0.043
90971974|NCT04872101|181826546|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|27.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.0|35.8||Evaluated at a 5% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting, and alpha recycling to control overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data, subjects who received rescue treatment, or subjects who permanently discontinued IMP were considered non-responders.||35.8|19.0|<0.001
90971975|NCT04872101|181826547|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|23.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.1|32.2||Evaluated at a 5% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting, and alpha recycling to control overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data, subjects who received rescue treatment, or subjects who permanently discontinued IMP were considered non-responders.||32.2|15.1|<0.001
90971976|NCT04872101|181826548|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|29.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.3|36.7||Evaluated at a 5% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting, and alpha recycling to control overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data, subjects who received rescue treatment, or subjects who permanently discontinued IMP were considered non-responders.||36.7|21.3|<0.001
90971977|NCT04872101|181826549|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|25.6||Evaluated at a 5% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting, and alpha recycling to control overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data, subjects who received rescue treatment, or subjects who permanently discontinued IMP were considered non-responders.||25.6|11.0|<0.001
90971978|NCT04872101|181826550|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.6||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|12.0||Evaluated at a 5% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting, and alpha recycling to control overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data, subjects who received rescue treatment, or subjects who permanently discontinued IMP were considered non-responders.||12.0|1.1|0.031
90971979|NCT04872101|181826551|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|25.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.5|32.5||Evaluated at a 5% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting, and alpha recycling to control overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data, subjects who received rescue treatment, or subjects who permanently discontinued IMP were considered non-responders.||32.5|17.5|<0.001
90971980|NCT04872101|181826552|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.2|23.7||Evaluated at a 5% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting, and alpha recycling to control overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data, subjects who received rescue treatment, or subjects who permanently discontinued IMP were considered non-responders.||23.7|10.2|<0.001
90971981|NCT04872101|181826553|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|26.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.0|35.1||Evaluated at a 5% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting, and alpha recycling to control overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data, subjects who received rescue treatment, or subjects who permanently discontinued IMP were considered non-responders.||35.1|17.0|<0.001
90971982|NCT04872101|181826554|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|29.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.7|37.4||Evaluated at a 5% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting, and alpha recycling to control overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data, subjects who received rescue treatment, or subjects who permanently discontinued IMP were considered non-responders.||37.4|21.7|<0.001
90971983|NCT04872101|181826555|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.1|27.8||Evaluated at a 5% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting, and alpha recycling to control overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data, subjects who received rescue treatment, or subjects who permanently discontinued IMP were considered non-responders.||27.8|13.1|<0.001
90971984|NCT04872101|181826556|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|22.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.4|29.0||Evaluated at a 1% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting, and alpha recycling to control overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data, subjects who received rescue treatment, or subjects who permanently discontinued IMP were considered non-responders.||29.0|15.4|<0.001
90971985|NCT04872101|181826557|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|31.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.1|39.5||Evaluated at a 1% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting, and alpha recycling to control overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data, subjects who received rescue treatment, or subjects who permanently discontinued IMP were considered non-responders.||39.5|23.1|<0.001
91007678|NCT04223778|181899563|OTHER|Difference in percentage versus Baseline Antiretroviral Therapy (ART). Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated Difference|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|4.0|||||Difference in percentage versus (vs) Baseline ART was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||4.0|0.2|
90971986|NCT04872101|181826558|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|31.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.7|39.3||Evaluated at a 1% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting, and alpha recycling to control overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data, subjects who received rescue treatment, or subjects who permanently discontinued IMP were considered non-responders.||39.3|22.7|<0.001
90971987|NCT04872101|181826559|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-45.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.4|-34.6||Evaluated at a 1% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting, and alpha recycling to control overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided)|ANCOVA|Adjusted for treatment, region, baseline IGA-CHE score, and baseline HECSI score.||Primary analysis of primary estimand 'composite'. Missing data for subjects who did not attend the visit was imputed as WOCF (including baseline value). For subjects who received rescue treatment or subjects who have permanently discontinued the IMP, observed data was considered non-response by using WOCF (including baseline value).||-34.6|-56.4|<0.001
90971988|NCT04872101|181826560|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|-2.8||Evaluated at a 1% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting, and alpha recycling to control overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided)|ANCOVA|Adjusted for treatment, region, baseline IGA-CHE score, and baseline DLQI score.||Primary analysis of primary estimand 'composite'. Missing data for subjects who did not attend the visit was imputed as WOCF (including baseline value). For subjects who received rescue treatment or subjects who have permanently discontinued the IMP, observed data was considered non-response by using WOCF (including baseline value).||-2.8|-5.0|<0.001
90971989|NCT04872101|181826561|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-1.4||Evaluated at a 1% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting, and alpha recycling to control overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided)|ANCOVA|Adjusted for treatment, region, baseline IGA-CHE score, and baseline HESD score.||Primary analysis of primary estimand 'composite'. Missing data for subjects who did not attend the visit was imputed as WOCF (including baseline value). For subjects who received rescue treatment or subjects who have permanently discontinued the IMP, observed data was considered non-response by using WOCF (including baseline value).||-1.4|-2.4|<0.001
90971990|NCT04872101|181826562|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-2.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-1.4||Evaluated at a 1% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting, and alpha recycling to control overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided)|ANCOVA|Adjusted for treatment, region, baseline IGA-CHE score, and baseline HESD itch score.||Primary analysis of primary estimand 'composite'. Missing data for subjects who did not attend the visit was imputed as WOCF (including baseline value). For subjects who received rescue treatment or subjects who have permanently discontinued the IMP, observed data was considered non-response by using WOCF (including baseline value).||-1.4|-2.5|<0.001
90971991|NCT04872101|181826563|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-1.5||Evaluated at a 1% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting, and alpha recycling to control overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided)|ANCOVA|Adjusted for treatment, region, baseline IGA-CHE score, and baseline HESD pain score.||Primary analysis of primary estimand 'composite'. Missing data for subjects who did not attend the visit was imputed as WOCF (including baseline value). For subjects who received rescue treatment or subjects who have permanently discontinued the IMP, observed data was considered non-response by using WOCF (including baseline value).||-1.5|-2.6|<0.001
90971992|NCT04872101|181826564|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.62||Evaluated at a 1% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting, and alpha recycling to control overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided)|ANCOVA|Adjusted for treatment, region, baseline IGA-CHE score, and baseline HEIS score.||Primary analysis of primary estimand 'composite'. Missing data for subjects who did not attend the visit was imputed as WOCF (including baseline value). For subjects who received rescue treatment or subjects who have permanently discontinued the IMP, observed data was considered non-response by using WOCF (including baseline value).||-0.62|-0.99|<0.001
91007679|NCT04223778|181899564|OTHER|Doravirine/Islatravir (DOR/ISL)- Baseline Antiretroviral Therapy (ART). Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated Difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.28|3.9|||||The Miettinen and Nurminen method was stratified by corrected baseline ART regimen with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights.|HIV-1 RNA \<40 copies/mL||3.90|-3.28|
91007680|NCT04223778|181899564|OTHER|Doravirine/Islatravir (DOR/ISL)- Baseline Antiretroviral Therapy (ART). Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated Difference|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.58|4.43|||||The Miettinen and Nurminen method was stratified by corrected baseline ART regimen with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights.|HIV-1 RNA \<50 copies/mL||4.43|-2.58|
91007681|NCT04223778|181899567|OTHER|Difference in percentage versus Baseline Antiretroviral Therapy (ART). Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated Difference|-8.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|-4.5|||||Difference in percentage versus (vs) Baseline ART was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||-4.5|-13.4|
91007682|NCT04223778|181899572|OTHER|Treatment Difference vs Baseline ART. Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated Difference|-19.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.07|-6.44|||||Difference in percentage versus (vs) Baseline ART was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Fasting Cholesterol||-6.44|-33.07|
91007683|NCT04223778|181899572|OTHER|Treatment Difference vs Baseline ART. Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated Difference|-1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.55|3.84|||||Difference in percentage versus (vs) Baseline ART was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Fasting HDL Cholesterol||3.84|-6.55|
91007684|NCT04223778|181899572|OTHER|Treatment Difference vs Baseline ART. Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated Difference|-13.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.69|-3.2|||||Difference in percentage versus (vs) Baseline ART was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Fasting LDL Cholesterol||-3.20|-24.69|
90971993|NCT04872101|181826565|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.62||Evaluated at a 1% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting, and alpha recycling to control overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided)|ANCOVA|Adjusted for treatment, region, baseline IGA-CHE score, and baseline HEIS PDAL score.||Primary analysis of primary estimand 'composite'. Missing data for subjects who did not attend the visit was imputed as WOCF (including baseline value). For subjects who received rescue treatment or subjects who have permanently discontinued the IMP, observed data was considered non-response by using WOCF (including baseline value).||-0.62|-1.01|<0.001
90971994|NCT04872101|181826566|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|26.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.0|35.9||Evaluated at a 1% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting, and alpha recycling to control overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data, subjects who received rescue treatment, or subjects who permanently discontinued IMP were considered non-responders.||35.9|17.0|<0.001
90971995|NCT00879229|181826578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|67.0||0.696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.0|17.0||This is an exact Wilcoxon rank sum test p-value for testing equality of ambrisentan and placebo distributions.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||17|-54|0.696
90971996|NCT02475681|181826593|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.17|||Log Rank|Stratified by randomization stratification factors as recorded in IXRS||The primary test to compare PFS between treatment arms was the two-sided log-rank test, stratified by randomization stratification factors. The estimate of the HR (Arm B/Arm A) and the corresponding 95% CI was computed using a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by randomization stratification factors. Randomization stratification factors were based on the data recorded in IXRS.||0.17|0.06|<0.0001
90971997|NCT02475681|181826594|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.3|||Log Rank|Stratified by randomization stratification factors as recorded in IXRS||The test to compare PFS between treatment Arms A and C was the two-sided log-rank test, stratified by randomization stratification factors. The estimate of the HR and the corresponding 95% CI was computed using a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by randomization stratification factors. Randomization stratification factors were based on the data recorded in IXRS.||0.30|0.13|<0.0001
90971998|NCT02475681|181826595|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.3|22.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenzel test with adjustment for randomization stratification factors as recorded in IXRS||||22.3|8.3|<0.0001
90971999|NCT02475681|181826595|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.9||||0.0763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|14.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenzel test with adjustment for randomization stratification factors as recorded in IXRS.||||14.9|-1.0|0.0763
90972000|NCT02475681|181826596|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.26|||Log Rank|Stratified by randomization stratification factors as recorded in IXRS||The test to compare TTNT between treatment Arms A versus B and Arms A versus C was the two-sided log-rank test, stratified by randomization stratification factors. The estimate of the HR and the corresponding 95% CI was computed using a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by randomization stratification factors. Randomization stratification factors were based on the data recorded in IXRS.||0.26|0.08|<0.0001
90972001|NCT02475681|181826596|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.24|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.4||P-value based on stratified by randomization stratification factors as recorded in IXRS|Log Rank|Stratified by randomization stratification factors as recorded in IXRS||||0.40|0.15|<0.0001
90972002|NCT02475681|181826597|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.47||||0.0577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.06|||Log Rank|Stratified by randomization stratification factors as recorded in IXRS||The test to compare overall survival between treatment Arms A versus B and Arms A versus C was the two-sided log-rank test, stratified by randomization stratification factors. The estimate of the HR and the corresponding 95% CI was computed using a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by randomization stratification factors. Randomization stratification factors were based on the data recorded in IXRS.||1.06|0.21|0.0577
90972003|NCT02475681|181826597|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.1556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.27|||Log Rank|Stratified by randomization stratification factors as recorded in IXRS||||1.27|0.28|0.1556
90972004|NCT00527605|181826600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-14.23|||<|0.0001||95.0|-20.23|-8.22|||t-test, 2 sided||Dutasteride arm minus placebo arm.|||-8.22|-20.23|<0.0001
90972005|NCT02762513|181826648|OTHER||Median overall survival time (months)|9.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||Median calculated by Kaplan-Meier method.|||||
90972006|NCT02762513|181826649|OTHER||Median PFS time (months)|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||Median calculated by Kaplan-Meier method.|||||
90972007|NCT02111564|181826652|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.09|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||1.09|0.52|0.136
90972008|NCT02111564|181826653|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.88||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|4.23|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||4.23|0.84|0.124
90972009|NCT02111564|181826654|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.42|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||1.42|0.62|0.751
90972010|NCT02111564|181826655|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.44||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.89|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||0.89|0.22|0.023
90972011|NCT02111564|181826656|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.97|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||0.97|0.54|0.033
90972012|NCT02111564|181826657|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.02|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||1.02|0.60|0.073
91036110|NCT04742491|181958928|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|999.99||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|999.99|||Regression, Logistic||Estimates are for comparison of physical violence prefer not answer vs. no (not estimable)|Multivariable logistic regression modeled PrEP uptake using age, highest level of education, and physical violence, adjusting for site. Only predictors significant in univariable analysis were included-study arm was excluded due to lack of significance. Analysis was limited to participants with complete data (N = 190 of 304).This section provides p-values and odds ratio estimates for physical violence.||999.99|0.001|0.97
91036111|NCT04742491|181958929|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.4|||GEE||Estimates are for group emotional violence yes vs. no.|Multivariable GEE modeling the probability of high PrEP adherence with predictor emotional violence adjusting for site. Only predictors significant in univariable analysis were included-study arm was excluded due to lack of significance. Analysis was limited to visits with complete data (1518 of 1533 visits). This section provides p-values and odds ratio estimates for emotional violence.||1.40|0.64|0.8
91036112|NCT04742491|181958929|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.57||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|4.92|||GEE||Estimates are for group emotional violence prefer not to answer vs. no.|Multivariable GEE modeling the probability of high PrEP adherence with predictor emotional violence adjusting for site. Only predictors significant in univariable analysis were included-study arm was excluded due to lack of significance. Analysis was limited to visits with complete data (1518 of 1533 visits). This section provides p-values and odds ratio estimates for emotional violence.||4.92|1.35|0.004
90972013|NCT02111564|181826658|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.09|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||1.09|0.58|0.156
90972014|NCT00179309|181826735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|ONE_SIDED|95.0||||Multiple comparisons were not done.|Log Rank|||48 evaluable pts will be randomized in a 1:1 ratio between two arms (24 evaluable pts per arm). Using standard formulae (e.g. nQuery Advisor v5), this number was selected to provide 80% power to detect a difference between 4.2 month median progression free survival (PFS) on the docetaxel alone arm and 8 month median PFS on the arm receiving PANVAC plus docetaxel, with a one-tailed alpha=0.10,assuming 36 months accrual and an additional 12 months of follow-up after the last pt has been enrolled.||||0.12
90972015|NCT04986202|181826737|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.92||||0.537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.86|2.02||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Difference in adjusted mean change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|||2.02|-3.86|0.537
90972016|NCT04986202|181826737|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.81||||0.221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.71|1.09||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Difference in adjusted mean change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|||1.09|-4.71|0.221
90972017|NCT04986202|181826738|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4||||0.559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|10.5||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Difference in adjusted mean change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|||10.5|-5.7|0.559
90972018|NCT04986202|181826738|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.3||||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|13.3||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Difference in adjusted mean change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|||13.3|-2.7|0.195
90972019|NCT04986202|181826739|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.65||||0.289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.71|1.41||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Difference in adjusted mean change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|Change from baseline at 24 weeks||1.41|-4.71|0.289
90972020|NCT04986202|181826739|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.87||||0.571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.86|2.13||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Difference in adjusted mean change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|Change from baseline at 24 weeks||2.13|-3.86|0.571
90972021|NCT04986202|181826739|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|3.3||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Difference in adjusted mean change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|Change from baseline at 48 weeks||3.30|-3.80|0.890
90972022|NCT04986202|181826739|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.04||||0.558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.55|2.46||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Difference in adjusted mean change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|Change from baseline at 48 weeks||2.46|-4.55|0.558
90972023|NCT04986202|181826740|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2||||0.619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|6.6||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Difference in adjusted mean change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|Change from baseline at 24 weeks||6.6|-11.1|0.619
90972024|NCT04986202|181826740|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8||||0.522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|11.4||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Difference in adjusted mean change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|Change from baseline at 24 weeks||11.4|-5.8|0.522
90972025|NCT04986202|181826740|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.7||||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|15.8||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Difference in adjusted mean change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|Change from baseline at 48 weeks||15.8|-4.4|0.267
90972026|NCT04986202|181826740|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2||||0.657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|12.1||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Difference in adjusted mean change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|Change from baseline at 48 weeks||12.1|-7.6|0.657
90972027|NCT04986202|181826741|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.95||||0.312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.05||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the log-transformed baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Geometric mean ratio in change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|NT-proBNP change from baseline at 16 weeks||1.05|0.86|0.312
90972028|NCT04986202|181826741|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.91||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.01||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the log-transformed baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Geometric mean ratio in change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|NT-proBNP change from baseline at 16 weeks||1.01|0.83|0.070
90972029|NCT04986202|181826741|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|1.01||||0.911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.12||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the log-transformed baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Geometric mean ratio in change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|NT-proBNP change from baseline at 24 weeks||1.12|0.91|0.911
90972030|NCT04986202|181826741|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|1.01||||0.837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.12||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the log-transformed baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Geometric mean ratio in change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|NT-proBNP change from baseline at 24 weeks||1.12|0.91|0.837
90972031|NCT04986202|181826741|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.95||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.07||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the log-transformed baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Geometric mean ratio in change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|NT-proBNP change from baseline at 48 weeks||1.07|0.84|0.370
90972032|NCT04986202|181826741|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.93||||0.205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.04||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the log-transformed baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Geometric mean ratio in change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|NT-proBNP change from baseline at 48 weeks||1.04|0.83|0.205
90972033|NCT04986202|181826742|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.2||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Difference in adjusted mean change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|Change from baseline at 16 weeks||1.2|-0.2|0.183
90972034|NCT04986202|181826742|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.7||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Difference in adjusted mean change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|Change from baseline at 16 weeks||0.7|-0.8|0.898
90972035|NCT04986202|181826742|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.1||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Difference in adjusted mean change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|Change from baseline at 24 weeks||1.1|-0.4|0.316
90972036|NCT04986202|181826742|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.8||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Difference in adjusted mean change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|Change from baseline at 24 weeks||0.8|-0.7|0.934
90972037|NCT04986202|181826743|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.36||||0.725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.647|2.366||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Difference in adjusted mean change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|Change from baseline at 16 weeks||2.366|-1.647|0.725
90972038|NCT04986202|181826743|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.594||||0.555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.571|1.382||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Difference in adjusted mean change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|Change from baseline at 16 weeks||1.382|-2.571|0.555
90972039|NCT04986202|181826743|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.657||||0.586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|3.025||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Difference in adjusted mean change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|Change from baseline at 24 weeks||3.025|-1.710|0.586
90972040|NCT04986202|181826743|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.815||||0.486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.108|1.478||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Difference in adjusted mean change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|Change from baseline at 24 weeks||1.478|-3.108|0.486
91036113|NCT04742491|181958930|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.02|||Regression, Linear||Estimates are for highest level of education primary school vs. college.|Multivariable linear regression of PrEP persistence with predictors highest level of education and emotional violence adjusting for site. Only predictors significant in univariable analysis were included-study arm was excluded due to lack of significance. Analysis was limited to participants with complete data (N = 252 of 268). This section provides p-values and odds ratio estimates for highest level of education.||0.02|-0.39|0.08
91036114|NCT04742491|181958930|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.003|||Regression, Linear||Estimates are for highest level of education high school vs. college.|Multivariable linear regression of PrEP persistence with predictors highest level of education, and emotional violence, adjusting for site. Only predictors significant in univariable analysis were included-study arm was excluded due to lack of significance. Analysis was limited to participants with complete data (N = 252 of 268). This section provides p-values and odds ratio estimates for the highest level of education.||0.003|-0.22|0.06
91036115|NCT04742491|181958930|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.016||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.09|||Regression, Linear|||Multivariable linear regression of PrEP persistence with predictors highest level of education, and emotional violence, adjusting for site. Only predictors significant in univariable analysis were included-study arm was excluded due to lack of significance. Analysis was limited to participants with complete data (N = 252 of 268). This section provides p-values and odds ratio estimates for emotional violence.|Estimates are for group emotional violence yes vs. no.|0.09|-0.12|0.76
91036116|NCT04742491|181958930|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.36||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.78|||Regression, Linear|||Multivariable linear regression of PrEP persistence with predictors highest level of education, and emotional violence, adjusting for site. Only predictors significant in univariable analysis were included-study arm was excluded due to lack of significance. Analysis was limited to participants with complete data (N = 252 of 268). This section provides p-values and odds ratio estimates for emotional violence.|Estimates are for group emotional violence prefer not to answer vs. no.|0.78|-0.06|0.09
91036117|NCT04742491|181958931|OTHER||||||||||||||||||"Multivariable logistic regression was pre-specified but not performed because there were too few participants with the outcome absent (i.e., very few 'No' responses), leading to separation and non-estimable/unstable adjusted effect estimates. Results for Yes responses are presented descriptively (counts and percentages) by arm in the outcome measure data table."|||
91036118|NCT03317899|181958932|NON_INFERIORITY|Weibull accelerated failure time model; adjusted for disease type and stem cell collection days; non-inferiority declared if 90% CI upper bound for acceleration factor \< 1.133 (≤13.3% increase in discharge readiness time); one-sided α = 0.05; sample size for \~80% power; O'Brien-Fleming futility boundary applied.||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
90972041|NCT04986202|181826744|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|3.9||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Difference in adjusted mean change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|Change from baseline at 16 weeks||3.9|-4.1|0.968
91036119|NCT03317899|181958933|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
90972042|NCT04986202|181826744|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3||||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|1.6||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Difference in adjusted mean change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|Change from baseline at 16 weeks||1.6|-6.3|0.251
91036120|NCT03317899|181958934|OTHER|||||||0.578|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.578
91036121|NCT03317899|181958935|OTHER|||||||0.337|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.337
91036122|NCT03317899|181958937|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
91036123|NCT03317899|181958938|OTHER|||||||0.936|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.936
91036124|NCT03317899|181958939|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
91036125|NCT03317899|181958940|OTHER|||||||0.089|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.089
91036126|NCT03317899|181958941|OTHER|||||||0.645|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.645
90972043|NCT04986202|181826744|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|5.7||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Difference in adjusted mean change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|Change from baseline at 24 weeks||5.7|-4.8|0.872
90972044|NCT04986202|181826744|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|4.1||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|No formal hypothesis testing and p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Change from baseline at 24 weeks||4.1|-6.2|0.682
90972045|NCT04986202|181826746|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|1.029||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.857|1.236||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the log-transformed baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Geometric mean ratio in change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|Change from baseline at 16 weeks||1.236|0.857|0.760
91036127|NCT00836004|181958942|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, ANOVA (Analysis of Variance) will be performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the alpha level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|99.69||||||90.0|93.88|105.85|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||105.85|93.88|
91036128|NCT00836004|181958943|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, ANOVA (Analysis of Variance) will be performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the alpha level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|96.23||||||90.0|90.62|102.19|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||102.19|90.62|
91036129|NCT00836004|181958944|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, ANOVA (Analysis of Variance) will be performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the alpha level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|97.17||||||90.0|92.14|102.48|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||102.48|92.14|
91036130|NCT00446966|181958948|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
91036131|NCT00836472|181958950|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|96.41||||||90.0|88.43|105.1|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||105.10|88.43|
91036132|NCT00836472|181958951|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|98.78||||||90.0|95.14|102.57|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||102.57|95.14|
91036133|NCT00836472|181958952|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|98.52||||||90.0|94.44|102.78|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||102.78|94.44|
90972046|NCT04986202|181826746|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|1.209||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.448||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the log-transformed baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Change from baseline at 16 weeks||1.448|1.010|0.039
90972047|NCT04986202|181826746|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|1.111||||0.241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.931|1.326||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the log-transformed baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Geometric mean ratio in change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|Change from baseline at 24 weeks||1.326|0.931|0.241
90972048|NCT04986202|181826746|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|1.19||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.001|1.414||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the log-transformed baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Geometric mean ratio in change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|Change from baseline at 24 weeks||1.414|1.001|0.049
91036134|NCT00836472|181958953|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|94.08||||||90.0|89.6|98.77|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||98.77|89.60|
91036135|NCT00836472|181958954|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|96.33||||||90.0|92.6|100.21|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||100.21|92.60|
91036136|NCT00836472|181958955|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|96.01||||||90.0|92.18|100.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||100.00|92.18|
91036137|NCT01695239|181958956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
91036138|NCT01695239|181958956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
91036139|NCT01695239|181958956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
91050379|NCT04168190|181987004|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|1.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|3.45|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 10A||3.45|0.98|
91036140|NCT03913377|181958989|EQUIVALENCE|A statistically significant difference in NIBUT/NIKBUT between Test lens and Spectacles was concluded if the upper confidence limit of the 95% CI is below zero or the lower limit is above zero.|LS Mean Difference|-2.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.678|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.14|-1.44|||Mixed Model Analysis|Kenward and Roger method was used for denominator degrees of freedom.|LS Mean difference was calculated as Test minus Control|The null and alternative hypotheses for testing significant difference between Test lens and Spectacles among habitual lens users with respect to NIBUT/NIKBUT.||-1.44|-4.14|
91036141|NCT03913377|181958990|OTHER|Estimated 95% confidence intervals for the point estimates of Test and Control|Mean Proportion|85.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.038|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.2|97.89|||Mixed Model Analysis|||Point estimates for Test and Control with 95% confidence intervals||97.89|43.2|
90972049|NCT04986202|181826746|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|1.151||||0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.946|1.401||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the log-transformed baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Geometric mean ratio in change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|Change from baseline at 48 weeks||1.401|0.946|0.158
90972050|NCT04986202|181826746|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|1.159||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.957|1.404||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the log-transformed baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Geometric mean ratio in change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|Change from baseline at 48 weeks||1.404|0.957|0.131
90972051|NCT04986202|181826747|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|1.0111||||0.874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8819|1.1592||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the log-transformed baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Geometric mean ratio in change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|Change from baseline at 16 weeks||1.1592|0.8819|0.874
90972052|NCT04986202|181826747|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.9157||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8002|1.0479||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the log-transformed baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Geometric mean ratio in change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|Change from baseline at 16 weeks||1.0479|0.8002|0.200
90972053|NCT04986202|181826747|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|1.1063||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.969|1.2631||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the log-transformed baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Geometric mean ratio in change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|Change from baseline at 24 weeks||1.2631|0.9690|0.135
90972054|NCT04986202|181826747|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|1.0842||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9527|1.2339||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the log-transformed baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Geometric mean ratio in change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|Change from baseline at 24 weeks||1.2339|0.9527|0.220
91036142|NCT03913377|181958990|OTHER|Estimated 95% confidence intervals for the point estimates of Test and Control|Mean Proportion|84.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.871|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.67|96.75|||Mixed Model Analysis|||Point estimates for Test and Control with 95% confidence intervals||96.75|48.67|
90972055|NCT04986202|181826747|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|1.0496||||0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9211|1.196||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the log-transformed baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Geometric mean ratio in change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|Change from baseline at 48 weeks||1.1960|0.9211|0.467
90972056|NCT04986202|181826747|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|1.0312||||0.636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.908|1.1711||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the log-transformed baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Geometric mean ratio in change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|Change from baseline at 48 weeks||1.1711|0.9080|0.636
90972057|NCT02469090|181826790|SUPERIORITY||LS mean differnce|-7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.96||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|-3.7||The null-hypothesis to be tested was: H0: APL-130277 is the same as placebo in its effect on the motor function against the 2-sided alternative: H1: Either of the treatment groups is superior to the other in its effect on the motor function.|LS mean difference|To control the family-wise type I error rate, the primary and secondary end points were tested in hierarchical order in the order presented||Mixed effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) was used to estimate the treatment difference(APL-130277-placebo) Observed change from pre-dose MDS-UPDRS Part III score values after 30 minutes were response values. Treatment group, visit and the interaction between the treatment group and visit were fixed factors. Change from pre-dose in MDS-UPDRS Part III score after 30 minutes at the last TV at which the randomized dose was given up through TV6 was used as a covariate||-3.7|-11.5|0.0002
91036143|NCT03913377|181958991|OTHER|Estimated 95% confidence intervals for the point estimates of test.|Mean|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.65|||Mixed Model Analysis|Kenward and Rogers Metod was used for degrees of freedom|||Point estimate was calculated for Test.|0.65|0.40|
91036144|NCT03913377|181958991|OTHER|Estimated 95% confidence intervals for the point estimates of Control.|Mean|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.44|||Mixed Model Analysis|Kenward and Rogers Metod was used for degrees of freedom|||Point estimates were calculated for Control.|0.44|-0.19|
91036145|NCT03913377|181958992|OTHER|Estimated 95% confidence intervals for the point estimates of Test.|Mean Proportion|30.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.87|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|73.8|||Mixed Model Analysis||Point estimates were calculated for Test|||73.8|6.5|
91036146|NCT03913377|181958992|OTHER|Estimated 95% confidence intervals for the point estimates of Control.|Mean Proportion|27.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.17|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.1|69.8|||Mixed Model Analysis||Point estimates were calculated for Control.|||69.8|6.1|
91036147|NCT00840476|181959036|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|100.26||||||90.0|93.12|107.95|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||107.95|93.12|
91036148|NCT00840476|181959037|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|105.14||||||90.0|100.27|110.25|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||110.25|100.27|
90941694|NCT01475461|181763595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-11.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.843||0.0106|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-17.44|-5.0||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-5.00|-17.44|0.0106
90941695|NCT01475461|181763595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.138||0.4127|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-7.73|5.47||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||5.47|-7.73|0.4127
90972058|NCT02469090|181826791|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted odds ratio|2.81||||0.0426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.036|7.644|||Adjusted Odds Ratio|||"This was analyzed using a generalized linear mixed model (with logit link function) for binomial data. The model included the observed outcomes as the response values, with treatment group, visit, and the interaction between treatment group and visit as fixed factors and the ON/OFF assessment at the last open-label titration visit at which the randomized dose was given as a covariate."||7.644|1.036|0.0426
90972059|NCT02469090|181826792|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted odds ratio|2.8||||0.0501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|7.84||The hierarchical testing stopped at this endpoint due to non-significant result. P-values for endpoints after this endpoint have not been presented and the confidence interval presented are unadjusted for multiplicity.|Adjusted odds ratio|||"This was analyzed using a generalized linear mixed model (with logit link function) for binomial data. The model included the observed outcomes as the response values, with treatment group, visit, and the interaction between treatment group and visit as fixed factors and the ON/OFF assessment at the last open-label titration visit at which the randomized dose was given as a covariate."||7.84|1.00|0.0501
90972060|NCT02469090|181826795|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.159|0.959||||||||0.959|-3.159|
90972061|NCT02469090|181826796|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|47.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.84|66.36||||||||66.36|28.84|
90972062|NCT02469090|181826797|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.979|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.162|6.12||||||||6.120|-2.162|
90972063|NCT02469090|181826798|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|-0.2||||||||-0.2|-6.7|
90972064|NCT02469090|181826799|SUPERIORITY||Hazard ratio|3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.99|5.69||||||Median Time to effect for APL-130277 versus placebo patients||5.69|1.99|
91036149|NCT00840476|181959038|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|104.33||||||90.0|99.16|109.76|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||109.76|99.16|
90941696|NCT01475461|181763595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.261||0.3604|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-8.64|4.87||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||4.87|-8.64|0.3604
90941697|NCT01475461|181763595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.147||0.077|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-13.96|-0.74||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-0.74|-13.96|0.0770
90941698|NCT01475461|181763595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-8.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.171||0.0451|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-15.43|-2.15||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-2.15|-15.43|0.0451
90941699|NCT01475461|181763595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-19.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.191||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-26.57|-13.23||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-13.23|-26.57|0.0001
90941700|NCT01475461|181763595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.599||0.5783|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.08|8.3||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||8.30|-6.08|0.5783
90941701|NCT01475461|181763595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.785||0.3604|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-9.5|5.36||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||5.36|-9.50|0.3604
90941702|NCT01475461|181763595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-12.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.636||0.0161|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-19.36|-4.88||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-4.88|-19.36|0.0161
90972065|NCT03823391|181826811|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.215||0.022|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.89|-0.15|||Mixed-effect model repeated measurement|Analysis includes treatment, visit, stratification factors, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Between groups difference was a single-arm comparison of LS mean of ABBV-3373 estimated from the MMRM model above minus the historical mean of adalimumab (-2.13).|Two primary comparisons were performed between ABBV-3373 and adalimumab. The first was the comparison of ABBV-3373 to historical adalimumab reference value -2.13 based on a meta-analysis consisting of 242 subjects from 3 historical adalimumab studies in which the success criterion was 2-sided P value ≤ 0.1.||-0.15|-0.89|0.022
90972066|NCT03823391|181826811|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.899||||||Posterior probability|Historical data borrowing|Based on posterior distribution of means for each group, the probability of Treatment mean - Control mean \< 0 given the observed data was calculated.||The second comparison was ABBV-3373 to adalimumab with combined in-trial and borrowed historical adalimumab data using a Bayesian historical borrowing approach in which the success criterion was posterior probability of ABBV-3373 being better than adalimumab \> 95%. When borrowing 30 historical adalimumab subjects, the combined least squares mean change from Baseline was -2.29.||||0.899
91050380|NCT04168190|181987004|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.38|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 11A||1.38|0.42|
90941703|NCT01475461|181763595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.663||0.2185|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-11.68|2.87||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||2.87|-11.68|0.2185
90941704|NCT01475461|181763595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-15.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.649||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-22.67|-8.16||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-8.16|-22.67|0.0034
90941705|NCT01475461|181763595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.387||0.5727|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-7.03|9.37||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 12: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||9.37|-7.03|0.5727
90941706|NCT01475461|181763595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.578||0.4961|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-8.51|8.38||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 12: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||8.38|-8.51|0.4961
90941707|NCT01475461|181763595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.411||0.2616|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-12.33|4.14||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 12: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||4.14|-12.33|0.2616
90941708|NCT01475461|181763595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|9.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.441||0.9197|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.79|17.34||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 12: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||17.34|0.79|0.9197
90941709|NCT01475461|181763595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-8.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.398||0.086|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-16.98|-0.54||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 12: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-0.54|-16.98|0.0860
90941710|NCT01475461|181763595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.476||0.5132|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-8.1|8.53||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 14: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||8.53|-8.10|0.5132
90941711|NCT01475461|181763595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.676||0.656|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.89|11.26||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 14: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||11.26|-5.89|0.6560
90941712|NCT01475461|181763595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.496||0.8285|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.17|14.52||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 14: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||14.52|-2.17|0.8285
90941713|NCT01475461|181763595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|15.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.527||0.9925|TWO_SIDED|80.0|7.59|24.36||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 14: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||24.36|7.59|0.9925
90941714|NCT01475461|181763595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.487||0.601|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.67|10.0||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 14: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||10.00|-6.67|0.6010
90941715|NCT01475461|181763602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.449||0.0913|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.18|1.34||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 80 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) were based on least squares (LS) mean. A mixed model repeated measure (MMRM) analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||1.34|0.18|0.0913
90941716|NCT01475461|181763602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.461||0.5236|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.3|0.89||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.89|-0.30|0.5236
90972067|NCT03823391|181826811|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.353||0.683|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.74|0.45|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|Analysis includes treatment, visit, stratification factors, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment difference = ABBV-3373 - Adalimumab|The mean difference in change from Baseline in DAS28 (CRP) at Week 12 between ABBV-3373 and adalimumab was also estimated only based on in-study data.||0.45|-0.74|0.683
90972068|NCT03823391|181826812|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.207||0.601|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.08|3.7|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|Analysis includes treatment, visit, stratification factors, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment difference = ABBV-3373 - Adalimumab|||3.70|-7.08|0.601
90972069|NCT03823391|181826813|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.205||0.737|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.47|4.3|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|Analysis includes treatment, visit, stratification factors, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment difference = ABBV-3373 - Adalimumab|||4.30|-6.47|0.737
90972070|NCT03823391|181826814|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.418||0.612|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.92|0.49|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|Analysis included treatment, visit, stratification factors, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment difference = ABBV-3373 - Adalimumab|||0.49|-0.92|0.612
91036150|NCT00835146|181959040|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|97.9||||||90.0|91.8|105.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||105|91.8|
91036151|NCT00835146|181959041|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|99.3||||||90.0|93.3|106.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||106|93.3|
91036152|NCT00318461|181959042|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Hypothesis testing was done in a hierarchical manner. First, it was tested whether liraglutide 1.8 mg+metformin was superior to placebo + metformin.~Superiority was always concluded if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference was below 0%."|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-1.09|||<|0.0001||95.0|-1.3|-0.88|||ANCOVA|||Change in HbA1c from baseline to end of treatment at 26 weeks was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline glycosylated A1c (HbA1c) as covariate.||-0.88|-1.30|<0.0001
91036153|NCT00318461|181959042|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Hypothesis testing was done in a hierarchical manner. As superiority of liraglutide 1.8 mg + metformin to metformin monotherapy was established, it was investigated whether liraglutide 1.8 mg + metformin was non-inferior to glimepiride + metformin. Non-inferiority was concluded if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference was below 0.4%.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.02|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.19|0.15|||ANCOVA|||Change in HbA1c from baseline to end of treatment at 26 weeks was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline glycosylated A1c (HbA1c) as covariate.||0.15|-0.19|<0.0001
91050381|NCT04168190|181987004|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|1.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|2.91|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 11A||2.91|0.87|
90972071|NCT03823391|181826815|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|-4.0||||0.877|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-28.5|20.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factors.|Response rate difference = ABBV-3373 - Adalimumab|||20.5|-28.5|0.877
90972072|NCT03823391|181826816|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|-13.1||||0.426|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-37.2|11.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for stratification factors.|Response rate difference = ABBV-3373 - Adalimumab|||11.0|-37.2|0.426
90972073|NCT05030311|181826818|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.136|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.45|-4.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||MMRM adjusting for treatment arm, geographical region, prior exposure to anti-IgE biologics, visit week, baseline score and both interaction of treatment by visit week and interaction of baseline score by visit week.|||-4.00|-8.45|<0.001
90941717|NCT01475461|181763602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.447||0.9244|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.53|0.62||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.62|-0.53|0.9244
90941718|NCT01475461|181763602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.452||0.5066|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.28|0.88||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.88|-0.28|0.5066
90941719|NCT01475461|181763602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.449||0.8947|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.64|0.52||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.52|-0.64|0.8947
90941720|NCT01475461|181763602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.478||0.0577|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.3|1.52||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||1.52|0.30|0.0577
90941721|NCT01475461|181763602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.3012|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.12|1.14||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||1.14|-0.12|0.3012
90941722|NCT01475461|181763602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.476||0.3165|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.13|1.09||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||1.09|-0.13|0.3165
90941723|NCT01475461|181763602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.481||0.5191|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.31|0.93||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.93|-0.31|0.5191
90941724|NCT01475461|181763602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.479||0.5107|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.3|0.93||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.93|-0.30|0.5107
90941725|NCT01475461|181763602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.488||0.1054|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.17|1.42||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||1.42|0.17|0.1054
90972074|NCT05030311|181826819|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.544|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|-1.56|||Mixed Models Analysis||MMRM adjusting for treatment arm, geographical region, prior exposure to anti-IgE biologics, visit week, baseline score and both interaction of treatment by visit week and interaction of baseline score by visit week.|ISS7 at Week 12 (Scenario 2 with ISS7 and HSS7 as co-primary efficacy endpoints)||-1.56|-3.70|<0.001
90972075|NCT05030311|181826820|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.635|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.85|-2.36|||Mixed Models Analysis||MMRM adjusting for treatment arm, geographical region, prior exposure to anti-IgE biologics, visit week, baseline score and both interaction of treatment by visit week and interaction of baseline score by visit week.|HSS7 at Week 12 (Scenario 2 with ISS7 and HSS7 as co-primary efficacy endpoints)||-2.36|-4.85|<0.001
90972076|NCT05030311|181826821|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|4.84|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression adjusting for treatment arm, geographical region, prior exposure to anti-IgE biologics, and baseline UAS7 score.||Disease activity control (UAS7 =\< 6) at Week 12||4.84|2.00|<0.001
90972077|NCT05030311|181826822|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.16|6.82|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression adjusting for treatment arm, geographical region, prior exposure to anti-IgE biologics, and baseline UAS7 score.||Complete absence of hives and itch (UAS7 = 0) at Week 12||6.82|2.16|<0.001
90972078|NCT05030311|181826823|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|15.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.18|39.77|||Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for treatment arm, geographical region, prior exposure to anti-IgE biologics, and baseline UAS7 score.|||39.77|6.18|<0.001
90972079|NCT05030311|181826824|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|2.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.01|3.61|||Negative binomial regression model|Negative binomial regression model with log link, using treatment arm, geographical region, and prior exposure to anti-IgE biologics as covariates.||||3.61|2.01|<0.001
90972080|NCT05030311|181826825|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|3.9|||Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for treatment arm, geographical region, prior exposure to anti-IgE biologics and baseline DLQI score.|||3.90|1.53|<0.001
90972081|NCT05030311|181826826|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|1.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.41|||Regression, Linear||Statistical model used a negative binomial regression with log link included treatment arm as fixed effect, geographical region, prior exposure to anti-IgE biologics, baseline AAS7 = 0 response as covariates.|Angioedema occurrence-free weeks (AAS7 = 0 response) up to Week 12||1.41|1.12|<0.001
90972082|NCT01425203|181826828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference in Percentages|29.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.4|41.5||Multiplicity adjustment for controlling type 1 error for the primary comparison was based on the step-down approach.|Miettinen and Nurminen Method||The difference, 95% CI and p-value are adjusted by stratification factors of IL-28B genotype and previous treatment, based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|The primary statistical comparison was conducted on the FAS using the stratified Miettinen and Nurminen method at alpha level of 0.050 adjusted for stratification factors, including IL28B genotype and previous treatment as specified at the time of randomization.||41.5|16.4|<0.0001
90972083|NCT01425203|181826829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference in Percentages|30.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.3|42.5||Multiplicity adjustment for controlling type 1 error for key secondary comparison based on a step-down approach. Key-secondary comparison was tested only if statistical significance of primary comparison was met at alpha level of 0.050.|Miettinen and Nurminen Method||The difference, 95% CI and p-value are adjusted by stratification factors of IL-28B genotype and previous treatment, based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|The key secondary statistical comparison was conducted on the mITT using the stratified Miettinen and Nurminen method at alpha level of 0.050 adjusted for stratification factors.||42.5|17.3|<0.0001
90972084|NCT01425203|181826830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference in Percentages|45.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.2|57.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen Method||The difference, 95% CI and p-value are adjusted by stratification factors of IL-28B genotype and previous treatment, based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|The percentage of participants achieving EVR at TW8 was compared using the stratified Miettinen and Nurminen method at alpha level of 0.050 adjusted for stratification factors in the FAS population.||57.0|33.2|<0.0001
90972085|NCT02264990|181826843|SUPERIORITY|A fixed sequence testing procedure was used for analyses of the primary and secondary efficacy endpoints to control for the familywise error rate. If veliparib plus C/P treatment was not statistically significantly better compared to the investigators' choice of standard therapy for the primary efficacy endpoint of OS in LSP+ participants, then statistical significance would not be declared for any of the secondary efficacy endpoints.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.644||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.396|1.048||Statistical significance was determined by a two-sided P value ≤ 0.05.|Log Rank|Log rank test stratified by ECOG performance status, investigators' preferred platinum therapy, and gender.|Hazard ratio obtained using the covariate adjusted Cox Proportional Hazard Model with covariates being ECOG performance status, investigators' preferred platinum therapy, and gender.|||1.048|0.396|0.113
90972086|NCT02264990|181826844|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.647||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.388|1.08|||Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified by investigator's preferred platinum therapy, gender, and ECOG performance status.|The hazard ratio was obtained using the covariate adjusted Cox Proportional Hazard Model with covariates of ECOG performance status, investigators' preferred platinum therapy, and gender.|||1.080|0.388|0.260
91036154|NCT00318461|181959042|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Hypothesis testing was done in a hierarchical manner. First, it was tested whether liraglutide 1.2 mg+metformin was superior to placebo + metformin. Superiority was always concluded if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference was below 0%.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-1.06|||<|0.0001||95.0|-1.27|-0.85|||ANCOVA|||Change in HbA1c from baseline to end of treatment at 26 weeks was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline glycosylated A1c (HbA1c) as covariate.||-0.85|-1.27|<0.0001
91036155|NCT00318461|181959042|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Hypothesis testing was done in a hierarchical manner. As superiority of liraglutide 1.2 mg + metformin to metformin monotherapy was established, it was investigated whether liraglutide 1.2 mg + metformin was non-inferior to glimepiride + metformin. Non-inferiority was concluded if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference was below 0.4%.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|0.01|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.16|0.18|||ANCOVA|||Change in HbA1c from baseline to end of treatment at 26 weeks was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline glycosylated A1c (HbA1c) as covariate.||0.18|-0.16|<0.0001
90972087|NCT02264990|181826845|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.66||||0.455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.9|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression adjusted for the covariates of ECOG performance status, investigators' preferred platinum therapy, and gender.|Odds ratio is from covariate adjusted logistic regression with the covariates being ECOG performance status, investigators' preferred platinum therapy, and gender.|||1.90|0.23|0.455
90972088|NCT02264990|181826846|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.986||||0.846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.827|1.176|||Log Rank|Log rank test stratified by LSP status, ECOG performance status, investigators' preferred platinum therapy, and gender.|The hazard ratio was obtained using the covariate adjusted Cox Proportional Hazard Model with covariates of LSP status, ECOG performance status, investigators' preferred platinum therapy, and gender.|||1.176|0.827|0.846
90972089|NCT02264990|181826847|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.035||||0.473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.867|1.235|||Log Rank|Log rank test stratified by LSP status, ECOG performance status, investigators' preferred platinum therapy, and gender.|The hazard ratio was obtained using the covariate adjusted Cox Proportional Hazard Model with covariates of LSP status, ECOG performance status, investigators' preferred platinum therapy, and gender.|||1.235|0.867|0.473
90972090|NCT02264990|181826848|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.24|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression adjusted for the covariates of LSP status, ECOG performance status, investigators' preferred platinum therapy, and gender.|Odds ratio is from covariate adjusted logistic regression with the covariates being LSP status, ECOG performance status, investigators' preferred platinum therapy, and gender.|||1.24|0.59|0.409
91050382|NCT04168190|181987004|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.17|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 12F||2.17|0.50|
91050383|NCT04168190|181987004|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|2.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|4.5|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 12F||4.50|1.02|
90941726|NCT01475461|181763602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.502||0.5341|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.33|0.96||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.96|-0.33|0.5341
90941727|NCT01475461|181763602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.487||0.2782|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.1|1.15||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||1.15|-0.10|0.2782
91036156|NCT00318461|181959042|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Hypothesis testing was done in a hierarchical manner. First, it was tested whether liraglutide 0.6 mg+metformin was superior to placebo + metformin. Superiority was always concluded if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference was below 0%.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.78|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.99|-0.57|||ANCOVA|||Change in HbA1c from baseline to end of treatment at 26 weeks was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline glycosylated A1c (HbA1c) as covariate.||-0.57|-0.99|<0.0001
90941728|NCT01475461|181763602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.492||0.5331|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.32|0.94||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.94|-0.32|0.5331
90941729|NCT01475461|181763602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.489||0.907|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.57|0.68||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.68|-0.57|0.9070
90941730|NCT01475461|181763602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.512||0.1757|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.04|1.35||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||1.35|0.04|0.1757
90941731|NCT01475461|181763602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.527||0.4083|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.24|1.11||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||1.11|-0.24|0.4083
90941732|NCT01475461|181763602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.511||0.315|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.14|1.17||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||1.17|-0.14|0.3150
90941733|NCT01475461|181763602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.516||0.6631|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.44|0.89||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.89|-0.44|0.6631
90941734|NCT01475461|181763602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.512||0.8694|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.74|0.57||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.57|-0.74|0.8694
90941735|NCT01475461|181763602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.545||0.2031|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.0|1.4||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 14: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||1.40|0.00|0.2031
91036157|NCT00318461|181959042|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Hypothesis testing was done in a hierarchical manner. As superiority of liraglutide 0.6 mg + metformin to metformin monotherapy was established, it was investigated whether liraglutide 0.6 mg + metformin was non-inferior to glimepiride + metformin. Non-inferiority was concluded if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference was below 0.4%.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|0.29||||0.1026||95.0|0.12|0.46|||ANCOVA|||Change in HbA1c from baseline to end of treatment at 26 weeks was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline glycosylated A1c (HbA1c) as covariate.||0.46|0.12|0.1026
90941736|NCT01475461|181763602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.563||0.7137|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.52|0.93||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 14: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.93|-0.52|0.7137
90941737|NCT01475461|181763602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.545||0.681|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.48|0.92||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 14: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.92|-0.48|0.6810
90972091|NCT02275338|181826853|OTHER|||||||0.0055||||||The expected proportion of responders using Lanreotide was 50%, 1 sided test, 2.5% significance level alpha and power of 80% using Z-test for binomial proportion.|Binomial test|||One sided binomial test to compare percentage of responding subjects to theoretical proportion of 30%.||||0.0055
90972092|NCT01100944|181826871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.021
90972093|NCT01100944|181826880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3||||||Fold change at Cycle 2 Day 1 vs. pre was assessed. Only differences with p\<0.005 could be potentially considered statistically significant while those with 0.005\<p\<0.05 would represent trends towards a difference.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.30
90972094|NCT01100944|181826880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||||||Fold change at Cycle 1 Day 2 vs. pre was assessed. p values calculated were done using a Wilcoxon signed rank test relative to a ratio of 1.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0001
90972095|NCT01100944|181826880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||||||Fold change at Cycle 1 Day 3 vs. pre was assessed. p values calculated were done using a Wilcoxon signed rank test relative to a ratio of 1.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0001
90972096|NCT01100944|181826881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76||||||Fold change at Cycle 2 Day 1 vs. pre was assessed.Only differences with p\<0.005 could be potentially considered statistically significant while those with 0.005\<p\<0.05 would represent trends towards a difference.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.76
90972097|NCT01100944|181826881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0009||||||Fold change at Cycle 1 Day 2 vs. pre was assessed. p values calculated were done using a Wilcoxon signed rank test relative to a ratio of 1.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0009
90972098|NCT01100944|181826881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||||||Fold change at Cycle 1 Day 3 vs. pre was assessed. p values calculated were done using a Wilcoxon signed rank test relative to a ratio of 1.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0001
90972099|NCT01100944|181826882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95||||||Fold change at Cycle 2 Day 1 vs. pre was assessed. p values calculated were done using a Wilcoxon signed rank test relative to a ratio of 1.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.95
90972100|NCT01100944|181826882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||||||Fold change at Cycle 1 Day 2 vs. pre was assessed. p values calculated were done using a Wilcoxon signed rank test relative to a ratio of 1.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0001
90972101|NCT01100944|181826882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||||||Fold change at Cycle 1 Day 3 vs. pre was assessed. p values calculated were done using a Wilcoxon signed rank test relative to a ratio of 1.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0001
90972102|NCT01179009|181826908|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53||||||The p-value above represents the interaction between the treatment group and time.|ANOVA|||||||0.53
90972103|NCT01179009|181826909|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06||||||The p-value above comes from a model where the treatment group is used to predict the CGI improvement score.|Ordinal regression|||||||0.06
90972104|NCT00684788|181826910|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.68|||=|0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.61|20.02|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||20.02|1.61|=0.008
90972105|NCT00684788|181826911|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0033|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0033
90972106|NCT00684788|181826914|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|3.42|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||3.42|0.32|0.939
90972107|NCT00684788|181826916|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.074||||0.959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.071|16.245|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||16.245|0.071|0.959
90972108|NCT00623428|181826917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.4557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.43|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by HCV genotype (2 vs 3), region (US vs non-US) and initial Ribavirin dose (800mg vs 1000-1200mg).|"The odds ratio is the ratio of the odds of a response in the 24-week treatment group to the odds of a response in the 48-week treatment group.~(second column)."|In order to detect an improvement in SVR rate across all strata equivalent to an odds ratio of 2 (i.e. an increase in SVR by 15 to 16 percentage points at a power of 80% and a two-sided significance level of 0.05, 160 patients per treatment group (320 patients in total) were required.||1.43|0.45|0.4557
90972109|NCT00623428|181826918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59||||0.0788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by HCV genotype (2 vs 3), region (US vs non-US) and initial Ribavirin dose (800mg vs 1000-1200mg).|The odds ratio is the ratio of the odds of a response in the 24-week treatment group to the odds of a response in the 48-week treatment group.|||1.06|0.33|0.0788
91007685|NCT04223778|181899572|OTHER|Treatment Difference vs Baseline ART. Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated Difference|-17.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.02|-5.46|||||Difference in percentage versus (vs) Baseline ART was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Fasting Non-HDL Cholesterol||-5.46|-30.02|
91007686|NCT04223778|181899572|OTHER|Treatment Difference vs Baseline ART. Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated Difference|-21.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.51|2.96|||||Difference in percentage versus (vs) Baseline ART was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Fasting Triglycerides||2.96|-45.51|
91007687|NCT04223778|181899573|OTHER|Treatment Difference vs Baseline ART. Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated Difference|-4.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.43|2.09|||||Difference in percentage versus (vs) Baseline ART was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Fasting Cholesterol||2.09|-10.43|
91007688|NCT04223778|181899573|OTHER|Treatment Difference vs Baseline ART. Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated Difference|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|3.09|||||Difference in percentage versus (vs) Baseline ART was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Fasting HDL Cholesterol||3.09|-1.46|
91007689|NCT04223778|181899573|OTHER|Treatment Difference vs Baseline ART. Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated Difference|-3.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.47|1.74|||||Difference in percentage versus (vs) Baseline ART was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Fasting LDL Cholesterol||1.74|-9.47|
91007690|NCT04223778|181899573|OTHER|Treatment Difference vs Baseline ART. Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated Difference|-4.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.21|1.38|||||Difference in percentage versus (vs) Baseline ART was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Fasting Non-HDL Cholesterol||1.38|-11.21|
90941738|NCT01475461|181763602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.6921|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.92|0.49||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 14: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.49|-0.92|0.6921
90941739|NCT01475461|181763602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.545||0.3702|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.19|0.21||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 14 (Follow-up): Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.21|-1.19|0.3702
90941740|NCT01049984|181763613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|-0.5||All analyses were performed at the 2-sided 0.05 significance level. P values were not adjusted.|ANCOVA|Repeated measures model with baseline score as a covariate and factors Treatment, Week in Study, Pooled Center and Week by Treatment interaction.||||-0.5|-4.3|0.012
90941741|NCT01049984|181763614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.3||All analyses were performed at the 2-sided 0.05 significance level. P values were not adjusted.|ANCOVA|Repeated measures model with baseline score as a covariate and factors Treatment, Week in Study, Pooled Center and Week by Treatment interaction.||||0.3|-1.1|0.301
90941742|NCT01049984|181763615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-0.5||All analyses were performed at the 2-sided 0.05 significance level. P values were not adjusted.|ANCOVA|Repeated measures model with baseline score as a covariate and factors Treatment, Week in Study, Pooled Center and Week by Treatment interaction.||||-0.5|-3.1|0.007
90941743|NCT01049984|181763616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.255||||||All analyses were performed at the 2-sided 0.05 significance level. P values were not adjusted. Only participants with assessment (\>0) are included in the CMH test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH used the proportion of participants in each category between the two treatment arms, with treatment and pooled center as strata.||||||0.255
90941744|NCT01049984|181763617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.996||||||All analyses were performed at the 2-sided 0.05 significance level. P values were not adjusted. Only participants with assessment (\>0) are included in the CMH test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH used the proportion of participants in each category between the two treatment arms, with treatment and pooled center as strata.||||||0.996
90941745|NCT01049984|181763618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.967||||||All analyses were performed at the 2-sided 0.05 significance level. P values were not adjusted. Only participants with assessment (\>0) are included in the CMH test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH used the proportion of participants in each category between the two treatment arms, with treatment, pooled center, and baseline value as strata.||||||0.967
90941746|NCT00337285|181763626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||< 0.0001
90941747|NCT00337285|181763628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||< 0.0001
90941748|NCT00553605|181763629|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the treatment difference (parecoxib - ketoprofen) was greater than -10 mm.|Least-squares (LS) mean difference|-1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.75|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.53|4.3||||||LS mean difference and 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) were based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with terms for treatment group and country, and baseline as covariates.||4.30|-6.53|
90941749|NCT00553605|181763630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.52||0.972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.04|4.86|||ANCOVA|||p-value, LS mean difference and 95% CI were based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group and country, and baseline as covariates.||4.86|-5.04|0.972
90941750|NCT00553605|181763632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.56||0.768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.28|5.79|||ANCOVA|||Minute 15: p-value, LS mean difference and 95% CI were based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group and country, and baseline as covariates.||5.79|-4.28|0.768
90972110|NCT00623428|181826919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.5654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|3.87|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by HCV genotype (2 vs 3), region (US vs non-US) and initial Ribavirin dose (800mg vs 1000-1200mg).|The odds ratio is the ratio of the odds of a response in the 24-week treatment group to the odds of a response in the 48-week treatment group.|||3.87|0.48|0.5654
90941751|NCT00553605|181763632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.91||0.866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.22|5.24|||ANCOVA|||Minute 30: p-value, LS mean difference and 95% CI were based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group and country, and baseline as covariates.||5.24|-6.22|0.866
90941752|NCT00553605|181763632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7||0.729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.38|6.26|||ANCOVA|||Minute 45: p-value, LS mean difference and 95% CI were based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group and country, and baseline as covariates.||6.26|-4.38|0.729
90941753|NCT00553605|181763632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.47||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.24|7.48|||ANCOVA|||Minute 60: p-value, LS mean difference and 95% CI were based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group and country, and baseline as covariates.||7.48|-2.24|0.290
90941754|NCT00553605|181763632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.14||0.314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|6.37|||ANCOVA|||Minute 90: p-value, LS mean difference and 95% CI were based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group and country, and baseline as covariates.||6.37|-2.05|0.314
90941755|NCT00553605|181763632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.72||0.926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.23|3.55|||ANCOVA|||Minute 120: p-value, LS mean difference and 95% CI were based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group and country, and baseline as covariates.||3.55|-3.23|0.926
90941756|NCT00553605|181763633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|10.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.43||0.451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|36.54|||ANCOVA|||p-value, LS mean difference and 95% CI were based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group and country as covariates.||36.54|-16.3|0.451
90941757|NCT00553605|181763634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3982|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Minute 30: p-value was calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model and using modified ridit scores, testing for non-zero correlation and controlling for country.||||0.3982
90972111|NCT00623428|181826921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.68||||0.1934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.21|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by HCV genotype (2 vs 3), region (US vs non-US) and initial Ribavirin dose (800mg vs 1000-1200mg).|The odds ratio is the ratio of the odds of a response in the 24-week treatment group to the odds of a response in the 48-week treatment group.|||1.21|0.38|0.1934
91050384|NCT04168190|181987004|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|2.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|3.68|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 17F||3.68|1.21|
90941758|NCT00553605|181763634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5552|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Minute 120: p-value was calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model and using modified ridit scores, testing for non-zero correlation and controlling for country.||||0.5552
90941759|NCT00553605|181763635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.007||||0.9785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.69|||Regression, Logistic|||p-value was based on logistic regression model with terms for treatment group and baseline as covariates.||1.69|0.60|0.9785
90941760|NCT00553605|181763636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2482|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Minute 30: p-value was calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model and using modified ridit scores, testing for non-zero correlation and controlling for country.||||0.2482
90941761|NCT00553605|181763636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7659|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Minute 120: p-value was calculated using CMH model and using modified ridit scores, testing for non-zero correlation and controlling for country.||||0.7659
90941762|NCT00553605|181763637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9783|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Minute 30: p-value was calculated using CMH model and using modified ridit scores, testing for non-zero correlation and controlling for country.||||0.9783
90941763|NCT00553605|181763637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6847|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Minute 120: p-value was calculated using CMH model and using modified ridit scores, testing for non-zero correlation and controlling for country.||||0.6847
90941764|NCT00553605|181763638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9645|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.9645
90941765|NCT01040403|181763650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.054|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.016|0.092|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/5 minus Olo 5|||0.092|0.016|
90941766|NCT01040403|181763650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.065|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.027|0.103|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus Olo 5|||0.103|0.027|
90941767|NCT01040403|181763650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.084|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.046|0.122|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus Olo 5|||0.122|0.046|
90941768|NCT01040403|181763650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.027|0.049|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|||0.049|-0.027|
90941769|NCT01040403|181763650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.008|0.069|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|||0.069|-0.008|
90941770|NCT01040403|181763650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.019|0.058|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 2.5/5|||0.058|-0.019|
90941771|NCT01040403|181763650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.051|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.013|0.089|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/10 minus Olo 10|||0.089|0.013|
90941772|NCT01040403|181763650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.083|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.045|0.122|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus Olo 10|||0.122|0.045|
90941773|NCT01040403|181763650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.042|0.119|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus Olo 10|||0.119|0.042|
90941774|NCT01040403|181763650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.033|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.006|0.071|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|||0.071|-0.006|
90941775|NCT01040403|181763650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.009|0.068|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|||0.068|-0.009|
90941776|NCT01040403|181763650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.041|0.035|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 2.5/10|||0.035|-0.041|
90941777|NCT01040403|181763651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.099|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.159|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/5 minus Olo 5|||0.159|0.040|
90941778|NCT01040403|181763651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.061|0.179|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus Olo 5|||0.179|0.061|
90941779|NCT01040403|181763651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.041|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus Olo 5|||0.160|0.041|
90941780|NCT01040403|181763651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.039|0.079|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|||0.079|-0.039|
90941781|NCT01040403|181763651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.059|0.061|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|||0.061|-0.059|
90941782|NCT01040403|181763651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.079|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 2.5/5|||0.040|-0.079|
90941783|NCT01040403|181763651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.131|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.071|0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/10 minus Olo 10|||0.190|0.071|
90941784|NCT01040403|181763651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.131|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.072|0.191|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus Olo 10|||0.191|0.072|
90941785|NCT01040403|181763651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.127|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.067|0.187|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus Olo 10|||0.187|0.067|
90941786|NCT01040403|181763651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.059|0.061|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|||0.061|-0.059|
90941787|NCT01040403|181763651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.063|0.056|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|||0.056|-0.063|
90941788|NCT01040403|181763651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.064|0.055|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 2.5/10|||0.055|-0.064|
90941789|NCT01040403|181763652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.075|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.035|0.114|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/5 minus Olo 5|AUC 0-3h||0.114|0.035|
90941790|NCT01040403|181763652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.097|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.057|0.137|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus Olo 5|AUC 0-3h||0.137|0.057|
90941791|NCT01040403|181763652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.119|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.079|0.159|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus Olo 5|AUC 0-3h||0.159|0.079|
90941792|NCT01040403|181763652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.017|0.062|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|AUC 0-3h||0.062|-0.017|
90941793|NCT01040403|181763652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|0.085|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|AUC 0-3h||0.085|0.004|
90941794|NCT01040403|181763652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.018|0.062|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 2.5/5|AUC 0-3h||0.062|-0.018|
90972112|NCT00623428|181826922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.68||||0.1934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.21|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by HCV genotype (2 vs 3), region (US vs non-US) and initial Ribavirin dose (800mg vs 1000-1200mg).|The odds ratio is the ratio of the odds of a response in the 24-week treatment group to the odds of a response in the 48-week treatment group.|||1.21|0.38|0.1934
90941795|NCT01040403|181763652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.097|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.057|0.137|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/10 minus Olo 10|AUC 0-3h||0.137|0.057|
90941796|NCT01040403|181763652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.128|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.088|0.168|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus Olo 10|AUC 0-3h||0.168|0.088|
90941797|NCT01040403|181763652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.143|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.103|0.183|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus Olo 10|AUC 0-3h||0.183|0.103|
90941798|NCT01040403|181763652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.031|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.009|0.071|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|AUC 0-3h||0.071|-0.009|
90941799|NCT01040403|181763652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.046|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.006|0.086|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|AUC 0-3h||0.086|0.006|
90941800|NCT01040403|181763652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.025|0.055|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 2.5/10|AUC 0-3h||0.055|-0.025|
90941801|NCT01040403|181763652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.078|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.117|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/5 minus Olo 5|AUC 0-6h||0.117|0.040|
90941802|NCT01040403|181763652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.099|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.137|||Mixed Models Analysis||difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus Olo 5|AUC 0-6h||0.137|0.060|
90941803|NCT01040403|181763652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.157|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus Olo 5|AUC 0-6h||0.157|0.080|
90941804|NCT01040403|181763652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.018|0.058|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|AUC 0-6h||0.058|-0.018|
90941805|NCT01040403|181763652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.079|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|AUC 0-6h||0.079|0.001|
90972113|NCT01692301|181826924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.42||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.45|-0.87|||ANCOVA|||||-0.87|-6.45|0.010
90941806|NCT01040403|181763652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.019|0.058|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 2.5/5|AUC 0-6h||0.058|-0.019|
90941807|NCT01040403|181763652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.098|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.136|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/10 minus Olo 10|AUC 0-6h||0.136|0.060|
90941808|NCT01040403|181763652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.121|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.083|0.159|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus Olo 10|AUC 0-6h||0.159|0.083|
90941809|NCT01040403|181763652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.144|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.105|0.182|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus Olo 10|AUC 0-6h||0.182|0.105|
90941810|NCT01040403|181763652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.023|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.016|0.062|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|AUC 0-6h||0.062|-0.016|
90941811|NCT01040403|181763652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.046|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.007|0.084|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|AUC 0-6h||0.084|0.007|
90941812|NCT01040403|181763652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.023|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.016|0.061|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 2.5/10|AUC 0-6h||0.061|-0.016|
90941813|NCT01040403|181763653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.023|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.058|0.012|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/5 minus Olo 5|||0.012|-0.058|
90941814|NCT01040403|181763653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.029|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus Olo 5|||0.040|-0.029|
90941815|NCT01040403|181763653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.034|0.036|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus Olo 5|||0.036|-0.034|
90941816|NCT01040403|181763653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.028|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.006|0.063|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|||0.063|-0.006|
90941817|NCT01040403|181763653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.011|0.059|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|||0.059|-0.011|
90941818|NCT01040403|181763653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.039|0.031|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 2.5/5|||0.031|-0.039|
90941819|NCT01040403|181763653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.039|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|0.073|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/10 minus Olo 10|||0.073|0.004|
90941820|NCT01040403|181763653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.031|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.066|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus Olo 10|||0.066|-0.004|
90941821|NCT01040403|181763653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.041|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.006|0.076|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus Olo 10|||0.076|0.006|
90941822|NCT01040403|181763653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.043|0.027|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|||0.027|-0.043|
90941823|NCT01040403|181763653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.032|0.037|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|||0.037|-0.032|
90941824|NCT01040403|181763653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.025|0.045|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 2.5/10|||0.045|-0.025|
90941825|NCT01040403|181763654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.089|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.041|0.138|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/5 minus Olo 5|||0.138|0.041|
90941826|NCT01040403|181763654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.091|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.043|0.139|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus Olo 5|||0.139|0.043|
90941827|NCT01040403|181763654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.115|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.066|0.164|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus Olo 5|||0.164|0.066|
90941828|NCT01040403|181763654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.046|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|||0.050|-0.046|
90941829|NCT01040403|181763654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.026|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.023|0.074|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|||0.074|-0.023|
90941830|NCT01040403|181763654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.025|0.072|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 2.5/5|||0.072|-0.025|
90941831|NCT01040403|181763654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.107|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.059|0.156|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/10 minus Olo 10|||0.156|0.059|
90941832|NCT01040403|181763654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.132|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.084|0.181|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus Olo 10|||0.181|0.084|
90941833|NCT01040403|181763654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.145|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.096|0.193|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus Olo 10|||0.193|0.096|
90941834|NCT01040403|181763654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.025|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.024|0.074|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|||0.074|-0.024|
90941835|NCT01040403|181763654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.038|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.086|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|||0.086|-0.010|
90941836|NCT01040403|181763654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.013|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.036|0.061|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 2.5/10|||0.061|-0.036|
90941837|NCT01040403|181763655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.059|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/5 minus Olo 5|||0.020|-0.059|
90941838|NCT01040403|181763655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.014|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.026|0.053|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus Olo 5|||0.053|-0.026|
90941839|NCT01040403|181763655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.028|0.051|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus Olo 5|||0.051|-0.028|
90941840|NCT01040403|181763655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.033|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.006|0.072|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|||0.072|-0.006|
90941841|NCT01040403|181763655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.031|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.009|0.071|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|||0.071|-0.009|
90941842|NCT01040403|181763655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.041|0.037|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 2.5/5|||0.037|-0.041|
90941843|NCT01040403|181763655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.054|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.015|0.093|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/10 minus Olo 10|||0.093|0.015|
90941844|NCT01040403|181763655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.006|0.084|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus Olo 10|||0.084|0.006|
90941845|NCT01040403|181763655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.047|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.008|0.087|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus Olo 10|||0.087|0.008|
90941846|NCT01040403|181763655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.009|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.049|0.031|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|||0.031|-0.049|
90941847|NCT01040403|181763655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.046|0.033|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|||0.033|-0.046|
90941848|NCT01040403|181763655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.037|0.042|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 2.5/10|||0.042|-0.037|
90941849|NCT01040403|181763656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.143|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.084|0.202|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/5 minus Olo 5|AUC 0-3h||0.202|0.084|
90941850|NCT01040403|181763656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.151|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.092|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus Olo 5|AUC 0-3h||0.210|0.092|
90972114|NCT01142726|181826935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|3.43|||Regression, Logistic|Statistical testing of the 2 coprimary efficacy endpoints was conducted in a hierarchical fashion to maintain the overall Type I error rate at 5%.|At Month 12|Power estimate assumed 2-sided alpha level of 5% and that 60% of abatacept (ABA)+methotrexate (MX) patients (pts) would be in DAS28-CRP remission at Month 12 compared with 38% of MX monotherapy pts. Also assumed that 48% of ABA monotherapy pts would be in DAS28-CRP remission at Month 12, yielding an expected treatment difference from MX of 10% in favor of ABA monotherapy; 116 pts randomized to ABA monotherapy would yield a half-length of the 95% CI around that 10% treatment difference of 13.5%.||3.43|1.18|0.010
90972115|NCT01142726|181826935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|6.18|||Regression, Logistic|Statistical testing of the 2 coprimary efficacy endpoints was conducted in a hierarchical fashion to maintain the overall Type I error rate at 5%.|At Months 12 and 18|Conditional on statistical significance of the 1st coprimary efficacy analysis (CEA), a sample of 116 patients per arm would provide 98% power for the 2nd CEA comparison of the percentage of patients in DAS28-CRP remission at Months 12 and 18 between the abatacept (ABA)+methotrexate (MTX) arm and the MTX monotherapy arm for intent-to treat population. This sample size calculation assumed 30% remission in the ABA+MTX arm and 8% in the monotherapy arm at Month 18 and a 2-sided alpha level of 5%.||6.18|1.02|0.045
90972116|NCT01142726|181826936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.57|||||At Month 12|||1.57|0.55|
90941851|NCT01040403|181763656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.131|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.072|0.191|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus Olo 5|AUC 0-3h||0.191|0.072|
90941852|NCT01040403|181763656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.051|0.066|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|AUC 0-3h||0.066|-0.051|
90941853|NCT01040403|181763656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.071|0.048|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|AUC 0-3h||0.048|-0.071|
90941854|NCT01040403|181763656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.079|0.039|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 2.5/5|AUC 0-3h||0.039|-0.079|
90941855|NCT01040403|181763656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.175|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.116|0.234|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/10 minus Olo 10|AUC 0-3h||0.234|0.116|
90941856|NCT01040403|181763656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.175|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.116|0.234|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus Olo 10|AUC 0-3h||0.234|0.116|
90941857|NCT01040403|181763656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.259|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus Olo 10|AUC 0-3h||0.259|0.140|
90941858|NCT01040403|181763656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.059|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|AUC 0-3h||0.059|-0.060|
91050385|NCT04168190|181987004|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|2.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.64|5.03|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 17F||5.03|1.64|
90941859|NCT01040403|181763656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.035|0.083|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|AUC 0-3h||0.083|-0.035|
90941860|NCT01040403|181763656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.035|0.083|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 2.5/10|AUC 0-3h||0.083|-0.035|
90941861|NCT01040403|181763656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.139|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.081|0.197|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/5 minus Olo 5|AUC 0-6h||0.197|0.081|
90941862|NCT01040403|181763656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.092|0.207|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus Olo 5|AUC 0-6h||0.207|0.092|
90941863|NCT01040403|181763656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.131|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.073|0.189|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus Olo 5|AUC 0-6h||0.189|0.073|
90941864|NCT01040403|181763656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.047|0.068|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|AUC 0-6h||0.068|-0.047|
90941865|NCT01040403|181763656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.066|0.051|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|AUC 0-6h||0.051|-0.066|
90941866|NCT01040403|181763656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.018|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.076|0.039|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 2.5/5|AUC 0-6h||0.039|-0.076|
90941867|NCT01040403|181763656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.189|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.131|0.247|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/10 minus Olo 10|AUC 0-6h||0.247|0.131|
90941868|NCT01040403|181763656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.179|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.121|0.236|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus Olo 10|AUC 0-6h||0.236|0.121|
90941869|NCT01040403|181763656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.213|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.155|0.271|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus Olo 10|AUC 0-6h||0.271|0.155|
90941870|NCT01040403|181763656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.069|0.048|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|AUC 0-6h||0.048|-0.069|
90941871|NCT01040403|181763656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.033|0.082|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|AUC 0-6h||0.082|-0.033|
90941872|NCT01040403|181763656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.035|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.023|0.092|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 2.5/10|AUC 0-6h||0.092|-0.023|
90941873|NCT01040403|181763657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.106|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/5 minus Olo 5|||0.010|-0.106|
90941874|NCT01040403|181763657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.065|0.051|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus Olo 5|||0.051|-0.065|
90941875|NCT01040403|181763657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.014|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.072|0.044|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus Olo 5|||0.044|-0.072|
90941876|NCT01040403|181763657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.041|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.017|0.099|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|||0.099|-0.017|
90941877|NCT01040403|181763657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.034|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.024|0.093|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|||0.093|-0.024|
90941878|NCT01040403|181763657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.065|0.051|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 2.5/5|||0.051|-0.065|
90941879|NCT01040403|181763657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.032|0.148|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/10 minus Olo 10|||0.148|0.032|
90941880|NCT01040403|181763657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.059|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.118|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus Olo 10|||0.118|0.001|
90941881|NCT01040403|181763657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.056|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.002|0.114|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus Olo 10|||0.114|-0.002|
90941882|NCT01040403|181763657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.031|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.089|0.028|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|||0.028|-0.089|
90941883|NCT01040403|181763657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.034|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.092|0.024|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|||0.024|-0.092|
90941884|NCT01040403|181763657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.062|0.055|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 2.5/10|||0.055|-0.062|
90941885|NCT01040403|181763658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.155|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.087|0.223|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/5 minus Olo 5|||0.223|0.087|
90941886|NCT01040403|181763658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.147|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.079|0.215|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus Olo 5|||0.215|0.079|
91036158|NCT00318461|181959042|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A test for superiority of glimepiride+metformin to metformin was performed to verify assay sensitivity. Superiority was always concluded if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference was below 0%.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-1.07|||<|0.0001||95.0|-1.28|-0.86|||ANCOVA|||Change in HbA1c from baseline to end of treatment at 26 weeks was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline glycosylated A1c (HbA1c) as covariate.||-0.86|-1.28|<0.0001
91036159|NCT00318461|181959043|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg + metformin and placebo + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-1.29||||0.0016||95.0|-2.16|-0.41|||ANCOVA|||Change in body weight from baseline to end of treatment at 26 weeks was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline body weight as covariate.||-0.41|-2.16|0.0016
91036160|NCT00318461|181959043|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg + metformin and glimepiride + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-3.75|||<|0.0001||95.0|-4.48|-3.01|||ANCOVA|||Change in body weight from baseline to end of treatment at 26 weeks was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline body weight as covariate.||-3.01|-4.48|<0.0001
91036161|NCT00318461|181959043|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.2 mg + metformin and placebo + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-1.07||||0.0117||95.0|-1.94|-0.19|||ANCOVA|||Change in body weight from baseline to end of treatment at 26 weeks was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline body weight as covariate.||-0.19|-1.94|0.0117
91036162|NCT00318461|181959043|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.2 mg + metformin and glimepirde + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-3.53|||<|0.0001||95.0|-4.27|-2.79|||ANCOVA|||Change in body weight from baseline to end of treatment at 26 weeks was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline body weight as covariate.||-2.79|-4.27|<0.0001
91050386|NCT04168190|181987004|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|1.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|2.93|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 20A||2.93|0.93|
91050387|NCT04168190|181987004|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|1.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|3.43|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 20A||3.43|1.07|
90941887|NCT01040403|181763658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.127|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.058|0.195|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus Olo 5|||0.195|0.058|
90941888|NCT01040403|181763658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.075|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|||0.060|-0.075|
90941889|NCT01040403|181763658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.028|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.097|0.041|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|||0.041|-0.097|
90941890|NCT01040403|181763658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.089|0.048|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 2.5/5|||0.048|-0.089|
90941891|NCT01040403|181763658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.174|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.106|0.242|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/10 minus Olo 10|||0.242|0.106|
90941892|NCT01040403|181763658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.182|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.113|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus Olo 10|||0.250|0.113|
90941893|NCT01040403|181763658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.204|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.135|0.272|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus Olo 10|||0.272|0.135|
90941894|NCT01040403|181763658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.061|0.076|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|||0.076|-0.061|
90941895|NCT01040403|181763658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.038|0.098|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|||0.098|-0.038|
90941896|NCT01040403|181763658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.046|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 2.5/10|||0.090|-0.046|
90941897|NCT01040403|181763659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.051|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.114|0.013|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/5 minus Olo 5|||0.013|-0.114|
90941898|NCT01040403|181763659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.055|0.071|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus Olo 5|||0.071|-0.055|
90941899|NCT01040403|181763659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.074|0.053|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus Olo 5|||0.053|-0.074|
90941900|NCT01040403|181763659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.059|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.122|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|||0.122|-0.004|
91036163|NCT00318461|181959043|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 0.6 mg + metformin and placebo + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.28||||0.8198||95.0|-1.15|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Change in body weight from baseline to end of treatment at 26 weeks was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline body weight as covariate.||0.60|-1.15|0.8198
90972117|NCT01142726|181826936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|5.14|||||At Months 12 and 18|||5.14|0.81|
90972118|NCT02111993|181826965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||||||This p-value correlates to Δ4 hr cTnT|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
90972119|NCT02111993|181826965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||||||This p-value correlates to Δ8 hr cTnT.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
90972120|NCT02111993|181826965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16||||||This p-value correlates to Δ20 hr cTnT|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.16
91050388|NCT04168190|181987005|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|4.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.99|9.25|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 6A||9.25|1.99|
90941901|NCT01040403|181763659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.024|0.104|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|||0.104|-0.024|
90941902|NCT01040403|181763659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.082|0.045|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus +O 2.5/5|||0.045|-0.082|
90941903|NCT01040403|181763659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.111|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.047|0.174|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/10 minus Olo 10|||0.174|0.047|
90941904|NCT01040403|181763659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.081|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.017|0.144|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus Olo 10|||0.144|0.017|
90941905|NCT01040403|181763659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.069|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.005|0.132|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus Olo 10|||0.132|0.005|
90941906|NCT01040403|181763659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.094|0.034|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|||0.034|-0.094|
90941907|NCT01040403|181763659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.105|0.021|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|||0.021|-0.105|
90941908|NCT01040403|181763659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.075|0.052|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 2.5/10|||0.052|-0.075|
90941909|NCT01040403|181763660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.759|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.189|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.533|26.985|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/5 minus Olo 5|AUC 0-3h||26.985|10.533|
90941910|NCT01040403|181763660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.157|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.173|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.962|33.351|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus Olo 5|AUC 0-3h||33.351|16.962|
90941911|NCT01040403|181763660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|29.804|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.216|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.526|38.082|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus Olo 5|AUC 0-3h||38.082|21.526|
90941912|NCT01040403|181763660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.398|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.173|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.796|14.592|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|AUC 0-3h||14.592|-1.796|
90941913|NCT01040403|181763660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.046|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.239|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.721|19.37|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|AUC 0-3h||19.370|2.721|
90972121|NCT02111993|181826966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||||||This p-value correlates to Δ4 hr cTnT|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04
90972122|NCT02111993|181826966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||||||This p-value correlates to Δ8 hr cTnT|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.06
90972123|NCT02111993|181826966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16||||||This p-value correlates to Δ20 hr cTnT|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.16
90972124|NCT02111993|181826967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17||||||This p-value correlates to Δ4 hr cTnT|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.17
90972125|NCT02111993|181826967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19||||||This p-value correlates to Δ8 hr cTnT|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.19
90972126|NCT02111993|181826967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38||||||This p-value correlates to Δ20 hr cTnT|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.38
90972127|NCT02249143|181826974|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.62|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|13.22|||Regression, Linear|||FRC values over time were modeled using linear mixed effects regression with treatment group vs. time interaction and repeated measures for the randomization, 2 week, and discharge time points. Compound symmetric covariance structures were used to account for the correlation of FRC values within each patient. We compared outcomes between the two treatment groups and included adjustments for gender, twin gestation, and weight at randomization.||13.22|0.02|<0.05
90972128|NCT02249143|181826975|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
90972129|NCT02249143|181826975|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||Group differences in the secondary outcomes were tested at randomization, two weeks, and discharge using independent samples t-tests.||||
90972130|NCT01967537|181827016|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||Mann-Whitney|||||||0.23
90941914|NCT01040403|181763660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.648|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.204|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.608|12.903|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 2.5/5|AUC 0-3h||12.903|-3.608|
90941915|NCT01040403|181763660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.318|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.201|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.068|26.568|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/10 minus Olo 10|AUC 0-3h||26.568|10.068|
90941916|NCT01040403|181763660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.511|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.197|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.27|31.752|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus Olo 10|AUC 0-3h||31.752|15.270|
90941917|NCT01040403|181763660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.817|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.214|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.543|31.092|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus Olo 10|AUC 0-3h||31.092|14.543|
90941918|NCT01040403|181763660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.193|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.23|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.115|13.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|AUC 0-3h||13.500|-3.115|
90941919|NCT01040403|181763660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.499|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.185|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.719|12.717|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|AUC 0-3h||12.717|-3.719|
90941920|NCT01040403|181763660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.694|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.941|7.554|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 2.5/10|AUC 0-3h||7.554|-8.941|
90941921|NCT01040403|181763660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.751|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.013|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.87|26.632|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/5 minus Olo 5|AUC 0-6h||26.632|10.870|
90941922|NCT01040403|181763660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|26.009|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.998|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.158|33.86|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus Olo 5|AUC 0-6h||33.860|18.158|
90941923|NCT01040403|181763660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|29.347|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.039|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.416|37.278|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus Olo 5|AUC 0-6h||37.278|21.416|
90941924|NCT01040403|181763660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.259|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.998|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.592|15.109|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|AUC 0-6h||15.109|-0.592|
90941925|NCT01040403|181763660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.596|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.061|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.621|18.571|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|AUC 0-6h||18.571|2.621|
90941926|NCT01040403|181763660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.337|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.028|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.572|11.247|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 2.5/5|AUC 0-6h||11.247|-4.572|
90941927|NCT01040403|181763660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.654|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.025|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.75|27.558|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/10 minus Olo 10|AUC 0-6h||27.558|11.750|
90941928|NCT01040403|181763660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.762|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.021|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.866|30.659|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus Olo 10|AUC 0-6h||30.659|14.866|
90941929|NCT01040403|181763660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.536|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.038|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.607|33.464|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus Olo 10|AUC 0-6h||33.464|17.607|
90941930|NCT01040403|181763660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.108|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.053|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.852|11.067|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|AUC 0-6h||11.067|-4.852|
90941931|NCT01040403|181763660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.881|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.009|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.991|13.754|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|AUC 0-6h||13.754|-1.991|
90941932|NCT01040403|181763660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.773|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.024|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.129|10.675|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 2.5/10|AUC 0-6h||10.675|-5.129|
90941933|NCT01040403|181763661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.316|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.371|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.268|10.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/5 minus Olo 5|||10.900|-6.268|
90941934|NCT01040403|181763661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.478|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.362|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.088|13.044|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus Olo 5|||13.044|-4.088|
90941935|NCT01040403|181763661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.668|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.403|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.978|13.314|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus Olo 5|||13.314|-3.978|
90941936|NCT01040403|181763661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.162|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.349|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.379|10.702|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|||10.702|-6.379|
90941937|NCT01040403|181763661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.352|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.419|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.326|11.029|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|||11.029|-6.326|
90941938|NCT01040403|181763661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.39|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.43|8.81|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 2.5/5|||8.810|-8.430|
90941939|NCT01040403|181763661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.488|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.392|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.136|10.113|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/10 minus Olo 10|||10.113|-7.136|
90941940|NCT01040403|181763661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.262|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.386|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.35|11.875|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus Olo 10|||11.875|-5.350|
90941941|NCT01040403|181763661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.121|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.408|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.535|15.778|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus Olo 10|||15.778|-1.535|
90941942|NCT01040403|181763661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.774|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.423|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.91|10.458|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|||10.458|-6.910|
90941943|NCT01040403|181763661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.663|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.381|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.97|14.236|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|||14.236|-2.970|
90941944|NCT01040403|181763661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.859|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.403|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.786|12.504|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 2.5/10|||12.504|-4.786|
90941945|NCT01040403|181763662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.682|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.849|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.161|28.204|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/5 minus Olo 5|||28.204|9.161|
90941946|NCT01040403|181763662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.599|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.83|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.116|33.083|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus Olo 5|||33.083|14.116|
90941947|NCT01040403|181763662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|30.097|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.879|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.517|39.677|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus Olo 5|||39.677|20.517|
90941948|NCT01040403|181763662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.917|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.83|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.568|14.402|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|||14.402|-4.568|
90941949|NCT01040403|181763662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.415|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.907|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|21.05|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|||21.050|1.780|
90941950|NCT01040403|181763662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.498|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.866|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.057|16.053|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 2.5/5|||16.053|-3.057|
90941951|NCT01040403|181763662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.742|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.862|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.194|27.29|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/10 minus Olo 10|||27.290|8.194|
90941952|NCT01040403|181763662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.115|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.856|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.58|33.651|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus Olo 10|||33.651|14.580|
90941953|NCT01040403|181763662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.095|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.876|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.52|34.67|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus Olo 10|||34.670|15.520|
90972131|NCT01223703|181827019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|The analysis was done following an intention-to-treat approach by means of the unpaired student t test or Wilcoxon rank sum test as appropriated.||"null hypothesis is no difference n3 PUFA administration and placebo. To demonstrate an effect size of 0.5 in LVEF, a sample of 65 patients in each group was calculated to have 80% power to detect such 0.5 effect size with alpha=0.05 (2-tailed) at the Student t test.~for unpaired data."||||< 0.05
90941954|NCT01040403|181763662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.373|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.896|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.24|15.986|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|||15.986|-3.240|
90941955|NCT01040403|181763662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.353|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.845|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.161|16.866|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|||16.866|-2.161|
90941956|NCT01040403|181763662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.861|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.566|10.525|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 2.5/10|||10.525|-8.566|
90972132|NCT01223703|181827020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|The analysis was done following an intention-to-treat approach by means of the unpaired student t test or Wilcoxon rank sum test as appropriated.||||||< 0.05
90941957|NCT01040403|181763663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.853|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.36|10.699|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/5 minus Olo 5|||10.699|-8.360|
90941958|NCT01040403|181763663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.436|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.843|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.073|13.945|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus Olo 5|||13.945|-5.073|
90941959|NCT01040403|181763663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.189|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.887|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.407|14.785|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus Olo 5|||14.785|-4.407|
90941960|NCT01040403|181763663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.267|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.828|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.214|12.747|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|||12.747|-6.214|
90941961|NCT01040403|181763663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.904|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.61|13.65|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|||13.650|-5.610|
90941962|NCT01040403|181763663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.753|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.873|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.816|10.322|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 2.5/5|||10.322|-8.816|
90941963|NCT01040403|181763663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.986|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.876|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.589|12.561|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/10 minus Olo 10|||12.561|-6.589|
90941964|NCT01040403|181763663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.916|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.868|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.643|14.475|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus Olo 10|||14.475|-4.643|
90941965|NCT01040403|181763663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.432|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.882|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.154|17.019|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus Olo 10|||17.019|-2.154|
90941966|NCT01040403|181763663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.909|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.708|11.568|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|||11.568|-7.708|
90941967|NCT01040403|181763663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.446|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.854|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.085|13.978|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|||13.978|-5.085|
90972133|NCT02425826|181827039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-39.84|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.39|-25.3|||ANCOVA|Based on 2-way ANCOVA with treatment and site as factors and baseline value as covariate.||||-25.30|-54.39|<0.0001
90941968|NCT01040403|181763663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.517|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.87|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.046|12.079|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 2.5/10|||12.079|-7.046|
90941969|NCT01040403|181763667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.212|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.158|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.523|0.099|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/5 minus Olo 5|Week 1||0.099|-0.523|
90941970|NCT01040403|181763667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.319|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.634|-0.004|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus Olo 5|Week 1||-0.004|-0.634|
90941971|NCT01040403|181763667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.065|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.379|0.249|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus Olo 5|Week 1||0.249|-0.379|
90941972|NCT01040403|181763667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.107|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.159|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.206|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|Week 1||0.206|-0.420|
90941973|NCT01040403|181763667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.147|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.168|0.462|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|Week 1||0.462|-0.168|
90941974|NCT01040403|181763667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.255|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.161|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.062|0.571|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 2.5/5|Week 1||0.571|-0.062|
90941975|NCT01040403|181763667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.271|0.355|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/10 minus Olo 10|Week 1||0.355|-0.271|
90941976|NCT01040403|181763667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.251|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.159|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.564|0.062|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus Olo 10|Week 1||0.062|-0.564|
90941977|NCT01040403|181763667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.178|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.492|0.135|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus Olo 10|Week 1||0.135|-0.492|
90941978|NCT01040403|181763667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.293|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.162|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.611|0.024|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|Week 1||0.024|-0.611|
90941979|NCT01040403|181763667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.221|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.159|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.533|0.092|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|Week 1||0.092|-0.533|
90941980|NCT01040403|181763667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.073|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.242|0.388|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 2.5/10|Week 1||0.388|-0.242|
90941981|NCT01040403|181763667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.179|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.241|0.462|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/5 minus Olo 5|Week 4||0.462|-0.241|
90941982|NCT01040403|181763667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.092|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.445|0.261|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus Olo 5|Week 4||0.261|-0.445|
90941983|NCT01040403|181763667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.052|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.301|0.406|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus Olo 5|Week 4||0.406|-0.301|
90941984|NCT01040403|181763667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.202|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.179|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.555|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|Week 4||0.150|-0.555|
90941985|NCT01040403|181763667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.058|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.411|0.296|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|Week 4||0.296|-0.411|
90941986|NCT01040403|181763667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.144|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.179|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.208|0.496|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 2.5/5|Week 4||0.496|-0.208|
90941987|NCT01040403|181763667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.217|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.179|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.568|0.135|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/10 minus Olo 10|Week 4||0.135|-0.568|
90941988|NCT01040403|181763667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.363|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.179|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.714|-0.012|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus Olo 10|Week 4||-0.012|-0.714|
90941989|NCT01040403|181763667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.246|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.179|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.598|0.106|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus Olo 10|Week 4||0.106|-0.598|
90941990|NCT01040403|181763667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.146|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.182|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.503|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|Week 4||0.210|-0.503|
90941991|NCT01040403|181763667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.029|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.178|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.379|0.321|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|Week 4||0.321|-0.379|
90972134|NCT02425826|181827040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-2.5||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|-1.0|||ANCOVA|Based on 2-way ANCOVA with treatment and site as factors and baseline value as covariate.||||-1.0|-3.9|0.0008
90972135|NCT02425826|181827041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|21.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|31.1||Two-sided p-value is based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by sites.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CI) is based on normal approximation|||31.1|11.0|<0.0001
90972136|NCT02425826|181827042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|13.7||||0.0365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|25.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|2-sided p-value is calculated based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by sites.|Two-sided 95% CI is based on normal approximation|||25.7|1.7|0.0365
90972137|NCT02425826|181827043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-11.6||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.8|-4.5|||ANCOVA|Based on 2-way ANCOVA with treatment and site as factors and baseline value as covariate.||The treatment comparison was only done for Week 16; End of Phase||-4.5|-18.8|0.0016
91036164|NCT00318461|181959043|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 0.6 mg + metformin and glimepirde + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-2.73|||<|0.0001||95.0|-3.47|-2.0|||ANCOVA|||Change in body weight from baseline to end of treatment at 26 weeks was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline body weight as covariate.||-2.00|-3.47|<0.0001
91036165|NCT00318461|181959044|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg + metformin and placebo + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-1.11||||0.0378||95.0|-2.18|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||Change in body weight from baseline to end of treatment at 104 weeks was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline body weight as covariate.||-0.05|-2.18|0.0378
91036166|NCT00318461|181959044|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg + metformin and glimepiride + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-3.61|||<|0.0001||95.0|-4.51|-2.72|||ANCOVA|||Change in body weight from baseline to end of treatment at 104 weeks was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline body weight as covariate.||-2.72|-4.51|<0.0001
91036167|NCT00318461|181959044|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.2 mg + metformin and placebo + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-1.23||||0.0185||95.0|-2.3|-0.16|||ANCOVA|||Change in body weight from baseline to end of treatment at 104 weeks was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline body weight as covariate.||-0.16|-2.30|0.0185
91036168|NCT00318461|181959044|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.2 mg + metformin and glimepirde + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-3.73|||<|0.0001||95.0|-4.64|-2.83|||ANCOVA|||Change in body weight from baseline to end of treatment at 104 weeks was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline body weight as covariate.||-2.83|-4.64|<0.0001
91036169|NCT00318461|181959044|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 0.6 mg + metformin and placebo + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.27||||0.9069||95.0|-1.33|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Change in body weight from baseline to end of treatment at 104 weeks was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline body weight as covariate.||0.80|-1.33|0.9069
91050389|NCT04168190|181987005|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|5.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.53|11.91|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 6A||11.91|2.53|
90972138|NCT02425826|181827044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|11.8||||0.0463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|27.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p-value was based on 2-sided CMH tests stratified by sites.|Two-sided 95% CI is based on normal approximation.|||27.6|-4.0|0.0463
90972139|NCT02425826|181827045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|17.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.36|25.24|||ANOVA|Based on 2-way ANOVA with treatment and site as factors.||TSQM-Effectiveness||25.24|10.36|<0.0001
90972140|NCT02425826|181827045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|5.0||||0.3433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|15.4|||ANOVA|Based on 2-way ANOVA with treatment and site as factors.||TSQM - Side Effects||15.40|-5.40|0.3433
90972141|NCT02425826|181827045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.4||||0.625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.25|7.06|||ANOVA|Based on 2-way ANOVA with treatment and site as factors.||TSMQ-Convenience||7.06|-4.25|0.6250
90972142|NCT02425826|181827045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.16|20.97|||ANOVA|||TSQM-Global Satisfaction||20.97|7.16|<0.0001
90972143|NCT02425826|181827047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-37.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.08|-19.91|||ANCOVA|Based on 2-way ANCOVA with treatment and site as factors and baseline value as covariate||||-19.91|-54.08|<0.0001
90972144|NCT02425826|181827048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|29.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.3|41.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|2-sided p-value is calculated based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by sites.|Two-sided 95% CI is based on normal approximation|||41.8|16.3|<0.0001
91036170|NCT00318461|181959044|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 0.6 mg + metformin and glimepirde + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-2.77|||<|0.0001||95.0|-3.67|-1.87|||ANCOVA|||Change in body weight from baseline to end of treatment at 104 weeks was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline body weight as covariate.||-1.87|-3.67|<0.0001
91036171|NCT00318461|181959045|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg + metformin and placebo + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-2.09|||<|0.0001||95.0|-2.68|-1.5|||ANCOVA|||Change in fasting plasma glucose from baseline to end of treatment at 26 weeks was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline fasting plasma glucose as covariate.||-1.50|-2.68|<0.0001
90941992|NCT01040403|181763667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.117|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.235|0.47|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 2.5/10|Week 4||0.470|-0.235|
91036172|NCT00318461|181959045|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg + metformin and glimepiride + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.38||||0.1845||95.0|-0.87|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Change in fasting plasma glucose from baseline to end of treatment at 26 weeks was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline fasting plasma glucose as covariate.||0.11|-0.87|0.1845
90941993|NCT01040403|181763668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.014|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.223|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/5 minus Olo 5|Day 1||0.250|-0.223|
90941994|NCT01040403|181763668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.133|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.104|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus Olo 5|Day 1||0.104|-0.370|
90941995|NCT01040403|181763668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.039|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.122|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.278|0.199|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus Olo 5|Day 1||0.199|-0.278|
90941996|NCT01040403|181763668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.147|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.382|0.088|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|Day 1||0.088|-0.382|
90941997|NCT01040403|181763668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.053|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.291|0.186|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|Day 1||0.186|-0.291|
90941998|NCT01040403|181763668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.094|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.144|0.332|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 2.5/5|Day 1||0.332|-0.144|
90941999|NCT01040403|181763668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.282|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.519|-0.045|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/10 minus Olo 10|Day 1||-0.045|-0.519|
90942000|NCT01040403|181763668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.113|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.124|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus Olo 10|Day 1||0.124|-0.350|
91050390|NCT04168190|181987005|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|5.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.59|9.85|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 15A||9.85|2.59|
90942001|NCT01040403|181763668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.056|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.293|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus Olo 10|Day 1||0.180|-0.293|
90942002|NCT01040403|181763668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.169|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.069|0.408|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|Day 1||0.408|-0.069|
90942003|NCT01040403|181763668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.226|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.461|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|Day 1||0.461|-0.010|
90942004|NCT01040403|181763668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.057|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.293|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 2.5/10|Day 1||0.293|-0.180|
90942005|NCT01040403|181763668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.067|0.387|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/ minus Olo 5|Day 29||0.387|-0.067|
90942006|NCT01040403|181763668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.262|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.034|0.491|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus Olo 5|Day 29||0.491|0.034|
90942007|NCT01040403|181763668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.084|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.118|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.148|0.316|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus Olo 5|Day 29||0.316|-0.148|
90942008|NCT01040403|181763668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.102|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.115|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.124|0.328|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|Day 29||0.328|-0.124|
90942009|NCT01040403|181763668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.076|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.117|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.306|0.154|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|Day 29||0.154|-0.306|
90942010|NCT01040403|181763668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.178|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.117|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.408|0.052|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 2.5/5|Day 29||0.052|-0.408|
90942011|NCT01040403|181763668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.172|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.056|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/10 minus Olo 10|Day 29||0.400|-0.056|
90942012|NCT01040403|181763668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.057|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.171|0.285|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus Olo 10|Day 29||0.285|-0.171|
90972145|NCT02425826|181827049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|13.5||||0.0136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|22.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by sites.|2-sided 95% CI is based on normal approximation.|||22.7|4.4|0.0136
90972146|NCT02164981|181827093|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.04||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons, as there was only one primary outcome variable.|ANCOVA|||Given the sequential parallel comparison design (SPCD), we used a two-stage test (weighted z-test, Tamura approach: CHANGE\_score = BASELINE\_value + GROUP (i.e., SNP vs. placebo)) to combine the data on treatment effects from phases 1 and 2 (weighted equally). Assessments were on Day -1 (phase 1 baseline), Day 13 (phase 1 outcome, phase 2 baseline) and Day 28 (phase 2 outcome). Only participants who at least started the infusion were included in analysis (i.e., modified intent to treat).||||0.57
90972147|NCT02164981|181827093|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.09||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons, as there was only one primary outcome variable.|ANCOVA|||The same analysis as in Analysis 1 was conducted, except that CLOZAPINE (i.e., patient used clozapine vs. other antipsychotic) was added as a covariate.||||0.54
90972148|NCT02164981|181827094|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|||||Exploratory efficacy outcome, hence no adjustment for multiple comparison.|ANCOVA|||||||0.35
90972149|NCT02164981|181827094|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|||||Exploratory efficacy outcome, hence no adjustment for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|||||||0.37
90972150|NCT02164981|181827095|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.85|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.85
90972151|NCT02164981|181827095|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.88|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.88
90972152|NCT02164981|181827096|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.86|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.86
90972153|NCT02164981|181827096|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0.83|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.83
90972154|NCT02164981|181827102|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.12||||0.33|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.33
90972155|NCT02164981|181827102|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.34
90972156|NCT02164981|181827105|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.11||||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.34
90972157|NCT02164981|181827105|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.05||||0.36|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.36
90972158|NCT01662440|181827129|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response of accelerated schedule of the Rabies vaccine considered non-inferior to the conventional schedule if the lower bound of the two-sided 97.5% Confidence Intervals (CI) of the difference in the percentages of subjects with RVNA titer ≥0.5 IU/mL measured 7 days after last active vaccination is greater than -5.|Difference in percentages of subjects|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.8|2.8||||||To establish non-inferiority of the immune response of Rabies vaccine (administered concomitantly with JE vaccine) accelerated schedule as compared to conventional schedule at 7 days after last active vaccination.||2.8|-2.8|
90972159|NCT01662440|181827130|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response of accelerated schedule of the JE vaccine is considered non-inferior to the conventional schedule if the lower bound of the two-sided 97.5% CI of the difference in the percentages of subjects with PRNT50 titer ≥1:10 measured 28 days after last active vaccination is greater than -10.|Difference in percentages of subjects|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-4.8|7.9||||||Non-inferiority of the immune response of JE vaccine (administered concomitantly with Rabies vaccine) accelerated schedule as compared to conventional schedule at 28 day after last active vaccination||7.9|-4.8|
90972160|NCT01662440|181827131|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The conventional schedule of Rabies vaccine co-administered with JE vaccine considered non inferior to the conventional schedule of Rabies vaccine administered alone if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMCs measured 28 days after last active vaccination is greater than 0.667.|Between groups ratio of GMCs|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.32||||||Non-inferiority of the immune response of Rabies vaccine (administered concomitantly with JE vaccine) as compared to Rabies vaccines (administered alone) as given according to conventional schedule at 28day after last active vaccination||1.32|0.86|
91050391|NCT04168190|181987005|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|8.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.55|17.5|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 15A||17.50|4.55|
90972161|NCT01662440|181827132|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The conventional schedule of JE vaccine co-administered with Rabies vaccine considered non inferior to the conventional schedule of JE vaccine administered alone if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs measured 28 days after last active vaccination is greater than 0.5.|Ratio of GMTs|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.13||||||Non-inferiority of the immune response of JE vaccine (administered concomitantly with Rabies vaccine) as compared to JE vaccine (administered alone) as given according to conventional schedule at day 28 after last active vaccination.||1.13|0.68|
90972162|NCT01662440|181827133|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response of accelerated schedule of the Rabies vaccine is considered non-inferior to the Rabies vaccine conventional schedule if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI of the difference in the percentages of subjects with RVNA titer ≥0.5 IU/mL measured 28 days after last active vaccine administration is greater than -5.|Difference in percentages of subjects|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|1.4||||||Non-inferiority of the Rabies immune response (administered concomitantly with JE vaccine) as given according to an accelerated schedule as compared Rabies vaccine (administered alone) as given to a conventional schedule at day 28 after last active vaccination||1.4|-3.8|
91050392|NCT04168190|181987005|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.38|8.15|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 15C||8.15|2.38|
90972163|NCT01662440|181827134|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response of accelerated schedule of the JE vaccine considered non-inferior to the conventional schedule if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI of the difference in the percentages of subjects with PRNT50 titer ≥1:10 measured 7 days after last active vaccine administration is greater than -10.|Difference in percentages of subjects|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|6.2||||||Non-inferiority of the immune response of JE vaccine (administered concomitantly with Rabies vaccine) as given according to an accelerated schedule as compared to JE vaccine (administered alone) as given according to a conventional schedule at 7day after last active vaccine administration.||6.2|-4.1|
90972164|NCT01765673|181827148|OTHER|||||||0.218|||||||paired t test|||||||0.218
90942013|NCT01040403|181763668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.346|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus Olo 10|Day 29||0.346|-0.110|
90942014|NCT01040403|181763668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.115|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.117|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.345|0.115|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|Day 29||0.115|-0.345|
90942015|NCT01040403|181763668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.054|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.281|0.173|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|Day 29||0.173|-0.281|
90942016|NCT01040403|181763668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.061|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.166|0.289|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 2.5/10|Day 29||0.289|-0.166|
90942017|NCT01040403|181763669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.222|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.132|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.481|0.037|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/5 minus Olo 5|||0.037|-0.481|
90942018|NCT01040403|181763669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.441|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.132|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.182|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus Olo 5|||-0.182|-0.700|
90942019|NCT01040403|181763669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.149|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.133|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.409|0.111|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus Olo 5|||0.111|-0.409|
90942020|NCT01040403|181763669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.219|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.132|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.478|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|||0.040|-0.478|
90942021|NCT01040403|181763669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.073|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.133|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.189|0.335|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|||0.335|-0.189|
90942022|NCT01040403|181763669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.292|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.133|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.031|0.553|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 2.5/5|||0.553|0.031|
90942023|NCT01040403|181763669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.382|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.132|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.641|-0.123|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/10 minus Olo 10|||-0.123|-0.641|
90942024|NCT01040403|181763669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.132|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.132|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.127|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus Olo 10|||0.127|-0.390|
90942025|NCT01040403|181763669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.326|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.132|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.585|-0.067|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus Olo 10|||-0.067|-0.585|
91050393|NCT04168190|181987005|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|4.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.64|9.16|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 15C||9.16|2.64|
90942026|NCT01040403|181763669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.133|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.511|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|||0.511|-0.010|
90942027|NCT01040403|181763669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.056|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.132|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.202|0.314|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|||0.314|-0.202|
90942028|NCT01040403|181763669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.194|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.132|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.453|0.065|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 2.5/10|||0.065|-0.453|
90942029|NCT05694533|181763672|OTHER|Descriptive only.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.76|0.92||||A random effects model was used to calculate the confidence interval.|Day 15/Day 1|The comparison is between Midazolam on Day 15 and Midazolam on Day 1.||0.92|0.76|
90942030|NCT05694533|181763672|OTHER|Descriptive only.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|0.93||||A random effects model was used to calculate the confidence interval.|Day 15/Day 1|The comparison is between 1-hydroxymidazolam on Day 15 and 1-hydroxymidazolam on Day 1.||0.93|0.69|
90942031|NCT05694533|181763673|OTHER|Descriptive only.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.78|0.92||||A random effects model was used to calculate the confidence interval.|Day 15/Day 1|The comparison is between Midazolam on Day 15 and Midazolam on Day 1.||0.92|0.78|
90942032|NCT05694533|181763673|OTHER|Descriptive only.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.74|0.89||||A random effects model was used to calculate the confidence interval.|Day 15/Day 1|The comparison is between 1-hydroxymidazolam on Day 15 and 1-hydroxymidazolam on Day 1.||0.89|0.74|
90942033|NCT05694533|181763674|OTHER|Descriptive only.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.78|0.91||||A random effects model was used to calculate the confidence interval.|Day 15/Day 1|The comparison is between Midazolam on Day 15 and Midazolam on Day 1.||0.91|0.78|
90942034|NCT05694533|181763674|OTHER|Descriptive only.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.78|0.97||||A random effects model was used to calculate the confidence interval.|Day 15/Day 1|The comparison is between 1-hydroxymidazolam on Day 15 and 1-hydroxymidazolam on Day 1.||0.97|0.78|
90942035|NCT01983553|181763681|OTHER|Relative risk analysis of the event rate per 100 participants during Year 1 to Year 4 for Any of the 4 Serotypes between the CYD Dengue vaccine group and the Control group.|Relative Risk|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.36|||||The 95% confidence interval of the relative risk was calculated using the Exact method described by Breslow and Day.|Relative risk; Any of the 4 Serotypes||1.36|0.64|
90972165|NCT01765673|181827149|OTHER|||||||0.017|||||||paired t test|||||||0.017
90972166|NCT01765673|181827150|OTHER|||||||0.022|||||||paired t test|||||||0.022
90972167|NCT01765673|181827151|OTHER|||||||0.719|||||||paired t test|||||||0.719
90972168|NCT01765673|181827152|OTHER|||||||0.418|||||||paired t test|||||||0.418
90972169|NCT01765673|181827153|OTHER|||||||0.038|||||||paired t test|||||||0.038
90972170|NCT01765673|181827154|OTHER|||||||0.086|||||||paired t test|||||||0.086
90972171|NCT01765673|181827155|OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||paired t test|||||||0.16
90972172|NCT01765673|181827156|OTHER|||||||0.052|||||||paired t test|||||||0.052
90972173|NCT01765673|181827157|OTHER|||||||0.827|||||||paired t test|||||||0.827
90972174|NCT01765673|181827158|OTHER|||||||0.088|||||||paired t test|||||||0.088
91036173|NCT00318461|181959045|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.2 mg + metformin and placebo + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-2.04|||<|0.0001||95.0|-2.63|-1.44|||ANCOVA|||Change in fasting plasma glucose from baseline to end of treatment at 26 weeks was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline fasting plasma glucose as covariate.||-1.44|-2.63|<0.0001
90972175|NCT01765673|181827159|OTHER|||||||0.152|||||||paired t test|||||||0.152
90972176|NCT01765673|181827160|OTHER|||||||0.229|||||||paired t test|||||||0.229
90972177|NCT01765673|181827161|OTHER|||||||0.121|||||||paired t test|||||||0.121
90972178|NCT01765673|181827162|OTHER|||||||0.239|||||||paired t test|||||||0.239
90972179|NCT01765673|181827163|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||paired t test|||||||0.03
90972180|NCT01765673|181827164|OTHER|||||||0.067|||||||paired t test|||||||0.067
90972181|NCT01765673|181827165|OTHER|||||||0.396|||||||paired t test|||||||0.396
90972182|NCT01765673|181827166|OTHER|||||||0.373|||||||paired t test|||||||0.373
90972183|NCT01765673|181827167|OTHER|||||||0.744|||||||paired t test|||||||0.744
90972184|NCT02600507|181827168|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.42|-0.37|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-0.37|-4.42|0.021
90972185|NCT02600507|181827168|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.01||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.65|0.32|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.32|-3.65|0.099
90972186|NCT02600507|181827169|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.09|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-0.09|-0.59|0.008
90972187|NCT02600507|181827169|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.01|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-0.01|-0.50|0.040
90972188|NCT05048719|181827190|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.40|-1.13|<0.001
90972189|NCT05048719|181827190|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|-1.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.12|-1.85|<0.001
90972190|NCT05048719|181827190|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|-0.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.98|-1.75|<0.001
90972191|NCT05048719|181827190|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|-1.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.25|-1.96|<0.001
90972192|NCT05048719|181827190|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|-1.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.32|-2.02|<0.001
90972193|NCT05048719|181827191|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.09||||0.626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.28|-0.47|0.626
90972194|NCT05048719|181827191|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|-0.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.44|-1.18|<0.001
90972195|NCT05048719|181827191|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.30|-1.08|<0.001
90972196|NCT05048719|181827191|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|-0.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.57|-1.29|<0.001
90972197|NCT05048719|181827191|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|-0.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.64|-1.36|<0.001
90972198|NCT05048719|181827192|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.21|20.75|||Regression, Logistic|||||20.75|2.21|<0.001
90972199|NCT05048719|181827192|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|34.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.92|117.16|||Regression, Logistic|||||117.16|9.92|<0.001
90972200|NCT05048719|181827192|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|48.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.9|196.24|||Regression, Logistic|||||196.24|11.90|<0.001
90972201|NCT05048719|181827192|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|45.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.61|153.64|||Regression, Logistic|||||153.64|13.61|<0.001
90972202|NCT05048719|181827192|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|77.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.26|294.48|||Regression, Logistic|||||294.48|20.26|<0.001
90972203|NCT05048719|181827192|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|3.13|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.13|0.48|0.678
90972204|NCT05048719|181827192|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.19|17.24|||Regression, Logistic|||||17.24|2.19|<0.001
90972205|NCT05048719|181827192|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.55|29.79|||Regression, Logistic|||||29.79|2.55|<0.001
90972206|NCT05048719|181827192|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.05|22.3|||Regression, Logistic|||||22.30|3.05|<0.001
90972207|NCT05048719|181827192|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.51|43.01|||Regression, Logistic|||||43.01|4.51|<0.001
90972208|NCT05048719|181827193|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.93|22.9|||Regression, Logistic|||||22.90|2.93|<0.001
90972209|NCT05048719|181827193|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|25.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.57|82.69|||Regression, Logistic|||||82.69|7.57|<0.001
90972210|NCT05048719|181827193|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|62.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.26|316.63|||Regression, Logistic|||||316.63|12.26|<0.001
90972211|NCT05048719|181827193|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|67.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.56|259.97|||Regression, Logistic|||||259.97|17.56|<0.001
90972212|NCT05048719|181827193|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|129.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.72|628.09|||Regression, Logistic|||||628.09|26.72|<0.001
90972213|NCT05048719|181827193|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|2.96|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.96|0.43|0.802
90972214|NCT05048719|181827193|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.46||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|10.31|||Regression, Logistic|||||10.31|1.16|0.026
90972215|NCT05048719|181827193|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.61||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.83|40.51|||Regression, Logistic|||||40.51|1.83|0.006
90972216|NCT05048719|181827193|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.67|32.71|||Regression, Logistic|||||32.71|2.67|<0.001
90972217|NCT05048719|181827193|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|17.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.02|79.7|||Regression, Logistic|||||79.70|4.02|<0.001
90972218|NCT05048719|181827194|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-21.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.7|-10.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-10.3|-32.7|<0.001
90972219|NCT05048719|181827194|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-42.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.4|-31.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-31.7|-53.4|<0.001
90972220|NCT05048719|181827194|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-41.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.7|-29.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-29.3|-52.7|<0.001
90972221|NCT05048719|181827194|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-42.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.5|-32.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-32.0|-53.5|<0.001
91036174|NCT00318461|181959045|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.2 mg + metformin and glimepirde + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.33||||0.3047||95.0|-0.82|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Change in fasting plasma glucose from baseline to end of treatment at 26 weeks was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline fasting plasma glucose t as covariate.||0.17|-0.82|0.3047
91036175|NCT00318461|181959045|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 0.6 mg + metformin and placebo + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-1.53|||<|0.0001||95.0|-2.12|-0.94|||ANCOVA|||Change in fasting plasma glucose from baseline to end of treatment at 26 weeks was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline fasting plasma glucose as covariate.||-0.94|-2.12|<0.0001
91050394|NCT04168190|181987005|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|3.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.97|5.91|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 16F||5.91|1.97|
90972222|NCT05048719|181827194|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-44.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.3|-34.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-34.2|-55.3|<0.001
90972223|NCT05048719|181827194|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|11.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.8|-10.6|<0.001
90972224|NCT05048719|181827194|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-20.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.4|-9.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-9.5|-31.4|<0.001
90972225|NCT05048719|181827194|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-19.0||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.7|-7.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-7.2|-30.7|0.002
90972226|NCT05048719|181827194|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-20.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.4|-9.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-9.9|-31.4|<0.001
90972227|NCT05048719|181827194|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-22.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.2|-12.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-12.1|-33.2|<0.001
90972228|NCT05048719|181827195|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.6||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.6|-3.7|0.153
90972229|NCT05048719|181827195|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|-2.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.2|-6.4|<0.001
90972230|NCT05048719|181827195|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|-5.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.3|-9.8|<0.001
90972231|NCT05048719|181827195|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|-5.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.3|-9.4|<0.001
90972232|NCT05048719|181827195|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|-5.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.9|-9.9|<0.001
90972233|NCT05048719|181827195|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.3|-2.0|0.914
90972234|NCT05048719|181827195|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.6||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|-0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.5|-4.7|0.015
90972235|NCT05048719|181827195|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|-3.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.6|-8.1|<0.001
90972236|NCT05048719|181827195|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|-3.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.6|-7.8|<0.001
90972237|NCT05048719|181827195|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|-4.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.2|-8.3|<0.001
90972238|NCT02025426|181827213|OTHER|||||||0.547|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.547
90972239|NCT02025426|181827215|OTHER|||||||0.925|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.925
90972240|NCT02025426|181827216|OTHER|||||||0.498|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.498
90972241|NCT02025426|181827217|OTHER|||||||0.201|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.201
90972242|NCT02025426|181827218|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
90972243|NCT02025426|181827219|OTHER|||||||0.962|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.962
90972244|NCT02025426|181827220|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
90972245|NCT04999267|181827221|OTHER|Pre-intervention vs. Post-intervention analysis|||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
90972246|NCT04999267|181827222|OTHER|Pre-intervention vs. Post-intervention analysis|||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<.0001
90972247|NCT01262365|181827224|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.307|||=|0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.888|1.923|||Regression, Logistic|p-values have been calculated using logistic regression with factors for treatment, region, and baseline disease status.||Odds Ratio: Epratuzumab/Placebo calculated using logistic regression with factors for treatment, region, and baseline disease status.||1.923|0.888|=0.175
91050395|NCT04168190|181987005|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|6.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.78|11.45|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 16F||11.45|3.78|
90942036|NCT01983553|181763681|OTHER|Relative risk analysis of the event rate per 100 participants during Year 1 to Year 4 for Serotype 1 between the CYD Dengue vaccine group and the Control group.|Relative Risk|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|2.21|||||The 95% confidence interval of the relative risk was calculated using the Exact method described by Breslow and Day.|Relative risk; Serotype 1||2.21|0.44|
90942037|NCT01983553|181763681|OTHER|Relative risk analysis of the event rate per 100 participants during Year 1 to Year 4 for Serotype 2 between the CYD Dengue vaccine group and the Control group.|Relative Risk|1.326|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|2.94|||||The 95% confidence interval of the relative risk was calculated using the Exact method described by Breslow and Day.|Relative risk; Serotype 2||2.94|0.64|
90942038|NCT01983553|181763681|OTHER|Relative risk analysis of the event rate per 100 participants during Year 1 to Year 4 for Serotype 3 between the CYD Dengue vaccine group and the Control group.|Relative Risk|1.056|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|2.51|||||The 95% confidence interval of the relative risk was calculated using the Exact method described by Breslow and Day.|Relative risk; Serotype 3||2.51|0.48|
90942039|NCT01983553|181763681|OTHER|Relative risk analysis of the event rate per 100 participants during Year 1 to Year 4 for Serotype 4 between the CYD Dengue vaccine group and the Control group.|Relative Risk|0.629|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.47|||||The 95% confidence interval of the relative risk was calculated using the Exact method described by Breslow and Day.|Relative risk; Serotype 4||1.47|0.27|
90942040|NCT01983553|181763681|OTHER|Relative risk analysis of the event rate per 100 participants during Year 1 to Year 4 for Unserotyped between the CYD Dengue vaccine group and the Control group.|Relative Risk|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.22|||||The 95% confidence interval of the relative risk was calculated using the Exact method described by Breslow and Day.|Relative risk; Unserotyped||1.22|0.00|
90942041|NCT01983553|181763684|OTHER|Relative risk analysis of the event rate per 100 participants during Year 1 to Year 4 for Any of the 4 Serotypes (4 to 5 years) between the CYD Dengue vaccine group and the Control group. Total number of participants analyzed were 585 instead of 3203.|Relative Risk|1.411|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|3.42|||||The 95% confidence interval of the relative risk was calculated using the Exact method described by Breslow and Day.|Relative Risk; 4 to 5 years; Any Serotype||3.42|0.64|
90942042|NCT01983553|181763684|OTHER|Relative risk analysis of the event rate per 100 participants during Year 1 to Year 4 for Any of the 4 Serotypes (6 to 11 years) between the CYD Dengue vaccine group and the Control group. Total number of participants analyzed were 2618 instead of 3203.|Relative Risk|0.807|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.25|||||The 95% confidence interval of the relative risk was calculated using the Exact method described by Breslow and Day.|Relative Risk; 6 to 11 years; Any Serotype||1.25|0.53|
90942043|NCT01983553|181763684|OTHER|Relative risk analysis of the event rate per 100 participants during Year 1 to Year 4 for Serotype 1 (4 to 5 years) between the CYD Dengue vaccine group and the Control group. Total number of participants analyzed were 585 instead of 3203.|Relative Risk|4.885|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|212.02|||||The 95% confidence interval of the relative risk was calculated using the Exact method described by Breslow and Day.|Relative Risk; 4 to 5 years; Serotype 1||212.02|0.70|
90942044|NCT01983553|181763684|OTHER|Relative risk analysis of the event rate per 100 participants during Year 1 to Year 4 for Serotype 1 (6 to 11 years) between the CYD Dengue vaccine group and the Control group. Total number of participants analyzed were 2618 instead of 3203.|Relative Risk|0.557|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.46|||||The 95% confidence interval of the relative risk was calculated using the Exact method described by Breslow and Day.|Relative Risk; 6 to 11 years; Serotype 1||1.46|0.21|
90942045|NCT01983553|181763684|OTHER|Relative risk analysis of the event rate per 100 participants during Year 1 to Year 4 for Serotype 2 (4 to 5 years) between the CYD Dengue vaccine group and the Control group. Total number of participants analyzed were 585 instead of 3203.|Relative Risk|2.931|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|134.83|||||The 95% confidence interval of the relative risk was calculated using the Exact method described by Breslow and Day.|Relative Risk; 4 to 5 years; Serotype 2||134.83|0.36|
90942046|NCT01983553|181763684|OTHER|Relative risk analysis of the event rate per 100 participants during Year 1 to Year 4 for Serotype 2 (6 to 11 years) between the CYD Dengue vaccine group and the Control group. Total number of participants analyzed were 2618 instead of 3203.|Relative Risk|1.165|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|2.74|||||The 95% confidence interval of the relative risk was calculated using the Exact method described by Breslow and Day.|Relative Risk; 6 to 11 years; Serotype 2||2.74|0.53|
90942047|NCT01983553|181763684|OTHER|Relative risk analysis of the event rate per 100 participants at Year 1 for Serotype 3 (4 to 5 year) between the CYD Dengue vaccine group and the Control group. Total number of participants analyzed were 585 instead of 3203.|Relative Risk|1.221|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|12.83|||||The 95% confidence interval of the relative risk was calculated using the Exact method described by Breslow and Day.|Relative Risk; 4 to 5 years; Serotype 3||12.83|0.20|
90942048|NCT01983553|181763684|OTHER|Relative risk analysis of the event rate per 100 participants during Year 1 to Year 4 for Serotype 3 (6 to 11 years) between the CYD Dengue vaccine group and the Control group. Total number of participants analyzed were 2618 instead of 3203.|Relative Risk|1.013|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|2.73|||||The 95% confidence interval of the relative risk was calculated using the Exact method described by Breslow and Day.|Relative Risk; 6 to 11 years; Serotype 3||2.73|0.41|
90972248|NCT01262365|181827224|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.164|||=|0.442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.714|||Regression, Logistic|p-values have been calculated using logistic regression with factors for treatment, region, and baseline disease status.||Odds Ratio: Epratuzumab/Placebo calculated using logistic regression with factors for treatment, region, and baseline disease status.||1.714|0.790|=0.442
90972249|NCT01008280|181827261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wald Chi-squared|||This was an intent to treat analysis where Generalized Estimating Equations, using the Negative Binomial function, were used to test for group, time, and group by time effects for drinks, drinking days, and heavy drinking days. This analysis assessed time effects for the number of drinking days.||||<0.01
90972250|NCT01008280|181827261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wald Chi-Squared|||This was an intent to treat analysis where Generalized Estimating Equations, using the Negative Binomial function, were used to test for group, time, and group by time effects for drinks, drinking days, and heavy drinking days. This analysis assessed group effects for the number of drinking days.||||>0.01
90972251|NCT01008280|181827261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wald Chi-Squared|||This was an intent to treat analysis where Generalized Estimating Equations, using the Negative Binomial function, were used to test for group, time, and group by time effects for drinks, drinking days, and heavy drinking days. This analysis assessed time by group effects for the number of drinking days.||||>0.01
90942049|NCT01983553|181763684|OTHER|Relative risk analysis of the event rate per 100 participants during Year 1 to Year 4 for Serotype 4 (4 to 5 years) between the CYD Dengue vaccine group and the Control group. Total number of participants analyzed were 585 instead of 3203.|Relative Risk|0.977|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|6.04|||||The 95% confidence interval of the relative risk was calculated using the Exact method described by Breslow and Day.|Relative Risk; 4 to 5 years; Serotype 4||6.04|0.21|
90942050|NCT01983553|181763684|OTHER|Relative risk analysis of the event rate per 100 participants during Year 1 to Year 4 for Serotype 4 (6 to 11 years) between the CYD Dengue vaccine group and the Control group. Total number of participants analyzed were 2618 instead of 3203.|Relative Risk|0.506|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.44|||||The 95% confidence interval of the relative risk was calculated using the Exact method described by Breslow and Day.|Relative Risk; 6 to 11 years; Serotype 4||1.44|0.18|
90942051|NCT01983553|181763684|OTHER|Relative risk analysis of the event rate per 100 participants during Year 1 to Year 4 for Unserotyped (4 to 5 years) between the CYD Dengue vaccine group and the Control group. Total number of participants analyzed were 585 instead of 3203.|Relative Risk|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.6|||||The 95% confidence interval of the relative risk was calculated using the Exact method described by Breslow and Day.|Relative Risk; 4 to 5 years; Unserotyped||2.60|0.00|
90942052|NCT01983553|181763684|OTHER|Relative risk analysis of the event rate per 100 participants during Year 1 to Year 4 for Unserotyped (6 to 11 years) between the CYD Dengue vaccine group and the Control group. Total number of participants analyzed were 2618 instead of 3203.|Relative Risk|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|19.75|||||The 95% confidence interval of the relative risk was calculated using the Exact method described by Breslow and Day.|Relative Risk; 6 to 11 years; Unserotyped||19.75|0.00|
90942053|NCT01983553|181763692|OTHER|Relative risk analysis of the event rate per 100 participants during Year 1 to Year 4 for Any of the 4 Serotypes; Any grade between the CYD Dengue vaccine group and the Control group.|Relative Risk|1.174|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|7.03|||||The 95% confidence interval of the relative risk was calculated using the Exact method described by Breslow and Day.|Relative Risk; Any serotype; Any grade||7.03|0.27|
90942054|NCT01983553|181763692|OTHER|Relative risk analysis of the event rate per 100 participants during Year 1 to Year 4 for Any of the 4 Serotypes; Grade I between the CYD Dengue vaccine group and the Control group.|Relative Risk|0.252|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|4.83|||||The 95% confidence interval of the relative risk was calculated using the Exact method described by Breslow and Day.|Relative Risk; Any serotype; Grade I||4.83|0.00|
90942055|NCT01983553|181763692|OTHER|Relative risk analysis of the event rate per 100 participants during Year 1 to Year 4 for Any of the 4 Serotypes Grade II between the CYD Dengue vaccine group and the Control group.|Relative Risk|2.012|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|99.1|||||The 95% confidence interval of the relative risk was calculated using the Exact method described by Breslow and Day.|Relative Risk; Any serotype; Grade II||99.10|0.20|
90942056|NCT01983553|181763692|OTHER|Relative risk analysis of the event rate per 100 participants during Year 1 to Year 4 for Serotype 2 Any grade between the CYD Dengue vaccine group and the Control group.|Relative Risk|0.503|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|39.49|||||The 95% confidence interval of the relative risk was calculated using the Exact method described by Breslow and Day.|Relative Risk; Serotype 2; Any grade||39.49|0.01|
90942057|NCT01983553|181763692|OTHER|Relative risk analysis of the event rate per 100 participants during Year 1 to Year 4 for Serotype 2 Grade I between the CYD Dengue vaccine group and the Control group.|Relative Risk|0.503|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|39.49|||||The 95% confidence interval of the relative risk was calculated using the Exact method described by Breslow and Day.|Relative Risk; Serotype 2; Grade I||39.49|0.01|
90942058|NCT01983553|181763692|OTHER|Relative risk analysis of the event rate per 100 participants during Year 1 to Year 4 for Serotype 4 Any grade between the CYD Dengue vaccine group and the Control group.|Relative Risk|0.252|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|4.83|||||The 95% confidence interval of the relative risk was calculated using the Exact method described by Breslow and Day.|Relative Risk; Serotype 4; Any grade||4.83|0.00|
90942059|NCT01983553|181763692|OTHER|Relative risk analysis of the event rate per 100 participants during Year 1 to Year 4 for Serotype 4 Grade I between the CYD Dengue vaccine group and the Control group.|Relative Risk|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|19.62|||||The 95% confidence interval of the relative risk was calculated using the Exact method described by Breslow and Day.|Relative Risk; Serotype 4; Grade I||19.62|0.00|
90942060|NCT01983553|181763692|OTHER|Relative risk analysis of the event rate per 100 participants during Year 1 to Year 4 for Serotype 4 Grade II between the CYD Dengue vaccine group and the Control group.|Relative Risk|0.503|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|39.49|||||The 95% confidence interval of the relative risk was calculated using the Exact method described by Breslow and Day.|Relative Risk; Serotype 4; Grade II||39.49|0.01|
90942061|NCT00594178|181763695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-250.8||||0.318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-778.87|277.21|||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired samples T-test was used to assess the statisical changes between baseline and post-exercise lean muscle mass.||277.21|-778.87|.318
90942062|NCT00594178|181763696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0645||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01827|0.11073|||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired samples T-test was used to assess the statisical changes between baseline and post-exercise bone density.||.11073|.01827|.011
90972252|NCT01008280|181827262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wald Chi-Squared|||This was an intent to treat analysis where Generalized Estimating Equations, using the Negative Binomial function, were used to test for group, time, and group by time effects for drinks, drinking days, and heavy drinking days. This analysis assessed time effects for the number of drinks.||||<0.01
90972253|NCT01008280|181827262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wald Chi-Squared|||This was an intent to treat analysis where Generalized Estimating Equations, using the Negative Binomial function, were used to test for group, time, and group by time effects for drinks, drinking days, and heavy drinking days. This analysis assessed group effects for the number of drinks.||||>0.01
90972254|NCT01008280|181827262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wald Chi-Squared|||This was an intent to treat analysis where Generalized Estimating Equations, using the Negative Binomial function, were used to test for group, time, and group by time effects for drinks, drinking days, and heavy drinking days. This analysis assessed group by time effects for the number of drinks.||||>0.01
90942063|NCT05215418|181763697|OTHER|If the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the between-treatment group difference (VI-0521 minus placebo or phentermine) in change from baseline in 24-hr mean SBP was less than 3 mmHg, success for a non-inferiority test was claimed and the null hypothesis was rejected. If the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval was less than 0 mmHg, superiority was claimed.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
91036176|NCT00318461|181959045|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 0.6 mg + metformin and glimepirde + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|0.18||||0.8079||95.0|-0.32|0.67|||ANCOVA|||Change in fasting plasma glucose from baseline to end of treatment at 26 weeks was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline fasting plasma glucose as covariate.||0.67|-0.32|0.8079
91036177|NCT00318461|181959046|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg + metformin and placebo + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-1.93|||<|0.0001||95.0|-2.58|-1.28|||ANCOVA|||Change in fasting plasma glucose from baseline to end of treatment at 104 weeks was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline fasting plasma glucose as covariate.||-1.28|-2.58|<0.0001
91036178|NCT00318461|181959046|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg + metformin and glimepiride + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.53||||0.0542||95.0|-1.08|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Change in fasting plasma glucose from baseline to end of treatment at 104 weeks was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline fasting plasma glucose as covariate.||0.01|-1.08|0.0542
91036179|NCT00318461|181959046|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.2 mg + metformin and placebo + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-1.95|||<|0.0001||95.0|-2.6|-1.3|||ANCOVA|||Change in fasting plasma glucose from baseline to end of treatment at 104 weeks was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline fasting plasma glucose as covariate.||-1.30|-2.60|<0.0001
90972255|NCT01008280|181827263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wald Chi-Squared|||This was an intent to treat analysis where Generalized Estimating Equations, using the Negative Binomial function, were used to test for group, time, and group by time effects for drinks, drinking days, and heavy drinking days. This analysis assessed time effects for the number of heavy drinking days.||||<0.01
90972256|NCT01008280|181827263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wald Chi-Squared|||This was an intent to treat analysis where Generalized Estimating Equations, using the Negative Binomial function, were used to test for group, time, and group by time effects for drinks, drinking days, and heavy drinking days. This analysis assessed group effects for the number of heavy drinking days.||||>0.01
90972257|NCT01008280|181827263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wald Chi-Squared|||This was an intent to treat analysis where Generalized Estimating Equations, using the Negative Binomial function, were used to test for group, time, and group by time effects for drinks, drinking days, and heavy drinking days. This analysis assessed group by time effects for the number of heavy drinking days.||||>0.01
90972258|NCT02354703|181827264|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94||||||a priori significance P\<0.05|Kruskal-Wallis|adjusted for baseline value||||||0.94
90972259|NCT02354703|181827265|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||a priori significance is P\<0.05|Chi-squared|adjusted for baseline value||||||1.00
90972260|NCT02354703|181827266|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73||||||a priori threshold is P\<0.05|Kruskal-Wallis|adjusted for baseline value||||||0.73
90972261|NCT00122135|181827273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.77
91050396|NCT04168190|181987005|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|9.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.35|20.4|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 23A||20.40|4.35|
91050397|NCT04168190|181987005|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|9.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.34|20.62|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 23A||20.62|4.34|
90972262|NCT04681170|181827274|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-53.91|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.859|-45.9612|||t-test, 1 sided|||This was a single-arm study, no comparative group can be assigned; the comparison made for the primary efficacy endpoint is done only between baseline and Week 24 in paediatric subjects (5 to ≤17 years of age). Analysis was made using the one-sample t-test to test the null hypothesis that the percentage change from Baseline was equal to zero against the alternative hypothesis that the percentage change from Baseline was not equal to zero.||-45.9612|-61.8590|<0.0001
90972263|NCT01394081|181827296|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||<.0001
90972264|NCT01394081|181827297|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|log rank Mantel Cox χ2 = 25.4||||||<.0001
90972265|NCT03806127|181827348|OTHER||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) Difference|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.1|12.3|||||Difference in proportion and corresponding confidence interval were calculated using the CMH risk difference estimate stratified by randomized Baseline abdominal pain (\< 6 versus ≥ 6) strata, with weights proposed by Greenland and Robins.|||12.3|-16.1|
90972266|NCT03806127|181827349|OTHER||CMH Difference|9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.8|22.9|||||Difference in proportion and corresponding confidence interval were calculated using the CMH risk difference estimate stratified by randomized Baseline abdominal pain (\< 6 versus \>= 6) strata, with weights proposed by Greenland and Robins.|IBS-D Participants||22.9|-4.8|
90972267|NCT03806127|181827349|OTHER||CMH Difference|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.7|16.4|||||Difference in proportion and corresponding confidence interval were calculated using the CMH risk difference estimate stratified by randomized Baseline abdominal pain (\< 6 versus \>= 6) strata, with weights proposed by Greenland and Robins.|IBS-M Participants||16.4|-16.7|
90972268|NCT03806127|181827349|OTHER||CMH Difference|5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.4|15.9|||||Difference in proportion and corresponding confidence interval were calculated using the CMH risk difference estimate stratified by randomized Baseline abdominal pain (\< 6 versus \>= 6) strata, with weights proposed by Greenland and Robins.|All Participants||15.9|-5.4|
90972269|NCT03806127|181827350|OTHER||CMH Difference|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.7|14.9|||||Difference in proportion and corresponding confidence interval were calculated using the CMH risk difference estimate stratified by randomized Baseline abdominal pain (\< 6 versus \>= 6) strata, with weights proposed by Greenland and Robins.|||14.9|-11.7|
90972270|NCT03806127|181827351|OTHER||CMH Difference|6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.5|18.8|||||Difference in proportion and corresponding confidence interval were calculated using the CMH risk difference estimate stratified by randomized Baseline abdominal pain (\< 6 versus ≥ 6) strata, with weights proposed by Greenland and Robins.|||18.8|-5.5|
90972271|NCT02163434|181827358|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.01
90972272|NCT02163434|181827359|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.005
90972273|NCT02163434|181827360|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.01
90972274|NCT02163434|181827362|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.03
90972275|NCT02163434|181827363|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.06
90972276|NCT01289015|181827380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||p-value|0.001|||<|0.025||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH test statistic after stratification was used to compare subjects with complete cure between NAFT-600 and placebo.||"In order to compare complete cure rate in the NAFT-600 group with that of the placebo group, the following one-sided hypothesis test was carried out:~H0 (null): p1\<=p0 versus Ha (alternate): p1\>p0, where p0 and p1 are the proportions of subjects with complete cure in the proportions of subjects with complete cure in the placebo and NAFT-600 treatment groups respectively."||||<0.025
90972277|NCT05726318|181827386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.78
90972278|NCT05726318|181827388|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.78
90972279|NCT05726318|181827389|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.68
90972280|NCT05726318|181827391|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.78
90972281|NCT05726318|181827392|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.13
90972282|NCT04302727|181827393|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.43
90972283|NCT04302727|181827393|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.37||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|1.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Fully adjusted model||1.93|-1.19|0.64
90972284|NCT04302727|181827394|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 4||||<0.0001
90972285|NCT04302727|181827394|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 12||||0.67
90972286|NCT04302727|181827395|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Participants with diabetes-Month 4||||0.02
90972287|NCT04302727|181827395|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Participants without diabetes-Month 4||||<0.0001
90972288|NCT04302727|181827395|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Participants with diabetes-Month 12||||0.82
90972289|NCT04302727|181827395|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Participants without diabetes-Month 12||||0.75
90972290|NCT04302727|181827395|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Participants with diabetes-Month 24||||0.87
90972291|NCT04302727|181827395|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Participants without diabetes-Month 24||||0.27
90972292|NCT04302727|181827395|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Females-Month 4||||<0.0001
90972293|NCT04302727|181827395|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Females-Month 12||||0.66
90972294|NCT04302727|181827395|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Females-Month 24||||0.96
90972295|NCT04302727|181827395|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Males-Month 4||||0.0003
90972296|NCT04302727|181827395|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Males-Month 12||||0.34
90972297|NCT04302727|181827395|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Males-Month 24||||0.20
90972298|NCT04302727|181827395|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Whites-Month 4||||<0.0001
90972299|NCT04302727|181827395|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Whites-Month 12||||0.83
90972300|NCT04302727|181827395|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Whites-Month 24||||0.54
90972301|NCT04302727|181827395|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||African Americans-Month 4||||0.008
90972302|NCT04302727|181827395|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||African Americans-Month 12||||0.58
90972303|NCT04302727|181827395|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||African Americans-Month 24||||0.79
90972304|NCT04302727|181827396|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 4||||<0.001
90972305|NCT04302727|181827396|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 12||||0.57
90972306|NCT04302727|181827396|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 24||||0.32
90972307|NCT04302727|181827397|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 4||||0.77
90972308|NCT04302727|181827397|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 12||||0.48
90972309|NCT04302727|181827397|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 24||||0.68
90972310|NCT04302727|181827398|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 4||||0.91
90972311|NCT04302727|181827398|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 12||||0.52
90972312|NCT04302727|181827398|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 24||||0.97
90972313|NCT04302727|181827399|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 4||||0.29
90972314|NCT04302727|181827399|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.71
90972315|NCT04302727|181827399|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 12||||0.09
91036180|NCT00318461|181959046|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.2 mg + metformin and glimepirde + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.55||||0.0451||95.0|-1.1|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||Change in fasting plasma glucose from baseline to end of treatment at 104 weeks was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline fasting plasma glucose t as covariate.||-0.01|-1.10|0.0451
91036181|NCT00318461|181959046|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 0.6 mg + metformin and placebo + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-1.55|||<|0.0001||95.0|-2.2|-0.9|||ANCOVA|||Change in fasting plasma glucose from baseline to end of treatment at 104 weeks was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline fasting plasma glucose as covariate.||-0.90|-2.20|<0.0001
91036182|NCT00318461|181959046|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 0.6 mg + metformin and glimepirde + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.15||||0.9006||95.0|-0.7|0.39|||ANCOVA|||Change in fasting plasma glucose from baseline to end of treatment at 104 weeks was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline fasting plasma glucose as covariate.||0.39|-0.70|0.9006
90972316|NCT04302727|181827400|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 4||||0.96
90972317|NCT04302727|181827400|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 12||||0.77
90972318|NCT04302727|181827400|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 24||||0.94
90972319|NCT04302727|181827401|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 4||||0.55
90972320|NCT04302727|181827401|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 12||||0.83
90972321|NCT04302727|181827401|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 24||||0.44
90972322|NCT04302727|181827402|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 4||||0.99
90972323|NCT04302727|181827402|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 12||||0.71
90972324|NCT04302727|181827402|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 24||||0.44
90972325|NCT04302727|181827403|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 4||||0.05
90972326|NCT04302727|181827403|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 12||||0.42
90972327|NCT04302727|181827403|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 24||||0.02
90972328|NCT04302727|181827404|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 4||||0.10
90972329|NCT04302727|181827404|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 12||||0.56
90972330|NCT04302727|181827404|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.50
90972331|NCT04302727|181827405|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 4, comparison performed on log base 2 transformation of fluorescence data.||||0.96
90972332|NCT04302727|181827405|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 12, comparison performed on log base 2 transformation of fluorescence data.||||0.88
90972333|NCT04302727|181827405|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 24, comparison performed on log base 2 transformation of fluorescence data.||||0.29
90972334|NCT04302727|181827406|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 4, comparison performed on log base 2 transformation of fluorescence data.||||0.82
90972335|NCT04302727|181827406|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 12, comparison performed on log base 2 transformation of fluorescence data.||||0.25
90972336|NCT04302727|181827406|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 24, comparison performed on log base 2 transformation of fluorescence data.||||0.48
90972337|NCT04302727|181827407|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 4||||0.0007
90972338|NCT04302727|181827407|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 12||||0.51
90972339|NCT04302727|181827407|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 24||||0.91
90972340|NCT04302727|181827408|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 4||||0.83
90972341|NCT04302727|181827408|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 12||||0.68
90972342|NCT04302727|181827408|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 24||||0.64
90972343|NCT04302727|181827409|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 4||||<0.0001
90972344|NCT04302727|181827409|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 12||||<0.0001
90972345|NCT04302727|181827409|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 24||||0.005
91036183|NCT00318461|181959047|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg + metformin and placebo + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.13||||0.8871||95.0|-0.62|0.36|||ANCOVA|||Change in prandial increments of plasma glucose from baseline to 26 weeks of treatment was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||0.36|-0.62|0.8871
91036184|NCT00318461|181959047|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg + metformin and glimepiride + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.12||||0.8695||95.0|-0.51|0.27|||ANCOVA|||Change in prandial increments of plasma glucose from baseline to 26 weeks of treatment was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||0.27|-0.51|0.8695
91036185|NCT00318461|181959047|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.2 mg + metformin and placebo + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|0.03||||0.9994||95.0|-0.46|0.52|||ANCOVA|||Change in prandial increments of plasma glucose from baseline to 26 weeks of treatment was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||0.52|-0.46|0.9994
90942064|NCT05215418|181763697|OTHER|If the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the between-treatment group difference (VI-0521 minus placebo or phentermine) in change from baseline in 24-hr mean SBP was less than 3 mmHg, success for a non-inferiority test was claimed and the null hypothesis was rejected. If the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval was less than 0 mmHg, superiority was claimed.||||||0.0059|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0059
90942065|NCT05215418|181763697|OTHER|If the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the between-treatment group difference (VI-0521 minus placebo or phentermine) in change from baseline in 24-hr mean SBP was less than 3 mmHg, success for a non-inferiority test was claimed and the null hypothesis was rejected. If the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval was less than 0 mmHg, superiority was claimed.||||||0.1867|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1867
90942066|NCT05215418|181763698|OTHER|If the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the between-treatment group difference (VI-0521 minus placebo or phentermine) in change from baseline in 24-hr mean DBP was less than 3 mmHg, success for a non-inferiority test was claimed and the null hypothesis was rejected. If the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval was less than 0 mmHg, superiority was claimed.||||||0.0277|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0277
90942067|NCT05215418|181763698|OTHER|If the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the between-treatment group difference (VI-0521 minus placebo or phentermine) in change from baseline in 24-hr mean DBP was less than 3 mmHg, success for a non-inferiority test was claimed and the null hypothesis was rejected. If the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval was less than 0 mmHg, superiority was claimed.||||||0.0852|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0852
90942068|NCT05215418|181763698|OTHER|If the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the between-treatment group difference (VI-0521 minus placebo or phentermine) in change from baseline in 24-hr mean DBP was less than 3 mmHg, success for a non-inferiority test was claimed and the null hypothesis was rejected. If the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval was less than 0 mmHg, superiority was claimed.|||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<.0001
90972346|NCT04302727|181827410|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92||||||Month 4|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.92
90972347|NCT04302727|181827410|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12||||0.40
90972348|NCT04302727|181827410|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 24||||0.82
90972349|NCT04302727|181827411|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 4||||0.44
90972350|NCT04302727|181827411|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 12||||0.03
90972351|NCT04302727|181827411|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 24||||0.28
90972352|NCT04302727|181827412|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 4||||0.32
90972353|NCT04302727|181827412|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 12||||0.03
90972354|NCT04302727|181827412|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 24||||0.005
90972355|NCT04302727|181827413|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 4||||0.10
90972356|NCT04302727|181827413|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 12||||0.16
90972357|NCT04302727|181827413|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 24||||0.27
90972358|NCT04302727|181827414|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 4||||0.10
90972359|NCT04302727|181827414|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 12||||0.01
90972360|NCT04302727|181827414|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 24||||0.06
90942069|NCT05215418|181763699|OTHER|If the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the between-treatment group difference (VI-0521 minus placebo or phentermine) in change from baseline in 24-hr mean SBP was less than 3 mmHg, success for a non-inferiority test was claimed and the null hypothesis was rejected. If the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval was less than 0 mmHg, superiority was claimed.||||||0.0109|||||||ANCOVA|||In-clinic systolic blood pressure||||0.0109
90942070|NCT05215418|181763699|OTHER|If the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the between-treatment group difference (VI-0521 minus placebo or phentermine) in change from baseline in 24-hr mean SBP was less than 3 mmHg, success for a non-inferiority test was claimed and the null hypothesis was rejected. If the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval was less than 0 mmHg, superiority was claimed.||||||0.0339|||||||ANCOVA|||In-clinic systolic blood pressure||||0.0339
90942071|NCT05215418|181763699|OTHER|If the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the between-treatment group difference (VI-0521 minus placebo or phentermine) in change from baseline in 24-hr mean SBP was less than 3 mmHg, success for a non-inferiority test was claimed and the null hypothesis was rejected. If the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval was less than 0 mmHg, superiority was claimed.||||||0.6769|||||||ANCOVA|||In-clinic systolic blood pressure||||0.6769
90942072|NCT05215418|181763699|OTHER|If the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the between-treatment group difference (VI-0521 minus placebo or phentermine) in change from baseline in 24-hr mean DBP was less than 3 mmHg, success for a non-inferiority test was claimed and the null hypothesis was rejected. If the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval was less than 0 mmHg, superiority was claimed.||||||0.0082|||||||ANCOVA|||In-clinic diastolic blood pressure||||0.0082
90942073|NCT05215418|181763699|OTHER|If the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the between-treatment group difference (VI-0521 minus placebo or phentermine) in change from baseline in 24-hr mean DBP was less than 3 mmHg, success for a non-inferiority test was claimed and the null hypothesis was rejected. If the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval was less than 0 mmHg, superiority was claimed.||||||0.8131|||||||ANCOVA|||In-clinic diastolic blood pressure||||0.8131
90942074|NCT05215418|181763699|OTHER|If the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the between-treatment group difference (VI-0521 minus placebo or phentermine) in change from baseline in 24-hr mean DBP was less than 3 mmHg, success for a non-inferiority test was claimed and the null hypothesis was rejected. If the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval was less than 0 mmHg, superiority was claimed.||||||0.015|||||||ANCOVA|||In-clinic diastolic blood pressure||||0.0150
90942075|NCT02005393|181763705|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Image settings were considered non-inferior if scores overlapped within 1 SD of mean.||||||||||||||||All 20 subjects enrolled in the study, including Subject 219 that was dropped from the Reader assessments due to corrupted images, were all rated as having similar white light images between the FICE and NBI procedures for each location used in the concurrence study. This assessment was intended to assure that no procedural sequence or visualization bias was introduced into the image acquisition process. The overall Reader mean (SD) for both FICE and NBI were equal to or greater than 3.0 (0.8).|The results reported utilized the average Likert scores for each of the 3 readers, for each of the FICE settings (0-9), as compared to FICE. The overall Reader mean (SD) for both FICE and NBI were equal to or greater than 3.0 (0.8).The overall mean scores were comparable between FICE and NBI to provide acceptable diagnostic image visualization quality.|||
90942076|NCT02447432|181763735|NON_INFERIORITY|GMCs ratio and its 95 % CI were obtained using an ANOVA model on the logarithm-10 transformed concentrations-pooled variance.|GMCs ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.33||||||(Synflorix/10Pn\_4d) antibody GMCs ratio for ANTI-1 serotype: to demonstrate non-inferiority of 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine (4-dose presentation) as compared to 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine (1-dose presentation) in terms of immune response, 1 month after dose 3. Criterion: the upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean antibody concentration (GMC) ratios (Synflorix/10Pn\_4d) should be below a limit of 2-fold for each of the 10 serotypes.||1.33|0.89|
90942077|NCT02447432|181763735|NON_INFERIORITY|GMCs ratio and its 95 % CI were obtained using an ANOVA model on the logarithm-10 transformed concentrations-pooled variance.|GMCs ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.12||||||(Synflorix/10Pn\_4d) antibody GMCs ratio for ANTI-4 serotype: to demonstrate non-inferiority of 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine (4-dose presentation) as compared to 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine (1-dose presentation) in terms of immune response, 1 month after dose 3. Criterion: the upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean antibody concentration (GMC) ratios (Synflorix/10Pn\_4d) should be below a limit of 2-fold for each of the 10 serotypes.||1.12|0.75|
90942078|NCT02447432|181763735|NON_INFERIORITY|GMCs ratio and its 95 % CI were obtained using an ANOVA model on the logarithm-10 transformed concentrations-pooled variance.|GMCs ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.26||||||(Synflorix/10Pn\_4d) antibody GMCs ratio for ANTI-5 serotype: to demonstrate non-inferiority of 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine (4-dose presentation) as compared to 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine (1-dose presentation) in terms of immune response, 1 month after dose 3. Criterion: the upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean antibody concentration (GMC) ratios (Synflorix/10Pn\_4d) should be below a limit of 2-fold for each of the 10 serotypes.||1.26|0.85|
90972361|NCT04302727|181827415|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 4||||0.41
90972362|NCT04302727|181827415|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 12||||0.24
90972363|NCT04302727|181827415|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 24||||0.74
90972364|NCT04302727|181827416|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 4||||0.13
90972365|NCT04302727|181827416|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 12||||0.10
90972366|NCT04302727|181827416|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 24||||0.12
90972367|NCT04302727|181827417|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 4||||0.002
90972368|NCT04302727|181827417|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 12||||<0.001
90972369|NCT04302727|181827417|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 24||||<0.001
90972370|NCT01294800|181827433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.7||||0.0564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|0.02|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||0.02|-1.37|0.0564
90942079|NCT02447432|181763735|NON_INFERIORITY|GMCs ratio and its 95 % CI were obtained using an ANOVA model on the logarithm-10 transformed concentrations-pooled variance.|GMCs ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.61||||||(Synflorix/10Pn\_4d) antibody GMCs ratio for ANTI-6B serotype: to demonstrate non-inferiority of 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine (4-dose presentation) as compared to 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine (1-dose presentation) in terms of immune response, 1 month after dose 3. Criterion: the upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean antibody concentration (GMC) ratios (Synflorix/10Pn\_4d) should be below a limit of 2-fold for each of the 10 serotypes.||1.61|0.78|
90942080|NCT02447432|181763735|NON_INFERIORITY|GMCs ratio and its 95 % CI were obtained using an ANOVA model on the logarithm-10 transformed concentrations-pooled variance.|GMCs ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.25||||||(Synflorix/10Pn\_4d) antibody GMCs ratio for ANTI-7F serotype: to demonstrate non-inferiority of 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine (4-dose presentation) as compared to 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine (1-dose presentation) in terms of immune response, 1 month after dose 3. Criterion: the upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean antibody concentration (GMC) ratios (Synflorix/10Pn\_4d) should be below a limit of 2-fold for each of the 10 serotypes.||1.25|0.88|
90942081|NCT02447432|181763735|NON_INFERIORITY|GMCs ratio and its 95 % CI were obtained using an ANOVA model on the logarithm-10 transformed concentrations-pooled variance.|GMCs ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.13||||||(Synflorix/10Pn\_4d) antibody GMCs ratio for ANTI-9V serotype: to demonstrate non-inferiority of 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine (4-dose presentation) as compared to 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine (1-dose presentation) in terms of immune response, 1 month after dose 3. Criterion: the upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean antibody concentration (GMC) ratios (Synflorix/10Pn\_4d) should be below a limit of 2-fold for each of the 10 serotypes.||1.13|0.69|
90942082|NCT02447432|181763735|NON_INFERIORITY|GMCs ratio and its 95 % CI were obtained using an ANOVA model on the logarithm-10 transformed concentrations-pooled variance.|GMCs ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.31||||||(Synflorix/10Pn\_4d) antibody GMCs ratio for ANTI-14 serotype: to demonstrate non-inferiority of 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine (4-dose presentation) as compared to 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine (1-dose presentation) in terms of immune response, 1 month after dose 3. Criterion: the upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean antibody concentration (GMC) ratios (Synflorix/10Pn\_4d) should be below a limit of 2-fold for each of the 10 serotypes.||1.31|0.73|
90942083|NCT02447432|181763735|NON_INFERIORITY|GMCs ratio and its 95 % CI were obtained using an ANOVA model on the logarithm-10 transformed concentrations-pooled variance.|GMCs ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.37||||||(Synflorix/10Pn\_4d) antibody GMCs ratio for ANTI-18C serotype: to demonstrate non-inferiority of 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine (4-dose presentation) as compared to 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine (1-dose presentation) in terms of immune response, 1 month after dose 3. Criterion: the upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean antibody concentration (GMC) ratios (Synflorix/10Pn\_4d) should be below a limit of 2-fold for each of the 10 serotypes.||1.37|0.86|
90942084|NCT02447432|181763735|NON_INFERIORITY|GMCs ratio and its 95 % CI were obtained using an ANOVA model on the logarithm-10 transformed concentrations-pooled variance.|GMCs ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.25||||||(Synflorix/10Pn\_4d) antibody GMCs ratio for ANTI-19F serotype: to demonstrate non-inferiority of 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine (4-dose presentation) as compared to 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine (1-dose presentation) in terms of immune response, 1 month after dose 3. Criterion: the upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean antibody concentration (GMC) ratios (Synflorix/10Pn\_4d) should be below a limit of 2-fold for each of the 10 serotypes.||1.25|0.78|
90942085|NCT02447432|181763735|NON_INFERIORITY|GMCs ratio and its 95 % CI were obtained using an ANOVA model on the logarithm-10 transformed concentrations-pooled variance.|GMCs ratio|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.8||||||(Synflorix/10Pn\_4d) antibody GMCs ratio for ANTI-23F serotype: to demonstrate non-inferiority of 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine (4-dose presentation) as compared to 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine (1-dose presentation) in terms of immune response, 1 month after dose 3. Criterion: the upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean antibody concentration (GMC) ratios (Synflorix/10Pn\_4d) should be below a limit of 2-fold for each of the 10 serotypes.||1.80|0.92|
90972371|NCT01294800|181827433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.5||||0.1844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.22|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||0.22|-1.16|0.1844
90972372|NCT01294800|181827433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.3||||0.3386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|0.36|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||0.36|-1.04|0.3386
90972373|NCT01294800|181827434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions of responders|5.7||||0.404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.75|19.0|||A generalized linear mixed model|||||19.00|-7.75|0.404
90972374|NCT01294800|181827434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions of responders|5.7||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.73|18.81|||A generalized linear mixed model|||||18.81|-7.73|0.390
90972375|NCT01294800|181827434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions of responders|-4.9||||0.508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.78|7.97|||A generalized linear mixed model|||||7.97|-17.78|0.508
90972376|NCT01294800|181827435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|0.7||||0.0509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.43|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||1.43|-0.00|0.0509
90972377|NCT01294800|181827435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|0.5||||0.1847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|1.19|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||1.19|-0.23|0.1847
90972378|NCT01294800|181827435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|0.5||||0.2021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|1.19|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||1.19|-0.25|0.2021
91007691|NCT04223778|181899573|OTHER|Treatment Difference vs Baseline ART. Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated Difference|1.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.14|19.43|||||Difference in percentage versus (vs) Baseline ART was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Fasting Triglycerides||19.43|-16.14|
91007692|NCT04223778|181899574|OTHER|Treatment Difference vs Baseline ART. Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated Difference|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|9.7|||||Difference in percentage versus (vs) Baseline ART was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Fasting Cholesterol||9.70|-7.60|
90972379|NCT00493038|181827456|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The non-inferiority margin was set to 15% in the protocol. Sample size was estimated using the method as described in Farrington-Manning (STATISTICS IN MEDICINE, Vol. 9; Farrington CP, Manning G: Test statistics and sample size formulae for comparative binomial trials with null hypothesis of non-zero risk difference..., pg.1447-1454 \[1990\]). Estimation was performed to achieve 90% power, based on the equivalence delta of 15%, and a clinical success rate of 80% in the per protocol population."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1||||||95.0|-1.9|6.2|||||Mean difference denotes the difference of clinical cure rates between the two treatment groups (moxifloxacin minus amoxicillin/clavulanate).|Calculated were 95% confidence intervals for the difference in success rates between treatment groups (moxifloxacin minus comparator). Method as described in Koch et al. ('Categorical Data Analysis' in Statistical methodology in the pharmaceutical sciences / edited by D. A. Berry, p. 415 ff., Marcel Dekker, 1990)||6.2|-1.9|
90972380|NCT00493038|181827457|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The non-inferiority margin was set to 15% in the protocol. Sample size was estimated using the method as described in Farrington-Manning (STATISTICS IN MEDICINE, Vol. 9; Farrington CP, Manning G: Test statistics and sample size formulae for comparative binomial trials with null hypothesis of non-zero risk difference..., pg.1447-1454 \[1990\]). Estimation was performed to achieve 90% power, based on the equivalence delta of 15%, and a clinical success rate of 80% in the per protocol population."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||||95.0|-7.9|6.8||||||Calculated were 95% confidence intervals for the difference in success rates between treatment groups (moxifloxacin minus comparator). Method as described in Koch et al. ('Categorical Data Analysis' in Statistical methodology in the pharmaceutical sciences / edited by D. A. Berry, p. 415 ff., Marcel Dekker, 1990)||6.8|-7.9|
90972381|NCT00493038|181827458|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The non-inferiority margin was set to 15% in the protocol. Sample size was estimated using the method as described in Farrington-Manning (STATISTICS IN MEDICINE, Vol. 9; Farrington CP, Manning G: Test statistics and sample size formulae for comparative binomial trials with null hypothesis of non-zero risk difference..., pg.1447-1454 \[1990\]). Estimation was performed to achieve 90% power, based on the equivalence delta of 15%, and a clinical success rate of 80% in the per protocol population."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7||||||95.0|-3.8|7.1||||||Calculated were 95% confidence intervals for the difference in success rates between treatment groups (moxifloxacin minus comparator). Method as described in Koch et al. ('Categorical Data Analysis' in Statistical methodology in the pharmaceutical sciences / edited by D. A. Berry, p. 415 ff., Marcel Dekker, 1990)||7.1|-3.8|
90972382|NCT02296242|181827498|OTHER||Highest dose (mg) with no DLTs.|600.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||In Part 1, 2 patients experienced DLTs in the 750 mg b.i.d. treatment group (2/7; 29%). There were no dose-limiting toxicities in the 600 mg b.i.d. group or 300 mg b.i.d. group. Therefore, based on these results, 600 mg b.i.d. was selected as the MTD dose (and RP2D dose) which was used as the treatment dose in Part 2 of the study.||||
90972383|NCT01888640|181827506|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.2||To account for multiple tests involving pairwise treatment group comparisons, p-values were adjusted using Bonferroni's method|Linear mixed models for repeated measure|||Visit 2-Visit 3||-0.2|-1.8|0.008
90972384|NCT01888640|181827506|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-1.0|||Linear mixed models for repeated measure|||Visit 2 to Visit 3||-1.0|-2.6|<0.0001
90972385|NCT01888640|181827507|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.4|||Linear mixed models for repeated measure|||Visit 2 to Visit 3||-0.4|-2.2|0.002
90972386|NCT01888640|181827507|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-1.0|||Linear mixed models for repeated measure|||Visit 2 to Visit 3||-1.0|-2.8|<0.0001
90972387|NCT01888640|181827508|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.4|||Linear mixed models for repeated measure|||Visit 2 to Visit 3||-0.4|-2.1|0.0006
90972388|NCT01888640|181827508|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.6|||Linear mixed models for repeated measure|||Visit 2 to Visit 3||-0.6|-2.2|<0.0001
90972389|NCT01888640|181827509|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.4|||Linear mixed models for repeated measure|||Visit 2 to Visit 3||-0.4|-2.4|0.001
90972390|NCT01888640|181827509|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-0.9|||Linear mixed models for repeated measure|||Visit 2 to Visit 3||-0.9|-2.9|<0.0001
90972391|NCT01888640|181827510|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.2|||Linear mixed models for repeated measure|||Visit 2 to Visit 3||-0.2|-2.2|0.011
90972392|NCT01888640|181827510|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-1.0|||Linear mixed models for repeated measure|||Visit 2 to Visit 3||-1.0|-3.0|<0.0001
90972393|NCT01888640|181827511|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.1|||Linear mixed models for repeated measure|||Visit 2 to Visit 3||-0.1|-2.2|0.016
91050398|NCT04168190|181987005|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|3.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.95|6.05|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 23B||6.05|1.95|
90972394|NCT01888640|181827511|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.57||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-0.6|||Linear mixed models for repeated measure|||Visit 2 to Visit 3||-0.6|-2.6|0.0002
90972395|NCT01888640|181827512|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.0||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|0.3|||Linear mixed models for repeated measure|||Visit 2 to Visit 3||0.3|-10.4|0.074
90972396|NCT01888640|181827512|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.1||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|-1.8|||Linear mixed models for repeated measure|||Visit 2 to Visit 3||-1.8|-12.4|0.005
90972397|NCT01888640|181827513|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.1|||Linear mixed models for repeated measure|||Visit 2 to Visit 3||-0.1|-1.7|0.018
90972398|NCT01888640|181827513|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.4|||Linear mixed models for repeated measure|||Visit 2 to Visit 3||-0.4|-1.9|0.0006
90972399|NCT01888640|181827514|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.01|||Linear mixed models for repeated measure|||Visit 2 to Visit 3||-0.01|-1.3|0.043
90972400|NCT01888640|181827514|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.0|||Linear mixed models for repeated measure|||Visit 2 to Visit 3||-0.0|-1.3|0.048
91036186|NCT00318461|181959047|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.2 mg + metformin and glimepirde + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|0.04||||0.9984||95.0|-0.35|0.43|||ANCOVA|||Change in prandial increments of plasma glucose from baseline to 26 weeks of treatment was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||0.43|-0.35|0.9984
91036187|NCT00318461|181959047|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 0.6 mg + metformin and placebo + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|0.21||||0.6201||95.0|-0.28|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Change in mean prandial increments of plasma glucose from baseline to 26 weeks of treatment was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||0.70|-0.28|0.6201
91036188|NCT00318461|181959047|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 0.6 mg + metformin and glimepirde + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|0.21||||0.4831||95.0|-0.18|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Change in mean prandial increments of plasma glucose from baseline to 26 weeks of treatment was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||0.60|-0.18|0.4831
91036189|NCT00318461|181959048|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Hypothesis testing was done in a hierarchical manner. First, it was tested whether liraglutide 1.8 mg+metformin was superior to placebo + metformin. Superiority was always concluded if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference was below 0%.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.83|||<|0.0001||95.0|-1.07|-0.59|||ANCOVA|||Change in HbA1c from baseline to end of treatment at 104 weeks was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline glycosylated A1c (HbA1c) as covariate.||-0.59|-1.07|<0.0001
91036190|NCT00318461|181959048|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Hypothesis testing was done in a hierarchical manner. As superiority of liraglutide 1.8 mg + metformin to metformin monotherapy was established, it was investigated whether liraglutide 1.8 mg + metformin was non-inferior to glimepiride + metformin. Non-inferiority was concluded if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference was below 0.4%.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.08|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.28|0.12|||ANCOVA|||Change in HbA1c from baseline to end of treatment at 104 weeks was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline glycosylated A1c (HbA1c) as covariate.||0.12|-0.28|<0.0001
90942086|NCT02971228|181763834|OTHER|A paired t-test was used for the parametric method to compare patients receiving both treatments. A patient was required to have data for both periods to be included in the pre-specified analysis for a given endpoint. Thus, the 2 patients who withdrew from the trial after the Lilly Glucagon treatment before receiving ZP4207 were not included in the analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.9||||0.2518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.63|5.84|||t-test, 2 sided||The estimated mean difference is based on the difference between the mean values for 10 patients in the ZP4207 group (12.78) and the matching 10 patients in the Lilly glucagon group (19.67)|A paired t-test or the Wilcoxon signed rank test for comparison of means with normally or non normally distributed residuals, respectively, was used. The Shapiro-Wilk test was used to determine the normality of the residuals for each comparison. The residuals were obtained from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with treatment group as the fixed effect. If the p-value of the test was \<0.001, the non-parametric method was utilized to analyze the endpoint parameter.||5.84|-19.63|0.2518
90942087|NCT02971228|181763834|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-8.02||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.85|10.68|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Non-parametric method p-value was from a Wilcoxon signed rank text. The normality of the residuals was assessed using the Shapiro-Wilk test, where the residuals were obtained from an ANOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect. A patient was required to have data for both periods to be included in the pre-specified analysis for a given endpoint.||10.68|-25.85|0.2500
90942088|NCT02971228|181763835|OTHER|A paired t-test was used for the parametric method to compare patients receiving both treatments. A patient was required to have data for both periods to be included in the pre-specified analysis for a given endpoint. Thus, the 2 patients who withdrew from the trial after the Lilly Glucagon treatment before receiving ZP4207 were not included in the analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28||||0.8508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.55|2.99|||t-test, 2 sided|||A paired t-test or the Wilcoxon signed rank test for comparison of means with normally or non normally distributed residuals, respectively, was used. The Shapiro-Wilk test was used to determine the normality of the residuals for each comparison. The residuals were obtained from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with treatment group as the fixed effect. If the p-value of the test was \<0.001, the non-parametric method was utilized to analyze the endpoint parameter.||2.99|-3.55|0.8508
90942089|NCT02971228|181763835|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.03|||>|0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.12|3.13|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Non-parametric method p-value was from a Wilcoxon signed rank text. The normality of the residuals was assessed using the Shapiro-Wilk test, where the residuals were obtained from an ANOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect. A patient was required to have data for both periods to be included in the pre-specified analysis for a given endpoint.||3.13|-4.12|>0.9999
90972401|NCT01888640|181827515|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||Linear mixed models for repeated measure|||Visit 2 to Visit 3||-0.0|-1.0|0.036
90972402|NCT01888640|181827515|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.4|||Linear mixed models for repeated measure|||Visit 2 to Visit 3||-0.4|-1.4|<0.0001
90972403|NCT01888640|181827516|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.5|||Linear mixed models for repeated measure|||Visit 2 to Visit 3||1.5|-2.3|>0.99
90972404|NCT01888640|181827516|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.3|||Linear mixed models for repeated measure|||Visit 2 to Visit 3||1.3|-2.4|>0.99
90972405|NCT01888640|181827517|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|4.1|||Linear mixed models for repeated measure|||Visit 2 to Visit 3||4.1|-1.9|>0.99
90972406|NCT01888640|181827517|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|5.3|||Linear mixed models for repeated measure|||||5.3|-0.6|0.17
90972407|NCT01888640|181827518|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|3.1|||Linear mixed models for repeated measure|||Visit 2 to Visit 3||3.1|-0.7|0.36
90972408|NCT01888640|181827518|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|2.8|||Linear mixed models for repeated measure|||Visit 2 to Visit 3||2.8|-0.8|0.58
91036191|NCT00318461|181959048|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Hypothesis testing was done in a hierarchical manner. First, it was tested whether liraglutide 1.2 mg+metformin was superior to placebo + metformin. Superiority was always concluded if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference was below 0%.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.81|||<|0.0001||95.0|-1.05|-0.57|||ANCOVA|||Change in HbA1c from baseline to end of treatment was at 104 weeks analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline glycosylated A1c (HbA1c) as covariate.||-0.57|-1.05|<0.0001
91036192|NCT00318461|181959048|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Hypothesis testing was done in a hierarchical manner. As superiority of liraglutide 1.2 mg + metformin to metformin monotherapy was established, it was investigated whether liraglutide 1.2 mg + metformin was non-inferior to glimepiride + metformin. Non-inferiority was concluded if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference was below 0.4%.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.07|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.27|0.13|||ANCOVA|||Change in HbA1c from baseline to end of treatment at 104 weeks was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline glycosylated A1c (HbA1c) as covariate.||0.13|-0.27|<0.0001
90972409|NCT01888640|181827519|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.0|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.0|96.0|||Linear mixed models for repeated measure|||Visit 2 to Visit 3||96|-58|>0.99
90972410|NCT01888640|181827519|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|42.0|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.0|117.0|||Linear mixed models for repeated measure|||Visit 2 to Visit 3||117|-34|>0.99
90972411|NCT01888640|181827520|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.7|||Linear mixed models for repeated measure|||Visit 2 to Visit 3||0.7|-0.2|0.96
90972412|NCT01888640|181827520|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.0|||Linear mixed models for repeated measure|||Visit 2 to Visit 3||1.0|0.1|0.008
91036193|NCT00318461|181959048|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Hypothesis testing was done in a hierarchical manner. First, it was tested whether liraglutide 0.6 mg+metformin was superior to placebo + metformin.~Superiority was always concluded if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference was below 0%."|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.61|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.85|-0.37|||ANCOVA|||Change in HbA1c from baseline to end of treatment at 104 weeks was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline glycosylated A1c (HbA1c) as covariate.||-0.37|-0.85|<0.0001
91050399|NCT04168190|181987005|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|4.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.69|8.45|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 23B||8.45|2.69|
90972413|NCT01888640|181827521|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Linear mixed models for repeated measure|||Visit 2 to Visit 3||||>0.99
90972414|NCT01888640|181827521|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Linear mixed models for repeated measure|||Visit 2 to Visit 3||||>0.99
90972415|NCT02109484|181827536|EQUIVALENCE|Power to detect difference between treatment groups for seroresponse between 50% and 95% for P2-VP8 subunit rotiarivus vaccine calculated based on estimate of 10% loss. 45 evaluable participants in 2 highest doses tolerated in B1 infant cohort, study idesigned to provide \>= 89% and \>= 77% power to detect 35 and 30 percentage points difference, respectively, between the two dose levels and provide \> 95% to detect \>= 40 percentage point difference between a P2-VP8 dose group and placebo group.||||||0.0165|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0165
90972416|NCT02109484|181827536|EQUIVALENCE|Power to detect difference between treatment groups for seroresponse between 50% and 95% for P2-VP8 subunit rotiarivus vaccine calculated based on estimate of 10% loss. 45 evaluable participants in 2 highest doses tolerated in B1 infant cohort, study idesigned to provide \>= 89% and \>= 77% power to detect 35 and 30 percentage points difference, respectively, between the two dose levels and provide \> 95% to detect \>= 40 percentage point difference between a P2-VP8 dose group and placebo group.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Power to detect difference between treatment groups for seroresponse between 50% and 95% for P2-VP8 subunit rotiarivus vaccine calculated based on estimate of 10% loss. 45 evaluable participants in 2 highest doses tolerated in B1 infant cohort, study idesigned to provide \>= 89% and \>= 77% power to detect 35 and 30 percentage points difference, respectively, between the two dose levels and provide \> 95% to detect \>= 40 percentage point difference between a P2-VP8 dose group and placebo group.||||<0.0001
90972417|NCT02109484|181827536|EQUIVALENCE|Power to detect difference between treatment groups for seroresponse between 50% and 95% for P2-VP8 subunit rotiarivus vaccine calculated based on estimate of 10% loss. 45 evaluable participants in 2 highest doses tolerated in B1 infant cohort, study idesigned to provide \>= 89% and \>= 77% power to detect 35 and 30 percentage points difference, respectively, between the two dose levels and provide \> 95% to detect \>= 40 percentage point difference between a P2-VP8 dose group and placebo group.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
90972418|NCT02109484|181827537|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Pair-wise comparisons between Cohort B Placebo group and the active vaccination groups were peformed||||<0.0001
90972419|NCT02109484|181827537|EQUIVALENCE|Pair-wise comparisons between Cohort B Placebo group and the active vaccination groups were performed|||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
90972420|NCT02109484|181827537|EQUIVALENCE|Pair-wise comparisons between Cohort B Placebo group and the active vaccination groups were performed||||||0.0006|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0006
91036194|NCT00318461|181959048|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Hypothesis testing was done in a hierarchical manner. As superiority of liraglutide 0.6 mg + metformin to metformin monotherapy was established, it was investigated whether liraglutide 0.6 mg + metformin was non-inferior to glimepiride + metformin. Non-inferiority was concluded if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference was below 0.4%.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|0.14||||0.0052||95.0|-0.06|0.34|||ANCOVA|||Change in HbA1c from baseline to end of treatment at 104 weeks was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline glycosylated A1c (HbA1c) as covariate.||0.34|-0.06|0.0052
91036195|NCT00318461|181959048|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A test for superiority of glimepiride+metformin to placebo metformin was performed to verify assay sensitivity. Superiority was always concluded if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference was below 0%.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.75|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.99|-0.51|||ANCOVA|||Change in HbA1c from baseline to end of treatment at 104 weeks was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline glycosylated A1c (HbA1c) as covariate.||-0.51|-0.99|<0.0001
91036196|NCT00318461|181959049|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg + metformin and placebo + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.24||||0.5282||95.0|-0.74|0.26|||ANCOVA|||Change in prandial increments of plasma glucose from baseline to 104 weeks of treatment was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||0.26|-0.74|0.5282
91036197|NCT00318461|181959049|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg + metformin and glimepiride + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.15||||0.7644||95.0|-0.55|0.25|||ANCOVA|||Change in prandial increments of plasma glucose from baseline to 104 weeks of treatment was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||0.25|-0.55|0.7644
90942090|NCT02971228|181763836|OTHER|A paired t-test was used for the parametric method to compare patients receiving both treatments. A patient was required to have data for both periods to be included in the pre-specified analysis for a given endpoint. Thus, the 2 patients who withdrew from the trial after the Lilly Glucagon treatment before receiving ZP4207 were not included in the analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.63||||0.1847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|1.62|||t-test, 2 sided|||A paired t-test or the Wilcoxon signed rank test for comparison of means with normally or non normally distributed residuals, respectively, was used. The Shapiro-Wilk test was used to determine the normality of the residuals for each comparison. The residuals were obtained from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with treatment group as the fixed effect. If the p-value of the test was \<0.001, the non-parametric method was utilized to analyze the endpoint parameter.||1.62|-0.36|0.1847
90942091|NCT02971228|181763836|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.0781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|3.09|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Non-parametric method p-value was from a Wilcoxon signed rank text. The normality of the residuals was assessed using the Shapiro-Wilk test, where the residuals were obtained from an ANOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect. A patient was required to have data for both periods to be included in the pre-specified analysis for a given endpoint.||3.09|-0.01|0.0781
90942092|NCT00726713|181763851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.013|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed models were used to assess baseline for continuous and discrete outcomes||Change from Baseline, Week 16||||=0.013
90942093|NCT00726713|181763851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.033|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed models were used to assess baseline for continuous and discrete outcomes||Change from Baseline, Week 24||||=0.033
90942094|NCT00726713|181763852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.027|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed models were used to assess baseline for continuous and discrete outcomes||Change from Baseline, Week 16||||=0.027
90942095|NCT00726713|181763853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.0001||||||Generalized linear mixed models were used to assess baseline for continuous and discrete outcomes|Mixed Models Analysis|||Total Folate, Change from BL, Week 16||||=0.0001
90942096|NCT00726713|181763853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.0001||||||Generalized linear mixed models were used to assess baseline for continuous and discrete outcomes|Mixed Models Analysis|||Total Folate, Change from BL, Week 24||||=0.0001
90942097|NCT00726713|181763853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed models were used to assess baseline for continuous and discrete outcomes||Total MMA, Change from Baseline Week 16||||=0.0001
90942098|NCT00726713|181763853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.0008|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed models were used to assess baseline for continuous and discrete outcomes||Total MMA, Change from BL, Week 24||||=0.0008
90942099|NCT00726713|181763853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.0001||||||Generalized linear mixed models were used to assess baseline for continuous and discrete outcomes|Mixed Models Analysis|||Total Homocysteine, Change from BL, Week 16||||=0.0001
90942100|NCT00726713|181763853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed models were used to assess baseline for continuous and discrete outcomes||Total Homocysteine, Change from BL, Week 24||||=0.0001
90942101|NCT00726713|181763854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.0306||||||Generalized linear mixed models were used to assess baseline for continuous and discrete outcomes|Mixed Models Analysis|||SF-36 MCS, Change from BL, Week 24||||=0.0306
90942102|NCT00726713|181763857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.054|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed models were used to assess baseline for continuous and discrete outcomes||HADS Depression, Change from BL, Week 24||||=0.054
90942103|NCT00846768|181763914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015||0.3011||95.0|-0.014|0.044|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Olo 5 mcg bid|||0.044|-0.014|0.3011
90972421|NCT02109484|181827538|EQUIVALENCE|Power to detect difference between treatment groups for seroresponse between 50% and 95% for P2-VP8 subunit rotiarivus vaccine calculated based on estimate of 10% loss. 45 evaluable participants in 2 highest doses tolerated in B1 infant cohort, study idesigned to provide \>= 89% and \>= 77% power to detect 35 and 30 percentage points difference, respectively, between the two dose levels and provide \> 95% to detect \>= 40 percentage point difference between a P2-VP8 dose group and placebo group.||||||0.0004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A pair wise comparison between the Adjusted Seroresponses in the placebo group and the Group B 10 mcg P2-VP8 was performed.||||0.0004
90972422|NCT02109484|181827538|EQUIVALENCE|Power to detect difference between treatment groups for seroresponse between 50% and 95% for P2-VP8 subunit rotiarivus vaccine calculated based on estimate of 10% loss. 45 evaluable participants in 2 highest doses tolerated in B1 infant cohort, study idesigned to provide \>= 89% and \>= 77% power to detect 35 and 30 percentage points difference, respectively, between the two dose levels and provide \> 95% to detect \>= 40 percentage point difference between a P2-VP8 dose group and placebo group.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A pair wise comparison between the Adjusted Seroresponses in the placebo group and the Cohort B 30 mcg P2-VP8 vaccine group was performed.||||<0.0001
90972423|NCT02109484|181827538|EQUIVALENCE|Power to detect difference between treatment groups for seroresponse between 50% and 95% for P2-VP8 subunit rotiarivus vaccine calculated based on estimate of 10% loss. 45 evaluable participants in 2 highest doses tolerated in B1 infant cohort, study idesigned to provide \>= 89% and \>= 77% power to detect 35 and 30 percentage points difference, respectively, between the two dose levels and provide \> 95% to detect \>= 40 percentage point difference between a P2-VP8 dose group and placebo group.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A pair-wise comparison between the Adjusted Seroresponses in Cohort B Placebo group and the Cohort B P2-VP8 group was performed.||||<0.0001
90972424|NCT00419380|181827541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Two by two contingency table was used to compare our outcome, tube patency yes/no, by our two independent variables, dornase alfa (Pulmozyme®) and Ofloxin.||||.36
90972425|NCT00419380|181827542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|||||Two by two contingency table was used to compare our outcome, presence/absence of ear drainage, by our two independent variables, dornase alfa (Pulmozyme®) and Ofloxin.|Chi-squared|||||||.26
90972426|NCT03099707|181827545|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|5.2||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|43.0|||Fisher Exact|||||43|0.6|0.105
90972427|NCT01890642|181827564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.01
91036198|NCT00318461|181959049|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.2 mg + metformin and placebo + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.36||||0.2063||95.0|-0.86|0.14|||ANCOVA|||Change in prandial increments of plasma glucose from baseline to 104 weeks of treatment was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||0.14|-0.86|0.2063
90972428|NCT01890642|181827565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.80
90972429|NCT01890642|181827566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.004
90972430|NCT01890642|181827567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0001
90972431|NCT01890642|181827568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.37
90972432|NCT00784654|181827597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||< 0.001
90972433|NCT00784654|181827598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91036199|NCT00318461|181959049|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.2 mg + metformin and glimepirde + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.28||||0.2678||95.0|-0.68|0.12|||ANCOVA|||Change in prandial increments of plasma glucose from baseline to 104 weeks of treatment was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||0.12|-0.68|0.2678
90972434|NCT00784654|181827599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|-9.8|||ANCOVA|||||-9.8|-15.4|<0.001
90972435|NCT00784654|181827602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90972436|NCT00784654|181827606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
90972437|NCT00784654|181827607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|9.5|||ANCOVA|||||9.5|3.5|<0.001
90972438|NCT00784654|181827608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
90972439|NCT00784654|181827609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||||-0.11|-0.26|<0.001
90972440|NCT00784654|181827612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.726||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.726
90972441|NCT00562354|181827619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titer|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.84|||||Ratio of GMTs were calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between age groups on the logarithmic scale.|Serotype 1: To assess differences between reporting groups, 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of OPA GMTs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the log-transformed assay results computed using the Student t-distribution.||0.84|0.39|
90972442|NCT00562354|181827619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titer|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.01|||||Ratio of GMTs were calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between age groups on the logarithmic scale.|Serotype 3: To assess differences between reporting groups, 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of OPA GMTs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the log-transformed assay results computed using the Student t-distribution.||1.01|0.54|
90972443|NCT00562354|181827619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titer|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.11|||||Ratio of GMTs were calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between age groups on the logarithmic scale.|Serotype 4: To assess differences between reporting groups, 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of OPA GMTs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the log-transformed assay results computed using the Student t-distribution.||1.11|0.50|
91036200|NCT00318461|181959049|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 0.6 mg + metformin and placebo + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.07||||0.9887||95.0|-0.57|0.43|||ANCOVA|||Change in prandial increments of plasma glucose from baseline to 104 weeks of treatment was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||0.43|-0.57|0.9887
91036201|NCT00318461|181959049|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 0.6 mg + metformin and glimepirde + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|0.02||||0.9998||95.0|-0.38|0.42|||ANCOVA|||Change in prandial increments of plasma glucose from baseline to 104 weeks of treatment was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||0.42|-0.38|0.9998
91050400|NCT04168190|181987005|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|8.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.36|19.35|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 24F||19.35|3.36|
90942104|NCT00846768|181763914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015||0.1582||95.0|-0.008|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Olo 5 mcg bid|||0.050|-0.008|0.1582
90942105|NCT00846768|181763914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.054|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015||0.0003||95.0|0.025|0.083|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Olo 2 mcg bid|||0.083|0.025|0.0003
90942106|NCT00846768|181763914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015||0.7046||95.0|-0.034|0.023|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Olo 5 mcg qd|||0.023|-0.034|0.7046
90942107|NCT00846768|181763914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.033|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015||0.0248||95.0|0.004|0.063|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 5 mcg bid minus Olo 2 mcg bid|||0.063|0.004|0.0248
90942108|NCT00846768|181763915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.052|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015||0.0006||95.0|-0.081|-0.023|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Olo 5 mcg bid|||-0.023|-0.081|0.0006
90942109|NCT00846768|181763915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.047|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015||0.0019||95.0|-0.076|-0.017|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Olo 5 mcg bid|||-0.017|-0.076|0.0019
90942110|NCT00846768|181763915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015||0.4111||95.0|-0.041|0.017|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Olo 2 mcg bid|||0.017|-0.041|0.4111
90942111|NCT00846768|181763915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015||0.709||95.0|-0.035|0.024|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Olo 5 mcg qd|||0.024|-0.035|0.7090
90942112|NCT00846768|181763915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.035|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015||0.0211||95.0|0.005|0.064|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 5 mcg bid minus Olo 2 mcg bid|||0.064|0.005|0.0211
90942113|NCT00846768|181763916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014||0.1753||95.0|-0.045|0.008|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Olo 5 mcg bid|||0.008|-0.045|0.1753
90942114|NCT00846768|181763916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.013|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014||0.3444||95.0|-0.04|0.014|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Olo 5 mcg bid|||0.014|-0.040|0.3444
90942115|NCT00846768|181763916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014||0.1161||95.0|-0.005|0.049|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Olo 2 mcg bid|||0.049|-0.005|0.1161
90942116|NCT00846768|181763916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014||0.6789||95.0|-0.033|0.021|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Olo 5 mcg qd|||0.021|-0.033|0.6789
90942117|NCT00846768|181763916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.035|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014||0.0129||95.0|0.007|0.062|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 5 mcg bid minus Olo 2 mcg bid|||0.062|0.007|0.0129
90942118|NCT00846768|181763917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017||0.4931||95.0|-0.023|0.047|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Olo 5 mcg bid|||0.047|-0.023|0.4931
90942119|NCT00846768|181763917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017||0.2597||95.0|-0.015|0.054|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Olo 5 mcg bid|||0.054|-0.015|0.2597
90942120|NCT00846768|181763917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.062|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018||0.0006||95.0|0.027|0.097|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Olo 2 mcg bid|||0.097|0.027|0.0006
90942121|NCT00846768|181763917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017||0.6578||95.0|-0.042|0.027|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Olo 5 mcg qd|||0.027|-0.042|0.6578
90942122|NCT00846768|181763917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018||0.0175||95.0|0.008|0.077|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 5 mcg bid minus Olo 2 mcg bid|||0.077|0.008|0.0175
90942123|NCT00846768|181763918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.0353||95.0|-0.081|-0.003|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Olo 5 mcg bid|||-0.003|-0.081|0.0353
90942124|NCT00846768|181763918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.2875||95.0|-0.06|0.018|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Olo 5 mcg bid|||0.018|-0.060|0.2875
90942125|NCT00846768|181763918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.4553||95.0|-0.024|0.054|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Olo 2 mcg bid|||0.054|-0.024|0.4553
90942126|NCT00846768|181763918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.2902||95.0|-0.06|0.018|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Olo 5 mcg qd|||0.018|-0.060|0.2902
90942127|NCT00846768|181763918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.036|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.0731||95.0|-0.003|0.075|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 5 mcg bid minus Olo 2 mcg bid|||0.075|-0.003|0.0731
90942128|NCT00846768|181763919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.046|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.0917||95.0|-0.008|0.099|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Olo 5 mcg bid|||0.099|-0.008|0.0917
90942129|NCT00846768|181763919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.041|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.1273||95.0|-0.012|0.095|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Olo 5 mcg bid|||0.095|-0.012|0.1273
90942130|NCT00846768|181763919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.073|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.008||95.0|0.019|0.127|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Olo 2 mcg bid|||0.127|0.019|0.0080
90942131|NCT00846768|181763919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.8683||95.0|-0.049|0.058|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Olo 5 mcg qd|||0.058|-0.049|0.8683
90972444|NCT00562354|181827619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titer|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.9|||||Ratio of GMTs were calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between age groups on the logarithmic scale.|Serotype 5: To assess differences between reporting groups, 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of OPA GMTs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the log-transformed assay results computed using the Student t-distribution.||0.90|0.38|
90972445|NCT00562354|181827619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titer|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.74|||||Ratio of GMTs were calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between age groups on the logarithmic scale.|Serotype 6A: To assess differences between reporting groups, 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of OPA GMTs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the log-transformed assay results computed using the Student t-distribution.||0.74|0.37|
90972446|NCT00562354|181827619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titer|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.02|||||Ratio of GMTs were calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between age groups on the logarithmic scale.|Serotype 6B: To assess differences between reporting groups, 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of OPA GMTs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the log-transformed assay results computed using the Student t-distribution.||1.02|0.52|
90972447|NCT00562354|181827619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titer|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.95|||||Ratio of GMTs were calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between age groups on the logarithmic scale.|Serotype 7F: To assess differences between reporting groups, 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of OPA GMTs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the log-transformed assay results computed using the Student t-distribution.||0.95|0.46|
91050401|NCT04168190|181987005|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|16.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.68|39.01|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 24F||39.01|6.68|
90942132|NCT00846768|181763919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.032|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.2444||95.0|-0.022|0.086|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 5 mcg bid minus Olo 2 mcg bid|||0.086|-0.022|0.2444
90942133|NCT00846768|181763920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.099|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032||0.0023||95.0|-0.162|-0.036|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Olo 5 mcg bid|||-0.036|-0.162|0.0023
90942134|NCT00846768|181763920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.103|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032||0.0015||95.0|-0.165|-0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Olo 5 mcg bid|||-0.040|-0.165|0.0015
90942135|NCT00846768|181763920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032||0.4508||95.0|-0.087|0.039|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Olo 2 mcg bid|||0.039|-0.087|0.4508
90942136|NCT00846768|181763920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032||0.9087||95.0|-0.059|0.066|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Olo 5 mcg qd|||0.066|-0.059|0.9087
90942137|NCT00846768|181763920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.079|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032||0.0146||95.0|0.016|0.142|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 5 mcg bid minus Olo 2 mcg bid|||0.142|0.016|0.0146
90942138|NCT00846768|181763921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.027|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.3291||95.0|-0.08|0.027|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Olo 5 mcg bid|||0.027|-0.080|0.3291
90942139|NCT00846768|181763921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.2638||95.0|-0.084|0.023|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Olo 5 mcg bid|||0.023|-0.084|0.2638
90942140|NCT00846768|181763921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.026|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.3386||95.0|-0.028|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Olo 2 mcg bid|||0.080|-0.028|0.3386
90942141|NCT00846768|181763921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.8877||95.0|-0.05|0.057|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Olo 5 mcg qd|||0.057|-0.050|0.8877
90942142|NCT00846768|181763921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.057|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.0402||95.0|0.003|0.111|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 5 mcg bid minus Olo 2 mcg bid|||0.111|0.003|0.0402
90942143|NCT00846768|181763922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.084|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034||0.0133||95.0|0.018|0.151|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Olo 5 mcg bid|||0.151|0.018|0.0133
90972448|NCT00562354|181827619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titer|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.25|||||Ratio of GMTs were calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between age groups on the logarithmic scale.|Serotype 9V: To assess differences between reporting groups, 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of OPA GMTs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the log-transformed assay results computed using the Student t-distribution.||1.25|0.45|
90972449|NCT00562354|181827619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titer|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.02|||||Ratio of GMTs were calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between age groups on the logarithmic scale.|Serotype 14: To assess differences between reporting groups, 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of OPA GMTs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the log-transformed assay results computed using the Student t-distribution.||1.02|0.54|
90972450|NCT00562354|181827619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titer|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.79|||||Ratio of GMTs were calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between age groups on the logarithmic scale.|Serotype 18C: To assess differences between reporting groups, 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of OPA GMTs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the log-transformed assay results computed using the Student t-distribution.||0.79|0.35|
90972451|NCT00562354|181827619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titer|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.67|||||Ratio of GMTs were calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between age groups on the logarithmic scale.|Serotype 19A: To assess differences between reporting groups, 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of OPA GMTs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the log-transformed assay results computed using the Student t-distribution.||0.67|0.34|
90942144|NCT00846768|181763922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.068|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034||0.045||95.0|0.002|0.135|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Olo 5 mcg bid|||0.135|0.002|0.0450
90942145|NCT00846768|181763922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.092|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034||0.0078||95.0|0.025|0.159|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Olo 2 mcg bid|||0.159|0.025|0.0078
90942146|NCT00846768|181763922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034||0.6268||95.0|-0.05|0.083|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Olo 5 mcg qd|||0.083|-0.050|0.6268
90942147|NCT00846768|181763922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034||0.4891||95.0|-0.044|0.091|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 5 mcg bid minus Olo 2 mcg bid|||0.091|-0.044|0.4891
90942148|NCT00846768|181763923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.6259||95.0|-0.097|0.059|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Olo 5 mcg bid|||0.059|-0.097|0.6259
90942149|NCT00846768|181763923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.919||95.0|-0.082|0.074|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Olo 5 mcg bid|||0.074|-0.082|0.9190
90942150|NCT00846768|181763923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.066|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0985||95.0|-0.012|0.145|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Olo 2 mcg bid|||0.145|-0.012|0.0985
90942151|NCT00846768|181763923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.6991||95.0|-0.093|0.063|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Olo 5 mcg qd|||0.063|-0.093|0.6991
90942152|NCT00846768|181763923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0802||95.0|-0.009|0.149|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 5 mcg bid minus Olo 2 mcg bid|||0.149|-0.009|0.0802
90942153|NCT04358068|181763957|SUPERIORITY|Participant specific durations were compared between randomized arms using a two-sided Wilcoxon test with a two-sided 5% type I error rate||||||0.51||||||Wilcoxon Test was not stratified by high/low risk because of the small number enrolled|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.51
90942154|NCT04358068|181763958|SUPERIORITY|Participant specific durations were compared between randomized arms using a two-sided Wilcoxon test with a two-sided 5% type I error rate||||||0.79||||||Wilcoxon Test was not stratified by high/low risk because of the small number enrolled|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.79
90942155|NCT04358068|181763959|SUPERIORITY|Participant specific AUCs were compared between randomized arms using a two-sided Wilcoxon test with a two-sided 5% type I error rate||||||0.53||||||Wilcoxon Test was not stratified by high/low risk because of the small number enrolled|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.53
90942156|NCT04358068|181763960|SUPERIORITY|Participant specific durations were compared between randomized arms using a two-sided Wilcoxon test with a two-sided 5% type I error rate||||||0.83||||||Wilcoxon Test was not stratified by high/low risk because of the small number enrolled|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.83
90942157|NCT04353817|181763964|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-2.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.71|-1.81|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-1.81|-2.71|<0.0001
90972452|NCT00562354|181827619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titer|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.88|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformation of the CIs based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithmically transformed assay results.|Serotype 19F: To assess differences between reporting groups, 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of OPA GMTs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the log-transformed assay results computed using the Student t-distribution.||0.88|0.37|
90972453|NCT00562354|181827619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titer|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.79|||||Ratio of GMTs were calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between age groups on the logarithmic scale.|Serotype 23F: To assess differences between reporting groups, 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of OPA GMTs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the log-transformed assay results computed using the Student t-distribution.||0.79|0.30|
90942158|NCT04353817|181763965|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-51.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.3|-47.1||This is the nominal p-value without multiplicity controlled.|Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-47.1|-55.3|<0.0001
90972454|NCT00562354|181827622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|2.0||||||Serotype 1: To assess differences between reporting groups exact, 2-sided 95% CIs on the difference in proportions between reporting groups were calculated (50 to 64 years age group minus ≥ 65 years age group).||2.0|-12.1|
90972455|NCT00562354|181827622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|3.5||||||Serotype 3: To assess differences between reporting groups exact, 2-sided 95% CIs on the difference in proportions between reporting groups were calculated (50 to 64 years age group minus ≥ 65 years age group).||3.5|-11.6|
90972456|NCT00562354|181827622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|2.2||||||Serotype 4: To assess differences between reporting groups exact, 2-sided 95% CIs on the difference in proportions between reporting groups were calculated (50 to 64 years age group minus ≥ 65 years age group).||2.2|-9.6|
90972457|NCT00562354|181827622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|2.5||||||Serotype 5: To assess differences between reporting groups exact, 2-sided 95% CIs on the difference in proportions between reporting groups were calculated (50 to 64 years age group minus ≥ 65 years age group).||2.5|-13.7|
90972458|NCT00562354|181827622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|2.1||||||Serotype 6A: To assess differences between reporting groups exact, 2-sided 95% CIs on the difference in proportions between reporting groups were calculated (50 to 64 years age group minus ≥ 65 years age group).||2.1|-5.7|
91036202|NCT00318461|181959050|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg + metformin and placebo + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-1.95|||<|0.0001||95.0|-2.6|-1.3|||ANCOVA|||Change in post prandial increments of plasma glucose from baseline to 26 weeks of treatment was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||-1.30|-2.60|<0.0001
91050402|NCT04168190|181987005|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|9.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.93|16.95|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 31||16.95|4.93|
90942159|NCT01193218|181763967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.57||the analyses were made sequentially compared with placebo from high dose of empagliflozin and the full significant level (5%) was maintained by the hierarchical procedure.|ANCOVA|'treatment', 'renal function', and 'number of previous antidiabetic medication' as a fixed effect and baseline HbA1c as a covariate||Difference calculated as empa 5mg minus placebo||-0.57|-0.87|<0.0001
90942160|NCT01193218|181763967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.55||the analyses were made sequentially compared with placebo from high dose of empagliflozin and the full significant level (5%) was maintained by the hierarchical procedure.|ANCOVA|'treatment', 'renal function', and 'number of previous antidiabetic medication' as a fixed effect and baseline HbA1c as a covariate||Difference calculated as empa 10mg minus placebo||-0.55|-0.85|<0.0001
90942161|NCT01193218|181763967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.8||the analyses were made sequentially compared with placebo from high dose of empagliflozin and the full significant level (5%) was maintained by the hierarchical procedure.|ANCOVA|'treatment', 'renal function', and 'number of previous antidiabetic medication' as a fixed effect and baseline HbA1c as a covariate||Difference calculated as empa 25mg minus placebo||-0.80|-1.10|<0.0001
90942162|NCT01193218|181763967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.76||the analyses were made sequentially compared with placebo from high dose of empagliflozin and the full significant level (5%) was maintained by the hierarchical procedure.|ANCOVA|'treatment', 'renal function', and 'number of previous antidiabetic medication' as a fixed effect and baseline HbA1c as a covariate||Difference calculated as empa 50mg minus placebo||-0.76|-1.06|<0.0001
90942163|NCT01193218|181763968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|19.367|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.34|70.236|||Regression, Logistic|The model includes 'treatment', 'renal function', 'number of previous antidiabetic medications' and 'continuous baseline HbA1c'.||Odds ratio calculated as the odds of Empa 5mg divided by the odds of placebo||70.236|5.340|<0.0001
90942164|NCT01193218|181763968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.889||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.942|40.301|||Regression, Logistic|The model includes 'treatment', 'renal function', 'number of previous antidiabetic medications' and 'continuous baseline HbA1c'.||Odds ratio calculated as the odds of Empa 10mg divided by the odds of placebo||40.301|2.942|0.0003
90942165|NCT01193218|181763968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|27.624|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.601|99.99|||Regression, Logistic|The model includes 'treatment', 'renal function', 'number of previous antidiabetic medications' and 'continuous baseline HbA1c'.|The upper limit of confidence interval is actually \>99.99|Odds ratio calculated as the odds of Empa 25mg divided by the odds of placebo||99.99|7.601|<0.0001
90942166|NCT01193218|181763968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|44.906|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.12|99.99|||Regression, Logistic|The model includes 'treatment', 'renal function', 'number of previous antidiabetic medications' and 'continuous baseline HbA1c'.|The upper limit of confidence interval is actually \>99.99|Odds ratio calculated as the odds of Empa 50mg divided by the odds of placebo||99.99|12.120|<0.0001
90942167|NCT01193218|181763969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.61|-21.8|||ANCOVA|treatment, renal function, number of previous antidiabetic medication as fixed effects, baseline fasting plasma glucose, baseline HbA1c as covariates||Difference calculated as empa 5mg minus placebo||-21.80|-31.61|<0.0001
90942168|NCT01193218|181763969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.25|-24.42|||ANCOVA|treatment, renal function, number of previous antidiabetic medication as fixed effects, baseline fasting plasma glucose, baseline HbA1c as covariates||Difference calculated as empa 10mg minus placebo||-24.42|-34.25|<0.0001
90942169|NCT01193218|181763969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-37.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.66|-32.84|||ANCOVA|treatment, renal function, number of previous antidiabetic medication as fixed effects, baseline fasting plasma glucose, baseline HbA1c as covariates||Difference calculated as empa 25mg minus placebo||-32.84|-42.66|<0.0001
90942170|NCT01193218|181763969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-36.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.51|-31.69|||ANCOVA|treatment, renal function, number of previous antidiabetic medication as fixed effects, baseline fasting plasma glucose, baseline HbA1c as covariates||Difference calculated as empa 50mg minus placebo||-31.69|-41.51|<0.0001
90942171|NCT00665223|181763973|SUPERIORITY|This analysis compared ACR16 45 mg vs. placebo during the randomization phase.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36||||0.456|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.44|0.72|||ANCOVA|||The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) main effects model included a term for treatment and covariates for baseline mMS, gender, and use of antipsychotic medication.||0.72|-1.44|0.456
90942172|NCT00665223|181763973|SUPERIORITY|This analysis compared ACR16 90 mg vs. placebo during the randomization phase.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.99||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.08|0.1|||ANCOVA|||The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) main effects model included a term for treatment and covariates for baseline mMS, gender, and use of antipsychotic medication.||0.10|-2.08|0.042
90942173|NCT05324007|181763999|EQUIVALENCE|Estimated effect size was based on Liberman et al. (2017) that found a partial eta squared of .478 for the interaction between different-language and same-language conditions. Using G\*power using an alpha of .05, our target sample size of 30 per condition should provide 99.73% power to detect the main effect in the White-White and Black-Black condition and 99.99% power to detect the main effect in the Black-White condition.|partial eta squared|0.062|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||We will examine whether looking time at affiliation will be greater when looking at Black-White interactions than at White-White or Black-Black interactions. That is, we will test if infants will be more surprised (look longer) by affiliation between different-race people interacting than same race people interacting. We will conduct a mixed ANOVA with conditions (Black-White, White-White, Black-Black) as a between-subject and test type (affiliation vs. disengagement) as within-subject factors.||||<.05
91036203|NCT00318461|181959050|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg + metformin and glimepiride + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.11||||0.967||95.0|-0.62|0.41|||ANCOVA|||Change in post prandial increments of plasma glucose from baseline to 26 weeks of treatment was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||0.41|-0.62|0.9670
91036204|NCT00318461|181959050|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.2 mg + metformin and placebo + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-1.72|||<|0.0001||95.0|-2.36|-1.07|||ANCOVA|||Change in post prandial increments of plasma glucose from baseline to 26 weeks of treatment was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||-1.07|-2.36|<0.0001
90942174|NCT02341599|181764021|OTHER|LS mean ratio of Group B/Group A|LS mean ratio|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.06|1.58|||||LS mean ratio was calculated from analysis of variance (ANOVA) model.|||1.58|1.06|
90942175|NCT02341599|181764021|OTHER|LS mean ratio of Group C/Group A|LS mean ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.889|1.32|||||LS mean ratio was calculated from ANOVA model.|||1.32|0.889|
90942176|NCT02341599|181764021|OTHER|LS mean ratio of Group D/Group A|LS mean ratio|2.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.06|3.06|||||LS mean ratio was calculated from ANOVA model.|||3.06|2.06|
90942177|NCT02341599|181764021|OTHER|LS mean ratio of Group E: Period 1/Group A|LS mean ratio|0.989|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.806|1.21|||||LS mean ratio was calculated from ANOVA model.|||1.21|0.806|
90942178|NCT02341599|181764021|OTHER|LS mean ratio of Group E: Period 2/Group A|LS mean ratio|3.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.67|4.02|||||LS mean ratio was calculated from ANOVA model.|||4.02|2.67|
90942179|NCT02341599|181764021|OTHER|LS mean ratio of Group E: Period 1/Group E: Period 2|LS mean ratio|0.299|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.236|0.378|||||LS mean ratio was calculated from ANOVA model.|||0.378|0.236|
90942180|NCT02341599|181764022|OTHER|LS mean ratio of Group B/Group A|LS mean ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.846|1.27|||||LS mean ratio was calculated from ANOVA model.|||1.27|0.846|
90942181|NCT02341599|181764022|OTHER|LS mean ratio of Group C/Group A|LS mean ratio|0.524|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.428|0.641|||||LS mean ratio was calculated from ANOVA model.|||0.641|0.428|
90942182|NCT02341599|181764022|OTHER|LS mean ratio of Group D/Group A|LS mean ratio|0.678|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.554|0.831|||||LS mean ratio was calculated from ANOVA model.|||0.831|0.554|
90942183|NCT02341599|181764022|OTHER|LS mean ratio of Group E: Period 1/Group A|LS mean ratio|0.273|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.221|0.336|||||LS mean ratio was calculated from ANOVA model.|||0.336|0.221|
90942184|NCT02341599|181764022|OTHER|LS mean ratio of Group E: Period 2/Group A|LS mean ratio|0.326|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.265|0.402|||||LS mean ratio was calculated from ANOVA model.|||0.402|0.265|
90942185|NCT02341599|181764022|OTHER|LS mean ratio of Group E: Period 2/Group E: Period 1|LS mean ratio|0.808|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.65|1.0|||||LS mean ratio was calculated from ANOVA model.|||1.00|0.650|
90942186|NCT00519285|181764031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.942||||0.3802|TWO_SIDED|95.6|0.822|1.08||A priori threshold for statistical significance was set to 0.044 using the O'Brien-Fleming alpha spending function to account for two interim analyses.|Log Rank|Log rank test stratified on ECOG Performance Status|Hazard ratio (HR) aflibercept versus placebo estimated from a Cox proportional hazard model stratified on ECOG Performance Status|"Null hypothesis: No difference between aflibercept and placebo~The study was designed to provide 90% power to detect a 1.25-fold increase in median survival with aflibercept compared to placebo at a overall one-sided significance level of 0.025 with 873 deaths."||1.08|0.822|0.3802
90942187|NCT02970305|181764042|SUPERIORITY||Difference in MMRM LSMs|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.0434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|-0.1|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||-0.1|-3.8|0.0434
90942188|NCT02820597|181764135|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-tests on the mean change from baseline. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.||Null hypothesis is that the within-participant change from baseline in rTNSS is 0.||||<0.001
90942189|NCT02820597|181764136|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Paired t-tests on the mean change from baseline. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis is that the within-participant change from baseline in rhinitis symptoms VAS is 0.||||<0.001
90942190|NCT02143063|181764196|SUPERIORITY||comparison of rank sum|3752.0||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.01
90942191|NCT02143063|181764196|SUPERIORITY||comparison of rank sum|5287.5||||0.78|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.78
90942192|NCT02143063|181764197|SUPERIORITY||comparison of rank sum|3675.5||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Primary Aim 1: Compare the standard care and standard care plus traditional CM conditions||||.02
90942193|NCT02143063|181764197|SUPERIORITY||comparison of rank sum|5189.5||||0.61|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.61
90972459|NCT00562354|181827622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|2.1||||||Serotype 6B: To assess differences between reporting groups exact, 2-sided 95% CIs on the difference in proportions between reporting groups were calculated (50 to 64 years age group minus ≥ 65 years age group).||2.1|-5.9|
90972460|NCT00562354|181827622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|-0.9||||||Serotype 7F: To assess differences between reporting groups exact, 2-sided 95% CIs on the difference in proportions between reporting groups were calculated (50 to 64 years age group minus ≥ 65 years age group).||-0.9|-10.8|
90972461|NCT00562354|181827622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|6.9||||||Serotype 9V: To assess differences between reporting groups exact, 2-sided 95% CIs on the difference in proportions between reporting groups were calculated (50 to 64 years age group minus ≥ 65 years age group).||6.9|-8.7|
90972462|NCT00562354|181827622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|4.1||||||Serotype 14: To assess differences between reporting groups exact, 2-sided 95% CIs on the difference in proportions between reporting groups were calculated (50 to 64 years age group minus ≥ 65 years age group).||4.1|-4.0|
90972463|NCT00562354|181827622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|2.5||||||Serotype 18C: To assess differences between reporting groups exact, 2-sided 95% CIs on the difference in proportions between reporting groups were calculated (50 to 64 years age group minus ≥ 65 years age group).||2.5|-7.6|
90972464|NCT00562354|181827622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|4.7||||||Serotype 19A: To assess differences between reporting groups exact, 2-sided 95% CIs on the difference in proportions between reporting groups were calculated (50 to 64 years age group minus ≥ 65 years age group).||4.7|-2.8|
90972465|NCT00562354|181827622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|3.7||||||Serotype 19F: To assess differences between reporting groups exact, 2-sided 95% CIs on the difference in proportions between reporting groups were calculated (50 to 64 years age group minus ≥ 65 years age group).||3.7|-8.8|
90972466|NCT00562354|181827622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-6.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|1.5||||||Serotype 23F: To assess differences between reporting groups exact, 2-sided 95% CIs on the difference in proportions between reporting groups were calculated (50 to 64 years age group minus ≥ 65 years age group).||1.5|-14.1|
90972467|NCT00562354|181827625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-7.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.1|0.3||||||Serotype 1: To assess differences between reporting groups exact, 2-sided 95% CIs on the difference in proportions between reporting groups were calculated (50 to 64 years age group minus ≥ 65 years age group).||0.3|-15.1|
90972468|NCT00562354|181827625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|3.5||||||Serotype 3: To assess differences between reporting groups exact, 2-sided 95% CIs on the difference in proportions between reporting groups were calculated (50 to 64 years age group minus ≥ 65 years age group).||3.5|-14.5|
91036205|NCT00318461|181959050|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.2 mg + metformin and glimepirde + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|0.13||||0.9368||95.0|-0.39|0.64|||ANCOVA|||Change in post prandial increments of plasma glucose from baseline to 26 weeks of treatment was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||0.64|-0.39|0.9368
90972469|NCT00562354|181827625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-11.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.4|-1.0||||||Serotype 4: To assess differences between reporting groups exact, 2-sided 95% CIs on the difference in proportions between reporting groups were calculated (50 to 64 years age group minus ≥ 65 years age group).||-1.0|-21.4|
90972470|NCT00562354|181827625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|3.9||||||Serotype 5: To assess differences between reporting groups exact, 2-sided 95% CIs on the difference in proportions between reporting groups were calculated (50 to 64 years age group minus ≥ 65 years age group).||3.9|-13.5|
90972471|NCT00562354|181827625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|4.0||||||Serotype 6A: To assess differences between reporting groups exact, 2-sided 95% CIs on the difference in proportions between reporting groups were calculated (50 to 64 years age group minus ≥ 65 years age group).||4.0|-14.3|
90972472|NCT00562354|181827625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-12.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.6|-0.8||||||Serotype 6B: To assess differences between reporting groups exact, 2-sided 95% CIs on the difference in proportions between reporting groups were calculated (50 to 64 years age group minus ≥ 65 years age group).||-0.8|-24.6|
91050403|NCT04168190|181987005|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|13.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.28|25.32|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 31||25.32|7.28|
90972473|NCT00562354|181827625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-7.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|1.5||||||Serotype 7F: To assess differences between reporting groups exact, 2-sided 95% CIs on the difference in proportions between reporting groups were calculated (50 to 64 years age group minus ≥ 65 years age group).||1.5|-16.3|
90972474|NCT00562354|181827625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-17.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.5|-5.0||||||Serotype 9V: To assess differences between reporting groups exact, 2-sided 95% CIs on the difference in proportions between reporting groups were calculated (50 to 64 years age group minus ≥ 65 years age group).||-5.0|-29.5|
90972475|NCT00562354|181827625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-9.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.4|2.4||||||Serotype 14: To assess differences between reporting groups exact, 2-sided 95% CIs on the difference in proportions between reporting groups were calculated (50 to 64 years age group minus ≥ 65 years age group).||2.4|-21.4|
90972476|NCT00562354|181827625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-10.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.3|-1.3||||||Serotype 18C: To assess differences between reporting groups exact, 2-sided 95% CIs on the difference in proportions between reporting groups were calculated (50 to 64 years age group minus ≥ 65 years age group).||-1.3|-19.3|
91050404|NCT04168190|181987005|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|9.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.56|15.36|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 35B||15.36|5.56|
90942194|NCT00859976|181764239|SUPERIORITY|A superiority test was used to calculate the number of patients that are needed in order to show a difference between the bone mineral density surrounding BoneMaster coated cups compared to plasma HA sprayed cups.||||||0.457|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Change in bone mineral density, normalised to baseline levels.||||||0.4570
90942195|NCT02864342|181764254|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Satterthwaite t-test|||The effect of medication reminders on Symbicort adherence was evaluated using a t-test. The equality of variances was also tested and as the variances were not equal, the Satterthwaite-t test was reported.||||<0.001
90942196|NCT01161628|181764300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: p (CR rate) is 0.5 or less versus... Alternative hypothesis: p \>0.5 A sample size of 25 patients gives 90% power with an alpha = 0.05||||<0.5
90942197|NCT00984698|181764313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis must be qualified by small sample size, worse baseline symptom severity in CBSRT arm, and greater levels of attrition in PCGT arm||||<.05
90942198|NCT00984698|181764314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis must be qualified by small sample size, worse baseline symptom severity in CBSRT arm, and greater levels of attrition in PCGT arm||||<.05
90942199|NCT00746356|181764316|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size was calculated for an 80% power to reject the null hypothesis at 1.67% significance level.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0066|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.3103|<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|||P-value was adjusted for multiple efficacy endpoints. If all three primary effectiveness endpoints were met a value of 5% was used, if two were met a value of 2.5% was used, and if one was met a value of 1.67% was used.|t-test, 1 sided|If the data is not normally distributed, then the Wilcoxon signed rank test will be used to perform the two one-sided testing.||The null hypothesis was rejected at significance level 1.67% if the mean difference between the automatic test and the manual test was \<0.25 volts.|||-0.25|<0.0001
90942200|NCT00746356|181764317|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size was calculated for an 80% power to reject the null hypothesis at 1.67% significance level.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0625|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0948||0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|||P-value was adjusted for multiple efficacy endpoints. If all three primary effectiveness endpoints were met a value of 5% was used, if two were met a value of 2.5% was used and if one was met a value of 1.67% was used.|t-test, 1 sided|If the data is not normally distributed, then the Wilcoxon signed rank test will be used to perform the two one-sided testing.||The null hypothesis was rejected at significance level 1.67% if the mean difference between the automatic test and the manual test was \<0.25 volts.|||-0.25|0.0001
90942201|NCT00746356|181764318|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size was calculated for an 80% power to reject the null hypothesis at 1.67% significance level.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0556|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0824||0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|||P-value was adjusted for multiple efficacy endpoints. If all three primary effectiveness endpoints were met a value of 5% was used, if two were met, a value of 2.5% were used and if one was met a value of 1.67% was used.|t-test, 1 sided|If the data is not normally distributed, then the Wilcoxon signed rank test will be used to perform the two one-sided testing.||The null hypothesis was rejected at significance level 1.67% if the mean difference between the automatic test and the manual test was \<0.25 volts.|||-0.25|0.0001
90942202|NCT00746356|181764319|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size was calculated for an 80% power to reject the null hypothesis at 1.67% significance level.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0028|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.2852||0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|||P-value was adjusted for multiple efficacy endpoints. If three primary effectiveness endpoints were met a value of 5% was used, if two were met a value of 2.5% was used and if one was met a value of 1.67% was used.|t-test, 1 sided|If the data is not normally distributed, then the Wilcoxon signed rank test will be used to perform the two one-sided testing.||The null hypothesis was rejected at significance level 1.67% if the mean difference between the automatic test and the manual test was \<0.25 volts.|||-0.25|0.0001
90942203|NCT01125566|181764334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.4224||95.0|0.87|1.41||Two sided p-value was derived from a log rank test stratified by the setting of prior Trastuzumab failure, hormone receptors status and region of the investigational site.|Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio is derived from Cox proportional hazard model stratified by prior Trastuzumab failure, hormone receptors status and region of the investigational site.|||1.41|0.87|0.4224
90972477|NCT00562354|181827625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|7.9||||||Serotype 19A: To assess differences between reporting groups exact, 2-sided 95% CIs on the difference in proportions between reporting groups were calculated (50 to 64 years age group minus ≥ 65 years age group).||7.9|-6.2|
90972478|NCT00562354|181827625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|4.5||||||Serotype 19F: To assess differences between reporting groups exact, 2-sided 95% CIs on the difference in proportions between reporting groups were calculated (50 to 64 years age group minus ≥ 65 years age group).||4.5|-12.2|
90972479|NCT00562354|181827625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|7.3||||||Serotype 23F: To assess differences between reporting groups exact, 2-sided 95% CIs on the difference in proportions between reporting groups were calculated (50 to 64 years age group minus ≥ 65 years age group).||7.3|-12.5|
90972480|NCT00562354|181827628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|2.1||||||Serotype 1: To assess differences between reporting groups exact, 2-sided 95% CIs on the difference in proportions between reporting groups were calculated (50 to 64 years age group minus ≥ 65 years age group).||2.1|-13.8|
90942204|NCT01125566|181764335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.63||Two sided p-value from a log rank test stratified by the setting of prior Trastuzumab failure, hormone receptors status and region of the investigational site.|Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio is derived from Cox proportional hazard model stratified by prior Trastuzumab failure, hormone receptors status and region of the investigational site.|Results of presented analyses are to be seen as exploratory (no confirmatory testing was performed)||1.63|1.03|0.0240
91036206|NCT00318461|181959050|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 0.6 mg + metformin and placebo + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-1.06||||0.0003||95.0|-1.71|-0.42|||ANCOVA|||Change in post prandial increments of plasma glucose from baseline to 26 weeks of treatment was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||-0.42|-1.71|0.0003
91036207|NCT00318461|181959050|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 0.6 mg + metformin and glimepirde + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|0.78||||0.0008||95.0|0.27|1.29|||ANCOVA|||Change in post prandial increments of plasma glucose from baseline to 26 weeks of treatment was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||1.29|0.27|0.0008
91036208|NCT00318461|181959051|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg + metformin and placebo + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-1.66|||<|0.0001||95.0|-2.37|-0.96|||ANCOVA|||Change in post prandial increments of plasma glucose from baseline to 104 weeks of treatment was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||-0.96|-2.37|<0.0001
91036209|NCT00318461|181959051|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg + metformin and glimepiride + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.3||||0.5048||95.0|-0.86|0.26|||ANCOVA|||Change in post prandial increments of plasma glucose from baseline to 104 weeks of treatment was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||0.26|-0.86|0.5048
91036210|NCT00318461|181959051|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.2 mg + metformin and placebo + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-1.79|||<|0.0001||95.0|-2.49|-1.08|||ANCOVA|||Change in post prandial increments of plasma glucose from baseline to 104 weeks of treatment was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||-1.08|-2.49|<0.0001
91050405|NCT04168190|181987005|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|12.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.49|20.87|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 35B||20.87|7.49|
91050406|NCT04168190|181987006|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.47|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 3||1.47|0.67|
90942205|NCT01125566|181764336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.6431||95.0|0.756|1.572|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression stratified by prior Trastuzumab failure, hormone receptors status and region of the investigational site.|The odds ratio for the comparison afatinib + vinorelbine vs. trastuzumab + vinorelbine below 1 favours Afatinib.|Results of presented analyses are to be seen as exploratory (no confirmatory testing was performed)||1.572|0.756|0.6431
90942206|NCT01125566|181764337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.029||||0.8829||95.0|0.707|1.496|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression stratified by prior Trastuzumab failure, hormone receptors status and region of the investigational site.|The odds ratio for the comparison afatinib + vinorelbine vs. trastuzumab + vinorelbine below 1 favours AV.|Results of presented analyses are to be seen as exploratory (no confirmatory testing was performed)||1.496|0.707|0.8829
90942207|NCT00983892|181764340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-1.56||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.97|-0.15|||GEE|Adjusting for baseline symptom severity, caregiver type, week number, and cancer site.||||-0.15|-2.97|0.030
90942208|NCT03181282|181764343|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.0529|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0194||0.0194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0132|0.0925|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model analysis with repeated measures.||This analysis is for the On Medication / On Stimulation condition. Age was controlled for in the analysis given the baseline difference in age between groups.||0.0925|0.0132|0.0194
90942209|NCT03181282|181764343|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.0718|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0231||0.004625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0242|0.1194|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed models analysis with repeated measures.||This analysis is for the Off Medication / Off Stimulation Condition. Age was controlled for in the analysis given the baseline difference in age between groups.||0.1194|0.0242|0.004625
90942210|NCT03181282|181764344|SUPERIORITY||Slope|10.5248|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.8439||0.038389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6038|20.4459|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed models analysis with repeated measures.||This analysis is for the On Medication / On Stimulation condition. Age was controlled for in the analysis given the baseline difference in age between groups.||20.4459|0.6038|0.038389
90942211|NCT03181282|181764344|SUPERIORITY||Slope|7.7233|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.668||0.109873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8652|17.3117|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed models analysis with repeated measures.||This analysis is for the Off Medication / Off Stimulation condition. Age was controlled for in the analysis given the baseline difference in age between groups.||17.3117|-1.8652|0.109873
90942212|NCT02484547|181764371|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-0.26||||0.0901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.569|0.041|||MMRM|||Adjusted mean for each treatment group (Placebo, BIIB037 Low Dose, BIIB037 High Dose), difference with Placebo, 95% confidence interval and p-value at each time point were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in CDR-SB as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, categorical visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline CDR-SB, baseline CDR-SB by visit interaction, baseline MMSE, AD symptomatic medication use at baseline, region, and laboratory ApoE status.||0.041|-0.569|0.0901
90942213|NCT02484547|181764371|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-0.39||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.694|-0.086|||MMRM|||Adjusted mean for each treatment group (Placebo, BIIB037 Low Dose, BIIB037 High Dose), difference with Placebo, 95% confidence interval and p-value at each time point were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in CDR-SB as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, categorical visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline CDR-SB, baseline CDR-SB by visit.||-0.086|-0.694|0.0120
90942214|NCT02484547|181764372|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-0.1||||0.7578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.48|||MMRM|||Adjusted mean for each treatment group (Placebo, BIIB037 Low Dose, BIIB037 High Dose), difference from Placebo, 95% confidence interval and p-value at each time point were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MMSE as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, categorical visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline MMSE, baseline MMSE by visit interaction, AD symptomatic medication use at baseline, region, and laboratory ApoE status.||0.48|-0.65|0.7578
90942215|NCT02484547|181764372|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.6||||0.0493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.13|||MMRM|||Adjusted mean for each treatment group (Placebo, BIIB037 Low Dose, BIIB037 High Dose), difference from Placebo, 95% confidence interval and p-value at each time point were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MMSE as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, categorical visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline MMSE, baseline MMSE by visit interaction, AD symptomatic medication use at baseline, region, and laboratory ApoE status.||1.13|0.00|0.0493
90942216|NCT02484547|181764373|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-0.701||||0.1962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7649|0.3627|||MMRM|||Adjusted mean for each treatment group(Placebo,BIIB037 Low Dose,BIIB037 High Dose),difference from Placebo, 95% confidence interval and p-value at each time point were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in ADASCog 13 as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group,categorical visit,treatment-by-visit interaction,baseline ADAS-Cog 13,baseline ADAS-Cog 13 by visit interaction,baseline MMSE,AD symptomatic medication use at baseline,region, and laboratory ApoE status.||0.3627|-1.7649|0.1962
90972481|NCT00562354|181827628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.9|5.0||||||Serotype 3: To assess differences between reporting groups exact, 2-sided 95% CIs on the difference in proportions between reporting groups were calculated (50 to 64 years age group minus ≥ 65 years age group).||5.0|-15.9|
90972482|NCT00562354|181827628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-18.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.1|-5.9||||||Serotype 4: To assess differences between reporting groups exact, 2-sided 95% CIs on the difference in proportions between reporting groups were calculated (50 to 64 years age group minus ≥ 65 years age group).||-5.9|-30.1|
90972483|NCT00562354|181827628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|6.9||||||Serotype 5: To assess differences between reporting groups exact, 2-sided 95% CIs on the difference in proportions between reporting groups were calculated (50 to 64 years age group minus ≥ 65 years age group).||6.9|-11.6|
90972484|NCT00562354|181827628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-11.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.6|-1.2||||||Serotype 6A: To assess differences between reporting groups exact, 2-sided 95% CIs on the difference in proportions between reporting groups were calculated (50 to 64 years age group minus ≥ 65 years age group).||-1.2|-22.6|
90972485|NCT00562354|181827628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.8|1.9||||||Serotype 6B: To assess differences between reporting groups exact, 2-sided 95% CIs on the difference in proportions between reporting groups were calculated (50 to 64 years age group minus ≥ 65 years age group).||1.9|-23.8|
90972486|NCT00562354|181827628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-9.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.3|0.4||||||Serotype 7F: To assess differences between reporting groups exact, 2-sided 95% CIs on the difference in proportions between reporting groups were calculated (50 to 64 years age group minus ≥ 65 years age group).||0.4|-19.3|
90972487|NCT00562354|181827628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-26.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.0|-14.1||||||Serotype 9V: To assess differences between reporting groups exact, 2-sided 95% CIs on the difference in proportions between reporting groups were calculated (50 to 64 years age group minus ≥ 65 years age group).||-14.1|-39.0|
90972488|NCT00562354|181827628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-6.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.7|6.1||||||Serotype 14: To assess differences between reporting groups exact, 2-sided 95% CIs on the difference in proportions between reporting groups were calculated (50 to 64 years age group minus ≥ 65 years age group).||6.1|-18.7|
90972489|NCT00562354|181827628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-12.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.6|-1.7||||||Serotype 18C: To assess differences between reporting groups exact, 2-sided 95% CIs on the difference in proportions between reporting groups were calculated (50 to 64 years age group minus ≥ 65 years age group).||-1.7|-22.6|
90972490|NCT00562354|181827628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|8.1||||||Serotype 19A: To assess differences between reporting groups exact, 2-sided 95% CIs on the difference in proportions between reporting groups were calculated (50 to 64 years age group minus ≥ 65 years age group).||8.1|-9.8|
90972491|NCT00562354|181827628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-11.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.7|-1.2||||||Serotype 19F: To assess differences between reporting groups exact, 2-sided 95% CIs on the difference in proportions between reporting groups were calculated (50 to 64 years age group minus ≥ 65 years age group).||-1.2|-21.7|
90972492|NCT00562354|181827628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.5|3.4||||||Serotype 23F: To assess differences between reporting groups exact, 2-sided 95% CIs on the difference in proportions between reporting groups were calculated (50 to 64 years age group minus ≥ 65 years age group).||3.4|-18.5|
90972493|NCT00562354|181827631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean concentration|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.86|||||Ratio of GMCs were calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between age groups on the logarithmic scale.|Serotype 1: To assess differences between reporting groups, 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of IgG GMCs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the log-transformed assay results computed using the Student t-distribution.||0.86|0.43|
90972494|NCT00562354|181827631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean concentration|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.0|||||Ratio of GMCs were calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between age groups on the logarithmic scale.|Serotype 3: To assess differences between reporting groups, 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of IgG GMCs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the log-transformed assay results computed using the Student t-distribution.||1.00|0.63|
90972495|NCT00562354|181827631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean concentration|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.91|||||Ratio of GMCs were calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between age groups on the logarithmic scale.|Serotype 4: To assess differences between reporting groups, 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of IgG GMCs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the log-transformed assay results computed using the Student t-distribution.||0.91|0.48|
90972496|NCT00562354|181827631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean concentration|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.85|||||Ratio of GMCs were calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between age groups on the logarithmic scale.|Serotype 5: To assess differences between reporting groups, 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of IgG GMCs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the log-transformed assay results computed using the Student t-distribution.||0.85|0.50|
90972497|NCT00562354|181827631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean concentration|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.97|||||Ratio of GMCs were calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between age groups on the logarithmic scale.|Serotype 6A: To assess differences between reporting groups, 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of IgG GMCs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the log-transformed assay results computed using the Student t-distribution.||0.97|0.52|
90972498|NCT00562354|181827631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean concentration|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.9|||||Ratio of GMCs were calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between age groups on the logarithmic scale.|Serotype 6B: To assess differences between reporting groups, 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of IgG GMCs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the log-transformed assay results computed using the Student t-distribution.||0.90|0.48|
90972499|NCT00562354|181827631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean concentration|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.97|||||Ratio of GMCs were calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between age groups on the logarithmic scale.|Serotype 7F: To assess differences between reporting groups, 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of IgG GMCs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the log-transformed assay results computed using the Student t-distribution.||0.97|0.56|
90972500|NCT00562354|181827631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean concentration|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.61|||||Ratio of GMCs were calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between age groups on the logarithmic scale.|Serotype 9V: To assess differences between reporting groups, 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of IgG GMCs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the log-transformed assay results computed using the Student t-distribution.||0.61|0.35|
90972501|NCT00562354|181827631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean concentration|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.03|||||Ratio of GMCs were calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between age groups on the logarithmic scale.|Serotype 14: To assess differences between reporting groups, 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of IgG GMCs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the log-transformed assay results computed using the Student t-distribution.||1.03|0.56|
90972502|NCT00562354|181827631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean concentration|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.74|||||Ratio of GMCs were calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between age groups on the logarithmic scale.|Serotype 18C: To assess differences between reporting groups, 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of IgG GMCs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the log-transformed assay results computed using the Student t-distribution.||0.74|0.43|
90972503|NCT00562354|181827631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean concentration|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.66|||||Ratio of GMCs were calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between age groups on the logarithmic scale.|Serotype 19A: To assess differences between reporting groups, 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of IgG GMCs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the log-transformed assay results computed using the Student t-distribution.||0.66|0.38|
90972504|NCT00562354|181827631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean concentration|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.6|||||Ratio of GMCs were calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between age groups on the logarithmic scale.|Serotype 19F: To assess differences between reporting groups, 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of IgG GMCs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the log-transformed assay results computed using the Student t-distribution.||0.60|0.29|
90972505|NCT00562354|181827631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean concentration|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.82|||||Ratio of GMCs were calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between age groups on the logarithmic scale.|Serotype 23F: To assess differences between reporting groups, 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of IgG GMCs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the log-transformed assay results computed using the Student t-distribution.||0.82|0.42|
90972506|NCT00802204|181827647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|describe.....||Baseline outcome measurements are compared between lean and obese. Baseline and post outcome measurements are compared for the obese who completed VLCD||||<0.05
90972507|NCT00802204|181827647|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test to compare baseline and post-diet outcome measures||||<0.05
91036211|NCT00318461|181959051|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.2 mg + metformin and glimepirde + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.42||||0.2005||95.0|-0.98|0.14|||ANCOVA|||Change in post prandial increments of plasma glucose from baseline to 104 weeks of treatment was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||0.14|-0.98|0.2005
91050407|NCT04168190|181987006|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.57|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 3||1.57|0.72|
90942217|NCT02484547|181764373|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-1.4||||0.0097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4596|-0.3396|||MMRM|||Adjusted mean for each treatment group(Placebo,BIIB037 Low Dose,BIIB037 High Dose),difference from Placebo, 95% confidence interval and p-value at each time point were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in ADASCog 13 as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group,categorical visit,treatment-by-visit interaction,baseline ADAS-Cog 13,baseline ADAS-Cog 13 by visit interaction,baseline MMSE,AD symptomatic medication use at baseline,region, and laboratory ApoE status.||-0.3396|-2.4596|0.0097
90942218|NCT02484547|181764374|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.7||||0.1515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|1.73|||MMRM|||Adjusted mean for each treatment group (Placebo, BIIB037 Low dose and BIIB037 High Dose), difference from Placebo,95% CI and p-value at each time point were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in ADCSADL-MCI as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, categorical visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline ADCS-ADL-MCI, baseline ADCS-ADL-MCI by visit interaction, baseline MMSE, AD symptomatic medication use at baseline, region, and laboratory ApoE status.||1.73|-0.27|0.1515
90942219|NCT02484547|181764374|SUPERIORITY||Difference|1.7||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.74|||MMRM|||Adjusted mean for each treatment group (Placebo, BIIB037 Low dose and BIIB037 High Dose), difference from Placebo,95% CI and p-value at each time point were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in ADCSADL-MCI as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, categorical visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline ADCS-ADL-MCI, baseline ADCS-ADL-MCI by visit interaction, baseline MMSE, AD symptomatic medication use at baseline, region, and laboratory ApoE status.||2.74|0.75|0.0006
90942220|NCT03448536|181764390|SUPERIORITY||LS Means Difference|4.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.06|6.56|||ANCOVA|||||6.56|2.06|< 0.001
90942221|NCT03448536|181764391|SUPERIORITY||LS Means Difference|9.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.75|13.85|||ANCOVA|||||13.85|5.75|< 0.001
90942222|NCT03448536|181764392|SUPERIORITY||LS Means Difference|1.52|||=|0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|3.49|||ANCOVA|||||3.49|-0.45|= 0.129
90942223|NCT03448536|181764393|SUPERIORITY||LS Means Difference|8.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.76|10.78|||ANCOVA|||||10.78|5.76|< 0.001
90942224|NCT03448536|181764394|SUPERIORITY||LS Means Difference|0.56|||=|0.307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|1.64|||ANCOVA|||||1.64|-0.52|= 0.307
90942225|NCT03448536|181764395|SUPERIORITY||LS Means Difference|3.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.34|5.16|||ANCOVA|||||5.16|2.34|< 0.001
90942226|NCT03448536|181764396|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||||||< 0.001
90942227|NCT03448536|181764398|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.002|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||= 0.002
90942228|NCT01424189|181764423|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|With 300 subjects in the ReSTOR Toric IOL test group and 150 subjects in the ReSTOR IOL control group, there was over 99% power to demonstrate that the upper 95% confidence limit for the observed difference in UCDVA between IOL groups was less than the clinical performance target of 0.1 logMAR units at Month 12, assuming the true difference between groups is zero. This was based on an assumed standard deviation for UCDVA of 0.16 logMAR units and a 1-sided, α=0.05 test.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.03||||||||0.030||
90972508|NCT01390909|181827690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|849.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|786.0|921.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Prescription Drug Costs, AEDs|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Ordinary least squares regression was used to adjust differences. Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, baseline treatment, and costs.|Confidence intervals were calculated using a nonparametric bootstrap with 999 replications.|||921|786|<0.0001
90972509|NCT01390909|181827690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1879.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1636.0|2112.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Prescription Drug Costs, nonAEDs|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Ordinary least squares regression was used to adjust differences. Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, baseline treatment, and costs.|Confidence intervals were calculated using a nonparametric bootstrap with 999 replications.|||2112|1636|<0.0001
90972510|NCT01390909|181827690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|5681.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5257.0|6077.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Hospitalizations, All Medical Costs|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Ordinary least squares regression was used to adjust differences. Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, baseline treatment, and costs.|Confidence intervals were calculated using a nonparametric bootstrap with 999 replications.|||6077|5257|<0.0001
90972511|NCT01390909|181827690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|273.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|251.0|295.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Emergency Department Visits, All Medical Costs|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Ordinary least squares regression was used to adjust differences. Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, baseline treatment, and costs.|Confidence intervals were calculated using a nonparametric bootstrap with 999 replications.|||295|251|<0.0001
90972512|NCT01390909|181827690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1021.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|819.0|1211.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Outpatient Services, All Medical Costs|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Ordinary least squares regression was used to adjust differences. Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, baseline treatment, and costs.|Confidence intervals were calculated using a nonparametric bootstrap with 999 replications.|||1211|819|<0.0001
90942229|NCT01424189|181764424|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|With 300 subjects in the ReSTOR Toric IOL test group and 150 subjects in the ReSTOR IOL control group, there was over 99% power to demonstrate that the upper 95% confidence limit for the observed difference in UCNVA between IOL groups was less than the clinical performance target of 0.1 logMAR units at Month 12, assuming the true difference between groups is zero. This estimate was based on an assumed standard deviation for UCNVA of 0.16 logMAR units and a 1-sided, α=0.05 test.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.044|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015|||ONE_SIDED|95.0||-0.017||||||||-0.017||
90972513|NCT01390909|181827690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|60.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.0|72.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Neurologist Visits, All Medical Costs|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Ordinary least squares regression was used to adjust differences. Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, baseline treatment, and costs.|Confidence intervals were calculated using a nonparametric bootstrap with 999 replications.|||72|48|<0.0001
90972514|NCT01390909|181827690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|2555.0||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|834.0|4281.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Other Healthcare Services, All Medical Costs|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Ordinary least squares regression was used to adjust differences. Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, baseline treatment, and costs.|Confidence intervals were calculated using a nonparametric bootstrap with 999 replications.|||4281|834|0.0080
91036212|NCT00318461|181959051|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 0.6 mg + metformin and placebo + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-1.16||||0.0003||95.0|-1.86|-0.46|||ANCOVA|||Change in post prandial increments of plasma glucose from baseline to 104 weeks of treatment was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||-0.46|-1.86|0.0003
91036213|NCT00318461|181959051|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 0.6 mg + metformin and glimepirde + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|0.21||||0.7871||95.0|-0.35|0.76|||ANCOVA|||Change in post prandial increments of plasma glucose from baseline to 104 weeks of treatment was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||0.76|-0.35|0.7871
91036214|NCT00318461|181959052|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg + metformin and placebo + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|27.75||||0.0031||95.0|7.83|47.67|||ANCOVA|||Change in HOMA-B from baseline to 26 weeks of treatment was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||47.67|7.83|0.0031
91036215|NCT00318461|181959052|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg + metformin and glimepiride + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|1.44||||0.9987||95.0|-15.03|17.9|||ANCOVA|||Change in HOMA-B from baseline to 26 weeks of treatment was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||17.90|-15.03|0.9987
91036216|NCT00318461|181959052|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.2 mg + metformin and placebo + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|21.96||||0.0263||95.0|2.04|41.87|||ANCOVA|||Change in HOMA-B from baseline to 26 weeks of treatment was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||41.87|2.04|0.0263
91036217|NCT00318461|181959052|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.2 mg + metformin and glimepirde + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-4.36||||0.9227||95.0|-20.94|12.22|||ANCOVA|||Change in HOMA-B from baseline to 26 weeks of treatment was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||12.22|-20.94|0.9227
91036218|NCT00318461|181959052|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 0.6 mg + metformin and placebo + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|22.08||||0.0253||95.0|2.15|42.01|||ANCOVA|||Change in HOMA-B from baseline to 26 weeks of treatment was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||42.01|2.15|0.0253
91036219|NCT00318461|181959052|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 0.6 mg + metformin and glimepirde + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-4.23||||0.9293||95.0|-20.78|12.31|||ANCOVA|||Change in HOMA-B from baseline to 26 weeks of treatment was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||12.31|-20.78|0.9293
91036220|NCT00318461|181959053|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg + metformin and placebo + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|25.71||||0.8821||95.0|-69.84|121.26|||ANCOVA|||Change in HOMA-B from baseline to 104 weeks of treatment was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||121.26|-69.84|0.8821
91050408|NCT04168190|181987006|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|0.88||||||95.0|0.54|1.42|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 7F||1.42|0.54|
90972515|NCT01390909|181827690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4041.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3776.0|4305.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Epilepsy-Related Hospitalizations|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Ordinary least squares regression was used to adjust differences. Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, baseline treatment, and costs.|Confidence intervals were calculated using a nonparametric bootstrap with 999 replications.|||4305|3776|<0.0001
90972516|NCT01390909|181827690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|105.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|97.0|114.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Epilepsy-Related Emergency Department Visits|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Ordinary least squares regression was used to adjust differences. Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, baseline treatment, and costs.|Confidence intervals were calculated using a nonparametric bootstrap with 999 replications.|||114|97|<0.0001
90972517|NCT01390909|181827690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|384.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|358.0|413.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Epilepsy-Related Outpatient Services|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Ordinary least squares regression was used to adjust differences. Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, baseline treatment, and costs.|Confidence intervals were calculated using a nonparametric bootstrap with 999 replications.|||413|358|<0.0001
90972518|NCT01390909|181827690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|47.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.0|56.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Epilepsy-Related Neurologist Visits|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Ordinary least squares regression was used to adjust differences. Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, baseline treatment, and costs.|Confidence intervals were calculated using a nonparametric bootstrap with 999 replications.|||56|40|<0.0001
90972519|NCT01390909|181827690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|892.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|584.0|1192.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Other Epilepsy-Related Healthcare Costs|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Ordinary least squares regression was used to adjust differences. Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, baseline treatment, and costs.|Confidence intervals were calculated using a nonparametric bootstrap with 999 replications.|||1192|584|<0.0001
90972520|NCT01390909|181827690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|12258.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10482.0|14083.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Total Healthcare Costs|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Ordinary least squares regression was used to adjust differences. Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, baseline treatment, and costs.|Confidence intervals were calculated using a nonparametric bootstrap with 999 replications.|||14083|10482|<0.0001
90972521|NCT01390909|181827690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|322.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|245.0|398.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Prescription Drug Costs, AEDs|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, AEDs and non-AEDs known to increase seizure risk and baseline costs.||||398|245|<0.0001
90972522|NCT01390909|181827690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|841.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|556.0|1078.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Prescription Drug Costs, non-AEDs|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, AEDs and non-AEDs known to increase seizure risk and baseline costs.||||1078|556|<0.0001
90972523|NCT01390909|181827690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3248.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2790.0|3714.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Hospitalizations, All Medical Costs|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, AEDs and non-AEDs known to increase seizure risk and baseline costs.||||3714|2790|<0.0001
90972524|NCT01390909|181827690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|164.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|138.0|190.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Emergency Department Visits, All Medical Costs|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, AEDs and non-AEDs known to increase seizure risk and baseline costs.||||190|138|<0.0001
91036221|NCT00318461|181959053|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg + metformin and glimepiride + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|6.56||||0.9989||95.0|-72.66|85.79|||ANCOVA|||Change in HOMA-B from baseline to 104 weeks of treatment was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||85.79|-72.66|0.9989
91036222|NCT00318461|181959053|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.2 mg + metformin and placebo + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|35.2||||0.7292||95.0|-60.33|130.72|||ANCOVA|||Change in HOMA-B from baseline to 104 weeks of treatment was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||130.72|-60.33|0.7292
91036223|NCT00318461|181959053|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.2 mg + metformin and glimepirde + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|16.05||||0.9689||95.0|-63.69|95.79|||ANCOVA|||Change in HOMA-B from baseline to 104 weeks of treatment was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||95.79|-63.69|0.9689
91050409|NCT04168190|181987006|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.8|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 7F||1.80|0.68|
90972525|NCT01390909|181827690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|628.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|409.0|819.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Outpatient Services, All Medical Costs|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, AEDs and non-AEDs known to increase seizure risk and baseline costs.||||819|409|<0.0001
90972526|NCT01390909|181827690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|29.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.0|42.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Neurologist Visits, All Medical Costs|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, AEDs and non-AEDs known to increase seizure risk and baseline costs.||||42|18|<0.0001
90942230|NCT00988117|181764456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Tscore|5.19|||<|0.01||95.0||||t-tests were statistically thresholded using the joint probability distribution method to correct for multiple comparisons, p \< 0.01 for voxel height and p \< 0.05 for cluster extent|t-test, 2 sided|A mask included only those regions where the patients showed abnormally low fALFF at either timepoint relative to a sample of 15 age-matched controls.||"Each voxel's BOLD signal time series was detrended and transformed to the frequency domain. We divided the sum of the square roots across the 0.01-0.08 Hz range by that across the entire frequency range (0-0.25 Hz).~fALFF group comparisons were evaluated using t-tests corrected for multiple comparisons. To determine if there were treatment-associated changes in brain activity, we compared voxel-wise fALFF in the patients at baseline to post-treatment."||||<0.01
90942231|NCT00988117|181764457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||pearson's r correlation coefficient|-0.82|||<|0.01||95.0||||This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||correlation with left inferior frontal gyrus / premotor falff change||||<.01
90942232|NCT00988117|181764457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||pearson's correlation coefficient|-0.35||||0.36||95.0||||This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||correlation with left supplementary motor area falff change||||.36
90942233|NCT00988117|181764458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||pearson's r correlation|0.18||||0.58||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||correlation with left premotor / inferior frontal gyri falff change||||.58
90942234|NCT00988117|181764458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||pearson's correlation coefficient|0.26||||0.41||95.0||||This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||correlation with left supplementary motor area falff change||||.41
90942235|NCT00513461|181764461|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|7.78||||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.160
90942236|NCT00513461|181764474|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.43||||0.878|TWO_SIDED||||||Two-Group t-test|||||||0.878
90942237|NCT00513461|181764475|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.66||||0.212|TWO_SIDED||||||Two-Group t-test|||||||0.212
90942238|NCT05400226|181764484|OTHER|Summary statistics of quantitative data, one-sided exact binomial test for null hypothesis, Clopper-Pearson method for 95% exact confidence intervals|Proportion|0.425|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.591|||Exact Binomial Test||The Parameter Dispersion Value is the asymptotic standard error of the proportion.|Single arm open-label||0.591|0.270|< .0001
90942239|NCT05400226|181764485|OTHER||Proportion|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.675|0.939||||||||0.939|0.675|
90942240|NCT05400226|181764486|OTHER||Proportion|0.455|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.202|0.733||||||||0.733|0.202|
90942241|NCT05400226|181764487|OTHER||Proportion|0.333|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.126|0.633||||||||0.633|0.126|
90942242|NCT05400226|181764488|OTHER||Proportion|0.773|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.862||||||||0.862|0.650|
90942243|NCT00312845|181764489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.039||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.039
90942244|NCT00312845|181764490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90942245|NCT00424177|181764506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion of subjects in Cycle 2 or 3|0.87||||||95.0|0.74|0.94||||||||0.94|0.74|
90942246|NCT01123512|181764522|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Pr( Pt - Pc \> -12.5% \| data), calculated using Bayesian multiple imputation for missing 12-month values, as specified in the protocol. The Kiva System is declared non-inferior to control if Pr( Pt - Pc \> -12.5% \| data)\> 96.6%."|% Probability of Equivalence = 99.92|99.92|||||TWO_SIDED|||||"Pr( Pt - Pc \> -12.5% \| data), calculated using Bayesian multiple imputation for missing 12-month values, as specified in the protocol. The Kiva System is declared non-inferior to control if Pr( Pt - Pc \> -12.5% \| data)\> 96.6%."|Bayesian test of proportions|||||||
90942247|NCT00496834|181764534|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|non-inferiority margin= -1.5m/s|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.43|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.01|||||The lower limit of ≥-1.5m/s was judged to prove the non-inferiority of the test group to the control group.|Participants for analysis was modified intention to treat (Number of patients: Losartan group was 88, Carvedilol group was 94).||0.01|-0.83|
90942248|NCT00496834|181764535|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|non-inferiority margin=-1.5m/s|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.15|||||The lower limit of ≥-1.5m/s was judged to prove the non-inferiority of the test group to the control group.|Participants for analysis was per protocol (Number of patients: Losartan group was 54, Carvedilol group was 67). For the primary efficacy endpoints, Per protocol analysis approach was supplementary used.||0.15|-0.86|
90942249|NCT00496834|181764536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9032||95.0||||Significance level=0.05|t-test, 2 sided|The secondary efficacy analysis was performed in the modified intention to treat population using t-test.||||||0.9032
90942250|NCT00496834|181764537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6574||95.0||||Significance level=0.05|t-test, 2 sided|The secondary efficacy analysis was performed in the modified intention to treat population using t-test||||||0.6574
90942251|NCT01227928|181764550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.984|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.595|1.626|||||The Hazard Ratio (HR) is estimated using a Pike estimator. The HR was adjusted for the stratification factor of first-line treatment outcome.|||1.626|0.595|
90942252|NCT01227928|181764551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.811||||0.5901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.376|1.751|||Log Rank||The Hazard Ratio (HR) is estimated using a Pike estimator. The HR was adjusted for the three stratification factors.|||1.751|0.376|0.5901
90942253|NCT01042145|181764565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.34
90942254|NCT01042145|181764566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.63
90942255|NCT01042145|181764568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.51
90942256|NCT01042145|181764569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.24
90942257|NCT01042145|181764570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
90942258|NCT04088136|181764571|EQUIVALENCE|A one-tailed independent samples t-test was conducted. A p-value of .05 was used to determine statistical significance.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.55|||t-test, 2 sided|Use of pooled error term, df = 60.|Negative number reflects fewer errors in EMMI group, as predicted.|||0.55|-0.42|.67
90942259|NCT04088136|181764572|SUPERIORITY|Everyday Metacognitive Memory group predicted to have superior scores to Memory Strategy Control|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.47|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided||pooled error term, equal variance assumption, df = 60|||||<.47
90942260|NCT04088136|181764573|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0|<|0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|7.6|||t-test, 1 sided|||||7.6|-3.7|< .13
90942261|NCT04088136|181764574|EQUIVALENCE|Directional hypothesis of fewer errors in Everyday Metacognitive Memory group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|2.6||A p-value of .05 was used to determine statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|Pooled error term, df = 51||||2.6|-4.8|.57
90942262|NCT04088136|181764575|EQUIVALENCE|Two-tailed test of hypothesis of fewer errors in EMMI group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|5.5||A p-value of .05 was used to determine statistical significance|t-test, 2 sided|Pooled error term, df = 49||||5.5|-3.8|.72
90942263|NCT04088136|181764576|OTHER|Test of Group X Time interaction|||||<|0.69|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|pooled df = 59||"We ran a 2 X 2 (Group X Time) mixed model analysis with repeated measures on Time (pretest, posttest).~Hypothesis was that Memory Strategy Control group would show greater improvements from pretest to posttest in recall scores"||||< .69
90942264|NCT04088136|181764577|OTHER|One-tailed test of Group X Time interaction|||||<|0.037|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||"We ran a 2 X 2 (Group X Time) mixed effect model with repeated measures on Time (pretest-posttest).~Predicted hypothesis was greater pretest-posttest improvement in the Memory Strategy Contol group"||||< .037
90942265|NCT04088136|181764578|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.9||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|8.4|||t-test, 2 sided||one instance of missing data due to computer failure during testing. Pooled error term resulting in df = 59|||8.4|-4.0|.69
90942266|NCT04088136|181764579|EQUIVALENCE|Directional hypothesis of shorter time in Everyday Metacognitive Memory group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-50.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|103.3||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-257.4|157.4||A p-value of .05 was used to determine statistical significance|t-test, 2 sided|Use of pooled error term, DF = 51||||157.4|-257.4|.63
90942267|NCT04088136|181764580|EQUIVALENCE|Two-tailed test of hypothesis of shorter time in Everyday Metacognitive Memory group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|43.8||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.4|98.5||A p-value of .05 was used to determine statistical significance|t-test, 2 sided|Use of pooled error term, df = 49||||98.5|-77.4|.81
90942268|NCT04088136|181764581|OTHER||||||<|0.14|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed procedure with unrestricted error covariance matrix. Pooled df for MSWithin = 60||We conducted a 2 X 2 (Group X Time) mixed effects model with repeated measures on Time (pretest, posttest). Hypothesis was greater reduction in memory complaints from pretest to posttest in EMMI group||||< .14
90942269|NCT04088136|181764582|OTHER|||||||0.037|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||We ran a 2 X 2 (Group X Time) mixed effect model with repeated measures on Time (pretest-posttest)||||.037
90942270|NCT04088136|181764583|OTHER|Hypothesis was greater increase in memory self-efficacy for Everyday Metacognitive Memory group|||||<|0.33|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model specified unrestricted residual (error) covariance matrix. Pooled df in MS Error = 60||We ran a 2 X 2 (Group X Time) mixed effects model with repeated measures on Time (pretest, posttest).||||< .33
90942271|NCT04088136|181764584|OTHER||||||<|0.2|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||We ran a 2 X 2 (Group X Time) mixed effects model with repeated measures on Time (pretest, posttest). Hypothesis was greater increase in memory control in EMMI group||||< .20
90942272|NCT04088136|181764585|OTHER|Hypothesis was greater increase in use of external mnemonics in EMMI group|||||<|0.2|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< .20
90942273|NCT01494298|181764586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.002||95.0||||The control group average age was 6 years lower(P=0.001). Results were adjusted via a logistic regression and presented as age-adjusted means and SE. The unadjusted differences had similar results.|t-test, 2 sided|||Hypothesis - There will be differences in ApoB between AA with T2DM and those without. To achieve a power of 80%, 48 subjects in each group were needed to detect 15 mg/dL difference in ApoB levels, assuming a standard deviation of 26 mg/dL if alpha was set at 0.05. Continuous data were compared using a Students t-test and categorical data were compared using test.||||=0.002
90942274|NCT01494298|181764588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.84
90942275|NCT04159805|181764590|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square (LS) Mean|0.29|||=|0.772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|2.3||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 4||2.30|-1.72|=0.772
90942276|NCT04159805|181764590|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|1.01|||=|0.299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|2.97||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 4||2.97|-0.94|=0.299
90942277|NCT04159805|181764590|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.11|||=|0.924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|2.13||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 6||2.13|-2.34|=0.924
90942278|NCT04159805|181764590|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|1.86|||=|0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|4.04||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 6||4.04|-0.32|=0.091
90972527|NCT01390909|181827690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|235.0||||0.7628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1367.0|1798.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Other Healthcare Services, All Medical Costs|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, AEDs and non-AEDs known to increase seizure risk and baseline costs.||||1798|-1367|0.7628
90972528|NCT01390909|181827690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2306.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2016.0|2603.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Epilepsy-Related Hospitalizations|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Ordinary least squares regression was used to adjust differences. Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, baseline treatment, and costs.|Confidence intervals were calculated using a nonparametric bootstrap with 999 replications.|||2603|2016|<0.0001
90942279|NCT04159805|181764590|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.18|||=|0.887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.82|2.45||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 8||2.45|-2.82|=0.887
90942280|NCT04159805|181764590|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|1.8|||=|0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|4.36||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 8||4.36|-0.76|=0.162
90942281|NCT04159805|181764590|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.36|||=|0.784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.01|2.29||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 10||2.29|-3.01|=0.784
90942282|NCT04159805|181764590|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|1.79|||=|0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|4.37||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 10||4.37|-0.79|=0.166
90942283|NCT04159805|181764590|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.42|||=|0.724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|2.82||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 12||2.82|-1.98|=0.724
90942284|NCT04159805|181764590|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|1.81|||=|0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|4.14||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 12||4.14|-0.52|=0.124
90942285|NCT04159805|181764590|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.29|||=|0.856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.91|3.48||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 14||3.48|-2.91|=0.856
90942286|NCT04159805|181764590|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|1.64|||=|0.292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|4.76||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 14||4.76|-1.48|=0.292
90972529|NCT01390909|181827690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|63.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.0|74.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Epilepsy-Related Emergency Department Visits|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Ordinary least squares regression was used to adjust differences. Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, baseline treatment, and costs.|Confidence intervals were calculated using a nonparametric bootstrap with 999 replications.|||74|52|<0.0001
90972530|NCT01390909|181827690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|211.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|179.0|245.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Epilepsy-Related Outpatient Services|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Ordinary least squares regression was used to adjust differences. Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, baseline treatment, and costs.|Confidence intervals were calculated using a nonparametric bootstrap with 999 replications.|||245|179|<0.0001
90942287|NCT04159805|181764590|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.11|||=|0.944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.14|3.37||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 16||3.37|-3.14|=0.944
90942288|NCT04159805|181764590|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.85|||=|0.589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|4.02||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 16||4.02|-2.33|=0.589
90972531|NCT01390909|181827690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.0|33.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Epilepsy-Related Neurologist Visits|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Ordinary least squares regression was used to adjust differences. Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, baseline treatment, and costs.|Confidence intervals were calculated using a nonparametric bootstrap with 999 replications.|||33|15|<0.0001
90942289|NCT04159805|181764591|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.93|||=|0.406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.17|1.31||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 4||1.31|-3.17|=0.406
90942290|NCT04159805|181764591|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.9|||=|0.418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|3.14||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 4||3.14|-1.34|=0.418
90942291|NCT04159805|181764591|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.94|||=|0.463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.53|1.65||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 6||1.65|-3.53|=0.463
90942292|NCT04159805|181764591|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.1|||=|0.936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|2.49||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 6||2.49|-2.70|=0.936
90942293|NCT04159805|181764591|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-1.8|||=|0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.41|0.82||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 8||0.82|-4.41|=0.170
90942294|NCT04159805|181764591|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.52|||=|0.687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|3.13||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 8||3.13|-2.10|=0.687
90942295|NCT04159805|181764591|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-1.24|||=|0.374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.05|1.57||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 10||1.57|-4.05|=0.374
90942296|NCT04159805|181764591|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.99|||=|0.478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|3.8||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 10||3.80|-1.82|=0.478
90942297|NCT04159805|181764591|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.51|||=|0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.12|2.09||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 12||2.09|-3.12|=0.690
90942298|NCT04159805|181764591|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|2.12|||=|0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|4.71||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 12||4.71|-0.48|=0.106
91007693|NCT04223778|181899574|OTHER|Treatment Difference vs Baseline ART. Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated Difference|-3.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.37|0.05|||||Difference in percentage versus (vs) Baseline ART was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Fasting HDL Cholesterol||0.05|-6.37|
90942299|NCT04159805|181764591|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.89|||=|0.547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.89|2.12||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 14||2.12|-3.89|=0.547
90942300|NCT04159805|181764591|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|2.19|||=|0.144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|5.18||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 14||5.18|-0.81|=0.144
90942301|NCT04159805|181764591|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-1.37|||=|0.431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.91|2.17||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 16||2.17|-4.91|=0.431
90972532|NCT01390909|181827690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|277.0||||0.0581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|581.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Other Epilepsy-Related Healthcare Costs|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Ordinary least squares regression was used to adjust differences. Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, baseline treatment, and costs.|Confidence intervals were calculated using a nonparametric bootstrap with 999 replications.|||581|-19|0.0581
90972533|NCT01390909|181827690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5437.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3672.0|7142.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Total Healthcare Costs|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, AEDs and non-AEDs known to increase seizure risk and baseline costs.||||7142|3672|<0.0001
90972534|NCT01390909|181827690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1019.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|836.0|1191.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Prescription Drug Costs, AEDs|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, AEDs and non-AEDs known to increase seizure risk and baseline costs.||||1191|836|<0.0001
90972535|NCT01390909|181827690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1047.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|564.0|1486.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Prescription Drug Costs, Non-AEDs|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, AEDs and non-AEDs known to increase seizure risk and baseline costs.||||1486|564|<0.0001
90972536|NCT01390909|181827690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|9128.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7346.0|11125.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Hospitalizations|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, AEDs and non-AEDs known to increase seizure risk and baseline costs.||||11125|7346|<0.0001
90972537|NCT01390909|181827690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|459.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|326.0|622.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Emergency Department Visits|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, AEDs and non-AEDs known to increase seizure risk and baseline costs.||||622|326|<0.0001
90972538|NCT01390909|181827690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|2427.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1587.0|3290.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Outpatient Services|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, AEDs and non-AEDs known to increase seizure risk and baseline costs.||||3290|1587|<0.0001
90972539|NCT01390909|181827690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|357.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|225.0|525.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Neurologists Visits|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, AEDs and non-AEDs known to increase seizure risk and baseline costs.||||525|225|<0.0001
90972540|NCT01390909|181827690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|502.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|234.0|768.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Other Healthcare Services|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, AEDs and non-AEDs known to increase seizure risk and baseline costs.||||768|234|<0.0001
90972541|NCT01390909|181827690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6483.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5329.0|7927.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Epilepsy-Related Hospitalizations|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Ordinary least squares regression was used to adjust differences. Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, baseline treatment, and costs.|Confidence intervals were calculated using a nonparametric bootstrap with 999 replications.|||7927|5329|<0.0001
90972542|NCT01390909|181827690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|150.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|112.0|199.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Epilepsy-Related Emergency Department Visits|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Ordinary least squares regression was used to adjust differences. Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, baseline treatment, and costs.|Confidence intervals were calculated using a nonparametric bootstrap with 999 replications.|||199|112|<0.0001
90972543|NCT01390909|181827690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|516.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|401.0|645.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Epilepsy-Related Outpatient Services|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Ordinary least squares regression was used to adjust differences. Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, baseline treatment, and costs.|Confidence intervals were calculated using a nonparametric bootstrap with 999 replications.|||645|401|<0.0001
90972544|NCT01390909|181827690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|158.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|97.0|231.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Epilepsy-Related Neurologist Visits|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Ordinary least squares regression was used to adjust differences. Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, baseline treatment, and costs.|Confidence intervals were calculated using a nonparametric bootstrap with 999 replications.|||231|97|<0.0001
90972545|NCT01390909|181827690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|83.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.0|113.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Other Epilepsy-Related Healthcare Costs|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Ordinary least squares regression was used to adjust differences. Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, baseline treatment, and costs.|Confidence intervals were calculated using a nonparametric bootstrap with 999 replications.|||113|58|<0.0001
90972546|NCT01390909|181827690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14582.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12019.0|17097.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Total Healthcare Costs|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, AEDs and non-AEDs known to increase seizure risk and baseline costs.||||17097|12019|<0.0001
90972547|NCT01390909|181827690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|420.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|210.0|630.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Prescription Drug Costs, AEDs|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, AEDs and non-AEDs known to increase seizure risk and baseline costs.||||630|210|<0.0001
90972548|NCT01390909|181827690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|658.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|217.0|1131.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Prescription Drug Costs, Non-AEDs|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, AEDs and non-AEDs known to increase seizure risk and baseline costs.||||1131|217|<0.0001
90942302|NCT04159805|181764591|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|1.2|||=|0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|4.74|||MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 16||4.74|-2.34|=0.488
90942303|NCT04159805|181764592|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.34|||=|0.855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.14|3.45||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 4||3.45|-4.14|=0.855
90942304|NCT04159805|181764592|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|3.19|||=|0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|6.95||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 4||6.95|-0.56|=0.093
90942305|NCT04159805|181764592|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|1.8|||=|0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|6.2||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 6||6.20|-2.61|=0.410
90942306|NCT04159805|181764592|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|3.13|||=|0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|7.5||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 6||7.50|-1.25|=0.154
90942307|NCT04159805|181764592|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.94|||=|0.662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.29|3.41||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 8||3.41|-5.29|=0.662
90942308|NCT04159805|181764592|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|3.26|||=|0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|7.54||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 8||7.54|-1.02|=0.130
90942309|NCT04159805|181764592|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|1.27|||=|0.586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.44|5.98||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 10||5.98|-3.44|=0.586
90942310|NCT04159805|181764592|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|4.93|||=|0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|9.6||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 10||9.60|0.26|=0.039
90942311|NCT04159805|181764592|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.22|||=|0.909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.03|3.6||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 12||3.60|-4.03|=0.909
90942312|NCT04159805|181764592|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|2.65|||=|0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|6.4||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 12||6.40|-1.09|=0.158
90942313|NCT04159805|181764592|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.88|||=|0.764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|5.05||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 14||5.05|-6.80|=0.764
90942314|NCT04159805|181764592|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|5.2|||=|0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|11.06||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 14||11.06|-0.67|=0.080
90942315|NCT04159805|181764592|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-1.01|||=|0.677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.98|3.95||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 16||3.95|-5.98|=0.677
90942316|NCT04159805|181764592|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|4.81|||=|0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|9.73||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 16||9.73|-0.10|=0.055
90942317|NCT04159805|181764593|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.52|||=|0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.23|4.27||From a MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 4||4.27|-3.23|=0.780
90942318|NCT04159805|181764593|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.5|||=|0.771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.99|3.99||From a MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 4||3.99|-2.99|=0.771
90942319|NCT04159805|181764593|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.04|||=|0.984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.22|4.14||From a MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 6||4.14|-4.22|=0.984
90942320|NCT04159805|181764593|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|2.44|||=|0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|6.35||From a MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 6||6.35|-1.47|=0.213
90942321|NCT04159805|181764593|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-1.97|||=|0.371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|2.45||From a MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 8||2.45|-6.40|=0.371
90942322|NCT04159805|181764593|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.11|||=|0.956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.01|4.23||From a MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 8||4.23|-4.01|=0.956
90942323|NCT04159805|181764593|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-1.06|||=|0.641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.65|3.53||From a MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 10||3.53|-5.65|=0.641
90942324|NCT04159805|181764593|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.33|||=|0.876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.61|3.95||From a MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 10||3.95|-4.61|=0.876
90942325|NCT04159805|181764593|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-1.86|||=|0.458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.91|3.18||From a MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 12||3.18|-6.91|=0.458
90942326|NCT04159805|181764593|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.68|||=|0.769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.37|4.0||From a MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 12||4.00|-5.37|=0.769
90942327|NCT04159805|181764593|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-1.14|||=|0.699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.07|4.8||From a MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 14||4.80|-7.07|=0.699
90942328|NCT04159805|181764593|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|1.1|||=|0.687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.41|6.62||From a MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 14||6.62|-4.41|=0.687
90972549|NCT01390909|181827690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6040.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3442.0|8795.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Hospitalizations, All Medical Costs|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, AEDs and non-AEDs known to increase seizure risk and baseline costs.||||8795|3442|<0.0001
90942329|NCT04159805|181764593|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.2|||=|0.944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.55|5.95||From a MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 16||5.95|-5.55|=0.944
90942330|NCT04159805|181764593|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|2.48|||=|0.351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.87|7.83||From a MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 16||7.83|-2.87|=0.351
90942331|NCT04159805|181764594|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-27.9|||=|0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.18|4.38||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 2||4.38|-60.18|=0.090
90942332|NCT04159805|181764594|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-15.77|||=|0.328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.5|15.96||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 2||15.96|-47.50|=0.328
90972550|NCT01390909|181827690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|268.0||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|81.0|425.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Emergency Department Visits, All Medical Costs|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, AEDs and non-AEDs known to increase seizure risk and baseline costs.||||425|81|0.0020
91036224|NCT00318461|181959053|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 0.6 mg + metformin and placebo + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|72.38||||0.1818||95.0|-23.15|167.9|||ANCOVA|||Change in HOMA-B from baseline to 104 weeks of treatment was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||167.90|-23.15|0.1818
91036225|NCT00318461|181959053|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 0.6 mg + metformin and glimepirde + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|53.23||||0.2978||95.0|-26.3|132.76|||ANCOVA|||Change in HOMA-B from baseline to 104 weeks of treatment was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||132.76|-26.30|0.2978
90942333|NCT04159805|181764594|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-12.65|||=|0.441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.94|19.63||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 3||19.63|-44.94|=0.441
90942334|NCT04159805|181764594|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|1.39|||=|0.931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.33|33.12||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 3||33.12|-30.33|=0.931
90942335|NCT04159805|181764594|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-28.18|||=|0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.46|4.11||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 4||4.11|-60.46|=0.087
90942336|NCT04159805|181764594|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|4.44|||=|0.783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.29|36.16||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 4||36.16|-27.29|=0.783
90942337|NCT04159805|181764594|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-29.08|||=|0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.36|3.21||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 5||3.21|-61.36|=0.077
90942338|NCT04159805|181764594|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-15.72|||=|0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.45|16.0||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 5||16.00|-47.45|=0.330
90942339|NCT04159805|181764594|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-14.14|||=|0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.19|18.91||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 6||18.91|-47.19|=0.400
90942340|NCT04159805|181764594|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.0|||=|1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.18|32.19||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 6||32.19|-32.18|=1.000
90942341|NCT04159805|181764594|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-26.47|||=|0.117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.64|6.69||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 7||6.69|-59.64|=0.117
90942342|NCT04159805|181764594|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-12.75|||=|0.436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.94|19.44||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 7||19.44|-44.94|=0.436
90942343|NCT04159805|181764594|SUPERIORITY|From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|Difference in LS Mean|-47.91|||=|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-81.54|-14.29||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 8||-14.29|-81.54|=0.005
91036226|NCT00796653|181959056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.129|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.091|0.167|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.167|0.091|<0.0001
91036227|NCT00796653|181959056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.154|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.116|0.191|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.191|0.116|<0.0001
90942344|NCT04159805|181764594|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-20.48|||=|0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.92|11.95||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 8||11.95|-52.92|=0.215
90942345|NCT04159805|181764594|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-3.97|||=|0.815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.34|29.4||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 10||29.40|-37.34|=0.815
90972551|NCT01390909|181827690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-40.0||||0.967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-991.0|944.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Outpatient Services, All Medical Costs|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, AEDs and non-AEDs known to increase seizure risk and baseline costs.||||944|-991|0.9670
90972552|NCT01390909|181827690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|97.0||||0.2563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.0|302.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Neurologist Visits, All Medical Costs|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, AEDs and non-AEDs known to increase seizure risk and baseline costs.||||302|-77|0.2563
90972553|NCT01390909|181827690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|328.0||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|90.0|588.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Other Healthcare Services, All Medical Costs|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, AEDs and non-AEDs known to increase seizure risk and baseline costs.||||588|90|0.0100
90972554|NCT01390909|181827690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4984.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3168.0|7335.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Hospitalizations, Epilepsy-Related|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, AEDs and non-AEDs known to increase seizure risk and baseline costs.||||7335|3168|<0.0001
90972555|NCT01390909|181827690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|112.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|70.0|166.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Emergency Department Visits, Epilepsy-Related|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, AEDs and non-AEDs known to increase seizure risk and baseline costs.||||166|70|<0.0001
90972556|NCT01390909|181827690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|236.0||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|70.0|403.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Outpatient Services, Epilepsy-Related|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, AEDs and non-AEDs known to increase seizure risk and baseline costs.||||403|70|0.01
90972557|NCT01390909|181827690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|65.0||||0.1061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|145.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Neurologist Visits, Epilepsy-Related|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, AEDs and non-AEDs known to increase seizure risk and baseline costs.||||145|-22|0.1061
90972558|NCT01390909|181827690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|58.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.0|93.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Other Healthcare Services, Epilepsy-Related|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, AEDs and non-AEDs known to increase seizure risk and baseline costs.||||93|28|<0.0001
90972559|NCT01390909|181827690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7673.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4571.0|10989.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Total Healthcare Costs|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, AEDs and non-AEDs known to increase seizure risk and baseline costs.||||10989|4571|<0.0001
90972560|NCT02118792|181827726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
90972561|NCT01885000|181827744|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0065|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||= 0.0065
90972562|NCT01885000|181827745|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0328|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The questionnaire analyzed and reported here is for participants who satisfied with appearance.||||= 0.0328
90972563|NCT01885000|181827745|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5312|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The questionnaire analyzed and reported here is for participants who appearance acceptable.||||= 0.5312
91036228|NCT00796653|181959056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.112|0.188|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.188|0.112|<0.0001
90972564|NCT01885000|181827745|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0756|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The questionnaire analyzed and reported here is for participants who appearance concerned.||||= 0.0756
90972565|NCT01885000|181827745|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0083|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The questionnaire analyzed and reported here is for participants who embarrassed with facial redness.||||= 0.0083
90972566|NCT01885000|181827745|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0076|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The questionnaire analyzed and reported here is for participants who self-conscious.||||= 0.0076
90972567|NCT01885000|181827745|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2186|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The questionnaire analyzed and reported here is for participants who's frequency control last 24 hours||||= 0.2186
90972568|NCT01885000|181827745|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2373|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The questionnaire analyzed and reported here is for participants who are frustrated.||||= 0.2373
90972569|NCT01885000|181827745|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.7769|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The questionnaire analyzed and reported here is for participants who cover up or camouflage.||||= 0.7769
90972570|NCT01885000|181827745|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.8764|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The questionnaire analyzed and reported here is for participants who pay attention to the known triggers.||||= 0.8764
90972571|NCT01885000|181827745|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.6149|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The questionnaire analyzed and reported here is for participants who avoid the known triggers.||||= 0.6149
90972572|NCT01885000|181827745|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.8361|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The questionnaire analyzed and reported here is for participants who interfering with social life.||||= 0.8361
90972573|NCT01885000|181827745|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.6259|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Interfering with work life||||= 0.6259
90972574|NCT01885000|181827746|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5821|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||This analysis was performed for Mobility.||||= 0.5821
90972575|NCT01885000|181827746|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.8864|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||This analysis was performed for Self-Care.||||= 0.8864
90972576|NCT01885000|181827746|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.9579|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||This analysis was performed for usual activities.||||= 0.9579
90972577|NCT01885000|181827746|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1344|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||This analysis was performed for Pain/Discomfort.||||= 0.1344
90972578|NCT01885000|181827746|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1881|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Anxiety/Depression||||= 0.1881
90972579|NCT01885000|181827747|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3935|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||= 0.3935
90972580|NCT01885000|181827748|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.4162|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||= 0.4162
90972581|NCT01789814|181827782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||||||Prasugrel treatment when compared to Clopidogrel was associated with significant reduction in platelets aggregation for all plateles agonist (ADD, SFFFLRN, AYPGKF) at all measured time points.|t-test, 2 sided|||Each patient will have paired samples representing their baseline as well as an on-drug sample. The magnitude of platelet inhibition for each studied agonist will be performed utilizing mean maximal change from baseline in light transmission aggregometry. The paired samples will be analyzed using a two-tailed student's t-test. Statistical significance will be assumed to occur when p\<0.05.||||0.001
90972582|NCT05215600|181827784|OTHER|P-values account for preoperative versus postoperative mean values at 1 and 2 years|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|T-Test (Pooled)||||||<0.001
90972583|NCT05215600|181827785|OTHER|P-values account for preoperative versus postoperative mean values at 1 and 2 years|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|T-Test (Pooled)||||||<0.001
90972584|NCT03975647|181827832|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.759||||0.0163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.607|0.95|||Log Rank||HR was calculated from Cox proportional hazards model. (line of treatment for metastatic: first versus \[vs\] other; hormone receptor status: negative vs positive; presence or history of brain metastases: yes vs no; ECOG status: 0,1 at randomization.|||0.950|0.607|0.0163
90972585|NCT03975647|181827834|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.639||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.459|0.891|||Log Rank||HR was calculated from Cox proportional hazards model. (line of treatment for metastatic: first versus \[vs\] other; hormone receptor status: negative vs positive; presence or history of brain metastases: yes vs no; ECOG status: 0,1 at randomization.|||0.891|0.459|0.0078
90972586|NCT03975647|181827835|OTHER|||||||0.2055|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2055
90972587|NCT04868903|181827845|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.06|||Regression, Cox|Prespecified primary analysis using multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression to examine the effect of pooled moderate or high versus low dose||Pooled moderate or high versus low dose|Prespecified covariates were male sex, non-White race or Hispanic ethnicity, \>30 minutes sun exposure daily, moderate or severe insomnia, COVID-19 exposure outside work, employment, randomization date, and study site. Most covariates were binary after combining infrequent, ordinal variables. Baseline 25(OH)D level, age, and randomization date were continuous. An indicator was added for randomization after February 28, 2021 because only participants randomized after then could be active in the study when infection risk increased after Omicron arrived in Chicago about December 1, 2021. Due to differences in enrollment timing by study branch and site could affect baseline COVID-19 risk, we stratified Cox regression by study branch and site. This model satisfied proportional hazards.|1.06|0.51|0.10
90972588|NCT04868903|181827845|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.98|||Regression, Cox|Secondary analysis using multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression to examine the effects of moderate versus low dose and high versus low dose||Moderate versus low dose|Covariates were male sex, non-White race or Hispanic ethnicity, \>30 minutes sun exposure daily, moderate or severe insomnia, COVID-19 exposure outside work, employment, randomization date, and study site. Most covariates were binary after combining infrequent, ordinal variables. Baseline 25(OH)D level, age, and randomization date were continuous. An indicator was added for randomization after February 28, 2021 because only participants randomized after then could be active in the study when infection risk increased after Omicron arrived in Chicago about December 1, 2021. Due to differences in enrollment timing by study branch and site could affect baseline COVID-19 risk, we stratified Cox regression by study branch and site. This model satisfied proportional hazards.|0.98|0.39|0.042
90972589|NCT04868903|181827845|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.86|||Regression, Cox|Secondary analysis using multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression to examine the effects of moderate versus low dose and high versus low dose||High versus low dose|Covariates were male sex, non-White race or Hispanic ethnicity, \>30 minutes sun exposure daily, moderate or severe insomnia, COVID-19 exposure outside work, employment, randomization date, and study site. Most covariates were binary after combining infrequent, ordinal variables. Baseline 25(OH)D level, age, and randomization date were continuous. An indicator was added for randomization after February 28, 2021 because only participants randomized after then could be active in the study when infection risk increased after Omicron arrived in Chicago about December 1, 2021. Due to differences in enrollment timing by study branch and site could affect baseline COVID-19 risk, we stratified Cox regression by study branch and site. This model satisfied proportional hazards.|1.86|0.53|0.99
91036229|NCT00796653|181959057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.053|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.0055||95.0|0.015|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.090|0.015|0.0055
90972590|NCT04868903|181827845|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.62||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.43|||Regression, Logistic||Multivariable logistic regression with the prespecified covariates and study branch to examine the effect of pooled moderate or high versus low dose|Secondary analysis, pooled moderate versus low dose||1.43|0.27|0.26
90972591|NCT04868903|181827845|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.38||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.04|||Regression, Logistic||Multivariable logistic regression with the prespecified covariates and study branch to examine the effects of moderate versus low dose and high versus low dose|Secondary analysis, moderate versus low dose||1.04|0.13|0.06
90972592|NCT04868903|181827845|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|6.71|||Regression, Logistic||Multivariable logistic regression with the prespecified covariates and study branch to examine the effects of moderate versus low dose and high versus low dose|Secondary analysis, high versus low dose||6.71|0.41|0.47
90972593|NCT03735667|181827850|NON_INFERIORITY|A Bayesian analysis based on 10,000 samples from the posterior distribution, using a piecewise exponential survival model. The criteria for non-inferiority is met if the posterior probability of non-inferiority is greater than the non-inferiority test threshold.|||||||||||||||||A Bayesian analysis was used to test the non-inferiority hypothesis for the primary endpoint using a non-inferiority margin of 8%. The pre-specified success criteria (the non-inferiority test threshold) was a posterior probability of non-inferiority greater than 97.5%. The observed posterior probability of non-inferiority was 77.9%. The posterior median percentage difference in the rate of the primary outcome was 6.63% (95% Bayesian credible interval: 3.04% to 10.20%).|||
90972594|NCT03092726|181827879|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean (LSM) Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.59|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.38|0.5||1-sided p-value is for comparison of ASP8062 30 mg with placebo from the above described MMRM model.|MMRM|||Differences of least squares (LS) means were calculated by subtracting the LS mean of placebo group from the LS mean of ASP8062 30 mg group using a mixed-effect, repeated measures (MMRM) model with change from baseline to each week from weeks 1 to 8 as response, treatment, center (pooled where necessary), time (study weeks 1 to 8) and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline-by-time interaction as covariates.||0.50|-0.38|0.590
90972595|NCT03092726|181827883|SUPERIORITY||Difference of percentages|-6.6||||0.874|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.7|5.7||1-sided p-value is for comparison of ASP8062 30 mg with placebo using Fisher's Exact method.|Fisher Exact|||Week 8: Differences of the percentages were calculated by subtracting the percentage of placebo group from the percentage of ASP8062 30 mg group. Confidence Interval (CI) for each treatment group and the difference of the percentages was an exact unconditional confidence interval based on Santner-Snell approach.||5.7|-18.7|0.874
90972596|NCT03092726|181827883|SUPERIORITY||Differences of percentages|-5.6||||0.838|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.7|6.7||1-sided p-value is for comparison of ASP8062 30 mg with placebo using Fisher's Exact method.|Fisher Exact|||EOT: Differences of the percentages were calculated by subtracting the percentage of placebo group from the percentage of ASP8062 30 mg group. Confidence Interval (CI) for each treatment group and the difference of the percentages was an exact unconditional confidence interval based on Santner-Snell approach.||6.7|-17.7|0.838
90972597|NCT03092726|181827884|SUPERIORITY||Differences of percentages|2.2||||0.412|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.0|14.4||1-sided p-value is for comparison of ASP8062 30 mg with placebo using Fisher's Exact method.|Fisher Exact|||Week 8: Differences of the percentages were calculated by subtracting the percentage of placebo group from the percentage of ASP8062 30 mg group. Confidence Interval (CI) for each treatment group and the difference of the percentages was an exact unconditional confidence interval based on Santner-Snell approach.||14.4|-10.0|0.412
90972598|NCT03092726|181827884|SUPERIORITY||Differences of percentages|4.3||||0.269|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.9|16.4||1-sided p-value is for comparison of ASP8062 30 mg with placebo using Fisher's Exact method.|Fisher Exact|||EOT: Differences of the percentages were calculated by subtracting the percentage of placebo group from the percentage of ASP8062 30 mg group. Confidence Interval (CI) for each treatment group and the difference of the percentages was an exact unconditional confidence interval based on Santner-Snell approach.||16.4|-7.9|0.269
90972599|NCT03092726|181827885|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.03||0.369|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.05|2.68||1-sided p-value is for comparison of ASP8062 30 mg with placebo from the above described MMRM model.|MMRM|||Week 2: Differences of LS means were calculated by subtracting the LS mean of placebo group from the LS mean of ASP8062 30 mg group using a MMRM model with change from baseline to weeks 2, 4 and 8 as response, treatment, center (pooled where necessary), time (study weeks 2, 4 and 8) and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline-by-time interaction as covariates.||2.68|-4.05|0.369
90972600|NCT03092726|181827885|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.34||0.393|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.51|3.24||1-sided p-value is for comparison of ASP8062 30 mg with placebo from the above described MMRM model.|MMRM|||Week 4: Differences of LS means were calculated by subtracting the LS mean of placebo group from the LS mean of ASP8062 30 mg group using a MMRM model with change from baseline to weeks 2, 4 and 8 as response, treatment, center (pooled where necessary), time (study weeks 2, 4 and 8) and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline-by-time interaction as covariates.||3.24|-4.51|0.393
90972601|NCT03092726|181827885|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.68||0.626|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.57|5.3|||MMRM|||Week 8: Differences of LS means were calculated by subtracting the LS mean of placebo group from the LS mean of ASP8062 30 mg group using a MMRM model with change from baseline to weeks 2, 4 and 8 as response, treatment, center (pooled where necessary), time (study weeks 2, 4 and 8) and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline-by-time interaction as covariates.||5.30|-3.57|0.626
90972602|NCT03092726|181827885|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.57||0.664|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.16|5.34||1-sided p-value is for comparison of ASP8062 30 mg with placebo from the above described ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|||EOT: Differences of LS means were calculated by subtracting the LS mean of placebo group from the LS mean of ASP8062 30 mg group using an ANCOVA model that was performed with change from baseline at the EOT timepoint as response, treatment and center (pooled where necessary) as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||5.34|-3.16|0.664
90972603|NCT03092726|181827886|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.85||0.534|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.9|3.22||1-sided p-value is for comparison of ASP8062 30 mg with placebo from the above described MMRM model.|MMRM|||Week 2: Differences of LS means were calculated by subtracting the LS mean of placebo group from the LS mean of ASP8062 30 mg group using a MMRM model with change from baseline to weeks 2, 4 and 8 as response, treatment, center (pooled where necessary), time (study weeks 2, 4 and 8) and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline-by-time interaction as covariates.||3.22|-2.90|0.534
91036230|NCT00796653|181959057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.069|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.0003||95.0|0.032|0.106|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.106|0.032|0.0003
90942346|NCT04159805|181764594|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-4.31|||=|0.794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.84|28.22||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 10||28.22|-36.84|=0.794
90942347|NCT04159805|181764594|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-36.78|||=|0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.48|-3.08||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 12||-3.08|-70.48|=0.033
90942348|NCT04159805|181764594|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-10.79|||=|0.513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.26|21.67||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Week 12||21.67|-43.26|=0.513
90942349|NCT04159805|181764594|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-56.21|||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-91.69|-20.73||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Week 14||-20.73|-91.69|=0.002
90942350|NCT04159805|181764594|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-36.94|||=|0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.39|-2.48||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Week 14||-2.48|-71.39|=0.036
90942351|NCT04159805|181764594|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-62.98|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.64|-25.31||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Week 16||-25.31|-100.64|=0.001
90942352|NCT04159805|181764594|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-28.81|||=|0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.12|8.51||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Week 16||8.51|-66.12|=0.130
90942353|NCT02930837|181764599|SUPERIORITY||Percentage of patients|63.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.42|71.42|||One-sample test||Percentage of patients with Favourable outcome|A null hypothesis of p ≤40% versus the alternative hypothesis of p \>40% was tested using a one sample test at two-sided significance level of 0.05, where p denoted the response rate in Chinese patients who were treated within 3-4.5 h after stroke onset.||71.42|54.42|<0.0001
90942354|NCT01393613|181764606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0093|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis fixed effect of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment visit interaction, Baseline value, Baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Statistical analysis to compare the average effect analysis for brexpiprazole 2 mg/day and 4 mg/day and placebo combined treatment groups at Week 6. The primary analysis was performed by fitting a Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with an unstructured variance covariance structure. The model included fixed class effect terms for treatment, trial site, visit week, baseline, baseline and visit interaction and an interaction term of treatment by visit week.||||0.0093
90942355|NCT01393613|181764606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.47||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|-2.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis fixed effect of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment visit interaction, Baseline value, Baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 4mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||-2.35|-10.6|0.0022
90972604|NCT03092726|181827886|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|1.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.08||0.758|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.98|4.91||1-sided p-value is for comparison of ASP8062 30 mg with placebo from the above described MMRM model.|MMRM|||Week 4: Differences of LS means were calculated by subtracting the LS mean of placebo group from the LS mean of ASP8062 30 mg group using a MMRM model with change from baseline to weeks 2, 4 and 8 as response, treatment, center (pooled where necessary), time (study weeks 2, 4 and 8) and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline-by-time interaction as covariates.||4.91|-1.98|0.758
90972605|NCT03092726|181827886|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.57||0.745|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.56|5.96||1-sided p-value is for comparison of ASP8062 30 mg with placebo from the above described MMRM model.|MMRM|||Week 8: Differences of LS means were calculated by subtracting the LS mean of placebo group from the LS mean of ASP8062 30 mg group using a MMRM model with change from baseline to weeks 2, 4 and 8 as response, treatment, center (pooled where necessary), time (study weeks 2, 4 and 8) and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline-by-time interaction as covariates.||5.96|-2.56|0.745
90942356|NCT01393613|181764606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.08||||0.1448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.23|1.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis fixed effect of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment visit interaction, Baseline value, Baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 2mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||1.07|-7.23|0.1448
90942357|NCT01393613|181764606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.37||||0.1588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.06|1.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis fixed effect of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment visit interaction, Baseline value, Baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 1mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6. MMRM analysis fixed effect of treatment, clinical visit, trial site, treatment visit interaction, Baseline value, and Baseline visit interaction as covariates.||1.32|-8.06|0.1588
91007694|NCT04223778|181899574|OTHER|Treatment Difference vs Baseline ART. Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated Difference|4.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.27|11.03|||||Difference in percentage versus (vs) Baseline ART was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Fasting LDL Cholesterol||11.03|-2.27|
90942358|NCT01393613|181764607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0069|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis fixed effect of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment visit interaction, Baseline value, Baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Statistical analysis to compare the average effect analysis for brexpiprazole 2 mg/day and 4 mg/day and placebo combined treatment groups at Week 6.||||0.0069
90942359|NCT01393613|181764607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis fixed effect of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment visit interaction, Baseline value, Baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 4mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6. The analysis of this key secondary endpoint was conducted if both comparisons of brexpiprazole 4 mg/day vs placebo and brexpiprazole 2 mg/day vs placebo of the primary endpoint were significant. Because only the comparison of brexpiprazole 4 mg/day vs placebo met the threshold in the primary analysis, the following analysis is not part of the formal statistical testing and is descriptive only.||-0.15|-0.62|0.0015
90942360|NCT01393613|181764607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.1269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis fixed effect of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment visit interaction, Baseline value, Baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 2mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||-0.05|-0.42|0.1269
90942361|NCT01393613|181764607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.4449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis fixed effect of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment visit interaction, Baseline value, Baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 1mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||0.16|-0.37|0.4449
90942362|NCT01393613|181764608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.59||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|7.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis fixed effect of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment visit interaction, Baseline value, Baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 4mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||7.17|2.02|0.0005
90942363|NCT01393613|181764608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.1286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|4.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis fixed effect of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment visit interaction, Baseline value, Baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 2mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||4.59|-0.58|0.1286
90942364|NCT01393613|181764608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.21||||0.0332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|6.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis fixed effect of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment visit interaction, Baseline value, Baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 1mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||6.16|0.26|0.0332
90942365|NCT01393613|181764609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.0166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.08|-0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis fixed effect of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment visit interaction, Baseline value, Baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 4mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||-0.31|-3.08|0.0166
90942366|NCT01393613|181764609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47||||0.5101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|0.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis fixed effect of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment visit interaction, Baseline value, Baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 2mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||0.93|-1.86|0.5101
90942367|NCT01393613|181764609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68||||0.3938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|0.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis fixed effect of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment visit interaction, Baseline value, Baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 1mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||0.89|-2.26|0.3938
90942368|NCT01393613|181764610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.22||||0.0231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28|-0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis fixed effect of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment visit interaction, Baseline value, Baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 4mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||-0.17|-2.28|0.0231
90942369|NCT01393613|181764610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.77||||0.1547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis fixed effect of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment visit interaction, Baseline value, Baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 2mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||0.29|-1.83|0.1547
90942370|NCT01393613|181764610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.78||||0.2004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|0.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis fixed effect of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment visit interaction, Baseline value, Baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 1mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||0.42|-1.98|0.2004
90942371|NCT01393613|181764611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenzel (CMH) row mean scores differ test controlling for study center.||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 4mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||-0.20|-0.78|0.0009
90942372|NCT01393613|181764611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.0422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.01|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH row mean scores differ test controlling for study center.||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 2mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||-0.01|-0.60|0.0422
90942373|NCT01393613|181764611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.1358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.08|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH row mean scores differ test controlling for study center.||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 1mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||0.08|-0.56|0.1358
90942374|NCT01393613|181764612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|1.54||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 4mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||2.00|1.20|0.0006
90942375|NCT01393613|181764612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|1.22||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.62|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 2mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||1.62|0.92|0.1680
90942376|NCT01393613|181764612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|1.35||||0.0433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.79|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 1mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||1.79|1.02|0.0433
90942377|NCT01393613|181764613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|0.82||||0.5202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.51|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 4mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||1.51|0.44|0.5202
90942378|NCT01393613|181764613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|1.0||||0.9894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.85|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 2mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||1.85|0.55|0.9894
90942379|NCT01393613|181764613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|0.76||||0.4586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.59|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 1mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||1.59|0.36|0.4586
90942380|NCT01393613|181764614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.39||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis fixed effect of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment visit interaction, Baseline value, Baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 4mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||-0.48|-2.30|0.0029
90972606|NCT03092726|181827886|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|1.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.43||0.755|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.34|5.69||1-sided p-value is for comparison of ASP8062 30 mg with placebo from the above described ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|||EOT: Differences of LS means were calculated by subtracting the LS mean of placebo group from the LS mean of ASP8062 30 mg group using an ANCOVA model that was performed with change from baseline at the EOT timepoint as response, treatment and center (pooled where necessary) as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||5.69|-2.34|0.755
91007695|NCT04223778|181899574|OTHER|Treatment Difference vs Baseline ART. Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated Difference|3.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.93|11.19|||||Difference in percentage versus (vs) Baseline ART was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Fasting Non-HDL Cholesterol||11.19|-3.93|
90942381|NCT01393613|181764614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43||||0.3559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|0.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis fixed effect of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment visit interaction, Baseline value, Baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 2mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||0.48|-1.34|0.3559
90942382|NCT01393613|181764614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48||||0.3646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|0.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis fixed effect of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment visit interaction, Baseline value, Baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 1mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||0.56|-1.51|0.3646
90942383|NCT01393613|181764615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.14||||0.1273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis fixed effect of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment visit interaction, Baseline value, Baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 4mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||0.33|-2.61|0.1273
90942384|NCT01393613|181764615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|1.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis fixed effect of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment visit interaction, Baseline value, Baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 2mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||1.12|-1.83|0.6400
90942385|NCT01393613|181764615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.65||||0.4423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.32|1.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis fixed effect of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment visit interaction, Baseline value, Baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 1mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||1.01|-2.32|0.4423
91007696|NCT04223778|181899574|OTHER|Treatment Difference vs Baseline ART. Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated Difference|-1.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.89|12.31|||||Difference in percentage versus (vs) Baseline ART was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Fasting Triglycerides||12.31|-15.89|
91007697|NCT04223778|181899575|OTHER|Treatment Difference vs Baseline ART. Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated Difference|-18.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.05|-4.76|||||Difference in percentage versus (vs) Baseline ART was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Fasting Cholesterol||-4.76|-32.05|
91007698|NCT04223778|181899575|OTHER|Treatment Difference vs Baseline ART. Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated Difference|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.06|5.08|||||Difference in percentage versus (vs) Baseline ART was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Fasting HDL Cholesterol||5.08|-5.06|
90942386|NCT01393613|181764616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.28||||0.0194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.36|-0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis fixed effect of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment visit interaction, Baseline value, Baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 4mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||-0.21|-2.36|0.0194
90942387|NCT01393613|181764616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.98||||0.0754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis fixed effect of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment visit interaction, Baseline value, Baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 2mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||0.10|-2.06|0.0754
90942388|NCT01393613|181764616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis fixed effect of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment visit interaction, Baseline value, Baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 1mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||0.22|-2.22|0.1080
90942389|NCT01393613|181764617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.39||||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|-0.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis fixed effect of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment visit interaction, Baseline value, Baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 4mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6. Because only the comparison of brexpiprazole 4 mg/day versus placebo met the threshold in the primary analysis, the following analysis is not part for the formal statistical testing and is descriptive only.||-0.43|-2.34|0.0045
90942390|NCT01393613|181764617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35||||0.4753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|0.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis fixed effect of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment visit interaction, Baseline value, Baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 2mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||0.61|-1.31|0.4753
90942391|NCT01393613|181764617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.87||||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis fixed effect of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment visit interaction, Baseline value, Baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 1mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||0.21|-1.96|0.1150
90942392|NCT01393613|181764618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.26||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|-0.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis fixed effect of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment visit interaction, Baseline value, Baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 4mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||-0.46|-2.05|0.0021
90942393|NCT01393613|181764618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.6792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|0.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis fixed effect of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment visit interaction, Baseline value, Baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 2mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||0.63|-0.97|0.6792
90942394|NCT01393613|181764618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26||||0.5752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis fixed effect of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment visit interaction, Baseline value, Baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 1mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||0.65|-1.16|0.5752
90942395|NCT01393613|181764619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.86||||0.0104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis fixed effect of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment visit interaction, Baseline value, Baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 4mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||-0.20|-1.51|0.0104
90942396|NCT01393613|181764619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.0373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|-0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis fixed effect of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment visit interaction, Baseline value, Baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 2mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||-0.04|-1.35|0.0373
90942397|NCT01393613|181764619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.64||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis fixed effect of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment visit interaction, Baseline value, Baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 1mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||0.10|-1.39|0.0890
90942398|NCT02598934|181764704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|16.9||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.1|27.7||P-value between Consult group and Non-consult group for the item in the BCS: ibandronate was effective in treating osteoporosis|Chi-squared, Corrected|||||27.7|6.1|0.002
90942399|NCT02598934|181764704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|14.9||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|25.8||P-value between Consult group and Non-consult group for the item in the BCS: ibandronate reduces risk of breaking bone.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||||25.8|4.0|0.009
90972607|NCT03092726|181827887|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.629|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.78|1.17||1-sided p-value is for comparison of ASP8062 30 mg with placebo from the above described MMRM model.|MMRM|||Week 2: Differences of LS means were calculated by subtracting the LS mean of placebo group from the LS mean of ASP8062 30 mg group using a MMRM model with change from baseline to weeks 2, 4 and 8 as response, treatment, center (pooled where necessary), time (study weeks 2, 4 and 8) and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline-by-time interaction as covariates.||1.17|-0.78|0.629
90972608|NCT03092726|181827887|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.41|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.37|1.04||1-sided p-value is for comparison of ASP8062 30 mg with placebo from the above described MMRM model.|MMRM|||Week 4: Differences of LS means were calculated by subtracting the LS mean of placebo group from the LS mean of ASP8062 30 mg group using a MMRM model with change from baseline to weeks 2, 4 and 8 as response, treatment, center (pooled where necessary), time (study weeks 2, 4 and 8) and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline-by-time interaction as covariates.||1.04|-1.37|0.410
90942400|NCT02598934|181764704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|16.9||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|27.5|||Chi-squared, Corrected|P-value between Consult group and Non-consult group for items in BCS: ibandronate effective in treating osteoporosis or reduces risk of breaking bone.||||27.5|6.3|0.001
91050410|NCT04168190|181987006|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.54|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 19A||1.54|0.59|
90942401|NCT02598934|181764704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|14.9||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|25.9||P-value between Consult group and Non-consult group for items in BCS: ibandronate effective in treating osteoporosis and reduces risk of breaking bone.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||||25.9|3.9|0.010
90942402|NCT02811302|181764705|OTHER|A simple count and percentage of the population were calculated based on the number of patients adjudicated as having Respiratory Depression.|||||||||||||||||To determine the risk assessment score, first the number of patients with Respiratory Depression (RD) had to be identified. Per the rules established for the Clinical Endpoint Committee, 655 (43.6%) patients were identified as having RD.|||
90942403|NCT02811302|181764706|OTHER|Multivariable model for (Multivariate logistic regression) Respiratory Depression, followed by validation with Harrell's Optimism using a bootstrap sampling method.|Area Under the Curve|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.79|||||The model was performed using stepwise selection including all potential predictors and interactions terms (medical history and baseline characteristics).|A modified Full Analysis Dataset (1335) was used to derive and validate the risk assessment tool. Subjects were excluded if they had major deviations or consent withdrawals. Subjects that did not have any monitoring data were also excluded. Finally, 69 subjects were further excluded from the model, as they were missing parameters to calculate their risk score.|The model derived from the logistic regression was assessed by the Hosmer-Lemshow goodness of fit test (P = 0.831). The derived model was validated by Harrell's Optimism using a Bootstrap sampling method (500 samples from the modified dataset, 1335) with replacement. The logistic regression model with stepwise selection was performed for each bootstrap sample, and AUC calculated. The optimism calculated by Harrell's algorithm was 0.02. The model was then checked for the quartiles of the effective monitoring and for geography used as a random effect. The performance measurement of the final model was adjusted according the Harrell's Optimism for a final adjusted AUC of 0.74.|0.79|0.73|
90942404|NCT02154347|181764712|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.37|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.37|-0.95|<0.001
90942405|NCT02250183|181764733|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. Each case (participant) serves as its own control because they received both treatment modalities simultaneously.|McNemar|McNemar test was used because participants received both treatments, so this variable was non-independent in our single group sample.|2-sided|Each participant received both treatment modalities - MEDIHONEY® and SANTYL - and thus had two wound cultures performed, one for each treatment modality. This was a single group study; however, wound culture results were contrasted with each other across participants. Thus, independent variable was treatment modality, while dependent variable was the wound culture result (positive for presence of bacteria versus negative for absence of bacteria).||||1.00
90942406|NCT02250183|181764734|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.615|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.149|4.565||The null hypothesis was that the two mean scores would not differ significantly at p\<.05 level.|t-test, 2 sided|df = 13||A paired samples, 2-tailed, t-test was used to compare means within participants for ratings of MEDIHONEY and SANTYL satisfaction total scores. The null hypothesis was that the two mean scores would not differ significantly at p\<.05 level.||4.565|1.149|.003
90942407|NCT00497874|181764751|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Power analysis shows that sample size provided power of at least .80 to detect estimated differences.||||||0.003||95.0||||Statistical significance of the pooled results was evaluated using a t-test and degrees of freedom that take into account the uncertainty in the data and the uncertainty due to missing values.|t-test, 1 sided|t(145) = 2.8||Multiple imputation was used to estimate missing data for the 9-month assessment. Ten datasets were imputed using Multivariate Imputation by Chained Equations. Using SAS v9.1 PROC MI, the complete datasets were analyzed using complete data methodology-in this case, the t-test-and the results pooled.||||.003
90942408|NCT00497874|181764752|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Power analysis shows that sample size provided power of at least .80 to detect estimated differences.||||||0.002||95.0||||Statistical significance of the pooled results was evaluated using a t-test and degrees of freedom that take into account the uncertainty in the data and the uncertainty due to missing values.|t-test, 1 sided|t(181) = 2.9||Multiple imputation was used to estimate missing data for the 9-month assessment. Ten datasets were imputed using Multivariate Imputation by Chained Equations. Using SAS v9.1 PROC MI, the complete datasets were analyzed using complete data methodology-in this case, logistic regression-and the results pooled.||||.002
90942409|NCT00497874|181764753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Power analysis shows that sample size provided power of at least .80 to detect estimated differences.||||||0.04||95.0||||Statistical significance of the pooled results was evaluated using a t-test and degrees of freedom that take into account the uncertainty in the data and the uncertainty due to missing values.|t-test, 1 sided|t(153) = 1.8||Multiple imputation was used to estimate missing data for the 9-month assessment. Ten datasets were imputed using Multivariate Imputation by Chained Equations. Using SAS v9.1 PROC MI, the complete datasets were analyzed using complete data methodology-in this case, logistic regression-and the results pooled.||||.04
91007699|NCT04223778|181899575|OTHER|Treatment Difference vs Baseline ART. Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated Difference|-14.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.81|-2.43|||||Difference in percentage versus (vs) Baseline ART was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Fasting LDL Cholesterol||-2.43|-25.81|
91007700|NCT04223778|181899575|OTHER|Treatment Difference vs Baseline ART. Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated Difference|-18.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.45|-6.0|||||Difference in percentage versus (vs) Baseline ART was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Fasting Non-HDL Cholesterol||-6.00|-30.45|
91007701|NCT04223778|181899575|OTHER|Treatment Difference vs Baseline ART. Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated Difference|-27.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.08|-4.49|||||Difference in percentage versus (vs) Baseline ART was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Fasting Triglycerides||-4.49|-51.08|
91036231|NCT00796653|181959057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.027||95.0|0.005|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.080|0.005|0.0270
91036232|NCT00796653|181959058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.402|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.314||0.1999||95.0|-0.213|1.018|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.018|-0.213|0.1999
91036233|NCT00796653|181959058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.419|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.314||0.1818||95.0|-0.196|1.035|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.035|-0.196|0.1818
90942410|NCT00497874|181764754|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Power analysis shows that sample size provided power of at least .80 to detect estimated differences.||||||0.07||95.0||||Statistical significance of the pooled results was evaluated using a t-test and degrees of freedom that take into account the uncertainty in the data and the uncertainty due to missing values.|t-test, 1 sided|t(57) = 1.5||Multiple imputation was used to estimate missing data for the 9-month assessment. Ten datasets were imputed using Multivariate Imputation by Chained Equations. Using SAS v9.1 PROC MI, the complete datasets were analyzed using complete data methodology-in this case, logistic regression-and the results pooled.||||.07
90942411|NCT00497874|181764755|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Power analysis shows that sample size provided power of at least .80 to detect estimated differences.||||||0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|t(94) = 1.5||Multiple imputation was used to estimate missing data for the 9-month assessment. Ten datasets were imputed using Multivariate Imputation by Chained Equations. Using SAS v9.1 PROC MI, the complete datasets were analyzed using complete data methodology-in this case, logistic regression-and the results pooled.||||.05
90942412|NCT00497874|181764756|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Power analysis shows that sample size provided power of at least .80 to detect estimated differences.||||||0.13||95.0||||Statistical significance of the pooled results was evaluated using a t-test and degrees of freedom that take into account the uncertainty in the data and the uncertainty due to missing values.|t-test, 1 sided|t(123) = 1.2||Multiple imputation was used to estimate missing data for the 9-month assessment. Ten datasets were imputed using Multivariate Imputation by Chained Equations. Using SAS v9.1 PROC MI, the complete datasets were analyzed using complete data methodology-in this case, the t-test-and the results pooled.||||.13
90942413|NCT02106195|181764803|SUPERIORITY|Change from Baseline to Day 28|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.04||0.324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|1.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.4|-3.7|0.324
90942414|NCT01114139|181764813|SUPERIORITY|The 95% confidence interval was calculated using the large sample assumption.|Treatment Difference|75.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.15|80.02|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The p-value is the result of the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusted for Baseline hemoglobin level and underlying condition.|The treatment difference (ferumoxytol - placebo) was expressed as a percentage.|Participants who achieved a ≥2.0 g/dL increase in hemoglobin from Baseline up to Week 5 were analyzed. Statistical comparison was performed for data up to Week 5 only. Baseline was defined as the Day 1 value (prior to injection of study drug). The screening or most recent value prior to Day 1 was used for any participant with missing Day 1 information.||80.02|71.15|<0.0001
90942415|NCT00477464|181764823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|59.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.2|72.4|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants who achieved a best overall response of complete response, partial response, or stable disease.|||72.4|44.2|
90942416|NCT03568812|181764843|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|111.8||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.9|182.7||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05 The variable was adjusted to duration of ARV regimen and baseline CD4 level|ANCOVA||Treatment difference = Probiotics - Placebo|The statistical analysis of unadjusted CD4 level||182.7|40.9|0.02
90942417|NCT03568812|181764843|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|73.4||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.9|140.8||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05 The variable was adjusted to duration of ARV regimen and baseline CD4 level|ANCOVA||Treatment difference = Probiotics - Placebo|The statistical analysis of adjusted CD4 level||140.8|5.9|0.03
90942418|NCT03568812|181764844|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.0||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05 The variable was adjusted to duration of ARV regimen and baseline CD4 level|ANCOVA||There is no difference between probiotics - placebo|The statistical analysis of unadjusted Th17 change after intervention||1.0|-0.5|0.55
91036234|NCT00796653|181959058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.602|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.316||0.0572||95.0|-0.019|1.222|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||1.222|-0.019|0.0572
91036235|NCT00796653|181959059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.349||0.0197||95.0|-5.796|-0.503|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.503|-5.796|0.0197
91036236|NCT00796653|181959059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.524|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.354||0.0094||95.0|-6.18|-0.867|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.867|-6.180|0.0094
91036237|NCT00796653|181959059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.416|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.365||0.2995||95.0|-4.093|1.261|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||1.261|-4.093|0.2995
90942419|NCT03568812|181764844|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.9||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05 The variable was adjusted to duration of ARV regimen and baseline CD4 level|ANCOVA||There is no difference between probiotics - placebo|The statistical analysis of adjusted Th17 change after intervention||0.9|-0.7|0.79
90942420|NCT03568812|181764846|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.7||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.9|-1.5||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05 The variable was adjusted to duration of ARV regimen and baseline CD4 level|ANCOVA||Treatment difference = Probiotics - Placebo|The statistical analysis of unadjusted Fecal Calprotectin Level change after intervention||-1.5|-23.9|0.03
90942421|NCT03568812|181764846|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-15.6||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.6|-3.6||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05 The variable was adjusted to duration of ARV regimen and baseline CD4 level|ANCOVA||Treatment difference = Probiotics - Placebo|The statistical analysis of adjusted Fecal Calprotectin Level change after intervention||-3.6|-27.6|0.01
90942422|NCT03568812|181764848|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.551||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Chi-squared|||The statistical analysis of food frequency change after intervention (12 weeks)||||0.551
90942423|NCT01664923|181764883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.24|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.181|0.32||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by disease stage at study entry as reported on the case report form (CRF).|Log Rank||Hazard ratio is based on a Cox regression model (with treatment as the only covariate) stratified by disease stage at study entry and is relative to bicalutamide with \< 1 favoring enzalutamide.|||0.320|0.181|<0.0001
90942424|NCT01664923|181764884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.137|0.264||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by disease stage at study entry as reported on the CRF.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio is based on a Cox regression model (with treatment as the only covariate) stratified by disease stage at study entry and is relative to bicalutamide with \< 1 favoring enzalutamide.|||0.264|0.137|<0.0001
90942425|NCT01664923|181764885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in rates|50.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.4|58.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Comparison of the 2 treatment groups using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel mean score test stratified by disease stage at study entry.|Enzalutamide response rate minus bicalutamide response rate.|||58.5|41.4|<0.0001
90942426|NCT01664923|181764886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.324|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.211|0.497|||Log Rank|P-value is based on an unstratified log-rank test.|Hazard ratio is based on an unstratified Cox-regression model (with treatment as the only covariate) and is relative to bicalutamide with \< 1 favoring enzalutamide.|||0.497|0.211|<0.0001
90942427|NCT01664923|181764887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.4945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.695|1.192||This secondary endpoint was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|P-value is based on a log-rank test stratified by disease stage at study entry.|Hazard ratio is based on a Cox regression model (with treatment as the only covariate) stratified by disease stage at study entry and is relative to bicalutamide with \< 1 favoring enzalutamide.|||1.192|0.695|0.4945
90942428|NCT01664923|181764888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in objective response rate|46.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.79|65.3||This secondary endpoint was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on unstratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel mean score test.||||65.30|26.79|<0.0001
90942429|NCT03398421|181764890|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|2.005|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.807|2.224||||||||2.224|1.807|
90942430|NCT03398421|181764897|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|0.802|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|0.933||||||||0.933|0.690|
90972609|NCT03092726|181827887|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.531|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.11|1.22||1-sided p-value is for comparison of ASP8062 30 mg with placebo from the above described MMRM model.|MMRM|||Week 8: Differences of LS means were calculated by subtracting the LS mean of placebo group from the LS mean of ASP8062 30 mg group using a MMRM model with change from baseline to weeks 2, 4 and 8 as response, treatment, center (pooled where necessary), time (study weeks 2, 4 and 8) and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline-by-time interaction as covariates.||1.22|-1.11|0.531
90972610|NCT03092726|181827887|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67||0.603|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.93|1.28||1-sided p-value is for comparison of ASP8062 30 mg with placebo from the above described ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|||EOT: Differences of LS means were calculated by subtracting the LS mean of placebo group from the LS mean of ASP8062 30 mg group using an ANCOVA model that was performed with change from baseline at the EOT timepoint as response, treatment and center (pooled where necessary) as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.28|-0.93|0.603
90972611|NCT03092726|181827888|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.811|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.68|1.67||2-sided p-value is for the comparison of ASP8062 30 mg with placebo from the above described proportional odds model.|Proportional Odds model|||Week 2: Odds ratio of ASP8062 30 mg versus placebo, associated 90% 2-sided CI and p-value was estimated using a proportional odds model including treatment group as a factor.||1.67|0.68|0.811
90972612|NCT03092726|181827888|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.368|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|1.22||2-sided p-value is for the comparison of ASP8062 30 mg with placebo from the above described proportional odds model.|Proportional Odds model|||Week 4: Odds ratio of ASP8062 30 mg versus placebo, associated 90% 2-sided CI and p-value was estimated using a proportional odds model including treatment group as a factor.||1.22|0.50|0.368
90972613|NCT03092726|181827888|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78||||0.357|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|1.21||2-sided p-value is for the comparison of ASP8062 30 mg with placebo from the above described proportional odds model.|Proportional Odds model|||Week 8: Odds ratio of ASP8062 30 mg versus placebo, associated 90% 2-sided CI and p-value was estimated using a proportional odds model including treatment group as a factor.||1.21|0.50|0.357
90972614|NCT03092726|181827888|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.407|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.52|1.24||2-sided p-value is for the comparison of ASP8062 30 mg with placebo from the above described proportional odds model.|Proportional Odds model|||EOT: Odds ratio of ASP8062 30 mg versus placebo, associated 90% 2-sided CI and p-value was estimated using a proportional odds model including treatment group as a factor.||1.24|0.52|0.407
90972615|NCT00428974|181827896|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.031|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||12 weeks, 2mg CF101 vs. Placebo||||0.031
90972616|NCT00428974|181827897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
90972617|NCT04418765|181827898|OTHER|Testing sequence: 1. Change in MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 300 mg vs placebo; 2. 50% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 300 mg vs placebo; 3. Change in MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 100 mg vs placebo; 4. 50% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 100 mg vs placebo; 5a. Change in MMDs (Weeks 13-24), 5b. 75% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12), 5c. Change in HIT-6 (Week 12) 300 mg vs placebo; 6a. Change in MMDs (Weeks 13-24), 6b. 75% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12), 6c. Change in HIT-6 (Week 12) 100 mg vs placebo.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|-2.5||Testing continued only, if the previous comparison was statistically significant. Threshold for significance: p-value \<α, where α = 0.05. Here it is test no. 1 of testing order.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was performed using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM) with month (Weeks 1-4, 5-8, 9-12, 13-16, 17-20, 21-24), country, stratification factor (monthly MHDs at baseline: ≤14/\>14) and treatment as factors, baseline score as a continuous covariate, treatment-by-month interaction, baseline score-by-month interaction, and stratum-by-month interaction. A testing strategy was applied to ensure protection of the type 1 error.||-2.5|-3.9|<0.0001
90972618|NCT04418765|181827898|OTHER|Testing sequence: 1. Change in MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 300 mg vs placebo; 2. 50% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 300 mg vs placebo; 3. Change in MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 100 mg vs placebo; 4. 50% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 100 mg vs placebo; 5a. Change in MMDs (Weeks 13-24), 5b. 75% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12), 5c. Change in HIT-6 (Week 12) 300 mg vs placebo; 6a. Change in MMDs (Weeks 13-24), 6b. 75% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12), 6c. Change in HIT-6 (Week 12) 100 mg vs placebo.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-2.0||Testing continued only, if the previous comparison was statistically significant. Threshold for significance: p-value \<α, where α = 0.05. Here it is test no. 3 of testing order.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Analysis was performed using an REML-based MMRM with month (Weeks 1-4, Weeks 5-8, Weeks 9-12, Weeks 13-16, Weeks 17-20, Weeks 21-24), country, stratification factor (monthly MHDs at baseline: ≤14/\>14) and treatment as factors, baseline score as a continuous covariate, treatment-by-month interaction, baseline score-by-month interaction, and stratum-by-month interaction.~A testing strategy (sequence of tests) was applied to ensure protection of the type 1 error."||-2.0|-3.4|<0.0001
90972619|NCT04418765|181827899|OTHER|Testing sequence: 1. Change in MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 300 mg vs placebo; 2. 50% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 300 mg vs placebo; 3. Change in MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 100 mg vs placebo; 4. 50% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 100 mg vs placebo; 5a. Change in MMDs (Weeks 13-24), 5b. 75% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12), 5c. Change in HIT-6 (Week 12) 300 mg vs placebo; 6a. Change in MMDs (Weeks 13-24), 6b. 75% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12), 6c. Change in HIT-6 (Week 12) 100 mg vs placebo.|Odds Ratio (OR)|6.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.41|10.01||Testing continued only, if the previous comparison was statistically significant. Threshold for significance: p-value \<α, where α = 0.05. Here it is test no. 2 of testing order.|Regression, Logistic|||"Analysis was performed using logistic regression model including baseline MMDs as a continuous covariate, and treatment and stratification factor (MHD at baseline: ≤14/\>14) as factors.~A testing strategy (sequence of tests) was applied to ensure protection of the type 1 error."||10.01|4.41|<0.0001
90972620|NCT04418765|181827899|OTHER|Testing sequence: 1. Change in MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 300 mg vs placebo; 2. 50% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 300 mg vs placebo; 3. Change in MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 100 mg vs placebo; 4. 50% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 100 mg vs placebo; 5a. Change in MMDs (Weeks 13-24), 5b. 75% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12), 5c. Change in HIT-6 (Week 12) 300 mg vs placebo; 6a. Change in MMDs (Weeks 13-24), 6b. 75% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12), 6c. Change in HIT-6 (Week 12) 100 mg vs placebo.|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.91|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.29|7.47||Testing continued only, if the previous comparison was statistically significant. Threshold for significance: p-value \<α, where α = 0.05. Here it is test no. 4 of testing order.|Regression, Logistic|||"Analysis was performed using logistic regression model including baseline MMDs as a continuous covariate, and treatment and stratification factor (MHD at baseline: ≤14/\>14) as factors.~A testing strategy (sequence of tests) was applied to ensure protection of the type 1 error."||7.47|3.29|<0.0001
90972621|NCT04418765|181827900|OTHER|Testing sequence: 1. Change in MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 300 mg vs placebo; 2. 50% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 300 mg vs placebo; 3. Change in MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 100 mg vs placebo; 4. 50% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 100 mg vs placebo; 5a. Change in MMDs (Weeks 13-24), 5b. 75% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12), 5c. Change in HIT-6 (Week 12) 300 mg vs placebo; 6a. Change in MMDs (Weeks 13-24), 6b. 75% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12), 6c. Change in HIT-6 (Week 12) 100 mg vs placebo.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|-3.0||Threshold for significance: p-value \<α, where α = 0.05. Here it is test no. 5a of testing order.|Mixed Models Analysis|Testing continued only, if the previous comparison was statistically significant.||"Analysis was performed using an REML-based MMRM with month (Weeks 1-4, Weeks 5-8, Weeks 9-12, Weeks 13-16, Weeks 17-20, Weeks 21-24), country, stratification factor (monthly MHDs at baseline: ≤14/\>14) and treatment as factors, baseline score as a continuous covariate, treatment-by-month interaction, baseline score-by-month interaction, and stratum-by-month interaction.~A testing strategy (sequence of tests) was applied to ensure protection of the type 1 error."||-3.0|-4.5|<0.0001
91007702|NCT04223778|181899575|SUPERIORITY|Treatment Difference vs Baseline ART. Superiority will be concluded if the upper bound of the 2-sided multiplicity-adjusted 95% CI is less than 0 percentage points.|Mean Difference (Net)|-14.12||||0.0094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.56|-0.68||The significance level in ANCOVA model was 0.02497/2=0.012485. The p-value is statistically significant if it is \<0.02497/2=0.012485.|ANCOVA|||Fasting LDL Cholesterol - Multiplicity Adjusted|The multiplicity adjusted 95% CIs for treatment difference were calculated from ANCOVA models with terms for baseline measurement and treatment.|-0.68|-27.56|0.0094
90942431|NCT00878553|181764966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.606|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.42||0.0118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.284|-1.927||Change from baseline in mean WASO3-7 compared values for the 20-mg dose vs. placebo. If that comparison demonstrated superiority of the 20-mg dose, then results for the 15-mg dose vs. placebo were compared; if significant, then 10-mg vs. placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|This hierarchical, 2-sided testing procedure maintained the overall level of significance at approximately 0.05|Adjusted mean differences were analyzed via general linear model that used change from baseline as response variable and included effects for patient, period, sequence, and treatment. A negative mean change from baseline indicates an improvement.|Literature-based estimates of WASO (Wake After Sleep Onset) SD (Standard Deviation) range from 39 to 45 minutes. Null hypothesis: difference between mean WASO3-7 values for placebo and the 15-mg SKP-1041 dose level equals 0. By using a 2-sided, 1-sample t test at the 5% level of significance of this null hypothesis and an assumed SD of 45 minutes, a sample size of 54 completed patients was calculated to provide 90% power to detect a mean treatment difference of 20 minutes||-1.927|-15.284|0.0118
90942432|NCT00878553|181764966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.421||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.685|-3.275||Change from baseline in mean WASO3-7 compared values for the 20-mg dose vs. placebo. If that comparison demonstrated superiority of the 20-mg dose, then results for the 15-mg dose vs. placebo were compared; if significant, then 10-mg vs. placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|This hierarchical, 2-sided testing procedure maintained the overall level of significance at approximately 0.05|Adjusted mean differences were analyzed via general linear model that used change from baseline as response variable and included effects for patient, period, sequence, and treatment. A negative mean change from baseline indicates an improvement|Literature-based estimates of WASO SD range from 39 to 45 minutes. Null hypothesis: difference between mean WASO3-7 values for placebo and the 15-mg SKP-1041 dose level equals 0. By using a 2-sided, 1-sample t test at the 5% level of significance of this null hypothesis and an assumed SD of 45 minutes, a sample size of 54 completed patients was calculated to provide 90% power to detect a mean treatment difference of 20 minutes||-3.275|-16.685|0.0037
90942433|NCT00878553|181764966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.153|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.422||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.857|-2.448||Change from baseline in mean WASO3-7 compared values for the 20-mg dose vs. placebo. If that comparison demonstrated superiority of the 20-mg dose, then results for the 15-mg dose vs. placebo were compared; if significant, then 10-mg vs. placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|This hierarchical, 2-sided testing procedure maintained the overall level of significance at approximately 0.05.|Adjusted mean differences were analyzed via general linear model that used change from baseline as response variable and included effects for patient, period, sequence, and treatment. A negative mean change from baseline indicates an improvement|Literature-based estimates of WASO SD range from 39 to 45 minutes. Null hypothesis: difference between mean WASO3-7 values for placebo and the 20-mg SKP-1041 dose level equals 0. By using a 2-sided, 1-sample t test at the 5% level of significance of this null hypothesis and an assumed SD of 45 minutes, a sample size of 54 completed patients was calculated to provide 90% power to detect a mean treatment difference of 20 minutes.||-2.448|-15.857|0.0077
90942434|NCT00878553|181764967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.604|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.755||0.1476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.208|2.0||Adjusted mean differences were analyzed via general linear model that used change from baseline as response variable and included effects for patient, period, sequence, and treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|No adjustment for multiple testing was made for secondary efficacy endpoints.|A negative mean change from baseline indicates an improvement.|Literature-based estimates of WASO (Wake After Sleep Onset) SD (Standard Deviation) range from 39 to 45 minutes. Null hypothesis: difference between mean WASO3-7 values for placebo and the 15-mg SKP-1041 dose level equals 0. By using a 2-sided, 1-sample t test at the 5% level of significance of this null hypothesis and an assumed SD of 45 minutes, a sample size of 54 completed patients was calculated to provide 90% power to detect a mean treatment difference of 20 minutes.||2.000|-13.208|0.1476
90942435|NCT00878553|181764967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.912|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.757||0.0757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.546|0.722||Adjusted mean differences were analyzed via general linear model that used change from baseline as response variable and included effects for patient, period, sequence, and treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|No adjustment for multiple testing was made for secondary efficacy endpoints.|A negative mean change from baseline indicates an improvement.|Literature-based estimates of WASO (Wake After Sleep Onset) SD (Standard Deviation) range from 39 to 45 minutes. Null hypothesis: difference between mean WASO3-7 values for placebo and the 15-mg SKP-1041 dose level equals 0. By using a 2-sided, 1-sample t test at the 5% level of significance of this null hypothesis and an assumed SD of 45 minutes, a sample size of 54 completed patients was calculated to provide 90% power to detect a mean treatment difference of 20 minutes.||0.722|-14.546|0.0757
90942436|NCT00878553|181764967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.521|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.757||0.1553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.154|2.113||Adjusted mean differences were analyzed via general linear model that used change from baseline as response variable and included effects for patient, period, sequence, and treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|No adjustment for multiple testing was made for secondary efficacy endpoints.|A negative mean change from baseline indicates an improvement.|Literature-based estimates of WASO (Wake After Sleep Onset) SD (Standard Deviation) range from 39 to 45 minutes. Null hypothesis: difference between mean WASO3-7 values for placebo and the 15-mg SKP-1041 dose level equals 0. By using a 2-sided, 1-sample t test at the 5% level of significance of this null hypothesis and an assumed SD of 45 minutes, a sample size of 54 completed patients was calculated to provide 90% power to detect a mean treatment difference of 20 minutes.||2.113|-13.154|0.1553
90942437|NCT00878553|181764968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.831|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.0092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.208|15.454||All aspects of the study's primary endpoint were statistically significant, and no adjustment for multiple testing was made for secondary efficacy endpoints.|Mixed Models Analysis||A positive mean difference from baseline indicates an improvement.|The adjusted mean differences were analyzed by using a general linear model that used change from baseline as the response variable and included effects for patient, period, sequence, and treatment.||15.454|2.208|0.0092
91036238|NCT00796653|181959060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.352|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.385||0.7995||95.0|-3.068|2.365|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||2.365|-3.068|0.7995
90942438|NCT00878553|181764968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|10.425|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.402||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.775|17.075||All aspects of the study's primary endpoint were statistically significant, and no adjustment for multiple testing was made for secondary efficacy endpoints.|Mixed Models Analysis||A positive mean difference from baseline indicates an improvement.|The adjusted mean differences were analyzed by using a general linear model that used change from baseline as the response variable and included effects for patient, period, sequence, and treatment.||17.075|3.775|0.0023
90942439|NCT00878553|181764968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|10.147|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.402||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.498|16.796||All aspects of the study's primary endpoint were statistically significant, and no adjustment for multiple testing was made for secondary efficacy endpoints.|Mixed Models Analysis||A positive mean difference from baseline indicates an improvement.|The adjusted mean differences were analyzed by using a general linear model that used change from baseline as the response variable and included effects for patient, period, sequence, and treatment.||16.796|3.498|0.0030
90942440|NCT00878553|181764969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.562|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.244||0.1005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.235|0.11||Adjusted mean differences were analyzed with a general linear model that used change from baseline as the response variable and included effects for patient, period,sequence, and treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|No adjustment for multiple testing was made for secondary efficacy endpoints.|A negative mean change from baseline indicates an improvement.|This endpoint summarizes the number of times during Hours 3 7, after onset of persistent sleep, that there was a wake entry of at least 2 epochs duration. To be counted, each entry must have been separated by a sleep stage of 2, 3 4, or rapid eye movement.||0.110|-1.235|0.1005
90942441|NCT00878553|181764969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.037|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.244||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.712|-0.362||Adjusted mean differences were analyzed with a general linear model that used change from baseline as the response variable and included effects for patient, period,sequence, and treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|No adjustment for multiple testing was made for secondary endpoints.|A negative mean change from baseline indicates an improvement.|This endpoint summarizes the number of times during Hours 3 7, after onset of persistent sleep, that there was a wake entry of at least 2 epochs duration. To be counted, each entry must have been separated by a sleep stage of 2, 3 4, or rapid eye movement.||-0.362|-1.712|0.0028
90942442|NCT00878553|181764969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.793|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.244||0.0216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.467|-0.118||Adjusted mean differences were analyzed with a general linear model that used change from baseline as the response variable and included effects for patient, period,sequence, and treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|No adjustments for multiple testing were made for secondary efficacy endpoints.|A negative mean change from baseline indicates an improvement.|This endpoint summarizes the number of times during Hours 3 7, after onset of persistent sleep, that there was a wake entry of at least 2 epochs duration. To be counted, each entry must have been separated by a sleep stage of 2, 3 4, or rapid eye movement.||-0.118|-1.467|0.0216
90942443|NCT00878553|181764970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.452|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.219||0.219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.98|5.077||Mean (SEM) = adjusted mean change from baseline in each group (and standard error of the mean) and P value = P value for the comparison of the SEM of the active group with that of the placebo group.|Mixed Models Analysis|No adjustment for multiple testing was made for secondary efficacy endpoints.|A negative mean change from baseline indicates an improvement.|Study was powered on the primary endpoint. Data for sWASO were sourced from Question 5 of the Morning Sleep Questionnaire. Its analysis follows a general linear model change from baseline as response variable including effects for patient, period, sequence, and treatment.||5.077|-21.980|0.2190
90942444|NCT00878553|181764970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.365|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.937||0.8441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.327|15.056||Mean (SEM) = adjusted mean change from baseline in each group (and standard error of the mean) and P value = P value for the comparison of the SEM of the active group with that of the placebo group.|Mixed Models Analysis|No adjustment for multiple testing was made for secondary efficacy endpoints.|A positive mean change from baseline indicates a worsening.|Study was powered on the primary endpoint. Data for sWASO were sourced from Question 5 of the Morning Sleep Questionnaire. Its analysis follows a general linear model change from baseline as response variable including effects for patient, period, sequence, and treatment.||15.056|-12.327|0.8441
90942445|NCT00878553|181764970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.936||0.0894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.522|1.842||Mean (SEM) = adjusted mean change from baseline in each group (and standard error of the mean) and P value = P value for the comparison of the SEM of the active group with that of the placebo group.|Mixed Models Analysis|No adjustment for multiple testing was made for secondary efficacy endpoints.|A negative mean change from baseline indicates an improvement.|Study was powered on the primary endpoint. Data for sWASO were sourced from Question 5 of the Morning Sleep Questionnaire. Its analysis follows a general linear model change from baseline as response variable including effects for patient, period, sequence, and treatment.||1.842|-25.522|0.0894
90942446|NCT00878553|181764971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.469||0.6433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.823|2.943||Analysis included effects for patient, period, sequence and treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis||A positive mean difference from baseline indicates improvement.|Adjusted mean differences were analyzed by using a general linear model that used change from baseline as the response variable.||2.943|-1.823|0.6433
91050411|NCT04168190|181987006|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.15|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 19A||2.15|0.81|
90942447|NCT00878553|181764971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.912|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.523||0.1167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.304|0.481||Analysis included effects for patient, period, sequence and treatment|Mixed Models Analysis||A negative mean difference from baseline indicates a worsening.|Adjusted mean differences were analyzed by using a general linear model that used change from baseline as the response variable.||0.481|-4.304|0.1167
90942448|NCT00878553|181764971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.434|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.626||0.2385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.958|3.826||Analysis included effects for patient, period, sequence and treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis||A positive mean difference from baseline indicates improvement.|Adjusted mean differences were analyzed by using a general linear model that used change from baseline as the response variable.||3.826|-0.958|0.2385
90942449|NCT00878553|181764972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.256||0.0914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.073|0.972|||Mixed Models Analysis||A positive mean change from baseline indicates an improvement.|The adjusted mean differences were analyzed with a general linear model that used change from baseline as the response variable and included effects for patient, period, sequence and treatment.||0.972|-0.073|0.0914
90942450|NCT00878553|181764972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.165|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.259||0.536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.69|||Mixed Models Analysis||A positive mean change from baseline indicates an improvement.|The adjusted mean differences were analyzed with a general linear model that used change from baseline as the response variable and included effects for patient, period, sequence and treatment.||0.690|-0.360|0.5360
90942451|NCT00878553|181764972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.262|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.237||0.3254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.787|0.263|||Mixed Models Analysis||A negative mean change from baseline indicates a worsening.|The adjusted mean differences were analyzed with a general linear model that used change from baseline as the response variable and included effects for patient, period, sequence and treatment.||0.263|-0.787|0.3254
90942452|NCT00878553|181764973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.818||0.719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.175|4.595||Adjusted mean differences were analyzed in a general linear model that used change from baseline as the response variable.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Model included effects for patient, period, sequence and treatment.|A positive mean change from baseline indicates improvement.|||4.595|-3.175|0.7190
90942453|NCT00878553|181764973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.821|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.422||0.6784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.08|4.722||Adjusted mean differences were analyzed in a general linear model that used change from baseline as the response variable.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Model included effects for patient, period, sequence and treatment.|A positive mean change from baseline indicates an improvement.|||4.722|-3.080|0.6784
90942454|NCT00878553|181764973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.314|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.058||0.2433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.586|6.214||Adjusted mean differences were analyzed in a general linear model that used change from baseline as the response variable.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Model included effects for patient, period, sequence and treatment.|A positive mean change from baseline indicates an improvement.|||6.214|-1.586|0.2433
90942455|NCT00878553|181764974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.39||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|F-test 2 degrees of freedom||Cmax(ng/mL) \[Maximum plasma zaleplon concentration\]||||0.0009
90942456|NCT00878553|181764975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.09||||0.9142||95.0|||||ANOVA|F-test two degrees of freedom||Cmax normalized per dose||||0.9142
90942457|NCT00878553|181764976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.24||||0.1193||95.0|||||ANOVA|F-test 2 degrees of freedom||Time (hour)post-dose of maximum plasma zaleplon concentration||||0.1193
90942458|NCT00878553|181764977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.85||||0.0003||95.0|||||ANOVA|F-test 2 degrees of freedom||AUC ng\*h/mL)||||0.0003
90942459|NCT00878553|181764978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.28||||0.2281||95.0|||||ANOVA|F-test 2 degrees of freedom||AUC/Dose (ng\*h/mL/mg)||||0.2281
90942460|NCT00878553|181764979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.74||||0.4835||95.0|||||ANOVA|2 degrees of freedom F-test||Half-Life (t1/2 in hours) of plasma zaleplon from each of 3 doses of SKP-1041||||0.4835
90942461|NCT00909532|181764986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.6|12.6||The primary and key secondary endpoints were analyzed using Hochberg's step-up procedure: test 1, primary (α=0.05); test 2, CFQ-R resp domain (Wk24) and sweat chloride (Wk24)(α=0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis|Denominator degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Roger approximation.||The primary analysis for the primary efficacy variable was based on a Mixed-Effects Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM). The model included absolute change from baseline in percent predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) as the dependent variable, treatment (ivacaftor versus placebo) and visit (Day 15, Week 8, Week 16, and Week 24) as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect, with adjustment for the continuous baseline values of age and percent predicted FEV1.||12.6|8.6|<0.0001
90942462|NCT00909532|181764987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.5|12.5||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Denominator degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Roger approximation. No imputation of missing data was done.||Analysis of this variable was similar to that of the primary analysis of the primary efficacy endpoint. Estimates were obtained from Mixed-Effects Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) with dependent variable absolute change from baseline, fixed effects for categorical visit and treatment group, and adjustment for the continuous baseline values of age and percent predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1),using unstructured covariance matrix.||12.5|8.5|<0.0001
91007703|NCT04223778|181899575|SUPERIORITY|Treatment Difference vs Baseline ART. Superiority will be concluded if the upper bound of the 2-sided multiplicity-adjusted 95% CI is less than 0 percentage points.|Mean Difference (Net)|-18.23||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.28|-4.17||The significance level in ANCOVA model was 0.02497/2=0.012485. The p-value is statistically significant if it is \<0.02497/2=0.012485.|ANCOVA|||Fasting Non-HDL Cholesterol - Multiplicity Adjusted|The multiplicity adjusted 95% CIs for treatment difference were calculated from ANCOVA models with terms for baseline measurement and treatment.|-4.17|-32.28|0.0021
90942463|NCT00909532|181764988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|11.4||Analyzed in sequence: test 1, primary (α=0.05); test 2, using Hochberg's step-up procedure on CFQ-R resp domain(Wk 24) and sweat chloride (Wk 24) (α=0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Through Week 24: Analysis for the respiratory domain score endpoint was similar to that of the primary analysis of the primary efficacy endpoint. Estimates were from Mixed-Effects Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) with dependent variable absolute change from baseline, fixed effects for categorical visit and treatment group, and adjustment for continuous baseline value for age, domain score, and percent predicted FEV1, using unstructured covariance matrix.||11.4|4.7|<0.0001
90942464|NCT00909532|181764988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|11.9||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Through Week 48: Analysis for the CFQ-R respiratory domain score endpoint was similar to that of the primary analysis of the primary efficacy endpoint. Estimates were from MMRM with dependent variable absolute change from baseline, fixed effects for categorical visit and treatment group, and adjustment for continuous baseline value for age,sweat chloride, and percent predicted FEV1,using unstructured covariance matrix.||11.9|5.3|<0.0001
90942465|NCT00909532|181764989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-47.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.3|-44.5||Analyzed in sequence: test 1, primary (α=0.05); test 2, using Hochberg's step-up procedure on CFQ-R resp domain(Wk 24) and sweat chloride (Wk 24) (α=0.05); test 3 using Hochberg's on time to pulmonary exacerbation (Wk 48) and weight (Wk 48).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Through Week 24: Analysis for this variable was similar to that of the primary analysis of the primary efficacy endpoint. Estimates were from Mixed-Effects Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) with dependent variable absolute change from baseline, fixed effects for categorical visit and treatment group, and adjustment for continuous baseline value for age, sweat chloride, and percent predicted FEV1, using unstructured covariance matrix.||-44.5|-51.3|<0.0001
90942466|NCT00909532|181764989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-48.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.5|-44.7||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Through Week 48: Analysis for this variable was similar to that of the primary analysis of the primary efficacy endpoint. Estimates were from Mixed-Effects Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) with dependent variable absolute change from baseline, fixed effects for categorical visit and treatment group, and adjustment for continuous baseline value for age, sweat chloride, and percent predicted FEV1, using unstructured covariance matrix.||-44.7|-51.5|<0.0001
90942467|NCT00909532|181764990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard at Week 24|0.4||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.71||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox|||Time to first pulmonary exacerbation through Week 24 was analyzed using Cox regression. The model included a covariate for treatment and adjustments for the age group and percent predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) severity at baseline.||0.71|0.23|0.0016
90942468|NCT00909532|181764990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard at 48 Weeks|0.46||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.73||Analyzed in sequence: test 1, primary (α=0.05); test 2, using Hochberg's step-up procedure on CFQ-R resp domain(Wk 24) and sweat chloride (Wk 24) (α=0.05); test 3 using Hochberg's on time to pulmonary exacerbation (Wk 48) and weight (Wk 48).|Regression, Cox|||Time to first pulmonary exacerbation through Week 48 was analyzed using Cox regression. The model included a covariate for treatment and adjustments for the age group and percent predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) severity at baseline.||0.73|0.28|0.0012
90942469|NCT00909532|181764991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|3.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons.||At Week 24: Analysis for this variable was based on a linear mixed effects (LME) model with treatment as a fixed effect, and intercept, visit (days on study) and treatment by visit interaction as random effects, with adjustment for age group and baseline percent predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) severity.||3.7|1.8|<0.0001
90942470|NCT00909532|181764991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|4.1||Analyzed in sequence: test 1, primary (α=0.05); test 2, using Hochberg's step-up procedure on CFQ-R resp domain(Wk 24) and sweat chloride (Wk 24) (α=0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 48: Analysis for this variable was based on a linear mixed effects (LME) model with treatment as a fixed effect and visit (days on study) and treatment by visit interaction as random effects, with adjustment for age group and baseline percent predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) severity.||4.1|1.3|0.0001
90942471|NCT00118703|181765010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.094||||0.604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.45|||ANCOVA|The analysis method was adjusted for Baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||||0.45|-0.26|0.604
90942472|NCT00118703|181765011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.061||||0.729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.41|||ANCOVA|The analysis method was adjusted for Baseline iTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||||0.41|-0.29|0.729
90942473|NCT00118703|181765012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.064|||||||Regression, Logistic|Overall evaluation of response to therapy was illustrated and analyzed using logistic regression adjusting for age, gender, investigator, and treatmen||||||0.064
90942474|NCT00461123|181765013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.93||||0.5248||95.0|-4.18|8.05|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), baseline as covariate, treatment as fixed factor|Difference of least squares (LS) means (Placebo minus Vardenafil)|null hypothesis: mean of Vardenafil group equals mean of Placebo group at day +90||8.05|-4.18|0.5248
90942475|NCT00461123|181765014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27||||0.87||95.0|-3.58|3.04|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), baseline as covariate, treatment as fixed factor|Difference of LS means (Placebo minus Vardenafil)|null hypothesis: mean of Vardenafil group equals mean of Placebo group at day +90||3.04|-3.58|0.8700
90942476|NCT00461123|181765015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.57||||0.4162||95.0|-8.21|19.35|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), baseline as covariate, treatment as fixed factor|Difference of LS means (Placebo minus Vardenafil)|null hypothesis: mean of Vardenafil group equals mean of Placebo group at day +90||19.35|-8.21|0.4162
90942477|NCT00461123|181765016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.5||||0.0588||95.0|-13.25|0.26|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), baseline as covariate, treatment as fixed factor|Difference of LS means (Placebo minus Vardenafil)|null hypothesis: mean of Vardenafil group equals mean of Placebo group at day +90||0.26|-13.25|0.0588
90942478|NCT00461123|181765017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.61||||0.7878||95.0|-22.03|16.82|||ANCOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA), treatment as fixed factor|Difference of LS means (Placebo minus Vardenafil)|null hypothesis: mean of Vardenafil group equals mean of Placebo group||16.82|-22.03|0.7878
90942479|NCT02024750|181765018|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.005||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.021|0.03||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjustments were made for study stratification variables and covariates that were imbalanced between study arms at baseline.|Negative values indicate a clinical benefit.|During the intervention period, the treatment effect on A1c. Results reflect the difference in A1c trend between usual care and intervention arms.||0.030|-0.021|0.72
90942480|NCT02024750|181765018|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.034|0.013||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjustments were made for study stratification variables and covariates that were imbalanced between study arms at baseline.|Negative values indicate a clinical benefit.|During the post-intervention period, the treatment effect on A1c. Results reflect the difference in A1c trend between usual care and intervention arms.||0.013|-0.034|0.38
90942481|NCT02024750|181765019|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.023||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.249|0.295||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjustments were made for study stratification variables and covariates that were imbalanced between study arms at baseline.|Positive values indicate a clinical benefit.|During the intervention period, the treatment effect on child quality of life. Results reflect the difference in QOL trend between usual care and intervention arms.||0.295|-0.249|0.87
90942482|NCT02024750|181765019|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.074||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.517|0.369||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjustments were made for study stratification variables and covariates that were imbalanced between study arms at baseline.|Positive values indicate a clinical benefit.|During the post-intervention period, the treatment effect on child quality of life. Results reflect the difference in QOL trend between usual care and intervention arms.||0.369|-0.517|0.74
90942483|NCT02024750|181765020|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.037||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.312|0.237||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjustments were made for study stratification variables and covariates that were imbalanced between study arms at baseline.|Positive values indicate a clinical benefit.|During the intervention period, the treatment effect on parent quality of life. Results reflect the difference in QOL trend between usual care and intervention arms.||0.237|-0.312|0.79
90942484|NCT02024750|181765020|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.009||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.467|0.448||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjustments were made for study stratification variables and covariates that were imbalanced between study arms at baseline.|Positive values indicate a clinical benefit.|During the post-intervention period, the treatment effect on parent quality of life. Results reflect the difference in QOL trend between usual care and intervention arms.||0.448|-0.467|0.97
90942485|NCT02024750|181765021|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.134||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.121|0.388||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjustments were made for study stratification variables and covariates that were imbalanced between study arms at baseline.|Positive values indicate a clinical benefit.|During the intervention period, the treatment effect on parent fear of hypoglycemia. Results reflect the difference in FOH trend between usual care and intervention arms.||0.388|-0.121|0.30
90942486|NCT02024750|181765021|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.006||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.384|0.373||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjustments were made for study stratification variables and covariates that were imbalanced between study arms at baseline.|Positive values indicate a clinical benefit.|During the post-intervention period, the treatment effect on parent fear of hypoglycemia. Results reflect the difference in FOH trend between usual care and intervention arms.||0.373|-0.384|0.98
90942487|NCT03605368|181765069|EQUIVALENCE|Simple linear models ('lm' in R) were conducted. Statistical significance was set at p\<.05.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Overall Behavior. Change-from-baseline analyses were conducted (post-intervention assessment ratings minus pre-intervention assessment ratings) and compared between intervention groups (Floreo and BeSAFE).||||.23
90942488|NCT03605368|181765069|EQUIVALENCE|Simple linear models ('lm' in R) were conducted. Statistical significance was set at p\<.05.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Appropriate Response. Change-from-baseline analyses were conducted (post-intervention assessment ratings minus pre-intervention assessment ratings) and compared between intervention groups (Floreo and BeSAFE).||||.07
90942489|NCT03605368|181765069|EQUIVALENCE|Simple linear models ('lm' in R) were conducted. Statistical significance was set at p\<.05.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Orienting. Change-from-baseline analyses were conducted (post-intervention assessment ratings minus pre-intervention assessment ratings) and compared between intervention groups (Floreo and BeSAFE).||||.99
90942490|NCT03605368|181765069|EQUIVALENCE|Simple linear models ('lm' in R) were conducted. Statistical significance was set at p\<.05.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Fidget. Change-from-baseline analyses were conducted (post-intervention assessment ratings minus pre-intervention assessment ratings) and compared between intervention groups (Floreo and BeSAFE).||||.005
90942491|NCT03605368|181765069|EQUIVALENCE|Simple linear models ('lm' in R) were conducted. Statistical significance was set at p\<.05.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Overall Behavior. Change-from-baseline analyses were conducted (post-intervention assessment ratings minus pre-intervention assessment ratings) and compared between intervention groups (Floreo and TAU).||||.01
90942492|NCT03605368|181765069|EQUIVALENCE|Simple linear models ('lm' in R) were conducted. Statistical significance was set at p\<.05.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Appropriate Response. Change-from-baseline analyses were conducted (post-intervention assessment ratings minus pre-intervention assessment ratings) and compared between intervention groups (Floreo and TAU).||||.04
90942493|NCT03605368|181765069|EQUIVALENCE|Simple linear models ('lm' in R) were conducted. Statistical significance was set at p\<.05.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Appropriate Response. Change-from-baseline analyses were conducted (post-intervention assessment ratings minus pre-intervention assessment ratings) and compared between intervention groups (Floreo and TAU).||||.06
90942494|NCT03605368|181765069|EQUIVALENCE|Simple linear models ('lm' in R) were conducted. Statistical significance was set at p\<.05.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.09
90942495|NCT03605368|181765070|EQUIVALENCE|A linear regression compared change in Police Interaction Knowledge scores by group (Floreo vs. TAU) from pre- to post-intervention. Significance was set at p\<.05.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.67||0.55|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.55
90942496|NCT03605368|181765070|EQUIVALENCE|A linear regression compared change in Police Interaction Knowledge scores by group (Floreo vs. TAU) from pre- to post-intervention. Significance was set at p\<.05.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.73||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.05
90942497|NCT01149876|181765076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
90942498|NCT01149876|181765076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.25
90942499|NCT01149876|181765076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.48
90942500|NCT01077622|181765088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|70.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.8|93.3|||||SERC assessment|||93.3|34.8|
90942501|NCT01077622|181765088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|70.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.8|93.3|||||Investigator assessment|||93.3|34.8|
90942502|NCT00562484|181765154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|42.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.0|52.0||||||Vaccine efficacy = 100 x (1 - ratio of incidence rate)||52|30|
90942503|NCT00562484|181765155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine efficacy|60.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.0|72.0||||||Vaccine efficacy = 100 x (1 - ratio of incidence rate)||72|44|
90942504|NCT03282799|181765175|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<.001
90942505|NCT03282799|181765176|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<.001
90942506|NCT03282799|181765177|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<.001
90942507|NCT03282799|181765178|OTHER||||||>|0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>.99
90942508|NCT03282799|181765179|OTHER|||||||0.685|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.685
90942509|NCT03282799|181765180|OTHER|||||||0.784|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.784
90942510|NCT03282799|181765181|OTHER|||||||0.587|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.587
90942511|NCT03282799|181765182|OTHER|||||||0.394|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.394
90942512|NCT03282799|181765183|OTHER|||||||0.66|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.660
90942513|NCT03282799|181765184|OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.290
90942514|NCT03302559|181765199|OTHER|Testing hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is zero.|||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance is defined as a p-value ≤0.05.|Paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||||<0.001
90942515|NCT03302559|181765200|OTHER|Testing hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is zero.||||||0.005||||||Statistical significance is defined as a p-value ≤0.05.|Paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 12 (Forehead)||||0.005
90942516|NCT03302559|181765200|OTHER|Testing hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is zero.||||||0.02||||||Statistical significance is defined as a p-value ≤0.05.|Paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 12 (Periocular)||||0.02
90942517|NCT03302559|181765200|OTHER|Testing hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is zero.||||||0.0006||||||Statistical significance is defined as a p-value ≤0.05.|Paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 12 (Cheeks)||||0.0006
90942518|NCT03302559|181765200|OTHER|Testing hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is zero||||||0.001||||||Statistical significance is defined as a p-value ≤0.05.|Paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 12 (Perioral)||||0.001
90942519|NCT03302559|181765201|OTHER|Testing hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is zero.||||||0.02||||||Statistical significance is defined as a p-value ≤0.05.|Paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 12 (Forehead)||||0.02
90942520|NCT03302559|181765201|OTHER|Testing hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is zero.||||||0.006||||||Statistical significance is defined as a p-value ≤0.05.|Paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 12 (Periocular)||||0.006
90942521|NCT03302559|181765201|OTHER|Testing hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is zero.|||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance is defined as a p-value ≤0.05.|Paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 12 (Cheeks)||||<0.001
90942522|NCT03302559|181765201|OTHER|Testing hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is zero.||||||0.5||||||Statistical significance is defined as a p-value ≤0.05.|Paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 12 (Perioral)||||0.5
90942523|NCT03302559|181765202|OTHER|Testing hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is zero.||||||0.002||||||Statistical significance is defined as a p-value ≤0.05.|Paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||||0.002
90942524|NCT03302559|181765203|OTHER|Testing hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is zero.||||||0.0008||||||Statistical significance is defined as a p-value ≤0.05.|Paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||||0.0008
90942525|NCT03302559|181765204|OTHER|Testing hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is zero.||||||0.02||||||Statistical significance is defined as a p-value ≤0.05.|Paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||||0.02
90942526|NCT03302559|181765209|OTHER|Testing hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is zero.||||||0.3||||||Statistical significance is defined as a p-value ≤0.05.|Paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 12 (Normal Skin)||||0.3
90942527|NCT03302559|181765209|OTHER|Testing hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is zero.||||||0.4||||||Statistical significance is defined as a p-value ≤0.05.|Paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 12 (Target Lesion)||||0.4
90942528|NCT01171183|181765216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|3.52|STANDARD_DEVIATION|37.64||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
90942529|NCT01171183|181765217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.73|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.54||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
90942530|NCT04260464|181765218|OTHER||Test/Reference Ratio|110.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|83.76|144.86||||||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare the natural log transformed Cmax for PF-06700841 between the normal renal function group (Reference) and the severe impaired renal function group (Test). Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were obtained from the model.||144.86|83.76|
90942531|NCT04260464|181765218|OTHER||Test/Reference Ratio|94.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|55.84|160.19||||||ANOVA was used to compare the natural log transformed Cmax for PF-06700841 between the normal renal function group (Reference) and the mild impaired renal function group (Test). Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were obtained from the model.||160.19|55.84|
90942532|NCT04260464|181765218|OTHER||Test/Reference Ratio|124.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.24|153.89||||||ANOVA was used to compare the natural log transformed Cmax for PF-06700841 between the normal renal function group (Reference) and the moderate impaired renal function group (Test). Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were obtained from the model.||153.89|100.24|
90942533|NCT04260464|181765219|OTHER||Test/Reference Ratio|112.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.85|206.45||||||ANOVA was used to compare the natural log transformed AUCinf for PF-06700841 between normal renal function group (Reference) and the severe impaired renal function group (Test). Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% CIs were obtained from the model.||206.45|60.85|
90942534|NCT04260464|181765219|OTHER||Test/Reference Ratio|70.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|27.6|182.49||||||ANOVA was used to compare the natural log transformed AUCinf for PF-06700841 between normal renal function group (Reference) and the mild impaired renal function group (Test). Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% CIs were obtained from the model.||182.49|27.60|
90942535|NCT04260464|181765219|OTHER||Test/Reference Ratio|147.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.17|290.21||||||ANOVA was used to compare the natural log transformed AUCinf for PF-06700841 between normal renal function group (Reference) and the moderate impaired renal function group (Test). Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% CIs were obtained from the model.||290.21|75.17|
90942536|NCT04260464|181765220|OTHER||Test/Reference Ratio|177.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|135.82|232.04||||||ANOVA was used to compare the natural log transformed Cmax for M1 between normal renal function group (Reference) and the severe impaired renal function group (Test). Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% CIs were obtained from the model.||232.04|135.82|
90942537|NCT04260464|181765220|OTHER||Test/Reference Ratio|132.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.08|185.17||||||ANOVA was used to compare the natural log transformed Cmax for M1 between normal renal function group (Reference) and the mild impaired renal function group (Test). Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% CIs were obtained from the model.||185.17|95.08|
90942538|NCT04260464|181765220|OTHER||Test/Reference Ratio|122.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.47|176.3||||||ANOVA was used to compare the natural log transformed Cmax for M1 between normal renal function group (Reference) and the moderate impaired renal function group (Test). Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% CIs were obtained from the model.||176.30|84.47|
90942539|NCT04260464|181765221|OTHER||Test/Reference Ratio|445.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|326.55|609.13||||||ANOVA was used to compare the natural log transformed AUCinf for M1 between normal renal function group (Reference) and the severe impaired renal function group (Test). Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% CIs were obtained from the model.||609.13|326.55|
90942540|NCT04260464|181765221|OTHER||Test/Reference Ratio|144.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|112.76|185.5||||||ANOVA was used to compare the natural log transformed AUCinf for M1 between normal renal function group (Reference) and the mild impaired renal function group (Test). Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% CIs were obtained from the model.||185.50|112.76|
90942541|NCT04260464|181765221|OTHER||Test/Reference Ratio|229.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|189.97|276.35||||||ANOVA was used to compare the natural log transformed AUCinf for M1 between normal renal function group (Reference) and the moderate impaired renal function group (Test). Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% CIs were obtained from the model.||276.35|189.97|
90942542|NCT03898700|181765253|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This one-group feasibility study examined outcomes of coaching using descriptive statistics (changed score) and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. A changed score of 2 points reflects clinical significance. The Wilcoxon was used to determine statistical significance. Performance scores from 31 coaching goals across 7 informal caregivers were used for analysis.||||<0.001
90942543|NCT03898700|181765253|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|2.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This one-group feasibility study examined outcomes of coaching using descriptive statistics (changed score) and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. A changed score of 2 points reflects clinical significance. The Wilcoxon was used to determine statistical significance. Satisfaction scores from 31 coaching goals across 7 informal caregivers were used for analysis.||||<0.001
90942544|NCT00511836|181765331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|2e-05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Null hypothesis: mean treatment difference=0.||||<0.00002
90942545|NCT00511836|181765334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.013|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Null hypothesis: mean treatment difference=0||||<0.013
90942546|NCT00511836|181765335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.245|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Null hypothesis: mean treatment difference=0||||0.245
90942547|NCT00362375|181765362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.4|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|4.5|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||GEE cluster-adjusted odds ratio||4.50|1.28|<0.05
91007704|NCT04223778|181899576|OTHER|Treatment Difference vs Baseline ART. Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated Difference|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.26|6.18|||||Difference in percentage versus (vs) Baseline ART was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Fasting Cholesterol||6.18|-6.26|
91007705|NCT04223778|181899576|OTHER|Treatment Difference vs Baseline ART. Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated Difference|0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|2.54|||||Difference in percentage versus (vs) Baseline ART was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Fasting HDL Cholesterol||2.54|-1.84|
91007706|NCT04223778|181899576|OTHER|Treatment Difference vs Baseline ART. Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated Difference|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.83|6.11|||||Difference in percentage versus (vs) Baseline ART was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Fasting LDL Cholesterol||6.11|-4.83|
90942548|NCT00362375|181765363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.48|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.16|||GEE|||||1.16|0.20|<0.05
90942549|NCT00362375|181765364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.95|||GEE|||||1.95|0.99|<0.05
90942550|NCT00362375|181765365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.44|||GEE|GEE incident rate ratio||||1.44|0.80|<0.05
90942551|NCT00362375|181765366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.71|||GEE|||||2.71|0.76|<0.05
90942552|NCT04702893|181765378|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.||||||0.1185|||||||Z-test of correlation|||||||0.1185
90942553|NCT04702893|181765379|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.||||||0.5135|||||||Z-test of correlation|||||||0.5135
90942554|NCT04702893|181765380|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.||||||0.0764|||||||Z-test of correlation|||||||0.0764
90942555|NCT04702893|181765381|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.||||||0.3478|||||||Z-test of correlation|||||||0.3478
91007707|NCT04223778|181899576|OTHER|Treatment Difference vs Baseline ART. Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated Difference|-0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.81|5.83|||||Difference in percentage versus (vs) Baseline ART was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Fasting Non-HDL Cholesterol||5.83|-6.81|
91007708|NCT04223778|181899576|OTHER|Treatment Difference vs Baseline ART. Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated Difference|-5.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.46|9.57|||||Difference in percentage versus (vs) Baseline ART was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Fasting Triglycerides||9.57|-20.46|
91007709|NCT04223778|181899576|SUPERIORITY|Treatment Difference vs Baseline ART. Superiority will be concluded if the upper bound of the 2-sided multiplicity-adjusted 95% CI is less than 0 percentage points.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.64||||0.4093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.63|6.9||The significance level in ANCOVA model was 0.02497/2=0.012485. The p-value is statistically significant if it is \<0.02497/2=0.012485.|ANCOVA|||Fasting LDL Cholesterol - Multiplicity Adjusted|The multiplicity adjusted 95% CIs for treatment difference were calculated from ANCOVA models with terms for baseline measurement and treatment.|6.90|-5.63|0.4093
91007710|NCT04223778|181899576|SUPERIORITY|Treatment Difference vs Baseline ART. Superiority will be concluded if the upper bound of the 2-sided multiplicity-adjusted 95% CI is less than 0 percentage points.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.49||||0.4397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.72|6.75||The significance level in ANCOVA model was 0.02497/2=0.012485. The p-value is statistically significant if it is \<0.02497/2=0.012485.|ANCOVA|||Fasting Non-HDL Cholesterol - Multiplicity Adjusted|The multiplicity adjusted 95% CIs for treatment difference were calculated from ANCOVA models with terms for baseline measurement and treatment.|6.75|-7.72|0.4397
91007711|NCT04223778|181899577|OTHER|Treatment Difference vs Baseline ART. Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated Difference|2.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.54|10.17|||||Difference in percentage versus (vs) Baseline ART was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Fasting Cholesterol||10.17|-5.54|
91007712|NCT04223778|181899577|OTHER|Treatment Difference vs Baseline ART. Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated Difference|-2.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.69|0.65|||||Difference in percentage versus (vs) Baseline ART was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Fasting HDL Cholesterol||0.65|-5.69|
91007713|NCT04223778|181899577|OTHER|Treatment Difference vs Baseline ART. Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated Difference|2.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.73|8.42|||||Difference in percentage versus (vs) Baseline ART was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Fasting LDL Cholesterol||8.42|-3.73|
91007714|NCT04223778|181899577|OTHER|Treatment Difference vs Baseline ART. Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated Difference|3.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.63|10.56|||||Difference in percentage versus (vs) Baseline ART was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Fasting Non-HDL Cholesterol||10.56|-2.63|
91007715|NCT04223778|181899577|OTHER|Treatment Difference vs Baseline ART. Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated Difference|10.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.97|24.96|||||Difference in percentage versus (vs) Baseline ART was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Fasting Triglycerides||24.96|-3.97|
91007716|NCT04223778|181899578|OTHER|Treatment Difference vs Baseline ART. Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated Difference|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|1.46|||||Difference in percentage versus (vs) Baseline ART was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|||1.46|-0.59|
91007717|NCT05325333|181899583|SUPERIORITY|Word form recall accuracy (number of words correctly recalled) on Expanding and Standard retrieval schedules at 5 mins for children with DLD||||||0.567|||||||LSD test|||||||0.567
91007718|NCT05325333|181899583|SUPERIORITY|Word form recall accuracy (number of words correctly recalled) on Expanding and Standard retrieval schedules at 5 mins for children with TD||||||0.003|||||||LSD test|||||||0.003
91007719|NCT05325333|181899584|SUPERIORITY|Word form recall accuracy (number of words correctly recalled) on Expanding and Standard retrieval schedules at one week for children with DLD||||||0.187|||||||LSD test|||||||0.187
91036239|NCT00796653|181959060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.391||0.4336||95.0|-3.818|1.639|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.639|-3.818|0.4336
90942556|NCT00634842|181765390|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The primary hypothesis was that there would be no difference in efficacy as measured by the proportion of subjects reaching HbA1c level \< 7% between the two FPG titration arms (70-90 mg/dL and 80-110 mg/dL, respectively) with a non-inferiority margin of 20%. If non-inferiority of the 70-90mg/dL arm was established, superiority was to be tested using a Logistic regression model with baseline HbA1c as a covariate. Superiority was to be concluded if the odds ratio was significantly greater than 1.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.86||||0.0411||95.0|1.03|3.37|||Test for Difference in Proportions|||To show non-inferiority for the primary endpoint, 100 subjects per group provides 80% power to show that the 95% CI for the difference of proportions between treatments is within the 20% margin under the assumption of equality of proportions. It is also sufficient to show superiority under the assumption that the first proportion is greater than the second by at least 20%. With a predicted withdrawal rate of 15%, 236 subjects were needed based on a treatment ratio of 1:1 for the two treatments.||3.37|1.03|0.0411
90942557|NCT00634842|181765391|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis was that there would be no difference in efficacy as measured by the proportion of subjects reaching HbA1c level \<= 6.5% between the two FPG titration arms (70-90 mg/dL and 80-110 mg/dL, respectively) with a non-inferiority margin of 20%. If non-inferiority of the 70-90mg/dL arm was established, superiority was to be tested using a Logistic regression model with baseline HbA1c as a covariate. Superiority was to be concluded if the odds ratio was significantly greater than 1.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.34||||0.0064||95.0|1.27|4.3|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.30|1.27|0.0064
90942558|NCT00634842|181765392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean|-0.271||||0.0019||95.0|-0.441|-0.101|||ANCOVA|The analyses for HbA1c were adjusted for baseline HbA1c values.||||-0.101|-0.441|0.0019
90942559|NCT03954223|181765411|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.4
90942560|NCT03954223|181765412|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-7.0||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|Mixed-effects generalized linear model of the glycemic profile change extracted from CGM data.||||||0.2
90942561|NCT01844726|181765417|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in BOLD signal activation across task derived learning circuit were compared between GLYX-13 and placebo groups using an independent group t-test.||||.10
90942562|NCT01844726|181765418|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.57
90942563|NCT00858247|181765434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.95
90942564|NCT00858247|181765435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.80
90942565|NCT00858247|181765436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.65
90942566|NCT00858247|181765437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.68
90942567|NCT00858247|181765438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.40
90942568|NCT00858247|181765439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.47
90942569|NCT00469456|181765524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.07||95.0|-0.1|2.8|||ANCOVA|||The primary efficacy parameter was change from Baseline to Week 12 in FLCI total score. Missing FLCI total scores at Week 12 were imputed using the last-observation-carried-forward (LOCF) approach.||2.8|-0.1|0.070
90942570|NCT00469456|181765525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.9||||0.022||95.0|0.9|10.9|||ANCOVA|||The secondary efficacy parameter was change from Baseline at Week 12 in the total score of the Social Communication subscale and Communication of Basic Needs subscale of the ASHA FACS. Missing scores at week 12 were imputed using the last-observation-carried-forward (LOCF) approach.||10.9|0.9|0.022
90942571|NCT04269434|181765543|NON_INFERIORITY|"The No Screening Arm is considered non-inferior if the upper limit of the 95% Confidence Interval is less than 1.25"|Incidence rate ratio|1.318|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.068|1.627||||||Compared to screening group||1.627|1.068|
90942572|NCT04269434|181765544|NON_INFERIORITY|No prespecified margin|Incidence rate ratio|0.788|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.719|0.863||||||For Azithromycin. Compared to screening group||0.863|0.719|
90942573|NCT04269434|181765544|NON_INFERIORITY|No prespecified margin|Incidence rate ratio|0.561|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.426|0.739||||||For Ceftriaxone. Compared to screening group||0.739|0.426|
90942574|NCT04269434|181765544|NON_INFERIORITY|No prespecified margin|Incidence rate ratio|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.515|0.588||||||For Doxycycline. Compared to screening group||0.588|0.515|
90942575|NCT04269434|181765545|NON_INFERIORITY|No prespecified margin.|Incidence rate ratio|1.373|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.963|1.956||||||Compared to screening group||1.956|0.963|
90942576|NCT04269434|181765546|NON_INFERIORITY|No prespecified margin.|Incidence rate ratio|1.471|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.943|2.299||||||Compared to screening group||2.299|0.943|
90942577|NCT01086384|181765548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression Cox|0.795|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.642|0.985|||||The estimated values is the Hazard ratio obtained from the Cox regression analysis for FF/VI 100/25 µg versus FF 100 µg, adjusted for an interim analysis.|||0.985|0.642|
91007720|NCT05325333|181899584|SUPERIORITY|Word form recall accuracy (number of words correctly recalled) on Expanding and Standard retrieval schedules at one week for children with TD||||||0.256|||||||LSD test|||||||0.256
91007721|NCT05325333|181899585|SUPERIORITY|Word meaning recall accuracy (number of semantic associations correctly recalled) on Expanding and Standard Retrieval Schedules at 5 Mins for DLD||||||0.747|||||||LSD test|||||||0.747
90942578|NCT01086384|181765548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|15.9||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.5|18.2||P-value for the Hazard ratio obtained from the Cox regression analysis for FF/VI 100/25 µg versus FF 100 µg, adjusted for an interim analysis.|Regression, Cox||The estimated value represents the adjusted probability of 1 or more severe asthma exacerbations by Week 52 for FF 100 µg. Cox Proportional Hazards Model estimate at mean Baseline FEV1, age, and proportional coefficients for sex and region.|||18.2|13.5|0.036
90942579|NCT01086384|181765548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|12.8||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.7|14.9||P-value for the Hazard ratio obtained from the Cox regression analysis for FF/VI 100/25 µg versus FF 100 µg, adjusted for an interim analysis.|Regression, Cox||The estimated value represents the adjusted probability of 1 or more severe asthma exacerbations by Week 52 for FF/VI 100/25 µg. Cox Proportional Hazards Model estimate at mean Baseline FEV1, age, and proportional coefficients for sex and region.|||14.9|10.7|0.036
90942580|NCT02586415|181765578|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.63|4.7||Criteria to assess superiority was a two-sided P value of \<0.05. The study was terminated early because the pre-specified stopping boundary of P \<0.0025 was crossed at the first interim analysis (N=182)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.70|1.63|<0.001
90942581|NCT00832000|181765586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.68|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.66|-0.706|||Wald||Residual standard deviation.|P value indicates significance level of the Wald test associated with mexiletine effect from the linear mixed effects model (n=57). When a carryover effect was detected, the significance level associated with the additive portion of the mexiletine effect (labeled period 1) is followed by the level associated with the interaction of mexiletine and period 2 (labeled period 2). All P values were 2-sided and .05 was considered the threshold of statistical significance.||-0.706|-2.66|<0.001
90942582|NCT00832000|181765586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.68|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.24||0.04||95.0|-3.85|-0.139|||Wald||Residual standard deviation.|P value indicates significance level of the Wald test associated with mexiletine effect from the linear mixed effects model (n=57). When a carryover effect was detected, the significance level associated with the additive portion of the mexiletine effect (labeled period 1) is followed by the level associated with the interaction of mexiletine and period 2 (labeled period 2). All P values were 2-sided and .05 was considered the threshold of statistical significance.||-0.139|-3.85|0.04
90942583|NCT00832000|181765587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.63|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-1.26|||Wald||Residual standard deviation.|P value indicates significance level of the Wald test associated with mexiletine effect from the linear mixed effects model. When a carryover effect was detected, the significance level associated with the additive portion of the mexiletine effect (labeled period 1) is followed by the level associated with the interaction of mexiletine and period 2 (labeled period 2). All P values were 2-sided and .05 was considered the threshold of statistical significance.||-1.26|-2.00|<0.001
91007722|NCT05325333|181899585|SUPERIORITY|Word meaning recall accuracy (number of semantic associations correctly recalled) on Expanding and Standard Retrieval Schedules at 5 Mins for TD||||||0.031|||||||LSD test|||||||0.031
91007723|NCT05325333|181899586|SUPERIORITY|Word meaning recall accuracy (number of semantic associations correctly recalled) on Expanding and Standard Retrieval Schedules at one week for DLD||||||0.061|||||||LSD test|||||||0.061
91007724|NCT05325333|181899586|SUPERIORITY|Word meaning recall accuracy (number of semantic associations correctly recalled) on Expanding and Standard Retrieval Schedules at one week for TD||||||0.747|||||||LSD test|||||||0.747
91007725|NCT05325333|181899587|SUPERIORITY|Word recognition (number of words accurately identified) on Expanding condition and Standard Retrieval Schedules for DLD||||||0.026|||||||LSD test|||||||0.026
91007726|NCT05325333|181899587|SUPERIORITY|Word recognition (number of words accurately identified) on Expanding condition and Standard Retrieval Schedules for TD||||||0.72|||||||LSD test|||||||0.720
91007727|NCT05325333|181899588|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.0001
91007728|NCT05325333|181899589|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.673|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.673
91007729|NCT00303602|181899600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.428||95.0||||P-value for Week 2 Change from Baseline. There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.428
91007730|NCT00303602|181899600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.859||95.0||||P-value for Week 4 Change from Baseline. There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.859
91007731|NCT00303602|181899600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.885||95.0||||P-value for Week 8 Change from Baseline. There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.885
91007732|NCT00303602|181899600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.784||95.0||||P-value for Week 12 Change from Baseline. There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.784
91007733|NCT00303602|181899600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.465||95.0||||P-value for Week 16 Change from Baseline. There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.465
91007734|NCT00303602|181899601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Change Difference|-0.19||||0.442||95.0|-0.67|0.3|||ANCOVA||Change = Endpoint minus baseline|||0.30|-0.67|0.442
91007735|NCT00303602|181899602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Change Difference|-0.32||||0.328||95.0|-0.95|0.32|||ANCOVA||Change = Endpoint minus baseline|||0.32|-0.95|0.328
91007736|NCT00303602|181899603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.385||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.385
91007737|NCT00303602|181899604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Change Difference|0.1||||0.914||95.0|-1.65|1.84|||ANCOVA||Change = endpoint minus baseline|||1.84|-1.65|0.914
91007738|NCT00303602|181899605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.325||95.0||||Up to Week 16 p-value|Fisher Exact|||||||0.325
91007739|NCT00303602|181899607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.344||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.344
91007740|NCT00303602|181899608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.708||95.0||||Systolic Blood Pressure Change to Endpoint p-value|Rank-Sum Test|||||||0.708
91007741|NCT00303602|181899608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.453||95.0||||Diastolic Blood Pressure Change to Endpoint p-value|Rank-Sum Test|||||||0.453
90972622|NCT04418765|181827900|OTHER|Testing sequence: 1. Change in MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 300 mg vs placebo; 2. 50% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 300 mg vs placebo; 3. Change in MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 100 mg vs placebo; 4. 50% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 100 mg vs placebo; 5a. Change in MMDs (Weeks 13-24), 5b. 75% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12), 5c. Change in HIT-6 (Week 12) 300 mg vs placebo; 6a. Change in MMDs (Weeks 13-24), 6b. 75% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12), 6c. Change in HIT-6 (Week 12) 100 mg vs placebo.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|-2.2||Threshold for significance: The consecutive order of the smallest (p1), the second smallest (p2), and the largest p-value (p3) had to be \<α/3, \<α/2, and \<α, where α = 0.05. Here it is test no. 6a of testing order.|Mixed Models Analysis|Testing continued only, if the previous comparison was statistically significant.||"Analysis was performed using an REML-based MMRM with month (Weeks 1-4, Weeks 5-8, Weeks 9-12, Weeks 13-16, Weeks 17-20, Weeks 21-24), country, stratification factor (monthly MHDs at baseline: ≤14/\>14) and treatment as factors, baseline score as a continuous covariate, treatment-by-month interaction, baseline score-by-month interaction, and stratum-by-month interaction.~A testing strategy (sequence of tests) was applied to ensure protection of the type 1 error."||-2.2|-3.8|<0.0001
90972623|NCT04418765|181827901|OTHER|Testing sequence: 1. Change in MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 300 mg vs placebo; 2. 50% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 300 mg vs placebo; 3. Change in MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 100 mg vs placebo; 4. 50% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 100 mg vs placebo; 5a. Change in MMDs (Weeks 13-24), 5b. 75% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12), 5c. Change in HIT-6 (Week 12) 300 mg vs placebo; 6a. Change in MMDs (Weeks 13-24), 6b. 75% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12), 6c. Change in HIT-6 (Week 12) 100 mg vs placebo.|Odds Ratio (OR)|11.43|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.22|30.15||Threshold for significance: The consecutive order of the smallest (p1), the second smallest (p2), and the largest p-value (p3) had to be \<α/3, \<α/2, and \<α, where α = 0.05. Here it is test no. 5b of testing order.|Regression, Logistic|||"Analysis was performed using logistic regression model including baseline MMDs as a continuous covariate, and treatment and stratification factor (MHD at baseline: ≤14/\>14) as factors.~A testing strategy (sequence of tests) was applied to ensure protection of the type 1 error.~Testing continued only, if the previous comparison was statistically significant."||30.15|5.22|<0.0001
90972624|NCT04418765|181827901|OTHER|Testing sequence: 1. Change in MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 300 mg vs placebo; 2. 50% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 300 mg vs placebo; 3. Change in MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 100 mg vs placebo; 4. 50% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 100 mg vs placebo; 5a. Change in MMDs (Weeks 13-24), 5b. 75% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12), 5c. Change in HIT-6 (Week 12) 300 mg vs placebo; 6a. Change in MMDs (Weeks 13-24), 6b. 75% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12), 6c. Change in HIT-6 (Week 12) 100 mg vs placebo.|Odds Ratio (OR)|9.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.16|24.35||Threshold for significance: The consecutive order of the smallest (p1), the second smallest (p2), and the largest p-value (p3) had to be \<α/3, \<α/2, and \<α, where α = 0.05. Here it is test no. 6b of testing order.|Regression, Logistic|||"Analysis was performed using logistic regression model including baseline MMDs as a continuous covariate, and treatment and stratification factor (MHD at baseline: ≤14/\>14) as factors.~A testing strategy (sequence of tests) was applied to ensure protection of the type 1 error.~Testing continued only, if the previous comparison was statistically significant."||24.35|4.16|<0.0001
90972625|NCT04418765|181827902|OTHER|Testing sequence: 1. Change in MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 300 mg vs placebo; 2. 50% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 300 mg vs placebo; 3. Change in MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 100 mg vs placebo; 4. 50% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 100 mg vs placebo; 5a. Change in MMDs (Weeks 13-24), 5b. 75% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12), 5c. Change in HIT-6 (Week 12) 300 mg vs placebo; 6a. Change in MMDs (Weeks 13-24), 6b. 75% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12), 6c. Change in HIT-6 (Week 12) 100 mg vs placebo.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|-4.2||Threshold for significance: The consecutive order of the smallest (p1), the second smallest (p2), and the largest p-value (p3) had to be \<α/3, \<α/2, and \<α, where α = 0.05. Here it is test no. 5c of testing order.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Analysis was performed using MMRM with the following fixed effects: visit, country, stratification factor (MHDs at baseline: ≤14/\>14) and treatment as factors, baseline HIT-6 Total Score as a continuous covariate, baseline score-by-visit interaction, treatment-by-visit interaction, and stratum-by-visit interaction.~A testing strategy (sequence of tests) was applied to ensure protection of the type 1 error.~Testing continued only, if the previous comparison was statistically significant."||-4.2|-6.7|<0.0001
91007742|NCT00303602|181899609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.187||95.0||||Total Cholesterol Change to Endpoint p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Ranks of change from baseline were regressed on ranks of baseline value of assay. Treatments compared using residuals of this regression in CMH test.||||||0.187
91007743|NCT00303602|181899609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.163||95.0||||High-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol Change to Endpoint p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Ranks of change from baseline were regressed on ranks of baseline value of assay. Treatments compared using residuals of this regression in CMH test.||||||0.163
91007744|NCT00303602|181899609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.323||95.0||||Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol Change to Endpoint p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Ranks of change from baseline were regressed on ranks of baseline value of assay. Treatments compared using residuals of this regression in CMH test.||||||0.323
91007745|NCT00303602|181899609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.581||95.0||||Triglycerides Change to Endpoint p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Ranks of change from baseline were regressed on ranks of baseline value of assay. Treatments compared using residuals of this regression in CMH test.||||||0.581
91007746|NCT00303602|181899610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.227||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Ranks of change from baseline were regressed on ranks of baseline value of assay. Treatments compared using residuals of this regression in CMH test.||||||0.227
91007747|NCT00303602|181899611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Ranks of change from baseline were regressed on ranks of baseline value of assay. Treatments compared using residuals of this regression in CMH test.||||||0.020
91007748|NCT00303602|181899612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.834||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Ranks of change from baseline were regressed on ranks of baseline value of assay. Treatments compared using residuals of this regression in CMH test.||||||0.834
90942584|NCT00832000|181765588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|-0.861|||Wald||Residual standard deviation.|P value indicates significance level of the Wald test associated with mexiletine effect from the linear mixed effects model. When a carryover effect was detected, the significance level associated with the additive portion of the mexiletine effect (labeled period 1) is followed by the level associated with the interaction of mexiletine and period 2 (labeled period 2). All P values were 2-sided and .05 was considered the threshold of statistical significance.||-0.861|-1.67|<0.001
90942585|NCT00832000|181765589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.918|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.532|||Wald||Residual standard deviation.|P value indicates significance level of the Wald test associated with mexiletine effect from the linear mixed effects model. When a carryover effect was detected, the significance level associated with the additive portion of the mexiletine effect (labeled period 1) is followed by the level associated with the interaction of mexiletine and period 2 (labeled period 2). All P values were 2-sided and .05 was considered the threshold of statistical significance.||-0.532|-1.30|<0.001
90942586|NCT00832000|181765590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.109|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.563|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.177|-0.056|||Wald||Residual standard deviation.|P value indicates significance level of the Wald test associated with mexiletine effect from the linear mixed effects model. All P values were 2-sided and .05 was considered the threshold of statistical significance.||-0.056|-0.177|<0.001
90942587|NCT00832000|181765591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.54|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.1||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|9.75|||wald||Residual standard deviation.|P value indicates significance level of the Wald test associated with mexiletine effect from the linear mixed effects model. All P values were 2-sided and .05 was considered the threshold of statistical significance.||9.75|-0.680|0.09
90942588|NCT00832000|181765592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.568|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.812|-0.325|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Residual standard deviation.|P value indicates significance level of the Wilcoxon test associated with mexiletine effect from the linear mixed effects model. The Wilcoxon test was substituted because the outcome is not continuous and therefore normality of the residuals is not satisfied. All P values were 2-sided and .05 was considered the threshold of statistical significance.||-0.325|-0.812|<0.001
90942589|NCT00832000|181765593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.083|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.633|-0.142|||Wald||Residual standard deviation.|P value indicates significance level of the Wald test associated with mexiletine effect from the linear mixed effects model. All P values were 2-sided and .05 was considered the threshold of statistical significance.||-0.142|-0.633|<0.001
90942590|NCT00832000|181765594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.313|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.889|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.602|-0.149|||Wald||Residual standard deviation.|P value indicates significance level of the Wald test associated with mexiletine effect from the linear mixed effects model. All P values were 2-sided and .05 was considered the threshold of statistical significance.||-0.149|-0.602|<0.001
90942591|NCT00832000|181765595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.464|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.516|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.675|-0.254|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Residual standard deviation.|P value indicates significance level of the Wilcoxon test associated with mexiletine effect from the linear mixed effects model. The Wilcoxon test was substituted because the outcome is not continuous and therefore normality of the residuals is not satisfied. All P values were 2-sided and .05 was considered the threshold of statistical significance.||-0.254|-0.675|<0.001
90942592|NCT00832000|181765596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.69|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.6||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.34|6.73|||wald||Residual standard deviation.|P value indicates significance level of the Wald test associated with mexiletine effect from the linear mixed effects model. All P values were 2-sided and .05 was considered the threshold of statistical significance.||6.73|-3.34|0.50
90942593|NCT00832000|181765597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.69|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.44|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.07|-1.3|||wald||Residual standard deviation.|P value indicates significance level of the Wald test associated with mexiletine effect from the linear mixed effects model. All P values were 2-sided and .05 was considered the threshold of statistical significance.||-1.30|-4.07|<0.001
90942594|NCT00832000|181765598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.58|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.35|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.44|7.72|||wald||Residual standard deviation.|P value indicates significance level of the Wald test associated with mexiletine effect from the linear mixed effects model. All P values were 2-sided and .05 was considered the threshold of statistical significance.||7.72|3.44|<0.001
90942595|NCT00832000|181765599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.351|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.5||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.87|5.17|||Wald||Residual standard deviation.|P value indicates significance level of the Wald test associated with mexiletine effect from the linear mixed effects model. When a carryover effect was detected, the significance level associated with the additive portion of the mexiletine effect (labeled period 1) is followed by the level associated with the interaction of mexiletine and period 2 (labeled period 2). All P values were 2-sided and .05 was considered the threshold of statistical significance.||5.17|-5.87|0.90
90942596|NCT00832000|181765599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.5||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.941|20.6|||wald||Residual standard deviation.|P value indicates significance level of the Wald test associated with mexiletine effect from the linear mixed effects model. When a carryover effect was detected, the significance level associated with the additive portion of the mexiletine effect (labeled period 1) is followed by the level associated with the interaction of mexiletine and period 2 (labeled period 2). All P values were 2-sided and .05 was considered the threshold of statistical significance.||20.6|0.941|0.03
90942597|NCT03974100|181765600|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence criteria (analysis set PPS): 95% CI for difference in means contained in \[-1.45%, 1.45%\]|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.145|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3325|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.798|0.509|||Mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM)|MMRM included treatment, prior bisphosphonate use, DXA machine type, visit, visit-treatment interaction, and baseline LS-BMD as a continuous covariate|Difference GP2411 (Test) - EU-Prolia (Reference)|||0.509|-0.798|
91007749|NCT00303602|181899613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Ranks of change from baseline were regressed on ranks of baseline value of assay. Treatments compared using residuals on this regression in CMH test.||||||0.022
90942598|NCT03974100|181765601|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence criteria (analysis set TP1 FAS): 95% CI for difference in means contained in \[-1.45%, 1.45%\] (criteria 1) or in \[-2.00%, 2.00%\] (criteria 2)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.177|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3321|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.475|||Mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM)|MMRM included treatment, prior bisphosphonate use, DXA machine type, visit, visit-treatment interaction, and baseline LS-BMD as a continuous covariate|Difference GP2411 (Test) - EU-Prolia (Reference)|||0.475|-0.830|
90942599|NCT03974100|181765602|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence criteria (analysis set PDS): 95% CI for ratio of geometric means contained in \[0.80, 1.25%\]|Geometric mean ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.01|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA was performed on log-transformed AUEC including treatment and log baseline CTX value as a continuous covariate|Geometric mean ratio of GP2411 (Test) to EU-Prolia (Reference)|||1.01|0.98|
90942600|NCT03974100|181765602|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence criteria (analysis set PDS): 90% CI for ratio of geometric means contained in \[0.80, 1.25%\]|Geometric mean ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|1.01|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA was performed on log-transformed AUEC including treatment and log baseline CTX value as a continuous covariate|Geometric mean ratio of GP2411 (Test) to EU-Prolia (Reference)|||1.01|0.98|
90942601|NCT03974100|181765603|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence criteria (analysis set PKS): 90% CI for ratio of geometric means contained in \[0.80, 1.25%\]|Geometric mean ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.03|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA was performed on log-transformed Cmax including treatment and weight as a continuous covariate|Geometric mean ratio of GP2411 (Test) to EU-Prolia (Reference)|||1.03|0.92|
90942602|NCT03974100|181765604|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence criteria (analysis set PKS): 90% CI for ratio of geometric means contained in \[0.80, 1.25%\]|Geometric mean ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|1.05|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA was performed on log-transformed AUCinf including treatment and weight as a continuous covariate|Geometric mean ratio of GP2411 (Test) to EU-Prolia (Reference)|||1.05|0.93|
90942603|NCT03856047|181765640|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference (%-points)|-2.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.58|-1.4|||ANCOVA|||Week 26 responses were analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with randomised treatment as factor and baseline (week 0) body weight as covariate. For each treatment arm, multiple (x1000) imputation of intermittend missing data was done using Markov Chain Monte Carlo, followed by sequential regression for monotone missing values of body weight including sex and region as factors.||-1.40|-4.58|0.0002
90942604|NCT03856047|181765640|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference (%-points)|-3.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.38|-2.17|||ANCOVA|||Week 26 responses were analysed using an analysis of covariance model with randomised treatment as factor and baseline (week 0) body weight as covariate. For each treatment arm, multiple (x1000) imputation of intermittend missing data was done using Markov Chain Monte Carlo, followed by sequential regression for monotone missing values of body weight including sex and region as factors.||-2.17|-5.38|<.0001
90942605|NCT03856047|181765640|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference (%-points)|-6.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.77|-4.36|||ANCOVA|||Week 26 responses were analysed using an analysis of covariance model with randomised treatment as factor and baseline (week 0) body weight as covariate. For each treatment arm, multiple (x1000) imputation of intermittend missing data was done using Markov Chain Monte Carlo, followed by sequential regression for monotone missing values of body weight including sex and region as factors.||-4.36|-7.77|<.0001
90942606|NCT03856047|181765640|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference (%-points)|-6.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.28|-5.09|||ANCOVA|||Week 26 responses were analysed using an analysis of covariance model with randomised treatment as factor and baseline (week 0) body weight as covariate. For each treatment arm, multiple (x1000) imputation of intermittend missing data was done using Markov Chain Monte Carlo, followed by sequential regression for monotone missing values of body weight including sex and region as factors.||-5.09|-8.28|<.0001
90942607|NCT03856047|181765640|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference (%-points)|-7.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.42|-6.16|||ANCOVA|||Week 26 responses were analysed using an analysis of covariance model with randomised treatment as factor and baseline (week 0) body weight as covariate. For each treatment arm, multiple (x1000) imputation of intermittend missing data was done using Markov Chain Monte Carlo, followed by sequential regression for monotone missing values of body weight including sex and region as factors.||-6.16|-9.42|<.0001
91007750|NCT00303602|181899614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.515||95.0||||Endpoint Metabolic Syndrome p-value|Fisher Exact|||||||0.515
91007751|NCT00303602|181899615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.118||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.118
91007752|NCT00303602|181899616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.161||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.161
91007753|NCT00303602|181899617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.229||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.229
91007754|NCT00750867|181899654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0128||||||The P-Value was obtained by comparing the UMSARS-I scores at final visit and at baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0128
91007755|NCT00750867|181899654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025||||||The P-Value was obtained by comparing the UMSARS-II scores at final visit and at baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.025
91007756|NCT00394654|181899655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.168|||||||Univariate 2-sample t-test|||||||0.168
91007757|NCT00394654|181899656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.254|||||||Univariate 2-sample t-test|||||||0.254
91007758|NCT00394654|181899657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.677|||||||Univariate 2-sample t-test|||||||0.677
91007759|NCT00394654|181899658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.318|||||||Univariate 2-sample t-test|||||||0.318
91007760|NCT00394654|181899659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.798|||||||Univariate 2-sample t-test|||||||0.798
91007761|NCT00394654|181899660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.766|||||||Univariate 2-sample t-test|||||||0.766
91007762|NCT00474539|181899684|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for immune response induced by NeisVac-C was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) greater than (\>) -10%.|Difference|-0.5||||||95.0|-3.3|2.0||||||For Meningococcal C the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at \>=1:8 titer was calculated||2.0|-3.3|
90942608|NCT03856047|181765640|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference (%-points)|-5.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.61|-4.35|||ANCOVA|||Week 26 responses were analysed using an analysis of covariance model with randomised treatment as factor and baseline (week 0) body weight as covariate. For each treatment arm, multiple (x1000) imputation of intermittend missing data was done using Markov Chain Monte Carlo, followed by sequential regression for monotone missing values of body weight including sex and region as factors.||-4.35|-7.61|<.0001
90942609|NCT03856047|181765640|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference (%-points)|2.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|4.6|||ANCOVA|||Week 26 responses were analysed using an analysis of covariance model with randomised treatment as factor and baseline (week 0) body weight as covariate. For each treatment arm, multiple (x1000) imputation of intermittend missing data was done using Markov Chain Monte Carlo, followed by sequential regression for monotone missing values of body weight including sex and region as factors.||4.60|1.38|0.0003
90942610|NCT03856047|181765640|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference (%-points)|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.0082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|3.84|||ANCOVA|||Week 26 responses were analysed using an analysis of covariance model with randomised treatment as factor and baseline (week 0) body weight as covariate. For each treatment arm, multiple (x1000) imputation of intermittend missing data was done using Markov Chain Monte Carlo, followed by sequential regression for monotone missing values of body weight including sex and region as factors.||3.84|0.57|0.0082
90942611|NCT03856047|181765640|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference (%-points)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88||0.9209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|1.64|||ANCOVA|||Week 26 responses were analysed using an analysis of covariance model with randomised treatment as factor and baseline (week 0) body weight as covariate. For each treatment arm, multiple (x1000) imputation of intermittend missing data was done using Markov Chain Monte Carlo, followed by sequential regression for monotone missing values of body weight including sex and region as factors.||1.64|-1.82|0.9209
90942612|NCT03856047|181765640|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference (%-points)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|0.92|||ANCOVA|||Week 26 responses were analysed using an analysis of covariance model with randomised treatment as factor and baseline (week 0) body weight as covariate. For each treatment arm, multiple (x1000) imputation of intermittend missing data was done using Markov Chain Monte Carlo, followed by sequential regression for monotone missing values of body weight including sex and region as factors.||0.92|-2.33|0.3960
90942613|NCT03856047|181765640|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference (%-points)|-1.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.0316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.46|-0.16|||ANCOVA|||Week 26 responses were analysed using an analysis of covariance model with randomised treatment as factor and baseline (week 0) body weight as covariate. For each treatment arm, multiple (x1000) imputation of intermittend missing data was done using Markov Chain Monte Carlo, followed by sequential regression for monotone missing values of body weight including sex and region as factors.||-0.16|-3.46|0.0316
90942614|NCT00338949|181765667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.228|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.228
90942615|NCT00338949|181765668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.958|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.958
90942616|NCT02271230|181765706|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.11||||||||1.11|0.78|
90942617|NCT02271230|181765706|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.14||||||||1.14|0.80|
90942618|NCT02271230|181765707|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.09||||||||1.09|0.81|
90942619|NCT02271230|181765707|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.998||||||||0.998|0.74|
90942620|NCT02601209|181765739|OTHER||Maximum Tolerated Dose (mg)|30.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90942621|NCT02601209|181765740|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.36||||0.1419|ONE_SIDED|85.0||1.7|||Log Rank|1-sided statistical test and p-value||||1.70||0.1419
91050412|NCT04168190|181987006|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|1.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|3.23|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 22F||3.23|0.85|
90942622|NCT02604342|181765755|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.33|||Stratified log-rank test||Estimated hazard ratio obtained from stratified Cox model with treatment group as covariate.|||0.33|0.12|<0.001
90942623|NCT02604342|181765756|SUPERIORITY||Difference in C-ORR|0.667|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.86|||Chi-squared|||95% confidence interval of the difference (alectinib - chemotherapy) computed using Hauck-Anderson approach.||0.86|0.39|<0.001
90942624|NCT01702519|181765779|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bio-equivalence was established if 90% confidence interval (CI) of the ratio (Test/Ref) of geometric means was included in the limit of 0.80 - 1.25|Treatment Ratio|0.946|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.912|0.982|||Treatment Ratio||The ratio between the geometric means of the test and reference formulations was calculated|Null hypothesis considered no difference between the two treatments.||0.982|0.912|
90942625|NCT01702519|181765780|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was established if 90% confidence interval (CI) of the ratio (Test/Ref) of geometric means was included in the limit of 0.80 - 1.25.|Treatment Ratio|0.962|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.0|||Treatment Ratio||The ratio between the geometric means of the test and reference formulations was calculated|Null hypothesis considered no difference between the treatments.||1.00|0.92|
90942626|NCT03029819|181765785|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.52
90942627|NCT01817712|181765817|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|3.14|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.14|1.46|<0.001
90942628|NCT01817712|181765818|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|Site used as strata||||||0.004
90942629|NCT01817712|181765819|OTHER|Longitudinal analysis of PCL-5 (change from baseline)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.9||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.91|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.12|-3.91|0.07
90942630|NCT02080403|181765858|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.1159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.04|-0.40|0.1159
90942631|NCT02806505|181765895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.6746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|3.06||Assessed by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country (Brazil, France, Other) and HCV genotype (1 vs. non-1).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The odds ratio is the ratio of the odds of a response in the Peginterferon alfa-2a 135 mcg group with the odds of a response in the Peginterferon alfa-2a 90 mcg group.||3.06|0.49|0.6746
91036240|NCT00796653|181959060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.111|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.395||0.9365||95.0|-2.625|2.848|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||2.848|-2.625|0.9365
91036241|NCT00796653|181959061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.625|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.333||0.0491||95.0|-5.241|-0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.010|-5.241|0.0491
91036242|NCT00796653|181959061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.489|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.341||0.0636||95.0|-5.119|0.141|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.141|-5.119|0.0636
90942632|NCT02806505|181765896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.3923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.76||Assessed by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country (Brazil, France, Other) and HCV genotype (1 vs. non-1).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The odds ratio is the ratio of the odds of a response in the Peginterferon alfa-2a 135 mcg group with the odds of a response in the Peginterferon alfa-2a 90 mcg group.||3.76|0.60|0.3923
90942633|NCT02806505|181765897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.8843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|2.68||Assessed by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country (Brazil, France, Other) and HCV genotype (1 vs. non-1).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The odds ratio is the ratio of the odds of a response in the Peginterferon alfa-2a 135 mcg group with the odds of a response in the Peginterferon alfa-2a 90 mcg group.||2.68|0.43|0.8843
90942634|NCT02806505|181765897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.5866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|2.04||Assessed by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country (Brazil, France, Other) and HCV genotype (1 vs. non-1).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24: The odds ratio is the ratio of the odds of a response in the Peginterferon alfa-2a 135 mcg group with the odds of a response in the Peginterferon alfa-2a 90 mcg group.||2.04|0.28|0.5866
90942635|NCT02034162|181765910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||< 0.001
90942636|NCT02034162|181765911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||< 0.001
90942637|NCT02034162|181765913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
90942638|NCT02034162|181765914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
91036243|NCT00796653|181959061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.158|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.35||0.0194||95.0|-5.806|-0.511|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||-0.511|-5.806|0.0194
90942639|NCT00760513|181765920|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.7||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|3.0||The a priori threshold for statistical significance = P\</=0.05|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline value of liver fat percentage||We estimated that a 20% decrease in liver fat with Omacor treatment, assuming a sigma of 0.3, and an alpha of 0.05; with 91 participants completing our trial, we had 86% power to detect a 20% change in liver fat (two tailed test) (see HEPATOLOGY 2014;60:1211-1221).||3.0|-6.3|0.48
90942640|NCT00760513|181765921|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.001||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3||A priori p value threshold \</=0.5|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline||Based on the available evidence at the time, we assumed that a 0.6-1.0 unit change in fibrosis score might be clinically significant (Hepatology 2008 Feb;47(2):455-460). Consequently, to detect a minimum 0.6 unit change in score (e.g. 9.0 at baseline and 8.4 at the end of the study) with an SD of 1.0, 100 participants would provide \>80% power at the 5% significance level, and with a 15% drop out of participants there would also be \>80% power to detect this effect.||0.3|-0.3|1.0
90942641|NCT00760513|181765922|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.3||A priori threshold for statistical significance p \</=0.05|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline measurement.||There was no power calculation for this end point.||0.3|-0.4|0.9
90942642|NCT02808975|181765930|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.049|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Across all strata, P-value calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. Stratum containing zero count: 0.1 added to each cell.||||||=0.049
90942643|NCT02808975|181765931|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.067|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Across all strata, P-value calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. Stratum containing zero count: 0.1 added to each cell.||||||=0.067
90942644|NCT02808975|181765932|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.003|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Across all strata, P-value calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. Stratum containing zero count: 0.1 added to each cell.||||||=0.003
90942645|NCT02808975|181765933|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.313|||||||ANCOVA|Across all strata, P-values are calculated from ANCOVA with stratum, baseline value, and treatment in the model.||||||=0.313
90942646|NCT02808975|181765934|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.746|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Across all strata, P-value calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. Stratum containing zero count: 0.1 added to each cell.||||||=0.746
90942647|NCT01646385|181765950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.836||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.683|1.025|||Regression, Cox|||Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for age, baseline steroid, smoking history, previous cancer, and body mass index was used for analysis.||1.025|0.683|0.084
90942648|NCT01646385|181765951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.512||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.276|0.952|||Regression, Cox|||Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for age was used for analysis.||0.952|0.276|0.035
90942649|NCT01646385|181765952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.019||||0.855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.831|1.251|||Regression, Cox|||Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for age, gender, previous non-RA drugs, baseline steroid, baseline DMARDs, methotrexate, disease activity score based on 28-joints count (DAS28), and smoking history was used for analysis.||1.251|0.831|0.855
90942650|NCT01646385|181765953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.564|0.87|||Regression, Cox|||Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for age, gender, previous non-RA drugs, baseline steroid, methotrexate, and baseline health assessment questionnaire (HAQ) score was used for analysis.||0.870|0.564|0.001
91050413|NCT04168190|181987006|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|2.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|3.96|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 22F||3.96|1.03|
90972626|NCT04418765|181827902|OTHER|Testing sequence: 1. Change in MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 300 mg vs placebo; 2. 50% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 300 mg vs placebo; 3. Change in MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 100 mg vs placebo; 4. 50% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 100 mg vs placebo; 5a. Change in MMDs (Weeks 13-24), 5b. 75% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12), 5c. Change in HIT-6 (Week 12) 300 mg vs placebo; 6a. Change in MMDs (Weeks 13-24), 6b. 75% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12), 6c. Change in HIT-6 (Week 12) 100 mg vs placebo.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|-2.5||Threshold for significance: The consecutive order of the smallest (p1), the second smallest (p2), and the largest p-value (p3) had to be \<α/3, \<α/2, and \<α, where α = 0.05. Here it is test no. 6c of testing order.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Analysis was performed using MMRM with the following fixed effects: visit, country, stratification factor (MHDs at baseline: ≤14/\>14) and treatment as factors, baseline HIT-6 Total Score as a continuous covariate, baseline score-by-visit interaction, treatment-by-visit interaction, and stratum-by-visit interaction.~A testing strategy (sequence of tests) was applied to ensure protection of the type 1 error.~Testing continued only, if the previous comparison was statistically significant."||-2.5|-5.0|<0.0001
90972627|NCT01926782|181827940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Alirocumab 300 mg group was compared to placebo group using an appropriate contrast statement.|LS Mean Difference|-52.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-59.8|-45.0||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 24||-45.0|-59.8|<0.0001
90972628|NCT01926782|181827940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Alirocumab 300 mg group was compared to placebo group using an appropriate contrast statement.|LS Mean Difference|-55.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-62.3|-48.1||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 21-24||-48.1|-62.3|<0.0001
90972629|NCT01926782|181827941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Alirocumab 300 mg group was compared to placebo group using an appropriate contrast statement.|LS Mean Difference|-58.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-65.0|-52.4||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 24||-52.4|-65.0|<0.0001
90972630|NCT01926782|181827941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Alirocumab 300 mg group was compared to placebo group using an appropriate contrast statement.|LS Mean Difference|-65.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-70.4|-59.5||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 21-24||-59.5|-70.4|< 0.0001
90972631|NCT01926782|181827942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-59.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-64.6|-53.4||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.025 level.||-53.4|-64.6|<0.0001
90972632|NCT01926782|181827943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-62.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-67.7|-56.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-56.2|-67.7|<0.0001
90972633|NCT01926782|181827944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-58.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-64.5|-53.0||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-53.0|-64.5|<0.0001
90972634|NCT01926782|181827945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-56.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-62.3|-50.3||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-50.3|-62.3|<0.0001
90972635|NCT01926782|181827946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-59.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-65.0|-54.1||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-54.1|-65.0|<0.0001
90972636|NCT01926782|181827947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-59.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-64.8|-54.0||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-54.0|-64.8|<0.0001
91036244|NCT00796653|181959062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.846|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.972||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.751|-0.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect||Olo 5 mcg minus placebo||-0.940|-4.751|0.0034
90972637|NCT01926782|181827948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-39.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-45.8|-33.1||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-33.1|-45.8|<0.0001
90972638|NCT01926782|181827949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-48.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-53.2|-43.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-43.2|-53.2|<0.0001
90972639|NCT01926782|181827950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-44.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-49.9|-39.1||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-39.1|-49.9|<0.0001
91036245|NCT00796653|181959062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.434|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.973||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.343|-1.525|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect||Olo 10 mcg minus placebo||-1.525|-5.343|0.0004
90972640|NCT01926782|181827951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-50.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-55.0|-45.6||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-45.6|-55.0|<0.0001
90972641|NCT01926782|181827952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-43.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-49.9|-36.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-36.2|-49.9|<0.0001
91050414|NCT04168190|181987006|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.67|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 33F||1.67|0.44|
90972642|NCT01926782|181827953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-50.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-55.3|-44.8||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-44.8|-55.3|<0.0001
90972643|NCT01926782|181827954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-49.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-54.8|-43.3||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-43.3|-54.8|<0.0001
90972644|NCT01926782|181827955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-52.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-57.6|-47.9||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-47.9|-57.6|<0.0001
90972645|NCT01926782|181827956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-31.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-36.6|-26.3||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-26.3|-36.6|<0.0001
90972646|NCT01926782|181827957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-35.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-38.9|-31.1||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-31.1|-38.9|<0.0001
90942651|NCT01646385|181765954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.717||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.537|0.958|||Regression, Cox|||Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for age, gender, previous non-RA drugs, baseline steroid, methotrexate, baseline HAQ score, Charlson index, smoking history, and body mass index was used for analysis.||0.958|0.537|0.024
90942652|NCT01646385|181765957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90942653|NCT01646385|181765958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Change at Year 1: analysis was performed with Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) using the General Linear Model (GLM) method applying age, gender, baseline DAS28, previous non-RA drugs, baseline steroid, and baseline methotrexate as covariates.||||<0.0001
90942654|NCT01646385|181765958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Change at Year 2: analysis was performed with ANCOVA using the GLM method applying age, gender, baseline DAS28, previous non-RA drugs, baseline steroid, and baseline methotrexate as covariates.||||<0.0001
90942655|NCT01646385|181765958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Change at Year 3: analysis was performed with ANCOVA using the GLM method applying age, gender, baseline DAS28, previous non-RA drugs, baseline steroid, and baseline methotrexate as covariates.||||<0.0001
90942656|NCT01646385|181765958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Change at Year 4: analysis was performed with ANCOVA using the GLM method applying age, gender, baseline DAS28, previous non-RA drugs, baseline steroid, and baseline methotrexate as covariates.||||<0.0001
90942657|NCT01646385|181765958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Change at Year 5: analysis was performed with ANCOVA using the GLM method applying age, gender, baseline DAS28, previous non-RA drugs, baseline steroid, and baseline methotrexate as covariates.||||0.01
90972647|NCT01926782|181827958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-44.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-49.0|-39.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-39.2|-49.0|<0.0001
90942658|NCT01646385|181765961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90942659|NCT01646385|181765962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Change at Year 1: analysis was performed with ANCOVA using the GLM method applying age, gender, baseline HAQ, previous non-RA drugs, baseline steroid, and baseline methotrexate as covariates.||||<0.001
90942660|NCT01646385|181765962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Change at Year 2: analysis was performed with ANCOVA using the GLM method applying age, gender, baseline HAQ, previous non-RA drugs, baseline steroid, and baseline methotrexate as covariates.||||<0.001
90942661|NCT01646385|181765962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Change at Year 3: analysis was performed with ANCOVA using the GLM method applying age, gender, baseline HAQ, previous non-RA drugs, baseline steroid, and baseline methotrexate as covariates.||||<0.001
90972648|NCT01926782|181827959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-44.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-49.7|-39.9||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-39.9|-49.7|<0.0001
90972649|NCT01926782|181827960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-49.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-54.5|-44.6||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-44.6|-54.5|<0.0001
90972650|NCT01926782|181827961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-47.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-52.2|-42.0||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-42.0|-52.2|<0.0001
90942666|NCT01101997|181765969|SUPERIORITY||sucess proportion|0.853|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.773|0.91|||Chi-squared|||H0: p= 0.6 and Ha: p ≠ 0.6||.910|.773|<0.001
90942667|NCT01101997|181765970|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.49|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90942668|NCT00704171|181765972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.257|||||||Fisher Exact|||Primary objective was to demonstrate superiority of PleuraSeal as an adjunct compared to standard of care alone. Tissue closure rates for the treatment and control groups were assumed to be 0.40 and 0.15, respectively. To achieve 80 percent power (alpha=0.05, 2-tailed, Fisher's Exact Test) required 112 completed subjects. To account for potential subject withdrawals, an additional 8 subjects were to be enrolled for a total of 120 randomized subjects (approx. 60 per treatment group).||||0.257
90942669|NCT00704171|181765973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|two-sided||||||<0.001
90942670|NCT00704171|181765974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79|||||||Kaplan-Meier|Kaplan-Meier method was used to obtain estimated median times for each treatment group and the log-rank test was used to compare the two treatments.||||||0.790
90942671|NCT00704171|181765975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.559|||||||2-sample t-test|||||||0.559
90942672|NCT00704171|181765976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.292|||||||2-sample t-test|||||||0.292
90942673|NCT00704171|181765977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53||||||For subgroup with pre-randomization air leak grade of 1|Fisher Exact|||||||0.53
90942674|NCT00704171|181765977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013||95.0||||For subgroup with pre-randomization air leak grade of 2 or 3|Fisher Exact|||||||.013
90942675|NCT00913068|181765978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0012||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0012
90942676|NCT01772563|181765985|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR) [%]|93.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.07|106.81|||||GMR (test/reference) i.e. (Volasertib+Itraconazole/ Volasertib). Intra- individual coefficient of variation (gCV%)=25.1.|"Statistical analysis of Volasertib:~AUC0-tz was log-transformed prior to fitting an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model. This model included effects for 'treatment' and 'subject'. 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were computed, then back-transformed to the original scale to give the point estimator and interval estimates for the geometric mean ratio (GMR)."||106.81|82.07|
90942677|NCT01772563|181765985|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR) [%]|75.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|67.83|84.632|||||GMR (test/reference) i.e. (Volasertib+Itraconazole/ Volasertib). Intra- individual coefficient of variation (gCV %)=21.0.|"Statistical analysis of CD 10899:~AUC0-tz was log-transformed prior to fitting an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model. This model included effects for 'treatment' and 'subject'. 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were computed, then back-transformed to the original scale to give the point estimator and interval estimates for the geometric mean ratio (GMR)."||84.632|67.830|
90942678|NCT01772563|181765986|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR) [%]|79.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|64.896|97.137|||||GMR (test/reference) i.e. (Volasertib+Itraconazole/ Volasertib). Intra- individual coefficient of variation (gCV %)=39.3.|"Statistical analysis of volasertib:~Cmax was log-transformed prior to fitting an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model. This model included effects for 'treatment' and 'subject'. 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were computed, then back-transformed to the original scale to give the point estimator and interval estimates for the geometric mean ratio (GMR)."||97.137|64.896|
90942679|NCT01772563|181765986|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR) [%]|63.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|55.372|72.775|||||GMR (test/reference) i.e. (Volasertib+Itraconazole/ Volasertib). Intra- individual coefficient of variation (gCV%)=26.1.|"Statistical analysis of CD 10899:~Cmax was log-transformed prior to fitting an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model. This model included effects for 'treatment' and 'subject'. 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were computed, then back-transformed to the original scale to give the point estimator and interval estimates for the geometric mean ratio (GMR)."||72.775|55.372|
90972651|NCT01926782|181827962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-36.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-40.4|-32.4||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-32.4|-40.4|<0.0001
90972652|NCT01926782|181827963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-32.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-36.5|-29.1||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-29.1|-36.5|<0.0001
90972653|NCT01926782|181827964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|68.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|20.9|221.0||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model.||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Statistical analysis used a multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model.||221.0|20.9|<0.0001
90972654|NCT01926782|181827965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|25.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|13.7|47.8||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Regression, Logistic|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Statistical analysis used multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model.||47.8|13.7|<0.0001
90972655|NCT01926782|181827966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|280.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|56.7|1385.7||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model.||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||1385.7|56.7|<0.0001
90972656|NCT01926782|181827967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|41.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|20.3|83.8||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Regression, Logistic|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Statistical analysis used a multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model||83.8|20.3|<0.0001
90942680|NCT01772563|181765987|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR) [%]|97.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.09|109.94|||||GMR (test/reference) i.e. (Volasertib+Itraconazole/ Volasertib). Intra- individual coefficient of variation (gCV %)=22.7.|"Statistical analysis of volasertib:~AUC0-∞ was log-transformed prior to fitting an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model. This model included effects for 'treatment' and 'subject'. 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were computed, then back-transformed to the original scale to give the point estimator and interval estimates for the geometric mean ratio (GMR)."||109.94|87.09|
91050415|NCT04168190|181987006|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|1.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|3.69|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 33F||3.69|0.97|
90972657|NCT01926782|181827968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|90.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|16.5|498.3||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Regression, Logistic|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Statistical analysis used a multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model.||498.3|16.5|<0.0001
90972658|NCT01926782|181827969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|49.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|23.4|104.4||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Regression, Logistic|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Statistical analysis used a multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model.||104.4|23.4|<0.0001
90972659|NCT01926782|181827970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|297.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|27.9|3160.6||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Regression, Logistic|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Statistical analysis used multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model.||3160.6|27.9|<0.0001
90972660|NCT01926782|181827971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|77.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|34.1|176.8||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Regression, Logistic|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Statistical analysis used multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model.||176.8|34.1|<0.0001
90972661|NCT01926782|181827972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-27.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-37.0|-18.3||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Regression, Robust|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Statistical analysis used a multiple imputation approach followed by a robust regression model.||-18.3|-37.0|<0.0001
90972662|NCT01926782|181827973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-29.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-35.5|-22.7||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Regression, Robust|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Statistical analysis used a multiple imputation approach followed by a robust regression model.||-22.7|-35.5|<0.0001
90972663|NCT01926782|181827974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-23.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-32.4|-14.5||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Regression, Robust|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Statistical analysis used a multiple imputation approach followed by a robust regression model.||-14.5|-32.4|<0.0001
90972664|NCT01926782|181827975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-26.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-32.8|-20.4||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Regression, Robust|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Statistical analysis used a multiple imputation approach followed by a robust regression model.||-20.4|-32.8|<0.0001
90972665|NCT01926782|181827976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.8||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|97.5|3.1|12.6||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||12.6|3.1|0.0003
90972666|NCT01926782|181827977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.1||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.9|8.4||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||8.4|1.9|0.0004
90972667|NCT01926782|181827978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.9||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|97.5|2.6|11.1||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant)||11.1|2.6|0.0004
90972668|NCT01926782|181827979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.2||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.8|8.7||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||8.7|1.8|0.0007
90972669|NCT01926782|181827980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-11.9||||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-21.3|-2.6||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Regression, Robust|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Statistical analysis used a multiple imputation approach followed by a robust regression model.||-2.6|-21.3|0.0042
90972670|NCT01926782|181827981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-15.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-21.5|-8.6||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Regression, Robust|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Statistical analysis used a multiple imputation approach followed by a robust regression model.||-8.6|-21.5|<0.0001
90972671|NCT01926782|181827982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-14.1||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-22.9|-5.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Regression, Robust|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Statistical analysis used a multiple imputation approach followed by a robust regression model.||-5.2|-22.9|0.0004
90972672|NCT01926782|181827983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-13.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-20.3|-6.9||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Regression, Robust|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Statistical analysis used a multiple imputation approach followed by a robust regression model.||-6.9|-20.3|<0.0001
90942681|NCT01772563|181765987|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR) [%]|77.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|69.001|86.871|||||GMR (test/reference) i.e. (Volasertib+Itraconazole/ Volasertib). Intra- individual coefficient of variation (gCV %)=22.5.|"Statistical analysis of CD 10899:~AUC0-∞ was log-transformed prior to fitting an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model. This model included effects for 'treatment' and 'subject'. 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were computed, then back-transformed to the original scale to give the point estimator and interval estimates for the geometric mean ratio (GMR)."||86.871|69.001|
90942682|NCT01196819|181765988|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin is 0.13mm, if the two-sided upper 95% confidence bound is \<Δ, the Firehawk Stent being tested will be considered non-inferior to the control. This corresponds to a P value \<0.05 from a two-sided Student t-test comparing the difference between FirehawkStent and Xience stent to delta.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.29|||ANCOVA|||H0: Pe - Pc≥ ∆, H1: Pe - Pc \< ∆. Pe and Pc are the mean 9-month in-stent late loss for the subject in the Firehawk DES group and the Xience group, respectively. ∆ is the non-inferiority margin. A two-sided upper 95% confidence bound will be calculated for the difference in 9-month in-stent late loss .||0.29|0|0.94
90942683|NCT01196819|181765989|NON_INFERIORITY|Assume the in-stent percent diameter stenosis of both FIREHAWK and XIENCE V are 16 ± 16%, the non-inferiority value is 5%, the level of statistical significance is 0.05 (bilateral test), the power is 85%.||||||0.69|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.69
90942684|NCT01196819|181765990|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
90942685|NCT01196819|181765991|OTHER|||||||0.76|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.76
90942686|NCT01196819|181765992|OTHER|||||||0.77|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.77
90942687|NCT01196819|181765993|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
90942688|NCT01898442|181765996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.017
90942689|NCT01841112|181766026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|1.3712|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7272|2.0151|||||The standard error of slope estimate = 0.3038.|Dose proportionality was assessed in Chinese subjects. For the power model perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1.||2.0151|0.7272|
90942690|NCT01841112|181766026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|1.3652|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0421|1.6883|||||The standard error of slope estimate = 0.1516.|Dose proportionality was assessed in Japanese subjects. For the power model perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1.||1.6883|1.0421|
90942691|NCT01841112|181766027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|1.1998|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4794|1.9202|||||The standard error of slope estimate = 0.3380.|Dose proportionality was assessed in Chinese subjects. For the power model perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1.||1.9202|0.4794|
90942692|NCT01841112|181766027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|1.0299|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7131|1.3466|||||The standard error of slope estimate = 0.1486.|Dose proportionality was assessed in Japanese subjects. For the power model perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1.||1.3466|0.7131|
90942693|NCT01841112|181766028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|1.2015|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5078|1.8952|||||The standard error of slope estimate = 0.3272.|Dose proportionality was assessed in Chinese subjects. For the power model perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1.||1.8952|0.5078|
90942694|NCT01841112|181766028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|1.0301|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7133|1.3469|||||The standard error of slope estimate = 0.1486.|Dose proportionality was assessed in Japanese subjects. For the power model perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1.||1.3469|0.7133|
90942695|NCT01438840|181766048|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
90942696|NCT00702546|181766060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-9.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.5|0.7||||||Treatment groups were compared with a generalized linear model for the cumulative ongoing pregnancy rate including covariates treatment group, age class (\< 32 yrs vs. ≥ 32 yrs), planned IVF treatment (IVF vs. ICSI) and region (Europe vs. Asia).||0.7|-19.5|
90942697|NCT02725008|181766067|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.32||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|10.07|||Chi-squared|||||10.07|0.54|0.3
90942698|NCT02725008|181766068|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.95
90942699|NCT02920021|181766089|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|60.046|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|79.918||0.463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-108.566|228.657|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline value as covariate.|Treatment Difference = Etokimab - Placebo|||228.657|-108.566|0.463
90942700|NCT02920021|181766090|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016||0.962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.031|0.032|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline value as covariate.|Treatment Difference = Etokimab - Placebo|||0.032|-0.031|0.962
90942701|NCT00097669|181766100|SUPERIORITY|"We used Kaplan-Meier methods to construct cumulative time-to-event curves for the two groups, with a comparison by use of the log-rank test.~We used a Cox proportional hazard model analysis to control for any potential imbalance in baseline characteristics and follow-up between the two groups."|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.91||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.0|||Log Rank|||||1.00|0.82|0.05
90942702|NCT00097669|181766100|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.0|||Regression, Cox|Analysis before adjusting for any potential imbalance in the baseline characteristics and follow-up duration between the groups.||||1.00|0.81|<0.05
90942703|NCT00097669|181766100|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.03|||Regression, Cox|Analysis after adjusting for any potential imbalance in the baseline characteristics and follow-up duration between the groups.||||1.03|0.81|<0.05
90942704|NCT01473745|181766138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.098|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||ANS X axis||||0.098
90942705|NCT01473745|181766138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.389|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||ANS Y axis||||0.389
90942706|NCT01473745|181766138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||ANS Z axis||||0.780
90942707|NCT01473745|181766138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.054|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||A point X axis||||0.054
90942708|NCT01473745|181766138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.323|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||A point Y axis||||0.323
90942709|NCT01473745|181766138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.371|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||A point X axis||||0.371
90942710|NCT01473745|181766138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||UI level X axis||||0.011
90942711|NCT01473745|181766138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.426|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||UI level Y axis||||0.426
90942712|NCT01473745|181766138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.621|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||UI level Z axis||||0.621
90942713|NCT01473745|181766138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.275|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||pronasale X axis||||0.275
90942714|NCT01473745|181766138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.361|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||pronasale Y axis||||0.361
90942715|NCT01473745|181766138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.284|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||pronasale Z axis||||0.284
90942716|NCT01473745|181766138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.119|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||subnasale X axis||||0.119
90942717|NCT01473745|181766138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||subnasale Y axis||||0.019
90942718|NCT01473745|181766138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||subnasale Z axis||||0.034
90942719|NCT01473745|181766138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.422|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||labiale superious X axis||||0.422
90942720|NCT01473745|181766138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.177|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||labiale superious Y axis||||0.177
90942721|NCT01473745|181766138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.133|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||labiale superious Z axis||||0.133
90942722|NCT01473745|181766139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.218|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||Intercanthal distance||||0.218
90942723|NCT01473745|181766139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.336|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P- value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance.||nasal height||||0.336
90942724|NCT01473745|181766139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.192|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P- value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance||||||0.192
90942725|NCT01473745|181766139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.135|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance.||nasal tip protrusion||||0.135
90942726|NCT01473745|181766139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.277|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance.||nasal width||||0.277
90942727|NCT01473745|181766139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.505|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||alar base width||||0.505
90942728|NCT01473745|181766139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.299|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||R nostril show vertical dimension||||0.299
90942729|NCT01473745|181766139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.738|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||L nostril show vertical dimension||||0.738
90942730|NCT01473745|181766139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||columellar length||||0.008
90942731|NCT01473745|181766139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.116|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||cutaneious height of upper lip||||0.116
90942732|NCT01473745|181766139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.528|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||overall upper lip height||||0.528
90942733|NCT01473745|181766139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.123|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||vermillion height of upper lip||||0.123
90942734|NCT01473745|181766139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||lower prolabial width||||0.250
90942735|NCT01473745|181766139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.706|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||upper lip protrusion||||0.706
90942736|NCT01473745|181766139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.804|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||intercanthal distance||||0.804
90942737|NCT01473745|181766139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.114|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||nasal height||||0.114
90942738|NCT01473745|181766139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.457|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||Nasal length||||0.457
90942739|NCT01473745|181766139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.565|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||Nasal tip protrusion||||0.565
90942740|NCT01473745|181766139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.781|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||nasal width||||0.781
90942741|NCT01473745|181766139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.164|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||alar base width||||0.164
90942742|NCT01473745|181766139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.554|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||R nostril show vertical dimension||||0.554
90942743|NCT01473745|181766139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.508|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||L nostril show vertical dimension||||0.508
90942744|NCT01473745|181766139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.358|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||columellar length||||0.358
90942745|NCT01473745|181766139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||cutaneous height of upper lip||||0.049
90942746|NCT01473745|181766139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.057|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||overall upper lip height||||0.057
90942747|NCT01473745|181766139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.062|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||vermillion height of upper lip||||0.062
90942748|NCT01473745|181766139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||lower prolabial width||||0.029
90942749|NCT01473745|181766139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||upper lip protrusion||||0.011
90942750|NCT01473745|181766139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.211|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||intercanthal distance||||0.211
90942751|NCT01473745|181766139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.102|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||nasal height||||0.102
90942752|NCT01473745|181766139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.136|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||nasal length||||0.136
90942753|NCT01473745|181766139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.113|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||nasal tip protrusion||||0.113
90942754|NCT01473745|181766139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.115|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||nasal width||||0.115
90942755|NCT01473745|181766139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.535|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||alar base width||||0.535
90942756|NCT01473745|181766139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||R nostril show vertical dimension||||0.850
90942757|NCT01473745|181766139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.891|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||L nostril show vertical dimension||||0.891
90972673|NCT01926782|181827984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|3.0|10.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||10.2|3.0|<0.0001
90972674|NCT01926782|181827985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.7||||0.0306|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.1|5.4||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 300 mg vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||5.4|-0.1|0.0306
90942758|NCT01473745|181766139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.262|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||columellar length||||0.262
90942759|NCT01473745|181766139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.344|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||cutaneous height of upper lip||||0.344
90942760|NCT01473745|181766139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.057|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||overall upper lip height||||0.057
90942761|NCT01473745|181766139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.995|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||vermillion height of upper lip||||0.995
90942762|NCT01473745|181766139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||lower prolabial width||||0.440
90942763|NCT01473745|181766139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.078|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||upper lip protrusion||||0.078
90942764|NCT01473745|181766140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.104|TWO_SIDED|||||intergroup difference of conventional group|t-test, 2 sided|P value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance.||||||0.104
90942765|NCT01473745|181766140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|||||Intergroup difference of modified group|t-test, 2 sided|P value \<0.05 was set as statistical significance.||||||0.043
90942766|NCT01473745|181766140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.888|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance.||||||0.888
90942767|NCT02330276|181766141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||||||The reported P-Value was calculated|General linear mixed-effects models|||||||0.05
90942768|NCT02330276|181766142|OTHER|one way ANOVA between groups|Mean Difference (Final Values)|77.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.9|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|70.3|85.5||for change in heart rate at 24 hr post-dosing from baseline between the 3 doses|ANOVA|||Primary hypothesis: None of the doses of (+)-epicatechin will differ with regard to change from baseline in any of the major safety endpoints; heart rate, systolic and diastolic blood pressure.||85.5|70.3|<0.05
90942769|NCT02330276|181766143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||||||The reported P-Value was calculated|General linear mixed-effects models|||||||0.05
90942770|NCT02330276|181766144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||||||The reported P-Value was calculated|General linear mixed-effects models|||||||0.05
90942771|NCT02330276|181766145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||||||The reported P-Value was calculated|General linear mixed-effects models|||||||0.05
90942772|NCT00158197|181766146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.98|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Generalized estimating equations||Value represents the odds of submitting a methamphetamine negative urine sample in the treatment group (1 of 3) compared to the standard care group.|||||<0.01
90972675|NCT03504397|181828002|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.734||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.591|0.91||"Log-rank test stratified by:~* Region (Asia vs Non-Asia)~* Number of organs with metastatic sites (0 to 2 vs ≥ 3)~* Prior gastrectomy (Yes or No)"|Log Rank|||||0.910|0.591|0.0024
90942773|NCT00158197|181766146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.4|||<|0.01|||||||Generalized estimating equations||Value represents the odds of submitting a methamphetamine negative urine sample in the treatment group (1 of 3) compared to the standard care group.|||||<0.01
90942774|NCT00158197|181766146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72|||<|0.01|||||||Generalized estimating equations||Value represents the odds of submitting a methamphetamine negative urine sample in the treatment group (1 of 3) compared to the standard care group.|||||<0.01
90942775|NCT00158197|181766147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||||||Yes, the a priori plan to handle post hoc multiple comparisons was to use the method of Bonferroni adjustment. Thus, the new alpha level for these comparisons was \<0.0125.|ANOVA|||||||0.02
90942776|NCT00158197|181766147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
90942777|NCT00158197|181766147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
90942778|NCT00158197|181766147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.20
90942779|NCT00158197|181766148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78|||||||Generalized estimating equations|||We used GEE to investigate change in methamphetamine abstinence (i.e., provision of a negative methamphetamine UA) during the follow-up period.||||0.78
90942780|NCT00158197|181766148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||Generalized estimating equations|||We used GEE to investigate change in methamphetamine abstinence (i.e., provision of a negative methamphetamine UA) during the follow-up period.||||0.68
90942781|NCT00158197|181766148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||Generalized estimating equations|||We used GEE to investigate change in methamphetamine abstinence (i.e., provision of a negative methamphetamine UA) during the follow-up period.||||0.20
90942782|NCT02166476|181766155|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The noninferiority margin was a difference of 15%. Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the treatment difference for overall success at EOIVT was \>-15%.|Treatment difference|4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|9.1|||||Treatment difference is the estimate of the difference in the overall success rate between the two treatment arms. The difference estimates and the 95% CIs are obtained based on Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Treatment comparison of the m-MITT population||9.1|0.7|
90942783|NCT02166476|181766156|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The noninferiority margin was a difference of 15%. Meropenem-vaborbactam was claimed to be noninferior only if noninferiority was demonstrated for microbial eradication at TOC in the m-MITT Population.|Treatment difference|9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|18.7|||||Treatment difference is the estimate of the difference in the Eradication rate between the two treatment arms. The difference estimates and the 95% CIs are obtained based on Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Treatment comparison of the m-MITT population||18.7|-0.9|
90942784|NCT02166476|181766157|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The noninferiority margin was a difference of 15%. Meropenem-vaborbactam was claimed to be noninferior only if noninferiority was demonstrated for microbial eradication at TOC in the ME Population.|Treatment Difference|5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|16.0|||||Treatment difference is the estimate of the difference in the overall success rate between the two treatment arms. The difference estimates and the 95% CIs are obtained based on Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Treatment comparison of the ME population||16.0|-4.2|
90942785|NCT04367480|181766201|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|2.67|||ANCOVA|||"Missing data were accounted for using multiple imputation (MI) with the fully conditional specification (FCS) method. 100 replicates were imputed.~ANCOVA analysis was applied within each replicate. SAS PROC MI and MIANALYZE were used to calculate the reported estimates. (N: Active TENS=71, Placebo TENS=70)"||2.67|-0.56|0.199
90942786|NCT04367480|181766202|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|1.08|||ANCOVA|||Analysis on the Study Completers (N: Active TENS=67, Placebo TENS=62)||1.08|-0.34|0.302
90942787|NCT04367480|181766202|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|3.08|||ANCOVA|||Subgroup analysis on participants who reported at least 4 out of 10 at baseline for Hot/Burning Pain. (N: Active TENS=22, Placebo TENS=22)||3.08|-0.33|0.112
90972676|NCT03504397|181828003|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.784||||0.0075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.644|0.954||"Log-rank test stratified by:~* Region (Asia vs Non-Asia)~* Number of organs with metastatic sites (0 to 2 vs ≥ 3)~* Prior gastrectomy (Yes or No)"|Log Rank|||||0.954|0.644|0.0075
90942788|NCT04367480|181766203|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|1.02|||ANCOVA|||Analysis on the Study Completers (N: Active TENS=67, Placebo TENS=62)||1.02|-0.37|0.351
90942789|NCT04367480|181766203|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|2.79|||ANCOVA|||Subgroup analysis was performed on participants who reported at least 4 out of 10 at baseline for Sharp/Shooting Pain. (N: Active TENS=24, Placebo TENS=23)||2.79|-0.36|0.128
90942790|NCT04367480|181766204|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|1.27|||ANCOVA|||Analysis on the Study Completers (N: Active TENS=67, Placebo TENS=62)||1.27|-0.22|0.166
90942791|NCT04367480|181766204|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|1.05|||ANCOVA|||Subgroup analysis was performed on participants who reported at least 4 out of 10 at baseline for Numbness. (N: Active TENS=60, Placebo TENS=50)||1.05|-0.51|0.492
90942792|NCT04367480|181766205|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.94|||ANCOVA|||Analysis on the Study Completers (N: Active TENS=67, Placebo TENS=62)||0.94|-0.56|0.622
90942793|NCT04367480|181766205|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|1.08|||ANCOVA|||Subgroup analysis was performed on participants who reported at least 4 out of 10 at baseline for Tingling. (N: Active TENS=55, Placebo TENS=50)||1.08|-0.61|0.587
90942794|NCT04367480|181766206|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|1.31|||ANCOVA|||Analysis on the Study Completers (N: Active TENS=67, Placebo TENS=62)||1.31|-0.02|0.058
90942795|NCT04367480|181766206|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|3.02|||ANCOVA|||Subgroup analysis was performed on participants who reported at least 4 out of 10 at baseline for Cramping. (N: Active TENS=18, Placebo TENS=18)||3.02|-0.32|0.110
90942796|NCT03382561|181766207|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.11|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio: Arm A (CEN)/Arm B (CE)|||1.11|0.55|0.17
90942797|NCT01076244|181766213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||change from baseline|13.43|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.55|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.42|18.43|||t-test, 2 sided|||||18.43|8.42|<0.0001
90942798|NCT01076244|181766215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||change from baseline|2.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.29|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|3.16|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.16|1.17|<0.0001
90942799|NCT04469465|181766238|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0007|||||||Re-randomization Test|||Interim Efficacy Analysis||||0.0007
90942800|NCT04469465|181766238|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0007|||||||Re-randomization Test|||Full Analysis||||0.0007
90942801|NCT04469465|181766238|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|24.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.751|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.9|31.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Interim Efficacy Analysis||31.99|16.90|<0.0001
90942802|NCT04469465|181766238|SUPERIORITY||Difference|23.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.585|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.31|30.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Full Analysis||30.61|16.31|<0.0001
90942803|NCT01642147|181766285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.554||95.0||||Bonferroni correction is used when P-value is significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"H0: Mean Blood Flow Velocity in Middle Cerebral Artery of the 2 groups are the same before anesthesia.~Power calculation: beta=0.2, alpha=0.05, two-tailed"||||0.554
90942804|NCT01642147|181766286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Bonferroni correction is used when P-value is significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"H0: Mean Blood Flow Velocity in Middle Cerebral Artery of the 2 groups are the same at extubation.~Power calculation: beta=0.2, alpha=0.05, two-tailed"||||<0.001
90942805|NCT01642147|181766287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Bonferroni correction is used when P-value is significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"H0: mean blood flow velocity in middle cerebral artery of the 2 groups are the same 30min after extubation.~Power calculation: beta=0.2, alpha=0.05, two-tailed"||||<0.001
90942806|NCT01642147|181766288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Bonferroni correction is used when P-value is significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"H0: mean blood flow velocity in middle cerebral artery of the 2 groups are the same 60min after extubation.~Power calculation: beta=0.2, alpha=0.05, two-tailed"||||<0.001
90942807|NCT01642147|181766289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Bonferroni correction is used when P-value is significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"H0: mean blood flow velocity in middle cerebral artery of the 2 groups are the same 90min after extubation.~Power calculation: beta=0.2, alpha=0.05, two-tailed"||||<0.001
90942808|NCT01642147|181766290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Bonferroni correction is used when P-value is significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"H0: mean blood flow velocity in middle cerebral artery of the 2 groups are the same 120min after extubation.~Power calculation: beta=0.2, alpha=0.05, two-tailed"||||<0.001
90942809|NCT02229578|181766315|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|2.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome was residual change score calculated by regressing immediate postop pain on 24 hour pain. This allows patient to serve as own control for intial values.||2.1|-1.2|<0.05
90942810|NCT02229578|181766316|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|1.49|||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome was residual change score calculated by regressing immediate postop pain on 24 hour pain. This allows patient to serve as own control for intial values.||1.49|-1.77|<0.05
90942811|NCT02229578|181766317|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.61|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.62|6.09|||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome was residual change score calculated by regressing immediate postop hydromorphone on 24 hour hydromorphone. This allows patient to serve as own control for intial values.||6.09|-9.62|<0.05
90942812|NCT01496365|181766318|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean|-0.05||||0.8916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.7|||ANCOVA|||||0.70|-0.81|0.8916
90942813|NCT01496365|181766318|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean|-0.22||||0.5569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.51|||ANCOVA|||||0.51|-0.95|0.5569
90942814|NCT01496365|181766318|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean|-0.53||||0.1544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|0.2|||ANCOVA|||||0.20|-1.25|0.1544
90942815|NCT01496365|181766318|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean|-0.94||||0.0137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|-0.19|||ANCOVA|||||-0.19|-1.69|0.0137
90942816|NCT01496365|181766318|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean|-0.88||||0.0171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|0.16|||ANCOVA|||||0.16|-1.61|0.0171
90942817|NCT01496365|181766318|SUPERIORITY||Least square means|-1.01||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|-0.29|||ANCOVA|||||-0.29|-1.74|0.0060
90942818|NCT01496365|181766318|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean|-0.17||||0.7051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|0.69|||ANCOVA|||||0.69|-1.03|0.7051
90942819|NCT01496365|181766318|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean|-0.47||||0.2772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|0.38|||ANCOVA|||||0.38|-1.33|0.2772
90942820|NCT01496365|181766318|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean|-0.89||||0.0458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||||-0.02|-1.77|0.0458
90942821|NCT01496365|181766318|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean|-0.83||||0.0569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|0.02|||ANCOVA|||||0.02|-1.69|0.0569
90942822|NCT01496365|181766318|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean|-0.96||||0.0271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||||-0.11|-1.81|0.0271
90942823|NCT01015677|181766331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Differrence in the least squares means|-6.28||||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.2|11.64|||Longitudinal Data Analysis (LDA)|LDA model terms for treatment, week (Weeks 1, 2 and 4), region, and interaction of treatment by week.||||11.64|-24.20|0.488
90942824|NCT01015677|181766331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-17.45||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.28|1.38|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|LDA model with terms for treatment, week (Weeks 1, 2 and 4), region, and interaction of treatment by week.||||1.38|-36.28|0.069
90972677|NCT03504397|181828004|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.295||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.994|1.687||"Log-rank test stratified by:~* Region (Asia vs Non-Asia)~* Number of organs with metastatic sites (0 to 2 vs ≥ 3)~* Prior gastrectomy (Yes or No)"|Log Rank|||||1.687|0.994|0.0280
90972678|NCT03504397|181828005|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.713||||0.0508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.475|1.071||"Log-rank test stratified by:~* Region (Asia vs Non-Asia)~* Number of organs with metastatic sites (0 to 2 vs ≥ 3)~* Prior gastrectomy (Yes or No)"|Log Rank|||||1.071|0.475|0.0508
90972679|NCT03504397|181828006|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.142||||0.1685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.874|1.492|||Log Rank||"Log-rank test stratified by:~* Region (Asia vs Non-Asia)~* Number of organs with metastatic sites (0 to 2 vs ≥ 3)~* Prior gastrectomy (Yes or No)"|||1.492|0.874|0.1685
90972680|NCT03504397|181828007|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4536|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on 1-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test. Stratification factors were Region, Number of Metastatic Sites and Prior Gastrectomy.||||||0.4536
90972681|NCT03504397|181828008|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.789||||0.0721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.573|1.087|||Log Rank||"Log-rank test stratified by:~* Region (Asia vs Non-Asia)~* Number of organs with metastatic sites (0 to 2 vs ≥ 3)~* Prior gastrectomy (Yes or No)"|||1.087|0.573|0.0721
90972682|NCT04417894|181828060|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.003|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||=0.0030
90972683|NCT04417894|181828061|SUPERIORITY||Difference|38.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.06|53.15|||Mantel Haenszel|||||53.15|24.06|<0.0001
90972684|NCT00262873|181828082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
90972685|NCT00262873|181828083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
90972686|NCT00262873|181828084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
90972687|NCT00844753|181828088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.47
90972688|NCT00844753|181828089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.95
90972689|NCT04036968|181828090|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of three drug conditions with cannabidiol to control groups placebo+placebo and hydromorphone+placebo||||||0.195|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.195
90972690|NCT04036968|181828091|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<.001
90972691|NCT04036968|181828092|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.074|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.074
90972692|NCT00903175|181828093|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Primary objective was to assess the non-inferiority of everolimus as compared to Sunitinib in terms of PFS-1L \& was based on Bayesian methodology. If the estimated HR for PFS-1L had a value ≤ 1.1, non-inferiority of everolimus to Sunitinib would be declared. Non-inferiority of everolimus compared with Sunitinib as a first-line therapy was not achieved. The estimated HR for PFS-1L was 1.43 which did not satisfy the protocol-defined non-inferiority margin of a HR ≤ 1.1.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|1.77||||||||1.77|1.15|
90972693|NCT02189850|181828111|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.923|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.923
90972694|NCT00371865|181828112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.27
90972695|NCT00371865|181828113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.90
90972696|NCT00371865|181828114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.13
90972697|NCT00371865|181828115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.26
90972698|NCT00371865|181828116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.90
90972699|NCT04817111|181828118|OTHER|Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to test if the change from pre- vs. post-test outcome is different from zero.||||||0.18|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.18
90972700|NCT04817111|181828120|OTHER|Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to test if the change from pre- vs. post-test outcome is different from zero.||||||0.21|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.21
90972701|NCT04817111|181828121|OTHER|Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to test if the change from pre- vs. post-test outcome is different from zero.||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
90972702|NCT04179175|181828165|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.29|||Log Rank|one-sided stratified log-rank test, with region and body weight (\<90 kg, ≥ 90 kg) as strata||||1.29|0.59|0.250
90972703|NCT04179175|181828165|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.05|||Log Rank|one-sided stratified log-rank test, with region and body weight (\<90 kg, ≥ 90 kg) as strata||||1.05|0.47|0.044
90972704|NCT01696435|181828168|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.09||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori, two-sided tests with an alpha level of 0.025 were used to account for the 2 co-primary outcomes (depression event and mood scores).|Regression, Cox||Active treatment vs. Placebo comparison|||1.09|.87|0.62
90972705|NCT01696435|181828168|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.26||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori, two-sided tests with an alpha level of 0.025 were used to account for the 2 co-primary outcomes (depression event and mood scores).|Regression, Cox||Active treatment vs. Placebo comparison|||1.26|1.01|0.03
90972706|NCT01696435|181828169|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of whether the mean difference in change comparing the treatment groups is different than zero. See full SAP for all details.||0.05|-0.04|
90972707|NCT01696435|181828169|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of whether the mean difference in change comparing the treatment groups is different than zero. See full SAP for all details.||0.07|-0.01|
90942825|NCT01015677|181766334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Differrence in the least squares means|-6.05||||0.529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.06|12.96|||Longitudinal Data Analysis (LDA)|LDA model includes terms for treatment, week (Weeks 1, 2 and 4), region, and interaction of treatment by week.||||12.96|-25.06|0.529
90942826|NCT01015677|181766334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-11.22||||0.264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.03|8.59|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|LDA model includes terms for treatment, week (Weeks 1, 2 and 4), region, and interaction of treatment by week.||||8.59|-31.03|0.264
90942827|NCT01015677|181766335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|0.94||||0.827|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.19|8.07|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with terms for treatment, region, stage of the trial, and baseline value as a covariate in PP population only.||||8.07|-6.19|0.827
90942828|NCT01015677|181766335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the LS means|-14.52||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.73|-7.32|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, stage of the trial, and baseline value as a covariate in PP population only.||||-7.32|-21.73|0.001
90942829|NCT01660256|181766336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90942830|NCT01660256|181766337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90942831|NCT03603639|181766343|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.72|3.48||||||The mixed effects model for the crossover part of the study will include treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, baseline (Predose) measurement as a covariate, and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||3.48|-0.72|
90942832|NCT03603639|181766343|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.49|2.63||||||The mixed effects model for the crossover part of the study will include treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, baseline (Predose) measurement as a covariate, and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||2.63|-0.49|
90942833|NCT03603639|181766344|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.75|1.54||||||In eye closure condition. The mixed effects model for the crossover part of the study will include treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, baseline (Predose) measurement as a covariate, and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||1.54|-0.75|
90942834|NCT03603639|181766344|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|1.21||||||In eye closure condition. The mixed effects model for the crossover part of the study will include treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, baseline (Predose) measurement as a covariate, and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||1.21|-0.60|
90942835|NCT03603639|181766344|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.16|4.39||||||In eyes closed condition. The mixed effects model for the crossover part of the study will include treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, baseline (Predose) measurement as a covariate, and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||4.39|-1.16|
90942836|NCT03603639|181766344|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.89|2.98||||||In eyes closed condition. The mixed effects model for the crossover part of the study will include treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, baseline (Predose) measurement as a covariate, and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||2.98|-0.89|
90942837|NCT03603639|181766344|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.87|2.28||||||In eyes open condition. The mixed effects model for the crossover part of the study will include treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, baseline (Predose) measurement as a covariate, and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||2.28|-1.87|
90942838|NCT03603639|181766344|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.57|3.11||||||In eyes open condition. The mixed effects model for the crossover part of the study will include treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, baseline (Predose) measurement as a covariate, and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||3.11|-0.57|
90942839|NCT02165397|181766379|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.148|0.42||The treatment effect was tested with a stratified log rank test.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio and its 95% confidence interval were based on a Cox regression model stratified by the randomization stratification factors.|||0.420|0.148|< 0.0001
90942840|NCT02165397|181766380|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|2.526|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.753|3.639||Response rate was compared using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi-square test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.639|1.753|< 0.0001
90972708|NCT01696435|181828170|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.13||P-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. This outcome was not a pre-specified primary outcome and results are to be interpreted with caution.|Regression, Cox||Active treatment vs. Placebo comparison|||1.13|0.87|0.88
90942841|NCT02165397|181766381|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.102|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.049|0.212||P-value is from a stratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio is estimated using a stratified Cox regression model.|||0.212|0.049|< 0.0001
90942842|NCT02165397|181766382|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|1.813|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.357|2.421|||Chi-squared|||||2.421|1.357|< 0.0001
90942843|NCT02165397|181766383|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|1.238||||0.1059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.955|1.603||CMH chi squared test|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.603|0.955|0.1059
90942844|NCT02165397|181766384|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.808||||0.643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.328|1.99||P-value is from unstratified log rank test.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio is estimated using unstratified Cox regression model with treatment as the only covariate.|Data cutoff 18 December 2019||1.99|0.328|0.643
90942845|NCT03463577|181766395|NON_INFERIORITY|The objective was to rule out a two-fold increase (non-inferiority testing) in the incidence rate of each of the maternal and infant adverse events, among vaccinated women with Boostrix and their infants as compared to the incidence in a matched cohort of unvaccinated women and their infants. The null hypothesis Ho: RR ≥ 2 was rejected if upper limit of the 98.75% CI for the adjusted RR was below 2.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|98.75|1.21|1.58|||||Adjusted relative risk with 98.75% CI was estimated by Poisson regression model|Demonstration of adjusted relative risk (RR) for pre-eclampsia and eclampsia in Exposed women cohort (on or after 1st day of 27th week of pregnancy) compared to Unexposed historical women cohort was less than 2 (non-inferiority testing).||1.58|1.21|
90972709|NCT01696435|181828170|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.33||P-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. This outcome was not a pre-specified primary outcome and results are to be interpreted with caution.|Regression, Cox||Active treatment vs. Placebo comparison|||1.33|1.03|0.02
90972710|NCT01696435|181828171|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.19|||Regression, Cox||Active treatment vs. Placebo comparison|P-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. This outcome was not a pre-specified primary outcome and results are to be interpreted with caution.||1.19|0.76|0.67
90972711|NCT01696435|181828171|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.27|||Regression, Cox||Active treatment vs. Placebo comparison|P-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. This outcome was not a pre-specified primary outcome and results are to be interpreted with caution.||1.27|0.82|0.88
90972712|NCT01745146|181828247|EQUIVALENCE|Primary outcome is difference in rates of treatment response between the ASMT and the PRE, where treatment response is defined as ≥ 1 SD improvement in self-reported anger on at least 1 of 3 target scales from pre- to 1-2 wk post treatment. The treatment will be considered supported if the observed response rate with ASMT is at least 20 percentage points higher than that with the control treatment, PRE.||||||0.047||||||Alpha was set at .05 both for the a priori hypotheses and also for secondary analyses|Chi-squared|Pearson's chi-square test||Significance of difference in post-treatment response rate for STAXI-2 Trait Anger. Missing outcomes reported at non-responders.||||0.047
90972713|NCT01745146|181828247|EQUIVALENCE|Primary outcome is difference in rates of treatment response between the ASMT and the PRE, where treatment response is defined as ≥ 1 SD improvement in self-reported anger on at least 1 of 3 target scales from pre- to 1-2 wk post treatment. The treatment will be considered supported if the observed response rate with ASMT is at least 20 percentage points higher than that with the control treatment, PRE.||||||0.549||||||Alpha was set at .05 both for the a priori hypotheses and also for secondary analyses|Chi-squared|Pearson's chi-square test||Significance of difference in post-treatment response rate for STAXI-2 Anger Expression-Out. Missing outcomes reported at non-responders.||||0.549
90972714|NCT01745146|181828247|EQUIVALENCE|Primary outcome is difference in rates of treatment response between the ASMT and the PRE, where treatment response is defined as ≥ 1 SD improvement in self-reported anger on at least 1 of 3 target scales from pre- to 1-2 wk post treatment. The treatment will be considered supported if the observed response rate with ASMT is at least 20 percentage points higher than that with the control treatment, PRE.||||||0.511||||||Alpha was set at .05 both for the a priori hypotheses and also for secondary analyses|Chi-squared|Pearson's chi-square test||Significance of difference in post-treatment response rate for BAAQ. Missing outcomes reported at non-responders.||||0.511
90972715|NCT01745146|181828247|EQUIVALENCE|Primary outcome is difference in rates of treatment response between the ASMT and the PRE, where treatment response is defined as ≥ 1 SD improvement in self-reported anger on at least 1 of 3 target scales from pre- to 1-2 wk post treatment. The treatment will be considered supported if the observed response rate with ASMT is at least 20 percentage points higher than that with the control treatment, PRE.||||||0.031||||||Alpha was set at .05 both for the a priori hypotheses and also for secondary analyses|Chi-squared|Pearson's chi-square test||Significance of difference in post-treatment response rate for STAXI-2 Trait Anger. Missing outcomes excluded for this analysis.||||0.031
90972716|NCT01745146|181828247|EQUIVALENCE|Primary outcome is difference in rates of treatment response between the ASMT and the PRE, where treatment response is defined as ≥ 1 SD improvement in self-reported anger on at least 1 of 3 target scales from pre- to 1-2 wk post treatment. The treatment will be considered supported if the observed response rate with ASMT is at least 20 percentage points higher than that with the control treatment, PRE.||||||0.483||||||Alpha was set at .05 both for the a priori hypotheses and also for secondary analyses|Chi-squared|Pearson's chi-square test||Significance of difference in post-treatment response rate for STAXI-2 Anger Expression-Out. Missing outcomes excluded for this analysis.||||0.483
90972717|NCT01745146|181828247|EQUIVALENCE|Primary outcome is difference in rates of treatment response between the ASMT and the PRE, where treatment response is defined as ≥ 1 SD improvement in self-reported anger on at least 1 of 3 target scales from pre- to 1-2 wk post treatment. The treatment will be considered supported if the observed response rate with ASMT is at least 20 percentage points higher than that with the control treatment, PRE.||||||0.53||||||Alpha was set at .05 both for the a priori hypotheses and also for secondary analyses|Chi-squared|Pearson's chi-square test||Significance of difference in post-treatment response rate for BAAQ. Missing outcomes excluded for this analysis.||||0.530
90972718|NCT01745146|181828247|EQUIVALENCE|Primary outcome is difference in rates of treatment response between the ASMT and the PRE, where treatment response is defined as ≥ 1 SD improvement in self-reported anger on at least 1 of 3 target scales from pre- to 1-2 wk post treatment. The treatment will be considered supported if the observed response rate with ASMT is at least 20 percentage points higher than that with the control treatment, PRE.||||||0.421||||||Alpha was set at .05 both for the a priori hypotheses and also for secondary analyses|Chi-squared|Pearson's Chi-squared||Significance of difference in overall post-treatment response rate. Missing outcomes included as non-responders.||||0.421
90972719|NCT01745146|181828247|EQUIVALENCE|Primary outcome is difference in rates of treatment response between the ASMT and the PRE, where treatment response is defined as ≥ 1 SD improvement in self-reported anger on at least 1 of 3 target scales from pre- to 1-2 wk post treatment. The treatment will be considered supported if the observed response rate with ASMT is at least 20 percentage points higher than that with the control treatment, PRE.||||||0.332||||||Alpha was set at .05 both for the a priori hypotheses and also for secondary analyses|Chi-squared|Pearson's Chi-squared||Significance of difference in overall post-treatment response rate. Missing outcomes excluded for this analysis.||||0.332
90972720|NCT04316585|181828248|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.19|8.28|||Bayesian Logistic Regression Model|The model was adjusted for treatment (GSK2982772 vs placebo), baseline PASI score and prior biologic use (yes/no).|Posterior median and 95% CrI for the true difference in proportion of responders (GSK2982772 - placebo).|Bayesian logistic regression. An informative prior was used for the placebo response in this statistical analysis, the prior for placebo response rate was of the form: 90% weight on Be (5.39, 69) and 10% on Be (1/3,1/3). The prior was derived from historical data from similar clinical trials using meta-analytic predictive prior (MAP) approach. All other parameters took vague priors.||8.28|-9.19|
90942846|NCT03463577|181766395|NON_INFERIORITY|The objective was to rule out a two-fold increase (non-inferiority testing) in the incidence rate of each of the maternal and infant adverse events, among vaccinated women with Boostrix and their infants as compared to the incidence in a matched cohort of unvaccinated women and their infants. The null hypothesis Ho: RR ≥ 2 was rejected if upper limit of the 98.75% CI for the adjusted RR was below 2.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|98.75|1.12|1.47|||||Adjusted relative risk with 98.75% CI was estimated by Poisson regression model|Demonstration of adjusted RR for intra-uterine infections (chorioamnionitis and endometritis) in Exposed women cohort (on or after 1st day of 27th week of pregnancy) compared to Unexposed historical women cohort was less than 2 (non-inferiority testing).||1.47|1.12|
90942847|NCT03463577|181766396|NON_INFERIORITY|The objective was to rule out a two-fold increase (non-inferiority testing) in the incidence rate of each of the maternal and infant adverse events, among vaccinated women with Boostrix and their infants as compared to the incidence in a matched cohort of unvaccinated women and their infants. The null hypothesis Ho: RR ≥ 2 was rejected if upper limit of the 98.75% CI for the adjusted RR was below 2.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|98.75|0.64|0.78|||||Adjusted relative risk with 98.75% CI was estimated by Poisson regression model|Demonstration of adjusted RR for preterm delivery in Exposed women cohort (on or after 1st day of 27th week of pregnancy) compared to Unexposed historical women cohort was less than 2 (non-inferiority testing).||0.78|0.64|
90942848|NCT03463577|181766397|NON_INFERIORITY|The objective was to rule out a two-fold increase (non-inferiority testing) in the incidence rate of each of the maternal and infant adverse events, among vaccinated women with Boostrix and their infants as compared to the incidence in a matched cohort of unvaccinated women and their infants. The null hypothesis Ho: RR ≥ 2 was rejected if upper limit of the 98.75% CI for the adjusted RR was below 2.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|98.75|0.94|1.16|||||Adjusted RR with 98.75% CI-Poisson regression model|Demonstration of adjusted RR for small for gestational age in Exposed infants cohort (on or after 1st day of 27th week of pregnancy) compared to Unexposed historical infants cohort was less than 2 (non-inferiority testing).||1.16|0.94|
90942849|NCT03463577|181766398|SUPERIORITY|The objective was to explore differences (superiority testing) in the incidence rate of each of the maternal and infant adverse events, among vaccinated women with Boostrix and their infants as compared to the incidence in a matched cohort of unvaccinated women and their infants. Superiority to be concluded if lower limit of the 95% CI for the adjusted RR is above 1.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.98|||||Adjusted RR with 95% CI -Poisson regression model|Assessment of adjusted RR for poor fetal growth in the Exposed pregnant women cohort (on or after 1st day of 27th week of pregnancy) compared to the Unexposed historical women cohort was 1 or differed from 1 (superiority testing).||0.98|0.70|
90942850|NCT03463577|181766398|SUPERIORITY|The objective was to explore differences (superiority testing) in the incidence rate of each of the maternal and infant adverse events, among vaccinated women with Boostrix and their infants as compared to the incidence in a matched cohort of unvaccinated women and their infants. Superiority to be concluded if lower limit of the 95% CI for the adjusted RR is above 1.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.72|||||Adjusted RR with 95% CI - Poisson regression model|Assessment of adjusted RR for placental abortion in Exposed women cohort (on or after 1st day of 27th week of pregnancy) compared to Unexposed historical women cohort was 1 or differed from 1 (superiority testing).||1.72|0.99|
90942851|NCT03463577|181766398|SUPERIORITY|The objective was to explore differences (superiority testing) in the incidence rate of each of the maternal and infant adverse events, among vaccinated women with Boostrix and their infants as compared to the incidence in a matched cohort of unvaccinated women and their infants. Superiority to be concluded if lower limit of the 95% CI for the adjusted RR is above 1.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.91|||||Adjusted RR with 95% CI-Poisson regression model|Assessment of adjusted RR for preterm pre-labor rupture of membranes in Exposed women cohort (on or after 1st day of 27th week of pregnancy) compared to Unexposed historical women cohort was 1 or differed from 1 (superiority testing).||0.91|0.64|
90942852|NCT03463577|181766399|SUPERIORITY|The objective was to explore differences (superiority testing) in the incidence rate of each of the maternal and infant adverse events, among vaccinated women with Boostrix and their infants as compared to the incidence in a matched cohort of unvaccinated women and their infants. The null hypothesis H0 RR =1 was rejected if lower limit of 95% CI for adjusted RR was above 1.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.67|||||Adjusted RR with 95% CI-Poisson regression model|Assessment of adjusted RR for stillbirth/fetal death in Exposed women cohort (on or after 1st day of 27th week of pregnancy) compared to Unexposed historical women cohort was 1 or differed from 1 (superiority testing).||0.67|0.22|
90972721|NCT04316585|181828248|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.81|8.07|||Bayesian Logistic Regression Model|The model was adjusted for treatment (GSK2982772 vs placebo), baseline PASI score and prior biologic use (yes/no).|Posterior median and 95% CrI for the true difference in proportion of responders (GSK2982772 - placebo).|||8.07|-4.81|
90972722|NCT00130832|181828260|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|non-inferiority criterion is that the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the proportion difference (concomitant group minus staggered group) for subjects who achieve neutralizing antibody titers \[NA\] ≥1:8 greater than -10%.|Seroprotection Rate Difference|-0.5|||<|0.001||95.0|-2.2|1.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen's|Comparing seroprotection rate difference with the non-inferiority margin of 0.10 with Miettinen and Nurminen's method.||Seroprotection rate (proportion of subjects who achieve the seroprotection criteria: neutralizing antibody titers \[NA\] ≥1:8) for poliovirus type 1||1.4|-2.2|<0.001
90972723|NCT00130832|181828260|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|non-inferiority criterion is that the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the proportion difference (concomitant group minus staggered group) for subjects who achieve neutralizing antibody titers \[NA\] ≥1:8 greater than -10%.|Seroprotection Rate Difference|0.0|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.4|1.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen's|Comparing seroprotection rate difference with the non-inferiority margin of 0.10 with Miettinen and Nurminen's method.||Seroprotection rate (proportion of subjects who achieve the seroprotection criteria: neutralizing antibody titers \[NA\] ≥1:8) for poliovirus type 2||1.6|-1.4|<0.001
91007763|NCT00474539|181899687|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for or immune response induced by NeisVac-C was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMT ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.86||||||95.0|0.69|1.08||||||For Meningococcal C the GMT ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.08|0.69|
90942853|NCT03463577|181766399|SUPERIORITY|The objective was to explore differences (superiority testing) in the incidence rate of each of the maternal and infant adverse events, among vaccinated women with Boostrix and their infants as compared to the incidence in a matched cohort of unvaccinated women and their infants. The null hypothesis H0 RR=1 was rejected if lower limit of 95% CI for adjusted RR was above 1.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.33|||||Adjusted RR with 95% CI-Poisson regression model|Assessment of adjusted RR for transfusion during delivery hospitalization in Exposed women cohort (on or after 1st day of 27th week of pregnancy) compared to Unexposed historical women cohort was 1 or differed from 1 (superiority testing).||1.33|0.86|
90942854|NCT03463577|181766400|SUPERIORITY|The objective was to explore differences (superiority testing) in the incidence rate of each of the maternal and infant adverse events, among vaccinated women with Boostrix and their infants as compared to the incidence in a matched cohort of unvaccinated women and their infants. The null hypothesis H0 RR=1 was rejected if lower limit of 95% CI for adjusted RR was above 1.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.73|||||Adjusted RR with 95% CI-Poisson regression model|Assessment of adjusted RR for neonatal death in Exposed infants cohort (on or after 1st day of 27th week of pregnancy) compared to Unexposed historical infants cohort was 1 or differed from 1 (superiority testing).||1.73|0.38|
90942855|NCT03463577|181766400|SUPERIORITY|The objective was to explore differences (superiority testing) in the incidence rate of each of the maternal and infant adverse events, among vaccinated women with Boostrix and their infants as compared to the incidence in a matched cohort of unvaccinated women and their infants. The null hypothesis H0 RR=1 was rejected if lower limit of 95% CI for adjusted RR was above 1.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.24|||||Adjusted RR with 95% CI-Poisson regression model|Assessment of adjusted RR for congenital anomalies of nervous system in Exposed infants cohort (on or after 1st day of 27th week of pregnancy) compared to Unexposed historical infants cohort was 1 or differed from 1 (superiority testing).||2.24|0.81|
90942856|NCT03463577|181766400|SUPERIORITY|The objective was to explore differences (superiority testing) in the incidence rate of each of the maternal and infant adverse events, among vaccinated women with Boostrix and their infants as compared to the incidence in a matched cohort of unvaccinated women and their infants. The null hypothesis H0 RR=1 was rejected if lower limit of 95% CI for adjusted RR was above 1.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.29|||||Adjusted RR with 95% CI-Poisson regression model|Assessment of adjusted RR for congenital anomalies of eye in Exposed infants cohort (on or after 1st day of 27th week of pregnancy) compared to Unexposed historical infants cohort was 1 or differed from 1 (superiority testing).||1.29|1.06|
90942857|NCT03463577|181766400|SUPERIORITY|The objective was to explore differences (superiority testing) in the incidence rate of each of the maternal and infant adverse events, among vaccinated women with Boostrix and their infants as compared to the incidence in a matched cohort of unvaccinated women and their infants. The null hypothesis H0 RR=1 was rejected if lower limit of 95% CI for adjusted RR was above 1.|Risk Ratio (RR)|2.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|2.55|||||Adjusted RR with 95% CI-Poisson regression model|Assessment of adjusted RR for congenital anomalies of ear, face or neck in Exposed infants cohort (on or after 1st day of 27th week of pregnancy) compared to Unexposed historical infants cohort was 1 or differed from 1 (superiority testing.||2.55|1.59|
90942858|NCT03463577|181766400|SUPERIORITY|The objective was to explore differences (superiority testing) in the incidence rate of each of the maternal and infant adverse events, among vaccinated women with Boostrix and their infants as compared to the incidence in a matched cohort of unvaccinated women and their infants. The null hypothesis H0 RR=1 was rejected if lower limit of 95% CI for adjusted RR was above 1.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.31|||||Adjusted RR with 95% CI-Poisson regression model|Assessment of adjusted RR for congenital anomalies of cardiovascular system in Exposed infants cohort (on or after 1st day of 27th week of pregnancy) compared to Unexposed historical infant cohort was 1 or differed from 1 (superiority testing).||1.31|0.96|
90942859|NCT03463577|181766400|SUPERIORITY|The objective was to explore differences (superiority testing) in the incidence rate of each of the maternal and infant adverse events, among vaccinated women with Boostrix and their infants as compared to the incidence in a matched cohort of unvaccinated women and their infants. The null hypothesis H0 RR=1 was rejected if lower limit of 95% CI for adjusted RR was above 1.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.68|||||Adjusted RR with 95% CI-Poisson regression model|Assessment of adjusted RR for congenital anomalies of respiratory system in Exposed infants cohort (on or after 1st day of 27th week of pregnancy) compared to Unexposed historical infants cohort was1 or differed from 1 (superiority testing).||1.68|1.07|
90942860|NCT03463577|181766400|SUPERIORITY|The objective was to explore differences (superiority testing) in the incidence rate of each of the maternal and infant adverse events, among vaccinated women with Boostrix and their infants as compared to the incidence in a matched cohort of unvaccinated women and their infants. The null hypothesis H0 RR=1 was rejected if lower limit of 95% CI for adjusted RR was above 1.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.41||||||95.0|0.78|2.57|||||Adjusted RR with 95% CI-Poisson regression model|Assessment of adjusted RR for clefts in Exposed infants cohort (on or after 1st day of 27th week of pregnancy) compared to Unexposed historical infants cohort was 1 or differed from 1 (superiority testing).||2.57|0.78|
91007764|NCT00474539|181899687|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for or immune response induced by NeisVac-C was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMT ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|1.23||||||95.0|0.97|1.55||||||For Meningococcal C the GMT ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.55|0.97|
91007765|NCT00474539|181899688|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|-0.6||||||95.0|-3.5|2.0||||||For diphtheria the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at \>=0.10 IU/mL threshold was calculated||2.0|-3.5|
90972724|NCT00130832|181828260|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|non-inferiority criterion is that the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the proportion difference (concomitant group minus staggered group) for subjects who achieve neutralizing antibody titers \[NA\] ≥1:8 greater than -10%.|Seroprotection Rate Difference|-0.1|||<|0.001||95.0|-2.3|2.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen's|Comparing seroprotection rate difference with the non-inferiority margin of 0.10 with Miettinen and Nurminen's method.||Seroprotection rate (proportion of subjects who achieve the seroprotection criteria: neutralizing antibody titers \[NA\] ≥1:8) for poliovirus type 3||2.3|-2.3|<0.001
90972725|NCT00130832|181828261|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|non-inferiority criterion is that the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the GMT ratio (concomitant group over staggered group) greater than 0.50.|GMT Ratio|0.54||||0.277||95.0|0.42|0.69|||ANOVA|ANOVA model on log titer of serum anti-rotavirus IgA||||0.69|0.42|0.277
90972726|NCT00130832|181828261|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|non-inferiority criterion is that the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the proportion difference (concomitant group minus staggered group) for subjects who achieve 3-fold rise in serum anti-rotavirus IgA greater than -10%.|Percentage Point Difference|-4.4||||0.002||95.0|-8.0|-1.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen's|Comparing percentage difference with the non-inferiority margin of 10 percentage point with Miettinen and Nurminen's method.|Percentage point difference (concomitant - staggered)|||-1.4|-8.0|0.002
90972727|NCT03269344|181828263|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.11
90972728|NCT03269344|181828264|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.08
90972729|NCT03269344|181828265|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.32
90972730|NCT03269344|181828266|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
90972731|NCT03269344|181828267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.81
90972732|NCT03269344|181828268|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.01
90972733|NCT03118297|181828290|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||Threshold for significance: p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
90972734|NCT03118297|181828291|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.032||||||Threshold for significance: p=0.05|Fisher Exact|||||||0.032
90890027|NCT01571362|181644034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.289||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|-0.53|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariate.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Screening to Week 12/Early Termination.||-0.53|-1.67|0.0002
90972735|NCT03118297|181828292|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Threshold for significance: p=0.05|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
90972736|NCT03118297|181828293|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Threshold for significance: p=0.05|Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
90972737|NCT03118297|181828294|OTHER|No statistical test performed|||||||||||||||||Significance testing not performed. All values below prespecified limit of 5.0 ng/mL.|||
90972738|NCT03716869|181828295|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|3.1|||Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis was conducted using the intent-to-treat principle. Analysis for primary and secondary outcomes that compared universal to targeted screening was conducted using mixed effects logistic regression.||3.10|1.39|<0.001
90972739|NCT03716869|181828296|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.07|6.93|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.93|5.07|<0.001
90972740|NCT03716869|181828298|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.49|4.38|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.38|2.49|<0.001
90972741|NCT03716869|181828304|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.71|10.58|||Regression, Logistic||Test of interaction terms from mixed-effects logistic regression for subgroup analyses. Information above is sex x rand group interaction for identification of MDD symptoms among females. For males, OR 4.05 (95% CI 3.26-5.03).||"Sex x rand group interaction p=0.005 for SAP confirmation of need for follow-up.~Females 4.73 (3.19-7.02) Males 2.09 (1.38-3.16)~Sex x rand group interaction p=0.37 for treatment initiation. OR is not reported due to p\>0.05."|10.58|6.71|<0.001
90972742|NCT03716869|181828304|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.58|11.35|||Regression, Logistic||Information above is for race/ethnicity x rand group interaction for identification of MDD symptoms for non-Hispanic white students. For non-Hispanic Black students OR 2.55 (95% CI 1.97-3.31), Hispanic 7.45 (4.98-11.17), other 12.41 (7.34-21.00).||"Race/ethnicity x rand group p=0.007 for SAP confirmation of need for follow-up. non-Hispanic white 2.24 (1.59-3.15) non-Hispanic Black 4.19 (2.03-8.65) Hispanic 10.15 (4.06-25.36) Other 12.22 (1.59-94.12)~Race/ethnicity x rand group interaction p=0.15 for treatment initiation. OR is not reported due to p\>0.05."|11.35|6.58|<0.001
90972743|NCT03716869|181828304|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.47||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.65|6.44|||Regression, Logistic||Information above is location x rand group interaction for identification of MDD symptoms among urban students. For rural students and identification of depressive symptoms OR 13.60 (95% CI 7.28-25.42).||"Location x rand group interaction p=0.27 for SAP confirmation of need for follow-up. OR is not reported due to p\>0.05.~Location x rand group interaction p=0.36 for treatment initiation. OR is not reported due to p\>0.05."|6.44|4.65|0.006
90972744|NCT01046825|181828316|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.555|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.5550
90972745|NCT01046825|181828317|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3605|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.3605
90972746|NCT01046825|181828318|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6181|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.6181
90972747|NCT01121393|181828347|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||A stratified log-rank test (by the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation category stratification factor used at randomisation) was used to test for the effect of afatinib on PFS compared with gemcitabine / cisplatin chemotherapy.||||<0.0001
90972748|NCT01121393|181828347|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.281|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.203|0.389||||||A Cox proportional-hazards model, stratified by EGFR mutation category was used to estimate the hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) between the 2 treatment arms.||0.389|0.203|
90972749|NCT01121393|181828348|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.572|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.522|12.679|||Regression, Logistic|||A logistic regression model, stratified by EGFR mutation category was used to compare the objective response rate between the 2 treatment arms.||12.679|4.522|<0.0001
90972750|NCT01121393|181828349|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.843|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.039|7.24|||Regression, Logistic|||stratified for EGFR mutation group||7.240|2.039|<0.0001
90942861|NCT03463577|181766400|SUPERIORITY|The objective was to explore differences (superiority testing) in the incidence rate of each of the maternal and infant adverse events, among vaccinated women with Boostrix and their infants as compared to the incidence in a matched cohort of unvaccinated women and their infants. The null hypothesis H0 RR=1 was rejected if lower limit of 95% CI for adjusted RR was above 1.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|1.95|||||Adjusted RR with 95% CI-Poisson regression model|Assessment of adjusted RR for congenital anomalies of upper gastrointestinal system in Exposed infants cohort (on or after 1st day of 27th week of pregnancy) compared to Unexposed historical infants cohort was 1 or differed from 1 (superiority testing).||1.95|1.57|
90942862|NCT03463577|181766400|SUPERIORITY|The objective was to explore differences (superiority testing) in the incidence rate of each of the maternal and infant adverse events, among vaccinated women with Boostrix and their infants as compared to the incidence in a matched cohort of unvaccinated women and their infants. The null hypothesis H0 RR=1 was rejected if lower limit of 95% CI for adjusted RR was above 1.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.12|||||Adjusted RR with 95% CI-Poisson regression model|Assessment of adjusted RR for congenital anomalies of lower gastrointestinal system in Exposed infants cohort (on or after 1st day of 27th week of pregnancy) compared to Unexposed historical infants cohort was 1 or differed from 1 (superiority testing).||1.12|0.36|
90942863|NCT03463577|181766400|SUPERIORITY|The objective was to explore differences (superiority testing) in the incidence rate of each of the maternal and infant adverse events, among vaccinated women with Boostrix and their infants as compared to the incidence in a matched cohort of unvaccinated women and their infants. The null hypothesis H0 RR=1 was rejected if lower limit of 95% CI for adjusted RR was above 1.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.42|||||Adjusted RR with 95% CI-Poisson regression model|Assessment of adjusted RR for congenital anomalies of genital organs in Exposed infants cohort (on or after 1st day of 27th week of pregnancy) compared to Unexposed historical infants cohort was 1 or differed from 1 (superiority testing).||1.42|1.01|
90942864|NCT03463577|181766400|SUPERIORITY|The objective was to explore differences (superiority testing) in the incidence rate of each of the maternal and infant adverse events, among vaccinated women with Boostrix and their infants as compared to the incidence in a matched cohort of unvaccinated women and their infants. The null hypothesis H0 RR=1 was rejected if lower limit of 95% CI for adjusted RR was above 1.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.88|||||Adjusted RR with 95% CI-Poisson regression model|Assessment of adjusted RR for congenital anomalies of renal system in Exposed infants cohort (on or after 1st day of 27th week of pregnancy) compared to Unexposed historical infants cohort was 1 or differed from 1 (superiority testing.||1.88|1.04|
90942865|NCT03463577|181766400|SUPERIORITY|The objective was to explore differences (superiority testing) in the incidence rate of each of the maternal and infant adverse events, among vaccinated women with Boostrix and their infants as compared to the incidence in a matched cohort of unvaccinated women and their infants. The null hypothesis H0 RR=1 was rejected if lower limit of 95% CI for adjusted RR was above 1.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.5||||||95.0|1.21|1.86|||||Adjusted RR with 95% CI-Poisson regression model|Assessment of adjusted RR for congenital anomalies of musculoskeletal system in Exposed infants cohort (on or after 1st day of 27th week of pregnancy) compared to Unexposed historical infants cohort was 1 or differed from 1 (superiority testing).||1.86|1.21|
90942866|NCT03463577|181766400|SUPERIORITY|The objective was to explore differences (superiority testing) in the incidence rate of each of the maternal and infant adverse events, among vaccinated women with Boostrix and their infants as compared to the incidence in a matched cohort of unvaccinated women and their infants. The null hypothesis H0 RR=1 was rejected if lower limit of 95% CI for adjusted RR was above 1.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.52|||||Adjusted RR with 95% CI-Poisson regression model|Assessment of adjusted RR for congenital anomalies of limb in Exposed infants cohort (on or after 1st day of 27th week of pregnancy) compared to Unexposed historical infants cohort was 1 or differed from 1 (superiority testing).||1.52|0.85|
90942867|NCT03463577|181766400|SUPERIORITY|The objective was to explore differences (superiority testing) in the incidence rate of each of the maternal and infant adverse events, among vaccinated women with Boostrix and their infants as compared to the incidence in a matched cohort of unvaccinated women and their infants. The null hypothesis H0 RR=1 was rejected if lower limit of 95% CI for adjusted RR was above 1.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.76|2.23|||||Adjusted RR with 95% CI-Poisson regression model|Assessment of adjusted RR for congenital anomalies of integument in Exposed infants cohort (on or after 1st day of 27th week of pregnancy) compared to Unexposed historical infants cohort was 1 or differed from 1 (superiority testing).||2.23|1.76|
90942868|NCT03463577|181766400|SUPERIORITY|The objective was to explore differences (superiority testing) in the incidence rate of each of the maternal and infant adverse events, among vaccinated women with Boostrix and their infants as compared to the incidence in a matched cohort of unvaccinated women and their infants. The null hypothesis H0 RR=1 was rejected if lower limit of 95% CI for adjusted RR was above 1.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.85|||||Adjusted RR with 95% CI-Poisson regression model|Assessment of adjusted RR for other and unspecified congenital anomalies in Exposed infants cohort (on or after 1st day of 27th week of pregnancy) compared to Unexposed historical infants cohort was 1 or differed from 1 (superiority testing).||1.85|0.64|
90942869|NCT00236184|181766408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||<0.001
90972751|NCT01121393|181828350|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4013|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||A stratified log-rank test (by the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation category stratification factor used at randomisation) was used to test for the effect of afatinib on OS compared with gemcitabine / cisplatin chemotherapy.||||0.4013
90972752|NCT01121393|181828350|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.904|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.715|1.144||||||A Cox proportional hazard model stratified (by EGFR mutation category stratification factor used at randomisation) was used to test the effect of afatinib on OS compared with gemcitabine / cisplatin chemotherapy.||1.144|0.715|
90972753|NCT01121393|181828354|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.76|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|-10.19|||ANCOVA|adjusted for baseline sum of diameters and EGFR mutation group||||-10.19|-17.10|<0.0001
90972754|NCT01121393|181828357|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||A stratified log-rank test (by the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation category stratification factor used at randomisation) was used to test for the effect of afatinib on HRQOL compared with gemcitabine / cisplatin chemotherapy.||||0.0001
90972755|NCT01121393|181828357|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.458|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.303|0.692||||||Cox proportional hazard model stratified by EGFR mutation group||0.692|0.303|
90972756|NCT01121393|181828358|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||A stratified log-rank test (by the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation category stratification factor used at randomisation) was used to test for the effect of afatinib on HRQOL compared with gemcitabine / cisplatin chemotherapy.||||<0.0001
90972757|NCT01121393|181828358|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.534|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.394|0.724||||||Cox proportional hazard model stratified by EGFR mutation group||0.724|0.394|
90972758|NCT01121393|181828359|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||A stratified log-rank test (by the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation category stratification factor used at randomisation) was used to test for the effect of afatinib on HRQOL compared with gemcitabine / cisplatin chemotherapy.||||0.0220
90972759|NCT01121393|181828359|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.699|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.511|0.956||||||Cox proportional hazard model stratified by EGFR mutation group||0.956|0.511|
90972760|NCT03988335|181828369|OTHER|The primary endpoints were first tested at alpha of 10% (2-sided). If the larger p-value was less than 10% (2-sided), both primary endpoints were to be declared statistically significant. If the larger p-value was greater than 10%, but the smaller p-value was less than 5% (2-sided), then the primary endpoint with the smaller p-value was to be declared statistically significant.||||||0.24|||||||Hochberg's method|||||||0.24
90972761|NCT03988335|181828370|OTHER|The primary endpoints were first tested at alpha of 10% (2-sided). If the larger p-value was less than 10% (2sided), both primary endpoints were to be declared statistically significant. If the larger p-value was greater than 10%, but the smaller p-value was less than 5% (2-sided), then the primary endpoint with the smaller p-value was to be declared statistically significant.||||||0.804|||||||Hochberg's method|||||||0.804
90972762|NCT01077973|181828380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-square (LS) mean difference|-1.12||||0.299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.23|1.0||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR), gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms.|ANOVA|||Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium-placebo) and 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI): based on LS means from analysis of variance (ANOVA). Type I error was controlled at 0.05 significance level (2-sided) by stating pair wise comparisons significant only if overall treatment effect among 3 treatment groups was significant and testing in a sequential order Ibuprofen sodium versus (vs.) placebo for SPRID 0-3 then Ibuprofen sodium vs. Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) for time to meaningful relief.||1.00|-3.23|0.299
91036246|NCT00796653|181959062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.248|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.976||0.2009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.161|0.665|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect||Form 12 mcg minus placebo||0.665|-3.161|0.2009
91036247|NCT00796653|181959063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.123|0.196|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.196|0.123|<0.0001
91036248|NCT00796653|181959063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.193|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.157|0.229|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.229|0.157|<0.0001
90972763|NCT01077973|181828381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.14||p-value was calculated using the PH model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Proportional hazards model|||Hazard Ratio (HR) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the proportional hazards (PH) model. Type I error was controlled at 0.05 significance level (2-sided) by stating pair wise comparisons significant only if overall treatment effect among 3 treatment groups was significant and testing in a sequential order Ibuprofen sodium vs. placebo for SPRID 0-3 then Ibuprofen sodium vs. Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) for time to meaningful relief.||1.14|0.52|0.193
90972764|NCT01077973|181828382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.24||p-value was calculated using the PH model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Proportional hazards model|||HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model.||1.24|0.50|0.304
90972765|NCT01077973|181828382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.59||p-value was calculated using the PH model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Proportional hazards model|||HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model.||1.59|0.65|0.936
90972766|NCT01077973|181828383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.04||p-value was calculated using the PH model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Proportional hazards model|||HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model.||1.04|0.41|0.072
90972767|NCT01077973|181828383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.652|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.41||p-value was calculated using the PH model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Proportional hazards model|||HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model.||1.41|0.58|0.652
91036249|NCT00796653|181959063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.162|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.126|0.199|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.199|0.126|<0.0001
90972768|NCT01077973|181828383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.07||p-value was calculated using the PH model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Proportional hazards model|||HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model.||1.07|0.49|0.108
90972769|NCT01077973|181828384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.19||||0.402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.26||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.26|-0.65|0.402
90972770|NCT01077973|181828384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.19||||0.407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.26||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.26|-0.64|0.407
90972771|NCT01077973|181828384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.0||||0.991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.37||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.37|-0.38|0.991
90972772|NCT01077973|181828384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.25||||0.313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.24||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.24|-0.75|0.313
90972773|NCT01077973|181828384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.12||||0.621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.37||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||2 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.37|-0.62|0.621
90972774|NCT01077973|181828384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.13||||0.533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.28||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||2 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.28|-0.54|0.533
90972775|NCT01077973|181828384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.25||||0.352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.28||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.28|-0.79|0.352
90972776|NCT01077973|181828384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.15||||0.573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.38||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||3 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.38|-0.69|0.573
90972777|NCT01077973|181828384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.1||||0.657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.34||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||3 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.34|-0.54|0.657
90972778|NCT01077973|181828385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.11||||0.382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.14||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.14|-0.36|0.382
90972779|NCT01077973|181828385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.15||||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.1||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.10|-0.39|0.242
90972780|NCT01077973|181828385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.04||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.24||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.24|-0.17|0.720
90972781|NCT01077973|181828385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.16||||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.11||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.11|-0.43|0.235
90972782|NCT01077973|181828385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.07||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.2||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||2 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.20|-0.34|0.630
90890028|NCT01571362|181644035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.224||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.06|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariate.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Screening to Week 2.||-0.06|-0.95|0.0250
90942870|NCT01841697|181766409|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the mean difference between omarigilptin and sitagliptin is less than the non-inferiority margin, δ =0.3%, then omarigliptin will be declared non-inferior to sitagliptin in terms of A1C reduction at Week 24.|Difference in least squares mean|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.08|||||Difference is omarigliptin minus sitagliptin.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis||0.08|-0.15|
90942871|NCT01841697|181766410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percent|-4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|3.2|||||Difference is omarigliptin minus sitagliptin.|||3.2|-11.8|
90942872|NCT01841697|181766411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percent|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|0.8|||||Difference is omarigliptin minus sitagliptin.|||0.8|-3.6|
90942873|NCT01841697|181766412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-4.2||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|0.6|||Constrained logitudinal data analysis|Terms for treatment, time, and the interaction of time by treatment, with the constraint that the mean baseline is the same for all treatment groups.|Difference is omarigliptin minus sitagliptin.|||0.6|-9.0|0.089
90942874|NCT01841697|181766413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Between-group rate difference|2.0||||0.619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|9.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Proportion (rate) for each group was estimated using standard multiple imputation techniques. Between-group difference in proportion is omarigliptin minus sitagliptin.||9.9|-5.9|0.619
90942875|NCT01841697|181766414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Between-group rate difference|4.4||||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|11.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Proportion (rate) for each group was estimated using standard multiple imputation techniques. Between-group difference in proportion is omarigliptin minus sitagliptin.||11.4|-2.5|0.212
90942876|NCT00935259|181766445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|52.1||0.455||95.0||||Endpoint was analyzed as appropriate for a 2-period crossover model using a mixed model with fixed terms of period and treatment with participants as a random factor.|Mixed Models Analysis|An unstructured covariance and Kenward Roger degrees of freedom were assumed.||||||0.455
90942877|NCT00935259|181766446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-51.7||||0.014||95.0||||Endpoint was analyzed as appropriate for a 2-period crossover model using a mixed model with fixed terms of period and treatment with participants as a random factor.|Mixed Models Analysis|An unstructured covariance and Kenward Roger degrees of freedom were assumed.||Cholesterol Ester 16:00||||0.014
90890029|NCT01571362|181644035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.234||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|-0.43|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariate.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Screening to Week 4.||-0.43|-1.36|0.0002
90942878|NCT00935259|181766446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.5|||<|0.001||95.0||||Endpoint was analyzed as appropriate for a 2-period crossover model using a mixed model with fixed terms of period and treatment with participants as a random factor.|Mixed Models Analysis|An unstructured covariance and Kenward Roger degrees of freedom were assumed.||Cholesterol Ester 18:3n3||||<0.001
90942879|NCT00935259|181766446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5||||0.217||95.0||||Endpoint was analyzed as appropriate for a 2-period crossover model using a mixed model with fixed terms of period and treatment with participants as a random factor.|Mixed Models Analysis|An unstructured covariance and Kenward Roger degrees of freedom were assumed.||Cholesterol Ester 20:3n6||||0.217
90942880|NCT00935259|181766446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.666||95.0||||Endpoint was analyzed as appropriate for a 2-period crossover model using a mixed model with fixed terms of period and treatment with participants as a random factor.|Mixed Models Analysis|An unstructured covariance and Kenward Roger degrees of freedom were assumed.||Cholesterol Ester 20:3n9||||0.666
90942881|NCT00935259|181766446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.776||95.0||||Endpoint was analyzed as appropriate for a 2-period crossover model using a mixed model with fixed terms of period and treatment with participants as a random factor.|Mixed Models Analysis|An unstructured covariance and Kenward Roger degrees of freedom were assumed.||Cholesterol Ester 22:5n6||||0.776
90942882|NCT00935259|181766446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5||||0.018||95.0||||Endpoint was analyzed as appropriate for a 2-period crossover model using a mixed model with fixed terms of period and treatment with participants as a random factor.|Mixed Models Analysis|An unstructured covariance and Kenward Roger degrees of freedom were assumed.||Cholesterol Ester 22:6n3||||0.018
90942883|NCT00935259|181766446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.152||95.0||||Endpoint was analyzed as appropriate for a 2-period crossover model using a mixed model with fixed terms of period and treatment with participants as a random factor.|Mixed Models Analysis|An unstructured covariance and Kenward Roger degrees of freedom were assumed.||Lysophosphatidylcholine 20:4n6||||0.152
90972783|NCT01077973|181828385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.1||||0.393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.13||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||2 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.13|-0.32|0.393
91050416|NCT04168190|181987006|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.08|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 8||1.08|0.46|
90942884|NCT00935259|181766446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-132.1||||0.007||95.0||||Endpoint was analyzed as appropriate for a 2-period crossover model using a mixed model with fixed terms of period and treatment with participants as a random factor.|Mixed Models Analysis|An unstructured covariance and Kenward Roger degrees of freedom were assumed.||Phosphatidylcholine 18:2n6||||0.007
90942885|NCT00935259|181766446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.8||||0.325||95.0||||Endpoint was analyzed as appropriate for a 2-period crossover model using a mixed model with fixed terms of period and treatment with participants as a random factor.|Mixed Models Analysis|An unstructured covariance and Kenward Roger degrees of freedom were assumed.||Phosphatidylcholine 20:3n6||||0.325
90942886|NCT00935259|181766446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.3||||0.419||95.0||||Endpoint was analyzed as appropriate for a 2-period crossover model using a mixed model with fixed terms of period and treatment with participants as a random factor.|Mixed Models Analysis|An unstructured covariance and Kenward Roger degrees of freedom were assumed.||Phosphatidylcholine 20:4n6||||0.419
90942887|NCT00935259|181766446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.7||||0.07||95.0||||Endpoint was analyzed as appropriate for a 2-period crossover model using a mixed model with fixed terms of period and treatment with participants as a random factor.|Mixed Models Analysis|An unstructured covariance and Kenward Roger degrees of freedom were assumed.||Phosphatidylcholine 22:5n3||||0.070
90942888|NCT00935259|181766446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.769||95.0||||Endpoint was analyzed as appropriate for a 2-period crossover model using a mixed model with fixed terms of period and treatment with participants as a random factor.|Mixed Models Analysis|An unstructured covariance and Kenward Roger degrees of freedom were assumed.||Phosphatidylcholine 22:5n6||||0.769
90942889|NCT00935259|181766446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.1|||<|0.001||95.0||||Endpoint was analyzed as appropriate for a 2-period crossover model using a mixed model with fixed terms of period and treatment with participants as a random factor.|Mixed Models Analysis|An unstructured covariance and Kenward Roger degrees of freedom were assumed.||Phosphatidylethanolamine 18:2n6||||<0.001
90942890|NCT00935259|181766446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-240.8||||0.016||95.0||||Endpoint was analyzed as appropriate for a 2-period crossover model using a mixed model with fixed terms of period and treatment with participants as a random factor.|Mixed Models Analysis|An unstructured covariance and Kenward Roger degrees of freedom were assumed.||Triacylglycerol 16:00||||0.016
90942891|NCT00935259|181766446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.833||95.0||||Endpoint was analyzed as appropriate for a 2-period crossover model using a mixed model with fixed terms of period and treatment with participants as a random factor.|Mixed Models Analysis|An unstructured covariance and Kenward Roger degrees of freedom were assumed.||Triacylglycerol 20:3n9||||0.833
90942892|NCT00935259|181766447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.027||95.0||||Endpoint was analyzed as appropriate for a 2-period crossover model using a mixed model with fixed terms of period and treatment with participants as a random factor.|Mixed Models Analysis|An unstructured covariance and Kenward Roger degrees of freedom were assumed.||Fasted||||0.027
90942893|NCT00935259|181766447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4|||<|0.001||95.0||||Endpoint was analyzed as appropriate for a 2-period crossover model using a mixed model with fixed terms of period and treatment with participants as a random factor.|Mixed Models Analysis|An unstructured covariance and Kenward Roger degrees of freedom were assumed.||Fed||||<0.001
90942894|NCT00935259|181766449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.247||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cholesterol ester c20:4n6 / c20:3n6||||0.247
90942895|NCT00935259|181766449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.151||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cholesterol ester c20:5n3 / c20:4n3||||0.151
90942896|NCT01721746|181766451|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.08|||||From stratified cox proportional hazard model with treatment group as a single covariate, stratified by BRAF status, prior anti-CTLA-4 benefit, and PD-L1 status (IVRS source)|Hazard Ratio is Nivolumab 3 mg/kg (IV) over Investigator's Choice (Dacarbazine or Carboplatin+Paclitaxel)||1.08|0.68|
90942897|NCT01721746|181766452|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.1|0.78|1.36|||||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model.|Hazard Ratio is Nivolumab 3 mg/kg (IV) over Investigator's Choice (Dacarbazine or Carboplatin+Paclitaxel)||1.36|0.78|
90942898|NCT01721746|181766453|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|3.16||||||For \<5% PD-L1 expression. Ratio of Nivolumab over Investigator's Choice||3.16|0.44|
90972784|NCT01077973|181828385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.14||||0.382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.18||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.18|-0.46|0.382
90972785|NCT01077973|181828385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.0||||0.995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.32||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||3 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.32|-0.32|0.995
90942899|NCT01721746|181766453|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.92|19.08||||||For \>=5% PD-L1 expression. Ratio of Nivolumab over Investigator's Choice||19.08|1.92|
90942900|NCT01721746|181766454|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.01|||||From unstratified Cox proportional hazard model|PD-L1 Positive||1.01|0.50|
90942901|NCT01721746|181766455|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.41|||||From unstratified Cox proportional hazard model|PD-L1 Negative||1.41|0.75|
90942902|NCT03121612|181766457|SUPERIORITY|Power calculated based on 40 infants in each arm, permitting detection of a difference of 0.67 SD between the groups with power of 80% and alpha=0.05. Study recruitment was below anticipated (51/80) despite extending the planned period of recruitment.||||||0.65||||||Threshold for superiority p\<0.05; primary outcome, so not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|van Elteren's extension to Wilcoxon|van Elteren's extension used to control for stratification by gestation||"Analysis restricted to change at 6 hours, as least affected by missing data.~Distribution non-normal, so non-parametric test (Wilcoxon) used."||||0.65
90942903|NCT03121612|181766457|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Planned sub-group analysis for infants born at 28-33 gestational weeks (n=41). No adjustment for multiple comparisons.||||0.64
90972786|NCT01077973|181828385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.14||||0.287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.12||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||3 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.12|-0.41|0.287
91036250|NCT00796653|181959064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.172|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.136|0.209|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.209|0.136|<0.0001
90942904|NCT03121612|181766457|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Planned sub-group analysis for infants born at 34-36 gestational weeks (n=10). No adjustment for multiple comparisons.||||1.0
90942905|NCT03121612|181766458|SUPERIORITY|Power calculated based on 40 infants in each arm, permitting detection of a difference of 0.67 SD between the groups with power of 80% and alpha=0.05. Study recruitment was below anticipated (51/80) despite extending the planned period of recruitment.||||||0.8||||||Threshold for superiority p\<0.05; not adjusted for multiple comparisons|van Elteren's extension to Wilcoxon|van Elteren's extension used to control for stratification by gestation.||"Analysis restricted to change at 6 hours, as least affected by missing data.~Distribution not normal by visual examination, so non-parametric test (Wilcoxon) used."||||0.80
90942906|NCT03121612|181766459|SUPERIORITY|Power calculated based on 40 infants in each arm, permitting detection of a difference of 0.67 SD between the groups with power of 80% and alpha=0.05. Study recruitment was below anticipated (51/80) despite extending the planned period of recruitment.||||||0.86||||||Threshold for superiority p\<0.05; not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|van Elteren's extension to Wilcoxon|van Elteren's extension used to control for stratification by gestation.||"Analysis restricted to change at 6 hours, as least affected by missing data.~Distribution non-normal, so non-parametric test (Wilcoxon) used."||||0.86
90942907|NCT03121612|181766463|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|No failures in older stratum, so stratification by gestational age-group not controlled for in analysis.||||||1.0
90942908|NCT03121612|181766464|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for stratification by gestational group.||||||0.33
90942909|NCT03121612|181766465|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for stratification by gestational age-group.||||||0.31
90942910|NCT03121612|181766466|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|van Elteren's extension to Wilcoxon|van Elteren's extension used to control for stratification by gestation||||||0.81
90942911|NCT03121612|181766467|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
90942912|NCT03121612|181766473|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|No failures in older stratum, so stratification by gestational age-group not controlled for in analysis.||||||1.0
90942913|NCT03121612|181766475|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|No adjustment for multiple comparisons||||||1.0
90942914|NCT01062269|181766476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||Differences between test products were assessed by repeated measures analysis of variance. If sequence was not found to be statistically significant(p\>0.05),then it was removed from the final model.|measures analysis of variance|Differences between test powders assessed by repeated measures analysis of variance, pairwise comparisons between treatments by Scheffe procedure.||"The BASA scale components were derived from the parameters best shown to differentiate acceptability between different BAS preparations (taste and texture),as well as other parameters useful for differentiating between different BAS preparations(appearance and mixability). The scale was then weighted based upon an Importance of Acceptability questionnaire regarding the individual scale components. The developed scale should reasonably allow for future comparisons of differing BAS formulations."||||<0.05
90942915|NCT01502371|181766524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.87||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|7.09||Constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model method proposed by Liang \& Zeger includes terms for treatment, time in weeks, age strata (age 5-6, 7-11), treatment by time interaction \& region (North America, Latin America \& the European Union)|cLDA model|||Change from Baseline in percent predicted FEV1 at Week 12: MF MDI 50 mcg BID vs. Placebo||7.09|0.64|0.019
90942916|NCT01502371|181766524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.05|9.53||cLDA model method proposed by Liang \& Zeger includes terms for treatment, time in weeks, age strata (age 5-6, 7-11), treatment by time interaction \& region (North America, Latin America \& the European Union)|cLDA|||Change from Baseline in percent predicted FEV1 at Week 12: MF MDI 100 mcg BID vs. Placebo||9.53|3.05|<0.001
90942917|NCT01502371|181766524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.34||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.07|8.61||cLDA model method proposed by Liang \& Zeger includes terms for treatment, time in weeks, age strata (age 5-6, 7-11), treatment by time interaction \& region (North America, Latin America \& the European Union)|cLDA|||Change from Baseline in percent predicted FEV1 at Week 12: MF MDI 200 mcg BID vs. Placebo||8.61|2.07|0.001
90942918|NCT01502371|181766525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|19.15||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|37.87||cLDA model method proposed by Liang \& Zeger includes terms for treatment, time in weeks, age strata (age 5-6, 7-11), treatment by time interaction \& region (North America, Latin America \& the European Union)|cLDA|||Change from Baseline in AM PEF: MF MDI 50 mcg BID vs. Placebo. Only participants who received MF MDI or Placebo were included in the statistical analysis.||37.87|0.43|0.045
91007766|NCT00474539|181899688|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-1.9|1.7||||||For diphtheria the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at \>=0.01 IU/mL threshold was calculated||1.7|-1.9|
91007767|NCT00474539|181899688|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|-0.2||||||95.0|-4.4|4.0||||||For tetanus the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at \>=0.10 IU/mL threshold was calculated||4.0|-4.4|
90972787|NCT01077973|181828386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.3||||0.377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.37||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.37|-0.98|0.377
90972788|NCT01077973|181828386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.34||||0.324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|0.34||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.34|-1.01|0.324
90972789|NCT01077973|181828386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.03||||0.902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.59||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.59|-0.52|0.902
90972790|NCT01077973|181828386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.42||||0.273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|0.33||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.33|-1.17|0.273
91036251|NCT00796653|181959064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.192|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.155|0.228|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.228|0.155|<0.0001
91036252|NCT00796653|181959064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.184|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.148|0.221|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.221|0.148|<0.0001
91036253|NCT00796653|181959065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.145|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.108|0.182|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.182|0.108|<0.0001
91036254|NCT00796653|181959065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.175|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.138|0.212|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.212|0.138|<0.0001
91036255|NCT00796653|181959065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.133|0.208|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.208|0.133|<0.0001
91036256|NCT00796653|181959066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.08|0.156|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.156|0.080|<0.0001
91036257|NCT00796653|181959066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.141|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.103|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.180|0.103|<0.0001
90972791|NCT01077973|181828386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.19||||0.616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.56||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||2 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.56|-0.94|0.616
90972792|NCT01077973|181828386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.23||||0.471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.39||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||2 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.39|-0.85|0.471
91036258|NCT00796653|181959066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.129|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.091|0.168|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.168|0.091|<0.0001
91036259|NCT00796653|181959067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.069|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018||0.0002||95.0|0.033|0.105|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.105|0.033|0.0002
90972793|NCT01077973|181828386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.4||||0.356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|0.45||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.45|-1.24|0.356
90972794|NCT01077973|181828386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.15||||0.722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.69||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||3 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.69|-1.00|0.722
90972795|NCT01077973|181828386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.24||||0.493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.46||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||3 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.46|-0.94|0.493
90972796|NCT01077973|181828387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.27||||0.259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.2||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPID 0-2: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.20|-0.75|0.259
90972797|NCT01077973|181828387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.21||||0.378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.26||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPID 0-2: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.26|-0.69|0.378
90972798|NCT01077973|181828387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.06||||0.762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.33||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPID 0-2: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.33|-0.45|0.762
90972799|NCT01077973|181828387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.42||||0.281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|0.34||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPID 0-3: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.34|-1.17|0.281
90972800|NCT01077973|181828387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.21||||0.582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|0.55||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPID 0-3: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.55|-0.97|0.582
90972801|NCT01077973|181828387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.2||||0.523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.42||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPID 0-3: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.42|-0.83|0.523
90972802|NCT01077973|181828388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.45||||0.327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|0.45||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 0-2: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.45|-1.35|0.327
90972803|NCT01077973|181828388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.32||||0.489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|0.58||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 0-2: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.58|-1.21|0.489
90972804|NCT01077973|181828388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.13||||0.726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.61||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 0-2: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.61|-0.88|0.726
90972805|NCT01077973|181828388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.7||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|0.69||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 0-3: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.69|-2.09|0.320
91050417|NCT04168190|181987006|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.38|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 8||1.38|0.58|
90972806|NCT01077973|181828388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.47||||0.506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|0.92||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 0-3: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.92|-1.86|0.506
90972807|NCT01077973|181828388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.23||||0.691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|0.92||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 0-3: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.92|-1.38|0.691
90972808|NCT01077973|181828389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.72||||0.292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|0.62||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPRID 0-2: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.62|-2.07|0.292
90972809|NCT01077973|181828389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.53||||0.439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|0.82||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPRID 0-2: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.82|-1.87|0.439
90972810|NCT01077973|181828389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.19||||0.733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|0.92||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPRID 0-2: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.92|-1.31|0.733
90972811|NCT01077973|181828389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.68||||0.526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|1.43||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPRID 0-3: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.43|-2.80|0.526
90972812|NCT01077973|181828389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.44||||0.624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.19|1.31||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPRID 0-3: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.31|-2.19|0.624
90972813|NCT01077973|181828390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|3.02||||0.672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.03|17.07||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR, and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||17.07|-11.03|0.672
90972814|NCT01077973|181828390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-4.47||||0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.61|8.68||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR, and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||8.68|-17.61|0.467
91036260|NCT00796653|181959067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.119|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|0.083|0.155|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.155|0.083|<0.0001
90972815|NCT01077973|181828390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|7.55||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.96|18.05||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR, and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||18.05|-2.96|0.164
90972816|NCT01077973|181828390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-7.52||||0.427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.96|10.92||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR, and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||10.92|-25.96|0.427
90972817|NCT01077973|181828390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-5.66||||0.537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.57|12.25||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR, and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||12.25|-23.57|0.537
90972818|NCT01077973|181828390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-1.83||||0.813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.88|13.22||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR, and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||13.22|-16.88|0.813
91036261|NCT00796653|181959067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.049|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018||0.0071||95.0|0.013|0.085|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.085|0.013|0.0071
91036262|NCT00796653|181959068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.084|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|0.048|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.120|0.048|<0.0001
90942919|NCT01502371|181766525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|27.35||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.63|46.08||cLDA model method proposed by Liang \& Zeger includes terms for treatment, time in weeks, age strata (age 5-6, 7-11), treatment by time interaction \& region (North America, Latin America \& the European Union)|cLDA|||Change from Baseline in AM PEF: MF MDI 100 mcg BID vs. Placebo. Only participants who received MF MDI or Placebo were included in the statistical analysis.||46.08|8.63|0.004
90942920|NCT01502371|181766525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|18.01||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|36.53||cLDA model method proposed by Liang \& Zeger includes terms for treatment, time in weeks, age strata (age 5-6, 7-11), treatment by time interaction \& region (North America, Latin America \& the European Union)|cLDA|||Change from Baseline in AM PEF: MF MDI 200 mcg BID vs. Placebo. Only participants who received MF MDI or Placebo were included in the statistical analysis.||36.53|-0.51|0.057
90942921|NCT01502371|181766526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.27||cLDA model method proposed by Liang \& Zeger includes terms for treatment, time in weeks, age strata (age 5-6, 7-11), treatment by time interaction \& region (North America, Latin America \& the European Union)|cLDA|||Change from Baseline in PAQLQ(S) Total Score: MF MDI 50 mcg BID vs. Placebo. Only participants who received MF MDI or Placebo were included in the statistical analysis.||0.27|-0.08|0.280
90942922|NCT01502371|181766526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12||||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.3||cLDA model method proposed by Liang \& Zeger includes terms for treatment, time in weeks, age strata (age 5-6, 7-11), treatment by time interaction \& region (North America, Latin America \& the European Union)|cLDA|||Change from Baseline in PAQLQ(S) Total Score: MF MDI 100 mcg BID vs. Placebo. Only participants who received MF MDI or Placebo were included in the statistical analysis.||0.30|-0.06|0.178
90942923|NCT01502371|181766526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.18||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.36||cLDA model method proposed by Liang \& Zeger includes terms for treatment, time in weeks, age strata (age 5-6, 7-11), treatment by time interaction \& region (North America, Latin America \& the European Union)|cLDA|||Change from Baseline in PAQLQ(S) Total Score: MF MDI 200 mcg BID vs. Placebo. Only participants who received MF MDI or Placebo were included in the statistical analysis.||0.36|0.00|0.045
90942924|NCT01502371|181766527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.39||||0.368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|4.44||cLDA model method proposed by Liang \& Zeger includes terms for treatment, time in weeks, age strata (age 5-6, 7-11), treatment by time interaction \& region (North America, Latin America \& the European Union)|cLDA model|||Change from Baseline in percent predicted FEV1 at Week 12: MF MDI 50 mcg BID vs. MF DPI 100 mcg QD. Only participants who received MF MDI 50 mcg BID or MF DPI 100 mcg QD were included in the statistical analysis.||4.44|-1.65|0.368
90942925|NCT02672514|181766528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.377|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The early diagnosis of AKI currently depends on the detection of reduced kidney function by the rise of serum Creatinine concentration. We test the null hypothesis that serum Creatinine was the same in both groups. The first blood samples from both groups were collected before cardiopulmonary bypass.||||0.377
90942926|NCT02672514|181766528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.051|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The early diagnosis of AKI currently depends on the detection of reduced kidney function by the rise of serum Creatinine concentration. We test the null hypothesis that serum Creatinine was the same in both groups. The blood samples were collected from both groups on arrival of intensive care unit.||||0.051
90942927|NCT02672514|181766528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.282|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The early diagnosis of AKI currently depends on the detection of reduced kidney function by the rise of serum Creatinine concentration. We test the null hypothesis that serum Creatinine was the same in both groups. The blood samples from both groups were collected 24 hours after Operation.||||0.282
90942928|NCT02672514|181766528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.277|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The early diagnosis of AKI currently depends on the detection of reduced kidney function by the rise of serum Creatinine concentration. We test the null hypothesis that serum Creatinine was the same in both groups. These blood samples were collected 48 hours after cardiopulmonary Bypass.||||0.277
90942929|NCT02672514|181766528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.308|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The early diagnosis of AKI currently depends on the detection of reduced kidney function by the rise of serum Creatinine concentration. We test the null hypothesis that serum Creatinine was the same in both groups. The blood samples were collected from both groups 72 hours after cardiopulmonary bypass.||||0.308
90942930|NCT02672514|181766528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.211|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The early diagnosis of AKI currently depends on the detection of reduced kidney function by the rise of serum Cystatin C concentration. We test the null hypothesis that serum Cystatin C was the same in both groups. The first blood samples were collected before cardiopulmonary bypass.||||0.211
90942931|NCT02672514|181766528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The early diagnosis of AKI currently depends on the detection of reduced kidney function by the rise of serum Cystatin C concentration. We test the null hypothesis that serum Cystatin C was the same in both groups. The blood samples were collected on arrival of intensive care unit.||||0.004
90972819|NCT01077973|181828390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-5.5||||0.455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.24|8.24||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR, and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||8.24|-19.24|0.455
90942932|NCT02672514|181766528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.221|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The early diagnosis of AKI currently depends on the detection of reduced kidney function by the rise of serum Cystatin C concentration. We test the null hypothesis that serum Cystatin C was the same in both groups. The blood samples were collected 24 hours after operation.||||0.221
90942933|NCT02672514|181766528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.796|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The early diagnosis of AKI currently depends on the detection of reduced kidney function by the rise of serum Cystatin C concentration. We test the null hypothesis that serum Cystatin C was the same in both groups. The blood samples were collected 48 hours after operation.||||0.796
91007768|NCT00474539|181899688|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-2.1|2.0||||||For tetanus the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at \>=0.01 IU/mL threshold was calculated||2.0|-2.1|
90942934|NCT02672514|181766528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.463|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The early diagnosis of AKI currently depends on the detection of reduced kidney function by the rise of serum Cystatin C concentration. We test the null hypothesis that serum Cystatin C was the same in both groups. The blood samples were collected 72 hours after operation.||||0.463
91036263|NCT00796653|181959068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.104|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|0.068|0.141|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.141|0.068|<0.0001
91036264|NCT00796653|181959068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018||0.0001||95.0|0.034|0.106|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.106|0.034|0.0001
91036265|NCT00796653|181959069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.059|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.0017||95.0|0.022|0.095|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.095|0.022|0.0017
91036266|NCT00796653|181959069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.093|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.057|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.130|0.057|<0.0001
90972820|NCT01077973|181828390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-4.02||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.63|9.59||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR, and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||9.59|-17.63|0.570
90972821|NCT01077973|181828390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-1.65||||0.792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|10.5||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted which was adjusted for baseline PSR, and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||10.50|-13.80|0.792
90972822|NCT01077973|181828390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-4.25||||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.82|9.33||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR, and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||9.33|-17.82|0.556
91036267|NCT00796653|181959069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.065|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.0005||95.0|0.028|0.101|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.101|0.028|0.0005
91036268|NCT00796653|181959070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.0085||95.0|0.013|0.087|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.087|0.013|0.0085
91036269|NCT00796653|181959070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.086|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.049|0.122|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.122|0.049|<0.0001
91036270|NCT00796653|181959070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.051|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.0067||95.0|0.014|0.088|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.088|0.014|0.0067
91036271|NCT00796653|181959071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.062|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.0012||95.0|0.025|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.100|0.025|0.0012
91036272|NCT00796653|181959071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.073|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.0002||95.0|0.035|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.110|0.035|0.0002
91036273|NCT00796653|181959071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.0117||95.0|0.011|0.086|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.086|0.011|0.0117
90972823|NCT01077973|181828390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-2.77||||0.689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.24|10.69||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR, and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||10.69|-16.24|0.689
90972824|NCT01077973|181828390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-1.65||||0.786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.45|10.14||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR, and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||10.14|-13.45|0.786
90972825|NCT01077973|181828391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|6.06||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.86|22.99||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR, and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||22.99|-10.86|0.480
90972826|NCT01077973|181828391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|4.34||||0.612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.55|21.23||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR, and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||21.23|-12.55|0.612
90972827|NCT01077973|181828391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|1.47||||0.839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|15.55||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR, and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||15.55|-12.60|0.839
90972828|NCT01077973|181828391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-13.2||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.4|2.99||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR, and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||2.99|-29.40|0.130
90972829|NCT01077973|181828391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-7.83||||0.331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.39|7.73||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR, and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||7.73|-23.39|0.331
90972830|NCT01077973|181828391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-5.5||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.59|8.59||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR, and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||8.59|-19.59|0.450
90972831|NCT01077973|181828391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-4.25||||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.82|9.33||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR, and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||9.33|-17.82|0.556
90972832|NCT01077973|181828391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-2.77||||0.689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.24|10.69||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR, and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||10.69|-16.24|0.689
90972833|NCT01077973|181828391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-1.65||||0.786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.45|10.14||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR, and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||10.14|-13.45|0.786
90972834|NCT01077973|181828391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-4.25||||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.82|9.33||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR, and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||9.33|-17.82|0.556
90972835|NCT01077973|181828391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-2.77||||0.689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.24|10.69||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR, and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||10.69|-16.24|0.689
90972836|NCT01077973|181828391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-1.65||||0.786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.45|10.14||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR, and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||10.14|-13.45|0.786
90972837|NCT01077973|181828394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|3.89||||0.355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.33|11.1||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR, and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||11.10|-3.33|0.355
90972838|NCT01077973|181828394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-1.21||||0.623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.62|4.2||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR, and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||4.20|-6.62|0.623
90972839|NCT01077973|181828394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|5.1||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|11.11||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR, and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||11.11|-0.90|0.094
90972840|NCT01077973|181828394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|4.43||||0.565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.43|19.29||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR, and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||19.29|-10.43|0.565
90972841|NCT01077973|181828394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-2.09||||0.765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.15|11.97||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR, and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||11.97|-16.15|0.765
90972842|NCT01077973|181828394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|6.47||||0.288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.43|18.37||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR, and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||18.37|-5.43|0.288
90972843|NCT01077973|181828394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-0.87||||0.928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|18.27||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR, and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||18.27|-20.00|0.928
90972844|NCT01077973|181828394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-6.4||||0.495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.14|12.33||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR, and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||12.33|-25.14|0.495
90972845|NCT01077973|181828394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|5.46||||0.477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.66|20.59||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR, and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||20.59|-9.66|0.477
90972846|NCT02780648|181828501|OTHER|||||||0.824||||||This p-value represents the type III p-value for overall treatment phase variable significance. An a priori alpha level of 0.05 was used to determine statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|||For Cohort B, pain scores were compared across treatment phase (before, during, and after) using ordinal logistic regression models with repeated measures.||||0.824
90972847|NCT02780648|181828502|OTHER|Ordinal logistic regression models with repeated measures to account for multiple patient surveys were fit with treatment phase (before treatment, during treatment, and after treatment) as the predictor and composite global health status / quality of life score as the outcome.||||||0.27||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. P-value represents the omnibus p-value for treatment phase in the repeated-measures ordinal logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in composite global health status / quality of life scores across treatment phase.||||0.270
90972848|NCT02780648|181828503|OTHER|Ordinal logistic regression models with repeated measures to account for multiple patient surveys were fit with treatment phase (before treatment, during treatment, and after treatment) as the predictor and composite physicial functioning composite score as the outcome.||||||0.179||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. P-value represents the omnibus p-value for treatment phase in the repeated-measures ordinal logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in composite physical functioning composite scores across treatment phase.||||0.179
90972849|NCT02780648|181828503|OTHER|Ordinal logistic regression models with repeated measures to account for multiple patient surveys were fit with treatment phase (before treatment, during treatment, and after treatment) as the predictor and composite role functioning composite score as the outcome.||||||0.789||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. P-value represents the omnibus p-value for treatment phase in the repeated-measures ordinal logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in composite role functioning composite scores across treatment phase.||||0.789
90972850|NCT02780648|181828503|OTHER|Ordinal logistic regression models with repeated measures to account for multiple patient surveys were fit with treatment phase (before treatment, during treatment, and after treatment) as the predictor and composite emotional functioning composite score as the outcome.||||||0.303||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. P-value represents the omnibus p-value for treatment phase in the repeated-measures ordinal logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in composite emotional functioning composite scores across treatment phase.||||0.303
91050418|NCT04168190|181987006|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.15|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 9N||2.15|0.62|
91007769|NCT00474539|181899688|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Ratio|0.0||||||95.0|-2.2|2.2||||||For diphtheria the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at \>=0.10 IU/mL threshold was calculated||2.2|-2.2|
91007770|NCT00474539|181899688|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Ratio|0.0||||||95.0|-2.2|2.2||||||For diphtheria the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at \>=0.01 IU/mL threshold was calculated||2.2|-2.2|
91007771|NCT00474539|181899688|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Ratio|0.0||||||95.0|-2.3|2.2||||||For tetanus the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at \>=0.10 IU/mL threshold was calculated||2.2|-2.3|
91007772|NCT00474539|181899688|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Ratio|0.0||||||95.0|-2.3|2.2||||||For tetanus the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at \>=0.01 IU/mL threshold was calculated||2.2|-2.3|
91007773|NCT00474539|181899689|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.86||||||95.0|0.72|1.03||||||For diphtheria toxoid the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.03|0.72|
91007774|NCT00474539|181899689|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.91||||||95.0|0.74|1.12||||||For tetanus the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.12|0.74|
91007775|NCT00474539|181899689|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.93||||||95.0|0.78|1.1||||||For diphtheria toxoid the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.10|0.78|
91007776|NCT00474539|181899689|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|1.0||||||95.0|0.81|1.24||||||For tetanus the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.24|0.81|
91007777|NCT00474539|181899692|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for immune response induced by NeisVac-C was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.6||||||95.0|-1.7|3.2||||||For Meningococcal C the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at ≥ 1:8 titer was calculated.||3.2|-1.7|
91007778|NCT03442595|181899693|OTHER|test of difference in change of A1C between the two groups|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The study was powered to detect a difference of 0.5% in the change in A1C with SD = 2 with 80\& at alopha = 0.;05 with a sample size of 128 in each group (paired t-test). The study reaches 100% power to detect this observed difference with an alpha level of 0.01.||||<0.001
91007779|NCT02364999|181899735|EQUIVALENCE|Calculated based on 2-sided Miettinen and Nurminen method without strata for risk difference for confirmed response. EU equivalence margins (95% CI in -13% to 13%).|Risk Difference (RD)|0.6531|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.608|7.9082|||||PF-06439535 vs Bevacizumab-EU|||7.9082|-6.6080|
91007780|NCT02364999|181899735|EQUIVALENCE|Calculated based on 2-sided Miettinen and Nurminen method without strata for risk ratio for confirmed response. US equivalence margins (90% CI in 0.73 to 1.37).|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0146|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8856|1.1625|||||PF-06439535 vs Bevacizumab-EU|||1.1625|0.8856|
91007781|NCT02364999|181899735|EQUIVALENCE|Calculated based on 2-sided Miettinen and Nurminen method without strata for risk ratio for confirmed response. Japan equivalence margins (95% CI in 0.729 to 1.371).|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0146|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8628|1.1933|||||PF-06439535 vs Bevacizumab-EU|||1.1933|0.8628|
90942935|NCT02672514|181766528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.118|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The early diagnosis of AKI currently depends on the detection of reduced kidney function by the rise of the postoperative NGAL levels in plasma. We test the null hypothesis that the NGAL level was the same in both groups. The first blood samples were collected before cardiopulmonary bypass.||||0.118
90942936|NCT02672514|181766528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The early diagnosis of AKI currently depends on the detection of reduced kidney function by the rise of the postoperative NGAL levels in plasma. We test the null hypothesis that the NGAL level was the same in both groups. The blood samples were collected on arrival of intensive care unit.||||0.0001
90972851|NCT02780648|181828503|OTHER|Ordinal logistic regression models with repeated measures to account for multiple patient surveys were fit with treatment phase (before treatment, during treatment, and after treatment) as the predictor and composite cognitive functioning composite score as the outcome.||||||0.989||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. P-value represents the omnibus p-value for treatment phase in the repeated-measures ordinal logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in composite cognitive functioning composite scores across treatment phase.||||0.989
90972852|NCT02780648|181828503|OTHER|Ordinal logistic regression models with repeated measures to account for multiple patient surveys were fit with treatment phase (before treatment, during treatment, and after treatment) as the predictor and composite social functioning composite score as the outcome.||||||0.436||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. P-value represents the omnibus p-value for treatment phase in the repeated-measures ordinal logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in composite social functioning composite scores across treatment phase.||||0.436
90972853|NCT02780648|181828504|OTHER|Ordinal logistic regression models with repeated measures to account for multiple patient surveys were fit with treatment phase (before treatment, during treatment, and after treatment) as the predictor and composite fatigue symptom score as the outcome.||||||0.659||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. P-value represents the omnibus p-value for treatment phase in the repeated-measures ordinal logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in composite fatigue symptom scores across treatment phase.||||0.659
91036274|NCT00796653|181959072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.062|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.0014||95.0|0.024|0.099|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.099|0.024|0.0014
91036275|NCT00796653|181959072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.084|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.047|0.122|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.122|0.047|<0.0001
91036276|NCT00796653|181959072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.056|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.0035||95.0|0.019|0.094|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.094|0.019|0.0035
91036277|NCT00796653|181959073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.044|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.0228||95.0|0.006|0.082|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.082|0.006|0.0228
90972854|NCT02780648|181828504|OTHER|Ordinal logistic regression models with repeated measures to account for multiple patient surveys were fit with treatment phase (before treatment, during treatment, and after treatment) as the predictor and composite nausea and vomiting symptom score as the outcome.||||||0.295||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. P-value represents the omnibus p-value for treatment phase in the repeated-measures ordinal logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in composite nausea and vomiting symptom scores across treatment phase.||||0.295
91036278|NCT00796653|181959073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.059|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.0024||95.0|0.021|0.097|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.097|0.021|0.0024
91036279|NCT00796653|181959073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.036|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.0664||95.0|-0.002|0.074|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.074|-0.002|0.0664
90942937|NCT02672514|181766528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The early diagnosis of AKI currently depends on the detection of reduced kidney function by the rise of the postoperative NGAL levels in plasma. We test the null hypothesis that the NGAL level was the same in both groups. The blood samples were collected one hour after cardiopulmonary bypass.||||0.0001
91036280|NCT00796653|181959074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.161|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.122|0.199|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.199|0.122|<0.0001
91036281|NCT00796653|181959074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.178|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.14|0.216|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.216|0.140|<0.0001
91036282|NCT00796653|181959074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.153|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.115|0.191|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.191|0.115|<0.0001
91036283|NCT00796653|181959075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.168|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.13|0.207|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.207|0.130|<0.0001
91036284|NCT00796653|181959075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.181|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.143|0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.220|0.143|<0.0001
91036285|NCT00796653|181959075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.176|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.137|0.214|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.214|0.137|<0.0001
91036286|NCT00796653|181959076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.141|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.103|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.180|0.103|<0.0001
91036287|NCT00796653|181959076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.168|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.129|0.207|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.207|0.129|<0.0001
91036288|NCT00796653|181959076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.164|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.125|0.203|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.203|0.125|<0.0001
91036289|NCT00796653|181959077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.123|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.084|0.163|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.163|0.084|<0.0001
90942938|NCT02672514|181766528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The early diagnosis of AKI currently depends on the detection of reduced kidney function by the rise of the postoperative NGAL levels in plasma. We test the null hypothesis that the NGAL level was the same in both groups. The blood samples were collected four hours after cardiopulmonary bypass.||||0.0001
90942939|NCT02672514|181766528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.171|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The early diagnosis of AKI currently depends on the detection of reduced kidney function by the rise of the postoperative NGAL levels in plasma. We test the null hypothesis that the NGAL level was the same in both groups. The blood samples were collected 48 hours after cardiopulmonary bypass.||||0.171
90942940|NCT00942188|181766531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.854|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|0.23|||ANCOVA|||||0.23|-1.94|
90942941|NCT00942188|181766531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.252|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||||-0.03|-2.48|
90942942|NCT00942188|181766531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|0.54|||ANCOVA|||||0.54|-1.76|
90942943|NCT00942188|181766532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-2.995|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.82|3.83|||ANCOVA|||||3.83|-9.82|
91036290|NCT00796653|181959077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.151|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.112|0.191|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.191|0.112|<0.0001
91036291|NCT00796653|181959077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.143|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.104|0.183|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.183|0.104|<0.0001
91036292|NCT00796653|181959078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.112|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.071|0.152|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.152|0.071|<0.0001
90972855|NCT02780648|181828504|OTHER|Ordinal logistic regression models with repeated measures to account for multiple patient surveys were fit with treatment phase (before treatment, during treatment, and after treatment) as the predictor and composite pain symptom score as the outcome.||||||0.299||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. P-value represents the omnibus p-value for treatment phase in the repeated-measures ordinal logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in composite pain symptom scores across treatment phase.||||0.299
90972856|NCT02780648|181828504|OTHER|Ordinal logistic regression models with repeated measures to account for multiple patient surveys were fit with treatment phase (before treatment, during treatment, and after treatment) as the predictor and composite dyspnea symptom score as the outcome.||||||0.794||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. P-value represents the omnibus p-value for treatment phase in the repeated-measures ordinal logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in composite dyspnea symptom scores across treatment phase.||||0.794
90972857|NCT02780648|181828504|OTHER|Ordinal logistic regression models with repeated measures to account for multiple patient surveys were fit with treatment phase (before treatment, during treatment, and after treatment) as the predictor and composite insomnia symptom score as the outcome.||||||0.45||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. P-value represents the omnibus p-value for treatment phase in the repeated-measures ordinal logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in composite insomnia symptom scores across treatment phase.||||0.450
90972858|NCT02780648|181828504|OTHER|Ordinal logistic regression models with repeated measures to account for multiple patient surveys were fit with treatment phase (before treatment, during treatment, and after treatment) as the predictor and composite appetite loss symptom score as the outcome.||||||0.389||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. P-value represents the omnibus p-value for treatment phase in the repeated-measures ordinal logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in composite appetite loss symptom scores across treatment phase.||||0.389
90972859|NCT02780648|181828504|OTHER|Ordinal logistic regression models with repeated measures to account for multiple patient surveys were fit with treatment phase (before treatment, during treatment, and after treatment) as the predictor and composite constipation symptom score as the outcome.||||||0.011||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. P-value represents the omnibus p-value for treatment phase in the repeated-measures ordinal logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic|The odds of having a higher constipation symptom composite score after treatment were less than during or before treatment.||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in composite constipation symptom scores across treatment phase.||||0.011
90972860|NCT02780648|181828504|OTHER|Ordinal logistic regression models with repeated measures to account for multiple patient surveys were fit with treatment phase (before treatment, during treatment, and after treatment) as the predictor and composite diarrhea symptom score as the outcome.||||||0.101||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. P-value represents the omnibus p-value for treatment phase in the repeated-measures ordinal logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in composite diarrhea symptom scores across treatment phase.||||0.101
90972861|NCT02780648|181828504|OTHER|Ordinal logistic regression models with repeated measures to account for multiple patient surveys were fit with treatment phase (before treatment, during treatment, and after treatment) as the predictor and composite financial difficulty symptom score as the outcome.||||||0.306||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. P-value represents the omnibus p-value for treatment phase in the repeated-measures ordinal logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in composite financial difficulty symptom scores across treatment phase.||||0.306
90972862|NCT01097304|181828510|OTHER|||||||0.54|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.54
90972863|NCT01097304|181828511|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||signed rank test|||||||<0.0001
90972864|NCT01097304|181828512|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||signed rank test|||||||<0.01
90972865|NCT01097304|181828513|OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.48
90972866|NCT02685709|181828514|NON_INFERIORITY|An assessment of NI was made by comparing the lower bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in biochemical control (octreotide capsules - SRLs) to a NI margin of -20%.|95% CI Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen|-19.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.9|0.5|||Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen (M&N)|||||0.5|-19.9|
90972867|NCT02685709|181828515|OTHER|||||||||||||||||"Secondary endpoints were analyzed without adjustment for multiplicity or predefined noninferiority margins and therefore were interpreted as exploratory.~This endpoint is descriptive with no formal statistical hypothesis testing."|The statistical analysis was based on the stratified Miettinen \& Nurminen (M\&N) method.|||
90972868|NCT02685709|181828516|OTHER||||||||||||||Clopper-Pearson method|||"Secondary endpoints were analyzed without adjustment for multiplicity or predefined noninferiority margins and therefore were interpreted as exploratory.~This endpoint is descriptive with no formal statistical hypothesis testing."|The statistical analysis was based on the stratified Miettinen \& Nurminen (M\&N) method.|||
90942944|NCT00942188|181766532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-2.324|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.21|5.56|||ANCOVA|||||5.56|-10.21|
90942945|NCT00942188|181766532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.635|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.16|5.89|||ANCOVA|||||5.89|-9.16|
90972869|NCT02685709|181828517|OTHER|||||||||||||Confidence interval was applied||||"Secondary endpoints were analyzed without adjustment for multiplicity or predefined noninferiority margins and therefore were interpreted as exploratory.~This endpoint is descriptive with no formal statistical hypothesis testing."|The statistical analysis was based on the stratified Miettinen \& Nurminen (M\&N) method.|||
90942946|NCT00942188|181766534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.05||This is the estimated value for week 10 HbA1c.|ANCOVA|||||0.05|-0.59|
90942947|NCT00942188|181766534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.369|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.0||This is the estimated value for HbA1c at Week 10.|ANCOVA|||||0.00|-0.74|
90942948|NCT00942188|181766534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.227|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.13||This is the estimated value for HbA1c at Week 10.|ANCOVA|||||0.13|-0.59|
90942949|NCT00942188|181766534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.267|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.08||This is the estimated value for HbA1c at week 12.|ANCOVA|||||0.08|-0.61|
90942950|NCT00942188|181766534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.396|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.0||This is the estimated value for HbA1c at Week 12.|ANCOVA|||||0.00|-0.79|
90942951|NCT00942188|181766534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.221|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.15||This is the estimated value for HbA1c at week 12.|ANCOVA|||||0.15|-0.59|
90942952|NCT02188784|181766538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|21.03||||0.457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.38|76.43|||Regression, Linear|||||76.43|-34.38|0.4570
90942953|NCT02188784|181766539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.77||||0.9487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.12|22.59|||Regression, Linear|||Change from Baseline to Week 8||22.59|-24.12|0.9487
90942954|NCT02188784|181766539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.67||||0.1921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.71|6.37|||Regression, Linear|||Change from Baseline to Week 16||6.37|-31.71|0.1921
90942955|NCT02188784|181766540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|182.43||||0.4296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-272.14|637.0|||Regression, Linear|||||637.0|-272.14|0.4296
90972870|NCT02685709|181828518|OTHER||||||||||||||Clopper-Pearson method|||Secondary endpoints were analyzed without adjustment for multiplicity or predefined noninferiority margins and therefore were interpreted as exploratory.|Based on this analysis 63.0% of patients in the octreotide capsule group and 51.4% of patients in the SRL injection group entered the Study Extension phase.|||
90972871|NCT02685709|181828519|OTHER|||||||||||||||||"Secondary endpoints were analyzed without adjustment for multiplicity or predefined noninferiority margins and therefore were interpreted as exploratory.~This endpoint is descriptive with no formal statistical hypothesis testing."|The mean change in IGF-1 from RCT Baseline to the end of the RCT phase was calculated using the Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF) approach.|||
90972872|NCT02685709|181828520|OTHER|||||||||||||||||"Secondary endpoints were analyzed without adjustment for multiplicity or predefined noninferiority margins and therefore were interpreted as exploratory.~This endpoint is descriptive with no formal statistical hypothesis testing."|Estimates were obtained from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) for the mean integrated growth hormone (GH) change from baseline with explanatory factors of treatment group and baseline value.|||
90972873|NCT02685709|181828521|OTHER|||||||||||||||||This endpoint is descriptive with no formal statistical hypothesis testing|The week 26 value was used as the baseline value for the RCT phase. The denominator for the percentage was the number of subjects at each visit.|||
90972874|NCT02685709|181828522|OTHER|||||||||||||||||This endpoint is descriptive with no formal statistical hypothesis testing.|The week 26 value is used as the baseline value for the RCT phase. The denominator for the percentage was the number of subjects at each visit.|||
90972875|NCT02685709|181828523|OTHER|||||||||||||||||This endpoints is descriptive with no formal statistical hypothesis testing.|This sensitivity analysis was using the Full analysis set (FAS), where any patient who discontinued treatment early was imputed as non-responder.|||
90972876|NCT02685709|181828524|OTHER|||||||||||||||||This endpoints is descriptive with no formal statistical hypothesis testing|This sensitivity analysis was using the Full analysis set (FAS), where patient who were biochemically controlled at the RCT Baseline (week 26), and who discontinued treatment early was imputed as non-responder.|||
90972877|NCT02685709|181828525|OTHER||Proportion of patients|64.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.0|72.1|||||Confidence Interval estimated using the Clopper-Pearson (Exact) method.||The proportion of patients biochemically controlled at the end of the Run-in phase was defined as IGF-1 \< 1.3 times ULN \[based on the average of week 24 and week 26\])|72.1|56|
90972878|NCT02685709|181828526|OTHER||Proportion of patients|66.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.5|74.1||||||||74.1|58.5|
90972879|NCT02685709|181828527|OTHER||Proportion of patients|48.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.7|59.1||||||||59.1|38.7|
90972880|NCT02685709|181828531|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The LSM change from baseline estimates are from a mixed model for repeated measures.|||
90972881|NCT01110200|181828566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment comparison ratio|0.917||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.581|1.447|||Negative bionomial regression model||Annualized rate estimates, the treatment comparison ratio, the confidence interval, and the p-value are from a negative binomial regression model with terms for treatment, country, randomization stratum, baseline severity, and time on treatment.|||1.447|0.581|0.710
91007782|NCT02364999|181899738|OTHER|Hazard ratio of PF-06439535 versus Bevacizumab-EU; a hazard ratio =1 indicated no difference in progressive disease(PD)/death between 2 reporting groups; \>1 indicated an increase in PD/death in PF-06439535; \<1 indicated an increase in PD/death in bevacizumab-EU.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.1077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.608|1.051|||Log Rank|Stratified by smoking, sex and region.||||1.051|0.608|0.1077
90972882|NCT05103332|181828589|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-12.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.24|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|-7.6||MMRM: Fixed factors: treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, race (black/all other races); Covariates: Baseline (BA) 24-hour mean SBP using ABPM \& BA estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|MMRM||LS Mean Difference between zilebesiran (add on to indapamide) and placebo (add on to indapamide), 95% CI was calculated using MMRM model.|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error at α=0.05 within each cohort \& handle primary \& key secondary endpoints analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the endpoints are reported. Hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at nominal p-value \< 0.05. Data for SBP, assessed using ABPM, while participants were on \& within 2 weeks after stopping any escape medication were censored for this endpoint.||-7.6|-16.5|<0.0001
90972883|NCT05103332|181828590|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-9.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.61|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|-6.6||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, race (black or all other races) as fixed factors, with baseline 24-hour mean SBP assessed by ABPM and baseline eGFR as covariates. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|MMRM||LS Mean Difference between zilebesiran (add on to amlodipine) and placebo (add on to amlodipine), 95% CI was calculated using MMRM model.|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error at α=0.05 within each cohort \& handle primary \& key secondary endpoints analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the endpoints are reported. Hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at nominal p-value \< 0.05. Data for SBP, assessed using ABPM, while participants were on \& within 2 weeks after stopping any escape medication were censored for this endpoint.||-6.6|-12.9|<0.0001
90972884|NCT05103332|181828591|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.89|=|0.0183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|-0.8||MMRM: Fixed factors: treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, race (black/all other races); Covariates: Baseline (BA) 24-hour mean SBP using ABPM \& BA eGFR. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|MMRM||LS Mean Difference between zilebesiran (add on to olmesartan) and placebo (add on to olmesartan), 95% CI was calculated using MMRM model.|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error at α=0.05 within each cohort \& handle primary \& key secondary endpoints analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the endpoints are reported. Hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at nominal p-value \< 0.05. Data for SBP, assessed using ABPM, while subjects were on \& within 2 weeks after stopping any escape medication were censored for this endpoint.||-0.8|-8.2|=0.0183
90942956|NCT02188784|181766541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.6||||0.0722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|7.52|||Regression, Linear|||Change from baseline to week 8||7.52|-0.33|0.0722
90942957|NCT02188784|181766541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.71||||0.6927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.83|4.24|||Regression, Linear|||Change from baseline to week 16||4.24|-2.83|0.6927
90942958|NCT02188784|181766542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.56||||0.0643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|7.33|||Regression, Linear|||||7.33|-0.21|0.0643
90942959|NCT02188784|181766543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.77||||0.4006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|2.58|||Regression, Linear|||||2.58|-1.04|0.4006
90942960|NCT00143598|181766560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.76|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for centre||||1.76|.73|.58
90942961|NCT01568112|181766587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.8|12.9|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Overall flushing events||12.9|-30.8|
90942962|NCT01568112|181766587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|27.8|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Overall flushing events||27.8|-14.1|
90942963|NCT01568112|181766587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.8|12.9|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Overall redness events||12.9|-30.8|
90942964|NCT01568112|181766587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|25.5|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Overall redness events||25.5|-16.4|
90942965|NCT01568112|181766587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-21.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.7|1.3|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Overall tingling events||1.3|-41.7|
90942966|NCT01568112|181766587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.3|18.7|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Overall tingling events||18.7|-23.3|
90942967|NCT01568112|181766587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-14.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.2|8.3|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Overall itching events||8.3|-35.2|
90942968|NCT01568112|181766587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|32.2|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Overall itching events||32.2|-9.5|
90942969|NCT01568112|181766587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.8|12.9|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Overall warmth events||12.9|-30.8|
90942970|NCT01568112|181766587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|25.5|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Overall warmth events||25.5|-16.4|
90942971|NCT01568112|181766588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-14.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.2|8.3|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Overall flushing events||8.3|-35.2|
90942972|NCT01568112|181766588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|32.2|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Overall flushing events||32.2|-9.5|
90972885|NCT05103332|181828592|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-18.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.8|-14.2||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, race (black or all other races) as fixed factors, with baseline office SBP and baseline eGFR as covariates. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|MMRM||LS Mean Difference between zilebesiran (add on to indapamide) and placebo (add on to indapamide), 95% CI was calculated using MMRM model.|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error at α=0.05 within each cohort and handle primary and key secondary endpoints analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the endpoints are reported. Hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at nominal p-value \< 0.05. Data for office SBP assessed while participants were on and within 2 weeks after stopping any escape medication were censored for this endpoint.||-14.2|-22.8|<0.0001
90972886|NCT05103332|181828593|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-11.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.88|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|-7.3||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, race (black or all other races) as fixed factors, with baseline 24-hour mean SBP assessed by ABPM and baseline eGFR as covariates. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|MMRM||LS Mean Difference between zilebesiran (add on to indapamide) and placebo (add on to indapamide), 95% CI was calculated using MMRM model.|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error at α=0.05 within each cohort and handle primary and key secondary endpoints analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at nominal p-value \< 0.05. All collected data for SBP assessed by ABPM, were included in the analysis for this endpoint.||-7.3|-14.7|<0.0001
90972887|NCT05103332|181828594|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-13.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.66|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.9|-10.3||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, race (black or all other races) as fixed factors, with baseline office SBP and baseline eGFR as covariates. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|MMRM||LS Mean Difference between zilebesiran (add on to indapamide) and placebo (add on to indapamide), 95% CI was calculated using MMRM model.|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error at α=0.05 within each cohort and handle primary and key secondary endpoints analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at nominal p-value \< 0.05. All collected data for office SBP were included in the analysis for this endpoint.||-10.3|-16.9|<0.0001
90972888|NCT05103332|181828595|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.61|33.29||Logistic regression model included treatment and race (black or all other races) as factors and baseline 24-hour mean SBP and baseline eGFR as covariates.|Regression, Logistic|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error at α=0.05 within each cohort and handle primary and key secondary endpoints analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at nominal p-value \< 0.05.||33.29|4.61|<0.0001
90972889|NCT05103332|181828606|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-10.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.67|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|-6.9||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, race (black or all other races) as fixed factors, with baseline office SBP and baseline eGFR as covariates. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|MMRM||LS Mean Difference between zilebesiran (add on to amlodipine) and placebo (add on to amlodipine), 95% CI was calculated using MMRM model.|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error at α=0.05 within each cohort and handle primary and key secondary endpoints analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the endpoints are reported. Hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at nominal p-value \< 0.05. Data for office SBP assessed while participants were on and within 2 weeks after stopping any escape medication were censored for this endpoint.||-6.9|-13.4|<0.0001
91007783|NCT02364999|181899739|OTHER|Hazard ratio of PF-06439535 versus Bevacizumab-EU; a hazard ratio =1 indicated no difference in progressive disease(PD)/death between 2 reporting groups; \>1 indicated an increase in PD/death in PF-06439535; \<1 indicated an increase in PD/death in bevacizumab-EU.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.931||||0.4492||95.0|0.777|1.116|||Log Rank|Stratified by smoking, sex and region.||||1.116|0.777|0.4492
91007784|NCT02364999|181899740|OTHER|Hazard ratio of PF-06439535 versus Bevacizumab-EU; a hazard ratio =1 indicated no difference in progressive disease(PD)/death between 2 reporting groups; \>1 indicated an increase in PD/death in PF-06439535; \<1 indicated an increase in PD/death in bevacizumab-EU.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.918||||0.4726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.729|1.157|||Log Rank|Stratified by smoking, sex and region.||||1.157|0.729|0.4726
90942973|NCT01568112|181766588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-19.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.6|3.7|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Redness events||3.7|-39.6|
90942974|NCT01568112|181766588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|27.8|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Redness events||27.8|-14.1|
90942975|NCT01568112|181766588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-21.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.7|1.3|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Warmth events||1.3|-41.7|
90942976|NCT01568112|181766588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|27.8|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Warmth events||27.8|-14.1|
90942977|NCT01568112|181766588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-33.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.2|-10.6|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Tingling events||-10.6|-52.2|
90942978|NCT01568112|181766588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|21.0|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Tingling events||21.0|-21.0|
90942979|NCT01568112|181766588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-21.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.7|1.3|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Itching events||1.3|-41.7|
90942980|NCT01568112|181766588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|18.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|38.8|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Itching events||38.8|-2.4|
90942981|NCT01568112|181766589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-14.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.6|9.2|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Overall flushing events||9.2|-35.6|
90942982|NCT01568112|181766589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.7|21.7|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Overall flushing events||21.7|-24.7|
90942983|NCT01568112|181766589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-14.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.6|9.2|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Redness events||9.2|-35.6|
90942984|NCT01568112|181766589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.9|23.7|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Redness events||23.7|-22.9|
90942985|NCT01568112|181766589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.0|11.9|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Warmth events||11.9|-33.0|
90942986|NCT01568112|181766589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.5|18.8|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Warmth events||18.8|-27.5|
90942987|NCT01568112|181766589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-17.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.1|6.5|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Tingling events||6.5|-38.1|
90942988|NCT01568112|181766589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.2|12.2|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Tingling events||12.2|-34.2|
90942989|NCT01568112|181766589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.6|3.8|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Itching events||3.8|-40.6|
90942990|NCT01568112|181766589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-18.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.2|5.5|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Itching events||5.5|-40.2|
90972890|NCT05103332|181828607|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-7.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|-5.3||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, race (black or all other races) as fixed factors, with baseline 24-hour mean SBP assessed by ABPM and baseline eGFR as covariates. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|MMRM||LS Mean Difference between zilebesiran (add on to amlodipine) and placebo (add on to amlodipine), 95% CI was calculated using MMRM model.|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error at α=0.05 within each cohort and handle primary and key secondary endpoints analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at nominal p-value \< 0.05. All collected data for SBP assessed by ABPM, were included in the analysis for this endpoint.||-5.3|-10.6|<0.0001
91036293|NCT00796653|181959078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.126|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.086|0.166|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.166|0.086|<0.0001
90942991|NCT01568112|181766590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-0.9|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Overall flushing events||-0.9|-3.0|
90942992|NCT01568112|181766590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.3|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Overall flushing events||2.3|0.2|
90942993|NCT01568112|181766590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-1.2|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Redness events||-1.2|-3.2|
90942994|NCT01568112|181766590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.5|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Redness events||2.5|0.1|
90942995|NCT01568112|181766590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-0.7|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Warmth events||-0.7|-2.8|
90942996|NCT01568112|181766590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.3|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Warmth events||2.3|0.1|
90942997|NCT01568112|181766590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.9|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Tingling events||-0.9|-2.7|
90942998|NCT01568112|181766590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.6|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Tingling events||1.6|-0.4|
90942999|NCT01568112|181766590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-1.0|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Itching events||-1.0|-2.8|
90943000|NCT01568112|181766590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.2|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Itching events||2.2|0.2|
90943001|NCT01568112|181766591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.8|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Overall flushing events||0.8|-1.7|
90972891|NCT05103332|181828608|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-8.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|-6.3||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, race (black or all other races) as fixed factors, with baseline office SBP and baseline eGFR as covariates. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|MMRM||LS Mean Difference between zilebesiran (add on to amlodipine) and placebo (add on to amlodipine), 95% CI was calculated using MMRM model.|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error at α=0.05 within each cohort and handle primary and key secondary endpoints analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at nominal p-value \< 0.05. All collected data for office SBP were included in the analysis for this endpoint.||-6.3|-10.9|<0.0001
90972892|NCT05103332|181828609|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.43|10.61||Logistic regression model included treatment and race (black or all other races) as factors and baseline 24-hour mean SBP and baseline eGFR as covariates.|Regression, Logistic|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error at α=0.05 within each cohort and handle primary and key secondary endpoints analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at nominal p-value \< 0.05.||10.61|2.43|<0.0001
90972893|NCT05103332|181828620|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.76|=|0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|-3.3||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, race (black or all other races) as fixed factors, with baseline office SBP and baseline eGFR as covariates. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|MMRM||LS Mean Difference between zilebesiran (add on to olmesartan) and placebo (add on to olmesartan), 95% CI was calculated using MMRM model.|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error at α=0.05 within each cohort and handle primary and key secondary endpoints analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the endpoints are reported. Hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at nominal p-value \< 0.05. Data for office SBP assessed while participants were on and within 2 weeks after stopping any escape medication were censored for this endpoint.||-3.3|-10.2|=0.0002
90972894|NCT05103332|181828621|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.42|=|0.2103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, race (black or all other races) as fixed factors, with baseline 24-hour mean SBP assessed by ABPM and baseline eGFR as covariates. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|MMRM||LS Mean Difference between zilebesiran (add on to olmesartan) and placebo (add on to olmesartan), 95% CI was calculated using MMRM model.|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error at α=0.05 within each cohort and handle primary and key secondary endpoints analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at nominal p-value \< 0.05. All collected data for SBP assessed by ABPM, were included in the analysis for this endpoint.||1.0|-4.6|=0.2103
90972895|NCT05103332|181828622|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|-2.3||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, race (black or all other races) as fixed factors, with baseline office SBP and baseline eGFR as covariates. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|MMRM||LS Mean Difference between zilebesiran (add on to olmesartan) and placebo (add on to olmesartan), 95% CI was calculated using MMRM model.|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error at α=0.05 within each cohort and handle primary and key secondary endpoints analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at nominal p-value \< 0.05. All collected data for office SBP were included in the analysis for this endpoint.||-2.3|-6.8|<0.0001
90972896|NCT05103332|181828623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67|||=|0.123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|3.23||Logistic regression model included treatment and race (black or all other races) as factors and baseline 24-hour mean SBP and baseline eGFR as covariates.|Regression, Logistic|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error at α=0.05 within each cohort and handle primary and key secondary endpoints analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at nominal p-value \< 0.05.||3.23|0.87|=0.1230
90972897|NCT02043548|181828655|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||GEE|||||||0.86
90972898|NCT02043548|181828656|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.77
90972899|NCT02043548|181828657|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||binomial test|||||||0.40
90972900|NCT02043548|181828658|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.40
90972901|NCT02043548|181828659|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||GEE|||||||0.78
90972902|NCT02043548|181828659|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.19
90972903|NCT00507559|181828662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||This is compared to a historical control group, in which 11.1% of subjects experienced one or more MAE within 30 days.||||<0.001
90972904|NCT02600494|181828681|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.9||||0.514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|3.53||p-value is Hochberg-adjusted|Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||3.53|-1.83|0.514
90972905|NCT02600494|181828681|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.0||||0.895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.73|1.79||p-value is Hochberg adjusted|Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||1.79|-3.73|0.895
90972906|NCT02600494|181828682|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.712|1.4|||Regression, Cox|||||1.400|0.712|0.993
90972907|NCT02600494|181828682|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.657|1.307|||Regression, Cox|||||1.307|0.657|0.665
90972908|NCT03195517|181828710|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.05
90972909|NCT03195517|181828711|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.05
90972910|NCT03195517|181828712|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.05
90972911|NCT03195517|181828713|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.05
90972912|NCT03195517|181828714|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.05
90972913|NCT03195517|181828715|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.05
90972914|NCT03195517|181828716|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.05
90972915|NCT03195517|181828717|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.05
90972916|NCT03195517|181828718|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.05
90943002|NCT01568112|181766591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.4|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Overall flushing events||0.4|-1.8|
90943003|NCT01568112|181766591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.6|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Redness events||0.6|-2.0|
90943004|NCT01568112|181766591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.5|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Redness events||0.5|-1.9|
90943005|NCT01568112|181766591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.4|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Warmth events||0.4|-2.0|
90943006|NCT01568112|181766591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.2|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Warmth events||0.2|-2.1|
90943007|NCT01568112|181766591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.1|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Tingling events||0.1|-2.2|
90943008|NCT01568112|181766591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.0|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Tingling events||-0.0|-2.2|
90943009|NCT01568112|181766591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.4|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Itching events||0.4|-2.1|
90943010|NCT01568112|181766591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.1|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Itching events||-0.1|-2.4|
90943011|NCT01568112|181766592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.2|9.5|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Overall flushing events||9.5|-32.2|
90943012|NCT01568112|181766592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|27.8|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Overall flushing events||27.8|-14.1|
90943013|NCT01568112|181766593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-22.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.0|0.1|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|||0.1|-41.0|
90943014|NCT01568112|181766593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|27.8|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|||27.8|-14.1|
90943015|NCT01568112|181766594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.6|3.8|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|||3.8|-40.6|
90943016|NCT01568112|181766594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.7|21.7|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|||21.7|-24.7|
90943017|NCT01568112|181766595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|22.0|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|||22.0|-22.0|
90943018|NCT01568112|181766595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|25.5|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|||25.5|-16.4|
90972917|NCT03195517|181828719|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.05
90972918|NCT03987854|181828753|SUPERIORITY||paired t-test|-7.67|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||-6.16|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
90972919|NCT03987854|181828754|SUPERIORITY||paired t-test|-0.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.27||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||-3.29|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.001
90943019|NCT01568112|181766596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.2|19.7|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|||19.7|-24.2|
90943020|NCT01568112|181766596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.3|18.7|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|||18.7|-23.3|
90943021|NCT01568112|181766597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.4|17.1|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|||17.1|-29.4|
90943022|NCT01568112|181766597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.1|24.5|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|||24.5|-22.1|
90943023|NCT01568112|181766598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.1|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Nausea||1.1|-1.1|
90943024|NCT01568112|181766598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.9|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Nausea||0.9|-1.1|
90943025|NCT01568112|181766598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.8|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Diarrhea||0.8|-1.4|
90943026|NCT01568112|181766598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.1|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Diarrhea||0.1|-1.7|
90943027|NCT01568112|181766598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.6|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Upper abdominal pain||1.6|-0.5|
90972920|NCT03987854|181828755|SUPERIORITY||paired t-test|1.92|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||7.52|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
90972921|NCT03987854|181828756|SUPERIORITY||paired t-test|1.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.04|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||5.03|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
90943028|NCT01568112|181766598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.3|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Upper abdominal pain||1.3|-0.7|
90943029|NCT01568112|181766598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.9|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Lower abdominal pain||0.9|-1.0|
90943030|NCT01568112|181766598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.8|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Lower abdominal pain||0.8|-1.1|
90972922|NCT03987854|181828757|SUPERIORITY||paired t-test|2.52|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||6.81|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
90972923|NCT03987854|181828758|SUPERIORITY||paired t-test|1.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.43||0.003|TWO_SIDED|||||3.46|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.003
90972924|NCT03987854|181828759|SUPERIORITY||paired t-test|1.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.56||0.004|TWO_SIDED|||||3.26|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.004
90972925|NCT03987854|181828760|SUPERIORITY||paired t-test|2.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.76||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||3.49|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.002
90972926|NCT02799069|181828773|NON_INFERIORITY|The sample size of 210 subjects per treatment arm (per protocol set) has a power of at least 90% to establish non-inferiority of BF-200 ALA to Metvix using a non-inferiority margin of -15% and assuming response rates of 70% for both BF-200 ALA and Metvix. The power calculation was based on a one-sided Z-test with continuity correction (unpooled) with a significance level of 0.025.The establishment of non-inferiority was performed for the PP set and verified for robustness on the ITT.|Difference to BF-200 ALA|14.0|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|5.9||||||||||5.9|
90972927|NCT02799069|181828773|SUPERIORITY||Difference to BF-200 ALA|61.1||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.2|71.0|||Chi-squared|||"Superiority of BF-200 ALA compared to placebo:~A sample size of 264: 88 patients (BF-200 ALA: placebo) will have a power of more than 90% to establish superiority of BF-200 ALA over placebo, even if very conservative response rates of 65% for the BF-200 ALA group and 40% for placebo are assumed using a chi-square test with continuity correction and a two-sided significance level of 0.05."||71.0|51.2|0.0000
90943031|NCT01568112|181766598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.7|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Vomiting||0.7|-0.6|
90943032|NCT01568112|181766598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.5|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Vomiting||0.5|-0.6|
90943033|NCT01568112|181766598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.3|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Indigestion||0.3|-1.0|
90943034|NCT01568112|181766598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.8|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Indigestion||0.8|-0.8|
90943035|NCT01568112|181766598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.6|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Constipation||0.6|-1.0|
90943036|NCT01568112|181766598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.9|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Constipation||0.9|-0.8|
90943037|NCT01568112|181766598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.1||||||Bloating||1.1|-0.7|
90943038|NCT01568112|181766598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.7|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Bloating||0.7|-0.9|
90972928|NCT02799069|181828774|NON_INFERIORITY|The sample size of 210 subjects per treatment arm (per protocol set) has a power of at least 90% to establish non-inferiority of BF-200 ALA to Metvix using a non-inferiority margin of -15% and assuming response rates of 70% for both BF-200 ALA and Metvix. The power calculation was based on a one-sided Z-test with continuity correction (unpooled) with a significance level of 0.025.The establishment of non-inferiority was performed for the PP set and verified for robustness on the ITT.|Difference to BF-200 ALA|14.2|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|6.0||||||||||6.0|
90972929|NCT02799069|181828774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference to BF-200 ALA|59.4||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.4|70.4|||Chi-squared|||||70.4|48.4|0.0000
90943039|NCT01568112|181766598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.9|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Flatulence||0.9|-0.8|
90943040|NCT01568112|181766598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.1|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Flatulence||1.1|-0.7|
90943041|NCT01568112|181766599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.8|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Nausea||0.8|-1.0|
90943042|NCT01568112|181766599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.8|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Nausea||0.8|-0.8|
90943043|NCT01568112|181766599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.4|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Diarrhea||0.4|-1.7|
90943044|NCT01568112|181766599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.2|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Diarrhea||0.2|-1.7|
90943045|NCT01568112|181766599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.6|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Upper abdominal pain||0.6|-0.7|
90972930|NCT02799069|181828775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference to BF-200 ALA|72.0||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.7|84.2|||Chi-squared|||||84.2|59.7|0.0000
90972931|NCT02799069|181828775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference to BF-200 ALA|17.3|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|6.6||||||||||6.6|
91036294|NCT00796653|181959078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.078|0.158|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.158|0.078|<0.0001
90943046|NCT01568112|181766599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.8|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Upper abdominal pain||0.8|-0.7|
90943047|NCT01568112|181766599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.7|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Lower abdominal pain||0.7|-0.6|
90943048|NCT01568112|181766599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.3|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Lower abdominal pain||1.3|-0.2|
90943049|NCT01568112|181766599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Vomiting||0.4|-0.4|
90943050|NCT01568112|181766599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Vomiting||0.2|-0.4|
90943051|NCT01568112|181766599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.6|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Indigestion||0.6|-0.6|
90943052|NCT01568112|181766599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.5|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Indigestion||0.5|-0.7|
90943053|NCT01568112|181766599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.0|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Constipation||1.0|-0.1|
90943054|NCT01568112|181766599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.6|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Constipation||0.6|-0.2|
90943055|NCT01568112|181766599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.7|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Bloating||0.7|-0.8|
90943056|NCT01568112|181766599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.8|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Bloating||0.8|-0.7|
90972932|NCT02171611|181828813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|175.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|50.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|141.904|216.149|||||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the ratio of the gMeans of Dabigatran etexilate 150 mg (T1) divided by Dabigatran etexilate 150 mg (R). Standard Error of the mean is actually the intra individual coefficient variation (gCV).|An Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model was used on the logarithmic scale in order to compare the Test treatment vs. the Reference treatment. This model included effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||216.149|141.904|
90972933|NCT02171611|181828813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|154.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|46.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|127.425|188.161|||||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the ratio of the geometric means (gMeans) of Dabigatran etexilate 150 mg (T2) divided by Dabigatran etexilate 150 mg (R). Standard Error of the mean is actually the intra individual gCV.|An Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model was used on the logarithmic scale in order to compare the Test treatment (T2) vs. the Reference treatment (R). This model included effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||188.161|127.425|
90972934|NCT02171611|181828814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means in %|175.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|51.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|141.924|216.772|||||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the ratio of the gMean of Dabigatran etexilate 150 mg (T1) divided by Dabigatran etexilate 150 mg (R). Standard Error of the mean is actually the intra individual gCV.|An Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model was used on the logarithmic scale in order to compare the Test treatment vs. the Reference treatment. This model included effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||216.772|141.924|
90972935|NCT02171611|181828814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means in %|158.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|46.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|130.052|192.255|||||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the ratio of the gMean of Dabigatran etexilate 150 mg (T2) divided by Dabigatran etexilate 150 mg (R). Standard Error of the mean is actually the intra individual gCV.|An Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model was used on the logarithmic scale in order to compare the Test treatment vs. the Reference treatment. This model included effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||192.255|130.052|
90972936|NCT02171611|181828815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|186.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|57.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|147.659|236.665|||||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the ratio of the gMean of Dabigatran etexilate 150 mg (T1) divided by Dabigatran etexilate 150 mg (R). Standard Error of the mean is actually the intra individual gCV.|An Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model was used on the logarithmic scale in order to compare the Test treatment vs. the Reference treatment. This model included effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||236.665|147.659|
90972937|NCT02171611|181828815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means in %|166.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|54.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|133.221|208.326|||||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the ratio of the gMean of Dabigatran etexilate 150 mg (T2) divided by Dabigatran etexilate 150 mg (R). Standard Error of the mean is actually the intra individual gCV.|An Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model was used on the logarithmic scale in order to compare the Test treatment vs. the Reference treatment. This model included effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||208.326|133.221|
90972938|NCT02171611|181828816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means in %|181.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|53.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|145.428|226.776|||||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the ratio of the gMean of Dabigatran etexilate 150 mg (T1) divided by Dabigatran etexilate 150 mg (R). Standard Error of the mean is actually the intra individual gCV.|An Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model was used on the logarithmic scale in order to compare the Test treatment vs. the Reference treatment. This model included effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||226.776|145.428|
90972939|NCT02171611|181828816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means in %|166.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|52.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|134.25|207.328|||||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the ratio of the gMean of Dabigatran etexilate 150 mg (T2) divided by Dabigatran etexilate 150 mg (R). Standard Error of the mean is actually the intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|An Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model was used on the logarithmic scale in order to compare the Test treatment vs. the Reference treatment. This model included effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||207.328|134.25|
90972940|NCT02171611|181828817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means in %|182.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|56.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|144.727|229.297|||||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the ratio of the gMean of Dabigatran etexilate 150 mg (T1) divided by Dabigatran etexilate 150 mg (R). Standard Error of the mean is actually the intra individual gCV.|An Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model was used on the logarithmic scale in order to compare the Test treatment vs. the Reference treatment. This model included effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||229.297|144.727|
90943057|NCT01568112|181766599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.0|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Flatulence||-0.0|-1.6|
90943058|NCT01568112|181766599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.5|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Flatulence||0.5|-1.2|
90943059|NCT01568112|181766600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|30.0|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|||30.0|-11.8|
90943060|NCT01568112|181766600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|30.0|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|||30.0|-11.8|
90943061|NCT01568112|181766601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.8|23.3|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|||23.3|-18.8|
90943062|NCT01568112|181766601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|27.8|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|||27.8|-14.1|
90943063|NCT01568112|181766602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.1|14.3|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|||14.3|-32.1|
90943064|NCT01568112|181766602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.0|21.7|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|||21.7|-25.0|
90943065|NCT01568112|181766609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.79|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.9|34.1|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|||34.1|-20.9|
90943066|NCT01568112|181766609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.2|25.7|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|||25.7|-14.2|
90943067|NCT01568112|181766610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|24.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.5|70.9|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|||70.9|-26.5|
90943068|NCT01568112|181766610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.08|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.5|23.6|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|||23.6|-20.5|
90943069|NCT01568112|181766611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.32|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|44.2|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|||44.2|-9.2|
90943070|NCT01568112|181766611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.2|18.0|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|||18.0|-17.2|
90943071|NCT01568112|181766612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.601|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.34|12.26|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Nausea||12.26|-6.34|
90943072|NCT01568112|181766612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.347|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.81|0.67|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Nausea||0.67|-8.81|
90943073|NCT01568112|181766612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.335|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.15|26.63|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Diarrhea||26.63|-3.15|
90943074|NCT01568112|181766612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.321|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.67|6.77|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Diarrhea||6.77|-2.67|
90943075|NCT01568112|181766612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.812|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.72|25.14|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Upper abdominal pain||25.14|-6.72|
90943076|NCT01568112|181766612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.152|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.31|5.63|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Upper abdominal pain||5.63|-11.31|
90943077|NCT01568112|181766612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.516|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.36|12.19|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Lower abdominal pain||12.19|-18.36|
90943078|NCT01568112|181766612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.141|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.71|8.35|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Lower abdominal pain||8.35|-20.71|
90943079|NCT01568112|181766612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.292|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.9|6.49|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Vomiting||6.49|-22.90|
90943080|NCT01568112|181766612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.536|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.13|11.47|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Vomiting||11.47|-30.13|
90943081|NCT01568112|181766612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.376|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.02|4.63|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Indigestion||4.63|-30.02|
90943082|NCT01568112|181766612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.654|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.48|6.32|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Indigestion||6.32|-29.48|
90972941|NCT02171611|181828817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means in %|160.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|52.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|129.633|199.306|||||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the ratio of the gMean of Dabigatran etexilate 150 mg (T2) divided by Dabigatran etexilate 150 mg (R). Standard Error of the mean is actually the intra individual gCV.|An Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model was used on the logarithmic scale in order to compare the Test treatment vs. the Reference treatment. This model included effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||199.306|129.633|
90972942|NCT02171611|181828818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means in %|182.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|55.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|144.993|229.075|||||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the ratio of the gMean of Dabigatran etexilate 150 mg (T1) divided by Dabigatran etexilate 150 mg (R). Standard Error of the mean is actually the intra individual gCV.|An Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model was used on the logarithmic scale in order to compare the Test treatment vs. the Reference treatment. This model included effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||229.075|144.993|
90972943|NCT02171611|181828818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means in %|164.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|51.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|132.421|203.14|||||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the ratio of the gMean of Dabigatran etexilate 150 mg (T2) divided by Dabigatran etexilate 150 mg (R). Standard Error of the mean is actually the intra individual gCV.|An Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model was used on the logarithmic scale in order to compare the Test treatment vs. the Reference treatment. This model included effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||203.14|132.421|
90972944|NCT00137111|181828848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Binomial proportion|79.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|75.69|82.85|||Binomial proportion|||Of the 498 eligible patients, 492 were successfully evaluated with day 46 MRD measurement.||82.85|75.69|
90972945|NCT00137111|181828849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0062||||||p-value from t-test after stratified for lineage and ploidy|t-test, 2 sided|||t-test stratified for lineage and ploidy||||.0062
90972946|NCT00137111|181828850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.15||||||p-value from t-test after adjusted for lineage and ploidy|t-test, 2 sided|||t-test adjusting for lineage and ploidy||||.15
90972947|NCT00137111|181828851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||9.5e-07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.00000095
90972948|NCT00137111|181828852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||7e-07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0000007
90972949|NCT00852995|181828853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.00028|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.00028
90972950|NCT00852995|181828853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0899|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0899
90972951|NCT00852995|181828853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1586|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1586
90972952|NCT00852995|181828853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0295|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0295
90972953|NCT00852995|181828855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|||||Treatment Week 01|ANCOVA|||||||.037
90972954|NCT00852995|181828855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|||||Treatment Week 02|ANCOVA|||||||.064
90972955|NCT00852995|181828855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.161|TWO_SIDED|||||Treatment Week 03|ANCOVA|||||||.161
90972956|NCT00852995|181828855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|||||Treatment Week 04|ANCOVA|||||||.39
90972957|NCT00852995|181828855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|||||Treatment Week 05|ANCOVA|||||||.079
90972958|NCT00852995|181828855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|||||Treatment Week 06|ANCOVA|||||||.069
90972959|NCT00852995|181828855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|||||Treatment Week 07|ANCOVA|||||||.026
90972960|NCT00852995|181828855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.133|TWO_SIDED|||||Treatment Week 08|ANCOVA|||||||.133
90972961|NCT00852995|181828855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|||||Treatment Week 09|ANCOVA|||||||.089
90972962|NCT00852995|181828855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|||||Treatment Week 10|ANCOVA|||||||.057
90972963|NCT00852995|181828855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|||||Treatment Week 11|ANCOVA|||||||.127
90972964|NCT00852995|181828855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.395|TWO_SIDED|||||Treatment Week 12|ANCOVA|||||||0.395
90972965|NCT00852995|181828856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0133|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 02|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0133
90972966|NCT00852995|181828856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3839|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 02|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3839
90972967|NCT00852995|181828856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5721|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 02|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.5721
90972968|NCT00852995|181828856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.232|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 02|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.232
90972969|NCT00852995|181828856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0787|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 03|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0787
90972970|NCT00852995|181828856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7919|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 03|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.7919
90972971|NCT00852995|181828856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6881|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 03|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.6881
90972972|NCT00852995|181828856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9832|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 03|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.9832
90972973|NCT00852995|181828856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0466|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 04|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0466
90972974|NCT00852995|181828856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8435|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 04|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.8435
90972975|NCT00852995|181828856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8743|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 04|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.8743
90972976|NCT00852995|181828856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2884|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 04|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2884
91036295|NCT00796653|181959079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.231|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|<|0.0001||95.0|0.162|0.299|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.299|0.162|<0.0001
91036296|NCT00796653|181959079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|<|0.0001||95.0|0.182|0.318|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.318|0.182|<0.0001
90943083|NCT01568112|181766612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.274|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.44|7.57|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Constipation||7.57|-35.44|
90943084|NCT01568112|181766612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.369|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.39|18.81|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Constipation||18.81|-33.39|
90943085|NCT01568112|181766612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.472|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.4|5.93|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Bloating||5.93|-20.40|
90943086|NCT01568112|181766612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|60.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|34.455|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.78|131.4|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Bloating||131.4|-10.78|
90943087|NCT01568112|181766612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|59.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|65.007|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.51|191.2|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Flatulence||191.2|-71.51|
90943088|NCT01568112|181766612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|54.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|40.44|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.09|136.6|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Flatulence||136.6|-27.09|
90943089|NCT01568112|181766613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.281|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.79|14.68|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Nausea||14.68|-6.79|
90943090|NCT01568112|181766613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.563|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.57|0.83|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Nausea||0.83|-9.57|
90943091|NCT01568112|181766613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.024|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.84|29.86|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Diarrhea||29.86|-2.84|
90943092|NCT01568112|181766613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.379|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|7.29|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Diarrhea||7.29|-2.41|
90943093|NCT01568112|181766613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.143|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.81|27.5|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Upper abdominal pain||27.50|-5.81|
90943094|NCT01568112|181766613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.671|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.08|7.09|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Upper abdominal pain||7.09|-12.08|
90943095|NCT01568112|181766613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.488|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.03|15.64|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Lower abdominal pain||15.64|-19.03|
90943096|NCT01568112|181766613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.832|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.93|8.11|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Lower abdominal pain||8.11|-23.93|
90943097|NCT01568112|181766613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.811|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.8|17.6|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Vomiting||17.60|-23.80|
90943098|NCT01568112|181766613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.155|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.75|13.0|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Vomiting||13.00|-22.75|
90943099|NCT01568112|181766613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.243|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.2|9.05|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Indigestion||9.05|-59.20|
90943100|NCT01568112|181766613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.83|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.89|6.98|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Indigestion||6.98|-54.89|
90943101|NCT01568112|181766613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.847|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.38|10.39|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Constipation||10.39|-35.38|
90943102|NCT01568112|181766613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.542|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.79|20.13|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Constipation||20.13|-32.79|
90943103|NCT01568112|181766613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.442|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.87|10.41|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Bloating||10.41|-15.87|
90972977|NCT00852995|181828856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0387|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0387
90972978|NCT00852995|181828856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8461|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.8461
90972979|NCT00852995|181828856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9574|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.9574
90972980|NCT00852995|181828856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2994|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2994
90972981|NCT00852995|181828856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1024|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 06|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1024
90972982|NCT00852995|181828856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8759|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 06|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.8759
90972983|NCT00852995|181828856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9008|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 06|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.9008
90972984|NCT00852995|181828856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4618|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4618
90972985|NCT00852995|181828856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2439|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 07|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2439
90972986|NCT00852995|181828856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.749|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 07|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.749
90972987|NCT00852995|181828856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3749|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 07|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3749
90943104|NCT01568112|181766613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|81.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|50.239|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.04|185.8|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Bloating||185.8|-22.04|
90943105|NCT01568112|181766613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|26.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|32.896|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.13|93.18|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Flatulence||93.18|-40.13|
90972988|NCT00852995|181828856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 07|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.015
90972989|NCT00852995|181828856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 08|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0078
90972990|NCT00852995|181828856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 08|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.07
90972991|NCT00852995|181828856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.208|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 08|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.208
90972992|NCT00852995|181828856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0413|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 08|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0413
90972993|NCT00852995|181828856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 09|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0054
90972994|NCT00852995|181828856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2031|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 09|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2031
90972995|NCT00852995|181828856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0894|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 09|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0894
90972996|NCT00852995|181828856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0288|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 09|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0288
90972997|NCT00852995|181828856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6964|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 10|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.6964
90972998|NCT00852995|181828856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 10|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.59
90972999|NCT00852995|181828856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7146|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 10|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.7146
90973000|NCT00852995|181828856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5008|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 10|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.5008
90973001|NCT00852995|181828856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1235|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 11|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1235
90973002|NCT00852995|181828856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5488|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 11|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.5488
90973003|NCT00852995|181828856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4343|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 11|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4343
90973004|NCT00852995|181828856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1114|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 11|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1114
90973005|NCT00852995|181828856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2119|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 12|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2119
90973006|NCT00852995|181828856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0194|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 12|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0194
90973007|NCT00852995|181828856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.506|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 12|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.506
90973008|NCT00852995|181828856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2317|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 12|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2317
90973009|NCT00852995|181828856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1144|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 13|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1144
90973010|NCT00852995|181828856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6786|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 13|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.6786
90973011|NCT00852995|181828856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7735|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 13|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.7735
90973012|NCT00852995|181828856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.758|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 13|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.758
90973013|NCT00852995|181828857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|||||Week 04|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.017
90973014|NCT00852995|181828857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|||||Week 04|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||.041
90973015|NCT00852995|181828857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|||||Week 05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||.017
90973016|NCT00852995|181828857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|||||Week 06|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||.011
90973017|NCT00852995|181828857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|||||Week 07|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||.014
90973018|NCT00852995|181828857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|||||Week 08|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||.029
90973019|NCT00852995|181828857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|||||Week 09|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||.021
91036297|NCT00796653|181959079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.266|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|<|0.0001||95.0|0.198|0.334|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.334|0.198|<0.0001
91036298|NCT00796653|181959080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.251|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|<|0.0001||95.0|0.182|0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.320|0.182|<0.0001
91036299|NCT00796653|181959080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.249|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|<|0.0001||95.0|0.18|0.318|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.318|0.180|<0.0001
91036300|NCT00796653|181959080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.281|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|<|0.0001||95.0|0.212|0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.350|0.212|<0.0001
91036301|NCT00796653|181959081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.229|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036|<|0.0001||95.0|0.159|0.299|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.299|0.159|<0.0001
91036302|NCT00796653|181959081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.247|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|<|0.0001||95.0|0.177|0.317|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.317|0.177|<0.0001
91036303|NCT00796653|181959081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.275|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036|<|0.0001||95.0|0.205|0.345|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.345|0.205|<0.0001
91036304|NCT00796653|181959082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.199|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036|<|0.0001||95.0|0.128|0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.270|0.128|<0.0001
90943106|NCT01568112|181766613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|51.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|41.055|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.65|135.2|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Flatulence||135.2|-31.65|
90943107|NCT01568112|181766614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.626|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.35|3.99|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Nausea||3.99|-7.35|
90943108|NCT01568112|181766614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.18|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.62|2.62|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Nausea||2.62|-6.62|
90943109|NCT01568112|181766614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.717|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.64|12.49|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Diarrhea||12.49|-11.64|
90943110|NCT01568112|181766614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.597|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.11|5.14||||||Diarrhea||5.14|-14.11|
90943111|NCT01568112|181766614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.794|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.57|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Upper abdominal pain||2.57|-1.10|
90943112|NCT01568112|181766614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.775|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|2.4|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Upper abdominal pain||2.40|-1.17|
90943113|NCT01568112|181766614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.705|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.08|2.79|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Lower abdominal pain||2.79|-5.08|
90943114|NCT01568112|181766614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|27.886|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.19|79.32|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Lower abdominal pain||79.32|-42.19|
90943115|NCT01568112|181766614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.801|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.65|8.56|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Indigestion||8.56|-3.65|
90943116|NCT01568112|181766614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.242|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.71|1.83|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Indigestion||1.83|-3.71|
90943117|NCT01568112|181766614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.649|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.73|60.38|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Constipation||60.38|-48.73|
90943118|NCT01568112|181766614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.219|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.38|33.91|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Constipation||33.91|-28.38|
90943119|NCT01568112|181766614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.811|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.56|6.83|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Bloating||6.83|-35.56|
91036305|NCT00796653|181959082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.213|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036|<|0.0001||95.0|0.142|0.283|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.283|0.142|<0.0001
91036306|NCT00796653|181959082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.241|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036|<|0.0001||95.0|0.17|0.312|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.312|0.170|<0.0001
91036307|NCT00796653|181959083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.218|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.0001||95.0|0.146|0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.290|0.146|<0.0001
91036308|NCT00796653|181959083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.237|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.0001||95.0|0.166|0.309|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.309|0.166|<0.0001
91036309|NCT00796653|181959083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.0001||95.0|0.148|0.292|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.292|0.148|<0.0001
90943120|NCT01568112|181766614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|67.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|41.961|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.88|157.1|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Bloating||157.1|-22.88|
90943121|NCT01568112|181766614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|98.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|74.566|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.01|255.3|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Flatulence||255.3|-58.01|
90943122|NCT01568112|181766614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.928|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.22|27.76|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Flatulence||27.76|-5.22|
90943123|NCT02641587|181766628|OTHER|"The analysis will test if the geometric LS mean level of MHBMA for CHTP is lower than for CC. The following hypothesis will be evaluated:~H0: XCHTP - XCC ≤ 0.0~HA: XCHTP - XCC \> 0.0~where XCHTP and XCC are the geometric LS means of CHTP and CC, respectively. H0 is rejected with a type I error α = 2.5% (one-sided test)."|LS Mean Reduction|85.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|82.06|87.47||The primary endpoints will be tested using a multiple testing procedure to preserve the overall alpha level by simultaneously testing the endpoints using a closed procedure with each test performed at an alpha level of 2.5% one sided.|Generalized linear model||Least squares (LS) means and estimate of the difference, and 95% CI will be back-transformed for obtaining geometric LS means for each arm, the reduction (calculated as 100% - ratio of CHTP 1.2 : CC \[%\]), and their 95% CI.|Analysis will be conducted on the natural log scale. The Day 5 levels of MHBMA will be analyzed by means of a generalized linear model using randomized arm as covariate adjusting for sex, average cigarette consumption over the previous 6 weeks prior to Admission (value at Admission for stratification), and log-transformed baseline value of MHBMA.||87.47|82.06|<0.001
90943124|NCT02641587|181766629|OTHER|"The analysis will test if the geometric LS mean level of 3-HPMA for CHTP is lower than for CC. The following hypothesis will be evaluated:~H0: XCHTP - XCC ≤ 0.0~HA: XCHTP - XCC \> 0.0~where XCHTP and XCC are the geometric LS means of CHTP and CC, respectively. H0 is rejected with a type I error α = 2.5% (one-sided test)."|LS Mean Reduction|40.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.25|48.73||The primary endpoints will be tested using a multiple testing procedure to preserve the overall alpha level by simultaneously testing the endpoints using a closed procedure with each test performed at an alpha level of 2.5% one sided.|Generalized linear model||Least squares (LS) means and estimate of the difference, and 95% CI will be back-transformed for obtaining geometric LS means for each arm, the reduction (calculated as 100% - ratio of CHTP 1.2 : CC \[%\]), and their 95% CI.|Analysis will be conducted on the natural log scale. The Day 5 levels of 3-HPMA will be analyzed by means of a generalized linear model using randomized arm as covariate adjusting for sex, average cigarette consumption over the previous 6 weeks prior to Admission (value at Admission for stratification), and log-transformed baseline value of 3-HPMA.||48.73|30.25|<0.001
90943125|NCT02641587|181766630|OTHER|"The analysis will test if the geometric LS mean level of S-PMA for CHTP is lower than for CC. The following hypothesis will be evaluated:~H0: XCHTP - XCC ≤ 0.0~HA: XCHTP - XCC \> 0.0~where XCHTP and XCC are the geometric LS means of CHTP and CC, respectively. H0 is rejected with a type I error α = 2.5% (one-sided test)."|LS Mean Reduction|83.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|81.61|85.9||The primary endpoints will be tested using a multiple testing procedure to preserve the overall alpha level by simultaneously testing the endpoints using a closed procedure with each test performed at an alpha level of 2.5% one sided.|Generalized linear model||Least squares (LS) means and estimate of the difference, and 95% CI will be back-transformed for obtaining geometric LS means for each arm, the reduction (calculated as 100% - ratio of CHTP 1.2 : CC \[%\]), and their 95% CI.|Analysis will be conducted on the natural log scale. The Day 5 levels of S-PMA will be analyzed by means of a generalized linear model using randomized arm as covariate adjusting for sex, average cigarette consumption over the previous 6 weeks prior to Admission (value at Admission for stratification), and log-transformed baseline value of S-PMA.||85.90|81.61|<0.001
90973020|NCT00852995|181828857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|||||Week 10|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||.041
91036310|NCT00796653|181959084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.088|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035||0.0133||95.0|0.018|0.157|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.157|0.018|0.0133
91036311|NCT00796653|181959084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.143|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|<|0.0001||95.0|0.073|0.212|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.212|0.073|<0.0001
91036312|NCT00796653|181959084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.082|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035||0.0212||95.0|0.012|0.151|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.151|0.012|0.0212
91036313|NCT00796653|181959085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.127|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||0.0004||95.0|0.057|0.197|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.197|0.057|0.0004
91036314|NCT00796653|181959085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.115|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||0.0012||95.0|0.045|0.185|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.185|0.045|0.0012
91036315|NCT00796653|181959085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.099|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||0.0056||95.0|0.029|0.169|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.169|0.029|0.0056
91036316|NCT00796653|181959086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.103|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||0.0045||95.0|0.032|0.173|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.173|0.032|0.0045
91036317|NCT00796653|181959086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.102|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||0.0046||95.0|0.032|0.173|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.173|0.032|0.0046
91036318|NCT00796653|181959086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||0.0023||95.0|0.039|0.181|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.181|0.039|0.0023
91036319|NCT00796653|181959087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.097|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.0077||95.0|0.026|0.169|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.169|0.026|0.0077
91036320|NCT00796653|181959087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.121|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||0.0009||95.0|0.05|0.193|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.193|0.050|0.0009
91036321|NCT00796653|181959087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.078|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.0339||95.0|0.006|0.149|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.149|0.006|0.0339
91036322|NCT00796653|181959088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.066|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.0718||95.0|-0.006|0.139|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.139|-0.006|0.0718
91036323|NCT00796653|181959088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.063|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.0863||95.0|-0.009|0.135|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.135|-0.009|0.0863
91036324|NCT00796653|181959088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.038|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.2982||95.0|-0.034|0.111|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.111|-0.034|0.2982
90943126|NCT02641587|181766631|OTHER|"The analysis will test if the geometric LS mean level of COHb for CHTP is lower than for CC. The following hypothesis will be evaluated:~H0: XCHTP - XCC ≤ 0.0~HA: XCHTP - XCC \> 0.0~where XCHTP and XCC are the geometric LS means of CHTP and CC, respectively. H0 is rejected with a type I error α = 2.5% (one-sided test)."|LS Mean Reduction|55.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.03|61.56||The primary endpoints will be tested using a multiple testing procedure to preserve the overall alpha level by simultaneously testing the endpoints using a closed procedure with each test performed at an alpha level of 2.5% one sided.|Generalized linear model||Least squares (LS) means and estimate of the difference, and 95% CI will be back-transformed for obtaining geometric LS means for each arm, the reduction (calculated as 100% - ratio of CHTP 1.2 : CC \[%\]), and their 95% CI.|Analysis will be conducted on the natural log scale. The Day 5 levels of COHb will be analyzed by means of a generalized linear model using randomized arm as covariate adjusting for sex, average cigarette consumption over the previous 6 weeks prior to Admission (value at Admission for stratification), and log-transformed baseline value of COHb.||61.56|49.03|<0.001
90973021|NCT00852995|181828857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|||||Week 10|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||.044
90973022|NCT00852995|181828857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|||||Week 11|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||.013
90973023|NCT00852995|181828857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|||||Week 11|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||.024
90973024|NCT00852995|181828857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|||||Week 12|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||.027
90973025|NCT00852995|181828859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0211|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value for Kaplan-Meier Days to Closure|ANCOVA|||||||0.0211
90973026|NCT00852995|181828859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.83||||0.0212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|3.04|||Regression, Cox|||||3.04|1.09|.0212
90973027|NCT00852995|181828859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.59
90973028|NCT00852995|181828859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|2.05||This is the P-value for the Cox Hazard Ratio|Regression, Cox|||||2.05|.69|0.53
90973029|NCT00852995|181828859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Kaplan-Meier Days to Closure||||||0.26
90973030|NCT00852995|181828859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.43||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.44||This is the P-value for the Cox Proportional Hazard Ratio|Regression, Cox|||||2.44|0.84|0.19
90973031|NCT00852995|181828859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value for Kaplan Meier Days to Closure|ANCOVA|||||||0.10
90973032|NCT00852995|181828859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.64||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|2.77||P-value for Cox Proportional Hazard Ratio|Regression, Cox|||||2.77|0.97|0.06
90973033|NCT00511355|181828865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0849||95.0||||No correction for multiple testing was made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for age class applied on the changes from baseline.||P-value compares the change from baseline to Cycle 6 between treatment groups.||||0.0849
90973034|NCT00511355|181828867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||No correction for multiple testing was made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for age class applied on the changes from baseline.||P-value compares the change from baseline to Cycle 6 between treatment groups.||||<.0001
90973035|NCT00511355|181828868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4191||95.0||||No correction for multiple testing was made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for age class applied on the changes from baseline.||P-value compares the change from baseline to Cycle 6 between treatment groups.||||0.4191
90973036|NCT00511355|181828869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001||95.0||||No correction for multiple testing was made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for age class applied on the changes from baseline.||P-value compares the change from baseline to Cycle 6 between treatment groups.||||0.0010
90973037|NCT00511355|181828873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3779||95.0||||No correction for multiple testing was made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for age class applied on the changes from baseline.||P-value compares the change from baseline to Cycle 6 between treatment groups.||||0.3779
90973038|NCT00511355|181828874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5027||95.0||||No correction for multiple testing was made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for age class applied on the changes from baseline.||P-value compares the change from baseline to Cycle 6 between treatment groups.||||0.5027
90973039|NCT00511355|181828875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0041||95.0||||No correction for multiple testing was made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for age class applied on the changes from baseline.||P-value compares the change from baseline to Cycle 6 between treatment groups.||||0.0041
90973040|NCT00511355|181828876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9662||95.0||||No correction for multiple testing was made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for age class applied on the changes from baseline.||P-value compares the change from baseline to Cycle 6 between treatment groups.||||0.9662
90973041|NCT00511355|181828877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0004||95.0||||No correction for multiple testing was made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for age class applied on the changes from baseline.||P-value compares the change from baseline to Cycle 6 between treatment groups.||||0.0004
90973042|NCT00511355|181828878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0019||95.0||||No correction for multiple testing was made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for age class applied on the changes from baseline.||P-value compares the change from baseline to Cycle 6 between treatment groups.||||0.0019
90973043|NCT00511355|181828879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9662||95.0||||No correction for multiple testing was made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for age class applied on the changes from baseline.||P-value compares the change from baseline to Cycle 6 between treatment groups.||||0.9662
90973044|NCT00511355|181828880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0187||95.0||||No correction for multiple testing was made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for age class applied on the changes from baseline.||P-value compares the change from baseline to Cycle 6 between treatment groups.||||0.0187
90973045|NCT00511355|181828881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||No correction for multiple testing was made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for age class applied on the changes from baseline.||P-value compares the change from baseline to Cycle 6 between treatment groups.||||<.0001
90973046|NCT00511355|181828882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6886||95.0||||No correction for multiple testing was made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for age class applied on the changes from baseline.||P-value compares the change from baseline to Cycle 6 between treatment groups.||||0.6886
90973047|NCT00511355|181828883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||No correction for multiple testing was made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for age class applied on the changes from baseline.||P-value compares the change from baseline to Cycle 6 between treatment groups.||||<.0001
90973048|NCT00511355|181828884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||No correction for multiple testing was made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for age class applied on the changes from baseline.||P-value compares the change from baseline to Cycle 6 between treatment groups.||||<.0001
90973049|NCT00511355|181828885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0083||95.0||||No correction for multiple testing was made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for age class applied on the changes from baseline.||P-value compares the change from baseline to Cycle 6 between treatment groups.||||0.0083
91036325|NCT00796653|181959089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.087|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.019||95.0|0.014|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.160|0.014|0.0190
90943127|NCT02641587|181766632|OTHER|"The analysis will test if the geometric LS mean level of Total NNAL for CHTP is lower than for CC. The following hypothesis will be evaluated:~H0: XCHTP - XCC ≤ 0.0~HA: XCHTP - XCC \> 0.0~where XCHTP and XCC are the geometric LS means of CHTP and CC, respectively. H0 is rejected with a type I error α = 2.5% (one-sided test)."|LS Mean Reduction|79.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|72.73|84.39||The primary endpoints will be tested using a multiple testing procedure to preserve the overall alpha level by simultaneously testing the endpoints using a closed procedure with each test performed at an alpha level of 2.5% one sided.|Generalized linear model||Least squares (LS) means and estimate of the difference, and 95% CI will be back-transformed for obtaining geometric LS means for each arm, the reduction (calculated as 100% - ratio of CHTP 1.2 : CC \[%\]), and their 95% CI.|Analysis will be conducted on the natural log scale. The Day 5 levels of Total NNAL will be analyzed by means of a generalized linear model using randomized arm as covariate adjusting for sex, average cigarette consumption over the previous 6 weeks prior to Admission (value at Admission for stratification), and log-transformed baseline value of Total NNAL.||84.39|72.73|<0.001
90943128|NCT01150045|181766635|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.03|||Log Rank|||||1.03|0.76|0.12
90943129|NCT00464945|181766655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.7||||||95.0|-3.9|5.6||||||For serotype 4 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC Manufacturing - 13vPnC Pilot) was calculated||5.6|-3.9|
90943130|NCT00464945|181766655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|3.3||||||95.0|-7.3|13.8||||||For serotype 6B the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC Manufacturing - 13vPnC Pilot) was calculated||13.8|-7.3|
90943131|NCT00464945|181766655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|2.3||||||95.0|-2.1|7.3||||||For serotype 9V the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC Manufacturing - 13vPnC Pilot) was calculated||7.3|-2.1|
90943132|NCT00464945|181766655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-1.6||||||95.0|-8.2|4.7||||||For serotype 14 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC Manufacturing - 13vPnC Pilot) was calculated||4.7|-8.2|
90943133|NCT00464945|181766655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|3.0||||||95.0|-2.8|9.2||||||For serotype 18C the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC Manufacturing - 13vPnC Pilot) was calculated||9.2|-2.8|
90943134|NCT00464945|181766655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.7||||||95.0|-3.5|5.1||||||For serotype 19F the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC Manufacturing - 13vPnC Pilot) was calculated||5.1|-3.5|
90943135|NCT00464945|181766655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|1.1||||||95.0|-8.4|10.6||||||For serotype 23F the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC Manufacturing - 13vPnC Pilot) was calculated||10.6|-8.4|
90943136|NCT00464945|181766655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|2.1||||||95.0|-4.8|9.2||||||For serotype 1 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC Manufacturing - 13vPnC Pilot) was calculated||9.2|-4.8|
90943137|NCT00464945|181766655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-1.7||||||95.0|-7.9|4.2||||||For serotype 3 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC Manufacturing - 13vPnC Pilot) was calculated||4.2|-7.9|
90943138|NCT00464945|181766655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|2.1||||||95.0|-5.6|9.9||||||For serotype 5 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC Manufacturing - 13vPnC Pilot) was calculated||9.9|-5.6|
91036326|NCT00796653|181959089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.0601||95.0|-0.003|0.143|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.143|-0.003|0.0601
91050419|NCT04168190|181987006|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.04|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 9N||2.04|0.58|
90943139|NCT00464945|181766655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-1.1||||||95.0|-9.9|7.6||||||For serotype 6A the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC Manufacturing - 13vPnC Pilot) was calculated||7.6|-9.9|
90943140|NCT00464945|181766655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-3.0|2.8||||||For serotype 7F the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC Manufacturing - 13vPnC Pilot) was calculated||2.8|-3.0|
90943141|NCT00464945|181766655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-3.6|3.5||||||For serotype 19A the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC Manufacturing - 13vPnC Pilot) was calculated||3.5|-3.6|
90943142|NCT00464945|181766659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.35||||||95.0|1.1|1.65||||||For serotype 4 the GMC ratio was calculated||1.65|1.10|
90943143|NCT00464945|181766659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.96||||||95.0|0.7|1.31||||||For serotype 6B the GMC ratio was calculated||1.31|0.70|
90943144|NCT00464945|181766659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.05||||||95.0|0.89|1.24||||||For serotype 9V the GMC ratio was calculated||1.24|0.89|
90943145|NCT00464945|181766659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.93||||||95.0|0.71|1.22||||||For serotype 14 the GMC ratio was calculated||1.22|0.71|
90943146|NCT00464945|181766659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.06||||||95.0|0.86|1.3||||||For serotype 18C the GMC ratio was calculated||1.30|0.86|
90943147|NCT00464945|181766659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.98||||||95.0|0.81|1.17||||||For serotype 19F the GMC ratio was calculated||1.17|0.81|
90943148|NCT00464945|181766659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.9||||||95.0|0.7|1.15||||||For serotype 23F the GMC ratio was calculated||1.15|0.70|
90943149|NCT00464945|181766659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.1||||||95.0|0.88|1.37||||||For serotype 1 the GMC ratio was calculated||1.37|0.88|
90973050|NCT00511355|181828886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0455||95.0||||No correction for multiple testing was made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for age class applied on the changes from baseline.||P-value compares the change from baseline to Cycle 6 between treatment groups.||||0.0455
90973051|NCT00511355|181828887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0063||95.0||||No correction for multiple testing was made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for age class applied on the changes from baseline.||P-value compares the change from baseline to Cycle 6 between treatment groups.||||0.0063
90973052|NCT00511355|181828888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||No correction for multiple testing was made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for age class applied on the changes from baseline.||P-value compares the change from baseline to Cycle 6 between treatment groups.||||<.0001
90973053|NCT00511355|181828889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||No correction for multiple testing was made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for age class applied on the changes from baseline.||P-value compares the change from baseline to Cycle 6 between treatment groups.||||<.0001
90973054|NCT00511355|181828890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0078||95.0||||No correction for multiple testing was made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for age class applied on the changes from baseline.||P-value compares the change from baseline to Cycle 6 between treatment groups.||||0.0078
90973055|NCT00511355|181828891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0016||95.0||||No correction for multiple testing was made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for age class applied on the changes from baseline.||P-value compares the change from baseline to Cycle 6 between treatment groups.||||0.0016
90973056|NCT00511355|181828892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0003||95.0||||No correction for multiple testing was made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for age class applied on the changes from baseline.||P-value compares the change from baseline to Cycle 6 between treatment groups.||||0.0003
90973057|NCT00511355|181828893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0009||95.0||||No correction for multiple testing was made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for age class applied on the changes from baseline.||P-value compares the change from baseline to Cycle 6 between treatment groups.||||0.0009
90973058|NCT00511355|181828894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0024||95.0||||No correction for multiple testing was made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for age class applied on the changes from baseline.||P-value compares the change from baseline to Cycle 6 between treatment groups.||||0.0024
91036327|NCT00796653|181959089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.2573||95.0|-0.031|0.115|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.115|-0.031|0.2573
90973059|NCT00511355|181828895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3653||95.0||||No correction for multiple testing was made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for age class applied on the changes from baseline.||P-value compares the change from baseline to Cycle 6 between treatment groups.||||0.3653
91036328|NCT00796653|181959090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.087|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.02||95.0|0.014|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.160|0.014|0.0200
91036329|NCT00796653|181959090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.121|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.0013||95.0|0.047|0.194|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.194|0.047|0.0013
90973060|NCT00511355|181828896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||No correction for multiple testing was made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for age class applied on the changes from baseline.||P-value compares the change from baseline to Cycle 6 between treatment groups.||||<.0001
90973061|NCT00511355|181828897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||No correction for multiple testing was made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for age class applied on the changes from baseline.||P-value compares the change from baseline to Cycle 6 between treatment groups.||||<.0001
90973062|NCT00511355|181828898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5668||95.0||||No correction for multiple testing was made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for age class applied on the changes from baseline.||P-value compares the change from baseline to Cycle 6 between treatment groups.||||0.5668
90973063|NCT00511355|181828899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.177||95.0||||No correction for multiple testing was made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for age class applied on the changes from baseline.||P-value compares the change from baseline to Cycle 6 between treatment groups.||||0.1770
90973064|NCT00511355|181828900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||No correction for multiple testing was made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for age class applied on the changes from baseline.||P-value compares the change from baseline to Cycle 6 between treatment groups.||||<.0001
90973065|NCT00217087|181828928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0098|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0098
91036330|NCT00796653|181959090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.053|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.1598||95.0|-0.021|0.126|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.126|-0.021|0.1598
90943150|NCT00464945|181766659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.0||||||95.0|0.83|1.2||||||For serotype 3 the GMC ratio was calculated||1.20|0.83|
90943151|NCT00464945|181766659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.95||||||95.0|0.79|1.16||||||For serotype 5 the GMC ratio was calculated||1.16|0.79|
90943152|NCT00464945|181766659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.83||||||95.0|0.66|1.05||||||For serotype 6A the GMC ratio was calculated||1.05|0.66|
90943153|NCT00464945|181766659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.93||||||95.0|0.79|1.11||||||For serotype 7F the GMC ratio was calculated||1.11|0.79|
90943154|NCT00464945|181766659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.95||||||95.0|0.79|1.13||||||For serotype 19A the GMC ratio was calculated||1.13|0.79|
90943155|NCT03831854|181766667|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0|0|0.08
90943156|NCT03831854|181766668|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Fisher Exact|The relative risk could not be assessed due to zero incidence in the treatment group||||||0.11
90943157|NCT03831854|181766669|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.3||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|98.5|-9.5|5.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||5.0|-9.5|0.63
90943158|NCT03831854|181766670|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|98.3|-1.7|2.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.6|-1.7|0.58
90943159|NCT03831854|181766671|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.3|3.8|||Chi-squared|||||3.8|0.3|1.0
90943160|NCT01663506|181766683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon's signed-rank test|||Change from Baseline at Month 3||||<0.01
90943161|NCT01663506|181766683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon's signed-rank test|||Change from Baseline at Month 6||||<0.01
90943162|NCT01663506|181766683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon's signed-rank test|||Change from Baseline at Month 12||||<0.01
90943163|NCT01663506|181766685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon's signed-rank test|||Change from Baseline at Month 6||||<0.001
90943164|NCT01663506|181766685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon's signed-rank test|||Change from Baseline at Month 12||||<0.0001
90943165|NCT01663506|181766686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon's signed-rank test|||Change from Baseline at Month 6||||<0.05
90943166|NCT01663506|181766686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon's signed-rank test|||Change from Baseline at Month 12||||<0.0001
90943167|NCT01663506|181766688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon's signed-rank test|||Change from Baseline at Month 6||||<0.05
90943168|NCT01663506|181766688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon's signed-rank test|||Change from Baseline at Month 12||||<0.01
90943169|NCT01663506|181766689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon's signed-rank test|||Change from Baseline at Month 12||||<0.01
90943170|NCT01663506|181766691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon's signed-rank test|||Change from Baseline at Month 6||||<0.001
90943171|NCT01663506|181766691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon's signed-rank test|||Change from Baseline at Month 12||||<0.01
90943172|NCT01663506|181766692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon's signed-rank test|||Change from Baseline at Month 6||||<0.05
90943173|NCT01663506|181766692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon's signed-rank test|||Change from Baseline at Month 12||||<0.01
90943174|NCT01663506|181766694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon's signed-rank test|||SJC28: Change from Baseline at Month 6||||<0.01
90943175|NCT01663506|181766694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon's signed-rank test|||TJC28: Change from Baseline at Month 6||||<0.01
90943176|NCT01663506|181766694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon's signed-rank test|||SJC28: Change from Baseline at Month 12||||<0.001
90943177|NCT01663506|181766694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon's signed-rank test|||TJC28: Change from Baseline at Month 12||||<0.01
90943178|NCT01663506|181766695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon's signed-rank test|||Change from Baseline at Month 6||||<0.01
90943179|NCT01663506|181766695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon's signed-rank test|||Change from Baseline at Month 12||||<0.001
90943180|NCT01663506|181766696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon's signed-rank test|||Change from Baseline at Month 6||||<0.01
90943181|NCT01663506|181766696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon's signed-rank test|||Change from Baseline at Month 12||||<0.001
90943182|NCT02431052|181766703|OTHER|||||||0.0006|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|ANCOVA with factors of treatment group (combined vehicle as one group) and baseline count as covariate.||||||0.0006
90943183|NCT02431052|181766704|OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|ANCOVA with factors of treatment group (combined vehicle as one group) and baseline count as covariate.||||||0.0002
90943184|NCT02431052|181766705|OTHER|||||||0.0055|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (vehicle treatment groups included as single combined treatment group).||||||0.0055
90943185|NCT02094898|181766706|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||alpha level of 0.05.||||<0.01
90943186|NCT02094898|181766706|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||alpha level of 0.05.||||<0.05
90943187|NCT02094898|181766707|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||alpha level of 0.05.||||<0.001
90943188|NCT02094898|181766708|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||alpha level of 0.05.||||<0.01
90943189|NCT02094898|181766708|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||alpha level of 0.05.||||<0.01
90943190|NCT02094898|181766708|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||alpha level of 0.05.||||<0.08
90943191|NCT02094898|181766709|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||alpha level of 0.05.||||<0.001
90943192|NCT02094898|181766710|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||alpha level of 0.05.||||<0.01
90943193|NCT02094898|181766710|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||alpha level of 0.05.||||<0.08
90943194|NCT02094898|181766711|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||alpha level of 0.05.||||<0.01
90943195|NCT02094898|181766712|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||alpha level of 0.05.||||<0.01
90943196|NCT02094898|181766712|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||alpha level of 0.05.||||<0.01
90943197|NCT02094898|181766713|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||alpha level of 0.05.||||<0.01
90973066|NCT00217087|181828929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.34
90943198|NCT02094898|181766714|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||alpha level of 0.05.||||<0.08
90943199|NCT02094898|181766714|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||alpha level of 0.05.||||<0.08
90973067|NCT00217087|181828930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|the only participant who reported a decrease quality of life related that to a recent surgery not their esophagus.||||||0.2
91036331|NCT00796653|181959091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.081|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038||0.0307||95.0|0.008|0.155|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.155|0.008|0.0307
91036332|NCT00796653|181959091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.101|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038||0.0073||95.0|0.027|0.175|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.175|0.027|0.0073
91036333|NCT00796653|181959091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.038|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038||0.3147||95.0|-0.036|0.112|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.112|-0.036|0.3147
91036334|NCT00796653|181959092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.233|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.0001||95.0|0.16|0.306|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.306|0.160|<0.0001
91036335|NCT00796653|181959092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.229|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.0001||95.0|0.156|0.302|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.302|0.156|<0.0001
90943200|NCT02094898|181766715|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||alpha level of 0.05.||||<0.001
90943201|NCT02094898|181766716|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||alpha level of 0.05.||||<0.05
90943202|NCT02094898|181766716|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||alpha level of 0.05.||||<0.08
90943203|NCT02094898|181766717|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||alpha level of 0.05.||||<0.001
90943204|NCT02094898|181766718|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||alpha level of 0.05.||||<0.01
90943205|NCT02094898|181766718|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||alpha level of 0.05.||||<0.01
90943206|NCT03520075|181766730|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Least Squares Mean (Geo LSM)|27.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.5|91.2|||||Ratio of Geo LSM was calculated for Cohort 6 (fed state) and Cohort 9 (fasted state) treatment arm groups of 80 mg ASTX029.|Comparison of effect of food on AUC0-24 between Cohort 6 (fed state) and Cohort 9 (fasted state) treatment arm groups of 80 mg ASTX029 in C1D1.||91.2|8.50|
90943207|NCT03520075|181766730|SUPERIORITY||Geo LSM|38.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|11.4|132.0|||||Ratio of Geo LSM was calculated for Cohort 6 (fed state) and Cohort 9 (fasted state) treatment arm groups of 80 mg ASTX029.|Comparison of effect of food on AUC0-24 between Cohort 6 (fed state) and Cohort 9 (fasted state) treatment arm groups of 80 mg ASTX029 in C2D1.||132|11.4|
90943208|NCT03520075|181766730|SUPERIORITY||Geo LSM|58.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|15.7|222.0|||||Ratio of Geo LSM was calculated for Cohort 7 (fed state) and Cohort 10 (fasted state) treatment arm groups of 120 mg ASTX029.|Comparison of effect of food on AUC0-24 between Cohort 7 (fed state) and Cohort 10 (fasted state) treatment arm groups of 120 mg ASTX029 in C1D1.||222|15.7|
90943209|NCT03520075|181766730|SUPERIORITY||Geo LSM|47.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|20.7|108.0|||||Ratio of Geo LSM was calculated for Cohort 7 (fed state) and Cohort 10 (fasted state) treatment arm groups of 120 mg ASTX029.|Comparison of effect of food on AUC0-24 between Cohort 7 (fed state) and Cohort 10 (fasted state) treatment arm groups of 120 mg ASTX029 in C2D1.||108|20.7|
90943210|NCT03520075|181766731|SUPERIORITY||Geo LSM|18.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.28|61.9|||||Ratio of Geo LSM was calculated for Cohort 6 (fed state) and Cohort 9 (fasted state) treatment arm groups of 80 mg ASTX029.|Comparison of effect of food on AUC0-inf between Cohort 6 (fed state) and Cohort 9 (fasted state) treatment arm groups of 80 mg ASTX029 in C1D1.||61.9|5.28|
90943211|NCT03520075|181766731|SUPERIORITY||Geo LSM|44.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.32|234.0|||||Ratio of Geo LSM was calculated for Cohort 6 (fed state) and Cohort 9 (fasted state) treatment arm groups of 80 mg ASTX029.|Comparison of effect of food on AUC0-inf between Cohort 6 (fed state) and Cohort 9 (fasted state) treatment arm groups of 80 mg ASTX029 in C2D1.||234|8.32|
90943212|NCT03520075|181766731|SUPERIORITY||Geo LSM|58.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|15.7|220.0|||||Ratio of Geo LSM was calculated for Cohort 7 (fed state) and Cohort 10 (fasted state) treatment arm groups of 120 mg ASTX029.|Comparison of effect of food on AUC0-inf between Cohort 7 (fed state) and Cohort 10 (fasted state) treatment arm groups of 120 mg ASTX029 in C1D1.||220|15.7|
90943213|NCT03520075|181766731|SUPERIORITY||Geo LSM|40.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|14.3|113.0|||||Ratio of Geo LSM was calculated for Cohort 7 (fed state) and Cohort 10 (fasted state) treatment arm groups of 120 mg ASTX029.|Comparison of effect of food on AUC0-inf between Cohort 7 (fed state) and Cohort 10 (fasted state) treatment arm groups of 120 mg ASTX029 in C2D1.||113|14.3|
90943214|NCT03520075|181766732|SUPERIORITY||Geo LSM|17.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.62|54.3|||||Ratio of Geo LSM was calculated for Cohort 6 (fed state) and Cohort 9 (fasted state) treatment arm groups of 80 mg ASTX029.|Comparison of effect of food on Cmax between Cohort 6 (fed state) and Cohort 9 (fasted state) treatment arm groups of 80 mg ASTX029 in C1D1.||54.3|5.62|
90943215|NCT03520075|181766732|SUPERIORITY||Geo LSM|34.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|12.0|99.4|||||Ratio of Geo LSM was calculated for Cohort 6 (fed state) and Cohort 9 (fasted state) treatment arm groups of 80 mg ASTX029.|Comparison of effect of food on Cmax between Cohort 6 (fed state) and Cohort 9 (fasted state) treatment arm groups of 80 mg ASTX029 in C2D1.||99.4|12.0|
90943216|NCT03520075|181766732|SUPERIORITY||Geo LSM|72.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|17.6|299.0|||||Ratio of Geo LSM was calculated for Cohort 7 (fed state) and Cohort 10 (fasted state) treatment arm groups of 120 mg ASTX029.|Comparison of effect of food on Cmax between Cohort 7 (fed state) and Cohort 10 (fasted state) treatment arm groups of 120 mg ASTX029 in C1D1.||299|17.6|
90943217|NCT03520075|181766732|SUPERIORITY||Geo LSM|72.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|29.1|181.0|||||Ratio of Geo LSM was calculated for Cohort 7 (fed state) and Cohort 10 (fasted state) treatment arm groups of 120 mg ASTX029.|Comparison of effect of food on Cmax between Cohort 7 (fed state) and Cohort 10 (fasted state) treatment arm groups of 120 mg ASTX029 in C1D1.||181|29.1|
90943218|NCT03520075|181766733|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Estimator|-2.275||||0.0388671|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.216|-0.083|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The Hodges-Lehmann estimator and 90% confidence interval (CI) was calculated using the Moses approximation.|Comparison of effect of food on Tmax between Cohort 6 (fed state) and Cohort 9 (fasted state) treatment arm groups of 80 mg ASTX029 in C1D1.||-0.0830|-5.2160|0.0388671
90973068|NCT00802685|181828931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|4.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.0||0.858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|36.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: Oxygen duration (days) during the first 28 days will be equal between treatment arms.||36|4|0.858
90973069|NCT00802685|181828932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.953||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.393|2.309|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||null hypothesis: The proportion of subjects on O2 at 36 wk PMA will be equal between treatment arms.||2.309|0.393|0.8
90973070|NCT01328951|181828948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.8183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.22|||Log Rank||The HR and 95% confidence interval (CI) were estimated by Cox regression.|Unstratified Analysis.||1.22|0.85|0.8183
91036336|NCT00796653|181959092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.248|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.0001||95.0|0.175|0.321|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.321|0.175|<0.0001
91036337|NCT00796653|181959093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.247|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038|<|0.0001||95.0|0.174|0.321|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.321|0.174|<0.0001
91036338|NCT00796653|181959093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.221|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.0001||95.0|0.148|0.295|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.295|0.148|<0.0001
91036339|NCT00796653|181959093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.254|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038|<|0.0001||95.0|0.18|0.328|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.328|0.180|<0.0001
90973071|NCT01328951|181828948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.5256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.32|||Log Rank||The HR and 95% CI were estimated by Cox regression.|Stratified Analysis: Stratified according to tumor histology, stage of disease, objective response at Baseline, bevacizumab use, smoking status, and region of enrollment.||1.32|0.87|0.5256
90943219|NCT03520075|181766733|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Estimator|1.45||||0.4795001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.917|5.15|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The Hodges-Lehmann estimator and 90% CI was calculated using the Moses approximation.|Comparison of effect of food on Tmax between Cohort 6 (fed state) and Cohort 9 (fasted state) treatment arm groups of 80 mg ASTX029 in C2D1.||5.1500|-0.9170|0.4795001
90943220|NCT03520075|181766733|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Estimator|-0.45||||0.8272593|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.467|0.95|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The Hodges-Lehmann estimator and 90% CI was calculated using the Moses approximation.|Comparison of effect of food on Tmax between Cohort 7 (fed state) and Cohort 10 (fasted state) treatment arm groups of 120 mg ASTX029 in C1D1.||0.9500|-2.4670|0.8272593
90943221|NCT03520075|181766733|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Estimator|0.583||||0.5126908|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.45|3.5|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The Hodges-Lehmann estimator and 90% CI was calculated using the Moses approximation.|Comparison of effect of food on Tmax between Cohort 7 (fed state) and Cohort 10 (fasted state) treatment arm groups of 120 mg ASTX029 in C2D1.||3.5000|-6.4500|0.5126908
90943222|NCT03305809|181766757|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.776|0.969|||||Analyses were conducted using a bayesian mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM), and posterior mean change difference is reported.|||0.969|-2.776|
90973072|NCT01328951|181828949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Event-Free Rate|-0.4||||0.9207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.25|7.45|||Chi-squared|||||7.45|-8.25|0.9207
90973073|NCT01328951|181828951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.4759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.11|||Log Rank||The HR and 95% CI were estimated by Cox regression.|Unstratified Analysis.||1.11|0.80|0.4759
90973074|NCT01328951|181828951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.1635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.06|||Log Rank||The HR and 95% CI were estimated by Cox regression.|Stratified Analysis: Stratified according to tumor histology, stage of disease, objective response at Baseline, bevacizumab use, smoking status, and region of enrollment.||1.06|0.72|0.1635
90973075|NCT01328951|181828952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Event-Free Rate|-2.89||||0.4069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|3.93|||Chi-squared|||||3.93|-9.70|0.4069
90973076|NCT01328951|181828953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Response Rate|2.78||||0.1097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|6.35|||Chi-squared||The 95% CI for difference in response rates was constructed using the Anderson-Hauck method.|||6.35|-0.78|0.1097
90973077|NCT01328951|181828953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|3.72|||||The 95% CI for OR was constructed using the Wald method.|||3.72|0.87|
91036340|NCT00796653|181959094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.215|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038|<|0.0001||95.0|0.141|0.289|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.289|0.141|<0.0001
90943223|NCT03305809|181766757|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.996|1.879|||||Analyses were conducted using a bayesian MMRM, and posterior mean change difference is reported.|||1.879|-1.996|
90943224|NCT03305809|181766757|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.873|1.277|||||Analyses were conducted using a bayesian MMRM, and posterior mean change difference is reported.|||1.277|-2.873|
90943225|NCT03305809|181766758|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.15|-0.54|0.273
91036341|NCT00796653|181959094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.226|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038|<|0.0001||95.0|0.151|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.300|0.151|<0.0001
90973078|NCT01328951|181828955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Response Rate|1.99||||0.6062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.74|9.72|||Chi-squared||The 95% CI for difference in response rates was constructed using the Anderson-Hauck method.|||9.72|-5.74|0.6062
90973079|NCT01328951|181828955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.49|||||The 95% CI for OR was constructed using the Wald method.|||1.49|0.79|
90973080|NCT03485820|181828956|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.3||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|9.6||P value shown is for group by time interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis||Between group differences in changes over time (COMPASS vs Education program)|A linear mixed effects model was used to assess the effects of time, group and the interaction of group and time on the outcome. A significant interaction of group and time would indicate that the two groups had significantly different changes in the outcome over time. The model adjusted for race, marital status, living situation, depression, number of days in inpatient rehabilitation, and baseline calendar time.||9.6|-7.1|0.76
91050420|NCT04168190|181987006|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|1.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.71|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 10A||2.71|0.90|
90943226|NCT03305809|181766758|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.30|-1.02|<0.001
90943227|NCT03305809|181766758|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|-0.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.53|-1.29|< 0.001
90943228|NCT03305809|181766759|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-70.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|68.495||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-205.53|64.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||64.11|-205.53|0.303
90943229|NCT03305809|181766759|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-107.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|69.647||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-244.09|30.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||30.06|-244.09|0.125
90943230|NCT03305809|181766759|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-123.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|72.892||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-267.18|19.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||19.74|-267.18|0.091
90943231|NCT03305809|181766760|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.985||0.686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|1.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.54|-2.34|0.686
90943232|NCT03305809|181766760|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.011||0.485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|1.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.28|-2.70|0.485
90943233|NCT03305809|181766760|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.064||0.406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.98|1.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.21|-2.98|0.406
90943234|NCT03305809|181766761|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.603||0.464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|1.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.63|-0.74|0.464
90943235|NCT03305809|181766761|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.623||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.45|-1.00|0.720
90943236|NCT03305809|181766761|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.655||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|2.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.24|-0.34|0.149
90943237|NCT03305809|181766762|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.213||0.607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.01|1.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Total Score||1.76|-3.01|0.607
90943238|NCT03305809|181766762|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.265||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.19|0.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Total Score||0.79|-4.19|0.180
90943239|NCT03305809|181766762|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.325||0.572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.36|1.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Total Score||1.86|-3.36|0.572
90943240|NCT03305809|181766762|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.173||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Delusions||0.17|-0.51|0.320
90943241|NCT03305809|181766762|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Delusions||-0.02|-0.73|0.037
90943242|NCT03305809|181766762|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Delusions||0.26|-0.49|0.558
90943243|NCT03305809|181766762|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.182||0.924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hallucinations||0.34|-0.38|0.924
90943244|NCT03305809|181766762|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.189||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hallucinations||0.02|-0.73|0.061
90943245|NCT03305809|181766762|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.199||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hallucinations||0.10|-0.68|0.148
90943246|NCT03305809|181766762|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Agitation/Aggression||0.25|-0.46|0.552
90943247|NCT03305809|181766762|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.188||0.735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Agitation/Aggression||0.31|-0.43|0.735
90943248|NCT03305809|181766762|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.197||0.224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Agitation/Aggression||0.15|-0.63|0.224
90943249|NCT03305809|181766762|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.216||0.783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Depression/Dysphoria||0.48|-0.37|0.783
90943250|NCT03305809|181766762|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.226||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Depression/Dysphoria||0.34|-0.55|0.640
90943251|NCT03305809|181766762|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.236||0.592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Depression/Dysphoria||0.34|-0.59|0.592
90943252|NCT03305809|181766762|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.197||0.993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Anxiety||0.39|-0.39|0.993
90943253|NCT03305809|181766762|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.205||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Anxiety||0.62|-0.19|0.290
90943254|NCT03305809|181766762|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.215||0.722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Anxiety||0.35|-0.50|0.722
90943255|NCT03305809|181766762|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.097||0.246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Elation/Euphoria||0.08|-0.30|0.246
90943256|NCT03305809|181766762|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.101||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Elation/Euphoria||0.06|-0.34|0.175
90943257|NCT03305809|181766762|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.106||0.482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Elation/Euphoria||0.13|-0.28|0.482
90943258|NCT03305809|181766762|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.266||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Apathy/Indifference||0.07|-0.97|0.091
90943259|NCT03305809|181766762|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.278||0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Apathy/Indifference||0.23|-0.87|0.248
90943260|NCT03305809|181766762|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Apathy/Indifference||0.38|-0.76|0.516
90973081|NCT03485820|181828957|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.8||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|5.0||P value shown is for group by time interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis||Between group differences in changes over time (COMPASS vs Education program)|A linear mixed effects model was used to assess the effects of time, group and the interaction of group and time on the outcome. A significant interaction of group and time would indicate that the two groups had significantly different changes in the outcome over time. The model adjusted for race, marital status, living situation, depression, number of days in inpatient rehabilitation, and baseline calendar time.||5.0|-8.6|0.60
90973082|NCT03485820|181828958|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.05||P value shown is for group by time interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis||Between group differences in changes over time (COMPASS vs Education program)|A linear mixed effects model was used to assess the effects of time, group and the interaction of group and time on the outcome. A significant interaction of group and time would indicate that the two groups had significantly different changes in the outcome over time. The model adjusted for race, marital status, living situation, depression, number of days in inpatient rehabilitation, and baseline calendar time.||0.05|-0.06|0.83
90943261|NCT03305809|181766762|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.114||0.875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Disinhibition||0.24|-0.21|0.875
90943262|NCT03305809|181766762|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.119||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Disinhibition||0.57|0.10|0.005
90943263|NCT03305809|181766762|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.125||0.761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Disinhibition||0.28|-0.21|0.761
90943264|NCT03305809|181766762|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.181||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Irritability/Lability||0.12|-0.60|0.183
90943265|NCT03305809|181766762|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.189||0.765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Irritability/Lability||0.31|-0.43|0.765
90943266|NCT03305809|181766762|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.198||0.279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Irritability/Lability||0.61|-0.18|0.279
90973083|NCT03485820|181828959|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.39||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.77||P value shown is for group by time interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis||Between group differences in changes over time (COMPASS vs Education program)|A linear mixed effects model was used to assess the effects of time, group and the interaction of group and time on the outcome. A significant interaction of group and time would indicate that the two groups had significantly different changes in the outcome over time. The model adjusted for race, marital status, living situation, depression , number of days in inpatient rehabilitation, and baseline calendar time.||0.77|0.01|0.046
90973084|NCT03485820|181828960|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.52||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.96||P value shown is for group by time interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis||Between group differences in changes over time (COMPASS vs Education program)|A linear mixed effects model was used to assess the effects of time, group and the interaction of group and time on the outcome. A significant interaction of group and time would indicate that the two groups had significantly different changes in the outcome over time. The model adjusted for race, marital status, living situation, depression, number of days in inpatient rehabilitation, and baseline calendar time.||0.96|0.08|0.02
90973085|NCT03485820|181828961|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.6||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.9|0.8||P value shown is for group by time interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis||Between group differences in changes over time (COMPASS vs Education program)|A linear mixed effects model was used to assess the effects of time, group and the interaction of group and time on the outcome. A significant interaction of group and time would indicate that the two groups had significantly different changes in the outcome over time. The model adjusted for race, marital status, living situation, depression, number of days in inpatient rehabilitation, and baseline calendar time.||0.8|-21.9|0.07
90973086|NCT04289116|181828962|SUPERIORITY||Chi Square|1.36||||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||Negative Binomial Regression|||Analysis only includes participants who participated in the We Test - Index arm and Individual HIV Testing and Counseling - Index arm on their own.||||0.20
90973087|NCT04289116|181828962|SUPERIORITY||Chi Square|0.03||||0.58|TWO_SIDED||||||Negative Binomial Regression|||Analysis only includes participants who participated in the We Test - Index arm and Individual HIV Testing and Counseling - Index arm on their own.||||0.58
90973088|NCT04289116|181828963|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.82||||0.08|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis only includes participants who participated in the We Test - Index arm and Individual HIV Testing and Counseling - Index arm on their own.||||0.08
90973089|NCT04289116|181828963|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis only includes participants who participated in the We Test - Index arm and Individual HIV Testing and Counseling - Index arm on their own.||||0.02
90973090|NCT04209855|181828975|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.513|0.785|||Log Rank|||||0.785|0.513|<0.0001
90973091|NCT00271817|181828989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-38.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5|<|0.001||95.0|-41.4|-35.4||A fixed sequence testing procedure was employed where testing followed a prespecified order and each subsequent hypothesis was tested at the 0.05 level of significance only if all previously tested hypotheses have been rejected.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with terms for treatment, baseline LDL-C, baseline TG, and gender.|Mean difference = Ezetimibe/Simvastatin + Niacin minus Niacin|||-35.4|-41.4|<0.001
91036342|NCT00796653|181959094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.265|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038|<|0.0001||95.0|0.191|0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.340|0.191|<0.0001
91036343|NCT00796653|181959095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.182|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|<|0.0001||95.0|0.106|0.258|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.258|0.106|<0.0001
91036344|NCT00796653|181959095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038|<|0.0001||95.0|0.105|0.256|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.256|0.105|<0.0001
91036345|NCT00796653|181959095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.207|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|<|0.0001||95.0|0.132|0.283|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.283|0.132|<0.0001
91036346|NCT00796653|181959096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.188|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|<|0.0001||95.0|0.111|0.265|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.265|0.111|<0.0001
91036347|NCT00796653|181959096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.214|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|<|0.0001||95.0|0.138|0.291|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.291|0.138|<0.0001
91036348|NCT00796653|181959096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.192|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|<|0.0001||95.0|0.115|0.269|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.269|0.115|<0.0001
91036349|NCT00796653|181959097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.707|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.435||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.004|22.411|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||Comparison for weekly mean daytime rescue use||22.411|5.004|0.0021
91036350|NCT00796653|181959097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.871|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.44|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.158|29.584|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||Comparison for weekly mean daytime rescue use||29.584|12.158|<0.0001
91036351|NCT00796653|181959097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.249|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.454||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.506|22.991|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||Comparison for weekly mean daytime rescue use||22.991|5.506|0.0014
90890030|NCT01571362|181644035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.263||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|-0.25|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariate.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Screening to Week 8.||-0.25|-1.29|0.0038
91036352|NCT00796653|181959097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.463||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.64|26.16|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||Comparison for weekly mean nighttime rescue use||26.160|8.640|0.0001
91036353|NCT00796653|181959097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.875|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.444|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.153|31.596|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||Comparison for weekly mean nighttime rescue use||31.596|14.153|<0.0001
91036354|NCT00796653|181959097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.816|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.475||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.032|24.599|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||Comparison for weekly mean nighttime rescue use||24.599|7.032|0.0004
91036355|NCT00796653|181959098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.153|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121||0.2057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.391|-0.084|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||Comparison for weekly mean daytime rescue use||-0.084|-0.391|0.2057
91036356|NCT00796653|181959098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.266|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121||0.0284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.504|-0.028|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||Comparison for weekly mean daytime rescue use||-0.028|-0.504|0.0284
91036357|NCT00796653|181959098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.222|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.122||0.0685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.461|0.017|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||Comparison for weekly mean daytime rescue use||0.017|-0.461|0.0685
91036358|NCT00796653|181959098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.278|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.152||0.0674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.576|0.02|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||Comparison for weekly mean nighttime rescue use||0.020|-0.576|0.0674
91036359|NCT00796653|181959098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.365|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0163||0.0163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.662|-0.067|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||Comparison for weekly mean nighttime rescue use||-0.067|-0.662|0.0163
91036360|NCT00796653|181959098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.153||0.0364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.02|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||Comparison for weekly mean nighttime rescue use||-0.020|-0.620|0.0364
91036361|NCT00796653|181959098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.424|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.254||0.0959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.922|0.075|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||Comparison for weekly mean daily (24h) rescue use||0.075|-0.922|0.0959
91036362|NCT00796653|181959098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.616|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.254||0.0155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.115|-0.117|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||Comparison for weekly mean daily (24h) rescue use||-0.117|-1.115|0.0155
90943267|NCT03305809|181766762|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.147||0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Aberrant Motor Behavior||0.46|-0.12|0.252
90943268|NCT03305809|181766762|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.154||0.526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Aberrant Motor Behavior||0.20|-0.40|0.526
90943269|NCT03305809|181766762|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.161||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Aberrant Motor Behavior||0.36|-0.28|0.800
90943270|NCT03305809|181766762|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sleep/Nighttime Behavior Disorders||0.98|-0.59|0.623
90943271|NCT03305809|181766762|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.418||0.354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|0.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sleep/Nighttime Behavior Disorders||0.44|-1.21|0.354
90943272|NCT03305809|181766762|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.437||0.809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|0.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sleep/Nighttime Behavior Disorders||0.75|-0.97|0.809
90943273|NCT03305809|181766762|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.376||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Appetite/Eating Disorders||0.64|-0.84|0.790
90943274|NCT03305809|181766762|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.392||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Appetite/Eating Disorders||0.35|-1.20|0.280
90943275|NCT03305809|181766762|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.412||0.797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Appetite/Eating Disorders||0.92|-0.70|0.797
90943276|NCT03305809|181766763|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|0.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.49|-1.91|0.247
90943277|NCT03305809|181766763|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.631||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|0.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.36|-2.12|0.164
90973092|NCT00271817|181828990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-33.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5|<|0.001||95.0|-36.5|-30.6||A fixed sequence testing procedure was employed where testing followed a prespecified order and each subsequent hypothesis was tested at the 0.05 level of significance only if all previously tested hypotheses have been rejected.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with terms for treatment, baseline LDL-C, baseline TG, and gender.|Mean difference = Ezetimibe/Simvastatin + Niacin minus Niacin|||-30.6|-36.5|<0.001
90973093|NCT00271817|181828991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6|<|0.001||95.0|18.8|25.3||A fixed sequence testing procedure was employed where testing followed a prespecified order and each subsequent hypothesis was tested at the 0.05 level of significance only if all previously tested hypotheses have been rejected.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with terms for treatment, baseline LDL-C, baseline TG, and gender.|Mean difference = Ezetimibe/Simvastatin + Niacin minus Niacin|||25.3|18.8|<0.001
90973094|NCT00271817|181828992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-18.7|||<|0.001||95.0|-22.6|-14.7||A fixed sequence testing procedure was employed where testing followed a prespecified order and each subsequent hypothesis was tested at the 0.05 level of significance only if all previously tested hypotheses have been rejected.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA using ranks based on normal scores (Tukey method) with model terms for treatment, baseline LDL-C, baseline TG and gender|"Mean difference = Ezetimibe/Simvastatin + Niacin minus Niacin~The median difference is based on the Hodges-Lehmann estimates of shift; The distribution-free 95% CI is based on Wilcoxon's rank sum test statistic."|||-14.7|-22.6|<0.001
90973095|NCT00271817|181828993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8|<|0.001||95.0|18.0|25.0||A fixed sequence testing procedure was employed where testing followed a prespecified order and each subsequent hypothesis was tested at the 0.05 level of significance only if all previously tested hypotheses have been rejected.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with terms for treatment, baseline LDL-C, baseline TG, and gender.|Mean difference = Ezetimibe/Simvastatin + Niacin minus Niacin|||25.0|18.0|<0.001
90973096|NCT00271817|181828994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-17.6|||<|0.001||95.0|-21.8|-13.6||A fixed sequence testing procedure was employed where testing followed a prespecified order and each subsequent hypothesis was tested at the 0.05 level of significance only if all previously tested hypotheses have been rejected.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA using ranks based on normal scores (Tukey method) with model terms for treatment, baseline LDL-C, baseline TG and gender.|"Median difference = Ezetimibe/Simvastatin + Niacin minus Ezetimibe/Simvastatin~The median difference is based on the Hodges-Lehmann estimates of shift; The distribution-free 95% CI is based on Wilcoxon's rank sum test statistic."|||-13.6|-21.8|<0.001
91036363|NCT00796653|181959098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.541|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.256||0.0347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.042|-0.039|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||Comparison for weekly mean daily (24h) rescue use||-0.039|-1.042|0.0347
90943278|NCT03305809|181766763|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.663||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.29|-2.90|0.017
90943279|NCT03305809|181766764|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.86||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.04|-0.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.77|-12.04|0.026
90943280|NCT03305809|181766764|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.969||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.24|-1.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.53|-13.24|0.014
90943281|NCT03305809|181766764|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.104|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.72|-4.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.48|-16.72|<0.001
90943282|NCT03305809|181766765|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.362||0.683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|3.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.24|-2.13|0.683
90943283|NCT03305809|181766765|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.413||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|5.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.19|-0.37|0.089
90943284|NCT03305809|181766765|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.489||0.294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|4.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.49|-1.37|0.294
90943285|NCT03305809|181766766|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.389||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.40|-0.13|0.105
90943286|NCT03305809|181766766|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.406||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.87|0.27|0.009
90943287|NCT03305809|181766766|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.428||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|1.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.33|-0.35|0.253
90943288|NCT03305809|181766767|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.923||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.56|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Motor Experiences of Daily Living||0.08|-3.56|0.061
90943289|NCT03305809|181766767|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.26|-0.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Motor Experiences of Daily Living||-0.47|-4.26|0.014
90943290|NCT03305809|181766767|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.013|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|-1.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Motor Experiences of Daily Living||-1.51|-5.50|<0.001
90943291|NCT03305809|181766767|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.822||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.86|0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Motor Exam||0.32|-6.86|0.074
90943292|NCT03305809|181766767|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.891||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|0.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Motor Exam||0.45|-7.00|0.085
90943293|NCT03305809|181766767|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.959||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.09|-0.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Motor Exam||-0.37|-8.09|0.032
90943294|NCT03305809|181766769|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.92|5.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sitting Systolic Blood Pressure||5.61|-4.92|0.898
90943295|NCT03305809|181766769|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6||||0.821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.71|5.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sitting Systolic Blood Pressure||5.94|-4.71|0.821
90943296|NCT03305809|181766769|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|9.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.11|14.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sitting Systolic Blood Pressure||14.61|4.11|<0.001
90943297|NCT03305809|181766769|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|3.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sitting Diastolic Blood Pressure||3.08|-2.40|0.805
90943298|NCT03305809|181766769|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9||||0.513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|3.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sitting Diastolic Blood Pressure||3.69|-1.85|0.513
90943299|NCT03305809|181766769|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.6||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|6.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sitting Diastolic Blood Pressure||6.28|0.83|0.011
90943300|NCT03305809|181766770|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.5||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|5.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.08|-0.16|0.065
90943301|NCT03305809|181766770|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.6||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|6.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.21|0.93|0.008
90943302|NCT03305809|181766770|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|8.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.06|11.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.27|6.06|<0.001
90943303|NCT03305809|181766771|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.6||||0.339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|4.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sitting Systolic Blood Pressure||4.99|-1.72|0.339
90943304|NCT03305809|181766771|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.2||||0.486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|4.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sitting Systolic Blood Pressure||4.73|-2.26|0.486
90943305|NCT03305809|181766771|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.2||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|7.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sitting Systolic Blood Pressure||7.81|0.56|0.024
90943306|NCT03305809|181766771|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|1.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sitting Diastolic Blood Pressure||1.88|-2.04|0.935
90943307|NCT03305809|181766771|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.7||||0.505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|2.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sitting Diastolic Blood Pressure||2.72|-1.34|0.505
90943308|NCT03305809|181766771|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.22||||0.266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|3.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sitting Diastolic Blood Pressure||3.30|-0.91|0.266
90943309|NCT03305809|181766772|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|2.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.41|-1.28|0.550
90943310|NCT03305809|181766772|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.8||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|3.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.68|-0.14|0.069
90943311|NCT03305809|181766772|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.9||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|4.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.83|0.89|0.005
90943312|NCT03305809|181766773|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.0||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.92|-0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sitting Systolic Blood Pressure||-0.15|-13.92|0.045
90943313|NCT03305809|181766773|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.1||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.05|10.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sitting Systolic Blood Pressure||10.32|-4.05|0.390
90943314|NCT03305809|181766773|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1||||0.768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.32|6.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sitting Systolic Blood Pressure||6.16|-8.32|0.768
90943315|NCT03305809|181766773|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.3||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.48|-0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sitting Diastolic Blood Pressure||-0.17|-8.48|0.041
90943316|NCT03305809|181766773|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.81|3.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sitting Diastolic Blood Pressure||3.72|-4.81|0.802
90943317|NCT03305809|181766773|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.4||||0.284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.67|1.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sitting Diastolic Blood Pressure||1.97|-6.67|0.284
90943318|NCT03305809|181766774|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.17|4.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.19|-4.17|0.996
90943319|NCT03305809|181766774|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.99|3.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.69|-4.99|0.767
90943320|NCT03305809|181766774|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.791|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.96|3.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.79|-4.96|0.791
90943321|NCT03305809|181766775|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.98||||0.312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|2.88|||ANCOVA|||Week 12||2.88|-0.93|0.312
90943322|NCT03305809|181766775|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.03||||0.289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|2.95|||ANCOVA|||Week 12||2.95|-0.89|0.289
90943323|NCT03305809|181766775|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.56||||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|3.65|||ANCOVA|||Week 12||3.65|-0.53|0.141
90943324|NCT03305809|181766775|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.06||||0.954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|2.01|||ANCOVA|||Week 12||2.01|-1.89|0.954
90943325|NCT03305809|181766775|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.59||||0.584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|2.7|||ANCOVA|||||2.70|-1.53|0.584
90943326|NCT03305809|181766775|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.53||||0.623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|2.65|||ANCOVA|||Week 12||2.65|-1.59|0.623
91036364|NCT00796653|181959099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0164||95.0|-0.4|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.0|-0.4|0.0164
91036365|NCT00796653|181959099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0196||95.0|-0.4|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.0|-0.4|0.0196
91036366|NCT00796653|181959099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0041||95.0|-0.5|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||-0.1|-0.5|0.0041
91036367|NCT00796653|181959100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0388||95.0|-0.4|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.0|-0.4|0.0388
90943327|NCT03305809|181766775|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.39||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|3.79|||ANCOVA|||Follow-up||3.79|-1.02|0.256
91036368|NCT00796653|181959100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0038||95.0|-0.5|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.1|-0.5|0.0038
91036369|NCT00796653|181959100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0053||95.0|-0.5|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||-0.1|-0.5|0.0053
91036370|NCT00796653|181959101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0555||95.0|-0.4|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.0|-0.4|0.0555
91036371|NCT00796653|181959101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0122||95.0|-0.4|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.1|-0.4|0.0122
91036372|NCT00796653|181959101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0144||95.0|-0.4|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||-0.1|-0.4|0.0144
91036373|NCT00796653|181959102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.5707||95.0|-0.3|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.1|-0.3|0.5707
90973097|NCT00271817|181828995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6|<|0.001||95.0|-10.4|-4.2||A fixed sequence testing procedure was employed where testing followed a prespecified order and each subsequent hypothesis was tested at the 0.05 level of significance only if all previously tested hypotheses have been rejected.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with terms for treatment, baseline LDL-C, baseline TG, and gender.|Median difference = Ezetimibe/Simvastatin + Niacin minus Ezetimibe/Simvastatin|||-4.2|-10.4|<0.001
90973098|NCT00271817|181828996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.004||95.0|-8.0|-1.5||A fixed sequence testing procedure was employed where testing followed a prespecified order and each subsequent hypothesis was tested at the 0.05 level of significance only if all previously tested hypotheses have been rejected.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with terms for treatment, baseline LDL-C, baseline TG, and gender.|Mean difference = Ezetimibe/Simvastatin + Niacin minus Ezetimibe/Simvastatin|||-1.5|-8.0|0.004
90973099|NCT00271817|181828997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4|<|0.001||95.0|-7.7|-2.1||A fixed sequence testing procedure was employed where testing followed a prespecified order and each subsequent hypothesis was tested at the 0.05 level of significance only if all previously tested hypotheses have been rejected.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with terms for treatment, baseline LDL-C, baseline TG, and gender.|Mean difference = Ezetimibe/Simvastatin + Niacin minus Niacin|||-2.1|-7.7|<0.001
90973100|NCT00271817|181828998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4|<|0.001||95.0|-10.4|-5.0||A fixed sequence testing procedure was employed where testing followed a prespecified order and each subsequent hypothesis was tested at the 0.05 level of significance only if all previously tested hypotheses have been rejected.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with terms for treatment, baseline LDL-C, baseline TG, and gender.|Mean difference = Ezetimibe/Simvastatin + Niacin minus Ezetimibe/Simvastatin|||-5.0|-10.4|<0.001
90973101|NCT01411085|181829031|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.0||||0.317|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The assessment was between baseline and values for last 8 weeks.||||0.317
90973102|NCT01564862|181829032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.744||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|3.21||P-value was from an ANCOVA model with treatment and center as fixed factors and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||3.21|0.28|0.019
90973103|NCT01564862|181829032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.733||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|2.65||P-value was from an ANCOVA model with treatment and center as fixed factors and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||2.65|-0.23|0.099
90973104|NCT01564862|181829032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.725||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|1.96||P-value was from an ANCOVA model with treatment and center as fixed factors and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||1.96|-0.89|0.460
90973105|NCT01564862|181829033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|-1.0||P-value was from a MMRM model with baseline\*week, center, week, treatment and week\*treatment as factors in the analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.0|-4.1|0.001
90973106|NCT01564862|181829033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|-1.5||P-value was from a MMRM model with baseline\*week, center, week, treatment and week\*treatment as factors in the analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.5|-4.5|<0.001
90973107|NCT01564862|181829034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1211||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.528|-0.052||P-value was from a MMRM model with baseline\*week, center, week, treatment and week\*treatment as factors in the analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.052|-0.528|0.017
90973108|NCT01564862|181829034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.404|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1194|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.638|-0.169||P-value was from a MMRM model with baseline\*week, center, week, treatment and week\*treatment as factors in the analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.169|-0.638|<0.001
90973109|NCT03809611|181829047|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.77||0.1832|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.34|4.56||One-sided p-value for treatment difference|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.56|-1.34|0.1832
90973110|NCT03809611|181829048|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.283|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.72|4.78|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.78|0.72|0.2830
90973111|NCT00313209|181829050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|49.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.0|71.0||No adjustment of the significance level (0.05) was done as a hierarchical approach for hypotheses testing was used.|ANCOVA|Repeated measurements analysis (change from baseline over 24 weeks of treatment taking all post-randomization measurements into account).||||71|27|<0.0001
90973112|NCT00313209|181829051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|60.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.0|82.0||No adjustment of the significance level (0.05) was done as a hierarchical approach for hypotheses testing was used.|ANCOVA|Repeated measurements analysis (change from baseline over 24 weeks of treatment taking all post-randomization measurements into account).||||82|38|<0.0001
90973113|NCT00313209|181829052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.1408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.08||No adjustment of the significance level (0.05) was done as a hierarchical approach for hypotheses testing was used.|Poisson regression|||||1.08|0.58|0.1408
90973114|NCT00313209|181829053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.4654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.4||No adjustment of the significance level (0.05) was done as a hierarchical approach for hypotheses testing was used.|ANCOVA|Repeated measurements analysis (change from baseline over 24 weeks of treatment taking all post-randomization measurements into account).||||0.4|-0.2|0.4654
90973115|NCT00313209|181829054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.5457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|2.2||No adjustment of the significance level (0.05) was done as a hierarchical approach for hypotheses testing was used.|ANCOVA|Repeated measurements analysis (change from baseline over 24 weeks of treatment taking all post-randomization measurements into account).||||2.2|-1.2|0.5457
90973116|NCT02193074|181829055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentages|50.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.81|66.48|||Fisher Exact||exact unconditional confidence interval|||66.48|31.81|< 0.0001
90973117|NCT02193074|181829056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0046|||||||Log Rank|Based on log-rank test stratified by disease duration.||||||0.0046
90973118|NCT02193074|181829056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53||||0.0164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3156|0.8902|||Cox proportional hazards model|Based on Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for each subject's disease duration at screening.||||0.8902|0.3156|0.0164
90973119|NCT02193074|181829057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||DIfference in percentages|68.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.27|81.99|||Fisher Exact|||||81.99|51.27|< 0.0001
90973120|NCT02193074|181829058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0041|||||||Log Rank|Based on log-rank test stratified by disease duration (primary analysis).||||||0.0041
90973121|NCT02193074|181829058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.372||||0.0082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1787|0.7745|||Cox proportional hazards|Based on Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for each subject's disease duration at screening (sensitivity analysis).||||0.7745|0.1787|0.0082
90973122|NCT02193074|181829060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentages|30.21||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.35|48.09|||Fisher Exact|||||48.09|10.35|0.0004
90973123|NCT02193074|181829061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0003|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0003
90973124|NCT02193074|181829061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.24||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1002|0.5753|||Cox proportional hazards|Based on Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for each subject's disease duration at screening.||||0.5753|0.1002|0.0014
90973125|NCT02193074|181829062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3953|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.3953
90973126|NCT02193074|181829062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.844||||0.6268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.427|1.6698|||Cox proportional hazards|Based on Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for each subject's disease duration at screening.||||1.6698|0.4270|0.6268
90973127|NCT03124563|181829086|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.006|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Controlling for age, gender, and functional health||||||=.006
90973128|NCT03124563|181829087|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.034|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Controlling for age, gender, and functional health||||||.034
90973129|NCT03124563|181829088|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.065|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Controlling for age, gender, and education||||||.065
90973130|NCT03124563|181829089|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.308|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Controlling for age, gender, and level of education||||||.308
90973131|NCT03124563|181829090|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.349|||||||ANOVA|||||||.349
90973132|NCT03124563|181829091|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Controlling for age, gender, and level of education||||||.022
90973133|NCT03160560|181829167|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline, Week 1, Week 2, Week 3||||<0.010
90973134|NCT03160560|181829167|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.932|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline, Week 1, Week 2, Week 3||||.932
90973135|NCT03160560|181829167|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.853|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline 2, Week 6, Week 7, Week 8||||.853
90973136|NCT03160560|181829167|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.032|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline-2, Week 6, Week 7, Week 8||||.032
90973137|NCT03160560|181829167|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline, Week 1, Week 2, Week 3||||<0.001
90973138|NCT03160560|181829167|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline, Week 1, Week 2, Week 3||||.750
90973139|NCT03160560|181829167|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline 2, Week 6, Week 7, Week 8||||.810
90973140|NCT03160560|181829167|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline 2, Week 6, Week 7, Week 8||||.006
90973141|NCT02814565|181829177|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|||The 2-sample Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 0.05 level of significance.||||0.6179
90973142|NCT02814565|181829178|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4338|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 7. The 2-sample Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 0.05 level of significance.||||0.4338
90973143|NCT02814565|181829178|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1657|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 14. The 2-sample Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 0.05 level of significance.||||0.1657
90973144|NCT02814565|181829179|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0393|||||||Wilcoxon Sum Rank Test|||The 2-sample Wilcoxon sum rank test was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 0.05 level of significance.||||0.0393
90973145|NCT02814565|181829180|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.033|||||||Wilcoxon Sum Rank Test|||Day 7. The 2-sample Wilcoxon sum rank test was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 0.05 level of significance.||||0.0330
90943328|NCT03305809|181766775|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.41||||0.258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|3.86|||ANCOVA|||Follow-up||3.86|-1.04|0.258
90943329|NCT03305809|181766775|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.93|7.25|||ANCOVA|||Follow-up||7.25|1.93|<0.001
90943330|NCT03305809|181766775|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02||||0.988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.47|2.51|||ANCOVA|||Follow-up||2.51|-2.47|0.988
90943331|NCT03305809|181766775|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.2||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|5.9|||ANCOVA|||Follow-up||5.90|0.51|0.020
90943332|NCT03305809|181766775|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.18||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|5.91|||ANCOVA|||Follow-up||5.91|0.46|0.022
90943333|NCT05146206|181766783|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<.001
90943334|NCT05146206|181766784|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||MANOVA|||||||<0.001
90943335|NCT00816556|181766785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||ANOVA|||Dryness severity: P-value for the global F-test testing for all treatment arm effects equal.||||0.42
90943336|NCT00816556|181766785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||ANOVA|||Dryness bothersomeness: P-value for the global F-test testing for all treatment arm effects equal.||||0.22
90943337|NCT00816556|181766785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||ANOVA|||Itching severity: P-value for the global F-test testing for all treatment arm effects equal.||||0.37
90943338|NCT00816556|181766785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||ANOVA|||Itching bothersomeness: P-value for the global F-test testing for all treatment arm effects equal.||||0.27
90943339|NCT00816556|181766785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46|||||||ANOVA|||Burning severity: P-value for the global F-test testing for all treatment arm effects equal.||||0.46
90943340|NCT00816556|181766785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|||||||ANOVA|||Burning bothersomeness: P-value for the global F-test testing for all treatment arm effects equal.||||0.67
90943341|NCT00816556|181766786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline vs. week 2: P-value for the global F-test testing for all treatment arm effects equal.||||0.33
90943342|NCT00816556|181766786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline vs. week 12: P-value for the global F-test testing for all treatment arm effects equal.||||0.99
90943343|NCT00816556|181766786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58|||||||ANOVA|||Week 2 vs. week 12: P-value for the global F-test testing for all treatment arm effects equal.||||0.58
90943344|NCT00816556|181766787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline vs. week 2: P-value for the global F-test testing for all treatment arm effects equal.||||0.007
90943345|NCT00816556|181766787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline vs. week 12: P-value for the global F-test testing for all treatment arm effects equal.||||0.32
90943346|NCT00816556|181766787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||ANOVA|||Week 2 vs. week 12: P-value for the global F-test testing for all treatment arm effects equal.||||0.02
90943347|NCT03546816|181766788|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.229||||||P-value from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by Baseline WI-NRS used for randomization stratification. Value has been adjusted for multiple imputation.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.229
90943348|NCT03546816|181766789|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013||||||P-value from a CMH test stratified by Baseline WI-NRS used for randomization stratification. Value has been adjusted for multiple imputation.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.013
90943349|NCT03546816|181766790|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.236||||||P-value from a CMH test stratified by Baseline WI-NRS used for randomization stratification. Value has been adjusted for multiple imputation.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.236
90943350|NCT03546816|181766791|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.083||||||P-values, least squares means (LS Mean) and standard deviations (LS SD) from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment group and stratification factor as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||At Week 2||||0.083
90973146|NCT02814565|181829180|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0262|||||||Wilcoxon Sum Rank Test|||Day 15. The 2-sample Wilcoxon sum rank test was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 0.05 level of significance.||||0.0262
90973147|NCT02814565|181829181|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5756|||||||Wilcoxon Sum Rank Test|||Day 3. The 2-sample Wilcoxon sum rank test was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 0.05 level of significance.||||0.5756
90973148|NCT02814565|181829181|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4395|||||||Wilcoxon Sum Rank Test|||Day 7. The 2-sample Wilcoxon sum rank test was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 0.05 level of significance.||||0.4395
90943351|NCT03546816|181766791|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.049||||||P-values, LS mean and SD from ANCOVA with treatment group and stratification factor as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||At Week 4||||0.049
90943352|NCT03546816|181766791|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.081||||||P-values, LS mean and SD from ANCOVA with treatment group and stratification factor as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||At Week 6||||0.081
90943353|NCT03546816|181766791|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.157||||||P-values, LS mean and SD from ANCOVA with treatment group and stratification factor as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||At Week 10||||0.157
90943354|NCT03546816|181766792|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.151||||||P-value from a CMH test stratified by Baseline WI-NRS used for randomization stratification. Value has been adjusted for multiple imputation.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At Week 2||||0.151
90943355|NCT03546816|181766792|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.052||||||P-value from a CMH test stratified by Baseline WI-NRS used for randomization stratification. Value has been adjusted for multiple imputation.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At Week 4||||0.052
91036374|NCT00796653|181959102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0814||95.0|-0.4|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.0|-0.4|0.0814
91036375|NCT00796653|181959102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.7413||95.0|-0.2|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.2|-0.2|0.7413
91036376|NCT00796653|181959103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.437|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.305||0.1524||95.0|-0.162|1.036|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.036|-0.162|0.1524
91036377|NCT00796653|181959103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.706|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.306||0.0211||95.0|0.106|1.307|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.307|0.106|0.0211
91036378|NCT00796653|181959103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.464|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.307||0.1314||95.0|-0.139|1.066|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||1.066|-0.139|0.1314
91036379|NCT00796653|181959104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.662|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.308||0.0319||95.0|0.057|1.267|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.267|0.057|0.0319
91050421|NCT04168190|181987006|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|1.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|3.23|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 10A||3.23|1.08|
90943356|NCT03546816|181766792|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.175||||||P-value from a CMH test stratified by Baseline WI-NRS used for randomization stratification. Value has been adjusted for multiple imputation.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At Week 10||||0.175
90943357|NCT03546816|181766793|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.475||||||P-values, LS mean and SD from ANCOVA with treatment group and stratification factor as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||At Week 2||||0.475
90943358|NCT03546816|181766793|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||P-values, LS mean and SD from ANCOVA with treatment group and stratification factor as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||At Week 4||||0.020
90943359|NCT03546816|181766793|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.492||||||P-values, LS mean and SD from ANCOVA with treatment group and stratification factor as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||At Week 10||||0.492
90943360|NCT03546816|181766794|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.175||||||P-values, LS mean and SD from ANCOVA with treatment group and stratification factor as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||At Week 2||||0.175
90943361|NCT03546816|181766794|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.169||||||P-values, LS mean and SD from ANCOVA with treatment group and stratification factor as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||At Week 4||||0.169
90943362|NCT03546816|181766794|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.516||||||P-values, LS mean and SD from ANCOVA with treatment group and stratification factor as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||At Week 10||||0.516
90943363|NCT03546816|181766795|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.814||||||P-values, LS mean and SD from ANCOVA with treatment group and stratification factor as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||At Week 10||||0.814
90943364|NCT03546816|181766796|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.113||||||P-values, LS mean and SD from ANCOVA with treatment group and stratification factor as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||At Week 10||||0.113
90943365|NCT01161446|181766798|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90943366|NCT01161446|181766799|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority bound: Self-testing was to be considered non-inferior to standard testing if the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval for the odds ratio fell below 2.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.9|||Regression, Logistic|Used generalized estimating equations with exchangeable working correlation and robust standard errors to account for repeated measures.|The home testing arm represents the numerator and the standard testing arm the denominator.|||1.90|0.61|
90943367|NCT01161446|181766800|NON_INFERIORITY|Home testing was to be considered non-inferior to standard testing with respect to STI prevalence if the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval for the difference between the two arms (home - standard) fell below 10%.|Difference in proportions|-0.068|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.016||||||||0.016|-0.16|
90943368|NCT01161446|181766801|NON_INFERIORITY|Self-testing was to be considered non-inferior with respect to the number of reported male CAI partners if the upper bound of the 95% CI for the fold-difference in the number of partners between the two arms (self ÷ standard testing) fell below 2.|Incidence Rate Ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.33|||Poisson regression|Used generalized estimating equations with exchangeable working correlation and robust standard errors to account for repeated measures.|The home testing arm represents the numerator and the standard testing arm the denominator.|||1.33|0.64|
90943369|NCT02270671|181766804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Group x Time interaction p-value: \>.05; Gender p-value: \>.05|ANOVA|2x2x3 repeated measures ANOVA. 2 between-subjects factors (Group; Gender) and 1 within-subject factor (Time). P value adjusted to p \< .025.||||||>.05
90943370|NCT02270671|181766805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Group x Time interaction p-value: \>.05; Gender p-value: =.026|ANOVA|2x2x3 repeated measures ANOVA. 2 between-subjects factors (Group; Gender) and 1 within-subject factor (Time). P value adjusted to p \< .025.||||||>.05
90943371|NCT02270671|181766806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Group x Time interaction p-value: \>.05; Gender p-value: \>.05|ANOVA|2x2x3 repeated measures ANOVA. 2 between-subjects factors (Group; Gender) and 1 within-subject factor (Time). P value adjusted to p \< .025.||||||>.05
90943372|NCT02270671|181766807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Group x Time interaction p-value: \>.05; Gender p-value: \<.0001|ANOVA|2x2x3 repeated measures ANOVA. 2 between-subjects factors (Group; Gender) and 1 within-subject factor (Time). P value adjusted to p \< .025.||||||>.05
90973149|NCT02814565|181829181|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0905|||||||Wilcoxon Sum Rank Test|||Day 14. The 2-sample Wilcoxon sum rank test was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 0.05 level of significance.||||0.0905
90973150|NCT02814565|181829182|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||"Day 3. A two-tailed Fisher's exact test to compare the number of responders between the Placebo and the Cyclobenzaprine HCl 15 mg treatment group to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 0.05 level of significance."||||1.0000
90973151|NCT02814565|181829182|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||"Day 7. A two-tailed Fisher's exact test to compare the number of responders between the Placebo and the Cyclobenzaprine HCl 15 mg treatment group to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 0.05 level of significance."||||1.0000
91050422|NCT04168190|181987006|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.49|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 11A||1.49|0.53|
90973152|NCT02814565|181829182|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2757|||||||Fisher Exact|||"Day 14. A two-tailed Fisher's exact test to compare the number of responders between the Placebo and the Cyclobenzaprine HCl 15 mg treatment group to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 0.05 level of significance."||||0.2757
90973153|NCT02814565|181829183|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.302|||||||Wilcoxon Sum Rank Test|||Day 3. The 2-sample Wilcoxon sum rank test was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 0.05 level of significance.||||0.3020
90973154|NCT02814565|181829183|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2367|||||||Wilcoxon Sum Rank Test|||Day 7. The 2-sample Wilcoxon sum rank test was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 0.05 level of significance.||||0.2367
90973155|NCT02814565|181829183|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.025|||||||Wilcoxon Sum Rank Test|||Day 15. The 2-sample Wilcoxon sum rank test was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 0.05 level of significance.||||0.0250
90973156|NCT02814565|181829184|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4428|||||||Wilcoxon Sum Rank Test|||Day 3. The 2-sample Wilcoxon sum rank test was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 0.05 level of significance.||||0.4428
90973157|NCT02814565|181829184|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1163|||||||Wilcoxon Sum Rank Test|||Day 7. The 2-sample Wilcoxon sum rank test was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 0.05 level of significance.||||0.1163
90973158|NCT02814565|181829184|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0489|||||||Wilcoxon Sum Rank Test|||Day 15. The 2-sample Wilcoxon sum rank test was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 0.05 level of significance.||||0.0489
90973159|NCT02814565|181829185|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5275|||||||Wilcoxon Sum Rank Test|||Day 3. The 2-sample Wilcoxon sum rank test was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 0.05 level of significance.||||0.5275
90973160|NCT02814565|181829185|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.088|||||||Wilcoxon Sum Rank Test|||Day 7. The 2-sample Wilcoxon sum rank test was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 0.05 level of significance.||||0.0880
90973161|NCT02814565|181829185|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2542|||||||Wilcoxon Sum Rank Test|||Day 15. The 2-sample Wilcoxon sum rank test was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 0.05 level of significance.||||0.2542
90973162|NCT02814565|181829186|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.692|||||||Wilcoxon Sum Rank Test|||Day 3. The 2-sample Wilcoxon sum rank test was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 0.05 level of significance.||||0.6920
90973163|NCT02814565|181829186|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0749|||||||Wilcoxon Sum Rank Test|||Day 7. The 2-sample Wilcoxon sum rank test was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 0.05 level of significance.||||0.0749
90973164|NCT02814565|181829186|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2371|||||||Wilcoxon Sum Rank Test|||Day 15. The 2-sample Wilcoxon sum rank test was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 0.05 level of significance.||||0.2371
90973165|NCT05587296|181829188|SUPERIORITY||Diffrence in Least Squares (LS) means|-3.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44|<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|||||One-sided. A multiplicity adjustment strategy was defined using the hierarchical testing strategy, controlling the overall type I error rate at a one-sided alpha level of 0.025 for confirmatory statistical superiority testing.|Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|||||||<0.0001
90973166|NCT05587296|181829189|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-3.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|||||One-sided. A multiplicity adjustment strategy was defined using the hierarchical testing strategy, controlling the overall type I error rate at a one-sided alpha level of 0.025 for confirmatory statistical superiority testing.|MMRM|||||||<0.0001
90973167|NCT05587296|181829194|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-6.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|||||One-sided. A multiplicity adjustment strategy was defined using the hierarchical testing strategy, controlling the overall type I error rate at a one-sided alpha level of 0.025 for confirmatory statistical superiority testing.|MMRM|||||||<0.0001
90943373|NCT02270671|181766808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Group x Time interaction p-value: \>.05; Gender p-value: =.007|ANOVA|2x2x3 repeated measures ANOVA. 2 between-subjects factors (Group; Gender) and 1 within-subject factor (Time). P value adjusted to p \< .025.||||||>.05
90943374|NCT02007200|181766809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.005|||||||Linear Repeated Measures Model|||||||<0.005
90943375|NCT01657799|181766815|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.933|||||||Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified by graded prognostic assessment (GPA) score (≤ 2.5 or \> 2.5) at screening. Nominal P-values were reported.||The primary analysis used a Hochberg testing procedure to preserve the familywise error rate for multiple comparisons, where the larger P-value for the comparisons of veliparib 50 mg BID + WBRT with placebo BID + WBRT and veliparib 200 mg BID + WBRT with placebo BID + WBRT were compared to an α = 0.05. If statistically significant (P ≤ 0.05), both comparisons were considered significant. If the larger P-value was not statistically significant, the smaller P-value was compared to an α = 0.025.||||0.933
90943376|NCT01657799|181766815|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.909|||||||Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified by GPA score (≤ 2.5 or \> 2.5) at screening. Nominal P-values were reported.||The primary analysis used a Hochberg testing procedure to preserve the familywise error rate for multiple comparisons, where the larger P-value for the comparisons of veliparib 50 mg BID + WBRT with placebo BID + WBRT and veliparib 200 mg BID + WBRT with placebo BID + WBRT were compared to an α = 0.05. If statistically significant (P ≤ 0.05), both comparisons were considered significant. If the larger P-value was not statistically significant, the smaller P-value was compared to an α = 0.025.||||0.909
90943377|NCT01657799|181766815|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.985||||0.927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.716|1.355|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model stratified by GPA score (≤ 2.5 or \> 2.5) at screening. Nominal P-values were reported.||||1.355|0.716|0.927
90943378|NCT01657799|181766815|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.981||||0.906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.354|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model stratified by GPA score (≤ 2.5 or \> 2.5) at screening. Nominal P-values were reported.||||1.354|0.710|0.906
90943379|NCT01657799|181766816|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.535|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by GPA score (≤ 2.5 or \> 2.5) at screening.||||||0.535
90943380|NCT01657799|181766816|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.898|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by GPA score (≤ 2.5 or \> 2.5) at screening.||||||0.898
90943381|NCT01657799|181766817|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.314|||||||Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified by GPA score (≤ 2.5 or \> 2.5) at screening.||||||0.314
90943382|NCT01657799|181766817|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.536|||||||Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified by GPA score (≤ 2.5 or \> 2.5) at screening.||||||0.536
90943383|NCT01657799|181766817|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.301||||0.313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.168|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model stratified by GPA score (≤ 2.5 or \> 2.5) at screening.||||2.168|0.780|0.313
90943384|NCT01657799|181766817|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.181||||0.534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.698|1.999|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model stratified by GPA score (≤ 2.5 or \> 2.5) at screening.||||1.999|0.698|0.534
90943385|NCT01657799|181766818|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.864|||||||Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified by GPA score (≤ 2.5 or \> 2.5) at screening.||||||0.864
91036380|NCT00796653|181959104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.667|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.0312||95.0|0.06|1.274|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.274|0.060|0.0312
90943386|NCT01657799|181766818|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.301|||||||Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified by GPA score (≤ 2.5 or \> 2.5) at screening.||||||0.301
90943387|NCT01657799|181766818|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.047||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.626|1.754|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model stratified by GPA score (≤ 2.5 or \> 2.5) at screening.||||1.754|0.626|0.860
90943388|NCT01657799|181766818|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.295||||0.289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.803|2.086|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model stratified by GPA score (≤ 2.5 or \> 2.5) at screening.||||2.086|0.803|0.289
90943389|NCT03927690|181766823|SUPERIORITY||Difference (Test vs Reference)|-2.6||||0.887|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.2|1.0|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison of model-based mean estimates.|Day 2||1.0|-6.2|0.887
90943390|NCT03927690|181766823|SUPERIORITY||Difference (Test vs Reference)|0.3||||0.431|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.6|3.2|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison of model-based mean estimates.|Day 2||3.2|-2.6|0.431
90943391|NCT03927690|181766823|SUPERIORITY||Difference (Test vs Reference)|-1.0||||0.647|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.4|3.4|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison of model-based mean estimates.|Day 8||3.4|-5.4|0.647
90943392|NCT03927690|181766823|SUPERIORITY||Difference (Test vs Reference)|2.4||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.1|6.0|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison of model-based mean estimates.|Day 8||6.0|-1.1|0.130
90943393|NCT03927690|181766823|SUPERIORITY||Difference (Test vs Reference)|-2.5||||0.818|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.9|2.0|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison of model-based mean estimates|Day 15||2.0|-6.9|0.818
90943394|NCT03927690|181766823|SUPERIORITY||Difference (Test vs Reference)|0.3||||0.457|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.6|4.1|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison of model-based mean estimates.|Day 15||4.1|-3.6|0.457
90943395|NCT03927690|181766823|SUPERIORITY||Difference (Test vs Reference)|-3.1||||0.906|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.9|0.8|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison of model-based mean estimates.|Day 29||0.8|-6.9|0.906
90943396|NCT03927690|181766823|SUPERIORITY||Difference (Test vs Reference)|-0.4||||0.566|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.1|3.3|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison of model-based mean estimates.|Day 29||3.3|-4.1|0.566
90943397|NCT03927690|181766823|SUPERIORITY||Difference (Test vs Reference)|-1.3||||0.686|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.6|3.1|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison of model-based mean estimates.|Day 43||3.1|-5.6|0.686
90943398|NCT03927690|181766823|SUPERIORITY||Difference (Test vs Reference)|1.4||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.5|5.2|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison of model-based mean estimates.|Day 43||5.2|-2.5|0.280
91036381|NCT00796653|181959104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.419|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.311||0.1777||95.0|-0.191|1.029|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||1.029|-0.191|0.1777
90943399|NCT03927690|181766823|SUPERIORITY||Difference (Test vs Reference)|-2.4||||0.849|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.3|1.4|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison of model-based mean estimates.|Day 57||1.4|-6.3|0.849
90943400|NCT03927690|181766823|SUPERIORITY||Difference (Test vs Reference)|1.5||||0.254|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.2|5.2|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison of model-based mean estimates.|Day 57||5.2|-2.2|0.254
90943401|NCT03927690|181766823|SUPERIORITY||Difference (Test vs Reference)|-2.7||||0.866|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.6|1.3|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison of model-based mean estimates.|Day 85||1.3|-6.6|0.866
90943402|NCT03927690|181766823|SUPERIORITY||Difference (Test vs Reference)|2.0||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.9|5.8|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison of model-based mean estimates.|Day 85||5.8|-1.9|0.198
90943403|NCT03927690|181766829|SUPERIORITY||Ratio (Test vs Reference)|1.2||||0.998|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.08|1.33|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison of model-based mean estimates.|Day 8||1.33|1.08|0.998
90943404|NCT03927690|181766829|SUPERIORITY||Ratio (Test vs Reference)|1.0||||0.527|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.09|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison of model-based mean estimates.|Day 8||1.09|0.92|0.527
90943405|NCT03927690|181766829|SUPERIORITY||Ratio (Test vs Reference)|1.21||||0.999|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1|1.33|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison of model-based mean estimates|Day 15||1.33|1.10|0.999
90943406|NCT03927690|181766829|SUPERIORITY||Ratio (Test vs Reference)|1.03||||0.716|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|1.12|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison of model-based mean estimates.|Day 15||1.12|0.95|0.716
90943407|NCT03927690|181766829|SUPERIORITY||Ratio (Test vs Reference)|1.21||||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.13|1.31|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison of model-based mean estimates.|Day 29||1.31|1.13|1.000
90943408|NCT03927690|181766829|SUPERIORITY||Ratio (Test vs Reference)|0.98||||0.281|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.05|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison of model-based mean estimates.|Day 29||1.05|0.91|0.281
90943409|NCT03927690|181766829|SUPERIORITY||Ratio (Test vs Reference)|1.32||||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.2|1.46|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison of model-based mean estimates.|Day 43||1.46|1.20|1.000
90943410|NCT03927690|181766829|SUPERIORITY||Ratio (Test vs Reference)|0.96||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.04|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison of model-based mean estimates.|Day 43||1.04|0.88|0.200
90943411|NCT03927690|181766829|SUPERIORITY||Ratio (Test vs Reference)|1.18||||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.09|1.28|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison of model-based mean estimates.|Day 57||1.28|1.09|1.000
90943412|NCT03927690|181766829|SUPERIORITY||Ratio (Test vs Reference)|0.94||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|1.01|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison of model-based mean estimates.|Day 57||1.01|0.87|0.083
91036382|NCT00796653|181959105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.425|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.311||0.1714||95.0|-0.184|1.035|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.035|-0.184|0.1714
90943413|NCT03927690|181766829|SUPERIORITY||Ratio(Test vs Reference)|1.26||||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.14|1.38|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison of model-based mean estimates.|Day 85||1.38|1.14|1.000
91036383|NCT00796653|181959105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.492|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.312||0.1142||95.0|-0.119|1.103|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.103|-0.119|0.1142
91036384|NCT00796653|181959105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.534|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.314||0.0888||95.0|-0.081|1.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||1.150|-0.081|0.0888
91036385|NCT00796653|181959106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.318||0.1235||95.0|-0.134|1.113|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.113|-0.134|0.1235
91036386|NCT00796653|181959106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.354|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.318||0.2666||95.0|-0.271|0.978|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.978|-0.271|0.2666
91036387|NCT00796653|181959106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.309|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.319||0.3335||95.0|-0.317|0.934|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.934|-0.317|0.3335
91036388|NCT00796653|181959107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.313|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.3287||95.0|-0.315|0.941|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.941|-0.315|0.3287
91036389|NCT00796653|181959107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.481|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.321||0.1341||95.0|-0.148|1.109|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.109|-0.148|0.1341
91036390|NCT00796653|181959107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.114|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.322||0.722||95.0|-0.516|0.745|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.745|-0.516|0.7220
91036391|NCT00796653|181959108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.397|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.322||0.2176||95.0|-0.234|1.027|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.027|-0.234|0.2176
91036392|NCT00796653|181959108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.718|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.323||0.0258||95.0|0.087|1.348|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.348|0.087|0.0258
91036393|NCT00796653|181959108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.167|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.323||0.6044||95.0|-0.466|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.800|-0.466|0.6044
91036394|NCT00796653|181959109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.802|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.133||0.1946||95.0|0.58|1.111|||Log Rank|Model included a stratification factor for tiotropium use stratum and a covariate for treatment group|Comparison of Olo 5 mcg qd to placebo across stratum|||1.111|0.580|0.1946
90943414|NCT03927690|181766829|SUPERIORITY||Ratio(Test vs Reference)|0.96||||0.254|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.06|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison of model-based mean estimates.|Day 85||1.06|0.88|0.254
90943415|NCT04182113|181766851|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.042||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.129|0.044||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test comparing Target vs. Foil activity following 1Hz rTMS to Target vs. Foil activity following 20 Hz rTMS stimulation.||0.044|-0.129|0.32
91036395|NCT00796653|181959109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.872|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141||0.4071||95.0|0.634|1.198|||Log Rank|Model included a stratification factor for tiotropium use stratum and a covariate for treatment group|Comparison of Olo 10 mcg qd to placebo across stratum|||1.198|0.634|0.4071
91036396|NCT00796653|181959109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.922|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.6404||95.0|0.67|1.267|||Log Rank|Model included a stratification factor for tiotropium use stratum and a covariate for treatment group|Comparison of Form 12 mcg to placebo across stratum|||1.267|0.670|0.6404
91036397|NCT00796653|181959110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.685|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.249||0.2942||95.0|0.336|1.399|||Log Rank|Model included a stratification factor for tiotropium use stratum and a covariate for treatment group|Comparison of Olo 5 mcg qd to placebo across stratum|||1.399|0.336|0.2942
91036398|NCT00796653|181959110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.947|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.316||0.8594||95.0|0.493|1.82|||Log Rank|Model included a stratification factor for tiotropium use stratum and a covariate for treatment group|Comparison of Olo 10 mcg qd to placebo across stratum|||1.820|0.493|0.8594
91036399|NCT00796653|181959110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.803|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.281||0.5466||95.0|0.405|1.593|||Log Rank|Model included a stratification factor for tiotropium use stratum and a covariate for treatment group|Comparison of Form 12 mcg to placebo across stratum|||1.593|0.405|0.5466
90943416|NCT04182113|181766851|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.043||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.12||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test between Target vs. Foil activation following 1 Hz rTMS and Target vs. Foil activation following Sham stimulation..||0.12|-0.03|0.25
90943417|NCT04182113|181766851|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.078||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.024|0.181||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test between Target vs. Foil activity following 20 Hz rTMS and Target vs. Foil activity following Sham stimulation.||0.181|-0.024|0.13
90943418|NCT04182113|181766852|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.018||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.034||Not corrected for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test comparing precuneus connectivity following 1Hz rTMS to precuneus connectivity following 20 Hz rTMS stimulation.||0.034|0.001|0.038
90943419|NCT04182113|181766852|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.009||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.015|0.033|||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test comparing precuneus connectivity following 1Hz rTMS to precuneus connectivity following 20 Hz rTMS stimulation.||0.033|-0.015|0.44
90943420|NCT04182113|181766852|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.012||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.032|0.009|||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test comparing precuneus connectivity following 20Hz rTMS to precuneus connectivity following sham stimulation.||0.009|-0.032|0.25
90943421|NCT04182113|181766853|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.7||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|6.9||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test of scene recognition performance accuracy following 1Hz rTMS to accuracy following 20 Hz rTMS.||6.9|-1.6|0.20
90943422|NCT04182113|181766853|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.0||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|9.9||Not corrected for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test of scene recognition performance accuracy following 1Hz rTMS to accuracy following sham rTMS.||9.9|-1.9|0.17
90943423|NCT04182113|181766853|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|8.2||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test of scene recognition performance accuracy following 20Hz rTMS to accuracy following 20 Hz rTMS.||8.2|-10.8|0.77
90943424|NCT00551135|181766855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0668|TWO_SIDED|||||Hochberg's adjustment applied to p-value; Hochberg's adjusted p-value was the primary analysis.|ANOVA|||LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline worst pain (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0668
90943425|NCT00551135|181766855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0334|TWO_SIDED|||||Unadjusted (raw) p-value.|ANOVA|||LS (least squares) means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline worst pain (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0334
90943426|NCT00551135|181766855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8003|TWO_SIDED|||||Hochberg's adjustment applied to p-value; Hochberg's adjusted p-value was the primary analysis.|ANOVA|||LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline worst pain (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.8003
90943427|NCT00551135|181766855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8003|TWO_SIDED|||||Unadjusted (raw) p-value.|ANOVA|||LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline worst pain (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.8003
90943428|NCT00551135|181766855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6932|TWO_SIDED|||||Unadjusted (raw) p-value.|ANOVA|||LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline worst pain (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.6932
90943429|NCT00551135|181766856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4471|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Baseline; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from sitting (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.4471
90943430|NCT00551135|181766856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7248|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Baseline; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from sitting (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.7248
90943431|NCT00551135|181766856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7556|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Baseline; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from sitting (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.7556
90943432|NCT00551135|181766856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0571|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 h BS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from sitting (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0571
90943433|NCT00551135|181766856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0197|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 h BS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from sitting (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0197
90943434|NCT00551135|181766856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2398|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 h BS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from sitting (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.2398
90943435|NCT00551135|181766856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0709|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||1 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from sitting (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0709
90943436|NCT00551135|181766856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9902|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||1 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from sitting (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.9902
90943437|NCT00551135|181766856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||1 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from sitting (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0018
90943438|NCT00551135|181766856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4639|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from sitting (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.4639
90943439|NCT00551135|181766856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4845|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from sitting (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.4845
90943440|NCT00551135|181766856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1641|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from sitting (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.1641
90943441|NCT00551135|181766856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1025|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||3 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from sitting (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.1025
90943442|NCT00551135|181766856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5615|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||3 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from sitting (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.5615
90943443|NCT00551135|181766856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2904|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||3 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from sitting (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.2904
90943444|NCT00551135|181766856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6017|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 2 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from sitting (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.6017
90943445|NCT00551135|181766856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8549|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 2 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from sitting (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.8549
90943446|NCT00551135|181766856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3386|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 2 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from sitting (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.3386
90943447|NCT00551135|181766856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.707|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 3 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from sitting (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.7070
90973168|NCT05587296|181829195|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Last Squares Means|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|||||One-sided. A multiplicity adjustment strategy was defined using the hierarchical testing strategy, controlling the overall type I error rate at a one-sided alpha level of 0.025 for confirmatory statistical superiority testing.|MMRM|||||||<0.0001
90973169|NCT04735653|181829208|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||A Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used instead of ANOVA due to the non-normality of the adherence outcomes. We did not block on clinic due to differences in sample characteristics by site.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Medication adherence was compared between groups with a Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||||||<0.001
90943448|NCT00551135|181766856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5244|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 3 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from sitting (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.5244
90943449|NCT00551135|181766856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4245|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 3 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from sitting (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.4245
90943450|NCT00551135|181766856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8624|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 4 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from sitting (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.8624
90973170|NCT04735653|181829209|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||A chi-squared test was used instead of Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test due to site differences. Site differences will be incorporated into multivariable models to investigate moderating effects with treatment on the outcome in future analyses.|Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
90973171|NCT04735653|181829210|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.1|||||Adjustment for site was not performed. Site differences will be incorporated into multivariable models to investigate moderating effects with treatment on the outcome in future analyses.|||-0.1|-0.5|
90943451|NCT00551135|181766856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7552|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 4 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from sitting (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.7552
90943452|NCT00551135|181766856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7329|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 4 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from sitting (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.7329
90943453|NCT00551135|181766856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3053|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 5 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from sitting (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.3053
90943454|NCT00551135|181766856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.529|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 5 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from sitting (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.5290
90943455|NCT00551135|181766856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7951|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 5 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from sitting (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.7951
90973172|NCT04589988|181829218|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.068||||||P value shown is for group by time interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A linear mixed effects model was used to assess the effects of time (6-month follow-up versus baseline), group (REBIL versus control) and the interaction of group and time on the outcome. A significant interaction of group and time would indicate that the two groups had significantly different changes in the outcome over time. The model adjusted for age, sex, race, and depression score at baseline.||||0.068
90973173|NCT04589988|181829219|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.063||||||P value shown is for group by time interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A linear mixed effects model was used to assess the effects of time (6-month follow-up versus baseline), group (REBIL versus control) and the interaction of group and time on the outcome. A significant interaction of group and time would indicate that the two groups had significantly different changes in the outcome over time. The model adjusted for age, sex, race, and depression score at baseline.||||0.063
90973174|NCT04589988|181829220|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.724||||||P value shown is for group by time interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A linear mixed effects model was used to assess the effects of time (6-month follow-up versus baseline), group (REBIL versus control) and the interaction of group and time on the outcome. A significant interaction of group and time would indicate that the two groups had significantly different changes in the outcome over time. The model adjusted for age, sex, race, and depression score at baseline.||||0.724
90973175|NCT04589988|181829221|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.447||||||P value shown is for group by time interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A linear mixed effects model was used to assess the effects of time (6-month follow-up versus baseline), group (REBIL versus control) and the interaction of group and time on the outcome. A significant interaction of group and time would indicate that the two groups had significantly different changes in the outcome over time. The model adjusted for age, sex, race, and depression score at baseline.||||0.447
90973176|NCT04589988|181829222|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.696||||||P value shown is for group by time interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A linear mixed effects model was used to assess the effects of time (6-month follow-up versus baseline), group (REBIL versus control) and the interaction of group and time on the outcome. A significant interaction of group and time would indicate that the two groups had significantly different changes in the outcome over time. The model adjusted for age, sex, race, work status, and depression score at baseline.||||0.696
90973177|NCT04589988|181829223|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.798||||||P value shown is for group by time interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A linear mixed effects model was used to assess the effects of time (6-month follow-up versus baseline), group (REBIL versus control) and the interaction of group and time on the outcome. A significant interaction of group and time would indicate that the two groups had significantly different changes in the outcome over time. The model adjusted for age, sex, race, and depression score at baseline.||||0.798
90973178|NCT04589988|181829224|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.135||||||P value shown is for group by time interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A linear mixed effects model was used to assess the effects of time (6-month follow-up versus baseline), group (REBIL versus control) and the interaction of group and time on the outcome. A significant interaction of group and time would indicate that the two groups had significantly different changes in the outcome over time. The model adjusted for age, sex, race, and depression score at baseline.||||0.135
90973179|NCT04589988|181829225|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.291||||||P value shown is for group by time interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A linear mixed effects model was used to assess the effects of time (6-month follow-up versus baseline), group (REBIL versus control) and the interaction of group and time on the outcome. A significant interaction of group and time would indicate that the two groups had significantly different changes in the outcome over time. The model adjusted for age, sex, race, work status, and depression score at baseline.||||0.291
90973180|NCT04589988|181829226|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate ratio|0.83||||0.631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.76|||Negative binomial regression||IRR reflects REBIL intervention group versus control group.|Fall rates were compared between REBIL and control groups using negative binomial regression. The model adjusted for age, sex, ace, and depression score at baseline. The null hypothesis was that fall rates do not differ between groups.||1.76|0.40|0.631
90973181|NCT01202656|181829227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.72
90973182|NCT00119158|181829233|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|modified EASI (eczema area severity index) was considered equivalent if p value was greater than \>0.05|||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91036400|NCT00796653|181959111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.807|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.146||0.2494||95.0|0.566|1.15|||Log Rank|Model included a stratification factor for tiotropium use stratum and a covariate for treatment group|Comparison of Olo 5 mcg qd to placebo across stratum|||1.150|0.566|0.2494
90973183|NCT00608985|181829240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-15.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.8|-8.8|||Wilcoxon rank-sum|||Change from baseline to day 1\&2 compared with placebo||-8.8|-21.8|<0.0001
90973184|NCT00608985|181829240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-26.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.3|-19.5|||Wilcoxon rank-sum|||Change from baseline to day 1\&2 compared with placebo||-19.5|-34.3|<0.0001
90973185|NCT00608985|181829240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-6.8||||0.0376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|-0.3|||Wilcoxon rank-sum|||Change from baseline to day 1\&2 compared with placebo||-0.3|-13.5|0.0376
90973186|NCT00608985|181829241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-13.5||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.3|-6.5|||Wilcoxon rank-sum|||Change from baseline to day 15\&16 compared with placebo||-6.5|-20.3|0.0001
90973187|NCT00608985|181829241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-19.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.3|-12.3|||Wilcoxon rank-sum|||Change from baseline to day 15\&16 compared with placebo||-12.3|-27.3|<0.0001
90943456|NCT00551135|181766856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.715|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 6 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from sitting (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.7150
90973188|NCT00608985|181829241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|3.5||||0.3358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|11.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum|||Change from baseline to day 15\&16 compared with placebo||11.0|-3.8|0.3358
90973189|NCT00608985|181829242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-7.3||||0.0186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|-1.3|||Wilcoxon rank-sum|||Change from baseline to week 1\&2 compared with placebo||-1.3|-13.3|0.0186
91036401|NCT00796653|181959111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.791|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.143||0.2006||95.0|0.555|1.126|||Log Rank|Model included a stratification factor for tiotropium use stratum and a covariate for treatment group|Comparison of Olo 10 mcg qd to placebo across stratum|||1.126|0.555|0.2006
91036402|NCT00796653|181959111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.903|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.5795||95.0|0.637|1.279|||Log Rank|Model included a stratification factor for tiotropium use stratum and a covariate for treatment group|Comparison of Form 12 mcg to placebo across stratum|||1.279|0.637|0.5795
90943457|NCT00551135|181766856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4566|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 6 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from sitting (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.4566
90973190|NCT00608985|181829242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-10.4||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|-4.6|||Wilcoxon rank-sum|||Change from baseline to week 1\&2 compared with placebo||-4.6|-16.4|0.0006
90973191|NCT00608985|181829242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-12.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.8|-6.6|||Wilcoxon rank-sum|||Change from baseline to week 1\&2 compared with placebo||-6.6|-18.8|<0.0001
90973192|NCT00608985|181829243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-9.3||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.3|-3.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum|||Change from baseline to day 1\&2 compared with placebo||-3.0|-15.3|0.0035
90943458|NCT00551135|181766856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.775|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 6 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from sitting (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.7750
90973193|NCT00608985|181829243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-9.5||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|-4.3|||Wilcoxon rank-sum|||Change from baseline to day 1\&2 compared with placebo||-4.3|-15.0|0.0006
90943459|NCT00551135|181766856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9241|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 7 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from sitting (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.9241
90943460|NCT00551135|181766856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8994|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 7 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from sitting (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.8994
90943461|NCT00551135|181766856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2088|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 7 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from sitting (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.2088
90943462|NCT00551135|181766856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2152|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||EOT; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from sitting (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.2152
90943463|NCT00551135|181766856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7662|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||EOT; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from sitting (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.7662
90943464|NCT00551135|181766856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7579|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||EOT; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from sitting (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.7579
91036403|NCT00796653|181959112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|0.785|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1342||0.1571||95.0|0.5613|1.0979|||Negative binomial regression|Regression of treatment effect using tiotropium strata as a covariate, a log link function and log(exposure) as offset.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.0979|0.5613|0.1571
90943465|NCT00551135|181766857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6896|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Baseline; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from walking (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.6896
90943466|NCT00551135|181766857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1934|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Baseline; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from walking (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.1934
90943467|NCT00551135|181766857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6034|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Baseline; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from walking (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.6034
90943468|NCT00551135|181766857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7992|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 h BS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from walking (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.7992
90943469|NCT00551135|181766857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.477|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 h BS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from walking (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.4770
90943470|NCT00551135|181766857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.873|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 h BS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from walking (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.8730
90943471|NCT00551135|181766857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||1 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from walking (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.2000
90943472|NCT00551135|181766857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5059|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||1 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from walking (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.5059
90943473|NCT00551135|181766857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0348|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||1 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from walking (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0348
90943474|NCT00551135|181766857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3815|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from walking (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.3815
90973194|NCT00608985|181829243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-16.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|-9.8|||Wilcoxon rank-sum|||Change from baseline to day 1\&2 compared with placebo||-9.8|-22.0|<0.0001
90973195|NCT00608985|181829244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-4.0||||0.2237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|2.5|||Wilcoxon rank-sum|||Change from baseline to day 15\&16 compared with placebo||2.5|-11.0|0.2237
90973196|NCT00608985|181829244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-6.0||||0.0607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|0.3|||Wilcoxon rank-sum|||Change from baseline to day 15\&16 compared with placebo||0.3|-12.3|0.0607
90973197|NCT00608985|181829244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-10.5||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|-4.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum|||Change from baseline to day 15\&16 compared with placebo||-4.0|-17.3|0.0017
90943475|NCT00551135|181766857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4716|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from walking (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.4716
91036404|NCT00796653|181959112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|0.8631|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1451||0.3814||95.0|0.6205|1.2005|||Negative binomial regression|Regression of treatment effect using tiotropium strata as a covariate, a log link function and log(exposure) as offset.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.2005|0.6205|0.3814
90943476|NCT00551135|181766857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1063|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from walking (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.1063
90943477|NCT00551135|181766857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3884|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||3 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from walking (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.3884
90973198|NCT00608985|181829245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-4.1||||0.1187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|0.9|||Wilcoxon rank-sum|||Change from baseline to week 1\&2 compared with placebo||0.9|-9.1|0.1187
90973199|NCT00608985|181829245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-7.1||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|-2.7|||Wilcoxon rank-sum|||Change from baseline to week 1\&2 compared with placebo||-2.7|-11.5|0.0017
90973200|NCT00608985|181829245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-6.1||||0.0121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|-1.4|||Wilcoxon rank-sum|||Change from baseline to week 1\&2 compared with placebo||-1.4|-10.8|0.0121
90973201|NCT02004873|181829266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Kaplan-Meier survival probability (%)|96.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.66|93.3|97.6||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.0067, determined by the pre-specified alpha spending function for the interim analysis.|z-test, 1-sided||"The major complication free rate (i.e. survival probability) was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method.~The coverage level for the confidence interval was 98.66%, determined by the pre-specified alpha spending function for the interim analysis."|"Null hypothesis: Major complication free rate at 6 months post-implant is less than or equal to 83%.~Alternative hypothesis: Major complication free rate at 6 months post-implant is greater than 83%."||97.6|93.3|<0.0001
90973202|NCT02004873|181829267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of subjects (%)|98.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.66|95.4|99.6||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.0067, determined by the pre-specified alpha spending function for the interim analysis.|Exact Binomial test||The coverage level for confidence interval was 98.66%, determined by the pre-specified alpha spending function for the interim analysis.|"Null hypothesis: Percentage of subjects with an adequate pacing capture threshold at 6-months post-implant is less than or equal to 80%.~Alternative hypothesis: Percentage of subjects with an adequate pacing capture threshold at 6-months post-implant is greater than 80%."||99.6|95.4|<0.0001
90973203|NCT02004873|181829268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of subjects (%)|99.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.66|97.5|100.0||Holm adjustment for multiple comparisons for secondary objectives was used. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.0067, determined by the pre-specified alpha spending function for the interim analysis.|Exact Binomial test||The coverage level for confidence interval was 98.66%, determined by the pre-specified alpha spending function for the interim analysis.|"Null hypothesis: Percentage of subjects with VCMT within 0.5 Volts of auto decrement PCT at 6 months post-implant is less than or equal to 85%.~Alternative hypothesis: Percentage of subjects with VCMT within 0.5 Volts of auto decrement PCT at 6 months post-implant is greater than 85%."||100.0|97.5|<0.0001
90943478|NCT00551135|181766857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3787|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||3 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from walking (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.3787
90973204|NCT02004873|181829269|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin is 0.35. The Micra sensor indicated rate is considered proportional to the workload if the 90% CI for the Kay-Wilkoff slope parameter falls into \[0.65, 1.35\].|Slope|0.864|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.768|0.961||Holm adjustment for multiple comparisons for secondary objectives was used. Two One-sided Test (TOST) procedure was used at the 0.05 significance level.|t-test, 1 sided|Two One-sided Test (TOST)|A random effect linear regression model was used to assess if the Micra sensor-indicated rate was proportional to the workload using the Kay-Wilkoff model. The Kay-Wilkoff slope parameter was estimated along with its 90% CI.|Null hypothesis: Kay-Wilkoff slope parameter is \< 0.65 or \> 1.35 Alternative hypothesis: Kay-Wilkoff slope parameter is between 0.65 and 1.35||0.961|0.768|<0.001
90973205|NCT03440814|181829301|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.294||0.1983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.24|0.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline growth hormone use and HQ-CT total score. All available subject data were used with no imputation of missing data.|alpha=0.05 level of significance|||0.89|-4.24|0.1983
90973206|NCT03440814|181829302|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0294|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Treatment groups were compared using CMH mean score test with modified ridit scores, stratified by the randomization stratification variables.||||||0.0294
90973207|NCT03440814|181829303|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4089|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Treatment groups were compared using CMH mean score test with modified ridit scores, stratified by the randomization stratification variables.||||||0.4089
90973208|NCT03440814|181829304|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.458||0.0225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|-0.15|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for baseline body fat mass value as a covariate, and randomization stratification variables (as randomized) as factors.||||-0.15|-1.95|0.0225
90973209|NCT03440814|181829305|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.481||0.0369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.06|-0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model for repeated measurements was used. All available data collected before the March 1, 2020 cutoff from each subject were included.|alpha=0.05 level of significance|||-0.19|-6.06|0.0369
90973210|NCT01437397|181829306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.108|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.073|0.144|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, sex, smoking-status, visit and group-by-visit as factors; screening pre- and post-bronchodilator FEV1, age and baseline FEV1 as covariates||||0.144|0.073|<0.0001
90973211|NCT01437397|181829306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.087|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.052|0.123|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, sex, smoking-status, visit and group-by-visit as factors; screening pre- and post-bronchodilator FEV1, age and baseline FEV1 as covariates||||0.123|0.052|<0.0001
90973212|NCT01437397|181829307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.011|0.079|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, sex, smoking-status, visit and group-by-visit as factors; screening pre- and post-bronchodilator FEV1, age and baseline FEV1 as covariates||||0.079|0.011|0.010
90973213|NCT01437397|181829307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.026|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.008|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, sex, smoking-status, visit and group-by-visit as factors; screening pre- and post-bronchodilator FEV1, age and baseline FEV1 as covariates||||0.060|-0.008|0.133
90973214|NCT01437397|181829308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|1.436|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.297|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.854|2.018|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment group, sex, smoking-status, visit, and treatment group-by-visit as factors; visit, age baseline BDI/SGRQ as covariates||||2.018|0.854|<0.0001
90973215|NCT01437397|181829308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|1.395|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.294|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.818|1.972|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment group, sex, smoking-status, visit, and treatment group-by-visit as factors; visit, age baseline BDI/SGRQ as covariates||||1.972|0.818|<0.0001
90973216|NCT01437397|181829309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-4.353|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.075|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.462|-2.244|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment group, sex, smoking-status, visit, and treatment group-by-visit as factors; visit, age baseline BDI/SGRQ as covariates||||-2.244|-6.462|<0.0001
90973217|NCT01437397|181829309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-3.728|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.066||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.819|-1.637|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment group, sex, smoking-status, visit, and treatment group-by-visit as factors; visit, age baseline BDI/SGRQ as covariates||||-1.637|-5.819|0.0005
90973218|NCT00866307|181829311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|35.6|64.4|||Agresti-Coull Confidence Interval|||Per protocol, percentage of high risk-High patients taking less than 49 weeks from day 1 of consolidation to day 1 of maintenance therapy is compared to a null fixed rate (\<=73%). A 90% two-sided Agresti-Coull confidence interval will be constructed and the lower bound examined. Will reject null if lower bound of confidence interval is above 73%.||64.4|35.6|
90973219|NCT00866307|181829312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage|53.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|38.7|67.4|||Agresti-Coull Confidence Interval|||Per protocol, percentage receiving at least 8 doses is compared to a null fixed rate (\<=42%). A 90% two-sided Agresti-Coull confidence interval will be constructed. Will reject null if lower bound of confidence interval is above 42%.||67.4|38.7|
90973220|NCT02573155|181829327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean|0.111|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0265|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0585|0.163|||ANCOVA|||||0.163|0.0585|<0.0001
90973221|NCT02573155|181829327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0272|<|0.0001||95.0|0.156|0.264|||ANCOVA|||||0.264|0.156|<0.0001
90973222|NCT06245551|181829345|OTHER|The analysis is applied to the All-subjects data.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.78|-15.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-15.25|-19.78|<0.001
90973223|NCT02508194|181829351|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|-7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-106.9|44.3|||||The CI was estimated by an exact conditional method.|2 sided 90 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) was used to compare vaccine efficacy (VE). VE = (\[1 - relative risk (RR)\] \*100%), where RR was the RR of ARA-RI in the MEDI7510 group compared with the placebo group. A lower bound of the 90% CI greater than (\>) 0% would demonstrate the efficacy of MEDI7510.||44.3|-106.9|
90973224|NCT03208231|181829371|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.79
90973225|NCT03208231|181829372|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.42
90973226|NCT01318109|181829420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.751|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.923|-0.579||||||||-0.579|-0.923|
90973227|NCT01318109|181829420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.858|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.019|-0.697||||||||-0.697|-1.019|
90973228|NCT01318109|181829421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.191|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.247|-0.135||||||||-0.135|-0.247|
90973229|NCT01318109|181829421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.192|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.242|-0.143||||||||-0.143|-0.242|
90973230|NCT01318109|181829422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio, log|-0.386|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.469|-0.303||||||||-0.303|-0.469|
90973231|NCT01318109|181829422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.403|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.484|-0.323||||||||-0.323|-0.484|
90973232|NCT01318109|181829423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.621|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.757|-0.486||||||||-0.486|-0.757|
90973233|NCT01318109|181829423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio, log|-0.692|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.814|-0.569||||||||-0.569|-0.814|
90973234|NCT01318109|181829424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.12|-12.4||||||||-12.40|-26.12|
90943479|NCT00551135|181766857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2537|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||3 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from walking (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.2537
90943480|NCT00551135|181766857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0952|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 2 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from walking (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0952
90943481|NCT00551135|181766857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7725|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 2 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from walking (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.7725
90943482|NCT00551135|181766857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.066|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 2 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from walking (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0660
90943483|NCT00551135|181766857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3657|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 3 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from walking (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.3657
90943484|NCT00551135|181766857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7717|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 3 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from walking (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.7717
90943485|NCT00551135|181766857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5849|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 3 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from walking (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.5849
90943486|NCT00551135|181766857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.958|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 4 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from walking (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.9580
90943487|NCT00551135|181766857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9884|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 4 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from walking (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.9884
90943488|NCT00551135|181766857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6743|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 4 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from walking (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.6743
90943489|NCT00551135|181766857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2689|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 5 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from walking (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.2689
90943490|NCT00551135|181766857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6907|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 5 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from walking (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.6907
90943491|NCT00551135|181766857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4798|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 5 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from walking (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.4798
90943492|NCT00551135|181766857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5609|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 6 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from walking (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.5609
90943493|NCT00551135|181766857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9834|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 6 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from walking (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.9834
90943494|NCT00551135|181766857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8339|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 6 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from walking (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.8339
90943495|NCT00551135|181766857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.873|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 7 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from walking (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.8730
90943496|NCT00551135|181766857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6327|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 7 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from walking (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.6327
90943497|NCT00551135|181766857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3986|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 7 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from walking (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.3986
90973235|NCT01318109|181829424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.43|-16.12||||||||-16.12|-30.43|
90973236|NCT01318109|181829425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.54|-10.66||||||||-10.66|-24.54|
90973237|NCT01318109|181829425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.32|-14.39||||||||-14.39|-28.32|
90973238|NCT01318109|181829426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.95|-11.79||||||||-11.79|-25.95|
90973239|NCT01318109|181829426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.43|-10.9||||||||-10.90|-25.43|
90973240|NCT01318109|181829427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.32|-10.16||||||||-10.16|-26.32|
90973241|NCT01318109|181829427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.87|-13.88||||||||-13.88|-30.87|
91036405|NCT00796653|181959112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|1.0631|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1748||0.7098||95.0|0.7699|1.468|||Negative binomial regression|Regression of treatment effect using tiotropium strata as a covariate, a log link function and log(exposure) as offset.|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||1.4680|0.7699|0.7098
90973242|NCT01318109|181829428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.14|2.37||||||||2.37|-20.14|
90973243|NCT01318109|181829428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.34|3.52||||||||3.52|-16.34|
91036406|NCT00796653|181959113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|0.7925|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2952||0.5326||95.0|0.3814|1.6464|||Negative binomial regression|Regression of treatment effect using tiotropium strata as a covariate, a log link function and log(exposure) as offset.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.6464|0.3814|0.5326
91036407|NCT00796653|181959113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|1.0078|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.356||0.9824||95.0|0.5038|2.016|||Negative binomial regression|Regression of treatment effect using tiotropium strata as a covariate, a log link function and log(exposure) as offset.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||2.0160|0.5038|0.9824
91036408|NCT00796653|181959113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|1.0403|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3681||0.9112||95.0|0.5194|2.0832|||Negative binomial regression|Regression of treatment effect using tiotropium strata as a covariate, a log link function and log(exposure) as offset.|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||2.0832|0.5194|0.9112
90973244|NCT06485479|181829429|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<.001
90973245|NCT06485479|181829429|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<.001
90973246|NCT06485479|181829429|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.56
91036409|NCT00796653|181959114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|0.744|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1389||0.1136||95.0|0.5158|1.0733|||Negative binomial regression|Regression of treatment effect using tiotropium strata as a covariate, a log link function and log(exposure) as offset.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.0733|0.5158|0.1136
90973247|NCT06485479|181829430|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<.001
90973248|NCT06485479|181829430|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<.001
90973249|NCT06485479|181829430|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.35
90973250|NCT06485479|181829431|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<.001
90973251|NCT06485479|181829431|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<.001
90973252|NCT06485479|181829431|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.62
90973253|NCT06485479|181829432|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.03
90973254|NCT06485479|181829432|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.17
90973255|NCT06485479|181829432|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.33
90973256|NCT06485479|181829433|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<.001
90973257|NCT06485479|181829433|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<.001
90973258|NCT06485479|181829433|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.38
90973259|NCT06485479|181829434|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.6
90973260|NCT06485479|181829434|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.65
90973261|NCT06485479|181829434|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.4
90973262|NCT00970853|181829435|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The original sample for this study (N=302) was sufficient for an 80% detection of differences in means of at least 1/2 standard deviation. This analysis presents the results of the follow-up of the original sample.||||||0.39||||||non-adjusted for multiple comparisons|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.39
90973263|NCT00970853|181829436|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|In our original sample of 302, we had 80% power to detect significant differences of at least .5 standard deviation between groups.||||||0.99|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.99
90973264|NCT00970853|181829437|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|In our original sample of 302, we had 80% power to detect significant differences of at least .5 standard deviation between groups.||||||0.16|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.16
90973265|NCT00970853|181829438|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|In our original sample of 302, we had 80% power to detect significant differences of at least .5 standard deviation between groups.||||||0.4|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.40
90973266|NCT00970853|181829439|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|In our original sample of 302, we had 80% power to detect significant differences of at least .5 standard deviation between groups.||||||0.56|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.56
90943498|NCT00551135|181766857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.637|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||EOT; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from walking (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.6370
90943499|NCT00551135|181766857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9869|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||EOT; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from walking (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.9869
90943500|NCT00551135|181766857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.755|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||EOT; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from walking (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.7550
90943501|NCT00551135|181766858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2912|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Baseline; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from coughing (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.2912
90943502|NCT00551135|181766858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3723|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Baseline; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from coughing (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.3723
90973267|NCT00970853|181829440|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|In our original sample of 302, we had 80% power to detect significant differences of at least .5 standard deviation between groups.||||||0.34|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.34
90943503|NCT00551135|181766858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6116|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Baseline; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from coughing (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.6116
90943504|NCT00551135|181766858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0835|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 h BS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from coughing (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0835
90973268|NCT00970853|181829441|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|In our original sample of 302, we had 80% power to detect significant differences of at least .5 standard deviation between groups.||||||0.85|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.85
90973269|NCT00970853|181829442|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|In our original sample of 302, we had 80% power to detect significant differences of at least .5 standard deviation between groups.||||||0.61|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.61
90973270|NCT00970853|181829443|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|In our original sample of 302, we had 80% power to detect significant differences of at least .5 standard deviation between groups.||||||0.67|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.67
90973271|NCT06142643|181829444|OTHER|"A responder was defined by subjects with a score 1 (very much improved), 2 (much improved) or 3 (improved) on the GAIS.~Inferential analysis for the primary evaluation criterion For the derived outcome responder rate at M1 (1 month after injection) for the GAIS Investigator, a binomial exact test (bilateral approach) vs 60% was applied for the overall score. This test compared the proportion of improvement to 60%."|||||<|0.0001||||||Power of 80%, significant result (alpha = 5%).|t-test, 2 sided|Null hypothesis stated that less than 60% of subjects were responders with GAIS. Under the alternative hypothesis, 75% of subjects were responders.||||||<0.0001
90973272|NCT06142643|181829445|OTHER|"A responder was defined by subjects with a score 1 (very much improved), 2 (much improved) or 3 (improved) on the GAIS.~Inferential analysis for the primary evaluation criterion For the derived outcome responder rate at M1 (1 month after injection) for the GAIS Investigator, a binomial exact test (bilateral approach) vs 60% was applied for the overall score. This test compared the proportion of improvement to 60%."|||||<|0.0001||||||Power of 80%, significant result (alpha = 5%).|t-test, 2 sided|Null hypothesis stated that less than 60% of subjects were responders with GAIS. Under the alternative hypothesis, 75% of subjects were responders.||||||<0.0001
90973273|NCT06232317|181829463|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.61
90973274|NCT06232317|181829464|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.014
90973275|NCT06232317|181829469|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.011
90973276|NCT04685876|181829470|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.355|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.355
90973277|NCT04685876|181829470|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.578|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.578
91036410|NCT00796653|181959114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|0.7842|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1449||0.1887||95.0|0.5456|1.1271|||Negative binomial regression|Regression of treatment effect using tiotropium strata as a covariate, a log link function and log(exposure) as offset.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.1271|0.5456|0.1887
91036411|NCT00796653|181959114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|0.9761|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1747||0.8925||95.0|0.6869|1.387|||Negative binomial regression|Regression of treatment effect using tiotropium strata as a covariate, a log link function and log(exposure) as offset.|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||1.3870|0.6869|0.8925
91036412|NCT00796653|181959117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.509|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.058|0.96|||pattern mixture model|See Hogan, et. al. Hogan JW, Roy J, Korkontzelou C Tutorial in biostatistics:handling drop-out in longitudinal studies. Stat Med 23,1455-1497(2004)|"Based on a pattern mixture model with four patterns based on time of dropout (i.e., day of last observed data)~1\) day 43 or day 85, 2) day 127 or day 169, 3) day 225 or day 281, 4) day 337"|Olo 5mcg minus placebo||0.960|0.058|0.0270
91036413|NCT00796653|181959117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.525|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.226||0.0203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.082|0.967|||pattern mixture model|See Hogan, et. al. Hogan JW, Roy J, Korkontzelou C Tutorial in biostatistics:handling drop-out in longitudinal studies. Stat Med 23,1455-1497(2004)|"Based on a pattern mixture model with four patterns based on time of dropout (i.e., day of last observed data)~1\) day 43 or day 85, 2) day 127 or day 169, 3) day 225 or day 281, 4) day 337"|Olo 10 mcg minus placebo||0.967|0.082|0.0203
90973278|NCT04685876|181829472|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.248|||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.248
90973279|NCT04685876|181829472|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.297|||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.297
90973280|NCT04685876|181829473|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.748|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.748
90973281|NCT04685876|181829473|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.395|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.395
90973282|NCT04685876|181829474|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.152|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.152
90973283|NCT04685876|181829474|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.482|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.482
90973284|NCT01358864|181829475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted percent difference|52.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.4|63.2||Adjusted for genotype and previous response to treatment|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||63.2|42.4|<0.0001
90973285|NCT01358864|181829475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted percent difference|48.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.2|58.9||Adjusted for genotype and previous response to treatment|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||58.9|38.2|<0.0001
90973286|NCT01358864|181829475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted percent difference|4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|14.9||||||||14.9|-6.0|
90973287|NCT01358864|181829475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted percent difference|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|10.7||||||||10.7|-10.9|
90973288|NCT01358864|181829475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Normal approximation|||Comparison is based on the Null:Faldaprevir 12 weeks vs historical rate of 20%.||||<0.0001
90973289|NCT01358864|181829475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Normal approximation|||Comparison is based on the Null:Faldaprevir 24 weeks vs historical rate of 20%.||||0.0001
90973290|NCT01358864|181829477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted percent difference|54.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.4|65.0||Adjusted for genotype and previous response to treatment|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||65.0|44.4|<0.0001
90973291|NCT01358864|181829477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted percent difference|50.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.1|60.8||Adjusted for genotype and previous response to treatment|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||60.8|40.1|<0.0001
90973292|NCT01358864|181829477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted percent difference|4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|14.9||||||||14.9|-5.8|
90973293|NCT01358864|181829477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted percent difference|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|10.7||||||||10.7|-10.9|
90973294|NCT01358864|181829477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Normal approximation|||Comparison is based on the Null:Faldaprevir 12 weeks vs historical rate of 20%.||||<0.0001
90973295|NCT01358864|181829477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Normal approximation|||Comparison is based on the Null:Faldaprevir 24 weeks vs historical rate of 20%.||||0.0001
90973296|NCT03194373|181829488|SUPERIORITY|Power to detect a 20% improvement in disease control rate (DCR). Based on historical data, the DCR in R/M HNSCC with single agent platinum therapy is 40%. We hypothesize that addition of Palbociclib will increase DCR at 12 weeks to 60%. Two-stage design. Type I error rate of 0.059 and power of 0.80 when the true response rate is 0.60 with alpha=0.05. The two-stage sample size calculations assume a null probability of 0.40.|Proportion|33.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.0|59.0||||||||59|13|
91036414|NCT00796653|181959117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.355|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.226||0.1166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.088|0.799|||pattern mixture model|See Hogan, et. al. Hogan JW, Roy J, Korkontzelou C Tutorial in biostatistics:handling drop-out in longitudinal studies. Stat Med 23,1455-1497(2004)|"Based on a pattern mixture model with four patterns based on time of dropout (i.e., day of last observed data)~1\) day 43 or day 85, 2) day 127 or day 169, 3) day 225 or day 281, 4) day 337"|Form 12mcg minus placebo||0.799|-0.088|0.1166
91036415|NCT00835692|181959122|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The pharmacokinetic parameters will be evaluated statistically by an analysis of variance (ANOVA) appropriate for the experimental design of this study.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Mean x 100|98.4||||||90.0|91.5|106.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||106|91.5|
91036416|NCT00835692|181959123|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The pharmacokinetic parameters will be evaluated statistically by an analysis of variance (ANOVA) appropriate for the experimental design of this study.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|93.5||||||90.0|89.6|97.6|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||97.6|89.6|
91036417|NCT00835692|181959124|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The pharmacokinetic parameters will be evaluated statistically by an analysis of variance (ANOVA) appropriate for the experimental design of this study.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|93.5||||||90.0|89.5|97.7|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||97.7|89.5|
91036418|NCT00838136|181959125|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|101.23||||||90.0|99.88|102.6|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||102.60|99.88|
91036419|NCT00838136|181959126|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|101.87||||||90.0|99.18|104.63|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||104.63|99.18|
91036420|NCT00838136|181959127|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|100.76||||||90.0|98.6|102.97|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||102.97|98.60|
91036421|NCT01304641|181959169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91036422|NCT01304641|181959170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.078||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.976|1.192|||Regression, Cox|||||1.192|0.976|0.140
90943505|NCT00551135|181766858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1497|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 h BS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from coughing (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.1497
90943506|NCT00551135|181766858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.395|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 h BS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from coughing (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.3950
90943507|NCT00551135|181766858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5892|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||1 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from coughing (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.5892
90943508|NCT00551135|181766858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6143|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||1 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from coughing (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.6143
90943509|NCT00551135|181766858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0104|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||1 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from coughing (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0104
90943510|NCT00551135|181766858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5666|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from coughing (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.5666
90943511|NCT00551135|181766858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9008|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from coughing (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.9008
91036423|NCT01304641|181959171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91036424|NCT01304641|181959172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91036425|NCT01304641|181959173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91036426|NCT01304641|181959174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91036427|NCT01304641|181959175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
90973297|NCT03194373|181829489|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Median survival times were computed using the Kaplan-Meier method with standard error computed using Greenwood's formula. All analyses were done using SAS 9.4 software.|||
90973298|NCT03194373|181829490|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Median survival times were computed using the Kaplan-Meier method with standard error computed using Greenwood's formula. All analyses were done using SAS 9.4 software.|||
90973299|NCT05568888|181829535|SUPERIORITY|A Bayesian logistic regression model was used to compare all-cause 6-hour mortality rate between the BE1116 and placebo arms. The null hypothesis is rejected if the posterior probability of 6-hour mortality rate difference (BE1116-placebo) being negative is greater than predefined threshold at interim and final analyses (ITT population).|Estimated difference Placebo - BE1116|-2.5||||1.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.02|-0.13||Reported value reflect a posterior probability difference rather than p-value.|Regression, Logistic||Reported values reflect a 95% Credible Interval rather than a 95% Confidence Interval.|Null hypotheses: The all-cause 6-hour mortality rates in BE1116 is no better than the control.||-0.13|-5.02|1.9
90973300|NCT05568888|181829535|SUPERIORITY|A Bayesian logistic regression model was used to compare all-cause 6-hour mortality rate between the BE1116 and placebo arms. The null hypothesis is rejected if the posterior probability of 6-hour mortality rate difference (BE1116-placebo) being negative is greater than predefined threshold at interim and final analyses (mITT population).|Estimated difference Placebo - BE1116|-2.8||||3.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|0.13||Reported value reflect a posterior probability difference rather than p-value.|Regression, Logistic||Reported values reflect a 95% Credible Interval rather than a 95% Confidence Interval.|Null hypotheses: The all-cause 6-hour mortality rates in BE1116 is no better than the control.||0.13|-5.80|3.1
90943512|NCT00551135|181766858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0967|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from coughing (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0967
90943513|NCT00551135|181766858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8353|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||3 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from coughing (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.8353
90943514|NCT00551135|181766858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.453|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||3 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from coughing (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.4530
90943515|NCT00551135|181766858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7297|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||3 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from coughing (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.7297
90943516|NCT00551135|181766858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0692|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 2 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from coughing (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0692
90943517|NCT00551135|181766858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6333|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 2 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from coughing (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.6333
90943518|NCT00551135|181766858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0325|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 2 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from coughing (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0325
90943519|NCT00551135|181766858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5788|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 3 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from coughing (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.5788
90943520|NCT00551135|181766858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9224|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 3 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from coughing (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.9224
90943521|NCT00551135|181766858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5527|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 3 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from coughing (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.5527
90943522|NCT00551135|181766858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2624|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 4 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from coughing (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.2624
90943523|NCT00551135|181766858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3263|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 4 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from coughing (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.3263
90943524|NCT00551135|181766858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3746|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 4 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from coughing (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.3746
90943525|NCT00551135|181766858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 5 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from coughing (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0050
90943526|NCT00551135|181766858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0493|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 5 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from coughing (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0493
91036428|NCT00099047|181959176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.05||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||SAS version 8||36 evaluable patients randomized 1:1 to each treatment was planned in order to have \>77% power to detect differences in above parameters equal to or greater than one standard deviation, based on a 2-sided Wilcoxon rank-sum test with .05 Type I error.|||||.23
91036429|NCT03123471|181959237|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response|29.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.5|39.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysis used CMH; adjusted by stratification factor of baseline ScPGA score moderate (3) or severe (4).||The adjusted difference in response rates using the weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights and the 2-sided 95% confidence interval using a normal approximation to the weighted average were calculated.||39.7|19.5|< 0.0001
91036430|NCT03123471|181959238|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response|23.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.5|34.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysis used CMH; adjusted by stratification factor of baseline ScPGA score moderate (3) or severe (4).||The adjusted difference in response rates using the weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights and the 2-sided 95% confidence interval using a normal approximation to the weighted average were calculated.||34.6|11.5|< 0.0001
91036431|NCT03123471|181959239|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response|26.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.9|38.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysis used CMH; adjusted by stratification factor of baseline ScPGA score moderate (3) or severe (4).||The adjusted difference in response rates using the weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights and the 2-sided 95% confidence interval using a normal approximation to the weighted average were calculated.||38.5|13.9|< 0.0001
90943527|NCT00551135|181766858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0773|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 5 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from coughing (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0773
90943528|NCT00551135|181766858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0547|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 6 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from coughing (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0547
90943529|NCT00551135|181766858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1976|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 6 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from coughing (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.1976
90943530|NCT00551135|181766858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3832|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 6 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from coughing (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.3832
90943531|NCT00551135|181766858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4216|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 7 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from coughing (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.4216
90943532|NCT00551135|181766858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5852|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 7 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from coughing (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.5852
90943533|NCT00551135|181766858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7336|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 7 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from coughing (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.7336
90943534|NCT00551135|181766858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1647|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||EOT; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from coughing (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.1647
90943535|NCT00551135|181766858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2813|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||EOT; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from coughing (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.2813
90943536|NCT00551135|181766858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8423|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||EOT; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from coughing (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.8423
90973301|NCT05568888|181829536|SUPERIORITY|A Bayesian logistic regression model was used to compare all-cause 24-hour in-hospital mortality rate between the BE1116 and placebo arms. The null hypothesis is rejected if the posterior probability of 24-hour in-hospital mortality rate difference (BE1116-placebo) being negative is greater than predefined threshold at interim and final analyses (mITT population).|Estimated difference Placebo - BE1116|-3.6||||3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.35|0.15||Reported value reflect a posterior probability difference rather than p-value.|Regression, Logistic||Reported values reflect a 95% Credible Interval rather than a 95% Confidence Interval.|Null hypotheses: The all-cause 24-hour in-hospital mortality rates in BE1116 is no better than the control.||0.15|-7.35|3.0
91036432|NCT03123471|181959240|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response|17.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.8|24.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysis used CMH; adjusted by stratification factor of baseline ScPGA score moderate (3) or severe (4).||Week 2; The adjusted difference in response rates using the weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights and the 2-sided 95% confidence interval using a normal approximation to the weighted average were calculated.||24.2|9.8|<0.0001
91036433|NCT03123471|181959240|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response|22.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.9|31.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysis used CMH; adjusted by stratification factor of baseline ScPGA score moderate (3) or severe (4).||Week 4. The adjusted difference in response rates using the weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights and the 2-sided 95% confidence interval using a normal approximation to the weighted average were calculated.||31.4|12.9|<0.0001
91036434|NCT03123471|181959240|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response|20.1||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.1|31.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysis used CMH; adjusted by stratification factor of baseline ScPGA score moderate (3) or severe (4).||Week 8; The adjusted difference in response rates using the weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights and the 2-sided 95% confidence interval using a normal approximation to the weighted average were calculated.||31.0|9.1|0.0003
90973302|NCT05568888|181829537|SUPERIORITY|A Bayesian logistic regression model was used to compare all-cause 30 days in-hospital mortality rate between the BE1116 and placebo arms. The null hypothesis is rejected if the posterior probability of 30 days in-hospital mortality rate difference (BE1116-placebo) being negative is greater than predefined threshold at interim and final analyses (mITT population).|Estimated difference Placebo - BE1116|-6.0||||1.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.42|-0.68||Reported value reflect a posterior probability difference rather than p-value.|Regression, Logistic||Reported values reflect a 95% Credible Interval rather than a 95% Confidence Interval.|Null hypotheses: The all-cause 30 days in-hospital mortality rates in BE1116 is no better than the control.||-0.68|-11.42|1.4
90973303|NCT05568888|181829538|SUPERIORITY|A Bayesian logistic regression model was used to compare difference in proportion of subjects between the BE1116 and placebo arms. The null hypothesis is rejected if the posterior probability of subjects who undergo surgical or interventional radiological procedures to stop bleeding related to the primary injury up to 24 hours difference (BE1116-placebo) being negative is greater than predefined threshold at interim and final analyses (mITT population).|Estimated difference Placebo - BE1116|-2.5||||18.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.98|3.05||Reported value reflect a posterior probability difference rather than p-value.|Regression, Logistic|||Null hypotheses: The proportion of subjects who undergo surgical or interventional radiological procedures to stop bleeding related to the primary injury up to 24 hours in BE1116 is no better than the control.|Reported values reflect a 95% Credible Interval rather than a 95% Confidence Interval.|3.05|-7.98|18.9
90973304|NCT03784079|181829648|OTHER||Emax|-1.937|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.484|-1.389||||||||-1.389|-2.484|
91036435|NCT03123471|181959240|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response|20.6||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.7|32.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysis used CMH; adjusted by stratification factor of baseline ScPGA score moderate (3) or severe (4).||Week 12; The adjusted difference in response rates using the weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights and SE using a normal approximation to the weighted average were calculated.||32.4|8.7|0.0007
91036436|NCT03123471|181959241|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response|14.6||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.1|24.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysis used CMH; adjusted by stratification factor of baseline ScPGA score moderate (3) or severe (4).||Week 2; The adjusted difference in response rates using the weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights and the 2-sided 95% confidence interval using a normal approximation to the weighted average were calculated.||24.1|5.1|0.0025
91036437|NCT03123471|181959241|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response|21.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.6|31.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysis used CMH; adjusted by stratification factor of baseline ScPGA score moderate (3) or severe (4).||Week 4; The adjusted difference in response rates using the weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights and the 2-sided 95% confidence interval using a normal approximation to the weighted average were calculated.||31.9|10.6|<0.0001
91036438|NCT03123471|181959241|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response|22.0||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.2|33.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysis used CMH; adjusted by stratification factor of baseline ScPGA score moderate (3) or severe (4).||Week 8; The adjusted difference in response rates using the weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights and the 2-sided 95% confidence interval using a normal approximation to the weighted average were calculated.||33.9|10.2|0.0003
91036439|NCT03123471|181959241|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response|27.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.1|38.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysis used CMH; adjusted by stratification factor of baseline ScPGA score moderate (3) or severe (4).||Week 12; The adjusted difference in response rates using the weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights and SE using a normal approximation to the weighted average were calculated.||38.9|15.1|<0.0001
91036440|NCT03123471|181959242|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-2.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.17|-1.73|||ANCOVA|Treatment and stratification factor (Baseline ScPGA moderate or severe) as independent variables and baseline value as a covariate variable.||||-1.73|-4.17|<0.0001
90973305|NCT03784079|181829648|OTHER||EC50|7.094|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.585|13.602||||||||13.602|0.585|
90973306|NCT03784079|181829648|OTHER||s2e|0.137|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.062|0.212||||||||0.212|0.062|
90973307|NCT03784079|181829649|OTHER||Emax|-1.929|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.479|-1.379||||||||-1.379|-2.479|
90973308|NCT03784079|181829649|OTHER||EC50|0.446|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.861||||||||0.861|0.030|
90973309|NCT03784079|181829649|OTHER||s2e|0.139|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.063|0.216||||||||0.216|0.063|
90973310|NCT03784079|181829650|OTHER||Emax|-1.926|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.498|-1.354||||||||-1.354|-2.498|
90973311|NCT03784079|181829650|OTHER||EC50|0.197|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.007|0.386||||||||0.386|0.007|
90973312|NCT03784079|181829650|OTHER||s2e|0.144|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.065|0.222||||||||0.222|0.065|
90973313|NCT04137887|181829722|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of QIV-HD effectiveness over QIV-SD was demonstrated if the lower bound of the Confidence intervals (CIs) for relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE); expressed in percentage (%) was more than (\>) 0%.|Relative Vaccine Effectiveness|5.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.43|20.66|||||rVE: % reduction of 1st occurrence of cardiovascular/respiratory hospitalization cases in QIV-HD group compared to QIV-SD group. 2-sided 95% CIs for rVE was calculated by exact method assuming Binomial distribution of number of cases in both groups.|||20.66|-12.43|
90973314|NCT04137887|181829723|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of QIV-HD effectiveness over QIV-SD was demonstrated if the lower bound of the CIs for rVE, expressed in % was \> 0%.|Relative Vaccine Effectiveness|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.99|30.14|||||rVE: % reduction of 1st occurrence of cardiovascular/respiratory hospitalization cases in QIV-HD group compared to QIV-SD group. 2-sided 95% CIs for rVE was calculated by exact method assuming Binomial distribution of number of cases in both groups.|Statistical analysis for diseases of respiratory system.||30.14|-27.99|
90973315|NCT04137887|181829723|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of QIV-HD effectiveness over QIV-SD was demonstrated if the lower bound of the CIs for rVE, expressed in % was \> 0%.|Relative Vaccine Effectiveness|7.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.04|25.0|||||rVE: % reduction of 1st occurrence of cardiovascular/respiratory hospitalization cases in QIV-HD group compared to QIV-SD group. 2-sided 95% CIs for rVE was calculated by exact method assuming Binomial distribution of number of cases in both groups.|Statistical analysis for diseases of circulatory system.||25.00|-15.04|
90973316|NCT01790503|181829739|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.36|||Log Rank|||||1.36|0.71|0.456
90973317|NCT01790503|181829739|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.43|||Log Rank|||||1.43|0.77|0.619
90973318|NCT01790503|181829739|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.26|||Log Rank|||||1.26|0.65|0.272
90973319|NCT01790503|181829740|OTHER|||||||0.44|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between age subgroups: 18-64 years vs 65+ years||||0.440
90973320|NCT01790503|181829740|OTHER|||||||0.699|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between extent of surgery subgroups: complete resection vs partial resection||||0.699
90973321|NCT01790503|181829740|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between baseline KPS subgroups: 70-89 vs 90-100||||0.003
90973322|NCT01790503|181829740|OTHER|||||||0.201|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between MGMT status subgroups: methylated vs unmethylated||||0.201
90973323|NCT01790503|181829742|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.47|||Log Rank|||||1.47|0.60|0.389
90973324|NCT01790503|181829742|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.42|||Log Rank|||||1.42|0.63|0.393
90973325|NCT01790503|181829742|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.54|||Log Rank|||||1.54|0.63|0.469
90973326|NCT01790503|181829743|OTHER|||||||0.063|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between age subgroups: 18-64 years vs 65+ years||||0.063
90973327|NCT01790503|181829743|OTHER|||||||0.969|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between extent of surgery subgroups: complete resection vs partial resection||||0.969
90973328|NCT01790503|181829743|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between baseline KPS subgroups: 70-89 vs 90-100||||<0.001
90973329|NCT01790503|181829743|OTHER|||||||0.501|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between MGMT status subgroups: methylated vs unmethylated||||0.501
90973330|NCT01790503|181829744|OTHER|||||||0.705|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between age subgroups: 18-64 years vs 65+ years||||0.705
90973331|NCT01790503|181829744|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between extent of surgery subgroups: complete resection vs partial resection||||>0.999
90973332|NCT01790503|181829744|OTHER|||||||0.099|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between baseline KPS subgroups: 70-89 vs 90-100||||0.099
90973333|NCT01790503|181829744|OTHER|||||||0.348|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between MGMT status subgroups: methylated vs unmethylated||||0.348
90973334|NCT04183335|181829749|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.78|15.41||Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg Q2W versus Placebo|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures are reported and continued when primary outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05.||15.41|2.78|<0.0001
90973335|NCT04183335|181829750|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.0||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.81|8.98||Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg Q2W versus Placebo|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures are reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05.||8.98|1.81|0.0004
90973336|NCT04183335|181829751|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.49|19.05||Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg Q2W versus Placebo|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures are reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05.||19.05|2.49|<0.0001
90973337|NCT04183335|181829752|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-26.67|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.44|-14.9||Threshold of significance at 0.05.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg Q2W versus Placebo|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures are reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05.||-14.90|-38.44|<0.0001
90973338|NCT04183335|181829753|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-6.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.34|-4.05||Threshold of significance at 0.05.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg Q2W versus Placebo|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures are reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05.||-4.05|-8.34|<0.0001
90973339|NCT04183335|181829754|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-2.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.07|-1.28||Threshold of significance at 0.05.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg Q2W versus Placebo|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures are reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05.||-1.28|-3.07|<0.0001
91036441|NCT01641380|181959246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|-0.75|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.06|||Regression, Linear|||We also evaluated the difference between the number of days after the scheduled appointment patients returned.||.06|-1.4|<.05
90973340|NCT04183335|181829755|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-2.6||||0.0082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.52|-0.67||Threshold of significance at 0.05.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg Q2W versus Placebo|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures are reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05.||-0.67|-4.52|0.0082
90973341|NCT04183335|181829763|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.7||||0.0119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|-0.15||Threshold of significance at \<0.05 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg Q2W versus Placebo|||-0.15|-1.25|0.0119
90973342|NCT00049673|181829770|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.14|||Log Rank|||||1.14|0.53|0.18
90973343|NCT00049673|181829771|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.73|||Log Rank|||||0.73|0.43|0.0001
90973344|NCT01535729|181829773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.949|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.167||0.756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.684|1.318|||Wald Chi-Squares|||Comparison between 70-74 years and 65-69 years was reported. Parameter estimates, standard errors, Wald Chi-Squares, p-values, hazard ratios and confidence limits were based on a univariate Cox regression with factor age.||1.318|0.684|0.756
90973345|NCT01535729|181829773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.744|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.185||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.518|1.07|||Wald Chi-Squares|||Comparison between 75-79 years and 65-69 years was reported. Parameter estimates, standard errors, Wald Chi-Squares, p-values, hazard ratios and confidence limits were based on a univariate Cox regression with factor age.||1.070|0.518|0.110
90973346|NCT01535729|181829773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.054|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.242||0.829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.656|1.692|||Wald Chi-Squares|||Comparison between ≥ 80 years and 65-69 years was reported. Parameter estimates, standard errors, Wald Chi-Squares, p-values, hazard ratios and confidence limits were based on a univariate Cox regression with factor age.||1.692|0.656|0.829
90973347|NCT01535729|181829788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.981|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.143||0.895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.741|1.299|||Wald Chi-Squares|||Comparison between 70-74 years and 65-69 years was reported. Parameter estimates, standard errors, Wald Chi-Squares, p-values, hazard ratios and confidence limits were based on a univariate Cox regression with factor age.||1.299|0.741|0.895
90973348|NCT01535729|181829788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.689|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.162||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.501|0.947|||Wald Chi-Squares|||Comparison between 75-79 years and 65-69 years was reported. Parameter estimates, standard errors, Wald Chi-Squares, p-values, hazard ratios and confidence limits were based on a univariate Cox regression with factor age.||0.947|0.501|0.022
90973349|NCT01535729|181829788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.162|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.212||0.479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.767|1.759|||Wald Chi-Squares|||Comparison between ≥ 80 years and 65-69 years was reported. Parameter estimates, standard errors, Wald Chi-Squares, p-values, hazard ratios and confidence limits were based on a univariate Cox regression with factor age.||1.759|0.767|0.479
90973350|NCT01535729|181829789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.732|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.569|0.941|||Wald Chi-Squares|||Comparison between female and male was reported. Parameter estimates, standard errors, Wald Chi-Squares, p-values, hazard ratios and confidence limits were based on a univariate Cox regression with factor gender.||0.941|0.569|0.015
91036442|NCT01641380|181959246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference of proportions|0.417||||0.5187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3307|24.8818|||Chi-squared||Intervention 34/50; Control : 28/50|On time for 1st follow-up visit||24.8818|-13.3307|0.5187
91036443|NCT01641380|181959249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||[Proportion of Eligible Patients Enrolle|0.948|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91036444|NCT01030133|181959308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared|0.75||||||0.05
91036445|NCT01097577|181959311|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||ANOVA|||This study was designed to determine if pregabalin is an effective regimen for postoperative pain control following PRK. We hypothesized that there will be at least a 10% improvement in pain after PRK using a scheduled pregabalin dosing regimen compared to placebo. A power analysis was completed to determine the number of patients necessary.||||0.180
90973351|NCT01535729|181829790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.902|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.156||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.402|2.582|||Wald Chi-Squares|||Comparison between ex-smoker and non-smoker was reported. Parameter estimates, standard errors, Wald Chi-Squares, p-values, hazard ratios and confidence limits were based on a univariate Cox regression with factor smoking.||2.582|1.402|0.000
91036446|NCT01097577|181959312|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.207|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.207
91036447|NCT01097577|181959313|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.283|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.283
91036448|NCT01097577|181959314|SUPERIORITY|Question 1: Pain at its worst||||||0.223|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.223
91036449|NCT01097577|181959315|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.311|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.311
91036450|NCT01097577|181959316|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.581|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Days to Heal, OD||||0.581
91036451|NCT01097577|181959316|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.307|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Days to Heal, OS||||0.307
91036452|NCT04493684|181959386|OTHER||Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|2.462|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.823|3.323|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The mixed model was used to estimate Food Effect for the log transformed parameter AUC (0-24). Analysis was performed using fed/ fasted state and tablet/ PiB as fixed effects and participant as a random effect.||3.323|1.823|
91036453|NCT04493684|181959386|OTHER||Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|1.381|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.223|1.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The mixed model was used to estimate Tablet vs. PiB effect for the log transformed parameter AUC (0-24). Analysis was performed using the independent variables included a fixed effect for treatment (PiB or Tablet) and period, and participant as a random effect.||1.56|1.223|
91036454|NCT04493684|181959387|OTHER||Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|2.103|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.629|2.717|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The mixed model was used to estimate Food Effect for the log transformed parameter AUC (0-inf). Analysis was performed using fed/ fasted state and tablet/ PiB as fixed effects and participant as a random effect.||2.717|1.629|
90943537|NCT00551135|181766859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.397|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||"Sitting; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain caused by sitting. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.~Last observation carried forward algorithm or first non-missing observation carried backward algorithm applied to missing scores 1-3 h PS and independently to missing scores 24-48 h PS, before applying trapezoidal rule to compute AUC. AUC=missing if all scores 1-3 or 24-48 h PS missing."||||0.3970
90943538|NCT00551135|181766859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.764|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||"Sitting; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain caused by sitting. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.~Last observation carried forward algorithm or first non-missing observation carried backward algorithm applied to missing scores 1-3 h PS and independently to missing scores 24-48 h PS, before applying trapezoidal rule to compute AUC. AUC=missing if all scores 1-3 or 24-48 h PS missing."||||0.7640
90943539|NCT00551135|181766859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5064|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||"Sitting; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain caused by sitting. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.~Last observation carried forward algorithm or first non-missing observation carried backward algorithm applied to missing scores 1-3 h PS and independently to missing scores 24-48 h PS, before applying trapezoidal rule to compute AUC. AUC=missing if all scores 1-3 or 24-48 h PS missing."||||0.5064
90943540|NCT00551135|181766859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1318|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||"Walking; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain caused by walking. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.~Last observation carried forward algorithm or first non-missing observation carried backward algorithm applied to missing scores 1-3 h PS and independently to missing scores 24-48 h PS, before applying trapezoidal rule to compute AUC. AUC=missing if all scores 1-3 or 24-48 h PS missing."||||0.1318
90943541|NCT00551135|181766859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9367|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||"Walking; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain caused by walking. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.~Last observation carried forward algorithm or first non-missing observation carried backward algorithm applied to missing scores 1-3 h PS and independently to missing scores 24-48 h PS, before applying trapezoidal rule to compute AUC. AUC=missing if all scores 1-3 or 24-48 h PS missing."||||0.9367
90943542|NCT00551135|181766859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1259|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||"Walking; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain caused by walking. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.~Last observation carried forward algorithm or first non-missing observation carried backward algorithm applied to missing scores 1-3 h PS and independently to missing scores 24-48 h PS, before applying trapezoidal rule to compute AUC. AUC=missing if all scores 1-3 or 24-48 h PS missing."||||0.1259
90943543|NCT00551135|181766859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1812|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||"Coughing; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain caused by coughing. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.~Last observation carried forward algorithm or first non-missing observation carried backward algorithm applied to missing scores 1-3 h PS and independently to missing scores 24-48 h PS, before applying trapezoidal rule to compute AUC. AUC=missing if all scores 1-3 or 24-48 h PS missing."||||0.1812
90943544|NCT00551135|181766859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.96|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||"Coughing; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain caused by coughing. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.~Last observation carried forward algorithm or first non-missing observation carried backward algorithm applied to missing scores 1-3 h PS and independently to missing scores 24-48 h PS, before applying trapezoidal rule to compute AUC. AUC=missing if all scores 1-3 or 24-48 h PS missing."||||0.9600
90943545|NCT00551135|181766859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.105|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||"Coughing; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain caused by coughing. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.~Last observation carried forward algorithm or first non-missing observation carried backward algorithm applied to missing scores 1-3 h PS and independently to missing scores 24-48 h PS, before applying trapezoidal rule to compute AUC. AUC=missing if all scores 1-3 or 24-48 h PS missing."||||0.1050
90943546|NCT00551135|181766860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2818|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 h BS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.2818
90943547|NCT00551135|181766860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8631|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 h BS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.8631
91050423|NCT04168190|181987006|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.87|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 11A||1.87|0.66|
90943548|NCT00551135|181766860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5074|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 h BS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.5074
90943549|NCT00551135|181766860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0401|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||1 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0401
90943550|NCT00551135|181766860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5509|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||1 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.5509
90943551|NCT00551135|181766860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||1 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0004
90943552|NCT00551135|181766860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.707|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.7070
90943553|NCT00551135|181766860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.384|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.3840
91036455|NCT04493684|181959387|OTHER||Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|1.351|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.22|1.497|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The mixed model was used to estimate Tablet vs. PiB effect for the log transformed parameter AUC (0-inf). Analysis was performed using the independent variables included a fixed effect for treatment (PiB or Tablet) and period, and participant as a random effect.||1.497|1.22|
91036456|NCT04493684|181959388|OTHER||Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|2.307|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.668|3.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The mixed model was used to estimate Food Effect for the log transformed parameter Cmax. Analysis was performed using fed/ fasted state and tablet/ PiB as fixed effects and participant as a random effect.||3.19|1.668|
91036457|NCT04493684|181959388|OTHER||Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|1.372|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.19|1.582|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The mixed model was used to estimate Tablet vs. PiB effect for the log transformed parameter Cmax. Analysis was performed using the independent variables included a fixed effect for treatment (PiB or Tablet) and period, and participant as a random effect.||1.582|1.19|
91036458|NCT01492439|181959497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029||||||This applies to Semester 1.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.029
90943554|NCT00551135|181766860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2732|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.2732
90943555|NCT00551135|181766860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4418|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||3 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.4418
90943556|NCT00551135|181766860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8379|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||3 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.8379
90943557|NCT00551135|181766860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5944|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||3 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.5944
90943558|NCT00551135|181766860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8139|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 2 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.8139
90943559|NCT00551135|181766860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9709|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 2 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.9709
90943560|NCT00551135|181766860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9666|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 2 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.9666
90943561|NCT00551135|181766860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3204|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 3 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.3204
91036459|NCT01492439|181959497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.225||||||This applies to semester 2.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.225
90943562|NCT00551135|181766860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0869|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 3 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0869
90943563|NCT00551135|181766860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9386|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 3 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.9386
90943564|NCT00551135|181766860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4352|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 4 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.4352
90943565|NCT00551135|181766860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4522|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 4 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.4522
91036460|NCT01492439|181959498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.247||||||This applies to the 'positive' subscale of the PANSS.|ANCOVA|||||||0.247
91036461|NCT01492439|181959498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.747||||||This applies to the 'negative' subscale of the PANSS.|ANCOVA|||||||0.747
91036462|NCT01492439|181959498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.582||||||This applies to the 'general psychopathology' subscale of the PANSS.|ANCOVA|||||||0.582
91036463|NCT01492439|181959499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.000
90943566|NCT00551135|181766860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6606|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 4 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.6606
90943567|NCT00551135|181766860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1733|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 5 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.1733
90943568|NCT00551135|181766860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8788|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 5 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.8788
90943569|NCT00551135|181766860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8474|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 5 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.8474
90943570|NCT00551135|181766860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2938|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 6 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.2938
90943571|NCT00551135|181766860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7602|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 6 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.7602
90943572|NCT00551135|181766860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6881|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 6 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.6881
90943573|NCT00551135|181766860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7883|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 7 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.7883
90943574|NCT00551135|181766860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5374|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 7 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.5374
90943575|NCT00551135|181766860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9774|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 7 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.9774
90943576|NCT00551135|181766860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3082|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 8 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.3082
90973352|NCT01535729|181829790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.786|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.183||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.248|2.557|||Wald Chi-Squares|||Comparison between smoker and non-smoker was reported. Parameter estimates, standard errors, Wald Chi-Squares, p-values, hazard ratios and confidence limits were based on a univariate Cox regression with factor smoking.||2.557|1.248|0.002
90943577|NCT00551135|181766860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4373|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 8 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.4373
91036464|NCT01492439|181959500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95||||||This applies to the 'positive' subscale of the PANSS.|ANCOVA|||||||0.950
91036465|NCT01492439|181959500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027||||||This applies to the 'negative' subscale of the PANSS.|ANCOVA|||||||0.027
90943578|NCT00551135|181766860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.654|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 8 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.6540
90943579|NCT00551135|181766860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 9 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0002
90943580|NCT00551135|181766860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0696|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 9 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0696
90943581|NCT00551135|181766860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 9 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0029
90943582|NCT00551135|181766860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3695|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 10 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.3695
90943583|NCT00551135|181766860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9346|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 10 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.9346
90943584|NCT00551135|181766860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9631|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 10 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.9631
90943585|NCT00551135|181766861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9025|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||"LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.~Last observation carried forward or first non-missing observation carried backward algorithm applied to missing scores 1-3 h PS and independently to missing scores 24-48 h PS, before applying trapezoidal rule to compute AUC. AUC=missing if all scores 1-3 or 24-48 h PS missing."||||0.9025
90943586|NCT00551135|181766861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5652|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||"LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.~Last observation carried forward or first non-missing observation carried backward algorithm applied to missing scores 1-3 h PS and independently to missing scores 24-48 h PS, before applying trapezoidal rule to compute AUC. AUC=missing if all scores 1-3 or 24-48 h PS missing."||||0.5652
90943587|NCT00551135|181766861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.792|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||"LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.~Last observation carried forward or first non-missing observation carried backward algorithm applied to missing scores 1-3 h PS and independently to missing scores 24-48 h PS, before applying trapezoidal rule to compute AUC. AUC=missing if all scores 1-3 or 24-48 h PS missing."||||0.7920
90943588|NCT00551135|181766862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6679|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 h BS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.6679
90943589|NCT00551135|181766862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7308|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 h BS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.7308
90943590|NCT00551135|181766862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6781|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 h BS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.6781
90943591|NCT00551135|181766862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.093|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||1 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0930
90943592|NCT00551135|181766862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3751|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||1 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.3751
90943593|NCT00551135|181766862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0111|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||1 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0111
90943594|NCT00551135|181766862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6811|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.6811
90943595|NCT00551135|181766862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7426|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.7426
90943596|NCT00551135|181766862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1619|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.1619
90943597|NCT00551135|181766862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1132|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||3 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.1132
90943598|NCT00551135|181766862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9822|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||3 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.9822
90943599|NCT00551135|181766862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1883|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||3 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.1883
90943600|NCT00551135|181766862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9391|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 1 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.9391
90973353|NCT01535729|181829793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.717|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.535|0.962|||Wald Chi-Squares|||Comparison between female and male was reported. Parameter estimates, standard errors, Wald Chi-Squares, p-values, hazard ratios and confidence limits were based on a univariate Cox regression with factor gender.||0.962|0.535|0.027
90973354|NCT01535729|181829794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.935|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.179||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.362|2.749|||Wald Chi-Squares|||Comparison between ex-smoker and non-smoker was reported. Parameter estimates, standard errors, Wald Chi-Squares, p-values, hazard ratios and confidence limits were based on a univariate Cox regression with factor smoking.||2.749|1.362|0.000
90973355|NCT01535729|181829794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.882|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.213||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.239|2.859|||Wald Chi-Squares|||Comparison between smoker and non-smoker was reported. Parameter estimates, standard errors, Wald Chi-Squares, p-values, hazard ratios and confidence limits were based on a univariate Cox regression with factor smoking.||2.859|1.239|0.003
90973356|NCT02889796|181829903|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|26.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.6|32.8||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12||32.8|20.6|<0.001
90973357|NCT02889796|181829903|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|19.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.6|26.2||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12||26.2|13.6|<0.001
90943601|NCT00551135|181766862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9664|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 1 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.9664
90943602|NCT00551135|181766862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0747|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 1 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0747
90943603|NCT00551135|181766862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9681|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 2 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.9681
90943604|NCT00551135|181766862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3246|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 2 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.3246
90943605|NCT00551135|181766862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7984|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 2 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.7984
90943606|NCT00551135|181766862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8581|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 3 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.8581
90943607|NCT00551135|181766862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9677|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 3 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.9677
90943608|NCT00551135|181766862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7104|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 3 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.7104
90943609|NCT00551135|181766862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8978|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 4 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.8978
90943610|NCT00551135|181766862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.626|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 4 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.6260
90943611|NCT00551135|181766862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4047|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 4 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.4047
90943612|NCT00551135|181766862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4461|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 5 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.4461
90943613|NCT00551135|181766862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9099|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 5 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.9099
90943614|NCT00551135|181766862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8805|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 5 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.8805
90943615|NCT00551135|181766862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2348|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 6 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.2348
90943616|NCT00551135|181766862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4445|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 6 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.4445
90943617|NCT00551135|181766862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8849|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 6 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.8849
90943618|NCT00551135|181766862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2796|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 7 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.2796
90943619|NCT00551135|181766862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5225|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 7 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.5225
90943620|NCT00551135|181766862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7015|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 7 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.7015
90943621|NCT00551135|181766866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3332|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 2 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.3332
90943622|NCT00551135|181766866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0933|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 2 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0933
90943623|NCT00551135|181766866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 2 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0031
90943624|NCT00551135|181766866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9451|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 3 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.9451
90943625|NCT00551135|181766866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7312|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 3 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.7312
90943626|NCT00551135|181766866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0348|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 3 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0348
90943627|NCT00551135|181766866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8936|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 4 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.8936
90943628|NCT00551135|181766866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7672|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 4 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.7672
90943629|NCT00551135|181766866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4285|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 4 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.4285
90943630|NCT00551135|181766866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0785|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 5 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0785
90943631|NCT00551135|181766866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3348|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 5 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.3348
90973358|NCT02889796|181829904|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.22||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|Mixed effects model for repeated measure|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from mixed effects model for repeated measures (MMRM). Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.22|-0.36|<0.001
90973359|NCT02889796|181829904|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|-0.1||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.10|-0.24|<0.001
90943632|NCT00551135|181766866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1366|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 5 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.1366
90943633|NCT00551135|181766866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3338|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 6 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.3338
90943634|NCT00551135|181766866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.446|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 6 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.4460
90943635|NCT00551135|181766866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1078|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 6 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.1078
90943636|NCT00551135|181766866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8273|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 7 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.8273
90943637|NCT00551135|181766866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.614|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 7 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.6140
90943638|NCT00551135|181766866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1684|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 7 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.1684
90943639|NCT00551135|181766866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1285|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 8 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.1285
90943640|NCT00551135|181766866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.264|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 8 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.2640
90943641|NCT00551135|181766866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8956|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 8 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.8956
90943642|NCT00551135|181766866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 9 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0058
90943643|NCT00551135|181766866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9929|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 9 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.9929
90973360|NCT02889796|181829905|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|24.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.6|30.0||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12.||30.0|19.6|<0.001
90973361|NCT02889796|181829905|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|14.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.7|19.3||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12.||19.3|9.7|<0.001
90973362|NCT02889796|181829905|NON_INFERIORITY|For non-inferiority test, the approach proposed by Liu 2014 was used to demonstrate that each filgotinib dose preserves more than 50% of the effect of adalimumab on the response rate of DAS28 (CRP) \< 2.6 using non-responder imputation (NRI).|||||<|0.001||||||P-value of non-inferiority test was calculated from approach proposed by \[Liu 2014\].|Method proposed by [Liu 2014]|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Adalimumab at Week 12.||||<0.001
90973363|NCT02889796|181829905|NON_INFERIORITY|For non-inferiority test, the approach proposed by Liu 2014 was used to demonstrate that each filgotinib dose preserves more than 50% of the effect of adalimumab on the response rate of DAS28 (CRP) \< 2.6 using NRI.||||||0.002||||||P-value of non-inferiority test was calculated from approach proposed by \[Liu 2014\].|Method proposed by [Liu 2014]|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Adalimumab at Week 12.||||0.002
90973364|NCT02889796|181829905|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|10.4||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|17.0||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Adalimumab at Week 12.||17.0|3.9|0.001
90973365|NCT02889796|181829905|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|0.1||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|6.3||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Adalimumab at Week 12.||6.3|-6.2|0.99
90973366|NCT02889796|181829906|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.078|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.12||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.12|-0.43|<0.001
90973367|NCT02889796|181829906|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.078||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.1||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.10|-0.40|0.001
90973368|NCT02889796|181829907|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|26.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.2|32.4||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12||32.4|20.2|<0.001
90973369|NCT02889796|181829907|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|15.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.4|21.4||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12||21.4|9.4|<0.001
90973370|NCT02889796|181829907|NON_INFERIORITY|For non-inferiority test, the approach proposed by Liu 2014 was used to demonstrate that each filgotinib dose preserves more than 50% of the effect of adalimumab on the response rate of DAS28 (CRP) ≤ 3.2 using NRI.|||||<|0.001||||||P-value of non-inferiority test was calculated from approach proposed by \[Liu 2014\].|Method proposed by [Liu 2014]|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Adalimumab at Week 12||||<0.001
90973371|NCT02889796|181829907|NON_INFERIORITY|For non-inferiority test, the approach proposed by Liu 2014 was used to demonstrate that each filgotinib dose preserves more than 50% of the effect of adalimumab on the response rate of DAS28 (CRP) ≤ 3.2 using NRI.||||||0.054||||||P-value of non-inferiority test was calculated from approach proposed by \[Liu 2014\].|Method proposed by [Liu 2014]|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Adalimumab at Week 12||||0.054
90973372|NCT02889796|181829907|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|6.3||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|13.6||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Adalimumab at Week 12||13.6|-1.0|0.069
90973373|NCT02889796|181829907|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|-4.6||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|2.6||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Adalimumab at Week 12||2.6|-11.8|0.18
91036466|NCT01492439|181959500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.639||||||This applies to the 'general psychopathology' subscale of the PANSS.|ANCOVA|||||||0.639
91036467|NCT01492439|181959501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.008
91036468|NCT01492439|181959502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.314||||||This applies to Trial 1 on the CVLT.|ANCOVA|||||||0.314
90943644|NCT00551135|181766866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0473|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 9 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0473
90943645|NCT00551135|181766866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2426|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 10 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.2426
90943646|NCT00551135|181766866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3478|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 10 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.3478
90943647|NCT00551135|181766866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1694|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 10 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.1694
90943648|NCT00551135|181766867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.063|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||24 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0630
90943649|NCT00551135|181766867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0347|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||24 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0347
90943650|NCT00551135|181766867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||24 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0024
90943651|NCT00551135|181766867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0767|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||48 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0767
90943652|NCT00551135|181766867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1327|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||48 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.1327
90943653|NCT00551135|181766867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||48 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0078
90943654|NCT00551135|181766867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0694|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||72 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0694
90943655|NCT00551135|181766867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2173|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||72 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.2173
90943656|NCT00551135|181766867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0193|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||72 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0193
90943657|NCT00551135|181766867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0673|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 4 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0673
90943658|NCT00551135|181766867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2629|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 4 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.2629
90943659|NCT00551135|181766867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0388|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 4 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0388
90943660|NCT00551135|181766867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0651|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 5 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0651
90943661|NCT00551135|181766867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3242|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 5 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.3242
90943662|NCT00551135|181766867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0345|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 5 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0345
90943663|NCT00551135|181766867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0487|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 6 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0487
90943664|NCT00551135|181766867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3384|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 6 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.3384
90943665|NCT00551135|181766867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0467|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 6 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0467
90943666|NCT00551135|181766867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0347|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 7 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0347
90943667|NCT00551135|181766867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3086|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 7 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.3086
90943668|NCT00551135|181766867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0406|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 7 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0406
90943669|NCT00551135|181766868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4177|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.4177
90943670|NCT00551135|181766868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.441|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.4410
90943671|NCT00551135|181766868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.556|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.5560
90943672|NCT00551135|181766869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4273|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Total CME 3 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.4273
90943673|NCT00551135|181766869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4466|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Total CME 3 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.4466
90973374|NCT02889796|181829908|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|4.6||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||4.6|2.8|<0.001
90973375|NCT02889796|181829908|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|4.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||4.0|2.2|<0.001
90973376|NCT02889796|181829909|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|3.9||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||3.9|1.7|<0.001
90973377|NCT02889796|181829909|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|3.7||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||3.7|1.5|<0.001
90973378|NCT02889796|181829910|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|8.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.1|10.9||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 2||10.9|5.1|<0.001
90973379|NCT02889796|181829910|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|4.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|7.3||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 2||7.3|2.3|<0.001
90973380|NCT02889796|181829910|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|16.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.9|20.9||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4||20.9|11.9|<0.001
90973381|NCT02889796|181829910|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|7.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|10.9||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4||10.9|3.1|<0.001
90973382|NCT02889796|181829910|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|27.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.4|33.3||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12||33.3|21.4|<0.001
90973383|NCT02889796|181829910|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|16.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.9|22.5||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12||22.5|10.9|<0.001
90973384|NCT02889796|181829910|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|24.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.3|31.0||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24||31.0|18.3|<0.001
90973385|NCT02889796|181829910|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|19.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.1|25.8||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24||25.8|13.1|<0.001
90973386|NCT02889796|181829912|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|2.3||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|4.1||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 2||4.1|0.5|0.008
90973387|NCT02889796|181829912|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|0.8||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|2.2||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 2||2.2|-0.5|0.18
90973388|NCT02889796|181829912|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|7.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.6|10.6||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4||10.6|4.6|<0.001
91036469|NCT01492439|181959502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.242||||||This applies to the total score of trials 1-4 (total free recall) of the CVLT.|ANCOVA|||||||0.242
90973389|NCT02889796|181829912|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|1.9||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|4.0||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4||4.0|-0.3|0.067
90973390|NCT02889796|181829912|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|19.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.6|24.1||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12||24.1|14.6|<0.001
90973391|NCT02889796|181829912|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|11.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.5|16.2||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12||16.2|7.5|<0.001
90973392|NCT02889796|181829912|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|21.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.7|26.9||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24||26.9|15.7|<0.001
90973393|NCT02889796|181829912|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|14.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.2|20.0||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24||20.0|9.2|<0.001
90973394|NCT02889796|181829914|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|22.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.7|27.9||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 2||27.9|16.7|<0.001
90973395|NCT02889796|181829914|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|12.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.2|17.9||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 2||17.9|7.2|<0.001
90973396|NCT02889796|181829914|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|19.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.4|26.1||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4||26.1|13.4|<0.001
90973397|NCT02889796|181829914|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|13.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.5|20.2||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4||20.2|7.5|<0.001
90973398|NCT02889796|181829914|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|18.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.0|24.9||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24||24.9|13.0|<0.001
90973399|NCT02889796|181829914|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|18.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.6|24.5||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24||24.5|12.6|<0.001
90973400|NCT02889796|181829916|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|-0.12||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.12|-0.22|<0.001
90973401|NCT02889796|181829916|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|-0.04||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.04|-0.14|<0.001
90973402|NCT02889796|181829916|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|-0.13||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.13|-0.24|<0.001
90973403|NCT02889796|181829916|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|-0.04||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.04|-0.15|<0.001
90973404|NCT02889796|181829916|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|-0.19||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.19|-0.34|<0.001
90973405|NCT02889796|181829916|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|-0.11||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.11|-0.26|<0.001
91036470|NCT01492439|181959502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.669||||||This applies to the 'long delay free recall' subtest of the CVLT.|ANCOVA|||||||0.669
90973406|NCT02889796|181829918|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-2.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-2.0|-4.0|<0.001
90973407|NCT02889796|181829918|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|0.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.0|-3.0|0.010
90943674|NCT00551135|181766869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3785|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Total CME 3 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.3785
90943675|NCT00551135|181766869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5272|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Total CME 24 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.5272
90943676|NCT00551135|181766869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4257|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Total CME 24 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.4257
90943677|NCT00551135|181766869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1428|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Total CME 24 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.1428
90943678|NCT00551135|181766869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2316|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Total CME 72 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.2316
90943679|NCT00551135|181766869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3468|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Total CME 72 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.3468
90943680|NCT00551135|181766869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5367|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Total CME 72 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.5367
90943681|NCT00551135|181766869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0549|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Total CME EOT; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0549
90943682|NCT00551135|181766869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1351|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Total CME EOT; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.1351
90943683|NCT00551135|181766869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9599|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Total CME EOT; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.9599
90943684|NCT00551135|181766869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4273|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||CT Distinct CME 3 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.4273
90943685|NCT00551135|181766869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4466|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||CT Distinct CME 3 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.4466
90973408|NCT02889796|181829918|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|-2.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-2.0|-5.0|<0.001
90973409|NCT02889796|181829918|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.0|-4.0|<0.001
90973410|NCT02889796|181829918|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|-2.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-2.0|-5.0|<0.001
91036471|NCT01492439|181959503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.139||||||This applies to the 'trial 1' subtest of the CVLT.|ANCOVA|||||||0.139
90973411|NCT02889796|181829918|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.0|-4.0|<0.001
90973412|NCT02889796|181829918|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-2.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-2.0|-4.0|<0.001
90973413|NCT02889796|181829918|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.0|-3.0|<0.001
90973414|NCT02889796|181829920|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.0|-2.0|0.002
90973415|NCT02889796|181829920|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.0|-2.0|0.047
90973416|NCT02889796|181829920|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.0|-3.0|<0.001
90973417|NCT02889796|181829920|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.0|-3.0|<0.001
90973418|NCT02889796|181829920|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.0|-3.0|<0.001
90973419|NCT02889796|181829920|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.0|-2.0|<0.001
90973420|NCT02889796|181829920|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.0|-3.0|<0.001
90973421|NCT02889796|181829920|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.0|-2.0|<0.001
90973422|NCT02889796|181829922|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|-7.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-7.0|-11.0|<0.001
90973423|NCT02889796|181829922|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|-2.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-2.0|-7.0|<0.001
91036472|NCT01492439|181959503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.269||||||This applies to the total of trials 1-4 (total free recall) of the CVLT.|ANCOVA|||||||0.269
90973424|NCT02889796|181829922|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|-7.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-7.0|-12.0|<0.001
90973425|NCT02889796|181829922|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|-2.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-2.0|-7.0|<0.001
90973426|NCT02889796|181829922|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-13.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|-10.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-10.0|-16.0|<0.001
90973427|NCT02889796|181829922|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-10.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|-7.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-7.0|-12.0|<0.001
90973428|NCT02889796|181829922|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-11.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|-7.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-7.0|-14.0|<0.001
90973429|NCT02889796|181829922|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|-5.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-5.0|-11.0|<0.001
90973430|NCT02889796|181829924|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|-6.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-6.0|-10.0|<0.001
90973431|NCT02889796|181829924|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|-4.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-4.0|-8.0|<0.001
90973432|NCT02889796|181829924|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|-6.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-6.0|-11.0|<0.001
91036473|NCT01492439|181959503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.666||||||This applies to the 'long delay free recall' subtest of the CVLT.|ANCOVA|||||||0.666
90973433|NCT02889796|181829924|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|-5.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-5.0|-9.0|<0.001
90973434|NCT02889796|181829924|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|-6.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-6.0|-10.0|<0.001
91036474|NCT01492439|181959504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.391|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.391
91036475|NCT01492439|181959505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.958|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.958
91036476|NCT01492439|181959506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.754||||||This applies to the 'forward' sequence of the Digit Span Test.|ANCOVA|||||||0.754
90973435|NCT02889796|181829924|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|-5.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-5.0|-10.0|<0.001
90973436|NCT02889796|181829924|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|-6.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-6.0|-11.0|<0.001
90973437|NCT02889796|181829924|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|-5.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-5.0|-10.0|<0.001
90943686|NCT00551135|181766869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3785|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||CT Distinct CME 3 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.3785
90973438|NCT02889796|181829926|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|-7.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-7.0|-12.0|<0.001
90973439|NCT02889796|181829926|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|-3.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-3.0|-8.0|<0.001
90973440|NCT02889796|181829926|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|-7.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-7.0|-12.0|<0.001
91036477|NCT01492439|181959506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.518||||||This applies to the 'backward' sequence of the Digit Span Test.|ANCOVA|||||||0.518
91036478|NCT01492439|181959506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.531||||||This applies to the total score (forward+backwards) on the Digit Span Test.|ANCOVA|||||||0.531
91036479|NCT01492439|181959507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.802||||||This applies to the 'forward' sequence of the Digit Span Test.|ANCOVA|||||||0.802
90943687|NCT00551135|181766869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2869|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||CT Distinct CME 24 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.2869
91036480|NCT01492439|181959507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.091||||||This applies to the 'backwards' sequence of the Digit Span Test.|ANCOVA|||||||0.091
91036481|NCT01492439|181959507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.171||||||This applies to the total score (forward + backwards) on the Digit Span Test.|ANCOVA|||||||0.171
90973441|NCT02889796|181829926|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|-4.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-4.0|-9.0|<0.001
91036482|NCT01492439|181959508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.267|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.267
91036483|NCT01492439|181959509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.527|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.527
91036484|NCT01492439|181959510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.852||||||This applies to the percentage of perseverative errors on the WCST.|ANCOVA|||||||0.852
91036485|NCT01492439|181959510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.637||||||This applies to the percentage of conceptual level responses on the WCST.|ANCOVA|||||||0.637
91036486|NCT01492439|181959511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.612||||||This applies to the total number of correct categories on the WCST|ANCOVA|||||||0.612
91036487|NCT01492439|181959512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.156||||||This applies to the percentage of perseverative errors on the WCST.|ANCOVA|||||||0.156
91036488|NCT01492439|181959512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.926||||||This applies to the percentage of conceptual level responses on the WCST.|ANCOVA|||||||0.926
91036489|NCT01492439|181959513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.843|||||||ANCOVA|||This applies to the total number of categories on the WCST.||||0.843
91036490|NCT01492439|181959514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.129||||||This applies to the total number of errors made on the DVT.|ANCOVA|||||||0.129
91036491|NCT01492439|181959515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||ANCOVA|||This applies to the total time taken to complete the DVT.||||0.004
90973442|NCT02889796|181829926|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-12.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|-9.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-9.0|-15.0|<0.001
90973443|NCT02889796|181829926|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-10.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|-7.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-7.0|-13.0|<0.001
90973444|NCT02889796|181829926|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-11.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|-7.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-7.0|-14.0|<0.001
90973445|NCT02889796|181829926|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|-6.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-6.0|-12.0|<0.001
90973446|NCT02889796|181829928|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-10.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.952|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|-8.96||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-8.96|-12.70|<0.001
90973447|NCT02889796|181829928|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.947|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.58|-5.87||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-5.87|-9.58|<0.001
90973448|NCT02889796|181829928|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.989|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.33|-7.45||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-7.45|-11.33|<0.001
90973449|NCT02889796|181829928|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.987|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.29|-5.42||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-5.42|-9.29|<0.001
91036492|NCT01492439|181959516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.853|||||||ANCOVA|This applies to the total number of errors on the DVT.||||||0.853
91036493|NCT01492439|181959517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.468|||||||ANCOVA|||This applies to the total time taken to complete the DVT.||||0.468
90973450|NCT02889796|181829928|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-8.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.961|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|-6.13||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-6.13|-9.90|<0.001
90973451|NCT02889796|181829928|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.35|-4.58||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-4.58|-8.35|<0.001
90973452|NCT02889796|181829928|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.007|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.88|-5.93||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-5.93|-9.88|<0.001
90973453|NCT02889796|181829928|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.005|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.56|-4.62||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-4.62|-8.56|<0.001
90973454|NCT02889796|181829930|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|12.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|18.9||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 2.||18.9|5.7|<0.001
90973455|NCT02889796|181829930|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|6.5||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|13.1||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 2.||13.1|-0.1|0.043
90973456|NCT02889796|181829930|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|16.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.8|22.8||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4.||22.8|9.8|<0.001
90973457|NCT02889796|181829930|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|8.1||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|14.7||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4.||14.7|1.5|0.011
91036494|NCT04618211|181959567|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-16.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.423|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.52|-11.97||Nominal p-value|Mixed model repeated measures|||||-11.97|-21.52|< 0.0001
91036495|NCT04618211|181959567|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-15.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.64|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.22|-9.81|||Mixed model repeated measures|||||-9.81|-20.22|< 0.0001
90973458|NCT02889796|181829930|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|21.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.9|27.0||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12.||27.0|14.9|<0.001
90973459|NCT02889796|181829930|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|13.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.3|19.9||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12.||19.9|7.3|<0.001
91036496|NCT04618211|181959567|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-16.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.531|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.27|-11.29|||Mixed model repeated measures|||||-11.29|-21.27|< 0.0001
91036497|NCT04618211|181959568|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.01|7.2||Nominal p-value|Marginal Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||||7.2|2.01|< 0.0001
91036498|NCT04618211|181959568|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.08||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|6.3|||Marginal Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||||6.3|1.5|0.0021
91036499|NCT04618211|181959568|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|6.19|||Marginal Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||||6.19|2.1|< 0.0001
90973460|NCT02889796|181829930|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|16.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.5|22.8||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24.||22.8|10.5|<0.001
91036500|NCT04618211|181959569|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|5.09|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.81|9.22||Nominal p-value|Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||||9.22|2.81|< 0.0001
91036501|NCT04618211|181959569|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.25||||0.0127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|4.27|||Marginal Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||||4.27|1.19|0.0127
91036502|NCT04618211|181959569|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.65||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.61|4.38|||Marginal Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||||4.38|1.61|0.0001
91036503|NCT04618211|181959570|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.41|8.59||Nominal p-value|Marginal Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||||8.59|2.41|< 0.0001
91036504|NCT04618211|181959570|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.65||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|7.38|||Marginal Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||||7.38|1.8|0.0003
90973461|NCT02889796|181829930|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|14.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.8|20.3||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24.||20.3|7.8|<0.001
90973462|NCT02889796|181829932|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.6||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.6|-0.9|<0.001
90973463|NCT02889796|181829932|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.3||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.3|-0.5|<0.001
90943688|NCT00551135|181766869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9905|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||CT Distinct CME 24 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.9905
90943689|NCT00551135|181766869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9381|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||CT Distinct CME 24 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.9381
90943690|NCT00551135|181766869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2158|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||CT Distinct CME 72 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.2158
90943691|NCT00551135|181766869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7887|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||CT Distinct CME 72 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.7887
90943692|NCT00551135|181766869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.925|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||CT Distinct CME 72 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.9250
90943693|NCT00551135|181766869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1472|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||CT Distinct CME EOT; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.1472
90943694|NCT00551135|181766869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5383|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||CT Distinct CME EOT; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.5383
90943695|NCT00551135|181766869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8869|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||CT Distinct CME EOT; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.8869
90943696|NCT00551135|181766870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4024|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Fatigue at 3 h PS;||||0.4024
90943697|NCT00551135|181766870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9766|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Fatigue at 3 h PS;||||0.9766
90943698|NCT00551135|181766870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9975|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Fatigue at 3 h PS;||||0.9975
90943699|NCT00551135|181766870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9038|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Fatigue at 24 h PS;||||0.9038
90943700|NCT00551135|181766870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.937|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Fatigue at 24 h PS;||||0.9370
91036505|NCT04618211|181959570|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.26|6.63|||Marginal Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||||6.63|2.26|< 0.0001
90973464|NCT02889796|181829932|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.7||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.7|-0.9|<0.001
90973465|NCT02889796|181829932|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.4||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.4|-0.7|<0.001
90973466|NCT02889796|181829932|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.8||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.8|-1.1|<0.001
90973467|NCT02889796|181829932|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.5||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.5|-0.8|<0.001
90973468|NCT02889796|181829932|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.8||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.8|-1.1|<0.001
90973469|NCT02889796|181829932|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.5||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.5|-0.8|<0.001
90973470|NCT02889796|181829934|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|9.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.8|13.1||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 2||13.1|5.8|<0.001
91036506|NCT04618211|181959571|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.164|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.46||Nominal p-value|Mixed model repeated measures|||||-0.46|-1.11|< 0.0001
91036507|NCT04618211|181959571|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.178||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.26|||Mixed model repeated measures|||||-0.26|-0.97|0.0008
90973471|NCT02889796|181829934|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|4.5||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|7.7||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 2||7.7|1.4|0.004
90973472|NCT02889796|181829934|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|16.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.3|21.1||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4||21.1|11.3|<0.001
91036508|NCT04618211|181959571|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.174||0.0291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.04|||Mixed model repeated measures|||||-0.04|-0.73|0.0291
90973473|NCT02889796|181829934|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|11.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|15.8||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4||15.8|6.5|<0.001
90973474|NCT02889796|181829934|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|26.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.6|33.3||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24||33.3|20.6|<0.001
91036509|NCT04618211|181959572|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|64.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.016|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.35|87.91||Nominal p-value|Mixed model repeated measures|||||87.91|40.35|< 0.0001
91036510|NCT04618211|181959572|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|62.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.128|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.71|88.67|||Mixed model repeated measures|||||88.67|36.71|< 0.0001
91036511|NCT04618211|181959572|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|71.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.613|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.09|96.03|||Mixed model repeated measures|||||96.03|46.09|< 0.0001
91036512|NCT00673660|181959610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Values less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||Total cholesterol||||<0.001
91036513|NCT00673660|181959610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Values less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||LDL cholesterol||||<0.001
90973475|NCT02889796|181829934|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|19.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.1|25.8||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24||25.8|13.1|<0.001
90973476|NCT02889796|181829936|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|4.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|6.7||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 2.||6.7|2.1|<0.001
90973477|NCT02889796|181829936|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|1.0||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|2.6||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 2.||2.6|-0.5|0.17
90943701|NCT00551135|181766870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2134|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Fatigue at 24 h PS;||||0.2134
90973478|NCT02889796|181829936|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|10.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.1|14.4||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4.||14.4|7.1|<0.001
90973479|NCT02889796|181829936|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|5.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|9.0||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4.||9.0|2.6|<0.001
90973480|NCT02889796|181829936|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|32.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.4|38.0||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24.||38.0|26.4|<0.001
90973481|NCT02889796|181829936|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|19.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.4|24.6||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24.||24.6|13.4|<0.001
90973482|NCT02889796|181829936|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|12.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.6|19.9||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Adalimumab at Week 24.||19.9|5.6|<0.001
91036514|NCT00673660|181959610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.972|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Values less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|t-test, 1 sided|||HDL cholesterol||||0.972
90943702|NCT00551135|181766870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2482|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Fatigue at 72 h PS;||||0.2482
90943703|NCT00551135|181766870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2207|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Fatigue at 72 h PS;||||0.2207
90943704|NCT00551135|181766870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9191|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Fatigue at 72 h PS;||||0.9191
90943705|NCT00551135|181766870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0686|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Fatigue at EOT;||||0.0686
90943706|NCT00551135|181766870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0746|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Fatigue at EOT;||||0.0746
90943707|NCT00551135|181766870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0512|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Fatigue at EOT;||||0.0512
90943708|NCT00551135|181766870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7118|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Drowsiness at 3 h PS;||||0.7118
90943709|NCT00551135|181766870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9883|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Drowsiness at 3 h PS;||||0.9883
90943710|NCT00551135|181766870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.977|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Drowsiness at 3 h PS;||||0.9770
90943711|NCT00551135|181766870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5457|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Drowsiness at 24 h PS;||||0.5457
90943712|NCT00551135|181766870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2579|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Drowsiness at 24 h PS;||||0.2579
90943713|NCT00551135|181766870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1232|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Drowsiness at 24 h PS;||||0.1232
90943714|NCT00551135|181766870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.288|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Drowsiness at 72 h PS;||||0.2880
90943715|NCT00551135|181766870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0894|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Drowsiness at 72 h PS;||||0.0894
90943716|NCT00551135|181766870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1979|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Drowsiness at 72 h PS;||||0.1979
90973483|NCT02889796|181829936|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|-0.5||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|6.5||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Adalimumab at Week 24.||6.5|-7.5|0.88
90973484|NCT02889796|181829936|NON_INFERIORITY|For non-inferiority test, the approach proposed by Liu 2014 was used to demonstrate that each filgotinib dose preserves more than 50% of the effect of adalimumab on the response rate of DAS28 (CRP) \< 2.6 at using NRI.|||||<|0.001||||||P-value of non-inferiority test was calculated from approach proposed by \[Liu 2014\].|Method proposed by [Liu 2014]|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Adalimumab at Week 24.||||<0.001
90973485|NCT02889796|181829936|NON_INFERIORITY|For non-inferiority test, the approach proposed by Liu 2014 was used to demonstrate that each filgotinib dose preserves more than 50% of the effect of adalimumab on the response rate of DAS28 (CRP) \< 2.6 at using NRI.|||||<|0.001||||||P-value of non-inferiority test was calculated from approach proposed by \[Liu 2014\].|Method proposed by [Liu 2014]|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Adalimumab at Week 24.||||<0.001
90973486|NCT02889796|181829942|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|-3.2||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-3.2|-5.9|<0.001
90973487|NCT02889796|181829942|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|-1.6||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.6|-4.3|<0.001
90973488|NCT02889796|181829942|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|-3.8||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-3.8|-6.6|<0.001
91036515|NCT00673660|181959610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Values less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||Triglycerides||||0.034
91036516|NCT05919823|181959667|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference|Least-squares mean difference|-9.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.835||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|-3.6|||Mixed model repeated measure|MMRM includes PANSS change at Weeks 2-5; fixed effects: treatment, visit, interaction; covariates: site, age, sex, baseline.|Numerator=KarXT/KarXT, denominator =Placebo/KarXT|||-3.6|-14.8|0.0014
91036517|NCT05919823|181959668|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference|Least-squares mean difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.952||0.0474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|0.0|||Mixed model for Repeated measures|includes PANSS change at Weeks 2-5; fixed effects: treatment, visit, interaction; covariates: site, age, sex, baseline PANSS positive symptom score.|Numerator=KarXT/KarXT, denominator =Placebo/KarXT|||0|-3.8|0.0474
91036518|NCT05919823|181959669|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference|Least-squares mean difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.887||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|-0.7|||Mixed model for Repeated measures|includes PANSS change at Weeks 2-5; fixed effects: treatment, visit, interaction; covariates: site, age, sex, baseline PANSS positive symptom score.||||-0.7|-4.2|0.0062
91036519|NCT05919823|181959670|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference|Least-squares mean difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.906||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|-0.8|||Mixed model for Repeated measures|includes PANSS change at Weeks 2-5; fixed effects: treatment, visit, interaction; covariates: site, age, sex, baseline PANSS positive symptom score.||||-0.8|-4.3|0.0056
91036520|NCT05919823|181959671|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference|Least-squares mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.165||0.0208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.1|||Mixed model for repeated measures|ncludes PANSS change at Weeks 2-5; fixed effects: treatment, visit, interaction; covariates: site, age, sex, baseline PANSS positive symptom score.||||-0.1|-0.7|0.0208
91036521|NCT05919823|181959672|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|15.8||||0.0402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|29.9|||Chi-squared|||||29.9|0.7|0.0402
91036522|NCT01648582|181959692|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analyses were based on a pre-defined non-inferiority margin of 0.4%.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.4||||||||-0.40|-0.74|
90890031|NCT01571362|181644035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.243|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|-0.5|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariate.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Screening to Week 12/Early Termination.||-0.50|-1.46|<0.0001
90890032|NCT01571362|181644036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.214||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|-0.38|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariate.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Screening to Week 2.||-0.38|-1.22|0.0002
90890033|NCT01571362|181644036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.235||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|-0.32|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariate.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Screening to Week 4.||-0.32|-1.25|0.0010
90890034|NCT01571362|181644036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.271||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|-0.25|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariate.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Screening to Week 8.||-0.25|-1.32|0.0041
90943717|NCT00551135|181766870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0686|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Drowsiness at EOT;||||0.0686
90973489|NCT02889796|181829942|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|-2.4||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-2.4|-5.3|<0.001
90973490|NCT02889796|181829942|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|-4.6||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-4.6|-7.3|<0.001
90973491|NCT02889796|181829942|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.69|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|-3.1||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-3.1|-5.8|<0.001
90973492|NCT02889796|181829942|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|-4.5||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-4.5|-6.9|<0.001
91036523|NCT01648582|181959692|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analyses were based on a pre-defined non-inferiority margin of 0.4%.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.01||||||||-0.01|-0.35|
91036524|NCT01648582|181959693|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analyses were based on a pre-defined non-inferiority margin of 0.4%.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.38||||||||-0.38|-0.77|
91036525|NCT01648582|181959693|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analyses were based on a pre-defined non-inferiority margin of 0.4%.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|-0.06||||||||-0.06|-0.33|
90943718|NCT00551135|181766870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0746|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Drowsiness at EOT;||||0.0746
90943719|NCT00551135|181766870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4669|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Drowsiness at EOT;||||0.4669
90943720|NCT00551135|181766870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5533|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Inability to Concentrate at 3 h PS;||||0.5533
90943721|NCT00551135|181766870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1611|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Inability to Concentrate at 3 h PS;||||0.1611
90973493|NCT02889796|181829942|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|-2.9||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-2.9|-5.3|<0.001
91036526|NCT01648582|181959694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||\<7.0% Week 26||||<0.001
91036527|NCT01648582|181959694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004|||||||Fisher Exact|||\<7.0 Week 26||||0.004
90973494|NCT02889796|181829944|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|-4.4||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-4.4|-7.1|<0.001
91036528|NCT01648582|181959694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||\<=6.5% Week 26||||<0.001
91036529|NCT01648582|181959694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||\<=6.5% Week 26||||<0.001
91036530|NCT01648582|181959694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||\<7.0% Week 52||||<0.001
91036531|NCT01648582|181959694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|||||||Fisher Exact|||\<7.0% Week 52||||0.002
91036532|NCT01648582|181959694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||\<=6.5% Week 52||||<0.001
91036533|NCT01648582|181959694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||\<=6.5% Week 52||||<0.001
91036534|NCT01648582|181959695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.24||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 26||0.59|-0.11|0.177
90973495|NCT02889796|181829944|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|-2.2||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-2.2|-5.0|<0.001
91036535|NCT01648582|181959695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 26||1.23|0.53|<0.001
91036536|NCT01648582|181959695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12||||0.518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52||0.50|-0.25|0.518
91036537|NCT01648582|181959695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52||1.20|0.45|<0.001
91036538|NCT01648582|181959696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning pre-meal, Week 26||0.88|0.42|<0.001
91036539|NCT01648582|181959696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning pre-meal, Week 26||1.17|0.71|<0.001
91036540|NCT01648582|181959696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.49||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|-0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning 2-hours post-meal, Week 26||-0.07|-0.92|0.024
91036541|NCT01648582|181959696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11||||0.617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning 2-hours post-meal, Week 26||0.32|-0.53|0.617
91036542|NCT01648582|181959696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.35||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mid-day pre-meal, Week 26||0.01|-0.70|0.055
91036543|NCT01648582|181959696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03||||0.855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mid-day pre-meal, Week 26||0.39|-0.32|0.855
91036544|NCT01648582|181959696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|-0.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mid-day 2-hours post-meal, Week 26||-0.64|-1.46|<0.001
91036545|NCT01648582|181959696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mid-day 2-hours post-meal, Week 26||-0.19|-1.01|0.004
91036546|NCT01648582|181959696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening pre-meal, Week 26||-0.29|-0.97|<0.001
91036547|NCT01648582|181959696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12||||0.489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening pre-meal, Week 26||0.22|-0.45|0.489
91036548|NCT01648582|181959696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening 2-hours post-meal, Week 26||-0.48|-1.30|<0.001
91036549|NCT01648582|181959696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.47||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening 2-hours post-meal, Week 26||-0.06|-0.88|0.024
91036550|NCT01648582|181959696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|-0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Bedtime, Week 26||-0.41|-1.17|<0.001
91036551|NCT01648582|181959696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.35||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Bedtime, Week 26||-0.03|-0.73|0.067
91036552|NCT01648582|181959696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning pre-meal, Week 52||1.01|0.52|<0.001
91036553|NCT01648582|181959696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning pre-meal, Week 52||1.31|0.82|<0.001
91036554|NCT01648582|181959696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.53||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning 2-hours post-meal, Week 52||-0.07|-1.00|0.025
91036555|NCT01648582|181959696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.21||||0.384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning 2-hours post-meal, Week 52||0.26|-0.67|0.384
91036556|NCT01648582|181959696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.43||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mid-day pre-meal, Week 52||-0.06|-0.80|0.024
91036557|NCT01648582|181959696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05||||0.783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mid-day pre-meal, Week 52||0.42|-0.32|0.783
91036558|NCT01648582|181959696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.63||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mid-day 2-hours post-meal, Week 52||-0.20|-1.07|0.004
91036559|NCT01648582|181959696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.48||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|-0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mid-day 2-hours post-meal, Week 52||-0.05|-0.92|0.029
91036560|NCT01648582|181959696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening pre-meal, Week 52||-0.27|-1.01|<0.001
91036561|NCT01648582|181959696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening pre-meal, Week 52||0.27|-0.47|0.603
91036562|NCT01648582|181959696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|-0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening 2-hours post-meal, Week 52||-0.41|-1.26|<0.001
91036563|NCT01648582|181959696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.45||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening 2-hours post-meal, Week 52||-0.02|-0.87|0.039
91036564|NCT01648582|181959696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Bedtime, Week 52||-0.60|-1.39|<0.001
90973496|NCT02889796|181829944|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|-4.6||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-4.6|-7.6|<0.001
91036565|NCT01648582|181959696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.59||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Bedtime, Week 52||-0.20|-0.98|0.003
91036566|NCT01648582|181959697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|34.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.831||0.352|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||HOMA2-%B, Dula 1.5 mg, Week 26||||0.352
91036567|NCT01648582|181959697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|31.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.761||0.352|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||HOMA2-%B, Dula 0.75 mg, Week 26||||0.352
91036568|NCT01648582|181959697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|45.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.147||0.025|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||HOMA2-%B, Dula 1.5, Week 52||||0.025
91036569|NCT01648582|181959697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|36.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.061||0.025|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||HOMA2-%B, Dula 0.75 mg, Week 52||||0.025
91036570|NCT01648582|181959698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|36.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.977||0.025|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||HOMA2-%S, Dula 1.5 mg, Week 26||||0.025
91036571|NCT01648582|181959698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|30.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.94||0.025|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||HOMA2-%S, Dula 0.75 mg, Week 26||||0.025
91036572|NCT01648582|181959698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|41.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9||0.029|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||HOMA2-%S, Dula 1.5 mg, Week 52||||0.029
91036573|NCT01648582|181959698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|35.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.864||0.029|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||HOMA2-%S, Dula 0.75 mg, Week 52||||0.029
91036574|NCT01648582|181959701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.008||||||Overall p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 26 SBP||||0.008
91036575|NCT01648582|181959701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.584||||||Overall p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 26 DBP||||0.584
91036576|NCT01648582|181959701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.169||||||Overall p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52 SBP||||0.169
91036577|NCT01648582|181959701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.11||||||Overall p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52 DBP||||0.110
91036578|NCT01648582|181959702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||Overall p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 26||||<0.001
91036579|NCT01648582|181959702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||Overall p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52||||<0.001
91036580|NCT01648582|181959709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Week 26|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91036581|NCT01648582|181959709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52||||<0.001
91036582|NCT01648582|181959710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 26||||<0.001
91036583|NCT01648582|181959710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52||||<0.001
91036584|NCT04614168|181959714|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.99
91036585|NCT04614168|181959714|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.64
91036586|NCT04614168|181959715|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.37
91036587|NCT04614168|181959715|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91036588|NCT04614168|181959716|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.20
91036589|NCT04614168|181959716|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.95
91036590|NCT04614168|181959717|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.58
91036591|NCT04614168|181959717|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.01
91036592|NCT04614168|181959718|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.13
91036593|NCT04614168|181959718|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.01
91036594|NCT04614168|181959719|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.63
91036595|NCT04614168|181959719|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.36
91036596|NCT04614168|181959720|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.44
91036597|NCT04614168|181959720|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.02
91036598|NCT04614168|181959721|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.38
91036599|NCT04614168|181959721|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.88
91036600|NCT04614168|181959722|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0094|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0094
91036601|NCT04614168|181959723|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.99
91036602|NCT04614168|181959723|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.82
91036603|NCT04614168|181959724|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.13
91036604|NCT04614168|181959724|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
91036605|NCT04614168|181959725|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Behaviour subscale||||0.25
91036606|NCT04614168|181959725|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Worry subscale||||0.63
91036607|NCT04614168|181959725|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Behaviour subscale||||0.35
91036608|NCT04614168|181959725|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Worry subscale||||0.09
91036609|NCT04614168|181959726|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.25
91036610|NCT04614168|181959726|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.09
91036611|NCT04614168|181959727|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77||||||Column factor p-value.|ANOVA|||||||0.77
91036612|NCT04614168|181959727|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.37
91036613|NCT04614168|181959728|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Trail making A delta clamp 1 compared to clamp 2||||0.88
91036614|NCT04614168|181959728|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Trail Making B delta clamp 1 compared to clamp 2||||0.69
91036615|NCT04614168|181959728|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Trail making A delta clamp 1 compared to clamp 2||||0.41
91036616|NCT04614168|181959728|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Trail making B delta clamp 1 compared to clamp 2||||0.49
90943722|NCT00551135|181766870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1611|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Inability to Concentrate at 3 h PS;||||0.1611
90973497|NCT02889796|181829944|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|-3.1||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-3.1|-6.0|<0.001
90973498|NCT02889796|181829944|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|-5.4||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-5.4|-8.2|<0.001
91036617|NCT04614168|181959729|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Digit span forwards||||0.5
91036618|NCT04614168|181959729|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Digit span backwards||||0.5
91036619|NCT04614168|181959729|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Digit span forwards||||0.53
91036620|NCT04614168|181959729|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4
90943723|NCT00551135|181766870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4793|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Inability to Concentrate at 24 h PS;||||0.4793
90943724|NCT00551135|181766870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3533|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Inability to Concentrate at 24 h PS;||||0.3533
90943725|NCT00551135|181766870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8852|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Inability to Concentrate at 24 h PS;||||0.8852
90943726|NCT00551135|181766870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3173|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Inability to Concentrate at 72 h PS;||||0.3173
90943727|NCT00551135|181766870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3173|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Inability to Concentrate at 72 h PS;||||0.3173
90943728|NCT00551135|181766870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8864|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Inability to Concentrate at 72 h PS;||||0.8864
90943729|NCT00551135|181766870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8084|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Inability to Concentrate at EOT;||||0.8084
90943730|NCT00551135|181766870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3173|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Inability to Concentrate at EOT;||||0.3173
90943731|NCT00551135|181766870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2207|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Inability to Concentrate at EOT;||||0.2207
90943732|NCT00551135|181766870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3747|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Nausea at 3 h PS;||||0.3747
90943733|NCT00551135|181766870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.145|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Nausea at 3 h PS;||||0.1450
90943734|NCT00551135|181766870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2054|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Nausea at 3 h PS;||||0.2054
90943735|NCT00551135|181766870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4106|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Nausea at 24 h PS;||||0.4106
90943736|NCT00551135|181766870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2199|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Nausea at 24 h PS;||||0.2199
90973499|NCT02889796|181829944|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|-3.7||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-3.7|-6.5|<0.001
90973500|NCT02889796|181829944|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|-5.3||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-5.3|-7.8|<0.001
90973501|NCT02889796|181829944|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|-3.5||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-3.5|-6.1|<0.001
91036621|NCT04614168|181959730|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.88
91036622|NCT04614168|181959730|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.06
91036623|NCT04614168|181959731|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.38
90973502|NCT02889796|181829946|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.39||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.01||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.01|-0.77|0.042
91036624|NCT04614168|181959731|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.27
91036625|NCT02777580|181959733|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.05
91036626|NCT02777580|181959734|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.48||||||||1.48|0.62|
91036627|NCT02777580|181959735|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|4.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|35.8||||||||35.8|0.58|
91036628|NCT02777580|181959736|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|6.48||||||||6.48|0.25|
91036629|NCT00908128|181959737|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analyses of Variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on lon-transformed AUCt, AUCinf and Cmax parameters.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|90.96||||||90.0|82.4|100.41|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||100.41|82.40|
91036630|NCT00908128|181959738|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analyses of Variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log-transformed AUCt, AUCinf and Cmax parameters.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|99.16||||||90.0|96.24|102.16|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||102.16|96.24|
91036631|NCT00908128|181959739|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analyses of Variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on the log-transformed AUCt, AUCinf and Cmax parameters.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|98.78||||||90.0|95.76|101.89|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||101.89|95.76|
91036632|NCT00466167|181959741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference from placebo|4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|7.4|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA with factors treatment, pooled country and covariate baseline||7.4|2.4|0.0001
91036633|NCT00466167|181959741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference from placebo|6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|9.1|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA with factors treatment, pooled country and covariate baseline||9.1|4.2|<.0001
91036634|NCT00466167|181959742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference from Placebo|4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.0122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|7.9|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA with factors treatment, pooled country and covariate baseline||7.9|1.0|0.0122
91036635|NCT00466167|181959742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference from placebo|7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|10.5|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA with factors treatment, pooled country and covariate baseline||10.5|3.7|<.0001
90973503|NCT02889796|181829946|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.39||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.02||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.02|-0.77|0.039
90973504|NCT02889796|181829947|SUPERIORITY||Difference in non-progression rate|6.6||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|11.1||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24 for change in mTSS ≤ 0.5.||11.1|2.2|0.002
90973505|NCT02889796|181829947|SUPERIORITY||Difference in non-progression rate|3.9||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|8.6||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24 for change in mTSS ≤ 0.5.||8.6|-0.8|0.073
90973506|NCT02889796|181829947|SUPERIORITY||Difference in non-progression rate|7.0||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|12.5||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24 for change in mTSS ≤ 0.||12.5|1.5|0.009
90973507|NCT02889796|181829947|SUPERIORITY||Difference in non-progression rate|5.0||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|10.6||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24 for change in mTSS ≤ 0.||10.6|-0.6|0.061
90973508|NCT02889796|181829947|SUPERIORITY||Difference in non-progression rate|5.5||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|9.4||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24 for change in mTSS ≤ SDC (1.36).||9.4|1.6|0.004
90973509|NCT02889796|181829947|SUPERIORITY||Difference in non-progression rate|4.7||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|8.8||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24 for change in mTSS ≤ SDC (1.36).||8.8|0.7|0.012
90973510|NCT02889796|181829951|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|3.4||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||3.4|1.9|<0.001
90973511|NCT02889796|181829951|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.5||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||2.5|1.0|<0.001
90973512|NCT02889796|181829951|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|4.1||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||4.1|2.1|<0.001
90973513|NCT02889796|181829951|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|4.1||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||4.1|2.0|<0.001
90973514|NCT02889796|181829955|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.8||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||2.8|0.9|<0.001
90973515|NCT02889796|181829955|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.5||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||2.5|0.6|0.002
90973516|NCT02889796|181829955|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.5||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||2.5|0.4|0.006
91036636|NCT04813354|181959770|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.4|||Exact conditional logistic regression||Odds ratio between ELLIPTA DPI and BREEZHALER DPI was calculated using an exact conditional logistic regression model with participant as fixed strata, inhaler and period as fixed effects.|||0.40|0.01|<0.001
90943737|NCT00551135|181766870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2896|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Nausea at 24 h PS;||||0.2896
91036637|NCT04813354|181959772|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.25||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.74|||Exact conditional logistic regression||Odds ratio between ELLIPTA DPI and BREEZHALER DPI was calculated using an exact conditional logistic regression model with participant as fixed strata, inhaler and period as fixed effects.|||0.74|0.03|0.005
91036638|NCT04813354|181959781|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.31|33.96|||Paired samples t-test|||||33.96|21.31|<0.001
91036639|NCT03930732|181959789|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle primary and a few secondary endpoint analyses at a 2-sided significance level of 0.049. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported (till OM 9). The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.049 level.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.324||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.508|-0.14|||Negative binomial model||Derived using delta method.|Derived using negative binomial model with the total number of the events occurring during the 52-week treatment period as the response variable, and treatment group, region (pooled country), inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) dose, smoking status at screening, baseline disease severity, and number of moderate or severe COPD exacerbation events within one year prior to the study as covariates, and log-transformed treatment duration as an offset variable.||-0.140|-0.508|0.0005
91036640|NCT03930732|181959790|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|0.083|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.042|0.125||Threshold for significance at 0.049 level.|MMRM model|||Derived from mixed-effect model with repeated measures (MMRM) model with the change from baseline in pre-BD FEV1 up to Week 12 as response variables, and treatment group, age, sex, height, region (pooled country), ICS dose, smoking status at screening, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline pre-BD FEV1, and FEV1 baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates. Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||0.125|0.042|<0.0001
90943738|NCT00551135|181766870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Nausea at EOT;||||1.0000
90943739|NCT00551135|181766870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3173|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Nausea at EOT;||||0.3173
90943740|NCT00551135|181766870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3943|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Nausea at EOT;||||0.3943
90943741|NCT00551135|181766870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1703|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Dizziness at 3 h PS;||||0.1703
90943742|NCT00551135|181766870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0807|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Dizziness at 3 h PS;||||0.0807
90943743|NCT00551135|181766870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7728|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Dizziness at 3 h PS;||||0.7728
90943744|NCT00551135|181766870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.477|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Dizziness at 24 h PS;||||0.4770
90943745|NCT00551135|181766870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3625|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Dizziness at 24 h PS;||||0.3625
90943746|NCT00551135|181766870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0617|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Dizziness at 24 h PS;||||0.0617
90943747|NCT00551135|181766870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3061|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Dizziness at 72 h PS;||||0.3061
90943748|NCT00551135|181766870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2207|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Dizziness at EOT;||||0.2207
90943749|NCT00551135|181766870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3173|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Dizziness at EOT;||||0.3173
90943750|NCT00551135|181766870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9191|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Constipation at 3 h PS;||||0.9191
91036641|NCT03930732|181959791|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.083||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.038|0.128||Threshold for significance at 0.049 level.|MMRM model|||Derived from MMRM model with the change from baseline in pre-BDFEV1 up to Week 52 as response variables, and treatment group, age, sex, height, region (pooled country), ICS dose, smoking status at screening, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline pre-BD FEV1, and FEV1 baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates. Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||0.128|0.038|0.0003
91050424|NCT04168190|181987006|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|3.27|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 12F||3.27|0.89|
90943751|NCT00551135|181766870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3173|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Constipation at 3 h PS;||||0.3173
90943752|NCT00551135|181766870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2207|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Constipation at 3 h PS;||||0.2207
90943753|NCT00551135|181766870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6692|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Constipation at 24 h PS;||||0.6692
90943754|NCT00551135|181766870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7793|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Constipation at 24 h PS;||||0.7793
90943755|NCT00551135|181766870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6065|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Constipation at 24 h PS;||||0.6065
90943756|NCT00551135|181766870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.357|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Constipation at 72 h PS;||||0.3570
90943757|NCT00551135|181766870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.969|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Constipation at 72 h PS;||||0.9690
90943758|NCT00551135|181766870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5299|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Constipation at 72 h PS;||||0.5299
90943759|NCT00551135|181766870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4821|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Constipation at EOT;||||0.4821
90943760|NCT00551135|181766870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8295|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Constipation at EOT;||||0.8295
90943761|NCT00551135|181766870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3304|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Constipation at EOT;||||0.3304
90943762|NCT00551135|181766870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2482|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Itching at 3 h PS;||||0.2482
90943763|NCT00551135|181766870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2482|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Itching at 24 h PS;||||0.2482
90943764|NCT00551135|181766870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2207|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Itching at 24 h PS;||||0.2207
90943765|NCT00551135|181766870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8055|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Itching at 24 h PS;||||0.8055
90943766|NCT00551135|181766870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9191|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Itching at 72 h PS;||||0.9191
90943767|NCT00551135|181766870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8488|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Itching at 72 h PS;||||0.8488
90943768|NCT00551135|181766870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2482|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Itching at 72 h PS;||||0.2482
90943769|NCT00551135|181766870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2482|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Itching at EOT;||||0.2482
90943770|NCT00551135|181766870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2207|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Itching at EOT;||||0.2207
90943771|NCT00551135|181766870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2482|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Itching at EOT;||||0.2482
90943772|NCT00551135|181766870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3291|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Difficulty Urinating at 3 h PS;||||0.3291
90973517|NCT02889796|181829955|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.7||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||2.7|0.7|0.001
90973518|NCT02889796|181829955|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|2.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||2.0|-0.1|0.086
90973519|NCT02889796|181829955|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.9||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||1.9|-0.2|0.12
90973520|NCT02889796|181829959|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|3.8||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||3.8|1.8|<0.001
90973521|NCT02889796|181829959|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|3.2||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||3.2|1.2|<0.001
90973522|NCT02889796|181829959|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|3.8||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||3.8|1.5|<0.001
90973523|NCT02889796|181829959|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|3.9||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||3.9|1.6|<0.001
90973524|NCT02889796|181829965|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|5.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||5.0|0.0|0.049
90973525|NCT02889796|181829965|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|5.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||5.0|-0.0|0.069
90973526|NCT02889796|181829965|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|9.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||9.0|4.0|<0.001
90973527|NCT02889796|181829965|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|9.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||9.0|4.0|<0.001
90973528|NCT02889796|181829965|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|6.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||6.0|-0.0|0.060
90973529|NCT02889796|181829965|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|8.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||8.0|2.0|0.003
90973530|NCT02787863|181830008|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||McNemar|||||||<0.05
90973531|NCT02787863|181830009|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||McNemar|||||||<0.05
90973532|NCT02479802|181830035|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Change from Baseline at Week 48.||||<0.0001
90973533|NCT02479802|181830036|OTHER|||||||0.0006|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Change from Baseline at Week 48.||||0.0006
90973534|NCT01978093|181830047|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit of the standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the difference (HibCY group minus the PedHIB group) in the percentage of subjects with anti-PRP concentrations ≥1.0 mg/mL is to be≥-10% (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Difference in percentage of subjects|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|4.3|||Group difference in proportions|Before concluding on the primary objectives for Rotarix, Prevnar 13 and Havrix, this primary objective regarding anti-PRP needs to be reached||Difference between HibCY and PedHIB groups in percentage of subjects with anti-PRP concentrations equal to or above the cut-off value of 1.0 µg/mL one month after the fourth dose in HibCY Group and third dose in PedHIB Group.||4.30|-2.12|
90973535|NCT01978093|181830048|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is concluded if lower limit of the two-sided standardized asymptotic 97.5% CI on the ratio of anti-rotavirus IgA GMC (HibCY group over PedHIB group) is to be ≥0.5|Adjusted GMC ratios|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.77|1.9|||ANCOVA|GMC adjusted for BS sub-cohorts;97.5% confidence interval calculated for adjusted GMC ratio(Ancova model:adjustment for BS subcohorts-pooled variance)|To be able to conclude independently on primary objectives of Epoch 001(Rotarix \& Prevnar13 Post dose 3)\& Epoch 002 (Havrix \& Prevnar13 post dose 4),a Bonferroni correction is used in order to test these objectives(1.25% 1sided for Epoch 001 \& 002)|GMC ratios between HibCY and PedHIB groups for anti-Rota IgA concentrations 2 months after the second dose of Rotarix vaccine||1.90|0.77|
90973536|NCT01978093|181830049|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% CI on the GMC ratio (HibCY group over PedHIB group) for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 1 is to be ≥0.5 (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.95|1.47|||ANCOVA|GMC adjusted for BS sub cohorts;97.5% CI for adjusted GMC ratio (Ancova Model: adjustment for BS sub cohorts-pooled variance)|To be able to conclude independently on primary objectives of Epoch 001(Rotarix \& Prevnar13 post dose 3)\& Epoch 002(Havrix \& Prevnar13 post dose 4),Bonferroni correction is used to test these primary objectives(1.25% 1sided for Epoch 001 \& Epoch 002)|GMC ratio between HibCY and PedHIB groups for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 1 concentrations one month after the third dose.||1.47|0.95|
90973537|NCT01978093|181830049|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% CI on the GMC ratio (HibCY group over PedHIB group) for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 3 is to be≥0.5 (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.93|1.42|||ANCOVA|GMC adjusted for BS subcohorts;97.5% CI for the adjusted GMC ratio(Ancova model:adjustment for BS subcohorts-pooled variance)|To be able to conclude independently on primary objectives of Epoch 001(Rotarix \& Prevnar13 post dose 3)\& Epoch 002(Havrix\&Prevnar13 post dose 4),a Bonferroni correction is used to test these primary objectives(1.25% 1sided for Epoch 001 \& Epoch 002)|GMC ratio between HibCY and PedHIB groups for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 3 concentrations one month after the third dose.||1.42|0.93|
90973538|NCT01978093|181830049|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% CI on the GMC ratio (HibCY group over PedHIB group) for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 4 is to be≥ 0.5 (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.9|1.31|||ANCOVA|GMC adjusted for BS subcohorts;97.5% CI for the adjusted GMC ratio(Ancova model:adjustment for BS subcohorts-pooled variance)|To be able to conclude independently on primary objectives of Epoch 001(Rotarix \& Prevnar13 post dose 3)\& Epoch 002(Havrix\&Prevnar13 post dose 4),a Bonferroni correction is used to test these primary objectives(1.25% 1sided for Epoch 001 \& Epoch 002)|GMC ratio between HibCY and PedHIB groups for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 4 concentrations one month after the third dose.||1.31|0.90|
90973539|NCT01978093|181830049|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% CI on the GMC ratio (HibCY group over PedHIB group) for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 5 is to be ≥ 0.5 (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.95|1.47|||ANCOVA|GMC adjusted for BS subcohorts;97.5% CI for the adjusted GMC ratio(Ancova model:adjustment for BS subcohorts-pooled variance)|To be able to conclude independently on primary objectives of Epoch 001(Rotarix \& Prevnar13 post dose 3)\& Epoch 002(Havrix\&Prevnar13 post dose 4),a Bonferroni correction is used to test these primary objectives(1.25% 1sided for Epoch 001 \& Epoch 002)|GMC ratio between HibCY and PedHIB groups for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 5 concentrations one month after the third dose.||1.47|0.95|
91036642|NCT03930732|181959792|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.124||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.045|0.203||Threshold for significance at 0.049 level.|MMRM model|||Derived from MMRM model with the change from baseline in pre-BD FEV1 up to Week 12 as response variables, and treatment group, age, sex, height, region (pooled country), ICS dose, smoking status at screening, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline pre-BD FEV1, and FEV1 baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates. Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||0.203|0.045|0.0022
91036643|NCT03930732|181959793|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.127||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.042|0.212||Threshold for significance at 0.049 level.|MMRM model|||Derived from MMRM model with the change from baseline in pre-BD FEV1 up to Week 52 as response variables, and treatment group, age, sex, height, region (pooled country), ICS dose, smoking status at screening, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline pre-BD FEV1, and FEV1 baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates. Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||0.212|0.042|0.0034
90973540|NCT01978093|181830049|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% CI on the GMC ratio (HibCY group over PedHIB group) for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 6A is to be ≥0.5 (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.03|1.63|||ANCOVA|GMC adjusted for BS subcohorts;97.5% CI for the adjusted GMC ratio(Ancova model:adjustment for BS subcohorts-pooled variance)|To be able to conclude independently on primary objectives of Epoch 001(Rotarix \& Prevnar13 post dose 3)\& Epoch 002(Havrix\&Prevnar13 post dose 4),a Bonferroni correction is used to test these primary objectives(1.25% 1sided for Epoch 001 \& Epoch 002)|GMC ratio between HibCY and PedHIB groups for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 6A concentrations one month after the third dose.||1.63|1.03|
91050425|NCT04168190|181987006|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|4.62|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 12F||4.62|1.24|
90973541|NCT01978093|181830049|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% CI on the GMC ratio (HibCY group over PedHIB group) for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 6B is to be≥0.5 (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.88|1.55|||ANCOVA|GMC adjusted for BS subcohorts;97.5% CI for the adjusted GMC ratio(Ancova model:adjustment for BS subcohorts-pooled variance)|To be able to conclude independently on primary objectives of Epoch 001(Rotarix \& Prevnar13 post dose 3)\& Epoch 002(Havrix\&Prevnar13 post dose 4),a Bonferroni correction is used to test these primary objectives(1.25% 1sided for Epoch 001 \& Epoch 002)|GMC ratio between HibCY and PedHIB groups for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 6B concentrations one month after the third dose.||1.55|0.88|
90973542|NCT01978093|181830049|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% CI on the GMC ratio (HibCY group over PedHIB group) for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 7F is to be≥0.5 (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.91|1.34|||ANCOVA|GMC adjusted for BS subcohorts;97.5% CI for the adjusted GMC ratio(Ancova model:adjustment for BS subcohorts-pooled variance)|To be able to conclude independently on primary objectives of Epoch 001(Rotarix \& Prevnar13 post dose 3)\& Epoch 002(Havrix\&Prevnar13 post dose 4),a Bonferroni correction is used to test these primary objectives(1.25% 1sided for Epoch 001 \& Epoch 002)|GMC ratio between HibCY and PedHIB groups for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 7F concentrations one month after the third dose.||1.34|0.91|
90973543|NCT01978093|181830049|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% CI on the GMC ratio (HibCY group over PedHIB group) for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 9V is to be≥0.5 (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.0|1.55|||ANCOVA|GMC adjusted for BS subcohorts;97.5% CI for the adjusted GMC ratio(Ancova model:adjustment for BS subcohorts-pooled variance)|To be able to conclude independently on primary objectives of Epoch 001(Rotarix \& Prevnar13 post dose 3)\& Epoch 002(Havrix\&Prevnar13 post dose 4),a Bonferroni correction is used to test these primary objectives(1.25% 1sided for Epoch 001 \& Epoch 002)|GMC ratio between HibCY and PedHIB groups for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 9V concentrations one month after the third dose.||1.55|1.00|
90973544|NCT01978093|181830049|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% CI on the GMC ratio (HibCY group over PedHIB group) for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 14 is to be≥0.5 (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.9|1.5|||ANCOVA|GMC adjusted for BS subcohorts;97.5% CI for the adjusted GMC ratio(Ancova model:adjustment for BS subcohorts-pooled variance)|To be able to conclude independently on primary objectives of Epoch 001(Rotarix \& Prevnar13 post dose 3)\& Epoch 002(Havrix\&Prevnar13 post dose 4),a Bonferroni correction is used to test these primary objectives(1.25% 1sided for Epoch 001 \& Epoch 002)|GMC ratio between HibCY and PedHIB groups for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 14 concentrations one month after the third dose.||1.50|0.90|
90973545|NCT01978093|181830049|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% CI on the GMC ratio (HibCY group over PedHIB group) for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 18C is to be ≥0.5 (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.01|1.52|||ANCOVA|GMC adjusted for BS subcohorts;97.5% CI for the adjusted GMC ratio(Ancova model:adjustment for BS subcohorts-pooled variance)|To be able to conclude independently on primary objectives of Epoch 001(Rotarix \& Prevnar13 post dose 3)\& Epoch 002(Havrix\&Prevnar13 post dose 4),a Bonferroni correction is used to test these primary objectives(1.25% 1sided for Epoch 001 \& Epoch 002)|GMC ratio between HibCY and PedHIB groups for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 18C concentrations one month after the third dose.||1.52|1.01|
90973546|NCT01978093|181830049|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% CI on the GMC ratio (HibCY group over PedHIB group) for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 19A is to be≥0.5 (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.94|1.43|||ANCOVA|GMC adjusted for BS subcohorts;97.5% CI for the adjusted GMC ratio(Ancova model:adjustment for BS subcohorts-pooled variance)|To be able to conclude independently on primary objectives of Epoch 001(Rotarix \& Prevnar13 post dose 3)\& Epoch 002(Havrix\&Prevnar13 post dose 4),a Bonferroni correction is used to test these primary objectives(1.25% 1sided for Epoch 001 \& Epoch 002)|GMC ratio between HibCY and PedHIB groups for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 19A concentrations one month after the third dose.||1.43|0.94|
90973547|NCT01978093|181830049|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% CI on the GMC ratio (HibCY group over PedHIB group) for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 19F is to be≥0.5 (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.89|1.29|||ANCOVA|GMC adjusted for BS subcohorts;97.5% CI for the adjusted GMC ratio(Ancova model:adjustment for BS subcohorts-pooled variance)|To be able to conclude independently on primary objectives of Epoch 001(Rotarix \& Prevnar13 post dose 3)\& Epoch 002(Havrix\&Prevnar13 post dose 4),a Bonferroni correction is used to test these primary objectives(1.25% 1sided for Epoch 001 \& Epoch 002)|GMC ratio between HibCY and PedHIB groups for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 19F concentrations one month after the third dose.||1.29|0.89|
90973548|NCT01978093|181830049|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% CI on the GMC ratio (HibCY group over PedHIB group) for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 23F is to be≥0.5 (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.91|1.53|||ANCOVA|GMC adjusted for BS subcohorts;97.5% CI for the adjusted GMC ratio(Ancova model:adjustment for BS subcohorts-pooled variance)|To be able to conclude independently on primary objectives of Epoch 001(Rotarix \& Prevnar13 post dose 3)\& Epoch 002(Havrix\&Prevnar13 post dose 4),a Bonferroni correction is used to test these primary objectives(1.25% 1sided for Epoch 001 \& Epoch 002)|GMC ratio between HibCY and PedHIB groups for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 23F concentrations one month after the third dose.||1.53|0.91|
90973549|NCT01978093|181830050|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit of the two-sided standardized asymptotic 97.5% CI on the difference (HibCY group minus the PedHIB group) in the percentage of subjects with anti-HAV concentrations ≥15 mIU/mL is to be≥-10% (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Difference in percentage of subjects|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.76|3.91|||Group difference in proportions||To be able to conclude independently on primary objectives of Epoch 001(Rotarix \& Prevnar13 post dose 3)\& Epoch 002(Havrix \& Prevnar13 post dose 4),Bonferroni correction is used to test these primary objectives(1.25% 1sided for Epoch 001 \& Epoch 002)|Difference between HibCY and PedHIB groups in percentage of subjects with anti-HAV concentrations equal to or above the cut-off value of 15 mIU/mL one month after the second Havrix dose.||3.91|-3.76|
91050426|NCT04168190|181987006|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|1.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|3.34|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 17F||3.34|1.16|
90973550|NCT01978093|181830051|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% CI on the GMC ratio (HibCY group over PedHIB group) for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 1 is to be≥0.5 (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.04|1.51|||ANCOVA|GMC adjusted for BS sub cohorts;97.5% CI for adjusted GMC ratio(Ancova model:adjustment for BS sub cohorts-pooled variance)|To be able to conclude independently on primary objectives of Epoch 001 \& Epoch 002, a Bonferroni correction is used to test these primary objectives(1.25% one-sided for Epoch 001 and Epoch 002)|GMC ratios between HibCY and PedHIB groups for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 1 concentrations one month after the fourth dose||1.51|1.04|
90973551|NCT01978093|181830051|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% CI on the GMC ratio (HibCY group over PedHIB group) for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 3 is to be ≥0.5 (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.83|1.24|||ANCOVA|GMC adjusted for BS sub cohorts;97.5% CI for adjusted GMC ratio(Ancova model:adjustment for BS sub cohorts-pooled variance)|To be able to conclude independently on primary objectives of Epoch 001 \& Epoch 002, a Bonferroni correction is used to test these primary objectives(1.25% one-sided for Epoch 001 and Epoch 002)|GMC ratios between HibCY and PedHIB groups for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 3 concentrations one month after the fourth dose||1.24|0.83|
90973552|NCT01978093|181830051|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% CI on the GMC ratio (HibCY group over PedHIB group) for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 4 is to be≥0.5 (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.92|1.31|||ANCOVA|GMC adjusted for BS sub cohorts;97.5% CI for adjusted GMC ratio(Ancova model:adjustment for BS sub cohorts-pooled variance)|To be able to conclude independently on primary objectives of Epoch 001 \& Epoch 002, a Bonferroni correction is used to test these primary objectives(1.25% one-sided for Epoch 001 and Epoch 002)|GMC ratios between HibCY and PedHIB groups for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 4 concentrations one month after the fourth dose||1.31|0.92|
90973553|NCT01978093|181830051|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% CI on the GMC ratio (HibCY group over PedHIB group) for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 5 is to be ≥0.5 (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.87|1.28|||ANCOVA|GMC adjusted for BS sub cohorts;97.5% CI for adjusted GMC ratio(Ancova model:adjustment for BS sub cohorts-pooled variance)|To be able to conclude independently on primary objectives of Epoch 001 \& Epoch 002, a Bonferroni correction is used to test these primary objectives(1.25% one-sided for Epoch 001 and Epoch 002)|GMC ratios between HibCY and PedHIB groups for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 5 concentrations one month after the fourth dose||1.28|0.87|
90973554|NCT01978093|181830051|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% CI on the GMC ratio (HibCY group over PedHIB group) for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 6A is to be≥0.5 (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.01|1.44|||ANCOVA|GMC adjusted for BS sub cohorts;97.5% CI for adjusted GMC ratio(Ancova model:adjustment for BS sub cohorts-pooled variance)|To be able to conclude independently on primary objectives of Epoch 001 \& Epoch 002, a Bonferroni correction is used to test these primary objectives(1.25% one-sided for Epoch 001 and Epoch 002)|GMC ratios between HibCY and PedHIB groups for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 6A concentrations one month after the fourth dose||1.44|1.01|
90973555|NCT01978093|181830051|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% CI on the GMC ratio (HibCY group over PedHIB group) for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 6B is to be≥0.5 (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.94|1.36|||ANCOVA|GMC adjusted for BS sub cohorts;97.5% CI for adjusted GMC ratio(Ancova model:adjustment for BS sub cohorts-pooled variance)|To be able to conclude independently on primary objectives of Epoch 001 \& Epoch 002, a Bonferroni correction is used to test these primary objectives(1.25% one-sided for Epoch 001 and Epoch 002)|GMC ratios between HibCY and PedHIB groups for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 6B concentrations one month after the fourth dose||1.36|0.94|
90973556|NCT01978093|181830051|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% CI on the GMC ratio (HibCY group over PedHIB group) for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 7F is to be ≥0.5 (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.93|1.29|||ANCOVA|GMC adjusted for BS sub cohorts;97.5% CI for adjusted GMC ratio(Ancova model:adjustment for BS sub cohorts-pooled variance)|To be able to conclude independently on primary objectives of Epoch 001 \& Epoch 002, a Bonferroni correction is used to test these primary objectives(1.25% one-sided for Epoch 001 and Epoch 002)|GMC ratios between HibCY and PedHIB groups for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 7F concentrations one month after the fourth dose||1.29|0.93|
90973557|NCT01978093|181830051|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% CI on the GMC ratio (HibCY group over PedHIB group) for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 9V is to be ≥0.5 (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.94|1.33|||ANCOVA|GMC adjusted for BS sub cohorts;97.5% CI for adjusted GMC ratio(Ancova model:adjustment for BS sub cohorts-pooled variance)|To be able to conclude independently on primary objectives of Epoch 001 \& Epoch 002, a Bonferroni correction is used to test these primary objectives(1.25% one-sided for Epoch 001 and Epoch 002)|GMC ratios between HibCY and PedHIB groups for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 9V concentrations one month after the fourth dose||1.33|0.94|
91036644|NCT03930732|181959794|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.363||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.459|-1.266||Threshold for significance at 0.049 level.|MMRM model|||Derived from MMRM model with the change from baseline in SGRQ total score up to Week 52 as response variables, and treatment group, region (pooled country), ICS dose, smoking status at screening, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline SGRQ total score, and SGRQ baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates. Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-1.266|-5.459|0.0017
91036645|NCT03930732|181959795|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.439||||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.096|1.89||Threshold for significance at 0.049 level.|Regression, Logistic|||Derived from logistic regression model which includes treatment group, region (pooled country), ICS dose, smoking status at screening, and baseline SGRQ total score as covariates. Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||1.890|1.096|0.0089
91050427|NCT04168190|181987006|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|2.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|3.51|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 17F||3.51|1.21|
90943773|NCT00551135|181766870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1391|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Difficulty Urinating at 3 h PS;||||0.1391
90943774|NCT00551135|181766870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6318|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Difficulty Urinating at 3 h PS;||||0.6318
90943775|NCT00551135|181766870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6319|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Difficulty Urinating at 24 h PS;||||0.6319
90943776|NCT00551135|181766870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8149|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Difficulty Urinating at 24 h PS;||||0.8149
90943777|NCT00551135|181766870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5795|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Difficulty Urinating at 24 h PS;||||0.5795
90943778|NCT00551135|181766870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Difficulty Urinating at 72 h PS;||||0.1750
90943779|NCT00551135|181766870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0676|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Difficulty Urinating at 72 h PS;||||0.0676
90943780|NCT00551135|181766870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2943|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Difficulty Urinating at EOT;||||0.2943
90943781|NCT00551135|181766870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0719|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Difficulty Urinating at EOT;||||0.0719
90943782|NCT00551135|181766870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9283|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Confusion at 3 h PS;||||0.9283
90943783|NCT00551135|181766870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9024|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Confusion at 3 h PS;||||0.9024
90973558|NCT01978093|181830051|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% CI on the GMC ratio (HibCY group over PedHIB group) for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 14 is to be≥0.5 (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.96|1.41|||ANCOVA|GMC adjusted for BS sub cohorts;97.5% CI for adjusted GMC ratio(Ancova model:adjustment for BS sub cohorts-pooled variance)|To be able to conclude independently on primary objectives of Epoch 001 \& Epoch 002, a Bonferroni correction is used to test these primary objectives(1.25% one-sided for Epoch 001 and Epoch 002)|GMC ratios between HibCY and PedHIB groups for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 14 concentrations one month after the fourth dose||1.41|0.96|
90973559|NCT01978093|181830051|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% CI on the GMC ratio (HibCY group over PedHIB group) for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 18C is to be ≥0.5 (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.97|1.35|||ANCOVA|GMC adjusted for BS sub cohorts;97.5% CI for adjusted GMC ratio(Ancova model:adjustment for BS sub cohorts-pooled variance)|To be able to conclude independently on primary objectives of Epoch 001 \& Epoch 002, a Bonferroni correction is used to test these primary objectives(1.25% one-sided for Epoch 001 and Epoch 002)|GMC ratios between HibCY and PedHIB groups for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 18C concentrations one month after the fourth dose||1.35|0.97|
90973560|NCT01978093|181830051|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% CI on the GMC ratio (HibCY group over PedHIB group) for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 19A is to be ≥0.5 (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.9|1.31|||ANCOVA|GMC adjusted for BS sub cohorts;97.5% CI for adjusted GMC ratio(Ancova model:adjustment for BS sub cohorts-pooled variance)|To be able to conclude independently on primary objectives of Epoch 001 \& Epoch 002, a Bonferroni correction is used to test these primary objectives(1.25% one-sided for Epoch 001 and Epoch 002)|GMC ratios between HibCY and PedHIB groups for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 19A concentrations one month after the fourth dose||1.31|0.90|
90973561|NCT01978093|181830051|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% CI on the GMC ratio (HibCY group over PedHIB Group) for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 19F is to be≥0.5 (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.95|1.34|||ANCOVA|GMC adjusted for BS sub cohorts;97.5% CI for adjusted GMC ratio(Ancova model:adjustment for BS sub cohorts-pooled variance)|To be able to conclude independently on primary objectives of Epoch 001 \& Epoch 002, a Bonferroni correction is used to test these primary objectives(1.25% one-sided for Epoch 001 and Epoch 002)|GMC ratios between HibCY and PedHIB groups for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 19F concentrations one month after the fourth dose||1.34|0.95|
90973562|NCT01978093|181830051|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% CI on the GMC ratio (HibCY group over PedHIB group) for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 23F is to be≥0.5 (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.0|1.5|||ANCOVA|GMC adjusted for BS sub cohorts;97.5% CI for adjusted GMC ratio(Ancova model:adjustment for BS sub cohorts-pooled variance)|To be able to conclude independently on primary objectives of Epoch 001 \& Epoch 002, a Bonferroni correction is used to test these primary objectives(1.25% one-sided for Epoch 001 and Epoch 002)|GMC ratios between HibCY and PedHIB groups for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 23F concentrations one month after the fourth dose||1.50|1.00|
90943784|NCT00551135|181766870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7655|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Confusion at 3 h PS;||||0.7655
90943785|NCT00551135|181766870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Confusion at 24 h PS;||||1.0000
90943786|NCT00551135|181766870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.846|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Confusion at 24 h PS;||||0.8460
90943787|NCT00551135|181766870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6419|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Confusion at 24 h PS;||||0.6419
90943788|NCT00551135|181766870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9522|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Confusion at 72 h PS;||||0.9522
90943789|NCT00551135|181766870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Confusion at 72 h PS;||||0.5800
90943790|NCT00551135|181766870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7675|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Confusion at 72 h PS;||||0.7675
90943791|NCT00551135|181766870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1672|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Confusion at EOT;||||0.1672
90943792|NCT00551135|181766870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9634|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Confusion at EOT;||||0.9634
90943793|NCT00551135|181766870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1161|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Confusion at EOT;||||0.1161
90943794|NCT00551135|181766870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0754|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Retching/Vomiting at 3 h PS;||||0.0754
90943795|NCT00551135|181766870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0711|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Retching/Vomiting at 3 h PS;||||0.0711
90943796|NCT00551135|181766870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0711|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Retching/Vomiting at 3 h PS;||||0.0711
90973563|NCT03124784|181830068|EQUIVALENCE|ARMS\<= 3 %SpO2 Error per International Organization For Standardization (ISO) -80601-2-61 Pilot study Monte Carlo simulation provided 80% Power with 25 subjects for an expected ARMS\< 3 % SpO2.|ARMS|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Accuracy Root Mean Square (ARMS)|Per ISO-80601-2-61, the Root Mean Square difference (SpO2-SaO2) is the measure of merit for desaturation studies.|||
90973564|NCT01784965|181830074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
90973565|NCT04161495|181830099|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority would be established if the upper bound of the one-sided 97.5% CI was less than 4.|Mean difference|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.49|-1.11||||||Hierarchical testing framework: used to control type I error for secondary OM analyses. Statistical testing of Arm A intra-participant comparison non-inferiority continued only when estimation of previous OM was statistically significant at 0.05 level. For Arm A intra-participant comparison, mean difference and 95% confidence interval (CI) were estimated by NB regression model in which treatment (BIVV001 prophylaxis vs historical prophylaxis vs historical prophylaxis) was treated as covariate.||-1.11|-3.49|
90973566|NCT04161495|181830101|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was declared if the upper bound of the one-sided 97.5% confidence interval was less than 1.|Rate ratio|0.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.42|||Negative binomial regression mode|||Tested according to hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous OM was statistically significant for the considered dosing regimen). For test about Arm A intra-participant comparison superiority, rate ratio and 95% CI were estimated using NB regression model in which treatment (BIVV001 prophylaxis vs historical prophylaxis) was treated as covariate.||0.42|0.13|<0.0001
90973567|NCT04161495|181830103|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-6.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.71||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.13|-3.36|||Unstructured covariance matrix|An unstructured covariance matrix within a participant was used.||Testing according to hierarchical testing procedure. Only performed if previous OM \[Annualized Bleeding Rate During the Efficacy Period in Prophylaxis Arm - Superiority Analysis\] was statistically significant for considered dosing regimen). Least square (LS) mean difference, standard error and 95% confidence interval were estimated by mixed-effect model with repeated measures (MMRM) using visit as fixed effect and Baseline Haem-A-QOL physical health score as covariate.||-3.36|-10.13|0.0001
90973568|NCT04161495|181830104|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.26|-0.63|||Unstructured covariance matrix|An unstructured covariance matrix within a participant was used.||Testing according to hierarchical testing procedure. Only performed if previous OM \[Change From Baseline in Haem-A-QOL Physical Health Score at Weeks 26 and 52: Prophylaxis Arm\] was statistically significant for considered dosing regimen). LS mean difference, standard error and 95% confidence interval were estimated by MMRM using visit as fixed effect and PROMIS Pain Intensity 3a score as covariate.||-0.63|-3.26|0.0042
91036646|NCT03930732|181959796|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.137||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.823|-0.45||Threshold for significance at 0.049 level.|MMRM model|||Derived from MMRM model with the change from baseline in E-RS: COPD RS-Total Score to Week 52 as response variables, and treatment group, region (pooled country), ICS dose, smoking status at screening, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline E-RS: COPD RS-Total Score, and baseline E-RS: COPD RS-Total Score-by-visit interaction as covariates. Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-0.450|-1.823|0.0012
91036647|NCT03930732|181959797|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.418||||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.728|-0.109||Threshold for significance at 0.049 level.|Negative binomial model||Derived using delta method.|Derived using negative binomial model with the total number of the events occurring during the 52-week treatment period as the response variable, and treatment group, region (pooled country), ICS dose, smoking status at screening, baseline disease severity, and number of moderate or severe COPD exacerbation events within one year prior to the study as covariates, and log-transformed treatment duration as an offset variable.||-0.109|-0.728|0.0052
90973569|NCT04161495|181830105|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.37||An unstructured covariance matrix within a participant was used.|Unstructured covariance matrix|||Testing according to hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if previous OM \[Change From Baseline in PROMIS Pain Intensity 3a First Item at Week 52: Prophylaxis Arm\] was statistically significant for considered dosing regimen). LS mean difference, standard error and 95% confidence interval were estimated by MMRM using visit as fixed effect and Baseline Haem-A-QOL physical health score as covariate.||-0.37|-2.70|0.0101
90973570|NCT01340209|181830150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.7971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.082|0.106|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for treatment, week, baseline, treatment\*week and baseline\*week||Difference calculated as Tiotropium 2.5 µg minus placebo||0.106|-0.082|0.7971
90973571|NCT01340209|181830150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.112|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.0203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.018|0.207|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for treatment, week, baseline, treatment\*week and baseline\*week||Difference calculated as Tiotropium 5 μg minus placebo||0.207|0.018|0.0203
90973572|NCT01340209|181830151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.037|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053||0.4944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.141|0.068|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for treatment, week, baseline, treatment\*week and baseline\*week||Difference calculated as Tiotropium 2.5 µg minus placebo||0.068|-0.141|0.4944
90973573|NCT01340209|181830151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.082|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.023|0.188|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for treatment, week, baseline, treatment\*week and baseline\*week||Difference calculated as Tiotropium 5 μg minus placebo||0.188|-0.023|0.1270
91036648|NCT04708028|181959806|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.379|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline||||0.379
91036649|NCT04708028|181959806|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.646|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||8 minutes Post intervention (Dog exposure or no dog exposure)||||0.646
91036650|NCT04708028|181959806|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.219|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||8 minutes after starting dental procedure||||0.219
91036651|NCT04708028|181959806|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.223|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||8 minutes after completion of dental procedure||||0.223
91036652|NCT04708028|181959807|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline||||0.410
91036653|NCT04708028|181959807|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.127|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||8 minutes Post intervention (Dog exposure or no dog exposure)||||0.127
91036654|NCT04708028|181959807|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.268|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||8 minutes after starting dental procedure||||0.268
90973574|NCT01340209|181830152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.498|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.282||0.9677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.634|24.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for treatment, week, baseline, treatment\*week and baseline\*week||Difference calculated as Tiotropium 2.5 µg minus placebo||24.630|-23.634|0.9677
90973575|NCT01340209|181830152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|34.176|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.346||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.919|58.432|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for treatment, week, baseline, treatment\*week and baseline\*week||Difference calculated as Tiotropium Respimat 5 μg minus placebo||58.432|9.919|0.0058
90973576|NCT01340209|181830153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.646|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.182||0.3468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.388|26.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for treatment, week, baseline, treatment\*week and baseline\*week||Difference calculated as Tiotropium 2.5 µg minus placebo||26.680|-9.388|0.3468
90973577|NCT01340209|181830153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.216|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.238||0.5013||95.0|-11.927|24.359|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for treatment, week, baseline, treatment\*week and baseline\*week||Difference calculated as Tiotropium 5 μg minus placebo||24.359|-11.927|0.5013
90973578|NCT01340209|181830154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.458|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.196||0.2132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.601|29.517|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for treatment, week, baseline, treatment\*week and baseline\*week||Difference calculated as Tiotropium 2.5 µg minus placebo||29.517|-6.601|0.2132
90973579|NCT01340209|181830154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.398|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.245||0.0766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.759|34.555|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for treatment, week, baseline, treatment\*week and baseline\*week||Difference calculated as Tiotropium 5 μg minus placebo||34.555|-1.759|0.0766
90973580|NCT01340209|181830155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.601|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.038||0.5629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.637|1.436|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for treatment, week, baseline, treatment\*week and baseline\*week||Difference calculated as Tiotropium 2.5 µg minus placebo||1.436|-2.637|0.5629
90973581|NCT01340209|181830155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.564|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.038||0.5871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.473|2.601|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for treatment, week, baseline, treatment\*week and baseline\*week||Difference calculated as Tiotropium 5 μg minus placebo||2.601|-1.473|0.5871
90973582|NCT01764633|181830181|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.92|||Log Rank|Two-sided log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factors (final screening LDL-C level and region).|Based on a Cox model stratified by the randomization stratification factors.|The primary endpoint was compared between treatment groups at a significance level of 0.05.||0.92|0.79|< 0.0001
90973583|NCT01764633|181830182|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.88|||Log Rank|Two-sided log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factors (final screening LDL-C level and region).|Based on a Cox model stratified by the randomization stratification factors.|If the primary endpoint reached statistical significance at the 0.05 level, the key secondary endpoint (composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, and stroke) was tested at a significance level of 0.05.||0.88|0.73|< 0.0001
90973584|NCT01764633|181830183|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.6188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.25|||Log Rank|Two-sided log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factors (final screening LDL-C level and region).|Based on a Cox model stratified by the randomization stratification factors.|If the primary and key secondary endpoints reached a statistical significance level of 0.05, then the endpoint of cardiovascular death was tested at a significance level of 0.05.||1.25|0.88|0.6188
90973585|NCT01764633|181830184|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.5368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.19|||Log Rank|Two-sided log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factors (final screening LDL-C level and region).|Based on a Cox model stratified by the randomization stratification factors.|If the primary, key secondary, and endpoint cardiovascular death reached a statistical significance level of 0.05, then the endpoint of all-cause death was tested at a significance level of 0.04 and remaining secondary endpoints at an overall significant level of 0.01 by applying the Hochberg method.||1.19|0.91|0.5368
90973586|NCT01764633|181830185|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.82|||Log Rank|Two-sided log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factors (final screening LDL-C level and region).|Based on a Cox model stratified by the randomization stratification factors.|If the primary, key secondary, and endpoint of cardiovascular death reached a statistical significance level of 0.05, then the endpoint of all-cause death was tested at a significance level of 0.04 and remaining secondary endpoints were tested at an overall significance level of 0.01 by applying the Hochberg method.||0.82|0.65|< 0.0001
90973587|NCT01764633|181830186|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.95|||Log Rank|Two-sided log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factors (final screening LDL-C level and region).|Based on a Cox model stratified by the randomization stratification factors.|If the primary, key secondary, and endpoint of cardiovascular death reached a statistical significance level of 0.05, then the endpoint of all-cause death was tested at a significance level of 0.04 and remaining secondary endpoints were tested at an overall significance level of 0.01 by applying the Hochberg method.||0.95|0.66|0.0101
90973588|NCT01764633|181830187|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.86|||Log Rank|Two-sided log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factors (final screening LDL-C level and region).|Based on a Cox model stratified by the randomization stratification factors.|If the primary, key secondary, and endpoint of cardiovascular death reached a statistical significance level of 0.05, then the endpoint of all-cause death was tested at a significance level of 0.04 and remaining secondary endpoints were tested at an overall significance level of 0.01 by applying the Hochberg method.||0.86|0.71|< 0.0001
91036655|NCT04708028|181959807|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.353|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||8 minutes after completion of dental procedure||||0.353
91036656|NCT04128761|181959819|OTHER|Mechanistic study examining the influence of scarcity narratives on delay discounting||||||0.6||||||The reported p-value is for the Scarcity and Session interaction.|ANOVA|||The effects of narrative type on delay discounting rates were evaluated using a two-way (Scarcity vs. Session) repeated-measures ANOVA.||||.60
90973589|NCT01764633|181830188|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.8179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.13|||Log Rank|Two-sided log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factors (final screening LDL-C level and region).|Based on a Cox model stratified by the randomization stratification factors.|If the primary, key secondary, and endpoint of cardiovascular death reached a statistical significance level of 0.05, then the endpoint of all-cause death was tested at a significance level of 0.04 and remaining secondary endpoints were tested at an overall significance level of 0.01 by applying the Hochberg method.||1.13|0.86|0.8179
90973590|NCT01764633|181830189|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.92|||Log Rank|Two-sided log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factors (final screening LDL-C level and region).|Based on a Cox model stratified by the randomization stratification factors.|If the primary, key secondary, and endpoint of cardiovascular death reached a statistical significance level of 0.05, then the endpoint of all-cause death was tested at a significance level of 0.04 and remaining secondary endpoints were tested at an overall significance level of 0.01 by applying the Hochberg method.||0.92|0.65|0.0035
90973591|NCT04781816|181830203|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.53|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.26|6.85||||||Analysis was performed using mixed model with repeated measurements (MMRM) including fixed effects for baseline CLASI-A, post-baseline visit, geographical region, disease subtype, baseline use of CQ/HCQ, intervention group, visit-by- intervention group interaction, and visit-by-baseline-CLASI-A interaction.||6.85|-18.26|
90973592|NCT01789970|181830222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.0||5% significance level|ANCOVA|The model included treatment, study center, opioid status, and baseline WPI score.|Placebo - Hydrocodone ER|The least squares means of the change from baseline to week 12 in WPI were compared between the active drug and placebo treatment groups.||1.00|0.26|<0.001
90973593|NCT01789970|181830223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.91||5% significance level|ANCOVA|The model included treatment, study center, opioid status, and baseline WPI score.|Placebo - Hydrocodone ER|The least squares means of the change from baseline to week 12 in API were compared between the active drug and placebo treatment groups.||0.91|0.25|<0.001
90973594|NCT01789970|181830224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.01||5% significance level|Wald chi-square|Cox proportional hazards model with treatment, baseline worst pain intensity (WPI), opioid status, and center in the model||||1.01|0.5|0.059
90973595|NCT01789970|181830225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67||||0.0293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.96||5% significance level|Regression, Logistic|stratified by center with the following effects: treatment group, baseline API, and opioid status.|Hydrocodone ER / Placebo|API increase \>=30% and API \>=5||0.96|0.47|0.0293
90973596|NCT01789970|181830226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28||||0.557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.65||5% significance level|ANCOVA|Model with the following effects: treatment, study center, opioid status, and baseline RMDQ score.|Placebo - Hydrocodone ER|||0.65|-1.20|0.557
90973597|NCT02123485|181830234|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.30
90973598|NCT03545906|181830236|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0||||0.075|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.075
91036657|NCT04128761|181959820|OTHER|Mechanistic study examining the influence of scarcity narratives on intensity of demand (i.e., consumption at $0)||||||0.54||||||The p-value reported is for the Scarcity and Session interaction term of the two-way repeated-measures ANOVA.|ANOVA|||The effects of narrative type on intensity of alcohol demand were evaluated using a two-way (Scarcity vs. Session) repeated-measures ANOVA.||||.54
90973599|NCT03545906|181830237|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.3||||0.018|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.018
90973600|NCT03545906|181830238|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.2||||0.039|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.039
90973601|NCT03545906|181830239|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.7||||0.265|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.265
90973602|NCT03423342|181830246|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|30.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The updated p-value is calculated and not a threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90973603|NCT03423342|181830247|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
90973604|NCT03423342|181830248|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|19.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|48.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
90973605|NCT03423342|181830249|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
90973606|NCT03423342|181830250|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
90973607|NCT03423342|181830251|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
90973608|NCT03728309|181830341|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|53.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.5|63.5||The p-value and 95% CI are computed by pooling 30 imputed data sets using SAS PROC MIANALYZE with normal approximation.|SAS PROC MIANALYZE|||||63.5|43.5|<0.001
90973609|NCT03728309|181830343|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.83|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.0|36.0|||2-sample, t-test|||||36.0|21.0|<0.001
90973610|NCT03728309|181830344|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|52.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.1|65.7|||Fisher's Exact Test||Comparison of treatment group versus control group at Month 1, responder rate difference, 95% CI for risk difference and p-value was estimated based on Fisher's exact test using mITT population with baseline AFLS score of 2 or 3 on both cheeks.|||65.7|40.1|<0.001
90973611|NCT02342015|181830346|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||<0.05
90973612|NCT02342015|181830347|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||paired Student's t-test|||||||<0.05
90973613|NCT01849770|181830357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|0.56|||Random slopes model|||||0.56|-1.03|0.561
90973614|NCT01849770|181830357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|0.66|||Random slopes model|||||0.66|-1.04|0.662
90973615|NCT01849770|181830358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|1.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|4.22|||Random slopes model|||||4.22|-0.80|0.178
90973616|NCT01849770|181830358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|-0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.42||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|1.91|||Random slopes model|||||1.91|-3.80|0.510
90973617|NCT03403205|181830364|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.254|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|2.13||Test was performed at a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model, which included treatment, cohort, and baseline value. Missing imputation was performed: 1) for intermediate missing, interpolation was used to fill out missing values. 2) For participants who die, baseline dNCC was carried forward from discontinuation to week 48. 3) For others, multiple imputation was used to impute missing dNCC assuming data were missing not at random.||2.13|1.14|< 0.0001
90973618|NCT03403205|181830364|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.584|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.65|4.94||Test was performed at a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model, which included treatment, cohort, and baseline value. Missing imputation was performed: 1) for intermediate missing, interpolation was used to fill out missing values. 2) For participants who die, baseline dNCC was carried forward from discontinuation to week 48. 3) For others, multiple imputation was used to impute missing dNCC assuming data were missing not at random.||4.94|2.65|< 0.0001
90973619|NCT05130463|181830402|OTHER|||||||0.0011||||||Comparison of the change in HbA1c from baseline to the values at 12 weeks post Esgliteo administration.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0011
90973620|NCT05130463|181830403|OTHER|||||||0.0014||||||Comparison of the change in HbA1c from baseline to the values at 24 weeks post Esgliteo administration.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0014
90973621|NCT05130463|181830408|OTHER|||||||0.0008||||||Comparison of the change in FPG from baseline to the values at 12 weeks post Esgliteo administration.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test: Statistically significant at a 5% two-sided level.||FPG at baseline vs FPG after 12 weeks of treatment.||||0.0008
90973622|NCT05130463|181830409|OTHER|||||||0.0068||||||Comparison of the change in FPG from baseline to the values at 24 weeks post Esgliteo administration.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test: Statistically significant at a 5% two-sided level.||FPG at baseline vs FPG after 24 weeks of treatment.||||0.0068
90973623|NCT05130463|181830410|OTHER|||||||0.1867||||||Comparison of the change in body weight from baseline to the values at 12 weeks post Esgliteo administration.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test: Statistically significant at a 5% two-sided level||Body weight at baseline vs Body weight after 12 weeks of treatment.||||0.1867
90973624|NCT05130463|181830411|OTHER|||||||0.0003||||||Comparison of the change in body weight from baseline to the values at 24 weeks post Esgliteo administration.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test: Statistically significant at a 5% two-sided level.||Body weight at baseline vs Body weight after 24 weeks of treatment.||||0.0003
90973625|NCT05130463|181830412|OTHER|||||||0.002||||||Comparison of the change in SBP from baseline to the values at 12 weeks post Esgliteo administration.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test: Statistically significant at a 5% two-sided level.||SBP at baseline vs SBP after 12 weeks of treatment.||||0.0020
90973626|NCT05130463|181830412|OTHER|||||||0.0132||||||Comparison of the change in DBP from baseline to the values at 12 weeks post Esgliteo administration.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test: Statistically significant at a 5% two-sided level.||DBP at baseline vs DBP after 12 weeks of treatment.||||0.0132
90973627|NCT05130463|181830413|OTHER|||||||0.7591||||||Comparison of the change in SBP from baseline to the values at 24 weeks post Esgliteo administration.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test: Statistically significant at a 5% two-sided level.||SBP at baseline vs SBP after 24 weeks of treatment.||||0.7591
90973628|NCT05130463|181830413|OTHER|||||||0.5161||||||Comparison of the change in DBP from baseline to the values at 24 weeks post Esgliteo administration.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test: Statistically significant at a 5% two-sided level.||DBP at baseline vs DBP after 24 weeks of treatment.||||0.5161
90973629|NCT00487539|181830426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
90973630|NCT00487539|181830426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
90973631|NCT00487539|181830427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
90973632|NCT00487539|181830427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
90973633|NCT00487539|181830428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0014|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0014
90973634|NCT00487539|181830428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0001
90973635|NCT00487539|181830429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|on the van der Waerden normal scores||||||<0.0001
90973636|NCT00487539|181830429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|on the van der Waerden normal scores||||||<0.0001
90973637|NCT01844895|181830452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|1.0||||||A mixed-effect model of log (Cminss) with device and substudy baseline weight category (\< 60 kg,60-100 kg, \> 100 kg) as fixed effects and participant as a random effect was used. Point estimates and 90% CIs for device differences on the log scale were exponentiated to obtain estimates for ratios of geometric means on the original scale. No adjustment was made for multiplicity. PK comparability was concluded if the 90% CIs for the ratios of geometric means were contained within 80% to 125%.||1.00|0.83|
90973638|NCT04982250|181830458|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.0|11.0|||||Risk differences (RD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated using regression models with Gaussian distributions, identify links, study group fixed effects, and index peer random effects (to adjust for clustering).|The sample size calculation was based on the primary PrEP initiation outcome at follow-up; 80 clusters (40 per study group) provided 80% power to detect a 17% difference in PrEP initiation between the enhanced (80%) and standard (63%) groups, assuming three referred peers per cluster (75% of those recommended), an intra-cluster correlation coefficient of 0.05, and an alpha level of 0.05.||11|-26|
90973639|NCT04982250|181830463|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|39.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.0|54.0||||||||54|24|
90973640|NCT04982250|181830464|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|13.0||||||||13|-10|
90973641|NCT04982250|181830465|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-19.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.0|2.0||||||||2|-40|
90973642|NCT04982250|181830466|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-16.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.3|2.5||||||||2.5|-36.3|
90973643|NCT04982250|181830467|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.1||||||||1.1|-0.2|
90973644|NCT00931359|181830474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|Factors of treatment group and analysis center were considered||||||<0.001
90973645|NCT00931359|181830475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.019
90973646|NCT01844986|181830478|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.41||Determined using a log-rank test stratified by response to previous platinum chemotherapy|Regression, Cox|Model includes a factor for response to previous platinum chemotherapy|A hazard ratio \< 1 favours olaparib|||0.41|0.23|<0.0001
90973647|NCT01844986|181830478|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.97||Not applicable, due to small sample size. China cohort designed to provide descriptive analysis only.|Regression, Cox|Model includes the stratification variable of response to first-line platinum chemotherapy as a covariate.|A hazard ratio \< 1 favours olaparib|||0.97|0.23|
91036658|NCT04128761|181959821|OTHER|Mechanistic study examining the influence of scarcity narratives on alcohol craving||||||0.88||||||The p-value reported is for the Scarcity and Session interaction term of the two-way repeated-measures ANOVA.|ANOVA|||The effects of narrative type alcohol craving were evaluated using a two-way (Scarcity vs. Session) repeated-measures ANOVA.||||.88
90973648|NCT01844986|181830479|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.8903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.53||Determined using a log-rank test stratified by response to previous platinum chemotherapy|Regression, Cox|Model includes a factor for response to previous platinum chemotherapy|A hazard ratio \< 1 favours olaparib|||1.53|0.60|0.8903
90973649|NCT01844986|181830479|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|2.28||Not applicable, due to small sample size. China cohort designed to provide descriptive analysis only.|Regression, Cox|Model includes the stratification variable of response to first-line platinum chemotherapy as a covariate.|A hazard ratio \< 1 favours olaparib|||2.28|0.29|
90973650|NCT01844986|181830480|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.4||Determined using a log-rank test stratified by response to previous platinum chemotherapy|Regression, Cox|Model includes a factor for response to previous platinum chemotherapy|A hazard ratio \< 1 favours olaparib|||0.40|0.23|<0.0001
90973651|NCT01844986|181830480|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.99||Not applicable due to small sample size. China cohort designed to provide descriptive analysis only.|Regression, Cox|Model includes the stratification variable of response to first-line platinum chemotherapy as a covariate.|A hazard ratio \<1 favours Olaparib.|||0.99|0.23|
90973652|NCT01844986|181830481|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.72||Determined using a log-rank test stratified by response to previous platinum chemotherapy|Regression, Cox|Model includes a factor for response to previous platinum chemotherapy|A hazard ratio \< 1 favours olaparib|||0.72|0.35|0.0002
91036659|NCT04128761|181959822|OTHER|Mechanistic study examining the influence of scarcity narratives on stress|||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||The effects of narrative type on stress was evaluated using a one-way ANOVA.||||<.001
91036660|NCT00830024|181959828|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on each of the pharmacokinetic parameters using SAS® software.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|98.75||||||90.0|93.35|104.47|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||104.47|93.35|
90973653|NCT01844986|181830481|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.35||Not applicable, due to small sample size. China cohort designed to provide descriptive analysis only.|Regression, Cox|Model includes the stratification variable of response to first-line platinum chemotherapy as a covariate.|A hazard ratio \<1 favours Olaparib.|||1.35|0.23|
90973654|NCT01844986|181830482|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.779|-1.216|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effects for treatment, visit and baseline TOI with the treatment by visit and baseline TOI by visit interaction. Random patient effect.||||-1.216|-4.779|0.0010
90973655|NCT01844986|181830483|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.4||Determined using a log-rank test stratified by response to previous platinum chemotherapy|Regression, Cox|Model includes a factor for response to previous platinum chemotherapy|A hazard ratio \< 1 favours olaparib|||0.40|0.22|<0.0001
90973656|NCT01844986|181830483|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.23||Not applicable, due to small sample size. China cohort designed to provide descriptive analysis only.|Regression, Cox|Model includes the stratification variable of response to first-line platinum chemotherapy as a covariate.|A hazard ratio \<1 favours Olaparib.|||1.23|0.29|
90973657|NCT01844986|181830484|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.63||Determined using a log-rank test stratified by response to previous platinum chemotherapy|Regression, Cox|Model includes a factor for response to previous platinum chemotherapy|A hazard ratio \< 1 favours olaparib|||0.63|0.32|<0.0001
90973658|NCT01844986|181830484|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.26||Not applicable, due to small sample size. China cohort designed to provide descriptive analysis only.|Regression, Cox|Model includes the stratification variable of response to first-line platinum chemotherapy as a covariate.|A hazard ratio \<1 favours Olaparib.|||1.26|0.25|
90973659|NCT01844986|181830485|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.79||Determined using a log-rank test stratified by response to previous platinum chemotherapy|Regression, Cox|Model includes a factor for response to previous platinum chemotherapy|A hazard ratio \< 1 favours olaparib|||0.79|0.51|<0.0001
90973660|NCT01844986|181830485|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.42||Not applicable, due to small sample size. China cohort designed to provide descriptive analysis only.|Regression, Cox|Model includes the stratification variable of response to first-line platinum chemotherapy as a covariate.|A hazard ratio \<1 favours Olaparib.|||1.42|0.47|
90973661|NCT01844986|181830486|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.4||Determined using a log-rank test stratified by response to previous platinum chemotherapy|Regression, Cox|Model includes a factor for response to previous platinum chemotherapy|A hazard ratio \< 1 favours olaparib|||0.40|0.22|<0.0001
90973662|NCT02392429|181830487|NON_INFERIORITY|we tested the null hypothesis that the NPV of the post-treatment FLT PET/CT scan was less than or equal to the NPV of the day 14 nadir bone marrow biopsy (estimated to be 0.64 by Hussein et al) against the one-sided alternative hypothesis that the NPV was greater than 0.64 using the exact binomial test.|||||>|0.99|||||||binomial exact test|||||||>0.99
90973663|NCT02392429|181830488|NON_INFERIORITY|we tested the null hypothesis that the PPV of the post-treatment FLT PET/CT scan was less than or equal to the PPV of the day 14 nadir bone marrow biopsy (estimated to be 0.79by Hussein et al) against the one-sided alternative hypothesis that the PPV was greater than 0.79 using the exact binomial test.||||||0.06|||||||binomial exact test|||||||0.06
90973664|NCT02392429|181830492|EQUIVALENCE|no margin was assumed||||||0.68|||||||log-rank test|||Kaplan-Meier curves were constructed for the positive and negative scan groups, and the null hypothesis that the survival distributions of the two groups were equal was tested using the log-rank test.||||0.68
90973665|NCT02392429|181830493|EQUIVALENCE|no margin was assumed||||||0.08|||||||log-rank test|||Kaplan-Meier curves were constructed for the positive and negative scan groups, and the null hypothesis that the survival distributions of the two groups were equal was tested using the log-rank test.||||0.08
90973666|NCT00403260|181830503|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The primary efficacy analysis tested the non-inferiority of the PA group compared to the comparator group with regard to the PCR-corrected ACPR response rate at Day 28 using the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) (Newcombe-Wilson score method without continuity correction). Non-inferiority of PA to MQ + AS was concluded if the lower limit of the CI for the difference was \>-5%.|ACPR percent difference|1.1||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|3.1||If non-inferiority of PA was demonstrated, the p-value associated with a superiority test is calculated based on a 2-sided Chi-square test. If the calculated p-value is \<5%, then the superiority of PA compared to MQ+AS was statistically demonstrated.|Chi-squared|||"Null hypothesis: The PCR-corrected ACPR response rate at Day 28 for the PA group is inferior to the PCR-corrected ACPR response rate at Day 28 for the comparator group (MQ + AS) by more than 5%.~Was tested versus the alternative:~Alternative hypothesis: the PCR-corrected ACPR response rate at Day 28 for the PA group is not inferior to the PCR-corrected ACPR response rate at Day 28 for the comparator group (MQ + AS) by more than -5%."||3.1|-0.2|0.106
90973667|NCT02322710|181830551|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval of the observed difference between healing rates at D21 (Urgotul® - Tullegras M.S.®) in the PP population did not exceed +10%.|Difference in Percentages|1.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.5|||ONE_SIDED|97.5||10.0||||||||10.0||
91036661|NCT00830024|181959829|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on each of the pharmacokinetic parameters using SAS® software.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|95.94||||||90.0|91.76|100.3|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||100.3|91.76|
91036662|NCT00830024|181959830|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on each of the pharmacokinetic parameters using SAS® software.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|95.89||||||90.0|91.67|100.31|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||100.31|91.67|
90973668|NCT05064059|181830568|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.4183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.2||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by geographic region (Asia Pacific; EMEA/Americas), presence of liver metastasis (Yes/No) and time from initial diagnosis of metastatic disease to randomization (\>=18 months, \<18 months).|Log Rank||HR and 95% CI were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region, presence of liver metastasis \& time from initial diagnosis of metastatic disease to randomization.|||1.20|0.80|0.4183
90973669|NCT05064059|181830569|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.34||||0.9967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.64||One-sided nominal p-value based on log-rank test stratified by geographic region (Asia Pacific; EMEA/Americas), presence of liver metastasis (Yes/No) and time from initial diagnosis of metastatic disease to randomization (\>=18 months, \<18 months).|Log Rank||HR and 95% CI were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region, presence of liver metastasis \& time from initial diagnosis of metastatic disease to randomization.|||1.64|1.09|0.9967
90973670|NCT05064059|181830570|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|5.9||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|10.1||One-sided, nominal p-value for testing. H0: difference in % = 0 versus H1: difference in % \> 0.|Miettinen & Nurminen Method||Difference in percentage and 95% CI were based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by geographic region, presence of liver metastasis \& time from initial diagnosis of metastatic disease to randomization.|||10.1|2.5|0.0007
90973671|NCT05064059|181830574|OTHER||Difference in Least Square (LS) Means|-3.08||||0.1318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.09|0.93||Two-sided p-value based on t-test.|t-test, 2 sided||Calculated using a cLDA model with PRO scores as response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction \& stratified by geographic region, presence of liver metastasis \& time from diagnosis of metastatic disease to randomization.|||0.93|-7.09|0.1318
90973672|NCT05064059|181830575|OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.95||||0.637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.93|3.02||Two-sided p-value based on t-test.|t-test, 2 sided||Calculated using a cLDA model with PRO scores as response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction \& stratified by geographic region, presence of liver metastasis \& time from diagnosis of metastatic disease to randomization.|||3.02|-4.93|0.6370
90973673|NCT05064059|181830576|OTHER||Difference in LS Means|3.86||||0.1846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|9.57||Two-sided p-value based on t-test.|t-test, 2 sided||Calculated using a cLDA model with PRO scores as response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction \& stratified by geographic region, presence of liver metastasis \& time from diagnosis of metastatic disease to randomization.|||9.57|-1.85|0.1846
90973674|NCT05064059|181830577|OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.56||||0.841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.96|6.08||Two-sided p-value based on t-test.|t-test, 2 sided||Calculated using a cLDA model with PRO scores as response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction \& stratified by geographic region, presence of liver metastasis \& time from diagnosis of metastatic disease to randomization.|||6.08|-4.96|0.8410
90973675|NCT05064059|181830578|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.5094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.58||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by geographic region (Asia Pacific; EMEA/Americas), presence of liver metastasis (Yes/No) and time from initial diagnosis of metastatic disease to randomization (\>=18 months, \<18 months).|Log Rank||HR and 95% CI were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region, presence of liver metastasis \& time from initial diagnosis of metastatic disease to randomization.|||1.58|0.64|0.5094
90973676|NCT05064059|181830579|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.51||||0.9704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|2.33||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by geographic region (Asia Pacific; EMEA/Americas), presence of liver metastasis (Yes/No) and time from initial diagnosis of metastatic disease to randomization (\>=18 months, \<18 months).|Log Rank||HR and 95% CI were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region, presence of liver metastasis \& time from initial diagnosis of metastatic disease to randomization.|||2.33|0.98|0.9704
90973677|NCT05064059|181830580|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.82||||0.9905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|2.98||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by geographic region (Asia Pacific; EMEA/Americas), presence of liver metastasis (Yes/No) and time from initial diagnosis of metastatic disease to randomization (\>=18 months, \<18 months).|Log Rank||HR and 95% CI were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region, presence of liver metastasis \& time from initial diagnosis of metastatic disease to randomization.|||2.98|1.11|0.9905
90973678|NCT05064059|181830581|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.86||||0.9853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|3.26||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by geographic region (Asia Pacific; EMEA/Americas), presence of liver metastasis (Yes/No) and time from initial diagnosis of metastatic disease to randomization (\>=18 months, \<18 months).|Log Rank||HR and 95% CI were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region, presence of liver metastasis \& time from initial diagnosis of metastatic disease to randomization|||3.26|1.06|0.9853
90973679|NCT04401267|181830622|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7139|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.7139
90973680|NCT02066792|181830636|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.21||two-sided|Mixed Models Analysis|Four level multivariate MLM with measures nested within time, which was nested within subjects, who were nested within treatment cohort.||At 3 month follow-up||-.21|-.81|<.001
90973681|NCT02066792|181830636|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.23||Two-sided|Mixed Models Analysis|Four level multivariate MLM with measures nested within time, which was nested within subjects, who were nested within treatment cohort.||3 month follow-up||.23|-.37|.635
90973682|NCT02066792|181830636|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|Four level multivariate MLM with measures nested within time, which was nested within subjects, who were nested within treatment cohort.||||-.18|-.80|.002
90973683|NCT02066792|181830636|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|Four level multivariate MLM with measures nested within time, which was nested within subjects, who were nested within treatment cohort.||3 month follow-up||-.14|-.73|.004
90973684|NCT02066792|181830636|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|Four level multivariate MLM with measures nested within time, which was nested within subjects, who were nested within treatment cohort.||3 month follow-up||-.11|-.72|.008
90973685|NCT01846455|181830637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|99.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|66.05|149.43||||||Buprenorphine||149.43|66.05|
90973686|NCT01846455|181830637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|163.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|110.82|242.34||||||Buprenorphine||242.34|110.82|
90973687|NCT01846455|181830637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|281.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|187.1|423.33||||||Buprenorphine||423.33|187.10|
90973688|NCT01846455|181830637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|78.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|52.14|117.98||||||Buprenorphine||117.98|52.14|
90973689|NCT01846455|181830637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|126.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.87|195.97||||||Buprenorphine||195.97|81.87|
90973690|NCT01846455|181830637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|208.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|137.21|318.18||||||Buprenorphine||318.18|137.21|
90973691|NCT01846455|181830637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|358.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|231.92|555.17||||||Buprenorphine||555.17|231.92|
90973692|NCT01846455|181830637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|78.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|44.03|138.49||||||Norbuprenorphine||138.49|44.03|
90973693|NCT01846455|181830637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|74.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|39.26|142.41||||||Norbuprenorphine||142.41|39.26|
90973694|NCT01846455|181830637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|11.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.35|20.66||||||Norbuprenorphine||20.66|6.35|
90973695|NCT01846455|181830637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|71.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|39.0|129.49||||||Norbuprenorphine||129.49|39.00|
90973696|NCT01846455|181830637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|109.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|58.14|207.75||||||Norbuprenorphine||207.75|58.14|
90973697|NCT01846455|181830637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|105.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|52.17|212.24||||||Norbuprenorphine||212.24|52.17|
90973698|NCT01846455|181830637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|16.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.4|30.94||||||Norbuprenorphine||30.94|8.40|
90973699|NCT01846455|181830637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|79.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|40.03|157.12||||||Naloxone||157.12|40.03|
90973700|NCT01846455|181830637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|317.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|164.93|611.54||||||Naloxone||611.54|164.93|
90973701|NCT01846455|181830637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|1401.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|707.55|2777.46||||||Naloxone||2777.46|707.55|
90973702|NCT01846455|181830637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|105.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|53.39|209.59||||||Naloxone||209.59|53.39|
90973703|NCT01846455|181830637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|74.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|36.09|155.71||||||Naloxone||155.71|36.09|
90973704|NCT01846455|181830637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|300.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|148.44|607.21||||||Naloxone||607.21|148.44|
90973705|NCT01846455|181830637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|1325.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|638.03|2752.55||||||Naloxone||2752.55|638.03|
90973706|NCT01846455|181830637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|85.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|66.06|111.61||||||Naloxone-3-β-D-Glucuronide||111.61|66.06|
90973707|NCT01846455|181830637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|123.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.27|159.13||||||Naloxone-3-β-D-Glucuronide||159.13|96.27|
90973708|NCT01846455|181830637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|91.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.21|118.62||||||Naloxone-3-β-D-Glucuronide||118.62|70.21|
90973709|NCT01846455|181830637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|84.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|65.23|110.2||||||Naloxone-3-β-D-Glucuronide||110.20|65.23|
90973710|NCT01846455|181830637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|101.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.52|134.06||||||Naloxone-3-β-D-Glucuronide||134.06|76.52|
90973711|NCT01846455|181830637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|145.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|111.43|191.26||||||Naloxone-3-β-D-Glucuronide||191.26|111.43|
90973712|NCT01846455|181830637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|107.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.33|142.47||||||Naloxone-3-β-D-Glucuronide||142.47|81.33|
90973713|NCT01846455|181830638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|120.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.35|172.82||||||Buprenorphine||172.82|83.35|
90973714|NCT01846455|181830638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|107.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.85|153.36||||||Buprenorphine||153.36|75.85|
90973715|NCT01846455|181830638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|171.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|117.93|250.15||||||Buprenorphine||250.15|117.93|
90973716|NCT01846455|181830638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|112.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.66|163.91||||||Buprenorphine||163.91|77.66|
90943797|NCT00551135|181766870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2482|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Retching/Vomiting at 24 h PS;||||0.2482
90943798|NCT00551135|181766870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8091|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Retching/Vomiting at 24 h PS;||||0.8091
90973717|NCT01846455|181830638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|106.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|71.43|158.43||||||Buprenorphine||158.43|71.43|
90973718|NCT01846455|181830638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|95.59|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|64.36|141.99||||||Buprenorphine||141.99|64.36|
90973719|NCT01846455|181830638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|152.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.08|224.83||||||Buprenorphine||224.83|103.08|
90973720|NCT01846455|181830638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|135.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.44|242.16||||||Norbuprenorphine||242.16|75.44|
90973721|NCT01846455|181830638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|67.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|38.82|118.68||||||Norbuprenorphine||118.68|38.82|
90973722|NCT01846455|181830638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|48.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|27.01|86.69||||||Norbuprenorphine||86.69|27.01|
90973723|NCT01846455|181830638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|76.59|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|42.75|137.22||||||Norbuprenorphine||137.22|42.75|
90973724|NCT01846455|181830638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|176.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.62|329.17||||||Norbuprenorphine||329.17|94.62|
90973725|NCT01846455|181830638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|88.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|48.6|161.59||||||Norbuprenorphine||161.59|48.60|
90973726|NCT01846455|181830638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|63.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|33.87|117.83||||||Norbuprenorphine||117.83|33.87|
90973727|NCT01846455|181830638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|100.41|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|51.3|196.53||||||Naloxone||196.53|51.30|
90973728|NCT01846455|181830638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|270.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|141.86|513.9||||||Naloxone||513.90|141.86|
90943799|NCT00551135|181766870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2482|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Retching/Vomiting at 24 h PS;||||0.2482
90943800|NCT00551135|181766870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3173|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Retching/Vomiting at EOT;||||0.3173
90973729|NCT01846455|181830638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|1129.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|577.22|2211.44||||||Naloxone||2211.44|577.22|
90973730|NCT01846455|181830638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|126.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|64.5|247.11||||||Naloxone||247.11|64.50|
90973731|NCT01846455|181830638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|79.53|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|38.79|163.06||||||Naloxone||163.06|38.79|
90973732|NCT01846455|181830638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|213.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|107.07|427.17||||||Naloxone||427.17|107.07|
90973733|NCT01846455|181830638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|894.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|436.49|1834.8||||||Naloxone||1834.80|436.49|
90973734|NCT01846455|181830638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|111.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.94|143.44||||||Naloxone-3-β-D-Glucuronide||143.44|85.94|
90943801|NCT00551135|181766870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3173|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Retching/Vomiting at EOT;||||0.3173
90943802|NCT00551135|181766870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4386|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Retching/Vomiting at EOT;||||0.4386
90943803|NCT00551135|181766871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1723|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||24 h PS.||||0.1723
90943804|NCT00551135|181766871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0639|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||24 h PS||||0.0639
90973735|NCT01846455|181830638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|111.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.02|142.16||||||Naloxone-3-β-D-Glucuronide||142.16|87.02|
90973736|NCT01846455|181830638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|83.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|64.32|107.35||||||Naloxone-3-β-D-Glucuronide||107.35|64.32|
90973737|NCT01846455|181830638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|83.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|64.75|108.08||||||Naloxone-3-β-D-Glucuronide||108.08|64.75|
90973738|NCT01846455|181830638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|132.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.93|174.53||||||Naloxone-3-β-D-Glucuronide||174.53|100.93|
90973739|NCT01846455|181830638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|132.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.12|173.1||||||Naloxone-3-β-D-Glucuronide||173.10|102.12|
90973740|NCT01846455|181830638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|99.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.54|130.61||||||Naloxone-3-β-D-Glucuronide||130.61|75.54|
90973741|NCT01846455|181830639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|125.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.46|197.24||||||Buprenorphine||197.24|79.46|
90973742|NCT01846455|181830639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|220.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|135.33|360.81||||||Buprenorphine||360.81|135.33|
90973743|NCT01846455|181830639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|249.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|162.19|383.14||||||Buprenorphine||383.14|162.19|
90973744|NCT01846455|181830639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|94.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|56.44|158.02||||||Buprenorphine||158.02|56.44|
90973745|NCT01846455|181830639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|132.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.86|222.84||||||Buprenorphine||222.84|78.86|
90973746|NCT01846455|181830639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|233.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|135.63|403.68||||||Buprenorphine||403.68|135.63|
90973747|NCT01846455|181830639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|263.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|155.52|448.03||||||Buprenorphine||448.03|155.52|
90973748|NCT01846455|181830639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|159.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.21|324.79||||||Norbuprenorphine||324.79|78.21|
90973749|NCT01846455|181830639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|106.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|52.47|217.91||||||Norbuprenorphine||217.91|52.47|
90973750|NCT01846455|181830639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|87.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|42.74|177.5||||||Norbuprenorphine||177.50|42.74|
90973751|NCT01846455|181830639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|182.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.79|372.89||||||Norbuprenorphine||372.89|89.79|
90973752|NCT01846455|181830639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|122.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.24|250.19||||||Norbuprenorphine||250.19|60.24|
90973753|NCT01846455|181830639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|69.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|33.45|142.82||||||Naloxone||142.82|33.45|
90973754|NCT01846455|181830639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|282.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|141.59|562.3||||||Naloxone||562.30|141.59|
90973755|NCT01846455|181830639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|1497.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|724.85|3094.59||||||Naloxone||3094.59|724.85|
90973756|NCT01846455|181830639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|87.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|40.3|190.59||||||Naloxone||190.59|40.30|
90973757|NCT01846455|181830639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|78.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|34.34|181.12||||||Naloxone||181.12|34.34|
90973758|NCT01846455|181830639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|321.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|144.65|716.52||||||Naloxone||716.52|144.65|
91036663|NCT02554890|181959831|OTHER||expon. back transformed from LS means|0.7143|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6315|0.808||ANCOVA model for a log-scaled response with treatment group as a class variable and biomarker baseline value in logarithmic scale as a continuous covariate.|ANCOVA||Geometric Mean Ratio: Sacubitril/ Valsartan vs. Enalapril|||0.8080|0.6315|<.0001
90943805|NCT00551135|181766871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||24 h PS.||||0.0021
90943806|NCT00551135|181766871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1127|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||EOT.||||0.1127
90943807|NCT00551135|181766871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0703|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||EOT.||||0.0703
90943808|NCT00551135|181766871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||EOT.||||0.0012
90973759|NCT01846455|181830639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|1708.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|744.08|3924.47||||||Naloxone||3924.47|744.08|
90943809|NCT00551135|181766873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1927|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjests have been combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||24 h PS.||||0.1927
90973760|NCT01846455|181830639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|84.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.92|116.38||||||Naloxone-3-β-D-Glucuronide||116.38|60.92|
90973761|NCT01846455|181830639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|110.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.02|150.17||||||Naloxone-3-β-D-Glucuronide||150.17|82.02|
90973762|NCT01846455|181830639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|81.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.03|111.92||||||Naloxone-3-β-D-Glucuronide||111.92|60.03|
90973763|NCT01846455|181830639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|82.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|59.89|114.42||||||Naloxone-3-β-D-Glucuronide||114.42|59.89|
91036664|NCT02554890|181959835|OTHER||exponentially back transformed from LS m|0.8487||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7694|0.9361|||ANCOVA||Geometric Mean Ratio: Sacubitril/ Valsartan vs. Enalapril|||0.9361|0.7694|0.0011
90973764|NCT01846455|181830639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|101.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.96|138.0||||||Naloxone-3-β-D-Glucuronide||138.00|74.96|
90973765|NCT01846455|181830639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|134.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.07|177.82||||||Naloxone-3-β-D-Glucuronide||177.82|101.07|
90973766|NCT01846455|181830639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|99.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|73.93|132.61||||||Naloxone-3-β-D-Glucuronide||132.61|73.93|
90973767|NCT01449708|181830647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|1.27||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.61|||Chi-squared|||||1.61|1.01|0.04
90973768|NCT01449708|181830649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.04||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|7.29|||Chi-squared|||Grouping of surgical procedures into three categories, analysis using bonferroni correction, 1) ReY group( gastric bypass, conversion to gastric bypass and revision gastric bypass) 2) Gastric Band (GB), 3) sleeve gastrectomy (SG)||7.29|1.28|0.009
90973769|NCT01087541|181830663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.5|<|0.01||95.0|0.0|1.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1|0|<0.01
90973770|NCT01087541|181830665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|15.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||15|2|<0.001
91036665|NCT02554890|181959836|OTHER||expon. back transformed from LS means|1.6487|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4559|1.8669|||ANCOVA||Geometric Mean Ratio: Sacubitril/ Valsartan vs. Enalapril|||1.8669|1.4559|<.0001
90973771|NCT04311086|181830700|OTHER|A propensity score will be estimated for each patient from a multivariable logistic regression model, which is the probability that the patient is in DYSTAL cohort. In this model, the DYSTAL cohort (binary variable) is the outcome variable, and the following covariates will be considered as independent variables for propensity score analysis model: baseline Office and 24-hour ABPM (continuous) SBP and DBP, age (continuous), gender (dichotomous), BMI (continuous), diabetes (dichotomous).|||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison to the SPYRAL HTN-OFF MED study (NCT02439749) using a propensity score stratification (sub classification) adjustment.||||>0.05
90973772|NCT04311086|181830701|OTHER|A propensity score will be estimated for each patient from a multivariable logistic regression model, which is the probability that the patient is in DYSTAL cohort. In this model, the DYSTAL cohort (binary variable) is the outcome variable, and the following covariates will be considered as independent variables for propensity score analysis model: baseline Office and 24-hour ABPM (continuous) SBP and DBP, age (continuous), gender (dichotomous), BMI (continuous), diabetes (dichotomous).|||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison to the SPYRAL HTN-OFF MED study (NCT02439749) using a propensity score stratification (sub classification) adjustment.||||>0.05
90973773|NCT04311086|181830702|OTHER|A propensity score will be estimated for each patient from a multivariable logistic regression model, which is the probability that the patient is in DYSTAL cohort. In this model, the DYSTAL cohort (binary variable) is the outcome variable, and the following covariates will be considered as independent variables for propensity score analysis model: baseline Office and 24-hour ABPM (continuous) SBP and DBP, age (continuous), gender (dichotomous), BMI (continuous), diabetes (dichotomous).|||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison to the SPYRAL HTN-OFF MED study (NCT02439749) using a propensity score stratification (sub classification) adjustment||||>0.05
90973774|NCT04311086|181830703|OTHER|A propensity score will be estimated for each patient from a multivariable logistic regression model, which is the probability that the patient is in DYSTAL cohort. In this model, the DYSTAL cohort (binary variable) is the outcome variable, and the following covariates will be considered as independent variables for propensity score analysis model: baseline Office and 24-hour ABPM (continuous) SBP and DBP, age (continuous), gender (dichotomous), BMI (continuous), diabetes (dichotomous).|||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison to the SPYRAL HTN-OFF MED study (NCT02439749) using a propensity score stratification (sub classification) adjustment.||||>0.05
90973775|NCT04311086|181830707|OTHER|A propensity score will be estimated for each patient from a multivariable logistic regression model, which is the probability that the patient is in DYSTAL cohort. In this model, the DYSTAL cohort (binary variable) is the outcome variable, and the following covariates will be considered as independent variables for propensity score analysis model: baseline Office and 24-hour ABPM (continuous) SBP and DBP, age (continuous), gender (dichotomous), BMI (continuous), diabetes (dichotomous).|||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison to the SPYRAL HTN-OFF MED study (NCT02439749) using a propensity score stratification (sub classification) adjustment.||||<0.05
90973776|NCT04311086|181830708|OTHER|A propensity score will be estimated for each patient from a multivariable logistic regression model, which is the probability that the patient is in DYSTAL cohort. In this model, the DYSTAL cohort (binary variable) is the outcome variable, and the following covariates will be considered as independent variables for propensity score analysis model: baseline Office and 24-hour ABPM (continuous) SBP and DBP, age (continuous), gender (dichotomous), BMI (continuous), diabetes (dichotomous).|||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
90973777|NCT04311086|181830709|OTHER|A propensity score will be estimated for each patient from a multivariable logistic regression model, which is the probability that the patient is in DYSTAL cohort. In this model, the DYSTAL cohort (binary variable) is the outcome variable, and the following covariates will be considered as independent variables for propensity score analysis model: baseline Office and 24-hour ABPM (continuous) SBP and DBP, age (continuous), gender (dichotomous), BMI (continuous), diabetes (dichotomous).|||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison to the SPYRAL HTN-OFF MED study (NCT02439749) using a propensity score stratification (sub classification) adjustment.||||>0.05
91036666|NCT02554890|181959837|OTHER||expon. back transformed from LS means|1.4186|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3248|1.519|||ANCOVA||Geometric Mean Ratio: Sacubitril/ Valsartan vs. Enalapril|||1.5190|1.3248|<.0001
91036667|NCT02554890|181959838|OTHER||expon. back transformed from LS means|1.4745|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3752|1.581|||ANCOVA||Geometric Mean Ratio: Sacubitril/ Valsartan vs. Enalapril|||1.5810|1.3752|<.0001
91036668|NCT02554890|181959839|OTHER||expon. back transformed from LS means|0.7133|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6171|0.8245||ANCOVA model for a log-scaled response with treatment group as a class variable and biomarker baseline value in logarithmic scale as a continuous covariate.|ANCOVA||Geometric Mean Ratio: Sacubitril/Valsartan vs. Enalapril|||0.8245|0.6171|<.0001
90973778|NCT04311086|181830710|OTHER|A propensity score will be estimated for each patient from a multivariable logistic regression model, which is the probability that the patient is in DYSTAL cohort. In this model, the DYSTAL cohort (binary variable) is the outcome variable, and the following covariates will be considered as independent variables for propensity score analysis model: baseline Office and 24-hour ABPM (continuous) SBP and DBP, age (continuous), gender (dichotomous), BMI (continuous), diabetes (dichotomous).|||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison to the SPYRAL HTN-OFF MED study (NCT02439749) using a propensity score stratification (sub classification) adjustment.||||>0.05
90973779|NCT00355394|181830711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.03
91050428|NCT04168190|181987006|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.91|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 20A||1.91|0.77|
90973780|NCT00355394|181830712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.02
90973781|NCT00355394|181830713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.46
90973782|NCT00355394|181830714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
90973783|NCT00355394|181830715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.01
90973784|NCT00355394|181830716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.50
90973785|NCT02499029|181830721|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||A series of hierarchical linear regression analyses were conducted to examine the effects of treatment group (NAC or placebo) on PTSD symptomatology, craving, substance use, and depression. Baseline levels of the respective outcome measures were entered in Step 1 of the model to adjust for any baseline differences. Treatment group was entered as the predictor in Step 2. The significance threshold was set at a p-value of .05 (two-sided) for all statistical tests.||||.05
90973786|NCT00756938|181830728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|1.22||||0.753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.45|8.9|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with terms for dose, weight (as a continuous covariate) and presence of co-morbidities/end organ damage||||8.90|-6.45|0.753
90973787|NCT00756938|181830729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|1.81||||0.643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|9.51|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with terms for dose, weight (as a continuous covariate) and presence of co-morbidities/end organ damage||||9.51|-5.90|0.643
90973788|NCT04823949|181830732|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|1.88|||Chi-squared|||||1.88|1.33|<0.001
90973789|NCT04823949|181830733|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.35||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|3.49|||Fisher Exact|||||3.49|0.52|.530
90973790|NCT04823949|181830734|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.53||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|6.9|||Fisher Exact|||||6.90|0.92|.059
90973791|NCT04823949|181830735|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.84||||0.792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|3.04|||Fisher Exact|||||3.04|0.23|.792
90973792|NCT04823949|181830736|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.11||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.31|||Chi-squared|||||1.31|0.94|.210
90973793|NCT00441545|181830737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.113||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1130
90973794|NCT00441545|181830738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0249||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0249
90973795|NCT00411554|181830745|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin (Sitagliptin minus Voglibose) = 0.2 percent|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.39|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.51|-0.28||"This p-value corresponds to a test of superiority that was performed after success was achieved in the test of non-inferiority (reported under Estimation below), according to the pre-specified analysis plan"|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment, prior antihyperglycemic medication status and baseline was used to compare two groups|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment, prior antihyperglycemic medication status and baseline was used to show non-inferiority and superiority to voglibose (closed procedure) and to estimate difference of two groups and its 95% confidence interval|||-0.28|-0.51|<0.001
90973796|NCT00411554|181830746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-squares Mean Difference|-10.7|||<|0.001||95.0|-15.3|-6.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment, prior antihyperglycemic medication status and baseline was used to compare two groups|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment, prior antihyperglycemic medication status and baseline was used to show superiority to voglibose and to estimate difference of two groups and its 95% confidence interval|||-6.2|-15.3|<0.001
90973797|NCT00411554|181830747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-squares Mean Difference|-18.8|||<|0.001||95.0|-26.7|-10.9|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment, prior antihyperglycemic medication status and baseline was used to compare two groups|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment, prior antihyperglycemic medication status and baseline was used to show superiority to voglibose and to estimate difference of two groups and its 95% confidence interval|||-10.9|-26.7|<0.001
90973798|NCT00143455|181830758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.236||||0.0556||95.0|0.995|1.536|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model|||A non-inferiority test was combined with a superiority test based on a closed testing procedure. The null hypothesis was to be rejected if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the hazard ratio (control/test) estimated from a Cox proportional hazards model, with an indicator for the control arm, was less than 0.80.||1.536|0.995|0.0556
90973799|NCT00143455|181830759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.343||||0.143||95.0|0.905|1.993|||Chi-squared|||||1.993|0.905|0.143
90973800|NCT00143455|181830760|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A non-inferiority test was combined with a superiority test based on a closed testing procedure. The null hypothesis was to be rejected if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the hazard ratio (control/test) estimated from a Cox proportional hazards model, with an indicator for the control arm, was less than 0.80.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.35||||0.011||95.0|1.071|1.701|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model|||||1.701|1.071|0.0110
90973801|NCT00143455|181830761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.354||||0.0831||95.0|0.961|1.908|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model|||||1.908|0.961|0.0831
90973802|NCT00143455|181830762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.965||||0.7544||95.0|0.771|1.208|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model|||||1.208|0.771|0.7544
90973803|NCT01639872|181830765|SUPERIORITY||difference in treatment means|0.014|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.62||0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||We report the estimated coefficient for difference in treatment means in a mixed model and its standard error.|||||.99
90973804|NCT01639872|181830766|SUPERIORITY||difference in treatment means|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||We report the estimated coefficient for difference in treatment means in a mixed model and its standard error.|||||.25
90973805|NCT03850912|181830767|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.104||||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.944|1.29|||Regression, Logistic|||Adjusted analysis comparing control versus intervention patients (chemo and surgical patients combined)||1.290|0.944|0.214
90973806|NCT03850912|181830767|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.927||||0.565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.715|1.201|||Regression, Logistic|||Adjusted analysis comparing control versus intervention patients (medical oncology patients only)||1.201|0.715|0.565
90973807|NCT03850912|181830767|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.225||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.008|1.49|||Regression, Logistic|||Adjusted analysis comparing control versus intervention patients (surgical patients only)||1.490|1.008|0.042
90973808|NCT03850912|181830768|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.128||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.272|||Regression, Logistic|||Adjusted analysis comparing control versus intervention patients (medical oncology and surgical patients combined)||1.272|1.000|0.050
90973809|NCT03850912|181830768|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.012||||0.903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.836|1.225|||Regression, Logistic|||Adjusted analysis comparing control versus intervention patients (medical oncology patients only)||1.225|0.836|0.903
90973810|NCT03850912|181830768|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.215||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.418|||Regression, Logistic|||Adjusted analysis comparing control versus intervention patients (surgical patients only)||1.418|1.040|0.014
90973811|NCT03850912|181830769|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.002||||0.978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.881|1.139|||Regression, Logistic|||Adjusted analysis comparing control versus intervention patients (medical oncology and surgical patients combined)||1.139|0.881|0.978
90973812|NCT03850912|181830769|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.854||||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.697|1.046|||Regression, Logistic|||Adjusted analysis comparing control versus intervention patients (medical oncology patients only)||1.046|0.697|0.126
90973813|NCT03850912|181830769|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.102||||0.254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.933|1.302|||Regression, Logistic|||Adjusted analysis comparing control versus intervention patients (surgical patients only)||1.302|0.933|0.254
90973814|NCT03850912|181830770|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.068||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.964|1.183|||Regression, Logistic|||Adjusted analysis comparing control versus intervention patients (medical oncology and surgical patients combined)||1.183|0.964|0.209
90973815|NCT03850912|181830770|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.992||||0.924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.159|||Regression, Logistic|||Adjusted analysis comparing control versus intervention patients (medical oncology patients only)||1.159|0.850|0.924
90973816|NCT03850912|181830770|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.122||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.979|1.286|||Regression, Logistic|||Adjusted analysis comparing control versus intervention patients (surgical patients only)||1.286|0.979|0.099
90973817|NCT03850912|181830771|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-1.328||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.593|-0.062|||Regression, Linear|||Multivariable regression analyses (medical oncology cohort only)||-0.062|-2.593|0.04
90973818|NCT03850912|181830771|OTHER||Difference|-1.958||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.269|-0.646|||Regression, Logistic|||Multivariable regression analyses (surgical cohort only)||-0.646|-3.269|0.004
90973819|NCT03850912|181830772|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-0.925||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.985|0.136|||Regression, Linear|||Multivariable regression analyses (medical oncology cohort only)||0.136|-1.985|0.09
90973820|NCT03850912|181830772|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-1.516||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.474|-0.557|||Regression, Linear|||Multivariable regression analyses (surgical cohort only)||-0.557|-2.474|0.002
90973821|NCT03850912|181830773|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-1.767||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.532|0.433|||Regression, Linear|||Multivariable regression analyses (medical oncology cohort only)||0.433|-2.532|0.17
90973822|NCT03850912|181830773|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-2.198|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.259|-1.137|||Regression, Linear|||Multivariable regression analyses (surgical cohort only)||-1.137|-3.259|<0.0001
90973823|NCT03850912|181830774|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-0.8084||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.048|0.431|||Regression, Linear|||Multivariable regression analyses (medical oncology cohort only)||0.431|-2.048|0.2
90973824|NCT03850912|181830774|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-0.652||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.496|||Regression, Linear|||Multivariable regression analyses (surgical cohort only)||0.496|-1.800|0.27
90973825|NCT03850912|181830775|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-0.617||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|0.386|||Regression, Linear|||Multivariable regression analyses (medical oncology cohort only)||0.386|-1.620|0.23
90973826|NCT03850912|181830775|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.434||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.563|1.431|||Regression, Linear|||Multivariable regression analyses (surgical cohort only)||1.431|-0.563|0.39
90973827|NCT03850912|181830776|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-0.7||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.829|0.429|||Regression, Linear|||Multivariable regression analyses (medical oncology cohort only)||0.429|-1.829|0.22
90973828|NCT03850912|181830776|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-0.58||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.632|0.472|||Regression, Linear|||Multivariable regression analyses (surgical cohort only)||0.472|-1.632|0.28
90973829|NCT03850912|181830777|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.842|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.776|0.913|||Regression, Logistic|||Adjusted analysis comparing intervention responders versus non-responders (chemo and surgical patients combined)||0.913|0.776|<0.001
90973830|NCT03850912|181830777|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.688|0.885|||Regression, Logistic|||Adjusted analysis comparing intervention responders versus non-responders (medical oncology patients only)||0.885|0.688|<0.001
90973831|NCT03850912|181830777|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.889||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.799|0.99|||Regression, Logistic|||Adjusted analysis comparing intervention responders versus non-responders (surgical patients only)||0.990|0.799|0.032
90973832|NCT03850912|181830778|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.893|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.839|0.949|||Regression, Logistic|||Adjusted analysis comparing intervention responders versus non-responders (medical oncology and surgical patients combined)||0.949|0.839|<0.001
90973833|NCT03850912|181830778|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.872||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.796|0.954|||Regression, Logistic|||Adjusted analysis comparing intervention responders versus non-responders (medical oncology patients only)||0.954|0.796|0.003
90973834|NCT03850912|181830778|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.909||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.835|0.989|||Regression, Logistic|||Adjusted analysis comparing intervention responders versus non-responders (surgical patients only)||0.989|0.835|0.027
90973835|NCT03850912|181830779|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.636|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.593|0.682|||Regression, Logistic|||Adjusted analysis comparing intervention responders versus non-responders (medical oncology and surgical patients combined)||0.682|0.593|<0.001
90973836|NCT03850912|181830779|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.611|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.679|||Regression, Logistic|||Adjusted analysis comparing intervention responders versus non-responders (medical oncology patients only)||0.679|0.550|<0.001
90973837|NCT03850912|181830779|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.655|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.597|0.719|||Regression, Logistic|||Adjusted analysis comparing intervention responders versus non-responders (surgical patients only)||0.719|0.597|<0.001
90973838|NCT03850912|181830780|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.769|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.729|0.811|||Regression, Logistic|||Adjusted analysis comparing intervention responders versus non-responders (medical oncology and surgical patients combined)||0.811|0.729|<0.001
90973839|NCT03850912|181830780|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.795|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.737|0.858|||Regression, Logistic|||Adjusted analysis comparing intervention responders versus non-responders (medical oncology patients only)||0.858|0.737|<0.001
90943810|NCT00551135|181766873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3865|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjests have been combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||72 h PS||||0.3865
90943811|NCT00551135|181766873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9869|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjests have been combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||72 h PS.||||0.9869
90943812|NCT00551135|181766873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4354|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjests have been combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||72 h PS.||||0.4354
90943813|NCT00551135|181766873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8061|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjests have been combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||72 h PS.||||0.8061
90943814|NCT00551135|181766874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1682|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Baseline; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline VAS score and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.1682
90943815|NCT00551135|181766874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2821|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Baseline; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline VAS score and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.2821
90943816|NCT00551135|181766874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4781|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Baseline; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline VAS score and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.4781
90973840|NCT03850912|181830780|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.739|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.686|0.796|||Regression, Logistic|||Adjusted analysis comparing intervention responders versus non-responders (surgical patients only)||0.796|0.686|<0.001
90973841|NCT00720109|181830783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage|40.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|30.8|51.4|||Chi-squared|Chi-squared test equivalent to Z-test of proportions.||The a priori plan was to compare MRD positivity rate with that on a prior study, AALL0031 (n=72 Cohorts 1-5 of AALL0031 with 71% MRD positive). Out of 59 patients with end-Induction MRD on AALL0622, 40.7% were MRD positive. Per protocol, rates will be compared with a 2 sample Z-test of proportions, 1-sided test, alpha=5%.||51.4|30.8|<0.001
90973842|NCT00720109|181830784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||percentage|10.5|||=|0.13|TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.3|19.3|||Binomial Test||The pre-specified threshold for the estimated percentage of MRD positivity at End Consolidation was set to 16%. Results show an upper bound on the (Agresti-Coull) confidence interval of 19.3%.|||19.3|5.3|=0.13
90973843|NCT02177201|181830795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: The antiemetic effect was not significantly different for two groups in this study||||0.05
90973844|NCT02177201|181830795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||77 patients was needed in each groups for an 20% effect size, 5% alpha and 80% statistical power for postoperative vomiting.||||<0.05
90973845|NCT05853380|181830796|OTHER|The primary outcome was considered successful if the bootstrapped upper 95% confidence interval on the RMSD was \< 3.0. Power was assessed by bootstrapping 95% confidence intervals at different n sizes on a product development population.|RMSD|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.87||||||Subjects with simultaneously collected HR and PR comparator data were assigned to the comparison group.|The upper 95% confidence interval on the RMSD was 0.87, meeting the significance threshold of \< 3.0. The study tested hypothesis of accuracy \< 3.0 RMSD by showing the upper 95% confidence interval on the RMSD was \< 3.0. The upper 95% confidence interval on the RMSD was 0.87, meeting the target threshold of \< 3.0.|0.87|0.67|
90943817|NCT00551135|181766874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0557|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 h BS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline VAS score and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0557
90943818|NCT00551135|181766874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6098|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 h BS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline VAS score and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.6098
90943819|NCT00551135|181766874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1821|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 h BS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline VAS score and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.1821
90973846|NCT02926950|181830842|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares (LS) Means|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.084|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|-0.309|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 is analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.0, \>8.0%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||-0.309|-0.64|< 0.0001
90973847|NCT02926950|181830843|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.572|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2457|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0538|-1.0909|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.0, \>8.0%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and country as fixed effects, and baseline 2- hour postprandial glucose as a covariate.||-1.0909|-2.0538|< 0.0001
90973848|NCT02926950|181830844|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2247|=|0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2006|-0.3198|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 is analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.0, \>8.0%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and baseline fasting plasma glucose as a covariate.||-0.3198|-1.2006|= 0.0007
90973849|NCT02926950|181830845|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.369|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.591|-1.144|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 is analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.0, \>8.0%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and country as fixed effects, and baseline weight as a covariate.||-1.144|-2.591|< 0.0001
90973850|NCT02926950|181830846|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-3.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.422|=|0.0209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.07|-0.497|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 12 is analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤ 8.0, \>8.0%) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and baseline SBP as a covariate.||-0.497|-6.07|= 0.0209
90973851|NCT02926950|181830847|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-3.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.992|=|0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.479|-1.592|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 12 is analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤ 8.0, \>8.0%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and baseline SBP as a covariate.||-1.592|-5.479|= 0.0004
90973852|NCT02926950|181830848|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|5.4|||=|0.0238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|10.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage difference between treatment groups using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by the randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.0, \>8.0%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening. Missing data at Week 26 were assigned a status of nonresponder in the analysis.||10.06|0.75|= 0.0238
90973853|NCT02926950|181830849|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|13.9|||=|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.91|20.89|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage difference between treatment groups using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by the randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.0, \>8.0%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening. Missing data at Week 26 were assigned a status of nonresponder in the analysis.||20.89|6.91|= 0.0001
90973854|NCT03505021|181830855|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.258||||0.8253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.032|2.547|||ANCOVA|||||2.547|-2.032|0.8253
90973855|NCT03505021|181830856|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.69||||0.4277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.74|37.12|||ANCOVA|||||37.12|-15.74|0.4277
90973856|NCT03505021|181830857|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.051||||0.6733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.833|1.327|||Regression, Cox|||||1.327|0.833|0.6733
90973857|NCT03505021|181830858|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.762||||0.1295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.129|8.654|||ANCOVA|||||8.654|-1.129|0.1295
90973858|NCT03505021|181830859|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.013||||0.623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.066|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.066|-0.040|0.6230
90973859|NCT03505021|181830860|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.272||||0.1752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.666|0.122|||ANCOVA|||||0.122|-0.666|0.1752
90973860|NCT06523491|181830877|SUPERIORITY||F value|23.31||||0|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05.|ANCOVA|"To compare the efficacy of 1 and 2 NOLTREX courses with placebo was used ANCOVA adjusted for the baseline value with fixed factor of treatment group"||No sample size calculation was performed. In the survey took part 57 patients from the parent study and OLE. The study did not have a formal hypothesis. The between-group comparison of changes from baseline (OLE visit 0) in the WOMAC-T at the end of 12-month follow-up (EOF) visit was conducted using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) and, as a post hoc test, the Tukey test.||||0.00
90973861|NCT06523491|181830877|SUPERIORITY||LS-means difference|353.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|72.27||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|178.91|527.45||Difference between Least-square means was tested at a level of p \<0.05 via Tukey's multiple comparison test.|Tukey's HSD|||Post-hoc pairwise comparisons were performed using Tukey test.||527.45|178.91|0.00
90973862|NCT06523491|181830877|SUPERIORITY||LS-means difference|-292.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|78.04||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-480.37|-104.01||Difference between Least-square means was tested at a level of p \<0.05 via Tukey's multiple comparison test.|Tukey's HSD|||Post-hoc pairwise comparisons were performed using Tukey test.||-104.01|-480.37|0.00
90973863|NCT06523491|181830877|SUPERIORITY||LS-means difference|-645.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|95.68||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-876.07|-414.67||Difference between Least-square means was tested at a level of p \<0.05 via Tukey's multiple comparison test.|Tukey's HSD|||Post-hoc pairwise comparisons were performed using Tukey test.||-414.67|-876.07|0.00
90973864|NCT06523491|181830877|SUPERIORITY||F value|23.31||||0|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05.|ANCOVA|"To compare the efficacy of 1 and 2 NOLTREX courses with placebo was used ANCOVA adjusted for the baseline value with fixed factor of treatment group"||The between-group comparison of changes from baseline (study 1 visit 1) in the WOMAC-T at visit 5 was conducted using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) and, as a post hoc test, the Tukey test.||||0.00
90973865|NCT06523491|181830877|SUPERIORITY||LS-means difference|-292.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|78.04||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-480.37|-104.01|||Tukey's HSD|||Post-hoc pairwise comparisons were performed using Tukey test.||-104.01|-480.37|0.00
90973866|NCT06523491|181830877|SUPERIORITY||[LS-means difference|-645.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|95.68||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-876.07|-414.67||Difference between Least-square means was tested at a level of p \<0.05 via Tukey's multiple comparison test.|Tukey's HSD|||Post-hoc pairwise comparisons were performed using Tukey test.||-414.67|-876.07|0.00
90973867|NCT03266016|181830882|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|2.77|||Proportional Odds Logistic Regression|||This analysis is comparing length of weaning between REDvent acute group and control acute group.||2.77|1.01|.045
90973868|NCT03266016|181830882|SUPERIORITY||Proportional odds logistic regression|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.6||||||Weaning Phase||2.6|0.7|
90973869|NCT03266016|181830883|SUPERIORITY||Incident rate ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.25|||||Negative binomial model.|||1.25|0.84|
90973870|NCT03266016|181830884|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.7||||||||2.7|0.4|
90973871|NCT03266016|181830885|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|2.47||||||||2.47|0.44|
90973872|NCT03266016|181830886|SUPERIORITY||Proportional odds logistic regression|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|2.55||||||||2.55|1.01|
90973873|NCT01664793|181830930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Chi-square tests for comparisons of between-arm changes in vaccination rates from pre to post intervention.||||||<0.05
90973874|NCT02787850|181830941|OTHER||sucess proportion|86.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.9|95.6||||||||95.6|71.9|
90973875|NCT02787850|181830941|OTHER||success proportion|76.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.7|90.1||||||||90.1|57.7|
90973876|NCT02787850|181830941|OTHER||success proportion|87.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|76.3|94.9||||||||94.9|76.3|
90973877|NCT02787850|181830941|OTHER||success proportion|85.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|66.3|95.8||||||||95.8|66.3|
90973878|NCT02944448|181830959|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.7093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.5|-0.4|0.7093
90973879|NCT02944448|181830960|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.8||||0.6007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|7.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.6|-13.1|0.6007
90973880|NCT02944448|181830961|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.4563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.4|-3.0|0.4563
90973881|NCT02944448|181830962|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.8693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.8|-1.0|0.8693
90973882|NCT02944448|181830963|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.6516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|5.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.7|-9.1|0.6516
90973883|NCT02944448|181830964|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.1033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.1|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression, including treatment, baseline weekly pain score, and OA joint as independent variables.|Ratio between treatment odds of achieving a treatment response.|||1.1|0.5|0.1033
90973884|NCT02944448|181830965|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.2831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.2|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression, including treatment, baseline weekly pain score, and OA joint as independent variables.|Ratio between treatment odds of achieving a treatment response.|||1.2|0.5|0.2831
90973885|NCT02944448|181830966|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.1959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.0|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with treatment as a main effect and OA joint as a covariate.|"Ratio between treatment odds of having a PGIC of Very Much Improved or Much Improved."|||2.0|0.9|0.1959
90973886|NCT02944448|181830967|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2858|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test stratified by Primary OA joint (Hip or Knee) and Baseline Week Mean of the Daily NRS (\<6.7 or \>=6.7) (Van Elteren test).||||||0.2858
90943820|NCT00551135|181766874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1628|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||1 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline VAS score and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.1628
90943821|NCT00551135|181766874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8999|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||1 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline VAS score and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.8999
90943822|NCT00551135|181766874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.399|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||1 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline VAS score and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.3990
90943823|NCT00551135|181766874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2665|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline VAS score and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.2665
90943824|NCT00551135|181766874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4885|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline VAS score and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.4885
90943825|NCT00551135|181766874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6415|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline VAS score and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.6415
90943826|NCT00551135|181766874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2269|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||3 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline VAS score and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.2269
90943827|NCT00551135|181766874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3228|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||3 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline VAS score and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.3228
90943828|NCT00551135|181766874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1808|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||3 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline VAS score and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.1808
90943829|NCT00551135|181766874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3282|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 2 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline VAS score and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.3282
90943830|NCT00551135|181766874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0342|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 2 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline VAS score and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0342
90943831|NCT00551135|181766874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4198|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 2 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline VAS score and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.4198
90943832|NCT00551135|181766874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9049|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 3 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline VAS score and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.9049
90943833|NCT00551135|181766874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0456|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 3 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline VAS score and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0456
90943834|NCT00551135|181766874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2463|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 3 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline VAS score and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.2463
90943835|NCT00551135|181766874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8231|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 4 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline VAS score and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.8231
90943836|NCT00551135|181766874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0221|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 4 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline VAS score and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0221
90943837|NCT00551135|181766874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6974|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 4 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline VAS score and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.6974
90943838|NCT00551135|181766874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7461|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 5 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline VAS score and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.7461
90943839|NCT00551135|181766874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1198|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 5 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline VAS score and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.1198
90973887|NCT02944448|181830968|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.8002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.7|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression, including treatment, baseline pain score, and OA joint as independent variables.|Ratio between treatment odds of withdrawing from treatment due to lack of analgesic efficacy.|||2.7|0.3|0.8002
90973888|NCT02397473|181830992|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-3.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.72|-0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.23|-6.72|0.036
90973889|NCT02397473|181830993|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046|||||||ANCOVA|Koch's nonparametric randomization-based ANCOVA.||||||0.046
90973890|NCT02397473|181830994|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.23|1.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.57|-3.23|0.493
90973891|NCT02397473|181830995|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.046||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.242|7.469|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.469|1.242|0.016
90973892|NCT02397473|181830996|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.312||||0.575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.502|3.426|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.426|.502|0.575
90973893|NCT02397473|181830997|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.965||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.512|1.819|||Mixed Models Analysis|Pseudo-likelihood-based repeated measures.||||1.819|.512|0.910
90973894|NCT02397473|181830998|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.929||||0.841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.449|1.923|||Mixed Models Analysis|Pseudolikelihood-based repeated measures model||||1.923|0.449|0.841
90973895|NCT01415752|181831053|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25||||||one-sided stratified log-rank test|Log Rank|one-sided stratified log-rank test||||||0.25
90973896|NCT01415752|181831054|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.178||||||one-sided stratified log-rank test|Log Rank|one-sided stratified log-rank test||||||0.178
90973897|NCT03083886|181831079|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.93||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|0.997|||GEE with log link and Poisson errors|||||.997|.87|.04
90973898|NCT03083886|181831079|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|1.45|||GEE with log link and Poisson errors|||||1.45|1.35|<0.001
90973899|NCT03083886|181831080|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|-3.9|||GEE with identity link and normal errors|||||-3.9|-7.7|<0.001
90973900|NCT03083886|181831080|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|-2.6|||GEE with identity link and normal errors|||||-2.6|-5.9|<0.001
90973901|NCT03083886|181831081|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|-5.7|||GEE with identity link and normal errors|||||-5.7|-9.4|<0.001
90973902|NCT03083886|181831081|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|-5.0|||GEE with identity link and normal errors|||||-5.0|-8.4|<0.001
90973903|NCT03083886|181831082|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|6.8|||GEE with identity link and normal errors|||||6.8|2.6|<0.001
90973904|NCT03083886|181831082|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|7.9|||GEE with identity link and normal errors|||||7.9|4.1|<0.001
90973905|NCT03083886|181831083|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|8.7|||GEE with identity link and normal errors|||||8.7|5.0|<0.001
90973906|NCT03083886|181831083|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|8.4|||GEE with identity link and normal errors|||||8.4|5.0|<0.001
90973907|NCT03066102|181831128|OTHER|||||||0.227||||||The level of statistical significance was set at P \< 0.05.|ANOVA|||The effects of muscle fatigue on reposition error of scapular elevation. Muscle fatigue would increase reposition error during scapular elevation. One-way repeated measures analysis of variance.||||0.227
90973908|NCT03066102|181831128|OTHER|||||||0.764||||||The level of statistical significance was set at P \< 0.05.|ANOVA|||The effects of muscle fatigue on reposition error of scapular protraction. Muscle fatigue would increase reposition error during scapular protraction. One-way repeated measures analysis of variance.||||0.764
90973909|NCT03066102|181831129|OTHER|||||||0.413||||||The level of statistical significance was set at P \< 0.05.|ANOVA|||"The effects of muscle fatigue on muscle activation of upper trapezius during scapular elevation.~Muscle fatigue would change muscle activation during proprioception task. One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.413
90973910|NCT03066102|181831129|OTHER|||||||0.984||||||The level of statistical significance was set at P \< 0.05.|ANOVA|||"The effects of muscle fatigue on muscle activation of lower trapezius during scapular elevation.~Muscle fatigue would change muscle activation during proprioception task. One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.984
90973911|NCT03066102|181831129|OTHER|||||||0.006||||||The level of statistical significance was set at P \< 0.05.|ANOVA|||"The effects of muscle fatigue on muscle activation of serratus anterior during scapular elevation.~Muscle fatigue would change muscle activation during proprioception task. One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.006
91036669|NCT00834275|181959840|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model containing factors for sequence of products, subjects within sequence, periods, and products was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|99.0||||||90.0|94.0|104.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%|||104|94|
91036670|NCT00834275|181959841|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model containing factors for sequence of products, subjects within sequence, periods, and products was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|101.0||||||90.0|98.3|105.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%|||105|98.3|
91036671|NCT00834275|181959842|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model containing factors for sequence of products, subjects within sequence, periods, and products was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|101.0||||||90.0|98.3|104.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%|||104|98.3|
91036672|NCT03649477|181959843|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.202||||0.3493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.729|1.324||0.05 threshold for statistical significance|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.324|-3.729|0.3493
91036673|NCT03649477|181959843|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.136||||0.0162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.685|-0.586||0.05 threshold for statistical significance|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.586|-5.685|0.0162
91036674|NCT03649477|181959844|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.608||||0.6001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.89|1.674||0.05 threshold for statistical significance|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.674|-2.890|0.6001
91036675|NCT03649477|181959844|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.764||||0.5143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.068|1.541||0.05 threshold for statistical significance|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.541|-3.068|0.5143
90943840|NCT00551135|181766874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8031|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 5 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline VAS score and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.8031
90943841|NCT00551135|181766874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8515|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 6 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline VAS score and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.8515
90943842|NCT00551135|181766874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1285|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 6 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline VAS score and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.1285
90943843|NCT00551135|181766874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5561|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 6 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline VAS score and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.5561
90943844|NCT00551135|181766874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6858|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 7 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline VAS score and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.6858
90943845|NCT00551135|181766874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0693|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 7 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline VAS score and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0693
90943846|NCT00551135|181766874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5547|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 7 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline VAS score and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.5547
90943847|NCT00551135|181766874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.461|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 8 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline VAS score and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.4610
90943848|NCT00551135|181766874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.664|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 8 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline VAS score and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.6640
90943849|NCT00551135|181766874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6158|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 8 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline VAS score and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.6158
90943850|NCT00551135|181766874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1632|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 9 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline VAS score and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.1632
91036676|NCT03649477|181959845|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.183||||0.9144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.175|3.541||0.05 threshold for statistical significance|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.541|-3.175|0.9144
90973912|NCT03066102|181831129|OTHER|||||||0.154||||||The level of statistical significance was set at P \< 0.05.|ANOVA|||"The effects of muscle fatigue on muscle activation of upper trapezius during scapular protraction.~Muscle fatigue would change muscle activation during proprioception task. One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.154
90973913|NCT03066102|181831129|OTHER|||||||0.096||||||The level of statistical significance was set at P \< 0.05.|ANOVA|||"The effects of muscle fatigue on muscle activation of lower trapezius during scapular protraction.~Muscle fatigue would change muscle activation during proprioception task. One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.096
90973914|NCT03066102|181831129|OTHER|||||||0.037||||||The level of statistical significance was set at P \< 0.05.|ANOVA|||"The effects of muscle fatigue on muscle activation of serratus anterior during scapular protraction.~Muscle fatigue would change muscle activation during proprioception task. One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.037
90973915|NCT03066102|181831130|OTHER|||||||8.5e-05||||||The level of statistical significance was set at P \< 0.05.|ANOVA|||"The effects of muscle fatigue on muscle strength of serratus anterior during maximum voluntary isometric muscle contraction.~Muscle fatigue would decrease muscle strength during maximum voluntary isometric muscle contraction.~One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.000085
90973916|NCT03066102|181831130|OTHER|||||||0.037||||||The level of statistical significance was set at P \< 0.05.|ANOVA|||"The effects of muscle fatigue on muscle strength of upper trapezius during maximum voluntary isometric muscle contraction.~Muscle fatigue would decrease muscle strength during maximum voluntary isometric muscle contraction.~One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.037
90973917|NCT03066102|181831130|OTHER|||||||0.382||||||The level of statistical significance was set at P \< 0.05.|ANOVA|||"The effects of muscle fatigue on muscle strength of lower trapezius during maximum voluntary isometric muscle contraction.~Muscle fatigue would decrease muscle strength during maximum voluntary isometric muscle contraction.~One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.382
90973918|NCT03066102|181831131|OTHER|||||||0.000467||||||The level of statistical significance was set at P \< 0.05.|ANOVA|||The effects of muscle fatigue on scapular posterior tilt during scaption. Muscle fatigue would change scapular kinematics during scaption. Two way (angle x time) repeated measures. If there was an interaction between time and angle, further one way repeated measures would use to access the effects of time on kinematics changed of scapular posterior tilt during each angle of scaption.||||0.000467
90973919|NCT03066102|181831131|OTHER|||||||0.093||||||The level of statistical significance was adjusted at P\<0.00625. (0.05/8=0.00625)|ANOVA|||"The effects of time on kinematics changed of scapular posterior tilt during ascending 30 degree of scaption.~One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.093
90973920|NCT03066102|181831131|OTHER|||||||0.062||||||The level of statistical significance was adjusted at P\<0.00625. (0.05/8=0.00625)|ANOVA|||"The effects of time on kinematics changed of scapular posterior tilt during ascending 60 degree of scaption.~One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.062
90973921|NCT03066102|181831131|OTHER|||||||0.04||||||The level of statistical significance was adjusted at P\<0.00625. (0.05/8=0.00625)|ANOVA|||"The effects of time on kinematics changed of scapular posterior tilt during ascending 90 degree of scaption.~One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.04
90973922|NCT03066102|181831131|OTHER|||||||0.000147||||||The level of statistical significance was adjusted at P\<0.00625. (0.05/8=0.00625)|ANOVA|||"The effects of time on kinematics changed of scapular posterior tilt during ascending 120 degree of scaption.~One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.000147
90973923|NCT03066102|181831131|OTHER|||||||1.2e-05||||||The level of statistical significance was adjusted at P\<0.00625. (0.05/8=0.00625)|ANOVA|||"The effects of time on kinematics changed of scapular posterior tilt during descending 120 degree of scaption.~One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.000012
90973924|NCT03066102|181831131|OTHER|||||||0.007||||||The level of statistical significance was adjusted at P\<0.00625. (0.05/8=0.00625)|ANOVA|||"The effects of time on kinematics changed of scapular posterior tilt during descending 90 degree of scaption.~One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.007
90973925|NCT03066102|181831131|OTHER|||||||0.059||||||The level of statistical significance was adjusted at P\<0.00625. (0.05/8=0.00625)|ANOVA|||"The effects of time on kinematics changed of scapular posterior tilt during descending 60 degree of scaption.~One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.059
90973926|NCT03066102|181831131|OTHER|||||||0.032||||||The level of statistical significance was adjusted at P\<0.00625. (0.05/8=0.00625)|ANOVA|||"The effects of time on kinematics changed of scapular posterior tilt during descending 30 degree of scaption.~One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.032
90973927|NCT03066102|181831131|OTHER|||||||1.5e-05||||||The level of statistical significance was set at P \< 0.05.|ANOVA|||The effects of muscle fatigue on scapular internal rotation during scaption Muscle fatigue would change scapular kinematics during scaption. Two way (angle x time) repeated measures. If there was an interaction between time and angle, further one way repeated measures would use to access the effects of time on kinematics changed of scapular internal rotation during each angle of scaption.||||0.000015
91036677|NCT03649477|181959845|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.812||||0.0266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.177|-0.446||0.05 threshold for statistical significance|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.446|-7.177|0.0266
90973928|NCT03066102|181831131|OTHER|||||||0.296||||||The level of statistical significance was adjusted at P\<0.00625. (0.05/8=0.00625)|ANOVA|||"The effects of time on kinematics changed of scapular internal rotation during ascending 30 degree of scaption.~One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.296
90973929|NCT03066102|181831131|OTHER|||||||0.457||||||The level of statistical significance was adjusted at P\<0.00625. (0.05/8=0.00625)|ANOVA|||"The effects of time on kinematics changed of scapular internal rotation during ascending 60 degree of scaption.~One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.457
90973930|NCT03066102|181831131|OTHER|||||||0.311||||||The level of statistical significance was adjusted at P\<0.00625. (0.05/8=0.00625)|ANOVA|||"The effects of time on kinematics changed of scapular internal rotation during ascending 90 degree of scaption.~One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.311
90973931|NCT03066102|181831131|OTHER|||||||0.004||||||The level of statistical significance was adjusted at P\<0.00625. (0.05/8=0.00625)|ANOVA|||"The effects of time on kinematics changed of scapular internal rotation during ascending 120 degree of scaption.~One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.004
90973932|NCT03066102|181831131|OTHER|||||||0.002||||||The level of statistical significance was adjusted at P\<0.00625. (0.05/8=0.00625)|ANOVA|||"The effects of time on kinematics changed of scapular internal rotation during descending 120 degree of scaption.~One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.002
90973933|NCT03066102|181831131|OTHER|||||||0.137||||||The level of statistical significance was adjusted at P\<0.00625. (0.05/8=0.00625)|ANOVA|||"The effects of time on kinematics changed of scapular internal rotation during descending 90 degree of scaption.~One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.137
90973934|NCT03066102|181831131|OTHER|||||||0.636||||||The level of statistical significance was adjusted at P\<0.00625. (0.05/8=0.00625)|ANOVA|||"The effects of time on kinematics changed of scapular internal rotation during descending 60 degree of scaption.~One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.636
90973935|NCT03066102|181831131|OTHER|||||||0.406||||||The level of statistical significance was adjusted at P\<0.00625. (0.05/8=0.00625)|ANOVA|||"The effects of time on kinematics changed of scapular internal rotation during descending 30 degree of scaption.~One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.406
90973936|NCT03066102|181831131|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||The level of statistical significance was set at P \< 0.05.|ANOVA|||The effects of muscle fatigue on scapular upward rotation during scaption. Muscle fatigue would change scapular kinematics during scaption. Two way (angle x time) repeated measures. If there was an interaction between time and angle, further one way repeated measures would use to access the effects of time on kinematics changed of scapular upward rotation during each angle of scaption.||||0.001
90973937|NCT03066102|181831131|OTHER|||||||0.65||||||The level of statistical significance was adjusted at P\<0.00625. (0.05/8=0.00625)|ANOVA|||"The effects of time on kinematics changed of scapular upward rotation during ascending 30 degree of scaption.~One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.650
90973938|NCT03066102|181831131|OTHER|||||||0.141||||||The level of statistical significance was adjusted at P\<0.00625. (0.05/8=0.00625)|ANOVA|||"The effects of time on kinematics changed of scapular upward rotation during ascending 60 degree of scaption.~One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.141
90973939|NCT03066102|181831131|OTHER|||||||0.021||||||The level of statistical significance was adjusted at P\<0.00625. (0.05/8=0.00625)|ANOVA|||"The effects of time on kinematics changed of scapular upward rotation during ascending 90 degree of scaption.~One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.021
90973940|NCT03066102|181831131|OTHER|||||||0.005||||||The level of statistical significance was adjusted at P\<0.00625. (0.05/8=0.00625)|ANOVA|||"The effects of time on kinematics changed of scapular upward rotation during ascending 120 degree of scaption.~One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.005
90973941|NCT03066102|181831131|OTHER|||||||0.083||||||The level of statistical significance was adjusted at P\<0.00625. (0.05/8=0.00625)|ANOVA|||"The effects of time on kinematics changed of scapular upward rotation during descending 120 degree of scaption.~One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.083
90973942|NCT03066102|181831131|OTHER|||||||0.389||||||The level of statistical significance was adjusted at P\<0.00625. (0.05/8=0.00625)|ANOVA|||"The effects of time on kinematics changed of scapular upward rotation during descending 90 degree of scaption.~One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.389
90973943|NCT03066102|181831131|OTHER|||||||0.542||||||The level of statistical significance was adjusted at P\<0.00625. (0.05/8=0.00625)|ANOVA|||"The effects of time on kinematics changed of scapular upward rotation during descending 60 degree of scaption.~One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.542
90973944|NCT03066102|181831131|OTHER|||||||0.263||||||The level of statistical significance was adjusted at P\<0.00625. (0.05/8=0.00625)|ANOVA|||"The effects of time on kinematics changed of scapular upward rotation during descending 30 degree of scaption.~One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.263
90973945|NCT03066102|181831132|OTHER|||||||0.331||||||The level of statistical significance was set at P \< 0.05.|ANOVA|||"The effects of muscle fatigue on muscle activation of upper trapezius during scaption.~Muscle fatigue would change muscle activation during scaption. Two way (angle x time) repeated measures. If there was an interaction between time and angle, further one way repeated measures would use to access the effects of time on muscle activation changed of upper trapezius during each angle of scaption."||||0.331
90973946|NCT03066102|181831132|OTHER|||||||0.627||||||The level of statistical significance was set at P \< 0.05.|ANOVA|||"The effects of muscle fatigue on muscle activation of lower trapezius during scaption.~Muscle fatigue would change muscle activation during scaption. Two way (angle x time) repeated measures. If there was an interaction between time and angle, further one way repeated measures would use to access the effects of time on muscle activation changed of lower trapezius during each angle of scaption."||||0.627
90973947|NCT03066102|181831132|OTHER|||||||0.042||||||The level of statistical significance was set at P \< 0.05.|ANOVA|||"The effects of muscle fatigue on muscle activation of serratus anterior during scaption.~Muscle fatigue would change muscle activation during scaption. Two way (angle x time) repeated measures. If there was an interaction between time and angle, further one way repeated measures would use to access the effects of time on muscle activation changed of serratus anterior during each angle of scaption."||||0.042
90973948|NCT03066102|181831132|OTHER|||||||0.021||||||The level of statistical significance was adjusted at P\<0.0083. (0.05/6=0.0083)|ANOVA|||"The effects of time on muscle activation changed of serratus anterior during ascending 30\~60 degree of scaption.~One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.021
90973949|NCT03066102|181831132|OTHER|||||||0.018||||||The level of statistical significance was adjusted at P\<0.0083. (0.05/6=0.0083)|ANOVA|||"The effects of time on muscle activation changed of serratus anterior during ascending 60\~90 degree of scaption.~One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.018
90973950|NCT03066102|181831132|OTHER|||||||0.002||||||The level of statistical significance was adjusted at P\<0.0083. (0.05/6=0.0083)|ANOVA|||"The effects of time on muscle activation changed of serratus anterior during ascending 90\~120 degree of scaption.~One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.002
90973951|NCT03066102|181831132|OTHER|||||||0.002||||||The level of statistical significance was adjusted at P\<0.0083. (0.05/6=0.0083)|ANOVA|||"The effects of time on muscle activation changed of serratus anterior during descending 120\~90 degree of scaption.~One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.002
90973952|NCT03066102|181831132|OTHER|||||||0.035||||||The level of statistical significance was adjusted at P\<0.0083. (0.05/6=0.0083)|ANOVA|||"The effects of time on muscle activation changed of serratus anterior during descending 90\~60 degree of scaption.~One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.035
90973953|NCT03066102|181831132|OTHER|||||||0.05||||||The level of statistical significance was adjusted at P\<0.0083. (0.05/6=0.0083)|ANOVA|||"The effects of time on muscle activation changed of serratus anterior during descending 60\~30 degree of scaption.~One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.05
90973954|NCT03066102|181831133|OTHER|||||||0.5||||||The level of statistical significance was set at P \< 0.05|ANOVA|||"The effects of muscle fatigue on muscle onset timing of upper trapezius during scaption.~Muscle fatigue would change muscle onset timing during scaption. One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.5
90973955|NCT03066102|181831133|OTHER|||||||0.843||||||The level of statistical significance was set at P \< 0.05|ANOVA|||"The effects of muscle fatigue on muscle onset timing of lower trapezius during scaption.~Muscle fatigue would change muscle onset timing during scaption. One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.843
90973956|NCT03066102|181831133|OTHER|||||||0.466||||||The level of statistical significance was set at P \< 0.05|ANOVA|||"The effects of muscle fatigue on muscle onset timing of serratus anterior during scaption.~Muscle fatigue would change muscle onset timing during scaption. One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.466
90973957|NCT01496066|181831137|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<.0001
90973958|NCT01496066|181831138|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.0001
90973959|NCT01496066|181831139|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.0001
90973960|NCT01496066|181831140|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0318|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.0318
90973961|NCT01496066|181831141|EQUIVALENCE|a two-group t-test of equivalence in means was used|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|-0.06|-0.02||||||||-0.02|-0.06|
90973962|NCT03237065|181831148|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-65.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.6|-49.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Rate difference with 95% Newcombe confidence intervals (CI) adjusted for stratum, using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method.|Iron isomaltoside/ferric derisomaltose was compared to ferric carboxymaltose by estimation of the risk difference and the associated 95% CI, adjusting for strata (underlying disease and screening s-phosphate) using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method.|"Power:~The power was set to 80%. Assuming incidences of 15% for iron isomaltoside/ferric derisomaltose and 40% for ferric carboxymaltose, 49 subjects in each treatment group were required to detect a difference between the treatment groups. The significance level was set to 5%."||-49.8|-76.6|<0.0001
91036678|NCT03649477|181959846|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.312||||0.1598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.748|0.125||0.05 threshold for statistical significance|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.125|-0.748|0.1598
90973963|NCT03237065|181831149|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0511|||||||Log Rank|||The time with hypophosphatemia from baseline to day 35 was estimated by a Kaplan- Meier plot. The treatment groups were compared by a log-rank test. Only subjects who had one or more s-phosphate value(s) \<2 mg/dL were included.||||0.0511
90973964|NCT03237065|181831150|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-44.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.7|-31.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Iron isomaltoside/ferric derisomaltose was compared to ferric carboxymaltose by estimation of the risk difference and the associated 95 % CI, adjusting for strata (type of underlying disease (women with IDA due to gynaecological blood losses; yes/no) and screening s-phosphate level (\< or ≥ 3.5 mg/dL)) using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method.||-31.6|-57.7|<0.0001
90973965|NCT03237065|181831151|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.46|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.62|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 1~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||0.62|0.30|<0.0001
90973966|NCT03237065|181831151|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.76|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 7~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||0.76|0.32|<0.0001
90973967|NCT03237065|181831151|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.96|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 8~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||0.96|0.49|<0.0001
90973968|NCT03237065|181831151|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.46|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 14~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||1.46|0.99|<0.0001
90973969|NCT03237065|181831151|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.24|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.51|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 21~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||1.51|0.98|<0.0001
90973970|NCT03237065|181831151|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.43|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 35~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||1.43|0.91|<0.0001
90973971|NCT03237065|181831152|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.38|18.59|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 1~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||18.59|9.38|<0.0001
90973972|NCT03237065|181831152|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.84|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.45|22.23|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 7~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||22.23|9.45|<0.0001
90973973|NCT03237065|181831152|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.72|28.59|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 8~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||28.59|14.72|<0.0001
90973974|NCT03237065|181831152|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|36.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.28|43.06|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 14~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||43.06|29.28|<0.0001
90973975|NCT03237065|181831152|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|37.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.99|45.72|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 21~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||45.72|29.99|<0.0001
91036679|NCT03649477|181959846|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.498||||0.0266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.937|-0.059||0.05 threshold for statistical significance|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.059|-0.937|0.0266
91036680|NCT03649477|181959847|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.085||||0.2479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.932|0.761||0.05 threshold for statistical significance|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.761|-2.932|0.2479
91036681|NCT03649477|181959847|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.412||||0.0114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.276|-0.548||0.05 for statistical significance|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.548|-4.276|0.0114
90973976|NCT03237065|181831152|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|34.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.8|42.26|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 35~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||42.26|26.80|<0.0001
90973977|NCT03237065|181831154|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-96.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-119.8|-73.8|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 1~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-73.8|-119.8|<0.0001
90973978|NCT03237065|181831154|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.7||||0.1064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.9|3.4|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 7~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||3.4|-34.9|0.1064
90973979|NCT03237065|181831154|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-251.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-307.2|-196.2|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 8~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-196.2|-307.2|<0.0001
90973980|NCT03237065|181831154|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-79.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-103.7|-54.5|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 14~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-54.5|-103.7|<0.0001
90973981|NCT03237065|181831154|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-61.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.0|-40.5|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 21~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-40.5|-83.0|<0.0001
90973982|NCT03237065|181831154|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.0||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.1|-5.9|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 35~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-5.9|-30.1|0.0039
91036682|NCT02832063|181959889|EQUIVALENCE|Primary efficacy power calculations assume a \>25% difference between B244 treatment and placebo and a 15% dropout. Each of the endpoints comprising the co-primary endpoint will be tested at an alpha level of p\<0.05. In order to achieve 90% power with a 5% Type I error rate, a total of 372 participants is required.||||||0.034|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.034
91036683|NCT00772603|181959904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-18.3|||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.4|-5.8||P values reported are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. To preserve the overall Type I error-rate at 0.050, a step-up Hochberg procedure was used for the pair-wise comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to test the hypothesis of equal median reduction in PCH(T) from baseline between SPN-804 and placebo. The sample size of 120 patients per treatment arm provides over 95% power to detect a difference of 31% to 42% between placebo and 2400mg SPN-804 at a two-sided 0.025 level for an overall Type I error rate of 0.050.||-5.80|-30.40|=0.003
90973983|NCT03237065|181831155|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-57.5||||0.1243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-131.1|16.1|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 1~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||16.1|-131.1|0.1243
90973984|NCT03237065|181831155|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.7||||0.5547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.7|91.0|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 7~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||91.0|-49.7|0.5547
90973985|NCT03237065|181831155|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-155.7||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-234.7|-76.6|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 8~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-76.6|-234.7|0.0005
90973986|NCT03237065|181831155|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.3||||0.3516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-86.0|31.5|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 14~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||31.5|-86.0|0.3516
91036684|NCT00772603|181959904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-10.3|||=|0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.3|1.2||P values reported are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. To preserve the overall Type I error-rate at 0.050, a step-up Hochberg procedure was used for the pair-wise comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to test the hypothesis of equal median reduction in PCH(T) from baseline between SPN-804 and placebo. The sample size of 120 patients per treatment arm provides over 95% power to detect a difference of 24% to 32% between placebo and 1200mg SPN-804 at a two-sided 0.025 level for an overall Type I error rate of 0.050.||1.20|-22.30|=0.078
90973987|NCT03237065|181831155|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.3||||0.1988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.3|13.7|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 21~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||13.7|-62.3|0.1988
91036685|NCT00772603|181959905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-33.0|||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.0|-6.3||P values reported are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. To preserve the overall Type I error-rate at 0.050, a step-up Hochberg procedure was used for the pair-wise comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to test the hypothesis of equal median reduction in PCH(M) from baseline between SPN-804 and placebo. The sample size of 120 patients per treatment arm provides over 95% power to detect a difference of 31% to 42% between placebo and 2400mg SPN-804 at a two-sided 0.025 level for an overall Type I error rate of 0.050.||-6.30|-33.00|=0.003
91036686|NCT00772603|181959905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-3.3|||=|0.589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|9.7||P values reported are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. To preserve the overall Type I error-rate at 0.050, a step-up Hochberg procedure was used for the pair-wise comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to test the hypothesis of equal median reduction in PCH(M) from baseline between SPN-804 and placebo. The sample size of 120 patients per treatment arm provides over 95% power to detect a difference of 24% to 32% between placebo and 1200mg SPN-804 at a two-sided 0.025 level for an overall Type I error rate of 0.050.||9.70|-16.20|=0.589
91050429|NCT04168190|181987006|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|1.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|2.45|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 20A||2.45|0.99|
90973988|NCT03237065|181831155|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.3||||0.4379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.6|41.2|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 35~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||41.2|-18.6|0.4379
90973989|NCT03237065|181831156|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.6869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|0.7|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 1~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||0.70|-1.06|0.6869
90973990|NCT03237065|181831156|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.04||||0.1037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|0.22|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 7~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||0.22|-2.29|0.1037
90973991|NCT03237065|181831156|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.62||||0.0213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.99|-0.25|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 8~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-0.25|-2.99|0.0213
90973992|NCT03237065|181831156|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.91||||0.0176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.47|-0.34|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 14~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-0.34|-3.47|0.0176
90973993|NCT03237065|181831156|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.37||||0.0999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.01|0.27|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 21~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||0.27|-3.01|0.0999
90973994|NCT03237065|181831156|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.8878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|2.04|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 35~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||2.04|-1.77|0.8878
90973995|NCT03237065|181831157|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.66|25.95|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 1~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||25.95|17.66|<0.0001
90973996|NCT03237065|181831157|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.64||||0.2923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.05|13.33|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 7~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||13.33|-4.05|0.2923
90973997|NCT03237065|181831157|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.37|26.74|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 8~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||26.74|12.37|<0.0001
90973998|NCT03237065|181831157|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.96|40.14|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 14~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||40.14|25.96|<0.0001
90973999|NCT03237065|181831157|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.2|29.43|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 21~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||29.43|14.20|<0.0001
90974000|NCT03237065|181831157|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.03||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|16.9|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 35~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||16.90|1.16|0.0250
90974001|NCT03237065|181831158|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.5134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.11|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 1~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||0.11|-0.22|0.5134
90974002|NCT03237065|181831158|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.7579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.32|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 7~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||0.32|-0.24|0.7579
90974003|NCT03237065|181831158|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.3169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.14|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 8~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||0.14|-0.41|0.3169
90974004|NCT03237065|181831158|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.18|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 14~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-0.18|-0.76|0.0018
91036687|NCT00772603|181959906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.983|||=|0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.126|3.494|||Regression, Logistic|||The treatment response was analyzed using a logistic regression model with treatment group as a factor and country (or cluster), age, sex, and baseline seizure frequency per 28 days as explanatory variables.||3.494|1.126|=0.018
90974005|NCT03237065|181831158|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.24|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 21~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-0.24|-0.77|0.0003
90974006|NCT03237065|181831158|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0.1063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.05|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 35~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||0.05|-0.50|0.1063
91036688|NCT00772603|181959906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67|||=|0.075||95.0|0.95|2.937|||Regression, Logistic|||The treatment response was analyzed using a logistic regression model with treatment group as a factor and country (or cluster), age, sex, and baseline seizure frequency per 28 days as explanatory variables.||2.937|0.950|=0.075
91036689|NCT00772603|181959907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.013||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Pairwise comparisons of OXC XR 2400mg/day vs. placebo seizure-free rates during the Treatment Phase were made by means of Fisher's exact test for the ITT population.||||=0.013
91036690|NCT00772603|181959907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.528||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Pairwise comparisons of OXC XR 1200mg/day vs. placebo seizure-free rates during the Treatment Phase were made by means of Fisher's exact test for the ITT population.||||=0.528
91036691|NCT00772603|181959908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.008||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Pairwise comparisons of OXC XR 2400mg/day vs. placebo seizure-free rates during the Maintenance Period were made by means of Fisher's exact test for the ITT population.||||=0.008
91036692|NCT00772603|181959908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.0546||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Pairwise comparisons of OXC XR 1200mg/day vs. placebo seizure-free rates during the Maintenance Period were made by means of Fisher's exact test for the ITT population.||||=0.0546
90974007|NCT03237065|181831159|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.57||||0.2166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.72|11.85|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 1~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||11.85|-2.72|0.2166
90974008|NCT03237065|181831159|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.64||||0.2997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.47|4.19|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 7~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||4.19|-13.47|0.2997
90974009|NCT03237065|181831159|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.9221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.75|8.56|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 8~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||8.56|-7.75|0.9221
90974010|NCT03237065|181831159|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.69||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.07|-5.32|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 14~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-5.32|-26.07|0.0034
90974011|NCT03237065|181831159|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.54||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.93|-11.16|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 21~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-11.16|-33.93|0.0002
90974012|NCT03237065|181831159|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.42|-14.21|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 35~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-14.21|-35.42|<0.0001
90974013|NCT03237065|181831160|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.3048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.03|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 1~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||0.03|-0.10|0.3048
91036693|NCT00835575|181959909|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|99.52||||||90.0|92.84|106.69|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||106.69|92.84|
91036694|NCT00835575|181959910|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|103.59||||||90.0|99.13|108.25|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||108.25|99.13|
91036695|NCT00835575|181959911|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|103.87||||||90.0|99.47|108.46|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||108.46|99.47|
91036696|NCT00859521|181959917|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Ratio of Geometric Means|96.7||||||90.0|92.4|101.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||101|92.4|
91036697|NCT00859521|181959918|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Ratio of Geometric Means|98.4||||||90.0|96.9|100.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||100|96.9|
91036698|NCT00859521|181959919|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Ratio of Geometric Means|98.8||||||90.0|97.2|100.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||100|97.2|
91036699|NCT01609257|181959920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.674||||||No multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.674
91036700|NCT01609257|181959927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||||||Statistically significant at p\<0.05. No multiplicity adjustment.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
91036701|NCT01609257|181959928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||||||Statistically significant at p\<0.05. No multiplicity adjustment.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Score 1||||0.008
91036702|NCT01609257|181959928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.037||||||Statistically significant at p\<0.05. No multiplicity adjustment.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Score 2||||0.037
91036703|NCT01609257|181959929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.199|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.199
91036704|NCT01609257|181959930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.562||||||Comparison of % Positive|Fisher Exact|||Any Day 1 to 30||||0.562
91036705|NCT02125461|181959953|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.65|||Log Rank|||Analysis performed using a stratified log rank test adjusting for age at randomization (\<65 vs ≥65), sex (male vs female), and smoking history (smoker vs non-smoker) with ties handled using the Breslow approach.||0.65|0.42|<0.0001
90974014|NCT03237065|181831160|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.1641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.13|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 7~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||0.13|-0.02|0.1641
90974015|NCT03237065|181831160|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.1333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.12|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 8~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||0.12|-0.02|0.1333
90974016|NCT03237065|181831160|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.9385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.16|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 14~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||0.16|-0.17|0.9385
90974017|NCT03237065|181831160|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.0408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.14|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 21~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||0.14|0.00|0.0408
90974018|NCT03237065|181831160|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.2376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.12|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 35~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||0.12|-0.03|0.2376
90974019|NCT03237065|181831162|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31||||0.0882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.05|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 1~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||0.05|-0.67|0.0882
90974020|NCT03237065|181831162|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0.0941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.06|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 7~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||0.06|-0.74|0.0941
91036706|NCT02125461|181959954|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.00251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.87|||Log Rank|||Analysis performed using a stratified log rank test adjusting for age at randomization (\<65 vs ≥65), sex (male vs female), and smoking history (smoker vs non-smoker) with ties handled using the Breslow approach.||0.87|0.53|0.00251
91036707|NCT02125461|181959955|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||Analysis performed using Fisher's exact test with mid p-value modification by subtracting half of the probability of the observed table from Fisher's p-value.||||<0.001
91036708|NCT02125461|181959959|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.68|||Log Rank|||Analysis performed using a stratified log rank test adjusting for age at randomization (\<65 vs ≥65), sex (male vs female), and smoking history (smoker vs non-smoker) with ties handled using the Breslow approach.||0.68|0.41|<0.0001
91036709|NCT02125461|181959960|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||P-value generated based on z-test where z-test statistic is the ratio of the log-transformed ratio of the cumulative hazards in the 2 treatment arms divided by the square root of the variance.|z-test|The variance was estimated using the delta method and Greenwood's formula.||||||0.005
91036710|NCT02125461|181959961|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.73|||Log Rank|||Analysis performed using a stratified log rank test adjusting for age at randomization (\<65 vs ≥65), sex (male vs female), and smoking history (smoker vs non-smoker) with ties handled using the Breslow approach.||0.73|0.46|<0.0001
91036711|NCT02125461|181959962|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.18||Analysis performed using a stratified log rank test adjusting for age at randomization (\<65 vs ≥65), sex (male vs female), and smoking history (smoker vs non-smoker) with ties handled using the Breslow approach.|Log Rank|||The hazard ratio and CI were estimated from a stratified Cox proportional hazards model with the Breslow method to control for ties, the stratification factors age at randomization (\<65 vs ≥65), sex (male vs female) and smoking history (smoker vs non-smoker) in the strata statement, and the CI calculated using a profile likelihood approach.||1.18|0.77|0.664
90974021|NCT03237065|181831162|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32||||0.0628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.66|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 8~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||0.66|-0.02|0.0628
90974022|NCT03237065|181831162|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.46||||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.79|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 14~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||0.79|0.14|0.0056
90974023|NCT03237065|181831162|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28||||0.0492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.55|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 21~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||0.55|0.00|0.0492
90974024|NCT03237065|181831162|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.0882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.64|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 35~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||0.64|-0.05|0.0882
90974025|NCT03237065|181831163|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.5||||0.6568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.3|22.3|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 1~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||22.3|-35.3|0.6568
90974026|NCT03237065|181831163|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.2||||0.4929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-94.0|45.5|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 7~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||45.5|-94.0|0.4929
90974027|NCT03237065|181831163|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-91.7||||0.0113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-162.3|-21.1|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 8~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-21.1|-162.3|0.0113
90974028|NCT03237065|181831163|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-240.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-318.4|-162.3|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 14~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-162.3|-318.4|<0.0001
90974029|NCT03237065|181831163|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-135.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-196.1|-74.0|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 21~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-74.0|-196.1|<0.0001
90974030|NCT03237065|181831163|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-67.7||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-113.2|-22.2|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 35~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-22.2|-113.2|0.0039
90974031|NCT03237065|181831164|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.2||||0.0503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|48.5|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 1~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||48.5|-0.0|0.0503
91050430|NCT04168190|181987007|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|13.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.9|33.1|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 6A||33.10|5.90|
90974032|NCT03237065|181831164|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2||||0.5794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|9.8|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 7~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||9.8|-5.5|0.5794
90974033|NCT03237065|181831164|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-62.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.1|-54.3|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 8~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-54.3|-70.1|<0.0001
90974034|NCT03237065|181831164|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.9||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|-3.5|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 14~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-3.5|-10.4|0.0001
90974035|NCT03237065|181831164|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.8||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|-2.4|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 21~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-2.4|-9.1|0.0008
91036712|NCT02125461|181959963|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.29||Analysis performed using a stratified log rank test adjusting for age at randomization (\<65 vs ≥65), sex (male vs female), and smoking history (smoker vs non-smoker) with ties handled using the Breslow approach.|Log Rank|||Treatment comparison for dyspnea. The hazard ratio and CI were estimated from a stratified Cox proportional hazards model with the Breslow method to control for ties, the stratification factors age at randomization (\<65 vs ≥65), sex (male vs female) and smoking history (smoker vs non-smoker) in the strata statement, and the CI calculated using a profile likelihood approach.||1.29|0.88|0.522
91050431|NCT04168190|181987007|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|14.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.05|34.35|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 6A||34.35|6.05|
90974036|NCT03237065|181831164|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.8||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|-1.6|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 35~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-1.6|-8.1|0.0040
90974037|NCT03237065|181831165|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.7||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.8|-2.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The rate difference with 95% Newcombe confidence interval, adjusted for stratum using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method, could not be estimated due to lack of events. Thus, the unadjusted treatment difference is presented together with 95% Wald-based confidence interval. The p-value is based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics.||-2.6|-18.8|0.0090
90974038|NCT02475655|181831250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. One-sided 5% alpha.|Fisher Exact|Fisher's Exact Mid P-Value||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the percentage of participants experiencing safety milestones from Entry to Week 5.||||0.67
90974039|NCT02475655|181831253|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.85||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|1.04||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib geometric mean minus No Study Treatment geometric mean. All values were log10 transformed prior to calculating change and conducting analyses and back transformed for presentation.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the fold change in Plasma Interleukin 6 (IL-6) from baseline to week 4/5.||1.04|0.69|0.18
90974040|NCT02475655|181831255|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. One-sided 5% alpha.|Fisher Exact|Fisher's Exact Mid P-Value||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the percentage of participants experiencing safety milestones from Entry to Week 12.||||0.40
90974041|NCT02475655|181831259|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.31||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.27|6.9||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in creatinine clearance from Entry to Week 1/2.||6.90|-4.27|0.70
90974042|NCT02475655|181831259|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.61||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.06|8.29||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in creatinine clearance from Entry to Week 4/5.||8.29|-5.06|0.69
90974043|NCT02475655|181831259|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.35||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.16|12.5||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in creatinine clearance from Entry to 10/12.||12.5|0.16|0.09
90974044|NCT02475655|181831261|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.06|0.03||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in creatinine from Entry to Week 1/2.||0.03|-0.06|0.58
90974045|NCT02475655|181831261|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.06|0.04||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in creatinine from Entry to Week 4/5.||0.04|-0.06|0.79
90974046|NCT02475655|181831261|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.11|-0.02||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in creatinine from Entry to 10/12.||-0.02|-0.11|0.016
90974047|NCT02475655|181831263|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-679.0||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1146.0|-212.0||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in absolute neutrophil count (ANC) from Entry to Week 1/2.||-212|-1146|0.018
90974048|NCT02475655|181831263|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-651.0||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1110.0|-192.0||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in absolute neutrophil count (ANC) from Entry to Week 4/5.||-192|-1110|0.021
90974049|NCT02475655|181831263|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|33.6||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-461.0|528.0||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in absolute neutrophil count (ANC) from Entry to Week 10/12.||528|-461|0.91
90974050|NCT02475655|181831265|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.42|0.15||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in hemoglobin from Entry to Week 1/2.||0.15|-0.42|0.45
90974051|NCT02475655|181831265|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.55||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.87|-0.23||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in hemoglobin from Entry to Week 4/5.||-0.23|-0.87|0.005
90974052|NCT02475655|181831265|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.15||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.65|0.95||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in hemoglobin from Entry to Week 10/12.||0.95|-0.65|0.75
90974053|NCT02475655|181831267|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|37754.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|19609.0|55898.0||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in platelet values from Entry to Week 1/2.||55898|19609|<0.001
90974054|NCT02475655|181831267|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|27832.0||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|90.0|9849.0|45815.0||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in platelet values from Entry to Week 4/5.||45815|9849|0.012
90974055|NCT02475655|181831267|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5376.0||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8592.0|19344.0||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in platelet values from Entry to Week 10/12.||19344|-8592|0.52
90974056|NCT02475655|181831269|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.96||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.78|9.14||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in Aspartate Aminotransferase (AST) (SGOT) values from Entry to Week 1/2.||9.14|0.78|0.05
90974057|NCT02475655|181831269|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|8.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.47|11.8||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in Aspartate Aminotransferase (AST) (SGOT) values from Entry to Week 4/5.||11.8|4.47|<0.001
90974058|NCT02475655|181831269|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.95||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.08|6.81||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in Aspartate Aminotransferase (AST) (SGOT) values from Entry to Week 10/12.||6.81|1.08|0.025
90974059|NCT02475655|181831271|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.9||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.46|8.33||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in Alanine Aminotransferase (ALT) (SGPT) values from Entry to Week 1/2.||8.33|1.46|0.020
90974060|NCT02475655|181831271|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|11.0||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.84|17.1||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in Alanine Aminotransferase (ALT) (SGPT) values from Entry to Week 4/5.||17.1|4.84|0.004
90974061|NCT02475655|181831271|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.64||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|8.39||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in Alanine Aminotransferase (ALT) (SGPT) values from Entry to Week 10/12.||8.39|0.88|0.043
90974062|NCT02475655|181831272|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.1||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|1.44||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib geometric mean minus No Study Treatment geometric mean. All values were log10 transformed prior to calculating change and conducting analyses and back transformed for presentation.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the fold change in Plasma Interleukin 6 (IL-6) from baseline to Week 10/12.||1.44|0.84|0.56
90974063|NCT02475655|181831272|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.37||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.09|1.73||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib geometric mean minus No Study Treatment geometric mean. All values were log10 transformed prior to calculating change and conducting analyses and back transformed for presentation.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the fold change in Plasma Interleukin 6 (IL-6) from Week 4/5 to Week 10/12.||1.73|1.09|0.026
90974064|NCT02475655|181831273|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.89||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|0.99||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib geometric mean minus No Study Treatment geometric mean. All values were log10 transformed prior to calculating change and conducting analyses and back transformed for presentation.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the fold change in soluble CD14 (sCD14) from baseline to Week 4/5.||0.99|0.80|0.07
90974065|NCT02475655|181831273|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.95||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|1.12||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib geometric mean minus No Study Treatment geometric mean. All values were log10 transformed prior to calculating change and conducting analyses and back transformed for presentation.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the fold change in soluble CD14 (sCD14) from baseline to Week 12.||1.12|0.80|0.59
90974066|NCT02475655|181831273|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.06||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.24||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib geometric mean minus No Study Treatment geometric mean. All values were log10 transformed prior to calculating change and conducting analyses and back transformed for presentation.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the fold change in soluble CD14 (sCD14) from Week 4/5 to Week 12.||1.24|0.90|0.56
90974067|NCT02475655|181831274|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|142.1||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|57.6|227.0||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in CD4+ T cell counts from Baseline to Week 2.||227|57.6|0.007
90974068|NCT02475655|181831274|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|74.3||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.23|156.7||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in CD4+ T cell counts from Baseline to Week 5.||156.7|-8.23|0.14
90974069|NCT02475655|181831274|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-38.9||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-143.0|65.5||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in CD4+ T cell counts from Baseline to Week 12.||65.5|-143|0.54
90974070|NCT02475655|181831274|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-112.0||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-231.0|5.9||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|There is no difference between the two arms in the change in CD4+ T cell counts from Week 5 to Week 12.||5.90|-231|0.12
91036713|NCT02125461|181959963|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.12||Analysis performed using a stratified log rank test adjusting for age at randomization (\<65 vs ≥65), sex (male vs female), and smoking history (smoker vs non-smoker) with ties handled using the Breslow approach.|Log Rank|||Treatment comparison for cough. The hazard ratio and CI were estimated from a stratified Cox proportional hazards model with the Breslow method to control for ties, the stratification factors age at randomization (\<65 vs ≥65), sex (male vs female) and smoking history (smoker vs non-smoker) in the strata statement, and the CI calculated using a profile likelihood approach.||1.12|0.74|0.380
90974071|NCT02475655|181831276|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.65|1.49||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|GEE|A GEE model for binary data was used to compare changes in iSCA because a substantial proportion of data was below the assay limit.|Risk ratio is Ruxolitinib risk divided by No Study Treatment risk.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in HIV-1 RNA by iSCA from Entry to Week 5.||1.49|0.65|0.94
90974072|NCT02475655|181831276|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.74||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.37|1.46||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|GEE|A GEE model for binary data was used to compare changes in iSCA because a substantial proportion of data was below the assay limit.|Risk ratio is Ruxolitinib risk divided by No Study Treatment risk.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in HIV-1 RNA by iSCA from Entry to Week 12.||1.46|0.37|0.46
90974073|NCT02475655|181831276|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.83||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.46|1.48||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|GEE|A GEE model for binary data was used to compare changes in iSCA because a substantial proportion of data was below the assay limit.|Risk ratio is Ruxolitinib risk divided by No Study Treatment risk.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in HIV-1 RNA by iSCA from Week 5 to Week 12.||1.48|0.46|0.59
90974074|NCT02475655|181831277|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.88||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.76|1.01||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib geometric mean minus No Study Treatment geometric mean. All values were log10 transformed prior to calculating change and conducting analyses and back transformed for presentation.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the fold change in Tumor Necrosis Factor alpha (TNF alpha) from entry to Week 5.||1.01|0.76|0.11
91036714|NCT02125461|181959963|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.0||Analysis performed using a stratified log rank test adjusting for age at randomization (\<65 vs ≥65), sex (male vs female), and smoking history (smoker vs non-smoker) with ties handled using the Breslow approach.|Log Rank|||Treatment comparison for hemoptysis. The hazard ratio and CI were estimated from a stratified Cox proportional hazards model with the Breslow method to control for ties, the stratification factors age at randomization (\<65 vs ≥65), sex (male vs female) and smoking history (smoker vs non-smoker) in the strata statement, and the CI calculated using a profile likelihood approach.||1.00|0.56|0.048
91050432|NCT04168190|181987007|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|7.39||||||95.0|4.29|12.75|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 15A||12.75|4.29|
90974075|NCT02475655|181831277|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.92||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.64|1.33||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib geometric mean minus No Study Treatment geometric mean. All values were log10 transformed prior to calculating change and conducting analyses and back transformed for presentation.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the fold change in Tumor Necrosis Factor alpha (TNF alpha) from entry to Week 12.||1.33|0.64|0.71
91050433|NCT04168190|181987007|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|9.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.42|16.28|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 15A||16.28|5.42|
90974076|NCT02475655|181831278|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.27||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|1.86||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib geometric mean minus No Study Treatment geometric mean. All values were log10 transformed prior to calculating change and conducting analyses and back transformed for presentation.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the fold change in Interleukin 1 beta (IL-1 beta) from entry to Week 5.||1.86|0.87|0.30
90974077|NCT02475655|181831278|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.59||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.56|4.49||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib geometric mean minus No Study Treatment geometric mean. All values were log10 transformed prior to calculating change and conducting analyses and back transformed for presentation.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the fold change in Interleukin 1 beta (IL-1 beta) from entry to Week 12.||4.49|0.56|0.46
90974078|NCT02475655|181831279|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.29||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.84||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib geometric mean minus No Study Treatment geometric mean. All values were log10 transformed prior to calculating change and conducting analyses and back transformed for presentation.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the fold change in Interleukin 7 (IL-7) from entry to Week 5.||1.84|0.90|0.24
90974079|NCT02475655|181831279|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.19||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|1.74||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib geometric mean minus No Study Treatment geometric mean. All values were log10 transformed prior to calculating change and conducting analyses and back transformed for presentation.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the fold change in Interleukin 7 (IL-7) from entry to Week 12.||1.74|0.81|0.46
90974080|NCT02475655|181831284|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.15||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.77|1.72||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the fold change in Interleukin 10 (IL-10) from entry to Week 5.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib geometric mean minus No Study Treatment geometric mean. All values were log10 transformed prior to calculating change and conducting analyses and back transformed for presentation.|1.72|0.77|0.56
90974081|NCT02475655|181831284|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.97||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.47|2.01||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib geometric mean minus No Study Treatment geometric mean. All values were log10 transformed prior to calculating change and conducting analyses and back transformed for presentation.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the fold change in Interleukin 10 (IL-10) from entry to Week 12.||2.01|0.47|0.95
90974082|NCT02475655|181831285|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.34||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.15|1.56||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib geometric mean minus No Study Treatment geometric mean. All values were log10 transformed prior to calculating change and conducting analyses and back transformed for presentation.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the fold change in TInterleukin 15 (IL-15) from entry to Week 5.||1.56|1.15|0.002
90974083|NCT02475655|181831285|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.07||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.86|1.34||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib geometric mean minus No Study Treatment geometric mean. All values were log10 transformed prior to calculating change and conducting analyses and back transformed for presentation.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the fold change in TInterleukin 15 (IL-15) from entry to Week 12.||1.34|0.86|0.60
91036715|NCT02125461|181959963|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.19||Analysis performed using a stratified log rank test adjusting for age at randomization (\<65 vs ≥65), sex (male vs female), and smoking history (smoker vs non-smoker) with ties handled using the Breslow approach.|Log Rank|||Treatment comparison for chest pain. The hazard ratio and CI were estimated from a stratified Cox proportional hazards model with the Breslow method to control for ties, the stratification factors age at randomization (\<65 vs ≥65), sex (male vs female) and smoking history (smoker vs non-smoker) in the strata statement, and the CI calculated using a profile likelihood approach.||1.19|0.75|0.626
91036716|NCT02645253|181959974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0785|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.882|1.15|||Linear Model|||||1.15|0.882|
90974084|NCT02475655|181831286|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.94||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.82|1.07||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib geometric mean minus No Study Treatment geometric mean. All values were log10 transformed prior to calculating change and conducting analyses and back transformed for presentation.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the fold change in Interleukin 18 (IL-18) from entry to Week 5.||1.07|0.82|0.40
90974085|NCT02475655|181831286|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.03||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|1.27||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib geometric mean minus No Study Treatment geometric mean. All values were log10 transformed prior to calculating change and conducting analyses and back transformed for presentation.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the fold change in Interleukin 18 (IL-18) from entry to Week 12.||1.27|0.83|0.82
90974086|NCT02475655|181831287|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.5||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.11|2.02||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib geometric mean minus No Study Treatment geometric mean. All values were log10 transformed prior to calculating change and conducting analyses and back transformed for presentation.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the fold change in Transforming Growth Factor beta 1 (TGF beta-1) from entry to Week 5.||2.02|1.11|0.028
90974087|NCT02475655|181831287|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.04||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.79|5.25||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib geometric mean minus No Study Treatment geometric mean. All values were log10 transformed prior to calculating change and conducting analyses and back transformed for presentation.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the fold change in Transforming Growth Factor beta 1 (TGF beta-1) from entry to Week 12.||5.25|0.79|0.21
90974088|NCT02475655|181831288|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.39||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.08|1.79||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib geometric mean minus No Study Treatment geometric mean. All values were log10 transformed prior to calculating change and conducting analyses and back transformed for presentation.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the fold change in Transforming Growth Factor beta 2 (TGF beta-2) from entry to Week 5.||1.79|1.08|0.031
90974089|NCT02475655|181831288|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.96||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.46|2.02||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib geometric mean minus No Study Treatment geometric mean. All values were log10 transformed prior to calculating change and conducting analyses and back transformed for presentation.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the fold change in Transforming Growth Factor beta 2 (TGF beta-2) from entry to Week 12.||2.02|0.46|0.93
90974090|NCT02475655|181831289|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.57||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.61|4.05||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib geometric mean minus No Study Treatment geometric mean. All values were log10 transformed prior to calculating change and conducting analyses and back transformed for presentation.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the fold change in Transforming Growth Factor beta 3 (TGF beta-3) from entry to Week 5.||4.05|0.61|0.43
90974091|NCT02475655|181831289|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.68||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.3|1.5||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib geometric mean minus No Study Treatment geometric mean. All values were log10 transformed prior to calculating change and conducting analyses and back transformed for presentation.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the fold change in Transforming Growth Factor beta 3 (TGF beta-3) from entry to Week 12.||1.50|0.30|0.41
90974092|NCT02475655|181831290|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.34||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.61|-0.07||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in the expression of CD38+HLADR+ among CD4+ T-cells from Entry to Week 5.||-0.07|-0.61|0.038
90974093|NCT02475655|181831290|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.27||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.03|0.51||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in the expression of CD38+HLADR+ among CD4+ T-cells from Entry to Week 12.||0.51|0.03|0.07
90974094|NCT02475655|181831291|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.88||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.62|-0.13||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in the expression of CD38+HLADR+ among CD8+ T-cells from Entry to Week 5.||-0.13|-1.62|0.05
91036717|NCT02645253|181959976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0503|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.06|1.23|||Linear Model|||||1.23|1.06|
91036718|NCT02645253|181959978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.119|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.801|1.31|||Linear Model|||||1.31|0.801|
91036719|NCT02645253|181959988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.979|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0633|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|1.09|||Linear Model|||||1.09|0.870|
91036720|NCT02645253|181959993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0552|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.951|1.14|||Linear Model|||||1.14|0.951|
91036721|NCT02645253|181960005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS mean (%)|102.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.88|122.09|||ANCOVA||Day 1/ Day -1|||122.09|86.88|
91036722|NCT02645253|181960005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS mean (%)|91.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|77.32|109.04|||ANCOVA||Day 16 / Day -1|||109.04|77.32|
90974095|NCT02475655|181831291|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.86||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.16|1.88||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in the expression of CD38+HLADR+ among CD8+ T-cells from Entry to Week 12.||1.88|-0.16|0.16
90974096|NCT02475655|181831292|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.46|-0.97||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in the expression of CD25hi+ among CD4+ T-cells from Entry to Week 5.||-0.97|-2.46|<0.001
90974097|NCT02475655|181831292|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.16||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|0.82||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in the expression of CD25hi+ among CD4+ T-cells from Entry to Week 12.||0.82|-0.50|0.68
90974098|NCT02475655|181831293|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|0.69||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in the expression of CD25+ among CD8+ T-cells from Entry to Week 5.||0.69|-0.70|0.98
90974099|NCT02475655|181831293|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.16||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.13|0.82||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in the expression of CD25+ among CD8+ T-cells from Entry to Week 12.||0.82|-1.13|0.79
91036723|NCT02645253|181960005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS mean (%)|105.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.4|125.49|||ANCOVA||Day 1 / Day -1|||125.49|89.40|
91036724|NCT02645253|181960005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS mean (%)|89.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|75.35|106.16|||ANCOVA||Day 16 / Day -1|||106.16|75.35|
90974100|NCT02475655|181831294|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.49||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.75|5.22||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in the expression of CD127+ among CD4+ T-cells from Entry to Week 5.||5.22|1.75|0.001
91036725|NCT02645253|181960005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS mean (%)|99.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|84.12|118.46|||ANCOVA||Day 1 / Day -1|||118.46|84.12|
91036726|NCT02645253|181960005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS mean (%)|75.38||||||95.0|63.4|89.61|||ANCOVA||Day 16 / Day -1|||89.61|63.40|
91036727|NCT03552484|181960018|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Within-group paired t-tests and between-group paired t-tests||||0.59
91036728|NCT03552484|181960019|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.43||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Between-group comparison|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.59
91036729|NCT03552484|181960020|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|||||Between-group comparison of change in Multidimensional Caregiver Strain Index|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.62
91036730|NCT00862563|181960101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.06|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.05 considered to be significant|ANOVA|||Comparison of Week 10 means for mean drinks per day obtained for the placebo and zonisamide groups. Means used for the analysis are least means squares from a two-way repeated measures mixed models analysis, with Week (time) as the the within subject factor and treatment as the between group factor. Baseline values were used as covariates.||||0.06
91036731|NCT00862563|181960101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.008|TWO_SIDED|||||p\< 0.05 was considered to be significant.|ANOVA|||Comparison of Week 11 means for mean drinks per day obtained for the placebo and zonisamide groups. Means used for the analysis are least squares means from a two-way repeated measures mixed models analysis, with Week (time) as the the within subject factor and treatment as the between group factor. Baseline values were used as covariates.||||0.008
91036732|NCT00862563|181960101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.07|TWO_SIDED|||||p\< 0.05 was considered to be significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of Week 12 mean for mean drinks per day obtained for the placebo and zonisamide groups. Means used for the analysis are least squares means from a two-way repeated measures mixed models analysis, with Week (time) as the the within subject factor and treatment as the between group factor. Baseline values were used as covariates.||||0.07
91036733|NCT00862563|181960101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means.|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.003|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.05 is considered as being significant.|ANOVA|||Comparison of Week 10 mean for mean drinks per day obtained for the placebo and topiramate groups. Means used for the analysis are least squares means from a two-way repeated measures mixed models analysis, with Week (time) as the the within subject factor and treatment as the between group factor. Baseline values were used as covariates,||||0.003
91050434|NCT04168190|181987007|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|2.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|3.63|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 15C||3.63|1.25|
90974101|NCT02475655|181831294|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.28|0.68||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in the expression of CD127+ among CD4+ T-cells from Entry to Week 12.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|0.68|-3.28|0.28
90974102|NCT02475655|181831295|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.76|9.31||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in the expression of CD127+ among CD8+ T-cells from Entry to Week 5.||9.31|3.76|<0.001
90974103|NCT02475655|181831295|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.19||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.56|3.18||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in the expression of CD127+ among CD8+ T-cells from Entry to Week 12.||3.18|-3.56|0.92
90974104|NCT02475655|181831296|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.61|0.47||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in the expression of Ki67+ among CD4+ T-cells from Entry to Week 5.||0.47|-0.61|0.82
90974105|NCT02475655|181831296|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.76||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.18|1.34||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in the expression of Ki67+ among CD4+ T-cells from Entry to Week 12.||1.34|0.18|0.033
90974106|NCT02475655|181831297|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.53|0.55||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in the expression of Ki67+ among CD8+ T-cells from Entry to Week 5.||0.55|-0.53|0.98
90974107|NCT02475655|181831297|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.55||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.46|1.57||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in the expression of Ki67+ among CD8+ T-cells from Entry to Week 12.||1.57|-0.46|0.37
90974108|NCT02475655|181831298|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.72|-1.87||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in the expression of Bcl2+ among CD4+ T-cells from Entry to Week 5.||-1.87|-4.72|<0.001
90974109|NCT02475655|181831298|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.73||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.42|-0.03||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in the expression of Bcl2+ among CD4+ T-cells from Entry to Week 12.||-0.03|-1.42|0.09
90974110|NCT02475655|181831299|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.29|-3.5||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in the expression of Bcl2+ among CD8+ T-cells from Entry to Week 5.||-3.50|-7.29|<0.001
90974111|NCT02475655|181831299|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.23||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.51|0.05||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in the expression of Bcl2+ among CD8+ T-cells from Entry to Week 12.||0.05|-2.51|0.11
90974112|NCT02475655|181831300|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.54||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.78|0.7||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in the expression of a4b7+ among CD4+ T-cells from Entry to Week 5.||0.70|-3.78|0.26
90974113|NCT02475655|181831300|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.39||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.41|1.62||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in the expression of a4b7+ among CD4+ T-cells from Entry to Week 12.||1.62|-2.41|0.74
90974114|NCT02475655|181831301|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.55||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.9|3.0||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in the expression of a4b7+ among CD8+ T-cells from Entry to Week 5.||3.00|-1.90|0.71
90974115|NCT02475655|181831301|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.31||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.15|2.78||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in the expression of a4b7+ among CD8+ T-cells from Entry to Week 12.||2.78|-2.15|0.83
90974116|NCT02475655|181831302|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.33||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.16|-0.5||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in the expression of CX3CR1+ among CD4+ T-cells from Entry to Week 5.||-0.50|-2.16|0.010
90974117|NCT02475655|181831302|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.02|0.68||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in the expression of CX3CR1+ among CD4+ T-cells from Entry to Week 12.||0.68|-1.02|0.74
90974118|NCT02475655|181831303|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.24||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.22|-1.27||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in the expression of CD38+HLADR+ among CD8+ T-cells from Entry to Week 5.||-1.27|-5.22|0.008
90974119|NCT02475655|181831303|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.17||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.38|2.05||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in the expression of CD38+HLADR+ among CD8+ T-cells from Entry to Week 12.||2.05|-2.38|0.90
90974120|NCT02475655|181831306|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.39||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.83|4.61||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in classical monocytes (CD14+CD16-) from Entry to Week 5.||4.61|-1.83|0.47
90974121|NCT02475655|181831306|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.21||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.77|5.18||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in classical monocytes (CD14+CD16-) from Entry to Week 12.||5.18|-0.77|0.22
90974122|NCT02475655|181831307|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.34||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.0|2.35||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in classical monocytes (CD14+CD16-) expressing CD163+ from Entry to Week 5.||2.35|-11.0|0.28
90974123|NCT02475655|181831307|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.81||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.6|-3.02||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in classical monocytes (CD14+CD16-) expressing CD163+ from Entry to Week 12.||-3.02|-16.6|0.019
90974124|NCT02475655|181831308|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.81||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.02|1.41||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in classical monocytes (CD14+CD16-) expressing CCR2+ from Entry to Week 5.||1.41|-3.02|0.55
91036734|NCT00862563|181960101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.0002|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Comparison of Week 11 means for mean drinks per day obtained for the placebo and topiramate groups. Means used for the analysis are least squares means from a two-way repeated measures mixed models analysis, with Week (time) as the the within subject factor and treatment as the between group factor. Baseline values were used as covariates. .||||0.0002
91036735|NCT00862563|181960101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.0007|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Comparison of Week 12 means for mean drinks per day obtained for the placebo and topiramate groups. Means used for the analysis are least squares means from a two-way repeated measures mixed models analysis, with Week (time) as the the within subject factor and treatment as the between group factor. Baseline values were used as covariates.||||0.0007
90974125|NCT02475655|181831308|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.7||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.36|-0.04||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in classical monocytes (CD14+CD16-) expressing CCR2+ from Entry to Week 12.||-0.04|-3.36|0.09
91050435|NCT04168190|181987007|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.64|4.79|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 15C||4.79|1.64|
91036736|NCT00862563|181960101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-1.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.15|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.05 considered to be significant|ANOVA|||Comparison of Week 10 means for mean drinks per day obtained for the placebo and levetiracetam groups. Means used for the analysis are least squares means from a two-way repeated measures mixed models analysis, with Week (time) as the the within subject factor and treatment as the between group factor. Baseline values were used as covariates.||||0.15
91036737|NCT00862563|181960101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.014|TWO_SIDED|||||p\< 0.05 is considered to be significant.|ANOVA|||Comparison of Week 11 means for mean drinks per day obtained for the placebo and levetiracetam groups. Means used for the analysis are least squares means from a two-way repeated measures mixed models analysis, with Week (time) as the the within subject factor and treatment as the between group factor. Baseline values were used as covariate values.||||0.014
91036738|NCT00862563|181960101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.1|TWO_SIDED|||||p\< 0.05 is considered to be significant.|ANOVA|||Comparison of Week 12 means for mean drinks per day obtained for the placebo and levetiracetam groups. Means used for the analysis are least squares means s from a two-way repeated measures mixed models analysis, with Week (time) as the the within subject factor and treatment as the between group factor. Baseline values were used as covariates.||||0.1
91036739|NCT00862563|181960102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference Week 12|8.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6||0.015|TWO_SIDED|||||p\< 0.05 is considered to be significant.|ANOVA|||Comparison between mean values obtained for the topiramate and placebo groups for Week 12. Model generated least mean squares were used for this analysis.||||0.015
91036740|NCT00862563|181960102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference Week 12|0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6||0.784|TWO_SIDED|||||p\< 0.05 is considered to be significant.|ANOVA|||Comparison of means for the zonisamide and placebo group for Week 12. Mixed models generated means were used in this analysis.||||0.784
91036741|NCT00862563|181960102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference Week 12|3.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3||0.264|TWO_SIDED|||||p\< 0.05 is considered to be significant.|ANOVA|||Comparison of means for the levetiracetam and placebo groups for Week 12. Model generated least mean squares were used for this analysis.||||0.264
90974126|NCT02475655|181831309|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.47||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.17|0.23||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in classical monocytes (CD14+CD16-) expressing CX3CR1+ from Entry to Week 5.||0.23|-3.17|0.15
90974127|NCT02475655|181831309|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.62||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.59|1.35||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in classical monocytes (CD14+CD16-) expressing CX3CR1+ from Entry to Week 12.||1.35|-4.59|0.37
90974128|NCT02475655|181831310|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.86||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.51|0.8||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in inflammatory monocytes (CD14+CD16+) from Entry to Week 5.||0.80|-2.51|0.39
90974129|NCT02475655|181831310|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.59|1.19||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in inflammatory monocytes (CD14+CD16+) from Entry to Week 12.||1.19|-2.59|0.54
90974130|NCT02475655|181831311|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.02||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.0|-0.06||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in inflammatory monocytes (CD14+CD16+) expressing CD163+ from Entry to Week 5.||-0.06|-12.0|0.10
90974131|NCT02475655|181831311|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.39||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.1|-1.73||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in inflammatory monocytes (CD14+CD16+) expressing CD163+ from Entry to Week 12.||-1.73|-11.1|0.026
90974132|NCT02475655|181831312|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.28||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.26|7.82||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in inflammatory monocytes (CD14+CD16+) expressing CCR2+ from Entry to Week 5.||7.82|-7.26|0.95
91036742|NCT00862563|181960103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-24.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.7||0.013|TWO_SIDED|||||p\< 0.05 is considered to be significant.|ANOVA|||Comparison of Week 10 means for mean percent heavy drinking days obtained for the placebo and zonisamide groups Means used for the analysis are least squares means from a two-way repeated measures mixed models analysis, with Week (time) as the the within subject factor and treatment as the between group factor. Baseline values were used as covariates.||||0.013
91036743|NCT00862563|181960103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-20.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.8||0.036|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.05 is considered to be significant|ANOVA|||Comparison of Week 11 means for mean percent heavy drinking days obtained for the placebo and zonisamide groups Means used for the analysis are least squares means from a two-way repeated measures mixed models analysis, with Week (time) as the the within subject factor and treatment as the between group factor. Baseline values were used as covariates.||||0.036
90974133|NCT02475655|181831312|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.1||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.6|4.45||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in inflammatory monocytes (CD14+CD16+) expressing CCR2+ from Entry to Week 12.||4.45|-12.6|0.43
90974134|NCT02475655|181831313|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.23||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.08|7.54||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in inflammatory monocytes (CD14+CD16+) expressing CX3CR1+ from Entry to Week 5.||7.54|-5.08|0.74
90974135|NCT02475655|181831313|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.76||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.94|11.5||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in inflammatory monocytes (CD14+CD16+) expressing CX3CR1+ from Entry to Week 12.||11.5|-3.94|0.42
90974136|NCT02475655|181831314|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.63||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.99|1.73||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in patrolling monocytes (CD14dimCD16+) from Entry to Week 5.||1.73|-2.99|0.66
90974137|NCT02475655|181831314|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.56||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.93|0.8||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in patrolling monocytes (CD14dimCD16+) from Entry to Week 12.||0.80|-3.93|0.27
90974138|NCT02475655|181831315|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.1||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.7|-2.46||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in patrolling monocytes (CD14dimCD16+) expressing CD163+ from Entry to Week 5.||-2.46|-11.7|0.013
90974139|NCT02475655|181831315|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.49||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.06|5.07||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in patrolling monocytes (CD14dimCD16+) expressing CD163+ from Entry to Week 12.||5.07|-8.06|0.70
91036744|NCT00862563|181960103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-22.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.9||0.24|TWO_SIDED|||||p\< 0.05 is considered to be significant|ANOVA|||Comparison of Week 12 means for mean percent heavy drinking days obtained for the placebo and zonisamide groups Means used for the analysis are least squares means from a two-way repeated measures mixed models analysis, with Week (time) as the the within subject factor and treatment as the between group factor. Baseline values were used as covariates.||||0.24
90974140|NCT02475655|181831316|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.05|0.07||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in patrolling monocytes (CD14dimCD16+) expressing CCR2+ from Entry to Week 5.||0.07|-0.05|0.79
90974141|NCT02475655|181831316|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.07|0.08||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in patrolling monocytes (CD14dimCD16+) expressing CCR2+ from Entry to Week 12.||0.08|-0.07|0.91
90974142|NCT02475655|181831317|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.85||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.82|3.12||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in patrolling monocytes (CD14dimCD16+) expressing CX3CR1+ from Entry to Week 5.||3.12|-8.82|0.43
90974143|NCT02475655|181831317|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.53|6.6||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in patrolling monocytes (CD14dimCD16+) expressing CX3CR1+ from Entry to Week 12.||6.60|-6.53|0.99
90974144|NCT02475655|181831318|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|1.88||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.29|2.73||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib geometric mean minus No Study Treatment geometric mean. All values were log10 transformed prior to calculating change and conducting analyses and back transformed for presentation.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the fold change in Cellular HIV-1 DNA from entry to Week 5.||2.73|1.29|0.007
90974145|NCT02475655|181831318|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.31||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.9||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib geometric mean minus No Study Treatment geometric mean. All values were log10 transformed prior to calculating change and conducting analyses and back transformed for presentation.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the fold change in Cellular HIV-1 DNA from entry to Week 12.||1.90|0.90|0.23
90974146|NCT02475655|181831319|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.22||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|1.72||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib geometric mean minus No Study Treatment geometric mean. All values were log10 transformed prior to calculating change and conducting analyses and back transformed for presentation.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the fold change in cellular HIV-1 total RNA from entry to Week 5.||1.72|0.87|0.32
90974147|NCT02475655|181831319|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.03||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.68|1.56||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib geometric mean minus No Study Treatment geometric mean. All values were log10 transformed prior to calculating change and conducting analyses and back transformed for presentation.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the fold change in cellular HIV-1 total RNA from entry to Week 12.||1.56|0.68|0.91
90974148|NCT02475655|181831320|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|Fisher Exact|Fisher's Exact Mid P-Value||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the percentage of participants with detectable CMV at any on-treatment time point (ever shedding at weeks 1, 2, 4, or 5).||||0.40
90974149|NCT02475655|181831320|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|Fisher Exact|Fisher's Exact Mid P-Value||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the percentage of participants with detectable CMV at any post-treatment time point (ever shedding at weeks 10 or 12).||||0.87
90974150|NCT02475655|181831324|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.53||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.15|1.88||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib geometric mean minus No Study Treatment geometric mean. All values were log10 transformed prior to calculating change and conducting analyses and back transformed for presentation.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the fold change in Integrated DNA from entry to Week 5.||1.88|0.15|0.40
90974151|NCT02475655|181831324|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.92||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.2|4.34||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib geometric mean minus No Study Treatment geometric mean. All values were log10 transformed prior to calculating change and conducting analyses and back transformed for presentation.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the fold change in Integrated DNA from entry to Week 12.||4.34|0.20|0.93
90974152|NCT00353418|181831325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.6119||95.0|0.68|1.93|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Sample sizes of 133 and 267 patients for RBV 800 mg daily and RBV 1000 or 1200 mg daily, respectively, provided the following probabilities of detecting the specified differences in SVR with a 0.05 level two-sided chi-square test of significance:~RBV 800 mg SVR - 0.30; RBV 1000 or 1200 mg SVR - 0.40; Probability - 0.49~RBV 800 mg SVR - 0.30; RBV 1000 or 1200 mg SVR - 0.45; Probability - 0.83"||1.93|0.68|0.6119
90974153|NCT00662792|181831355|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.102|0.158|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient with centre, treatment, and period.|(T+S\_PE) - (Salm50DPI)|H1: Superiority of FDC Tiotropium/Salmeterol (T+S\_PE) vs. salmeterol (Salm50DPI) for FEV1 AUC0-12||0.158|0.102|<0.0001
90974154|NCT00662792|181831355|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.042|0.097|||ANOVA|"Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient with centre, treatment, and period.~α = 0.025 one-sided"|(T+S\_PE) - (Tio18GEL)|H1: Superiority of FDC Tiotropium/Salmeterol (T+S\_PE) vs Tiotropium (Tio18GEL) for FEV1 AUC0- 12||0.097|0.042|<.0001
90974155|NCT00662792|181831355|OTHER||Difference of adjusted means|-0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014||0.0914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.052|0.004|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient with centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.025 one-sided|(T+S\_PE) - (T18GEL+S-DPI)|The Tiotropium free combination (T18GEL+S\_DPI) was included in order to characterise this treatment in comparison with the FDC Tiotropium/Salmeterol (T+S\_PE). No formal hypotheses were defined.||0.004|-0.052|0.0914
90974156|NCT00662792|181831356|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin for FEV1 endpoints was defined as d=0.050 L.|Difference of adjusted means|0.064|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.036|0.093|||ANOVA|"Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient with centre, treatment, and period.~α = 0.025 one-sided"|(T+S\_PE) - (Salm50DPI)|H1: Non-Inferiority of FDC Tiotropium/Salmeterol (T+S\_PE) vs. Salmeterol (Salm50DPI) for FEV1AUC12-24||0.093|0.036|<.0001
90974157|NCT00662792|181831356|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin for FEV1 endpoints was defined as d=0.050 L.|Difference of adjusted means|0.064|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.036|0.093|||ANOVA|"Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient with centre, treatment, and period.~α = 0.025 one-sided"|(T+S\_PE) - (Tio18GEL)|H1: Non-inferiority of FDC Tiotropium/Salmeterol (T+S\_PE) vs. Tiotropium (TIO18GEL) of FEV1AUC12-24||0.093|0.036|<.0001
90974158|NCT00662792|181831356|OTHER||Difference of adjusted means|-0.057|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.086|-0.028|||ANOVA|"Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient with centre, treatment, and period.~α = 0.025 one-sided"|(T+S\_PE) - (T18GEL+S-DPI)|The Tiotropium free combination (T18GEL+S\_DPI) was included in order to characterise this treatment in comparison with the FDC Tiotropium/Salmeterol (T+S\_PE). No formal hypotheses were defined.||-0.028|-0.086|0.0001
90974159|NCT00662792|181831357|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|0.134|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.102|0.166|||ANOVA|"Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient with centre, treatment, and period.~α = 0.025 one-sided"|(T+S\_PE) - (Salm50DPI)|H1: Superiority of FDC Tiotropium/Salmeterol (T+S\_PE) vs. Salmeterol (Salm50DPI) of Peak FEV1||0.166|0.102|<.0001
90974160|NCT00662792|181831357|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|0.066|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.034|0.098|||ANOVA|Analysis of with terms for centre, patient with centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.025 one-sided|(T+S\_PE) - (Tio18GEL)|H1: Superiority of FDC Tiotropium/Salmeterol (T+S\_PE) vs. Tiotropium (TIO18GEL) of PeakFEV1.||0.098|0.034|<.0001
90974161|NCT00662792|181831357|OTHER||Difference of adjusted means|-0.026|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016||0.1093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.058|0.006|||ANOVA|"Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient with centre, treatment, and period.~α = 0.025 one-sided"|(T+S\_PE) - (T18GEL+S\_DPI)|The Tiotropium free combination (T18GEL+S\_DPI) was included in order to characterise this treatment in comparison with the FDC Tiotropium/Salmeterol (T+S\_PE). No formal hypotheses were defined.||0.006|-0.058|0.1093
90974162|NCT00662792|181831358|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin for FEV1 endpoints was defined as d=0.050 L.|Differences of adjusted means|0.058|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.024|0.092|||ANOVA|"Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient with centre, treatment, and period.~α = 0.025 one-sided"|(T+S\_PE) - (Salm50DPI)|H1: Non-inferiority of FDC Tiotropium/Salmeterol (T+S\_PE) vs. Salmeterol (Salm50DPI) of trough FEV1||0.092|0.024|0.0008
90974163|NCT00662792|181831358|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin for FEV1 endpoints was defined as a delta of 0.050 L.|Difference of adjusted means|0.029|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017||0.0857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.063|||ANOVA|"Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient with centre, treatment, and period.~α = 0.025 one-sided"|(T+S\_PE) - (Tio18GEL)|H1: Non-inferiority of FDC Tiotropium/Salmeterol (T+S\_PE) vs. Tiotropium (TIO18GEL) of trough FEV1||0.063|-0.004|0.0857
90974164|NCT00662792|181831358|OTHER||Difference of adjusted means|-0.037|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017||0.0317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.071|-0.003|||ANOVA|"Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient with centre, treatment, and period.~α = 0.025 one-sided"|(T+S\_PE) - (T18GEL+S-DPI)|The Tiotropium free combination (T18GEL+S\_DPI) was included in order to characterise this treatment in comparison with the FDC Tiotropium/Salmeterol (T+S\_PE). No formal hypotheses were defined.||-0.003|-0.071|0.0317
90974165|NCT00662792|181831359|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|0.097|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.071|0.124|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided|(T+S\_PE) - (Salm50DPI)|H1: Superiority of FDC Tiotropium/Salmeterol (T+S\_PE) vs. salmeterol (Salm50DPI) for FEV1 AUC0-24||0.124|0.071|<.0001
90974166|NCT00662792|181831359|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted mean difference|0.067|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.041|0.093|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided|(T+S\_PE) - (Tio18GEL)|H1: Superiority of FDC Tiotropium/Salmeterol (T+S\_PE) vs. Tiotropium (TIO18GEL) for FEV1 AUC24||0.093|0.041|<.0001
90974167|NCT00662792|181831359|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|-0.041|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.067|-0.014|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided|(T+S\_PE) - (T18GEL+S-DPI)|||-0.014|-0.067|0.0029
90974168|NCT00662792|181831360|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|0.083|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.034|0.132|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided|(T+S\_PE) - (Tio18GEL)|||0.132|0.034|0.0010
90974169|NCT00662792|181831360|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|0.176|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.127|0.226|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Salm50DPI)|||0.226|0.127|<.0001
90974170|NCT00662792|181831360|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|-0.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.095|0.005|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (T18GEL+S-DPI)|||0.005|-0.095|0.0757
90974171|NCT00662792|181831361|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|0.085|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.033|0.137|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Tio18GEL)|||0.137|0.033|0.0015
90974172|NCT00662792|181831361|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|0.118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.066|0.171|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Salm50DPI)|||0.171|0.066|<.0001
90974173|NCT00662792|181831361|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|-0.085|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.138|-0.032|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (T18GEL+S-DPI)|||-0.032|-0.138|0.0017
90974174|NCT00662792|181831362|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|0.084|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.037|0.131|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Tio18GEL)|||0.131|0.037|0.0005
90974175|NCT00662792|181831362|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|0.147|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.194|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Salm50DPI)|||0.194|0.100|<.0001
90974176|NCT00662792|181831362|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|-0.065|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||0.0074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.113|-0.018|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (T18GEL+S-DPI)|||-0.018|-0.113|0.0074
90974177|NCT00662792|181831363|SUPERIORITY||Differences of adjusted means|0.051|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.008|0.109|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Tio18GEL)|||0.109|-0.008|0.0898
90974178|NCT00662792|181831363|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|0.142|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.083|0.201|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Salm50DPI)|||0.201|0.083|<.0001
90974179|NCT00662792|181831363|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|-0.057|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.116|0.002|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (T18GEL+S-DPI)|||0.002|-0.116|0.0601
90974180|NCT00662792|181831364|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|-0.028|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031||0.3652|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.089|0.033|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Tio18GEL)|||0.033|-0.089|0.3652
90974181|NCT00662792|181831364|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|0.042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031||0.1816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.103|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Salm50DPI)|||0.103|-0.020|0.1816
90974182|NCT00662792|181831364|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|-0.095|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.157|-0.033|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (T18GEL+S-DPI)|||-0.033|-0.157|0.0026
90974183|NCT00662792|181831365|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|11.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|16.8|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Tio18GEL)|||16.8|6.9|<.0001
90974184|NCT00662792|181831365|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|24.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.2|29.2|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Salm50DPI)|||29.2|19.2|<.0001
90974185|NCT00662792|181831365|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6||0.1804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|1.6|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (T18GEL+S-DPI)|||1.6|-8.5|0.1804
90974186|NCT00662792|181831366|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|8.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|13.4|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Salm50DPI)|||13.4|3.5|0.0008
90974187|NCT00662792|181831366|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|10.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.6|15.5|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Salm50DPI)|||15.5|5.6|<.0001
90974188|NCT00662792|181831366|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|-12.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.9|-8.0|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (T18GEL+S\_DPI)|||-8.0|-17.9|<.0001
90974189|NCT00662792|181831367|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|10.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|14.6|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Tio18GEL)|||14.6|5.7|<.0001
90974190|NCT00662792|181831367|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|17.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.9|21.9|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Salm50DPI)|||21.9|12.9|<.0001
90974191|NCT00662792|181831367|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|-8.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|-3.7|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (T18GEL+S\_DPI)|||-3.7|-12.7|0.0004
90974192|NCT00662792|181831368|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|13.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.2|18.9|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Tio18GEL)|||18.9|7.2|<.0001
90974193|NCT00662792|181831368|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|23.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.2|28.9|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Salm50DPI)|||28.9|17.2|<.0001
90974194|NCT00662792|181831368|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted means|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0||0.0769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|0.6|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (T18GEL+S-DPI)|||0.6|-11.2|0.0769
90974195|NCT00662792|181831369|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2||0.3775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|9.1|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Tio18GEL)|||9.1|-3.5|0.3775
90974196|NCT00662792|181831369|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2||0.0285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|13.4|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Salm50DPI)|||13.4|0.7|0.0285
90974197|NCT00662792|181831369|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|-8.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2||0.0065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|-2.5|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (T18GEL+S-DPI)|||-2.5|-15.2|0.0065
90974198|NCT00662792|181831373|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.0182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|10.4|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Tio18GEL)|Morning PEF||10.4|1.0|0.0182
90974199|NCT00662792|181831373|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|6.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|11.1|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Salm50DPI)|Morning PEF||11.1|1.6|0.0091
90974200|NCT00662792|181831373|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|-8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|-3.3|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (T18GEL+S-DPI)|Morning PEF||-3.3|-12.8|0.0010
90974201|NCT00662792|181831373|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|11.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.8|16.2|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Tio18GEL)|Evening PEF||16.2|5.8|<.0001
90974202|NCT00662792|181831373|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|23.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.1|28.6|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Salm50DPI)|Evening PEF||28.6|18.1|<.0001
91050436|NCT04168190|181987007|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|3.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.88|7.67|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 16F||7.67|1.88|
90974203|NCT00662792|181831373|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7||0.5766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|6.8|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (T18GEL+S-DPI)|Evening PEF||6.8|-3.8|0.5766
90974204|NCT00662792|181831374|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016||0.0137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.008|0.071|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Tio18GEL)|Morning FEV1||0.071|0.008|0.0137
90974205|NCT00662792|181831374|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|0.027|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016||0.0981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|0.059|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Salm50DPI)|Morning FEV1||0.059|-0.005|0.0981
90974206|NCT00662792|181831374|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|-0.022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016||0.1827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.054|0.01|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (T18GEL+S-DPI)|Morning FEV1||0.010|-0.054|0.1827
90974207|NCT00662792|181831374|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|0.057|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.022|0.092|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Tio18GEL)|Evening FEV1||0.092|0.022|0.0014
90974208|NCT00662792|181831374|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|0.105|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.14|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Salm50DPI)|Evening FEV1||0.140|0.070|<.0001
90974209|NCT00662792|181831374|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018||0.2584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.015|0.056|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (T18GEL+S-DPI)|Evening FEV1||0.056|-0.015|0.2584
90974210|NCT00662792|181831375|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|-0.02|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Tio18GEL)|Daytime||-0.02|-0.11|0.0027
90974211|NCT00662792|181831375|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.4587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.03|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Salm50DPI)|Daytime||0.03|-0.06|0.4587
90974212|NCT00662792|181831375|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.1535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.08|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (T18GEL+S-DPI)|Daytime||0.08|-0.01|0.1535
91036745|NCT00862563|181960103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-33.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.0||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.05 is considered to be significant.|ANOVA|||Comparison of Week 10 means for mean percent heavy drinking days obtained for the placebo and topiramate groups Means used for the analysis are least squares means from a two-way repeated measures mixed models analysis, with Week (time) as the the within subject factor and treatment as the between group factor. Baseline values were used as covariates.||||0.0004
91036746|NCT00862563|181960103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-29.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.2||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|||||p\< 0.05 is considered to be significant|ANOVA|||Comparison of Week 11 means for mean percent heavy drinking days obtained for the placebo and topiramate groups Means used for the analysis are least squares means from a two-way repeated measures mixed models analysis, with Week (time) as the the within subject factor and treatment as the between group factor. Baseline values were used as covariates.||||0.0015
91036747|NCT00862563|181960103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-37.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.05 is considered to be significant.|ANOVA|||Comparison of Week 12 means for mean percent heavy drinking days obtained for the placebo and topiramate groups Means used for the analysis are least squares means from a two-way repeated measures mixed models analysis, with Week (time) as the the within subject factor and treatment as the between group factor. Baseline values were used as covariates.||||<0.0001
91036748|NCT00862563|181960103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-20.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.0||0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||p\< 0.05 is considered to be significant|ANOVA|||Comparison of Week 10 means for mean percent heavy drinking days obtained for the placebo and levetiracetam groups Means used for the analysis are least squares means from a two-way repeated measures mixed models analysis, with Week (time) as the the within subject factor and treatment as the between group factor. Baseline values were used as covariates.||||0.04
91036749|NCT00862563|181960103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-23.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.2||0.025|TWO_SIDED|||||p\< 0.05 is considered to be significant|ANOVA|||Comparison of Week 11 means for mean percent heavy drinking days obtained for the placebo and levetiracetam groups Means used for the analysis are least squares means from a two-way repeated measures mixed models analysis, with Week (time) as the the within subject factor and treatment as the between group factor. Baseline values were used as covariates.||||0.025
91036750|NCT00862563|181960103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-24.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.3||0.018|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.05 is considered to be significant|ANOVA|||Comparison of Week 12 means for mean percent heavy drinking days obtained for the placebo and levetiracetam groups Means used for the analysis are least squares means from a two-way repeated measures mixed models analysis, with Week (time) as the the within subject factor and treatment as the between group factor. Baseline values were used as covariates.||||0.018
90974213|NCT00662792|181831375|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|-0.05|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Tio18GEL)|Night-time||-0.05|-0.14|0.0002
90974214|NCT00662792|181831375|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|-0.04|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Salm50DPI)|Night-time||-0.04|-0.14|0.0006
90974215|NCT00662792|181831375|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.5784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.04|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (T18GEL+S-DPI)|Night-time||0.04|-0.06|0.5784
90974216|NCT00662792|181831375|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|-0.04|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Tio18GEL)|24 hours||-0.04|-0.14|0.0003
90974217|NCT00662792|181831375|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|-0.02|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Salm50DPI)|24 hours||-0.02|-0.12|0.0042
90974218|NCT00662792|181831375|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.9978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.05|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (T18GEL+S-DPI)|24 hours||0.05|-0.05|0.9978
90974219|NCT00662792|181831376|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.11|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Tio18GEL)|Daytime||-0.11|-0.55|0.0029
90974220|NCT00662792|181831376|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|-0.14|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Salm50DPI)|Daytime||-0.14|-0.58|0.0012
90974221|NCT00662792|181831376|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.0829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.25|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (T18GEL+S-DPI)|Daytime||0.25|-0.02|0.0829
90974222|NCT00662792|181831376|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.0115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.04|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Tio18GEL)|Night-time||-0.04|-0.30|0.0115
90974223|NCT00662792|181831376|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.1772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.04|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Salm50DPI)|Night-time||0.04|-0.22|0.1772
90974224|NCT00662792|181831376|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.6895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.27|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (T18GEL+S-DPI)|Night-time||0.27|-0.18|0.6895
90974225|NCT00662792|181831376|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.21|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Tio18GEL)|Over 24 hours||-0.21|-0.84|0.0013
90974226|NCT00662792|181831376|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.15|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Salm50DPI)|Over 24 hours||-0.15|-0.78|0.0040
90974227|NCT00662792|181831376|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.3287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.48|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (T18GEL+S-DPI)|Over 24 hours||0.48|-0.16|0.3287
90974228|NCT00662792|181831377|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.9956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.03|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Tio18GEL)|||0.03|-0.03|0.9956
90974229|NCT00662792|181831377|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.02|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Salm50DPI)|||0.02|-0.03|0.7100
90974230|NCT00662792|181831377|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.3659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.04|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (T18GEL+S-DPI)|||0.04|-0.02|0.3659
90974231|NCT00662792|181831378|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.4416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.02|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Tio18GEL)|||0.02|-0.04|0.4416
90974232|NCT00662792|181831378|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.7058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.02|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Salm50DPI)|||0.02|-0.03|0.7058
90974233|NCT00662792|181831378|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.1494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.05|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (T18GEL+S-DPI)|||0.05|-0.01|0.1494
90974234|NCT00662792|181831379|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.06|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Tio18GEL)|||0.06|-0.06|0.9980
90974235|NCT00662792|181831379|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.4618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.08|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Salm50DPI)|||0.08|-0.04|0.4618
90974236|NCT00662792|181831379|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.12|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (T18GEL+S-DPI)|||0.12|0.00|0.0418
90974237|NCT00662792|181831380|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.4206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.03|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Tio18GEL)|||0.03|-0.08|0.4206
90974238|NCT00662792|181831380|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.8723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.06|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Salm50DPI)|||0.06|-0.05|0.8723
90974239|NCT00662792|181831380|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.1005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.11|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (T18GEL+S-DPI)|||0.11|-0.01|0.1005
91050437|NCT04168190|181987007|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|5.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.88|11.94|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 16F||11.94|2.88|
90974240|NCT01175902|181831391|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"To prove the non-inferiority of Cosopt to Xalatan, the sample size calculation was based on the assumption that non-inferiority margin of trough IOP of 1.5mmHg. A sample size of n=21 patients per group, this study has 80% power (1-β=0.80) and α=0.05, crossover-designed analysis.~In this study, the upper limit of the 95% CI is expected above the maximal acceptable clinically significant difference of 1.5 mmHg of IOP."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Comparison between two arms were made for IOP, systolic BP, diastolic BP and OPP at each time period.|t-test, 2 sided|Comparison between two arms were made for IOP, systolic BP, diastolic BP and OPP at each time period.|Comparison between two arms were made for IOP, systolic BP, diastolic BP and OPP at each time period.|Comparison between two arms were made for IOP, systolic BP, diastolic BP and OPP at each time period.||||0.05
90974241|NCT02347176|181831397|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.968||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.78|0.99|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||||0.99|-6.78|0.143
90974242|NCT02347176|181831397|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-4.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.951||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.22|-0.51|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||||-0.51|-8.22|0.027
90974243|NCT02347176|181831397|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-4.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.932||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.76|-1.13|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||||-1.13|-8.76|0.011
90974244|NCT02347176|181831398|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|3.32|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.32|0.29|0.974
90974245|NCT02347176|181831398|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.85||||0.281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|5.65|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.65|0.61|0.281
90974246|NCT02347176|181831398|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.83||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|8.37|||Regression, Logistic|||||8.37|0.95|0.061
90974247|NCT00699907|181831413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.012
90974248|NCT00699907|181831413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||>0.05
90974249|NCT00699907|181831414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.010
90974250|NCT00699907|181831414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.005
90974251|NCT00699907|181831415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.0006
90974252|NCT00699907|181831415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||>0.05
90974253|NCT00699907|181831416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.009
90974254|NCT00699907|181831416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||>0.05
90974255|NCT00699907|181831417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.037|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.037
90974256|NCT00699907|181831417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||>0.05
90974257|NCT00699907|181831418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.010
90974258|NCT00699907|181831418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||>0.05
90974259|NCT00699907|181831419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.005
90974260|NCT00699907|181831419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||>0.05
90974261|NCT00699907|181831420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.006
90974262|NCT00699907|181831420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.005
90974263|NCT00699907|181831421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||<0.0001
90974264|NCT00699907|181831421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.005
90974265|NCT01081795|181831422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|-0.4||||0.1646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.2||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) method using the treatment group as the factor and using the value obtained during the baseline measurement period as the covariate was used.|ANCOVA|||||0.2|-1.0|0.1646
90974266|NCT01081795|181831422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.2||||0.4479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.4||ANCOVA method using the treatment group as the factor and using the value obtained during the baseline measurement period as the covariate was used.|ANCOVA|||||0.4|-0.8|0.4479
90974267|NCT01081795|181831423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.5||||0.1547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.2||Month 6: ANCOVA method using the treatment group as the factor and using the value obtained during the baseline measurement period as the covariate was used.|ANCOVA|||||0.2|-1.1|0.1547
90974268|NCT01081795|181831423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.4||||0.2624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.3||Month 6: ANCOVA method using the treatment group as the factor and using the value obtained during the baseline measurement period as the covariate was used.|ANCOVA|||||0.3|-1.0|0.2624
90974269|NCT01081795|181831424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.4||||0.2464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.3||Month 6: ANCOVA method using the treatment group as the factor and using the value obtained during the baseline measurement period as the covariate was used.|ANCOVA|||||0.3|-1.0|0.2464
90974270|NCT01081795|181831424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.3||||0.3148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.3||Month 6: ANCOVA method using the treatment group as the factor and using the value obtained during the baseline measurement period as the covariate was used.|ANCOVA|||||0.3|-1.0|0.3148
90974271|NCT01081795|181831425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.0||||0.8762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.5||Month 6: ANCOVA method using the treatment group as the factor and using the value obtained during the baseline measurement period as the covariate was used.|ANCOVA|||||0.5|-0.6|0.8762
90974272|NCT01081795|181831425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.3||||0.3031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.3||Month 6: ANCOVA method using the treatment group as the factor and using the value obtained during the baseline measurement period as the covariate was used.|ANCOVA|||||0.3|-0.8|0.3031
90974273|NCT01081795|181831426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.3||||0.1145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.1||Month 6: ANCOVA method using the treatment group as the factor and using the value obtained during the baseline measurement period as the covariate was used.|ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.7|0.1145
90974274|NCT01081795|181831426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.2||||0.3971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.2||Month 6: ANCOVA method using the treatment group as the factor and using the value obtained during the baseline measurement period as the covariate was used.|ANCOVA|||||0.2|-0.6|0.3971
90974275|NCT01081795|181831427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.5||||0.1866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.3||ANCOVA method using the treatment group as the factor and using the value obtained during the baseline measurement period as the covariate was used.|ANCOVA|||||0.3|-1.3|0.1866
90974276|NCT01081795|181831427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.6||||0.1507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.2||ANCOVA method using the treatment group as the factor and using the value obtained during the baseline measurement period as the covariate was used.|ANCOVA|||||0.2|-1.4|0.1507
90974277|NCT01081795|181831429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.4||||0.1743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.2||ANCOVA method using the treatment group as the factor and using the value obtained during the baseline measurement period as the covariate was used.|ANCOVA|||||0.2|-1.0|0.1743
90974278|NCT01081795|181831429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.4||||0.2165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.2||ANCOVA method using the treatment group as the factor and using the value obtained during the baseline measurement period as the covariate was used.|ANCOVA|||||0.2|-1.0|0.2165
90974279|NCT01081795|181831430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage difference|5.1||||0.3083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|14.0||Month 6|Fisher Exact|||||14.0|-3.8|0.3083
90974280|NCT01081795|181831430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage difference|2.0||||0.7235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|10.6||Month 6|Fisher Exact|||||10.6|-6.6|0.7235
90974281|NCT03138876|181831447|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0005
90974282|NCT03889639|181831451|SUPERIORITY|Relative reduction in lesions in SAR442168 5 mg (Cohorts 1 and 2) when compared with placebo (Cohort 2) with 95 percentage (%) confidence interval (CI) were reported. Analysis was performed using a negative binomial regression model adjusted for Baseline gadolinium-enhancing T1-hyperintense lesion activity (presence/absence).|Relative reduction in lesions|-56.16||||0.1673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-193.99|17.05|||Negative binomial regression model|Threshold for significance for p-value was 0.05.||SAR442168 5 mg/Placebo||17.05|-193.99|0.1673
90974283|NCT03889639|181831451|SUPERIORITY|Relative reduction in lesions in SAR442168 15 mg (Cohorts 1 and 2) when compared with placebo (Cohort 2) with 95% CI were reported. Analysis was performed using a negative binomial regression model adjusted for Baseline gadolinium-enhancing T1-hyperintense lesion activity (presence/absence).|Relative reduction in lesions|-62.8||||0.354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-356.24|41.91|||Negative binomial regression model|Threshold for significance for p-value was 0.05.||SAR442168 15 mg/Placebo||41.91|-356.24|0.3540
90974284|NCT03889639|181831451|SUPERIORITY|Relative reduction in lesions in SAR442168 30 mg (Cohorts 1 and 2) when compared with placebo (Cohort 2) with 95% CI were reported. Analysis was performed using a negative binomial regression model adjusted for Baseline gadolinium-enhancing T1-hyperintense lesion activity (presence/absence).|Relative reduction in lesions|13.49||||0.7674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-126.05|66.89|||Negative binomial regression model|Threshold for significance for p-value was 0.05.||SAR442168 30 mg/Placebo||66.89|-126.05|0.7674
90974285|NCT03889639|181831451|SUPERIORITY|Relative reduction in lesions in SAR442168 60 mg (Cohorts 1 and 2) when compared with placebo (Cohort 2) with 95% CI were reported. Analysis was performed using a negative binomial regression model adjusted for Baseline gadolinium-enhancing T1-hyperintense lesion activity (presence/absence).|Relative reduction in lesions|85.02||||0.0178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.02|96.88|||Negative binomial regression model|Threshold for significance for p-value was 0.05.||SAR442168 60 mg/Placebo||96.88|28.02|0.0178
90974286|NCT03889639|181831452|SUPERIORITY|Relative reduction in lesions in SAR442168 5 mg (Cohorts 1 and 2) when compared with placebo (Cohort 2) with 95% CI were reported. Analysis was performed using a negative binomial regression model without adjusting for Baseline T2 lesion activity as all participants had at least one T2 lesion at Baseline.|Relative reduction in lesions|10.17||||0.7736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-86.49|56.73|||Negative binomial regression model|Threshold for significance for p-value was 0.05.||SAR442168 5 mg/Placebo||56.73|-86.49|0.7736
90974287|NCT03889639|181831452|SUPERIORITY|Relative reduction in lesions in SAR442168 15 mg (Cohorts 1 and 2) when compared with placebo (Cohort 2) with 95% CI were reported. Analysis was performed using a negative binomial regression model without adjusting for Baseline T2 lesion activity as all participants had at least one T2 lesion at Baseline.|Relative reduction in lesions|37.07||||0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.08|71.32|||Negative binomial regression model|Threshold for significance for p-value was 0.05.||SAR442168 15 mg/Placebo||71.32|-38.08|0.2480
90974288|NCT03889639|181831452|SUPERIORITY|Relative reduction in lesions in SAR442168 30 mg (Cohorts 1 and 2) when compared with placebo (Cohort 2) with 95% CI were reported. Analysis was performed using a negative binomial regression model without adjusting for Baseline T2 lesion activity as all participants had at least one T2 lesion at Baseline.|Relative reduction in lesions|38.5||||0.3081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.61|75.85|||Negative binomial regression model|Threshold for significance for p-value was 0.05.||SAR442168 30 mg/Placebo||75.85|-56.61|0.3081
90974289|NCT03889639|181831452|SUPERIORITY|Relative reduction in lesions in SAR442168 60 mg (Cohorts 1 and 2) when compared with placebo (Cohort 2) with 95% CI were reported. Analysis was performed using a negative binomial regression model without adjusting for Baseline T2 lesion activity as all participants had at least one T2 lesion at Baseline.|Relative reduction in lesions|89.34||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.39|96.41|||Negative binomial regression model|Threshold for significance for p-value was 0.05.||SAR442168 60 mg/Placebo||96.41|68.39|0.0001
90974290|NCT03889639|181831453|SUPERIORITY|Relative reduction in lesions in SAR442168 5 mg (Cohorts 1 and 2) when compared with placebo (Cohort 2) with 95% CI were reported. Analysis was performed using a negative binomial regression model adjusted for Baseline gadolinium-enhancing T1-hyperintense lesion activity (presence/absence).|Relative reduction in lesions|-62.16||||0.1525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-214.44|16.38|||Negative binomial regression model|Threshold for significance for p-value was 0.05.||SAR442168 5 mg/Placebo||16.38|-214.44|0.1525
90974291|NCT03889639|181831453|SUPERIORITY|Relative reduction in lesions in SAR442168 15 mg (Cohorts 1 and 2) when compared with placebo (Cohort 2) with 95% CI were reported. Analysis was performed using a negative binomial regression model adjusted for Baseline gadolinium-enhancing T1-hyperintense lesion activity (presence/absence).|Relative reduction in lesions|-47.38||||0.4606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-312.91|47.4|||Negative binomial regression model|Threshold for significance for p-value was 0.05.||SAR442168 15 mg/Placebo||47.40|-312.91|0.4606
90974292|NCT03889639|181831453|SUPERIORITY|Relative reduction in lesions in SAR442168 30 mg (Cohorts 1 and 2) when compared with placebo (Cohort 2) with 95% CI were reported. Analysis was performed using a negative binomial regression model adjusted for Baseline gadolinium-enhancing T1-hyperintense lesion activity (presence/absence).|Relative reduction in lesions|2.9||||0.949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-138.96|60.54|||Negative binomial regression model|Threshold for significance for p-value was 0.05.||SAR442168 30 mg/Placebo||60.54|-138.96|0.9490
90974293|NCT03889639|181831453|SUPERIORITY|Relative reduction in lesions in SAR442168 60 mg (Cohorts 1 and 2) when compared with placebo (Cohort 2) with 95% CI were reported. Analysis was performed using a negative binomial regression model adjusted for Baseline gadolinium-enhancing T1-hyperintense lesion activity (presence/absence).|Relative reduction in lesions|65.05||||0.2324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-96.21|93.77|||Negative binomial regression model|Threshold for significance for p-value was 0.05.||SAR442168 60 mg/Placebo||93.77|-96.21|0.2324
90974294|NCT01707693|181831457|SUPERIORITY|repeated measures mixed model analysis of covariance, with the baseline measurement as a covariate.||||||0.023||||||P-value calculated from repeated measures model adjusting for age with a log transformation applied. P-values are one-sided.|ANCOVA|||||||0.023
90974295|NCT01707693|181831458|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011||||||\* P-value calculated from repeated measures model adjusting for age with a log transformation applied.|ANCOVA|\* P-value calculated from repeated measures model adjusting for age with a log transformation applied.||||||0.011
90974296|NCT01707693|181831459|OTHER|2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum test||||||0.033|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.033
90974297|NCT01707693|181831460|OTHER|counts of stage of change||||||0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|2-sided Cochran-Armitage trend test||||||.001
90974298|NCT00993031|181831472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.83||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|2.67|||Chi-squared|||||2.67|.26|.76
90974299|NCT00993031|181831473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.85||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|2.46|||Chi-squared|||||2.46|.29|.76
90974300|NCT00993031|181831474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.75||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.59|||Chi-squared|||||1.59|.36|.45
90974301|NCT00993031|181831476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.22||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.66|||Chi-squared|||||1.66|.89|.21
90974302|NCT00993031|181831477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.34||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.83|||Chi-squared|||||1.83|.98|.06
90974303|NCT03506295|181831489|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.496||||0.7878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.168|1.469|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.469|0.168|0.7878
90974304|NCT01834729|181831496|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Least squares means|||||||0.78
90974305|NCT01834729|181831497|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||Least squares means|||||||0.57
90974306|NCT02682901|181831521|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.603||||||Between treatment group (bromocriptine-QR vs. placebo) differences in change from baseline to week 24 was analyzed using Independent Samples T-tests. Means are statistically significantly different at the 5% level (P \< 0.05) two-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.603
90974307|NCT02682901|181831522|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.068||||||Between treatment group (bromocriptine-QR vs. placebo) differences in change from baseline to week 24 was analyzed using Independent Samples T-tests. Means are statistically significantly different at the 5% level (P \< 0.05) two-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.068
90974308|NCT02682901|181831523|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.493||||||Between treatment group (bromocriptine-QR vs. placebo) differences in change from baseline to week 24 was analyzed using Independent Samples T-tests. Means are statistically significantly different at the 5% level (P \< 0.05) two-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.493
90974309|NCT02682901|181831524|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.524||||||Between treatment group (bromocriptine-QR vs. placebo) differences in change from baseline to week 24 was analyzed using Independent Samples T-tests. Means were statistically significantly different at the 5% level (P \< 0.05) two-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.524
90974310|NCT02682901|181831525|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63||||||Between treatment group (bromocriptine-QR vs. placebo) differences in change from baseline to week 24 was analyzed using Independent Samples T-tests. Means were statistically significantly different at the 5% level (P \< 0.05) two-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.630
90974311|NCT02682901|181831526|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.537||||||Between treatment group (bromocriptine-QR vs. placebo) differences in change from baseline to week 24 was analyzed using Independent Samples T-tests. Means were statistically significantly different at the 5% level (P \< 0.05) two-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.537
90974312|NCT02682901|181831527|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53||||||Between treatment group (bromocriptine-QR vs. placebo) differences in change from baseline to week 24 was analyzed using Independent Samples T-tests. Means were statistically significantly different at the 5% level (P \< 0.05) two-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.530
90974313|NCT02682901|181831528|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||Between treatment group (bromocriptine-QR vs. placebo) differences in change from baseline to week 24 was analyzed using Independent Samples T-tests. Means were statistically significantly different at the 5% level (P \< 0.05) two-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.005
90974314|NCT00804687|181831552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean difference|-0.126|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066||0.0602||95.0|-0.258|0.006|||Linear mixed model|||||0.006|-0.258|0.0602
90974315|NCT00804687|181831552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean difference|-0.195|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067||0.0043||95.0|-0.328|-0.063|||Linear mixed model|||||-0.063|-0.328|0.0043
90974316|NCT00804687|181831552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean difference|-0.066|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.3513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.206|0.075|||Linear mixed model|||||0.075|-0.206|0.3513
90974317|NCT00804687|181831553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean difference|8.604|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.267||0.0003||95.0|4.104|13.104|||Linear mixed model|||||13.104|4.104|0.0003
90974318|NCT00804687|181831553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean difference|4.699|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.289||0.0428||95.0|0.155|9.243|||Linear mixed model|||||9.243|0.155|0.0428
90974319|NCT00804687|181831553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean difference|-3.905|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.277||0.0895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.424|0.614|||Linear mixed model|||||0.614|-8.424|0.0895
90974320|NCT00805740|181831576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|21.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|53.3||||||The 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) was calculated using method of exact unconditional confidence limits for the difference. Global response (rates of success) by using a 2-sided 95% CI for the true difference in efficacy (Anidulafungin minus Caspofungin) was calculated. Statistical testing was done at 2.5% alpha.||53.3|-12.3|
90974321|NCT00805740|181831577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|21.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|55.6||||||2-week follow-up: The 95% CI was calculated using method of exact unconditional confidence limits for the difference. Global response (rates of success) by using a 2-sided 95% CI for the true difference in efficacy (Anidulafungin minus Caspofungin) was calculated. Statistical testing was done at 2.5% alpha.||55.6|-13.6|
90974322|NCT00805740|181831577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|12.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.3|47.3||||||6-week follow-up: The 95% CI was calculated using method of exact unconditional confidence limits for the difference. Global response (rates of success) by using a 2-sided 95% CI for the true difference in efficacy (Anidulafungin minus Caspofungin) was calculated. Statistical testing was done at 2.5% alpha.||47.3|-23.3|
90974323|NCT00805740|181831579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.0|27.9||||||The 95% CI was calculated using method of exact unconditional confidence limits for the difference. Global response (rates of success) by using a 2-sided 95% CI for the true difference in efficacy (Anidulafungin minus Caspofungin) was calculated. Statistical testing was done at 2.5% alpha.||27.9|-39.0|
91036751|NCT00862563|181960104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-22.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.8||0.005|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.05 is considered to be significant|ANOVA|||Comparison of Week 10 means for mean percent drinking days obtained for the placebo and zonisamide groups Means used for the analysis are least squares means from a two-way repeated measures mixed models analysis, with Week (time) as the the within subject factor and treatment as the between group factor. Baseline values were used as covariates.||||0.005
91036752|NCT00862563|181960104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-24.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.9||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Comparison of Week 11 means for mean percent drinking days obtained for the placebo and zonisamide groups Means used for the analysis are least squares means from a two-way repeated measures mixed models analysis, with Week (time) as the the within subject factor and treatment as the between group factor. Baseline values were used as covariates.||||0.003
91036753|NCT00862563|181960104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least square means|-16.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.0||0.044|TWO_SIDED|||||p\< 0.05 is considered to be significant.|ANOVA|||Comparison of Week 12 means for mean percent drinking days obtained for the placebo and zonisamide groups Means used for the analysis are least squares means from a two-way repeated measures mixed models analysis, with Week (time) as the the within subject factor and treatment as the between group factor. Baseline values were used as covariates.||||0.044
91036754|NCT00862563|181960104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-38.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||p\< 0.05 is considered to be significant|ANOVA|||Comparison of Week 10 means for mean percent drinking days obtained for the placebo and topiramate. Means used for the analysis are least squares means from a two-way repeated measures mixed models analysis, with Week (time) as the the within subject factor and treatment as the between group factors. Baseline values were used as covariates.||||<0.0001
90974324|NCT05227690|181831597|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.24|=|0.1765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|1.4|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 30 mg - Placebo|Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||1.4|-7.5|=0.1765
90974325|NCT05227690|181831597|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26|=|0.6007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|3.3|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 10 mg - Placebo|Emraclidine 10 mg versus Placebo||3.3|-5.6|=0.6007
91036755|NCT00862563|181960104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-47.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.05 is considered to be significant.|ANOVA|||Comparison of Week 11 means for mean percent drinking days obtained for the placebo and topiramate. Means used for the analysis are least squares means from a two-way repeated measures mixed models analysis, with Week (time) as the the within subject factor and treatment as the between group factor. Baseline values were used as covariates.||||<0.0001
90974326|NCT05227690|181831598|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.124|=|0.2534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 30 mg - Placebo|Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||0.10|-0.39|=0.2534
90974327|NCT05227690|181831598|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.125|=|0.6774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.19|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 10 mg - Placebo|Emraclidine 10 mg versus Placebo||0.19|-0.30|=0.6774
90974328|NCT05227690|181831599|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|=|0.3596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|1.2|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 30 mg - Placebo|Week 1-- Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||1.2|-3.2|=0.3596
90974329|NCT05227690|181831599|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|=|0.6053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|1.6|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 10 mg - Placebo|Week 1-- Emraclidine 10 mg versus Placebo||1.6|-2.7|=0.6053
90974330|NCT05227690|181831599|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.54|=|0.8149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|2.7|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 30 mg - Placebo|Week 2-- Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||2.7|-3.4|=0.8149
90974331|NCT05227690|181831599|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.55|=|0.9058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|2.9|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 10 mg - Placebo|Week 2-- Emraclidine 10 mg versus Placebo||2.9|-3.2|=0.9058
90974332|NCT05227690|181831599|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.71|=|0.5419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|2.3|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 30 mg - Placebo|Week 3-- Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||2.3|-4.4|=0.5419
90974333|NCT05227690|181831599|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.72|=|0.8585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|3.7|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 10 mg - Placebo|Week 3-- Emraclidine 10 mg versus Placebo||3.7|-3.1|=0.8585
90974334|NCT05227690|181831599|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.99|=|0.5521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|2.7|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 30 mg - Placebo|Week 4-- Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||2.7|-5.1|=0.5521
90974335|NCT05227690|181831599|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0|=|0.754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|3.3|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 10 mg - Placebo|Week 4-- Emraclidine 10 mg versus Placebo||3.3|-4.6|=0.7540
90974336|NCT05227690|181831599|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.12|=|0.4842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|2.7|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 30 mg - Placebo|Week 5-- Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||2.7|-5.7|=0.4842
90974337|NCT05227690|181831599|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.13|=|0.6999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|3.4|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 10 mg - Placebo|Week 5-- Emraclidine 10 mg versus Placebo||3.4|-5.0|=0.6999
91050438|NCT04168190|181987007|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|13.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.68|33.32|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 23A||33.32|5.68|
90974338|NCT05227690|181831599|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.24|=|0.1765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|1.4|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 30 mg - Placebo|Week 6-- Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||1.4|-7.5|=0.1765
90974339|NCT05227690|181831599|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26|=|0.6007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|3.3|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 10 mg - Placebo|Week 6-- Emraclidine 10 mg versus Placebo||3.3|-5.6|=0.6007
90974340|NCT05227690|181831600|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061|=|0.5822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.09|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 30 mg - Placebo|Week 1-- Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||0.09|-0.15|=0.5822
90974341|NCT05227690|181831600|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061|=|0.9244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.13|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 10 mg - Placebo|Week 1-- Emraclidine 10 mg versus Placebo||0.13|-0.11|=0.9244
90974342|NCT05227690|181831600|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.088|=|0.9348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.18|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 30 mg - Placebo|Week 2-- Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||0.18|-0.17|=0.9348
90974343|NCT05227690|181831600|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.089|=|0.716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.14|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 10 mg - Placebo|Week 2-- Emraclidine 10 mg versus Placebo||0.14|-0.21|=0.7160
90974344|NCT05227690|181831600|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|=|0.6883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.16|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 30 mg - Placebo|Week 3-- Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||0.16|-0.24|=0.6883
90974345|NCT05227690|181831600|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|=|0.5973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.25|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 10 mg - Placebo|Week 3-- Emraclidine 10 mg versus Placebo||0.25|-0.14|=0.5973
90974346|NCT05227690|181831600|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|=|0.1392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.05|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 30 mg - Placebo|Week 4-- Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||0.05|-0.38|=0.1392
90974347|NCT05227690|181831600|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.111|=|0.9421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.23|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 10 mg - Placebo|Week 4-- Emraclidine 10 mg versus Placebo||0.23|-0.21|=0.9421
90974348|NCT05227690|181831600|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116|=|0.5431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.16|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 30 mg - Placebo|Week 5-- Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||0.16|-0.30|=0.5431
90974349|NCT05227690|181831600|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.117|=|0.816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.26|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 10 mg - Placebo|Week 5-- Emraclidine 10 mg versus Placebo||0.26|-0.20|=0.8160
91050439|NCT04168190|181987007|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|19.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.91|47.0|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 23A||47.00|7.91|
90974350|NCT05227690|181831600|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.124|=|0.2534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 30 mg - Placebo|Week 6-- Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||0.10|-0.39|=0.2534
91036756|NCT00862563|181960104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-34.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.2||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.05 is considered to be significant.|ANOVA|||Week 12.Comparison of Week 12 means for mean percent drinking days obtained for the placebo and topiramate. Means used for the analysis are least squares means from a two-way repeated measures mixed models analysis, with Week (time) as the the within subject factor and treatment as the between group factor. Baseline values were used as covariates.||||0.0004
91036757|NCT00862563|181960104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-19.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.0||0.017|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.05 is considered to be significant|ANOVA|||Comparison of Week 10 means for mean percent drinking days obtained for the placebo and levetiracetam groups. Means used for the analysis are least squares means from a two-way repeated measures mixed models analysis. Baseline values were used as covariates.||||0.017
91036758|NCT00862563|181960104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-31.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.1||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.05 is considered to be significant.|ANOVA|||Comparison of Week 11 means for mean percent drinking days obtained for the placebo and levetiracetam groups. Means used for the analysis are least squares means from a two-way repeated measures mixed models analysis. Baseline values were used as covariates.||||0.0002
91036759|NCT00862563|181960104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-18.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.2||0.026|TWO_SIDED|||||p\< 0.05 is considered to be significant|ANOVA|||.Comparison of Week 12 means for mean percent drinking days obtained for the placebo and levetiracetam groups. Means used for the analysis are least squares means from a two-way repeated measures mixed models analysis.Baseline values were used as covariates.||||0.026
90974351|NCT05227690|181831600|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.125|=|0.6774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.19|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 10 mg - Placebo|Week 6-- Emraclidine 10 mg versus Placebo||0.19|-0.30|=0.6774
90974352|NCT05227690|181831601|SUPERIORITY|Odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were from a logistic regression with treatment group, geographic region and Baseline value as a covariate.|Odds Ratio|1.9|||=|0.0904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|3.99|||Regression, Logistic|||Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||3.99|0.90|=0.0904
91036760|NCT00862563|181960105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||p\< 0.01 is considered to be significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|p value is for the group x time interaction term.'||Data were analyzed using two-way repeated measures mixed models analysis. It was hypothesized that COWAT-Letter Fluency scores would change towards a downward direction for the zonisamide as compared to the placebo group resulting in significant treatment x time interaction.||||<0.0001
91036761|NCT00862563|181960105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.01 is considered to be significant|Mixed Models Analysis|p value is for group x time interaction term for the comparison of data for the topiramate and placebo group.||Data were analyzed using two-way repeated measures mixed models analysis. It was hypothesized that COWAT-Letter Fluency scores would change towards a downward direction for the topiramate as compared to the placebo group resulting in a significant treatment x time interaction.||||<0.0001
91036762|NCT00862563|181960105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.01 is considered to be significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|p value is for interaction effect for the comparison of data for the levetiracetam and placebo groups.||Data were analyzed using two-way repeated measures mixed models analysis. It was hypothesized that COWAT-Letter Fluency scores would change towards a downward direction for the levetiracetam as compared to the placebo group resulting in a significant treatment x time interaction.||||0.30
91036763|NCT00862563|181960106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.01 is considered to be significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|p value is for the group x time interaction effect for the paired comparison of COWAT-category data for the zonisamide and placebo groups.||Data were analyzed using two-way repeated measures mixed models analysis. It was hypothesized that COWAT-Category scores would change towards a downward direction for the zonisamide as compared to the placebo group resulting in significant treatment x time interaction.||||0.003
90974353|NCT05227690|181831601|SUPERIORITY|Odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were from a logistic regression with treatment group, geographic region and Baseline value as a covariate.|Odds Ratio|1.96|||=|0.0756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|4.13|||Regression, Logistic|||Emraclidine 10 mg versus Placebo||4.13|0.93|=0.0756
90974354|NCT05227690|181831608|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|=|0.2418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.2|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 30 mg - Placebo|Week 3-- Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||0.2|0.0|=0.2418
91036764|NCT00862563|181960106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||p\< 0.01 is considered to be significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|The p value shown is for the group x time interaction effect for the comparison of data from the topiramate and the placebo groups.||Data were analyzed using two-way repeated measures mixed models analysis. It was hypothesized that COWAT-Category scores would change towards a downward direction for the topiramate as compared to the placebo group resulting in significant treatment x time interaction||||0.01
90890035|NCT01571362|181644036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.245|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|-0.56|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariate.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Screening to Week 12/Early Termination.||-0.56|-1.52|<0.0001
90974355|NCT05227690|181831608|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|=|0.572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 10 mg - Placebo|Week 3-- Emraclidine 10 mg versus Placebo||0.1|-0.1|=0.5720
90974356|NCT05227690|181831608|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|=|0.7459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 30 mg - Placebo|Week 6-- Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||0.1|-0.1|=0.7459
90974357|NCT05227690|181831608|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|=|0.6729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 10 mg - Placebo|Week 6-- Emraclidine 10 mg versus Placebo||0.1|-0.1|=0.6729
90974358|NCT05227690|181831609|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|=|0.3783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 30 mg - Placebo|Week 3-- Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||0.2|-0.1|=0.3783
90974359|NCT05227690|181831609|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|=|0.2242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.0|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 10 mg - Placebo|Week 3-- Emraclidine 10 mg versus Placebo||0.0|-0.2|=0.2242
90974360|NCT05227690|181831609|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|=|0.8626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 30 mg - Placebo|Week 6-- Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||0.1|-0.1|=0.8626
90974361|NCT05227690|181831609|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|=|0.6106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 10 mg - Placebo|Week 6-- Emraclidine 10 mg versus Placebo||0.1|-0.1|=0.6106
90974362|NCT05227690|181831610|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|=|0.4219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 30 mg - Placebo|Week 3-- Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||0.1|0.0|=0.4219
91036765|NCT00862563|181960106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.01 is considered to be significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|The p value is for the group x time interaction effect for the comparison of the levetiracetam and placebo groups.||Data were analyzed using two-way repeated measures mixed models analysis. It was hypothesized that COWAT-Category scores would change towards a downward direction for the levetiracetam as compared to the placebo group resulting in significant treatment x time interaction||||0.36
90974363|NCT05227690|181831610|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|=|0.3933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 10 mg - Placebo|Week 3-- Emraclidine 10 mg versus Placebo||0.1|0.0|=0.3933
90974364|NCT05227690|181831610|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|=|0.7366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 30 mg - Placebo|Week 6-- Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||0.0|0.0|=0.7366
90974365|NCT05227690|181831610|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|=|0.4639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.0|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 10 mg - Placebo|Week 6-- Emraclidine 10 mg versus Placebo||0.0|-0.1|=0.4639
90974366|NCT04669678|181831613|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.306|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.65|1.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2||1.11|0.65|0.306
90974367|NCT04669678|181831613|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.874|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6|1.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4||1.09|0.60|0.874
90974368|NCT04669678|181831613|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.646|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8||1.19|0.91|0.646
90974369|NCT04669678|181831613|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.869|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.82|1.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12||1.28|0.82|0.869
90974370|NCT04669678|181831613|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.51||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.3|0.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2||0.88|0.30|0.044
90974371|NCT04669678|181831613|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.28|0.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4||0.46|0.28|<0.001
90974372|NCT04669678|181831613|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.27|0.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8||0.49|0.27|<0.001
90974373|NCT04669678|181831613|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.35|0.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12||0.54|0.35|<0.001
90974374|NCT04669678|181831614|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.641|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.57|2.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2||2.74|0.57|0.641
90974375|NCT04669678|181831614|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.57||||0.204|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|2.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4||2.80|0.87|0.204
90974376|NCT04669678|181831614|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.415|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.77|2.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8||2.15|0.77|0.415
90974377|NCT04669678|181831614|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.23||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.23|4.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12||4.06|1.23|0.027
90974378|NCT04669678|181831614|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.86||||0.274|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.73|4.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2||4.73|0.73|0.274
90974379|NCT04669678|181831614|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.83||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.07|3.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4||3.13|1.07|0.065
90974380|NCT04669678|181831614|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72||||0.252|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.79|3.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8||3.75|0.79|0.252
90974381|NCT04669678|181831614|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.61||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.57|4.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12||4.33|1.57|0.002
90974382|NCT04669678|181831614|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.46|1.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 20||1.34|0.46|0.460
90974383|NCT04669678|181831614|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.59||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.15|2.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24||2.20|1.15|0.019
90974384|NCT04669678|181831614|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.16||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1|4.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2||4.27|1.10|0.061
90974385|NCT04669678|181831614|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.64||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.99|2.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4||2.71|0.99|0.106
90974386|NCT04669678|181831614|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77||||0.144|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|3.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8||3.36|0.93|0.144
90974387|NCT04669678|181831614|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.37||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.36|4.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12||4.16|1.36|0.011
90974388|NCT02634580|181831617|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-39.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.93|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.23|-31.48||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Ezetimibe|||-31.48|-47.23|<0.0001
90974389|NCT02634580|181831618|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-40.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.26|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.68|-31.6||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Ezetimibe|||-31.60|-48.68|< 0.0001
90974390|NCT02634580|181831619|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-77.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-93.9|-61.3||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Ezetimibe|||-61.3|-93.9|<0.0001
90974391|NCT02634580|181831620|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-79.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.7|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-96.7|-62.0||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Ezetimibe|||-62.0|-96.7|<0.0001
90974392|NCT02634580|181831621|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|56.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.1|70.7||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted by the stratification factor (screening LDL-C level).|Evolocumab - Ezetimibe|||70.70|34.10|<0.0001
90974393|NCT02634580|181831622|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|52.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.36|67.52||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted by the stratification factor (screening LDL-C level).|Evolocumab - Ezetimibe|||67.52|30.36|< 0.0001
91050440|NCT04168190|181987007|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|23.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.64|65.82|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 23B||65.82|8.64|
90974394|NCT02634580|181831623|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-25.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.68|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.8|-20.08||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Ezetimibe|||-20.08|-30.80|<0.0001
90974395|NCT02634580|181831624|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-25.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.89|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.63|-20.04||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Ezetimibe|||-20.04|-31.63|<0.0001
90974396|NCT02634580|181831625|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-33.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.42|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.38|-26.68||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Ezetimibe|||-26.68|-40.38|< 0.0001
90974397|NCT02634580|181831626|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-33.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.75|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.94|-25.94||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Ezetimibe|||-25.94|-40.94|<0.0001
90974398|NCT02634580|181831627|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-35.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.31|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.3|-29.04||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Ezetimibe|||-29.04|-42.30|< 0.0001
90974399|NCT02634580|181831628|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-36.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.68|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.98|-29.22||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Ezetimibe|||-29.22|-43.98|<0.0001
90943851|NCT00551135|181766874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.177|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 9 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline VAS score and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.1770
90943852|NCT00551135|181766874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4882|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 9 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline VAS score and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.4882
90943853|NCT00551135|181766875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7936|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Baseline; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline item score and basline PCS (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.7936
90943854|NCT00551135|181766875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5092|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Baseline; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline item score and basline PCS (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.5092
90943855|NCT00551135|181766875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4233|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Baseline; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline item score and basline PCS (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.4233
90943856|NCT00551135|181766875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2033|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Change at EOT; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline item score and basline PCS (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.2033
90943857|NCT00551135|181766875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2142|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Change at EOT; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline item score and basline PCS (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.2142
90943858|NCT00551135|181766875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1218|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Change at EOT; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline item score and basline PCS (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.1218
90943859|NCT00551135|181766876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.083|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Total score change at 3 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0830
90943860|NCT00551135|181766876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2339|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Total score change at 3 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.2339
90943861|NCT00551135|181766876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0629|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Total score change at 3 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0629
90943862|NCT00551135|181766876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5721|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Total score change at EOT; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.5721
90974400|NCT02634580|181831629|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-28.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.32|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.26|-21.97||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Ezetimibe|||-21.97|-35.26|< 0.0001
90974401|NCT02634580|181831630|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-27.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.47|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.0|-20.09||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Ezetimibe|||-20.09|-34.00|< 0.0001
90974402|NCT02634580|181831631|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-37.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.28|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.65|-30.5||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Ezetimibe|||-30.50|-43.65|<0.0001
90974403|NCT02634580|181831632|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-36.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.54|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.39|-29.2||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Ezetimibe|||-29.20|-43.39|<0.0001
90974404|NCT02634580|181831633|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-31.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.34|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.83|-20.43||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Ezetimibe|||-20.43|-41.83|<0.0001
90974405|NCT02634580|181831634|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-31.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.57|-18.84||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Ezetimibe|||-18.84|-43.57|<0.0001
90974406|NCT02634580|181831635|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|3.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.31||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.15|18.13||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Ezetimibe|||18.13|-11.15|0.63
90974407|NCT02634580|181831636|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|11.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.52||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.29|30.87||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Ezetimibe|||30.87|-7.29|0.22
90974408|NCT02634580|181831637|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|7.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.08||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|14.14||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Ezetimibe|||14.14|1.78|0.012
90974409|NCT02634580|181831638|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|5.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|12.0||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Ezetimibe|||12.00|-0.82|0.086
90974410|NCT02634580|181831639|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.26||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.22|13.87||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Ezetimibe|||13.87|-15.22|0.93
90974411|NCT02634580|181831640|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|7.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.88||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.15|27.43||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Ezetimibe|||27.43|-12.15|0.44
90974412|NCT02653768|181831655|OTHER|As noted above, a statistical test was not specified at this time point. Rather, the data for all time points were included in the model and are presented here descriptively.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|-2.0||||||This analysis of between-group difference in change from baseline to 3-month follow-up. We have not included a p-value because there was no pre-specified hypothesis for this time point. Rather, these are additional data obtained from the overall model, for which the 9-month time point was primary and included a pre-specified hypothesis.||-2.0|-8.2|
90974413|NCT02653768|181831655|OTHER|As noted above, a statistical test was not specified at this time point. Rather, the data for all time points were included in the model and are presented here descriptively.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|2.3||||||This is the analysis of between-group difference in change from baseline to 6-month follow-up. We have not included a p-value because there was no pre-specified hypothesis for this time point. Rather, these are additional data obtained from the overall model, for which the 9-month time point was primary and included a pre-specified hypothesis.||2.3|-5.2|
90974414|NCT02653768|181831655|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.8||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|-3.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the analysis of between-group difference in change from baseline to 9-month follow-up. This is the primary outcome assessment time point.||-3.2|-10.5|0.0003
90974415|NCT02653768|181831656|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the analysis between-group difference in change from baseline to 9-month follow-up for the 30 second chair stand.||1.3|-0.6|0.43
90974416|NCT02653768|181831657|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.5|-6.1|0.23
90974417|NCT01970176|181831663|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8
90974418|NCT01970176|181831664|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.25
90974419|NCT01970176|181831665|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.32
90974420|NCT01562548|181831732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Means Difference|-0.21||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|0.8||P-value was associated with t-test for difference of LS means|t-test, 2 sided|The model included factors for treatment (as a fixed effect) and site (as a random effect).|Least Square mean from Mixed Model including factors for treatment (as a fixed effect) and site (as a random effect). Difference was First named treatment - second named treatment|Null hypotheses was tested as: H01: There was no difference in the mean change from baseline of muscle spasm score between Guaifenesin 600mg and placebo. H02: There was no difference in the mean change from baseline of muscle spasm score between Guaifenesin 1200mg and placebo. H03: There was no difference in the mean change from baseline of muscle spasm score between Guaifenesin 1200mg and Guaifenesin 600mg.||0.80|-1.23|0.68
90974421|NCT01562548|181831732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Means Difference|0.35||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|1.42||P-value associated with t-test for difference of LS means|t-test, 2 sided||Least Square mean from Mixed Model including factors for treatment (as a fixed effect) and site (as a random effect). Difference was First named treatment - second named treatment|Null hypotheses was tested as: H01: There was no difference in the mean change from baseline of muscle spasm score between Guaifenesin 600mg and placebo. H02: There was no difference in the mean change from baseline of muscle spasm score between Guaifenesin 1200mg and placebo. H03: There was no difference in the mean change from baseline of muscle spasm score between Guaifenesin 1200mg and Guaifenesin 600mg.||1.42|-0.72|0.52
90974422|NCT01562548|181831732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Means Difference|0.24||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|1.13||P-value associated with t-test for difference of LS means|t-test, 2 sided||Least Square mean from Mixed Model including factors for treatment (as a fixed effect) and site (as a random effect). Difference was Second named treatment - first named treatment|Null hypotheses was tested as: H01: There was no difference in the mean change from baseline of muscle spasm score between Guaifenesin 600mg and placebo. H02: There was no difference in the mean change from baseline of muscle spasm score between Guaifenesin 1200mg and placebo. H03: There was no difference in the mean change from baseline of muscle spasm score between Guaifenesin 1200mg and Guaifenesin 600mg.||1.13|-0.64|0.58
90974423|NCT02161211|181831746|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.673|||||||Chi-squared|df = 2||Null hypothesis = no difference in frequency in relapse between groups||||.673
90974424|NCT02161211|181831747|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi-squared|-0.278||||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.084|||Wald Chi-squared|Negative binomial regression with offset of natural log of possible drinking days||||.084|-.64|.133
90974425|NCT02161211|181831747|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi-squared|0.101||||0.562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.44|||Wald Chi-squared|||||.44|-.24|.562
90974426|NCT02161211|181831748|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.982|||||||ANOVA|F(2,105) = .019||||||.982
90974427|NCT02161211|181831749|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.685|||||||Chi-squared|||Null hypothesis = no difference in proportion between the groups||||.685
90974428|NCT02161211|181831750|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.608|||||||Chi-squared|||Null hypothesis = no significant difference in frequency of hazardous drinking between groups||||.608
90974429|NCT01703858|181831751|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means (gMeans) with acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%|Ratio of Geometric means (%)|98.68|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.0||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.501|105.272|||ANOVA|Relative bioavailability was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means. CIs were calculated based on the residual error.|Analysis of variance includes the effects: sequence, subjects nested within sequences, period and treatment in crossover; subject and treatment in fixed sequence. Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient of variation.|B : BI-113608 vs. A : BI-113608 - Comparison with oral solution||105.272|92.501|0.0000
90974430|NCT01703858|181831751|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means (gMeans) with acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%|Ratio of Geometric means (%)|70.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|18.3||0.9644|TWO_SIDED|90.0|62.331|78.962|||ANOVA|Relative bioavailability was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means. CIs were calculated based on the residual error.|Analysis of variance includes the effects: sequence, subjects nested within sequences, period and treatment in crossover; subject and treatment in fixed sequence. Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient of variation.|C : BI-113608 vs. B : BI-113608 - Food effect||78.962|62.331|0.9644
90974431|NCT01703858|181831751|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means (gMeans) with acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%|Ratio of Geometric means (%)|83.36|STANDARD_DEVIATION|18.8||0.2835|TWO_SIDED|90.0|73.648|94.346|||ANOVA|Relative bioavailability was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means. CIs were calculated based on the residual error.|Analysis of variance includes the effects: sequence, subjects nested within sequences, period and treatment in crossover; subject and treatment in fixed sequence. Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient of variation.|E : BI-113608 vs. B : BI-113608 - Food effect||94.346|73.648|0.2835
90943863|NCT00551135|181766876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9713|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Total score change at EOT; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.9713
90974432|NCT01703858|181831751|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means (gMeans) with acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%|Ratio of Geometric means (%)|117.18|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.7||0.1599|TWO_SIDED|90.0|104.923|130.867|||ANOVA|Relative bioavailability was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means. CIs were calculated based on the residual error.|Analysis of variance includes the effects: sequence, subjects nested within sequences, period and treatment in crossover; subject and treatment in fixed sequence. Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient of variation.|E : BI-113608 vs. C : BI-113608 - Food effect||130.867|104.923|0.1599
90974433|NCT01703858|181831751|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means (gMeans) with acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%|Ratio of Geometric means (%)|97.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.8||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.072|107.719|||ANOVA|Relative bioavailability was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means. CIs were calculated based on the residual error.|Analysis of variance includes the effects: sequence, subjects nested within sequences, period and treatment in crossover; subject and treatment in fixed sequence. Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient of variation.|D : BI-113608 vs. B : BI-113608 - Pantoprazole effect||107.719|88.072|0.0020
90974434|NCT01703858|181831752|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means (gMeans) with acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%|Ratio of Geometric means (%)|89.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|25.3||0.1261|TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.893|104.973|||ANOVA|Relative bioavailability was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means. CIs were calculated based on the residual error.|Analysis of variance includes the effects: sequence, subjects nested within sequences, period and treatment in crossover; subject and treatment in fixed sequence. Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient of variation.|B : BI-113608 vs. A : BI-113608 - Comparison with oral solution||104.973|75.893|0.1261
90974435|NCT01703858|181831752|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means (gMeans) with acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%|Ratio of Geometric means (%)|54.57|STANDARD_DEVIATION|47.4||0.9808|TWO_SIDED|90.0|40.711|73.157|||ANOVA|Relative bioavailability was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means. CIs were calculated based on the residual error.|Analysis of variance includes the effects: sequence, subjects nested within sequences, period and treatment in crossover; subject and treatment in fixed sequence. Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient of variation.|C : BI-113608 vs. B : BI-113608 - Food effect||73.157|40.711|0.9808
91036766|NCT00862563|181960107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.01 is considered to be significant|Mixed Models Analysis|p value is for the group x time interaction effect||Data were analyzed using two-way repeated measures mixed models analysis. It was hypothesized that Digit span scores would change towards a downward direction for the zonisamide as compared to the placebo group resulting in significant treatment x time interaction.||||0.07
91036767|NCT00862563|181960107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.01 is considered to be significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|p value shown is for the group X time interaction effect.||Data were analyzed using two-way repeated measures mixed models analysis. It was hypothesized that age adjusted Digit Span scores would change towards a downward direction for the topiramate as compared to the placebo group resulting in significant treatment x time interaction.||||<0.0001
91036768|NCT00862563|181960107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.01 is considered to be significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|p value shown is for the group x time interaction effect.||Data were analyzed using two-way repeated measures mixed models analysis. It was hypothesized that Digit span scores would change towards a downward direction for the levetiracetam as compared to the placebo group resulting in significant treatment x time interaction.||||0.95
91036769|NCT00862563|181960108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.01 is considered to be significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|p value shown is for the group x time effect.||Data were analyzed using two-way repeated measures mixed models analysis. It was hypothesized that Spatial Span scores would change towards a downward direction for the zonisamide as compared to the placebo group resulting in significant treatment x time interaction.||||0.038
90943864|NCT00551135|181766876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4809|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Total score change at EOT; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.4809
90943865|NCT00551135|181766876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1561|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Rumination change at 3 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.1561
90943866|NCT00551135|181766876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5267|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Rumination change at 3 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.5267
90974436|NCT01703858|181831752|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means (gMeans) with acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%|Ratio of Geometric means (%)|94.88|STANDARD_DEVIATION|43.2||0.1449|TWO_SIDED|90.0|72.175|124.731|||ANOVA|Relative bioavailability was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means. CIs were calculated based on the residual error.|Analysis of variance includes the effects: sequence, subjects nested within sequences, period and treatment in crossover; subject and treatment in fixed sequence. Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient of variation.|E : BI-113608 vs. B : BI-113608 - Food effect||124.731|72.175|0.1449
90974437|NCT01703858|181831752|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means (gMeans) with acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%|Ratio of Geometric means (%)|169.46|STANDARD_DEVIATION|49.7||0.9463|TWO_SIDED|90.0|124.093|231.419|||ANOVA|Relative bioavailability was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means. CIs were calculated based on the residual error.|Analysis of variance includes the effects: sequence, subjects nested within sequences, period and treatment in crossover; subject and treatment in fixed sequence. Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient of variation.|E : BI-113608 vs. C : BI-113608 - Food effect||231.419|124.093|0.9463
90974438|NCT01703858|181831752|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means (gMeans) with acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%|Ratio of Geometric means (%)|81.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|33.3||0.4564|TWO_SIDED|90.0|65.811|99.848|||ANOVA|Relative bioavailability was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means. CIs were calculated based on the residual error.|Analysis of variance includes the effects: sequence, subjects nested within sequences, period and treatment in crossover; subject and treatment in fixed sequence. Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient of variation.|D : BI-113608 vs. B : BI-113608 - Pantoprazole effect||99.848|65.811|0.4564
90974439|NCT01703858|181831753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means (gMeans) with acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%|Ratio of Geometric means (%)|98.66|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.9||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.5|105.225|||ANOVA|Relative bioavailability was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means. CIs were calculated based on the residual error.|Analysis of variance includes the effects: sequence, subjects nested within sequences, period and treatment in crossover; subject and treatment in fixed sequence. Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient of variation.|B : BI-113608 vs. A : BI-113608 - Comparison with oral solution||105.225|92.500|0.0000
90974440|NCT01703858|181831753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means (gMeans) with acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%|Ratio of Geometric means (%)|70.24|STANDARD_DEVIATION|18.3||0.9635|TWO_SIDED|90.0|62.43|79.038|||ANOVA|Relative bioavailability was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means. CIs were calculated based on the residual error.|Analysis of variance includes the effects: sequence, subjects nested within sequences, period and treatment in crossover; subject and treatment in fixed sequence. Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient of variation.|C : BI-113608 vs. B : BI-113608 - Food effect||79.038|62.430|0.9635
90974441|NCT01703858|181831753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means (gMeans) with acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%|Ratio of Geometric means (%)|83.46|STANDARD_DEVIATION|18.7||0.2771|TWO_SIDED|90.0|73.774|94.412|||ANOVA|Relative bioavailability was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means. CIs were calculated based on the residual error.|Analysis of variance includes the effects: sequence, subjects nested within sequences, period and treatment in crossover; subject and treatment in fixed sequence. Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient of variation.|E : BI-113608 vs. B : BI-113608 - Food effect||94.412|73.774|0.2771
90974442|NCT01703858|181831753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means (gMeans) with acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%|Ratio of Geometric means (%)|117.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.6||0.1584|TWO_SIDED|90.0|104.958|130.787|||ANOVA|Relative bioavailability was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means. CIs were calculated based on the residual error.|Analysis of variance includes the effects: sequence, subjects nested within sequences, period and treatment in crossover; subject and treatment in fixed sequence. Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient of variation.|E : BI-113608 vs. C : BI-113608 - Food effect||130.787|104.958|0.1584
90974443|NCT01703858|181831753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means (gMeans) with acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%|Ratio of Geometric means (%)|97.41|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.8||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.066|107.741|||ANOVA|Relative bioavailability was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means. CIs were calculated based on the residual error.|Analysis of variance includes the effects: sequence, subjects nested within sequences, period and treatment in crossover; subject and treatment in fixed sequence. Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient of variation.|D : BI-113608 vs. B : BI-113608 - Pantoprazole effect||107.741|88.066|0.0020
90974444|NCT04673786|181831764|EQUIVALENCE|Predefined equivalence margin: -10% to 10%|Treatment difference (%) and 90% CI|2.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.23|4.32|||ANCOVA|Multiple imputation (MI) with the Missing at random (MAR) assumption was applied.||||4.32|-0.23|
91050441|NCT04168190|181987007|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|39.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.15|109.65|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 23B||109.65|14.15|
90974445|NCT04849780|181831781|NON_INFERIORITY|It was calculated that 80 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the two arms would have at least 80% power to detect a 5 points difference in mean change from baseline overall comfort. Sample size was determined using a 2-sided Satterthwaite t-test assuming unequal variances with an alpha level of 5%. A non-inferiority margin of -5 points was used.|Population Mean Difference|29.279|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.602|33.732|||Bootstrapping methods||Population Mean difference was calculated as Arm 1 minus Arm 2|||33.732|24.602|
90974446|NCT04849780|181831782|NON_INFERIORITY|Sample size was determined based on the primary hypothesis only. A non-inferiority margin of 3 points was used.|LS Mean|-10.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|-8.6|||Heterogeneous Mixed model analysis|The Kenward and Roger method was used for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as Arm 1 minus Arm 2 (subjects' own contact lens)|||-8.6|-12.7|
90974447|NCT04849780|181831783|NON_INFERIORITY|Sample size was determined based on the primary hypothesis only. A non-inferiority margin of -5 points was used.|LS Mean|25.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.0|32.9|||Heterogeneous Mixed model analysis|The Kenward and Roger method was used for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as Arm 2 (senofilcon A), minus Arm 2 (subjects' own contact lens)|||32.9|19.0|
90974448|NCT04849780|181831784|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 3 points was used.|LS Mean|-8.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|-7.0|||Heterogeneous mixed model analysis||Mean difference was calculated as Arm 2 (senofilcon A) minus Arm 2 (subjects' own contact lens)|||-7.0|-10.1|
90974449|NCT00725075|181831785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Change From Baseline|-2.26||||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.25|1.74|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with the baseline value as covariate and with treatment group and center as fixed factors||Comparison of Mean Change in Baseline: Least Squared Estimates with Statistical Inference.||1.74|-6.25|0.267
90974450|NCT00725075|181831785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Change From Baseline|-0.08||||0.966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.91|3.74|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with the baseline value as covariate and with treatment group and center as fixed factors||Comparison of Mean Change in Baseline: Least Squared Estimates with Statistical Inference.||3.74|-3.91|0.966
90974451|NCT02340663|181831801|OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.23
90974452|NCT02340663|181831802|OTHER|||||||0.045|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.045
90974453|NCT02340663|181831803|OTHER|||||||0.665|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.665
90974454|NCT02340663|181831804|OTHER|||||||0.249|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.249
90974455|NCT02340663|181831805|OTHER|||||||0.626|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.626
90974456|NCT02340663|181831806|OTHER|||||||0.695|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.695
90974457|NCT02340663|181831807|OTHER|||||||0.255|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.255
90974458|NCT02340663|181831808|OTHER|||||||0.049|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.049
90974459|NCT02340663|181831811|OTHER|||||||0.75|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.750
90974460|NCT02340663|181831812|OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The P-value given is the computed value|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.01
90974461|NCT02340663|181831813|OTHER|||||||0.544|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.544
90974462|NCT02340663|181831814|OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.220
90974463|NCT02340663|181831815|OTHER|||||||0.081|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.081
90974464|NCT02340663|181831816|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.0
90974465|NCT02340663|181831817|OTHER|||||||0.731|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.731
90974466|NCT02340663|181831818|OTHER|||||||0.238|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.238
90974467|NCT02340663|181831819|OTHER|||||||0.952||||||"The P-value refers to the difference in group means, see Group Means row in the table."|ANOVA|||||||0.952
90974468|NCT02340663|181831820|OTHER|||||||0.53||||||"The P-value refers to the difference in group means, see Group Means row in the table."|ANOVA|||||||0.53
90974469|NCT02340663|181831821|OTHER|||||||0.292||||||"The P-value refers to the difference in group means, see Group Means row in the table."|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.292
90974470|NCT02340663|181831822|OTHER|||||||0.289|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The P-value refers to the main effect of treatment group, i.e., differences between SOVA bite splints and Michigan bite splints.||||0.289
90974471|NCT02340663|181831823|OTHER|||||||0.287||||||The P-value refers to the main effect of treatment group, i.e., differences between SOVA bite splints and Michigan bite splints.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.287
90974472|NCT02340663|181831824|OTHER|||||||0.505||||||The P-value refers to the main effect of treatment group, i.e., differences between SOVA bite splints and Michigan bite splints.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.505
90974473|NCT02340663|181831825|OTHER|||||||0.643||||||The P-value refers to the main effect of treatment group, i.e., differences between SOVA bite splints and Michigan bite splints.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.643
90974474|NCT02340663|181831826|OTHER|||||||0.923||||||The P-value refers to the main effect of treatment group, i.e., differences between SOVA bite splints and Michigan bite splints.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.923
90974475|NCT03694925|181831868|OTHER||Specificity|0.871|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Specificity was calculated using 2x2 tables using \>14 mg/L cut off. The numerator is the number of the true negatives and the denominator is the number of total negatives.|||||
90974476|NCT03694925|181831868|OTHER||Specificity|0.957|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Specificity was calculated using 2x2 tables using \>50 mg/L cut off. The numerator is the number of the true negatives and the denominator is the number of total negatives.|||||
90974477|NCT03694925|181831868|OTHER||Sensitivity|0.981|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Sensitivity was calculated using 2x2 tables using \>14 mg/L cut off. Sensitivity is the number of true positives over the number of total positives.|||||
90974478|NCT03694925|181831868|OTHER||Sensitivity|0.981|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Sensitivity was calculated using 2x2 tables using \>50 mg/L cut off. Sensitivity is the number of true positives over the number of total positives.|||||
90974479|NCT03694925|181831868|OTHER||Positive predictive value|0.852|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Positive predictive value was calculated using 2x2 tables using \>14 mg/L cut off. The numerator is the septic positives and the denominator are the total positives.|||||
90974480|NCT03694925|181831868|OTHER||Positive predictive value|0.945|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Positive predictive value was calculated using 2x2 tables using \>50mg/L cut off. The numerator is the septic positives and the denominator are the total positives.|||||
90974481|NCT03694925|181831868|OTHER||Negative predictive value|0.984|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Negative predictive value was calculated using 2x2 tables using \>14 mg/L cut off. The numerator is the aseptic negatives and the denominator is the number of total negatives.|||||
90974482|NCT03694925|181831868|OTHER||Negative predictive value|0.985|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Negative predictive value was calculated using 2x2 tables using \>50 mg/L cut off. The numerator is the aseptic negatives and the denominator is the number of total negatives.|||||
90974483|NCT03694925|181831869|OTHER||Specificity|0.829|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Specificity was calculated using 2x2 tables using \>14 mg/L cut off. The numerator is the number of the number of aseptic negatives and the denominator is the number of aseptics.|||||
90974484|NCT03694925|181831869|OTHER||Specificity|0.957|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Specificity was calculated using 2x2 tables using \>50 mg/L cut off. The numerator is the number of the number of aseptic negatives and the denominator is the number of aseptics.|||||
90974485|NCT03694925|181831869|OTHER||Sensitivity|0.981|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Sensitivity was calculated using 2x2 tables using \>14 mg/L cut off. Sensitivity is the number of septic positives over the number of septics.|||||
90974486|NCT03694925|181831869|OTHER||Sensitivity|0.981|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Sensitivity was calculated using 2x2 tables using \>50 mg/L cut off. Sensitivity is the number of septic positives over the number of septics.|||||
90974487|NCT03694925|181831869|OTHER||Positive predictive value|0.813|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Positive predictive value was calculated using 2x2 tables using \>14 mg/L cut off. The numerator is the septic positives and the denominator are the total positives.|||||
90974488|NCT03694925|181831869|OTHER||Positive predictive value|0.945|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Positive predictive value was calculated using 2x2 tables using \>50mg/L cut off. The numerator is the septic positives and the denominator are the total positives.|||||
90974489|NCT03694925|181831869|OTHER||Negative predictive value|0.983|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Negative predictive value was calculated using 2x2 tables using \>14 mg/L cut off. The numerator is the aseptic negatives and the denominator is the number of total negatives.|||||
90974490|NCT03694925|181831869|OTHER||Negative predictive value|0.985|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Negative predictive value was calculated using 2x2 tables using \>50 mg/L cut off. The numerator is the aseptic negatives and the denominator is the number of total negatives.||Negative predictive value was calculated using 2x2 tables using \>50 mg/L cut off. NPV=98.5%|||
90974491|NCT01459705|181831876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-22.34|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.69|||ONE_SIDED|||||||||||||
90974492|NCT01459705|181831876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-13.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.77|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90974493|NCT01459705|181831876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|9.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.11|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90974494|NCT01459705|181831877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|15.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.03|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90974495|NCT01459705|181831878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|13.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.7|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90974496|NCT00848354|181832022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test, stratified by country, was used to calculate p-value. Assuming ACR50 response at Week 24 to be 23% in the DMARD combination therapy group and 37% in the etanercept + methotrexate group, a study enrolling 276 participants assigned to etanercept + methotrexate and 138 participants assigned to DMARD combination therapy has 80% power to reject the null hypothesis of no difference in response rates testing at the type I error = 0.05 level.||||<0.0001
90974497|NCT00848354|181832023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value.||||<0.0001
90974498|NCT00848354|181832024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for vitality domain at Week 24.||||0.0003
90974499|NCT00848354|181832024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for mental component at Week 24.||||0.0002
90974500|NCT00848354|181832024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for physical component at Week 24.||||<0.0001
90974501|NCT00848354|181832025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model on ranks of change in mTSS with treatment group and center main effects and the Baseline rank as covariate was used to calculate p-value.||||0.0270
91050442|NCT04168190|181987007|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|19.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.03|43.74|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 24F||43.74|9.03|
90974502|NCT00848354|181832026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-values. ANCOVA was ran at each time-point shown, however as p-values obtained were identical, only one p-value is presented (which is applicable to each time-point - Week 2, Week 4, Week 8, Week 12, Week 16, Week 20, and Week 24 - independently).||||<0.0001
90974503|NCT00848354|181832029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.25|18.2||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 2.||18.2|2.25|<0.0001
90974504|NCT00848354|181832029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.62|9.49||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 4.||9.49|2.62|<0.0001
90974505|NCT00848354|181832029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.19|5.94||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 8.||5.94|2.19|<0.0001
90974506|NCT00848354|181832029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.57|6.53||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 12.||6.53|2.57|<0.0001
90974507|NCT00848354|181832029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.93|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.51|6.16||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 16.||6.16|2.51|<0.0001
90974508|NCT00848354|181832029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.46|5.93||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 20.||5.93|2.46|<0.0001
90974509|NCT00848354|181832029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.41|8.53||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 24.||8.53|3.41|<0.0001
90974510|NCT00848354|181832031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.84|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.37|6.21||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 2.||6.21|2.37|<0.0001
90974511|NCT00848354|181832031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.19|5.11||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 4.||5.11|2.19|<0.0001
90974512|NCT00848354|181832031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|4.43||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 8.||4.43|1.90|<0.0001
90974513|NCT00848354|181832031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.06|4.96||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 12.||4.96|2.06|<0.0001
90974514|NCT00848354|181832031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.91|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.46|6.21||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 16.||6.21|2.46|<0.0001
90974515|NCT00848354|181832031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.45|6.22||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 20.||6.22|2.45|<0.0001
90974516|NCT00848354|181832031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.94|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.13|7.78||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 24.||7.78|3.13|<0.0001
90974517|NCT00848354|181832033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.19||||0.1086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|40.9||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 2.||40.9|0.66|0.1086
90974518|NCT00848354|181832033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.58||||0.0392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|12.3||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 4.||12.3|1.04|0.0392
90974519|NCT00848354|181832033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.04|13.6||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 8.||13.6|2.04|<0.0001
90974520|NCT00848354|181832033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.39|13.6||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 12.||13.6|2.39|<0.0001
90974521|NCT00848354|181832033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|7.09||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 16.||7.09|2.02|<0.0001
90974522|NCT00848354|181832033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|6.6||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 20.||6.60|2.02|<0.0001
90974523|NCT00848354|181832033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.36|7.46||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 24.||7.46|2.36|<0.0001
90974524|NCT00848354|181832035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-values. ANCOVA was ran at each time-point shown, however as p-values obtained were identical, only one p-value is presented (which is applicable to each time-point - Week 2, Week 4, Week 8, Week 12, Week 16, Week 20, and Week 24 - independently).||||<0.0001
90974525|NCT00848354|181832037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.88|10.0||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value.||10.00|3.88|<0.0001
90974526|NCT00848354|181832038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.49|17.39||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value.||17.39|3.49|<0.0001
90974527|NCT00848354|181832039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.24|5.46||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 2.||5.46|2.24|<0.0001
90974528|NCT00848354|181832039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.91|8.55||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 4.||8.55|2.91|<0.0001
90974529|NCT00848354|181832039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.94|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.93|12.02||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 8.||12.02|2.93|<0.0001
90974530|NCT00848354|181832039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.27|9.21||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 12.||9.21|2.27|<0.0001
90974531|NCT00848354|181832039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.74|13.48||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 16.||13.48|2.74|<0.0001
90974532|NCT00848354|181832039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|15.72||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 20.||15.72|3.00|<0.0001
90974533|NCT00848354|181832039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.74|15.63||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 24.||15.63|3.74|<0.0001
90974534|NCT00848354|181832041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.04|4.86||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 2.||4.86|2.04|<0.0001
90974535|NCT00848354|181832041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.85|6.82||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 4.||6.82|2.85|<0.0001
90974536|NCT00848354|181832041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|6.38||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 8.||6.38|2.50|<0.0001
90974537|NCT00848354|181832041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.37|6.41||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 12.||6.41|2.37|<0.0001
90974538|NCT00848354|181832041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.19|9.76||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 16.||9.76|3.19|<0.0001
90974539|NCT00848354|181832041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.16|9.52||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 20.||9.52|3.16|<0.0001
90974540|NCT00848354|181832041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.87|11.21||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 24.||11.21|3.87|<0.0001
90974541|NCT00848354|181832043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|5.4||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 2.||5.40|2.30|<0.0001
90974542|NCT00848354|181832043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.07|7.71||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 4.||7.71|3.07|<0.0001
90974543|NCT00848354|181832043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.98|8.41||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 8.||8.41|2.98|<0.0001
90974544|NCT00848354|181832043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.55|7.58||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 12.||7.58|2.55|<0.0001
90974545|NCT00848354|181832043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.15|10.74||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 16.||10.74|3.15|<0.0001
90974546|NCT00848354|181832043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.25|11.73||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 20.||11.73|3.25|<0.0001
90974547|NCT00848354|181832043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.67|11.33||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 24.||11.33|3.67|<0.0001
90974548|NCT00848354|181832045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.09||||0.0349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|9.13||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 2.||9.13|1.05|0.0349
90974549|NCT00848354|181832045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.98|7.6||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 4.||7.60|1.98|<0.0001
90974550|NCT00848354|181832045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|5.88||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 8.||5.88|2.10|<0.0001
90974551|NCT00848354|181832045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|5.06||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 12.||5.06|2.02|<0.0001
90974552|NCT00848354|181832045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.78|6.96||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 16.||6.96|2.78|<0.0001
90974553|NCT00848354|181832045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|6.9||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 20.||6.90|2.80|<0.0001
90974554|NCT00848354|181832045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.82|9.85||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 24.||9.85|3.82|<0.0001
90974555|NCT00848354|181832047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.74|6.6||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 2.||6.60|2.74|<0.0001
90974556|NCT00848354|181832047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.94|7.18||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 4.||7.18|2.94|<0.0001
90974557|NCT00848354|181832047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.15|8.61||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 8.||8.61|3.15|<0.0001
90974558|NCT00848354|181832047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.77|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.36|9.93||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 12.||9.93|3.36|<0.0001
90974559|NCT00848354|181832047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.91|13.09||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 16.||13.09|3.91|<0.0001
90974560|NCT00848354|181832047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.43|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|15.8||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 20.||15.80|4.50|<0.0001
90974561|NCT00848354|181832047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|10.47||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 24.||10.47|3.50|<0.0001
90974562|NCT00848354|181832049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.4||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|56.88||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 2.||56.88|0.96|0.0250
90974563|NCT00848354|181832049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.33||||0.0466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|5.45||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 4.||5.45|1.00|0.0466
90974564|NCT00848354|181832049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.84||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|5.36||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 8.||5.36|1.50|0.0007
90974565|NCT00848354|181832049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.97|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|5.18||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 12.||5.18|1.70|<0.0001
90974566|NCT00848354|181832049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.85|5.05||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 16.||5.05|1.85|<0.0001
90974567|NCT00848354|181832049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.47|6.87||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 20.||6.87|2.47|<0.0001
90974568|NCT00848354|181832049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.72|11.38||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 24.||11.38|3.72|<0.0001
90974569|NCT00848354|181832051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3054||||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 2.||||0.3054
90974570|NCT00848354|181832051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.09||||0.4044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|7.53||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 4.||7.53|0.58|0.4044
90974571|NCT00848354|181832051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.53||||0.0388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|6.26||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 8.||6.26|1.02|0.0388
90974572|NCT00848354|181832051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.89||||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|6.34||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 12.||6.34|1.31|0.0059
90974573|NCT00848354|181832051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.99|9.29||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 16.||9.29|1.99|<0.0001
90974574|NCT00848354|181832051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.94|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.88|12.24||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 20.||12.24|2.88|<0.0001
90974575|NCT00848354|181832051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.61|23.32||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 24.||23.32|3.61|<0.0001
90974576|NCT00848354|181832053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.4||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|56.88||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 2.||56.88|0.96|0.0250
90974577|NCT00848354|181832053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.33||||0.0466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|5.45||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 4.||5.45|1.00|0.0466
90974578|NCT00848354|181832053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.84||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|5.36||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 8.||5.36|1.50|0.0007
90974579|NCT00848354|181832053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.97|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|5.18||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 12.||5.18|1.70|<0.0001
90974580|NCT00848354|181832053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.85|5.05||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 16.||5.05|1.85|<0.0001
90974581|NCT00848354|181832053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.47|6.87||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 20.||6.87|2.47|<0.0001
90974582|NCT00848354|181832053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.72|11.38||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 24.||11.38|3.72|<0.0001
90974583|NCT00848354|181832055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|7.07||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 2.||7.07|2.90|<0.0001
90974584|NCT00848354|181832055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.36|6.8||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 4.||6.80|2.36|<0.0001
90974585|NCT00848354|181832055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.82|9.72||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 8.||9.72|2.82|<0.0001
91036770|NCT00862563|181960108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.01 is considered to be significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|p value shown is for the group x time interaction effect.||Data were analyzed using two-way repeated measures mixed models analysis. It was hypothesized that Digit span scores would change towards a downward direction for the topiramate as compared to the placebo group resulting in significant treatment x time interaction.||||0.0025
91036771|NCT00862563|181960108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.01 is considered to be significant|Mixed Models Analysis|p value shown is for the group x time interaction effect.||Data were analyzed using two-way repeated measures mixed models analysis. It was hypothesized that Digit span scores would change towards a downward direction for the levetiracetam as compared to the placebo group resulting in significant treatment x time interaction.||||0.3
90974586|NCT00848354|181832055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.63|10.47||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 12.||10.47|2.63|<0.0001
90974587|NCT00848354|181832055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.16|13.48||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 16.||13.48|3.16|<0.0001
91036772|NCT02663349|181960117|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 14||Within sample analysis of change between baseline and 3 month assessment.||||.08
91036773|NCT02663349|181960118|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within sample change between baseline and 6 month assessment.||||.69
91036774|NCT02663349|181960119|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df=14||Within sample change assessed between baseline and 3-month assessment||||.02
90974588|NCT00848354|181832055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.86|18.17||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 20.||18.17|3.86|<0.0001
90974589|NCT00848354|181832055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.84|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.94|15.62||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 24.||15.62|3.94|<0.0001
90974590|NCT00848354|181832057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.67|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.35|5.73||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 2.||5.73|2.35|<0.0001
91036775|NCT02663349|181960120|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 14||Change between baseline and 6 month assessment||||.34
91036776|NCT02663349|181960121|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||completer analysis of change between baseline and 3-month assessment on the AIHQ Hostility scale||||>.05
91036777|NCT02663349|181960121|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Completer analysis to examine within group change between baseline and 3-month assessment on the AIHQ Aggression scale||||.04
91036778|NCT02663349|181960122|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||completer analysis of within group change on the AIHQ Hostility scale between baseline and the 6-month assessment||||>.05
91036779|NCT02663349|181960122|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||completer analysis of within group change on the AIHQ Aggression scale between baseline and the 6 month assessment||||> .05
91036780|NCT02663349|181960123|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 15||Change within group between baseline and 3 month assessment on the TASIT total score for part 3||||> .05
91036781|NCT02663349|181960124|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 15||within group change on the TASIT total score for Part 3 between baseline and the 6 month assessment||||> .05
91036782|NCT02663349|181960125|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 14||Within group change on SSPA Total Score between baseline and 3-month assessment||||>.05
91036783|NCT02663349|181960126|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 14||Within group change on the SSPA total score between baseline and 6 month assessment||||> .05
90943867|NCT00551135|181766876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1125|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Rumination change at 3 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.1125
90943868|NCT00551135|181766876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2965|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Rumination change at EOT; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.2965
90943869|NCT00551135|181766876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7774|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Rumination change at EOT; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.7774
90943870|NCT00551135|181766876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.399|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Rumination change at EOT; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.3990
90943871|NCT00551135|181766876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4465|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Magnification change at 3 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.4465
90943872|NCT00551135|181766876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4385|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Magnification change at 3 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.4385
90943873|NCT00551135|181766876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2265|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Magnification change at 3 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.2265
90943874|NCT00551135|181766876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5985|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Magnification change at EOT; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.5985
90943875|NCT00551135|181766876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2146|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Magnification change at EOT; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.2146
90943876|NCT00551135|181766876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3382|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Magnification change at EOT; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.3382
90943877|NCT00551135|181766876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.043|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Helplessness change at 3 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0430
90943878|NCT00551135|181766876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1128|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Helplessness change at 3 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.1128
90943879|NCT00551135|181766876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0632|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Helplessness change at 3 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0632
90943880|NCT00551135|181766876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8667|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Helplessness change at EOT; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.8667
90943881|NCT00551135|181766876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6365|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Helplessness change at EOT; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.6365
90943882|NCT00551135|181766876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9275|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Helplessness change at EOT; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.9275
90943883|NCT00551135|181766878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2136|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||PCSS at baseline; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects have were combined into pooled centers.||||0.2136
90943884|NCT00551135|181766878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0094|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||PCSS at baseline; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects have were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0094
90943885|NCT00551135|181766878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2131|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||PCSS at baseline; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects have were combined into pooled centers.||||0.2131
91036784|NCT02663349|181960127|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 15||Within group change on the First Episode Social Functioning Scale Performance Total score on scales 1-7 between baseline and 3-month follow-up||||> .05
91036785|NCT02663349|181960128|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 15||Within group change between baseline and 6-month assessment on the First Episode Social Functioning Scale Performance total score on scales 1-7||||> .05
90974591|NCT00848354|181832057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|7.22||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 4.||7.22|3.00|<0.0001
90974592|NCT00848354|181832057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.96|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.05|8.06||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 8.||8.06|3.05|<0.0001
90974593|NCT00848354|181832057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.18|8.96||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 12.||8.96|3.18|<0.0001
90974594|NCT00848354|181832057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.23|10.06||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 16.||10.06|3.23|<0.0001
90974595|NCT00848354|181832057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.88|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.37|14.2||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 20.||14.20|4.37|<0.0001
90974596|NCT00848354|181832057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|9.65||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 24.||9.65|3.40|<0.0001
90974597|NCT00848354|181832059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-values. ANCOVA was ran at each time-point shown, however as p-values obtained were identical, only one p-value is presented (which is applicable to each time-point - Week 2, Week 4, Week 8, Week 12, Week 16, Week 20, and Week 24 - independently).||||<0.0001
90974598|NCT00848354|181832061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-values. ANCOVA was ran at each time-point shown, however as p-values obtained were identical, only one p-value is presented (which is applicable to each time-point - Week 2, Week 4, Week 8, Week 12, Week 16, Week 20, and Week 24 - independently).||||<0.0001
90974599|NCT00848354|181832063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-values. ANCOVA was ran at each time-point shown, however as p-values obtained were identical, only one p-value is presented (which is applicable to each time-point - Week 2, Week 4, Week 8, Week 12, Week 16, Week 20, and Week 24 - independently).||||<0.0001
90974600|NCT00848354|181832065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-values. ANCOVA was ran at each time-point shown, however as p-values obtained were identical, only one p-value is presented (which is applicable to each time-point - Week 2, Week 4, Week 8, Week 12, Week 16, Week 20, and Week 24 - independently).||||<0.0001
90974601|NCT00848354|181832067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 2.||||<0.0001
90974602|NCT00848354|181832067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 4.||||0.0007
90974603|NCT00848354|181832067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 8.||||0.0009
90974604|NCT00848354|181832067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 12.||||0.0007
90974605|NCT00848354|181832067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 16.||||0.0005
90974606|NCT00848354|181832067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 20.||||<0.0001
91036786|NCT02663349|181960129|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 13||Within group change on the MCSS Collegial Support scale between Baseline and 3-Month assessments||||.15
91036787|NCT02663349|181960129|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 13||Within group change on the MCSS Task Support scale between baseline and 3-month assessments||||.10
91036788|NCT02663349|181960129|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 13||Within group change on the MCSS Mentor scale between baseline and the 3-month assessment||||>.05
91036789|NCT02663349|181960129|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 13||Within group change on the MCSS Coach scale between baseline and the 3 month assessment||||> .05
90974607|NCT00848354|181832067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 24.||||<0.0001
90974608|NCT00848354|181832069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-values. ANCOVA was ran at each time-point shown, however as p-values obtained were identical, only one p-value is presented (which is applicable to each time-point - Week 2, Week 4, Week 8, Week 12, Week 16, Week 20, and Week 24 - independently).||||<0.0001
90974609|NCT00848354|181832071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-values. ANCOVA was ran at each time-point shown, however as p-values obtained were identical, only one p-value is presented (which is applicable to each time-point - Week 2, Week 4, Week 8, Week 12, Week 16, Week 20, and Week 24 - independently).||||<0.0001
90974610|NCT00848354|181832073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-values. ANCOVA was ran at each time-point shown, however as p-values obtained were identical, only one p-value is presented (which is applicable to each time-point - Week 2, Week 4, Week 8, Week 12, Week 16, Week 20, and Week 24 - independently).||||<0.0001
90974611|NCT00848354|181832075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1975|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value.||||0.1975
90974612|NCT00848354|181832076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value.||||0.0044
90974613|NCT00848354|181832077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-values. ANCOVA was ran at each time-point shown, however as p-values obtained were identical, only one p-value is presented (which is applicable to each time-point - Week 2, Week 4, Week 8, Week 12, Week 16, Week 20, and Week 24 - independently).||||<0.0001
90974614|NCT00848354|181832079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 2.||||<0.0001
90974615|NCT00848354|181832079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 4.||||<0.0001
90974616|NCT00848354|181832079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 8.||||0.0002
90974617|NCT00848354|181832079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 12.||||0.0007
90974618|NCT00848354|181832079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 16.||||0.0001
90974619|NCT00848354|181832079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 20.||||<0.0001
90974620|NCT00848354|181832079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 24.||||0.0021
90974621|NCT00848354|181832080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 8.||||0.0001
90974622|NCT00848354|181832080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 16.||||<0.0001
90974623|NCT00848354|181832080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 24.||||0.0003
90974624|NCT00848354|181832082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 8.||||<0.0001
90974625|NCT00848354|181832082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0264|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 16.||||0.0264
90974626|NCT00848354|181832082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 24.||||0.0002
90974627|NCT00848354|181832084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 8.||||0.0005
90974628|NCT00848354|181832084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 16.||||<0.0001
90974629|NCT00848354|181832084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 24.||||<0.0001
90974630|NCT00848354|181832086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-values. ANCOVA was ran at each time-point shown, however as p-values obtained were identical, only one p-value is presented (which is applicable to each time-point - Week 8, Week 16, and Week 24 - independently).||||<0.0001
90974631|NCT00848354|181832087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 8.||||0.0061
90974632|NCT00848354|181832087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 16.||||0.0730
90974633|NCT00848354|181832087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 24.||||<0.0001
90974634|NCT00848354|181832088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0066|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 8.||||0.0066
90974635|NCT00848354|181832088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 16.||||0.0036
90974636|NCT00848354|181832088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 24.||||<0.0001
90974637|NCT00848354|181832089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 8.||||<0.0001
90974638|NCT00848354|181832089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 16.||||0.0013
90974639|NCT00848354|181832089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 24.||||0.0002
90974640|NCT00848354|181832090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 8.||||0.0021
90974641|NCT00848354|181832090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 16.||||<0.0001
91036790|NCT02663349|181960130|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 13||Within group change on the MCSS Collegial Support scale between baseline and the 6-month assessment||||.01
91036791|NCT02663349|181960130|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 13||Within group change on the MCSS Task Support scale between baseline and 6-month assessment||||.03
90974642|NCT00848354|181832090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 24.||||<0.0001
90974643|NCT00848354|181832091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 8.||||0.0062
90974644|NCT00848354|181832091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 16.||||0.0007
90974645|NCT00848354|181832091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 24.||||<0.0001
90974646|NCT00848354|181832092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 8.||||<0.0001
90943886|NCT00551135|181766878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3245|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||PCSS change at EOT; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects have were combined into pooled centers.||||0.3245
90974647|NCT00848354|181832092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0073|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 16.||||0.0073
90974648|NCT00848354|181832092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 24.||||<0.0001
90974649|NCT00915343|181832098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Period-adjusted quotient|0.806|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.753|0.862||Comparison of log S-cortisol AUC between OD and TID regimens was adjusted for both period effect and subject effect using generalized linear model (GLM) in statistical analysis system (SAS).|ANOVA||The quotient was defined as AUC0-24h for OD treatment divided by AUC0-24h for TID treatment.|||0.862|0.753|<0.0001
90974650|NCT00915343|181832099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean difference|-111.989|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-133.98|89.999|||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||||89.999|-133.980|<0.0001
90974651|NCT00915343|181832100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean difference|110.417||||0.0357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.755|204.078|||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||||204.078|16.755|0.0357
90974652|NCT00915343|181832101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean difference|-38.076|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.276|25.876|||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||||25.876|-50.276|<0.0001
90974653|NCT00915343|181832102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean difference|-65.782||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-109.201|22.362|||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||||22.362|-109.201|0.0033
90974654|NCT00915343|181832103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean difference|-148.015|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-189.469|-106.561|||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||||-106.561|-189.469|<0.0001
90974655|NCT00915343|181832104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean difference|-108.306|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-140.193|-76.42|||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||||-76.420|-140.193|<0.0001
90974656|NCT00915343|181832105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean difference|0.27||||0.0214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.028|0.512|||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||||0.512|0.028|0.0214
90974657|NCT00915343|181832106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean difference|-1.042||||0.0714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.098|0.015|||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||||0.015|-2.098|0.0714
90943887|NCT00551135|181766878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.407|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||PCSS change at EOT; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects have were combined into pooled centers.||||0.4070
90974658|NCT00915343|181832107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean difference|-0.007||||0.6687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.038|0.024|||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||||0.024|-0.038|0.6687
90974659|NCT00915343|181832108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean difference|0.049||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.006|0.093|||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||||0.093|0.006|0.0280
90974660|NCT00915343|181832109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean difference|5.509||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.751|10.268|||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||||10.268|0.751|0.0003
90974661|NCT00915343|181832110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean difference|-13.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.533|-7.067|||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||||-7.067|-20.533|<0.0001
90974662|NCT00915343|181832111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Period-adjusted quotient|1.064||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.032|1.097|||ANOVA||The quotient was defined as AUC0-4h for OD treatment divided by AUC0-4h for TID treatment.|AUC0-4h||1.097|1.032|0.0002
90974663|NCT00915343|181832111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Period-adjusted quotient|0.617|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.563|0.675|||ANOVA||The quotient was defined as AUC4-12h for OD treatment divided by AUC4-12h for TID treatment.|AUC4-12h||0.675|0.563|<0.0001
90974664|NCT00915343|181832111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Period-adjusted quotient|0.472|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.424|0.525|||ANOVA||The quotient was defined as AUC6-12h for OD treatment divided by AUC6-12h for TID treatment.|AUC6-12h||0.525|0.424|<0.0001
91036792|NCT02663349|181960130|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 13||Within group change on the MCSS Mentor scale between baseline and the 6-month assessment||||> .05
90974665|NCT00915343|181832111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Period-adjusted quotient|0.588||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.446|0.775|||ANOVA||The quotient was defined as AUC12-24h for OD treatment divided by AUC12-24h for TID treatment.|AUC12-24h||0.775|0.446|0.0003
90974666|NCT00915343|181832111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Period-adjusted quotient|0.894|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.856|0.935|||ANOVA||The quotient was defined as AUC0-10h for OD treatment divided by AUC0-10h for TID treatment.|AUC0-10h||0.935|0.856|<0.0001
90943888|NCT00551135|181766878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.349|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||PCSS change at EOT; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects have were combined into pooled centers.||||0.3490
90974667|NCT00915343|181832111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Period-adjusted quotient|0.695|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.632|0.765|||ANOVA||The quotient was defined as AUC4-10h for OD treatment divided by AUC4-10h for TID treatment.|AUC4-10h||0.765|0.632|<0.0001
90974668|NCT00915343|181832111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Period-adjusted quotient|0.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.482|0.605|||ANOVA||The quotient was defined as AUC6-10h for OD treatment divided by AUC6-10h for TID treatment.|AUC6-10h||0.605|0.482|<0.0001
90974669|NCT00915343|181832111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Period-adjusted quotient|0.412|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.338|0.504|||ANOVA||The quotient was defined as AUC10-24h for OD treatment divided by AUC10-24h for TID treatment.|AUC10-24h||0.504|0.338|<0.0001
90974670|NCT00915343|181832111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Period-adjusted quotient|0.776|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.714|0.843|||ANOVA||The quotient was defined as AUC(0-inf) for OD treatment divided by AUC(0-inf) for TID treatment.|AUC(0-inf)||0.843|0.714|<0.0001
90943889|NCT00551135|181766878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1122|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||MCSS at baseline; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects have were combined into pooled centers.||||0.1122
90943890|NCT00551135|181766878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.138|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||MCSS at baseline; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects have were combined into pooled centers.||||0.1380
90943891|NCT00551135|181766878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2023|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||MCSS at baseline; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects have were combined into pooled centers.||||0.2023
90943892|NCT00551135|181766878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2639|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||MCSS change at EOT; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects have were combined into pooled centers.||||0.2639
90943893|NCT00551135|181766878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2524|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||MCSS change at EOT; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects have were combined into pooled centers.||||0.2524
90943894|NCT00551135|181766878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0832|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||MCSS change at EOT; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects have were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0832
90943895|NCT00551135|181766879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2371|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 month PS.||||0.2371
90943896|NCT00551135|181766879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4435|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 month PS.||||0.4435
90943897|NCT00551135|181766879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1692|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 month PS.||||0.1692
90943898|NCT00551135|181766879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8169|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 month PS.||||0.8169
90974671|NCT00915343|181832111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Period-adjusted quotient|1.069||||0.877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.453|2.521|||ANOVA||The quotient was defined as AUC(24h-inf) for OD treatment divided by AUC(24h-inf) for TID treatment.|AUC(24h-inf)||2.521|0.453|0.8770
90974672|NCT00915343|181832112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Period-adjusted quotient|0.806|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.753|0.862|||ANOVA||The quotient was defined as AUCtau for OD treatment divided by AUCtau for TID treatment.|||0.862|0.753|<0.0001
90974673|NCT00915343|181832113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Period-adjusted quotient|0.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.734|0.851|||ANOVA||The quotient was defined as AUCtau/dose for OD treatment divided by AUCtau/dose for TID treatment.|||0.851|0.734|<0.0001
90974674|NCT00915343|181832114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Period-adjusted quotient|0.785|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.741|0.831|||ANOVA||The quotient was defined as AUC0-24h/dose for OD treatment divided by AUC0-24h/dose for TID treatment.|||0.831|0.741|<0.0001
90974675|NCT00915343|181832115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Period-adjusted quotient|0.885|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.844|0.926|||ANOVA||The quotient was defined as AUC0-10h/dose for OD treatment divided by AUC0-10h/dose for TID treatment.|||0.926|0.844|<0.0001
91036793|NCT02663349|181960130|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 13||Within group change on the MCSS Coach scale between baseline and the 6-month assessment||||> .05
90943899|NCT00551135|181766879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5592|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 month PS.||||0.5592
90943900|NCT00551135|181766879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4453|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 month PS.||||0.4453
90943901|NCT00551135|181766879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4795|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 month PS.||||0.4795
90943902|NCT00551135|181766879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2733|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 month PS.||||0.2733
90943903|NCT00551135|181766879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3173|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 month PS.||||0.3173
90943904|NCT04962698|181766888|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.00238||||||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.00238, which was adjusted from the original 0.05 as described below.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|The alpha value for p-value comparison was adjusted for 21 pair-wise comparisons (0.05/21 = 0.00238) across seven tasks.||||||>0.00238
90943905|NCT04962698|181766889|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90943906|NCT04962698|181766890|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028||||||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.028
90943907|NCT04962698|181766891|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.00231||||||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.00238, which was adjusted from the original 0.05 as described below.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|The alpha value for p-value comparison was adjusted for 21 pair-wise comparisons (0.05/21 = 0.00238) across seven tasks.||||||<0.00231
90943908|NCT04962698|181766892|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.002||||||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.00238, which was adjusted from the original 0.05 as described below.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|The alpha value for p-value comparison was adjusted for 21 pair-wise comparisons (0.05/21 = 0.00238) across seven tasks.||||||<0.0020
90943909|NCT00364377|181766899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired comparisons (within groups) to examine differences between the baseline study and after 8-weeks of treatment were made using Student's two-tailed t-test for paired samples. Between-group comparisons were made using Student's two-tailed t-test for unpaired samples. Given the previously observed variation in fasting glucose||||>0.05
90943910|NCT01006616|181766900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.031||||0.325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.091|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model with treatment, time, treatment by time interaction, and baseline smoking status (yes/no) and inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) use (yes/no)||||0.091|-0.030|0.325
90943911|NCT01006616|181766900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.029||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.091|0.034|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model with treatment, time, treatment by time interaction, and baseline smoking status (yes/no) and ICS use (yes/no)||||0.034|-0.091|0.370
90943912|NCT01006616|181766900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.067||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|0.131|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model with treatment, time, treatment by time interaction, and baseline smoking status (yes/no) and ICS use (yes/no)||||0.131|0.004|0.037
90943913|NCT01006616|181766901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|2.6||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|6.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Analysis of Week 26 data|||6.9|-0.6|0.096
90943914|NCT01006616|181766901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|12.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|18.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Analysis of Week 26 data|||18.4|7.4|<0.001
90943915|NCT01006616|181766901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|19.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.8|26.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Analysis of Week 26 data|||26.9|13.8|<0.001
90943916|NCT03672175|181766932|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.6638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.3||MMRM was used for analysis with change from BL in HAM-D total score as dependent variable; treatment, BL HAM-D total score, antidepressant use, assessment time point, time point-by-treatment interaction as explanatory variables and fixed effects.|MMRM|||Mixed effect model for repeated measures (MMRM)||1.3|-2.0|0.6638
90943917|NCT03672175|181766932|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89||0.1158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|0.3||MMRM was used for analysis with change from BL in HAM-D total score as dependent variable; treatment, BL HAM-D total score, antidepressant use, assessment time point, time point-by-treatment interaction as explanatory variables and fixed effects.|MMRM|||||0.3|-3.1|0.1158
90943918|NCT03672175|181766933|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.6905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2||MMRM was used for the analysis. Treatment, BL CGI-S score, BL antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction were included in the model and were treated as fixed effects.|MMRM|||||0.2|-0.4|0.6905
90943919|NCT03672175|181766933|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.1082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1||MMRM was used for the analysis. Treatment, BL CGI-S score, BL antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction were included in the model and were treated as fixed effects.|MMRM|||||0.1|-0.5|0.1082
90974676|NCT00915343|181832116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Period-adjusted quotient|1.053||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.086|||ANOVA||The quotient was defined as AUC0-4h/dose for OD treatment divided by AUC0-4h/dose for TID treatment.|||1.086|1.020|0.0020
90943920|NCT03672175|181766934|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.5725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.9||MMRM was used for analysis with change from BL in HAM-D total score as dependent variable; treatment, BL HAM-D total score, antidepressant use, assessment time point, time point-by-treatment interaction as explanatory variables and fixed effects.|MMRM|||Day 3||0.9|-1.7|0.5725
90974677|NCT00915343|181832117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean difference|-0.001|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|0.0|||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||||-0.000|-0.001|<0.0001
91036794|NCT02663349|181960131|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 13||Within group change on the VETSS Self Disclosure scale between Baseline and 3-Month Assessment||||.09
90943921|NCT03672175|181766934|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-0.3||MMRM was used for analysis with change from BL in HAM-D total score as dependent variable; treatment, BL HAM-D total score, antidepressant use, assessment time point, time point-by-treatment interaction as explanatory variables and fixed effects.|MMRM|||Day 3||-0.3|-2.8|0.0160
90943922|NCT03672175|181766934|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.9||MMRM was used for analysis with change from BL in HAM-D total score as dependent variable; treatment, BL HAM-D total score, antidepressant use, assessment time point, time point-by-treatment interaction as explanatory variables and fixed effects.|MMRM|||Day 8||0.9|-2.1|0.4450
90943923|NCT03672175|181766934|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|-0.5||MMRM was used for analysis with change from BL in HAM-D total score as dependent variable; treatment, BL HAM-D total score, antidepressant use, assessment time point, time point-by-treatment interaction as explanatory variables and fixed effects.|MMRM|||Day 8||-0.5|-3.6|0.0081
90943924|NCT03672175|181766934|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.8219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.1||MMRM was used for analysis with change from BL in HAM-D total score as dependent variable; treatment, BL HAM-D total score, antidepressant use, assessment time point, time point-by-treatment interaction as explanatory variables and fixed effects.|MMRM|||Day 42||2.1|-1.6|0.8219
90943925|NCT03672175|181766934|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.92||0.8166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.6||MMRM was used for analysis with change from BL in HAM-D total score as dependent variable; treatment, BL HAM-D total score, antidepressant use, assessment time point, time point-by-treatment interaction as explanatory variables and fixed effects.|MMRM|||Day 42||1.6|-2.0|0.8166
90943926|NCT03672175|181766934|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|2.0||MMRM was used for analysis with change from BL in HAM-D total score as dependent variable; treatment, BL HAM-D total score, antidepressant use, assessment time point, time point-by-treatment interaction as explanatory variables and fixed effects.|MMRM|||Day 182||2.0|-2.3|0.9000
90943927|NCT03672175|181766934|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.5004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|1.3||MMRM was used for analysis with change from BL in HAM-D total score as dependent variable; treatment, BL HAM-D total score, antidepressant use, assessment time point, time point-by-treatment interaction as explanatory variables and fixed effects.|MMRM|||Day 182||1.3|-2.7|0.5004
90943928|NCT03672175|181766935|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.8903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.63||GEE for binary response model, with factors for treatment, BL HAM-D total score, stratification factor (anti-depressant use at BL), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction were used for analysis.|GEE|||Day 15: Generalized estimating equation (GEE)||1.63|0.65|0.8903
90943929|NCT03672175|181766935|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.1207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|2.25||GEE for binary response model, with factors for treatment, BL HAM-D total score, stratification factor (anti-depressant use at BL), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction were used for analysis.|GEE|||Day 15||2.25|0.91|0.1207
90943930|NCT03672175|181766935|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.7897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.7||GEE for binary response model, with factors for treatment, BL HAM-D total score, stratification factor (anti-depressant use at BL), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction were used for analysis.|GEE|||Day 42||1.70|0.67|0.7897
90943931|NCT03672175|181766935|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.6837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.76||GEE for binary response model, with factors for treatment, BL HAM-D total score, stratification factor (anti-depressant use at BL), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction were used for analysis.|GEE|||Day 42||1.76|0.69|0.6837
90943932|NCT03672175|181766935|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.6602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.53||GEE for binary response model, with factors for treatment, BL HAM-D total score, stratification factor (anti-depressant use at BL), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction were used for analysis.|GEE|||Day 182||1.53|0.51|0.6602
90974678|NCT00915343|181832118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean difference|-0.001|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.002|-0.001|||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||||-0.001|-0.002|<0.0001
90974679|NCT00915343|181832119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean difference|-0.055||||0.7827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.444|0.334|||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||||0.334|-0.444|0.7827
90974680|NCT00915343|181832120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean difference|-0.001||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|0.0|||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||||-0.000|-0.001|0.0015
90974681|NCT00915343|181832121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Period-adjusted quotient|6.098|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.94|12.646|||ANOVA||The quotient was defined as AUC Extrapolation for OD treatment divided by AUC Extrapolation for TID treatment.|||12.646|2.940|<0.0001
90974682|NCT00915343|181832122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean difference|33.532||||0.0396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.734|65.329|||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||||65.329|1.734|0.0396
90974683|NCT00915343|181832123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Period-adjusted quotient|0.08||||0.1032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.017|0.177|||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||||0.177|-0.017|0.1032
90974684|NCT00915343|181832124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||least square mean|-0.078||||0.3767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.094|||Fisher's test|Fisher's non||Patient||0.094|-0.250|0.3767
90974685|NCT00915343|181832124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||least square mean|-0.064||||0.4625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.235|0.107|||Fisher's test|Fisher's non||Investigator||0.107|-0.235|0.4625
90974686|NCT00915343|181832125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6072|TWO_SIDED||||||Sign test|||Patient||||0.6072
90974687|NCT00915343|181832125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Sign test|||Investigator||||1.0000
90974688|NCT00915343|181832126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean difference|-0.6||||0.3332|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher's test|Fisher's non-parametric two-sample permutation test||Comparison of Quality of Life (QoL) Assessed by Short Form-36 Survey (SF-36) For Physical Component Score||||0.3332
90974689|NCT00915343|181832126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean difference|0.9||||0.3405|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher's test|Fisher's non-parametric two-sample permutation test||Comparison of Quality of Life (QoL) Assessed by Short Form-36 Survey (SF-36) For Mental Component Score||||0.3405
90974690|NCT00915343|181832127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8418|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank|||Change From Baseline to 6 months in Quality of Life (QoL) Assessed by Short Form-36 Survey (SF-36) For Physical Component Score||||0.8418
90943933|NCT03672175|181766935|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.9268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.69||GEE for binary response model, with factors for treatment, BL HAM-D total score, stratification factor (anti-depressant use at BL), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction were used for analysis.|GEE|||Day 182||1.69|0.56|0.9268
90974691|NCT00915343|181832127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.355|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||Change From Baseline to 6 months in Quality of Life (QoL) Assessed by Short Form-36 Survey (SF-36) For Mental Component Score||||0.3550
90974692|NCT00915343|181832128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean difference|-2.9||||0.0823|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher's|Fisher's non-parametric two-sample permutation test||||||0.0823
90974693|NCT00915343|181832129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5982|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.5982
90974694|NCT00915343|181832130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean difference|2.3||||0.0632|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher's test|Fisher's non-parametric two-sample permutation test||||||0.0632
90974695|NCT00915343|181832131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8676|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.8676
90974696|NCT00915343|181832132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.97|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.9700
91036795|NCT02663349|181960131|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 13||Within group change on the VETSS Workplace Coping scale between Baseline and 3-Month Assessment||||.12
90943934|NCT03672175|181766936|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.8245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.83||GEE for binary response model, with factors for treatment, BL HAM-D total score, stratification factor (anti-depressant use at BL), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction were used for analysis.|GEE|||Day 15||1.83|0.62|0.8245
90974697|NCT00915343|181832133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2624|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.2624
90974698|NCT00915343|181832134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean difference|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90974699|NCT00915343|181832136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Sign test|||||||<0.0001
90974700|NCT00915343|181832137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean difference|-272.3||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.0034
90974701|NCT03551743|181832138|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|-65.02||||0.0344|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0344
90974702|NCT03551743|181832138|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|-92.38||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0014
90974703|NCT03551743|181832138|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|-46.26||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0002
90974704|NCT03551743|181832139|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|88722.37||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0032
90974705|NCT03551743|181832139|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|151500.3||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0003
90974706|NCT03551743|181832139|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|198560.4||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0004
91036796|NCT02663349|181960132|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 13||Within group change on VETSS Self Disclosure scale between Baseline and 6 month assessment||||> .05
90943935|NCT03672175|181766936|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.59||||0.0756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.67||GEE for binary response model, with factors for treatment, BL HAM-D total score, stratification factor (anti-depressant use at BL), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction were used for analysis.|GEE|||Day 15||2.67|0.95|0.0756
90974707|NCT03551743|181832140|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|-76.05||||0.1874|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1874
90974708|NCT03551743|181832140|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|-27.98||||0.386|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.386
90974709|NCT03551743|181832140|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|-49.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
90974710|NCT03434977|181832149|OTHER||Ratio|0.937|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.89|0.986||||||The shown data were ratio of fed conditions divided by fasted conditions, taking anti-logs of the least square (LS) means difference (fed-fasted) or confidence interval (CI). The difference in LS means between treatment conditions (fed-fasted) and two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover analysis of variance (ANOVA) model. ANOVA model included log-transformed (natural log) PK parameters Cmax as dependent variable, and treatment condition, group, and period as independent variables.||0.986|0.890|
90974711|NCT03434977|181832150|OTHER||LS-Means Difference|0.9083|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.1821|1.6345||||||The difference in the LS means between treatment conditions (fed-fasted) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The ANOVA model included log-transformed (non-natural log) PK parameters tmax as dependent variable, and treatment condition, group, and period as independent variables.||1.6345|0.1821|
90974712|NCT03434977|181832151|OTHER||Ratio|0.998|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.943|1.056||||||The shown data were the ratio of the fed conditions divided by the fasted conditions, taking anti-logs of the LS means difference (fed-fasted) or CI. The difference in the LS means between treatment conditions (fed-fasted) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The ANOVA model included log-transformed (natural log) PK parameters AUClast as dependent variable, and treatment condition, group, and period as independent variables.||1.056|0.943|
90974713|NCT03434977|181832152|OTHER||Ratio|0.997|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.942|1.056||||||The shown data were the ratio of the fed conditions divided by the fasted conditions, taking anti-logs of the LS means difference (fed-fasted) or CI. The difference in the LS means between treatment conditions (fed-fasted) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The ANOVA model included log-transformed (natural log) PK parameters AUC∞ as dependent variable, and treatment condition, group, and period as independent variables.||1.056|0.942|
90974714|NCT03434977|181832153|OTHER||Ratio|0.985|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.932|1.041||||||The shown data were the ratio of the fed conditions divided by the fasted conditions, taking anti-logs of the LS means difference (fed-fasted) or CI. The difference in the LS means between treatment conditions (fed-fasted) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The ANOVA model included log-transformed (natural log) PK parameters T1/2z as dependent variable, and treatment condition, group, and period as independent variables.||1.041|0.932|
90974715|NCT03434977|181832154|OTHER||Ratio|1.047|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.006|1.091||||||The shown data were the ratio of the fed conditions divided by the fasted conditions, taking anti-logs of the LS means difference (fed-fasted) or CI. The difference in the LS means between treatment conditions (fed-fasted) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The ANOVA model included log-transformed (natural log) PK parameters MRTlast, ev as dependent variable, and treatment condition, group, and period as independent variables.||1.091|1.006|
90974716|NCT03434977|181832155|OTHER||Ratio|1.037|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.996|1.081||||||The shown data were the ratio of the fed conditions divided by the fasted conditions, taking anti-logs of the LS means difference (fed-fasted) or CI. The difference in the LS means between treatment conditions (fed-fasted) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The ANOVA model included log-transformed (natural log) PK parameters MRT∞, ev as dependent variable, and treatment condition, group, and period as independent variables.||1.081|0.996|
90974717|NCT03434977|181832156|OTHER||Ratio|1.014|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.959|1.071||||||The shown data were the ratio of the fed conditions divided by the fasted conditions, taking anti-logs of the LS means difference (fed-fasted) or CI. The difference in the LS means between treatment conditions (fed-fasted) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The ANOVA model included log-transformed (natural log) PK parameters λz as dependent variable, and treatment condition, group, and period as independent variables.||1.071|0.959|
90974718|NCT03434977|181832157|OTHER||Ratio|1.003|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.947|1.062||||||The shown data were the ratio of the fed conditions divided by the fasted conditions, taking anti-logs of the LS means difference (fed-fasted) or CI. The difference in the LS means between treatment conditions (fed-fasted) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The ANOVA model included log-transformed (natural log) PK parameters CL/F as dependent variable, and treatment condition, group, and period as independent variables.||1.062|0.947|
90974719|NCT03434977|181832158|OTHER||Ratio|0.989|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.916|1.068||||||The shown data were the ratio of the fed conditions divided by the fasted conditions, taking anti-logs of the LS means difference (fed-fasted) or CI. The difference in the LS means between treatment conditions (fed-fasted) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The ANOVA model included log-transformed (natural log) PK parameters Vz/F as dependent variable, and treatment condition, group, and period as independent variables.||1.068|0.916|
90974720|NCT01314716|181832164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Differences in least squares mean|4.6||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|8.2||P-value was based on T-test from mixed-effect model repeated measures (MMRM).|MMRM|||||8.2|1.1|0.011
90974721|NCT01314716|181832165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|1.1||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|5.0||P-value was based on T-test from mixed-effect model repeated measures (MMRM).|MMRM|||||5.0|-2.7|0.56
91007785|NCT01234337|181899746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.973|||=|0.405618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.779|1.217||One-sided p-value from log rank test (stratified per randomization as in interactive voice response system \[IVRS\]).|Log Rank|||PFS was compared using a stratified log-rank test with a one-sided alpha of 0.005, stratified by region, hormone receptor status, number of previous chemotherapies for metastatic disease. The hazard ratio (sorafenib + capecitabine / placebo + capecitabine) and its 95 percent (%) CIs were calculated using the Cox model, stratified by the above factors. A Hazard ratio of less than (\<) 1 indicates superiority of Sorafenib + Capecitabine over Placebo + Capecitabine.||1.217|0.779|=0.405618
91036797|NCT02663349|181960132|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 13||Within group change on VETSS Workplace Coping scale between baseline and the 6 month assessment||||> .05
91036798|NCT00848536|181960192|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was 1.5 mmHg.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.5|||||Treatment group differences were calculated as the mean IOP in the Travoprost APS group minus the mean IOP in the Travatan group. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper 95% CL of the between treatment difference in mean IOP was \< 1.5 mmHg.|A hypothesis test was performed using a repeated measures analysis of variance model. For the test of non-inferiority, a two-sided 95% confidence intervals for the treatment group difference in mean IOP at each visit and time point was constructed based on analysis of variance.||0.5|-0.9|
91036799|NCT00848536|181960193|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was 1.5 mmHg.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.6|||||Treatment group differences were calculated as the mean IOP in the Travoprost APS group minus the mean IOP in the Travatan group. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper 95% CL of the between treatment difference in mean IOP was \< 1.5 mmHg.|A hypothesis test was performed using a repeated measures analysis of variance model. For the test of non-inferiority, a two-sided 95% confidence intervals for the treatment group difference in mean IOP at each visit and time point was constructed based on analysis of variance.||00.6|-0.8|
91036800|NCT00848536|181960194|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was 1.5 mmHg.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.5|||||Treatment group differences were calculated as the mean IOP in the Travoprost APS group minus the mean IOP in the Travatan group. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper 95% CL of the between treatment difference in mean IOP was \< 1.5 mmHg.|A hypothesis test was performed using a repeated measures analysis of variance model. For the test of non-inferiority, a two-sided 95% confidence intervals for the treatment group difference in mean IOP at each visit and time point was constructed based on analysis of variance.||0.5|-0.9|
91050443|NCT04168190|181987007|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|31.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.98|69.03|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 24F||69.03|13.98|
90943936|NCT03672175|181766936|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.5309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.01||GEE for binary response model, with factors for treatment, BL HAM-D total score, stratification factor (anti-depressant use at BL), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction were used for analysis.|GEE|||Day 42||2.01|0.70|0.5309
90974722|NCT01327157|181832167|EQUIVALENCE|The comparison among the groups, from the results obtained by the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), was done through analysis of variance models (ANOVA) with two factors.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.5||||0.524|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was considered for values of p \<0.05 and it was used The Minitab statistical software, version 15.1 to obtain the results.|t-test, 1 sided|The comparison between the groups in each study period (initial) was done through the t-test for two independent samples.||"We assessed the quality of oral functions in the first query to check the status of discomfort before treatment in both groups, using VAS..~Statistical significance was considered for values of p \<0.05 and it was used The Minitab statistical software, version 15.1 to obtain the results"||||0.524
90974723|NCT01327157|181832168|EQUIVALENCE|"Only the treatment group was analysed. The dental contacts were evaluated in models and gnathostats demarcated after the points were counted in the models before and after treatment If an increase in the number of dental contacts after occlusal adjustment was detected, in relation of the models.~The models are made in the first and last query, after four visits with one month interval between them."|Mean Difference (Net)|5.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.92|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The brand carbon mark was done on the treatment group in the first and last query.||||<0.001
90974724|NCT01327157|181832169|EQUIVALENCE|The comparison among the groups, from the results obtained by the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), was done through analysis of variance models (ANOVA) with two factors. The comparison among the groups, in each period of the study (initial and final) was done through t test for two independent samples.|Mean Difference (Net)|2.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.44||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"We assessed the quality of oral functions in the last query to check the status of discomfort after ninety days in both groups, control and treatment, using VAS.~The statistical significance was considered to p\<0.05 values and it was used the Minitab statistics software, 15.1 version, to get the results."||||0.002
90974725|NCT01327157|181832170|OTHER|||||||0.705|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.705
90974726|NCT01327157|181832171|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.01
90974727|NCT01928381|181832172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.5695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.61|-0.34|0.5695
90974728|NCT01928381|181832172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.8905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.49|-0.43|0.8905
90974729|NCT01928381|181832172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.4822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.64|-0.30|0.4822
90974730|NCT01928381|181832173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.2237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.82|||Mixed Models Analysis||In direction of Pregabalin|||0.82|-0.20|0.2237
90974731|NCT01928381|181832173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.0978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis||In direction of Pregabain, positive control|||0.08|-0.93|0.0978
91036801|NCT01175135|181960195|OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-2.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.683||0.2053|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.66|1.24||Reported p-value was 1-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effect repeated measures (MMRM) model with fixed effect for baseline PANSS total score, investigator site, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline PANSS total score by visit interaction, and random effect for participant. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.24|-5.66|0.2053
90943937|NCT03672175|181766936|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.9085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.66||GEE for binary response model, with factors for treatment, BL HAM-D total score, stratification factor (anti-depressant use at BL), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction were used for analysis.|GEE|||Day 42||1.66|0.56|0.9085
90974732|NCT01928381|181832173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.40|-0.62|0.6610
90974733|NCT00930059|181832186|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.3353|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.52|0.9||The primary test of significance was 1-sided, and a nominal Type I error rate a = 0.05 was employed.|ANCOVA|||Least squares (LS) mean difference and p-values were based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) on change from baseline with treatment, baseline value, scheduled visit and visit by treatment interaction as covariates, and participant effect as random effect.||0.90|-1.52|0.3353
90974734|NCT00930059|181832187|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.6073|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.99|1.38||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 3: LS mean difference and p-values were based on ANCOVA on change from baseline with treatment, baseline value, scheduled visit and visit by treatment interaction as covariates, and participant effect as random effect.||1.38|-0.99|0.6073
90943938|NCT03672175|181766936|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.3476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.44||GEE for binary response model, with factors for treatment, BL HAM-D total score, stratification factor (anti-depressant use at BL), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction were used for analysis.|GEE|||Day 182||2.44|0.73|0.3476
90974735|NCT00930059|181832187|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.3086|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.56|0.84||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6: LS mean difference and p-values were based on ANCOVA on change from baseline with treatment, baseline value, scheduled visit and visit by treatment interaction as covariates, and participant effect as random effect.||0.84|-1.56|0.3086
90974736|NCT00930059|181832187|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.197|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.82|0.58||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 9: LS mean difference and p-values were based on ANCOVA on change from baseline with treatment, baseline value, scheduled visit and visit by treatment interaction as covariates, and participant effect as random effect.||0.58|-1.82|0.1970
90974737|NCT00930059|181832188|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.6547|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.18|0.29||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|Linear model|||Week 3: Inferential statistics were based on linear model with fixed effects for visit (nominal scale) and visit by treatment interaction, and a random effect for participant.||0.29|-0.18|0.6547
90974738|NCT00930059|181832188|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.702|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.16|0.31||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|Linear model|||Week 6: Inferential statistics were based on linear model with fixed effects for visit (nominal scale) and visit by treatment interaction, and a random effect for participant.||0.31|-0.16|0.7020
90974739|NCT00930059|181832188|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.1138|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.41|0.06||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|Linear model|||Week 9: Inferential statistics were based on linear model with fixed effects for visit (nominal scale) and visit by treatment interaction, and a random effect for participant.||0.06|-0.41|0.1138
90974740|NCT00930059|181832188|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0816|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.44|0.04||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|Linear model|||Week 12: Inferential statistics were based on linear model with fixed effects for visit (nominal scale) and visit by treatment interaction, and a random effect for participant.||0.04|-0.44|0.0816
90974741|NCT00930059|181832190|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96||0.7634|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.89|2.27||No adjustments have been made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 3: LS mean difference and p-value were based on ANCOVA on change from baseline with treatment, baseline value, scheduled visit and visit by treatment interaction as covariates, and participant effect as random effect.||2.27|-0.89|0.7634
90974742|NCT00930059|181832190|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||0.8077|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.75|2.45||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6: LS mean difference and p-value were based on ANCOVA on change from baseline with treatment, baseline value, scheduled visit and visit by treatment interaction as covariates, and participant effect as random effect.||2.45|-0.75|0.8077
90974743|NCT00930059|181832190|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98||0.835|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.66|2.57||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 9: LS mean difference and p-value were based on ANCOVA on change from baseline with treatment, baseline value, scheduled visit and visit by treatment interaction as covariates, and participant effect as random effect.||2.57|-0.66|0.8350
90974744|NCT00930059|181832190|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99||0.4377|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.78|1.48||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: LS mean difference and p-value were based on ANCOVA on change from baseline with treatment, baseline value, scheduled visit and visit by treatment interaction as covariates, and participant effect as random effect.||1.48|-1.78|0.4377
90974745|NCT01299766|181832197|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.12||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.74|||Poisson regression with robust SE (GEE)|||Poisson regression with robust standard errors (GEE) was used to jointly model decline in HVLT-R Total Recall score ≥ 6 words at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months by treatment group. The model included time, treatment, time-by-treatment interaction terms, and baseline HVLT-R Total Recall score.||0.74|0.02|.02
90974746|NCT01299766|181832198|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Slopes|2.47||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|5.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects linear regression was used to model the trajectory. Fixed effects for time (as a continuous variable), treatment group, time-by-treatment group interaction, and age at baseline were included. Random intercepts and slopes were included to account for within-subject correlation.||5.07|-.14|.064
90974747|NCT01354028|181832235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1303||95.0|||||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom =1||"Null hypothesis: there will be no difference in sleep efficiency in preterm infants on the day of massage versus the day without massage.~Power calculation: the sample size was determined by convenience for this pilot study"||||0.1303
90974748|NCT01354028|181832238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026||95.0||||Pearson's chi square|Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom=1||"Null hypothesis: there is no difference in massage therapy or no massage therapy in number of infants who will be asleep at the end of massage or the corresponding time frame on the non massage day.~Pearson's chi square=4.98"||||0.026
90974749|NCT02109159|181832239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.2||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.4|||Chi-squared||This analysis was conducted on an intention-to-treat (ITT) basis including all participants randomised.|||1.4|0.8|0.44
90974750|NCT02109159|181832239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.2||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.7|||Chi-squared||This analysis was conducted on a per-protocol (PP) basis including only those who watched the videos.|||1.7|0.8|0.47
90974751|NCT02109159|181832240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.04|||t-test, 2 sided||This analysis was conducted on an intention-to-treat (ITT) basis including all participants randomised.|||0.04|-0.02|0.53
90974752|NCT02109159|181832240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.8|||t-test, 2 sided||This analysis was conducted on a per-protocol (PP) basis including only those who watched the videos.|||0.8|-0.5|0.56
91036802|NCT01175135|181960195|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.698||0.4024|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.14|2.8||Reported p-value was 1-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM model with fixed effect for baseline PANSS total score, investigator site, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline PANSS total score by visit interaction, and random effect for participant. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.80|-4.14|0.4024
90974753|NCT03968419|181832251|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.56|21.23||||||Difference in MPR rate||21.23|-25.56|
91050444|NCT04168190|181987007|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|57.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.15|132.78|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 31||132.78|25.15|
91036803|NCT01175135|181960195|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-8.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.453||0.009|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-12.68|-3.8||Reported p-value was 1-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM model with fixed effect for baseline PANSS total score, investigator site, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline PANSS total score by visit interaction, and random effect for participant. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance matrix.||-3.80|-12.68|0.0090
91036804|NCT01175135|181960196|OTHER||Difference in Proportion|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.07|0.01|||||The adjusted 80% Confidence Interval (CI) equals 88.6% CI, adjusted due to 1 interim look.|||0.01|-0.07|
91036805|NCT01175135|181960196|OTHER||Difference in Proportion|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.02|0.1|||||The adjusted 80% CI equals 88.6% CI, adjusted due to 1 interim look.|||0.10|-0.02|
91036806|NCT01175135|181960196|OTHER||Difference in Proportion|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.08|0.0|||||The adjusted 80% CI equals 88.6% CI, adjusted due to 1 interim look.|||-0.00|-0.08|
90974754|NCT01641939|181832266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||0.8589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.6||One sided p-value with correction for interim treatment selection due to adaptive seamless phase design.|Log Rank|Log-Rank test, inverse normal combination test.||The unstratified Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate the hazard ratio. The 95% Confidence Interval (CI) for median was computed using the method of Brookmeyer and Crowley. Reference group: Standard Taxane Therapy.||1.60|0.87|0.8589
90974755|NCT01641939|181832267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|2.03||||||The unstratified Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate the hazard ratio. The 95% CI for median was computed using the method of Brookmeyer and Crowley. Reference group: Standard Taxane Therapy.||2.03|0.32|
90974756|NCT01641939|181832267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|4.92||||||The unstratified Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate the hazard ratio. The 95% CI for median was computed using the method of Brookmeyer and Crowley. Reference group: Standard Taxane Therapy.||4.92|0.82|
90974757|NCT01641939|181832267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.96||||||The unstratified Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate the hazard ratio. The 95% CI for median was computed using the method of Brookmeyer and Crowley. Reference group: Trastuzumab Emtansine 3.6 mg||0.96|0.23|
90974758|NCT01641939|181832269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.43|||Log Rank|||The unstratified Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate the hazard ratio. The 95% CI for median was computed using the method of Brookmeyer and Crowley. Reference group: Standard Taxane Therapy||1.43|0.89|0.308
90974759|NCT00741156|181832287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.09
90974760|NCT01815229|181832289|OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||P value applies to cell count at removal|t-test, 2 sided|||Tracheal lavages (TL) were done in intubated humans to obtain cell counts.||||<0.05
90974761|NCT05022641|181832298|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.6
91036807|NCT01175135|181960197|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.845||0.3144|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.5|0.68||Reported p-value was 1-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Positive Score: MMRM model with fixed effect for baseline PANSS positive subscale score, investigator site, treatment, visit, a treatment by visit interaction and a baseline PANSS positive subscale score by visit interaction and a random effect for participant. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.68|-1.50|0.3144
90974762|NCT05022641|181832299|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.65
91036808|NCT01175135|181960197|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.854||0.57|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.95|1.25||Reported p-value was 1-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Positive Score: MMRM model with fixed effect for baseline PANSS positive subscale score, investigator site, treatment, visit, a treatment by visit interaction and a baseline PANSS positive subscale score by visit interaction and a random effect for participant. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.25|-0.95|0.5700
90974763|NCT05022641|181832300|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.02
90974764|NCT05022641|181832301|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6
90974765|NCT05022641|181832303|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.6
90974766|NCT03881007|181832304|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate ratio|1.17||||0.359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.64|0.84|0.359
90974767|NCT03881007|181832305|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate ratio|5.78||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|136.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||136.56|1.52|0.024
90974768|NCT03881007|181832306|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate ratio|1.09||||0.774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.95|0.61|0.774
90974769|NCT03881007|181832307|SUPERIORITY||incidence rate ratio|0.59||||0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.63|0.2|0.323
90974770|NCT03881007|181832309|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate ratio|1.21||||0.279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.72|0.86|0.279
91050445|NCT04168190|181987007|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|58.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.1|134.33|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 31||134.33|25.10|
90943939|NCT03672175|181766936|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|2.57||GEE for binary response model, with factors for treatment, BL HAM-D total score, stratification factor (anti-depressant use at BL), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction were used for analysis.|GEE|||Day 182||2.57|0.82|0.2060
90943940|NCT03672175|181766937|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.8303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.65||GEE for binary response model, with factors for treatment, CGI-S BL score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction were used for analysis.|GEE|||||1.65|0.67|0.8303
90974771|NCT00847587|181832311|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A noninferiority margin of 8 additional hours was chosen to be clinically relevant, as many common medical interventions (such as epidural anesthesia, cesarean delivery, labor induction, and general stress) have been reported to delay time to lactogenesis stage II by up to 12 hours.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|120.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|7.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||It was assumed that both groups would have a mean of 54 hours to lactogenesis with a common standard deviation of 12 hours based on previous reports of lactogenesis in women with uncomplicated vaginal deliveries. Setting the noninferiority margin at 8 additional hours, using an alpha 0.05 level comparison, to achieve 80% power a sample size of n=34 evaluable subjects was required in each group. The calculation was performed using N Solution 2007 Professional Software.||7.7|-10.6|<0.05
90974772|NCT00847587|181832312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.61|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.8|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|2.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.5|-1.3|<0.05
90974773|NCT04033367|181832316|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-15.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.13|-6.9||Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab versus Placebo|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures are reported and continued when primary outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05 level.||-6.90|-24.13|<0.001
90974774|NCT04033367|181832317|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-27.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.96|-17.78||Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab versus Placebo|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures are reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05 level.||-17.78|-37.96|<0.001
90974775|NCT04033367|181832318|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-15.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.56|-9.56||Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab versus Placebo|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures are reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05 level.||-9.56|-20.56|<0.001
90974776|NCT04033367|181832319|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-2.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.97|-1.18||Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab versus Placebo|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures are reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05 level.||-1.18|-2.97|<0.001
90974777|NCT04033367|181832320|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-3.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.68|-1.53||Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab versus Placebo|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures are reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05.||-1.53|-5.68|<0.001
90974778|NCT04033367|181832321|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|9.97||||0.297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.86|28.79||Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab versus Placebo|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures are reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05.||28.79|-8.86|0.297
90974779|NCT02723201|181832331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.402|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.32|0.505|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on the natural logarithms of Cmax with regimen as the fixed effects and participant as the random effect. The point estimate and 90 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) was obtained by taking the antilog of the difference in the log transformed least square (LS) means and its CI, respectively.||0.505|0.320|<0.001
90974780|NCT02723201|181832331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.216||||0.249|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.016|1.455|||ANOVA|||ANOVA was performed on the natural logarithms of Cmax with regimen as the fixed effects and participant as the random effect. The point estimate and 90% CI was obtained by taking the antilog of the difference in the log transformed LS means and its CI, respectively.||1.455|1.016|0.249
90974781|NCT02723201|181832331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.055|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.041|0.074|||ANOVA|||ANOVA was performed on the natural logarithms of Cmax with regimen as the fixed effects and participant as the random effect. The point estimate and 90% CI was obtained by taking the antilog of the difference in the log transformed LS means and its CI, respectively.||0.074|0.041|<0.001
90974782|NCT02723201|181832331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.685||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.499|0.939|||ANOVA|||ANOVA was performed on the natural logarithms of Cmax with regimen as the fixed effects and participant as the random effect. The point estimate and 90% CI was obtained by taking the antilog of the difference in the log transformed LS means and its CI, respectively.||0.939|0.499|0.054
90974783|NCT02723201|181832333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.648||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.497|0.844|||ANOVA|||ANOVA was performed on the natural logarithms of AUC∞ with regimen as the fixed effects and participant as the random effect. The point estimate and 90% CI was obtained by taking the antilog of the difference in the log transformed LS means and its CI, respectively.||0.844|0.497|0.007
90974784|NCT02723201|181832333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.18||||0.423|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.088|1.279|||ANOVA|||ANOVA was performed on the natural logarithms of AUC∞ with regimen as the fixed effects and participant as the random effect. The point estimate and 90% CI was obtained by taking the antilog of the difference in the log transformed LS means and its CI, respectively.||1.279|1.088|0.423
90974785|NCT02723201|181832333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.116|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.077|0.176|||ANOVA|||ANOVA was performed on the natural logarithms of AUC∞ with regimen as the fixed effects and participant as the random effect. The point estimate and 90% CI was obtained by taking the antilog of the difference in the log transformed LS means and its CI, respectively.||0.176|0.077|<0.001
90974786|NCT02723201|181832333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.836||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.731|0.957|||ANOVA|||ANOVA was performed on the natural logarithms of AUC∞ with regimen as the fixed effects and participant as the random effect. The point estimate and 90% CI was obtained by taking the antilog of the difference in the log transformed LS means and its CI, respectively.||0.957|0.731|0.037
91050446|NCT04168190|181987007|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|6.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.45|10.8|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 35B||10.80|4.45|
90974787|NCT03193398|181832360|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3||||0.5939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|3.6|||MMRM|MMRM: mixed model for repeated measures||Difference in LS Means (BTRX-246040 - Placebo)||3.6|-6.3|0.5939
90974788|NCT03193398|181832361|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.5503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|2.3|||MMRM|MMRM: mixed model for repeated measures||Analysis of Change from Baseline in Investigator-administered MADRS-6 Total Score at week 8||2.3|-4.4|0.5503
90974789|NCT03193398|181832362|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8||||0.3906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.8|||MMRM|MMRM: mixed model for repeated measures||||2.8|-1.1|0.3906
90974790|NCT03193398|181832363|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9||||0.4187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|3.1||+/-|MMRM|MMRM: mixed model for repeated measures||||3.1|-1.3|0.4187
90974791|NCT03193398|181832364|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.0||||0.4869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|5.5|||MMRM|MMRM: mixed model for repeated measures||||5.5|-11.5|0.4869
90974792|NCT03193398|181832365|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.2||||0.5178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|4.7|||MMRM|MMRM: mixed model for repeated measures||||4.7|-2.4|0.5178
90974793|NCT05425563|181832371|OTHER||Slope|8.3269|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8792|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< .001
90974794|NCT05425563|181832372|OTHER||Slope|8.0809|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5414|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< .001
90974795|NCT05425563|181832373|OTHER||Slope|8.121|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.481|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< .001
90974796|NCT05425563|181832380|OTHER||Slope|34.613|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.602|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< .001
90974797|NCT05425563|181832381|OTHER||Slope|33.9754|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.426||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.001
90974798|NCT05425563|181832382|OTHER||Slope|31.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.422|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< .001
90974799|NCT00997516|181832401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||||||Significant at p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.01
90974800|NCT00997516|181832402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||Significant at p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
90974801|NCT00997516|181832411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86||||||Significant at p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Overall body satisfaction||||0.86
90974802|NCT00997516|181832411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||||||Significant at p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Damage to body||||0.18
90974803|NCT00997516|181832411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||||||Significant at p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Physical attractiveness||||0.04
90974804|NCT00997516|181832411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34||||||Significant at p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Masculinity/femininity||||0.34
91036809|NCT01175135|181960197|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.093||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.4|-1.59||Reported p-value was 1-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Positive Score: MMRM model with fixed effect for baseline PANSS positive subscale score, investigator site, treatment, visit, a treatment by visit interaction and a baseline PANSS positive subscale score by visit interaction and a random effect for participant. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.59|-4.40|0.0034
90974805|NCT00997516|181832411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63||||||Significant at p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Looking at oneself naked||||0.63
90974806|NCT00997516|181832412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48||||||Significant at p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Cosmetic appearance of abdomen||||0.48
90974807|NCT00997516|181832412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09||||||Significant at p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Cosmetic appearance of scars||||0.09
90974808|NCT00997516|181832412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25||||||Significant at p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Satisfaction with scars||||0.25
91050447|NCT04168190|181987007|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|7.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|12.24|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 35B||12.24|5.00|
90974809|NCT00997516|181832412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81||||||Significant at p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Discomfort of scars||||0.81
90974810|NCT00997516|181832412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||Significant at p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Overall impression of scars||||<0.01
90974811|NCT00584233|181832413|NON_INFERIORITY|The statistical test will be to assess non-inferiority. The non-inferiority margin is -0.04 in AUC. Key parameters are the number of participating patients, the number of radiologists reading the images in the study. Power analysis was conducted using the standard simulation from the ROC literature (Roe and Metz, Academic Radiology 1997). With a total of 100 participating patients and 4 participating readers, we achieve a power \>80% with a non-inferiority margin of -0.04.|Obuchowski Rockette methodology|0.05||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.025|0.975|||Obuchowski Rockette|||The analysis is intended to evaluate non-inferiority in observer performance between CE-bCT and CE-bMRI as assessed by the area under the ROC curve (AUC). The null hypothesis is that the observed difference in average AUC for CE-bCT and CE-bMRI will be outside of a non-inferiority margin of -0.04. See below for details of the power analyses.||.975|.025|0.05
90974812|NCT03178487|181832463|SUPERIORITY|To preserve the overall type I error rate at α=0.05 level, a step-down approach was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoints. The testing began with the primary endpoint at α=0.05 and continued conditional on significance of higher-ranked endpoint.|Response Rate Difference|26.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.6|39.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusting for stratification factor of Screening hsCRP level.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||39.5|12.6|<0.001
90974813|NCT03178487|181832464|SUPERIORITY|To preserve the overall type I error rate at α=0.05 level, a step-down approach was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoints. The testing began with the primary endpoint at α=0.05 and continued conditional on significance of higher-ranked endpoint.|Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|-0.68|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM model includes treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and Screening hsCRP level and Baseline value as covariates.|Treatment difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-0.68|-1.14|<0.001
90974814|NCT03178487|181832465|SUPERIORITY|To preserve the overall type I error rate at α=0.05 level, a step-down approach was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoints. The testing began with the primary endpoint at α=0.05 and continued conditional on significance of higher-ranked endpoint.|LS Mean Difference|-6.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.01|-4.41|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including treatment and Screening hsCRP level as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-4.41|-9.01|<0.001
90974815|NCT03178487|181832466|SUPERIORITY|To preserve the overall type I error rate at α=0.05 level, a step-down approach was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoints. The testing began with the primary endpoint at α=0.05 and continued conditional on significance of higher-ranked endpoint. The testing sequence included a group of endpoints tested by the Hochberg procedure, including BASDAI 50; within the group, the allocated α was adjusted based on the magnitude of p values.|Response Rate Difference|21.8||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.5|35.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for stratification factor of Screening hsCRP level.|Response rate difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||35.0|8.5|0.002
90974816|NCT03178487|181832467|SUPERIORITY|To preserve the overall type I error rate at α=0.05 level, a step-down approach was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoints. The testing began with the primary endpoint at α=0.05 and continued conditional on significance of higher-ranked endpoint. The testing sequence included a group of endpoints tested by the Hochberg procedure, including ASQoL; within the group, the allocated α was adjusted based on the magnitude of p values.|LS Mean Difference|-1.54||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|-0.3|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM model includes treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and Screening hsCRP level and Baseline value as covariates.|Treatment difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-0.30|-2.78|0.016
90974817|NCT03178487|181832468|SUPERIORITY|To preserve the overall type I error rate at α=0.05 level, a step-down approach was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoints. The testing began with the primary endpoint at α=0.05 and continued conditional on significance of higher-ranked endpoint. The testing sequence included a group of endpoints tested by the Hochberg procedure, including ASAS PR; within the group, the allocated α was adjusted based on the magnitude of p values.|Response Rate Difference|18.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|26.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for stratification factor of Screening hsCRP level.|Response rate difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||26.6|10.0|<0.001
90974818|NCT03178487|181832469|SUPERIORITY|To preserve the overall type I error rate at α=0.05 level, a step-down approach was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoints. The testing began with the primary endpoint at α=0.05 and continued conditional on significance of higher-ranked endpoint. The testing sequence included a group of endpoints tested by the Hochberg procedure, including BASFI; within the group, the allocated α was adjusted based on the magnitude of p values.|LS Mean Difference|-1.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.39|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM model includes treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and Screening hsCRP level and Baseline value as covariates.|Treatment difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-0.39|-1.60|0.001
90974819|NCT03178487|181832470|SUPERIORITY|To preserve the overall type I error rate at α=0.05 level, a step-down approach was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoints. The testing began with the primary endpoint at α=0.05 and continued conditional on significance of higher-ranked endpoint. The testing sequence included a group of endpoints tested by the Hochberg procedure, including BASMI(lin); within the group, the allocated α was adjusted based on the magnitude of p values.|LS Mean Difference|-0.22||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.02|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including treatment and Screening hsCRP level as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-0.02|-0.43|0.030
90974820|NCT03178487|181832471|SUPERIORITY|To preserve the overall type I error rate at α=0.05 level, a step-down approach was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoints. The testing began with the primary endpoint at α=0.05 and continued conditional on significance of higher-ranked endpoint. The testing sequence included a group of endpoints tested by the Hochberg procedure, including MASES; within the group, the allocated α was adjusted based on the magnitude of p values.|LS Mean Difference|-0.84||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|0.0|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM model includes treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and Screening hsCRP level and Baseline value as covariates.|Treatment difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-0.00|-1.68|0.049
90974821|NCT03178487|181832472|SUPERIORITY|To preserve the overall type I error rate at α=0.05 level, a step-down approach was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoints. The testing began with the primary endpoint at α=0.05 and continued conditional on significance of higher-ranked endpoint. The testing sequence included a group of endpoints tested by the Hochberg procedure, including WPAI; within the group, the allocated α was adjusted based on the magnitude of p values.|LS Mean Difference|-5.52||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.82|2.78|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including treatment and Screening hsCRP level as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||2.78|-13.82|0.190
90974822|NCT03178487|181832473|OTHER|"To preserve the overall type I error rate at α=0.05 level, a step-down approach was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoints. The testing began with the primary endpoint at α=0.05 and continued conditional on significance of higher-ranked endpoint.~ASAS HI was to be evaluated only if the group of endpoints tested by Hochberg procedure were all significant."|LS Mean Difference|-1.37||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.37|-0.37||This comparison was not tested for statistical significance because the hierarchical testing procedures stopped during the Hochberg procedure.|Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM model includes treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and Screening hsCRP level and Baseline value as covariates.|Treatment difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-0.37|-2.37|0.007
90974823|NCT03178487|181832474|OTHER||Response Rate Difference|24.1||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.2|38.0||This comparison was not part of the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for stratification factor of Screening hsCRP level.|||Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|38.0|10.2|0.001
90974824|NCT03178487|181832475|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.31|-2.08||This comparison was not part of the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including treatment and Screening hsCRP level as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-2.08|-5.31|<0.001
90974825|NCT03178487|181832476|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.27|-4.14|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including treatment and Screening hsCRP level as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-4.14|-8.27|<0.001
90974826|NCT03178487|181832477|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.01|-1.08|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including treatment and Screening hsCRP level as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-1.08|-4.01|<0.001
90974827|NCT02167945|181832595|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log-rank test|||Comparisons between participants in studies M14-222 and M14-423 who achieved SVR12 and those who did not were performed using a log-rank test.||||<0.001
90974828|NCT02167945|181832595|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard Ratio|0.126|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.044|0.358|||Cox proportional hazards model||The estimated value represents the hazard ratio for developing the event in the group of participants in studies M14-222 and M14-423 who achieved SVR12 compared to the group of participants in studies M14-222 and M14-423 who didn't achieve SVR12.|A Cox proportional hazards (PH) model was constructed. The covariates for the model included baseline age, BMI, HCV genotype 1 subtype (1b, non-1b), IL28B genotype (CC, non-CC), prior treatment history (naive, experienced), baseline HCV RNA levels, baseline fibrosis stage (F0-1, F2, F3, F4), baseline albumin, baseline creatinine clearance, baseline platelet count, history of diabetes (yes, no), APRI, race (white, other), and alcohol use status (current, former, non-drinker).||0.358|0.044|<0.001
90974829|NCT02167945|181832596|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log-rank test|||Comparisons between participants in studies M14-222 and M14-423 who achieved SVR12 and those who did not were performed using a log-rank test.||||<0.001
90974830|NCT02167945|181832596|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard Ratio|0.031||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.003|0.38|||Cox proportional hazards model||The estimated value represents the hazard ratio for developing the event in the group of participants in studies M14-222 and M14-423 who achieved SVR12 compared to the group of participants in studies M14-222 and M14-423 who didn't achieve SVR12.|A Cox proportional hazards (PH) model was constructed. The covariates for the model included baseline age, BMI, HCV genotype 1 subtype (1b, non-1b), IL28B genotype (CC, non-CC), prior treatment history (naive, experienced), baseline HCV RNA levels, baseline fibrosis stage (F0-1, F2, F3, F4), baseline albumin, baseline creatinine clearance, baseline platelet count, history of diabetes (yes, no), APRI, race (white, other), and alcohol use status (current, former, non-drinker).||0.380|0.003|0.007
90974831|NCT02167945|181832597|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log-rank test|||Comparisons between participants in studies M14-222 and M14-423 who achieved SVR12 and those who did not were performed using a log-rank test.||||<0.001
90974832|NCT02167945|181832597|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard Ratio|0.038|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.009|0.156|||Cox proportional hazards model||The estimated value represents the hazard ratio for developing the event in the group of participants in studies M14-222 and M14-423 who achieved SVR12 compared to the group of participants in studies M14-222 and M14-423 who didn't achieve SVR12.|A Cox proportional hazards (PH) model was constructed. The covariates for the model included baseline age, BMI, HCV genotype 1 subtype (1b, non-1b), IL28B genotype (CC, non-CC), prior treatment history (naive, experienced), baseline HCV RNA levels, baseline fibrosis stage (F0-1, F2, F3, F4), baseline albumin, baseline creatinine clearance, baseline platelet count, history of diabetes (yes, no), APRI, race (white, other), and alcohol use status (current, former, non-drinker).||0.156|0.009|<0.001
90974833|NCT02167945|181832598|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||Log-rank test|||Comparisons between participants in studies M14-222 and M14-423 who achieved SVR12 and those who did not were performed using a log-rank test.||||0.860
90974834|NCT02167945|181832598|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.997||||||The Hazard Ratio for experiencing the event in the group of participants in studies M14-222 and M14-423 who achieved SVR12 compared to those who did not achieve SVR12 is infinite and the CI is not bounded due to zero events in one of the groups.|Cox proportional hazards model|||A Cox proportional hazards (PH) model was constructed. The covariates for the model included baseline age, BMI, HCV genotype 1 subtype (1b, non-1b), IL28B genotype (CC, non-CC), prior treatment history (naive, experienced), baseline HCV RNA levels, baseline fibrosis stage (F0-1, F2, F3, F4), baseline albumin, baseline creatinine clearance, baseline platelet count, history of diabetes (yes, no), APRI, race (white, other), and alcohol use status (current, former, non-drinker).||||0.997
90974835|NCT02167945|181832599|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.608|||||||Log-rank test|||Comparisons between participants in studies M14-222 and M14-423 who achieved SVR12 and those who did not were performed using a log-rank test.||||0.608
90974836|NCT02167945|181832599|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.992||||||The Hazard Ratio for experiencing the event in the group of participants in studies M14-222 and M14-423 who achieved SVR12 compared to those who did not achieve SVR12 is infinite and the CI is not bounded due to zero events in one of the groups.|Cox proportional hazards model|||A Cox proportional hazards (PH) model was constructed. The covariates for the model included baseline age, BMI, HCV genotype 1 subtype (1b, non-1b), IL28B genotype (CC, non-CC), prior treatment history (naive, experienced), baseline HCV RNA levels, baseline fibrosis stage (F0-1, F2, F3, F4), baseline albumin, baseline creatinine clearance, baseline platelet count, history of diabetes (yes, no), APRI, race (white, other), and alcohol use status (current, former, non-drinker).||||0.992
91036810|NCT01175135|181960197|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.0942|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.9|-0.02||Reported p-value was 1-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Negative Score: MMRM model with fixed effect for baseline PANSS negative subscale score, investigator site, treatment, visit, a treatment by visit interaction and a baseline PANSS negative subscale score by visit interaction and a random effect for participant. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.02|-1.90|0.0942
90974837|NCT02167945|181832600|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log-rank test|||Comparisons between participants in studies M14-222 and M14-423 who achieved SVR12 and those who did not were performed using a log-rank test.||||<0.001
90974838|NCT02167945|181832600|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard Ratio|0.133|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.057|0.313|||Cox proportional hazards model||The estimated value represents the hazard ratio for developing the event in the group of participants in studies M14-222 and M14-423 who achieved SVR12 compared to the group of participants in studies M14-222 and M14-423 who didn't achieve SVR12.|A Cox proportional hazards (PH) model was constructed. The covariates for the model included baseline age, BMI, HCV genotype 1 subtype (1b, non-1b), IL28B genotype (CC, non-CC), prior treatment history (naive, experienced), baseline HCV RNA levels, baseline fibrosis stage (F0-1, F2, F3, F4), baseline albumin, baseline creatinine clearance, baseline platelet count, history of diabetes (yes, no), APRI, race (white, other), and alcohol use status (current, former, non-drinker).||0.313|0.057|<0.001
90943941|NCT03672175|181766937|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.1199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|2.24||GEE for binary response model, with factors for treatment, CGI-S BL score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction were used for analysis.|GEE|||||2.24|0.91|0.1199
90974839|NCT02167945|181832602|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-0.21|||ANCOVA||F2 - F0-F1|"F0-F1 vs F2 at Post-treatment Week 12~The difference between baseline fibrosis stage groups in mean change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with baseline fibrosis stage (F0-F1, F2, F3 and F4) as a factor and baseline patient reported outcomes(PRO) score and SVR12 status as covariates."||-0.21|-3.30|0.026
90974840|NCT02167945|181832602|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.97|0.91|||ANCOVA||F3 - F0-F1|"F0-F1 vs F3 at Post-treatment Week 12~The difference between baseline fibrosis stage groups in mean change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with baseline fibrosis stage (F0-F1, F2, F3 and F4) as a factor and baseline patient reported outcomes(PRO) score and SVR12 status as covariates."||0.91|-1.97|0.472
90974841|NCT02167945|181832602|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.47|0.4|||ANCOVA||F4 - F0-F1|"F0-F1 vs F4 at Post-treatment Week 12~The difference between baseline fibrosis stage groups in mean change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with baseline fibrosis stage (F0-F1, F2, F3 and F4) as a factor and baseline patient reported outcomes(PRO) score and SVR12 status as covariates."||0.40|-2.47|0.159
90974842|NCT02167945|181832602|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.95|0.36|||ANCOVA||F2 - F0-F1|"F0-F1 vs F2 at Post-treatment Week 24~The difference between baseline fibrosis stage groups in mean change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with baseline fibrosis stage (F0-F1, F2, F3 and F4) as a factor and baseline patient reported outcomes(PRO) score and SVR12 status as covariates."||0.36|-2.95|0.125
90974843|NCT02167945|181832602|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|1.29|||ANCOVA||F3 - F0-F1|"F0-F1 vs F3 at Post-treatment Week 24~The difference between baseline fibrosis stage groups in mean change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with baseline fibrosis stage (F0-F1, F2, F3 and F4) as a factor and baseline patient reported outcomes(PRO) score and SVR12 status as covariates."||1.29|-1.78|0.756
90974844|NCT02167945|181832602|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.32|0.75|||ANCOVA||F4 - F0-F1|"F0-F1 vs F4 at Post-treatment Week 24~The difference between baseline fibrosis stage groups in mean change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with baseline fibrosis stage (F0-F1, F2, F3 and F4) as a factor and baseline patient reported outcomes(PRO) score and SVR12 status as covariates."||0.75|-2.32|0.315
90974845|NCT02167945|181832603|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|0.75|||ANCOVA||F2 - F0-F1|"F0-F1 vs F2 at Post-treatment Week 12~The difference between baseline fibrosis stage groups in mean change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with baseline fibrosis stage (F0-F1, F2, F3 and F4) as a factor and baseline patient reported outcomes(PRO) score and SVR12 status as covariates."||0.75|-3.30|0.216
90974846|NCT02167945|181832603|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.58|0.17|||ANCOVA||F3 - F0-F1|"F0-F1 vs F3 at Post-treatment Week 12~The difference between baseline fibrosis stage groups in mean change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with baseline fibrosis stage (F0-F1, F2, F3 and F4) as a factor and baseline patient reported outcomes(PRO) score and SVR12 status as covariates."||0.17|-3.58|0.074
90974847|NCT02167945|181832603|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.67|0.05|||ANCOVA||F4 - F0-F1|"F0-F1 vs F4 at Post-treatment Week 12~The difference between baseline fibrosis stage groups in mean change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with baseline fibrosis stage (F0-F1, F2, F3 and F4) as a factor and baseline patient reported outcomes(PRO) score and SVR12 status as covariates."||0.05|-3.67|0.056
91036811|NCT01175135|181960197|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.735||0.203|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.56|0.33||Reported p-value was 1-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Negative Score: MMRM model with fixed effect for baseline PANSS negative subscale score, investigator site, treatment, visit, a treatment by visit interaction and a baseline PANSS negative subscale score by visit interaction and a random effect for participant. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.33|-1.56|0.2030
91036812|NCT01175135|181960197|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.944||0.0907|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.48|-0.05||Reported p-value was 1-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Negative Score: MMRM model with fixed effect for baseline PANSS negative subscale score, investigator site, treatment, visit, a treatment by visit interaction and a baseline PANSS negative subscale score by visit interaction and a random effect for participant. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.05|-2.48|0.0907
90974848|NCT02167945|181832603|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02||0.411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.84|1.16|||ANCOVA||F2 - F0-F1|"F0-F1 vs F2 at Post-treatment Week 24~The difference between baseline fibrosis stage groups in mean change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with baseline fibrosis stage (F0-F1, F2, F3 and F4) as a factor and baseline patient reported outcomes(PRO) score and SVR12 status as covariates."||1.16|-2.84|0.411
90974849|NCT02167945|181832603|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.55|0.11|||ANCOVA||F3 - F0-F1|"F0-F1 vs F3 at Post-treatment Week 24~The difference between baseline fibrosis stage groups in mean change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with baseline fibrosis stage (F0-F1, F2, F3 and F4) as a factor and baseline patient reported outcomes(PRO) score and SVR12 status as covariates."||0.11|-3.55|0.065
90943942|NCT03672175|181766938|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.5021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.9||MMRM with treatment, BL HAM-A total score, anti-depressant use at BL (Yes or No), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||||0.9|-1.9|0.5021
90974850|NCT02167945|181832603|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.91|-0.25|||ANCOVA||F4 - F0-F1|F0-F1 vs F4 at Post-treatment Week 24||-0.25|-3.91|0.026
90974851|NCT02167945|181832604|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.86|-0.14|||ANCOVA||F2 - F0-F1|"F0-F1 vs F2 at Post-treatment Week 12~The difference between baseline fibrosis stage groups in mean change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with baseline fibrosis stage (F0-F1, F2, F3 and F4) as a factor and baseline patient reported outcomes (PRO) score and SVR12 status as covariates."||-0.14|-3.86|0.035
90974852|NCT02167945|181832604|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.88|-0.42|||ANCOVA||F3 - F0-F1|"F0-F1 vs F3 at Post-treatment Week 12~The difference between baseline fibrosis stage groups in mean change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with baseline fibrosis stage (F0-F1, F2, F3 and F4) as a factor and baseline patient reported outcomes(PRO) score and SVR12 status as covariates."||-0.42|-3.88|0.015
90974853|NCT02167945|181832604|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.46|-0.01|||ANCOVA||F4 - F0-F1|F0-F1 vs F4 at Post-treatment Week 12||-0.01|-3.46|0.048
90974854|NCT02167945|181832604|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99||0.466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.67|1.22|||ANCOVA||F2 - F0-F1|"F0-F1 vs F2 at Post-treatment Week 24~The difference between baseline fibrosis stage groups in mean change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with baseline fibrosis stage (F0-F1, F2, F3 and F4) as a factor and baseline patient reported outcomes(PRO) score and SVR12 status as covariates."||1.22|-2.67|0.466
91036813|NCT01175135|181960197|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.33||0.2904|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.45|0.97||Reported p-value was 1-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||General Score: MMRM model with fixed effect for baseline PANSS general subscale score, investigator site, treatment, visit, a treatment by visit interaction and a baseline PANSS general subscale score by visit interaction and a random effect for participant. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.97|-2.45|0.2904
91036814|NCT01175135|181960197|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.339||0.471|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.82|1.62||Reported p-value was 1-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||General Score: MMRM model with fixed effect for baseline PANSS general subscale score, investigator site, treatment, visit, a treatment by visit interaction and a baseline PANSS general subscale score by visit interaction and a random effect for participant. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.62|-1.82|0.4710
90974855|NCT02167945|181832604|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|-0.13|||ANCOVA||F3 - F0-F1|"F0-F1 vs F3 at Post-treatment Week 24~The difference between baseline fibrosis stage groups in mean change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with baseline fibrosis stage (F0-F1, F2, F3 and F4) as a factor and baseline patient reported outcomes(PRO) score and SVR12 status as covariates."||-0.13|-3.70|0.035
90974856|NCT02167945|181832604|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.01|-0.43|||ANCOVA||F4 - F0-F1|"F0-F1 vs F4 at Post-treatment Week 24~The difference between baseline fibrosis stage groups in mean change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with baseline fibrosis stage (F0-F1, F2, F3 and F4) as a factor and baseline patient reported outcomes(PRO) score and SVR12 status as covariates."||-0.43|-4.01|0.015
90974857|NCT03021642|181832620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric Least square (LS) mean ratio|98.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.67|103.96||||||||103.96|93.67|
90974858|NCT03021642|181832621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS mean ratio|95.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.43|103.59||||||||103.59|88.43|
90974859|NCT03021642|181832622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS mean ratio|96.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.8|103.36||||||||103.36|90.8|
90974860|NCT03021642|181832623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.8981|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|1.025|||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||1.025|-1.000|0.8981
90974861|NCT02623335|181832655|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.353|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Options questions||||0.353
90974862|NCT02623335|181832655|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.923|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Expectations questions||||0.923
90974863|NCT02623335|181832655|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.255|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Risks questions||||0.255
90974864|NCT02623335|181832655|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|239047259.0||||0.094|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Advance directives questions||||0.094
90974865|NCT02623335|181832656|SUPERIORITY||Effect estimate|-0.04||||0.84|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in scores between T2 and T1||||0.84
90974866|NCT02623335|181832656|SUPERIORITY||Effect estimate|-0.15||||0.645|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in scores between T3 and T1||||0.645
90974867|NCT02623335|181832657|SUPERIORITY||Effect estimate|-0.37||||0.411|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.411
90974868|NCT02623335|181832658|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.412|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.412
90974869|NCT02623335|181832659|SUPERIORITY||Effect estimate|-0.25||||0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.009
90974870|NCT02623335|181832660|SUPERIORITY||Effect estimate|-0.72||||0.106|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||6-8 weeks post-enrollment (T2)||||0.106
90974871|NCT02623335|181832660|SUPERIORITY||Effect estimate|-1.12||||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||3-4 months post-enrollment post-enrollment (T3)||||0.007
90974872|NCT02623335|181832661|SUPERIORITY||Effect estimate|0.97||||0.034|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||6-8 weeks post-enrollment (T2)||||0.034
90974873|NCT02623335|181832661|SUPERIORITY||Effect estimate|1.12||||0.019|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||3-4 months post-enrollment (T3)||||0.019
90974874|NCT02623335|181832662|SUPERIORITY||Effect estimate|1.16||||0.022|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||6-8 weeks post-enrollment (T2)||||0.022
90974875|NCT02623335|181832662|SUPERIORITY||Effect estimate|0.94||||0.053|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||3-4 months post-enrollment post-enrollment (T3)||||0.053
90974876|NCT02623335|181832664|SUPERIORITY||Effect estimate|5.04||||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.07
91036815|NCT01175135|181960197|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.718||0.0172|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.86|-1.45||Reported p-value was 1-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||General Score: MMRM model with fixed effect for baseline PANSS general subscale score, investigator site, treatment, visit, a treatment by visit interaction and a baseline PANSS general subscale score by visit interaction and a random effect for participant. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.45|-5.86|0.0172
91036816|NCT01175135|181960198|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.154||0.197|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.33|0.07||Reported p-value was 1-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM model with fixed effect for baseline CGI-S, investigator site, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, a baseline CGI-S by visit interaction and random effect for participant. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.07|-0.33|0.1970
91036817|NCT01175135|181960198|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.154||0.3835|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.24|0.15||Reported p-value was 1-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM model with fixed effect for baseline CGI-S, investigator site, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, a baseline CGI-S by visit interaction and random effect for participant. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.15|-0.24|0.3835
90974877|NCT02474082|181832672|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.79|35.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||35.40|7.79|<.0001
90974878|NCT04317274|181832693|OTHER||Slope|-0.19||||0.21|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Note: original plan was to conduct ANOVAs, but failed tests of assumptions||We tested for interaction effect of order and video version within the high cholesterol group.||||0.21
90974879|NCT04317274|181832693|OTHER||Slope|-1.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Original plan was to conduct ANOVAs, but failed tests of assumptions||We tested for interaction effect of order and video version within the colorectal cancer group.||||<0.001
90974880|NCT04317274|181832694|OTHER||Slope|0.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||We examined the correlation between SDM Process and SDM-Q9 scores in the high cholesterol group.||||<.001
90974881|NCT04317274|181832694|OTHER||Slope|0.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation coefficient]|||We examined the correlation between SDM Process and SDM-Q9 scores in the colorectal cancer group.||||<.001
90974882|NCT00430508|181832698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.3|||<|0.0001||95.0|-6.97|-3.6|||ANCOVA|||||-3.6|-6.97|<0.0001
90974883|NCT00430508|181832698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.4|||<|0.0001||95.0|-4.79|-2.03|||ANCOVA|||||-2.03|-4.79|<0.0001
90974884|NCT00430508|181832698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9||||0.1788||95.0|-2.32|0.43|||ANCOVA|||||0.43|-2.32|0.1788
90974885|NCT00430508|181832699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.1|||<|0.0001||95.0|-5.54|-2.6|||ANCOVA|||||-2.6|-5.54|<0.0001
90974886|NCT00430508|181832699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.2|||<|0.0001||95.0|-4.39|-1.98|||ANCOVA|||||-1.98|-4.39|<0.0001
90974887|NCT00430508|181832699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.1081||95.0|-2.19|0.22|||ANCOVA|||||0.22|-2.19|0.1081
90974888|NCT00430508|181832700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.4|||<|0.0001||95.0|-10.13|-4.66|||ANCOVA|||||-4.66|-10.13|<0.0001
90974889|NCT00430508|181832700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.2|||<|0.0001||95.0|-7.4|-2.91|||ANCOVA|||||-2.91|-7.4|<0.0001
90974890|NCT00430508|181832700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.6||||0.0255||95.0|-4.79|-0.31|||ANCOVA|||||-0.31|-4.79|0.0255
90974891|NCT00430508|181832701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.6|||<|0.0001||95.0|-9.0|-4.26|||ANCOVA|||||-4.26|-9.00|<0.0001
90974892|NCT00430508|181832701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.8|||<|0.0001||95.0|-6.7|-2.81|||ANCOVA|||||-2.81|-6.70|<0.0001
90974893|NCT00430508|181832701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.7||||0.0812||95.0|-3.66|0.21|||ANCOVA|||||0.21|-3.66|0.0812
90974894|NCT00430508|181832702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.67||||||95.0|1.69|4.21|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.21|1.69|
90974895|NCT00430508|181832702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2||||||95.0|1.5|3.24|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.24|1.50|
90974896|NCT00430508|181832702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||||95.0|1.07|2.25|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.25|1.07|
90974897|NCT00430508|181832703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.1|||<|0.0001||95.0|-6.78|-3.36|||ANCOVA|||||-3.36|-6.78|<0.0001
90974898|NCT00430508|181832703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.2|||<|0.0001||95.0|-4.54|-1.78|||ANCOVA|||||-1.78|-4.54|<0.0001
90974899|NCT00430508|181832703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.1452||95.0|-2.43|0.36|||ANCOVA|||||0.36|-2.43|0.1452
90974900|NCT00430508|181832704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.0|||<|0.0001||95.0|-6.79|-3.17|||ANCOVA|||||-3.17|-6.79|<0.0001
90974901|NCT00430508|181832704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.3|||<|0.0001||95.0|-4.79|-1.87|||ANCOVA|||||-1.87|-4.79|<0.0001
91036818|NCT01175135|181960198|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.199||0.0395|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.61|-0.1||Reported p-value was 1-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM model with fixed effect for baseline CGI-S, investigator site, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, a baseline CGI-S by visit interaction and random effect for participant. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.10|-0.61|0.0395
91036819|NCT01175135|181960199|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.863||0.1999|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.84|0.38||Reported p-value was 1-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Positive Score: MMRM model with fixed effect for baseline PANSS Marder positive score, investigator site, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline PANSS Marder positive score by visit interaction, and random effect for participant. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.38|-1.84|0.1999
91036820|NCT01175135|181960199|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.3399|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.48|0.76||Reported p-value was 1-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Positive Score: MMRM model with fixed effect for baseline PANSS Marder positive score, investigator site, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline PANSS Marder positive score by visit interaction, and random effect for participant. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.76|-1.48|0.3399
91036821|NCT01175135|181960199|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.117||0.01|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.06|-1.18||Reported p-value was 1-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Positive Score: MMRM model with fixed effect for baseline PANSS Marder positive score, investigator site, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline PANSS Marder positive score by visit interaction, and random effect for participant. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.18|-4.06|0.0100
91036822|NCT01175135|181960199|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.778||0.1625|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.77|0.23||Reported p-value was 1-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Negative Score: MMRM model with fixed effect for baseline PANSS Marder negative score, investigator site, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline PANSS Marder negative score by visit interaction, and random effect for participant. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.23|-1.77|0.1625
91036823|NCT01175135|181960199|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.783||0.2354|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.57|0.44||Reported p-value was 1-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Negative Score: MMRM model with fixed effect for baseline PANSS Marder negative score, investigator site, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline PANSS Marder negative score by visit interaction, and random effect for participant. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.44|-1.57|0.2354
91036824|NCT01175135|181960199|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.002||0.2161|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.08|0.5||Reported p-value was 1-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Negative Score: MMRM model with fixed effect for baseline PANSS Marder negative score, investigator site, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline PANSS Marder negative score by visit interaction, and random effect for participant. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.50|-2.08|0.2161
91036825|NCT01175135|181960199|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.627||0.248|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.23|0.38||Reported p-value was 1-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Disorganized Thought Score: MMRM model with fixed effect for baseline PANSS Marder disorganized thought score, investigator site, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline PANSS Marder disorganized thought score by visit interaction, and random effect for participant. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.38|-1.23|0.2480
91036826|NCT01175135|181960199|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.632||0.4345|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.92|0.71||Reported p-value was 1-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Disorganized Thought Score: MMRM model with fixed effect for baseline PANSS Marder disorganized thought score, investigator site, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline PANSS Marder disorganized thought score by visit interaction, and random effect for participant. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.71|-0.92|0.4345
91036827|NCT01175135|181960199|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.813||0.0346|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.53|-0.44||Reported p-value was 1-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Disorganized Thought Score: MMRM model with fixed effect for baseline PANSS Marder disorganized thought score, investigator site, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline PANSS Marder disorganized thought score by visit interaction, and random effect for participant. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.44|-2.53|0.0346
91036828|NCT01175135|181960199|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.495||0.4685|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.68|0.6||Reported p-value was 1-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Uncontrolled hostility/excitement Score: MMRM model with fixed effect for baseline PANSS Marder hostility/excitement score, investigator site, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline PANSS Marder hostility/excitement score by visit interaction, and random effect for participant. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.60|-0.68|0.4685
91036829|NCT01175135|181960199|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.499||0.6214|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.49|0.8||Reported p-value was 1-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Uncontrolled hostility/excitement Score: MMRM model with fixed effect for baseline PANSS Marder hostility/excitement score, investigator site, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline PANSS Marder hostility/excitement score by visit interaction, and random effect for participant. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.80|-0.49|0.6214
90943943|NCT03672175|181766938|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.2868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.6||MMRM with treatment, BL HAM-A total score, anti-depressant use at BL (Yes or No), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||||0.6|-2.1|0.2868
90943944|NCT03672175|181766939|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.35||0.5987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|1.9||MMRM with treatment, BL MADRS total score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||||1.9|-3.4|0.5987
90943945|NCT03672175|181766939|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36||0.1443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|0.7||MMRM with treatment, BL MADRS total score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||||0.7|-4.7|0.1443
90943946|NCT03672175|181766940|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.87||0.8499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|4.0||MMRM with treatment, BL HAM-D core subscale score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15||4.0|-3.3|0.8499
91036830|NCT01175135|181960199|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.641||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.48|-0.84||Reported p-value was 1-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Uncontrolled hostility/excitement Score: MMRM model with fixed effect for baseline PANSS Marder hostility/excitement score, investigator site, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline PANSS Marder hostility/excitement score by visit interaction, and random effect for participant. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.84|-2.48|0.0052
91036831|NCT01175135|181960199|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.523||0.5894|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.55|0.79||Reported p-value was 1-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Anxiety/Depression Score: MMRM model with fixed effect for baseline PANSS Marder anxiety/depression score, investigator site, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline PANSS Marder anxiety/depression score by visit interaction, and random effect for participant. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.79|-0.55|0.5894
91036832|NCT01175135|181960199|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.526||0.8155|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.2|1.15||Reported p-value was 1-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Anxiety/Depression Score: MMRM model with fixed effect for baseline PANSS Marder anxiety/depression score, investigator site, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline PANSS Marder anxiety/depression score by visit interaction, and random effect for participant. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.15|-0.20|0.8155
91036833|NCT01175135|181960199|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.677||0.0069|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.55|-0.81||Reported p-value was 1-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Anxiety/Depression Score: MMRM model with fixed effect for baseline PANSS Marder anxiety/depression score, investigator site, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline PANSS Marder anxiety/depression score by visit interaction, and random effect for participant. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.81|-2.55|0.0069
91036834|NCT01175135|181960200|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.559||0.2727|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.06|0.38||Reported p-value was 1-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM model with fixed effect for baseline PANSS derived BPRS core score, investigator site, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline PANSS derived BPRS core score by visit interaction, and random effect for participant. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.38|-1.06|0.2727
91036835|NCT01175135|181960200|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.562||0.4747|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.76|0.69||Reported p-value was 1-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM model with fixed effect for baseline PANSS derived BPRS core score, investigator site, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline PANSS derived BPRS core score by visit interaction, and random effect for participant. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.69|-0.76|0.4747
91036836|NCT01175135|181960200|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.723||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.93|-1.07||Reported p-value was 1-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM model with fixed effect for baseline PANSS derived BPRS core score, investigator site, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline PANSS derived BPRS core score by visit interaction, and random effect for participant. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.07|-2.93|0.0031
91036837|NCT01175135|181960201|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.196||0.3598|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.32|0.18||Reported p-value was 1-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM model with fixed effect for investigator site, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and random effect for participant. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.18|-0.32|0.3598
91036838|NCT01175135|181960201|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.198||0.7275|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.13|0.37||Reported p-value was 1-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM model with fixed effect for investigator site, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and random effect for participant. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.37|-0.13|0.7275
91036839|NCT01175135|181960201|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.255||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.07|-0.42||Reported p-value was 1-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM model with fixed effect for investigator site, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and random effect for participant. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.42|-1.07|0.0019
91036840|NCT01175135|181960202|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.478||0.5429|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.06|1.74||Reported p-value was 1-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM model with fixed effect for baseline GAF score, investigator site, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline GAF score by visit interaction and random effect for participant. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.74|-2.06|0.5429
91036841|NCT01175135|181960202|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.492||0.4354|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.68|2.16||Reported p-value was 1-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM model with fixed effect for baseline GAF score, investigator site, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline GAF score by visit interaction and random effect for participant. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.16|-1.68|0.4354
91036842|NCT01175135|181960202|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.907||0.093|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.08|4.99||Reported p-value was 1-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM model with fixed effect for baseline GAF score, investigator site, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline GAF score by visit interaction and random effect for participant. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance matrix.||4.99|0.08|0.0930
91036843|NCT02284867|181960214|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Multivariable binary logistic regression was done to examine the relation between CD16+ NK and preterm labor as adjusted for other confounding factors the enter method was used to build the regression model.~A two-sided p-value \<0.05 was considered statistically significant."|Odds Ratio (OR)|65.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14|<|0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.96|606.76||To our best of known , no previous human studies was analyzing this issue|Regression, Logistic|||"Categorical data were presented as number and percentage and differences were compared using the Pearson chi-squared test. Ordinal data were compared using the chi-squared test for trend~A two-sided p-value \<0.05 was considered statistically significant."||606.76|6.96|<0.0002
90974902|NCT00430508|181832704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.1629||95.0|-2.52|0.42|||ANCOVA|||||0.42|-2.52|0.1629
90974903|NCT00430508|181832705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.5|||<|0.0001||95.0|-7.4|-3.62|||ANCOVA|||||-3.62|-7.40|<0.0001
90974904|NCT00430508|181832705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.6|||<|0.0009||95.0|-4.12|-1.07|||ANCOVA|||||-1.07|-4.12|<0.0009
90974905|NCT00430508|181832705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.1985||95.0|-2.55|0.53|||ANCOVA|||||0.53|-2.55|0.1985
90974906|NCT00288080|181832720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0398|||||||Log Rank|||The study was designed to detect an improvement in the 4-year overall survival rate from 86% (AS+RT) to 93% (AS+RT+CT). Assuming an exponential survival distribution for each arm, then an absolute improvement of 7% in the 4-year overall survival rate translates to a 51% relative reduction (hazard ratio 0.49) in the yearly death rate. Under a 1-sided significance level of 0.05 and 90% power, at least 78 deaths and 486 cases were required to perform the primary endpoint analysis.||||0.0398
90974907|NCT00288080|181832721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.22|||||||Log Rank|||Biochemical control rates at 4 years were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared by a two-sided log-rank test with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.22
90974908|NCT00288080|181832723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.21|||||||Log Rank|||Distant failure rates at 4 years were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared by a two-side log-rank test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.21
90974909|NCT00288080|181832724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0484|||||||Log Rank|||Disease-free survival rates were compared by a two-sided log-rank test at a significance level of 0.05.||||0.0484
90974910|NCT01687712|181832733|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the difference in pregnancy rates (Gonal-f® RFF - AFOLIA) did not exceed 8% (i.e. a one-sided hypothesis test at the 2.5% level of significance). The difference in rates (\& Wald CI) was estimated using a logistic regression model with binomial distribution and identity link, with treatment and site as factors.|Risk Difference (RD)|3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|8.7|||||"Note that risk in this context is the risk of clinical pregnancy. The difference is in the direction Gonal-f® RFF - AFOLIA."|"The null and alternative hypotheses are as follows:~H0: p2- p1 \> ∆ and H1: p2- p1 ≤ ∆,~where p1 is the clinical pregnancy rate in the AFOLIA treatment group, p2 is the clinical pregnancy rate in the Gonal f® treatment group, and Δ is the non-inferiority margin of 8%."||8.7|-1.3|
90974911|NCT01687712|181832734|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the difference in pregnancy rates (Gonal-f® RFF - AFOLIA) did not exceed 8% (i.e. a one-sided hypothesis test at the 2.5% level of significance). The difference in rates (\& Wald CI) was estimated using a logistic regression model with binomial distribution and identity link, with treatment and site as factors.|Risk Difference (RD)|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|8.1|||||"Note that risk in this context is the risk of clinical pregnancy. The difference is in the direction Gonal-f® RFF - AFOLIA."|"The null and alternative hypotheses are as follows:~H0: p2- p1 \> ∆ and H1: p2- p1 ≤ ∆,~where p1 is the clinical pregnancy rate in the AFOLIA treatment group, p2 is the clinical pregnancy rate in the Gonal f® treatment group, and Δ is the non-inferiority margin of 8%."||8.1|-2.5|
90974912|NCT01687712|181832738|SUPERIORITY|Comparisons were tested against a null of zero at the two-side 5% significance level.||||||0.612||||||P-values are based upon Type III sums of squares.|ANCOVA|Treatment group and Site are included as factors.||"The null and alternative hypotheses are as follows:~H0: p2- p1 = 0 and H1: p2- p1 ≠0,~where p1 is the least squares adjusted mean number of oocytes retrieved in the AFOLIA treatment group and p2 is the least squares adjusted mean number of oocytes retrieved in the Gonal f® treatment group."||||0.612
90974913|NCT01250379|181832790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.0204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.97|||Log Rank||The 95% confidence interval (CI) was estimated using Cox proportional hazards methodology. The stratification factors used in the analysis were hormone receptor status, first-line PFS, choice of chemotherapy, and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) level.|||0.97|0.65|0.0204
90974914|NCT01250379|181832790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.0245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.97|||Log Rank||Unstratified analysis.|||0.97|0.67|0.0245
90974915|NCT01250379|181832791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59||||0.0088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.88|||Log Rank|||Subgroup analysis: HR-neg||0.88|0.40|0.0088
90974916|NCT01250379|181832791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.1196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.05|||Log Rank|||Subgroup analysis: HR-pos/HER-neg||1.05|0.67|0.1196
90974917|NCT01250379|181832791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.9|||Log Rank|||Subgroup analysis: PFS \<6 months||0.90|0.43|0.0110
90974918|NCT01250379|181832791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.0816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.03|||Log Rank|||Subgroup analysis: PFS ≥6 months||1.03|0.65|0.0816
90974919|NCT01250379|181832791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.55||||0.0395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.98|||Log Rank|||Subgroup analysis: taxane chemo||0.98|0.31|0.0395
90974920|NCT01250379|181832791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.1385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.06|||Log Rank|||Subgroup analysis: non-taxane chemo||1.06|0.68|0.1385
90974921|NCT01250379|181832791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.41||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.75|||Log Rank|||Subgroup analysis: vinorelbine chemo||0.75|0.22|0.0029
90943947|NCT03672175|181766940|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.88||0.6265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|2.8||MMRM with treatment, BL HAM-D core subscale score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15||2.8|-4.6|0.6265
90943948|NCT03672175|181766940|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.97||0.7418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|4.5||MMRM with treatment, BL HAM-D core subscale score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42||4.5|-3.2|0.7418
90943949|NCT03672175|181766940|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.94||0.7837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|3.3||MMRM with treatment, BL HAM-D core subscale score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42||3.3|-4.3|0.7837
90943950|NCT03672175|181766941|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.74||0.6848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|2.7||MMRM with treatment, BL HAM-D anxiety subscale score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15||2.7|-4.1|0.6848
90943951|NCT03672175|181766941|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.72||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|0.6||MMRM with treatment, BL HAM-D anxiety subscale score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15||0.6|-6.1|0.1100
90943952|NCT03672175|181766941|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86||0.509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|4.9||MMRM with treatment, BL HAM-D anxiety subscale score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42||4.9|-2.4|0.5090
90943953|NCT03672175|181766941|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.77||0.8948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|3.7||MMRM with treatment, BL HAM-D anxiety subscale score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42||3.7|-3.2|0.8948
90943954|NCT03672175|181766942|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.25||0.9591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|4.3||MMRM with treatment, BL HAM-D Bech-6 subscale score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15||4.3|-4.5|0.9591
90943955|NCT03672175|181766942|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.28||0.2713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|2.0||MMRM with treatment, BL HAM-D Bech-6 subscale score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15||2.0|-7.0|0.2713
90943956|NCT03672175|181766942|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.43||0.8048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|5.4||MMRM with treatment, BL HAM-D Bech-6 subscale score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42||5.4|-4.2|0.8048
90943957|NCT03672175|181766942|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.35||0.7665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|3.9||MMRM with treatment, BL HAM-D Bech-6 subscale score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42||3.9|-5.3|0.7665
90974922|NCT01250379|181832791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.0171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.96|||Log Rank|||Subgroup analysis: LDH ≤ 1.5 ULN||0.96|0.62|0.0171
90974923|NCT01250379|181832791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.1797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.16|||Log Rank|||Subgroup analysis: LDH \> 1.5 ULN||1.16|0.46|0.1797
90974924|NCT01250379|181832791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.0229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.97|||Log Rank|||Subgroup analysis: \< 65 years of age||0.97|0.62|0.0229
90974925|NCT01250379|181832791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.2139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.16|||Log Rank|||Subgroup analysis: ≥ 65 years of age||1.16|0.51|0.2139
90943958|NCT03672175|181766943|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91||0.8575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|4.1||MMRM with treatment, BL HAM-D Maier subscale score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15||4.1|-3.4|0.8575
90943959|NCT03672175|181766943|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.94||0.1978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|1.3||MMRM with treatment, BL HAM-D Maier subscale score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15||1.3|-6.3|0.1978
90943960|NCT03672175|181766943|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.08||0.9298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|4.3||MMRM with treatment, BL HAM-D Maier subscale score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42||4.3|-3.9|0.9298
90943961|NCT03672175|181766943|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.03||0.5487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|2.8||MMRM with treatment, BL HAM-D Maier subscale score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42||2.8|-5.2|0.5487
90974926|NCT01250379|181832791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.89|||Log Rank|||Subgroup analysis: \< 70 years of age||0.89|0.59|0.0021
90974927|NCT01250379|181832791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.24||||0.5216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|2.39|||Log Rank|||Subgroup analysis: ≥ 70 years of age||2.39|0.64|0.5216
90974928|NCT01250379|181832791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.0148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.94|||Log Rank|||Subgroup analysis: \< 3 metastatic organ sites||0.94|0.58|0.0148
90974929|NCT01250379|181832791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.3102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.17|||Log Rank|||Subgroup analysis: ≥ 3 metastatic organ sites||1.17|0.61|0.3102
90974930|NCT01250379|181832791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.0967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.04|||Log Rank|||Subgroup analysis: B-free ≤ 6 weeks||1.04|0.64|0.0967
90974931|NCT01250379|181832791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.0489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.0|||Log Rank|||Subgroup analysis: B-free \> 6 weeks||1.00|0.51|0.0489
90974932|NCT01250379|181832791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.0176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.92|||Log Rank|||Subgroup analysis: D-free ≤ 24 months||0.92|0.41|0.0176
90974933|NCT01250379|181832791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.2318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.11|||Log Rank|||Subgroup analysis: D-free \> 24 months||1.11|0.66|0.2318
90974934|NCT01250379|181832791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52||||0.0568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.03|||Log Rank|||Subgroup analysis: D-free ≤ 12 months||1.03|0.26|0.0568
90974935|NCT01250379|181832791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.1143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.05|||Log Rank|||Subgroup analysis: D-free \> 12 months||1.05|0.66|0.1143
91050448|NCT04168190|181987010|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMC ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|1.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.3|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 3. Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio, 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||1.30|0.90|<0.001
90943962|NCT03672175|181766944|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.3||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: Depressed Mood||0.3|-0.2|0.6270
90943963|NCT03672175|181766944|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.5463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: Depressed Mood||0.2|-0.4|0.5463
90943964|NCT03672175|181766944|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.8716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42: Depressed Mood||0.3|-0.3|0.8716
90943965|NCT03672175|181766944|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.4383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42: Depressed Mood||0.2|-0.4|0.4383
90943966|NCT03672175|181766944|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.4794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.3||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: Feelings of Guilt||0.3|-0.1|0.4794
90943967|NCT03672175|181766944|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.9717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: Feelings of Guilt||0.2|-0.2|0.9717
90974936|NCT01250379|181832792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.1||||0.3457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|12.4|||Chi-squared||The 95% CI was estimated using Hauck-Anderson methodology.|||12.4|-4.2|0.3457
90974937|NCT01250379|181832794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.9825|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.99|||Log Rank||The 95% CI was estimated using Cox proportional hazards methodology. The stratification factors used in stratified analysis were hormone receptor status, first-line PFS, choice of chemotherapy, and LDH level.|||1.99|0.51|0.9825
90974938|NCT01250379|181832794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.31||||0.3601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.34|||Log Rank||Unstratified analysis.|||2.34|0.73|0.3601
90974939|NCT01250379|181832797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.06|||Log Rank||The 95% CI was estimated using Cox proportional hazards methodology. The stratification factors used in stratified analysis were hormone receptor status, first-line PFS, choice of chemotherapy, and LDH level.|||1.06|0.59|0.1080
90974940|NCT01250379|181832797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.0625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.02|||Log Rank||Unstratified analysis.|||1.02|0.59|0.0625
90943968|NCT03672175|181766944|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.3701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.3||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42: Feelings of Guilt||0.3|-0.1|0.3701
90943969|NCT03672175|181766944|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.3972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.3||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42: Feelings of Guilt||0.3|-0.1|0.3972
90974941|NCT01250379|181832799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.1349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.05|||Log Rank||The 95% CI was estimated using Cox proportional hazards methodology. The stratification factors used in stratified analysis were hormone receptor status, first-line PFS, choice of chemotherapy, and LDH level.|||1.05|0.68|0.1349
90974942|NCT01250379|181832799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.0863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.03|||Log Rank||Unstratified analysis.|||1.03|0.68|0.0863
90974943|NCT01250379|181832801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.0744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.02|||Log Rank||The 95% CI was estimated using Cox proportional hazards methodology. The stratification factors used in stratified analysis were hormone receptor status, first-line PFS, choice of chemotherapy, and LDH level.|||1.02|0.65|0.0744
90974944|NCT01250379|181832801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.0503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.0|||Log Rank||Unstratified analysis.|||1.00|0.66|0.0503
90974945|NCT01250379|181832804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.7253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.21|||Log Rank||The 95% CI was estimated using Cox proportional hazards methodology. The stratification factors used in stratified analysis were hormone receptor status, first-line PFS, choice of chemotherapy, and LDH level.|||1.21|0.76|0.7253
90974946|NCT01250379|181832804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.5332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.16|||Log Rank||Unstratified analysis.|||1.16|0.75|0.5332
90974947|NCT01227902|181832837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|40.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.1|52.9|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with a \>=50% reduction in partial-onset seizure frequency from Baseline.|||52.9|27.1|
90974948|NCT01227902|181832837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|32.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.1|44.9|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with a \>=50% reduction in partial-onset seizure frequency from Baseline.|||44.9|19.1|
90974949|NCT01227902|181832837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.2|64.8|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with a \>=50% reduction in partial-onset seizure frequency from Baseline.|||64.8|35.2|
90974950|NCT01227902|181832837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|56.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.3|70.5|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with a \>=50% reduction in partial-onset seizure frequency from Baseline.|||70.5|43.3|
90974951|NCT01227902|181832837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|44.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.6|51.4|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with a \>=50% reduction in partial-onset seizure frequency from Baseline.|||51.4|37.6|
90974952|NCT02363478|181832857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|This statistical analysis applies to changes of amplitude of contractions, resting LES pressure and IRP between baseline and week 4.||||||<0.05
90974953|NCT02363478|181832860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|This statistical analysis applies to changes of amplitude of heartburn, regurgitation, chest pain and dysphagia between baseline and week 4.||||||0.05
90974954|NCT01916980|181832921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model includes terms of visit, group and visit by group interaction; visit is treated as a categorical variable||Analysis of the change from Baseline in least squares (LS) mean for the Desloratadine: Eczema/Dermatitis group||||<0.001
90974955|NCT01916980|181832921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model includes terms of visit, group and visit by group interaction; visit is treated as a categorical variable||Analysis of the change from Baseline in LS mean for the Desloratadine: Dermal Pruritus group||||<0.001
90974956|NCT01394705|181832970|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.65
91036844|NCT02927639|181960219|SUPERIORITY|"A subject was considered completed if they completed all 3 SCI (as indicated in participant flow section) - 13 control, 10 intervention.~However, the mixed model took in to account ALL available data. As such, there were 70 control, 65 intervention that completed at least 1 SCI. Their data was analyzed by the model and used to predict later outcomes so they were considered to be included in the analysis."||||||0.035||||||The mixed model may provide a significantly different change in SCI score from baseline to the 6 month using a per-protocol analysis in the intervention group as compared to the control group. A p value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A multilevel mixed effects linear regression model was used to analyze this data. This analysis allowed for an estimation of missing data. This explains the discrepancy in the number of participant study completion vs participant data analyzed (see below).||||0.035
90974957|NCT01394705|181832970|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.65
90974958|NCT01394705|181832971|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.76
90974959|NCT02793232|181833049|SUPERIORITY||Percent change from baseline|-79.456|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0819|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-81.56|-77.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||ABeta 1-38: General linear model with treatment, as the fixed effect and loge(baseline) as covariate.||-77.11|-81.56|<0.0001
90974960|NCT02793232|181833049|SUPERIORITY||Percent change from baseline|-87.403|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0887|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-88.8|-85.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||ABeta 1-38: General linear model with treatment, as the fixed effect and loge(baseline) as covariate.||-85.84|-88.80|<0.0001
90974961|NCT02793232|181833049|SUPERIORITY||Percent change from baseline|-83.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0905|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-85.65|-81.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||ABeta 1-40: General linear model with treatment, as the fixed effect and loge(baseline) as covariate.||-81.78|-85.65|<0.0001
90974962|NCT02793232|181833049|SUPERIORITY||Percent change from baseline|-92.138|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1041|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-93.15|-90.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||ABeta 1-40: General linear model with treatment, as the fixed effect and loge(baseline) as covariate.||-90.98|-93.15|<0.0001
90974963|NCT02793232|181833049|SUPERIORITY||Percent change from baseline|-84.814|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0971|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-86.64|-82.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||ABeta 1-42: General linear model with treatment, as the fixed effect and loge(baseline) as covariate.||-82.74|-86.64|<0.0001
90974964|NCT02793232|181833049|SUPERIORITY||Percent change from baseline|-92.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1114|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-93.85|-91.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||ABeta 1-42: General linear model with treatment, as the fixed effect and loge(baseline) as covariate.||-91.74|-93.85|<0.0001
90974965|NCT02793232|181833049|SUPERIORITY||Percent change from baseline|-79.465|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.087|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-81.69|-76.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|||ABeta x-38: General linear model with treatment, as the fixed effect and loge(baseline) as covariate.||-76.96|-81.69|<0.0001
90974966|NCT02793232|181833049|SUPERIORITY||Percent change from baseline|-88.711|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0963|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-90.06|-87.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||ABeta x-38: General linear model with treatment, as the fixed effect and loge(baseline) as covariate.||-87.18|-90.06|<0.0001
90974967|NCT02793232|181833049|SUPERIORITY||Percent change from baseline|-78.936|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0824|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-81.11|-76.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||ABeta x-40: General linear model with treatment, as the fixed effect and loge(baseline) as covariate.||-76.52|-81.11|<0.0001
90974968|NCT02793232|181833049|SUPERIORITY||Percent change from baseline|-86.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0899|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-87.82|-84.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||ABeta x-40: General linear model with treatment, as the fixed effect and loge(baseline) as covariate.||-84.55|-87.82|<0.0001
90974969|NCT02793232|181833049|SUPERIORITY||Percent change from baseline|-79.648|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0664|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-81.36|-77.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||ABeta x-42: General linear model with treatment, as the fixed effect and loge(baseline) as covariate.||-77.78|-81.36|<0.0001
90974970|NCT02793232|181833049|SUPERIORITY||Percent change from baseline|-84.985|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0715|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-86.34|-83.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||ABeta x-42: General linear model with treatment, as the fixed effect and loge(baseline) as covariate.||-83.50|-86.34|<0.0001
90974971|NCT02793232|181833049|SUPERIORITY||Percent change from baseline|72.893|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0809|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|55.37|92.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||sAPP-alpha: General linear model with treatment, as the fixed effect and loge(baseline) as covariate.||92.40|55.37|<0.0001
90974972|NCT02793232|181833049|SUPERIORITY||Percent change from baseline|98.049|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0897|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|75.92|122.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|||sAPP-alpha: General linear model with treatment, as the fixed effect and loge(baseline) as covariate.||122.96|75.92|<0.0001
90974973|NCT02793232|181833049|SUPERIORITY||Percent change from baseline|-80.164|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0668|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-81.84|-78.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||sAPP-beta: General linear model with treatment, as the fixed effect and loge(baseline) as covariate.||-78.33|-81.84|<0.0001
90974974|NCT02793232|181833049|SUPERIORITY||Percent change from baseline|-83.381|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0733|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-84.92|-81.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||sAPP-beta: General linear model with treatment, as the fixed effect and loge(baseline) as covariate.||-81.69|-84.92|<0.0001
90974975|NCT02793232|181833049|SUPERIORITY||Percent change from baseline|-78.408|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0602|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-80.06|-76.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Abeta total: General linear model with treatment, as the fixed effect and loge(baseline) as covariate||-76.62|-80.06|<0.0001
90974976|NCT02793232|181833049|SUPERIORITY||Percent change from baseline|-85.365|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0653|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-86.57|-84.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Abeta total: General linear model with treatment, as the fixed effect and loge(baseline) as covariate.||-84.05|-86.57|<0.0001
90974977|NCT00087646|181833057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|3.31|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Group A Vs Group D||3.31|1.21|0.0060
90974978|NCT00087646|181833058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.9228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.51|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.51|0.63|0.9228
91036845|NCT02699463|181960225|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||The calculated p-value was \<0.01|ANCOVA|||||||<0.01
90890036|NCT01571362|181644037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.236||0.0115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.14|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariate.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Screening to Week 2.||-0.14|-1.06|0.0115
90974979|NCT00087646|181833059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.22||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|3.52|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.52|1.40|0.0006
90974980|NCT00087646|181833060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|4.18|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At Week 12||4.18|1.66|<.0001
90974981|NCT00087646|181833060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.1955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.79|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At Week 24||1.79|0.89|0.1955
90974982|NCT00087646|181833060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.0883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.93|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At Week 48||1.93|0.95|0.0883
90974983|NCT00087646|181833061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.67|3.19|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Groups A vs Groups D (Week 12)||3.19|1.67|<.0001
90974984|NCT00087646|181833061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.3389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Groups A vs Groups D (Week 24)||1.60|0.85|0.3389
90974985|NCT01331304|181833065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59||||||Because this study has co-primary outcomes (CGI-EI and NCAs), the analyses of the treatment effect in the two primary hypotheses each involved a two-tailed alpha-level of 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||For the first co-primary aim, mixed-effects linear regression analyses compared the two intervention groups on the repeated assessments of the CGI-EI over 6 months.||||0.59
90974986|NCT01331304|181833066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.118|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the second co-primary, patient monthly rates of NCAs (determined by dividing total number of NCAs during follow-up by the length of follow-up - to account for attrition and resulting differential exposure time) for treatment groups were compared using a Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||||0.118
90974987|NCT01331304|181833067|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11||||||Analysis of this secondary outcome was not corrected for multiple comparisons. Therefore, the a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effects linear regression analyses compared the two intervention groups on the repeated collection of measures relevant to calculation of the Framingham Risk Score over 6 months||||0.11
90974988|NCT01331304|181833068|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7||||||Analysis of this secondary outcome was not corrected for multiple comparisons. Therefore, the a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effects linear regression analyses compared the two intervention groups on the repeated assessment of the LIFE-RIFT over 6 months||||0.70
90974989|NCT02301403|181833090|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.69|5.14|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.14|1.69|<.001
90974990|NCT01060059|181833107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.46|||Regression, Logistic|If several variables had Spearman's rho \> 0.4 (for continuous) and Cramer's V \> 0.4 (for categorical covariates), only one was left in the model.||Logistic regression analysis was used to determine if Baseline Gender (Male vs. Female), was associated with treatment choice at baseline. Odds ratios were determined and if the odds ratio was greater than 1, it indicated it is more likely to initiate exenatide treatment. Covariates with more than 30% observations missing were omitted in this analysis. Missing values for remaining numeric covariates were replaced with means, and for categorical ones - with modes.||1.46|0.62|0.831
90974991|NCT01060059|181833107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.76||Baseline Medical conditions (yes vs. no)|Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression analysis was used to find factors associated with treatment choice at baseline. Covariates with more than 30% observations missing are omitted in this analysis. Weight was removed (high correlation with BMI) and also fasting blood glucose (lab value) was removed (high correlation with HbA1c). Missing values for remaining numeric covariates were replaced with means, and for categorical ones-with modes.||1.76|0.74|0.554
91036846|NCT02488239|181960226|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||exact binomial rate|||||||<0.001
91036847|NCT02488239|181960227|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
90943970|NCT03672175|181766944|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.5761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: Suicide||0.1|-0.1|0.5761
90974992|NCT01060059|181833107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|3.42||Baseline gastrointestinal symptoms (yes vs. no)|Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression analysis was used to find factors associated with treatment choice at baseline. Covariates with more than 30% observations missing are omitted in this analysis. Weight was removed (high correlation with BMI) and also fasting blood glucose (lab value) was removed (high correlation with HbA1c). Missing values for remaining numeric covariates were replaced with means, and for categorical ones-with modes.||3.42|0.43|0.714
90943971|NCT03672175|181766944|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.4379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: Suicide||0.1|-0.1|0.4379
90943972|NCT03672175|181766944|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.6087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42: Suicide||0.1|-0.1|0.6087
90943973|NCT03672175|181766944|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.9791|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42: Suicide||0.1|-0.1|0.9791
90943974|NCT03672175|181766944|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.2093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: Insomnia Early - Early Night||0.1|-0.3|0.2093
90943975|NCT03672175|181766944|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.5189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: Insomnia Early - Early Night||0.1|-0.3|0.5189
90943976|NCT03672175|181766944|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.6617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42: Insomnia Early - Early Night||0.2|-0.2|0.6617
90943977|NCT03672175|181766944|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.2632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.3||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42: Insomnia Early - Early Night||0.3|-0.1|0.2632
90943978|NCT03672175|181766944|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: Insomnia Middle - Middle Night||0.1|-0.3|0.2740
90943979|NCT03672175|181766944|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.1185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.0||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: Insomnia Middle - Middle Night||0.0|-0.3|0.1185
90943980|NCT03672175|181766944|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42: Insomnia Middle - Middle Night||0.2|-0.2|0.9450
90943981|NCT03672175|181766944|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.6343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42: Insomnia Middle - Middle Night||0.1|-0.2|0.6343
90943982|NCT03672175|181766944|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.3169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: Insomnia Early Hours - Morning||0.1|-0.3|0.3169
90943983|NCT03672175|181766944|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.0||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: Insomnia Early Hours - Morning||0.0|-0.4|0.0178
90943984|NCT03672175|181766944|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.8504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42: Insomnia Early Hours - Morning||0.2|-0.2|0.8504
90943985|NCT03672175|181766944|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.5647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42: Insomnia Early Hours - Morning||0.1|-0.2|0.5647
90890037|NCT01571362|181644037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.256||0.0099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|-0.16|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariate.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Screening to Week 4.||-0.16|-1.17|0.0099
90974993|NCT01060059|181833108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.78|||Regression, Logistic|If several variables had Spearman's rho \> 0.4 (for continuous) and Cramer's V \> 0.4 (for categorical covariates), only one was left in the model.||Logistic regression analysis was used to determine if Baseline HbA1c was 1% more, was it associated with treatment choice at baseline. Odds ratios were determined and if the odds ratio was greater than 1, it indicated it is more likely to initiate exenatide treatment. Covariates with more than 30% observations missing were omitted in this analysis. Missing values for remaining numeric covariates were replaced with means, and for categorical ones - with modes.||0.78|0.60|<0.001
90974994|NCT01060059|181833109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.0|||Regression, Logistic|If several variables had Spearman's rho \> 0.4 (for continuous) and Cramer's V \> 0.4 (for categorical covariates), only one was left in the model.||Logistic regression analysis was used to determine if longer duration of diabetes was associated with treatment choice at baseline. Odds ratios were determined and if the odds ratio was greater than 1, it indicated it is more likely to initiate exenatide treatment. Covariates with more than 30% observations missing were omitted in this analysis. Missing values for remaining numeric covariates were replaced with means, and for categorical ones - with modes.||1.00|0.96|0.055
90890038|NCT01571362|181644037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.307||0.0222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|-0.1|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariate.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Screening to Week 8.||-0.10|-1.31|0.0222
90890039|NCT01571362|181644037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.264||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|-0.5|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariate.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Screening to Week 12/ Early Termination.||-0.50|-1.54|0.0001
90890040|NCT01571362|181644038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.218||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|-0.24|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariate.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Screening to Week 2.||-0.24|-1.09|0.0025
90890041|NCT01571362|181644038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.235||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|-0.31|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariate.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Screening to Week 4.||-0.31|-1.23|0.0012
90890042|NCT01571362|181644038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.272||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|-0.19|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariate.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Screening to Week 8.||-0.19|-1.27|0.0078
90890043|NCT01571362|181644038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.243|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|-0.56|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariate.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Screening to Week 12/Early Termination.||-0.56|-1.52|<0.0001
90890044|NCT01571362|181644039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.228||0.0727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.04|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariate.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Screening to Week 2.||0.04|-0.86|0.0727
90890045|NCT01571362|181644039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.238||0.0501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.0|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariate.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Screening to Week 4.||0.00|-0.94|0.0501
90890046|NCT01571362|181644039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.262||0.5704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.37|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariate.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Screening to Week 8.||0.37|-0.67|0.5704
90890047|NCT01571362|181644039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.245||0.0096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|-0.16|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariate.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Screening to Week 12/ Early Termination.||-0.16|-1.12|0.0096
90890048|NCT01571362|181644040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-27.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.968||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.34|-6.16|||ANCOVA||Difference between treatment groups evaluated by ANCOVA with treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|||-6.16|-49.34|0.0120
90890049|NCT01571362|181644041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-3.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|50.5||0.939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-103.29|95.55|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the average daily rescue acetaminophen during the Titration Period and final total daily study medication dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|||95.55|-103.29|0.9390
90890050|NCT01571362|181644047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0014|||||||Wilcoxon test, survival analysis|P-value from Wilcoxon test with treatment and opioid stratum as factors||Time to 20% loss of analgesic response||||0.0014
90890051|NCT01571362|181644047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0024|||||||Wilcoxon test, survival analysis|P-value from Wilcoxon test with treatment and opioid stratum as factors||Time to 30% loss of analgesic response.||||0.0024
90890052|NCT01571362|181644047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006|||||||Wilcoxon test, survival analysis|P-value from Wilcoxon test with treatment and opioid stratum as factors||Time to 40% loss of analgesic response.||||0.0006
90890053|NCT01571362|181644047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0021|||||||Wilcoxon test, survival analysis|P-value from Wilcoxon test with treatment and opioid stratum as factors||Time to 50% loss of analgesic response||||0.0021
91036848|NCT05283148|181960228|OTHER|Distribution was non-normal, so a Wilcoxon rank-sum test (two-sided) was used.||||||0.321||||||A p-value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test (two-sided)|||Comparison between Group A and Group B as defined above. Values are reported as median (full range) for each group, measured by DXA at the lumbar spine. Distribution was non-normal, so a Wilcoxon rank-sum test (two-sided) was used. A p-value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||0.321
90943986|NCT03672175|181766944|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.5914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.2||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: Work and Activities||0.2|-0.3|0.5914
90943987|NCT03672175|181766944|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.4603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: Work and Activities||0.2|-0.4|0.4603
90943988|NCT03672175|181766944|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.5637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42: Work and Activities||0.2|-0.4|0.5637
90943989|NCT03672175|181766944|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.4638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42: Work and Activities||0.2|-0.4|0.4638
90943990|NCT03672175|181766944|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.1846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.2||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: Retardation||0.2|0.0|0.1846
90943991|NCT03672175|181766944|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.4837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: Retardation||0.2|-0.1|0.4837
90943992|NCT03672175|181766944|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.1178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.2||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42: Retardation||0.2|0.0|0.1178
90943993|NCT03672175|181766944|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.7888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42: Retardation||0.1|-0.1|0.7888
90943994|NCT03672175|181766944|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.9496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: Agitation||0.1|-0.1|0.9496
90943995|NCT03672175|181766944|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.0497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.0||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: Agitation||0.0|-0.3|0.0497
90943996|NCT03672175|181766944|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.4189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42: Agitation||0.1|-0.2|0.4189
90943997|NCT03672175|181766944|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.1342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.0||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42: Agitation||0.0|-0.3|0.1342
90943998|NCT03672175|181766944|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.9202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.2||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: Anxiety Psychic||0.2|-0.3|0.9202
90943999|NCT03672175|181766944|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.0||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: Anxiety Psychic||0.0|-0.5|0.0260
90944000|NCT03672175|181766944|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.2||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42: Anxiety Psychic||0.2|-0.3|0.9370
90944001|NCT03672175|181766944|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.2||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42: Anxiety Psychic||0.2|-0.3|0.8440
90944002|NCT03672175|181766944|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.3||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: Anxiety Somatic||0.3|-0.1|0.4480
90974995|NCT01060059|181833110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|0.99|||Regression, Logistic|If several variables had Spearman's rho \> 0.4 (for continuous) and Cramer's V \> 0.4 (for categorical covariates), only one was left in the model.||Logistic regression analysis was used to determine if older age (1 year older), was associated with treatment choice at baseline. Odds ratios were determined and if the odds ratio was greater than 1, it indicated it is more likely to initiate exenatide treatment. Covariates with more than 30% observations missing were omitted in this analysis. Missing values for remaining numeric covariates were replaced with means, and for categorical ones - with modes.||0.99|0.95|<0.001
91036849|NCT05283148|181960229|OTHER|Welch two-sample t-test (two-sided) was used to account for unequal variances.||||||0.714||||||A p-value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Welch two sample t-test|||Comparison between Group A and Group B as defined above. Values are reported as median ± full range for each group, derived from DXA lumbar spine scans. Welch two-sample t-test (two-sided) was used to account for unequal variances. A p-value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||0.714
91036850|NCT05283148|181960230|OTHER|Distribution was non-normal, so a Wilcoxon rank-sum test (two-sided) was used.||||||0.09||||||p-value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test (two-sided)|||Comparison between Group A and Group B as defined above. Values are reported as median (full range) for each group, measured by DXA at the total hip. Distribution was non-normal, so a Wilcoxon rank-sum test (two-sided) was used. A p-value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||0.09
91036851|NCT05283148|181960231|OTHER|Welch two-sample t-test (two-sided) was used to account for unequal variances.||||||0.604||||||A p-value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Welch two sample t-test (two sided)|||Comparison between Group A and Group B as defined above. Values are reported as median ± full range for each group, derived from DXA total hip scans. Welch two-sample t-test (two-sided) was used to account for unequal variances. A p-value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||0.604
90944003|NCT03672175|181766944|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.6345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: Anxiety Somatic||0.2|-0.1|0.6345
91036852|NCT05283148|181960232|OTHER|Distribution was non-normal, so a Wilcoxon rank-sum test (two-sided) was used.||||||0.013||||||A p-value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test (two-sided)|||Comparison between Group A and Group B as defined above. Values are reported as median (full range) for each group, measured by DXA at the femoral neck. Distribution was non-normal, so a Wilcoxon rank-sum test (two-sided) was used. A p-value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||0.013
91036853|NCT05283148|181960233|OTHER|Welch two-sample t-test (two-sided) was used to account for unequal variances.||||||0.166||||||A p-value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Welch two sample t-test|||Comparison between Group A and Group B as defined above. Values are reported as median ± full range for each group, derived from DXA femoral neck scans. Welch two-sample t-test (two-sided) was used to account for unequal variances. A p-value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||0.166
91036854|NCT05283148|181960234|OTHER|Welch two-sample t-test (two-sided) was used to account for unequal variances.||||||0.23||||||A p-value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Welch two sample t-test (two sided)|||Comparison between Group A and Group B as defined above. Values are reported as median (interquartile range) for each group, based on the ASCQ-Me Pain Impact instrument (lower scores indicate worse pain impact). Welch two-sample t-test (two-sided) was used to account for unequal variances. A p-value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||0.23
91036855|NCT04414930|181960236|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.28||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|ANOVA|Repeated measure ANOVA group x time||||||0.28
91036856|NCT04414930|181960237|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measure ANOVA||||||0.05||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|ANOVA|Repeated measure ANOVA group x time||||||0.05
91036857|NCT04414930|181960238|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measure ANOVA||||||0.93||||||The threshold for significance was p\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.93
90944004|NCT03672175|181766944|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.4123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.3||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42: Anxiety Somatic||0.3|-0.1|0.4123
91036858|NCT04414930|181960239|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measure ANOVA||||||0.43||||||The threshold for significance was p\<0.05|ANOVA|Repeated measure ANOVA group x time||||||0.43
91036859|NCT04414930|181960240|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measure ANOVA||||||0.77||||||The threshold for significance was p\<0.05|ANOVA|Repeated measure ANOVA group x time||||||0.77
91036860|NCT04414930|181960241|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measure ANOVA||||||0.5||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05|ANOVA|Repeated measure ANOVA group x time||||||0.50
91036861|NCT04414930|181960242|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measure ANOVA||||||0.636||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05|ANOVA|Repeated measure ANOVA group x time||||||0.636
91036862|NCT04414930|181960243|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measure ANOVA||||||0.19||||||The threshold for significance was p\<0.05|ANOVA|Repeated measure ANOVA group x time||||||0.19
91036863|NCT03325881|181960246|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.48||0.451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|3.1|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||Number of participants with SHP465 was compared with placebo using the linear mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) that included treatment group, nominal visit, age group, interaction of the treatment group with the visits as factors, baseline ADHD-RS5 total score as a covariate and an adjustment for the interaction of the baseline ADHD-RS-5 Total Score with the visit.||3.1|-6.8|0.451
91036864|NCT03325881|181960247|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.3|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||Number of participants with SHP465 was compared with placebo using the mixed effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) that includes treatment group, nominal visit, age group,interaction of the treatment group with the visit as factors, baseline CGI-S as a covariate and an adjustment for the interaction of the baseline CGI-S with the visit.||0.3|-0.5|0.597
90944005|NCT03672175|181766944|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.7523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42: Anxiety Somatic||0.2|-0.2|0.7523
90944006|NCT03672175|181766944|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.6505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: Somatic Symptoms Gastrointestinal||0.1|-0.2|0.6505
90944007|NCT03672175|181766944|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.3674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: Somatic Symptoms Gastrointestinal||0.1|-0.3|0.3674
90944008|NCT03672175|181766944|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42: Somatic Symptoms Gastrointestinal||0.2|-0.2|0.8360
90944009|NCT03672175|181766944|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42: Somatic Symptoms Gastrointestinal||0.1|-0.2|0.6870
90944010|NCT03672175|181766944|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.1364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.0||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: General Somatic Symptoms||0.0|-0.3|0.1364
90944011|NCT03672175|181766944|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.1578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.0||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: General Somatic Symptoms||0.0|-0.3|0.1578
90944012|NCT03672175|181766944|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.9062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42: General Somatic Symptoms||0.2|-0.2|0.9062
90944013|NCT03672175|181766944|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.8596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42: General Somatic Symptoms||0.2|-0.2|0.8596
90944014|NCT03672175|181766944|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.9488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: Genital Symptoms||0.2|-0.2|0.9488
90944015|NCT03672175|181766944|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.1514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.0||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: Genital Symptoms||0.0|-0.3|0.1514
90974996|NCT01060059|181833111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|1.23|||Regression, Logistic|If several variables had Spearman's rho \> 0.4 (for continuous) and Cramer's V \> 0.4 (for categorical covariates), only one was left in the model.||Logistic regression analysis was used to determine if higher BMI (1 kg/m\^2 higher) was associated with treatment choice at baseline. Odds ratios were determined and if the odds ratio was greater than 1, it indicated it is more likely to initiate exenatide treatment. Covariates with more than 30% observations missing were omitted in this analysis. Missing values for remaining numeric covariates were replaced with means, and for categorical ones - with modes.||1.23|1.15|<0.001
90974997|NCT01060059|181833112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.05|||Regression, Logistic|If several variables had Spearman's rho \> 0.4 (for continuous) and Cramer's V \> 0.4 (for categorical covariates), only one was left in the model.||Logistic regression analysis was used to determine if greater height (1 cm higher) was associated with treatment choice at baseline. Odds ratios were determined and if the odds ratio was greater than 1, it indicated it is more likely to initiate exenatide treatment. Covariates with more than 30% observations missing were omitted in this analysis. Missing values for remaining numeric covariates were replaced with means, and for categorical ones - with modes.||1.05|1.00|0.026
91036865|NCT03466866|181960285|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate ratio|0.67||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.07|||Poisson regression|We adjusted for stratification variables, sex, baseline MOCA, number of medical conditions, PSQ Communication, and PSQ General satisfaction.||We used Poisson regression to model the number of outcome events as a function of randomization assignment, adjusting for the stratification variables and using follow-up time as the offset term. We calculated estimates of annual rates of the primary outcome and the adjusted estimate of the rate ratio. We evaluated the primary hypothesis by testing the null hypothesis that the rate ratio for randomization assignment equals 1.||1.07|.42|.12
91036866|NCT03466866|181960286|SUPERIORITY|General Satisfaction|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.45|||Regression, Linear|||We modeled PSQ- scores as continuous variables to estimate average change over time by treatment group. We used mixed effects linear regression with fixed effects for time (baseline, and months 6 and 12), randomization assignment, and time by randomization interaction. A random intercept term and an appropriate covariance structure was used to account for correlation among repeated measurements.||.45|-.22|.502
91036867|NCT03466866|181960287|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.69|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance was performed with Number of Quality Metrics as the dependent variable, treatment arm as the main independent variable of interest and the stratification variables as adjusting variables.||.69|.16|.23
90944016|NCT03672175|181766944|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.5796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42: Genital Symptoms||0.1|-0.2|0.5796
90944017|NCT03672175|181766944|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.4739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42: Genital Symptoms||0.1|-0.3|0.4739
90974998|NCT01060059|181833113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.37||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.77|||Regression, Logistic|If several variables had Spearman's rho \> 0.4 (for continuous) and Cramer's V \> 0.4 (for categorical covariates), only one was left in the model.||Logistic regression analysis was used to determine if higher baseline creatinine (1mg/dL higher) was associated with treatment choice at baseline. Odds ratios were determined and if the odds ratio was greater than 1, it indicated it is more likely to initiate exenatide treatment. Covariates with more than 30% observations missing were omitted in this analysis. Missing values for remaining numeric covariates were replaced with means, and for categorical ones - with modes.||0.77|0.18|0.007
90974999|NCT01060059|181833113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.0|||Regression, Logistic|If several variables had Spearman's rho \> 0.4 (for continuous) and Cramer's V \> 0.4 (for categorical covariates), only one was left in the model.||Logistic regression analysis was used to determine if higher baseline fasting HDL cholesterol (1mg/dL higher) was associated with treatment choice at baseline. Odds ratios were determined and if the odds ratio was greater than 1, it indicated it is more likely to initiate exenatide treatment. Covariates with more than 30% observations missing were omitted in this analysis. Missing values for remaining numeric covariates were replaced with means, and for categorical ones - with modes.||1.00|0.97|0.094
90975000|NCT01060059|181833113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.01|||Regression, Logistic|If several variables had Spearman's rho \> 0.4 (for continuous) and Cramer's V \> 0.4 (for categorical covariates), only one was left in the model.||Logistic regression analysis was used to determine if higher baseline fasting total cholesterol (1mg/dL higher) was associated with treatment choice at baseline. Odds ratios were determined and if the odds ratio was greater than 1, it indicated it is more likely to initiate exenatide treatment. Covariates with more than 30% observations missing were omitted in this analysis. Missing values for remaining numeric covariates were replaced with means, and for categorical ones - with modes.||1.01|1.00|0.259
90975001|NCT01060059|181833113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.0|||Regression, Logistic|If several variables had Spearman's rho \> 0.4 (for continuous) and Cramer's V \> 0.4 (for categorical covariates), only one was left in the model.||Logistic regression analysis was used to determine if higher baseline fasting triglycerides (1mg/dL higher) was associated with treatment choice at baseline. Odds ratios were determined and if the odds ratio was greater than 1, it indicated it is more likely to initiate exenatide treatment. Covariates with more than 30% observations missing were omitted in this analysis. Missing values for remaining numeric covariates were replaced with means, and for categorical ones - with modes.||1.00|1.00|0.123
90975002|NCT01128829|181833114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Each subject served as their own control. We compared insulin concentrations when subjects consumed sucralose before a glucose load (experimental condition) with those on the day consumed water before a glucose load (control condition).||||0.025
90975003|NCT02302963|181833115|OTHER|Analysis of Variance|||||<|0.001|||||||GLM Repeated Measures|Repeated-measures general linear model was used to compare HCLC versus SAP data. A P-value of \< 0.001 was considered the threshold for significance.||||||<0.001
90975004|NCT01920711|181833120|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.8698||||0.0587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7526|1.0052||1-sided p-value 0.0294|Proportional Rates Model (LWYY)|Treatment as fixed-effect factor and stratified by region and with robust variance estimate.||Primary Composite Events||1.0052|0.7526|0.0587
90975005|NCT01920711|181833120|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.8511||||0.0556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7216|1.0039||1-sided p-value 0.0278|Joint Frality Model|Treatment and region as fixed-effect factors||Total Hospitalizations for heart failure||1.0039|0.7216|0.0556
90975006|NCT01920711|181833120|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9531||||0.6241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7863|1.1551||1-sided p-value 0.3120|Cox's proportional hazard model|||Cardiovascular Death||1.1551|0.7863|0.6241
91036868|NCT03466866|181960288|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.45||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|9.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||We used mixed effects linear regression. Fixed effects included time (baseline, and months 6 and 12), randomization assignment, time by randomization interaction, and the three stratification variables. From the results of this model, we estimated the mean change from baseline to 6 months, 6 months to 12 months and baseline to 12 months within each treatment group. We then compared the change from baseline to 12 months between the two groups.||9.66|-.76|.094
91036869|NCT01172145|181960289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.385|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.86||0.181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.86|3.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.40|-16.86|0.181
90975007|NCT01920711|181833121|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean of Difference|1.0264||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0047|2.0576|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Clinical Summary Score||2.0576|-0.0047|0.0510
91036870|NCT04134091|181960297|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91036871|NCT04134091|181960297|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91036872|NCT04134091|181960298|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0001
91036873|NCT04134091|181960298|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91036874|NCT04134091|181960299|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
91036875|NCT04134091|181960299|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.01
90975008|NCT01920711|181833122|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4475||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1294|1.8552|||Repeated measures cumulative odds model|The response variable is the change from baseline to any scheduled time points up to Month 8.||NYHA Class Change||1.8552|1.1294|0.0035
90975009|NCT01920711|181833123|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5041||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3312|0.7673|||Cox's proportional hazards model|Treatment as fixed factor and stratified by region.||Composite renal endpoint||0.7673|0.3312|0.0014
90975010|NCT01920711|181833123|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9295||||0.9588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0581|14.861|||Cox's proportional hazards model|Treatment as fixed factor and stratified by region.||Renal Death||14.861|0.0581|0.9588
90975011|NCT01920711|181833123|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5774||||0.2484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2272|1.4672|||Cox's proportional hazards model|Treatment as fixed factor and stratified by region.||Reaching ESRD||1.4672|0.2272|0.2484
90975012|NCT01920711|181833123|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.4407||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2798|0.6942|||Cox's proportional hazards model|Treatment as fixed factor and stratified by region.||\>=50% decline in eGFR from baseline||0.6942|0.2798|0.0004
90975013|NCT01920711|181833124|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9696||||0.6846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8352|1.1255|||Cox's proportional hazards model|Treatment as fixed factor and stratified by region.||All-cause mortality||1.1255|0.8352|0.6846
90975014|NCT06033079|181833231|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|2.95||||||||2.95|0.32|
91036876|NCT04134091|181960300|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
90975015|NCT06033079|181833232|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.233|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.233
90975016|NCT06033079|181833233|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.37||||||||2.37|0.30|
90975017|NCT06033079|181833234|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.82||||||||1.82|0.32|
90975018|NCT06033079|181833235|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|7.51||||||||7.51|0.34|
90975019|NCT06033079|181833236|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.42||||||||1.42|0.13|
90975020|NCT06033079|181833237|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|7.9||||||||7.90|0.41|
90975021|NCT04202679|181833242|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3||||0.0216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|5.0||Threshold of significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w versus Placebo|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when primary outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05.||5.00|1.08|0.0216
90975022|NCT04202679|181833243|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.56|22.66||Threshold of significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w versus Placebo|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05.||22.66|3.56|<0.0001
90975023|NCT04202679|181833244|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|9.55||Threshold of significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w versus Placebo|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05.||9.55|2.02|<0.0001
90975024|NCT04202679|181833245|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.1||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.03|18.11||Threshold of significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w versus Placebo|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05||18.11|2.03|0.0001
90975025|NCT04202679|181833246|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.9||||0.0194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|7.52||Threshold of significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w versus Placebo|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05.||7.52|1.13|0.0194
90975026|NCT04202679|181833247|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-23.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.81|-12.51||Threshold of significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w versus Placebo|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05.||-12.51|-33.81|<0.0001
90975027|NCT04202679|181833248|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-6.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.42|-4.36||Threshold of significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w versus Placebo|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05.||-4.36|-8.42|<0.0001
90975028|NCT04202679|181833249|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.61||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.49|-0.73||Threshold of significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w versus Placebo|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05.||-0.73|-2.49|0.0003
90975029|NCT04202679|181833250|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.54||||0.1658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|1.3||Threshold of significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w versus Placebo|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05.||1.30|-0.22|0.1658
90975030|NCT04202679|181833258|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.61||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|-0.04||Threshold of significance was \<0.05.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w versus Placebo|||-0.04|-1.18|0.0370
90975031|NCT02531646|181833272|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence interval (-0.25, 0.25)||||||0||||||"Level of significance (alpha) = 0.05~All p-values were calculated (and verified) by our statistician.They were rounded to fit four digits."|Equivalence test|||||||0.000
90975032|NCT02531646|181833273|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence interval (-0.25, 0.25)||||||0||||||"Level of significance (alpha) = 0.05~All p-values were calculated (and verified) by our statistician.They were rounded to fit four digits."|Equivalence test|||||||0.000
91036877|NCT04134091|181960300|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
90975033|NCT02531646|181833274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0||||||"Level of significance (alpha) = 0.05~All p-values were calculated (and verified) by our statistician.They were rounded to fit four digits."|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.000
90975034|NCT02531646|181833275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0||||||"Level of significance (alpha) = 0.05~All p-values were calculated (and verified) by our statistician. They were rounded to fit four digits."|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.000
90975035|NCT02531646|181833276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||||||"Level of significance (alpha) = 0.05~All p-values were calculated (and verified) by our statistician. They were rounded to fit four digits."|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.007
90975036|NCT02531646|181833278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0||||||"Level of significance (alpha) = 0.05~All p-values were calculated (and verified) by our statistician. They were rounded to fit four digits."|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.000
90975037|NCT01582308|181833291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|18.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|14.97|21.67||P-value of between-treatment comparison of percent inhibition of DPP-4 activity.|Linear mixed effects model|||Analysis model included fixed effects terms for treatment and period.||21.67|14.97|<.001
90975038|NCT01582308|181833291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|62.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|58.21|67.74||P-value of between-treatment comparison of percent inhibition of DPP-4 activity.|Linear mixed effects model|||Analysis model included fixed effects terms for treatment and period.||67.74|58.21|<.001
90975039|NCT01582308|181833291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|1.11||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|2.33||P-value of between-treatment comparison of percent inhibition of DPP-4 activity.|Linear mixed effects model|||Analysis model included fixed effects terms for treatment and period.||2.33|-0.10|0.128
90975040|NCT01582308|181833291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|88.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.77|90.76||P-value of between-treatment comparison of percent inhibition of DPP-4 activity.|Linear mixed effects model|||Analysis model included fixed effects terms for treatment and period.||90.76|85.77|<.001
90975041|NCT01582308|181833291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|44.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|34.51|55.23||P-value of between-treatment comparison of percent inhibition of DPP-4 activity.|Linear mixed effects model|||Analysis model included fixed effects terms for treatment and period.||55.23|34.51|<.001
90975042|NCT01582308|181833291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-17.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.21|-13.25||P-value of between-treatment comparison of percent inhibition of DPP-4 activity.|Linear mixed effects model|||Analysis model included fixed effects terms for treatment and period.||-13.25|-21.21|<.001
90975043|NCT01582308|181833291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|70.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|58.46|82.2||P-value of between-treatment comparison of percent inhibition of DPP-4 activity.|Linear mixed effects model|||Analysis model included fixed effects terms for treatment and period.||82.20|58.46|<.001
91036878|NCT04134091|181960301|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
90975044|NCT01582308|181833291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-61.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-68.76|-55.18||P-value of between-treatment comparison of percent inhibition of DPP-4 activity.|Linear mixed effects model|||Analysis model included fixed effects terms for treatment and period.||-55.18|-68.76|<.001
91036879|NCT04134091|181960301|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
91036880|NCT04134091|181960302|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||Outcome Variable: Hepatocyte Ballooning Score||||>0.05
91036881|NCT04134091|181960302|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||Outcome Variable: Hepatocyte Ballooning Score||||<0.05
90975045|NCT01582308|181833291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|25.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|15.37|35.48||P-value of between-treatment comparison of percent inhibition of DPP-4 activity.|Linear mixed effects model|||Analysis model included fixed effects terms for treatment and period.||35.48|15.37|<.001
90975046|NCT01582308|181833291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|87.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.06|94.61||P-value of between-treatment comparison of percent inhibition of DPP-4 activity.|Linear mixed effects model|||Analysis model included fixed effects terms for treatment and period.||94.61|80.06|<.001
90975047|NCT02554929|181833380|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.74||P value adjusted for multiple comparison; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Values above are for the primary outcome measure of the Anxiety Disorders Interview Schedule for DSM-IV, Clinical Severity Rating (ADIS-CSR) score for SAD.|In our previous study, 42% participants in the CBT arm lost their primary diagnosis of social anxiety disorder (SAD) and/or selective mutism (SM) post-intervention versus none of the comparison group participants. In the present study, we conservatively estimated that 10% of comparison group children will lose their primary diagnosis. A sample size of 70 achieves a power of 81% to detect a 32% difference between treatments, using a two-sided Chi-squared test with a significance level of 0.05.||0.74|-0.91|0.002
90975048|NCT02554929|181833380|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|1.48||P value adjusted for multiple comparison; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Values above are for the primary outcome measure of the Anxiety Disorders Interview Schedule for DSM-IV, Clinical Severity Rating (ADIS-CSR) score for SM.|In our previous study, 42% participants in the CBT arm lost their primary diagnosis of social anxiety disorder (SAD) and/or selective mutism (SM) post-intervention versus none of the comparison group participants. In the present study, we conservatively estimated that 10% of comparison group children will lose their primary diagnosis. A sample size of 70 achieves a power of 81% to detect a 32% difference between treatments, using a two-sided Chi-squared test with a significance level of 0.05.||1.48|-0.95|0.002
90975049|NCT02554929|181833383|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.14||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.28|8.08||P value adjusted for multiple comparison; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The estimated value of the estimation parameter corresponds to the difference between change in CGAS scores for participants in the CBT arm, in comparison to those in the socialization arm, from pre-treatment to 6-month follow-up.|In our previous study, 42% participants in the CBT arm lost their primary diagnosis of social anxiety disorder (SAD) and/or selective mutism (SM) post-intervention versus none of the comparison group participants. In the present study, we conservatively estimated that 10% of comparison group children will lose their primary diagnosis. A sample size of 70 achieves a power of 81% to detect a 32% difference between treatments, using a two-sided Chi-squared test with a significance level of 0.05.||8.08|-4.28|0.002
90975050|NCT04024501|181833386|OTHER||Geometric Mean ratio|106.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.73|122.96|||Mixed Model Analysis|The number of subjects in this analysis: 22||Pairwise comparison: Treatment 2/Treatment 1||122.96|91.73|
90975051|NCT04024501|181833386|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|50.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|42.34|59.1|||Mixed Model Analysis|The number of subjects in this analysis: 22||Pairwise comparison: Treatment 3/Treatment 1||59.10|42.34|
90975052|NCT04024501|181833386|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|47.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|39.85|55.68|||Mixed Model Analysis|The number of subjects in this analysis: 15||Pairwise comparison: Treatment 3/Treatment 2||55.68|39.85|
90975053|NCT04024501|181833386|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|58.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|49.49|68.92|||Mixed Model Analysis|The number of subjects in this analysis: 15||Pairwise comparison: Treatment 3/Treatment 4||68.92|49.49|
90975054|NCT04024501|181833386|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|85.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|73.78|99.43|||Mixed Model Analysis|The number of subjects in this analysis: 21||Pairwise comparison: Treatment 4/Treatment 1||99.43|73.78|
91036882|NCT04134091|181960302|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||Outcome Variable: Lobular Inflammation Score||||>0.05
91036883|NCT04134091|181960302|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||Outcome Variable: Lobular Inflammation Score||||>0.05
91036884|NCT04134091|181960302|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANCOVA|||Outcome Variable: Steatosis Score||||<0.01
91036885|NCT04134091|181960302|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||Outcome Variable: Steatosis Score||||<0.001
90944018|NCT03672175|181766944|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.9439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: Hypochondriasis||0.1|-0.1|0.9439
90944019|NCT03672175|181766944|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.3891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: Hypochondriasis||0.1|-0.2|0.3891
90944020|NCT03672175|181766944|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.0308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.3||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42: Hypochondriasis||0.3|0.0|0.0308
90944021|NCT03672175|181766944|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.3||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42: Hypochondriasis||0.3|0.0|0.0620
90944022|NCT03672175|181766944|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.7744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: Loss of Weight||0.1|-0.2|0.7744
90975055|NCT04024501|181833386|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|80.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|69.48|93.62|||Mixed Model Analysis|The number of subjects in this analysis: 21||Pairwise comparison: Treatment 4/Treatment 2||93.62|69.48|
90975056|NCT04024501|181833386|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|89.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.61|104.09|||Mixed Model Analysis|The number of subjects in this analysis: 21||Pairwise comparison: Treatment 5/Treatment 1||104.09|77.61|
90975057|NCT04024501|181833386|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|84.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|72.94|98.2|||Mixed Model Analysis|The number of subjects in this analysis: 21||Pairwise comparison: Treatment 5/Treatment 2||98.20|72.94|
90975058|NCT04024501|181833386|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|179.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|151.57|212.99|||Mixed Model Analysis|The number of subjects in this analysis: 21||Pairwise comparison: Treatment 5/Treatment 3||212.99|151.57|
90975059|NCT04024501|181833386|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|104.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.18|122.11|||Mixed Model Analysis|The number of subjects in this analysis: 21||Pairwise comparison: Treatment 5/Treatment 4||122.11|90.18|
90975060|NCT04024501|181833387|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|100.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.94|118.65|||Mixed Model Analysis|The number of subjects in this analysis: 25||Pairwise comparison: Treatment 2/Treatment 1||118.65|84.94|
90975061|NCT04024501|181833387|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|41.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|34.74|49.0|||Mixed Model Analysis|The number of subjects in this analysis: 23||Pairwise comparison: Treatment 3/Treatment 1||49.00|34.74|
90975062|NCT04024501|181833387|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|41.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|34.61|48.81|||Mixed Model Analysis|The number of subjects in this analysis: 23||Pairwise comparison: Treatment 3/Treatment 2||48.81|34.61|
90975063|NCT04024501|181833387|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|53.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|45.09|63.59|||Mixed Model Analysis|The number of subjects in this analysis: 23||Pairwise comparison: Treatment 3/Treatment 4||63.59|45.09|
91036886|NCT04134091|181960303|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.05
91036887|NCT04134091|181960303|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.05
91036888|NCT04134091|181960304|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.05
91036889|NCT04134091|181960304|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.05
91036890|NCT04134091|181960305|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
91036891|NCT04134091|181960305|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.05
91036892|NCT04134091|181960306|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
91036893|NCT04134091|181960306|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
91036894|NCT04134091|181960307|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
91036895|NCT04134091|181960307|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
90975064|NCT04024501|181833387|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|77.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|65.19|91.06|||Mixed Model Analysis|The number of subjects in this analysis: 25||Pairwise comparison: Treatment 4/Treatment 1||91.06|65.19|
90975065|NCT04024501|181833387|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|76.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|64.94|90.71|||Mixed Model Analysis|The number of subjects in this analysis: 25||Pairwise comparison: Treatment 4/Treatment 2||90.71|64.94|
90975066|NCT04024501|181833387|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|84.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.93|100.03|||Mixed Model Analysis|The number of subjects in this analysis: 23||Pairwise comparison: Treatment 5/Treatment 1||100.03|70.93|
90975067|NCT04024501|181833387|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|83.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.65|99.64|||Mixed Model Analysis|The number of subjects in this analysis: 23||Pairwise comparison: Treatment 5/Treatment 2||99.64|70.65|
90975068|NCT04024501|181833387|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|204.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|171.22|243.42|||Mixed Model Analysis|The number of subjects in this analysis: 23||Pairwise comparison: Treatment 5/Treatment 3||243.42|171.22|
90975069|NCT04024501|181833387|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|109.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.06|129.83|||Mixed Model Analysis|The number of subjects in this analysis: 23||Pairwise comparison: Treatment 5/Treatment 4||129.83|92.06|
90975070|NCT04024501|181833388|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|124.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.09|154.54|||Mixed Model Analysis|The number of subjects in this analysis: 25||Pairwise comparison: Treatment 2/Treatment 1||154.54|101.09|
90975071|NCT04024501|181833388|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|33.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|27.15|42.01|||Mixed Model Analysis|The number of subjects in this analysis: 23||Pairwise comparison: Treatment 3/Treatment 1||42.01|27.15|
90975072|NCT04024501|181833388|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|27.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|21.72|33.61|||Mixed Model Analysis|The number of subjects in this analysis: 23||Pairwise comparison: Treatment 3/Treatment 2||33.61|21.72|
90975073|NCT04024501|181833388|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|36.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|29.61|45.82|||Mixed Model Analysis|The number of subjects in this analysis: 23||Pairwise comparison: Treatment 3/Treatment 4||45.82|29.61|
90975074|NCT04024501|181833388|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|91.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.15|113.36|||Mixed Model Analysis|The number of subjects in this analysis: 25||Pairwise comparison: Treatment 4/Treatment 1||113.36|74.15|
90975075|NCT04024501|181833388|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|73.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|59.33|90.7|||Mixed Model Analysis|The number of subjects in this analysis: 25||Pairwise comparison: Treatment 4/Treatment 2||90.70|59.33|
91036896|NCT04134091|181960308|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Outcome Variable: AST||||>0.05
90975076|NCT04024501|181833388|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|67.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|54.37|84.12|||Mixed Model Analysis|The number of subjects in this analysis: 23||Pairwise comparison: Treatment 5/Treatment 1||84.12|54.37|
90975077|NCT04024501|181833388|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|54.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|43.5|67.3|||Mixed Model Analysis|The number of subjects in this analysis: 23||Pairwise comparison: Treatment 5/Treatment 2||67.30|43.50|
90975078|NCT04024501|181833388|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|200.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|160.15|250.32|||Mixed Model Analysis|The number of subjects in this analysis: 23||Pairwise comparison: Treatment 5/Treatment 3||250.32|160.15|
90975079|NCT04024501|181833388|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|73.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|59.3|91.75|||Mixed Model Analysis|The number of subjects in this analysis: 23||Pairwise comparison: Treatment 5/Treatment 4||91.75|59.30|
90975080|NCT04187092|181833400|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||The 12-week changes in the KOOS scores, and the 12-week changes in the IKDC scores were analyzed by way of analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). Covariates: Age and sex of the subject, the subject's baseline outcome measure, the subject's baseline IKDC Total score, and the subject's standardized intake date (i.e., i.e., subject's intake date minus the intake date of the first enrolled subject) served as the ANCOVA concomitant adjustment variables||||<0.05
90975081|NCT04660643|181833402|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-21.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.9|-20.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-20.0|-22.9|<.001
90975082|NCT04660643|181833403|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-15.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|-14.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-14.9|-17.0|<.001
90975083|NCT04660643|181833404|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-17.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.8|-16.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-16.4|-18.8|<.001
90975084|NCT04660643|181833405|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-12.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|-11.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-11.7|-14.1|<.001
90975085|NCT04660643|181833406|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-6.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|-6.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-6.0|-6.8|<.001
90975086|NCT04660643|181833407|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-8.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.14|-7.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-7.15|-10.14|<.001
90975087|NCT04660643|181833408|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.28|-0.38|<.001
90975088|NCT04660643|181833409|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-31.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.37|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.7|-24.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-24.4|-37.7|<.001
90975089|NCT04660643|181833410|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-5.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.139|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.76|-3.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Total Cholesterol||-3.28|-7.76|<.001
90975090|NCT04660643|181833410|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-6.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.709|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.87|-3.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LDL Cholesterol||-3.15|-9.87|<.001
90975091|NCT04660643|181833410|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.33||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|5.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||HDL Cholesterol||5.8|0.6|0.014
90975092|NCT04660643|181833410|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-19.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.25|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.0|-15.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||VLDL Cholesterol||-15.1|-24.0|<.001
90975093|NCT04660643|181833410|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-20.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.9|-16.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Triglycerides||-16|-24.9|<.001
90975094|NCT04660643|181833410|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-10.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.79||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.9|-3.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||FFA||-3.0|-17.9|0.008
90975095|NCT04660643|181833411|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-6.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|-4.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||SBP||-4.6|-8.1|<.001
90975096|NCT04660643|181833411|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-3.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|-2.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||DBP||-2.4|-4.8|<.001
90975097|NCT04660643|181833412|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|2.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|3.5|||ANCOVA|||||3.5|1.7|<.001
90975098|NCT04660643|181833413|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|9.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|12.0|||ANCOVA|||||12.0|6.8|<0.001
90975099|NCT04660643|181833414|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|95.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.72|168.09|||Regression, Logistic|||||168.09|54.72|<0.001
91036897|NCT04134091|181960308|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Outcome Variable: AST||||<0.01
91036898|NCT04134091|181960308|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Outcome Variable: ALT||||>0.05
91036899|NCT04134091|181960308|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Outcome Variable: ALT||||< 0.01
91036900|NCT04134091|181960308|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Outcome Variable: ALP||||>0.05
91036901|NCT04134091|181960308|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Outcome Variable: ALP||||<0.05
90890054|NCT01571362|181644049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Wilcoxon test, survival analysis|P-value from Wilcoxon test with treatment and opioid stratum as factors.||||||0.006
91036902|NCT04134091|181960308|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Outcome Variable: GGT||||>0.05
91036903|NCT04134091|181960308|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Outcome Variable: GGT||||<0.05
91036904|NCT04134091|181960309|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Outcome Variable: Total cholesterol||||>0.05
91036905|NCT04134091|181960309|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Outcome Variable: Total cholesterol||||>0.05
91036906|NCT04134091|181960309|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Outcome Variable: LDL||||>0.05
90975100|NCT04660643|181833415|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|47.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.32|121.99|||Regression, Logistic|||≥5% body weight reduction from baseline||121.99|18.32|<0.001
90975101|NCT04660643|181833415|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|71.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.46|148.39|||Regression, Logistic|||≥10% body weight reduction from baseline||148.39|34.46|<0.001
90975102|NCT04660643|181833415|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|79.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.06|152.14|||Regression, Logistic|||≥15% body weight reduction from baseline||152.14|42.06|<0.001
90975103|NCT04660643|181833415|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|140.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|66.06|300.29|||Regression, Logistic|||≥20% body weight reduction from baseline||300.29|66.06|<0.001
90975104|NCT04660643|181833416|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.013|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|0.046|||Log Rank||Unstratified hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazard model with Baseline Weight (kg), Analysis Country, Sex, IWRS MTD at Week 36, Weight at randomization (kg) as covariates.|||0.046|0.004|<.001
90975105|NCT04660643|181833417|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-6.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|-6.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-6.0|-6.8|<.001
90975106|NCT04660643|181833418|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-17.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.8|-16.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-16.4|-18.8|<.001
90975107|NCT04660643|181833419|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-16.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|-15.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-15.4|-17.5|<.001
90975108|NCT04660643|181833420|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-13.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.1|-12.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-12.2|-15.1|<.001
90975109|NCT04660643|181833421|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-8.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|-7.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-7.43|-10.40|<.001
90975110|NCT04660643|181833422|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|-0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.29|-0.39|<.001
90975111|NCT04660643|181833423|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-34.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.25|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.6|-27.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-27.9|-40.6|<.001
90975112|NCT04660643|181833424|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-7.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.158|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.27|-4.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Total Cholesterol||-4.72|-9.27|<.001
90975113|NCT04660643|181833424|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-7.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.707|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.91|-4.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LDL Cholesterol||-4.21|-10.91|<.001
91036907|NCT04134091|181960309|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Outcome Variable: LDL||||>0.05
91036908|NCT04134091|181960309|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Outcome Variable: HDL||||>0.05
91036909|NCT04134091|181960309|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Outcome Variable: HDL||||>0.05
91036910|NCT04134091|181960309|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Outcome Variable: triglycerides||||>0.05
91036911|NCT04134091|181960309|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Outcome Variable: triglycerides||||>0.05
91036912|NCT03393208|181960310|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90% Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.00% - 125.00%|Ratio of Geometric LeastSquare(LS) Mean%|99.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.84|107.2||||||Statistical Comparison of Treatment A Versus Treatment B in Fasting state||107.20|92.84|
90975114|NCT04660643|181833424|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.418||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|5.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||HDL Cholesterol||5.43|-0.14|0.064
90975115|NCT04660643|181833424|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-20.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.38|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.7|-15.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||VLDL Cholesterol||-15.3|-24.7|<.001
90975116|NCT04660643|181833424|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-21.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.38|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.8|-16.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Triglycerides||-16.4|-25.8|<.001
90975117|NCT04660643|181833424|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-11.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.793||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.98|-4.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||FFA||-4.06|-18.98|0.004
90975118|NCT04660643|181833425|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-6.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|-5.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||SBP||-5.1|-8.7|<.001
90975119|NCT04660643|181833425|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-3.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|-2.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||DBP||-2.6|-5.1|<.001
90975120|NCT04660643|181833426|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|2.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|3.7|||ANCOVA|||||3.7|1.7|<.001
90975121|NCT04660643|181833427|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|9.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|12.0|||ANCOVA|||||12.0|6.5|<.001
90975122|NCT01276821|181833451|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non - Inferiority Analysis|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.33|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.3|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.82|||t-test, 2 sided|||"Null Hypothesis Efficacy of nebulised hypertonic saline (3%) with L-Epinephrine is not higer than as compared to L-Epinephrine given with 0.9% normal saline in the management of children aged 6 weeks to 24 months with mild to moderately severe bronchiolitis.~Alternate Hypothesis:~Nebulised hypertonic saline (3%) with L-Epinephrine is superior to 0.9% Normal saline with L-Epinephrine in the management of children aged 6 weeks to 24 months with mild to moderately severe bronchiolitis."||1.82|0.78|<0.05
90975123|NCT00066690|181833467|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.04|||Log Rank||Tamoxifen was the reference group in the estimation of the hazard ratio.|||1.04|0.66|0.1
90975124|NCT00066690|181833467|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.86|||||Tamoxifen was the reference group in the estimation of the hazard ratio.|||0.86|0.53|
91036913|NCT03393208|181960310|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90% Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.00% - 125.00%|Ratio of Geometric LS Mean Percentage|98.67||||||90.0|91.25|106.69||||||Statistical Comparison of Treatment A Versus Treatment B in Fed state||106.69|91.25|
91036914|NCT03393208|181960311|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90% Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.00% - 125.00%|Ratio of Geometric LS Mean Percentage|99.62||||||90.0|92.69|106.77||||||Statistical Comparison of Treatment A Versus Treatment B in Fasting state||106.77|92.69|
91036915|NCT03393208|181960311|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90% Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.00% - 125.00%|Ratio of Geometric LS Mean Percentage|101.5||||||90.0|93.72|109.92||||||Statistical Comparison of Treatment A Versus Treatment B in Fed state||109.92|93.72|
91036916|NCT03393208|181960312|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90% Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.00% - 125.00%|Median Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.25|0.25||||||Statistical Comparison of Treatment A Versus Treatment B in Fasting state||0.25|-0.25|
91036917|NCT03393208|181960312|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90% Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.00% - 125.00%|Median Difference|0.25||||||90.0|-0.25|0.5||||||Statistical Comparison of Treatment A Versus Treatment B in Fed state||0.50|-0.25|
90975125|NCT00066690|181833468|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.03|||Log Rank||Tamoxifen was the reference group in the estimation of the hazard ratio.|||1.03|0.3|0.09
90975126|NCT00066690|181833468|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.83|||||Tamoxifen was the reference group in the estimation of the hazard ratio.|||0.83|0.49|
90975127|NCT00066690|181833469|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.18|||Log Rank||T was the reference group in the estimation of the hazard ratio.|||1.18|0.66|0.40
90975128|NCT00066690|181833469|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.96|||||T was the reference group in the estimation of hazard ratio.|||0.96|0.52|
90975129|NCT00066690|181833470|SUPERIORITY|\[not specified\]|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.92|||Log Rank||T was the reference group in the estimation of the hazard ratio|||0.92|0.48|0.01
90975130|NCT00066690|181833470|SUPERIORITY|\[not specified\]|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.15|||||T was the reference group in the estimation of hazard ratio|||1.15|0.62|
90975131|NCT02939131|181833473|SUPERIORITY|We tested the null hypothesis that the treatment group means were equal vs. not. The study was designed for at least 80% power to detect an effect size of 0.8 standard deviations (SD), which corresponded to a difference of four points. We assumed an intracluster correlation coefficient (ICC) between 0.02 and 0.16 and allowed for 10% non-evaluability. In a pre-planned interim analysis, we estimated the ICC based on the entry QIDS-SR to be 0.10.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.86||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.79|-0.94|||t-test, 2 sided||We subtracted the mean of the ESC group from the mean of the COMB-R group. Because a lower score indicated less severe depressive symptoms, a negative value indicated superiority.|||-0.94|-6.79|0.01
90975132|NCT02939131|181833474|SUPERIORITY|We tested the null hypothesis that the treatment group means were equal vs. not.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|44.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.1|65.5|||t-test, 2 sided||We subtracted the group mean of the site percents with response for the ESC group from that of the COMB-R group. A positive value indicates the COMB-R group had a higher mean percent of participants with response compared to the ESC group.|||65.5|23.1|<0.001
90975133|NCT02939131|181833475|SUPERIORITY|We tested the null hypothesis that the treatment group means were equal vs. not.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|30.9||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.9|52.9|||t-test, 2 sided||We subtracted the group mean of the site percents with remission for the ESC group from the COMB-R group so a positive value indicates the COMB-R group has more participants with remission.|||52.9|8.9|0.01
90975134|NCT02939131|181833476|SUPERIORITY|We tested the null hypothesis that the treatment group means were equal vs. not.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.0||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-223.0|262.0|||t-test, 2 sided||Group mean for ESC is subtracted from the group mean for COMB-R. The group means are the means of the site mean CD4 cell counts.|||262|-223|0.86
90944023|NCT03672175|181766944|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.9312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: Loss of Weight||0.2|-0.1|0.9312
90975135|NCT02939131|181833477|SUPERIORITY|We tested the null hypothesis that the treatment group means were equal vs. not.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.99|||t-test, 2 sided||We subtracted the group mean for the ESC group from the group mean of the COMB-R group. The group means are the means of the site mean log10 HIV RNA copies/mL.|||0.99|-0.65|0.66
90975136|NCT02939131|181833478|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|4.0|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference indicates COMB-R group had a site-level average of more days in last 30 with missed HIV medication doses.|Comparison of COMB-R and ESC groups, number of days in last 30 with any missed HIV medication doses reported at week 24.||4.0|0.1|0.04
90975137|NCT02939131|181833478|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|5.2|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference reflects greater number of days with missed HIV medication doses in last 30 days for COMB-R group.|Comparison of COMB-R and ESC groups, number of days in last 30 with any missed HIV medication doses reported at week 48.||5.2|-5.0|0.96
90975138|NCT02939131|181833479|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.4|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference means the COMB-R group rated adherence to HIV medications better than the ESC group.|Comparison of COMB-R and ESC groups, how good was participant at taking HIV medication doses; reported at week 24.||0.4|-1.1|0.27
90975139|NCT02939131|181833479|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.9|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference would indicate the COMB-R group rated their adherence better than the ESC group.|Comparison of COMB-R and ESC groups, how good was participant at taking HIV medication doses; reported at week 48.||0.9|-0.4|0.44
90975140|NCT02939131|181833480|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.2|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference would indicate the COMB-R group rated their adherence better than the ESC group.|Comparison of COMB-R and ESC groups, how often did participant take HIV medication as instructed; reported at week 24.||0.2|-1.1|0.14
90975141|NCT02939131|181833480|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.1|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference would indicate the COMB-R group rated their adherence better than the ESC group.|Comparison of COMB-R and ESC groups, how often did participant take HIV medication as instructed; reported at week 48.||1.1|-0.6|0.49
90944024|NCT03672175|181766944|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.3105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42: Loss of Weight||0.1|-0.2|0.3105
90944025|NCT03672175|181766944|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.8406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42: Loss of Weight||0.2|-0.1|0.8406
90975142|NCT02939131|181833481|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|4.4|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference would indicate those in the COMB-R group had more days with missed depression medications than those in the ESC group.|Comparison of COMB-R and ESC groups, number of days in last 30 with any missed depression medication doses reported at week 24.||4.4|0.0|0.05
90975143|NCT02939131|181833481|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|7.1|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference would indicate those in the COMB-R group reported more days with missed doses than those in the ESC group.|Comparison of COMB-R and ESC groups, number of days in last 30 with any missed depression medication doses reported at week 48.||7.1|-12.5|0.53
90975144|NCT02939131|181833482|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.2|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference would indicate those in the COMB-R group were better at taking medications.|Comparison of COMB-R and ESC groups, how good was participant at taking depression medication; reported at week 24.||0.2|-1.5|0.13
90975145|NCT02939131|181833482|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.0|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference would indicate those in the COMB-R group were better at taking their medications.|Comparison of COMB-R and ESC groups, how good was participant at taking depression medication; reported at week 48.||2.0|-1.1|0.53
90975146|NCT02939131|181833483|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.1|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference would indicate those in the COMB-R group reported better adherence.|Comparison of COMB-R and ESC groups, how often did participant take depression medication as instructed; reported at week 24.||0.1|-1.3|0.07
90975147|NCT02939131|181833483|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|2.3|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference would indicate those in the COMB-R group reported better adherence than those in the ESC group.|Comparison of COMB-R and ESC groups, how often did participant take depression medication as instructed; reported at week 48.||2.3|-0.8|0.28
90975148|NCT02939131|181833484|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.3|-0.6|0.44
90975149|NCT02939131|181833486|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||The average number of scheduled study visits through week 24 was computed for each site. The analysis was of these site-level averages. These values were compared between study groups||0.3|-0.4|0.67
90975150|NCT02939131|181833486|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||We computed the average number of scheduled study visits through week 48 for each site. We then averaged the site-level values and compared study groups.||0.5|-0.7|0.74
90975151|NCT02939131|181833487|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.99||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.74|0.76|||t-test, 2 sided||We subtracted the mean of the ESC group from the mean of the COMB-R group. Because a lower score indicated less severe depressive symptoms, a negative value indicated superiority.|We tested the null hypothesis that the treatment group means were equal vs. not.||0.76|-4.74|0.14
91036918|NCT03393208|181960314|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90% Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.00% - 125.00%|Ratio of Geometric LS Mean Percentage|101.26||||||90.0|94.33|108.69||||||Statistical Comparison of Treatment A Versus Treatment B in Fasting state||108.69|94.33|
91036919|NCT03393208|181960314|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90% Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.00% - 125.00%|Ratio of Geometric LS Mean Percentage|98.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.61|105.21||||||Statistical Comparison of Treatment A Versus Treatment B in Fed state||105.21|91.61|
91036920|NCT01848938|181960326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Linear Mixed Models analysis|||analysis between groups||||<0.001
91036921|NCT01848938|181960327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Linear Mixed Models analysis|||analysis between groups||||0.005
91036922|NCT01848938|181960328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||analysis between groups||||0.023
91036923|NCT01848938|181960330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||analysis between groups||||0.001
91036924|NCT01848938|181960331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||analysis between groups||||<0.001
91036925|NCT00207090|181960338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Point estimate|0.912|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.751|1.106||||||Two-way analyses of variance were performed on log-transformed values of Cmax. The factors in the analyses were participant and day. Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals for means and differences between means on the log scale were exponentiated to obtain estimates for geometric means and ratio of geometric means on the original scale.||1.106|0.751|
91036926|NCT00207090|181960339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Point estimate|0.566|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.482|0.664||||||Two-way analyses of variance were performed on log-transformed values of (AUC \[INF\]). The factors in the analyses were participant and day. Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals for means and differences between means on the log scale were exponentiated to obtain estimates for geometric means and ratio of geometric means on the original scale.||0.664|0.482|
91036927|NCT01640197|181960356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
91036928|NCT01640197|181960357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
91036929|NCT01640197|181960358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
91036930|NCT01640197|181960359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
91036931|NCT01640197|181960360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
91036932|NCT01640197|181960361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
91036933|NCT01640197|181960362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
91036934|NCT00909753|181960363|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) will be applied to log-transformed AUC and Cmax parameters.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|92.5||||||90.0|85.8|99.7|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||99.7|85.8|
91036935|NCT00909753|181960364|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) will be applied to log-transformed AUC and Cmax parameters.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|95.5||||||90.0|92.2|98.9|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||98.9|92.2|
91036936|NCT00909753|181960365|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) will be applied to log-transformed AUC and Cmax parameters.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|90.4||||||90.0|83.1|98.3|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||98.3|83.1|
91036937|NCT00909753|181960366|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) will be applied to log-transformed AUC and Cmax parameters.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|90.5||||||90.0|85.5|95.9|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||95.9|85.5|
91036938|NCT00909753|181960367|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) will be applied to log-transformed AUC and Cmax parameters.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|92.2||||||90.0|85.5|99.5|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||99.5|85.5|
91036939|NCT00909753|181960368|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) will be applied to log-transformed AUC and Cmax parameters.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|95.0||||||90.0|91.3|98.7|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||98.7|91.3|
91036940|NCT00909753|181960369|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) will be applied to log-transformed AUC and Cmax parameters.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|90.4||||||90.0|83.1|98.3|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% COnfidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||98.3|83.1|
90944026|NCT03672175|181766944|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.4834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.0||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: Insight||0.0|-0.1|0.4834
90944027|NCT03672175|181766944|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.0961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.0||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: Insight||0.0|-0.1|0.0961
90944028|NCT03672175|181766944|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42: Insight||0.0|0.0|0.8290
91036941|NCT00909753|181960370|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) will be applied to log-transformed AUC and Cmax parameters.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|90.5||||||90.0|85.0|96.3|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||96.3|85.0|
91036942|NCT03480763|181960374|OTHER|Estimated differences, confidence intervals (CIs), and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percent|4.2||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|8.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Injection site redness/erythema||8.5|0.1|0.043
91036943|NCT03480763|181960374|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percent|13.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|21.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Injection site tenderness/pain||21.2|6.0|<0.001
91036944|NCT03480763|181960374|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percent|4.8||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|10.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Injection site swelling||10.2|-0.5|0.077
90944029|NCT03672175|181766944|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.9546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42: Insight||0.0|0.0|0.9546
90944030|NCT03672175|181766945|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.1308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|0.4||MMRM with treatment, BL ISI total score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15||0.4|-2.7|0.1308
90944031|NCT03672175|181766945|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.0096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-0.5||MMRM with treatment, BL ISI total score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15||-0.5|-3.5|0.0096
90944032|NCT03672175|181766945|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86||0.2674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|2.7||MMRM with treatment, BL ISI total score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42||2.7|-0.7|0.2674
90944033|NCT03672175|181766945|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.9771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.7||MMRM with treatment, BL ISI total score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42||1.7|-1.7|0.9771
90944034|NCT03672175|181766946|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.42||0.611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|6.4||MMRM with treatment, BL sSL score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: sSL||6.4|-10.9|0.6110
90944035|NCT03672175|181766946|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.19||0.0581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|0.3||MMRM with treatment, BL sSL score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: sSL||0.3|-16.2|0.0581
90944036|NCT03672175|181766946|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.68||0.4493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5|6.9||MMRM with treatment, BL sSL score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 28: sSL||6.9|-15.5|0.4493
90944037|NCT03672175|181766946|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.25||0.5587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|8.6||MMRM with treatment, BL sSL score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 28: sSL||8.6|-16.0|0.5587
90944038|NCT03672175|181766946|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.06||0.5976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|5.8||MMRM with treatment, BL sWASO score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: sWASO||5.8|-10.1|0.5976
90944039|NCT03672175|181766946|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.05||0.9421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|10.3||MMRM with treatment, BL sWASO score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: sWASO||10.3|-9.6|0.9421
90944040|NCT03672175|181766946|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.86||0.5581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|12.4||MMRM with treatment, BL sWASO score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 28: sWASO||12.4|-6.7|0.5581
90944041|NCT03672175|181766946|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.82||0.4997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|15.4||MMRM with treatment, BL sWASO score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 28: sWASO||15.4|-7.5|0.4997
90944042|NCT03672175|181766946|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|24.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.5||0.0224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|44.7||MMRM with treatment, BL sTST score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: sTST||44.7|3.4|0.0224
90944043|NCT03672175|181766946|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|17.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.93||0.1117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|38.9||MMRM with treatment, BL sTST score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: sTST||38.9|-4.1|0.1117
90944044|NCT03672175|181766946|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|14.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.18||0.3208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|42.0||MMRM with treatment, BL sTST score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 28: sTST||42.0|-13.8|0.3208
90944045|NCT03672175|181766946|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|10.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.4||0.444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.1|36.6||MMRM with treatment, BL sTST score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 28: sTST||36.6|-16.1|0.4440
90944046|NCT03672175|181766947|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.4737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1||MMRM with treatment, BL sNAW score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15||0.1|-0.3|0.4737
90944047|NCT03672175|181766947|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.0||MMRM with treatment, BL sNAW score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15||0.0|-0.4|0.0138
90944048|NCT03672175|181766947|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.1098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.4||MMRM with treatment, BL sNAW score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 28||0.4|0.0|0.1098
90944049|NCT03672175|181766947|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.6234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.3||MMRM with treatment, BL sNAW score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 28||0.3|-0.2|0.6234
90944050|NCT03672175|181766948|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.6741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.53||GEE for binary response model, with factors for treatment, BL sleep quality response, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction were used for analysis.|GEE|||Day 15||1.53|0.52|0.6741
90944051|NCT03672175|181766948|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.3924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.36||GEE for binary response model, with factors for treatment, BL sleep quality response, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction were used for analysis.|GEE|||Day 15||1.36|0.46|0.3924
90944052|NCT03672175|181766948|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.7307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.6||GEE for binary response model, with factors for treatment, BL sleep quality response, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction were used for analysis.|GEE|||Day 28||1.60|0.51|0.7307
90944053|NCT03672175|181766948|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.8358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.7||GEE for binary response model, with factors for treatment, BL sleep quality response, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction were used for analysis.|GEE|||Day 28||1.70|0.52|0.8358
90944054|NCT03672175|181766949|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.7375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.2||MMRM with treatment, BL SF-36v2 physical component score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: PCS Score||1.2|-1.6|0.7375
90944055|NCT03672175|181766949|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.5144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.0||MMRM with treatment, BL SF-36v2 physical component score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: PCS Score||1.0|-1.9|0.5144
90944056|NCT03672175|181766949|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.8343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.4||MMRM with treatment, BL SF-36v2 physical component score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42: PCS Score||1.4|-1.7|0.8343
90944057|NCT03672175|181766949|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.4569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.3||MMRM with treatment, BL SF-36v2 physical component score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42: PCS Score||2.3|-1.0|0.4569
90944058|NCT03672175|181766949|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63||0.4663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|4.4||MMRM with treatment, BL SF-36v2 mental component score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: MCS Score||4.4|-2.0|0.4663
90944059|NCT03672175|181766949|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.68||0.1138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|6.0||MMRM with treatment, BL SF-36v2 mental component score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: MCS Score||6.0|-0.6|0.1138
90944060|NCT03672175|181766949|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.74||0.7901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|3.9||MMRM with treatment, BL SF-36v2 mental component score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42: MCS Score||3.9|-3.0|0.7901
90944061|NCT03672175|181766949|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.71||0.3955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|4.8||MMRM with treatment, BL SF-36v2 mental component score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42: MCS Score||4.8|-1.9|0.3955
90944062|NCT03672175|181766950|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.8821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.5||MMRM with treatment, BL PHQ-9 total score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15||1.5|-1.8|0.8821
90944063|NCT03672175|181766950|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|0.4||MMRM with treatment, BL PHQ-9 total score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15||0.4|-2.8|0.1510
90944064|NCT03672175|181766950|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.2926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|2.5||MMRM with treatment, BL PHQ-9 total score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42||2.5|-0.8|0.2926
90975152|NCT02939131|181833488|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.3||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|50.0|||t-test, 2 sided||We subtracted the group mean of the site percents with response for the ESC group from that of the COMB-R group. A positive value indicates the COMB-R group had a higher mean percent of participants with response compared to the ESC group.|We tested the null hypothesis that the treatment group means were equal vs. not.||50.0|0.5|0.05
90975153|NCT02939131|181833489|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.3||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|44.8|||t-test, 2 sided||We subtracted the group mean of the site percents with remission for the ESC group from the COMB-R group so a positive value indicates the COMB-R group has more participants with remission.|We tested the null hypothesis that the treatment group means were equal vs. not.||44.8|-12.3|0.24
91036945|NCT03480763|181960375|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percent|0.6||||0.855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|6.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Injection site redness/erythema||6.6|-5.5|0.855
91036946|NCT03480763|181960375|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percent|3.5||||0.385||95.0|-4.4|11.3|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Injection site tenderness/pain||11.3|-4.4|0.385
90975154|NCT02939131|181833490|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.79||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|11.28||This is the test of effect modification by sex at birth|t-test, 2 sided||A positive value indicates that the treatment difference (lower QIDS-SR score with COMB-R than with ESC) was greater for females compared to males.|An interaction effect is computed based on subgroup differences within sites. The mean subgroup difference is computed for each treatment group and the interaction effect is the difference of those group mean differences. This is equivalent to taking the differences of the treatment effects between subgroups. Note: For QIDS-SR, since a lower score reflects fewer depression symptoms, a positive treatment effect is a negative difference value between groups.||11.28|2.30|0.01
90975155|NCT02939131|181833490|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.56||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.05|1.93||This is the test of effect modification by age group|t-test, 2 sided||A negative value indicates the treatment difference is greater for younger compared to older participants.|An interaction effect is computed based on subgroup differences within sites. The mean subgroup difference is computed for each treatment group and the interaction effect is the difference of those group mean differences.This is equivalent to taking the differences of the treatment effects between subgroups. Note: For QIDS-SR, since a lower score reflects fewer depression symptoms, a positive treatment effect is a negative difference value between groups.||1.93|-7.05|0.23
90975156|NCT02939131|181833490|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.77||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.48|2.95||This is the test of the effect modification of viral suppression status|t-test, 2 sided||A negative value indicates a greater treatment difference among those with viral suppression at study entry compared to those without viral suppression.|An interaction effect is computed based on subgroup differences within sites. The mean subgroup difference is computed for each treatment group and the interaction effect is the difference of those group mean differences.This is equivalent to taking the differences of the treatment effects between subgroups.Note: For QIDS-SR, since a lower score reflects fewer depression symptoms, a positive treatment effect is a negative difference value between groups.||2.95|-8.48|0.31
90975157|NCT02939131|181833490|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.83||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.29|5.95||This is the test of effect modification by QIDS-SR depression level at study entry.|t-test, 2 sided||A positive value indicates a greater treatment difference among those with moderate levels of depression compared to severe depression.|An interaction effect is computed based on subgroup differences within sites. The mean subgroup difference is computed for each treatment group and the interaction effect is the difference of those group mean differences.This is equivalent to taking the differences of the treatment effects between subgroups.Note: For QIDS-SR, since a lower score reflects fewer depression symptoms, a positive treatment effect is a negative difference value between groups.||5.95|-4.29|0.72
90975158|NCT02939131|181833490|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.91|5.31||This is the test of effect modification by mode of transmission|t-test, 2 sided||A negative value would indicate a greater treatment difference for those with perinatal HIV acquisition compared to behavioral acquisition.|An interaction effect is computed based on subgroup differences within sites. The mean subgroup difference is computed for each treatment group and the interaction effect is the difference of those group mean differences.This is equivalent to taking the differences of the treatment effects between subgroups. Note: For QIDS-SR, since a lower score reflects fewer depression symptoms, a positive treatment effect is a negative difference value between groups.||5.31|-5.91|0.91
90975159|NCT02939131|181833490|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.33||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.91|6.57||This is the test of effect modification by HIV CDC stage level|t-test, 2 sided||A positive value would indicate a greater treatment effect for those with less than HIV CDC Stage 3 compared to those with CDC Stage 3 HIV illness.|An interaction effect is computed based on subgroup differences within sites. The mean subgroup difference is computed for each treatment group and the interaction effect is the difference of those group mean differences.This is equivalent to taking the differences of the treatment effects between subgroups. Note: For QIDS-SR, since a lower score reflects fewer depression symptoms, a positive treatment effect is a negative difference value between groups.||6.57|-3.91|0.57
91036947|NCT03480763|181960375|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percent|2.0||||0.577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|9.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Injection site swelling||9.2|-5.1|0.577
91036948|NCT03480763|181960376|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percent|1.2||||0.523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|4.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Joint pain/arthralgia||4.9|-2.5|0.523
91036949|NCT03480763|181960376|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percent|9.7||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|15.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Tiredness/fatigue||15.6|3.7|0.002
91036950|NCT03480763|181960376|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percent|1.4||||0.597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|6.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Headache||6.7|-3.9|0.597
90975160|NCT02939131|181833490|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.93||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|13.59||This is the test of effect modification of CD4 Stage 3 at entry.|t-test, 2 sided||A positive value indicates a greater treatment effect among those with less than Stage 3 CD4 count at entry compared to those with Stage 3 CD4 count.|An interaction effect is computed based on subgroup differences within sites. The mean subgroup difference is computed for each treatment group and the interaction effect is the difference of those group mean differences.This is equivalent to taking the differences of the treatment effects between subgroups. Note: For QIDS-SR, since a lower score reflects fewer depression symptoms, a positive treatment effect is a negative difference value between groups..||13.59|-1.73|0.10
90975161|NCT02939131|181833490|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.57||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.74|4.6||This is the test of effect modification by Nadir Stage 3 level at study entry.|t-test, 2 sided||A negative value indicates a greater treatment effect among those with Stage 3 Nadir CD4 compare to those with less than Stage 3 Nadir CD4.|An interaction effect is computed based on subgroup differences within sites. The mean subgroup difference is computed for each treatment group and the interaction effect is the difference of those group mean differences.This is equivalent to taking the differences of the treatment effects between subgroups. Note: For QIDS-SR, since a lower score reflects fewer depression symptoms, a positive treatment effect is a negative difference value between groups.||4.60|-7.74|0.58
90975162|NCT02939131|181833491|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-67.81||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-116.53|-19.1||This is the test of effect modification by sex at birth.|t-test, 2 sided||A negative value indicates a greater treatment response (higher percent with response in COMB-R than in ESC group) among females compared to males.|An interaction effect is computed based on subgroup differences within sites. The mean subgroup difference is computed for each treatment group and the interaction effect is the difference of those group mean differences. This is equivalent to taking the differences of the treatment effects between subgroups. Note: For the percent of participants with QIDS-SR response, a positive treatment effect is a positive difference between groups.||-19.10|-116.53|0.01
90975163|NCT02939131|181833491|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|43.08||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.23|94.38||This is the test of effect modification by age group.|t-test, 2 sided||A positive value reflects a greater treatment effect among younger participants compared to older participants.|An interaction effect is computed based on subgroup differences within sites. The mean subgroup difference is computed for each treatment group and the interaction effect is the difference of those group mean differences. This is equivalent to taking the differences of the treatment effects between subgroups. Note: For the percent of participants with QIDS-SR response, a positive treatment effect is a positive difference between groups.||94.38|-8.23|0.09
91036951|NCT03480763|181960376|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percent|6.6||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|12.1|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Muscle pain/myalgia||12.1|1.2|0.016
91036952|NCT03480763|181960377|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percent|0.1||||0.961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|4.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Joint pain/arthralgia||4.7|-4.4|0.961
91036953|NCT03480763|181960377|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percent|4.0||||0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|10.8|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Tiredness/fatigue||10.8|-2.8|0.252
91036954|NCT03480763|181960377|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percent|-0.5||||0.852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|4.8|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Headache||4.8|-5.8|0.852
91036955|NCT03480763|181960377|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percent|4.9||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|11.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Muscle pain/myalgia||11.2|-1.4|0.125
91036956|NCT03480763|181960378|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percent|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.2||||||Vaccine-related SAEs following V114 or Prevnar 13™||1.2|-1.2|
91036957|NCT03480763|181960379|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percent|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.3||||||Vaccine-related SAEs following PNEUMOVAX™23||1.3|-1.3|
91036958|NCT03480763|181960380|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.74||||||Serotype 1 (Shared)||1.74|1.10|
91036959|NCT03480763|181960380|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model|GMT Ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.29||||||Serotype 3 (Shared)||1.29|0.90|
91036960|NCT03480763|181960380|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.32||||||Serotype 4 (Shared)||1.32|0.85|
91036961|NCT03480763|181960380|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model|GMT Ratio|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.56||||||Serotype 5 (Shared)||1.56|0.94|
91036962|NCT03480763|181960380|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.43||||||Serotype 6A (Shared)||1.43|0.95|
91036963|NCT03480763|181960380|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.35||||||Serotype 6B (Shared)||1.35|0.93|
90890055|NCT01571362|181644059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Screening Period value to the End of Open-Label Titration Period.||||<0.0001
91036964|NCT03480763|181960380|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.25||||||Serotype 7F (Shared)||1.25|0.90|
91036965|NCT03480763|181960380|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.33||||||Serotype 9V (Shared)||1.33|0.91|
91036966|NCT03480763|181960380|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.53||||||Serotype 14 (Shared)||1.53|1.05|
91036967|NCT03480763|181960380|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.34||||||Serotype 18C (Shared)||1.34|0.95|
91036968|NCT03480763|181960380|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.38||||||Serotype 19A (Shared)||1.38|0.96|
91036969|NCT03480763|181960380|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.2||||||Serotype 19F (Shared)||1.20|0.89|
90944065|NCT03672175|181766950|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.4785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.0||MMRM with treatment, BL PHQ-9 total score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42||1.0|-2.2|0.4785
90944066|NCT00736125|181766964|EQUIVALENCE|nonparametric data were analyzed using Mann Whitney U Tests|||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
90944067|NCT00736125|181766965|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
90944068|NCT03124550|181766966|OTHER|||||||0.0008|||||||Multilevel Modeling|||Multilevel modeling with the LMER package in R was used to determine whether participants changed in weekly average steps over the 6-week intervention.||||.0008
90944069|NCT03124550|181766967|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre-test and post-test comparison||||.01
90944070|NCT03124550|181766968|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre-test and post-test comparison||||.94
90944071|NCT03124550|181766969|OTHER|||||||0.0007|||||||Multilevel Modeling|||Multilevel modeling with the LMER package in R was used to determine whether participants changed in weekly number of social contact over the 6-week intervention.||||.0007
90944072|NCT01121913|181766989|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence is established when the ratio of geometric Least Squares means (LS means) and confidence interval calculated from the exponential of the difference between the Test and Reference product for the ln-transformed parameter AUC(0-t) is between 80% and 125%.|Mean ratio|102.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.8|114.0|||||Trazodone Contramid® OAD (prototype 1)/Triticco®|||114|91.8|
90944073|NCT01121913|181766989|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence is established when the ratio of geometric Least Squares means (LS means) and confidence interval calculated from the exponential of the difference between the Test and Reference product for the ln-transformed parameter AUC(0-t) is between 80% and 125%.|Mean ratio|105.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.9|117.0|||||Trazodone Contramid® OAD (prototype 1)/Desyrel®|||117|93.9|
90944074|NCT01121913|181766989|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence is established when the ratio of geometric Least Squares means (LS means) and confidence interval calculated from the exponential of the difference between the Test and Reference product for the ln-transformed parameter AUC(0-t) is between 80% and 125%.|Mean ratio|95.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.5|106.0|||||Trazodone Contramid® OAD (prototype 2)/Triticco®|||106|85.5|
90944075|NCT01121913|181766989|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence is established when the ratio of geometric Least Squares means (LS means) and confidence interval calculated from the exponential of the difference between the Test and Reference product for the ln-transformed parameter AUC(0-t) is between 80% and 125%.|Mean ratio|97.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.7|109.0|||||Trazodone Contramid® OAD (prototype 2)/Desyrel®|||109|87.7|
90944076|NCT01121913|181766990|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence is established when the ratio of geometric Least Squares means (LSmeans) and confidence interval calculated from the exponential of the difference between the Test and Reference product for the ln-transformed parameter AUC(0-∞) is between 80% and 125%.|Mean ratio|102.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.8|114.0|||||Trazodone Contramid® OAD (prototype 1)/Triticco®|||114|91.8|
90944077|NCT01121913|181766990|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence is established when the ratio of geometric Least Squares means (LSmeans) and confidence interval calculated from the exponential of the difference between the Test and Reference product for the ln-transformed parameter AUC(0-∞) is between 80% and 125%.|Mean ratio|106.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.1|118.0|||||Trazodone Contramid® OAD (prototype 1)/Desyrel®|||118|95.1|
90944078|NCT01121913|181766990|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence is established when the ratio of geometric Least Squares means (LSmeans) and confidence interval calculated from the exponential of the difference between the Test and Reference product for the ln-transformed parameter AUC(0-∞) is between 80% and 125%.|Mean ratio|94.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.1|106.0|||||Trazodone Contramid® OAD (prototype 2)/Triticco®|||106|85.1|
90944079|NCT01121913|181766990|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence is established when the ratio of geometric Least Squares means (LSmeans) and confidence interval calculated from the exponential of the difference between the Test and Reference product for the ln-transformed parameter AUC(0-∞) is between 80% and 125%.|Mean ratio|98.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.3|110.0|||||Trazodone Contramid® OAD (prototype 2)/Desyrel®|||110|88.3|
90944080|NCT01121913|181766991|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence is established when the ratio of geometric Least Squares means (LSmeans) and confidence interval calculated from the exponential of the difference between the Test and Reference product for the ln-transformed parameter Cmax is between 75% and 133%.|Mean ratio|73.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|63.2|85.0|||||Trazodone Contramid® OAD (prototype 1)/Triticco®|||85|63.2|
90944081|NCT01121913|181766991|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence is established when the ratio of geometric Least Squares means (LSmeans) and confidence interval calculated from the exponential of the difference between the Test and Reference product for the ln-transformed parameter Cmax is between 75% and 133%.|Mean ratio|59.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|51.5|69.4|||||Trazodone Contramid® OAD (prototype 1)/Desyrel®|||69.4|51.5|
90944082|NCT01121913|181766991|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence is established when the ratio of geometric Least Squares means (LSmeans) and confidence interval calculated from the exponential of the difference between the Test and Reference product for the ln-transformed parameter Cmax is between 75% and 133%.|Mean ratio|83.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|71.5|96.4|||||Trazodone Contramid® OAD (prototype 2)/Triticco®|||96.4|71.5|
91036970|NCT03480763|181960380|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.61||||||Serotype 23F (Shared)||1.61|1.01|
91036971|NCT03480763|181960380|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|1.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|2.06||||||Serotype 22F (Unique to V114)||2.06|1.29|
91036972|NCT03480763|181960380|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.17||||||Serotype 33F (Unique to V114)||1.17|0.77|
90944083|NCT01121913|181766991|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence is established when the ratio of geometric Least Squares means (LSmeans) and confidence interval calculated from the exponential of the difference between the Test and Reference product for the ln-transformed parameter Cmax is between 75% and 133%.|Mean ratio|67.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|58.4|78.5|||||Trazodone Contramid® OAD (prototype 2)/Desyrel®|||78.5|58.4|
90944084|NCT00014222|181767015|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0007|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0007
90975164|NCT02939131|181833491|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.18||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.13|55.49||This is the test of effect modification by viral suppression status.|t-test, 2 sided||A positive value would reflect a greater treatment response among those with suppressed viral status at entry compared to those without viral suppression.|An interaction effect is computed based on subgroup differences within sites. The mean subgroup difference is computed for each treatment group and the interaction effect is the difference of those group mean differences. This is equivalent to taking the differences of the treatment effects between subgroups. Note: For the percent of participants with QIDS-SR response, a positive treatment effect is a positive difference between groups.||55.49|-51.13|0.93
90975165|NCT02939131|181833491|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.36||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.28|49.0||This is the test of effect modification by entry QIDS-SR depression level.|t-test, 2 sided||A positive value would indicate a greater treatment response for those with severe depressive symptoms at study entry compared to those with moderate depression.|An interaction effect is computed based on subgroup differences within sites. The mean subgroup difference is computed for each treatment group and the interaction effect is the difference of those group mean differences. This is equivalent to taking the differences of the treatment effects between subgroups. Note: For the percent of participants with QIDS-SR response, a positive treatment effect is a positive difference between groups.||49.00|-42.28|0.87
90944085|NCT00014222|181767016|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.084|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.084
90944086|NCT01313624|181767041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|0.8||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|4.7||P-value was based on T-test from mixed-effect model repeated measures (MMRM).|MMRM|||||4.7|-3.1|0.68
90975166|NCT02939131|181833491|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|41.65||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.91|105.2||This is the test of effect modification by mode of transmission.|t-test, 2 sided||A positive value would indicate a larger treatment response for those with perinatal transmission compared to behavioral.|An interaction effect is computed based on subgroup differences within sites. The mean subgroup difference is computed for each treatment group and the interaction effect is the difference of those group mean differences. This is equivalent to taking the differences of the treatment effects between subgroups. Note: For the percent of participants with QIDS-SR response, a positive treatment effect is a positive difference between groups.||105.20|-21.91|0.17
90975167|NCT02939131|181833491|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|49.4||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.02|124.83||This is the test of effect modification by HIV CDC stage.|t-test, 2 sided||A positive value reflects a greater treatment response for those with HIV CDC Stage 3 classification compared to those with CDC classification less than Stage 3.|An interaction effect is computed based on subgroup differences within sites. The mean subgroup difference is computed for each treatment group and the interaction effect is the difference of those group mean differences. This is equivalent to taking the differences of the treatment effects between subgroups. Note: For the percent of participants with QIDS-SR response, a positive treatment effect is a positive difference between groups.||124.83|-26.02|0.17
90975168|NCT02939131|181833491|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.69||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.76|94.15||This is the test of effect modification by CD4 Stage at study entry.|t-test, 2 sided||A positive value would reflect greater treatment response for those with CD4 Stage 3 compared to those with less than Stage 3 CD4.|An interaction effect is computed based on subgroup differences within sites. The mean subgroup difference is computed for each treatment group and the interaction effect is the difference of those group mean differences. This is equivalent to taking the differences of the treatment effects between subgroups. Note: For the percent of participants with QIDS-SR response, a positive treatment effect is a positive difference between groups.||94.15|-70.76|0.71
91036973|NCT03480763|181960381|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.07||||||Serotype 1 (Shared)||1.07|0.79|
91036974|NCT03480763|181960381|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model|GMC Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.16||||||Serotype 3 (Shared)||1.16|0.87|
91036975|NCT03480763|181960381|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.02||||||Serotype 4 (Shared)||1.02|0.74|
91036976|NCT03480763|181960381|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.18||||||Serotype 5 (Shared)||1.18|0.84|
91036977|NCT03480763|181960381|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.41||||||Serotype 6A (Shared)||1.41|0.96|
91036978|NCT03480763|181960381|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.4||||||Serotype 6B (Shared)||1.40|0.96|
91036979|NCT03480763|181960381|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.16||||||Serotype 7F (Shared)||1.16|0.85|
91036980|NCT03480763|181960381|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.22||||||Serotype 9V (Shared)||1.22|0.89|
91036981|NCT03480763|181960381|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.39||||||Serotype 14 (Shared)||1.39|0.98|
91036982|NCT03480763|181960381|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.36||||||Serotype 18C (Shared)||1.36|1.00|
91036983|NCT03480763|181960381|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.29||||||Serotype 19A (Shared)||1.29|0.95|
91036984|NCT03480763|181960381|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.27||||||Serotype 19F (Shared)||1.27|0.93|
90890056|NCT01571362|181644060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Screening Period value to Randomization Baseline.||||<0.0001
90890057|NCT01571362|181644061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.584||0.0733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.1||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Model-adjusted Change from Screening to Week 2.||0.10|-2.20|0.0733
90890058|NCT01571362|181644061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.642||0.2783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|0.57||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Model-adjusted Change from Screening to Week 4.||0.57|-1.96|0.2783
90890059|NCT01571362|181644061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.684||0.3951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|1.93||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Model-adjusted Change from Screening to Week 8.||1.93|-0.77|0.3951
91036985|NCT03480763|181960381|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.35||||||Serotype 23F (Shared)||1.35|0.96|
91036986|NCT03480763|181960381|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|1.77||||||Serotype 22F (Unique to V114)||1.77|1.16|
91036987|NCT03480763|181960381|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.95||||||Serotype 33F (Unique to V114)||0.95|0.67|
91036988|NCT03480763|181960382|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.58||||||Serotype 1 (Shared)||1.58|0.94|
91036989|NCT03480763|181960382|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|2.3||||||Serotype 3 (Shared)||2.30|1.56|
91036990|NCT03480763|181960382|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.97||||||Serotype 4 (Shared)||0.97|0.60|
91036991|NCT03480763|181960382|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.4||||||Serotype 5 (Shared)||1.40|0.81|
91036992|NCT03480763|181960382|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.53||||||Serotype 6A (Shared)||1.53|0.92|
91036993|NCT03480763|181960382|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|1.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|2.06||||||Serotype 6B (Shared)||2.06|1.31|
90944087|NCT01313624|181767042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|1.3||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|5.6||P-value was based on T-test from mixed-effect model repeated measures (MMRM).|MMRM|||||5.6|-3.0|0.56
90944088|NCT05043883|181767044|SUPERIORITY|This clinical investigation is intended to demonstrate that the performance of the PVI Analyzer software is superior to clinically relevant performance level, and therefore the study is designed as a 1-sample superiority test of the sampled outcome specificity. The lower bound 95% CI (α=0.05) and at a statistical power of 95% (β=0.05).|Percentage (%)|87.0||||0.006|ONE_SIDED|95.0||||The success of the PVI Analyzer output was assumed to follow a binominal distribution with a given true proportion of 87.50%. It was tested whether the specificity was superior to the 80% limit.|Z-test|A one-tailed test with a significance level of 95% (α = 0.05) was applied.||Specificity is the ability to correctly detect true negative values of the ground-truth negative EGM classifications. The PVI Analyzer software classifies an EGM in positive (isolated) or negative (non-isolated), compared to the SOC outcomes. EGMs prior-isolation were labeled as ground-truth negative (non-isolated), EGMs after isolation as ground-truth positive (isolated). The null hypothesis is that specificity is lower or equal to the superiority limit 80%.||||0.006
90944089|NCT05043883|181767044|SUPERIORITY|This clinical investigation is intended to demonstrate that the performance of the PVI Analyzer software is superior to clinically relevant performance level, and therefore the study is designed as a 1-sample superiority test of the sampled outcome Sensitivity. The lower bound 95% CI (α=0.05) and at a statistical power of 95% (β=0.05).|Percentage|86.0||||0.004|ONE_SIDED|95.0||||The success of the PVI Analyzer output was assumed to follow a binominal distribution with a given true proportion of 87.50%. It was tested whether the sensitivity was superior to the 80% limit.|Z-test|A one-tailed test with a significance level of 95% (α = 0.05) was applied.||Sensitivity of the PVI analyzer is determined by the capability to detect true positive among all ground-truth positive EGM classifications.The PVI Analyzer software classifies an EGM in positive (isolated) or negative (non-isolated), compared to the SOC outcomes. EGMs prior-isolation were labeled as ground-truth negative (non-isolated), EGMs after isolation as ground-truth positive (isolated). The null hypothesis is that sensitivity is lower or equal to the superiority limit 80%.||||0.004
90944090|NCT05043883|181767045|OTHER|Descriptive|Percentage|0.99|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|5.39|||||Only one AE was reported for one subject ( which was considered moderate in severity and not related to the device, but related to the SOC procedure.|A descriptive analysis was performed to evaluate the AEs and device deficiencies, estimating the percentages and 95% CI on each category.||5.39|0.02|
90944091|NCT05043883|181767046|SUPERIORITY||Percentage (%)|94.0||||2e-05|TWO_SIDED|||||Computed p values are the result of running a one sample z-test with a null hypothesis that specificity is below 80%.|Z-test|||Automated PVI Analyzer classification of PV isolation in SR by Radiofrequency procedure from EP procedure until study completion at discharge (an average of 24 hours), with a specificity superior to 80%. A superiority Z-test for Specificity was performed.||||0.00002
90944092|NCT05043883|181767046|SUPERIORITY||Percentage (%)|82.0||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|||||Computed p values are the result of running a one sample z-test with a null hypothesis that sensitivity is below 80% and alternative hypothesis that sensitivity is at or above 80%.|Z-test|||Automated PVI Analyzer classification of PV isolation in SR by Radiofrequency procedure from EP procedure until study completion at discharge (an average of 24 hours), with sensitivity superior to 80%. A superiority Z-test for Sensitivity was performed.||||0.32
90944093|NCT05043883|181767046|SUPERIORITY||Percentage (%)|79.0||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|||||Computed p values are the result of running a one sample z-test with a null hypothesis that specificity is below 80%.|Z-test|||Automated PVI Analyzer classification of PV isolation in SR by Cryo-balloon procedure from EP procedure until study completion at discharge (an average of 24 hours), with a specificity superior to 80%. A superiority Z-test for Specificity was performed.||||0.66
90975169|NCT02939131|181833491|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|52.48||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.46|94.5||This is the test of effect modification by CD4 Nadir stage at study entry.|t-test, 2 sided||A positive value reflects a larger treatment response among those with Stage 3 Nadir CD4 compared to those with less than Stage 3 Nadir CD4.|An interaction effect is computed based on subgroup differences within sites. The mean subgroup difference is computed for each treatment group and the interaction effect is the difference of those group mean differences. This is equivalent to taking the differences of the treatment effects between subgroups. Note: For the percent of participants with QIDS-SR response, a positive treatment effect is a positive difference between groups.||94.50|10.46|0.02
90975170|NCT02939131|181833492|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-45.06||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-97.84|7.72||This is the test of effect modification by sex at birth|t-test, 2 sided||A negative value indicates a greater treatment effect (higher percent with remission for COMB-R than for ESC) among females.|An interaction effect is computed based on subgroup differences within sites. The mean subgroup difference is computed for each treatment group and the interaction effect is the difference of those group mean differences. This is equivalent to taking the differences of the treatment effects between subgroups. Note: For the percent of participants with QIDS-SR remission, a positive treatment effect is a positive difference between groups.||7.72|-97.84|0.09
90975171|NCT02939131|181833492|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.41||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.38|46.2||This is the test of effect modification by age group.|t-test, 2 sided||A positive value would reflect a larger treatment effect among younger participants compared to older participants.|An interaction effect is computed based on subgroup differences within sites. The mean subgroup difference is computed for each treatment group and the interaction effect is the difference of those group mean differences. This is equivalent to taking the differences of the treatment effects between subgroups. Note: For the percent of participants with QIDS-SR remission, a positive treatment effect is a positive difference between groups.||46.20|-43.38|0.95
91036994|NCT03480763|181960382|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.14||||||Serotype 7F (Shared)||1.14|0.80|
91036995|NCT03480763|181960382|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.24||||||Serotype 9V (Shared)||1.24|0.83|
90944094|NCT05043883|181767046|SUPERIORITY||Percentage (%)|92.0||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|||||Computed p values are the result of running a one sample z-test with a null hypothesis that sensitivity is below 80% and alternative hypothesis that sensitivity is at or above 80%.|Z-test|||Automated PVI Analyzer classification of PV isolation in SR by Cryo-balloon procedure from EP procedure until study completion at discharge (an average of 24 hours), with a sensitivity superior to 80%. A superiority Z-test for Sensitivity was performed.||||0.0008
90944095|NCT05043883|181767047|SUPERIORITY||Percentage (%)|96.0||||5e-06|TWO_SIDED|||||To compute the proportional agreement between two non-overlapping samples, a one-sample Z-test was performed with the alternative hypothesis that agreement was above 90%, which was considered sufficient for a real-time assessment.|Z-test|||This endpoint used the same EGMs extracted for the primary endpoint, including only EGMs from T Baseline and T Final measurements from patients in sinus rhythm.||||0.000005
90944096|NCT05043883|181767048|SUPERIORITY||Percentage (%)|54.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||The p values calculated are the result of running a one sample z-test with a null hypothesis that the specificity are below 80%.|Z-test|||The data analysis and processing were similar to those of the primary endpoint, but taking into consideration that subjects shall be in non-sinus rhythm during the duration of the EGM snippet. Apart from this, the processing was the same and the threshold was also defined as 50: values below 50 were classified as baseline, while values at or above 50 were considered as isolated veins.||||1
91036996|NCT03480763|181960382|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.37||||||Serotype 14 (Shared)||1.37|0.87|
91036997|NCT03480763|181960382|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|1.84||||||Serotype 18C (Shared)||1.84|1.20|
91036998|NCT03480763|181960382|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.55||||||Serotype 19A (Shared)||1.55|1.06|
90944097|NCT05043883|181767048|SUPERIORITY||Percentage (%)|100.0||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|||||The p values calculated are the result of running a one sample z-test with a null hypothesis that the sensitivity are below 80% and an alternative hypothesis that sensitivity is at or above 80%.|Z-test|||The data analysis and processing were similar to those of the primary endpoint, but taking into consideration that subjects shall be in non-sinus rhythm during the duration of the EGM snippet. Apart from this, the processing was the same and the threshold was also defined as 50: values below 50 were classified as baseline, while values at or above 50 were considered as isolated veins.||||0.0007
90944098|NCT05043883|181767049|SUPERIORITY||Percentage (%)|87.0||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Z-test|The estimate was done using a one-sample Z-test with a null hypothesis that sensitivity is at or below 80% and a 95% significance level.||This secondary endpoint aimed to determine the sensitivity of the PVI Analyzer at the time of isolation, which requires the EGMs at the T PVI. A Z-test for sensitivity was performed to assess the sensitivity of the PVI Analyzer analysis to identify expert-defined isolation during the PVI ablation.||||0.04
90944099|NCT05043883|181767050|OTHER|||||||0.0002||||||McNemar test assumes as a null hypothesis that the two datasets cause the PVI Analyzer to have a similar proportion of errors.|McNemars test|A paired McNemars test with an alpha value of 0.05, was applied to analyze the differences in classification performance.||A paired McNemar's Chi-Square test was performed to analyze the differences in classification performances||||0.0002
90944100|NCT03559829|181767086|OTHER|||||||0.025|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.025
90944101|NCT03559829|181767087|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.01
90944102|NCT03559829|181767088|OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.3
90944103|NCT03559829|181767089|OTHER|||||||0.098|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.098
90944104|NCT03559829|181767090|OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.2
90944105|NCT03559829|181767091|OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.07
90944106|NCT03506347|181767093|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.001
90944107|NCT03506347|181767094|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.009
90944108|NCT03783546|181767095|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0003
90944109|NCT03783546|181767097|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.002
90944110|NCT04522778|181767228|OTHER|||||||0.029|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||A ratio of events per month was calculated for each participant. Participants were compared to themselves prior to intervention (i.e. event ratios pre intervention were compared to event ratios following intervention.)||||.029
90944111|NCT04522778|181767229|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||A ratio of events per month was calculated for each participant. Participants were compared to themselves prior to intervention (i.e. event ratios pre intervention were compared to event ratios following intervention.)||||.35
90944112|NCT04522778|181767230|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.334|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||.334
90944113|NCT04522778|181767231|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|38.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|50.195||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.926154|500.4402|||Chi-squared|||||500.4402|2.926154|.005
91036999|NCT03480763|181960382|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.32||||||Serotype 19F (Shared)||1.32|0.92|
91037000|NCT03480763|181960382|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|1.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|2.0||||||Serotype 23F (Shared)||2.00|1.18|
90944114|NCT04522778|181767232|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|30.975|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|35.73483||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.22|297.17|||Chi-squared|||||297.17|3.22|.003
90944115|NCT04522778|181767233|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|27.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|31.72||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.82|265.45|||Chi-squared|||||265.45|2.82|.004
90944116|NCT04522778|181767234|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.345||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.71|69.82|||Chi-squared|||||69.82|1.71|.011
90944117|NCT04522778|181767235|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.298|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2189||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0706|1.258|||Chi-squared|||||1.258|.0706|.099
90944118|NCT04522778|181767236|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.201|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.201||0.312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.549|6.562|||Chi-squared|||||6.562|.549|.312
90944119|NCT04522778|181767237|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.519|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.022||0.753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.112|20.623|||Chi-squared|||||20.623|.112|.753
90944120|NCT04522778|181767238|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.321|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.257||0.156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.067|1.541|||Chi-squared|||||1.541|.067|.156
90944121|NCT04522778|181767239|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.458|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.358||0.318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.099|2.122|||Chi-squared|||||2.122|.099|.318
90944122|NCT04522778|181767240|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.449|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.882||0.684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.009|21.003|||Chi-squared|||||21.003|.009|.684
90944123|NCT04522778|181767241|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.335|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.683||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.246|22.194|||Chi-squared|||||22.194|.246|.460
90944124|NCT04522778|181767242|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.299|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.47293||0.439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.279|18.927|||Chi-squared|||||18.927|.279|.439
90944125|NCT04522778|181767243|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.634|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.187||0.714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.119|22.514|||Chi-squared|||||22.514|.119|.714
90944126|NCT04522778|181767244|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.379|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.448||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.037|3.842|||Chi-squared|||||3.842|.037|.412
90944127|NCT04522778|181767245|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.579|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.539||0.558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.094|3.582|||Chi-squared|||||3.582|.094|.558
90944128|NCT04522778|181767246|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.688|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.609||0.673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.121|3.9|||Chi-squared|||||3.90|.121|.673
90944129|NCT04522778|181767247|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.674|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.438||0.544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.189|2.406|||Chi-squared|||||2.406|.189|.544
90944130|NCT04522778|181767248|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.631||0.464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.345|10.278|||Chi-squared|||||10.278|.345|.464
90944131|NCT04522778|181767249|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.595|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.675||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.766|40.854|||Chi-squared|||||40.854|.766|.090
90944132|NCT04522778|181767250|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.987|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.119||0.991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.107|9.114|||Chi-squared|||||9.114|.107|.991
91037001|NCT03480763|181960382|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|34.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.13|46.5||||||Serotype 22F (Unique to V114)||46.50|26.13|
91037002|NCT03480763|181960382|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|9.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.48|11.2||||||Serotype 33F (Unique to V114)||11.20|7.48|
90944133|NCT04522778|181767251|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.239|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.027||0.223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.415|43.326|||Chi-squared|||||43.326|.415|.223
90944134|NCT04522778|181767252|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.199|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.496||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.238|20.348|||Chi-squared|||||20.348|.238|.488
90944135|NCT04522778|181767253|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.177|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0424|0.743|||Chi-squared|||||.743|.0424|.018
90944136|NCT04522778|181767254|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.688|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.358||0.269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.364|37.379|||Chi-squared|||||37.379|.364|.269
90944137|NCT04522778|181767255|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.251|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.829||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.728|24.84|||Chi-squared|||||24.84|.728|.108
90975172|NCT02939131|181833492|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.59||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.47|51.65||This is the test of effect modification by viral suppression status.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||A positive value would reflect a greater treatment effect among those with suppressed viral load compared to those without viral suppression.|An interaction effect is computed based on subgroup differences within sites. The mean subgroup difference is computed for each treatment group and the interaction effect is the difference of those group mean differences. This is equivalent to taking the differences of the treatment effects between subgroups. Note: For the percent of participants with QIDS-SR remission, a positive treatment effect is a positive difference between groups.||51.65|-40.47|0.79
90975173|NCT02939131|181833492|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.97||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.88|26.94||This is the test of effect modification by QIDS-SR level at entry.|t-test, 2 sided||A negative value would reflect a greater treatment effect among those with moderate depression symptomatology at entry compared to those with severe depression.|An interaction effect is computed based on subgroup differences within sites. The mean subgroup difference is computed for each treatment group and the interaction effect is the difference of those group mean differences. This is equivalent to taking the differences of the treatment effects between subgroups. Note: For the percent of participants with QIDS-SR remission, a positive treatment effect is a positive difference between groups.||26.94|-58.88|0.42
90975174|NCT02939131|181833492|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.99||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.24|61.22||This is the test of effect modification by mode of transmission.|t-test, 2 sided||A positive value would reflect a greater treatment effect among those with perinatal transmission compared to behavioral transmission.|An interaction effect is computed based on subgroup differences within sites. The mean subgroup difference is computed for each treatment group and the interaction effect is the difference of those group mean differences. This is equivalent to taking the differences of the treatment effects between subgroups. Note: For the percent of participants with QIDS-SR remission, a positive treatment effect is a positive difference between groups.||61.22|-41.24|0.68
90944138|NCT04522778|181767256|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.658|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.99||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.737|18.157|||Chi-squared|||||18.157|.737|.113
90944139|NCT04522778|181767257|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.495|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.156||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.004|6.202|||Chi-squared|||||6.202|1.004|.049
90944140|NCT00953199|181767268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45||||||.05 was set as level of significance|Chi-squared|||We calculated the sample size to be 570 in each arm, providing 80% power, allocation 1:1, two-sided, alpha 0.05, withdrawal rate of 3% and a reduction in pancreatitis from 8% to 4%. Randomization is performed with permuted blocks of 20. Analysis is based on intention to treat.||||.45
90944141|NCT01024036|181767296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in the response rate|34.0||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.1|54.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for the stratification factor: corticosteroid use||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the durable tumor and symptomatic response rate between the 2 treatment arms||54.8|11.1|0.0012
90944142|NCT01024036|181767296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in the response rate|34.0||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.1|54.8|||Fisher Exact|Without adjusting for the stratification factor: corticosteroid use||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the durable tumor and symptomatic response rate between the 2 treatment arms||54.8|11.1|0.0004
90944143|NCT01024036|181767298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in overall response rates|33.9||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.1|54.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||54.8|11.1|0.0022
90944144|NCT01024036|181767300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.418||||0.0084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.214|0.815|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio and 95% CI from a Cox proportional hazards model|||0.815|0.214|0.0084
90944145|NCT01024036|181767301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of hemoglobin response rates|61.3||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.3|85.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in hemoglobin response rates is equal to hemoglobin response rate for siltuximab+best supportive care \[BSC\] arm minus hemoglobin response rate for Placebo+BSC arm.|||85.1|28.3|0.0002
90944146|NCT01024036|181767302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of hemoglobin response rates|41.9||||0.0195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.8|70.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in hemoglobin response rates is equal to hemoglobin response rate for siltuximab+best supportive care \[BSC\] arm minus hemoglobin response rate for Placebo+BSC arm.|||70.7|7.8|0.0195
90944147|NCT02366143|181767336|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.74|||Log Rank|||ITT-WT population||0.74|0.52|<0.0001
90944148|NCT02366143|181767336|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.68|||Log Rank|||Teff-high WT Population||0.68|0.38|<0.0001
90944149|NCT02366143|181767337|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.0164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.96|||Log Rank|||||0.96|0.64|0.0164
90944150|NCT02366143|181767338|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.842||||0.0528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.707|1.002|||Log Rank|||||1.002|0.707|0.0528
90944151|NCT02366143|181767339|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.85|||Log Rank|||ITT-WT population||0.85|0.59|0.0002
90944152|NCT02366143|181767339|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.564||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.418|0.76|||Log Rank|||Teff-high WT Population||0.760|0.418|0.0001
90944153|NCT02366143|181767340|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.492|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.374|0.649|||Log Rank|||Teff-high Population||0.649|0.374|<.0001
90944154|NCT02366143|181767340|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.517|0.72|||Log Rank|||ITT Population||0.720|0.517|<.0001
90944155|NCT02366143|181767342|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.471|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.352|0.647|||Log Rank|||TC2/3 or IC2/3 Subgroup||0.647|0.352|<.0001
90944156|NCT02366143|181767342|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.486|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.386|0.639|||Log Rank|||TC1/2/3 or IC1/2/3 Subgroup||0.639|0.386|<.0001
90944157|NCT02366143|181767343|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.824||||0.2765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.169|||Log Rank|||TC2/3 or IC2/3, WT ITT||1.169|0.580|0.2765
90975175|NCT02939131|181833492|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.21||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.62|42.2||This is the test of effect modification by HIV CDC stage.|t-test, 2 sided||A positive value would reflect a greater treatment response among those with HIV CDC Stage 3 classification compared to those with less than Stage 3 classification.|An interaction effect is computed based on subgroup differences within sites. The mean subgroup difference is computed for each treatment group and the interaction effect is the difference of those group mean differences. This is equivalent to taking the differences of the treatment effects between subgroups. Note: For the percent of participants with QIDS-SR remission, a positive treatment effect is a positive difference between groups.||42.20|-70.62|0.57
90975176|NCT02939131|181833492|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-44.97||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-141.12|51.17||This is the test of effect modification by CD4 Stage.|t-test, 2 sided||A negative value would reflect a greater treatment effect among those with less than Stage 3 CD4 levels compared to those with Stage 3 CD4.|An interaction effect is computed based on subgroup differences within sites. The mean subgroup difference is computed for each treatment group and the interaction effect is the difference of those group mean differences. This is equivalent to taking the differences of the treatment effects between subgroups. Note: For the percent of participants with QIDS-SR remission, a positive treatment effect is a positive difference between groups.||51.17|-141.12|0.26
91037003|NCT03480763|181960383|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.09||||||Serotype 1 (Shared)||1.09|0.72|
91037004|NCT03480763|181960383|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|2.07||||||Serotype 3 (Shared)||2.07|1.46|
90944158|NCT02366143|181767343|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.771||||0.0829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.575|1.035|||Log Rank|||TC1/2/3 or IC1/2/3, WT ITT||1.035|0.575|0.0829
90944159|NCT02366143|181767344|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.709||||0.0073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.551|0.913|||Log Rank|||TC1/2/3 or IC1/2/3 ITT-WT||0.913|0.551|0.0073
90944160|NCT02366143|181767344|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.662||||0.0097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.484|0.907|||Log Rank|||TC2/3 or IC2/3 Population||0.907|0.484|0.0097
90944161|NCT02366143|181767345|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.831||||0.2843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.592|1.167|||Log Rank|||Teff high-WT||1.167|0.592|0.2843
90944162|NCT02366143|181767345|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.802||||0.1861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.579|1.113|||Log Rank|||Teff high||1.113|0.579|0.1861
90944163|NCT02366143|181767345|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.764||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.926|||Log Rank|||ITT||0.926|0.630|0.0060
90944164|NCT02366143|181767346|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.786||||0.0894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.595|1.038|||Log Rank|||Teff high-WT||1.038|0.595|0.0894
90944165|NCT02366143|181767346|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.815||||0.1276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.626|1.061|||Log Rank|||Teff high||1.061|0.626|0.1276
90944166|NCT02366143|181767346|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.861||||0.0681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.733|1.011|||Log Rank|||ITT||1.011|0.733|0.0681
90944167|NCT02366143|181767347|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.901||||0.4599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.683|1.188|||Log Rank|||Teff high-WT ITT||1.188|0.683|0.4599
90944168|NCT02366143|181767348|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.523|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.406|0.675|||Log Rank|||ITT-WT||0.675|0.406|<.0001
90944169|NCT02366143|181767348|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.283|0.624|||Log Rank|||Teff-high WT||0.624|0.283|<.0001
90944170|NCT02366143|181767350|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Difference in Event Free Rate|6.68||||0.0697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|13.9|||Z-test|||1-Year ITT-WT Population||13.90|-0.54|0.0697
90944171|NCT02366143|181767350|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Difference in Event Free Rate|9.71||||0.0347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|18.73|||Z-test|||2-Year ITT-WT Population||18.73|0.70|0.0347
90944172|NCT02366143|181767350|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Difference in Event Free Rate|9.89||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|21.29|||Z-test|||1-Year Teff-high WT Population||21.29|-1.51|0.0890
91037005|NCT03480763|181960383|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.99||||||Serotype 4 (Shared)||0.99|0.64|
90944173|NCT02366143|181767350|OTHER|Stratified Analysis|Difference in Event Free Rate|10.34||||0.1336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.17|23.84|||Z-test|||2-Year Teff-high WT Population||23.84|-3.17|0.1336
90944174|NCT02366143|181767351|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Difference in Event Free Rate|4.18||||0.2624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.13|11.48|||Z-test|||1-Year ITT-WT Population||11.48|-3.13|0.2624
90944175|NCT02366143|181767351|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Difference in Event Free Rate|9.67||||0.0088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.43|16.9|||Z-test|||2-Year ITT-WT Population||16.90|2.43|0.0088
90944176|NCT02366143|181767351|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Difference in Event Free Rate|10.56||||0.0649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|21.77|||Z-test|||1-Year Teff-high WT Population||21.77|-0.65|0.0649
90944177|NCT02366143|181767351|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Difference in Event Free Rate|7.27||||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.15|18.69|||Z-test|||2-Year Teff-high WT Population||18.69|-4.15|0.2120
90944178|NCT02366143|181767352|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.909||||0.6899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.571|1.45|||Log Rank|||Teff-high WT Population||1.450|0.571|0.6899
90944179|NCT02366143|181767352|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.671||||0.1043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.413|1.089|||Log Rank|||Teff-high WT Population||1.089|0.413|0.1043
90944180|NCT02366143|181767352|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.232||||0.173||95.0|0.912|1.665|||Log Rank|||ITT WT||1.665|0.912|0.1730
90944181|NCT02366143|181767352|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.084||||0.6145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.792|1.483|||Log Rank|||ITT WT||1.483|0.792|0.6145
90944182|NCT02366143|181767353|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.041||||0.8816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.614|1.763|||Log Rank|||Cough for Teff-high WT ITT population||1.763|0.614|0.8816
90944183|NCT02366143|181767353|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.741||||0.2995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.419|1.309|||Log Rank|||Cough for Teff-high WT ITT Population||1.309|0.419|0.2995
90944184|NCT02366143|181767353|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.936||||0.7578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.616|1.422|||Log Rank|||Dyspnea in Teff-high WT Population||1.422|0.616|0.7578
90944185|NCT02366143|181767353|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.041||||0.847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.694|1.56|||Log Rank|||Dyspnea in Teff-high WT Population||1.560|0.694|0.8470
90944186|NCT02366143|181767353|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.659||||0.1289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.383|1.133|||Log Rank|||Pain in Chest in Teff-high WT Population||1.133|0.383|0.1289
90944187|NCT02366143|181767353|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.729||||0.2381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.235|||Log Rank|||Pain in Chest in Teff-high WT Population||1.235|0.430|0.2381
90944188|NCT02366143|181767353|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.7163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.685|1.732|||Log Rank|||Arm and/or Shoulder Pain in Teff-high WT||1.732|0.685|0.7163
90975177|NCT02939131|181833492|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.53||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.97|72.02||This is the test of effect modification by CD4 nadir stage.|t-test, 2 sided||A positive value would reflect a greater treatment effect by those with Stage 3 CD4 Nadir compared to those with less than Stage 3.|An interaction effect is computed based on subgroup differences within sites. The mean subgroup difference is computed for each treatment group and the interaction effect is the difference of those group mean differences. This is equivalent to taking the differences of the treatment effects between subgroups. Note: For the percent of participants with QIDS-SR remission, a positive treatment effect is a positive difference between groups.||72.02|-52.97|0.72
90975178|NCT02939131|181833493|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.9||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|28.1|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive value would indicate site-level percentages were higher in the COMB-R group and vice versa.|The percent of participants with alcohol use ever at week 24 were computed for each site. These site-level percentages were compared across treatment groups.||28.1|-8.4|0.26
90975179|NCT02939131|181833493|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.3||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.1|24.6|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive value would indicate site-level percentages were higher in the COMB-R group and vice versa.|The percent of participants with alcohol use ever at week 48 were computed for each site. These site-level percentages were compared across treatment groups.||24.6|-37.1|0.66
90975180|NCT02939131|181833494|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.7||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.3|31.7|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive value indicates higher site-level percentages in the COMB-R group.|The percent of participants with regular frequency alcohol use at week 24 were computed for each site. These site-level percentages were compared across treatment groups.||31.7|-22.3|0.71
90975181|NCT02939131|181833494|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|26.7||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|59.6|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive value would indicate higher site-level percentages in the COMB-R group.|The percent of participants at each site with regular alcohol use at week 48 was computed. These site-level percents were compared across treatments||59.6|-6.3|0.10
90975182|NCT02939131|181833495|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.2|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive value would indicate site level averages were higher in the COMB-R group and vice versa.|The average number of drinks per day reported at week 24 was computed for each site and these site-level averages were compared across treatments.||0.2|-2.6|0.09
91037006|NCT03480763|181960383|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.3||||||Serotype 5 (Shared)||1.30|0.84|
90944189|NCT02366143|181767353|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.693||||0.1502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.145|||Log Rank|||Arm and/or Shoulder Pain in Teff-high WT||1.145|0.420|0.1502
90944190|NCT02366143|181767353|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.9568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.713|1.43|||Log Rank|||Cough in ITT-WT Population||1.430|0.713|0.9568
90944191|NCT02366143|181767353|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.891||||0.5377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.619|1.284|||Log Rank|||Cough in ITT-WT Population||1.284|0.619|0.5377
90944192|NCT02366143|181767353|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.893||||0.4012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.685|1.163|||Log Rank|||Dyspnea in ITT-WT Population||1.163|0.685|0.4012
90944193|NCT02366143|181767353|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.7149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.809|1.363|||Log Rank|||Dyspnea in ITT-WT Population||1.363|0.809|0.7149
90944194|NCT02366143|181767353|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.057||||0.7126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.786|1.422|||Log Rank|||Arm and/or Shoulder Pain in ITT-WT||1.422|0.786|0.7126
91037007|NCT03480763|181960383|OTHER|GMCs, GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.77||||||Serotype 6A (Shared)||1.77|1.10|
91037008|NCT03480763|181960383|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|2.1||||||Serotype 6B (Shared)||2.10|1.28|
91037009|NCT03480763|181960383|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.13||||||Serotype 7F (Shared)||1.13|0.74|
91037010|NCT03480763|181960383|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.41||||||Serotype 9V (Shared)||1.41|0.91|
91037011|NCT03480763|181960383|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.38||||||Serotype 14 (Shared)||1.38|0.87|
91037012|NCT03480763|181960383|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|1.92||||||Serotype 18C (Shared)||1.92|1.27|
91037013|NCT03480763|181960383|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.39||||||Serotype 19A (Shared)||1.39|0.91|
91037014|NCT03480763|181960383|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.41||||||Serotype 19F (Shared)||1.41|0.92|
91037015|NCT03480763|181960383|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|2.04||||||Serotype 23F (Shared)||2.04|1.27|
91037016|NCT03480763|181960383|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|16.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.78|19.86||||||Serotype 22F (Unique to V114)||19.86|13.78|
91037017|NCT03480763|181960383|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|12.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.82|15.19||||||Serotype 33F (Unique to V114)||15.19|10.82|
90944195|NCT02366143|181767353|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.921||||0.6053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.675|1.258|||Log Rank|||Arm and/or Shoulder Pain in ITT-WT||1.258|0.675|0.6053
91037018|NCT03480763|181960388|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.53||||||Serotype 1 (Shared)||1.53|0.92|
91037019|NCT03480763|181960388|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|1.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|1.9||||||Serotype 3 (Shared)||1.90|1.29|
90944196|NCT02366143|181767353|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.829||||0.3134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.576|1.194|||Log Rank|||Pain in Chest in ITT-WT Population||1.194|0.576|0.3134
90944197|NCT02366143|181767353|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.6115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.633|1.309|||Log Rank|||Pain in Chest in ITT-WT Population||1.309|0.633|0.6115
90944198|NCT01458522|181767377|OTHER|||||||0.512|||||||Poisson regression model|||||||0.512
90944199|NCT00730015|181767408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.41|17.47||The p-value is still less than 0.05 after adjusting multiplicity using a serial gatekeeping multiple comparison procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference in the proportion of 12-week CSBM overall responders between patients taking the 145-μg dose and those taking placebo. The power, adjusted for multiplicity, was expected to be at least 90% based on study NCT00402337(MCP-103-201) data.||17.47|3.41|<0.0001
90944200|NCT00730015|181767408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.14|16.59||The p-value is still less than 0.05 after adjusting multiplicity using a serial gatekeeping multiple comparison procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference in the proportion of 12-week CSBM overall responders between patients taking the 290-μg dose and those taking placebo. The power, adjusted for multiplicity, was expected to be greater than 96% based on study NCT00402337(MCP-103-201) data.||16.59|3.14|<0.0001
90944201|NCT02053610|181767428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.58|||Log Rank, Stratified|Stratified by Binet stage at Baseline.||||0.58|0.41|<0.0001
90944202|NCT02053610|181767430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.54|||Log Rank, Stratified|Stratified by Binet stage at Baseline.|Stratified by Binet stage at Baseline.|||0.54|0.33|<0.0001
90944203|NCT02053610|181767432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Response Rates|13.22||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|20.1|||Chi-squared|||Includes participants with EOTR: CR, CRi, PR or nPR.||20.1|6.3|0.0001
90944204|NCT02053610|181767433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Response Rates|12.92||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.1|19.8|||Chi-squared|||Includes participants with best overall response: CR, CRi, PR or nPR.||19.8|6.1|0.0002
90944205|NCT02053610|181767434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.61|||Log Rank, Stratified|Stratified by Binet stage at Baseline.||||0.61|0.43|<0.0001
90944206|NCT02053610|181767435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (stratified)|0.76||||0.0245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.97|||Log Rank, Stratified|Stratified by Binet stage at Baseline.||||0.97|0.60|0.0245
90944207|NCT02053610|181767436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.61|||Log Rank, Stratified|Stratified by Binet stage at Baseline.||||0.61|0.41|<0.0001
90944208|NCT02053610|181767438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (stratified)|0.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.73|||Log Rank, Stratified|Stratified by Binet stage at Baseline.||||0.73|0.46|<0.0001
90944209|NCT01165177|181767441|OTHER|Criteria for the vaccine efficacy (VE) objective of herpes zoster subunit (HZ/su) vaccine against herpes zoster (HZ) disease, in the 50-59 YOA strata : The lower limit (LL) of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of VE had to be above 10%.|Vaccine efficacy|96.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.6|99.3||Two sided exact P-value conditional to number of cases.|Poisson exact test|||Comparison of vaccine efficacy in prevention of HZ between GSK1437173A 50-59 YOA group and placebo 50-59 YOA group||99.3|89.6|<0.0001
90944210|NCT01165177|181767441|OTHER|Criteria for the VE objective of HZ/su vaccine against herpes zoster disease, in the 60-69 YOA strata : The lower limit (LL) of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of VE had to be above 10%.|Vaccine efficacy|97.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|90.1|99.7||Two sided exact P-value conditional to number of cases.|Poisson exact test|||Comparison of vaccine efficacy in prevention of HZ between GSK1437173A over 60-69 YOA group and placebo over 60-69 YOA group||99.7|90.1|<0.0001
90944211|NCT01165177|181767441|OTHER|Criteria for the VE objective of HZ/su vaccine against herpes zoster disease, in the 70-79 YOA strata : The lower limit (LL) of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of VE had to be above 10%.|Vaccine efficacy|97.9||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|87.9|100.0||Two sided exact P-value conditional to number of cases.|Poisson exact test|||Comparison of vaccine efficacy in prevention of HZ between GSK1437173A over 70 YOA group and placebo over 70 YOA group||100|87.9|0.0001
90975183|NCT02939131|181833495|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.0|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive value would indicate site level averages were higher in the COMB-R group and vice versa.|The site-level average numbers of drinks per day reported at week 48 were computed and these site-level averages were compared across treatment groups.||1.0|-0.8|0.79
90975184|NCT02939131|181833496|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.8|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive value would indicate site level averages were higher in the COMB-R group anc vice versa|The site-level average number of days with binge drinking at week 24 were computed and these site-level averages were compared across treatments.||0.8|-0.9|0.87
90975185|NCT02939131|181833496|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.8|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference would indicate site level averages were higher in the COMB-R group and vice versa|The site-level average number of days with binge drinking reported at week 48 were computed and the site-level averages were compared across treatment groups.||0.8|-0.8|0.99
90975186|NCT02939131|181833497|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.2||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|26.0|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive value would indicate site-level percentages were higher in the COMB-R group and vice versa.|The percent of participants with tobacco use ever at week 24 were computed for each site. These site-level percentages were compared across treatment groups.||26.0|-19.7|0.77
90975187|NCT02939131|181833497|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.7||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|38.4|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive value would indicate site-level percentages were higher in the COMB-R group.|The percent of participants with tobacco use ever at week 48 were computed for each site. These site-level percentages were compared across treatment groups.||38.4|-8.9|0.20
90975188|NCT02939131|181833498|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.2||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|33.3|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference would indicate the site level percentages were higher in the COMB-R group.|This is the analysis of regular use of tobacco at week 24. The percent of participants at each site with regular use was computed. These site-level percentages were compared across treatment groups.||33.3|-2.8|0.09
90975189|NCT02939131|181833498|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.6||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|55.3|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference indicates site-level percentages were higher in the COMB-R group.|This is the analysis of regular frequency use of tobacco at week 48. Site level percentages of the numbers of participants with regular tobacco use were computed and compared across treatment groups.||55.3|-14.0|0.21
90975190|NCT02939131|181833499|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.9||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|28.3|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive value would indicate higher site-level percentages in the COMB-R group and vice versa.|The site-level percentages of participants ever using marijuana (cannabis) reported at week 24 were computed and compared across treatment groups.||28.3|-12.4|0.41
90975191|NCT02939131|181833499|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.0||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|36.8|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive value would indicate higher site-level percentages in the COMB-R group and vice versa.|The site-level percentages of participants ever using marijuana (cannabis) reported at week 48 were computed and compared across treatment groups.||36.8|-10.9|0.26
90975192|NCT02939131|181833499|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.7||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.2|29.5|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference would indicate higher site-level percentages in the COMB-R group and vice versa.|The site-level percentages of participants ever using any illegal substance excluding marijuana (cannabis) reported at week 24 were computed and compared across treatment groups.||29.5|-20.2|0.69
91037020|NCT03480763|181960388|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.9||||||Serotype 4 (Shared)||0.90|0.57|
91037021|NCT03480763|181960388|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.33||||||Serotype 5 (Shared)||1.33|0.78|
91037022|NCT03480763|181960388|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.41||||||Serotype 6A (Shared)||1.41|0.93|
91037023|NCT03480763|181960388|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|1.77||||||Serotype 6B (Shared)||1.77|1.16|
91037024|NCT03480763|181960388|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.11||||||Serotype 7F (Shared)||1.11|0.80|
91037025|NCT03480763|181960388|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.18||||||Serotype 9V (Shared)||1.18|0.81|
91037026|NCT03480763|181960388|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.36||||||Serotype 14 (Shared)||1.36|0.90|
91037027|NCT03480763|181960388|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.55||||||Serotype 18C (Shared)||1.55|1.05|
91037028|NCT03480763|181960388|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.31||||||Serotype 19A (Shared)||1.31|0.91|
91037029|NCT03480763|181960388|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.29||||||Serotype 19F (Shared)||1.29|0.91|
91037030|NCT03480763|181960388|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|1.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.76||||||Serotype 23F (Shared)||1.76|1.06|
90944212|NCT01165177|181767441|OTHER|Criteria for the VE objective of HZ/su vaccine against herpes zoster disease, in the overall age strata : The lower limit (LL) of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of VE had to be above 10%.|Vaccine efficacy|97.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.7|99.0||Two sided exact P-value conditional to number of cases.|Poisson exact test|||Comparison of vaccine efficacy in prevention of HZ between GSK1437173A overall ages group and placebo overall ages group||99|93.7|<0.0001
90944213|NCT01165177|181767442|OTHER|Criteria for the VE objective of HZ/su vaccine against PHN in the 50-59 YOA strata: The lower limit of the 95% CI of VE had to be above 0%|Vaccine efficacy|100.0||||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.9|100.0|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of vaccine efficacy in prevention of PHN between GSK1437173A 50-59 YOA group and placebo 50-59 YOA group||100|40.9|0.0081
90944214|NCT01165177|181767442|OTHER|Criteria for VE objective of HZ/su vaccine against PHN in the 60-69 YOA strata: The lower limit of the 95% CI of VE had to be above 0%|Vaccine efficacy|100.0||||0.5097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-442.8|100.0|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of vaccine efficacy in prevention of PHN between GSK1437173A 60-69 YOA group and placebo 60-69 YOA group||100|-442.8|0.5097
90944215|NCT01165177|181767442|OTHER|Criteria for the VE objective of HZ/su vaccine against PHN in the 70-79 YOA strata: The lower limit of the 95% CI of VE had to be above 0%|Vaccine efficacy|100.0||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.4|100.0|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of vaccine efficacy in prevention of PHN between GSK1437173A over 70 YOA group and placebo over 70 YOA group||100|41.4|0.0078
90944216|NCT01165177|181767442|OTHER|Criteria for the VE objective of HZ/su vaccine against PHN in the overall ages strata: The lower limit of the 95% CI of VE had to be above 0%|Vaccine efficacy|100.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|77.1|100.0|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of vaccine efficacy in prevention of PHN between GSK1437173A overall ages group and placebo overall ages group||100|77.1|<0.0001
90944217|NCT05499130|181767463|OTHER||Difference in Response Rate|15.7||||||||||||||||||
90944218|NCT05499130|181767463|OTHER||Posterior Probability|0.949|||||||||||||A beta-binomial model was employed to obtain this posterior probability using a non-informative prior to assess superior efficacy compared to placebo.|||||
90944219|NCT05499130|181767463|OTHER||Difference in Response Rate|27.4||||||||||||||||||
91037031|NCT03480763|181960388|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|12.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.44|17.34||||||Serotype 22F (Unique to V114)||17.34|9.44|
91037032|NCT03480763|181960388|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|3.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.73|3.84||||||Serotype 33F (Unique to V114)||3.84|2.73|
90944220|NCT05499130|181767463|OTHER||Posterior Probability|0.997|||||||||||||A beta-binomial model was employed to obtain this posterior probability using a non-informative prior to assess superior efficacy compared to placebo.|||||
90944221|NCT05499130|181767464|OTHER||Difference in Response Rate|13.0||||||||||||||||||
91037033|NCT03480763|181960389|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.92||||||Serotype 1 (Shared)||0.92|0.65|
91037034|NCT03480763|181960389|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|1.63||||||Serotype 3 (Shared)||1.63|1.24|
91037035|NCT03480763|181960389|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.91||||||Serotype 4 (Shared)||0.91|0.64|
91037036|NCT03480763|181960389|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.05||||||Serotype 5 (Shared)||1.05|0.75|
91037037|NCT03480763|181960389|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.67||||||Serotype 6A (Shared)||1.67|1.12|
91037038|NCT03480763|181960389|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|1.81||||||Serotype 6B (Shared)||1.81|1.21|
91037039|NCT03480763|181960389|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.02||||||Serotype 7F (Shared)||1.02|0.72|
91037040|NCT03480763|181960389|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.23||||||Serotype 9V (Shared)||1.23|0.88|
91037041|NCT03480763|181960389|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.26||||||Serotype 14 (Shared)||1.26|0.88|
91037042|NCT03480763|181960389|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|1.64||||||Serotype 18C (Shared)||1.64|1.17|
91037043|NCT03480763|181960389|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.33||||||Serotype 19A (Shared)||1.33|0.97|
90975193|NCT02939131|181833499|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.8|23.5|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference would indicate higher site-level percentages in the COMB-R group and vice versa.|The site-level percentages of participants ever using any illegal substance excluding marijuana (cannabis) reported at week 48 were computed and compared across treatment groups.||23.5|-24.8|0.96
90975194|NCT02939131|181833500|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.1||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.9|44.1|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference indicates a higher site-level percentage of participants reporting regular use fof marijuana in the COMB-R group compared to the ESC group.|This is the analysis for regular use of marijuana (cannabis) at week 24. The percent of participants at each site reporting regular use (of those reporting any use) was computed. These site-level percentages were averaged and compared across treatments.||44.1|-23.9|0.53
90975195|NCT02939131|181833500|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.1|34.9|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference would indicate higher site-level percentages of regular use of marijuana (cannabis) in the COMB-R group compared to the ESC group.|This is the analysis of regular use of marijuana (cannabis) at week 48. Of those reporting ever used, the percent at each site reporting regular use was computed. These site-level percentages were averaged and compared across treatment groups.||34.9|-35.1|1.0
91037044|NCT03480763|181960389|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.32||||||Serotype 19F (Shared)||1.32|0.96|
91037045|NCT03480763|181960389|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.62||||||Serotype 23F (Shared)||1.62|1.12|
91037046|NCT03480763|181960389|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|6.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.33|7.21||||||Serotype 22F (Unique to V114)||7.21|5.33|
90944222|NCT05499130|181767464|OTHER||Posterior Probability|0.939|||||||||||||A beta-binomial model was employed to obtain this posterior probability using a non-informative prior to assess superior efficacy compared to placebo.|||||
90975196|NCT02939131|181833500|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.7||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|65.5|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference would indicate higher site-level percentages of regular substance use in the COMB-R group compared to the ESC group.|This is the analysis of regular use of any illegal substance, excluding cannabis, at week 24. Of those reporting ever used, the percent at each site reporting regular use was computed. These site-level percentages were averaged and compared across treatment groups.||65.5|-16.2|0.18
90975197|NCT02939131|181833500|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.3||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.5|22.9|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference would indicate higher site-level percentages of regular substance use in the COMB-R group compared to the ESC group.|This is the analysis of regular use of any illegal substance, excluding cannabis, at week 48. Of those reporting ever used, the percent at each site reporting regular use was computed. These site-level percentages were averaged and compared across treatment groups.||22.9|-59.5|0.34
90975198|NCT02939131|181833501|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.4||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|39.6|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive value would indicate higher site-level percents in the COMB-R group.|This is the analysis for week 24. The percentage of participants at a site who reported using sex as a commodity was calculated and the site-level percentages were averaged and compared across treatments.||39.6|-12.9|0.29
90975199|NCT02939131|181833501|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.8||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|24.5|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference would indicate site-level percentages were higher in the COMB-R group|This is the analysis for week 48. The percentage of participants at a site who reported using sex as a commodity was calculated and the site-level percentages were averaged and compared across treatments.||24.5|-17.0|0.70
91037047|NCT03480763|181960389|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|5.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.38|5.73||||||Serotype 33F (Unique to V114)||5.73|4.38|
90944223|NCT05499130|181767464|OTHER||Difference in Response Rate|34.8||||||||||||||||||
90944224|NCT05499130|181767464|OTHER||Posterior Probability|1.0|||||||||||||A beta-binomial model was employed to obtain this posterior probability using a non-informative prior to assess superior efficacy compared to placebo.|||||
90944225|NCT00781937|181767482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Contrast|-6.06|||<|0.0001||95.0|-7.5|-4.62||Two sided, conducted at a 5% significance level|ANCOVA|The analysis included treatment, gender, country and stratification factor(s) as fixed effects and randomisation value of the endpoint as covariate.||The 3 co-primary endpoints (Outcome Measures 1, 2 and 3) were ranked (#1, 2, 3) and the hypotheses of equality between liraglutide and placebo for each were tested in a hierarchical manner; i.e. a conclusion of liraglutide superiority for a given co-primary endpoint could be drawn only if all preceding hypotheses of equality in the hierarchy had been rejected.||-4.62|-7.50|<0.0001
90944226|NCT00781937|181767483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.82|||<|0.0001||95.0|3.01|7.71||Two sided, conducted at a 5% significance level|Regression, Logistic|The analysis included treatment, gender, country, and stratification factor(s) as fixed effects and randomisation value of endpoint as covariate.||The 3 co-primary endpoints (Outcome Measures 1, 2 and 3) were ranked (#1, 2, 3) and the hypotheses of equality between liraglutide and placebo for each were tested in a hierarchical manner; i.e. a conclusion of liraglutide superiority for a given co-primary endpoint could be drawn only if all preceding hypotheses of equality in the hierarchy had been rejected.||7.71|3.01|<0.0001
91037048|NCT00115063|181960424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91037049|NCT00115063|181960425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91037050|NCT00115063|181960426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09||95.0||||P-value for systolic blood pressure mean.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.09
91037051|NCT00115063|181960426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6||95.0||||P-value for dystolic blood pressure mean.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.60
90975200|NCT02939131|181833502|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|19.4|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference indicates the site-level averages were higher for the COMB-R group.|This is the analysis for week 24. Scores were averaged by site and the site-level averages were averaged and compared across treatment groups.||19.4|-13.7|0.71
90975201|NCT02939131|181833502|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.7||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|8.1|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive value would indicate site-level averages were higher in the COMB-R group.|This is the analysis for week 48. Scores were averaged by site and the site-level averages were averaged and compared across treatment groups.||8.1|-17.5|0.44
90975202|NCT02939131|181833503|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.3||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|19.8|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive value would indicate site-level averages were higher in the COMB-R group.|This is the analysis for week 24. Scores were averaged by site and the site-level averages were averaged and compared across treatment groups.||19.8|-5.3|0.23
90975203|NCT02939131|181833503|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|12.7|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference would indicate site-level averages were higher in the COMB-R group.|This is the analysis for week 48. Scores were averaged by site and the site-level averages were averaged and compared across treatment groups.||12.7|-17.5|0.73
90975204|NCT02939131|181833504|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.5|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive value would indicate site-level averages were higher in COMB-R group.|This is the analysis for week 24. Numbers of partners were averaged by site and the site-level averages were averaged and compared across treatment groups.||1.5|-0.4|0.24
90975205|NCT02939131|181833504|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.0|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference indicates site-level averages were higher in the COMB-R group.|This is the analysis for week 48. Numbers of partners were averaged by site and the site-level averages were averaged and compared across treatment groups.||1.0|-0.3|0.22
90975206|NCT02939131|181833505|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.3||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.4|23.9|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive value would indicate higher site-level percents of low frequency condom use in COMB-R treatment group and vice versa.|This is the analysis for week 24 data. We computed the percent of participants reporting low frequency of condom use in past three months by site, averaged the site-level percents and compared these averages across treatment arms.||23.9|-40.4|0.57
90975207|NCT02939131|181833505|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.8||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.1|9.5|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference would indicate higher site-level percentages in the COMB-R group and vice versa.|This is the analysis for week 48 data. We computed the percent of participants reporting low frequency of condom use in past three months by site, averaged the site-level percents and compared these averages across treatment arms.||9.5|-53.1|0.15
90975208|NCT02939131|181833506|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.8||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.9|27.2|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference would indicate site level percents were higher in the COMB-R group and vice versa.|We computed the site-level percentages of participants reporting low frequency condom use at week 24, then averaged the site-level percentages by treatment group and compared these group average percents.||27.2|-40.9|0.65
90975209|NCT02939131|181833506|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-37.8||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.7|-5.8|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference would indicate site-level percentages were higher in the COMB-R group and vice versa.|We computed the site-level percentages of participants reporting low frequency condom use at week 48, then averaged the site-level percentages by treatment group and compared these group average percents.||-5.8|-69.7|0.02
90975210|NCT02939131|181833507|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|8.1|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference indicates COMB-R participants attended more sessions than ESC|We averaged the number of counseling sessions for each site and compared these site-level averages.||8.1|-3.0|0.33
90975211|NCT02939131|181833512|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.7||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|38.2|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference indicates more participants in the COMB-R group were taking medications, based on site-level percentages.|This is the analysis for the percent of participants on any psychiatric medication at week 24. Site-level percentages were compared across treatments.||38.2|-0.9|0.06
90975212|NCT02939131|181833512|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.4||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|35.5|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference means the site-level percentages of those taking medications were higher in the COMB-R group.|This is the analysis of the percent of participants on antidepressant medications. Site-level percentages were compared across treatments.||35.5|-0.7|0.06
90975213|NCT02939131|181833512|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.4||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|40.6|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference indicates the site-level percentages of those taking medications were higher in the COMB-R group.|This is the analysis of the percent of participants on SSRI antidepressant medications. Site-level percentages were compared across treatments.||40.6|4.2|0.02
90975214|NCT02939131|181833512|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.9||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|9.6|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference would indicate site-level percentages of those on medication were higher in the COMB-R group.|This is the analysis of the percent of participants on non-SSRI antidepressant medications. Site-level percentages were compared across treatments.||9.6|-17.3|0.54
90975215|NCT02939131|181833512|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.0||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.4|15.4|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive value would indicate the site-level percentages of those on medications were higher in the COMB-R group.|This is the analysis of the percent of participants on non-antidepressant psychiatric medications. Site-level percentages were compared across treatments.||15.4|-25.4|0.60
90975216|NCT02939131|181833513|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.8||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.5|24.8|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference would indicate more time on medication in the COMB-R group.|This is the analysis comparing site-level mean percents of study time on any psychiatric medication across treatment groups.||24.8|-32.5|0.77
91037052|NCT00115063|181960427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73||95.0||||P-value for LDL cholesterol|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.73
91037053|NCT00115063|181960427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0||||P-value for HDL cholesterol|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
91037054|NCT00115063|181960427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42||95.0||||P-value for triglycerides|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.42
91037055|NCT00115063|181960427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0||||P-value for uric acid|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
90975217|NCT02939131|181833513|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.3|33.5|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference would indicate more study time on medication in the COMB-R group.|This is the analysis comparing site-level mean percents of study time on single SSRI psychiatric medication across treatment groups.||33.5|-37.3|0.91
90975218|NCT02939131|181833513|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.7||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.2|26.9|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive value would indicate more time on medication in the COMB-R group.|This is the analysis comparing site-level mean percents of study time on SSRI+other psychiatric medication across treatment groups.||26.9|-60.2|0.40
90975219|NCT02939131|181833513|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.5||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.0|40.1|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference would indicate more time on medication in COMB-R group.|This is the analysis comparing site-level mean percents of study time on a single non-SSRI psychiatric medication across treatment groups.||40.1|-67.0|0.52
90975220|NCT02939131|181833513|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.8||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-778.0|785.7|||t-test, 2 sided|Because of sparseness, the confidence intervals for this site-level analysis are very large.|A positive difference indicates more time on medication in the COMB-R group. There was data from only one site in the ESC group and 2 sites in the COMB-R group. The confidence interval for the difference is quite large and the test is unreliable.|This is the analysis comparing site-level mean percents of study time on non-SSRI+other psychiatric medication across treatment groups. This analysis is unstable because of sparseness.||785.7|-778.0|0.96
90975221|NCT02939131|181833513|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.2||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.4|23.0|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference would reflect more time on medications in the COMB-R group|This is the analysis comparing site-level mean percents of study time on antidepressant medication across treatment groups.||23.0|-31.4|0.74
90975222|NCT02939131|181833514|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.7||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|8.2|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference would indicate the site level average interim counseling sessions was higher in the COMB-R group.|We compared the site-level average number of interim counseling sessions between treatment groups.||8.2|-2.8|0.29
90975223|NCT02939131|181833516|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.38|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference indicates higher site-level averages in the COMB-R group.|The average score for all participants at each site was computed. These site-level averages were compared across treatment groups.||0.38|0.02|0.03
90975224|NCT02939131|181833517|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.29|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference would indicate the site-level averages were higher in the COMB-R group compared to the ESC group and vice versa|The average of scores for all participants' clinicians at each site was computed and these site-level averages were compared across treatments.||0.29|-0.43|0.69
90975225|NCT02939131|181833518|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.65||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.03|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference would indicate site-level averages were higher for the COMB-R group than the ESC group and vice versa.|The average scores for all participants' prescribing clinicians at each site were computed and these site-level averages were compared across treatment groups.||1.03|0.26|0.004
90975226|NCT02939131|181833519|SUPERIORITY|We tested the null hypothesis that the treatment group means were equal vs. not.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.04|14.36|||t-test, 2 sided||We subtract group mean for ESC from group mean for COMB-R. The group means are the means of the site-level percentages of participants with events.|This is the analysis of new Grade 3+ signs/symptoms through week 24. The percent of participants at each site with at least one such event was computed. The average of these site-level percents was calculated for each treatment arm. These averages were compared.||14.36|-14.04|0.98
90975227|NCT02939131|181833519|SUPERIORITY|We tested the null hypothesis that the treatment group means were equal vs. not.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.57||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.85|12.98|||t-test, 2 sided||We subtracted the group mean for the ESC group from that of the COMB-R group. The group mean is the mean of the site-specific percentages of participants with events.|This is the analysis of new Grade 3+ diagnoses through week 24.The percent of participants at each site with at least one such event was computed. The average of these site-level percents was calculated for each treatment arm. These averages were compared.||12.98|-7.85|0.60
90975228|NCT02939131|181833519|SUPERIORITY|We tested the null hypothesis that the treatment group means were equal vs. not.The group mean is the mean of the site-specific percentages of participants with events as defined above.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.4||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|11.02|||t-test, 2 sided||The ESC group mean percent of participants reporting a trigger event was subtracted from the COMB-R group mean.|This is the analysis of the triggering events (psychiatric hospitalizations or suicide attempts) through week 24. A participant is counted once if they had reported any such event prior to the upper bound of the week 24 window. The percent of participants at each site with at least one such event were computed.The average of these site-level percents was calculated for each treatment arm. These averages were compared.||11.02|-2.21|0.17
90975229|NCT02939131|181833520|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.85|14.13|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference indicates more participants with events in the COMB-R group.|This is the analysis of new Grade 3+ signs/symptoms through week 48. The percent of participants at each site with at least one such event was computed. The average of these site-level percents was calculated for each treatment arm. These averages were compared.||14.13|-13.85|0.98
90975230|NCT02939131|181833520|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.64||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|19.89|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference indicates more participants with events in the COMB-R group.|This is the analysis of new Grade 3+ diagnoses through week 48. The percent of participants at each site with at least one such event was computed. The average of these site-level percents was calculated for each treatment arm. These averages were compared.||19.89|-8.60|0.40
91037056|NCT00115063|181960428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.16
90975231|NCT02939131|181833520|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.01||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.27|11.29|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference indicates more participants with events in the COMB-R group.|This is the analysis of new trigger events through week 48. The percent of participants at each site with at least one such event was computed. The average of these site-level percents was calculated for each treatment arm. These averages were compared.||11.29|-5.27|0.44
90975232|NCT03569202|181833523|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8837||||0.662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7081|10.4756||A two-sided p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|ANOVA|||Between-group comparison, change from baseline||10.4756|-6.7081|0.662
90975233|NCT03569202|181833523|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.6445|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.7199|-18.5692||A two-sided p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|ANOVA|||Within-group change from baseline||-18.5692|-30.7199|<0.0001
90975234|NCT03569202|181833523|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.5283|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.6036|-20.4529||A two-sided p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|ANOVA|||Within-group change from baseline||-20.4529|-32.6036|<0.0001
90975235|NCT03569202|181833524|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.9808||||0.575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6005|7.639||A two-sided p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|ANOVA|||Between-group comparison, change from baseline||7.6390|-13.6005|0.575
90975236|NCT03569202|181833524|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.75||||0.2098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2593|2.7593||A two-sided p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|ANOVA|||Within-group change from baseline||2.7593|-12.2593|0.2098
90975237|NCT03569202|181833524|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7692||||0.6381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2785|5.7401||A two-sided p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|ANOVA|||Within-group change from baseline||5.7401|-9.2785|0.6381
90975238|NCT03569202|181833525|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8462||||0.271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6792|2.3715||A two-sided p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|ANOVA|||Between-group comparison, change from baseline||2.3715|-0.6792|0.271
90975239|NCT03569202|181833525|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7115||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.633|2.7901||A two-sided p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|ANOVA|||Within-group change from baseline||2.7901|0.6330|0.0025
90975240|NCT03569202|181833525|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8654||||0.1134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2132|1.944||A two-sided p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|ANOVA|||Within-group change from baseline||1.9440|-0.2132|0.1134
90975241|NCT03569202|181833526|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1731||||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1016|7.4477||A two-sided p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|ANOVA|||Between-group comparison, change from baseline||7.4477|-3.1016|0.412
90975242|NCT03569202|181833526|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01923||||0.9918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7105|3.749||A two-sided p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|ANOVA|||Within-group change from baseline||3.7490|-3.7105|0.9918
90975243|NCT03569202|181833526|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1538||||0.2516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8836|1.5759||A two-sided p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|ANOVA|||Within-group change from baseline||1.5759|-5.8836|0.2516
90975244|NCT03569202|181833527|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5093||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.007267|1.0113||A two-sided p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|ANOVA|||Between-group comparison, change from baseline||1.0113|0.007267|0.047
90975245|NCT03569202|181833527|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5596||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2046|0.9146||A two-sided p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|ANOVA|||Within-group change from baseline||0.9146|0.2046|0.0026
90975246|NCT03569202|181833527|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05032||||0.777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3047|0.4053||A two-sided p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|ANOVA|||Within-group change from baseline||0.4053|-0.3047|0.7770
90975247|NCT03569202|181833528|OTHER||Wilcoxon Z statistic|-0.7604||||0.447|TWO_SIDED|||||A two-sided p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Between-group comparison, change from baseline||||0.447
90975248|NCT03569202|181833528|OTHER|||||||0.014||||||A two-sided p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Within-group change from baseline||||0.014
90975249|NCT03569202|181833528|OTHER|||||||0.07||||||A two-sided p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Within-group change from baseline||||0.070
90975250|NCT03569202|181833529|OTHER||Wilcoxon Z statistic|-0.6396||||0.522|TWO_SIDED|||||A two-sided p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Between-group comparison, change from baseline||||0.522
90975251|NCT03569202|181833529|OTHER|||||||0.119||||||A two-sided p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Within-group change from baseline||||0.119
90975252|NCT03569202|181833529|OTHER|||||||0.9||||||A two-sided p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Within-group change from baseline||||0.900
90975253|NCT03569202|181833530|OTHER||Wilcoxon Z statistic|-0.5387||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|||||A two-sided p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Between-group comparison, change from baseline||||0.590
90975254|NCT03569202|181833530|OTHER|||||||0.043||||||A two-sided p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Within-group change from baseline||||0.043
90975255|NCT03569202|181833530|OTHER|||||||0.442||||||A two-sided p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Within-group change from baseline||||0.442
90975256|NCT03569202|181833532|OTHER||Wilcoxon Z statistic|0.9208||||0.357|TWO_SIDED|||||A two-sided p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Between-group comparison, change from baseline||||0.357
90975257|NCT03569202|181833532|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||A two-sided p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Within-group change from baseline||||0.001
91037057|NCT00115063|181960429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
90944227|NCT00781937|181767484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.86|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.44|6.09||Two sided, conducted at a 5% significance level|Regression, Logistic|The analysis included treatment, gender, country, and stratification factor(s) as fixed effects and randomisation value of endpoint as covariate.||The 3 co-primary endpoints (Outcome Measures 1, 2 and 3) were ranked (#1, 2, 3) and the hypotheses of equality between liraglutide and placebo for each were tested in a hierarchical manner; i.e. a conclusion of liraglutide superiority for a given co-primary endpoint could be drawn only if all preceding hypotheses of equality in the hierarchy had been rejected.||6.09|2.44|<0.0001
90944228|NCT00781937|181767485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.3|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.79|10.08||Two sided, conducted at a 5% significance level|Regression, Logistic|The analysis included treatment, gender, country, and stratification factor(s) as fixed effects and randomisation value of endpoint as covariate.||||10.08|2.79|<0.0001
90944229|NCT00781937|181767486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.09|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.03|0.26||Two sided, conducted at a 5% significance level|Regression, Logistic|The analysis included treatment, gender, country, and stratification factor(s) as fixed effects and randomisation value of endpoint as covariate.||||0.26|0.03|<0.0001
90944230|NCT00781937|181767488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.86|||<|0.0001||95.0|3.12|10.98||Two sided, conducted at a 5% significance level|Regression, Logistic|The analysis included treatment, gender, country, and stratification factor(s) as fixed effects and randomisation value of endpoint as covariate.||||10.98|3.12|<0.0001
90944231|NCT00781937|181767489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.02|||<|0.0001||95.0|3.65|9.92||Two sided, conducted at a 5% significance level|Regression, Logistic|The analysis included treatment, gender, country, and stratification factor(s) as fixed effects and randomisation value of endpoint as covariate.||||9.92|3.65|<0.0001
90944232|NCT00781937|181767490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Contrast|-5.86|||<|0.0001||95.0|-7.3|-4.43||Two sided, conducted at a 5% significance level|ANCOVA|The analysis included treatment, gender, country and stratification factor(s) as fixed effects and randomisation value of the endpoint as covariate.||||-4.43|-7.30|<0.0001
90944233|NCT00781937|181767491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Contrast|-4.23|||<|0.0001||95.0|-6.04|-2.43||Two sided, conducted at a 5% significance level|ANCOVA|The analysis included treatment, gender, country and stratification factor(s) as fixed effects and randomisation value of the endpoint as covariate.||||-2.43|-6.04|<0.0001
90975258|NCT03569202|181833532|OTHER|||||||0.065||||||A two-sided p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Within-group change from baseline||||0.065
90975259|NCT03569202|181833533|OTHER||Wilcoxon Z statistic|1.044||||0.296|TWO_SIDED|||||A two-sided p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Between-group comparison, change from baseline||||0.296
90975260|NCT03569202|181833533|OTHER|||||||0.012||||||A two-sided p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Within-group change from baseline||||0.012
90975261|NCT03569202|181833533|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||A two-sided p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Within-group change from baseline||||>0.05
90944234|NCT00781937|181767492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Contrast|-2.72||||0.0068||95.0|-4.69|-0.76||Two sided, conducted at a 5% significance level|ANCOVA|The analysis included treatment, gender, country and stratification factor(s) as fixed effects and randomisation value of the endpoint as covariate.||Analysis is of treatment contrast, change in systolic blood pressure.||-0.76|-4.69|0.0068
90944235|NCT00781937|181767492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Contrast|-0.34||||0.6386||95.0|-1.74|1.07||Two sided, conducted at a 5% significance level|ANCOVA|The analysis included treatment, gender, country and stratification factor(s) as fixed effects and randomisation value of the endpoint as covariate.||Analysis is of treatment contrast, change in diastolic blood pressure.||1.07|-1.74|0.6386
90944236|NCT00781937|181767493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Contrast|0.97||||0.1968||95.0|-0.51|2.45||Two sided, conducted at a 5% significance level|ANCOVA|The analysis included treatment, gender, country and stratification factor(s) as fixed effects and randomisation value of the endpoint as covariate.||||2.45|-0.51|0.1968
90944237|NCT00781937|181767494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Contrast|-0.11||||0.031||95.0|-0.2|-0.01||Two sided, conducted at a 5% significance level|ANCOVA|The analysis included treatment, gender, country and stratification factor(s) as fixed effects and randomisation value of the endpoint as covariate.||||-0.01|-0.20|0.0310
90975262|NCT03569202|181833535|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9911||||0.764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.6117|11.6295||A two-sided p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|ANOVA|||Between-group comparison, change from baseline||11.6295|-15.6117|0.764
91037058|NCT00185458|181960433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.128||95.0|||||Friedman's two-way ANOVA|||Time effect tested with Friedman's two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). The null-hypothesis is that the means are equal at the reference period tested.||||0.128
90944238|NCT00781937|181767495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Contrast|-0.09||||0.1098||95.0|-0.2|0.02||Two sided, conducted at a 5% significance level|ANCOVA|The analysis included treatment, gender, country and stratification factor(s) as fixed effects and randomisation value of the endpoint as covariate.||||0.02|-0.20|0.1098
90944239|NCT00781937|181767496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Contrast|-0.11||||0.1149||95.0|-0.24|0.03||Two sided, conducted at a 5% significance level|ANCOVA|The analysis included treatment, gender, country and stratification factor(s) as fixed effects and randomisation value of the endpoint as covariate.||||0.03|-0.24|0.1149
90975263|NCT03569202|181833535|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.0625||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.928|-6.197||A two-sided p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|ANOVA|||Within-group change from baseline||-6.1970|-27.9280|0.0038
90975264|NCT03569202|181833535|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.0714||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.285|-6.8579||A two-sided p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|ANOVA|||Within-group change from baseline||-6.8579|-23.2850|0.0011
90975265|NCT03244033|181833558|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|96.0|0.57|1.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for site (p\<.001) and for whether physician contextualized plan (AOR 2.14, p=.001), and random effects of physician and patient.||Logistic mixed effects regression modeling likelihood of red flag improved/resolved (vs. not) during outcome period with fixed effects of intervention, site, and whether contextual factor was incorporated into care plan, and random effects of patient and provider. Red flags may be clustered in patients; patients are clustered in providers.||1.64|.57|.91
90975266|NCT03244033|181833559|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.09||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|3.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for site, source of red flag, visible/concealed recorder, and random effects of physician and patient.|OR\>1 indicates greater likelihood in intervention group vs. control.|Logistic mixed effects regression modeling likelihood of provider probing red flag (vs. not) during visit with fixed effects of intervention, site, \\whether red flag was select on pre-visit questionnaire, and whether audiorecorder was visible to provider, and random effects of patient and provider. Red flags may be clustered in patients; patients are clustered in providers.||3.86|1.13|0.02
90975267|NCT03244033|181833560|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.67||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|5.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for site, source of factor, recorder visible/concealed, and random effects of physician and patient.|OR \> 1 indicates greater likelihood in intervention group vs. control.|Logistic mixed effects regression modeling likelihood of provider incorporating contextual factor into care plan (vs. not) at visit with fixed effects of intervention, site, whether red flag was select on pre-visit questionnaire, whether audiorecorder was visible to provider, whether factor was identified by provider probe, whether factor was revealed by patient, and random effects of patient and provider. Red flags may be clustered in patients; patients are clustered in providers.||5.41|1.32|.006
90975268|NCT04428411|181833561|OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.35
90975269|NCT04428411|181833562|OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.07
90975270|NCT04428411|181833563|OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.41
90975271|NCT04428411|181833564|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
90975272|NCT04428411|181833565|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
90975273|NCT04428411|181833566|OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.09
90975274|NCT04428411|181833567|OTHER|||||||0.31|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.31
90975275|NCT04428411|181833568|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
90975276|NCT04428411|181833569|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
90975277|NCT04428411|181833570|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between Baseline and Month 4||||0.0001
90975278|NCT04428411|181833570|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between Baseline and Month 12||||0.0001
90975279|NCT04428411|181833571|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between Baseline and Month 4||||0.0001
90975280|NCT04428411|181833571|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between Baseline and Month 12||||0.0001
90975281|NCT04428411|181833572|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between Baseline and Month 4||||0.0001
90975282|NCT04428411|181833572|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between Baseline and Month 12||||0.0001
90975283|NCT02918019|181833591|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.57||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.84|||Poisson regression|||||0.84|0.39|0.0049
90975284|NCT02918019|181833591|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.78||||0.1838|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.12|||Poisson regression|||||1.12|0.54|0.1838
90975285|NCT02918019|181833591|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.63||||0.0144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.91|||Poisson regression|||||0.91|0.44|0.0144
90975286|NCT00094757|181833611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.39||Model terms: treatment, baseline, prior anti-hyperglycemic therapy status (on vs. not on prior therapy)|ANCOVA|||||-0.39|-0.82|<0.001
90975287|NCT00094757|181833611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.48|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.26|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, baseline, prior anti-hyperglycemic therapy status (on vs. not on prior therapy)||||-0.26|-0.70|<0.001
90975288|NCT00094757|181833612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-19.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|45.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.5|-8.9|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, baseline, prior anti-hyperglycemic therapy status||||-8.9|-30.5|<0.001
90975289|NCT00094757|181833612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|45.9|<|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.6|-6.1|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, baseline, prior anti-hyperglycemic therapy status||||-6.1|-27.6|<0.002
90975290|NCT00408694|181833784|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Null hypothesis, H0: Incidence of patients with either grade 4 hemorrhage or any grade 5 adverse event for the protocol treatment regimen ≤ 0.05. Alternative hypothesis, HA: Incidence of patients with either grade 4 hemorrhage or any grade 5 adverse event for the protocol treatment regimen ≥ 0.15.|If 3 of the first 14 patients or 4 of the first 42 patients experience the specified adverse events, then the regimen is considered unacceptable as calculated by the Fleming method for a two-stage design with type I error and the statistical power were set at 0.14 and 0.83, respectively.|||
90975291|NCT00523991|181833799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23|||<|0.001||95.0|0.18|0.27||"There was only one primary endpoint and the p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LS-Means"|ANCOVA|The analysis of covariance model included treatment, site, and trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second at baseline in the model.||||0.27|0.18|<0.001
90975292|NCT00523991|181833803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|||<|0.001||95.0|0.09|0.18||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|Terms include treatment, site, and trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second at baseline Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans||tiotropium versus placebo||0.18|0.09|<0.001
90975293|NCT00523991|181833807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24|||<|0.001||95.0|0.19|0.29||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|Terms include treatment, site, and peak forced expiratory volume in 1 second at baseline Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans||tiotropium versus placebo||0.29|0.19|<0.001
90975294|NCT00523991|181833823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|||<|0.001||95.0|0.09|0.18||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"Terms include treatment, site, and forced expiratory volume in 1 second at baseline~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||0.18|0.09|<0.001
90975295|NCT00523991|181833824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||<|0.001||95.0|0.16|0.25||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms include treatment, site, and forced expiratory volume in 1 second at baseline~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||0.25|0.16|<0.001
90975296|NCT00523991|181833825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23|||<|0.001||95.0|0.18|0.28||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms include treatment, site, and forced expiratory volume in 1 second at baseline~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium vesus placebo||0.28|0.18|<0.001
90975297|NCT00523991|181833826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24|||<|0.001||95.0|0.2|0.29||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms include treatment, site, and forced expiratory volume in 1 second at baseline~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||0.29|0.20|<0.001
90975298|NCT00523991|181833827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25|||<|0.001||95.0|0.2|0.3||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms include treatment, site, and peak forced expiratory volume in 1 second at baseline~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||0.30|0.20|<0.001
90975299|NCT00523991|181833831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31|||<|0.001||95.0|0.24|0.38||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|terms include treatment, site, and forced vital capacity area under the curve at baseline Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans||tiotropium versus placebo||0.38|0.24|<0.001
90975300|NCT00523991|181833835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21|||<|0.001||95.0|0.14|0.28||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms include treatment, site, and trough forced vital capacity at baseline~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||0.28|0.14|<0.001
91037059|NCT00185458|181960434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.296||95.0|||||Friedman's two-way ANOVA|||Time effect tested with Friedman's two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). The null-hypothesis is that the means are equal at the reference period tested.||||0.296
90975301|NCT00523991|181833839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33|||<|0.001||95.0|0.24|0.42||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms include treatment, site, and peak forced vital capacity at baseline~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||0.42|0.24|<0.001
90975302|NCT00523991|181833855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21|||<|0.001||95.0|0.14|0.28||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|terms include treatment, site, and forced vital capacity at baseline Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans||tiotropium versus placebo||0.28|0.14|<0.001
90975303|NCT00523991|181833856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29|||<|0.001||95.0|0.21|0.36||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms include treatment, site, and forced vital capacity at baseline~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||0.36|0.21|<0.001
90975304|NCT00523991|181833857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|||<|0.001||95.0|0.23|0.38||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|terms include treatment, site, and forced vital capacity at baseline Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans||tiotropium versus placebo||0.38|0.23|<0.001
90975305|NCT00523991|181833858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33|||<|0.001||95.0|0.25|0.4||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|terms include treatment, site, and forced vital capacity at baseline Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans||tiotropium versus placebo||0.40|0.25|<0.001
90975306|NCT00523991|181833859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.35|||<|0.001||95.0|0.26|0.45||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms include treatment, site, and forced vital capacity at baseline~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||0.45|0.26|<0.001
90975307|NCT00523991|181833866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.927||95.0|-0.38|0.41||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms include treatment, site, and albuterol use at baseline~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||0.41|-0.38|0.927
90975308|NCT00523991|181833867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.174||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Site as stratum||tiotropium versus placebo||||0.174
90975309|NCT00523991|181833868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.186||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Site as stratum||tiotropium versus placebo||||0.186
90975310|NCT00523991|181833869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.045||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Site as stratum||tiotropium versus placebo||||0.045
90975311|NCT00523991|181833870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.223||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Site as stratum||tiotropium versus placebo||||0.223
90944240|NCT00781937|181767497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Contrast|-13.01||||0.0141||95.0|-23.4|-2.64||Two sided, conducted at a 5% significance level|ANCOVA|The analysis included treatment, gender, country and stratification factor(s) as fixed effects and randomisation value of the endpoint as covariate.||||-2.64|-23.40|0.0141
90944241|NCT00781937|181767498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.64||||0.1199||95.0|0.36|1.12||Two sided, conducted at a 5% significance level|Regression, Logistic|The analysis included treatment, gender, and stratification factor(s) as fixed effects and metabolic status and weight at baseline as covariates.||||1.12|0.36|0.1199
90944242|NCT00781937|181767499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Contrast|-3.5|||<|0.0001||95.0|-4.84|-2.15||Two sided, conducted at a 5% significance level|ANCOVA|The analysis included treatment, gender, country and stratification factor(s) as fixed effects and randomisation value of the endpoint as covariate.||||-2.15|-4.84|<0.0001
90944243|NCT00781937|181767500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Contrast|-2.05|||<|0.0001||95.0|-2.53|-1.57||Two sided, conducted at a 5% significance level|ANCOVA|The analysis included treatment, gender, country and stratification factor(s) as fixed effects and randomisation value of the endpoint as covariate.||||-1.57|-2.53|<0.0001
90944244|NCT00781937|181767501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Contrast|2.35||||0.3689||95.0|-2.79|7.49||Two sided, conducted at a 5% significance level|ANCOVA|The analysis included treatment, gender, country and stratification factor(s) as fixed effects and randomisation value of the endpoint as covariate.||||7.49|-2.79|0.3689
90944245|NCT00781937|181767502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Contrast|-0.1||||0.0053||95.0|-0.16|-0.03||Two sided, conducted at a 5% significance level|ANCOVA|The analysis included treatment, gender, country and stratification factor(s) as fixed effects and randomisation value of the endpoint as covariate.||||-0.03|-0.16|0.0053
90975312|NCT00523991|181833871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Site as stratum||tiotropium versus placebo||||0.010
90975313|NCT00523991|181833872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.086||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Site as stratum||tiotropium versus placebo||||0.086
90975314|NCT00523991|181833874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.64||||0.729||95.0|-2.97|4.24||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and work productivity at baseline~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LS Means"||tiotropium versus placebo||4.24|-2.97|0.729
91037060|NCT00185458|181960436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Friedman's two-way ANOVA|||This is a Friedman's two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) to test the time effect within the treatment group. The null-hypothesis is that the means are equal at the time points tested.||||<0.001
91037061|NCT00185458|181960438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027||95.0|||||Friedman's two-way ANOVA|||This is a Friedman's two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) to test the time effect within the treatment group. The null-hypothesis is that the means are equal at the time points tested.||||0.027
90944246|NCT00781937|181767503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Contrast|-0.38|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.5|-0.26||Two sided, conducted at a 5% significance level|ANCOVA|The analysis included treatment, gender, country and stratification factor(s) as fixed effects and randomisation value of the endpoint as covariate.||||-0.26|-0.50|<0.0001
90944247|NCT00781937|181767504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Contrast|-1.85||||0.0147||95.0|-3.34|-0.37||Two sided, conducted at a 5% significance level|ANCOVA|The analysis included treatment, gender, country and stratification factor(s) as fixed effects and randomisation value of the endpoint as covariate.||||-0.37|-3.34|0.0147
90944248|NCT00781937|181767505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Contrast|-0.27|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.33|-0.21||Two sided, conducted at a 5% significance level|ANCOVA|The analysis included treatment, gender, country and stratification factor(s) as fixed effects and randomisation value of the endpoint as covariate.||||-0.21|-0.33|<0.0001
90944249|NCT00013611|181767508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.18|||Regression, Cox|Stratification by CD4+ count stratum (50-199 or 200-299) and country of randomization.||Null hypothesis was that event rates in two groups are equal. Study was designed with 80%, two-sided alpha=.05, assuming a 28% reduction in the hazard of opportunistic disease or death.||1.18|0.70|0.47
90944250|NCT00013611|181767509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.44|||Regression, Cox|Stratification by CD4+ stratum and country of randomization.||||1.44|0.77|0.73
90944251|NCT00013611|181767510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.06|||Regression, Cox|Stratification by CD4+ stratum and country of randomization.||||1.06|0.51|0.10
90944252|NCT00013611|181767511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.34|||Regression, Cox|||||1.34|0.90|0.35
90975315|NCT00523991|181833875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5||||0.149||95.0|-5.9|0.9||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and work productivity at baseline~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LS Means"||tiotropium versus placebo||0.90|-5.90|0.149
90975316|NCT00523991|181833876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53||||0.763||95.0|-4.0|2.93||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and work productivity at baseline~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||2.93|-4.00|0.763
91037062|NCT00185458|181960439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Friedman's two-way ANOVA|||This is a Friedman's two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) to test the time effect within the treatment group. The null-hypothesis is that the means are equal at the time points tested.||||<0.001
91037063|NCT00185458|181960440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Friedman's two-way ANOVA|||This is a Friedman's two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) to test the time effect within the treatment group. The null-hypothesis is that the means are equal at the time points tested.||||<0.001
91037064|NCT00185458|181960441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Friedman's two-way ANOVA|||This is a Friedman's two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) to test the time effect within the treatment group. The null-hypothesis is that the means are equal at the time points tested.||||<0.001
90944253|NCT00013611|181767512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|53.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.3|65.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||65.7|40.3|< 0.001
90944254|NCT03491215|181767569|OTHER|Comparison|GMR|0.801|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.49|1.311||||||Group 3 vs Group 2||1.311|0.490|
90944255|NCT03491215|181767569|OTHER|Comparison|GMR|0.991|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.532|1.846||||||Group 3 vs. Group 1||1.846|0.532|
90944256|NCT03491215|181767569|OTHER|Comparison|GMR|1.237|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.639|2.394||||||Group 2 vs. Group 1||2.394|0.639|
90944257|NCT03491215|181767570|OTHER|Comparison|GMR|0.709|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.425|1.184||||||Group 3 vs. Group 2||1.184|0.425|
90944258|NCT03491215|181767570|OTHER|Comparison|GMR|0.968|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.506|1.851||||||Group 3 vs. Group 1||1.851|0.506|
90944259|NCT03491215|181767570|OTHER|Comparison|GMR|1.365|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.686|2.714||||||Group 2 vs. Group 1||2.714|0.686|
90944260|NCT03491215|181767572|OTHER|Comparison|GMR|0.759|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.245|2.352||||||Group 3 vs. Group 2||2.352|0.245|
90944261|NCT03491215|181767572|OTHER|Comparison|GMR|0.516|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.15|1.784||||||Group 3 vs. Group 1||1.784|0.150|
90944262|NCT03491215|181767572|OTHER|Comparison|GMR|0.681|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.178|2.597||||||Group 2 vs. Group 1||2.597|0.178|
90944263|NCT03491215|181767580|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.976|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.858|1.109||||||||1.109|0.858|
90944264|NCT03491215|181767580|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.951|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.735|1.232||||||||1.232|0.735|
90944265|NCT03491215|181767581|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.014|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.921|1.115||||||||1.115|0.921|
90944266|NCT03491215|181767581|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.029|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.841|1.258||||||||1.258|0.841|
90944267|NCT03491215|181767582|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.063|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.012|1.117||||||||1.117|1.012|
90944268|NCT03491215|181767582|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.132|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.025|1.25||||||||1.25|1.025|
90944269|NCT03539068|181767602|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.00001
90944270|NCT04599855|181767604|SUPERIORITY||least square (LS) means difference|-5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.42|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.91|-2.33|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||||-2.33|-7.91|<0.001
90944271|NCT04599855|181767604|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|-6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.48|-4.07|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||||-4.07|-9.48|<0.001
90944272|NCT04599855|181767605|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29|=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.29|-1.22|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||||-1.22|-6.29|=0.004
90944273|NCT04599855|181767605|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.24|=|0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.89|-1.0|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||||-1.00|-5.89|=0.006
90944274|NCT04294667|181767606|SUPERIORITY|The difference in proportion responding between SOC+DZP 24mg/kg and SOC+PBO was estimated and tested using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) risk difference estimate controlling for the randomization stratification factors, Pooled Region (North America vs Western Europe/Asia-Pacific vs Latin America/Eastern Europe), Screening disease activity (chronic active vs acute flaring) and Screening SLEDAI score (\<10 vs \>=10).|Difference in Proportions (%)|14.6||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|25.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||25.8|3.3|0.0110
90944275|NCT04294667|181767607|SUPERIORITY|The difference in proportion responding between SOC+DZP 24mg/kg and SOC+PBO was estimated and tested using the CMH risk difference estimate controlling for the randomization stratification factors, Pooled Region (North America vs Western Europe/Asia-Pacific vs Latin America/Eastern Europe), Screening disease activity (chronic active vs acute flaring) and Screening SLEDAI score (\<10 vs \>=10).|Difference in Proportions (%)|7.9||||0.1776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|19.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||19.4|-3.6|0.1776
90944276|NCT04294667|181767608|SUPERIORITY|The difference in proportion responding between SOC+DZP 24mg/kg and SOC+PBO was estimated and tested using the CMH risk difference estimate controlling for the randomization stratification factors, Pooled Region (North America vs Western Europe/Asia-Pacific vs Latin America/Eastern Europe), Screening disease activity (chronic active vs acute flaring) and Screening SLEDAI score (\<10 vs \>=10).|Difference in Proportions (%)|10.8||||0.0518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|21.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.7|-0.1|0.0518
90944277|NCT04294667|181767609|SUPERIORITY|The difference in proportion responding between SOC+DZP 24mg/kg and SOC+PBO was estimated and tested using the CMH risk difference estimate controlling for the randomization stratification factors, Pooled Region (North America vs Western Europe/Asia-Pacific vs Latin America/Eastern Europe), Screening disease activity (chronic active vs acute flaring) and Screening SLEDAI score (\<10 vs \>=10).|Difference in Proportions (%)|11.5||||0.0257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|21.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.6|1.4|0.0257
90944278|NCT04294667|181767610|SUPERIORITY|The difference in proportion responding between SOC+DZP 24mg/kg and SOC+PBO was estimated and tested using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) risk difference estimate controlling for the randomization stratification factors, Pooled Region (North America vs Western Europe/Asia-Pacific vs Latin America/Eastern Europe), Screening disease activity (chronic active vs acute flaring) and Screening SLEDAI score (\<10 vs \>=10).|Difference in Proportions (%)|7.2||||0.1042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|16.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||16.0|-1.5|0.1042
90944279|NCT04294667|181767611|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Change(DZP+SOC vs PBO+SOC)|-1.8||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.9|||MMRM|The Least Squares (LS) Mean, the difference (DZP+SOC versus PBO+SOC), and the 95% CIs was computed from the MMRM.||||-0.9|-2.7|0.0001
90944280|NCT04294667|181767616|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0111|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0111
91037065|NCT00185458|181960442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.054||95.0|||||Friedman's two-way ANOVA|||This is a Friedman's two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) to test the time effect within the treatment group. The null-hypothesis is that the means are equal at the time points tested.||||0.054
91037066|NCT00185458|181960443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Friedman's two-way ANOVA|||This is a Friedman's two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) to test the time effect within the treatment group. The null-hypothesis is that the means are equal at the time points tested.||||<0.001
91037067|NCT00185458|181960444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Friedman's two-way ANOVA|||This is a Friedman's two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) to test the time effect within the treatment group. The null-hypothesis is that the means are equal at the time points tested.||||<0.001
91037068|NCT00185458|181960445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Friedman's two-way ANOVA|||This is a Friedman's two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) to test the time effect within the treatment group. The null-hypothesis is that the means are equal at the time points tested.||||<0.001
90944281|NCT04294667|181767617|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0228|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0228
90944282|NCT02312206|181767683|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.826||||0.3028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5735|1.1889|||Log Rank|||||1.1889|0.5735|0.3028
90944283|NCT03269695|181767692|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|1.8||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.0|47.2|||Chan and Zhang (1999)|||||47.2|-41.0|1.0000
90944284|NCT03269695|181767693|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.0|37.0|||Chan and Zhang (1999)|||||37.0|-37.0|1.0000
90944285|NCT03269695|181767694|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|14.3||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.8|57.9|||Chan and Zhang (1999)|||||57.9|-23.8|0.4700
90944286|NCT03269695|181767695|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|10.0||||0.5221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.7|45.6|||Chan and Zhang (1999)|||||45.6|-20.7|0.5221
90944287|NCT03269695|181767696|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|32.1||||0.3166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.7|74.1|||Chan and Zhang (1999)|||||74.1|-23.7|0.3166
90944288|NCT03269695|181767697|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|20.0||||0.5234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.9|58.5|||Chan and Zhang (1999)|||||58.5|-22.9|0.5234
90944289|NCT03269695|181767698|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-25.0||||0.7393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.6|29.1|||Chan and Zhang (1999)|||||29.1|-69.6|0.7393
90944290|NCT03269695|181767699|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|5.8||||0.2705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.08|16.67|||ANCOVA|||||16.67|-5.08|0.2705
90944291|NCT03269695|181767700|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|48.2||||0.0732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|84.7|||Chan and Zhang (1999)|||||84.7|-4.4|0.0732
90944292|NCT03269695|181767701|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|30.0||||0.2633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.4|69.2|||Chan and Zhang (1999)|||||69.2|-18.4|0.2633
90944293|NCT03269695|181767702|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|6.54|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||At Week 2||6.54|0.15|1.0000
90944294|NCT03269695|181767702|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.6691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|10.0|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||At Week 4||10.00|0.23|0.6691
90944295|NCT03269695|181767702|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.62||||0.6248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|4.4|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||At Week 8||4.40|0.09|0.6248
90944296|NCT03269695|181767702|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.9965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|8.3|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||At Week 12||8.30|0.12|0.9965
90944297|NCT00239681|181767711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.46|0.69|||Regression, Cox||The hazard ratio shows (Rosuvastatin hazard/Placebo hazard)|||0.69|0.46|<0.0001
90944298|NCT00239681|181767712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||<|0.021||95.0|0.67|0.97|||Regression, Cox||The hazard ratio shows (Rosuvastatin hazard/Placebo hazard)|||0.97|0.67|<0.021
90944299|NCT00239681|181767713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84|||<|0.172||95.0|0.65|1.08|||Regression, Cox||The hazard ratio shows (Rosuvastatin hazard/Placebo hazard)|||1.08|0.65|<0.172
90944300|NCT00239681|181767714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.27|||<|0.015||95.0|1.05|1.53|||Regression, Cox||The hazard ratio shows (Rosuvastatin hazard/Placebo hazard)|||1.53|1.05|<0.015
90944301|NCT00239681|181767715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57||||0.018||95.0|0.35|0.91|||Regression, Cox||The hazard ratio shows (Rosuvastatin hazard/Placebo hazard)|||0.91|0.35|0.018
90944302|NCT00239681|181767716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.548||95.0|0.88|1.28|||Regression, Cox||The hazard ratio shows (Rosuvastatin hazard/Placebo hazard)|||1.28|0.88|0.548
90944303|NCT00905359|181767722|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|t-test analysis performed using Multiple imputation and one-sided p-value testing non-inferiority of the percentage change from baseline at 10%. One-sided p-value is significant if \<0.025 or the upper limit of the CI is less than 10%.||||||0.172|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.172
90944304|NCT02654132|181767737|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.82|||Log Rank|||||0.82|0.32|0.0043
90944305|NCT02654132|181767738|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.62||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.05|10.43|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.43|2.05|0.0002
90944306|NCT02654132|181767739|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59||||0.0217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.93|||Log Rank|||||0.93|0.37|0.0217
90944307|NCT02485899|181767740|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.33|||Cox Proportional Hazards model|||||0.33|0.06|<0.0001
90944308|NCT02485899|181767741|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cox Proportional Hazards model|||||||<0.0001
90944309|NCT00623363|181767747|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.503|||||||Monte Carlo estimates|||Baseline (Day -7)||||0.503
91037069|NCT00185458|181960446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Friedman's two-way ANOVA|||This is a Friedman's two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) to test the time effect within the treatment group. The null-hypothesis is that the means are equal at the time points tested.||||<0.001
91037070|NCT00185458|181960447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Friedman's two-way ANOVA|||This is a Friedman's two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) to test the time effect within the treatment group. The null-hypothesis is that the means are equal at the time points tested.||||<0.001
91037071|NCT00185458|181960448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Friedman's two-way ANOVA|||This is a Friedman's two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) to test the time effect within the treatment group. The null-hypothesis is that the means are equal at the time points tested.||||<0.001
91037072|NCT00185458|181960449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.175||95.0|||||Friedman's two-way ANOVA|||This is a Friedman's two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) to test the time effect within the treatment group. The null-hypothesis is that the means are equal at the time points tested.||||0.175
91037073|NCT00185458|181960450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.062||95.0|||||Friedman's two-way ANOVA|||This is a Friedman's two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) to test the time effect within the treatment group. The null-hypothesis is that the means are equal at the time points tested.||||0.062
90944310|NCT00623363|181767747|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean|20.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.82|39.37||||||Average of Days 1 and 2||39.37|1.82|
90944311|NCT00623363|181767747|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean|3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.18|22.37||||||Change from Baseline||22.37|-15.18|
90944312|NCT00623363|181767747|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean|36.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.04|49.14||||||Average of Days 1 and 2||49.14|24.04|
90944313|NCT00623363|181767747|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean|19.59||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.04|32.14|||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline||32.14|7.04|0.160
90944314|NCT04706793|181767763|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|17.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|38.82||||||||38.82|-3.10|
90944315|NCT04706793|181767764|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|28.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.28|50.86||||||||50.86|6.28|
90944316|NCT04706793|181767765|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|32.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.58|54.71||||||||54.71|9.58|
90944317|NCT04706793|181767766|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|21.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|42.92||||||||42.92|-0.07|
90944318|NCT04706793|181767767|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|17.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|38.82||||||||38.82|-3.10|
90944319|NCT04706793|181767768|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|7.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|16.68||||||||16.68|-2.40|
90944320|NCT03713320|181767769|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9539|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of the treatment groups is based on a Cochran-Mantel-Haenzel test controlling for the number of tumors at screening (at least one tumor at screening versus no tumors at screening) and number of prognostic factors (0-1 versus 2 prognostic factors). Prognostic factors include age at diagnosis \> 60 years and lactate dehydrogenase level \> upper limit of normal at diagnosis. Number of subjects achieving ORR4 and exact binomial (Clopper-Pearson) confidence intervals are presented.||||.9539
90944321|NCT03713320|181767770|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||Regression, Cox|||Hazard ratio (cobomarsen/vorinostat) and p-value comparing the treatment groups is based on a Cox proportional hazards model. A hazard ratio \< 1 favors cobomarsen over vorinostat.||||0.011
90944322|NCT02725528|181767784|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||Between groups analysis for PROMs, QALYs and ROM at 12-months were determined using one-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). Group was entered as the independent variable, the 12-month outcome of interest was entered as the dependent variable and the baseline value for the corresponding outcome measure was entered as the covariate. Statistical significance was considered at p \< .05; all analyses were performed using SPSS® version 26.0||||0.05
90944323|NCT02725528|181767785|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||Between groups analysis for PROMs, QALYs and ROM at 12-months were determined using one-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). Group was entered as the independent variable, the 12-month outcome of interest was entered as the dependent variable and the baseline value for the corresponding outcome measure was entered as the covariate. Statistical significance was considered at p \< .05; all analyses were performed using SPSS® version 26.0||||0.05
90944324|NCT02725528|181767786|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||Between groups analysis for PROMs, QALYs and ROM at 12-months were determined using one-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). Group was entered as the independent variable, the 12-month outcome of interest was entered as the dependent variable and the baseline value for the corresponding outcome measure was entered as the covariate. Statistical significance was considered at p \< .05; all analyses were performed using SPSS® version 26.0||||0.05
90944325|NCT02725528|181767787|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||Between groups analysis for PROMs, QALYs and ROM at 12-months were determined using one-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). Group was entered as the independent variable, the 12-month outcome of interest was entered as the dependent variable and the baseline value for the corresponding outcome measure was entered as the covariate. Statistical significance was considered at p \< .05; all analyses were performed using SPSS® version 26.0||||0.05
90944326|NCT02725528|181767788|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||Between groups analysis for PROMs, QALYs and ROM at 12-months were determined using one-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). Group was entered as the independent variable, the 12-month outcome of interest was entered as the dependent variable and the baseline value for the corresponding outcome measure was entered as the covariate. Statistical significance was considered at p \< .05; all analyses were performed using SPSS® version 26.0||||0.05
90975317|NCT00523991|181833877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.85||||0.313||95.0|-5.45|1.75||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and work productivity at baseline~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LS Means"||tiotropium versus placebo||1.75|-5.45|0.313
90975318|NCT00523991|181833878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.79||||0.682||95.0|-4.6|3.01||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and work productivity at baseline~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LS Means"||tiotropium versus placebo||3.01|-4.60|0.682
90975319|NCT00523991|181833879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.76||||0.043||95.0|-7.39|-0.13||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and work productivity at baseline~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LS Means"||tiotropium versus placebo||-0.13|-7.39|0.043
90975320|NCT00523991|181833881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61||||0.823||95.0|-6.01|4.79||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and work productivity at baseline~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||4.79|-6.01|0.823
90975321|NCT00523991|181833882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.03||||0.767||95.0|-7.86|5.81||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and work productivity at baseline~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||5.81|-7.86|0.767
90975322|NCT00523991|181833883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.77||||0.754||95.0|-4.12|5.67||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and work productivity at baseline~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||5.67|-4.12|0.754
90975323|NCT00523991|181833884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.995||95.0|-6.31|6.27||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and work productivity at baseline~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||6.27|-6.31|0.995
91037074|NCT00185458|181960451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Friedman's two-way ANOVA|||This is a Friedman's two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) to test the time effect within the treatment group. The null-hypothesis is that the means are equal at the time points tested.||||<0.001
91037075|NCT00748072|181960452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.45||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.85|||Chi-squared|||The sample size was calculated by the difference in post-biopsy bleeding complications. Since the presence of bleeding was demonstrated in about 30-40 % in our previous observational study, we hypothesized a reduction risk of 0.50 and an absolute reduction of risk from 0.40 to 0.20. The sample size of the study for a power of 0.80 and a significance level \<0.05 was calculated in 158 patients.||0.85|0.24|0.01
91037076|NCT01750294|181960453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||||||a = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.01
91037077|NCT03676634|181960465|OTHER||single proportion|0.844|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.672|0.947|||||Values listed in table are for Type A. Estimated Value for the Estimation Parameter for type B = 0.875. Lower limit = 0.710, upper limit = 0.965|Consider increase from baseline to post-dose values. Parameter is proportion achieving desired increase (≥ 3x or 4x increase in Type A and Type B NAC).|Proportion of participants achieving ≥ 3x or 4x increase in NAC values was calculated for both Type A and Type B. Primary endpoint was achieved if both Type A and Type B had proportion ≥50%.|.947|.672|
91037078|NCT00829712|181960469|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model containing factors for sequence of products, subjects within sequence, periods, and products was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|100.95||||||90.0|94.02|108.39|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||108.39|94.02|
91037079|NCT00829712|181960470|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model containing factors for sequence of products, subjects within sequence, periods, and products was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|99.05||||||90.0|95.08|103.19|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||103.19|95.08|
91037080|NCT00829712|181960471|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model containing factors for sequence of products, subjects within sequence, periods, and products was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|99.94||||||90.0|96.08|103.95|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||103.95|96.08|
91037081|NCT00911274|181960474|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|92.41||||||90.0|82.77|103.18|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||103.18|82.77|
91037082|NCT00911274|181960475|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|101.3||||||90.0|97.84|104.88|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||104.88|97.84|
90975324|NCT00523991|181833885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.19||||0.72||95.0|-7.77|5.39||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and work productivity at baseline~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||5.39|-7.77|0.720
91037083|NCT00911274|181960476|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|101.0||||||90.0|97.77|104.34|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||104.34|97.77|
90944327|NCT02725528|181767789|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||Between groups analysis for PROMs, QALYs and ROM at 12-months were determined using one-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). Group was entered as the independent variable, the 12-month outcome of interest was entered as the dependent variable and the baseline value for the corresponding outcome measure was entered as the covariate. Statistical significance was considered at p \< .05; all analyses were performed using SPSS® version 26.0||||0.05
90975325|NCT00523991|181833886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.88||||0.064||95.0|-12.1|0.35||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and work productivity at baseline~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LS Means"||tiotropium versus placebo||0.35|-12.10|0.064
90975326|NCT00523991|181833888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.11||||0.718||95.0|-7.21|4.98||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and work productivity at baseline~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||4.98|-7.21|0.718
90944328|NCT02725528|181767790|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||Between groups analysis for PROMs, QALYs and ROM at 12-months were determined using one-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). Group was entered as the independent variable, the 12-month outcome of interest was entered as the dependent variable and the baseline value for the corresponding outcome measure was entered as the covariate. Statistical significance was considered at p \< .05; all analyses were performed using SPSS® version 26.0||||0.05
91037084|NCT00835536|181960477|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|100.0||||||90.0|93.1|108.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||108|93.1|
90975327|NCT00523991|181833889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42||||0.912||95.0|-7.9|7.06||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and work productivity at baseline~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||7.06|-7.90|0.912
90975328|NCT00523991|181833890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.79||||0.162||95.0|-1.55|9.13||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and work productivity at baseline~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||9.13|-1.55|0.162
90975329|NCT00523991|181833891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.59||||0.471||95.0|-4.51|9.69||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and work productivity at baseline~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||9.69|-4.51|0.471
90975330|NCT00523991|181833892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16||||0.961||95.0|-6.52|6.84||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and work productivity at baseline~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||6.84|-6.52|0.961
90975331|NCT00523991|181833893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.9||||0.158||95.0|-11.73|1.94||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and work productivity at baseline~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||1.94|-11.73|0.158
90975332|NCT00523991|181833895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.74||||0.469||95.0|-3.01|6.49||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and work productivity at baseline~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||6.49|-3.01|0.469
90944329|NCT02725528|181767791|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||Between groups analysis for PROMs, QALYs and ROM at 12-months were determined using one-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). Group was entered as the independent variable, the 12-month outcome of interest was entered as the dependent variable and the baseline value for the corresponding outcome measure was entered as the covariate. Statistical significance was considered at p \< .05; all analyses were performed using SPSS® version 26.0||||0.05
90944330|NCT02725528|181767792|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||Between groups analysis for PROMs, QALYs and ROM at 12-months were determined using one-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). Group was entered as the independent variable, the 12-month outcome of interest was entered as the dependent variable and the baseline value for the corresponding outcome measure was entered as the covariate. Statistical significance was considered at p \< .05; all analyses were performed using SPSS® version 26.0||||0.05
90944331|NCT02706847|181767830|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure.|Response Rate Difference|36.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.2|46.2||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of prior biological DMARD use (stratum 1 vs stratum 2).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||46.2|26.2|<0.001
90944332|NCT02706847|181767830|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure.|Response Rate Difference|28.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.8|38.1||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of prior biological DMARD use (stratum 1 vs stratum 2).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||38.1|17.8|<0.001
90975333|NCT00523991|181833896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.79||||0.079||95.0|-0.68|12.26||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and work productivity at baseline~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||12.26|-0.68|0.079
90944333|NCT02706847|181767831|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure.|Response Rate Difference|29.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.9|38.3||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of prior biological DMARD use (stratum 1 vs stratum 2).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||38.3|19.9|<0.001
90975334|NCT00523991|181833897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.1||||0.051||95.0|-0.02|8.23||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and work productivity at baseline~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||8.23|-0.02|0.051
90975335|NCT00523991|181833898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.43||||0.075||95.0|-0.35|7.21||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and work productivity at baseline~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||7.21|-0.35|0.075
90975336|NCT00523991|181833899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5||||0.306||95.0|-1.39|4.38||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|terms for treatment, site, and work productivity at baseline Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans||tiotropium versus placebo||4.38|-1.39|0.306
90975337|NCT00523991|181833900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.33||||0.363||95.0|-7.39|2.73||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and work productivity at baseline~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||2.73|-7.39|0.363
90975338|NCT00523991|181833902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.668||95.0|-0.03|0.02||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|terms for treatment, site, and logarithm of baseline value Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans||tiotropium versus placebo||0.02|-0.03|0.668
90975339|NCT00523991|181833903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.78||95.0|-0.02|0.03||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and logarithm of baseline value~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||0.03|-0.02|0.780
90975340|NCT00523991|181833904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.61||95.0|-0.03|0.02||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and logarithm of baseline value~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||0.02|-0.03|0.610
90975341|NCT00523991|181833905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.554||95.0|-0.02|0.04||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and logarithm of baseline value~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||0.04|-0.02|0.554
90975342|NCT00523991|181833906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.549||95.0|-0.02|0.04||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and logarithm of baseline value~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||0.04|-0.02|0.549
90975343|NCT00523991|181833907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.568||95.0|-0.02|0.04||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and logarithm of baseline value~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||0.04|-0.02|0.568
90975344|NCT00523991|181833909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.358||95.0|-0.18|0.07||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and logarithm of baseline value~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||0.07|-0.18|0.358
90975345|NCT00523991|181833910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.219||95.0|-0.2|0.05||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans||tiotropium versus placebo||0.05|-0.20|0.219
90975346|NCT00523991|181833911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.518||95.0|-0.1|0.19||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and logarithm of baseline value~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||0.19|-0.10|0.518
91037085|NCT00835536|181960478|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|96.5||||||90.0|92.1|101.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||101|92.1|
91037086|NCT04603495|181960488|OTHER|The response rate between the 2 treatment groups was compared using CMH test.|Difference in proportion|30.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.6|39.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH 95% CI adjusted by strata; Mehrotra-Railkar test used if Breslow-Day significant; DIPSS High merged with Int-2 due to low counts.|The proportion difference = experimental group (Pela + RUX) - control group (placebo + RUX).|Splenic Response Rate at Week 24||39.3|21.6|<0.001
91037087|NCT04603495|181960489|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.009||0.0545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.92|0.04|||ANCOVA|||Absolute Change from Baseline in Total Symptom Score (TSS) at Week 24||0.04|-3.92|0.0545
90975347|NCT00523991|181833912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.455||95.0|-0.09|0.21||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and logarithm of baseline value~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||0.21|-0.09|0.455
90975348|NCT00523991|181833913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.927||95.0|-0.16|0.15||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and logarithm of baseline value~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||0.15|-0.16|0.927
90975349|NCT00523991|181833914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.933||95.0|-0.17|0.16||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and logarithm of baseline value~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||0.16|-0.17|0.933
90975350|NCT00523991|181833915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.996||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Site as stratum||tiotropium versus placebo||||0.996
90975351|NCT00523991|181833916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.196||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Site as stratum||tiotropium versus placebo||||0.196
90975352|NCT00523991|181833917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Site as stratum||tiotropium versus placebo||||0.800
90975353|NCT00523991|181833918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.215||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Site as stratum||tiotropium versus placebo||||0.215
90975354|NCT00523991|181833919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.205||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Site as stratum||tiotropium versus placebo||||0.205
90975355|NCT00523991|181833920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.622||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Site as stratum||tiotropium versus placebo||||0.622
91037088|NCT04603495|181960490|OTHER|The response rate between the 2 treatment groups was compared using CMH test.|Difference in proportions|6.0||||0.216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|15.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH 95% CI adjusted by strata; Mehrotra-Railkar test used if Breslow-Day significant; DIPSS High merged with Int-2 due to low counts.|Proportion Difference = Experimental Group (Pela + RUX) - Control Group (placebo + RUX).|Percentage of TSS50 at Week 24||15.5|-3.4|0.216
91037089|NCT04603495|181960492|OTHER||Difference in proportions|7.63||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|14.73|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH 95% CI adjusted across the strata including baseline DIPSS, platelet count, and spleen volume.|Proportion Difference = Experimental Group (Pela + RUX) - Control Group (placebo + RUX).|≥1 Grade improvement From Baseline in Bone Marrow Fibrosis at Week 24||14.73|0.52|0.037
91037090|NCT04603495|181960511|OTHER||Difference in Proportions|7.8||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|17.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH 95% CI adjusted by strata; Mehrotra-Railkar test used if Breslow-Day significant; DIPSS High merged with Int-2 due to low counts.|The proportion difference = experimental group (Pela + RUX) - control group (placebo + RUX). Wald 95% CIs were applied.|Modified Total Symptom Score (mTSS) Response at Week 24||17.2|-1.7|0.107
91037091|NCT02709018|181960531|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.66
91037092|NCT02709018|181960532|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.57
90944334|NCT02706847|181767831|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure.|Response Rate Difference|28.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.0|37.4||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of prior biological DMARD use (stratum 1 vs stratum 2).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||37.4|19.0|<0.001
90944335|NCT02706847|181767832|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure.|LS Mean Difference|-1.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|-1.01||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, prior biological DMARD use (stratum 1 vs stratum 2) and baseline value as covariates.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-1.01|-1.57|<0.001
90975356|NCT00523991|181833921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.446||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Site as stratum||tiotropium versus placebo||||0.446
90975357|NCT00523991|181833923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.819||95.0|-0.05|0.06||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|terms for treatment, site, and baseline value Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans||tiotropium versus placebo||0.06|-0.05|0.819
91037093|NCT00950989|181960556|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rate|3.2||||0.598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|15.4||P-value is nominal p-value without multiplicity adjustment based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for sex.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||15.4|-9.0|0.598
90944336|NCT02706847|181767832|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure.|LS Mean Difference|-1.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|-0.99||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, prior biological DMARD use (stratum 1 vs stratum 2) and baseline value as covariates.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-0.99|-1.56|<0.001
90975358|NCT00523991|181833924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.204||95.0|-0.1|0.02||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and baseline value~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||0.02|-0.10|0.204
90975359|NCT00523991|181833925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.67||95.0|-0.08|0.05||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and baseline value~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||0.05|-0.08|0.670
90975360|NCT00523991|181833926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.63||95.0|-0.09|0.06||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|terms for treatment, site, and baseline value Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans||tiotropium versus placebo||0.06|-0.09|0.630
90975361|NCT00523991|181833927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.704||95.0|-0.1|0.07||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|terms for treatment, site, and baseline value Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans||tiotropium versus placebo||0.07|-0.10|0.704
91037094|NCT00950989|181960556|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.993||||||Adjusted p-value is based on a combination of sequential testing and the Hommel procedure to control the overall significance level for all the comparisons.|Sequential testing + Hommel procedure|||||||0.993
91037095|NCT00950989|181960556|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rate|3.2||||0.635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|15.4||P-value is nominal p-value without multiplicity adjustment based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for sex.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||15.4|-9.0|0.635
91037096|NCT00950989|181960556|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74||||||Adjusted p-value is based on a combination of sequential testing and the Hommel procedure to control the overall significance level for all the comparisons.|Sequential testing + Hommel procedure|||||||0.740
91037097|NCT00950989|181960556|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rate|-3.2||||0.572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|7.8||P-value is nominal p-value without multiplicity adjustment based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for sex.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||7.8|-14.1|0.572
90944337|NCT02706847|181767833|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure.|LS Mean Difference|-0.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|-0.1||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, prior biological DMARD use (stratum 1 vs stratum 2) and baseline value as covariates.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-0.10|-0.34|<0.001
90975362|NCT00523991|181833928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.579||95.0|-0.11|0.06||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and baseline value~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||0.06|-0.11|0.579
90975363|NCT00523991|181833930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.54||||0.916||95.0|-464.02|416.94||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and baseline value~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||416.94|-464.02|0.916
90975364|NCT00523991|181833931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-31.42||||0.899||95.0|-520.19|457.34||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and baseline value~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||457.34|-520.19|0.899
90975365|NCT00523991|181833932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|181.99||||0.495||95.0|-341.75|705.73||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and baseline value~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||placebo versus tiotropium||705.73|-341.75|0.495
91037098|NCT00950989|181960556|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.572||||||Adjusted p-value is based on a combination of sequential testing and the Hommel procedure to control the overall significance level for all the comparisons.|Sequential testing + Hommel procedure|||||||0.572
91037099|NCT00950989|181960557|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-3.2||||0.728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.4|14.0||P-value is nominal p-value without multiplicity adjustment based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for sex.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||14.0|-20.4|0.728
91037100|NCT00950989|181960557|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.993||||||Adjusted p-value is based on a combination of sequential testing and the Hommel procedure to control the overall significance level for all the comparisons.|Sequential testing + Hommel procedure|||||||0.993
91037101|NCT00950989|181960557|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-6.3||||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.4|10.7||P-value is nominal p-value without multiplicity adjustment based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for sex.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.7|-23.4|0.412
91037102|NCT00950989|181960557|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74||||||Adjusted p-value is based on a combination of sequential testing and the Hommel procedure to control the overall significance level for all the comparisons.|Sequential testing + Hommel procedures|||||||0.740
91037103|NCT00950989|181960557|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|3.2||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.2|20.5||P-value is nominal p-value without multiplicity adjustment based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for sex.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||20.5|-14.2|0.740
90944338|NCT02706847|181767833|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure.|LS Mean Difference|-0.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.13||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, prior biological DMARD use (stratum 1 vs stratum 2) and baseline value as covariates.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-0.13|-0.38|<0.001
90944339|NCT02706847|181767834|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure.|LS Mean DIfference|3.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|5.15||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, previous bDMARD use, and baseline value as covariate.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||5.15|1.72|<0.001
91037104|NCT00950989|181960557|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.993||||||Adjusted p-value is based on a combination of sequential testing and the Hommel procedure to control the overall significance level for all the comparisons.|Sequential testing + Hommel procedure|||||||0.993
90975366|NCT00523991|181833933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|258.83||||0.318||95.0|-250.37|768.03||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and baseline value~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||768.03|-250.37|0.318
91037105|NCT00950989|181960558|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.0||||0.984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|6.1||P-value is nominal p-value without multiplicity adjustment based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for sex.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||6.1|-6.1|0.984
91037106|NCT00950989|181960558|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.993||||||Adjusted p-value is based on a combination of sequential testing and the Hommel procedure to control the overall significance level for all the comparisons.|Sequential testing + Hommel procedure|||||||0.993
91037107|NCT00950989|181960558|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.0||||0.993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|6.1||P-value is nominal p-value without multiplicity adjustment based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for sex.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||6.1|-6.1|0.993
91037108|NCT00950989|181960558|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.993||||||Adjusted p-value is based on a combination of sequential testing and the Hommel procedure to control the overall significance level for all the comparisons.|Sequential testing + Hommel procedure|||||||0.993
90944340|NCT02706847|181767834|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure.|LS Mean Difference|4.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.89|6.36||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, previous bDMARD use, and baseline value as covariate.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||6.36|2.89|<0.001
90944341|NCT02706847|181767835|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|22.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.6|31.1||The nominal p-value is reported|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of prior biological DMARD use (stratum 1 vs stratum 2).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||31.1|13.6|<0.001
90944342|NCT02706847|181767835|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|23.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.1|32.7||The nominal p-value is reported|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of prior biological DMARD use (stratum 1 vs stratum 2).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||32.7|15.1|<0.001
90944343|NCT02706847|181767836|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|5.1||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|11.2||The nominal p-value is reported|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of prior biological DMARD use (stratum 1 vs stratum 2).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||11.2|-1.1|0.110
90944344|NCT02706847|181767836|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|16.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.1|23.9||The nominal p-value is reported|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of prior biological DMARD use (stratum 1 vs stratum 2).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||23.9|9.1|<0.001
90944345|NCT02706847|181767837|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|16.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.5|25.1||The nominal p-value is reported|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of prior biological DMARD use (stratum 1 vs stratum 2).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||25.1|8.5|<0.001
90944346|NCT02706847|181767837|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|14.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.1|22.3||The nominal p-value is reported|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of prior biological DMARD use (stratum 1 vs stratum 2).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||22.3|6.1|<0.001
90944347|NCT01174264|181767838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|1.75||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.3|2.34|||t-test, 2 sided|Performed on log-transformed data.||||2.34|1.30|0.003
90944348|NCT01174264|181767838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|1.08||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|1.44||Performed on log-transformed data.|t-test, 2 sided|||||1.44|0.81|0.65
90944349|NCT01174264|181767839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|1.74||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.25|2.42|||t-test, 2 sided|Performed on log-transformed data.||||2.42|1.25|0.008
90944350|NCT01174264|181767839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|1.12||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|1.49|||t-test, 2 sided|Performed on log-transformed data.||||1.49|0.84|0.51
90944351|NCT01174264|181767841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.83
90944352|NCT01174264|181767841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.57
90944353|NCT01174264|181767842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0001
90944354|NCT01174264|181767842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0001
90944355|NCT01174264|181767843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|1.16||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.38|||t-test, 2 sided|Performed on log-transformed data.||||1.38|0.97|0.17
90944356|NCT01174264|181767844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|1.13||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|1.35|||t-test, 2 sided|Performed on log-transformed data.||||1.35|0.95|0.25
90944357|NCT01174264|181767845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|1.22||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.48||Performed on log-transformed data.|t-test, 2 sided|||||1.48|1.00|0.096
90944358|NCT01174264|181767846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.27
90944359|NCT03432390|181767847|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90944360|NCT01185171|181767936|NON_INFERIORITY|The power of the study was conducted as a two-stage, non-inferiority phase II trial with a total sample size of 59 patients to detect a 15% lower rate than 80% achieved with TFHX, with alpha = 0.05 and beta = 0.20. In the first stage, 25 patients were recruited, with a plan to terminate if 16 or less complete responses (CR) were observed. Otherwise, additional 34 patients would be recruited and the treatment would be deemed not inferior to historical if more than 45 CRs were observed.|proportion|0.88|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.95||Ho: CR rate = 0.65 vs Ha: CR rate \> 0.65|Binomial test for a proportion|||||0.95|0.77|< 0.01
90944361|NCT01482429|181767940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0|||||binomial test|||||||0.03
90944362|NCT01482429|181767941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
90944363|NCT03459612|181768013|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority p-value tests null hypothesis that difference in LS means ≥ 4.4 versus alternative hypothesis that difference in Least Square (LS) means \< 4.4.|Difference in LS Means|0.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|2.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.39|-0.43|<0.0001
90944364|NCT03459612|181768013|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority p-value tests null hypothesis that difference in LS means ≥ 4.4 versus alternative hypothesis that difference in LS means \< 4.4.|LS Means|1.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|3.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.20|0.32|<0.0001
90944365|NCT03459612|181768013|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority p-value tests null hypothesis that difference in LS means ≥ 4.4 versus alternative hypothesis that difference in LS means \< 4.4.|LS Means|4.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.58|6.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.38|3.58|<0.0001
90944366|NCT03459612|181768014|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority p-value tests null hypothesis that difference in LS means ≥ 4.4 versus alternative hypothesis that difference in LS means \< 4.4.|Difference in LS Means|-0.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|1.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.04|-1.28|<0.0001
90944367|NCT03459612|181768014|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority p-value tests null hypothesis that difference in LS means ≥ 4.4 versus alternative hypothesis that difference in LS means \< 4.4.|Difference in LS Means|-0.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|0.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.88|-1.51|<0.0001
90944368|NCT03459612|181768014|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority p-value tests null hypothesis that difference in LS means ≥ 4.4 versus alternative hypothesis that difference in LS means \< 4.4.|Difference in LS Means|4.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.17|5.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.45|3.17|<0.0001
90944369|NCT03459612|181768015|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority p-value tests null hypothesis that difference in LS means ≥ 4.4 versus alternative hypothesis that difference in LS means \< 4.4.|Differnce in LS Means|-0.97|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.36|-2.30|<0.0001
90944370|NCT03459612|181768015|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority p-value tests null hypothesis that difference in LS means ≥ 4.4 versus alternative hypothesis that difference in LS means \< 4.4.|Difference in LS Means|-1.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.32|-2.40|<0.0001
90944371|NCT03459612|181768015|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority p-value tests null hypothesis that difference in LS means ≥ 4.4 versus alternative hypothesis that difference in LS means \< 4.4.|Difference in LS Means|4.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.73|5.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.38|2.73|<0.0001
90944372|NCT03459612|181768016|SUPERIORITY||Differences of Least Square Mean|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.7||||||||0.70|-0.15|
90944373|NCT03459612|181768016|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.1||||||||1.10|0.22|
90944374|NCT03459612|181768016|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.24||||||||1.24|0.39|
90944375|NCT03459612|181768017|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.96||||||||0.96|0.00|
90944376|NCT03459612|181768017|SUPERIORITY||Differnce of Least Square Means|0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.82||||||||0.82|-0.14|
90944377|NCT03459612|181768017|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.78||||||||1.78|0.81|
90944378|NCT03459612|181768018|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|-0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.06||||||||-0.06|-1.10|
90944379|NCT03459612|181768018|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.09||||||||0.09|-0.89|
90944380|NCT03459612|181768018|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.96||||||||0.96|-0.09|
90944381|NCT03459612|181768019|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|1.62||||||||1.62|-1.61|
90944382|NCT03459612|181768019|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Lease Square Means|-0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.49|1.01||||||||1.01|-2.49|
90944383|NCT03459612|181768019|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.32|0.89||||||||0.89|-2.32|
90944384|NCT03459612|181768020|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|-1.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.52|-0.06||||||||-0.06|-3.52|
91037109|NCT00950989|181960558|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-3.2||||0.159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|1.2||P-value is nominal p-value without multiplicity adjustment based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for sex.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.2|-7.5|0.159
91037110|NCT00950989|181960558|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.797||||||Adjusted p-value is based on a combination of sequential testing and the Hommel procedure to control the overall significance level for all the comparisons.|Sequential testing + Hommel procedure|||||||0.797
90944385|NCT03459612|181768020|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.42||||||||1.42|-2.00|
90944386|NCT03459612|181768020|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-3.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.53|-2.08||||||||-2.08|-5.53|
90944387|NCT03459612|181768021|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|-0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|1.15||||||||1.15|-1.71|
90944388|NCT03459612|181768021|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|-0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|1.08||||||||1.08|-1.71|
90944389|NCT03459612|181768021|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.13|-1.27||||||||-1.27|-4.13|
90944390|NCT03459612|181768022|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.3||0.6875|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.6875
90944391|NCT03459612|181768022|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.27||0.375|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.3750
90944392|NCT03459612|181768022|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.0||0.0115|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.0115
90944393|NCT03459612|181768023|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.42||0.1563|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.1563
90944394|NCT03459612|181768023|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.44||0.5938|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.5938
90944395|NCT03459612|181768023|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.54||0.0938|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.0938
90944396|NCT03459612|181768024|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.56||0.125|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.1250
90944397|NCT03459612|181768024|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.94||0.959|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.9590
90944398|NCT03459612|181768024|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.46|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.76||0.0097|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.0097
90944399|NCT00691678|181768028|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.3||||0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This statistical analysis measures whether there is a statistically significant change, at the 5% significance level, between the mean WOMAC score among study participants at baseline and at week 24.||||0.004
90944400|NCT05896696|181768076|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.49|-1.26|||Paired sample t-test|||||-1.26|-2.49|<0.0001
90944401|NCT05896696|181768077|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.73|||paired sample t-test|||||-0.73|-1.70|<0.0001
90944402|NCT00575042|181768138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Sample size calculation estimated that with 20 patients, and assuming a 10% drop-out rate, the study would have 80% power to detect a response rate in 35% or more of the study patients. A two-sided p value\<0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||<0.0001
90944403|NCT01777126|181768169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|3.0|||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The primary outcome measure was the interval from surgery to discharge. Discharge means that the patient returns to his home. Preliminary data from our institution showed that all patients received parenteral nutrition very early post-surgery and were discharged after a mean of 19.3 ± 5.6 days. Therefore, the primary objective by implementing the ONP was to reduce the length of stay with 3 days.||||<0.001
90944404|NCT01777126|181768172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|4.0|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Statistical analysis was performed by the Leuven Statistics Research Centre, KU Leuven, using SPSS package (SPSS Statistics 20.0 for Windows). Statistical analysis was performed using the Wilcoxon rank sum test. The result was considered statistically significant if p-values were \< 0.05.||||<0.01
90944405|NCT01777126|181768173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||proportion|||||0.487||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis was performed by the Leuven Statistics Research Centre, KU Leuven, using SPSS package (SPSS Statistics 20.0 for Windows). Statistical analysis was performed using Chi-square and Fisher's Exact Test. Results were considered statistically significant if p-values were \< 0.05.||||0.487
90944406|NCT01777126|181768174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.302
90944407|NCT01777126|181768175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion|||||0.117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis was performed by the Leuven Statistics Research Centre, KU Leuven, using SPSS package (SPSS Statistics 20.0 for Windows). Statistical analysis was performed using Fisher's Exact Test. The result was considered statistically significant if p-values were \< 0.05.||||0.117
90944408|NCT01777126|181768176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion|||||0.049||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Statistical analysis was performed by the Leuven Statistics Research Centre, KU Leuven, using SPSS package (SPSS Statistics 20.0 for Windows). Statistical analysis was performed using Chi-square Test. Outcome measures were considered statistically significant if p-values were \< 0.05.||||0.049
90944409|NCT01777126|181768177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||proportion|||||0.698||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Statistical analysis was performed by the Leuven Statistics Research Centre, KU Leuven, using SPSS package (SPSS Statistics 20.0 for Windows). Statistical analysis was performed using Chi-square Test. Outcome measures were considered statistically significant if p-values were \< 0.05.||||0.698
90944410|NCT02706951|181768185|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error prevalence of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses of upadacitinib were strongly controlled by means of a graphic multiple testing procedure.|Response Rate Difference|26.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.5|35.6||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factor geographic region.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||35.6|17.5|<0.001
90944411|NCT02706951|181768185|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error prevalence of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses of upadacitinib were strongly controlled by means of a graphic multiple testing procedure.|Response Rate Difference|30.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.0|38.9||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factor geographic region.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||38.9|21.0|<0.001
90944412|NCT02706951|181768186|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error prevalence of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses of upadacitinib were strongly controlled by means of a graphic multiple testing procedure.|Response Rate Difference|25.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.8|33.7||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factor geographic region.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||33.7|16.8|<0.001
90944413|NCT02706951|181768186|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error prevalence of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses of upadacitinib were strongly controlled by means of a graphic multiple testing procedure.|Response Rate Difference|33.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.1|42.1||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factor geographic region.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||42.1|25.1|<0.001
90944414|NCT02706951|181768187|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error prevalence of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses of upadacitinib were strongly controlled by means of a graphic multiple testing procedure.|Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-1.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|-0.85||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor, and baseline value and geographic region as the covariates.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||-0.85|-1.32|<0.001
90975367|NCT00523991|181833934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|211.18||||0.45||95.0|-338.04|760.39||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and baseline value~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||760.39|-338.04|0.450
90975368|NCT00523991|181833935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|51.46||||0.858||95.0|-512.2|615.12||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and baseline value~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||615.12|-512.20|0.858
90944415|NCT02706951|181768187|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error prevalence of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses of upadacitinib were strongly controlled by means of a graphic multiple testing procedure.|LS Mean Difference|-1.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|-1.17||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as the fixed factor, and baseline value and the stratification factor geographic region as the covariates.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||-1.17|-1.64|<0.001
90944416|NCT02706951|181768188|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error prevalence of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses of upadacitinib were strongly controlled by means of a graphic multiple testing procedure.|LS Mean Difference|-0.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.22||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as the fixed factor, and baseline value and the stratification factor geographic region as the covariates.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||-0.22|-0.43|<0.001
90944417|NCT02706951|181768188|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error prevalence of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses of upadacitinib were strongly controlled by means of a graphic multiple testing procedure.|LS Mean Difference|-0.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.3||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as the fixed factor, and baseline value and the stratification factor geographic region as the covariates.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||-0.30|-0.51|<0.001
90944418|NCT02706951|181768189|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error prevalence of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses of upadacitinib were strongly controlled by means of a graphic multiple testing procedure.|LS Mean Difference|3.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.52|5.42||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and geographic region, and the baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||5.42|2.52|<0.001
90944419|NCT02706951|181768189|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error prevalence of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses of upadacitinib were strongly controlled by means of a graphic multiple testing procedure.|LS Mean Difference|5.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.42|7.32||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and geographic region, and the baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||7.32|4.42|<0.001
90944420|NCT02706951|181768190|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error prevalence of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses of upadacitinib were strongly controlled by means of a graphic multiple testing procedure.|Response Rate Difference|19.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.8|26.8||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factor geographic region.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||26.8|12.8|<0.001
90944421|NCT02706951|181768190|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error prevalence of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses of upadacitinib were strongly controlled by means of a graphic multiple testing procedure.|Response Rate Difference|32.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.6|39.7||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factor geographic region.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||39.7|24.6|<0.001
90944422|NCT02706951|181768191|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error prevalence of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses of upadacitinib were strongly controlled by means of a graphic multiple testing procedure.|LS Mean Difference|-41.53||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.56|-16.5||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and geographic region, and the baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||-16.50|-66.56|0.001
90944423|NCT02706951|181768191|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error prevalence of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses of upadacitinib were strongly controlled by means of a graphic multiple testing procedure.|LS Mean Difference|-49.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.23|-24.4||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and geographic region, and the baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||-24.40|-74.23|<0.001
90944424|NCT02706951|181768192|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|26.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.5|34.8||This comparison was not part of the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence; the nominal p-value is reported.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factor geographic region.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||34.8|18.5|<0.001
90944425|NCT02706951|181768192|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|36.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.6|45.0||This comparison was not part of the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence; the nominal p-value is reported.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factor geographic region.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||45.0|28.6|<0.001
91037111|NCT00950989|181960559|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.3||P-value is nominal without multiplicity adjustment based on ANCOVA model adjusting for sex and baseline DAS28 score.|ANCOVA|||||0.3|-0.7|0.459
90944426|NCT02706951|181768193|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|19.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.8|25.8||This comparison was not part of the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence; the nominal p-value is reported.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factor geographic region.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||25.8|13.8|<0.001
90944427|NCT02706951|181768193|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|30.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.6|36.9||This comparison was not part of the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence; the nominal p-value is reported.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factor geographic region.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||36.9|23.6|<0.001
90944428|NCT02489734|181768194|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk (RR)|3.4||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|8.1|||Chi-squared|||||8.1|1.4|0.003
90944429|NCT00424554|181768204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.09
90944430|NCT03634839|181768249|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.184||||0.053|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.053
90944431|NCT03634839|181768250|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.881||||0.187|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome analyses will be intent-to-treat and using mixed-effects models with flavor as a within-subject factor. A significant main effect of flavor with greater liking of sweet plus cooling flavor than sweet minus cooling flavor will be considered supportive of our hypotheses.||||0.187
90944432|NCT03634839|181768251|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.286||||0.135|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.135
90944433|NCT03634839|181768252|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.942||||0.21|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.210
90944434|NCT04198948|181768259|EQUIVALENCE|Sample size calculation was performed using SAS Proc Power procedure for equivalence test in 2x2 crossover design. For an equivalence range of 80-125%, the within-subject coefficient of variation for the AUC values for gliclazide of 7.8% based on previous PK studies, and expected test/reference geometric mean ratios between 87-115%, 14 volunteers (7 individuals per sequence) are required to show the lack of interaction with 85% power.|Geometric least square mean ratio|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.86|1.48|||||The TOST (two one-sided test) test of equivalence showed that the geometric mean ratio and 90% CI for gliclazide AUC(0-24) between omeprazole and placebo phase was 1.13 (0.86-1.48), with upper confidence limit above the usual 1.25 boundary.|The main evaluated outcome was systemic exposure to gliclazide, expressed as AUC(0-t). The geometric mean was calculated for gliclazide AUC(0-24). The ratio of the geometric means with 90% CIs was assessed by linear mixed models between the two treatment assignments: gliclazide and omeprazole co-administration to that of gliclazide and placebo. The obtained 90% CI was compared with the equivalence 0.8-1.25 range.||1.48|0.86|
90944435|NCT04198948|181768260|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.636|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.636
90975369|NCT03439033|181833940|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.53|||McNemar||Risk difference reflects PSMA PET/MRI Scan detection proportion minus MRI scan detection proportion.|||0.53|0.30|<0.0001
90975370|NCT03285243|181833965|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||A priori, All p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Chi-squared|||||||0.001
90975371|NCT03285243|181833966|OTHER|||||||0.002||||||a priori, all p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.002
90975372|NCT02435849|181833971|OTHER|testing the null hypothesis that ORR within 3 months is less than or equal to 20%|||||<|0.0001|||||||Clopper-Pearson|||||||<.0001
90975373|NCT02435849|181833973|OTHER|testing the null hypothesis that ORR with MRD negative within 3 months is less than or equal to 15%|||||<|0.0001|||||||Clopper-Pearson|||||||<.0001
90975374|NCT02435849|181833974|OTHER|testing the null hypothesis that ORR with MRD negative within 3 months is less than or equal to 15%|||||<|0.0001|||||||Clopper-Pearson|||||||<.0001
90975375|NCT03175549|181834006|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.1||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.22|29.38||A priori threshold for significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Standard error was calculated using bootstrap methods which is considered best for MEM.|||29.38|-10.22|0.36
90975376|NCT03175549|181834007|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.067|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.025|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Posted results show mean change in drinking for the drug group relative to placebo for each day of the 11 days of ad libidum drinking (Days 1-11) permitted during the 14 days (2 weeks) of medication.||||<0.025
90975377|NCT03175549|181834007|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.067|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.025|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|473 daily observations within 43 individuals.|The apremilast group showed a significantly more rapid reduction in drinks per day relative to placebo.|||||0.025
90975378|NCT01064167|181834009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Given that the frequency of RBC transfusion for OPCAB surgery is about 55%, to detect 35% reduction in TA group, with power=o.8 and α=0.05, a group of 107 patients in each arm is required. We estimated a crossover rate of 20%. The final sample size for randomization purposes increased to a total of 260 patients. The Chi-square test was used to test the differences in categorical variables between both groups.If one or more cells had an expected count less than 5, Fisher's Exact Test was used.||||<0.05
90975379|NCT01064167|181834010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
90975380|NCT03979274|181834042|EQUIVALENCE|Bio-equivalence Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90% Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.00% - 125.00%.|Geometric mean ratio|98.53|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.55|102.68||||||||102.68|94.55|
90975381|NCT03979274|181834043|EQUIVALENCE|Bio-equivalence Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90% Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.00% - 125.00%.|Geometric mean ratio|97.59|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.34|104.26||||||||104.26|91.34|
90975382|NCT03979274|181834046|EQUIVALENCE|Bio-equivalence Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90% Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.00% - 125.00%.|Geometric mean ratio|99.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.45|101.03||||||||101.03|98.45|
90975383|NCT03979274|181834047|EQUIVALENCE|Bio-equivalence Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90% Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.00% - 125.00%.|Geometric mean ratio|99.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.7|100.85||||||||100.85|97.70|
90975384|NCT01724528|181834064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares means difference|-196.794|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-238.6|-154.988|||ANCOVA|||Treatment, TLS risk (intermediate/high) and sUA level at baseline (≤ 7.5 mg/dL and \> 7.5 mg/dL) were inserted in the ANCOVA model as covariates||-154.988|-238.600|<0.0001
90975385|NCT01724528|181834065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares means difference|4.097||||0.0903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6467|8.8406|||ANCOVA|||Treatment, TLS risk (intermediate/high) and sUA level at baseline (≤ 7.5 mg/dL and \> 7.5 mg/dL) were inserted in the ANCOVA model as covariates||8.8406|-0.6467|0.0903
90975386|NCT01724528|181834066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0231||||0.1993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0153|0.0654|||Wilson's confidence interval|||||0.0654|-0.0153|0.1993
90975387|NCT01724528|181834067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative risk|0.875||||0.8488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4408|1.7369|||Chi-squared|||||1.7369|0.4408|0.8488
90975388|NCT01724528|181834068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative risk|0.994||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9691|1.0199|||Chi-squared|||||1.0199|0.9691|1.0000
90975389|NCT00466310|181834070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0149|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Unadjusted p value is .0041|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A wilcoxon rank sum test was performed comparing baseline plasmalogen values, comparing schizophrenia subjects vs controls.P values from this analysis were adjusted for false discovery rates by the method of Storey and Tribshiani.||||0.0149
90975390|NCT01493180|181834072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.576|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.576
90975391|NCT05574062|181834073|NON_INFERIORITY|-7.5% non-inferiority margin|Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.04|11.72|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mixed model adjusted for baseline (run-in) values|||11.72|8.04|
90975392|NCT05574062|181834074|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin of 0.4% HbA1c|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.31|||Regression, Linear||Linear regression model adjusted for baseline (continuation phase period1) values|||0.31|-0.03|
90975393|NCT05574062|181834075|NON_INFERIORITY|non- inferiority margin of 0.4%|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.46|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mixed model adjusted for baseline (screening) values|||-0.46|-0.76|
90975394|NCT05574062|181834076|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|9.88|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.04|11.72|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mixed model adjusted for baseline (run-in) values|||11.72|8.04|<.0001
90975395|NCT05574062|181834077|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.46|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mixed model adjusted for baseline (screening) values|||-0.46|-0.76|<.0001
90975396|NCT05574062|181834078|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.1097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.31|||Regression, Linear||Linear regression model adjusted for baseline (period1) values|||0.31|-0.03|0.1097
90890060|NCT01571362|181644061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.614||0.9063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|1.28||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Model-adjusted Change from Screening to Week 12.||1.28|-1.14|0.9063
90975397|NCT05574062|181834079|NON_INFERIORITY|non inferiority margin of -7.5%|Mean Difference (Net)|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|2.38|||Regression, Linear||Linear regression adjusted for baseline (continuation phase period 1) values|||2.38|-0.04|
90975398|NCT05574062|181834080|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.17||||0.0581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|2.38|||Regression, Linear||Linear regression adjusted for baseline (continuation phase period 1) values|||2.38|-0.04|0.0581
90975399|NCT00700180|181834088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.8127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.8||Multiple logistic regression model with treatment, biomarker level (dichotomized) and baseline prognostic factors as covariates.|Regression, Logistic|||bFGF (high versus low)||1.80|0.63|0.8127
90975400|NCT00700180|181834088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.81||||0.0285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|3.08||Multiple logistic regression model with treatment, biomarker level (dichotomized) and baseline prognostic factors as covariates.|Regression, Logistic|||E-selectin (high versus low)||3.08|1.06|0.0285
90975401|NCT00700180|181834088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.7478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.85||Multiple logistic regression model with treatment, biomarker level (dichotomized) and baseline prognostic factors as covariates.|Regression, Logistic|||ICAM (high versus low)||1.85|0.64|0.7478
90975402|NCT00700180|181834088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.6761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.33||Multiple logistic regression model with treatment, biomarker level (dichotomized) and baseline prognostic factors as covariates.|Regression, Logistic|||PlGF (high versus low)||2.33|0.58|0.6761
90975403|NCT00700180|181834088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.4601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.09||Multiple logistic regression model with treatment, biomarker level (dichotomized) and baseline prognostic factors as covariates.|Regression, Logistic|||VEGF A (high versus low)||2.09|0.72|0.4601
90975404|NCT00700180|181834088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77||||0.3193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.29||Multiple logistic regression model with treatment, biomarker level (dichotomized) and baseline prognostic factors as covariates.|Regression, Logistic|||VEGFR-1 (high versus low)||1.29|0.46|0.3193
90975405|NCT00700180|181834088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.1758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|2.45||Multiple logistic regression model with treatment, biomarker level (dichotomized) and baseline prognostic factors as covariates.|Regression, Logistic|||VEGFR-2 (high versus low)||2.45|0.85|0.1758
90975406|NCT00700180|181834090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.9454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.31|||Log Rank|||||1.31|0.78|0.9454
90975407|NCT00700180|181834091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Responses Rates|9.34||||0.1737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|21.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Approximate 95% Confidence Interval (CI) for difference of two rates using Hauck-Anderson method.|||21.0|-2.4|0.1737
90975408|NCT00700180|181834092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.75||||0.6148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|11.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Approximate 95% CI for difference of two rates using Hauck-Anderson method|||11.7|-8.2|0.6148
90975409|NCT00700180|181834094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.7587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.69|||Log Rank|||||1.69|0.68|0.7587
90975410|NCT00700180|181834096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||0.312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.53|||Log Rank|||||1.53|0.87|0.3120
90975411|NCT03216382|181834105|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93||||||The apriori threshold for significance was a = 0.05. The p value reflects the test of an interaction between condition and time.|ANOVA|||||||.93
90975412|NCT03216382|181834106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74||||||this value represents the interaction between condition and the intervention time period The apriori threshold for significance was a = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||HLM piecewise analysis was used to examine linear change from day 1-7 (visit 1 to visit 2) and change from day 7-14 (visit 2 to visit 3) on uncontrollability of worry||||.74
90944436|NCT04198948|181768261|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.055|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.055
90944437|NCT04593823|181768298|SUPERIORITY||Win Ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|2.5|||||A win ratio parameter signifies the percentage of wins that a treatment group has achieved when compared against a comparator.|||2.50|0.48|
90944438|NCT04593823|181768299|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.9|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|15.9|||Chi-squared|||||15.9|-17.0|>0.999
90944439|NCT04593823|181768300|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-8.8||||0.459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.4|13.6|||Chi-squared|||||13.6|-36.4|0.459
90944440|NCT04593823|181768302|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|8.887||||0.547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.01|37.784|||ANOVA|Repeated measures analysis||||37.784|-20.010|0.547
90944441|NCT04593823|181768303|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.336|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.336
90944442|NCT04974723|181768314|NON_INFERIORITY|Cox proportional hazard model was used to calculate the hazard ratio with teriparatide as reference. Noninferiority of abaloparatide to teriparatide was to be concluded if the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the HR between abaloparatide versus teriparatide was \<1.3.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.1||||||||1.10|0.81|
90944443|NCT04974723|181768315|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.3||||||Cox proportional hazard model was used to calculate the hazard ratio with teriparatide as reference. Noninferiority of abaloparatide to teriparatide was to be concluded if the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the HR between abaloparatide versus teriparatide was \<1.3.||1.30|0.89|
90944444|NCT04974723|181768316|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.22||||||Cox proportional hazard model was used to calculate the hazard ratio with teriparatide as reference. Noninferiority of abaloparatide to teriparatide was to be concluded if the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the HR between abaloparatide versus teriparatide was \<1.3.||1.22|0.95|
90944445|NCT00458393|181768335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.577|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.105||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.404|0.824||secondary p-value given.|Log Rank|stratified by site|Efron correction for ties. Placebo is reference. Results typically quoted as efficacy = 100\*(1-HR)|Primary null hypothesis: Relative hazard of 0.7 or less. Secondary null hypothesis: Relative hazard of 1.0 or less.||.824|.404|0.002
90944446|NCT00458393|181768336|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.33||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.25||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons, a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|Fisher Exact||||Extensive analysis and methods published in https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3966916/|2.25|0.79|0.28
90944447|NCT00458393|181768337|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.3||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|2.96|||Fisher Exact|||||2.96|.57|0.54
90944448|NCT00458393|181768338|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.23|||Log Rank|||||1.23|0.65|0.50
90944449|NCT00458393|181768339|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.23|||Log Rank|||||1.23|0.79|0.92
90944450|NCT00458393|181768340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis of no difference||||1.00
90944451|NCT00458393|181768340|SUPERIORITY|Desc|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
90975413|NCT03216382|181834106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44||||||this value represents the interaction between condition and the intervention time period (squared) The apriori threshold for significance was a = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||HLM piecewise analysis was used to examine quadratic change from day 1-7 (visit 1 to visit 2) and change from day 7-14 (visit 2 to visit 3) on uncontrollability of worry||||.44
90975414|NCT03216382|181834107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17||||||the apriori threshold for significance was a = 0.05 The p value reflects the test of an interaction between condition and time.|ANOVA|||||||.17
90975415|NCT03216382|181834108|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5||||||The apriori threshold for significance was a = 0.05 The p value reflects the test of an interaction between condition and time .|Mixed Models Analysis|||HLM piecewise analysis was used to examine linear change from day 1-7 (visit 1 to visit 2) and change from day 7-14 (visit 2 to visit 3) on self-focused attention||||.50
90975416|NCT03216382|181834108|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||The apriori threshold for significance was a= 0.05. The p value reflects the test of an interaction between condition and intervention period (days 7-14, squared).|Mixed Models Analysis|||HLM piecewise analysis was used to examine quadratic change from day 1-7 (visit 1 to visit 2) and change from day 7-14 (visit 2 to visit 3) on self-focused attention||||.02
90975417|NCT03216382|181834109|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46||||||the apriori threshold for significance was a = 0.05 The p value reflects the test of an interaction between condition and time.|ANOVA|||||||.46
90944452|NCT00458393|181768341|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.91||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||\< 0.05 for statistical significance. no adjustment for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.001
90944453|NCT00458393|181768342|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-3.8||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|-0.95|||median regression|||||-0.95|-6.6|0.009
90944454|NCT00458393|181768343|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|9.3|||median regression|||||9.3|-9.3|1.00
90944455|NCT00458393|181768344|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-2.2||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|1.1|||median regression|||||1.1|-5.5|0.19
90944456|NCT00458393|181768345|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.08||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.33|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.33|-.18|0.56
90944457|NCT00458393|181768346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis is the proportion of mutations is identical.|Detailed resistance data is found at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4176446/|||1.00
90944458|NCT00458393|181768347|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.0||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.0|54.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||54|-69|0.32
90975418|NCT03216382|181834110|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53||||||the apriori threshold for significance was a = 0.05 The p value reflects the test of an interaction between condition and time.|ANOVA|||||||.53
90975419|NCT03216382|181834111|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07||||||the apriori threshold for significance was a = 0.05. The p value reflects the test of an interaction between condition and time.|ANOVA|||||||.07
90975420|NCT03216382|181834112|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58||||||the apriori threshold for significance was 0.05 The p value reflects the test of an interaction between condition and time.|ANOVA|||||||.58
90975421|NCT03216382|181834113|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86||||||the apriori threshold for significance was a = 0.05 The p value reflects the test of an interaction between condition and time.|ANOVA|||||||.86
90975422|NCT03216382|181834114|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39||||||the apriori threshold for significance was a = 0.05 The p value reflects the test of an interaction between condition and time.|ANOVA|||||||.39
90975423|NCT00454779|181834162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.629||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.395|1.002|||Regression, Cox|Stratified by IVRS randomization factors|Hazard ratio is presented as panitumumab plus chemotherapy:chemotherapy alone.|||1.002|0.395|0.051
90975424|NCT00454779|181834162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048|||||||Log Rank|Stratified by IVRS randomization factors||||||0.048
90975425|NCT00454779|181834163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.67|24.12|||||With Mantel-Haenszel weights within strata defined by randomization factors recorded in the IVRS|||24.12|-11.67|
90975426|NCT00454779|181834163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||||95.0|0.57|3.33|||||Calculated from a logistic regression model with treatment indicator and randomization factors (recorded on the CRF) as covariates|||3.33|0.57|
91037112|NCT00950989|181960559|SUPERIORITY||LS mean of difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5||P-value is nominal without multiplicity adjustment based on ANCOVA model adjusting for sex and baseline DAS28 score.|ANCOVA|||||0.5|-0.5|0.906
90944459|NCT00458393|181768348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.005||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis is equal proportion of pills returned||0.01|-0.02|0.53
90944460|NCT00458393|181768349|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.25||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.6|||t-test, 2 sided||||Detailed methods and results are available at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4110718/|1.6|-1.1|0.70
90944461|NCT00458393|181768350|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.99
90944462|NCT00458393|181768351|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.42||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons, a priori threshold for statistical significance, p \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||||Full details available in the methods section of https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24367497|.42|-.42|0.76
90944463|NCT00458393|181768352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.008||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.047|0.03|||Chi-squared|||Null is no difference between arms||0.030|-0.047|0.68
90944464|NCT00458393|181768353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.43|||Log Rank|||Null hypothesis of no difference between the arms||1.43|0.89|0.30
90975427|NCT00454779|181834164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.29|23.85|||||With Mantel-Haenszel weights within strata defined by randomization factors recorded in the IVRS|||23.85|-8.29|
91037113|NCT00950989|181960559|SUPERIORITY||LS mean of difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5||P-value is nominal without multiplicity adjustment based on ANCOVA model adjusting for sex and baseline DAS28 score.|ANCOVA|||||0.5|-0.5|0.849
90944465|NCT00458393|181768354|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.7|||Log Rank||||Details in the manuscript https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3956614/|1.7|0.8|0.41
90975428|NCT00454779|181834164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76||||||95.0|0.62|5.26|||||Calculated from a logistic regression model with treatment indicator and randomization factors (recorded on the CRF) as covariates|||5.26|0.62|
90975429|NCT00454779|181834167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.103||||0.663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.709|1.717|||Regression, Cox|Stratified by IVRS randomization factors|Hazard ratio is presented as panitumumab plus chemotherapy:chemotherapy alone|||1.717|0.709|0.663
90975430|NCT00454779|181834167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.666|||||||Log Rank|Stratified by IVRS randomization factors||||||0.666
91037114|NCT03804983|181960564|OTHER|Analysis of Variance||||||0.178||||||All outcomes were analyzed using repeated measure ANOVA comparing baseline to the studied period(i.e., ski admission or home use), grouped by treatment. Significance level was set at a P-Value\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.178
91037115|NCT03804983|181960565|OTHER|Analysis of Variance||||||0.145||||||All outcomes were analyzed using repeated measure ANOVA comparing baseline to the studied period(i.e., ski admission or home use), grouped by treatment. Significance level was set at a P-Value\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.145
90944466|NCT00458393|181768355|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.09|||Log Rank|||||1.09|0.34|0.09
90944467|NCT03311269|181768373|OTHER|The null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline for the primary efficacy endpoint=0. The alternative hypothesis is that the mean change does not =0. The primary analysis will be a one-sample t-test for both treatment groups combined, to test the null hypothesis that the mean change from baseline equals 0. Primary analysis will be performed for each treatment group separately.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|-2.3||This p-value corresponds to the change from Baseline to Week 12 for both treatment groups (ClariVein RES 1% Injection and ClariVein RES 3% Injection) combined.|t-test, 2 sided|One-Sample||Continuous variables summarized using descriptive statistics, specifically the mean, median, standard deviation, minimum and maximum. Categorical variables summarized using frequencies and percentages. All statistical tests will be performed at the 0.05 significance level (p -value ≤ 0.050) unless otherwise indicated. For efficacy analyses, missing post-treatment data will be imputed using last observation carried forward (LOCF). Missing safety data will not be imputed.||-2.3|-6.2|<0.001
90944468|NCT03311269|181768373|OTHER|The null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline for the primary efficacy endpoint=0. The alternative hypothesis is that the mean change does not =0. The primary analysis will be a one-sample t-test for both treatment groups combined, to test the null hypothesis that the mean change from baseline equals 0. Primary analysis will be performed for each treatment group separately.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.4||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|-1.0||This p-value corresponds to the change from Baseline to Week 12 for the ClariVein RES 1% Injection treatment group.|t-test, 2 sided|One-Sample||All statistical tests will be performed at the 0.05 significance level (p -value ≤ 0.050) unless otherwise indicated.||-1.0|-5.8|0.011
90975431|NCT01337973|181834176|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient estimate|0.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.84||The threshold for significance was p \< 0.05. Scores are reported stratified by whether they are less than .05 less than .01 and less than .001 respectively.|Wilcoxon Z|Wilcoxon Z value: -4.65|E-TAU arm is the referent group|Bivariate analyses examined change from baseline to follow up of primary and secondary outcomes measures using Wilcoxon sign rank tests. This test applies to overall physical aggression % change from baseline||1.84|0.37|<0.001
90975432|NCT01337973|181834176|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient Estimate|0.62|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.29||The threshold for significance was p \< 0.05. Scores are reported stratified by whether they are less than .05 less than .01 and less than .001 respectively.|Wilcoxon Z|Wilcoxon Z score: -2.83|E-TAU arm is the referent group|Bivariate analyses examined change from baseline to follow up of primary and secondary outcomes measures using Wilcoxon sign rank tests. This test applies to overall injury perpetration % change from baseline||1.29|0.30|<0.01
90975433|NCT01337973|181834176|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient Estimate|1.16|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|3.77||The threshold for significance was p \< 0.05. Scores are reported stratified by whether they are less than .05 less than .01 and less than .001 respectively.|Wilcoxon Z|Wilcoxon Z score: -3.31|E-TAU arm is the referent group|Bivariate analyses examined change from baseline to follow up of primary and secondary outcomes measures using Wilcoxon sign rank tests. This test applies to partner physical aggression % change from baseline||3.77|0.36|<0.01
90975434|NCT01337973|181834176|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient Estimate|0.51|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.38||The threshold for significance was p \< 0.05. Scores are reported stratified by whether they are less than .05 less than .01 and less than .001 respectively.|Wilcoxon Z|Wilcoxon Z score: -2.26|E-TAU arm is the referent group|Bivariate analyses examined change from baseline to follow up of primary and secondary outcomes measures using Wilcoxon sign rank tests. This test applies to partner injury % change from baseline||1.38|0.19|<0.05
90975435|NCT01337973|181834176|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient Estimate|1.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.28||The threshold for significance was p \< 0.05. Scores are reported stratified by whether they are less than .05 less than .01 and less than .001 respectively.|Wilcoxon Z|Wilcoxon Z score: -3.79|E-TAU arm is the referent group|Bivariate analyses examined change from baseline to follow up of primary and secondary outcomes measures using Wilcoxon sign rank tests. This test applies to non-partner physical aggression % change from baseline||2.28|0.66|<0.001
90975436|NCT01337973|181834176|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient Estimate|0.8|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.98||The threshold for significance was p \< 0.05. Scores are reported stratified by whether they are less than .05 less than .01 and less than .001 respectively.|Wilcoxon Z|Wilcoxon Z score: -2.01|E-TAU arm is the referent group|Bivariate analyses examined change from baseline to follow up of primary and secondary outcomes measures using Wilcoxon sign rank tests. This test applies to non-partner injury % change from baseline||1.98|0.32|<0.05
90975437|NCT01337973|181834176|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient Estimate|0.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.46||The threshold for significance was p \< 0.05. Scores are reported stratified by whether they are less than .05 less than .01 and less than .001 respectively.|Wilcoxon Z|Wilcoxon Z score: -4.81|E-TAU arm is the referent group|Bivariate analyses examined change from baseline to follow up of primary and secondary outcomes measures using Wilcoxon sign rank tests. This test applies to overall physical aggression % change from baseline||1.46|0.25|<0.001
90975438|NCT01337973|181834176|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient Estimate|1.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.44||The threshold for significance was p \< 0.05. Scores are reported stratified by whether they are less than .05 less than .01 and less than .001 respectively.|Wilcoxon Z|Wilcoxon Z score: -3.74|E-TAU arm is the referent group|Bivariate analyses examined change from baseline to follow up of primary and secondary outcomes measures using Wilcoxon sign rank tests. This test applies to overall injury perpetration % change from baseline||2.44|0.45|<0.001
90975439|NCT01337973|181834176|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient Estimate|0.48|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.78||The threshold for significance was p \< 0.05. Scores are reported stratified by whether they are less than .05 less than .01 and less than .001 respectively.|Wilcoxon Z|Wilcoxon Z score: -2.59|E-TAU arm is the referent group|Bivariate analyses examined change from baseline to follow up of primary and secondary outcomes measures using Wilcoxon sign rank tests. This test applies to partner physical aggression % change from baseline||1.78|0.13|<0.01
90975440|NCT01337973|181834176|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient Estimate|0.48|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.47||The threshold for significance was p \< 0.05. Scores are reported stratified by whether they are less than .05 less than .01 and less than .001 respectively.|Wilcoxon Z|Wilcoxon Z score: -1.81|E-TAU arm is the referent group|Bivariate analyses examined change from baseline to follow up of primary and secondary outcomes measures using Wilcoxon sign rank tests. This test applies to partner injury % change from baseline||1.47|0.16|>0.05
90890061|NCT01571362|181644062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.463||0.1139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|0.18||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Model-adjusted change from Baseline to Week 2.||0.18|-1.65|0.1139
90975441|NCT01337973|181834176|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient Estimate|1.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.08||The threshold for significance was p \< 0.05. Scores are reported stratified by whether they are less than .05 less than .01 and less than .001 respectively.|Wilcoxon Z|Wilcoxon Z score: -4.10|E-TAU arm is the referent group|Bivariate analyses examined change from baseline to follow up of primary and secondary outcomes measures using Wilcoxon sign rank tests. This test applies to non-partner physical aggression % change from baseline||2.08|0.60|<0.001
90975442|NCT01337973|181834176|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient Estimate|1.09|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.95||The threshold for significance was p \< 0.05. Scores are reported stratified by whether they are less than .05 less than .01 and less than .001 respectively.|Wilcoxon Z|Wilcoxon Z score: -3.17|E-TAU arm is the referent group|Bivariate analyses examined change from baseline to follow up of primary and secondary outcomes measures using Wilcoxon sign rank tests. This test applies to non-partner injury % change from baseline||2.95|0.40|<0.01
90975443|NCT01337973|181834176|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for significance was p \< 0.05. Scores are reported stratified by whether they are less than .05 less than .01 and less than .001 respectively.|Wilcoxon Z|Wilcoxon Z score: -4.69||Bivariate analyses examined change from baseline to follow up of primary and secondary outcomes measures using Wilcoxon sign rank tests. This test applies to overall physical aggression % change from baseline||||<0.001
90890062|NCT01571362|181644062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.577||0.2264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|0.44||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Model-adjusted Change from Baseline to Week 4.||0.44|-1.84|0.2264
90944469|NCT03311269|181768373|OTHER|The null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline for the primary efficacy endpoint=0. The alternative hypothesis is that the mean change does not =0. The primary analysis will be a one-sample t-test for both treatment groups combined, to test the null hypothesis that the mean change from baseline equals 0. Primary analysis will be performed for each treatment group separately.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.1||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|-1.6||This p-value corresponds to the change from Baseline to Week 12 for the ClariVein RES 3% Injection treatment group.|t-test, 2 sided|One-Sample||All statistical tests will be performed at the 0.05 significance level (p -value ≤ 0.050) unless otherwise indicated.||-1.6|-8.7|0.010
90944470|NCT03311269|181768373|OTHER|An ANCOVA was performed to compare the change from baseline for ClariVein RES 1% Injection versus ClariVein RES 3% Injection with treatment as the class variable and with baseline score as the covariate|Least-Squares Mean Difference|-1.2||||0.531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|1.3||This p-value corresponds to the difference between treatment groups (ClariVein RES 1% Injection versus ClariVein RES 3% Injection).|ANCOVA|||All statistical tests will be performed at the 0.05 significance level (p -value ≤ 0.050) unless otherwise indicated.||1.3|-3.7|0.531
90944471|NCT03311269|181768374|OTHER||Descriptive (Percentage)|94.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|72.7|99.9|||||The count of the combined treatment group for the elimination of saphenous vein reflux at Week 12 posttreatment is 17/18 (94.4%).|The secondary efficacy endpoint, the elimination of saphenous vein reflux at Week 12 posttreatment, will be summarized for both treatments combined using the count and percentage, together with a 95% Wilson (score) confidence interval for the proportion.||99.9|72.7|
90944472|NCT03311269|181768374|OTHER||Percentage Difference|11.1||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.5|42.8||All statistical tests will be performed at the 0.05 significance level (p -value ≤ 0.050) unless otherwise indicated.|Chi-squared|||For elimination of saphenous vein reflux at Week 12 posttreatment, the treatment difference for ClariVein RES 1% Injection versus ClariVein RES 3% Injection for the proportion was assessed by a chi-square test together with a 95% Wilson (score) confidence interval for the treatment difference.||42.8|-20.5|1.000
90944473|NCT01182181|181768375|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|95.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.34|98.95|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||98.95|92.34|
90944474|NCT01182181|181768376|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|96.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.14|99.57|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||99.57|93.14|
90944475|NCT00511797|181768377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|-0.34||Pre-defined sequential tests were applied to protect alpha inflation by multiplicity.|t-test, 1 sided|||Three null hypotheses were sequentially tested. H01: DRSP 3 mg \>= Placebo (Active is equal or less in decrease of score) vs H11: DRSP 3 mg \< Placebo (Active is greater in decrease of score), H02: DRSP 2 mg \>= Placebo vs H12: DRSP 2 mg \< Placebo, H03: DRSP 1 mg \>= Placebo vs H13: DRSP 1 mg \< Placebo.||-0.34|-1.49|<0.001
90944476|NCT00511797|181768377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.277|<|0.001||95.0|-1.64|-0.55|||t-test, 1 sided|||Second null hypothesis was tested. H02: DRSP 2 mg \>= Placebo vs H12: DRSP 2 mg \< Placebo.||-0.55|-1.64|<0.001
90944477|NCT00511797|181768377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.001||95.0|-2.0|-0.89|||t-test, 1 sided|||Third null hypotheses was tested. H03: DRSP 1 mg \>= Placebo vs H13: DRSP 1 mg \< Placebo.||-0.89|-2.00|<0.001
90944478|NCT00511797|181768378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.322|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|-0.46|||t-test, 1 sided|||Test results of 3 mg DRSP and placebo at Cycle 4 are shown. 2-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated. To keep consistency with 2-sided 95% confidence intervals, 2.5% 1-sided significance levels were used for the statistical tests.||-0.46|-1.74|<0.001
90975444|NCT01337973|181834176|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance was p \< 0.05. Scores are reported stratified by whether they are less than .05 less than .01 and less than .001 respectively.|Wilcoxon Z|Wilcoxon Z score: -3.32||Bivariate analyses examined change from baseline to follow up of primary and secondary outcomes measures using Wilcoxon sign rank tests. This test applies to overall injury % change from baseline||||<0.01
90975445|NCT01337973|181834176|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance was p \< 0.05. Scores are reported stratified by whether they are less than .05 less than .01 and less than .001 respectively.|Wilcoxon Z|Wilcoxon Z score: -2.90||Bivariate analyses examined change from baseline to follow up of primary and secondary outcomes measures using Wilcoxon sign rank tests. This test applies to partner physical aggression % change from baseline||||<0.01
90975446|NCT01337973|181834176|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance was p \< 0.05. Scores are reported stratified by whether they are less than .05 less than .01 and less than .001 respectively.|Wilcoxon Z|Wilcoxon Z Score: -1.02||Bivariate analyses examined change from baseline to follow up of primary and secondary outcomes measures using Wilcoxon sign rank tests. This test applies to partner injury % change from baseline||||>0.05
90944479|NCT00511797|181768378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.306|<|0.001||95.0|-1.95|-0.73|||t-test, 1 sided|||||-0.73|-1.95|<0.001
91037116|NCT03804983|181960566|OTHER|Analysis of Variance||||||0.304||||||All outcomes were analyzed using repeated measure ANOVA comparing baseline to the studied period(i.e., ski admission or home use), grouped by treatment. Significance level was set at a P-Value\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.304
91037117|NCT03804983|181960567|OTHER|Analysis of Variance||||||0.131||||||All outcomes were analyzed using repeated measure ANOVA comparing baseline to the studied period(i.e., ski admission or home use), grouped by treatment. Significance level was set at a P-Value\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.131
91037118|NCT03804983|181960569|OTHER|Analysis of Variance||||||0.206||||||All outcomes were analyzed using repeated measure ANOVA comparing baseline to the studied period(i.e., ski admission or home use), grouped by treatment. Significance level was set at a P-Value\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.206
91037119|NCT03804983|181960570|OTHER|Analysis of Variance||||||0.335||||||All outcomes were analyzed using repeated measure ANOVA comparing baseline to the studied period(i.e., ski admission or home use), grouped by treatment. Significance level was set at a P-Value\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.335
91037120|NCT03804983|181960571|OTHER|Analysis of Variance||||||0.637||||||All outcomes were analyzed using repeated measure ANOVA comparing baseline to the studied period(i.e., ski admission or home use), grouped by treatment. Significance level was set at a P-Value\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.637
91037121|NCT03804983|181960572|OTHER|Analysis of Variance||||||0.347||||||All outcomes were analyzed using repeated measure ANOVA comparing baseline to the studied period(i.e., ski admission or home use), grouped by treatment. Significance level was set at a P-Value\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.347
91037122|NCT03804983|181960573|OTHER|Analysis of Variance||||||0.057||||||All outcomes were analyzed using repeated measure ANOVA comparing baseline to the studied period(i.e., ski admission or home use), grouped by treatment. Significance level was set at a P-Value\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.057
90944480|NCT00511797|181768378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.317|<|0.001||95.0|-2.16|-0.9|||t-test, 1 sided|||||-0.90|-2.16|<0.001
90944481|NCT03845075|181768410|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.6||||0.4671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.58|13.78||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Week 4; Safety set; LOCF||13.78|-6.58|0.4671
90944482|NCT03845075|181768410|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|10.11||||0.1808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.14|25.36||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Week 8; Safety set; LOCF||25.36|-5.14|0.1808
90944483|NCT03845075|181768410|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.63||||0.4171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.08|16.33||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Week 12; Safety set; LOCF||16.33|-7.08|0.4171
90944484|NCT03845075|181768410|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.33||||0.3116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.43|16.1||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Week 16; Safety set; LOCF||16.10|-5.43|0.3116
90944485|NCT03845075|181768410|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.8||||0.2353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.12|15.72||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Week 20; Safety set; LOCF||15.72|-4.12|0.2353
90944486|NCT03845075|181768410|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.86||||0.3037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.76|17.48||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Week 24; Safety set; LOCF||17.48|-5.76|0.3037
91037123|NCT03804983|181960574|OTHER|Analysis of Variance||||||0.435||||||All outcomes were analyzed using repeated measure ANOVA comparing baseline to the studied period(i.e., ski admission or home use), grouped by treatment. Significance level was set at a P-Value\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.435
91037124|NCT03804983|181960575|OTHER|Analysis of Variance||||||0.135||||||All outcomes were analyzed using repeated measure ANOVA comparing baseline to the studied period(i.e., ski admission or home use), grouped by treatment. Significance level was set at a P-Value\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.135
91037125|NCT03804983|181960576|OTHER|Analysis of Variance||||||0.271||||||All outcomes were analyzed using repeated measure ANOVA comparing baseline to the studied period(i.e., ski admission or home use), grouped by treatment. Significance level was set at a P-Value\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.271
91037126|NCT03804983|181960577|OTHER|Analysis of Variance||||||1||||||All outcomes were analyzed using repeated measure ANOVA comparing baseline to the studied period(i.e., ski admission or home use), grouped by treatment. Significance level was set at a P-Value\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||1.0
91037127|NCT03804983|181960579|OTHER|Analysis of Variance||||||1||||||All outcomes were analyzed using repeated measure ANOVA comparing baseline to the studied period(i.e., ski admission or home use), grouped by treatment. Significance level was set at a P-Value\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||1.0
90944487|NCT03845075|181768411|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.31||||0.6543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.33|4.72||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Week 4; Safety set; LOCF||4.72|-7.33|0.6543
90944488|NCT03845075|181768411|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.94||||0.7941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|8.38||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Week 8; Safety set; LOCF||8.38|-6.50|0.7941
91037128|NCT03804983|181960580|OTHER|Analysis of Variance||||||0.294||||||All outcomes were analyzed using repeated measure ANOVA comparing baseline to the studied period(i.e., ski admission or home use), grouped by treatment. Significance level was set at a P-Value\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.294
90975447|NCT01337973|181834176|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance was p \< 0.05. Scores are reported stratified by whether they are less than .05 less than .01 and less than .001 respectively.|Wilcoxon Z|Wilcoxon Z Score: -4.01||Bivariate analyses examined change from baseline to follow up of primary and secondary outcomes measures using Wilcoxon sign rank tests. This test applies to non-partner physical aggression % change from baseline||||<0.01
90975448|NCT01337973|181834176|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance was p \< 0.05. Scores are reported stratified by whether they are less than .05 less than .01 and less than .001 respectively.|Wilcoxon Z|Wilcoxon Z score: -3.21||Bivariate analyses examined change from baseline to follow up of primary and secondary outcomes measures using Wilcoxon sign rank tests. This test applies to overall non-partner injury % change from baseline||||<0.01
90975449|NCT01337973|181834177|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient estimate|0.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.47||The threshold for significance was p\<0.05. Scores are reported stratified by whether they are less than 0.05, less than 0.01, and less than 0.001.|Wilcoxon Z|Wilcoxon Z value: -3.52|E-TAU arm is the referent group|"Bivariate analyses examined change from baseline to follow up of substance use outcomes measures using Wilcoxon sign rank tests.~This test applies to heavy drinking % change from baseline"||1.47|0.62|<0.001
90975450|NCT01337973|181834177|SUPERIORITY||coefficient estimate|0.49|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.32||The threshold for significance was p\<0.05. Scores are reported stratified by whether they are less than 0.05, less than 0.01, and less than 0.001.|Wilcoxon Z|Wilcoxon Z value: -2.98|E-TAU arm is the referent group|"Bivariate analyses examined change from baseline to follow up of substance use outcomes measures using Wilcoxon sign rank tests.~This test applies to cocaine use % change from baseline"||1.32|0.18|<0.01
90975451|NCT01337973|181834177|SUPERIORITY||coefficient estimate|0.85|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.8||The threshold for significance was p\<0.05. Scores are reported stratified by whether they are less than 0.05, less than 0.01, and less than 0.001.|Wilcoxon Z|Wilcoxon Z value: -2.13|E-TAU arm is the referent group|"Bivariate analyses examined change from baseline to follow up of substance use outcomes measures using Wilcoxon sign rank tests.~This test applies to marijuana use % change from baseline"||1.8|0.4|<0.05
90975452|NCT01337973|181834177|SUPERIORITY||coefficient estimate|0.84|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.32||The threshold for significance was p\<0.05. Scores are reported stratified by whether they are less than 0.05, less than 0.01, and less than 0.001.|Wilcoxon Z|Wilcoxon Z value: -2.48|E-TAU arm is the referent group|"Bivariate analyses examined change from baseline to follow up of substance use outcomes measures using Wilcoxon sign rank tests.~This test applies to illicit drug use % change from baseline"||1.32|0.54|<0.05
90975453|NCT01337973|181834177|SUPERIORITY||coefficient estimate|1.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.71||The threshold for significance was p\<0.05. Scores are reported stratified by whether they are less than 0.05, less than 0.01, and less than 0.001.|Wilcoxon Z|Wilcoxon Z value: -4.94|E-TAU arm is the referent group|"Bivariate analyses examined change from baseline to follow up of substance use outcomes measures using Wilcoxon sign rank tests.~This test applies to heavy drinking % change from baseline"||1.71|0.78|<0.001
91037129|NCT03804983|181960581|OTHER|Analysis of Variance||||||0.584||||||All outcomes were analyzed using repeated measure ANOVA comparing baseline to the studied period(i.e., ski admission or home use), grouped by treatment. Significance level was set at a P-Value\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.584
91037130|NCT03804983|181960582|OTHER|Analysis of Variance||||||0.69||||||All outcomes were analyzed using repeated measure ANOVA comparing baseline to the studied period(i.e., ski admission or home use), grouped by treatment. Significance level was set at a P-Value\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.69
91037131|NCT03804983|181960583|OTHER|Analysis of Variance||||||0.066||||||All outcomes were analyzed using repeated measure ANOVA comparing baseline to the studied period(i.e., ski admission or home use), grouped by treatment. Significance level was set at a P-Value\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.066
91037132|NCT03804983|181960584|OTHER|Analysis of Variance||||||0.904||||||All outcomes were analyzed using repeated measure ANOVA comparing baseline to the studied period(i.e., ski admission or home use), grouped by treatment. Significance level was set at a P-Value\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.904
90975454|NCT01337973|181834177|SUPERIORITY||coefficient estimate|0.61|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|2.16||The threshold for significance was p\<0.05. Scores are reported stratified by whether they are less than 0.05, less than 0.01, and less than 0.001.|Wilcoxon Z|Wilcoxon Z value: -2.56|E-TAU arm is the referent group|"Bivariate analyses examined change from baseline to follow up of substance use outcomes measures using Wilcoxon sign rank tests.~This test applies to cocaine use % change from baseline"||2.16|0.17|<0.05
90975455|NCT01337973|181834177|SUPERIORITY||coefficient estimate|1.18|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|2.44||The threshold for significance was p\<0.05. Scores are reported stratified by whether they are less than 0.05, less than 0.01, and less than 0.001.|Wilcoxon Z|Wilcoxon Z value: -2.86|E-TAU arm is the referent group|"Bivariate analyses examined change from baseline to follow up of substance use outcomes measures using Wilcoxon sign rank tests.~This test applies to marijuana use % change from baseline"||2.44|0.57|<0.01
91037133|NCT00424047|181960635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.324|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.438|||Log Rank|The p-value is based on an unstratified log rank test of survival curve differences between the treatment groups|Based on a proportional hazards model comparing the hazard functions associated with the treatment groups (Lenalidomide/Dex:Placebo/Dexamethasone)|||0.438|0.240|<0.001
90944489|NCT03845075|181768411|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.0||||0.5937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.72|5.73||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Week 12; Safety set; LOCF||5.73|-9.72|0.5937
90944490|NCT03845075|181768411|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.56||||0.5423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.11|11.23||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Week 16; Safety set; LOCF||11.23|-6.11|0.5423
90944491|NCT03845075|181768411|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.2||||0.7226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.77|8.16||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Week 20; Safety set; LOCF||8.16|-5.77|0.7226
90944492|NCT03845075|181768411|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.15||||0.7912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.85|10.16||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Week 24; Safety set; LOCF||10.16|-7.85|0.7912
90944493|NCT03845075|181768412|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.35||||0.7023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.67|5.97||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Week 4; Safety set; LOCF||5.97|-8.67|0.7023
90944494|NCT03845075|181768412|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.48||||0.9012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.58|7.61||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Week 8; Safety set; LOCF||7.61|-8.58|0.9012
90944495|NCT03845075|181768412|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.14||||0.6138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.63|10.92||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Week 12; Safety set; LOCF||10.92|-6.63|0.6138
90944496|NCT03845075|181768412|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.23||||0.7889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.26|10.72||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Week 16; Safety set; LOCF||10.72|-8.26|0.7889
90944497|NCT03845075|181768412|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.9536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.34|10.94||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Week 20; Safety set; LOCF||10.94|-10.34|0.9536
90975456|NCT01337973|181834177|SUPERIORITY||coefficient estimate|0.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.48||The threshold for significance was p\<0.05. Scores are reported stratified by whether they are less than 0.05, less than 0.01, and less than 0.001.|Wilcoxon Z|Wilcoxon Z value: -3.51|E-TAU arm is the referent group|"Bivariate analyses examined change from baseline to follow up of substance use outcomes measures using Wilcoxon sign rank tests.~This test applies to illicit drug use % change from baseline"||1.48|0.61|<0.001
90944498|NCT03845075|181768412|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.7||||0.5551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.72|12.12||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Week 24; Safety set; LOCF||12.12|-6.72|0.5551
90944499|NCT03845075|181768416|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.52||||0.7782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.23|16.2||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|Baseline to Week 24||16.20|-21.23|0.7782
90944500|NCT03845075|181768416|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.26||||0.313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.09|7.56||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|Baseline to Week 48||7.56|-22.09|0.3130
90944501|NCT03845075|181768416|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.73||||0.4033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.92|8.47||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|Week 24 to Week 48||8.47|-19.92|0.4033
90944502|NCT03845075|181768417|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.5||||0.0325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.29|-0.71||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|Baseline to Week 24||-0.71|-14.29|0.0325
91037134|NCT00424047|181960636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.498|1.07|||Log Rank|The p-value is based on an unstratified log rank test of survival curve differences between the treatment groups.|Based on a proportional hazards model comparing the hazard functions associated with the treatment groups (Lenalidomide/Dexamethasone:Placebo/Dexamethasone)|||1.070|0.498|0.105
91037135|NCT00424047|181960637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.863||||0.302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.651|1.143|||Log Rank|The p-value is based on an unstratified log rank test of survival curve differences between the treatment groups|Based on a proportional hazards model comparing the hazard functions associated with the treatment groups (CC-5013/Dex:Placebo/Dex)|||1.143|0.651|0.302
91037136|NCT00424047|181960638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Probability from Wilcoxon rank sum test||||||<0.001
91037137|NCT00424047|181960639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Probability from Wilcoxon rank sum test||||||<0.001
90944503|NCT03845075|181768417|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.32||||0.9394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.04|8.4||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|Baseline to Week 48||8.40|-9.04|0.9394
91037138|NCT00424047|181960642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.558||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.338|0.921|||Log Rank|The p-value is based on an unstratified log rank test of survival curve differences between the treatment groups|Based on a proportional hazards model comparing the hazard functions associated with the treatment groups (lenalidomide/dexamethasone : placebo/dexamethasone).|||0.921|0.338|0.021
90944504|NCT03845075|181768417|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|6.91||||0.0135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|12.18||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|Week 24 to Week 28||12.18|1.65|0.0135
90944505|NCT03845075|181768418|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.17||||0.1048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.31|0.98||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|Baseline to Week 24; mITT observed.||0.98|-9.31|0.1048
90944506|NCT03845075|181768418|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.99||||0.7189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.75|4.77||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|Baseline to Week 48; mITT observed.||4.77|-6.75|0.7189
90944507|NCT03845075|181768418|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.09||||0.1053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|6.91||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|Week 24 to Week 48; mITT observed.||6.91|-0.73|0.1053
90944508|NCT03845075|181768419|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.12||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.02|-1.21||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|Baseline to Week 24; mITT observed||-1.21|-5.02|0.0033
90944509|NCT03845075|181768419|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.58||||0.6663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.24|3.41||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|Baseline to Week 48; mITT LOCF||3.41|-2.24|0.6663
90944510|NCT03845075|181768419|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.59||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|5.98||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|Week 24 to Week 48; mITT LOCF||5.98|1.21|0.0058
90944511|NCT03845075|181768420|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.02||||0.0713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.34|0.3||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|Baseline to Week 24; mITT observed||0.30|-6.34|0.0713
91037139|NCT00424047|181960643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.362|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.478||The p-value is based on an unstratified log rank test of survival curve differences between the treatment groups.|Log Rank||Based on a proportional hazards model comparing the hazard functions associated with the treatment groups (CC-5013/Dex:Placebo/Dex)|||0.478|0.27|<0.001
91037140|NCT00424047|181960644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.166||||0.271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.887|1.532||The p-value is based on an unstratified log rank test of survival curve differences between the treatment groups.|Log Rank||Based on a proportional hazards model comparing the hazard functions associated with the treatment groups (lenalidomide/dexamethasone: placebo/dexamethasone)|||1.532|0.887|0.271
91037141|NCT00424047|181960645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.135||||0.359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.866|1.486||The p-value is based on an unstratified log rank test of survival curve differences between the treatment groups.|Log Rank||Based on a proportional hazards model comparing the hazard functions associated with the treatment groups (CC-5013/Dex:Placebo/Dex)|||1.486|0.866|0.359
91037142|NCT00424047|181960646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.619||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.398|0.964|||Log Rank|The p-value is based on an unstratified log rank test of survival curve differences between the treatment groups.|Based on a proportional hazards model comparing the hazard functions associated with the treatment groups (CC-5013/Dex:Placebo/Dex)|||0.964|0.398|0.032
91037143|NCT01229150|181960655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.24
91037144|NCT01229150|181960655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.75
91037145|NCT01229150|181960659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.51
90975457|NCT01337973|181834177|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for significance was p\<0.05. Scores are reported stratified by whether they are less than 0.05, less than 0.01, and less than 0.001.|Wilcoxon Z|Wilcoxon Z value: -4.65||"Bivariate analyses examined change from baseline to follow up of substance use outcomes measures using Wilcoxon sign rank tests.~This test applies to heavy drinking % change from baseline"||||<0.001
90975458|NCT01337973|181834177|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance was p\<0.05. Scores are reported stratified by whether they are less than 0.05, less than 0.01, and less than 0.001.|Wilcoxon Z|Wilcoxon Z value: -1.45||"Bivariate analyses examined change from baseline to follow up of substance use outcomes measures using Wilcoxon sign rank tests.~This test applies to cocaine use % change from baseline"||||>0.05
90975459|NCT01337973|181834177|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance was p\<0.05. Scores are reported stratified by whether they are less than 0.05, less than 0.01, and less than 0.001.|Wilcoxon Z|Wilcoxon Z value: -1.5||"Bivariate analyses examined change from baseline to follow up of substance use outcomes measures using Wilcoxon sign rank tests.~This test applies to marijuana use % change from baseline"||||>0.05
90975460|NCT01337973|181834177|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The threshold for significance was p\<0.05. Scores are reported stratified by whether they are less than 0.05, less than 0.01, and less than 0.001.|Wilcoxon Z|Wilcoxon Z value: -2.58||"Bivariate analyses examined change from baseline to follow up of substance use outcomes measures using Wilcoxon sign rank tests.~This test applies to illicit drug use % change from baseline"||||<0.05
90975461|NCT01700192|181834199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.4|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||-0.40|-1.20|<0.001
90975462|NCT01700192|181834199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference Relative to Placebo|-17.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.0|-9.7||||||||-9.7|-25.0|
90975463|NCT01700192|181834202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.3|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||-0.30|-1.00|<0.001
90975464|NCT01700192|181834202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference Relative to Placebo|-15.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.4|-7.3||||||||-7.3|-24.4|
90975465|NCT01700192|181834203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.05|||Zero-inflated Log-normal Model|||||0.05|-0.35|0.154
90975466|NCT01700192|181834203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference Relative to Placebo|-18.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.0|4.3||||||||4.3|-41|
90975467|NCT01700192|181834204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.6|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||-0.60|-1.70|<0.001
90975468|NCT01700192|181834204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference Relative to Placebo|-16.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.6|-4.0||||||||-4.0|-24.6|
90975469|NCT01700192|181834205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-6.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|-3.1|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||-3.10|-9.10|<0.001
90975470|NCT01700192|181834205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference Relative to Placebo|-16.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.7|-8.3||||||||-8.3|-22.7|
90975471|NCT01017952|181834214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.81||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.99|||Generalized Linear Model|Assuming Negative Binomial distribution with logarithm of time on treatment as an offset variable.||||0.99|0.66|0.040
90975472|NCT01017952|181834214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.79||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.97|||Generalized Linear Model|Assuming Negative Binomial distribution with logarithm of time on treatment as an offset variable.||||0.97|0.64|0.024
90975473|NCT01017952|181834214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.85|||Generalized Linear Model|Assuming Negative Binomial distribution with logarithm of time on treatment as an offset variable.||||0.85|0.56|<0.001
90975474|NCT01017952|181834215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.06|||Regression, Cox|||||1.06|0.71|0.177
90975475|NCT01017952|181834215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.99|||Regression, Cox|||||0.99|0.66|0.036
91037146|NCT01229150|181960659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.81
91037147|NCT01229150|181960661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0007||||||P-value was determined by comparison by the level of p-ERK at cycle 1 day 1 to cycle 1 day 2.|Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test|||||||<0.0007
91037148|NCT01229150|181960661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was determined by comparison by the level of p-ERK at cycle 1 day 1 to cycle 1 day 14.|Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test|||||||<0.0001
90975476|NCT01017952|181834215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.82|||Regression, Cox|||||0.82|0.54|<0.001
90975477|NCT01017952|181834216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.84||||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.07|||Generalized Linear Model|Assuming Negative Binomial distribution with logarithm of time on treatment as an offset variable.||||1.07|0.65|0.154
90975478|NCT01017952|181834216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.77||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.99|||Generalized Linear Model|Assuming Negative Binomial distribution with logarithm of time on treatment as an offset variable||||0.99|0.60|0.041
91037149|NCT01229150|181960661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0209||||||P-value was determined by comparison by the level of p-ERK at cycle 1 day 2 and cycle 1 day 14.|Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test|||4 patients in this group; statistically underpowered.||||0.0209
91037150|NCT03100344|181960680|OTHER|mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM)|mean difference of percentage changes|-13.6||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.3|0.0|||Kenward-Rogers|||||0.0|-27.3|0.051
91037151|NCT03100344|181960680|OTHER|mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM)|mean difference of percentage changes|-16.7||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.2|-3.2|||Kenward Roger|||||-3.2|-30.2|0.016
90944512|NCT03845075|181768420|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.48||||0.1457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.92|0.96||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|Baseline to Week 48; mITT LOCF||0.96|-5.92|0.1457
90944513|NCT03845075|181768420|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.85||||0.1837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|2.15||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|Week 24 to Week 48; mITT LOCF||2.15|-0.45|0.1837
91037152|NCT03100344|181960680|OTHER|mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM)|mean difference of percentage changes|-6.8||||0.322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.5|6.8|||Kenward Roger|||||6.8|-20.5|0.322
90944514|NCT03845075|181768421|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05||||0.7926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.33||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|Baseline to Week 24; mITT LOCF||0.33|-0.42|0.7926
90944515|NCT03845075|181768421|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27||||0.2124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.17||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|Baseline to Week 48; mITT LOCF||0.17|-0.72|0.2124
90944516|NCT03845075|181768421|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14||||0.6084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.43||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|Week 24 to Week 48; mITT LOCF||0.43|-0.72|0.6084
90944517|NCT03845075|181768422|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|16.0||||0.0905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.85|34.85||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|Baseline to week 24; mITT observed. (Like to eat something fatty)||34.85|-2.85|0.0905
90944518|NCT03845075|181768422|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|6.65||||0.6285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.05|35.36||P-value from ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|Baseline to Week 24; mITT observed. (Like some meat/fish)||35.36|-22.05|0.6285
90944519|NCT03845075|181768422|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.81||||0.5884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.05|19.43||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|Baseline to Week 24; mITT observed. (Eat something salty).||19.43|-33.05|0.5884
90944520|NCT03845075|181768422|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.98||||0.8533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.73|36.68||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|Baseline to Week 24; mITT observed. (Eat something sweet).||36.68|-30.73|0.8533
90944521|NCT03845075|181768422|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-17.33||||0.1529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.87|7.2||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Baseline to Week 48; mITT LOCF. (Like to eat something fatty).||7.20|-41.87|0.1529
90944522|NCT03845075|181768422|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-11.75||||0.3399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.15|13.65||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Baseline to Week 48; mITT LOCF. (Like some meat/fish).||13.65|-37.15|0.3399
90944523|NCT03845075|181768422|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-23.95||||0.0673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.84|1.93||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Baseline to Week 48; mITT LOCF. (Eat something salty).||1.93|-49.84|0.0673
90944524|NCT03845075|181768422|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-22.6||||0.1657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.65|10.46||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Baseline to Week 48; mITT LOCF. (Eat something sweet).||10.46|-55.65|0.1657
91037153|NCT03100344|181960681|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.9||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|35.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||35.8|2.0|0.034
91037154|NCT03100344|181960681|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|31.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.7|48.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||48.2|14.7|<0.001
91037155|NCT03100344|181960681|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.2||||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|28.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||28.6|-4.2|0.154
91037156|NCT03100344|181960682|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.9||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|22.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1||22.2|-0.4|0.062
91037157|NCT03100344|181960682|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.2||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|23.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1||23.6|0.8|0.042
91037158|NCT03100344|181960682|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.2||||0.307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|15.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1||15.0|-4.7|0.307
91037159|NCT03100344|181960682|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.0||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.3|38.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||38.7|9.3|0.003
91037160|NCT03100344|181960682|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|26.2||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.4|40.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||40.9|11.4|0.001
91037161|NCT03100344|181960682|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.0||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|33.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||33.1|4.9|0.011
91037162|NCT03100344|181960682|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.5|41.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||41.7|13.5|<0.001
91037163|NCT03100344|181960682|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|40.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.7|54.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||54.8|25.7|<0.001
91037164|NCT03100344|181960682|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|31.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.4|45.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||45.8|17.4|<0.001
91037165|NCT03100344|181960682|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.6||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|37.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||37.1|4.2|0.018
91037166|NCT03100344|181960682|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|43.7|||<|1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.6|59.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||59.9|27.6|<0001
91037167|NCT03100344|181960682|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|26.1||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.7|42.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||42.6|9.7|0.003
91037168|NCT03100344|181960682|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.4||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.3|41.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||41.4|7.3|0.007
90944525|NCT03845075|181768422|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-30.18||||0.0108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.31|-8.06||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Week 24 to week 48; mITT LOCF. (Like to eat something fatty).||-8.06|-52.31|0.0108
90944526|NCT03845075|181768422|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-14.79||||0.171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.71|7.13||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Week 24 to week 48; mITT LOCF. (Like some meat/fish).||7.13|-36.71|0.1710
91037169|NCT03100344|181960682|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|43.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.4|59.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||59.9|27.4|<0.001
91037170|NCT03100344|181960682|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.1||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|35.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||35.9|2.4|0.030
91037171|NCT03100344|181960682|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.4|50.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||50.2|16.4|<0.001
91037172|NCT03100344|181960682|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|47.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.2|63.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||63.2|31.2|<0.001
91037173|NCT03100344|181960682|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.8||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.1|39.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||39.4|6.1|0.010
91037174|NCT03100344|181960682|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|26.3||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.2|43.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||43.5|9.2|0.004
91037175|NCT03100344|181960682|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|36.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.1|53.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||53.3|20.1|<0.001
91037176|NCT03100344|181960682|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.5||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.6|41.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||41.4|7.6|0.007
91037177|NCT03100344|181960682|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.9||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.6|38.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||38.1|3.6|0.022
91037178|NCT03100344|181960682|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.3||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|41.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||41.3|7.4|0.007
91037179|NCT03100344|181960682|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.4||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|34.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||34.4|0.4|0.050
91037180|NCT03100344|181960683|OTHER|mixed-effect model for repeated measures|mean difference of percentage changes|-14.4||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.2|-2.7|||Kenward Roger|||||-2.7|-26.2|0.017
91037181|NCT03100344|181960683|OTHER|mixed-effect model for repeated measures|mean difference of percentage changes|-11.3||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.1|0.4|||Kenward Roger|||||0.4|-23.1|0.058
91037182|NCT03100344|181960683|OTHER|mixed-effect model for repeated measures|mean difference of percentage changes|-20.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.6|-8.3|||Kenward Roger|||||-8.3|-31.6|<0.001
91037183|NCT03100344|181960684|OTHER|mixed-effect model for repeated measures|mean difference of absolute changes|-9.6||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|-1.8|||Kenward Roger|||||-1.8|-17.5|0.016
91037184|NCT03100344|181960684|OTHER|mixed-effect model for repeated measures|mean difference of absolute changes|-12.8||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.6|-5.1|||Kenward Roger|||||-5.1|-20.6|0.001
91037185|NCT03100344|181960684|OTHER|mixed-effect model for repeated measures|mean difference of absolute changes|-7.6||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|0.3|||Kenward Roger|||||0.3|-15.4|0.058
91037186|NCT03100344|181960685|OTHER|mixed-effect model for repeated measures|mean difference of percentage changes|-24.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.8|-11.2|||Kenward Roger|||||-11.2|-37.8|<0.001
90975479|NCT01017952|181834216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.84|||Generalized Linear Model|Assuming Negative Binomial distribution with logarithm of time on treatment as an offset variable||||0.84|0.51|<0.001
90975480|NCT01017952|181834217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.034||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.003|0.066||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.066|0.003|0.034
90975481|NCT01017952|181834217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.024||||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.008|0.056|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.056|-0.008|0.143
90975482|NCT01017952|181834217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.026||||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.006|0.057|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.057|-0.006|0.115
90975483|NCT02979431|181834231|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||The primary endpoint was analysed using log-rank test to compare time-to-BQL between each of the ALX-0171 treatment groups and the combined placebo group. The tests were performed in a sequential way to preserve the family-wise error rate at 0.05.||||<0.001
90975484|NCT02979431|181834231|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||The primary endpoint was analysed using log-rank test to compare time-to-BQL between each of the ALX-0171 treatment groups and the combined placebo group. The tests were performed in a sequential way to preserve the family-wise error rate at 0.05.||||=0.001
90975485|NCT02979431|181834231|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||The primary endpoint was analysed using log-rank test to compare time-to-BQL between each of the ALX-0171 treatment groups and the combined placebo group. The tests were performed in a sequential way to preserve the family-wise error rate at 0.05.||||<0.001
90975486|NCT02979431|181834232|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6452|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5843|=|0.271|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A comparison for change from Baseline in GSS to Day 2, 5 hours post-dose was performed using a contrast analysis on a longitudinal mixed model with random factor subject and fixed effects baseline value, treatment group and timepoint, including the treatment-by-timepoint interaction term. All data up to + including Day 3 were used in the longitudinal mixed model. The Kenward-Roger approximation of degrees of freedom was used.The model was fitted using an unstructured variance-covariance matrix.||||=0.271
90975487|NCT02979431|181834232|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS means|-0.4904|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5862|=|0.404|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||=0.404
90975488|NCT02979431|181834232|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS means|-0.2156|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5842|=|0.713|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||=0.713
90975489|NCT01235962|181834248|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.862||||0.1649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.699|1.063|||Stratified Log-Rank|||||1.063|0.699|0.1649
91037187|NCT03100344|181960685|OTHER|mixed-effect model for repeated measures|mean difference of percentage changes|-31.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.9|-18.6|||Kenward Roger|||||-18.6|-44.9|<0.001
90975490|NCT01235962|181834249|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.998||||0.988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.759|1.311|||Stratified Log-Rank|||||1.311|0.759|0.9880
90975491|NCT01235962|181834251|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.802||||0.0126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.675|0.954|||Stratified Log-Rank|||||0.954|0.675|0.0126
91037188|NCT03100344|181960685|OTHER|mixed-effect model for repeated measures|mean difference of percentage changes|-25.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.4|-11.8|||Kenward Roger|||||-11.8|-38.4|<0.001
90975492|NCT01235962|181834252|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|1.001||||0.9959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.796|1.257|||Stratified Log-Rank|||||1.257|0.796|0.9959
90975493|NCT01235962|181834254|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.693||||0.0201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.943|||Stratified Log-Rank|||||0.943|0.510|0.0201
90975494|NCT01235962|181834255|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|1.004||||0.9865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.662|1.521|||Stratified Log-Rank|||||1.521|0.662|0.9865
90975495|NCT01235962|181834256|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Week 52)|-3.397|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.486|-2.307|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||-2.307|-4.486|<.001
90975496|NCT01235962|181834256|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (24M DFS FU)|-0.043||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.003|0.917|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.917|-1.003|0.930
90975497|NCT01235962|181834256|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (36M DFS FU)|0.119||||0.828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.958|1.196|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||1.196|-0.958|0.828
90975498|NCT01235962|181834256|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (48M DFS FU)|-0.347||||0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.658|0.964|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.964|-1.658|0.603
91037189|NCT03100344|181960686|OTHER|mixed-effect model for repeated measures|mean difference of absolute changes|-2.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-1.0|||Kenward Roger|||||-1.0|-3.1|<0.001
90944527|NCT03845075|181768422|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-19.86||||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.8|-5.93||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Week 24 to week 48; mITT LOCF. (Eat something salty).||-5.93|-33.80|0.0083
91037190|NCT03100344|181960686|OTHER|mixed-effect model for repeated measures|mean difference of absolute changes|-2.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-1.3|||Kenward Roger|||||-1.3|-3.4|<0.001
91037191|NCT03100344|181960686|OTHER|mixed-effect model for repeated measures|mean difference of absolute changes|-1.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-0.9|||Kenward Roger|||||-0.9|-3.0|<0.001
91037192|NCT03100344|181960687|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|5.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At week 1||5.1|-4.9|0.970
91037193|NCT03100344|181960687|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7||||0.574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|7.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At week 1||7.5|-4.1|0.574
90944528|NCT03845075|181768422|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-22.98||||0.0631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.39|1.43||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Week 24 to week 48; mITT LOCF. (Eat something sweet).||1.43|-47.39|0.0631
90944529|NCT03845075|181768423|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.56||||0.8082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.65|19.53||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Baseline to Week 24; mITT observed.||19.53|-24.65|0.8082
90944530|NCT03845075|181768423|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.42||||0.9034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.94|23.1||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Baseline to Week 48; mITT LOCF.||23.10|-25.94|0.9034
90944531|NCT03845075|181768423|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.0||||0.4658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.93|12.93||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Week 24 to week 48; mITT LOCF.||12.93|-26.93|0.4658
90944532|NCT03845075|181768424|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.68||||0.0537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.46|0.1||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Baseline to Week 24; mITT LOCF.||0.10|-11.46|0.0537
90944533|NCT03845075|181768424|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.69||||0.3772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.98|3.61||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Baseline to Week 48; mITT LOCF.||3.61|-8.98|0.3772
90944534|NCT03845075|181768424|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.03||||0.1171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|6.91||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Week 24 to week 48; mITT LOCF.||6.91|-0.85|0.1171
90944535|NCT03845075|181768425|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05||||0.8623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.5||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Baseline to Week 24; mITT observed. (Change in total cholesterol)||0.50|-0.59|0.8623
90944536|NCT03845075|181768425|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.03||||0.8327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.3||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Baseline to Week 24; mITT observed. (Change in HDL cholesterol)||0.30|-0.25|0.8327
90944537|NCT03845075|181768425|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.06||||0.808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.42||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Baseline to Week 24; mITT observed. (Change in LDL cholesterol)||0.42|-0.53|0.8080
90944538|NCT03845075|181768425|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.22||||0.5791|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|1.07|||ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Baseline to Week 24; mITT observed. (Change in triglycerides)||1.07|-0.62|0.5791
90944539|NCT03845075|181768425|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.03||||0.9337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.77||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Baseline to Week 48; mITT LOCF. (Change in cholesterol)||0.77|-0.71|0.9337
90975499|NCT01235962|181834256|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (54M DFS FU)|-0.17||||0.841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.843|1.503|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||1.503|-1.843|0.841
91037194|NCT03100344|181960687|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|1.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At week 1||1.7|-5.2|0.311
90975500|NCT01235962|181834257|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Week 52)|-1.619|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.283|-0.955|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||-0.955|-2.283|<.001
90975501|NCT01235962|181834257|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (24 M DFS FU)|-0.114||||0.726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.522|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.522|-0.750|0.726
90975502|NCT01235962|181834257|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (36 M DFS FU)|-0.09||||0.801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.789|0.609|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.609|-0.789|0.801
90975503|NCT01235962|181834257|SUPERIORITY||Meat Difference (48 M DFS FU)|-0.212||||0.617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.044|0.32|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.320|-1.044|0.617
91037195|NCT03100344|181960687|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.2||||0.598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|19.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At week 24||19.8|-11.3|0.598
90944540|NCT03845075|181768425|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.01||||0.9305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.23||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Baseline to Week 48; mITT LOCF. (Change in HDL cholesterol)||0.23|-0.21|0.9305
90944541|NCT03845075|181768425|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.09||||0.691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.59||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Baseline to Week 48; mITT LOCF. (Change in LDL cholesterol)||0.59|-0.40|0.6910
91037196|NCT03100344|181960687|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.5||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|31.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At week 24||31.4|-0.4|0.066
91037197|NCT03100344|181960687|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7||||0.826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|16.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At week 24||16.9|-13.5|0.826
90944542|NCT03845075|181768425|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.35||||0.2688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.01||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Baseline to Week 48; mITT LOCF. (Change in triglycerides)||1.01|-0.30|0.2688
90944543|NCT03845075|181768425|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.06||||0.8262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.67||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Week 24 to week 48; mITT LOCF. (Change in cholesterol)||0.67|-0.54|0.8262
90944544|NCT03845075|181768425|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02||||0.8293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.17||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Week 24 to week 48; mITT LOCF. (Change in HDL cholesterol)||0.17|-0.20|0.8293
90944545|NCT03845075|181768425|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.11||||0.5486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.49||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Week 24 to week 48; mITT LOCF. (Change in LDL cholesterol)||0.49|-0.27|0.5486
90944546|NCT03845075|181768425|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.24||||0.3226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.75||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Week 24 to week 48; mITT LOCF. (Change in triglycerides)||0.75|-0.26|0.3226
90944547|NCT03845075|181768426|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.59||||0.842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.55|6.73||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|From baseline to week 24; mITT LOCF. (Physical component score)||6.73|-5.55|0.8420
90944548|NCT03845075|181768426|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.74||||0.6693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.15|6.67||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|From baseline to week 24; mITT LOCF. (Mental component score)||6.67|-10.15|0.6693
90944549|NCT03845075|181768426|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.83||||0.5444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.12|4.46||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|From baseline to week 48; mITT LOCF. (Physical component score)||4.46|-8.12|0.5444
90944550|NCT03845075|181768426|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.85||||0.5595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.47|4.76||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|From baseline to week 48; mITT LOCF. (Mental component score)||4.76|-8.47|0.5595
90944551|NCT03845075|181768426|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.07||||0.4331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.54|3.41||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Week 24 to week 48; mITT LOCF. (Physical component score)||3.41|-7.54|0.4331
90944552|NCT03845075|181768426|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.44||||0.6427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|5.03||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Week 24 to week 48; mITT LOCF. (Mental component score)||5.03|-7.90|0.6427
90975504|NCT01235962|181834257|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (54 M DFS FU)|0.341||||0.565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.828|1.51|||adjusted for baseline score using mixedm|||||1.510|-0.828|0.565
90975505|NCT01235962|181834258|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Week 52)|-0.077||||0.238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.205|0.051|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.051|-0.205|0.238
90975506|NCT01235962|181834258|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (24M DFS FU)|-0.052||||0.442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.185|0.081|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.081|-0.185|0.442
90975507|NCT01235962|181834258|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (36M DFS FU)|0.016||||0.819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.125|0.158|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.158|-0.125|0.819
90975508|NCT01235962|181834258|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (48M DFS FU)|-0.119||||0.223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.311|0.073|||analysis of covariance|analysis of covariance adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.073|-0.311|0.223
90975509|NCT01235962|181834258|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (54M DFS FU)|-0.203||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.435|0.028|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.028|-0.435|0.085
90975510|NCT01235962|181834259|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Week 52)|-1.394|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|-1.129|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||-1.129|-1.660|<.001
90975511|NCT01235962|181834259|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference (24M DFS FU)|0.117||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.015|0.249|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.249|-0.015|0.083
90975512|NCT01235962|181834259|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (36M DFS FU)|0.081||||0.307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.074|0.236|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.236|-0.074|0.307
90975513|NCT01235962|181834259|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (48M DFS FU)|-0.029||||0.796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.249|0.191|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.191|-0.249|0.796
90975514|NCT01235962|181834259|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (54M DFS FU)|-0.016||||0.885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.237|0.205|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-models||||0.205|-0.237|0.885
90975515|NCT01235962|181834260|SUPERIORITY||Mean Differencec (Week 52)|-0.27||||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.633|0.092|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.092|-0.633|0.143
90975516|NCT01235962|181834260|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (24M DFS FU)|0.069||||0.736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.336|0.475|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.475|-0.336|0.736
90975517|NCT01235962|181834260|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (36M DFS FU)|0.188||||0.397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.247|0.623|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.623|-0.247|0.397
90975518|NCT01235962|181834260|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (48M DFS FU)|0.081||||0.781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.488|0.649|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.649|-0.488|0.781
90975519|NCT01235962|181834260|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (54M DFS FU)|-0.278||||0.503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.094|0.539|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.539|-1.094|0.503
90975520|NCT01235962|181834261|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Week 52 thermo)|-0.717||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.751|1.318|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||1.318|-2.751|0.490
90975521|NCT01235962|181834261|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (24M DFS FU- thermo)|-0.285||||0.788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.358|1.788|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||1.788|-2.358|0.788
90975522|NCT01235962|181834261|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (36M DFS FU- thermo)|1.18||||0.266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.901|3.262|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||3.262|-0.901|0.266
91037198|NCT03100344|181960687|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|4.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||4.1|-7.7|0.558
91037199|NCT03100344|181960687|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.4||||0.413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|11.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||11.6|-4.7|0.413
91037200|NCT03100344|181960687|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|4.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||4.0|-7.7|0.543
90975523|NCT01235962|181834261|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (48M DFS FU - thermo)|0.725||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.779|3.229|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||3.229|-1.779|0.570
90975524|NCT01235962|181834261|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (54M DFS FU - thermo)|2.023||||0.346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.205|6.251|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||6.251|-2.205|0.346
90975525|NCT01235962|181834261|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Week 52 - UI)|-0.018||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.004|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.004|-0.040|0.111
90975526|NCT01235962|181834261|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (24M DFS FU - UI)|-0.02||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.044|0.003|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.003|-0.044|0.094
90975527|NCT01235962|181834261|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (36M DFS FU - UI)|0.01||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.018|0.037|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.037|-0.018|0.490
90975528|NCT01235962|181834261|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (48M DFS FU - UI)|-0.009||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.043|0.024|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.024|-0.043|0.580
90975529|NCT01235962|181834261|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (54M DFS FU - UI)|0.017||||0.473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.029|0.063|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.063|-0.029|0.473
90975530|NCT01235962|181834262|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Week 52)|-3.536|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.466|-2.606|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||-2.606|-4.466|<.001
90975531|NCT01235962|181834262|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference (24M DFS FU)|-0.102||||0.812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.942|0.738|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.738|-0.942|0.812
90975532|NCT01235962|181834262|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (36M DFS FU)|0.233||||0.621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|1.155|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||1.155|-0.690|0.621
90975533|NCT01235962|181834262|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (48M DFS FU)|0.082||||0.878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.959|1.122|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||1.122|-0.959|0.878
90975534|NCT01235962|181834262|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (54M DFS FU)|0.412||||0.533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.887|1.712|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||1.712|-0.887|0.533
90975535|NCT01235962|181834263|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Week 52)|-1.515|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.078|-0.952|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||-0.952|-2.078|<.001
90975536|NCT01235962|181834263|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (24M DFS FU)|0.014||||0.961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.534|0.561|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.561|-0.534|0.961
90975537|NCT01235962|181834263|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (36M DFS FU)|0.043||||0.888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.555|0.641|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.641|-0.555|0.888
90975538|NCT01235962|181834263|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (48M DFS FU)|-0.061||||0.858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.736|0.614|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.614|-0.736|0.858
90975539|NCT01235962|181834263|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (54M DFS FU)|0.452||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.404|1.309|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||1.309|-0.404|0.300
90944553|NCT03845075|181768428|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.86||||0.3037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.76|17.48||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|From baseline to week 24; safety set LOCF. (Change in systolic blood pressure)||17.48|-5.76|0.3037
90944554|NCT03845075|181768428|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.15||||0.7912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.85|10.16||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|From baseline to week 24; safety set LOCF. (Change in diastolic blood pressure)||10.16|-7.85|0.7912
90944555|NCT03845075|181768428|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|10.29||||0.1773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.25|25.83||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|From baseline to week 48; safety set LOCF. (Change in systolic blood pressure)||25.83|-5.25|0.1773
90944556|NCT03845075|181768428|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.32||||0.798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.55|12.2||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|From baseline to week 48; safety set LOCF. (Change in diastolic blood pressure)||12.20|-9.55|0.7980
90944557|NCT03845075|181768428|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|7.77||||0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|18.94||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|From week 24 to week 48; safety set LOCF. (Change in systolic blood pressure)||18.94|-3.40|0.1580
90944558|NCT03845075|181768428|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.64||||0.7021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.36|10.64||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|From week 24 to week 48; safety set LOCF. (Change in diastolic blood pressure)||10.64|-7.36|0.7021
90944559|NCT03845075|181768429|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.5||||0.8728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.17|21.18||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|From baseline to week 24; mITT LOCF. (Change in systolic blood pressure mean)||21.18|-18.17|0.8728
90944560|NCT03845075|181768429|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.46||||0.5714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.61|11.54||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|From baseline to week 24; mITT LOCF. (Change in diastolic blood pressure mean)||11.54|-6.61|0.5714
90944561|NCT03845075|181768429|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-10.15||||0.2322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.51|7.22||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|From baseline to week 12; mITT LOCF. (Change in systolic blood pressure mean)||7.22|-27.51|0.2322
90944562|NCT03845075|181768429|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.46||||0.4321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.61|5.68||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|From baseline to week 12; mITT LOCF. (Change in diastolic blood pressure mean)||5.68|-12.61|0.4321
90975540|NCT01235962|181834264|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Week 52)|-0.103||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.211|0.004|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.004|-0.211|0.059
90975541|NCT01235962|181834264|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (24M DFS FU)|-0.041||||0.487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.155|0.074|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.074|-0.155|0.487
90975542|NCT01235962|181834264|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (36M DFS FU)|0.037||||0.885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.085|0.16|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.160|-0.085|0.885
91037201|NCT03100344|181960687|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|4.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||4.2|-7.6|0.583
90975543|NCT01235962|181834264|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (48M DFS FU)|-0.032||||0.676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.183|0.119|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.119|-0.183|0.676
90975544|NCT01235962|181834264|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (54M DFS FU)|-0.015||||0.859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.183|0.153|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.153|-0.183|0.859
90975545|NCT01235962|181834265|SUPERIORITY||Mean Diffeence (Week 52)|-1.535|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.769|-1.3|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||-1.300|-1.769|<.001
90975546|NCT01235962|181834265|SUPERIORITY||Mean Diffeence (24M DFS FU)|0.089||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.025|0.202|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.202|-0.025|0.127
90975547|NCT01235962|181834265|SUPERIORITY||Mean Diffeence (36M DFS FU)|0.123||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.009|0.255|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.255|-0.009|0.069
90975548|NCT01235962|181834265|SUPERIORITY||Mean Diffeence (48M DFS FU)|0.049||||0.544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.208|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.208|-0.110|0.544
90975549|NCT01235962|181834265|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (54M DFS FU)|0.061||||0.518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.124|0.246|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.246|-0.124|0.518
90975550|NCT01235962|181834266|SUPERIORITY||Mean Diffeence (Week 52)|-0.374||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.695|-0.053|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||-0.053|-0.695|0.022
90975551|NCT01235962|181834266|SUPERIORITY||Mean Diffeence (24M DFS FU)|-0.104||||0.567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.462|0.253|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.253|-0.462|0.567
90975552|NCT01235962|181834266|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (36M DFS FU)|0.072||||0.706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.302|0.446|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.446|-0.302|0.706
90975553|NCT01235962|181834266|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (48M DFS FU)|0.12||||0.612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.343|0.583|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.583|-0.343|0.612
90975554|NCT01235962|181834266|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (54M DFS FU)|-0.045||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.587|0.496|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.496|-0.587|0.870
90975555|NCT01235962|181834267|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Week 52 - thermo.)|-2.116||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.872|-0.359|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||-0.359|-3.872|0.018
90975556|NCT01235962|181834267|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (24M DFS FU - thermo)|-0.253||||0.778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.014|1.508|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||1.508|-2.014|0.778
90975557|NCT01235962|181834267|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (36M DFS FU - thermo)|0.847||||0.376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|2.724|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||2.724|-1.030|0.376
91037202|NCT03100344|181960687|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.2||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|22.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||22.5|1.8|0.028
90975558|NCT01235962|181834267|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (48M DFS FU - thermo)|0.131||||0.905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.032|2.294|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||2.294|-2.032|0.905
90975559|NCT01235962|181834267|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (54M DFS FU - thermo)|0.401||||0.768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.269|3.071|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||3.071|-2.269|0.768
90975560|NCT01235962|181834267|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Week 52 - UI)|-0.026||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.044|-0.007|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||-0.007|-0.044|0.007
90975561|NCT01235962|181834267|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (24M DFS FU - UI)|-0.016||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.036|0.005|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.005|-0.036|0.130
90975562|NCT01235962|181834267|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (36M DFS FU - UI)|0.007||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.015|0.03|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.030|-0.015|0.520
90975563|NCT01235962|181834267|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (48M DFS FU - UI)|-0.014||||0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.011|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.011|-0.040|0.276
90975564|NCT01235962|181834267|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (54M DFS FU - UI)|-0.007||||0.665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.037|0.024|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.024|-0.037|0.665
90975565|NCT01727258|181834275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.72|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.45|14.25||If Potassium Oxalate Mouthrinse is better than Colgate Regular (p\<0.05), testing would proceed to comparison of Wk 2 Mean Tactile Sensitivity Scores between Potassium Oxalate Mouthrinse and Colgate Regular. Family-wise error was controlled at 0.05.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean tactile sensitivity (Yeaple probe) score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||14.25|7.45|<0.001
90975566|NCT01727258|181834275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.729||0.314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.16|1.67||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean tactile sensitivity (Yeaple probe) score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||1.67|-5.16|0.314
90975567|NCT01727258|181834275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.735|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.17|16.03||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean tactile sensitivity (Yeaple probe) score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||16.03|9.17|<0.001
90975568|NCT01727258|181834276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.177|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.76|8.41||If Potassium Oxalate Mouthrinse is better than Colgate Regular (p\<0.05), testing would proceed to comparison of Wk 2 Mean Tactile Sensitivity Scores between Potassium Oxalate Mouthrinse and Sensodyne. Family-wise error was controlled at 0.05.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean tactile sensitivity (Yeaple probe) score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||8.41|3.76|<0.001
90975569|NCT01727258|181834276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.183||0.881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|2.52||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided). Family-wise error was controlled at 0.05.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean tactile sensitivity (Yeaple probe) score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||2.52|-2.16|0.881
90975570|NCT01727258|181834276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.182|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.57|8.24||Significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean tactile sensitivity (Yeaple probe) score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||8.24|3.57|<0.001
90975571|NCT01727258|181834277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.866||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.38|-1.05||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean tactile sensitivity VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-1.05|-12.38|0.020
90975572|NCT01727258|181834277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.86||0.964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.52|5.78||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean tactile sensitivity VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||5.78|-5.52|0.964
90975573|NCT01727258|181834277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.845||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.47|-1.23||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean tactile sensitivity VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-1.23|-12.47|0.017
90975574|NCT01727258|181834278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.327||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|-0.35||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean tactile sensitivity VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-0.35|-13.50|0.039
90975575|NCT01727258|181834278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.317||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|11.61||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean tactile sensitivity VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||11.61|-1.50|0.130
90975576|NCT01727258|181834278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.313|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.53|-5.43||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean tactile sensitivity VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-5.43|-18.53|<0.001
90975577|NCT01727258|181834279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.163||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.51|-2.0||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean air stimulus VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-2.00|-14.51|0.010
91037203|NCT03100344|181960687|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.7||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|18.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||18.3|-0.9|0.087
91037204|NCT03100344|181960687|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9||||0.632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|9.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||9.4|-5.6|0.632
90944563|NCT03845075|181768432|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.7||||0.5551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.72|12.12||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|From baseline to week 24; safety set LOCF. (Change in heart rate)||12.12|-6.72|0.5551
90944564|NCT03845075|181768432|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.13||||0.7256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.88|10.63||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|From baseline to week 48; safety set LOCF. (Change in heart rate)||10.63|-14.88|0.7256
90944565|NCT03845075|181768432|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.29||||0.4822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.05|6.48||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|From week 24 to week 48; safety set LOCF. (Change in heart rate)||6.48|-13.05|0.4822
90944566|NCT00409409|181768456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0010
90944567|NCT03599622|181768457|SUPERIORITY|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel stratified by geographic region (US, Japan, Rest of World), prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi; Exposed/Naive), and concomitant corticosteroid use (Yes/No).|Risk Difference (RD)|4.3||||0.5812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|19.5||Based on a 2-sided test at a significance level of 0.025.|Mantel Haenszel||3 mg BMS-986165 (numerator) vs Placebo (denominator)|||19.5|-11.0|0.5812
90944568|NCT03599622|181768457|SUPERIORITY|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel stratified by geographic region (US, Japan, Rest of World), prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi; Exposed/Naive), and concomitant corticosteroid use (Yes/No).|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.5812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.5||Based on a 2-sided test at a significance level of 0.025.|Mantel Haenszel||3 mg BMS-986165 (numerator) vs Placebo (denominator)|||2.5|0.6|0.5812
90944569|NCT03599622|181768457|SUPERIORITY|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel stratified by geographic region (US, Japan, Rest of World), prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi; Exposed/Naive), and concomitant corticosteroid use (Yes/No).|Risk Difference (RD)|-6.3||||0.372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.2|7.6||Based on a 2-sided test at a significance level of 0.025.|Mantel Haenszel||6 mg BMS-986165 (numerator) vs Placebo (denominator)|||7.6|-20.2|0.3720
90944570|NCT03599622|181768457|SUPERIORITY|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel stratified by geographic region (US, Japan, Rest of World), prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi; Exposed/Naive), and concomitant corticosteroid use (Yes/No).|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.5||Based on a 2-sided test at a significance level of 0.025.|Mantel Haenszel||6 mg BMS-986165 (numerator) vs Placebo (denominator)|||1.5|0.3|0.3720
90944571|NCT03599622|181768458|SUPERIORITY|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel stratified by geographic region (US, Japan, Rest of World), prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi; Exposed/Naive), and concomitant corticosteroid use (Yes/No).|Risk Difference (RD)|15.0||||0.0198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|26.3||Based on a 2-sided test at a significance level of 0.025.|Mantel Haenszel||3 mg BMS-986165 (numerator) vs Placebo (denominator)|||26.3|3.7|0.0198
90944572|NCT03599622|181768458|SUPERIORITY|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel stratified by geographic region (US, Japan, Rest of World), prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi; Exposed/Naive), and concomitant corticosteroid use (Yes/No).|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.4||||0.0198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|9.8||Based on a 2-sided test at a significance level of 0.025.|Mantel Haenszel||3 mg BMS-986165 (numerator) vs Placebo (denominator)|||9.8|1.2|0.0198
90944573|NCT03599622|181768458|SUPERIORITY|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel stratified by geographic region (US, Japan, Rest of World), prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi; Exposed/Naive), and concomitant corticosteroid use (Yes/No).|Risk Difference (RD)|8.2||||0.1584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|19.0||Based on a 2-sided test at a significance level of 0.025.|Mantel Haenszel||6 mg BMS-986165 (numerator) vs Placebo (denominator)|||19.0|-2.6|0.1584
90975578|NCT01727258|181834279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.16||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|10.51||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean air stimulus VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||10.51|-1.98|0.179
90975579|NCT01727258|181834279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.172|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.79|-6.25||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean air stimulus VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-6.25|-18.79|<0.001
90975580|NCT01727258|181834280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.543|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.93|-4.93||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean air stimulus VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-4.93|-18.93|<0.001
90975581|NCT01727258|181834280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.534||0.119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|12.53||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean air stimulus VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||12.53|-1.44|0.119
90975582|NCT01727258|181834280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.566|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.52|-10.42||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean air stimulus VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-10.42|-24.52|<0.001
90975583|NCT01405053|181834285|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|2.601|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.558||0.6928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|15.7|||ANCOVA|||The primary statistical model for comparing the 2 treatment groups was an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) mixed model for repeated measures with baseline score, age, and sex as covariates, and treatment, week, and treatment by week interaction as factors.||15.7|-10.5|0.6928
90975584|NCT02642094|181834309|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0020
90975585|NCT02642094|181834310|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0137|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0137
90975586|NCT02642094|181834311|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91037205|NCT03100344|181960687|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.0||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|24.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||24.8|3.1|0.016
91037206|NCT03100344|181960687|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.8||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|27.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||27.0|4.5|0.009
90975587|NCT02642094|181834312|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0072|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0072
90975588|NCT02642094|181834313|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3093|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3093
90975589|NCT00993928|181834321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.85|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of Q3: Percent change in sleep latency from baseline to week 7.||||0.85
90975590|NCT00993928|181834321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.86|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of Q6A: Percent change in time to fall back asleep from baseline to week 7.||||0.86
90975591|NCT00993928|181834323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.42|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.42
90975592|NCT00993928|181834325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.64|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Compare percent change from baseline to week 7 Distress Thermometer score.||||0.64
90975593|NCT03550066|181834348|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority limit, d, is selected as the largest difference that is clinically acceptable. Here the non-inferiority limit is d=.6 (a medium to large effect size).||||||0.18||||||Threshold for statistical significance: \<.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.18
90975594|NCT02105415|181834351|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1||||0.385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|2.7|||ANCOVA|||5 minutes||2.7|-6.9|0.385
90975595|NCT02105415|181834351|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0||||0.241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|2.8|||ANCOVA|||10 minutes||2.8|-10.8|0.241
90975596|NCT02105415|181834351|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|5.6|||ANCOVA|||15 minutes||5.6|-7.2|0.802
90975597|NCT02105415|181834352|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.605|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.605
90975598|NCT02105415|181834353|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.212|||||||ANCOVA|||Pre-treatment||||0.212
90975599|NCT02105415|181834353|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.308|||||||ANCOVA|||New-onset pressors (within 3 minutes)||||0.308
91037207|NCT03100344|181960687|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|11.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||11.6|-11.2|0.974
91037208|NCT03100344|181960687|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.6||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|29.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||29.3|1.8|0.031
91037209|NCT03100344|181960687|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.9||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|28.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||28.2|-0.3|0.032
91037210|NCT03100344|181960687|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.0||||0.553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|16.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||16.9|-9.0|0.553
90975600|NCT02105415|181834353|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.691|||||||ANCOVA|||Delayed-onset pressors (within 24 hrs)||||0.691
90975601|NCT02105415|181834355|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.911|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.911
90975602|NCT02105415|181834356|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.069|||||||ANCOVA|||Red blood cell||||0.069
90975603|NCT02105415|181834356|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046|||||||ANCOVA|||Non-red blood cell||||0.046
90975604|NCT02105415|181834356|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.502|||||||ANCOVA|||Colloid||||0.502
90975605|NCT02105415|181834357|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.994|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.994
90975606|NCT02105415|181834358|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.233|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.233
90975607|NCT00632853|181834363|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8741|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.8741
90975608|NCT02288273|181834448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
90975609|NCT02321436|181834456|OTHER|The treatment difference (Dysport® versus placebo) was tested using a non-parametric, two-sided, stratified log rank test.||||||0.0176||||||Significance level (α) = 5%|Log Rank|||||||0.0176
90975610|NCT02321436|181834456|OTHER|The treatment difference (Dysport® versus placebo) was tested using a non-parametric, two-sided, stratified Wilcoxon test.||||||0.048||||||Significance level (α) = 5%|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0480
90975611|NCT02321436|181834457|OTHER|Differences between treatment groups and p-values are based on an analysis of variance performed at each visit, taking into account treatment and spasticity status as fixed effects. Baseline value is value assessed at Visit 1.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|-0.47||p value significance level = 5%|ANOVA|||Differences between treatment groups at Visit 2 (Week 4).||-0.47|-1.54|0.0005
90975612|NCT02321436|181834457|OTHER|Differences between treatment groups and p-values are based on an analysis of variance performed at each visit, taking into account treatment and spasticity status as fixed effects. Baseline value is value assessed at Visit 1.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.05||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|-0.47||p value significance level = 5%|ANOVA|||Differences between treatment groups at Visit 3 (Week 6).||-0.47|-1.63|0.0007
90975613|NCT02321436|181834457|OTHER|Differences between treatment groups and p-values are based on an analysis of variance performed at each visit, taking into account treatment and spasticity status as fixed effects. Baseline value is value assessed at Visit 1.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.05||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|-0.48||p value significance level = 5%|ANOVA|||Differences between treatment groups at Visit 4 (Week 8).||-0.48|-1.62|0.0006
90975614|NCT02321436|181834457|OTHER|Differences between treatment groups and p-values are based on an analysis of variance performed at each visit, taking into account treatment and spasticity status as fixed effects. Baseline value is value assessed at Visit 1.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.84||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|-0.31||p value significance level = 5%|ANOVA|||Differences between treatment groups at Visit 5 (Week 10).||-0.31|-1.36|0.0027
90975615|NCT02321436|181834457|OTHER|Differences between treatment groups and p-values are based on an analysis of variance performed at each visit, taking into account treatment and spasticity status as fixed effects. Baseline value is value assessed at Visit 1.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.83||||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|-0.26||p value significance level = 5%|ANOVA|||Differences between treatment groups at Visit 6 (Week 12).||-0.26|-1.39|0.0052
90975616|NCT02321436|181834457|OTHER|Differences between treatment groups and p-values are based on an analysis of variance performed at each visit, taking into account treatment and spasticity status as fixed effects. Baseline value is value assessed at Visit 1.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52||||0.2037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|0.31||p value significance level = 5%|ANOVA|||Differences between treatment groups at Visit 7 (Week 16).||0.31|-1.35|0.2037
90975617|NCT02321436|181834457|OTHER|Differences between treatment groups and p-values are based on an analysis of variance performed at each visit, taking into account treatment and spasticity status as fixed effects. Baseline value is value assessed at Visit 1.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.7656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|0.94||p value significance level = 5%|ANOVA|||Differences between treatment groups at Visit 8 (Week 20).||0.94|-1.25|0.7656
90975618|NCT02321436|181834457|OTHER|Differences between treatment groups and p-values are based on an analysis of variance performed at each visit, taking into account treatment and spasticity status as fixed effects. Baseline value is value assessed at Visit 1.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.8521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|1.23||p value significance level = 5%|ANOVA|||Differences between treatment groups at Visit 9 (Week 24).||1.23|-1.46|0.8521
90975619|NCT02321436|181834457|OTHER|Differences between treatment groups and p-values are based on an analysis of variance performed at each visit, taking into account treatment and spasticity status as fixed effects. Baseline value is value assessed at Visit 1.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21||||0.6582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|0.81||p value significance level = 5%|ANOVA|||Differences between treatment groups at Visit 10 (Week 28).||0.81|-1.24|0.6582
90975620|NCT02321436|181834458|OTHER|Differences between treatment groups and p-values are based on an analysis of variance performed at each visit, taking into account treatment and spasticity status as fixed effects. Baseline value is value assessed at Visit 1.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.8754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|11.1||p value significance level = 5%|ANOVA|||Differences between treatment groups at Visit 2 (Week 4).||11.1|-9.5|0.8754
90975621|NCT02321436|181834458|OTHER|Differences between treatment groups and p-values are based on an analysis of variance performed at each visit, taking into account treatment and spasticity status as fixed effects. Baseline value is value assessed at Visit 1.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.8805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|11.1||p value significance level = 5%|ANOVA|||Differences between treatment groups at Visit 3 (Week 6).||11.1|-12.8|0.8805
90975622|NCT02321436|181834458|OTHER|Differences between treatment groups and p-values are based on an analysis of variance performed at each visit, taking into account treatment and spasticity status as fixed effects. Baseline value is value assessed at Visit 1.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2||||0.6992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|9.6||p value significance level = 5%|ANOVA|||Differences between treatment groups at Visit 4 (Week 8).||9.6|-14.0|0.6992
90975623|NCT02321436|181834458|OTHER|Differences between treatment groups and p-values are based on an analysis of variance performed at each visit, taking into account treatment and spasticity status as fixed effects. Baseline value is value assessed at Visit 1.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.9882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|12.8||p value significance level = 5%|ANOVA|||Differences between treatment groups at Visit 5 (Week 10).||12.8|-13.0|0.9882
91037211|NCT03100344|181960687|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.9||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.1|35.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||35.8|6.1|0.008
90975624|NCT02321436|181834458|OTHER|Differences between treatment groups and p-values are based on an analysis of variance performed at each visit, taking into account treatment and spasticity status as fixed effects. Baseline value is value assessed at Visit 1.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.6||||0.5646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|21.2||p value significance level = 5%|ANOVA|||Differences between treatment groups at Visit 6 (Week 12).||21.2|-11.9|0.5646
90975625|NCT02321436|181834458|OTHER|Differences between treatment groups and p-values are based on an analysis of variance performed at each visit, taking into account treatment and spasticity status as fixed effects. Baseline value is value assessed at Visit 1.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.5||||0.2325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.0|9.0||p value significance level = 5%|ANOVA|||Differences between treatment groups at Visit 7 (Week 16).||9.0|-34.0|0.2325
91037212|NCT03100344|181960687|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.9||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|28.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||28.2|-0.3|0.061
90975626|NCT02321436|181834458|OTHER|Differences between treatment groups and p-values are based on an analysis of variance performed at each visit, taking into account treatment and spasticity status as fixed effects. Baseline value is value assessed at Visit 1.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.1||||0.2441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.4|11.1||p value significance level = 5%|ANOVA|||Differences between treatment groups at Visit 8 (Week 20).||11.1|-39.4|0.2441
91037213|NCT03100344|181960687|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.0||||0.585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|18.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||18.0|-10.1|0.585
90975627|NCT02321436|181834458|OTHER|Differences between treatment groups and p-values are based on an analysis of variance performed at each visit, taking into account treatment and spasticity status as fixed effects. Baseline value is value assessed at Visit 1.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.0||||0.4311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.7|15.7||p value significance level = 5%|ANOVA|||Differences between treatment groups at Visit 9 (Week 24).||15.7|-33.7|0.4311
90975628|NCT02321436|181834458|OTHER|Differences between treatment groups and p-values are based on an analysis of variance performed at each visit, taking into account treatment and spasticity status as fixed effects. Baseline value is value assessed at Visit 1.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.5||||0.731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.3|24.3||p value significance level = 5%|ANOVA|||Differences between treatment groups at Visit 10 (Week 28).||24.3|-33.3|0.7310
90975629|NCT02321436|181834459|OTHER|||||||0.6128||||||The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) p-value represents the strength of the association between treatment and global assessments of changes at the last visit, adjusted for symptomatic status at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p value significance level = 5%||||||0.6128
90975630|NCT00644787|181834463|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Difference of 7.5 mm in VAS score was selected as the threshold value for clinical non-inferiority of Fentanyl 1-day transdermal patch to Fentanyl 3-day transdermal patch.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|6.23||||||||6.23|-3.50|
90975631|NCT00546052|181834478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.74||0.999||95.0|-0.02|0.06|||t-test, 1 sided|||Single Cohort Study. Statistical Analysis is based on change from baseline. Null hypothesis value is + 0.5%.||0.06|-0.02|0.999
90975632|NCT00546052|181834479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.62||0.999||95.0|0.01|0.07|||t-test, 1 sided|||Single Cohort Study. Statistical Analysis is based on change from baseline. Null hypothesis value is + 0.5mmol/L.||0.07|0.01|0.999
90975633|NCT00546052|181834481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.95|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.34|<|0.001||95.0|-17.62|-16.27|||t-test, 2 sided|||Single Cohort Study. Statistical Analysis is based on change from baseline. Null hypothesis value is 0 mm Hg||-16.27|-17.62|<0.001
91037214|NCT03100344|181960687|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.4||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|32.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||32.8|2.0|0.032
90975634|NCT00546052|181834482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.84|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.39|<|0.001||95.0|-10.29|-9.39|||t-test, 2 sided|||Single Cohort Study. Statistical Analysis is based on change from baseline. Null hypothesis value is 0 mm Hg.||-9.39|-10.29|<0.001
90975635|NCT00546052|181834483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.4|<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Single Cohort Study. Statistical Analysis is based on change from baseline. Null Hypothesis value is 0.||||<0.001
91037215|NCT03100344|181960687|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.6||||0.254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|23.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||23.1|-5.9|0.254
90975636|NCT00546052|181834484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.2|<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Single Cohort Study. Statistical Analysis is based on change from baseline. Null Hypothesis value is 0.||||<0.001
90975637|NCT00546052|181834485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|32.1||0.084|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Single Cohort Study. Statistical Analysis is based on change from baseline. Null Hypothesis value is 0.||||0.084
90975638|NCT00546052|181834486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|18.0||0.654|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Single Cohort Study. Statistical Analysis is based on change from baseline. Null Hypothesis value is 0.||||0.654
90975639|NCT00546052|181834487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|43.5||0.336|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Single Cohort Study. Statistical Analysis is based on change from baseline. Null Hypothesis value is 0.||||0.336
90975640|NCT00546052|181834488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.0||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Single Cohort Study. Statistical Analysis is based on change from baseline. Null Hypothesis value is 0.||||0.001
90975641|NCT00546052|181834489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|63.8||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Single Cohort Study. Statistical Analysis is based on change from baseline. Null Hypothesis value is 0.||||0.001
90975642|NCT00546052|181834490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.7||0.613|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Single Cohort Study. Statistical Analysis is based on change from baseline. Null Hypothesis value is 0.||||0.613
90975643|NCT01680900|181834491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.06||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-0.48|||Regression, Linear|||||-0.48|-2.60|0.05
90975644|NCT01680900|181834492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
91037216|NCT03100344|181960688|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.8||||0.487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|14.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1||14.3|-6.8|0.487
90975645|NCT01680900|181834493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.08|||Regression, Linear|||||-0.08|-0.75|<0.05
90975646|NCT01680900|181834497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.21|||Regression, Linear|||||-0.21|-0.74|0.05
90975647|NCT03048422|181834498|NON_INFERIORITY|Equivalence margin was a 10% difference between groups.|Risk Difference (RD)|6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|10.7||||||Difference in proportions for intention-to-treat analysis.||10.7|2.0|
90975648|NCT03048422|181834498|NON_INFERIORITY|Equivalence margin was a 10% difference between groups.|Risk Difference (RD)|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|10.3||||||Difference in proportions for per-protocol analysis.||10.3|1.6|
90975649|NCT03048422|181834498|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.5||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|10.7|||Wald test of two proportions|||Difference in proportions for superiority and intention-to-treat analysis.||10.7|2.0|0.005
91037217|NCT03100344|181960688|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.0||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|26.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1||26.5|1.6|0.033
91037218|NCT03100344|181960688|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.0||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|23.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1||23.8|0.2|0.053
91037219|NCT03100344|181960688|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.5||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|33.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||33.8|3.2|0.021
91037220|NCT03100344|181960688|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.4||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|32.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||32.3|2.4|0.027
90975650|NCT03048422|181834499|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.8||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|-0.3|||Wald test of two proportions|||Null hypothesis of no difference between groups (DTG+FTC/TAF - DTG+FTC/TDF).||-0.3|-17.3|0.043
90975651|NCT03048422|181834499|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.2||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|9.1|||Wald test of two proportions|||Null hypothesis of no difference between groups (DTG+FTC/TDF - EFV/FTC/TDF).||9.1|-8.8|0.97
90975652|NCT03048422|181834499|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.6||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|-0.1|||Wald test of two proportions|||Null hypothesis of no difference between groups (DTG+FTC/TAF - EFV/FTC/TDF).||-0.1|-17.1|0.047
90975653|NCT03048422|181834500|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.6||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.2|2.9|||Z-test|||The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate survival probabilities. Survival probabilities were compared based on a Z-test using Greenwoods estimate of the standard error. The null hypothesis was no difference between arms (DTG+FTC/TAF - DTG+FTC/TDF).||2.9|-14.2|0.098
90975654|NCT03048422|181834500|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.6||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|11.7|||Z-test|||The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate survival probabilities. Survival probabilities were compared based on a Z-test using Greenwoods estimate of the standard error. The null hypothesis was no difference between arms (DTG+FTC/TDF-EFV/FTC/TDF).||11.7|-5.9|0.26
90975655|NCT03048422|181834500|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.8||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|5.8|||Z-test|||The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate survival probabilities. Survival probabilities were compared based on a Z-test using Greenwoods estimate of the standard error. The null hypothesis was no difference between arms (DTG+FTC/TAF-EFV/FTC/TDF).||5.8|-11.3|0.26
90975656|NCT03048422|181834501|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.2||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|6.3|||Z-test|||The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate survival probabilities. Comparisons of survival probabilities was based on a Z-test using Greenwoods estimate of the standard error. The null hypothesis was no difference between arms, with estimated difference of DTG+FTC/TAF - DTG+FTC/TDF.||6.3|-12.8|0.25
90975657|NCT03048422|181834501|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.3||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|7.5|||Z-test|||The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate survival probabilities. Comparisons of survival probabilities was based on a Z-test using Greenwoods estimate of the standard error. The null hypothesis was no difference between arms, with estimate of risk difference DTG+FTC/TDF-EFV/FTC/TDF.||7.5|-12.1|0.32
90975658|NCT03048422|181834501|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.5||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|3.2|||Z-test|||The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate survival probabilities. Comparisons of survival probabilities was based on a Z-test using Greenwoods estimate of the standard error. The null hypothesis was no difference between arms, with estimate of risk difference DTG+FTC/TAF-EFV/FTC/TDF.||3.2|-14.3|0.11
90975659|NCT03048422|181834502|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.3|22.0|||Wald test of two proportions|||Difference in proportions between arms for intention-to-treat analysis with null hypothesis of no difference (DTG groups - EFV/FTC/TDF).||22.0|9.3|< 0.0001
90975660|NCT03048422|181834503|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|3.2|||Wald test of two proportions|||Difference in proportions for intention-to-treat analysis with null hypothesis of no difference between arms (DTG arms - EFV/FTC/TDF).||3.2|-3.3|0.97
90975661|NCT03048422|181834504|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|3.1|||Kaplan-Meier|||||3.1|1.9|< 0.001
90975662|NCT03048422|181834505|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.6||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|9.1|||Wald test of two proportions|||Difference between arms with null hypothesis of no difference (DTG+FTC/TAF - DTG+FTC/TDF).||9.1|-1.8|0.19
90975663|NCT03048422|181834505|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-11.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.9|-5.2|||Wald test of two proportions|||Difference between arms with null hypothesis of no difference (DTG+FTC/TDF - EFV/FTC/TDF).||-5.2|-17.9|< 0.001
90975664|NCT03048422|181834505|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.9||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|-1.2|||Wald test of two proportions|||Difference between arms with null hypothesis of no difference (DTG+FTC/TAF - EFV/FTC/TDF).||-1.2|-14.6|0.022
91037221|NCT03100344|181960688|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.7||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.3|38.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||38.1|7.3|0.006
91037222|NCT03100344|181960688|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.2||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|32.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||32.2|-1.7|0.086
91037223|NCT03100344|181960688|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|26.2||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.3|43.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||43.1|9.3|0.004
91037224|NCT03100344|181960688|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.3||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|34.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||34.2|0.5|0.050
91037225|NCT03100344|181960688|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.7||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|38.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||38.1|3.3|0.023
91037226|NCT03100344|181960688|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.9||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.7|45.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||45.0|10.7|0.002
91037227|NCT03100344|181960688|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.9||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.7|45.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||45.0|10.7|0.002
91037228|NCT03100344|181960688|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.3||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|37.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||37.3|1.3|0.041
91037229|NCT03100344|181960688|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.9||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.4|45.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||45.4|10.4|0.003
91037230|NCT03100344|181960688|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.3||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|35.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||35.2|-0.5|0.063
91037231|NCT03100344|181960688|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.6||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|35.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||35.6|-0.4|0.064
91037232|NCT03100344|181960688|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.6||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|40.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||40.3|4.9|0.016
91037233|NCT03100344|181960688|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.1||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|36.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||36.9|1.3|0.041
91037234|NCT03100344|181960688|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.6||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|35.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||35.6|-0.4|0.064
91037235|NCT03100344|181960688|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|26.0||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.6|43.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||43.4|8.6|0.005
91037236|NCT03100344|181960688|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.2||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|35.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||35.0|-0.6|0.064
91037237|NCT03100344|181960688|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.9||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|33.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||33.8|-2.0|0.094
91037238|NCT03100344|181960688|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.4||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.1|39.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||39.6|5.1|0.014
91037239|NCT03100344|181960688|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.2||||0.273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|28.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||28.0|-7.7|0.273
91037240|NCT03100344|181960689|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|7.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1||7.0|-6.8|0.979
91037241|NCT03100344|181960689|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6||||0.668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|9.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1||9.0|-5.8|0.668
91037242|NCT03100344|181960689|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7||||0.658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|9.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1||9.2|-5.8|0.658
91037243|NCT03100344|181960689|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|12.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||12.2|-8.0|0.690
91037244|NCT03100344|181960689|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.4||||0.521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|13.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||13.7|-6.9|0.521
91037245|NCT03100344|181960689|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.0||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|26.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||26.5|1.5|0.033
91037246|NCT03100344|181960689|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.4||||0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|18.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||18.0|-3.1|0.172
91037247|NCT03100344|181960689|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.7||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|27.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||27.7|3.7|0.014
91037248|NCT03100344|181960689|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.0||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.2|33.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||33.9|8.2|0.002
91037249|NCT03100344|181960689|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.6||||0.404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|18.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||18.8|-7.5|0.404
91037250|NCT03100344|181960689|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.5||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.4|39.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||39.6|9.4|0.003
91037251|NCT03100344|181960689|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.1||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|28.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||28.2|-0.1|0.059
91037252|NCT03100344|181960689|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.7||||0.222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|25.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||25.0|-5.6|0.222
91037253|NCT03100344|181960689|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|26.1||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|42.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||42.3|10.0|0.003
91037254|NCT03100344|181960689|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.1||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|35.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||35.0|3.3|0.22
91037255|NCT03100344|181960689|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.3||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|29.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||29.3|-2.8|0.111
91037256|NCT03100344|181960689|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|29.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.2|46.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||46.0|13.2|<0.001
91037257|NCT03100344|181960689|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.4||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|33.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||33.6|1.3|0.040
91037258|NCT03100344|181960689|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.1||||0.262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|27.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||27.4|-7.3|0.262
91037259|NCT03100344|181960689|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.7||||0.327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|25.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||25.7|-8.4|0.327
91037260|NCT03100344|181960689|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.7||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|33.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||33.1|-1.7|0.083
91037261|NCT03100344|181960689|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.1||||0.255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|27.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||27.2|-7.0|0.255
91037262|NCT03100344|181960689|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.0||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|35.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||35.9|2.2|0.034
91037263|NCT03100344|181960689|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.4||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|34.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||34.6|0.3|0.053
91037264|NCT03100344|181960690|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|5.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1||5.1|-4.9|0.970
91037265|NCT03100344|181960690|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7||||0.574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|7.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1||7.5|-4.1|0.574
90975665|NCT03048422|181834506|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.1||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|10.1|||Wald test of two proportions|||Difference between arms with null hypothesis of no difference (DTG+FTC/TAF - DTG+FTC/TDF).||10.1|-5.9|0.61
90975666|NCT03048422|181834506|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.4||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|6.6|||Wald test of two proportions|||Difference between arms with null hypothesis of no difference (DTG+FTC/TDF - EFV/FTC/TDF).||6.6|-9.4|0.74
90975667|NCT03048422|181834506|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.7||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|8.8|||Wald test of two proportions|||Difference between arms with null hypothesis of no difference (DTG+FTC/TAF - EFV/FTC/TDF).||8.8|-7.4|0.86
90975668|NCT03048422|181834507|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.3||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|11.9|||Wald test of two proportions|||Null hypothesis of no difference between groups (DTG groups - EFV/FTC/TDF).||11.9|-3.4|0.27
90975669|NCT03048422|181834508|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|7.5|||Z-test|||The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate survival probabilities. Comparisons of survival probabilities was based on a Z-test using Greenwoods estimate of the standard error. The null hypothesis was no difference between arms, with estimate of risk difference combined DTG arms-EFV/FTC/TDF.||7.5|-7.6|0.49
90975670|NCT03048422|181834509|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.1||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|12.0|||Z-test|||The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate survival probabilities. Comparisons of survival probabilities was based on a Z-test using Greenwoods estimate of the standard error. The null hypothesis was no difference between arms, with estimated difference of combined DTG arms - EFV/FTC/TDF.||12.0|-3.8|0.15
91037266|NCT03100344|181960690|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|4.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1||4.8|-4.8|0.985
91037267|NCT03100344|181960690|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.6||||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|1.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||1.2|-8.4|0.154
91037268|NCT03100344|181960690|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|6.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||6.6|-6.8|0.978
90975671|NCT03048422|181834510|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.8||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|-0.3|||Wald test of two proportions|||Null hypothesis of no difference between groups (DTG+FTC/TAF - DTG+FTC/TDF).||-0.3|-17.3|0.043
90975672|NCT03048422|181834510|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.3||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|8.6|||Wald test of two proportions|||Null hypothesis of no difference between groups (DTG+FTC/TDF - EFV/FTC/TDF).||8.6|-9.3|0.95
90975673|NCT03048422|181834510|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-9.1||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6|-0.6|||Wald test of two proportions|||Null hypothesis of no difference between groups (DTG+FTC/TAF - EFV/FTC/TDF).||-0.6|-17.6|0.037
90975674|NCT03048422|181834511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.06|||Regression, Ordinal|||Null hypothesis of odds ratio equal to 1, with odds of experiencing a worse outcome equal between groups (DTG+FTC/TAF - DTG+FTC/TDF).||1.06|0.50|0.095
90975675|NCT03048422|181834511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.19|||Regression, Ordinal|||Null hypothesis of odds ratio equal to 1, with odds of experiencing a worse outcome equal between groups (DTG+FTC/TDF - EFV/FTC/TDF).||1.19|0.58|0.30
90975676|NCT03048422|181834511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.88|||Regression, Ordinal|||Null hypothesis of odds ratio equal to 1, with odds of experiencing a worse outcome equal between groups (DTG+FTC/TAF - EFV/FTC/TDF).||0.88|0.42|0.008
90975677|NCT03048422|181834512|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.5||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|2.1|||Z-test|||The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate survival probabilities. Survival probabilities were compared based on a Z-test using Greenwoods estimate of the standard error. The null hypothesis was no difference between arms (DTG+FTC/TAF - DTG+FTC/TDF).||2.1|-1.2|0.28
91037269|NCT03100344|181960690|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|6.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||6.6|-6.8|0.978
91037270|NCT03100344|181960690|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6||||0.602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|4.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||4.3|-7.5|0.602
90975678|NCT03048422|181834512|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.4|||Z-test|||The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate survival probabilities. Survival probabilities were compared based on a Z-test using Greenwoods estimate of the standard error. The null hypothesis was no difference between arms (DTG+FTC/TDF - EFV/FTC/TDF).||1.4|-1.5|0.47
91037271|NCT03100344|181960690|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.4||||0.413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|11.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||11.4|-4.5|0.413
91037272|NCT03100344|181960690|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7||||0.658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|9.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||9.1|-5.7|0.658
91037273|NCT03100344|181960690|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.6||||0.307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|10.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||10.3|-3.2|0.307
91037274|NCT03100344|181960690|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.3||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|27.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||27.8|6.9|0.002
91037275|NCT03100344|181960690|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.7||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|17.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||17.4|0.1|0.054
91037276|NCT03100344|181960690|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.6||||0.325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|16.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||16.5|-5.4|0.325
91037277|NCT03100344|181960690|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.6||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|28.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||28.1|3.1|0.019
91037278|NCT03100344|181960690|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.5||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|30.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||30.5|4.5|0.011
91037279|NCT03100344|181960690|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.2||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|21.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||21.7|-3.2|0.153
90975679|NCT03048422|181834512|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.4||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|2.2|||Z-test|||The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate survival probabilities. Survival probabilities were compared based on a Z-test using Greenwoods estimate of the standard error. The null hypothesis was no difference between arms (DTG+FTC/TAF - EFV/FTC/TDF).||2.2|-1.3|0.31
90975680|NCT03048422|181834513|SUPERIORITY|The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate survival probabilities. Comparisons of survival probabilities was based on a Z-test using Greenwoods estimate of the standard error. The null hypothesis was no difference between arms, with estimated difference of DTG+FTC/TAF - DTG+FTC/TDF.|Risk Difference (RD)|-1.0||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|1.3|||Z-test|||||1.3|-3.4|0.20
90975681|NCT03048422|181834513|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.9||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|-0.9|||Z-test|||The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate survival probabilities. Comparisons of survival probabilities was based on a Z-test using Greenwoods estimate of the standard error. The null hypothesis was no difference between arms, with estimate of risk difference DTG+FTC/TDF-EFV/FTC/TDF.||-0.9|-8.9|0.008
90975682|NCT03048422|181834513|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|-2.2|||Z-test|||The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate survival probabilities. Comparisons of survival probabilities was based on a Z-test using Greenwoods estimate of the standard error. The null hypothesis was no difference between arms, with estimate of risk difference DTG+FTC/TAF-EFV/FTC/TDF.||-2.2|-9.7|<0.001
90975683|NCT03048422|181834514|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.093||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.208|0.023|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||Null hypothesis of no difference in weekly change in creatinine clearance from baseline (DTG+FTC/TAF - DTG+FTC/TDF).||0.023|-0.208|0.12
90975684|NCT03048422|181834514|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.048||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.061|0.158|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||Null hypothesis of no difference in weekly change in creatinine clearance from baseline (DTG+FTC/TDF - EFV/FTC/TDF).||0.158|-0.061|0.39
90975685|NCT03048422|181834514|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.045||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.161|0.072|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||Null hypothesis of no difference in weekly change in creatinine clearance from baseline (DTG+FTC/TAF - EFV/FTC/TDF).||0.072|-0.161|0.45
90975686|NCT03048422|181834515|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|10.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis of no difference between arms at delivery (DTG+FTC/TAF - DTG+FTC/TDF).||10.5|-11.3|0.94
90975687|NCT03048422|181834515|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.2||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|14.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis of no difference between arms at delivery (DTG+FTC/TDF - EFV/FTC/TDF).||14.9|-6.5|0.44
90975688|NCT03048422|181834515|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.8||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|9.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis of no difference between arms at delivery (DTG+FTC/TAF - EFV/FTC/TDF).||9.3|-1.8|0.18
90975689|NCT03048422|181834515|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.1||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|31.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis of no difference between arms at week 26 (DTG+FTC/TAF - DTG+FTC/TDF).||31.1|-8.9|0.27
90975690|NCT03048422|181834515|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.4||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.6|-0.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis of no difference between arms at week 26 (DTG+FTC/TDF - EFV/FTC/TDF).||-0.1|-22.6|0.048
90975691|NCT03048422|181834515|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|20.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis of no difference between arms at week 26 (DTG+FTC/TAF - EFV/FTC/TDF).||20.5|-21.0|0.98
90975692|NCT03048422|181834516|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.9||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|1.3|||Wald test of two proportions|||Null hypothesis of no difference between groups (DTG+FTC/TAF - DTG+FTC/TDF).||1.3|-3.1|0.40
90975693|NCT03048422|181834516|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.3||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|-0.6|||Wald test of two proportions|||Null hypothesis of no difference between groups (DTG+FTC/TDF - EFV/FTC/TDF).||-0.6|-8.0|0.023
90975694|NCT03048422|181834516|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.2||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|-1.8|||Wald test of two proportions|||Null hypothesis of no difference between groups (DTG+FTC/TAF - EFV/FTC/TDF).||-1.8|-8.7|0.003
90975695|NCT03048422|181834518|NON_INFERIORITY|Equivalence margin was a 10% difference between groups.|Risk Difference (RD)|-3.6||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|1.5|||Wald test of two proportions|||||1.5|-8.8|0.16
90975696|NCT03048422|181834518|NON_INFERIORITY|Equivalence margin was a 10% difference between groups.|Risk Difference (RD)|-2.7||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|3.3|||Wald test of two proportions|||||3.3|-8.7|0.38
90975697|NCT03048422|181834518|NON_INFERIORITY|Equivalence margin was a 10% difference between groups.|Risk Difference (RD)|-6.3||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|-0.9|||Wald test of two proportions|||||-0.9|-11.8|0.023
90975698|NCT03048422|181834519|NON_INFERIORITY|Equivalence margin was a 10% difference between groups.|Risk Difference (RD)|-6.2||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|1.5|||Wald test of two proportions|||||1.5|-13.9|0.12
90975699|NCT03048422|181834519|NON_INFERIORITY|Equivalence margin was a 10% difference between groups.|Risk Difference (RD)|2.0||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|10.0|||Wald test of two proportions|||||10.0|-6.0|0.63
90975700|NCT03048422|181834519|NON_INFERIORITY|Equivalence margin was a 10% difference between groups.|Risk Difference (RD)|-4.2||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|3.4|||Wald test of two proportions|||||3.4|-11.7|0.28
90975701|NCT03048422|181834520|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.058||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.013|0.103|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||Null hypothesis of no difference between arms (DTG+FTC/TAF - DTG+FTC/TDF).||0.103|0.013|0.011
90975702|NCT03048422|181834520|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.028||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.014|0.07|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||Null hypothesis of no difference between arms (DTG+FTC/TDF - EFV/FTC/TDF).||0.070|-0.014|0.19
90975703|NCT03048422|181834520|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.086|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.133|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||Null hypothesis of no difference between arms (DTG+FTC/TAF - EFV/FTC/TDF).||0.133|0.040|< 0.001
90975704|NCT03048422|181834521|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.022||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|0.048|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||Null hypothesis of no difference between arms (DTG+FTC/TAF - DTG+FTC/TDF).||0.048|-0.005|0.11
91037280|NCT03100344|181960690|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.4||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.3|38.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||38.4|10.3|0.001
90975705|NCT03048422|181834521|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.024||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.049|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||Null hypothesis of no difference between arms (DTG+FTC/TDF - EFV/FTC/TDF).||0.049|-0.000|0.055
90975706|NCT03048422|181834521|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.046|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.022|0.07|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||Null hypothesis of no difference between arms (DTG+FTC/TAF - EFV/FTC/TDF).||0.070|0.022|< 0.001
90975707|NCT03048422|181834522|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.023||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.045|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||Null hypothesis of no difference between arms (DTG+FTC/TAF - DTG+FTC/TDF).||0.045|0.001|0.041
90975708|NCT03048422|181834522|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.034||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.013|0.055|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||Null hypothesis of no difference between arms (DTG+FTC/TDF - EFV/FTC/TDF).||0.055|0.013|0.002
90975709|NCT03048422|181834522|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.057|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.036|0.078|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||Null hypothesis of no difference between arms (DTG+FTC/TAF - EFV/FTC/TDF).||0.078|0.036|< 0.001
90975710|NCT04247425|181834542|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline compared to end of 12 week exercise intervention||||0.59
90975711|NCT04247425|181834543|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline compared to end of 12 week exercise intervention||||0.02
90975712|NCT04247425|181834544|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline compared to end of 12 week exercise intervention||||1.0
90975713|NCT04247425|181834545|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline compared to end of 12 week exercise intervention||||0.09
90975714|NCT00762515|181834571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|baseline is used a factor||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||<0.05
90975715|NCT00762515|181834572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|baseline to be used a factor||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||<0.05
90975716|NCT00692211|181834573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|2.32||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons, a priori threshold of 0.05|Regression, Logistic|||Study powered to detect 10% difference in proportion of screening adherence based on alpha of 0.05, beta 0.20.||2.32|1.04|0.01
90975717|NCT02851173|181834574|OTHER|||||||0.79|||||||ANOVA|||The contrast of interest was the Time x Treatment Group interaction. CU group.||||0.79
90975718|NCT02851173|181834574|OTHER|||||||0.87|||||||ANOVA|||The contrast of interest was the Time x Treatment Group interaction. MCI group.||||0.87
90975719|NCT02851173|181834574|OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||ANOVA|||The contrast of interest was the Time x Treatment Group interaction. CU group. 3 outliers removed, whose scores were outside 1.5 times the interquartile range.||||0.16
90975720|NCT02851173|181834575|OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||ANOVA|||The contrast of interest was the Time x Treatment Group interaction. Left middle frontal gyrus 1.||||0.22
90975721|NCT02851173|181834575|OTHER|||||||0.69|||||||ANOVA|||The contrast of interest was the Time x Treatment Group interaction. Left medial frontal/superior frontal gyrus.||||0.69
90975722|NCT02851173|181834575|OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||ANOVA|||The contrast of interest was the Time x Treatment Group interaction. Right superior parietal lobule.||||0.25
90975723|NCT02851173|181834575|OTHER|||||||0.86|||||||ANOVA|||The contrast of interest was the Time x Treatment Group interaction. Left inferior parietal lobule.||||0.86
90975724|NCT02851173|181834575|OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||ANOVA|||The contrast of interest was the Time x Treatment Group interaction. Left middle frontal gyrus 2.||||0.28
90975725|NCT02851173|181834575|OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||ANOVA|||The contrast of interest was the Time x Treatment Group interaction. Right superior frontal gyrus.||||0.12
90975726|NCT02851173|181834575|OTHER|||||||0.26|||||||ANOVA|||The contrast of interest was the Time x Treatment Group interaction. Right middle frontal gyrus.||||0.26
90975727|NCT02851173|181834575|OTHER|||||||0.83|||||||ANOVA|||The contract of interest was the Time x Treatment Group interaction. Right inferior frontal gyrus.||||0.83
90975728|NCT02851173|181834575|OTHER|||||||0.55|||||||ANOVA|||The contrast of interest was the Time x Treatment Group interaction. In this sub-group analysis, we performed a sub-population analysis (N=36), including only participants who performed the 2Back task to criterion (\>50% accuracy). Left middle frontal gyrus 1.||||0.55
90975729|NCT02851173|181834575|OTHER|||||||0.76|||||||ANOVA|||The contrast of interest was the Time x Treatment Group interaction. In this sub-group analysis, we performed a sub-population analysis (N=36), including only participants who performed the 2Back task to criterion (\>50% accuracy). Left medial frontal/superior frontal gyrus.||||0.76
90975730|NCT02851173|181834575|OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||ANOVA|||The contrast of interest was the Time x Treatment Group interaction. In this sub-group analysis, we performed a sub-population analysis (N=36), including only participants who performed the 2Back task to criterion (\>50% accuracy). Right superior parietal lobule.||||0.38
90975731|NCT02851173|181834575|OTHER|||||||0.93|||||||ANOVA|||The contrast of interest was the Time x Treatment Group interaction. In this sub-group analysis, we performed a sub-population analysis (N=36), including only participants who performed the 2Back task to criterion (\>50% accuracy). Left inferior parietal lobule.||||0.93
90975732|NCT02851173|181834575|OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||ANOVA|||The contrast of interest was the Time x Treatment Group interaction. In this sub-group analysis, we performed a sub-population analysis (N=36), including only participants who performed the 2Back task to criterion (\>50% accuracy). Left middle frontal gyrus 2.||||0.41
90975733|NCT02851173|181834575|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||ANOVA|||The contrast of interest was the Time x Treatment Group interaction. In this sub-group analysis, we performed a sub-population analysis (N=36), including only participants who performed the 2Back task to criterion (\>50% accuracy). Right superior frontal gyrus.||||0.06
90975734|NCT02851173|181834575|OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||ANOVA|||The contrast of interest was the Time x Treatment Group interaction. In this sub-group analysis, we performed a sub-population analysis (N=36), including only participants who performed the 2Back task to criterion (\>50% accuracy). Right middle frontal gyrus.||||0.18
90975735|NCT02851173|181834575|OTHER|||||||0.84|||||||ANOVA|||The contrast of interest was the Time x Treatment Group interaction. In this sub-group analysis, we performed a sub-population analysis (N=36), including only participants who performed the 2Back task to criterion (\>50% accuracy). Right inferior frontal gyrus.||||0.84
90975736|NCT02851173|181834576|OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||ANOVA|||The contrast of interest was the Time x Treatment Group interaction.||||0.53
90975737|NCT02851173|181834576|OTHER|||||||0.74|||||||ANOVA|||The contrast of interest was the Time x Treatment Group interaction. In this sub-group analysis, we performed a sub-population analysis (N=36), including only participants who performed the 2Back task to criterion (\>50% accuracy).||||0.74
90975738|NCT02851173|181834577|OTHER|||||||0.72|||||||ANOVA|||The contrast of interest was the Time x Treatment Group interaction.||||0.72
90975739|NCT02851173|181834577|OTHER|||||||0.97|||||||ANOVA|||The contrast of interest was the Time x Treatment Group interaction. In this sub-group analysis, we performed a sub-population analysis (N=36), including only participants who performed the 2Back task to criterion (\>50% accuracy).||||0.97
91037281|NCT03100344|181960690|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.2||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|25.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||25.1|-0.7|0.069
91037282|NCT03100344|181960690|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.9||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|26.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||26.6|-0.8|0.070
91037283|NCT03100344|181960690|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.9||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|35.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||35.3|6.5|0.006
91037284|NCT03100344|181960690|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.0||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|27.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||27.7|0.3|0.052
91037285|NCT03100344|181960690|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.8||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|26.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||26.3|-0.7|0.069
91037286|NCT03100344|181960690|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.1||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|33.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||33.3|4.9|0.011
90975740|NCT01641120|181834604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks|||||||<.05
90975741|NCT01641120|181834605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.193|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks|||||||0.193
90975742|NCT01641120|181834606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks|||||||0.035
90975743|NCT01641120|181834607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks|||||||.005
90975744|NCT02324270|181834608|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CI for the ratio of mean changes between test and reference products was contained within the interval, \[0.80,1.25\], then the products were considered to be equivalent.|Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|1.08||||||||1.08|0.94|
90975745|NCT02324270|181834609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.01
90975746|NCT02324270|181834609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.05
90975747|NCT03521791|181834610|NON_INFERIORITY|it is considered not inferior if the differences between the groups do not exceed 20%.||||||0.133|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.133
91037287|NCT03100344|181960690|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.2||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|25.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||25.7|-1.3|0.083
90975748|NCT03521791|181834611|NON_INFERIORITY|it is considered not inferior if the differences between the groups do not exceed 20%.||||||0.045|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.045
90975749|NCT03521791|181834612|NON_INFERIORITY|it is considered not inferior if the differences between the groups do not exceed 20%.||||||0.333|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.333
90975750|NCT03521791|181834613|NON_INFERIORITY|it is considered not inferior if the differences between the groups do not exceed 20%.||||||0.058|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.058
90975751|NCT03521791|181834614|NON_INFERIORITY|it is considered not inferior if the differences between the groups do not exceed 20%.||||||0.394|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.394
90975752|NCT03521791|181834615|NON_INFERIORITY|it is considered not inferior if the differences between the groups do not exceed 20%.||||||0.056|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.056
90975753|NCT03521791|181834617|NON_INFERIORITY|it is considered not inferior if the differences between the groups do not exceed 20%.||||||0.114|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.114
90975754|NCT03521791|181834618|NON_INFERIORITY|it is considered not inferior if the differences between the groups do not exceed 20%.||||||0.117|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.117
90975755|NCT03521791|181834619|NON_INFERIORITY|it is considered not inferior if the differences between the groups do not exceed 20%.||||||0.626|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.626
90975756|NCT00680836|181834620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.3|-1.0|0.26
90975757|NCT00680836|181834621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.5|0.0|0.98
90975758|NCT00680836|181834622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.78
90975759|NCT00680836|181834623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2|||Chi-squared|||||0.2|-0.2|0.64
90975760|NCT00680836|181834624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.5|-0.7|0.72
90975761|NCT00680836|181834625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.6|-0.5|0.86
91037288|NCT03100344|181960691|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|5.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1||5.1|-4.9|0.970
91037289|NCT03100344|181960691|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7||||0.574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|7.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1||7.5|-4.1|0.574
91037290|NCT03100344|181960691|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|1.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1||1.7|-5.2|0.311
91037291|NCT03100344|181960691|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|4.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||4.1|-7.7|0.558
91037292|NCT03100344|181960691|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.4||||0.413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|11.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||11.6|-4.7|0.413
91037293|NCT03100344|181960691|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|4.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||4.0|-7.7|0.543
91037294|NCT03100344|181960691|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|4.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||4.2|-7.6|0.583
91037295|NCT03100344|181960691|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.2||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|22.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||22.5|1.8|0.028
91037296|NCT03100344|181960691|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.7||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|18.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||18.3|-0.9|0.087
91037297|NCT03100344|181960691|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9||||0.632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|9.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||9.4|-5.6|0.632
90944574|NCT03599622|181768458|SUPERIORITY|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel stratified by geographic region (US, Japan, Rest of World), prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi; Exposed/Naive), and concomitant corticosteroid use (Yes/No).|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1||||0.1584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|6.1||Based on a 2-sided test at a significance level of 0.025.|Mantel Haenszel||6 mg BMS-986165 (numerator) vs Placebo (denominator)|||6.1|0.7|0.1584
90944575|NCT03599622|181768459|SUPERIORITY|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel stratified by geographic region (US, Japan, Rest of World), prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi; Exposed/Naive), and concomitant corticosteroid use (Yes/No).|Risk Difference (RD)|7.7||||0.3464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|23.6||Based on a 2-sided test at a significance level of 0.025.|Mantel Haenszel||3 mg BMS-986165 (numerator) vs Placebo (denominator)|||23.6|-8.2|0.3464
90944576|NCT03599622|181768459|SUPERIORITY|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel stratified by geographic region (US, Japan, Rest of World), prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi; Exposed/Naive), and concomitant corticosteroid use (Yes/No).|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.3464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.8||Based on a 2-sided test at a significance level of 0.025.|Mantel Haenszel||3 mg BMS-986165 (numerator) vs Placebo (denominator)|||2.8|0.7|0.3464
90944577|NCT03599622|181768459|SUPERIORITY|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel stratified by geographic region (US, Japan, Rest of World), prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi; Exposed/Naive), and concomitant corticosteroid use (Yes/No).|Risk Difference (RD)|-1.2||||0.8857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|14.7||Based on a 2-sided test at a significance level of 0.025.|Mantel Haenszel||6 mg BMS-986165 (numerator) vs Placebo (denominator)|||14.7|-17.0|0.8857
90944578|NCT03599622|181768459|SUPERIORITY|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel stratified by geographic region (US, Japan, Rest of World), prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi; Exposed/Naive), and concomitant corticosteroid use (Yes/No).|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.8857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.9||Based on a 2-sided test at a significance level of 0.025.|Mantel Haenszel||6 mg BMS-986165 (numerator) vs Placebo (denominator)|||1.9|0.5|0.8857
90944579|NCT03599622|181768460|SUPERIORITY|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel stratified by geographic region (US, Japan, Rest of World), prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi; Exposed/Naive), and concomitant corticosteroid use (Yes/No).|Risk Difference (RD)|8.1||||0.2841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|22.9||Based on a 2-sided test at a significance level of 0.025.|Mantel Haenszel||3 mg BMS-986165 (numerator) vs Placebo (denominator)|||22.9|-6.7|0.2841
90944580|NCT03599622|181768460|SUPERIORITY|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel stratified by geographic region (US, Japan, Rest of World), prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi; Exposed/Naive), and concomitant corticosteroid use (Yes/No).|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.2841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|3.1||Based on a 2-sided test at a significance level of 0.025.|Mantel Haenszel||3 mg BMS-986165 (numerator) vs Placebo (denominator)|||3.1|0.7|0.2841
90944581|NCT03599622|181768460|SUPERIORITY|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel stratified by geographic region (US, Japan, Rest of World), prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi; Exposed/Naive), and concomitant corticosteroid use (Yes/No).|Risk Difference (RD)|-4.2||||0.5417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6|9.2||Based on a 2-sided test at a significance level of 0.025.|Mantel Haenszel||6 mg BMS-986165 (numerator) vs Placebo (denominator)|||9.2|-17.6|0.5417
90944582|NCT03599622|181768460|SUPERIORITY|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel stratified by geographic region (US, Japan, Rest of World), prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi; Exposed/Naive), and concomitant corticosteroid use (Yes/No).|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.5417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.8||Based on a 2-sided test at a significance level of 0.025.|Mantel Haenszel||6 mg BMS-986165 (numerator) vs Placebo (denominator)|||1.8|0.3|0.5417
90944583|NCT03599622|181768461|EQUIVALENCE|Mean Change From Baseline|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|-1.8|||ANCOVA|||||-1.8|-4.3|
90975762|NCT01475734|181834644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.993||||0.791|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.946|1.043|||ANOVA||The estimated value represents the ratio of geometric least squares means (albiglutide 50 mg) to placebo at 0 hr.|||1.043|0.946|0.791
90975763|NCT01475734|181834644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.952|1.05|||ANOVA||The estimated value represents the ratio of geometric least squares means (albiglutide 50 mg) to placebo at 1 hr.|||1.050|0.952|>0.999
90975764|NCT01475734|181834644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.001||||0.975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.953|1.051|||ANOVA||The estimated value represents the ratio of geometric least squares means (albiglutide 50 mg) to placebo at 1 hr 15 min.|||1.051|0.953|0.975
90944584|NCT03599622|181768461|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted means, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values are from an analysis of covariance model with factors for geographic region, prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor inhibitor, and concomitant corticosteroid use, and the baseline value as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.92||0.0428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|-0.1||Based on a 2-sided test at a significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA||3 mg BMS-986165 (numerator) vs Placebo (denominator)|||-0.1|-3.7|0.0428
90975765|NCT01475734|181834644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.952|1.05|||ANOVA||The estimated value represents the ratio of geometric least squares means (albiglutide 50 mg) to placebo at 1 hr 45 min.|||1.050|0.952|>0.999
90975766|NCT01475734|181834644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.003||||0.908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.955|1.053|||ANOVA||The estimated value represents the ratio of geometric least squares means (albiglutide 50 mg) to placebo at 2 hr.|||1.053|0.955|0.908
90975767|NCT01475734|181834644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.025||||0.312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.977|1.077|||ANOVA||The estimated value represents the ratio of geometric least squares means (albiglutide 50 mg) to placebo at 2 hr 45 min.|||1.077|0.977|0.312
90944585|NCT03599622|181768461|EQUIVALENCE|Mean Change from Baseline|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|-2.0|||ANCOVA|||||-2.0|-4.8|
90975768|NCT01475734|181834644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.008||||0.763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.058|||ANOVA||The estimated value represents the ratio of geometric least squares means (albiglutide 50 mg) to placebo at 3 hr.|||1.058|0.960|0.763
90975769|NCT01475734|181834644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.095|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.043|1.15|||ANOVA||The estimated value represents the ratio of geometric least squares means (albiglutide 50 mg) to placebo at 3 hr 30 min.|||1.150|1.043|<0.001
90975770|NCT01475734|181834644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.046||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.996|1.098|||ANOVA||The estimated value represents the ratio of geometric least squares means (albiglutide 50 mg) to placebo at 3 hr 45 min.|||1.098|0.996|0.070
90975771|NCT01475734|181834644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.971||||0.238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.925|1.02|||ANOVA||The estimated value represents the ratio of geometric least squares means (albiglutide 50 mg) to placebo at 4 hr 15 min.|||1.020|0.925|0.238
90975772|NCT01475734|181834644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.975||||0.298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.928|1.023|||ANOVA||The estimated value represents the ratio of geometric least squares means (albiglutide 50 mg) to placebo at 4 hr 30 min.|||1.023|0.928|0.298
91037298|NCT03100344|181960691|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.0||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|24.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||24.8|3.1|0.016
91037299|NCT03100344|181960691|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.8||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|27.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||27.0|4.5|0.009
90975773|NCT01475734|181834644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.994||||0.821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.947|1.044|||ANOVA||The estimated value represents the ratio of geometric least squares means (albiglutide 50 mg) to placebo at 4 hr 45 min.|||1.044|0.947|0.821
90975774|NCT01475734|181834644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.991||||0.715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.944|1.04|||ANOVA||The estimated value represents the ratio of geometric least squares means (albiglutide 50 mg) to placebo at 5 hr.|||1.040|0.944|0.715
90975775|NCT01475734|181834644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.008||||0.759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.058|||ANOVA||The estimated value represents the ratio of geometric least squares means (albiglutide 50 mg) to placebo at 5 hr 15 min.|||1.058|0.960|0.759
90975776|NCT01475734|181834644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.952|1.05|||ANOVA||The estimated value represents the ratio of geometric least squares means (albiglutide 50 mg) to placebo at 5 hr 30 min.|||1.050|0.952|>0.999
90975777|NCT00880750|181834690|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|A standard 90% confidence interval (CI) was constructed for the difference in least square means of the primary pharmacodynamic (PD) variable between the granules formulation and the reference chewable tablet formulation. A critical reference representing +/- 20% of the reference chewable tablet formulation least squares mean was constructed. PD equivalence was to be claimed if the 90% CI was completely contained within the critical reference range of (-3.47, 3.47).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.18|-0.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.51|-2.18|
90975778|NCT00880750|181834691|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|A standard 90% confidence interval (CI) was constructed for the difference in least square means of the primary pharmacodynamic (PD) variable between the granules formulation and the reference chewable tablet formulation. A critical reference representing +/- 20% of the reference chewable tablet formulation least squares mean was constructed. PD equivalence was to be claimed if the 90% CI was completely contained within the critical reference range of (-3.40, 3.40).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.17|-0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.80|-3.17|
90975779|NCT00880750|181834692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.34||||||90.0|1.26|1.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|After application of the log transformation AUC 0-48 was analysed using a mixed effect linear model.||The LS means and associated SEs for granules and tablets as well as the difference between granules and tablets were determined. From the LS mean and SE of the difference, a 90% CI was constructed for the difference of the logs of granules and tablets. An exponential transformation was applied to the lower and upper limits of the CI. This created a point estimate and 90% CI for the ratio of LS means for granules to tablets.||1.42|1.26|
91037300|NCT03100344|181960691|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|11.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||11.6|-11.2|0.974
90975780|NCT00880750|181834693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.26||||||90.0|1.2|1.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|After application of the log transformation Cmax was analysed using a mixed effect linear model.||The LS means and associated SEs for granules and tablets as well as the difference between granules and tablets were determined. From the LS mean and SE of the difference, a 90% CI was constructed for the difference of the logs of granules and tablets. An exponential transformation was applied to the lower and upper limits of the CI. This created a point estimate and 90% CI for the ratio of LS means for granules to tablets.||1.33|1.20|
91037301|NCT03100344|181960691|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.6||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|29.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||29.3|1.8|0.031
91037302|NCT03100344|181960691|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.6||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|29.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||29.5|1.8|0.032
91037303|NCT03100344|181960691|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.0||||0.553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|16.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||16.9|-9.0|0.553
91037304|NCT03100344|181960691|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.9||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.1|35.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||35.8|6.1|0.008
91037305|NCT03100344|181960691|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.9||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|28.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||28.2|-0.3|0.061
91037306|NCT03100344|181960691|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.0||||0.585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|18.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||18.0|-10.1|0.585
91037307|NCT03100344|181960691|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.4||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|32.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||32.8|2.0|0.032
91037308|NCT03100344|181960691|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.6||||0.254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|23.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||23.1|-5.9|0.254
90975781|NCT00880750|181834694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||||90.0|0.0|0.5|||Wilcoxon (Hodges-Lehmann)|The median difference and 90% CI for the median difference was then calculated based on Hodges-Lehmann estimate for Wilcoxon's Signed Rank test||||0.50|0.00|
90975782|NCT03988907|181834703|OTHER|Descriptive statistics. A sample size of 26 evaluable participants ensures that the two-sided 90% confidence interval for the geometric population mean of the individual exposure ratios of Day 16 to Day 1 will lie within the 0.75 to 1.33 limits of the geometric population mean with at least 80% probability (power).|Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|1.26||||||||1.26|0.93|
90975783|NCT03988907|181834704|OTHER|Descriptive statistics. A sample size of 26 evaluable participants ensures that the two-sided 90% confidence interval for the geometric population mean of the individual exposure ratios of Day 16 to Day 1 will lie within the 0.75 to 1.33 limits of the geometric population mean with at least 80% probability (power).|Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.02|1.2||||||||1.20|1.02|
90975784|NCT03988907|181834705|OTHER|Descriptive statistics. A sample size of 26 evaluable participants ensures that the two-sided 90% confidence interval for the geometric population mean of the individual exposure ratios of Day 16 to Day 1 will lie within the 0.75 to 1.33 limits of the geometric population mean with at least 80% probability (power).|Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.06|1.28||||||||1.28|1.06|
90975785|NCT03988907|181834706|OTHER|Descriptive statistics. A sample size of 26 evaluable participants ensures that the two-sided 90% confidence interval for the geometric population mean of the individual exposure ratios of Day 16 to Day 1 will lie within the 0.75 to 1.33 limits of the geometric population mean with at least 80% probability (power).|Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.99|1.27||||||||1.27|0.99|
91037309|NCT03100344|181960691|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.2||||0.598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|19.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||19.8|-11.3|0.598
90975786|NCT03988907|181834707|OTHER|Descriptive statistics. A sample size of 26 evaluable participants ensures that the two-sided 90% confidence interval for the geometric population mean of the individual exposure ratios of Day 16 to Day 1 will lie within the 0.75 to 1.33 limits of the geometric population mean with at least 80% probability (power).|Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.11|1.3||||||||1.30|1.11|
90975787|NCT03988907|181834708|OTHER|Descriptive statistics. A sample size of 26 evaluable participants ensures that the two-sided 90% confidence interval for the geometric population mean of the individual exposure ratios of Day 16 to Day 1 will lie within the 0.75 to 1.33 limits of the geometric population mean with at least 80% probability (power).|Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.14|1.41||||||||1.41|1.14|
90975788|NCT01734655|181834722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||correlation analysis|||||||<.01
90975789|NCT01734655|181834723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||correlation analysis|||||||<.01
90975790|NCT01734655|181834724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||correlation analysis|||||||<.01
90975791|NCT01890421|181834790|SUPERIORITY||Sensitivity Difference|-0.7||||0.8694|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-8.5||||McNemar 1-sided test,alpha level of 2.5%|||Statistical analysis 1 for presence of a myocardial perfusion defect indicating significant cad per participant on gadobutrol-enhanced CMRI versus unenhanced wall motion CMRI images - primary analysis of sensitivity comparison based on the blinded readers' assessment. Sensitivity of gadobutrol-enhanced CMRI was compared with sensitivity of unenhanced CMRI evaluated by Reader 1.|||-8.5|0.8694
90975792|NCT01890421|181834790|SUPERIORITY||Sensitivity Difference|29.1|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|21.7||||McNemar 1-sided test,alpha level of 2.5%|||Statistical analysis 2 for presence of a myocardial perfusion defect indicating significant cad per participant on gadobutrol-enhanced CMRI versus unenhanced wall motion CMRI images - primary analysis of sensitivity comparison based on the blinded readers' assessment. Sensitivity of gadobutrol-enhanced CMRI was compared with sensitivity of unenhanced CMRI evaluated by Reader 2.|||21.7|<0.0001
90975793|NCT01890421|181834790|SUPERIORITY||Sensitivity Difference|24.1|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|16.6||||McNemar 1-sided test,alpha level of 2.5%|||Statistical analysis 3 for presence of a myocardial perfusion defect indicating significant cad per participant on gadobutrol-enhanced CMRI versus unenhanced wall motion CMRI images - primary analysis of sensitivity comparison based on the blinded readers' assessment. Sensitivity of gadobutrol-enhanced CMRI was compared with sensitivity of unenhanced CMRI evaluated by Reader 3.|||16.6|<0.0001
91037310|NCT03100344|181960691|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.5||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|31.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||31.4|-0.4|0.066
91037311|NCT03100344|181960691|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7||||0.826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|16.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||16.9|-13.5|0.826
90944586|NCT03599622|181768461|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted means, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values are from an analysis of covariance model with factors for geographic region, prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor inhibitor, and concomitant corticosteroid use, and the baseline value as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.0177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|-0.4||Based on a 2-sided test at a significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA||6 mg BMS-986165 (numerator) vs Placebo (denominator)|||-0.4|-4.1|0.0177
90944587|NCT03599622|181768461|EQUIVALENCE|Mean Change From Baseline|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.3||||||||0.3|-2.6|
90944588|NCT03599622|181768461|EQUIVALENCE|Mean Change from Baseline|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.88|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|-2.3|||ANCOVA|||||-2.3|-9.7|
90944589|NCT00823836|181768470|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of ropinirole PR/XR tablets to ropinirole IR tablets was assessed with a non-inferiority margin of 2.5.|Median Difference (Net)|0.34||||0.702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|2.09||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: value of change from Week 0 at Week 24 = treatment group + Week 0 value|ANCOVA|||||2.09|-1.41|0.702
90944590|NCT01130168|181768532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.1|||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.3|-10.9|||ANOVA|||||-10.9|-15.3|<0.0005
90944591|NCT01130168|181768532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|-0.6|||ANOVA|||||-0.6|-4.9|0.016
90944592|NCT01130168|181768533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|4.3|||ANOVA|||||4.3|-1.7|0.407
90944593|NCT01130168|181768533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.9|||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|-2.9|||ANOVA|||||-2.9|-8.9|<0.0005
90944594|NCT01130168|181768534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.4|||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.2|-10.1|||ANOVA|||||-10.1|-21.2|<0.0005
90944595|NCT01130168|181768534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.3||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.4|-6.3|||ANOVA|||||-6.3|-17.4|0.001
90944596|NCT01130168|181768535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.8||||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|1.8|||ANOVA|||||1.8|-9.5|0.186
90944597|NCT01130168|181768535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.1|||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.7|-10.5|||ANOVA|||||-10.5|-21.7|<0.0005
90944598|NCT01130168|181768536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-9.2|||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|-6.4|||ANOVA|||||-6.4|-12.1|<0.0005
90944599|NCT01130168|181768536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.5||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|-0.3|||ANOVA|||||-0.3|-6.0|0.035
90944600|NCT01130168|181768537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|2.6|||ANOVA|||||2.6|-6.1|0.428
90944601|NCT01130168|181768537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.8|||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|-4.5|||ANOVA|||||-4.5|-13.1|<0.0005
90944602|NCT01130168|181768538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.7|||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|-10.0|||ANOVA|||||-10.0|-17.5|<0.0005
90944603|NCT01130168|181768538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.8||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|-1.0|||ANOVA|||||-1.0|-8.5|0.015
90944604|NCT01130168|181768539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.4||||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|1.0|||ANOVA|||||1.0|-9.9|0.112
90944605|NCT01130168|181768539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.3|||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.7|-9.8|||ANOVA|||||-9.8|-20.7|<0.0005
90944606|NCT01130168|181768540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.0|||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|-6.2|||ANOVA|||||-6.2|-11.8|<0.0005
90944607|NCT01130168|181768540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|-0.2|||ANOVA|||||-0.2|-5.8|0.039
90944608|NCT01130168|181768541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4||||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|1.8|||ANOVA|||||1.8|-6.6|0.267
90944609|NCT01130168|181768541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.5|||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|-4.3|||ANOVA|||||-4.3|-12.7|<0.0005
90944610|NCT02635386|181768542|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.02|||||||ANOVA|nested repeated measure||Repeated Measure general linear model (SS/Drug treatments by visits) including arm of drug treatment as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and post 22-24 weeks treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.02
90944611|NCT02635386|181768543|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated Measure general linear model (SS/Drug treatments by visits) including arm of drug treatment as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and post 22-24 weeks treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.0001
90944612|NCT02635386|181768544|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated Measure general linear model (SS/Drug treatments by visits) including arm of drug treatment as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and post 22-24 weeks treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.0001
90944613|NCT02635386|181768545|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|one way with Bonferroni contrast||One way ANOVA with Bonferroni test to compare differences between groups if significant||||<0.0001
90944614|NCT02635386|181768546|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated Measure general linear model (SS/Drug treatments by visits) including arm of drug treatment as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and post 22-24 weeks treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.0001
91037312|NCT03100344|181960692|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-10.0||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|0.0|||Kenward-Rogers|||Week 1||0.0|-20.0|0.049
90975794|NCT01890421|181834791|SUPERIORITY||Sensitivity Difference]|7.4||||0.0455|ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.5||||McNemar 1-sided test,alpha level of 2.5%|||Statistical analysis 1 for presence of a myocardial perfusion defect indicating significant CAD per participant on gadobutrol-enhanced CMRI versus unenhanced wall motion CMRI images - additional secondary analysis of sensitivity comparison based on the blinded readers' assessment. Sensitivity of gadobutrol-enhanced CMRI was compared with sensitivity of unenhanced CMRI evaluated by Reader 1.|||0.5|0.0455
90944615|NCT02635386|181768547|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measure design||Repeated Measure general linear model (SS/Drug treatments by visits) including arm of drug treatment as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and post 22-24 weeks treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.05
90944616|NCT02635386|181768548|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated Measure general linear model (SS/Drug treatments by visits) including arm of drug treatment as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and post 22-24 weeks treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.0001
90944617|NCT02635386|181768549|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated Measure general linear model (SS/Drug treatments by visits) including arm of drug treatment as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and post 22-24 weeks treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.0001
90944618|NCT02635386|181768550|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated Measure general linear model (SS/Drug treatments by visits) including arm of drug treatment as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and post 22-24 weeks treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.0001
90944619|NCT02635386|181768551|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated Measure general linear model (SS/Drug treatments by visits) including arm of drug treatment as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and post 22-24 weeks treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.01
90944620|NCT02635386|181768552|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.035|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated Measure general linear model (SS/Drug treatments by visits) including arm of drug treatment as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and post 22-24 weeks treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.035
90944621|NCT02635386|181768553|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated Measure general linear model (SS/Drug treatments by visits) including arm of drug treatment as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and post 22-24 weeks treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.0001
90944622|NCT02635386|181768554|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.02|||||||ANOVA|nested repeated measures design||Repeated Measure general linear model (SS/Drug treatments by visits) including arm of drug treatment as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and post 22-24 weeks treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.02
90944623|NCT02635386|181768555|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.035|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated Measure general linear model (SS/Drug treatments by visits) including arm of drug treatment as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and post 22-24 weeks treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.035
90944624|NCT02635386|181768556|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated Measure general linear model (SS/Drug treatments by visits) including arm of drug treatment as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and post 22-24 weeks treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.0001
90944625|NCT02635386|181768557|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.04|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated Measure general linear model (SS/Drug treatments by visits) including arm of drug treatment as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and post 22-24 weeks treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.04
90975795|NCT01890421|181834791|SUPERIORITY||Sensitivity Difference]|34.3|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|25.2||||McNemar 1-sided test,alpha level of 2.5%|||Statistical analysis 2 for presence of a myocardial perfusion defect indicating significant CAD per participant on gadobutrol-enhanced CMRI versus unenhanced wall motion CMRI images - additional secondary analysis of sensitivity comparison based on the blinded readers' assessment. Sensitivity of gadobutrol-enhanced CMRI was compared with sensitivity of unenhanced CMRI evaluated by Reader 2.|||25.2|<0.0001
90944626|NCT02635386|181768558|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated Measure general linear model (SS/Drug treatments by visits) including arm of drug treatment as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and post 22-24 weeks treatment) as within subject effect||||>0.05
90944627|NCT02635386|181768559|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.04|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated Measure general linear model (SS/Drug treatments by visits) including arm of drug treatment as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and post 22-24 weeks treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.04
90944628|NCT02635386|181768560|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated Measure general linear model (SS/Drug treatments by visits) including arm of drug treatment as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and post 22-24 weeks treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.0001
90944629|NCT02635386|181768561|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated Measure general linear model (SS/Drug treatments by visits) including arm of drug treatment as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and post 22-24 weeks treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.05
90944630|NCT02635386|181768562|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated Measure general linear model (SS/Drug treatments by visits) including arm of drug treatment as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and post 22-24 weeks treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.001
90944631|NCT02635386|181768563|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.035|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated Measure general linear model (SS/Drug treatments by visits) including arm of drug treatment as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and post 22-24 weeks treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.035
90944632|NCT02635386|181768564|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.035|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated Measure general linear model (SS/Drug treatments by visits) including arm of drug treatment as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and post 22-24 weeks treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.035
90944633|NCT00745498|181768565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||With study power of 80%, a significance level of 0.05, and the assumption that IVB injection will decrease postoperative VH incidence from 35% to 10%, a sample size of 40 patients for each group was calculated.||||<0.05
90975796|NCT01890421|181834791|SUPERIORITY||Sensitivity Difference|30.6|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|21.7||||McNemar 1-sided test,alpha level of 2.5%|||Statistical analysis 3 for presence of a myocardial perfusion defect indicating significant CAD per participant on gadobutrol-enhanced CMRI versus unenhanced wall motion CMRI images - additional secondary analysis of sensitivity comparison based on the blinded readers' assessment. Sensitivity of gadobutrol-enhanced CMRI was compared with sensitivity of unenhanced CMRI evaluated by Reader 3.|||21.7|<0.0001
90975797|NCT01890421|181834796|SUPERIORITY||Sensitivity Difference|27.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.5|35.8|||McNemar 2-sided test,alpha level of 5%|||Statistical analysis 1 for presence of a myocardial perfusion defect indicating significant CAD per participant on gadobutrol-enhanced CMRI versus unenhanced wall motion CMRI images - secondary analysis of sensitivity comparison based on investigator's assessment. Sensitivity of gadobutrol-enhanced CMRI was compared with sensitivity of unenhanced CMRI. Maximum stenosis severity at least \>=50% by QCA.||35.8|18.5|<0.0001
90975798|NCT01890421|181834796|SUPERIORITY||Sensitivity Difference|27.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.9|34.4|||McNemar 2-sided test,alpha level of 10%|||Statistical analysis 2 for presence of a myocardial perfusion defect indicating significant CAD per participant on gadobutrol-enhanced CMRI versus unenhanced wall motion CMRI images - secondary analysis of sensitivity comparison based on investigator's assessment. Sensitivity of gadobutrol-enhanced CMRI was compared with sensitivity of unenhanced CMRI. Maximum stenosis severity at least \>=50% by QCA.||34.4|19.9|<0.0001
90975799|NCT04871711|181834806|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.8||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.6|16.1||5% significance level (two-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data, subjects who received rescue treatment, or subjects who permanently discontinued IMP were considered non-responders.||16.1|3.6|0.006
90975800|NCT04871711|181834807|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|24.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.5|32.6||Evaluated at 5% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting and alpha recycling controlling overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data, subjects who received rescue treatment, or subjects who permanently discontinued IMP were considered non-responders.||32.6|15.5|<0.001
90975801|NCT04871711|181834808|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|22.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.0|31.7||Evaluated at 5% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting and alpha recycling controlling overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data, subjects who received rescue treatment, or subjects who permanently discontinued IMP were considered non-responders.||31.7|14.0|<0.001
90975802|NCT04871711|181834809|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.3||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|18.9||Evaluated at 4% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting and alpha recycling controlling overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data, subjects who received rescue treatment, or subjects who permanently discontinued IMP were considered non-responders.||18.9|5.7|0.001
91037313|NCT03100344|181960692|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-16.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.7|-7.0|||Kenward Roger|||Week 1||-7.0|-26.7|<0.001
90944634|NCT02804399|181768572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Mean|14.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|12.78|17.01||||||Mixed model was fitted to obtain ratio of geometric means of Rifampin 600 mg QD + PF-06463922 100 mg SD (test) to PF-06463922 100 mg SD (reference) and the results are presented as percentage. 90% CI was calculated on ratio of geometric means.||17.01|12.78|
90975803|NCT04871711|181834810|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|15.6||Evaluated at 4% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting and alpha recycling controlling overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data, subjects who received rescue treatment, or subjects who permanently discontinued IMP were considered non-responders.||15.6|5.3|<0.001
90975804|NCT04871711|181834811|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.6|29.4||Evaluated at 4% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting and alpha recycling controlling overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data, subjects who received rescue treatment, or subjects who permanently discontinued IMP were considered non-responders.||29.4|12.6|<0.001
91037314|NCT03100344|181960692|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-15.7||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.6|-5.8|||Kenward Roger|||Week 1||-5.8|-25.6|0.002
91037315|NCT03100344|181960692|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-9.8||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.9|1.3|||Kenward Roger|||Week 2||1.3|-20.9|0.084
91037316|NCT03100344|181960692|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-16.2||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.2|-5.2|||Kenward Roger|||Week 2||-5.2|-27.2|0.004
91037317|NCT03100344|181960692|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-14.8||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.8|-3.8|||Kenward Roger|||Week 2||-3.8|-25.8|0.008
90944635|NCT02804399|181768573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Mean|23.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|21.58|26.43||||||Mixed model was fitted to obtain ratio of geometric means of Rifampin 600 mg QD + PF-06463922 100 mg SD (test) to PF-06463922 100 mg SD (reference) and the results are presented as percentage. 90% CI was calculated on ratio of geometric means.||26.43|21.58|
90975805|NCT04871711|181834812|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|19.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.5|26.5||Evaluated at 4% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting and alpha recycling controlling overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data, subjects who received rescue treatment, or subjects who permanently discontinued IMP were considered non-responders.||26.5|12.5|<0.001
90975806|NCT04871711|181834813|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.3||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|14.7||Evaluated at 4% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting and alpha recycling controlling overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data, subjects who received rescue treatment, or subjects who permanently discontinued IMP were considered non-responders.||14.7|3.8|0.004
90975807|NCT04871711|181834814|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|22.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.4|30.6||Evaluated at 4% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting and alpha recycling controlling overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data, subjects who received rescue treatment, or subjects who permanently discontinued IMP were considered non-responders.||30.6|14.4|<0.001
90975808|NCT04871711|181834815|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|19.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.5|26.5||Evaluated at 4% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting and alpha recycling controlling overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data, subjects who received rescue treatment, or subjects who permanently discontinued IMP were considered non-responders.||26.5|12.5|<0.001
90975809|NCT04871711|181834816|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.4|30.9||Evaluated at 4% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting and alpha recycling controlling overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data, subjects who received rescue treatment, or subjects who permanently discontinued IMP were considered non-responders.||30.9|12.4|<0.001
90975810|NCT04871711|181834817|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|23.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.2|32.7||Evaluated at 4% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting and alpha recycling controlling overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data, subjects who received rescue treatment, or subjects who permanently discontinued IMP were considered non-responders.||32.7|15.2|<0.001
90944636|NCT02804399|181768574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Mean|13.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|12.09|16.12||||||Mixed model was fitted to obtain ratio of geometric means of Rifampin 600 mg QD + PF-06463922 100 mg SD (test) to PF-06463922 100 mg SD (reference) and the results are presented as percentage. 90% CI was calculated on ratio of geometric means.||16.12|12.09|
91037318|NCT03100344|181960692|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-14.0||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.5|-0.4|||Kenward Roger|||Week 4||-0.4|-27.5|0.044
90975811|NCT04871711|181834818|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|19.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.8|27.5||Evaluated at 4% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting and alpha recycling controlling overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data, subjects who received rescue treatment, or subjects who permanently discontinued IMP were considered non-responders.||27.5|11.8|<0.001
91037319|NCT03100344|181960692|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-21.1||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.7|-7.6|||Kenward Roger|||Week 4||-7.6|-34.7|0.002
90944637|NCT00087555|181768600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.052||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.052
91037320|NCT03100344|181960692|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-15.3||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.8|-1.8|||Kenward Roger|||Week 4||-1.8|-28.8|0.026
91037321|NCT03100344|181960692|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-14.8||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.2|0.7|||Kenward Roger|||Week 8||0.7|-30.2|0.062
91037322|NCT03100344|181960692|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-23.4||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.9|-7.9|||Kenward Roger|||Week 8||-7.9|-38.9|0.003
91037323|NCT03100344|181960692|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-20.6||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.0|-5.2|||Kenward Roger|||Week 8||-5.2|-36.0|0.009
91037324|NCT03100344|181960692|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-15.9||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.4|-2.3|||Kenward Roger|||Week 12||-2.3|-29.4|0.022
91037325|NCT03100344|181960692|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-23.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.1|-10.2|||Kenward Roger|||Week 12||-10.2|-37.1|<0.001
90944638|NCT00087555|181768600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.024
90944639|NCT00087555|181768600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.035
90944640|NCT01062971|181768601|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was determined if the treatments did not show differences greater than 20%||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
90944641|NCT01062971|181768602|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was determined if the treatments did not show differences greater than 20%.|||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91037326|NCT03100344|181960692|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-14.7||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.1|-1.3|||Kenward Roger|||Week 12||-1.3|-28.1|0.032
91037327|NCT03100344|181960692|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-13.7||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.6|1.1|||Kenward Roger|||Week 16||1.1|-28.6|0.070
91037328|NCT03100344|181960692|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-23.7||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.5|-8.9|||Kenward Roger|||Week 16||-8.9|-38.5|0.002
90944642|NCT01795859|181768608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference|-2.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.69|-1.29|||ANCOVA|||||-1.29|-3.69|<0.0001
90944643|NCT01795859|181768609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|31.1||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.4|49.8|||Difference of proportions|||||49.8|12.4|0.0020
90975812|NCT04871711|181834819|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.1|24.3||Evaluated at 1% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting and alpha recycling controlling overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data, subjects who received rescue treatment, or subjects who permanently discontinued IMP were considered non-responders.||24.3|10.1|<0.001
90975813|NCT04871711|181834820|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|25.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.2|34.3||Evaluated at 1% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting and alpha recycling controlling overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data, subjects who received rescue treatment, or subjects who permanently discontinued IMP were considered non-responders.||34.3|17.2|<0.001
90975814|NCT04871711|181834821|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|24.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.5|33.0||Evaluated at 1% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting and alpha recycling controlling overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data, subjects who received rescue treatment, or subjects who permanently discontinued IMP were considered non-responders.||33.0|15.5|<0.001
90975815|NCT04871711|181834822|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-35.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.7|-23.8||Evaluated at 1% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting and alpha recycling controlling overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Adjusted for treatment, region, baseline IGA-CHE score, and baseline HECSI score.||Primary analysis of primary estimand 'composite'. Missing data for subjects who did not attend the visit was imputed as WOCF (including baseline value). For subjects who received rescue treatment or subjects who have permanently discontinued the IMP, observed data was considered non-response by using WOCF (including baseline value).||-23.8|-46.7|<0.001
90975816|NCT04871711|181834823|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|-2.6||Evaluated at 1% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting and alpha recycling controlling overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Adjusted for treatment, region, baseline IGA-CHE score, and baseline DLQI score.||Primary analysis of primary estimand 'composite'. Missing data for subjects who did not attend the visit was imputed as WOCF (including baseline value). For subjects who received rescue treatment or subjects who have permanently discontinued the IMP, observed data was considered non-response by using WOCF (including baseline value).||-2.6|-4.7|<0.001
90975817|NCT04871711|181834824|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-1.2||Evaluated at 1% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting and alpha recycling controlling overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Adjusted for treatment, region, baseline IGA-CHE score, and baseline HESD score.||Primary analysis of primary estimand 'composite'. Missing data for subjects who did not attend the visit was imputed as WOCF (including baseline value). For subjects who received rescue treatment or subjects who have permanently discontinued the IMP, observed data was considered non-response by using WOCF (including baseline value).||-1.2|-2.2|<0.001
91037329|NCT03100344|181960692|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-10.7||||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.6|4.1|||Kenward Roger|||Week 16||4.1|-25.6|0.154
90944644|NCT01795859|181768610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.9||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.4|46.4|||Difference of proportions|||||46.4|11.4|0.0022
90944645|NCT01795859|181768611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference|4.34||||0.0308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|8.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.27|0.41|0.0308
91037330|NCT03100344|181960692|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-12.1||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.0|1.9|||Kenward Roger|||Week 20||1.9|-26.0|0.090
91037331|NCT03100344|181960692|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-15.9||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.7|-2.1|||Kenward Roger|||Week 20||-2.1|-29.7|0.024
91037332|NCT03100344|181960692|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-9.5||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.4|4.4|||Kenward Roger|||Week 20||4.4|-23.4|0.180
91037333|NCT03100344|181960692|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-13.6||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.3|0.0|||Kenward Roger|||Week 24||0.0|-27.3|0.051
91037334|NCT03100344|181960692|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-16.7||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.2|-3.2|||Kenward Roger|||Week 24||-3.2|-30.2|0.016
90944646|NCT01795859|181768612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.1415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.3|-0.3|0.1415
90944647|NCT03738397|181768613|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|9.7||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|16.7||A multiple testing procedure was used to provide a strong control of the type I error rate at alpha = 0.05 (2-sided) across analyses comparing upadacitinib versus dupilumab with respect to the primary and ranked secondary endpoints.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for vIGA-AD categories (moderate \[3\] versus severe \[4\]).|Response rate difference = Upadacitinib - Dupilumab|||16.7|2.6|0.007
90944648|NCT03738397|181768614|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-18.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.753|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.61|-12.8||A multiple testing procedure was used to provide a strong control of the type I error rate at alpha = 0.05 (2-sided) across analyses comparing upadacitinib versus dupilumab with respect to the primary and ranked secondary endpoints.|Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|Mixed-effect model repeat measurement with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and Baseline vIGA-AD categories in the model.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Dupilumab|||-12.80|-23.61|<0.001
91037335|NCT03100344|181960692|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-6.8||||0.322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.5|6.8|||Kenward Roger|||Week 24||6.8|-20.5|0.322
91037336|NCT03100344|181960693|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-10.9||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|-2.4|||Kenward Roger|||Week 1||-2.4|-19.4|0.012
90944649|NCT03738397|181768615|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|20.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.8|26.0||A multiple testing procedure was used to provide a strong control of the type I error rate at alpha = 0.05 (2-sided) across analyses comparing upadacitinib versus dupilumab with respect to the primary and ranked secondary endpoints.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for vIGA-AD categories (moderate \[3\] versus severe \[4\]).|Response rate difference = Upadacitinib - Dupilumab|||26.0|14.8|<0.001
90944650|NCT03738397|181768616|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|21.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.8|28.6||A multiple testing procedure was used to provide a strong control of the type I error rate at alpha = 0.05 (2-sided) across analyses comparing upadacitinib versus dupilumab with respect to the primary and ranked secondary endpoints.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for vIGA-AD categories (moderate \[3\] versus severe \[4\]).|Response rate difference = Upadacitinib - Dupilumab|||28.6|13.8|<0.001
90975818|NCT04871711|181834825|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-1.2||Evaluated at 1% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting and alpha recycling controlling overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Adjusted for treatment, region, baseline IGA-CHE score, and baseline HESD itch score.||Primary analysis of primary estimand 'composite'. Missing data for subjects who did not attend the visit was imputed as WOCF (including baseline value). For subjects who received rescue treatment or subjects who have permanently discontinued the IMP, observed data was considered non-response by using WOCF (including baseline value).||-1.2|-2.3|<0.001
90944651|NCT03738397|181768617|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-28.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.177|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.25|-21.78||A multiple testing procedure was used to provide a strong control of the type I error rate at alpha = 0.05 (2-sided) across analyses comparing upadacitinib versus dupilumab with respect to the primary and ranked secondary endpoints.|Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|Mixed-effect model repeat measurement with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and Baseline vIGA-AD categories in the model.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Dupilumab|||-21.78|-34.25|<0.001
90944652|NCT03738397|181768618|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|26.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.3|32.7||A multiple testing procedure was used to provide a strong control of the type I error rate at alpha = 0.05 (2-sided) across analyses comparing upadacitinib versus dupilumab with respect to the primary and ranked secondary endpoints.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for vIGA-AD categories (moderate \[3\] versus severe \[4\]).|Response rate difference = Upadacitinib - Dupilumab|||32.7|19.3|<0.001
90944653|NCT03738397|181768619|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-23.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.548|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.03|-18.02||A multiple testing procedure was used to provide a strong control of the type I error rate at alpha = 0.05 (2-sided) across analyses comparing upadacitinib versus dupilumab with respect to the primary and ranked secondary endpoints.|Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|Mixed-effect model repeat measurement with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and Baseline vIGA-AD categories in the model.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Dupilumab|||-18.02|-28.03|<0.001
90944654|NCT03738397|181768620|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|19.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.4|27.3||A multiple testing procedure was used to provide a strong control of the type I error rate at alpha = 0.05 (2-sided) across analyses comparing upadacitinib versus dupilumab with respect to the primary and ranked secondary endpoints.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for vIGA-AD categories (moderate \[3\] versus severe \[4\]).|Response rate difference = Upadacitinib - Dupilumab|||27.3|12.4|<0.001
90944655|NCT00727506|181768650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.148||95.0||||P-value is from an approximate normal test for the 6 month time point.|z-test|||||||0.148
90975819|NCT04871711|181834826|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-1.0||Evaluated at 1% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting and alpha recycling controlling overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Adjusted for treatment, region, baseline IGA-CHE score, and baseline HESD pain score.||Primary analysis of primary estimand 'composite'. Missing data for subjects who did not attend the visit was imputed as WOCF (including baseline value). For subjects who received rescue treatment or subjects who have permanently discontinued the IMP, observed data was considered non-response by using WOCF (including baseline value).||-1.0|-2.1|<0.001
90975820|NCT04871711|181834827|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.45||Evaluated at 1% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting and alpha recycling controlling overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Adjusted for treatment, region, baseline IGA-CHE score, and baseline HEIS score.||Primary analysis of primary estimand 'composite'. Missing data for subjects who did not attend the visit was imputed as WOCF (including baseline value). For subjects who received rescue treatment or subjects who have permanently discontinued the IMP, observed data was considered non-response by using WOCF (including baseline value).||-0.45|-0.83|<0.001
91037337|NCT03100344|181960693|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-15.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.8|-7.1|||Kenward Roger|||Week 1||-7.1|-23.8|<0.001
91037338|NCT03100344|181960693|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-9.4||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|-0.9|||Kenward Roger|||Week 1||-0.9|-17.8|0.029
91037339|NCT03100344|181960693|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-21.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.0|-11.6|||Kenward Roger|||Week 2||-11.6|-32.0|<0.001
90944656|NCT00727506|181768650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0||||P-value is an approximate normal test for the six month time point.|z-test|||||||0.008
90944657|NCT00727506|181768652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
90944658|NCT00727506|181768652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1954||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1954
90944659|NCT00727506|181768653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.78||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.088|2.912|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio was calculated from Cox proportional hazard model stratified by age class (\<=50 vs. \>50 years old) and baseline Karnofsky Performance Scale (KPS) score (70, 80 vs. 90, 100). P-value was two-sided from log-rank test stratified by the same variables.||2.912|1.088|0.0320
90944660|NCT00727506|181768653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.392||||0.2044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.841|2.301|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio was calculated from Cox proportional hazard model stratified by age class (\<=50 vs. \>50 years old) and baseline KPS score (70, 80 vs. 90, 100). P-value was two-sided from log-rank test stratified by the same variables.||2.301|0.841|0.2044
90944661|NCT01214421|181768690|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric means (final values)|0.99||||0.358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.02|||Mixed Models Analysis||||Derived from the least squares (LS) mean difference between the treatment groups at each visit using MMRM model with factors of treatment, visit, region, baseline, baseline hypertensive status, baseline renal volume status, baseline creatinine clearance status, interaction of treatment and visit, and interaction of baseline and visit.|1.02|0.96|0.358
90944662|NCT01214421|181768691|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference (final values)|3.15||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.462|4.836|||Mixed Models Analysis||||Derived from MMRM analysis with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment visit interaction, hypertensive status, renal volume status and creatinine clearance status at baseline, region, baseline value, and baseline visit interaction as covariates, and with a heterogeneous toeplitz variance covariance matrix.|4.836|1.462|0.0003
90944663|NCT01214421|181768692|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority for early-treatment and delayed-treatment groups.|Ratio of geometric means (final values)|1.011||||0.0462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.023|||Mixed Models Analysis||||Derived from testing interaction of time and treatment using linear mixed model in which intercept and time are treated as random effects.|1.023|1.000|0.0462
90944664|NCT01214421|181768693|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority for early-treatment and delayed-treatment groups.|Ratio of geometric means (final values)|-0.113||||0.7259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.746|0.52|||Mixed Models Analysis||||Derived from testing interaction of time and treatment using linear mixed model in which intercept and time are treated as random effects.|0.520|-0.746|0.7259
90944665|NCT01214421|181768694|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric means (final values)|0.992||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.982|1.002|||Mixed Models Analysis||||Derived from linear mixed model with terms of participant, treatment, time, interaction of treatment and time, interaction of participant and time, and baseline for intra-participant comparison between 251 and 271. Time and intercept are treated as random effects.|1.002|0.982|0.1080
90944666|NCT01214421|181768695|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric means (final values)|0.361||||0.2265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.224|0.946|||Mixed Models Analysis||||Derived from linear mixed model with terms of participant, treatment, time, interaction of treatment and time, interaction of participant and time, and baseline for intra-participant comparison between 251 and 271. Time and intercept are treated as random effects.|0.946|-0.224|0.2265
90944667|NCT04887506|181768722|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% confidence interval (CI) fell within the recommended 0.800-1.250 limits of equivalence when analyzed on a natural log scale, then treatments were therapeutically equivalent based on rounded-up average Days 9 and 10 testosterone levels.|Geometric mean ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|||||||The 90% CIs for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) were not evaluable.|Primary analysis of equivalence of TAVT 45 and R AA based on average serum testosterone (ng/dL) (rounded up values of Days 9 and 10).||||
91037340|NCT03100344|181960693|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-29.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.1|-19.1|||Kenward Roger|||Week 2||-19.1|-39.1|<0.001
90944668|NCT04887506|181768723|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CI fell within the recommended 0.800-1.250 limits of equivalence when analyzed on a natural log scale, then treatments were therapeutically equivalent based on rounded-up average Days 9 and 10 testosterone levels.|Geometric mean ratio|0.975|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.944|1.007||||||Supplementary analysis of equivalence of TAVT-45 and R-AA based on average serum testosterone (ng/dL) (rounded up values of Days 9 and 10) in the CS-ITT population.||1.007|0.944|
90944669|NCT04887506|181768724|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CI fell within the recommended 0.800-1.250 limits of equivalence when analyzed on a natural log scale, then treatments were therapeutically equivalent based on rounded-up average Days 9 and 10 testosterone levels.|Geometric mean ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.978|1.002||||||Supplementary analysis of equivalence of TAVT-45 and R-AA based on average serum testosterone (ng/dL) (rounded up values of Days 9 and 10) in the mITT population.||1.002|0.978|
90944670|NCT04887506|181768725|EQUIVALENCE|Odds ratio generated using the Wald method.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.69||||0.3408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.574|4.979|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.979|0.574|0.3408
90944671|NCT03522389|181768726|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||ANOVA|||After 4 weeks of training - Baseline (T2-T1)||||0.003
90944672|NCT03522389|181768726|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||1-month follow up - Baseline (T3-T1)||||<0.001
90944673|NCT03522389|181768726|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Within group comparison||||<0.001
90944674|NCT03522389|181768726|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||ANOVA|||Within group comparison||||0.006
90944675|NCT03522389|181768726|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.793|||||||ANOVA|||Within group comparison||||0.793
90944676|NCT03522389|181768727|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||After 4 weeks of training - Baseline (T2-T1)||||<0.001
90944677|NCT03522389|181768727|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.039|||||||ANOVA|||1-month follow-up - Baseline (T3-T1)||||0.039
90944678|NCT03522389|181768727|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Within group comparison||||<0.001
91037341|NCT03100344|181960693|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-23.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.0|-13.6|||Kenward Roger|||Week 2||-13.6|-34.0|<0.001
90944679|NCT03522389|181768727|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||ANOVA|||Within group comparison||||0.002
90944680|NCT03522389|181768727|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.117|||||||ANOVA|||Within group comparison||||0.117
90944681|NCT03522389|181768728|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.924|||||||ANOVA|||After 4 weeks of training - Baseline (T2-T1)||||0.924
90944682|NCT03522389|181768728|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.855|||||||ANOVA|||1-month follow-up - Baseline (T3-T1)||||0.855
90944683|NCT03522389|181768728|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.937|||||||ANOVA|||Within group comparison||||0.937
90944684|NCT03522389|181768728|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||ANOVA|||Within group comparison||||0.970
90944685|NCT03522389|181768728|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.242|||||||ANOVA|||Within group comparison||||0.242
90944686|NCT03522389|181768729|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.161|||||||ANOVA|||After 4 weeks of training - Baseline (T2-T1)||||0.161
90944687|NCT03522389|181768729|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.161|||||||ANOVA|||1-month follow-up - Baseline (T3-T1)||||0.161
90944688|NCT03522389|181768729|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.076|||||||ANOVA|||Within group comparison||||0.076
90944689|NCT03522389|181768729|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.211|||||||ANOVA|||Within group comparison||||0.211
90944690|NCT03522389|181768729|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.573|||||||ANOVA|||Within group comparison||||0.573
90944691|NCT03522389|181768730|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.445|||||||ANOVA|||After 4 weeks of training - Baseline (T2-T1)||||0.445
91037342|NCT03100344|181960693|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-21.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.1|-10.5|||Kenward Roger|||Week 4||-10.5|-32.1|<0.001
90944692|NCT03522389|181768730|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046|||||||ANOVA|||1-month follow-up - Baseline (T3-T1)||||0.046
90944693|NCT03522389|181768730|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Within group comparison||||<0.001
90944694|NCT03522389|181768730|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028|||||||ANOVA|||Within group comparison||||0.028
90944695|NCT03522389|181768730|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||ANOVA|||Within group comparison||||0.002
90944696|NCT02242643|181768737|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority criterion: The upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in SCR (Fluzone® Quadrivalent Group minus FluLaval™ Quadrivalent Group) did not exceed 10% for each of the four strains.|Seroconversion rate (SCR) Difference (%)|-6.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.34|-2.27|||||For A/California/7/2009 (H1N1) vaccine strain.|||-2.27|-10.34|
90944697|NCT02242643|181768737|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority criterion: The upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in SCR (Fluzone® Quadrivalent Group minus FluLaval™ Quadrivalent Group) did not exceed 10% for each of the four strains.|SCR Difference (%)|-6.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.68|-2.8|||||For A/Texas/50/2012 (H3N2) vaccine strain|||-2.80|-10.68|
90944698|NCT02242643|181768737|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority criterion: The upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in SCR (Fluzone® Quadrivalent Group minus FluLaval™ Quadrivalent Group) did not exceed 10% for each of the four strains.|SCR Difference (%)|-16.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.68|-12.02|||||For B/Massachusetts/2/2012 (Yamagata) vaccine strain|||-12.02|-20.68|
90944699|NCT02242643|181768737|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority criterion: The upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in SCR (Fluzone® Quadrivalent Group minus FluLaval™ Quadrivalent Group) did not exceed 10% for each of the four strains.|SCR Difference (%)|-11.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.28|-8.21|||||For B/Brisbane/60/2008 (Victoria) vaccine strain.|||-8.21|-15.28|
90944700|NCT02242643|181768738|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority criterion: The upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the GMT ratio (Fluzone® Quadrivalent Group/FluLaval™ Quadrivalent Group) did not exceed 1.5 for each of the four strains.|Adjusted GMT ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.95|||||The GMTs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMTs, which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMT ratio with 95% confidence interval (Ancova model: adjustment for baseline titer - pooled variance).|||0.95|0.77|
90944701|NCT02242643|181768738|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority criterion: The upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the GMT ratio (Fluzone® Quadrivalent Group/FluLaval™ Quadrivalent Group) did not exceed 1.5 for each of the four strains.|Adjusted GMT Ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.94|||||The GMTs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMTs, which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMT ratio with 95% confidence interval (Ancova model: adjustment for baseline titer - pooled variance).|||0.94|0.77|
90944702|NCT02242643|181768738|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority criterion: The upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the GMT ratio (Fluzone® Quadrivalent Group/FluLaval™ Quadrivalent Group) did not exceed 1.5 for each of the four strains.|Adjusted GMT Ratio|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.71|||||The GMTs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMTs, which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMT ratio with 95% confidence interval (Ancova model: adjustment for baseline titer - pooled variance).|||0.71|0.59|
90944703|NCT02242643|181768738|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority criterion: The upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the GMT ratio (Fluzone® Quadrivalent Group/FluLaval™ Quadrivalent Group) did not exceed 1.5 for each of the four strains.|Adjusted GMT Ratio|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.69|||||The GMTs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMTs, which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMT ratio with 95% confidence interval (Ancova model: adjustment for baseline titer - pooled variance).|||0.69|0.56|
90944704|NCT01536587|181768780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5062||95.0|||||paired t-Test, 2-sided|||||||0.5062
90944705|NCT02666664|181768827|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-18.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.01|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|-16.1|||ANCOVA|||||-16.1|-20|<0.001
90944706|NCT02666664|181768829|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-16.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.2|-14.0|||ANCOVA|||||-14|-18.2|<0.001
90944707|NCT02666664|181768830|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-13.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.1|-11.6|||ANCOVA|||||-11.6|-15.1|<0.001
90944708|NCT02666664|181768831|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-11.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|-9.8|||ANCOVA|||||-9.8|-12.5|<0.001
90944709|NCT02666664|181768832|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-11.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|-10.2|||ANCOVA|||||-10.2|-13.6|<0.001
90944710|NCT02666664|181768833|SUPERIORITY||Location shift|-21.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.96|-16.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||-16|-26.96|<0.001
90944711|NCT02666664|181768834|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-13.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.13|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.8|-11.3|||ANCOVA|||||-11.3|-15.8|<0.001
90944712|NCT02666664|181768843|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
90944713|NCT04836559|181768844|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.3571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.38|||t-test, 1 sided|||||1.38|0.41|0.3571
90944714|NCT04836559|181768844|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.6306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.75|||t-test, 1 sided|||||1.75|0.40|0.6306
90944715|NCT00476242|181768878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047|||||||Log Rank|||||||.047
90975821|NCT04871711|181834828|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.4||Evaluated at 1% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting and alpha recycling controlling overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Adjusted for treatment, region, baseline IGA-CHE score, and baseline HEIS PDAL score.||Primary analysis of primary estimand 'composite'. Missing data for subjects who did not attend the visit was imputed as WOCF (including baseline value). For subjects who received rescue treatment or subjects who have permanently discontinued the IMP, observed data was considered non-response by using WOCF (including baseline value).||-0.40|-0.79|<0.001
90975822|NCT04871711|181834829|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|24.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.0|33.9||Evaluated at 1% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting and alpha recycling controlling overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data, subjects who received rescue treatment, or subjects who permanently discontinued IMP were considered non-responders.||33.9|15.0|<0.001
90975823|NCT01665144|181834831|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.0134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.95|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||0.95|0.65|0.0134
90975824|NCT01665144|181834832|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.4398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.1|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||1.10|0.80|0.4398
90975825|NCT01665144|181834833|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-613.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|95.39|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-800.2|-426.0|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||Month 12||-426.0|-800.2|<0.0001
90975826|NCT01665144|181834833|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-777.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|108.62|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-990.6|-564.4|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||Month 24||-564.4|-990.6|<0.0001
90975827|NCT01665144|181834833|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-695.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|92.79|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-877.3|-513.3|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||Average over Month 12 and Month 24||-513.3|-877.3|<0.0001
90975828|NCT01665144|181834834|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.92|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||0.92|0.60|0.0058
90975829|NCT01665144|181834835|SUPERIORITY||ARR ratio|0.445|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.337|0.587|||Negative binomial regression model|||||0.587|0.337|<0.0001
90975830|NCT01665144|181834836|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.7|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||0.70|0.41|<0.0001
90975831|NCT01665144|181834838|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.0764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.85|0.19|||Repeated measures model|||Month 12||0.19|-3.85|0.0764
90975832|NCT01665144|181834838|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.359||0.3671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.89|1.44|||Repeated measures model|||Month 24||1.44|-3.89|0.3671
90975833|NCT01665144|181834839|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.126|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.083|0.191|||Negative binomial regression model|||Month 12||0.191|0.083|<0.0001
90975834|NCT01665144|181834839|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.178|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.087|0.362|||Negative binomial regression model|||Month 24||0.362|0.087|<0.0001
90975835|NCT01665144|181834840|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.266|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.215|0.328|||Regression model|Repeated measures negative binomial regression model||Month 12||0.328|0.215|<0.0001
90975836|NCT01665144|181834840|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.142|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.103|0.196|||Regression model|Repeated measures negative binomial regression model||Month 24||0.196|0.103|<0.0001
90975837|NCT01665144|181834841|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.175|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0367|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.103|0.247|||Repeated measures model|||Month 12||0.247|0.103|<0.0001
90975838|NCT01665144|181834841|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.128|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0549||0.0196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.021|0.236|||Repeated measures model|||Month 24||0.236|0.021|0.0196
90975839|NCT01665144|181834842|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.11|||Cox proportional hazard model|||Without superimposed relapses at baseline||1.11|0.68|
90975840|NCT01665144|181834842|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.91|||Cox proportional hazard model|||With superimposed relapses at baseline||0.91|0.49|
90975841|NCT01665144|181834842|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.06|||Cox proportional hazard model|||Without superimposed relapses post-treatment||1.06|0.69|
90975842|NCT01665144|181834842|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.19|||Cox proportional hazard model|||With superimposed relapses post-treatment||1.19|0.53|
90975843|NCT01665144|181834843|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.91|||Cox proportional hazard model|||Rapidly evolving patients||0.91|0.46|
90975844|NCT01665144|181834843|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.09|||Cox proportional hazard model|||Not rapidly evolving patients||1.09|0.69|
90975845|NCT01665144|181834844|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.99|||Cox proportional hazard model|||With moderate or severe course of disease||0.99|0.65|
90975846|NCT01665144|181834844|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.13|||Cox proportional hazard model|||Without moderate or severe course of disease||1.13|0.47|
90975847|NCT00695565|181834885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis does not take into account the subjects' screening capsaicin response (measure of nociceptor function).||||0.168
90975848|NCT00695565|181834885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Each subject was screened for responsiveness of nociceptors in the skin to a capsaicin stimulus (rated on 0-10 pain scale; 0=no pain and 10=worst possible pain). The interaction term composed of treatment assignment and capsaicin threshold was examined at the prespecified alpha level of 0.1.~This analysis includes subjects with a capsaicin rating of ≥ 2. Thirty (30) subjects in the Placebo group and 33 subjects in the active Clonidine Topical Gel (ARC-4558) group had capsaicin scores ≥ 2."||||0.014
90975849|NCT01462266|181834908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.7||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|-1.2|||Longitudinal data analysis|Adjusting for participant's use of metformin at Visit 1/Screening Visit (i.e., on metformin, or not on metformin)||||-1.2|-8.3|0.009
90944716|NCT03865953|181768886|SUPERIORITY|Analysis used a two-period two-treatment crossover design|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Subject numbers gave a 90% power to demonstrate a statistically significant difference in the mean change from baseline NPRS for the active treatment compared with placebo of at least 1 unit, with a two sided test at a 5% level of significance||0.49|-0.76|0.67
91037343|NCT03100344|181960693|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-34.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.5|-24.2|||Kenward Roger|||Week 4||-24.2|-45.5|<0.001
91037344|NCT03100344|181960693|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-30.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.6|-19.9|||Kenward Roger|||Week 4||-19.9|-41.6|<0.001
91037345|NCT03100344|181960693|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-22.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.2|-12.6|||Kenward Roger|||Week 8||-12.6|-33.2|<0.001
90944717|NCT01667406|181768901|OTHER|Fishers exact conditional test was used to confirm significance|Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||||||||Data presented using descriptive statistics. Confidence intervals were derived for the difference between the means of different doses.||||
90944718|NCT01667406|181768901|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||Phase 2||||<0.05
90975850|NCT01106846|181834913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.947|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.947
90975851|NCT05900115|181834998|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes at posttest, we used linear regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect.|Slope|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.77|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.77
90975852|NCT05900115|181834999|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes at posttest, we used linear regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect.|Slope|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.78|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.78
90975853|NCT05900115|181835000|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes at posttest, we used linear regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect.|Slope|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.28|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.28
90975854|NCT05900115|181835001|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes at posttest, we used linear regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect.|Slope|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.68|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.68
90975855|NCT05900115|181835002|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes at posttest, we used linear regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect.|Slope|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.01
90975856|NCT05900115|181835003|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes at posttest, we used linear regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect.|Slope|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.18|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.18
90975857|NCT05900115|181835004|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes at posttest, we used linear regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect.|Slope|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.83|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.83
90975858|NCT05900115|181835005|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes at posttest, we used linear regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect.|Slope|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.56|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.56
90975859|NCT05900115|181835006|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary dichotomous outcomes at posttest, we used logistic regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|3.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.20|.38|0.85
91037346|NCT03100344|181960693|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-37.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.4|-27.2|||Kenward Roger|||Week 8||-27.2|-47.4|<0.001
91037347|NCT03100344|181960693|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-34.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.4|-23.8|||Kenward Roger|||Week 8||-23.8|-44.4|<0.001
90944719|NCT01667406|181768901|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.05|||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Logistic||Estimate of difference in success rates and estimate of odds ratio for success were derived, with P value comparing 2 treatment groups, 95% conﬁdence intervals.|Phase 3||||<0.05
90944720|NCT01667406|181768902|OTHER|secondary outcomes were analysed using descriptive statistics.||||||||||||||||Study data were summarised using standard descriptive methods. Continuous variables following a normal distribution have been summarised using mean and SD.|secondary outcomes were analysed using descriptive statistics.|||
90975860|NCT05900115|181835007|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes at posttest, we used linear regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect.|Slope|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||1.00
90975861|NCT02265913|181835012|EQUIVALENCE|provides 85% of success|Equivalence ratio|98.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.0|105.0|||Fieller's method|||||105|92|
90975862|NCT04656990|181835056|SUPERIORITY||Slope|17.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
91037348|NCT03100344|181960693|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-24.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.6|-12.5|||Kenward Roger|||Week 12||-12.5|-35.6|<0.001
91037349|NCT03100344|181960693|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-38.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.7|-27.2|||Kenward Roger|||Week 12||-27.2|-49.7|<0.001
91037350|NCT03100344|181960693|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-30.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.7|-18.7|||Kenward Roger|||Week 12||-18.7|-41.7|<0.001
91037351|NCT03100344|181960693|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-20.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.8|-8.9|||Kenward Roger|||Week 16||-8.9|-32.8|<0.001
91037352|NCT03100344|181960693|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-34.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.0|-22.6|||Kenward Roger|||Week 16||-22.6|-46.0|<0.001
91037353|NCT03100344|181960693|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-28.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.7|-16.8|||Kenward Roger|||Week 16||-16.8|-40.7|<0.001
91037354|NCT03100344|181960693|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-21.1||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.7|-8.4|||Kenward Roger|||Week 20||-8.4|-33.7|0.001
90944721|NCT02232399|181768914|OTHER|||||||0.45||||||To test whether there were any significant differences between the two treatment groups over time (group vs time interaction), a repeated measurement mixed-model approach was used. This assumed an unstructured covariance pattern.|Mixed Models Analysis|Unstructured covariance pattern was assumed.||To test whether there were any significant differences between the two treatment groups over time (group vs time interaction), a repeated measurement mixed-model approach was used. This assumed an unstructured covariance pattern.||||0.45
90975863|NCT04656990|181835059|SUPERIORITY||Slope|3.4|||=|0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||=0.04
90975864|NCT03106779|181835109|SUPERIORITY||treatment difference in the MMR rate|12.2||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.19|22.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by the randomization stratification factor, i.e. cytogenetic response status (MCyR vs no MCyR) at screening||||22.30|2.19|0.029
90975865|NCT04233229|181835124|SUPERIORITY|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model adjusted on the HbA1c stratification factor and Time In Range (TIR) at baseline (during the last 14 days completed continuous glucose monitor recording at the end of the study selection period)|Adjusted means difference|27.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.0|39.8||Study group effect|ANCOVA||Between-group adjusted means difference is calculated as analysis of covariance adjusted mean in Intervention Group - adjusted mean in Usual Care Group.|||39.8|15.0|<.001
90975866|NCT04233229|181835125|SUPERIORITY|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model adjusted on the HbA1c stratification factor and Time In Range (TIR) during diurnal period at baseline (during the last 14 days completed continuous glucose monitor recording at the end of the study selection period)|Adjusted means difference|23.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.6|35.5||Study group effect|ANCOVA||Between-group adjusted means difference is calculated as analysis of covariance adjusted mean in Intervention Group - adjusted mean in Usual Care Group.|||35.5|10.6|<.001
91037355|NCT03100344|181960693|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-29.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.1|-17.3|||Kenward Roger|||Week 20||-17.3|-42.1|<0.001
90944722|NCT02232399|181768915|OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.70
90944723|NCT02309346|181768923|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin was defined as a 2% difference. The sample size calculation aimed for 90% power at a 5% one-sided significance level, assuming clinical cure rates of 99% (standard arm) and 100% (experimental arm). This required 95 patients per arm, with a target enrollment of 100 per arm to account for potential dropouts.|Difference between 2 proportions|-0.02||||0.06|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.02||||Chi-squared|The 95% confidence interval for the difference in proportions between the two arms was calculated.||The null hypothesis (H₀) was that the treatment success rate of the once-daily clindamycin regimen is inferior to that of the thrice-daily regimen by a pre-specified non-inferiority margin (delta) of 2%. To achieve 90% power with a one-sided significance level (alpha) of 0.05 to reject the null hypothesis, a sample size of approximately 95 patients per group was required.|||-0.02|0.06
90944724|NCT01777334|181768926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.112|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.081|0.144|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least squares mean difference=UMEC/VI 62.5/25 µg minus TIO 18 µg.|||0.144|0.081|<0.001
90944725|NCT00107978|181768983|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin of 10% was specified based on historical regulatory precedent.|Risk Difference (RD)|2.5||||||95.0|-2.9|7.9||p-values were not calculated in deference to confidence intervals.|2-sided 95% confidence interval|2-sided 95% confidence interval calculated on the difference in cure rates between treatment groups.||||7.9|-2.9|
90944726|NCT02669407|181768985|OTHER|Single group|||||<|0.001|||||||Tukey's method|||||||<0.001
90944727|NCT02669407|181768986|OTHER|Single group||||||0.001|||||||Tukey's method|||Baseline, 30 minutes||||0.001
90944728|NCT02669407|181768987|OTHER|Single group||||||0.007|||||||Tukey's method|||baseline, 30 minutes||||0.007
90944729|NCT02669407|181768991|OTHER|Single group||||||0.237|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in left ventricular end diastolic dimension||||0.237
90944730|NCT02669407|181768991|OTHER|Single group||||||0.586|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in left ventricular end systolic dimension||||0.586
90944731|NCT02669407|181768992|OTHER|Single group||||||0.175|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.175
90944732|NCT02669407|181768994|OTHER|Single group||||||0.061|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.061
90944733|NCT02669407|181768995|OTHER|Single group||||||0.787|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.787
90944734|NCT02669407|181768997|OTHER|Single group||||||0.606|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline, 90 minutes||||0.606
90944735|NCT02669407|181768997|OTHER|Single group||||||0.045|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline, 24 hours||||0.045
91037356|NCT03100344|181960693|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-27.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.6|-15.2|||Kenward Roger|||Week 20||-15.2|-40.6|<0.001
90944736|NCT00992992|181769055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of participants|56.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.0|75.0|||||The estimated value reflects the percentage of participants with unconfirmed complete response (CR).|||75|37|
90944737|NCT00992992|181769055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of participants|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|19.0|||||The estimated value reflects the percentage of participants with unconfirmed complete response unconfirmed (CRu).|||19|0|
90944738|NCT00992992|181769055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of participants|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|36.0|||||The estimated value reflects the percentage of participants with unconfirmed partial response.|||36|4|
90944739|NCT05178979|181769080|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi-Square|1.94||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|||||Models control for clinic, gender, lifetime experience of intimate partner violence (IPV) and are adjusted for multiple time points. Models run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, clustered data.|Regression, Linear||Wald Chi-Square tests the overall arm\*time intervention effect across the timepoints|||||0.38
90944740|NCT05178979|181769080|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.63||0.84|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is for the 6-month follow-up|Regression, Linear|Models control for clinic, gender, lifetime experience of intimate partner violence (IPV) and are adjusted for multiple time points.||Models run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, clustered data.||||0.84
90944741|NCT05178979|181769080|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|-2.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.87||0.5|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is for the 12-month follow-up|Regression, Linear|Models control for clinic, gender, lifetime experience of intimate partner violence (IPV) and are adjusted for multiple time points.||Models run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, clustered data.||||0.50
90975867|NCT04233229|181835126|SUPERIORITY|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model adjusted on the HbA1c stratification factor and Time In Range (TIR) during nocturnal period at baseline (during the last 14 days completed continuous glucose monitor recording at the end of the study selection period)|Adjusted means difference|40.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.8|55.8||Study group effect|ANCOVA||Between-group adjusted means difference is calculated as analysis of covariance adjusted mean in Intervention Group - adjusted mean in Usual Care Group.|||55.8|25.8|<.001
90975868|NCT04233229|181835127|SUPERIORITY|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model adjusted on the HbA1c stratification factor and Time Above Range (TAR) at baseline (during the last 14 days completed continuous glucose monitor recording at the end of the study selection period)|Adjusted means difference|-27.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.5|-15.0||Study group effect|ANCOVA||Between-group adjusted means difference is calculated as analysis of covariance adjusted mean in Intervention Group - adjusted mean in Usual Care Group.|||-15.0|-40.5|<.001
90975869|NCT04233229|181835128|SUPERIORITY|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model adjusted on the HbA1c stratification factor and Time Above Range (TAR) at baseline (during the last 14 days completed continuous glucose monitor recording at the end of the study selection period)|Adjusted means difference|-20.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.9||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.4|-7.9||Study group effect|ANCOVA||Between-group adjusted means difference is calculated as analysis of covariance adjusted mean in Intervention Group - adjusted mean in Usual Care Group.|||-7.9|-32.4|0.003
90975870|NCT04233229|181835129|SUPERIORITY|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model adjusted on the HbA1c stratification factor and Time Below Range (TBR) at baseline (during the last 14 days completed continuous glucose monitor recording at the end of the study selection period)|Adjusted means difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.3||Study group effect|ANCOVA||Between-group adjusted means difference is calculated as analysis of covariance adjusted mean in Intervention Group - adjusted mean in Usual Care Group.|||1.3|-1.0|0.79
90975871|NCT04233229|181835130|SUPERIORITY|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model adjusted on the HbA1c stratification factor and Time Below Range (TBR) at baseline (during the last 14 days completed continuous glucose monitor recording at the end of the study selection period)|Adjusted means difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.4||Study group effect|ANCOVA||Between-group adjusted means difference is calculated as analysis of covariance adjusted mean in Intervention Group - adjusted mean in Usual Care Group.|||0.4|-0.3|0.84
90975872|NCT04233229|181835131|SUPERIORITY|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model adjusted on the HbA1c stratification factor and glucose variability (% CV Coefficient of Variation) at baseline (during the last 14 days completed continuous glucose monitor recording at the end of the study selection period)|Adjusted means difference|3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|7.6||Study group effect|ANCOVA||Between-group adjusted means difference is calculated as analysis of covariance adjusted mean in Intervention Group - adjusted mean in Usual Care Group.|||7.6|-0.2|0.060
90975873|NCT04233229|181835132|SUPERIORITY|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with 2 factors: HbA1c value at baseline and study group|Adjusted means difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.7||Study group effect|ANCOVA||Between-group adjusted means difference is calculated as analysis of covariance adjusted mean in Intervention Group - adjusted mean in Usual Care Group.|||-0.7|-1.9|<.001
90975874|NCT04233229|181835133|SUPERIORITY|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model adjusted on the HbA1c stratification factor and total daily insulin dose at selection|Adjusted means difference|-18.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|28.5||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.2|41.2||Study group effect|ANCOVA||Between-group adjusted means difference is calculated as analysis of covariance adjusted mean in Intervention Group - adjusted mean in Usual Care Group.|||41.2|-78.2|0.52
90975875|NCT04233229|181835134|SUPERIORITY|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model adjusted on the HbA1c stratification factor and body weight at study initiation visit|Adjusted means difference|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|6.1||Study group effect|ANCOVA||Between-group adjusted means difference is calculated as analysis of covariance adjusted mean in Intervention Group - adjusted mean in Usual Care Group.|||6.1|-0.4|0.08
90975876|NCT02288247|181835135|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.96||From the Cox proportional hazards model with covariates for treatment and disease progression in Period 1 (radiographic, nonradiographic).|Cox proportional hazards model|||||0.96|0.53|0.027
90975877|NCT02288247|181835136|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.82||From the Cox proportional hazards model with covariates for treatment and disease progression in Period 1 (radiographic, nonradiographic).|Cox proportional hazards model|||||0.82|0.41|0.002
90975878|NCT02288247|181835138|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.142||||||From the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by disease progression (radiographic, non-radiographic) in Period 1.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.142
90975879|NCT02288247|181835141|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|2.13||From the Cox proportional hazards model with covariates for treatment and disease progression in Period 1 (radiographic, nonradiographic).|Cox proportional hazards model|||||2.13|0.47|0.994
90975880|NCT04652804|181835144|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.19||||||Reference group: Low Intensity Intervention||1.19|1.00|
90975881|NCT04652804|181835144|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.05||||||Reference Group: Low Intensity Intervention||1.05|0.90|
90975882|NCT04652804|181835144|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.15||||||Reference group: High Intensity Intervention||1.15|0.80|
90975883|NCT04652804|181835144|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.04||||||Reference group: High Intensity Intervention||1.04|0.77|
91037357|NCT03100344|181960693|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-22.4||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.1|-8.6|||Kenward Roger|||Week 24||-8.6|-36.1|0.002
90975884|NCT03543410|181835186|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.625||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.489|-0.09||nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.090|-6.489|0.044
90975885|NCT03543410|181835186|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.128|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.597||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.273|0.017||nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.017|-6.273|0.051
91037358|NCT03100344|181960693|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-31.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.9|-18.0|||Kenward Roger|||Week 24||-18.0|-44.9|<0.001
91037359|NCT03100344|181960693|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-30.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.8|-16.2|||Kenward Roger|||Week 24||-16.2|-43.8|<0.001
90975886|NCT03543410|181835187|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.281|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.191||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.658|0.095||nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.095|-0.658|0.143
90975887|NCT03543410|181835187|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.219|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.187||0.243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.588|0.15||nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.150|-0.588|0.243
90975888|NCT00820755|181835220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio, log|0.959||||0.1265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.736|1.25|||Log Rank|||Exploratory analysis to test the null hypothesis of no difference between maintenance therapy regimen. Model is adjusted by histology (interactive voice response system \[IVRS\]) and tumor response status at the end of combination therapy ('complete response \[CR\] or partial response \[PR\]' versus 'other').||1.250|0.736|0.1265
90975889|NCT00820755|181835222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.774||||0.0622||95.0|0.613|0.976|||Log Rank|||Exploratory analysis to test the null hypothesis of no difference between maintenance therapy regimen. Model is adjusted by histology (IVRS) and tumor response status at the end of combination therapy ('CR or PR' versus 'other').||0.976|0.613|0.0622
91037360|NCT03100344|181960695|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-1.0|||Kenward Roger|||Week 24||-1.0|-3.0|<0.001
91037361|NCT03100344|181960695|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|-1.8|||Kenward Roger|||Week 24||-1.8|-3.8|<0.001
91037362|NCT03100344|181960695|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-1.3|||Kenward Roger|||Week 24||-1.3|-3.3|<0.001
91037363|NCT03100344|181960696|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-0.9|||Kenward Roger|||Week 24||-0.9|-3.0|<0.001
91037364|NCT03100344|181960696|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|-1.6|||Kenward Roger|||Week 24||-1.6|-3.6|<0.001
91037365|NCT03100344|181960696|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-1.1|||Kenward Roger|||Week 24||-1.1|-3.1|<0.001
91037366|NCT03100344|181960697|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-23.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.7|-9.9|||Kenward Roger|||Week 24||-9.9|-37.7|<0.001
91037367|NCT03100344|181960697|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-31.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.0|-17.7|||Kenward Roger|||Week 24||-17.7|-45.0|<0.001
90975890|NCT01486199|181835228|EQUIVALENCE|alpha=0.05||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparing absorptive clearance in CF children vs adult controls||||0.002
90975891|NCT01486199|181835229|EQUIVALENCE|alpha = 0.05||||||0.2|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of mucociliary clearance in CF children compared to healthy adults||||0.20
90975892|NCT01486199|181835230|EQUIVALENCE|alpha=0.05||||||0.24|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparing absorptive clearance at t=0 vs t=2 years in pediatric CF subjects||||0.24
90975893|NCT01486199|181835231|EQUIVALENCE|alpha=0.05||||||0.87|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparing mucociliary clearance at t=0 and t=2yrs in pediatric CF subjects||||0.87
91037368|NCT03100344|181960697|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-29.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.2|-15.2|||Kenward Roger|||Week 24||-15.2|-43.2|<0.001
91037369|NCT03527485|181960716|EQUIVALENCE|Between-group comparisons of binding potential non displaceable (BPND) in ventral striatum (VS).||||||0.011|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.011
90975894|NCT02063035|181835232|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1318|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1318
90975895|NCT03604445|181835238|OTHER||Probability of DLT rate in [0.16, 0.33)|0.0|||||||||||||Posterior probabilities of the DLT rate lying in the intervals \[0.16, 0.33) (target dosing), and \[0.33,1\] (overdosing) are reported.|Bayesian logistic regression model (BLRM) with overdose control was used to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), defined as highest dose with less than 25% risk of the true DLT rate being equal to or above 33%.|Probability of DLT rate in \[0.33, 1\] = 0|||
91037370|NCT03527485|181960716|EQUIVALENCE|Between-group comparisons of binding potential non displaceable (BPND) in Prefrontal cortex (PFC).||||||0.044|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.044
91037371|NCT06041256|181960743|OTHER||Difference in response rates|30.2||||0.0722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|58.3|||Fisher Exact|||||58.3|0.8|0.0722
91037372|NCT06041256|181960743|OTHER||Difference in response rates|-3.8|||>|0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.1|20.6|||Fisher Exact|||||20.6|-28.1|>0.9999
91037373|NCT06041256|181960743|OTHER||Difference in response rates|22.6||||0.1482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|50.6|||Fisher Exact|||||50.6|-5.5|0.1482
91037374|NCT06041256|181960743|OTHER||Difference in response rates|35.7||||0.0203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.9|61.6|||Fisher Exact|||||61.6|5.9|0.0203
91037375|NCT06041256|181960743|OTHER||Difference in response rates|-33.9||||0.0293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.3|-4.6|||Fisher Exact|||||-4.6|-60.3|0.0293
91037376|NCT06041256|181960743|OTHER||Difference in response rates|-7.6||||0.7431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.9|25.3|||Fisher Exact|||||25.3|-38.9|0.7431
91037377|NCT06041256|181960743|OTHER||Difference in response rates|5.6||||0.7568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.8|37.3|||Fisher Exact|||||37.3|-26.8|0.7568
91037378|NCT06041256|181960744|OTHER||Least square mean difference|20.4||||0.0232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|38.0|||ANCOVA|||||38.0|2.9|0.0232
91037379|NCT06041256|181960744|OTHER||Least square mean difference|9.8||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|27.1|||ANCOVA|||||27.1|-7.4|0.2600
91037380|NCT06041256|181960744|OTHER||Least square mean difference|22.5||||0.0115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.2|39.9|||ANCOVA|||||39.9|5.2|0.0115
91037381|NCT06041256|181960744|OTHER||Least square mean difference|36.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.5|53.4|||ANCOVA|||||53.4|18.5|<0.0001
91037382|NCT06041256|181960744|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-10.6||||0.2403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.4|7.2|||ANCOVA|||||7.2|-28.4|0.2403
91037383|NCT06041256|181960744|OTHER||Least square mean difference|2.1||||0.8138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.7|19.9|||ANCOVA|||||19.9|-15.7|0.8138
91037384|NCT06041256|181960744|OTHER||Least square mean difference|15.5||||0.0834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|33.2|||ANCOVA|||||33.2|-2.1|0.0834
91037385|NCT06041256|181960745|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-75.1||||0.0147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-135.2|-15.1|||ANCOVA|||||-15.1|-135.2|0.0147
91037386|NCT06041256|181960745|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-81.3||||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-140.5|-22.0|||ANCOVA|||||-22.0|-140.5|0.0077
90944742|NCT05178979|181769081|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi-square|2.0||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|||||Models control for clinic and are adjusted for multiple time points. Models run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, clustered data.|Regression, Linear||Wald Chi-Square tests the overall arm\*time intervention effect across the timepoints|||||0.37
90975896|NCT03604445|181835238|OTHER||Probability of DLT rate in [0.16, 0.33)|0.0|||||||||||||Posterior probabilities of the DLT rate lying in the intervals \[0.16, 0.33) (target dosing), and \[0.33,1\] (overdosing) are reported.|Bayesian logistic regression model (BLRM) with overdose control was used to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), defined as highest dose with less than 25% risk of the true DLT rate being equal to or above 33%.|Probability of DLT rate in \[0.33, 1\] = 0|||
90944743|NCT05178979|181769081|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.18|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is adjusted for clinic; this value is the 6-month follow-up|Regression, Linear|Model controls for clinic||Models run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, clustered data.||||0.18
90944744|NCT05178979|181769081|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.19|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is adjusted for clinic; this value is the 12-month follow-up|Regression, Linear|Model controls for clinic|Wald Chi-Square tests the overall arm\*time intervention effect across the timepoints|Models run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, clustered data.||||0.19
90975897|NCT03604445|181835238|OTHER||Probability of DLT rate in [0.16, 0.33)|0.0|||||||||||||Posterior probabilities of the DLT rate lying in the intervals \[0.16, 0.33) (target dosing), and \[0.33,1\] (overdosing) are reported.|Bayesian logistic regression model (BLRM) with overdose control was used to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), defined as highest dose with less than 25% risk of the true DLT rate being equal to or above 33%.|Probability of DLT rate in \[0.33, 1\] = 0|||
90975898|NCT03604445|181835238|OTHER||Probability of DLT rate in [0.16, 0.33)|0.0|||||||||||||Posterior probabilities of the DLT rate lying in the intervals \[0.16, 0.33) (target dosing), and \[0.33,1\] (overdosing) are reported.|Bayesian logistic regression model (BLRM) with overdose control was used to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), defined as highest dose with less than 25% risk of the true DLT rate being equal to or above 33%.|Probability of DLT rate in \[0.33, 1\] = 0|||
91037387|NCT06041256|181960745|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-73.1||||0.0165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-132.6|-13.7|||ANCOVA|||||-13.7|-132.6|0.0165
90944745|NCT05178979|181769082|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi-square|10.84||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|||||Models control for clinic, cadre, and gender and are adjusted for multiple time points. Models run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, clustered data.|Regression, Linear||Wald Chi-Square tests the overall arm\*time intervention effect across the timepoints|||||0.004
90975899|NCT03604445|181835238|OTHER||Probability of DLT rate in [0.16, 0.33)|0.0|||||||||||||Posterior probabilities of the DLT rate lying in the intervals \[0.16, 0.33) (target dosing), and \[0.33,1\] (overdosing) are reported.|Bayesian logistic regression model (BLRM) with overdose control was used to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), defined as highest dose with less than 25% risk of the true DLT rate being equal to or above 33%.|Probability of DLT rate in \[0.33, 1\] = 0|||
91037388|NCT06041256|181960745|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-81.7||||0.0079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-141.4|-22.0|||ANCOVA|||||-22.0|-141.4|0.0079
90944746|NCT05178979|181769082|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is for the 6-month follow-up|Regression, Linear|Models control for clinic, cadre, and gender and are adjusted for multiple time points.||||||<0.001
90975900|NCT03604445|181835238|OTHER||Probability of DLT rate in [0.16, 0.33)|0.003|||||||||||||Posterior probabilities of the DLT rate lying in the intervals \[0.16, 0.33) (target dosing), and \[0.33,1\] (overdosing) are reported.|Bayesian logistic regression model (BLRM) with overdose control was used to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), defined as highest dose with less than 25% risk of the true DLT rate being equal to or above 33%.|Probability of DLT rate in \[0.33, 1\] = 0|||
91037389|NCT06041256|181960745|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-6.1||||0.8443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.8|55.6|||ANCOVA|||||55.6|-67.8|0.8443
91037390|NCT06041256|181960745|OTHER||Least square mean difference|2.0||||0.949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.1|64.1|||ANCOVA|||||64.1|-60.1|0.9490
91037391|NCT06041256|181960745|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-6.6||||0.8324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.1|55.0|||ANCOVA|||||55.0|-68.1|0.8324
90975901|NCT03604445|181835238|OTHER||Probability of DLT rate in [0.16, 0.33)|0.035|||||||||||||Posterior probabilities of the DLT rate lying in the intervals \[0.16, 0.33) (target dosing), and \[0.33,1\] (overdosing) are reported.|Bayesian logistic regression model (BLRM) with overdose control was used to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), defined as highest dose with less than 25% risk of the true DLT rate being equal to or above 33%.|Probability of DLT rate in \[0.33, 1\] = 0.001|||
90975902|NCT03604445|181835238|OTHER||Probability of DLT rate in [0.16, 0.33)|0.176|||||||||||||Posterior probabilities of the DLT rate lying in the intervals \[0.16, 0.33) (target dosing), and \[0.33,1\] (overdosing) are reported.|Bayesian logistic regression model (BLRM) with overdose control was used to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), defined as highest dose with less than 25% risk of the true DLT rate being equal to or above 33%.|Probability of DLT rate in \[0.33, 1\] = 0.018|||
90975903|NCT03604445|181835238|OTHER||Probability of DLT rate in [0.16, 0.33)|0.129|||||||||||||Posterior probabilities of the DLT rate lying in the intervals \[0.16, 0.33) (target dosing), and \[0.33,1\] (overdosing) are reported.|Bayesian logistic regression model (BLRM) with overdose control was used to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), defined as highest dose with less than 25% risk of the true DLT rate being equal to or above 33%.|Probability of DLT rate in \[0.33, 1\] = 0.83|||
90975904|NCT02551159|181835273|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.32||2 sided|Log Rank|||Statistical analysis of number of deaths||1.32|0.69|0.787
90975905|NCT02551159|181835275|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.39||2 sided|Log Rank|||||1.39|0.80|0.634
90975906|NCT02551159|181835277|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3||||0.287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.8||2 sided|Log Rank|||||1.80|0.94|0.287
90975907|NCT02551159|181835277|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.32||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.76||2 sided|Log Rank|||||1.76|0.99|0.028
90975908|NCT02551159|181835278|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.37||2 sided|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis of number with a response||0.37|0.10|<0.001
91037392|NCT00835705|181960782|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of Least Squares Means|103.03||||||90.0|98.4|107.88|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||107.88|98.40|
90975909|NCT02551159|181835278|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.57||2 sided|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis of number with a response||0.57|0.20|<0.001
90975910|NCT02551159|181835280|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.27||2 sided|Log Rank|||Statistical analysis of number of deaths||1.27|0.83|0.811
90975911|NCT02551159|181835280|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.25|||Log Rank|||Statistical analysis of number of deaths||1.25|0.87|0.624
90975912|NCT02551159|181835283|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.36||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.68||2 sided|Log Rank|||||1.68|1.10|0.006
90975913|NCT02551159|181835283|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.27||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.53||2 sided|Log Rank|||||1.53|1.06|0.008
90975914|NCT02551159|181835284|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.33||2 sided|Regression, Logistic|||||0.33|0.13|<0.001
90975915|NCT02551159|181835284|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.41||2 sided|Regression, Logistic|||||0.41|0.20|<0.001
90975916|NCT02175680|181835304|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum|The time to Virologic Failure for the subjects treated with PRO 140 monotherapy was compared to historical data.|||The median time to Virologic Failure for historical controls was 29 days.|||<0.0001
90975917|NCT01913483|181835327|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9458||||||The primary endpoint analysis was to assess the superiority of bivalirudin versus UFH in BARC ≥3 bleeds within the 48 hours post study drug initiation or at hospital discharge, whichever occurred first.|Chi-squared|||Assuming a bleeding event rate of 5.0% in the heparin control treatment group and 3.2% in the bivalirudin group (36% relative risk reduction, a sample size of 3900 participants was to provide more than 80% power with a two-tailed alpha level of 0.05). This estimate took into consideration that the interim efficacy analysis was to be performed when approximately 70% of participants were enrolled using the O'Brien-Fleming alpha spending function.||||0.9458
90975918|NCT00535925|181835337|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.48|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|Cox Shared Frailty Model, adjusted for age, sex, SBP, Hb, eGFR, albuminuria, HbA1c, total cholesterol, triglycerides (log-scaled) to reduce bias risk.||||||<0.05
90975919|NCT04506294|181835362|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.536|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.536
90975920|NCT01469000|181835407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.93||1-sided.|Regression, Cox|Adjusted for gender, performance status, previous adjuvant /neoadjuvant treatment, age, smoking history, mutation type, and country.||||0.93|0.48|0.009
90975921|NCT01469000|181835408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.9||1 sided.|Regression, Cox|Adjusted for gender, performance status, previous adjuvant /neoadjuvant treatment, age, smoking history, mutation type, and country.||||0.90|0.46|0.005
90975922|NCT01469000|181835409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.16||1 sided.|Regression, Cox|Adjusted for gender, performance status, previous adjuvant /neoadjuvant treatment, age, smoking history, mutation type, and country.||||1.16|0.51|0.105
90975923|NCT01469000|181835413|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.78||||||Patient-rated Loss of Appetite: Time to worsening of symptom (TWS) was measured from the date of randomization to the first date of a 15-millimeter(mm) worsening from baseline on a scale of 0 (no symptoms) to 100 (as much as it could be).||1.78|0.77|
90975924|NCT01469000|181835413|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.42||||||Patient-rated Fatigue: Time to worsening of symptom (TWS) was measured from the date of randomization to the first date of a 15-millimeter(mm) worsening from baseline on a scale of 0 (no symptoms) to 100 (as much as it could be).||1.42|0.60|
90975925|NCT01469000|181835413|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.3||||||Patient-rated Cough: Time to worsening of symptom (TWS) was measured from the date of randomization to the first date of a 15-millimeter(mm) worsening from baseline on a scale of 0 (no symptoms) to 100 (as much as it could be).||2.30|0.84|
90975926|NCT01469000|181835413|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.71||||||Patient-rated Dyspnea: Time to worsening of symptom (TWS) was measured from the date of randomization to the first date of a 15-millimeter(mm) worsening from baseline on a scale of 0 (no symptoms) to 100 (as much as it could be).||1.71|0.65|
90975927|NCT01469000|181835413|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.02||||||Patient-rated Hemoptysis: Time to worsening of symptom (TWS) was measured from the date of randomization to the first date of a 15-millimeter(mm) worsening from baseline on a scale of 0 (no symptoms) to 100 (as much as it could be).||1.02|0.32|
90975928|NCT01469000|181835413|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.91||||||Patient-rated Pain: Time to worsening of symptom (TWS) was measured from the date of randomization to the first date of a 15-millimeter(mm) worsening from baseline on a scale of 0 (no symptoms) to 100 (as much as it could be).||1.91|0.64|
90975929|NCT01469000|181835413|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.77||||||Patient-rated Overall Symptoms: Time to worsening of symptom (TWS) was measured from the date of randomization to the first date of a 15-millimeter(mm) worsening from baseline on a scale of 0 (no symptoms) to 100 (as much as it could be).||1.77|0.68|
91037393|NCT00835705|181960783|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of Least Squares Means|98.43||||||90.0|96.71|100.18|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||100.18|96.71|
91037394|NCT00835705|181960784|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of Least Squares Means|98.29||||||90.0|96.58|100.03|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||100.03|96.58|
90944747|NCT05178979|181769082|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.86|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is for the 12-month follow-up|Regression, Linear|Models control for clinic, cadre, and gender and are adjusted for multiple time points.||||||0.86
90944748|NCT05178979|181769083|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi-square|21.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Models control for clinic, cadre, and gender and are adjusted for multiple time points. Models run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, clustered data.|Regression, Logistic||Wald Chi-Square tests the overall arm\*time intervention effect across the timepoints|||||<0.001
90944749|NCT05178979|181769083|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.81|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is for the 6-month follow-up.|Regression, Linear|Models control for clinic, cadre, and gender and are adjusted for multiple time points.||update||||0.81
90944750|NCT05178979|181769083|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is for the 12-month follow-up.|Regression, Linear|Models control for clinic, cadre, and gender and are adjusted for multiple time points.||update||||<0.001
90944751|NCT05178979|181769084|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi-square|150.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Models control for clinic, cadre, and gender and are adjusted for multiple time points. Models run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, clustered data.|Regression, Linear||Wald Chi-Square tests the overall arm\*time intervention effect across the timepoints|||||<0.001
90944752|NCT05178979|181769084|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is for the 6-month follow-up|Regression, Linear|||||||0.002
90944753|NCT05178979|181769084|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.03|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is for the 12-month follow-up|Regression, Linear|||||||0.03
90944754|NCT05178979|181769085|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi-square|8.72||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||Models control for clinic, cadre, and gender and are adjusted for multiple time points. Models run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, clustered data.|Regression, Linear||Wald Chi-Square tests the overall arm\*time intervention effect across the timepoints|||||0.01
90944755|NCT05178979|181769085|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.15|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is for the 6-month follow-up.|Regression, Linear|Models control for clinic, cadre, and gender and are adjusted for multiple time points.||||||0.15
90944756|NCT05178979|181769085|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.008|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is for the 12-month follow-up.|Regression, Linear|Models control for clinic, cadre, and gender and are adjusted for multiple time points.||||||0.008
90944757|NCT05178979|181769086|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi-square|172.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Models control for clinic and income and are adjusted for multiple time points. Models run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, clustered data.|Regression, Linear||Wald Chi-Square tests the overall arm\*time intervention effect across the timepoints|||||<0.001
90944758|NCT05178979|181769086|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.68|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is the 6-month follow-up|Regression, Linear|Models control for clinic and income and are adjusted for multiple time points.||||||0.68
90944759|NCT05178979|181769086|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is for the 12-month follow-up.|Regression, Linear|Models control for clinic and income and are adjusted for multiple time points.||||||<0.001
90944760|NCT05178979|181769087|SUPERIORITY|Models control for clinic, income, years living with HIV and are adjusted for multiple time points. Models run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, clustered data.|Wald Chi-square|25.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Wald Chi-Square tests the overall arm\*time intervention effect across the timepoints|||||<0.001
90944761|NCT05178979|181769087|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.1|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is the 6-month follow-up.|Regression, Linear|Models control for clinic, income, years living with HIV and are adjusted for multiple time points.||||||0.10
90944762|NCT05178979|181769087|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.54|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is the 12-month follow-up.|Regression, Linear|Models control for clinic, income, years living with HIV and are adjusted for multiple time points||||||0.54
90944763|NCT05178979|181769088|SUPERIORITY|Models control for clinic, gender, AUDIT score and are adjusted for multiple time points. Models run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, clustered data.|Wald Chi-square|36.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Models control for clinic, gender, AUDIT score and are adjusted for multiple time points.|Regression, Linear||Wald Chi-Square tests the overall arm\*time intervention effect across the timepoints|||||<0.001
90944764|NCT05178979|181769088|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.97|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is for the 6-month follow-up.|Regression, Linear|Models control for clinic, gender, AUDIT score and are adjusted for multiple time points.||||||0.97
90944765|NCT05178979|181769088|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is for the 12-month follow-up.|Regression, Linear|Models control for clinic, gender, AUDIT score and are adjusted for multiple time points.||||||<0.001
90944766|NCT05178979|181769089|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi-square|9.46||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||Models control for clinic, gender, years living with HIV, AUDIT score and are adjusted for multiple time points. Models run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, clustered data.|Regression, Linear||Wald Chi-Square tests the overall arm\*time intervention effect across the timepoints|||||0.01
90944767|NCT05178979|181769089|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.81|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is for the 6-month follow-up.|Regression, Linear|Models control for clinic, gender, years living with HIV, AUDIT score and are adjusted for multiple time points.||||||0.81
90944768|NCT05178979|181769089|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is for the 12-month follow-up.|Regression, Linear|Models control for clinic, gender, years living with HIV, AUDIT score and are adjusted for multiple time points.||||||0.04
90944769|NCT05178979|181769090|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi-square|14.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Models control for clinic, gender, years living with HIV and are adjusted for multiple time points. Models run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, clustered data.|Regression, Linear||Wald Chi-Square tests the overall arm\*time intervention effect across the timepoints|||||<0.001
90944770|NCT05178979|181769090|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.45|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is for the 6-month follow-up.|Regression, Linear|Models control for clinic, gender, years living with HIV and are adjusted for multiple time points.||||||0.45
90944771|NCT05178979|181769090|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is for the 12-month follow-up.|Regression, Linear|Models control for clinic, gender, years living with HIV and are adjusted for multiple time points.||||||0.02
90944772|NCT05178979|181769091|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi-square|11.06||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|||||Models control for clinic, AUDIT score, food insecurity and are adjusted for multiple time points. Models run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, clustered data.|Regression, Linear||Wald Chi-Square tests the overall arm\*time intervention effect across the timepoints|||||0.004
90944773|NCT05178979|181769091|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.35|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is for the 6-month follow-up.|Regression, Linear|Models control for clinic, AUDIT score, food insecurity and are adjusted for multiple time points.||||||0.35
90975930|NCT01469000|181835413|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.17||||||Patient-rated Interference: Time to worsening of symptom (TWS) was measured from the date of randomization to the first date of a 15-millimeter(mm) worsening from baseline on a scale of 0 (no symptoms) to 100 (as much as it could be).||2.17|0.88|
90975931|NCT01469000|181835413|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.74||||||Patient-rated Quality of Life: Time to worsening of symptom (TWS) was measured from the date of randomization to the first date of a 15-millimeter(mm) worsening from baseline on a scale of 0 (no symptoms) to 100 (as much as it could be).||1.74|0.72|
90975932|NCT01469000|181835413|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|2.49||||||Observer-rated Loss of Appetite: Time to worsening of symptom (TWS) was measured from the date of randomization to the first date of a 15-millimeter(mm) worsening from baseline on a scale of 0 (Severe) to 100 (None). This scoring system is the reverse of the patient scale. The observer scale is a categorical 5-point scale and specific descriptors are provided with each questions for each of the scores (0,25,50,75 and 100)||2.49|0.97|
90975933|NCT01469000|181835413|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.93||||||Observer-rated Fatigue: Time to worsening of symptom (TWS) was measured from the date of randomization to the first date of a 15-millimeter(mm) worsening from baseline on a scale of 0 (Severe) to 100 (None). This scoring system is the reverse of the patient scale. The observer scale is a categorical 5-point scale and specific descriptors are provided with each questions for each of the scores (0,25,50,75 and 100)||1.93|0.82|
90975934|NCT01469000|181835413|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.15||||||Observer-rated Cough:Time to worsening of symptom (TWS) was measured from the date of randomization to the first date of a 15-millimeter(mm) worsening from baseline on a scale of 0 (Severe) to 100 (None). This scoring system is the reverse of the patient scale. The observer scale is a categorical 5-point scale and specific descriptors are provided with each questions for each of the scores (0,25,50,75 and 100)||2.15|0.72|
90975935|NCT01469000|181835413|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.83||||||Observer-rated Dyspnea: Time to worsening of symptom (TWS) was measured from the date of randomization to the first date of a 15-millimeter(mm) worsening from baseline on a scale of 0 (Severe) to 100 (None). This scoring system is the reverse of the patient scale. The observer scale is a categorical 5-point scale and specific descriptors are provided with each questions for each of the scores (0,25,50,75 and 100)||1.83|0.64|
90975936|NCT01469000|181835413|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.91||||||Observer-rated Hemoptysis: Time to worsening of symptom (TWS) was measured from the date of randomization to the first date of a 15-millimeter(mm) worsening from baseline on a scale of 0 (Severe) to 100 (None). This scoring system is the reverse of the patient scale. The observer scale is a categorical 5-point scale and specific descriptors are provided with each questions for each of the scores (0,25,50,75 and 100)||2.91|0.60|
91037395|NCT00835705|181960785|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of Least Squares Means|103.16||||||90.0|95.33|111.64|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||111.64|95.33|
91037396|NCT00835705|181960786|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of Least Squares Means|103.79||||||90.0|95.75|112.5|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||112.50|95.75|
91037397|NCT00835705|181960787|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of Least Squares Means|104.26||||||90.0|95.76|113.52|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||113.52|95.76|
91037398|NCT05090839|181960796|EQUIVALENCE|The 95% confidence interval is used to assess the difference between the means of the 2 x 2 (English vs. Spanish) and (Trauma vs. Non-trauma) writing groups.|variance explained by the IV.|0.072|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.234|||ANOVA|||||.234|.0000|<0.05
91037399|NCT05090839|181960798|EQUIVALENCE|The 95% confidence interval is used to assess the difference between the means of the 2 x 2 (English vs. Spanish) and (Trauma vs. Non-trauma) writing groups.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.358|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.554|||ANOVA|||This is a comparison that is specific to the contrast of visualizing traumatic versus stressful events.||.554|0|<0.05
91037400|NCT05090839|181960799|EQUIVALENCE|The 95% confidence interval is used to assess the difference between the means of the 2 x 2 (English vs. Spanish) and (Trauma vs. Non-trauma) writing groups.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.51|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.676|||ANOVA|||||.676|.000|<0.05
91037401|NCT00834964|181960809|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|97.0||||||90.0|92.72|101.49|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||101.49|92.72|
91037402|NCT00834964|181960810|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|99.7||||||90.0|94.74|104.92|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||104.92|94.74|
91037403|NCT00834964|181960811|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|98.6||||||90.0|93.46|104.02|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||104.02|93.46|
90944774|NCT05178979|181769091|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is for the 12-month follow-up.|Regression, Linear|Models control for clinic, AUDIT score, food insecurity and are adjusted for multiple time points.||||||0.04
90944775|NCT05178979|181769092|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi-square|2.84||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|||||Models control for clinic, gender, years living with HIV, travel time to clinic and are adjusted for multiple time points. Models run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, clustered data.|Regression, Linear||Wald Chi-Square tests the overall arm\*time intervention effect across the timepoints|||||0.24
90944776|NCT05178979|181769092|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.92|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is for the 6-month follow-up.|Regression, Linear|Models control for clinic, gender, years living with HIV, travel time to clinic and are adjusted for multiple time points.||||||0.92
90975937|NCT01469000|181835413|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.03||||||Observer-rated Pain: Time to worsening of symptom (TWS) was measured from the date of randomization to the first date of a 15-millimeter(mm) worsening from baseline on a scale of 0 (Severe) to 100 (None). This scoring system is the reverse of the patient scale. The observer scale is a categorical 5-point scale and specific descriptors are provided with each questions for each of the scores (0,25,50,75 and 100)||1.03|0.41|
90975938|NCT01116544|181835469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold = 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.005
90944777|NCT05178979|181769092|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.21|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is for the 12-month follow-up.|Regression, Linear|Models control for clinic, gender, years living with HIV, travel time to clinic and are adjusted for multiple time points.||||||0.21
90944778|NCT00817336|181769093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d|0.8||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.02
90975939|NCT01116544|181835470|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Power analysis called for sample sizes of 32 participants in each treatment group. The study was close before reaching this number of participants.|||||<|0.001||||||Hypothesis: significant increase in score (post-tx - pre-tx) for both groups|ANCOVA|FMA scores adjusted for baseline differences.||||||<0.001
90944779|NCT00817336|181769094|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|2.3||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.001
90944780|NCT00817336|181769095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d|0.41||||0.31|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.31
90944781|NCT00817336|181769096|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|0.41||||0.41|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.41
90944782|NCT01586975|181769118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0742|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value is not adjusted, and no a priori threshold was used|Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis non-parametric ANOVA test||||0.0742
90944783|NCT02138253|181769119|SUPERIORITY|For the primary efficacy analysis based on the Month 24 biopsy, subjects with a missing Month 24 biopsy had their Ishak fibrosis score imputed. Imputation of missing Ishak fibrosis scores was conducted using multiple imputation (MI). Results were imputed based on age, gender, baseline Ishak fibrosis score, and the Month 12 Ishak fibrosis score.|Risk Difference (RD)|2.9||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.5|26.4||Stratified by baseline Ishak Fibrosis Score strata (F2, F3+F4+F5, and F6).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||All screening and post-baseline biopsy data collected were used in the primary analysis, irrespective of the defined protocol visit window. Classification of the Ishak fibrosis score was summarized descriptively by treatment group at baseline, Month 12, and Month 24. Response at Months 12 and 24 were summarized descriptively by treatment group, along with exact (Clopper-Pearson) 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The risk difference between groups was also was provided with its 95% CI.||26.4|-20.5|0.73
90975940|NCT01116544|181835471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Across both groups, whether score increased following completion of intervention|ANCOVA|||||||0.001
90944784|NCT02138253|181769120|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.4||||0.658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|28.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||All screening and post-baseline biopsy data collected were used in the primary analysis, irrespective of the defined protocol visit window. Classification of the Ishak fibrosis score was summarized descriptively by treatment group at baseline, Month 12, and Month 24. Response at Months 12 and 24 were summarized descriptively by treatment group, along with exact (Clopper-Pearson) 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The risk difference between groups was also was provided with its 95% CI.||28.9|-20.0|0.658
90975941|NCT01116544|181835472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001||||||Across both treatment groups|ANCOVA|||||||0.001
90975942|NCT01116544|181835473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Data combined between 2 treatment groups||||0.001
90975943|NCT01116544|181835474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Both treatment groups combined||||>0.05
90975944|NCT02419508|181835486|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.001
90975945|NCT02419508|181835487|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91037404|NCT00834964|181960812|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|96.29||||||90.0|91.96|100.82|||||Metabolite results not subjected to bioequivalence criteria; results are presented for informational purposes only.|||100.82|91.96|
91037405|NCT00834964|181960813|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|104.1||||||90.0|100.08|108.29|||||Metaboite results not subjected to bioequivalence criteria, results are presented for informational purposes only.|||108.29|100.08|
91037406|NCT00834964|181960814|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|100.52||||||90.0|97.3|103.84|||||Metabolite results were not subjected to bioequivalence criteria, results are presented for informational purposes only.|||103.84|97.30|
91037407|NCT02826694|181960817|OTHER|||||||0.168|||||||linear mixed effect model|||T3||||0.168
91037408|NCT02826694|181960817|OTHER|||||||0.026|||||||linear mixed effect model|||T4||||0.026
91037409|NCT03364192|181960856|OTHER|Multilevel modeling adapted for multiple-baseline design comparing participant goal attainment before, during, and after peer-delivered Whole Health Coaching.|||||<|0.05|||||||Multilevel Modeling|||||||<0.05
91037410|NCT04547192|181960866|SUPERIORITY|Power calculation - Expected enrollment: 25 patients/hospital/month, giving a total of 3,500 patients across all hospitals over 17.5 months. With an alpha of 0.05 and baseline TIF adherence rate of 50%, there was 80% power to detect 8.1-8.6% difference in KPI performance with 0.15-0.40 range in COV.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.54||||0.504|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted for TIF introduction and time periods as fixed effects and hospitals and time periods as random effects.|generalized linear mixed regression mode|||For mobility on EU arrival assessed,||||0.504
91037411|NCT04547192|181960866|SUPERIORITY|Power calculation - Expected enrollment: 25 patients/hospital/month, giving a total of 3,500 patients across all hospitals over 17.5 months. With an alpha of 0.05 and baseline TIF adherence rate of 50%, there was 80% power to detect 8.1-8.6% difference in KPI performance with 0.15-0.40 range in COV.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.31||||0.169|TWO_SIDED||||||generalized linear mixed regression mode|||Respiratory rate at EU assessed||||0.169
91037412|NCT04547192|181960866|SUPERIORITY|Power calculation - Expected enrollment: 25 patients/hospital/month, giving a total of 3,500 patients across all hospitals over 17.5 months. With an alpha of 0.05 and baseline TIF adherence rate of 50%, there was 80% power to detect 8.1-8.6% difference in KPI performance with 0.15-0.40 range in COV.|Odds Ratio (OR)|25.29||||0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||generalized linear mixed regression|||Airway assessed||||0.006
91037413|NCT04547192|181960866|SUPERIORITY|Power calculation - Expected enrollment: 25 patients/hospital/month, giving a total of 3,500 patients across all hospitals over 17.5 months. With an alpha of 0.05 and baseline TIF adherence rate of 50%, there was 80% power to detect 8.1-8.6% difference in KPI performance with 0.15-0.40 range in COV.|Odds Ratio (OR)|38.38||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||generalized linear mixed regression|||Chest examined||||0.001
91037414|NCT04547192|181960866|SUPERIORITY|Power calculation - Expected enrollment: 25 patients/hospital/month, giving a total of 3,500 patients across all hospitals over 17.5 months. With an alpha of 0.05 and baseline TIF adherence rate of 50%, there was 80% power to detect 8.1-8.6% difference in KPI performance with 0.15-0.40 range in COV.|Odds Ratio (OR)|93.01||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||generalized linear mixed regression|||For Intra-abdominal bleeding evaluated||||0.001
90975946|NCT02419508|181835488|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
90975947|NCT02419508|181835489|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
90975948|NCT02419508|181835490|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
90975949|NCT02419508|181835491|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
90975950|NCT02419508|181835492|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
90975951|NCT01332071|181835493|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This is a bioequivalence study. The study was performed to fulfill a specific regulatory demand of the Brazilian Regulatory Agency - ANVISA, in order to register a new dosage of medication.|Ratio T formulation/R formulation|96.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.44|99.83|||||The ratio between the geometric means of the test (T) and reference (R) formulations was calculated.|||99.83|93.44|
91037415|NCT04547192|181960866|SUPERIORITY|Power calculation - Expected enrollment: 25 patients/hospital/month, giving a total of 3,500 patients across all hospitals over 17.5 months. With an alpha of 0.05 and baseline TIF adherence rate of 50%, there was 80% power to detect 8.1-8.6% difference in KPI performance with 0.15-0.40 range in COV.|Odds Ratio (OR)|354.91||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||generalized linear mixed regression|||For Spine Immobilized for RTI or Fall Victims||||0.001
91037416|NCT04547192|181960866|SUPERIORITY|Power calculation - Expected enrollment: 25 patients/hospital/month, giving a total of 3,500 patients across all hospitals over 17.5 months. With an alpha of 0.05 and baseline TIF adherence rate of 50%, there was 80% power to detect 8.1-8.6% difference in KPI performance with 0.15-0.40 range in COV.|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.95||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||generalized linear mixed regression|||Splinting of Fractures Considered||||0.001
90944785|NCT02138253|181769121|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.9||||0.421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.8|13.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||All screening and post-baseline biopsy data collected were used in the primary analysis, irrespective of the defined protocol visit window. Classification of the Ishak fibrosis score was summarized descriptively by treatment group at baseline, Month 12, and Month 24. Response at Months 12 and 24 were summarized descriptively by treatment group, along with exact (Clopper-Pearson) 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The risk difference between groups was also was provided with its 95% CI.||13.1|-28.8|0.421
90944786|NCT01390441|181769180|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|PK bioequivalence was assumed if the 90% confidence interval of the geometric mean ratio for the comparison fell within the range 0.80-1.25.|Geometric mean ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|1.16|||ANOVA|||Back-transformed least squares mean and confidence interval from fixed effects model performed on natural log-transformed values containing treatment as a fixed effect and gender as a covariate.||1.16|0.87|
90944787|NCT01390441|181769182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-17.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.6|3.6|||Miettinen-Nurminen|||The difference in percent AE incidence was determined for the treatment comparison (Part A: MK-8808 500 mg/m\^2 - Part A: MabThera 500 mg/m\^2) when \>=4 participants in an arm experienced an event.||3.6|-38.6|
90944788|NCT01390441|181769182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-17.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.4|10.9|||Miettinen-Nurminen|||The difference in percent AE incidence was determined for the treatment comparison (Part B: MK-8808 1000 mg - Part B: MabThera 1000 mg) when \>=4 participants in an arm experienced an event.||10.9|-44.4|
90944789|NCT01390441|181769182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-5.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.9|24.6|||Miettinen-Nurminen|||The difference in percent AE incidence was determined for the treatment comparison (Part B: MK-8808 1000 mg - Part B: Rituxan® 1000 mg) when \>=4 participants in an arm experienced an event.||24.6|-34.9|
90944790|NCT01390441|181769182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent differnce|12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.6|38.9|||Miettinen-Nurminen|||The difference in percent AE incidence was determined for the treatment comparison (Part B: MabThera® 1000 mg - Part B: Rituxan® 1000 mg) when \>=4 participants in an arm experienced an event.||38.9|-15.6|
90944791|NCT01390441|181769184|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|PK bioequivalence was assumed if the 90% confidence interval of the geometric mean ratio for the comparison fell within the range 0.80-1.25.|Geometric mean ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|1.1|||ANOVA|||Back-transformed least squares mean and confidence interval from fixed effects model performed on natural log-transformed values containing treatment as a fixed effect and gender as a covariate.||1.1|0.87|
90944792|NCT01390441|181769188|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.5|||ANCOVA|The model included a term for treatment.||Estimated difference vs MabThera® at 6 weeks.||0.5|-0.9|
90944793|NCT01390441|181769188|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.2|||ANCOVA|The model included a term for treatment.||Estimated difference vs MabThera® at 12 weeks.||1.2|-0.4|
90944794|NCT03802617|181769191|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.63|||MMRM|||||0.63|-0.85|0.770
90944795|NCT03802617|181769191|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|-0.04|||MMRM|||||-0.04|-1.55|0.038
90944796|NCT03802617|181769191|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|-0.03|||MMRM|||||-0.03|-1.54|0.041
90944797|NCT02446613|181769206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.007|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|5.43|||||The posterior probability statement value for change from baseline in post-challenge TNSS ≤0 was 0.1071.|||5.43|-1.41|
90944798|NCT02446613|181769207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.007|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|3.75|||||The posterior probability statement value for change from baseline in post-challenge TNSS ≤0 was 0.2417.|||3.75|-1.98|
90944799|NCT02446613|181769208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.007|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|1.87|||||The posterior probability statement value for change from baseline in post-challenge TNSS ≤0 was 0.2876.|||1.87|-1.08|
90944800|NCT02446613|181769209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.006|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|5.34|||||The posterior probability statement value for change from baseline in post-challenge TNSS ≤0 was 0.1453.|||5.34|-1.86|
90944801|NCT02446613|181769210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|4.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.006|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|19.71|||||The posterior probability statement value for percentage reduction in the reductions of PNIF ≤0 was 0.2665.|||19.71|-10.70|
90944802|NCT02446613|181769211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|4.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.007|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.97|24.38|||||The posterior probability statement value for percentage reduction in the reductions of PNIF ≤0 was 0.3266|||24.38|-14.97|
90944803|NCT02446613|181769212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.008|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.47|19.2|||||The posterior probability statement value for percentage reduction in the reductions of PNIF ≤0 was 0.4528|||19.20|-17.47|
90944804|NCT02446613|181769213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|6.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.007|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.69|28.04|||||The posterior probability statement value for percentage reduction in the reductions of PNIF ≤0 was 0.2525|||28.04|-13.69|
90975952|NCT01332071|181835494|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This is a bioequivalence study. The study was performed to fulfill a specific regulatory demand of the Brazilian Regulatory Agency - ANVISA, in order to register a new dosage of medication.|Ratio T formulation/R formulation|97.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.25|102.5|||||The ratios between the geometric means of the test (T) and reference (R) formulations was calculated.|||102.50|93.25|
90944805|NCT00267098|181769215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.729||||0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.592|0.889||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study;a p-value was not used. Instead, a posterior probability,representing the probability that patients with BiV pacing have lower risk of events than those with RV pacing, was calculated. A probability ≥0.95 was significant.|Posterior Distribution for HR|The posterior distribution is the set of values the BiV to RV hazard ratio can take, and its likelihood of taking such values.|The hazard ratio corresponds to the time until death, a HF urgent care event or visit in which the LVESVI endpoint was met. Data beyond missed LVESVI measurements were excluded. A 95% credible interval was used instead of a 95% confidence interval.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, ejection fractions of at most 50%, and NYHA classifications of I, II, or III who receive biventricular pacing have the same rate of mortality, a heart failure urgent care visit, or significant increase in LVESVI as corresponding patients who receive right ventricular pacing. This was tested against the hypothesis that patients with BiV pacing have a lower rate of this composite endpoint than patients with right ventricular pacing.||0.889|0.592|0.9990
91037417|NCT04547192|181960866|SUPERIORITY|Power calculation - Expected enrollment: 25 patients/hospital/month, giving a total of 3,500 patients across all hospitals over 17.5 months. With an alpha of 0.05 and baseline TIF adherence rate of 50%, there was 80% power to detect 8.1-8.6% difference in KPI performance with 0.15-0.40 range in COV.|Odds Ratio (OR)|5.18||||0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||generalized linear mixed regression|||Tetanus Considered for bites, burns, lacerations, and abrasions||||0.006
91037418|NCT04547192|181960866|SUPERIORITY|Power calculation - Expected enrollment: 25 patients/hospital/month, giving a total of 3,500 patients across all hospitals over 17.5 months. With an alpha of 0.05 and baseline TIF adherence rate of 50%, there was 80% power to detect 8.1-8.6% difference in KPI performance with 0.15-0.40 range in COV.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.03||||0.047|TWO_SIDED||||||generalized linear mixed regression|||Date of Injury Recorded||||0.047
91037419|NCT04547192|181960866|SUPERIORITY|Power calculation - Expected enrollment: 25 patients/hospital/month, giving a total of 3,500 patients across all hospitals over 17.5 months. With an alpha of 0.05 and baseline TIF adherence rate of 50%, there was 80% power to detect 8.1-8.6% difference in KPI performance with 0.15-0.40 range in COV.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.42||||0.166|TWO_SIDED||||||generalized linear mixed regression|||Death||||0.166
91037420|NCT04547192|181960866|SUPERIORITY|Power calculation - Expected enrollment: 25 patients/hospital/month, giving a total of 3,500 patients across all hospitals over 17.5 months. With an alpha of 0.05 and baseline TIF adherence rate of 50%, there was 80% power to detect 8.1-8.6% difference in KPI performance with 0.15-0.40 range in COV.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.14||||0.013|TWO_SIDED||||||generalized linear mixed regression|||Important Clinical Data Document||||0.013
91037421|NCT04547192|181960867|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.42||||0.166|TWO_SIDED||||||generalized linear mixed regression|||||||0.166
91037422|NCT01108445|181960940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.406||||0.157|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.157
91037423|NCT01108445|181960942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median PFS|5.6|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||The 95% CI for the HC was (4,6). If the median PFS for RAD001 is within the 95% CI for the HC, it is determined that there is not enough statistical evidence to say that the median PFS is different than the HC.|A comparison of the median PFS for RAD001 arm was compared to the 95% confidence interval(CI) of the median PFS of the historical control (HC). The null hypothesis was that there is no difference in the median PFS between the treatment arms and the historical control. If the median PFS is outside the 95%CI for the HC,it is determined there is statistical evidence that median PFS is different from the HC.||||
90944806|NCT00267098|181769216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.843||||0.865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.632|1.142||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; thus p-values were not used. Instead, posterior probabilities, representing the probability that subjects with biventricular pacing have better outcomes, were calculated. A probability ≥ 0.95 was significant.|Posterior Distribution for HR|The posterior distribution is the set of values the BiV to RV hazard ratio for death can take, and its likelihood of taking such values.|Because BLOCK HF was a Bayesian study, a 95% credible interval was used in lieu of a 95% confidence interval. This interval reflects the set of values the Hazard Ratio can take with 95% posterior probability.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, ejection fractions of at most 50%, and NYHA classifications of I, II, or III who receive biventricular pacing have the same rate of mortality as corresponding patients who receive right ventricular pacing.||1.142|0.632|0.865
90944807|NCT00267098|181769217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.781||||0.9785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.615|0.991||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used. Instead, a posterior probability, representing the probability that patients with BiV pacing have better outcomes than those with RV pacing, was calculated. A probability ≥0.95 was significant.|Posterior Distribution for HR|The posterior distribution is the set of values the BiV to RV hazard ratio can take, and its likelihood of taking such values.|Because BLOCK HF was a Bayesian study, a 95% credible interval was used in lieu of a 95% confidence interval. This interval reflects the set of values the Hazard Ratio can take with 95% posterior probability.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, ejection fractions of at most 50%, and NYHA classifications of I, II, or III who receive biventricular pacing have the same rate of mortality or heart failure(HF)-related hospitalization as corresponding patients who receive right ventricular pacing. This was tested against the hypothesis that patients with biventricular pacing have a lower rate of death or first HF hospitalization than patients with right ventricular pacing.||0.991|0.615|0.9785
91037424|NCT01108445|181960942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median PFS|8.3|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||95% CI for HC was(4,6). If the median PFS for Sunitinib is within the 95% CI for the HC,it is determined that there is not enough statistical evidence to say that the median PFS is different than the HC.|A comparison of the median PFS for Sunitinib arm was compared to the 95% confidence interval(CI) of the median PFS of the historical control (HC). The null hypothesis was that there is no difference in the median PFS between the treatment arms and the historical control. If the median PFS is outside the 95%CI for the HC,it is determined there is statistical evidence that median PFS is different from the HC.||||
91037425|NCT01108445|181960944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.589|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.589
91037426|NCT01108445|181960945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.066|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.066
90944808|NCT00267098|181769218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.695||||0.9886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.558|0.866||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used. Instead, a posterior probability, representing the probability that patients with BiV pacing have better outcomes than those with RV pacing, was calculated. A probability ≥0.95 was significant.|Posterior Distribution for HR|The posterior distribution is the set of values the BiV to RV hazard ratio can take, and its likelihood of taking such values.|The hazard ratio corresponds to the time from randomization to death or a visit in which LVESVI endpoint was met. Data beyond missed LVESVI measurements were excluded. A 95% credible interval was used instead of a 95% confidence interval.|"The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, ejection fractions of at most 50%, and NYHA classifications of I, II, or II who receive biventricular pacing have the same rate of mortality or significant increase in LVESVI as corresponding patients who receive right ventricular pacing.~This was tested against the hypothesis that patients with biventricular pacing have a lower rate of death or significant increase in LVESVI than patients with right ventricular pacing."||0.866|0.558|0.9886
90944809|NCT00267098|181769219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.704||||0.9904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.522|0.947||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used. Instead, a posterior probability, representing the probability that patients with BiV pacing have better outcomes than those with RV pacing, was calculated. A probability ≥0.95 was significant.|Posterior Distribution for HR|The posterior distribution is the set of values the BiV to RV hazard ratio can take, and its likelihood of taking such values.|Because BLOCK HF was a Bayesian study, a 95% credible interval was used in lieu of a 95% confidence interval. This interval reflects the set of values the Hazard Ratio can take with 95% posterior probability.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, ejection fractions of at most 50%, and NYHA classifications of I, II, or III who receive biventricular pacing have the same rate of first heart failure(HF)-related hospitalization as corresponding patients who receive right ventricular pacing. This was tested against the hypothesis that patients with biventricular pacing have a lower rate of first HF hospitalization than patients with right ventricular pacing.||0.947|0.522|0.9904
90944810|NCT00267098|181769220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||BiV - RV Difference in Average Rank|-1.8||||0.637||||||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used. Instead, a posterior probability, representing the probability that patients with BiV pacing have better outcomes than those with RV pacing, was calculated. A probability ≥0.95 was significant.|Difference in Average Ranks|The subjects' individual rates of days hospitalized for HF were ranked, with lower ranks corresponding to fewer days hospitalized for HF.|The posterior probability that the BiV - RV difference in average ranks was below 0 (denoting that the BiV arm had lower ranks than the RV arm, on average) was calculated.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, ejection fractions of at most 50%, and NYHA classifications of I, II, or III who receive biventricular pacing have the same rate of days hospitalized for heart failure per year as corresponding patients who receive right ventricular pacing. This was tested against the hypothesis that patients with biventricular pacing have a lower rate of days hospitalized for HF than patients with right ventricular pacing.||||0.637
90975953|NCT01332071|181835495|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This is a bioequivalence study. The study was performed to fulfill a specific regulatory demand of the Brazilian Regulatory Agency - ANVISA, in order to register a new dosage of medication.|Ratio T formulation/R formulation|96.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.32|99.72|||||The ratio between the geometric means of the test (T) and reference (R) formulations was calculated.|||99.72|93.32|
90944811|NCT00267098|181769221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||BiV - RV Difference in Average Rank|0.012||||0.591|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; thus p-values were not used. Instead, a posterior probability, representing the probability that subjects with biventricular pacing have better outcomes at 6 months, was calculated. A probability ≥0.95 was significant.|Posterior Distribution for Average Rank|Subjects' Randomization - 6 month changes in NYHA classification were ranked. The BiV - RV difference in average rank was analyzed.|Positive values reflect better outcomes over time in the BiV arm than the RV arm.|Subjects' changes in NYHA classification from randomization to 6 months were determined. The null hypothesis was that the average change among patients with biventricular pacing is equal to that of patients with right ventricular pacing.||||0.591
90975954|NCT01332071|181835496|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This is a bioequivalence study. The study was performed to fulfill a specific regulatory demand of the Brazilian Regulatory Agency - ANVISA, in order to register a new dosage of medication.|Ratio T formulation/R formulation|95.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.67|100.1|||||The ratios between the geometric means of the test (T) and reference (R) formulations was calculated.|||100.10|91.67|
90975955|NCT01332071|181835497|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This is a bioequivalence study. The study was performed to fulfill a specific regulatory demand of the Brazilian Regulatory Agency - ANVISA, in order to register a new dosage of medication.|Ratio T formulation/R formulation|94.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.7|99.22|||||The ratios between the geometric means of the test (T) and reference (R) formulations was calculated.|||99.22|90.70|
90975956|NCT01332071|181835498|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This is a bioequivalence study. The study was performed to fulfill a specific regulatory demand of the Brazilian Regulatory Agency - ANVISA, in order to register a new dosage of medication.|Ratio T formulation/R formulation|97.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.15|102.86|||||The ratios between the geometric means of the test (T) and reference (R) formulations was calculated.|||102.86|93.15|
90975957|NCT01738971|181835499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||relative probability|3.13|||<|0.001||95.0|1.9|5.13|||t-test, 2 sided|see above description of analysis taking into account cluster randomisation||"Cluster randomised study design - statisitical analysis takes this into account. Analaysis was conducted at a cluster level and the proportions in each cluster using effective contraception were compared between groups by 2-sample t tests, weighted by the different number of patients in each cluster.~Comparison of number of women using effective contraception at 6-8 weeks in progestogen only pill group compared to control."||5.13|1.90|<0.001
90975958|NCT01738971|181835499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||relative probability|2.57||||0.006||95.0|1.55|4.27||see above comments regarding analysis taking cluster randomised account into consideration|t-test, 2 sided|||"Cluster randomised study design - statisitical analysis takes this into account. Analaysis was conducted at a cluster level and the proportions in each cluster using effective contraception were compared between groups by 2-sample t tests, weighted by the different number of patients in each cluster.~Comparison of number of women using effective contraception at 6-8 weeks in rapid access group compared to control."||4.27|1.55|0.006
90975959|NCT03242954|181835583|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's f square|0.011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.208||0.5148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.101|||Regression, Linear|||||0.101|0.001|0.5148
90975960|NCT03242954|181835584|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's f square|0.306|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.149|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.169|0.389|||Regression, Linear|||||0.389|0.169|<.0001
90975961|NCT03242954|181835585|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's f square|0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.213||0.4324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.073|||GEE Linear model|||||0.073|0.001|0.4324
90975962|NCT03242954|181835586|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's f square|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.149|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.175|0.374|||GEE Linear model|||||0.374|0.175|<.0001
90975963|NCT00670007|181835588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in lung density(adjusted P15)|-0.279|||=|0.752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.089|0.53||A 1-sided P-value \< 0.025 and a positive estimate of the treatment difference Early Start minus Delayed Start (ie, the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval \[CI\] being \> zero) will indicate superiority of Early Start compared with Delayed Start.|Regression, Linear|||Analysis of the annual rate of change in lung density (for TLC + FRC combined) was a linear random regression model with country, inspiration state, time since Day 1 \[CE1226\_4001\], and treatment-by time interaction as fixed effects and subject and subject-by-time interaction as random coefficients at a 1-sided significance level of 0.025.||0.530|-1.089|= 0.752
90975964|NCT00670007|181835588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in lung density(adjusted P15)|-0.371|||=|0.823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.159|0.417||A 1-sided P-value \< 0.025 and a positive estimate of the treatment difference Early Start minus Delayed Start (ie, the lower bound of the 95% CI being \> zero) will indicate superiority of Early Start compared with Delayed Start.|Regression, Linear|||Analysis of the annual rate of change in lung density (for TLC) was a linear random regression model with country, time since Day 1 \[CE1226\_4001\], and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and subject and subject-by-time interaction as random coefficients at a 1-sided significance level of 0.025.||0.417|-1.159|= 0.823
90975965|NCT00670007|181835588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in lung density(adjusted P15)|-0.176|||=|0.648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|0.738||A 1-sided P-value \< 0.025 and a positive estimate of the treatment difference Early Start minus Delayed Start (ie, the lower bound of the 95% CI being \> zero) will indicate superiority of Early Start compared with Delayed Start.|Regression, Linear|||Analysis of the annual rate of change in lung density (for FRC) was a linear random regression model with country, time since Day 1 \[CE1226\_4001\], and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and subject and subject-by-time interaction as random coefficients at a 1-sided significance level of 0.025.||0.738|-1.09|= 0.648
90975966|NCT00670007|181835589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in lung density(adjusted P15)|-0.53||||0.526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.179|1.12||Two-sided P-value|ANCOVA|||Analysis of the change in lung density (for TLC + FRC combined) from baseline to 2 years was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with country, treatment, and baseline lung density as fixed effects and inspiration state as a repeated random effect.||1.120|-2.179|0.526
90975967|NCT00670007|181835589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in lung density(adjusted P15)|-0.486||||0.558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.126|1.154||Two-sided P-value|ANCOVA|||Analysis of the change in lung density (for TLC) from baseline to 2 years was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with country, treatment, and baseline lung density as fixed effects.||1.154|-2.126|0.558
90975968|NCT00670007|181835589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in lung density(adjusted P15)|0.019||||0.984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.858|1.895||Two-sided P-value|ANCOVA|||Analysis of the change in lung density (for FRC) from baseline to 2 years was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with country, treatment, and baseline lung density as fixed effects.||1.895|-1.858|0.984
90975969|NCT00670007|181835590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in lung density(adjusted P15)|0.294||||0.883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.645|4.233||Two-sided P-value|ANCOVA|||Analysis of the percent change in lung density (for TLC + FRC combined) from baseline to 2 years was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with country, treatment, and baseline lung density as fixed effects and inspiration state as a repeated random effect.||4.233|-3.645|0.883
90975970|NCT00670007|181835590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in lung density(adjusted P15)|-0.151||||0.941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.172|3.87||Two-sided P-value|ANCOVA|||Analysis of the percent change in lung density (for TLC) from baseline to 2 years was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with country, treatment, and baseline lung density as fixed effects.||3.870|-4.172|0.941
90975971|NCT00670007|181835590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in lung density(adjusted P15)|1.787||||0.404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|6.014||Two-sided P-value|ANCOVA|||Analysis of the percent change in lung density (for FRC) from baseline to 2 years was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with country, treatment, and baseline lung density as fixed effects.||6.014|-2.440|0.404
91050449|NCT04168190|181987010|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMC ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|1.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.52|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 7F. Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio, 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||1.52|0.99|<0.001
90975972|NCT00618722|181835600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.0|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline SMF rating as covariate.||||0.0|-0.9|0.043
90975973|NCT00618722|181835600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.0|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline SMF rating as covariate.||||0.0|-0.8|0.050
90944812|NCT00267098|181769221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||BiV - RV Difference in Average Rank|0.126||||0.986|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; thus p-values were not used. Instead, a posterior probability,representing the probability that subjects with biventricular pacing have better outcomes at 12 months, was calculated. A probability ≥0.95 was significant.|Posterior Distribution for Average Rank|Subjects' Randomization - 12 month changes in NYHA classification were ranked. The BiV - RV difference in average rank was analyzed.|Positive values reflect better outcomes over time in the BiV arm than the RV arm.|Subjects' changes in NYHA classification from randomization to 12 months were determined. The null hypothesis was that the average change among patients with biventricular pacing is equal to that of patients with right ventricular pacing.||||0.986
90944813|NCT00267098|181769221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||BiV - RV Difference in Average Rank|0.039||||0.726|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; thus p-values were not used. Instead, a posterior probability,representing the probability that subjects with biventricular pacing have better outcomes at 12 months, was calculated. A probability ≥0.95 was significant.|Posterior Distribution for Average Rank|Subjects' Randomization - 18 month changes in NYHA classification were ranked. The BiV - RV difference in average rank was analyzed.|Positive values reflect better outcomes over time in the BiV arm than the RV arm.|Subjects' changes in NYHA classification from randomization to 18 months were determined. The null hypothesis was that the average change among patients with biventricular pacing is equal to that of patients with right ventricular pacing.||||0.726
90944814|NCT00267098|181769221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||BiV - RV Difference in Average Rank|0.035||||0.701|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; thus p-values were not used. Instead, a posterior probability,representing the probability that subjects with biventricular pacing have better outcomes at 24 months, was calculated. A probability ≥0.95 was significant.|Posterior Distribution for Average Rank|Subjects' Randomization - 24 month changes in NYHA classification were ranked. The BiV - RV difference in average rank was analyzed.|Positive values reflect better outcomes over time in the BiV arm than the RV arm.|Subjects' changes in NYHA classification from randomization to 24 months were determined. The null hypothesis was that the average change among patients with biventricular pacing is equal to that of patients with right ventricular pacing.||||0.701
90944815|NCT00267098|181769222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||BiV - RV Difference in Average Rank|0.002||||0.534|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; thus p-values were not used. Instead, a posterior probability, representing the probability that subjects with biventricular pacing have better outcomes at 6 months, was calculated. A probability ≥0.95 was significant.|Posterior Distribution for Average Rank|Subjects' Randomization - 6 month change in HF Stage were ranked. The BiV - RV difference in average rank was analyzed.|Positive values reflect better outcomes over time in the BiV arm than the RV arm.|Subjects' changes in HF stage from randomization to 6 months were determined. The null hypothesis was that the average change among patients with biventricular pacing is equal to that of patients with right ventricular pacing.||||0.534
90944816|NCT00267098|181769222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||BiV - RV Difference in Average Rank|0.026||||0.825|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; thus p-values were not used. Instead, a posterior probability,representing the probability that subjects with biventricular pacing have better outcomes at 12 months, was calculated. A probability ≥0.95 was significant.|Posterior Distribution for Average Rank|Subjects' Randomization - 12 month changes in HF Stage were ranked. The BiV - RV difference in average rank was analyzed.|Positive values reflect better outcomes over time in the BiV arm than the RV arm.|Subjects' change in HF stage from randomization to 12 months were determined. The null hypothesis was that the average change among patients with biventricular pacing is equal to that of patients with right ventricular pacing.||||0.825
90975974|NCT00618722|181835600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.2|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline SMF rating as covariate.||||0.2|-0.7|0.249
90975975|NCT00618722|181835601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.9||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|3.1|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline SMF rating as covariate.||||3.1|0.7|0.003
90975976|NCT00618722|181835601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.4||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.6|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline SMF rating as covariate.||||2.6|0.1|0.030
90975977|NCT00618722|181835601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.6||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.8|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline SMF rating as covariate.||||2.8|0.4|0.012
90975978|NCT00618722|181835602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from Placebo|38.9||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.6|65.2|||Fisher Exact|||||65.2|12.6|0.015
90975979|NCT00618722|181835602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from Placebo|28.9||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|57.5|||Fisher Exact|||||57.5|0.4|0.096
90975980|NCT00618722|181835602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from Placebo|44.7||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.6|68.8|||Fisher Exact|||||68.8|20.6|0.003
90975981|NCT00618722|181835603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.6|||Repeated measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 4||0.6|0.0|0.078
90975982|NCT00618722|181835603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.4|||Repeated easures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 4||0.4|-0.3|0.781
90975983|NCT00618722|181835603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.5|||Repeated measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 4||0.5|-0.1|0.146
90975984|NCT00618722|181835603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.6|||Repeated measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 8||0.6|0.0|0.076
90975985|NCT00618722|181835603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3|||Repeated measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 8||0.3|-0.3|0.975
90975986|NCT00618722|181835603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.5|||Repeated measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 8||0.5|-0.1|0.183
90975987|NCT00618722|181835603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.7|||Repeated measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 12||0.7|0.1|0.017
90975988|NCT00618722|181835603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.7|||Repeated measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 12||0.7|0.1|0.022
90975989|NCT00618722|181835603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.6|||Repeated measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 12||0.6|0.0|0.081
90975990|NCT00618722|181835603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.4|||Repeated measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 16||0.4|-0.2|0.510
90975991|NCT00618722|181835603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.2|||Repeated measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 16||0.2|-0.5|0.330
90975992|NCT00618722|181835603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.4|||Repeated Measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 16||0.4|-0.3|0.720
90975993|NCT00618722|181835603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.5|||Repeated measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 24||0.5|-0.1|0.205
90975994|NCT00618722|181835603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.2|||Repeated measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 24||0.2|-0.5|0.410
90975995|NCT00618722|181835603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.4|||Repeated measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 24||0.4|-0.2|0.436
90975996|NCT00618722|181835604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.6||||0.762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|12.3|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline SMF rating as covariate.||||12.3|-9.1|0.762
90975997|NCT00618722|181835604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean Difference|5.2||||0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|14.2|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline SMF rating as covariate.||||14.2|-3.8|0.248
90975998|NCT00618722|181835604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|9.3||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|19.1|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline SMF rating as covariate.||||19.1|-0.4|0.061
91037427|NCT01484912|181960965|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The superiority testing was conducted one sided with 0.025 significance level. If H0 was rejected one-sided 0.025 significance level, STA-2 was concluded to be statistically superior to Placebo.All hypothesis testing except for the primary efficacy endpoint was conducted two sides at 0.05 significance level and 95% Confidence Interval (C.I.) was adopted if needed.||||||0.025||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||T-test was used to compare the change in total exercise time between the treatment groups. The change in total exercise time (△) was defined as the total exercise time at end-point visit minus the total exercise time at baseline. Let △T be the change in total exercise time for treatment group (STA-2) and △C be the change in total exercise time for control group (Placebo). The hypothesis testing for the superiority of STA-2 to Placebo was H0：△T-△C≦0 with H1：△T-△C﹥0.||||0.025
91037428|NCT01484912|181960966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||All hypothesis testing was conducted with T-tests, two sides at 0.05 significance level and 95% Confidence Interval (C.I.) was adopted if needed.||||0.005
91037429|NCT00205777|181960982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.647||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.322|1.302|||Log Rank|||No Prevalent Fractures: P value was calculated using stratified log-rank test. Hazard ratio (Bazedoxifene 20 mg \[Core+SE I\] versus Placebo \[Core+SE I+SE II\]) based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model was presented along with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).||1.302|0.322|0.22
90975999|NCT00925600|181835606|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper bound of the 97.5% one-sided confidence interval, or equivalently upper bound of two-sided 95% confidence interval was less than the pre-specified non-inferiority bound of 10%.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|7.2|||Mantel Haenszel|||The primary endpoint was summarized with the point estimate of absolute risk difference (difference in incidence rates, denosumab minus placebo) and the corresponding 95% confidence interval using the Mantel-Haenszel method adjusting for the stratification factors: baseline LOCS III status (\< 3.0 at all sites \[P, C, and NO\] vs. ≥ 3.0 at any of these sites), age group (\< 75, ≥ 75 years), and patient-reported history of cataract (yes/no).||7.2|-6.3|0.0026
90944817|NCT00267098|181769222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||BiV - RV Difference in Average Rank|0.01||||0.651|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; thus p-values were not used. Instead, a posterior probability,representing the probability that subjects with biventricular pacing have better outcomes at 18 months, was calculated. A probability ≥0.95 was significant.|Posterior Distribution for Average Rank|Subjects' Randomization - 18 month changes in HF Stage were ranked. The BiV - RV difference in average rank was analyzed.|Positive values denote that the BiV arm had better outcomes over time than the RV arm.|Subjects' changes in HF stage from randomization to 18 months were determined. The null hypothesis was that the average change among patients with biventricular pacing is equal to that of patients with right ventricular pacing.||||0.651
90976000|NCT00925600|181835607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|2.0||||||The point estimate of absolute risk difference (difference in incidence rates, denosumab minus placebo) and the corresponding 95% confidence interval was constructed using the Mantel-Haenszel method adjusting for the stratification factors: baseline LOCS III status (\< 3.0 at all sites \[P, C, and NO\] vs. ≥ 3.0 at any of these sites), age group (\< 75, ≥ 75 years), and patient-reported history of cataract (yes/no).||2.0|-6.4|
90976001|NCT00925600|181835608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|5.3||||||The point estimate of absolute risk difference (difference in incidence rates, denosumab minus placebo) and the corresponding 95% confidence interval was constructed using the Mantel-Haenszel method adjusting for the stratification factors: baseline LOCS III status (\< 3.0 at all sites \[P, C, and NO\] vs. ≥ 3.0 at any of these sites), age group (\< 75, ≥ 75 years), and patient-reported history of cataract (yes/no).||5.3|-5.9|
90976002|NCT00925600|181835609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|3.3||||||The point estimate of absolute risk difference (difference in incidence rates, denosumab minus placebo) and the corresponding 95% confidence interval was constructed using the Mantel-Haenszel method adjusting for the stratification factors: baseline LOCS III status (\< 3.0 at all sites \[P, C, and NO\] vs. ≥ 3.0 at any of these sites), age group (\< 75, ≥ 75 years), and patient-reported history of cataract (yes/no).||3.3|-7.6|
90976003|NCT00624221|181835613|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size of 40 subjects was estimated based on having 80% power to determine greater than 10% difference in cell loss between groups with estimated standard deviation of 17 and estimated correlation of 0.5.||||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||paired difference t-test|||||||0.10
90976004|NCT00200057|181835658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion|0.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.81||No multiplicity adjustments were made for the primary outcome analysis. Two-tailed p-values were considered statistically significant if they were less than 0.05.|Exact Binomial|||The exact Binomial test (two-sided) for one-sample proportions was used to test the null hypothesis that the success rate is equal to 0.5.||0.81|0.64|<0.0001
91037430|NCT00205777|181960982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.647||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.322|1.301|||Log Rank|||No Prevalent Fractures: P value was calculated using stratified log-rank test. Hazard ratio (Bazedoxifene 40 mg \[Core\] versus Placebo \[Core+SE I+SE II\]) based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model was presented along with 95% CIs.||1.301|0.322|0.24
91037431|NCT00205777|181960982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.097||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.501|2.405|||Log Rank|||No Prevalent Fractures: P value was calculated using stratified log-rank test. Hazard ratio (Bazedoxifene 40 mg \[Core\] versus Raloxifene 60 mg \[Core\]) based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model was presented along with 95% CIs.||2.405|0.501|0.83
91037432|NCT00205777|181960982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.074||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|2.356|||Log Rank|||No Prevalent Fractures: P value was calculated using stratified log-rank test. Hazard ratio (Bazedoxifene 20 mg \[Core+SE I\] versus Raloxifene 60 mg \[Core\]) based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model was presented along with 95% CIs.||2.356|0.490|0.87
91037433|NCT00205777|181960982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.988||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.458|2.131|||Log Rank|||No Prevalent Fractures: P value was calculated using stratified log-rank test. Hazard ratio (Bazedoxifene 20 mg \[Core+SE I\] versus Bazedoxifene 40 mg \[Core\]) based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model was presented along with 95% CIs.||2.131|0.458|0.96
91037434|NCT00205777|181960982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.592||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.289|1.212|||Log Rank|||No Prevalent Fractures: P value was calculated using stratified log-rank test. Hazard ratio (Raloxifene 60 mg \[Core\] versus Placebo \[Core+SE I+SE II\]) based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model was presented along with 95% CIs.||1.212|0.289|0.16
91037435|NCT00205777|181960982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.551||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.324|0.937|||Log Rank|||At Least 1 Prevalent Fracture: P value was calculated using stratified log-rank test. Hazard ratio (Bazedoxifene 20 mg \[Core+SE I\] versus Placebo \[Core+SE I+SE II\]) based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model was presented along with 95% CIs.||0.937|0.324|0.035
90944818|NCT00267098|181769222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||BiV - RV Difference in Average Rank|-0.006||||0.425|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; thus p-values were not used. Instead, a posterior probability,representing the probability that subjects with biventricular pacing have better outcomes at 24 months, was calculated. A probability ≥0.95 was significant.|Posterior Distribution for Average Rank|Subjects' Randomization - 24 month changes in HF Stage were ranked. The BiV - RV difference in average rank was analyzed.|Positive values denote better outcomes over time in the BiV arm than the RV arm.|Subjects' changes in HF stage from randomization to 24 months were determined. The null hypothesis was that the average change among patients with biventricular pacing is equal to that of patients with right ventricular pacing.||||0.425
90944819|NCT00267098|181769226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.7||||0.9976|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used. Instead, a posterior probability, representing the probability that patients with BiV pacing have better outcomes than those with RV pacing, was calculated. A probability ≥0.95 was significant.|Posterior Probability of Mean QOL Change|The posterior distribution for the BiV - RV difference in mean QOL score improvement from randomization to 6 months was determined.||"The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, ejection fractions of at most 50%, and NYHA classifications of I, II, or III who receive biventricular pacing have the same average change in QOL score from randomization to 6 months as corresponding patients who receive right ventricular pacing.~This was tested against the hypothesis that patients with biventricular pacing have a greater reduction (and thus improvement) in QOL score at 6 months than patients with right ventricular pacing."||||0.9976
90976005|NCT00200057|181835659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion|0.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.81||The Hochberg procedure for multiplicity adjustment was used for all secondary objectives.|Exact Binomial|||The exact Binomial test (two-sided) for one-sample proportions was used to test the null hypothesis that the success rate is equal to 0.5.||0.81|0.64|<0.0001
90976006|NCT00200057|181835660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||The Hochberg procedure for multiplicity adjustment was used for all secondary objectives.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||<0.0001
90976007|NCT00200057|181835661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||The Hochberg procedure for multiplicity adjustment was used for all secondary objectives.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||<0.0001
90976008|NCT00200057|181835662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||The Hochberg procedure for multiplicity adjustment was used for all secondary objectives.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||<0.0001
91037436|NCT00205777|181960982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.624||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.373|1.045|||Log Rank|||At Least 1 Prevalent Fracture: P value was calculated using stratified log-rank test. Hazard ratio (Bazedoxifene 40 mg \[Core\] versus Placebo \[Core+SE I+SE II\]) based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model was presented along with 95% CIs.||1.045|0.373|0.070
90944820|NCT00267098|181769227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0||||0.9641|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used. Instead, a posterior probability, representing the probability that patients with BiV pacing have better outcomes than those with RV pacing, was calculated. A probability ≥0.95 was significant.|Posterior Probability of Mean QOL Change|The posterior distribution for the BiV - RV difference in mean QOL score improvement from randomization to 12 months was determined.||"The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, ejection fractions of at most 50%, and NYHA classifications of I, II, or III who receive biventricular pacing have the same average change in QOL score from randomization to 12 months as corresponding patients who receive right ventricular pacing.~This was tested against the hypothesis that patients with biventricular pacing have a greater reduction (and thus improvement) in QOL score at 12 months than patients with right ventricular pacing."||||0.9641
90976009|NCT00200057|181835663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||The Hochberg procedure for multiplicity adjustment was used for all secondary objectives.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||<0.0001
90976010|NCT00200057|181835664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion|0.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.79||The Hochberg procedure for multiplicity adjustment was used for all secondary objectives.|Exact Binomial|||The exact Binomial test (two-sided) for one-sample proportions was used to test the null hypothesis that the success rate is equal to 0.5.||0.79|0.62|<0.0001
90976011|NCT00778830|181835679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3176|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8078|2.1491||||||||2.1491|0.8078|
90976012|NCT05512949|181835683|NON_INFERIORITY|The ID-dose regimen is considered non-inferior if the lower bound of the confidence interval (original scale) is no less than half that of the standard dose, giving a NI margin of 0.5 (NI= -0.301 log10 scale).|Geometric mean titer ratio (GMTR)|0.7||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.0||Significance can be considered if P \<0.05. Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|Two-sample t-test with unequal variance, noninferiority (NI) margin of 0.5 and two-sided type I error rate of 0.05.||The selection of the noninferiority (NI) margin was based on the pivotal Phase 3 trial by Pittman et al., in 2019 comparing one dose of ACAM2000 and the now licensed 2-dose standard MVA-BN regimen, which provided an estimated relative (peak) immune response of approximately 2-times higher for MVA-BN. An NI margin of 0.5 corresponds to an immune response of the lower-dose MVA-BN at least as high as what would be expected for ACAM2000.||1.0|0.5|0.045
91037437|NCT00205777|181960982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.085||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.605|1.947|||Log Rank|||At Least 1 Prevalent Fracture: P value was calculated using stratified log-rank test. Hazard ratio (Bazedoxifene 40 mg \[Core\] versus Raloxifene 60 mg \[Core\]) based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model was presented along with 95% CIs.||1.947|0.605|0.79
90944821|NCT00267098|181769228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8||||0.8416|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used. Instead, a posterior probability, representing the probability that patients with BiV pacing have better outcomes than those with RV pacing, was calculated. A probability ≥0.95 was significant.|Posterior Probability of Mean QOL Change|The parameter of interest was the BiV - RV difference in mean QOL change from randomization to 18 months.||"The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, ejection fractions of at most 50%, and NYHA classifications of I, II, or III who receive biventricular pacing have the same average change in QOL score from randomization to 18 months as corresponding patients who receive right ventricular pacing.~This was tested against the hypothesis that patients with biventricular pacing have a greater reduction (and thus improvement) in QOL score at 18 months than patients with right ventricular pacing."||||0.8416
90944822|NCT00267098|181769229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.727|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used. Instead, a posterior probability, representing the probability that patients with BiV pacing have better outcomes than those with RV pacing, was calculated. A probability ≥0.95 was significant.|Posterior Probability of Mean QOL Change|The posterior distribution for the BiV - RV difference in mean QOL score improvement from randomization to 24 months was determined.||"The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, ejection fractions of at most 50%, and NYHA classifications of I, II, or III who receive biventricular pacing have the same average change in QOL score from randomization to 24 months as corresponding patients who receive right ventricular pacing.~This was tested against the hypothesis that patients with biventricular pacing have a greater reduction (and thus improvement) in QOL score at 24 months than patients with right ventricular pacing."||||0.7270
90944823|NCT00267098|181769230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|3.334|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.886|4.815||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead, a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in improvement in LVEF through 6 months was used|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean LVEF change through 6 months.|"The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, ejection fractions of at most 50%, and NYHA classifications of I, II, or III who receive biventricular pacing have the same average change in LVEF from randomization to 6 months as corresponding patients who receive right ventricular pacing.~This was tested against the hypothesis that patients with biventricular pacing have a different change in LVEF from randomization to 6 months than patients with right ventricular pacing."||4.815|1.886|
90976013|NCT05512949|181835683|NON_INFERIORITY|The ID-dose regimen is considered non-inferior if the lower bound of the confidence interval (original scale) is no less than half that of the standard dose, giving a NI margin of 0.5 (NI= -0.301 log10 scale).|Geometric mean titer ratio (GMTR)|0.4||||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.6||Significance can be considered if P \<0.05. Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|Two-sample t-test with unequal variance, noninferiority (NI) margin of 0.5 and two-sided type I error rate of 0.05.||The selection of the noninferiority (NI) margin was based on the pivotal Phase 3 trial by Pittman et al., in 2019 comparing one dose of ACAM2000 and the now licensed 2-dose standard MVA-BN regimen, which provided an estimated relative (peak) immune response of approximately 2-times higher for MVA-BN. An NI margin of 0.5 corresponds to an immune response of the lower-dose MVA-BN at least as high as what would be expected for ACAM2000.||0.6|0.3|0.162
90976014|NCT05512949|181835686|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.888|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.888
90976015|NCT05512949|181835686|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.708|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.708
90976016|NCT01542307|181835700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.674|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.674
90976017|NCT01542307|181835701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.18
90976018|NCT01542307|181835702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.38
90976019|NCT01542307|181835703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.05
90976020|NCT01542307|181835704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.05
90976021|NCT01542307|181835705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.004
90976022|NCT01542307|181835706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
90976023|NCT01542307|181835707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.16
90976024|NCT02274688|181835743|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.01|||||||Wald Chi-Square=11.29, df=3, P=0.01|||"Mixed Model Regression; Data from all 171 patients at all time points used in this intent-to-treat analytic approach.~We hypothesize intervention patients will demonstrate diminished outcome severity over time when compared to nurse notification patients, as evidenced by a significant group by time interaction effect."||||=0.01
90944824|NCT00267098|181769231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|3.232|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.618|4.839||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead, a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in improvement in LVEF through 12 months was used|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean LVEF change through 12 months.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, ejection fractions of at most 50%, and NYHA classifications of I, II, or III who receive biventricular pacing have the same average change in LVEF from randomization to 12 months as corresponding patients who receive right ventricular pacing. This was tested against the hypothesis that patients with biventricular pacing have a different change in LVEF from randomization to 12 months than patients with right ventricular pacing.||4.839|1.618|
90944825|NCT00267098|181769232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|2.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.419|4.066||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead, a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in improvement in LVEF at 18 months was used.|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean LVEF change through 18 months.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, ejection fractions of at most 50%, and NYHA classifications of I, II, or III who receive biventricular pacing have the same average change in LVEF from randomization to 18 months as corresponding patients who receive right ventricular pacing. This was tested against the hypothesis that patients with biventricular pacing have a different change in LVEF from randomization to 18 months than patients with right ventricular pacing.||4.066|0.419|
90944826|NCT00267098|181769233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|3.623|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.623|5.604||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead, a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in improvement in LVEF through 24 months was used|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean LVEF change through 24 months.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, ejection fractions of at most 50%, and NYHA classifications of I, II, or III who receive biventricular pacing have the same average change in LVEF from randomization to 24 months as corresponding patients who receive right ventricular pacing. This was tested against the hypothesis that patients with biventricular pacing have a different change in LVEF from randomization to 24 months than patients with right ventricular pacing.||5.604|1.623|
90976025|NCT02274688|181835744|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.23|||||||Wald Chi-Square=3.01, df=3, p=0.23|||"Mixed Model Regression; Data from all 171 patients at all time points used in this intent-to-treat analytic approach.~We hypothesize intervention patients will demonstrate diminished outcome severity over time when compared to nurse notification patients, as evidenced by a significant group by time interaction effect."||||=0.23
90976026|NCT02274688|181835745|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.23|||||||Wald Chi-Square=4.25, df=3, p=0.23|||"Mixed Model Regression; Data from all 171 patients at all time points used in this intent-to-treat analytic approach.~We hypothesize intervention patients will demonstrate diminished outcome severity over time when compared to nurse notification patients, as evidenced by a significant group by time interaction effect."||||=0.23
90976027|NCT02274688|181835746|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.55|||||||Wald Chi-Square=2.12, df=3, p=0.55|||"Mixed Model Regression; Data from all 171 patients at all time points used in this intent-to-treat analytic approach.~We hypothesize intervention patients will demonstrate diminished outcome severity over time when compared to nurse notification patients, as evidenced by a significant group by time interaction effect."||||=0.55
90976028|NCT02274688|181835747|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.32|||||||Wald Chi-Square=3.52, df=3; p=0.32|||"Mixed Model Regression; Data from all 171 patients at all time points used in this intent-to-treat analytic approach.~We hypothesize intervention patients will demonstrate diminished outcome severity over time when compared to nurse notification patients, as evidenced by a significant group by time interaction effect."||||=0.32
90976029|NCT02274688|181835748|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.26|||||||Wald Chi-Square=4.02, df=3, p=0.26|||"Mixed Model Regression; Data from all 171 patients at all time points used in this intent-to-treat analytic approach.~We hypothesize intervention patients will demonstrate diminished outcome severity over time when compared to nurse notification patients, as evidenced by a significant group by time interaction effect."||||=0.26
90976030|NCT02274688|181835749|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.22|||||||Wald Chi-Square=4.44, df=3, p=0.22|||"Mixed Model Regression; Data from all 171 patients at all time points used in this intent-to-treat analytic approach.~We hypothesize intervention patients will demonstrate diminished outcome severity over time when compared to nurse notification patients, as evidenced by a significant group by time interaction effect."||||=0.22
90976031|NCT02274688|181835750|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.08||||||F(3,507)=2.24, P=0.08|Regression Poisson|||"Mixed Model Regression; Data from all 171 patients at all time points used in this intent-to-treat analytic approach.~We hypothesize intervention patients will demonstrate diminished outcome severity over time when compared to nurse notification patients, as evidenced by a significant group by time interaction effect."||||=0.08
90976032|NCT02274688|181835751|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||Wald Chi-Square=3.24, df=3, p=0.36|||"Mixed Model Regression; Data from all 171 patients at all time points used in this intent-to-treat analytic approach.~We hypothesize intervention patients will demonstrate diminished outcome severity over time when compared to nurse notification patients, as evidenced by a significant group by time interaction effect."||||0.36
90976033|NCT00947531|181835753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.22|-4.13||P-value obtained from the F-test statistic of Cerebrolysin versus Placebo as part of ANCOVA (analysis of covariance). No adjustment for multiple comparisons was needed. The overall significance level alpha was fixed at alpha = 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|The study was designed to show significant differences in each of the two primary variables. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was needed.||The null-hypothesis stated no difference between the two treatment groups. A sample size of 103 evaluable patients per treatment group was estimated to allow for the detection of a significant group difference of 4.1 points in ADAS-cog+ weak 24 change score (standard deviation \[SD\] 9.0) in favor of Cerebrolysin with a power of 90% and a probability level of alpha-level 0.025 (one-sided).||-4.13|-8.22|< 0.0001
90976034|NCT02804763|181835792|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0727||||||The lowest p-value (z-statistic with the highest value) was used to establish proof of dose response.|MCP-Mod|||"Multiple contrast testing (MCP-mod methodology) was used to test for a statistically significant dose-response relationship between the primary endpoint (BICLA at Week 24) and dose, which would indicate a drug effect of DZP over Placebo.~The best fitting statistically significant model could be used to estimate the dose needed to achieve desired treatment effect."||||=0.0727
90976035|NCT02804763|181835793|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6|||=|0.2699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|3.8||Generalized linear models with factors for treatment and corticosteroid strata were fit using a logit link function for the odds ratios and p-values.|Chi-squared|||Missing values were imputed using modified non-responder imputation (mNRI) dataset: at most 1 missing BICLA (mNRI) component (scale) may have been carried forward from the immediately preceding visit, and missing data in the individual items within scales may have been carried forward from the immediately preceding visit. If there was still missing data after this limited imputation, the study participant was counted as a non-responder on the BICLA (mNRI) for that visit.||3.8|0.7|=0.2699
90976036|NCT02804763|181835793|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0|||=|0.1036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|4.8||Generalized linear models with factors for treatment and corticosteroid strata were fit using a logit link function for the odds ratios and p-values.|Chi-squared|||Missing values were imputed using modified non-responder imputation (mNRI) dataset: at most 1 missing BICLA (mNRI) component (scale) may have been carried forward from the immediately preceding visit, and missing data in the individual items within scales may have been carried forward from the immediately preceding visit. If there was still missing data after this limited imputation, the study participant was counted as a non-responder on the BICLA (mNRI) for that visit.||4.8|0.9|=0.1036
90976037|NCT02804763|181835793|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9|||=|0.1518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|4.3||Generalized linear models with factors for treatment and corticosteroid strata were fit using a logit link function for the odds ratios and p-values.|Chi-squared|||Missing values were imputed using modified non-responder imputation (mNRI) dataset: at most 1 missing BICLA (mNRI) component (scale) may have been carried forward from the immediately preceding visit, and missing data in the individual items within scales may have been carried forward from the immediately preceding visit. If there was still missing data after this limited imputation, the study participant was counted as a non-responder on the BICLA (mNRI) for that visit.||4.3|0.8|=0.1518
90976038|NCT02804763|181835793|SUPERIORITY||Difference vs PBO|11.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|32.4||Crude difference in proportion responding and standard Wald asymptotic 95 % CI based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Chi-squared||Difference and 95 % Wald CI in proportion of responders for SOC + DZP dose 1 iv Q4W (FAS) versus SOC + Placebo iv Q4W (FAS).|Missing values were imputed using modified non-responder imputation (mNRI) dataset: at most 1 missing BICLA (mNRI) component (scale) may have been carried forward from the immediately preceding visit, and missing data in the individual items within scales may have been carried forward from the immediately preceding visit. If there was still missing data after this limited imputation, the study participant was counted as a non-responder on the BICLA (mNRI) for that visit.||32.4|-9.2|
91037438|NCT00205777|181960982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.959||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.527|1.743|||Log Rank|||At Least 1 Prevalent Fracture: P value was calculated using stratified log-rank test. Hazard ratio (Bazedoxifene 20 mg \[Core+SE I\] versus Raloxifene 60 mg \[Core\]) based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model was presented along with 95% CIs.||1.743|0.527|0.99
90976039|NCT02804763|181835793|SUPERIORITY||Difference vs PBO|17.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|38.0||Crude difference in proportion responding and standard Wald asymptotic 95 % CI based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Chi-squared||Difference and 95 % Wald CI in proportion of responders for SOC + DZP dose 2 iv Q4W (FAS) versus SOC + Placebo iv Q4W (FAS).|Missing values were imputed using modified non-responder imputation (mNRI) dataset: at most 1 missing BICLA (mNRI) component (scale) may have been carried forward from the immediately preceding visit, and missing data in the individual items within scales may have been carried forward from the immediately preceding visit. If there was still missing data after this limited imputation, the study participant was counted as a non-responder on the BICLA (mNRI) for that visit.||38.0|-3.3|
91037439|NCT00205777|181960982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.882||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.488|1.593|||Log Rank|||At Least 1 Prevalent Fracture: P value was calculated using stratified log-rank test. Hazard ratio (Bazedoxifene 20 mg \[Core+SE I\] versus Bazedoxifene 40 mg \[Core\]) based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model was presented along with 95% CIs.||1.593|0.488|0.78
91037440|NCT00205777|181960982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.574||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.968|||Log Rank|||At Least 1 Prevalent Fracture: P value was calculated using stratified log-rank test. Hazard ratio (Raloxifene 60 mg \[Core\] versus Placebo \[Core+SE I+SE II\]) based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model was presented along with 95% CIs.||0.968|0.340|0.036
91037441|NCT00205777|181960983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.339|1.099|||Log Rank|||No Prevalent Fractures: P value was calculated using stratified log-rank test. Hazard ratio (Bazedoxifene 20 mg \[Core+SE I\] versus Placebo \[Core+SE I+SE II\]) based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model was presented along with 95% CIs.||1.099|0.339|0.097
91037442|NCT00205777|181960983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.645||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.361|1.151|||Log Rank|||No Prevalent Fractures: P value was calculated using stratified log-rank test. Hazard ratio (Bazedoxifene 40/20 mg \[SE I\] versus Placebo \[Core+SE I+SE II\]) based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model was presented along with 95% CIs.||1.151|0.361|0.15
91037443|NCT00205777|181960983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.941||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.493|1.793|||Log Rank|||No Prevalent Fractures: P value was calculated using stratified log-rank test. Hazard ratio (Bazedoxifene 20 mg \[Core+SE I\] versus Bazedoxifene 40/20 mg \[SE I\]) based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model was presented along with 95% CIs.||1.793|0.493|0.83
90944827|NCT00267098|181769234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|-7.204|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.12|-4.214||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead,a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in change in LVESVI through 6 months was used.|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean LVESVI change through 6 months.|"The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, ejection fractions of at most 50%, and NYHA classifications of I, II, or III who receive biventricular pacing have the same average change in LVESVI from randomization to 6 months as corresponding patients who receive right ventricular pacing.~This was tested against the hypothesis that patients with biventricular pacing have a different change in LVESVI from randomization to 6 months than patients with right ventricular pacing."||-4.214|-10.12|
90944828|NCT00267098|181769235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|-7.255|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.59|-3.829||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead,a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in change in LVESVI through 12 months was used.|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean LVESVI change through 12 months.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, ejection fractions of at most 50%, and NYHA classifications of I, II, or III who receive biventricular pacing have the same average change in LVESVI from randomization to 12 months as corresponding patients who receive right ventricular pacing. This was tested against the hypothesis that patients with biventricular pacing have a different change in LVESVI from randomization to 12 months than patients with right ventricular pacing.||-3.829|-10.590|
90944829|NCT00267098|181769236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|-8.242|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.86|-4.574||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead,a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in change in LVESVI through 18 months was used.|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean LVESVI change through 18 months.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, ejection fractions of at most 50%, and NYHA classifications of I, II, or III who receive biventricular pacing have the same average change in LVESVI from randomization to 18 months as corresponding patients who receive right ventricular pacing. This was tested against the hypothesis that patients with biventricular pacing have a different change in LVESVI from randomization to 18 months than patients with right ventricular pacing.||-4.574|-11.860|
91037444|NCT00205777|181960983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.666||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.435|1.019|||Log Rank|||At Least 1 Prevalent Fracture: P value was calculated using stratified log-rank test. Hazard ratio (Bazedoxifene 20 mg \[Core+SE I\] versus Placebo \[Core+SE I+SE II\]) based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model was presented along with 95% CIs.||1.019|0.435|0.067
91037445|NCT00205777|181960983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.573||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.367|0.896|||Log Rank|||At Least 1 Prevalent Fracture: P value was calculated using stratified log-rank test. Hazard ratio (Bazedoxifene 40/20 mg \[SE I\] versus Placebo \[Core+SE I+SE II\]) based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model was presented along with 95% CIs.||0.896|0.367|0.014
91037446|NCT00205777|181960983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.157||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.885|||Log Rank|||At Least 1 Prevalent Fracture: P value was calculated using stratified log-rank test. Hazard ratio (Bazedoxifene 20 mg \[Core+SE I\] versus Bazedoxifene 40/20 mg \[SE I\]) based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model was presented along with 95% CIs.||1.885|0.710|0.50
91037447|NCT00205777|181960984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.052|||Log Rank|||No Prevalent Fractures: P value was calculated using stratified log-rank test. Hazard ratio (Bazedoxifene 20 mg \[SE II\] versus Placebo \[Core+SE I+SE II\]) based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model was presented along with 95% CIs.||1.052|0.440|0.085
91037448|NCT00205777|181960984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.434|0.857|||Log Rank|||At Least 1 Prevalent Fracture: P value was calculated using stratified log-rank test. Hazard ratio (Bazedoxifene 20 mg \[SE II\] versus Placebo \[Core+SE I+SE II\]) based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model was presented along with 95% CIs.||0.857|0.434|0.004
91037449|NCT00205777|181960985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.621||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.203|1.903|||Regression, Logistic|||P value was calculated using logistic regression. Gail index was added to the model to account for baseline risk differences between participants.||1.903|0.203|0.40
91037450|NCT00205777|181960985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.504||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.151|1.676|||Regression, Logistic|||P value was calculated using logistic regression. Gail index was added to the model to account for baseline risk differences between participants.||1.676|0.151|0.26
91037451|NCT00205777|181960985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.54||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.157|1.86|||Regression, Logistic|||P value was calculated using logistic regression. Gail index was added to the model to account for baseline risk differences between participants.||1.860|0.157|0.33
91037452|NCT00205777|181960985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.661||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.206|2.118|||Regression, Logistic|||P value was calculated using logistic regression. Gail index was added to the model to account for baseline risk differences between participants.||2.118|0.206|0.49
91037453|NCT00205777|181960985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.305|2.37|||Regression, Logistic|||P value was calculated using logistic regression. Gail index was added to the model to account for baseline risk differences between participants.||2.370|0.305|0.76
91037454|NCT00205777|181960985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.238||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.332|4.616|||Regression, Logistic|||P value was calculated using logistic regression. Gail index was added to the model to account for baseline risk differences between participants.||4.616|0.332|0.75
91037455|NCT00205777|181960986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|2.15||||||Relative risk versus placebo was provided together with 95% CIs.||2.15|0.38|
91037456|NCT00205777|181960986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|2.21||||||Relative risk versus placebo was provided together with 95% CIs.||2.21|0.39|
90976040|NCT02804763|181835793|SUPERIORITY||Difference vs PBO|15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|35.4||Crude difference in proportion responding and standard Wald asymptotic 95 % CI based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Chi-squared||Difference and 95 % Wald CI in proportion of responders for SOC + DZP dose 3 iv Q4W (FAS) versus SOC + Placebo iv Q4W (FAS).|Missing values were imputed using modified non-responder imputation (mNRI) dataset: at most 1 missing BICLA (mNRI) component (scale) may have been carried forward from the immediately preceding visit, and missing data in the individual items within scales may have been carried forward from the immediately preceding visit. If there was still missing data after this limited imputation, the study participant was counted as a non-responder on the BICLA (mNRI) for that visit.||35.4|-5.5|
90976041|NCT02804763|181835793|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference vs PBO|11.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|32.5||Generalized linear models with factors for treatment and corticosteroid strata were fit using an identity link function for the LS mean differences.|Chi-squared|||Missing values were imputed using modified non-responder imputation (mNRI) dataset: at most 1 missing BICLA (mNRI) component (scale) may have been carried forward from the immediately preceding visit, and missing data in the individual items within scales may have been carried forward from the immediately preceding visit. If there was still missing data after this limited imputation, the study participant was counted as a non-responder on the BICLA (mNRI) for that visit.||32.5|-8.7|
90976042|NCT02804763|181835793|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference vs PBO|17.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|38.3||Generalized linear models with factors for treatment and corticosteroid strata were fit using an identity link function for the LS mean differences.|Chi-squared|||Missing values were imputed using modified non-responder imputation (mNRI) dataset: at most 1 missing BICLA (mNRI) component (scale) may have been carried forward from the immediately preceding visit, and missing data in the individual items within scales may have been carried forward from the immediately preceding visit. If there was still missing data after this limited imputation, the study participant was counted as a non-responder on the BICLA (mNRI) for that visit.||38.3|-3.2|
91037457|NCT00205777|181960987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative risk|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.06||||||Relative risk versus placebo was provided together with 95% CIs.||2.06|0.5|
91037458|NCT00205777|181960988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.57
91037459|NCT00205777|181960988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.62
91037460|NCT00205777|181960988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.72
91037461|NCT00205777|181960988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.67
91037462|NCT00205777|181960988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.89
91037463|NCT00205777|181960988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.95
91037464|NCT00205777|181960989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.29
91037465|NCT00205777|181960989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.31
91037466|NCT00205777|181960989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.94|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.94
91037467|NCT00205777|181960990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.18
91037468|NCT00205777|181960994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Osteoporosis-Related: P value was calculated using Log-Rank test.||||0.46
91037469|NCT00205777|181960994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Osteoporosis-Related: P value was calculated using Log-Rank test.||||0.90
91037470|NCT00205777|181960994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Osteoporosis-Related: P value was calculated using Log-Rank test.||||0.93
91037471|NCT00205777|181960994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Osteoporosis-Related: P value was calculated using Log-Rank test.||||0.84
91037472|NCT00205777|181960994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Osteoporosis-Related: P value was calculated using Log-Rank test.||||0.39
91037473|NCT00205777|181960994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Osteoporosis-Related: P value was calculated using Log-Rank test.||||0.52
91037474|NCT00205777|181960994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Hip: P value was calculated using Log-Rank test.||||0.28
91037475|NCT00205777|181960994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Hip: P value was calculated using Log-Rank test.||||0.31
91037476|NCT00205777|181960994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Hip: P value was calculated using Log-Rank test.||||0.17
91037477|NCT00205777|181960994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Hip: P value was calculated using Log-Rank test.||||0.72
91037478|NCT00205777|181960994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Hip: P value was calculated using Log-Rank test.||||0.97
91037479|NCT00205777|181960994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Hip: P value was calculated using Log-Rank test.||||0.76
91037480|NCT00205777|181960994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Wrist: P value was calculated using Log-Rank test.||||0.29
91037481|NCT00205777|181960994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Wrist: P value was calculated using Log-Rank test.||||0.43
91037482|NCT00205777|181960994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Wrist: P value was calculated using Log-Rank test.||||0.59
91037483|NCT00205777|181960994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Wrist: P value was calculated using Log-Rank test.||||0.19
91037484|NCT00205777|181960994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Wrist: P value was calculated using Log-Rank test.||||0.80
91037485|NCT00205777|181960994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Wrist: P value was calculated using Log-Rank test.||||0.11
91037486|NCT00205777|181960995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.012||||0.968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.296|||Log Rank|||Osteoporosis-Related: P value was calculated using Log-Rank test. Hazard ratio (Bazedoxifene 20 mg \[Core+SE I\] versus Placebo \[Core+SE I+SE II\]) based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model was presented along with 95% CIs.||1.296|0.790|0.968
91037487|NCT00205777|181960995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.846||||0.211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.652|1.097|||Log Rank|||Osteoporosis-Related: P value was calculated using Log-Rank test. Hazard ratio (Bazedoxifene 40/20 mg \[SE I\] versus Placebo \[Core+SE I+SE II\]) based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model was presented along with 95% CIs.||1.097|0.652|0.211
90976043|NCT02804763|181835793|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference vs PBO|15.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|35.6||Generalized linear models with factors for treatment and corticosteroid strata were fit using an identity link function for the LS mean differences.|Chi-squared|||Missing values were imputed using modified non-responder imputation (mNRI) dataset: at most 1 missing BICLA (mNRI) component (scale) may have been carried forward from the immediately preceding visit, and missing data in the individual items within scales may have been carried forward from the immediately preceding visit. If there was still missing data after this limited imputation, the study participant was counted as a non-responder on the BICLA (mNRI) for that visit.||35.6|-5.2|
90976044|NCT00927368|181835952|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority analysis used the 0.5-point noninferiority delta in a 1-tailed test of the treatment effect regression parameter (i.e., testing the null hypothesis that mean stimulating needle minus mean stimulating catheter is greater than 0.5 points).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.29||Significance criterion of 0.00694 after adjusting for group sequential design and applying Holm Bonferroni procedure to account for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||The primary analysis for pain was a linear regression model comparing stimulating needle to stimulating catheter on the mean time-weighted average pain score for a patient in the first 48 hours.||0.29|-0.61|< 0.001
90976045|NCT00927368|181835952|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority analysis used the 0.5-point noninferiority delta in a 1-tailed test of the treatment effect regression parameter (i.e., testing the null hypothesis that mean stimulating catheter minus mean stimulating needle is greater than 0.5 points).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.61||Significance criterion of 0.01735 after adjusting for group sequential design and applying Holm Bonferroni procedure to account for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||The primary analysis for pain was a linear regression model comparing stimulating catheter to stimulating needle on the mean time-weighted average pain score for a patient in the first 48 hours.||0.61|-0.29|0.03
90976046|NCT00927368|181835952|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority analysis used the 0.5-point noninferiority delta in a 1-tailed test of the treatment effect regression parameter (i.e., testing the null hypothesis that mean catheter minus mean ultrasound alone is greater than 0.5 points).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.33||Significance criterion of 0.01041 after adjusting for group sequential design and applying Holm Bonferroni procedure to account for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||The primary analysis for pain was a linear regression model comparing stimulating catheter to ultrasound alone on the mean time-weighted average pain score for a patient in the first 48 hours.||0.33|-0.57|< 0.001
90976047|NCT00927368|181835952|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority analysis used the 0.5-point noninferiority delta in a 1-tailed test of the treatment effect regression parameter (i.e., testing the null hypothesis that mean ultrasound alone minus mean catheter is greater than 0.5 points).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.57||Significance criterion of 0.01388 after adjusting for group sequential design and applying Holm Bonferroni procedure to account for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||The primary analysis for pain was a linear regression model comparing ultrasound alone to stimulating catheter on the mean time-weighted average pain score for a patient in the first 48 hours.||0.57|-0.33|0.02
90976048|NCT00927368|181835952|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority analysis used the 0.5-point noninferiority delta in a 1-tailed test of the treatment effect regression parameter (i.e., testing the null hypothesis that mean stimulating needle minus mean ultrasound alone is greater than 0.5 points).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.16||Significance criterion of 0.00347 after adjusting for group sequential design and applying Holm Bonferroni procedure to account for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||The primary analysis for pain was a linear regression model comparing stimulating needle to ultrasound alone on the mean time-weighted average pain score for a patient in the first 48 hours.||0.16|-0.72|< 0.001
90976049|NCT00927368|181835952|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority analysis used the 0.5-point noninferiority delta in a 1-tailed test of the treatment effect regression parameter (i.e., testing the null hypothesis that mean ultrasound alone minus mean stimulating needle is greater than 0.5 points).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.72||Significance criterion of 0.02082 after adjusting for group sequential design and applying Holm Bonferroni procedure to account for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||The primary analysis for pain was a linear regression model comparing ultrasound alone to stimulating needle on the mean time-weighted average pain score for a patient in the first 48 hours.||0.72|-0.16|0.11
90976050|NCT00927368|181835953|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority analysis used the 0.5-point noninferiority delta in a 1-tailed test of the treatment effect regression parameter (i.e., testing the null hypothesis that mean stimulating catheter minus mean stimulating needle is greater than 0.5 points).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.0||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|34.0||Significance criterion of 0.02082 after adjusting for group sequential design and applying Holm Bonferroni procedure to account for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||The primary analysis for opioid was a linear regression model comparing stimulating catheter to stimulating needle on the log of cumulative opioid consumption score for a patient in the first 48 hours.||34|-17|0.04
90976051|NCT00927368|181835953|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority analysis used the 0.5-point noninferiority delta in a 1-tailed test of the treatment effect regression parameter (i.e., testing the null hypothesis that mean stimulating needle minus mean stimulating catheter is greater than 0.5 points).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.0||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.0|21.0||Significance criterion of 0.00347 after adjusting for group sequential design and applying Holm Bonferroni procedure to account for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||The primary analysis for opioid was a linear regression model comparing stimulating needle to stimulating catheter on the log of cumulative opioid consumption score for a patient in the first 48 hours.||21|-25|0.002
91037488|NCT00205777|181960995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.925|1.556|||Log Rank|||Osteoporosis-Related: P value was calculated using Log-Rank test. Hazard ratio (Bazedoxifene 20 mg \[Core+SE I\] versus Bazedoxifene 40/20 mg \[SE I\]) based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model was presented along with 95% CIs.||1.556|0.925|0.191
91037489|NCT00205777|181960995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.406||||0.493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.566|3.497|||Log Rank|||Hip: P value was calculated using Log-Rank test. Hazard ratio (Bazedoxifene 20 mg \[Core+SE I\] versus Placebo \[Core+SE I+SE II\]) based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model was presented along with 95% CIs.||3.497|0.566|0.493
91037490|NCT00205777|181960995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.872||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.316|2.405|||Log Rank|||Hip: P value was calculated using Log-Rank test. Hazard ratio (Bazedoxifene 40/20 mg \[SE I\] versus Placebo \[Core+SE I+SE II\]) based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model was presented along with 95% CIs.||2.405|0.316|0.820
91037491|NCT00205777|181960995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.612||||0.371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.624|4.161|||Log Rank|||Hip: P value was calculated using Log-Rank test. Hazard ratio (Bazedoxifene 20 mg \[Core+SE I\] versus Bazedoxifene 40/20 mg \[SE I\]) based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model was presented along with 95% CIs.||4.161|0.624|0.371
90944830|NCT00267098|181769237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|-7.268|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.69|-2.846||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead,a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in change in LVESVI through 24 months was used.|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean LVESVI change through 24 months.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, ejection fractions of at most 50%, and NYHA classifications of I, II, or III who receive biventricular pacing have the same average change in LVESVI from randomization to 24 months as corresponding patients who receive right ventricular pacing. This was tested against the hypothesis that patients with biventricular pacing have a different change in LVESVI from randomization to 24 months than patients with right ventricular pacing.||-2.846|-11.690|
90944831|NCT00267098|181769238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|-5.858|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.085|-2.562||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead,a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in change in LVEDVI through 6 months was used.|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean LVEDVI change through 6 months.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, ejection fractions of at most 50%, and NYHA classifications of I, II, or III who receive biventricular pacing have the same average change in LVEDVI from randomization to 6 months as corresponding patients who receive right ventricular pacing. This was tested against the hypothesis that patients with biventricular pacing have a different change in LVEDVI from randomization to 6 months than patients with right ventricular pacing.||-2.562|-9.085|
90944832|NCT00267098|181769239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|-5.807|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.467|-2.038||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead,a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in change in LVEDVI through 12 months was used.|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean LVEDVI change through 12 months.|"The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, ejection fractions of at most 50%, and NYHA classifications of I, II, or III who receive biventricular pacing have the same average change in LVEDVI from randomization to 12 months as corresponding patients who receive right ventricular pacing.~This was tested against the hypothesis that patients with biventricular pacing have a different change in LVEDVI from randomization to 12 months than patients with right ventricular pacing."||-2.038|-9.467|
90944833|NCT00267098|181769240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|-8.844|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.91|-4.681||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead,a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in change in LVEDVI through 18 months was used.|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean LVEDVI change through 18 months.|"The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, ejection fractions of at most 50%, and NYHA classifications of I, II, or III who receive biventricular pacing have the same average change in LVEDVI from randomization to 18 months as corresponding patients who receive right ventricular pacing.~This was tested against the hypothesis that patients with biventricular pacing have a different change in LVEDVI from randomization to 18 months than patients with right ventricular pacing."||-4.681|-12.910|
90944834|NCT00267098|181769241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|-6.615|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.37|-1.736||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead,a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in change in LVEDVI through 24 months was used.|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean LVEDVI change through 24 months.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, ejection fractions of at most 50%, and NYHA classifications of I, II, or III who receive biventricular pacing have the same average change in LVEDVI from randomization to 24 months as corresponding patients who receive right ventricular pacing. This was tested against the hypothesis that patients with biventricular pacing have a different change in LVEDVI from randomization to 24 months than patients with right ventricular pacing.||-1.736|-11.370|
91037492|NCT00205777|181960995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.202||||0.423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.776|1.861|||Log Rank|||Wrist: P value was calculated using Log-Rank test. Hazard ratio (Bazedoxifene 20 mg \[Core+SE I\] versus Placebo \[Core+SE I+SE II\]) based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model was presented along with 95% CIs.||1.861|0.776|0.423
90944835|NCT00267098|181769242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|-3.894|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.13|3.953||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead,a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in change in LV Mass through 6 months was used.|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean LV Mass change through 6 months.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, NYHA I-III, and LVEF of at most 50% who receive RV pacing have similar changes in LV Mass through 6 months compared to similar patients who receive BiV pacing. This was tested against the alternative hypothesis that patients have different changes in LV Mass through 6 months with BiV pacing than RV pacing. Change was calculated as 6 month value - randomization visit value.||3.953|-12.130|
90944836|NCT00267098|181769243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|-10.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.33|-0.857||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead,a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in change in LV Mass through 12 months was used.|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean LV Mass change through 12 months.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, NYHA I-III, and LVEF of at most 50% who receive RV pacing have similar changes in LV Mass through 12 months compared to similar patients who receive BiV pacing. This was tested against the alternative hypothesis that patients have different changes in LV Mass through 12 months with BiV pacing than RV pacing. Change was calculated as 12 month value - randomization visit value.||-0.857|-19.330|
90944837|NCT00267098|181769244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|-8.316|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.19|1.623||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead,a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in change in LV Mass through 18 months was used.|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean LV Mass change through 18 months.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, NYHA I-III, and LVEF of at most 50% who receive RV pacing have similar changes in LV Mass through 18 months compared to similar patients who receive BiV pacing. This was tested against the alternative hypothesis that patients have different changes in LV Mass through 18 months with BiV pacing than RV pacing. Change was calculated as 18 month value - randomization visit value.||1.623|-18.190|
90944838|NCT00267098|181769245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|-11.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.11|-0.956||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead,a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in change in LV Mass through 24 months was used.|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean LV Mass change through 24 months.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, NYHA I-III, and LVEF of at most 50% who receive RV pacing have similar changes in LV Mass through 24 months compared to similar patients who receive BiV pacing. This was tested against the alternative hypothesis that patients have different changes in LV Mass through 24 months with BiV pacing than RV pacing. Change was calculated as 24 month value - randomization visit value.||-0.956|-21.110|
90944839|NCT00267098|181769246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|-0.126|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.235|-0.014||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead,a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in change in LVEDD through 6 months was used.|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean LVEDD change through 6 months.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, ejection fractions of at most 50%, and NYHA classifications of I, II, or III who receive biventricular pacing have the same average change in LVEDD from randomization to 6 months as similar patients who receive right ventricular pacing. This was tested against the hypothesis that patients with BiV pacing have a different change in LVEDD from randomization to 6 months than patients with RV pacing. Negative values reflect reductions in LVEDD.||-0.014|-0.235|
90976052|NCT00927368|181835953|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority analysis used the 0.5-point noninferiority delta in a 1-tailed test of the treatment effect regression parameter (i.e., testing the null hypothesis that mean stimulating catheter minus mean ultrasound alone is greater than 0.5 points).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.0|21.0||Significance criterion of 0.01735 after adjusting for group sequential design and applying Holm Bonferroni procedure to account for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||The primary analysis for opioid was a linear regression model comparing stimulating catheter to ultrasound alone on the log of cumulative opioid consumption score for a patient in the first 48 hours.||21|-25|0.03
91037493|NCT00205777|181960995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.936||||0.799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.587|1.491|||Log Rank|||Wrist: P value was calculated using Log-Rank test. Hazard ratio (Bazedoxifene 40/20 mg \[SE I\] versus Placebo \[Core+SE I+SE II\]) based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model was presented along with 95% CIs.||1.491|0.587|0.799
90976053|NCT00927368|181835953|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority analysis used the 0.5-point noninferiority delta in a 1-tailed test of the treatment effect regression parameter (i.e., testing the null hypothesis that mean ultrasound alone minus mean stimulating catheter is greater than 0.5 points).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.0|23.0||Significance criterion of 0.00694 after adjusting for group sequential design and applying Holm Bonferroni procedure to account for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||The primary analysis for opioid was a linear regression model comparing ultrasound alone to stimulating catheter on the log of cumulative opioid consumption score for a patient in the first 48 hours.||23|-24|0.005
90976054|NCT00927368|181835953|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority analysis used the 0.5-point noninferiority delta in a 1-tailed test of the treatment effect regression parameter (i.e., testing the null hypothesis that mean stimulating needle minus mean ultrasound alone is greater than 0.5 points).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|25.0||Significance criterion of 0.01041 after adjusting for group sequential design and applying Holm Bonferroni procedure to account for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||The primary analysis for opioid was a linear regression model comparing stimulating needle to ultrasound alone on the log of cumulative opioid consumption score for a patient in the first 48 hours.||25|-22|0.006
90976055|NCT00927368|181835953|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority analysis used the 0.5-point noninferiority delta in a 1-tailed test of the treatment effect regression parameter (i.e., testing the null hypothesis that mean ultrasound alone minus mean stimulating needle is greater than 0.5 points).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|29.0||Significance criterion of 0.01388 after adjusting for group sequential design and applying Holm Bonferroni procedure to account for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||The primary analysis for opioid was a linear regression model comparing ultrasound alone to stimulating needle on the log of cumulative opioid consumption score for a patient in the first 48 hours.||29|-20|0.02
90976056|NCT00927368|181835954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||ANOVA|||Stimulating needle versus stimulating catheter.||||0.11
90976057|NCT00927368|181835954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|40.0||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|75.0|||ANOVA|||Stimulating needle versus ultrasound guidance alone||75|6|0.01
90976058|NCT00927368|181835954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|67.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.0|102.0|||ANOVA|||Stimulating catheter versus ultrasound guidance alone||102|31|< 0.001
90976059|NCT00927368|181835955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||incremental cost, measured in dollars|14.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Incremental cost (additional cost of stimulating needle compared to ultrasound alone).|We calculated incremental cost, defined as the additional cost of one strategy to the next less costly strategy.||||
90976060|NCT00927368|181835955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||incremental cost, measured in dollars|36.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||We estimated incremental cost, or additional cost of stimulating needle + catheter stimulation to stimulating needle alone.|We calculated incremental cost, defined as the additional cost of one strategy to the next less costly strategy.||||
90976061|NCT00927368|181835955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||incremental cost, measured in dollars|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||We calculated incremental cost, or the additional cost of stimulating needle + stimulating catheter to ultrasound alone.|We calculated incremental cost, defined as the additional cost of one strategy to the next less costly strategy.||||
90976062|NCT00964431|181835961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.545|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8912|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.816|13.275|||ANCOVA|||||13.275|5.816|<0.001
90944840|NCT00267098|181769247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|-0.162|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.287|-0.035||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead,a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in change in LVEDD through 12 months was used.|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean LVEDD change through 12 months.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, ejection fractions of at most 50%, and NYHA classifications of I, II, or III who receive biventricular pacing have the same average change in LVEDD from randomization to 12 months as similar patients who receive right ventricular pacing. This was tested against the hypothesis that patients with BiV pacing have a different change in LVEDD from randomization to 12 months than patients with RV pacing. Negative values reflect reductions in LVEDD.||-0.035|-0.287|
91037494|NCT00205777|181960995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.28||||0.298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.818|2.002|||Log Rank|||Wrist: P value was calculated using Log-Rank test. Hazard ratio (Bazedoxifene 20 mg \[Core+SE I\] versus Bazedoxifene 40/20 mg \[SE I\]) based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model was presented along with 95% CIs.||2.002|0.818|0.298
91037495|NCT00205777|181960996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.19|||Log Rank|||Osteoporosis-Related: P value was calculated using Log-Rank test. Hazard ratio (Bazedoxifene 20 mg \[SE II\] versus Placebo \[Core+SE I+SE II\]) based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model was presented along with 95% CIs.||1.19|0.78|0.73
91037496|NCT00205777|181960996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.83|||Log Rank|||Hip: P value was calculated using Log-Rank test. Hazard ratio (Bazedoxifene 20 mg \[SE II\] versus Placebo \[Core+SE I+SE II\]) based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model was presented along with 95% CIs.||1.83|0.41|0.71
91037497|NCT00205777|181960996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.66|||Log Rank|||Wrist: P value was calculated using Log-Rank test. Hazard ratio (Bazedoxifene 20 mg \[SE II\] versus Placebo \[Core+SE I+SE II\]) based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model was presented along with 95% CIs.||1.66|0.80|0.45
91037498|NCT00205777|181960997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.31
91037499|NCT00205777|181960997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.039|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.039
91037500|NCT00205777|181960997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.13
91037501|NCT00205777|181960997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.12
91037502|NCT00205777|181960997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.002
91037503|NCT00205777|181960998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.12
91037504|NCT00205777|181960998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.94|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.94
91037505|NCT00205777|181960999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.26
91037506|NCT00205777|181961000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in lumbar spine BMD: P value was calculated using Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA).||||<0.001
91037507|NCT00205777|181961000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in lumbar spine BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91037508|NCT00205777|181961000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 18 in lumbar spine BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91037509|NCT00205777|181961000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in lumbar spine BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91037510|NCT00205777|181961000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in lumbar spine BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91037511|NCT00205777|181961000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in lumbar spine BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.018
91037512|NCT00205777|181961000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in lumbar spine BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91037513|NCT00205777|181961000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 18 in lumbar spine BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91037514|NCT00205777|181961000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in lumbar spine BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91037515|NCT00205777|181961000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in lumbar spine BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91037516|NCT00205777|181961000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in lumbar spine BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91037517|NCT00205777|181961000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in lumbar spine BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91037518|NCT00205777|181961000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 18 in lumbar spine BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91037519|NCT00205777|181961000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in lumbar spine BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91037520|NCT00205777|181961000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in lumbar spine BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91037521|NCT00205777|181961000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in lumbar spine BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.036
90944841|NCT00267098|181769248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|-0.163|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.293|-0.03||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead,a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in change in LVEDD through 18 months was used.|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean LVEDD change through 18 months.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, ejection fractions of at most 50%, and NYHA classifications of I, II, or III who receive biventricular pacing have the same average change in LVEDD from randomization to 18 months as similar patients who receive right ventricular pacing. This was tested against the hypothesis that patients with BiV pacing have a different change in LVEDD from randomization to 18 months than patients with RV pacing. Negative values reflect reductions in LVEDD.||-0.030|-0.293|
90944842|NCT00267098|181769249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|-0.245|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|-0.097||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead,a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in change in LVEDD through 24 months was used.|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean LVEDD change through 24 months.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, ejection fractions of at most 50%, and NYHA classifications of I, II, or III who receive biventricular pacing have the same average change in LVEDD from randomization to 24 months as similar patients who receive right ventricular pacing. This was tested against the hypothesis that patients with BiV pacing have a different change in LVEDD from randomization to 24 months than patients with RV pacing. Negative values reflect reductions in LVEDD.||-0.097|-0.390|
90944843|NCT00267098|181769250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|-0.066|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.185|0.055||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead,a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in change in LVESD through 6 months was used.|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean LVESD change through 6 months.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, ejection fractions of at most 50%, and NYHA classifications of I, II, or III who receive biventricular pacing have the same average change in LVESD from randomization to 6 months as similar patients who receive right ventricular pacing. This was tested against the hypothesis that patients with BiV pacing have a different change in LVESD from randomization to 6 months than patients with RV pacing. Negative values reflect reductions in LVESD.||0.055|-0.185|
90944844|NCT00267098|181769251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|-0.104|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.236|0.029||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead,a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in change in LVESD through 12 months was used.|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean LVESD change through 12 months.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, ejection fractions of at most 50%, and NYHA classifications of I, II, or III who receive biventricular pacing have the same average change in LVESD from randomization to 12 months as similar patients who receive right ventricular pacing. This was tested against the hypothesis that patients with BiV pacing have a different change in LVESD from randomization to 12 months than patients with RV pacing. Negative values reflect reductions in LVESD.||0.029|-0.236|
90976063|NCT01482910|181835993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|13.4||Hierarchical testing procedure was used in the order of pre-defined fixed sequence (primary endpoint first, then confirmatory secondary efficacy point next). A two-sided significance level of 0.05 was used.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline BCVA as a covariate, and treatment group and baseline BCVA group (\<45 letters vs ≥45 letters) as fixed factors|Least square mean difference (EYLEA-PDT) was estimated from ANCOVA, where a positive value is in favor of EYLEA.|Null hypothesis: mean changes are identical in both groups. A sample size of 300 subjects with a 3:1 (EYLEA to PDT) randomization ratio is sufficient to detect the superiority of EYLEA to PDT assuming a two-sided alpha level of 0.05, a power of 90%, a treatment difference of 7.5 letters and a common standard deviation of 14 letters.||13.4|6.8|<0.0001
91037522|NCT00205777|181961000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in lumbar spine BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.003
91037523|NCT00205777|181961000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 18 in lumbar spine BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.019
90944845|NCT00267098|181769252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|-0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.204|0.087||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead,a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in change in LVESD through 18 months was used.|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean LVESD change through 18 months.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, ejection fractions of at most 50%, and NYHA classifications of I, II, or III who receive biventricular pacing have the same average change in LVESD from randomization to 18 months as similar patients who receive right ventricular pacing. This was tested against the hypothesis that patients with BiV pacing have a different change in LVESD from randomization to 18 months than patients with RV pacing. Negative values reflect reductions in LVESD.||0.087|-0.204|
90944846|NCT00267098|181769253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|-0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.339|-0.018||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead,a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in change in LVESD through 24 months was used.|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean LVESD change through 24 months.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, ejection fractions of at most 50%, and NYHA classifications of I, II, or III who receive biventricular pacing have the same average change in LVESD from randomization to 24 months as similar patients who receive right ventricular pacing. This was tested against the hypothesis that patients with BiV pacing have a different change in LVESD from randomization to 24 months than patients with RV pacing. Negative values reflect reductions in LVESD.||-0.018|-0.339|
90976064|NCT01482910|181835994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|6.6||||0.0359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|12.9||Hierarchical testing procedure was used in the order of pre-defined fixed sequence (primary endpoint first, then confirmatory secondary efficacy point next). A two-sided significance level of 0.05 was used.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH adjusted for baseline BCVA group (\<45 letters vs ≥45 letters)|Proportion difference (EYLEA-PDT) was estimated from CMH, where a positive value is in favor of EYLEA.|Null hypothesis: proportions are identical in both groups||12.9|0.4|0.0359
90976065|NCT01058096|181836016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.3||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|-1.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||cariprazine - placebo|||-1.9|-6.7|0.0004
90976066|NCT01058096|181836017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.1|||MMRM analysis||cariprazine - placebo|||-0.1|-0.7|0.0027
90976067|NCT05099640|181836024|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-395.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|33.848|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-463.07|-328.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-328.66|-463.07|<0.0001
90976068|NCT05099640|181836025|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-64.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.973|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.09|-54.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-54.35|-74.09|<0.0001
90976069|NCT05099640|181836026|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|30.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|294.24|||Chi-squared|||||294.24|5.30|<0.0001
90976070|NCT05099640|181836027|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|51.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.28|245.34|||Chi-squared|||||245.34|12.28|<0.0001
90976071|NCT05099640|181836028|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-289.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|33.44|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-356.29|-223.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Weeks 1 and 2: Sepiapterin vs. Placebo||-223.50|-356.29|<0.0001
90976072|NCT05099640|181836028|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-375.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|30.424|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-435.88|-315.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Weeks 3 and 4: Sepiapterin vs. Placebo||-315.06|-435.88|<0.0001
90976073|NCT05099640|181836028|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-395.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|33.848|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-463.07|-328.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Weeks 5 and 6: Sepiapterin vs. Placebo||-328.66|-463.07|<0.0001
90976074|NCT05099640|181836029|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-42.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.008|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.45|-30.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Weeks 1 and 2: Sepiapterin vs. Placebo||-30.59|-54.45|<0.0001
91037524|NCT00205777|181961000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in lumbar spine BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
90976075|NCT05099640|181836029|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-61.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.531|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.02|-52.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Weeks 3 and 4: Sepiapterin vs. Placebo||-52.03|-70.02|<0.0001
90976076|NCT05099640|181836029|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-64.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.973|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.09|-54.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Weeks 5 and 6: Sepiapterin vs. Placebo||-54.35|-74.09|<0.0001
90976077|NCT05099640|181836034|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-492.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|55.588|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-614.59|-369.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-369.87|-614.59|<0.0001
90976078|NCT05099640|181836035|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-74.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.436|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-97.72|-51.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-51.74|-97.72|<0.0001
90976079|NCT01552681|181836050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is testing for treatment effect using an analysis of covariance with adjustments for screening stimulated salivary flow.|ANCOVA|||Missing Week 24 assessments were imputed by carrying forward the last observed post-baseline value.||||0.33
91037525|NCT00205777|181961000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in lumbar spine BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.002
91037526|NCT00205777|181961000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in lumbar spine BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91037527|NCT00205777|181961000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in lumbar spine BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91037528|NCT00205777|181961000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 18 in lumbar spine BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91037529|NCT00205777|181961000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in lumbar spine BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91037530|NCT00205777|181961000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in lumbar spine BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91037531|NCT00205777|181961000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in total hip BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91037532|NCT00205777|181961000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in total hip BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91037533|NCT00205777|181961000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 18 in total hip BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
90944847|NCT00267098|181769254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|-0.683|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.828|1.506||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead,a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in change in MR through 6 months was used.|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean MR change through 6 months.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, NYHA I-III, and LVEF of at most 50% who receive RV pacing have similar changes in Mitral Regurgitation (MR) through 6 months compared to similar patients who receive BiV pacing. This was tested against the alternative hypothesis that patients have different changes in Mitral Regurgitation through 6 months with BiV pacing than RV pacing. Change was calculated as 6 month value - randomization visit value.||1.506|-2.828|
90944848|NCT00267098|181769255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|-0.564|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.843|1.773||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead,a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in change in MR through 12 months was used.|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean MR change through 12 months.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, NYHA I-III, and LVEF of at most 50% who receive RV pacing have similar changes in Mitral Regurgitation (MR) through 12 months compared to similar patients who receive BiV pacing. This was tested against the alternative hypothesis that patients have different changes in Mitral Regurgitation through 12 months with BiV pacing than RV pacing. Change was calculated as 12 month value - randomization visit value.||1.773|-2.843|
90944849|NCT00267098|181769256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|0.016|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.379|2.425||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead,a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in change in MR through 18 months was used.|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean MR change through 18 months.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, NYHA I-III, and LVEF of at most 50% who receive RV pacing have similar changes in Mitral Regurgitation (MR) through 18 months compared to similar patients who receive BiV pacing. This was tested against the alternative hypothesis that patients have different changes in Mitral Regurgitation through 18 months with BiV pacing than RV pacing. Change was calculated as 18 month value - randomization visit value.||2.425|-2.379|
90944850|NCT00267098|181769257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|-0.653|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.337|2.046||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead,a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in change in MR through 24 months was used.|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean MR change through 24 months.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, NYHA I-III, and LVEF of at most 50% who receive RV pacing have similar changes in Mitral Regurgitation (MR) through 24 months compared to similar patients who receive BiV pacing. This was tested against the alternative hypothesis that patients have different changes in Mitral Regurgitation through 24 months with BiV pacing than RV pacing. Change was calculated as 24 month value - randomization visit value.||2.046|-3.337|
90944851|NCT00267098|181769258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.031|0.195||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead,a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in change in CI through 6 months was used.|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean CI change through 6 months.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, NYHA I-III, and LVEF of at most 50% who receive RV pacing have similar changes in Cardiac Index (CI) through 6 months compared to similar patients who receive BiV pacing. This was tested against the alternative hypothesis that patients have different changes in Cardiac Index through 6 months with BiV pacing than RV pacing. Change was calculated as 6 month value - randomization visit value.||0.195|-0.031|
90944852|NCT00267098|181769259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|0.086|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.022|0.198||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead,a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in change in CI through 12 months was used.|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean CI change through 12 months.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, NYHA I-III, and LVEF of at most 50% who receive RV pacing have similar changes in Cardiac Index (CI) through 12 months compared to similar patients who receive BiV pacing. This was tested against the alternative hypothesis that patients have different changes in Cardiac Index through 12 months with BiV pacing than RV pacing. Change was calculated as 12 month value - randomization visit value.||0.198|-0.022|
91037534|NCT00205777|181961000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in total hip BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91037535|NCT00205777|181961000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in total hip BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
90976080|NCT00236080|181836073|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Number of participants analyzed was determined by those participants who had at least 1 postbaseline efficacy assessment. Sample size requirements were not based on statistical considerations. There were 20 patients in each of the 5 treatment groups, for a total of 100 patients. It is expected that the sample size will provide sufficient information for describing the specified evaluations.||||||0.1236||||||The p-value of Overall Treatment to Placebo|ANCOVA|This analysis adjusted for the difference among the treatment groups at baseline.||Sample size requirements were not based on statistical considerations. The null hypothesis was Ho: μplacebo = μ150 = μ200 = μ250 = μprovigil versus Ha: at least 2 of the means are different, where μ represented the change from baseline to the endpoint.||||0.1236
90976081|NCT00236080|181836074|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Using the adjusted p value from Tukey's least significant difference (LSD) test for armodafinil at 200 mg/day. Sample size requirements were not based on statistical considerations. There were 20 patients in each of the 5 treatment groups, for a total of 100 patients.||||||0.0945||||||The p-value of Overall Treatment to Placebo|ANCOVA|||Sample size requirements were not based on statistical considerations. The null hypothesis was Ho: μplacebo = μ150 = μ200 = μ250 = μprovigil versus Ha: at least 2 of the means are different, where μ represented the change from baseline to the endpoint .||||0.0945
90976082|NCT01214044|181836075|OTHER|A paired t-test was done to see if the time of the dim light melatonin onset changed from baseline to post-treatment.||||||0.2||||||A priori threshold for significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||A within subjects comparison was done to compare the time of the dim light melatonin onset before treatment with escitalopram (Study Visit 3) and after treatment with escitalopram (Study Visit 11).||||0.2
90976083|NCT01214044|181836076|OTHER|A paired t-test was done to see if the Hamilton-21 score decreased from baseline to post-treatment.||||||0.01||||||A priori threshold for significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 1 sided|paired t-test||"We hypothesized that there would be a decrease in the Hamilton-21 score with escitalopram treatment.~A within subjects comparison was done to compare the Hamilton-21 score before treatment with escitalopram (Study Visit 3) and after treatment with escitalopram (Study Visit 11)."||||0.01
90976084|NCT01214044|181836077|OTHER|A paired t-test was done to see if the Beck Depression Inventory-II score decreased from baseline to post-treatment.||||||0.14||||||A priori threshold for significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 1 sided|paired t-test||"We hypothesized that there would be a decrease in the Beck Depression Inventory-II score with escitalopram treatment.~A within subjects comparison was done to compare the Beck Depression Inventory-II score before treatment with escitalopram (Study Visit 3) and after treatment with escitalopram (Study Visit 11)."||||0.14
90976085|NCT01214044|181836078|OTHER|Spearman's rank-order correlation (non-parametric test) was used.||||||0.06||||||Spearman's rho (rs) = 0.66|Spearman's rank-order correlation|||We hypothesized that there would be a correlation between the change in phase angle difference and the decrease in the Hamilton-21 score with escitalopram treatment. The phase angle difference is the interval, in hours, between the dim light melatonin onset (a marker of biological time) and the average midpoint of sleep during the prior week.||||0.06
91037536|NCT00205777|181961000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in total hip BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
90976086|NCT01214044|181836078|OTHER|Spearman's rank-order correlation (non-parametric test) was used.||||||0.48||||||Spearman's rho (rs) = 0.02|Spearman's rank-order correlation|||We hypothesized that there would be a correlation between the change in phase angle difference and the decrease in the Beck Depression Inventory-II score with escitalopram treatment. The phase angle difference is the interval, in hours, between the dim light melatonin onset (a marker of biological time) and the average midpoint of sleep during the prior week.||||0.48
91037537|NCT00205777|181961000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in total hip BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91037538|NCT00205777|181961000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 18 in total hip BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91037539|NCT00205777|181961000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in total hip BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91037540|NCT00205777|181961000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in total hip BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91037541|NCT00205777|181961000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in total hip BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
90944853|NCT00267098|181769260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|-0.081|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.218|0.058||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead,a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in change in CI through 18 months was used.|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean CI change through 18 months.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, NYHA I-III, and LVEF of at most 50% who receive RV pacing have similar changes in Cardiac Index (CI) through 18 months compared to similar patients who receive BiV pacing. This was tested against the alternative hypothesis that patients have different changes in Cardiac Index through 18 months with BiV pacing than RV pacing. Change was calculated as 18 month value - randomization visit value.||0.058|-0.218|
90944854|NCT00267098|181769261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|0.047|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.095|0.192||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead,a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in change in CI through 24 months was used.|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean CI change through 24 months.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, NYHA I-III, and LVEF of at most 50% who receive RV pacing have similar changes in Cardiac Index (CI) through 24 months compared to similar patients who receive BiV pacing. This was tested against the alternative hypothesis that patients have different changes in Cardiac Index through 24 months with BiV pacing than RV pacing. Change was calculated as 24 month value - randomization visit value.||0.192|-0.095|
90944855|NCT00267098|181769262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|29.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.04|48.64||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead,a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in change in IVMD through 6 months was used.|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean IVMD change through 6 months.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, NYHA I-III, and LVEF of at most 50% who receive RV pacing have similar changes in IVMD through 6 months compared to similar patients who receive BiV pacing. This was tested against the alternative hypothesis that patients have different changes in IVMD through 6 months with BiV pacing than RV pacing. Change was calculated as 6 month value - randomization visit value. A positive value reflected reduction in IVMD.||48.640|10.040|
90976087|NCT04698525|181836079|NON_INFERIORITY|"A new treatment (memantine) that is not much worse or non-inferior to the standard treatment (valproate) may be attractive if, compared to it, it is expected to cause fewer side effects or improve quality of life or if its dosing regimen is easier to tolerate."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.0||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|10.0||"Comparison between VPA and Memantine was:~0.9 p-value (two-tailed)"|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|"Memantine 3.534 z corrected for ties 0.0004 p-value (two-tailed)~VPA 3.418 z corrected for ties 0.0006 p-value (two-tailed)"||Null hypothesis: Memantine is as effective as valproate in treating episodic migraine.|We made also student t|10|0|0.9
90976088|NCT02211261|181836127|OTHER||Percentage of Test relative to Reference|17.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.44|36.95|||||PF-06293620 0.3 mg/kg SC (SAD Cohorts) is Test, PF-06293620 1.0 mg/kg IV (SAD Cohorts) is Reference.|||36.95|8.44|
90976089|NCT02211261|181836127|OTHER||Percentage of Test relative to Reference|32.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|21.64|49.51|||||PF-06293620 1.0 mg/kg SC (SAD Cohorts) is Test, PF-06293620 1.0 mg/kg IV (SAD Cohorts) is Reference.|||49.51|21.64|
90976090|NCT02211261|181836127|OTHER||Percentage of Test relative to Reference|35.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|23.6|51.95|||||PF-06293620 3.0 mg/kg SC (SAD Cohorts) is Test, PF-06293620 1.0 mg/kg IV (SAD Cohorts) is Reference.|||51.95|23.60|
90976091|NCT02211261|181836127|OTHER||Percentage of Test relative to Reference|53.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|36.36|77.78|||||PF-06293620 6.0 mg/kg SC (SAD Cohorts) is Test, PF-06293620 1.0 mg/kg IV (SAD Cohorts) is Reference.|||77.78|36.36|
90976092|NCT02211261|181836129|OTHER||Percentage of Test relative to Reference|7.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.7|11.4|||||PF-06293620 0.3 mg/kg SC (SAD Cohorts) is Test, PF-06293620 1.0 mg/kg IV (SAD Cohorts) is Reference.|||11.40|4.70|
90976093|NCT02211261|181836129|OTHER||Percentage of Test relative to Reference|32.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|20.67|50.12|||||PF-06293620 1.0 mg/kg SC (SAD Cohorts) is Test, PF-06293620 1.0 mg/kg IV (SAD Cohorts) is Reference.|||50.12|20.67|
90976094|NCT02211261|181836129|OTHER||Percentage of Test relative to Reference|34.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|22.57|52.52|||||PF-06293620 3.0 mg/kg SC (SAD Cohorts) is Test, PF-06293620 1.0 mg/kg IV (SAD Cohorts) is Reference.|||52.52|22.57|
90976095|NCT02211261|181836129|OTHER||Percentage of Test relative to Reference|51.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|34.26|77.31|||||PF-06293620 6.0 mg/kg SC (SAD Cohorts) is Test, PF-06293620 1.0 mg/kg IV (SAD Cohorts) is Reference.|||77.31|34.26|
90976096|NCT02986230|181836161|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|||||Tests of the two planned contrasts were 2-sided with P-values less than 0.025 considered statistically significant, and odds ratios for key study group contrasts report 97.5% confidence intervals.|Mixed Models Analysis|Denominator degrees of freedom for variables in the model take into account the cluster-randomized design.||Generalized linear mixed models with logit link and binomial error distribution were used to test the effect of the intervention on the composite of cancer screening by 1 year post-index for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer. The model included two primary contrasts: CP-CDS vs. UC and CP-CDS+SDMT vs. UC and included pre-specified covariates and variables used in the randomization process. Tests of the two contrasts were 2-sided with P-values \< 0.025 considered statistically significant.||||.025
91037542|NCT00205777|181961000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in total hip BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91037543|NCT00205777|181961000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 18 in total hip BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91037544|NCT00205777|181961000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in total hip BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91037545|NCT00205777|181961000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in total hip BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
90976097|NCT02986230|181836161|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|||||Tests of the two planned contrasts were 2-sided with P-values less than 0.025 considered statistically significant, and odds ratios for key study group contrasts report 97.5% confidence intervals.|Mixed Models Analysis|Denominator degrees of freedom for variables in the model take into account the cluster-randomized design.||Generalized linear mixed models with a logit link and binomial error distribution were used to test the effect of the intervention on the composite of cancer screening by 1 year post-index date for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer. Model included two primary contrasts: CP-CDS vs. UC and CP-CDS+SDMT vs. UC and included pre-specified covariates and variables used in randomization process. Tests of the planned contrasts were 2-sided with P-values \< 0.025 considered statistically significant.||||.025
90976098|NCT02986230|181836162|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|||||Tests of the two planned contrasts were 2-sided with P-values less than 0.025 considered statistically significant, and odds ratios for key study group contrasts report 97.5% confidence intervals.|Mixed Models Analysis|Denominator degrees of freedom for variables in the model take into account the cluster-randomized design.||Generalized linear mixed models with a logit link and binomial error distribution were used to test the effect of the intervention on completion of the HPV vaccination series by 12 months post-index date. The model included two primary contrasts: CP-CDS vs. UC and CP-CDS+SDMT vs. UC and included pre-specified covariates and variables used in the randomization process. Tests of the two planned contrasts were 2-sided with P-values less than 0.025 considered statistically significant.||||.025
90976099|NCT02986230|181836162|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|||||Tests of the two planned contrasts were 2-sided with P-values less than 0.025 considered statistically significant, and odds ratios for key study group contrasts report 97.5% confidence intervals.|Mixed Models Analysis|Denominator degrees of freedom for variables in the model take into account the cluster-randomized design.||Generalized linear mixed models with a logit link and binomial error distribution were used to test the effect of the intervention on completion of the HPV vaccination series by 12 months post-index date. The model included two primary contrasts: CP-CDS vs. UC and CP-CDS+SDMT vs. UC and included pre-specified covariates and variables used in the randomization process. Tests of the two planned contrasts were 2-sided with P-values less than 0.025 considered statistically significant.||||.025
91037546|NCT00205777|181961000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in total hip BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.008
91037547|NCT00205777|181961000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in total hip BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.007
91037548|NCT00205777|181961000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 18 in total hip BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.002
91037549|NCT00205777|181961000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in total hip BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.002
91037550|NCT00205777|181961000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in total hip BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.006
91037551|NCT00205777|181961000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in total hip BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91037552|NCT00205777|181961000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in total hip BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
90944856|NCT00267098|181769263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|21.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.841|40.87||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead,a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in change in IVMD through 12 months was used.|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean IVMD change through 12 months.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, NYHA I-III, and LVEF of at most 50% who receive RV pacing have similar changes in IVMD through 6 months compared to similar patients who receive BiV pacing. This was tested against the alternative hypothesis that patients have different changes in IVMD through 12 months with BiV pacing than RV pacing. Change was calculated as 12 month value - randomization visit value. A positive value reflected reduction in IVMD.||40.870|2.841|
91037553|NCT00205777|181961000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 18 in total hip BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91037554|NCT00205777|181961000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in total hip BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91037555|NCT00205777|181961000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in total hip BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91037556|NCT00205777|181961000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in femoral neck BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91037557|NCT00205777|181961000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in femoral neck BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
90944857|NCT00267098|181769264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|26.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.247|47.19||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead,a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in change in IVMD through 18 months was used.|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean IVMD change through 18 months.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, NYHA I-III, and LVEF of at most 50% who receive RV pacing have similar changes in IVMD through 6 months compared to similar patients who receive BiV pacing. This was tested against the alternative hypothesis that patients have different changes in IVMD through 18 months with BiV pacing than RV pacing. Change was calculated as 18 month value - randomization visit value. A positive value reflected reduction in IVMD.||47.190|6.247|
90976100|NCT02986230|181836163|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|||||Tests of the two planned contrasts were 2-sided with P-values less than 0.025 considered statistically significant, and odds ratios for key study group contrasts report 97.5% confidence intervals.|Mixed Models Analysis|Denominator degrees of freedom for variables in the model take into account the cluster-randomized design.||Generalized linear mixed models with a logit link and binomial error distribution were used to test the effect of the intervention on completion of lung cancer screening by 12 months post-index date. The model included two primary contrasts: CP-CDS vs. UC and CP-CDS+SDMT vs. UC and included pre-specified covariates and variables used in the randomization process. Tests of the two planned contrasts were 2-sided with P-values less than 0.025 considered statistically significant.||||.025
90976101|NCT02986230|181836163|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|||||Tests of the two planned contrasts were 2-sided with P-values less than 0.025 considered statistically significant, and odds ratios for key study group contrasts report 97.5% confidence intervals.|Mixed Models Analysis|Denominator degrees of freedom for variables in the model take into account the cluster-randomized design.||Generalized linear mixed models with a logit link and binomial error distribution were used to test the intervention effect on the completion of lung cancer screening by 12 months post-index. The model included two primary contrasts: CP-CDS vs. UC and CP-CDS+SDMT vs. UC and included pre-specified covariates and variables used in the randomization process. Tests of the two planned contrasts were 2-sided with P-values less than 0.025 considered statistically significant.||||.025
90976102|NCT00874250|181836164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion|0.98||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.895|0.996|||Binomial Test|||||0.996|0.895|0.0024
90976103|NCT02065453|181836187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The data will be analyzed using linear regression, Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, and chi-square analysis.||||<0.001
90976104|NCT03694392|181836195|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.94||Adjustment for multiplicity for the secondary outcomes was performed with the use of Holm's adjustment method.|Regression, Cox|Models were adjusted for age, age squared, sex, and race or ethnic group after weighting with stabilized facility-specific propensity scores.|Relative vaccine effectiveness (95% CI) calculated as 1 minus the hazard ratio, expressed as a percentage: 15.3% (5.9%, 23.8%)|||0.94|0.76|<0.05
91037558|NCT00205777|181961000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 18 in femoral neck BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91037559|NCT00205777|181961000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in femoral neck BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91037560|NCT00205777|181961000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in femoral neck BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
90976105|NCT03694392|181836196|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.09||Adjustment for multiplicity for the secondary outcomes was performed with the use of Holm's adjustment method.|Regression, Cox|Models were adjusted for age, age squared, sex, and race or ethnic group after weighting with stabilized facility-specific propensity scores.|Relative vaccine effectiveness (95% CI) calculated as 1 minus the hazard ratio, expressed as a percentage: 15.9% (-9.2% to 35.2%)|||1.09|0.65|<0.05
90976106|NCT03694392|181836197|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.06||Adjustment for multiplicity for the secondary outcomes was performed with the use of Holm's adjustment method.|Regression, Cox|Models were adjusted for age, age squared, sex, and race or ethnic group after weighting with stabilized facility-specific propensity scores.|Relative vaccine effectiveness (95% CI) calculated as 1 minus the hazard ratio, expressed as a percentage: 16.7% (-5.6% to 34.4%)|||1.06|0.66|<0.05
91037561|NCT00205777|181961000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in femoral neck BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.47
91037562|NCT00205777|181961000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in femoral neck BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.005
91037563|NCT00205777|181961000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 18 in femoral neck BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.002
91037564|NCT00205777|181961000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in femoral neck BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91037565|NCT00205777|181961000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in femoral neck BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.004
91037566|NCT00205777|181961000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in femoral neck BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91037567|NCT00205777|181961000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in femoral neck BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91037568|NCT00205777|181961000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 18 in femoral neck BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
90976107|NCT03694392|181836198|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.08||Adjustment for multiplicity for the secondary outcomes was performed with the use of Holm's adjustment method.|Regression, Cox|Models were adjusted for age, age squared, sex, and race or ethnic group after weighting with stabilized facility-specific propensity scores.|Relative vaccine effectiveness (95% CI) calculated as 1 minus the hazard ratio, expressed as a percentage: 2.4% (-8.1% to 11.9%)|||1.08|0.88|<0.05
91037569|NCT00205777|181961000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in femoral neck BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
90944858|NCT00267098|181769265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|23.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.999|44.53||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead,a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in change in IVMD through 24 months was used.|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean IVMD change through 24 months.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, NYHA I-III, and LVEF of at most 50% who receive RV pacing have similar changes in IVMD through 6 months compared to similar patients who receive BiV pacing. This was tested against the alternative hypothesis that patients have different changes in IVMD through 24 months with BiV pacing than RV pacing. Change was calculated as 24 month value - randomization visit value. A positive value reflected reduction in IVMD.||44.530|1.999|
90944859|NCT00267098|181769266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|-0.047|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.089||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead,a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in change in E/A through 6 months was used.|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean E/A change through 6 months.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, NYHA I-III, and LVEF of at most 50% who receive RV pacing have similar changes in E:A ratio (E/A) through 6 months compared to similar patients who receive BiV pacing. This was tested against the alternative hypothesis that patients have different changes in E:A ratio through 6 months with BiV pacing than RV pacing. Change was calculated as 6 month value - randomization visit value.||0.089|-0.180|
91037570|NCT00205777|181961000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in femoral neck BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91037571|NCT00205777|181961000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in femoral neck BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.39
91037572|NCT00205777|181961000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in femoral neck BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.17
91037573|NCT00205777|181961000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 18 in femoral neck BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.34
91037574|NCT00205777|181961000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in femoral neck BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.016
90944860|NCT00267098|181769267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|-0.117|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.287|0.058||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead,a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in change in E/A through 12 months was used.|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean E/A change through 12 months.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, NYHA I-III, and LVEF of at most 50% who receive RV pacing have similar changes in E:A ratio (E/A) through 12 months compared to similar patients who receive BiV pacing. This was tested against the alternative hypothesis that patients have different changes in E:A ratio through 12 months with BiV pacing than RV pacing. Change was calculated as 12 month value - randomization visit value.||0.058|-0.287|
90944861|NCT00267098|181769268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|0.041|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.136|0.22||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead,a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in change in E/A through 18 months was used.|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean E/A change through 18 months.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, NYHA I-III, and LVEF of at most 50% who receive RV pacing have similar changes in E:A ratio (E/A) through 18 months compared to similar patients who receive BiV pacing. This was tested against the alternative hypothesis that patients have different changes in E:A ratio through 18 months with BiV pacing than RV pacing. Change was calculated as 18 month value - randomization visit value.||0.220|-0.136|
90944862|NCT00267098|181769269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.085|0.311||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead,a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in change in E/A through 24 months was used.|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean E/A change through 24 months.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, NYHA I-III, and LVEF of at most 50% who receive RV pacing have similar changes in E:A ratio (E/A) through 24 months compared to similar patients who receive BiV pacing. This was tested against the alternative hypothesis that patients have different changes in E:A ratio through 24 months with BiV pacing than RV pacing. Change was calculated as 24 month value - randomization visit value.||0.311|-0.085|
91037575|NCT00205777|181961000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in femoral neck BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.47
91037576|NCT00205777|181961000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in femoral neck BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91037577|NCT00205777|181961000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in femoral neck BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91037578|NCT00205777|181961000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 18 in femoral neck BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91037579|NCT00205777|181961000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in femoral neck BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91037580|NCT00205777|181961000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in femoral neck BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91037581|NCT00205777|181961000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in femoral trochanter BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91037582|NCT00205777|181961000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in femoral trochanter BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91037583|NCT00205777|181961000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 18 in femoral trochanter BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
90944863|NCT00267098|181769270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1841||||0.9985||95.0||||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used. Instead, a posterior probability, representing the probability that subjects with biventricular pacing have better outcomes, was calculated. A probability ≥ 0.95 was significant.|Posterior probability of mean difference|The posterior probability that the mean difference is greater than 0 was calculated.|This was a one-sided analysis of the BiV arm - RV arm difference in Mean Clinical Composite Scores. Values above 0 suggested better outcomes in the Biventricular arm.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, NYHA I-III, and LVEF of at most 50% who receive RV pacing have similar Clinical Composite Scores after 6 months compared to similar patients who receive BiV pacing. This was tested against the alternative hypothesis that patients had better scores with BiV pacing than RV pacing. The analysis assigned numerical values (Improved=3, Unchanged=2, Worsened=1) and compared the average score between randomization arms using a one-sided analysis.||||0.9985
90976108|NCT03694392|181836199|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.8|||Regression, Cox||Relative vaccine effectiveness (95% CI) calculated as 1 minus the hazard ratio, expressed as a percentage: -15.7% (-79.5% to 25.5%)|||1.80|0.75|<0.05
90976109|NCT03694392|181836200|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.001|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.06|||Regression, Cox||Relative vaccine effectiveness (95% CI) calculated as 1 minus the hazard ratio, expressed as a percentage: -0.1% (-6.0% to 5.4%)|||1.06|0.95|<0.05
90976110|NCT03694392|181836201|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.8|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|5.5|||Regression, Cox||Relative vaccine effectiveness (95% CI) calculated as 1 minus the hazard ratio, expressed as a percentage: 1.8% (-2.2% to 5.5%)|||5.5|-2.2|<0.05
90976111|NCT03694392|181836202|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|9.4|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|22.1|||Regression, Cox||Relative vaccine effectiveness (95% CI) calculated as 1 minus the hazard ratio, expressed as a percentage: 9.4% (-5.4% to 22.1%)|||22.1|-5.4|<0.05
90976112|NCT03694392|181836203|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.02|||Regression, Cox||Relative vaccine effectiveness (95% CI) calculated as 1 minus the hazard ratio, expressed as a percentage: 6.2% (-2.2% to 13.9%)|||1.02|0.86|<0.05
90976113|NCT03694392|181836204|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.52|||Regression, Cox||Relative vaccine effectiveness (95% CI) calculated as 1 minus the hazard ratio, expressed as a percentage: -6.9% (-51.6% to 24.6%)|||1.52|0.75|<0.05
90976114|NCT03694392|181836205|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.12|||Regression, Cox||Relative vaccine effectiveness (95% CI) calculated as 1 minus the hazard ratio, expressed as a percentage: 5.2% (-18.8% to 24.4%)|||1.12|0.76|<0.05
90976115|NCT03694392|181836206|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|0.93|||Regression, Cox||Relative vaccine effectiveness (95% CI) calculated as 1 minus the hazard ratio, expressed as a percentage: 10.8% (6.6% to 14.7%)|||0.93|0.85|<0.05
90976116|NCT03694392|181836207|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.001|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.06|||Regression, Cox||Relative vaccine effectiveness (95% CI) calculated as 1 minus the hazard ratio, expressed as a percentage: -0.1% (-6.2% to 5.6%)|||1.06|0.94|<0.05
90976117|NCT03694392|181836208|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.46|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.0|||Regression, Cox||Relative vaccine effectiveness (95% CI) calculated as 1 minus the hazard ratio, expressed as a percentage: -45.5% (-100.2% to -5.8%)|||2.00|1.06|<0.05
90976118|NCT03694392|181836209|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|0.99|||Regression, Cox||Relative vaccine effectiveness (95% CI) calculated as 1 minus the hazard ratio, expressed as a percentage: 10.2% (1.4% to 18.2%)|||0.99|0.82|<0.05
90976119|NCT03694392|181836210|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.43|||Regression, Cox||Relative vaccine effectiveness (95% CI) calculated as 1 minus the hazard ratio, expressed as a percentage: -16.2% (-43.0% to 5.5%)|||1.43|0.95|<0.05
90976120|NCT03694392|181836211|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.94|||Regression, Cox||Relative vaccine effectiveness (95% CI) calculated as 1 minus the hazard ratio, expressed as a percentage: 15.7% (6.0% to 24.5%)|||0.94|0.76|<0.05
90976121|NCT03694392|181836212|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.34|||Regression, Cox||Relative vaccine effectiveness (95% CI) calculated as 1 minus the hazard ratio, expressed as a percentage: 10.3% (-33.9% to 39.9%)|||1.34|0.60|<0.05
90976122|NCT05523973|181836219|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.66
90976123|NCT05523973|181836220|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.0
90976124|NCT05523973|181836221|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||Sign test|||||||0.09
90976125|NCT05523973|181836222|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.722|||||||Sign test|||||||.722
90976126|NCT05523973|181836223|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Sign test|||||||.28
90976127|NCT05523973|181836224|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Sign test|||||||.15
90976128|NCT05523973|181836225|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Sign test|||||||.8
90976129|NCT05523973|181836226|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.12
90976130|NCT05523973|181836227|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||Sign test|||||||.92
90976131|NCT00132041|181836235|OTHER||Success rate|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.091|0.317|||||logistic regression model without correcting for the clustering effect|logistic regression was used to estimate the success rate||0.317|0.091|
90976132|NCT00132041|181836235|OTHER||Success rate|0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.136|0.252||||||logistic regression model after specifying site as cluster (using GEE approach).||0.252|0.136|
90976133|NCT00132041|181836236|OTHER||Success rate|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.091|0.317|||||logistic regression model without correcting for the clustering effect|logistic regression was used to estimate the success rate||0.317|0.091|
90944864|NCT00267098|181769271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2503||||0.9999||95.0||||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used. Instead, a posterior probability, representing the probability that subjects with biventricular pacing have better outcomes, was calculated. A probability ≥ 0.95 was significant.|Posterior probability of mean difference|The posterior probability that the mean difference is greater than 0 was calculated.|This was a one-sided analysis of the BiV arm - RV arm difference in Mean Clinical Composite Scores. Values above 0 suggested better outcomes in the Biventricular arm.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, NYHA I-III, and LVEF of at most 50% who receive RV pacing have similar Clinical Composite Scores after 12 months compared to similar patients who receive BiV pacing. This was tested against the alternative hypothesis that patients had better scores with BiV pacing than RV pacing. The analysis assigned numerical values (Improved=3, Unchanged=2, Worsened=1) and compared the average score between randomization arms using a one-sided analysis.||||0.9999
90944865|NCT00267098|181769272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1978||||0.9978||95.0||||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used. Instead, a posterior probability, representing the probability that subjects with biventricular pacing have better outcomes, was calculated. A probability ≥ 0.95 was significant.|Posterior probability of mean difference|The posterior probability that the mean difference is greater than 0 was calculated.|This was a one-sided analysis of the BiV arm - RV arm difference in Mean Clinical Composite Scores. Values above 0 suggested better outcomes in the Biventricular arm.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, NYHA I-III, and LVEF of at most 50% who receive RV pacing have similar Clinical Composite Scores after 18 months compared to similar patients who receive BiV pacing. This was tested against the alternative hypothesis that patients had better scores with BiV pacing than RV pacing. The analysis assigned numerical values (Improved=3, Unchanged=2, Worsened=1) and compared the average score between randomization arms using a one-sided analysis.||||0.9978
90944866|NCT00267098|181769273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2069||||0.9983||95.0||||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used. Instead, a posterior probability, representing the probability that subjects with biventricular pacing have better outcomes, was calculated. A probability ≥ 0.95 was significant.|Posterior probability of mean difference|The posterior probability that the mean difference is greater than 0 was calculated.|This was a one-sided analysis of the BiV arm - RV arm difference in Mean Clinical Composite Scores. Values above 0 suggested better outcomes in the Biventricular arm.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, NYHA I-III, and LVEF of at most 50% who receive RV pacing have similar Clinical Composite Scores after 24 months compared to similar patients who receive BiV pacing. This was tested against the alternative hypothesis that patients had better scores with BiV pacing than RV pacing. The analysis assigned numerical values (Improved=3, Unchanged=2, Worsened=1) and compared the average score between randomization arms using a one-sided analysis.||||0.9983
90944867|NCT00267098|181769275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.23||||0.189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.01||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used. Instead, a posterior probability, representing the probability that subjects with biventricular pacing have better outcomes, were calculated. A probability ≥ 0.95 was significant.|Posterior Distribution for HR|The posterior distribution is the set of values the BiV to RV hazard ratio can take, and its likelihood of taking such values.|The hazard ratio corresponds to the time from randomization to first ventricular arrhythmia occurring post-randomization for each subject. Ventricular arrhythmias occurring prior to randomization were excluded. A 95% credible interval was used.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, ejection fractions of at most 50%, NYHA classifications of I-III, and indicated for defibrillation therapy who receive biventricular (BiV) pacing have the same rate of experiencing their first ventricular arrhythmia as corresponding patients who receive right ventricular pacing. This was tested against the one-side hypothesis that patients with BiV pacing have a lower risk of ventricular arrhythmias than subjects with right ventricular pacing.||2.01|0.78|0.189
90944868|NCT04211389|181769279|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.17|13.7||Stratification by pooled study site, baseline IGA, and baseline intertriginous involvement per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Common OR stratified by pooled study site, baseline IGA, and baseline intertriginous involvement per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|IGA Success at Week 8 Odds Ratio||13.70|3.17|<0.0001
90944869|NCT04211389|181769280|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.207|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.029|5.844|||Log Rank|Unstratified log-rank test|HR stratified by pooled study site, baseline IGA, and baseline intertriginous involvement per randomization.|Time to Achieve PASI-50||5.844|3.029|<0.0001
90944870|NCT04211389|181769281|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.49|24.19|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline IGA, and baseline intertriginous involvement per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|Common OR stratified by pooled study site, baseline IGA, and baseline intertriginous involvement per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|PASI-75 at Week 8 Odds Ratio||24.19|4.49|<0.0001
90944871|NCT04211389|181769282|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.51||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.45|28.86|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline IGA, and baseline intertriginous involvement per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|Common OR stratified by pooled study site, baseline IGA, and baseline intertriginous involvement per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|PASI-90 at Week 8 Odds Ratio||28.86|2.45|0.0002
90944872|NCT04211389|181769283|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.18||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.33|53.68|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site and baseline IGA per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|Common OR stratified by pooled study site and baseline IGA per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|I-IGA Success at Week 8 Odds Ratio||53.68|2.33|0.0004
91037584|NCT00205777|181961000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in femoral trochanter BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91037585|NCT00205777|181961000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in femoral trochanter BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
90944873|NCT04211389|181769284|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|15.27||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|75.35|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site and baseline IGA with multiple imputation of missing data.|Common odds ratio stratified by pooled study site and baseline IGA with multiple imputation of missing data.|I-IGA Clear at Week 8 Odds Ratio||75.35|3.10|0.0002
90944874|NCT04211389|181769285|SUPERIORITY|WI-NRS Success at Week 2 Odds Ratio|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.56||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|4.58|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline IGA, and baseline intertriginous involvement per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|Common OR stratified by pooled study site, baseline IGA, and baseline intertriginous involvement per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|||4.58|1.43|0.0026
91037586|NCT00205777|181961000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in femoral trochanter BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.01
91037587|NCT00205777|181961000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in femoral trochanter BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.002
91037588|NCT00205777|181961000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 18 in femoral trochanter BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91037589|NCT00205777|181961000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in femoral trochanter BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
90944875|NCT04211389|181769285|SUPERIORITY|WI-NRS Success at Week 4 Odds Ratio|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.93|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.65|9.18|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline IGA, and baseline intertriginous involvement per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|Common OR stratified by pooled study site, baseline IGA, and baseline intertriginous involvement per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|||9.18|2.65|<0.0001
90944876|NCT04211389|181769285|SUPERIORITY|WI-NRS Success at Week 8 Odds Ratio|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.07|6.23|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline IGA, and baseline intertriginous involvement per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|Common OR stratified by pooled study site, baseline IGA, and baseline intertriginous involvement per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|||6.23|2.07|<0.0001
90944877|NCT04211389|181769286|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.9|-20.0|||ANCOVA|Site, baseline IGA, baseline intertriginous involvement, and baseline PSD scores were independent variables, multiple imputation used for missing data|Site, baseline IGA, baseline intertriginous involvement, and baseline PSD scores were independent variables, multiple imputation used for missing data|LS Mean Difference at Week 4||-20.0|-31.9|<0.0001
90944878|NCT04211389|181769286|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.2|-19.7|||ANCOVA|Site, baseline IGA, baseline intertriginous involvement, and baseline PSD scores were independent variables, multiple imputation used for missing data|Site, baseline IGA, baseline intertriginous involvement, and baseline PSD scores were independent variables, multiple imputation used for missing data|LS Mean Difference at Week 8||-19.7|-33.2|<0.0001
90944879|NCT04069585|181769287|NON_INFERIORITY|To achieve non-inferiority, the observed p-value must be \<= 0.5 taking into account of the non-inferiority margin (i.e., 10mm difference in Pain VAS between the two treatment groups).|||||<|0.0002||||||One-sided paired t-test|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0002
90944880|NCT01182207|181769323|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|96.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.82|107.79|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||107.79|86.82|
90944881|NCT01182207|181769324|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|103.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.1|105.27|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||105.27|101.10|
90944882|NCT01182207|181769325|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|102.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.67|104.8|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||104.80|100.67|
90944883|NCT01182207|181769326|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|97.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.45|106.5|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||106.50|89.45|
90944884|NCT01182207|181769327|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|98.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.62|102.25|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||102.25|95.62|
90976134|NCT00132041|181836236|OTHER||Slope|-3.7913||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9056|-1.6769|||Generlaized estimating equations|Multivariate logistic model. P-value for number of RFA sessions dichotomized 1: more than 1; using the latter as the reference.|This estimate is for the effect of a single RFA sessions (v multiple sessions) in the multivariate model response:18 mo success/failure; covariates: tumor size,repeated RFA, local tumor recurrence, remote tumor occurrence, and age and gender.|multivariate logistic regression model was fit using GEEs to correct for site clustering effects, in which, the response variable was success/failure at 18 months and the covariates were tumor size, whether or not a patient received repeated RFA, whether or not a local tumor recurrence occurred, whether or not a remote tumor occurrence occurred, and two common confounding factors - age and gender||-1.6769|-5.9056|0.0004
90976135|NCT00132041|181836237|OTHER||GEE|-0.9101||||0.0221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6894|-0.1308|||Generlaized Estimating Equations|multivariate GEE model using logistic link|Estimation parameter is for tumor size when controlling for other covariates.|Effect of tumor size in the multivariate model with response:18 mo success/failure; covariates: tumor size,repeated RFA, local tumor recurrence, remote tumor occurrence, and age and gender.||-0.1308|-1.6894|0.0221
90944885|NCT01182207|181769328|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|98.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.36|101.12|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||101.12|95.36|
90944886|NCT01427738|181769330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion with clinical e|0.044|||||TWO_SIDED|95.1|-0.077|0.166||||||Repeated confidence intervals (RCIs) were used to control type I error.A interim analysis was conducted by a 99.7% CI. The final analyses use a 95.1% CI, based on the Lan-DeMets error-spending function corresponding to the O'Brien-Fleming boundary.76% of 100 participant in arm GV had cure or improvement of OC after 14 days of treatment, and 71.6% of 102 in arm nystatin had cure or improvement of OC. Difference in clinical efficacy rates between GV and nystatin 95.1% CI is 0.044 (-0.077, 0.166).||0.166|-0.077|
90976136|NCT00132041|181836239|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.458|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2496||0.06|TWO_SIDED|||||assuming unequal variance (Satterthwaite p)|t-test, 2 sided||Difference represents the size of tumors that do no recur minus those that do.|the mean tumor size in the two groups, recurred and non recurred tumors, will be compared using a t-test assuming H0: recur=non-recurr||||0.06
90976137|NCT00132041|181836241|OTHER||Sensitivity|0.083|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.38|||||Twelve tumors were detected in the liver specimens, but only one of those was identified by the CT central readers|||0.38|0.00|
90944887|NCT04590404|181769340|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.82|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for arm, randomization strata (cigarettes/day (CPD), insurance category, cardiac admission, NMR category), \& plan to quit after discharge||The primary outcome was biochemically-verified self-reported 7-day point prevalence abstinence (7dPPA) at 6 months. We modeled outcomes using logistic regression adjusted for randomization stratification factors and plan to quit (stay quit vs. try).||1.82|0.76|0.461
90944888|NCT04590404|181769341|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.54||Adjusted for arm, randomization strata (cigarettes/day (CPD), insurance category, cardiac admission, NMR category), \& plan to quit after discharge|Regression, Logistic|||The primary outcome was biochemically-verified self-reported 7-day point prevalence abstinence (7dPPA) at 12 months. We modeled outcomes using logistic regression adjusted for randomization stratification factors and plan to quit (stay quit vs. try).||1.54|0.64|0.99
90976138|NCT00132041|181836241|OTHER||Specificity|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.194|0.994|||||The central CT readers correctly identified three out of the four patients without pathologic evidence of tumor|Specificity||0.994|0.194|
90976139|NCT00132041|181836243|OTHER|McNemar's Test to compare success rates after assuming transplants as successes versus after assuming transplants as failures.||||||0.0001|||||||McNemar|||||||0.0001
90976140|NCT05197803|181836244|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.32||||0.0001|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||The study compared the results between the unaided condition vs. aided condition (BTE)||||0.0001
90976141|NCT05197803|181836244|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.57||||0.0001|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||The study compared the results between the unaided condition vs. aided condition (RIC)||||0.0001
91037590|NCT00205777|181961000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in femoral trochanter BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
90976142|NCT00167245|181836285|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.01
91037591|NCT00205777|181961000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in femoral trochanter BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
90976143|NCT00167245|181836286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.45|||||||Generalized Estimating Equations|||||||0.45
90976144|NCT00167245|181836287|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|5.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.2|-2.1|0.4
90976145|NCT01307033|181836330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least squares means|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|2.2|||Constained logitudinal data analysis|Model included treatment, time and the interaction of time by treatment with a restriction of the same baseline mean across treatment groups||||2.2|-1.7|
90976146|NCT01307033|181836331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least squares means|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|0.5|||Constained longitudinal data analysis|Model included treatment, time and the interaction of time by treatment with a restriction of the same baseline mean across treatment groups||||0.5|-5.0|
90976147|NCT01773421|181836350|EQUIVALENCE|Log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters were fit using a mixed effects model with sequence, treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects and participant as a random effect. Geometric LS means and geometric LS mean ratio were back-transformed to obtain the treatment estimates.|Geometric Least Square (LS) Mean Ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.15||||||||1.15|0.97|
90976148|NCT01773421|181836351|EQUIVALENCE|Log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters were fit using a mixed effects model with sequence, treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects and participant as a random effect. Geometric LS means and geometric LS mean ratio were back-transformed to obtain the treatment estimates.|Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.02|1.2||||||||1.2|1.02|
90976149|NCT01773421|181836352|EQUIVALENCE|Log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters were fit using a mixed effects model with sequence, treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects and participant as a random effect. Geometric LS means and geometric LS mean ratio were back-transformed to obtain the treatment estimates.|Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.27||||||||1.27|1|
90976150|NCT00445302|181836361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of least squares means (%)|87.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|63.59|119.26||||||||119.26|63.59|
90976151|NCT00445302|181836361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of least squares means(%)|106.6||||||90.0|78.99|143.87||||||||143.87|78.99|
90976152|NCT00445302|181836361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of least squares means (%)|106.76||||||90.0|79.11|144.08||||||||144.08|79.11|
90976153|NCT00445302|181836364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of least squares means (%)|121.74||||||90.0|91.86|161.43||||||||161.43|91.86|
90976154|NCT00445302|181836364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of least squares means (%)|151.44||||||90.0|115.78|198.09||||||||198.09|115.78|
90976155|NCT00445302|181836364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of least squares means (%)|169.51||||||90.0|129.59|221.72||||||||221.72|129.59|
90976156|NCT01400932|181836366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-21.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.2|-15.8|||ANCOVA|||||-15.8|-26.2|<0.001
90890063|NCT01571362|181644062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.619||0.5074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|1.63||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Model-adjusted Change from Baseline to Week 8.||1.63|-0.81|0.5074
90890064|NCT01571362|181644063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Bowker's test of symmetry|||||||<0.0001
90890065|NCT01571362|181644064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Bowker's test of symmetry|||||||<0.0001
90976157|NCT01400932|181836367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Week 1|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90976158|NCT01400932|181836367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Week 2|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90976159|NCT01400932|181836367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Week 4|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90976160|NCT01400932|181836367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Week 8|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90976161|NCT01400932|181836368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Week 1; IL|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90976162|NCT01400932|181836368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Week 2; IL|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90976163|NCT01400932|181836368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Week 4; IL|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90976164|NCT01400932|181836368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Week 8; IL|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90976165|NCT01400932|181836368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Week 12; IL|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90976166|NCT01400932|181836368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0||||Week 1; NIL|ANCOVA|||||||0.007
90976167|NCT01400932|181836368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0||||Week 2; NIL|ANCOVA|||||||0.008
90976168|NCT01400932|181836368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Week 4; NIL|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90976169|NCT01400932|181836368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Week 8; NIL|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90976170|NCT01400932|181836368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Week 12; NIL|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90976171|NCT01400932|181836369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Week 1; Total|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90976172|NCT01400932|181836369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Week 2; Total|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90976173|NCT01400932|181836369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Week 4; Total|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90976174|NCT01400932|181836369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Week 8; Total|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90890066|NCT01571362|181644065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2211|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by opioid stratum.||||||0.2211
90890067|NCT01571362|181644066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5767|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by opioid stratum.||||||0.5767
90890068|NCT01571362|181644069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by opioid stratum.||||||0.0004
90890069|NCT01571362|181644070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Screening Period value to End of Open-Label Titration Period for Physical Functioning.||||<0.0001
90890070|NCT01571362|181644070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Screening Period value to End of Open-Label Titration Period for Role-Physical.||||<0.0001
90890071|NCT01571362|181644070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Screening Period value to End of Open-Label Titration Period for Bodily Pain.||||<0.0001
90890072|NCT01571362|181644070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Screening Period value to End of Open-Label Titration Period for General Health.||||<0.0001
90890073|NCT01571362|181644070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Screening Period value to End of Open-Label Titration Period for Vitality.||||<0.0001
90890074|NCT01571362|181644070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Screening Period value to End of Open-Label Titration Period for Social Functioning.||||<0.0001
90890075|NCT01571362|181644070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Screening Period value to End of Open-Label Titration Period for Role-Emotional.||||<0.0001
90890076|NCT01571362|181644070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Screening Period value to End of Open-Label Titration Period for Mental Health.||||<0.0001
90890077|NCT01571362|181644070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Screening Period value to End of Open-Label Titration Period for Physical Component Score.||||<0.0001
90890078|NCT01571362|181644070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0026|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Screening Period value to End of Open-Label Titration Period for Mental Component Score.||||0.0026
90976175|NCT01400932|181836369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Week 12; Total|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90976176|NCT01400932|181836369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Week 1; IL|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90976177|NCT01400932|181836369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Week 2; IL|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90976178|NCT01400932|181836369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Week 4; IL|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90976179|NCT01400932|181836369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Week 8; IL|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90976180|NCT01400932|181836369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Week 12; IL|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90976181|NCT01400932|181836369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||Week 1; NIL|ANCOVA|||||||0.002
90976182|NCT01400932|181836369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Week 2; NIL|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90976183|NCT01400932|181836369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Week 4; NIL|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90976184|NCT01400932|181836369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Week 8; NIL|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90976185|NCT01400932|181836369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Week 12; NIL|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90976186|NCT01400932|181836370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90976187|NCT01400932|181836371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.174||95.0||||Week 1|ANCOVA|||||||0.174
90976188|NCT01400932|181836371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013||95.0||||Week 2|ANCOVA|||||||0.013
90976189|NCT01400932|181836371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||Week 4|ANCOVA|||||||0.001
90976190|NCT01400932|181836371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||Week 8|ANCOVA|||||||0.001
90944889|NCT03912532|181769344|OTHER|The Multiple Comparison Procedure-Modelling (MCP-Mod) is a 2-stage procedure in which dose-response models are selected at the design stage. These candidate models are used for both dose-response testing (MCP step) and estimation (Mod step). The dose-response testing is performed using a multiple comparison method to account for the multiplicity issue associated with the multiple candidate models. Missing responses were imputed using multiple imputation under the assumption of missing at random.||||||0.5534|||||||Multiple comparison procedure step|||||||0.5534
90944890|NCT00349466|181769376|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.027
90944891|NCT00349466|181769377|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.083|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.083
90944892|NCT00349466|181769378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.028
90944893|NCT00349466|181769379|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.655|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.655
90944894|NCT00349466|181769380|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.387|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.387
90944895|NCT00349466|181769381|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.203|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.203
90944896|NCT00349466|181769382|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.807|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.807
90944897|NCT03616964|181769417|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.53|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.53|0.75|0.711
90976191|NCT01400932|181836371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Week 12|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90944898|NCT03616964|181769418|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.5|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.50|0.73|0.789
90944899|NCT03616964|181769419|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.68|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.68|0.72|0.673
90944900|NCT03616964|181769419|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.75|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.75|0.75|0.528
90944901|NCT03616964|181769421|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.64|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.64|0.51|0.761
90944902|NCT03616964|181769421|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|2.1|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.10|0.65|0.611
90944903|NCT03616964|181769422|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.32|-0.47|0.698
90944904|NCT03616964|181769422|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.33|-0.46|0.744
90944905|NCT03616964|181769423|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.28|-2.00|0.665
90944906|NCT03616964|181769423|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|1.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.35|-1.95|0.723
90944907|NCT03616964|181769424|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||0.372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.55|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.55|0.31|0.372
90944908|NCT03616964|181769424|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78||||0.555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.78|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.78|0.34|0.555
90944909|NCT03616964|181769425|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.422||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.34|-1.31|0.251
90944910|NCT03616964|181769425|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.425||0.333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|-0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.07|-1.74|0.333
90944911|NCT03616964|181769426|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.282||0.284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.25|-0.86|0.284
90944912|NCT03616964|181769426|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.284||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.04|-1.08|0.069
90944913|NCT05923112|181769462|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.008|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.258|3.94|||||"Risk Ratio of age \< 15 years to ≥ 15 to \< 65 years"|Subgroup analyses of age \[\< 15 years, ≥ 15 to \< 65 years\]||3.940|0.258|
90944914|NCT05923112|181769462|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.497|2.177|||||"Risk Ratio of age ≥ 65 years to ≥ 15 to \< 65 years"|Subgroup analyses of age \[≥ 65 years, ≥ 15 to \< 65 years\]||2.177|0.497|
90944915|NCT05923112|181769462|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.084|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.317|3.71|||||"Risk Ratio of age \< 18 years to ≥ 18 to \< 55 years"|Subgroup analyses of age \[\< 18 years, ≥ 18 to \< 55 years\]||3.710|0.317|
90944916|NCT05923112|181769462|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.212|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.536|2.74|||||"Risk Ratio of age ≥ 55 years to ≥ 18 to \< 55 years"|Subgroup analyses of age \[≥ 55 years, ≥ 18 to \< 55 years\]||2.740|0.536|
90944917|NCT05923112|181769462|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.091|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.247|4.827|||||"Risk Ratio of age \< 15 years to ≥ 15 to \< 40 years"|Subgroup analyses of age \[\< 15 years, ≥ 15 to \< 40 years\]||4.827|0.247|
90944918|NCT05923112|181769462|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.137|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.461|2.801|||||"Risk Ratio of age ≥ 40 years to ≥ 15 to \< 40 years"|Subgroup analyses of age \[≥ 40 years, ≥ 15 to \< 40 years\]||2.801|0.461|
90944919|NCT05923112|181769462|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.409|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.493|4.03|||||"Risk Ratio of hepatic impairment present to absent"|Subgroup analyses of hepatic impairment||4.030|0.493|
90944920|NCT05923112|181769462|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.096|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.301|3.994|||||"Risk Ratio of past medical history - Hepatitis or hepatic disease present to absent"|Subgroup analyses of past medical history - Hepatitis or hepatic disease||3.994|0.301|
90976192|NCT01400932|181836372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Week 1|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91037592|NCT00205777|181961000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in femoral trochanter BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
90976193|NCT01400932|181836372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Week 2|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90976194|NCT01400932|181836372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Week 4|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90976195|NCT01400932|181836372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Week 8|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90976196|NCT01400932|181836372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Week 12|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90976197|NCT03657459|181836403|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0096|||||||Chi-squared|Pearsons Chi Square||||||0.0096
90944921|NCT05923112|181769462|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.409|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.493|4.03|||||"Risk Ratio of present medical history - Hepatitis or hepatic disease present to absent"|Subgroup analyses of present medical history - Hepatitis or hepatic disease||4.030|0.493|
90944922|NCT05923112|181769462|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|2.954|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.172|7.445|||||"Risk Ratio of ECOG PS before the start of this drug 0 to 1"|Subgroup analyses of ECOG PS before the start of this drug||7.445|1.172|
90944923|NCT05923112|181769462|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.152|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.299|4.432|||||"Risk Ratio of ECOG PS before the start of this drug ≥ 2 to 1"|Subgroup analyses of ECOG PS before the start of this drug||4.432|0.299|
90944924|NCT05923112|181769462|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.873|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.113|6.743|||||"Risk Ratio of ECOG PS before the start of this drug not performed to 1"|Subgroup analyses of ECOG PS before the start of this drug||6.743|0.113|
90944925|NCT05923112|181769462|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.158|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.545|2.461|||||"Risk Ratio of AST and ALT levels immediately before the start of this drug either \> 1.5 × the institutional upper limit normal range (IULN) to ≤ 1.5 × IULN"|Subgroup analyses of AST and ALT levels immediately before the start of this drug||2.461|0.545|
90976198|NCT03657459|181836404|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9||||||no adjustment|Chi-squared|Pearson Chi-square||||||0.90
90976199|NCT00282243|181836411|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CI for the ratio of the natural log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters fell within an 80% to 125% range, then the exposure between the two formulations was considered to be equivalent.|Ratio of means|88.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.42|92.29|||||Tacrolimus/tacrolimus MR ratio of natural log transformed means expressed as a percent.|The method of analysis of variance with repeated measures was used for the comparisons of AUC0-24. Exposure at steady state was used for tacrolimus (steady state was defined as days 14 and 42) and for tacrolimus MR (steady state was defined as days 28 and 56). The natural log (ln) was used to transform AUC0-24 prior to analysis and the results were transformed back to the original scale for the presentation of results.||92.29|85.42|
90976200|NCT00282243|181836413|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CI for the ratio of the natural log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters fell within an 80% to 125% range, then the exposure between the two formulations was considered to be equivalent.|Ratio of means|81.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.88|85.08|||||Tacrolimus/tacrolimus MR ratio of natural log transformed means expressed as a percent.|The method of analysis of variance with repeated measures was used for the comparisons of Cmin. Exposure at steady state was used for tacrolimus (steady state was defined as days 14 and 42) and for tacrolimus MR (steady state was defined as days 28 and 56). The natural log (ln) was used to transform Cmin prior to analysis and the results were transformed back to the original scale for the presentation of results.||85.08|77.88|
90976201|NCT01070329|181836439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.22||The P-value is for the main effect of treatment. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.22|-0.75|<0.001
90976202|NCT01070329|181836440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.77|-2.62||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.62|-5.77|<0.001
90976203|NCT01070329|181836441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|-0.42||This is the p-value for the Disrupt Work/School Work score. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.42|-1.47|<0.001
90976204|NCT01070329|181836441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|-0.53||This the p-value for the Disrupt Social Life/Leisure score. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.53|-1.42|<0.001
90976205|NCT01070329|181836441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|-0.49||This is the p-value for the Disrupt Family Life/Home score. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.49|-1.41|<0.001
90976206|NCT01070329|181836441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.16|-1.61||P-value for the SDS Total score. First gated secondary outcome measure. Gatekeeper strategy controlled experiment-wise type I error for 5 secondary outcomes with stepwise comparisons of treatments until outcome failed to be significant (p\>0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.61|-4.16|<0.001
90976207|NCT01070329|181836442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||This is the second gated secondary outcome measure. A gatekeeper strategy (Dmitrienko et al. 2003) controlled experiment-wise type I error for 5 secondary outcomes. Treatments were compared stepwise until an outcome failed to be significant (p\>0.05).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90976208|NCT01070329|181836443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.173||95.0||||This third gated secondary outcome measure failed to meet statistical significance. A gatekeeper strategy (Dmitrienko et al. 2003) controlled experiment-wise type I error for 5 secondary outcomes.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.173
90944926|NCT05923112|181769462|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.244|||||"Risk Ratio of γ-GTP level immediately before the start of this drug \> 50 IU/L to ≤ 50 IU/L"|Subgroup analyses of γ-GTP level immediately before the start of this drug||1.244|0.280|
90944927|NCT05923112|181769462|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.267|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.038|1.862|||||"Risk Ratio of γ-GTP level immediately before the start of this drug not performed to ≤ 50 IU/L"|Subgroup analyses of γ-GTP level immediately before the start of this drug||1.862|0.038|
90944928|NCT05923112|181769462|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.413|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.201|0.849|||||"Risk Ratio of platelet count immediately before the start of this drug \< 10 × 10⁴/μL to ≥ 10 × 10⁴/μL"|Subgroup analyses of platelet count immediately before the start of this drug||0.849|0.201|
90976209|NCT01070329|181836444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.13|-1.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fourth gated secondary outcome measure. Statistical significance was not evaluated; prior gated secondary outcome measure failed (p\>0.05).||||-1.48|-4.13|
90976210|NCT01070329|181836445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.67||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.34||This is the p-value for the Change at Week 8. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.34|0.00|0.050
90976211|NCT01070329|181836445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.39||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|2.9||This is the p-value for the Change up to Week 8. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||2.90|-0.12|0.071
90976212|NCT01070329|181836446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.91||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.82||This is the p-value for the Change from Baseline in SBP at Week 8. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.82|0.00|0.050
90976213|NCT01070329|181836446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.1||This is the p-value for the Change from Baseline in DBP at Week 8. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.10|0.50|0.007
90976214|NCT01070329|181836446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|3.5||This is the p-value for the Change from Baseline in SBP up to Week 8. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||3.50|-0.09|0.063
90976215|NCT01070329|181836446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.81||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.02||This is the p-value for the Change from Baseline in DBP up to Week 8. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||3.02|0.60|0.004
91037593|NCT00205777|181961000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 18 in femoral trochanter BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
90976216|NCT01070329|181836447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.18|-0.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fifth gated secondary outcome measure. Statistical significance was not evaluated; the third gated secondary outcome measure failed (p\>0.05).||||-0.96|-3.18|
90976217|NCT01070329|181836448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.54||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|-0.15||This is the p-value for the Change from Baseline at Week 8. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.15|-0.93|0.007
90976218|NCT01070329|181836448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|-0.22||This is the p-value for the Change from Baseline up to Week 8. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||-0.22|-0.93|0.002
90976219|NCT01070329|181836449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021||95.0||||P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.021
90976220|NCT01070329|181836450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.27||This is the p-value for the main effect of treatment for the BPI Severity for Worst Pain score. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.27|-0.85|<0.001
90976221|NCT01070329|181836450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|-0.13||This is the p-value for main effect of treatment for the BPI Severity for Least Pain score. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.13|-0.64|0.003
90976222|NCT01070329|181836450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.22||This is the p-value for the main effect of treatment for the BPI Severity for Average Pain score. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.22|-0.75|<0.001
91037594|NCT00205777|181961000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in femoral trochanter BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
90944929|NCT05923112|181769462|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.299|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.075|1.194|||||"Risk Ratio of peripheral blast count immediately before the start of this drug \> 1000 /μL to ≤ 1000 /μL"|Subgroup analyses of peripheral blast count immediately before the start of this drug||1.194|0.075|
90976223|NCT01070329|181836450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|-0.27||This is the p-value for the main effect of treatment for the BPI Severity for Pain Right Now score. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.27|-0.86|<0.001
91037595|NCT00205777|181961000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in femoral trochanter BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91037596|NCT00205777|181961000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in femoral trochanter BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.048
91037597|NCT00205777|181961000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in femoral trochanter BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.038
91037598|NCT00205777|181961000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 18 in femoral trochanter BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
90944930|NCT05923112|181769462|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|2.415|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.917|6.362|||||"Risk Ratio of salvage line of the induction treatment with this drug 2nd to 1st"|Subgroup analyses of salvage line of the induction treatment with this drug||6.362|0.917|
91037599|NCT00205777|181961000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in femoral trochanter BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
90944931|NCT05923112|181769462|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.688|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.612|4.655|||||"Risk Ratio of salvage line of the induction treatment with this drug 3rd or later to 1st"|Subgroup analyses of salvage line of the induction treatment with this drug||4.655|0.612|
90944932|NCT05923112|181769462|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.901|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.408|1.99|||||"Risk Ratio of HSCT before the start of this drug performed to not performed"|Subgroup analyses of HSCT before the start of this drug||1.990|0.408|
90944933|NCT05923112|181769463|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.616|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.086|4.391|||||"Risk Ratio of age \< 15 years to ≥ 15 to \< 65 years"|Subgroup analyses of age \[\< 15 years, ≥ 15 to \< 65 years\]||4.391|0.086|
90944934|NCT05923112|181769463|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.188|1.491|||||"Risk Ratio of age ≥ 65 years to ≥ 15 to \< 65 years"|Subgroup analyses of age \[≥ 65 years, ≥ 15 to \< 65 years\]||1.491|0.188|
90944935|NCT05923112|181769463|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.012|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.217|4.723|||||"Risk Ratio of age \< 18 years to ≥ 18 to \< 55 years"|Subgroup analyses of age \[\< 18 years, ≥ 18 to \< 55 years\]||4.723|0.217|
90944936|NCT05923112|181769463|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.905|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.316|2.594|||||"Risk Ratio of age ≥ 55 years to ≥ 18 to \< 55 years"|Subgroup analyses of age \[≥ 55 years, ≥ 18 to \< 55 years\]||2.594|0.316|
90944937|NCT05923112|181769463|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.682|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.085|5.455|||||"Risk Ratio of age \< 15 years to ≥ 15 to \< 40 years"|Subgroup analyses of age \[\< 15 years, ≥ 15 to \< 40 years\]||5.455|0.085|
90944938|NCT05923112|181769463|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.789|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.267|2.335|||||"Risk Ratio of age ≥ 40 years to ≥ 15 to \< 40 years"|Subgroup analyses of age \[≥ 40 years, ≥ 15 to \< 40 years\]||2.335|0.267|
90944939|NCT05923112|181769463|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|2.583|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.845|7.9|||||"Risk Ratio of hepatic impairment present to absent"|Subgroup analyses of hepatic impairment||7.900|0.845|
90944940|NCT05923112|181769463|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.131|6.163|||||"Risk Ratio of past medical history - Hepatitis or hepatic disease present to absent"|Subgroup analyses of past medical history - Hepatitis or hepatic disease||6.163|0.131|
90944941|NCT05923112|181769463|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|2.583|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.845|7.9|||||"Risk Ratio of present medical history - Hepatitis or hepatic disease present to absent"|Subgroup analyses of present medical history - Hepatitis or hepatic disease||7.900|0.845|
90944942|NCT05923112|181769463|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|2.769|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.796|9.63|||||"Risk Ratio of ECOG PS before the start of this drug 0 to 1"|Subgroup analyses of ECOG PS before the start of this drug||9.630|0.796|
90944943|NCT05923112|181769463|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.418|8.827|||||"Risk Ratio of ECOG PS before the start of this drug ≥ 2 to 1"|Subgroup analyses of ECOG PS before the start of this drug||8.827|0.418|
90944944|NCT05923112|181769463|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||The risk ratio was reported as participants in this group are related to Category(A).|Subgroup analyses of ECOG PS before the start of this drug|"Regarding Risk Ratio of ECOG PS before the start of this drug not performed to 1"|||
90944945|NCT05923112|181769463|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.615|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.184|2.062|||||"Risk Ratio of AST and ALT levels immediately before the start of this drug either \> 1.5 × the institutional upper limit normal range (IULN) to ≤ 1.5 ×IULN"|Subgroup analyses of AST and ALT levels immediately before the start of this drug||2.062|0.184|
90944946|NCT05923112|181769463|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.656|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.249|1.729|||||"Risk Ratio of γ-GTP level immediately before the start of this drug \> 50 IU/L to ≤ 50 IU/L"|Subgroup analyses of γ-GTP level immediately before the start of this drug||1.729|0.249|
90944947|NCT05923112|181769463|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||The risk ratio was reported as participants in this group are related to Category(A).|Subgroup analyses of γ-GTP level immediately before the start of this drug|"Regarding Risk Ratio of γ-GTP level immediately before the start of this drug not performed to ≤ 50 IU/L"|||
90944948|NCT05923112|181769463|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.707|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.273|1.836|||||"Risk Ratio of platelet count immediately before the start of this drug \< 10 × 10⁴/μL to ≥ 10 × 10⁴/μL"|Subgroup analyses of platelet count immediately before the start of this drug||1.836|0.273|
90944949|NCT05923112|181769463|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.245|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.034|1.79|||||"Risk Ratio of peripheral blast count immediately before the start of this drug \> 1000 /μL to ≤ 1000 /μL"|Subgroup analyses of peripheral blast count immediately before the start of this drug||1.790|0.034|
90944950|NCT05923112|181769463|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|2.927|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.832|10.294|||||"Risk Ratio of salvage line of the induction treatment with this drug 2nd to 1st"|Subgroup analyses of salvage line of the induction treatment with this drug||10.294|0.832|
90944951|NCT05923112|181769463|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.296|5.279|||||"Risk Ratio of salvage line of the induction treatment with this drug 3rd or later to 1st"|Subgroup analyses of salvage line of the induction treatment with this drug||5.279|0.296|
90944952|NCT05923112|181769463|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.545|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.588|4.058|||||"Risk Ratio of HSCT before the start of this drug performed to not performed"|Subgroup analyses of HSCT before the start of this drug||4.058|0.588|
90944953|NCT05923112|181769464|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.528|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.144|1.939|||||"Risk Ratio of age \< 15 years to ≥ 15 to \< 65 years"|Subgroup analyses of age \[\< 15 years, ≥ 15 to \< 65 years\]||1.939|0.144|
91037600|NCT00205777|181961000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in femoral trochanter BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91037601|NCT00205777|181961000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in femoral trochanter BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
90944954|NCT05923112|181769464|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.316|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.849|2.041|||||"Risk Ratio of age ≥ 65 years to ≥ 15 to \< 65 years"|Subgroup analyses of age \[≥ 65 years, ≥ 15 to \< 65 years\]||2.041|0.849|
90944955|NCT05923112|181769464|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.084|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.351|||||"Risk Ratio of age \< 18 years to ≥ 18 to \< 55 years"|Subgroup analyses of age \[\< 18 years, ≥ 18 to \< 55 years\]||2.351|0.500|
90944956|NCT05923112|181769464|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.293|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.781|2.142|||||"Risk Ratio of age ≥ 55 years to ≥ 18 to \< 55 years"|Subgroup analyses of age \[≥ 55 years, ≥ 18 to \< 55 years\]||2.142|0.781|
90944957|NCT05923112|181769464|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.455|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|1.715|||||"Risk Ratio of age \< 15 years to ≥ 15 to \< 40 years"|Subgroup analyses of age \[\< 15 years, ≥ 15 to \< 40 years\]||1.715|0.120|
90944958|NCT05923112|181769464|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.605|1.653|||||"Risk Ratio of age ≥ 40 years to ≥ 15 to \< 40 years"|Subgroup analyses of age \[≥ 40 years, ≥ 15 to \< 40 years\]||1.653|0.605|
90944959|NCT05923112|181769464|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.099|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.542|2.228|||||"Risk Ratio of hepatic impairment present to absent"|Subgroup analyses of hepatic impairment||2.228|0.542|
90944960|NCT05923112|181769464|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.069|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.667|1.714|||||"Risk Ratio of ECOG PS before the start of this drug 0 to 1"|Subgroup analyses of ECOG PS before the start of this drug||1.714|0.667|
90944961|NCT05923112|181769464|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.909|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.485|1.705|||||"Risk Ratio of ECOG PS before the start of this drug ≥ 2 to 1"|Subgroup analyses of ECOG PS before the start of this drug||1.705|0.485|
90976224|NCT01070329|181836450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.11||This is the p-value for the main effect of treatment for the BPI Pain Interference with General Activity score. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.11|-0.75|0.008
90976225|NCT01070329|181836450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.15||This is the p-value for the main effect of treatment for the BPI Pain Interference with Mood score. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.15|-0.80|0.004
90976226|NCT01070329|181836450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.12||This is the p-value for the main effect of treatment for the BPI Pain Interference with Walking Ability Score. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.12|-0.72|0.006
90976227|NCT01070329|181836450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.09||This is the p-value for the main effect of treatment for the BPI Pain Interference with Normal Work score. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.09|-0.72|0.012
90976228|NCT01070329|181836450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.04||This is the p-value for the main effect of treatment for the BPI Pain Interference with Relations with Others score. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.04|-0.70|0.029
90944962|NCT05923112|181769464|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.459|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.125|1.688|||||"Risk Ratio of ECOG PS before the start of this drug not performed to 1"|Subgroup analyses of ECOG PS before the start of this drug||1.688|0.125|
90944963|NCT05923112|181769464|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.889|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.362|||||"Risk Ratio of white blood cell count immediately before the start of this drug ≥ 4000/mm³ to \< 4000/mm³"|Subgroup analyses of white blood cell count immediately before the start of this drug||1.362|0.580|
90944964|NCT05923112|181769464|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.121|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.728|1.725|||||"Risk Ratio of neutrophil count immediately before the start of this drug ≥ 2000/mm³ to \< 2000/mm³"|Subgroup analyses of neutrophil count immediately before the start of this drug||1.725|0.728|
90944965|NCT05923112|181769464|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.639|1.536|||||"Risk Ratio of platelet count immediately before the start of this drug \< 10 × 10⁴/μL to ≥ 10 × 10⁴/μL"|Subgroup analyses of platelet count immediately before the start of this drug||1.536|0.639|
90944966|NCT05923112|181769464|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.996|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.093|3.643|||||"Risk Ratio of salvage line of the induction treatment with this drug 2nd to 1st"|Subgroup analyses of salvage line of the induction treatment with this drug||3.643|1.093|
90944967|NCT05923112|181769464|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.977|3.279|||||"Risk Ratio of salvage line of the induction treatment with this drug 3rd or later to 1st"|Subgroup analyses of salvage line of the induction treatment with this drug||3.279|0.977|
90944968|NCT05923112|181769464|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.772|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.464|1.286|||||"Risk Ratio of HSCT before the start of this drug performed to not performed"|Subgroup analyses of HSCT before the start of this drug||1.286|0.464|
90944969|NCT05923112|181769465|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.584|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.158|2.159|||||"Risk Ratio of age \< 15 years to ≥ 15 to \< 65 years"|Subgroup analyses of age \[\< 15 years, ≥ 15 to \< 65 years\]||2.159|0.158|
90944970|NCT05923112|181769465|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.104|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.667|1.826|||||"Risk Ratio of age ≥ 65 years to ≥ 15 to \< 65 years"|Subgroup analyses of age \[≥ 65 years, ≥ 15 to \< 65 years\]||1.826|0.667|
90944971|NCT05923112|181769465|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.973|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|2.311|||||"Risk Ratio of age \< 18 years to ≥ 18 to \< 55 years"|Subgroup analyses of age \[\< 18 years, ≥ 18 to \< 55 years\]||2.311|0.410|
90944972|NCT05923112|181769465|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.088|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.624|1.897|||||"Risk Ratio of age ≥ 55 years to ≥ 18 to \< 55 years"|Subgroup analyses of age \[≥ 55 years, ≥ 18 to \< 55 years\]||1.897|0.624|
90944973|NCT05923112|181769465|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.545|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.141|2.108|||||"Risk Ratio of age \< 15 years to ≥ 15 to \< 40 years"|Subgroup analyses of age \[\< 15 years, ≥ 15 to \< 40 years\]||2.108|0.141|
90976229|NCT01070329|181836450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.02||This is the p-value for the main effect of treatment for the BPI Pain Interference with Sleep score. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.02|-0.75|0.037
90976230|NCT01070329|181836450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.14||This is the p-value for the main effect of treatment for the BPI Pain Interference with Enjoyment of Life score. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.14|-0.81|0.006
90976231|NCT01070329|181836450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.15||This is the p-value for the main effect of treatment for the BPI Interference score. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.15|-0.74|0.004
90976232|NCT01070329|181836451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.49||P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.49|-0.90|<0.001
90976233|NCT01070329|181836452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.116||95.0||||This is the p-value for Suicidal Ideation. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.116
90976234|NCT03706365|181836464|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.829||||0.2123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.619|1.111|||Log Rank|||||1.111|0.619|0.2123
91037602|NCT00205777|181961000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in femoral trochanter BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
90976235|NCT03706365|181836465|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.637||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.474|0.856|||Log Rank|||||0.856|0.474|0.0026
90976236|NCT03706365|181836466|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.842||||0.2899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.611|1.16|||Log Rank|||||1.160|0.611|0.2899
90976237|NCT03706365|181836468|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.731||||0.3531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.377|1.419|||Log Rank|||||1.419|0.377|0.3531
90976238|NCT03706365|181836469|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.927||||0.6507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.669|1.285|||Log Rank|||||1.285|0.669|0.6507
90976239|NCT03706365|181836470|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.768||||0.1807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.522|1.131|||Log Rank|||||1.131|0.522|0.1807
90976240|NCT03706365|181836475|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.935||||0.697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.665|1.314|||Log Rank|||||1.314|0.665|0.6970
90976241|NCT01175005|181836494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|ONE_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
90976242|NCT00168831|181836501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.113|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis with terms for treatment, smoking status at entry, centre and baseline value|Tiotropium Respimat 5mcg - Placebo|||||<0.0001
90976243|NCT00168831|181836501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis with terms for treatment, smoking status at entry,centre and baseline value|Tiotropium Respimat 10mcg - Placebo|||||<0.0001
90976244|NCT00168831|181836502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.713|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.052||0.0004||95.0|||||ANCOVA|The means are adjusted for centre, smoking status at entry and baseline value.|Tiotropium Respimat 5mcg - Placebo|||||0.0004
90976245|NCT00168831|181836502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.445|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.059||0.0012||95.0|||||ANCOVA|The means are adjusted for centre, smoking status at entry and baseline value.|Tiotropium Respimat 10mcg - Placebo|||||0.0012
91037603|NCT00205777|181961000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 18 in femoral trochanter BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
90976246|NCT00168831|181836503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.053|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.165|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|The means are adjusted for centre, smoking status at entry and baseline value.|Tiotropium Respimat 5mcg - Placebo|||||<0.0001
90976247|NCT00168831|181836503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.075|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.166|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|The means are adjusted for centre, smoking status at entry and baseline value.|Tiotropium Respimat 10mcg - Placebo|||||<0.0001
90976248|NCT00168831|181836504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.782||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.687|0.89|||Poisson regression||Tiotropium Respimat 5mcg vs. Placebo|||0.890|0.687|0.0002
90976249|NCT00168831|181836504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.725|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.635|0.828|||Poisson regression||Tiotropium Respimat 10mcg vs. Placebo|||0.828|0.635|<0.0001
90976250|NCT00168831|181836548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis with terms for treatment, smoking status at entry, centre and baseline value.|Tiotropium Respimat 5mcg - Placebo|Analysis for week 48||||<0.0001
90976251|NCT00168831|181836548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.252|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA||Tiotropium Respimat 10mcg - Placebo|Analysis for week 48||||<0.0001
90976252|NCT00168831|181836549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.183|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis with terms for treatment, smoking status at entry, centre and baseline value.|Tiotropium Respimat 5mcg - Placebo|Analysis for week 48||||<0.0001
91037604|NCT00205777|181961000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in femoral trochanter BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91037605|NCT00205777|181961000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in femoral trochanter BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
90976253|NCT00168831|181836549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.212|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis with terms for treatment, smoking status at entry, centre and baseline value.|Tiotropium Respimat 10mcg - Placebo|Analysis for week 48||||<0.0001
90976254|NCT00168831|181836550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.369|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis with terms for treatment, smoking status at entry, centre and baseline value.|Tiotropium Respimat 5mcg - Placebo|Analysis for week 48||||<0.0001
90976255|NCT00168831|181836550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.393|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis with terms for treatment, smoking status at entry, centre and baseline value.|Tiotropium Respimat 10mcg - Placebo|Analysis for week 48||||<0.0001
90976256|NCT00168831|181836551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.9|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis with terms for treatment, centre,smoking status at entry and baseline value.|Tiotropium Respimat 5mcg - Placebo|Analysis for week 48||||<0.0001
90976257|NCT00168831|181836551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|31.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.9|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis with terms for treatment, centre,smoking status at entry and baseline value.|Tiotropium Respimat 10mcg - Placebo|Analysis for week 48||||<0.0001
90976258|NCT00168831|181836552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.9|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis with terms for treatment, centre,smoking status at entry and baseline value.|Tiotropium Respimat 5mcg - Placebo|Analysis for week 48||||<0.0001
90976259|NCT00168831|181836552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|39.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.9|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis with terms for treatment, centre,smoking status at entry and baseline value.|Tiotropium Respimat 10mcg - Placebo|Analysis for week 48||||<0.0001
90976260|NCT00168831|181836553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0169||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis with terms for treatment, centre,smoking status at entry and baseline value.|Tiotropium Respimat 5mcg - Placebo|Analysis for week 48||||0.0169
90976261|NCT00168831|181836553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis with terms for treatment, centre,smoking status at entry and baseline value.|Tiotropium Respimat 10mcg - Placebo|Analysis for week 48||||<0.0001
90976262|NCT02522767|181836577|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|3.32||The p-value was based on chi-square test without a continuity correction.|Chi-squared|||Proportions were compared between treatment groups, at a two-sided 0.05 significance level.||3.32|0.73|>0.05
90976263|NCT02522767|181836580|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.78|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|3.29||The p-value was based on chi-square test without a continuity correction.|Chi-squared|||Proportions were compared between treatment groups at a two-sided 0.05 significance level.||3.29|0.96|>0.05
90976264|NCT02522767|181836581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.15|||Generalized estimating equation approach|||Proportions were compared between treatment groups over 8 weeks, at a two-sided 0.05 significance level.||2.15|0.78|>0.05
90976265|NCT02522767|181836582|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.36|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|2.02||The p-value was based on log-rank test.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio and its 95% CI were obtained from Cox proportional hazards model with treatment group as a factor.|Times to normal stool pattern were compared between treatment groups, at a two-sided 0.05 significance level.||2.02|0.91|>0.05
90976266|NCT02522767|181836583|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-0.24|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.08|||Repeated-measures ANCOVA||A repeated-measures ANCOVA model with an unstructured correlation matrix was used to calculate estimate.|Change from baseline scores were compared between treatment groups over 8 weeks, at a two-sided 0.05 significance level.||-0.08|-0.41|<0.05
90976267|NCT02522767|181836584|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-2.39|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.46|0.67|||Repeated-measures ANCOVA||A repeated-measures ANCOVA model with an unstructured correlation matrix was used to calculate estimate.|Change from baseline scores were compared between treatment groups over 8 weeks, at a two-sided 0.05 significance level.||0.67|-5.46|>0.05
90976268|NCT02522767|181836585|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-289.69|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-514.96|-64.42|||ANCOVA||An ANCOVA model was used to calculate estimates.|Changes from baseline were compared between treatment groups, at a two-sided 0.05 significance level.||-64.42|-514.96|<0.05
90976269|NCT02522767|181836586|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|12.8|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.1|20.5|||Repeated-measures ANCOVA||A repeated-measures ANCOVA model with an unstructured correlation matrix was used to calculate estimates.|Change from baseline scores were compared between treatment groups over 8 weeks, at a two-sided 0.05 significance level.||20.50|5.10|<0.05
90976270|NCT03222427|181836592|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|0.952|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.769|1.18||||||||1.18|0.769|
91037606|NCT00205777|181961001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 48 in lumbar spine BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
90976271|NCT00254566|181836594|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be declared if the lower bound of the 95% CI around the difference in clinical success rates is greater than -10%|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.9||||||95.0|-5.8|3.9|||||Risk difference is the difference in percentage of participants with cure and the 95% Confidence Interval|95% Confidence Interval (CI) for the difference in cure rates will be constructed using a method of linear stratification that weights according to the reciporcal of the variance. Stratification will be by steriod use at time of randomization.||3.9|-5.8|
90976272|NCT00254566|181836595|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be declared if the lower bound of the 95% CI around the difference in clinical success rates is greater than -10%|Risk Difference (RD)|-2.5||||||95.0|-8.5|3.4|||||Risk difference is the difference in the percentage of participants with Cure and the 95% CI|95% CI for the difference in cure rates will be constructed using a method of linear stratification that weights according to the reciporcal of the variance. Stratification will be by steriod use at time of randomization.||3.4|-8.5|
90976273|NCT00254566|181836596|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be declared if the lower bound of the 95% CI around the difference in clinical success rates is greater than -10%|Risk Difference (RD)|-2.5||||||95.0|-8.5|3.4|||||Risk difference is the difference in percentage of participants with cure and the 95% Confidence|95% CI for the difference in cure rates will be constructed using a method of linear stratification that weights according to the reciprocal of the variance. Stratification will be by steroid use at time of randomization.||3.4|-8.5|
90976274|NCT00254566|181836597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.6||||||95.0|-4.5|3.3|||||Risk difference is the difference in eradication rates of pathogens by treatment|||3.3|-4.5|
90976275|NCT00254566|181836598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.33||||0.159||95.0|0.9|2.0||p-value was estimated from Cox's Proportional Hazard model with steriod use and country as factors and baseline FEV1 fitted as covariate|Regression, Cox|||Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate time taken for 1st 25th quartile of subjects to experience recurrence of AECB. Estimate of median time to event couldn't be calculated because \<50% of subjects in analysis population experienced a recurrence. The ratio of the treatment groups' recurrence rate (hazard ratio) estimated using Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for steroid use, frequency of AECB in previous 12 months, country and baseline Forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1).||2.0|0.9|0.159
90976276|NCT00254566|181836599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.57||95.0|-0.21|0.12|||ANCOVA|Estimated from ANCOVA with treatment, steriod use, and country fitted as factor and baseline CCQ total scores and FEV1 fitted as covariates||||0.12|-0.21|0.57
90976277|NCT00254566|181836599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.82||95.0|-0.13|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Estimated from linear mixed model with treatment, steroid use, FEV1, country and time point as factors and baseline CCQ scores as a covariate||||0.10|-0.13|0.82
90976278|NCT00254566|181836600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.81||95.0|-0.21|0.17|||ANCOVA|Estimated from ANCOVA with treatment, steriod use and country fitted as factors and baseline CCQ total score and FEV1 fitted as covariates||||0.17|-0.21|0.81
90976279|NCT00254566|181836600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.87||95.0|-0.12|0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|Estimated from linear mixed model with treatment, steroid use, FEV1, country and time point as factors and baseline CCQ scores as a covariate||||0.14|-0.12|0.87
90976280|NCT00254566|181836601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.385||95.0|-0.27|0.1|||ANCOVA|Estimated from ANCOVA with treatment, steriod use and country fitted as factors and baseline CCQ total score and FEV1 fitted as covariates||||0.10|-0.27|0.385
90976281|NCT00254566|181836601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.56||95.0|-0.17|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|Estimated from linear mixed model with treatment, steroid use, FEV1, country and time point as factors and baseline CCQ scores as a covariate||||0.09|-0.17|0.56
91037607|NCT00205777|181961001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 60 in lumbar spine BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.010
90976282|NCT00254566|181836602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.62||95.0|-0.26|0.16|||ANCOVA|Estimated from ANCOVA with treatment, steriod use and country fitted as factors and baseline CCQ total score and FEV1 fitted as covariates||||0.16|-0.26|0.62
90976283|NCT00254566|181836602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.8||95.0|-0.18|0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|Estimated from linear mixed model with treatment, steroid use, FEV1, country and time point as factors and baseline CCQ scores as a covariate||||0.14|-0.18|0.80
90976284|NCT01989221|181836603|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.55|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.12|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Mean GCSI-DD scores during one week at baseline were compared to mean GCSI-DD scores during the second week of Sancuso treatment.|||||<0.01
90976285|NCT01989221|181836604|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.27|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided||Mean nausea and vomiting symptom scores during one week at baseline were compared to mean symptom scores during the second week of Sancuso treatment.|||||<0.01
90976286|NCT01688050|181836661|OTHER|The primary safety endpoint of this study is analyzed using only descriptive statistics and it is not analyzed for the purpose of statistical inference|All-cause mortality rate (%)|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|5.88|||||Wald method|||5.88|0|
90976287|NCT01688050|181836662|OTHER|The primary safety endpoint of this study is analyzed using only descriptive statistics and it is not analyzed for the purpose of statistical inference|Aortic injury-related mortality rate (%)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|7.1|||||Exact method|||7.1|0|
90976288|NCT01688050|181836663|OTHER|The primary effectiveness endpoint of this study is analyzed using only descriptive statistics and it is not analyzed for the purpose of statistical inference|Device success rate (%)|96.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|90.6|100.0|||||Wald method|||100|90.6|
91037608|NCT00205777|181961001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 48 in lumbar spine BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
90976289|NCT00356031|181836687|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<.05
90976290|NCT00356031|181836688|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<.05
91037609|NCT00205777|181961001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 60 in lumbar spine BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.023
91037610|NCT00205777|181961001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 48 in total hip BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
90944974|NCT05923112|181769465|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.979|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.547|1.753|||||"Risk Ratio of age ≥ 40 years to ≥ 15 to \< 40 years"|Subgroup analyses of age \[≥ 40 years, ≥ 15 to \< 40 years\]||1.753|0.547|
90976291|NCT04426695|181836692|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-0.25||||0.0663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.02||P-value for change from baseline on log scale for each treatment group was based on the Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group.|ANCOVA|||||0.02|-0.51|0.0663
90976292|NCT04426695|181836692|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-0.31||||0.0204||95.0|-0.57|0.05||P-value for change from baseline on log scale for each treatment group was based on the Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group.|ANCOVA|||||0.05|-0.57|0.0204
90976293|NCT04426695|181836692|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-0.28||||0.0172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.05||P-value for change from baseline on log scale for each treatment group was based on the Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group.|ANCOVA|||To control alpha at a strict 0.05 level, this endpoint was tested hierarchically, with the virologic endpoint tested first. All hierarchical testing was done using the combined dose group.||-0.05|-0.51|0.0172
90976294|NCT04426695|181836693|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0431||||||P-value was derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value was based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0431
90976295|NCT04426695|181836693|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7975||||||P-value was derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value was based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.7975
90976296|NCT04426695|181836693|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2048||||||P-value was derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value was based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||To control alpha at a strict 0.05 level, this endpoint was tested hierarchically, with the virologic endpoint tested first. All hierarchical testing was done using the combined dose group.||||0.2048
90976297|NCT04426695|181836694|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0039||||||P-value was derived CMH test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value was based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0039
91037611|NCT00205777|181961001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 60 in total hip BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
90976298|NCT04426695|181836694|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2415||||||P-value was derived CMH test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value was based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2415
90976299|NCT04426695|181836694|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0195||||||P-value was derived CMH test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value was based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||To control alpha at a strict 0.05 level, this endpoint was tested hierarchically, with the virologic endpoint tested first. All hierarchical testing was done using the combined dose group.||||0.0195
90976300|NCT04426695|181836695|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0085||||||P-value was derived CMH test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< = 5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0085
90976301|NCT04426695|181836695|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9902||||||P-value was derived CMH test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< = 5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.9902
90976302|NCT04426695|181836695|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1486||||||P-value was derived CMH test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< = 5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||To control alpha at a strict 0.05 level, this endpoint was tested hierarchically, with the virologic endpoint tested first. All hierarchical testing was done using the combined dose group.||||0.1486
90976303|NCT04426695|181836696|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0092||||||P-value was derived CMH test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< = 5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value was based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0092
90976304|NCT04426695|181836696|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.221||||||P-value was derived CMH test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< = 5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value was based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2210
90976305|NCT04426695|181836696|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0249||||||P-value was derived CMH test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< = 5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value was based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||To control alpha at a strict 0.05 level, this endpoint was tested hierarchically, with the virologic endpoint tested first. All hierarchical testing was done using the combined dose group.||||0.0249
90976306|NCT04426695|181836697|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0045||||||P-value was derived CMH test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< = 5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value was based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0045
90976307|NCT04426695|181836697|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0714||||||P-value was derived CMH test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< = 5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value was based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0714
91037612|NCT00205777|181961001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 48 in total hip BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
90944975|NCT05923112|181769465|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.662|2.793|||||"Risk Ratio of hepatic impairment present to absent"|Subgroup analyses of hepatic impairment||2.793|0.662|
90944976|NCT05923112|181769465|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.769|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.439|1.349|||||"Risk Ratio of ECOG PS before the start of this drug 0 to 1"|Subgroup analyses of ECOG PS before the start of this drug||1.349|0.439|
91037613|NCT00205777|181961001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 60 in total hip BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91037614|NCT00205777|181961001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 48 in femoral neck BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91037615|NCT00205777|181961001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 60 in femoral neck BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91037616|NCT00205777|181961001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 48 in femoral neck BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91037617|NCT00205777|181961001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 60 in femoral neck BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91037618|NCT00205777|181961001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 48 in femoral trochanter BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91037619|NCT00205777|181961001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 60 in femoral trochanter BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91037620|NCT00205777|181961001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 48 in femoral trochanter BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
90944977|NCT05923112|181769465|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.507|1.816|||||"Risk Ratio of ECOG PS before the start of this drug ≥ 2 to 1"|Subgroup analyses of ECOG PS before the start of this drug||1.816|0.507|
91037621|NCT00205777|181961001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 60 in femoral trochanter BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91037622|NCT00205777|181961002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34|||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 72 in lumbar spine BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.34
91037623|NCT00205777|181961002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 84 in lumbar spine BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.15
91037624|NCT00205777|181961002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 72 in total hip BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91037625|NCT00205777|181961002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 84 in total hip BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91037626|NCT00205777|181961002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 72 in femoral neck BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
90944978|NCT05923112|181769465|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.242|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.036|1.627|||||"Risk Ratio of ECOG PS before the start of this drug not performed to 1"|Subgroup analyses of ECOG PS before the start of this drug||1.627|0.036|
90944979|NCT05923112|181769465|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.848|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.518|1.391|||||"Risk Ratio of white blood cell count immediately before the start of this drug ≥ 4000/mm³ to \< 4000/mm³"|Subgroup analyses of white blood cell count immediately before the start of this drug||1.391|0.518|
91037627|NCT00205777|181961002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 84 in femoral neck BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91037628|NCT00205777|181961002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 72 in femoral trochanter BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.003
91037629|NCT00205777|181961002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 84 in femoral trochanter BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.002
91037630|NCT00205777|181961003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 3 in osteocalcin: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91037631|NCT00205777|181961003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 3 in osteocalcin: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91037632|NCT00205777|181961003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 3 in osteocalcin: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91037633|NCT00205777|181961003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93|TWO_SIDED||||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 3 in osteocalcin: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||0.93
91037634|NCT00205777|181961003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 3 in osteocalcin: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91037635|NCT00205777|181961003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in osteocalcin: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91037636|NCT00205777|181961003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in osteocalcin: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91037637|NCT00205777|181961003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in osteocalcin: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91037638|NCT00205777|181961003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3||95.0|||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in osteocalcin: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||0.30
90944980|NCT05923112|181769465|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.945|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.578|1.547|||||"Risk Ratio of neutrophil count immediately before the start of this drug ≥ 2000/mm³ to \< 2000/mm³"|Subgroup analyses of neutrophil count immediately before the start of this drug||1.547|0.578|
90944981|NCT05923112|181769465|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.156|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.685|1.95|||||"Risk Ratio of platelet count immediately before the start of this drug \< 10 × 10⁴/μL to ≥ 10 × 10⁴/μL"|Subgroup analyses of platelet count immediately before the start of this drug||1.950|0.685|
90944982|NCT05923112|181769465|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|2.195|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.113|4.329|||||"Risk Ratio of salvage line of the induction treatment with this drug 2nd to 1st"|Subgroup analyses of salvage line of the induction treatment with this drug||4.329|1.113|
90976308|NCT04426695|181836697|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0061||||||P-value was derived CMH test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< = 5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value was based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||To control alpha at a strict 0.05 level, this endpoint was tested hierarchically, with the virologic endpoint tested first. All hierarchical testing was done using the combined dose group.||||0.0061
90976309|NCT04426695|181836698|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0023||||||P-value was derived CMH test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< = 5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value was based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0023
90976310|NCT04426695|181836698|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3544||||||P-value was derived CMH test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< = 5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value was based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3544
90976311|NCT04426695|181836698|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0212||||||P-value was derived CMH test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< = 5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value was based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||To control alpha at a strict 0.05 level, this endpoint was tested hierarchically, with the virologic endpoint tested first. All hierarchical testing was done using the combined dose group.||||0.0212
90976312|NCT04426695|181836704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0575||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0575
90976313|NCT04426695|181836704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3133||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3133
90976314|NCT04426695|181836704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0849||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0849
90944983|NCT05923112|181769465|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.667|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.821|3.384|||||"Risk Ratio of salvage line of the induction treatment with this drug 3rd or later to 1st"|Subgroup analyses of salvage line of the induction treatment with this drug||3.384|0.821|
90976315|NCT04426695|181836705|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2167||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2167
90976316|NCT04426695|181836705|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4123||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4123
90976317|NCT04426695|181836705|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2206||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2206
90976318|NCT04426695|181836706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0383||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0383
91037639|NCT00205777|181961003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in osteocalcin: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91037640|NCT00205777|181961003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in osteocalcin: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91037641|NCT00205777|181961003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in osteocalcin: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||<0.001
90944984|NCT05923112|181769465|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.004|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.586|1.719|||||"Risk Ratio of HSCT before the start of this drug performed to not performed"|Subgroup analyses of HSCT before the start of this drug||1.719|0.586|
90944985|NCT05923112|181769466|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||The risk ratio was reported as participants in this group are related to Category(A).|Subgroup analyses of age \[\< 15 years, ≥ 15 to \< 65 years\]|"Regarding Risk Ratio of age \< 15 years to ≥ 15 to \< 65 years"|||
90944986|NCT05923112|181769466|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|2.383|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|11.824|||||"Risk Ratio of age ≥ 65 years to ≥ 15 to \< 65 years"|Subgroup analyses of age \[≥ 65 years, ≥ 15 to \< 65 years\]||11.824|0.480|
90944987|NCT05923112|181769466|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|2.529|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.168|38.18|||||"Risk Ratio of age \< 18 years to ≥ 18 to \< 55 years"|Subgroup analyses of age \[\< 18 years, ≥ 18 to \< 55 years\]||38.180|0.168|
90944988|NCT05923112|181769466|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|2.829|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.342|23.432|||||"Risk Ratio of age ≥ 55 years to ≥ 18 to \< 55 years"|Subgroup analyses of age \[≥ 55 years, ≥ 18 to \< 55 years\]||23.432|0.342|
90944989|NCT05923112|181769466|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||The risk ratio was reported as participants in this group are related to Category(A).|Subgroup analyses of age \[\< 15 years, ≥ 15 to \< 40 years\]|"Regarding Risk Ratio of age \< 15 years to ≥ 15 to \< 40 years"|||
91037642|NCT00205777|181961003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in osteocalcin: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91037643|NCT00205777|181961003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in osteocalcin: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91037644|NCT00205777|181961003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in osteocalcin: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91037645|NCT00205777|181961004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in osteocalcin: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91037646|NCT00205777|181961004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 60 in osteocalcin: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91037647|NCT00205777|181961004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in osteocalcin: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91037648|NCT00205777|181961004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 60 in osteocalcin: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91037649|NCT00205777|181961005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.037|||||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 72 in osteocalcin: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||0.037
91037650|NCT00205777|181961005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 84 in osteocalcin: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||0.16
91037651|NCT00205777|181961006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 3 in C-telopeptide: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91037652|NCT00205777|181961006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 3 in C-telopeptide: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91037653|NCT00205777|181961006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 3 in C-telopeptide: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91037654|NCT00205777|181961006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 3 in C-telopeptide: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||0.40
91037655|NCT00205777|181961006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 3 in C-telopeptide: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91037656|NCT00205777|181961006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in C-telopeptide: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||<0.001
90944990|NCT05923112|181769466|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.789|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.161|3.862|||||"Risk Ratio of age ≥ 40 years to ≥ 15 to \< 40 years"|Subgroup analyses of age \[≥ 40 years, ≥ 15 to \< 40 years\]||3.862|0.161|
90944991|NCT05923112|181769466|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||The risk ratio was reported as participants in this group are related to Category(A).|Subgroup analyses of hepatic impairment|"Regarding Risk Ratio of hepatic impairment present to absent"|||
90944992|NCT05923112|181769466|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.923|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.196|4.355|||||"Risk Ratio of ECOG PS before the start of this drug 0 to 1"|Subgroup analyses of ECOG PS before the start of this drug||4.355|0.196|
90944993|NCT05923112|181769466|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|5.84|||||"Risk Ratio of ECOG PS before the start of this drug ≥ 2 to 1"|Subgroup analyses of ECOG PS before the start of this drug||5.840|0.070|
90944994|NCT05923112|181769466|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||The risk ratio was reported as participants in this group are related to Category(A).|Subgroup analyses of ECOG PS before the start of this drug|"Regarding Risk Ratio of ECOG PS before the start of this drug not performed to 1"|||
90944995|NCT05923112|181769466|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.386|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.048|3.107|||||"Risk Ratio of HSCT before the start of this drug performed to not performed"|Subgroup analyses of HSCT before the start of this drug||3.107|0.048|
90944996|NCT05923112|181769466|OTHER|Estimation||||||||||||||||Subgroup analyses of salvage line of the induction treatment with this drug|"Regarding Risk Ratio of salvage line of the induction treatment with this drug 2nd to 1st, the risk ratio was reported as participants in this group are related to Category(B)."|||
90944997|NCT05923112|181769466|OTHER|Estimation||||||||||||||||Subgroup analyses of salvage line of the induction treatment with this drug|"Regarding Risk Ratio of salvage line of the induction treatment with this drug 3rd or later to 1st, the risk ratio was reported as participants in this group are related to Category(B)."|||
90944998|NCT05923112|181769467|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||The risk ratio was reported as participants in this group are related to Category(A).|Subgroup analyses of age \[\< 15 years, ≥ 15 to \< 65 years\]|"Regarding Risk Ratio of age \< 15 years to ≥ 15 to \< 65 years"|||
90944999|NCT05923112|181769467|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.953|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.139|6.556|||||"Risk Ratio of age ≥ 65 years to ≥ 15 to \< 65 years"|Subgroup analyses of age \[≥ 65 years, ≥ 15 to \< 65 years\]||6.556|0.139|
90945000|NCT05923112|181769467|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|2.529|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.168|38.18|||||"Risk Ratio of age \< 18 years to ≥ 18 to \< 55 years"|Subgroup analyses of age \[\< 18 years, ≥ 18 to \< 55 years\]||38.180|0.168|
90945001|NCT05923112|181769467|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.132|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.106|12.119|||||"Risk Ratio of age ≥ 55 years to ≥ 18 to \< 55 years"|Subgroup analyses of age \[≥ 55 years, ≥ 18 to \< 55 years\]||12.119|0.106|
90945002|NCT05923112|181769467|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||The risk ratio was reported as participants in this group are related to Category(A).|Subgroup analyses of age \[\< 15 years, ≥ 15 to \< 40 years\]|"Regarding Risk Ratio of age \< 15 years to ≥ 15 to \< 40 years"|||
90945003|NCT05923112|181769467|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.316|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.046|2.146|||||"Risk Ratio of age ≥ 40 years to ≥ 15 to \< 40 years"|Subgroup analyses of age \[≥ 40 years, ≥ 15 to \< 40 years\]||2.146|0.046|
90945004|NCT05923112|181769467|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||The risk ratio was reported as participants in this group are related to Category(A).|Subgroup analyses of hepatic impairment|"Regarding Risk Ratio of hepatic impairment present to absent"|||
90945005|NCT05923112|181769467|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.462|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.043|4.928|||||"Risk Ratio of ECOG PS before the start of this drug 0 to 1"|Subgroup analyses of ECOG PS before the start of this drug||4.928|0.043|
90945006|NCT05923112|181769467|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.091|10.079|||||"Risk Ratio of ECOG PS before the start of this drug ≥ 2 to 1"|Subgroup analyses of ECOG PS before the start of this drug||10.079|0.091|
90945007|NCT05923112|181769467|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||The risk ratio was reported as participants in this group are related to Category(A).|Subgroup analyses of ECOG PS before the start of this drug|"Regarding Risk Ratio of ECOG PS before the start of this drug not performed to 1"|||
90976319|NCT04426695|181836706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3296||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3296
90976320|NCT04426695|181836706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0766||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0766
90976321|NCT04426695|181836707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0070
90976322|NCT04426695|181836707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0507||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0507
90976323|NCT04426695|181836707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0051||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0051
90945008|NCT05923112|181769467|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.772|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.083|7.207|||||"Risk Ratio of HSCT before the start of this drug performed to not performed"|Subgroup analyses of HSCT before the start of this drug||7.207|0.083|
90945009|NCT05923112|181769467|OTHER|Estimation||||||||||||||||Subgroup analyses of salvage line of the induction treatment with this drug|"Regarding Risk Ratio of salvage line of the induction treatment with this drug 2nd to 1st, the risk ratio was reported as participants in this group are related to Category(B)."|||
90945010|NCT05923112|181769467|OTHER|Estimation||||||||||||||||Subgroup analyses of salvage line of the induction treatment with this drug|"Regarding Risk Ratio of salvage line of the induction treatment with this drug 3rd or later to 1st, the risk ratio was reported as participants in this group are related to Category(B)."|||
90945011|NCT05923112|181769468|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||The risk ratio was reported as participants in this group are related to Category(A).|Subgroup analyses of hepatic impairment|"Regarding Risk Ratio of hepatic impairment present to absent"|||
90945012|NCT05923112|181769468|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.923|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.059|14.352|||||"Risk Ratio of ECOG PS before the start of this drug 0 to 1"|Subgroup analyses of ECOG PS before the start of this drug||14.352|0.059|
90945013|NCT05923112|181769468|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||The risk ratio was reported as participants in this group are related to Category(A).|Subgroup analyses of ECOG PS before the start of this drug|"Regarding Risk Ratio of ECOG PS before the start of this drug ≥ 2 to 1"|||
90945014|NCT05923112|181769468|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||The risk ratio was reported as participants in this group are related to Category(A).|Subgroup analyses of ECOG PS before the start of this drug|"Regarding Risk Ratio of ECOG PS before the start of this drug not performed to 1"|||
90945015|NCT05923112|181769468|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||The risk ratio was reported as participants in this group are related to Category(A).|Subgroup analyses of HSCT before the start of this drug|"Regarding Risk Ratio of HSCT before the start of this drug performed to not performed"|||
90945016|NCT05923112|181769468|OTHER|Estimation||||||||||||||||Subgroup analyses of age \[\< 15 years, ≥ 15 to \< 65 years\]|"Regarding Risk Ratio of age \< 15 years to ≥ 15 to \< 65 years, the risk ratio was reported as participants in this group are related to Category(B)."|||
90945017|NCT05923112|181769468|OTHER|Estimation||||||||||||||||Subgroup analyses of age \[≥ 65 years, ≥ 15 to \< 65 years\]|"Regarding Risk Ratio of age ≥ 65 years to ≥ 15 to \< 65 years, the risk ratio was reported as participants in this group are related to Category(B)."|||
90945018|NCT05923112|181769468|OTHER|Estimation||||||||||||||||Subgroup analyses of age \[\< 18 years, ≥ 18 to \< 55 years\]|"Regarding Risk Ratio of age \< 18 years to ≥ 18 to \< 55 years, the risk ratio was reported as participants in this group are related to Category(B)."|||
90945019|NCT05923112|181769468|OTHER|Estimation||||||||||||||||Subgroup analyses of age \[≥ 55 years, ≥ 18 to \< 55 years\]|"Regarding Risk Ratio of age ≥ 55 years to ≥ 18 to \< 55 years, the risk ratio was reported as participants in this group are related to Category(B)."|||
90945020|NCT05923112|181769468|OTHER|Estimation||||||||||||||||Subgroup analyses of age \[\< 15 years, ≥ 15 to \< 40 years\]|"Regarding Risk Ratio of age \< 15 years to ≥ 15 to \< 40 years, the risk ratio was reported as participants in this group are related to Category(B)."|||
90945021|NCT05923112|181769468|OTHER|Estimation||||||||||||||||Subgroup analyses of age \[≥ 40 years, ≥ 15 to \< 40 years\]|"Regarding Risk Ratio of age ≥ 40 years to ≥ 15 to \< 40 years, the risk ratio was reported as participants in this group are related to Category(B)."|||
90945022|NCT05923112|181769468|OTHER|Estimation||||||||||||||||Subgroup analyses of salvage line of the induction treatment with this drug|"Regarding Risk Ratio of salvage line of the induction treatment with this drug 2nd to 1st, the risk ratio was reported as participants in this group are related to Category(B)."|||
90945023|NCT05923112|181769468|OTHER|Estimation||||||||||||||||Subgroup analyses of salvage line of the induction treatment with this drug|"Regarding Risk Ratio of salvage line of the induction treatment with this drug 3rd or later to 1st, the risk ratio was reported as participants in this group are related to Category(B)."|||
90945024|NCT05923112|181769470|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.333|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.046|2.405|||||"Risk Ratio of age \< 18 years to ≥ 18 to \< 55 years"|Subgroup analyses of age \[\< 18 years, ≥ 18 to \< 55 years\]||2.405|0.046|
90976324|NCT04426695|181836708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0174||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0174
90976325|NCT04426695|181836708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2900
90976326|NCT04426695|181836708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0454||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0454
90976327|NCT04426695|181836709|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0040
90976328|NCT04426695|181836709|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0413||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0413
90976329|NCT04426695|181836709|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0032||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0032
91037657|NCT00205777|181961006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in C-telopeptide: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||<0.001
90976330|NCT04426695|181836710|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0105||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0105
90976331|NCT04426695|181836710|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0622||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0622
90976332|NCT04426695|181836710|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0088||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0088
90976333|NCT04426695|181836711|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0275||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0275
90976334|NCT04426695|181836711|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0223||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0223
90976335|NCT04426695|181836711|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0072||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0072
90976336|NCT04426695|181836712|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1032||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1032
90976337|NCT04426695|181836712|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.335||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3350
90976338|NCT04426695|181836712|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1314||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1314
90976339|NCT04426695|181836713|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.00024||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.00024
90976340|NCT04426695|181836713|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0054||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0054
90976341|NCT04426695|181836713|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0005
90976342|NCT04426695|181836720|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0533||||||P-value based on stratified log-rank test with the type of background standard-of-care and baseline serostatus as stratification factors.|Log Rank|||||||0.0533
90976343|NCT04426695|181836720|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0411||||||P-value based on stratified log-rank test with the type of background standard-of-care and baseline serostatus as stratification factors.|Log Rank|||||||0.0411
90976344|NCT04426695|181836720|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0229||||||P-value based on stratified log-rank test with the type of background standard-of-care and baseline serostatus as stratification factors.|Log Rank|||||||0.0229
91037658|NCT00205777|181961006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in C-telopeptide: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91037659|NCT00205777|181961006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in C-telopeptide: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||0.004
90945025|NCT05923112|181769470|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|3.56|||||"Risk Ratio of age ≥ 40 years to ≥ 15 to \< 40 years"|Subgroup analyses of age \[≥ 40 years, ≥ 15 to \< 40 years\]||3.560|0.340|
90945026|NCT05923112|181769470|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.227|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.371|4.056|||||"Risk Ratio of chromosome karyotype Philadelphia chromosome positive to negative"|Subgroup analyses of chromosome karyotype||4.056|0.371|
90945027|NCT05923112|181769470|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.183|1.966|||||"Risk Ratio of ECOG PS before the start of this drug 0 to 1"|Subgroup analyses of ECOG PS before the start of this drug||1.966|0.183|
90945028|NCT05923112|181769470|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.284|2.481|||||"Risk Ratio of hemoglobin level immediately before the start of this drug \< 10 g/dL to ≥ 10 g/dL"|Subgroup analyses of hemoglobin level immediately before the start of this drug||2.481|0.284|
90945029|NCT05923112|181769470|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.604|6.621|||||"Risk Ratio of platelet count immediately before the start of this drug \< 10 × 10⁴/μL to ≥ 10 × 10⁴/μL"|Subgroup analyses of platelet count immediately before the start of this drug||6.621|0.604|
90945030|NCT05923112|181769470|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.917|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.278|3.026|||||"Risk Ratio of myeloblast count immediately before the start of this drug \> 50% to ≤ 50%"|Subgroup analyses of myeloblast count immediately before the start of this drug||3.026|0.278|
90945031|NCT05923112|181769470|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.264|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.036|1.93|||||"Risk Ratio of salvage line of the induction treatment with this drug 2nd to 1st"|Subgroup analyses of salvage line of the induction treatment with this drug||1.930|0.036|
90945032|NCT05923112|181769470|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.438|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.497|4.161|||||"Risk Ratio of HSCT before the start of this drug performed to not performed"|Subgroup analyses of HSCT before the start of this drug||4.161|0.497|
90945033|NCT05923112|181769470|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.616|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.187|2.03|||||"Risk Ratio of type of the first HSCT after the start of this drug allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant with myeloablative conditioning to allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant with nonmyeloablative conditioning"|Subgroup analyses of type of the first HSCT after the start of this drug||2.030|0.187|
90945034|NCT05923112|181769470|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.583|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.155|2.192|||||"Risk Ratio of ECOG PS before conditioning for the first HSCT after the start of this drug 0 to 1"|Subgroup analyses of ECOG PS before conditioning for the first HSCT after the start of this drug||2.192|0.155|
90976345|NCT04426695|181836721|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0218|||||||Stratified Log Rank Test|||||||0.0218
90976346|NCT04426695|181836721|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0156|||||||Stratified Log Rank Test|||||||0.0156
90976347|NCT04426695|181836721|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0067|||||||Stratified Log Rank Test|||||||0.0067
90976348|NCT04426695|181836725|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2162||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2162
90945035|NCT05923112|181769470|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|2.545|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|10.293|||||"Risk Ratio of hemoglobin level before conditioning for the first HSCT after the start of this drug \< 10 g/dL to ≥ 10 g/dL"|Subgroup analyses of hemoglobin level before conditioning for the first HSCT after the start of this drug||10.293|0.630|
90945036|NCT05923112|181769470|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.179|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.237|5.87|||||"Risk Ratio of time from the date of final dose of this drug to the date of the first HSCT after the start of this drug ≥ 4 weeks to \< 8 weeks to \< 4 weeks"|Subgroup analyses of time from the date of final dose of this drug to the date of the first HSCT after the start of this drug||5.870|0.237|
90945037|NCT05923112|181769470|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|2.182|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.665|7.158|||||"Risk Ratio of best overall response progression or relapse to complete remission (CR) or complete remission with incomplete hematologic recovery (CRi)"|Subgroup analyses of best overall response||7.158|0.665|
90945038|NCT05923112|181769470|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.538|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.392|6.037|||||"Risk Ratio of MRD test not performed to negativity achieved"|Subgroup analyses of minimal residual disease (MRD)||6.037|0.392|
90945039|NCT05781750|181769491|OTHER|Trial was early terminated.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|3.3||||||Time to complete renal response for zetomipzomib 30 mg + standard-of-care versus placebo + standard-of-care||3.3|0.2|
90945040|NCT05781750|181769491|OTHER|Trial was early terminated.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|6.7||||||Time to complete renal response for zetomipzomib 60 mg + standard-of-care versus placebo + standard-of-care||6.7|0.7|
90945041|NCT05781750|181769491|OTHER|Trial was early terminated.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.0||||||Time to partial renal response for zetomipzomib 30 mg + standard-of-care versus placebo + standard-of-care||3.0|0.5|
90945042|NCT05781750|181769491|OTHER|Trial was early terminated.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|5.9||||||Time to partial renal response zetomipzomib 60 mg + standard-of-care versus placebo + standard-of-care||5.9|1.1|
90945043|NCT01587118|181769517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\</= 0.05|ANOVA|Change from baseline analyses were conducted using simple one-way analysis of variance; and were recalculated using the Kruskal Wallis procedure.||||||<.0001
90945044|NCT01587118|181769518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\</= 0.05|ANOVA|Change from baseline analyses were conducted using simple one-way analysis of variance; and were recalculated using the Kruskal Wallis procedure.||||||.0006
90945045|NCT01653210|181769529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.023|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.023
90945046|NCT00243022|181769535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9
90976349|NCT04426695|181836725|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8783||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.8783
90976350|NCT04426695|181836725|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5583||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.5583
91037660|NCT00205777|181961006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in C-telopeptide: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||<0.001
90976351|NCT04426695|181836725|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7189||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.7189
90976352|NCT04426695|181836725|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0429||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0429
90976353|NCT04426695|181836725|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2103||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2103
91037661|NCT00205777|181961006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in C-telopeptide: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91037662|NCT00205777|181961006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in C-telopeptide: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91037663|NCT00205777|181961006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in C-telopeptide: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91037664|NCT00205777|181961006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in C-telopeptide: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91037665|NCT00205777|181961006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in C-telopeptide: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91037666|NCT00205777|181961007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in C-telopeptide: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91037667|NCT00205777|181961007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 60 in C-telopeptide: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||0.001
91037668|NCT00205777|181961007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in C-telopeptide: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91037669|NCT00205777|181961007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 60 in C-telopeptide: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||0.009
90976354|NCT04426695|181836726|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0223||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0223
91037670|NCT00205777|181961008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034||95.0|||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 72 in C-telopeptide: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||0.034
91037671|NCT00205777|181961008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77||95.0|||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 84 in C-telopeptide: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||0.77
91037672|NCT00205777|181961009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in total cholesterol: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91037673|NCT00205777|181961009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in total cholesterol: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91037674|NCT00205777|181961009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in total cholesterol: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91037675|NCT00205777|181961009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in total cholesterol: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91037676|NCT00205777|181961009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in total cholesterol: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91037677|NCT00205777|181961009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in total cholesterol: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91037678|NCT00205777|181961009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in total cholesterol: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91037679|NCT00205777|181961009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in total cholesterol: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.001
91037680|NCT00205777|181961009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in total cholesterol: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91037681|NCT00205777|181961009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in total cholesterol: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91037682|NCT00205777|181961009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in total cholesterol: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91037683|NCT00205777|181961009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in total cholesterol: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91037684|NCT00205777|181961009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in total cholesterol: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.009
91037685|NCT00205777|181961009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in total cholesterol: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91037686|NCT00205777|181961009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.055||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in total cholesterol: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.055
91037687|NCT00205777|181961009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in total cholesterol: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.004
91037688|NCT00205777|181961009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in total cholesterol: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91037689|NCT00205777|181961009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in total cholesterol: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91037690|NCT00205777|181961009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in total cholesterol: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91037691|NCT00205777|181961009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in total cholesterol: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91037692|NCT00205777|181961009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in LDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91037693|NCT00205777|181961009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in LDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
90945047|NCT00243022|181769536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.12
90976355|NCT04426695|181836726|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1256||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1256
90976356|NCT04426695|181836726|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.023||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0230
90976357|NCT04426695|181836726|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1298||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1298
90976358|NCT04426695|181836726|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2642||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2642
90976359|NCT04426695|181836726|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.097||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0970
91037694|NCT00205777|181961009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in LDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91037695|NCT00205777|181961009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in LDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
90976360|NCT04426695|181836727|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0147||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0147
90976361|NCT04426695|181836727|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0669||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0669
90976362|NCT04426695|181836727|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0094||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0094
90976363|NCT04426695|181836727|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1306||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1306
91037696|NCT00205777|181961009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in LDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
90945048|NCT00243022|181769537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.8
90945049|NCT03042299|181769574|EQUIVALENCE|The difference in the least square (LS) means between formulations (TAK-536 pediatric formulation \[granules\]-TAK-536 commercial formulation \[tablet\]) and the two-sided 90 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) were provided using a crossover analysis of variance (ANOVA) model. The ANOVA model included log-transformed (natural log) PK parameters AUC 48 as dependent variable, and formulation, group, and period as independent variables.|Point estimate|-0.0731|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1088|-0.0373||||||||-0.0373|-0.1088|
90976364|NCT04426695|181836727|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3576||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3576
90976365|NCT04426695|181836727|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1476||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1476
90976366|NCT04426695|181836728|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0481||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0481
90976367|NCT04426695|181836728|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0535||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0535
90976368|NCT04426695|181836728|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0199||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0199
91037697|NCT00205777|181961009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in LDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91037698|NCT00205777|181961009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in LDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91037699|NCT00205777|181961009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in LDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91037700|NCT00205777|181961009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in LDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91037701|NCT00205777|181961009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in LDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91037702|NCT00205777|181961009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in LDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91037703|NCT00205777|181961009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in LDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91037704|NCT00205777|181961009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in LDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.012
90945050|NCT03042299|181769575|EQUIVALENCE|The difference in the LS means between formulations (TAK-536 pediatric formulation \[granules\]-TAK-536 commercial formulation \[tablet\]) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The ANOVA model included log-transformed (natural log) PK parameters Cmax as dependent variable, and formulation, group, and period as independent variables.|Point estimate|-0.0909|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1573|-0.0244||||||||-0.0244|-0.1573|
90945051|NCT04788511|181769585|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Treatment Difference|7.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.8|10.9|||ANCOVA|||The responses at week 52 were analyzed using an analysis of covariance model with randomized treatment and stratification (BMI\<35.0 kg/m\^2, BMI\>=35.0 kg/m\^2) as factors and baseline KCCQ-CSS as covariate. The analysis was based on the in-trial period using the FAS population. Missing observations at week 52 were multiple (x1000) imputed from retrieved participants of the same randomized treatment arm.||10.9|4.8|<0.0001
90945052|NCT04788511|181769586|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Treatment Difference|-10.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|-9.4|||ANCOVA|||The responses were analyzed using an analysis of covariance model with randomized treatment and stratification (BMI\<35.0 kg/m\^2, BMI\>=35.0 kg/m\^2) as factors and baseline body weight (kg) as covariate. The analysis was based on the in-trial period using the FAS population. Missing observations at week 52 were multiple (x1000) imputed from retrieved participants of the same randomized treatment arm.||-9.4|-11.9|<0.0001
90945053|NCT03178045|181769607|OTHER|Multivariable Logistic Regression|Estimated Increase|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|3.6||||||||3.6|-3.1|
90945054|NCT03178045|181769608|OTHER|Multivariable logistic regression|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.31||||||||1.31|0.69|
90976369|NCT04426695|181836728|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2784||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2784
90976370|NCT04426695|181836728|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.251||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2510
90976371|NCT04426695|181836728|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1702||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1702
90976372|NCT04426695|181836729|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0500
90976373|NCT04426695|181836729|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0663||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0663
90976374|NCT04426695|181836729|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0229||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0229
90976375|NCT04426695|181836729|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0208||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0208
90976376|NCT04426695|181836729|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0388||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0388
90976377|NCT04426695|181836729|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0092||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0092
90976378|NCT04426695|181836733|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.037|||||||stratified log-rank test|||||||0.0370
90976379|NCT04426695|181836733|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1596|||||||stratified log-rank test|||||||0.1596
90976380|NCT04426695|181836733|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0444|||||||stratified log-rank test|||||||0.0444
90976381|NCT04426695|181836733|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1802|||||||stratified log-rank test|||||||0.1802
90976382|NCT04426695|181836733|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0407|||||||stratified log-rank test|||||||0.0407
90976383|NCT04426695|181836733|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0523|||||||stratified log-rank test|||||||0.0523
90976384|NCT04426695|181836734|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0245|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0245
90976385|NCT04426695|181836734|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0554|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0554
90976386|NCT04426695|181836734|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0179|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0179
90976387|NCT04426695|181836734|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0035|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0035
90945055|NCT03178045|181769609|OTHER|Longitudinal mixed effects regression|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.32||||||||1.32|0.60|
90945056|NCT02165826|181769679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.66||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.93||Study treatment, country and baseline forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV1) as explanatory variables.|Regression, Logistic|||Analyses were performed using a hierarchical testing procedure.||0.93|0.47|0.017
90945057|NCT02165826|181769679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.92|||||Cox proportional hazards model with study treatment and country as class effects, and baseline FEV1 as a continuous variable.|Analyses were performed using a hierarchical testing procedure.||0.92|0.51|
90945058|NCT02165826|181769679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.07||Study treatment, country and baseline forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV1) as explanatory variables.|Regression, Logistic|||Analyses were performed using a hierarchical testing procedure.||1.07|0.55|0.114
90945059|NCT02165826|181769679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.02|||||Cox proportional hazards model with study treatment and country as class effects, and baseline FEV1 as a continuous variable.|Analyses were performed using a hierarchical testing procedure.||1.02|0.58|
90976388|NCT04426695|181836734|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0003
90976389|NCT04426695|181836734|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0002
90976390|NCT04426695|181836735|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0013|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0013
90976391|NCT04426695|181836735|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0010
90976392|NCT04426695|181836735|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0002
90976393|NCT04426695|181836735|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.025|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0250
90976394|NCT04426695|181836735|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0012|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0012
90976395|NCT04426695|181836735|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0014|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0014
90976396|NCT04426695|181836736|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0623|||||||MMRM|||Difference vs. Placebo by Day 29||||0.0623
90976397|NCT04426695|181836736|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0203|||||||MMRM|||Difference vs. Placebo by Day 29||||0.0203
90976398|NCT04426695|181836736|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0193|||||||MMRM|||Difference vs. Placebo by Day 29||||0.0193
90976399|NCT04426695|181836736|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1206|||||||MMRM|||Difference vs. Placebo by Day 29||||0.1206
90976400|NCT04426695|181836736|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0911|||||||MMRM|||Difference vs. Placebo by Day 29||||0.0911
90976401|NCT04426695|181836736|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0645|||||||MMRM|||Difference vs. Placebo by Day 29||||0.0645
91037705|NCT00205777|181961009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in LDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91037706|NCT00205777|181961009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in LDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.031
91037707|NCT00205777|181961009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in LDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.008
91037708|NCT00205777|181961009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in LDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91037709|NCT00205777|181961009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in LDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91037710|NCT00205777|181961009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in LDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
90976402|NCT04426695|181836737|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0623|||||||MMRM|||Percent Difference vs. Placebo at Day 29||||0.0623
90976403|NCT04426695|181836737|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0203|||||||MMRM|||Percent Difference vs. Placebo at Day 29||||0.0203
90976404|NCT04426695|181836737|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0193|||||||MMRM|||Percent Difference vs. Placebo at Day 29||||0.0193
90976405|NCT04426695|181836737|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1206|||||||MMRM|||Percent Difference vs. Placebo at Day 29||||0.1206
90976406|NCT04426695|181836737|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0911|||||||MMRM|||Percent Difference vs. Placebo at Day 29||||0.0911
91037711|NCT00205777|181961009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in LDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
90976407|NCT04426695|181836737|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0645|||||||MMRM|||Percent Difference vs. Placebo at Day 29||||0.0645
90976408|NCT04426695|181836738|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0481||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0481
90976409|NCT04426695|181836738|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.988||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.9880
91037712|NCT00205777|181961009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in HDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.001
91037713|NCT00205777|181961009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in HDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91037714|NCT00205777|181961009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in HDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.001
91037715|NCT00205777|181961009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in HDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91037716|NCT00205777|181961009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in HDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.10
91037717|NCT00205777|181961009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in HDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.89
91037718|NCT00205777|181961009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in HDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.60
91037719|NCT00205777|181961009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in HDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.82
91037720|NCT00205777|181961009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in HDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.001
91037721|NCT00205777|181961009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in HDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91037722|NCT00205777|181961009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in HDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.012
91037723|NCT00205777|181961009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in HDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91037724|NCT00205777|181961009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.083||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in HDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.083
91037725|NCT00205777|181961009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in HDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.96
91037726|NCT00205777|181961009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in HDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.84
91037727|NCT00205777|181961009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in HDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.15
91037728|NCT00205777|181961009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in HDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.13
91037729|NCT00205777|181961009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in HDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91037730|NCT00205777|181961009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in HDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.007
91037731|NCT00205777|181961009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in HDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91037732|NCT00205777|181961009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in HDL2: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.28
91037733|NCT00205777|181961009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in HDL2: P value was calculated using ANCOVA||||0.10
91037734|NCT00205777|181961009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.94||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in HDL2: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.94
91037735|NCT00205777|181961009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in HDL2: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.46
91037736|NCT00205777|181961009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in HDL2: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.63
90976410|NCT04426695|181836738|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2498||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2498
90976411|NCT04426695|181836738|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||1.0000
90976412|NCT04426695|181836738|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0457||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0457
90976413|NCT04426695|181836738|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2153||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2153
90976414|NCT04426695|181836739|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0811||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0811
90976415|NCT04426695|181836739|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6701||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.6701
90976416|NCT04426695|181836739|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2006||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2006
91037737|NCT00205777|181961009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in HDL2: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.70
91037738|NCT00205777|181961009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in HDL2: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.58
91037739|NCT00205777|181961009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in HDL2: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.29
91037740|NCT00205777|181961009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in HDL2: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.59
90976417|NCT04426695|181836739|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3313||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3313
90976418|NCT04426695|181836739|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5542||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.5542
90976419|NCT04426695|181836739|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2214||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2214
90976420|NCT04426695|181836740|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0389||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0389
90976421|NCT04426695|181836740|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5208||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.5208
90976422|NCT04426695|181836740|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1079||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1079
91037741|NCT00205777|181961009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in HDL2: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.036
91037742|NCT00205777|181961009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in HDL2: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.57
91037743|NCT00205777|181961009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in HDL2: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.49
91037744|NCT00205777|181961009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in HDL2: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.038
91037745|NCT00205777|181961009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in HDL2: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.93
91037746|NCT00205777|181961009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in HDL2: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.96
91037747|NCT00205777|181961009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in HDL2: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.72
91037748|NCT00205777|181961009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in HDL2: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.12
91037749|NCT00205777|181961009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.043||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in HDL2: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.043
91037750|NCT00205777|181961009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in HDL2: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.53
91037751|NCT00205777|181961009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in HDL2: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.75
91037752|NCT00205777|181961009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in HDL3: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91037753|NCT00205777|181961009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in HDL3: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
90976423|NCT04426695|181836740|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3315||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3315
90976424|NCT04426695|181836740|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5797||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.5797
90976425|NCT04426695|181836740|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3036||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3036
90976426|NCT04426695|181836741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0364||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0364
90976427|NCT04426695|181836741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2795||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2795
90976428|NCT04426695|181836741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0588||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0588
90976429|NCT04426695|181836741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0364||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0364
90976430|NCT04426695|181836741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2795||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2795
90976431|NCT04426695|181836741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0588||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0588
90976432|NCT04426695|181836742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2635||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2635
90976433|NCT04426695|181836742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8013||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.8013
90976434|NCT04426695|181836742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.416||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4160
90976435|NCT04426695|181836742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2194||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2194
90976436|NCT04426695|181836742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.324||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3240
90976437|NCT04426695|181836742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1981||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1981
90976438|NCT01110395|181836760|OTHER|Bland and Altman|Mean + SD|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.96|||TWO_SIDED|||||Bland Altman|mean + SD|Bland Altman|We have provided all the information that is available to us. The PI has left the institution and we are unable to contact him. We have no further data to correct the errors.|We are unable to provide any further data that has been requested. We have supplied all the data that we can possibly provide because the PI has left the institution and we are unable to contact him. We have no other data.|There are no other statistical analysis. We have provided all the information that is available to us. We have no other data available to us because the PI has left the institution and we are unable to contact him.|||
90976439|NCT01110395|181836760|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Mean + SD|||||||<0.05
90976440|NCT01925209|181836845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|17.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.331||0.221|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-19.63|54.8|||mixed model repeated measures|||||54.80|-19.63|0.2210
90976441|NCT01925209|181836845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|18.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.176||0.1909|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-18.21|55.4|||mixed model repeated measure|||||55.40|-18.21|0.1909
90976442|NCT01925209|181836845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.121||0.9263|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-37.97|35.36|||mixed models repeated measures|||||35.36|-37.97|0.9263
90976443|NCT00510276|181836887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.82||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|8.2||A gate-keeper strategy was applied to adjust for multiple tests.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference in AAQOL-29 score changes from baseline to 12-week endpoint between atomoxetine and placebo treatment groups.||8.20|1.44|0.005
90976444|NCT00510276|181836888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.9||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.68|10.12||A gate-keeper strategy was applied to adjust for multiple tests.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference in AAQOL-29 relationship subscale score changes from baseline to 12-week endpoint between atomoxetine and placebo treatment groups.||10.12|1.68|0.006
90945060|NCT02165826|181769680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.63||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.83||Study treatment, country and baseline forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV1) as explanatory variables.|Regression, Logistic|||Analyses were performed using a hierarchical testing procedure.||0.83|0.47|0.001
90945061|NCT02165826|181769680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.04||Study treatment, country and baseline forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV1) as explanatory variables.|Regression, Logistic|||Analyses were performed using a hierarchical testing procedure.||1.04|0.59|0.091
90945062|NCT01963169|181769697|SUPERIORITY||Effect size|0.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||\<0.05 (Threshold)|Mixed Models Analysis||The above values are for Knowledge outcome using the revised Osteoporosis Knowledge Test.|At 8 week, both intervention groups received the same Bone Power Program intervention. Thus, the analysis for the 8-week outcomes was completed as a two-armed RCT.||||< 0.001
90945063|NCT01963169|181769697|SUPERIORITY||Effect size|0.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||\<0.05 (threshold)|Mixed Models Analysis||The above values are for the exercise behavior variable assessed by the 9-item Self-Efficacy for Exercise scale.|At 8 weeks both intervention groups received the same BonePower intervention. Thus the analysis of 8-week outcome was completed as 2-armed RCT.||||<0.001
90945064|NCT01963169|181769697|SUPERIORITY||Effect size|0.2||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|||||\<0.05 (Threshold)|Mixed Models Analysis||The above values are for calcium outcome expectation..|At 8 weeks both intervention groups received the same BonePower intervention. Thus the analysis of 8-week outcome was completed as 2-armed RCT.||||0.009
90945065|NCT01963169|181769697|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size|0.18||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||\<0.05 (Threshold)|Mixed Models Analysis||The above values are for exercise self-efficacy.|At 8 weeks both intervention groups received the same BonePower intervention. Thus the analysis of 8-week outcome was completed as 2-armed RCT.||||0.002
90945066|NCT01963169|181769697|SUPERIORITY||Effect size|0.14||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|||||\<0.05 (Threshold)|Mixed Models Analysis||The above values are for exercise outcome expectation.|At 8 weeks both intervention groups received the same BonePower intervention. Thus the analysis of 8-week outcome was completed as 2-armed RCT.||||0.032
90945067|NCT05238103|181769736|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.58
90976445|NCT00510276|181836889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.73||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|10.46||A gate-keeper strategy was applied to adjust for multiple tests.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference in AAQOL-29 relationship subscale score changes from baseline to 12-week endpoint between atomoxetine and placebo treatment groups.||10.46|1.00|0.018
90945068|NCT05238103|181769737|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||For systolic blood pressure||||0.40
90945069|NCT05238103|181769737|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||For diastolic blood pressure||||0.25
90945070|NCT05238103|181769738|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.27
90945071|NCT05238103|181769739|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.39
90945072|NCT05238103|181769740|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.19
90945073|NCT05238103|181769741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||For: Global physical health score||||0.16
90945074|NCT05238103|181769741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||For: Global mental health score||||0.71
90945075|NCT05238103|181769742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.60
90945076|NCT05238103|181769743|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.57
90945077|NCT05238103|181769744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.28
90945078|NCT05238103|181769745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.09
90945079|NCT05238103|181769746|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.19
90945080|NCT05238103|181769747|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.60
90945081|NCT05238103|181769748|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.00
90945082|NCT05238103|181769749|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.35
90945083|NCT05238103|181769755|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin of 12.5 meters was chosen to represent about 40% of the minimum important difference of 30 meters in the 6 minute walk test as identified in previous studies. For sample size calculation, to allow for an attrition rate of 20% during follow up after randomization, a total of 200 (100 per group) participants were needed to be recruited and then randomized in a 1:1 ration to Intervention vs. Control groups.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.3||||0.04|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-9.1||||t-test, 1 sided|||Significance testing: Generalized regression model|||-9.1|0.04
90945084|NCT05739994|181769757|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|||||Pairwise p-values were calculated using independent-samples t-tests on final values because model-based pairwise contrasts were not available. These values do not reflect the full repeated-measures mixed-model structure.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.55
90945085|NCT05739994|181769757|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.2||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|||||Pairwise p-values were calculated using independent-samples t-tests on final values because model-based pairwise contrasts were not available. These values do not reflect the full repeated-measures mixed-model structure.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.18
90976446|NCT00510276|181836890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.36||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|8.39||A gate-keeper strategy was applied to adjust for multiple tests.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference in AAQOL-29 psychological health subscale score changes from baseline to 12-week endpoint between atomoxetine and placebo treatment groups.||8.39|0.33|0.034
90945086|NCT05739994|181769758|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|||||Pairwise p-values were calculated using independent-samples t-tests on final values because model-based pairwise contrasts were not available. These values do not reflect the full repeated-measures mixed-model structure.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1
90976447|NCT00510276|181836891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.4||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|7.12||A gate-keeper strategy was applied to adjust for multiple tests.|ANCOVA|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference in AAQOL-29 life outlook subscale score changes from baseline to 12-week endpoint between atomoxetine and placebo treatment groups.||7.12|-0.33|0.074
90976448|NCT00510276|181836892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.24|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with terms for baseline score, treatment, and investigator.||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference in CGI-ADHD-S score changes from baseline to 12-week endpoint between atomoxetine and placebo treatment groups.||-0.24|-0.63|<0.001
90976449|NCT00510276|181836893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.94|-2.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference in CAARS-S:SV score changes from baseline to 12-week endpoint between atomoxetine and placebo treatment groups.||-2.15|-5.94|<0.001
90976450|NCT00510276|181836894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.04|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with terms for baseline score, treatment, and investigator.||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference in PGI-I scores at 12-week endpoint between atomoxetine and placebo treatment groups.||-0.04|-0.45|0.020
90976451|NCT00510276|181836895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42||||0.282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|0.35|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for baseline score, treatment, and investigator.||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference in MADRS score changes from baseline to 12-week endpoint between atomoxetine and placebo treatment groups.||0.35|-1.19|0.282
90976452|NCT00510276|181836896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51||||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|1.19|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for baseline score, treatment, and investigator.||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference in BAI score changes from baseline to 12-week endpoint between atomoxetine and placebo treatment groups.||1.19|-2.21|0.556
90976453|NCT00510276|181836897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Pearson's Correlation Coefficient|||Tested was the null hypothesis that AAQOL-29 total score and CAARS-Inv:SV total score are not correlated.||||<0.001
90976454|NCT00510276|181836898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.08|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for baseline score, treatment, and investigator.||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference in TLFB incidence for use of alcohol score changes from baseline to 12-week endpoint between atomoxetine and placebo treatment groups.||0.08|-0.39|0.198
90976455|NCT00510276|181836899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.825|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.26|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for baseline score, treatment, and investigator.||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference in TLFB incidence for use of caffeine score changes from baseline to 12-week endpoint between atomoxetine and placebo treatment groups.||0.26|-0.33|0.825
90945087|NCT05739994|181769758|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|||||Pairwise p-values were calculated using independent-samples t-tests on final values because model-based pairwise contrasts were not available. These values do not reflect the full repeated-measures mixed-model structure.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.79
90976456|NCT00510276|181836901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.82||||0.233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|2.17|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for baseline score, treatment, and investigator.||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference in TLFB incidence for use of nicotine score changes from baseline to 12-week endpoint between atomoxetine and placebo treatment groups.||2.17|-0.53|0.233
90976457|NCT00510276|181836902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.37|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for baseline score, treatment, and investigator.||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference in TLFB incidence for use of marijuana score changes from baseline to 12-week endpoint between atomoxetine and placebo treatment groups.||0.37|-0.24|0.676
90976458|NCT00510276|181836903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31||||0.382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.39|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for baseline score, treatment, and investigator.||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference in Fagerstorm Test for Nicotine Dependence score changes from baseline to 12-week endpoint between atomoxetine and placebo treatment groups.||0.39|-1.00|0.382
90976459|NCT00510276|181836904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22||||0.656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|0.78|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for baseline score, treatment, and investigator.||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference in SASS score changes from baseline to 12-week endpoint between atomoxetine and placebo treatment groups.||0.78|-1.24|0.656
90976460|NCT00510276|181836905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.61||||0.201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.08|0.86|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for baseline score, treatment, and investigator.||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference in Driving Behavior Survey Self-Report score changes from baseline to 12-week endpoint between atomoxetine and placebo treatment groups.||0.86|-4.08|0.201
90976461|NCT00510276|181836906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.39|-2.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for treatment, investigator, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score, baseline score-by-visit interaction.||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference in CAARS-Inv:SV score changes from baseline to 12-week endpoint between the atomoxetine group and the placebo group. With approximately 220 patients per arm, assuming a 68% completion rate and an estimated effect size of atomoxetine over placebo of 0.35, using a 5% significance level, the analysis was expected to have 90% power to detect a difference between atomoxetine and placebo at week 12.||-2.72|-7.39|<0.001
91037754|NCT00205777|181961009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in HDL3: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91037755|NCT00205777|181961009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in HDL3: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
90976462|NCT00510276|181836907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.61||||0.933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.41|17.63|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for baseline score, treatment, and investigator||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference in Driving Behavior Survey Other-Report score changes from baseline to 12-week endpoint between atomoxetine and placebo treatment groups.||17.63|-16.41|0.933
90976463|NCT00510276|181836908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.95||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.09|-0.81|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for baseline score, treatment, and investigator||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference in BRIEF-A Behavioral regulation score changes from baseline to 12-week endpoint between atomoxetine and placebo treatment groups.||-0.81|-5.09|0.007
90976464|NCT00510276|181836909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.58||||0.219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.35|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for baseline score, treatment, and investigator||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference in BRIEF-A emotional control section score changes from baseline to 12-week endpoint between atomoxetine and placebo treatment groups.||0.35|-1.50|0.219
90976465|NCT00510276|181836910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.58||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.37|-2.78|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for baseline score, treatment, and investigator||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference in BRIEF-A GEC section score changes from baseline to 12-week endpoint between atomoxetine and placebo treatment groups.||-2.78|-12.37|0.002
90976466|NCT00510276|181836911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.29|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for baseline score, treatment, and investigator||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference in BRIEF-A Inconsistency section score changes from baseline to 12-week endpoint between atomoxetine and placebo treatment groups.||0.29|-0.47|0.644
90976467|NCT00510276|181836912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.25|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for baseline score, treatment, and investigator||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference in BRIEFS-A infrequency score changes from baseline to 12-week endpoint between atomoxetine and placebo treatment groups.||0.25|-0.02|0.097
90976468|NCT00510276|181836913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.97||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|-0.37|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for baseline score, treatment, and investigator||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference in BRIEF-A Inhibit Section score changes from baseline to 12-week endpoint between atomoxetine and placebo treatment groups.||-0.37|-1.57|0.002
90976469|NCT00510276|181836914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.67||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.02|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for baseline score, treatment, and investigator||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference in BRIEF-A Initiate section score changes from baseline to 12-week endpoint between atomoxetine and placebo treatment groups.||-0.02|-1.33|0.044
91037756|NCT00205777|181961009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in HDL3: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.46
91037757|NCT00205777|181961009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in HDL3: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.64
91037758|NCT00205777|181961009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in HDL3: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.47
91037759|NCT00205777|181961009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in HDL3: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.75
90976470|NCT00510276|181836915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.49||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.43|-1.55|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for baseline score, treatment, and investigator||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference in BRIEF-A Metacognition section score changes from baseline to 12-week endpoint between atomoxetine and placebo treatment groups.||-1.55|-7.43|0.003
90976471|NCT00510276|181836916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.23|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for baseline score, treatment, and investigator||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference in BRIEF-A negativity section score changes from baseline to 12-week endpoint between atomoxetine and placebo treatment groups.||0.23|-0.51|0.456
90976472|NCT00510276|181836917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.65||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|0.0|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for baseline score, treatment, and investigator||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference in BRIEF-A Organization of Materials section score changes from baseline to 12-week endpoint between atomoxetine and placebo treatment groups.||0.00|-1.31|0.051
91037760|NCT00205777|181961009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in HDL3: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.003
91037761|NCT00205777|181961009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in HDL3: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91037762|NCT00205777|181961009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in HDL3: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91037763|NCT00205777|181961009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in HDL3: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91037764|NCT00205777|181961009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in HDL3: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.81
91037765|NCT00205777|181961009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in HDL3: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.98
91037766|NCT00205777|181961009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in HDL3: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.87
91037767|NCT00205777|181961009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in HDL3: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.40
91037768|NCT00205777|181961009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in HDL3: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.001
91037769|NCT00205777|181961009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in HDL3: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
91037770|NCT00205777|181961009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in HDL3: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
90976473|NCT00510276|181836918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.34||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.19|-0.47|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for baseline score, treatment, and investigator||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference in BRIEF-A Plan/Organize section score changes from baseline to 12-week endpoint between atomoxetine and placebo treatment groups.||-0.47|-2.19|0.002
90976474|NCT00510276|181836919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|-0.01|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for baseline score, treatment, and investigator||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference in BRIEF-A SHIFT section score changes from baseline to 12-week endpoint between atomoxetine and placebo treatment groups.||-0.01|-1.04|0.045
90976475|NCT00510276|181836920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.83||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|-0.32|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for baseline score, treatment, and investigator||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference in BRIEF-A Self Monitor Section score changes from baseline to 12-week endpoint between atomoxetine and placebo treatment groups.||-0.32|-1.35|0.001
90976476|NCT00510276|181836921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|-0.19|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for baseline score, treatment, and investigator||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference in BRIEF-A Task Monitor section score changes from baseline to 12-week endpoint between atomoxetine and placebo treatment groups.||-0.19|-1.23|0.008
90976477|NCT00510276|181836922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|-0.63|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for baseline score, treatment, and investigator||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference in BRIEF-A Working Memory section score changes from baseline to 12-week endpoint between atomoxetine and placebo treatment groups.||-0.63|-1.98|<0.001
91037771|NCT00205777|181961009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in HDL3: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
90976478|NCT00510276|181836923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|0.04|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for baseline score, treatment, and investigator||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference in ESS score changes from baseline to 12-week endpoint between atomoxetine and placebo treatment groups.||0.04|-1.42|0.065
90976479|NCT00510276|181836924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.788||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Tested was smoking status across treatment.||Tested was the null hypothesis that smoking status is not a predictor of response to atomoxetine treatment compared with placebo||||0.788
90976480|NCT00510276|181836925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.482||95.0||||Tested was smoking status across treatment.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Tested was the null hypothesis that smoking status is not a predictor of strong response to atomoxetine treatment compared with placebo||||0.482
90976481|NCT04025632|181836972|SUPERIORITY||Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney odds|0.55||||0.464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.57||Conducted using a 2-sided Van Elteren test, which represents an extension of the Wilcoxon rank sum test for comparing 2 treatments in a stratified experiment using within-stratum ranks assigning greater weight to rank sums from smaller strata.|2-sided Van Elteren test||The magnitude of association between treatment groups was expressed as in Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney odds followed by the 95% confidence intervals.|||1.57|0.19|0.464
90976482|NCT04025632|181836974|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.088||||0.919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.214|5.535||P-value for the comparison of treatment groups was calculated using logistic regression with investigational medicinal product and strata as fixed factors.|Regression, Logistic|||||5.535|0.214|0.919
90976483|NCT04025632|181836975|SUPERIORITY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-0.688||||0.496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.781|1.404||Based on a linear model with treatment and strata (anti-3-hydroxy-3-methyl-glutaryl-coenzyme A reductase \[HMGCR\]+/anti-signal recognition particle \[SRP\]+) as fixed factors with Baseline 3TUG as a covariate.|Linear Mixed Effect Model||The difference presented is zilucoplan 0.3 mg/kg minus placebo.|||1.404|-2.781|0.496
90976484|NCT04025632|181836976|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.89||||0.431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.18|13.95||Based on a linear model with treatment and strata (anti-HMGCR+/anti-SRP+) as fixed factors with Baseline proximal MMT as a covariate.|Linear Mixed Effect Model||The difference presented is zilucoplan 0.3 mg/kg minus placebo.|||13.95|-6.18|0.431
90976485|NCT04025632|181836977|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.204||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.855|1.448||Based on a linear model with treatment and strata (anti-HMGCR+/anti-SRP+) as fixed factors with Baseline Physician Global Activity VAS as a covariate.|Linear Mixed Effect Model||The difference presented is zilucoplan 0.3 mg/kg minus placebo.|||1.448|-1.855|0.800
90976486|NCT04025632|181836978|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.281||||0.221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.39|0.829||Based on a linear model with treatment and strata (anti-HMGCR+/anti-SRP+) as fixed factors with Baseline Patient Global Activity VAS as a covariate.|Linear Mixed Effect Model||The difference presented is zilucoplan 0.3 mg/kg minus placebo.|||0.829|-3.390|0.221
90976487|NCT04025632|181836979|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.147||||0.508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.601|0.307||Based on a linear model with treatment and strata (anti-HMGCR+/anti-SRP+) as fixed factors with Baseline HAQ as a covariate.|Linear Mixed Effect Model||The difference presented is zilucoplan 0.3 mg/kg minus placebo.|||0.307|-0.601|0.508
90976488|NCT04025632|181836980|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.143||||0.765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.123|0.837|||Linear Mixed Effect Model|Based on a linear model with treatment and strata (anti-HMGCR+/anti-SRP+) as fixed factors with Baseline MDAAT as a covariate.|The difference presented is zilucoplan 0.3 mg/kg minus placebo.|||0.837|-1.123|0.765
90976489|NCT04025632|181836981|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|5.53||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.49|15.55||Based on a linear model with treatment and strata (anti-HMGCR+/anti-SRP+) as fixed factors with Baseline FACIT-Fatigue Scale as a covariate.|Linear Mixed Effect Model||The difference presented is zilucoplan 0.3 mg/kg minus placebo.|||15.55|-4.49|0.265
90976490|NCT02216695|181837005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|1.4|||Regression, Logistic||This is OR for 65 to 74 years age group with \< 65 years as the reference group|||1.40|1.30|
90976491|NCT02216695|181837005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|1.79|||Regression, Logistic||This is OR for age group 75 to 84 years age group with \< 65 years as reference|||1.79|1.66|
90976492|NCT02216695|181837005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.89|2.19|||Regression, Logistic||This is OR for age group equal to greater than 85 years age group with \< 65 years as reference|||2.19|1.89|
90945088|NCT04750577|181769764|OTHER|MMRM estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. including the fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit (baseline, Week 6, Week 12 and Week 20), and the continuous effect of baseline at each visit as well as random effects of patient.||||||0.0245|||||||MCP-Mod exponential model fit|Model assumption: 20% of the maximum effect is achieved at 3 mg.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of BI 685509 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential, quadratic, Emax and Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.050). The total daily dose was considered for MCP-Mod analysis (placebo, active BI 685509 3 mg, 6 mg, and 9 mg).||||0.0245
90945089|NCT04750577|181769764|OTHER|MMRM estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. including the fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit (baseline, Week 6, Week 12 and Week 20), and the continuous effect of baseline at each visit as well as random effects of patient.||||||0.0294|||||||MCP-Mod linear model fit|Model assumption: No assumption was needed.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of BI 685509 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential, quadratic, Emax and Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.050). The total daily dose was considered for MCP-Mod analysis (placebo, active BI 685509 3 mg, 6 mg, and 9 mg).||||0.0294
90945090|NCT04750577|181769764|OTHER|A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of BI 685509 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential, quadratic, Emax and Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.050). The total daily dose was considered for MCP-Mod analysis (placebo, active BI 685509 3 mg, 6 mg, and 9 mg).||||||0.0468||||||MMRM estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. including the fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit (baseline, Week 6, Week 12 and Week 20), and the continuous effect of baseline at each visit as well as random effects of patient.|MCP-Mod quadratic model fit|Model assumption: 50 % of the maximum effect is achieved at a dose of 3 mg. 90 % of the maximum effect is achieved at a dose of 6 mg.||||||0.0468
90976493|NCT02216695|181837006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.3|||Regression, Logistic||This is the OR for 1998-2003 discharge period with 2003-08 as the reference group|||1.30|1.10|
90976494|NCT02216695|181837006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.18|||Regression, Logistic||This is the OR for 2008-13 discharge period with 2003-08 as the reference group|||1.18|1.07|
90976495|NCT02591615|181837007|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2176|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2176
90976496|NCT02591615|181837008|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.64|||Log Rank|||||1.64|0.67|0.84
90976497|NCT06062264|181837029|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.06||||||Comparing the risk of receiving an influenza vaccination|Adjusted risk ratio. These results compare arms which received portal-based PCP video reminder messages to the arm receiving standard health system portal messages (control).|1.06|1.00|
90976498|NCT06062264|181837029|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.06|||||Adjusted risk ratio. These results compare arms which received portal-based PCP video reminder messages to the arm receiving standard health system portal messages (control).|Comparing the risk of receiving an influenza vaccination||1.06|0.99|
91037772|NCT00205777|181961009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in Triglycerides: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.85
90976499|NCT05256888|181837032|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||"In a linear model to assess group effects on fatigue at 12 weeks, adjusting for baseline levels of fatigue:~Effect of group = -1.77±1.08, p=0.11, favoring the TRE group."||||0.11
90976500|NCT05195528|181837033|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean|17.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.81|22.45||P-values were obtained from the general linear model with treatment group as factor and severity and frequency of heartburn at baseline as covariates.|General linear model|||||22.45|11.81|<0.0001
90976501|NCT05195528|181837033|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|16.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.36|22.04||P-values were obtained from the general linear model with treatment group as factor and severity and frequency of heartburn at baseline as covariates.|General linear model|||||22.04|11.36|<0.0001
90976502|NCT05195528|181837034|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|15.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.93|21.6||P-values were obtained from the general linear model with treatment group as factor and severity and frequency of heartburn at baseline as covariates.|General linear model|||||21.60|9.93|<0.0001
90976503|NCT05195528|181837034|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|13.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.84|19.54||P-values were obtained from the general linear model with treatment group as factor and severity and frequency of heartburn at baseline as covariates.|General linear model|||||19.54|7.84|<0.0001
90976504|NCT01552902|181837035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LSM|-3.4|||=|0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|-1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The least squares mean (LSM), the difference in LSM and its 95% confidence interval (CI), and the p-value were from a mixed effects model for repeated measures that included treatment group, visit, interaction of the treatment group with the visit as factors, baseline score as a covariate, and an adjustment for the interaction of the baseline score with the visit. The model was based on Restricted maximum likelihood (REML) method of estimation and utilized an unstructured covariance.||-1.3|-5.4|= 0.0013
90976505|NCT01552902|181837035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LSM|-8.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|-6.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The LSM, the difference in LSM and its 95% CI, and the p-value were from a mixed effects model for repeated measures that included treatment group, visit, interaction of the treatment group with the visit as factors, baseline score as a covariate, and an adjustment for the interaction of the baseline score with the visit. The model was based on REML method of estimation and utilized an unstructured covariance.||-6|-11|< 0.0001
90976506|NCT01552902|181837035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LSM|-5.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|-2.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The LSM, the difference in LSM and its 95% CI, and the p-value were from a mixed effects model for repeated measures that includes treatment group, visit, interaction of the treatment group with the visit as factors, baseline score as a covariate, and an adjustment for the interaction of the baseline score with the visit. The model was based on REML method of estimation and utilized an unstructured covariance.||-2.6|-7.6|< 0.0001
90976507|NCT02487108|181837040|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|38.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.931|57.855|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with treatment and center as factors and the baseline pain intensity score as a covariate.||57.855|19.931|<0.001
90976508|NCT02487108|181837040|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|44.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.122|62.881|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with treatment and center as factors and the baseline pain intensity score as a covariate.||62.881|25.122|<0.001
90976509|NCT02487108|181837040|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|53.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.589|72.282|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with treatment and center as factors and the baseline pain intensity score as a covariate.||72.282|34.589|<0.001
91037773|NCT00205777|181961009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in Triglycerides: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.26
90976510|NCT02357420|181837060|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||Measures mixed effects model (MMRM)|MMRM analysis used treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction as fixed factors and baseline values as the covariates.||||||0.36
90976511|NCT02357420|181837060|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||MMRM|MMRM analysis used treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction as fixed factors and baseline values as the covariates.||||||0.25
90976512|NCT02357420|181837060|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||MMRM|MMRM analysis used treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction as fixed factors and baseline values as the covariates.||||||0.59
90976513|NCT01872338|181837070|SUPERIORITY||Incident Rate Ratio|0.5||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.87|||negative binomial regression|||||.87|.29|.015
90976514|NCT01872338|181837071|SUPERIORITY||Incident Rate Ratio|0.43||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.82|||negative binomial regression|||||.82|.22|.01
90976515|NCT01872338|181837072|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Regression, Linear|repeated measures, overall time by condition effect||||||.34
90976516|NCT01872338|181837073|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23||||||repeated measures, overall time by condition effect|Regression, Linear|||||||.23
90976517|NCT01808612|181837078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.73||||0.264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|2.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Approximately 522 participants were to be enrolled. Randomization was to be 2:1:3 (20 mg fluoxetine:40 mg fluoxetine:placebo). Assuming 5% of participants would have missing post-baseline data, the study had 85% power to detect an effect size of 0.33 (20 mg fluoxetine compared to placebo on HAMD21 total score) based on simulations with a 0.05 two-sided significance level.||2.00|-0.55|0.264
90976518|NCT03683394|181837085|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.15||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.26||Adjusted for baseline value, sex, race/ethnicity education, comorbidity score and phone assessment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment effects were estimated using linear mixed models (LMMs) for the changes from baseline to each follow-up assessment.||||0.26|0.04|0.008
90976519|NCT03683394|181837086|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.11||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.21||Adjusted for baseline value, sex, race/ethnicity education, comorbidity score and phone assessment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment effects were estimated using linear mixed models (LMMs) for the changes from baseline to each follow-up assessment.||||0.21|0.02|0.002
90976520|NCT03683394|181837087|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.11||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|2.14||Adjusted for baseline value, sex, race/ethnicity education, comorbidity score and phone assessment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment effects were estimated using linear mixed models (LMMs) for the changes from baseline to each follow-up assessment.||||2.14|0.08|0.03
91037774|NCT00205777|181961009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in Triglycerides: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.33
90976521|NCT03683394|181837088|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.68||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|2.19||Adjusted for age and sex.|Fisher Exact|In an exploratory outcome, we examined incidence of a low CASI score or a diagnosis of MCI or dementia by treatment group.||||2.19|0.19|0.52
90976522|NCT03653390|181837108|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|The ANOVA was conducted on the change scores from baseline to 6 months.||||||<0.01
90976523|NCT03653390|181837108|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.24||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.71|0.22|||Tukey's HSD test|This test inherently adjusts for multiple comparisons.|Difference is calculated as Wellness Education - EnhanceWellness for Disability|||0.22|-2.71|0.11
90976524|NCT03653390|181837108|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.4|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.85|-0.95|||Tukey's HSD test|This test inherently adjusts for multiple comparisons.|Difference is calculated as Control - EnhanceWellness for Disability|||-0.95|-3.85|<0.01
90976525|NCT03653390|181837108|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.16||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.64|0.32|||Tukey's HSD test|This test inherently adjusts for multiple comparisons.|Difference is calculated as Control - Wellness Education|||0.32|-2.64|0.16
90976526|NCT03653390|181837109|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|The ANOVA was conducted on the change scores from baseline to 6 months.||||||<0.01
90976527|NCT03653390|181837109|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.18||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.05|-0.3||This test inherently adjusts for multiple comparisons.|Tukey's HSD test||Difference is calculated as Wellness Education - EnhanceWellness for Disability|||-0.30|-4.05|0.018
90976528|NCT03653390|181837109|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.26||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.12|-0.41||This test inherently adjusts for multiple comparisons.|Tukey's HSD test||Difference is calculated as Control - EnhanceWellness for Disability|||-0.41|-4.12|0.012
90976529|NCT03653390|181837109|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|1.81||This test inherently adjusts for multiple comparisons.|Tukey's HSD test||Difference is calculated as Control - Wellness Education|||1.81|-1.98|0.99
90976530|NCT03653390|181837110|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.382|||||||ANOVA|The ANOVA was conducted on the change scores from baseline to 3 months.||||||0.382
90976531|NCT03653390|181837111|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||ANOVA|The ANOVA was conducted on the change scores from baseline to 3 months.||||||0.29
90976532|NCT03653390|181837112|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.057|||||||ANOVA|The ANOVA was conducted on the change scores from baseline to 3 months.||||||0.057
90976533|NCT03653390|181837113|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||ANOVA|The ANOVA was conducted on the change in number of trips from baseline to 12 months.||||||0.21
90976534|NCT03653390|181837114|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||ANOVA|The ANOVA was conducted on the change in radius of gyration from baseline to 12 months.||||||0.79
90976535|NCT03653390|181837115|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||ANOVA|The ANOVA was conducted on the change in number of trips from baseline to 12 months.||||||0.26
90976536|NCT03653390|181837116|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|The ANOVA was conducted on the change in minutes from baseline to 12 months.||||||<0.01
90976537|NCT03653390|181837116|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-28.7||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-95.7|38.4||This test inherently adjusts for multiple comparisons.|Tukey's HSD test||Difference is calculated as Wellness Education - EnhanceWellness for Disability|||38.4|-95.7|0.57
90976538|NCT03653390|181837116|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|66.6||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|132.6||This test inherently adjusts for multiple comparisons.|Tukey's HSD test||Difference is calculated as Control - EnhanceWellness for Disability|||132.6|0.56|0.048
90976539|NCT03653390|181837116|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|95.3|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.8|158.7||This test inherently adjusts for multiple comparisons.|Tukey's HSD test||Difference is calculated as Control - Wellness Education|||158.7|31.8|<0.01
90976540|NCT03653390|181837117|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|The ANOVA was conducted on the change scores from baseline to 12 months.||||||<0.01
90976541|NCT03653390|181837117|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.55||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.97|-0.13||This test inherently adjusts for multiple comparisons.|Tukey's HSD test||Difference is calculated as Wellness Education - EnhanceWellness for Disability|||-0.13|-2.97|0.028
90976542|NCT03653390|181837117|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.15|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.55|-0.75|||Tukey's HSD test||Difference is calculated as Control - EnhanceWellness for Disability|||-0.75|-3.55|<0.01
90976543|NCT03653390|181837117|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.03|0.83||This test inherently adjusts for multiple comparisons.|Tukey's HSD test||Difference is calculated as Control - Wellness Education|||0.83|-2.03|0.59
90976544|NCT02769728|181837119|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05||||0.001
90976545|NCT02769728|181837120|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.081||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Friedman test|||||||0.081
90976546|NCT02769728|181837121|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.114||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Friedman test|||||||0.114
90976547|NCT02769728|181837122|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.021||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Friedman test|||||||0.021
90976548|NCT02769728|181837123|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Friedman test|||||||1.00
90976549|NCT00849667|181837124|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.4513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.21|||Log Rank|One-sided log rank test||||1.21|0.81|0.4513
90976550|NCT00849667|181837124|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.0761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.06|||Log Rank|One-sided log rank test||||1.06|0.70|0.0761
90976551|NCT00849667|181837125|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.4823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.27|||Log Rank|One-sided log rank test||||1.27|0.78|0.4823
90976552|NCT00849667|181837125|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.1616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.13|||Log Rank|One-sided log rank test||||1.13|0.68|0.1616
90976553|NCT00849667|181837126|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.2938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.21|||Log Rank|One-sided log-rank test||||1.21|0.72|0.2938
90976554|NCT00849667|181837126|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.0318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.02|||Log Rank|One-sided log-rank test||||1.02|0.58|0.0318
90976555|NCT00849667|181837127|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.5636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.21|||Log Rank|One-sided log-rank test||||1.21|0.85|0.5636
90976556|NCT00849667|181837127|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.09|||Log Rank|One-sided log-rank test||||1.09|0.76|0.1560
90976557|NCT00849667|181837129|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|1.8||||0.6864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|9.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||9.0|-5.4|0.6864
90976558|NCT00849667|181837129|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|2.4||||0.4923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|9.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||9.6|-4.8|0.4923
90976559|NCT00849667|181837132|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-0.4||||0.8106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|4.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||50% serological response||4.1|-4.9|0.8106
90976560|NCT00849667|181837132|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|5.1||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|8.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||50% serological response||8.8|1.4|0.0064
90976561|NCT00849667|181837132|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|4.1||||0.3005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|10.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||75% serological response||10.2|-2.0|0.3005
90976562|NCT00849667|181837132|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|3.7||||0.2445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|9.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||75% serological response||9.9|-2.5|0.2445
90976563|NCT00849667|181837132|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|5.3||||0.2797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|13.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Serologic response leading to normalization||13.4|-2.8|0.2797
90976564|NCT00849667|181837132|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|4.9||||0.2136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|13.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Serologic response leading to normalization||13.0|-3.2|0.2136
90976565|NCT01262625|181837152|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|the pre-defined non-inferiority margin of 1.25|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.75|||Regression, Cox|||||1.75|0.61|0.19
90976566|NCT01262625|181837153|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||DeLong|(DeLong et al 1988)||||||0.08
90976567|NCT01262625|181837153|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||DeLong|(DeLong et al 1988)||||||0.02
90976568|NCT00110994|181837156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.665||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.428|1.034|||log rank test|||||1.034|0.428|0.068
90976569|NCT00110994|181837157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.992||||0.973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.627|1.57|||log rank test|||||1.570|0.627|0.973
90976570|NCT00110994|181837159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.619||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.391|0.98|||log rank test|||||0.980|0.391|0.039
90976571|NCT00110994|181837160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.427||||0.194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.114|1.601|||log rank test|||||1.601|0.114|0.194
90976572|NCT00110994|181837162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.908||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.908
90976573|NCT00110994|181837163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.890
90976574|NCT00110994|181837164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.201||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.201
90976575|NCT00110994|181837165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.168||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.168
90976576|NCT04398732|181837166|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis was performed on change from Baseline in percent BSA at Month 12.||||0.0001
90976577|NCT04398732|181837167|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis was performed on change from baseline in DLQI at Month 12.||||0.0001
90976578|NCT04398732|181837168|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis was performed on change from baseline in PASI at Month 12.||||0.0001
90976579|NCT04398732|181837169|OTHER|||||||0.036|||||||Student's t-test|||Baseline||||0.036
90976580|NCT04398732|181837169|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Student's t-test|||Month 4||||0.0001
90976581|NCT04398732|181837169|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Student's t-test|||Month 12||||0.0001
90976582|NCT04398732|181837170|OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||Student's t-test|||Baseline||||0.42
90976583|NCT04398732|181837170|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Student's t-test|||Month 4||||0.0001
90976584|NCT04398732|181837170|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Student's t-test|||Month 12||||0.0001
90976585|NCT04398732|181837171|OTHER|||||||0.72|||||||Student's t-test|||Baseline||||0.72
90976586|NCT04398732|181837171|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Student's t-test|||Month 4||||0.0001
90976587|NCT04398732|181837171|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Student's t-test|||Month 12||||0.0001
90976588|NCT04398732|181837172|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis was performed on change from Baseline in percent BSA at Month 4.||||0.0001
90976589|NCT04398732|181837173|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis was performed on change from baseline in DLQI at Month 4.||||0.0001
90976590|NCT04398732|181837174|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis was performed on change from baseline in PASI at Month 4.||||0.0001
90976591|NCT00464204|181837180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-331.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1033.0||0.0185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-640.0|-21.0||One-sided t-test assuming unequal variances (as variances were significantly different between treatment groups).No multiple comparisons were made. A priori threshold for statistical significance for the confirmatory analysis on FAS: 0.025 one-sided.|t-test, 1 sided||Considered difference: Voluven® minus NaCl 0.9 %|"Null-hypothesis: The amount of study drug required to achieve initial hemodynamic stabilization in patients treated with Voluven® is higher than or equal to this amount in patients treated with NaCl.~Alternative hypothesis: The amount of study drug required to achieve initial hemodynamic stabilization is lower in patients treated with Voluven® than in patients treated with NaCl."||-21|-640|0.0185
90976592|NCT05384041|181837195|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.056|||||||Regression, Linear|||Intent to Treat analyses||||0.056
90976593|NCT05384041|181837196|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.048|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference (Active - Control) at Week 1||||0.048
90976594|NCT05384041|181837197|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2595|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 1||||0.2595
90976595|NCT05384041|181837197|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1286|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 2||||0.1286
90976596|NCT05384041|181837197|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1449|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 4||||0.1449
90976597|NCT05384041|181837198|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2065|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 1||||0.2065
90976598|NCT05384041|181837198|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1349|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 2||||0.1349
90976599|NCT05384041|181837198|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1142|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 4||||0.1142
90976600|NCT05384041|181837199|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.231|||||||Chi-squared|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 1||||0.231
90976601|NCT05384041|181837199|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.192|||||||Chi-squared|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 2||||0.192
90976602|NCT05384041|181837199|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.045|||||||Chi-squared|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 4||||0.045
90976603|NCT05384041|181837201|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.005
90976604|NCT05384041|181837202|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0026|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 1||||0.0026
90976605|NCT05384041|181837202|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4706|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 1||||0.4706
90976606|NCT05384041|181837202|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0197|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 2||||0.0197
90976607|NCT05384041|181837202|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4858|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 2||||0.4858
90976608|NCT05384041|181837202|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0183|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 4||||0.0183
90976609|NCT05384041|181837202|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7885|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 4||||0.7885
91037775|NCT00205777|181961009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in Triglycerides: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.22
91037776|NCT00205777|181961009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in Triglycerides: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.86
91037777|NCT00205777|181961009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in Triglycerides: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.65
91037778|NCT00205777|181961009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in Triglycerides: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||1.00
91037779|NCT00205777|181961009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in Triglycerides: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.44
91037780|NCT00205777|181961009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.058||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in Triglycerides: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.058
91037781|NCT00205777|181961009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in Triglycerides: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.55
90976610|NCT05384041|181837203|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 1||||<0.001
90976611|NCT05384041|181837203|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 1||||0.450
90976612|NCT05384041|181837203|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 2||||0.008
90976613|NCT05384041|181837203|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.438|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 2||||0.438
90976614|NCT05384041|181837203|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 4||||0.016
90976615|NCT05384041|181837203|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.355|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 4||||0.355
90976616|NCT05384041|181837204|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 1||||0.046
90976617|NCT05384041|181837204|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.351|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 1||||0.351
90976618|NCT05384041|181837204|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.053|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 2||||0.053
90976619|NCT05384041|181837204|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 2||||0.120
90976620|NCT05384041|181837204|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 4||||0.170
90976621|NCT05384041|181837204|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.122|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 4||||0.122
90976622|NCT05384041|181837205|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.044|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 1||||0.044
90976623|NCT05384041|181837205|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.751|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 1||||0.751
90976624|NCT05384041|181837205|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 2||||0.013
90976625|NCT05384041|181837205|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.318|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 2||||0.318
90976626|NCT05384041|181837205|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.173|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 4||||0.173
90976627|NCT05384041|181837205|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.142|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 4||||0.142
90976628|NCT05384041|181837206|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.026|||||||Chi-squared|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 1||||0.026
91037782|NCT00205777|181961009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in Triglycerides: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.34
91037783|NCT00205777|181961009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in Triglycerides: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.96
91037784|NCT00205777|181961009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.058||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in Triglycerides: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.058
91037785|NCT00205777|181961009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in Triglycerides: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.031
91037786|NCT00205777|181961009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.054||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in Triglycerides: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.054
91037787|NCT00205777|181961009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in Triglycerides: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.62
91037788|NCT00205777|181961009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in Triglycerides: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.99
91037789|NCT00205777|181961009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in Triglycerides: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.11
91037790|NCT00205777|181961009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in Triglycerides: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.33
91037791|NCT00205777|181961009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in Triglycerides: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.65
91037792|NCT00205777|181961010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97|||||||ANOVA|||BV: P value was calculated using Analysis of Variance (ANOVA).||||0.97
91037793|NCT00205777|181961010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||BV: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.19
90976629|NCT05384041|181837206|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.241|||||||Chi-squared|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 1||||0.241
90976630|NCT05384041|181837206|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.059|||||||Chi-squared|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 2||||0.059
90976631|NCT05384041|181837206|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.478|||||||Chi-squared|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 2||||0.478
90976632|NCT05384041|181837206|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||Chi-squared|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 4||||0.009
90976633|NCT05384041|181837206|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.729|||||||Chi-squared|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 4||||0.729
90976634|NCT05384041|181837207|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.044|||||||Chi-squared|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 1||||0.044
90976635|NCT05384041|181837207|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.067|||||||Chi-squared|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 2||||0.067
90976636|NCT05384041|181837207|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016|||||||Chi-squared|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 4||||0.016
90976637|NCT05384041|181837207|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||Chi-squared|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 1||||0.006
91037794|NCT00205777|181961010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||BV: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.74
91037795|NCT00205777|181961010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||BV: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.79
91037796|NCT00205777|181961010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||ANOVA|||BV: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.11
90976638|NCT05384041|181837207|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036|||||||Chi-squared|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 2||||0.036
90976639|NCT05384041|181837207|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016|||||||Chi-squared|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 4||||0.016
90976640|NCT05384041|181837207|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.914|||||||Chi-squared|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 1||||0.914
91037797|NCT00205777|181961010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78|||||||ANOVA|||OV: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.78
90976641|NCT05384041|181837207|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.887|||||||Chi-squared|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 2||||0.887
90976642|NCT05384041|181837207|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.791|||||||Chi-squared|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 4||||0.791
90976643|NCT02086331|181837208|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Intraclass correlation of repeated measures - 0.96, p=0.08|||
90976644|NCT02532855|181837219|NON_INFERIORITY|For the primary hypothesis, sitagliptin will be considered non-inferior to dapagliflozin if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the between-group difference in least squares mean change from baseline in A1C (sitagliptin minus dapagliflozin) is less than 0.3% (the non-inferiority margin). Longitudinal data analysis (LDA), Antihyperglycemic agent (AHA), Least squares means (LSM)|Difference in LSM (Sit. - Dap.)|-0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|-0.04||||LDA model including terms for treatment, time, background AHA, the interaction of time and background AHA, and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-0.04|-0.26|
90976645|NCT02532855|181837219|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM (Sit. - Dap.)|-0.15||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|-0.04|||Longitudinal data analysis|LDA model including terms for treatment, time, background AHA, the interaction of time and background AHA, and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-0.04|-0.26|0.006
90976646|NCT02532855|181837220|OTHER||Difference in % (Sit. - Dap.)|-2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|5.1||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method||||5.1|-10.7|
90976647|NCT02532855|181837221|OTHER||Difference in % (Sit. - Dap.)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|3.0||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method||||3.0|-3.0|
90976648|NCT02532855|181837222|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM (Sit. - Dap.)|-5.7||||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|1.8|||LDA|LDA model including terms for treatment, time, background AHA, the interaction of time and background AHA, and the interaction of time by treatment.||||1.8|-13.3|0.138
90976649|NCT02532855|181837223|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the LSM (Sit. - Dap.)|-3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|5.3||||The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, background AHA, and the baseline 2-hour PPG value as a covariate.||||5.3|-12.1|
90976650|NCT02532855|181837224|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the LSM (Sit. - Dap.)|-4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|1.4||||The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, background AHA, and the baseline glucagon AUC value as a covariate.||||1.4|-10.1|
90976651|NCT02532855|181837225|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the LSM (Sit. - Dap.)|4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|22.0||||The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, background AHA, and the baseline insulin AUC value as a covariate.||||22.0|-12.2|
90976652|NCT02532855|181837226|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the LSM (Sit. - Dap.)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.3||||The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, background AHA, and the baseline insulin AUC to glucagon AUC ratio value as a covariate.||||1.3|-0.1|
90976653|NCT02532855|181837227|OTHER|The percentage of participants was estimated using standard multiple imputation techniques from LDA model including terms for treatment, time, background AHA, the interaction of time and background AHA, and the interaction of time by treatment.|Difference in % (Sit. - Dap.)|15.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|23.2||||Miettinen and Nurminen (M\&N) method with multiple imputation from a LDA Model.||||23.2|7.7|
90976654|NCT02532855|181837228|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the LSM (Sit. - Dap.)|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|8.3||||LDA model including terms for treatment, time, background AHA, the interaction of time and background AHA, and the interaction of time by treatment.||||8.3|-1.2|
91037798|NCT00205777|181961010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||ANOVA|||OV: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.90
91037799|NCT00205777|181961010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||ANOVA|||OV: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.33
91037800|NCT00205777|181961010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51|||||||ANOVA|||OV: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.51
91037801|NCT00205777|181961010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||ANOVA|||OV: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.28
91037802|NCT00205777|181961010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86|||||||ANOVA|||OS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.86
91037803|NCT00205777|181961010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||ANOVA|||OS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.60
91037804|NCT00205777|181961010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84|||||||ANOVA|||OS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.84
91037805|NCT00205777|181961010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98|||||||ANOVA|||OS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.98
91037806|NCT00205777|181961010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47|||||||ANOVA|||OS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.47
91037807|NCT00205777|181961010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|||||||ANOVA|||OcS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.59
90945091|NCT04750577|181769764|OTHER|MMRM estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. including the fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit (baseline, Week 6, Week 12 and Week 20), and the continuous effect of baseline at each visit as well as random effects of patient.||||||0.0586|||||||MCP-Mod Emax model fit|Model assumption: 80% of the maximum effect is achieved at 6 mg.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of BI 685509 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential, quadratic, Emax and Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.050). The total daily dose was considered for MCP-Mod analysis (placebo, active BI 685509 3 mg, 6 mg, and 9 mg).||||0.0586
90945092|NCT04750577|181769764|OTHER|MMRM estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. including the fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit (baseline, Week 6, Week 12 and Week 20), and the continuous effect of baseline at each visit as well as random effects of patient.||||||0.0659|||||||MCP-Mod Sigmoid emax model fit|Model assumption: 30 % of the maximum effect is achieved at a dose of 3 mg. 90 % of the maximum effect is achieved at a dose of 6 mg.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of BI 685509 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential, quadratic, Emax and Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.050). The total daily dose was considered for MCP-Mod analysis (placebo, active BI 685509 3 mg, 6 mg, and 9 mg).||||0.0659
90945093|NCT04750577|181769764|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.103||||0.3224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.309|0.102|||Mixed-effect Model Repeat Measurement||"Least Squares Mean of 1 mg BI 685509 TID- Least Squares Mean ofPlacebo"|Least Square Means difference and 95% confidence interval were estimated by restricted maximum likelihood based Mixed-effect Model for Repeated Measures ((REML)-based MMRM) including the fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit (baseline, Week 6, Week 12 and Week 20), and the continuous effect of baseline at each visit (Week 6, Week 12 and Week 20) as well as random effects of patient.||0.102|-0.309|0.3224
90945094|NCT04750577|181769764|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.063||||0.5616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.275|0.15|||Mixed-effect Model Repeat Measurement||"Least Squares Mean of 2 mg BI 685509 TID- Least Squares Mean of Placebo"|Least Square Means difference and 95% confidence interval were estimated by restricted maximum likelihood based Mixed-effect Model for Repeated Measures ((REML)-based MMRM) including the fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit (baseline, Week 6, Week 12 and Week 20), and the continuous effect of baseline at each visit (Week 6, Week 12 and Week 20) as well as random effects of patient.||0.150|-0.275|0.5616
90945095|NCT04750577|181769764|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.251||||0.0183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.459|-0.043|||Mixed-effect Model Repeat Measurement||"Least Squares Mean of 3 mg BI 685509 TID- Least Squares Mean of Placebo"|Least Square Means difference and 95% confidence interval were estimated by restricted maximum likelihood based Mixed-effect Model for Repeated Measures ((REML)-based MMRM) including the fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit (baseline, Week 6, Week 12 and Week 20), and the continuous effect of baseline at each visit (Week 6, Week 12 and Week 20) as well as random effects of patient.||-0.043|-0.459|0.0183
90945096|NCT04750577|181769765|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.211||||0.0396|TWO_SIDED|0.95|-0.413|-0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Least Squares Mean of 1 mg BI 685509 TID- Least Squares Mean of Placebo"|Least Square Means difference and 95% confidence interval were estimated by restricted maximum likelihood based Mixed-effect Model for Repeated Measures ((REML)-based MMRM) including the fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit (baseline, Week 6, Week 12 and Week 20), and the continuous effect of baseline at each visit (Week 6, Week 12 and Week 20) as well as random effects of patient.||-0.010|-0.413|0.0396
90945097|NCT04750577|181769765|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12||||0.2568|TWO_SIDED|0.95|-0.327|0.088|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Least Squares Mean of 2 mg BI 685509 TID- Least Squares Mean of Placebo"|Least Square Means difference and 95% confidence interval were estimated by restricted maximum likelihood based Mixed-effect Model for Repeated Measures ((REML)-based MMRM) including the fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit (baseline, Week 6, Week 12 and Week 20), and the continuous effect of baseline at each visit (Week 6, Week 12 and Week 20) as well as random effects of patient.||0.088|-0.327|0.2568
90945098|NCT04750577|181769765|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.357||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|0.95|-0.56|-0.154|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Least Squares Mean of 3 mg BI 685509 TID- Least Squares Mean of Placebo"|Least Square Means difference and 95% confidence interval were estimated by restricted maximum likelihood based Mixed-effect Model for Repeated Measures ((REML)-based MMRM) including the fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit (baseline, Week 6, Week 12 and Week 20), and the continuous effect of baseline at each visit (Week 6, Week 12 and Week 20) as well as random effects of patient.||-0.154|-0.560|0.0006
90976655|NCT00666926|181837242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (percent) test / reference|155.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|109.66|220.95|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means Day 21 versus Day 1. Values have been transformed from the log scale.|Participants in the PF-00562271 125 mg BID cohort who received MDZ (test) administered prior to PF-00562271 (reference) dosing.||220.95|109.66|
90976656|NCT00666926|181837243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (percent) test / reference|315.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|227.6|437.97|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means Day 21 versus Day 1. Values have been transformed from the log scale.|Participants in the PF-00562271 125 mg BID cohort who received MDZ (test) administered prior to PF-00562271 (reference) dosing.||437.97|227.60|
90976657|NCT00666926|181837244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (percent) test / reference|496.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|206.24|1195.92|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means Day 21 versus Day 1. Values have been transformed from the log scale.|Participants in the PF-00562271 125 mg BID cohort who received MDZ (test) administered prior to PF-00562271 (reference) dosing.||1195.92|206.24|
90976658|NCT01960855|181837253|OTHER||||||=|0.033|||||||Chi-squared|||||||= 0.033
90976659|NCT01960855|181837253|OTHER||||||=|0.004|||||||Chi-squared|||||||= 0.004
90976660|NCT01960855|181837253|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
90976661|NCT01960855|181837253|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
90976662|NCT01960855|181837254|OTHER||||||=|0.364|||||||Chi-squared|||||||= 0.364
90976663|NCT01960855|181837254|OTHER||||||=|0.014|||||||Chi-squared|||||||= 0.014
90976664|NCT01960855|181837254|OTHER||||||=|0.003|||||||Chi-squared|||||||= 0.003
90976665|NCT01960855|181837254|OTHER||||||=|0.008|||||||Chi-squared|||||||= 0.008
90976666|NCT01960855|181837255|OTHER||||||=|0.093|||||||Chi-squared|||||||= 0.093
90976667|NCT01960855|181837255|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
90976668|NCT01960855|181837255|OTHER||||||=|0.004|||||||Chi-squared|||||||= 0.004
90976669|NCT01960855|181837255|OTHER||||||=|0.004|||||||Chi-squared|||||||= 0.004
90976670|NCT01960855|181837256|OTHER||||||=|0.366|||||||Chi-squared|||||||= 0.366
90976671|NCT01960855|181837256|OTHER||||||=|0.17|||||||Chi-squared|||||||= 0.17
90976672|NCT01960855|181837256|OTHER||||||=|0.003|||||||Chi-squared|||||||= 0.003
90976673|NCT01960855|181837256|OTHER||||||=|0.028|||||||Chi-squared|||||||= 0.028
90976674|NCT01960855|181837257|OTHER||||||=|0.126|||||||Chi-squared|||||||= 0.126
90976675|NCT01960855|181837257|OTHER||||||=|0.072|||||||Chi-squared|||||||= 0.072
90976676|NCT01960855|181837257|OTHER||||||=|0.012|||||||Chi-squared|||||||= 0.012
90976677|NCT01960855|181837257|OTHER||||||=|0.021|||||||Chi-squared|||||||= 0.021
91037808|NCT00205777|181961010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||ANOVA|||OcS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.13
91037809|NCT00205777|181961010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65|||||||ANOVA|||OcS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.65
91037810|NCT00205777|181961010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||ANOVA|||OcS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.33
91037811|NCT00205777|181961010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.053|||||||ANOVA|||OcS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.053
90976678|NCT00330187|181837284|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.6||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|14.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||14.4|0.9|0.07
90976679|NCT01751971|181837285|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|10.5||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|37.1|||t-test, 2 sided||Positive estimated value would represent a greater reduction in AHI with oxygen (% sham) in the high vs low loop gain group.|"Primary statistical comparison was the percent reduction in AHI----\[AHI(sham)-AHI(oxygen)\]/AHI(sham) %----between two phenotypic patient subgroups. Patient subgroups were defined by the loop gain (LG1) measured on the sham night as high or low (a priori cutoff LG1=0.7)."||37.1|-16|0.4
90976680|NCT01751971|181837285|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.7|24.1|||t-test, 2 sided||Direction of comparison: Positive estimation parameter would indicate lower AHI on oxygen versus sham.|Here we aimed to confirm that there was a difference between AHI on oxygen vs sham (overall, i.e. in unselected patients). This test, however was not part of our primary objective.||24.1|10.7|<0.001
90976681|NCT01751971|181837285|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|42.8||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.0|64.6|||t-test, 2 sided||Direction of comparison: Positive estimated value would indicate a greater percentage reduction in AHI (oxygen vs. sham) in favorable vs. unfavorable subgroups.|"The primary goal of the study was to identify a phenotypic subgroup of patients with sleep apnea that responds preferentially to oxygen (percent reduction in AHI----\[AHI(sham)-AHI(oxygen)\]/AHI(sham) %). We defined patient subgroups (favorable versus unfavorable) based on the four key phenotypic traits (loop gain, collapsibility, arousal threshold, muscle responses) measured on the sham night, with the use of multiple logistic regression and leave-one-out cross validation."||64.6|21.0|0.001
90976682|NCT01162421|181837299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-1.3||||0.907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.4|20.8|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||||20.8|-23.4|0.907
90976683|NCT01162421|181837300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|3.2||||0.762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|24.1|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 6||24.1|-17.7|0.762
90976684|NCT01162421|181837300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-5.3||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.1|17.5|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 24||17.5|-28.1|0.650
90976685|NCT01162421|181837301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.382||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|-0.1||P-values are two-sided and are based on repeated measures ANCOVA model with treatment group and visit as the fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|The a priori threshold for statistical significance is P= 0.05.||Month 6||-0.10|-1.62|0.027
90976686|NCT01162421|181837301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.667||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.79|-0.12||P-values are two-sided and are based on repeated measures ANCOVA model with treatment group and visit as the fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|The a priori threshold for statistical significance is P= 0.05.||Month 12||-0.12|-2.79|0.033
90976687|NCT01162421|181837301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.403||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.05|0.6||P-values are two-sided and are based on repeated measures ANCOVA model with treatment group and visit as the fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 24||0.60|-5.05|0.120
90976688|NCT01162421|181837302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-11.7||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.0|1.6||P-value is based on two sided Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact||Confidence interval is based on Wilson confidence limits.|||1.6|-27.0|0.095
90976689|NCT01162421|181837303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|12.1||||0.281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.79|33.97|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 3||33.97|-9.79|0.281
90976690|NCT01162421|181837303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|27.0||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.98|48.93||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is P=0.05.|Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 6||48.93|4.98|0.021
91037812|NCT00205777|181961010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51|||||||ANOVA|||ObS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.51
91037813|NCT00205777|181961010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||ANOVA|||ObS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.50
91037814|NCT00205777|181961010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||ANOVA|||ObS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.27
91037815|NCT00205777|181961010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.091|||||||ANOVA|||ObS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.091
91037816|NCT00205777|181961010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.087|||||||ANOVA|||ObS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.087
91037817|NCT00205777|181961010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82|||||||ANOVA|||MS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.82
91037818|NCT00205777|181961010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82|||||||ANOVA|||MS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.82
91037819|NCT00205777|181961010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||ANOVA|||MS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.12
90976691|NCT01162421|181837303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|6.7||||0.552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.29|28.63|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 9||28.63|-15.29|0.552
90976692|NCT01162421|181837303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-12.2||||0.281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.04|9.72|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 12||9.72|-34.04|0.281
90976693|NCT01162421|181837303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-14.4||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.64|7.78|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 18||7.78|-36.64|0.209
90976694|NCT01162421|181837303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-19.6||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.74|2.62|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 24||2.62|-41.74|0.091
90976695|NCT01162421|181837304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|15.6||||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.05|36.26|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 3||36.26|-5.05|0.148
90976696|NCT01162421|181837304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|20.7||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|41.61|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 6||41.61|-0.14|0.060
90976697|NCT01162421|181837304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|8.7||||0.451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.85|31.29|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 9||31.29|-13.85|0.451
90976698|NCT01162421|181837304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|9.3||||0.413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.82|31.43|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 12||31.43|-12.82|0.413
90976699|NCT01162421|181837304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-7.3||||0.528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.74|15.23|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 18||15.23|-29.74|0.528
90976700|NCT01162421|181837304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-9.5||||0.399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.61|12.56|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 24||12.56|-31.61|0.399
90976701|NCT01162421|181837305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|12.5||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|27.06|||Fisher Exact|||Month 3||27.06|-1.70|0.111
91037820|NCT00205777|181961010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.085|||||||ANOVA|||MS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.085
91037821|NCT00205777|181961010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||ANOVA|||MS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.080
91037822|NCT00205777|181961010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||ANOVA|||ES: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.24
91037823|NCT00205777|181961010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035|||||||ANOVA|||ES: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.035
91037824|NCT00205777|181961010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024|||||||ANOVA|||ES: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.024
90976702|NCT01162421|181837305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|19.6||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.74|36.53||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is P=0.05.|Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 6||36.53|2.74|0.031
90976703|NCT01162421|181837305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|2.8||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.74|22.31|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 9||22.31|-16.74|0.780
90976704|NCT01162421|181837305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|16.5||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|35.04|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 12||35.04|-2.07|0.092
91037825|NCT00205777|181961010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||ANOVA|||ES: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.30
91037826|NCT00205777|181961010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89|||||||ANOVA|||ES: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.89
90976705|NCT01162421|181837305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|10.8||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.86|30.4|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 18||30.40|-8.86|0.290
90976706|NCT01162421|181837305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-16.9||||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.86|4.01|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 24||4.01|-37.86|0.116
90976707|NCT01162421|181837306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|-1.2||P-values are two-sided and are based on repeated measures ANCOVA model with treatment group and visit as the fixed effects and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|The a priori threshold for statistical significance is P=0.01.||Month 3||-1.2|-5.9|0.004
91037827|NCT00205777|181961010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||ANOVA|||OMS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.80
91037828|NCT00205777|181961010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75|||||||ANOVA|||OMS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.75
91037829|NCT00205777|181961010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||ANOVA|||OMS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.060
91037830|NCT00205777|181961010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||ANOVA|||OMS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.12
91037831|NCT00205777|181961010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||ANOVA|||OMS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.13
91037832|NCT00205777|181961010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78|||||||ANOVA|||CP: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.78
91037833|NCT00205777|181961010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||ANOVA|||CP: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.70
91037834|NCT00205777|181961010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98|||||||ANOVA|||CP: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.98
91037835|NCT00205777|181961010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76||95.0|||||ANOVA|||CP: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.76
91037836|NCT00205777|181961010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73|||||||ANOVA|||CP: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.73
91037837|NCT00205777|181961011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||ANOVA|||BV: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.70
91037838|NCT00205777|181961011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65|||||||ANOVA|||BV: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.65
91037839|NCT00205777|181961011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||ANOVA|||OV: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.006
91037840|NCT00205777|181961011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||ANOVA|||OV: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.010
91037841|NCT00205777|181961011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||OS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.050
91037842|NCT00205777|181961011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.045||95.0|||||ANOVA|||OS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.045
91037843|NCT00205777|181961011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||95.0|||||ANOVA|||OcS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.18
90976708|NCT01162421|181837306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|-2.3||P-values are two-sided and are based on repeated measures ANCOVA model with treatment group and visit as the fixed effects and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|The a priori threshold for statistical significance is P=0.001.||Month 6||-2.3|-6.8|<0.001
90976709|NCT01162421|181837306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|-0.4||P-values are two-sided and are based on repeated measures ANCOVA model with treatment group and visit as the fixed effects and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|The a priori threshold for statistical significance is P=0.05.||Month 9||-0.4|-5.1|0.021
91037844|NCT00205777|181961011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.56||95.0|||||ANOVA|||OcS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.56
91037845|NCT00205777|181961011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14||95.0|||||ANOVA|||ObS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.14
91037846|NCT00205777|181961011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22||95.0|||||ANOVA|||ObS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.22
91037847|NCT00205777|181961011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11||95.0|||||ANOVA|||MS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.11
90976710|NCT01162421|181837306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-0.1||P-values are two-sided and are based on repeated measures ANCOVA model with treatment group and visit as the fixed effects and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|The a priori threshold for statistical significance is P=0.05.||Month 12||-0.1|-4.0|0.037
90976711|NCT01162421|181837306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.58||0.702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|2.5||P-values are two-sided and are based on repeated measures ANCOVA model with treatment group and visit as the fixed effects and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 18||2.5|-3.7|0.702
90976712|NCT01162421|181837306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15||0.644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|1.8||P-values are two-sided and are based on repeated measures ANCOVA model with treatment group and visit as the fixed effects and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 24||1.8|-2.8|0.644
90976713|NCT01162421|181837307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|-0.1||P-values are two-sided and are based on repeated measures ANCOVA model with treatment group and visit as the fixed effects and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|The a priori threshold for statistical significance is P=0.05.||Month 3||-0.1|-3.7|0.039
90976714|NCT01162421|181837307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|-1.8||P-values are two-sided and are based on repeated measures ANCOVA model with treatment group and visit as the fixed effects and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|The a priori threshold for statistical significance is P=0.001.||Month 6||-1.8|-5.0|<0.001
91037848|NCT00205777|181961011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.055||95.0|||||ANOVA|||MS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.055
91037849|NCT00205777|181961011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.069||95.0|||||ANOVA|||ES: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.069
91037850|NCT00205777|181961011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28||95.0|||||ANOVA|||ES: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.28
91037851|NCT00205777|181961011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62||95.0|||||ANOVA|||OMS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.62
90976715|NCT01162421|181837307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|-0.6||P-values are two-sided and are based on repeated measures ANCOVA model with treatment group and visit as the fixed effects and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|The a priori threshold for statistical significance is P=0.01.||Month 9||-0.6|-3.8|0.008
90976716|NCT01162421|181837307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-0.2||P-values are two-sided and are based on repeated measures ANCOVA model with treatment group and visit as the fixed effects and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|The a priori threshold for statistical significance is P=0.05.||Month 12||-0.2|-3.0|0.028
90976717|NCT01162421|181837307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94||0.452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|1.2||P-values are two-sided and are based on repeated measures ANCOVA model with treatment group and visit as the fixed effects and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 18||1.2|-2.6|0.452
90976718|NCT01162421|181837307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.8||P-values are two-sided and are based on repeated measures ANCOVA model with treatment group and visit as the fixed effects and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 24||0.8|-2.3|0.343
91037852|NCT00205777|181961011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96||95.0|||||ANOVA|||OMS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.96
91037853|NCT00205777|181961012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||WTh: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.22
90976719|NCT01162421|181837308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|1.7||P-values are two-sided and are based on repeated measures ANCOVA model with treatment group and visit as the fixed effects and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 3||1.7|-7.3|0.220
91037854|NCT00205777|181961012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.087|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||WTh: p-value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.087
91037855|NCT00205777|181961012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||WTh: p-value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.37
91037856|NCT00205777|181961012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||WTh: p-value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.73
91037857|NCT00205777|181961012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||WTh: p-value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.41
91037858|NCT00205777|181961012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.085||95.0|||||ANOVA|||OTh: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.085
91037859|NCT00205777|181961012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15||95.0|||||ANOVA|||OTh: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.15
91037860|NCT00205777|181961012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71||95.0|||||ANOVA|||OTh: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.71
91037861|NCT00205777|181961012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.042||95.0|||||ANOVA|||OTh: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.042
91037862|NCT00205777|181961012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.077||95.0|||||ANOVA|||OTh: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.077
91037863|NCT00205777|181961012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35||95.0|||||ANOVA|||TbTh: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.35
91037864|NCT00205777|181961012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12||95.0|||||ANOVA|||TbTh: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.12
91037865|NCT00205777|181961012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41||95.0|||||ANOVA|||TbTh: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.41
91037866|NCT00205777|181961012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9||95.0|||||ANOVA|||TbTh: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.90
91037867|NCT00205777|181961012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46||95.0|||||ANOVA|||TbTh: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.46
91037868|NCT00205777|181961012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||95.0|||||ANOVA|||TbSp: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.18
90976720|NCT01162421|181837308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.92|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|-3.3||P-values are two-sided and are based on repeated measures ANCOVA model with treatment group and visit as the fixed effects and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|The a priori threshold for statistical significance is P=0.001.||Month 6||-3.3|-11.0|<0.001
90976721|NCT01162421|181837308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.87||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|0.0||P-values are two-sided and are based on repeated measures ANCOVA model with treatment group and visit as the fixed effects and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|The a priori threshold for statistical significance is P=0.05.||Month 9||0.0|-7.5|0.050
90976722|NCT01162421|181837308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.95||0.725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|3.2||P-values are two-sided and are based on repeated measures ANCOVA model with treatment group and visit as the fixed effects and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 12||3.2|-4.6|0.725
90976723|NCT01162421|181837308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.31||0.837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|4.1||P-values are two-sided and are based on repeated measures ANCOVA model with treatment group and visit as the fixed effects and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 18||4.1|-5.1|0.837
90976724|NCT01162421|181837308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.83||0.661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|2.9||P-values are two-sided and are based on repeated measures ANCOVA model with treatment group and visit as the fixed effects and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 24||2.9|-4.5|0.661
90976725|NCT01162421|181837309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29||0.156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|0.7||P-values are two-sided and are based on repeated measures ANCOVA model with treatment group and visit as the fixed effects and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 3||0.7|-4.4|0.156
90976726|NCT01162421|181837309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|-1.9||P-values are two-sided and are based on repeated measures ANCOVA model with treatment group and visit as the fixed effects and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|The a priori threshold for statistical significance is P=0.001.||Month 6||-1.9|-6.1|<0.001
90976727|NCT01162421|181837309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.19||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|-0.1||P-values are two-sided and are based on repeated measures ANCOVA model with treatment group and visit as the fixed effects and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|The a priori threshold for statistical significance is P=0.05.||Month 9||-0.1|-4.9|0.040
90976728|NCT01162421|181837309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14||0.492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|1.5||P-values are two-sided and are based on repeated measures ANCOVA model with treatment group and visit as the fixed effects and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 12||1.5|-3.1|0.492
90976729|NCT01162421|181837309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|2.0||P-values are two-sided and are based on repeated measures ANCOVA model with treatment group and visit as the fixed effects and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 18||2.0|-3.2|0.649
90976730|NCT01162421|181837309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|1.4||P-values are two-sided and are based on repeated measures ANCOVA model with treatment group and visit as the fixed effects and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 24||1.4|-3.0|0.464
90976731|NCT01162421|181837310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-12.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.08||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.5|-2.2||P-values are two-sided and are based on repeated measures ANCOVA model with treatment group and visit as the fixed effects and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|The a priori threshold for statistical significance is P=0.05.||Month 3||-2.2|-22.5|0.018
90976732|NCT01162421|181837310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-25.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.3|-13.7||P-values are two-sided and are based on repeated measures ANCOVA model with treatment group and visit as the fixed effects and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|The a priori threshold for statistical significance is P=0.001.||Month 6||-13.7|-37.3|<0.001
90976733|NCT01162421|181837310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-9.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.84||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|2.3||P-values are two-sided and are based on repeated measures ANCOVA model with treatment group and visit as the fixed effects and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 9||2.3|-21.0|0.113
90976734|NCT01162421|181837310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.72||0.544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|7.9||P-values are two-sided and are based on repeated measures ANCOVA model with treatment group and visit as the fixed effects and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 12||7.9|-14.9|0.544
90976735|NCT01162421|181837310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.96||0.916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|11.2||P-values are two-sided and are based on repeated measures ANCOVA model with treatment group and visit as the fixed effects and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 18||11.2|-12.5|0.916
91037869|NCT00205777|181961012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75||95.0|||||ANOVA|||TbSp: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.75
91037870|NCT00205777|181961012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1||95.0|||||ANOVA|||TbSp: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.10
91037871|NCT00205777|181961012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79||95.0|||||ANOVA|||TbSp: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.79
91037872|NCT00205777|181961012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.057||95.0|||||ANOVA|||TbSp: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.057
91037873|NCT00205777|181961012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17||95.0|||||ANOVA|||CTh: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.17
91037874|NCT00205777|181961012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46||95.0|||||ANOVA|||CTh: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.46
91037875|NCT00205777|181961012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83||95.0|||||ANOVA|||CTh: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.83
91037876|NCT00205777|181961012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25||95.0|||||ANOVA|||CTh: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.25
91037877|NCT00205777|181961012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35||95.0|||||ANOVA|||CTh: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.35
91037878|NCT00205777|181961013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||WTh: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.018
90976736|NCT01162421|181837310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.86||0.983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|11.6||P-values are two-sided and are based on repeated measures ANCOVA model with treatment group and visit as the fixed effects and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 24||11.6|-11.8|0.983
90976737|NCT01162421|181837311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.96||0.641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|7.6||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 3||7.6|-12.2|0.641
90976738|NCT01162421|181837311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.61||0.358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|6.0||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 6||6.0|-16.4|0.358
90976739|NCT01162421|181837311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.58||0.352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|16.4||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 9||16.4|-5.9|0.352
90976740|NCT01162421|181837311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.28||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|10.6||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 12||10.6|-10.5|0.990
90976741|NCT01162421|181837311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.36||0.238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|17.1||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 18||17.1|-4.3|0.238
91037879|NCT00205777|181961013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||WTh: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.29
91037880|NCT00205777|181961013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049||95.0|||||ANOVA|||OTh: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.049
91037881|NCT00205777|181961013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37||95.0|||||ANOVA|||OTh: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.37
91037882|NCT00205777|181961013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97||95.0|||||ANOVA|||TbTh: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.97
91037883|NCT00205777|181961013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78||95.0|||||ANOVA|||TbTh: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.78
90976742|NCT01162421|181837311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.54||0.207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|18.1||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 24||18.1|-4.0|0.207
90976743|NCT01162421|181837312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.28||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|9.5||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 3||9.5|-11.5|0.850
90976744|NCT01162421|181837312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-8.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.49||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|2.5||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 6||2.5|-19.4|0.129
90976745|NCT01162421|181837312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.62||0.937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|11.6||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 9||11.6|-10.8|0.937
90976746|NCT01162421|181837312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.59||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|8.8||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 12||8.8|-13.5|0.670
90976747|NCT01162421|181837312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.67||0.341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|16.7||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 18||16.7|-5.9|0.341
90976748|NCT01162421|181837312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.13||0.621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|15.3||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 24||15.3|-9.2|0.621
90976749|NCT01162421|181837313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.29||0.697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|7.9||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 3||7.9|-5.3|0.697
91037884|NCT00205777|181961013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43||95.0|||||ANOVA|||TbSp: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.43
91037885|NCT00205777|181961013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32||95.0|||||ANOVA|||TbSp: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.32
91037886|NCT00205777|181961014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.35
91037887|NCT00205777|181961014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.66
91037888|NCT00205777|181961014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.30
91037889|NCT00205777|181961014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.95
91037890|NCT00205777|181961014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.15
91037891|NCT00205777|181961015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||1.00
91037892|NCT00205777|181961015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.40
91037893|NCT00205777|181961016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.71
91037894|NCT00205777|181961016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.83
91037895|NCT00205777|181961016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.63
91037896|NCT00205777|181961016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.92
91037897|NCT00205777|181961016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.50
91037898|NCT00205777|181961017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.73
91037899|NCT00205777|181961017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.80
91037900|NCT00205777|181961018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||BFP: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.81
91037901|NCT00205777|181961018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||BFP: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.96
90976750|NCT01162421|181837313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.51||0.744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|7.5||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 6||7.5|-10.5|0.744
90976751|NCT01162421|181837313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.95||0.967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|8.0||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 9||8.0|-7.7|0.967
90976752|NCT01162421|181837313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3||0.377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|9.5||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 12||9.5|-3.7|0.377
90976753|NCT01162421|181837313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5||0.122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|12.4||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 18||12.4|-1.5|0.122
90976754|NCT01162421|181837313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.42||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|9.2||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 24||9.2|-4.4|0.490
90976755|NCT01162421|181837314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.1||P-values are two-sided and are based on repeated measures ANCOVA model with treatment group and visit as the fixed effects and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 3||0.1|-1.0|0.102
90976756|NCT01162421|181837314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.3||P-values are two-sided and are based on repeated measures ANCOVA model with treatment group and visit as the fixed effects and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|The a priori threshold for statistical significance is P=0.01.||Month 6||-0.3|-1.5|0.003
90976757|NCT01162421|181837314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.2||P-values are two-sided and are based on repeated measures ANCOVA model with treatment group and visit as the fixed effects and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 9||0.2|-0.9|0.214
90976758|NCT01162421|181837314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.3||P-values are two-sided and are based on repeated measures ANCOVA model with treatment group and visit as the fixed effects and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 12||0.3|-0.8|0.339
90976759|NCT01162421|181837314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.6||P-values are two-sided and are based on repeated measures ANCOVA model with treatment group and visit as the fixed effects and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 18||0.6|-0.6|0.973
90976760|NCT01162421|181837314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.5||P-values are two-sided and are based on repeated measures ANCOVA model with treatment group and visit as the fixed effects and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 24||0.5|-0.6|0.755
90976761|NCT01162421|181837315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|9.4||||0.316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.09|25.13|||Fisher Exact|Two-sided Fisher Exact test.||Month 3||25.13|-7.09|0.316
90976762|NCT01162421|181837315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|24.5||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.09|42.85|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is P=0.05.||Month 6||42.85|6.09|0.014
90976763|NCT01162421|181837315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-3.2||||0.762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.1|17.66|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 9||17.66|-24.10|0.762
90976764|NCT01162421|181837315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|13.0||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.46|33.54|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 12||33.54|-7.46|0.220
90976765|NCT01162421|181837315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-3.5||||0.747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.9|17.86|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 18||17.86|-24.90|0.747
90976766|NCT01162421|181837315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-4.4||||0.701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.8|18.01|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 24||18.01|-26.80|0.701
90976767|NCT01162421|181837316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|10.5||||0.318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.83|30.78|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 3||30.78|-9.83|0.318
90976768|NCT01162421|181837316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|22.7||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|44.39|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is P=0.05.||Month 6||44.39|1.03|0.047
90976769|NCT01162421|181837316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|5.0||||0.668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.74|27.71|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 9||27.71|-17.74|0.668
90976770|NCT01162421|181837316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|7.8||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.88|30.56|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 12||30.56|-14.88|0.500
90976771|NCT01162421|181837316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-2.7||||0.816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.52|20.1|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 18||20.10|-25.52|0.816
90976772|NCT01162421|181837316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-10.7||||0.358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.38|11.99|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 24||11.99|-33.38|0.358
90976773|NCT01162421|181837317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|7.9||||0.444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.17|28.0|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 3||28.00|-12.17|0.444
90976774|NCT01162421|181837317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|20.1||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|41.83|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 6||41.83|-1.53|0.076
90976775|NCT01162421|181837317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|2.7||||0.816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.1|25.52|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 9||25.52|-20.10|0.816
90976776|NCT01162421|181837317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|8.1||||0.485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.61|30.87|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 12||30.87|-14.61|0.485
90976777|NCT01162421|181837317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-2.7||||0.816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.52|20.1|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 18||20.10|-25.52|0.816
90976778|NCT01162421|181837317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-10.7||||0.358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.38|11.99|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 24||11.99|-33.38|0.358
90976779|NCT01162421|181837318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|11.6||||0.316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.84|33.99|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 3||33.99|-10.84|0.316
90976780|NCT01162421|181837318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|5.1||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.43|25.54|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 6||25.54|-15.43|0.630
90976781|NCT01162421|181837318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-0.4||||0.972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.94|20.21|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 9||20.21|-20.94|0.972
90976782|NCT01162421|181837318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-14.1||||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.83|6.7|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 12||6.70|-34.83|0.186
90976783|NCT01162421|181837318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-12.6||||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.46|4.26|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 18||4.26|-29.46|0.142
90976784|NCT01162421|181837318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-4.0||||0.727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.34|11.52|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 24||11.52|-20.34|0.727
90976785|NCT01162421|181837319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|6.8||||0.486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.21|22.22|||Fisher Exact|Two-sided Fisher Exact test.||||22.22|-9.21|0.486
90976786|NCT01162421|181837320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.29||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 3||0.29|-0.23|0.809
90976787|NCT01162421|181837320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.132||0.194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.09||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 6||0.09|-0.44|0.194
90976788|NCT01162421|181837320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.132||0.863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.29||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 9||0.29|-0.24|0.863
90976789|NCT01162421|181837320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129||0.452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.35||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 12||0.35|-0.16|0.452
90976790|NCT01162421|181837320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141||0.738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.33||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 18||0.33|-0.23|0.738
90976791|NCT01162421|181837320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.148||0.572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.38||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 24||0.38|-0.21|0.572
91037902|NCT00205777|181961018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||BFP: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.005
90976792|NCT01162421|181837321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-11.9||||0.299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.05|10.31|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 3||10.31|-34.05|0.299
90976793|NCT01162421|181837321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-3.0||||0.796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.77|19.77|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 6||19.77|-25.77|0.796
90976794|NCT01162421|181837321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|7.0||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.3|29.22|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 9||29.22|-15.30|0.540
90976795|NCT01162421|181837321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-9.6||||0.392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.39|12.19|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 12||12.19|-31.39|0.392
90976796|NCT01162421|181837321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-3.3||||0.776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.96|19.37|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 18||19.37|-25.96|0.776
90976797|NCT01162421|181837321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-16.1||||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.64|6.4|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 24||6.40|-38.64|0.166
90976798|NCT01162421|181837322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-10.9||||0.283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.84|9.01|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 3||9.01|-30.84|0.283
90976799|NCT01162421|181837322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|7.9||||0.444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.17|28.0|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 6||28.00|-12.17|0.444
90976800|NCT01162421|181837322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|1.6||||0.885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.16|23.38|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 9||23.38|-20.16|0.885
90976801|NCT01162421|181837322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-1.0||||0.931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.54|20.64|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 12||20.64|-22.54|0.931
90976802|NCT01162421|181837322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|2.2||||0.836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.63|23.03|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 18||23.03|-18.63|0.836
90976803|NCT01162421|181837322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|2.2||||0.836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.63|23.03|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 24||23.03|-18.63|0.836
90976804|NCT01162421|181837323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.25||0.699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|5.4||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 3||5.4|-3.6|0.699
91037903|NCT00205777|181961018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||BFP: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.013
91037904|NCT00205777|181961018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||BFP: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.006
90976805|NCT01162421|181837323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.45||0.261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|7.7||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 6||7.7|-2.1|0.261
90976806|NCT01162421|181837323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.36||0.514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|3.2||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 9||3.2|-6.2|0.514
90976807|NCT01162421|181837323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|2.3||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 12||2.3|-7.7|0.283
90976808|NCT01162421|181837323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.75||0.461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|3.4||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 18||3.4|-7.5|0.461
90976809|NCT01162421|181837323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.78||0.703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|4.5||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 24||4.5|-6.6|0.703
90976810|NCT01162421|181837324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-1.1||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.94|15.16|||Fisher Exact|Two-sided Fisher Exact test.||Month 3||15.16|-17.94|1.000
90976811|NCT01162421|181837324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-6.4||||0.468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.34|8.81|||Fisher Exact|Two-sided Fisher Exact test.||Month 6||8.81|-22.34|0.468
90976812|NCT01162421|181837324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-11.9||||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.88|3.16|||Fisher Exact|Two-sided Fisher Exact test.||Month 9||3.16|-27.88|0.142
91037905|NCT00205777|181961018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7||95.0|||||ANOVA|||RP: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.70
90976813|NCT01162421|181837324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|4.6||||0.712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.08|19.83|||Fisher Exact|Two-sided Fisher Exact test.||Month 12||19.83|-11.08|0.712
90976814|NCT01162421|181837324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|7.2||||0.482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.92|22.89|||Fisher Exact|Two-sided Fisher Exact test.||Month 18||22.89|-8.92|0.482
91037906|NCT00205777|181961018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44||95.0|||||ANOVA|||RP: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.44
90976815|NCT01162421|181837324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-6.2||||0.418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.18|7.69|||Fisher Exact|Two-sided Fisher Exact test.||Month 24||7.69|-21.18|0.418
90976816|NCT01162421|181837325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.86||0.453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|7.4||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 3||7.4|-16.3|0.453
90976817|NCT01162421|181837325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.88||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|4.0||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 6||4.0|-19.7|0.187
90976818|NCT01162421|181837325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.31||0.598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.1|9.4||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 9||9.4|-16.1|0.598
90976819|NCT01162421|181837325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.75||0.558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|15.0||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 12||15.0|-8.2|0.558
90976820|NCT01162421|181837325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.4||0.669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|15.6||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 18||15.6|-10.1|0.669
90976821|NCT01162421|181837325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.16||0.865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|13.5||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 24||13.5|-11.3|0.865
90976822|NCT01162421|181837326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.058||0.809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.13||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 3||0.13|-0.10|0.809
90976823|NCT01162421|181837326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062||0.447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.17||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 6||0.17|-0.08|0.447
90976824|NCT01162421|181837326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062||0.579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.09||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 9||0.09|-0.16|0.579
90976825|NCT01162421|181837326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057||0.922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.12||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 12||0.12|-0.11|0.922
91037907|NCT00205777|181961018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47||95.0|||||ANOVA|||RP: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.47
91037908|NCT00205777|181961018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28||95.0|||||ANOVA|||RP: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.28
91037909|NCT00205777|181961018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14||95.0|||||ANOVA|||RP: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.14
91037910|NCT00205777|181961018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93||95.0|||||ANOVA|||RmP: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.93
91037911|NCT00205777|181961018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85||95.0|||||ANOVA|||RmP: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.85
91037912|NCT00205777|181961018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||ANOVA|||RmP: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.010
91037913|NCT00205777|181961018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015||95.0|||||ANOVA|||RmP: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.015
91037914|NCT00205777|181961018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0|||||ANOVA|||RmP: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.006
90945099|NCT04750577|181769766|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.25||||0.0519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|5.1|||Regression, Logistic||Odds Ratio was calculated as BI 685509/ Placebo.|Treatment, sodium-Glucose co-Transporter-2 Inhibitor (SGLT2i) use at baseline, and type of diabetes were used as covariates in the logistic regression model.||5.10|0.99|0.0519
90945100|NCT04750577|181769766|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.4159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|3.36|||Regression, Logistic||Odds Ratio was calculated as BI 685509/ Placebo.|Treatment, sodium-Glucose co-Transporter-2 Inhibitor (SGLT2i) use at baseline, and type of diabetes were used as covariates in the logistic regression model.||3.36|0.61|0.4159
90945101|NCT04750577|181769766|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.9||||0.0106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|6.55|||Regression, Logistic||Odds Ratio was calculated as BI 685509/ Placebo.|Treatment, sodium-Glucose co-Transporter-2 Inhibitor (SGLT2i) use at baseline, and type of diabetes were used as covariates in the logistic regression model.||6.55|1.28|0.0106
90945102|NCT04750577|181769767|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.79||||0.0176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|6.53|||Regression, Logistic||Odds Ratio was calculated as BI 685509/ Placebo.|Treatment, sodium-Glucose co-Transporter-2 Inhibitor (SGLT2i) use at baseline, and type of diabetes were used as covariates in the logistic regression model.||6.53|1.20|0.0176
90945103|NCT04750577|181769767|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.5467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|3.29|||Regression, Logistic||Odds Ratio was calculated as BI 685509/ Placebo.|Treatment, sodium-Glucose co-Transporter-2 Inhibitor (SGLT2i) use at baseline, and type of diabetes were used as covariates in the logistic regression model.||3.29|0.53|0.5467
90945104|NCT04750577|181769767|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.46||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.91|10.39|||Regression, Logistic||Odds Ratio was calculated as BI 685509/ Placebo.|Treatment, sodium-Glucose co-Transporter-2 Inhibitor (SGLT2i) use at baseline, and type of diabetes were used as covariates in the logistic regression model.||10.39|1.91|0.0005
90945105|NCT02473042|181769769|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2787|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2787
90945106|NCT02473042|181769772|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8252|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8252
90976826|NCT01162421|181837326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.064||0.894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.12||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 18||0.12|-0.14|0.894
90976827|NCT01162421|181837326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.1||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 24||0.10|-0.17|0.611
90945107|NCT02473042|181769773|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8277|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8277
90945108|NCT02473042|181769774|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3908|||||||Chi-squared|||Response to ASES\_Coping question (Re-categorized)||||0.3908
90945109|NCT02473042|181769774|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6029|||||||Chi-squared|||Response to ASES\_Nausea question||||0.6029
90945110|NCT02473042|181769774|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7785|||||||Chi-squared|||Response to ASES\_Pain question||||0.7785
90945111|NCT02473042|181769774|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8434|||||||Chi-squared|||Response to ASES\_Recovery question (Re-categorized)||||0.8434
90945112|NCT02473042|181769775|OTHER|||||||0.2742|||||||Chi-squared|||Response to ASES\_Coping question (Re-categorized) and P6 stimulation outcome||||0.2742
90945113|NCT02473042|181769775|OTHER|||||||0.2747|||||||Chi-squared|||Response to ASES\_Nausea question (Re-categorized) and P6 stimulation outcome||||0.2747
90945114|NCT02473042|181769775|OTHER|||||||0.5608|||||||Chi-squared|||Response to ASES\_Pain question (Re-categorized) and P6 stimulation outcome||||0.5608
90945115|NCT02473042|181769775|OTHER|||||||0.1014||||||There is no statistically significant association between expectancy and complete PONV control.|Chi-squared|||Response to ASES\_Recovery question (Re-categorized) and P6 stimulation outcome||||0.1014
90945116|NCT05093504|181769828|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.020
90945117|NCT03151551|181769837|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|8.1||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|15.8|||Regression, Logistic|||After data lock and initial analysis run, a medical inconsistency in baseline PASI data was identified (PASI=0 but BSA≥3%). The scenario was not anticipated or described in protocol or SAP. The inconsistency was resolved using medical judgment. The impacted participants had met baseline criteria for active psoriasis. Therefore, in the primary analysis, participants with baseline PASI=0 \& BSA≥3% were considered PASI100 responders if, and only if, PASI=0 \& BSA=0 achieved at week 24.||15.8|0.5|0.036
90945118|NCT03151551|181769838|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence Interval (CI) for the difference in proportions of responders on IXE minus ADA is greater than the pre-specified margin -12%, IXE will be deemed non-inferior to ADA.|Rate Difference|3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|12.1||||||||12.1|-4.3|
90945119|NCT03151551|181769839|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|13.4||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|21.6|||Regression, Logistic|||After data lock and initial analysis run, a medical inconsistency in baseline PASI data was identified (PASI=0 but BSA≥3%). The scenario was not anticipated or described in protocol or SAP. The inconsistency was resolved using medical judgment. The impacted participants had met baseline criteria for active psoriasis. Therefore, in the primary analysis, participants with baseline PASI=0 \& BSA≥3% were considered PASI100 responders if, and only if, PASI=0 \& BSA=0 achieved at week 24.||21.6|5.3|0.001
90945120|NCT03151551|181769840|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.725||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.46|0.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.39|-2.46|0.155
90945121|NCT03151551|181769841|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.249||0.823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.43|-0.54|0.823
90976828|NCT01162421|181837327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.42||0.572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|6.3||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 3||6.3|-11.3|0.572
91037915|NCT00205777|181961019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||BFP: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.60
91037916|NCT00205777|181961019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||BFP: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.53
90945122|NCT03151551|181769842|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.104||0.752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|3.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.47|-4.80|0.752
90945123|NCT03151551|181769843|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.06||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.83|1.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.26|-6.83|0.177
90945124|NCT03151551|181769844|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.391||0.332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.08|1.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.38|-4.08|0.332
90945125|NCT03151551|181769845|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.599||0.592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.50|-0.86|0.592
90945126|NCT03151551|181769846|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045||0.176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.03|-0.15|0.176
90945127|NCT03151551|181769847|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|13.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.4|20.7|||Regression, Logistic|||After data lock and initial analysis run, a medical inconsistency in baseline PASI data was identified (PASI=0 but BSA≥3%). The scenario was not anticipated or described in protocol or SAP. The inconsistency was resolved using medical judgment. The impacted participants had met baseline criteria for active psoriasis. Therefore, in the primary analysis, participants with baseline PASI=0 \& BSA≥3% were considered PASI100 responders if, and only if, PASI=0 \& BSA=0 achieved at week 52.||20.7|5.4|<0.001
90945128|NCT03151551|181769848|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.091||0.368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.10|-0.26|0.368
90945129|NCT03151551|181769849|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|6.4||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|14.5|||Regression, Logistic|||MDA-18 Entheseal Points||14.5|-1.8|0.108
90945130|NCT03151551|181769849|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|5.3||||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|13.5|||Regression, Logistic|||MDA-6 Entheseal Points||13.5|-2.9|0.179
90945131|NCT03151551|181769850|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|-1.1||||0.846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|6.7|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.7|-8.9|0.846
90945132|NCT03151551|181769851|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.16|-0.83|0.004
90945133|NCT03151551|181769852|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.305||0.687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.72|-0.48|0.687
90945134|NCT03151551|181769853|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.144||0.507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.38|-0.19|0.507
90976829|NCT01162421|181837327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.15||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|18.2||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 6||18.2|-2.4|0.130
90976830|NCT01162421|181837327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.26||0.649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|8.1||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 9||8.1|-12.9|0.649
90945135|NCT03151551|181769854|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.951||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.78|25.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||25.99|-32.78|0.820
90945136|NCT03151551|181769855|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.02|-3.09|0.052
90945137|NCT03151551|181769856|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.949||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.57|-0.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.84|-4.57|0.005
90945138|NCT03151551|181769857|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.202||0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.11|-0.68|0.158
90976831|NCT01162421|181837327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.8||0.579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|6.9||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 12||6.9|-12.3|0.579
90976832|NCT01162421|181837327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.03||0.826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|8.9||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 18||8.9|-11.1|0.826
90976833|NCT01162421|181837327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.72||0.675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|9.0||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 24||9.0|-13.8|0.675
90976834|NCT01162421|181837328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.57||0.458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|4.3||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 3||4.3|-2.0|0.458
90976835|NCT01162421|181837328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.76||0.419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|2.1||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 6||2.1|-4.9|0.419
90976836|NCT01162421|181837328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.42||0.692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|3.4||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 9||3.4|-2.3|0.692
90976837|NCT01162421|181837328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.69||0.357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|5.0||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 12||5.0|-1.8|0.357
90976838|NCT01162421|181837328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.67||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|4.7||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 18||4.7|-2.0|0.420
90976839|NCT01162421|181837328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.58||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|4.5||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 24||4.5|-1.8|0.380
90976840|NCT01162421|181837329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.1||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|The a priori threshold for statistical significance is P=0.05.||Month 3||1.1|0.0|0.046
90976841|NCT01162421|181837329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.3||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|The a priori threshold for statistical significance is P=0.01.||Month 6||1.3|0.3|0.003
90976842|NCT01162421|181837329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.8||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 9||0.8|-0.2|0.204
90976843|NCT01162421|181837329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.7||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 12||0.7|-0.2|0.227
90976844|NCT01162421|181837329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.5||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 18||0.5|-0.4|0.860
90976845|NCT01162421|181837329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.6||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 24||0.6|-0.3|0.476
90976846|NCT01260454|181837356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This is open-label, uncontrolled data; the comparison is made between each individual's baseline.||||0.03
90976847|NCT03434379|181837361|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.79|||Log Rank|||At CCOD 18 months; Stratified by geographic region (Asia \[excluding Japan\] vs. rest of world), macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence), and baseline alpha-fetoprotein (AFP: \<400 vs. \>/= 400 ng/mL).||0.79|0.42|0.0006
90976848|NCT03434379|181837361|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.85|||Log Rank|||At CCOD 30 months; Stratified by geographic region (Asia \[excluding Japan\] vs. rest of world), macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence), and baseline alpha-fetoprotein (AFP: \<400 vs. \>/= 400 ng/mL).||0.85|0.52|0.0009
90976849|NCT03434379|181837362|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.76|||Log Rank|||Stratified by geographic region (Asia \[excluding Japan\] vs. rest of world), macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence), and baseline AFP (\<400 vs. \>/= 400 ng/mL).||0.76|0.47|<0.0001
91037917|NCT00205777|181961019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||ANOVA|||RP: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||1.00
91037918|NCT00205777|181961019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43||95.0|||||ANOVA|||RP: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.43
91037919|NCT00205777|181961019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6||95.0|||||ANOVA|||RmP: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.60
90976850|NCT03434379|181837363|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.44||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.76|||Log Rank|||At CCOD 18 months; Stratified by macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence), and baseline AFP (\<400 vs. \>/= 400 ng/mL).||0.76|0.25|0.0026
90976851|NCT03434379|181837363|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.8|||Log Rank|||At CCOD 30 months; Stratified by macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence), and baseline AFP (\<400 vs. \>/= 400 ng/mL).||0.80|0.35|0.0019
90976852|NCT03434379|181837364|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.0117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.9|||Log Rank|||Stratified by macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence), and baseline AFP (\<400 vs. \>/= 400 ng/mL).||0.90|0.40|0.0117
90976853|NCT03434379|181837365|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.68|5.01|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Stratified by geographic region (Asia \[excluding Japan\] vs. rest of world), macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence), and baseline AFP (\<400 vs. \>/= 400 ng/mL).||5.01|1.68|<0.0001
90976854|NCT03434379|181837366|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|5.71|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Stratified by geographic region (Asia \[excluding Japan\] vs. rest of world), macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence), and baseline AFP (\<400 vs. \>/= 400 ng/mL).||5.71|2.02|<0.0001
91037920|NCT00205777|181961019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52||95.0|||||ANOVA|||RmP: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.52
90976855|NCT03434379|181837367|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.99|12.66|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Stratified by geographic region (Asia \[excluding Japan\] vs. rest of world), macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence), and baseline AFP (\<400 vs. \>/= 400 ng/mL).||12.66|2.99|<0.0001
90976856|NCT03434379|181837368|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.23||||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.7|||Log Rank|||Stratified by geographic region (Asia \[excluding Japan\] vs. rest of world), macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence), and baseline AFP (\<400 vs. \>/= 400 ng/mL).||0.70|0.08|0.0051
90976857|NCT03434379|181837369|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.3||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.73|||Log Rank|||Stratified by geographic region (Asia \[excluding Japan\] vs. rest of world), macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence), and baseline AFP (\<400 vs. \>/= 400 ng/mL).||0.73|0.12|0.0048
91037921|NCT00205777|181961020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.22
91037922|NCT00205777|181961020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.76
91037923|NCT00205777|181961020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.26
91037924|NCT00205777|181961020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.90
91037925|NCT00205777|181961020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.16
91037926|NCT00205777|181961021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.41
91037927|NCT00205777|181961021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.18
91037928|NCT00205777|181961022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.68
91037929|NCT00205777|181961022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.97
90945139|NCT03151551|181769858|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.33|-0.49|0.711
90945140|NCT03151551|181769859|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.674||0.439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.85|-0.80|0.439
90945141|NCT03151551|181769860|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86||0.594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|2.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.15|-1.23|0.594
90945142|NCT03151551|181769861|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017||0.979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.03|-0.03|0.979
90945143|NCT03151551|181769862|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.782||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|8.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.28|1.28|0.008
90945144|NCT03151551|181769863|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.335|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|-0.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.46|-1.78|<0.001
90945145|NCT03151551|181769864|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|5.7||||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|13.7|||Regression, Logistic|||Effectiveness of Medication||13.7|-2.4|0.165
90945146|NCT03151551|181769864|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|6.7||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|14.8|||Regression, Logistic|||Effectiveness over Time of Medication||14.8|-1.4|0.098
90945147|NCT03151551|181769864|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|4.6||||0.241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|12.6|||Regression, Logistic|||Long Term Safety of Medication||12.6|-3.4|0.241
90945148|NCT03151551|181769864|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|4.9||||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|13.0|||Regression, Logistic|||Overall Satisfaction with Medication||13.0|-3.1|0.215
90945149|NCT03151551|181769864|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|2.1||||0.561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|9.7|||Regression, Logistic|||Mostly Satisfied to any Questions||9.7|-5.5|0.561
90945150|NCT02035696|181769874|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the Lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the vaccine group GMT ratio ≥ 0.67|Vaccine Group Ratios at Day 1|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.52||||||Non-inferiority of immune responses of a TIVc-High Dose to TIVe, assessed in terms of vaccine group GMT ratios against influenza strain A/H1N1 at Day 1||1.52|0.65|
90945151|NCT02035696|181769874|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the Lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the vaccine group GMT ratio ≥ 0.67|Vaccine Group ratios at Day 50|2.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|2.98||||||Non-inferiority of immune responses of a TIVc-High Dose to TIVe, assessed in terms of vaccine group GMT ratios against influenza strain A/H1N1 at Day 50||2.98|1.5|
91037930|NCT00205777|181961022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.18
90945152|NCT02035696|181769874|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the Lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the vaccine group GMT ratio ≥ 0.67|Vaccine Group ratios at Day 1|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.06||||||Non-inferiority of immune responses of a TIVc-High Dose to TIVe, assessed in terms of vaccine group GMT ratios against influenza strain A/H3N2 at Day 1||1.06|0.43|
90945153|NCT02035696|181769874|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the Lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the vaccine group GMT ratio ≥ 0.67|Vaccine Group Ratios at Day 50|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.87||||||Non-inferiority of immune responses of a TIVc-High Dose to TIVe, assessed in terms of vaccine group GMT ratios against influenza strain A/H3N2 at Day 50||0.87|0.58|
90945154|NCT02035696|181769874|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the Lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the vaccine group GMT ratio ≥ 0.67|Vaccine Group Ratios at Day 1|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.08||||||Non-inferiority of immune responses of a TIVc-High Dose to TIVe, assessed in terms of vaccine group GMT ratios against influenza strain B at Day 1||1.08|0.92|
90945155|NCT02035696|181769874|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the Lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the vaccine group GMT ratio ≥ 0.67|Vaccine Group ratios at Day 50|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.01||||||Non-inferiority of immune responses of a TIVc-High Dose to TIVe, assessed in terms of vaccine group GMT ratios against influenza strain B at Day 50||1.01|0.6|
90945156|NCT02035696|181769874|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the Lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the vaccine group GMT ratio ≥ 0.67|Vaccine Group Ratios at Day 1|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.96||||||Non-inferiority of immune responses of a TIVc-Full Dose to TIVe, assessed in terms of vaccine group GMT ratios against influenza strain A/H1N1 at Day 1||1.96|0.83|
90945157|NCT02035696|181769874|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the Lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the vaccine group GMT ratio ≥ 0.67|Vaccine Group Ratios at Day 50|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|2.28||||||Non-inferiority of immune responses of a TIVc-Full Dose to TIVe, assessed in terms of vaccine group GMT ratios against influenza strain A/H1N1 at Day 50||2.28|1.13|
90945158|NCT02035696|181769874|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the Lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the vaccine group GMT ratio ≥ 0.67|Vaccine Group Ratios at Day 1|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.81||||||Non-inferiority of immune responses of a TIVc-Full Dose to TIVe, assessed in terms of vaccine group GMT ratios against influenza strain A/H3N2 at Day 1||0.81|0.33|
90945159|NCT02035696|181769874|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the Lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the vaccine group GMT ratio ≥ 0.67|Vaccine Group Ratios at Day 50|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.78||||||Non-inferiority of immune responses of a TIVc-Full Dose to TIVe, assessed in terms of vaccine group GMT ratios against influenza strain A/H3N2 at Day 50||0.78|0.52|
91037931|NCT00205777|181961022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.088||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.088
90945160|NCT02035696|181769874|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the Lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the vaccine group GMT ratio ≥ 0.67|Vaccine Group ratios at Day 1|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.04||||||Non-inferiority of immune responses of a TIVc-Full Dose to TIVe, assessed in terms of vaccine group GMT ratios against influenza strain B at Day 1||1.04|0.89|
90945161|NCT02035696|181769874|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the Lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the vaccine group GMT ratio ≥ 0.67|Vaccine Group Ratios at Day 50|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.84||||||Non-inferiority of immune responses of a TIVc-Full Dose to TIVe, assessed in terms of vaccine group GMT ratios against influenza strain B at Day 50||0.84|0.49|
90945162|NCT02035696|181769874|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the Lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the vaccine group GMT ratio ≥ 0.67|Vaccine Group Ratios at Day 1|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.58||||||Non-inferiority of immune responses of a TIVc- Half Dose to TIVe, assessed in terms of vaccine group GMT ratios against influenza strain A/H1N1 at Day 1||1.58|0.66|
90945163|NCT02035696|181769874|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the Lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the vaccine group GMT ratio ≥ 0.67|Vaccine Group ratios at Day 50|1.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|2.3||||||Non-inferiority of immune responses of a TIVc- Half Dose to TIVe, assessed in terms of vaccine group GMT ratios against influenza strain A/H1N1 at Day 50||2.3|1.14|
90945164|NCT02035696|181769874|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the Lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the vaccine group GMT ratio ≥ 0.67|Vaccine Group Ratios at Day 1|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.17||||||Non-inferiority of immune responses of a TIVc- Half Dose to TIVe, assessed in terms of vaccine group GMT ratios against influenza strain A/H3N2 at Day 1||1.17|0.47|
90945165|NCT02035696|181769874|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the Lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the vaccine group GMT ratio ≥ 0.67|Vaccine Group ratios at Day 50|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.57||||||Non-inferiority of immune responses of a TIVc- Half Dose to TIVe, assessed in terms of vaccine group GMT ratios against influenza strain A/H3N2 at Day 50||0.57|0.38|
90945166|NCT02035696|181769874|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the Lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the vaccine group GMT ratio ≥ 0.67|Vaccine Group Ratios at Day 1|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.02||||||Non-inferiority of immune responses of a TIVc- Half Dose to TIVe, assessed in terms of vaccine group GMT ratios against influenza strain B at Day 1||1.02|0.87|
90945167|NCT02035696|181769874|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the Lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the vaccine group GMT ratio ≥ 0.67|Vaccine Group Ratios at Day 50|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.75||||||Non-inferiority of immune responses of a TIVc- Half Dose to TIVe, assessed in terms of vaccine group GMT ratios against influenza strain B at Day 50||0.75|0.44|
90945168|NCT02035696|181769875|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the Lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI on the difference between seroconversion rates ≥ -10%|Vaccine Group Differences|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|18.9||||||Non-inferiority of immune responses of TIVc-High Dose to TIVe, assessed in terms of Vaccine Group Differences with seroconversion against influenza strain A/H1N1||18.9|0|
90945169|NCT02035696|181769875|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the Lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI on the difference between seroconversion rates ≥ -10%|Vaccine Group Differences|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|8.0||||||Non-inferiority of immune responses of TIVc-High Dose to TIVe, assessed in terms of Vaccine Group Differences with seroconversion against influenza strain A/H3N2||8|-4|
90945170|NCT02035696|181769875|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the Lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI on the difference between seroconversion rates ≥ -10%|Vaccine Group differences|-11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.1|-1.5||||||Non-inferiority of immune responses of TIVc-High Dose to TIVe, assessed in terms of Vaccine Group Differences with seroconversion against influenza strain B||-1.5|-21.1|
90945171|NCT02035696|181769875|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the Lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI on the difference between seroconversion rates ≥ -10%|Vaccine Group Differences|7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|16.8||||||Non-inferiority of immune responses of TIVc-Full Dose to TIVe, assessed in terms of Vaccine Group Differences with seroconversion against influenza strain A/H1N1||16.8|-2.5|
90976858|NCT03434379|181837370|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59||||0.4187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|2.15|||Log Rank|||Stratified by geographic region (Asia \[excluding Japan\] vs. rest of world), macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence), and baseline AFP (\<400 vs. \>/= 400 ng/mL).||2.15|0.16|0.4187
90976859|NCT03434379|181837371|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.74|||Log Rank|||Stratified by geographic region (Asia \[excluding Japan\] vs. rest of world), macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence), and baseline AFP (\<400 vs. \>/= 400 ng/mL).||0.74|0.46|<.0001
90976860|NCT03434379|181837372|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.57|||Log Rank|||Stratified by geographic region (Asia \[excluding Japan\] vs. rest of world), macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence), and baseline AFP (\<400 vs. \>/= 400 ng/mL).||0.57|0.36|<.0001
90976861|NCT03434379|181837373|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.0105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.92|||Log Rank|||Stratified by geographic region (Asia \[excluding Japan\] vs. rest of world), macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence), and baseline AFP (\<400 vs. \>/= 400 ng/mL).||0.92|0.53|0.0105
90945172|NCT02035696|181769875|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the Lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI on the difference between seroconversion rates ≥ -10%|Vaccine Group differences|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|4.1||||||Non-inferiority of immune responses of TIVc-Full Dose to TIVe, assessed in terms of Vaccine Group Differences with seroconversion against influenza strain A/H3N2||4.1|-9.5|
90945173|NCT02035696|181769875|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the Lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI on the difference between seroconversion rates ≥ -10%|Vaccine Group Differences|-11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.5|-1.0||||||Non-inferiority of immune responses of TIVc-Full Dose to TIVe, assessed in terms of Vaccine Group Differences with seroconversion against influenza strain B||-1|-20.5|
90976862|NCT03434379|181837374|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.9|||Log Rank|||Stratified by geographic region (Asia \[excluding Japan\] vs. rest of world), macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence), and baseline AFP (\<400 vs. \>/= 400 ng/mL).||0.90|0.52|0.0063
91037932|NCT00205777|181961022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.17
91037933|NCT00205777|181961023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.25
90945174|NCT02035696|181769875|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the Lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI on the difference between seroconversion rates ≥ -10%|Vaccine Group Differences|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|15.4||||||Non-inferiority of immune responses of TIVc- Half Dose to TIVe, assessed in terms of Vaccine Group Differences with seroconversion against influenza strain A/H1N1||15.4|-4.2|
90945175|NCT02035696|181769875|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the Lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI on the difference between seroconversion rates ≥ -10%|Vaccine Group Differences|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|1.3||||||Non-inferiority of immune responses of TIVc- Half Dose to TIVe, assessed in terms of Vaccine Group Differences with seroconversion against influenza strain A/H3N2||1.3|-13.4|
90945176|NCT02035696|181769875|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the Lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI on the difference between seroconversion rates ≥ -10%|Vaccine Group Differences|-18.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.8|-7.2||||||Non-inferiority of immune responses of TIVc- Half Dose to TIVe, assessed in terms of Vaccine Group Differences with seroconversion against influenza strain B||-7.2|-27.8|
90945177|NCT02035696|181769876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Desirability Index Score|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Desirability Score: If this difference is negative, then it is defined as non-desirable (D equal to 0), while if the difference is positive, then D will equal to the relative reduction calculated in the following way: D = (TIVe - TIVc Dose )/TIVe.|||||
90945178|NCT02035696|181769876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Desirability Index Score|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Desirability Score: If this difference is negative, then it is defined as non-desirable (D equal to 0), while if the difference is positive, then D will equal to the relative reduction calculated in the following way: D = (TIVe - TIVc Dose )/TIVe.|||||
90945179|NCT02035696|181769876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Desirability Index Score|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Desirability Score: If this difference is negative, then it is defined as non-desirable (D equal to 0), while if the difference is positive, then D will equal to the relative reduction calculated in the following way: D = (TIVe - TIVc Dose )/TIVe.|||||
90945180|NCT01867047|181769893|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for intraoperative mild hypotension||||0.140
90945181|NCT01867047|181769893|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for postoperative mild hypotension||||1.000
90945182|NCT01867047|181769895|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.102|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis for number of participants given vasopressors intraoperatively||||0.102
90945183|NCT01867047|181769898|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.700
90945184|NCT01867047|181769899|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.702|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.702
90945185|NCT00379769|181769966|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin of 1.2 for the upper limit of the 95 percent confidence interval in time to event analysis comparing RSG to MET/SU stratified by background medication|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||||95.0|0.85|1.16||||||||1.16|0.85|
90945186|NCT00379769|181769990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||||95.0|0.68|1.08||||||||1.08|0.68|
90945187|NCT00379769|181769991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||||95.0|0.78|1.17||||||||1.17|0.78|
90945188|NCT00379769|181769992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||||95.0|0.79|1.18||||||||1.18|0.79|
90976863|NCT03434379|181837375|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.57|||Log Rank|||Stratified by geographic region (Asia \[excluding Japan\] vs. rest of world), macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence), and baseline AFP (\<400 vs. \>/= 400 ng/mL).||0.57|0.35|<.0001
90945189|NCT00379769|181769993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||||95.0|0.68|1.21||||||||1.21|0.68|
90945190|NCT00379769|181769994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||||95.0|0.68|1.21||||||||1.21|0.68|
90945191|NCT00379769|181769995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||||95.0|0.8|1.59||||||||1.59|0.80|
90945192|NCT00379769|181769996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||||95.0|0.82|1.62||||||||1.62|0.82|
90945193|NCT00379769|181769997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||||95.0|0.54|1.14||||||||1.14|0.54|
90945194|NCT00379769|181769998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||||95.0|0.57|1.18||||||||1.18|0.57|
90945195|NCT01641653|181770019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This is a pilot study no power calculation was performed. The Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to assess differences in max intraop glucose between placebo and midazolam groups.||||0.87
90945196|NCT01641653|181770020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|10.0||||0.56|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||percent change in glucose levels from preoperative level to maximum perioperative measurement level||||0.56
90945197|NCT01641653|181770021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|||||Chi-square with continuity correction|Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.12
90945198|NCT02825251|181770022|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of faster aspart was considered confirmed if the upper limit of the two-sided 95 % CI for the true treatment-difference D (faster aspart minus NovoRapid®) was below 0.4 %.|Treatment difference|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.17|||ANOVA|||Change from baseline in HbA1c was analysed using an analysis of variance model after multiple imputation assuming treatment according to randomisation. The model included treatment, strata (use of own continuous glucose monitoring), previous insulin use, and region as factors, and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||0.17|0.01|
90945199|NCT05064488|181770113|OTHER|A general linear model with a fixed effect for treatment and a random effect for participant was applied to log-transformed PK parameters AUC0-inf based on the PK analysis set to assess the effect of multiple doses of evobrutinib on the PK of the transporter substrates digoxin.|Ratio|118.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|111.89|125.47||||||Treatment differences on the log scale of transporter substrates with evobrutinib vs substrates alone.||125.47|111.89|
90945200|NCT05064488|181770114|OTHER|A general linear model with a fixed effect for treatment and a random effect for participant was applied to log-transformed PK parameters AUC0-inf based on the PK analysis set to assess the effect of multiple doses of evobrutinib on the PK of the transporter substrates metformin.|Ratio|208.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|155.48|280.82||||||Treatment differences on the log scale of transporter substrates with evobrutinib vs substrates alone.||280.82|155.48|
90976864|NCT03434379|181837376|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.78|||Log Rank|||AFP \<400 ng/mL and stratified by geographic region (Asia \[excluding Japan\] vs. rest of world), macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence).||0.78|0.32|0.0019
91037934|NCT00205777|181961023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.10
90976865|NCT03434379|181837376|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.0879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.06|||Log Rank|||AFP \>/= 400 ng/mL and stratified by geographic region (Asia \[excluding Japan\] vs. rest of world), macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence).||1.06|0.42|0.0879
90976866|NCT03434379|181837377|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.68|||Log Rank|||AFP\<400 ng/mL and stratified by geographic region (Asia \[excluding Japan\] vs. rest of world), macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence).||0.68|0.37|<.0001
90976867|NCT03434379|181837377|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.2159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.15|||Log Rank|||AFP \>/=400 ng/mL and stratified by geographic region (Asia \[excluding Japan\] vs. rest of world), macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence).||1.15|0.53|0.2159
90976868|NCT03434379|181837378|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.57|||Log Rank|||AFP \<400 ng/mL and stratified by geographic region (Asia \[excluding Japan\] vs. rest of world), macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence).||0.57|0.31|<0.0001
90976869|NCT03434379|181837378|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.73|||Log Rank|||AFP \>/=400 ng/mL and stratified by geographic region (Asia \[excluding Japan\] vs. rest of world), macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence).||0.73|0.35|0.0002
90976870|NCT03434379|181837379|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.73|||Log Rank|||Physical Functioning: Stratified by geographic region (Asia \[excluding Japan\] vs. rest of world), macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence), and baseline AFP (\<400 vs. \>/= 400 ng/mL).||0.73|0.39|<.0001
91037935|NCT00205777|181961024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.90
91037936|NCT00205777|181961024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.74
91037937|NCT00205777|181961024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.13
91037938|NCT00205777|181961024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.11
91037939|NCT00205777|181961024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.24
91037940|NCT00205777|181961025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.25
90976871|NCT03434379|181837379|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.84|||Log Rank|||Role Functioning: Stratified by geographic region (Asia \[excluding Japan\] vs. rest of world), macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence), and baseline AFP (\<400 vs. \>/= 400 ng/mL).||0.84|0.46|0.0019
90976872|NCT03434379|181837379|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.85|||Log Rank|||GHS/QoL: Stratified by geographic region (Asia \[excluding Japan\] vs. rest of world), macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence), and baseline AFP (\<400 vs. \>/= 400 ng/mL).||0.85|0.46|0.0028
90976873|NCT03434379|181837384|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.6||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|13.86|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Stratified by macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence), and baseline AFP (\<400 vs. \>/= 400 ng/mL).||13.86|1.53|0.0036
90976874|NCT03434379|181837385|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.71||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|12.87|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Stratified by macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence), and baseline AFP (\<400 vs. \>/= 400 ng/mL).||12.87|1.72|0.0013
90976875|NCT03434379|181837386|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.05||||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|17.39|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Stratified by macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence), and baseline AFP (\<400 vs. \>/= 400 ng/mL).||17.39|1.47|0.0052
90976876|NCT03434379|181837387|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.37||||0.4581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|5.85|||Log Rank|||Stratified by macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence), and baseline AFP (\<400 vs. \>/= 400 ng/mL).||5.85|0.02|0.4581
90976877|NCT03434379|181837388|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.08||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.91|||Log Rank||Lower limit: \<0.01|Stratified by macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence), and baseline AFP (\<400 vs. \>/= 400 ng/mL).||0.91|0.01|0.0100
91037941|NCT00205777|181961025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.070
91037942|NCT00205777|181961026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.77
90976878|NCT03434379|181837389|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.33||||0.3477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|3.69|||Log Rank|||Stratified by macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence), and baseline AFP (\<400 vs. \>/= 400 ng/mL).||3.69|0.03|0.3477
90976879|NCT03434379|181837390|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59||||0.0103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.89|||Log Rank|||Stratified by macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence), and baseline AFP (\<400 vs. \>/= 400 ng/mL).||0.89|0.40|0.0103
90976880|NCT03434379|181837391|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.49||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.71|||Log Rank|||Stratified by macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence), and baseline AFP (\<400 vs. \>/= 400 ng/mL).||0.71|0.33|0.0002
90976881|NCT03434379|181837392|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.0927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.07|||Log Rank|||Stratified by macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence), and baseline AFP (\<400 vs. \>/= 400 ng/mL).||1.07|0.43|0.0927
91037943|NCT00205777|181961026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.91||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.91
91037944|NCT00205777|181961026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.009
91037945|NCT00205777|181961026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.023
91037946|NCT00205777|181961026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.012
91037947|NCT00205777|181961027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.79
91037948|NCT00205777|181961027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.61
91037949|NCT00205777|181961028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.30
91037950|NCT00205777|181961028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.62
91037951|NCT00205777|181961028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.28
91037952|NCT00205777|181961028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.041||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.041
91037953|NCT00205777|181961028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.12
91037954|NCT00205777|181961029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.70
91037955|NCT00205777|181961029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.61
91037956|NCT00205777|181961030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.22
91037957|NCT00205777|181961030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.76
91037958|NCT00205777|181961030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.26
90945201|NCT05064488|181770115|OTHER|A general linear model with a fixed effect for treatment and a random effect for participant was applied to log-transformed PK parameters AUC0-inf based on the PK analysis set to assess the effect of multiple doses of evobrutinib on the PK of the transporter substrates rosuvastatin.|Ratio|99.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.49|121.89||||||Treatment differences on the log scale of transporter substrates with evobrutinib vs substrates alone.||121.89|80.49|
90945202|NCT05064488|181770116|OTHER|A general linear model with a fixed effect for treatment and a random effect for participant was applied to log-transformed PK parameters AUC0-inf based on the PK analysis set to assess the effect of multiple doses of evobrutinib on the PK of the transporter substrates sumatriptan.|Ratio|89.35||||||90.0|82.7|96.54||||||Treatment differences on the log scale of transporter substrates with evobrutinib vs substrates alone.||96.54|82.70|
90945203|NCT05064488|181770117|OTHER|A general linear model with a fixed effect for treatment and a random effect for participant was applied to log-transformed PK parameters Cmax based on the PK analysis set to assess the effect of multiple doses of evobrutinib on the PK of the transporter substrates digoxin.|Ratio|100.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.99|117.79||||||Treatment differences on the log scale of transporter substrates with evobrutinib vs substrates alone.||117.79|85.99|
90945204|NCT05064488|181770118|OTHER|A general linear model with a fixed effect for treatment and a random effect for participant was applied to log-transformed PK parameters Cmax based on the PK analysis set to assess the effect of multiple doses of evobrutinib on the PK of the transporter substrates metformin.|Ratio|203.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|152.93|269.68||||||Treatment differences on the log scale of transporter substrates with evobrutinib vs substrates alone.||269.68|152.93|
90945205|NCT05064488|181770119|OTHER|A general linear model with a fixed effect for treatment and a random effect for participant was applied to log-transformed PK parameters Cmax based on the PK analysis set to assess the effect of multiple doses of evobrutinib on the PK of the transporter substrates rosuvastatin.|Ratio|91.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.98|109.33||||||Treatment differences on the log scale of transporter substrates with evobrutinib vs substrates alone.||109.33|76.98|
90945206|NCT05064488|181770120|OTHER|A general linear model with a fixed effect for treatment and a random effect for participant was applied to log-transformed PK parameters Cmax based on the PK analysis set to assess the effect of multiple doses of evobrutinib on the PK of the transporter substrates sumatriptan.|Ratio|81.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.23|88.42||||||Treatment differences on the log scale of transporter substrates with evobrutinib vs substrates alone.||88.42|74.23|
90945207|NCT05064488|181770134|OTHER||Ratio|106.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.11|111.76||||||||111.76|102.11|
90945208|NCT05064488|181770135|OTHER||Ratio|211.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|156.34|285.91||||||||285.91|156.34|
90945209|NCT05064488|181770136|OTHER||Ratio|99.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.69|124.42||||||||124.42|79.69|
90945210|NCT05064488|181770137|OTHER||Ratio|88.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.04|96.19||||||||96.19|82.04|
90945211|NCT02783573|181770148|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.64||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.752|5.776|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.776|-0.752|0.129
90945212|NCT02783573|181770148|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.76||0.903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.725|3.296|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.296|-3.725|0.903
90945213|NCT02783573|181770149|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.78||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.488|0.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.580|-6.488|0.100
90945214|NCT02783573|181770149|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.876|0.525|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.525|-6.876|0.092
90945215|NCT02783573|181770150|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14||0.285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.045|3.499|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.499|-1.045|0.285
90945216|NCT02783573|181770150|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.19||0.661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.889|1.843|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.843|-2.889|0.661
90945217|NCT02783573|181770151|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.69||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.103|0.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.56|-10.103|0.079
90945218|NCT02783573|181770151|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.82||0.486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.573|3.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.62|-7.573|0.486
90945219|NCT02783573|181770152|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|1.391|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.391|-0.890|0.663
90945220|NCT02783573|181770152|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.423|0.983|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.983|-1.423|0.717
90945221|NCT02783573|181770154|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.34||0.899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.297|4.889|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.889|-4.297|0.899
90945222|NCT02783573|181770154|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.16||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.267|1.238|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.238|-7.267|0.164
90945223|NCT02783573|181770155|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.891|0.362|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.362|-2.891|0.126
90945224|NCT02783573|181770155|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86||0.862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.867|1.566|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.566|-1.867|0.862
90945225|NCT02783573|181770156|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-37.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|37.49||0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-122.35|47.26|||ANCOVA|||||47.26|-122.35|0.343
90945226|NCT02783573|181770156|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-40.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|35.12||0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-120.17|38.73|||ANCOVA|||||38.73|-120.17|0.276
91037959|NCT00205777|181961030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.89
91037960|NCT00205777|181961030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.17
91037961|NCT00205777|181961031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.41
90976882|NCT03434379|181837393|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.0861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.06|||Log Rank|||Stratified by macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence), and baseline AFP (\<400 vs. \>/= 400 ng/mL).||1.06|0.43|0.0861
90976883|NCT03434379|181837394|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.49||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.74|||Log Rank|||Stratified by macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence), and baseline AFP (\<400 vs. \>/= 400 ng/mL).||0.74|0.33|0.0004
90976884|NCT03434379|181837395|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.45||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.78|||Log Rank|||Physical Functioning: Stratified by macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence), and baseline AFP (\<400 vs. \>/= 400 ng/mL).||0.78|0.26|0.0035
90976885|NCT03434379|181837395|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.2214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.23|||Log Rank|||Role Functioning: Stratified by macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence), and baseline AFP (\<400 vs. \>/= 400 ng/mL).||1.23|0.42|0.2214
90976886|NCT03434379|181837395|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53||||0.0135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.88|||Log Rank|||GHS/QoL: Stratified by macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence), and baseline AFP (\<400 vs. \>/= 400 ng/mL).||0.88|0.32|0.0135
90976887|NCT02022826|181837422|OTHER||percentage of agreement|76.0||||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|69.0|83.0|||McNemar|||||83|69|0.0052
90976888|NCT02022826|181837423|OTHER||precentage of agreement|92.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|87.0|96.0|||McNemar|||||96|87|1.00
90976889|NCT03179436|181837429|OTHER||Percent Difference|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|14.1|||Percent Difference|Comparision based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method||||14.1|-8.7|
90945227|NCT02783573|181770157|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-61.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|31.3||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-132.75|8.87|||ANCOVA|||||8.87|-132.75|0.079
90945228|NCT02783573|181770157|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-34.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|31.27||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-104.88|36.59|||ANCOVA|||||36.59|-104.88|0.303
90976890|NCT01634555|181837452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geo LS means|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|1.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|Ratio of Geo LS mean is AUC(0-∞) of Cycle 2/Cycle 1 for Irinotecan .||||1.05|0.83|
90976891|NCT01634555|181837452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geo LS means|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|Ratio of Geo LS mean is AUC(0-∞) of Cycle 2/Cycle 1 for Metabolite SN-38.||||1.04|0.88|
90976892|NCT01634555|181837454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geo LS means|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|Ratio of Geo LS mean is Cmax of Cycle 2/Cycle 1 for Irinotecan.||||1.12|0.97|
90976893|NCT01634555|181837454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geo LS means|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|1.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|Ratio of Geo LS mean is Cmax of Cycle 2/Cycle 1 for Metabolite SN-38.||||1.12|0.85|
90976894|NCT01506882|181837457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent|73.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.9|84.2||||||"The primary efficacy variable was to be calculated as the proportion p=n/N of subjects (n) staying seizure free for 6 months out of the total number of subjects (N). For this proportion p, an exact 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was computed based on the F distribution.~The hypothesis H0: p=0.4 was to be formally rejected in favor of H1: p\>0.4, if the lower confidence limit for p was greater than 0.4."||84.2|60.9|
90976895|NCT03072160|181837530|OTHER|||||||0.926||||||CD4|Wilcoxon signed-rank test||||A change is defined as being statistically significant (p\>0.05).|||0.926
90976896|NCT03072160|181837530|OTHER|||||||0.445||||||CD8|Wilcoxon signed-rank test||||A change is defined as being statistically significant (p\>0.05).|||0.445
90945229|NCT02783573|181770158|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.29||0.283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.015|48.659|||ANCOVA|||||48.659|-16.015|0.283
90945230|NCT02783573|181770158|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.21||0.349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.929|16.82|||ANCOVA|||||16.820|-42.929|0.349
90945231|NCT02783573|181770159|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.23||0.494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.457|6.64|||ANCOVA|||||6.640|-3.457|0.494
90945232|NCT02783573|181770159|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04||0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.743|2.481|||ANCOVA|||||2.481|-6.743|0.323
90945233|NCT02783573|181770160|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.76||0.873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.569|31.017|||ANCOVA|||||31.017|-26.569|0.873
90945234|NCT02783573|181770160|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.43||0.337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.488|17.096|||ANCOVA|||||17.096|-47.488|0.337
90945235|NCT02783573|181770161|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.015|0.017|||ANCOVA|||||0.017|-0.015|0.927
90976897|NCT03072160|181837530|OTHER|||||||0.21||||||Tregs|Wilcoxon signed-rank test||||A change is defined as being statistically significant (p\>0.05).|||0.210
90976898|NCT03072160|181837530|OTHER|||||||0.78||||||Natural Killer (NK) cells|Wilcoxon signed-rank test||||A change is defined as being statistically significant (p\>0.05).|||0.780
90976899|NCT01046695|181837538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Decrease in OME use in the TENS Unit during the first and second 24 hours.||||.005
90976900|NCT01046695|181837538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Decrease in OME use in the Control Arm during the first and second 24 hours.||||.11
90976901|NCT01046695|181837539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.70
90976902|NCT00559273|181837541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The p-value was the probability that the number of responders is greater than or equal to the observed number, although the true response rate was smaller or equal to 60%. Null hypothesis (H0): p-value \<=0.6; alternate hypothesis (H1): p-value \>0.6.||||<0.0001
90976903|NCT00559273|181837541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The p-value was the probability that the number of responders is greater than or equal to the observed number, although the true response rate was smaller or equal to 60%. Null hypothesis (H0): p-value \<=0.6; alternate hypothesis (H1): p-value \>0.6.||||<0.0001
90976904|NCT00559273|181837542|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|MIRCERA treatment was regarded as non-inferior to the darbepoetin alfa reference group if the lower limit of the CI was greater than -0.75 g/dL.|Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.036|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1097|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.252|0.18|||ANCOVA|||||0.180|-0.252|<0.0001
90976905|NCT03213366|181837560|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.0095||||0.5783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04676|0.02776|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At 6 weeks.||0.02776|-0.04676|0.5783
90976906|NCT03213366|181837560|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.01692||||0.3185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05318|0.01933|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At 12 weeks.||0.01933|-0.05318|0.3185
90976907|NCT03213366|181837561|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.03674||||0.07863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00516|0.07863|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At 6 weeks.||0.07863|-0.00516|0.07863
90976908|NCT03213366|181837561|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.02594||||0.1999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01648|0.06836|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At 12 weeks.||0.06836|-0.01648|0.1999
90976909|NCT03213366|181837562|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.000443||||0.8963|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||At 6 weeks.||||0.8963
90976910|NCT03213366|181837562|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.004308||||0.3229|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||At 12 weeks||||0.3229
90976911|NCT03213366|181837563|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.008705||||0.2433|TWO_SIDED|||||This t-test was for the random effects model not for comparing the difference between the arms.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2433
90976912|NCT03213366|181837563|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.01358||||0.0839|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||At 12 weeks.||||0.0839
90976913|NCT03213366|181837564|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.302||||0.2114|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||At 6 weeks.||||0.2114
91037962|NCT00205777|181961031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.18
90945236|NCT02783573|181770161|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.015|0.017|||ANCOVA|||||0.017|-0.015|0.930
90976914|NCT03213366|181837564|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.03149||||0.2141|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||At 12 weeks.||||0.2141
90976915|NCT03213366|181837565|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.0278||||0.0124|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||At 6 weeks.||||0.0124
90976916|NCT03213366|181837565|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.03052||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||At 12 weeks.||||0.0022
90976917|NCT03213366|181837566|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.05747||||0.1021|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||At 6 weeks.||||0.1021
91037963|NCT00205777|181961032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.97
90976918|NCT03213366|181837566|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.05101||||0.133|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||At 12 weeks.||||0.133
90976919|NCT03213366|181837567|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.0209||||0.0818|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||At 6 weeks.||||0.0818
91037964|NCT00205777|181961032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.61
91037965|NCT00205777|181961032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.050
91037966|NCT00205777|181961032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.061||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.061
90945237|NCT02783573|181770162|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.708|0.464|||ANCOVA|||||0.464|-3.708|0.127
90945238|NCT02783573|181770162|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.172|-0.991|||ANCOVA|||||-0.991|-5.172|0.004
90976920|NCT03213366|181837567|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.03103||||0.0334|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||At 12 weeks.||||0.0334
90976921|NCT02058147|181837571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.898|-0.665||Threshold for significance ≤0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Insulin Glargine/Lixisenatide FRC vs Lixisenatide|Analysis was performed using Mixed-effect model with repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment groups, randomization strata of Week -1 HbA1c (\<8.0, ≥8.0%), randomization strata of second OAD use at screening, visits, treatment-by-visit interaction, and country as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c value-by-visit interaction as a covariate.||-0.665|-0.898|<0.0001
90976922|NCT02058147|181837571|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Predefined non-inferiority margin of 0.3%.|LS Mean Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.384|-0.194|||Mixed Models Analysis||Insulin Glargine/Lixisenatide FRC vs Insulin glargine|Analysis was performed using MMRM model with treatment groups, randomization strata of Week -1 HbA1c (\<8.0, ≥8.0%), randomization strata of second OAD use at screening, visits, treatment-by-visit interaction, and country as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c value-by-visit interaction as a covariate.||-0.194|-0.384|
90976923|NCT02058147|181837571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.384|-0.194||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Insulin Glargine/Lixisenatide FRC vs Insulin glargine|Test of superiority was also performed as a secondary endpoint according to hierarchical testing procedure. Analysis was performed using MMRM model with treatment groups, randomization strata of Week -1 HbA1c (\<8.0, ≥8.0%), randomization strata of second OAD use at screening, visits, treatment-by-visit interaction, and country as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c value-by-visit interaction, as a covariate.||-0.194|-0.384|<0.0001
90976924|NCT02058147|181837572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|40.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.63|47.59||Threshold for significance ≤0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||HbA1c \<7.0%: Insulin Glargine/Lixisenatide FRC vs Lixisenatide.|"HbA1c \<7.0%: Insulin Glargine/Lixisenatide FRC vs Lixisenatide.~Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method stratified on randomization strata of Week -1 HbA1c (\<8.0%, ≥8.0%) and randomization strata of second OAD use at screening. This analysis was out of testing order."||47.59|33.63|<0.0001
90976925|NCT02058147|181837572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|36.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.81|42.95||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||HbA1c ≤6.5%: Insulin Glargine/Lixisenatide FRC vs Lixisenatide.|"HbA1c ≤6.5%: Insulin Glargine/Lixisenatide FRC vs Lixisenatide.~Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method stratified on randomization strata of Week -1 HbA1c (\<8.0%, ≥8.0%) and randomization strata of second OAD use at screening. This analysis was out of testing order."||42.95|29.81|<0.0001
91037967|NCT00205777|181961032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.14
91037968|NCT00205777|181961033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.15
91037969|NCT00205777|181961033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.056||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.056
91037970|NCT00205777|181961035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 12 in WHQ: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.20
91037971|NCT00205777|181961035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 12 in WHQ: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.12
91037972|NCT00205777|181961035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 12 in WHQ: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.17
91037973|NCT00205777|181961035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 12 in WHQ: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.92
90945239|NCT00656201|181770165|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This was an equivalence comparison. The study was designed to detect a 14% pregnancy difference between the arms with 80% power and one interim analysis using O'Brien-Fleming parameters and an experiment-wise alpha level of 5%.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.8|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Crinone is the numerator and IM Progesterone is the denominator.|||1.8|0.8|<0.05
90976926|NCT02058147|181837572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|14.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.37|20.25||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||HbA1c \<7.0%: Insulin Glargine/Lixisenatide FRC vs Insulin glargine.|"HbA1c \<7.0%: Insulin Glargine/Lixisenatide FRC vs Insulin glargine.~Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method stratified on randomization strata of Week -1 HbA1c (\<8.0%, ≥8.0%) and randomization strata of second OAD use at screening. This analysis was out of testing order."||20.25|8.37|<0.0001
90976927|NCT02058147|181837572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|16.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.13|22.58||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||HbA1c ≤6.5%: Insulin Glargine/Lixisenatide FRC vs Insulin glargine.|"HbA1c ≤6.5%: Insulin Glargine/Lixisenatide FRC vs Insulin glargine.~Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method stratified on randomization strata of Week -1 HbA1c (\<8.0%, ≥8.0%) and randomization strata of second OAD use at screening. This analysis was out of testing order."||22.58|10.13|<0.0001
91037974|NCT00205777|181961035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 12 in WHQ: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.86
90945240|NCT01434680|181770172|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the hSBA GMTs at 28 days following vaccination was within this equivalence interval for each of the two coprimary comparisons, MenC-CRM LIQ and MenC-CRM EMV would be declared equivalent with respect to the immune response to the vaccines.|hSBA GMT ratios|0.82|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.0|||ANOVA|95% CIs for the GMTs ratios was obtained by exponentiating difference of least square means of log10 transformed titers and both the limits of 95% CIs||The study would be considered a success if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the hSBA GMT ratios comparing MenC-CRM LIQ to MenC-CRM EMV at 28 days after a single vaccination were both within the equivalence interval (0.5, 2.0).||1.00|0.67|<0.05
90945241|NCT01434680|181770172|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the hSBA GMTs at 28 days following vaccination was within this equivalence interval for each of the two coprimary comparisons,MenC-CRM ROS and MenC-CRM EMV would be declared equivalent with respect to the immune response to the vaccines.|hSBA GMT ratios|1.14|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.41|||ANOVA|95% CIs for the GMTs ratios was obtained by exponentiating difference of least square means of log10-transformed titers and both the limits of 95% CIs||The study would be considered a success if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the hSBA GMT ratios comparing MenC-CRM ROS to MenC-CRM EMV at 28 days after a single vaccination were both within the equivalence interval (0.5, 2.0).||1.41|0.92|<0.05
90945242|NCT01434680|181770173|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the hSBA GMTs at 28 days following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, the two vaccine groups would be declared equivalent with respect to the immune response to the vaccines.|hSBA GMT ratios|0.72|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.89|||ANOVA|95% CIs for the GMTs ratios was obtained by exponentiating difference of least square means of log10-transformed titers and both the limits of 95% CIs||The secondary objective was to be assessed only if both primary objectives were met. Because of this, no adjustment for multiplicity was required. MenC-CRM liquid would be declared equivalent to MenC-CRM ROS if the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the hSBA GMTs at approximately 28 days following vaccination was within the equivalence interval (0.5, 2.0).||0.89|0.58|<0.05
90945243|NCT01012245|181770175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|17.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.4||||95.0|17.2|17.3||||||IOP 1 year (n=11602)||17.3|17.2|
90945244|NCT01012245|181770175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|16.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.9||||95.0|16.8|17.0||||||IOP 1 year (n=4450)||17.0|16.8|
90945245|NCT01012245|181770175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|17.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.2||||95.0|17.1|17.5||||||IOP 1 year (n=357)||17.5|17.1|
90945246|NCT01012245|181770175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|16.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.2||||95.0|16.4|17.3||||||IOP 1 year (n=220)||17.3|16.4|
90945247|NCT01012245|181770175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|17.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.1||||95.0|17.5|17.8||||||IOP 1 year (n=3277)||17.8|17.5|
90945248|NCT01012245|181770175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|17.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.4||||95.0|17.0|17.1||||||IOP 2 years (n=8051)||17.1|17.0|
90945249|NCT01012245|181770175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|16.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.9||||95.0|16.7|16.9||||||IOP 2 years (n=2808)||16.9|16.7|
90945250|NCT01012245|181770175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|17.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.8||||95.0|17.0|17.5||||||IOP 2 years (n=175)||17.5|17.0|
90945251|NCT01012245|181770175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|16.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.8||||95.0|15.9|17.2||||||IOP 2 years (n=83)||17.2|15.9|
90945252|NCT01012245|181770175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|17.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.7||||95.0|16.9|17.2||||||IOP 2 years (n=2002)||17.2|16.9|
91037975|NCT00205777|181961035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 24 in WHQ: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.18
90945253|NCT01012245|181770175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|17.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.4||||95.0|16.9|17.1||||||IOP 3 years (n=5469)||17.1|16.9|
90945254|NCT01012245|181770175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|16.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.2||||95.0|16.7|17.0||||||IOP 3 years (n=1932)||17.0|16.7|
90945255|NCT01012245|181770175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|17.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.5||||95.0|16.9|18.1||||||IOP 3 years (n=64)||18.1|16.9|
91037976|NCT00205777|181961035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 24 in WHQ: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.12
90945256|NCT01012245|181770175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|16.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.8||||95.0|15.7|17.4||||||IOP 3 years (n=44)||17.4|15.7|
90945257|NCT01012245|181770175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|16.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.6||||95.0|16.7|17.1||||||IOP 3 years (n=1251)||17.1|16.7|
90945258|NCT01012245|181770177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|0.46|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.25||||95.0|0.46|0.47||||||Vertical C/D ratio 1 year (n=11966)||0.47|0.46|
90945259|NCT01012245|181770177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|0.44|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.24||||95.0|0.43|0.44||||||Vertical C/D ratio 1 year (n=4944)||0.44|0.43|
90945260|NCT01012245|181770177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|0.39|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.19||||95.0|0.35|0.43||||||Vertical C/D ratio 1 year (n=88)||0.43|0.35|
90945261|NCT01012245|181770177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.24||||95.0|0.47|0.53||||||Vertical C/D ratio 1 year (n=241)||0.53|0.47|
90945262|NCT01012245|181770177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|0.51|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.27||||95.0|0.5|0.52||||||Vertical C/D ratio 1 year (n=2949)||0.52|0.50|
90945263|NCT01012245|181770177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|0.46|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.25||||95.0|0.46|0.47||||||Vertical C/D ratio 2 years (n=8783)||0.47|0.46|
90945264|NCT01012245|181770177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|0.43|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.23||||95.0|0.42|0.44||||||Vertical C/D ratio 2 years (n=3396)||0.44|0.42|
90945265|NCT01012245|181770177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|0.39|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.16||||95.0|0.33|0.45||||||Vertical C/D ratio 2 years (n=31)||0.45|0.33|
90945266|NCT01012245|181770177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|0.49|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.24||||95.0|0.44|0.54||||||Vertical C/D ratio 2 years (n=95)||0.54|0.44|
90945267|NCT01012245|181770177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|0.51|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.27||||95.0|0.5|0.53||||||Vertical C/D ratio 2 years (n=1934)||0.53|0.50|
90945268|NCT01012245|181770177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|0.45|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.24||||95.0|0.44|0.45||||||Vertical C/D ratio 3 years (n=6344)||0.45|0.44|
90945269|NCT01012245|181770177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|0.42|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.22||||95.0|0.41|0.43||||||Vertical C/D ratio 3 years (n=2372)||0.43|0.41|
90945270|NCT01012245|181770177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|0.33|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.14||||95.0|0.27|0.39||||||Vertical C/D ratio 3 years (n=25)||0.39|0.27|
90945271|NCT01012245|181770177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|0.47|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.18||||95.0|0.41|0.53||||||Vertical C/D ratio 3 years (n=36)||0.53|0.41|
90945272|NCT01012245|181770177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|0.49|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.26||||95.0|0.48|0.51||||||Vertical C/D ratio 3 years (n=1283)||0.51|0.48|
90945273|NCT01012245|181770178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|0.45|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.25||||95.0|0.45|0.46||||||Horizontal C/D ratio 1 year (n=11433)||0.46|0.45|
90945274|NCT01012245|181770178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|0.42|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.23||||95.0|0.42|0.43||||||Horizontal C/D ratio 1 year (n=4810)||0.43|0.42|
90945275|NCT01012245|181770178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|0.37|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.19||||95.0|0.33|0.42||||||Horizontal C/D ratio 1 year (n=87)||0.42|0.33|
90945276|NCT01012245|181770178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.25||||95.0|0.47|0.53||||||Horizontal C/D ratio 1 year (n=232)||0.53|0.47|
90945277|NCT01012245|181770178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|0.51|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.27||||95.0|0.5|0.52||||||Horizontal C/D ratio 1 year (n=2703)||0.52|0.50|
90945278|NCT01012245|181770178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|0.45|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.25||||95.0|0.44|0.45||||||Horizontal C/D ratio 2 years (n=8427)||0.45|0.44|
90945279|NCT01012245|181770178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|0.41|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.23||||95.0|0.4|0.42||||||Horizontal C/D ratio 2 years (n=3276)||0.42|0.40|
90945280|NCT01012245|181770178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|0.38|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.19||||95.0|0.31|0.45||||||Horizontal C/D ratio 2 years (n=31)||0.45|0.31|
90945281|NCT01012245|181770178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.25||||95.0|0.45|0.56||||||Horizontal C/D ratio 2 years (n=92)||0.56|0.45|
90945282|NCT01012245|181770178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|0.51|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.27||||95.0|0.49|0.52||||||Horizontal C/D ratio 2 years (n=1812)||0.52|0.49|
90945283|NCT01012245|181770178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|0.43|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.24||||95.0|0.43|0.44||||||Horizontal C/D ratio 3 years (n=6102)||0.44|0.43|
90945284|NCT01012245|181770178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|0.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.22||||95.0|0.39|0.41||||||Horizontal C/D ratio 3 years (n=2289)||0.41|0.39|
90945285|NCT01012245|181770178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|0.31|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.15||||95.0|0.25|0.38||||||Horizontal C/D ratio 3 years (n=25)||0.38|0.25|
90945286|NCT01012245|181770178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|0.49|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.21||||95.0|0.42|0.57||||||Horizontal C/D ratio 3 years (n=35)||0.57|0.42|
90945287|NCT01012245|181770178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|0.48|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.26||||95.0|0.47|0.5||||||Horizontal C/D ratio 3 years (n=1204)||0.50|0.47|
91037977|NCT00205777|181961035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.096||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 24 in WHQ: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.096
91037978|NCT00205777|181961035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 24 in WHQ: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.76
91037979|NCT00205777|181961035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 24 in WHQ: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.93
91037980|NCT00205777|181961035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 36 in WHQ: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.36
90945288|NCT04546217|181770196|SUPERIORITY|Since this is a descriptive analysis, no power calculation was conducted.||||||||||||||||Considering the small sample size, a descriptive analysis of means and standard deviations was conducted comparing scores obtained on pre-, post-treatment, at the 3- and 6-month follow up assessments visits.|A descriptive analysis of means and standard deviations was conducted comparing scores obtained on pre-, post-treatment, at the 3- and 6-month follow up assessments visits. Changes in the scores obtained on all time points compared to pre-treatment were also identified.|||
90945289|NCT04546217|181770197|OTHER|Since this is a descriptive analysis, no power calculation was conducted.||||||||||||||||Considering the small sample size, a descriptive analysis of means and standard deviations was conducted comparing scores obtained on pre-, post-treatment, at the 3- and 6-month follow up assessments visits.|A descriptive analysis of means and standard deviations was conducted comparing scores obtained on pre-, post-treatment, at the 3- and 6-month follow up assessment visits. Changes in the scores obtained on all time points compared to pre-treatment were also identified.|||
90945290|NCT04546217|181770198|OTHER|A descriptive analysis of means and standard deviations was conducted comparing scores obtained on pre-, post-treatment, at the 3- and 6-month follow up assessments visits.||||||||||||||||Considering the small sample size, a descriptive analysis of means and standard deviations was conducted comparing scores obtained on pre-, post-treatment, at the 3- and 6-month follow up assessments visits.|A descriptive analysis of means and standard deviations was conducted comparing scores obtained on pre-, post-treatment, at the 3- and 6-month follow up assessment visits. Changes in the scores obtained on all time points compared to pre-treatment were also identified.|||
90945291|NCT04546217|181770199|OTHER|A descriptive analysis of means and standard deviations was conducted comparing scores obtained on pre-, post-treatment, at the 3- and 6-month follow up assessments visits. Changes in scores post-treatment vs. pre-treatment, and 3 and 6-month follow up vs. post-treatment were calculated.|||||||||||||||||A descriptive analysis of means and standard deviations was conducted comparing scores obtained on pre-, post-treatment, at the 3- and 6-month follow up assessment visits. Changes in the scores obtained on all time points compared to pre-treatment were also identified.|||
90945292|NCT04546217|181770200|OTHER|A descriptive analysis of means and standard deviations was conducted comparing scores obtained on pre-, post-treatment, at the 3- and 6-month follow up assessments visits. Changes in scores post-treatment vs. pre-treatment, and 3 and 6-month follow up vs. post-treatment were calculated.|||||||||||||||||A descriptive analysis of means and standard deviations was conducted comparing scores obtained on pre-, post-treatment, at the 3- and 6-month follow up assessment visits. Changes in the scores obtained on all time points compared to pre-treatment were also identified.|||
90945293|NCT04546217|181770201|OTHER|A descriptive analysis of means and standard deviations was conducted comparing scores obtained on pre-, post-treatment, at the 3- and 6-month follow up assessments visits. Changes in scores post-treatment vs. pre-treatment, and 3 and 6-month follow up vs. post-treatment were calculated.|||||||||||||||||A descriptive analysis of means and standard deviations was conducted comparing scores obtained on pre-, post-treatment, at the 3- and 6-month follow up assessment visits. Changes in the scores obtained on all time points compared to pre-treatment were also identified.|||
90945294|NCT03121820|181770248|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The analysis was conducted using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) including fixed effects for treatment, sequence, period and subject within sequence. All pharmacokinetic parameters were log-transformed prior to analysis. Bioequivalence was concluded, when the 90% confidence interval (CI) for the geometric mean ratios were fully contained within the predefined equivalence limits of 80.00 % to 125.00 %|Test/Ref Geometric mean ratio x 100|93.8||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.25|99.77|||Test/Ref Geometric mean ratio x 100|Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80.00 % -125.00 %.||Memantinol 20 mg Tablets Versus Akatinol Memantine® 20 mg||99.77|88.25|0.05
90945295|NCT03121820|181770249|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The analysis was conducted using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) including fixed effects for treatment, sequence, period and subject within sequence. All pharmacokinetic parameters were log-transformed prior to analysis. Bioequivalence was concluded, when the 90% confidence interval (CI) for the geometric mean ratios were fully contained within the predefined equivalence limits of 80.00 % to 125.00 %|Test/Ref Geometric mean ratio x 100|92.3||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.37|98.55|||Test/Ref Geometric mean ratio x 100|Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80.00 % -125.00 %.||Memantinol 20 mg Tablets Versus Akatinol Memantine® 20 mg||98.55|86.37|0.05
90945296|NCT01245140|181770255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5731||||0.9705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.9738|32.12|||ANCOVA|||||32.1200|-30.9738|0.9705
90945297|NCT01245140|181770256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4564||95.0||||PPPASI 50 response|Fisher Exact|||||||0.4564
90945298|NCT01245140|181770256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6595||95.0||||PPPASI 75 response|Fisher Exact|||||||0.6595
90945299|NCT01245140|181770258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51||95.0||||Change in Total Pustule Count: BL to Last Visit|Wilcoxon test: Exact Test|||||||0.51
90945300|NCT01245140|181770259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12||95.0||||Relative change in mPASI score: BL to Last Visit|Wilcoxon test: Exact Test|||||||0.12
90945301|NCT01245140|181770260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squared estimation|49.4927||||0.2358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.083|148.07|||ANCOVA|||||148.07|-49.0830|0.2358
90945302|NCT01245140|181770261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1667||95.0||||mPASI 50 response|Fisher Exact|||||||0.1667
90945303|NCT01245140|181770261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1667||95.0||||mPASI 75 response|Fisher Exact|||||||0.1667
90945304|NCT04082429|181770286|SUPERIORITY|Bleeding endpoints were analysed using a negative binomial regression model with the logarithm of the length of the observation period included (in years) as offset with treatment and bleeding frequency prior to screening as factors.|ABR ratio|0.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.29|||Negative binomial regression|||||0.29|0.07|<0.001
90945305|NCT04082429|181770287|SUPERIORITY|Bleeding endpoints were analysed using a negative binomial regression model with the logarithm of the length of the observation period included (in years) as offset with treatment and bleeding frequency prior to screening as factors.|ABR ratio|0.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.45|||Negative binomial regression|||||0.45|0.10|<0.001
90945306|NCT01952847|181770314|OTHER|||||||0.73|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.73
90945307|NCT01952847|181770315|OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.68
90945308|NCT01952847|181770318|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
90945309|NCT01952847|181770319|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.59
90945310|NCT01952847|181770320|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.73
90945311|NCT01952847|181770321|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
90945312|NCT01952847|181770322|OTHER|||||||0.54|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.54
90945313|NCT01952847|181770323|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.00
90945314|NCT01952847|181770324|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.57
90945315|NCT01952847|181770328|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.83
90945316|NCT01952847|181770329|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.39
90945317|NCT02577003|181770336|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.57|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Based on a cLDA model with the terms listed above.||||-0.57|-0.98|<0.001
90945318|NCT02577003|181770339|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-28.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.8|-21.5|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Based on a cLDA model with the terms listed above.||||-21.5|-34.8|<0.001
90945319|NCT02577003|181770340|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-48.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.6|-37.5|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Based on a cLDA model with the terms listed above.||||-37.5|-59.6|<0.001
90945320|NCT02577003|181770341|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-84.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-102.6|-66.6|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Based on a cLDA model with the terms listed above.||||-66.6|-102.6|<0.001
90945321|NCT02577003|181770342|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-1.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-1.1|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Based on a cLDA model with the terms listed above.||||-1.1|-2.5|<0.001
90945322|NCT01234883|181770345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
90945323|NCT01013961|181770346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.722|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.722
90945324|NCT01013961|181770347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
91037981|NCT00205777|181961035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 36 in WHQ: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.34
90945325|NCT01271504|181770370|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.5||||||||1.50|0.56|
90945326|NCT01271504|181770371|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.5||||||||1.50|0.57|
90945327|NCT01271504|181770373|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.62||||||||1.62|0.60|
90945328|NCT02768597|181770375|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.552|||||||ANOVA|||||||.552
90945329|NCT02768597|181770376|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.558|||||||ANOVA|||||||.558
90945330|NCT02768597|181770377|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.274|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.274
90945331|NCT02768597|181770378|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.539|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.539
90945332|NCT02768597|181770379|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.478|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.478
90945333|NCT02768597|181770380|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.527|||||||ANOVA|||||||.527
90945334|NCT02768597|181770381|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.823|||||||ANOVA|||||||.823
90945335|NCT02768597|181770382|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.231|||||||ANOVA|||||||.231
90945336|NCT02768597|181770383|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.595|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.595
90945337|NCT02768597|181770384|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.789|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.789
90945338|NCT02402322|181770422|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|In the preliminary analysis, we studied the possible group differences in demographic data and pretreatment measures with chi-square tests and analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||The participants' pre- and posttreatment scores were studied with repeated measures ANOVA. Within- and between-group effect sizes were calculated using the pooled standard deviation, Cohen's d.||||0.05
90945339|NCT02818998|181770431|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin: 4 letters|Least Squares mean difference|0.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|1.47||Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the p-value (adjusted for multiplicity using the Hochberg procedure) was \< 0.025|ANCOVA|||Aflibercept 2 mg fixed was regarded as the reference arm||1.47|-1.46|<0.0001
90945340|NCT02818998|181770431|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin: 4 letters|Least Squares mean difference|0.95|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|2.42||Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the p-value (adjusted for multiplicity using the Hochberg procedure) was \< 0.025|ANCOVA|||Aflibercept 2 mg fixed was regarded as the reference arm||2.42|-0.52|<0.0001
90945341|NCT02818998|181770432|OTHER||Least Square mean difference|14.38||||0.0105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.39|25.37|||ANCOVA|||Aflibercept 2 mg fixed was regarded as the reference arm||25.37|3.39|0.0105
90945342|NCT02818998|181770432|OTHER||Least Square mean difference|21.22||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.65|34.8|||ANCOVA|||Aflibercept 2 mg fixed was regarded as the reference arm||34.80|7.65|0.0023
90945343|NCT02818998|181770433|OTHER||Treatment Difference|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.14|4.49|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||≥ 15 letter gain: Aflibercept 2 mg fixed was regarded as the reference arm||4.49|-3.14|
90945344|NCT02818998|181770433|OTHER||Treatment Difference|2.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|8.73|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||≥10 letter gain: Aflibercept 2 mg fixed was regarded as the reference arm||8.73|-3.40|
90945345|NCT02818998|181770433|OTHER||Treatment Difference|-0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|0.63|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||≥30 letter loss: Aflibercept 2 mg fixed was regarded as the reference arm||0.63|-1.94|
90945346|NCT02818998|181770433|OTHER||Treatment Difference|-0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.68|3.41|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||≥15 letter gain: Aflibercept 2 mg fixed was regarded as the reference arm||3.41|-3.68|
90945347|NCT02818998|181770433|OTHER||Treatment Difference|1.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|7.54|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||≥10 letter gain: Aflibercept 2 mg fixed was regarded as the reference arm||7.54|-4.10|
90945348|NCT02818998|181770433|OTHER||Treatment Difference|-0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.65|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||≥30 letter loss: Aflibercept 2 mg fixed was regarded as the reference arm||0.65|-2.00|
90945349|NCT02818998|181770434|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin: 4 letters|Least Squares mean difference|-0.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|1.52|||ANCOVA|||Aflibercept 2 mg fixed was regarded as the reference arm||1.52|-2.13|<0.0001
90945350|NCT02818998|181770434|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin: 4 letters|Least Squares mean difference|1.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|3.19|||ANCOVA|||Aflibercept 2 mg fixed was regarded as the reference arm||3.19|-0.40|<0.0001
91037982|NCT00205777|181961035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 36 in WHQ: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.98
91037983|NCT00205777|181961035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 36 in WHQ: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.35
91037984|NCT00205777|181961035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 36 in WHQ: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.35
91037985|NCT00205777|181961037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 12 in QUALEFFO: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.080
91037986|NCT00205777|181961037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 12 in QUALEFFO: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.41
91037987|NCT00205777|181961037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 12 in QUALEFFO: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.65
90945351|NCT02818998|181770435|OTHER||Least Square mean difference|16.14||||0.0416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|31.66|||ANCOVA|||Aflibercept 2 mg fixed was regarded as the reference arm||31.66|0.62|0.0416
90945352|NCT02818998|181770435|OTHER||Least Square mean difference|4.12||||0.5524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.52|17.77|||ANCOVA|||Aflibercept 2 mg fixed was regarded as the reference arm||17.77|-9.52|0.5524
90945353|NCT02818998|181770436|OTHER||Treatment Difference|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.72|4.05|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||≥ 15 letter gain: Aflibercept 2 mg fixed was regarded as the reference arm||4.05|-2.72|
90945354|NCT02818998|181770436|OTHER||Treatment Difference|4.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|10.98|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||≥10 letter gain: Aflibercept 2 mg fixed was regarded as the reference arm||10.98|-1.73|
90945355|NCT02818998|181770436|OTHER||Treatment Difference|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|2.87|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||≥30 letter loss: Aflibercept 2 mg fixed was regarded as the reference arm||2.87|-1.56|
90945356|NCT02818998|181770436|OTHER||Treatment Difference|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|5.69|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||≥15 letter gain: Aflibercept 2 mg fixed was regarded as the reference arm||5.69|-1.89|
90945357|NCT02818998|181770436|OTHER||Treatment Difference|7.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|14.28|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||≥10 letter gain: Aflibercept 2 mg fixed was regarded as the reference arm||14.28|0.81|
90945358|NCT02818998|181770436|OTHER||Treatment Difference|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|2.88|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||≥30 letter loss: Aflibercept 2 mg fixed was regarded as the reference arm||2.88|-1.61|
90945359|NCT02472145|181770438|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.4747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.8|||Chi-squared|||Statistical Analysis 1||2.8|0.8|0.4747
90945360|NCT02472145|181770439|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.7817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.37|||Log Rank|||Statistical Analysis 1||1.37|0.79|0.7817
90945361|NCT00632021|181770450|EQUIVALENCE|In the primary analysis we compared the number of clinically important medication errors by treatment group using unadjusted negative binomial regression.|Incidence Rate Ratio (IRR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.09||||||||1.09|0.77|
90945362|NCT00632021|181770451|EQUIVALENCE|The association between intervention and time to first unplanned health care event (hospital readmission) was examined using multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression models.|Cox Proportional Hazard|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.28||||||||1.28|0.63|
90945363|NCT03563313|181770452|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
90945364|NCT03563313|181770453|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
90945365|NCT03563313|181770454|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
90945366|NCT03563313|181770455|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.001
90945367|NCT03563313|181770456|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
90945368|NCT03563313|181770457|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.02
90945369|NCT02250534|181770501|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.41|-3.26||The p-value is Bonferroni-corrected for multiple comparisons with a priori threshold of significance P \< 0.0167|ANCOVA||Group difference = 0.12 mg nicotine - 0.8 mg nicotine|The statistical analysis method was ANCOVA, in order to test for statistically significant differences between group means, while controlling for covariates of interest. It was calculated that 207 subjects per group would be required to have at least 90% power to detect a mean difference of 4.52 CPD between the 0.8 mg and 0.12 mg groups at week 12, with significance level alpha of 0.0167. The significance level reflects the Bonferroni correction needed for testing of all pairwise comparisons.||-3.26|-7.41|<0.0001
90945370|NCT02250534|181770501|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.51|-5.57||The p-value is Bonferroni-corrected for multiple comparisons with a priori threshold of significance P \< 0.0167|ANCOVA||Group difference = 0.03 mg nicotine - 0.8 mg nicotine|The statistical analysis method was ANCOVA, in order to test for statistically significant differences between group means, while controlling for covariates of interest. It was calculated that 207 subjects per group would be required to have at least 90% power to detect a mean difference of 6.07 CPD between the 0.8 mg and 0.03 mg groups at week 12, with significance level alpha of 0.0167. The significance level reflects the Bonferroni correction needed for testing of all pairwise comparisons.||-5.57|-9.51|<0.0001
91037988|NCT00205777|181961037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 12 in QUALEFFO: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.18
91037989|NCT00205777|181961037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 12 in QUALEFFO: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.36
91037990|NCT00205777|181961037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 24 in QUALEFFO: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.27
91037991|NCT00205777|181961037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 24 in QUALEFFO: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.25
91037992|NCT00205777|181961037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.053||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 24 in QUALEFFO: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.053
91037993|NCT00205777|181961037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 24 in QUALEFFO: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.40
91037994|NCT00205777|181961037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 24 in QUALEFFO: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.45
91037995|NCT00205777|181961037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 36 in QUALEFFO: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.012
91037996|NCT00205777|181961037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 36 in QUALEFFO: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.54
91037997|NCT00205777|181961037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 36 in QUALEFFO: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.11
91037998|NCT00205777|181961037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 36 in QUALEFFO: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.35
91037999|NCT00205777|181961037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 36 in QUALEFFO: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.34
91038000|NCT00205777|181961039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 12 in EQ-5D VAS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.21
91038001|NCT00205777|181961039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.058|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 12 in EQ-5D VAS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.058
91038002|NCT00205777|181961039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 12 in EQ-5D VAS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.76
91038003|NCT00205777|181961039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 12 in EQ-5D VAS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.34
91038004|NCT00205777|181961039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 12 in EQ-5D VAS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.51
91038005|NCT00205777|181961039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 24 in EQ-5D VAS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.14
91038006|NCT00205777|181961039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 24 in EQ-5D VAS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.57
91038007|NCT00205777|181961039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 24 in EQ-5D VAS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.78
91038008|NCT00205777|181961039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 24 in EQ-5D VAS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.24
91038009|NCT00205777|181961039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 24 in EQ-5D VAS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.78
91038010|NCT00205777|181961039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 36 in EQ-5D VAS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.62
91038011|NCT00205777|181961039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 36 in EQ-5D VAS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.72
91038012|NCT00205777|181961039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 36 in EQ-5D VAS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.16
91038013|NCT00205777|181961039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.059||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 36 in EQ-5D VAS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.059
91038014|NCT00205777|181961039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 36 in EQ-5D VAS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.30
91038015|NCT00205777|181961041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 12 in EQ-5D: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.72
91038016|NCT00205777|181961041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 12 in EQ-5D: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.98
91038017|NCT00205777|181961041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 12 in EQ-5D: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.84
91038018|NCT00205777|181961041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 12 in EQ-5D: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.88
91038019|NCT00205777|181961041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 12 in EQ-5D: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.86
91038020|NCT00205777|181961041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 24 in EQ-5D: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.82
91038021|NCT00205777|181961041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 24 in EQ-5D: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.11
91038022|NCT00205777|181961041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 24 in EQ-5D: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.14
91038023|NCT00205777|181961041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 24 in EQ-5D: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.22
91038024|NCT00205777|181961041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 24 in EQ-5D: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.88
91038025|NCT00205777|181961041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 36 in EQ-5D: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.96
91038026|NCT00205777|181961041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 36 in EQ-5D: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.76
91038027|NCT00205777|181961041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 36 in EQ-5D: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.92
91038028|NCT00205777|181961041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 36 in EQ-5D: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.89
91038029|NCT00205777|181961041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 36 in EQ-5D: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.83
91038030|NCT04428307|181961042|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|2.02||||||||2.02|0.61|
91038031|NCT04428307|181961042|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.71||||||||1.71|0.49|
91038032|NCT04428307|181961043|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.8||||||||1.80|0.83|
91038033|NCT04428307|181961043|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.62||||||||1.62|0.81|
91038034|NCT04428307|181961044|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.09||||||||1.09|0.80|
91038035|NCT04428307|181961044|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.16||||||||1.16|0.85|
91038036|NCT04428307|181961045|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.73||||||||1.73|0.75|
91038037|NCT04428307|181961045|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.74||||||||1.74|0.77|
90945371|NCT00537329|181770517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||2-sided exact Clopper-Pearson (percent)|86.1||||||95.0|70.5|95.3||||||Sample size enrollment of 100 subjects was planned. Assuming an overall response rate of 75 percent (%), a 95% confidence interval (CI) for the percentage of subjects responding to treatment would have ranged from 66.3% to 83.7% allowing for 5% nonevaluability. This would have provided a level of precision considered acceptable for this Asian regional study.||95.3|70.5|
90945372|NCT00537329|181770518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||2-sided exact Clopper-Pearson (percent)|89.2||||||95.0|74.6|97.0||||||EOIT||97.0|74.6|
90945373|NCT00537329|181770518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||2-sided exact Clopper-Pearson (percent)|82.8||||||95.0|64.2|94.2||||||2 Wks post EOT||94.2|64.2|
90945374|NCT00537329|181770518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||2-sided exact Clopper-Pearson (percent)|89.5||||||95.0|66.9|98.7||||||6 Wks post EOT||98.7|66.9|
90945375|NCT00537329|181770518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||2-sided exact Clopper-Pearson (percent)|72.7||||||95.0|49.8|89.3||||||12 Wks post baseline||89.3|49.8|
90945376|NCT00537329|181770519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||2-sided exact Clopper-Pearson (percent)|97.1||||||95.0|85.1|99.9||||||EOIT: success (cure/improvement)||99.9|85.1|
90945377|NCT00537329|181770519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||2-sided exact Clopper-Pearson (percent)|94.1||||||95.0|80.3|99.3||||||EOT: success (cure/improvement)||99.3|80.3|
90945378|NCT00537329|181770519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||2-sided exact Clopper-Pearson (percent)|92.9||||||95.0|76.5|99.1||||||2 Wks post EOT: success (cure/improvement)||99.1|76.5|
90945379|NCT00537329|181770519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||2-sided exact Clopper-Pearson (percent)|94.4||||||95.0|72.7|99.9||||||6 Wks post EOT: success (cure/improvement)||99.9|72.7|
90945380|NCT00537329|181770519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||2-sided exact Clopper-Pearson (percent)|85.0||||||95.0|62.1|96.8||||||12 Wks post baseline: success (cure/improvement)||96.8|62.1|
90945381|NCT00537329|181770520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||2-sided exact Clopper-Pearson (percent)|97.3||||||95.0|85.8|99.9||||||EOIT: success (erad/presumed erad)||99.9|85.8|
90945382|NCT00537329|181770520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||2-sided exact Clopper-Pearson (percent)|97.1||||||95.0|85.1|99.9||||||EOT: success (erad/presumed erad)||99.9|85.1|
90945383|NCT00537329|181770520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||2-sided exact Clopper-Pearson (percent)|86.2||||||95.0|68.3|96.1||||||2 Wks post EOT: success (erad/presumed erad)||96.1|68.3|
90945384|NCT00537329|181770520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||2-sided exact Clopper-Pearson (percent)|94.4||||||95.0|72.7|99.9||||||6 Wks post EOT: success (erad/presumed erad)||99.9|72.7|
90945385|NCT00537329|181770520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||2-sided exact Clopper-Pearson (percent)|84.2||||||95.0|60.4|96.6||||||12 Wks post baseline: success (erad/presumed erad)||96.6|60.4|
90976928|NCT02058147|181837573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.185|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.498|-1.77||Threshold for significance ≤0.05. The hierarchical testing continued only when primary hypotheses (superiority: FRC to lixisenatide; non-inferiority: FRC to insulin glargine for HbA1c) was statistically significant.|ANCOVA||Insulin Glargine/Lixisenatide FRC vs Insulin glargine.|Analysis was performed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment groups, randomization strata of Week -1 HbA1c (\<8.0,≥8.0%), randomization strata of second OAD use at screening \& country as fixed effects \& baseline plasma glucose excursion value as a covariate. Hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially per pre-specified order.||-1.77|-2.498|<0.0001
91038038|NCT04428307|181961046|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.11||||||||1.11|0.95|
91038039|NCT04428307|181961046|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.04||||||||1.04|0.89|
91038040|NCT04667338|181961072|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5061|||||||Chi-squared|||Pharmacological||||=0.5061
90945386|NCT00537329|181770527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||2-sided exact Clopper-Pearson (percent)|50.0||||||95.0|1.3|98.7||||||Neutropenic status: ANC ≤ 500/cmm||98.7|1.3|
90945387|NCT00537329|181770527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||2-sided exact Clopper-Pearson (percent)|75.7||||||95.0|58.8|88.2||||||Neutropenic status: ANC \> 500/cmm||88.2|58.8|
90945388|NCT00537329|181770527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||2-sided exact Clopper-Pearson (percent)|71.4||||||95.0|41.9|91.6||||||Baseline pathogen: Candida albicans||91.6|41.9|
90945389|NCT00537329|181770527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||2-sided exact Clopper-Pearson (percent)|66.7||||||95.0|22.3|95.7||||||Baseline pathogen: Candida glabrata||95.7|22.3|
90945390|NCT00537329|181770527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||2-sided exact Clopper-Pearson (percent)|100.0||||||95.0|39.8|100.0||||||Baseline pathogen: Candida parapsilosis||100.0|39.8|
90945391|NCT00537329|181770527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||2-sided exact Clopper-Pearson (percent)|100.0||||||95.0|2.5|100.0||||||Baseline pathogen: Candida rugosa||100.0|2.5|
90945392|NCT00537329|181770527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||2-sided exact Clopper-Pearson (percent)|72.2||||||95.0|46.5|90.3||||||Baseline pathogen: Candida tropicalis||90.3|46.5|
90945393|NCT00537329|181770527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||2-sided exact Clopper-Pearson (percent)|84.6||||||95.0|54.6|98.1||||||Previous surgery: Any surgery||98.1|54.6|
90945394|NCT00537329|181770527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||2-sided exact Clopper-Pearson (percent)|87.5||||||95.0|47.3|99.7||||||Previous surgery: Abdominal surgery||99.7|47.3|
90945395|NCT00537329|181770527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||2-sided exact Clopper-Pearson (percent)|58.8||||||95.0|32.9|81.6||||||Elderly: Age ≥ 65 years||81.6|32.9|
90945396|NCT00537329|181770527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||2-sided exact Clopper-Pearson (percent)|54.5||||||95.0|23.4|83.3||||||Renal insufficiency (CCC \< 30 mL/min)||83.3|23.4|
90945397|NCT00537329|181770527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||2-sided exact Clopper-Pearson (percent)|81.0||||||95.0|58.1|94.6||||||Use of Central venous catheter = Yes||94.6|58.1|
90945398|NCT00537329|181770527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||2-sided exact Clopper-Pearson (percent)|71.4||||||95.0|29.0|96.3||||||Receiving chemotherapy = Yes||96.3|29.0|
90945399|NCT02353871|181770555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (maximum frown)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of ILA - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus Placebo at Day 29||||<0.0001
90945400|NCT02353871|181770556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (maximum frown)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of ILA at Day 8 - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus placebo||||<0.0001
91038041|NCT04667338|181961072|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2053|||||||Chi-squared|||Non-pharmacological||||=0.2053
91038042|NCT04667338|181961073|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.4016|||||||Chi-squared|||||||=0.4016
90945401|NCT02353871|181770556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (maximum frown)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of ILA at Day 15 - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus placebo||||<0.0001
91038043|NCT04667338|181961076|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5274|||||||Chi-squared|||Educational level ongoing or completed level of education||||=0.5274
91038044|NCT04667338|181961076|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.7051|||||||Chi-squared|||Occupational status and occupation||||=0.7051
91038045|NCT04667338|181961076|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3543|||||||Chi-squared|||Civil status||||=0.3543
91038046|NCT04667338|181961076|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0368|||||||Chi-squared|||Living conditions||||=0.0368
91038047|NCT04667338|181961076|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3512|||||||Chi-squared|||Smoking status||||=0.3512
91038048|NCT04667338|181961076|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.104|||||||Chi-squared|||Alcohol intake||||=0.1040
91038049|NCT04667338|181961076|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0202|||||||Chi-squared|||Exercise status||||=0.0202
91038050|NCT04667338|181961076|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3503|||||||Chi-squared|||Family history of narcolepsy||||=0.3503
91038051|NCT04667338|181961081|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0715|||||||Chi-squared|||General practitioner||||=0.0715
91038052|NCT04667338|181961081|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0929|||||||Chi-squared|||Neurologist||||=0.0929
91038053|NCT04667338|181961081|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3092|||||||Chi-squared|||Neuropediatrician||||=0.3092
91038054|NCT04667338|181961081|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.4528|||||||Chi-squared|||Neurophysiologist||||=0.4528
91038055|NCT04667338|181961081|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||Pneumologist||||<0.0001
90945402|NCT02353871|181770556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (maximum frown)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of ILA at Day 57 - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus placebo||||<0.0001
90945403|NCT02353871|181770556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (maximum frown)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of ILA at Day 85 - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus placebo||||<0.0001
90945404|NCT02353871|181770556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (maximum frown)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of ILA at Day 113 - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus placebo||||<0.0001
90945405|NCT02353871|181770556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0035||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (maximum frown)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of ILA at Day 148 - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus placebo||||0.0035
90945406|NCT02353871|181770556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0441||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (maximum frown)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of ILA at Day 183 (End of Study) - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus placebo||||0.0441
91038056|NCT04667338|181961081|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1785|||||||Chi-squared|||Somnologist||||=0.1785
91038057|NCT04667338|181961081|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1474|||||||Chi-squared|||Somnologist-unit||||=0.1474
91038058|NCT04667338|181961082|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2042|||||||Chi-squared|||Clinical history||||=0.2042
91038059|NCT04667338|181961082|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5818|||||||Chi-squared|||Clinical assessment: ESS||||=0.5818
91038060|NCT04667338|181961082|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0368|||||||Chi-squared|||Neurological assessment||||=0.0368
91038061|NCT04667338|181961082|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1128|||||||Chi-squared|||MSLT||||=0.1128
91038062|NCT04667338|181961082|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3396|||||||Chi-squared|||AHI||||=0.3396
91038063|NCT04667338|181961082|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.6794|||||||Chi-squared|||Other procedures||||=0.6794
91038064|NCT04667338|181961082|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0138|||||||Chi-squared|||HLA typing||||=0.0138
91038065|NCT04667338|181961082|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0597|||||||Chi-squared|||Hypocretin-1 CSF or Orexin||||=0.0597
91038066|NCT04667338|181961083|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1171|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.1171
91038067|NCT04667338|181961084|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3834|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.3834
91038068|NCT04667338|181961089|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0531|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.0531
91038069|NCT04667338|181961090|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0005|||||||Chi-squared|||Take short naps||||=0.0005
91038070|NCT04667338|181961090|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.8221|||||||Chi-squared|||Maintain a regular sleep schedule||||=0.8221
91038071|NCT04667338|181961090|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2291|||||||Chi-squared|||Avoid caffeine or alcohol before bedtime||||=0.2291
91038072|NCT04667338|181961090|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.9177|||||||Chi-squared|||Avoid smoking, especially at night||||=0.9177
91038073|NCT04667338|181961090|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.4188|||||||Chi-squared|||Exercise daily||||=0.4188
91038074|NCT04667338|181961090|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5818|||||||Chi-squared|||Avoid large, heavy meals right before bedtime||||=0.5818
91038075|NCT04667338|181961090|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5432|||||||Chi-squared|||Other||||=0.5432
91038076|NCT04667338|181961091|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5432|||||||Chi-squared|||Treatment||||=0.5432
91038077|NCT04667338|181961091|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0397|||||||Chi-squared|||Routine monitoring visits||||=0.0397
91038078|NCT04667338|181961091|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0306|||||||Chi-squared|||Tests||||=0.0306
91038079|NCT04667338|181961091|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.7451|||||||Chi-squared|||Emergency visits||||=0.7451
91038080|NCT04667338|181961091|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0845|||||||Chi-squared|||Hospitalizations||||=0.0845
91038081|NCT04667338|181961091|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3813|||||||Chi-squared|||Complications||||=0.3813
91038082|NCT04667338|181961093|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0034|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Absenteeism||||=0.0034
91038083|NCT04667338|181961093|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2178|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Presenteeism||||=0.2178
91038084|NCT04667338|181961093|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1758|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Work productivity loss||||=0.1758
91038085|NCT04667338|181961093|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1789|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Activity Impairment / disability||||=0.1789
91038086|NCT04667338|181961094|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5806|||||||Chi-squared|||||||=0.5806
91038087|NCT04667338|181961096|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1602|||||||Chi-squared|||Mobility||||=0.1602
91038088|NCT04667338|181961096|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5249|||||||Chi-squared|||Self-Care||||=0.5249
91038089|NCT04667338|181961096|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1095|||||||Chi-squared|||Usual activities||||=0.1095
90976929|NCT02058147|181837574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.891|-0.91||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Insulin Glargine/Lixisenatide FRC vs Insulin glargine|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (continued only if previous endpoints were statistically significant). Analysis was performed using MMRM model with treatment groups, randomization strata of Week -1 HbA1c (\<8.0, ≥8.0%), randomization strata of second OAD use at screening, visits, treatment-by-visit interaction, and country as fixed effects and baseline body weight value-by-visit interaction as a covariate.||-0.91|-1.891|<0.0001
91038090|NCT04667338|181961096|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3528|||||||Chi-squared|||Pain / Discomfort||||=0.3528
91038091|NCT04667338|181961096|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.7434|||||||Chi-squared|||Anxiety / Depression||||=0.7434
91038092|NCT04667338|181961097|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0396|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.0396
91038093|NCT04667338|181961098|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0394|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Effectiveness||||=0.0394
91038094|NCT04667338|181961098|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3093|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Convenience||||=0.3093
91038095|NCT04667338|181961098|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2296|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Global satisfaction||||=0.2296
91038096|NCT04667338|181961099|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1817|||||||Chi-squared|||Depression||||=0.1817
91038097|NCT04667338|181961099|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0885|||||||Chi-squared|||Bipolar disorder||||=0.0885
91038098|NCT04667338|181961099|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3043|||||||Chi-squared|||Anxiety disorders||||=0.3043
91038099|NCT04667338|181961099|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0885|||||||Chi-squared|||Panic disorder||||=0.0885
91038100|NCT04667338|181961099|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5603|||||||Chi-squared|||Phobia disorder||||=0.5603
91038101|NCT04667338|181961099|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5603|||||||Chi-squared|||Obsessive compulsive disorder||||=0.5603
91038102|NCT04667338|181961099|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3646|||||||Chi-squared|||Diagnosis of ADHD||||=0.3646
91038103|NCT04667338|181961099|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2615|||||||Chi-squared|||Obesity||||=0.2615
91038104|NCT04667338|181961099|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3076|||||||Chi-squared|||Endocrine Disorders||||=0.3076
91038105|NCT04667338|181961099|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.409|||||||Chi-squared|||Peripheral vascular disease||||=0.4090
91038106|NCT04667338|181961099|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5603|||||||Chi-squared|||Cardiovascular accident or transient ischemic attack (TIA)||||=0.5603
91038107|NCT04667338|181961099|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5603|||||||Chi-squared|||COPD||||=0.5603
91038108|NCT04667338|181961099|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5603|||||||Chi-squared|||Connective tissue disease||||=0.5603
91038109|NCT04667338|181961099|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.7451|||||||Chi-squared|||Liver Disease||||=0.7451
91038110|NCT04667338|181961099|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3108|||||||Chi-squared|||Diabetes Mellitus||||=0.3108
91038111|NCT04667338|181961099|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2407|||||||Chi-squared|||Solid Tumor||||=0.2407
91038112|NCT04667338|181961099|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5603|||||||Chi-squared|||AIDS||||=0.5603
91038113|NCT04667338|181961099|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1739|||||||Chi-squared|||Others||||=0.1739
91038114|NCT04667338|181961100|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3585|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.3585
91038115|NCT05604209|181961104|SUPERIORITY||Median log2 fold change|1.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|2.14|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Within-group log2 fold changes were statistically assessed using a two-sided exact Wilcoxon signed rank test.||The null hypothesis is that the median log2-fold change in magnitude of T-cell response to Mosaic-1 from baseline to day 35 within all vaccinees is zero.||2.14|0.67|<0.001
91038116|NCT05604209|181961104|SUPERIORITY||median log2 fold change|1.15||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|2.59|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Within-arm log2 fold changes were statistically assessed using a two-sided exact Wilcoxon signed rank test.||The null hypothesis is that the median log2-fold change in magnitude of T-cell response to Mosaic-1 from baseline to day 35 within the C62-M4 vaccinated arm is zero.||2.59|0.09|0.008
91038117|NCT05604209|181961104|SUPERIORITY||Median log2 fold change|1.66||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|4.59|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Within-am log2 fold changes were statistically assessed using a two-sided exact Wilcoxon signed rank test.||The null hypothesis is that the median log2-fold change in magnitude of T-cell response to Mosaic-1 from baseline to day 35 within the C1C62-M3M4 vaccinated arm is zero.||4.59|0.93|0.008
91038118|NCT05604209|181961104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.279|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Between-arm comparisons in log2 fold changes were statistically assessed using a two-sided exact Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||The contrast is the magnitude of the T-cell response to Mosaic-1 from baseline to day 35 in C62-M4 versus C1C62-M3M4.The null hypothesis is that he distributions of the T-cell response to Mosaic-1 from pre-vaccination to day 35 are the same between the two vaccinated arms.||||0.279
91038119|NCT05604209|181961105|SUPERIORITY||Median log2 fold change|1.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|2.33|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Within-group log2 fold changes were statistically assessed using a two-sided exact Wilcoxon signed rank test.||The null hypothesis is that the median log2-fold change in magnitude of T-cell response to Mosaic-2 from baseline to day 35 within all vaccinees is zero.||2.33|1.09|<0.001
90976930|NCT02058147|181837575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.144|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.246|-1.682||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Insulin Glargine/Lixisenatide FRC vs Lixisenatide|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (continued only if previous endpoints were statistically significant). Analysis was performed using MMRM model with treatment groups, randomization strata of Week -1 HbA1c (\<8.0, ≥8.0%), randomization strata of second OAD use at screening, visits, treatment-by-visit interaction, and country as fixed effects and baseline FPG value-by-visit interaction as a covariate.||-1.682|-2.246|<0.0001
90976931|NCT02058147|181837576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.124|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.645|-1.158||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Insulin Glargine/Lixisenatide FRC vs Lixisenatide|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (continued only if previous endpoints were statistically significant). Analysis was performed using MMRM model with treatment groups, randomization strata of Week -1 HbA1c (\<8.0, ≥8.0%), randomization strata of second OAD use at screening, visits, treatment-by-visit interaction, and country as fixed effects and baseline 7-point SMPG value-by-visit interaction as a covariate.||-1.158|-1.645|<0.0001
91038120|NCT05604209|181961105|SUPERIORITY||Median log2 fold change|1.79||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|3.4|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Within-arm log2 fold changes were statistically assessed using a two-sided exact Wilcoxon signed rank test.||The null hypothesis is that the median log2-fold change in magnitude of T-cell response to Mosaic-2 from baseline to day 35 within the C62-M4 vaccinated arm is zero.||3.40|0.59|0.008
91038121|NCT05604209|181961105|SUPERIORITY||Median log2 fold change|1.66||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|3.09|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Within-arm log2 fold changes were statistically assessed using a two-sided exact Wilcoxon signed rank test.||The null hypothesis is that the median log2-fold change in magnitude of T-cell response to Mosaic-2 from baseline to day 35 within the C1C62-M3M4 vaccinated arm is zero.||3.09|0.94|0.008
91038122|NCT05604209|181961105|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.878|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Between-arm comparisons in log2 fold changes were statistically assessed using a two-sided exact Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||The contrast is the magnitude of the T-cell response to Mosaic-2 from baseline to day 35 in C62-M4 versus C1C62-M3M4.The null hypothesis is that he distributions of the T-cell response to Mosaic-2 from pre-vaccination to day 35 are the same between the two vaccinated arms.||||0.878
91038123|NCT05604209|181961106|SUPERIORITY||Median log2 fold change|1.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|2.63|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Within-group log2 fold changes were statistically assessed using a two-sided exact Wilcoxon signed rank test||The null hypothesis is that the median log2-fold change in magnitude of T-cell response to Mosaic-1 from baseline to day 42 within all vaccinees is zero.||2.63|0.54|<0.001
91038124|NCT05604209|181961106|SUPERIORITY||Median log2 fold change|1.09||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|3.61|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Within-arm log2 fold changes were statistically assessed using a two-sided exact Wilcoxon signed rank test.||The null hypothesis is that the median log2-fold change in magnitude of T-cell response to Mosaic-1 from baseline to day 42 within the C62-M4 vaccinated arm is zero.||3.61|0.39|0.008
91038125|NCT05604209|181961106|SUPERIORITY||Median log2 fold change|2.0||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|4.37|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Within-arm log2 fold changes were statistically assessed using a two-sided exact Wilcoxon signed rank test.||The null hypothesis is that the median log2-fold change in magnitude of T-cell response to Mosaic-1 from baseline to day 42 within the C1C62-M3M4 vaccinated arm is zero.||4.37|0.43|0.016
90976932|NCT02058147|181837576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.101|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.892|-0.495||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Insulin Glargine/Lixisenatide FRC vs Insulin Glargine|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (continued only if previous endpoints were statistically significant). Analysis was performed using MMRM model with treatment groups, randomization strata of Week -1 HbA1c (\<8.0, ≥8.0%), randomization strata of second OAD use at screening, visits, treatment-by-visit interaction, and country as fixed effects and baseline 7-point SMPG value-by-visit interaction, as a covariate.||-0.495|-0.892|<0.0001
91038126|NCT05604209|181961106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.189|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Between-arm comparisons in log2 fold changes were statistically assessed using a two-sided exact Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||The contrast is the magnitude of the T-cell response to Mosaic-1 from baseline to day 42 in C62-M4 versus C1C62-M3M4.The null hypothesis is that he distributions of the T-cell response to Mosaic-1 from pre-vaccination to day 42 are the same between the two vaccinated arms.||||0.189
91038127|NCT05604209|181961107|SUPERIORITY||Median log2 fold change|1.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.51|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Within-group log2 fold changes were statistically assessed using a two-sided exact Wilcoxon signed rank test.||The null hypothesis is that the median log2-fold change in magnitude of T-cell response to Mosaic-2 from baseline to day 42 within all vaccinees is zero.||2.51|0.81|<0.001
91038128|NCT05604209|181961107|SUPERIORITY||Median log2 fold change|1.57||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|3.89|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Within-arm log2 fold changes were statistically assessed using a two-sided exact Wilcoxon signed rank test.||The null hypothesis is that the median log2-fold change in magnitude of T-cell response to Mosaic-2 from baseline to day 42 within the C62-M4 vaccinated arm is zero.||3.89|0.63|0.008
90945407|NCT02353871|181770557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2422||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (maximum frown)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of the proportion of responders on Day 29 who remained responders at Day 57 - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus Placebo||||0.2422
90976933|NCT02058147|181837577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|18.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.15|24.01||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Insulin Glargine/Lixisenatide FRC vs Insulin glargine|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (continued only if previous endpoints were statistically significant). Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method stratified on randomization strata of Week -1 HbA1c (\<8%, ≥8%) and randomization strata of second OAD use at screening.||24.01|12.15|<0.0001
90945408|NCT02353871|181770557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0917||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (maximum frown)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of the proportion of responders on Day 29 who remained responders at Day 85 - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus Placebo||||0.0917
90945409|NCT02353871|181770557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7064||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (maximum frown)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of the proportion of responders on Day 29 who remained responders at Day 113 - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus Placebo||||0.7064
90976934|NCT02058147|181837578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|12.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.5|18.45||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Insulin Glargine/Lixisenatide FRC vs Insulin Glargine|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (continued only if previous endpoints were statistically significant). Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method stratified on randomization strata of Week -1 HbA1c (\<8.0%, ≥8.0%) and randomization strata of second OAD use at screening.||18.45|7.5|< 0.0001
90976935|NCT02058147|181837579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99||0.4857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.632|1.252||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Insulin Glargine/Lixisenatide FRC vs Insulin Glargine|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (continued only if previous endpoints were statistically significant). Analysis was performed using MMRM model with treatment groups, randomization strata of Week -1 HbA1c (\<8.0, ≥8.0%), randomization strata of second OAD use at screening, visits, treatment-by-visit interaction, and country as fixed effects.||1.252|-2.632|0.4857
90976936|NCT01014585|181837588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.44||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.71|||Log Rank|||||0.71|0.27|0.0004
91038129|NCT05604209|181961107|SUPERIORITY||Median log2 fold change|1.78||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|3.79|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Within-arm log2 fold changes were statistically assessed using a two-sided exact Wilcoxon signed rank test.||The null hypothesis is that the median log2-fold change in magnitude of T-cell response to Mosaic-2 from baseline to day 42 within the C162-M3M4 vaccinated arm is zero.||3.79|0.70|0.016
90976937|NCT01014585|181837588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Days until LTR at the 25th percentile|18.0||||||95.0||||||||||||
90976938|NCT01014585|181837588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Days until LTR at the 25th percentile|45.0||||||95.0||||||||||||
90976939|NCT01014585|181837589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.36||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.63|||Log Rank|||||0.63|0.20|0.0002
90976940|NCT01014585|181837589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Days until LTR at the 25th percentile|22.0||||||95.0||||||||||||
90976941|NCT01014585|181837590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.4104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.38|||Log Rank|||||1.38|0.46|0.4104
90976942|NCT01014585|181837590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Days until LTR at the 25th percentile|18.0||||||95.0||||||||||||
90976943|NCT01014585|181837590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Days until LTR at the 25th percentile|30.0||||||95.0||||||||||||
90976944|NCT00773279|181837609|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"A two-sided 95 % Confidence Interval (CI) for the treatment difference, PDS290 minus FlexPen, in HbA1c after 12 weeks of treatment. PDS290 was to be declared non-inferior to FlexPen® if the upper limit of that CI would be less than the non-inferiority margin 0.40 % (absolute)."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.047|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||||95.0|-0.127|0.032|||Linear mixed effect model|Linear mixed effect model with period and delivery systems as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect.||The null hypothesis is that PDS290 be not non-inferior to FlexPen® with respect to HbA1c after 12 weeks of treatment; non-inferiority margin is 0.4 % (absolute).||0.032|-0.127|
90976945|NCT01838044|181837648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.287||0.6012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 5 compared between two study arms.||0.42|-0.72|0.6012
90976946|NCT01838044|181837649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of weekly mean pain NRS score in Arm B at Week 10.||1.83|1.02|<0.0001
91038130|NCT05604209|181961107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.955|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Between-arm comparisons in log2 fold changes were statistically assessed using a two-sided exact Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||The contrast is the magnitude of the T-cell response to Mosaic-2 from baseline to day 42 in C62-M4 versus C1C62-M3M4.The null hypothesis is that he distributions of the T-cell response to Mosaic-2 from pre-vaccination to day 42 are the same between the two vaccinated arms.||||0.955
90976947|NCT01838044|181837650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.361||0.5128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of weekly mean pain NRS score in Arm B compared between two study arms at Week 10.||0.95|-0.48|0.5128
90976948|NCT01838044|181837652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.7251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 5 based on comparison between treatment groups.||0.32|-0.22|0.7251
90976949|NCT01838044|181837652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.1255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 10 based on comparison between treatment groups.||0.46|-0.06|0.1255
91038131|NCT05604209|181961108|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|2.0||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|4.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Within-group changes in breadth from baseline to day 56 were statistically assessed using a two-sided exact Wilcoxon signed rank test.||The null hypothesis is that the median change in breadth of T-cell response to HIV-1 subpools from baseline to day 56 within all vaccinees is zero.||4|-1|0.125
90945410|NCT02353871|181770557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.701||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (maximum frown)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of the proportion of responders on Day 29 who remained responders at Day 148 - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus Placebo||||0.7010
90945411|NCT02353871|181770557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7894||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (maximum frown)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of the proportion of responders on Day 29 who remained responders at Day 183 - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus Placebo||||0.7894
90945412|NCT02353871|181770558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (at rest)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of ILA - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus Placebo at Day 8||||<0.0001
90945413|NCT02353871|181770558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (at rest)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of ILA - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus Placebo at Day 15||||<0.0001
90945414|NCT02353871|181770558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (at rest)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of ILA - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus Placebo at Day 29||||<0.0001
90945415|NCT02353871|181770558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (at rest)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of ILA - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus Placebo at Day 57||||<0.0001
90945416|NCT02353871|181770558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (at rest)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of ILA - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus Placebo at Day 85||||<0.0001
90945417|NCT02353871|181770558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (at rest)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of ILA - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus Placebo at Day 113||||<0.0001
90945418|NCT02353871|181770558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0015||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (at rest)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of ILA - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus Placebo at Day 183||||0.0015
90945419|NCT02353871|181770559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (maximum frown)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of ILA - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus Placebo at Day 8||||<0.0001
90945420|NCT02353871|181770559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (maximum frown)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of ILA - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus Placebo at Day 15||||<0.0001
90945421|NCT02353871|181770559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (maximum frown)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of ILA - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus Placebo at Day 29||||<0.0001
90945422|NCT02353871|181770559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (maximum frown)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of ILA - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus Placebo at Day 57||||<0.0001
90976950|NCT01838044|181837654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.317||0.2856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 5 compared between treatment groups.||0.29|-0.97|0.2856
90976951|NCT01838044|181837654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.363||0.3987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 10 compared between treatment groups.||0.41|-1.02|0.3987
90976952|NCT01649947|181837676|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|56.0||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.9|72.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||The analysis is comprised of evaluable patients who had measureable disease and received at least one cycle of therapy and had disease evaluated.||72|8.9|0.01
90976953|NCT00364182|181837678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-30.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.5|-24.5||P-values based on a model including terms for treatment regimen, treatment sequence, and the interaction of these terms with repeated measures on participants.|ANOVA|||||-24.5|-36.5|<0.0001
90976954|NCT00364182|181837678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-32.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.5|-26.6||P-values based on a model including terms for treatment regimen, treatment sequence, and the interaction of these terms with repeated measures on participants.|ANOVA|||||-26.6|-38.5|<0.0001
90976955|NCT00364182|181837678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.2167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|5.2||P-values based on a model including terms for treatment regimen, treatment sequence, and the interaction of these terms with repeated measures on participants.|ANOVA|||||5.2|-1.2|0.2167
90976956|NCT00364182|181837679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.6|||ANOVA|||Mean difference in duration of sleep on the first night (24 hours post-bleed) and the second night (48 hours post-bleed).||0.6|0.1|0.002
90976957|NCT00364182|181837679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.8|||ANOVA|||Mean difference in duration of sleep on the first night (24 hours post-bleed) and the second night (48 hours post-bleed).||0.8|0.1|0.021
90976958|NCT00364182|181837679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.9|||ANOVA|||Mean difference in duration of sleep on the first night (24 hours post-bleed) and the second night (48 hours post-bleed).||0.9|0.2|0.004
90976959|NCT00364182|181837679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.8|||ANOVA|||Mean difference in duration of sleep on the first night (24 hours post-bleed) and the second night (48 hours post-bleed).||0.8|-0.1|0.093
90976960|NCT00364182|181837680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.1|||ANOVA|||Mean difference in quality of sleep on the first night (24 hours post-bleed) and the second night (48 hours post-bleed).||-0.1|-0.4|0.000
90976961|NCT00364182|181837680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.2|||ANOVA|||Mean difference in quality of sleep on the first night (24 hours post-bleed) and the second night (48 hours post-bleed).||-0.2|-0.5|0.0000
90976962|NCT00364182|181837680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.1|||ANOVA|||Mean difference in quality of sleep on the first night (24 hours post-bleed) and the second night (48 hours post-bleed).||-0.1|-0.5|0.002
90976963|NCT00364182|181837680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.0|||ANOVA|||Mean difference in quality of sleep on the first night (24 hours post-bleed) and the second night (48 hours post-bleed).||-0.0|-0.5|0.031
90976964|NCT00364182|181837684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.1||||0.544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|4.9|||ANOVA|||||4.9|-9.2|0.544
90976965|NCT00364182|181837684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.6||||0.592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|4.3|||ANOVA|||||4.3|-7.5|0.592
91038132|NCT03703258|181961109|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Condition x time interaction coefficient from mixed-effect model using negative binomial distribution. Intervention = 1 and control = 0.|||||.60
91038133|NCT03703258|181961109|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Between-group Cohen's d; calculated as within-group d(intervention) - within group d(control). Standardized using the standard deviation of the change scores. Negative values favor intervention and positive values favor control.|||||
90976966|NCT00364182|181837684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.6||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|8.4|||ANOVA|||||8.4|-1.1|0.131
90976967|NCT01850615|181837714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|-0.72|||||Superiority was considered confirmed if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the estimated treatment difference (faster aspart+basal minus basal only), which was calculated using the FAS, was below 0%.|Change from baseline in HbA1c after 18 weeks of treatment was analysed using a mixed-effect model for repeated measurements (MMRM) where all calculated changes in HbA1c from baseline at visits 16, 22 and 28 were included in the analysis. This model included treatment, region and strata as fixed factors, subject as random effect, baseline HbA1c as covariate and interaction between all fixed effects and visit, and between the covariate and visit.||-0.72|-1.17|
90976968|NCT00706628|181837720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0577|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0577
90976969|NCT00706628|181837720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0863|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0863
90976970|NCT00706628|181837722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.4823|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.149|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1754|1.7892||||||||1.7892|1.1754|
90976971|NCT02921425|181837734|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.003
90976972|NCT02921425|181837736|OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.007
90976973|NCT02921425|181837737|OTHER|||||||0.026|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.026
90976974|NCT02921425|181837739|OTHER|||||||0.003||||||systolic blood pressure|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.003
90976975|NCT02921425|181837739|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||diastolic blood pressure||||.001
90945423|NCT02353871|181770559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0008||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (maximum frown)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of ILA - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus Placebo at Day 85||||0.0008
90945424|NCT02353871|181770559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0065||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (maximum frown)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of ILA - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus Placebo at Day 113||||0.0065
90945425|NCT02353871|181770559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0643||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (maximum frown)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of ILA - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus Placebo at Day 148||||0.0643
90945426|NCT02353871|181770559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.367||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (maximum frown)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of ILA - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus Placebo at Day 183||||0.3670
90945427|NCT02353871|181770560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (maximum frown)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of SSA - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus Placebo at Day 8||||<0.0001
90945428|NCT02353871|181770560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (maximum frown)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of SSA - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus Placebo at Day 15||||<0.0001
90945429|NCT02353871|181770560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (maximum frown)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of SSA - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus Placebo at Day 29||||<0.0001
90945430|NCT02353871|181770560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (maximum frown)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of SSA - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus Placebo at Day 57||||<0.0001
90945431|NCT02353871|181770560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (maximum frown)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of SSA - Dysport 50 U versus Placebo at Day 85||||<0.0001
90945432|NCT02353871|181770560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (maximum frown)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of SSA - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus Placebo at Day 113||||<0.0001
90945433|NCT02353871|181770560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0011||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (maximum frown)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of SSA - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus Placebo at Day 148||||0.0011
90945434|NCT02353871|181770560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0036||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (maximum frown)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of SSA - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus Placebo at Day 183||||0.0036
90945435|NCT02353871|181770561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (maximum frown)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of subject's level of satisfaction - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus Placebo at Day 8||||<0.0001
90945436|NCT02353871|181770561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (maximum frown)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of subject's level of satisfaction - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus Placebo at Day 15||||<0.0001
90945437|NCT02353871|181770561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (maximum frown)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of subject's level of satisfaction - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus Placebo at Day 29||||<0.0001
90976976|NCT02921425|181837741|OTHER|||||||0.019|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.019
90976977|NCT01227967|181837745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.8|-0.2||P-value was not adjusted for multiple interim analyses.|Z-test, 2-sided|Comparison of randomized arms was based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|The difference in percents was calculated as the percent detectable in the Combination Therapy minus the percent detectable in the Oseltamivir Monotherapy.|Assuming that pooled percentage of participants with virus detectable by PCR at Day 3 is 50%, assuming that the Combination Therapy was better than the Oseltamivir Monotherapy and that the detectable rate in the Combination Therapy was 42.5% compared to 57.5% in the Oseltamivir Monotherapy (a 15% reduction), and assuming 10% subjects with missing qPCR at Day 3, in a two-sided, two-sample 0.05-level t- test with 546 participants combined across both arms, there was 90% power.||-0.2|-19.8|0.046
90976978|NCT03403400|181837760|EQUIVALENCE|Comparison of variance|Test Statistics|0.893||||0.64|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Ho: There is no significant difference between groups in mCTSIB Ha: There is a significant difference between groups in mCTSIB||||.640
90976979|NCT03403400|181837760|EQUIVALENCE|Comparison of variance|Test Statistics|0.196||||0.18|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Ho: There is no significant difference between the prescribed walking group and the control group in mCTSIB Ha: There is a significant difference between the prescribed walking group and the control group in mCTSIB||||.18
90976980|NCT03403400|181837761|EQUIVALENCE|comparison of variance|Test Statistics|0.803||||0.67|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Ho: There is no significant difference between the groups in TUG Ha: There is a significant difference between the groups in TUG||||.67
90976981|NCT03403400|181837761|EQUIVALENCE|comparison of variance|Test Statistics|0.14||||0.71|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Ho: There is no significant difference in TUG between the prescribed walking and control group Ha: There is a significant difference in TUG between the prescribed walking and control group||||.71
90976982|NCT03403400|181837762|EQUIVALENCE|Comparison of variance|Test Statistics|0.803|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.79||0.67|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Ho: There is no significant difference between the groups in DGI Ha: There is a significant difference between the groups in DGI||||.67
90976983|NCT03403400|181837762|EQUIVALENCE|comparison of variance|Test Statistics|0.66||||0.42|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Ho: There is no significant difference between the prescribed walking group and the control group in DGI Ha: There is a significant difference between the prescribed walking group and control group in DGI||||.42
90976984|NCT03403400|181837763|EQUIVALENCE|comparison of variance|Test Statistics|4.386||||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Ho: There is no significant difference between the groups in DHI Ha: There is a significant difference between the groups in DHI||||.11
90976985|NCT03403400|181837763|EQUIVALENCE|comparison of variance|Test Statistics|4.351||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Ho: There is no significant difference in DHI between the prescribed walking group and the control group Ha: There is a significant difference in DHI between the prescribed walking group and the control group||||.04
90976986|NCT01107444|181837778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.284||||||The t-test was based on the logarithm of the ratio of tumor size at Cycle 2 to that at baseline as this measure follows a normal distribution.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.284
90976987|NCT01948830|181837802|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The following hypothesis was tested at a one-sided 0.025 level. Non-inferiority with respect to BCVA: H01: μtreat and extend - μmonthly ≤ - Δ versus HA1: μtreat and extend - μmonthly \> - Δ where μtreat and extend and μmonthly are the unknown mean changes from baseline in BCVA to Month 12 in the treat and extend regimen and the monthly regimen, respectively. Δ is the non-inferiority margin and is pre-defined to be 5 letters for the justification of the margin.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90976988|NCT00091832|181837834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.245|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for the stratum to which the participant was originally assigned by the Interactive Voice Response System (IVRS)||||||0.245
91038134|NCT03703258|181961110|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.94|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Condition x time interaction coefficient from mixed-effect model using negative binomial distribution. Intervention = 1 and control = 0.|||||.94
91038135|NCT03703258|181961110|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Between-group Cohen's d; calculated as within-group d(intervention) - within group d(control). Standardized using the standard deviation of the change scores. Negative values favor intervention and positive values favor control.|||||
91038136|NCT03703258|181961111|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.38|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Condition x time interaction coefficient from mixed-effect model using negative binomial distribution. Intervention = 1 and control = 0.|||||.38
90976989|NCT00091832|181837835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.848|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for the stratum to which the participant was originally assigned by the Interactive Voice Response System (IVRS)||||||0.848
90976990|NCT00091832|181837836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72||||||95.0|0.68|4.35|||||Adjusted for the stratum to which the participant was originally assigned by the Interactive Voice Response System (IVRS)|||4.35|0.68|
90976991|NCT00091832|181837836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||||95.0|0.51|3.24|||||Adjusted for the stratum to which the participant was originally assigned by the Interactive Voice Response System (IVRS)|||3.24|0.51|
90976992|NCT00091832|181837836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||||95.0|0.34|2.29|||||Adjusted for the stratum to which the participant was originally assigned by the Interactive Voice Response System (IVRS)|||2.29|0.34|
90976993|NCT00091832|181837836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||||95.0|0.51|3.2|||||Adjusted for the stratum to which the participant was originally assigned by the Interactive Voice Response System (IVRS)|||3.20|0.51|
90976994|NCT00091832|181837836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74||||||95.0|0.7|4.34|||||Adjusted for the stratum to which the participant was originally assigned by the Interactive Voice Response System (IVRS)|||4.34|0.70|
91038137|NCT03703258|181961111|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|-0.15|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Between-group Cohen's d; calculated as within-group d(intervention) - within group d(control). Standardized using the standard deviation of the change scores. Negative values favor intervention and positive values favor control.|||||
91038138|NCT03703258|181961112|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Condition x time interaction coefficient from mixed-effect model using negative binomial distribution. Intervention = 1 and control = 0.|||||.04
90976995|NCT00091832|181837837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.82||||||95.0|0.69|4.79|||||Adjusted for the stratum to which the participant was originally assigned by the Interactive Voice Response System (IVRS)|||4.79|0.69|
90976996|NCT00091832|181837837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67||||||95.0|0.25|1.76|||||Adjusted for the stratum to which the participant was originally assigned by the Interactive Voice Response System (IVRS)|||1.76|0.25|
90976997|NCT00091832|181837837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65||||||95.0|0.24|1.77|||||Adjusted for the stratum to which the participant was originally assigned by the Interactive Voice Response System (IVRS)|||1.77|0.24|
90976998|NCT00091832|181837837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.58||||||95.0|0.22|1.58|||||Adjusted for the stratum to which the participant was originally assigned by the Interactive Voice Response System (IVRS)|||1.58|0.22|
90976999|NCT00091832|181837837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||||95.0|0.25|1.92|||||Adjusted for the stratum to which the participant was originally assigned by the Interactive Voice Response System (IVRS)|||1.92|0.25|
90977000|NCT00091832|181837838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||||95.0|0.51|1.31|||||A hazard ratio \>1 indicates that the time to 65% or more reduction in uNTx from baseline was shorter in the Denosumab-treated group than in the control group.|||1.31|0.51|
90977001|NCT00091832|181837838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||||95.0|0.64|1.65|||||A hazard ratio \>1 indicates that the time to 65% or more reduction in uNTx from baseline was shorter in the Denosumab-treated group than in the control group.|||1.65|0.64|
90945438|NCT02353871|181770561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (maximum frown)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of subject's level of satisfaction - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus Placebo at Day 57||||<0.0001
90945439|NCT02353871|181770561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (maximum frown)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of subject's level of satisfaction - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus Placebo at Day 85||||<0.0001
90945440|NCT02353871|181770561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (maximum frown)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of subject's level of satisfaction - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus Placebo at Day 113||||<0.0001
90945441|NCT02353871|181770561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (maximum frown)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of subject's level of satisfaction - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus Placebo at Day 148||||<0.0001
90945442|NCT02353871|181770561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (maximum frown)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of subject's level of satisfaction - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus Placebo at Day 183||||<0.0001
90945443|NCT02353871|181770562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||Comparison of time to onset of treatment response - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus Placebo||||<0.0001
90945444|NCT02353871|181770562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|6.561|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cox proportional hazard model|Centre, gender and ILA baseline severity score used as covariates.||Comparison of time to onset of treatment response - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus placebo||||<0.0001
90945445|NCT02554383|181770565|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||The interactions (1) between treatment \& pathogens and (2) between treatment \& colored nasal discharge are tested simultaneously.|Mixed Models Analysis|The p value is adjusted for PRSS score at enrollment, diary day, study site, treatment, pathogens, colored nasal discharge \& interaction (2).||Null hypothesis: The effect of treatment with antibiotics does not differ in the subgroups of children defined, respectively, by the presence and by the absence of pathogens in the nasopharynx at enrollment, i.e., there is no significant interaction between treatment and pathogens in the nasopharynx.||||0.02
90945446|NCT02554383|181770565|SUPERIORITY||Difference of least-squares means|-1.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-1.51|||||The Amoxicillin-clavulanate group represents the first number in the subtraction and the Placebo group represents the second. The estimates are adjusted for PRSS score at enrollment, diary day and study site.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the treatment groups in the subgroup of children defined by the presence of one or more pathogens in the nasopharynx at enrollment.||-1.51|-2.40|
90945447|NCT02554383|181770565|SUPERIORITY||Difference of least-squares means|-0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|-0.12|||||The Amoxicillin-clavulanate group represents the first number in the subtraction and the Placebo group represents the second. The estimates are adjusted for PRSS score at enrollment, diary day and study site.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the treatment groups in the subgroup of children defined by the absence of one or more pathogens in the nasopharynx at enrollment.||-0.12|-1.63|
90945448|NCT02554383|181770566|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37||||||The interactions (1) between treatment \& pathogens and (2) between treatment \& colored nasal discharge are tested simultaneously.|Mixed Models Analysis|The p value is adjusted for PRSS score at enrollment, diary day, study site, treatment, pathogens, colored nasal discharge \& interaction (1).||Null hypothesis: The effect of treatment with antibiotics does not differ in the subgroups of children defined, respectively, by the presence and by the absence of colored nasal discharge at enrollment, i.e., there is no significant interaction between treatment and colored nasal discharge.||||0.37
90945449|NCT02554383|181770566|SUPERIORITY||Difference of least-squares means|-1.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|-1.16|||||The Amoxicillin-clavulanate group represents the first number in the subtraction and the Placebo group represents the second. The estimates are adjusted for PRSS score at enrollment, diary day and study site.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the treatment groups in the subgroup of children defined by the presence of colored nasal discharge at enrollment.||-1.16|-2.09|
90945450|NCT02554383|181770566|SUPERIORITY||Difference of least-squares means|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.38|-1.03|||||The Amoxicillin-clavulanate group represents the first number in the subtraction and the Placebo group represents the second. The estimates are adjusted for PRSS score at enrollment, diary day and study site.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the treatment groups in the subgroup of children defined by the absence of colored nasal discharge at enrollment.||-1.03|-2.38|
90977002|NCT00091832|181837838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||||95.0|0.68|1.74|||||A hazard ratio \>1 indicates that the time to 65% or more reduction in uNTx from baseline was shorter in the Denosumab-treated group than in the control group.|||1.74|0.68|
90977003|NCT00091832|181837838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||||95.0|0.68|1.74|||||A hazard ratio \>1 indicates that the time to 65% or more reduction in uNTx from baseline was shorter in the Denosumab-treated group than in the control group.|||1.74|0.68|
90977004|NCT00091832|181837838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||||95.0|0.71|1.83|||||A hazard ratio \>1 indicates that the time to 65% or more reduction in uNTx from baseline was shorter in the Denosumab-treated group than in the control group.|||1.83|0.71|
90977005|NCT00091832|181837849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.543||||||95.0|0.159|1.856|||||A hazard ratio \<1 indicates the time to the first skeletal-related event in the denosumab-treated group was longer than that in the control group.|||1.856|0.159|
90977006|NCT00091832|181837849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.544||||||95.0|0.159|1.859|||||A hazard ratio \<1 indicates the time to the first skeletal-related event in the denosumab-treated group was longer than that in the control group.|||1.859|0.159|
90977007|NCT00091832|181837849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.791||||||95.0|0.266|2.355|||||A hazard ratio \<1 indicates the time to the first skeletal-related event in the denosumab-treated group was longer than that in the control group.|||2.355|0.266|
91038139|NCT03703258|181961112|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Between-group Cohen's d; calculated as within-group d(intervention) - within group d(control). Standardized using the standard deviation of the change scores. Negative values favor intervention and positive values favor control.|||||
91038140|NCT03703258|181961113|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.88||0.51|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Post-intervention condition x time interaction coefficient from mixed-effect model using negative binomial distribution. Intervention = 1 and control = 0.|Baseline to post-intervention only||||.51
91038141|NCT03703258|181961113|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.64|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||3 month condition x time interaction coefficient from mixed-effect model using negative binomial distribution. Intervention = 1 and control = 0.|Baseline to 3 months||||.64
91038142|NCT03703258|181961113|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Post-intervention between-group Cohen's d; calculated as within-group d(intervention) - within group d(control). Standardized using the standard deviation of the change scores. Negative values favor intervention and positive values favor control.|Baseline to post-intervention only||||
91038143|NCT03703258|181961113|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||3 month between-group Cohen's d; calculated as within-group d(intervention) - within group d(control). Standardized using the standard deviation of the change scores. Negative values favor intervention and positive values favor control.|Baseline to 3 months||||
91038144|NCT03703258|181961114|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Post-intervention condition x time interaction coefficient from mixed-effect model using negative binomial distribution. Intervention = 1 and control = 0.|Baseline to post-intervention only||||.04
91038145|NCT03703258|181961114|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||3 month condition x time interaction coefficient from mixed-effect model using negative binomial distribution. Intervention = 1 and control = 0.|Baseline to 3 months||||.34
91038146|NCT03703258|181961114|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Post-intervention between-group Cohen's d; calculated as within-group d(intervention) - within group d(control). Standardized using the standard deviation of the change scores. Positive values favor intervention and negative values favor control.|Baseline to post-intervention only||||
90945451|NCT02554383|181770567|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Log-binomial regression|The p-value is adjusted for study site and and presence of colored nasal discharge.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the treatment groups in the proportion of children experiencing treatment failure.||||0.003
91038147|NCT03703258|181961114|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||3 month between-group Cohen's d; calculated as within-group d(intervention) - within group d(control). Standardized using the standard deviation of the change scores. Positive values favor intervention and negative values favor control.|Baseline to 3 months||||
91038148|NCT03703258|181961115|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63||0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Post-intervention condition x time interaction coefficient from mixed-effect model using negative binomial distribution. Intervention = 1 and control = 0.|Baseline to post-intervention only||||.13
90945452|NCT02554383|181770568|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the treatment groups in the proportion of children developing AOM over the first 10 days of follow-up.||||.007
90945453|NCT02554383|181770569|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log-binomial regression|The p-value is adjusted for study site and and presence of colored nasal discharge.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the treatment groups in the proportion of children receiving a systemic antibiotic over the first 10 days of follow-up.||||<0.001
90945454|NCT02554383|181770570|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Log-binomial regression|The p-value is adjusted for study site and presence of colored nasal discharge.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the treatment groups in the proportion of children for whom diarrhea or generalized rash was reported.||||0.004
90945455|NCT02554383|181770571|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||Log-binomial regression|The p-value is adjusted for presence of colored nasal discharge.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the treatment groups in the proportion of children compliant with study product.||||0.75
90945456|NCT02554383|181770572|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||Log-binomial regression|The p-value is adjusted for study site and presence of colored nasal discharge.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the treatment groups in the proportion of children with a nonsusceptible pathogen at the follow-up visit.||||0.63
90945457|NCT03698019|181770585|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64||||0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.004
90945458|NCT02272244|181770590|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.08|7.58|||Regression, Logistic|Model adjusted for age, sex, practice, baseline preferred test and baseline overall decision stage||||7.58|3.08|<0.001
90945459|NCT02272244|181770591|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.55|9.47|||Regression, Logistic|Model compares Forward Change to No Change or Backwards Change and is adjusted for all baseline covariates.||||9.47|2.55|<0.001
90945460|NCT02272244|181770592|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Multinomial|Model compared rates of SBT, CX and none; model is adjusted for age, sex, practice, baseline preferred test and baseline overall decision stage|||Reference for the outcome is No Screening; reference for the study group is the Standard Intervention group.|||<0.001
90945461|NCT02272244|181770592|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.2||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.63|6.7|||Odds Ratio (OR)|Stool Blood Test vs None||||6.70|2.63|0.001
90945462|NCT02272244|181770592|SUPERIORITY|Colonscopy vs None|Odds Ratio (OR)|8.79||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.13|18.74|||Odds Ratio (OR)|||||18.74|4.13|0.001
90945463|NCT02272244|181770593|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.13|||Regression, Linear|Model of difference in Preventive Health Model (PHM) total score adjusts for all baseline covariates.|Model compares DSNI to SI.|||0.13|-0.15|0.862
90945464|NCT02272244|181770593|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.55|||Regression, Linear|Model of knowledge test score adjusts for all baseline covariates|Model compares DSNI to SI.|||.55|-.47|0.880
90945465|NCT02911805|181770604|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
90945466|NCT03118050|181770615|OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||Main effect of bed rest.|ANOVA|||||||<0.01
90945467|NCT03118050|181770616|OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||Main effect of bed rest|ANOVA|||||||<0.01
90977008|NCT00091832|181837849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.073||||||95.0|0.389|2.963|||||A hazard ratio \<1 indicates the time to the first skeletal-related event in the denosumab-treated group was longer than that in the control group.|||2.963|0.389|
90977009|NCT00091832|181837849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54||||||95.0|0.158|1.847|||||A hazard ratio \<1 indicates the time to the first skeletal-related event in the denosumab-treated group was longer than that in the control group.|||1.847|0.158|
90977010|NCT00091832|181837850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.92||||||95.0|0.51|7.17|||||Adjusted for the stratum to which the participant was originally assigned by the Interactive Voice Response System (IVRS)|||7.17|0.51|
90977011|NCT00091832|181837850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||||95.0|0.36|3.97|||||Adjusted for the stratum to which the participant was originally assigned by the Interactive Voice Response System (IVRS)|||3.97|0.36|
90977012|NCT00091832|181837850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||||95.0|0.26|2.52|||||Adjusted for the stratum to which the participant was originally assigned by the Interactive Voice Response System (IVRS)|||2.52|0.26|
90977013|NCT00091832|181837850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.88||||||95.0|0.5|7.05|||||Adjusted for the stratum to which the participant was originally assigned by the Interactive Voice Response System (IVRS)|||7.05|0.5|
90977014|NCT00091832|181837850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.88||||||95.0|0.5|7.05|||||Adjusted for the stratum to which the participant was originally assigned by the Interactive Voice Response System (IVRS)|||7.05|0.5|
90977015|NCT01446419|181837858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019|||||||ANCOVA|P-value from ANCOVA with factors of tx group, analysis center and tx group by analysis center interaction, and a covariate of baseline ODI score.||||||0.019
90977016|NCT01557166|181837861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference|-6.1||||0.015||95.0|-11.0|-1.19|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model was used with treatment, country and sex as fixed factors, and the baseline value of AHI, baseline BMI and baseline age as covariates.||Let μ liraglutide 3.0mg and μ placebo denote mean change in AHI for liraglutide 3.0 mg and placebo,respectively. The null-hypothesis and the alternative was H0: μliraglutide 3.0mg = μplacebo against the alternative HA: μliraglutide 3.0mg ≠ μplacebo.||-1.19|-11.0|0.015
90977017|NCT02411747|181837886|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Beta: 0.8, p significant if p \> 0.005||||||0.34|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Independent samples t-test||||0.34
90977018|NCT02149810|181837887|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.109||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.31||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models, controlling for baseline score, were used to compare the SSM and TAU groups' change score from baseline to 12-week on SDNN.||The primary focus of this study was the interaction effect of treatment on heart rate variability at Weeks 0 and 12. On the assumption that this effect size is medium (Cohen's f = .25), calculations (using G\*Power) 23 indicate that a sample size of 80 yield power estimates of .99 for both the interaction and the main effect of time. The study enrolled 95 participants to account for participant attrition.||0.31|-0.09|0.28
90977019|NCT02149810|181837888|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.034||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.51||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models, controlling for baseline score, were used to compare the SSM and TAU groups' change score from baseline to 12-week on LF HRV.||||0.51|-0.44|0.89
91038149|NCT03703258|181961115|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.64||0.24|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||3 month condition x time interaction coefficient from mixed-effect model using negative binomial distribution. Intervention = 1 and control = 0.|Baseline to 3 months||||.24
91038150|NCT03703258|181961115|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|-0.41|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Post-intervention between-group Cohen's d; calculated as within-group d(intervention) - within group d(control). Standardized using the standard deviation of the change scores. Negative values favor intervention and positive values favor control.|Baseline to post-intervention only||||
91038151|NCT03703258|181961115|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|-0.23|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||3 month between-group Cohen's d; calculated as within-group d(intervention) - within group d(control). Standardized using the standard deviation of the change scores. Negative values favor intervention and positive values favor control.|Baseline to 3 months||||
90977020|NCT02149810|181837889|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.66||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.05|-0.26||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.26|-5.05|0.030
90977021|NCT02149810|181837890|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.37||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.37|-0.36||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.36|-4.37|0.021
90977022|NCT02149810|181837891|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|11.0||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.01|29.01||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||29.01|-7.01|0.22
90977023|NCT02149810|181837892|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.91||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.54|12.37||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||12.37|-8.54|0.72
90977024|NCT02149810|181837893|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|-0.15||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.15|-1.46|0.018
90977025|NCT02149810|181837894|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.94|21.66||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||21.66|-21.94|0.99
90977026|NCT02149810|181837895|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.26||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|10.53||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p = 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||Generalised linear models were used to compare the proportion of participants who responded to the intervention (≥50% decrease from baseline on the HRSD, defined a priori) at the end of intervention (week 12).||10.53|1.01|0.049
90977027|NCT02149810|181837896|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.36||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|10.64||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p = 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||Generalised linear models were used to compare the proportion of the proportion of participants who achieved remission (scores ≤7 on the HRSD, defined a priori) at the end of intervention (week 12).||10.64|1.06|0.040
90977028|NCT00428597|181837897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.418||||0.000118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.263|0.662||Log-rank test statistic and 2-sided p-value from the unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank||Hazard ratio based on the Cox Proportional hazards model|||0.662|0.263|0.000118
90945468|NCT02980523|181770695|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The aim of this study was to find the ideal dose of treatment for bacterial eradication and non-inferiority with the comparative groups.||||||0.002|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.002
91038152|NCT03703258|181961116|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.85|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Post-intervention condition x time interaction coefficient from mixed-effect model using negative binomial distribution. Intervention = 1 and control = 0.|Baseline to post-intervention only||||.85
91038153|NCT03703258|181961116|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.96|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||3 month condition x time interaction coefficient from mixed-effect model using negative binomial distribution. Intervention = 1 and control = 0.|Baseline to 3 months||||.96
91038154|NCT03703258|181961116|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|-0.15|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Post-intervention between-group Cohen's d; calculated as within-group d(intervention) - within group d(control). Standardized using the standard deviation of the change scores. Negative values favor intervention and positive values favor control.|Baseline to post-intervention only||||
91038155|NCT03703258|181961116|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|0.003|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||3 month between-group Cohen's d; calculated as within-group d(intervention) - within group d(control). Standardized using the standard deviation of the change scores. Negative values favor intervention and positive values favor control.|Baseline to 3 months||||
91038156|NCT03703258|181961117|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.75|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Post-intervention condition x time interaction coefficient from mixed-effect model using negative binomial distribution. Intervention = 1 and control = 0.|Baseline to post-intervention only||||.75
91038157|NCT03703258|181961117|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.64|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||3 month condition x time interaction coefficient from mixed-effect model using negative binomial distribution. Intervention = 1 and control = 0.|Baseline to 3 months||||.64
91038158|NCT03703258|181961117|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|-0.12|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Post-intervention between-group Cohen's d; calculated as within-group d(intervention) - within group d(control). Standardized using the standard deviation of the change scores. Negative values favor intervention and positive values favor control.|Baseline to post-intervention only||||
91038159|NCT03703258|181961117|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|-0.16|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||3 month between-group Cohen's d; calculated as within-group d(intervention) - within group d(control). Standardized using the standard deviation of the change scores. Negative values favor intervention and positive values favor control.|Baseline to 3 months||||
91038160|NCT03703258|181961118|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.86|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Post-intervention condition x time interaction coefficient from mixed-effect model using negative binomial distribution. Intervention = 1 and control = 0.|Baseline to post-intervention only||||.86
91038161|NCT03703258|181961118|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.55|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||3 month condition x time interaction coefficient from mixed-effect model using negative binomial distribution. Intervention = 1 and control = 0.|Baseline to 3 months||||.55
90945469|NCT02980523|181770696|NON_INFERIORITY|The aim of this study was to find the ideal dose of treatment for bacterial eradication and non-inferiority with the comparative groups.||||||0.372|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.372
90945470|NCT02980523|181770697|NON_INFERIORITY|The aim of this study was to find the ideal dose of treatment for bacterial eradication and non-inferiority with the comparative groups.||||||0.341|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.341
90945471|NCT02980523|181770698|NON_INFERIORITY|The aim of this study was to find the ideal dose of treatment for bacterial eradication and non-inferiority with the comparative groups.||||||0.001|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.001
90945472|NCT02980523|181770699|NON_INFERIORITY|The aim of this study was to find the ideal dose of treatment for bacterial eradication and non-inferiority with the comparative groups.||||||0.003|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.003
90945473|NCT02980523|181770700|NON_INFERIORITY|The aim of this study was to find the ideal dose of treatment for bacterial eradication and non-inferiority with the comparative groups.||||||0.216|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.216
90945474|NCT02980523|181770701|NON_INFERIORITY|The aim of this study was to find the ideal dose of treatment for bacterial eradication and non-inferiority with the comparative groups.||||||0.829|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.829
90945475|NCT00882115|181770711|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|Data followed the normal distribution, therefore, a parametric repeated measure (mixed model) ANOVA model was used to compare means.||Comparison was made to the 24 h minus baseline change in both control phase and intervention phase.||||<0.001
90945476|NCT00882115|181770711|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|Data followed the normal distribution, therefore, a parametric repeated measure (mixed model) ANOVA model was used to compare means.||Comparison waws made to the 6 hour minus baseline change in both control phase and intervention phase.||||<0.01
90945477|NCT02552147|181770712|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Two-tailed||||||.44
90945478|NCT02552147|181770713|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Two-tailed||||||0.38
90945479|NCT02552147|181770717|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Two-tailed||||||0.13
90945480|NCT02552147|181770718|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Two-tailed||||||0.13
90945481|NCT02552147|181770719|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Two-tailed||||||0.50
90945482|NCT02552147|181770720|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P value was calculated to \>0.99 and thus rounded to 1.0.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Two-tailed||||||1.0
90945483|NCT02552147|181770721|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Two-tailed||||||0.25
90945484|NCT02552147|181770722|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Binomial test|||||||0.69
90945485|NCT04560374|181770809|EQUIVALENCE|Power analysis was performed after the completion of the study. 98% power was obtained.|||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90945486|NCT00420784|181770826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.14|16.36|||Regression, Logistic|||||16.36|4.14|<0.001
91038162|NCT03703258|181961118|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Post-intervention between-group Cohen's d; calculated as within-group d(intervention) - within group d(control). Standardized using the standard deviation of the change scores. Negative values favor intervention and positive values favor control.|Baseline to post-intervention only||||
91038163|NCT03703258|181961118|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|-0.39|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||3 month between-group Cohen's d; calculated as within-group d(intervention) - within group d(control). Standardized using the standard deviation of the change scores. Negative values favor intervention and positive values favor control.|Baseline to 3 months||||
91038164|NCT04050735|181961119|OTHER|None of the above apply to this study|F-test|1.125||||0.343|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model testing the three-way interaction of HIV serostatus (positive/negative), beverage condition (alcohol/placebo), and time (hour 0, 1, 2, 3).||||.343
91038165|NCT04050735|181961120|OTHER|None of the above options apply to this study.|F-test|3.236||||0.026|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model testing the three-way interaction of HIV serostatus (positive/negative), beverage condition (alcohol/placebo), and time (hour 0, 1, 2, 3).||||.026
91038166|NCT04050735|181961121|OTHER|The above categories do not apply to this type of study.||||||0.987||||||The p-value for the interaction of HIV serostatus by beverage condition.|ANOVA|||Test of group by condition interaction on choline.||||.987
91038167|NCT04050735|181961121|OTHER|The above types of tests do not apply to this study.||||||0.836|||||||ANOVA|||Test of group by condition interaction on summed peak of glutamate plus glutamine||||.836
91038168|NCT04050735|181961122|OTHER|The above types of tests do not apply to this study.||||||0.846|||||||ANOVA|||Test of group by condition interaction on fractional anisotropy (FA).||||.846
91038169|NCT04050735|181961123|OTHER|The above types of tests do not apply to this study.||||||0.894|||||||ANOVA|||Test of interaction of group by beverage condition.||||.894
91038170|NCT00830258|181961172|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|105.76||||||90.0|98.17|113.93|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||113.93|98.17|
91038171|NCT00830258|181961173|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|110.45||||||90.0|104.31|116.96|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||116.96|104.31|
91038172|NCT00830258|181961174|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|110.61||||||90.0|104.39|117.2|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||117.20|104.39|
91038173|NCT05511935|181961192|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.69||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.57|9.06|||t-test, 2 sided|||||9.06|-5.57|0.64
91038174|NCT05511935|181961193|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.81||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28|4.89|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.89|-2.28|0.47
91038175|NCT05511935|181961194|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.25||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.77|6.11|||t-test, 2 sided|||||6.11|-10.77|0.59
91038176|NCT05511935|181961195|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.53||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.61|9.38|||t-test, 2 sided|||||9.38|-12.61|0.77
91038177|NCT05511935|181961196|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.89|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.95|-6.47|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-6.47|-17.95|<0.001
91038178|NCT05511935|181961197|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.87||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|5.34|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.34|-2.10|0.39
91038179|NCT05511935|181961198|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.84|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.52|-3.24|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-3.24|-14.52|<0.01
91038180|NCT05511935|181961199|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.06||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|5.23|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.23|-10.90|0.49
91038181|NCT05511935|181961201|SUPERIORITY||Slope|7.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.28||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.92|18.35|||Regression, Linear|||||18.35|-2.92|0.15
91038182|NCT05511935|181961202|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.19||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.13|8.99|||Regression, Linear|||||8.99|-8.13|0.92
91038183|NCT05511935|181961203|SUPERIORITY||Slope|7.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.81||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.17|19.49|||Regression, Linear|||||19.49|-4.17|0.20
91038184|NCT05511935|181961204|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-9.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.74||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.15|12.56|||Regression, Linear|||||12.56|-31.15|0.39
91038185|NCT04406194|181961205|EQUIVALENCE|0.80-1.25 margins for equivalence|Mean Ratio|0.9684||||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|0.9977|||ANOVA|||||0.9977|0.9400|0.0000
91038186|NCT04406194|181961206|EQUIVALENCE|0.80 - 1.25 equivalence margin is required.|Mean Ratio|1.0555||||0.0155|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9292|1.1989|||ANOVA|||||1.1989|0.9292|0.0155
91038187|NCT04406194|181961207|EQUIVALENCE|0.80 - 1.25 equivalence margin is not required.|Mean Ratio|0.9719||||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.944|1.0006|||ANOVA|||||1.0006|0.9440|0.0000
91038188|NCT02888756|181961218|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analyzed for week 6, to provide statistical information for decision on execution of intracellular cytokine staining (ICS).||||0.14
91038189|NCT01592240|181961245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-34.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.06|-23.5|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||||-23.50|-45.06|<0.001
91038190|NCT01592240|181961245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-45.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.93|-34.21|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||||-34.21|-55.93|<0.001
91038191|NCT01592240|181961245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-53.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.14|-42.7|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||||-42.70|-64.14|<0.001
90945487|NCT00420784|181770826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.72|19.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||19.20|4.72|<0.001
90945488|NCT00420784|181770826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.31||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|4.75|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.75|1.12|0.024
91038192|NCT01592240|181961245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-27.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.49|-14.67|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||||-14.67|-40.49|<0.001
91038193|NCT01592240|181961245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-44.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.65|-32.05|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||||-32.05|-57.65|<0.001
90945489|NCT00420784|181770828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.41|12.96|||Regression, Logistic|||||12.96|3.41|<0.001
90945490|NCT00420784|181770828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.91|11.27|||Regression, Logistic|||||11.27|2.91|<0.001
90945491|NCT00420784|181770828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.95||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|4.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.00|0.95|0.067
90945492|NCT00443209|181770838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|-6.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|-2.6|||Miettenen and Nurminen method||Treatment Difference was compared using the Miettinen and Nurminen (MN) method.|||-2.6|-10.4|<0.001
90945493|NCT00443209|181770839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|-5.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|1.4|||||Treatment Difference was compared using the MN method.|||1.4|-11.7|
90945494|NCT00443209|181770840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|2.0|||||Treatment Difference was compared using the MN method.|||2.0|-2.0|
90945495|NCT00443209|181770842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.75|||||Based on mixed logistic regression model with a fixed effect term for treatment, baseline pain severity and a random effect term for participant, with the random effect following a normal distribution. An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of telcagepant.|||0.75|0.45|
90945496|NCT03636373|181770877|NON_INFERIORITY|On a 10 point Likert Pain Scale, non-inferiority margin for the difference is 1.04. Using a Student t-test, there was 80% power for the difference in pain levels to exceed -1.04.||||||1|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Mean Outcome measure Etanercept arm { ( 8 + 0 + 7)/3 = 5} Triamcinolone Arm { (3+0) /2 = 1.5 }||||1.00
90945497|NCT03636373|181770878|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||1.00
90945498|NCT03636373|181770879|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
90945499|NCT03636373|181770880|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
90945500|NCT03636373|181770881|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
90945501|NCT03636373|181770882|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.05
90945502|NCT00513747|181770883|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1521|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.1521
90945503|NCT00513747|181770884|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0097|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0097
90945504|NCT00513747|181770885|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4645|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.4645
90945505|NCT01575873|181770903|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was shown if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference between the least-squares means (denosumab minus risedronate) was higher than the prespecified non-inferiority margin of -1.1 percentage points for the glucocorticoid-initiating subpopulation.|LS Mean Difference|2.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|3.9||One-sided p-value based on the prespecified noninferiority margin for lumbar spine of -1.1%.|ANCOVA||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference = Denosumab - Risedronate|"Analyses of the primary and secondary endpoints were performed independently within the glucocorticoid-continuing and glucocorticoid-initiating subpopulations. A fixed-sequence testing procedure was used to control the experiment-wise type 1 error rate at a two-sided 5% significance level within each subpopulation.~The glucocorticoid-initiating subpopulation was analyzed using an ANCOVA model adjusting for treatment, baseline BMD, sex, machine type, and baseline BMD-by-machine type interaction."||3.9|2.0|< 0.001
90945506|NCT01575873|181770903|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was shown if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference between the least-squares means (denosumab minus risedronate) was higher than the prespecified non-inferiority margin of -0.7 percentage points for the glucocorticoid-continuing subpopulation.|LS Mean Difference|2.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|3.0||One-sided p-value based on the prespecified noninferiority margins for lumbar spine of -0.7%.|ANCOVA||LS Mean Difference = Denosumab - Risedronate|"Analyses of the primary and secondary endpoints were performed independently within each subpopulation using a fixed-sequence testing procedure to control the experiment-wise type 1 error rate at a two-sided 5% significance level.~The glucocorticoid-continuing subpopulation was analyzed using an ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, baseline BMD, sex, machine type, baseline BMD-by-machine type interaction, and duration of prior glucocorticoid use (\< 12 months vs ≥ 12 months)."||3.0|1.4|< 0.001
90977029|NCT00428597|181837898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Objective Response Rate (ORR) (percent)|9.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|17.5|||||Confidence interval (CI) using exact method based on binomial distribution.|||17.5|4.1|
90977030|NCT00428597|181837901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.409||||0.0204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.187|0.894||2-sided p-value from the unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio based on the Cox Proportional hazards model.|||0.894|0.187|0.0204
90977031|NCT00428597|181837902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1543||||0.6799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|6.6||From repeated measures mixed-effects with intercept term, treatment, time from first dose, treatment-by-time interaction and baseline score (intercept and time from dose as random effects). No p-value adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Repeated Measures Mixed-Effects Model||Estimated mean difference with 95% CI and p-value were obtained from the repeated measures mixed-effects model using data from Cycle 2 through Cycle 10.|Cycle 2 through Cycle 10||6.6|-4.3|0.6799
90977032|NCT00428597|181837903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4404||||0.6058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|4.0||From repeated measures mixed-effects with intercept term, treatment, time from first dose, treatment-by-time interaction and baseline score (intercept and time from dose as random effects). No p-value adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Repeated Measures Mixed-Effects Model||Estimated mean difference with 95% CI and p-value were obtained from the repeated measures mixed-effects model using data from Cycle 2 through Cycle 10.|Cycle 2 through Cycle 10||4|-6.9|0.6058
90977033|NCT00428597|181837904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.5575||||0.3008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|3.2||From repeated measures mixed-effects with intercept term, treatment, time from first dose, treatment-by-time interaction and baseline score (intercept and time from dose as random effects). No p-value adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Repeated Measures Mixed-Effects Model||Estimated mean difference with 95% CI and p-value were obtained from the repeated measures mixed-effects model using data from Cycle 2 through Cycle 10.|Cycle 2 through Cycle 10||3.2|-10.3|0.3008
90977034|NCT00428597|181837905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.7911||||0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|8.3||From repeated measures mixed-effects with intercept term, treatment, time from first dose, treatment-by-time interaction and baseline score (intercept and time from dose as random effects). No p-value adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Repeated Measures Mixed-Effects Model||Estimated mean difference with 95% CI and p-value were obtained from the repeated measures mixed-effects model using data from Cycle 2 through Cycle 10.|Cycle 2 through Cycle 10||8.3|-2.8|0.3230
91038194|NCT01592240|181961246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-28.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.15|-17.67|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||||-17.67|-39.15|<0.001
91038195|NCT01592240|181961246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-43.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.9|-32.51|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||||-32.51|-53.90|<0.001
90945507|NCT01575873|181770904|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|3.9||2-sided p-value corresponding to the 2-sided 95% confidence interval|ANCOVA||LS Mean Difference = Denosumab - Risedronate|"Analyses of the primary and secondary endpoints were performed independently within each subpopulation using a fixed-sequence testing procedure to control the experiment-wise type 1 error rate at a two-sided 5% significance level.~The glucocorticoid-initiating subpopulation was analyzed using an ANCOVA model adjusting for treatment, baseline BMD value, sex, machine type, and baseline BMD value-by-machine type interaction."||3.9|2.0|< 0.001
90945508|NCT01575873|181770904|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|3.0||2-sided p-value corresponding to the 2-sided 95% confidence interval|ANCOVA||LS Mean Difference = Denosumab - Risedronate|"Analyses of the primary and secondary endpoints were performed independently within each subpopulation using a fixed-sequence testing procedure to control the experiment-wise type 1 error rate at a two-sided 5% significance level.~The glucocorticoid-continuing subpopulation was analyzed using an ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, baseline BMD, sex, machine type, baseline BMD-by-machine type interaction, and duration of prior glucocorticoid use (\< 12 months vs ≥ 12 months)."||3.0|1.4|< 0.001
90945509|NCT01575873|181770905|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.1||2-sided p-value corresponding to the 2-sided 95% confidence interval|ANCOVA||LS Mean Difference = Denosumab - Risedronate|"Analyses of the primary and secondary endpoints were performed independently within each subpopulation using a fixed-sequence testing procedure to control the experiment-wise type 1 error rate at a two-sided 5% significance level.~The glucocorticoid-initiating subpopulation was analyzed using an ANCOVA model adjusting for treatment, baseline BMD value, sex, machine type, and baseline BMD value-by-machine type interaction."||2.1|0.8|< 0.001
90945510|NCT01575873|181770905|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.1||2-sided p-value corresponding to the 2-sided 95% confidence interval|ANCOVA||LS Mean Difference = Denosumab - Risedronate|"Analyses of the primary and secondary endpoints were performed independently within each subpopulation using a fixed-sequence testing procedure to control the experiment-wise type 1 error rate at a two-sided 5% significance level.~The glucocorticoid-continuing subpopulation was analyzed using an ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, baseline BMD, sex, machine type, baseline BMD-by-machine type interaction, and duration of prior glucocorticoid use (\< 12 months vs ≥ 12 months)."||2.1|1.0|< 0.001
90945511|NCT01575873|181770906|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|5.8||2-sided p-value corresponding to the 2-sided 95% confidence interval|ANCOVA||LS Mean Difference = Denosumab - Risedronate|"Analyses of the primary and secondary endpoints were performed independently within each subpopulation using a fixed-sequence testing procedure to control the experiment-wise type 1 error rate at a two-sided 5% significance level.~The glucocorticoid-initiating subpopulation was analyzed using an ANCOVA model adjusting for treatment, baseline BMD value, sex, machine type, and baseline BMD value-by-machine type interaction."||5.8|3.2|< 0.001
90945512|NCT01575873|181770906|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|4.3||2-sided p-value corresponding to the 2-sided 95% confidence interval|ANCOVA||LS Mean Difference = Denosumab - Risedronate|"Analyses of the primary and secondary endpoints were performed independently within each subpopulation using a fixed-sequence testing procedure to control the experiment-wise type 1 error rate at a two-sided 5% significance level.~The glucocorticoid-continuing subpopulation was analyzed using an ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, baseline BMD, sex, machine type, baseline BMD-by-machine type interaction, and duration of prior glucocorticoid use (\< 12 months vs ≥ 12 months)."||4.3|2.0|< 0.001
90945513|NCT01575873|181770907|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|3.9||2-sided p-value corresponding to the 2-sided 95% confidence interval|ANCOVA||LS Mean Difference = Denosumab - Risedronate|"Analyses of the primary and secondary endpoints were performed independently within each subpopulation using a fixed-sequence testing procedure to control the experiment-wise type 1 error rate at a two-sided 5% significance level.~The glucocorticoid-initiating subpopulation was analyzed using an ANCOVA model adjusting for treatment, baseline BMD value, sex, machine type, and baseline BMD value-by-machine type interaction."||3.9|2.2|< 0.001
90945514|NCT01575873|181770907|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|3.2||2-sided p-value corresponding to the 2-sided 95% confidence interval|ANCOVA||LS Mean Difference = Denosumab - Risedronate|"Analyses of the primary and secondary endpoints were performed independently within each subpopulation using a fixed-sequence testing procedure to control the experiment-wise type 1 error rate at a two-sided 5% significance level.~The glucocorticoid-continuing subpopulation was analyzed using an ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, baseline BMD, sex, machine type, baseline BMD-by-machine type interaction, and duration of prior glucocorticoid use (\< 12 months vs ≥ 12 months)."||3.2|1.7|< 0.001
91038196|NCT01592240|181961246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-41.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.66|-30.41|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||||-30.41|-51.66|<0.001
90977035|NCT00428597|181837906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5113||||0.7113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|9.5||From repeated measures mixed-effects with intercept term, treatment, time from first dose, treatment-by-time interaction and baseline score (intercept and time from dose as random effects). No p-value adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Repeated Measures Mixed-Effects Model||Estimated mean difference with 95% CI and p-value were obtained from the repeated measures mixed-effects model using data from Cycle 2 through Cycle 10.|Cycle 2 through Cycle 10||9.5|-6.5|0.7113
91038197|NCT01592240|181961246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-23.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.7|-13.84|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||||-13.84|-33.70|<0.001
91038198|NCT01592240|181961246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-30.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.24|-20.49|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||||-20.49|-40.24|<0.001
90977036|NCT00428597|181837907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6672||||0.6487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|5.5||From repeated measures mixed-effects with intercept term, treatment, time from first dose, treatment-by-time interaction and baseline score (intercept and time from dose as random effects). No p-value adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Repeated Measures Mixed-Effects Model||Estimated mean difference with 95% CI and p-value were obtained from the repeated measures mixed-effects model using data from Cycle 2 through Cycle 10.|Cycle 2 through Cycle 10||5.5|-8.9|0.6487
90977037|NCT00428597|181837908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.88||||0.6545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|10.1||From repeated measures mixed-effects with intercept term, treatment, time from first dose, treatment-by-time interaction and baseline score (intercept and time from dose as random effects). No p-value adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Repeated Measures Mixed-Effects Model||Estimated mean difference with 95% CI and p-value were obtained from the repeated measures mixed-effects model using data from Cycle 2 through Cycle 10.|Cycle 2 through Cycle 10||10.1|-6.4|0.6545
91038199|NCT01592240|181961247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-35.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.91|-25.1|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||-25.10|-44.91|<0.001
91038200|NCT01592240|181961247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-42.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.3|-32.33|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||-32.33|-52.30|<0.001
91038201|NCT01592240|181961247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-53.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.97|-43.27|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||-43.27|-62.97|<0.001
91038202|NCT01592240|181961247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-26.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.25|-15.67|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||-15.67|-38.25|<0.001
91038203|NCT01592240|181961247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-41.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.32|-29.94|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||-29.94|-52.32|<0.001
91038204|NCT01592240|181961247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-29.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.42|-19.77|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||-19.77|-38.42|<0.001
91038205|NCT01592240|181961247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-40.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.43|-30.86|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||-30.86|-49.43|<0.001
91038206|NCT01592240|181961247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-39.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.37|-29.94|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||-29.94|-48.37|<0.001
91038207|NCT01592240|181961247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-23.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.88|-14.7|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||-14.70|-32.88|<0.001
91038208|NCT01592240|181961247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-29.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.13|-20.04|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||-20.04|-38.13|<0.001
91038209|NCT01592240|181961248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.64||||0.281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|4.63|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||4.63|-1.35|0.281
91038210|NCT01592240|181961248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|1.73||||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|4.71|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||4.71|-1.24|0.251
91038211|NCT01592240|181961248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.53||||0.724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.43|3.5|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||3.50|-2.43|0.724
91038212|NCT01592240|181961248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|4.45||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|7.7|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||7.70|1.21|0.007
91038213|NCT01592240|181961248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|3.86||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|7.09|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||7.09|0.63|0.019
91038214|NCT01592240|181961248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|1.72||||0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|4.51|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||4.51|-1.07|0.225
91038215|NCT01592240|181961248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.79||||0.571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.97|3.56|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||3.56|-1.97|0.571
91038216|NCT01592240|181961248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.49||||0.725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|3.24|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||3.24|-2.25|0.725
91038217|NCT01592240|181961248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|2.01||||0.268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|5.57|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||5.57|-1.56|0.268
91038218|NCT01592240|181961248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.01||||0.996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.55|3.54|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||3.54|-3.55|0.996
91038219|NCT01592240|181961249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|3.41||||0.246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.38|9.21|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||9.21|-2.38|0.246
91038220|NCT01592240|181961249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|2.62||||0.371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.14|8.38|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||8.38|-3.14|0.371
91038221|NCT01592240|181961249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|1.35||||0.643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|7.1|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||7.10|-4.40|0.643
90977038|NCT00428597|181837909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0035||||0.1936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|2.0||From repeated measures mixed-effects with intercept term, treatment, time from first dose, treatment-by-time interaction and baseline score (intercept and time from dose as random effects). No p-value adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Repeated Measures Mixed-Effects Model||Estimated mean difference with 95% CI and p-value were obtained from the repeated measures mixed-effects model using data from Cycle 2 through Cycle 10.|Cycle 2 through Cycle 10||2|-10|0.1936
90977039|NCT00428597|181837910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.3801|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.3|28.4||From repeated measures mixed-effects with intercept term, treatment, time from first dose, treatment-by-time interaction and baseline score (intercept and time from dose as random effects). No p-value adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Repeated Measures Mixed-Effects Model||Estimated mean difference with 95% CI and p-value were obtained from the repeated measures mixed-effects model using data from Cycle 2 through Cycle 10.|Cycle 2 through Cycle 10||28.4|14.3|<0.0001
90977040|NCT00428597|181837911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.23||||0.1339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|12.1||From repeated measures mixed-effects with intercept term, treatment, time from first dose, treatment-by-time interaction and baseline score (intercept and time from dose as random effects). No p-value adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Repeated Measures Mixed-Effects Model||Estimated mean difference with 95% CI and p-value were obtained from the repeated measures mixed-effects model using data from Cycle 2 through Cycle 10.|Cycle 2 through Cycle 10||12.1|-1.6|0.1339
90977041|NCT00428597|181837912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7816||||0.6138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|8.7||From repeated measures mixed-effects with intercept term, treatment, time from first dose, treatment-by-time interaction and baseline score (intercept and time from dose as random effects). No p-value adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Repeated Measures Mixed-Effects Model||Estimated mean difference with 95% CI and p-value were obtained from the repeated measures mixed-effects model using data from Cycle 2 through Cycle 10.|Cycle 2 through Cycle 10||8.7|-5.1|0.6138
90977042|NCT00428597|181837913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2778||||0.9367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|7.1||From repeated measures mixed-effects with intercept term, treatment, time from first dose, treatment-by-time interaction and baseline score (intercept and time from dose as random effects). No p-value adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Repeated Measures Mixed-Effects Model||Estimated mean difference with 95% CI and p-value were obtained from the repeated measures mixed-effects model using data from Cycle 2 through Cycle 10.|Cycle 2 through Cycle 10||7.1|-6.6|0.9367
90977043|NCT00428597|181837914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.753||||0.0372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|15.0||From repeated measures mixed-effects with intercept term, treatment, time from first dose, treatment-by-time interaction and baseline score (intercept and time from dose as random effects). No p-value adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Repeated Measures Mixed-Effects Model||Estimated mean difference with 95% CI and p-value were obtained from the repeated measures mixed-effects model using data from Cycle 2 through Cycle 10.|Cycle 2 through Cycle 10||15|0.5|0.0372
90977044|NCT00428597|181837915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1463||||0.6939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|6.9||From repeated measures mixed-effects with intercept term, treatment, time from first dose, treatment-by-time interaction and baseline score (intercept and time from dose as random effects). No p-value adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Repeated Measures Mixed-Effects Model||Estimated mean difference with 95% CI and p-value were obtained from the repeated measures mixed-effects model using data from Cycle 2 through Cycle 10.|Cycle 2 through Cycle 10||6.9|-4.6|0.6939
90977045|NCT00428597|181837916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.5128||||0.3711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|4.2||From repeated measures mixed-effects with intercept term, treatment, time from first dose, treatment-by-time interaction and baseline score (intercept and time from dose as random effects). No p-value adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Repeated Measures Mixed-Effects Model||Estimated mean difference with 95% CI and p-value were obtained from the repeated measures mixed-effects model using data from Cycle 2 through Cycle 10.|Cycle 2 through Cycle 10||4.2|-11.2|0.3711
90977046|NCT05032950|181837967|OTHER||Reference/Test Ratio|368.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|318.91|425.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Natural log-transformed Cmax of midazolam was analyzed using mixed effect model with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects and participant in sequence as random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (AMD) (Test-Reference) and 90%CIs were obtained from the model. The AMD and 90%CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90%CI for the ratios.||425.41|318.91|
90945515|NCT01536197|181770912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||ANOVA|Two-way ANOVAs with group (gastric bypass and lap banding) as the between-subjects factor and time (before after surgery).||||||0.19
90977047|NCT05032950|181837968|OTHER||Reference/Test Ratio|1430.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1204.54|1697.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Natural log-transformed AUCinf of midazolam was analyzed using mixed effect model with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects and participant in sequence as random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (AMD) (Test-Reference) and 90%CIs were obtained from the model. The AMD and 90%CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90%CI for the ratios.||1697.71|1204.54|
90977048|NCT05032950|181837969|OTHER||Test/Reference Ratio|1451.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1224.42|1721.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Natural log-transformed AUClast of midazolam was analyzed using mixed effect model with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects and participant in sequence as random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (AMD) (Test-Reference) and 90%CIs were obtained from the model. The AMD and 90%CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90%CI for the ratios.||1721.35|1224.42|
91038222|NCT01592240|181961249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|7.66||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|13.99|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||13.99|1.33|0.018
91038223|NCT01592240|181961249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|6.52||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|12.83|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||12.83|0.22|0.043
91038224|NCT01592240|181961249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|3.9||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|9.36|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||9.36|-1.56|0.160
90945516|NCT02647645|181770933|SUPERIORITY|Power calculation was based on similar studies of cognitive training with transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS).||||||0.02||||||Probability associated with the test of the interaction between participants' performance and session number in repeated measures analysis of covariance. In light of small sample size, estimated effect size was also calculated (d = 1.78).|ANCOVA|Test was adjusted for age, gender, race, education, CD4 count, and log viral load.||Analysis results are overall estimated marginal means from repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment group as a fixed factor and age, gender, race, education, cluster of differentiation (CD4) cell count, and log viral load as covariates.||||0.02
90945517|NCT02647645|181770934|SUPERIORITY|Power calculation was based on similar studies of cognitive training with transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS).||||||0.34||||||Probability associated with the test of the interaction between participants' performance and session number in repeated measures analysis of covariance. In light of small sample size, estimated effect size was also calculated (d = .71).|ANCOVA|Test was adjusted for age, gender, race, education, CD4 count, and log viral load.||Results are overall estimated marginal means from repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment group as a fixed factor and age, gender, race, education, CD4 count, and log viral load as covariates.||||0.34
90945518|NCT02647645|181770935|SUPERIORITY|Power calculation was based on the investigators' estimate of the impact of cognitive training with transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) on subjective cognitive problems, as similar studies were not available to develop effect size estimates.||||||0.33||||||Probability associated with the test of the interaction between participants' performance and session number in repeated measures analysis of covariance. In light of small sample size, estimated effect size was also calculated (d = .63).|ANCOVA|Test was adjusted for age, gender, race, education, CD4 count, and log viral load.||Results are overall estimated marginal means from repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment group as a fixed factor and age, gender, race, education, CD4 count, and log viral load as covariates.||||0.33
90945519|NCT04599907|181770945|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.05
90945520|NCT04599907|181770946|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.91|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|-0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"This is the data for the Level of Botherstatistical analysis"||-0.040|-1.42|<0.05
90945521|NCT04599907|181770946|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.87|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"This is the data for the Level of Impact on Daily Activities Statistical Analysis"||-0.40|-1.35|<0.05
90945522|NCT03733899|181770986|SUPERIORITY|Subjective comfort was analyzed using linear mixed model. Statistical inference was made based on the 95% confidence interval constructed for the least square mean difference.|Least-Square Mean Difference|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.96|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|12.4|||Linear Mixed Model||Difference was calculated as Test - Placebo|5-Mintues Post Treatment||12.4|-7.3|
90945523|NCT03733899|181770986|SUPERIORITY|Subjective comfort was analyzed using linear mixed model. Statistical inference was made based on the 95% confidence interval constructed for the least square mean difference.|Least-square Mean Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|11.5|||Linear Mixed Model||Difference was calculated as Test - Placebo|10-Minutes Post Treatment||11.5|-9.6|
90945524|NCT03733899|181770986|SUPERIORITY|Subjective comfort was analyzed using linear mixed model. Statistical inference was made based on the 95% confidence interval constructed for the least square mean difference.|Least-Square Mean Difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.67|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|9.8|||Linear Mixed Model||difference was calculated as Test - Placebo.|5-Minutes Post Treatment||9.8|-8.2|
90945525|NCT03733899|181770986|SUPERIORITY|Subjective comfort was analyzed using linear mixed model. Statistical inference was made based on the 95% confidence interval constructed for the least square mean difference.|Least-square Mean Difference|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.67|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|12.2|||Linear Mixed Model||Difference was calculated as Test - Placebo.|10-Mintues Post Treatment||12.2|-6.5|
90945526|NCT03733899|181770986|SUPERIORITY|Subjective comfort was analyzed using linear mixed model. Statistical inference was made based on the 95% confidence interval constructed for the least square mean difference.|Least-square Mean Difference|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.37|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|11.7|||Linear Mixed Model||Difference was calculated as Test - Placebo.|5-Mintues Post Treatment||11.7|-5.7|
90945527|NCT03733899|181770986|SUPERIORITY|Subjective comfort was analyzed using linear mixed model. Statistical inference was made based on the 95% confidence interval constructed for the least square mean difference.|Least-sqaure Mean Difference|7.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.54|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|16.8|||Linear Mixed Model||difference was calculated as Test - Placebo.|10-Mintues Post Treatment||16.8|-1.4|
90945528|NCT03733899|181770987|SUPERIORITY|Subjective comfort was analyzed using linear mixed model. Statistical inference was made based on the 95% confidence interval constructed for the least square mean difference.|Least-Square Mean Difference|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.22|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|14.4|||Linear Mixed Model||Difference was calculated as Test - Placebo|5-Mintues Post Treatment||14.4|-10.3|
90945529|NCT03733899|181770987|SUPERIORITY|Subjective comfort was analyzed using linear mixed model. Statistical inference was made based on the 95% confidence interval constructed for the least square mean difference.|Least-square Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|12.9|||Linear Mixed Model||Difference was calculated as Test - Placebo|10-Minutes Post Treatment||12.9|-12.1|
90945530|NCT03733899|181770987|SUPERIORITY|Subjective comfort was analyzed using linear mixed model. Statistical inference was made based on the 95% confidence interval constructed for the least square mean difference.|Least-Square Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.92|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|12.1|||Linear Mixed Model||difference was calculated as Test - Placebo.|5-Minutes Post Treatment||12.1|-11.4|
90945531|NCT03733899|181770987|SUPERIORITY|Subjective comfort was analyzed using linear mixed model. Statistical inference was made based on the 95% confidence interval constructed for the least square mean difference.|Least-square Mean Difference|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.83|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|14.0|||Linear Mixed Model||Difference was calculated as Test - Placebo.|10-Mintues Post Treatment||14.0|-9.2|
90945532|NCT03733899|181770987|SUPERIORITY|Subjective comfort was analyzed using linear mixed model. Statistical inference was made based on the 95% confidence interval constructed for the least square mean difference.|Least-square Mean Difference|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.76|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|14.3|||Linear Mixed Model||Difference was calculated as Test - Placebo.|5-Mintues Post Treatment||14.3|-8.5|
90945533|NCT03733899|181770987|SUPERIORITY|Subjective comfort was analyzed using linear mixed model. Statistical inference was made based on the 95% confidence interval constructed for the least square mean difference.|Least-sqaure Mean Difference|7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.67|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|18.8|||Linear Mixed Model||difference was calculated as Test - Placebo.|10-Mintues Post Treatment||18.8|-3.7|
90945534|NCT03733899|181770988|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the lower limit of 95% confidence interval was greater than 0 for at least one of the three ocular regions (upper lid margin, lower lid margin, or cornea).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.61|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|5.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||5-Minutes Post Treatment|Mean difference was calculated as (5-min Post-Treatment MINUS Immediate Post-insertion).|5.1|-13.2|
90945535|NCT03733899|181770988|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the lower limit of 95% confidence interval was greater than 0 for at least one of the three ocular regions (upper lid margin, lower lid margin, or cornea).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.85|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|5.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||10-Minutes Post Treatment|Mean difference was calculated as (10-min Post-Treatment MINUS Immediate Post-insertion).|5.3|-13.9|
90977049|NCT05032950|181837974|OTHER||Test/Reference Ratio|387.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|335.25|447.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Natural log-transformed Cmax of midazolam was analyzed using mixed effect model with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects and participant in sequence as random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (AMD)(Test-Reference) and 90%CIs were obtained from the model. The AMD and 90%CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90%CI for the ratios.||447.21|335.25|
90977050|NCT05032950|181837975|OTHER||Test/Reference Ratio|1645.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1385.75|1953.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Natural log-transformed AUCinf of midazolam was analyzed using mixed effect model with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects and participant in sequence as random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (AMD)(Test-Reference) and 90%CIs were obtained from the model. The AMD and 90%CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90%CI for the ratios||1953.11|1385.75|
90977051|NCT05032950|181837976|OTHER||Test/Reference Ratio|1677.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1414.59|1988.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Natural log-transformed AUClast of midazolam was analyzed using mixed effect model with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects and participant in sequence as random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (AMD)(Test-Reference) and 90%CIs were obtained from the model. The AMD and 90%CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90%CI for the ratios.||1988.69|1414.59|
90977052|NCT03219164|181837998|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of the 14-day treatment regimen was claimed if the lower bound of 1-sided 97.5% confidence limit of the treatment difference (14-day course group vs 28-day course group) was above the noninferiority margin of -20%.|Difference in percentage|-8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.6|8.6|||||The difference in percentage between treatment groups, and the associated 95% CIs were constructed based on stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method using age as stratification factor.|||8.6|-24.6|
90977053|NCT03219164|181838000|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The historical pooled data from published results for the percentage of participants with successful PA eradication at 28 days post-treatment with TNS was estimated to be 77%.|||
90977054|NCT02863068|181838018|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2967||||||A matched pairs design was employed to test for changes in methemoglobin at baseline and EOS for all participants between treatment arms using a Wilcoxon signed rank test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in methemoglobin from baseline to end of study (EOS) for all participants.||||0.2967
91038225|NCT01592240|181961249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.85||||0.758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.56|6.25|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||6.25|-4.56|0.758
90977055|NCT02863068|181838019|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2818||||||A matched pairs design was employed to test for changes in total ulcerated surface area at baseline and EOS between treatment arms using a Wilcoxon signed rank test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in total ulcerated surface area from baseline to end of study (EOS)||||0.2818
91038226|NCT01592240|181961249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|2.57||||0.347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.81|7.95|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||7.95|-2.81|0.347
90945536|NCT03733899|181770988|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the lower limit of 95% confidence interval was greater than 0 for at least one of the three ocular regions (upper lid margin, lower lid margin, or cornea).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.04|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.4|-8.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||5-Minutes Post Treatment|Mean difference was calculated as (5-min Post-Treatment MINUS Immediate Post-insertion).|-8.3|-24.4|
90977056|NCT02863068|181838019|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|Fisher's exact test was used to test for differences in frequencies between treatment arms||Difference in frequency of 25% total ulcerated surface area reduction between treatment arms||||1.0
90977057|NCT02863068|181838020|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3754||||||A matched pairs design was employed to test for changes in average pain at baseline and EOS between treatment arms using a Wilcoxon signed rank test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in average pain from baseline to end of study (EOS)||||0.3754
91038227|NCT01592240|181961249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|2.99||||0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.22|9.21|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||9.21|-3.22|0.343
91038228|NCT01592240|181961249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.7||||0.824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.87|5.48|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||5.48|-6.87|0.824
91038229|NCT01592240|181961250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-18.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.44|-11.67|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||-11.67|-25.44|<0.001
91038230|NCT01592240|181961250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-27.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.55|-20.79|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||-20.79|-34.55|<0.001
90945537|NCT03733899|181770988|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the lower limit of 95% confidence interval was greater than 0 for at least one of the three ocular regions (upper lid margin, lower lid margin, or cornea).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|-1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||10-Minutes Post Treatment|Mean difference was calculated as (10-min Post-Treatment MINUS Immediate Post-insertion).|-1.4|-17.8|
90945538|NCT03733899|181770988|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the lower limit of 95% confidence interval was greater than 0 for at least one of the three ocular regions (upper lid margin, lower lid margin, or cornea).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.15|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.6|-4.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||5-Minutes Post Treatment|Mean difference was calculated as (5-min Post-Treatment MINUS Immediate Post-insertion).|-4.1|-20.6|
90945539|NCT03733899|181770988|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the lower limit of 95% confidence interval was greater than 0 for at least one of the three ocular regions (upper lid margin, lower lid margin, or cornea).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.7|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||10-Minutes Post Treatment|Mean difference was calculated as (10-min Post-Treatment MINUS Immediate Post-insertion).|0.2|-16.7|
90945540|NCT03733899|181770989|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the lower limit of 95% confidence interval was greater than 0.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.07|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|11.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||10-Minutes Post Treatment|Mean Difference was cacluated as Corneal - Lower Lid Margin|11.6|-8.7|
90945541|NCT03733899|181770989|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the lower limit of 95% confidence interval was greater than 0.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.77|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|18.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||5-Minutes Post Treatment|Mean Difference was cacluated as Corneal - Lower Lid Margin|18.0|-1.0|
90977058|NCT02863068|181838022|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1165||||||A matched pairs design was employed to test for changes in methemoglobin at baseline and EOS between treatment arms for participants on Hydroxyurea (HU) using a Wilcoxon signed rank test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in methemoglobin from baseline to end of study (EOS) for participants on Hydroxyurea (HU).||||0.1165
90977059|NCT02863068|181838022|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4583||||||A matched pairs design was employed to test for changes in methemoglobin at baseline and EOS between treatment arms for participants off Hydroxyurea (HU) using a Wilcoxon signed rank test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in methemoglobin from baseline to end of study (EOS) for participants off Hydroxyurea (HU).||||0.4583
90945542|NCT03733899|181770989|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the lower limit of 95% confidence interval was greater than 0.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|17.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||10-Minutes Post Treatment|Mean Difference was cacluated as Corneal - Upper Lid Margin|17.0|-3.5|
90945543|NCT03733899|181770989|SUPERIORITY|Subjective comfort was analyzed using linear mixed model. Statistical inference was made based on the 95% confidence interval constructed for the least square mean difference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.82|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|20.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||5-Minutes Post Treatment|Mean Difference was cacluated as Corneal - Upper Lid Margin|20.8|1.6|
90945544|NCT03733899|181770990|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the lower limit of 95% confidence interval was greater than 0.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|12.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||10-Minutes Post Treatment|Mean Difference was cacluated as Corneal - Lower Lid Margin: 10-mintues post treatment - Pre Treatment.|12.9|-11.4|
90945545|NCT03733899|181770990|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the lower limit of 95% confidence interval was greater than 0.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|19.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||5-Minutes Post Treatment|Mean Difference was cacluated as Corneal - Lower Lid Margin: 5-mintues post treatment - Pre Treatment.|19.9|-4.9|
90977060|NCT02863068|181838023|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.068||||||A matched pairs design was employed to test for changes in total ulcerated surface area at baseline and EOS between treatment arms for participants on Hydroxyurea (HU) using a Wilcoxon signed rank test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in total ulcerated surface area from baseline to end of study (EOS) for participants on Hydroxyurea (HU).||||0.068
90977061|NCT02863068|181838023|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5||||||A matched pairs design was employed to test for changes in total ulcerated surface area at baseline and EOS between treatment arms for participants off Hydroxyurea (HU) using a Wilcoxon signed rank test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in total ulcerated surface area from baseline to end of study (EOS) for participants off Hydroxyurea (HU).||||0.5
90977062|NCT02863068|181838023|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|Difference in frequency of 25% total ulcerated surface area reduction between treatment arms for participants on Hydroxyurea (HU).||Difference in frequency of 25% total ulcerated surface area reduction between treatment arms for participants on Hydroxyurea (HU).||||1.0
90977063|NCT02863068|181838023|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|Fisher's exact test was used to test for differences in frequencies between treatment arms for participants off Hydroxyurea (HU).||Difference in frequency of 25% total ulcerated surface area reduction between treatment arms for participants off Hydroxyurea (HU).||||1.0
91038231|NCT01592240|181961250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-32.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.95|-25.22|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||-25.22|-38.95|<0.001
90977064|NCT02863068|181838024|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4298||||||A matched pairs design was employed to test for changes in average pain at baseline and EOS between treatment arms for participants on Hydroxyurea (HU) using a Wilcoxon signed rank test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in average pain from baseline to end of study (EOS) for participants on Hydroxyurea (HU).||||0.4298
90977065|NCT02863068|181838024|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2701||||||A matched pairs design was employed to test for changes in average pain at baseline and EOS between treatment arms for participants off Hydroxyurea (HU) using a Wilcoxon signed rank test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in average pain from baseline to end of study (EOS) for participants off Hydroxyurea (HU).||||0.2701
90977066|NCT03932799|181838028|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for workers' compensation-based covariates: age, gender, urban/rural residence, coronavirus disease (COVID)-19 era injury, days from injury to Report of Accident, injury type, injury complexity/severity, days from injury to first opioid prescription, more than 7 days of opioids in acute phase, and health care utilization during baseline period/acute phase.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.38||"* two-tailed test~* p-values \< 0.05 are statistically significant"|Regression, Logistic|||"* Primary predictor is binary (1 for Washington, 0 for Ohio)~* Robust variance estimates"||0.38|0.16|<.001
90977067|NCT03932799|181838029|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for workers' compensation-based covariates: age, gender, urban/rural residence, COVID-19 era injury, days from injury to Report of Accident, injury type, injury complexity/severity, days from injury to first opioid prescription, more than 7 days of opioids in acute phase, health care utilization during baseline period/acute phase, and time indicator for each time period (0,1,2).|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.31||"* two-tailed test~* p-values \< 0.05 are statistically significant"|Generalized estimating equation|||"* Primary predictor is binary (1 for Washington, 0 for Ohio)~* Outcome modeled longitudinally over the 3 time periods (3-6, 6-9, and 9-12 months)~* Time periods clustered at the individual worker level~* Exchangeable working correlation structure~* Robust variance estimates"||1.31|0.53|.43
90977068|NCT03932799|181838032|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for workers' compensation-based covariates: age, gender, urban/rural residence, COVID-19 era injury, days from injury to Report of Accident, injury type, injury complexity/severity, days from injury to first opioid prescription, more than 7 days of opioids in acute phase, health care utilization during baseline period/acute phase, and time indicator for each time period (0,1,2).|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.04||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|6.14||"* two-tailed test~* p-values \< 0.05 are statistically significant"|Generalized estimating equation|||"* Primary predictor is binary (1 for Washington, 0 for Ohio)~* Outcome modeled longitudinally over the 3 time periods (3-6, 6-9, and 9-12 months)~* Time periods clustered at the individual worker level~* Exchangeable working correlation structure~* Robust variance estimates"||6.14|1.50|.002
90977069|NCT03932799|181838033|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for same covariates as primary outcomes, plus survey covariates: days from injury to baseline survey, education, household income, race/ethnicity, working for pay, recovery expectations, anxious symptoms, depressive symptoms, pre-injury opioid, chiropractic and physical therapy (PT) utilization during baseline period/acute phase, cannabis for injury pain, alcohol misuse risk, current tobacco use, pain intensity/interference, Functional Comorbidity Index, health status, quality of life.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.32||"* two-tailed test~* p-values \< 0.05 are statistically significant"|Regression, Logistic|||"* Primary predictor is binary (1 for Washington, 0 for Ohio)~* Models survey weighted~* Robust variance estimates"||1.32|0.71|.84
90977070|NCT03932799|181838034|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for same covariates as primary outcomes, plus survey-based covariates: days from injury to baseline survey date, education, household income, race/ethnicity, working for pay, recovery expectations, anxious symptoms, depressive symptoms, pre-injury opioid, chiropractic and PT utilization during baseline period/acute phase, cannabis for injury pain, alcohol misuse risk, current tobacco use, pain intensity/interference, Functional Comorbidity Index, health status, and quality of life.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.49||"* two-tailed test~* p-values \< 0.05 are statistically significant"|Regression, Logistic|||"* Primary predictor is binary (1 for Washington, 0 for Ohio)~* Models survey weighted~* Robust variance estimates"||1.49|0.71|.88
90977071|NCT03932799|181838035|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for same covariates as primary outcomes, plus survey-based covariates: days from injury to baseline survey date, education, household income, race/ethnicity, working for pay, recovery expectations, anxious symptoms, depressive symptoms, pre-injury opioid, chiropractic and PT utilization during baseline period/acute phase, cannabis for injury pain, alcohol misuse risk, current tobacco use, pain intensity/interference, Functional Comorbidity Index, health status, and quality of life.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.11||"* two-tailed test~* p-values \< 0.05 are statistically significant"|Regression, Logistic|||"* Primary predictor is binary (1 for Washington, 0 for Ohio)~* Models survey weighted~* Robust variance estimates"||1.11|0.49|.15
91038232|NCT01592240|181961250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-14.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.89|-6.24|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||-6.24|-22.89|<0.001
91038233|NCT01592240|181961250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-28.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.83|-20.16|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||-20.16|-36.83|<0.001
91038234|NCT01592240|181961250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-19.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.07|-12.27|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||-12.27|-27.07|<0.001
91038235|NCT01592240|181961250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-28.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.52|-20.82|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||-20.82|-35.52|<0.001
91038236|NCT01592240|181961250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-25.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.73|-18.09|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||-18.09|-32.73|<0.001
90945546|NCT03733899|181770990|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the lower limit of 95% confidence interval was greater than 0.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.19|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|15.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||10-Minutes Post Treatment|Mean Difference was cacluated as Corneal - Upper Lid Margin: 10-mintues post treatment - Pre Treatment.|15.2|-9.3|
90945547|NCT03733899|181770990|SUPERIORITY|Subjective comfort was analyzed using linear mixed model. Statistical inference was made based on the 95% confidence interval constructed for the least square mean difference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.17|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|19.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||5-Minutes Post Treatment|Mean Difference was cacluated as Corneal - Upper Lid Margin: 5-mintues post treatment - Pre Treatment.|19.6|-4.9|
90945548|NCT03733899|181770991|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the lower limit of 95% confidence interval was greater than 0.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.22|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.9|-3.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||||mean difference was calculated as postremoval minus pre-insertion with Test and corneal region.|-3.9|-20.9|
90945549|NCT00667459|181771015|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The non-inferiority margin is 0.1.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.032||||0.995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.134||The posterior probably of non-inferiority was calculated and presented instead of the p-value.|Bayesian logistic model|The propensity score method was used to adjust possible effects on outcomes caused by differences in baseline characteristic due to non-randomization.|The posterior mean of P1-P0, along with the corresponding 95% highest posterior density (HPD) interval was presented instead of the usual 95% CI.|"The null hypothesis H0: p1 + d ≤ p0, and the alternative hypothesis is Ha: p1 + d \> p0 where P0 and P1 are the overall success rates in the control group and the investigational group respectively, and d is the non-inferiority margin. The analyses used Bayesian methodology. Should the posterior probability P(p1 - p0 \> -d \| data) be at least 0.95, then the null noninferiority hypothesis will be rejected, and non-inferiority of the investigational device to the control will be claimed."||0.134|-0.070|0.995
90945550|NCT00667459|181771015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.736||95.0||||The posterior probably of superiority was calculated and presented instead of the p-value.|Bayesian logistic model|The propensity score method was used to adjust possible effects on outcomes caused by differences in baseline characteristic due to non-randomization.||Superiority comparison of success rates in two treatment groups was a secondary objective of this trial. Superiority analysis was performed if non-inferiority was demonstrated. If the posterior probability is at least 0.95, a claim of superiority can be made.||||0.736
91038237|NCT01592240|181961250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-12.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.35|-6.09|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||-6.09|-19.35|<0.001
91038238|NCT01592240|181961250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-16.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.47|-10.23|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||-10.23|-23.47|<0.001
90945551|NCT00667459|181771016|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority margin is 0.1.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.048||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.118||The posterior probably of non-inferiority was calculated and presented instead of the p-value.|Bayesian logistic model|The propensity score method was used to adjust possible effects on outcomes caused by differences in baseline characteristic due to non-randomization.|The posterior mean of P1-P0, along with the corresponding 95% highest posterior density (HPD) interval was presented instead of the usual 95% CI.|"The null hypothesis H0: p1 + d ≤ p0, and the alternative hypothesis is Ha: p1 + d \> p0 where P0 and P1 are the success rates of NDI in the control group and the investigational group respectively, and d is the non-inferiority margin. The analyses used Bayesian methodology. Should the posterior probability P(p1 - p0 \> -d \| data) be at least 0.95, then the null noninferiority hypothesis will be rejected, and non-inferiority of the investigational group will be claimed for this endpoint."||0.118|-0.020|1.0
90945552|NCT00667459|181771016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.912||95.0||||The posterior probably of superiority was calculated and presented instead of the p-value.|Bayesian logistic model|The propensity score method was used to adjust possible effects on outcomes caused by differences in baseline characteristic due to non-randomization.||Superiority comparison of success rates in two treatment groups was a secondary objective of this trial. Superiority analysis was performed if non-inferiority was demonstrated.||||0.912
90945553|NCT00667459|181771017|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority margin is 0.1.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.099||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.038|0.161||The posterior probably of non-inferiority was calculated and presented instead of the p-value.|Bayesian logistic model|The propensity score method was used to adjust possible effects on outcomes caused by differences in baseline characteristic due to non-randomization.|The posterior mean of P1-P0, along with the corresponding 95% highest posterior density (HPD) interval was presented instead of the usual 95% CI.|"The null hypothesis H0: p1 + d ≤ p0, and the alternative hypothesis is Ha: p1 + d \> p0 where P0 and P1 are the overall success rates in the control group and the investigational group respectively, and d is the non-inferiority margin. The analyses used Bayesian methodology. Should the posterior probability P (p1 - p0 \> -d \| data) be at least 0.95, then the null non-inferiority hypothesis will be rejected, and non-inferiority of the investigational device to the control will be claimed."||0.161|0.038|1.0
90945554|NCT00667459|181771017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.999||95.0||||The posterior probably of superiority was calculated and presented instead of the p-value.|Bayesian logistic model|The propensity score method was used to adjust possible effects on outcomes caused by differences in baseline characteristic due to non-randomization.||Superiority comparison of success rates in two treatment groups was a secondary objective of this trial. Superiority analysis was performed if non-inferiority was demonstrated.||||0.999
90945555|NCT00667459|181771018|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority margin is 0.1.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.034||||0.992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.085|0.021||The posterior probably of non-inferiority was calculated and presented instead of the p-value.|Bayesian logistic model|The propensity score method was used to adjust possible effects on outcomes caused by differences in baseline characteristic due to non-randomization.|The posterior mean of P1-P0, along with the corresponding 95% highest posterior density (HPD) interval was presented instead of the usual 95% CI.|"The null hypothesis H0: p1 + d ≤ p0, and the alternative hypothesis is Ha: p1 + d \> p0 where P0 and P1 are the overall success rates in the control group and the investigational group respectively, and d is the non-inferiority margin. The analyses used Bayesian methodology. Should the posterior probability P (p1 - p0 \> -d \| data) be at least 0.95, then the null non-inferiority hypothesis will be rejected, and non-inferiority of the investigational device to the control will be claimed."||0.021|-0.085|0.992
90945556|NCT00667459|181771018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.097||||||The posterior probably of superiority was calculated and presented instead of the p-value.|Bayesian logistic model|The propensity score method was used to adjust possible effects on outcomes caused by differences in baseline characteristic due to non-randomization.||Superiority comparison of success rates in two treatment groups was a secondary objective of this trial. Superiority analysis was performed if non-inferiority was demonstrated.||||0.097
90945557|NCT00667459|181771019|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority margin is 0.1.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.01||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.043|0.023||The posterior probably of non-inferiority was calculated and presented instead of the p-value.|Bayesian logistic model|The propensity score method was used to adjust possible effects on outcomes caused by differences in baseline characteristic due to non-randomization.|The posterior mean of P1-P0, along with the corresponding 95% highest posterior density (HPD) interval was presented instead of the usual 95% CI.|"The null hypothesis H0: p1 + d ≤ p0, and the alternative hypothesis is Ha: p1 + d \> p0 where P0 and P1 are the overall success rates in the control group and the investigational group respectively, and d is the non-inferiority margin. The analyses used Bayesian methodology. Should the posterior probability P (p1 - p0 \> -d \| data) be at least 0.95, then the null non-inferiority hypothesis will be rejected, and non-inferiority of the investigational device to the control will be claimed."||0.023|-0.043|1.0
91038239|NCT01592240|181961251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-21.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.23|-13.92|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||-13.92|-29.23|<0.001
91038240|NCT01592240|181961251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-30.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.19|-22.89|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||-22.89|-38.19|<0.001
91038241|NCT01592240|181961251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-35.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.59|-28.31|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||-28.31|-43.59|<0.001
90977072|NCT03932799|181838036|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for same covariates as primary outcomes, plus survey-based covariates: days from injury to baseline survey date, education, household income, race/ethnicity, working for pay, recovery expectations, anxious symptoms, depressive symptoms, pre-injury opioid, chiropractic and PT utilization during baseline period/acute phase, cannabis for injury pain, alcohol misuse risk, current tobacco use, pain intensity/interference, Functional Comorbidity Index, health status, and quality of life.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.21||"* two-tailed test~* p-values \< 0.05 are statistically significant"|Regression, Logistic|||"* Primary predictor is binary (1 for Washington, 0 for Ohio)~* Models survey weighted~* Robust variance estimates"||1.21|0.60|.38
90977073|NCT03932799|181838037|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for same covariates as primary outcomes, plus survey-based covariates: days from injury to baseline survey date, education, household income, race/ethnicity, working for pay, recovery expectations, anxious symptoms, depressive symptoms, pre-injury opioid, chiropractic and PT utilization during baseline period/acute phase, cannabis for injury pain, alcohol misuse risk, current tobacco use, pain intensity/interference, Functional Comorbidity Index, health status, and quality of life.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|2.28||"* two-tailed test~* p-values \< 0.05 are statistically significant"|Regression, Logistic|||"* Leisure or social activities outcome~* Primary predictor is binary (1 for Washington, 0 for Ohio)~* Models survey weighted~* Robust variance estimates"||2.28|0.91|.12
91038242|NCT01592240|181961251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-17.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.87|-8.41|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||-8.41|-25.87|<0.001
91038243|NCT01592240|181961251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-30.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.45|-21.98|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||-21.98|-39.45|<0.001
91038244|NCT01592240|181961251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-22.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.32|-13.86|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||-13.86|-30.32|<0.001
91038245|NCT01592240|181961251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-30.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.13|-22.77|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||-22.77|-39.13|<0.001
91038246|NCT01592240|181961251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-27.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.38|-19.09|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||-19.09|-35.38|<0.001
91038247|NCT01592240|181961251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-15.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.9|-7.78|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||-7.78|-22.90|<0.001
91038248|NCT01592240|181961251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-19.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.7|-11.59|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||-11.59|-26.70|<0.001
91038249|NCT01592240|181961252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.77||||0.667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.33|9.88|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||9.88|-6.33|0.667
91038250|NCT01592240|181961252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|5.44||||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.66|13.54|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||13.54|-2.66|0.187
91038251|NCT01592240|181961252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|3.82||||0.352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.25|11.9|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||11.90|-4.25|0.352
91038252|NCT01592240|181961252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|5.6||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|12.09|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||12.09|-0.89|0.090
91038253|NCT01592240|181961252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|4.36||||0.184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|10.82|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||10.82|-2.10|0.184
91038254|NCT01592240|181961252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.59||||0.879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.09|8.28|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||8.28|-7.09|0.879
91038255|NCT01592240|181961252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.43||||0.911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.17|8.02|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||8.02|-7.17|0.911
91038256|NCT01592240|181961252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|4.12||||0.283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.44|11.69|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||11.69|-3.44|0.283
91038257|NCT01592240|181961252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.41||||0.728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.41|6.59|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||6.59|-9.41|0.728
91038258|NCT01592240|181961252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.19||||0.587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.13|5.75|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||5.75|-10.13|0.587
91038259|NCT01592240|181961253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.66||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.05|8.74|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||8.74|-10.05|0.890
91038260|NCT01592240|181961253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|2.32||||0.625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.04|11.68|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||11.68|-7.04|0.625
91038261|NCT01592240|181961253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|6.54||||0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.86|15.94|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||15.94|-2.86|0.172
91038262|NCT01592240|181961253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|3.5||||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|7.8|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||7.80|-0.79|0.109
91038263|NCT01592240|181961253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|2.67||||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|6.94|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||6.94|-1.60|0.218
91038264|NCT01592240|181961253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.86||||0.812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.01|6.29|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||6.29|-8.01|0.812
91038265|NCT01592240|181961253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.15||||0.749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.24|5.94|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||5.94|-8.24|0.749
91038266|NCT01592240|181961253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|5.82||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|12.93|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||12.93|-1.29|0.108
91038267|NCT01592240|181961253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.83||||0.752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.99|4.34|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||4.34|-5.99|0.752
91038268|NCT01592240|181961253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.55||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.68|3.57|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||3.57|-6.68|0.550
91038269|NCT01592240|181961254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.19||||0.893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.62|3.0|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||3.00|-2.62|0.893
91038270|NCT01592240|181961254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|1.33||||0.355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|4.15|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||4.15|-1.49|0.355
91038271|NCT01592240|181961254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.64||||0.655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.45|2.17|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||2.17|-3.45|0.655
91038272|NCT01592240|181961254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.49||||0.719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|2.21|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||2.21|-3.20|0.719
91038273|NCT01592240|181961254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.41||||0.768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.31|3.12|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||3.12|-2.31|0.768
91038274|NCT01592240|181961254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|1.66||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|4.2|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||4.20|-0.88|0.199
90945558|NCT00667459|181771019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.273||95.0||||The posterior probably of superiority was calculated and presented instead of the p-value.|Bayesian logistic model|The propensity score method was used to adjust possible effects on outcomes caused by differences in baseline characteristic due to non-randomization.||Superiority comparison of success rates in two treatment groups was a secondary objective of this trial. Superiority analysis was performed if non-inferiority was demonstrated.||||0.273
90945559|NCT00667459|181771020|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority margin is 0.1.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.019||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.018|0.058||The posterior probably of non-inferiority was calculated and presented instead of the p-value.|Bayesian logistic model|The propensity score method was used to adjust possible effects on outcomes caused by differences in baseline characteristic due to non-randomization.|The posterior mean of P1-P0, along with the corresponding 95% highest posterior density (HPD) interval was presented instead of the usual 95% CI.|"The null hypothesis H0: p1 + d ≤ p0, and the alternative hypothesis is Ha: p1 + d \> p0 where P0 and P1 are the overall success rates in the control group and the investigational group respectively, and d is the non-inferiority margin. The analyses used Bayesian methodology. Should the posterior probability P (p1 - p0 \> -d \| data) be at least 0.95, then the null non-inferiority hypothesis will be rejected, and non-inferiority of the investigational device to the control will be claimed."||0.058|-0.018|1.0
90977074|NCT03932799|181838037|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for same covariates as primary outcomes, plus survey-based covariates: days from injury to baseline survey date, education, household income, race/ethnicity, working for pay, recovery expectations, anxious symptoms, depressive symptoms, pre-injury opioid, chiropractic and PT utilization during baseline period/acute phase, cannabis for injury pain, alcohol misuse risk, current tobacco use, pain intensity/interference, Functional Comorbidity Index, health status, and quality of life.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|2.07||"* two-tailed test~* p-values \< 0.05 are statistically significant"|Regression, Logistic|||"* Getting out with friends or family outcome~* Primary predictor is binary (1 for Washington, 0 for Ohio)~* Models survey weighted~* Robust variance estimates"||2.07|0.74|.42
90977075|NCT03932799|181838037|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for same covariates as primary outcomes, plus survey-based covariates: days from injury to baseline survey date, education, household income, race/ethnicity, working for pay, recovery expectations, anxious symptoms, depressive symptoms, pre-injury opioid, chiropractic and PT utilization during baseline period/acute phase, cannabis for injury pain, alcohol misuse risk, current tobacco use, pain intensity/interference, Functional Comorbidity Index, health status, and quality of life.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.51||"* two-tailed test~* p-values \< 0.05 are statistically significant"|Regression, Logistic|||"* Doing household chores outcome~* Primary predictor is binary (1 for Washington, 0 for Ohio)~* Models survey weighted~* Robust variance estimates"||1.51|0.63|.91
90977076|NCT03932799|181838037|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for same covariates as primary outcomes, plus survey-based covariates: days from injury to baseline survey date, education, household income, race/ethnicity, working for pay, recovery expectations, anxious symptoms, depressive symptoms, pre-injury opioid, chiropractic and PT utilization during baseline period/acute phase, cannabis for injury pain, alcohol misuse risk, current tobacco use, pain intensity/interference, Functional Comorbidity Index, health status, and quality of life.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|2.21||"* two-tailed test~* p-values \< 0.05 are statistically significant"|Regression, Logistic|||"* Using transportation outcome~* Primary predictor is binary (1 for Washington, 0 for Ohio)~* Models survey weighted~* Robust variance estimates"||2.21|0.64|.59
90977077|NCT03932799|181838038|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for same covariates as primary outcomes, plus survey-based covariates: days from injury to baseline survey date, education, household income, race/ethnicity, working for pay, recovery expectations, anxious symptoms, depressive symptoms, pre-injury opioid, chiropractic and PT utilization during baseline period/acute phase, cannabis for injury pain, alcohol misuse risk, current tobacco use, pain intensity/interference, Functional Comorbidity Index, health status, and quality of life.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.75||"* two-tailed test~* p-values \< 0.05 are statistically significant"|Regression, Logistic|||"* Primary predictor is binary (1 for Washington, 0 for Ohio)~* Models survey weighted~* Robust variance estimates"||1.75|0.88|.22
90977078|NCT03932799|181838039|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for same covariates as primary outcomes, plus survey-based covariates: days from injury to baseline survey date, education, household income, race/ethnicity, working for pay, recovery expectations, anxious symptoms, depressive symptoms, pre-injury opioid, chiropractic and PT utilization during baseline period/acute phase, cannabis for injury pain, alcohol misuse risk, current tobacco use, pain intensity/interference, Functional Comorbidity Index, health status, and quality of life.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.97||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|3.47||"* two-tailed test~* p-values \< 0.05 are statistically significant"|Regression, Logistic|||"* Primary predictor is binary (1 for Washington, 0 for Ohio)~* Models survey weighted~* Robust variance estimates"||3.47|1.12|.02
90945560|NCT00667459|181771020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.845||95.0||||The posterior probably of superiority was calculated and presented instead of the p-value.|Bayesian logistic model|The propensity score method was used to adjust possible effects on outcomes caused by differences in baseline characteristic due to non-randomization.||Superiority comparison of success rates in two treatment groups was a secondary objective of this trial. Superiority analysis was performed if non-inferiority was demonstrated.||||0.845
91038275|NCT01592240|181961254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.9||||0.483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|3.41|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||3.41|-1.62|0.483
91038276|NCT01592240|181961254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|1.03||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|3.56|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||3.56|-1.49|0.420
90945561|NCT00667459|181771021|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority margin is 0.1.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.047||||0.936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.113|0.021||The posterior probably of non-inferiority was calculated and presented instead of the p-value.|Bayesian logistic model|The propensity score method was used to adjust possible effects on outcomes caused by differences in baseline characteristic due to non-randomization.|The posterior mean of P1-P0, along with the corresponding 95% highest posterior density (HPD) interval was presented instead of the usual 95% CI.|"The null hypothesis H0: p1 + d ≤ p0, and the alternative hypothesis is Ha: p1 + d \> p0 where P0 and P1 are the overall success rates in the control group and the investigational group respectively, and d is the non-inferiority margin. The analyses used Bayesian methodology. Should the posterior probability P (p1 - p0 \> -d \| data) be at least 0.95, then the null non-inferiority hypothesis will be rejected, and non-inferiority of the investigational device to the control will be claimed."||0.021|-0.113|0.936
90945562|NCT00667459|181771022|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority margin is 0.1.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.105||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.19||The posterior probably of non-inferiority was calculated and presented instead of the p-value.|Bayesian logistic model|The propensity score method was used to adjust possible effects on outcomes caused by differences in baseline characteristic due to non-randomization.|The posterior mean of P1-P0, along with the corresponding 95% highest posterior density (HPD) interval was presented instead of the usual 95% CI.|"The null hypothesis H0: p1 + d ≤ p0, and the alternative hypothesis is Ha: p1 + d \> p0 where P0 and P1 are the overall success rates in the control group and the investigational group respectively, and d is the non-inferiority margin. The analyses used Bayesian methodology. Should the posterior probability P (p1 - p0 \> -d \| data) be at least 0.95, then the null non-inferiority hypothesis will be rejected, and non-inferiority of the investigational device to the control will be claimed."||0.190|0.020|1.0
90945563|NCT00667459|181771022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.992||95.0||||The posterior probably of superiority was calculated and presented instead of the p-value.|Bayesian logistic model|The propensity score method was used to adjust possible effects on outcomes caused by differences in baseline characteristic due to non-randomization.||Superiority comparison of success rates in two treatment groups was a secondary objective of this trial. Superiority analysis was performed if non-inferiority was demonstrated.||||0.992
90945564|NCT00667459|181771024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.013||||||The posterior probably of superiority was calculated and presented instead of the p-value.|Bayesian logistic model|||Superiority comparison of the operative time in two treatment groups was assessed.||||0.013
90945565|NCT00667459|181771025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.769||||||The posterior probably of superiority was calculated and presented instead of the p-value.|Bayesian logistic model|||Superiority comparison of the blood loss in two treatment groups was assessed.||||0.769
90945566|NCT00667459|181771026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.273||||||The posterior probably of superiority was calculated and presented instead of the p-value.|Bayesian logistic model|||Superiority comparison of the hospital stay in two treatment groups was assessed.||||0.273
90945567|NCT00078377|181771039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.8||||0.0024||95.0|1.02|4.61|||ANCOVA|The corresponding baseline value as a covariate.||Statistical data is for the Armodafinil Combined treatment (250 mg/day and 150 mg/day groups) compared to the placebo treatment group||4.61|1.02|0.0024
90945568|NCT00078377|181771040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
90945569|NCT00581893|181771041|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||McNemar|||||||0.50
90945570|NCT01381575|181771042|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority with respect to seroconversion was demonstrated if, 1 month after the last dose, for both anti-HPV-16 and anti-HPV-18, the upper limit of the 95% Confidence Interval (CI) for the difference (Cervarix 2 Group minus Cervarix 1 Group) was below 5%.|Difference in SCR|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|0.78||||||Immune response to anti-HPV-16 in terms of seroconversion (SCR) rates: To evaluate sequentially if the immunogenicity (as determined by ELISA) of Cervarix vaccine administered according to a 2-dose schedule of 0,6 months in 9-14 year old females was non-inferior to that administered according to the standard 3-dose schedule of 0,1,6 months in 15-25 year old females, 1 month after the last dose of study vaccine, in initially seronegative subjects.||0.78|-1.08|
90945571|NCT01381575|181771042|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority with respect to seroconversion was demonstrated if, 1 month after the last dose, for both anti-HPV-16 and anti-HPV-18, the upper limit of the 95% Confidence Interval (CI) for the difference (Cervarix 2 Group minus Cervarix 1 Group) was below 5%.|Difference in SCR|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.77||||||Immune response to anti-HPV-18 in terms of seroconversion (SCR) rates: To evaluate sequentially if the immunogenicity (as determined by ELISA) of Cervarix vaccine administered according to a 2-dose schedule of 0,6 months in 9-14 year old females was non-inferior to that administered according to the standard 3-dose schedule of 0,1,6 months in 15-25 year old females, 1 month after the last dose of study vaccine, in initially seronegative subjects.||0.77|-1.00|
91038277|NCT01592240|181961254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.69||||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.67|1.28|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||1.28|-2.67|0.488
91038278|NCT01592240|181961254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.39||||0.694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.36|1.58|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||1.58|-2.36|0.694
91038279|NCT01592240|181961255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|10.29||||0.527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.73|42.3|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||42.30|-21.73|0.527
91038280|NCT01592240|181961255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.39||||0.981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.49|32.26|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||32.26|-31.49|0.981
91038281|NCT01592240|181961255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.54||||0.974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.72|32.8|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||32.80|-31.72|0.974
90977079|NCT03932799|181838040|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for same covariates as primary outcomes, plus survey-based covariates: days from injury to baseline survey date, education, household income, race/ethnicity, working for pay, recovery expectations, anxious symptoms, depressive symptoms, pre-injury opioid, chiropractic and PT utilization during baseline period/acute phase, cannabis for injury pain, alcohol misuse risk, current tobacco use, pain intensity/interference, Functional Comorbidity Index, health status, and quality of life.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.83||"* two-tailed test~* p-values \< 0.05 are statistically significant"|Regression, Logistic|||"* Primary predictor is binary (1 for Washington, 0 for Ohio)~* Models survey weighted~* Robust variance estimates"||1.83|0.95|.10
90977080|NCT03932799|181838042|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for same covariates as primary outcomes, plus survey-based covariates: days from injury to baseline survey date, education, household income, race/ethnicity, working for pay, recovery expectations, anxious symptoms, depressive symptoms, pre-injury opioid, chiropractic and PT utilization during baseline period/acute phase, cannabis for injury pain, alcohol misuse risk, current tobacco use, pain intensity/interference, Functional Comorbidity Index, health status, and quality of life.|beta|-0.01||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.01||"* two-tailed test~* p-values \< 0.05 are statistically significant"|Regression, Logistic|||"* Primary predictor is binary (1 for Washington, 0 for Ohio)~* Models survey weighted~* Robust variance estimates"||0.01|-0.03|.53
90977081|NCT03932799|181838043|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for same covariates as primary outcomes, plus survey-based covariates: days from injury to baseline survey date, education, household income, race/ethnicity, working for pay, recovery expectations, anxious symptoms, depressive symptoms, pre-injury opioid, chiropractic and PT utilization during baseline period/acute phase, cannabis for injury pain, alcohol misuse risk, current tobacco use, pain intensity/interference, Functional Comorbidity Index, health status, and quality of life.|beta|0.16||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.32||"* two-tailed test~* p-values \< 0.05 are statistically significant"|Regression, Logistic|||"* Primary predictor is binary (1 for Washington, 0 for Ohio)~* Models survey weighted~* Robust variance estimates"||0.32|-0.00|.053
90977082|NCT03932799|181838044|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for same covariates as primary outcomes, plus survey-based covariates: days from injury to baseline survey date, education, household income, race/ethnicity, working for pay, recovery expectations, anxious symptoms, depressive symptoms, pre-injury opioid, chiropractic and PT utilization during baseline period/acute phase, cannabis for injury pain, alcohol misuse risk, current tobacco use, pain intensity/interference, Functional Comorbidity Index, health status, and quality of life.|beta|0.22||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.38||"* two-tailed test~* p-values \< 0.05 are statistically significant"|Regression, Logistic|||"* Primary predictor is binary (1 for Washington, 0 for Ohio)~* Models survey weighted~* Robust variance estimates"||0.38|0.05|.01
90977083|NCT03932799|181838045|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for same covariates as primary outcomes, plus survey-based covariates: days from injury to baseline survey date, education, household income, race/ethnicity, working for pay, recovery expectations, anxious symptoms, depressive symptoms, pre-injury opioid, chiropractic and PT utilization during baseline period/acute phase, cannabis for injury pain, alcohol misuse risk, current tobacco use, pain intensity/interference, Functional Comorbidity Index, health status, and quality of life.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.35||"* two-tailed test~* p-values \< 0.05 are statistically significant"|Regression, Logistic|||"* Primary predictor is binary (1 for Washington, 0 for Ohio)~* Models survey weighted~* Robust variance estimates"||1.35|0.42|.35
90977084|NCT01097629|181838046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|26.3|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.3|34.3||By multiplicity strategy above, overall Type I error among primary hypotheses was controlled at two-sided 5% significance level.|Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model terms: baseline value, age group, region, gender, treatment, time, time by treatment interaction, and cohort (e-diary only, PSG-plus-e-diary).||The null hypothesis, that suvorexant HD did not differ from placebo for Month 1 sTSTm, had planned marginal power of 97.6%. Sleep maintenance (sTSTm, WASO) and sleep onset (sTSOm, LPS) endpoints were tested at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Both Month 1 endpoints for sleep maintenance must be significant to test Month 3 endpoints; the same approach was used for sleep onset endpoints.||34.3|18.3|<0.00001
90977085|NCT01097629|181838047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|25.1|||<|1e-05||95.0|16.0|34.2||By multiplicity strategy above, overall Type I error among primary hypotheses was controlled at two-sided 5% significance level.|Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model terms: baseline value, age group, region, gender, treatment, time, time by treatment interaction, and cohort (e-diary only, PSG-plus-e-diary).||The null hypothesis, that suvorexant HD did not differ from placebo for Month 3 sTSTm, had planned marginal power of 95.7%. Sleep maintenance (sTSTm, WASO) and sleep onset (sTSOm, LPS) endpoints were tested at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Both Month 1 endpoints for sleep maintenance must be significant to test Month 3 endpoints; the same approach was used for sleep onset endpoints.||34.2|16.0|<0.00001
90977086|NCT01097629|181838048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-29.4|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.6|-22.3||By multiplicity strategy above, overall Type I error among primary hypotheses was controlled at two-sided 5% significance level.|Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model terms: baseline value, age group, region, gender, treatment, time, and time by treatment interaction.||The null hypothesis, that suvorexant HD did not differ from placebo for Month 1 WASO, had planned marginal power of 99.2%. Sleep maintenance (sTSTm, WASO) and sleep onset (sTSOm, LPS) endpoints were tested at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Both Month 1 endpoints for sleep maintenance must be significant to test Month 3 endpoints; the same approach was used for sleep onset endpoints.||-22.3|-36.6|<0.00001
91038282|NCT01592240|181961255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.58||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.25|5.09|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||5.09|-8.25|0.640
91038283|NCT01592240|181961255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|1.08||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.61|7.77|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||7.77|-5.61|0.750
91038284|NCT01592240|181961255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|9.8||||0.509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.41|39.01|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||39.01|-19.41|0.509
91038285|NCT01592240|181961255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.69||||0.855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.76|26.38|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||26.38|-31.76|0.855
91038286|NCT01592240|181961255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|3.04||||0.839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.39|32.47|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||32.47|-26.39|0.839
90977087|NCT01097629|181838049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-29.4|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.7|-22.1||By multiplicity strategy above, overall Type I error among primary hypotheses was controlled at two-sided 5% significance level.|Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model terms: baseline value, age group, region, gender, treatment, time, and time by treatment interaction.||The null hypothesis, that suvorexant HD did not differ from placebo for Month 3 WASO, had planned marginal power of 98.3%. Sleep maintenance (sTSTm, WASO) and sleep onset (sTSOm, LPS) endpoints were tested at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Both Month 1 endpoints for sleep maintenance must be significant to test Month 3 endpoints; the same approach was used for sleep onset endpoints.||-22.1|-36.7|<0.00001
90977088|NCT01097629|181838050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-12.8||||3e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.8|-6.9||By multiplicity strategy above, overall Type I error among primary hypotheses was controlled at two-sided 5% significance level.|Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model terms: baseline value, age group, region, gender, treatment, time, time by treatment interaction, and cohort (e-diary only, PSG-plus-e-diary).||The null hypothesis, that suvorexant HD did not differ from placebo for Month 1 sTSOm, had planned marginal power of 99.9%. Sleep maintenance (sTSTm, WASO) and sleep onset (sTSOm, LPS) endpoints were tested at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Both Month 1 endpoints for sleep maintenance must be significant to test Month 3 endpoints; the same approach was used for sleep onset endpoints.||-6.9|-18.8|0.00003
90977089|NCT01097629|181838051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-13.2||||3e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|-7.0||By multiplicity strategy above, overall Type I error among primary hypotheses was controlled at two-sided 5% significance level.|Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model terms: baseline value, age group, region, gender, treatment, time, time by treatment interaction, and cohort (e-diary only, PSG-plus-e-diary).||The null hypothesis, that suvorexant HD did not differ from placebo for Month 3 sTSOm, had planned marginal power of 99.6%. Sleep maintenance (sTSTm, WASO) and sleep onset (sTSOm, LPS) endpoints were tested at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Both Month 1 endpoints for sleep maintenance must be significant to test Month 3 endpoints; the same approach was used for sleep onset endpoints.||-7.0|-19.4|0.00003
90977090|NCT01097629|181838052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-12.1||||4e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|-6.4||By multiplicity strategy above, overall Type I error among primary hypotheses was controlled at two-sided 5% significance level.|Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model terms: baseline value, age group, region, gender, treatment, time, and time by treatment interaction.||The null hypothesis, that suvorexant HD did not differ from placebo for Month 1 LPS, had planned marginal power of 81.4%. Sleep maintenance (sTSTm, WASO) and sleep onset (sTSOm, LPS) endpoints were tested at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Both Month 1 endpoints for sleep maintenance must be significant to test Month 3 endpoints; the same approach was used for sleep onset endpoints.||-6.4|-17.8|0.00004
90977091|NCT01097629|181838053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-3.6||||0.2651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|2.8||By multiplicity strategy above, overall Type I error among primary hypotheses was controlled at two-sided 5% significance level.|Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model terms: baseline value, age group, region, gender, treatment, time, and time by treatment interaction.||The null hypothesis, that suvorexant HD did not differ from placebo for Month 3 LPS, had planned marginal power of 76.2%. Sleep maintenance (sTSTm, WASO) and sleep onset (sTSOm, LPS) endpoints were tested at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Both Month 1 endpoints for sleep maintenance must be significant to test Month 3 endpoints; the same approach was used for sleep onset endpoints.||2.8|-10.1|0.26510
90977092|NCT01097629|181838054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|26.4|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.8|33.1|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model terms: baseline value, age group, region, gender, treatment, time, time by treatment interaction, and cohort (e-diary only, PSG-plus-e-diary).||The null hypothesis, that suvorexant HD did not differ from placebo for Week 1 sTSTm, had planned marginal power of 98.3%. Sleep maintenance (sTSTm, WASO) and sleep onset (sTSOm, LPS) endpoints were tested at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Both Month 1 endpoints for sleep maintenance must be significant to test Month 3 endpoints and either subjective or objective Month 3 endpoint must be significant to test Week 1/Night 1 endpoints. The same approach was used for sleep onset endpoints.||33.1|19.8|<0.00001
90977093|NCT01097629|181838055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-42.0|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.6|-35.3|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model terms: baseline value, age group, region, gender, treatment, time, and time by treatment interaction.||The null hypothesis, that suvorexant HD did not differ from placebo for Night 1 WASO, had planned marginal power of 100.0%. Sleep maintenance (sTSTm, WASO) and sleep onset (sTSOm, LPS) endpoints were tested at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Both Month 1 endpoints for sleep maintenance must be significant to test Month 3 endpoints and either subjective or objective Month 3 endpoint must be significant to test Week 1/Night 1 endpoints. The same approach was used for sleep onset endpoints.||-35.3|-48.6|<0.00001
91038287|NCT01592240|181961255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.99||||0.392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.57|2.59|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||2.59|-6.57|0.392
91038288|NCT01592240|181961255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.33||||0.565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.91|3.24|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||3.24|-5.91|0.565
90977094|NCT01097629|181838056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-13.1|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|-8.4|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model terms: baseline value, age group, region, gender, treatment, time, time by treatment interaction, and cohort (e-diary only, PSG-plus-e-diary).||The null hypothesis, that suvorexant HD did not differ from placebo for Week 1 sTSOm, had planned marginal power of 99.6%. Sleep maintenance (sTSTm, WASO) and sleep onset (sTSOm, LPS) endpoints were tested at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Both Month 1 endpoints for sleep maintenance must be significant to test Month 3 endpoints and either subjective or objective Month 3 endpoint must be significant to test Week 1/Night 1 endpoints. The same approach was used for sleep onset endpoints.||-8.4|-17.7|<0.00001
90977095|NCT01097629|181838057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-21.7|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.6|-14.9|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model terms: baseline value, age group, region, gender, treatment, time, and time by treatment interaction.||The null hypothesis, that suvorexant HD did not differ from placebo for Night 1 LPS, had planned marginal power of 100.0%. Sleep maintenance (sTSTm, WASO) and sleep onset (sTSOm, LPS) endpoints were tested at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Both Month 1 endpoints for sleep maintenance must be significant to test Month 3 endpoints and either subjective or objective Month 3 endpoint must be significant to test Week 1/Night 1 endpoints. The same approach was used for sleep onset endpoints.||-14.9|-28.6|<0.00001
90977096|NCT02613208|181838070|OTHER|Correlation analysis|Spearman coefficient|0.392|||<|0.001|||||||Spearman's correlation analysis|||Correlation between CTC and CEA level considering baseline CTC count||||<0.001
90977097|NCT02613208|181838070|OTHER|Correlation analysis|Spearman coefficient|0.088||||0.444|||||||Spearman's correlation analysis|||Correlation between CTC and CEA level considering CTC count at cycle 2||||0.444
90977098|NCT02613208|181838072|OTHER|Correlation analysis|Spearman coefficient|0.373|||<|0.001|||||||Spearman's correlation analysis|||Correlation between CTC and CA 15.3 level considering baseline CTC count||||<0.001
90977099|NCT02613208|181838072|OTHER|Correlation analysis|Spearman coefficient|0.129||||0.241|||||||Spearman's correlation analysis|||Correlation between CTC and CA 15.3 level considering CTC count at cycle 2||||0.241
90977100|NCT00008385|181838093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.25||||0.294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|2.37||This p value should be compared to the nominal p value of 0.0035 adjusting for the previous interim analyses|Log Rank||The 95% confidence interval was repeated confidence interval for the risk ratio|||2.37|0.64|0.294
90977101|NCT00008385|181838094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.069|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.069
90977102|NCT00008385|181838095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.154|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.154
90977103|NCT05148884|181838102|OTHER|||||||0.0016|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model (LMM) of change from baseline with treatment, visit and the interaction treatment\*visit as fixed categorical effects and subject within treatment as a random effect. The baseline value of the dependent variable has been included in the model as a continuous covariate. Kenward-Roger's improved approximation for degrees of freedom (2009) has been used.||||0.0016
90977104|NCT05148884|181838102|OTHER|||||||0.6886|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model (LMM) of change from baseline with treatment, visit and the interaction treatment\*visit as fixed categorical effects and subject within treatment as a random effect. The baseline value of the dependent variable has been included in the model as a continuous covariate. Kenward-Roger's improved approximation for degrees of freedom (2009) has been used.||||0.6886
90977105|NCT05148884|181838103|OTHER|||||||0.0281|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model (LMM) of change from baseline with treatment, visit and the interaction treatment\*visit as fixed categorical effects and subject within treatment as a random effect. The baseline value of the dependent variable has been included in the model as a continuous covariate. Kenward-Roger's improved approximation for degrees of freedom (2009) has been used.||||0.0281
90977106|NCT05148884|181838103|OTHER|||||||0.7953|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model (LMM) of change from baseline with treatment, visit and the interaction treatment\*visit as fixed categorical effects and subject within treatment as a random effect. The baseline value of the dependent variable has been included in the model as a continuous covariate. Kenward-Roger's improved approximation for degrees of freedom (2009) has been used.||||0.7953
90977107|NCT02064764|181838201|OTHER|Log-Rank Test For Comparing Treatment and Control||||||0.28|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.28
90977108|NCT02064764|181838202|OTHER|||||||0.7348|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.7348
90977113|NCT00600171|181838221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.064||||0.208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.036|0.164|||ANCOVA|||||0.164|-0.036|0.208
90977114|NCT00600171|181838221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.069||||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.029|0.168|||ANCOVA|||||0.168|-0.029|0.169
90977115|NCT00600171|181838221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.23|||ANCOVA|||||0.230|0.030|0.011
90977116|NCT00600171|181838221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.121||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.023|0.22|||ANCOVA|||||0.220|0.023|0.016
90977117|NCT00600171|181838221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.162||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.062|0.261|||ANCOVA|||||0.261|0.062|0.001
90977118|NCT03990870|181838275|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.58
90977119|NCT03990870|181838278|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.35
90977120|NCT03990870|181838280|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.95
90977121|NCT00110019|181838309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.18|||Log Rank|Stratified log rank test is used for overall survival comparison, stratified on AJCC stage, ECOG Performance status and prior therapy status|Arm II is the reference group|||1.18|0.87|0.863
91038289|NCT01592240|181961269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.964|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.997|56.02|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, Less than 100 mg/dL||56.020|3.997|<0.001
90977122|NCT00110019|181838310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.03||priori threshold for statistical significance: P\<0.05|Log Rank|Stratified log rank test is used for progression-free survival comparison, stratified on AJCC stage, ECOG Performance status and prior therapy status|Arm II is the reference group|||1.03|0.78|0.092
90977123|NCT00110019|181838311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.427||95.0||||priori threshold for statistical significance: P\<0.05|Fisher Exact|||||||0.427
90977124|NCT04276207|181838312|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.377||||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.896|0.142|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.142|-0.896|0.1450
90977125|NCT04276207|181838313|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.262||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.406|-0.117|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.117|-0.406|0.0010
90977126|NCT04276207|181838314|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.61||||0.0173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.73|-2.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1||-2.49|-22.73|0.0173
90977127|NCT04276207|181838314|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.75||||0.0243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.69|0.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 2||0.81|-10.69|0.0243
90977128|NCT04276207|181838315|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.945|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1||||0.945
90977129|NCT04276207|181838315|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.888|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 2||||0.888
90977130|NCT01256177|181838316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean difference vs Placebo|-3.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.39|-1.04|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Baseline MADRS total value as covariate, treatment, bipolar strata, visit, treatment-visit interaction as fixed effects and centre as random.||Change from Baseline to Week 8 in MADRS total score based on observed cases (OC)||-1.04|-5.39|0.004
90977131|NCT01256177|181838317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.54||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|4.13|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio was modeled by logistic regression adjusted for centre, baseline score, and bipolar strata.|Quetiapine XR/Placebo|||4.13|1.56|0.001
90977132|NCT01256177|181838318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.37||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|3.86|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio was modeled by logistic regression adjusted for centre, baseline score, and bipolar strata.|Quetiapine XR/Placebo|||3.86|1.46|0.001
90977133|NCT01256177|181838319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean difference vs Placebo|-1.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.79|-0.15|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure (MMRM)|Baseline MADRS total value as covariate, treatment, bipolar strata, visit, treatment-visit interaction as fixed effects and centre as random.||Change from Baseline to Week 1 in MADRS total score based on observed cases (OC)||-0.15|-2.79|0.029
90977134|NCT01256177|181838319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean difference vs Placebo|-2.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.16|-0.69|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure (MMRM)|Baseline MADRS total value as covariate, treatment, bipolar strata, visit, treatment-visit interaction as fixed effects and centre as random.||Change from Baseline to Week 2 in MADRS total score based on observed cases (OC)||-0.69|-4.16|0.006
90977135|NCT01256177|181838319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean difference vs Placebo|-3.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|-1.25|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Baseline MADRS total value as covariate, treatment, bipolar strata, visit, treatment-visit interaction as fixed effects and centre as random.||Change from Baseline to Week 4 in MADRS total score based on observed cases (OC)||-1.25|-5.00|0.001
90977136|NCT01256177|181838319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean difference vs Placebo|-2.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.12|-0.05|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Baseline MADRS total value as covariate, treatment, bipolar strata, visit, treatment-visit interaction as fixed effects and centre as random.||Change from Baseline to Week 6 in MADRS total score based on observed cases (OC)||-0.05|-4.12|0.045
90977137|NCT01256177|181838319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean difference vs Placebo|-3.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.39|-1.04|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Baseline MADRS total value as covariate, treatment, bipolar strata, visit, treatment-visit interaction as fixed effects and centre as random.||Change from Baseline to Week 8 in MADRS total score based on observed cases (OC)||-1.04|-5.39|0.004
90977138|NCT01256177|181838320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean difference vs Placebo|-2.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.88|-0.61|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Baseline HAM-D total value as covariate, treatment, bipolar strata, visit, treatment-visit interaction as fixed effects and centre as random.||Change from Baseline to Week 8 in HAM-D total score based on observed cases (OC)||-0.61|-3.88|0.007
90977139|NCT01256177|181838321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean difference vs Placebo|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.17|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Baseline CGI-BP-S score for overall BP illness as covariate, trt, bipolar strata, visit, trt-visit interaction as fixed effect and centre as random.||Change from baseline to Week 8 assessment in the CGI-BP-S score for overall Bipolar (BP) illness based on observed cases (OC)||-0.17|-0.84|0.003
90977140|NCT01256177|181838321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean difference vs Placebo|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.13|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Baseline CGI-BP-S score for depression as covariate, trt, Bipolar strata, visit, trt-visit interaction as fixed effects and centre as random.||Change from Baseline to Week 8 assessment in the CGI-BP-S score of depression based on observed cases (OC)||-0.13|-0.81|0.007
90977141|NCT01256177|181838322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.06||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|3.36|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio between treatment groups was modeled by logistic regression adjusted for centre, baseline score and bipolar Strata.|Quetiapine XR/Placebo|||3.36|1.26|0.004
90977142|NCT01256177|181838323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean difference vs Placebo|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.07|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Baseline MADRS item 10 score as covariate, treatment, bipolar strata, visit, treatment-visit interaction as fixed effect and centre as random.||Change from Baseline to Week 8 in MADRS item 10 score for suicidal ideation based on observed cases (OC)||-0.07|-0.38|0.005
90977143|NCT01256177|181838324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.26||||0.233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|2.38|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio between treatment groups was modeled by logistic regression adjusted for centre, strata and baseline score.|Quetiapine XR/Placebo|||2.38|0.03|0.233
90977144|NCT00531960|181838335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.59|||Log Rank|||||1.59|0.70|0.8060
90977145|NCT00531960|181838337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.24||||0.4063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.05|||Log Rank|||||2.05|0.75|0.4063
90977146|NCT00531960|181838338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Response Rates|-17.28||||0.0444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.8|0.3|||Chi-squared||The 95% CI for the difference of 2 rates was determined by using the Hauck-Anderson method.|||0.3|-34.8|0.0444
90977147|NCT00531960|181838339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Disease Control Rates|-12.2||||0.0944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.3|2.8|||Chi-squared||The 95% CI for the difference in disease control was determined using the Hauck-Anderson method.|||2.8|-27.3|0.0944
90977148|NCT00109473|181838368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.0||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.02
90977149|NCT01879410|181838389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.101|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.063|0.139|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference=UMEC/VI 62.5/25 mcg minus FSC 250/50 mcg.|||0.139|0.063|<0.001
91038290|NCT01592240|181961269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|49.615|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.984|308.328|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, Less than 100 mg/dL||308.328|7.984|<0.001
91038291|NCT01592240|181961269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.842|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.674|44.892|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, Less than 100 mg/dL||44.892|3.674|<0.001
91038292|NCT01592240|181961269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.107||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.304|7.401|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, Less than 100 mg/dL||7.401|1.304|0.010
90977150|NCT00508391|181838398|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority hypothesis utilized an objective performance criteria of 63% with a clinically significant difference of 12%. For the non-inferiority hypothesis, the one-sided Type I error was set to 0.05 and the statistical power was set to 80%.|Objective Performance Criteria|63.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|54.8||||Non-inferiority comparison|||"Efficacy was assessed in a non-inferiority, responder classification design where the proportion of total subjects classified as not worsened after changing from optimized to simultaneous biventricular pacing was compared to an objective performance criteria.~An effect of gender analysis was performed on the primary efficacy endpoint to compare the proportion of males and females classified as not worsened after changing from optimized to simultaneous biventricular pacing."|||54.8|
91038293|NCT01592240|181961269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.048|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.402|15.225|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, Less than 100 mg/dL||15.225|2.402|<0.001
90977151|NCT00508391|181838399|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority hypothesis has a one-sided Type I error of 0.05 with an 80% statistical power.|Objective Performance Criteria|100.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|97.6||||Non-inferiority comparison|||Safety will be evaluated in a non-inferiority format. The null hypothesis is the percent of subjects that did not experience an adverse event with an active interventricular delay feature at two months is inferior to 90% with a clinically significant difference of 10%|||97.6|
90977152|NCT04343651|181838464|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.818|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.818
90977153|NCT04343651|181838465|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.781||||0.4138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.41|||Likelihood test-Cox Prop. hazards model|Stratification factors: Baseline NEWS Total score and Age.||||1.41|0.43|0.4138
90977154|NCT01583374|181838489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.1||||0.4383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|6.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|2 sided p-value was based on CMH test adjusting for C-reactive protein (CRP) category and baseline BASDAI score category|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 4 strata of screening CRP category and baseline BASDAI score category with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights|||6.2|-14.3|0.4383
90977155|NCT01583374|181838489|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.7||||0.7427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|8.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|2 sided p-value was based on CMH test adjusting for C-reactive protein (CRP) category and baseline BASDAI score category|Adjusted difference in proportions is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 4 strata of screening CRP category and baseline BASDAI score category with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|||8.5|-12.0|0.7427
90977156|NCT01583374|181838490|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05||||0.8032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.32|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model for change from baseline with treatment group, CRP and baseline BASDAI score as factors and baseline value as covariate.||||0.32|-0.41|0.8032
90977157|NCT01583374|181838490|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.17||||0.3624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.19|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model for change from baseline with treatment group, CRP and baseline BASDAI score as factors and baseline value as covariate.||||0.19|-0.53|0.3624
90977158|NCT01583374|181838491|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.03||||0.8618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.4|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model for change from baseline with treatment group, CRP and baseline BASDAI score as factors and baseline value as covariate.||||0.40|-0.33|0.8618
90977159|NCT01583374|181838491|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.09||||0.6262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.27|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model for change from baseline with treatment group, CRP and baseline BASDAI score as factors and baseline value as covariate.||||0.27|-0.45|0.6262
90977160|NCT01583374|181838492|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.0||||0.6958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|12.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|2 sided p-value was based on the CMH test adjusting for C-reactive protein (CRP) category and baseline BASDAI score category.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 4 strata of screening CRP category and baseline BASDAI score category with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|||12.2|-8.1|0.6958
90977161|NCT01583374|181838492|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.4||||0.4051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|14.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|2 sided p-value was based on the CMH test adjusting for C-reactive protein (CRP) category and baseline BASDAI score category.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 4 strata of screening CRP category and baseline BASDAI score category with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|||14.5|-5.8|0.4051
90977162|NCT01583374|181838493|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.25||||0.5126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.99|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model for change from baseline with treatment group, CRP and baseline BASDAI score as factors and baseline value as covariate.||||0.99|-0.49|0.5126
90977163|NCT01583374|181838493|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.28||||0.4624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|1.01|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model for change from baseline with treatment group, CRP and baseline BASDAI score as factors and baseline value as covariate.||||1.01|-0.46|0.4624
90977164|NCT01583374|181838494|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.29||||0.6997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|1.76|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model for change from baseline with treatment group, CRP and baseline BASDAI score as factors and baseline value as covariate.||||1.76|-1.18|0.6997
90977165|NCT01583374|181838494|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04||||0.9587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.42|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model for change from baseline with treatment group, CRP and baseline BASDAI score as factors and baseline value as covariate.||||1.42|-1.50|0.9587
90977166|NCT01583374|181838495|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.06||||0.3307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.17|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model for change from baseline with treatment group, CRP and baseline BASDAI score as factors and baseline value as covariate.||||0.17|-0.06|0.3307
90977167|NCT01583374|181838495|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.03||||0.5938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.14|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model for change from baseline with treatment group, CRP and baseline BASDAI score as factors and baseline value as covariate.||||0.14|-0.08|0.5938
90977168|NCT01265524|181838500|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The efficacy and the safety analyses were done using the ITT population with Week 8/EOS data for the patients who did not complete the 8-week treatment period excluded. The ITT population included all randomized patients who received at least 1 dose of study drug.||||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Corrections for multiplicity were not performed and P values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|ANCOVA|Continuous or ordinal data were analyzed using RM-ANCOVA using change from baseline values to compare CLP and placebo treatments.||||||0.014
90977169|NCT01265524|181838504|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The efficacy and the safety analyses were done using the ITT population with Week 8/EOS data for the patients who did not complete the 8-week treatment period excluded. The ITT population included all randomized patients who received at least 1 dose of study drug.||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Corrections for multiplicity were not performed and P values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|ANCOVA|Continuous or ordinal data were analyzed using RM-ANCOVA using change from baseline values to compare CLP and placebo treatments.||||||0.0002
90977170|NCT01265524|181838505|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The efficacy and the safety analyses were done using the ITT population with Week 8/EOS data for the patients who did not complete the 8-week treatment period excluded. The ITT population included all randomized patients who received at least 1 dose of study drug.||||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Corrections for multiplicity were not performed and P values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|ANCOVA|Continuous or ordinal data were analyzed using RM-ANCOVA using change from baseline values to compare CLP and placebo treatments.||||||0.072
90977171|NCT04574999|181838563|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90977172|NCT04574999|181838564|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90977173|NCT04574999|181838566|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90977174|NCT04574999|181838567|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90977175|NCT00206726|181838573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CR rate|0.0833||||0.014||90.0|0.0334|0.1673||2-sided p-value computed from an exact binomial test comparing the observed rate versus 2% historical rate|exact binomial test|||Comparison of CR rate versus 2 percent (%) historic control (p-value and 90% confidence interval)||0.1673|0.0334|0.014
90977176|NCT02162862|181838615|OTHER||||||<|0.005|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.005
90977177|NCT02162862|181838615|OTHER||||||<|0.005|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.005
90977178|NCT02162862|181838615|OTHER|||||||0.102|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.102
90977179|NCT02162862|181838616|OTHER||||||<|0.005|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.005
90977180|NCT02162862|181838616|OTHER|||||||0.646|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.646
90977181|NCT02162862|181838616|OTHER||||||<|0.005|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.005
90977182|NCT03116113|181838619|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3181|||||||Fisher's Exact-Boschloo test|||||||=0.3181
90977183|NCT03116113|181838619|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5177|||||||Fisher's Exact-Boschloo test|||||||=0.5177
91038294|NCT01592240|181961269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.773|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.932|41.495|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, Less than 100 mg/dL||41.495|3.932|<0.001
91038295|NCT01592240|181961269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|36.886|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.33|163.335|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, Less than 100 mg/dL||163.335|8.330|<0.001
91038296|NCT01592240|181961269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|20.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.741|75.006|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, Less than 100 mg/dL||75.006|5.741|<0.001
91038297|NCT01592240|181961269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.219||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.061|18.764|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, Less than 100 mg/dL||18.764|2.061|0.001
91038298|NCT01592240|181961269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.205||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.06|18.693|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, Less than 100 mg/dL||18.693|2.060|0.001
91038299|NCT01592240|181961269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|27.703|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.752|133.423|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, Less than 70 mg/dL||133.423|5.752|<0.001
91038300|NCT01592240|181961269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|71.177|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.783|367.564|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, Less than 70 mg/dL||367.564|13.783|<0.001
91038301|NCT01592240|181961269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|100.667|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.855|510.387|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, Less than 70 mg/dL||510.387|19.855|<0.001
91038302|NCT01592240|181961269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, Less than 70 mg/dL.||||<0.001
91038303|NCT01592240|181961269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|24.941|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.336|98.169|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, Less than 70 mg/dL.||98.169|6.336|<0.001
91038304|NCT01592240|181961269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|80.004|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.094|353.742|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, Less than 70 mg/dL.||353.742|18.094|<0.001
91038305|NCT01592240|181961269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|42.101|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.621|166.894|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, Less than 70 mg/dL.||166.894|10.621|<0.001
91038306|NCT01592240|181961269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.7||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.396|98.075|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, Less than 70 mg/dL.||98.075|1.396|0.023
91038307|NCT01592240|181961269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|36.841|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.527|299.817|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, Less than 70 mg/dL||299.817|4.527|<0.001
91038308|NCT01592240|181961269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, Less than 40 mg/dL.||||<0.001
91038309|NCT01592240|181961269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, Less than 40 mg/dL.||||<0.001
90945572|NCT01381575|181771043|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority with respect to Geometric Mean Concentrations (GMCs) was demonstrated if, 1 month after the last dose, for both anti-HPV-16 and anti-HPV-18, the upper limit of 95% CI for the GMT ratio (Cervarix 2 Group divided by Cervarix 1 Group) was below 2.|Geometric mean ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.22||||||Immune response to anti-HPV-16 in terms of Geometric Mean Concentrations (GMCs): To evaluate sequentially if the immunogenicity (as determined by ELISA) of Cervarix vaccine administered according to a 2-dose schedule at 0, 6 months in 9-14 year old females was non-inferior to that administered according to the standard 3-dose schedule of 0,1,6 months in 15-25 year old females, 1 month after the last dose of study vaccine, in initially seronegative subjects.||1.22|0.97|
90945573|NCT01381575|181771043|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority with respect to Geometric Mean Concentrations (GMCs) was demonstrated if, 1 month after the last dose, for both anti-HPV-16 and anti-HPV-18, the upper limit of 95% CI for the GMT ratio (Cervarix 2 Group divided by Cervarix 1 Group) was below 2.|Geometric mean ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.95||||||Immune response to anti-HPV-18 in terms of Geometric Mean Concentrations (GMCs): To evaluate sequentially if the immunogenicity (as determined by ELISA) of Cervarix vaccine administered according to a 2-dose schedule at 0, 6 months in 9-14 year old females was non-inferior to that administered according to the standard 3-dose schedule of 0,1,6 months in 15-25 year old females, 1 month after the last dose of study vaccine, in initially seronegative subjects.||0.95|0.76|
90945574|NCT01920932|181771070|SUPERIORITY||Binomial proportions|31.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0||||The comparison of the complete rate between the first 32 evaluable participants and the historical control of HOD99 unfavorable risk patients was estimated by the binomial proportions test.||||In the historical control (HOD99) 17% of patients had CR at week 8. Sample size for this objective is calculated based on a binomial distribution to test H0: p=17% vs. Ha: p\>17%, where p is the true CR rate after 2 cycles of AEPA. 32 patients are needed to detect 20% increase of CR rate with 80% power and 5% type I error. If it shows efficacy, the response results will be reported, and the study will continue to enroll for a total of 77 patients to assess response and EFS.||||
90945575|NCT01920932|181771072|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of proportion of patient's complete response rate between HLHR13 and HOD99 (NCT00145600) unfavorable risk arm 2 (UR2).||||0.004
91038310|NCT01592240|181961269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, Less than 40 mg/dL.||||<0.001
91038311|NCT01592240|181961269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, Less than 40 mg/dL.||||<0.001
91038312|NCT01592240|181961269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, Less than 40 mg/dL.||||<0.001
90977184|NCT03051633|181838694|SUPERIORITY|Event: Dichotimized self-reported first-time alcohol use in known participant history prior to data-collection, where substance use was not previously reported in prior measurement occasions of this four-wave longitudinal study. Episodes: Episodes represent the period of time between measurement occasions, as such, each episode represents the measured period of time between each wave of assessments. Censoring: If substance use was reported, censoring indicator indicates the risk period|Hazard Ratio (HR)|-0.42||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.714|-0.126|||Regression, Logistic|Discrete time hazard model represents a survival analysis, with the outcome parameters reflecting a hazard ratio rather than odds.||Discrete time hazard represents the conditional probability that a student will experience first time alcohol use during a given measurement period, given that students did not use alchohol in a previous measurement period. Thus for each model, we tested the following hypothesis: Controlling for age at first-assessment, students attending BUYOI-assigned schools will have a lower risk of substance use uptake by the end of their eighth-grade year, relative to students attending control schools.||-0.126|-0.714|.004
90977185|NCT03051633|181838695|SUPERIORITY|Event: dichotimized self-reported first-time alcohol intoxication in known participant history prior to data collection, where intoxication was not reported in prior measurement occasions. Episodes: Represent the period of time between measurement occasions, thus, each episode represents the measured period of time between each assessment wave. Censoring: Indicates the risk period during which particpants experienced intoxication uptake.|Hazard Ratio, log|-0.39||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.762|-0.018|||Regression, Logistic|Discrete time hazard model represents a survival analysis, with the outcome parameters reflecting a hazard ration rather than odds.||Discrete time hazard represents the conditional probability that a student will experience first time alcohol initiation during a given measurement period, given that students did not become intoxicated in a previous measurement period. Thus, for each model, we tested the following hypothesis: controlling for age at first assessment, students attending BUYOI-assigned schools will have a lower risk of substance use uptake at the end of their eight grade year||-0.018|-0.762|.037
90977186|NCT03051633|181838696|SUPERIORITY|Event: Dichotimized self-reported first-time marijuana use in known participant history prior to data-collection, where marijuana use was not previously reported in prior measurement occasions of this four-wave longitudinal study. Episodes: Episodes represent the period of time between measurement occasions, as such, each episode represents the measured period of time between each wave of assessments. Censoring: If marijuana use was reported, censoring indicator indicates the risk period.|Hazard Ratio, log|0.17||||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.104|0.444|||Regression, Logistic|Discrete time hazard model represents a survival analysis, with the outcome parameters reflecting a hazard ratio rather than odds.||Discrete time hazard represents the conditional probability that a student will experience first time marijuana use during a given measurement period, given that students did not use marijuana in a previous measurement period. Thus for each model, we tested the following hypothesis: Controlling for age at first-assessment, students attending BUYOI-assigned schools will have a lower risk of marijuana use uptake by the end of their eighth-grade year, relative to students attending control schools.||0.444|-0.104|0.228
90977187|NCT00393718|181838700|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority criterion: Upper limit of confidence interval of mean difference(= Liraglutide - Glibenclamide) is less than 0.4%. Superiority criterion: Upper limit of confidence interval of mean difference(= Liraglutide - Glibenclamide) is less than 0.0%.|Least Squares Mean|-0.5|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.7|-0.3||p-value is for the null hypothesis for superiority. A significance level of a one-sided 2.5% was used for statistical hypothesis testing.|ANOVA|||"ANOVA model included HbA1C at baseline as a covariate and treatment group and pre-trial treatment as fixed effects.~Hypothesis for non-inferiority:~H0: μ0.9 - μG ≥ 0.4, H1: μ0.9 - μG \< 0.4,~Hypothesis for superiority:~H0: μ0.9 - μG ≥ 0.0, H1: μ0.9 - μG \< 0.0, where μ0.9 and μG are population mean after 24-week treatment for liraglutide 0.9 mg/day and glibenclamide, respectively. When non-inferiority was confirmed, superiority was evaluated based on the closed testing procedure."||-0.30|-0.70|<0.0001
90977188|NCT00393718|181838701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-0.49||||||95.0|-0.71|-0.27|||ANOVA|||95% confidence interval for the mean difference (liraglutide - glibenclamide) was calculated under an ANOVA model with treatment group and pre-trial treatment as fixed effects and corresponding baseline value as a covariate, and no statistical testing was performed.||-0.27|-0.71|
90977189|NCT00393718|181838702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-12.9|||<|0.0001||95.0|-18.2|-7.5||A significance level of a two-sided 5% was used for statistical hypothesis testing.|ANOVA|||The analysis was performed based on an ANOVA model with treatment group and pre-trial treatment as fixed effects and corresponding baseline value as a covariate. The following null hypothesis (H0) was statistically tested against the alternative hypothesis (H1). H0: μ0.9 = μG, H1: μ0.9 ≠ μG where μ0.9 and μG are population mean after 24-week treatment for liraglutide 0.9 mg/day and glibenclamide, respectively.||-7.5|-18.2|<0.0001
90977190|NCT00393718|181838703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-11.7||||||95.0|-18.6|-4.9|||ANOVA|||95% confidence interval for the mean difference (liraglutide - glibenclamide) was calculated under an ANOVA model with treatment group and pre-trial treatment as fixed effects and corresponding baseline value as a covariate, and no statistical testing was performed.||-4.9|-18.6|
90977191|NCT00393718|181838704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-93.05|||<|0.0001||95.0|-119.61|-66.5||A significance level of a two-sided 5% was used for statistical hypothesis testing.|ANOVA|||The analysis was performed based on an ANOVA model with treatment group and pre-trial treatment as fixed effects and corresponding baseline value as a covariate. The following null hypothesis (H0) was statistically tested against the alternative hypothesis (H1). H0: μ0.9 = μG, H1: μ0.9 ≠ μG where μ0.9 and μG are population mean after 24-week treatment for liraglutide 0.9 mg/day and glibenclamide, respectively.||-66.50|-119.61|<0.0001
91038313|NCT01592240|181961269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, Less than 40 mg/dL.||||<0.001
90977192|NCT00393718|181838705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-74.51||||||95.0|-105.75|-43.27|||ANOVA|||95% confidence interval for the mean difference (liraglutide - glibenclamide) was calculated under an ANOVA model with treatment group and pre-trial treatment as fixed effects and corresponding baseline value as a covariate, and no statistical testing was performed.||-43.27|-105.75|
91038314|NCT01592240|181961269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, Less than 25 mg/dL.||||<0.001
90977193|NCT00393718|181838706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-17.63|||<|0.0001||95.0|-25.0|-10.27||A significance level of a two-sided 5% was used for statistical hypothesis testing.|ANOVA|||The analysis was performed based on an ANOVA model with treatment group and pre-trial treatment as fixed effects and corresponding baseline value as a covariate. The following null hypothesis (H0) was statistically tested against the alternative hypothesis (H1). H0: μ0.9 = μG, H1: μ0.9 ≠ μG where μ0.9 and μG are population mean after 24-week treatment for liraglutide 0.9 mg/day and glibenclamide, respectively.||-10.27|-25.00|<0.0001
90977194|NCT00393718|181838707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-17.21||||||95.0|-26.32|-8.09|||ANOVA|||95% confidence interval for the mean difference (liraglutide - glibenclamide) was calculated under an ANOVA model with treatment group and pre-trial treatment as fixed effects and corresponding baseline value as a covariate, and no statistical testing was performed.||-8.09|-26.32|
90977195|NCT00393718|181838708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-19.97|||<|0.0001||95.0|-27.99|-11.94||A significance level of a two-sided 5% was used for statistical hypothesis testing.|ANOVA|||The analysis was performed based on an ANOVA model with treatment group and pre-trial treatment as fixed effects and corresponding baseline value as a covariate. The following null hypothesis (H0) was statistically tested against the alternative hypothesis (H1). H0: μ0.9 = μG, H1: μ0.9 ≠ μG where μ0.9 and μG are population mean after 24-week treatment for liraglutide 0.9 mg/day and glibenclamide, respectively.||-11.94|-27.99|<0.0001
90977196|NCT00393718|181838709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-13.03||||||95.0|-21.46|-4.6|||ANOVA|||95% confidence interval for the mean difference (liraglutide - glibenclamide) was calculated under an ANOVA model with treatment group and pre-trial treatment as fixed effects and corresponding baseline value as a covariate, and no statistical testing was performed.||-4.60|-21.46|
90977197|NCT00393718|181838710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-1.91|||<|0.0001||95.0|-2.34|-1.48||A significance level of a two-sided 5% was used for statistical hypothesis testing.|ANOVA|||The analysis was performed based on an ANOVA model with treatment group and pre-trial treatment as fixed effects and corresponding baseline value as a covariate. The following null hypothesis (H0) was statistically tested against the alternative hypothesis (H1). H0: μ0.9 = μG, H1: μ0.9 ≠ μG where μ0.9 and μG are population mean after 24-week treatment for liraglutide 0.9 mg/day and glibenclamide, respectively.||-1.48|-2.34|<0.0001
90977198|NCT00393718|181838711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-1.71||||||95.0|-2.25|-1.18|||ANOVA|||95% confidence interval for the mean difference (liraglutide - glibenclamide) was calculated under an ANOVA model with treatment group and pre-trial treatment as fixed effects and corresponding baseline value as a covariate, and no statistical testing was performed.||-1.18|-2.25|
91038315|NCT01592240|181961269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, Less than 25 mg/dL.||||<0.001
91038316|NCT01592240|181961269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, Less than 25 mg/dL.||||<0.001
91038317|NCT01592240|181961269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.587||||1|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, Less than 25 mg/dL||||1.000
90977199|NCT00393718|181838712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.2||||||95.0|0.12|0.35|||Negative binomial regression model|||The relative risk for 'All hypoglycaemic episodes' and 95% confidence interval are based on a generalised linear negative-binomial model, which included treatment group as a fixed effect and log of exposure time as an offset variable.||0.35|0.12|
90977200|NCT00393718|181838712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.18||||||95.0|0.09|0.36|||Negative binomial regression model|||The relative risk for 'Minor episodes' and 95% confidence interval are based on a generalised linear negative-binomial model, which included treatment group as a fixed effect and log of exposure time as an offset variable.||0.36|0.09|
90977201|NCT00393718|181838712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.2||||||95.0|0.11|0.34|||Negative binomial regression model|||The relative risk for 'Symptoms only' and 95% confidence interval are based on a generalised linear negative-binomial model, which included treatment group as a fixed effect and log of exposure time as an offset variable.||0.34|0.11|
90977202|NCT03902080|181838730|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.142|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.46|-1.02|<0.0001
90977203|NCT03902080|181838731|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means Difference|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.211|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|-0.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.54|-1.37|<0.0001
90977204|NCT03902080|181838732|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|=|0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.09|-0.36|=0.0015
90977205|NCT03902080|181838733|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.269|=|0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.27|-1.33|=0.0034
90977206|NCT03902080|181838734|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.5|-1.2|<0.0001
90977207|NCT03902080|181838735|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means Difference|15.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.13|21.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||21.02|9.13|<0.0001
90977208|NCT01279057|181838764|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% confidence intervals were contained within the interval 80.0% to 125.0%, then the two products were considered to be therapeutically equivalent.|Ratio Test/Ref. Least Squares (LS) Means|104.085|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.421|124.21||||||||124.210|87.421|
90977209|NCT01279057|181838765|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
90977210|NCT01279057|181838765|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0001
90977211|NCT01279057|181838766|EQUIVALENCE|90% confidence intervals within the interval 80.0% to 125.0%.|Ratio Test/Ref. LS Means|106.635|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.256|127.79||||||||127.790|89.256|
90977212|NCT01279057|181838767|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
90977213|NCT01279057|181838767|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
90977214|NCT01279057|181838768|EQUIVALENCE|90% confidence intervals within the interval 80.0% to 125.0%.|Ratio Test/Ref. LS Means|115.877|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.129|143.949||||||||143.949|94.129|
90977215|NCT01279057|181838769|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0018|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0018
90977216|NCT01279057|181838769|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0441|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0441
91038318|NCT01592240|181961269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, Less than 25 mg/dL.||||<0.001
91038319|NCT01592240|181961269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.925||||1|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, Less than 25 mg/dL||||1.000
91038320|NCT03264092|181961293|OTHER|This was just a comparative study. No superiority, equivalence or non inferiority analysis was performed.||||||0.18|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.18
91038321|NCT03264092|181961294|OTHER|This was just a comparative study. No superiority, equivalence or non inferiority analysis was performed.||||||0.41|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.41
90945576|NCT01920932|181771073|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0008|||||||Log Rank|||The comparison of the EFS between HLHR13 and historical control of HOD99 unfavorable risk 2 arm (UR2) was done by the two-sample log-rank test.||||0.0008
90945577|NCT01920932|181771078|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.3.0 Total Score-T2, completion of 2 cycles of chemotherapy (approximately 2 months)||||<.001
90945578|NCT01920932|181771078|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.3.0 Total Score-T3, completion of 4 cycles of chemotherapy (approximately 4 months)||||0.002
90945579|NCT01920932|181771078|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.067|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.3.0 Total Score-T4, completion of radiation (approximately 8 months)||||0.067
90945580|NCT01920932|181771078|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.115|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.3.0 Pain and Hurt-T2, completion of 2 cycles of chemotherapy (approximately 2 months)||||0.115
90945581|NCT01920932|181771078|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.455|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.3.0 Pain and Hurt-T3, completion of 4 cycles of chemotherapy (approximately 4 months)||||0.455
90945582|NCT01920932|181771078|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.636|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.3.0 Pain and Hurt-T4, completion of radiation (approximately 8 months)||||0.636
90945583|NCT01920932|181771078|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.3.0 Nausea-T2, completion of 2 cycles of chemotherapy (approximately 2 months)||||<.001
90945584|NCT01920932|181771078|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.3.0 Nausea-T3, completion of 4 cycles of chemotherapy (approximately 4 months)||||<.001
90945585|NCT01920932|181771078|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.3.0 Nausea-T4, completion of radiation (approximately 8 months)||||0.006
90945586|NCT01920932|181771078|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.099|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.3.0 Procedural Anxiety-T2, completion of 2 cycles of chemotherapy (approximately 2 months)||||0.099
90945587|NCT01920932|181771078|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.3.0 Procedural Anxiety-T3, completion of 4 cycles of chemotherapy (approximately 4 months)||||0.050
90945588|NCT01920932|181771078|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.3.0 Procedural Anxiety-T4, completion of radiation (approximately 8 months)||||0.520
90945589|NCT01920932|181771078|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.3.0 Treatment Anxiety-T2, completion of 2 cycles of chemotherapy (approximately 2 months)||||0.024
90945590|NCT01920932|181771078|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.3.0 Treatment Anxiety-T3, completion of 4 cycles of chemotherapy (approximately 4 months)||||0.011
90945591|NCT01920932|181771078|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.3.0 Treatment Anxiety-T4, completion of radiation (approximately 8 months)||||0.009
90945592|NCT01920932|181771078|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.3.0 Worry-T2, completion of 2 cycles of chemotherapy (approximately 2 months)||||<.001
90945593|NCT01920932|181771078|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.3.0 Worry-T3, completion of 4 cycles of chemotherapy (approximately 4 months)||||<.001
90945594|NCT01920932|181771078|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.3.0 Worry-T4, completion of radiation (approximately 8 months)||||0.035
90945595|NCT01920932|181771078|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.037|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.3.0 Cognitive Problems-T2, completion of 2 cycles of chemotherapy (approximately 2 months)||||0.037
90945596|NCT01920932|181771078|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.043|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.3.0 Cognitive Problems-T3, completion of 4 cycles of chemotherapy (approximately 4 months)||||0.043
90945597|NCT01920932|181771078|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.044|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.3.0 Cognitive Problems-T4, completion of radiation (approximately 8 months)||||0.044
90945598|NCT01920932|181771078|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.091|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.3.0 Perceived Physical Appearance-T2, completion of 2 cycles of chemotherapy (approximately 2 months)||||0.091
90945599|NCT01920932|181771078|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.248|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.3.0 Perceived Physical Appearance-T3, completion of 4 cycles of chemotherapy (approximately 4 months)||||0.248
90945600|NCT01920932|181771078|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.069|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.3.0 Perceived Physical Appearance-T4, completion of radiation (approximately 8 months)||||0.069
90945601|NCT01920932|181771078|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.3.0 Communication-T2, completion of 2 cycles of chemotherapy (approximately 2 months)||||0.010
90945602|NCT01920932|181771078|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.292|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.3.0 Communication-T3, completion of 4 cycles of chemotherapy (approximately 4 months)||||0.292
90945603|NCT01920932|181771078|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.429|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.3.0 Communication-T4, completion of radiation (approximately 8 months)||||0.429
90945604|NCT01920932|181771079|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.975|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.4.0 Total Score-T1, At Diagnosis (baseline)||||0.975
91038322|NCT03264092|181961295|OTHER|This was just a comparative study. No superiority, equivalence or non inferiority analysis was performed.||||||0.45|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.45
90945605|NCT01920932|181771079|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.032|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||PedsQL v.4.0 Total Score-T2, completion of 2 cycles of chemotherapy (approximately 2 months)||||0.032
90977217|NCT01279057|181838770|EQUIVALENCE|90% confidence intervals within the interval 80.0% to 125.0%.|Ratio Test/Ref. LS Means|117.712|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.41|146.583||||||||146.583|95.410|
90977218|NCT01279057|181838771|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0018|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0018
90977219|NCT01279057|181838771|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0451|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0451
90977220|NCT00542620|181838780|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was considered confirmed if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval was below or equal to 0.25% or equivalently if the p-value for the one-sided test of H0: D\>0.25% against HA: D=\<0.25%, was less than or equal to 2.5%, where D is the mean treatment difference (mixing injections minus separate injections).|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.691||||0.001||95.0|-1.049|-0.334||If non-inferiority was confirmed, the superiority of the mixed injection group over separate injection group was to be investigated|ANCOVA|Baseline HbA1c as covariate||||-0.334|-1.049|0.001
90977221|NCT00542620|181838781|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was considered confirmed if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval was below or equal to 0.25% or equivalently if the p-value for the one-sided test of H0: D\>0.25% against HA: D=\<0.25%, was less than or equal to 2.5%, where D is the mean treatment difference (mixing injections minus separate injections).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.594||||0.003||95.0|-0.97|-0.219||If non-inferiority was confirmed, the superiority of the mixed injection group over separate injection group was to be investigated.|ANCOVA|Baseline HbA1c as covariate.||||-0.219|-0.970|0.003
90977222|NCT00542620|181838782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.59||0.573||95.0|-38.77|22.08|||ANCOVA|With adjustment on baseline fructosamine and the change in insulin administration mode||||22.08|-38.77|0.573
90977223|NCT00542620|181838783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.063|||||||ANCOVA|With adjustment on baseline value||||||0.063
90945606|NCT01920932|181771079|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.497|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.4.0 Total Score-T3, completion of 4 cycles of chemotherapy (approximately 4 months)||||0.497
90945607|NCT01920932|181771079|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.399|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.4.0 Total Score-T4, completion of radiation (approximately 8 months)||||0.399
90945608|NCT01920932|181771079|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.451|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.4.0 Physical Functioning-T1, At Diagnosis (baseline)||||0.451
90945609|NCT01920932|181771079|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.198|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.4.0 Physical Functioning-T2, completion of 2 cycles of chemotherapy (approximately 2 months)||||0.198
90977224|NCT00542620|181838784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.389|||||||ANCOVA|With adjustment on baseline value||||||0.389
90977225|NCT00542620|181838785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.856|||||||ANCOVA|With adjustment on baseline value||||||0.856
90977226|NCT00542620|181838786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.917|||||||ANCOVA|With adjustment on baseline value||||||0.917
90977227|NCT00542620|181838787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.209|||||||ANCOVA|With adjustment on baseline value||||||0.209
90977228|NCT00542620|181838788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||ANCOVA|With adjustment on baseline value||||||0.220
90977229|NCT00542620|181838789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.234|||||||ANCOVA|With adjustment for baseline value||||||0.234
90977230|NCT00542620|181838790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.534|||||||ANCOVA|With adjustment on baseline value||||||0.534
90977231|NCT00542620|181838791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.722|||||||ANCOVA|With adjustment on baseline value||||||0.722
90977232|NCT00542620|181838792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.727|||||||ANCOVA|With adjustment on baseline value||||||0.727
90977233|NCT00542620|181838793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.411|||||||ANCOVA|With adjustment on baseline value||||||0.411
90977234|NCT00542620|181838794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.471|||||||ANCOVA|With adjustment on baseline value||||||0.471
90977235|NCT00542620|181838797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.127|||||||ANCOVA|With adjustment on baseline value||||||0.127
90977236|NCT00542620|181838798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||ANCOVA|With adjustment on baseline value||||||0.1
90977237|NCT00542620|181838799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.166|||||||ANCOVA|With adjustment on baseline value||||||0.166
90977238|NCT00542620|181838800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023|||||||ANCOVA|With adjustment on baseline value||||||0.023
90977239|NCT00542620|181838801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.439|||||||ANCOVA|With adjustment on baseline value||||||0.439
90977240|NCT00542620|181838802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.202|||||||ANCOVA|With adjustment on baseline value||||||0.202
90977241|NCT00542620|181838803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.665|||||||ANCOVA|With adjustment on baseline value||||||0.665
90977242|NCT00849017|181838810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.84|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.58|||ANCOVA|||||-0.58|-1.11|<0.0001
90977243|NCT00849017|181838810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|-0.77|||ANCOVA|||||-0.77|-1.31|<0.0001
90977244|NCT02908100|181838858|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Difference|6.4||||0.373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|21.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.2|-8.5|0.373
90977245|NCT02908100|181838858|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Difference|7.5||||0.339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|22.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||22.4|-7.3|0.339
90977246|NCT02908100|181838859|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Difference|8.7||||0.223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|23.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||23.5|-6.1|0.223
90977247|NCT02908100|181838859|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Difference|3.0||||0.737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|17.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||17.7|-11.8|0.737
90977248|NCT02908100|181838860|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Difference|4.1||||0.614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|18.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||18.9|-10.7|0.614
90977249|NCT02908100|181838860|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Difference|4.1||||0.607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|18.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||18.9|-10.7|0.607
90977250|NCT02908100|181838861|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Difference|6.4||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|21.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.2|-8.5|0.410
90977251|NCT02908100|181838861|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Difference|6.4||||0.418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|21.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.2|-8.5|0.418
90977252|NCT02908100|181838862|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Difference|14.9||||0.378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|43.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Plasmablast Signature Level Q1||43.7|-14|0.378
91038323|NCT01662960|181961308|SUPERIORITY|Test for the superiority of Mirror therapy over Divider therapy.|Slope|2.2||||0.443|TWO_SIDED|||||ANCOVA analysis with post-treatment score as the dependent variable, therapy type (Mirror therapy or Divider Therapy) as the independent variable, and pre-treatment score as the covariate. P-value reported is for the main effect of therapy type.|ANCOVA|||||||.443
91038324|NCT01662960|181961309|SUPERIORITY|Test for the superiority of Mirror therapy over Divider therapy.|Slope|0.4||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|||||ANCOVA analysis with post-treatment score as the dependent variable, therapy type (Mirror therapy or Divider Therapy) as the independent variable, and pre-treatment score as the covariate. P-value reported is for the main effect of therapy type.|ANCOVA|||||||.80
91038325|NCT01662960|181961310|SUPERIORITY|Test for the superiority of Mirror therapy over Divider therapy.|Slope|-0.002||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|||||ANCOVA analysis with post-treatment score as the dependent variable, therapy type (Mirror therapy or Divider Therapy) as the independent variable, and pre-treatment score as the covariate. P-value reported is for the main effect of therapy type.|ANCOVA|||||||.93
91038326|NCT01662960|181961312|SUPERIORITY|Test for the superiority of Mirror therapy over Divider therapy.|Slope|10.7||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|||||ANCOVA analysis with post-treatment score as the dependent variable, therapy type (Mirror therapy or Divider Therapy) as the independent variable, and pre-treatment score as the covariate. P-value reported is for the main effect of therapy type.|ANCOVA|||||||.28
91038327|NCT01662960|181961313|SUPERIORITY|Test for the superiority of Mirror therapy over Divider therapy.|Slope|-0.36||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|||||ANCOVA analysis with post-treatment score as the dependent variable, therapy type (Mirror therapy or Divider Therapy) as the independent variable, and pre-treatment score as the covariate. P-value reported is for the main effect of therapy type.|ANCOVA|||||||.86
91038328|NCT02727192|181961316|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|1.3||A two-sided significance level of 5% was considered to indicate statistical significance.|Regression, Linear|||||1.3|-2.6|0.520
91038329|NCT02727192|181961317|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|1.5|||Regression, Linear|||||1.5|-3.3|0.440
91038330|NCT02727192|181961318|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.9|||Regression, Linear|||||0.9|-2.1|0.410
91038331|NCT02727192|181961319|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Participants|-9.3||||0.33|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.33
91038332|NCT02727192|181961322|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.8||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|5.8|||Regression, Linear|||Mental Component Summary score||5.8|-0.1|0.058
91038333|NCT02727192|181961322|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.1||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|0.8|||Regression, Linear|||Physical Component Summary score||0.8|-5.1|0.160
91038334|NCT02727192|181961323|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.2|||Regression, Linear|||||0.2|-2.0|0.110
90945610|NCT01920932|181771079|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.967|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.4.0 Physical Functioning-T3, completion of 4 cycles of chemotherapy (approximately 4 months)||||0.967
90945611|NCT01920932|181771079|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.647|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.4.0 Physical Functioning-T4, completion of radiation (approximately 8 months)||||0.647
90945612|NCT01920932|181771079|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.145|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.4.0 Emotional Functioning-T1, At Diagnosis (baseline)||||0.145
90945613|NCT01920932|181771079|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.4.0 Emotional Functioning-T2, completion of 2 cycles of chemotherapy (approximately 2 months)||||<.001
90945614|NCT01920932|181771079|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.073|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.4.0 Emotional Functioning-T3, completion of 4 cycles of chemotherapy (approximately 4 months)||||0.073
90945615|NCT01920932|181771079|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.156|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.4.0 Emotional Functioning-T4, completion of radiation (approximately 8 months)||||0.156
90945616|NCT01920932|181771079|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.844|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.4.0 Social Functioning-T1, At Diagnosis (baseline)||||0.844
90945617|NCT01920932|181771079|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.206|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.4.0 Social Functioning-T2, completion of 2 cycles of chemotherapy (approximately 2 months)||||0.206
90945618|NCT01920932|181771079|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.491|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.4.0 Social Functioning-T3, completion of 4 cycles of chemotherapy (approximately 4 months)||||0.491
90945619|NCT01920932|181771079|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.906|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.4.0 Social Functioning-T4, completion of radiation (approximately 8 months)||||0.906
90945620|NCT01920932|181771079|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.4.0 School Functioning-T1, At Diagnosis (baseline)||||0.580
90945621|NCT01920932|181771079|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.4.0 School Functioning-T2, completion of 2 cycles of chemotherapy (approximately 2 months)||||0.012
90945622|NCT01920932|181771079|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.4.0 School Functioning-T3, completion of 4 cycles of chemotherapy (approximately 4 months)||||0.010
90945623|NCT01920932|181771079|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.4.0 School Functioning-T4, completion of radiation (approximately 8 months)||||0.005
90945624|NCT04486313|181771084|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8786|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon Test|Stratified by Baseline COVID-19 severity (mild/moderate), time from onset of symptoms to randomization (\<36 hours/≥36 hours), risk of severe illness||||||0.8786
90945625|NCT04486313|181771085|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.074||||||Stratified by Baseline COVID-19 severity (mild/moderate), time from onset of symptoms to randomization (\<36 hours/≥36 hours), risk of severe illness|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0740
90945626|NCT04486313|181771086|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4479|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of proportion positive for SARS-CoV-2 at Day 4||||0.4479
90945627|NCT04486313|181771086|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2814|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of proportion positive for SARS-CoV-2 at Day 10||||0.2814
90945628|NCT04486313|181771087|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0665|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of change from Baseline to Day 4||||0.0665
90945629|NCT04486313|181771087|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4974|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of change from Baseline to Day 10||||0.4974
90945630|NCT04486313|181771088|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1771|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Baseline COVID-19 severity (mild/moderate), time from onset of symptoms to randomization (\<36 hours/≥36 hours), risk of severe illness||||||0.1771
90945631|NCT04486313|181771089|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2399|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Baseline COVID-19 severity (mild/moderate), time from onset of symptoms to randomization (\<36 hours/≥36 hours), risk of severe illness||||||0.2399
90945632|NCT04486313|181771090|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon Test|Stratified by Baseline COVID-19 severity (mild/moderate), time from onset of symptoms to randomization (\<36 hours/≥36 hours), risk of severe illness||||||0.09
90945633|NCT04486313|181771091|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0077|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon Test|Stratified by Baseline COVID-19 severity (mild/moderate), time from onset of symptoms to randomization (\<36 hours/≥36 hours), risk of severe illness||||||0.0077
90945634|NCT04486313|181771092|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Baseline COVID-19 severity (mild/moderate), time from onset of symptoms to randomization (\<36 hours/≥36 hours), risk of severe illness||||||0.05
90945635|NCT04486313|181771093|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Baseline COVID-19 severity (mild/moderate), time from onset of symptoms to randomization (\<36 hours/≥36 hours), risk of severe illness||||||0.05
90945636|NCT04486313|181771094|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Baseline COVID-19 severity (mild/moderate), time from onset of symptoms to randomization (\<36 hours/≥36 hours), risk of severe illness||||||0.08
90945637|NCT01375751|181771095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-43.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.92|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.56|-36.09||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment group and LDL-C level and baseline ezetimibe use as covariates.|Placebo is the reference.|The null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo.||-36.09|-51.56|<0.001
90945638|NCT01375751|181771095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-56.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.06|-48.67||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment group and LDL-C level and baseline ezetimibe use as covariates.|Placebo is the reference|The null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo.||-48.67|-64.06|<0.001
90945639|NCT01375751|181771096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-65.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-79.6|-51.4||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment group and LDL-C level and baseline ezetimibe use as covariates.|Placebo is the reference|||-51.4|-79.6|<0.001
90945640|NCT01375751|181771096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-84.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-98.8|-70.7||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment group and LDL-C level and baseline ezetimibe use as covariates.|Placebo is the reference|||-70.7|-98.8|<0.001
91038335|NCT02727192|181961325|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.6|||Regression, Linear|||||0.6|-0.5|0.850
90977253|NCT02908100|181838862|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Difference|7.5||||0.732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.7|36.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Plasmablast Signature Level Q1||36.7|-21.7|0.732
90977254|NCT02908100|181838862|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Difference|-0.4||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.2|28.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Plasmablast Signature Level Q2||28.4|-29.2|0.500
90977255|NCT02908100|181838862|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Difference|8.6||||0.234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.4|38.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Plasmablast Signature Level Q2||38.7|-21.4|0.234
90977256|NCT02908100|181838862|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Difference|15.5||||0.364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|46.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Plasmablast Signature Level Q3||46|-14.9|0.364
90977257|NCT02908100|181838862|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Difference|15.2||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|44.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Plasmablast Signature Level Q3||44.4|-14.1|0.134
90977258|NCT02908100|181838862|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Difference|-7.1||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.6|23.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Plasmablast Signature Level Q4||23.3|-37.6|0.830
90977259|NCT02908100|181838862|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Difference|-2.2||||0.963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.1|27.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Plasmablast Signature Level Q4||27.8|-32.1|0.963
90977260|NCT02908100|181838863|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Difference|19.0||||0.189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|47.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Plasmablast Signature Level Q1||47.5|-9.4|0.189
90977261|NCT02908100|181838863|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Difference|6.7||||0.909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.9|35.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Plasmablast Signature Level Q1||35.2|-21.9|0.909
90977262|NCT02908100|181838863|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Difference|-0.4||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.2|28.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Plasmablast Signature Level Q2||28.4|-29.2|0.500
90977263|NCT02908100|181838863|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Difference|3.3||||0.234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.1|33.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Plasmablast Signature Level Q2||33.8|-27.1|0.234
90977264|NCT02908100|181838863|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Difference|15.5||||0.364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|46.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Plasmablast Signature Level Q3||46|-14.9|0.364
90977265|NCT02908100|181838863|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Difference|7.2||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|36.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Plasmablast Signature Level Q3||36.3|-22|0.310
90977266|NCT02908100|181838863|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Difference|-2.1||||0.922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.5|28.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Plasmablast Signature Level Q4||28.2|-32.5|0.922
90977267|NCT02908100|181838863|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Difference|-5.9||||0.701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.4|23.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Plasmablast Signature Level Q4||23.7|-35.4|0.701
90977268|NCT02908100|181838864|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Difference|3.1||||0.692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|17.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||17.1|-10.9|0.692
90977269|NCT02908100|181838864|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Difference|1.9||||0.871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|15.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||15.9|-12|0.871
90977270|NCT02908100|181838864|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Difference|11.2||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|25.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48||25.1|-2.8|0.105
90977271|NCT02908100|181838864|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Difference|7.7||||0.286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|21.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48||21.6|-6.1|0.286
90977272|NCT02908100|181838865|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Difference|-1.6||||0.936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.8|13.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||13.6|-16.8|0.936
90977273|NCT02908100|181838865|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Difference|-2.9||||0.683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.2|12.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||12.4|-18.2|0.683
90977274|NCT02908100|181838865|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Difference|11.7||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|26.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48||26.8|-3.4|0.086
90977275|NCT02908100|181838865|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Difference|0.9||||0.879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.2|16.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48||16.1|-14.2|0.879
90977281|NCT02631538|181838886|OTHER||Least square (LS) mean difference|-2.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.758|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.38|0.67|||||Week 12. Analysis was performed using mixed effects repeated measures model, with Baseline, treatment, visit and interactions of visit with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect.|||0.67|-6.38|
90977282|NCT02631538|181838886|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.382|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.75|1.78|||||Week 12. Analysis was performed using mixed effects repeated measures model, with Baseline, treatment, visit and interactions of visit with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect.|||1.78|-3.75|
90977283|NCT02631538|181838886|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.442|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.52|2.26|||||Week 12. Analysis was performed using mixed effects repeated measures model, with Baseline, treatment, visit and interactions of visit with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect.|||2.26|-3.52|
90977284|NCT02631538|181838886|OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.732|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.34|1.6|||||Week 12. Analysis was performed using mixed effects repeated measures model, with Baseline, treatment, visit and interactions of visit with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect.|||1.60|-5.34|
90977285|NCT02631538|181838886|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.422|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|3.2|||||Week 12. Analysis was performed using mixed effects repeated measures model, with Baseline, treatment, visit and interactions of visit with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect.|||3.20|-2.50|
90977286|NCT02631538|181838886|OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.607|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.67|0.77|||||Week 24. Analysis was performed using mixed effects repeated measures model, with Baseline, treatment, visit and interactions of visit with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect.|||0.77|-5.67|
90977287|NCT02631538|181838886|OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.265|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.99|1.08|||||Week 24. Analysis was performed using mixed effects repeated measures model, with Baseline, treatment, visit and interactions of visit with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect.|||1.08|-3.99|
90977288|NCT02631538|181838886|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.305|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.68|2.55|||||Week 24. Analysis was performed using mixed effects repeated measures model, with Baseline, treatment, visit and interactions of visit with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect.|||2.55|-2.68|
90977289|NCT02631538|181838886|OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.584|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.17|2.18|||||Week 24. Analysis was performed using mixed effects repeated measures model, with Baseline, treatment, visit and interactions of visit with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect.|||2.18|-4.17|
90977290|NCT02631538|181838886|OTHER||LS mean difference|1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|3.97|||||Week 24. Analysis was performed using mixed effects repeated measures model, with Baseline, treatment, visit and interactions of visit with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect.|||3.97|-1.20|
90977291|NCT02631538|181838886|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.845|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.66|2.73|||||Week 36. Analysis was performed using mixed effects repeated measures model, with Baseline, treatment, visit and interactions of visit with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect.|||2.73|-4.66|
90977292|NCT02631538|181838886|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.449|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.76|3.05|||||Week 36. Analysis was performed using mixed effects repeated measures model, with Baseline, treatment, visit and interactions of visit with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect.|||3.05|-2.76|
90977293|NCT02631538|181838886|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.498|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|3.86|||||Week 36. Analysis was performed using mixed effects repeated measures model, with Baseline, treatment, visit and interactions of visit with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect.|||3.86|-2.15|
90977294|NCT02631538|181838886|OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.817|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.76|2.53|||||Week 36. Analysis was performed using mixed effects repeated measures model, with Baseline, treatment, visit and interactions of visit with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect.|||2.53|-4.76|
90977295|NCT02631538|181838886|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.476|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|3.66|||||Week 36. Analysis was performed using mixed effects repeated measures model, with Baseline, treatment, visit and interactions of visit with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect.|||3.66|-2.25|
90977296|NCT02631538|181838886|OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.57|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.95|0.34|||||Week 52. Analysis was performed using mixed effects repeated measures model, with Baseline, treatment, visit and interactions of visit with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect.|||0.34|-5.95|
90977297|NCT02631538|181838886|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.237|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.39|1.56|||||Week 52. Analysis was performed using mixed effects repeated measures model, with Baseline, treatment, visit and interactions of visit with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect.|||1.56|-3.39|
90977298|NCT02631538|181838886|OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.275|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.91|1.2|||||Week 52. Analysis was performed using mixed effects repeated measures model, with Baseline, treatment, visit and interactions of visit with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect.|||1.20|-3.91|
90977299|NCT02631538|181838886|OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.548|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.99|1.21|||||Week 52. Analysis was performed using mixed effects repeated measures model, with Baseline, treatment, visit and interactions of visit with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect.|||1.21|-4.99|
90977300|NCT02631538|181838886|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.261|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.97|2.08|||||Week 52. Analysis was performed using mixed effects repeated measures model, with Baseline, treatment, visit and interactions of visit with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect.|||2.08|-2.97|
90977301|NCT02631538|181838886|OTHER||LS mean difference|-3.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.699|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.39|-0.58|||||Week 68. Analysis was performed using mixed effects repeated measures model, with Baseline, treatment, visit and interactions of visit with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect.|||-0.58|-7.39|
90977302|NCT02631538|181838886|OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.336|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.54|0.81|||||Week 68. Analysis was performed using mixed effects repeated measures model, with Baseline, treatment, visit and interactions of visit with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect.|||0.81|-4.54|
90977303|NCT02631538|181838886|OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.379|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.12|1.41|||||Week 68. Analysis was performed using mixed effects repeated measures model, with Baseline, treatment, visit and interactions of visit with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect.|||1.41|-4.12|
90977304|NCT02631538|181838886|OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.674|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.47|1.23|||||Week 68. Analysis was performed using mixed effects repeated measures model, with Baseline, treatment, visit and interactions of visit with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect.|||1.23|-5.47|
91038336|NCT02727192|181961327|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.6|||Regression, Linear|||||1.6|-1.0|0.650
90945641|NCT01375751|181771097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-41.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.81|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.32|-34.26||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment group and LDL-C level and baseline ezetimibe use as covariates.|Placebo is the reference|||-34.26|-49.32|<0.001
90945642|NCT01375751|181771097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-53.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.79|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.95|-45.97||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment group and LDL-C level and baseline ezetimibe use as covariates.|Placebo is the reference|||-45.97|-60.95|<0.001
90945643|NCT01375751|181771098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-34.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.55|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.77|-27.74||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment group and LDL-C level and baseline ezetimibe use as covariates.|Placebo is the reference|||-27.74|-41.77|<0.001
90945644|NCT01375751|181771098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-46.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.53|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.18|-39.23||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment group and LDL-C level and baseline ezetimibe use as covariates.|Placebo is the reference|||-39.23|-53.18|<0.001
90945645|NCT01375751|181771099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-36.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.72|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.01|-29.32||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment group and LDL-C level and baseline ezetimibe use as covariates.|Placbo is the reference|||-29.32|-44.01|<0.001
90945646|NCT01375751|181771099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-45.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.32|-37.7||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment group and LDL-C level and baseline ezetimibe use as covariates.|Placebo is the reference|||-37.70|-52.32|<0.001
90945647|NCT01375751|181771100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-33.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.45|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.72|-27.11||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment group and LDL-C level and baseline ezetimibe use as covariates.|Placebo is the reference|||-27.11|-40.72|<0.001
90945648|NCT01375751|181771100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-44.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.43|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.41|-37.86||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment group and LDL-C level and baseline ezetimibe use as covariates.|Placebo is the reference|||-37.86|-51.41|<0.001
90945649|NCT00940875|181771102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Response Rates|-3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|10.9|||||The 95% CI for the difference of 2 rates was estimated using the Hauck-Anderson method.|||10.9|-17.5|
90945650|NCT00940875|181771103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4798|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Difference between treatment groups in PFS||||0.4798
90945651|NCT00940875|181771103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio, log|1.3||||0.4805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.68|||Wald Test||The hazard ratio was estimated using the Cox regression model and stratified by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance Status (PS), disease stage, histology, and smoking status.|||2.68|0.63|0.4805
90945652|NCT00940875|181771104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Response Rates|-11.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.3|17.2|||||The 95% CI for difference of 2 rates was determined using the Hauck-Anderson method.|Week 8||17.2|-40.3|
90945653|NCT00940875|181771104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Response Rates|-13.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.0|9.0|||||The 95% CI for difference of 2 rates was determined using the Hauck-Anderson method.|Week 16||9.0|-36.0|
90945654|NCT00940875|181771106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5393|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Difference between treatment groups in OS||||0.5393
90945655|NCT00940875|181771106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.5399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.66|||Wald Test||The hazard ratio was estimated using the Cox regression model and stratified by ECOG PS, disease stage, histology, and smoking status.|||1.66|0.38|0.5399
90977305|NCT02631538|181838886|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.362|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|3.24|||||Week 68. Analysis was performed using mixed effects repeated measures model, with Baseline, treatment, visit and interactions of visit with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect.|||3.24|-2.21|
90977306|NCT01577238|181838902|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90977307|NCT00862251|181838925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent change in least-square means|-14.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.61|-9.91|||Longitudinal data analysis (LDA)|||||-9.91|-19.61|<0.001
90977308|NCT00862251|181838926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent change in Least Square Means|-13.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.44|-6.79|||Longitudinal data analysis (LDA)|||||-6.79|-20.44|<0.001
90977309|NCT00862251|181838927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent change in least squares mean|-15.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.65|-8.81|||Longitudinal Data Analysis (LDA)|||||-8.81|-22.65|<0.001
90977310|NCT00862251|181838928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Change in Least Squares Means|-3.81||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.78|0.17|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||0.17|-7.78|0.060
90977311|NCT00862251|181838929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|6.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.2|2.5|<0.001
90977312|NCT00862251|181838929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.6|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.6|1.3|<0.001
90977313|NCT00862251|181838930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|8.5|||Regression, Logistic|||||8.5|2.3|<0.001
90977314|NCT00862251|181838931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|6.6|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.6|1.9|<0.001
90977315|NCT00862251|181838932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-8.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.38|-5.28|||Longitudinal data analysis (LDA)|||||-5.28|-11.38|<0.001
90977316|NCT00862251|181838932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.63||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.13|-0.13|||Longitudinal data analysis (LDA)|||||-0.13|-5.13|0.039
90977317|NCT00862251|181838933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.88||||0.316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.53|2.77|||Longitudinal data analysis (LDA)|||||2.77|-8.53|0.316
90977318|NCT00862251|181838933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.16||||0.356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.75|2.43|||Longitudinal data analysis (LDA)|||||2.43|-6.75|0.356
90977319|NCT00862251|181838934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.47||||0.756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|3.45|||Longitudinal data analysis (LDA)|||||3.45|-2.50|0.756
90977320|NCT00862251|181838934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Sqares Mean Difference|-0.52||||0.675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.96|1.92|||Longitudinal data analysis (LDA)|||||1.92|-2.96|0.675
90977321|NCT00862251|181838935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-11.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.93|-7.31|||Longitudinal data analysis (LDA)|||||-7.31|-15.93|<0.001
90977322|NCT00862251|181838935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.18||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.71|0.35|||Longitudinal data analysis (LDA)|||||0.35|-6.71|0.078
90977323|NCT00862251|181838936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-14.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.23|-8.1|||Longitudinal data analysis (LDA)|||||-8.10|-20.23|<0.001
90977324|NCT00862251|181838936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Sqares Mean Difference|-2.56||||0.313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.53|2.41|||Longitudinal data analysis (LDA)|||||2.41|-7.53|0.313
90977325|NCT00862251|181838937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-8.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|-4.23|||Longitudinal data analysis (LDA)|||||-4.23|-12.10|<0.001
91038337|NCT02727192|181961328|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.6||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|4.5|||Regression, Linear|||||4.5|0.8|0.006
90977326|NCT00862251|181838937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.83||||0.266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.05|1.4|||Longitudinal data analysis (LDA)|||||1.40|-5.05|0.266
90977327|NCT00862251|181838938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-11.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.16|-5.75|||Longitudinal data analysis (LDA)|||||-5.75|-17.16|<0.001
90977328|NCT00862251|181838938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.13||||0.371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.81|2.54|||Longitudinal data analysis (LDA)|||||2.54|-6.81|0.371
90977329|NCT00862251|181838939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-8.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.46|-4.56|||Longitudinal data analysis (LDA)|||||-4.56|-11.46|<0.001
90977330|NCT00862251|181838939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.95||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.78|-0.12|||Longitudinal data analysis (LDA)|||||-0.12|-5.78|0.041
91038338|NCT02727192|181961329|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-31.4||||0.389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-103.4|40.7|||Regression, Linear|||||40.7|-103.4|0.389
90977331|NCT00862251|181838940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.57||||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|4.06|||Longitudinal data analysis (LDA)|||||4.06|-0.93|0.218
90977332|NCT00862251|181838940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.22||||0.832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.27|1.83|||Longitudinal data analysis (LDA)|||||1.83|-2.27|0.832
90977333|NCT00862251|181838941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-8.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.36|-4.47|||Longitudinal data analysis (LDA)|||||-4.47|-13.36|<0.001
90977334|NCT00862251|181838941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.52||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.17|1.13|||Longitudinal data analysis (LDA)|||||1.13|-6.17|0.175
90977335|NCT00862251|181838942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.78||||0.749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.88|14.32|||Longitudinal data analysis (LDA)|||||14.32|-19.88|0.749
90977336|NCT00862251|181838942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|4.69||||0.494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.73|18.1|||Longitudinal data analysis (LDA)|||||18.10|-8.73|0.494
90977337|NCT04258579|181838960|OTHER|Estimation only.|Mean value at 6 weeks|19.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.59|22.67||||||||22.67|15.59|
90977338|NCT04258579|181838960|OTHER|Estimation only.|Mean value at 9 weeks|16.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.5|21.24||||||||21.24|12.50|
90977339|NCT04258579|181838960|OTHER|Estimation only.|Mean value at 12 weeks|15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.24|18.76||||||||18.76|11.24|
90977340|NCT04258579|181838961|OTHER|Estimation only.|Mean value at 6 weeks, Domain 1|22.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.7|24.5||||||||24.50|19.70|
90977341|NCT04258579|181838961|OTHER|Estimation only.|Mean value at 6 weeks, Domain 2|19.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.0|21.8||||||||21.80|18.00|
90977342|NCT04258579|181838961|OTHER|Estimation only.|Mean value at 6 weeks, Domain 3|8.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.68|10.18||||||||10.18|7.68|
90977343|NCT04258579|181838961|OTHER|Estimation only.|Mean value at 6 weeks, Domain 4|26.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.32|28.94||||||||28.94|24.32|
90977344|NCT04258579|181838961|OTHER|Estimation only.|Mean value at 9 weeks, Domain 1|22.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.87|25.23||||||||25.23|19.87|
90977345|NCT04258579|181838961|OTHER|Estimation only.|Mean value at 9 weeks, Domain 2|21.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.87|23.13||||||||23.13|18.87|
90977346|NCT04258579|181838961|OTHER|Estimation only.|Mean value at 9 weeks, Domain 3|8.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.39|9.99||||||||9.99|7.39|
90977347|NCT04258579|181838961|OTHER|Estimation only.|Mean value at 9 weeks, Domain 4|27.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.07|29.69||||||||29.69|25.07|
90977348|NCT04258579|181838961|OTHER|Estimation only.|Mean value at 12 weeks, Domain 1|22.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.18|25.06||||||||25.06|20.18|
91038339|NCT02727192|181961332|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.5|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.5|-0.3|0.697
91038340|NCT00928057|181961338|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"To conclude equivalence for glycemic control, the average absolute percent change in fructosamine and 95% confidence interval had to be within 20%.~80 subjects were required to be in each insulin dose group (40 per PN arm) to provide 90% power for an equivalence with alpha=0.05."||||||0.506||||||The threshold for statistical significance, or alpha, is 0.05.|ANOVA|The ANOVA model has effects for subject, insulin dose group, investigator site and order of pen needle use.||"The effects of pen needle type on glycemic control were tested for statistical significance using analysis of variance (ANOVA). The ANOVA model was used to calculate the absolute percent (%)change in fructosamine (% \|∆ Fru\|), with 95 % confidence intervals."||||0.506
90945656|NCT05186311|181771122|EQUIVALENCE|The estimated regression equation was then used to estimate the bias (with two one-sided 95% confidence intervals, referred to as 95% limits in the text) between the evaluation tube and the comparator tube at all prespecified medical decision levels. The biases and 95% limit were compared to the clinical acceptance limit (CAL).||||||||||||||||One hundred (100) participants (with paired numerical data) per each analyte provide \> 90% power to ensure that mean biases and confidence intervals are within the clinical acceptance limit (CAL), at medically relevant points, assuming no true bias between the tube types, residual standard deviation (SD) or coefficient of variation (CV) = CAL and collected data cover medically relevant points.|"No p-value were established. Rather a bias between tube types at pre-determined medical decision points were estimated with 95% intervals. The mean biases and 95% limit were compared to the CAL. For equivalence testing the initial alpha level is set at 10%. This corresponds to obtaining 90% confidence intervals (associated with 95% two 1-sided confidence limits). Since the clinical equivalence includes two comparisons, the actual alpha used for each comparison was set to 5%, using a Bonferroni correction. No other adjustment for multiplicity will be made on any other comparisons.~Note that for the confidence intervals (CI) calculated for the intercept and slope of the regression parameters, no multiplicity adjustments on the a level are performed (alpha = 0.05)."|||
90945657|NCT05186311|181771123|EQUIVALENCE|The estimated regression equation was then used to estimate the bias (with two one-sided 95% confidence intervals, referred to as 95% limits in the text) between the evaluation tube and the comparator tube at all prespecified medical decision levels. The biases and 95% limit were compared to the clinical acceptance limit|||||||||||||||||"No p-value were established. Rather a bias between tube types at pre-determined medical decision points were estimated with 95% intervals. The mean biases and 95% limit were compared to the CAL. For equivalence testing the initial alpha level is set at 10%. This corresponds to obtaining 90% confidence intervals (associated with 95% two 1-sided confidence limits). Since the clinical equivalence includes two comparisons, the actual alpha used for each comparison was set to 5%, using a Bonferroni correction. No other adjustment for multiplicity will be made on any other comparisons.~Note that for the confidence intervals (CI) calculated for the intercept and slope of the regression parameters, no multiplicity adjustments on the a level are performed (alpha = 0.05)."|||
90945658|NCT05186311|181771124|EQUIVALENCE|The estimated regression equation was then used to estimate the bias (with two one-sided 95% confidence intervals, referred to as 95% limits in the text) between the evaluation tube and the comparator tube at all prespecified medical decision levels. The biases and 95% limit were compared to the clinical acceptance limit|||||||||||||||||"No p-value were established. Rather a bias between tube types at pre-determined medical decision points were estimated with 95% intervals. The mean biases and 95% limit were compared to the CAL. For equivalence testing the initial alpha level is set at 10%. This corresponds to obtaining 90% confidence intervals (associated with 95% two 1-sided confidence limits). Since the clinical equivalence includes two comparisons, the actual alpha used for each comparison was set to 5%, using a Bonferroni correction. No other adjustment for multiplicity will be made on any other comparisons.~Note that for the confidence intervals (CI) calculated for the intercept and slope of the regression parameters, no multiplicity adjustments on the a level are performed (alpha = 0.05)."|||
90945659|NCT05186311|181771125|EQUIVALENCE|The estimated regression equation was then used to estimate the bias (with two one-sided 95% confidence intervals, referred to as 95% limits in the text) between the evaluation tube and the comparator tube at all prespecified medical decision levels. The biases and 95% limit were compared to the clinical acceptance limit|||||||||||||||||"No p-value were established. Rather a bias between tube types at pre-determined medical decision points were estimated with 95% intervals. The mean biases and 95% limit were compared to the CAL. For equivalence testing the initial alpha level is set at 10%. This corresponds to obtaining 90% confidence intervals (associated with 95% two 1-sided confidence limits). Since the clinical equivalence includes two comparisons, the actual alpha used for each comparison was set to 5%, using a Bonferroni correction. No other adjustment for multiplicity will be made on any other comparisons.~Note that for the confidence intervals (CI) calculated for the intercept and slope of the regression parameters, no multiplicity adjustments on the a level are performed (alpha = 0.05)."|||
90977349|NCT04258579|181838961|OTHER|Estimation only.|Mean value at 12 weeks, Domain 2|21.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.84|23.32||||||||23.32|19.84|
90977350|NCT04258579|181838961|OTHER|Estimation only.|Mean value at 12 weeks, Domain 3|9.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.92|10.46||||||||10.46|7.92|
90977351|NCT04258579|181838961|OTHER|Estimation only.|Mean value at 12 weeks, Domain 4|27.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.53|30.09||||||||30.09|25.53|
90977352|NCT04258579|181838962|OTHER|Estimation only.|Mean value at baseline|22.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.56|25.34||||||||25.34|19.56|
90977353|NCT04258579|181838962|OTHER|Estimation only.|Mean value at 6 weeks|20.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.65|23.41||||||||23.41|17.65|
90977354|NCT04258579|181838963|OTHER|Estimation only.|Mean value at baseline, Domain 1|19.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.24|22.54||||||||22.54|17.24|
90977355|NCT04258579|181838963|OTHER|Estimation only.|Mean value at baseline, Domain 2|22.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.72|25.2||||||||25.20|19.72|
90977356|NCT04258579|181838963|OTHER|Estimation only.|Mean value at baseline, Domain 3|16.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.72|18.28||||||||18.28|13.72|
90977357|NCT04258579|181838963|OTHER|Estimation only.|Mean value at baseline, Domain 4|17.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.34|20.24||||||||20.24|15.34|
90977358|NCT04258579|181838963|OTHER|Estimation only.|Mean value at 6 weeks, Domain 1|22.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.05|26.53||||||||26.53|19.05|
90945660|NCT05186311|181771126|EQUIVALENCE|The estimated regression equation was then used to estimate the bias (with two one-sided 95% confidence intervals, referred to as 95% limits in the text) between the evaluation tube and the comparator tube at all prespecified medical decision levels. The biases and 95% limit were compared to the clinical acceptance limit|||||||||||||||||"No p-value were established. Rather a bias between tube types at pre-determined medical decision points were estimated with 95% intervals. The mean biases and 95% limit were compared to the CAL. For equivalence testing the initial alpha level is set at 10%. This corresponds to obtaining 90% confidence intervals (associated with 95% two 1-sided confidence limits). Since the clinical equivalence includes two comparisons, the actual alpha used for each comparison was set to 5%, using a Bonferroni correction. No other adjustment for multiplicity will be made on any other comparisons.~Note that for the confidence intervals (CI) calculated for the intercept and slope of the regression parameters, no multiplicity adjustments on the a level are performed (alpha = 0.05)."|||
90977359|NCT04258579|181838963|OTHER|Estimation only.|Mean value at 6 weeks, Domain 2|26.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.96|30.44||||||||30.44|22.96|
90977360|NCT04258579|181838963|OTHER|Estimation only.|Mean value at 6 weeks, Domain 3|17.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.57|20.33||||||||20.33|14.57|
90977361|NCT04258579|181838963|OTHER|Estimation only.|Mean value at 6 weeks, Domain 4|20.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.23|23.15||||||||23.15|18.23|
90977362|NCT00331006|181838980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion|0.1875||||0.043|ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.053|||the a priori p-value was 0.05 for statistical significance|Exact Binomial|||The null hypothesis is that the proportion of participants in which the inhibitor level falls to less than 5 BU/mL between weeks 6 to 22 and remains below 5 BU/mL at 5-7 days following re-challenge with factor VIII is no more than 0.05|||.053|0.043
90977363|NCT00331006|181838981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.073|0.524|||Exact Binomial|||No hypothesis about the value of this proportion was specified in the study design||0.524|0.073|
90977364|NCT01950819|181838992|NON_INFERIORITY|p vale for non inferiority margin is 10 %|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|7.3|||Logistic Regression Model|||calculated at month 12||7.3|-1.4|0.001
90977365|NCT03183128|181839014|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.58||P-value presented for both hypothesis tests: H0: RR≥1 and H0: RR≥0.833.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by age (\<65 years, ≥65 years) and prior antibiotic regimen (vancomycin, fidaxomicin).|RR defined as the recurrence rates of SER-109 divided by Placebo. Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel estimate of RR, stratified by age group (\<65 years, ≥65 years) and prior antibiotic regimen for the qualifying episode (vancomycin, fidaxomicin), is reported.|||0.58|0.18|<0.001
90977366|NCT03183128|181839015|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.67||P-value presented is for the hypothesis test: H0: RR ≥1.0.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel estimate is stratified by age (\<65 years, ≥65 years) and prior antibiotic regimen (vancomycin, fidaxomicin).|RR defined as the recurrence rates of SER-109 divided by Placebo. Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel estimate of RR, stratified by age group (\<65 years, ≥65 years) and prior antibiotic regimen for the qualifying episode (vancomycin, fidaxomicin), is reported.|CDI recurrence rates at Week 4||0.67|0.19|<0.001
91050450|NCT04168190|181987010|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMC ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|1.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.52|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 19A. Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio, 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||1.52|1.02|<0.001
90977367|NCT03183128|181839015|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.65||P-value presented is for the hypothesis test: H0: RR ≥1.0.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel estimate is stratified by age (\<65 years, ≥65 years) and prior antibiotic regimen (vancomycin, fidaxomicin).|RR defined as the recurrence rates of SER-109 divided by Placebo. Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel estimate of RR, stratified by age group (\<65 years, ≥65 years) and prior antibiotic regimen for the qualifying episode (vancomycin, fidaxomicin), is reported.|CDI recurrence rates at Week 12||0.65|0.24|<0.001
90977368|NCT03183128|181839015|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.73||P-value presented is for the hypothesis test: H0: RR ≥1.0.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel estimate is stratified by age (\<65 years, ≥65 years) and prior antibiotic regimen (vancomycin, fidaxomicin).|RR defined as the recurrence rates of SER-109 divided by Placebo. Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel estimate of RR, stratified by age group (\<65 years, ≥65 years) and prior antibiotic regimen for the qualifying episode (vancomycin, fidaxomicin), is reported.|CDI recurrence rates at Week 24||0.73|0.30|<0.001
90977369|NCT00754156|181839032|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence analysis|||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
90977370|NCT01225562|181839042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|0.96|||Regression, Cox||The hazard ratio shows ticagrelor 90 mg hazard / placebo hazard|||0.96|0.75|0.0080
90977371|NCT01225562|181839042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.95|||Regression, Cox||The hazard ratio shows ticagrelor 60 mg hazard / placebo hazard|||0.95|0.74|0.0043
90977372|NCT01225562|181839043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.1547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.06|||Regression, Cox||The hazard ratio shows ticagrelor 90 mg hazard / placebo hazard|||1.06|0.71|0.1547
90977373|NCT01225562|181839043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.0676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.01|||Regression, Cox||The hazard ratio shows ticagrelor 60 mg hazard / placebo hazard|||1.01|0.68|0.0676
90977374|NCT01225562|181839044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.9851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.16|||Regression, Cox||The hazard ratio shows ticagrelor 90 mg hazard / placebo hazard|||1.16|0.86|0.9851
90977375|NCT01225562|181839044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.04|||Regression, Cox||The hazard ratio shows ticagrelor 60 mg hazard / placebo hazard|||1.04|0.76|0.1350
90977376|NCT01225562|181839045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.96|3.7|||Regression, Cox||The hazard ratio shows ticagrelor 90 mg hazard / placebo hazard|||3.70|1.96|<0.0001
90977377|NCT01225562|181839045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.68|3.21|||Regression, Cox||The hazard ratio shows ticagrelor 60 mg hazard / placebo hazard|||3.21|1.68|<0.0001
90977378|NCT02928952|181839046|SUPERIORITY|Assessed group by time differences from week 12 to week 24. Statistical Test of hypothesis. Analyzed as intention to treat in mixed models with imputation as last value moved forward.||||||0.153|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|All models adjusted for Age and Duration of Diabetes||The statistical analysis was applied to both groups.||||0.153
90977379|NCT02928952|181839046|SUPERIORITY|Assessed group by time differences from week 12 to week 24. Statistical Test of hypothesis. Analyzed as intention to treat in mixed models with imputation as last value moved forward.||||||0.026|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for age and duration of diabetes.||||||0.026
90977380|NCT02928952|181839046|SUPERIORITY|Analyzed as intention to treat in mixed models with imputation as last value moved forward.||||||0.012|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Models adjusted for age and duration of diabetes.||Within group analysis of intervention effect on Diabetes Distress (Problem Areas in Diabetes, PAID scale) over time stratified by hemoglobin A1c\<8.5% and =/\>8.5.||||0.012
90977381|NCT02928952|181839047|SUPERIORITY|The statistical analysis was applied to both groups.||||||0.604|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|All models adjusted for age and duration of diabetes.||Statistical Test of hypothesis. Analyzed as intention to treat in mixed models with imputation as last value moved forward.||||.604
90977382|NCT02928952|181839048|SUPERIORITY|Statistical Test of hypothesis. Analyzed as intention to treat in mixed models with imputation as last value moved forward.||||||0.911|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|All models adjusted for Age and Duration of Diabetes||The statistical analysis was applied to both groups.||||0.911
90977383|NCT02928952|181839049|SUPERIORITY|Statistical Test of hypothesis. Analyzed as intention to treat in mixed models with imputation as last value moved forward.||||||0.94|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|All models were adjusted for age and duration of diabetes.||||||0.940
90977384|NCT02928952|181839050|SUPERIORITY|Statistical Test of hypothesis. Analyzed as intention to treat in mixed models with imputation as last value moved forward.||||||0.305|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|All models adjusted for Age and Duration of Diabetes||The statistical analysis was applied to both groups.||||0.305
90977385|NCT02928952|181839051|SUPERIORITY|Statistical Test of hypothesis. Analyzed as intention to treat in mixed models with imputation as last value moved forward.||||||0.228|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|All models adjusted for age and duration of diabetes.||||||0.228
90977386|NCT02928952|181839052|SUPERIORITY|Statistical Test of hypothesis. Differing sample sizes are due to attrition and missed research visits. Analyzed as intention to treat in mixed models with imputation as last value moved forward.||||||0.671|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|All models were adjusted for age and duration of diabetes.||The statistical analysis was applied to both groups.||||0.671
90977387|NCT02928952|181839053|SUPERIORITY|Statistical Test of hypothesis. Analyzed as intention to treat in mixed models with imputation as last value moved forward.||||||0.571|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|All models were adjusted for age and duration of diabetes.||The statistical analysis was applied to both groups.||||0.571
90977388|NCT02928952|181839054|SUPERIORITY|Statistical Test of hypothesis. Analyzed as intention to treat in mixed models with imputation as last value moved forward.||||||0.003|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|All models adjusted for age and duration of diabetes.||The statistical analysis was applied to both groups.||||0.003
90977389|NCT02928952|181839055|SUPERIORITY|Statistical Test of hypothesis. Analyzed as intention to treat in mixed models with imputation as last value moved forward.||||||0.632|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|All models adjusted for age and duration of diabetes.||The statistical analysis was applied to both groups.||||0.632
90977390|NCT02928952|181839056|SUPERIORITY|Statistical Test of hypothesis. Analyzed as intention to treat in mixed models with imputation as last value moved forward.||||||0.219|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|All models were adjusted for age and duration of diabetes.||The statistical analysis was applied to both groups.||||0.219
90977391|NCT02928952|181839057|SUPERIORITY|Statistical Test of hypothesis. Analyzed as intention to treat in mixed models with imputation as last value moved forward.||||||0.931|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|All models were adjusted for age and duration of diabetes.||The statistical analysis was applied to both groups.||||0.931
90977392|NCT02928952|181839058|SUPERIORITY|Statistical Test of hypothesis. Analyzed as intention to treat in mixed models with imputation as last value moved forward.||||||0.627|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|All models were adjusted for age and duration of diabetes.||The statistical analysis was applied to both groups.||||0.627
90977393|NCT02928952|181839059|SUPERIORITY|Statistical Test of hypothesis. Analyzed as intention to treat in mixed models with imputation as last value moved forward.||||||0.6|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|All models were adjusted for age and duration of diabetes.||The statistical analysis was applied to both groups.||||0.60
90977394|NCT02928952|181839060|SUPERIORITY|Statistical Test of hypothesis. Analyzed as intention to treat in mixed models with imputation as last value moved forward.||||||0.461|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|All models were adjusted for age and duration of diabetes.||The statistical analysis was applied to both groups.||||0.461
90977395|NCT02928952|181839061|SUPERIORITY|Statistical Test of hypothesis. Analyzed as intention to treat in mixed models with imputation as last value moved forward.||||||0.906|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|All models were adjusted for age and duration of diabetes.||The statistical analysis was applied to both groups.||||0.906
90977396|NCT02928952|181839062|SUPERIORITY|Statistical Test of hypothesis. Analyzed as intention to treat in mixed models with imputation as last value moved forward.||||||0.856|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|All models were adjusted for age and duration of diabetes.||The statistical analysis was applied to both groups.||||0.856
90890079|NCT01571362|181644071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Screening Period value to Randomization Baseline for Physical Functioning, Role-Physical, Bodily Pain, General Health, Vitality, Social Functioning, Role-Emotional, Mental Health, Physical Component Score, and Mental Component Score||||<0.0001
90890080|NCT01571362|181644072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.952||0.5181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|2.49||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Difference between treatment groups in change from Randomization Baseline for Physical Functioning.||2.49|-1.26|0.5181
90890081|NCT01571362|181644072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.998||0.9733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.93||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Difference between treatment groups in change from Randomization Baseline for Role-Physical.||1.93|-2.00|0.9733
90890082|NCT01571362|181644072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.914||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|4.18||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Difference between treatment groups in change from Randomization Baseline for Bodily Pain.||4.18|0.57|0.0100
90890083|NCT01571362|181644072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.764||0.4712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|0.95||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Difference between treatment groups in change from Randomization Baseline for General Health Perceptions.||0.95|-2.06|0.4712
90890084|NCT01571362|181644072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.091||0.2898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|0.99||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Difference between treatment groups in change from Randomization Baseline for Vitality.||0.99|-3.30|0.2898
90890085|NCT01571362|181644072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.044||0.1565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|3.54||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Difference between treatment groups in change from Randomization Baseline for Social Functioning.||3.54|-0.57|0.1565
90890086|NCT01571362|181644072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.348||0.522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.52|1.79||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Difference between treatment groups in change from Randomization Baseline for Role-Emotional.||1.79|-3.52|0.5220
90890087|NCT01571362|181644072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.995||0.9865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|1.98||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Difference between treatment groups in change from Randomization Baseline for Mental Health.||1.98|-1.94|0.9865
90890088|NCT01571362|181644072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.885||0.2491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|2.77||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Difference between treatment groups in change from Randomization Baseline for Physical Component Score.||2.77|-0.72|0.2491
90890089|NCT01571362|181644072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.073||0.5219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|1.43||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Difference between treatment groups in change from Randomization Baseline for Mental Component Score.||1.43|-2.80|0.5219
90890090|NCT01571362|181644073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.111||0.1731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|3.71||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Difference between treatment groups in change from Screening for Physical Functioning.||3.71|-0.67|0.1731
90890091|NCT01571362|181644073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.127||0.329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|3.32||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Difference between treatment groups in change from Screening for Role-Physical.||3.32|-1.12|0.3290
90890092|NCT01571362|181644073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.047||0.0232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|4.45||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Difference between treatment groups in change from Screening for Bodily Pain.||4.45|0.33|0.0232
90890093|NCT01571362|181644073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.858||0.8139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|1.49||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Difference between treatment groups in change from Screening for General Health Perceptions.||1.49|-1.89|0.8139
90890094|NCT01571362|181644073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.117||0.6878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.65|1.75||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Difference between treatment groups in change from Screening for Vitality.||1.75|-2.65|0.6878
90977397|NCT02928952|181839063|SUPERIORITY|Statistical Test of hypothesis. Analyzed as intention to treat in mixed models with imputation as last value moved forward.||||||0.89|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|All models adjusted for age and duration of diabetes.||The statistical analysis was applied to both groups.||||0.89
90977398|NCT01375764|181839125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-35.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.11|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.08|-27.8||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group (3 evolocumab alone dose groups and the ezetimibe group) and the stratification factors.|Ezetimibe is the reference.|The null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and ezetimibe, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-27.80|-44.08|<0.001
90977399|NCT01375764|181839125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-27.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.97|-19.67||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group (3 evolocumab alone dose groups and the ezetimibe group) and the stratification factors.|Ezetimibe is the reference.|The null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and ezetimibe, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-19.67|-35.97|<0.001
90977400|NCT01375764|181839125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Tretament Difference|-26.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.08|-17.93||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group (3 evolocumab alone dose groups and the ezetimibe group) and the stratification factors.|Ezetimibe is the reference.|The null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and ezetimibe, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-17.93|-34.08|<0.001
90977401|NCT01375764|181839126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-47.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.22|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.73|-40.84||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group (evolocumab + ezetimibe and ezetimibe alone) and the stratification factors.|Ezetimibe is the reference.|The null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab + ezetimibe and ezetimibe alone, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-40.84|-53.73|<0.001
90977402|NCT01375764|181839127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-76.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-94.9|-58.3||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group (3 evolocumab alone dose groups and the ezetimibe group) and the stratification factors.|Ezetimibe is the reference.|||-58.3|-94.9|<0.001
90977403|NCT01375764|181839127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-55.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.0|-37.1||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group (3 evolocumab alone dose groups and the ezetimibe group) and the stratification factors.|Ezetimibe is the reference.|||-37.1|-74.0|<0.001
90977404|NCT01375764|181839127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-52.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.8|-34.5||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group (3 evolocumab alone dose groups and the ezetimibe group) and the stratification factors.|Ezetimibe is the reference.|||-34.5|-70.8|<0.001
90977405|NCT01375764|181839128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-91.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4|<|1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-108.7|-75.0||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group (evolocumab + ezetimibe and ezetimibe alone) and the stratification factors.|Ezetimibe is the reference.|||-75.0|-108.7|<0001
90977406|NCT01375764|181839129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-33.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.93|-26.28||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group (3 evolocumab alone dose groups and the ezetimibe group) and the stratification factors.|Ezetimibe is the reference.|||-26.28|-40.93|<0.001
90977407|NCT01375764|181839129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-26.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.99|-19.32||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group (3 evolocumab alone dose groups and the ezetimibe group) and the stratification factors.|Ezetimibe is the reference.|||-19.32|-33.99|<0.001
90977408|NCT01375764|181839129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-24.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.67|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.13|-17.59||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group (3 evolocumab alone dose groups and the ezetimibe group) and the stratification factors.|Ezetimibe is the reference.|||-17.59|-32.13|<0.001
90977409|NCT01375764|181839130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-45.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.81|-39.18||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group (evolocumab + ezetimibe and ezetimibe alone) and the stratification factors.|Ezetimibe is the reference.|||-39.18|-50.81|<0.001
90977410|NCT01375764|181839131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Teatment Difference|-29.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.52|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.84|-22.92||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group (3 evolocumab alone dose groups and the ezetimibe group) and the stratification factors.|Ezetimibe is the reference.|||-22.92|-36.84|<0.001
90977411|NCT01375764|181839131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-22.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.52|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.1|-15.16||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group (3 evolocumab alone dose groups and the ezetimibe group) and the stratification factors.|Ezetimibe is the reference.|||-15.16|-29.10|<0.001
90977412|NCT01375764|181839131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-21.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.49|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.29|-14.48||Testing based on a signficance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group (3 evolocumab alone dose groups and the ezetimibe group) and the stratification factors.|Ezetimibe is the reference.|||-14.48|-28.29|<0.001
90977413|NCT01375764|181839132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-38.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.79|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.81|-32.64||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group (evolocumab + ezetimibe and ezetimibe alone) and the stratification factors.|Ezetimibe is the reference.|||-32.64|-43.81|<0.001
90977414|NCT01375764|181839133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-30.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.34|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.56|-24.34||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group (3 evolocumab alone dose groups and the ezetimibe group) and the stratification factors.|Ezetimibe is the reference.|||-24.34|-37.56|<0.001
90977415|NCT01375764|181839133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-23.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.34|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.53|-17.29||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group (3 evolocumab alone dose groups and the ezetimibe group) and the stratification factors.|Ezetimibe is the reference.|||-17.29|-30.53|<0.001
90977416|NCT01375764|181839133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-22.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.31|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.92|-15.8||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group (3 evolocumab alone dose groups and the ezetimibe group) and the stratification factors.|Ezetimibe is the reference.|||-15.80|-28.92|<0.001
90977417|NCT01375764|181839134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-37.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.92|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.77|-32.07||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group (evolocumab + ezetimibe and ezetimibe alone) and the stratification factors.|Ezetimibe is the reference.|||-32.07|-43.77|<0.001
90977418|NCT01375764|181839135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-34.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.57|-27.52||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group (3 evolocumab alone dose groups and the ezetimibe group) and the stratification factors.|Ezetimibe is the reference.|||-27.52|-40.57|<0.001
90977419|NCT01375764|181839135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-26.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.35|-20.27||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group (3 evolocumab alone dose groups and the ezetimibe group) and the stratification factors.|Ezetimibe is the reference.|||-20.27|-33.35|<0.001
91050451|NCT04168190|181987010|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMC ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|1.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.75|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 22F. Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio, 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||1.75|1.06|<0.001
90977420|NCT01375764|181839135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-25.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.57|-18.62||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group (3 evolocumab alone dose groups and the ezetimibe group) and the stratification factors.|Ezetimibe is the reference.|||-18.62|-31.57|<0.001
90977421|NCT01375764|181839136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-41.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.87|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.99|-35.5||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group (evolocumab + ezetimibe and ezetimibe alone) and the stratification factors.|Ezetimibe is the reference.|||-35.50|-46.99|<0.001
90977422|NCT01194440|181839193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Bonferonni|Adjusting for multiple comparisons in the analyses, a Bonferonni-corrected p-value of 0.05/5 = 0.01 to represent statistical significance was used.||The primary hypothesis of the study is that administration of zoledronic acid with letrozole would result in a significant decline in the percentage of women experiencing AIMSS compared to letrozole treatment alone (historical control).||||<0.001
90977423|NCT02732951|181839197|OTHER||Adjusted Mean|16.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.45||0.3199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.23|49.13|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|Kenward-Roger approximation was used for denominator degrees of freedom.|Fixed effects of treatment, prior anti-diabetic macular oedema treatment status, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline, baseline by visit interaction; patient as a random effect; unstructured covariance matrix for within patient errors.|Null hypothesis = The CSFT change from baseline at Week 12 is equal in both groups||49.13|-16.23|0.3199
90977424|NCT00391599|181839229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.15
90977425|NCT00391599|181839231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
90977426|NCT00928070|181839259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.24||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% alpha level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with terms for treatment, center, centered baseline, and centered baseline by treatment interaction was used to calculate p-value.||-0.24|-1.05|0.0018
90977427|NCT00928070|181839260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|-0.38||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, center, centered baseline, and centered baseline by treatment interaction was used to calculate p-value.||-0.38|-1.27|0.0003
90977428|NCT00928070|181839261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% alpha level.|Ranked ANCOVA|Testing for percent change from baseline was only carried out for given endpoint if corresponding numeric change result was statistically significant.||Change at Week 4: Ranked ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with ranked baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||||<0.0001
90977429|NCT00928070|181839261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% alpha level.|Ranked ANCOVA|Testing for percent change from baseline was only carried out for given endpoint if corresponding numeric change result was statistically significant.||Change at Week 12: Ranked ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with ranked baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||||0.0001
90977430|NCT00928070|181839263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|-0.4||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% alpha level.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||-0.40|-1.35|0.0003
90977431|NCT00928070|181839263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|-0.39||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% alpha level.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||-0.39|-1.29|0.0003
90977432|NCT00928070|181839264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% alpha level.|Ranked ANCOVA|Testing for percent change from baseline was only carried out for given endpoint if corresponding numeric change result was statistically significant.||Change at Week 4: Ranked ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with ranked baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||||<0.0001
90977433|NCT00928070|181839264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% alpha level.|Ranked ANCOVA|Testing for percent change from baseline was only carried out for given endpoint if corresponding numeric change result was statistically significant.||Change at Week 12: Ranked ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with ranked baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||||<0.0001
90977434|NCT00928070|181839266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|-0.43||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% alpha level.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||-0.43|-1.77|0.0014
90977435|NCT00928070|181839266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.7||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% alpha level.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||-0.70|-2.10|<0.0001
90977436|NCT00928070|181839267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% alpha level.|Ranked ANCOVA|Testing for percent change from baseline was only carried out for given endpoint if corresponding numeric change result was statistically significant.||Change at Week 4: Ranked ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with ranked baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||||0.0002
90977437|NCT00928070|181839267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% alpha level.|Ranked ANCOVA|Testing for percent change from baseline was only carried out for given endpoint if corresponding numeric change result was statistically significant.||Change at Week 12: Ranked ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with ranked baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||||<0.0001
90977438|NCT00928070|181839269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.2511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.1||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% alpha level.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered Baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||0.10|-0.39|0.2511
91038341|NCT00928057|181961338|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"To conclude equivalence for glycemic control, the average absolute percent change in fructosamine and 95% confidence interval had to be within 20%.~80 subjects were required to be in each insulin dose group (40 per PN arm) to provide 90% power for an equivalence with alpha=0.05."||||||0.878||||||The threshold for significance, or alpha, is 0.05.|ANOVA|The ANOVA model has effects for subject, insulin dose group, investigator site and order of pen needle use.||"The effects of pen needle type on glycemic control were tested for statistical significance using ANOVA. The ANOVA model was used to calculate the % \|∆ Fru\|, with 95% confidence intervals."||||0.878
90977439|NCT00928070|181839269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.05||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% alpha level.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered Baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||-0.05|-0.53|0.0189
90977440|NCT00928070|181839270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Ranked ANCOVA|Testing for percent change from baseline was only carried out for given endpoint if corresponding numeric change result was statistically significant.||Change at Week 12: Ranked ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with ranked baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||||0.0010
90977441|NCT00928070|181839272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-4.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.04|-2.3||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% alpha level.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||-2.30|-7.04|0.0001
90977442|NCT00928070|181839272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-4.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.27|-2.66||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% alpha level.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||-2.66|-7.27|<0.0001
90977443|NCT00928070|181839273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.11||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% alpha level.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change at Week 4: =\<3.5 undergarments- Protective undergarment usage was analyzed to compare treatments on separate subsets, based on baseline protective undergarment use (=\<3.5/day and \>3.5/day), using a 2 sample t-test. This method was applied because there was a statistically significant qualitative baseline by treatment interaction.||-0.11|-0.56|0.0035
90977444|NCT00928070|181839273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21||0.7089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.01|2.92||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% alpha level.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change at Week 4: \>3.5 undergarments- Protective undergarment usage was analyzed to compare treatments on separate subsets, based on baseline protective undergarment use (=\<3.5/day and \>3.5/day), using a 2 sample t-test. This method was applied because there was a statistically significant qualitative baseline by treatment interaction.||2.92|-2.01|0.7089
90977445|NCT00928070|181839273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.21||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% alpha level.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change at Week 12: =\<2.5 undergarments- Protective undergarment usage was analyzed to compare treatments on separate subsets, based on baseline protective undergarment use (=\<2.5/day and \>2.5/day), using a 2 sample t-test. This method was applied because there was a statistically significant qualitative baseline by treatment interaction.||-0.21|-0.61|<0.0001
91038342|NCT00928057|181961343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019||||||The threshold for statistical significance, or alpha, is 0.05.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the pain from the 4mm is the same or greater than the pain for the reference. The alternative hypothesis is that the pain from the 4mm is less than the pain for the reference.||||0.019
91038343|NCT00928057|181961343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||As described for the 4 vs. 5mm statistical analysis.||||<0.001
90977446|NCT00928070|181839273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.7437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|1.09||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% alpha level.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change at Week 12: \>2.5 undergarments- Protective undergarment usage was analyzed to compare treatments on separate subsets, based on baseline protective undergarment use (=\<2.5/day and \>2.5/day), using a 2 sample t-test. This method was applied because there was a statistically significant qualitative baseline by treatment interaction.||1.09|-0.78|0.7437
90977447|NCT00928070|181839274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% alpha level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Change at Week 4- deterioration, no change, minor improvement and major improvement: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with modified ridit scoring controlling for center was used to calculate p-value.||||0.0009
90977448|NCT00928070|181839274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% alpha level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Change at Week 12- deterioration, no change, minor improvement and major improvement: CMH test with modified ridit scoring controlling for center was used to calculate p-value.||||0.0021
90977449|NCT00928070|181839276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-9.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.88|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.85|-5.45||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% alpha level.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||-5.45|-12.85|<0.0001
90977450|NCT00928070|181839276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.03||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|-3.61||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% alpha level.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||-3.61|-11.60|0.0002
90977451|NCT00928070|181839278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|8.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.09|12.25||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% alpha level.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: concern domain- ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||12.25|4.09|<0.0001
90977452|NCT00928070|181839278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|6.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.13||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.77|11.15||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% alpha level.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: coping domain- ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||11.15|2.77|0.0012
90977453|NCT00928070|181839278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.01||0.0472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|7.95||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% alpha level.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: sleep domain- ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||7.95|0.05|0.0472
90977454|NCT00928070|181839278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|2.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.53||0.1087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|5.46||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% alpha level.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: social interaction domain- ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||5.46|-0.55|0.1087
90977455|NCT00928070|181839278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|5.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.77||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.31|9.28||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% alpha level.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: total- ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||9.28|2.31|0.0012
90977456|NCT00928070|181839278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|9.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.19|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.75|13.33||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% alpha level.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: concern domain- ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||13.33|4.75|<0.0001
90977457|NCT00928070|181839278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|5.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.22||0.0169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|9.67||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% alpha level.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: coping domain- ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||9.67|0.96|0.0169
90977458|NCT00928070|181839278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|4.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.0546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|8.17||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% alpha level.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: sleep domain- ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||8.17|-0.08|0.0546
90977459|NCT00928070|181839278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|2.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63||0.1497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|5.55||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% alpha level.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: social interaction domain- ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||5.55|-0.85|0.1497
90977460|NCT00928070|181839278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|5.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.88||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.84|9.23||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% alpha level.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: total- ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||9.23|1.84|0.0034
90977461|NCT00928070|181839279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|16.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.96|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.43|22.08||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||ANOVA model with treatment and center as factors was used to calculate p-value.||22.08|10.43|<0.0001
90977462|NCT00928070|181839280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% alpha level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Not satisfied, neither dissatisfied nor satisfied, satisfied: CMH test with modified ridit scoring controlling for center was used.||||<0.0001
91038344|NCT05497557|181961345|OTHER|Drug-drug Interaction Assessment|Ratio of geometric least squares mean|0.677|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.547|0.839||||||Ratios of geometric least squares means, and corresponding confidence intervals were obtained by taking the exponential of the least square means (LSMs), differences in LSMs, and corresponding confidence intervals on the natural log (ln) scale.||0.839|0.547|
91038345|NCT05497557|181961346|OTHER|Drug-drug Interaction Assessment|Ratio of geometric least squares mean|0.771|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.628|0.948||||||Ratios of geometric least squares means, and corresponding confidence intervals were obtained by taking the exponential of the least square means (LSMs), differences in LSMs, and corresponding confidence intervals on the natural log (ln) scale.||0.948|0.628|
90977463|NCT00928070|181839282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.2788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.15||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% alpha level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, center, centered baseline value, and centered baseline by treatment interaction.||0.15|-0.51|0.2788
90977464|NCT00928070|181839283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|4.0||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|8.0||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% alpha level.|Van Elteren's test|||Change at Week 4: Van Elteren's test adjusted by baseline PVR quartile was used to calculate p-value. The median difference was based on Hodges-Lehmann estimate.||8.00|0.00|0.0021
90977465|NCT00928070|181839283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|7.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|11.0||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% alpha level.|Van Elteren's test|||Change at Week 12: Van Elteren's test adjusted by baseline PVR quartile was used to calculate p-value. The median difference was based on Hodges-Lehmann estimate.||11.00|3.00|<0.0001
90977466|NCT00624520|181839310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|891.0||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical Analysis presented for comparison groups Cognitive Behavioral Stress Management vs. Patient Education at 6 months post|ANOVA|||"Initial sample size calculation, based on previous published data of effects sizes of anger stress management on heart rate and blood pressure responses in a veteran population, indicated a study population of 138 patients should detect a reduction in Double Product response to mental stress following psychological intervention, with over 90% power, assuming 20% drop-out rate."||||0.18
90977467|NCT00624520|181839311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.02
90977468|NCT00624520|181839312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.003
90977469|NCT00624520|181839313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0||||0.011|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.011
90977470|NCT00624520|181839314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0||||0.048|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.048
90977471|NCT00624520|181839315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.0||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.01
91038346|NCT05497557|181961347|OTHER|Drug-drug Interaction Assessment|Ratio of geometric least squares mean|0.766|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.619|0.948||||||Ratios of geometric least squares means, and corresponding confidence intervals were obtained by taking the exponential of the least square means (LSMs), differences in LSMs, and corresponding confidence intervals on the natural log (ln) scale.||0.948|0.619|
90977472|NCT00624520|181839316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.0||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.01
91038347|NCT03206749|181961349|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|29.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.61|42.4|||ANCOVA|||||42.40|16.61|<0.0001
90977473|NCT00624520|181839317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.02||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.01
90977474|NCT00624520|181839318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.21
90977475|NCT00624520|181839319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size (Cohen's d)|0.38||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value refers to a repeated measures within-group comparison in the CBSM group using ANCOVA with baseline DP elevation as covariate from baseline to 3 months post.|ANCOVA||Range of Cohen's d for small effect is 0.20 - 0.50|||||0.025
90977476|NCT00624520|181839320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|80.0||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical Analysis presented for comparison groups Cognitive Behavioral Stress Management vs. Patient Education at 6 months post|ANOVA|||"Initial sample size calculation, based on previous published data of effects sizes of anger stress management on heart rate and blood pressure responses in a veteran population, indicated a study population of 138 patients should detect a reduction in Double Product response to mental stress following psychological intervention, with over 90% power, assuming 20% drop-out rate."||||0.81
90977477|NCT01570244|181839326|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing)|Geometric Mean Ratio|140.96|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|133.84|148.47|||ANOVA||the standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|relative bioavailability comparison (Microgynon + Faldaprevir : Microgynon) of Ethinylestradiol||148.47|133.84|
90977478|NCT01570244|181839327|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing)|Odds Ratio (OR)|114.82|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|105.49|124.97|||ANOVA||the standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|relative bioavailability comparison (Microgynon + Faldaprevir : Microgynon) of Ethinylestradiol||124.97|105.49|
90977479|NCT01570244|181839328|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing)|Geometric Mean Ratio|171.37|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|160.2|183.33|||ANOVA||the standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|relative bioavailability comparison (Microgynon + Faldaprevir : Microgynon) of Ethinylestradiol||183.33|160.20|
91038348|NCT03206749|181961350|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|28.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.18|40.88|||ANCOVA|||||40.88|16.18|<0.0001
91038349|NCT03206749|181961351|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|62.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.3|89.27|||ANCOVA|||||89.27|36.30|<0.0001
91038350|NCT03206749|181961352|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.47||||0.0469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|2.16|||Regression, Cox|||||2.16|1.01|0.0469
91038351|NCT03206749|181961353|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.26||||0.3294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.0|||Regression, Cox|||||2.00|0.79|0.3294
90977480|NCT01570244|181839331|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing)|Geometric mean ratio|140.53|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|136.4|144.78|||ANOVA||the standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|relative bioavailability comparison (Microgynon + Faldaprevir : Microgynon) of Levonorgestrel||144.78|136.40|
90977481|NCT01570244|181839332|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing)|Geometric Mean Ratio|115.28|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|110.81|119.92|||ANOVA||the standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|relative bioavailability comparison (Microgynon + Faldaprevir : Microgynon) of Levonorgestrel||119.92|110.81|
90977482|NCT01570244|181839333|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing)|Geometric Mean Ratio|153.85|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|145.99|162.14|||ANOVA||the standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|relative bioavailability comparison (Microgynon + Faldaprevir : Microgynon) of Levonorgestrel||162.14|145.99|
90977483|NCT03486392|181839334|SUPERIORITY||Difference of least square (LS) Means|-6.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.056|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.31|-4.19|||Dunnett's method|||||-4.19|-9.31|< 0.001
90977484|NCT03486392|181839334|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-8.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.921|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.31|-5.84|||Dunnett's method|||||-5.84|-10.31|< 0.001
90977485|NCT03486392|181839334|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-10.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.934|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.31|-7.78|||Dunnett's method|||||-7.78|-12.31|< 0.001
90977486|NCT03486392|181839334|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-5.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.99|-3.57|||Dunnett's method|||||-3.57|-7.99|< 0.001
90977487|NCT02304926|181839341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
90977488|NCT02304926|181839342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
90977489|NCT02304926|181839343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
90977490|NCT02304926|181839344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
90977491|NCT02304926|181839345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
90977492|NCT02304926|181839346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91038352|NCT03206749|181961354|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2341|||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.2341
90977493|NCT02304926|181839347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
90977494|NCT02304926|181839348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
90977495|NCT02304926|181839349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
90977496|NCT02304926|181839350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
90977497|NCT02304926|181839351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
90977498|NCT02304926|181839352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
90977499|NCT02304926|181839353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
90977500|NCT02304926|181839354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
90977501|NCT02304926|181839355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
90977502|NCT02304926|181839356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
90977503|NCT02304926|181839357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
90977504|NCT02304926|181839358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
90977505|NCT02304926|181839359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
90977506|NCT02304926|181839360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
90977507|NCT02076165|181839367|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.12|||||||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of participants who completed all 5 treatment sessions, comparing ABC-I to CBT-I.||||=.120
90977508|NCT02076165|181839368|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.711|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.59|=|0.843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.75|6.32|||Mixed Models Analysis||The average deviation, in minutes, between the recommended and actual bed time. Negative values indicate the number of minutes earlier than the recommended bed time that the participant went to bed, indicating greater non-adherence.|||6.32|-7.75|=.843
90977509|NCT02076165|181839369|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.17|=|0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.91|7.35|||Mixed Models Analysis||The average deviation, in minutes, between the recommended and actual rise time. Positive values indicate the number of minutes later than the recommended rise time that the participant got out of bed, indicating greater non-adherence.|||7.35|-12.91|=0.590
90977510|NCT02076165|181839370|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048|=|0.979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.093|0.096|||Mixed Models Analysis||The proportion of nights participants who did not follow the recommendation to get out of bed if awake more than 20 minutes. Higher numbers indicate greater non-adherence.|||0.096|-0.093|=0.979
90977511|NCT02076165|181839371|NON_INFERIORITY|We elected to use a value of δ equivalent to an effect size of d=0.40. (i.e., 4/10ths SD). For sleep diary estimated sleep efficiency, this represents a difference of 5%.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.409|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.02|=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.92|3.74|||Mixed Models Analysis||The parameter estimate is the improvement in sleep efficiency from baseline to post-treatment for ABCI group versus the same improvement in the CBTI group.|||3.74|-2.92|=0.004
91038353|NCT03206749|181961355|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3358||||||0 - 24 hours|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3358
91038354|NCT03206749|181961355|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0849||||||Greater than (\>) 24 - 48 hours|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0849
91038355|NCT03206749|181961356|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004||||||0 - 24 hours|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.0004
91038356|NCT03206749|181961356|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0035||||||\>24 - 48 hours|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.0035
91038357|NCT04590027|181961364|NON_INFERIORITY|power calculation was not recorded Definition of non inferiority: two point difference of pain score at the measurement times|||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|To rule out confounders due to an age difference, the ANCOVA test was applied to compare the differences in pain scores age-unrelatedly.|||Fisher Yates Test to compare the requirement of resue medication|||<0.05
90977512|NCT02076165|181839372|NON_INFERIORITY|We elected to use a value of δ equivalent to an effect size of d=0.40. (i.e., 4/10ths SD). For sleep diary estimated sleep efficiency, this represents a difference of 5%.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.757|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.12||0.003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.72|4.23|||Mixed Models Analysis||The parameter estimate is the improvement in sleep efficiency from baseline to 3-month follow-up for ABCI group versus the same improvement in the CBTI group.|||4.23|-2.72|.003
90977513|NCT02076165|181839373|NON_INFERIORITY|We elected to use a value of δ equivalent to an effect size of d=0.40. (i.e., 4/10ths SD). For actigraphically-estimated sleep efficiency, this represents a difference of 5%.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.21|2.57|||Mixed Models Analysis||The parameter estimate is the improvement in sleep efficiency from baseline to post-treatment for ABCI group versus the same improvement in the CBTI group.|||2.57|-1.21|<0.001
90977514|NCT02076165|181839374|NON_INFERIORITY|We elected to use a value of δ equivalent to an effect size of d=0.40. (i.e., 4/10ths SD). For actigraphically-estimated sleep efficiency, this represents a difference of 5%.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.37|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.14|3.36|||Mixed Models Analysis||The parameter estimate is the improvement in sleep efficiency from baseline to 3-month follow-up for ABCI group versus the same improvement in the CBTI group.|||3.36|-1.14|<.001
90977515|NCT02076165|181839375|NON_INFERIORITY|We elected to use a value of δ equivalent to an effect size of d=0.40. (i.e., 4/10ths SD). With respect to ISI, this represents a 2 point difference between the treatment effects.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.501|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|=|0.048|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.98|1.98|||Mixed Models Analysis||The parameter estimate is the improvement in the ISI score from baseline to post-treatment for ABCI group versus the same improvement in the CBTI group.|||1.98|-0.98|=0.048
90977516|NCT02076165|181839376|NON_INFERIORITY|We elected to use a value of δ equivalent to an effect size of d=0.40. (i.e., 4/10ths SD). With respect to ISI, this represents a 2 point difference between the treatment effects.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06|=|0.008|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.32|1.17|||Mixed Models Analysis||The parameter estimate is the improvement in the ISI score from baseline to 3-month follow-up for ABCI group versus the same improvement in the CBTI group.|||1.17|-2.32|=0.008
90977517|NCT00820573|181839377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||"A general unstructured variance-covariance matrix (ANOVA) was applied for measurements at different periods. Between-group comparisons after 6 wks of treatment were assessed using the ANOVA model at alpha=0.05 (two-sided).~16 subjects provide \~90% power to detect difference in EGP of 0.28 mg/kg.min (95% CI = 0.17 mg/kg.min)."||||<0.05
90977518|NCT00820573|181839378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||multivariate analysis was performed to compare results amongst all four groups||||<0.05
90977519|NCT00820573|181839379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|||ANOVA||||0.05
90977520|NCT00820573|181839380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.05
90977521|NCT01360645|181839381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.12||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|-1.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||The primary analysis was performed on the Efficacy Sample by fitting a Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis with an unstructured variance covariance structure in which the change from the end of Phase A (Week 8) in MADRS Total Score (at Weeks 9 to 14) was the dependent variable. The model included fixed class effect terms for treatment, trial site, visit week, and an interaction term of treatment by visit week.||-1.54|-4.70|0.0001
90977522|NCT01360645|181839382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.21||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.87|-1.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||||-1.54|-4.87|0.0002
91038358|NCT04590027|181961365|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
90977523|NCT01360645|181839383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45||||0.0372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|-0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||||-0.03|-0.86|0.0372
90977524|NCT01360645|181839384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46||||0.0349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||||-0.03|-0.88|0.0349
90977525|NCT01360645|181839385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.29||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|-0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Week 9||-0.34|-2.25|0.0080
90977526|NCT01360645|181839385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.72||||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.91|-0.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Week 10||-0.54|-2.91|0.0045
91038359|NCT00907907|181961368|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of Variance (PROC MIXED) were performed on the log-transformed AUCt, AUCinf and Cmax parameters.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|93.97||||||90.0|80.25|110.04|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||110.04|80.25|
90977527|NCT01360645|181839385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.63||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.96|-1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Week 11||-1.30|-3.96|0.0001
90977528|NCT01360645|181839385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.59||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.01|-1.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Week 12||-1.18|-4.01|0.0004
90977529|NCT01360645|181839385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.19||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.68|-1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Week 13||-1.70|-4.68|0.0000
90977530|NCT01360645|181839386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.31||||0.0086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28|-0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Week 9||-0.34|-2.28|0.0086
90977531|NCT01360645|181839386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.52||||0.0149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.74|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Week 10||-0.30|-2.74|0.0149
90977532|NCT01360645|181839386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.42||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.78|-1.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Week 11||-1.05|-3.78|0.0006
90977533|NCT01360645|181839386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.52||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-1.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Week 12||-1.04|-4.00|0.0009
90977534|NCT01360645|181839386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.28||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.84|-3.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Week 13||-3.28|-4.84|0.0000
91038360|NCT00907907|181961369|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analyses of Variance (PROC MIXED) were performed on the log-transformed AUCt, AUCinf and Cmax parameters.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|102.01||||||90.0|98.74|105.39|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||105.39|98.74|
91038361|NCT00907907|181961370|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analyses of Variance (PROC MIXED) were performed on the log-transformed AUCt, AUCinf and Cmax parameters.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|99.91||||||90.0|95.99|103.98|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||103.98|95.99|
91038362|NCT03503318|181961405|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.109|0.367||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Log Rank|||Analysis was performed using the stratified Cox proportional hazard model, with treatment (placebo, TV-46000 q1m and TV-46000 q2m or placebo and TV-46000 overall \[including q1m and q2m\]) as explanatory variable and sex-dose as a stratification factor, and the stratified log rank test p-value (sex-dose as a stratification factor) referred to (TV-46000/placebo) comparison.||0.367|0.109|<0.0001
91038363|NCT03503318|181961405|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.375|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.227|0.618||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Log Rank|||Analysis was performed using the stratified Cox proportional hazard model, with treatment (placebo, TV-46000 q1m and TV-46000 q2m or placebo and TV-46000 overall \[including q1m and q2m\]) as explanatory variable and sex-dose as a stratification factor, and the stratified log rank test p-value (sex-dose as a stratification factor) referred to (TV-46000/placebo) comparison.||0.618|0.227|<0.0001
91038364|NCT01125163|181961462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||All infants were analyzed according to their assigned groups.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A non-parametric rank sum analysis was performed as follows so that infants who died before 36 wks and infants who were transfused could be included in an intention-to-treat analysis. Infants were ranked by death (lowest rank) then by number of transfusions (next lowest ranks). For infants who survived and were not transfused, the 36 wks PMA Hct was used as the primary outcome.||||0.59
90977535|NCT01360645|181839387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.08|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value and treatment difference (CI) are derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) row mean score differ test controlling for study center.||Statistical analysis for Week 9||-0.08|-0.38|0.0022
90977536|NCT01360645|181839387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22||||0.0115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.05|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value and treatment difference (CI) are derived from CMH row mean score differ test controlling for study center.||Statistical analysis for Week 10||-0.05|-0.38|0.0115
90977537|NCT01360645|181839387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22||||0.0255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.03|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value and treatment difference (CI) are derived from CMH row mean score differ test controlling for study center.||Statistical analysis for Week 11||-0.03|-0.41|0.0255
90977538|NCT01360645|181839387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.16|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value and treatment difference (CI) are derived from CMH row mean score differ test controlling for study center.||Statistical analysis for Week 12||-0.16|-0.57|0.0005
90977539|NCT01360645|181839387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value and treatment difference (CI) are derived from CMH row mean score differ test controlling for study center.||Statistical analysis for Week 13||-0.20|-0.62|0.0001
91038365|NCT01125163|181961463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A non-parametric rank sum analysis was performed as follows so that infants who died before 36 wks and infants who were transfused could be included in an intention-to-treat analysis. Infants were ranked by death (lowest rank) then by number of transfusions (next lowest ranks). For infants who survived and were not transfused, the 36 wks PMA Hct was used as the primary outcome.||||0.64
91038366|NCT02597049|181961478|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.61|-0.97|<.001
90945661|NCT05186311|181771127|EQUIVALENCE|The estimated regression equation was then used to estimate the bias (with two one-sided 95% confidence intervals, referred to as 95% limits in the text) between the evaluation tube and the comparator tube at all prespecified medical decision levels. The biases and 95% limit were compared to the clinical acceptance limit|||||||||||||||||"No p-value were established. Rather a bias between tube types at pre-determined medical decision points were estimated with 95% intervals. The mean biases and 95% limit were compared to the CAL. For equivalence testing the initial alpha level is set at 10%. This corresponds to obtaining 90% confidence intervals (associated with 95% two 1-sided confidence limits). Since the clinical equivalence includes two comparisons, the actual alpha used for each comparison was set to 5%, using a Bonferroni correction. No other adjustment for multiplicity will be made on any other comparisons.~Note that for the confidence intervals (CI) calculated for the intercept and slope of the regression parameters, no multiplicity adjustments on the a level are performed (alpha = 0.05)."|||
90945662|NCT05186311|181771128|EQUIVALENCE|The estimated regression equation was then used to estimate the bias (with two one-sided 95% confidence intervals, referred to as 95% limits in the text) between the evaluation tube and the comparator tube at all prespecified medical decision levels. The biases and 95% limit were compared to the clinical acceptance limit|||||||||||||||||"No p-value were established. Rather a bias between tube types at pre-determined medical decision points were estimated with 95% intervals. The mean biases and 95% limit were compared to the CAL. For equivalence testing the initial alpha level is set at 10%. This corresponds to obtaining 90% confidence intervals (associated with 95% two 1-sided confidence limits). Since the clinical equivalence includes two comparisons, the actual alpha used for each comparison was set to 5%, using a Bonferroni correction. No other adjustment for multiplicity will be made on any other comparisons.~Note that for the confidence intervals (CI) calculated for the intercept and slope of the regression parameters, no multiplicity adjustments on the a level are performed (alpha = 0.05)."|||
90977540|NCT01360645|181839387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.17|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value and treatment difference (CI) are derived from CMH row mean score differ test controlling for study center.||Statistical analysis for Week 14||-0.17|-0.60|0.0005
90977541|NCT01360645|181839388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value and treatment difference (CI) are derived from CMH row mean score differ test controlling for study center.||Statistical analysis for Week 9||-0.10|-0.40|0.0010
90977542|NCT01360645|181839388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.02|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value and treatment difference (CI) are derived from CMH row mean score differ test controlling for study center.||Statistical analysis for Week 10||-0.02|-0.37|0.0290
90977543|NCT01360645|181839388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.0422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.01|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value and treatment difference (CI) are derived from CMH row mean score differ test controlling for study center.||Statistical analysis for Week 11||-0.01|-0.40|0.0422
90977544|NCT01360645|181839388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.18|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value and treatment difference (CI) are derived from CMH row mean score differ test controlling for study center.||Statistical analysis for Week 12||-0.18|-0.61|0.0003
90977545|NCT01360645|181839388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|-0.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value and treatment difference (CI) are derived from CMH row mean score differ test controlling for study center.||Statistical analysis for Week 13||-0.20|-0.64|0.0002
90977546|NCT01360645|181839388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.19|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value and treatment difference (CI) are derived from CMH row mean score differ test controlling for study center.||Statistical analysis for Week 14||-0.19|-0.65|0.0003
90977547|NCT01360645|181839389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.0229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Week 9||-0.02|-0.25|0.0229
90977548|NCT01360645|181839389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.0459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Week 10||-0.00|-0.28|0.0459
90945663|NCT05186311|181771129|EQUIVALENCE|The estimated regression equation was then used to estimate the bias (with two one-sided 95% confidence intervals, referred to as 95% limits in the text) between the evaluation tube and the comparator tube at all prespecified medical decision levels. The biases and 95% limit were compared to the clinical acceptance limit|||||||||||||||||"No p-value were established. Rather a bias between tube types at pre-determined medical decision points were estimated with 95% intervals. The mean biases and 95% limit were compared to the CAL. For equivalence testing the initial alpha level is set at 10%. This corresponds to obtaining 90% confidence intervals (associated with 95% two 1-sided confidence limits). Since the clinical equivalence includes two comparisons, the actual alpha used for each comparison was set to 5%, using a Bonferroni correction. No other adjustment for multiplicity will be made on any other comparisons.~Note that for the confidence intervals (CI) calculated for the intercept and slope of the regression parameters, no multiplicity adjustments on the a level are performed (alpha = 0.05)."|||
90945664|NCT05186311|181771130|EQUIVALENCE|The estimated regression equation was then used to estimate the bias (with two one-sided 95% confidence intervals, referred to as 95% limits in the text) between the evaluation tube and the comparator tube at all prespecified medical decision levels. The biases and 95% limit were compared to the clinical acceptance limit|||||||||||||||||"No p-value were established. Rather a bias between tube types at pre-determined medical decision points were estimated with 95% intervals. The mean biases and 95% limit were compared to the CAL. For equivalence testing the initial alpha level is set at 10%. This corresponds to obtaining 90% confidence intervals (associated with 95% two 1-sided confidence limits). Since the clinical equivalence includes two comparisons, the actual alpha used for each comparison was set to 5%, using a Bonferroni correction. No other adjustment for multiplicity will be made on any other comparisons.~Note that for the confidence intervals (CI) calculated for the intercept and slope of the regression parameters, no multiplicity adjustments on the a level are performed (alpha = 0.05)."|||
90945665|NCT05186311|181771131|EQUIVALENCE|The estimated regression equation was then used to estimate the bias (with two one-sided 95% confidence intervals, referred to as 95% limits in the text) between the evaluation tube and the comparator tube at all prespecified medical decision levels. The biases and 95% limit were compared to the clinical acceptance limit|||||||||||||||||"No p-value were established. Rather a bias between tube types at pre-determined medical decision points were estimated with 95% intervals. The mean biases and 95% limit were compared to the CAL. For equivalence testing the initial alpha level is set at 10%. This corresponds to obtaining 90% confidence intervals (associated with 95% two 1-sided confidence limits). Since the clinical equivalence includes two comparisons, the actual alpha used for each comparison was set to 5%, using a Bonferroni correction. No other adjustment for multiplicity will be made on any other comparisons.~Note that for the confidence intervals (CI) calculated for the intercept and slope of the regression parameters, no multiplicity adjustments on the a level are performed (alpha = 0.05)."|||
90945666|NCT05186311|181771132|EQUIVALENCE|The estimated regression equation was then used to estimate the bias (with two one-sided 95% confidence intervals, referred to as 95% limits in the text) between the evaluation tube and the comparator tube at all prespecified medical decision levels. The biases and 95% limit were compared to the clinical acceptance limit|||||||||||||||||"No p-value were established. Rather a bias between tube types at pre-determined medical decision points were estimated with 95% intervals. The mean biases and 95% limit were compared to the CAL. For equivalence testing the initial alpha level is set at 10%. This corresponds to obtaining 90% confidence intervals (associated with 95% two 1-sided confidence limits). Since the clinical equivalence includes two comparisons, the actual alpha used for each comparison was set to 5%, using a Bonferroni correction. No other adjustment for multiplicity will be made on any other comparisons.~Note that for the confidence intervals (CI) calculated for the intercept and slope of the regression parameters, no multiplicity adjustments on the a level are performed (alpha = 0.05)."|||
90945667|NCT05186311|181771133|EQUIVALENCE|The estimated regression equation was then used to estimate the bias (with two one-sided 95% confidence intervals, referred to as 95% limits in the text) between the evaluation tube and the comparator tube at all prespecified medical decision levels. The biases and 95% limit were compared to the clinical acceptance limit|||||||||||||||||"No p-value were established. Rather a bias between tube types at pre-determined medical decision points were estimated with 95% intervals. The mean biases and 95% limit were compared to the CAL. For equivalence testing the initial alpha level is set at 10%. This corresponds to obtaining 90% confidence intervals (associated with 95% two 1-sided confidence limits). Since the clinical equivalence includes two comparisons, the actual alpha used for each comparison was set to 5%, using a Bonferroni correction. No other adjustment for multiplicity will be made on any other comparisons.~Note that for the confidence intervals (CI) calculated for the intercept and slope of the regression parameters, no multiplicity adjustments on the a level are performed (alpha = 0.05)."|||
90945668|NCT01607879|181771168|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1497|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.1497
90945669|NCT01607879|181771169|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.17
90945670|NCT01607879|181771170|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.75
90945671|NCT01607879|181771171|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.925|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.925
90945672|NCT01607879|181771172|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.0
90945673|NCT00825305|181771194|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis states that the Zagreb schedule is inferior to the Essen schedule in terms of day 14 antibody titers assuming no difference between the two schedules and the equivalence limit of 1.5 titer levels (log2).|ratio of log2 mean|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.4|||ANOVA||Ratio of log2 mean (Zagreb/Essen) on day 14|||0.4|-0.81|
90977549|NCT01360645|181839389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21||||0.0097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Week 11||-0.05|-0.37|0.0097
90977550|NCT01360645|181839389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Week 12||-0.08|-0.42|0.0038
91038367|NCT02597049|181961478|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.49|-0.84|< .001
90945674|NCT00825305|181771195|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis states that the Zagreb schedule is inferior to the Essen schedule in terms of day 7 antibody titers assuming no difference between the two schedules and the equivalence limit of 1.5 titer levels (log2).|ratio of log2 mean (day7)|-0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.35|||ANOVA||Ratio of log2 means (Zagreb/Essen) on day 7|||0.35|-0.77|
90945675|NCT00825305|181771195|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis states that the Zagreb schedule is inferior to the Essen schedule in terms of day 42 antibody titers assuming no difference between the two schedules and the equivalence limit of 1.5 titer levels (log2).|ratio of log2 mean (day 42)|-0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.58|||ANOVA||Ratio of log2 mean (Zagreb/(Essen) on day 42|||0.58|-0.72|
90945676|NCT00855413|181771232|OTHER|one sided ANOVA.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.23|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.15||0.03|TWO_SIDED|||||The degrees of freedom (df) for the within factor (number of visits - 1) was 2, and the second df is the error df of 17.|ANOVA|||An overall summary score of neurocognitive functioning was created by averaging all tests. Best available demographically corrected normative data were utilized to create z scores and then deficit scores for impairment ratings.Change in neurocognitive functioning was analyzed using a one sided repeated measures ANOVA with neurocognitive performance as the dependent variable (total z score) and time (visit) as the independent variable. Degrees of freedom were 2,17.||||0.03
90945677|NCT00855413|181771234|OTHER|Spearman correlation|spearman correlation|-0.82|||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|||||R = -0.82|Spearman correlation|||Correlation between time (days) to HIV RNA suppression \<200 copies/mL and total z score (mean) was assessed by Spearman correlation|Correlation between time (days) to HIV RNA suppression \<200 copies/mL and total z score (mean) was assessed by Spearman correlation|||<.005
90945678|NCT03617289|181771236|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.771||||||Threshold for statistical significance set at p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.771
90945679|NCT03617289|181771237|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.046||||||Threshold for statistical significance was set at p\<0.05|Chi-squared|||||||<0.046
90945680|NCT03332784|181771270|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value for each treatment group is for the comparison of that treatment group to the placebo treatment group.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
90945681|NCT03332784|181771270|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value for each treatment group is for the comparison of that treatment group to the placebo treatment group.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
90945682|NCT03332784|181771270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001||||||The p-value for each treatment group is for the comparison of that treatment group to the placebo treatment group.|ANOVA|||||||0.0001
90977551|NCT01360645|181839389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Week 13||-0.18|-0.54|0.0001
90977552|NCT01360645|181839389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Week 14.||-0.15|-0.52|0.0004
90977553|NCT01360645|181839390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.0109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|-0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Week 9||-0.04|-0.27|0.0109
90977554|NCT01360645|181839390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11||||0.1286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Week 10||0.03|-0.25|0.1286
90977555|NCT01360645|181839390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16||||0.0521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Week 11||0.00|-0.32|0.0521
90977556|NCT01360645|181839390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.0084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Week 12||-0.06|-0.42|0.0084
90977557|NCT01360645|181839390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Week 13||-0.16|-0.54|0.0003
90945683|NCT00763451|181771292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.089|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.583|-0.232||Stepwise testing procedure applied to control type 1 error: Lixisenatide (2-step titration) was compared with Placebo (combined), if found statistically significant, then Lixisenatide (1-step titration) arm compared with Placebo (combined).|ANCOVA|Threshold for significance at 0,05 level||"To detect a difference of 0.5% (or 0.4%) in absolute change from baseline in HbA1c at Week 24 between 1 lixisenatide arm and placebo (combined), 150 patients per group would provide a power of 91% (or 75%) assuming common standard deviation of 1.3% with 2-sided test at 5% significance level.~Analysis of co-variance (ANCOVA) included treatment arms, randomization strata of screening HbA1c (\<8.0,\>=8.0%) and screening BMI (\<30,\>=30 kg/m\^2), country as fixed effects, baseline HbA1c as covariate."||-0.232|-0.583|<0.0001
90977558|NCT01360645|181839390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Week 14||-0.15|-0.53|0.0006
91038368|NCT02597049|181961479|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.64|-1.00|<.001
91038369|NCT02597049|181961479|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|-0.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.51|-0.86|<.001
90977559|NCT01360645|181839391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.57||||0.0139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.82|-0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Week 9||-0.32|-2.82|0.0139
90977560|NCT01360645|181839391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.53||||0.0436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.01|-0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Week 10||-0.04|-3.01|0.0436
90977561|NCT01360645|181839391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.1903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.75|0.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Week 11||0.55|-2.75|0.1903
90977562|NCT01360645|181839391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.47||||0.0951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.21|0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Week 12||0.26|-3.21|0.0951
90977563|NCT01360645|181839391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.75||||0.0626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.59|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Week 13||0.09|-3.59|0.0626
90977564|NCT01360645|181839391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.96||||0.0435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.87|-0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Week 14||-0.06|-3.87|0.0435
90977565|NCT01360645|181839392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.71||||0.0069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.95|-0.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Week 9||-0.47|-2.95|0.0069
90977566|NCT01360645|181839392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.16||||0.1322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.68|0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Week 10||0.35|-2.68|0.1322
90977567|NCT01360645|181839392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.72||||0.4055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|0.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Week 11||0.98|-2.41|0.4055
90977568|NCT01360645|181839392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.26||||0.1715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.08|0.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Week 12||0.55|-3.08|0.1715
90977569|NCT01360645|181839392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.42||||0.1424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.33|0.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Week 13||0.48|-3.33|0.1424
90977570|NCT01360645|181839392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.54||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.52|0.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Week 14||0.44|-3.52|0.1270
90977571|NCT01360645|181839393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28||||0.3079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||For Item: Work/School: Week 11||0.26|-0.81|0.3079
90977572|NCT01360645|181839393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.4771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||For Item: Work/School: Week 14||0.34|-0.73|0.4771
90977573|NCT01360645|181839393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.0195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|-0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||For Item: Social life: Week 11||-0.08|-0.92|0.0195
90977574|NCT01360645|181839393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.0323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||For Item: Social life: Week 14||-0.04|-0.96|0.0323
90977575|NCT01360645|181839393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.63||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.18|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||For Item: Family life: Week 11||-0.18|-1.07|0.0058
90977576|NCT01360645|181839393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||For Item: Family life: Week 14||-0.13|-1.07|0.0129
90977577|NCT01360645|181839394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.5151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Item: Work/School Week 11||0.36|-0.71|0.5151
90977578|NCT01360645|181839394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Item: Work/School Week 14||0.41|-0.70|0.6080
90977579|NCT01360645|181839394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49||||0.0267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|-0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Item: Social life-Week 11||-0.06|-0.92|0.0267
90977580|NCT01360645|181839394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55||||0.0224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Item: Social life-Week 14||-0.08|-1.01|0.0224
90945684|NCT00763451|181771292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.317||Stepwise testing procedure applied to control type 1 error: Lixisenatide (2-step titration) was compared with Placebo (combined), if found statistically significant, then Lixisenatide (1-step titration) arm compared with Placebo (combined).|ANCOVA|Threshold for significance at 0,05 level||"To detect a difference of 0.5% (or 0.4%) in absolute change from baseline in HbA1c at Week 24 between 1 lixisenatide arm and placebo (combined), 150 patients per group would provide a power of 91% (or 75%) assuming common standard deviation of 1.3% with 2-sided test at 5% significance level.~Analysis of co-variance (ANCOVA) included treatment arms, randomization strata of screening HbA1c (\<8.0,\>=8.0%) and screening BMI (\<30,\>=30 kg/m\^2), country as fixed effects, baseline HbA1c as covariate."||-0.317|-0.670|<0.0001
90945685|NCT02357264|181771304|OTHER|||||||0.162|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.162
90977581|NCT01360645|181839394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56||||0.0146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Item: Family life-Week 11||-0.11|-1.01|0.0146
90977582|NCT01360645|181839394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62||||0.0113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|-0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Item: Family life-Week 14||-0.14|-1.09|0.0113
90977583|NCT01360645|181839395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.34||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.47|-1.22|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA\_Last observation carry forward (LOCF) model with treatment and trial site as main effects, and baseline (end of Phase A \[Week 8\]) value as a covariate was used.||-1.22|-3.47|0.0001
90977584|NCT01360645|181839396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.29||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.47|-1.12|||ANCOVA|||||-1.12|-3.47|0.0002
90977585|NCT01360645|181839397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.17||||0.0219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.17|-0.17|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA\_LOCF model with treatment and trial site as main effects, and baseline (end of Phase A \[Week 8\]) value as a covariate was used.||-0.17|-2.17|0.0219
90977586|NCT01360645|181839398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.09||||0.0376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|-0.06|||ANCOVA|||||-0.06|-2.13|0.0376
90977587|NCT01360645|181839399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.63||||0.0176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|2.44|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CHM general association test controlling for trial site.||||2.44|1.09|0.0176
90977588|NCT01360645|181839400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.54||||0.0429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|2.35|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CHM general association test controlling for trial site.||||2.35|1.01|0.0429
90977589|NCT01360645|181839401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Remission Rate|1.68||||0.0586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|2.86|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CHM general association test controlling for trial site.||||2.86|0.98|0.0586
90977590|NCT01360645|181839402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Remission Rate|1.67||||0.0671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|2.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CHM general association test controlling for trial site.||||2.90|0.97|0.0671
90977591|NCT01360645|181839403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.61||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|2.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CHM general association test controlling for trial site.||||2.10|1.23|0.0003
90977592|NCT01360645|181839404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.69||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|2.27|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CHM general association test controlling for trial site.||||2.27|1.27|0.0002
90977593|NCT00348140|181839445|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.8|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|||1.8|-1.2|0.739
90977594|NCT00348140|181839445|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8||||0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|2.4|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|||2.4|-0.8|0.343
90977595|NCT00348140|181839446|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.9|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|||0.9|-1.1|0.783
90977596|NCT00348140|181839446|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.1|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|||1.1|-1.1|0.940
90977597|NCT00348140|181839447|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|||=|0.763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.8|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|||0.8|-1.1|=0.763
90977598|NCT00348140|181839447|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|||=|0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.9|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|||0.9|-1.1|=0.800
91038370|NCT02597049|181961480|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Treatment-regimen Estimand||||< .001
90977599|NCT00348140|181839448|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.4|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|||0.4|-0.7|0.611
90977600|NCT00348140|181839448|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.4|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|||0.4|-0.6|0.741
90977601|NCT00348140|181839449|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.3|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|||0.3|-0.4|0.913
90977602|NCT00348140|181839449|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.2|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|||0.2|-0.5|0.481
90977603|NCT00348140|181839450|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|||0.2|-0.4|0.557
90977604|NCT00348140|181839450|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.2|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|||0.2|-0.5|0.404
90977605|NCT00348140|181839451|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.8|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|For Week 8||0.8|-0.5|0.633
90977606|NCT00348140|181839451|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.8|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|For Week 8||0.8|-0.4|0.575
90977607|NCT00348140|181839451|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.7|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|For Week 16||0.7|-0.6|0.820
90977608|NCT00348140|181839451|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.6|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|For Week 16||0.6|-0.7|0.908
90977609|NCT00348140|181839451|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4||||0.292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.1|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|For Week 24||1.1|-0.3|0.292
90977610|NCT00348140|181839451|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.7|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|For Week 24||0.7|-0.7|0.978
90977611|NCT00348140|181839451|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.0|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|For Week 36||1.0|-0.6|0.691
90977612|NCT00348140|181839451|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.8|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|For Week 36||0.8|-0.9|0.849
90977613|NCT00348140|181839452|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|For Week 12||0.2|-0.2|0.938
90977614|NCT00348140|181839452|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|For Week 12||0.2|-0.2|0.887
91038371|NCT02597049|181961480|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Treatment-regimen Estimand||||< .001
91038372|NCT02597049|181961480|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Efficacy Estimand||||< .001
91038373|NCT02597049|181961480|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Efficacy Estimand||||< .001
90945686|NCT01999777|181771326|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1972|||||||Wald asymptotic|P-value based on a standard Wald asymptotic test for equality without a continuity correction.||Assumptions included that the proportion of seizures occurring within 6 hours after placebo administration was \~65% and a relative reduction of 50% would result in a reduction of ≥ 32.5 percentage points. Based on a 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the differences in proportions, a sample size of 62 analyzable subjects was chosen to detect a 0.35 difference between group. Sample size estimations were based on nQuery Version 7.0 using the table for CIs for differences in 2 proportions.||||0.1972
90945687|NCT01999777|181771327|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1388|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.1388
90945688|NCT00569127|181771329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.18||Central-review based progression-free survival was analyzed using the stratified log rank test (which is the score test from the stratified Cox-model) using stratification factors as defined in Section 6.0.|Regression, Cox||The reported hazard ratio estimate is for the comparison of the Octreotide, Bevacizumab arm to the Octreotide, Interferon Alpha-2b arm.|According to the intent-to-treat principle, all eligible patients were included in the analysis according to the randomized treatment assignment, regardless of actual treatments received.||1.18|0.73|0.55
90945689|NCT03735121|181771340|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis that atezolizumab SC is inferior to atezolizumab IV is rejected if the lower bound of the 2-sided 90% confidence interval \[CI\] of the geometric mean ratio is greater than or equal to (≥) the non-inferiority margin 0.8.|Geometric mean ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.24||||||||1.24|0.88|
90945690|NCT03735121|181771341|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis that atezolizumab SC is inferior to atezolizumab IV is rejected if the lower bound of the 2-sided 90% CI of the geometric mean ratio is ≥ the non-inferiority margin 0.8.|Geometric mean ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|0.92||||||||0.92|0.83|
90945691|NCT03735121|181771351|SUPERIORITY||Difference in ORR|0.54||||0.8757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.56|7.63|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||7.63|-6.56|0.8757
90945692|NCT03735121|181771352|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.6906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.33|||Log Rank|||||1.33|0.83|0.6906
90945693|NCT03735121|181771353|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.9766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.27|||Log Rank|||||1.27|0.78|0.9766
90945694|NCT03735121|181771354|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.8375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|2.42|||Log Rank|||||2.42|0.34|0.8375
90945695|NCT02176863|181771368|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0469||||||The overall adjusted p-value for the selected dose of Flebogamma® 5% DIF vs placebo was calculated from the p-values of both Stage 1 and Stage 2 by Posch \& Bauer for testing the equality of means between the selected dose and placebo.|Posch and Bauer Method|||||||0.0469
90945696|NCT02176863|181771369|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.65||0.8897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|6.7||MMRM include change from baseline in VAS as dependent variable;treatment,protocol-specified visit,treatment-by-visit interaction,main part affected(fixed effect);baseline as covariate \& measures within-participants at each visit(repeated measure).|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures|||||6.7|-7.7|0.8897
90945697|NCT02176863|181771370|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.41||0.1615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|4.8||MMRM include change from baseline in SF-36PCS as dependent variable;treatment protocol-specified visit,treatment-by-visit interaction,main part affected(fixed effect);baseline measure as covariate \& within-participant at each visit(repeated measure).|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures|||||4.8|-0.8|0.1615
90945698|NCT02176863|181771371|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|15.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.112||0.1205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.19|35.79||MMRM include change from baseline in 6MWD as dependent variable;treatment,protocol-specified visit,treatment-by-visit interaction,main part affected(fixed effect);baseline as covariate \& measures within-participants at each visit(repeated measure).|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures|||||35.79|-4.19|0.1205
90945699|NCT02037256|181771373|OTHER||percentage|0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.5||||||Median time to engraftment||0.50|0.07|
90945700|NCT01527162|181771374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||< 0.05
90945701|NCT01527162|181771375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.14|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||= 0.14
90945702|NCT01527162|181771376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.54|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Paired Wilcoxon Sign Rank TEst||||>.54
90945703|NCT01527162|181771376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||= 0.20
91038374|NCT02597049|181961481|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment-regimen Estimand||-0.1|-1.8|0.027
91038375|NCT02597049|181961481|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment-regimen Estimand||0.4|-1.3|0.264
91038376|NCT02597049|181961481|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Efficacy Estimand||0.0|-1.7|0.059
91038377|NCT02597049|181961481|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Efficacy Estimand||0.5|-1.2|0.435
91038378|NCT02597049|181961482|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.8|-18.6|||ANCOVA|||Treatment-regimen Estimand||-18.6|-30.8|< .001
91038379|NCT02597049|181961482|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.7|-13.5||Test was not controlled for type I error.|ANCOVA|||Treatment-regimen Estimand||-13.5|-25.7|<0.001
90945704|NCT00356811|181771377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|50.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.3|64.4|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with a confirmed CR or PR.|||64.4|37.3|
90945705|NCT01310699|181771388|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.21
90945706|NCT01310699|181771389|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.18
90945707|NCT03670277|181771484|OTHER|Statistically significance of difference. Statistical difference will be concluded if the lower limit was greater than 0 or the upper limit was less than 0.|Least Square Mean Difference|-0.013|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.081|0.056|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|This was a pilot study for assessing the investigational test articles. As such, the sample size was not determined based on any power analysis with regard to the primary endpoint.||0.056|-0.081|
90945708|NCT03670277|181771485|OTHER|Statistically significance of difference. Statistical difference will be concluded if the lower limit was greater than 0 or the upper limit was less than 0.|Least Square Mean Difference|0.031|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.037|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|This was a pilot study for assessing the investigational test articles. As such, the sample size was not determined based on any power analysis with regard to the primary endpoint.||0.100|-0.037|
90945709|NCT03670277|181771486|OTHER|Statistically significance of difference. Statistical difference would be concluded if the lower limit was greater than 0 or the upper limit was less than 0.|Least Square Mean Difference|3.403|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.431|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.557|4.248|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|At -30°||4.248|2.557|
90945710|NCT03670277|181771486|OTHER|Statistically significance of difference. Statistical difference would be concluded if the lower limit was greater than 0 or the upper limit was less than 0.|Least Square Mean Difference|2.431|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.431|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.585|3.277|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|At +30°||3.277|1.585|
90945711|NCT03670277|181771487|OTHER|Statistically significance of difference. Statistical difference would be concluded if the lower limit was greater than 0 or the upper limit was less than 0.|Least Square Mean Difference|3.039|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.603|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.854|4.225|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean Difference was calculated as Test - Control|At -30°||4.225|1.854|
91038380|NCT02597049|181961482|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.7|-20.6||Test was not controlled for type I error.|ANCOVA|||Efficacy Estimand||-20.6|-32.7|<0.001
91038381|NCT02597049|181961482|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.7|-14.6||Test was not controlled for type I error.|ANCOVA|||Efficacy Estimand||-14.6|-26.7|<0.001
91038382|NCT02597049|181961483|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.7|-13.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pre-morning meal.||-13.8|-25.7|< .001
91038383|NCT02597049|181961483|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.2|-9.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pre-morning meal||-9.2|-21.2|< .001
91038384|NCT02597049|181961483|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.8|-15.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2-hour postprandial||-15.3|-33.8|< .001
91038385|NCT02597049|181961483|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.3|-11.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2-hour postprandial||-11.8|-30.3|< .001
91038386|NCT02597049|181961483|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.4|-10.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pre-midday meal||-10.2|-26.4|< .001
91038387|NCT02597049|181961483|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.5|-6.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pre-midday meal||-6.2|-22.5|< .001
91038388|NCT02597049|181961483|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.8|-9.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2-hour postprandial after midday meal||-9.3|-28.8|< .001
91038389|NCT02597049|181961483|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.8||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.5|-3.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2-hour postprandial after midday meal||-3.1|-22.5|0.010
91038390|NCT02597049|181961483|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.7|-14.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pre-evening meal||-14.7|-30.7|< .001
91038391|NCT02597049|181961483|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.7|-14.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pre-evening meal||-14.4|-30.7|< .001
91038392|NCT02597049|181961483|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.4|-12.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2-hour postprandial after evening meal||-12.9|-31.4|< .001
91038393|NCT02597049|181961483|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.0|-7.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2-hour postprandial after evening meal||-7.4|-26.0|< .001
91038394|NCT02597049|181961484|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||Treatment-regimen Estimand||-0.1|-2.3|0.032
91038395|NCT02597049|181961484|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Treatment-regimen Estimand||0.5|-1.7|0.273
91038396|NCT02597049|181961484|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||Efficacy Estimand||-0.2|-2.4|0.023
91038397|NCT02597049|181961484|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Efficacy Estimand||0.6|-1.7|0.320
91038398|NCT02463487|181961489|OTHER|||||||0.87|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.87
91038399|NCT02463487|181961491|OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.08
90945712|NCT03670277|181771487|OTHER|Statistically significance of difference. Statistical difference would be concluded if the lower limit was greater than 0 or the upper limit was less than 0.|Least Square Mean Difference|1.414|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.603|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.228|2.599|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean Difference was calculated as Test - Control|At +30°||2.599|0.228|
90945713|NCT02660112|181771488|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.336|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.336
90945714|NCT02358668|181771495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.46||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.28|11.2||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||11.20|-6.28|0.57
91038400|NCT01120028|181961494|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.64|||Log Rank|||||0.64|0.28|<0.0001
90945715|NCT02358668|181771495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.57||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|7.11||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||7.11|-10.3|0.72
90945716|NCT02358668|181771496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.25||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|1.42||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||1.42|-0.91|0.66
91038401|NCT01120028|181961495|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.5
91038402|NCT01120028|181961496|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.23||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.55|||Regression, Cox|||||2.55|0.59|0.58
91038403|NCT01120028|181961497|OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.99||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|6.18|||Log Rank|||||6.18|0.64|0.23
91038404|NCT01120028|181961498|OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.02||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.29|||Regression, Cox|||||1.29|0.80|0.88
91038405|NCT01120028|181961499|OTHER||Rate ratio|1.51||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|2.06|||Log Rank|||||2.06|1.11|0.008
91038406|NCT01120028|181961500|OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.97|||Log Rank|||||1.97|0.51|0.99
91038407|NCT01120028|181961501|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.76||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.73|||Log Rank|||||1.73|0.34|0.52
91038408|NCT01248728|181961517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.5
91038409|NCT01248728|181961518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.02|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.02
91038410|NCT01248728|181961520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.09|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.09
91038411|NCT01248728|181961521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.6
91038412|NCT01838681|181961552|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.2641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.15|||Regression, Logistic|Model included MADRS total score at the randomisation visit, treatment group, country, and the randomisation criteria used||||1.15|0.60|0.2641
91038413|NCT00902538|181961574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1187||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1187
91038414|NCT00902538|181961574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91038415|NCT00902538|181961575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0425||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0425
91038416|NCT00902538|181961575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91038417|NCT00902538|181961576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1939||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1939
91038418|NCT00902538|181961576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91038419|NCT00902538|181961577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0009||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0009
91038420|NCT00902538|181961577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91038421|NCT00902538|181961578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0001
91038422|NCT00902538|181961578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91038423|NCT00902538|181961579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1611||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1611
91038424|NCT00902538|181961580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0451||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0451
91038425|NCT00902538|181961581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0412||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0412
91038426|NCT00902538|181961582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0253||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0253
91038427|NCT00902538|181961583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0063||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0063
91038428|NCT00926887|181961590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
91038429|NCT00926887|181961593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t=-2.711; df=102; p\<0.01||||||<0.01
91038430|NCT00926887|181961597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|df=102, t=-3.44||||||<0.001
91038431|NCT03215706|181961598|SUPERIORITY|Treatment A over Treatment B|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.86|||Log-rank test stratified|||||0.86|0.56|0.0006
90977615|NCT00348140|181839452|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|For Week 24||0.2|-0.4|0.465
90977616|NCT00348140|181839452|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.3|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|For Week 24||0.3|-0.2|0.596
90977617|NCT00348140|181839452|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|For Week 36||0.2|-0.4|0.452
90977618|NCT00348140|181839452|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|For Week 36||0.2|-0.4|0.429
90977619|NCT00348140|181839453|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.3|||ANCOVA|||||0.3|-0.8|0.386
91038432|NCT03215706|181961599|SUPERIORITY|Treatment A over Treatment B|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.82|||Log-rank test stratified|||||0.82|0.59|
91038433|NCT03215706|181961600|SUPERIORITY|Treatment A over Treatment B|Odds Ratio (OR)|12.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|19.4|||Mantel Haenszel|||||19.4|6.0|
91038434|NCT03215706|181961606|SUPERIORITY|Treatment A over Treatment B|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.87|||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|||||0.87|0.63|
91038435|NCT02433977|181961610|OTHER||||||<=|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<=0.05
90977620|NCT00348140|181839453|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.6|||ANCOVA|||||0.6|-0.6|0.999
90977621|NCT00348140|181839454|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.1||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|2.5|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|For Week 8||2.5|-0.2|0.090
90977622|NCT00348140|181839454|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.3|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|For Week 8||1.3|-1.3|0.957
90977623|NCT00348140|181839454|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.7||||0.395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|2.2|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|For Week 16||2.2|-0.9|0.395
90977624|NCT00348140|181839454|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9||||0.275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.7|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|For Week 16||0.7|-2.5|0.275
91038436|NCT02433977|181961611|OTHER||||||<=|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<=0.05
91038437|NCT02433977|181961612|OTHER||||||<=|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<=0.05
91038438|NCT02433977|181961613|OTHER||||||<=|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<=0.05
91038439|NCT02433977|181961615|OTHER||||||<=|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<=0.05
91038440|NCT02433977|181961617|OTHER||||||<=|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<=0.05
91038441|NCT02433977|181961618|OTHER||||||<=|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<=0.05
91038442|NCT02433977|181961619|OTHER||||||<=|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<=0.05
91038443|NCT03247686|181961631|SUPERIORITY|||||||4.96e-05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Module M1.2 Placebo versus RSLV-132 All||||0.0000496
91038444|NCT03247686|181961631|SUPERIORITY|||||||1.03e-05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Module M3.4 Placebo versus RSLV-132 All||||0.0000103
91038445|NCT03247686|181961631|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004398|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Module M5.12 Placebo versus RSLV-132 All||||0.0004398
91038446|NCT03247686|181961631|SUPERIORITY|||||||6.8e-06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Module 1.2 Placebo versus RSLV-132 Responders||||0.0000068
91038447|NCT03247686|181961631|SUPERIORITY|||||||2e-07|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Module M3.4 Placebo versus RSLV-132 Responders||||0.0000002
91038448|NCT03247686|181961631|SUPERIORITY|||||||9.26e-05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Module 5.12 Placebo versus RSLV-132 Responders||||0.0000926
91038449|NCT03247686|181961631|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001545|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Module M1.2 Placebo versus RSLV-132 Non-responders||||0.0015450
91038450|NCT03247686|181961631|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004632|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Module M3.4 Placebo versus RSLV-132 Non-responders||||0.0004632
91038451|NCT03247686|181961631|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009696|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Module M5.12||||0.0096960
91038452|NCT03247686|181961632|EQUIVALENCE|Two sample t-test with Satterthwaite approximation|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.34|1.34|||t-test, 2 sided|||Mean difference in change from baseline (95% CI)||1.34|-6.34|0.180
90977625|NCT00348140|181839454|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.7||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|3.4|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|For Week 24||3.4|0.1|0.039
90977626|NCT00348140|181839454|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.6|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|For Week 24||1.6|-1.8|0.895
90977627|NCT00348140|181839454|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.3|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|For Week 48||2.3|-2.1|0.914
90977628|NCT00348140|181839454|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|1.3|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|For Week 48||1.3|-3.2|0.430
90977629|NCT00348140|181839455|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.6|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||For Week 8||0.6|-1.1|0.583
90977630|NCT00348140|181839455|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.6|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||For Week 8||0.6|-1.1|0.631
90977631|NCT00348140|181839455|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.1|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||For Week 16||1.1|-0.8|0.812
90977632|NCT00348140|181839455|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.0|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||For Week 16||1.0|-0.9|0.952
90977633|NCT00348140|181839455|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9||||0.117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.2|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||For Week 24||0.2|-2.1|0.117
90977634|NCT00348140|181839455|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.1|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|For Week 24||0.1|-2.1|0.074
90977635|NCT00348140|181839455|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.3|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|For Week 48||0.3|-2.4|0.141
90977636|NCT00348140|181839455|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.7|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|For Week 48||0.7|-2.1|0.331
90977637|NCT00348140|181839456|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.1||||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|11.2|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|Q1 Week 12||11.2|-2.9|0.251
91038453|NCT02302716|181961633|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The primary treatment comparison was to compare LY2963016 versus Lantus at the non-inferiority margin of +0.4%. If the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval on the change from baseline to 24-week HbA1c level for LY2963016 versus Lantus was below +0.4%, then LY2963016 would be declared non-inferior to Lantus.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.15|-0.22|0.693
90977638|NCT00348140|181839456|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.9||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|13.2|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|Q1 Week 12||13.2|-1.4|0.113
90977639|NCT00348140|181839456|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.6||||0.723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|10.2|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|Q1 Week 24||10.2|-7.1|0.723
90977640|NCT00348140|181839456|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.5||||0.482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|13.2|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|Q1 Week 24||13.2|-6.3|0.482
91038454|NCT01127087|181961644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Urinary oxalate before and at the end of 4 weeks on Oxazyme in the RYGB Calcium oxalate (CaOx) Stone Formers arm.||||0.027
90945717|NCT02358668|181771496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|1.18||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||1.18|-1.03|0.90
90977641|NCT00348140|181839456|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.5||||0.785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|12.6|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|Q1 Week 36||12.6|-9.5|0.785
90977642|NCT00348140|181839456|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.2||||0.711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|13.8|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|Q1 Week 36||13.8|-9.4|0.711
90945718|NCT02358668|181771497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.59||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||0.59|-0.50|0.86
90945719|NCT02358668|181771497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.38||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||0.38|-0.66|0.59
90977643|NCT00348140|181839456|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.0||||0.484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|15.2|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|Q1 Week 48||15.2|-7.2|0.484
90977644|NCT00348140|181839456|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.4||||0.572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|15.4|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|Q1 Week 48||15.4|-8.5|0.572
90977645|NCT00348140|181839456|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.8||||0.197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|17.3|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|Q2 Week 12||17.3|-3.6|0.197
90977646|NCT00348140|181839456|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|7.4||||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|18.4|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|Q2 Week 12||18.4|-3.5|0.183
90977647|NCT00348140|181839456|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|10.0||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|22.6|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|Q2 Week 24||22.6|-2.6|0.121
90977648|NCT00348140|181839456|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.8||||0.291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|19.3|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|Q2 Week 24||19.3|-5.8|0.291
90977649|NCT00348140|181839456|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|7.0||||0.389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|22.9|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|Q2 Week 36||22.9|-8.9|0.389
90977650|NCT00348140|181839456|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2||||0.865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|12.6|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|Q2 Week 36||12.6|-15.0|0.865
90977651|NCT00348140|181839456|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.2||||0.596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|19.6|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|Q2 Week 48||19.6|-11.3|0.596
90977652|NCT00348140|181839456|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|14.2|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|Q2 Week 48||14.2|-14.7|0.975
90945720|NCT02358668|181771498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.15||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.73||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||0.73|-0.44|0.62
90945721|NCT02358668|181771498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.55||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||0.55|-0.52|0.97
90945722|NCT02358668|181771499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.15||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.51||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||0.51|-0.20|0.40
90945723|NCT02358668|181771499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.11||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.44||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||0.44|-0.21|0.49
90945724|NCT02358668|181771500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.84||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.88|1.21||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||1.21|-2.88|0.41
90945725|NCT02358668|181771500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.34||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.18|0.51||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||0.51|-3.18|0.15
90945726|NCT02358668|181771501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.18||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||0.18|-0.29|0.64
90945727|NCT02358668|181771501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.12||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||0.12|-0.30|0.41
90945728|NCT02358668|181771502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.19||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.43|2.05||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||2.05|-4.43|0.46
90945729|NCT02358668|181771502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.75||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.72|1.21||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||1.21|-4.72|0.24
90977653|NCT00348140|181839457|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.4||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|-0.1|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|Thermometer score Week 12||-0.1|-4.7|0.043
90945730|NCT02358668|181771503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.1||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||0.10|-0.13|0.83
90945731|NCT02358668|181771503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.08||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||0.08|-0.16|0.48
90945732|NCT02358668|181771504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.14||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.17|11.45||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||11.45|-9.17|0.83
90945733|NCT02358668|181771504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.92||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|9.27||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||9.27|-11.1|0.86
90945734|NCT02358668|181771505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.6||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-99.6|72.3||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||72.3|-99.6|0.75
90945735|NCT02358668|181771505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|40.0||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.9|123.9||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||123.9|-43.9|0.34
90945736|NCT02358668|181771506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-980.0||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2604.0|643.8||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||643.8|-2604|0.23
90945737|NCT02358668|181771506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|323.9||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1269.0|1916.6||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||1916.6|-1269|0.68
90977654|NCT00348140|181839457|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.2||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|0.1|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|Thermometer score Week 12||0.1|-4.5|0.056
90977655|NCT00348140|181839457|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|2.1|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|Thermometer score Week 36||2.1|-2.8|0.758
90977656|NCT00348140|181839457|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.0||||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|0.5|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|Thermometer score Week 36||0.5|-4.5|0.109
90977657|NCT00348140|181839457|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.6||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|0.0|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|Thermometer score Week 48||-0.0|-5.2|0.050
90977658|NCT00348140|181839457|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.4||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|-0.9|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|Thermometer score Week 48||-0.9|-6.0|0.009
90977659|NCT00348140|181839458|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.03|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|Ultility score Week 12||0.03|-0.02|0.662
90977660|NCT00348140|181839458|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.02|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|Ultility score Week 12||0.02|-0.03|0.503
90977661|NCT00348140|181839458|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.03|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|Utility score Week 36||0.03|-0.03|0.892
90977662|NCT00348140|181839458|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.0|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|Utility score Week 36||0.00|-0.05|0.083
90977663|NCT00348140|181839458|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.02|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|Utility score Week 48||0.02|-0.05|0.366
90977664|NCT00348140|181839458|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.02|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|Utility score Week 48||0.02|-0.03|0.769
90977665|NCT00348140|181839459|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.3|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|Week 12||0.3|-0.7|0.529
90977666|NCT00348140|181839459|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.4|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|Week 12||0.4|-0.7|0.620
90977667|NCT00348140|181839459|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.3|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|Week 36||0.3|-1.0|0.284
90977668|NCT00348140|181839459|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.9|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|Week 36||0.9|-0.4|0.488
90977669|NCT00348140|181839459|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.0|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|Week 48||1.0|-0.5|0.549
90977670|NCT00348140|181839459|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.9|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|For Week 48||0.9|-0.6|0.780
90977671|NCT00348140|181839460|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-1.3|0.106
91038455|NCT01127087|181961644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Urinary oxalate before and at the end of 4 weeks on Oxazyme in the Idiopathic Hyperoxaluria CaOx Stone Formers arm.||||0.14
91038456|NCT01127087|181961645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Oxalate before and at the end of 4 weeks on Oxazyme in the RYGB CaOx Stone Formers arm.||||0.018
91038457|NCT01127087|181961645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Oxalate before and at the end of 4 weeks on Oxazyme in the Idiopathic Hyperoxaluria CaOx Stone Formers arm.||||0.06
91038458|NCT00521586|181961650|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.1 or -10%|percent difference|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|7.4||||||A/H1N1 strain: Exact 2-sided, 95 percent (%) confidence intervals was computed based on the methodology by Chan and Zhang||7.4|-1.8|
90977672|NCT00348140|181839460|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.3|||ANCOVA|||||0.3|-1.2|0.229
90977673|NCT00348140|181839461|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.3|0.324
90977674|NCT00348140|181839461|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2|||ANCOVA|||||0.2|-0.2|0.987
90977675|NCT00348140|181839462|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.10|0.00|0.038
90977676|NCT00348140|181839462|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.18|||ANCOVA|||||0.18|0.08|<0.001
90977677|NCT00348140|181839475|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.3|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|For Week 8||0.3|-0.4|0.748
90977678|NCT00348140|181839475|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.5|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|For Week 8||0.5|-0.3|0.617
90977679|NCT00348140|181839475|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.3|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|Week 16||0.3|-0.5|0.708
90977680|NCT00348140|181839475|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.2|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|Week 16||0.2|-0.5|0.400
90977681|NCT00348140|181839475|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|For Week 24||0.4|-0.4|0.928
90977682|NCT00348140|181839475|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.7|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|For Week 24||0.7|-0.1|0.178
90977683|NCT00348140|181839475|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.5|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|For Week 36||0.5|-0.3|0.626
90977684|NCT00348140|181839475|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.5|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|For Week 36||0.5|-0.3|0.608
90977685|NCT00348140|181839475|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.4|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|For Week 48||0.4|-0.5|0.865
91038459|NCT00521586|181961650|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.1 or -10%|percent difference|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|7.2||||||A/H3N2 strain: Exact 2-sided, 95 % confidence intervals was computed based on the methodology by Chan and Zhang.||7.2|-3.9|
91038460|NCT00521586|181961650|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.1 or -10%|percent difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|6.2||||||B strain: Exact 2-sided, 95 % confidence intervals was computed based on the methodology by Chan and Zhang.||6.2|-5.6|
91038461|NCT00521586|181961651|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was to be concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric mean ratio|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.95||||||Serotype 1: 2-sided 95 % CI for the ratio of 2 geometric means (13vPnC+TIV/Placebo and Placebo+TIV/13vPnC) was constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the difference of the 2 logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.||0.95|0.58|
90945738|NCT02358668|181771507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|15.0||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-99.6|129.6||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||129.6|-99.6|0.79
90977686|NCT00348140|181839475|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.8|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|For Week 48||0.8|-0.1|0.149
90977687|NCT00868790|181839476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean (LSM) Difference|-17.2||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-28.3|-6.1|||LDA Model|Between-group difference (MK-3577-placebo) of LSM changes from BL to a given time point and 90% confidence intervals were estimated from LDA model.||Analysis based on an LDA model including terms for treatment, period, the interaction of treatment by period, prior antihyperglycemic therapy status (yes/no), and randomization stratum (participation in domiciled visits \[yes/no\]). The LDA-model test was conducted at alpha level=0.10 (two sided).||-6.1|-28.3|0.013
90977688|NCT00868790|181839476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|-23.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-34.5|-12.4|||LDA Model|Between-group difference (MK-3577-placebo) of LSM changes from BL to a given time point and 90% confidence intervals were estimated from LDA model.||Analysis based on an LDA model including terms for treatment, period, the interaction of treatment by period, prior antihyperglycemic therapy status (yes/no), and randomization stratum (participation in domiciled visits \[yes/no\]). The LDA-model test was conducted at alpha level=0.10 (two sided).||-12.4|-34.5|<0.001
90977689|NCT00868790|181839476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|-34.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.8|-25.0|||LDA Model|Between-group difference (metformin-placebo) of LSM changes from BL to a given time point and 90% confidence intervals were estimated from LDA model.||Analysis based on an LDA model including terms for treatment, period, the interaction of treatment by period, prior antihyperglycemic therapy status (yes/no), and randomization stratum (participation in domiciled visits \[yes/no\]). The LDA-model test was conducted at alpha level=0.10 (two sided).||-25.0|-44.8|<0.001
90977690|NCT00868790|181839477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|-11.5||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.5|-5.4|||LDA Model|Between-group difference (MK-3577-placebo) of LSM changes from BL to a given time point and 90% confidence intervals were estimated from LDA model.||Analysis based on an LDA model including terms for treatment, period, the interaction of treatment by period, prior antihyperglycemic therapy status (yes/no), and randomization stratum (participation in domiciled visits \[yes/no\]). The LDA-model test was conducted at alpha level=0.10 (two sided).||-5.4|-17.5|0.002
90945739|NCT02358668|181771507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|60.1||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.5|172.6||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||172.6|-52.5|0.29
90945740|NCT02358668|181771508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-120.2||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-385.3|144.9||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||144.9|-385.3|0.37
90945741|NCT02358668|181771508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|49.0||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-198.1|296.2||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||296.2|-198.1|0.69
90945742|NCT02358668|181771510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.2||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|5.5||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||5.5|-9.8|0.57
90945743|NCT02358668|181771510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|8.6||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||8.6|-6.6|0.79
90945744|NCT02358668|181771511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|1.8||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||1.8|-3.4|0.54
90945745|NCT02358668|181771511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|3.1||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||3.1|-2.0|0.68
90945746|NCT02358668|181771512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.7||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-0.1||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||-0.1|-3.2|0.03
90945747|NCT02358668|181771512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.4||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||1.4|-1.7|0.86
90945748|NCT02358668|181771513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.44||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||0.44|-0.39|0.90
90945749|NCT02358668|181771513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.22||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.2||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||0.20|-0.63|0.30
90945750|NCT02358668|181771514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.62||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|2.57||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||2.57|-1.32|0.52
90945751|NCT02358668|181771514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.13||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|3.05||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||3.05|-0.75|0.24
90977691|NCT00868790|181839477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|-21.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.8|-15.8|||LDA Model|Between-group difference (MK-3577-placebo) of LSM changes from BL to a given time point and 90% confidence intervals were estimated from LDA model.||Analysis based on an LDA model including terms for treatment, period, the interaction of treatment by period, prior antihyperglycemic therapy status (yes/no), and randomization stratum (participation in domiciled visits \[yes/no\]). The LDA-model test was conducted at alpha level=0.10 (two sided).||-15.8|-27.8|<0.001
90977692|NCT00868790|181839477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|-36.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-42.0|-30.0|||LDA Model|Between-group difference (MK-3577-placebo) of LSM changes from BL to a given time point and 90% confidence intervals were estimated from LDA model.||Analysis based on an LDA model including terms for treatment, period, the interaction of treatment by period, prior antihyperglycemic therapy status (yes/no), and randomization stratum (participation in domiciled visits \[yes/no\]). The LDA-model test was conducted at alpha level=0.10 (two sided).||-30.0|-42.0|<0.001
90977693|NCT00868790|181839477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|-20.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-30.0|-10.1|||LDA Model|Between-group difference (metformin-placebo) of LSM changes from BL to a given time point and 90% confidence intervals were estimated from LDA model.||Analysis based on an LDA model including terms for treatment, period, the interaction of treatment by period, prior antihyperglycemic therapy status (yes/no), and randomization stratum (participation in domiciled visits \[yes/no\]). The LDA-model test was conducted at alpha level=0.10 (two sided).||-10.1|-30.0|0.001
90977694|NCT00868790|181839478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|-14.9||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-33.0|3.2|||LDA Model|Between-group difference (MK-3577-placebo) of LSM changes from BL to a given time point and 90% confidence intervals were estimated from LDA model.||Analysis based on an LDA model including terms for treatment, period, the interaction of treatment by period, prior antihyperglycemic therapy status (yes/no), and randomization stratum (participation in domiciled visits \[yes/no\]). The LDA-model test was conducted at alpha level=0.10 (two sided).||3.2|-33.0|0.174
90977695|NCT00868790|181839478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|-20.4||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-38.4|-2.4|||LDA Model|Between-group difference (MK-3577-placebo) of LSM changes from BL to a given time point and 90% confidence intervals were estimated from LDA model.||Analysis based on an LDA model including terms for treatment, period, the interaction of treatment by period, prior antihyperglycemic therapy status (yes/no), and randomization stratum (participation in domiciled visits \[yes/no\]). The LDA-model test was conducted at alpha level=0.10 (two sided).||-2.4|-38.4|0.063
90977696|NCT00868790|181839478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|-78.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-96.4|-59.8|||LDA Model|Between-group difference (MK-3577-placebo) of LSM changes from BL to a given time point and 90% confidence intervals were estimated from LDA model.||Analysis based on an LDA model including terms for treatment, period, the interaction of treatment by period, prior antihyperglycemic therapy status (yes/no), and randomization stratum (participation in domiciled visits \[yes/no\]). The LDA-model test was conducted at alpha level=0.10 (two sided).||-59.8|-96.4|<0.001
90945752|NCT02358668|181771515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.002||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.035|0.038||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||0.038|-0.035|0.93
90945753|NCT02358668|181771515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.015||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.021|0.051||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||0.051|-0.021|0.40
90945754|NCT02358668|181771516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.5||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||0.5|-1.2|0.36
90945755|NCT02358668|181771516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.2||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||1.2|-0.4|0.36
90945756|NCT02358668|181771517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09||||||The univariate p-value of treatment group was obtained by t-tests comparing the changes to that of placebo group|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.09
90945757|NCT02358668|181771517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82||||||The univariate p-value of treatment group was obtained by t-tests comparing the changes to that of placebo group|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.82
90945758|NCT02358668|181771518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68||||||The univariate p-value of treatment group was obtained by t-tests comparing the changes to that of placebo group|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.68
90945759|NCT02358668|181771518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26||||||The univariate p-value of treatment group was obtained by t-tests comparing the changes to that of placebo group|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.26
90945760|NCT02358668|181771519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67||||||The univariate p-value of treatment group was obtained by t-tests comparing the changes to that of placebo group|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.67
90945761|NCT02358668|181771519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3||||||The univariate p-value of treatment group was obtained by t-tests comparing the changes to that of placebo group|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.30
90945762|NCT02358668|181771520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.11||The p-value of treatment effects (reference to placebo) were obtained by mixed effect model analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted with repeated measures, ages and gender.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.11|-0.48|<0.01
90945763|NCT02358668|181771520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.04||The p-value of treatment effects (reference to placebo) were obtained by mixed effect model analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted with repeated measures, ages and gender.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.04|-0.32|0.13
90945764|NCT02358668|181771521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.59||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.18||The p-value of treatment effects (reference to placebo) were obtained by mixed effect model analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted with repeated measures, ages and gender.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.18|-1.01|0.01
90945765|NCT02358668|181771521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.24||The p-value of treatment effects (reference to placebo) were obtained by mixed effect model analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted with repeated measures, ages and gender.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.24|-0.57|0.42
90945766|NCT02358668|181771522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.74||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|-0.14||The p-value of treatment effects (reference to placebo) were obtained by mixed effect model analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted with repeated measures, ages and gender.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.14|-1.35|0.02
90945767|NCT02358668|181771522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.42||The p-value of treatment effects (reference to placebo) were obtained by mixed effect model analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted with repeated measures, ages and gender.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.42|-0.75|0.57
90945768|NCT02358668|181771523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.32|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.12||The p-value of treatment effects (reference to placebo) were obtained by mixed effect model analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted with repeated measures, ages and gender.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.12|-0.52|<0.01
90945769|NCT02358668|181771523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.05||The p-value of treatment effects (reference to placebo) were obtained by mixed effect model analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted with repeated measures, ages and gender.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.05|-0.34|0.14
90945770|NCT02358668|181771524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.31|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.1||The p-value of treatment effects (reference to placebo) were obtained by mixed effect model analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted with repeated measures, ages and gender.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.10|-0.52|<0.01
90945771|NCT02358668|181771524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.12||The p-value of treatment effects (reference to placebo) were obtained by mixed effect model analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted with repeated measures, ages and gender.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.12|-0.30|0.38
90945772|NCT02358668|181771525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.27||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.07||The p-value of treatment effects (reference to placebo) were obtained by mixed effect model analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted with repeated measures, ages and gender.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.07|-0.48|0.01
90945773|NCT02358668|181771525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.11||The p-value of treatment effects (reference to placebo) were obtained by mixed effect model analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted with repeated measures, ages and gender.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.11|-0.28|0.41
90945774|NCT02358668|181771526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.19||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.03||The p-value of treatment effects (reference to placebo) were obtained by mixed effect model analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted with repeated measures, ages and gender.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.03|-0.40|0.08
90945775|NCT02358668|181771526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.03||The p-value of treatment effects (reference to placebo) were obtained by mixed effect model analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted with repeated measures, ages and gender.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.03|-0.38|0.10
90945776|NCT02358668|181771527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.39||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.12||The p-value of treatment effects (reference to placebo) were obtained by mixed effect model analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted with repeated measures, ages and gender.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.12|-0.67|0.01
90977697|NCT00868790|181839478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|-49.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-66.9|-31.8|||LDA Model|Between-group difference (metformin-placebo) of LSM changes from BL to a given time point and 90% confidence intervals were estimated from LDA model.||Analysis based on an LDA model including terms for treatment, period, the interaction of treatment by period, prior antihyperglycemic therapy status (yes/no), and randomization stratum (participation in domiciled visits \[yes/no\]). The LDA-model test was conducted at alpha level=0.10 (two sided).||-31.8|-66.9|<0.001
90977698|NCT00868790|181839479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|-0.8||||0.742|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.6|3.1|||LDA Model|||LDL-C values after log transformation were analyzed using a constrained LDA model that included terms for treatment, period, the interaction of treatment by period, prior antihyperglycemic therapy status (yes/no), and randomization stratum (participation in domiciled visits \[yes/no\]). Percentage change from baseline in LDL-C after 4-week treatment was reported, after back-transformation using the delta method with an alpha-level of 0.10 (2-sided).||3.1|-4.6|0.742
90977699|NCT00868790|181839479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|4.5||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6|8.4|||LDA Model|||LDL-C values after log transformation were analyzed using a constrained LDA model that included terms for treatment, period, the interaction of treatment by period, prior antihyperglycemic therapy status (yes/no), and randomization stratum (participation in domiciled visits \[yes/no\]). Percentage change from baseline in LDL-C after 4-week treatment was reported, after back-transformation using the delta method with an alpha-level of 0.10 (2-sided).||8.4|0.6|0.060
90977700|NCT00868790|181839479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|7.8||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.8|11.7|||LDA Model|||LDL-C values after log transformation were analyzed using a constrained LDA model that included terms for treatment, period, the interaction of treatment by period, prior antihyperglycemic therapy status (yes/no), and randomization stratum (participation in domiciled visits \[yes/no\]). Percentage change from baseline in LDL-C after 4-week treatment was reported, after back-transformation using the delta method with an alpha-level of 0.10 (2-sided).||11.7|3.8|0.002
90977701|NCT00868790|181839479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|-3.9||||0.248|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.2|2.3|||LDA Model|||LDL-C values after log transformation were analyzed using a constrained LDA model that included terms for treatment, period, the interaction of treatment by period, prior antihyperglycemic therapy status (yes/no), and randomization stratum (participation in domiciled visits \[yes/no\]). Percentage change from baseline in LDL-C after 4-week treatment was reported, after back-transformation using the delta method with an alpha-level of 0.10 (2-sided).||2.3|-10.2|0.248
90977702|NCT04666038|181839492|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.536||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.385|0.746||The 2-sided nominal p-value was calculated based on a stratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||The Hazard Ratio (HR) \& 95% confidence interval (CI) were estimated from a stratified Cox proportional hazards model.|||0.746|0.385|0.0002
90977703|NCT04666038|181839493|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.475|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.338|0.669||The 2-sided nominal p-value was calculated based on a stratified log-rank test|Log Rank||The HR and 95% CI were estimated from a stratified Cox proportional hazards model.|||0.669|0.338|<0.0001
90977704|NCT04666038|181839494|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.7202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.679|1.749||The 2-sided p-value was calculated based on a stratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||The HR and 95% CI were estimated from a stratified Cox proportional hazards model.|||1.749|0.679|0.7202
90977705|NCT04666038|181839495|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.365|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.254|0.524||The 2-sided nominal p-value was calculated based on a stratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||The HR and 95% CI were estimated from a stratified Cox proportional hazards model.|||0.524|0.254|<0.0001
90977706|NCT04666038|181839496|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.387|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.534||The 2-sided nominal p-value was calculated based on a stratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||The HR and 95% CI were estimated from a stratified Cox proportional hazards model.|||0.534|0.280|<0.0001
90945777|NCT02358668|181771527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.18||The p-value of treatment effects (reference to placebo) were obtained by mixed effect model analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted with repeated measures, ages and gender.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.18|-0.35|0.54
90945778|NCT02358668|181771528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.42||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.03||The p-value of treatment effects (reference to placebo) were obtained by mixed effect model analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted with repeated measures, ages and gender.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.03|-0.81|0.03
90945779|NCT02358668|181771528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.29||The p-value of treatment effects (reference to placebo) were obtained by mixed effect model analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted with repeated measures, ages and gender.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.29|-0.48|0.63
90945780|NCT02358668|181771529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.02||The p-value of treatment effects (reference to placebo) were obtained by mixed effect model analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted with repeated measures, ages and gender.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.02|-0.13|0.18
90945781|NCT02358668|181771529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.09||The p-value of treatment effects (reference to placebo) were obtained by mixed effect model analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted with repeated measures, ages and gender.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.09|-0.06|0.73
90945782|NCT02358668|181771530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.0||The p-value of treatment effects (reference to placebo) were obtained by mixed effect model analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted with repeated measures, ages and gender.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.00|-0.15|0.06
90945783|NCT02358668|181771530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.1||The p-value of treatment effects (reference to placebo) were obtained by mixed effect model analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted with repeated measures, ages and gender.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.10|-0.05|0.46
90945784|NCT02358668|181771531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.0||The p-value of treatment effects (reference to placebo) were obtained by mixed effect model analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted with repeated measures, ages and gender.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.00|-0.15|0.06
90945785|NCT02358668|181771531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.1||The p-value of treatment effects (reference to placebo) were obtained by mixed effect model analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted with repeated measures, ages and gender.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.10|-0.05|0.46
90945786|NCT02358668|181771532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.16||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|-0.02||The p-value of treatment effects (reference to placebo) were obtained by mixed effect model analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted with repeated measures, ages and gender.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.02|-0.31|0.03
90945787|NCT02358668|181771532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.15||The p-value of treatment effects (reference to placebo) were obtained by mixed effect model analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted with repeated measures, ages and gender.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.15|-0.13|0.87
90945788|NCT02358668|181771533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.48||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|0.5||The p-value of treatment effects (reference to placebo) were obtained by mixed effect model analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted with repeated measures, ages and gender.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.50|-1.46|0.34
91038462|NCT00521586|181961651|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was to be concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric mean ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.93||||||Serotype 3: 2-sided 95 % CI for the ratio of 2 geometric means (13vPnC+TIV/Placebo and Placebo+TIV/13vPnC) was constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the difference of the 2 logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.||0.93|0.66|
90945789|NCT02358668|181771533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.22||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|1.18||The p-value of treatment effects (reference to placebo) were obtained by mixed effect model analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted with repeated measures, ages and gender.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.18|-0.73|0.64
90945790|NCT02358668|181771534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.62||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.26||The p-value of treatment effects (reference to placebo) were obtained by mixed effect model analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted with repeated measures, ages and gender.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.26|-1.50|0.17
90945791|NCT02358668|181771534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.39||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|1.24||The p-value of treatment effects (reference to placebo) were obtained by mixed effect model analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted with repeated measures, ages and gender.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.24|-0.46|0.37
90945792|NCT02358668|181771535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.65||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|0.31||The p-value of treatment effects (reference to placebo) were obtained by mixed effect model analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted with repeated measures, ages and gender.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.31|-1.62|0.18
90945793|NCT02358668|181771535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.42||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|1.36||The p-value of treatment effects (reference to placebo) were obtained by mixed effect model analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted with repeated measures, ages and gender.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.36|-0.51|0.37
90945794|NCT02358668|181771536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.14||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.36|0.09||The p-value of treatment effects (reference to placebo) were obtained by mixed effect model analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted with repeated measures, ages and gender.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.09|-4.36|0.06
90945795|NCT02358668|181771536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.43||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|2.58||The p-value of treatment effects (reference to placebo) were obtained by mixed effect model analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted with repeated measures, ages and gender.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.58|-1.71|0.69
90945796|NCT02358668|181771537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29||||||The univariate p-value of treatment group was obtained by t-tests comparing the changes to that of placebo group|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.29
90945797|NCT02358668|181771537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22||||||The univariate p-value of treatment group was obtained by t-tests comparing the changes to that of placebo group|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.22
90945798|NCT02358668|181771538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41||||||The univariate p-value of treatment group was obtained by t-tests comparing the changes to that of placebo group|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.41
90945799|NCT02358668|181771538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48||||||The univariate p-value of treatment group was obtained by t-tests comparing the changes to that of placebo group|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.48
91038463|NCT00521586|181961651|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was to be concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric mean ratio|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.87||||||Serotype 4: 2-sided 95 % CI for the ratio of 2 geometric means (13vPnC+TIV/Placebo and Placebo+TIV/13vPnC) was constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the difference of the 2 logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.||0.87|0.55|
90945800|NCT02358668|181771539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61||||||The univariate p-value of treatment group was obtained by t-tests comparing the changes to that of placebo group|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.61
90945801|NCT02358668|181771539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89||||||The univariate p-value of treatment group was obtained by t-tests comparing the changes to that of placebo group|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.89
90945802|NCT02104505|181771540|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Comparison of change in sputum %PMNs during active treatment vs placebo (crossover design).|||||0.04
90945803|NCT02104505|181771541|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.01
90945804|NCT02104505|181771542|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.6
90945805|NCT02104505|181771543|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.34
90977707|NCT01228903|181839511|EQUIVALENCE|(Doehner et al.) CHF patients on allopurinol (n= 14) had improved BA-FMD= 10.6 ± 2.0 (mean ± SE) vs placebo (n= 14, FMD= 6.7 ± 0.1); difference in means= 3.9. Yiginer et al. found a similar difference in metabolic syndrome. A sample size of 34/group will have 80% power to detect a difference in means of 3.9 (common standard deviation=5.6, two group t-test=0.050 two-sided significance). Accounting for a potential drop-out rate17%, n= 40/group was recruited.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.7||||0.47|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The estimated value represents the difference between the change from baseline in both groups.|The null hypothesis was the there will be no difference between the placebo and allopurinol. The power for the study was calculated (as appropriate) based on the prior literature.||||0.47
90945806|NCT01730950|181771547|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.38|||Log Rank|Two-side significance level = 0.05|Reference level = Bevacizumab|Null hypothesis: median survival time for both arms is 9 months; alternative hypothesis: participants receiving radiation therapy plus bevacizumab will have an improvement in median survival time to 13 months. One hundred and sixty eligible participants provides 80% power to detect a 31% reduction in the hazard ratio to 0.69 at a one-sided significance level of 0.10. Analysis was planned to occur when 135 deaths were reported, expected to occur 16 to 21 months after trial closure.||1.38|0.70|0.46
90945807|NCT01730950|181771548|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||Chi-squared|Two-sided significance level = 0.05||||||0.18
90945808|NCT01730950|181771549|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Chi-squared|Two-sided significance level = 0.05||||||0.001
90945809|NCT01730950|181771550|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.0|||Log Rank|Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Reference level = Bevacizumab|||1.00|0.53|0.05
90945810|NCT00159263|181771588|OTHER|Friedman ANOVA followed Dunn's pairwise comparisons||||||0.04|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.04
90945811|NCT00159263|181771589|OTHER|Friedman Anova||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.01
90945812|NCT00159263|181771590|OTHER|Friedman Anova||||||0.04|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.04
90945813|NCT05224843|181771647|OTHER||Percentage of enrolled from eligible|82.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|73.7|88.8||||||||88.8|73.7|
90945814|NCT05224843|181771648|OTHER||Percentage of enrolled from eligible|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|95.4|100.0||||||||100|95.4|
90945815|NCT05224843|181771650|OTHER||Percentage screened positive for EM|7.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|15.4||||||||15.4|3.5|
90945816|NCT05224843|181771652|OTHER||Percentage who changed after BNI|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.6|69.9||||||||69.9|4.6|
90945817|NCT05224843|181771653|OTHER||Percentage reported APS from EM positive|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.6|62.4||||||||62.4|3.6|
90945818|NCT05274750|181771659|OTHER|Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment group, baseline score, log(e) baseline blood eosinophil count, region, previous surgery for nasal polyps, visit, visit by baseline, and visit by treatment group.|Difference in Least Square Means|-0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||To assess the efficacy of depemokimab 100mg SC + SoC compared to placebo + SoC at Week 52 in participants with a diagnosis of CRSwNP||-0.3|-1.1|<0.001
90945819|NCT05274750|181771660|OTHER|Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment group, baseline score, log(e) baseline blood eosinophil count, region, previous surgery for nasal polyps, visit, visit by baseline, and visit by treatment group.|Difference in Least Square Means|-0.23||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||To assess the efficacy of depemokimab 100mg SC + SoC compared to placebo + SoC at Week 52 in participants with a diagnosis of CRSwNP||0.00|-0.46|0.047
90945820|NCT05274750|181771661|OTHER|Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment group, baseline score, log(e) baseline blood eosinophil count, region, previous surgery for nasal polyps, visit, visit by baseline, and visit by treatment group. If the hierarchy is broken, subsequent endpoints will be evaluated for nominal significance in a descriptive manner, using a 5 percent (%) reference level.|Difference in Least Square Means|-0.22||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||To assess the efficacy of depemokimab 100mg SC + SoC compared to placebo + SoC at Week 49 to Week 52 in participants with a diagnosis of CRSwNP||0.02|-0.46|0.074
90945821|NCT05274750|181771662|OTHER|Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment group, baseline score, log(e) baseline blood eosinophil count, region, previous surgery for nasal polyps, visit, visit by baseline, and visit by treatment group. If the hierarchy is broken, subsequent endpoints will be evaluated for nominal significance in a descriptive manner, using a 5% reference level.|Difference in Least Square Means|-0.19||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||To assess the efficacy of depemokimab 100mg SC + SoC compared to placebo + SoC at Week 49 to Week 52 in participants with a diagnosis of CRSwNP||0.00|-0.39|0.055
90945822|NCT05274750|181771663|OTHER|Analysis performed using an analysis of covariance model (ANCOVA) with covariates of treatment group, baseline score, log(e) baseline blood eosinophil count, region and previous surgery for nasal polyps. If the hierarchy is broken, subsequent endpoints will be evaluated for nominal significance in a descriptive manner, using a 5% reference level.|Difference in Least Square Means|-2.0||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-0.8|||ANCOVA|||To assess the efficacy of depemokimab 100mg SC + SoC compared to placebo + SoC at Week 52 in participants with a diagnosis of CRSwNP||-0.8|-3.3|0.002
90945823|NCT05274750|181771664|OTHER|Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment group, baseline score, log(e) baseline blood eosinophil count, region, previous surgery for nasal polyps, visit, visit by baseline, and visit by treatment group. If the hierarchy is broken, subsequent endpoints will be evaluated for nominal significance in a descriptive manner, using a 5% reference level.|Difference in Least Square Means|-6.8||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||To assess the efficacy of depemokimab 100mg SC + SoC compared to placebo + SoC at Week 52 in participants with a diagnosis of CRSwNP||1.6|-15.2|0.113
90945824|NCT05274750|181771665|OTHER|Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment group, baseline score, log(e) baseline blood eosinophil count, region, previous surgery for nasal polyps, visit, visit by baseline, and visit by treatment group. If the hierarchy is broken, subsequent endpoints will be evaluated for nominal significance in a descriptive manner, using a 5% reference level.|Difference in Least Square Means|-0.17||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||To assess the efficacy of depemokimab 100mg SC + SoC compared to placebo + SoC at Week 21 to Week 24 in participants with a diagnosis of CRSwNP||0.03|-0.37|0.094
90977708|NCT02867761|181839517|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.37|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||1.37|0.60|0.65
90977709|NCT02867761|181839521|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Linear Mixed Effects Model|||||||0.30
90977710|NCT02867761|181839522|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||Linear Mixed Effects Model|||||||0.49
90977711|NCT02867761|181839523|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||Linear Mixed Effects Model|||||||0.96
90977712|NCT02867761|181839524|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Linear Mixed Effects Model|||||||<0.001
90977713|NCT02867761|181839527|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||Linear Mixed Effects Model|||P Value for percentage of days with any symptoms (shortness of breath, chest tightness, wheezing, cough, or sputum)||||0.35
90977714|NCT02867761|181839527|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||Linear Mixed Effects Model|||P Value for percentage of days with shortness of breath||||0.61
90977715|NCT02867761|181839527|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Linear Mixed Effects Model|||P Value for percentage of days with chest tightness||||0.48
90977716|NCT02867761|181839527|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||Linear Mixed Effects Model|||P Value for percentage of days with wheezing||||0.81
90977717|NCT02867761|181839527|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Linear Mixed Effects Model|||P Value for percentage of days with cough||||0.17
90977718|NCT02867761|181839527|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||Linear Mixed Effects Model|||P Value for percentage of days with sputum||||0.64
90977719|NCT02867761|181839527|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||Linear Mixed Effects Model|||P Value for percentage of days with use of albuterol.||||0.84
90977720|NCT01512264|181839539|OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t- test between time point 1 and time point 4 for the rTMS group and BNT test was calculated. Cohen's d was calculated to determine the power of the test. The Cohen's d calculated for this test = -1.58.||||0.006
90977721|NCT01512264|181839539|OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t- test between time point 1 and time point 4 for the1 week of Sham Treatment + 2 weeks of nerTMS group and BNT test was calculated. Cohen's d was calculated to determine the power of the test. The Cohen's d calculated for this test = -1.27.||||0.015
90977722|NCT01512264|181839539|OTHER|||||||0.203|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t- test between time point 1 and time point 4 for the 2 weeks of Sham Treatment + 1 week of nerTMS group and BNT test was calculated. Cohen's d was calculated to determine the power of the test. The Cohen's d calculated for this test = -0.54.||||0.203
90977723|NCT01512264|181839539|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t- test between time point 1 and time point 4 for the control group and BNT test were calculated. Cohen's d was calculated to determine the power of the test. The Cohen's d calculated for this test = -1.63.||||0.010
90977724|NCT01512264|181839540|OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t- test between time point 1 and time point 5 for the rTMS group and BNT test was calculated. Cohen's d was calculated to determine the power of the test. The Cohen's d calculated for this test = -0.54.||||0.410
90977725|NCT01512264|181839540|OTHER|||||||0.618|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t- test between time point 1 and time point 5 for 1 week of Sham Treatment + 2 weeks of nerTMS group and BNT test were calculated. Cohen's d was calculated to determine the power of the test. The Cohen's d calculated for this test = 0.57.||||0.618
90977726|NCT01512264|181839540|OTHER|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t- test between time point 1 and time point 5 for 2 weeks of Sham Treatment + 1 week of nerTMS group and BNT test were calculated. Cohen's d was calculated to determine the power of the test. The Cohen's d calculated for this test = 1.31.||||1.000
90977727|NCT01512264|181839540|OTHER|||||||0.019|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t- test between time point 1 and time point 5 for the control group and BNT test were calculated. Cohen's d was calculated to determine the power of the test. The Cohen's d calculated for this test = 4.35.||||0.019
90977728|NCT01512264|181839542|OTHER|||||||0.118|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t- test between time point 1 and time point 4 for the rTMS group and SFT test were calculated. Cohen's d was calculated to determine the power of the test. The Cohen's d calculated for this test = -0.69.||||0.118
90977729|NCT01512264|181839542|OTHER|||||||0.482|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t- test between time point 1 and time point 4 for the 1 week of Sham Treatment + 2 weeks of nerTMS group and SFT test were calculated. Cohen's d was calculated to determine the power of the test. The Cohen's d calculated for this test = -0.28.||||0.482
90977730|NCT01512264|181839542|OTHER|||||||0.368|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t- test between time point 1 and time point 4 for the 2 weeks of Sham Treatment +1 week of nerTMS group and SFT test were calculated. Cohen's d was calculated to determine the power of the test. The Cohen's d calculated for this test = -0.37.||||0.368
90977731|NCT01512264|181839542|OTHER|||||||0.147|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t- test between time point 1 and time point 4 for the control group and SFT test were calculated. Cohen's d was calculated to determine the power of the test. The Cohen's d calculated for this test = -0.70.||||0.147
90977732|NCT01512264|181839543|OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t- test between time point 1 and time point 5 for the rTMS group and SFT test were calculated. Cohen's d was calculated to determine the power of the test. The Cohen's d calculated for this test = -0.54.||||0.410
90945825|NCT05274750|181771666|OTHER|Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment group, baseline score, log(e) baseline blood eosinophil count, region, previous surgery for nasal polyps, visit, visit by baseline, and visit by treatment group. If the hierarchy is broken, subsequent endpoints will be evaluated for nominal significance in a descriptive manner, using a 5% reference level.|Difference in Least Square Means|-0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||To assess the efficacy of depemokimab 100mg SC + SoC compared to placebo + SoC at Week 26 in participants with a diagnosis of CRSwNP||-0.4|-1.1|<0.001
90977733|NCT01512264|181839543|OTHER|||||||0.695|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t- test between time point 1 and time point 5 for the 1 week of Sham Treatment + 2 weeks of nerTMS group and SFT test were calculated. Cohen's d was calculated to determine the power of the test. The Cohen's d calculated for this test = 0.25.||||0.695
90945826|NCT05274750|181771667|OTHER|Cox Proportional Hazards Model with covariates of treatment, baseline total endoscopic nasal polyps score, baseline nasal obstruction score (VRS), log(e) baseline blood eosinophil count, region, study and previous surgery for nasal polyps. The covariate for study is removed for the individual-study analyses. If the hierarchy is broken, subsequent endpoints will be evaluated for nominal significance in a descriptive manner, using a 5% reference level.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.735||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.495|1.092|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||To assess the efficacy of depemokimab 100mg SC + SoC compared to placebo + SoC at Week 52 in participants with a diagnosis of CRSwNP (pooled analysis)||1.092|0.495|0.128
90977734|NCT01512264|181839543|OTHER|||||||0.175|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t- test between time point 1 and time point 5 for the 2 weeks of Sham Treatment +1 week of nerTMS group and SFT test were calculated. Cohen's d was calculated to determine the power of the test. The Cohen's d calculated for this test = -0.25.||||0.175
90977735|NCT01512264|181839543|OTHER|||||||0.518|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t- test between time point 1 and time point 5 for the control group and SFT test were calculated. Cohen's d was calculated to determine the power of the test. The Cohen's d calculated for this test = -0.60.||||0.518
90977736|NCT01512264|181839545|OTHER|||||||0.109|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t- test between time point 1 and time point 4 for the rTMS group and COWAT test were calculated. Cohen's d was calculated to determine the power of the test. The Cohen's d calculated for this test = -0.71.||||0.109
90977737|NCT01512264|181839545|OTHER|||||||0.485|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t- test between time point 1 and time point 4 for the 1 week of Sham Treatment + 2 weeks of nerTMS group and COWAT test were calculated. Cohen's d was calculated to determine the power of the test. The Cohen's d calculated for this test = -0.28.||||0.485
90977738|NCT01512264|181839545|OTHER|||||||0.864|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t- test between time point 1 and time point 4 for the 2 weeks of Sham Treatment +1 week of nerTMS group and COWAT test were calculated. Cohen's d was calculated to determine the power of the test. The Cohen's d calculated for this test = -0.07.||||0.864
90977739|NCT01512264|181839545|OTHER|||||||0.341|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t- test between time point 1 and time point 4 for the control group and COWAT test were calculated. Cohen's d was calculated to determine the power of the test. The Cohen's d calculated for this test = -0.43.||||0.341
90945827|NCT05274750|181771668|OTHER|Cox Proportional Hazards Model with covariates of treatment, baseline total endoscopic nasal polyps score, baseline nasal obstruction score (VRS), log(e) baseline blood eosinophil count, region, study and previous surgery for nasal polyps. The covariate for study is removed for the individual-study analyses. If the hierarchy is broken, subsequent endpoints will be evaluated for nominal significance in a descriptive manner, using a 5% reference level.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.713||||0.146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.453|1.124|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||To assess the efficacy of depemokimab 100mg SC + SoC compared to placebo + SoC at Week 52 in participants with a diagnosis of CRSwNP (pooled analysis)||1.124|0.453|0.146
90977740|NCT01512264|181839546|OTHER|||||||0.899|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t- test between time point 1 and time point 5 for the rTMS group and COWAT test were calculated. Cohen's d was calculated to determine the power of the test. The Cohen's d calculated for this test = -0.12.||||0.899
90977741|NCT01512264|181839546|OTHER|||||||0.519|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t- test between time point 1 and time point 5 for the 1 week of Sham Treatment + 2 weeks of nerTMS group and COWAT test were calculated. Cohen's d was calculated to determine the power of the test. The Cohen's d calculated for this test = 0.19.||||0.519
90977742|NCT01512264|181839546|OTHER|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t- test between time point 1 and time point 5 for the 2 weeks of Sham Treatment +1 week of nerTMS group and COWAT test were calculated. Cohen's d was calculated to determine the power of the test. The Cohen's d calculated for this test = -0.09.||||1.000
90977743|NCT01512264|181839546|OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t- test between time point 1 and time point 5 for the control group and COWAT test were calculated. Cohen's d was calculated to determine the power of the test. The Cohen's d calculated for this test = -0.84.||||0.140
90977744|NCT01512264|181839548|OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t- test between time point 1 and time point 4 for the rTMS group and WAB test were calculated. Cohen's d was calculated to determine the power of the test. The Cohen's d calculated for this test = 0.24.||||0.520
90977745|NCT01512264|181839548|OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t- test between time point 1 and time point 4 for the 1 week of Sham Treatment + 2 weeks of nerTMS group and WAB test were calculated. Cohen's d was calculated to determine the power of the test. The Cohen's d calculated for this test = 0.97.||||0.800
90977746|NCT01512264|181839548|OTHER|||||||0.148|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t- test between time point 1 and time point 4 for the 2 weeks of Sham Treatment +1 week of nerTMS group and WAB test were calculated. Cohen's d was calculated to determine the power of the test. The Cohen's d calculated for this test = -0.68.||||0.148
90977747|NCT01512264|181839548|OTHER|||||||0.787|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t- test between time point 1 and time point 4 for the control group and WAB test were calculated. Cohen's d was calculated to determine the power of the test. The Cohen's d calculated for this test = 0.67.||||0.787
90977748|NCT01512264|181839549|OTHER|||||||0.239|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t- test between time point 1 and time point 5 for the rTMS group and WAB test were calculated. Cohen's d was calculated to determine the power of the test. The Cohen's d calculated for this test = -3.12.||||0.239
91038464|NCT00521586|181961651|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was to be concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric mean ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.05||||||Serotype 5: 2-sided 95 % CI for the ratio of 2 geometric means (13vPnC+TIV/Placebo and Placebo+TIV/13vPnC) was constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the difference of the 2 logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.||1.05|0.67|
90977749|NCT01512264|181839549|OTHER|||||||0.212|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t- test between time point 1 and time point 5 for the 1 week of Sham Treatment + 2 weeks of nerTMS group and WAB test were calculated. Cohen's d was calculated to determine the power of the test. The Cohen's d calculated for this test = 2.71.||||0.212
90977750|NCT01512264|181839549|OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t- test between time point 1 and time point 5 for the 2 weeks of Sham Treatment +1 week of nerTMS group and WAB test were calculated. Cohen's d was calculated to determine the power of the test. The Cohen's d calculated for this test = -3.10.||||0.120
90977751|NCT01512264|181839549|OTHER|||||||0.263|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t- test between time point 1 and time point 5 for the control group and WAB test were calculated. Cohen's d was calculated to determine the power of the test. The Cohen's d calculated for this test = -1.14.||||0.263
91038465|NCT00521586|181961651|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was to be concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric mean ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.06||||||Serotype 6A: 2-sided 95 % CI for the ratio of 2 geometric means (13vPnC+TIV/Placebo and Placebo+TIV/13vPnC) was constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the difference of the 2 logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.||1.06|0.70|
91038466|NCT00521586|181961651|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was to be concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric mean ratio|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.93||||||Serotype 6B: 2-sided 95 % CI for the ratio of 2 geometric means (13vPnC+TIV/Placebo and Placebo+TIV/13vPnC) was constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the difference of the 2 logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.||0.93|0.60|
90977752|NCT00896532|181839583|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference from Placebo|8.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.5|9.9||P-value is adjusted by the Hochberg procedure for comparisons to placebo.|Linear Mixed Effects Model|||A linear mixed effects model was fit with the percent change from baseline to months 3, 6 and 12 in BMD of the lumbar spine as the dependent variable and baseline BMD, machine type, interaction of baseline BMD and machine type, geographic region (Latin America, North America, Europe), visit, treatment regimen (categorical), interaction of treatment regimen and visit as the independent variables.||9.9|7.5|< 0.0001
90977753|NCT00896532|181839583|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference from placebo|5.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|6.9||P-value is adjusted by the Hochberg procedure for comparisons to placebo.|Linear Mixed Effects Model|||A linear mixed effects model was fit with the percent change from baseline to months 3, 6 and 12 in BMD of the lumbar spine as the dependent variable and baseline BMD, machine type, interaction of baseline BMD and machine type, geographic region (Latin America, North America, Europe), visit, treatment regimen (categorical), interaction of treatment regimen and visit as the independent variables.||6.9|4.3|< 0.0001
90977754|NCT00896532|181839583|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference from Placebo|7.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.1|8.7||P-value is adjusted by the Hochberg procedure for comparisons to placebo.|Linear Mixed Effects Model|||A linear mixed effects model was fit with the percent change from baseline to months 3, 6 and 12 in BMD of the lumbar spine as the dependent variable and baseline BMD, machine type, interaction of baseline BMD and machine type, geographic region (Latin America, North America, Europe), visit, treatment regimen (categorical), interaction of treatment regimen and visit as the independent variables.||8.7|6.1|< 0.0001
90977755|NCT00896532|181839583|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference from Placebo|8.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.3|9.8||P-value is adjusted by the Hochberg procedure for comparisons to placebo.|Linear Mixed Effects Model|||A linear mixed effects model was fit with the percent change from baseline to months 3, 6 and 12 in BMD of the lumbar spine as the dependent variable and baseline BMD, machine type, interaction of baseline BMD and machine type, geographic region (Latin America, North America, Europe), visit, treatment regimen (categorical), interaction of treatment regimen and visit as the independent variables.||9.8|7.3|< 0.0001
91038467|NCT00521586|181961651|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was to be concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric mean ratio|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.95||||||Serotype 7F: 2-sided 95 % CI for the ratio of 2 geometric means (13vPnC+TIV/Placebo and Placebo+TIV/13vPnC) was constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the difference of the 2 logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.||0.95|0.63|
90945828|NCT05274750|181771669|OTHER|Logistic regression with covariates of treatment, number of courses of systemic CS in 12 months prior to screening for NP (0, 1, \>1), log(e) baseline blood eosinophil count, baseline total endoscopic NP score, baseline nasal obstruction score (VRS), region, study and previous surgery for NPs. The study covariate is removed for individual study analyses. If the hierarchy is broken, subsequent endpoints will be evaluated for nominal significance in a descriptive manner, using a 5% reference level.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.58||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.86|||Regression, Logistic|||To assess the efficacy of depemokimab 100mg SC + SoC compared to placebo + SoC at Week 52 in participants with a diagnosis of CRSwNP (pooled analysis)||0.86|0.40|0.006
90945829|NCT05274750|181771670|OTHER|The pooled statistical analyses will be performed using a Mixed Models Repeated Measures (MMRM) model with covariates of treatment group, baseline score, log(e) baseline blood eosinophil count, region, previous surgery for nasal polyps, study, visit and interaction terms for visit by baseline score and visit by treatment group. If the hierarchy is broken, subsequent endpoints will be evaluated for nominal significance in a descriptive manner, using a 5% reference level.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|-0.75||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|-0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||To assess the efficacy of depemokimab 100mg SC + SoC compared to placebo + SoC at Week 52 in participants with a diagnosis of CRSwNP (pooled analysis)||-0.25|-1.26|0.004
90945830|NCT04328623|181771675|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90945831|NCT02312557|181771684|OTHER||Proportion|0.19|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.29|||One-sample binomial test of proportion|||||0.29|0.09|<0.01
90977756|NCT03158220|181839604|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of GMT in 27-45 year-olds relative to 16-26 year-olds was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the fold difference was greater than 0.5.|Fold Difference|0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.77||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for age groups.|ANOVA||Fold difference calculated as GMT 27-45 year-olds/GMT 16-26 year-olds|Anti HPV 16||0.77|0.63|< 0.001
90977757|NCT03158220|181839604|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of GMT in 27-45 year-olds relative to 16-26 year-olds was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the fold difference was greater than 0.5.|Fold Difference|0.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.8||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for age groups.|ANOVA||Fold difference calculated as GMT 27-45 year-olds/GMT 16-26 year-olds|Anti HPV 18||0.80|0.64|< 0.001
90977758|NCT03158220|181839604|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of GMT in 27-45 year-olds relative to 16-26 year-olds was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the fold difference was greater than 0.5.|Fold Difference|0.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.74||ANOVA model with response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for age groups.|ANOVA||Fold difference calculated as GMT 27-45 year-olds/GMT 16-26 year-olds|Anti HPV 31||0.74|0.60|< 0.001
90977759|NCT03158220|181839604|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of GMT in 27-45 year-olds relative to 16-26 year-olds was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the fold difference was greater than 0.5.|Fold Difference|0.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.8||ANOVA model with response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for age groups.|ANOVA||Fold difference calculated as GMT 27-45 year-olds/GMT 16-26 year-olds|Anti HPV 33||0.80|0.67|< 0.001
90977760|NCT03158220|181839604|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of GMT in 27-45 year-olds relative to 16-26 year-olds was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the fold difference was greater than 0.5.|Fold Difference|0.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.76||ANOVA model with response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for age groups.|ANOVA||Fold difference calculated as GMT 27-45 year-olds/GMT 16-26 year-olds|Anti HPV 45||0.76|0.60|< 0.001
90977761|NCT03158220|181839604|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of GMT in 27-45 year-olds relative to 16-26 year-olds was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the fold difference was greater than 0.5.|Fold Difference|0.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.78||ANOVA model with response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for age groups.|ANOVA||Fold difference calculated as GMT 27-45 year-olds/GMT 16-26 year-olds|Anti HPV 52||0.78|0.64|< 0.001
90977762|NCT03158220|181839604|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of GMT in 27-45 year-olds relative to 16-26 year-olds was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the fold difference was greater than 0.5.|Fold Difference|0.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.76||ANOVA model with response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for age groups.|ANOVA||Fold difference calculated as GMT 27-45 year-olds/GMT 16-26 year-olds|Anti HPV 58||0.76|0.63|< 0.001
90977763|NCT03158220|181839607|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-2.5||||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|1.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Difference in percentages calculated as % Women 27-45 Years of Age minus % Women 16-26 Years of Age.|||1.4|-6.4|0.212
90977764|NCT03158220|181839608|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|3.4|||||Difference in percentages calculated as % Women 27-45 Years of Age minus % Women 16-26 Years of Age.|||3.4|-7.3|
90977765|NCT03158220|181839609|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-1.0||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|0.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Difference in percentages calculated as % Women 27-45 Years of Age minus % Women 16-26 Years of Age.|||0.9|-3.1|0.300
90977766|NCT02525549|181839611|NON_INFERIORITY|provides 85% power of success|Equivalence ratio|93.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.6|102.0|||Fieller's method|||||102.00|88.6|
90977767|NCT02525549|181839612|NON_INFERIORITY|provides 85% power of success|Equivalence ratio|98.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.3|109.4|||Fieller's method|||||109.4|92.3|
90977768|NCT02238847|181839621|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was set at 20%. This was chosen to support a practical study size while still able to identify major differences if this were the case.|||||<|0.01||||||Reported p-value of \<0.01 is calculated p-value. (p\<0.05 was considered significant)|Exact Non-inferiority|||||||<0.01
90977769|NCT02238847|181839622|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.66
90977770|NCT01439945|181839650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||ANOVA|Weekly hot flash score was treated as a repeated measure for each patient.||||||0.13
90977771|NCT01439945|181839650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|||||||ANOVA|Weekly hot flash score was treated as a repeated measure for each patient.||||||0.67
90977772|NCT01439945|181839651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||ANOVA|Weekly number of hot flashes were treated as a repeated measure for each patient.||||||0.25
90977773|NCT01439945|181839651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55||||||Weekly number of hot flashes were treated as a repeated measure for each patient.|ANOVA|||||||0.55
90977774|NCT01439945|181839654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.00
90977775|NCT01439945|181839655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.47
90977776|NCT01439945|181839655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.09
90977777|NCT00654498|181839697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.58|-2.46|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and center as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate||||-2.46|-6.58|<0.0001
90977778|NCT00654498|181839698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|test stratified by centre||||||<0.0001
90977779|NCT00654498|181839699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|test stratified by centre||||||<0.0001
90977780|NCT00654498|181839700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|test stratified by centre||||||<0.0001
90977781|NCT00654498|181839701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1386||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1386
90945832|NCT02330094|181771702|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7
90945833|NCT02330094|181771703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.79
90945834|NCT02330094|181771704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.66
90945835|NCT03721172|181771709|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference|17.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.2|22.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification were based on baseline sPGA (2 \[mild\] vs 3 \[moderate\]).|2-sided 95% CIs based on the stratified Newcombe method. Stratification were based on baseline sPGA (2 \[mild\] vs 3 \[moderate\]).|||22.8|12.2|<0.0001
90945836|NCT03721172|181771710|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference|25.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.1|32.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification were based on baseline sPGA (2 \[mild\] vs 3 \[moderate\]).|2-sided 95% CIs based on the stratified Newcombe method. Stratification were based on baseline sPGA (2 \[mild\] vs 3 \[moderate\]).|||32.1|19.1|<0.0001
90945837|NCT03721172|181771711|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-3.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.04|-2.73|||Mixed-effect model for repeated measures|||||-2.73|-4.04|<0.0001
90945838|NCT03721172|181771712|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-2.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.47|-2.39|||Mixed-effect model for repeated measures|||||-2.39|-3.47|<0.0001
90945839|NCT03721172|181771713|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference|38.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.7|46.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification were based on baseline sPGA (2 \[mild\] vs 3 \[moderate\]).|2-sided 95% CIs based on the stratified Newcombe method. Stratification were based on baseline sPGA (2 \[mild\] vs 3 \[moderate\]).|||46.3|29.7|<0.0001
90945840|NCT03721172|181771714|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference|24.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.5|32.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification were based on baseline sPGA (2 \[mild\] vs 3 \[moderate\]).|2-sided 95% CIs based on the stratified Newcombe method. Stratification were based on baseline sPGA (2 \[mild\] vs 3 \[moderate\]).|||32.8|16.5|<0.0001
90945841|NCT03721172|181771715|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference|27.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.6|36.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification were based on baseline sPGA (2 \[mild\] vs 3 \[moderate\]).|2-sided 95% CIs based on the stratified Newcombe method. Stratification were based on baseline sPGA (2 \[mild\] vs 3 \[moderate\]).|||36.3|18.6|<0.0001
90945842|NCT03721172|181771716|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|-2.1|||Mixed-effect model for repeated measures|||||-2.1|-3.7|<0.0001
90945843|NCT00607672|181771746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.28
90945844|NCT00607672|181771747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.84
90945845|NCT00607672|181771748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.67
90945846|NCT00607672|181771749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.73
90945847|NCT00607672|181771750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0||||For plasma transfusion comparison. Ramipril and Candesartan versus placebo|Chi-squared|||||||0.04
90945848|NCT00607672|181771751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27||95.0||||Comparison for norepinephrine use|Chi-squared|||||||0.27
90945849|NCT00607672|181771752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.62
90945850|NCT00607672|181771753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.51
90945851|NCT00607672|181771754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.87
90945852|NCT00607672|181771755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.04
90945853|NCT00607672|181771756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.69
90945854|NCT00607672|181771757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.97
90945855|NCT00607672|181771758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.46
90945856|NCT01827046|181771817|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.0||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|10.7|||Chi-squared|||||10.7|-6.8|0.73
90945857|NCT01827046|181771817|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.0||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|12.0|||Multivariate logit model|||Adjusted for age, GCS, stability ICH volume, stability IVH volume, ICH deep location||12|-4|0.33
90945858|NCT01827046|181771818|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.03||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.11|||Chi-squared|||||0.11|-0.06|0.55
90945859|NCT01827046|181771818|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.26||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.97|||Multivariate logit model|Adjusted for age, GCS, stability ICH volume, stability IVH volume and ICH deep location||||1.97|0.82|0.27
90945860|NCT01827046|181771819|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.08
90945861|NCT01827046|181771819|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.67||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.98|||Adjusted Cox proportional Hazard|Adjusted for age, GCS, Stability ICH volume, Stability IVH volume, ICH deep location, diabetes, cardiovascular disease and race.||||0.98|0.45|0.037
90977782|NCT00654498|181839702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.14|-0.83|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and center as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate||||-0.83|-2.14|<0.0001
90945862|NCT01827046|181771820|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.8|||Logit model|||||0.80|0.62|<0.001
90977783|NCT00654498|181839703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|-0.73|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and center as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate||||-0.73|-1.99|<0.0001
90945863|NCT01827046|181771820|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.78|||Multivariate logit model|Adjusted for age, GCS, stability IVH volume, and ICH deep location||||0.78|0.59|<0.001
90945864|NCT01827046|181771821|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.78
90945865|NCT01827046|181771822|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.04||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.11|||Chi-squared|||||0.11|-0.04|0.34
90945866|NCT01827046|181771823|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.01||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.07|||Chi-squared|||||0.07|-0.10|0.76
90945867|NCT01827046|181771823|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.94|||Multivariate logit model|Adjusted for age, GCS, Stability ICH volume, Stability IVH volume, ICH deep location||||1.94|0.81|0.31
90945868|NCT01827046|181771824|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.01||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.09|||Chi-squared|||||0.09|-0.07|0.79
90977784|NCT00654498|181839704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.72|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and center as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate||||-0.72|-2.00|<0.0001
90977785|NCT00654498|181839705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.0402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.02|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and center as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate||||-0.02|-1.06|0.0402
90977786|NCT00654498|181839706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.04|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and center as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate||||0.04|-0.69|0.0771
90945869|NCT01827046|181771824|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.97|||Multivariate logit model|Adjusted for age, GCS, Stability ICH volume, Stability IVH volume, ICH deep location||||1.97|0.79|0.35
90945870|NCT01827046|181771825|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||Median test|||||||0.46
90945871|NCT01827046|181771826|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||Median test|||||||0.75
90945872|NCT01827046|181771827|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.66
90945873|NCT01827046|181771828|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.87
90945874|NCT01827046|181771829|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.02
90945875|NCT01827046|181771830|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.05
90945876|NCT01827046|181771831|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.32
90945877|NCT01827046|181771832|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.16
90945878|NCT01827046|181771833|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.01
90945879|NCT05594589|181771835|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Geometric Mean(LSGM) Ratio|0.377||||0.0133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.175|0.81|||ANCOVA|P-value was based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with log transformation of baseline LPS and treatment arms as fixed effects.|LSGM ratio was calculated as Lemborexant 5 mg/Placebo.|||0.810|0.175|0.0133
90945880|NCT05594589|181771836|SUPERIORITY||LSGM Ratio|0.48||||0.0619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.222|1.038|||ANCOVA|P-value was based on ANCOVA model with log transformation of baseline LPS and treatment arms as fixed effects.|LSGM ratio was calculated as Lemborexant 10 mg/Placebo.|||1.038|0.222|0.0619
90945881|NCT05594589|181771837|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean (LSM) Difference|7.38||||0.0689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|15.35|||ANCOVA|P-value was based on ANCOVA model with log transformation of baseline LPS and treatment arms as fixed effects.|LSM difference was calculated as Lemborexant 5 mg - Placebo.|||15.35|-0.59|0.0689
90945882|NCT05594589|181771838|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|8.16||||0.0439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|16.09|||ANCOVA|P-value was based on ANCOVA model with log transformation of baseline LPS and treatment arms as fixed effects.|LSM difference was calculated as Lemborexant 10 mg - Placebo.|||16.09|0.23|0.0439
90945883|NCT00715117|181771853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.005
90945884|NCT00715117|181771853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
90945885|NCT00715117|181771854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Bowel symptoms||||>0.05
90945886|NCT00715117|181771854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Social well-being||||0.035
90945887|NCT00715117|181771854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Emotional well-being||||>0.05
90945888|NCT00715117|181771854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Systemic symptoms|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.035
90945889|NCT00715117|181771854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Body Image||||>0.05
90945890|NCT00715117|181771855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Sleep disturbance||||1.0
90945891|NCT00715117|181771855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45|||||||Fisher Exact|||Unusual dreams||||0.45
90945892|NCT00715117|181771855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Twitching||||1.0
90945893|NCT00715117|181771855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Headaches||||1.0
90945894|NCT00715117|181771855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Decreased appetite||||1.0
90945895|NCT00715117|181771855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Nausea||||1.0
90945896|NCT00715117|181771855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Hair loss||||1.0
90945897|NCT00715117|181771855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Fatigue||||1.0
90945898|NCT00715117|181771855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Flushed ears||||1.0
90945899|NCT00715117|181771855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Papules, rash||||1.0
90945900|NCT00715117|181771855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Double vision||||1.0
90945901|NCT01018732|181771872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of titer|2.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|4.1|||ANOVA|||Day 1, Men A, Pairwise comparison of geometric mean titer||4.1|1.39|
90945902|NCT01018732|181771872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of titer|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.2|||ANOVA|||Day 1, Men A, Pairwise comparison of geometric mean titer||1.2|0.42|
90945903|NCT01018732|181771872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of titer|1.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|2.9|||ANOVA|||Day 1, Men A, Pairwise comparison of geometric mean titer||2.9|0.98|
90945904|NCT01018732|181771872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of titer|1.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.91|||ANOVA|||Day 8, Men A, Pairwise comparison of geometric mean titer||2.91|0.59|
90945905|NCT01018732|181771872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of titer|24.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|52.0|||ANOVA|||Day 8, Men A, Pairwise comparison of geometric mean titer||52|11|
90945906|NCT01018732|181771872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of titer|31.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.0|69.0|||ANOVA|||Day 8, Men A, Pairwise comparison of geometric mean titer||69|14|
90945907|NCT01018732|181771872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of titer|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.42|||ANOVA|||Day 29, Men A, Pairwise comparison of geometric mean titer||2.42|0.7|
90945908|NCT01018732|181771872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of titer|5.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.01|10.0|||ANOVA|||Day 29, Men A, Pairwise comparison of geometric mean titer||10|3.01|
90945909|NCT01018732|181771872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of titer|7.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.86|13.0|||ANOVA|||Day 29, Men A, Pairwise comparison of geometric mean titer||13|3.86|
90945910|NCT01018732|181771872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of titer|2.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|4.99|||ANOVA|||Day 1, Men C, Pairwise comparison of geometric mean titer||4.99|1.4|
90977787|NCT00654498|181839707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.22|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and center as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate||||-0.22|-1.20|0.0048
90977788|NCT00654498|181839708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and center as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate||||||<0.0001
90977789|NCT01552343|181839723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0187||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Correlation - no adjustments||||0.0187
90977790|NCT01552343|181839723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0094||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Partial correlation - baseline # of voids||||0.0094
91038468|NCT00521586|181961651|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was to be concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric mean ratio|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.86||||||Serotype 9V: 2-sided 95 % CI for the ratio of 2 geometric means (13vPnC+TIV/Placebo and Placebo+TIV/13vPnC) was constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the difference of the 2 logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution||0.86|0.59|
90945911|NCT01018732|181771872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of titer|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.97|||ANOVA|||Day 1, Men C, Pairwise comparison of geometric mean titer||1.97|0.56|
90945912|NCT01018732|181771872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of titer|2.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|5.27|||ANOVA|||Day 1, Men C, Pairwise comparison of geometric mean titer||5.27|1.47|
90945913|NCT01018732|181771872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of titer|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.13|||ANOVA|||Day 8, Men C, Pairwise comparison of geometric mean titer||1.13|0.23|
90945914|NCT01018732|181771872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of titer|45.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.0|97.0|||ANOVA|||Day 8, Men C, Pairwise comparison of geometric mean titer||97|21|
90945915|NCT01018732|181771872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of titer|23.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|51.0|||ANOVA|||Day 8, Men C, Pairwise comparison of geometric mean titer||51|10|
90945916|NCT01018732|181771872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of titer|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.82|||ANOVA|||Day 29, Men C, Pairwise comparison of geometric mean titer||0.82|0.2|
90945917|NCT01018732|181771872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of titer|24.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|48.0|||ANOVA|||Day 29, Men C, Pairwise comparison of geometric mean titer||48|12|
90977791|NCT01552343|181839723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0383||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Partial correlation - baseline NI total score||||0.0383
90977792|NCT01552343|181839723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0133||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Partial correlation - age category||||0.0133
90977793|NCT01552343|181839723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0128||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.||Partial correlation - gender||||0.0128
90977794|NCT01552343|181839724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|10.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|18.8|||||Non-Responders - Responders|Nocturia Impact (NI) Total Score (Q1-Q11)||18.8|2.7|
90977795|NCT01552343|181839724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|9.6|||||Non-Responders - Responders|Overall Impact Question (Q12)||9.6|-9.6|
90977796|NCT01552343|181839727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.6||||0.1471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.3|3.1||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Nocturia Impact (NI) Total Score: Screening||3.1|-20.3|0.1471
90977797|NCT01552343|181839727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.6||||0.0318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.0|-1.2||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Nocturia Impact (NI) Total Score: Baseline||-1.2|-26.0|0.0318
90977798|NCT01552343|181839727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-15.8||||0.0463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.2|-0.3||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Overall Impact Question (Q12): Screening||-0.3|-31.2|0.0463
90977799|NCT01552343|181839727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-17.7||||0.0413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.6|-0.7||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Overall Impact Question (Q12): Baseline||-0.7|-34.6|0.0413
91038469|NCT00521586|181961651|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was to be concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.98||||||Serotype 14: 2-sided 95 % CI for the ratio of 2 geometric means (13vPnC+TIV/Placebo and Placebo+TIV/13vPnC) was constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the difference of the 2 logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution||0.98|0.60|
90945918|NCT01018732|181771872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of titer|9.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.69|20.0|||ANOVA|||Day 29, Men C, Pairwise comparison of geometric mean titer||20|4.69|
90945919|NCT01018732|181771872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of titer|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|2.21|||ANOVA|||Day 1, Men W-135, Pairwise comparison of geometric mean titer||2.21|0.55|
90945920|NCT01018732|181771872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of titer|2.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|4.96|||ANOVA|||Day 1, Men W-135, Pairwise comparison of geometric mean titer||4.96|1.27|
90945921|NCT01018732|181771872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of titer|2.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|5.57|||ANOVA|||Day 1, Men W-135, Pairwise comparison of geometric mean titer||5.57|1.38|
90945922|NCT01018732|181771872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of titer|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.04|||ANOVA|||Day 8, Men W-135, Pairwise comparison of geometric mean titer||1.04|0.28|
90945923|NCT01018732|181771872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of titer|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.0|94.0|||ANOVA|||Day 8, Men W-135, Pairwise comparison of geometric mean titer||94|26|
90945924|NCT01018732|181771872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of titer|27.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.0|52.0|||ANOVA|||Day 8, Men W-135, Pairwise comparison of geometric mean titer||52|14|
90945925|NCT01018732|181771872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of titer|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.04|||ANOVA|||Day 29, Men W-135, Pairwise comparison of geometric mean titer||1.04|0.34|
90945926|NCT01018732|181771872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of titer|35.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.0|60.0|||ANOVA|||Day 29, Men W-135, Pairwise comparison of geometric mean titer||60|20|
90945927|NCT01018732|181771872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of titer|21.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|36.0|||ANOVA|||Day 29, Men W-135, Pairwise comparison of geometric mean titer||36|12|
90945928|NCT01018732|181771872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of titer|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.69|||ANOVA|||Day 1, Men Y, Pairwise comparison of geometric mean titer||1.69|0.48|
90945929|NCT01018732|181771872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of titer|3.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.94|6.74||||||Day 1, Men Y, Pairwise comparison of geometric mean titer||6.74|1.94|
90945930|NCT01018732|181771872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of titer|3.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.71|6.13|||ANOVA|||Day 1, Men Y, Pairwise comparison of geometric mean titer||6.13|1.71|
90945931|NCT01018732|181771872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of titer|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.66|||ANOVA|||Day 8, Men Y, Pairwise comparison of geometric mean titer||0.66|0.16|
90945932|NCT01018732|181771872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of titer|121.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.0|241.0|||ANOVA|||Day 8, Men Y, Pairwise comparison of geometric mean titer||241|61|
90945933|NCT01018732|181771872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of titer|40.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.0|80.0|||ANOVA|||Day 8, Men Y, Pairwise comparison of geometric mean titer||80|20|
90945934|NCT01018732|181771872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of titer|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.05|||ANOVA|||Day 29, Men Y, Pairwise comparison of geometric mean titer||1.05|0.32|
90945935|NCT01018732|181771872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of titer|33.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.0|60.0|||ANOVA|||Day 29, Men Y, Pairwise comparison of geometric mean titer||60|18|
90945936|NCT01018732|181771872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of titer|19.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|35.0|||ANOVA|||Day 29, Men Y, Pairwise comparison of geometric mean titer||35|10|
90945937|NCT01262092|181771880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.2887||||0.035||95.0||||p values \<0.05 considered statistically significant|Mixed Models Analysis|Used proc GLIMMIX to model group by time (6 study visits)||"test null hypothesis that gbp and pla did not differ in terms of opioid-positive urines during the buprenorphine detox.~For the analysis, data from 2 participants in the GBP groups were excluded due to evidence of medication diversion (N=1) and not being maintained on the 1600 mg/day dose of GBP (N=1)."||||0.035
90945938|NCT03784820|181771881|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.35||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|3.27||Comparison of Patients at Post (T2) \[CBT-E is the reference\]|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.27|0.04|0.36
90945939|NCT03784820|181771881|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.29||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|4.6||Comparison of Patients at 3 Month Fup (T3) \[CBT-E is the reference\]|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.60|0.02|0.38
90945940|NCT03784820|181771881|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|27.39||Comparison of Patients at 6 Month Fup (T4) \[CBT-E is the reference\]|Mixed Models Analysis|||||27.39|0.18|0.54
90945941|NCT03784820|181771882|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.51||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|2.09||Comparison of Patients at Post (T2)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.09|-1.06|0.52
90945942|NCT03784820|181771882|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.04||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|2.07||Comparison of Patients at 3 Month Fup (T3)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.07|-1.99|0.97
90945943|NCT03784820|181771882|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.62||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|2.89||Comparison of Patients at 6 Month Fup (T4)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.89|-1.66|0.59
90945944|NCT03784820|181771883|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.05||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.54||Comparison of Patients at Post (T2)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.54|-0.45|0.86
90945945|NCT03784820|181771883|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.3||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|1.06||Comparison of Patients at 3 Month Fup (T3)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.06|-0.46|0.44
90945946|NCT03784820|181771883|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.31||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.98||Comparison of Patients at 6 Month Fup (T4)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.98|-0.36|0.36
90945947|NCT03784820|181771884|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.47||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|7.49||Comparison of Patients at Post (T2)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.49|-2.54|0.33
90945948|NCT03784820|181771884|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.18||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.59|7.95||Comparison of Patients at 3 Month Fup (T3)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.95|-3.59|0.46
90977800|NCT01552343|181839728|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.9647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|6.3|||ANCOVA|Covariates baseline score, treatment and age stratum (\<65, \>=65).||Treatment effect. NI total scores are transformed to a 0-100 scale where 0 is good and 100 bad.||6.3|-6.6|0.9647
90977801|NCT01078805|181839731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0177||95.0||||Comparison is between 0 to 6 months fracture incidence rate versus 6 to 12 months fracture incidence rate.|One-sample binomial proportion test|||||||0.0177
90977802|NCT01078805|181839731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0019||95.0||||Comparison is between 0 to 6 months fracture incidence rate versus 12 to 18 months fracture incidence rate.|One-sample binomial proportion test|||||||0.0019
90977803|NCT01078805|181839731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0143||95.0||||Comparison is between 0 to 6 months fracture incidence rate versus 18 to 24 months fracture incidence rate.|One-sample binomial proportion test|||||||0.0143
90977804|NCT01078805|181839732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0689||95.0||||Comparison is between 0 to 6 months fracture incidence rate versus 6 to 12 months fracture incidence rate.|One-sample binomial proportion test|||||||0.0689
90977805|NCT01078805|181839732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0412||95.0||||Comparison is between 0 to 6 months fracture incidence rate versus 12 to 18 months fracture incidence rate.|One-sample binomial proportion test|||||||0.0412
90977806|NCT01078805|181839732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0631||95.0||||Comparison is between 0 to 6 months fracture incidence rate versus 18 to 24 months fracture incidence rate.|One-sample binomial proportion test|||||||0.0631
90977807|NCT01078805|181839733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90977808|NCT01078805|181839734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90977809|NCT04722991|181839745|OTHER|Bayesian inference with non-informative priors|Point estimate|-0.015|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.029|||||Median of posterior distribution|||0.029|-0.080|
90977810|NCT02246621|181839762|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54||||2e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.418|0.698|||Log Rank|||||0.698|0.418|0.000002
90977811|NCT02246621|181839764|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.005
90977812|NCT02246621|181839766|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.501|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.501
90977813|NCT02246621|181839767|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.101|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.101
90977814|NCT02246621|181839771|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.688|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.688
90977815|NCT02246621|181839772|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.39||0.466|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.466
90977816|NCT00821678|181839775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-3.81||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.19|-1.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.43|-6.19|0.002
90977817|NCT00821678|181839776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.25||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.1|-0.4|0.001
90977818|NCT00821678|181839777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.70|-0.33|0.48
90977819|NCT00821678|181839778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|2.67||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|4.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.91|0.45|0.02
90977820|NCT00821678|181839781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|0.86||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.62|0.46|0.65
90977821|NCT00821678|181839782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|19.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||19.6|3.2|<0.001
90977822|NCT04533711|181839793|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.35||||0.3086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.68|24.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||24.38|-7.68|0.3086
90977823|NCT04533711|181839794|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.93||||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.06|26.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||26.92|-5.06|0.1820
90977824|NCT04533711|181839795|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|308.4||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.2|667.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||667.1|-50.2|0.094
90977825|NCT04533711|181839796|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|352.0||||0.0691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.2|729.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||729.2|-25.2|0.0691
90977826|NCT04533711|181839797|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.85||||0.4953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.6|10.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||10.94|-22.6|0.4953
90977827|NCT04533711|181839798|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.25||||0.8041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|15.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||15.49|-20.0|0.8041
90977828|NCT04533711|181839799|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.9645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.86|2.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.99|-2.86|0.9645
90977829|NCT04533711|181839800|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.68||||0.0989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.85|0.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.49|-5.85|0.0989
90977830|NCT04533711|181839801|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.7667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|1.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.05|-0.77|0.7667
90977831|NCT04533711|181839802|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.87||||0.0894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.13|-1.87|0.0894
90977832|NCT02689492|181839808|OTHER||Intercept|68.5027|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.0355|||||||||||Standard deviation is actually standard error.|||||
90977833|NCT02689492|181839809|OTHER||Intercept|95.4051|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.9951|||||||||||Standard deviation is actually standard error.|||||
90945949|NCT03784820|181771884|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.83||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.94|10.6||Comparison of Patients at 6 Month Fup (T4)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||10.60|-2.94|0.27
90945950|NCT03784820|181771885|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.06||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.14|5.25||Comparison of Patients at Post (T2)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.25|-3.14|0.62
90945951|NCT03784820|181771885|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.83||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.07|7.73||Comparison of Patients at 6 Month Fup (T4)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.73|-4.07|0.54
90945952|NCT03784820|181771886|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|4.8||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|10.51||Comparison of Patients at Post (T2)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||10.51|-0.91|0.10
90945953|NCT03784820|181771886|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.08||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.97|8.13||Comparison of Patients at 3 Month Fup (T3)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.13|-5.97|0.76
90945954|NCT03784820|181771886|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.26||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.03|8.55||Comparison of Patients at 6 Month Fup (T4)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.55|-2.03|0.23
90945955|NCT03784820|181771886|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.25||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.63|6.14||Comparison of Partners at Post (T2)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.14|-6.63|0.94
90945956|NCT03784820|181771886|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.46||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.38|5.46||Comparison of Partners at 3 Month Fup (T3)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.46|-8.38|0.68
90945957|NCT03784820|181771886|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.61||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.06|7.84||Comparison of Partners at 6 Month Fup (T4)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.84|-9.06|0.89
90945958|NCT03784820|181771887|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.41||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.61|6.79||Comparison of Patients at Post (T2)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.79|-7.61|0.91
90945959|NCT03784820|181771887|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|4.72||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.49|11.93||Comparison of Patients at 3 Month Fup (T3)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.93|-2.49|0.20
90945960|NCT03784820|181771887|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|4.78||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|11.2||Comparison of Patients at 6 Month Fup (T4)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.20|-1.63|0.14
90945961|NCT03784820|181771887|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.86||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.76|10.49||Comparison of Partners at Post (T2)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||10.49|-2.76|0.25
90945962|NCT03784820|181771887|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|4.22||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|9.89||Comparison of Partners at 3 Month Fup (T3)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.89|-1.45|0.14
90945963|NCT03784820|181771887|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.15||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.58|8.87||Comparison of Partners at 6 Month Fup (T4)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.87|-2.58|0.28
90945964|NCT03784820|181771888|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.73||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.73|20.19||Comparison of Patients at Post (T2)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||20.19|-16.73|0.85
90945965|NCT03784820|181771888|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|7.94||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.59|29.48||Comparison of Patients at 3 Month Fup (T3)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||29.48|-13.59|0.47
90945966|NCT03784820|181771888|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|9.79||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|31.08||Comparison of Patients at 6 Month Fup (T4)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||31.08|-11.50|0.37
90945967|NCT03784820|181771888|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.36||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.31|20.03||Comparison of Partners at Post (T2)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||20.03|-19.31|0.97
90945968|NCT03784820|181771888|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-5.88||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.85|12.09||Comparison of Partners at 3 Month Fup (T3)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||12.09|-23.85|0.52
90945969|NCT03784820|181771888|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.55||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.33|13.23||Comparison of Partners at 6 Month Fup (T4)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||13.23|-20.33|0.68
90945970|NCT03784820|181771889|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.27||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.02|4.47||Comparison of Patients at Post (T2)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.47|-5.02|0.91
90945971|NCT03784820|181771889|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|4.73||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|9.81||Comparison of Patients at 3 Month Fup (T3)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.81|-0.36|0.07
90945972|NCT03784820|181771889|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.75||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.73|9.23||Comparison of Patients at 6 Month Fup (T4)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.23|-5.73|0.65
90945973|NCT03784820|181771889|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.05||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.21|4.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of Partners at Post (T2)||4.12|-8.21|0.52
90945974|NCT03784820|181771889|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-6.62||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.74|0.51||Comparison of Partners at 3 Month Fup (T3)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.51|-13.74|0.07
90945975|NCT03784820|181771889|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-6.64||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.73|-0.56||Comparison of Partners at 6 Month Fup (T4)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.56|-12.73|0.03
90945976|NCT03784820|181771890|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.88||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.43|15.19||Comparison of Patients at Post (T2)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||15.19|-13.43|0.90
90945977|NCT03784820|181771890|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.64||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.95|17.66||Comparison of Patients at 3 Month Fup (T3)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||17.66|-18.95|0.95
90945978|NCT03784820|181771890|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.37||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.17|19.9||Comparison of Patients at 6 Month Fup (T4)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||19.90|-17.17|0.89
90945979|NCT03784820|181771890|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|5.81||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.37|18.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of Partners at Post (T2)||18.98|-7.37|0.39
90945980|NCT03784820|181771890|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|6.29||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.26|19.84||Comparison of Partners at 3 Month Fup (T3)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||19.84|-7.26|0.36
91038470|NCT00521586|181961651|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was to be concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.88||||||Serotype 18C: 2-sided 95 % CI for the ratio of 2 geometric means (13vPnC+TIV/Placebo and Placebo+TIV/13vPnC) was constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the difference of the 2 logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution||0.88|0.58|
90945981|NCT03784820|181771890|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.55||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|16.91||Comparison of Partners at 6 Month Fup (T4)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||16.91|-20.00|0.87
90945982|NCT03784820|181771891|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.27||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|2.83||Comparison of Patients at Post (T2)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.83|-2.29|0.84
90945983|NCT03784820|181771891|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.82||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.66|2.01||Comparison of Patients at 3 Month Fup (T3)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.01|-3.66|0.57
90945984|NCT03784820|181771891|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.6||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|3.35||Comparison of Patients at 6 Month Fup (T4)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.35|-2.15|0.67
90945985|NCT03784820|181771891|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.46||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|2.35||Comparison of Partners at Post (T2)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.35|-1.43|0.63
90945986|NCT03784820|181771891|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.44||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|3.7||Comparison of Partners at 3 Month Fup (T3)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.70|-0.82|0.21
90945987|NCT03784820|181771891|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.07||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|3.28||Comparison of Partners at 6 Month Fup (T4)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.28|-1.14|0.34
90945988|NCT03784820|181771892|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.42||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.36|6.52||Demand/Withdraw score: Comparison of Patients at Post (T2)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.52|-13.36|0.50
90945989|NCT03784820|181771892|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.47||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.49|6.54||Demand/Withdraw Score: Comparison of Patients at 3 Month Fup (T3)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.54|-7.49|0.89
90945990|NCT03784820|181771892|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.63||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.56|6.3||Demand/Withdraw Score: Comparison of Patients at 6 Month Fup (T4)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.30|-7.56|0.86
90945991|NCT03784820|181771892|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.55||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|6.93||Constructive Communication Score: Comparison of Patients at Post (T2)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.93|-1.83|0.25
90945992|NCT03784820|181771892|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.05||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.83|8.92||Constructive Communication Score: Comparison of Patients at 3 Month Fup (T3)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.92|-4.83|0.56
90945993|NCT03784820|181771892|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.13||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.27|9.54||Constructive Communication Score: Comparison of Patients at 6 Month Fup (T4)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.54|-3.27|0.34
90945994|NCT03784820|181771892|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-10.24||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.05|-1.42||Demand/Withdraw score: Comparison of Partners at Post (T2)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.42|-19.05|0.02
90945995|NCT03784820|181771892|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.12||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.18|7.95||Demand/Withdraw score: Comparison of Partners at 3 Month Fup (T3)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.95|-8.18|0.98
90945996|NCT03784820|181771892|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.2||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|5.7||Demand/Withdraw score: Comparison of Partners at 6 Month Fup (T4)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.70|-10.10|0.59
90945997|NCT03784820|181771892|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.41||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|5.82||Constructive Communication Score: Comparison of Partners at Post (T2)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.82|-0.99|0.16
90945998|NCT03784820|181771892|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.94||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|8.93||Constructive Communication Score: Comparison of Partners at 3 Month Fup (T3)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.93|-1.05|0.12
90945999|NCT03784820|181771892|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.26||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|6.87||Constructive Communication Score: Comparison of Partners at 6 Month Fup (T4)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.87|-2.35|0.34
90946000|NCT03784820|181771893|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.09||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.53||Comparison of Patients at Post (T2)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.53|-0.35|0.70
90946001|NCT03784820|181771893|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.03||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.42||Comparison of Patients at 3 Month Fup (T3)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.42|-0.48|0.90
90946002|NCT03784820|181771893|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.25||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.82||Comparison of Patients at 6 Month Fup (T4)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.82|-0.31|0.38
90946003|NCT03784820|181771894|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.33||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|4.43||Comparison of Patients at Post (T2)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.43|-5.10|0.89
90946004|NCT03784820|181771894|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.45||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.14|5.04||Comparison of Patients at 3 Month Fup (T3)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.04|-4.14|0.85
90946005|NCT03784820|181771894|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.85||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.54|3.85||Comparison of Patients at 6 Month Fup (T4)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.85|-5.54|0.72
90946006|NCT03784820|181771894|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.05||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.73|2.63||Comparison of Partners at Post (T2)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.63|-8.73|0.29
90946007|NCT03784820|181771894|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-4.69||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|0.51||Comparison of Partners at 3 Month Fup (T3)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.51|-9.90|0.08
90946008|NCT03784820|181771894|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.29||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.23|1.65||Comparison of Partners at 6 Month Fup (T4)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.65|-8.23|0.19
90977834|NCT02689492|181839810|OTHER||Intercept|74.8895|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.0048|||||||||||Standard deviation is actually standard error.|||||
90946009|NCT03784820|181771895|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.2||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.08|1.67||Comparison of Patients at Post (T2)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.67|-4.08|0.41
90946010|NCT03784820|181771895|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.33||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.87|3.54||Comparison of Patients at 3 Month Fup (T3)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.54|-2.87|0.84
90946011|NCT03784820|181771895|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.21||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.76|2.34||Comparison of Patients at 6 Month Fup (T4)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.34|-4.76|0.50
90946012|NCT03784820|181771895|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.09||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.43|2.24||Comparison of Partners at Post (T2)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.24|-4.43|0.52
90946013|NCT03784820|181771895|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.38||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.96|1.21||Comparison of Partners at 3 Month Fup (T3)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.21|-3.96|0.30
90946014|NCT03784820|181771895|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.52||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.78|-0.25||Comparison of Partners at 6 Month Fup (T4)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.25|-4.78|0.03
90946015|NCT03784820|181771896|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.53||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.66|4.72||Comparison of Patients at Post (T2)|t-test, 2 sided|||||4.72|-3.66|0.79
90946016|NCT06314438|181771940|EQUIVALENCE|paired samples t test with significance set at 0.05 p value||||||0.34|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.34
90946017|NCT06314438|181771941|EQUIVALENCE|paired samples t test with significance level at 0.05||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
90946018|NCT06314438|181771942|EQUIVALENCE|paired samples t test with significance set at 0.05 p value|||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
90946019|NCT02201901|181771958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Binomial test|P-value is from the 2-sided exact 1-sample binomial test for the superiority of SOF/VEL 12 weeks (Group 1) over prespecified rate of 1% .||A sample size of 75 participants per treatment group would provide over 99% power to detect 40% improvement in SVR12 rate from the assumed spontaneous rate of 1% or less using a 2-sided exact 1-sample binomial test at significance level of 0.0167.||||<0.001
90946020|NCT02201901|181771958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Binomial test|P-value is from the 2-sided exact 1-sample binomial test for the superiority of SOF/VEL+RBV 12 weeks (Group 2) over prespecified rate of 1%.||A sample size of 75 participants per treatment group would provide over 99% power to detect 40% improvement in SVR12 rate from the assumed spontaneous rate of 1% or less using a 2-sided exact 1-sample binomial test at significance level of 0.0167.||||<0.001
90946021|NCT02201901|181771958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Binomial test|P-value is from the 2-sided exact 1-sample binomial test for the superiority of SOF/VEL 24 weeks (Group 3) over prespecified rate of 1%.||A sample size of 75 participants per treatment group would provide over 99% power to detect 40% improvement in SVR12 rate from the assumed spontaneous rate of 1% or less using a 2-sided exact 1-sample binomial test at significance level of 0.0167.||||<0.001
90946022|NCT01385748|181772016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.677||||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.387|1.186|||Log Rank|The log rank test at 5% significance level was used.||||1.186|0.387|0.165
90946023|NCT01385748|181772016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.817||||0.421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.495|1.35|||Log Rank|The log rank test at 5% significance level was used.||||1.35|0.495|0.421
90946024|NCT01385748|181772016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.754||||0.211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.484|1.175|||Log Rank|The log rank test at 5% significance level was used.||||1.175|0.484|0.211
90946025|NCT01385748|181772019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.807||||||Significance threshold = 5%|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.807
90946026|NCT01385748|181772019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.971||||||Significance threshold = 5%|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.971
90946027|NCT01385748|181772021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.698||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.398|1.223||Significance threshold = 5%|Log Rank|||||1.223|0.398|0.199
90946028|NCT01385748|181772021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.817||||0.424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.493|1.353|||Log Rank|Significance threshold = 5%||||1.353|0.493|0.424
90946029|NCT01385748|181772021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.764||||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.489|1.193|||Log Rank|Significance threshold = 5%||||1.193|0.489|0.235
90946030|NCT01385748|181772022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.176|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|Significance threshold = 5%||||||0.176
90946031|NCT01385748|181772022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|Significance threshold = 5%||||||0.61
90946032|NCT01385748|181772022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.295|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|Significance threshold = 5%||||||0.295
90946033|NCT01385748|181772023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.063||||||Significance threshold = 5%|Chi-squared|||||||0.063
90946034|NCT01385748|181772023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.169|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.169
90946035|NCT01385748|181772023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.064|||||||Chi-squared|Significance threshold = 5%||||||0.064
90946036|NCT01385748|181772024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.824||||0.388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.484|1.401|||Log Rank|Significance threshold = 5%||||1.401|0.484|0.388
90946037|NCT01385748|181772024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.601||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.357|1.012|||Log Rank|Significance threshold = 5%||||1.012|0.357|0.054
90946038|NCT01385748|181772024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.692||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.444|1.078|||Log Rank|Significance threshold = 5%||||1.078|0.444|0.102
90946039|NCT00121667|181772114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|-0.53||Between-group comparisons significant at alpha = 0.019, significance testing based on hierarchical testing. Primary and secondary endpoints are presented in order of testing.|ANCOVA|Adjusted mean difference for saxagliptin groups vs placebo in Week 24 (LOCF). Adjusted for baseline.|ANCOVA model: difference between week t and baseline values = baseline values + treatment|||-0.53|-0.92|<.0001
90946040|NCT00121667|181772114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.63||Between-group comparisons significant at alpha = 0.019, significance testing based on hierarchical testing. Primary and secondary endpoints are presented in order of testing.|ANCOVA|Adjusted mean difference for saxagliptin groups vs placebo in Week 24 (LOCF). Adjusted for baseline.|ANCOVA model: difference between week t and baseline values = baseline values + treatment|||-0.63|-1.02|<.0001
90977835|NCT02338843|181839860|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.76|13.3|||Regression, Logistic|Stratified logistic regression model. Adjusted by baseline MAP and APACHE II, vasopressin use and average NED 6 hours prior to randomization.||||13.3|4.76|<0.001
90977836|NCT00110305|181839861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Differences in response rate|0.5||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|11.3||The significance level for each comparison was 5% (two-sided). No further adjustment of this significance level was applied.|Regression, Logistic|This model with factors treatment, region, and Nucleoside/tide reverse transcriptase inhibitors (N\[t\]RTIs) used, and baseline viral load as covariate.||||11.3|-10.4|0.92
90977837|NCT00110305|181839861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rate|-2.3||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|9.0||The significance level for each comparison was 5% (two-sided). No further adjustment of this significance level was applied.|Regression, Logistic|This model with factors treatment, region, and N(t)RTIs used, and baseline viral load as covariate.||||9.0|-13.6|0.56
90977838|NCT00110305|181839861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rate|-2.8||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|8.4||The significance level for each comparison was 5% (two-sided). No further adjustment of this significance level was applied.|Regression, Logistic|This model with factors treatment, region, and N(t)RTIs used, and baseline viral load as covariate.||||8.4|-14.0|0.62
90977839|NCT00110305|181839861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rate|-1.5||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|7.5||The significance level for each comparison was 5% (two-sided). No further adjustment of this significance level was applied.|Regression, Logistic|This model with factors treatment, region, and N(t)RTIs used, and baseline viral load as covariate.||||7.5|-10.5|0.80
90977840|NCT00110305|181839862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rate|-4.8||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|7.6||The significance level for each comparison was 5% (two-sided). No further adjustment of this significance level was applied.|Regression, Logistic|This model with factors treatment, region, and Nucleoside/tide reverse transcriptase inhibitors (N\[t\]RTIs) used, and baseline viral load as covariate.||||7.6|-17.1|0.45
90977841|NCT00110305|181839862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rate|-4.8||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|7.7||The significance level for each comparison was 5% (two-sided). No further adjustment of this significance level was applied.|Regression, Logistic|This model with factors treatment, region, and N(t)RTIs used, and baseline viral load as covariate.||||7.7|-17.3|0.45
90977842|NCT00110305|181839862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rate|0.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|12.8||The significance level for each comparison was 5% (two-sided). No further adjustment of this significance level was applied.|Regression, Logistic|This model with factors treatment, region, and N(t)RTIs used, and baseline viral load as covariate.||||12.8|-12.9|0.99
90977843|NCT00110305|181839862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Differences in response|2.6||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|13.3||The significance level for each comparison was 5% (two-sided). No further adjustment of this significance level was applied.|Regression, Logistic|This model with factors treatment, region, and N(t)RTIs used, and baseline viral load as covariate.||||13.3|-8.1|0.63
90977844|NCT00110305|181839864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rate|-2.8||||||95.0|-14.7|9.1||||||||9.1|-14.7|
91038471|NCT00521586|181961651|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was to be concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.08||||||Serotype 19A: 2-sided 95 % CI for the ratio of 2 geometric means (13vPnC+TIV/Placebo and Placebo+TIV/13vPnC) was constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the difference of the 2 logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution||1.08|0.74|
90977845|NCT01252966|181839887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.13|||Regression, Logistic|||Longitudinal logistic regression with fitted generalized estimating equations (GEE) was used to estimate an overall treatment effect odds ratio including both the EOT and 6-month time points and relevant covariates (e.g., baseline smoking rate, age, Shipley IQ score). The study (n=213) had 80% power to detect small to medium effects on quit rates (corresponding to Cohen's one-sample d=0.38).||1.13|0.42|0.14
90977846|NCT01252966|181839889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||Regression, Linear|||Multiple regression models were used to estimate effects of treatment on change in cognitive performance. Age, Shipley IQ score, number of cigarettes smoked per day at baseline, and EOT smoking status were included as covariates.||||0.30
90977847|NCT01252966|181839890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||Regression, Linear|||Multiple regression models were used to estimate effects of treatment on change in cognitive performance. Age, Shipley IQ score, number of cigarettes smoked per day at baseline, and EOT smoking status were included as covariates.||||0.30
90977848|NCT01252966|181839891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033||||||Results would not survive correction for multiple hypothesis testing.|Regression, Linear|||Multiple regression models were used to estimate effects of treatment on change in cognitive performance. Age, Shipley IQ score, number of cigarettes smoked per day at baseline, and EOT smoking status were included as covariates.||||0.033
90977849|NCT03275870|181839901|OTHER|||||||0.042||||||p value \<0.05 used as threshold for significance|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.042
90977850|NCT03275870|181839902|OTHER|||||||0.213||||||P value of \<0.05 used as threshold for significance|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.213
90977851|NCT00522392|181839928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.092|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Stratified log rank test was used to compare progression-free survival between the two arms.||||0.092
90977852|NCT00522392|181839929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to compare the response rates between the two arms.||||0.029
91038472|NCT00521586|181961651|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was to be concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.1||||||Serotype 19F: 2-sided 95 % CI for the ratio of 2 geometric means (13vPnC+TIV/Placebo and Placebo+TIV/13vPnC) was constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the difference of the 2 logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution||1.10|0.67|
90977853|NCT00522392|181839930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Stratified log-rank test was used to compare overall survival between the two arms.||||0.48
90977854|NCT03575104|181839960|OTHER|The Type I error rate was controlled for the testing of multiple null hypotheses associated with the endpoint assessed at 1 and 3 months of treatment and the two dose levels studied. Each null hypothesis was tested against the alternative hypothesis that daridorexant improved the endpoint at the given dose and time point compared to placebo. The order of testing and the alpha level applied to each null hypothesis was based on the Bonferroni-based gatekeeping procedure (see SAP for details).|LS mean difference to placebo|-11.62||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.604|-5.633||Mixed effects model for repeated measures: change from baseline in WASO = baseline WASO + age group (\< 65; ≥ 65 years) + treatment + visit + treatment × visit + baseline × visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hypothesis testing result: threshold for significance p = 0.025; statistically significant = YES||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in WASO (min) to Month 1 (Daridorexant 25 mg vs placebo).||-5.633|-17.604|0.0001
90977855|NCT03575104|181839960|OTHER|The Type I error rate was controlled for the testing of multiple null hypotheses associated with the endpoint assessed at 1 and 3 months of treatment and the two dose levels studied. Each null hypothesis was tested against the alternative hypothesis that daridorexant improved the endpoint at the given dose and time point compared to placebo. The order of testing and the alpha level applied to each null hypothesis was based on the Bonferroni-based gatekeeping procedure (see SAP for details).|LS mean difference to placebo|-2.74||||0.3669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.693|3.215||Mixed effects model for repeated measures: change from baseline in WASO = baseline WASO + age group (\< 65; ≥ 65 years) + treatment + visit + treatment × visit + baseline × visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hypothesis testing result: threshold for significance p = 0.00977; statistically significant = NO||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in WASO (min) to Month 1 (Daridorexant 10 mg vs placebo).||3.215|-8.693|0.3669
90977856|NCT03575104|181839961|OTHER|The Type I error rate was controlled for the testing of multiple null hypotheses associated with the endpoint assessed at 1 and 3 months of treatment and the two dose levels studied. Each null hypothesis was tested against the alternative hypothesis that daridorexant improved the endpoint at the given dose and time point compared to placebo. The order of testing and the alpha level applied to each null hypothesis was based on the Bonferroni-based gatekeeping procedure (see SAP for details).|LS Mean difference to placebo|-10.25||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.95|-3.548||Mixed effects model for repeated measures: change from baseline in WASO = baseline WASO + age group (\< 65; ≥ 65 years) + treatment + visit + treatment × visit + baseline × visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hypothesis testing result: threshold for significance p = 0.01563; statistically significant = YES||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in WASO (min) to Month 3 (Daridorexant 25 mg vs placebo).||-3.548|-16.95|0.0028
90977857|NCT03575104|181839961|OTHER|The Type I error rate was controlled for the testing of multiple null hypotheses associated with the endpoint assessed at 1 and 3 months of treatment and the two dose levels studied. Each null hypothesis was tested against the alternative hypothesis that daridorexant improved the endpoint at the given dose and time point compared to placebo. The order of testing and the alpha level applied to each null hypothesis was based on the Bonferroni-based gatekeeping procedure (see SAP for details).|LS Mean difference to placebo|-1.95||||0.5686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.666|4.764||Mixed effects model for repeated measures: change from baseline in WASO = baseline WASO + age group (\< 65; ≥ 65 years) + treatment + visit + treatment × visit + baseline × visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hypothesis testing result: threshold for significance p = 0; statistically significant = NO||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in WASO (min) to Month 3 (Daridorexant 10 mg vs placebo).||4.764|-8.666|0.5686
90977858|NCT03575104|181839962|OTHER|The Type I error rate was controlled for the testing of multiple null hypotheses associated with the endpoint assessed at 1 and 3 months of treatment and the two dose levels studied. Each null hypothesis was tested against the alternative hypothesis that daridorexant improved the endpoint at the given dose and time point compared to placebo. The order of testing and the alpha level applied to each null hypothesis was based on the Bonferroni-based gatekeeping procedure (see SAP for details).|LS mean difference to placebo|-6.45||||0.0303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.282|-0.614||Mixed effects model for repeated measures: change from baseline in LPS = baseline LPS + age group (\< 65; ≥ 65 years) + treatment + visit + treatment × visit + baseline × visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hypothesis testing result: threshold for significance p = 0.025; statistically significant = NO||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in LPS (min) to Month 1 (Daridorexant 25 mg vs placebo).||-0.614|-12.282|0.0303
90977859|NCT03575104|181839962|OTHER|The Type I error rate was controlled for the testing of multiple null hypotheses associated with the endpoint assessed at 1 and 3 months of treatment and the two dose levels studied. Each null hypothesis was tested against the alternative hypothesis that daridorexant improved the endpoint at the given dose and time point compared to placebo. The order of testing and the alpha level applied to each null hypothesis was based on the Bonferroni-based gatekeeping procedure (see SAP for details).|LS mean difference to placebo|-2.61||||0.3782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.41|3.197||Mixed effects model for repeated measures: change from baseline in LPS = baseline LPS + age group (\< 65; ≥ 65 years) + treatment + visit + treatment × visit + baseline × visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hypothesis testing result: threshold for significance p = 0.00195; statistically significant = NO||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in LPS (min) to Month 1 (Daridorexant 10 mg vs placebo).||3.197|-8.41|0.3782
90977860|NCT03575104|181839963|OTHER|The Type I error rate was controlled for the testing of multiple null hypotheses associated with the endpoint assessed at 1 and 3 months of treatment and the two dose levels studied. Each null hypothesis was tested against the alternative hypothesis that daridorexant improved the endpoint at the given dose and time point compared to placebo. The order of testing and the alpha level applied to each null hypothesis was based on the Bonferroni-based gatekeeping procedure (see SAP for details).|LS mean difference to placebo|-9.01||||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.339|-2.684||Mixed effects model for repeated measures: change from baseline in LPS = baseline LPS + age group (\< 65; ≥ 65 years) + treatment + visit + treatment × visit + baseline × visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hypothesis testing result: threshold for significance p = 0.00313; statistically significant = NO||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in LPS (min) to Month 3 (Daridorexant 25 mg vs placebo).||-2.684|-15.339|0.0053
90977861|NCT03575104|181839963|OTHER|The Type I error rate was controlled for the testing of multiple null hypotheses associated with the endpoint assessed at 1 and 3 months of treatment and the two dose levels studied. Each null hypothesis was tested against the alternative hypothesis that daridorexant improved the endpoint at the given dose and time point compared to placebo. The order of testing and the alpha level applied to each null hypothesis was based on the Bonferroni-based gatekeeping procedure (see SAP for details).|LS mean difference to placebo|-3.19||||0.3233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.528|3.146||Mixed effects model for repeated measures: change from baseline in LPS = baseline LPS + age group (\< 65; ≥ 65 years) + treatment + visit + treatment × visit + baseline × visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hypothesis testing result: threshold for significance p = 0; statistically significant = NO||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in LPS (min) to Month 3 (Daridorexant 10 mg vs placebo).||3.146|-9.528|0.3233
90977862|NCT03575104|181839964|OTHER|The Type I error rate was controlled for the testing of multiple null hypotheses associated with the endpoint assessed at 1 and 3 months of treatment and the two dose levels studied. Each null hypothesis was tested against the alternative hypothesis that daridorexant improved the endpoint at the given dose and time point compared to placebo. The order of testing and the alpha level applied to each null hypothesis was based on the Bonferroni-based gatekeeping procedure (see SAP for details).|LS mean difference to placebo|16.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.224|24.035||Hypothesis testing result: threshold for significance p = 0.0125; statistically significant = YES|Mixed Models Analysis|||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in sTST (min) to Month 1 (Daridorexant 25 mg vs placebo).||24.035|8.224|<.0001
90977863|NCT03575104|181839964|OTHER|The Type I error rate was controlled for the testing of multiple null hypotheses associated with the endpoint assessed at 1 and 3 months of treatment and the two dose levels studied. Each null hypothesis was tested against the alternative hypothesis that daridorexant improved the endpoint at the given dose and time point compared to placebo. The order of testing and the alpha level applied to each null hypothesis was based on the Bonferroni-based gatekeeping procedure (see SAP for details).|LS mean difference to placebo|13.37|||=|0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.507|21.226||Mixed effects model for repeated measures: change from baseline in sTST = baseline sTST + age group (\< 65; ≥ 65 years) + treatment + visit + treatment × visit + baseline × visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hypothesis testing result: threshold for significance p = 0; statistically significant = NO||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in sTST (min) to Month 1 (Daridorexant 10 mg vs placebo).||21.226|5.507|= 0.0009
90977864|NCT03575104|181839965|OTHER|The Type I error rate was controlled for the testing of multiple null hypotheses associated with the endpoint assessed at 1 and 3 months of treatment and the two dose levels studied. Each null hypothesis was tested against the alternative hypothesis that daridorexant improved the endpoint at the given dose and time point compared to placebo. The order of testing and the alpha level applied to each null hypothesis was based on the Bonferroni-based gatekeeping procedure (see SAP for details).|LS mean difference to placebo|19.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.125|27.994||Mixed effects model for repeated measures: change from baseline in sTST = baseline sTST + age group (\< 65; ≥ 65 years) + treatment + visit + treatment × visit + baseline × visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hypothesis testing result: threshold for significance p = 0.00781; statistically significant = YES||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in sTST (min) to Month 3 (Daridorexant 25 mg vs placebo).||27.994|10.125|<.0001
91007786|NCT01234337|181899747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.195|||=|0.930088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.943|1.513||One-sided p-value from log rank test (stratified per randomization as in IVRS). OS was compared using a stratified log-rank test, stratified by region, hormone receptor status, number of previous chemotherapies for metastatic disease.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio (sorafenib + capecitabine / placebo + capecitabine) and its 95% CIs were calculated using the Cox model, stratified by randomization factors.|At the time of PFS final analysis, it was OS interim analysis (IA) with 285 total death events. According to protocol specified O'Brien-Fleming type alpha spending function and 285 death events at IA, the prespecified alpha for this analysis was 0.0075 (one-sided). A Hazard ratio \< 1 indicates superiority of Sorafenib+Capecitabine over Placebo+Capecitabine.||1.513|0.943|=0.930088
91038473|NCT00521586|181961651|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was to be concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.08||||||Serotype 23F: 2-sided 95 % CI for the ratio of 2 geometric means (13vPnC+TIV/Placebo and Placebo+TIV/13vPnC) was constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the difference of the 2 logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution||1.08|0.66|
91038474|NCT00521586|181961652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.34||||||Serotype 1: 2-sided 95 % CI for the ratio of 2 geometric means (13vPnC+TIV/Placebo and Placebo+TIV/13vPnC) was constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the difference of the 2 logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.||1.34|0.83|
90946041|NCT00121667|181772114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.52||Between-group comparisons significant at alpha = 0.019, significance testing based on hierarchical testing. Primary and secondary endpoints are presented in order of testing.|ANCOVA|Adjusted mean difference for saxagliptin groups vs placebo in Week 24 (LOCF) .Adjusted for baseline.|ANCOVA model: difference between week t and baseline values = baseline values + treatment|||-0.52|-0.91|<.0001
91007787|NCT01234337|181899748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91|||=|0.2105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.723|1.146||One-sided p-value from log rank test (stratified per randomization as in IVRS).|Log Rank||The hazard ratio (sorafenib + capecitabine / placebo + capecitabine) and its 95% CIs were calculated using the Cox model, stratified by the above factors.|TTP was compared using a stratified log-rank test with a one-sided alpha of 0.025, stratified by region, hormone receptor status, number of previous chemotherapies for metastatic disease. A Hazard ratio \<1 indicates superiority of Sorafenib+Capecitabine over Placebo+Capecitabine.||1.146|0.723|=0.2105
90946042|NCT00121667|181772115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.56|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.55|-8.55||Significance testing based on hierarchical testing. Primary and secondary endpoints are presented in order of testing.|ANCOVA|Adjusted mean difference for saxagliptin groups vs placebo in Week 24 (LOCF). Adjusted for baseline.|ANCOVA model: difference between week t and baseline values = baseline values + treatment|||-8.55|-22.55|<.0001
90946043|NCT00121667|181772115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.57|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.29|-16.27||Significance testing based on hierarchical testing. Primary and secondary endpoints are presented in order of testing.|ANCOVA|Adjusted mean difference for saxagliptin groups vs placebo in Week 24 (LOCF) .Adjusted for baseline.|ANCOVA model: difference between week t and baseline values = baseline values + treatment|||-16.27|-30.29|<.0001
90946044|NCT00121667|181772115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.81|-14.68||Significance testing based on hierarchical testing. Primary and secondary endpoints are presented in order of testing.|ANCOVA|Adjusted mean difference for saxagliptin groups vs placebo in Week 24 (LOCF) .Adjusted for baseline.|ANCOVA model: difference between week t and baseline values = baseline values + treatment|||-14.68|-28.81|<.0001
90946045|NCT00121667|181772116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|20.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.6|30.5||Significance testing based on hierarchical testing. Primary and secondary endpoints are presented in order of testing.|Fisher Exact|The exact 95% CIs is based on the standardized statistic and inverting the one 2-sided test.||||30.5|10.6|<.0001
90946046|NCT00121667|181772116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|27.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.0|36.7||Significance testing based on hierarchical testing. Primary and secondary endpoints are presented in order of testing.|Fisher Exact|The exact 95% CIs is based on the standardized statistic and inverting the one 2-sided test.||||36.7|17.0|<.0001
90946047|NCT00121667|181772116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|27.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.7|37.7||Significance testing based on hierarchical testing. Primary and secondary endpoints are presented in order of testing.|Fisher Exact|The exact 95% CIs is based on the standardized statistic and inverting the one 2-sided test.||||37.7|17.7|<.0001
90946048|NCT00121667|181772117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5599.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1168.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7894.0|-3305.0||Significance testing based on hierarchical testing. Primary and secondary endpoints are presented in order of testing.|ANCOVA|Adjusted mean difference for saxagliptin groups vs placebo in Week 24 (LOCF). Adjusted for baseline.|ANCOVA model: difference between week t and baseline values = baseline values + treatment|||-3305|-7894|<.0001
90946049|NCT00121667|181772117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6294.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1176.8|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8606.0|-3983.0||Significance testing based on hierarchical testing. Primary and secondary endpoints are presented in order of testing.|ANCOVA|Adjusted mean difference for saxagliptin groups vs placebo in Week 24 (LOCF). Adjusted for baseline.|ANCOVA model: difference between week t and baseline values = baseline values + treatment|||-3983|-8606|<.0001
90946050|NCT00121667|181772117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4845.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1175.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7153.0|-2537.0||Significance testing based on hierarchical testing. Primary and secondary endpoints are presented in order of testing.|ANCOVA|Adjusted mean difference for saxagliptin groups vs placebo in Week 24 (LOCF). Adjusted for baseline.|ANCOVA model: difference between week t and baseline values = baseline values + treatment|||-2537|-7153|<.0001
90946051|NCT02869867|181772141|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.09|4.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.31|2.09|<0.001
90946052|NCT04937920|181772178|OTHER||Mean Paired Change from Baseline|-29620.0||||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The analysis compared the differences at Day 5 between DBI-002 probiotic gel (active) and vehicle gel (active Cohort 4 only) in abundance of Malassezia based on molecular diagnostic qPCR using a 2-sided Wilcoxon sign rank test, alpha = 0.05, with a null hypothesis of median difference equal to zero.||||0.2
90946053|NCT04937920|181772178|OTHER||Mean Paired Change from Baseline|127195.0||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The analysis compared the differences at Day 14 between DBI-002 probiotic gel (active) and vehicle gel (active Cohort 4 only) in abundance of Malassezia based on molecular diagnostic qPCR using a 2-sided Wilcoxon sign rank test, alpha = 0.05, with a null hypothesis of median difference equal to zero.||||1.0
90946054|NCT04937920|181772178|OTHER||Mean Paired Change from Baseline|-41659.0||||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The analysis compared the differences at Day 5 between aqueous gel (control) and vehicle gel (active Cohort 4 only) in abundance of Malassezia based on molecular diagnostic qPCR using a 2-sided Wilcoxon sign rank test, alpha = 0.05, with a null hypothesis of median difference equal to zero.||||0.6
90977865|NCT03575104|181839965|OTHER|The Type I error rate was controlled for the testing of multiple null hypotheses associated with the endpoint assessed at 1 and 3 months of treatment and the two dose levels studied. Each null hypothesis was tested against the alternative hypothesis that daridorexant improved the endpoint at the given dose and time point compared to placebo. The order of testing and the alpha level applied to each null hypothesis was based on the Bonferroni-based gatekeeping procedure (see SAP for details).|LS mean difference to placebo|13.58|||=|0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.691|22.475||Mixed effects model for repeated measures: change from baseline in sTST = baseline sTST + age group (\< 65; ≥ 65 years) + treatment + visit + treatment × visit + baseline × visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hypothesis testing result: threshold for significance p = 0; statistically significant = NO||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in sTST (min) to Month 3 (Daridorexant 10 mg vs placebo).||22.475|4.691|= 0.0028
90977866|NCT03575104|181839966|OTHER|The Type I error rate was controlled for the testing of multiple null hypotheses associated with the endpoint assessed at 1 and 3 months of treatment and the two dose levels studied. Each null hypothesis was tested against the alternative hypothesis that daridorexant improved the endpoint at the given dose and time point compared to placebo. The order of testing and the alpha level applied to each null hypothesis was based on the Bonferroni-based gatekeeping procedure (see SAP for details).|LS mean difference to placebo|-0.75|||=|0.0733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.581|0.071||Mixed effects model for repeated measures: change from baseline in IDSIQ sleepiness domain score = baseline IDSIQ sleepiness domain score + age group (\< 65; ≥ 65 years) + treatment + visit + treatment × visit + baseline × visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hypothesis testing result: threshold for significance p = 0.00625; statistically significant = NO||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in IDSIQ sleepiness domain score to Month 1 (Daridorexant 25 mg vs placebo).||0.071|-1.581|= 0.0733
90977867|NCT03575104|181839966|OTHER|The Type I error rate was controlled for the testing of multiple null hypotheses associated with the endpoint assessed at 1 and 3 months of treatment and the two dose levels studied. Each null hypothesis was tested against the alternative hypothesis that daridorexant improved the endpoint at the given dose and time point compared to placebo. The order of testing and the alpha level applied to each null hypothesis was based on the Bonferroni-based gatekeeping procedure (see SAP for details).|LS mean difference to placebo|-0.43|||=|0.3048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.251|0.392||Mixed effects model for repeated measures: change from baseline in IDSIQ sleepiness domain score = baseline IDSIQ sleepiness domain score + age group (\< 65; ≥ 65 years) + treatment + visit + treatment × visit + baseline × visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hypothesis testing result: threshold for significance p = 0; statistically significant = NO||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in IDSIQ sleepiness domain score to Month 1 (Daridorexant 10 mg vs placebo).||0.392|-1.251|= 0.3048
90977868|NCT03575104|181839967|OTHER|The Type I error rate was controlled for the testing of multiple null hypotheses associated with the endpoint assessed at 1 and 3 months of treatment and the two dose levels studied. Each null hypothesis was tested against the alternative hypothesis that daridorexant improved the endpoint at the given dose and time point compared to placebo. The order of testing and the alpha level applied to each null hypothesis was based on the Bonferroni-based gatekeeping procedure (see SAP for details).|LS mean difference to placebo|-1.25|||=|0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|-0.276||Mixed effects model for repeated measures: change from baseline in IDSIQ sleepiness domain score = baseline IDSIQ sleepiness domain score + age group (\< 65; ≥ 65 years) + treatment + visit + treatment × visit + baseline × visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hypothesis testing result: threshold for significance p = 0.00391; statistically significant = NO||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in IDSIQ sleepiness domain score to Month 3 (Daridorexant 25 mg vs placebo).||-0.276|-2.230|= 0.0120
90977869|NCT03575104|181839967|OTHER|The Type I error rate was controlled for the testing of multiple null hypotheses associated with the endpoint assessed at 1 and 3 months of treatment and the two dose levels studied. Each null hypothesis was tested against the alternative hypothesis that daridorexant improved the endpoint at the given dose and time point compared to placebo. The order of testing and the alpha level applied to each null hypothesis was based on the Bonferroni-based gatekeeping procedure (see SAP for details).|LS mean difference to placebo|-0.73|||=|0.1393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.706|0.239||Mixed effects model for repeated measures: change from baseline in IDSIQ sleepiness domain score = baseline IDSIQ sleepiness domain score + age group (\< 65; ≥ 65 years) + treatment + visit + treatment × visit + baseline × visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hypothesis testing result: threshold for significance p = 0; statistically significant = NO||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in IDSIQ sleepiness domain score to Month 3 (Daridorexant 10 mg vs placebo).||0.239|-1.706|= 0.1393
90977870|NCT03575104|181839968|OTHER||LS mean difference to placebo|0.93||||0.2506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.05||Mixed effects model for repeated measures: log(value/baseline) = log(baseline) + age group(\< 65; ≥ 65 years) + treatment + visit + treatment x visit + log(baseline) x visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in log transformed LPS (min) to Month 1 (Daridorexant 10 mg vs placebo).||1.05|0.82|0.2506
90977871|NCT03575104|181839968|OTHER||LS mean difference to placebo|0.8||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.91||Mixed effects model for repeated measures: log(value/baseline) = log(baseline) + age group(\< 65; ≥ 65 years) + treatment + visit + treatment x visit + log(baseline) x visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in log transformed LPS (min) to Month 1 (Daridorexant 25 mg vs placebo).||0.91|0.71|0.0004
90977872|NCT03575104|181839969|OTHER||LS mean difference to placebo|0.96||||0.5037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.09||Mixed effects model for repeated measures: log(value/baseline) = log(baseline) + age group(\< 65; ≥ 65 years) + treatment + visit + treatment x visit + log(baseline) x visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in log transformed LPS (min) to Month 3 (Daridorexant 10 mg vs placebo).||1.09|0.84|0.5037
90977873|NCT03575104|181839969|OTHER||LS mean difference to placebo|0.81||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.93||Mixed effects model for repeated measures: log(value/baseline) = log(baseline) + age group(\< 65; ≥ 65 years) + treatment + visit + treatment x visit + log(baseline) x visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in LPS (min) to Month 3 (Daridorexant 25 mg vs placebo).||0.93|0.71|0.0021
90977874|NCT01111305|181840001|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence is defined as p≥0.05||||||0.028|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.028
90977875|NCT00891995|181840028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49||||||One-sided p-value.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline C-peptide AUC, age, gender and diabetic ketoacidosis.||||||0.49
90977876|NCT00891995|181840031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4||||||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline A1c, age, gender and Diabetic ketoacidosis||||||0.40
90977877|NCT02054702|181840038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures method with model terms: baseline, visit, and baseline by visit interaction.||Statistical analysis is mean change in PANSS total score from baseline to week 6 for brexpiprazole.||||<0.0001
90977878|NCT02054702|181840038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures method with model terms: baseline, visit, and baseline by visit interaction.||Statistical analysis is mean change in PANSS total score from baseline to week 6 for aripiprazole.||||<0.0001
90977879|NCT02054702|181840039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4244|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures method with model terms: baseline, visit, and baseline by visit interaction.||Statistical analysis is mean change in cognitive test composite battery score from baseline to week 6 for brexpiprazole.||||0.4244
90977880|NCT02054702|181840039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7623|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures method with model terms: baseline, visit, and baseline by visit interaction.||Statistical analysis is mean change in cognitive test composite battery score from baseline to week 6 for aripiprazole.||||0.7623
90977881|NCT02054702|181840040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8759|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures method with model terms: baseline, visit, and baseline by visit interaction.||Statistical analysis is mean change in cognitive test battery of early phase battery score from baseline to week 6 for aripiprazole.||||0.8759
90977882|NCT02054702|181840040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2176|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures method with model terms: baseline, visit, and baseline by visit interaction.||Statistical analysis is mean change in cognitive test battery of early phase battery score from baseline to week 6 for aripiprazole.||||0.2176
90977883|NCT02054702|181840041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.842|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures method with model terms: baseline, visit, and baseline by visit interaction.||Statistical analysis is mean change in cognitive test battery score of GML from baseline to week 6 for brexpiprazole.||||0.8420
90977884|NCT02054702|181840041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3781|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures method with model terms: baseline, visit, and baseline by visit interaction.||Statistical analysis is mean change in cognitive test battery score of GML from baseline to week 6 for aripiprazole.||||0.3781
90977885|NCT02054702|181840042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1807|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures method with model terms: baseline, visit, and baseline by visit interaction.||Statistical analysis is mean change in cognitive test battery score of detection task from baseline to week 6 for brexpiprazole.||||0.1807
90977886|NCT02054702|181840042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2802|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures method with model terms: baseline, visit, and baseline by visit interaction.||Statistical analysis is mean change in cognitive test battery score of detection task from baseline to week 6 for aripiprazole.||||0.2802
90977887|NCT02054702|181840043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8622|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures method with model terms: baseline, visit, and baseline by visit interaction.||Statistical analysis is mean change in cognitive test battery score of identification task from baseline to week 6 for brexpiprazole.||||0.8622
90977888|NCT02054702|181840043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4848|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures method with model terms: baseline, visit, and baseline by visit interaction.||Statistical analysis is mean change in cognitive test battery score of identification task from baseline to week 6 for aripiprazole.||||0.4848
90977889|NCT02054702|181840044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8588|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures method with model terms: baseline, visit, and baseline by visit interaction.||Statistical analysis is mean change in cognitive test battery score of one card learning task from baseline to week 6 for brexpiprazole.||||0.8588
90977890|NCT02054702|181840044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9928|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures method with model terms: baseline, visit, and baseline by visit interaction.||Statistical analysis is mean change in cognitive test battery score of one card learning task from baseline to week 6 for aripiprazole.||||0.9928
90977891|NCT02054702|181840045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures method with model terms: baseline, visit, and baseline by visit interaction.||Statistical analysis is mean change in CGI-S from baseline to week 6 for brexpiprazole.||||<0.0001
90977892|NCT02054702|181840045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures method with model terms: baseline, visit, and baseline by visit interaction.||Statistical analysis is mean change in CGI-S from baseline to week 6 were observed for aripiprazole.||||<0.0001
90977893|NCT02054702|181840048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and total score at baseline as covariate was used for change from baseline comparisons.||Statistical analysis is mean change in SLOF total score from baseline to week 6 for brexpiprazole.||||<0.0001
90977894|NCT02054702|181840048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The ANCOVA model, with treatment group as main effect and total score at baseline as covariate, was used for change from baseline comparisons.||Statistical analysis is mean change in SLOF total score from baseline to week 6 for aripiprazole.||||<0.0001
90977895|NCT02054702|181840049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0392|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model, with treatment group as main effect and total score at baseline as covariate, was used for change from baseline comparisons.||Statistical analysis is mean change in BIS-11 item total score from baseline to week 6 for brexpiprazole.||||0.0392
90977896|NCT02054702|181840049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9716|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model, with treatment group as main effect and total score at baseline as covariate, was used for change from baseline comparisons.||Statistical analysis is mean change in BIS-11 item total score from baseline to week 6 for aripiprazole.||||0.9716
90946055|NCT04937920|181772178|OTHER||Mean Paired Change from Baseline|-483.0||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The analysis compared the differences at Day 14 between aqueous gel (control) and vehicle gel (active Cohort 4 only) in abundance of Malassezia based on molecular diagnostic qPCR using a 2-sided Wilcoxon sign rank test, alpha = 0.05, with a null hypothesis of median difference equal to zero.||||1.0
90946056|NCT00820664|181772180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|0.49|||<|0.001||95.0|0.31|1.0||1-sided, alpha=0.05|ANOVA|A one-way ANOVA model with term treatment was fit to the square root transformed response.||||1.00|0.31|<0.001
90977897|NCT01262898|181840068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.36|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.47|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.96|15.24|||||The least square means were estimated using a mixed model fitting treatment, visit, treatment\*visit and baseline gastric emptying half time as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect. Statistical analysis is reported using LS Means.|GSK962040 10 mg versus Placebo Day 1||15.24|-21.96|
90977898|NCT01262898|181840068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.81|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.47|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.01|6.4|||||The least square means were estimated using a mixed model fitting treatment, visit, treatment\*visit and baseline gastric emptying half time as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect. Statistical analysis is reported using LS Means.|GSK962040 50 mg versus Placebo Day 1||6.40|-30.01|
90946057|NCT00820664|181772180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|0.19||||0.032||95.0|0.02|1.0||1-sided, alpha=0.05|ANOVA|A one-way ANOVA model with term treatment was fit to the square root transformed response.||||1.00|0.02|0.032
90977899|NCT01262898|181840068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-25.65|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.47|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.99|-8.32|||||The least square means were estimated using a mixed model fitting treatment, visit, treatment\*visit and baseline gastric emptying half time as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect. Statistical analysis is reported using LS Means.|GSK962040 125 mg versus Placebo Day 1||-8.32|-42.99|
90977900|NCT01262898|181840068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|14.74|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.47|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.06|34.53|||||The least square means were estimated using a mixed model fitting treatment, visit, treatment\*visit and baseline gastric emptying half time as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect. Statistical analysis is reported using LS Means.|GSK962040 10 mg versus Placebo Day 28||34.53|-5.06|
90977901|NCT01262898|181840068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.22|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.47|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.64|23.08|||||The least square means were estimated using a mixed model fitting treatment, visit, treatment\*visit and baseline gastric emptying half time as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect. Statistical analysis is reported using LS Means.|GSK962040 50 mg vs Placebo Day 28||23.08|-14.64|
90977902|NCT01262898|181840068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.65|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.47|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.18|24.47|||||The least square means were estimated using a mixed model fitting treatment, visit, treatment\*visit and baseline gastric emptying half time as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect. Statistical analysis is reported using LS Means.|GSK962040 125 mg versus Placebo Day 28||24.47|-11.18|
90946058|NCT01667549|181772206|OTHER|Repeated Measures ANOVA were done with type of cereal as within-subjects and experimental group as grouping factors. When significant, planned comparisons were carried out. ANOVAs with a priori contrasts specified determined whether 1-month exposure differed from the no-exposure control (timing hypothesis). ANOVAs with a priori contrasts specified determined whether 1-month differed from 3-months exposure and whether these groups differed from no-exposure control (duration hypothesis).||||||0.02||||||Bonferroni adjustment was made and only planned pairwise comparisons with calculated p values of 0.02 or lower significant.|planned comparison|Bonferroni adjustment was calculated and only planned pair-wise comparisons with calculated p value 0.02 or lower were considered significant.||Separate analyses of variance with a priori contrasts specified were conducted: 1) to determine whether the 1-month exposure groups (1M0.5, 1M1.5, and 1M2.5) differed from the no-exposure control group to test the hypothesis that the timing of exposure affected acceptance; and 2) to determine whether 1 month of exposure differed from 3 months (1M0.5, 3M0.5 groups) and whether these groups differed from the no-exposure control group (duration hypothesis).||||0.02
90977903|NCT01262898|181840068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.92|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.47|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.73|2.9|||||The least square means were estimated using a mixed model fitting treatment, visit, treatment\*visit and baseline gastric emptying half time as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect. Statistical analysis is reported using LS Means.|Day 28 versus Day 1 of the Placebo arm||2.90|-28.73|
90977904|NCT01262898|181840068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.18|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.47|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.69|22.05|||||The least square means were estimated using a mixed model fitting treatment, visit, treatment\*visit and baseline gastric emptying half time as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect. Statistical analysis is reported using LS Means.|Day 28 versus Day 1 of GSK962040 10 mg arm||22.05|-11.69|
90977905|NCT01262898|181840068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.47|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.13|19.36|||||The least square means were estimated using a mixed model fitting treatment, visit, treatment\*visit and baseline gastric emptying half time as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect. Statistical analysis is reported using LS Means.|Day 28 versus Day 1 of GSK962040 50 mg arm||19.36|-13.13|
90977906|NCT01262898|181840068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|19.39|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.47|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.47|34.3|||||The least square means were estimated using a mixed model fitting treatment, visit, treatment\*visit and baseline gastric emptying half time as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect. Statistical analysis is reported using LS Means.|Day 28 versus Day 1 of GSK962040 125 mg arm||34.30|4.47|
90977907|NCT01262898|181840068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|-0.225|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|-0.129|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Type 1 Diabetes, Day 1|Intercept estimate was 125.45 and between participant standard deviation was 21.63|-0.129|-0.320|
90977908|NCT01262898|181840068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|-0.078|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.171|0.016|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Type 1 Diabetes, Day 28|Intercept estimate was 125.45 and between participant standard deviation was 21.63|0.016|-0.171|
90977909|NCT01262898|181840068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|-0.225|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|-0.129|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Type 2 Diabetes, Day 1|Intercept estimate was 113.23 and between participant standard deviation was 21.63|-0.129|-0.320|
91038475|NCT00521586|181961652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.08||||||Serotype 3: 2-sided 95 % CI for the ratio of 2 geometric means (13vPnC+TIV/Placebo and Placebo+TIV/13vPnC) was constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the difference of the 2 logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.||1.08|0.75|
91038476|NCT00521586|181961652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.28||||||Serotype 4: 2-sided 95 % CI for the ratio of 2 geometric means (13vPnC+TIV/Placebo and Placebo+TIV/13vPnC) was constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the difference of the 2 logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.||1.28|0.92|
90977910|NCT01262898|181840068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|-0.078||||||95.0|-0.171|0.016|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Type 2 Diabetes, Day 28|Intercept estimate was 113.23 and between participant standard deviation was 21.63|0.016|-0.171|
90977911|NCT02388295|181840104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.13|ONE_SIDED|||||Not adjusted|ANOVA||larger negative values (powered to detect -0.50)|Change from baseline within treatment arm||||0.13
90977912|NCT02388295|181840104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.91|ONE_SIDED|||||not adjusted|ANOVA||larger negative values (powered to detect -0.50)|Change from baseline||||0.91
90977913|NCT02388295|181840104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.68|ONE_SIDED||||||ANOVA|no adjustments|larger negagtive values (powereed to detect -0.50)|Change from baseline||||0.68
90977914|NCT02388295|181840104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.32|TWO_SIDED|||||no adjustment|ANOVA||Looking for negative direction to indicate treatment better than placebo|Secondary objective - comparison to placebo||||0.32
90977915|NCT02388295|181840104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.45|TWO_SIDED|||||no adjustment|ANOVA||lookin for negative difference compared to placebo|Secondary objective||||0.45
91038477|NCT00521586|181961652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.08||||||Serotype 5: 2-sided 95 % CI for the ratio of 2 geometric means (13vPnC+TIV/Placebo and Placebo+TIV/13vPnC) was constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the difference of the 2 logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.||1.08|0.68|
90977916|NCT03400800|181840158|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-53.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.66|-50.35||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|ANCOVA||Represents the least squares means difference from Placebo|||-50.35|-56.66|<0.0001
90977917|NCT03400800|181840159|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-49.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.57|-46.77||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|ANCOVA||Represents the least squares means difference from Placebo|||-46.77|-51.57|<0.0001
90977918|NCT03400800|181840160|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-51.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.01|-48.72||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|ANCOVA||Represents the least squares means difference from Placebo|||-48.72|-55.01|<.0001
90977919|NCT03400800|181840161|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-48.94|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.39|-46.48||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|ANCOVA||Represents the least squares means difference from Placebo|||-46.48|-51.39|<0.0001
90977920|NCT03400800|181840162|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-79.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-81.97|-76.57||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|ANCOVA||Represents the least squares means difference from Placebo|||-76.57|-81.97|<0.0001
90977921|NCT03400800|181840163|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.78|-27.81||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|ANCOVA||Represents the least squares means difference from Placebo|||-27.81|-31.78|<0.0001
90977922|NCT03400800|181840164|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-38.94|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.21|-36.67||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|ANCOVA||Represents the least squares means difference from Placebo|||-36.67|-41.21|<0.0001
90977923|NCT03400800|181840165|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-43.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.04|-40.6||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|ANCOVA||Represents the least squares means difference from Placebo|||-40.60|-46.04|<0.0001
90977924|NCT00854828|181840166|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
90977925|NCT00848120|181840237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Week 24 versus baseline||||<0.001
90977926|NCT00848120|181840238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Week 24 versus baseline||||<0.001
91038478|NCT00521586|181961652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.3||||||Serotype 6A: 2-sided 95 % CI for the ratio of 2 geometric means (13vPnC+TIV/Placebo and Placebo+TIV/13vPnC) was constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the difference of the 2 logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.||1.30|0.88|
90977927|NCT00848120|181840239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Week 24 versus baseline||||0.001
90977928|NCT01988090|181840246|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7635|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7635
90977929|NCT01988090|181840248|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
90977930|NCT02440581|181840300|OTHER|T-tests||||||0.443|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.443
90977931|NCT02440581|181840301|OTHER|T-tests||||||0.49|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.490
90977932|NCT02440581|181840302|OTHER|T-tests|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
90977933|NCT02440581|181840303|OTHER|T-Tests||||||0.083|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.083
90977934|NCT02440581|181840304|OTHER|T-tests||||||0.283|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.283
91007788|NCT01234337|181899749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|1.93|||=|0.257412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|7.77||One-sided p-value from Cochran Mantel-Haenszel test (stratified per randomization as in IVRS)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||ORR and 95% CI based on Cochran Mantel-Haenszel Test stratified by region, hormone receptor status, number of previous chemotherapies for metastatic disease. Difference = (Placebo + Capecitabine) - (Sorafenib + Capecitabine).||7.77|-3.9|=0.257412
90946059|NCT01667549|181772207|OTHER||||||<|0.02|||||||ANOVA|||Repeated measures ANOVAs were conducted on maternal gLMS ratings with type of juice and time as the within-subject factors and experimental group as the grouping factor||||<0.02
90946060|NCT01667549|181772208|OTHER|Repeated Measures ANOVA were done with type of cereal as within-subjects and experimental group as grouping factors. When significant, planned comparisons were carried out. ANOVAs with a priori contrasts specified determined whether 1-month exposure differed from the no-exposure control (timing hypothesis). ANOVAs with a priori contrasts specified determined whether 1-month differed from 3-months exposure and whether these groups differed from no-exposure control (duration hypothesis).|||||<|0.02||||||Because three comparisons were made for each outcome measure, a Bonferroni adjustment was calculated and only planned comparison with P's\<0.02 were considered significant.|planned comparison|a Bonferroni adjustment was calculated and only planned comparison with P's\<0.02 were considered significant.||Separate analyses of variance with a priori contrasts specified were conducted: 1) to determine whether the 1-month exposure groups (1M0.5, 1M1.5, and 1M2.5) differed from the no-exposure control group to test the hypothesis that the timing of exposure affected acceptance; and 2) to determine whether 1 month of exposure differed from 3 months (1M0.5, 3M0.5 groups) and whether these groups differed from the no-exposure control group (duration hypothesis).||||<0.02
90977935|NCT00484315|181840337|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of the TAXUS Element stent was to be accepted if the Bayesian posterior probability that the difference in 12-month TLF between TAXUS Element and TAXUS Express was \< 4.1%, given the data, was at least 95%. The sample size of 1264 subjects (resulting in 1200 after accounting for 5% attrition) was determined through simulations based on Bayesian modeling.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.57|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0155||0.9996|ONE_SIDED|95.0||1.85||The p-value is the posterior probability that the difference in 12-month TLF between TAXUS Element and TAXUS Express was \< 4.1%, given the data observed.|Bayesian modeling||Values are based on the posterior distribution of the difference in TLF rates between TAXUS Element and TAXUS Express. The upper limit is the 1-Sided 95% posterior credible interval, based off the 95th percentile of the posterior distribution.|Bayesian modeling was used to determine if the 12-month TLF rate for the TAXUS Element stent was non-inferior to the 12-month TLF rate in the TAXUS Express2 control. The null hypothesis was that the TAXUS Element TLF rate is at least 4.1% greater than the TAXUS Express TLF rate. The alternative hypothesis was that the TAXUS Element TLF rate is less than 4.1% greater than the TAXUS Express TLF rate.||1.85||0.9996
90977936|NCT00484315|181840338|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of the TAXUS Element stent was to be accepted if the Bayesian posterior probability that the difference in mean ln(9-month percent diameter stenosis) between TAXUS Element and TAXUS Express was \< 0.20, given the data, was at least 95%. The sample size of 330 subjects (resulting in 280 after accounting for 15% attrition) was determined through simulations based on Bayesian modeling.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0294|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.08253||0.997|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.1078||P-value is posterior probability that the difference in mean ln(9-month percent diameter stenosis) between TAXUS Element and TAXUS Express was \< 0.20, given the data observed. Non-inferiority was concluded, as this probability is greater than 95%.|Bayesian modeling||Based on posterior distribution of the difference in mean ln(9-month percent diameter stenosis) between TAXUS Element and TAXUS Express. Upper limit is 1-Sided 95% posterior credible interval, based off the 95th percentile of posterior distribution.|Natural log (ln) transformation was used to improve normality of the secondary endpoint distribution. Bayesian modeling was used to determine if the mean ln(9-month percent diameter stenosis) for the TAXUS Element stent was non-inferior to the mean ln(9-month %DS) for TAXUS Express. Null hypothesis was that the TAXUS Element mean was at least 0.20 greater than the TAXUS Express mean. Alternative hypothesis was that the TAXUS Element mean is less than 0.20 greater than the TAXUS Express TLF mean.||0.1078||0.9970
90977937|NCT00954109|181840343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.05
90977938|NCT00954109|181840344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.05
90977939|NCT01445678|181840352|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval was greater than -10%.|Risk Difference (RD)|-4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.91|0.54||||||||0.54|-8.91|
90977940|NCT01445678|181840353|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval was greater than -10%.|Risk Difference (RD)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.52|2.59||||||||2.59|-4.52|
90977941|NCT01445678|181840354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.23|0.89||||||||0.89|-7.23|
90977942|NCT01445678|181840355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|2.33||||||||2.33|-3.4|
90977943|NCT01445678|181840356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.09|0.94||||||||0.94|-9.09|
90977944|NCT01445678|181840357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|2.37||||||||2.37|-0.88|
90977945|NCT01565980|181840369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values for the comparison of least square (LS) means represent the effect of the trial arm. The effect sizes are calculated as Cohen's d: difference between LS means divided by the standard deviation.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The outcome measure was analyzed using linear mixed effects models (LME). The main effect of the trial arm was evaluated by averaging time 2 and time 3 values of the outcomes within the LME model. The resulting least square (LS) means and their standard errors are reported.||||<.05
90977946|NCT01565980|181840370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||P values below 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
90977947|NCT01565980|181840371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||P values below 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.05
90977948|NCT01565980|181840372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||P values below 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
90977949|NCT01565980|181840373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||P values below 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
90977950|NCT01565980|181840374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||P values below 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
90977951|NCT01565980|181840375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||P values above 0.05 are considered statistically insignificant in this study.|Descriptive statistics for outcomes|||||||<0.05
90977952|NCT02078219|181840383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.99|-21.57|||ANCOVA, LOCF|||||-21.57|-36.99|<0.0001
91038479|NCT00521586|181961652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.21||||||Serotype 6B: 2-sided 95 % CI for the ratio of 2 geometric means (13vPnC+TIV/Placebo and Placebo+TIV/13vPnC) was constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the difference of the 2 logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.||1.21|0.84|
90977953|NCT02078219|181840383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-49.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.97|-41.52|||ANCOVA, LOCF|||||-41.52|-56.97|<0.0001
90977954|NCT02078219|181840383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-53.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.0|-45.67|||ANCOVA, LOCF|||||-45.67|-61.00|<0.0001
90977955|NCT00891202|181840387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-30.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.35|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.82|-23.24|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model fitted with treatment and baseline spleen severity (low spleen severity: spleen volume less than or equal to \[\<=\] 20 multiples of normal spleen volume, high spleen severity: spleen volume greater than \[\>\] 20 multiples of normal spleen volume).||-23.24|-36.82|<0.0001
90977956|NCT01993888|181840405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<.0001
90977957|NCT03124459|181840412|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.2||0.01|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.9|22.1|||ANCOVA|||||22.1|4.9|0.01
90977958|NCT03124459|181840413|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2||0.16|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.8|0.6|||ANCOVA|||||0.6|-6.8|0.16
90977959|NCT03124459|181840414|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|35.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|23.5||0.13|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.2|74.0|||ANCOVA|||||74|-3.2|0.13
90977960|NCT03124459|181840415|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.5||0.73|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.1|10.9|||ANCOVA|||||10.9|-7.1|0.73
90977961|NCT03124459|181840416|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.7||0.51|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.6|10.9|||ANCOVA|||||10.9|-4.6|0.51
90977962|NCT03124459|181840421|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9||0.63|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.4|4.6|||ANCOVA|||||4.6|-8.4|0.63
90977963|NCT03932812|181840422|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.128|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.622||0.206|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|We used generalized estimating equations to fit linear regression model for longitudinal data under the unstructured correlation matrix.|Estimated value: presented value is mean difference at month 6 from BL. Information from month 3 is included in the linear regression model. The reported p-value is the significance of the interaction effect between time and the intervention.|||||0.206
90977964|NCT03932812|181840423|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.376|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.793||0.101|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|We used generalized estimating equations to fit linear regression model for longitudinal data under the unstructured correlation matrix.|Estimated value: presented value is mean difference at month 6 from BL. Information from month 3 is included in the linear regression model. The reported p-value is the significance of the interaction effect between time and the intervention.|||||0.101
90946061|NCT01667549|181772209|OTHER||||||<|0.02||||||Because three comparisons were made for each outcome measure, a Bonferroni adjustment was calculated and only planned comparison with P\<0.02 were considered significant.|planned comparison|A Bonferroni adjustment was calculated and only planned comparison with P's\<0.02 were considered significant.||Separate analyses of variance with a priori contrasts specified 1) to determine whether the 1-month exposure groups (1M0.5, 1M1.5, and 1M2.5) differed from the no-exposure control group to test the hypothesis that the timing of exposure affected acceptance; and 2) to determine whether 1 month of exposure differed from 3 months (1M0.5, 3M0.5 groups) and whether these groups differed from the no-exposure control group (duration hypothesis).||||<0.02
90946062|NCT01667549|181772210|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||General linear models were conducted on WLZ scores with time as the within-subjects factor and Group as the between-subjects factor to determine there were differences in growth of the infants over time. This was not done to test hypothesis but to monitor growth of infants during course of trial.||||<0.05
90946063|NCT01407276|181772213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|1.11|||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|GMR of Panel A:Panel B||||1.11|0.80|
90946064|NCT01407276|181772213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR of Panel C:Panel D|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.12|1.61|||GMR of Panel C:Panel D|||||1.61|1.12|
90946065|NCT01407276|181772213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR of Panel E:Panel F|1.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.32|1.85|||GMR of Panel E:Panel F|||||1.85|1.32|
90946066|NCT01407276|181772213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR or Panel G:Panel H|1.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.4|2.55|||GMR of Panel G:Panel H|||||2.55|1.40|
90946067|NCT01407276|181772213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR of Panel G:Panel H|1.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.46|2.66|||GMR of Panel G:Panel H|||||2.66|1.46|
90946068|NCT01407276|181772214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR of Panel A:Panel B|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.79|1.12|||GMR of Panel A:Panel B|||||1.12|0.79|
90946069|NCT01407276|181772214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR of Panel C:Panel D|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.41|||GMR of Panel C:Panel D|||||1.41|0.91|
90946070|NCT01407276|181772214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR of Panel E:Panel F|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.66|1.23|||GMR of Panel E:Panel F|||||1.23|0.66|
90946071|NCT01407276|181772214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR of Panel E:Panel F|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.57|0.96|||GMR of Panel E:Panel F|||||0.96|0.57|
91038480|NCT00521586|181961652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.06||||||Serotype 7F: 2-sided 95 % CI for the ratio of 2 geometric means (13vPnC+TIV/Placebo and Placebo+TIV/13vPnC) was constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the difference of the 2 logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.||1.06|0.78|
90946072|NCT01407276|181772214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR of Panel E:Panel F|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.56|0.95|||GMR of Panel E:Panel F|||||0.95|0.56|
90946073|NCT01407276|181772215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR of Panel A:Panel B|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|1.05|||GMR of Panel A:Panel B|||||1.05|0.81|
90946074|NCT01407276|181772215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR of Panel C:Panel D|1.33||||||90.0|1.07|1.65|||GMR of Panel C:Panel D|||||1.65|1.07|
90946075|NCT01407276|181772215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR of Panel E:Panel F|1.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.13|1.65|||GMR of Panel E:Panel F|||||1.65|1.13|
90946076|NCT01407276|181772215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR of Panel G:Panel H|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.06|1.79|||GMR of Panel G:Panel H|||||1.79|1.06|
90946077|NCT01407276|181772215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR of Panel G:Panel H|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.68|||GMR of Panel G:Panel H|||||1.68|1.00|
90946078|NCT01407276|181772216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR of Panel A:Panel B|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.75|1.12|||GMR of Panel A:Panel B|||||1.12|0.75|
90946079|NCT01407276|181772216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR of Panel C:Panel D|1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.19|1.76|||GMR of Panel C:Panel D|||||1.76|1.19|
90946080|NCT01407276|181772216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR of Panel E:Panel F|1.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.49|2.24|||GMR of Panel E:Panel F|||||2.24|1.49|
90946081|NCT01407276|181772216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR of Panel G:Panel H|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.41|2.54|||GMR of Panel G:Panel H|||||2.54|1.41|
90946082|NCT01407276|181772216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR of Panel G:Panel H|1.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.4|2.52|||GMR of Panel G:Panel H|||||2.52|1.40|
90946083|NCT01407276|181772217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR of Panel A:Panel B|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|1.42|||GMR of Panel A:Panel B|||||1.42|0.87|
90946084|NCT01407276|181772217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR of Panel C:Panel D|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.53|1.07|||GMR of Panel C:Panel D|||||1.07|0.53|
90946085|NCT01407276|181772217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR of Panel E:Panel F|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.51|0.92|||GMR of Panel E:Panel F|||||0.92|0.51|
90946086|NCT01407276|181772217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR of Panel G:Panel H|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|0.98|||GMR of Panel G:Panel H|||||0.98|0.50|
90946087|NCT01407276|181772217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR of Panel G:Panel H|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.57|1.12|||GMR of Panel G:Panel H|||||1.12|0.57|
90946088|NCT01407276|181772218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR of Panel A:Panel B|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.25|||GMR of Panel A:Panel B|||||1.25|0.90|
90946089|NCT01407276|181772218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR of Panel C:Panel D|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.62|0.89|||GMR of Panel C:Panel D|||||0.89|0.62|
90946090|NCT01407276|181772218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR of Panel E:Panel F|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.54|0.76|||GMR of Panel E:Panel F|||||0.76|0.54|
90946091|NCT01407276|181772218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR of Panel G:Panel H|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.39|0.71|||GMR of Panel G:Panel H|||||0.71|0.39|
90946092|NCT01407276|181772218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR of Panel G:Panel H|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.38|0.68|||GMR of Panel G:Panel H|||||0.68|0.38|
90946093|NCT01407276|181772219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR of Panel A:Panel B|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.74|1.18|||GMR of Panel A:Panel B|||||1.18|0.74|
90977965|NCT03932812|181840424|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.201|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.174||0.836|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|We used generalized estimating equations to fit linear regression model for longitudinal data under the unstructured correlation matrix.|Estimated value: presented value is mean difference at month 6 from BL. Information from month 3 is included in the linear regression model. The reported p-value is the significance of the interaction effect between time and the intervention.|||||0.836
90977966|NCT03932812|181840425|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.117|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.414||0.567|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared||Estimated value: presented value is for month 6. Since the outcome measure is count data, a log link function is used. The reported p-value is the significance of the interaction effect between time and intervention.|The outcome for this analyses is use of emergency care.||||0.567
90977967|NCT03932812|181840426|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.363|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.165||0.014|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared||Estimated value: presented value is for month 6. Since the outcome measure is count data, a log link function is used. The reported p-value is the significance of the interaction effect between time and intervention.|||||0.014
90977968|NCT03932812|181840427|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.467|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.301||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared||Estimated value: presented value is for month 6. Since the outcome measure is count data, a log link function is used. The reported p-value is the significance of the interaction effect between time and intervention.|||||0.010
90977969|NCT03932812|181840428|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.682||0.188|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|We used generalized estimating equations to fit linear regression model for longitudinal data under the unstructured correlation matrix.|Estimated value: presented value is mean difference at month 6 from BL. Information from month 3 is included in the linear regression model. The reported p-value is the significance of the interaction effect between time and the intervention.|||||0.188
90977970|NCT03293654|181840429|EQUIVALENCE|Two treatments are judged not to be different from one another if the 90% CI of the ratio of a log-transformed exposure measure (Cmax) falls completely within the range 0.80-1.25. The PK parameter Cmax was log-transformed (base e) prior to analysis and was analysed using an ANCOVA model. The model included treatment as a fixed effect and body weight as a covariate.|Ratio of GLSM|1.28|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.05|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.18|1.39|||||For the comparison, MB02 represents the numerator and US Avastin represents the denominator.|||1.39|1.18|
90946094|NCT01407276|181772219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR of Panel C:Panel D|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.55|0.96|||GMR of Panel C:Panel D|||||0.96|0.55|
90977971|NCT03293654|181840429|EQUIVALENCE|Two treatments are judged not to be different from one another if the 90% CI of the ratio of a log-transformed exposure measure (Cmax) falls completely within the range 0.80-1.25. The PK parameter Cmax was log-transformed (base e) prior to analysis and was analysed using an ANCOVA model. The model included treatment as a fixed effect and body weight as a covariate.|Ratio of GLSM|1.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.05|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.03|1.22|||||For the comparison, MB02 represents the numerator and EU Avastin represents the denominator.|||1.22|1.03|
90977972|NCT03293654|181840429|EQUIVALENCE|Two treatments are judged not to be different from one another if the 90% CI of the ratio of a log-transformed exposure measure (Cmax) falls completely within the range 0.80-1.25. The PK parameter Cmax was log-transformed (base e) prior to analysis and was analysed using an ANCOVA model. The model included treatment as a fixed effect and body weight as a covariate.|Ratio of GLSM|1.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.05|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.05|1.24|||||Ratio of GLSM, EU is the numerator and US Avastin acts as the denominator|||1.24|1.05|
90977973|NCT03293654|181840430|EQUIVALENCE|Two treatments are judged not to be different from one another if the 90% CI of the ratio of a log-transformed exposure measure (AUC) falls completely within the range 0.80-1.25. The PK parameter AUC\[0-∞\] was log-transformed (base e) prior to analysis and was analysed using an ANCOVA model. The model included treatment as a fixed effect and body weight as a covariate.|Ratio of GLSM|1.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.05|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.09|1.22|||||||For the comparison, MB02 represents the numerator and US Avastin represents the denominator|1.22|1.09|
90977974|NCT03293654|181840430|EQUIVALENCE|Two treatments are judged not to be different from one another if the 90% CI of the ratio of a log-transformed exposure measure (AUC) falls completely within the range 0.80-1.25. The PK parameter AUC\[0-∞\] was log-transformed (base e) prior to analysis and was analysed using an ANCOVA model. The model included treatment as a fixed effect and body weight as a covariate.|Ratio of GLSM|1.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.05|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.09|1.22|||||MB02 represents the numerator and EU Avastin represents the denominator|||1.22|1.09|
90946095|NCT01407276|181772219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR of Panel E:Panel F|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.33|0.54|||GMR of Panel E:Panel F|||||0.54|0.33|
90946096|NCT01407276|181772220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR of Panel A:Panel B|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|1.07|||GMR of Panel A:Panel B|||||1.07|0.69|
90946097|NCT01407276|181772220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR of Panel C:Panel D|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7|1.15|||GMR of Panel C:Panel D|||||1.15|0.70|
90946098|NCT01407276|181772220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR of Panel E:Panel F|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.37|0.67|||GMR of Panel E:Panel F|||||0.67|0.37|
90946099|NCT01407276|181772221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR of Panel A:Panel B|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|1.07|||GMR of Panel A:Panel B|||||1.07|0.69|
90946100|NCT01407276|181772221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR of Panel C:Panel D|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7|1.15|||GMR of Panel C:Panel D|||||1.15|0.70|
90946101|NCT01407276|181772221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR of Panel E:Panel F|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.37|0.67|||GMR of Panel E:Panel F|||||0.67|0.37|
90977975|NCT03293654|181840430|EQUIVALENCE|Two treatments are judged not to be different from one another if the 90% CI of the ratio of a log-transformed exposure measure (AUC) falls completely within the range 0.80-1.25. The PK parameter AUC\[0-∞\] was log-transformed (base e) prior to analysis and was analysed using an ANCOVA model. The model included treatment as a fixed effect and body weight as a covariate.|Ratio of GLSM|1.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.05|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.13|||||EU Avastin corresponds to the numerator and US Avastin corresponds to the denominator|||1.13|1|
90946102|NCT04092452|181772234|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.69||0.4696|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.2|16.7||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||The null hypothesis for primary efficacy analysis was that the percentage of participants achieving HiSCR response at Week 16 was the same for the active treatment (PF-06650833, PF-06700841 or PF-06826647) and placebo. The treatment was considered superior to control if the difference was statistically significant at the overall 1-sided 0.1 level.||16.7|-15.2|0.4696
90946103|NCT04092452|181772234|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.71||0.0298|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.7|34.6||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||The null hypothesis for primary efficacy analysis was that the percentage of participants achieving HiSCR response at Week 16 was the same for the active treatment (PF-06650833, PF-06700841 or PF-06826647) and placebo. The treatment was considered superior to control if the difference was statistically significant at the overall 1-sided 0.1 level.||34.6|2.7|0.0298
90946104|NCT04092452|181772234|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.79||0.3606|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.6|19.6||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||The null hypothesis for primary efficacy analysis was that the percentage of participants achieving HiSCR response at Week 16 was the same for the active treatment (PF-06650833, PF-06700841 or PF-06826647) and placebo. The treatment was considered superior to control if the difference was statistically significant at the overall 1-sided 0.1 level.||19.6|-12.6|0.3606
90946105|NCT04092452|181772235|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.19|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.6|8.0||||||Week 1||8.0|-15.6|
90946106|NCT04092452|181772235|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.28|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.9|11.1||||||Week 1||11.1|-12.9|
90946107|NCT04092452|181772235|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.99|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.5|17.8||||||Week 1||17.8|-8.5|
90946108|NCT04092452|181772235|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.02|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.9|22.8||||||Week 2||22.8|-6.9|
90946109|NCT04092452|181772235|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.91|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.1|22.2||||||Week 2||22.2|-7.1|
90946110|NCT04092452|181772235|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.3|18.3||||||Week 2||18.3|-11.3|
90946111|NCT04092452|181772235|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.79|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.1|25.1||||||Week 4||25.1|-7.1|
90946112|NCT04092452|181772235|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.57|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.0|23.5||||||Week 4||23.5|-8.0|
90946113|NCT04092452|181772235|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.37|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-19.4|11.4||||||Week 4||11.4|-19.4|
90946114|NCT04092452|181772235|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.96|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.6|17.2||||||Week 6||17.2|-15.6|
90946115|NCT04092452|181772235|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.81|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.4|22.9||||||Week 6||22.9|-9.4|
90946116|NCT04092452|181772235|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.05|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.8|20.2||||||Week 6||20.2|-12.8|
90946117|NCT04092452|181772235|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.98||0.7798|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-24.2|8.7||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 8||8.7|-24.2|0.7798
90946118|NCT04092452|181772235|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.92||0.4819|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.9|16.8||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 8||16.8|-15.9|0.4819
90946119|NCT04092452|181772235|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.19||0.5933|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-19.2|14.4||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 8||14.4|-19.2|0.5933
90977976|NCT03293654|181840437|EQUIVALENCE|Two treatments are judged not to be different from one another if the 90% CI of the ratio of a log-transformed exposure measure (AUC) falls completely within the range 0.80-1.25. The PK parameter AUC\[0-∞\] was log-transformed (base e) prior to analysis and was analysed using an ANCOVA model. The model included treatment as a fixed effect and body weight as a covariate.|Ratio of GLSM|1.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.05|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.962|1.07|||||MB02 in numerator and EU Avastin in denominator|||1.07|0.962|
90977977|NCT03293654|181840437|EQUIVALENCE|Two treatments are judged not to be different from one another if the 90% CI of the ratio of a log-transformed exposure measure (AUC) falls completely within the range 0.80-1.25. The PK parameter AUC\[0-∞\] was log-transformed (base e) prior to analysis and was analysed using an ANCOVA model. The model included treatment as a fixed effect and body weight as a covariate.|Ratio of GLSM|1.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.05|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.996|1.13|||||MB02 is numerator and US Avastin is denominator|||1.13|0.996|
90977978|NCT03293654|181840437|EQUIVALENCE|Two treatments are judged not to be different from one another if the 90% CI of the ratio of a log-transformed exposure measure (AUC) falls completely within the range 0.80-1.25. The PK parameter AUC\[0-∞\] was log-transformed (base e) prior to analysis and was analysed using an ANCOVA model. The model included treatment as a fixed effect and body weight as a covariate.|Ratio of GLSM|1.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.05|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.983|1.11|||||EU Avastin in the numerator and US Avastin in the denominator|||1.11|0.983|
90977979|NCT03293654|181840438|EQUIVALENCE|Two treatments are judged not to be different from one another if the 90% CI of the ratio of a log-transformed exposure measure (AUC) falls completely within the range 0.80-1.25. The PK parameter AUC\[0-∞\] was log-transformed (base e) prior to analysis and was analysed using an ANCOVA model. The model included treatment as a fixed effect and body weight as a covariate.|Ratio of GLSM|1.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.05|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.969|1.07|||||MB02: EU Avastin|||1.07|0.969|
90977980|NCT03293654|181840438|EQUIVALENCE|Two treatments are judged not to be different from one another if the 90% CI of the ratio of a log-transformed exposure measure (AUC) falls completely within the range 0.80-1.25. The PK parameter AUC\[0-∞\] was log-transformed (base e) prior to analysis and was analysed using an ANCOVA model. The model included treatment as a fixed effect and body weight as a covariate.|Ratio of GLSM|1.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.05|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.998|1.12|||||MB02: US Avastin|||1.12|0.998|
90977981|NCT03293654|181840438|EQUIVALENCE|Two treatments are judged not to be different from one another if the 90% CI of the ratio of a log-transformed exposure measure (AUC) falls completely within the range 0.80-1.25. The PK parameter AUC\[0-∞\] was log-transformed (base e) prior to analysis and was analysed using an ANCOVA model. The model included treatment as a fixed effect and body weight as a covariate.|Ratio of GLSM|1.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.05|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.981|1.1|||||EU Avastin: US Avastin|||1.1|0.981|
90977982|NCT03293654|181840439|EQUIVALENCE|Two treatments are judged not to be different from one another if the 90% CI of the ratio of a log-transformed exposure measure (AUC) falls completely within the range 0.80-1.25. The PK parameter AUC\[0-∞\] was log-transformed (base e) prior to analysis and was analysed using an ANCOVA model. The model included treatment as a fixed effect and body weight as a covariate.|Ratio of GLSM|0.986|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.05|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.903|1.08|||||MB02: EU Avastin|||1.08|0.903|
90977983|NCT03293654|181840439|EQUIVALENCE|Two treatments are judged not to be different from one another if the 90% CI of the ratio of a log-transformed exposure measure (AUC) falls completely within the range 0.80-1.25. The PK parameter AUC\[0-∞\] was log-transformed (base e) prior to analysis and was analysed using an ANCOVA model. The model included treatment as a fixed effect and body weight as a covariate.|Ratio of GLSM|1.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.05|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.01|1.19|||||MB02: US Avastin|||1.19|1.01|
90977984|NCT03293654|181840439|EQUIVALENCE|Two treatments are judged not to be different from one another if the 90% CI of the ratio of a log-transformed exposure measure (AUC) falls completely within the range 0.80-1.25. The PK parameter AUC\[0-∞\] was log-transformed (base e) prior to analysis and was analysed using an ANCOVA model. The model included treatment as a fixed effect and body weight as a covariate.|Ratio of GLSM|1.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.05|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.02|1.22|||||EU Avastin: US Avastin|||1.22|1.02|
90977985|NCT01355289|181840458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in % of Responders|31.62||||0.0236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.39|57.84|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||57.84|5.39|0.0236
90977986|NCT01355289|181840458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in % of Responders|60.78||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.3|85.27|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||85.27|36.30|0.0003
90977987|NCT01355289|181840458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in % of Responders|58.4||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.92|85.88|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||85.88|30.92|0.0003
90977988|NCT03618030|181840513|OTHER|||||||0.0003|||||||ANOVA|||The primary efficacy analysis used a mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis on the full day laboratory classroom PERMP-T scores.||||.0003
90977989|NCT00860470|181840514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.95||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.06|||Regression, Logistic|Bonferroni-adjusted alpha=0.01 (for 5 comparisons)|GEE with log link function and exchangeable correlation was used to adjust confidence intervals for cluster randomised design; the iron-folic acid supplemented group was the referent.|||1.06|0.86|0.36
90977990|NCT00860470|181840515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.2|||Regression, Logistic||GEE with log link function and exchangeable correlation was used to adjust confidence intervals for cluster randomised design; the iron-folic acid supplemented group was the referent.|||1.20|0.88|0.78
90977991|NCT00860470|181840516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.81||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.04|||Regression, Logistic||GEE with log link function and exchangeable correlation was used to adjust confidence intervals for cluster randomised design; the iron-folic acid supplemented group was the referent.|||1.04|0.63|0.11
91038481|NCT00521586|181961652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.48||||||Serotype 9V: 2-sided 95 % CI for the ratio of 2 geometric means (13vPnC+TIV/Placebo and Placebo+TIV/13vPnC) was constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the difference of the 2 logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.||1.48|0.93|
90977992|NCT00860470|181840517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.89||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|0.99|||Regression, Logistic|Bonferroni-adjusted alpha=0.01 (for 5 comparisons)|GEE with log link function and exchangeable correlation was used to adjust confidence intervals for cluster randomised design; the iron-folic acid supplemented group was the referent.|||0.99|0.81|0.02
90977993|NCT00860470|181840518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.91|||Regression, Logistic|Bonferroni-adjusted alpha=0.01 (for 5 comparisons)|GEE with log link function and exchangeable correlation was used to adjust confidence intervals for cluster randomised design; the iron-folic acid supplemented group was the referent.|||0.91|0.80|<0.001
90977994|NCT00860470|181840519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.75||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.97|||Regression, Logistic||GEE with log link function and exchangeable correlation was used to adjust confidence intervals for cluster randomised design; the iron-folic acid supplemented group was the referent.|||0.97|0.57|0.03
90977995|NCT00860470|181840520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.86|||Regression, Logistic||GEE with log link function and exchangeable correlation was used to adjust confidence intervals for cluster randomised design; the iron-folic acid supplemented group was the referent.|||0.86|0.62|<0.001
90977996|NCT00860470|181840521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.87||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|0.93|||Regression, Logistic||GEE with log link function and exchangeable correlation was used to adjust confidence intervals for cluster randomised design; the iron-folic acid supplemented group was the referent.|||0.93|0.81|0.87
90977997|NCT00860470|181840522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|0.91|||Regression, Logistic|Bonferroni-adjusted alpha=0.01 (for 5 comparisons)|GEE with log link function and exchangeable correlation was used to adjust confidence intervals for cluster randomised design; the iron-folic acid supplemented group was the referent.|||0.91|0.85|<0.001
90977998|NCT00860470|181840523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.01|||Regression, Logistic|Bonferroni-adjusted alpha=0.01 (for 5 comparisons)|GEE with log link function and exchangeable correlation was used to adjust confidence intervals for cluster randomised design; the iron-folic acid supplemented group was the referent.|||1.01|0.96|0.13
90977999|NCT01032629|181840528|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93|||=|0.4576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.12|||Cox proportional hazard model|||Comparison for canagliflozin versus placebo is reported here.||1.12|0.78|=0.4576
90978000|NCT01032629|181840528|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83|||=|0.0467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.0|||Cox proportional hazard model|||Comparison for canagliflozin versus placebo is reported here.||1.00|0.68|=0.0467
90978001|NCT01032629|181840528|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.03|||Cox proportional hazard method|||Comparison for canagliflozin versus placebo is reported here.||1.03|0.75|0.1120
90978002|NCT01032629|181840529|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Mean|2.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.224|=|0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.571|7.154|||ANCOVA|||Comparison for canagliflozin versus placebo is reported here.||7.154|-1.571|=0.210
90978003|NCT01032629|181840529|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Mean|4.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.261|=|0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.368|8.504|||ANCOVA|||Comparison for canagliflozin versus placebo is reported here.||8.504|-0.368|=0.072
90978004|NCT01032629|181840530|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.97|||Regression, Logistic|||Comparison for canagliflozin versus placebo is reported here.||0.97|0.67|
90978005|NCT01032629|181840530|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.85|||Regression, Logistic|||Comparison for canagliflozin versus placebo is reported here.||0.85|0.58|
90978006|NCT01032629|181840531|OTHER||Difference of Least Square Mean|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.205|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.429|0.374||||||Comparison for canagliflozin versus placebo is reported here.||0.374|-0.429|
90978007|NCT01032629|181840531|OTHER||Difference of Least Square Mean|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.206|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.079|0.731||||||Comparison for canagliflozin versus placebo is reported here.||0.731|-0.079|
90978008|NCT01032629|181840532|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.94||||||Comparison for canagliflozin versus placebo is reported here.||0.940|0.800|
90978009|NCT01032629|181840532|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.91||||||Comparison for canagliflozin versus placebo is reported here.||0.910|0.770|
90978010|NCT01032629|181840533|OTHER||Difference of Least Square Mean|1.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.599|2.755||||||Comparison for canagliflozin versus placebo is reported here.||2.755|0.599|
90978011|NCT01032629|181840533|OTHER||Difference of Least Square Mean|1.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.553|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|2.328||||||Comparison for canagliflozin versus placebo is reported here.||2.328|0.160|
90978012|NCT01032629|181840534|OTHER||Difference of Least Square Mean|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.355|-0.177||||||Comparison for canagliflozin versus placebo is reported here.||-0.177|-0.355|
90978013|NCT01032629|181840534|OTHER||Difference of Least Square Mean|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.046|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.405|-0.227||||||Comparison for canagliflozin versus placebo is reported here.||-0.227|-0.405|
90978014|NCT01032629|181840535|OTHER||Difference of Least Square Mean|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.107|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.794|-0.374||||||Comparison for canagliflozin versus placebo is reported here.||-0.374|-0.794|
90978015|NCT01032629|181840535|OTHER||Difference of Least Square Mean|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.108|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.945|-0.523||||||Comparison for canagliflozin versus placebo is reported here.||-0.523|-0.945|
90978016|NCT01032629|181840536|OTHER||Difference of Least Square Mean|-2.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||||95.0|-3.472|-2.454||||||Comparison for canagliflozin versus placebo is reported here.||-2.454|-3.472|
90978017|NCT01032629|181840536|OTHER||Difference of Least Square Mean|-3.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.261|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.125|-3.103||||||Comparison for canagliflozin versus placebo is reported here.||-3.103|-4.125|
90978018|NCT01032629|181840537|OTHER||Difference of Least Square Mean|-2.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.532|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.998|-1.914||||||Statistical analysis (Systolic blood pressure) Comparison for canagliflozin versus placebo is reported here.||-1.914|-3.998|
90978019|NCT01032629|181840537|OTHER||Difference of Least Square Mean|-4.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.534|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.579|-3.484||||||Statistical analysis (Systolic blood pressure) Comparison for canagliflozin versus placebo is reported here.||-3.484|-5.579|
90978020|NCT01032629|181840537|OTHER||Difference of Least Square Mean|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.314|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.437|-0.205||||||Statistical analysis (Diastolic blood pressure) Comparison for canagliflozin versus placebo is reported here.||-0.205|-1.437|
90978021|NCT01032629|181840537|OTHER||Difference of Least Square Mean|-1.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.316|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.245|-1.007||||||Statistical analysis (Diastolic blood pressure) Comparison for canagliflozin versus placebo is reported here.||-1.007|-2.245|
90978022|NCT01032629|181840538|OTHER||Hodges-Lehman Estimate|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.07||||||Comparison for canagliflozin versus placebo is reported here.||0.070|-0.040|
90978023|NCT01032629|181840538|OTHER||Hodges-Lehman Estimate|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.08||||||Comparison for canagliflozin versus placebo is reported here.||0.080|-0.030|
90978024|NCT01032629|181840539|OTHER||Difference of Least Square Mean|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.105|0.259||||||Statistical analysis (Cholesterol) Comparison for canagliflozin versus placebo is reported here.||0.259|0.105|
91038482|NCT00521586|181961652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.17||||||Serotype 14: 2-sided 95 % CI for the ratio of 2 geometric means (13vPnC+TIV/Placebo and Placebo+TIV/13vPnC) was constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the difference of the 2 logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.||1.17|0.86|
91038483|NCT00521586|181961652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.27||||||Serotype 18C: 2-sided 95 % CI for the ratio of 2 geometric means (13vPnC+TIV/Placebo and Placebo+TIV/13vPnC) was constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the difference of the 2 logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.||1.27|0.84|
91038484|NCT00521586|181961652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.21||||||Serotype 19A: 2-sided 95 % CI for the ratio of 2 geometric means (13vPnC+TIV/Placebo and Placebo+TIV/13vPnC) was constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the difference of the 2 logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.||1.21|0.87|
91038485|NCT00521586|181961652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.31||||||Serotype 19F: 2-sided 95 % CI for the ratio of 2 geometric means (13vPnC+TIV/Placebo and Placebo+TIV/13vPnC) was constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the difference of the 2 logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.||1.31|0.85|
91038486|NCT00521586|181961652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.27||||||Serotype 23F: 2-sided 95 % CI for the ratio of 2 geometric means (13vPnC+TIV/Placebo and Placebo+TIV/13vPnC) was constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the difference of the 2 logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.||1.27|0.80|
91038487|NCT00521586|181961661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.18||||||Serotype 1: 2-sided 95 % CI for the ratio of 2 geometric means (13vPnC+TIV/Placebo and Placebo+TIV/13vPnC) was constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the difference of the 2 logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.||1.18|0.87|
90946120|NCT04092452|181772235|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-9.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.81||0.8421|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-26.1|6.2||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 12||6.2|-26.1|0.8421
90946121|NCT04092452|181772235|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.85||0.209|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.2|24.2||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 12||24.2|-8.2|0.2090
90946122|NCT04092452|181772235|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.12||0.5183|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.1|16.2||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 12||16.2|-17.1|0.5183
91038488|NCT00521586|181961661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.1||||||Serotype 3: 2-sided 95 % CI for the ratio of 2 geometric means (13vPnC+TIV/Placebo and Placebo+TIV/13vPnC) was constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the difference of the 2 logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.||1.10|0.82|
91038489|NCT00521586|181961661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.21||||||Serotype 4: 2-sided 95 % CI for the ratio of 2 geometric means (13vPnC+TIV/Placebo and Placebo+TIV/13vPnC) was constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the difference of the 2 logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.||1.21|0.88|
91038490|NCT00521586|181961661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.09||||||Serotype 5: 2-sided 95 % CI for the ratio of 2 geometric means (13vPnC+TIV/Placebo and Placebo+TIV/13vPnC) was constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the difference of the 2 logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.||1.09|0.80|
90978025|NCT01032629|181840539|OTHER||Difference of Least Square Mean|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.152|0.307||||||Statistical analysis (Cholesterol) Comparison for canagliflozin versus placebo is reported here.||0.307|0.152|
90978026|NCT01032629|181840539|OTHER||Difference of Least Square Mean|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.009|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.031|0.065||||||Statistical analysis (HDL-C)||0.065|0.031|
91038491|NCT00521586|181961661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.22||||||Serotype 6A: 2-sided 95 % CI for the ratio of 2 geometric means (13vPnC+TIV/Placebo and Placebo+TIV/13vPnC) was constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the difference of the 2 logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.||1.22|0.84|
90946123|NCT04092452|181772236|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.54||0.515|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.7|12.1||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Total AN Count of 0 or 1||12.1|-12.7|0.5150
90946124|NCT04092452|181772236|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.28||0.0737|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.4|25.8||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Total AN Count of 0 or 1||25.8|-1.4|0.0737
90978027|NCT01032629|181840539|OTHER||Difference of Least Square Mean|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.009|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.075||||||Statistical analysis (HDL-C) Comparison for canagliflozin versus placebo is reported here.||0.075|0.040|
90978028|NCT01032629|181840539|OTHER||Difference of Least Square Mean|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.046|0.17||||||Statistical analysis (LDL-C) Comparison for canagliflozin versus placebo is reported here.||0.170|0.046|
91038492|NCT00521586|181961661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.12||||||Serotype 6B: 2-sided 95 % CI for the ratio of 2 geometric means (13vPnC+TIV/Placebo and Placebo+TIV/13vPnC) was constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the difference of the 2 logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.||1.12|0.77|
90978029|NCT01032629|181840539|OTHER||Difference of Least Square Mean|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.102|0.226||||||Statistical analysis (LDL-C) Comparison for canagliflozin versus placebo is reported here.||0.226|0.102|
90978030|NCT01032629|181840540|OTHER||Difference of Least Square Mean|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.076||||||||0.076|-0.040|
90978031|NCT01032629|181840540|OTHER||Difference of Least Square Mean|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.023|0.094||||||||0.094|-0.023|
90978032|NCT00516919|181840541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||F statistic|0.45|||=|0.51||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Covariate = Baseline (pre-treatment) BMI; Degrees of freedom = (1, 76)||Test for group differences in BMI at post-treatment, controlling for baseline BMI.||||=0.51
90978033|NCT00516919|181840541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||F statistic|0.69|||=|0.41||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Covariate = Baseline (pre-treatment) BMI; Degrees of freedom = (1, 76)||Test for group differences in BMI at 6-month follow-up, controlling for baseline BMI.||||=0.41
90978034|NCT03371355|181840542|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-24.0||||0.0343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.0|-2.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|||-2|-41|0.0343
90978035|NCT03371355|181840542|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-44.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.0|-28.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|||-28|-56|<0.0001
90978036|NCT03371355|181840542|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-37.0||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.0|-17.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|||-17|-52|0.0009
90978037|NCT03371355|181840543|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-49.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.68|-37.06|||ANCOVA|||||-37.06|-62.68|<0.0001
90978038|NCT03371355|181840543|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-71.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.47|-58.85|||ANCOVA|||||-58.85|-84.47|<0.0001
90978039|NCT03371355|181840543|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-59.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.04|-45.44|||ANCOVA|||||-45.44|-74.04|<0.0001
90978040|NCT03371355|181840544|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-16.5||||0.0327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.59|-1.39|||ANCOVA|||TC||-1.39|-31.59|0.0327
90978041|NCT03371355|181840544|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-37.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.15|-21.94|||ANCOVA|||TC||-21.94|-52.15|<0.0001
90978042|NCT03371355|181840544|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-31.6||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.23|-15.05|||ANCOVA|||TC||-15.05|-48.23|0.0003
90978043|NCT03371355|181840544|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|7.5||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.55|20.54|||ANCOVA|||LDL-C||20.54|-5.55|0.2560
90978044|NCT03371355|181840544|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-8.6||||0.1795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.26|4.05|||ANCOVA|||LDL-C||4.05|-21.26|0.1795
90978045|NCT03371355|181840544|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-8.8||||0.2065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.48|4.95|||ANCOVA|||LDL-C||4.95|-22.48|0.2065
90978046|NCT03371355|181840544|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.7||||0.1515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.43|1.01|||ANCOVA|||HDL-C||1.01|-6.43|0.1515
90978047|NCT03371355|181840544|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-8.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.29|-4.91|||ANCOVA|||HDL-C||-4.91|-12.29|<0.0001
90978048|NCT03371355|181840544|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.1||||0.0436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.18|-0.12|||ANCOVA|||HDL-C||-0.12|-8.18|0.0436
90978049|NCT03371355|181840544|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.1||||0.0224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.94|-1.33|||ANCOVA|||VLDL-C||-1.33|-16.94|0.0224
90978050|NCT03371355|181840544|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-15.4||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.94|-7.84|||ANCOVA|||VLDL-C||-7.84|-22.94|0.0001
90978051|NCT03371355|181840544|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-10.8||||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.86|-2.78|||ANCOVA|||VLDL-C||-2.78|-18.86|0.0091
90978052|NCT03371355|181840544|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-13.9||||0.0748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.12|1.42|||ANCOVA|||Non-HDL-C||1.42|-29.12|0.0748
90978053|NCT03371355|181840544|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-28.4||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.68|-13.18|||ANCOVA|||Non-HDL-C||-13.18|-43.68|0.0004
91038493|NCT00521586|181961661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.11||||||Serotype 7F: 2-sided 95 % CI for the ratio of 2 geometric means (13vPnC+TIV/Placebo and Placebo+TIV/13vPnC) was constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the difference of the 2 logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.||1.11|0.85|
90978054|NCT03371355|181840544|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-27.4||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.08|-10.64|||ANCOVA|||Non-HDL-C||-10.64|-44.08|0.0016
90978055|NCT03371355|181840544|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.44||||0.6005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.68|6.8|||ANCOVA|||ApoB||6.80|-11.68|0.6005
90978056|NCT03371355|181840544|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.83||||0.0374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.07|-0.59|||ANCOVA|||ApoB||-0.59|-19.07|0.0374
90978057|NCT03371355|181840544|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.28||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.55|5.0|||ANCOVA|||ApoB||5.00|-15.55|0.3100
90978058|NCT03371355|181840544|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.002||||0.0728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.09|||ANCOVA|||ApoB-48||0.09|-2.10|0.0728
90978059|NCT03371355|181840544|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.803||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.91|-0.69|||ANCOVA|||ApoB-48||-0.69|-2.91|0.0018
90978060|NCT03371355|181840544|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.091||||0.0759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.12|||ANCOVA|||ApoB-48||0.12|-2.30|0.0759
90978061|NCT03371355|181840544|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.887||||0.8451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.89|8.11|||ANCOVA|||ApoB-100||8.11|-9.89|0.8451
90978062|NCT03371355|181840544|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.59||||0.0973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.59|1.41|||ANCOVA|||ApoB-100||1.41|-16.59|0.0973
90978063|NCT03371355|181840544|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.418||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.45|6.61|||ANCOVA|||ApoB-100||6.61|-13.45|0.5000
90978064|NCT03371355|181840544|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.753||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.47|-2.03|||ANCOVA|||ApoCIII||-2.03|-7.47|0.0008
90978065|NCT03371355|181840544|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-8.499|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.18|-5.82|||ANCOVA|||ApoCIII||-5.82|-11.18|<0.0001
90978066|NCT03371355|181840544|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.78|-3.93|||ANCOVA|||ApoCIII||-3.93|-9.78|<0.0001
90978067|NCT03371355|181840544|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-16.8||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.8|-7.85|||ANCOVA|||ApoA1||-7.85|-25.80|0.0003
90978068|NCT03371355|181840544|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-35.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.07|-26.24|||ANCOVA|||ApoA1||-26.24|-44.07|<0.0001
90978069|NCT03371355|181840544|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-21.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.89|-11.39|||ANCOVA|||ApoA1||-11.39|-30.89|<0.0001
90978070|NCT03371355|181840545|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0128||||0.8299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.13|||ANCOVA|||||0.13|-0.10|0.8299
90978071|NCT03371355|181840545|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.0144||||0.8102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.10|-0.13|0.8102
90978072|NCT03371355|181840545|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.0146||||0.8223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.11|||ANCOVA|||||0.11|-0.14|0.8223
90978073|NCT03371355|181840546|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|7.8||||0.0604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|16.02|||ANCOVA|||Lp(a)||16.02|-0.35|0.0604
90978074|NCT03371355|181840546|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.6||||0.7048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.61|9.74|||ANCOVA|||Lp(a)||9.74|-6.61|0.7048
90978075|NCT03371355|181840546|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.7||||0.7024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.65|7.2|||ANCOVA|||Lp(a)||7.20|-10.65|0.7024
90978076|NCT03371355|181840547|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-45.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.0|-33.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|ANGPTL3||-33|-54|<0.0001
90978077|NCT03371355|181840547|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-62.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.0|-54.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|ANGPTL3||-54|-69|<0.0001
90946125|NCT04092452|181772236|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.11||0.2081|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.7|20.0||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Total AN Count of 0 or 1||20.0|-6.7|0.2081
90946126|NCT04092452|181772236|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.9||0.2957|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.9|19.4||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Total AN Count of 0, 1 or 2||19.4|-9.9|0.2957
90946127|NCT04092452|181772236|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.07||0.0456|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7|30.5||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Total AN Count of 0, 1 or 2||30.5|0.7|0.0456
90946128|NCT04092452|181772236|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.05||0.1558|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.7|24.1||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Total AN Count of 0, 1 or 2||24.1|-5.7|0.1558
90946129|NCT04092452|181772237|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-11.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.622|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-26.16|2.2||||||Week 1||2.20|-26.16|
90946130|NCT04092452|181772237|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-15.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.526|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-29.09|-1.04||||||Week 1||-1.04|-29.09|
90946131|NCT04092452|181772237|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-17.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.758|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-31.86|-3.05||||||Week 1||-3.05|-31.86|
90946132|NCT04092452|181772237|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-12.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.465|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-28.09|3.05||||||Week 2||3.05|-28.09|
90946133|NCT04092452|181772237|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.338|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.22|12.5||||||Week 2||12.50|-18.22|
90946134|NCT04092452|181772237|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.438|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.02|10.03||||||Week 2||10.03|-21.02|
90946135|NCT04092452|181772237|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.214|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.96|13.93||||||Week 4||13.93|-22.96|
90946136|NCT04092452|181772237|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-17.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.131|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-35.84|0.77||||||Week 4||0.77|-35.84|
90978078|NCT03371355|181840547|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-58.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.0|-47.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|ANGPTL3||-47|-66|<0.0001
90946137|NCT04092452|181772237|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.507|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.85|15.0||||||Week 4||15.00|-22.85|
90946138|NCT04092452|181772237|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.452|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.04|29.22||||||Week 6||29.22|-15.04|
90946139|NCT04092452|181772237|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-14.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.688|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-37.08|7.95||||||Week 6||7.95|-37.08|
90946140|NCT04092452|181772237|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.808|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-31.66|13.76||||||Week 6||13.76|-31.66|
90946141|NCT04092452|181772237|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.057||0.8108|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.98|32.98||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 8||32.98|-9.98|0.8108
90946142|NCT04092452|181772237|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-16.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.845||0.1043|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-37.28|4.98||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 8||4.98|-37.28|0.1043
90946143|NCT04092452|181772237|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-15.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.355||0.1296|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-37.04|6.9||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 8||6.90|-37.04|0.1296
90946144|NCT04092452|181772237|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.384||0.345|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-33.49|20.42||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 12||20.42|-33.49|0.3450
90946145|NCT04092452|181772237|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-17.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.116||0.1119|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-40.4|6.04||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 12||6.04|-40.40|0.1119
90946146|NCT04092452|181772237|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-19.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.806||0.0885|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-44.34|4.37||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 12||4.37|-44.34|0.0885
90946147|NCT04092452|181772237|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.14||0.705|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.28|43.98||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 16||43.98|-22.28|0.7050
90946148|NCT04092452|181772237|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-17.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.519||0.1833|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-49.73|14.48||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 16||14.48|-49.73|0.1833
90946149|NCT04092452|181772237|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-9.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.277||0.3213|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-42.76|23.94||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 16||23.94|-42.76|0.3213
90946150|NCT04092452|181772238|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.67|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.9|2.9||||||Week 1 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Absolute Score||2.9|-5.9|
90946151|NCT04092452|181772238|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.3|2.2||||||Week 1 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Absolute Score||2.2|-6.3|
90946152|NCT04092452|181772238|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.68|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.9|2.9||||||Week 1 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Absolute Score||2.9|-5.9|
90946153|NCT04092452|181772238|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.59|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.2|3.3||||||Week 2 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Absolute Score||3.3|-5.2|
90946154|NCT04092452|181772238|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.55|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.3|4.1||||||Week 2 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Absolute Score||4.1|-4.3|
90946155|NCT04092452|181772238|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.61|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.3|4.3||||||Week 2 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Absolute Score||4.3|-4.3|
90946156|NCT04092452|181772238|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.51|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.5|3.8||||||Week 4 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Absolute Score||3.8|-4.5|
90978079|NCT03371355|181840547|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-9.0||||0.0309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|-1.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|TC||-1|-16|0.0309
90978080|NCT03371355|181840547|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-19.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.0|-12.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|TC||-12|-26|<0.0001
90978081|NCT03371355|181840547|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-17.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.0|-9.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|TC||-9|-25|<0.0001
90978082|NCT03371355|181840547|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|6.0||||0.4016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|21.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|LDL-C||21|-7|0.4016
90978083|NCT03371355|181840547|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-7.0||||0.2589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|6.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|LDL-C||6|-18|0.2589
90978084|NCT03371355|181840547|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-12.0||||0.0616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.0|1.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|LDL-C||1|-24|0.0616
90978085|NCT03371355|181840547|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-8.0||||0.1918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|4.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|HDL-C||4|-18|0.1918
90978086|NCT03371355|181840547|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-24.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.0|-14.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|HDL-C||-14|-32|<0.0001
90978087|NCT03371355|181840547|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-10.0||||0.1132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|3.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|HDL-C||3|-21|0.1132
90978088|NCT03371355|181840547|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-24.0||||0.0177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.0|-5.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|VLDL-C||-5|-40|0.0177
91038494|NCT00521586|181961661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.07||||||Serotype 9V: 2-sided 95 % CI for the ratio of 2 geometric means (13vPnC+TIV/Placebo and Placebo+TIV/13vPnC) was constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the difference of the 2 logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.||1.07|0.81|
90978089|NCT03371355|181840547|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-38.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.0|-23.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|VLDL-C||-23|-51|<0.0001
90978090|NCT03371355|181840547|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-30.0||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.0|-12.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|VLDL-C||-12|-45|0.0033
90978091|NCT03371355|181840547|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-10.0||||0.0523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|0.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|Non-HDL-C||0|-18|0.0523
90978092|NCT03371355|181840547|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-18.0||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.0|-9.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|Non-HDL-C||-9|-26|0.0002
90978093|NCT03371355|181840547|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-19.0||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.0|-9.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|Non-HDL-C||-9|-28|0.0004
90978094|NCT03371355|181840547|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-3.0||||0.4204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|5.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|ApoB||5|-12|0.4204
90978095|NCT03371355|181840547|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-9.0||||0.0441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|0.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|ApoB||0|-16|0.0441
90978096|NCT03371355|181840547|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-7.0||||0.1324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|2.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|ApoB||2|-16|0.1324
90978097|NCT03371355|181840547|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-29.0||||0.1009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.0|7.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|ApoB-48||7|-53|0.1009
90978098|NCT03371355|181840547|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-52.0||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.0|-28.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|ApoB-48||-28|-68|0.0005
90978099|NCT03371355|181840547|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-21.0||||0.3004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.0|24.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|ApoB-48||24|-50|0.3004
90978100|NCT03371355|181840547|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-2.0||||0.6135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|7.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|ApoB-100||7|-10|0.6135
90978101|NCT03371355|181840547|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-7.0||||0.1127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|2.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|ApoB-100||2|-15|0.1127
90978102|NCT03371355|181840547|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-5.0||||0.2576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|4.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|ApoB-100||4|-14|0.2576
90978103|NCT03371355|181840547|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-36.0||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.0|-16.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|ApoCIII||-16|-52|0.0017
90978104|NCT03371355|181840547|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-58.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.0|-45.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|ApoCIII||-45|-68|<0.0001
90978105|NCT03371355|181840547|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-47.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.0|-29.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|ApoCIII||-29|-61|<0.0001
90978106|NCT03371355|181840547|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-11.0||||0.0193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|-2.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|ApoAI||-2|-20|0.0193
90978107|NCT03371355|181840547|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-26.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.0|-19.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|ApoAI||-19|-33|<0.0001
90978108|NCT03371355|181840547|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-14.0||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.0|-4.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|ApoAI||-4|-23|0.0063
90978109|NCT03371355|181840547|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-2.0||||0.8873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|23.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|FFA||23|-21|0.8873
90978110|NCT03371355|181840547|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-8.0||||0.4404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.0|15.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|FFA||15|-27|0.4404
90978111|NCT03371355|181840547|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB]|-1.0||||0.9665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|27.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|FFA||27|-22|0.9665
90978112|NCT03371355|181840547|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB]|-7.0||||0.4133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|10.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|Lp\[a\]||10|-21|0.4133
90978113|NCT03371355|181840547|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB]|-6.0||||0.475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|11.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|Lp\[a\]||11|-20|0.4750
90978114|NCT03371355|181840547|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB]|-4.0||||0.6354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|15.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|Lp\[a\]||15|-20|0.6354
90978115|NCT03371355|181840548|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-17.2||||0.1799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.53|8.1|||ANCOVA|||||8.10|-42.53|0.1799
90978116|NCT03371355|181840548|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|13.8||||0.2867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.83|39.49|||ANCOVA|||||39.49|-11.83|0.2867
90978117|NCT03371355|181840548|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.2||||0.8812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.78|31.14|||ANCOVA|||||31.14|-26.78|0.8812
90978118|NCT03371355|181840549|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.28||||0.3995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.38|||ANCOVA|||||0.38|-0.94|0.3995
90978119|NCT03371355|181840549|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.08||||0.8155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.75|||ANCOVA|||||0.75|-0.59|0.8155
90978120|NCT03371355|181840549|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.16||||0.6466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.86|||ANCOVA|||||0.86|-0.54|0.6466
90978121|NCT03371355|181840550|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.39||||0.7393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.66|6.89|||ANCOVA|||||6.89|-9.66|0.7393
90978122|NCT03371355|181840550|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.13||||0.9744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.45|8.18|||ANCOVA|||||8.18|-8.45|0.9744
90978123|NCT03371355|181840550|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.58||||0.4477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.75|12.91|||ANCOVA|||||12.91|-5.75|0.4477
90978124|NCT03371355|181840551|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.794||||0.471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.72|3.14|||ANCOVA|||||3.14|-6.72|0.4710
90978125|NCT03371355|181840551|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.26||||0.9169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.68|5.2|||ANCOVA|||||5.20|-4.68|0.9169
90978126|NCT03371355|181840551|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.133||||0.4484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.44|7.7|||ANCOVA|||||7.70|-3.44|0.4484
90978127|NCT03371355|181840552|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-23.2||||0.0916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.17|3.83|||ANCOVA|||||3.83|-50.17|0.0916
90978128|NCT03371355|181840552|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-11.4||||0.4032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.51|15.63|||ANCOVA|||||15.63|-38.51|0.4032
90978129|NCT03371355|181840552|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.9||||0.8959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.56|31.45|||ANCOVA|||||31.45|-27.56|0.8959
90978130|NCT03371355|181840553|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.052||||0.3202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.05|||ANCOVA|||||0.05|-0.16|0.3202
90978131|NCT03371355|181840553|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.01||||0.8485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.09|||ANCOVA|||||0.09|-0.11|0.8485
90978132|NCT03371355|181840553|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0314||||0.5812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.14|||ANCOVA|||||0.14|-0.08|0.5812
90978133|NCT03371355|181840554|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.43||||0.6157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|2.15|||ANCOVA|||||2.15|-1.28|0.6157
90978134|NCT03371355|181840554|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.01||||0.9869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|1.69|||ANCOVA|||||1.69|-1.66|0.9869
90978135|NCT03371355|181840554|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.33||||0.7084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|1.42|||ANCOVA|||||1.42|-2.07|0.7084
90978136|NCT03371355|181840555|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.79||||0.4431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.41|10.0|||ANCOVA|||SBP||10.00|-4.41|0.4431
90978137|NCT03371355|181840555|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.08||||0.563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.05|9.22|||ANCOVA|||SBP||9.22|-5.05|0.5630
90978138|NCT03371355|181840555|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.63||||0.6634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.06|5.79|||ANCOVA|||SBP||5.79|-9.06|0.6634
90978139|NCT03371355|181840555|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|4.11||||0.0937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|8.92|||ANCOVA|||DBP||8.92|-0.71|0.0937
90978140|NCT03371355|181840555|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.49||||0.1522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|8.28|||ANCOVA|||DBP||8.28|-1.31|0.1522
90978141|NCT03371355|181840555|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.62||||0.5188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.35|6.59|||ANCOVA|||DBP||6.59|-3.35|0.5188
90978142|NCT03371355|181840556|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.57||||0.5299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|2.39|||ANCOVA|||Weight||2.39|-1.24|0.5299
90978143|NCT03371355|181840556|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.12||||0.8919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|1.65|||ANCOVA|||Weight||1.65|-1.89|0.8919
90978144|NCT03371355|181840556|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.6653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|1.44|||ANCOVA|||Weight||1.44|-2.25|0.6653
90978145|NCT03371355|181840556|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.35||||0.4213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.43|8.14|||ANCOVA|||SBP||8.14|-3.43|0.4213
90978146|NCT03371355|181840556|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.23||||0.6696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.49|6.96|||ANCOVA|||SBP||6.96|-4.49|0.6696
90978147|NCT03371355|181840556|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.23||||0.6819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|4.73|||ANCOVA|||SBP||4.73|-7.20|0.6819
90978148|NCT03371355|181840556|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|5.01||||0.1171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|11.31|||ANCOVA|||DBP||11.31|-1.28|0.1171
90978149|NCT03371355|181840556|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.94||||0.2155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|10.21|||ANCOVA|||DBP||10.21|-2.33|0.2155
90978150|NCT03371355|181840556|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.7||||0.6034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.79|8.2|||ANCOVA|||DBP||8.20|-4.79|0.6034
90978151|NCT03371355|181840557|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.98||||0.5752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|4.44|||ANCOVA|||||4.44|-2.48|0.5752
90978152|NCT03371355|181840557|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|4.09||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|7.59|||ANCOVA|||||7.59|0.58|0.0230
90978153|NCT03371355|181840557|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.57||||0.3965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|5.25|||ANCOVA|||||5.25|-2.10|0.3965
90978154|NCT03371355|181840558|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|12.44||||0.3023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.39|36.26|||ANCOVA|||||36.26|-11.39|0.3023
90978155|NCT03371355|181840558|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|26.03||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.87|50.19|||ANCOVA|||||50.19|1.87|0.0350
90978156|NCT03371355|181840558|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|12.27||||0.3374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.02|37.55|||ANCOVA|||||37.55|-13.02|0.3374
90978157|NCT03371355|181840560|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.59||||0.4583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.49|4.31|||ANCOVA|||||4.31|-9.49|0.4583
90978158|NCT03371355|181840560|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.71||||0.0943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.43|1.0|||ANCOVA|||||1.00|-12.43|0.0943
90978159|NCT03371355|181840560|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.57||||0.1909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.45|2.32|||ANCOVA|||||2.32|-11.45|0.1909
90978160|NCT03371355|181840561|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|7.1||||0.1294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|16.22|||ANCOVA|||ALT||16.22|-2.10|0.1294
90946157|NCT04092452|181772238|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.48|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.4|2.8||||||Week 4 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Absolute Score||2.8|-5.4|
90946158|NCT04092452|181772238|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.58|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.8|-0.3||||||Week 4 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Absolute Score||-0.3|-8.8|
90946159|NCT04092452|181772238|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.99|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.5|3.3||||||Week 6 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Absolute Score||3.3|-6.5|
90946160|NCT04092452|181772238|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.91|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.5|0.1||||||Week 6 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Absolute Score||0.1|-9.5|
90946161|NCT04092452|181772238|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.08|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.5|-0.4||||||Week 6 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Absolute Score||-0.4|-10.5|
90946162|NCT04092452|181772238|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.78||0.6393|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.6|5.6||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 8 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Absolute Score||5.6|-3.6|0.6393
90946163|NCT04092452|181772238|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.72||0.5178|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.4|4.6||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 8 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Absolute Score||4.6|-4.4|0.5178
90978161|NCT03371355|181840561|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|14.8||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.98|23.59|||ANCOVA|||ALT||23.59|5.98|0.0012
90946164|NCT04092452|181772238|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.82||0.0864|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.5|0.8||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 8 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Absolute Score||0.8|-8.5|0.0864
90946165|NCT04092452|181772238|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.61||0.3172|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.5|3.1||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 12 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Absolute Score||3.1|-5.5|0.3172
90946166|NCT04092452|181772238|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.51||0.1384|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.8|1.4||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 12 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Absolute Score||1.4|-6.8|0.1384
90946167|NCT04092452|181772238|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.66||0.1427|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.2|1.5||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 12 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Absolute Score||1.5|-7.2|0.1427
90946168|NCT04092452|181772238|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.99||0.1975|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.5|2.4||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 16 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Absolute Score||2.4|-7.5|0.1975
90946169|NCT04092452|181772238|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.76||0.0755|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.5|0.6||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 16 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Absolute Score||0.6|-8.5|0.0755
90946170|NCT04092452|181772238|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.89||0.1869|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.3|2.2||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 16 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Absolute Score||2.2|-7.3|0.1869
90946171|NCT04092452|181772239|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.659|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.9|10.59||||||Week 1 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Percent Change from Baseline||10.59|-17.90|
90946172|NCT04092452|181772239|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-13.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.749|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-28.16|0.62||||||Week 1 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Percent Change from Baseline||0.62|-28.16|
90946173|NCT04092452|181772239|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-17.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.752|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-31.91|-3.12||||||Week 1 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Percent Change from Baseline||-3.12|-31.91|
90946174|NCT04092452|181772239|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.103|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.91|12.33||||||Week 2 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Percent Change from Baseline||12.33|-20.91|
90978162|NCT03371355|181840561|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|8.9||||0.0594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|18.11|||ANCOVA|||ALT||18.11|-0.36|0.0594
90946175|NCT04092452|181772239|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.904|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.34|14.24||||||Week 2 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Percent Change from Baseline||14.24|-18.34|
90946176|NCT04092452|181772239|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.039|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.34|16.68||||||Week 2 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Percent Change from Baseline||16.68|-16.34|
90978163|NCT03371355|181840561|SUPERIORITY||[Least Squares Mean Difference|5.0||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|10.45|||ANCOVA|||AST||10.45|-0.47|0.0730
90978164|NCT03371355|181840561|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|8.4||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.17|13.7|||ANCOVA|||AST||13.70|3.17|0.0020
91038495|NCT00521586|181961661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.11||||||Serotype 14: 2-sided 95 % CI for the ratio of 2 geometric means (13vPnC+TIV/Placebo and Placebo+TIV/13vPnC) was constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the difference of the 2 logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.||1.11|0.81|
90978165|NCT03371355|181840561|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|6.5||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|12.0|||ANCOVA|||AST||12.00|1.05|0.0200
90978166|NCT03371355|181840562|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.19||||0.4812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.55|2.16|||ANCOVA|||||2.16|-4.55|0.4812
90978167|NCT03371355|181840562|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.53||||0.3679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.88|1.83|||ANCOVA|||||1.83|-4.88|0.3679
90978168|NCT03371355|181840562|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.18||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.72|-0.65|||ANCOVA|||||-0.65|-7.72|0.0210
90946177|NCT04092452|181772239|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.227|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.29|16.36||||||Week 4 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Percent Change from Baseline||16.36|-17.29|
90946178|NCT04092452|181772239|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.155|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-24.77|8.63||||||Week 4 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Percent Change from Baseline||8.63|-24.77|
90946179|NCT04092452|181772239|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.509|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.35|11.22||||||Week 4 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Percent Change from Baseline||11.22|-23.35|
90946180|NCT04092452|181772239|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.262|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.71|16.63||||||Week 6 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Percent Change from Baseline||16.63|-23.71|
90978169|NCT03371355|181840563|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.15||||0.6227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.44|||ANCOVA|||||0.44|-0.73|0.6227
90978170|NCT03371355|181840563|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.38||||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|0.2|||ANCOVA|||||0.20|-0.97|0.1950
90978171|NCT03371355|181840563|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.38||||0.2271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.24|||ANCOVA|||||0.24|-1.00|0.2271
90978172|NCT03371355|181840564|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|17.06||||0.8591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-173.57|207.69|||ANCOVA|||SAT||207.69|-173.57|0.8591
90946181|NCT04092452|181772239|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-16.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.51|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-36.84|4.32||||||Week 6 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Percent Change from Baseline||4.32|-36.84|
90946182|NCT04092452|181772239|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-12.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.61|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-33.27|8.22||||||Week 6 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Percent Change from Baseline||8.22|-33.27|
90946183|NCT04092452|181772239|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.045||0.7|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.38|23.96||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 8 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Percent Change from Baseline||23.96|-12.38|0.7000
90946184|NCT04092452|181772239|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.876||0.2965|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.7|12.08||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 8 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Percent Change from Baseline||12.08|-23.70|0.2965
90946185|NCT04092452|181772239|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-11.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.247||0.1568|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-29.83|7.17||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 8 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Percent Change from Baseline||7.17|-29.83|0.1568
90946186|NCT04092452|181772239|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.912||0.2672|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-24.73|11.17||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 12 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Percent Change from Baseline||11.17|-24.73|0.2672
90946187|NCT04092452|181772239|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-16.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.517||0.0576|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-33.87|0.73||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 12 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Percent Change from Baseline||0.73|-33.87|0.0576
90946188|NCT04092452|181772239|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-13.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.603||0.1197|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-32.74|5.44||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 12 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Percent Change from Baseline||5.44|-32.74|0.1197
90946189|NCT04092452|181772239|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.545||0.3388|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.91|16.65||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 16 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Percent Change from Baseline||16.65|-27.91|0.3388
90946190|NCT04092452|181772239|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-14.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.567||0.1376|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-37.12|7.51||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 16 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Percent Change from Baseline||7.51|-37.12|0.1376
90946191|NCT04092452|181772239|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.86||0.2741|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-31.12|14.48||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 16||14.48|-31.12|0.2741
90978173|NCT03371355|181840564|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|32.92||||0.7404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-164.11|229.95|||ANCOVA|||SAT||229.95|-164.11|0.7404
90978174|NCT03371355|181840564|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-16.3||||0.8711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-215.5|182.9|||ANCOVA|||SAT||182.90|-215.50|0.8711
90978175|NCT03371355|181840564|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|4.95||||0.9569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-176.64|186.53|||ANCOVA|||VAT||186.53|-176.64|0.9569
90946192|NCT04092452|181772240|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.06|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.0|10.3||||||Week 4||10.3|-13.0|
90946193|NCT04092452|181772240|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.23|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.7|1.8||||||Week 4||1.8|-18.7|
90946194|NCT04092452|181772240|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.55|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.7|14.1||||||Week 4||14.1|-10.7|
90946195|NCT04092452|181772240|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.8||0.8372|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.6|17.7||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 8||17.7|-4.6|0.8372
90946196|NCT04092452|181772240|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.68||0.0819|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.1|1.3||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 8||1.3|-14.1|0.0819
90946197|NCT04092452|181772240|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.34||0.0242|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.2|-0.9||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 8||-0.9|-15.2|0.0242
90946198|NCT04092452|181772240|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-12.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.33||0.0264|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.1|-2.3||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 12||-2.3|-23.1|0.0264
90946199|NCT04092452|181772240|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-14.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.47||0.0127|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-25.1|-3.9||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 12||-3.9|-25.1|0.0127
90946200|NCT04092452|181772240|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-16.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.33||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.0|-6.2||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 12||-6.2|-27.0|0.0059
90946201|NCT04092452|181772240|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-9.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.97||0.1185|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.7|3.5||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 16||3.5|-22.7|0.1185
90946202|NCT04092452|181772240|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-16.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.39||0.004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-26.6|-5.6||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 16||-5.6|-26.6|0.0040
90946203|NCT04092452|181772240|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-12.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.09||0.0418|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-24.5|-1.1||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 16||-1.1|-24.5|0.0418
90946204|NCT04092452|181772241|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.75||0.0559|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|24.8||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 1 (Pain at its Worst)||24.8|-0.7|0.0559
90978176|NCT03371355|181840564|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-24.26||||0.8025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-216.53|168.02|||ANCOVA|||VAT||168.02|-216.53|0.8025
90978177|NCT03371355|181840564|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|22.02||||0.8202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-170.09|214.12|||ANCOVA|||VAT||214.12|-170.09|0.8202
90978178|NCT03371355|181840565|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.11||||0.9734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.47|6.69|||ANCOVA|||||6.69|-6.47|0.9734
90946205|NCT04092452|181772241|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.09||0.0758|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.9|21.4||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 1 (Pain at its Worst)||21.4|-1.9|0.0758
90946206|NCT04092452|181772241|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.21||0.0637|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|23.2||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 1 (Pain at its Worst)||23.2|-0.6|0.0637
90946207|NCT04092452|181772241|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.84||0.3179|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.3|18.8||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 2 (Pain at its Worst)||18.8|-10.3|0.3179
90946208|NCT04092452|181772241|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.82||0.1078|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.5|25.5||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 2 (Pain at its Worst)||25.5|-3.5|0.1078
90946209|NCT04092452|181772241|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.86||0.1976|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.0|22.2||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 2 (Pain at its Worst)||22.2|-7.0|0.1976
90946210|NCT04092452|181772241|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-18.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.32||0.9738|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-34.3|-3.6||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 4 (Pain at its Worst)||-3.6|-34.3|0.9738
90946211|NCT04092452|181772241|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.4||0.2925|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.3|22.9||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 4 (Pain at its Worst)||22.9|-11.3|0.2925
90946212|NCT04092452|181772241|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.18||0.6178|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-19.8|13.7||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 4 (Pain at its Worst)||13.7|-19.8|0.6178
90946213|NCT04092452|181772241|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-20.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.04||0.9769|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-37.4|-4.4||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 6 (Pain at its Worst)||-4.4|-37.4|0.9769
90978179|NCT03371355|181840565|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.7||||0.8333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.25|5.86|||ANCOVA|||||5.86|-7.25|0.8333
90978180|NCT03371355|181840565|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.66||||0.6207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.99|8.31|||ANCOVA|||||8.31|-4.99|0.6207
90978181|NCT03371355|181840566|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.01||||0.8026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.06|||ANCOVA|||||0.06|-0.04|0.8026
90978182|NCT03371355|181840566|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.02||||0.4917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.03|||ANCOVA|||||0.03|-0.07|0.4917
90978183|NCT03371355|181840566|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0||||0.8916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.05|||ANCOVA|||||0.05|-0.05|0.8916
90978184|NCT03371355|181840567|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.11||||0.728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.71|||ANCOVA|||||0.71|-0.50|0.7280
90978185|NCT03371355|181840567|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.7354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.49|||ANCOVA|||||0.49|-0.69|0.7354
90978186|NCT03371355|181840567|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.23||||0.4682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.39|||ANCOVA|||||0.39|-0.84|0.4682
90978187|NCT01261559|181840570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.0||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|25.0|||Regression, Linear|A multivariate linear regression model was fitted for the main outcome of percent relative dose, with age, BMI, and bra cup size as covariates.||Powered to detect difference of 10% at 80% power if 66 or more subjects enrolled.||25|4|0.003
90978188|NCT00619957|181840576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|4.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.46|5.6|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||A total of 210 patients will be randomized to 35 mg once a week risedronate and placebo groups in 2:1 ratio. Sample size will allow detection of a difference of at least 3% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from Baseline at 24 months between risedronate and placebo with at least 90% power. This calculation is based on the assumptions that the common within-group standard deviation (SD) would be below 5%, and the dropout rate within 2 years is about 35%.||5.60|3.46|<0.0001
90978189|NCT00619957|181840577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|3.47|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||A total of 210 patients will be randomized to 35 mg once a week risedronate and placebo groups in 2:1 ratio. Sample size will allow detection of a difference of at least 3% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from Baseline at 24 months between risedronate and placebo with at least 90% power. This calculation is based on the assumptions that the common within-group standard deviation (SD) would be below 5%, and the dropout rate within 2 years is about 35%.||3.47|1.66|<0.0001
90946214|NCT04092452|181772241|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.57||0.6529|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.6|13.2||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 6 (Pain at its Worst)||13.2|-21.6|0.6529
91038496|NCT00521586|181961661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.06||||||Serotype 18C: 2-sided 95 % CI for the ratio of 2 geometric means (13vPnC+TIV/Placebo and Placebo+TIV/13vPnC) was constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the difference of the 2 logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.||1.06|0.79|
90946215|NCT04092452|181772241|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-12.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.36||0.8878|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-29.8|4.3||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 6 (Pain at its Worst)||4.3|-29.8|0.8878
90946216|NCT04092452|181772241|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.11||0.7259|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.9|10.4||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 8 (Pain at its Worst)||10.4|-22.9|0.7259
90946217|NCT04092452|181772241|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.24||0.0826|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.1|31.6||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 8 (Pain at its Worst)||31.6|-2.1|0.0826
90946218|NCT04092452|181772241|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.75||0.7884|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-24.1|8.0||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 8 (Pain at its Worst)||8.0|-24.1|0.7884
90946219|NCT04092452|181772241|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-16.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.43||0.9326|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-33.2|1.1||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 12 (Pain at its Worst)||1.1|-33.2|0.9326
90946220|NCT04092452|181772241|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.41||0.681|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.1|12.2||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 12 (Pain at its Worst)||12.2|-22.1|0.6810
90946221|NCT04092452|181772241|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.52||0.8308|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.6|7.0||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 12 (Pain at its Worst)||7.0|-27.6|0.8308
90946222|NCT04092452|181772241|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.71||0.8063|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-24.5|7.4||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 16 (Pain at its Worst)||7.4|-24.5|0.8063
90946223|NCT04092452|181772241|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.27||0.2649|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.4|23.4||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 16 (Pain at its Worst)||23.4|-10.4|0.2649
90946224|NCT04092452|181772241|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.35||0.3029|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.7|22.4||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 16 (Pain at its Worst)||22.4|-11.7|0.3029
90946225|NCT04092452|181772242|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.2||0.1687|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.7|21.2||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 1 (Average Pain)||21.2|-5.7|0.1687
90946226|NCT04092452|181772242|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.03||0.0376|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6|27.0||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 1 (Average Pain)||27.0|0.6|0.0376
90946227|NCT04092452|181772242|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.9||0.5883|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.9|9.8||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 1 (Average Pain)||9.8|-12.9|0.5883
90946228|NCT04092452|181772242|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.07||0.3829|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.2|17.6||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 2 (Average Pain)||17.6|-12.2|0.3829
90946229|NCT04092452|181772242|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.54||0.0316|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.5|33.9||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 2 (Average Pain)||33.9|2.5|0.0316
90946230|NCT04092452|181772242|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.17||0.3072|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.5|19.7||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 2 (Average Pain)||19.7|-10.5|0.3072
90946231|NCT04092452|181772242|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-13.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.18||0.8952|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-29.8|3.7||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 4 (Average Pain)||3.7|-29.8|0.8952
90946232|NCT04092452|181772242|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.76||0.1157|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.6|30.8||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 4 (Average Pain)||30.8|-4.6|0.1157
90946233|NCT04092452|181772242|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.93||0.4672|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.1|18.9||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 4 (Average Pain)||18.9|-17.1|0.4672
90946234|NCT04092452|181772242|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-16.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.29||0.9287|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-35.5|1.6||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 6 (Average Pain)||1.6|-35.5|0.9287
90946235|NCT04092452|181772242|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.85||0.4984|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.8|17.9||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 6 (Average Pain)||17.9|-17.8|0.4984
90946236|NCT04092452|181772242|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-14.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.27||0.9001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-33.2|3.9||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 6 (Average Pain)||3.9|-33.2|0.9001
90946237|NCT04092452|181772242|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.53||0.8319|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.6|7.0||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 8 (Average Pain)||7.0|-27.6|0.8319
90946238|NCT04092452|181772242|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|19.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.55||0.034|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.3|37.0||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 8 (Average Pain)||37.0|2.3|0.0340
90946239|NCT04092452|181772242|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.7||0.7359|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-24.4|10.8||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 8 (Average Pain)||10.8|-24.4|0.7359
90946240|NCT04092452|181772242|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-16.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.51||0.9291|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-33.3|1.3||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 12 (Average Pain)||1.3|-33.3|0.9291
90978190|NCT00619957|181840578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.19|4.16|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||A total of 210 patients will be randomized to 35 mg once a week risedronate and placebo groups in 2:1 ratio. Sample size will allow detection of a difference of at least 3% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from Baseline at 24 months between risedronate and placebo with at least 90% power. This calculation is based on the assumptions that the common within-group standard deviation (SD) would be below 5%, and the dropout rate within 2 years is about 35%.||4.16|2.19|<0.0001
90946241|NCT04092452|181772242|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.44||0.5087|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.4|16.9||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 12 (Average Pain)||16.9|-17.4|0.5087
90946242|NCT04092452|181772242|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-9.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.74||0.8098|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.2|8.1||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 12 (Average Pain)||8.1|-27.2|0.8098
90946243|NCT04092452|181772242|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.76||0.8114|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-24.8|7.2||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 16 (Average Pain)||7.2|-24.8|0.8114
90946244|NCT04092452|181772242|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.44||0.1531|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.4|28.0||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 16 (Average Pain)||28.0|-6.4|0.1531
90946245|NCT04092452|181772242|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.58||0.3784|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.1|20.7||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 16 (Average Pain)||20.7|-14.1|0.3784
90946246|NCT04092452|181772243|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.661||0.1321|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.39|3.52||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 1 Pain at its Worst||3.52|-18.39|0.1321
90946247|NCT04092452|181772243|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.308||0.0477|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.9|-0.14||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 1 Pain at its Worst||-0.14|-20.90|0.0477
90946248|NCT04092452|181772243|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-14.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.379||0.0134|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-24.62|-3.63||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 1 Pain at its Worst||-3.63|-24.62|0.0134
90946249|NCT04092452|181772243|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.38||0.2496|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-19.45|8.12||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 2 Pain at its Worst||8.12|-19.45|0.2496
90946250|NCT04092452|181772243|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-11.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.972||0.0675|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-25.03|1.2||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 2 Pain at its Worst||1.20|-25.03|0.0675
90946251|NCT04092452|181772243|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-11.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.054||0.073|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-24.96|1.54||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 2 Pain at its Worst||1.54|-24.96|0.0730
91038497|NCT00521586|181961661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.08||||||Serotype 19A: 2-sided 95 % CI for the ratio of 2 geometric means (13vPnC+TIV/Placebo and Placebo+TIV/13vPnC) was constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the difference of the 2 logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.||1.08|0.80|
90946252|NCT04092452|181772243|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.892||0.6426|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.38|17.88||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 4 Pain at its Worst||17.88|-11.38|0.6426
90946253|NCT04092452|181772243|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.457||0.1776|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.73|6.09||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 4 Pain at its Worst||6.09|-21.73|0.1776
90946254|NCT04092452|181772243|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.579||0.4458|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.28|12.94||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 4 Pain at its Worst||12.94|-15.28|0.4458
90946255|NCT04092452|181772243|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.566||0.7969|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.79|23.68||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 6 Pain at its Worst||23.68|-7.79|0.7969
90946256|NCT04092452|181772243|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-11.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.12||0.112|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-26.09|3.91||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 6 Pain at its Worst||3.91|-26.09|0.1120
90946257|NCT04092452|181772243|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.188||0.5021|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.06|15.16||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 6 Pain at its Worst||15.16|-15.06|0.5021
90978191|NCT00619957|181840579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.49|5.66|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||A total of 210 patients will be randomized to 35 mg once a week risedronate and placebo groups in 2:1 ratio. Sample size will allow detection of a difference of at least 3% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from Baseline at 24 months between risedronate and placebo with at least 90% power. This calculation is based on the assumptions that the common within-group standard deviation (SD) would be below 5%, and the dropout rate within 2 years is about 35%.||5.66|3.49|<0.0001
91038498|NCT00521586|181961661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.12||||||Serotype 19F: 2-sided 95 % CI for the ratio of 2 geometric means (13vPnC+TIV/Placebo and Placebo+TIV/13vPnC) was constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the difference of the 2 logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.||1.12|0.77|
91038499|NCT00521586|181961661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.09||||||Serotype 23F: 2-sided 95 % CI for the ratio of 2 geometric means (13vPnC+TIV/Placebo and Placebo+TIV/13vPnC) was constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the difference of the 2 logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.||1.09|0.74|
91038500|NCT00828321|181961699|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|94.16||||||90.0|85.08|104.21|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||104.21|85.08|
91038501|NCT00828321|181961700|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|102.22||||||90.0|96.21|108.6|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||108.6|96.21|
91038502|NCT00828321|181961701|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|102.22||||||90.0|96.34|108.58|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||108.58|96.34|
91038503|NCT00828321|181961702|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|98.52||||||90.0|92.63|104.79|||||This analysis was for informational purposes and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||104.79|92.63|
91038504|NCT00828321|181961703|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|97.45||||||90.0|94.66|100.32|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||100.32|94.66|
91038505|NCT02997176|181961704|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Percent Ratio of Geometric Means|142.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.92|252.98||||||AUC0-24 was natural log-transformed and analyzed using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with hepatic function group as a fixed effect.||252.98|79.92|
91038506|NCT02997176|181961704|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Percent Ratio of Geometric Means|110.54|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|54.58|223.85||||||AUC0-24 was natural log-transformed and analyzed using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with hepatic function group as a fixed effect.||223.85|54.58|
91038507|NCT02997176|181961705|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Percent Ratio of Geometric Means|109.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.93|169.84||||||Cmax was natural log-transformed and analyzed using an ANOVA model with hepatic function group as a fixed effect.||169.84|70.93|
91038508|NCT02997176|181961705|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Percent Ratio of Geometric Means|131.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.14|224.74||||||Cmax was natural log-transformed and analyzed using an ANOVA model with hepatic function group as a fixed effect.||224.74|77.14|
91038509|NCT02997176|181961706|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Percent Ratio of Geometric Means|149.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.49|243.93||||||AUC0-24u was natural log-transformed and analyzed using an ANOVA model with hepatic function group as a fixed effect.||243.93|91.49|
91038510|NCT02997176|181961706|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Percent Ratio of Geometric Means|111.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.91|202.43||||||AUC0-24u was natural log-transformed and analyzed using an ANOVA model with hepatic function group as a fixed effect.||202.43|60.91|
90946258|NCT04092452|181772243|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.296||0.6197|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.46|18.12||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 8 Pain at its Worst||18.12|-12.46|0.6197
90946259|NCT04092452|181772243|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-11.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.825||0.1003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-25.81|3.22||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 8 Pain at its Worst||3.22|-25.81|0.1003
91038511|NCT02997176|181961707|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Percent Ratio of Geometric Means|115.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.95|170.6||||||Cmaxu was natural log-transformed and analyzed using an ANOVA model with hepatic function group as a fixed effect.||170.6|77.95|
91038512|NCT02997176|181961707|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Percent Ratio of Geometric Means|132.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.87|213.67||||||Cmaxu was natural log-transformed and analyzed using an ANOVA model with hepatic function group as a fixed effect.||213.67|81.87|
91038513|NCT02997176|181961708|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Percent Ratio of Geometric Means|124.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.19|181.66||||||AUC0-24 was natural log-transformed and analyzed using an ANOVA model with hepatic function group as a fixed effect.||181.66|85.19|
90946260|NCT04092452|181772243|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.908||0.507|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.5|14.81||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 8 Pain at its Worst||14.81|-14.50|0.5070
90946261|NCT04092452|181772243|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.368||0.5283|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.74|16.08||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 12 Pain at its Worst||16.08|-14.74|0.5283
90946262|NCT04092452|181772243|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-15.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.921||0.0431|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-29.98|-0.63||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 12 Pain at its Worst||-0.63|-29.98|0.0431
90946263|NCT04092452|181772243|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.02||0.2395|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.22|8.45||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 12 Pain at its Worst||8.45|-21.22|0.2395
90946264|NCT04092452|181772243|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.617||0.6054|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.25|18.39||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 16 Pain at its Worst||18.39|-13.25|0.6054
91038514|NCT02997176|181961708|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Percent Ratio of Geometric Means|113.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|73.9|174.07||||||AUC0-24 was natural log-transformed and analyzed using an ANOVA model with hepatic function group as a fixed effect.||174.07|73.90|
90946265|NCT04092452|181772243|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-21.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.344||0.0106|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-36.91|-6.17||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 16 Pain at its Worst||-6.17|-36.91|0.0106
90946266|NCT04092452|181772243|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-12.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.305||0.089|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.84|2.77||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 16 Pain at its Worst||2.77|-27.84|0.0890
90946267|NCT04092452|181772244|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.963||0.1505|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.98|3.64||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 1 Average Pain||3.64|-15.98|0.1505
90946268|NCT04092452|181772244|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-11.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.555||0.0233|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.19|-1.92||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 1 Average Pain||-1.92|-20.19|0.0233
90946269|NCT04092452|181772244|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.926||0.1423|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.09|3.41||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 1 Average Pain||3.41|-16.09|0.1423
90946270|NCT04092452|181772244|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.202||0.3827|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.0|9.7||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 2 Average Pain||9.70|-14.00|0.3827
90978192|NCT00619957|181840580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.1856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.99|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||A total of 210 patients will be randomized to 35 mg once a week risedronate and placebo groups in 2:1 ratio. Sample size will allow detection of a difference of at least 3% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from Baseline at 24 months between risedronate and placebo with at least 90% power. This calculation is based on the assumptions that the common within-group standard deviation (SD) would be below 5%, and the dropout rate within 2 years is about 35%.||0.99|-0.19|0.1856
91007789|NCT01234337|181899750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-2.34|||=|0.284674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|5.72||One-sided p-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (stratified per randomization as in IVRS).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"DCR and 95% CI based on general association Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistic with one-sided alpha of 0.025 stratified by number of prior chemotherapies for metastatic disease, hormone receptor status, and region. Difference = Placebo + Capecitabine - Sorafenib + Capecitabine."||5.72|-10.4|=0.284674
90946271|NCT04092452|181772244|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.741||0.0624|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.44|0.74||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 2 Average Pain||0.74|-21.44|0.0624
90946272|NCT04092452|181772244|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.171||0.3771|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.04|9.55||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 2 Average Pain||9.55|-14.04|0.3771
90946273|NCT04092452|181772244|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.614||0.8247|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.13|22.21||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 4 Average Pain||22.21|-6.13|0.8247
90946274|NCT04092452|181772244|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.09||0.1337|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.28|4.33||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 4 Average Pain||4.33|-22.28|0.1337
90946275|NCT04092452|181772244|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.523||0.7357|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.65|19.39||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 4 Average Pain||19.39|-8.65|0.7357
91007790|NCT01234337|181899752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|-0.441|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.967|0.086||||||Estimate of Difference (least squares mean \[LSM\] difference) = (Sorafenib + Capecitabine) - (Placebo + Capecitabine). The difference between the two treatment groups was evaluated with an analysis of covariance model using the baseline score and the same stratification factors as used for randomization (IVRS) as covariates.||0.086|-0.967|
91007791|NCT01234337|181899753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|-0.025|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.053|0.002||||||Estimate of Difference (least squares mean \[LSM\] difference) = (Sorafenib + Capecitabine) - (Placebo + Capecitabine). The difference between the two treatment groups was evaluated with an analysis of covariance model using the baseline score and the same stratification factors as used for randomization (IVRS) as covariates.||0.002|-0.053|
91007792|NCT01234337|181899754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|-1.696|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.619|0.227||||||Estimate of Difference (least squares mean \[LSM\] difference) = (Sorafenib + Capecitabine) - (Placebo + Capecitabine). The difference between the two treatment groups was evaluated with an analysis of covariance model using the baseline score and the same stratification factors as used for randomization (IVRS) as covariates.||0.227|-3.619|
91007793|NCT01234337|181899755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square means|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.4||||||Statistical analysis for Cmax: 5-fluorouracil||1.40|0.92|
91007794|NCT01234337|181899755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square means|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.07|1.56||||||Statistical analysis for Cmax: Capecitabine||1.56|1.07|
91007795|NCT01234337|181899756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square means|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|1.3||||||Statistical analysis for AUC(0-tlast): 5-fluorouracil||1.30|0.95|
90978193|NCT00619957|181840581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.65||||0.0346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|1.25|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||A total of 210 patients will be randomized to 35 mg once a week risedronate and placebo groups in 2:1 ratio. Sample size will allow detection of a difference of at least 3% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from Baseline at 24 months between risedronate and placebo with at least 90% power. This calculation is based on the assumptions that the common within-group standard deviation (SD) would be below 5%, and the dropout rate within 2 years is about 35%.||1.25|0.05|0.0346
90978194|NCT00619957|181840582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|2.41|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||A total of 210 patients will be randomized to 35 mg once a week risedronate and placebo groups in 2:1 ratio. Sample size will allow detection of a difference of at least 3% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from Baseline at 24 months between risedronate and placebo with at least 90% power. This calculation is based on the assumptions that the common within-group standard deviation (SD) would be below 5%, and the dropout rate within 2 years is about 35%.||2.41|0.98|<0.0001
90978195|NCT00619957|181840583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.46|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.17|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||A total of 210 patients will be randomized to 35 mg once a week risedronate and placebo groups in 2:1 ratio. Sample size will allow detection of a difference of at least 3% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from Baseline at 24 months between risedronate and placebo with at least 90% power. This calculation is based on the assumptions that the common within-group standard deviation (SD) would be below 5%, and the dropout rate within 2 years is about 35%.||2.17|0.76|<0.0001
90978196|NCT00619957|181840584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.5||||0.2538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|1.36|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||A total of 210 patients will be randomized to 35 mg once a week risedronate and placebo groups in 2:1 ratio. Sample size will allow detection of a difference of at least 3% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from Baseline at 24 months between risedronate and placebo with at least 90% power. This calculation is based on the assumptions that the common within-group standard deviation (SD) would be below 5%, and the dropout rate within 2 years is about 35%.||1.36|-0.36|0.2538
90978197|NCT00619957|181840585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.86||||0.0537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|1.74|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||A total of 210 patients will be randomized to 35 mg once a week risedronate and placebo groups in 2:1 ratio. Sample size will allow detection of a difference of at least 3% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from Baseline at 24 months between risedronate and placebo with at least 90% power. This calculation is based on the assumptions that the common within-group standard deviation (SD) would be below 5%, and the dropout rate within 2 years is about 35%.||1.74|-0.01|0.0537
90978198|NCT00619957|181840586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.24||||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|2.15|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||A total of 210 patients will be randomized to 35 mg once a week risedronate and placebo groups in 2:1 ratio. Sample size will allow detection of a difference of at least 3% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from Baseline at 24 months between risedronate and placebo with at least 90% power. This calculation is based on the assumptions that the common within-group standard deviation (SD) would be below 5%, and the dropout rate within 2 years is about 35%.||2.15|0.32|0.0081
90978199|NCT00619957|181840587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.06||||0.0187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.94|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||A total of 210 patients will be randomized to 35 mg once a week risedronate and placebo groups in 2:1 ratio. Sample size will allow detection of a difference of at least 3% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from Baseline at 24 months between risedronate and placebo with at least 90% power. This calculation is based on the assumptions that the common within-group standard deviation (SD) would be below 5%, and the dropout rate within 2 years is about 35%.||1.94|0.18|0.0187
90978200|NCT00619957|181840588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.57||||0.1408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|1.34|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||A total of 210 patients will be randomized to 35 mg once a week risedronate and placebo groups in 2:1 ratio. Sample size will allow detection of a difference of at least 3% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from Baseline at 24 months between risedronate and placebo with at least 90% power. This calculation is based on the assumptions that the common within-group standard deviation (SD) would be below 5%, and the dropout rate within 2 years is about 35%.||1.34|-0.19|0.1408
90978201|NCT00619957|181840589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.07||||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.92|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||A total of 210 patients will be randomized to 35 mg once a week risedronate and placebo groups in 2:1 ratio. Sample size will allow detection of a difference of at least 3% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from Baseline at 24 months between risedronate and placebo with at least 90% power. This calculation is based on the assumptions that the common within-group standard deviation (SD) would be below 5%, and the dropout rate within 2 years is about 35%.||1.92|0.23|0.0129
90978202|NCT00619957|181840590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|3.26|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||A total of 210 patients will be randomized to 35 mg once a week risedronate and placebo groups in 2:1 ratio. Sample size will allow detection of a difference of at least 3% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from Baseline at 24 months between risedronate and placebo with at least 90% power. This calculation is based on the assumptions that the common within-group standard deviation (SD) would be below 5%, and the dropout rate within 2 years is about 35%.||3.26|1.35|<0.0001
90978203|NCT00619957|181840591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|3.08|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||A total of 210 patients will be randomized to 35 mg once a week risedronate and placebo groups in 2:1 ratio. Sample size will allow detection of a difference of at least 3% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from Baseline at 24 months between risedronate and placebo with at least 90% power. This calculation is based on the assumptions that the common within-group standard deviation (SD) would be below 5%, and the dropout rate within 2 years is about 35%.||3.08|1.22|<0.0001
90978204|NCT00619957|181840592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-43.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.52|-35.67|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||A total of 210 patients will be randomized to 35 mg once a week risedronate and placebo groups in 2:1 ratio. Sample size will allow detection of a difference of at least 3% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from Baseline at 24 months between risedronate and placebo with at least 90% power. This calculation is based on the assumptions that the common within-group standard deviation (SD) would be below 5%, and the dropout rate within 2 years is about 35%.||-35.67|-51.52|<0.0001
90978205|NCT00619957|181840593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-44.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.01|-31.43|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center||A total of 210 patients will be randomized to 35 mg once a week risedronate and placebo groups in 2:1 ratio. Sample size will allow detection of a difference of at least 3% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from Baseline at 24 months between risedronate and placebo with at least 90% power. This calculation is based on the assumptions that the common within-group standard deviation (SD) would be below 5%, and the dropout rate within 2 years is about 35%.||-31.43|-58.01|<0.0001
90978206|NCT00619957|181840594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-42.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.99|-28.67|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled centers.||A total of 210 patients will be randomized to 35 mg once a week risedronate and placebo groups in 2:1 ratio. Sample size will allow detection of a difference of at least 3% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from Baseline at 24 months between risedronate and placebo with at least 90% power. This calculation is based on the assumptions that the common within-group standard deviation (SD) would be below 5%, and the dropout rate within 2 years is about 35%.||-28.67|-55.99|<0.0001
90978207|NCT00619957|181840595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-46.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.38|-33.72|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||A total of 210 patients will be randomized to 35 mg once a week risedronate and placebo groups in 2:1 ratio. Sample size will allow detection of a difference of at least 3% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from Baseline at 24 months between risedronate and placebo with at least 90% power. This calculation is based on the assumptions that the common within-group standard deviation (SD) would be below 5%, and the dropout rate within 2 years is about 35%.||-33.72|-59.38|<0.0001
90978208|NCT00619957|181840596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-45.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.01|-33.29|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||A total of 210 patients will be randomized to 35 mg once a week risedronate and placebo groups in 2:1 ratio. Sample size will allow detection of a difference of at least 3% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from Baseline at 24 months between risedronate and placebo with at least 90% power. This calculation is based on the assumptions that the common within-group standard deviation (SD) would be below 5%, and the dropout rate within 2 years is about 35%.||-33.29|-57.01|<0.0001
90978209|NCT00619957|181840597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-15.88|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.43|-8.32|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||A total of 210 patients will be randomized to 35 mg once a week risedronate and placebo groups in 2:1 ratio. Sample size will allow detection of a difference of at least 3% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from Baseline at 24 months between risedronate and placebo with at least 90% power. This calculation is based on the assumptions that the common within-group standard deviation (SD) would be below 5%, and the dropout rate within 2 years is about 35%.||-8.32|-23.43|<0.0001
90978210|NCT00619957|181840598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-22.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.08|-12.91|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||A total of 210 patients will be randomized to 35 mg once a week risedronate and placebo groups in 2:1 ratio. Sample size will allow detection of a difference of at least 3% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from Baseline at 24 months between risedronate and placebo with at least 90% power. This calculation is based on the assumptions that the common within-group standard deviation (SD) would be below 5%, and the dropout rate within 2 years is about 35%.||-12.91|-31.08|<0.0001
90978211|NCT00619957|181840599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-21.96|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.75|-13.17|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||A total of 210 patients will be randomized to 35 mg once a week risedronate and placebo groups in 2:1 ratio. Sample size will allow detection of a difference of at least 3% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from Baseline at 24 months between risedronate and placebo with at least 90% power. This calculation is based on the assumptions that the common within-group standard deviation (SD) would be below 5%, and the dropout rate within 2 years is about 35%.||-13.17|-30.75|<0.0001
90978212|NCT00619957|181840600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-15.11||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.2|-6.02|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||A total of 210 patients will be randomized to 35 mg once a week risedronate and placebo groups in 2:1 ratio. Sample size will allow detection of a difference of at least 3% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from Baseline at 24 months between risedronate and placebo with at least 90% power. This calculation is based on the assumptions that the common within-group standard deviation (SD) would be below 5%, and the dropout rate within 2 years is about 35%.||-6.02|-24.20|0.0012
90978213|NCT00619957|181840601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-16.37||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.24|-7.49|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||A total of 210 patients will be randomized to 35 mg once a week risedronate and placebo groups in 2:1 ratio. Sample size will allow detection of a difference of at least 3% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from Baseline at 24 months between risedronate and placebo with at least 90% power. This calculation is based on the assumptions that the common within-group standard deviation (SD) would be below 5%, and the dropout rate within 2 years is about 35%.||-7.49|-25.24|0.0003
91007796|NCT01234337|181899756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square means|1.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.22|1.58||||||Statistical analysis for AUC(0-tlast): Capecitabine||1.58|1.22|
91007797|NCT02815982|181899783|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.7|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|-2.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-2.7|-14.6|<.05
91007798|NCT02815982|181899784|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|35.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-559.0|630.2||p value was the actual signficance level|t-test, 2 sided|||We compared Post-intervention scores||630.2|-559.0|<.001
91038515|NCT02997176|181961708|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Percent Ratio of Geometric Means|95.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|67.9|134.83||||||AUC0-24 was natural log-transformed and analyzed using an ANOVA model with hepatic function group as a fixed effect.||134.83|67.90|
91038516|NCT02997176|181961709|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Percent Ratio of Geometric Means|99.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|57.74|170.8||||||Cmax was natural log-transformed and analyzed using an ANOVA model with hepatic function group as a fixed effect.||170.80|57.74|
91038517|NCT02997176|181961709|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Percent Ratio of Geometric Means|96.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|52.22|178.14||||||Cmax was natural log-transformed and analyzed using an ANOVA model with hepatic function group as a fixed effect.||178.14|52.22|
91038518|NCT02997176|181961709|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Percent Ratio of Geometric Means|64.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|39.65|103.46||||||Cmax was natural log-transformed and analyzed using ANOVA model with hepatic function group as a fixed effect.||103.46|39.65|
91038519|NCT02997176|181961712|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Percent Ratio of Geometric Means|118.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.81|167.47||||||AUC0-24u was natural log-transformed and analyzed using ANOVA model with hepatic function group as a fixed effect.||167.47|83.81|
91038520|NCT02997176|181961712|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Percent Ratio of Geometric Means|108.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|73.25|160.3||||||AUC0-24u was natural log-transformed and analyzed using ANOVA model with hepatic function group as a fixed effect.||160.30|73.25|
91038521|NCT02997176|181961712|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Percent Ratio of Geometric Means|117.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.29|162.83||||||AUC0-24u was natural log-transformed and analyzed using ANOVA model with hepatic function group as a fixed effect.||162.83|85.29|
91038522|NCT02997176|181961713|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Percent Ratio of Geometric Means|94.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|56.74|157.64||||||Cmaxu was natural log-transformed and analyzed using an ANOVA model with hepatic function group as a fixed effect.||157.64|56.74|
90946276|NCT04092452|181772244|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.977||0.9377|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.98|28.55||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 6 Average Pain||28.55|-0.98|0.9377
91038523|NCT02997176|181961713|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Percent Ratio of Geometric Means|92.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|51.69|164.26||||||Cmaxu was natural log-transformed and analyzed using an ANOVA model with hepatic function group as a fixed effect.||164.26|51.69|
91038524|NCT02997176|181961713|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Percent Ratio of Geometric Means|84.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|53.14|134.1||||||Cmaxu was natural log-transformed and analyzed using an ANOVA model with hepatic function group as a fixed effect.||134.10|53.14|
91038525|NCT00488774|181961740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.467|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.467
91038526|NCT00488774|181961740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.081|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.081
91038527|NCT00488774|181961740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.145|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.145
91038528|NCT00488774|181961741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.832|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.832
91038529|NCT00488774|181961741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.370
91038530|NCT00488774|181961741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.702|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.702
91038531|NCT05523895|181961742|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52||0.2986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.4|-4.6|0.2986
91038532|NCT05523895|181961742|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.49||0.2859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.3|-4.5|0.2859
91038533|NCT05099380|181961756|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the mean difference was above -5.|Least-square Mean Difference|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|6.7|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger method was used for denominator degrees of freedom.|Least-square Mean difference was calculated as Test minus Control|Based on the sample size calculation using a two independent sample t test with a 2-sided type I error of 0.05, there would be enough power (i.e., 80%) for testing non-inferiority of the Test relative to the Control with 286 subjects (143 for each lens group) competing the study assuming the Test was 2 points higher than the Control.||6.7|-0.6|
90946277|NCT04092452|181772244|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-9.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.45||0.1332|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.29|4.51||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 6 Average Pain||4.51|-23.29|0.1332
90946278|NCT04092452|181772244|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.907||0.7514|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.6|20.7||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 6 Average Pain||20.70|-8.60|0.7514
90946279|NCT04092452|181772244|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.902||0.8433|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.67|23.62||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 8 Average Pain||23.62|-5.67|0.8433
90946280|NCT04092452|181772244|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.392||0.1461|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.64|4.96||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 8 Average Pain||4.96|-22.64|0.1461
90946281|NCT04092452|181772244|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.818||0.8364|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.86|23.15||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 8 Average Pain||23.15|-5.86|0.8364
91038534|NCT05099380|181961757|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was declared if the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the mean difference was below 0.05.|Least-square Mean Difference|0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.008|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.01|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger method was used for denominator degrees of freedom.|Least-square Mean difference was calculated as Test minus Control|Based on the sample size calculation using a linear mixed model-based method with a 2-sided type I error of 0.05, there would be enough power (i.e., at least 80%) for testing non-inferiority of the Test relative to the Control with 16 subjects (8 for each lens group) competing the study assuming no difference between the Test and the Control.||0.01|-0.02|
91050452|NCT04168190|181987010|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMC ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|0.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.06|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 33F. Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio, 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||1.06|0.69|<0.001
90978214|NCT00619957|181840602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-15.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.29|-11.99|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||A total of 210 patients will be randomized to 35 mg once a week risedronate and placebo groups in 2:1 ratio. Sample size will allow detection of a difference of at least 3% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from Baseline at 24 months between risedronate and placebo with at least 90% power. This calculation is based on the assumptions that the common within-group standard deviation (SD) would be below 5%, and the dropout rate within 2 years is about 35%.||-11.99|-19.29|<0.0001
90946282|NCT04092452|181772244|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.527||0.6085|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.68|16.37||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 12 Average Pain||16.37|-11.68|0.6085
90946283|NCT04092452|181772244|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-14.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.022||0.0365|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.58|-1.19||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 12 Average Pain||-1.19|-27.58|0.0365
90946284|NCT04092452|181772244|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.469||0.5201|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.5|14.36||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 12 Average Pain||14.36|-13.50|0.5201
90946285|NCT04092452|181772244|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.564||0.6813|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.05|18.12||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 16 Average Pain||18.12|-10.05|0.6813
90946286|NCT04092452|181772244|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-18.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.23||0.0128|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-31.91|-4.84||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 16 Average Pain||-4.84|-31.91|0.0128
90946287|NCT04092452|181772244|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.639||0.3181|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.3|10.12||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 16 Average Pain||10.12|-18.30|0.3181
90946288|NCT04092452|181772245|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.301||0.1536|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8|0.19||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 1 Pain at its Worst||0.19|-0.80|0.1536
90946289|NCT04092452|181772245|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.289||0.0581|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.93|0.02||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 1 Pain at its Worst||0.02|-0.93|0.0581
90946290|NCT04092452|181772245|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.0532|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.98|0.01||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 1 Pain at its Worst||0.01|-0.98|0.0532
90946291|NCT04092452|181772245|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.383||0.2007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.95|0.31||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 2 Pain at its Worst||0.31|-0.95|0.2007
90946292|NCT04092452|181772245|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.0694|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.16|0.06||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 2 Pain at its Worst||0.06|-1.16|0.0694
90946293|NCT04092452|181772245|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.382||0.1509|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.02|0.23||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 2 Pain at its Worst||0.23|-1.02|0.1509
90946294|NCT04092452|181772245|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.431||0.5663|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.64|0.78||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 4 Pain at its Worst||0.78|-0.64|0.5663
90946295|NCT04092452|181772245|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.416||0.1396|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.13|0.23||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 4 Pain at its Worst||0.23|-1.13|0.1396
90946296|NCT04092452|181772245|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.432||0.5227|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.69|0.74||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 4 Pain at its Worst||0.74|-0.69|0.5227
90946297|NCT04092452|181772245|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.8656|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.24|1.24||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 6 Pain at its Worst||1.24|-0.24|0.8656
90946298|NCT04092452|181772245|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.434||0.1671|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.13|0.29||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 6 Pain at its Worst||0.29|-1.13|0.1671
90946299|NCT04092452|181772245|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.6063|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.62|0.86||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 6 Pain at its Worst||0.86|-0.62|0.6063
90946300|NCT04092452|181772245|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.458||0.6402|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.59|0.92||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 8 Pain at its Worst||0.92|-0.59|0.6402
90946301|NCT04092452|181772245|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.441||0.1916|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.11|0.34||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 8 Pain at its Worst||0.34|-1.11|0.1916
90946302|NCT04092452|181772245|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.456||0.6119|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.62|0.88||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 8 Pain at its Worst||0.88|-0.62|0.6119
90946303|NCT04092452|181772245|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.5568|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.68|0.8||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 12 Pain at its Worst||0.80|-0.68|0.5568
90946304|NCT04092452|181772245|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.433||0.0976|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.27|0.15||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 12 Pain at its Worst||0.15|-1.27|0.0976
90946305|NCT04092452|181772245|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.451||0.5001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.74|0.74||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 12 Pain at its Worst||0.74|-0.74|0.5001
90946306|NCT04092452|181772245|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.451||0.581|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.65|0.83||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 16 Pain at its Worst||0.83|-0.65|0.5810
91007799|NCT02815982|181899785|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|3.3||controlling for caregiver BMI at baseline and PCS BMI percentile at baseline|t-test, 2 sided|||We compared Post-intervention BMI||3.3|-2.3|<.001
90946307|NCT04092452|181772245|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.442||0.0079|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.8|-0.34||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 16 Pain at its Worst||-0.34|-1.80|0.0079
90946308|NCT04092452|181772245|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.455||0.1068|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.31|0.18||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 16 Pain at its Worst||0.18|-1.31|0.1068
90946309|NCT04092452|181772246|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.284||0.1898|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.72|0.22||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 1 Average Pain||0.22|-0.72|0.1898
90946310|NCT04092452|181772246|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.273||0.0562|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.88|0.02||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 1 Average Pain||0.02|-0.88|0.0562
91007800|NCT02815982|181899786|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|||<|0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|5.2||p \< .05 was the threshold|t-test, 2 sided|||We compared Post-intervention scores||5.2|-5.4|<.03
90946311|NCT04092452|181772246|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.284||0.1382|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.78|0.16||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 1 Average Pain||0.16|-0.78|0.1382
90946312|NCT04092452|181772246|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.343||0.2039|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.85|0.28||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 2 Average Pain||0.28|-0.85|0.2039
90946313|NCT04092452|181772246|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.332||0.0855|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|0.09||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 2 Average Pain||0.09|-1.00|0.0855
90946314|NCT04092452|181772246|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.344||0.3089|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.74|0.39||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 2 Average Pain||0.39|-0.74|0.3089
90946315|NCT04092452|181772246|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.407||0.6124|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.55|0.79||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 4 Average Pain||0.79|-0.55|0.6124
90946316|NCT04092452|181772246|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.395||0.1003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.15|0.14||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 4 Average Pain||0.14|-1.15|0.1003
90946317|NCT04092452|181772246|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.408||0.6875|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.47|0.87||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 4 Average Pain||0.87|-0.47|0.6875
90946318|NCT04092452|181772246|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.427||0.8833|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.19|1.21||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 6 Average Pain||1.21|-0.19|0.8833
90946319|NCT04092452|181772246|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.413||0.1502|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.11|0.25||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 6 Average Pain||0.25|-1.11|0.1502
90946320|NCT04092452|181772246|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.428||0.6788|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|0.9||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 6 Average Pain||0.90|-0.50|0.6788
90946321|NCT04092452|181772246|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.441||0.6835|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.51|0.94||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 8 Average Pain||0.94|-0.51|0.6835
91007801|NCT02815982|181899787|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.5|||<|0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|11.3||p \< .05 was threshold|t-test, 2 sided|||||11.3|-4.3|<.09
91007802|NCT02815982|181899788|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-328.6|||<|0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2868.4|2211.2||p \< .05 threshold,|t-test, 2 sided|||We compared Post-intervention scores||2211.2|-2868.4|<.08
90946322|NCT04092452|181772246|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.425||0.2237|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.02|0.38||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 8 Average Pain||0.38|-1.02|0.2237
90946323|NCT04092452|181772246|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.439||0.7234|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.46|0.98||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 8 Average Pain||0.98|-0.46|0.7234
90946324|NCT04092452|181772246|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.424||0.4773|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.72|0.67||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 12 Average Pain||0.67|-0.72|0.4773
90946325|NCT04092452|181772246|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.0818|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.25|0.1||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 12 Average Pain||0.10|-1.25|0.0818
90946326|NCT04092452|181772246|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.424||0.6397|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.55|0.85||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 12 Average Pain||0.85|-0.55|0.6397
90946327|NCT04092452|181772246|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.428||0.5321|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.67|0.74||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 16 Average Pain||0.74|-0.67|0.5321
90946328|NCT04092452|181772246|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.0167|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.59|-0.2||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 16 Average Pain||-0.20|-1.59|0.0167
90946329|NCT04092452|181772246|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.434||0.1963|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.09|0.34||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 16 Average Pain||0.34|-1.09|0.1963
90946330|NCT04092452|181772247|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.98|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.3|6.0||||||Week 1||6.0|-10.3|
90978215|NCT00619957|181840603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-21.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.61|-16.59|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||A total of 210 patients will be randomized to 35 mg once a week risedronate and placebo groups in 2:1 ratio. Sample size will allow detection of a difference of at least 3% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from Baseline at 24 months between risedronate and placebo with at least 90% power. This calculation is based on the assumptions that the common within-group standard deviation (SD) would be below 5%, and the dropout rate within 2 years is about 35%.||-16.59|-25.61|<0.0001
90978216|NCT00619957|181840604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-22.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.8|-16.98|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||A total of 210 patients will be randomized to 35 mg once a week risedronate and placebo groups in 2:1 ratio. Sample size will allow detection of a difference of at least 3% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from Baseline at 24 months between risedronate and placebo with at least 90% power. This calculation is based on the assumptions that the common within-group standard deviation (SD) would be below 5%, and the dropout rate within 2 years is about 35%.||-16.98|-27.80|<0.0001
90978217|NCT00619957|181840605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-28.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.84|-16.47|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||A total of 210 patients will be randomized to 35 mg once a week risedronate and placebo groups in 2:1 ratio. Sample size will allow detection of a difference of at least 3% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from Baseline at 24 months between risedronate and placebo with at least 90% power. This calculation is based on the assumptions that the common within-group standard deviation (SD) would be below 5%, and the dropout rate within 2 years is about 35%.||-16.47|-39.84|<0.0001
90978218|NCT00619957|181840606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-27.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.63|-16.87|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||A total of 210 patients will be randomized to 35 mg once a week risedronate and placebo groups in 2:1 ratio. Sample size will allow detection of a difference of at least 3% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from Baseline at 24 months between risedronate and placebo with at least 90% power. This calculation is based on the assumptions that the common within-group standard deviation (SD) would be below 5%, and the dropout rate within 2 years is about 35%.||-16.87|-37.63|<0.0001
90978219|NCT00619957|181840607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.14||||0.8794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|1.71|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||A total of 210 patients will be randomized to 35 mg once a week risedronate and placebo groups in 2:1 ratio. Sample size will allow detection of a difference of at least 3% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from Baseline at 24 months between risedronate and placebo with at least 90% power. This calculation is based on the assumptions that the common within-group standard deviation (SD) would be below 5%, and the dropout rate within 2 years is about 35%.||1.71|-1.99|0.8794
90978220|NCT00619957|181840608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.47||||0.6658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.62|1.67|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||A total of 210 patients will be randomized to 35 mg once a week risedronate and placebo groups in 2:1 ratio. Sample size will allow detection of a difference of at least 3% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from Baseline at 24 months between risedronate and placebo with at least 90% power. This calculation is based on the assumptions that the common within-group standard deviation (SD) would be below 5%, and the dropout rate within 2 years is about 35%.||1.67|-2.62|0.6658
91038535|NCT05099380|181961758|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was declared if the upper bound of the 95% central posterior credible interval of proportion difference was below 0.05.|Mean Proportion Difference|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.002|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.004|||Bayesian hierarchical model||Proportion difference was calculated as Test minus Control|Based on the sample size calculation using a simulation approach and Bayesian analysis with the 95% central posterior credible interval, there would be enough power (i.e., at least 80%) for assessing non-inferiority of the Test relative to the Control with 240 subjects (120 for each lens group) competing the study assuming no difference between the Test and the Control.||0.004|-0.004|
91038536|NCT05099380|181961759|NON_INFERIORITY|Non- inferiority was declared if the upper bound of the 95% central posterior credible interval of proportion difference was below 0.1.|Mean Proportion Difference|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.002|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.004|||Bayesian hierarchical model||Proportion difference was calculated as Test minus Control|Based on the sample size calculation using a simulation approach and Bayesian analysis with the 95% central posterior credible interval, there would be enough power (i.e., at least 80%) for assessing non-inferiority of the Test relative to the Control with 140 subjects (70 for each lens group) competing the study assuming no difference between the Test and the Control.||0.004|-0.004|
91038537|NCT05099380|181961760|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the mean difference was above -5.|Least-square Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.35|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|4.5|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger method was used for denominator degrees of freedom.|Least-square Mean difference was calculated as Test minus Control|Based on the sample size calculated for the primary endpoints (i.e., 286 subjects with 143 per lens group), assuming the Test was 2 points higher than the Control, the estimated statistical power for testing non-inferiority of the Test relative to the Control was 73% for CLUE comfort using a two independent sample t test with a 2-sided type I error of 0.05.||4.5|-4.8|
91038538|NCT05099380|181961761|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the mean difference was above -5.|Least-square Mean Difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|2.3|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger method was used for denominator degrees of freedom.|Least-square Mean difference was calculated as Test minus Control|Based on the sample size calculated for the primary endpoints (i.e., 286 subjects with 143 per lens group), assuming the Test was 2 points lower than the Control, the estimated statistical power for testing non-inferiority of the Test relative to the Control was 23% for CLUE handling using a two independent sample t test with a 2-sided type I error of 0.05.||2.3|-6.0|
91038539|NCT05099380|181961762|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the odds ratio was greater than 0.67.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|2.16|||Linear Mixed Model||Odds Ratio was calculated as Test over Control|"Based on the sample size calculated for the primary endpoints (i.e., 286 subjects with 143 per lens group), assuming the percentage of Excellent rating for the Test was 10% higher than the Control, the estimated statistical power for testing non-inferiority of the Test relative to the Control was 93% using a Pearson chi-square test for two proportions with a 2-sided type I error of 0.05."||2.16|0.83|
90946331|NCT04092452|181772247|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.64|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.3|11.3||||||Week 1||11.3|-7.3|
90946332|NCT04092452|181772247|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.47|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.9|17.4||||||Week 1||17.4|-3.9|
91038540|NCT05099380|181961763|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the preference ratio was greater than 1.|Preference Ratio|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|4.1|||Linear Mixed Model||Preference ratio was calculated as Study lens over Habitual lens within the Test lens group.|Based on the sample size calculated for the primary endpoints (i.e., 286 subjects with 143 per lens group), assuming the percentage of subjects preferring Study lens was 20% higher than preferring Habitual lens in the Test lens group, the estimated statistical power for testing superiority of the Test relative to the Habitual was 88% using a simulation approach with a 2-sided type I error of 0.05.||4.10|1.40|
90946333|NCT04092452|181772247|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.74|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.0|23.4||||||Week 2||23.4|-2.0|
90946334|NCT04092452|181772247|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.34|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.5|19.7||||||Week 2||19.7|-4.5|
90946335|NCT04092452|181772247|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.36|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.6|19.6||||||Week 2||19.6|-4.6|
90946336|NCT04092452|181772247|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.95|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.7|20.5||||||Week 4||20.5|-5.7|
90946337|NCT04092452|181772247|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.33|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.4|28.7||||||Week 4||28.7|1.4|
90946338|NCT04092452|181772247|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.74|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.0|17.5||||||Week 4||17.5|-8.0|
90946339|NCT04092452|181772247|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7|28.0||||||Week 6||28.0|0.7|
90946340|NCT04092452|181772247|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.96|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.2|24.0||||||Week 6||24.0|-2.2|
90946341|NCT04092452|181772247|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.06|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.6|23.9||||||Week 6||23.9|-2.6|
90946342|NCT04092452|181772247|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.38||0.1162|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.6|23.9||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 8||23.9|-3.6|0.1162
90946343|NCT04092452|181772247|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.43||0.0642|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8|27.0||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 8||27.0|-0.8|0.0642
90946344|NCT04092452|181772247|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.36||0.1664|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.7|21.8||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 8||21.8|-5.7|0.1664
90946345|NCT04092452|181772247|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.1||0.1882|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.1|20.5||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 12||20.5|-6.1|0.1882
90946346|NCT04092452|181772247|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.43||0.0423|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1|28.8||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 12||28.8|1.1|0.0423
90946347|NCT04092452|181772247|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.9||0.3396|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.7|16.3||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 12||16.3|-9.7|0.3396
90946348|NCT04092452|181772247|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.35||0.3584|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.4|14.8||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 16||14.8|-9.4|0.3584
90946349|NCT04092452|181772247|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.17||0.0367|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.5|28.3||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 16||28.3|1.5|0.0367
90946350|NCT04092452|181772247|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.65||0.2486|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.4|17.8||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 16||17.8|-7.4|0.2486
90946351|NCT04092452|181772253|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.295|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.69|0.29||||||Week 1-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||0.29|-0.69|
90946352|NCT04092452|181772253|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.287|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.96|-0.01||||||Week 1-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||-0.01|-0.96|
90946353|NCT04092452|181772253|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.295|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.91|0.06||||||Week 1-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||0.06|-0.91|
90946354|NCT04092452|181772253|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.392|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.95|0.35||||||Week 2-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||0.35|-0.95|
90946355|NCT04092452|181772253|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.377|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.33|-0.08||||||Week 2-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||-0.08|-1.33|
90946356|NCT04092452|181772253|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.391|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.21|0.08||||||Week 2-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||0.08|-1.21|
90946357|NCT04092452|181772253|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.481|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.54|1.05||||||Week 4-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||1.05|-0.54|
90946358|NCT04092452|181772253|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.458|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.15|0.37||||||Week 4-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||0.37|-1.15|
90946359|NCT04092452|181772253|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.478|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.85|0.73||||||Week 4-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||0.73|-0.85|
90946360|NCT04092452|181772253|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.524|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.24|1.49||||||Week 6-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||1.49|-0.24|
90946361|NCT04092452|181772253|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.505|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.03|0.64||||||Week 6-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||0.64|-1.03|
90946362|NCT04092452|181772253|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.526|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.66|1.08||||||Week 6-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||1.08|-0.66|
90946363|NCT04092452|181772253|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.558|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.69|1.16||||||Week 8-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||1.16|-0.69|
90946364|NCT04092452|181772253|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.539|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.21|0.57||||||Week 8-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||0.57|-1.21|
90946365|NCT04092452|181772253|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.565|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.49|1.38||||||Week 8-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||1.38|-0.49|
90946366|NCT04092452|181772253|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.578|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.79|1.12||||||Week 12-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||1.12|-0.79|
90946367|NCT04092452|181772253|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.59|0.23||||||Week 12-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||0.23|-1.59|
90946368|NCT04092452|181772253|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.576|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.88|1.03||||||Week 12-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||1.03|-0.88|
90946369|NCT04092452|181772253|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.631|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.96|1.13||||||Week 16-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||1.13|-0.96|
90946370|NCT04092452|181772253|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.24|-0.25||||||Week 16-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||-0.25|-2.24|
91007803|NCT02815982|181899789|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.11||threshold set at p \< .05|t-test, 2 sided|||We compared Post-intervention scores||.11|.01|<.0001
90946371|NCT04092452|181772253|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.628|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.95|0.13||||||Week 16-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||0.13|-1.95|
90946372|NCT04092452|181772253|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.286|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.47|0.48||||||Week 1-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||0.48|-0.47|
90946373|NCT04092452|181772253|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.278|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.75|0.18||||||Week 1-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||0.18|-0.75|
90946374|NCT04092452|181772253|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.286|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.78|0.17||||||Week 1-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||0.17|-0.78|
90946375|NCT04092452|181772253|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.361|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.81|0.38||||||Week 2-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||0.38|-0.81|
90946376|NCT04092452|181772253|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.347|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.97|0.18||||||Week 2-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||0.18|-0.97|
90946377|NCT04092452|181772253|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.05|0.14||||||Week 2-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||0.14|-1.05|
90946378|NCT04092452|181772253|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.471|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.56|1.0||||||Week 4-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||1.00|-0.56|
90946379|NCT04092452|181772253|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.448|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.99|0.49||||||Week 4-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||0.49|-0.99|
90946380|NCT04092452|181772253|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.468|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.88|0.67||||||Week 4-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||0.67|-0.88|
90946381|NCT04092452|181772253|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.38|1.34||||||Week 6-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||1.34|-0.38|
90946382|NCT04092452|181772253|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.501|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.06|0.6||||||Week 6-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||0.60|-1.06|
90946383|NCT04092452|181772253|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.523|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.86|0.87||||||Week 6-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||0.87|-0.86|
90946384|NCT04092452|181772253|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.542|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.81|0.99||||||Week 8-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||0.99|-0.81|
90946385|NCT04092452|181772253|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.523|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.11|0.62||||||Week 8-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||0.62|-1.11|
90946386|NCT04092452|181772253|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.549|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.56|1.25||||||Week 8-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||1.25|-0.56|
90946387|NCT04092452|181772253|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.554|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.87|0.97||||||Week 12-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||0.97|-0.87|
90946388|NCT04092452|181772253|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.527|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.36|0.38||||||Week 12-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||0.38|-1.36|
90946389|NCT04092452|181772253|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.552|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.9|0.93||||||Week 12-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||0.93|-0.90|
90946390|NCT04092452|181772253|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.606|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.96|1.04||||||Week 16-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||1.04|-0.96|
90946391|NCT04092452|181772253|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.577|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.19|-0.29||||||Week 16-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||-0.29|-2.19|
90946392|NCT04092452|181772253|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.603|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.11|-0.11||||||Week 16-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||-0.11|-2.11|
91007804|NCT02815982|181899790|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|5.65||threshold set at p \< .05|t-test, 2 sided|||We compared Post-intervention scores||5.65|-11.3|<.001
90978221|NCT00619957|181840609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.29||||0.784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.39|1.81|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||A total of 210 patients will be randomized to 35 mg once a week risedronate and placebo groups in 2:1 ratio. Sample size will allow detection of a difference of at least 3% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from Baseline at 24 months between risedronate and placebo with at least 90% power. This calculation is based on the assumptions that the common within-group standard deviation (SD) would be below 5%, and the dropout rate within 2 years is about 35%.||1.81|-2.39|0.7840
90978222|NCT00619957|181840610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlled for pooled center.||A total of 210 patients will be randomized to 35 mg once a week risedronate and placebo groups in 2:1 ratio. Sample size will allow detection of a difference of at least 3% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from Baseline at 24 months between risedronate and placebo with at least 90% power. This calculation is based on the assumptions that the common within-group standard deviation (SD) would be below 5%, and the dropout rate within 2 years is about 35%.||||<0.0001
90978223|NCT00619957|181840611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|0.771||||0.7284||95.0|0.184|3.226|||Log Rank|||A total of 210 patients will be randomized to 35 mg once a week risedronate and placebo groups in 2:1 ratio. Sample size will allow detection of a difference of at least 3% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from Baseline at 24 months between risedronate and placebo with at least 90% power. This calculation is based on the assumptions that the common within-group standard deviation (SD) would be below 5%, and the dropout rate within 2 years is about 35%.||3.226|0.184|0.7284
90978224|NCT00619957|181840612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|0.688||||0.5293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.245|1.932|||Log Rank|||A total of 210 patients will be randomized to 35 mg once a week risedronate and placebo groups in 2:1 ratio. Sample size will allow detection of a difference of at least 3% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from Baseline at 24 months between risedronate and placebo with at least 90% power. This calculation is based on the assumptions that the common within-group standard deviation (SD) would be below 5%, and the dropout rate within 2 years is about 35%.||1.932|0.245|0.5293
90946393|NCT04092452|181772253|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.284|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.57|0.37||||||Week 1-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||0.37|-0.57|
90946394|NCT04092452|181772253|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.278|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.69|0.22||||||Week 1-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||0.22|-0.69|
90946395|NCT04092452|181772253|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.285|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.94|0.01||||||Week 1-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||0.01|-0.94|
90946396|NCT04092452|181772253|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.357|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.83|0.35||||||Week 2-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||0.35|-0.83|
90946397|NCT04092452|181772253|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.345|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.03|0.11||||||Week 2-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||0.11|-1.03|
90946398|NCT04092452|181772253|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.357|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.99|0.19||||||Week 2-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||0.19|-0.99|
90978225|NCT00723957|181840613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04|||||ONE_SIDED|90.0||1.41|||Regression, Cox|||||1.41||
90978226|NCT00723957|181840613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5735|||||||Log Rank|||P-value is 1-sided||||0.5735
90978227|NCT00723957|181840614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|||||ONE_SIDED|90.0||1.1|||Regression, Cox|||||1.10||
90946399|NCT04092452|181772253|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.446|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.58|0.9||||||Week 4-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||0.90|-0.58|
90946400|NCT04092452|181772253|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.424|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.87|0.53||||||Week 4-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||0.53|-0.87|
90946401|NCT04092452|181772253|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.443|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.65|0.82||||||Week 4-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||0.82|-0.65|
90946402|NCT04092452|181772253|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.15|1.54||||||Week 6-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||1.54|-0.15|
90946403|NCT04092452|181772253|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.493|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.83|0.8||||||Week 6-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||0.80|-0.83|
90946404|NCT04092452|181772253|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.513|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.62|1.08||||||Week 6-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||1.08|-0.62|
90946405|NCT04092452|181772253|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.507|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.55|1.13||||||Week 8-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||1.13|-0.55|
90946406|NCT04092452|181772253|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.489|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.81|0.81||||||Week 8-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||0.81|-0.81|
90946407|NCT04092452|181772253|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.514|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.35|1.35||||||Week 8-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||1.35|-0.35|
90946408|NCT04092452|181772253|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.532|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.81|0.95||||||Week 12-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||0.95|-0.81|
90946409|NCT04092452|181772253|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.505|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.3|0.37||||||Week 12-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||0.37|-1.30|
90946410|NCT04092452|181772253|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.92|0.84||||||Week 12-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||0.84|-0.92|
90946411|NCT04092452|181772253|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.589|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.75|1.2||||||Week 16-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||1.20|-0.75|
91038541|NCT00545792|181961824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Single point estiamte of 1-yr PFS|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.94|||||The reported 1-year PFS rate 80% (Exact 95% CI: 56% - 94%) was the proportion of the patients remained progression free after 12 months.|Single-arm feasibility study; Kaplan Meier analysis was applied to estimate one-year PFS distribution as well as to calculate proportion of patients remain progression free by month 12.||0.94|0.56|
91038542|NCT01642277|181961831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized test statistic (z-score)|-1.94||||0.052|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For symptom-severity score, the non-parametric Mann-Whitney test was used to compare the responder and non-responder groups due to low sample size and non-normal distributions of symptom severity scores. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two groups in symptom severity, and the two-sided alternative hypothesis is that one of the two groups has higher (or lower) symptom severity than the other group.||||.052
90946412|NCT04092452|181772253|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.561|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.99|-0.13||||||Week 16-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||-0.13|-1.99|
90946413|NCT04092452|181772253|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.586|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.99|-0.05||||||Week 16-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||-0.05|-1.99|
90946414|NCT04092452|181772253|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.262|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.27|0.59||||||Week 1-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||0.59|-0.27|
90946415|NCT04092452|181772253|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.255|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.99|-0.15||||||Week 1-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||-0.15|-0.99|
90946416|NCT04092452|181772253|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.262|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.35|0.52||||||Week 1-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||0.52|-0.35|
90946417|NCT04092452|181772253|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.357|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.54|0.65||||||Week 2-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||0.65|-0.54|
90946418|NCT04092452|181772253|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.344|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.01|0.13||||||Week 2-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||0.13|-1.01|
90946419|NCT04092452|181772253|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.356|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.33|0.85||||||Week 2-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||0.85|-0.33|
90946420|NCT04092452|181772253|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.434|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.83|0.6||||||Week 4-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||0.60|-0.83|
90946421|NCT04092452|181772253|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.414|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.49|-0.12||||||Week 4-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||-0.12|-1.49|
90946422|NCT04092452|181772253|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.431|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.86|0.57||||||Week 4-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||0.57|-0.86|
90946423|NCT04092452|181772253|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.483|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.76|0.84||||||Week 6-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||0.84|-0.76|
90946424|NCT04092452|181772253|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.466|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.29|0.26||||||Week 6-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||0.26|-1.29|
90946425|NCT04092452|181772253|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.485|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.68|0.92||||||Week 6-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||0.92|-0.68|
90946426|NCT04092452|181772253|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.483|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.96|0.63||||||Week 8-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||0.63|-0.96|
90946427|NCT04092452|181772253|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.466|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.31|0.24||||||Week 8-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||0.24|-1.31|
90946428|NCT04092452|181772253|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.488|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.69|0.92||||||Week 8-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||0.92|-0.69|
90946429|NCT04092452|181772253|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.527|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.21|0.53||||||Week 12-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||0.53|-1.21|
90946430|NCT04092452|181772253|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.503|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.64|0.02||||||Week 12-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||0.02|-1.64|
90946431|NCT04092452|181772253|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.527|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.72|1.02||||||Week 12-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||1.02|-0.72|
90946432|NCT04092452|181772253|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.559|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|1.15||||||Week 16-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||1.15|-0.70|
90946433|NCT04092452|181772253|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.532|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.44|0.32||||||Week 16-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||0.32|-1.44|
90946434|NCT04092452|181772253|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.557|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.83|1.01||||||Week 16-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||1.01|-0.83|
90946435|NCT04092452|181772253|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.264|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.39|0.49||||||Week 1-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||0.49|-0.39|
90946436|NCT04092452|181772253|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.257|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.75|0.1||||||Week 1-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||0.10|-0.75|
90946437|NCT04092452|181772253|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.266|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.46|0.42||||||Week 1-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||0.42|-0.46|
90946438|NCT04092452|181772253|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.333|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.65|0.45||||||Week 2-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||0.45|-0.65|
90946439|NCT04092452|181772253|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.321|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.33|-0.27||||||Week 2-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||-0.27|-1.33|
90946440|NCT04092452|181772253|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.333|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.91|0.19||||||Week 2-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||0.19|-0.91|
90946441|NCT04092452|181772253|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.411|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.36|1.0||||||Week 4-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||1.00|-0.36|
90946442|NCT04092452|181772253|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.393|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.59|-0.29||||||Week 4-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||-0.29|-1.59|
91038543|NCT01642277|181961831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized test statistic (z-score)|2.06||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For coping score, the non-parametric Mann-Whitney test was used to compare the responder and non-responder groups due to low sample size, non-normal distributions, and outliers of coping scores. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two groups in coping, and the two-sided alternative hypothesis is that one of the two groups has higher (or lower) coping than the other group.||||.04
91038544|NCT01642277|181961831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized test statistic (z-score)|2.176||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the concern score, the non-parametric Mann-Whitney test was used to compare the responder and non-responder groups due to low sample size, non-normal distributions, and outlier of the concern scores. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two groups in their concern, and the two-sided alternative hypothesis is that one of the two groups has higher (or lower) concern than the other group.||||.03
91038545|NCT01642277|181961831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized test statistic (z-score)|0.9||||0.37|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the sleep score, the non-parametric Mann-Whitney test was used to compare the responder and non-responder groups due to low sample size, non-normal distributions, and outliers of sleep scores. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two groups in sleep scores, and the two-sided alternative hypothesis is that one of the two groups has higher (or lower) sleep scores than the other group.||||.37
91038546|NCT01642277|181961831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized test statistic (z-score)|2.02||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For social score, the non-parametric Mann-Whitney test was used to compare the responder and non-responder groups due to low sample size, non-normal distributions, and outliers of social scores. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two groups in social scores, and the two-sided alternative hypothesis is that one of the two groups has higher (or lower) social scores than the other group.||||.04
90946443|NCT04092452|181772253|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.411|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.97|0.39||||||Week 4-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||0.39|-0.97|
90946444|NCT04092452|181772253|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.454|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|1.3||||||Week 6-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||1.30|-0.20|
90946445|NCT04092452|181772253|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.439|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.41|0.04||||||Week 6-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||0.04|-1.41|
90946446|NCT04092452|181772253|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.456|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.85|0.66||||||Week 6-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||0.66|-0.85|
90946447|NCT04092452|181772253|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.491|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.96|0.66||||||Week 8-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||0.66|-0.96|
90946448|NCT04092452|181772253|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.473|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.89|-0.33||||||Week 8-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||-0.33|-1.89|
90946449|NCT04092452|181772253|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.497|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.13|0.52||||||Week 8-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||0.52|-1.13|
90946450|NCT04092452|181772253|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.547|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.86|0.95||||||Week 12-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||0.95|-0.86|
90946451|NCT04092452|181772253|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.523|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.73|-0.01||||||Week 12-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||-0.01|-1.73|
90946452|NCT04092452|181772253|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.547|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.78|1.03||||||Week 12-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||1.03|-0.78|
90946453|NCT04092452|181772253|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.602|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|1.39||||||Week 16-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||1.39|-0.60|
90946454|NCT04092452|181772253|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.574|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.9|0.0||||||Week 16-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||0.00|-1.90|
90946455|NCT04092452|181772253|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|0.99||||||Week 16-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||0.99|-1.00|
90946456|NCT04092452|181772254|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.295|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.69|0.29||||||Week 1-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||0.29|-0.69|
90946457|NCT04092452|181772254|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.287|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.96|-0.01||||||Week 1-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||-0.01|-0.96|
90946458|NCT04092452|181772254|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.295|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.91|0.06||||||Week 1-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||0.06|-0.91|
90946459|NCT04092452|181772254|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.392|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.95|0.35||||||Week 2-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||0.35|-0.95|
90946460|NCT04092452|181772254|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.377|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.33|-0.08||||||Week 2-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||-0.08|-1.33|
90946461|NCT04092452|181772254|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.391|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.21|0.08||||||Week 2-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||0.08|-1.21|
90946462|NCT04092452|181772254|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.481|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.54|1.05||||||Week 4-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||1.05|-0.54|
90946463|NCT04092452|181772254|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.458|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.15|0.37||||||Week 4-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||0.37|-1.15|
90946464|NCT04092452|181772254|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.478|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.85|0.73||||||Week 4-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||0.73|-0.85|
90978228|NCT00723957|181840614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.175|||||||Log Rank|||P-value is 1-sided||||0.1750
90978229|NCT00723957|181840615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92|||||ONE_SIDED|90.0||1.15|||Regression, Cox|||||1.15||
90978230|NCT00723957|181840615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.316|ONE_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||P-value is 1-sided||||0.316
90978231|NCT00723957|181840621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.6|||||ONE_SIDED|90.0||2.1|||Regression, Cox||β3T+ subgroup|||2.10||
90978232|NCT00723957|181840621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7|||||ONE_SIDED|90.0||0.9|||Regression, Cox||β3T- subgroup|||0.90||
90946465|NCT04092452|181772254|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.524|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.24|1.49||||||Week 6-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||1.49|-0.24|
90946466|NCT04092452|181772254|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.505|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.03|0.64||||||Week 6-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||0.64|-1.03|
90978233|NCT00723957|181840621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1|||||ONE_SIDED|90.0||1.4|||Regression, Cox||Overall population|||1.40||
90978234|NCT01763164|181840628|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.8|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio was obtained from the stratified unadjusted Cox model. P-value was obtained from the one-sided stratified log-rank test.||0.80|0.47|< 0.001
90978235|NCT01763164|181840629|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.33|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio was obtained from the stratified unadjusted Cox model. P-value was obtained from the one-sided stratified log rank test.||1.33|0.75|0.499
90978236|NCT01763164|181840630|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Confirmed ORR: The p-value (2-sided) was computed from stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test statistic.||||0.015
90978237|NCT01763164|181840630|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Confirmed ORR + Unconfirmed ORR: The p-value (2-sided) was computed from stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test statistic.||||0.002
90978238|NCT01763164|181840643|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|2.13|||Log Rank|||||2.13|0.96|
90978239|NCT01763164|181840646|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.2||||0.995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|4.06|||Log Rank|||Log-rank test and Cox PH model were stratified by American joint committee on cancer stage, prior line immunotherapy and ECOG performance status. P-value was one tailed and was based on the log-rank score test. Hazard ratio and 95% CI was based on a Wald test from Cox model.||4.06|1.19|0.995
90978240|NCT01264939|181840649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-4.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.97|-3.08||Multiplicity plan applied to the efficacy endpoints provided strong control of the type I error rate at 0.05 level by pre-specifying the hierarchical order of the efficacy endpoint tests.|ANCOVA|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline weekly itch severity score (\< 13 vs ≥ 13) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 300 mg groups.||-3.08|-5.97|<0.0001
90978241|NCT01264939|181840650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-10.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.17|-6.86||Multiplicity plan applied to the efficacy endpoints provided strong control of the type I error rate at 0.05 level by pre-specifying the hierarchical order of the efficacy endpoint tests.|ANCOVA|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline UAS7 (\< median vs ≥ median) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 300 mg groups.||-6.86|-13.17|<0.0001
90978242|NCT01264939|181840651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-5.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.72|-4.07||Multiplicity plan applied to the efficacy endpoints provided strong control of the type I error rate at 0.05 level by pre-specifying the hierarchical order of the efficacy endpoint tests.|ANCOVA|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline weekly number of hives score (\< median vs ≥ median) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 300 mg groups.||-4.07|-7.72|<0.0001
90946467|NCT04092452|181772254|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.526|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.66|1.08||||||Week 6-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||1.08|-0.66|
90946468|NCT04092452|181772254|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.558|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.69|1.16||||||Week 8-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||1.16|-0.69|
90946469|NCT04092452|181772254|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.539|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.21|0.57||||||Week 8-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||0.57|-1.21|
90946470|NCT04092452|181772254|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.565|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.49|1.38||||||Week 8-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||1.38|-0.49|
90978243|NCT01264939|181840652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|2.68||Multiplicity plan applied to the efficacy endpoints provided strong control of the type I error rate at 0.05 level by pre-specifying the hierarchical order of the efficacy endpoint tests.|Cox proportional hazards model|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline weekly itch severity score (\< 13 vs ≥ 13) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 300 mg groups.||2.68|1.47|<0.0001
90978244|NCT01264939|181840653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Multiplicity plan applied to the efficacy endpoints provided strong control of the type I error rate at 0.05 level by pre-specifying the hierarchical order of the efficacy endpoint tests.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline UAS7 (\< median vs ≥ median) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 300 mg groups.||||<0.0001
90978245|NCT01264939|181840654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Multiplicity plan applied to the efficacy endpoints provided strong control of the type I error rate at 0.05 level by pre-specifying the hierarchical order of the efficacy endpoint tests.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline weekly itch severity score (\< 13 vs ≥ 13) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 300 mg groups.||||<0.0001
91007805|NCT02815982|181899791|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.06||threshold p \< .05|t-test, 2 sided|||We compared Post-intervention scores||.06|-.04|<.001
91007806|NCT02815982|181899792|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-348.9|||<|0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2762.5|2064.8||p \< .05 was the threshold|t-test, 2 sided|||We compared Post-intervention scores||2064.8|-2762.5|<.12
91038547|NCT01642277|181961831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized test statistic (z-score)|2.03||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the overall health related quality of life (HRQL) score, the non-parametric Mann-Whitney test was used to compare the responder and non-responder groups due to low sample size, non-normal distributions, and outliers of HRQL scores. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two groups in health related quality of life, and the two-sided alternative hypothesis is that one of the two groups has higher (or lower) health realted quality of life than the other group.||||.04
90978246|NCT01264939|181840655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-5.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.25|-3.96||Multiplicity plan applied to the efficacy endpoints provided strong control of the type I error rate at 0.05 level by pre-specifying the hierarchical order of the efficacy endpoint tests.|ANCOVA|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline weekly size of largest hive score (\< median vs ≥ median) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 300 mg groups.||-3.96|-7.25|<0.0001
90978247|NCT01264939|181840656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-4.67|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.28|-3.06||Multiplicity plan applied to the efficacy endpoints provided strong control of the type I error rate at 0.05 level by pre-specifying the hierarchical order of the efficacy endpoint tests.|ANCOVA|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline overall DLQI score (\< median vs ≥ median) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 300 mg groups.||-3.06|-6.28|<0.0001
90978248|NCT01264939|181840657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006||95.0||||Multiplicity plan applied to the efficacy endpoints provided strong control of the type I error rate at 0.05 level by pre-specifying the hierarchical order of the efficacy endpoint tests.|Stratified Wilcoxon|Stratification variables included in the analysis were presence of angioedema at baseline (yes vs no) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 300 mg groups.||||0.0006
90978249|NCT01264939|181840658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Multiplicity plan applied to the efficacy endpoints provided strong control of the type I error rate at 0.05 level by pre-specifying the hierarchical order of the efficacy endpoint tests.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline UAS7 (\< median vs ≥ median) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 300 mg groups.||||<0.0001
90978250|NCT01171612|181840691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.086||||0.479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.513|2.299|||Chi-squared|||Reference group were patients who maintained antiplatelet drugs (aspirin and/or clopidogrel) during the 4 days before surgery||2.299|0.513|0.479
90978251|NCT01171612|181840691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.638||||0.479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.733|3.662|||Chi-squared|||||3.662|0.733|0.479
90978252|NCT00565617|181840713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.009
90978253|NCT01173653|181840726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi square|23.02|||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
90978254|NCT00125034|181840727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.516||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.975|2.335|||stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test|Stratified odds ratio and Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) statistics were calculated considering the randomization strata.||Assuming a difference in rate of best confirmed response of at least 20% between the 2 treatments, ie an approximately 70% response rate under cetuximab plus FOLFOX-4 \& 50% under FOLFOX-4 alone for the stratum with ECOG PS0-1 \& 66% and 45% respectively for the ECOG PS2 stratum, the common OddsR over the strata was expected to be 2.33. A sample size of approximately 146/group was calculated as necessary to detect a significant overall response of at least 2.33 at level α=0.05 with a power of 90%||2.335|0.975|0.064
90978255|NCT00125034|181840728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.551||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|4.717|||stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test|Stratified odds ratio and Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) statistics were calculated considering the randomization strata.||||4.717|1.380|0.0027
90978256|NCT00125034|181840729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.459||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.228|0.924|||stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test|Stratified odds ratio and Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) statistics were calculated considering the randomization strata.||||0.924|0.228|0.0290
90978257|NCT00125034|181840730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.931||||0.617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.705|1.23|||Stratified Log Rank|Kaplan-Meier method used to estimate median OS time. HR was calculated using Cox proportional hazards model stratified by randomization strata.||||1.230|0.705|0.6170
90978258|NCT00125034|181840731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.567||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.375|0.856|||Stratified Log Rank|Kaplan-Meier method used to estimate median OS time. HR was calculated using Cox proportional hazards model stratified by randomization strata.||||0.856|0.375|0.0064
90978259|NCT00125034|181840732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.72||||0.0153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.104|2.679|||Stratified Log Rank|Kaplan-Meier method used to estimate median OS time. HR was calculated using Cox proportional hazards model stratified by randomization strata.||||2.679|1.104|0.0153
90978260|NCT00125034|181840733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.015||||0.905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.791|1.303|||Stratified log rank|Kaplan-Meier method used to estimate median OS time. HR was calculated using Cox proportional hazards model stratified by randomization strata.||||1.303|0.791|0.9050
90978261|NCT00125034|181840734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.855||||0.3854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.599|1.219|||Stratified log rank|Kaplan-Meier method used to estimate median OS time. HR was calculated using Cox proportional hazards model stratified by randomization strata.||||1.219|0.599|0.3854
90978262|NCT00125034|181840735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.29||||0.2004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.873|1.906|||Stratified log rank|Kaplan-Meier method used to estimate median OS time. HR was calculated using Cox proportional hazards model stratified by randomization strata.||||1.906|0.873|0.2004
90978263|NCT00996203|181840743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||EQ-5D scores at Baseline Versus Week 24|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90978264|NCT00996203|181840746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||General health at baseline Versus Week 24|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90978265|NCT00996203|181840748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Baseline Versus Week 24 DAS28 scores|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90978266|NCT00996203|181840750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Mean HAQ scores at Baseline Versus Week 24|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90978267|NCT03529409|181840787|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.287||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.507|-0.066|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-.066|-.507|.01
90978268|NCT03529409|181840788|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.95||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|5.5||The overall omnibus test of the time by treatment interaction was p=.55. The estimate below is for post-treatment, comparing TAU to Khanya.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.50|-1.61|.28
90978269|NCT03529409|181840789|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|157.0||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.0|382.0||The overall omnibus test of the time by treatment interaction was p=.38. The estimate below is for post-treatment, comparing TAU to Khanya.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||382|-67|.16
90978270|NCT03529409|181840790|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.25||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|2.0||The overall omnibus test of the time by treatment interaction was p=.90. The estimate below is for post-treatment, comparing TAU to Khanya.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.00|-1.51|.77
90978271|NCT03529409|181840791|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.71||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.24|3.67||The overall omnibus test of the time by treatment interaction was p=.55. The estimate below is for follow-up, comparing TAU to Khanya.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.67|-2.24|.63
90978272|NCT03529409|181840792|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|84.0||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-136.0|304.0||The overall omnibus test of the time by treatment interaction was p=.38. The estimate below is for follow-up, comparing TAU to Khanya.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||304|-136|.44
91038548|NCT01642277|181961832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized test statistic (z-score)|-0.74||||0.46|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the obstructive discomfort score, the non-parametric Mann-Whitney test was used to compare the responder and non-responder groups due to low sample size in the non-responder group (n = 13). The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two groups in obstructive discomfort, and and the two-sided alternative hypothesis is that one of the two groups has higher (or lower) obstructive discomfort than the other group.||||.46
91038549|NCT01642277|181961832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized test statistic (z-score)|-1.8||||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the irritative score, the non-parametric Mann-Whitney test was used to compare the responder and non-responder groups due to low sample size in the non-responder group (n = 13). The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two groups in irritation, and the two-sided alternative hypothesis is that one of the two groups has higher (or lower) irritation than the other group.||||.07
91038550|NCT01642277|181961832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized test statistic (z-score)|-1.59||||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the stress score, the non-parametric Mann-Whitney test was used to compare the responder and non-responder groups due to low sample size in the non-responder group (n = 13). The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two groups in stress, and the two-sided alternative hypothesis is that one of the two groups has higher (or lower) stress than the other group.||||.11
90978273|NCT03529409|181840793|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.16||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|1.58||The overall omnibus test of the time by treatment interaction was p=.90. The estimate below is for follow-up, comparing TAU to Khanya.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.58|-1.85|.87
90978274|NCT03529409|181840798|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.47||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.49|1.55||The overall omnibus test of the time by treatment interaction was p=.89. The estimate below is for follow-up, comparing TAU to Khanya.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.55|-2.49|.65
91038551|NCT01642277|181961832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized test statistic (z-score)|-1.69||||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the urinary distress inventory score, the non-parametric Mann-Whitney test was used to compare the responder and non-responder groups due to low sample size in the non-responder group (n = 13). The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two groups in urinary distress, and the two-sided alternative hypothesis is that one of the two groups has higher (or lower) urinary distress than the other group.||||.09
91038552|NCT01642277|181961832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized test statistic (z-score)|-1.68||||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the general score, the non-parametric Mann-Whitney test was used to compare the responder and non-responder groups due to low sample size in the non-responder group (n = 13). The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two groups in general pelvic floor disease severity, and the two-sided alternative hypothesis is that one of the two groups has higher (or lower) general pelvic floor disease severity than the other group.||||.09
91038553|NCT01642277|181961832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized test statistic (z-score)|-0.23||||0.82|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the anterior score, the non-parametric Mann-Whitney test was used to compare the responder and non-responder groups due to low sample size in the non-responder group (n = 13). The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two groups in anterior pelvic floor disease severity, and the two-sided alternative hypothesis is that one of the two groups has higher (or lower) anterior pelvic floor disease severity than the other group.||||.82
90978275|NCT03529409|181840799|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.3||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|17.1||The overall omnibus test of the time by treatment interaction was p=.66. The estimate below is for follow-up, comparing TAU to Khanya.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||17.1|-10.5|.63
90978276|NCT03529409|181840800|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.28||The overall omnibus test of the time by treatment interaction was p=.94. The estimate below is for follow-up, comparing TAU to Khanya.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||.28|-.34|.85
90978277|NCT01656772|181840803|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin d = -0.05. The null hypothesis was to be rejected if Z \> 1.645 or, equivalently, if the corresponding p-value was less than 0.05.||||||0.0405|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted to take into account the correlation between multiple PVs on the same subject. The sample estimate of the intraclass correlation coefficient was calculated as the Pearson sample correlation coefficient for all pairs of observations.|Farrington and Manning|||The primary effectiveness endpoint is the successful navigation and EGM recording of each pre-specified pulmonary vein (PV). The RF ablation treatment was not part of the investigational procedure. The null hypothesis was to be tested at the α = 0.05 significance level using a test statistic Z based on the Farrington and Manning likelihood score statistic with adjustment to take into account the correlation between multiple observations (PVs) on the same subject.||||0.0405
90978278|NCT01656772|181840804|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin d= 0.07. The one-sided null hypothesis was to be tested at the α = 0.05 significance level using a standard unpooled asymptotically normal test statistic. The null hypothesis was to be rejected if Z \< -1.7046 or, equivalently, if the corresponding p-value was less than 0.05.||||||0.0441|TWO_SIDED||||||Z-statistic|||||||.0441
90978279|NCT02730260|181840808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||Chi-squared|||Test of the null hypothesis that directive and nondirective coaching have equal smoking cessation rates.||||0.41
90978280|NCT02730260|181840808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8|||<|0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio based on the parameter estimate for the variable, IncomeAboveMedian (0=false, 1=true), from the logistic regression model representing the a priori hypothesis, which specified income, race, and intervention as independent and interacting variables, and smoking cessation at last contact as the dependent variable. An unbalanced variable, PriorQuit (0-=none in the past year, 1=at least one in the past year) was added to the a priori model.||||<0.03
90978281|NCT02730260|181840808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6|||<|0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio for PriorQuit, from the logistic regression model representing the a priori hypothesis, which specified income, race, and intervention as independent and interacting variables, and smoking cessation at last contact as the dependent variable. This variable, PriorQuit (0-=none in the past year, 1=at least one in the past year) was added to the a priori model because it was not balanced after randomization.||||<0.03
90978282|NCT03430986|181840809|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|2.037|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1578|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.726|2.349|||MMRM|MMRM included treatment, timepoint, treatment-by-timepoint interaction as fixed effect using an unstructured covariance matrix.||||2.349|1.726|<0.0001
91038554|NCT01642277|181961832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized test statistic (z-score)|-1.92||||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the posterior score, the non-parametric Mann-Whitney test was used to compare the responder and non-responder groups due to low sample size in the non-responder group (n = 13). The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two groups in posterior pelvic floor disease severity, and the two-sided alternative hypothesis is that one of the two groups has higher (or lower) posterior pelvic floor disease severity than the other group.||||.06
91038555|NCT01642277|181961832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized test statistic (z-score)|-1.85||||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the pelvic organ prolapse distress score, the non-parametric Mann-Whitney test was used to compare the responder and non-responder groups due to low sample size in the non-responder group (n = 13). The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two groups in pelvic organ prolapse distress, and the two-sided alternative hypothesis is that one of the two groups has higher (or lower) pelvic organ prolapse distress than the other group.||||.07
91038556|NCT02842853|181961846|EQUIVALENCE|Lot consistency was demonstrated across the 3 lots, if, for each pair of lots and each antigen, the 2-sided 95% Confidence Interval (CI) for the ratio of the GMTs lies between 1/2 and 2.|GMT Ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.751|1.03||||||Serogroup A: Lot 1 vs Lot 2||1.03|0.751|
91038557|NCT02842853|181961846|EQUIVALENCE|Lot consistency was demonstrated across the 3 lots, if, for each pair of lots and each antigen, the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMTs lies between 1/2 and 2.|GMT Ratio|0.985|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.843|1.15||||||Serogroup A: Lot 2 vs Lot 3||1.15|0.843|
91038558|NCT02842853|181961846|EQUIVALENCE|Lot consistency was demonstrated across the 3 lots, if, for each pair of lots and each antigen, the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMTs lies between 1/2 and 2.|GMT Ratio|0.867|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.02||||||Serogroup A: Lot 1 vs Lot 3||1.02|0.740|
91038559|NCT02842853|181961846|EQUIVALENCE|Lot consistency was demonstrated across the 3 lots, if, for each pair of lots and each antigen, the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMTs lies between 1/2 and 2.|GMT Ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.888|1.29||||||Serogroup C: Lot 1 vs Lot 2||1.29|0.888|
91038560|NCT02842853|181961846|EQUIVALENCE|Lot consistency was demonstrated across the 3 lots, if, for each pair of lots and each antigen, the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMTs lies between 1/2 and 2.|GMT Ratio|0.866|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.714|1.05||||||Serogroup C: Lot 2 vs Lot 3||1.05|0.714|
91038561|NCT02842853|181961846|EQUIVALENCE|Lot consistency was demonstrated across the 3 lots, if, for each pair of lots and each antigen, the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMTs lies between 1/2 and 2.|GMT Ratio|0.927|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.766|1.12||||||Serogroup C: Lot 1 vs Lot 3||1.12|0.766|
91038562|NCT02842853|181961846|EQUIVALENCE|Lot consistency was demonstrated across the 3 lots, if, for each pair of lots and each antigen, the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMTs lies between 1/2 and 2.|GMT Ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.869|1.19||||||Serogroup Y: Lot 1 vs Lot 2||1.19|0.869|
91038563|NCT02842853|181961846|EQUIVALENCE|Lot consistency was demonstrated across the 3 lots, if, for each pair of lots and each antigen, the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMTs lies between 1/2 and 2.|GMT Ratio|0.961|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.816|1.13||||||Serogroup Y: Lot 2 vs Lot 3||1.13|0.816|
91038564|NCT02842853|181961846|EQUIVALENCE|Lot consistency was demonstrated across the 3 lots, if, for each pair of lots and each antigen, the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMTs lies between 1/2 and 2.|GMT Ratio|0.975|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.829|1.15||||||Serogroup Y: Lot 1 vs Lot 3||1.15|0.829|
90978283|NCT03430986|181840810|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|68.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.0|82.4|||Fisher Exact|2-sided test comparing responder rate between treatment group and control group.||||82.4|50.0|<0.0001
90946471|NCT04092452|181772254|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.578|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.79|1.12||||||Week 12-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||1.12|-0.79|
90946472|NCT04092452|181772254|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.59|0.23||||||Week 12-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||0.23|-1.59|
90946473|NCT04092452|181772254|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.576|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.88|1.03||||||Week 12-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||1.03|-0.88|
90946474|NCT04092452|181772254|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.631|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.96|1.13||||||Week 16-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||1.13|-0.96|
90946475|NCT04092452|181772254|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.24|-0.25||||||Week 16-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||-0.25|-2.24|
90946476|NCT04092452|181772254|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.628|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.95|0.13||||||Week 16-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||0.13|-1.95|
90946477|NCT04092452|181772254|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.286|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.47|0.48||||||Week 1-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||0.48|-0.47|
90946478|NCT04092452|181772254|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.278|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.75|0.18||||||Week 1-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||0.18|-0.75|
90946479|NCT04092452|181772254|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.286|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.78|0.17||||||Week 1-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||0.17|-0.78|
90946480|NCT04092452|181772254|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.361|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.81|0.38||||||Week 2-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||0.38|-0.81|
90946481|NCT04092452|181772254|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.347|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.97|0.18||||||Week 2-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||0.18|-0.97|
90946482|NCT04092452|181772254|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.05|0.14||||||Week 2-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||0.14|-1.05|
90946483|NCT04092452|181772254|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.471|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.56|1.0||||||Week 4-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||1.00|-0.56|
91038565|NCT02842853|181961846|EQUIVALENCE|Lot consistency was demonstrated across the 3 lots, if, for each pair of lots and each antigen, the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMTs lies between 1/2 and 2.|GMT Ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.878|1.22||||||Serogroup W: Lot 1 vs Lot 2||1.22|0.878|
90946484|NCT04092452|181772254|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.448|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.99|0.49||||||Week 4-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||0.49|-0.99|
90946485|NCT04092452|181772254|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.468|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.88|0.67||||||Week 4-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||0.67|-0.88|
90946486|NCT04092452|181772254|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.38|1.34||||||Week 6-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||1.34|-0.38|
90946487|NCT04092452|181772254|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.501|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.06|0.6||||||Week 6-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||0.60|-1.06|
90946488|NCT04092452|181772254|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.523|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.86|0.87||||||Week 6-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||0.87|-0.86|
90946489|NCT04092452|181772254|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.542|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.81|0.99||||||Week 8-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||0.99|-0.81|
90946490|NCT04092452|181772254|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.523|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.11|0.62||||||Week 8-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||0.62|-1.11|
90946491|NCT04092452|181772254|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.549|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.56|1.25||||||Week 8-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||1.25|-0.56|
90946492|NCT04092452|181772254|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.554|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.87|0.97||||||Week 12-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||0.97|-0.87|
90946493|NCT04092452|181772254|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.527|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.36|0.38||||||Week 12-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||0.38|-1.36|
90946494|NCT04092452|181772254|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.552|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.9|0.93||||||Week 12-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||0.93|-0.90|
90946495|NCT04092452|181772254|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.606|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.96|1.04||||||Week 16-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||1.04|-0.96|
90946496|NCT04092452|181772254|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.577|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.19|-0.29||||||Week 16-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||-0.29|-2.19|
90946497|NCT04092452|181772254|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.603|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.11|-0.11||||||Week 16-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||-0.11|-2.11|
90946498|NCT04092452|181772254|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.284|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.57|0.37||||||Week 1-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||0.37|-0.57|
90946499|NCT04092452|181772254|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.278|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.69|0.22||||||Week 1-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||0.22|-0.69|
90946500|NCT04092452|181772254|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.285|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.94|0.01||||||Week 1-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||0.01|-0.94|
90946501|NCT04092452|181772254|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.357|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.83|0.35||||||Week 2-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||0.35|-0.83|
90946502|NCT04092452|181772254|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.345|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.03|0.11||||||Week 2-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||0.11|-1.03|
90946503|NCT04092452|181772254|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.357|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.99|0.19||||||Week 2-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||0.19|-0.99|
90946504|NCT04092452|181772254|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.446|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.58|0.9||||||Week 4-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||0.90|-0.58|
90946505|NCT04092452|181772254|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.424|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.87|0.53||||||Week 4-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||0.53|-0.87|
90946506|NCT04092452|181772254|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.443|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.65|0.82||||||Week 4-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||0.82|-0.65|
90946507|NCT04092452|181772254|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.15|1.54||||||Week 6-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||1.54|-0.15|
90946508|NCT04092452|181772254|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.493|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.83|0.8||||||Week 6-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||0.80|-0.83|
91038566|NCT02842853|181961846|EQUIVALENCE|Lot consistency was demonstrated across the 3 lots, if, for each pair of lots and each antigen, the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMTs lies between 1/2 and 2.|GMT Ratio|0.936|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.791|1.11||||||Serogroup W: Lot 2 vs Lot 3||1.11|0.791|
91038567|NCT02842853|181961846|EQUIVALENCE|Lot consistency was demonstrated across the 3 lots, if, for each pair of lots and each antigen, the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMTs lies between 1/2 and 2.|GMT Ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.818|1.15||||||Serogroup W: Lot 1 vs Lot 3||1.15|0.818|
90946509|NCT04092452|181772254|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.513|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.62|1.08||||||Week 6-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||1.08|-0.62|
90946510|NCT04092452|181772254|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.507|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.55|1.13||||||Week 8-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||1.13|-0.55|
90946511|NCT04092452|181772254|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.489|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.81|0.81||||||Week 8-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||0.81|-0.81|
90946512|NCT04092452|181772254|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.514|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.35|1.35||||||Week 8-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||1.35|-0.35|
90946513|NCT04092452|181772254|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.532|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.81|0.95||||||Week 12-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||0.95|-0.81|
90946514|NCT04092452|181772254|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.505|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.3|0.37||||||Week 12-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||0.37|-1.30|
90946515|NCT04092452|181772254|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.92|0.84||||||Week 12-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||0.84|-0.92|
90946516|NCT04092452|181772254|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.589|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.75|1.2||||||Week 16-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||1.20|-0.75|
90946517|NCT04092452|181772254|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.561|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.99|-0.13||||||Week 16-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||-0.13|-1.99|
90946518|NCT04092452|181772254|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.586|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.99|-0.05||||||Week 16-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||-0.05|-1.99|
90946519|NCT04092452|181772254|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.262|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.27|0.59||||||Week 1-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||0.59|-0.27|
90946520|NCT04092452|181772254|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.255|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.99|-0.15||||||Week 1-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||-0.15|-0.99|
90946521|NCT04092452|181772254|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.262|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.35|0.52||||||Week 1-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||0.52|-0.35|
90946522|NCT04092452|181772254|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.357|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.54|0.65||||||Week 2-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||0.65|-0.54|
90946523|NCT04092452|181772254|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.344|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.01|0.13||||||Week 2-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||0.13|-1.01|
90946524|NCT04092452|181772254|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.356|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.33|0.85||||||Week 2-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||0.85|-0.33|
90946525|NCT04092452|181772254|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.434|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.83|0.6||||||Week 4-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||0.60|-0.83|
90946526|NCT04092452|181772254|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.414|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.49|-0.12||||||Week 4-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||-0.12|-1.49|
90946527|NCT04092452|181772254|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.431|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.86|0.57||||||Week 4-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||0.57|-0.86|
90946528|NCT04092452|181772254|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.483|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.76|0.84||||||Week 6-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||0.84|-0.76|
90946529|NCT04092452|181772254|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.466|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.29|0.26||||||Week 6-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||0.26|-1.29|
90946530|NCT04092452|181772254|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.485|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.68|0.92||||||Week 6-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||0.92|-0.68|
90946531|NCT04092452|181772254|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.483|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.96|0.63||||||Week 8-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||0.63|-0.96|
90946532|NCT04092452|181772254|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.466|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.31|0.24||||||Week 8-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||0.24|-1.31|
90946533|NCT04092452|181772254|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.488|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.69|0.92||||||Week 8-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||0.92|-0.69|
90946534|NCT04092452|181772254|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.527|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.21|0.53||||||Week 12-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||0.53|-1.21|
90946535|NCT04092452|181772254|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.503|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.64|0.02||||||Week 12-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||0.02|-1.64|
90946536|NCT04092452|181772254|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.527|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.72|1.02||||||Week 12-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||1.02|-0.72|
90946537|NCT04092452|181772254|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.559|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|1.15||||||Week 16-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||1.15|-0.70|
90946538|NCT04092452|181772254|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.532|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.44|0.32||||||Week 16-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||0.32|-1.44|
90946539|NCT04092452|181772254|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.557|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.83|1.01||||||Week 16-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||1.01|-0.83|
90946540|NCT04092452|181772254|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.264|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.39|0.49||||||Week 1-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||0.49|-0.39|
90946541|NCT04092452|181772254|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.257|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.75|0.1||||||Week 1-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||0.10|-0.75|
90946542|NCT04092452|181772254|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.266|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.46|0.42||||||Week 1-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||0.42|-0.46|
91038568|NCT02842853|181961847|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference is \> -10% for all serogroups.|Percentage Difference|19.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.8|23.5||||||Serogroup A||23.5|14.8|
90946543|NCT04092452|181772254|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.333|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.65|0.45||||||Week 2-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||0.45|-0.65|
90946544|NCT04092452|181772254|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.321|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.33|-0.27||||||Week 2-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||-0.27|-1.33|
90946545|NCT04092452|181772254|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.333|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.91|0.19||||||Week 2-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||0.19|-0.91|
90946546|NCT04092452|181772254|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.411|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.36|1.0||||||Week 4-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||1.00|-0.36|
90946547|NCT04092452|181772254|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.393|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.59|-0.29||||||Week 4-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||-0.29|-1.59|
90946548|NCT04092452|181772254|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.411|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.97|0.39||||||Week 4-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||0.39|-0.97|
90946549|NCT04092452|181772254|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.454|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|1.3||||||Week 6-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||1.30|-0.20|
90946550|NCT04092452|181772254|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.439|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.41|0.04||||||Week 6-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||0.04|-1.41|
90946551|NCT04092452|181772254|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.456|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.85|0.66||||||Week 6-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||0.66|-0.85|
90946552|NCT04092452|181772254|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.491|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.96|0.66||||||Week 8-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||0.66|-0.96|
90946553|NCT04092452|181772254|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.473|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.89|-0.33||||||Week 8-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||-0.33|-1.89|
90946554|NCT04092452|181772254|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.497|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.13|0.52||||||Week 8-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||0.52|-1.13|
90946555|NCT04092452|181772254|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.547|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.86|0.95||||||Week 12-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||0.95|-0.86|
90946556|NCT04092452|181772254|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.523|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.73|-0.01||||||Week 12-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||-0.01|-1.73|
90946557|NCT04092452|181772254|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.547|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.78|1.03||||||Week 12-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||1.03|-0.78|
90946558|NCT04092452|181772254|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.602|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|1.39||||||Week 16-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||1.39|-0.60|
90946559|NCT04092452|181772254|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.574|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.9|0.0||||||Week 16-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||0.00|-1.90|
90978284|NCT01412957|181840822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Normal score|-2.59||||0.0096|||||||Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified by randomization factors: geographic region (Europe vs Asia vs rest of world) and ECOG performance status (0 or 1 vs 2).|A normal score \< 0 indicates fewer than expected events for the panitumumab plus BSC arm and therefore a longer time to event.|The primary hypothesis was that panitumumab plus BSC would improve overall survival compared to BSC alone. A comparison between treatments was performed using the log-rank test stratified by the randomization factors at a 5% significance level.||||0.0096
91038569|NCT02842853|181961847|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference is \> -10% for all serogroups.|Percentage Difference|40.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.7|45.0||||||Serogroup C||45|36.7|
90978285|NCT01412957|181840823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Normal score|-6.08|||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified by randomization factors: geographic region (Europe vs Asia vs rest of world) and ECOG performance status (0 or 1 vs 2).|A normal score \< 0 indicates fewer than expected events for the panitumumab plus BSC arm and therefore a longer time to event.|PFS in the ITT Analysis Set was tested at a significance level of 5% conditional on a significant treatment effect on overall survival in the ITT Analysis Set.||||<0.0001
90978286|NCT01412957|181840824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Normal score|-2.47||||0.0135|||||||Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified by randomization factors: geographic region (Europe vs Asia vs rest of world) and ECOG performance status (0 or 1 vs 2).|A normal score \< 0 indicates fewer than expected events for the panitumumab plus BSC arm and therefore a longer time to event.|Overall survival in the Wild-type RAS Efficacy Analysis Set was compared at a significance level of 5% conditional on a significant treatment effect for progression-free survival in the ITT Analysis Set.||||0.0135
90978287|NCT01412957|181840825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Normal score|-5.98|||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified by randomization factors: geographic region (Europe vs Asia vs rest of world) and ECOG performance status (0 or 1 vs 2).|A normal score \< 0 indicates fewer than expected events for the panitumumab plus BSC arm and therefore a longer time to event.|PFS in the Wild-type RAS Efficacy Analysis Set was to be compared at a significance level of 5% if overall survival in the wild-type RAS Efficacy Anaysis Set demonstrated a significant treatment effect.||||<0.0001
91038570|NCT02842853|181961847|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference is \> -10% for all serogroups.|Percentage Difference|18.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.5|21.9||||||Serogroup Y||21.9|14.5|
91038571|NCT02842853|181961847|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference is \> -10% for all serogroups.|Percentage Difference|19.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.9|23.3||||||Serogroup W||23.3|14.9|
91038572|NCT02842853|181961848|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference is \> -10% for all serogroups.|Percentage Difference|19.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.5|25.8||||||Serogroup A||25.8|13.5|
91038573|NCT02842853|181961848|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference is \> -10% for all serogroups.|Percentage Difference|41.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.0|46.9||||||Serogroup C||46.9|35.0|
91038574|NCT02842853|181961848|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference is \> -10% for all serogroups.|Percentage Difference|27.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.7|33.3||||||Serogroup Y||33.3|21.7|
91038575|NCT02842853|181961848|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference is \> -10% for all serogroups.|Percentage Difference|26.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.7|32.9||||||Serogroup W||32.9|20.7|
91038576|NCT02842853|181961849|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference is \> -10% for all serogroups.|Percentage Difference|18.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.5|24.9||||||Serogroup A||24.9|12.5|
91038577|NCT02842853|181961849|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference is \> -10% for all serogroups.|Percentage Difference|42.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.6|48.0||||||Serogroup C||48.0|36.6|
91038578|NCT02842853|181961849|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference is \> -10% for all serogroups.|Percentage Difference|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.18|14.5||||||Serogroup Y||14.5|6.18|
91038579|NCT02842853|181961849|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference is \> -10% for all serogroups.|Percentage Difference|12.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.22|18.2||||||Serogroup W||18.2|7.22|
91038580|NCT02842853|181961850|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.59|-1.16||||||Serogroup A: Lot 1 vs Lot 2||-1.16|-9.59|
91038581|NCT02842853|181961850|OTHER||Percentage Difference|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|7.01||||||Serogroup A: Lot 2 vs Lot 3||7.01|-1.3|
91038582|NCT02842853|181961850|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.78|1.74||||||Serogroup A: Lot 1 vs Lot 3||1.74|-6.78|
91038583|NCT02842853|181961850|OTHER||Percentage Difference|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|4.28||||||Serogroup C: Lot 1 vs Lot 2||4.28|-1.58|
91038584|NCT02842853|181961850|OTHER||Percentage Difference|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|5.54||||||Serogroup C: Lot 2 vs Lot 3||5.54|-0.740|
91038585|NCT02842853|181961850|OTHER||Percentage Difference|3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.708|6.79||||||Serogroup C: Lot 1 vs Lot 3||6.79|0.708|
91038586|NCT02842853|181961850|OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.14|3.07||||||Serogroup Y: Lot 1 vs Lot 2||3.07|-2.14|
91038587|NCT02842853|181961850|OTHER||Percentage Difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.763|4.79||||||Serogroup Y: Lot 2 vs Lot 3||4.79|-0.763|
91038588|NCT02842853|181961850|OTHER||Percentage Difference|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.248|5.2||||||Serogroup Y: Lot 1 vs Lot 3||5.20|-0.248|
91038589|NCT02842853|181961850|OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|4.54||||||Serogroup W: Lot 1 vs Lot 2||4.54|-3.00|
91038590|NCT02842853|181961850|OTHER||Percentage Difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|5.89||||||Serogroup W: Lot 2 vs Lot 3||5.89|-1.84|
91038591|NCT02842853|181961850|OTHER||Percentage Difference|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|6.61||||||Serogroup W: Lot 1 vs Lot 3||6.61|-1.02|
91038592|NCT02842853|181961851|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.67|2.24||||||Serogroup A||2.24|1.67|
90978288|NCT01412957|181840826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|24.89|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.47|123.77|||Stratified exact test|Stratified by randomization factors: geographic region (Europe vs Asia vs rest of world) and ECOG performance status (0 or 1 vs 2).|The odds ratio is defined as the odds of having an objective response in the panitumumab plus BSC arm relative to the odds in BSC alone arm.|ORR was not formally tested and the p-values are descriptive only. An exact test was used to test the hypothesis that the common odds ratio for panitumumab plus BSC relative to BSC alone for the objective response is equal to 1.0 stratified by the randomization factors.||123.77|7.47|<0.0001
90978289|NCT01412957|181840827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|20.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.89|101.62|||Stratified exact test|Stratified by randomization factors: geographic region (Europe vs Asia vs rest of world) and ECOG performance status (0 or 1 vs 2).|The odds ratio is defined as the odds of having an objective response in the panitumumab plus BSC arm relative to the odds in BSC alone arm.|ORR was not formally tested and the p-values are descriptive only. An exact test was used to test the hypothesis that the common odds ratio for panitumumab plus BSC relative to BSC alone for the objective response is equal to 1.0 stratified by the randomization factors.||101.62|5.89|<0.0001
90978290|NCT01870739|181840840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0616||||0.7324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4178|0.2947|||Linear Model|Treatment as fixed effect and corresponding baseline as covariate.||||0.2947|-0.4178|0.7324
90978291|NCT01870739|181840841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0371||||0.8614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4582|0.3839|||Linear Model|Treatment as a fixed effect and corresponding baseline as a covariate||||0.3839|-0.4582|0.8614
90978292|NCT01870739|181840842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0812||||0.7946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6987|0.5362|||Linear Model|Treatment as a fixed effect and corresponding baseline as a covariate||||0.5362|-0.6987|0.7946
90978293|NCT00288574|181840872|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||Chi-squared|||The proportion of patients successfully completing the trial in the fluoxetine and placebo groups was compared using the chi-squared statistic.||||0.57
90978294|NCT00288574|181840873|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75||||||Reported p values of secondary measures were not corrected for multiple comparisons. The Bonferroni corrected level of significance is \<0.005.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Random effects regression analysis of change during treatment in body weight, in fluoxetine vs placebo groups.||||0.75
90978295|NCT00288574|181840874|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007||||||Reported p values of secondary measures were not corrected for multiple comparisons. The Bonferroni corrected level of significance is \<0.005.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Random effects regression analysis of change during treatment of BDI in fluoxetine versus placebo groups||||0.007
90978296|NCT00288574|181840875|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79||||||Reported p values of secondary measures were not corrected for multiple comparisons. The Bonferroni corrected level of significance is \<0.005.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Random effects regression analysis of change during treatment in BDI, in fluoxetine vs placebo groups.||||0.79
90978297|NCT00288574|181840876|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69||||||Reported p values of secondary measures were not corrected for multiple comparisons. The Bonferroni corrected level of significance is \<0.005.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Random effects regression analysis of change during treatment in RSES, in fluoxetine vs placebo groups.||||0.69
91038593|NCT02842853|181961851|OTHER||GMT Ratio|8.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.58|9.84||||||Serogroup C||9.84|6.58|
90978298|NCT00288574|181840877|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78||||||Reported p values of secondary measures were not corrected for multiple comparisons. The Bonferroni corrected level of significance is \<0.005.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Random effects regression analysis of change during treatment in Q-LES-Q, in fluoxetine vs placebo groups.||||0.78
90978299|NCT00288574|181840878|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19||||||Reported p values of secondary measures were not corrected for multiple comparisons. The Bonferroni corrected level of significance is \<0.005.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Random effects regression analysis of change during treatment in Drive for Thinness subscale, in fluoxetine vs placebo groups.||||0.19
90978300|NCT00288574|181840879|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46||||||Reported p values of secondary measures were not corrected for multiple comparisons. The Bonferroni corrected level of significance is \<0.005.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Random effects regression analysis of change during treatment in Bulimia subscale, in fluoxetine vs placebo groups.||||0.46
90978301|NCT00288574|181840880|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86||||||Reported p values of secondary measures were not corrected for multiple comparisons. The Bonferroni corrected level of significance is \<0.005.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Random effects regression analysis of change during treatment on Body Dissatisfaction subscale, in fluoxetine vs placebo groups.||||0.86
90978302|NCT00288574|181840881|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25||||||Reported p values of secondary measures were not corrected for multiple comparisons. The Bonferroni corrected level of significance is \<0.005.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Random effects regression analysis of change during treatment on Perfectionism subscale, in fluoxetine vs placebo groups.||||0.25
90978303|NCT00288574|181840882|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Reported p values of secondary measures were not corrected for multiple comparisons. The Bonferroni corrected level of significance is \<0.005.||Random effects regression analysis of change during treatment on the YBC-EDS, in fluoxetine vs placebo groups.||||0.26
90978304|NCT02292771|181840925|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.3797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.879|6.479|||Finite mixture model|||||6.479|-8.879|0.3797
90978305|NCT02292771|181840926|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|2.18|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.18|0.44|0.9520
90978306|NCT02292771|181840927|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|2.29|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.29|0.46|0.9520
91038594|NCT02842853|181961851|OTHER||GMT Ratio|3.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.71|3.84||||||Serogroup Y||3.84|2.71|
91038595|NCT02842853|181961851|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.61|2.24||||||Serogroup W||2.24|1.61|
91038596|NCT03317444|181961857|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference in % of subjects|36.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.5|48.9|||Fisher Exact|||% Subjects Who Met Endpoint (≥ 4 mEq/L Change from Baseline Serum Bicarbonate or Serum Bicarbonate in the Normal Range \[22 - 29 mEq/L\]): TRC101-Placebo||48.9|23.5|< 0.0001
90978307|NCT02292771|181840928|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.222||0.5672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.76|||ANCOVA|||||1.76|0.73|0.5672
90978308|NCT02292771|181840929|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.5066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|11.71|||Regression, Logistic|||||11.71|0.30|0.5066
90978309|NCT02292771|181840935|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|4.84|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.84|0.12|0.7790
90978310|NCT02292771|181840936|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.6646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|2.9|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.90|0.51|0.6646
90978311|NCT02292771|181840937|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3||||0.1432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|7.24|||Regression, Logistic|||||7.24|0.75|0.1432
90978312|NCT02292771|181840938|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|5.15|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.15|0.43|0.5250
90978313|NCT02292771|181840939|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.4682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|2.58|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.58|0.13|0.4682
90978314|NCT04596891|181840967|OTHER|Repeated measures ANOVA|F ratio|20.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA||The F ratio is used to evaluate the main effect of time in the ANOVA in relation to the critical F ratio.|No control group, open trial for feasibility/safety||||<0.001
90978315|NCT04596891|181840967|OTHER|Paired-samples t-test (baseline to post-treatment)|paired-samples t-test|5.2||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.79|12.93|||t-test, 2 sided|||||12.93|-1.79|0.002
90978316|NCT04596891|181840972|OTHER|ANOVA|F ratio|8.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA||The F ratio is used to evaluate the main effect of time in the ANOVA in relation to the critical F ratio. If it exceeds the critical F ratio, the null hypothesis (no effect of time) is rejected.|||||<0.001
90978317|NCT03532100|181841009|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029|||||||Regression, Linear|||Hypothesis testing for the association between outcome and coupling ratio was carried out using conditional F-tests with degrees of freedom estimated using the Kenward-Roger method.||||0.029
90978318|NCT03532100|181841009|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.047||||||Pairwise hypothesis testing was carried out with adjustments for multiple comparisons using Tukey's method.|Regression, Linear|||6:1 versus 3:1||||0.047
90978319|NCT03532100|181841009|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016||||||Pairwise hypothesis testing was carried out with adjustments for multiple comparisons using Tukey's method.|Regression, Linear|||6:1 versus 2:1||||0.016
90978320|NCT03532100|181841009|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Regression, Linear|||Hypothesis testing for the association between outcome and coupling ratio was carried out using conditional F-tests with degrees of freedom estimated using the Kenward-Roger method.||||0.340
90978321|NCT03532100|181841009|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Regression, Linear|||Hypothesis testing for the association between outcome and coupling ratio was carried out using conditional F-tests with degrees of freedom estimated using the Kenward-Roger method.||||0.040
90978322|NCT03532100|181841009|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036||||||Pairwise hypothesis testing was carried out with adjustments for multiple comparisons using Tukey's method.|Regression, Linear|||6:1 versus 3:1||||0.036
91038597|NCT03317444|181961857|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference in % of subjects|34.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.2|46.8|||Fisher Exact|||% Subjects with ≥ 4 mEq/L Change from Baseline in Serum Bicarbonate: TRC101-Placebo||46.8|21.2|< 0.0001
90978323|NCT03532100|181841009|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028||||||Pairwise hypothesis testing was carried out with adjustments for multiple comparisons using Tukey's method.|Regression, Linear|||6:1 versus 2:1||||0.028
91038598|NCT03317444|181961857|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference in % of subjects|33.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.7|45.6|||Fisher Exact|||% Subjects with Serum Bicarbonate in the Normal Range (22 - 29 mEq/L): TRC101-Placebo||45.6|19.7|< 0.0001
90978324|NCT03896581|181841011|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.139|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.402|22.969|||Regression, Logistic|||||22.969|5.402|<0.001
90978325|NCT03896581|181841012|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) mean difference|-0.326|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.233|||ANCOVA|||||-0.233|-0.420|<0.001
90978326|NCT03896581|181841014|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|30.237|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.365|73.94|||Regression, Logistic|||||73.940|12.365|<0.001
90978327|NCT03896581|181841015|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|6.037|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.386|7.688|||ANCOVA|||||7.688|4.386|<0.001
90978328|NCT03896581|181841016|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.089|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.119|27.999|||Regression, Logistic|||||27.999|6.119|<0.001
90978329|NCT00961532|181841038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We tested the hypothesis that there would be a change from baseline to 60 minutes after the start of the desmopressin (DDAVP) infusion.||||0.014
90978330|NCT02511522|181841053|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusting for stratification factor (Hepatocellular carcinoma versus liver metastases)||||||0.004
90978331|NCT02511522|181841054|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.068|||||||Log Rank|Stratified Log Rank test adjusting for the stratification factor (Hepatocellular carcinoma versus liver metastases)||||||0.068
90978332|NCT02511522|181841055|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|adjusting for the stratification factor (Hepatocellular carcinoma versus liver metastases)||||||0.45
90978333|NCT02511522|181841056|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|adjusting for the stratification factor (Hepatocellular carcinoma versus liver metastases)||||||0.07
90978334|NCT02660580|181841057|EQUIVALENCE|MSB11022 was considered equivalent to EU-Humira if the 95% CI for the treatment difference was included in the equivalence interval \[-15%, 15%\]).|Least Square (LS) Mean difference|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|2.98||||||||2.98|-1.21|
90978335|NCT02660580|181841073|EQUIVALENCE|MSB11022 was considered equivalent to EU-Humira if the 95% stratified Newcombe Confidence Interval (CI) for the difference in percentage was included in the equivalence interval (-18, 18).|Percentage difference|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.82|4.07||||||||4.07|-7.82|
90978336|NCT04854499|181841104|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.314|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.809|2.136|||||HR along with its 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) were estimated using the Cox proportional hazards regression model stratified by the stratification factors at randomization.|||2.136|0.809|
90978337|NCT04854499|181841108|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.094|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.603|1.985||||||||1.985|0.603|
90978338|NCT04854499|181841109|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.982|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.449|2.147|||||The 2-sided 95% CI is based on Clopper-Pearson method.|||2.147|0.449|
90978339|NCT04854499|181841109|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.943|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.383|2.321|||||The 2-sided 95% CI is based on Clopper-Pearson method.|||2.321|0.383|
90978340|NCT00951821|181841120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-3.3||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|5.5||Effect sizes were also calculated due to small sample size|Mixed Models Analysis||The reported statistic (-3.3) is the difference in the change from baseline to follow-up between the two treatment arms, estimated in a mixed effect regression model.|||5.5|-12.1|.46
90978341|NCT00951821|181841121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.4||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.36|3.06|||Mixed Models Analysis||The statistic provided (0.4) is the difference in the change in BDI score from baseline to follow-up by treatment group.|||3.06|-2.36|.75
90978342|NCT01903876|181841130|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|equivalence||||||0.044|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.044
90978343|NCT01903876|181841131|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|equivalence||||||0.042|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.042
90978344|NCT02300129|181841154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.742|TWO_SIDED|||||P value associated to treatment effect in the model. Study design with a power of 80% and a type I error at 5% (two-sided).|ANOVA|Analysis of variance including sequence, subject (sequence), period and treatment as factors in the model||||||0.7420
90978345|NCT02747927|181841170|OTHER||VE|80.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|73.3|85.3||Statistical significance was concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the VE was above 25%. Since the hypotheses was tested in a confirmatory manner at a 2-sided significance level of 5%, the calculated p-value was compared with 0.025.|Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|Assuming true VE of 60% and, virologically confirmed cases of dengue fever induced by any dengue serotype occurring from 30 days post 2nd vaccination (Day 120) until end of Part 1 would provide at least 90% power to rule out vaccine effect of ≤25%.||85.3|73.3|<0.001
90978346|NCT02747927|181841171|OTHER||VE|90.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|82.6|94.7||Statistical significance was concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the VE was above 0%. Since the hypotheses was tested in a confirmatory manner at a 2-sided significance level of 5%, the calculated p-value was compared with 0.025.|Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|||94.7|82.6|<0.001
90978347|NCT02747927|181841172|OTHER||VE|69.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.8|79.9|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and two-sided 95% CIs are estimated from a Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|DENV-1||79.9|54.8|
90978348|NCT02747927|181841172|OTHER||VE|95.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.9|97.6|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and two-sided 95% CIs are estimated from a Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|DENV-2||97.6|89.9|
90978349|NCT02747927|181841172|OTHER||VE|48.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.1|64.1|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|DENV-3||64.1|27.1|
90978350|NCT02747927|181841172|OTHER||VE|50.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.7|85.8|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|DENV-4||85.8|-69.7|
90978351|NCT02747927|181841173|OTHER||VE|66.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.1|77.5|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|||77.5|49.1|
90978352|NCT02747927|181841174|OTHER||VE|76.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.5|81.9|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|||81.9|68.5|
90978353|NCT02747927|181841175|OTHER||VE|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-978.5|91.1|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and two-sided 95% CIs are estimated from a Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|||91.1|-978.5|
90978354|NCT02747927|181841184|OTHER||VE|47.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.1|56.0|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and two-sided 95% CIs are estimated from a Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region|||56.0|37.1|
91038599|NCT03317444|181961858|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference in LS means|2.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|3.5|||Mixed-effect repeated measures model||Standard error presented above is for the LS mean.|Least Squares (LS) Mean Change from Baseline: TRC101-Placebo||3.5|1.77|< 0.0001
90978355|NCT02747927|181841185|OTHER||VE|55.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.5|70.0|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and two-sided 95% CIs are estimated from a Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|||70.0|34.5|
90978356|NCT02747927|181841186|OTHER||VE|73.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.3|83.9|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and two-sided 95% CIs are estimated from a Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|||83.9|56.3|
90978357|NCT02747927|181841187|OTHER||VE|93.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|72.4|98.6|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and two-sided 95% CIs are estimated from a Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|||98.6|72.4|
90978358|NCT02747927|181841188|OTHER||VE|79.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|70.1|85.9|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|||85.9|70.1|
90978359|NCT02747927|181841189|OTHER||VE|76.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.1|87.4|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|DENV-1||87.4|57.1|
90978360|NCT02747927|181841189|OTHER||VE|85.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|69.9|93.2|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|DENV-2||93.2|69.9|
90978361|NCT02747927|181841189|OTHER||VE|62.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.7|91.5|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|DENV-3||91.5|-69.7|
90978362|NCT02747927|181841189|OTHER||VE|77.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.8|88.5|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|DENV-4||88.5|54.8|
90978363|NCT02747927|181841190|OTHER||VE|79.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.8|89.7|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|Any Dengue Serotype||89.7|57.8|
90978364|NCT02747927|181841190|OTHER||VE|86.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.6|95.4|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|DENV-1||95.4|57.6|
90978365|NCT02747927|181841190|OTHER||VE|89.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.5|98.8|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|DENV-2||98.8|13.5|
90978366|NCT02747927|181841190|OTHER||VE|42.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-307.5|92.0|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|DENV-3||92.0|-307.5|
90978367|NCT02747927|181841190|OTHER||VE|61.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.1|89.5|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|DENV-4||89.5|-45.1|
90978368|NCT02747927|181841191|OTHER||VE|79.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.3|86.9|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|Any Dengue Serotype||86.9|68.3|
90978369|NCT02747927|181841191|OTHER||VE|69.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.4|85.8|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|DENV-1||85.8|36.4|
90978370|NCT02747927|181841191|OTHER||VE|84.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|66.6|93.2|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|DENV-2||93.2|66.6|
90978371|NCT02747927|181841191|OTHER||VE|75.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-168.8|97.8|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|DENV-3||97.8|-168.8|
90978372|NCT02747927|181841191|OTHER||VE|81.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.2|91.6|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|||91.6|57.2|
90978373|NCT02747927|181841192|OTHER||VE|93.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|79.3|98.1|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and two-sided 95% CIs are estimated from a Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|||98.1|79.3|
90978374|NCT02747927|181841193|OTHER||VE|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-849.4|100.0|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|||100.0|-849.4|
90978375|NCT02747927|181841194|OTHER||VE|67.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.1|77.5|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|||77.5|52.1|
90978376|NCT02747927|181841195|OTHER||VE|56.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.2|77.4|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|DENV-1||77.4|16.2|
90978377|NCT02747927|181841195|OTHER||VE|86.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.8|95.0|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|DENV-2||95.0|63.8|
90978378|NCT02747927|181841195|OTHER||VE|51.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.9|73.9|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|DENV-3||73.9|9.9|
90978379|NCT02747927|181841195|OTHER||VE|85.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.4|96.0|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|DENV-4||96.0|47.4|
90978380|NCT02747927|181841196|OTHER||VE|70.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.1|85.5|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|Any Dengue Serotype||85.5|39.1|
90978381|NCT02747927|181841196|OTHER||VE|57.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.2|85.7|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|DENV-1||85.7|-27.2|
90978382|NCT02747927|181841196|OTHER||VE|90.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.0|98.8|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|DENV-2||98.8|14.0|
90978383|NCT02747927|181841196|OTHER||VE|36.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-138.1|82.9|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|DENV-3||82.9|-138.1|
90978384|NCT02747927|181841196|OTHER||VE|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.1|100.0|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|DENV-4||100.0|43.1|
90978385|NCT02747927|181841197|OTHER||VE|65.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.4|78.1|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|Any Dengue Serotype||78.1|46.4|
90978386|NCT02747927|181841197|OTHER||VE|56.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|80.7|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|DENV-1||80.7|0.8|
90978387|NCT02747927|181841197|OTHER||VE|85.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.4|95.2|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|DENV-2||95.2|54.4|
90978388|NCT02747927|181841197|OTHER||VE|54.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.3|77.6|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|DENV-3||77.6|8.3|
90978389|NCT02747927|181841197|OTHER||VE|75.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|93.9|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|||93.9|2.2|
90978390|NCT02747927|181841198|OTHER||VE|84.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.7|95.1|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and two-sided 95% CIs are estimated from a Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|||95.1|53.7|
90978391|NCT02747927|181841200|OTHER||VE|74.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|66.6|80.3|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|||80.3|66.6|
90978392|NCT02747927|181841201|OTHER||VE|69.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.7|80.0|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|DENV-1||80.0|51.7|
90978393|NCT02747927|181841201|OTHER||VE|85.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|74.5|92.2|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|DENV-2||92.2|74.5|
90978394|NCT02747927|181841201|OTHER||VE|54.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.1|73.9|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|DENV-3||73.9|19.1|
90978395|NCT02747927|181841201|OTHER||VE|79.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.4|88.7|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|DENV-4||88.7|62.4|
90978396|NCT02747927|181841202|OTHER||VE|75.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.3|85.0|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|Any Dengue Serotype||85.0|59.3|
90978397|NCT02747927|181841202|OTHER||VE|76.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.0|88.9|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|DENV-1||88.9|50.0|
90978398|NCT02747927|181841202|OTHER||VE|89.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.7|97.8|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|DENV-2||97.8|53.7|
90978399|NCT02747927|181841202|OTHER||VE|37.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.9|79.2|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|DENV-3||79.2|-84.9|
90978400|NCT02747927|181841202|OTHER||VE|78.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.7|93.3|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|DENV-4||93.3|29.7|
90978401|NCT02747927|181841203|OTHER||VE|73.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.4|80.9|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|Any Dengue Serotype||80.9|64.4|
90978402|NCT02747927|181841203|OTHER||VE|64.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.8|79.3|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|DENV-1||79.3|37.8|
90978403|NCT02747927|181841203|OTHER||VE|84.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.1|92.1|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|DENV-2||92.1|71.1|
90978404|NCT02747927|181841203|OTHER||VE|58.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.5|78.5|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|DENV-3||78.5|18.5|
90978405|NCT02747927|181841203|OTHER||VE|79.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.1|89.9|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|||89.9|59.1|
90978406|NCT02747927|181841204|OTHER||VE|90.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.8|95.8|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and two-sided 95% CIs are estimated from a Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|||95.8|78.8|
90978407|NCT02747927|181841205|OTHER||VE|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-849.4|100.0|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and two-sided 95% CIs are estimated from a Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|||100.0|-849.4|
90978408|NCT00450580|181841230|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority can be concluded if the lower bound of a two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in response rates between the two treatment arms is greater than -12%.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.9||||||95.0|-11.4|9.5||||||||9.5|-11.4|
90978409|NCT00988247|181841256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean treatment diff from placebo]|-0.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.5|||ANCOVA|The repeated measures ANCOVA included covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, week and the treatment by week interaction.||||-0.5|-1.5|<0.001
90978410|NCT00988247|181841257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean treatment diff from placebo]|-0.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.5|||ANCOVA|The repeated measures ANCOVA included covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, week and the treatment by week interaction.||||-0.5|-1.4|<0.001
90978411|NCT00988247|181841258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean treatment diff from placebo]|-1.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.6|||ANCOVA|The repeated measures ANCOVA included covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, week and the treatment by week interaction.||||-0.6|-1.6|<0.001
90978412|NCT00988247|181841259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean treatment diff from placebo]|-1.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.6|||ANCOVA|The repeated measures ANCOVA included covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, week and the treatment by week interaction.||||-0.6|-1.6|<0.001
90978413|NCT00988247|181841260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||treatment difference|-0.3||||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment, baseline and pooled center in the model.||||0.1|-0.7|0.143
90978414|NCT00988247|181841261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||treatment difference|-0.49||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment, baseline and pooled center in the model.||||0.1|-1.1|0.130
90978415|NCT01169779|181841268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.551|-0.162||Statistical testing:2-sided at significance level=0.05. Analysis of co-variance (ANCOVA) included treatment arms, randomization strata of screening HbA1c (\<8.0,\>=8.0%), sulfonylurea use (Yes,No), country as fixed effects, baseline HbA1c as covariate.|ANCOVA|||To detect a difference of 0.5% in change in HbA1c at Week 24 between lixisenatide arm and placebo arm, 190 patients per group would provide a power of 96% assuming common standard deviation of 1.3% with 2-sided test at 5% significance level.||-0.162|-0.551|0.0004
90978416|NCT00432237|181841279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|P-value constructed using a logistic model adjusting for baseline severity (moderate, severe), region (US, ex-US), treatment and age (continuous).||||||<0.001
90978417|NCT00432237|181841279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|P-value constructed using a logistic model adjusting for baseline severity (moderate, severe), region (US, ex-US), treatment and age (continuous).||||||<0.001
90978418|NCT00432237|181841280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|P-value constructed using a logistic model adjusting for baseline severity (moderate, severe), region (US, ex-US), treatment and age (continuous).||||||<0.001
90978419|NCT00432237|181841280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|P-value constructed using a logistic model adjusting for baseline severity (moderate, severe), region (US, ex-US), treatment and age (continuous).||||||<0.001
90978420|NCT00432237|181841281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|P-value constructed using a logistic model adjusting for baseline severity (moderate, severe), region (US, ex-US), treatment and age (continuous).||||||<0.001
90978421|NCT00432237|181841281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|P-value constructed using a logistic model adjusting for baseline severity (moderate, severe), region (US, ex-US), treatment and age (continuous).||||||<0.001
90946560|NCT04092452|181772254|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|0.99||||||Week 16-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||0.99|-1.00|
90946561|NCT04092452|181772255|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.7|2.6||||||Week 4||2.6|-1.7|
90946562|NCT04092452|181772255|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.7|1.7||||||Week 4||1.7|-2.7|
90946563|NCT04092452|181772255|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.4|3.2||||||Week 4||3.2|-1.4|
90946564|NCT04092452|181772255|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.31|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.7|1.6||||||Week 8||1.6|-2.7|
90946565|NCT04092452|181772255|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.3|1.0||||||Week 8||1.0|-3.3|
90946566|NCT04092452|181772255|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.34|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.2|2.2||||||Week 8||2.2|-2.2|
90946567|NCT04092452|181772255|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.44|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.2|1.6||||||Week 12||1.6|-3.2|
90946568|NCT04092452|181772255|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.39|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.3|0.3||||||Week 12||0.3|-4.3|
90978422|NCT00432237|181841282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|P-value constructed using a logistic model adjusting for baseline severity (moderate, severe), region (US, ex-US), treatment and age (continuous).||||||<0.001
90946569|NCT04092452|181772255|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.6|2.2||||||Week 12||2.2|-2.6|
90946570|NCT04092452|181772255|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|4.2||||||Week 16||4.2|-0.7|
90946571|NCT04092452|181772255|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.6|1.2||||||Week 16||1.2|-3.6|
90946572|NCT04092452|181772255|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.51|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.4|2.6||||||Week 16||2.6|-2.4|
90946573|NCT04092452|181772256|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.7|2.6||||||Week 4||2.6|-1.7|
90946574|NCT04092452|181772256|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.7|1.7||||||Week 4||1.7|-2.7|
90946575|NCT04092452|181772256|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.4|3.2||||||Week 4||3.2|-1.4|
90946576|NCT04092452|181772256|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.31|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.7|1.6||||||Week 8||1.6|-2.7|
90946577|NCT04092452|181772256|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.3|1.0||||||Week 8||1.0|-3.3|
90946578|NCT04092452|181772256|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.34|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.2|2.2||||||Week 8||2.2|-2.2|
90946579|NCT04092452|181772256|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.44|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.2|1.6||||||Week 12||1.6|-3.2|
90946580|NCT04092452|181772256|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.39|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.3|0.3||||||Week 12||0.3|-4.3|
90946581|NCT04092452|181772256|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.6|2.2||||||Week 12||2.2|-2.6|
90946582|NCT04092452|181772256|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|4.2||||||Week 16||4.2|-0.7|
90946583|NCT04092452|181772256|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.6|1.2||||||Week 16||1.2|-3.6|
90946584|NCT04092452|181772256|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.51|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.4|2.6||||||Week 16||2.6|-2.4|
90946585|NCT04092452|181772257|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.64|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.1|9.5||||||Week 4||9.5|-9.1|
90946586|NCT04092452|181772257|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.25|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.4|9.8||||||Week 4||9.8|-7.4|
90946587|NCT04092452|181772257|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.52|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.4|3.4||||||Week 4||3.4|-11.4|
90946588|NCT04092452|181772257|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.57|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.3|11.8||||||Week 8||11.8|-3.3|
90946589|NCT04092452|181772257|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.87|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.8|14.2||||||Week 8||14.2|-1.8|
90946590|NCT04092452|181772257|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.42|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.8|9.8||||||Week 8||9.8|-4.8|
90946591|NCT04092452|181772257|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.43|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.3|16.5||||||Week 12||16.5|-1.3|
90946592|NCT04092452|181772257|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.0|15.7||||||Week 12||15.7|-2.0|
90946593|NCT04092452|181772257|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.09|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.5|11.3||||||Week 12||11.3|-5.5|
90946594|NCT04092452|181772257|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.88|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.3|6.4||||||Week 16||6.4|-6.3|
90946595|NCT04092452|181772257|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.63|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.8|15.7||||||Week 16||15.7|-2.8|
90946596|NCT04092452|181772257|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.64|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.6|16.9||||||Week 16||16.9|-1.6|
90946597|NCT02127125|181772262|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.025||||||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison, a priori threshold for significance set at p\<0.025 for multiple comparisons.|Generalized Estimating Equation|||Null hypothesis is that Sevelamer treated Obese subjects with normal glucose tolerance will show no post-treatment change in insulin sensitivity compared to placebo treated subjects.||||<0.025
90978423|NCT00432237|181841282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|P-value constructed using a logistic model adjusting for baseline severity (moderate, severe), region (US, ex-US), treatment and age (continuous).||||||<0.001
90946598|NCT02127125|181772262|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison, a priori threshold for significance set at p\<0.025 for multiple comparisons.|Generalized Estimating Equation|||Null hypothesis is that Synbiotic treated Obese subjects with normal glucose tolerance will show no post-treatment change in insulin sensitivity compared to placebo treated subjects.||||>0.05
90946599|NCT02127125|181772263|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison, a priori threshold for significance set at p\<0.025 for multiple comparisons.|Generalized Estimating Equation|||Null hypothesis is that Sevelamer treated Obese subjects with normal glucose tolerance will show no post-treatment change in insulin sensitivity compared to placebo treated subjects.||||>0.05
90946600|NCT02127125|181772263|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison, a priori threshold for significance set at p\<0.025 for multiple comparisons.|Generalized Estimating Equation|||Null hypothesis is that Synbiotic treated Obese subjects with normal glucose tolerance will show no post-treatment change in insulin sensitivity compared to placebo treated subjects.||||>0.05
90946601|NCT02127125|181772264|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison, a priori threshold for significance set at p\<0.025 for multiple comparisons.|Generalized Estimating Equation|||Null hypothesis is that Sevelamer treated Obese subjects with normal glucose tolerance will show no post-treatment change in Lactulose:Mannitol ratio compared to placebo treated subjects.||||>0.05
90946602|NCT02127125|181772264|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison, a priori threshold for significance set at p\<0.025 for multiple comparisons.|Generalized Estimating Equation|||Null hypothesis is that Synbiotic treated Obese subjects with normal glucose tolerance will show no post-treatment change in Lactulose:Mannitol ratio compared to placebo treated subjects.||||>0.05
90946603|NCT01255761|181772276|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the lower bound of the 2-sided 95 % CI was greater than -10 %, the null hypothesis was rejected and RAPID3 was deemed comparable to CDAI in assessing response to Certolizumab Pegol therapy at 12 weeks.|Difference in proportion|-0.119|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.184|-0.053||Study was intended to show the comparability of RAPID3 with CDAI. Assessment of whether the study objective was met was based on CIs rather than p-values. Both variables need to be significant to claim comparability between the two assessment tools.|ANCOVA|Difference in proportions from ANCOVA with tool as factor \& Baseline DAS28(ESR), gender, age, prior anti-TNF use \& disease duration as covariates.||"The null hypothesis was: (Proportion of Rapid 3 responders)-(Proportion of CDAI responders) ≤ delta with a delta of -10 %.~A 2-sided 95 % Confidence Interval (CI) for the difference in proportion of responders was computed."||-0.053|-0.184|
90946604|NCT01255761|181772277|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the lower bound of the 2-sided 95 % CI was greater than -15 %, the null hypothesis was rejected and RAPID3 was deemed comparable to CDAI in assessing percent of Week 12 responders achieving LDA at Week 52.|Difference in proportion|-0.013|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.093|0.066||Study was intended to show the comparability of RAPID3 with CDAI. Assessment of whether the study objective was met was based on CIs rather than p-values. Both variables need to be significant to claim comparability between the two assessment tools.|ANCOVA|Difference in proportions from ANCOVA with tool as factor \& Baseline DAS28(ESR), gender, age, prior anti-TNF use \& disease duration as covariates.||"The null hypothesis was: (Proportion of Rapid 3 responders)-(Proportion of CDAI responders) ≤ delta with a delta of -15 %.~A 2-sided 95 % Confidence Interval (CI) for the difference in proportion of responders was computed."||0.066|-0.093|
90946605|NCT00658606|181772315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.032||95.0||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.032
90946606|NCT00658606|181772316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.037||95.0||||No adjustments were made to multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.037
90946607|NCT00658606|181772317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Statistical Analysis applies to 'Change from Baseline'||||0.001
90946608|NCT00658606|181772318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.382||95.0||||Results were adjusted for use of concomitant psoriasis treatment.|ANOVA|||Statistical Analysis applies to 'Change from Baseline'||||0.382
90946609|NCT00658606|181772319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.052||95.0||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Statistical Analysis applies to 'Clear or Almost Clear = Yes'||||0.052
90946610|NCT00658606|181772320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026||95.0||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Statistical Analysis applies to 'Clear or Almost Clear = Yes'||||0.026
90946611|NCT00658606|181772321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.147||95.0||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Statistical Analysis applies to 'PASI 90 = Yes'||||0.147
90946612|NCT00658606|181772322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.566||95.0||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|||||||0.566
90946613|NCT00658606|181772323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|||||||0.001
90946614|NCT00658606|181772324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|||||||0.007
90978424|NCT00432237|181841283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|P-value constructed using a logistic model adjusting for baseline severity (moderate, severe), region (US, ex-US), treatment and age (continuous).||||||<0.001
90978425|NCT00432237|181841283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|P-value constructed using a logistic model adjusting for baseline severity (moderate, severe), region (US, ex-US), treatment and age (continuous).||||||<0.001
90946615|NCT00658606|181772325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.539||95.0||||Results were adjusted for use of concomitant psoriasis treatment.|ANOVA|||Statistical Analysis applies to 'Change from Baseline'||||0.539
90946616|NCT03786744|181772330|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|9.0||||0.049367|TWO_SIDED|||||Alternative hypothesis: can be changed of speech, language, communication skills for Cord Blood versus Placebo groups in 2-month Threshold \<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The study results were statistically processed using parametric and non-parametric methods using STATA version 9.0, Statistica for Windows version 6.0. Changes from the beginning of therapy and after 1, 2, 6, 12 months were compared using the Wilcoxon criterion, data between the main group and the control group were compared using non-parametric method, Mann-Whitney test was used (data are presented in Me - median format with an indication of 25% and 75% quartile||||0.049367
90946617|NCT03786744|181772330|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|9.0||||0.004072|TWO_SIDED|||||"Alternative hypothesis: can be changed average of 2-month of Health/Physical Development/Behaviour for Cord Blood versus Control groups.~Threshold \<0.05"|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The study results were statistically processed using parametric and non-parametric methods using STATA version 9.0, Statistica for Windows version 6.0 and MS Office Excel 2007. Changes from the beginning of therapy and after 1, 2, 6, 12 months were compared using the Wilcoxon criterion, data between the main group and the control group were compared using non-parametric method, Mann-Whitney test was used (data are presented in Me - median format with an indication of 25% and 75% quartile.||||0.004072
90946618|NCT03786744|181772330|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|9.0||||0.017258|TWO_SIDED|||||"Alternative hypothesis: can be changed average of 12-month of Health/Physical Development/Behaviour for Cord Blood versus Placebo groups.~Threshold \<0.05"|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The study results were statistically processed using parametric and non-parametric methods using STATA version 9.0, Statistica for Windows version 6.0 and MS Office Excel 2007. Changes from the beginning of therapy and after 1, 2, 6, 12 months were compared using the Wilcoxon criterion, data between the main group and the control group were compared using non-parametric method, Mann-Whitney test was used (data are presented in Me - median format with an indication of 25% and 75% quartile.||||0.017258
90946619|NCT03786744|181772330|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|10.0||||0.03121|TWO_SIDED|||||"Alternative hypothesis: can be changed average of 1-month of total score for Cord Blood versus Placebo groups.~Threshold \<0.05"|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The study results were statistically processed using parametric and non-parametric methods using STATA version 9.0, Statistica for Windows version 6.0. Changes from the beginning of therapy and after 1, 2, 6, 12 months were compared using the Wilcoxon criterion, data between the main group and the control group were compared using non-parametric method, Mann-Whitney test was used (data are presented in Me - median format with an indication of 25% and 75% quartile||||0.031210
90946620|NCT03786744|181772330|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|24.0||||0.00194|TWO_SIDED|||||"Alternative hypothesis: can be changed average of 2-month of Total score for Cord Blood versus Placebo groups.~Threshold \<0.05"|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The study results were statistically processed using parametric and non-parametric methods using STATA version 9.0, Statistica for Windows version 6.0. Changes from the beginning of therapy and after 1, 2, 6, 12 months were compared using the Wilcoxon criterion, data between the main group and the control group were compared using non-parametric method, Mann-Whitney test was used (data are presented in Me - median format with an indication of 25% and 75% quartile||||0.001940
90946621|NCT03786744|181772330|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|15.0||||0.03121|TWO_SIDED|||||"Alternative hypothesis: can be changed average of 6-month of Total score for Cord Blood versus Placebo groups.~Threshold \<0.05"|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The study results were statistically processed using parametric and non-parametric methods using STATA version 9.0, Statistica for Windows version 6.0. Changes from the beginning of therapy and after 1, 2, 6, 12 months were compared using the Wilcoxon criterion, data between the main group and the control group were compared using non-parametric method, Mann-Whitney test was used (data are presented in Me - median format with an indication of 25% and 75% quartile||||0.031210
90946622|NCT03786744|181772330|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|16.0||||0.01133|TWO_SIDED|||||"Alternative hypothesis: can be changed average of 12-month of Total score for Cord Blood versus Placebo groups.~Threshold \<0.05"|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The study results were statistically processed using parametric and non-parametric methods using STATA version 9.0, Statistica for Windows version 6.0. Changes from the beginning of therapy and after 1, 2, 6, 12 months were compared using the Wilcoxon criterion, data between the main group and the control group were compared using non-parametric method, Mann-Whitney test was used (data are presented in Me - median format with an indication of 25% and 75% quartile||||0.011330
90946623|NCT04556305|181772353|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.409|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 1: Main effect of Mind (MindMoves + Mind vs. Move + Usual Care) for change over time||||.409
90946624|NCT04556305|181772353|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.456|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 2: Main effect of Move (MindMoves + Move vs. Mind + Usual Care) for change over time||||.456
90946625|NCT04556305|181772353|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.692|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 3: Interaction effect of Mind x Move (MindMoves + Usual Care vs. Mind + Move) for change over time||||.692
90946626|NCT04556305|181772354|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.179|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 1: Main effect of Mind (MindMoves + Mind vs. Move + Usual Care) for change over time||||.179
90946627|NCT04556305|181772354|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 2: Main effect of Move (MindMoves + Move vs. Mind + Usual Care) for change over time||||.910
90978426|NCT00432237|181841284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|P-value constructed using a logistic model adjusting for baseline severity (moderate, severe), region (US, ex-US), treatment and age (continuous).||||||<0.001
90978427|NCT00432237|181841284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|P-value constructed using a logistic model adjusting for baseline severity (moderate, severe), region (US, ex-US), treatment and age (continuous).||||||<0.001
90978428|NCT00432237|181841285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|P-value constructed using a logistic model adjusting for baseline severity (moderate, severe), region (US, ex-US), treatment and age (continuous).||||||<0.001
90946628|NCT04556305|181772354|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.159|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 3: Interaction effect of Mind x Move (MindMoves + Usual Care vs. Mind + Move) for change over time||||.159
90946629|NCT04556305|181772355|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.078|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 1: Main effect of Mind (MindMoves + Mind vs. Move + Usual Care) for change over time||||.078
90978429|NCT00432237|181841285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|P-value constructed using a logistic model adjusting for baseline severity (moderate, severe), region (US, ex-US), treatment and age (continuous).||||||<0.001
90946630|NCT04556305|181772355|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 2: Main effect of Move (MindMoves + Move vs. Mind + Usual Care) for change over time||||.130
90946631|NCT04556305|181772355|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 3: Interaction effect of Mind x Move (MindMoves + Usual Care vs. Mind + Move) for change over time||||.430
90978430|NCT00432237|181841286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|P-value constructed using a logistic model adjusting for baseline severity (moderate, severe), region (US, ex-US), treatment and age (continuous).||||||<0.001
90946632|NCT04556305|181772356|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.772|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 1: Main effect of Mind (MindMoves + Mind vs. Move + Usual Care) for change over time||||.772
90946633|NCT04556305|181772356|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.107|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 2: Main effect of Move (MindMoves + Move vs. Mind + Usual Care) for change over time||||.107
90946634|NCT04556305|181772356|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.915|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 3: Interaction effect of Mind x Move (MindMoves + Usual Care vs. Mind + Move) for change over time||||.915
90946635|NCT04556305|181772357|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.078|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 1: Main effect of Mind (MindMoves + Mind vs. Move + Usual Care) for change over time||||.078
90946636|NCT04556305|181772357|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 2: Main effect of Move (MindMoves + Move vs. Mind + Usual Care) for change over time||||.130
90946637|NCT04556305|181772357|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 3: Interaction effect of Mind x Move (MindMoves + Usual Care vs. Mind + Move) for change over time||||.430
90946638|NCT04556305|181772358|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.487|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 1: Main effect of Mind (MindMoves + Mind vs. Move + Usual Care) for change over time||||.487
90946639|NCT04556305|181772358|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.827|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 2: Main effect of Move (MindMoves + Move vs. Mind + Usual Care) for change over time||||.827
90946640|NCT04556305|181772358|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.908|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 3: Interaction effect of Mind x Move (MindMoves + Usual Care vs. Mind + Move) for change over time||||.908
90946641|NCT04556305|181772359|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.371|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 1: Main effect of Mind (MindMoves + Mind vs. Move + Usual Care) for change over time||||.371
90946642|NCT04556305|181772359|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.633|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 2: Main effect of Move (MindMoves + Move vs. Mind + Usual Care) for change over time||||.633
90946643|NCT04556305|181772359|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 3: Interaction effect of Mind x Move (MindMoves + Usual Care vs. Mind + Move) for change over time||||.230
90946644|NCT04556305|181772360|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.798|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 1: Main effect of Mind (MindMoves + Mind vs. Move + Usual Care) for change over time||||.798
90978431|NCT00432237|181841286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|P-value constructed using a logistic model adjusting for baseline severity (moderate, severe), region (US, ex-US), treatment and age (continuous).||||||<0.001
90978432|NCT01354132|181841287|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.50
90978433|NCT01354132|181841288|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.39
90978434|NCT01354132|181841289|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.52
90978435|NCT01354132|181841290|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.71
90978436|NCT01354132|181841291|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Speed of Processing||||0.022
90978437|NCT01354132|181841292|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.270
90978438|NCT01354132|181841293|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.153|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.153
90978439|NCT01354132|181841294|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.876|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.876
90978440|NCT01354132|181841295|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.464|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.464
90978441|NCT01354132|181841296|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.741|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.741
90978442|NCT01354132|181841297|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
90978443|NCT01354132|181841298|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.33
90978444|NCT01354132|181841299|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.90
90978445|NCT01354132|181841300|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6732|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.6732
90978446|NCT01354132|181841301|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8786|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.8786
90978447|NCT01354132|181841302|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5622|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5622
90978448|NCT01354132|181841303|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9574|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9574
90978449|NCT01354132|181841304|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0043|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0043
90978450|NCT01354132|181841305|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3804|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3804
90978451|NCT01354132|181841306|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9403|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9403
90978452|NCT01354132|181841307|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9215|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9215
90978453|NCT00956930|181841308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.122||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.027|0.557|||Log Rank|||||0.557|0.027|0.007
90978454|NCT04355013|181841316|OTHER|Agreement between different methods of temperature measurement (Bland-Altman plot with multiple measurements per individual).|Bland-Altman for repeated measures|-0.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.47|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.77||||||Arterial outlet-nasopharyngeal temperatures||0.77|-1.10|
90978455|NCT04355013|181841316|OTHER|Agreement between different methods of temperature measurement (Bland-Altman plot with multiple measurements per individual).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.95|||Bland-Altman|||Arterial-venous inflow temperatures||0.95|-0.63|
90978456|NCT04355013|181841316|OTHER|Agreement between different methods of temperature measurement (Bland-Altman plot with multiple measurements per individual).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.69|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|0.74|||Bland-Altman|||Arterial outlet-bladder||0.74|-1.98|
90978457|NCT04355013|181841316|OTHER|Agreement between different methods of temperature measurement (Bland-Altman plot with multiple measurements per individual).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.74|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|1.54|||Bland-Altman|||Arterial outlet- Tcore||1.54|-1.38|
90978458|NCT04355013|181841316|OTHER|Agreement between different methods of temperature measurement (Bland-Altman plot with multiple measurements per individual).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.53|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|1.38||||||Nasopharyngeal-venous inflow temperatures||1.38|-0.73|
90978459|NCT04355013|181841316|OTHER|Agreement between different methods of temperature measurement (Bland-Altman plot with multiple measurements per individual).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.52|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.59||||||Nasopharyngeal-bladder temperatures||0.59|-1.50|
90978460|NCT04355013|181841316|OTHER|Bland-Altman for repeated measures|Bland-Altman for repeated measures|0.24|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.58|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.39||||||Nasopharyngeal-Tcore temperatures||1.39|-0.90|
90978461|NCT02348099|181841317|OTHER|"A student's paired t-test will be used to determine the difference if any in CV of Glucose between injection sites. In the third phase, area under the curve will be measured to determine differences between insulin absorption levels. Statistical analysis will be performed using SPSS version 15.0.0 and SAS version 8.2 A power calculation is a statistical method used to determine the minimum sample size needed to detect a statistically significant effect of a certain size."|Odds Ratio (OR)|95.0|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"A student's paired t-test will be used to determine the difference if any in CV of glucose between injection sited.~If the null hypothesis is true, it suggests that any changes witnessed in an experiment are because of random chance and not because of changes made to variables in the experiment. A power calculation is a statistical method used to determine the minimum sample size needed to detect a statistically significant effect of a certain size."|a P-Value is \<0.01|||<0.01
90978462|NCT01933932|181841318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.4355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.12|||Log Rank|Analysis stratified by WHO performance status at randomisation.||||1.12|0.77|0.4355
90946645|NCT04556305|181772360|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.461|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 2: Main effect of Move (MindMoves + Move vs. Mind + Usual Care) for change over time||||.461
90946646|NCT04556305|181772360|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.419|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 3: Interaction effect of Mind x Move (MindMoves + Usual Care vs. Mind + Move) for change over time||||.419
90946647|NCT04556305|181772361|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.619|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 1: Main effect of Mind (MindMoves + Mind vs. Move + Usual Care) for change over time||||.619
90946648|NCT04556305|181772361|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.468|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 2: Main effect of Move (MindMoves + Move vs. Mind + Usual Care) for change over time||||.468
90946649|NCT04556305|181772361|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.387|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 3: Interaction effect of Mind x Move (MindMoves + Usual Care vs. Mind + Move) for change over time||||.387
90946650|NCT04556305|181772362|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 1: Main effect of Mind (MindMoves + Mind vs. Move + Usual Care) for change over time||||.380
90946651|NCT04556305|181772362|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.759|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 2: Main effect of Move (MindMoves + Move vs. Mind + Usual Care) for change over time||||.759
90946652|NCT04556305|181772362|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.219|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 3: Interaction effect of Mind x Move (MindMoves + Usual Care vs. Mind + Move) for change over time||||.219
90946653|NCT04556305|181772363|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.995|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 1: Main effect of Mind (MindMoves + Mind vs. Move + Usual Care) for change over time||||.995
90946654|NCT04556305|181772363|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.946|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 2: Main effect of Move (MindMoves + Move vs. Mind + Usual Care) for change over time||||.946
90946655|NCT04556305|181772363|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.593|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 3: Interaction effect of Mind x Move (MindMoves + Usual Care vs. Mind + Move) for change over time||||.593
90946656|NCT04556305|181772364|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.092|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 1: Main effect of Mind (MindMoves + Mind vs. Move + Usual Care) for change over time||||.092
90946657|NCT04556305|181772364|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.245|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 2: Main effect of Move (MindMoves + Move vs. Mind + Usual Care) for change over time||||.245
90946658|NCT04556305|181772364|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.107|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 3: Interaction effect of Mind x Move (MindMoves + Usual Care vs. Mind + Move) for change over time||||.107
90946659|NCT04556305|181772365|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.244|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 1: Main effect of Mind (MindMoves + Mind vs. Move + Usual Care) for change over time||||.244
90946660|NCT04556305|181772365|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.085|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 2: Main effect of Move (MindMoves + Move vs. Mind + Usual Care) for change over time||||.085
90946661|NCT04556305|181772365|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 3: Interaction effect of Mind x Move (MindMoves + Usual Care vs. Mind + Move) for change over time||||.710
90946662|NCT04556305|181772366|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.491|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 1: Main effect of Mind (MindMoves + Mind vs. Move + Usual Care) for change over time||||.491
90946663|NCT04556305|181772366|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.444|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 2: Main effect of Move (MindMoves + Move vs. Mind + Usual Care) for change over time||||.444
90946664|NCT04556305|181772366|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.279|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 3: Interaction effect of Mind x Move (MindMoves + Usual Care vs. Mind + Move) for change over time||||.279
90946665|NCT01431950|181772396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.077||||||95.0|-0.039|0.192||||||||0.192|-0.039|
90978463|NCT01933932|181841319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.6431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.3|||Log Rank|Analysis stratified by WHO performance status at randomisation.||||1.30|0.85|0.6431
90978464|NCT01933932|181841320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.61||||0.0515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.62|||Regression, Logistic|Analysis stratified by WHO performance status at randomisation||||2.62|1.00|0.0515
90978465|NCT01933932|181841322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.5007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.86|||Regression, Logistic|Analysis stratified by WHO performance status at randomisation||||1.86|0.74|0.5007
90978466|NCT01933932|181841323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.3438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.11|||Log Rank|Analysis stratified by WHO performance status at randomisation.||||1.11|0.74|0.3438
90978467|NCT00670709|181841324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|1e-07||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0000001
90978468|NCT00670709|181841325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.005||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||HD subjects vs control subjects||||<0.005
90978469|NCT00888238|181841375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|1.7|||<|0.001||90.0|1.47|1.93|||ANOVA|||||1.93|1.47|<0.001
90978470|NCT00888238|181841376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|1.3|||<|0.001||90.0|1.08|1.52|||ANOVA|||||1.52|1.08|<0.001
90978471|NCT02354833|181841408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.12
90978472|NCT02354833|181841409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis is comparing the percentage of participants with Nausea||||0.28
90946666|NCT01210651|181772403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034||||||Analysis performed via Stata v14.1. Alpha was 2-tailed. P-value was calculated, with p-value \< 0.05 required a priori to reject the null hypothesis.|Regression, Generalized Least Squares|||A random-effects, generalized least squares (GLS) regression model for depression severity was used to analyze participant BDI scores measured just before 1st assigned session at 0 wks, and just after assigned sessions at 2 wks, 4 wks, 6 wks and 8 wks. BDI Scores were modeled as correlated within participants but independent between participants. The GLS regression model tested the null hypothesis that no significant effects on BDI scores would be found by intervention and intervention-by-time.||||0.034
90946667|NCT01210651|181772404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||||||Analysis performed via Stata v14.1, with P-value calculated using a t-distribution and assuming unequal variances in the two samples. Alpha was two-tailed. P-value \< 0.05 was required a priori to reject the null hypothesis.|t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis examined Total Change Scores on BDI, using two sample t-test to evaluate the null hypothesis that the Total Change Score on BDI for each intervention group would be statistically comparable.||||0.02
90946668|NCT01210651|181772405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018||||||Analysis performed via Stata v14.1. Alpha was 2-tailed. P-value was calculated, with a p-value \< 0.05 required a priori to reject the null hypothesis.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's Exact test evaluated null hypothesis that the proportion of study completers with remitted depression would be statistically comparable in the 2 intervention groups.||||0.018
90946669|NCT01210651|181772406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5||||||Analysis performed via Stata v14.1, with P-value calculated using a t-distribution and assuming unequal variances in the two samples. Alpha was two-tailed. P-value \< 0.05 was required a priori to reject the null hypothesis.|t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis examined Total Change Scores on GSES, using an independent samples t-test to evaluate null hypothesis that Total Change Score on GSES for each intervention group would be statistically comparable.||||0.50
90946670|NCT01210651|181772407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.053||||||Analysis performed via Stata v14.1, with P-value calculated using a t-distribution and assuming unequal variances in the two samples. Alpha was two-tailed. P-value \< 0.05 was required a priori to reject the null hypothesis.|t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis examined Total Change Scores on RSES, using an independent samples t-test to evaluate null hypothesis that Total Change Score on RSES for each intervention group would be statistically comparable.||||0.053
90946671|NCT03494985|181772408|OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.9||p-value was adjusted using Dunnett's method for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|ANOVA model with factors for treatment, study site and DMI stratification (mild, moderate, severe).|First named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive value favours the first named treatment.|||0.9|0.4|<0.0001
90946672|NCT03494985|181772408|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.2||p-value was adjusted using Dunnett's method for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|ANOVA model with factors for treatment, study site and DMI stratification (mild, moderate, severe).|First named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive value favours the first named treatment.|||1.2|0.6|<0.0001
90946673|NCT03494985|181772408|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.9||p-value was adjusted using Dunnett's method for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|ANOVA model with factors for treatment, study site and DMI stratification (mild, moderate, severe).|First named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive value favours the first named treatment.|||0.9|0.3|<0.0001
90946674|NCT03459846|181772428|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.641|1.387|||Regression, Cox|||||1.387|0.641|0.789
90946675|NCT03459846|181772429|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.719|1.606|||Regression, Cox|||||1.606|0.719|0.728
90946676|NCT03459846|181772430|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76||||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.821|3.778|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.778|0.821|0.142
90946677|NCT00310180|181772443|SUPERIORITY|Since the noninferiority comparison is formulated using a conventional superiority null hypothesis described as above, a type II error corresponds to concluding that Arm B is not inferior when in fact it is. The design therefore uses a one-sided type I error of 10% and is planned to have 95% power (5% type II error). If the null hypothesis is rejected (at the one-sided 10% level), then it will be concluded that endocrine therapy alone is inferior to chemoendocrine therapy.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.24||One-sided p value for stratified Cox proportional hazard analysis, stratified on recurrence score, tumor size and menopausal status.|Regression, Cox|||This study uses a noninferiority design, but the noninferiority question is formulated using the conventional superiority null hypothesis of equal DFS on the two arms (that is, the null hypothesis is that Arm B is not inferior to Arm C). The alternative hypothesis is that Arm B has substantially worse DFS than Arm C, specified by a hazard ratio for B vs. C of 1.322.||1.24|0.94|0.13
90946678|NCT00310180|181772447|OTHER|Treatment-by-Age and RS subset was performed via Cox proportional hazard analysis||||||0.004|||||||Regression, Cox|||Treatment interaction test was performed for the 9 age by RS subsets (3 groups for each, age groups \<=50 vs. 51-65 vs. 66-75; RS groups 0-10 vs. 11-25 vs. \>25) in patients randomized to arms B and C||||0.004
90946679|NCT01443403|181772508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.605||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|3.41|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group as a term and baseline value as a covariate.||||3.41|1.02|0.0003
90946680|NCT01443403|181772508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.604||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|3.14|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a term and baseline value as a covariate.||||3.14|0.76|0.0014
90946681|NCT01443403|181772508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.599||0.3504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|1.74|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a term and baseline value as a covariate.||||1.74|-0.62|0.3504
90946682|NCT01443403|181772510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.568||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|3.05|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a term and baseline value as a covariate.||||3.05|0.81|0.0008
90946683|NCT01443403|181772510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.569||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|3.04|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a term and baseline value as a covariate.||||3.04|0.79|0.0009
90946684|NCT01443403|181772510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.558||0.2572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|1.73|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a term and baseline value as a covariate.||||1.73|-0.47|0.2572
90946685|NCT01443403|181772512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.484||0.0065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|2.28|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a term and baseline value as a covariate.||||2.28|0.38|0.0065
90946686|NCT01443403|181772512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.482||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|2.58|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a term and baseline value as a covariate.||||2.58|0.69|0.0008
90946687|NCT01443403|181772512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.476||0.2921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|1.44|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a term and baseline value as a covariate.||||1.44|-0.43|0.2921
90946688|NCT01443403|181772514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.495||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|2.42|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a term and baseline value as a covariate.||||2.42|0.47|0.0039
90946689|NCT01443403|181772514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.492||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.67|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a term and baseline value as a covariate.||||2.67|0.73|0.0007
90946690|NCT01443403|181772514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.488||0.3077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|1.46|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a term and baseline value as a covariate.||||1.46|-0.46|0.3077
90946691|NCT01443403|181772516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|27.3||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|44.6|||Chi-squared|||||44.6|10.0|0.0030
90946692|NCT01443403|181772516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|31.8||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.0|48.7|||Chi-squared|||||48.7|15.0|0.0005
90946693|NCT01443403|181772516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|13.1||||0.1461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|30.6|||Chi-squared|||||30.6|-4.4|0.1461
90946694|NCT01443403|181772518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|24.3||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.8|40.8|||Chi-squared|||||40.8|7.8|0.0050
90946695|NCT01443403|181772518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|24.5||||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.1|40.8|||Chi-squared|||||40.8|8.1|0.0045
90946696|NCT01443403|181772518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|8.2||||0.2984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|23.6|||Chi-squared|||||23.6|-7.2|0.2984
90946697|NCT01443403|181772520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.17|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a term and baseline value as a covariate.||||2.17|0.90|<0.0001
90946698|NCT01443403|181772520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.85|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a term and baseline value as a covariate.||||1.85|0.59|0.0002
90946699|NCT01443403|181772520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.317||0.0698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|1.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a term and baseline value as a covariate.||||1.20|-0.05|0.0698
90946700|NCT01443403|181772522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.307||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.79|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a term and baseline value as a covariate.||||1.79|0.58|0.0001
90946701|NCT01443403|181772522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.305||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.7|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a term and baseline value as a covariate.||||1.70|0.49|0.0004
90946702|NCT01443403|181772522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.302||0.1648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|1.02|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a term and baseline value as a covariate.||||1.02|-0.17|0.1648
90946703|NCT01443403|181772524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0004
90946704|NCT01443403|181772524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
90946705|NCT01443403|181772524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0118||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0118
90946706|NCT01443403|181772525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
90946707|NCT01443403|181772525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0011||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0011
90946708|NCT01443403|181772525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0079||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0079
90978473|NCT02354833|181841409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis is comparing the percentage of participants with Emesis||||< 0.001
90978474|NCT02354833|181841410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.10
90978475|NCT02354833|181841411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.73
90978476|NCT02157883|181841422|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Upper bound of the 90% CIs below 200%.|Geometric mean ratio|79.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|73.15|87.21|||||AZD9291+itraconazole / AZD9291 alone. Results based on linear mixed-effects model with treatment as fixed effect and patient as a random effect.|Study sized so experiment-wise power for the upper bound of the 90% CIs of geometric mean ratios for both AUC and Cmax of AZD9291 being below 200% was 90% (95% for each parameter). Within patient CV assumed to be 34%. A 50% increase in exposure was also assumed.||87.21|73.15|
90978477|NCT02157883|181841423|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Upper bound of the 90% CIs below 200%.|Geometric mean ratio|124.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|114.61|134.53|||||AZD9291+itraconazole / AZD9291 alone. Results based on linear mixed-effects model with treatment as fixed effect and patient as a random effect.|Study sized so experiment-wise power for the upper bound of the 90% CIs of geometric mean ratios for both AUC and Cmax of AZD9291 being below 200% was 90% (95% for each parameter). Within patient CV assumed to be 34%. A 50% increase in exposure was also assumed.||134.53|114.61|
90978478|NCT02157883|181841430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric mean ratio|75.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|64.18|89.69|||||AZD9291+itraconazole / AZD9291 alone. No pre-specified margins for equivalence test for metabolites, but analysed for consistency with AZD9291 analysis.|Study sized so experiment-wise power for the upper bound of the 90% CIs of geometric mean ratios for both AUC and Cmax of AZD9291 being below 200% was 90% (95% for each parameter). Within patient CV assumed to be 34%. A 50% increase in exposure was also assumed.||89.69|64.18|
90978479|NCT02157883|181841431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric mean ratio|108.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.36|124.19|||||AZD9291+itraconazole / AZD9291 alone. No pre-specified margins for equivalence test for metabolites, but analysed for consistency with AZD9291 analysis.|Study sized so experiment-wise power for the upper bound of the 90% CIs of geometric mean ratios for both AUC and Cmax of AZD9291 being below 200% was 90% (95% for each parameter). Within patient CV assumed to be 34%. A 50% increase in exposure was also assumed.||124.19|94.36|
90978480|NCT02157883|181841432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric mean ratio|44.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|39.94|49.21|||||AZD9291+itraconazole / AZD9291 alone. No pre-specified margins for equivalence test for metabolites, but analysed for consistency with AZD9291 analysis.|Study sized so experiment-wise power for the upper bound of the 90% CIs of geometric mean ratios for both AUC and Cmax of AZD9291 being below 200% was 90% (95% for each parameter). Within patient CV assumed to be 34%. A 50% increase in exposure was also assumed.||49.21|39.94|
90978481|NCT02157883|181841433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric mean ratio|49.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|43.7|54.99|||||AZD9291+itraconazole / AZD9291 alone. No pre-specified margins for equivalence test for metabolites, but analysed for consistency with AZD9291 analysis.|Study sized so experiment-wise power for the upper bound of the 90% CIs of geometric mean ratios for both AUC and Cmax of AZD9291 being below 200% was 90% (95% for each parameter). Within patient CV assumed to be 34%. A 50% increase in exposure was also assumed.||54.99|43.70|
90978482|NCT05617521|181841453|SUPERIORITY|Sample size was assessed over the primary outcome of the study based on pre-experimental data estimation. It was calculated that 142 participants were needed to detect a 60-second difference in CIT, with 90% power and two-side alpha 0.05. It was found that 186 participants were needed to detect a 20% reduction in the use of ancillary maneuvers. As a preventive measure in case of withdrawal or exclusion, the sample was expanded by 10%, a total of 206 patients||||||0.008||||||The comparative analysis of the CIT was previously subjected to normality evaluation by the Shapiro-Wilk test. According to the rejection of normal distribution, comparative data analysis has been performed with a two-way Mann-Whitney U test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.008
90978483|NCT05617521|181841454|SUPERIORITY|Sample size was assessed over the primary outcome of the study based on pre-experimental data estimation. It was calculated that 142 participants were needed to detect a 60-second difference in CIT, with 90% power and two-side alpha 0.05. It was found that 186 participants were needed to detect a 20% reduction in the use of ancillary maneuvers. As a preventive measure in case of withdrawal or exclusion, the sample was expanded by 10%, a total of 206 patients.|||||<|0.001||||||For the comparison of abdominal pressure, Pearson chi-square test was used. The statistical significance level was accepted as p \<0.05|Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
90978484|NCT05617521|181841455|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The comparative analysis of the CIL was previously subjected to normality evaluation by the Shapiro-Wilk test. According to the rejection of normal distribution, comparative data analysis has been performed with a two-way Mann-Whitney U test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90946709|NCT01443403|181772528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.358||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.03|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a term and baseline value as a covariate.||||2.03|0.62|0.0003
90946710|NCT01443403|181772528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.359|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.22|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a term and baseline value as a covariate.||||2.22|0.80|<0.0001
90978485|NCT05617521|181841456|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.321|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.321
90978486|NCT05617521|181841457|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.75
90978487|NCT05617521|181841458|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.005
90978488|NCT05617521|181841459|OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.8
90978489|NCT05617521|181841461|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.12
90978490|NCT05617521|181841462|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90978491|NCT05617521|181841463|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90946711|NCT01443403|181772528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.352||0.1211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|1.24|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a term and baseline value as a covariate.||||1.24|-0.15|0.1211
90946712|NCT01443403|181772530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.551|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|3.45|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a term and baseline value as a covariate.||||3.45|1.28|<0.0001
90978492|NCT05617521|181841464|SUPERIORITY|Sample size was assessed over the primary outcome of the study based on pre-experimental data estimation. It was calculated that 142 participants were needed to detect a 60-second difference in CIT, with 90% power and two-side alpha 0.05. It was found that 186 participants were needed to detect a 20% reduction in the use of ancillary maneuvers. As a preventive measure in case of withdrawal or exclusion, the sample was expanded by 10%, a total of 206 patients.||||||0.01||||||For the comparison of position change, Pearson chi-square test was used. The statistical significance level was accepted as p \<0.05|Chi-squared|||||||0.01
90978493|NCT05617521|181841465|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
90978494|NCT00792298|181841467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference: Night 1|12.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.5|16.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A fixed sequential testing procedure assessed statistical significance, beginning with the highest dose. The comparison of suvorexant vs placebo had to be significant at α=0.05 at both Night 1 and Week 4 in order to assess statistical significance of the comparison of suvorexant vs placebo for the next highest dose. If a non-significant result was observed at either time point, the differences between suvorexant and placebo for SE was considered nonsignificant for this and all lower doses.||16.3|9.5|<0.001
90978495|NCT00792298|181841467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference: Week 4|7.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|10.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A fixed sequential testing procedure assessed statistical significance, beginning with the highest dose. The comparison of suvorexant vs placebo had to be significant at α=0.05 at both Night 1 and Week 4 in order to assess statistical significance of the comparison of suvorexant vs placebo for the next highest dose. If a non-significant result was observed at either time point, the differences between suvorexant and placebo for SE was considered nonsignificant for this and all lower doses.||10.9|4.4|<0.001
90978496|NCT00792298|181841467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference: Night 1|10.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|14.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A fixed sequential testing procedure assessed statistical significance, beginning with the highest dose. The comparison of suvorexant vs placebo had to be significant at α=0.05 at both Night 1 and Week 4 in order to assess statistical significance of the comparison of suvorexant vs placebo for the next highest dose. If a non-significant result was observed at either time point, the differences between suvorexant and placebo for SE was considered nonsignificant for this and all lower doses.||14.2|7.4|<0.001
90978497|NCT00792298|181841467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference: Week 4|7.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.6|10.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A fixed sequential testing procedure assessed statistical significance, beginning with the highest dose. The comparison of suvorexant vs placebo had to be significant at α=0.05 at both Night 1 and Week 4 in order to assess statistical significance of the comparison of suvorexant vs placebo for the next highest dose. If a non-significant result was observed at either time point, the differences between suvorexant and placebo for SE was considered nonsignificant for this and all lower doses.||10.9|4.6|<0.001
90978498|NCT00792298|181841467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference: Night 1|7.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|11.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A fixed sequential testing procedure assessed statistical significance, beginning with the highest dose. The comparison of suvorexant vs placebo had to be significant at α=0.05 at both Night 1 and Week 4 in order to assess statistical significance of the comparison of suvorexant vs placebo for the next highest dose. If a non-significant result was observed at either time point, the differences between suvorexant and placebo for SE was considered nonsignificant for this and all lower doses.||11.0|4.2|<0.001
90978499|NCT00792298|181841467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference: Week 4|10.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.2|13.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A fixed sequential testing procedure assessed statistical significance, beginning with the highest dose. The comparison of suvorexant vs placebo had to be significant at α=0.05 at both Night 1 and Week 4 in order to assess statistical significance of the comparison of suvorexant vs placebo for the next highest dose. If a non-significant result was observed at either time point, the differences between suvorexant and placebo for SE was considered nonsignificant for this and all lower doses.||13.6|7.2|<0.001
90978500|NCT00792298|181841467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference: Night 1|5.2||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|8.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A fixed sequential testing procedure assessed statistical significance, beginning with the highest dose. The comparison of suvorexant vs placebo had to be significant at α=0.05 at both Night 1 and Week 4 in order to assess statistical significance of the comparison of suvorexant vs placebo for the next highest dose. If a non-significant result was observed at either time point, the differences between suvorexant and placebo for SE was considered nonsignificant for this and all lower doses.||8.6|1.9|0.002
90946713|NCT01443403|181772530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.549||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|3.15|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a term and baseline value as a covariate.||||3.15|0.99|0.0002
90978501|NCT00792298|181841467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference: Week 4|4.7||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|7.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A fixed sequential testing procedure assessed statistical significance, beginning with the highest dose. The comparison of suvorexant vs placebo had to be significant at α=0.05 at both Night 1 and Week 4 in order to assess statistical significance of the comparison of suvorexant vs placebo for the next highest dose. If a non-significant result was observed at either time point, the differences between suvorexant and placebo for SE was considered nonsignificant for this and all lower doses.||7.8|1.6|0.003
90978502|NCT00792298|181841468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference: Night 1|-36.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.4|-24.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A fixed sequential testing procedure assessed statistical significance, beginning with the highest dose. The comparison of suvorexant vs placebo had to be significant at α=0.05 at both Night 1 and Week 4 in order to assess statistical significance of the comparison of suvorexant vs placebo for the next highest dose. If a non-significant result was observed at either time point, the differences between suvorexant and placebo for SE was considered nonsignificant for this and all lower doses.||-24.3|-49.4|<0.001
90946714|NCT01443403|181772530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.542||0.2022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|1.76|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a term and baseline value as a covariate.||||1.76|-0.37|0.2022
90946715|NCT01443403|181772533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0272||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0272
90946716|NCT01443403|181772533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1355||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1355
90946717|NCT01443403|181772533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3689||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3689
90946718|NCT01443403|181772535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2126||95.0|||||Welch's t-test|||||||0.2126
90946719|NCT01443403|181772535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2799||95.0|||||Welch's t-test|||||||0.2799
90946720|NCT01443403|181772535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6466||95.0|||||Welch's t-test|||||||0.6466
90946721|NCT01443403|181772537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9826||95.0|||||Welch's t-test|||||||0.9826
90946722|NCT01443403|181772537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5188||95.0|||||Welch's t-test|||||||0.5188
90946723|NCT01443403|181772537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5029||95.0|||||Welch's t-test|||||||0.5029
90946724|NCT01515943|181772570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.0||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-19.0|11.0||Linear contrasts performed with a type I error rate of 2.5% based on a Bonferroni adjustment (overall type I error rate of 5% for 2 pairwise treatment group comparisons).|Biniomial regression|Adjusted for baseline covariates of CISS score, mean NPC break and mean PFV blur. Linear contrasts performed with Bonferroni adjustment (alpha=0.025)|Negative values for the treatment group difference favor the HB-PU group. Results of the treatment group comparison are adjusted for baseline covariates of CISS, mean NPC break and mean PFV blur.|The primary outcome was success at 12 weeks. The sample size was computed to have 90% power to detect a treatment group difference between the HB-C versus HB-PU groups, assuming true population success percentages of 30% and 15% for the HB-C and HB-PU groups, respectively, with a type I error rate of 2.5%. The treatment group comparison was adjusted for baseline covariates of CISS score (\<28 points vs ≥28 points), mean NPC break (\<10 cm vs ≥10 cm) and mean PFV blur (≥15 pd vs \<15 pd).||11|-19|0.56
90946725|NCT01515943|181772571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.0||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-12.0|22.0||Linear contrasts performed with a type I error rate of 2.5% based on a Bonferroni adjustment (overall type I error rate of 5% for 2 pairwise treatment group comparisons).|Binomial regression|Adjusted for baseline covariates of CISS score, mean NPC break and mean PFV blur. Linear contrasts performed with Bonferroni adjustment (alpha=0.025)|Positive values for the treatment group difference favor the HB-C group. Results of the treatment group comparison are adjusted for baseline covariates of CISS, mean NPC break and mean PFV blur.|The primary outcome was success at 12 weeks. The sample size was computed to have 90% power to detect a treatment group difference between the HB-C versus HB-P groups, assuming true population success percentages of 30% and 10% for the HB-C and HB-PU groups, respectively, with a type I error rate of 2.5%. The treatment group comparison was adjusted for baseline covariates of CISS score (\<28 points vs ≥28 points), mean NPC break (\<10 cm vs ≥10 cm) and mean PFV blur (≥15 pd vs \<15 pd).||22|-12|0.52
90946726|NCT01515943|181772577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.0|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.0|17.0|||Bernard's exact test|A p-value was not reported in the manuscript results, but has been included here, reported directly from the analysis.||For the HB-C group, the association between completion of the computer vergence/accommodative therapy (CVAT) program (defined as achieving at least 15 stars for the jump vergence exercise) and overall success at 12 weeks was evaluated using Bernard's exact test.||17|-27|<0.01
90946727|NCT03607422|181772603|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|59.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.1|66.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||66.2|53.1|<0.001
91050453|NCT04168190|181987010|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMC ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|0.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.18|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 8. Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio, 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||1.18|0.78|<0.001
91038600|NCT05133180|181961869|SUPERIORITY|The following null hypothesis is defined on this endpoint: the number of patients reaching a value of Schirmer I test (without anaesthesia) \>10mm/5min at week 4 in cenegermin (rhNGF) is lower or equal than control. The null hypothesis is rejected if the associated primary analysis p-value is lower than 0.025.|Odds Ratio (OR)|16.946|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.412|84.165||P-value of treatment variable from logistic regression model on the number of patients reaching a value of Schirmer I test (without anaesthesia) \>10mm/5min|Regression, Logistic|||It was analyzed by means of a logistic regression model adjusting by pre-defined baseline factors (treatment, gender, age class, baseline Schirmer I test value as fixed effects and site as random effect). For the imputation of missing data at week 4, a Multiple Imputation approach is adopted by performing a regression model with the baseline Schirmer I test value, gender, age class, and Schirmer I test at week 2 as explanatory variables and generating 200 datasets.||84.165|3.412|<0.001
90946728|NCT03607422|181772603|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|46.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.9|53.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||53.9|39.9|<0.001
91038601|NCT05133180|181961870|SUPERIORITY|The following null hypothesis is defined on this endpoint: the change from baseline (reduction) in the global SANDE score at week 12 in cenegermin is lower or equal than control. The null hypothesis is rejected if the associated primary analysis p-value is lower than 0.025.|adjusted mean difference|-4.561||||0.322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.581|4.459||P-value of adjusted means difference between treatments from the ANCOVA model on change from baseline in the global SANDE score.|ANCOVA|||This endpoint was analyzed by means of an Analysis of Covariance with change from baseline in global SANDE Score at Week 12 as dependent variable, treatment, gender, age class, baseline global SANDE score as fixed effects and site as random effect. For missing data, Multiple Imputation approach is adopted by performing a regression model with the baseline global SANDE score, gender, age class, and intermediate global SANDE scores up to week 12 as explanatory variables and generating 200 datasets||4.459|-13.581|0.322
91038602|NCT05133180|181961871|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was based on a logistic regression with the number of patients reaching a value of Schirmer I test \>10mm/5min at week 8 as dependent variable, treatment, gender, age class and baseline Schirmer I test value as qualitative independent variables. Site was considered as random effects that vary randomly among patients.|Odds Ratio (OR)|15.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.091|82.31|||Regression, Logistic|||This key secondary endpoint was analyzed by means of a logistic regression model with the number of patients reaching a value of Schirmer I test \>10mm/5min at Week 8 as dependent variable, treatment, gender, age class and baseline Schirmer I test value as fixed effects and site as random effect.||82.310|3.091|<0.001
91038603|NCT05133180|181961872|SUPERIORITY||adjusted mean difference|-2.753||||0.572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.303|6.798||P-value of adjusted means difference between treatments from the ANCOVA model on change from baseline in SANDE score for frequency at Week 12.|ANCOVA regression model|||This endpoint was analyzed by means of an ANCOVA adjusting by pre-defined baseline factors (treatment, gender, age class, baseline SANDE score for severity as fixed effects and site as random effect).||6.798|-12.303|0.572
91038604|NCT05133180|181961873|SUPERIORITY||adjusted mean difference|-4.732||||0.307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.819|4.354||P-value of adjusted means difference between treatments from the ANCOVA model on change from baseline in SANDE score for severity at Week 12.|ANCOVA regression model|||This endpoint was analyzed by means of an ANCOVA adjusting by pre-defined baseline factors (treatment, gender, age class, baseline SANDE score for severity as fixed effects and site as random effect).||4.354|-13.819|0.307
91038605|NCT05133180|181961874|SUPERIORITY|"Changes from baseline in each IDEEL modules scale score was analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) adjusting by gender, age class, IDEEL module baseline value, treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Subject was considered as a random effect. The covariance matrix used was unstructured. Comparisons vs vehicle TID was provided using least square means at each visit and overall."|least square mean difference|2.16||||0.468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.668|7.988||P-value of Least Square (LS) means difference between treatments from the MMRM on change from baseline in IDEEL Quality of Life Module (Daily Activities) at Week 4|MMRM|||Impact on daily activities at week 4.||7.988|-3.668|0.468
91038606|NCT05133180|181961874|SUPERIORITY|"Changes from baseline in each IDEEL modules scale score was analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) adjusting by gender, age class, IDEEL module baseline value, treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Subject was considered as a random effect. The covariance matrix used was unstructured. Comparisons vs vehicle TID was provided using least square means at each visit and overall."|least square mean difference|2.431||||0.492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|9.362||P-value of LS means difference between treatments from the MMRM on change from baseline in IDEEL Quality of Life Module (Emotional Impact) at Week 4.|MMRM|||Emotional Impact due to Dry eye at week 4.||9.362|-4.500|0.492
90946729|NCT03607422|181772604|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|47.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.0|53.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||53.7|41.0|<0.001
90946730|NCT03607422|181772604|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|34.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.8|40.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||40.2|27.8|<0.001
90946731|NCT03607422|181772605|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|50.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.8|57.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||57.1|43.8|<0.001
91050454|NCT04168190|181987010|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMC ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|1.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.64|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 9N. Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio, 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||1.64|1.04|<0.001
90978503|NCT00792298|181841468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference: Week 4|-28.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.1|-15.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A fixed sequential testing procedure assessed statistical significance, beginning with the highest dose. The comparison of suvorexant vs placebo had to be significant at α=0.05 at both Night 1 and Week 4 in order to assess statistical significance of the comparison of suvorexant vs placebo for the next highest dose. If a non-significant result was observed at either time point, the differences between suvorexant and placebo for SE was considered nonsignificant for this and all lower doses.||-15.7|-42.1|<0.001
90978504|NCT00792298|181841468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference: Night 1|-33.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.4|-21.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A fixed sequential testing procedure assessed statistical significance, beginning with the highest dose. The comparison of suvorexant vs placebo had to be significant at α=0.05 at both Night 1 and Week 4 in order to assess statistical significance of the comparison of suvorexant vs placebo for the next highest dose. If a non-significant result was observed at either time point, the differences between suvorexant and placebo for SE was considered nonsignificant for this and all lower doses.||-21.5|-46.4|<0.001
90978505|NCT00792298|181841468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference: Week 4|-33.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.3|-20.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A fixed sequential testing procedure assessed statistical significance, beginning with the highest dose. The comparison of suvorexant vs placebo had to be significant at α=0.05 at both Night 1 and Week 4 in order to assess statistical significance of the comparison of suvorexant vs placebo for the next highest dose. If a non-significant result was observed at either time point, the differences between suvorexant and placebo for SE was considered nonsignificant for this and all lower doses.||-20.2|-46.3|<0.001
90978506|NCT00792298|181841468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference: Night 1|-24.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.1|-12.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A fixed sequential testing procedure assessed statistical significance, beginning with the highest dose. The comparison of suvorexant vs placebo had to be significant at α=0.05 at both Night 1 and Week 4 in order to assess statistical significance of the comparison of suvorexant vs placebo for the next highest dose. If a non-significant result was observed at either time point, the differences between suvorexant and placebo for SE was considered nonsignificant for this and all lower doses.||-12.3|-37.1|<0.001
90978507|NCT00792298|181841468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference: Week 4|-28.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.0|-15.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A fixed sequential testing procedure assessed statistical significance, beginning with the highest dose. The comparison of suvorexant vs placebo had to be significant at α=0.05 at both Night 1 and Week 4 in order to assess statistical significance of the comparison of suvorexant vs placebo for the next highest dose. If a non-significant result was observed at either time point, the differences between suvorexant and placebo for SE was considered nonsignificant for this and all lower doses.||-15.1|-41.0|<0.001
91038607|NCT05133180|181961874|SUPERIORITY|"Changes from baseline in each IDEEL modules scale score was analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM). Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Subject was considered as a random effect. The covariance matrix used was unstructured. Comparisons vs vehicle TID was provided using least square means at each visit and overall. Missing data will be imputed according to the questionnaire manuals"|LS means difference|3.3||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.511|13.111||P-value of LS means difference between treatments from the MMRM on change from baseline in IDEEL Quality of Life Module (Impact on Work) at Week 4.|MMRM|||Impact on Work due to Dry Eye at week 4.||13.111|-6.511|0.510
90978508|NCT00792298|181841468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference: Night 1|-21.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.5|-8.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A fixed sequential testing procedure assessed statistical significance, beginning with the highest dose. The comparison of suvorexant vs placebo had to be significant at α=0.05 at both Night 1 and Week 4 in order to assess statistical significance of the comparison of suvorexant vs placebo for the next highest dose. If a non-significant result was observed at either time point, the differences between suvorexant and placebo for SE was considered nonsignificant for this and all lower doses.||-8.8|-33.5|<0.001
90978509|NCT00792298|181841468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference: Week 4|-21.4||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.2|-8.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A fixed sequential testing procedure assessed statistical significance, beginning with the highest dose. The comparison of suvorexant vs placebo had to be significant at α=0.05 at both Night 1 and Week 4 in order to assess statistical significance of the comparison of suvorexant vs placebo for the next highest dose. If a non-significant result was observed at either time point, the differences between suvorexant and placebo for SE was considered nonsignificant for this and all lower doses.||-8.7|-34.2|0.001
90978510|NCT00792298|181841469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference: Night 1|-25.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.7|-13.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A fixed sequential testing procedure assessed statistical significance, beginning with the highest dose. The comparison of suvorexant vs placebo had to be significant at α=0.05 at both Night 1 and Week 4 in order to assess statistical significance of the comparison of suvorexant vs placebo for the next highest dose. If a non-significant result was observed at either time point, the differences between suvorexant and placebo for SE was considered nonsignificant for this and all lower doses.||-13.1|-37.7|<0.001
90978511|NCT00792298|181841469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference: Week 4|-9.5||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A fixed sequential testing procedure assessed statistical significance, beginning with the highest dose. The comparison of suvorexant vs placebo had to be significant at α=0.05 at both Night 1 and Week 4 in order to assess statistical significance of the comparison of suvorexant vs placebo for the next highest dose. If a non-significant result was observed at either time point, the differences between suvorexant and placebo for SE was considered nonsignificant for this and all lower doses.||0.7|-19.7|0.068
90978512|NCT00792298|181841469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference: Night 1|-23.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.3|-10.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A fixed sequential testing procedure assessed statistical significance, beginning with the highest dose. The comparison of suvorexant vs placebo had to be significant at α=0.05 at both Night 1 and Week 4 in order to assess statistical significance of the comparison of suvorexant vs placebo for the next highest dose. If a non-significant result was observed at either time point, the differences between suvorexant and placebo for SE was considered nonsignificant for this and all lower doses.||-10.9|-35.3|<0.001
90978513|NCT00792298|181841469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference: Week 4|-3.8||||0.459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|6.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A fixed sequential testing procedure assessed statistical significance, beginning with the highest dose. The comparison of suvorexant vs placebo had to be significant at α=0.05 at both Night 1 and Week 4 in order to assess statistical significance of the comparison of suvorexant vs placebo for the next highest dose. If a non-significant result was observed at either time point, the differences between suvorexant and placebo for SE was considered nonsignificant for this and all lower doses.||6.3|-13.8|0.459
90978514|NCT00792298|181841469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference: Night 1|-9.4||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.5|2.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A fixed sequential testing procedure assessed statistical significance, beginning with the highest dose. The comparison of suvorexant vs placebo had to be significant at α=0.05 at both Night 1 and Week 4 in order to assess statistical significance of the comparison of suvorexant vs placebo for the next highest dose. If a non-significant result was observed at either time point, the differences between suvorexant and placebo for SE was considered nonsignificant for this and all lower doses.||2.8|-21.5|0.130
90978515|NCT00792298|181841469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference: Week 4|-22.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.3|-12.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A fixed sequential testing procedure assessed statistical significance, beginning with the highest dose. The comparison of suvorexant vs placebo had to be significant at α=0.05 at both Night 1 and Week 4 in order to assess statistical significance of the comparison of suvorexant vs placebo for the next highest dose. If a non-significant result was observed at either time point, the differences between suvorexant and placebo for SE was considered nonsignificant for this and all lower doses.||-12.3|-32.3|<0.001
90978516|NCT00792298|181841469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference: Night 1|-3.4||||0.577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.6|8.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A fixed sequential testing procedure assessed statistical significance, beginning with the highest dose. The comparison of suvorexant vs placebo had to be significant at α=0.05 at both Night 1 and Week 4 in order to assess statistical significance of the comparison of suvorexant vs placebo for the next highest dose. If a non-significant result was observed at either time point, the differences between suvorexant and placebo for SE was considered nonsignificant for this and all lower doses.||8.7|-15.6|0.577
90978517|NCT00792298|181841469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference: Week 4|-2.3||||0.644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|7.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A fixed sequential testing procedure assessed statistical significance, beginning with the highest dose. The comparison of suvorexant vs placebo had to be significant at α=0.05 at both Night 1 and Week 4 in order to assess statistical significance of the comparison of suvorexant vs placebo for the next highest dose. If a non-significant result was observed at either time point, the differences between suvorexant and placebo for SE was considered nonsignificant for this and all lower doses.||7.5|-12.2|0.644
90978518|NCT00792298|181841470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference: Night 1|-22.3||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.3|-6.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A fixed sequential testing procedure assessed statistical significance, beginning with the highest dose. The comparison of suvorexant vs placebo had to be significant at α=0.05 at both Night 1 and Week 4 in order to assess statistical significance of the comparison of suvorexant vs placebo for the next highest dose. If a non-significant result was observed at either time point, the differences between suvorexant and placebo for SE was considered nonsignificant for this and all lower doses.||-6.2|-38.3|0.007
90978519|NCT00792298|181841470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference: Week 4|-19.6||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.6|-2.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A fixed sequential testing procedure assessed statistical significance, beginning with the highest dose. The comparison of suvorexant vs placebo had to be significant at α=0.05 at both Night 1 and Week 4 in order to assess statistical significance of the comparison of suvorexant vs placebo for the next highest dose. If a non-significant result was observed at either time point, the differences between suvorexant and placebo for SE was considered nonsignificant for this and all lower doses.||-2.6|-36.6|0.024
90978520|NCT00792298|181841470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference: Night 1|-31.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.9|-15.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A fixed sequential testing procedure assessed statistical significance, beginning with the highest dose. The comparison of suvorexant vs placebo had to be significant at α=0.05 at both Night 1 and Week 4 in order to assess statistical significance of the comparison of suvorexant vs placebo for the next highest dose. If a non-significant result was observed at either time point, the differences between suvorexant and placebo for SE was considered nonsignificant for this and all lower doses.||-15.2|-46.9|<0.001
90946732|NCT03607422|181772605|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|32.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.8|39.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||39.4|25.8|<0.001
90946733|NCT03607422|181772606|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|53.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.7|59.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||59.4|46.7|<0.001
90978521|NCT00792298|181841470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference: Week 4|-15.7||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.3|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A fixed sequential testing procedure assessed statistical significance, beginning with the highest dose. The comparison of suvorexant vs placebo had to be significant at α=0.05 at both Night 1 and Week 4 in order to assess statistical significance of the comparison of suvorexant vs placebo for the next highest dose. If a non-significant result was observed at either time point, the differences between suvorexant and placebo for SE was considered nonsignificant for this and all lower doses.||0.8|-32.3|0.063
90978522|NCT00792298|181841470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference: Night 1|-17.4||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.1|-1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A fixed sequential testing procedure assessed statistical significance, beginning with the highest dose. The comparison of suvorexant vs placebo had to be significant at α=0.05 at both Night 1 and Week 4 in order to assess statistical significance of the comparison of suvorexant vs placebo for the next highest dose. If a non-significant result was observed at either time point, the differences between suvorexant and placebo for SE was considered nonsignificant for this and all lower doses.||-1.7|-33.1|0.030
90978523|NCT00792298|181841470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference: Week 4|-24.6||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.0|-8.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A fixed sequential testing procedure assessed statistical significance, beginning with the highest dose. The comparison of suvorexant vs placebo had to be significant at α=0.05 at both Night 1 and Week 4 in order to assess statistical significance of the comparison of suvorexant vs placebo for the next highest dose. If a non-significant result was observed at either time point, the differences between suvorexant and placebo for SE was considered nonsignificant for this and all lower doses.||-8.3|-41.0|0.003
90978524|NCT00792298|181841470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference: Night 1|-19.1||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.1|-3.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A fixed sequential testing procedure assessed statistical significance, beginning with the highest dose. The comparison of suvorexant vs placebo had to be significant at α=0.05 at both Night 1 and Week 4 in order to assess statistical significance of the comparison of suvorexant vs placebo for the next highest dose. If a non-significant result was observed at either time point, the differences between suvorexant and placebo for SE was considered nonsignificant for this and all lower doses.||-3.0|-35.1|0.020
90978525|NCT00792298|181841470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference: Week 4|-20.2||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.0|-3.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A fixed sequential testing procedure assessed statistical significance, beginning with the highest dose. The comparison of suvorexant vs placebo had to be significant at α=0.05 at both Night 1 and Week 4 in order to assess statistical significance of the comparison of suvorexant vs placebo for the next highest dose. If a non-significant result was observed at either time point, the differences between suvorexant and placebo for SE was considered nonsignificant for this and all lower doses.||-3.4|-37.0|0.019
90978526|NCT02649634|181841487|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Estimated sample size needed was 90 (45/group). This was based on a sample size calculation for 2 groups with 0.05 alpha, 0.80 power, anticipating a medium effect size (most recent meta-analysis on efficacy of MI on dietary behaviours yielded a medium effect size of .53; Burke et al., 2003). Additionally, for MLM, estimates involving the Level 2 variable (i.e., participants) require samples larger than 50 (Maas \& Hox, 2005). Others have suggested 30-50 participants (Scherbaum \& Ferreter, 2009).|||||>|0.05||||||Significance threshold is p=.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed modelling (LMM) was used||||>.05
90978527|NCT02649634|181841488|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Estimated sample size needed was 90 (45/group). This was based on a sample size calculation for 2 groups with 0.05 alpha, 0.80 power, anticipating a medium effect size (most recent meta-analysis on efficacy of MI on dietary behaviours yielded a medium effect size of .53; Burke et al., 2003). Additionally, for MLM, estimates involving the Level 2 variable (i.e., participants) require samples larger than 50 (Maas \& Hox, 2005). Others have suggested 30-50 participants (Scherbaum \& Ferreter, 2009).|||||>|0.05||||||Significance threshold is p=.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear Mixed Modelling (LMM) was used||||>.05
90978528|NCT02649634|181841489|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Estimated sample size needed was 90 (45/group). This was based on a sample size calculation for 2 groups with 0.05 alpha, 0.80 power, anticipating a medium effect size.||||||0.65|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Treatment adherence was analyzed via an independent sample t-test comparing the groups on mean number of TrymGym sessions missed.||||.65
90978529|NCT02649634|181841490|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Estimated sample size needed was 90 (45/group). This was based on a sample size calculation for 2 groups with 0.05 alpha, 0.80 power, anticipating a medium effect size (most recent meta-analysis on efficacy of MI on dietary behaviours yielded a medium effect size of .53; Burke et al., 2003). Additionally, for MLM, estimates involving the Level 2 variable (i.e., participants) require samples larger than 50 (Maas \& Hox, 2005). Others have suggested 30-50 participants (Scherbaum \& Ferreter, 2009).|||||>|0.05||||||Significance threshold is p=.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear Mixed Modelling (LMM) was used||||>.05
90978530|NCT02649634|181841491|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Estimated sample size needed was 90 (45/group). This was based on a sample size calculation for 2 groups with 0.05 alpha, 0.80 power, anticipating a medium effect size (most recent meta-analysis on efficacy of MI on dietary behaviours yielded a medium effect size of .53; Burke et al., 2003). Additionally, for MLM, estimates involving the Level 2 variable (i.e., participants) require samples larger than 50 (Maas \& Hox, 2005). Others have suggested 30-50 participants (Scherbaum \& Ferreter, 2009).|||||>|0.05||||||Significance threshold is p=.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear Mixed Modelling (LMM) was used||||>.05
91038608|NCT05133180|181961874|SUPERIORITY|"Changes from baseline in each IDEEL modules scale score was analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) adjusting by gender, age class, IDEEL module baseline value, treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Subject was considered as a random effect. The covariance matrix used was unstructured. Comparisons vs vehicle TID was provided using least square means at each visit and overall."|Least square mean difference|4.078||||0.268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.142|11.299||P-value of LS means difference between treatments from the MMRM on change from baseline in IDEEL Quality of Life Module (Daily Activities) at Week 12.|MMRM|||Quality of life - Impact on daily activities - Week 12||11.299|-3.142|0.268
90978531|NCT02649634|181841492|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Estimated sample size needed was 90 (45/group). This was based on a sample size calculation for 2 groups with 0.05 alpha, 0.80 power, anticipating a medium effect size (most recent meta-analysis on efficacy of MI on dietary behaviours yielded a medium effect size of .53; Burke et al., 2003). Additionally, for MLM, estimates involving the Level 2 variable (i.e., participants) require samples larger than 50 (Maas \& Hox, 2005). Others have suggested 30-50 participants (Scherbaum \& Ferreter, 2009).|||||>|0.05||||||Significance threshold is p=.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear Mixed Modelling (LMM) was used.||||>.05
90946734|NCT03607422|181772606|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|36.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.6|43.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||43.3|30.6|<0.001
90946735|NCT03607422|181772607|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|57.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.9|63.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||63.0|50.9|<0.001
90946736|NCT03607422|181772607|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|45.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.9|51.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||51.4|38.9|<0.001
90946737|NCT03607422|181772608|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|40.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.2|46.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||46.5|34.2|<0.001
90978532|NCT02649634|181841493|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Estimated sample size needed was 90 (45/group). This was based on a sample size calculation for 2 groups with 0.05 alpha, 0.80 power, anticipating a medium effect size (most recent meta-analysis on efficacy of MI on dietary behaviours yielded a medium effect size of .53; Burke et al., 2003). Additionally, for MLM, estimates involving the Level 2 variable (i.e., participants) require samples larger than 50 (Maas \& Hox, 2005). Others have suggested 30-50 participants (Scherbaum \& Ferreter, 2009).|||||>|0.05||||||Significance threshold is p=.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear Mixed Modelling (LMM) was used.||||>.05
91050455|NCT04168190|181987010|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMC ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|1.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|2.32|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 10A. Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio, 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||2.32|1.44|<0.001
90978533|NCT02649634|181841494|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Estimated sample size needed was 90 (45/group). This was based on a sample size calculation for 2 groups with 0.05 alpha, 0.80 power, anticipating a medium effect size (most recent meta-analysis on efficacy of MI on dietary behaviours yielded a medium effect size of .53; Burke et al., 2003). Additionally, for MLM, estimates involving the Level 2 variable (i.e., participants) require samples larger than 50 (Maas \& Hox, 2005). Others have suggested 30-50 participants (Scherbaum \& Ferreter, 2009).|||||>|0.05||||||Significance threshold is p=.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear Mixed Modelling (LMM) was used.||||>.05
90978534|NCT02649634|181841495|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Estimated sample size needed was 90 (45/group). This was based on a sample size calculation for 2 groups with 0.05 alpha, 0.80 power, anticipating a medium effect size (most recent meta-analysis on efficacy of MI on dietary behaviours yielded a medium effect size of .53; Burke et al., 2003). Additionally, for MLM, estimates involving the Level 2 variable (i.e., participants) require samples larger than 50 (Maas \& Hox, 2005). Others have suggested 30-50 participants (Scherbaum \& Ferreter, 2009).|||||>|0.05||||||Significance threshold is p=.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear Mixed Modelling (LMM) was used.||||>.05
90978535|NCT02649634|181841496|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Estimated sample size needed was 90 (45/group). This was based on a sample size calculation for 2 groups with 0.05 alpha, 0.80 power, anticipating a medium effect size (most recent meta-analysis on efficacy of MI on dietary behaviours yielded a medium effect size of .53; Burke et al., 2003). Additionally, for MLM, estimates involving the Level 2 variable (i.e., participants) require samples larger than 50 (Maas \& Hox, 2005). Others have suggested 30-50 participants (Scherbaum \& Ferreter, 2009).|||||>|0.05||||||Significance threshold is p=.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear Mixed Modelling (LMM) was used.||||>.05
90978536|NCT02649634|181841497|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Estimated sample size needed was 90 (45/group). This was based on a sample size calculation for 2 groups with 0.05 alpha, 0.80 power, anticipating a medium effect size (most recent meta-analysis on efficacy of MI on dietary behaviours yielded a medium effect size of .53; Burke et al., 2003). Additionally, for MLM, estimates involving the Level 2 variable (i.e., participants) require samples larger than 50 (Maas \& Hox, 2005). Others have suggested 30-50 participants (Scherbaum \& Ferreter, 2009).|||||>|0.05||||||Significance threshold is p=.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear Mixed Modelling (LMM) was used.||||>.05
90978537|NCT02649634|181841498|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Estimated sample size needed was 90 (45/group). This was based on a sample size calculation for 2 groups with 0.05 alpha, 0.80 power, anticipating a medium effect size (most recent meta-analysis on efficacy of MI on dietary behaviours yielded a medium effect size of .53; Burke et al., 2003). Additionally, for MLM, estimates involving the Level 2 variable (i.e., participants) require samples larger than 50 (Maas \& Hox, 2005). Others have suggested 30-50 participants (Scherbaum \& Ferreter, 2009).|||||>|0.05||||||Significance threshold is p=.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear Mixed Modelling (LMM) was used.||||>.05
91038609|NCT05133180|181961874|SUPERIORITY|"Changes from baseline in each IDEEL modules scale score was analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) adjusting by gender, age class, IDEEL module baseline value, treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Subject was considered as a random effect. The covariance matrix used was unstructured. Comparisons vs vehicle TID was provided using least square means at each visit and overall"|least square mean difference|5.55||||0.227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.462|14.562||P-value of LS means difference between treatments from the MMRM on change from baseline in IDEEL Quality of Life Module (Emotional Impact) at Week 12.|MMRM|||Quality of life - Emotional Impact due to Dry eye - Week 12||14.562|-3.462|0.227
90978538|NCT02649634|181841499|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Estimated sample size needed was 90 (45/group). This was based on a sample size calculation for 2 groups with 0.05 alpha, 0.80 power, anticipating a medium effect size (most recent meta-analysis on efficacy of MI on dietary behaviours yielded a medium effect size of .53; Burke et al., 2003). Additionally, for MLM, estimates involving the Level 2 variable (i.e., participants) require samples larger than 50 (Maas \& Hox, 2005). Others have suggested 30-50 participants (Scherbaum \& Ferreter, 2009).|||||>|0.05||||||Significance threshold is p=.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear Mixed Modelling (LMM) was used.||||>.05
91038610|NCT05133180|181961874|SUPERIORITY|"Changes from baseline in each IDEEL modules scale score was analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) adjusting by gender, age class, IDEEL module baseline value, treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Subject was considered as a random effect. The covariance matrix used was unstructured. Comparisons vs vehicle TID was provided using least square means at each visit and overall."|least square mean difference|3.475||||0.501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.651|13.601||P-value of LS means difference between treatments from the MMRM on change from baseline in IDEEL Quality of Life Module (Impact on Work) at Week 12.|MMRM|||Quality of life - Impact on Work due to Dry Eye - Week 12||13.601|-6.651|0.501
91038611|NCT05133180|181961875|SUPERIORITY|"Changes from baseline in each IDEEL modules scale score was analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) adjusting by gender, age class, IDEEL module baseline value, treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Subject was considered as a random effect. The covariance matrix used was unstructured. Comparisons vs vehicle TID was provided using least square means at each visit and overall."|least square mean difference|-0.549||||0.924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.82|10.723||P-value of LS means difference between treatments from the MMRM on change from baseline in IDEEL Treatment Satisfaction \& Bother module (Satisfaction with Treatment Effectiveness) at Week 4.|MMRM|||IDEEL Treatment satisfaction \& Bother Module Satisfaction with Treatment Effectiveness - week 4||10.723|-11.820|0.924
90978539|NCT02649634|181841500|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Estimated sample size needed was 90 (45/group). This was based on a sample size calculation for 2 groups with 0.05 alpha, 0.80 power, anticipating a medium effect size (most recent meta-analysis on efficacy of MI on dietary behaviours yielded a medium effect size of .53; Burke et al., 2003). Additionally, for MLM, estimates involving the Level 2 variable (i.e., participants) require samples larger than 50 (Maas \& Hox, 2005). Others have suggested 30-50 participants (Scherbaum \& Ferreter, 2009).|||||>|0.05||||||Significance threshold is p=.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear Mixed Modelling (LMM) was used.||||>.05
90978540|NCT02649634|181841501|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Estimated sample size needed was 90 (45/group). This was based on a sample size calculation for 2 groups with 0.05 alpha, 0.80 power, anticipating a medium effect size (most recent meta-analysis on efficacy of MI on dietary behaviours yielded a medium effect size of .53; Burke et al., 2003). Additionally, for MLM, estimates involving the Level 2 variable (i.e., participants) require samples larger than 50 (Maas \& Hox, 2005). Others have suggested 30-50 participants (Scherbaum \& Ferreter, 2009).|||||>|0.05||||||Significance threshold is p=.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear Mixed Modelling (LMM) was used.||||>.05
90978541|NCT02649634|181841502|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Estimated sample size needed was 90 (45/group). This was based on a sample size calculation for 2 groups with 0.05 alpha, 0.80 power, anticipating a medium effect size (most recent meta-analysis on efficacy of MI on dietary behaviours yielded a medium effect size of .53; Burke et al., 2003). Additionally, for MLM, estimates involving the Level 2 variable (i.e., participants) require samples larger than 50 (Maas \& Hox, 2005). Others have suggested 30-50 participants (Scherbaum \& Ferreter, 2009).|||||>|0.05||||||Significance threshold is p=.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear Mixed Modelling (LMM) was used.||||>.05
90946738|NCT03607422|181772608|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|29.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.5|35.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||35.3|23.5|<0.001
90978542|NCT02649634|181841503|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Estimated sample size needed was 90 (45/group). This was based on a sample size calculation for 2 groups with 0.05 alpha, 0.80 power, anticipating a medium effect size.|||||>|0.05||||||Significance threshold is p=.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Self-efficacy was analyzed via an independent sample t-test comparing the groups on mean global self efficacy rating on the WEL.||||>.05
90978543|NCT02649634|181841504|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Estimated sample size needed was 90 (45/group). This was based on a sample size calculation for 2 groups with 0.05 alpha, 0.80 power, anticipating a medium effect size.|||||>|0.05||||||Significance threshold is p=.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Self-efficacy was analyzed via an independent sample t-test comparing the groups on mean self efficacy rating on the ESE.||||>.05
90978544|NCT02649634|181841505|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Estimated sample size needed was 90 (45/group). This was based on a sample size calculation for 2 groups with 0.05 alpha, 0.80 power, anticipating a medium effect size.|||||>|0.05||||||Significance threshold is p=.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Self-efficacy was analyzed via an independent sample t-test comparing the groups on mean global self efficacy rating on the WEL.||||>.05
90978545|NCT02649634|181841506|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Estimated sample size needed was 90 (45/group). This was based on a sample size calculation for 2 groups with 0.05 alpha, 0.80 power, anticipating a medium effect size.|||||>|0.05||||||Significance threshold is p=.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Self-efficacy was analyzed via an independent sample t-test comparing the groups on mean self efficacy rating on the ESE.||||>.05
90978546|NCT02649634|181841507|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Estimated sample size needed was 90 (45/group). This was based on a sample size calculation for 2 groups with 0.05 alpha, 0.80 power, anticipating a medium effect size.|||||>|0.05||||||Significance threshold is p=.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Importance of Change ratings were analyzed via an independent sample t-test comparing the groups on mean Importance of Change ratings on the 11-point visual analogue scales||||>.05
90978547|NCT02649634|181841508|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Estimated sample size needed was 90 (45/group). This was based on a sample size calculation for 2 groups with 0.05 alpha, 0.80 power, anticipating a medium effect size.|||||>|0.05||||||Significance threshold is p=.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Readiness for Change ratings were analyzed via an independent sample t-test comparing the groups on mean Readiness for Change ratings on the 11-point visual analogue scales||||>.05
90978548|NCT02649634|181841509|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Estimated sample size needed was 90 (45/group). This was based on a sample size calculation for 2 groups with 0.05 alpha, 0.80 power, anticipating a medium effect size.|||||>|0.05||||||Significance threshold is p=.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Confidence for Change ratings were analyzed via an independent sample t-test comparing the groups on mean Confidence for Change ratings on the 11-point visual analogue scales||||>.05
90978549|NCT02649634|181841510|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Estimated sample size needed was 90 (45/group). This was based on a sample size calculation for 2 groups with 0.05 alpha, 0.80 power, anticipating a medium effect size.|||||>|0.05||||||Significance threshold is p=.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Importance of Change ratings were analyzed via an independent sample t-test comparing the groups on mean Importance of Change ratings on the 11-point visual analogue scales||||>.05
90978550|NCT02649634|181841511|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Estimated sample size needed was 90 (45/group). This was based on a sample size calculation for 2 groups with 0.05 alpha, 0.80 power, anticipating a medium effect size.|||||>|0.05||||||Significance threshold is p=.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Readiness for Change ratings were analyzed via an independent sample t-test comparing the groups on mean Readiness for Change ratings on the 11-point visual analogue scales||||>.05
90978551|NCT02649634|181841512|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Estimated sample size needed was 90 (45/group). This was based on a sample size calculation for 2 groups with 0.05 alpha, 0.80 power, anticipating a medium effect size.|||||>|0.05||||||Significance threshold is p=.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Confidence for Change ratings were analyzed via an independent sample t-test comparing the groups on mean Confidence for Change ratings on the 11-point visual analogue scales||||>.05
90978552|NCT02706938|181841528|OTHER|One tail paired t test.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3267|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.1604||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6263|2.027||A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|t-test, 1 sided|||||2.0270|0.6263|0.0002
90978553|NCT02706938|181841528|OTHER|McNemar's chi squared statistic|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.359||||0.0082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6255|-0.0924||A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|McNemar|||||-0.0924|-0.6255|0.0082
90946739|NCT03607422|181772609|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|14.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.6|19.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||19.3|10.6|<0.001
90978554|NCT02706938|181841529|OTHER|One tail paired t test.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.9131|STANDARD_DEVIATION|32.5093||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5987|3.7724||A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|t-test, 1 sided|||||3.7724|-17.5987|0.099
90978555|NCT02706938|181841529|OTHER|McNemar's chi squared statistic|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.0263||||0.8084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2651|0.2125||A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|McNemar|||||0.2125|-0.2651|0.8084
90978556|NCT01756456|181841531|SUPERIORITY|Each of the comparisons was conducted on the data for the Phase II segment of the study using a 2 × 2 chi-square test, based on the null hypothesis that there is no association between treatment (rhNGF or Vehicle Control) and response (Complete Healing at Week 4 \[Yes/No\]).|Difference in percentage|35.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.06|15.88|54.71|||Chi-squared|||Phase II||54.71|15.88|<0.001
91038612|NCT05133180|181961875|SUPERIORITY|"Changes from baseline in each IDEEL modules scale score was analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) adjusting by gender, age class, IDEEL module baseline value, treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Subject was considered as a random effect. The covariance matrix used was unstructured. Comparisons vs vehicle TID was provided using least square means at each visit and overall."|least square mean difference|1.072||||0.745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.398|7.542||P-value of LS means difference between treatments from the MMRM on change from baseline in IDEEL Treatment Satisfaction \& Bother module (Treatment- Related Bother / Inconvenience) at Week 4.|MMRM|||IDEEL Treatment satisfaction \& Bother Module - Treatment- Related Bother / Inconvenience - week 4||7.542|-5.398|0.745
90978557|NCT01756456|181841531|SUPERIORITY|Each of the comparisons was conducted on the data for the Phase II segment of the study using a 2 × 2 chi-square test, based on the null hypothesis that there is no association between treatment (rhNGF or Vehicle Control) and response (Complete Healing at Week 4 \[Yes/No\]).|Difference in percentage|38.4|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.06|18.96|57.83|||Chi-squared|||||57.83|18.96|=0.001
90978558|NCT01756456|181841532|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|25.8|||=|0.016|TWO_SIDED|97.06|3.66|47.87|||Chi-squared|||||47.87|3.66|=0.016
90978559|NCT01756456|181841532|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|34.7|||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|97.06|11.91|57.41|||Chi-squared|||||57.41|11.91|=0.002
90978560|NCT01756456|181841533|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage|2.4|||=|0.818|TWO_SIDED|97.06|-20.3|25.08|||Chi-squared|||At week 6 - reading center||25.08|-20.30|=0.818
90978561|NCT01756456|181841533|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage|-6.3|||=|0.571|TWO_SIDED|97.06|-30.62|17.96|||Chi-squared|||at week 6 - central reading center||17.96|-30.62|=0.571
90978562|NCT01756456|181841533|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|20.3|||=|0.064|TWO_SIDED|97.06|-3.11|43.79|||Chi-squared|||week 6 - investigator||43.79|-3.11|=0.064
90978563|NCT01756456|181841533|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|23.1|||=|0.041|TWO_SIDED|97.06|-0.89|47.04|||Chi-squared|||week 6 - investigator||47.04|-0.89|=0.041
90978564|NCT01756456|181841533|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|21.9|||=|0.031|TWO_SIDED|97.06|0.07|43.64|||Chi-squared|||week 8 - central reading center||43.64|0.07|=0.031
90978565|NCT01756456|181841533|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage|26.9|||=|0.008|TWO_SIDED|97.06|5.57|48.28|||Chi-squared|||week 8 - central reading center||48.28|5.57|=0.008
90978566|NCT01756456|181841533|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|26.1|||=|0.011|TWO_SIDED|97.06|4.18|48.01|||Chi-squared|||week 8 - investigator||48.01|4.18|=0.011
90978567|NCT01756456|181841533|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|25.9|||=|0.014|TWO_SIDED|97.06|3.55|48.33|||Chi-squared|||week 8 - investigator||48.33|3.55|=0.014
90978568|NCT01756456|181841534|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage|13.7|||=|0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|27.57|||Chi-squared|||week 4||27.57|-0.19|=0.065
90978569|NCT01756456|181841534|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage|12.4|||=|0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|26.78|||Chi-squared|||week 4||26.78|-2.05|=0.097
90978570|NCT01756456|181841534|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage|16.9|||=|0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.97|31.92|||Chi-squared|||week 6||31.92|1.97|=0.036
90978571|NCT01756456|181841534|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage|15.6|||=|0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|31.12|||Chi-squared|||week 6||31.12|0.04|=0.054
90978572|NCT01756456|181841534|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage|17.1|||=|0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|32.72|||Chi-squared|||week 8||32.72|1.45|=0.043
91050456|NCT04168190|181987010|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMC ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|1.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|1.86|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 11A. Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio, 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||1.86|1.27|<0.001
90978573|NCT01756456|181841534|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage|11.4|||=|0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.08|26.93|||Chi-squared|||week 8||26.93|-4.08|=0.157
90978574|NCT01756456|181841535|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|8.9|||=|0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|16.5|||ANCOVA|||||16.50|1.33|=0.022
90978575|NCT01756456|181841535|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|5.0|||=|0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|12.88|||ANCOVA|||||12.88|-2.90|=0.213
90978576|NCT01756456|181841536|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage|5.5|||=|0.592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.53|25.48|||Chi-squared|||week 4||25.48|-14.53|=0.592
90978577|NCT01756456|181841536|SUPERIORITY|week 4|difference in percentage|-2.3|||=|0.835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.01|19.4|||Chi-squared|||||19.40|-24.01|=0.835
90978578|NCT01756456|181841536|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage|27.7|||=|0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.1|47.22|||Chi-squared|||week 6||47.22|8.10|=0.008
90978579|NCT01756456|181841536|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage|12.4|||=|0.282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.91|34.68|||Chi-squared|||week 6||34.68|-9.91|=0.282
90978580|NCT01756456|181841536|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage|10.2|||=|0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.15|29.45|||Chi-squared|||||29.45|-9.15|=0.303
90978581|NCT01756456|181841536|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage|7.9|||=|0.442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.13|27.92|||Chi-squared|||week 8||27.92|-12.13|=0.442
90978582|NCT01756456|181841537|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage|-2.6|||=|0.597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.87|17.71|||Chi-squared|||week 4||17.71|-22.87|=0.597
90978583|NCT01756456|181841537|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage|-2.3|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.26|18.71|||Chi-squared|||week 4||18.71|-23.26|>0.999
90978584|NCT01756456|181841537|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage|-7.8|||=|0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.7|13.76|||Chi-squared|||week 6||13.76|-28.70|=0.183
90978585|NCT01756456|181841537|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage|-10.0|||=|0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.41|11.88|||Chi-squared|||week 6||11.88|-31.41|=0.116
90978586|NCT01756456|181841537|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage|-10.8|||=|0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.3|10.35|||Chi-squared|||week 8||10.35|-31.30|=0.134
90978587|NCT01756456|181841537|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage|-7.9|||=|0.307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.51|13.52|||Chi-squared|||week 8||13.52|-29.51|=0.307
90978588|NCT01756456|181841539|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.18|||=|0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|4.62|||Chi-squared|||week 4||4.62|1.03|=0.041
90978589|NCT01756456|181841539|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.95|||=|0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|4.11|||Chi-squared|||week 4||4.11|0.92|=0.081
90978590|NCT01756456|181841539|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.47|||=|0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|5.88|||Chi-squared|||week 8||5.88|1.04|=0.040
90978591|NCT01756456|181841539|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.93|||=|0.132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|4.52|||Chi-squared|||week 8||4.52|0.82|=0.132
90978592|NCT01756456|181841544|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage|15.8|||=|0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.36|33.97|||Chi-squared|||week 4||33.97|-2.36|=0.097
90978593|NCT01756456|181841544|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage|13.2|||=|0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.72|32.15|||Chi-squared|||week 4||32.15|-5.72|=0.175
90978594|NCT01756456|181841544|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage|16.9|||=|0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.11|37.0|||Chi-squared|||week 6||37.00|-3.11|=0.105
90946740|NCT03607422|181772609|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|6.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|10.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||10.0|3.4|<0.001
90946741|NCT03607422|181772610|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|7.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|10.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||10.5|3.8|<0.001
90946742|NCT03607422|181772611|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|8.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|12.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||12.9|4.3|<0.001
90946743|NCT03607422|181772612|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|-23.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.4|-17.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-17.8|-28.4|<0.001
90946744|NCT03607422|181772612|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|-22.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.8|-16.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-16.9|-27.8|<0.001
90946745|NCT03607422|181772613|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|49.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.2|57.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||57.3|42.2|<0.001
90946746|NCT03607422|181772613|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|37.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.1|45.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||45.8|30.1|<0.001
90978595|NCT01756456|181841544|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage|11.0|||=|0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.64|31.57|||Chi-squared|||week 6||31.57|-9.64|=0.300
90978596|NCT01756456|181841544|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage|27.5|||=|0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.33|46.67|||Chi-squared|||week 8||46.67|8.33|=0.008
90978597|NCT01756456|181841544|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage|19.0|||=|0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|38.83|||Chi-squared|||week 8||38.83|-0.91|=0.068
90946747|NCT03607422|181772614|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|51.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.4|59.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||59.1|44.4|<0.001
90946748|NCT03607422|181772614|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|35.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.2|43.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||43.5|28.2|<0.001
90946749|NCT03607422|181772615|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|53.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.0|60.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||60.6|46.0|<0.001
90946750|NCT03607422|181772615|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|40.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.7|48.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||48.0|32.7|<0.001
90946751|NCT03607422|181772616|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|54.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.2|62.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||62.3|47.2|<0.001
90946752|NCT03607422|181772616|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|40.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.3|48.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||48.3|32.3|<0.001
90978598|NCT00813995|181841548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Pairwise comparison|ANCOVA|||||||<.001
90978599|NCT02507349|181841553|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Time-by-treatment interaction||||<0.0001
90978600|NCT02507349|181841553|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0033|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Three-way interaction effect (treatment, polynomial time, and age group 1) where age group 1 is defined by 0 (reference) if \<=35; 1 if (35\<age\<=49); 2 if age \>49.||||0.0033
90978601|NCT02507349|181841553|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3164|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Three-way interaction effect (treatment, polynomial time, and SMI group). Participants with a diagnosis of major depression, schizoaffective or schizophrenia were classified into the SMI group and the reference group (Non-SMI) included diagnosis of anxiety, PTSD, depression/dysthymia/depression nos.||||0.3164
90978602|NCT02507349|181841553|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0482|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Three-way interaction effect of time, treatment, and the basis subgroups (no symptoms =group 1; at least 1 severe symptom = group 2)||||0.0482
90978603|NCT02507349|181841553|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9928|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Three-way interaction of Treatment, time, and subgroup of side effects. Subgroup of side effect= 0 if the response to the medication side effects question at baseline is 1, 2, or 3 (i.e. subgroup of participants who are minimally bothered by medication side effects at baseline); Subgroup of side effect= 1 if the response to the medication side effects question at baseline is 4-10 (i.e. subgroup of participants who are moderately or very bothered by medication side effects at baseline)||||0.9928
90946753|NCT03607422|181772617|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|50.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.8|58.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||58.5|42.8|<0.001
90946754|NCT03607422|181772617|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|37.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.5|46.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||46.3|29.5|<0.001
90946755|NCT03607422|181772618|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|18.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.5|22.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||22.7|13.5|<0.0001
90946756|NCT03607422|181772618|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|13.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.2|17.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||17.6|9.2|<0.001
90946757|NCT03607422|181772619|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer. This endpoint was a multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoint for European Union (EU)/European Medicines Agency (EMA) regulatory purposes only.|Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-49.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.364|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.05|-42.84|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|Mixed-effect model repeat measurement with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Baseline vIGA-AD category and age in the model.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-42.84|-56.05|<0.001
90946758|NCT03607422|181772619|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer. This endpoint was a multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes only.|LS Mean Difference|-34.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.386|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.81|-27.51|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|Mixed-effect model repeat measurement with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Baseline vIGA-AD category and age in the model.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-27.51|-40.81|<0.001
90978604|NCT02507349|181841554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6243|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Time-by-treatment interaction||||0.6243
90978605|NCT02507349|181841554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1969|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test for change over time from baseline (Marginal Effect of Time)||||0.1969
90978606|NCT02507349|181841554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0042|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Three-way interaction effect (treatment, polynomial time, and age group 1) where age group 1 is defined by 0 (reference) if \<=35; 1 if (35\<age\<=49); 2 if age \>49||||0.0042
90978607|NCT02507349|181841554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Three-way interaction effect (treatment, polynomial time, and SMI group). Participants with a diagnosis of major depression, schizoaffective or schizophrenia were classified into the SMI group and the reference group (Non-SMI) included diagnosis of anxiety, PTSD, depression/dysthymia/depression nos.||||0.0002
90978608|NCT02507349|181841554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7254|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Three-way interaction effect of time, treatment, and the basis subgroups (no symptoms =group 1; at least 1 severe symptom = group 2)||||0.7254
91050457|NCT04168190|181987010|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMC ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|2.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.75|3.04|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 12F. Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio, 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||3.04|1.75|<0.001
90978609|NCT02507349|181841554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.058|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Three-way interaction of Treatment, time, and subgroup of side effects. Subgroup of side effect= 0 if the response to the medication side effects question at baseline is 1, 2, or 3 (i.e. subgroup of participants who are minimally bothered by medication side effects at baseline); Subgroup of side effect= 1 if the response to the medication side effects question at baseline is 4-10 (i.e. subgroup of participants who are moderately or very bothered by medication side effects at baseline)||||0.0580
91038613|NCT05133180|181961875|SUPERIORITY|"Changes from baseline in each IDEEL modules scale score was analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)adjusting by gender, age class, IDEEL module baseline value, treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Subject was considered as a random effect. The covariance matrix used was unstructured. Comparisons vs vehicle TID was provided using least square means at each visit and overall."|least square mean difference|-4.206||||0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.53|7.118||P-value of LS means difference between treatments from the MMRM on change from baseline in IDEEL Treatment Satisfaction \& Bother module (Satisfaction with Treatment Effectiveness) at Week 12.|MMRM|||IDEEL Treatment satisfaction \& Bother Module - Satisfaction with Treatment Effectiveness - week 12||7.118|-15.530|0.467
91038614|NCT05133180|181961875|SUPERIORITY|"Changes from baseline in each IDEEL modules scale score was analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)adjusting by gender, age class, IDEEL module baseline value, treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Subject was considered as a random effect. The covariance matrix used was unstructured. Comparisons vs vehicle TID was provided using least square means at each visit and overall."|least square mean difference|2.244||||0.564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.387|9.874||P-value of LS means difference between treatments from the MMRM on change from baseline in IDEEL Treatment Satisfaction \& Bother module (Treatment- Related Bother / Inconvenience) at Week 12.|MMRM|||IDEEL Treatment satisfaction \& Bother Module - Treatment- Related Bother / Inconvenience - week 12||9.874|-5.387|0.564
91038615|NCT05133180|181961876|SUPERIORITY|"Changes from baseline in each IDEEL modules scale score was analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) adjusting by gender, age class, IDEEL module baseline value, treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Subject was considered as a random effect. The covariance matrix used was unstructured. Comparisons vs vehicle TID was provided using least square means at each visit and overall."|least square mean difference|-0.805||||0.802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.086|5.476||P-value of LS means difference between treatments from the MMRM on change from baseline in IDEEL Symptom Bother Module at Week 4.|MMRM|||IDEEL - Symptom Bother module - week 4||5.476|-7.086|0.802
90946759|NCT03607422|181772620|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer. This endpoint was a multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes only.|LS Mean Difference|-50.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.127|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.28|-44.0|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|Mixed-effect model repeat measurement with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Baseline vIGA-AD category and age in the model.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-44.00|-56.28|<0.001
90946760|NCT03607422|181772620|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer. This endpoint was a multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes only.|LS Mean Difference|-39.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.139|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.79|-33.46|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|Mixed-effect model repeat measurement with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Baseline vIGA-AD category and age in the model.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-33.46|-45.79|<0.001
90946761|NCT03607422|181772621|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer. This endpoint was a multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes only.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|54.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.7|61.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||61.7|47.7|<0.001
90946762|NCT03607422|181772621|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|42.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.5|49.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer. This endpoint was a multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes only.||49.8|34.5|<0.001
90978610|NCT02507349|181841555|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4677|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Time-by-treatment interaction||||0.4677
90978611|NCT02507349|181841555|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.094|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test for change over time from baseline (Marginal Effect of Time)||||0.0940
90978612|NCT02507349|181841556|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8733|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Time-by-treatment interaction||||0.8733
90978613|NCT02507349|181841556|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0113|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test for change over time from baseline (Marginal Effect of Time)||||0.0113
90978614|NCT02507349|181841557|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2328|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Time-by-treatment interaction||||0.2328
90978615|NCT02507349|181841557|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test for change over time from baseline (Marginal Effect of Time)||||0.0005
90978616|NCT02507349|181841558|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0033|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Time-by-treatment interaction||||0.0033
90978617|NCT02507349|181841559|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1649|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Time-by-treatment interaction||||0.1649
90978618|NCT02507349|181841559|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0016|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test for change over time from baseline (Marginal Effect of Time)||||0.0016
90978619|NCT02507349|181841560|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Time-by-treatment interaction||||0.0080
90978620|NCT02507349|181841561|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
90978621|NCT02507349|181841562|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0003
90978622|NCT01360996|181841598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<.0001
90978623|NCT01360996|181841599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
90978624|NCT01360996|181841600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
90978625|NCT01360996|181841601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90978626|NCT01360996|181841602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||McNemar|||||||<0.0001
90978627|NCT01360996|181841603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90978628|NCT01360996|181841604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.04|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.04
90978629|NCT03377634|181841605|OTHER|Analysis of covariance on change in PROMIS Pain intensity, with group as fixed effect and controlling for baseline pain intensity||||||0.11|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.11
90978630|NCT03377634|181841606|OTHER|Analysis of covariance on change in PROMIS pain interference, with group as fixed effect and controlling for baseline pain interference||||||0.99|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.99
90978631|NCT03377634|181841607|OTHER|Analysis of covariance on change in SPPB, with group as fixed effect and controlling for baseline SPPB||||||0.14|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.14
90978632|NCT03377634|181841608|OTHER|Analysis of covariance on change in weight, with group as fixed effect and controlling for baseline weight||||||0.11|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.11
90978633|NCT03377634|181841609|OTHER|Analysis of covariance on change in activity time, with group as fixed effect and controlling for baseline stepping time||||||0.65|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.65
90978634|NCT03377634|181841610|OTHER|Analysis of covariance on change in sitting time, with group as fixed effect and controlling for baseline sitting time||||||0.41|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.41
90978635|NCT03377634|181841611|OTHER|Analysis of covariance on change in sit to stand transitions, with group as fixed effect and controlling for baseline transitions||||||0.28|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.28
90978636|NCT00584870|181841652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares (LS) Mean Difference|-1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.67|-0.67||p-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and statistical test was 1-sided with 0.1 significance level.|Repeated Measures Model|||LS mean difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with baseline, center, treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed main effects and participant as random effect.||-0.67|-1.67|0.001
90978637|NCT01015833|181841722|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.4|||t-test, 1 sided|||||1.4|0.8|0.24
90978638|NCT01015833|181841724|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.2|||t-test, 1 sided|||||1.2|0.72|0.98
90978639|NCT03726268|181841749|OTHER|||||||0.97|||||||Negative binomial regression|||||||0.970
90978640|NCT03726268|181841749|OTHER|||||||0.631|||||||Negative binomial regression|||||||0.631
90978641|NCT03726268|181841750|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90978642|NCT03726268|181841750|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90978643|NCT03726268|181841751|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90978644|NCT03726268|181841751|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.004
90978645|NCT03726268|181841752|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90978646|NCT03726268|181841752|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90978647|NCT03726268|181841753|OTHER|||||||0.105|||||||Negative binomial regression|||||||0.105
90978648|NCT03726268|181841753|OTHER|||||||0.531|||||||Negative binomial regression|||||||0.531
90978649|NCT04743856|181841766|OTHER|||||||0.63||||||Apriori p-value for significance was \<0.05. Models were not adjusted for additional covariates and multiple comparisons adjustment was not performed.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed models for binomial outcomes were run to determine if there were significant differences in meeting goal over time.||||||0.63
90978650|NCT04743856|181841767|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1106.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|592.76||0.0665||||||Apriori significance level was p\<0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made.|Mixed Models Analysis|Models were not adjusted for additional variables.||||||0.0665
90978651|NCT04696861|181841783|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.961||||||Unitized unadjusted bivariate analyses instead of adjusted multivariable analysis. This was a pilot study to estimate the magnitude of effect sizes for informing further large interventions. The significance level was also not adjusted.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Generalized linear mixed models were conducted and odds ratios (ORs) were reported||||0.961
90978652|NCT04696861|181841784|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.961||||||Unitized unadjusted bivariate analyses instead of adjusted multivariable analysis. This was a pilot study to estimate the magnitude of effect sizes for informing further large interventions. The significance level was also not adjusted.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Generalized linear mixed models were conducted and odds ratios (ORs) were reported||||0.961
90978653|NCT04696861|181841785|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.368||||||Unitized unadjusted bivariate analyses instead of adjusted multivariable analysis. This was a pilot study to estimate the magnitude of effect sizes for informing further large interventions. The significance level was also not adjusted.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Generalized linear mixed models were conducted and odds ratios (ORs) were reported||||0.368
90978654|NCT04696861|181841787|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.634||||||Unitized unadjusted bivariate analyses instead of adjusted multivariable analysis. This was a pilot study to estimate the magnitude of effect sizes for informing further large interventions. The significance level was also not adjusted.|Mixed Models Analysis|||General linear mixed models||||0.634
90978655|NCT04696861|181841788|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.832||||||Unitized unadjusted bivariate analyses instead of adjusted multivariable analysis. This was a pilot study to estimate the magnitude of effect sizes for informing further large interventions. The significance level was also not adjusted.|Mixed Models Analysis|||General linear mixed models||||0.832
90978656|NCT04696861|181841790|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.624||||||Unitized unadjusted bivariate analyses instead of adjusted multivariable analysis. This was a pilot study to estimate the magnitude of effect sizes for informing further large interventions. The significance level was also not adjusted.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Generalized linear mixed models were conducted and odds ratios (ORs) were reported||||0.624
90978657|NCT04696861|181841791|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.833||||||Unitized unadjusted bivariate analyses instead of adjusted multivariable analysis. This was a pilot study to estimate the magnitude of effect sizes for informing further large interventions. The significance level was also not adjusted.|Mixed Models Analysis|||General linear mixed models||||0.833
90978658|NCT04696861|181841792|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7||||||Unitized unadjusted bivariate analyses instead of adjusted multivariable analysis. This was a pilot study to estimate the magnitude of effect sizes for informing further large interventions. The significance level was also not adjusted.|Mixed Models Analysis|||General linear mixed models||||0.7
91038616|NCT05133180|181961876|SUPERIORITY|"Changes from baseline in each IDEEL modules scale score was analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) adjusting by gender, age class, IDEEL module baseline value, treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Subject was considered as a random effect. The covariance matrix used was unstructured. Comparisons vs vehicle TID was provided using least square means at each visit and overall."|least square mean difference|-8.789||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.16|-1.418||P-value of LS means difference between treatments from the MMRM on change from baseline in IDEEL Symptom Bother Module at Week 12.|MMRM|||IDEEL - Symptom Bother module - week 12||-1.418|-16.160|0.019
90978659|NCT04696861|181841793|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79||||||Unitized unadjusted bivariate analyses instead of adjusted multivariable analysis. This was a pilot study to estimate the magnitude of effect sizes for informing further large interventions. The significance level was also not adjusted.|Mixed Models Analysis|||General linear mixed models||||0.79
90978660|NCT04696861|181841794|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55||||||Unitized unadjusted bivariate analyses instead of adjusted multivariable analysis. This was a pilot study to estimate the magnitude of effect sizes for informing further large interventions. The significance level was also not adjusted.|Mixed Models Analysis|||General linear mixed models||||0.55
90978661|NCT04696861|181841795|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.823|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.823
90978662|NCT04696861|181841796|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.942|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.942
90978663|NCT04696861|181841797|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.207||||||Unitized unadjusted bivariate analyses instead of adjusted multivariable analysis. This was a pilot study to estimate the magnitude of effect sizes for informing further large interventions. The significance level was also not adjusted.|Mixed Models Analysis|||General linear mixed models||||0.207
90978664|NCT04696861|181841798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.594||||||Unitized unadjusted bivariate analyses instead of adjusted multivariable analysis. This was a pilot study to estimate the magnitude of effect sizes for informing further large interventions. The significance level was also not adjusted.|Mixed Models Analysis|||General linear mixed models||||0.594
90978665|NCT04696861|181841799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.738||||||Unitized unadjusted bivariate analyses instead of adjusted multivariable analysis. This was a pilot study to estimate the magnitude of effect sizes for informing further large interventions. The significance level was also not adjusted.|Mixed Models Analysis|||General linear mixed models||||0.738
91038617|NCT05133180|181961877|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|-1.518||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.005|-0.031||P-value of LS means difference between treatments from the MMRM on change from baseline in Cornea and conjunctiva vital staining with fluorescein NEI scale at Week 4.|MMRM|||Herein Week 4 was considered. The change from baseline in Cornea and conjunctiva vital staining with fluorescein NEI scale was analyzed by means of an MMRM adjusting by pre-defined factors (gender, age class, NEI scale baseline value, treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction; subject was considered as a random effect).||-0.031|-3.005|0.045
90978666|NCT04696861|181841800|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.845||||||Unitized unadjusted bivariate analyses instead of adjusted multivariable analysis. This was a pilot study to estimate the magnitude of effect sizes for informing further large interventions. The significance level was also not adjusted.|Mixed Models Analysis|||General linear mixed models||||0.845
90978667|NCT01813890|181841808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|105.61||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.0|179.2||P-value adjusted for multiple treatment group comparisons using the Hochberg method.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group and center as factors and baseline pain intensity as covariate.|Difference is SPID48 in tapentadol IR group minus SPID48 in placebo group|Based on participant availability in Taiwan it was expected that 60 subjects (20 per group) would be enrolled. In consultation with the Taiwan health authority, the overall two-sided significance level was set at 0.20 (0.10 for each tapentadol versus placebo comparison). Assuming a standard deviation of 134.4, this sample size would provide 71.5% power to detect a between-group difference in SPID48 of 94.1 and 81.2% power to detect a between-group difference of 107.52.||179.2|32.0|0.006
90978668|NCT01813890|181841808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|126.58||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.5|203.7||P-value adjusted for multiple treatment group comparisons using the Hochberg method.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group and center as factors and baseline pain intensity as covariate.|Difference is SPID48 in tapentadol IR group minus SPID48 in placebo group.|Based on participant availability in Taiwan it was expected that 60 subjects (20 per group) would be enrolled. In consultation with the Taiwan health authority, the overall two-sided significance level was set at 0.20 (0.10 for each tapentadol versus placebo comparison). Assuming a standard deviation of 134.4, this sample size would provide 71.5% power to detect a between-group difference in SPID48 of 94.1 and 81.2% power to detect a between-group difference of 107.52.||203.7|49.5|0.004
90978669|NCT03952559|181841822|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.7261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.21|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.21|0.58|0.7261
90978670|NCT03952559|181841822|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.0718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|3.41|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.41|0.95|0.0718
90978671|NCT03952559|181841822|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|6.89|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.89|2.02|<0.0001
90978672|NCT03952559|181841825|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.9615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.74|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.74|0.59|0.9615
90978673|NCT03952559|181841825|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|2.41|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.41|0.83|0.2010
91038618|NCT05133180|181961877|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|-1.773||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.446|-0.101||P-value of LS means difference between treatments from the MMRM on change from baseline in Cornea and conjunctiva vital staining with fluorescein NEI scale at Week 8.|MMRM|||Herein Week 8 was considered. The change from baseline in Cornea and conjunctiva vital staining with fluorescein NEI scale was analyzed by means of an MMRM adjusting by pre-defined factors (gender, age class, NEI scale baseline value, treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction; subject was considered as a random effect).||-0.101|-3.446|0.038
90978674|NCT03952559|181841825|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.33||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|3.95|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.95|1.38|0.0017
90978675|NCT03952559|181841826|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.8544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|2.01|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.01|0.43|0.8544
91038619|NCT05133180|181961877|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|-1.224||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.096|0.649||P-value of LS means difference between treatments from the MMRM on change from baseline in Cornea and conjunctiva vital staining with fluorescein NEI scale at Week 12|MMRM|||Herein Week 12 was considered. The change from baseline in Cornea and conjunctiva vital staining with fluorescein NEI scale was analyzed by means of an MMRM adjusting by pre-defined factors (gender, age class, NEI scale baseline value, treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction; subject was considered as a random effect).||0.649|-3.096|0.200
91038620|NCT05133180|181961878|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|1.64||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.98||P-value of LS means difference between treatments from the MMRM on change from baseline in TFBUT at Week 4.|MMRM|||Herein week 4 was considered. The change from baseline in TFBUT values was analyzed by means of a MMRM adjusting by pre-defined factors (gender, age class, TFBUT baseline value, treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction; subject was considered as a random effect).||2.980|0.300|0.016
91038621|NCT05133180|181961878|SUPERIORITY||least ssquare mean difference|1.133||||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.329|2.596||P-value of LS means difference between treatments from the MMRM on change from baseline in TFBUT at Week 8.|MMRM|||Herein week 8 was considered. The change from baseline in TFBUT values was analyzed by means of a MMRM adjusting by pre-defined factors (gender, age class, TFBUT baseline value, treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction; subject was considered as a random effect).||2.596|-0.329|0.129
91038622|NCT05133180|181961878|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|1.36||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.002|2.722||P-value of LS means difference between treatments from the MMRM on change from baseline in TFBUT at Week 12.|MMRM|||Herein week 12 was considered. The change from baseline in TFBUT values was analyzed by means of a MMRM adjusting by pre-defined factors (gender, age class, TFBUT baseline value, treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction; subject was considered as a random effect).||2.722|-0.002|0.050
91038623|NCT05133180|181961879|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all participants.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein Week 4 was considered. Change from baseline between the two treatment groups was compared using a two-sample t-test or a Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilson rank sum) test if normality assumption not met.||||<0.001
90978676|NCT03952559|181841826|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.96||||0.0561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|3.91|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.91|0.98|0.0561
90978677|NCT03952559|181841826|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.99||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|5.82|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.82|1.54|0.0012
90978678|NCT03952559|181841827|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-1.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.349||0.2627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.16|1.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.14|-4.16|0.2627
90978679|NCT03952559|181841827|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-1.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.342||0.2135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.31|0.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.97|-4.31|0.2135
90978680|NCT03952559|181841827|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-2.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.347||0.0443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.36|-0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.07|-5.36|0.0443
90978681|NCT03952559|181841828|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73||||0.4943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.78|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.78|0.30|0.4943
90978682|NCT03952559|181841828|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72||||0.1677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|3.7|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.70|0.80|0.1677
90978683|NCT03952559|181841828|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.24||||0.0336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|4.7|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.70|1.06|0.0336
90978684|NCT03952559|181841829|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.8866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|2.77|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.77|0.42|0.8866
90978685|NCT03952559|181841829|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73||||0.2316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|4.26|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.26|0.70|0.2316
90978686|NCT03952559|181841829|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|2.59||||0.0328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|6.22|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.22|1.08|0.0328
90978687|NCT03952559|181841830|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.5361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.98|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.98|0.70|0.5361
90978688|NCT03952559|181841830|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.4417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.06|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.06|0.73|0.4417
90978689|NCT03952559|181841830|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.0121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|3.43|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.43|1.16|0.0121
90978690|NCT03952559|181841831|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.7706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|3.78|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.78|0.37|0.7706
91038624|NCT05133180|181961879|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all participants|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein Week 8 was considered. Change from baseline between the two treatment groups was compared using a two-sample t-test or a Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilson rank sum) test if normality assumption not met.||||0.009
91038625|NCT05133180|181961879|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all participants.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein Week 12 was considered. Change from baseline between the two treatment groups was compared using a two-sample t-test or a Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilson rank sum) test if normality assumption not met.||||0.020
90978691|NCT03952559|181841831|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.7409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|3.86|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.86|0.38|0.7409
90978692|NCT03952559|181841831|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.15||||0.0253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|8.63|||Regression, Logistic|||||8.63|1.15|0.0253
90978693|NCT03952559|181841832|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-3.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.576||0.1317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.95|1.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.17|-8.95|0.1317
90978694|NCT03952559|181841832|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-5.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.564||0.0451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.19|-0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.11|-10.19|0.0451
90978695|NCT03952559|181841832|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-7.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.566||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.66|-2.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.58|-12.66|0.0031
90978696|NCT03952559|181841833|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.53||||0.4238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|2.49|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.49|0.11|0.4238
90978697|NCT03952559|181841833|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.5118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|5.08|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.08|0.44|0.5118
90978698|NCT03952559|181841833|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.92||||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|11.52|||Regression, Logistic|||||11.52|1.34|0.0129
91038626|NCT05133180|181961879|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all participants.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein Week 16 was considered. Change from baseline between the two treatment groups was compared using a two-sample t-test or a Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilson rank sum) test if normality assumption not met.||||0.022
90978699|NCT03952559|181841834|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-1.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.168||0.4852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.77|2.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.75|-5.77|0.4852
90978700|NCT03952559|181841834|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-1.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.16||0.4205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.98|2.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.50|-5.98|0.4205
90978701|NCT03952559|181841834|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-5.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.161||0.0138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.59|-1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.10|-9.59|0.0138
90978702|NCT03952559|181841835|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
90978703|NCT03952559|181841835|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.540
90978704|NCT03952559|181841835|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.302|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.302
90978705|NCT03952559|181841836|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|4.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.03||0.375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.41|14.35|||ANOVA|||||14.35|-5.41|0.375
90978706|NCT03952559|181841836|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|3.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.03||0.536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.76|13.0|||ANOVA|||||13.00|-6.76|0.536
90978707|NCT03952559|181841836|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|12.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.03||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.29|22.05|||ANOVA|||||22.05|2.29|0.016
90978708|NCT03952559|181841837|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-49.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|27.28||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-102.81|4.42|||ANOVA|||||4.42|-102.81|0.073
90978709|NCT03952559|181841837|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-37.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|27.29||0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-91.0|16.23|||ANOVA|||||16.23|-91.00|0.172
90978710|NCT03952559|181841837|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-80.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|27.28||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-133.98|-26.75|||ANOVA|||||-26.75|-133.98|0.004
90978711|NCT03952559|181841838|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.372||0.0829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.08|-1.38|0.0829
90978712|NCT03952559|181841838|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.368||0.1752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.22|-1.22|0.1752
90978713|NCT03952559|181841838|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.366||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|-0.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.38|-1.82|0.0029
90978714|NCT03952559|181841839|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.193||0.2688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.17|-0.60|0.2688
90978715|NCT03952559|181841839|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.193||0.0166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.09|-0.85|0.0166
90978716|NCT03952559|181841839|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.202||0.0908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.06|-0.75|0.0908
91038627|NCT05133180|181961880|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.065||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all participants|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein Week 16 was considered. Change from baseline between the two treatment groups was compared using a two-sample t-test or a Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilson rank sum) test if normality assumption not met.||||0.065
90978717|NCT03952559|181841840|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.956||0.3409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.79|0.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.97|-2.79|0.3409
90978718|NCT03952559|181841840|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-1.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.952||0.1022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.43|0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.31|-3.43|0.1022
90978719|NCT03952559|181841840|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-1.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.953||0.1024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.43|0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.31|-3.43|0.1024
90978720|NCT03952559|181841841|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.157||0.1436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.08|-0.54|0.1436
91038628|NCT05133180|181961881|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.125||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all participants.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein week 16 was considered. Change from baseline between the two treatment groups was compared using a two-sample t-test or a Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilson rank sum) test if normality assumption not met.||||0.125
90978721|NCT03952559|181841841|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.154||0.0483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.00|-0.61|0.0483
90978722|NCT03952559|181841841|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.154||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.20|-0.80|0.0012
90978723|NCT03952559|181841842|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.755||0.9183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.27|3.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||for 8 to \<18 years old||3.63|-3.27|0.9183
90978724|NCT03952559|181841842|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.529||0.4805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.09|1.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|||for 8 to \<18 years old||1.93|-4.09|0.4805
90978725|NCT03952559|181841842|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.812||0.3488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.26|1.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||for 8 to \<18 years old||1.86|-5.26|0.3488
90978726|NCT03952559|181841842|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.12||0.2388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.85|7.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||for 5 to \<8 years old||7.66|-4.85|0.2388
90978727|NCT03952559|181841842|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-3.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.542||0.0098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.23|3.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||for 5 to \<8 years old||3.98|-10.23|0.0098
90978728|NCT03952559|181841842|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.14||0.1698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.18|7.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||for 5 to \<8 years old||7.42|-5.18|0.1698
90978729|NCT03952559|181841843|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.813||0.8611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.24|3.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||for 8 to \<18 years old||3.88|-3.24|0.8611
90978730|NCT03952559|181841843|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.571||0.5098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.12|2.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||for 8 to \<18 years old||2.05|-4.12|0.5098
90978731|NCT03952559|181841843|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.87||0.1997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.08|1.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||for 8 to \<18 years old||1.27|-6.08|0.1997
90978732|NCT03952559|181841843|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|1.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.351||0.1957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.11|8.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||for 5 to \<8 years old||8.35|-5.11|0.1957
90978733|NCT03952559|181841843|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.864||0.0881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.19|7.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||for 5 to \<8 years old||7.32|-8.19|0.0881
90978734|NCT03952559|181841843|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|1.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.379||0.1604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.27|8.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||for 5 to \<8 years old||8.28|-5.27|0.1604
90978735|NCT03952559|181841844|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.647||0.2987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|0.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.59|-1.93|0.2987
91038629|NCT05133180|181961882|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all participants.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein Week 8 was considered. Change from baseline between the two treatment groups was compared using a two-sample t-test or a Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilson rank sum) test if normality assumption not met.||||0.005
90978736|NCT03952559|181841844|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.632||0.3096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.60|-1.88|0.3096
90978737|NCT03952559|181841844|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.635||0.6341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|0.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.95|-1.55|0.6341
90978738|NCT03952559|181841845|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|5.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.323||0.2871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.54|17.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||17.09|-6.54|0.2871
90978739|NCT03952559|181841845|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|4.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.835||0.3093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.83|17.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||17.29|-7.83|0.3093
91038630|NCT05133180|181961882|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.116||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all participants.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein Week 12 was considered. Change from baseline between the two treatment groups was compared using a two-sample t-test or a Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilson rank sum) test if normality assumption not met.||||0.116
90978740|NCT03952559|181841845|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.788||0.2912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.22|8.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.21|-18.22|0.2912
90978741|NCT03952559|181841846|SUPERIORITY|Absenteeism Change from Baseline|LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.119||0.6079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.74|4.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.54|-7.74|0.6079
90978742|NCT03952559|181841846|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-1.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.092||0.5492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.94|4.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Absenteeism Change from Baseline||4.24|-7.94|0.5492
91038631|NCT05133180|181961882|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.864||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all participants.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein Week 16 was considered. Change from baseline between the two treatment groups was compared using a two-sample t-test or a Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilson rank sum) test if normality assumption not met.||||0.864
91038632|NCT05133180|181961883|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all participants.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein Week 8 was considered. Change from baseline between the two treatment groups was compared using a two-sample t-test or a Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilson rank sum) test if normality assumption not met.||||0.011
91038633|NCT05133180|181961883|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.316||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all participants.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein Week 12 was considered. Change from baseline between the two treatment groups was compared using a two-sample t-test or a Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilson rank sum) test if normality assumption not met.||||0.316
90978743|NCT03952559|181841846|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-4.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.281||0.1338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.39|1.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Absenteeism Change from Baseline||1.53|-11.39|0.1338
90978744|NCT03952559|181841846|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.566||0.7928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.96|6.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Presenteeism Change from Baseline||6.08|-7.96|0.7928
90978745|NCT03952559|181841846|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.553||0.1366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|1.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Presenteeism Change from Baseline||1.69|-12.30|0.1366
90978746|NCT03952559|181841846|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-6.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.792||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.21|0.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Presenteeism Change from Baseline||0.71|-14.21|0.0760
91038634|NCT05133180|181961883|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.685||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all participants.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein Week 16 was considered. Change from baseline between the two treatment groups was compared using a two-sample t-test or a Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilson rank sum) test if normality assumption not met.||||0.685
91038635|NCT05133180|181961884|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all participants.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein Week 8 was considered. Change from baseline between the two treatment groups was compared using a two-sample t-test or a Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilson rank sum) test if normality assumption not met.||||0.016
90978747|NCT03952559|181841846|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-4.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.561||0.3602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.16|4.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Overall Work Impairment Change from Baseline||4.80|-13.16|0.3602
90978748|NCT03952559|181841846|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-6.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.516||0.1678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.14|2.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Overall Work Impairment Change from Baseline||2.65|-15.14|0.1678
90978749|NCT03952559|181841846|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-11.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.808||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|-2.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Overall Work Impairment Change from Baseline||-2.08|-21.00|0.0170
90978750|NCT03952559|181841846|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-4.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.174||0.1645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.66|1.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Activity Impairment Change from Baseline||1.82|-10.66|0.1645
90978751|NCT03952559|181841846|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-4.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.158||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.07|1.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Activity Impairment Change from Baseline||1.34|-11.07|0.1240
90978752|NCT03952559|181841846|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-7.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.163||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.23|-0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Activity Impairment Change from Baseline||-0.80|-13.23|0.0270
90978753|NCT03952559|181841847|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|1.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.778||0.4778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.49|7.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.43|-3.49|0.4778
90978754|NCT03952559|181841847|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|2.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.743||0.4649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.38|7.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.39|-3.38|0.4649
90978755|NCT03952559|181841847|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|4.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.755||0.1013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|9.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.94|-0.89|0.1013
91038636|NCT05133180|181961884|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all participants|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein Week 12 was considered. Change from baseline between the two treatment groups was compared using a two-sample t-test or a Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilson rank sum) test if normality assumption not met.||||0.160
91038637|NCT05133180|181961884|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.839||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all participants.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein Week 16 was considered. Change from baseline between the two treatment groups was compared using a two-sample t-test or a Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilson rank sum) test if normality assumption not met.||||0.839
91038638|NCT05133180|181961885|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0455|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0455
91038639|NCT05133180|181961886|SUPERIORITY|Changes from baseline in each IDEEL modules scale score was analyzed by comparing the two treatment groups using a two-sample t-test or a Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilson rank sum) test if normality assumption was not met.||||||0.06||||||p-value corresponds to two sample (independent group) t-test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all participants.|t-test, 2 sided|||Quality of life - Impact on daily activities - Week 8||||0.060
90978756|NCT03952559|181841848|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.174||0.6574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.42|-0.27|0.6574
90978757|NCT03952559|181841848|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.172||0.9488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.33|-0.35|0.9488
91038640|NCT05133180|181961886|SUPERIORITY|Changes from baseline in each IDEEL modules scale score was analyzed by comparing the two treatment groups using a two-sample t-test or a Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilson rank sum) test if normality assumption was not met.||||||0.079||||||p-value corresponds to two sample (independent group) t-test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all participants.|t-test, 2 sided|||Quality of life - Emotional impact due to Dry eye - Week 8||||0.079
91038641|NCT05133180|181961886|SUPERIORITY|Changes from baseline in each IDEEL modules scale score was analyzed by comparing the two treatment groups using a two-sample t-test or a Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilson rank sum) test if normality assumption was not met.||||||0.251||||||p-value corresponds to two sample (independent group) t-test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all participants|t-test, 2 sided|||Quality of life - Impact on work due to Dry Eye - Week 8||||0.251
91038642|NCT05133180|181961886|SUPERIORITY|Changes from baseline in each IDEEL modules scale score was analyzed by comparing the two treatment groups using a two-sample t-test or a Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilson rank sum) test if normality assumption was not met.||||||0.203||||||p-value corresponds to two sample (independent group) t-test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all participants.|t-test, 2 sided|||Quality of life - Impact on daily activities - Week 16||||0.203
90978758|NCT03952559|181841848|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.172||0.4546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.21|-0.47|0.4546
91038643|NCT05133180|181961886|SUPERIORITY|Changes from baseline in each IDEEL modules scale score was analyzed by comparing the two treatment groups using a two-sample t-test or a Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilson rank sum) test if normality assumption was not met.||||||0.114||||||p-value corresponds to two sample (independent group) t-test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all participants.|t-test, 2 sided|||Quality of life - Emotional impact due to Dry eye - Week 16||||0.114
91038644|NCT05133180|181961886|SUPERIORITY|Changes from baseline in each IDEEL modules scale score was analyzed by comparing the two treatment groups using a two-sample t-test or a Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilson rank sum) test if normality assumption was not met.||||||0.112||||||p-value corresponds to two sample (independent group) t-test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all participants.|t-test, 2 sided|||Quality of life - Impact on work due to Dry Eye - Week 16||||0.112
90978759|NCT03952559|181841849|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.8133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.62|-0.79|0.8133
90978760|NCT03952559|181841849|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.355||0.2517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.29|-1.11|0.2517
90978761|NCT03952559|181841849|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.354||0.0803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.08|-1.32|0.0803
90978762|NCT02587338|181841867|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.74
90978763|NCT02587338|181841868|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.062|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.062
90978764|NCT00630331|181841880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Vaccine Efficacy|83.8|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|61.0|||Adjusted p-values are from score statistic with Sidak correction testing the null hypothesis that the VE of CCI vs. placebo is \<= 40% (the relative risk, \>= 0.60). If adjusted p-value is \<0.025, then the comparison is statistically significant.|Sidak-corrected score CI|||"Vaccine efficacy (VE) of CCI vaccine vs. Placebo (Overall)~Simultaneous one-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the VE of CCI vaccine relative to Placebo was based on the Sidak-corrected score CIs for the two relative risks."|||61.0|<0.001
90978765|NCT00630331|181841880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Vaccine Efficacy|88.2|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|67.4|||Adjusted p-values are from score statistic with Sidak correction testing the null hypothesis that the VE of CCI vs. placebo is \<= 40% (the relative risk, \>= 0.60). If adjusted p-value is \<0.025, then the comparison is statistically significant.|Sidak-corrected score CI|||"Vaccine efficacy (VE) of CCI vaccine vs. Placebo for A/H1N1 strain~Simultaneous one-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the VE of CCI vaccine relative to Placebo was based on the Sidak-corrected score CIs for the two relative risks."|||67.4|<0.001
90978766|NCT00630331|181841880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.999||97.5||||Adjusted p-values are from score statistic with Sidak correction testing the null hypothesis that the VE of CCI vs. placebo is \<= 40% (the relative risk, \>= 0.60). If adjusted p-value is \<0.025, then the comparison is statistically significant.|Sidak-corrected score CI|For strain A/H3N2, the vaccine efficacy of the CCI vaccine vs. placebo was not evaluable since no influenza case was observed in the placebo group.||Vaccine efficacy (VE) of CCI vaccine vs. Placebo for A/H3N2 strain. Simultaneous one-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the VE of CCI vaccine relative to Placebo was based on the Sidak-corrected score CIs for the two relative risks.||||0.999
90978767|NCT00630331|181841880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Vaccine Efficacy|100.0||||0.394|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-410.0|||Adjusted p-values are from score statistic with Sidak correction testing the null hypothesis that the VE of CCI vs. placebo is \<= 40% (the relative risk, \>= 0.60). If adjusted p-value is \<0.025, then the comparison is statistically significant.|Sidak-corrected score CI|||"Vaccine efficacy (VE) of CCI vaccine vs. Placebo for B strain~Simultaneous one-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the VE of CCI vaccine relative to Placebo was based on the Sidak-corrected score CIs for the two relative risks."|||-410|0.394
90978768|NCT00630331|181841880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Vaccine Efficacy|78.4||||0.004|ONE_SIDED|97.5|52.1|||Adjusted p-values are from score statistic with Sidak correction testing the null hypothesis that the VE of IVV vs. placebo is \<= 40% (the relative risk, \>= 0.60). If adjusted p-value is \<0.025, then the comparison is statistically significant.|Sidak-corrected score CI|||"Vaccine efficacy (VE) of IVV vaccine vs. Placebo (Overall)~Simultaneous one-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the VE of IVV vaccine relative to Placebo was based on the Sidak-corrected score CIs for the two relative risks."|||52.1|0.004
90978769|NCT00630331|181841880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Vaccine Efficacy|80.3||||0.002|ONE_SIDED|97.5|54.7|||Adjusted p-values are from score statistic with Sidak correction testing the null hypothesis that the VE of IVV vs. placebo is \<= 40% (the relative risk, \>= 0.60). If adjusted p-value is \<0.025, then the comparison is statistically significant.|Sidak-corrected score CI|||"Vaccine efficacy (VE) of IVV vaccine vs. Placebo for A/H1N1 strain~Simultaneous one-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the VE of IVV vaccine relative to Placebo was based on the Sidak-corrected score CIs for the two relative risks."|||54.7|0.002
90978770|NCT00630331|181841880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.992||97.5||||Adjusted p-values are from score statistic with Sidak correction testing the null hypothesis that the VE of IVV vs. placebo is \<= 40% (the relative risk, \>= 0.60). If adjusted p-value is \<0.025, then the comparison is statistically significant.|Sidak-corrected score CI|For strain A/H3N2, the vaccine efficacy of the IVV vaccine vs. placebo was not evaluable since no influenza case was observed in the placebo group.||Vaccine efficacy (VE) of IVV vaccine vs. Placebo for A/H3N2 strain. Simultaneous one-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the VE of IVV vaccine relative to Placebo was based on the Sidak-corrected score CIs for the two relative risks.||||0.992
90978771|NCT00630331|181841880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Vaccine Efficacy|100.0||||0.4|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-429.4|||Adjusted p-values are from score statistic with Sidak correction testing the null hypothesis that the VE of IVV vs. placebo is \<= 40% (the relative risk, \>= 0.60). If adjusted p-value is \<0.025, then the comparison is statistically significant.|Sidak-corrected score CI|||"Vaccine efficacy (VE) of IVV vaccine vs. Placebo for B strain~Simultaneous one-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the VE of IVV vaccine relative to Placebo was based on the Sidak-corrected score CIs for the two relative risks."|||-429.4|0.400
91038645|NCT05133180|181961887|SUPERIORITY|Changes from baseline in each IDEEL modules scale score was analyzed by comparing the two treatment groups using a two-sample t-test or a Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilson rank sum) test if normality assumption was not met.||||||0.002||||||p-value corresponds to two sample (independent group) t-test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all participants|t-test, 2 sided|||Symptom bother module - Week 8||||0.002
90978772|NCT00630331|181841881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Vaccine Efficacy|58.7||||0.078|ONE_SIDED|97.5|33.5|||Adjusted p-values are from score statistic with Sidak correction testing the null hypothesis that the VE of CCI vs. placebo is \<= 40% (the relative risk, \>= 0.60). If adjusted p-value is \<0.025, then the comparison is statistically significant.|Sidak-corrected score CI|||"Vaccine efficacy (VE) of CCI vaccine vs. Placebo (Overall)~Simultaneous one-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the VE of CCI vaccine relative to Placebo was based on the Sidak-corrected score CIs for the two relative risks."|||33.5|0.078
90978773|NCT00630331|181841881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Vaccine Efficacy|87.3||||0.104|ONE_SIDED|97.5|4.6|||Adjusted p-values are from score statistic with Sidak correction testing the null hypothesis that the VE of CCI vs. placebo is \<= 40% (the relative risk, \>= 0.60). If adjusted p-value is \<0.025, then the comparison is statistically significant.|Sidak-corrected score CI|||"Vaccine efficacy (VE) of CCI vaccine vs. Placebo for A/H1N1 strain~Simultaneous one-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the VE of CCI vaccine relative to Placebo was based on the Sidak-corrected score CIs for the two relative risks."|||4.6|0.104
90946763|NCT03607422|181772622|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer. This endpoint was a multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes only.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|49.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.4|56.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||56.5|41.4|<0.001
90946764|NCT03607422|181772622|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer. This endpoint was a multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes only.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|42.8||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.0|50.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||50.6|35.0|0.002
90946765|NCT03607422|181772623|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer. This endpoint was a multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes only.|LS Mean Difference|-40.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.949|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.8|-34.22|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|Mixed-effect model repeat measurement with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Baseline vIGA-AD category and age in the model.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-34.22|-45.80|<0.001
90946766|NCT03607422|181772623|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer. This endpoint was a multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes only.|LS Mean Difference|-29.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.941|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.24|-23.69|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|Mixed-effect model repeat measurement with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Baseline vIGA-AD category and age in the model.||||-23.69|-35.24|<0.001
90946767|NCT03607422|181772624|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer. This endpoint was a multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes only.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|44.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.0|54.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||54.1|35.0|<0.001
90946768|NCT03607422|181772624|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer. This endpoint was a multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes only.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|34.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.7|44.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||44.2|24.7|<0.001
90946769|NCT03607422|181772625|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer. This endpoint was a multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes only.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|33.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.9|39.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||39.8|26.9|<0.001
90946770|NCT03607422|181772625|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer. This endpoint was a multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes only.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|19.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.3|24.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||24.9|13.3|<0.001
90946771|NCT03607422|181772626|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|59.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.9|73.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||73.8|45.9|<0.001
91038646|NCT05133180|181961887|SUPERIORITY|Changes from baseline in each IDEEL modules scale score was analyzed by comparing the two treatment groups using a two-sample t-test or a Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilson rank sum) test if normality assumption was not met.||||||0.076||||||p-value corresponds to two sample (independent group) t-test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all participants|t-test, 2 sided|||Symptom bother module - Week 16||||0.076
90946772|NCT03607422|181772626|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|55.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.1|70.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||70.4|41.1|<0.001
90946773|NCT03607422|181772627|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|53.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.6|67.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||67.3|40.6|<0.001
90946774|NCT03607422|181772627|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|39.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.7|53.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||53.1|25.7|<0.001
90946775|NCT03607422|181772628|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|53.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.0|66.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||66.1|40.0|<0.001
90946776|NCT03607422|181772628|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|35.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.8|48.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||48.2|21.8|<0.001
90946777|NCT03607422|181772629|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|60.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.5|72.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||72.9|47.5|<0.001
90946778|NCT03607422|181772629|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|46.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.4|59.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||59.9|33.4|<0.001
90946779|NCT03607422|181772630|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|46.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.2|59.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||59.6|33.2|<0.001
90946780|NCT03607422|181772630|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|34.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.4|48.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||48.4|21.4|<0.001
90946781|NCT03607422|181772631|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|46.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.4|60.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||60.0|32.4|<0.001
90946782|NCT03607422|181772631|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|31.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.3|45.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||45.3|17.3|<0.001
90946783|NCT03607422|181772632|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|5.0||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|10.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||10.6|-0.5|0.075
90946784|NCT03607422|181772632|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|12.7||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|21.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||21.5|3.9|0.005
90946785|NCT03607422|181772633|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|3.2||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|7.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||7.6|-1.2|0.151
90946786|NCT03607422|181772634|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|12.9||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|22.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||22.3|3.4|0.008
90946787|NCT03607422|181772635|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|-18.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.0|-8.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-8.0|-28.0|<0.001
90946788|NCT03607422|181772635|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|-17.9||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.1|-7.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-7.7|-28.1|0.001
90946789|NCT03607422|181772636|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|51.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.8|68.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||68.3|34.8|<0.001
90946790|NCT03607422|181772636|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|29.2||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.8|46.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||46.6|11.8|0.001
90946791|NCT03607422|181772637|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|53.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.4|68.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||68.0|38.4|<0.001
90946792|NCT03607422|181772637|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|31.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.5|47.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||47.1|16.5|<0.001
90946793|NCT03607422|181772638|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|48.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.8|64.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||64.1|33.8|<0.001
90946794|NCT03607422|181772638|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|37.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.1|53.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||53.6|21.1|<0.001
90946795|NCT03607422|181772639|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|53.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.4|70.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||70.2|37.4|<0.001
90946796|NCT03607422|181772639|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|42.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.3|59.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||59.7|24.3|<0.001
90946797|NCT03607422|181772640|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|45.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.0|62.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||62.7|28.0|<0.001
90946798|NCT03607422|181772640|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|29.8||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.7|48.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||48.8|10.7|0.002
90946799|NCT03607422|181772641|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|17.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.5|26.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||26.7|7.5|<0.001
90946800|NCT03607422|181772641|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|13.7||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|23.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||23.5|3.9|0.006
90946801|NCT03607422|181772642|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-55.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.284|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.32|-41.55|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|Mixed-effect model repeat measurement with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and Baseline vIGA-AD category in the model.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-41.55|-70.32|<0.001
90946802|NCT03607422|181772642|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-36.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.384|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.12|-21.96|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|Mixed-effect model repeat measurement with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and Baseline vIGA-AD category in the model.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-21.96|-51.12|<0.001
90946803|NCT03607422|181772643|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-42.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.432|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.34|-29.9|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and Baseline vIGA-AD category in the model.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-29.90|-55.34|<0.001
90946804|NCT03607422|181772643|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-35.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.447|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.41|-22.9|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and Baseline vIGA-AD category in the model.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-22.90|-48.41|<0.001
90946805|NCT03607422|181772644|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|52.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.9|68.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||68.1|36.9|<0.001
90946806|NCT03607422|181772644|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|38.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.2|54.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||54.9|21.2|<0.001
90946807|NCT03607422|181772645|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|55.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.5|76.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||76.3|35.5|<0.001
90946808|NCT03607422|181772645|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|49.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.3|72.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||72.9|26.3|<0.001
90946809|NCT03607422|181772646|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-44.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.492|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.74|-32.06|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|Mixed-effect model repeat measurement with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and Baseline vIGA-AD category|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-32.06|-57.74|<0.001
90946810|NCT03607422|181772646|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-29.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.383|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.6|-17.36|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|Mixed-effect model repeat measurement with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and Baseline vIGA-AD category|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-17.36|-42.60|<0.001
91038647|NCT05133180|181961888|SUPERIORITY|Changes from baseline in each IDEEL modules scale score was analyzed by comparing the two treatment groups using a two-sample t-test or a Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilson rank sum) test if normality assumption was not met.||||||0.16||||||p-value corresponds to two sample (independent group) t-test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all participants|t-test, 2 sided|||IDEEL - Satisfaction with Treatment Effectiveness - Week 8||||0.160
90946811|NCT03607422|181772647|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|27.8||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.2|50.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||50.4|5.2|0.016
91038648|NCT05133180|181961888|SUPERIORITY|Changes from baseline in each IDEEL modules scale score was analyzed by comparing the two treatment groups using a two-sample t-test or a Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilson rank sum) test if normality assumption was not met.||||||0.009||||||p-value corresponds to two sample (independent group) t-test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all participants.|t-test, 2 sided|||IDEEL - Treatment- Related Bother / Inconvenience - Week 8||||0.009
90946812|NCT03607422|181772647|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|22.3||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|45.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||45.7|-1.1|0.062
90946813|NCT03607422|181772648|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|38.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.4|59.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||59.4|18.4|<0.001
90946814|NCT03607422|181772648|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|5.9||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|23.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||23.6|-11.7|0.510
91038649|NCT05133180|181961888|SUPERIORITY|Changes from baseline in each IDEEL modules scale score was analyzed by comparing the two treatment groups using a two-sample t-test or a Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilson rank sum) test if normality assumption was not met.||||||0.076||||||p-value corresponds to two sample (independent group) t-test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all participants|t-test, 2 sided|||IDEEL - Satisfaction with Treatment Effectiveness - Week 16||||0.076
90978774|NCT00630331|181841881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Vaccine Efficacy|100.0||||0.03|ONE_SIDED|97.5|36.3|||Adjusted p-values are from score statistic with Sidak correction testing the null hypothesis that the VE of CCI vs. placebo is \<= 40% (the relative risk, \>= 0.60). If adjusted p-value is \<0.025, then the comparison is statistically significant.|Sidak-corrected score CI|||"Vaccine efficacy (VE) of CCI vaccine vs. Placebo for A/H3N2 strain~Simultaneous one-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the VE of CCI vaccine relative to Placebo was based on the Sidak-corrected score CIs for the two relative risks."|||36.3|0.030
91038650|NCT05133180|181961888|SUPERIORITY|Changes from baseline in each IDEEL modules scale score was analyzed by comparing the two treatment groups using a two-sample t-test or a Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilson rank sum) test if normality assumption was not met.||||||0.128||||||p-value corresponds to two sample (independent group) t-test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all participants.|t-test, 2 sided|||IDEEL - Treatment- Related Bother / Inconvenience - Week 16||||0.128
91038651|NCT04723693|181961892|OTHER||||||||||||||||||This is a qualitative interview study and as such no statistical analysis was carried out.|||
91038652|NCT04723693|181961893|OTHER||||||||||||||||||This is a qualitative interview study and as such no statistical analysis was carried out.|||
90946815|NCT03258723|181772660|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group change from baseline assessed on matched cases.||||<0.0001
90946816|NCT03258723|181772661|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group change from baseline assessed on matched cases.||||0.0005
90946817|NCT03258723|181772662|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1809|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group change from baseline assessed on matched cases.||||0.1809
90946818|NCT03258723|181772663|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0973|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group change from baseline assessed on matched cases.||||0.0973
90946819|NCT03258723|181772665|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1992|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within subject change on matched cases.||||0.1992
90978775|NCT00630331|181841881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Vaccine Efficacy|50.0||||0.376|ONE_SIDED|97.5|17.5|||Adjusted p-values are from score statistic with Sidak correction testing the null hypothesis that the VE of CCI vs. placebo is \<= 40% (the relative risk, \>= 0.60). If adjusted p-value is \<0.025, then the comparison is statistically significant.|Sidak-corrected score CI|||"Vaccine efficacy (VE) of CCI vaccine vs. Placebo for B strain~Simultaneous one-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the VE of CCI vaccine relative to Placebo was based on the Sidak-corrected score CIs for the two relative risks."|||17.5|0.376
90978776|NCT00630331|181841881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Vaccine Efficacy|58.6||||0.085|ONE_SIDED|97.5|32.9|||Adjusted p-values are from score statistic with Sidak correction testing the null hypothesis that the VE of IVV vs. placebo is \<= 40% (the relative risk, \>= 0.60). If adjusted p-value is \<0.025, then the comparison is statistically significant.|Sidak-corrected score CI|||"Vaccine efficacy (VE) of IVV vaccine vs. Placebo (Overall)~Simultaneous one-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the VE of IVV vaccine relative to Placebo was based on the Sidak-corrected score CIs for the two relative risks."|||32.9|0.085
90978777|NCT00630331|181841881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Vaccine Efficacy|100.0||||0.033|ONE_SIDED|97.5|33.9|||Adjusted p-values are from score statistic with Sidak correction testing the null hypothesis that the VE of IVV vs. placebo is \<= 40% (the relative risk, \>= 0.60). If adjusted p-value is \<0.025, then the comparison is statistically significant.|Sidak-corrected score CI|||"Vaccine efficacy (VE) of IVV vaccine vs. Placebo for A/H1N1 strain~Simultaneous one-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the VE of IVV vaccine relative to Placebo was based on the Sidak-corrected score CIs for the two relative risks."|||33.9|0.033
90978778|NCT00630331|181841881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Vaccine Efficacy|73.6||||0.265|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-30.0|||Adjusted p-values are from score statistic with Sidak correction testing the null hypothesis that the VE of IVV vs. placebo is \<= 40% (the relative risk, \>= 0.60). If adjusted p-value is \<0.025, then the comparison is statistically significant.|Sidak-corrected score CI|||"Vaccine efficacy (VE) of IVV vaccine vs. Placebo for A/H3N2 strain~Simultaneous one-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the VE of IVV vaccine relative to Placebo was based on the Sidak-corrected score CIs for the two relative risks."|||-30.0|0.265
90978779|NCT00630331|181841881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Vaccine Efficacy|51.7||||0.319|ONE_SIDED|97.5|19.4|||Adjusted p-values are from score statistic with Sidak correction testing the null hypothesis that the VE of IVV vs. placebo is \<= 40% (the relative risk, \>= 0.60). If adjusted p-value is \<0.025, then the comparison is statistically significant.|Sidak-corrected score CI|||"Vaccine efficacy (VE) of IVV vaccine vs. Placebo for B strain~Simultaneous one-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the VE of IVV vaccine relative to Placebo was based on the Sidak-corrected score CIs for the two relative risks."|||19.4|0.319
90978780|NCT00630331|181841882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Vaccine Efficacy|69.5|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|55.0|||Adjusted p-values are from score statistic with Sidak correction testing the null hypothesis that the VE of CCI vs. placebo is \<= 40% (the relative risk, \>= 0.60). If adjusted p-value is \<0.025, then the comparison is statistically significant.|Sidak-corrected score CI|||"Vaccine efficacy (VE) of CCI vaccine vs. Placebo (Overall)~Simultaneous one-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the VE of CCI vaccine relative to Placebo was based on the Sidak-corrected score CIs for the two relative risks."|||55.0|<0.001
90978781|NCT00630331|181841882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Vaccine Efficacy|89.3|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|73.0|||Adjusted p-values are from score statistic with Sidak correction testing the null hypothesis that the VE of CCI vs. placebo is \<= 40% (the relative risk, \>= 0.60). If adjusted p-value is \<0.025, then the comparison is statistically significant.|Sidak-corrected score CI|||"Vaccine efficacy (VE) of CCI vaccine vs. Placebo for A/H1N1 strain~Simultaneous one-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the VE of CCI vaccine relative to Placebo was based on the Sidak-corrected score CIs for the two relative risks."|||73.0|<0.001
90978782|NCT00630331|181841882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Vaccine Efficacy|75.6||||0.04|ONE_SIDED|97.5|35.1|||Adjusted p-values are from score statistic with Sidak correction testing the null hypothesis that the VE of CCI vs. placebo is \<= 40% (the relative risk, \>= 0.60). If adjusted p-value is \<0.025, then the comparison is statistically significant.|Sidak-corrected score CI|||"Vaccine efficacy (VE) of CCI vaccine vs. Placebo for A/H3N2 strain~Simultaneous one-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the VE of CCI vaccine relative to Placebo was based on the Sidak-corrected score CIs for the two relative risks."|||35.1|0.040
90978783|NCT00630331|181841882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Vaccine Efficacy|49.9||||0.37|ONE_SIDED|97.5|18.2|||Adjusted p-values are from score statistic with Sidak correction testing the null hypothesis that the VE of CCI vs. placebo is \<= 40% (the relative risk, \>= 0.60). If adjusted p-value is \<0.025, then the comparison is statistically significant.|Sidak-corrected score CI|||"Vaccine efficacy (VE) of CCI vaccine vs. Placebo for B strain~Simultaneous one-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the VE of CCI vaccine relative to Placebo was based on the Sidak-corrected score CIs for the two relative risks."|||18.2|0.37
90978784|NCT00630331|181841882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Vaccine Efficacy|63.0||||0.003|ONE_SIDED|97.5|46.7|||Adjusted p-values are from score statistic with Sidak correction testing the null hypothesis that the VE of IVV vs. placebo is \<= 40% (the relative risk, \>= 0.60). If adjusted p-value is \<0.025, then the comparison is statistically significant.|Sidak-corrected score CI|||"Vaccine efficacy (VE) of IVV vaccine vs. Placebo (Overall)~Simultaneous one-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the VE of IVV vaccine relative to Placebo was based on the Sidak-corrected score CIs for the two relative risks."|||46.7|0.003
91038653|NCT04188392|181961915|OTHER|Rate of subjects enrolled per month of recruitment; based on 6 subjects enrolled over 5.8 months of recruitment.|Rate (per month)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|2.25|||||Based on 6 subjects enrolled over 5.8 months of recruitment|Recruitment goal of 6 subjects total.||2.25|0.38|
91038654|NCT04188392|181961916|OTHER|Total participants = 6; completed protocol: yes = 6, no = 0|Point estimate|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.0|||||Point estimate = 100% (95% C.I. 54%,100%)|Binary outcome (completed protocol yes vs. no); goal of 75% of subjects completing protocol|Point estimate of completion rate and 95% confidence interval|1|0.54|
91038655|NCT04188392|181961917|OTHER|paired t-test|Mean of the differences|21.7||||0.2873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.4|70.8||A priori significance threshold of p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|t=1.2263, df=4||alternative hypothesis: true difference in means is not equal to 0||70.8|-27.4|0.2873
90946820|NCT03258723|181772666|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7017|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within subject change on matched cases.||||0.7017
90946821|NCT03258723|181772667|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1573|||||||McNemar|||Within group change from baseline assessed on matched cases in low activity group at baseline.||||0.1573
90946822|NCT03258723|181772667|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4328|||||||McNemar|||Within group change from baseline assessed on matched cases in medium activity group at baseline.||||0.4328
90946823|NCT03258723|181772667|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6698|||||||McNemar|||Within group change from baseline assessed on matched cases in high activity group at baseline.||||0.6698
90946824|NCT03258723|181772668|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5271|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group change from baseline assessed on matched cases.||||0.5271
90946825|NCT03258723|181772669|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group change from baseline assessed on matched cases.||||<0.0001
90946826|NCT04832971|181772670|SUPERIORITY||Difference vs. Placebo at Week 24|-51.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.73|-40.7||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL vs \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures (MMRM)||ARO-ANG3 - Placebo|||-40.70|-61.73|<.0001
90946827|NCT04832971|181772670|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The adjusted p-value is calculated using the Holm method for multiplicity adjustment.|Holm method|||||||<.0001
90946828|NCT04832971|181772670|SUPERIORITY||Difference vs Placebo at Week 24|-56.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.09|-46.04||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL vs \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures (MMRM)||ARO-ANG3 - Placebo|||-46.04|-67.09|<.0001
90946829|NCT04832971|181772670|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The adjusted p-value is calculated using the Holm method for multiplicity adjustment.|Holm method|||||||<.0001
90946830|NCT04832971|181772670|SUPERIORITY||Difference vs. Placebo at Week 24|-63.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.56|-52.66||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL vs \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||||-52.66|-73.56|<.0001
90946831|NCT04832971|181772670|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The adjusted p-value is calculated using the Holm method for multiplicity adjustment.|Holm method|||||||<.0001
90946832|NCT04832971|181772671|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-48.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.53|-38.51||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 4||-38.51|-58.53|<.0001
90946833|NCT04832971|181772671|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-59.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.3|-49.12||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 4||-49.12|-69.30|<.0001
90946834|NCT04832971|181772671|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-63.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.24|-53.18||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 4||-53.18|-73.24|<.0001
90946835|NCT04832971|181772671|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-54.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.31|-42.89||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|m|||Week 8||-42.89|-66.31|<.0001
90946836|NCT04832971|181772671|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-61.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.07|-49.55||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 8||-49.55|-73.07|<.0001
90946837|NCT04832971|181772671|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-66.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.9|-54.37||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 8||-54.37|-77.90|<.0001
90946838|NCT04832971|181772671|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-44.96|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.91|-33.01||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 12||-33.01|-56.91|<.0001
90946839|NCT04832971|181772671|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-43.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.83|-31.92||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 12||-31.92|-55.83|<.0001
90946840|NCT04832971|181772671|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-52.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.83|-40.18||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 12||-40.18|-63.83|<.0001
90978785|NCT00630331|181841882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Vaccine Efficacy|81.5|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|60.9|||Adjusted p-values are from score statistic with Sidak correction testing the null hypothesis that the VE of IVV vs. placebo is \<= 40% (the relative risk, \>= 0.60). If adjusted p-value is \<0.025, then the comparison is statistically significant.|Sidak-corrected score CI|||"Vaccine efficacy (VE) of IVV vaccine vs. Placebo for A/H1N1 strain~Simultaneous one-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the VE of IVV vaccine relative to Placebo was based on the Sidak-corrected score CIs for the two relative risks."|||60.9|<0.001
90978786|NCT00630331|181841882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Vaccine Efficacy|49.3||||0.53|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-9.0|||Adjusted p-values are from score statistic with Sidak correction testing the null hypothesis that the VE of IVV vs. placebo is \<= 40% (the relative risk, \>= 0.60). If adjusted p-value is \<0.025, then the comparison is statistically significant.|Sidak-corrected score CI|||"Vaccine efficacy (VE) of IVV vaccine vs. Placebo for A/H3N2 strain~Simultaneous one-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the VE of IVV vaccine relative to Placebo was based on the Sidak-corrected score CIs for the two relative risks."|||-9.0|0.53
90978787|NCT00630331|181841882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Vaccine Efficacy|53.2||||0.26|ONE_SIDED|97.5|22.2|||Adjusted p-values are from score statistic with Sidak correction testing the null hypothesis that the VE of IVV vs. placebo is \<= 40% (the relative risk, \>= 0.60). If adjusted p-value is \<0.025, then the comparison is statistically significant.|Sidak-corrected score CI|||"Vaccine efficacy (VE) of IVV vaccine vs. Placebo for B strain~Simultaneous one-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the VE of IVV vaccine relative to Placebo was based on the Sidak-corrected score CIs for the two relative risks."|||22.2|0.26
90978788|NCT01302808|181841897|OTHER||Maximum Tolerated Dose|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90978789|NCT02761967|181841909|EQUIVALENCE|The statistical power of the study for the temporal variables was 82%. Multiple linear regression models were obtained for the first and second stages and for the total duration of delivery.||||||0.776|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.776
90978790|NCT03136107|181841912|EQUIVALENCE|Statistical criterion defined in ISO 24444:2010 is that the 95 %CI is within ±17 % of the mean SPF||||||||||||||||CI % values (which is the percentage that half the 95 % CI represents of the mean values).|Test product CI of ±16.4% and reference product CI of ±16.6% of the mean SPF.|||
90978791|NCT01955707|181841913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference (log-scale)|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.09|0.26||||||Treatment contrasts derived from a repeated measures mixed effects model modeling log relative growth relative to baseline using an autoregressive variance-covariance matrix structure. The model adjusts for treatment, time, treatment by time, log baseline DWI volume, treatment time window, and tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) use.||0.26|-0.09|
91038656|NCT04188392|181961918|OTHER|Total participants = 6; discontinued due to adverse effects: yes = 0, no =6|Point estimate, 95% confidence interval|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.46|||||Discontinuation rates due to adverse effects: Point estimate 0% (95% C.I. 0%, 45.9%)|Binary outcome: Discontinued due to adverse effects yes vs. no||0.46|0|
90978792|NCT01955707|181841913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of relative growth|1.09||||0.779|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.3||one-sided p-value|repeated measures mixed effects model||Adjusted mean (log-scale) back-transformed to the original scale as the estimated ratio of natalizumab to placebo. 90% confidence interval (log-scale) back-transformed to the original scale and reflect the interval around the ratio.|||1.30|0.91|0.779
90978793|NCT01955707|181841914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference (log-scale)|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.09|0.27||||||Treatment contrasts derived from a repeated measures mixed effects model modeling log relative growth relative to baseline using an autoregressive variance-covariance matrix structure. The model adjusts for treatment, time, treatment by time, log baseline DWI volume, treatment time window, and tPA use.||0.27|-0.09|
90978794|NCT01955707|181841914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of relative growth|1.09||||0.797|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.31||one-sided p-value|repeated measures mixed effects model||Adjusted mean (log-scale) back-transformed to the original scale as the estimated ratio of natalizumab to placebo. 90% confidence interval (log-scale) back-transformed to the original scale and reflect the interval around the ratio.|||1.31|0.92|0.797
90978795|NCT01955707|181841915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference (log-scale)|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.13|0.24||||||Treatment contrasts derived from a repeated measures mixed effects model modeling log relative growth relative to baseline using an autoregressive variance-covariance matrix structure. The model adjusts for treatment, time, treatment by time, log baseline DWI volume, treatment time window, and tPA use.||0.24|-0.13|
90978796|NCT01955707|181841915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of relative growth|1.05||||0.684|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.27||one-sided p-value|repeated measures mixed effects model||Adjusted mean (log-scale) back-transformed to the original scale as the estimated ratio of natalizumab to placebo. 90% confidence interval (log-scale) back-transformed to the original scale and reflect the interval around the ratio.|||1.27|0.88|0.684
90978797|NCT01955707|181841916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference (log-scale)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.12|0.11||||||Treatment contrasts derived from a repeated measures mixed effects model modeling log relative growth relative to 24 hours using an autoregressive variance-covariance matrix structure. The model adjusts for treatment, time, treatment by time, log baseline DWI volume, treatment time window, and tPA use.||0.11|-0.12|
90978798|NCT01955707|181841916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of relative growth|1.0||||0.487|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.89|1.12||one-sided p-value|repeated measures mixed effects model||Adjusted mean (log-scale) back-transformed to the original scale as the estimated ratio of natalizumab to placebo. 90% confidence interval (log-scale) back-transformed to the original scale and reflect the interval around the ratio.|||1.12|0.89|0.487
90978799|NCT01955707|181841917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference (log-scale)|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.14|0.1||||||Treatment contrasts derived from a repeated measures mixed effects model modeling log relative growth relative to 24 hours using an autoregressive variance-covariance matrix structure. The model adjusts for treatment, time, treatment by time, log baseline DWI volume, treatment time window, and tPA use.||0.10|-0.14|
91038657|NCT04188392|181961919|OTHER|Total participants = 6; completed sleep study 1: yes = 6, no=0|point estimate|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.0|||||Point estimate of completion rate for sleep study 1 = 100% (95% C.I. 54%, 100%)|Binary outcome: Completed sleep study 1 yes vs. no||1|0.54|
90978800|NCT01955707|181841917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of relative growth|0.98||||0.402|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|1.11||one-sided p-value|repeated measures mixed effects model||Adjusted mean (log-scale) back-transformed to the original scale as the estimated ratio of natalizumab to placebo. 90% confidence interval (log-scale) back-transformed to the original scale and reflect the interval around the ratio.|||1.11|0.87|0.402
90978801|NCT01955707|181841918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference (log-scale)|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.18|0.13||||||Treatment contrasts derived from a repeated measures mixed effects model modeling log relative growth relative to Day 5 using an autoregressive variance-covariance matrix structure. The model adjusts for for treatment, log baseline DWI volume, treatment time window, and tPA use.||0.13|-0.18|
90978802|NCT01955707|181841918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of relative growth|0.98||||0.394|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|1.14||one-sided p-value|repeated measures mixed effects model||Adjusted mean (log-scale) back-transformed to the original scale as the estimated ratio of natalizumab to placebo. 90% confidence interval (log-scale) back-transformed to the original scale and reflect the interval around the ratio.|||1.14|0.84|0.394
90978803|NCT01955707|181841919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean change from baseline|-0.25||||0.427|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.48|1.98||one-sided p-value|repeated measures mixed effects model|||Analysis of NIHSS score and change from Baseline at 24 hours. The repeated measures mixed effects model is modeling absolute change in NIHSS score relative to baseline and using an autoregressive variance-covariance matrix. The model adjusts for treatment, time, treatment by time, log baseline DWI volume, treatment time window, tPA use, baseline NIHSS score and location of stroke.||1.98|-2.48|0.427
91038658|NCT04188392|181961919|OTHER|Total participants = 6; completed sleep study 2: yes = 6, no=0|point estimate|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.0|||||Point estimate of completion rate for sleep study 2 = 100% (95% C.I. 54%, 100%)|Binary outcome: completed sleep study 2 yes vs. no||1|0.54|
90978804|NCT01955707|181841919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean change from baseline|1.71||||0.896|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.52|3.94||one-sided p-value|repeated measures mixed effects model|||Analysis of NIHSS score and change from Baseline at Day 5. The repeated measures mixed effects model is modeling absolute change in NIHSS score relative to baseline and using an autoregressive variance-covariance matrix. The model adjusts for treatment, time, treatment by time, log baseline DWI volume, treatment time window, tPA use, baseline NIHSS score and location of stroke.||3.94|-0.52|0.896
90978805|NCT01955707|181841919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean change from baseline|3.15||||0.989|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.89|5.4||one-sided p-value|repeated measures mixed effects model|||Analysis of NIHSS score and change from Baseline at Day 30. The repeated measures mixed effects model is modeling absolute change in NIHSS score relative to baseline and using an autoregressive variance-covariance matrix. The model adjusts for treatment, time, treatment by time, log baseline DWI volume, treatment time window, tPA use, baseline NIHSS score and location of stroke.||5.40|0.89|0.989
90978806|NCT01955707|181841919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean change from baseline|1.93||||0.915|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.38|4.25||one-sided p-value|repeated measures mixed effects model|||Analysis of NIHSS score and change from Baseline at Day 90. The repeated measures mixed effects model is modeling absolute change in NIHSS score relative to baseline and using an autoregressive variance-covariance matrix. The model adjusts for treatment, time, treatment by time, log baseline DWI volume, treatment time window, tPA use, baseline NIHSS score and location of stroke.||4.25|-0.38|0.915
91038659|NCT04188392|181961919|OTHER|Total participants = 6; completed sleep study 3: yes = 5, no=1|point estimate|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.996|||||Point estimate of completion rate for sleep study 3 = 83.3% (95% C.I. 36%, 99.6%)|Binary outcome: completed sleep study 3 yes vs. no||0.996|0.36|
91038660|NCT04188392|181961919|OTHER|Total participants = 6; at least 4 days of actigraphy data: yes = 6, no=0|point estimate|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.0|||||Point estimate of completion rate for at least 4 days of actigraphy pre-treatment = 100% (95% C.I. 54%, 100%).|Binary outcome: at least 4 days of actigraphy data pre-treatment yes vs. no||1|0.54|
91038661|NCT04188392|181961919|OTHER|Total participants = 6; at least 4 days of actigraphy post-treatment: yes = 6, no =0|point estimate|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.0|||||Point estimate of at least 4 days of actigraphy post-treatment = 100% (95% C.I. 54%, 100%)|Binary outcome: at least 4 days of actigraphy post-treatment yes vs. no||1|0.54|
90978807|NCT01955707|181841920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.564|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.55|1.45||One sided p-value based on Van Elteren's test, adjusting for baseline DWI volume (\< median vs \>= median), treatment time window, location of stroke abnormality (cortical/subcortical), and tPA use (yes/no).|Van Elteren's test|||Analysis of distribution of mRS scores at Day 5. Odds ratio from a proportional-odds logistic regression model assuming a common odds ratio across all cut points of the mRS score. Covariates include baseline DWI volume (\< median vs \>= median), treatment time window, location of stroke abnormality (cortical/subcortical), and tPA use (yes/no).||1.45|0.55|0.564
90978808|NCT01955707|181841920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|2.1||One-sided p-value based on Van Elteren's test, adjusting for baseline DWI volume (\< median vs \>= median), treatment time window, location of stroke abnormality (cortical/subcortical), and tPA use (yes/no).|Van Elteren's test|||Analysis of distribution of mRS scores at Day 30. Odds ratio from a proportional-odds logistic regression model assuming a common odds ratio across all cut points of the mRS score. Covariates include baseline DWI volume (\< median vs \>= median), treatment time window, location of stroke abnormality (cortical/subcortical), and tPA use (yes/no).||2.10|0.80|0.077
91038662|NCT04188392|181961919|OTHER|Total participants = 6; at least 4 days of sleep diary pre-treatment: yes = 6, no = 0|point estimate|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.0|||||Point estimate of at least 4 days of sleep diary pre-treatment = 100% (95% C.I. 54%, 100%)|Binary outcome: at least 4 days of sleep diary pre-treatment yes vs. no||1|0.54|
91038663|NCT04188392|181961919|OTHER|Total participants = 6; at least 4 days of sleep diary post-treatment: yes = 6, no = 0|point estimate|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.0|||||Point estimate of at least 4 days of sleep diary post-treatment = 100% (95% C.I. 54%, 100%)|Binary outcome: at least 4 days of sleep diary post-treatment yes vs. no||1|0.54|
91038664|NCT00841542|181961942|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of Least Squares Means|98.19||||||90.0|94.2|102.34|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls withing 80 - 125|||102.34|94.20|
90978809|NCT01955707|181841920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.243|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.71|1.86||One -sided p-value based on Van Elteren's test, adjusting for baseline DWI volume (\< median vs \>= median), treatment time window, location of stroke abnormality (cortical/subcortical), and tPA use (yes/no).|Van Elteren's test|||Analysis of the distribution of mRS scores at Day 90. Odds ratio from a proportional-odds logistic regression model assuming a common odds ratio across all cut points of the mRS score. Covariates include baseline DWI volume (\< median vs \>= median), treatment time window, location of stroke abnormality (cortical/subcortical), and tPA use (yes/no).||1.86|0.71|0.243
90978810|NCT01955707|181841921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean|0.68||||0.455|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.19|10.56||one-sided p-value|repeated measures mixed effects model|||Analysis of Barthel Index at Day 5. The repeated measures mixed effects model is modeling Barthel Index using an autoregressive variance-covariance matrix. The model adjusts for treatment, time, treatment by time, log baseline DWI volume, treatment time window, tPA use, and location of stroke.||10.56|-9.19|0.455
90978811|NCT01955707|181841921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean|1.21||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.76|11.19||one-sided p-value|repeated measures mixed effects model|||Analysis of Barthel Index at Day 30. The repeated measures mixed effects model is modeling Barthel Index using an autoregressive variance-covariance matrix. The model adjusts for treatment, time, treatment by time, log baseline DWI volume, treatment time window, tPA use, and location of stroke.||11.19|-8.76|0.420
91038665|NCT00841542|181961943|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of Least Squares Means|98.86||||||90.0|93.38|104.66|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||104.66|93.38|
90946841|NCT04832971|181772671|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-65.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-85.04|-46.29||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 16||-46.29|-85.04|<.0001
90978812|NCT01955707|181841921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean|3.56||||0.283|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.64|13.75|||repeated measures mixed effects model|||Analysis of Barthel Index at Day 90/Final Visit. The repeated measures mixed effects model is modeling Barthel Index using an autoregressive variance-covariance matrix. The model adjusts for treatment, time, treatment by time, log baseline DWI volume, treatment time window, tPA use, and location of stroke.||13.75|-6.64|0.283
90978813|NCT01817790|181841934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.36||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.13||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Linear Fixed-effect Model; Treatment and site as fixed factors and baseline score as covariate.||Null hypothesis was that no difference exists in the mean change from baseline in Daily rTOSS between the Fluticasone nasal spray and the placebo nasal spray.||-0.13|-0.59|0.0024
90978814|NCT01817790|181841935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.33||||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.1||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Linear Fixed-effect Model; Treatment and site as fixed factors and baseline score as covariate.||Null hypothesis was that no difference exists in the mean change from baseline in AM rTOSS between the Fluticasone nasal spray and the placebo nasal spray.||-0.10|-0.56|0.0057
91038666|NCT00841542|181961944|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of Least Squares Means|99.22||||||90.0|93.87|104.88|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||104.88|93.87|
91038667|NCT03214588|181961945|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.00054|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.000746|>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.00179|0.0007||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||0.00070|-0.00179|>0.999
91038668|NCT03214588|181961945|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.00069|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.000616|>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.00172|0.00033||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||0.00033|-0.00172|>0.999
91038669|NCT03214588|181961946|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.782||0.135|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.18|0.44||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 2||0.44|-2.18|0.135
90978815|NCT01817790|181841936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.41||||0.0009||95.0|-0.65|-0.17||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Linear Fixed-effect Model; Treatment and site as fixed factors and baseline score as covariate.||Null hypothesis was that no difference exists in the mean change from baseline in PM rTOSS between the Fluticasone nasal spray and the placebo nasal spray.||-0.17|-0.65|0.0009
91038670|NCT03214588|181961946|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.818|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.48|1.66||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 2||1.66|-0.48|0.818
91038671|NCT03214588|181961946|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.591|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.11|1.47||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 7||1.47|-1.11|0.591
91038672|NCT03214588|181961946|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.643||0.713|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.71|1.44||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 7||1.44|-0.71|0.713
90946842|NCT04832971|181772671|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-69.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-88.54|-49.8||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 16||-49.80|-88.54|<.0001
90978816|NCT01817790|181841937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.0117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|-0.02||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Linear Fixed-effect Model; Treatment and site as fixed factors and baseline score as covariate.||Null hypothesis was that no difference exists in the mean change from baseline in AM reflective symptom scores for Eye itching/burning between the Fluticasone nasal spray and the placebo nasal spray.||-0.02|-0.19|0.0117
91038673|NCT03214588|181961946|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.822||0.616|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.13|1.62||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||1.62|-1.13|0.616
90978817|NCT01817790|181841938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.15||||0.0005||95.0|-0.23|-0.06||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Linear Fixed-effect Model; Treatment and site as fixed factors and baseline score as covariate.||Null hypothesis was that no difference exists in the mean change from baseline in PM reflective symptom scores for Eye itching/burning between the Fluticasone nasal spray and the placebo nasal spray.||-0.06|-0.23|0.0005
90978818|NCT01817790|181841939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.13||||0.0023||95.0|-0.22|-0.06||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis was that no difference exists in the mean change from baseline in AM reflective symptom scores for Eye Tearing/Watering between the Fluticasone nasal spray and the placebo nasal spray.||-0.06|-0.22|0.0023
90978819|NCT01817790|181841940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.18|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.26|-0.09||p-value was nor adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Linear Fixed-effect Model; Treatment and site as fixed factors and baseline score as covariate.||Null hypothesis was that no difference exists in the mean change from baseline in PM reflective symptom scores for Eye Tearing/watering between the Fluticasone nasal spray and the placebo nasal spray.||-0.09|-0.26|<0.0001
90978820|NCT01817790|181841941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.0304||95.0|-0.18|-0.01||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Linear Fixed-effect Model; Treatment and site as fixed factors and baseline score as covariate.||Null hypothesis was that no difference exists in the mean change from baseline in AM reflective symptom scores for Eye Redness between the Fluticasone nasal spray and the placebo nasal spray.||-0.01|-0.18|0.0304
90978821|NCT01817790|181841942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.0361||95.0|-0.19|-0.01||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Linear Fixed-effect Model; Treatment and site as fixed factors and baseline score as covariate.||Null hypothesis was that no difference exists in the mean change from baseline in PM reflective symptom scores for Eye Redness between the Fluticasone nasal spray and the placebo nasal spray.||-0.01|-0.19|0.0361
90978822|NCT01817790|181841943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.28||||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.06||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Linear Fixed-effect Model; treatment and site as fixed factors and baseline score as covariate.||Null hypothesis was that no difference exists in the mean change from baseline in AM iTOSS between the Fluticasone nasal spray and the placebo nasal spray.||-0.06|-0.50|0.0129
91038674|NCT03214588|181961946|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.679||0.708|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.76|1.51||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||1.51|-0.76|0.708
90978823|NCT01817790|181841944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.14||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|-0.07||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Linear Fixed-effect Model; treatment and site as fixed factors and baseline score as covariate.||Null hypothesis was that no difference exists in the mean change from baseline in rNCSS between the Fluticasone nasal spray and the placebo nasal spray.||-0.07|-0.22|0.0002
90978824|NCT01817790|181841945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0118||95.0||||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Using this test controlling for investigative site. The response variable lied on ordinal scale of measurement.||Null hypothesis was that no difference exists in the end of treatment assessment of response between the Fluticasone nasal spray and the placebo nasal spray.||||0.0118
90978825|NCT01817790|181841946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.01||||0.8586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis was that no difference exists in the mean change from baseline in objective assessment of conjunctival redness between the Fluticasone nasal spray and the placebo nasal spray.||0.10|-0.12|0.8586
90978826|NCT01817790|181841947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.29||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Linear Fixed-effect Model; Treatment and site as fixed factors and baseline score as covariate.||Null hypothesis was that no difference exists in the mean change from baseline in MiniRQLQ scores between the Fluticasone nasal spray and the placebo nasal spray.||-0.29|-0.65|<0.0001
90978827|NCT01817790|181841948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.3||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Linear Fixed-effect Model; Treatment and site as fixed factors and baseline score as covariate.||Null hypothesis was that no difference exists in the mean change from baseline in 'Activities' domain of MiniRQLQ scores between the Flutical sone nasal spray and placebo nasal spray||-0.30|-0.68|<0.0001
90978828|NCT01817790|181841949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|-0.24||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Linear Fixed-effect Model; Treatment and site as fixed factors and baseline score as covariate.||Null hypothesis was that no difference exists in the mean change from baseline in 'Practical Problems' domain of MiniRQLQ scores between the Flutical sone nasal spray and placebo nasal spray.||-0.24|-0.64|<0.0001
91038675|NCT03214588|181961947|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.00039|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.000604||0.741|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0014|0.00062||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 2||0.00062|-0.00140|0.741
91038676|NCT03214588|181961947|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.00093|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.000505||0.964|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.00177|-0.00008||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 2||-0.00008|-0.00177|0.964
90978829|NCT01817790|181841950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.33||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Linear Fixed-effect Model; Treatment and site as fixed factors and baseline score as covariate.||Null hypothesis was that no difference exists in the mean change from baseline in 'Nose Symptoms' domain of MiniRQLQ scores between the Flutical sone nasal spray and placebo nasal spray.||-0.33|-0.73|<0.0001
90978830|NCT01817790|181841951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.23||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Linear Fixed-effect Model; Treatment and site as fixed factors and baseline score as covariate.||Null hypothesis was that no difference exists in the mean change from baseline in 'Eye Symptoms' domain of MiniRQLQ scores between the Flutical sone nasal spray and placebo nasal spray.||-0.23|-0.65|<0.0001
90978831|NCT01817790|181841952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|-0.21||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis was that no difference exists in the mean change from baseline in 'Other Symptoms' domain of MiniRQLQ scores between the Flutical sone nasal spray and placebo nasal spray.||-0.21|-0.64|<0.0001
90978832|NCT02847598|181841979|SUPERIORITY||Least squares (LS) mean Difference|-3.4||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|-0.2|||MMRM|||A Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement (MMRM) model is performed, using treatment group, study visit, baseline corticosteroid usage level (\<=10 mg, \>10 mg), region, study visit-by-treatment interaction, baseline value of the outcome measure, and baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effect covariates. Statistical analysis for placebo and BIIB059 450 mg was planned and reported.||-0.2|-6.7|0.037
90978833|NCT02847598|181841980|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-24.29||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.7|-4.88|||MMRM|||A MMRM model is performed, using treatment group, study visit, study visit-by-treatment interaction, DLE (Yes/No), CLASI-A score (\<=10 vs. \>10) as fixed effect covariates.||-4.88|-43.70|0.015
91038677|NCT03214588|181961947|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.00014|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.000772||0.573|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.00143|0.00115||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 7||0.00115|-0.00143|0.573
90978834|NCT02847598|181841980|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-33.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.71|-14.12|||MMRM|||A MMRM model is performed, using treatment group, study visit, study visit-by-treatment interaction, DLE (Yes/No), CLASI-A score (\<=10 vs. \>10) as fixed effect covariates.||-14.12|-52.71|<0.001
90978835|NCT02847598|181841980|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-27.99||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.55|-11.42|||MMRM|||A MMRM model is performed, using treatment group, study visit, study visit-by-treatment interaction, DLE (Yes/No), CLASI-A score (\<=10 vs. \>10) as fixed effect covariates.||-11.42|-44.55|0.001
90978836|NCT02847598|181841983|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.93||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.94|6.08|||MMRM|||Week 12: A MMRM model is performed, using treatment group study visit, baseline corticosteroid usage level (\<=10 mg, \>10 mg), region, study visit-by-treatment interaction, baseline value of the outcome measure, and baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effect covariates. Statistical analysis for placebo and BIIB059 450 mg was planned and reported.||6.08|-25.94|0.220
90978837|NCT02847598|181841983|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-8.96||||0.293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.82|7.9|||MMRM|||Week 16: A MMRM model is performed, using treatment group (BIIB059 450 mg vs. placebo), study visit, baseline corticosteroid usage level (\<=10 mg, \>10 mg), region study visit-by-treatment interaction, baseline value of the endpoint, and baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effect covariates. Statistical analysis for placebo and BIIB059 450 mg was planned and reported.||7.90|-25.82|0.293
90978838|NCT02847598|181841983|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-15.74||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.28|0.79|||MMRM|||Week 24: A MMRM model is performed, using treatment group, study visit, baseline corticosteroid usage level (\<=10 mg, \>10 mg), region study visit-by-treatment interaction, baseline value of the outcome measure, and baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effect covariates. Statistical analysis for placebo and BIIB059 450 mg was planned and reported.||0.79|-32.28|0.062
90978839|NCT02847598|181841984|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-30.36||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.75|-11.97|||MMRM|||A MMRM model is performed, using treatment group, study visit, study visit-by-treatment interaction, DLE (Yes/No), CLASI-A score (\<=10 vs. \>10) as fixed effect covariates.||-11.97|-48.75|0.001
90978840|NCT02847598|181841984|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-37.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.46|-18.87|||MMRM|||A MMRM model is performed, using treatment group, study visit, study visit-by-treatment interaction, DLE (Yes/No), CLASI-A score (\<=10 vs. \>10) as fixed effect covariates.||-18.87|-55.46|<0.001
90978841|NCT02847598|181841984|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-26.05||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.71|-10.4|||MMRM|||A MMRM model is performed, using treatment group, study visit, study visit-by-treatment interaction, DLE (Yes/No), CLASI-A score (\<=10 vs. \>10) as fixed effect covariates.||-10.40|-41.71|0.001
91038678|NCT03214588|181961947|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.00044|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.000646||0.749|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.00152|0.00064||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 7||0.00064|-0.00152|0.749
91038679|NCT03214588|181961948|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.154||0.571|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.23|0.29||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA||MMRM ANCOVA with Baseline FARS ADL as a covariate; pooled site, visit, treatment, and ambulation status (randomization factor) as fixed factors; and treatment-by-visit and Baseline FARS ADL-by-visit interactions.|Change at Week 2, Cutting-Handling Utensils||0.29|-0.23|0.571
90978842|NCT02847598|181841990|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.7||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-0.5|||MMRM|||A MMRM model is performed, using treatment group, study visit, baseline corticosteroid usage level (\<=10 mg, \>10 mg), region, study visit-by-treatment interaction, baseline value of the outcome measure, and baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effect covariates. Statistical analysis for placebo and BIIB059 450 mg was planned and reported.||-0.5|-3.0|0.007
90978843|NCT02847598|181841992|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.16||||0.667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.58|||MMRM|||A MMRM model is performed, using treatment group (BIIB059 450 mg vs. placebo), study visit, baseline corticosteroid usage level (\<=10 mg, \>10 mg), region, study visit-by-treatment interaction, baseline value of the endpoint, and baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effect covariates. Statistical analysis for placebo and BIIB059 450 mg was planned and reported.||0.58|-0.90|0.667
90978844|NCT00960076|181842033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.108|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.31||||||||-0.31|-0.73|
90978845|NCT00960076|181842034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-23.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.128|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.36|-9.28||||||||-9.28|-37.36|
90978846|NCT00960076|181842035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.409|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.86|-4.5||||||||-4.50|-21.86|
90978847|NCT00960076|181842036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|11.2||||0.0459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|22.0|||ANCOVA|||||22.0|0.2|0.0459
90978848|NCT05067127|181842117|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares (LS) mean|-1.143|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.436|-0.85|||MMRM|||An mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed categorical effect for treatment group, visit, disease type, baseline immunosuppressants use, stratification factors, and the visit-by-treatment group interactions as well as the continuous, fixed covariate of baseline log-transformed uPCR, was utilized to analyze the log-transformed ratio of uPCR at Week 26 compared to baseline.||-0.85|-1.436|<0.0001
90978849|NCT05067127|181842118|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|27.516|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.105|124.026|||Logistic|||The logistic model included treatment group as independent variable and adjusted for baseline eGFR values, baseline log-transformed uPCR values, disease type, and stratification factors.||124.026|6.105|<0.0001
90978850|NCT05067127|181842119|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|30.932|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.401|113.897|||Logistic|||The logistic model included treatment group as independent variable and adjusted for baseline log-transformed uPCR values, disease type, and stratification factors.||113.897|8.401|<0.0001
90978851|NCT05067127|181842120|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-1.002||||0.2753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.803|0.798|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model included treatment as fixed effect, adjusted for baseline C3G histologic index activity score, disease type, and stratification factors.||0.798|-2.803|0.2753
90978852|NCT05067127|181842121|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|27.392|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.477|115.852|||Logistic|||The logistic model included treatment group as independent variable and adjusted for baseline C3c staining, disease type, and stratification factors.||115.852|6.477|<0.0001
90978853|NCT05067127|181842122|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|6.312||||0.0333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.501|12.122|||MMRM|||An MMRM model included fixed categorical effect for treatment group, visit, disease type, stratification factors, and the visit-by-treatment group interactions as well as the continuous, fixed covariate of baseline eGFR, was utilized to analyze the mean change from baseline to Week 26 in eGFR.||12.122|0.501|0.0333
90978854|NCT05067127|181842123|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.753||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.106|15.716|||Logistic|||The logistic model included treatment group as independent variable and adjusted for baseline proteinuria values, disease type, and stratification factors.||15.716|2.106|0.0006
90978855|NCT05067127|181842124|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|88.341||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.863|880.544|||Logistic|||The logistic model included treatment group as independent variable and adjusted for baseline albumin values, disease type, and stratification factors.||880.544|8.863|0.0001
90978856|NCT05067127|181842125|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|999.999||||0.0094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.175|9999.999|||Logistic|||The logistic model included treatment group as independent variable and adjusted for baseline C3 levels, stratification factors and disease type.||9999.999|12.175|0.0094
90978857|NCT05067127|181842126|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.562||||0.7384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.739|3.863|||ANCOVA|||The ANCOVA model included treatment as fixed effect, adjusted for baseline, disease type, and stratification factors.||3.863|-2.739|0.7384
90978858|NCT05067127|181842127|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|1.345||||0.5648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.237|5.927|||ANCOVA|||The ANCOVA model included treatment as fixed effect, adjusted for baseline, disease type, and stratification factors.||5.927|-3.237|0.5648
90978859|NCT01499173|181842129|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||Actual p value shown here; not threshold.|multilevel linear regression|||||||<0.01
90978860|NCT01499173|181842130|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||multilevel linear regression|||||||0.34
90978861|NCT01499173|181842131|OTHER|odds ratio|Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Odds ratio was calculated for each question comparing 1 week data with 1 month data||||
90978862|NCT04572633|181842141|OTHER||Wilson Score|95.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|83.72|100.0|||||Bootstrap sampling with replacement method to account for potential within-subject lesion correlations. Subject is the bootstrap sampling unit, 1,000,000 iterations for bootstrap resampling, and the bias-corrected and accelerated method was used.|||100|83.72|
90978863|NCT04572633|181842142|OTHER||Wilson Score|6.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.35|18.23||||||||18.23|2.35|
90978864|NCT03155997|181842149|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.747||||0.00957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.598|0.932|||Log Rank|Stratified by Interactive Web Response Systems (IWRS) Geographical Region, IWRS Prior Treatment, IWRS Menopausal Status|Stratified by IWRS Geographical Region, IWRS Prior Treatment, IWRS Menopausal Status|||0.932|0.598|0.00957
90978865|NCT03155997|181842151|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.717|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.559|0.92|||||Stratified by IWRS Geographical Region, IWRS Prior Treatment, IWRS Menopausal Status|||0.920|0.559|
90978866|NCT03304522|181842161|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-1.085|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.876|-0.293|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-0.293|-1.876|<0.0001
90978867|NCT03304522|181842164|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.111|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.911|-0.312|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-0.312|-1.911|<0.0001
91038680|NCT03214588|181961948|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.126||0.963|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.02|0.44||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA||MMRM ANCOVA with Baseline FARS ADL as a covariate; pooled site, visit, treatment, and ambulation status (randomization factor) as fixed factors; and treatment-by-visit and Baseline FARS ADL-by-visit interactions.|Change at Week 2, Cutting-Handling Utensils||0.44|0.02|0.963
90978868|NCT03304522|181842166|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.3|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.3|-1.5|<0.0001
90978869|NCT00885365|181842196|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority is shown if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval is above the non-inferiority margin set at -4.5%.|difference of least square means|-0.5||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.58|1.59|||ANCOVA|||Based on previous studies, the difference between reference and placebo after 4-week treatment is assumed to be about 12% and the non-inferiority margin safely placed at 4.5%. With a between-patient SD of 13.5% and estimated difference between treatments of zero, sample size of 143 per group allows a 80% power to show the non-inferiority of Bramitob® versus TOBI®. Accounting for an expected dropout rate of 11%, a minimum of 160 participants per group is required.||1.59|-2.58|0.640
90978870|NCT00885365|181842198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of least square means|-0.01||||0.634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for Week 4||0.05|-0.08|0.634
90978871|NCT00885365|181842199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of least square means|-0.55||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|1.69|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for Week 4||1.69|-2.78|0.630
90978872|NCT00885365|181842200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of least square means|-0.02||||0.693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for Week 4||0.06|-0.09|0.693
90978873|NCT00885365|181842201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of least square means|0.51||||0.777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.06|4.09|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for Week 4||4.09|-3.06|0.777
90978874|NCT00885365|181842202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of least square means|0.04||||0.505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.15|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for Week 4||0.15|-0.08|0.505
90978875|NCT00885365|181842203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of least square means|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.39||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<= 0.050.|ANCOVA|treatment and country are fixed effects and baseline log10 bacterial load (CFU/g) value is a covariate||Analysis of Week 4 data||0.39|-0.31|0.820
90978876|NCT00885365|181842206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.692||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<= 0.050.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Test controlling for country.||Week 4||||0.692
90978877|NCT00885365|181842206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.128||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<= 0.050.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Test controlling for country.||Week 8||||0.128
90978878|NCT00004054|181842213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.43|||Log Rank|||The original target sample size was 1440 patients with a requirement of 340 deaths to test the hypothesis of overall survival (OS) efficacy of the hormones and RT plus chemotherapy arm; the design is based on detecting a 6% absolute improvement in 5-year OS from 79% to 85%, or a 33% relative reduction in the yearly hazard rate, with 90% power and a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.||1.43|0.76|0.81
90978879|NCT00004054|181842214|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.27|||Gray's test|2-sided significance level of 0.05|Fine-Gray regression model was used to obtain the hazard ratio. Reference level = Hormones and RT.|||1.27|0.74|0.82
90978880|NCT00004054|181842215|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.1|||Gray's test|2-sided significance level = 0.05|Fine-Gray regression model was used to obtain the hazard ratio. Reference level = Hormones and RT.|||1.10|0.28|0.09
90978881|NCT00004054|181842216|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.36|||Gray's test|2-sided significance level = 0.05|Fine-Gray regression model was used to obtain the hazard ratio. Reference level = Hormones and RT.|||1.36|0.48|0.42
90978882|NCT00004054|181842217|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.19|||Log Rank|2-sided significance level = 0.05|Cox proportional hazards model was used to obtain the hazard ratio. Reference level = Hormones and RT.|||1.19|0.75|0.61
90978883|NCT03094195|181842219|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.9|||ANCOVA|Multiplicity adjustment for the pairwise comparisons has been performed using the Hochberg procedure. Adjusted p-value 0.689||||0.9|-1.3|0.689
90978884|NCT03094195|181842219|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.6|||ANCOVA|Multiplicity adjustment for the pairwise comparisons has been performed using the Hochberg procedure. Adjusted p-value 0.689||||0.6|-1.6|0.350
90978885|NCT03094195|181842223|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.2|0.3|0.908
90978886|NCT03094195|181842223|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|4.5|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.5|0.4|0.609
90978887|NCT03094195|181842224|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.2|0.3|0.800
90978888|NCT03094195|181842224|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|4.5|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.5|0.4|0.653
90978889|NCT03094195|181842226|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.6|||ANCOVA|||||1.6|-0.4|0.225
90978890|NCT03094195|181842226|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.1|||ANCOVA|||||1.1|-1.0|0.914
90978891|NCT01651780|181842230|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If non-inferiority was confirmed, then superiority analysis was pursued.|Relative Risk|0.77||||0.2692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.23|||Chi-squared|||||1.23|0.48|0.2692
90978892|NCT01651780|181842231|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If non-inferiority was confirmed, then superiority analysis was pursued.|Relative Risk|0.89||||0.4967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.24|||Chi-squared|||||1.24|0.64|0.4967
90978893|NCT04373460|181842302|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.4||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|5.8|||Fisher Exact|||||5.8|1.0|0.005
90978894|NCT04373460|181842303|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.05||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.02|||Rate per person-years|||||0.02|-0.11|0.16
90978895|NCT04373460|181842304|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate difference|0.18||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.32|||Rate per person-years|||||0.32|0.03|0.02
90978896|NCT04373460|181842305|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.01||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.02|||Rate per person-years|||||0.02|-0.01|0.32
90978897|NCT04373460|181842310|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.65
90978898|NCT04373460|181842314|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.525|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.192|1.425||||||||1.425|0.192|
90978899|NCT03359902|181842368|SUPERIORITY||beta|1.4||||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||"A linear mixed effects model was conducted to account for carryover and order effects in this crossover trial.~Assuming α = 0.05, two-sided test, and 60 participants in total. If the carryover effect is negligible, we will have 90% power to detect an effect size of 0.604 for memory improvement"||||0.11
90978900|NCT01795547|181842371|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of the primary endpoint was considered confirmed if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI at Week 28 was \> -5 or equivalently if the p-value for the 1-sided test of H0: D ≤ -5 against H1: D \> -5 was ≤2.5%, where D was the mean treatment difference (aripiprazole minus paliperidone). Superiority was then tested as pre-specified with the FAS and demonstrated for aripiprazole over paliperidone, since the lower bound of the 95% CI was \>0.|Least Squares Mean Difference|4.666||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.316|9.015|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model uses an unstructured variance/covariance matrix.||Comparison of aripiprazole versus paliperidone was made using estimates from a mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM) using an unstructured covariance matrix.||9.015|0.316|0.036
90978901|NCT01795547|181842372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.492||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.935|-0.049||All secondary endpoints were tested without any hierarchical testing strategy and no adjustment for multiplicity|Mixed Models Analysis|The model uses an unstructured variance/covariance matrix.||||-0.049|-2.935|0.043
90978902|NCT01795547|181842373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.283||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.477|-0.09||All secondary endpoints were tested without any hierarchical testing strategy and no adjustment for multiplicity|Mixed Models Analysis|The model uses an unstructured variance/covariance matrix.||||-0.090|-0.477|0.004
90978903|NCT01795547|181842374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.331||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.782||All secondary endpoints were tested without any hierarchical testing strategy and no adjustment for multiplicity|Mixed Models Analysis|The model uses an unstructured variance/covariance matrix.||||0.782|-0.120|0.149
90978904|NCT01795547|181842375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.753||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.093|3.412||All secondary endpoints were tested without any hierarchical testing strategy and no adjustment for multiplicity|Mixed Models Analysis|The model uses an unstructured variance/covariance matrix.||||3.412|0.093|0.039
90978905|NCT01795547|181842376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.764||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.143|3.672||All secondary endpoints were tested without any hierarchical testing strategy and no adjustment for multiplicity|Mixed Models Analysis|The model uses an unstructured variance/covariance matrix.||||3.672|-0.143|0.070
90978906|NCT01795547|181842377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.922||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.275|2.119||All secondary endpoints were tested without any hierarchical testing strategy and no adjustment for multiplicity|Mixed Models Analysis|The model uses an unstructured variance/covariance matrix.||||2.119|-0.275|0.130
90978907|NCT01795547|181842378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.007||||0.561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.402|4.417||All secondary endpoints were tested without any hierarchical testing strategy and no adjustment for multiplicity|Mixed Models Analysis|The model uses an unstructured variance/covariance matrix.||||4.417|-2.402|0.561
90978908|NCT01795547|181842379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.695||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.511|0.121||All secondary endpoints were tested without any hierarchical testing strategy and no adjustment for multiplicity|Mixed Models Analysis|The model uses an unstructured variance/covariance matrix.||||0.121|-1.511|0.095
90978909|NCT00642642|181842381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0109||95.0||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|McNemar|Paired test of proportions||"Null hypothesis: no difference in the response rates between the two treatment arms.~Statistical test: McNemar's paired test of proportions Significance level: two sided alpha of 0.05 for each of the two co-primary endpoints.~Assumptions for power calculations:~Response rate for azficel-T treated cheek = 40% Response rate for placebo treated cheek = 20% 10% dropout rate; dropouts counted as failures. Low correlation between cheeks \& 50% correlation between endpoints"||||0.0109
90978910|NCT00642642|181842382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05|McNemar|paired test of proportions||"Null hypothesis: no difference in the response rates between the two treatment arms.~Statistical test: McNemar's paired test of proportions Significance level: two sided alpha of 0.05 for each of the two co-primary endpoints.~Assumptions for power calculations:~Response rate for azficel-T treated cheek = 40% Response rate for placebo treated cheek = 20% 10% dropout rate; dropouts counted as failures. Low correlation between cheeks \& 50% correlation between endpoints"||||<0.0001
90978911|NCT02116621|181842385|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in differences|-1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.91|0.19|||||Adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control) from baseline to 26 weeks.|||0.19|-2.91|
90978912|NCT02116621|181842386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||Mixed Models Analysis||||Longitudinal analysis adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control). Baseline to 13 weeks: -0.79 (-2.37 to 0.80); baseline to 26 weeks: -1.36 (-2.91 to 0.19); baseline to 52 weeks: 0.16 (-1.47 to 1.79)|||0.21
91038681|NCT03214588|181961948|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.165||0.515|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.27|0.28||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA||MMRM ANCOVA with Baseline FARS ADL as a covariate; pooled site, visit, treatment, and ambulation status (randomization factor) as fixed factors; and treatment-by-visit and Baseline FARS ADL-by-visit interactions.|Change at Week 7, Cutting-Handling Utensils||0.28|-0.27|0.515
91038682|NCT03214588|181961948|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.138||0.986|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.08|0.54||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA||MMRM ANCOVA with Baseline FARS ADL as a covariate; pooled site, visit, treatment, and ambulation status (randomization factor) as fixed factors; and treatment-by-visit and Baseline FARS ADL-by-visit interactions.|Change at Week 7, Cutting-Handling Utensils||0.54|0.08|0.986
91038683|NCT03214588|181961948|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.162||0.718|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.18|0.37||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA||MMRM ANCOVA with Baseline FARS ADL as a covariate; pooled site, visit, treatment, and ambulation status (randomization factor) as fixed factors; and treatment-by-visit and Baseline FARS ADL-by-visit interactions.|Change at Week 12, Cutting-Handling Utensils||0.37|-0.18|0.718
90978913|NCT02116621|181842387|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Mixed Models Analysis||||Longitudinal analysis adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control). Baseline to 13 weeks: 0.31 (-1.18 to 1.81); baseline to 26 weeks: -1.41 (-2.87 to 0.06); baseline to 52 weeks: -1.24 (-2.77 to 0.30)|||0.06
90978914|NCT02116621|181842388|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||Mixed Models Analysis||||Longitudinal analysis adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control). Baseline to 13 weeks:-0.66 (-2.55 to 1.24); baseline to 26 weeks: 0.93 (-0.92 to 2.79); baseline to 52 weeks: 0.76 (-1.19 to 2.70)|||0.35
90978915|NCT02116621|181842389|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||Mixed Models Analysis||||Longitudinal analysis adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control). Baseline to 13 weeks: 0.30 (-1.01 to 1.61); baseline to 26 weeks: -0.17 (-1.45 to 1.12); baseline to 52 weeks: -0.26 (-1.61 to 1.09)|||0.86
90978916|NCT02116621|181842390|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Mixed Models Analysis||||Longitudinal analysis adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control). Baseline to 13 weeks: 1.05 (-2.54 to 4.64); baseline to 26 weeks: 1.90 (-1.66 to 5.47); baseline to 52 weeks: 0.08 (-3.61 to 3.77).|||0.70
90978917|NCT02116621|181842391|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Mixed Models Analysis||||Longitudinal analysis adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control). Baseline to 13 weeks: 4.24 (-2.73 to 11.20); baseline to 26 weeks: 4.64 (-2.25 to 11.54); baseline to 52 weeks: -1.91 (-9.07 to 5.26).|||0.20
90978918|NCT02116621|181842392|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||Mixed Models Analysis||||Longitudinal analysis adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control). Baseline to 13 weeks: 1.76 (-2.37 to 5.89); baseline to 26 weeks: 2.55 (-1.50 to 6.60); baseline to 52 weeks: 1.53 (-2.70 to 5.77).|||0.66
90978919|NCT02116621|181842393|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||Mixed Models Analysis||||Longitudinal analysis adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control). Baseline to 13 weeks: 7.77 (-2.87 to 18.42); baseline to 26 weeks: 7.29 (-3.16 to 17.75); baseline to 52 weeks: 4.13 (-6.81 to 15.07).|||0.44
91038684|NCT03214588|181961948|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.133||0.986|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.08|0.52||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA||MMRM ANCOVA with Baseline FARS ADL as a covariate; pooled site, visit, treatment, and ambulation status (randomization factor) as fixed factors; and treatment-by-visit and Baseline FARS ADL-by-visit interactions.|Change at Week 12, Cutting-Handling Utensils||0.52|0.08|0.986
91038685|NCT03214588|181961948|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.148||0.153|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|0.09||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA||MMRM ANCOVA with Baseline FARS ADL as a covariate; pooled site, visit, treatment, and ambulation status (randomization factor) as fixed factors; and treatment-by-visit and Baseline FARS ADL-by-visit interactions.|Change at Week 2, Dressing||0.09|-0.40|0.153
90978920|NCT02116621|181842394|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||Mixed Models Analysis||||Longitudinal analysis adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control). Baseline to 13 weeks: 2.15 (-2.84 to 7.13); baseline to 26 weeks: 3.31 (-1.57 to 8.19); baseline to 52 weeks: 1.00 (-4.11 to 6.11).|||0.58
90978921|NCT02116621|181842395|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||Mixed Models Analysis||||Longitudinal analysis adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control). Baseline to 13 weeks: 1.81 (-4.41 to 8.02); baseline to 26 weeks: -1.57 (-7.68 to 4.54); baseline to 52 weeks: 1.11 (-5.27 to 7.48).|||0.73
90978922|NCT02116621|181842396|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in differences|-1.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.87|0.06|||||Adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control) from baseline to 26 weeks.|||0.06|-2.87|
90978923|NCT02116621|181842397|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in differences|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|2.79|||||||Adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control) from baseline to 26 weeks.|2.79|-0.92|
90978924|NCT02116621|181842398|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in differences|-0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|1.12|||||||Adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control) from baseline to 26 weeks.|1.12|-1.45|
90978925|NCT02116621|181842399|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in differences|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|5.47|||||||Adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control) from baseline to 26 weeks.|5.47|-1.66|
90978926|NCT02116621|181842400|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in differences|4.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|11.54|||||||Adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control) from baseline to 26 weeks.|11.54|-2.25|
90978927|NCT02116621|181842401|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in differences|2.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|6.6|||||||Adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control) from baseline to 26 weeks.|6.60|-1.50|
90978928|NCT02116621|181842402|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in differences|7.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.16|17.75|||||||Adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control) from baseline to 26 weeks.|17.75|-3.16|
90978929|NCT02116621|181842403|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in differences|3.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|8.19|||||||Adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control) from baseline to 26 weeks.|8.19|-1.57|
90978930|NCT02116621|181842404|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in differences|-1.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.68|4.54|||||||Adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control) from baseline to 26 weeks.|4.54|-7.68|
91038686|NCT03214588|181961948|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.119||0.861|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.07|0.33||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA||MMRM ANCOVA with Baseline FARS ADL as a covariate; pooled site, visit, treatment, and ambulation status (randomization factor) as fixed factors; and treatment-by-visit and Baseline FARS ADL-by-visit interactions.|Change at Week 2, Dressing||0.33|-0.07|0.861
90978931|NCT02116621|181842405|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.9||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.59|21.24|||Regression, Linear|||||21.24|2.59|0.01
90978932|NCT02116621|181842406|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in differences|-0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.37|0.8|||||Adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control) from baseline to 13 weeks.|||0.80|-2.37|
90978933|NCT02116621|181842407|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in differences|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|1.81|||||Adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control) from baseline to 13 weeks.|||1.81|-1.18|
90978934|NCT02116621|181842408|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in differences|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|1.61|||||Adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control) from baseline to 13 weeks.|||1.61|-1.01|
90978935|NCT02116621|181842409|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in differences|-0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.55|1.24|||||Adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control) from baseline to 13 weeks.|||1.24|-2.55|
90978936|NCT02116621|181842410|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in differences|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|4.64|||||Adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control) from baseline to 13 weeks.|||4.64|-2.54|
90978937|NCT02116621|181842411|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in differences|4.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.73|11.2|||||Adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control) from baseline to 13 weeks.|||11.20|-2.73|
90978938|NCT02116621|181842412|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in differences|1.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.37|5.89|||||Adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control) from baseline to 13 weeks.|||5.89|-2.37|
90978939|NCT02116621|181842413|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in differences|7.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.87|18.42|||||Adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control) from baseline to 13 weeks.|||18.42|-2.87|
90978940|NCT02116621|181842414|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in differences|2.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.84|7.13|||||Adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control) from baseline to 13 weeks.|||7.13|-2.84|
91038687|NCT03214588|181961948|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.443|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.22|0.18||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA||MMRM ANCOVA with Baseline FARS ADL as a covariate; pooled site, visit, treatment, and ambulation status (randomization factor) as fixed factors; and treatment-by-visit and Baseline FARS ADL-by-visit interactions.|Change at Week 7, Dressing||0.18|-0.22|0.443
91038688|NCT03214588|181961948|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.359|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|0.13||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA||MMRM ANCOVA with Baseline FARS ADL as a covariate; pooled site, visit, treatment, and ambulation status (randomization factor) as fixed factors; and treatment-by-visit and Baseline FARS ADL-by-visit interactions.|Change at Week 7, Dressing||0.13|-0.20|0.359
91038689|NCT03214588|181961948|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.157||0.268|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.36|0.17||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA||MMRM ANCOVA with Baseline FARS ADL as a covariate; pooled site, visit, treatment, and ambulation status (randomization factor) as fixed factors; and treatment-by-visit and Baseline FARS ADL-by-visit interactions.|Change at Week 12, Dressing||0.17|-0.36|0.268
91038690|NCT03214588|181961948|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129||0.411|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.24|0.19||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA||MMRM ANCOVA with Baseline FARS ADL as a covariate; pooled site, visit, treatment, and ambulation status (randomization factor) as fixed factors; and treatment-by-visit and Baseline FARS ADL-by-visit interactions.|Change at Week 12, Dressing||0.19|-0.24|0.411
91038691|NCT03214588|181961948|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.151||0.358|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.31|0.2||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA||MMRM ANCOVA with Baseline FARS ADL as a covariate; pooled site, visit, treatment, and ambulation status (randomization factor) as fixed factors; and treatment-by-visit and Baseline FARS ADL-by-visit interactions.|Change at Week 2, Personal Hygiene||0.20|-0.31|0.358
90978941|NCT02116621|181842415|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in differences|1.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.41|8.02|||||Adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control) from baseline to 13 weeks.|||8.02|-4.41|
90978942|NCT02116621|181842416|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in differences|0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|1.79|||||Adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control) from baseline to 52 weeks.|||1.79|-1.47|
90978943|NCT02116621|181842417|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in differences|-1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.77|0.3|||||Adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control) from baseline to 52 weeks.|||0.30|-2.77|
91038692|NCT03214588|181961948|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.123||0.946|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.41||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA||MMRM ANCOVA with Baseline FARS ADL as a covariate; pooled site, visit, treatment, and ambulation status (randomization factor) as fixed factors; and treatment-by-visit and Baseline FARS ADL-by-visit interactions.|Change at Week 2, Personal Hygiene||0.41|0.00|0.946
91038693|NCT03214588|181961948|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.193||0.505|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.32|0.33||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA||MMRM ANCOVA with Baseline FARS ADL as a covariate; pooled site, visit, treatment, and ambulation status (randomization factor) as fixed factors; and treatment-by-visit and Baseline FARS ADL-by-visit interactions.|Change at Week 7, Personal Hygiene||0.33|-0.32|0.505
91038694|NCT03214588|181961948|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.158||0.658|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|0.33||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA||MMRM ANCOVA with Baseline FARS ADL as a covariate; pooled site, visit, treatment, and ambulation status (randomization factor) as fixed factors; and treatment-by-visit and Baseline FARS ADL-by-visit interactions.|Change at Week 7, Personal Hygiene||0.33|-0.20|0.658
91038695|NCT03214588|181961948|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.184||0.649|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.24|0.38||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA||MMRM ANCOVA with Baseline FARS ADL as a covariate; pooled site, visit, treatment, and ambulation status (randomization factor) as fixed factors; and treatment-by-visit and Baseline FARS ADL-by-visit interactions.|Change at Week 12, Personal Hygiene||0.38|-0.24|0.649
90978944|NCT02116621|181842418|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in differences|-0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|1.09|||||Adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control) from baseline to 52 weeks.|||1.09|-1.61|
91038696|NCT03214588|181961948|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.151||0.661|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.19|0.32||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA||MMRM ANCOVA with Baseline FARS ADL as a covariate; pooled site, visit, treatment, and ambulation status (randomization factor) as fixed factors; and treatment-by-visit and Baseline FARS ADL-by-visit interactions.|Change at Week 12, Personal Hygiene||0.32|-0.19|0.661
91038697|NCT03214588|181961949|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.078||0.992|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.86|4.47||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 2||4.47|0.86|0.992
90978945|NCT02116621|181842419|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in differences|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|2.7|||||Adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control) from baseline to 52 weeks.|||2.70|-1.19|
90978946|NCT02116621|181842420|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in differences|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.61|3.77|||||Adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control) from baseline to 52 weeks.|||3.77|-3.61|
90978947|NCT02116621|181842421|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in differences|-1.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.07|5.26|||||Adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control) from baseline to 52 weeks.|||5.26|-9.07|
90978948|NCT02116621|181842422|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in differences|1.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|5.77|||||Adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control) from baseline to 52 weeks.|||5.77|-2.70|
90978949|NCT02116621|181842423|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in differences|4.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.81|15.07|||||Adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control) from baseline to 52 weeks.|||15.07|-6.81|
90978950|NCT02116621|181842424|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in differences|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.11|6.11|||||Adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control) from baseline to 52 weeks.|||6.11|-4.11|
90978951|NCT02116621|181842425|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in differences|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.27|7.48|||||Adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control) from baseline to 52 weeks.|||7.48|-5.27|
90978952|NCT02116621|181842426|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.41||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|18.96|||Regression, Linear|||||18.96|-0.15|0.054
90978953|NCT00151892|181842427|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|A 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in the percentages of subjects in remission at 6 months of the two treatment groups will be computed. Non-inferiority of SPD476 to Asacol will be concluded if the lower limit of the 95% CI lies above the non-inferiority margin of -10%.|Difference in proportions|0.02||||||95.0|-0.04|0.08||||||The null hypothesis to be tested is that the true difference in proportions is less than or equal to -10%.||0.08|-0.04|
90978954|NCT01272583|181842432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||ANOVA|The Friedman Test was used for ANOVA.||||||1.0
90978955|NCT01272583|181842433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||GLP-1 intact|ANOVA|The Friedman Test was used for ANOVA||||||<0.001
90978956|NCT01272583|181842433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98||95.0||||GLP-1 Total|ANOVA|The Friedman Test was used for ANOVA.||||||0.98
90978957|NCT01272583|181842433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049||95.0||||GIP intact|ANOVA|The Friedman Test was used for ANOVA.||||||0.049
90978958|NCT01272583|181842433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44||95.0||||GIP total|ANOVA|The Friedman Test was used for ANOVA||||||0.44
90978959|NCT01272583|181842434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14||95.0|||||ANOVA|The Friedman Test was used for ANOVA.||||||0.14
90978960|NCT01272583|181842435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98||95.0|||||ANOVA|The Friedman Test was used for ANOVA.||||||0.98
90978961|NCT01272583|181842436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22||95.0|||||ANOVA|The Friedman Test was used for ANOVA.||||||0.22
90978962|NCT01272583|181842437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||ANOVA|The Friedman Test was used for ANOVA.||||||0.01
90978963|NCT01272583|181842437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Dunn's Multiple Comparison Test|Post Hoc testing||||||<0.05
90978964|NCT01272583|181842438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76||95.0|||||ANOVA|The Friedman Test was used for ANOVA.||||||0.76
90978965|NCT04672083|181842477|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||"CPT31 dose proportionality will be examined across dose groups using a power model approach or ANOVA model, as appropriate.PK parameters will be analyzed using a power model that will have the following form: parameter = intercept × dose\^slope + random error.~Using the natural log (ln) transformation, a power model can be expressed as a linear regression equation: ln(parameter) = intercept + slope × ln(dose) + random error. For dose proportionality, the slope = 1; for dose independence, = 0."||||<0.05
90978966|NCT04672083|181842478|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||"CPT31 dose proportionality will be examined across dose groups using a power model approach or ANOVA model, as appropriate.PK parameters will be analyzed using a power model that will have the following form: parameter = intercept × dose\^slope + random error.~Using the natural log (ln) transformation, a power model can be expressed as a linear regression equation: ln(parameter) = intercept + slope × ln(dose) + random error. For dose proportionality, the slope = 1; for dose independence, = 0."||||<0.05
90978967|NCT04672083|181842479|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||The lack of fit test will be conducted for the statistical assessment of linearity assumption (AOL), and thus appropriateness of a power model. PK parameter is dose proportional if AOL is ruled acceptable and the 95% confidence interval for the slope spans 1. If the AOL is ruled unacceptable for any PK parameter, its corresponding PK parameter normalized by dose administered will be ln-transformed and analyzed using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model. The model will include dose as a factor.||||<0.05
90978968|NCT04672083|181842480|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||The lack of fit test will be conducted for the statistical assessment of linearity assumption (AOL), and thus appropriateness of a power model. PK parameter is dose proportional if AOL is ruled acceptable and the 95% CI for the slope spans 1. If the AOL is ruled unacceptable for any PK parameter, its corresponding PK parameter normalized by dose administered will be ln-transformed and analyzed using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model. The model will include dose as a factor.||||<0.05
90978969|NCT04672083|181842481|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||The lack of fit test will be conducted for the statistical assessment of linearity assumption (AOL), and thus appropriateness of a power model. PK parameter is dose proportional if AOL is ruled acceptable and the 95% CI for the slope spans 1. If the AOL is ruled unacceptable for any PK parameter, its corresponding PK parameter normalized by dose administered will be ln-transformed and analyzed using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model. The model will include dose as a factor.||||<0.05
90978970|NCT04672083|181842482|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||The lack of fit test will be conducted for the statistical assessment of linearity assumption (AOL), and thus appropriateness of a power model. PK parameter is dose proportional if AOL is ruled acceptable and the 95% CI for the slope spans 1. If the AOL is ruled unacceptable for any PK parameter, its corresponding PK parameter normalized by dose administered will be ln-transformed and analyzed using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model. The model will include dose as a factor.||||<0.05
90978971|NCT04672083|181842483|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||The lack of fit test will be conducted for the statistical assessment of linearity assumption (AOL), and thus appropriateness of a power model. PK parameter is dose proportional if AOL is ruled acceptable and the 95% CI for the slope spans 1. If the AOL is ruled unacceptable for any PK parameter, its corresponding PK parameter normalized by dose administered will be ln-transformed and analyzed using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model. The model will include dose as a factor.||||<0.05
90978972|NCT04672083|181842484|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||Concentrations for all subjects in Cohorts 1-3 were below the limit of quantification.||||<0.05
90978973|NCT04672083|181842485|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||Concentrations for all subjects in Cohorts 1-3 were below the limit of quantitation||||<0.05
90978974|NCT04672083|181842486|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||Concentrations for all subjects in Cohorts 1-3 were below the limit of quantitation||||<0.05
90978975|NCT04672083|181842487|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||The lack of fit test will be conducted for the statistical assessment of linearity assumption (AOL), and thus appropriateness of a power model. PK parameter is dose proportional if AOL is ruled acceptable and the 95% CI for the slope spans 1. If the AOL is ruled unacceptable for any PK parameter, its corresponding PK parameter normalized by dose administered will be ln-transformed and analyzed using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model. The model will include dose as a factor.||||<0.05
90978976|NCT02764541|181842498|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis is that there is no difference in anti-proliferative activity of Letrozole vs Tamoxifen by measuring the fold-change in percent Ki67 from baseline to day15 in log scale within hormone receptor positive breast cancer patients with invasive ductal carcinoma||||||0.0045|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0045
90978977|NCT02764541|181842498|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis is that there is no difference in anti-proliferative activity of Letrozole vs Tamoxifen by measuring the fold-change in percent Ki67 from baseline to day15 in log scale within hormone receptor positive breast cancer patients with invasive lobular carcinoma||||||0.0161|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0161
90978978|NCT02764541|181842499|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis is that there is no difference of pathologic response measured by RCB index between Arm C and Arm D||||||0.9288|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.9288
90978979|NCT02764541|181842501|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis is that there is no difference of pathologic response measured by RCB index between Arm C and Arm D|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.32|||Regression, Linear|||||0.32|-0.29|0.920
90978980|NCT02764541|181842502|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis is that there is no difference of RCB response rate between Arm C and Arm D||||||0.758|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.758
90978981|NCT00749190|181842513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.03||P-values are regarded as descriptive, adjustment for multiple testing was not necessary.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, number of previously used anti-diabetic medications, country and baseline.|Difference calculated as empagliflozin 1 mg minus placebo|||-0.03|-0.44|0.0226
90978982|NCT00749190|181842513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.18||P-values are regarded as descriptive, adjustment for multiple testing was not necessary.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, number of previously used anti-diabetic medications, country and baseline.|Difference calculated as empagliflozin 5 mg minus placebo|||-0.18|-0.59|0.0002
90978983|NCT00749190|181842513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.51||P-values are regarded as descriptive, adjustment for multiple testing was not necessary.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, number of previously used anti-diabetic medications, country and baseline.|Difference calculated as empagliflozin 10 mg minus placebo|||-0.51|-0.91|<0.0001
90978984|NCT00749190|181842513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.5||P-values are regarded as descriptive, adjustment for multiple testing was not necessary.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, number of previously used anti-diabetic medications, country and baseline.|Difference calculated as empagliflozin 25 mg minus placebo|||-0.50|-0.91|<0.0001
91038698|NCT03214588|181961949|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.892||0.999|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.29|4.28||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 2||4.28|1.29|0.999
90978985|NCT00749190|181842513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.43||P-values are regarded as descriptive, adjustment for multiple testing was not necessary.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, number of previously used anti-diabetic medications, country and baseline.|Difference calculated as empagliflozin 50 mg minus placebo|||-0.43|-0.84|<0.0001
90978986|NCT00490542|181842570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|10.2||||||||10.2|0.6|
90978987|NCT01986062|181842590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
90978988|NCT01986062|181842591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
90978989|NCT01986062|181842592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
90978990|NCT01986062|181842593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
90978991|NCT01986062|181842594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
90978992|NCT01986062|181842595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
91038699|NCT03214588|181961949|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.338||0.616|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.84|2.64||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 7||2.64|-1.84|0.616
90978993|NCT01707992|181842603|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.937|||=|0.7057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.668|1.313||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cox proportional hazards model|||The primary analysis for the comparison between laquinimod 0.6 mg versus placebo was conducted using the baseline adjusted Cox proportional hazards model. Categorical EDSS at baseline (less than or equal to \[\<=\] 4 or greater than \[\>\] 4), country/geographical region (CGR), categorical age at baseline (\<=38 or \>38), and T2 volume at baseline were included as covariates in the model.||1.313|0.668|= 0.7057
90978994|NCT01552057|181842619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32||||0.0988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.06||Statistical tests were conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|MMRM|||||0.06|-0.70|0.0988
90978995|NCT01552057|181842620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.22||Statistical tests were conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|MMRM|||||-0.22|-0.76|0.0003
90978996|NCT01552057|181842621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.18||Statistical tests were conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|MMRM|||||-0.18|-0.71|0.0012
90978997|NCT01552057|181842622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.35||||0.0073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.26|-1.45||Statistical tests were conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|MMRM|||||-1.45|-9.26|0.0073
90978998|NCT01552057|181842623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.34||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|7.35||Statistical tests were conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|||Physical Functioning||7.35|1.32|0.0049
90978999|NCT01552057|181842623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.76||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.57|11.94||Statistical tests were conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|||Role-Physical||11.94|3.57|0.0003
90979000|NCT01552057|181842623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.67||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.76|8.59||Statistical tests were conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|||Bodily Pain||8.59|2.76|0.0002
90979001|NCT01552057|181842623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.25||||0.0192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|5.96||Statistical tests were conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|||General Health||5.96|0.53|0.0192
90979002|NCT01552057|181842623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.7||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.15|10.25||Statistical tests were conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|||Vitality||10.25|3.15|0.0002
90979003|NCT01552057|181842623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.04||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.74|11.34||Statistical tests were conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|||Social Functioning||11.34|2.74|0.0014
90979004|NCT01552057|181842623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.12||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.41|13.83||Statistical tests were conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|||Role-Emotional||13.83|4.41|0.0002
90979005|NCT01552057|181842623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.91|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.39|11.43||Statistical tests were conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|||Mental Health||11.43|4.39|<0.0001
90979006|NCT01552057|181842624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.85||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.32|-1.38||Statistical tests were conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|MMRM|||||-1.38|-4.32|0.0002
90979007|NCT01552057|181842625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.28||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|-0.44||Statistical tests were conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|MMRM|||WPI||-0.44|-2.12|0.0029
90979008|NCT01552057|181842625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36||||0.0906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.06||Statistical tests were conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|MMRM|||Symptom Severity||0.06|-0.79|0.0906
91038700|NCT03214588|181961949|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.131||0.823|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.83|2.95||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 7||2.95|-0.83|0.823
90979009|NCT01552057|181842626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33||||0.0755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.03||Statistical tests were conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|MMRM|||Average Pain||0.03|-0.70|0.0755
90979010|NCT01552057|181842626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47||||0.0232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.06||Statistical tests were conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|MMRM|||Worst Pain||-0.06|-0.88|0.0232
90979011|NCT01552057|181842627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56||||0.0126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.12||Statistical tests were conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|MMRM|||Worst Pain||-0.12|-0.99|0.0126
90979012|NCT01552057|181842627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49||||0.0092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.12||Statistical tests were conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|MMRM|||Least Pain||-0.12|-0.87|0.0092
90979013|NCT01552057|181842627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57||||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.15||Statistical tests were conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|MMRM|||Pain Right Now||-0.15|-1.00|0.0083
90979014|NCT01552057|181842627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46||||0.0807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.06||Statistical tests were conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|MMRM|||Interference With General Activity||0.06|-0.98|0.0807
90979015|NCT01552057|181842627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.75||||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|-0.22||Statistical tests were conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|MMRM|||Interference With Mood||-0.22|-1.29|0.0057
90979016|NCT01552057|181842627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38||||0.1114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.09||Statistical tests were conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|MMRM|||Interference With Walking Ability||0.09|-0.84|0.1114
90979017|NCT01552057|181842627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42||||0.1081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.09||Statistical tests were conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|MMRM|||Interference With Normal Work||0.09|-0.94|0.1081
90979018|NCT01552057|181842627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55||||0.0264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|-0.07||Statistical tests were conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|MMRM|||Interference With Relationships With Other People||-0.07|-1.04|0.0264
91038701|NCT03214588|181961949|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.266||0.942|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|4.13||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||4.13|-0.10|0.942
91038702|NCT03214588|181961949|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.053||0.975|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.35|3.87||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||3.87|0.35|0.975
91038703|NCT03214588|181961950|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.133|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.15|0.29||||||Change at Week 2, Bulbar||0.29|-0.15|
91038704|NCT03214588|181961950|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.12|0.25||||||Change at Week 2, Bulbar||0.25|-0.12|
90946843|NCT04832971|181772671|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-75.91|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-95.11|-56.71||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 16||-56.71|-95.11|<.0001
90946844|NCT04832971|181772671|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-60.24|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.78|-43.71||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 20||-43.71|-76.78|<.0001
90946845|NCT04832971|181772671|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-64.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.83|-47.72||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 20||-47.72|-80.83|<.0001
90946846|NCT04832971|181772671|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-69.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-85.85|-53.18||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 20||-53.18|-85.85|<.0001
90946847|NCT04832971|181772671|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-51.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.73|-40.7||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 24||-40.70|-61.73|<.0001
90946848|NCT04832971|181772671|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-56.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.09|-46.04||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 24||-46.04|-67.09|<.0001
90946849|NCT04832971|181772671|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-63.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.56|-52.66||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 24||-52.66|-73.56|<.0001
90946850|NCT04832971|181772671|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-48.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.66|-37.59||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 28||-37.59|-59.66|<.0001
90946851|NCT04832971|181772671|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-51.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.32|-40.05||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 28||-40.05|-62.32|<.0001
90946852|NCT04832971|181772671|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-61.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.6|-50.67||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 28||-50.67|-72.60|<.0001
90946853|NCT04832971|181772671|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-34.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.65|-23.46||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 36||-23.46|-44.65|<.0001
90946854|NCT04832971|181772671|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-37.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.56|-27.25||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 36||-27.25|-48.56|<.0001
90946855|NCT04832971|181772671|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-51.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.71|-40.68||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 36||-40.68|-61.71|<.0001
90946856|NCT04832971|181772672|SUPERIORITY||Difference vs. Placebo at Week 24|-29.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.5|-20.0||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL vs \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||||-20.0|-38.5|<.0001
90946857|NCT04832971|181772672|SUPERIORITY||Difference vs. Placebo at Week 24|-28.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.9|-19.5||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL vs \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||||-19.5|-37.9|<.0001
90979019|NCT01552057|181842627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.3959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.32||Statistical tests were conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|MMRM|||Interference With Sleep||0.32|-0.81|0.3959
90979020|NCT01552057|181842627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66||||0.0119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|-0.15||Statistical tests were conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|MMRM|||Interference With Enjoyment of Life||-0.15|-1.18|0.0119
90979021|NCT01552057|181842627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52||||0.0222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.07||Statistical tests were conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|MMRM|||Average Interference||-0.07|-0.96|0.0222
90979022|NCT01552057|181842628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.0113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.09||Statistical tests were conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|MMRM|||||-0.09|-0.71|0.0113
90979023|NCT01552057|181842629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.27||Statistical tests were conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|MMRM|||||-0.27|-0.94|0.0005
90979024|NCT01552057|181842630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.37||Statistical tests were conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|MMRM|||||-0.37|-1.07|<0.0001
90979025|NCT01552057|181842631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44||||0.0226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.06||Statistical tests were conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|MMRM|||||-0.06|-0.82|0.0226
90979026|NCT01552057|181842632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38||||0.0408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.02||Statistical tests were conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||-0.02|-0.74|0.0408
90979027|NCT03895203|181842636|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.082|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.583|10.943|||Regression, Logistic|||||10.943|4.583|<0.001
90979028|NCT03895203|181842637|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) mean difference|-0.187|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.249|-0.125|||ANCOVA|||||-0.125|-0.249|<0.001
91038705|NCT03214588|181961950|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.122|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|0.11||||||Change at Week 7, Bulbar||0.11|-0.30|
90979029|NCT03895203|181842639|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|63.039|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.211|178.918|||Regression, Logistic|||||178.918|22.211|<0.001
90979030|NCT03895203|181842640|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|4.337|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.229|5.444|||ANCOVA|||||5.444|3.229|<0.001
90979031|NCT03895203|181842641|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.447|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.668|8.088|||Regression, Logistic|||||8.088|3.668|<0.001
90979032|NCT03895203|181842642|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.327||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.524|-0.13|||ANOVA|||||-0.130|-0.524|0.001
90979033|NCT03895203|181842643|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.904||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|3.074|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.074|1.180|0.008
90979034|NCT03895203|181842644|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.437||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.559|7.574|||Regression, Logistic|||||7.574|1.559|0.002
90979035|NCT03895203|181842646|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.281||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.452|-0.111|||ANCOVA|||||-0.111|-0.452|0.001
90979036|NCT05424276|181842666|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.895||0.686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.522|2.985||Study not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo from baseline to 12 weeks of treatment||2.985|-4.522|0.686
90979037|NCT05424276|181842666|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.876||0.606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.745|4.687||Study not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo from baseline to 12 weeks of treatment||4.687|-2.745|0.606
90979038|NCT05424276|181842666|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.925||0.509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.539|5.086||Study not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo from baseline to 12 weeks of treatment||5.086|-2.539|0.509
90979039|NCT05424276|181842667|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.093||0.683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.717|2.611||Study not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo after 12 weeks of treatment||2.611|-1.717|0.683
90979040|NCT05424276|181842667|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.783|3.495||Study not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo after 12 weeks of treatment||3.495|-0.783|0.212
90979041|NCT05424276|181842667|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.112||0.685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.749|2.654||Study not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo after 12 weeks of treatment||2.654|-1.749|0.685
90979042|NCT05424276|181842668|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.112||0.463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.139|0.304||Study not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo at 12 weeks of treatment||0.304|-0.139|0.463
90979043|NCT05424276|181842668|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.051|0.383||Study not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo at 12 weeks of dosing||0.383|-0.051|0.133
91038706|NCT03214588|181961950|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.104|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.02|0.33||||||Change at Week 7, Bulbar||0.33|-0.02|
90979044|NCT05424276|181842668|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.112||0.575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.159|0.286||Study not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo at 12 weeks of dosing||0.286|-0.159|0.575
90979045|NCT05424276|181842669|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.146||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.488|0.092||Study not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo at 12 week of dosing||0.092|-0.488|0.178
90979046|NCT05424276|181842669|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145||0.931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.274|0.3||Study not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo at 12 weeks of dosing||0.300|-0.274|0.931
90979047|NCT05424276|181842669|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.149||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.426|0.163||Study not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo at 12 weeks of dosing||0.163|-0.426|0.380
91038707|NCT03214588|181961950|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.19|0.28||||||Change at Week 12, Bulbar||0.28|-0.19|
91038708|NCT03214588|181961950|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.118|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.4||||||Change at Week 12, Bulbar||0.40|0.00|
91038709|NCT03214588|181961950|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.689|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|3.14||||||Change at Week 2, Upper Limb Coordination||3.14|0.83|
90979048|NCT05424276|181842670|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.669||0.144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.308|0.342||Study not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo at 12 weeks of dosing||0.342|-2.308|0.144
91038710|NCT03214588|181961950|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.571|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.06|1.97||||||Change at Week 2, Upper Limb Coordination||1.97|0.06|
90946858|NCT04832971|181772672|SUPERIORITY||Difference vs. Placebo at Week 24|-36.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.5|-27.2||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL vs \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||||-27.2|-45.5|<.0001
90946859|NCT04832971|181772673|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-28.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.7|-21.7||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 4||-21.7|-35.7|<.0001
90946860|NCT04832971|181772673|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-30.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.5|-23.4||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 4||-23.4|-37.5|<.0001
90946861|NCT04832971|181772673|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-38.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.1|-31.2||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 4||-31.2|-45.1|<.0001
90946862|NCT04832971|181772673|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-28.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.6|-19.7||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 8||-19.7|-36.6|<.0001
90979049|NCT05424276|181842670|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.662||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.72|-0.096||Study not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo at 12 weeks of dosing||-0.096|-2.720|0.036
90946863|NCT04832971|181772673|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-26.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.0|-18.1||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 8||-18.1|-35.0|<.0001
90979050|NCT05424276|181842670|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.514|0.18||Study not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo at 12 weeks of dosing||0.180|-2.514|0.089
90979051|NCT05424276|181842671|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.668||0.916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.127|3.477||Study not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo at 12 weeks of dosing||3.477|-3.127|0.916
90979052|NCT05424276|181842671|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.652||0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.921|5.621||Study not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo at 12 weeks of dosing||5.621|-0.921|0.158
90979053|NCT05424276|181842671|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.694||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.941|5.768||Study not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo at 12 weeks of dosing||5.768|-0.941|0.157
91038711|NCT03214588|181961950|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.882|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|2.55||||||Change at Week 7, Upper Limb Coordination||2.55|-0.40|
90946864|NCT04832971|181772673|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-34.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.4|-25.6||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 8||-25.6|-42.4|<.0001
90946865|NCT04832971|181772673|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-26.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.6|-17.6||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 12||-17.6|-34.6|<.0001
90979054|NCT05424276|181842672|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.645||0.297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.952|0.602||Study not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo at 12 weeks of dosing||0.602|-1.952|0.297
90979055|NCT05424276|181842672|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.639||0.233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.032|0.5||Study not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo at 12 weeks of dosing||0.500|-2.032|0.233
91038712|NCT03214588|181961950|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.743|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.06|1.43||||||Change at Week 7, Upper Limb Coordination||1.43|-1.06|
91038713|NCT03214588|181961950|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.016|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.48|2.91||||||Change at Week 12, Upper Limb Coordination||2.91|-0.48|
91038714|NCT03214588|181961950|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.87|1.94||||||Change at Week 12, Upper Limb Coordination||1.94|-0.87|
90946866|NCT04832971|181772673|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-21.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.3|-13.3||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 12||-13.3|-30.3|<.0001
90979056|NCT05424276|181842672|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.657||0.464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.818|1.783||Study not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo at 12 weeks of dosing||1.783|-0.818|0.464
90979057|NCT05424276|181842673|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.845||0.943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.346|7.898||Study not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo at 12 weeks of dosing||7.898|-7.346|0.943
90979058|NCT05424276|181842673|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.769||0.806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.547|8.402||Study not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo at 12 weeks of dosing||8.402|-6.547|0.806
90979059|NCT05424276|181842673|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.884||0.794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.686|8.719||Study not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo at 12 weeks of dosing||8.719|-6.686|0.794
90979060|NCT05424276|181842674|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.654||0.173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.193|0.4||Study not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo at 12 weeks of dosing||0.400|-2.193|0.173
90979061|NCT05424276|181842674|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.644||0.393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.828|0.725||Study not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo at 12 weeks of dosing||0.725|-1.828|0.393
90979062|NCT05424276|181842674|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.648||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.246|0.323||Study not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo at 12 weeks of dosing||0.323|-2.246|0.141
90979063|NCT05424276|181842675|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.578||0.704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.925|1.366||Study not sized for efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo at 12 weeks of dosing||1.366|-0.925|0.704
90979064|NCT05424276|181842675|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.564||0.506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.742|1.494||Study not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo at 12 weeks of dosing||1.494|-0.742|0.506
90979065|NCT05424276|181842675|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.578||0.888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.227|1.063||Study not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo at 12 weeks of dosing||1.063|-1.227|0.888
90979066|NCT05424276|181842676|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.013|0.067||Study was not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo at 12 weeks of dosing||0.067|0.013|0.004
90979067|NCT05424276|181842676|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.006|0.047||Study was not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo at 12 weeks of dosing||0.047|-0.006|0.125
90979068|NCT05424276|181842676|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.009|0.046||Study not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo at 12 weeks of dosing||0.046|-0.009|0.179
90979069|NCT05424276|181842677|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.095||0.321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.283|0.094||Study not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo at 12 weeks of dosing||0.094|-0.283|0.321
90979070|NCT05424276|181842677|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094||0.444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.259|0.114||Study not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo at 12 weeks of dosing||0.114|-0.259|0.444
90979071|NCT05424276|181842677|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.097||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.332|0.053||Study not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo at 12 weeks of dosing||0.053|-0.332|0.154
90979072|NCT05424276|181842678|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.104||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.199|0.212||Study not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo at 12 weeks of dosing||0.212|-0.199|0.950
90979073|NCT05424276|181842678|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.102||0.189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.338|0.067||Study not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo at 12 weeks of dosing||0.067|-0.338|0.189
90979074|NCT05424276|181842678|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.105||0.374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.301|0.114|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo at 12 weeks of dosing||0.114|-0.301|0.374
90979075|NCT05424276|181842679|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.058||0.803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.101|0.131||Study not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo at 12 weeks of dosing||0.131|-0.101|0.803
90979076|NCT05424276|181842679|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.058||0.935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.12||Study not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo at 12 weeks of dosing||0.120|-0.110|0.935
90979077|NCT05424276|181842679|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.116|0.121||Study not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo at 12 weeks of dosing||0.121|-0.116|0.968
90979078|NCT02073487|181842726|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.01
90979079|NCT00473876|181842859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.38||||0.08||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|The differences between baseline and post-intervention (4 months) was analyzed using independent t-test, comparing metformin and placebo.||Null hypothesis: Metformin has no effect on peak VO2. We targetted 66 subjects and power calculation based on our previous observational study of CHF with insulin resistance with mean peak VO2 of 11.||||0.08
90979080|NCT00473876|181842860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.45|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.72||0.034||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|Compare between metformin and placebo arm.||Null hypothesis: Metformin has no effect on the ratio between VCO2 (production of CO2) and VE (ventilation), it is also called the VE/VCO2 slope||||0.034
90946867|NCT04832971|181772673|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-31.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.9|-23.1||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 12||-23.1|-39.9|<.0001
90946868|NCT04832971|181772673|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-29.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.3|-21.4||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 16||-21.4|-37.3|<.0001
90946869|NCT04832971|181772673|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-30.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.8|-22.9||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 16||-22.9|-38.8|<.0001
90979081|NCT03498521|181842931|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Cox proportional hazard|0.75||||0.0177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.95|||Stratified log-rank|||||0.95|0.59|0.0177
90979082|NCT02848833|181842959|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Difference before administration versus after administration was analyzed using a paired t-test.|paired t-test|||||||<0.0001
90979083|NCT02848833|181842962|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Difference before administration versus after administration was analyzed using a paired t-test.|paired t-test|||||||<0.0001
90979084|NCT02848833|181842963|OTHER|Difference before administration versus after administration was analyzed using a paired t-test.|||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||||||<0.0001
90979085|NCT02848833|181842964|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Difference before administration versus after administration was analyzed using a paired t-test.|paired t-test|||||||<0.0001
90979086|NCT02848833|181842965|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Difference before administration versus after administration was analyzed using a paired t-test.|paired t-test|||||||<0.0001
90979087|NCT04167345|181843013|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|1.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.3|1.1|<.0001
91038715|NCT03214588|181961950|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.482|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.41|1.2||||||Change at Week 2, Lower Limb Coordination||1.20|-0.41|
90979088|NCT04167345|181843013|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|2.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.9|1.1|<.0001
90979089|NCT04167345|181843015|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|2.0||||0.0114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.4|0.5|0.0114
90979090|NCT04167345|181843015|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|2.3||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|3.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.5|1.1|0.0009
90979091|NCT03797001|181843032|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.60
90979092|NCT00824564|181843060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-55.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|58.63||0.348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-172.7|61.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||The mean difference with associated standard error (SE), and corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) for the comparisons of tranexamic acid plus standard of care against Standard of care was presented along with the p-value for the test. Two-sample t-test was performed at 5% level of significance.||61.7|-172.7|0.348
90979093|NCT00824564|181843061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|32.78||0.466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.3|89.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||The mean difference with associated SE and corresponding 95% CI for the comparisons of tranexamic acid plus standard of care against Standard of care was presented along with the p-value for the test. Two-sample t-test was performed at 5% level of significance.||89.3|-41.3|0.466
90979094|NCT00824564|181843062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.57||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.7|2.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||For 1 hour post-surgery, the mean difference with associated SE and corresponding 95% CI for the comparisons of tranexamic acid plus standard of care against Standard of care was presented along with the p-value for the test. Two-sample t-test was performed at 5% level of significance.||2.2|-20.7|0.109
90979095|NCT00824564|181843062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.24||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|-0.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||For 4 hour post-surgery, the mean difference with associated SE, and corresponding 95% CI for the comparisons of tranexamic acid plus standard of care against Standard of care was presented along with the p-value for the test. Two-sample t-test was performed at 5% level of significance.||-0.1|-13.4|0.045
90979096|NCT00824564|181843062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.2||0.119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|1.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||For 8 hour post-surgery, the mean difference with associated SE, and corresponding 95% CI for the comparisons of tranexamic acid plus standard of care against Standard of care was presented along with the p-value for the test. Two-sample t-test was performed at 5% level of significance.||1.8|-15.4|0.119
91038716|NCT03214588|181961950|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.397|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.12|1.45||||||Change at Week 2, Lower Limb Coordination||1.45|0.12|
90946870|NCT04832971|181772673|OTHER||Difference|-39.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.4|-31.6||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 16||-31.6|-47.4|<.0001
90979097|NCT00824564|181843062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.16||0.139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.9|7.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||For 24 hour post-surgery, the mean difference with associated SE, and corresponding 95% CI for the comparisons of tranexamic acid plus standard of care against Standard of care was presented along with the p-value for the test. Two-sample t-test was performed at 5% level of significance.||7.5|-52.9|0.139
91038717|NCT03214588|181961950|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.837|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.44|1.36||||||Change at Week 7, Lower Limb Coordination||1.36|-1.44|
91038718|NCT03214588|181961950|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.707|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.01|1.36||||||Change at Week 7, Lower Limb Coordination||1.36|-1.01|
91038719|NCT03214588|181961950|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.755|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.27|2.25||||||Change at Week 12, Lower Limb Coordination||2.25|-0.27|
91038720|NCT03214588|181961950|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.626|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.09|2.0||||||Change at Week 12, Lower Limb Coordination||2.00|-0.09|
90946871|NCT04832971|181772673|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-28.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.4|-21.4||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 20||-21.4|-36.4|<.0001
90946872|NCT04832971|181772673|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-27.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.8|-19.7||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 20||-19.7|-34.8|<.0001
90946873|NCT04832971|181772673|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-34.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.3|-27.4||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 20||-27.4|-42.3|<.0001
90946874|NCT04832971|181772673|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-29.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.5|-20.0||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 24||-20.0|-38.5|<.0001
90946875|NCT04832971|181772673|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-28.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.9|-19.5||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 24||-19.5|-37.9|<.0001
90946876|NCT04832971|181772673|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-36.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.5|-27.2||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 24||-27.2|-45.5|<.0001
90946877|NCT04832971|181772673|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-24.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.7|-15.9||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 28||-15.9|-32.7|<.0001
90946878|NCT04832971|181772673|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-23.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.9|-15.1||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 28||-15.1|-31.9|<.0001
90946879|NCT04832971|181772673|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-31.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.5|-22.9||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 28||-22.9|-39.5|<.0001
90946880|NCT04832971|181772673|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-18.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.6|-9.7||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 36||-9.7|-27.6|<.0001
90946881|NCT04832971|181772673|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-15.8||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.7|-6.8||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 36||-6.8|-24.7|0.0006
90979098|NCT00824564|181843063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|132.1||0.849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-238.2|288.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||The mean difference with associated SE, and corresponding 95% CI for the comparisons of tranexamic acid plus standard of care against Standard of care was presented along with the p-value for the test. Two-sample t-test was performed at 5% level of significance.||288.6|-238.2|0.849
90946882|NCT04832971|181772673|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-22.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.4|-13.8||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 36||-13.8|-31.4|<.0001
90946883|NCT04832971|181772674|SUPERIORITY||Difference vs. Placebo at Week 24|-18.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.53|-10.8||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL vs \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||||-10.80|-26.53|<.0001
90979099|NCT00824564|181843064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.714|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-square test was used at 5% level of significance.||||0.714
90979100|NCT00824564|181843065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square means difference|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.295||0.208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For change at end of surgery, a Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach was used to relate the dependent (outcome) variable and independent (treatment, time point, and treatment-by-time point interaction as factors and baseline value as co-variate) variables taking into account the within-participant correlation arising from the repeated measurements.||0.96|-0.21|0.208
90946884|NCT04832971|181772674|SUPERIORITY||Difference vs. Placebo at Week 24|-15.18||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.0|-7.36||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL vs \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||||-7.36|-23.00|0.0002
90946885|NCT04832971|181772674|SUPERIORITY||Difference vs. Placebo at Week 24|-21.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.69|-14.12||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL vs \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||||-14.12|-29.69|<.0001
90946886|NCT04832971|181772675|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-16.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.41|-10.74||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 4||-10.74|-22.41|<.0001
90946887|NCT04832971|181772675|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-14.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.08|-8.48||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 4||-8.48|-20.08|<.0001
90979101|NCT00824564|181843065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square means difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.255||0.682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For change at 1 hour post-surgery, a MMRM approach was used to relate the dependent (outcome) variable and independent (treatment, time point, and treatment-by-time point interaction as factors and baseline value as co-variate) variables taking into account the within-participant correlation arising from the repeated measurements.||0.61|-0.40|0.682
90979102|NCT00824564|181843065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square means difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.244||0.569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For change at day 1 post-surgery, a MMRM approach was used to relate the dependent (outcome) variable and independent (treatment, time point, and treatment-by-time point interaction as factors and baseline value as co-variate) variables taking into account the within-participant correlation arising from the repeated measurements.||0.63|-0.35|0.569
91038721|NCT03214588|181961950|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8|1.3||||||Change at Week 2, Upright Stability||1.3|-0.8|
90946888|NCT04832971|181772675|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-21.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.85|-15.23||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 4||-15.23|-26.85|<.0001
90946889|NCT04832971|181772675|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-17.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.42|-10.29||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 8||-10.29|-24.42|<.0001
90946890|NCT04832971|181772675|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-12.16||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.19|-5.13||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 8||-5.13|-19.19|0.0008
91038722|NCT03214588|181961950|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.1|1.9||||||Change at Week 2, Upright Stability||1.9|0.1|
91038723|NCT03214588|181961950|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.3|0.2||||||Change at Week 7, Upright Stability||0.2|-1.3|
90979103|NCT00824564|181843065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square means difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.249||0.413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For change at day 2 post-surgery, a MMRM approach was used to relate the dependent (outcome) variable and independent (treatment, time point, and treatment-by-time point interaction as factors and baseline value as co-variate) variables taking into account the within-participant correlation arising from the repeated measurements.||0.70|-0.29|0.413
90979104|NCT00824564|181843065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square means difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.276||0.686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For change at day 4/ET post-surgery, a MMRM approach was used to relate the dependent (outcome) variable and independent (treatment, time point, and treatment-by-time point interaction as factors and baseline value as co-variate) variables taking into account the within-participant correlation arising from the repeated measurements.||0.66|-0.44|0.686
90979105|NCT00824564|181843066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.241|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test at 5% level of significance was used as the event rate was low and the expected count for any cell in the (unstratified) 2\*2 contingency table was less than 5.||||0.241
90979106|NCT03804671|181843067|OTHER|Absolute bioavailability. The statistical model was an ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including the fixed effect for 'formulation' and 'subject' as a random effect.|Ratio of the geometric means (T/R) %|70.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|56.69|87.23|||||The geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 18.7. Ratio was calculated as (AUC0-∞/dose) oral /(AUC0-∞/dose) intravenous multiplied by 100.|||87.23|56.69|
90946891|NCT04832971|181772675|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-16.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.62|-9.5||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 8||-9.50|-23.62|<.0001
90946892|NCT04832971|181772675|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-17.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.61|-9.81||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 12||-9.81|-24.61|<.0001
90946893|NCT04832971|181772675|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-9.95||||0.0082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|-2.6||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 12||-2.60|-17.30|0.0082
90946894|NCT04832971|181772675|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-17.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.68|-10.03||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 12||-10.03|-24.68|<.0001
90946895|NCT04832971|181772675|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-14.36|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.42|-7.3||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 16||-7.30|-21.42|<.0001
90946896|NCT04832971|181772675|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-12.97||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.98|-5.95||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 16||-5.95|-19.98|0.0003
90946897|NCT04832971|181772675|OTHER||Difference|-20.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.3|-13.29||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 16||-13.29|-27.30|<.0001
90946898|NCT04832971|181772675|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-17.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.29|-11.13||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 20||-11.13|-24.29|<.0001
90946899|NCT04832971|181772675|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-14.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.75|-7.72||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 20||-7.72|-20.75|<.0001
90946900|NCT04832971|181772675|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-18.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.8|-11.79||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 20||-11.79|-24.80|<.0001
90946901|NCT04832971|181772675|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-18.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.53|-10.8||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 24||-10.80|-26.53|<.0001
90946902|NCT04832971|181772675|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-15.18||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.0|-7.36||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 24||-7.36|-23.00|0.0002
90946903|NCT04832971|181772675|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-21.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.69|-14.12||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 24||-14.12|-29.69|<.0001
91038724|NCT03214588|181961950|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|1.2||||||Change at Week 7, Upright Stability||1.2|0.0|
90946904|NCT04832971|181772675|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-15.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.44|-8.35||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 28||-8.35|-23.44|<.0001
90946905|NCT04832971|181772675|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-12.98||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.49|-5.46||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 28||-5.46|-20.49|0.0008
90946906|NCT04832971|181772675|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-17.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.01|-10.07||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 28||-10.07|-25.01|<.0001
90946907|NCT04832971|181772675|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-10.55||||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.32|-2.77||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 36||-2.77|-18.32|0.0081
90946908|NCT04832971|181772675|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-6.76||||0.0871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.52|0.99||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 36||0.99|-14.52|0.0871
90946909|NCT04832971|181772675|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-10.91||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.61|-3.2||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 36||-3.20|-18.61|0.0058
90946910|NCT04832971|181772676|SUPERIORITY||Difference vs. Placebo at Week 24|-16.0||||0.0138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.7|-3.3||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, and baseline value as model terms. Model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||||-3.3|-28.7|0.0138
90946911|NCT04832971|181772676|SUPERIORITY||Difference vs Placebo at Week 24|-9.3||||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|3.3||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, and baseline value as model terms. Model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Models Repated Measures|||||3.3|-22.0|0.1480
90946912|NCT04832971|181772676|SUPERIORITY||Difference vs Placebo at Week 24|-20.2||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.8|-7.5||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, and baseline value as model terms. Model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mxed Models Repeated Measures|||||-7.5|-32.8|0.0019
90946913|NCT04832971|181772677|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-13.3||||0.0192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.5|-2.2||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, and baseline value as model terms. The model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 4||-2.2|-24.5|0.0192
90946914|NCT04832971|181772677|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-8.4||||0.1362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.6|2.7||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, and baseline value as model terms. The model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 4||2.7|-19.6|0.1362
90946915|NCT04832971|181772677|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-18.7||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.8|-7.7||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, and baseline value as model terms. The model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 4||-7.7|-29.8|0.0010
90946916|NCT04832971|181772677|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-13.9||||0.0428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.3|-0.5||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, and baseline value as model terms. The model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 8||-0.5|-27.3|0.0428
90946917|NCT04832971|181772677|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-4.5||||0.5122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.9|8.9||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, and baseline value as model terms. The model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 8||8.9|-17.9|0.5122
90946918|NCT04832971|181772677|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-14.6||||0.0331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.9|-1.2||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, and baseline value as model terms. The model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 8||-1.2|-27.9|0.0331
90946919|NCT04832971|181772677|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-15.4||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.8|5.1||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, and baseline value as model terms. The model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 12||5.1|-35.8|0.1400
90946920|NCT04832971|181772677|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.2||||0.9854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.2|20.6||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, and baseline value as model terms. The model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 12||20.6|-20.2|0.9854
90979107|NCT02886702|181843082|EQUIVALENCE|90% confidence interval on the difference between the proportions to be within \[-20%, +20%\].|Risk Difference (RD)|-4.5||||||90.0|-12.6|3.6||p-value not calculated|Yates' corrected confidence interval|||||3.6|-12.6|
90946921|NCT04832971|181772677|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-19.8||||0.0552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.1|0.4||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, and baseline value as model terms. The model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 12||0.4|-40.1|0.0552
90946922|NCT04832971|181772677|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-13.1||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.7|-0.4||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, and baseline value as model terms. The model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 16||-0.4|-25.7|0.0430
90946923|NCT04832971|181772677|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-11.0||||0.0871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.6|1.6||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, and baseline value as model terms. The model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 16||1.6|-23.6|0.0871
90946924|NCT04832971|181772677|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-23.1||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.7|-10.6||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, and baseline value as model terms. The model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 16||-10.6|-35.7|0.0004
90946925|NCT04832971|181772677|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-14.0||||0.0219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.9|-2.0||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, and baseline value as model terms. The model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 20||-2.0|-25.9|0.0219
90979108|NCT02886702|181843082|SUPERIORITY|Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF) for missing efficacy values||||||0.352|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|stratified by clinical site||||||0.3520
90979109|NCT02886702|181843083|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8105|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|stratified by clinical site||||||0.8105
90946926|NCT04832971|181772677|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-8.7||||0.1526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.6|3.2||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, and baseline value as model terms. The model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 20||3.2|-20.6|0.1526
90946927|NCT04832971|181772677|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-17.0||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.9|-5.2||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, and baseline value as model terms. The model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 20||-5.2|-28.9|0.0049
90946928|NCT04832971|181772677|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-16.0||||0.0138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.7|-3.3||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, and baseline value as model terms. The model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 24||-3.3|-28.7|0.0138
90946929|NCT04832971|181772677|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-9.3||||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|3.3||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, and baseline value as model terms. The model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 24||3.3|-22.0|0.1480
90979110|NCT02886702|181843083|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0613|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|stratified by clinical site||||||0.0613
90979111|NCT02886702|181843084|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|stratified by clinical site||||||1.0000
90946930|NCT04832971|181772677|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-20.2||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.8|-7.5||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, and baseline value as model terms. The model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 24||-7.5|-32.8|0.0019
90979112|NCT02886702|181843084|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0712|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|stratified by clinical site||||||0.0712
90979113|NCT00054847|181843091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.84||Multiple logistic regression analysis was used to adjust for stratification factors and characteristics that were potentially predictive of graft patency. We also performed prespecified subgroup analyses and assessed treatment subgroup interaction.|Chi-squared|We performed as-treated and per-protocol analyses \& multiple imputations as sensitivity analyses to the intent-to-treat analysis on primary end point.||The study was designed to have 90% power to detect 1-year patency rates of 92% in radial artery vs 83% in saphenous vein grafts, with a 2-sided type I error of 5%and an expected 1-year catheterization completion rate of 65%.||1.84|.62|.82
90979114|NCT00054847|181843092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.61
90979115|NCT00054847|181843093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>.99
90946931|NCT04832971|181772677|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-9.3||||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.4|3.9||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, and baseline value as model terms. The model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 28||3.9|-22.4|0.1660
90946932|NCT04832971|181772677|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-2.6||||0.6964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.7|10.5||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, and baseline value as model terms. The model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 28||10.5|-15.7|0.6964
91038725|NCT03214588|181961950|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.2|0.7||||||Change at Week 12, Upright Stability||0.7|-1.2|
91038726|NCT03214588|181961950|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|1.3||||||Change at Week 12, Upright Stability||1.3|-0.3|
91038727|NCT03214588|181961951|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.084|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.13|0.15||||||Change at Week 2, Cough||0.15|-0.13|
91038728|NCT03214588|181961951|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.069|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.11|0.12||||||Change at Week 2, Cough||0.12|-0.11|
91038729|NCT03214588|181961951|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.105|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.24|0.11||||||Change at Week 7, Cough||0.11|-0.24|
91038730|NCT03214588|181961951|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.088|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.05|0.25||||||Change at Week 7, Cough||0.25|-0.05|
91038731|NCT03214588|181961951|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.106|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.11|0.25||||||Change at Week 12, Cough||0.25|-0.11|
91038732|NCT03214588|181961951|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.087|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.03|0.26||||||Change at Week 12, Cough||0.26|-0.03|
91038733|NCT03214588|181961951|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.09|0.25||||||Change at Week 2, Speech||0.25|-0.09|
90946933|NCT04832971|181772677|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-11.5||||0.0831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.5|1.5||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, and baseline value as model terms. The model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 28||1.5|-24.5|0.0831
90946934|NCT04832971|181772677|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-12.0||||0.1425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.2|4.1||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, and baseline value as model terms. The model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 36||4.1|-28.2|0.1425
90946935|NCT04832971|181772677|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.5||||0.9494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.6|16.6||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, and baseline value as model terms. The model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 36||16.6|-15.6|0.9494
91038734|NCT03214588|181961951|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.083|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.04|0.24||||||Change at Week 2, Speech||0.24|-0.04|
90946936|NCT04832971|181772677|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-7.5||||0.3535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.5|8.4||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, and baseline value as model terms. The model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 36||8.4|-23.5|0.3535
90946937|NCT04832971|181772678|SUPERIORITY||Difference vs Placebo|-54.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.11|-46.4||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL vs \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|mixed Models Repeated Measures|||||-46.40|-62.11|<.0001
90979116|NCT01147926|181843096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
90979117|NCT02207907|181843135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-17.491|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.317|-14.664|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA analysis with treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline MGI and BI as covariates|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|||-14.664|-20.317|<0.0001
90979118|NCT02207907|181843136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.201|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.237|-0.165|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA analysis with treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline MGI and BI as covariates|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|||-0.165|-0.237|<0.0001
90979119|NCT01025635|181843148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.017|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|study center adjusted||||||0.017
90979120|NCT01025635|181843149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|with factors treatment group, study center, and baseline lesion count as covariate||||||<0.001
90979121|NCT00929240|181843153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.383|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.266|0.551||Stratified by interactive voice/Web response system (IVRS), estrogen receptor (ER) status, visceral metastasis (yes/no), response to initial phase, and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) level.|Log Rank||Stratified by IVRS, ER status, visceral metastasis (yes/no), response to initial phase, and LDH level.|||0.551|0.266|<0.0001
90979122|NCT00929240|181843153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.429|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.309|0.597|||Log Rank|Unstratified analysis||||0.597|0.309|<0.0001
90979123|NCT00929240|181843154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.1||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|20.3|||Chi-squared||CIs with Hauck-Anderson adjustment for difference in rates of bevacizumab + capecitabine arm to bevacizumab alone arm.|||20.3|-2.1|0.113
90979124|NCT00929240|181843155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|4.6|||Chi-squared||CIs with Hauck-Anderson adjustment for difference in rates of Bevacizumab+Capecitabine group to Bevacizumab only group.|||4.6|-2.6|0.580
91038735|NCT03214588|181961951|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.071|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.16|0.08||||||Change at Week 7, Speech||0.08|-0.16|
91038736|NCT03214588|181961951|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.03|0.17||||||Change at Week 7, Speech||0.17|-0.03|
91038737|NCT03214588|181961951|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.095|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.16|0.16||||||Change at Week 12, Speech||0.16|-0.16|
91038738|NCT03214588|181961951|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.079|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.04|0.22||||||Change at Week 12, Speech||0.22|-0.04|
90946938|NCT04832971|181772678|SUPERIORITY||Difference vs Placebo at Week 24|-69.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.58|-61.95||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL vs \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||||-61.95|-77.58|<.0001
90946939|NCT04832971|181772678|SUPERIORITY||Difference vs Placebo at Week 24|-73.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-81.44|-65.93||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL vs \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||||-65.93|-81.44|<.0001
90946940|NCT04832971|181772679|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-67.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.26|-61.04||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 4||-61.04|-74.26|<.0001
90946941|NCT04832971|181772679|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-80.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-87.42|-74.17||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 4||-74.17|-87.42|<.0001
90946942|NCT04832971|181772679|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-84.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-91.27|-78.12||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 4||-78.12|-91.27|<.0001
90946943|NCT04832971|181772679|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-59.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.57|-50.57||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 8||-50.57|-67.57|<.0001
90946944|NCT04832971|181772679|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-71.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.47|-63.5||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 8||-63.50|-80.47|<.0001
90946945|NCT04832971|181772679|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-76.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.9|-67.99||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 8||-67.99|-84.90|<.0001
91038739|NCT03214588|181961951|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.131|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.14|0.29||||||Change at Week 2, Right Finger to Finger Test||0.29|-0.14|
91038740|NCT03214588|181961951|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.108|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.22|0.14||||||Change at Week 2, Right Finger to Finger Test||0.14|-0.22|
90979125|NCT00929240|181843157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.425|||<|0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.263|0.685||Stratified by IVRS, ER status, visceral metastasis (yes/no), response to initial phase, and LDH level.|Log Rank|||||0.685|0.263|<0.0003
90979126|NCT00929240|181843157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.516||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.334|0.798||Unstratified analysis|Log Rank|||||0.798|0.334|0.002
90979127|NCT00929240|181843160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.383|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.266|0.551||Stratified by IVRS, ER status, visceral metastasis (yes/no), response to initial phase, and LDH level.|Log Rank||Stratification variables are randomisation stratification parameters as of IVRS: ER status, Visceral metastasis (yes/no), Response to initial phase, LDH concentration level.|||0.551|0.266|<0.0001
90979128|NCT00929240|181843160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.425|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.305|0.591||Unstratified analysis|Log Rank||Hazard ratio was determined using the cox regression model.|||0.591|0.305|<0.0001
90979129|NCT01834404|181843164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.057|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.057
90979130|NCT01834404|181843165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.052|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.052
90979131|NCT01834404|181843166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.36
90979132|NCT01834404|181843167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.99
90979133|NCT01834404|181843168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.45
90979134|NCT01834404|181843169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.22
90979135|NCT01834404|181843170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.032|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.032
90979136|NCT01834404|181843171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||This p-value was based on a rank transformation.||||0.030
90979137|NCT01834404|181843172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.35
90979138|NCT01834404|181843173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.72
90979139|NCT01834404|181843174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.90
90979140|NCT01834404|181843175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.54
90979141|NCT01834404|181843176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.26
90979142|NCT01276288|181843196|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing in a confirmatory sense|Geometric mean ratio|107.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.8||0.0092|TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.11|118.07||"p-value for ratio outside interval 80-125%~Ratio calculated as Empa plus HCT divided by Empa"|ANOVA|Model was adjusted for sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects while subjects within sequences as random effect|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) reflecting intra-subject variabilities|Only patients in sequences Empa/Empa+HCT were included||118.07|97.11|0.0092
90979143|NCT01276288|181843196|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing in a confirmatory sense|Geometric mean ratio|107.83|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.9||0.003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.14|116.11||"p-value for ratio outside interval 80-125%~Ratio calculated as Empa plus TOR divided by Empa"|ANOVA|Model was adjusted for sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects while subjects within sequences as random effect|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) reflecting intra-subject variabilities|Only patients in sequences Empa/Empa+TOR were included||116.11|100.14|0.0030
90979144|NCT01276288|181843197|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing in a confirmatory sense|Geometric mean ratio|102.78|STANDARD_DEVIATION|18.3||0.0199|TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.55|119.29||"p-value for ratio outside interval 80-125%~Ratio calculated as Empa+ HCT divided by Empa"|ANOVA|Model was adjusted for sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects while subjects within sequences as random effect|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) reflecting intra-subject variabilities|Only patients in sequences Empa/Empa+HCT were included||119.29|88.55|0.0199
90979145|NCT01276288|181843197|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing in a confirmatory sense|Geometric mean ratio|107.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.3||0.0086|TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.9|118.04||"p-value for ratio outside interval 80-125%~Ratio calculated as Empa+ TOR divided by Empa"|ANOVA|Model was adjusted for sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects while subjects within sequences as random effect|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) reflecting intra-subject variabilities|Only patients in sequences Empa/Empa+TOR were included||118.04|97.90|0.0086
91038741|NCT03214588|181961951|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.122|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.13|0.28||||||Change at Week 7, Right Finger to Finger Test||0.28|-0.13|
90946946|NCT04832971|181772679|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-55.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.18|-45.01||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 12||-45.01|-65.18|<.0001
90946947|NCT04832971|181772679|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-70.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.6|-60.51||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 12||-60.51|-80.60|<.0001
90946948|NCT04832971|181772679|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-74.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.95|-64.04||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 12||-64.04|-83.95|<.0001
90946949|NCT04832971|181772679|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-72.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.88|-65.56||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 16||-65.56|-78.88|<.0001
91038742|NCT03214588|181961951|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.103|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.24|0.11||||||Change at Week 7, Right Finger to Finger Test||0.11|-0.24|
90946950|NCT04832971|181772679|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-84.09|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-90.72|-77.46||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 16||-77.46|-90.72|<.0001
90946951|NCT04832971|181772679|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-89.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-95.59|-82.42||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 16||-82.42|-95.59|<.0001
90946952|NCT04832971|181772679|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-64.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.4|-58.31||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 20||-58.31|-71.40|<.0001
90946953|NCT04832971|181772679|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-77.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.98|-70.93||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 20||-70.93|-83.98|<.0001
91038743|NCT03214588|181961951|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.126|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|0.12||||||Change at Week 12, Right Finger to Finger Test||0.12|-0.30|
90946954|NCT04832971|181772679|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-80.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-87.06|-74.14||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 20||-74.14|-87.06|<.0001
90946955|NCT04832971|181772679|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-54.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.11|-46.4||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 24||-46.40|-62.11|<.0001
91038744|NCT03214588|181961951|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.104|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.32|0.03||||||Change at Week 12, Right Finger to Finger Test||0.03|-0.32|
91038745|NCT03214588|181961951|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.142|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.15|0.33||||||Change at Week 2, Left Finger to Finger Test||0.33|-0.15|
91038746|NCT03214588|181961951|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.117|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.16|0.23||||||Change at Week 2, Left Finger to Finger Test||0.23|-0.16|
91038747|NCT03214588|181961951|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.123|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.18|0.23||||||Change at Week 7, Left Finger to Finger Test||0.23|-0.18|
91038748|NCT03214588|181961951|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.104|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.15|0.2||||||Change at Week 7, Left Finger to Finger Test||0.20|-0.15|
91038749|NCT03214588|181961951|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.158|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.17|0.36||||||Change at Week 12, Left Finger to Finger Test||0.36|-0.17|
91038750|NCT03214588|181961951|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|0.13||||||Change at Week 12, Left Finger to Finger Test||0.13|-0.30|
91038751|NCT03214588|181961951|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.04|0.53||||||Change at Week 2, Right Nose to Finger Test||0.53|0.04|
91038752|NCT03214588|181961951|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.118|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.06|0.33||||||Change at Week 2, Right Nose to Finger Test||0.33|-0.06|
91038753|NCT03214588|181961951|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.174|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.22|0.37||||||Change at Week 7, Right Nose to Finger Test||0.37|-0.22|
91038754|NCT03214588|181961951|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.146|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.32|0.16||||||Change at Week 7, Right Nose to Finger Test||0.16|-0.32|
91038755|NCT03214588|181961951|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.166|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.43|0.12||||||Change at Week 12, Right Nose to Finger Test||0.12|-0.43|
91038756|NCT03214588|181961951|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.23|0.23||||||Change at Week 12, Right Nose to Finger Test||0.23|-0.23|
90890095|NCT01571362|181644073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08||0.0658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|4.12||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Difference between treatment groups in change from Screening for Social Functioning.||4.12|-0.13|0.0658
91038757|NCT03214588|181961951|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.161|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.14|0.4||||||Change at Week 2, Left Nose to Finger Test||0.40|-0.14|
91038758|NCT03214588|181961951|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.133|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.12|0.33||||||Change at Week 2, Left Nose to Finger Test||0.33|-0.12|
91038759|NCT03214588|181961951|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.157|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.09|0.43||||||Change at Week 7, Left Nose to Finger Test||0.43|-0.09|
91038760|NCT03214588|181961951|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.134|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.36|0.09||||||Change at Week 7, Left Nose to Finger Test||0.09|-0.36|
91038761|NCT03214588|181961951|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.169|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.29|0.27||||||Change at Week 12, Left Nose to Finger Test||0.27|-0.29|
91038762|NCT03214588|181961951|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.21|0.27||||||Change at Week 12, Left Nose to Finger Test||0.27|-0.21|
91038763|NCT03214588|181961951|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.176|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.33|0.26||||||Change at Week 2, Right Dysmetria Test||0.26|-0.33|
91038764|NCT03214588|181961951|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.12|0.36||||||Change at Week 2, Right Dysmetria Test||0.36|-0.12|
91038765|NCT03214588|181961951|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.217|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.25|0.48||||||Change at Week 7, Right Dysmetria Test||0.48|-0.25|
91038766|NCT03214588|181961951|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.183|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.14|0.47||||||Change at Week 7, Right Dysmetria Test||0.47|-0.14|
91038767|NCT03214588|181961951|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.221|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.26|0.48||||||Change at Week 12, Right Dysmetria Test||0.48|-0.26|
91038768|NCT03214588|181961951|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.183|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.36|0.25||||||Change at Week 12, Right Dysmetria Test||0.25|-0.36|
91038769|NCT03214588|181961951|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.185|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.02|0.6||||||Change at Week 2, Left Dysmetria Test||0.60|-0.02|
91038770|NCT03214588|181961951|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.153|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|0.41||||||Change at Week 2, Left Dysmetria Test||0.41|-0.10|
91038771|NCT03214588|181961951|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.228|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.63|0.13||||||Change at Week 7, Left Dysmetria Test||0.13|-0.63|
91038772|NCT03214588|181961951|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.192|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.47|0.18||||||Change at Week 7, Left Dysmetria Test||0.18|-0.47|
91038773|NCT03214588|181961951|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.254|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.37|0.48||||||Change at Week 12, Left Dysmetria Test||0.48|-0.37|
91038774|NCT03214588|181961951|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.209|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.11|0.58||||||Change at Week 12, Left Dysmetria Test||0.58|-0.11|
91038775|NCT03214588|181961951|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.06|0.51||||||Change at Week 2, RAM of Right Hands||0.51|-0.06|
91038776|NCT03214588|181961951|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.12|0.35||||||Change at Week 2, RAM of Right Hands||0.35|-0.12|
90946956|NCT04832971|181772679|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-69.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.58|-61.95||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 24||-61.95|-77.58|<.0001
90946957|NCT04832971|181772679|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-73.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-81.44|-65.93||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 24||-65.93|-81.44|<.0001
90946958|NCT04832971|181772679|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-54.75|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.84|-46.67||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 28||-46.67|-62.84|<.0001
90946959|NCT04832971|181772679|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-66.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.69|-58.52||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 28||-58.52|-74.69|<.0001
90946960|NCT04832971|181772679|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-73.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-81.36|-65.38||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 28||-65.38|-81.36|<.0001
90946961|NCT04832971|181772679|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-45.43|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.17|-36.69||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 36||-36.69|-54.17|<.0001
90946962|NCT04832971|181772679|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-57.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.88|-48.41||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 36||-48.41|-65.88|<.0001
90946963|NCT04832971|181772679|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-63.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.19|-54.97||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 36||-54.97|-72.19|<.0001
90946964|NCT04832971|181772680|SUPERIORITY||Difference vs Placebo at Week 24|-12.0||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.2|-3.9||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL vs \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||||-3.9|-20.2|0.0039
90946965|NCT04832971|181772680|SUPERIORITY||Difference vs Placebo at Week 24|-21.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.8|-13.4||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL vs \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||||-13.4|-29.8|<.0001
90946966|NCT04832971|181772680|SUPERIORITY||Differeence vs Placebo at week 24|-24.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.6|-16.5||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL vs \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||||-16.5|-32.6|<.0001
90946967|NCT04832971|181772681|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-13.7||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.9|-6.4||Includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 4||-6.4|-20.9|0.0003
90946968|NCT04832971|181772681|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-25.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.6|-17.9||Includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 4||-17.9|-32.6|<.0001
90946969|NCT04832971|181772681|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-24.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.8|-17.3||Includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 4||-17.3|-31.8|<.0001
90946970|NCT04832971|181772681|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-15.0||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.4|-7.5||Includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 8||-7.5|-22.4|0.0001
90946971|NCT04832971|181772681|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-25.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.0|-17.9||Includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 8||-17.9|-33.0|<.0001
90979146|NCT01276288|181843198|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing in a confirmatory sense|Geometric mean ratio|96.27|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.6||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.08|104.05||"p-value for ratio outside interval 80-125%~Ratio calculated as Empa plus HCT divided by HCT"|ANOVA|Model was adjusted for treatment as fixed effect and subject as random effect|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) reflecting intra-subject variabilities|Only patients in sequences Empa/Empa+HCT were included||104.05|89.08|0.0008
90979147|NCT01276288|181843199|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing in a confirmatory sense|Geometric mean ratio|101.77|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.1||0.0114|TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.63|116.85||"p-value for ratio outside interval 80-125%~Ratio calculated as Empa+ HCT divided by HCT"|ANOVA|Model was adjusted for treatment as fixed effect and subject as random effect|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) reflecting intra-subject variabilities|Only patients in sequences Empa/Empa+HCT were included||116.85|88.63|0.0114
91038777|NCT03214588|181961951|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.204|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.41|0.28||||||Change at Week 7, RAM of Right Hands||0.28|-0.41|
91038778|NCT03214588|181961951|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.172|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.29|0.29||||||Change at Week 7, RAM of Right Hands||0.29|-0.29|
90979148|NCT01276288|181843200|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing in a confirmatory sense|Geometric mean ratio|101.44|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.9|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.06|103.88||"p-value for ratio outside interval 80-125%~Ratio calculated as Empa plus TOR divided by TOR"|ANOVA|Model was adjusted for treatment as fixed effect and subject as random effect|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) reflecting intra-subject variabilities|Only patients in sequences Empa/Empa+TOR were included||103.88|99.06|<0.0001
90979149|NCT01276288|181843200|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing in a confirmatory sense|Geometric mean ratio|104.42|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.8|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.39|108.62||"p-value for ratio outside interval 80-125%~Ratio calculated as Empa+ TOR-M1 divided by TOR-M1"|ANOVA|Model was adjusted for treatment as fixed effect and subject as random effect|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) reflecting intra-subject variabilities|Only patients in sequences Empa/Empa+TOR were included||108.62|100.39|<0.0001
91038779|NCT03214588|181961951|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.187|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.12|0.51||||||Change at Week 12, RAM of Right Hands||0.51|-0.12|
90979150|NCT01276288|181843200|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing in a confirmatory sense|Geometric mean ratio|103.19|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.9||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.93|111.01||"p-value for ratio outside interval 80-125%~Ratio calculated as Empa+ TOR-M3 divided by TOR-M3"|ANOVA|Model was adjusted for treatment as fixed effect and subject as random effect|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) reflecting intra-subject variabilities|Only patients in sequences Empa/Empa+TOR were included||111.01|95.93|0.0005
90979151|NCT01276288|181843201|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing in a confirmatory sense|Geometric mean ratio|104.43|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.1||0.0066|TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.81|116.25||"p-value for ratio outside interval 80-125%~Ratio calculated as Empa+ TOR divided by TOR"|ANOVA|Model was adjusted for treatment as fixed effect and subject as random effect|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) reflecting intra-subject variabilities|Only patients in sequences Empa/Empa+TOR were included||116.25|93.81|0.0066
90979152|NCT01276288|181843201|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing in a confirmatory sense|Geometric mean ratio|102.67|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.6||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.13|111.97||"p-value for ratio outside interval 80-125%~Ratio calculated as Empa+ TOR-M1 divided by TOR-M1"|ANOVA|Model was adjusted for treatment as fixed effect and subject as random effect|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) reflecting intra-subject variabilities|Only patients in sequences Empa/Empa+TOR were included||111.97|94.13|0.0012
90979153|NCT01276288|181843201|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing in a confirmatory sense|Geometric mean ratio|102.42|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.8|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.65|107.42||"p-value for ratio outside interval 80-125%~Ratio calculated as Empa+ TOR-M3 divided by TOR-M3"|ANOVA|Model was adjusted for treatment as fixed effect and subject as random effect|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) reflecting intra-subject variabilities|Only patients in sequences Empa/Empa+TOR were included||107.42|97.65|<0.0001
90979154|NCT01478958|181843221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.238||||||Overall diet effect. No post-hoc analyses required. Adjusted for multiple comparisons.|General Linear Model Univariate Analysis|Baseline values for %FMD, BMI, age, gender and intervention diet used as prognostic factors in model.||To detect a 2% inter-group difference in FMD (primary outcome) using a SD of 2.3, 90% power and 5% significance level, n=171 participants were required (n=57 per group), increasing to n=228 to include a 25% dropout rate.||||0.238
91038780|NCT03214588|181961951|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.156|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.31|0.21||||||Change at Week 12, RAM of Right Hands||0.21|-0.31|
91038781|NCT03214588|181961951|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.15|0.32||||||Change at Week 2, RAM of Left Hands||0.32|-0.15|
91038782|NCT03214588|181961951|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.12|0.27||||||Change at Week 2, RAM of Left Hands||0.27|-0.12|
91038783|NCT03214588|181961951|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.209|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.27|0.43||||||Change at Week 7, RAM of Left Hands||0.43|-0.27|
91038784|NCT03214588|181961951|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.176|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.17|0.42||||||Change at Week 7, RAM of Left Hands||0.42|-0.17|
90979155|NCT01478958|181843221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021||||||Effect of the SFA-rich diet relative to baseline.|General Linear Model Univariate Analysis|Baseline values for %FMD, BMI and age, gender and intervention diet were used as prognostic factors in the model.||||||0.021
90979156|NCT01478958|181843221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Effect of MUFA-rich diet relative to baseline.|General Linear Model Univariate Analysis|Baseline values for %FMD, BMI and age, gender and intervention diet were used as prognostic factors in the model.||||||>0.05
90979157|NCT01478958|181843221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Effect of n-6 PUFA-rich diet relative to baseline.|General Linear Model Univariate Analysis|Baseline values for %FMD, BMI and age, gender and intervention diet were used as prognostic factors in the model.||||||>0.05
90979158|NCT05003115|181843233|SUPERIORITY||Mean Diff. Adjusting for Baseline Values|-6.36||||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.17|1.44|||Regression, Linear|||||1.44|-14.17|0.101
90979159|NCT05003115|181843234|SUPERIORITY||Mean Diff. Adjusting for Baseline Values|-0.1||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.59|||Regression, Linear|||||0.59|-0.79|0.78
90979160|NCT05003115|181843235|SUPERIORITY||Mean Diff. Adjusting for Baseline Values|-0.95||||0.314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.83|0.94|||Regression, Linear|||||0.94|-2.83|0.314
90979161|NCT05003115|181843236|SUPERIORITY||Mean Diff. Adjusting for Baseline Values|-1.04||||0.679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|3.92|||Regression, Linear|||||3.92|-6.00|0.679
90979162|NCT05003115|181843237|SUPERIORITY||Mean Diff. Adjusting for Baseline Values|0.01||||0.994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|2.25|||Regression, Linear|||||2.25|-2.23|0.994
90979163|NCT05003115|181843238|SUPERIORITY||Mean Diff. Adjusting for Baseline Values|-1.22||||0.258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.33|0.89|||Regression, Linear|||||0.89|-3.33|0.258
90979164|NCT05003115|181843239|SUPERIORITY||Mean Diff. Adjusting for Baseline Values|-0.4||||0.857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.75|3.96|||Regression, Linear|||||3.96|-4.75|0.857
90979165|NCT01147809|181843246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|21.1||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|52.5|||ANCOVA|||||52.5|-3.9|0.103
90979166|NCT01147809|181843268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|12.9||||0.407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.6|51.1|||ANCOVA|||||51.1|-15.6|0.407
90979167|NCT01147809|181843269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-4.4||||0.802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.5|37.4|||ANCOVA|||||37.4|-33.5|0.802
90979168|NCT01307423|181843277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.1||||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|20.7|||Chi-squared||Two-sided 95% CI of the proportion difference is based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|In order to maintain the Type 1 error at the 0.05 significance level, the Hochberg procedure was to be used. The results of the endpoint were to be considered statistically significant if both the 30 mg apremilast dose versus placebo comparison and the 20 mg versus placebo comparison were statistically significant at the 0.05 significance level, or one of the comparisons was statistically significant at the 0.025 level.||20.7|3.5|0.0062
90979169|NCT01307423|181843277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.8||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.1|23.5|||Chi-squared||Two-sided 95% CI of the proportion difference is based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|In order to maintain the Type 1 error at the 0.05 significance level, the Hochberg procedure was to be used. The results of the endpoint were to be considered statistically significant if both the 30 mg apremilast dose versus placebo comparison and the 20 mg versus placebo comparison were statistically significant at the 0.05 significance level, or one of the comparisons was statistically significant at the 0.025 level.||23.5|6.1|0.0010
90979170|NCT01307423|181843278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.168||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.265|-0.071|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group as a factor, and the baseline value as a covariate.||Pairwise comparisons (30 mg vs placebo and 20 mg vs placebo) were conducted conditional on the primary endpoint results. If the primary endpoint was statistically significant for both apremilast dose groups, pairwise comparisons for the HAQ-DI were to be evaluated at the 0.05 level using the Hochberg procedure. If only one apremilast dose was statistically significant, then only the comparison between that apremilast dose and placebo was conducted for the HAQ-DI score, at the 0.025 level.||-0.071|-0.265|0.0008
90979171|NCT01307423|181843278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.217|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.314|-0.12|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group as a factor, and the baseline value as a covariate||Pairwise comparisons (30 mg vs placebo and 20 mg vs placebo) were conducted conditional on the primary endpoint results. If the primary endpoint was statistically significant for both apremilast dose groups, pairwise comparisons for the HAQ-DI were to be evaluated at the 0.05 level using the Hochberg procedure. If only one apremilast dose was statistically significant, then only the comparison between that apremilast dose and placebo was conducted for the HAQ-DI score, at the 0.025 level.||-0.120|-0.314|<.0001
90979172|NCT01307423|181843279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.1||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|24.4||Secondary endpoints from the placebo-controlled period (Weeks 16 and 24) were analyzed in a hierarchical fashion to control the Type I error rate as described above|Chi-squared||Two-sided 95% CI of the proportion difference is based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||24.4|7.7|0.0002
90979173|NCT01307423|181843279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.4||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|19.4||Secondary endpoints from the placebo-controlled period (Weeks 16 and 24) were analyzed in a hierarchical fashion to control the Type I error rate as described above|Chi-squared||Two-sided 95% CI of the proportion difference is based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||19.4|3.3|0.0063
91038785|NCT03214588|181961951|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.159|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.04|0.58||||||Change at Week 12, RAM of Left Hand||0.58|0.04|
90946972|NCT04832971|181772681|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-26.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.7|-18.7||Includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 8||-18.7|-33.7|<.0001
90946973|NCT04832971|181772681|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-8.9||||0.0429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6|-0.3||Includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 12||-0.3|-17.6|0.0429
90946974|NCT04832971|181772681|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-20.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.4|-12.0||Includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 12||-12.0|-29.4|<.0001
90946975|NCT04832971|181772681|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-20.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.7|-11.6||Includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 12||-11.6|-28.7|<.0001
90946976|NCT04832971|181772681|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-17.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.2|-9.5||Includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 16||-9.5|-26.2|<.0001
90946977|NCT04832971|181772681|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-30.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.0|-22.2||Includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 16||-22.2|-39.0|<.0001
90979174|NCT01307423|181843280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.168||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.271|-0.065||Secondary endpoints from the placebo-controlled period (Weeks 16 and 24) were analyzed in a hierarchical fashion to control the Type I error rate as described above|ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 24, with treatment group as a factor and baseline value as a covariate||||-0.065|-0.271|0.0014
90979175|NCT01307423|181843280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.219|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.322|-0.117||Secondary endpoints from the placebo-controlled period (Weeks 16 and 24) were analyzed in a hierarchical fashion to control the Type I error rate as described above|ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 24, with treatment group as a factor and baseline value as a covariate||||-0.117|-0.322|<.0001
91038786|NCT03214588|181961951|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.132|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.01|0.43||||||Change at Week 12, RAM of Left Hand||0.43|-0.01|
90946978|NCT04832971|181772681|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-32.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.5|-24.0||Includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 16||-24.0|-40.5|<.0001
90946979|NCT04832971|181772681|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-14.6||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.7|-6.5||Includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 20||-6.5|-22.7|0.0005
90946980|NCT04832971|181772681|OTHER||Difference|-28.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.6|-20.3||Includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 20||-20.3|-36.6|<.0001
90946981|NCT04832971|181772681|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-30.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.4|-22.4||Includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 20||-22.4|-38.4|<.0001
90946982|NCT04832971|181772681|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-12.0||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.2|-3.9||Includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 24||-3.9|-20.2|0.0039
90946983|NCT04832971|181772681|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-21.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.8|-13.4||Includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 24||-13.4|-29.8|<.0001
90979176|NCT01307423|181843281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|2.38||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|4.01||Secondary endpoints from the placebo-controlled period (Weeks 16 and 24) were analyzed in a hierarchical fashion to control the Type I error rate as described above.|ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 16, with treatment group as a factor and baseline value as a covariate||||4.01|0.75|0.0043
91038787|NCT03214588|181961951|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.201|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.1|0.77||||||Change at Week 2, Right Finger Taps||0.77|0.10|
91038788|NCT03214588|181961951|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.168|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.12|0.44||||||Change at Week 2, Right Finger Taps||0.44|-0.12|
90979177|NCT01307423|181843281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|3.18||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|4.82||Secondary endpoints from the placebo-controlled period (Weeks 16 and 24) were analyzed in a hierarchical fashion to control the Type I error rate as described above|ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 16, with treatment group as a factor and baseline value as a covariate||||4.82|1.55|0.0002
90979178|NCT01307423|181843282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.4||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.8|24.0||Secondary endpoints from the placebo-controlled period (Weeks 16 and 24) were analyzed in a hierarchical fashion to control the Type I error rate as described above.|Chi-squared||Two-sided 95% CI of the proportion difference is based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||24.0|4.8|0.0037
90979179|NCT01307423|181843282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.3|30.7||Secondary endpoints from the placebo-controlled period (Weeks 16 and 24) were analyzed in a hierarchical fashion to control the Type I error rate as described above.|Chi-squared||Two-sided 95% CI of the proportion difference is based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||30.7|11.3|<.0001
90979180|NCT01307423|181843283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-5.0||||0.0485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|0.0||Secondary endpoints from the placebo-controlled period (Weeks 16 and 24) were analyzed in a hierarchical fashion to control the Type I error rate as described above|ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group as a factor, and the baseline value as a covariate||||-0.0|-10.0|0.0485
90979181|NCT01307423|181843283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-7.8||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|-2.8||Secondary endpoints from the placebo-controlled period (Weeks 16 and 24) were analyzed in a hierarchical fashion to control the Type I error rate as described above|ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group as a factor, and the baseline value as a covariate||||-2.8|-12.8|0.0022
90979182|NCT01307423|181843284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.7696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.6|||ANCOVA||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 16, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate|||0.6|-0.8|0.7696
90979183|NCT01307423|181843284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.3||Secondary endpoints from the placebo-controlled period (Weeks 16 and 24) were analyzed in a hierarchical fashion to control the Type I error rate as described above|ANCOVA||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 16, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate|||-0.3|-1.7|0.0038
90979184|NCT01307423|181843285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.2|||||Based on analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 16, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate|||-0.2|-1.6|
90979185|NCT01307423|181843285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.0|||||Based on analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 16, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate|||-0.0|-1.4|
90979186|NCT01307423|181843286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-4.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.04|-2.78|||||Based on analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 16, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate|||-2.78|-7.04|
90979187|NCT01307423|181843286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-5.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.78|-3.51|||||Based on analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 16, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate|||-3.51|-7.78|
90979188|NCT01307423|181843287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.46|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.25|||ANCOVA||Based on analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 16, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate|||-0.25|-0.67|<0.0001
90979189|NCT01307423|181843287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.32|||ANCOVA||Based on analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 16, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate|||-0.32|-0.74|<0.0001
90979190|NCT01307423|181843288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|2.87|||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 16, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate|||2.87|-0.63|
90979191|NCT01307423|181843288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|2.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|4.31|||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 16, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate|||4.31|0.80|
90979192|NCT01307423|181843289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Means Difference|1.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|3.65|||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 24, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate|||3.65|0.28|
90979193|NCT01307423|181843289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|3.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|5.41|||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 24, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate|||5.41|2.02|
90979194|NCT01307423|181843290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|19.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.5|28.6|||||Two-sided 95% CI of the proportion difference is based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution|||28.6|10.5|
91038789|NCT03214588|181961951|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.227|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.16|0.6||||||Change at Week 7, Right Finger Taps||0.60|-0.16|
91038790|NCT03214588|181961951|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.193|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.33|0.31||||||Change at Week 7, Right Finger Taps||0.31|-0.33|
91038791|NCT03214588|181961951|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.233|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.22|0.56||||||Change at Week 12, Right Finger Taps||0.56|-0.22|
90946984|NCT04832971|181772681|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-24.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.6|-16.5||Includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 24||-16.5|-32.6|<.0001
90946985|NCT04832971|181772681|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-8.4||||0.0343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|-0.6||Includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 28||-0.6|-16.2|0.0343
90946986|NCT04832971|181772681|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-17.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.6|-9.8||Includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 28||-9.8|-25.6|<.0001
90946987|NCT04832971|181772681|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-21.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.3|-13.8||Includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 28||-13.8|-29.3|<.0001
90946988|NCT04832971|181772681|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-7.8||||0.0501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.6|0.0||Includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 36||0.0|-15.6|0.0501
90946989|NCT04832971|181772681|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-20.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.9|-12.2||Includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 36||-12.2|-27.9|<.0001
90946990|NCT04832971|181772681|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-15.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.5|-8.1||Includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 36||-8.1|-23.5|<.0001
90946991|NCT01107899|181772696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for the overall effect of initial inhibition on the day to return to baseline platelet function.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.001
90946992|NCT01107899|181772698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|p-value was obtained from an analysis of covariance model with treatment as a fixed effect and the baseline value as a covariate.||||||<0.001
90946993|NCT01107899|181772698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|p-value was obtained from an analysis of covariance model with treatment as a fixed effect and the baseline value as a covariate.||||||<0.001
90979195|NCT01307423|181843290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.2|27.2|||||Two-sided 95% CI of the proportion difference is based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution|||27.2|9.2|
91038792|NCT03214588|181961951|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.194|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.39|0.26||||||Change at Week 12, Right Finger Taps||0.26|-0.39|
90946994|NCT01107899|181772698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025||95.0|||||ANCOVA|p-value was obtained from an analysis of covariance model with treatment as a fixed effect and the baseline value as a covariate.||||||0.025
90946995|NCT03584152|181772706|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis stated that the combination of treatment arm B is worse than the combination of treatment arm A by more than -Δ, where -Δ is the 'non-inferiority margin.'||||||0.156||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.156
90946996|NCT03584152|181772707|OTHER|||||||0.112||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.112
90946997|NCT03584152|181772708|OTHER|||||||0.803||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.803
90946998|NCT03584152|181772709|OTHER|||||||0.403||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.403
90946999|NCT03584152|181772710|OTHER|||||||0.405||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Chi-squared|||Difference between-groups in nausea||||0.405
90947000|NCT03584152|181772710|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Difference between-groups in itchiness||||0.001
90947001|NCT03584152|181772710|OTHER|||||||0.571||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Chi-squared|||Difference between-groups in constipation||||0.571
90947002|NCT03584152|181772710|OTHER|||||||0.078||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Chi-squared|||Difference between-groups in dizziness||||0.078
90979196|NCT01307423|181843291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-5.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|-0.5|||||Based on an analysis of covariance (Ancova) model for the change from baseline at Week 24, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate|||-0.5|-10.6|
90947003|NCT03584152|181772710|OTHER|||||||0.724||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Chi-squared|||Difference between-groups in bleeding||||0.724
91038793|NCT03214588|181961951|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.223|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.12|0.87||||||Change at Week 2, Left Finger Taps||0.87|0.12|
91038794|NCT03214588|181961951|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.183|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.25|0.36||||||Change at Week 2, Left Finger Taps||0.36|-0.25|
91038795|NCT03214588|181961951|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.218|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.22|0.95||||||Change at Week 7, Left Finger Taps||0.95|0.22|
91038796|NCT03214588|181961951|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.184|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.15|0.47||||||Change at Week 7, Left Finger Taps||0.47|-0.15|
90947004|NCT03584152|181772710|OTHER|||||||0.795||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Chi-squared|||Difference between-groups in headache||||0.795
90947005|NCT03584152|181772710|OTHER|||||||0.188||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||"Difference between-groups in other side effects"||||0.188
90947006|NCT03584152|181772711|OTHER|||||||0.7318||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in change in SCHNOS-O||||0.7318
90947007|NCT03584152|181772711|OTHER|||||||0.5267||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in change in SCHNOS-C||||0.5267
90947008|NCT03584152|181772712|OTHER|||||||0.9158||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in change in VAS-F||||0.9158
90947009|NCT03584152|181772713|OTHER|||||||0.5351||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in change in VAS-A||||0.5351
90947010|NCT03584152|181772714|OTHER|||||||0.378||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.378
90947011|NCT03584152|181772715|OTHER|||||||0.195||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.195
90947012|NCT03584152|181772716|OTHER|||||||0.682|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.682
90979197|NCT01307423|181843291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|-0.7|||||Based on an analysis of covariance (Ancova) model for the change from baseline at Week 24, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate|||-0.7|-10.8|
90947013|NCT04024462|181772717|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis could be rejected and non-inferiority concluded if the lower bound of the 90% confidence interval of the geometric mean ratio was ≥0.8.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.99|1.15|||||The CtroughSC/CtroughIV geometric mean ratio was calculated as the SC dose of pertuzumab (Arm B) relative to the pertuzumab IV dose (Arm A).|The null hypothesis was that the pertuzumab Arm B SC dose is inferior to the pertuzumab Arm A IV dose (i.e., the CtroughSC/CtroughIV geometric mean ratio of the SC dose of pertuzumab relative to the IV dose is not greater than 0.8).||1.15|0.99|
90947014|NCT04024462|181772718|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis could be rejected and non-inferiority concluded if the lower bound of the 90% confidence interval of the geometric mean ratio was ≥0.8. Non-inferiority was tested in hierarchical order after the primary outcome measure, to adjust for multiple statistical testing and control the type I error at one sided 5% significance level.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.44|1.67|||||The CtroughSC/CtroughIV geometric mean ratio was calculated as the SC dose of trastuzumab (Arm B) relative to the trastuzumab IV dose (Arm A).|The null hypothesis was that the trastuzumab Arm B SC dose is inferior to the Arm A trastuzumab IV dose (i.e., the CtroughSC/CtroughIV geometric mean ratio of the SC dose of trastuzumab relative to the IV dose is not greater than 0.8).||1.67|1.44|
90947015|NCT04024462|181772719|OTHER|Descriptive analysis only. tpCR was analyzed outside of a hypothesis-testing framework and according to the methodology outlined in the outcome measure description.|Difference in tpCR Rate|-0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.21|13.45|||||Difference in tpCR rate was calculated as Arm B: PH FDC SC minus Arm A: P+H IV.|||13.45|-15.21|
90947016|NCT01351805|181772729|OTHER|Test of change from baseline as above.|Percent change in geometric means|8.19||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|15.31||IL-6 from baseline to one year: overall % change= 8.19% (95%CI 1.52-15.31).|as above|p above adjusted for age, sex, race and n-3 fatty acid randomized treatment group.||Geometric means of biomarker concentrations with 95% CIs were calculated for baseline and 1 year biomarkers (IL-6, TNFR2 and CRP) by treatment group (active vs. placebo vitamin D). Linear repeated measures models calculated the % change in means for each biomarker from baseline to year one and the overall effects of randomized treatments with 95% CIs.||15.31|1.52|0.02
90947017|NCT01351805|181772729|OTHER|Test of change from baseline as above.|Percent change in geometric means|-0.73||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.87|5.81||4\. IL-6 from baseline to one year: overall % change= -0.73% (95%CI -6.87 to 5.81).|as above|p above adjusted for age, sex, race and vitamin D randomized treatment group.||Geometric means of biomarker concentrations with 95% CIs were calculated for baseline and 1 year biomarkers (IL-6, TNFR2 and CRP) by treatment group (active vs. placebo vitamin D). Linear repeated measures models calculated the % change in means for each biomarker from baseline to year one and the overall effects of randomized treatments with 95% CIs.||5.81|-6.87|0.97
90979198|NCT01307423|181843292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.4|||||Based on an analysis of covariance (Ancova) model for the change from baseline at Week 24, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||0.4|-1.0|
90979199|NCT01307423|181843292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.2|||||Based on an analysis of covariance (Ancova) model for the change from baseline at Week 24, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||-0.2|-1.6|
90979200|NCT01307423|181843293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.3|||||Based on an analysis of covariance (Ancova) model for the change from baseline at Week 24, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||-0.3|-1.7|
90979201|NCT01307423|181843293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.1|||||Based on an analysis of covariance (Ancova) model for the change from baseline at Week 24, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||0.1|-1.4|
91038797|NCT03214588|181961951|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.272|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.11|1.02||||||Change at Week 12, Left Finger Taps||1.02|0.11|
90947018|NCT01351805|181772729|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicative interaction between strata based on linear models of ln biomarker from baseline to year 1,p for interaction between strata.||||||0.12||||||Test of multiplicative interaction between the effects of the two supplements|p for interaction|||Test for interaction between effect of vitamin D and effect of omega-3 fatty acids on IL-6 change from baseline to 1 year||||0.12
90947019|NCT01351805|181772730|OTHER|Test of change from baseline as above.|Percent change in geometric means|7.12||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|16.87||3\. HsCRP from baseline to one year: overall % change= 7.12% (95%CI -1.81-16.78).|as above|p above adjusted for age, sex, race and n-3 fatty acid randomized treatment group.||Geometric means of biomarker concentrations with 95% CIs were calculated for baseline and 1 year biomarkers (IL-6, TNFR2 and CRP) by treatment group (active vs. placebo vitamin D). Linear repeated measures models calculated the % change in means for each biomarker from baseline to year one and the overall effects of randomized treatments with 95% CIs.||16.87|-1.81|0.16
90947020|NCT01351805|181772730|OTHER|Test of change from baseline as above.|Percent change in geometric means|-3.89||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.92|4.86||6\. HsCRP from baseline to one year: overall % change= -3.89% (95%CI -11.92-4.86).|as above|p above adjusted for age, sex, race and vitamin D randomized treatment group.||Geometric means of biomarker concentrations with 95% CIs were calculated for baseline and 1 year biomarkers (IL-6, TNFR2 and CRP) by treatment group (active vs. placebo vitamin D). Linear repeated measures models calculated the % change in means for each biomarker from baseline to year one and the overall effects of randomized treatments with 95% CIs.||4.86|-11.92|0.44
90947021|NCT01351805|181772730|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||P for interaction|||Test for multiplicative interaction between effect of vitamin D and effect of omega-3. based on linear models of ln biomarker from baseline to year 1.||||0.38
90947022|NCT01351805|181772731|OTHER|Test of change from baseline as above.|Percent change in geometric means|0.63||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|2.31||2\. TNFR2 from baseline to one year: overall % change= 0.63% (95%CI -1.03 to 2.31).|as above|p above adjusted for age, sex, race and n-3 fatty acid randomized treatment group.||Geometric means of biomarker concentrations with 95% CIs were calculated for baseline and 1 year biomarkers (IL-6, TNFR2 and CRP) by treatment group (active vs. placebo vitamin D). Linear repeated measures models calculated the % change in means for each biomarker from baseline to year one and the overall effects of randomized treatments with 95% CIs.||2.31|-1.03|0.57
90947023|NCT01351805|181772731|OTHER|Test of change from baseline as above.|Percent change in geometric means|-1.27||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.89|0.39||5\. TNFR2 from baseline to one year: overall % change= -1.27% (95%CI -2.89 to 0.39).|as above|p above adjusted for age, sex, race and vitamin D randomized treatment group.||Geometric means of biomarker concentrations with 95% CIs were calculated for baseline and 1 year biomarkers (IL-6, TNFR2 and CRP) by treatment group (active vs. placebo vitamin D). Linear repeated measures models calculated the % change in means for each biomarker from baseline to year one and the overall effects of randomized treatments with 95% CIs.||0.39|-2.89|0.13
90947024|NCT01351805|181772731|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicative interaction between strata based on linear models of ln biomarker from baseline to year 1 with p for interaction between strata.||||||0.74|||||||P for interaction|||Test for multiplicative interaction between effect of vitamin D and effect of omega-3. based on linear models of ln biomarker from baseline to year 1.||||0.74
90947025|NCT01351805|181772732|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.78||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.99|||Regression, Cox|||||0.99|0.61|0.05
90947026|NCT01351805|181772732|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.85||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.08|||Regression, Cox|||||1.08|0.67|0.19
90947027|NCT01351805|181772732|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||P for interaction|p multiplicative interaction between effects of vitamin D and n-3 fa supplements||Test for multiplicative interaction between the effects of randomized treatment groups, vitamin D and n-3 fa on incidence of autoimmune disease.||||0.20
90947028|NCT01351805|181772733|OTHER|We assessed the main effects of the treatment arms comparing all those randomized to omega-3 fatty acids or omega-3 fatty acid placebo, regardless of vitamin D randomization status.||||||0.77||||||Repeated measures model with unstructured variance to assess effect of treatment on WOMAC Pain adjusting for age, sex, and other treatment. Linear time by treatment interaction term assessed change in WOMAC Pain over time in treatment vs placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures model with censoring for total knee replacement.||Intention to treat analysis using a repeated measures model with unstructured variance to assess the effect of treatment arm on WOMAC Pain adjusting for age, sex, and the other treatment arm. The linear time by treatment interaction term assessed change in WOMAC Pain over time between participants randomized to treatment versus placebo.||||0.77
91038798|NCT03214588|181961951|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.224|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.04|0.71||||||Change at Week 12, Left Finger Taps||0.71|-0.04|
91038799|NCT03214588|181961951|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.193|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.12|0.53||||||Change at Week 2, Right Heel Along Shin Slide||0.53|-0.12|
90979202|NCT01307423|181843294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-5.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.31|-2.84|||||Based on an analysis of covariance (Ancova) model for the change from baseline at Week 24, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||-2.84|-7.31|
90979203|NCT01307423|181843294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-5.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.38|-2.89|||||Based on an analysis of covariance model (Ancova) for the change from baseline at Week 24, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||-2.89|-7.38|
91038800|NCT03214588|181961951|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.161|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.26|0.27||||||Change at Week 2, Right Heel Along Shin Slide||0.27|-0.26|
91038801|NCT03214588|181961951|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.251|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.56|0.28||||||Change at Week 7, Right Heel Along Shin Slide||0.28|-0.56|
90947029|NCT01351805|181772733|OTHER|We assessed the main effects of the treatment arms comparing all those randomized to vitamin D or vitamin D placebo, regardless of omega-3 fatty acid randomization status.||||||0.41||||||Repeated measures model with unstructured variance to assess effect of treatment on WOMAC Pain adjusting for age, sex, and other treatment. Linear time by treatment interaction term assessed change in WOMAC Pain over time in treatment vs placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear time by treatment interaction (comparing change in WOMAC pain over time in two randomized groups)||Intention to treat analysis using a repeated measures model with unstructured variance to assess the effect of treatment arm on WOMAC Pain adjusting for age, sex, and the other treatment arm. The linear time by treatment interaction term assessed change in WOMAC Pain over time between participants randomized to treatment versus placebo.|We assessed for effect modification between vitamin D and N-3 FA and tested for other pre-specified interactions. We again used a repeated measures model with censoring for TKR. We adjusted for age, sex and N-3 FA treatment arm (in analyses in which N-3 FA treatment arm was not investigated as a potential modifier).|||0.41
90947030|NCT01351805|181772733|OTHER|Linear regression - WOMAC pain over time mean (Standard error - SE). Differences in WOMAC pain scores in stratified groups.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.42|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Active n3fa vs placebo n3fa among those on placebo vitamin D.||||0.42
90947031|NCT01351805|181772733|OTHER|Linear regression - WOMAC pain over time mean (Standard error - SE). Differences in WOMAC pain scores in stratified groups.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.18|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Vitamin D vs. vitamin D placebo among those on placebo omega-3 fatty acids- stratified analyses.||||0.18
90947032|NCT01351805|181772733|OTHER|Linear regression - WOMAC pain over time mean (Standard error - SE). Report only in final year. Differences in WOMAC pain scores in cross-classified groups.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.89||0.84|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Omega-3 fatty acids vs. omega-3 fatty acids placebo among those on active vitamin D.||||0.84
90947033|NCT01351805|181772733|OTHER|Linear regression - WOMAC pain over time mean (Standard error - SE). Report only in final year. Differences in WOMAC pain scores in cross-classified groups.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.76|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Omega-3 fatty acids vs. omega-3 fatty acids placebo among those on placebo vitamin D.||||0.76
90947034|NCT01351805|181772734|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||HR with 95%CI|Regression, Cox|||HR for incident autoimmune disease in intervention groups vs. placebo (ref=1.0) using Cox models with 95% confidence intervals||||<0.05
90947035|NCT04292470|181772737|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.41
90947036|NCT04292470|181772738|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||ANOVA|||For statistical testing, we used a general linear model of change in GERD symptoms from baseline to 8 weeks adjusted for the natural log of the index value (of the ratio of the change in skin conductance between patient and physician at baseline) and randomization assignment.||||0.09
90947037|NCT02906020|181772753|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.87|=|0.1679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|6.27||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|MMRM|||Least-squares (LS) mean, standard errors (SE) and p-value were estimated from mixed-effect model with repeated measures (MMRM) analysis which included fixed categorical effects of treatment group, randomization strata, time point, treatment-by-time point and strata-by-time point interaction and continuous fixed covariates Baseline value and Baseline value-by-time point interaction.||6.27|-1.10|=0.1679
90947038|NCT02906020|181772754|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.85|=|0.5996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.63|2.68||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|MMRM|||LS mean, SE and P-value were estimated from MMRM analysis which included fixed categorical effects of treatment group, randomization strata, time point, treatment-by-time point and strata-by-time point interaction and continuous fixed covariates Baseline value and Baseline value-by-time point interaction.||2.68|-4.63|=0.5996
90947039|NCT02906020|181772755|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|4.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.13|=|0.0535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|8.32||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|MMRM|||LS mean, SE and P-value were estimated from MMRM analysis which included fixed categorical effects of treatment group, randomization strata, time point, treatment-by-time point and strata-by-time point interaction and continuous fixed covariates Baseline value and Baseline value-by-time-interaction||8.32|-0.06|=0.0535
91038802|NCT03214588|181961951|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.214|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.53|0.19||||||Change at Week 7, Right Heel Along Shin Slide||0.19|-0.53|
90947040|NCT02906020|181772756|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|=|0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.17||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|MMRM|||LS mean, SE and P-value: estimated from MMRM analysis which included fixed categorical effects of treatment group, randomization strata, time point, treatment-by-time point and strata-by-time point interaction and continuous fixed covariates Baseline value and Baseline value-by-time-interaction.||0.17|-0.12|=0.7400
90947041|NCT02701062|181772760|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2593|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2593
90947042|NCT02701062|181772761|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
90947043|NCT02701062|181772762|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1238|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1238
90947044|NCT02701062|181772763|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6603|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||LOS (Total)||||0.6603
90947045|NCT02701062|181772763|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0783|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||LOS (Post-Procedure)||||0.0783
90947046|NCT02701062|181772763|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4282|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Readmission LOS (per subject)||||0.4282
90947047|NCT02701062|181772764|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6603|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6603
90947048|NCT02701062|181772764|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0783|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||LOS (Post-Procedure)||||0.0783
90947049|NCT02701062|181772764|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4282|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Readmission LOS (per subject)||||0.4282
90947050|NCT02701062|181772765|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5442|||||||Fisher Exact|||Reoperation||||0.5442
91038803|NCT03214588|181961951|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.12|0.78||||||Change at Week 12,Right Heel Along Shin Slide||0.78|-0.12|
90947051|NCT02701062|181772765|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2598|||||||Fisher Exact|||ED Visit||||0.2598
90947052|NCT02701062|181772765|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5442|||||||Fisher Exact|||Neurologic Consult||||0.5442
90947053|NCT02701062|181772765|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2921|||||||Fisher Exact|||Hospital Readmission (per subject)||||0.2921
90947054|NCT06193967|181772769|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||A standard alpha level of ≥ 0.05 was used to determine statistical significance.|To determine the main effects of positive reinforcement on DSM behavior, a 2x2 factorial ANOVA was conducted with gamification and caregiver praise status as the independent variables and a dependent variable of DSM frequency (number of days with tracking). A gamification\*caregiver praise interaction term was also included in the model to test for interactive effects.|||>0.05
90947055|NCT06193967|181772769|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA||||To determine the main effects of positive reinforcement on DSM behavior, a 2x2 factorial ANOVA was conducted with gamification and caregiver praise status as the independent variables and a dependent variable of DSM frequency (number of days with tracking). A gamification\*caregiver praise interaction term was also included in the model to test for interactive effects.|||>0.05
90947056|NCT06193967|181772770|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||A standard alpha level of ≥ 0.05 was used to determine statistical significance.|"Linear mixed-factor ANOVA was used with between-subject factors of praise and gamification status, a within-subject factor of time (week), and a dependent variable of DSM frequency.~Results reflect outcomes for main effect of time."|||<0.001
90947057|NCT06193967|181772771|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||A standard alpha level of ≥ 0.05 was used to determine statistical significance.|To determine the main effects of positive reinforcement on DSM behavior, a 2x2 factorial ANOVA was conducted with gamification and caregiver praise status as the independent variables and a dependent variable of DSM timing (proportion of items tracked on day of intake). A gamification\*caregiver praise interaction term was also included in the model to test for interactive effects.|||>0.05
90947058|NCT06193967|181772771|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA||||To determine the main effects of positive reinforcement on DSM behavior, a 2x2 factorial ANOVA was conducted with gamification and caregiver praise status as the independent variables and a dependent variable of DSM timing (proportion of items tracked on day of intake). A gamification\*caregiver praise interaction term was also included in the model to test for interactive effects.|||>0.05
90947059|NCT06193967|181772772|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||A standard alpha level of ≥ 0.05 was used to determine statistical significance.|"Linear mixed-factor ANOVA was used with between-subject factors of praise and gamification status, a within-subject factor of time (week), and a dependent variable of DSM timing (Proportion of Items Tracked on Day of Intake).~Results reflect outcomes for main effect of time."|||0.01
90947060|NCT06193967|181772773|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||A standard alpha level of ≥ 0.05 was used to determine statistical significance.|To determine the main effects of positive reinforcement on DSM behavior, a 2x2 factorial ANOVA was conducted with gamification and caregiver praise status as the independent variables and a dependent variable of DSM timing (number of logging sessions). A gamification\*caregiver praise interaction term was also included in the model to test for interactive effects.|||>0.05
90947061|NCT06193967|181772773|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA||||To determine the main effects of positive reinforcement on DSM behavior, a 2x2 factorial ANOVA was conducted with gamification and caregiver praise status as the independent variables and a dependent variable of DSM timing (number of logging sessions). A gamification\*caregiver praise interaction term was also included in the model to test for interactive effects.|||>0.05
90947062|NCT06193967|181772774|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||A standard alpha level of ≥ 0.05 was used to determine statistical significance.|"Linear mixed-factor ANOVA was used with between-subject factors of praise and gamification status, a within-subject factor of time (week), and a dependent variable of DSM timing (number of loging sessions).~Results reflect outcomes for main effect of time."|||<0.0001
90947063|NCT06193967|181772775|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA||||To determine the main effects of positive reinforcement on motivation, a 2x2 factorial ANCOVA was conducted with gamification and caregiver praise status as the independent variables, a dependent variable of intrinsic motivation at follow-up, and a covariate of intrinsic motivation at baseline. A gamification\*caregiver praise interaction term was also included in the model to test for interactive effects.|||>0.05
90947064|NCT06193967|181772775|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA||||To determine the main effects of positive reinforcement on motivation, a 2x2 factorial ANCOVA was conducted with gamification and caregiver praise status as the independent variables, a dependent variable of intrinsic motivation at follow-up, and a covariate of intrinsic motivation at baseline. A gamification\*caregiver praise interaction term was also included in the model to test for interactive effects.|||>0.05
90947065|NCT06193967|181772776|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||A standard alpha level of ≥ 0.05 was used to determine statistical significance.|To determine the main effects of positive reinforcement on motivation, a 2x2 factorial ANCOVA was conducted with gamification and caregiver praise status as the independent variables, a dependent variable of scores for child motivation to change eating behaviors at follow-up, and a covariate of baseline scores. A gamification\*caregiver praise interaction term was also included in the model to test for interactive effects.|||>0.05
90947066|NCT06193967|181772776|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA||||To determine the main effects of positive reinforcement on motivation, a 2x2 factorial ANCOVA was conducted with gamification and caregiver praise status as the independent variables, a dependent variable of scores for child motivation to change eating behaviors at follow-up, and a covariate of baseline scores. A gamification\*caregiver praise interaction term was also included in the model to test for interactive effects.|||>0.05
90979204|NCT01307423|181843295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.23|||ANCOVA||Based on an analysis of covariance (Ancova) model for the change from baseline at Week 24, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||-0.23|-0.70|<0.0001
91038804|NCT03214588|181961951|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.226|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.25|0.51||||||Change at Week 12,Right Heel Along Shin Slide||0.51|-0.25|
90947067|NCT06193967|181772777|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA||||To determine the main effects of positive reinforcement on dietary intake, a 2x2 factorial ANCOVA was conducted with gamification and caregiver praise status as the independent variables, a dietary intake at follow-up, and a covariate of dietary intake at baseline. A gamification\*caregiver praise interaction term was also included in the model to test for interactive effects.|||>0.05
90947068|NCT06193967|181772777|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||A standard alpha level of ≥ 0.05 was used to determine statistical significance.|To determine the main effects of positive reinforcement on dietary intake, a 2x2 factorial ANCOVA was conducted with gamification and caregiver praise status as the independent variables, a dietary intake at follow-up, and a covariate of dietary intake at baseline. A gamification\*caregiver praise interaction term was also included in the model to test for interactive effects.|||>0.05
90947069|NCT06193967|181772778|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||A standard alpha level of ≥ 0.05 was used to determine statistical significance.|To determine the main effects of positive reinforcement on dietary intake, a 2x2 factorial ANCOVA was conducted with gamification and caregiver praise status as the independent variables, a dietary intake at follow-up, and a covariate of dietary intake at baseline. A gamification\*caregiver praise interaction term was also included in the model to test for interactive effects.|||>0.05
90947070|NCT06193967|181772778|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||ANCOVA||||To determine the main effects of positive reinforcement on dietary intake, a 2x2 factorial ANCOVA was conducted with gamification and caregiver praise status as the independent variables, a dietary intake at follow-up, and a covariate of dietary intake at baseline. A gamification\*caregiver praise interaction term was also included in the model to test for interactive effects.|||0.03
90947071|NCT06193967|181772779|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA||||To determine the main effects of positive reinforcement on dietary intake, a 2x2 factorial ANCOVA was conducted with gamification and caregiver praise status as the independent variables, a dietary intake at follow-up, and a covariate of dietary intake at baseline. A gamification\*caregiver praise interaction term was also included in the model to test for interactive effects.|||>0.05
90947072|NCT06193967|181772779|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||ANCOVA||||To determine the main effects of positive reinforcement on dietary intake, a 2x2 factorial ANCOVA was conducted with gamification and caregiver praise status as the independent variables, a dietary intake at follow-up, and a covariate of dietary intake at baseline. A gamification\*caregiver praise interaction term was also included in the model to test for interactive effects.|||0.02
90947073|NCT06193967|181772780|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA||||To determine the main effects of positive reinforcement on dietary intake, a 2x2 factorial ANCOVA was conducted with gamification and caregiver praise status as the independent variables, a dietary intake at follow-up, and a covariate of dietary intake at baseline. A gamification\*caregiver praise interaction term was also included in the model to test for interactive effects.|||>0.05
90947074|NCT06193967|181772780|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA||||To determine the main effects of positive reinforcement on dietary intake, a 2x2 factorial ANCOVA was conducted with gamification and caregiver praise status as the independent variables, a dietary intake at follow-up, and a covariate of dietary intake at baseline. A gamification\*caregiver praise interaction term was also included in the model to test for interactive effects.|||>0.05
90947075|NCT06193967|181772781|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA||||To determine the main effects of positive reinforcement on dietary intake, a 2x2 factorial ANCOVA was conducted with gamification and caregiver praise status as the independent variables, a dietary intake at follow-up, and a covariate of dietary intake at baseline. A gamification\*caregiver praise interaction term was also included in the model to test for interactive effects.|||>0.05
90947076|NCT06193967|181772781|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA||||To determine the main effects of positive reinforcement on dietary intake, a 2x2 factorial ANCOVA was conducted with gamification and caregiver praise status as the independent variables, a dietary intake at follow-up, and a covariate of dietary intake at baseline. A gamification\*caregiver praise interaction term was also included in the model to test for interactive effects.|||>0.05
90947077|NCT01124097|181772821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9321|||||||Dunnett's test|||||||0.9321
90979205|NCT01307423|181843295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.46||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.22|||ANCOVA||Based on an analysis of covariance model (Ancova) for the change from baseline at Week 24, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||-0.22|-0.69|0.0001
90979206|NCT01307423|181843296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|2.93|||||Based on an analysis of covariance model (Ancova) for the change from baseline at Week 24, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||2.93|-0.68|
90947078|NCT01124097|181772821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.261|||||||Dunnett's test|||||||0.2610
90947079|NCT01124097|181772821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4764|||||||Dunnett's test|||||||0.4764
90947080|NCT05878873|181772876|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.078|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.007|TWO_SIDED|||||This value was adjusted using false discovery rate.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom = 44.|This estimate calculation is TENS ON - TENS OFF.|Statistical analysis comparing cortical activation between TENS ON and TENS OFF conditions in people with multiple sclerosis.||||0.007
90947081|NCT05878873|181772876|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.089|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032||0.008|TWO_SIDED|||||This value was adjusted using false discovery rate.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom = 44|The estimate calculation is TENS ON - TENS OFF.|Statistical analysis comparing cortical activation between TENS ON and TENS OFF conditions in healthy controls.||||0.008
90947082|NCT05878873|181772877|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0141||0.014|TWO_SIDED|||||This value was adjusted using false discovery rate.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom = 44|This estimate calculation is TENS ON - TENS OFF at Visit 2.|Statistical analysis comparing savings between TENS ON and TENS OFF conditions in people with multiple sclerosis.||||0.014
90947083|NCT05878873|181772877|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0058|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.167||0.878|TWO_SIDED|||||This value was corrected with false discovery rate.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom = 44|The estimate calculation is TENS ON - TENS OFF at Visit 2|Statistical analysis comparing savings between TENS ON and TENS OFF conditions in healthy controls.||||0.878
90979207|NCT01307423|181843296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|4.15|||||Based on an analysis of covariance model (Ancova) for the change from baseline at Week 24, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||4.15|0.52|
90979208|NCT01307423|181843297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|15.5|||||Two-sided 95% CI of the proportion difference is based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution|||15.5|-10.2|
90979209|NCT01307423|181843297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|29.8|||||Two-sided 95% CI of the proportion difference is based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution|||29.8|4.2|
90979210|NCT01307423|181843298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|20.4|||||Two-sided 95% CI of the proportion difference is based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||20.4|-7.8|
90979211|NCT01307423|181843298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|16.4|||||Two-sided 95% CI of the proportion difference is based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||16.4|-12.6|
90979212|NCT01307423|181843299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.4|25.8|||||Two-sided 95% CI of the proportion difference is based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||25.8|6.4|
90947084|NCT05878873|181772878|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018||0.898|TWO_SIDED|||||This value was corrected using false discovery rate.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom = 44|The estimate calculation is TENS ON - TENS OFF|Statistical analysis comparing rate of adaptation between TENS ON and TENS OFF conditions in people with multiple sclerosis.||||0.898
90947085|NCT05878873|181772878|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021||0.698|TWO_SIDED|||||This value was corrected using false discovery rate.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom = 44|The estimate calculation is TENS ON - TENS OFF|Statistical analysis comparing rate of adaptation between TENS ON and TENS OFF conditions in healthy controls.||||0.698
90947086|NCT00559377|181772919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.27||||0.42|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||This outcome is for comparing FMISO Hypoxic Volume to overall survival||||.42
90947087|NCT00559377|181772919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.87|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||This outcome is for comparing FMISO T:Bmax to overall survival||||.87
90947088|NCT00559377|181772920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18||||0.58|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||This outcome is for comparison of FMISO Hypoxic Volume to disease-free survival||||.58
90947089|NCT00559377|181772920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.98|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||This outcome is for comarison of FMISO T:Bmax to progression-free survival||||.98
90947090|NCT00559377|181772921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman Correlation|0.004|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Correlation|||The correlation between IHC values and FMISO uptake were analyzed using Spearman correlation where p values less than 0.05 were considered significant.||||<0.05
90947091|NCT00203047|181772940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11820976||0.8023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.2|||ANCOVA|||||0.20|-0.26|0.8023
90947092|NCT02229227|181772944|NON_INFERIORITY|If the upper bound of the confidence interval is less than or equal to 0.3%, non-inferiority will be concluded.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.17||Non-inferiority p-value. P-value from testing the null hypothesis that the difference in change from baseline least squares means (albiglutide-insulin lispro) is greater than 0.30% based on one-sided t-test with 0.025 level of significance.|t-test, 2 sided||Least Square mean of albiglutide + insulin glargine from insulin lispro + insulin glargine has been presented.|||0.17|-0.05|<0.0001
90979213|NCT01307423|181843299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|19.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.6|29.1|||||Two-sided 95% CI of the proportion difference is based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||29.1|9.6|
90979214|NCT01307423|181843300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|18.8|||||Two-sided 95% CI of the proportion difference is based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution|||18.8|-6.8|
90979215|NCT01307423|181843300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|30.6|||||Two-sided 95% CI of the proportion difference is based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution|||30.6|5.3|
90979216|NCT01307423|181843301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|25.9|||||Two-sided 95% CI of the proportion difference is based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||25.9|-2.1|
90947093|NCT02229227|181772946|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.43|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.6||Analysis was performed using non-parametric Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test after adjusting for Baseline HbA1c category, age category, region and current use of metformin.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented.|||0.60|0.31|<0.0001
90947094|NCT02229227|181772947|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.93|-3.82|||t-test, 2 sided||Least Square mean difference (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented.|||-3.82|-4.93|<0.0001
90947095|NCT02229227|181772948|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|-1.0|||||Least Square mean difference (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) at Week 4 has been presented.|Week 4||-1.00|-1.43|
90947096|NCT02229227|181772948|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|-1.55|||||Least Square mean difference (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) at Week 5 has been presented.|Week 5||-1.55|-2.05|
90979217|NCT01307423|181843301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|19.8|||||Two-sided 95% CI of the proportion difference is based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||19.8|-9.2|
90979218|NCT01307423|181843302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.8|26.8|||||Two-sided 95% CI of the proportion difference is based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||26.8|8.8|
90979219|NCT01307423|181843302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|20.0|||||Two-sided 95% CI of the proportion difference is based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||20.0|2.7|
90979220|NCT01307423|181843303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|12.5|||||Two-sided 95% CI of the proportion difference is based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||12.5|1.3|
90979221|NCT01307423|181843303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|12.4|||||Two-sided 95% CI of the proportion difference is based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||12.4|1.2|
90979222|NCT01307423|181843304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|6.2|||||Two-sided 95% CI of the proportion difference is based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution|||6.2|-0.4|
90979223|NCT01307423|181843304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|6.1|||||Two-sided 95% CI of the proportion difference is based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution|||6.1|-0.4|
91038805|NCT03214588|181961951|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.205|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.51|0.18||||||Change at Week 2, Left Heel Along Shin Slide||0.18|-0.51|
91038806|NCT03214588|181961951|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.166|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.25|0.31||||||Change at Week 2, Left Heel Along Shin Slide||0.31|-0.25|
90947097|NCT02229227|181772948|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.51|-2.82|||||Least Square mean difference (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) at Week 10 has been presented.|Week 10||-2.82|-3.51|
90979224|NCT01307423|181843305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|16.3|||||Two-sided 95% CI of the proportion difference is based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution|||16.3|3.2|
90979225|NCT01307423|181843305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|12.3|||||Two-sided 95% CI of the proportion difference is based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution|||12.3|0.2|
90947098|NCT02229227|181772948|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.48|-3.54|||||Least Square mean difference (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) at Week 18 has been presented.|Week 18||-3.54|-4.48|
90947099|NCT02229227|181772948|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.93|-3.82|||t-test, 2 sided||Least Square mean difference (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) at Week 26 has been presented.|Week 26||-3.82|-4.93|<0.0001
90979226|NCT01307423|181843306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|4.1|||||Two-sided 95% CI of the proportion difference is based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||4.1|-4.1|
90979227|NCT01307423|181843306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|4.8|||||Two-sided 95% CI of the proportion difference is based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||4.8|-3.7|
90979228|NCT01307423|181843307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|12.6|||||Two-sided 95% CI of the proportion difference is based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||12.6|-8.1|
90947100|NCT02229227|181772949|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-60.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.57|-55.1|||t-test, 2 sided||Least square mean difference (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented.|||-55.10|-66.57|<0.0001
90947101|NCT02229227|181772950|NON_INFERIORITY|Difference in change from Baseline least squares means (albiglutide - insulin lispro) is greater than 0.30% based on one-sided t-test with 0.025 level of significance|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|-0.07|||t-test, 1 sided||Least square mean difference (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented for Week 4.|Week 4||-0.07|-0.18|<0.0001
90947102|NCT02229227|181772950|NON_INFERIORITY|Difference in change from Baseline least squares means (albiglutide - insulin lispro) is greater than 0.30% based on one-sided t-test with 0.025 level of significance|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|-0.02|||t-test, 1 sided||Least square mean difference (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented for Week 5.|Week 5||-0.02|-0.15|<0.0001
90979229|NCT01307423|181843307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|29.3|||||Two-sided 95% CI of the proportion difference is based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||29.3|6.3|
90979230|NCT01307423|181843308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|23.5|||||Two-sided 95% CI of the proportion difference is based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||23.5|-4.8|
90979231|NCT01307423|181843308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|21.5|||||Two-sided 95% CI of the proportion difference is based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||21.5|-7.2|
90979232|NCT01307423|181843309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|17.7|||||Two-sided 95% CI of the proportion difference is based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||17.7|-4.8|
90979233|NCT01307423|181843309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|27.1|||||Two-sided 95% CI of the proportion difference is based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||27.1|3.4|
90979234|NCT01307423|181843310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|24.8|||||Two-sided 95% CI of the proportion difference is based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||24.8|-3.8|
90979235|NCT01307423|181843310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|19.3|||||Two-sided 95% CI of the proportion difference is based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||19.3|-9.5|
90979236|NCT01499290|181843331|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was determined by comparing the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for risk difference (corresponding to a 97.5% 1-sided lower bound) to the non-inferiority marging of -12.5%|Risk Difference (RD)|-3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.64|1.58||||||The primary objective of this study (FDA agreed) was to determine the noninferiority in the clinical cure rate for CAZ-AVI compared to that for Meropenem at TOC in the mMITT in adult subjects with cIAI.||1.58|-8.64|
90979237|NCT01499290|181843332|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was determined by comparing the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for risk difference (corresponding to a 97.5% 1-sided lower bound) to the non-inferiority marging of -12.5%|Risk Difference (RD)|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|2.1||||||The co-primary objective of this study (ROW agreed) was to determine the noninferiority in the clinical cure rate for CAZ-AVI compared to that for Meropenem at TOC in the MITT in adult subjects with cIAI.||2.10|-6.90|
90979238|NCT01499290|181843333|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was determined by comparing the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for risk difference (corresponding to a 97.5% 1-sided lower bound) to the non-inferiority marging of -12.5%|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.61|2.89||||||The co-primary objective of this study (ROW agreed) was to determine the noninferiority in the clinical cure rate for CAZ-AVI compared to that for Meropenem at TOC in the CE in adult subjects with cIAI.||2.89|-4.61|
90979239|NCT00805207|181843363|OTHER|||||||0.85|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.85
90947103|NCT02229227|181772950|NON_INFERIORITY|Difference in change from Baseline least squares means (albiglutide - insulin lispro) is greater than 0.30% based on one-sided t-test with 0.025 level of significance|Mean Difference (Net)|0.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.17|||t-test, 1 sided||Least square mean difference (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented for Week 10.|Week 10||0.17|-0.01|<0.0001
90979240|NCT00805207|181843363|OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.70
90947104|NCT02229227|181772950|NON_INFERIORITY|Difference in change from Baseline least squares means (albiglutide - insulin lispro) is greater than 0.30% based on one-sided t-test with 0.025 level of significance|Mean Difference (Net)|0.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.21|||t-test, 1 sided||Least square mean difference (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented for Week 18.|Week 18||0.21|0.01|<0.0001
90947105|NCT02229227|181772950|NON_INFERIORITY|Difference in change from Baseline least squares means (albiglutide - insulin lispro) is greater than 0.30% based on one-sided t-test with 0.025 level of significance|Mean Difference (Net)|0.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.17|||t-test, 1 sided||Least square mean difference (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented for Week 26.|Week 26||0.17|-0.05|<0.0001
90979241|NCT00805207|181843363|OTHER|||||||0.88||||||P-value is the main effect of treatment (i.e., Before vs. After) from ANOVA|ANOVA|VLDL-TG secretion rates were skewed and log transformed prior to performing ANOVA||||||0.88
90979242|NCT00805207|181843363|OTHER|||||||0.26||||||P-value is the main effect of group (i.e., Testosterone, Progesterone, Estrogen and Control) from ANOVA|ANOVA|VLDL-TG secretion rates were skewed and log transformed prior to performing ANOVA||||||0.26
90979243|NCT00805207|181843363|OTHER|||||||0.98||||||P value is the group by treatment interaction from the ANOVA|ANOVA|VLDL-TG secretion rates were skewed and log transformed prior to performing ANOVA||||||0.98
90947106|NCT02229227|181772951|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.55||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|-0.25|||t-test, 2 sided||Least square mean difference (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented.|||-0.25|-0.86|0.0004
90947107|NCT02229227|181772952|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.24|||||Least square mean difference (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented for Week 4.|Week 4||-0.24|-0.84|
90947108|NCT02229227|181772952|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.13|||||Least square mean difference (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented for Week 5.|Week 5||0.13|-0.51|
90947109|NCT02229227|181772952|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.22|||||Least square mean difference (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented for Week 18.|Week 18||-0.22|-0.85|
90947110|NCT02229227|181772952|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.55||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|-0.25|||t-test, 2 sided||Least square mean difference (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented for Week 26.|Week 26||-0.25|-0.86|0.0004
90947111|NCT02229227|181772953|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.7026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.31||Non-parametric Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test after adjusting for Baseline HbA1c category, age category, region and current use of metformin.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented.|||1.31|0.71|0.7026
90947112|NCT02229227|181772954|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.2883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.64||Analysis was performed using non-parametric Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test after adjusting for baseline HbA1c category, age category, region and current use of metformin|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented for Week 4|Week 4||1.64|0.84|0.2883
90947113|NCT02229227|181772954|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.3034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.15||Analysis was performed using non-parametric Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test after adjusting for baseline HbA1c category, age category, region and current use of metformin.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented for Week 5.|Week 5||1.15|0.59|0.3034
90947114|NCT02229227|181772954|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71||||0.0151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.98||Analysis was performed using non-parametric Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test after adjusting for baseline HbA1c category, age category, region and current use of metformin.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented for Week 10.|Week 10||0.98|0.52|0.0151
90947115|NCT02229227|181772954|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.0518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.03||Analysis was performed using non-parametric Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test after adjusting for baseline HbA1c category, age category, region and current use of metformin|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented for Week 18.|Week 18||1.03|0.54|0.0518
90947116|NCT02229227|181772954|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.7026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.31||Analysis was performed using non-parametric Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test after adjusting for baseline HbA1c category, age category, region and current use of metformin|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented for Week 26.|Week 26||1.31|0.71|0.7026
90947117|NCT02229227|181772955|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.2298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.17||Analysis was performed using non-parametric Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test after adjusting for baseline HbA1c category, age category, region and current use of metformin.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented.|||1.17|0.63|0.2298
90947118|NCT02229227|181772956|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.2143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.23||Analysis was performed using non-parametric Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test after adjusting for baseline HbA1c category, age category, region and current use of metformin.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented for Week 4.|Week 4||2.23|0.78|0.2143
90947119|NCT02229227|181772956|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.4703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.91||Analysis was performed using non-parametric Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test after adjusting for baseline HbA1c category, age category, region and current use of metformin.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented for Week 5.|Week 5||1.91|0.80|0.4703
90947120|NCT02229227|181772956|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.2139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.14||Analysis was performed using non-parametric Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test after adjusting for baseline HbA1c category, age category, region and current use of metformin.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented for Week 10.|Week 10||1.14|0.58|0.2139
90947121|NCT02229227|181772956|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.11||Analysis was performed using non-parametric Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test after adjusting for baseline HbA1c category, age category, region and current use of metformin.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented for Week 18.|Week 18||1.11|0.59|0.0790
90947122|NCT02229227|181772956|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.2298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.17||Analysis was performed using non-parametric Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test after adjusting for baseline HbA1c category, age category, region and current use of metformin.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented for Week 26.|Week 26||1.17|0.63|0.2298
90947123|NCT02229227|181772957|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.8292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|4.77||Analysis was performed using non-parametric Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test after adjusting for baseline HbA1c category, age category, region and current use of metformin.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented.|||4.77|0.24|0.8292
90947124|NCT02229227|181772959|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-56.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.19|-53.57|||||Least square mean difference (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented for Week 4.|Week 4||-53.57|-59.19|
90979244|NCT00805207|181843364|OTHER|||||||0.31|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.31
90947125|NCT02229227|181772959|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-63.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.78|-59.62|||||Least square mean difference (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented for Week 10.|Week 10||-59.62|-67.78|
90947126|NCT02229227|181772959|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-62.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.29|-56.7|||||Least square mean difference (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented for Week 18.|Week 18||-56.70|-67.29|
90947127|NCT02229227|181772960|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|0.3|||||Least square mean difference (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented for Week 4.|Week 4||0.30|-2.25|
90947128|NCT02229227|181772960|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|2.33|||||Least square mean difference (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented for Week 10.|Week 10||2.33|-1.64|
90947129|NCT02229227|181772960|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|2.69|||||Least square mean difference (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented for Week 18.|Week 18||2.69|-2.21|
90947130|NCT02229227|181772960|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.39||||0.7699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|3.04|||t-test, 2 sided||Least square mean difference (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented for Week 26.|Week 26||3.04|-2.25|0.7699
90979245|NCT00805207|181843364|OTHER|||||||0.82|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.82
90979246|NCT00805207|181843364|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
90979247|NCT00805207|181843364|OTHER|||||||0.87|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.87
90979248|NCT00805207|181843364|OTHER|||||||0.57|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.57
90947131|NCT02229227|181772961|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-56.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.17|-53.94|||||Least square mean difference (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented for Week 4.|Week 4||-53.94|-58.17|
90947132|NCT02229227|181772961|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-64.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.68|-61.85|||||Least square mean difference (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented for Week 10.|Week 10||-61.85|-67.68|
90947133|NCT02229227|181772961|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-62.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.69|-59.15|||||Least square mean difference (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented for Week 18.|Week 18||-59.15|-66.69|
90947134|NCT02229227|181772961|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-61.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.85|-57.81|||t-test, 2 sided||Least square mean difference (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented for Week 26.|week 26||-57.81|-65.85|<0.0001
90947135|NCT02229227|181772963|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.52|4.86||Analysis was performed using non-parametric Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test after adjusting for baseline HbA1c category, age category, region and current use of metformin.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented.|||4.86|2.52|<0.0001
90947136|NCT02229227|181772964|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.36|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|3.6||Analysis was performed using non-parametric Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test after adjusting for baseline HbA1c category, age category, region and current use of metformin.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented.|||3.60|1.54|<0.0001
90947137|NCT02229227|181772965|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.21|6.48||Analysis was performed using non-parametric Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test after adjusting for baseline HbA1c category, age category, region and current use of metformin.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented.|||6.48|2.21|<0.0001
90947138|NCT00340704|181773004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.0039|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1725||||95.0|0.6499|1.3579|||||Based on the estimate for the slope parameter, a two sided 95% confidence interval for the slope was computed. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1. Standard error (SE) of the mean is actually SE of the slope.|Dose proportionality for Cmax,ss was explored based on the regression model.||1.3579|0.6499|
90947139|NCT00340704|181773008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1884||||95.0|0.5934|1.3666|||||Based on the estimate for the slope parameter, a two sided 95% confidence interval for the slope was computed. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1. Standard error of the mean is actually standard error of the slope.|Dose proportionality for AUCτ,ss was explored based on the regression model.||1.3666|0.5934|
90947140|NCT01453023|181773029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|0.4|||||Day 1 HR. The estimated value represents the treatment difference: FF/VI 100/25 µg minus FF 100 µg.|||0.4|-8.8|
90947141|NCT01453023|181773029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|8.5|||||Day 14 HR. The estimated value represents the treatment difference: FF/VI 100/25 µg minus FF 100 µg.|||8.5|-1.1|
90947142|NCT01453023|181773030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|6.7|||||Day 1 QTcF. The estimated value represents the treatment difference: FF/VI 100/25 µg minus FF 100 µg.|||6.7|-4.4|
90947143|NCT01453023|181773030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|5.5|||||Day 14 QTcF. The estimated value represents the treatment difference: FF/VI 100/25 µg minus FF 100 µg.|||5.5|-6.0|
90979249|NCT00805207|181843365|OTHER|||||||0.94|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.94
90979250|NCT00805207|181843365|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
90979251|NCT00805207|181843365|OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.53
90979252|NCT00805207|181843365|OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.23
90979253|NCT00805207|181843366|OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.80
90979254|NCT00805207|181843367|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90979255|NCT00805207|181843367|OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||P-value is the main effect of treatment (i.e., Before vs. After) from ANOVA|ANOVA|||||||<0.01
90979256|NCT00805207|181843367|OTHER|||||||0.96||||||P-value is the main effect of group (i.e., Testosterone, Progesterone, Estrogen and Control) from ANOVA|ANOVA|||||||0.96
90979257|NCT00805207|181843367|OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||P value is the group by treatment interaction from the ANOVA|ANOVA|||||||<0.05
90979258|NCT00805207|181843367|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Tukey test|||||||<0.01
90979259|NCT00805207|181843367|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Tukey test|||||||<0.01
90979260|NCT00805207|181843367|OTHER||||||>|0.1|||||||Tukey test|||||||>0.10
90947144|NCT03178344|181773048|EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA||||||0.7||||||P value threshold is 0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.70
90947145|NCT03178344|181773049|EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA||||||0.71||||||P value threshold is 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.71
90947146|NCT01056263|181773085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Five year survival probability|20.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.94|32.38||||||Five year survival probability was the probability of survival at 5 year after the date of the start of the study treatment based on the Kaplan-Meier estimate.||32.38|10.94|
90947148|NCT03170518|181773113|SUPERIORITY|Imputed datasets were analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with terms for treatment, stratification factors (antihyperglycemic agent background and age group), and baseline HbA1c.|Least square mean difference|-0.76|||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|-0.27|||ANCOVA|||||-0.27|-1.25|= 0.002
90947149|NCT03512197|181773148|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0239|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.31||||||||1.31|0.8|
90947150|NCT03512197|181773149|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8728|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.29||||||||1.29|0.59|
90947151|NCT03512197|181773154|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.63||||||||1.63|0.60|
90947152|NCT03512197|181773155|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.5866|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.87||||||||2.87|0.88|
90947153|NCT03512197|181773156|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7937|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.54||||||||1.54|0.41|
90979261|NCT00805207|181843367|OTHER||||||>|0.1|||||||Tukey test|||||||>0.10
90979262|NCT00064701|181843368|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin for this study was pre-specified as 10%.|Incidence Difference|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.2|-8.9|5.2||||||||5.2|-8.9|
90979263|NCT00064701|181843368|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin for this study was pre-specified as 10%.|Incidence Difference|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.2|-9.9|4.0||||||||4.0|-9.9|
90979264|NCT00064701|181843369|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin for this study was pre-specified as 10%.|Incidence Difference|-3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|0.6||||||||0.6|-7.2|
90947154|NCT03512197|181773158|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.16||||||partial neutrophil recovery||1.16|0.75|
90947155|NCT03512197|181773158|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.14||||||full neutrophil recovery||1.14|0.72|
90947156|NCT03512197|181773159|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.52||||||partial platelet recovery||1.52|0.87|
90947157|NCT03512197|181773159|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.0||||||full platelet recovery||1.00|0.67|
90947158|NCT01948076|181773178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.11
90947159|NCT01948076|181773179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||McNemar|||||||0.043
90947160|NCT02559310|181773223|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority Margin = 12.5%.|Treatment Difference (Lef - Mox)|-2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|2.8|||||Difference in percentage of Responders for ECR (Lefamulin - Moxifloxacin). CI computed using continuity-corrected Z-statistic.|||2.8|-8.5|
90947161|NCT02559310|181773224|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority Margin = 10%.|Treatment Difference (Lef - Mox)|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|3.9|||||Difference in Percentage of Success for IACR at test of cure visit (Lefamulin - Moxifloxacin). CI computed via Miettinen-Nurminen method, adjusted for prior antibiotic use \[Y vs. N\] and PORT risk class \[III vs. IV/V\], using CMH stratum weights.|||3.9|-8.9|
90947162|NCT02559310|181773224|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-Inferiority Margin = 10%|Treatment Difference (Lef - Mox)|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|4.1|||||Difference in percentage of Success for IACR at test of cure visit. CI computed using continuity-corrected Z-statistic.|||4.1|-9.2|
90947163|NCT02559310|181773225|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-Inferiority Margin = 10%.|Treatment Difference|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|3.4|||||Difference in percentage of success for IACR at test of cure visit (Lefamulin - Moxifloxacin). CI computed via Miettinen-Nurminen method, adjusted for prior antibiotic use \[Y vs. N\] and PORT risk class \[III vs. IV/V\], using CMH stratum weights.|||3.4|-8.4|
90947164|NCT02559310|181773225|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-Inferiority Margin = 10%|Treatment Difference (Lef - Mox)|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|3.7|||||Difference in Percentage of Success for IACR at test of cure visit (Lefamulin - Moxifloxacin). CI computed using continuity-corrected Z-statistic|||3.7|-8.7|
90947165|NCT04596540|181773226|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.29||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.1|0.48|||Mantel Haenszel|||||0.48|0.10|0.0008
90947166|NCT04596540|181773226|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.35||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.14|0.56|||Mantel Haenszel|||||0.56|0.14|0.0002
90947167|NCT04596540|181773227|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-5.07|-1.55|||ANCOVA|||||-1.55|-5.07|<0.001
90947168|NCT04596540|181773227|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-6.24|-2.66|||ANCOVA|||||-2.66|-6.24|<0.001
90947169|NCT04596540|181773228|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-40.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-60.96|-19.27|||ANCOVA|||||-19.27|-60.96|<.001
90979265|NCT00064701|181843369|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin for this study was pre-specified as 10%.|Incidence Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|3.2||||||||3.2|-3.1|
90979266|NCT00064701|181843370|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin for this study was pre-specified as 10%.|Incidence Difference|-3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|0.9||||||||0.9|-8.5|
90979267|NCT00064701|181843370|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin for this study was pre-specified as 10%.|Incidence Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|4.1||||||||4.1|-4.0|
90979268|NCT00064701|181843371|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin for this study was pre-specified as 10%.|Incidence Difference at 6 Months|-8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|-3.0||||||Comparison of tacrolimus with cyclosporine at 6 months||-3.0|-13.1|
90979269|NCT00064701|181843371|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin for this study was pre-specified as 10%.|Incidence Difference at 6 Months|-3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|1.8||||||Comparison of Tacrolimus Modified Release with Cyclosporine at 6 months||1.8|-9.5|
90979270|NCT00064701|181843371|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin for this study was pre-specified as 10%.|Incidence Difference at 12 Months|-6.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|-0.3||||||Comparison of tacrolimus with cyclosporine at 12 months||-0.3|-12.0|
90979271|NCT00064701|181843371|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin for this study was pre-specified as 10%.|Incidence Difference at 12 months|-3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|2.8||||||Comparison of Tacrolimus Modified Release with Cyclosporine at 12 months||2.8|-9.6|
90947170|NCT04596540|181773228|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-53.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-74.49|-32.66|||ANCOVA|||||-32.66|-74.49|<.001
90947171|NCT04596540|181773229|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|2.52|10.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||10.66|2.52|<.001
90947172|NCT04596540|181773229|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.011|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.54|8.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.59|0.54|0.011
90947173|NCT04596540|181773230|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.3||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.02|0.62|||Chi-squared|||||0.62|-0.02|0.0470
90947174|NCT04596540|181773230|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.39||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.12|0.66|||Chi-squared|||||0.66|0.12|0.0022
90947175|NCT04596540|181773231|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.28||||0.0096|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.05|0.51|||Chi-squared|||||0.51|0.05|0.0096
90979272|NCT00064701|181843381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|5.5||||||||5.5|-6.5|
90947176|NCT04596540|181773231|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.35||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.1|0.6|||Chi-squared|||||0.60|0.10|0.0028
90947177|NCT04596540|181773232|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-7.55|-1.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.98|-7.55|<.001
90947178|NCT04596540|181773232|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.003|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-6.42|-0.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.91|-6.42|0.003
90947179|NCT04596540|181773233|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.018|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.46|-0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.01|-0.46|0.018
90979273|NCT00064701|181843381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|6.9||||||||6.9|-3.9|
90947180|NCT04596540|181773233|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.785|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.25|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.20|-0.25|0.785
90947181|NCT04596540|181773234|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.15|0.08|||ANOVA|||||0.08|-0.15|0.500
90979274|NCT00064701|181843382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|6.6||||||||6.6|-9.1|
90947182|NCT04596540|181773234|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.421|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.15|0.07|||ANOVA|||||0.07|-0.15|0.421
90947183|NCT04596540|181773235|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.634|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.22|0.14|||ANOVA|||Treatment Periods 1-3 (Months 1-3)||0.14|-0.22|0.634
90947184|NCT04596540|181773235|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.907|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.17|0.19|||ANOVA|||Treatment Periods 1-3 (Month 1-3)||0.19|-0.17|0.907
90947185|NCT02633397|181773236|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Regression, Logistic|||P- Value was the exact logistic regression adjusted for clinical site.||||0.19
90947186|NCT02633397|181773237|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||Regression, Logistic|||P- Value was the exact logistic regression adjusted for clinical site.||||0.42
90947187|NCT02633397|181773238|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||Regression, Logistic|||P- Value was the exact logistic regression adjusted for clinical site.||||0.52
90947188|NCT02633397|181773240|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|0.42|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model adjusted for clinic site||0.42|-0.70|0.69
90947189|NCT02633397|181773241|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-39.51||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-117.05|38.02|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model adjusted for clinic site||38.02|-117.05|0.40
90947190|NCT02633397|181773242|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.11|0.73|||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression model adjusted for clinic site||0.73|-0.11|0.23
90947191|NCT02633397|181773243|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||-0.8|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.62|0.46|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model adjusted for clinic site||0.46|-0.62|-0.80
90947192|NCT02633397|181773244|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.22|-3.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model with random intercept was used to compare the change in MAP as a function of time, the interaction between time and study arm, and clinic site.||-3.69|-10.22|<0.001
90947193|NCT02633397|181773245|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.31|0.02|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model adjusted for clinic site||0.02|-0.31|0.15
90947194|NCT02633397|181773246|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.7||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.28|-3.12|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model adjusted for clinic site||-3.12|-10.28|0.003
90947195|NCT02633397|181773247|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.0|5.04|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model adjusted for clinic site||5.04|2.00|<0.001
90947196|NCT02633397|181773248|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|286.56||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-429.86|1002.99|||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression model adjusted for clinic site||1002.99|-429.86|0.51
90947197|NCT02633397|181773249|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-82.18||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-173.69|9.32|||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression model adjusted for clinic site||9.32|-173.69|0.14
90947198|NCT02633397|181773250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Generalized linear mixed model (logit link) with random intercept was used to compare microalbuminuria frequency as a function of time and the interaction between time and study arm.||||0.78
90947199|NCT02633397|181773251|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Generalized linear mixed model (logit link) with random intercept was used to compare macroalbuminuria frequency as a function of time and the interaction between time and study arm.||||0.30
90947200|NCT02633397|181773252|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.91||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.21|-0.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model with random intercept was used to compare the change in GFR as a function of time, the interaction between time and study arm, and clinic site.||-0.62|-9.21|0.06
90947201|NCT02633397|181773253|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Generalized linear mixed model (logit link) with random intercept was used to compare CKD stage frequency as a function of time and the interaction between time and study arm.||||0.56
90979275|NCT00064701|181843382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|8.6||||||||8.6|-7.1|
91038807|NCT03214588|181961951|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.224|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.68|0.07||||||Change at Week 7, Left Heel Along Shin Slide||0.07|-0.68|
91038808|NCT03214588|181961951|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.188|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.48|0.15||||||Change at Week 7, Left Heel Along Shin Slide||0.15|-0.48|
90947202|NCT02633397|181773254|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.52|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model with random intercept was used to compare the change in hemoglobin as a function of time, the interaction between time and study arm, and clinic site.||0.03|-0.52|0.15
90947203|NCT02633397|181773255|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.47||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.22|2.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model with random intercept was used to compare the change in reticulocyte count as a function of time, the interaction between time and study arm, and clinic site.||2.72|0.22|0.05
90947204|NCT02633397|181773256|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.93|0.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model with random intercept was used to compare the change in WBC count as a function of time, the interaction between time and study arm, and clinic site.||0.63|-0.93|0.75
90947205|NCT02633397|181773257|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.28||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-64.63|6.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model with random intercept was used to compare the change in WBC count as a function of time, the interaction between time and study arm, and clinic site.||6.08|-64.63|0.17
90947206|NCT02633397|181773258|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.64||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.13|-0.15|||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression model adjusted for clinic site||-0.15|-3.13|0.07
90947207|NCT03036124|181773262|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.65|0.85|||Regression, Cox|Stratified by Type 2 Diabetes status at randomization and including the history of hospitalizations due to Heart failure as a factor.||||0.85|0.65|<0.0001
91007807|NCT01795716|181899796|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 90%CIs of the test/reference ratios for AUC0-∞ and Cmax were determined. Log-transformed data were used in the analysis. Following international guidelines (including those of the SFDA), the test and reference for mutations were considered bioequivalent if the 90% CIs of the test/reference ratios of AUC was within range of 0.80 to 1.25 and Cmax was within 0.70 to 1.43.|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||The 90% confidence intervals of the test/reference ratios for AUC0-∞ and Cmax were determined. Log-transformed data were used in the analysis. Following international guidelines (including those of the SFDA), the test and reference for mutations were considered bioequivalent if the 90% CIs of the test/reference ratios of AUC was within range of 0.80 to 1.25 and Cmax was within 0.70 to 1.43.||||<0.05
91038809|NCT03214588|181961951|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.254|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.45|0.4||||||Change at Week 12, Left Heel Along Shin Slide||0.40|-0.45|
90947208|NCT03036124|181773263|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.65|0.85|||Regression, Cox|Stratified by Type 2 Diabetes status at randomization and including the history of hospitalizations due to Heart failure as a factor.||||0.85|0.65|<0.0001
90947209|NCT03036124|181773264|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio (RR)|0.75||||0.0002||95.0|0.65|0.88|||LWYY proportional rates model|Stratified by Type 2 Diabetes status at randomization and including the history of hospitalizations due to Heart failure as a factor.||||0.88|0.65|0.0002
90947210|NCT03036124|181773265|SUPERIORITY||Win Ratio (WR)|1.18|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.11|1.26||The p-value is obtained from a rank ANCOVA adjusted for baseline KCCQ score and stratified by T2DM status at randomization.|Win Ratio|Stratified by Type 2 Diabetes status at randomization and including baseline score as a covariate.|The composite of change from baseline in total symptom score at 8 months, or death before 8 months.|||1.26|1.11|<0.0001
90947211|NCT03036124|181773266|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.1681||95.0|0.44|1.16|||Regression, Cox|Stratified by Type 2 Diabetes status at randomization and including baseline eGFR as a covariate.||||1.16|0.44|0.1681
91038810|NCT03214588|181961951|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.209|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.34|0.36||||||Change at Week 12, Left Heel Along Shin Slide||0.36|-0.34|
90947212|NCT03036124|181773267|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.0217||95.0|0.71|0.97|||Regression, Cox|Stratified by Type 2 Diabetes status at randomization.||||0.97|0.71|0.0217
90947213|NCT04526665|181773268|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|37.562|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.641|302.247|||Exact Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test|Exact Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by the randomization factors (ALP \>3xULN or TB\>ULN:Yes/No, and Baseline PBC Worst Itch NRS ≥ 4: Yes/No)||||302.247|7.641|<0.0001
90947214|NCT04526665|181773270|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.784||||0.197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.986|0.418|||mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)|||||0.418|-1.986|0.1970
90947215|NCT04526665|181773271|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.343||||0.5522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.489|0.803|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, 4-week period and treatment by 4-week period interaction as fixed factors and adjusting for baseline and stratification factors.||||0.803|-1.489|0.5522
90947216|NCT01020877|181773328|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test\[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|110.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.0|117.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||117|103|
90947217|NCT01020877|181773329|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|106.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.2|115.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||115|98.2|
90947218|NCT01020877|181773330|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|106.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.6|115.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||115|97.6|
90947219|NCT00433511|181773331|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.06||Two-sided; based on stratified test using stratification factors at randomization.|Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio: Arm C/Arm A|The primary objective of this trial was to determine whether the addition of bevacizumab improved IDFS. A two-step hierarchical approach was used. In the 1st step, Arm C was to be compared to Arm A. If Arm C significantly improved IDFS relative to Arm A, then in the 2nd step, a comparison of Arm B to Arm A was to be performed. If the treatment in both Arm C and Arm B significantly improved IDFS relative to Arm A, then a comparison of Arm C to Arm B was to be performed with respect to IDFS.||1.06|0.71|0.17
90947220|NCT00433511|181773332|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.17||Two-sided; based on stratified test using stratification factors at randomization.|Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio: Arm C/Arm A|||1.17|0.68|0.41
90947221|NCT00433511|181773332|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.33||Two-sided; based on stratified test using stratification factors at randomization.|Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio: Arm B/Arm A|||1.33|0.77|0.92
90947222|NCT00433511|181773332|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.13||Two-sided; based on stratified test using stratification factors at randomization|Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio: Arm C/Arm B|||1.13|0.72|0.36
90947223|NCT02349152|181773335|SUPERIORITY|Power calculation was performed based on the assumption that continuous remifentanil infusion would reduce the percentage of patients with unacceptable blood glucose values (more than one BG\>180 mg/dl) to an absolute value of 20%. Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha= 0.05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow for dropouts.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.9||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|3.0|||Chi-squared|||The null hypothesis that there was no difference in the percentage of patients with two or more blood glucose values greater than 180mg/dl between the two groups. Power calculation was performed based on the assumption that continuous remifentanil infusion would reduce the percentage of patients with unacceptable blood glucose values (more than one BG\>180 mg/dl) to an absolute value of 20%.||3.0|1.3|0.001
90947224|NCT02349152|181773336|SUPERIORITY|Power calculation was performed based on the assumption that continuous remifentanil infusion would reduce the percentage of patients with unacceptable blood glucose values (more than one BG \> 180 mg) to an absolute value of 20%. Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004
90947225|NCT02349152|181773337|SUPERIORITY|Power calculation was performed based on the assumption that continuous remifentanil infusion would reduce the percentage of patients with unacceptable blood glucose values (more than one BG\>180 mg/dl) to an absolute value of 20%. Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha= 0.05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow for dropouts.||||||0.01|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.01
90947226|NCT02349152|181773338|SUPERIORITY|Power calculation was performed based on the assumption that continuous remifentanil infusion would reduce the percentage of patients with unacceptable blood glucose values (more than one BG \> 180 mg) to an absolute value of 20%. Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.||||||0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Mean Intraoperative Blood Glucose||||0.0001
91006661|NCT00572728|181897683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||AUC|0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.046|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.83||The Delong method was used to test if the observed AUC was significantly different than 0.5 with the one-sided p value DeLong ER, DeLong DM, Clarke-Pearson DL, Biometrics (1988)|Delong method|one-sided p-value|"percent change in SUVmax was computed as: %ΔSUVmax = 100\*(FLT1-FLT2)/FLT1 a 90% 2-sided confidence interval was constructed from 2000 Bootstrapping estimates from which the 1-sided 95% CI was derived.~Hanley SE(AUC) reported."|"A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was performed to assess the significance of the Area Under the Curve (AUC) under the Null Hypothesis with a one sided alpha=0.05 (95% one-sided CL):~H0: AUC = 0.50 (no difference from guessing) given the alternative hypothesis: Ha:AUC \>= 0.75 AUC = ROC(%ΔSUVmax\| path response) where percent change (%ΔSUVmax ) was defined as (SUVmax at FLT1 -SUVmax at FLT2)/SUVmax at FLT1 x 100"||.83||0.046
91038811|NCT03214588|181961951|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.187|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|0.53||||||Change at Week 2, Right Heel Along Shin Tap||0.53|-0.10|
90947227|NCT02349152|181773338|SUPERIORITY|Power calculation was performed based on the assumption that continuous remifentanil infusion would reduce the percentage of patients with unacceptable blood glucose values (more than one BG \> 180 mg) to an absolute value of 20%. Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.||||||0.0003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Peak Intraoperative Blood Glucose||||0.0003
90947228|NCT02349152|181773338|SUPERIORITY|Power calculation was performed based on the assumption that continuous remifentanil infusion would reduce the percentage of patients with unacceptable blood glucose values (more than one BG \> 180 mg) to an absolute value of 20%. Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.||||||0.98|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Lowest Intraoperative Blood Glucose||||0.98
90947229|NCT02349152|181773339|SUPERIORITY|Power calculation was performed based on the assumption that continuous remifentanil infusion would reduce the percentage of patients with unacceptable blood glucose values (more than one BG \> 180 mg) to an absolute value of 20%. Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.||||||0.14|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Mean post-operative glucose||||0.14
90947230|NCT02349152|181773339|SUPERIORITY|Power calculation was performed based on the assumption that continuous remifentanil infusion would reduce the percentage of patients with unacceptable blood glucose values (more than one BG \> 180 mg) to an absolute value of 20%. Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.||||||0.25|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Peak Postoperative Blood Glucose||||0.25
91038812|NCT03214588|181961951|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.155|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.17|0.69||||||Change at Week 2, Right Heel Along Shin Tap||0.69|0.17|
90947231|NCT02349152|181773340|SUPERIORITY|Power calculation was performed based on the assumption that continuous remifentanil infusion would reduce the percentage of patients with unacceptable blood glucose values (more than one BG \> 180 mg) to an absolute value of 20%. Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.||||||0.49|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.49
90947232|NCT02349152|181773342|SUPERIORITY|Power calculation was performed based on the assumption that continuous remifentanil infusion would reduce the percentage of patients with unacceptable blood glucose values (more than one BG \> 180 mg) to an absolute value of 20%. Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.||||||0.401|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Prebypass||||0.401
90979276|NCT01818297|181843383|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.5||0.14|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|||Due to early termination, the study was insufficiently powered to test the primary objective. This analysis is exploratory and descriptive in nature and cannot be considered conclusive.|Z-test|The Z-test (using an unpooled standard deviation, without continuity correction) was used to test the difference in responder rates between groups.|The Estimation Parameter is the difference between the responder rates in the Treatment and Control groups. The difference is calculated as Treatment - Control. A positive number represents a higher responder rate in the Treatment group.|The original sample size estimate for the primary objective was based on the following assumptions: 109 subjects in each arm with a responder rate of 22% in the Control group and 40% in the Treatment group, and a one-sided α= 0.05 using a Z test with unpooled variance, would result in 90% power. Because the study terminated early, the actual sample size (32 in Treatment, 30 in Control) resulted in 47% power under the same assumptions.|||-5.8|0.14
90979277|NCT02630953|181843431|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-6.22||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.15|28.7||Significance level was set at .05 a priori.|quantile regression|Bootstrapped standard errors (10,000 replications)||Using a series of quantile regression models with bootstrapped standard errors (10,000 replications) we examined the potential treatment effects on MVPA at follow-ups, controlling for baseline. Quantile regression models the median outcome instead of the mean, and are appropriate when data is skewed (as was the case in both self-reported and objectively measured MVPA).||28.70|-41.15|0.24
90979278|NCT02630953|181843432|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|7.5||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.37|47.37||Significance was set at .05 a priori|quantile regression|||Using a series of quantile regression models with bootstrapped standard errors (10,000 replications) we examined the potential treatment effects on MVPA at follow-up, controlling for baseline||47.37|-32.37|0.73
90979279|NCT02630953|181843433|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|>|0.06|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level set at .05 a priori|Regression, Linear|||Using a series of generalized linear models with identity link, we examined treatment effects on biomarkers at 6 months controlling for baseline and potential confounders.||||>.06
90979280|NCT01957137|181843477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3773|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The final model included cycling, period and the interaction between cycling and period.||||||0.3773
90979281|NCT01957137|181843478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2396|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The final model included cycling and period.||||||0.2396
90979282|NCT01957137|181843479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8874|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The final model included cycling and period.||||||0.8874
90979283|NCT00552110|181843486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002||95.0||||Multiplicity for multiple treatment comparisons was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA); classification variables: treatment, center, dosing sequence (stratification variable); covariate: baseline score||"Null hypothesis: the concurrent administration of MFNS and OXY once daily has the same mean change from baseline in AM/PM NOW TNSS as that of OXY twice daily.~Power calculation: The target randomization of 875 subjects (175 subjects per treatment arm) was needed to detect a treatment difference of 0.8 point or more in change from baseline in AM/PM NOW TNSS, with a two-sided alpha of 0.05 and 90% power, assuming a pooled standard deviation of 2.3 points."||||0.002
90979284|NCT00552110|181843486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis: the concurrent administration of MFNS and OXY once daily has the same mean change from baseline in AM/PM NOW TNSS as that of OXY twice daily.||||<0.001
90979285|NCT00552110|181843486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis: the administration of MFNS once daily has the same mean change from baseline in AM/PM NOW TNSS as that of placebo.||||<0.001
90979286|NCT00552110|181843487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.021||95.0||||Multiplicity for multiple treatment comparisons was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA; classification variables: treatment, center, dosing sequence (stratification variable); covariate: baseline score||Null hypothesis: the concurrent administration of MFNS and OXY once daily has the same standardized AUC(0-4 hr) of the change from baseline in nasal congestion score as that of MFNS once daily.||||0.021
90979287|NCT00552110|181843487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis: the concurrent administration of MFNS and OXY once daily has the same standardized AUC (0-4hr) of the change from baseline in nasal congestion score as that of MFNS once daily||||<0.001
90947233|NCT02349152|181773342|NON_INFERIORITY|Power calculation was performed based on the assumption that continuous remifentanil infusion would reduce the percentage of patients with unacceptable blood glucose values (more than one BG \> 180 mg) to an absolute value of 20%. Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||30 minutes after the start of CPB||||<0.0001
90947234|NCT02349152|181773342|NON_INFERIORITY|Power calculation was performed based on the assumption that continuous remifentanil infusion would reduce the percentage of patients with unacceptable blood glucose values (more than one BG \> 180 mg) to an absolute value of 20%. Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||End of CPB||||<0.0001
90947235|NCT02349152|181773342|NON_INFERIORITY|Power calculation was performed based on the assumption that continuous remifentanil infusion would reduce the percentage of patients with unacceptable blood glucose values (more than one BG \> 180 mg) to an absolute value of 20%. Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||End of Surgery||||<0.0001
90947236|NCT02349152|181773342|NON_INFERIORITY|Power calculation was performed based on the assumption that continuous remifentanil infusion would reduce the percentage of patients with unacceptable blood glucose values (more than one BG \> 180 mg) to an absolute value of 20%. Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.||||||0.021|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Postoperative (8 hours)||||0.021
90947237|NCT02349152|181773343|SUPERIORITY|Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.||||||0.58|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyzing the IL-1b Pre bypass||||0.580
90947238|NCT02349152|181773343|SUPERIORITY|Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.||||||0.815|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyzing the IL-1b CPB-30||||0.815
90947239|NCT02349152|181773343|SUPERIORITY|Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.||||||0.715|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyzing the CPB-END||||0.715
90947240|NCT02349152|181773343|SUPERIORITY|Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.||||||0.33|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyzing the IL-1b post-bypass||||0.330
90947241|NCT02349152|181773343|SUPERIORITY|Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.||||||0.651|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyzing the IL-1b 8 HR||||0.651
90979288|NCT00552110|181843487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis: the administration of OXY twice daily has the same standardized AUC(0-4 hr) of the change from baseline in nasal congestion score as that of placebo||||<0.001
90979289|NCT00700804|181843537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.5||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Effects of calcium (Ca), protein \& their interaction were tested using repeated measures analysis of variance (subjects nested under High or Low Ca)|Reported analysis is the main effect of Calcium (High vs Low) from the Mixed Model Analysis which averages across the two levels of dietary protein. The main effect of protein and the calcium x protein interaction were not statistically significant.|||||0.05
91038813|NCT03214588|181961951|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.272|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.72|0.19||||||Change at Week 7, Right Heel Along Shin Tap||0.19|-0.72|
90979290|NCT02901431|181843538|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted LSMeans|-0.16||||0.911|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.56|2.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.23|-2.56|0.911
90947242|NCT02349152|181773343|SUPERIORITY|Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.||||||0.439|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyzing the IL-6 Pre bypass||||0.439
90979291|NCT02901431|181843539|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjused LSMean|0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.85|2.43||||||Week 12||2.43|-1.85|
90979292|NCT02901431|181843539|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted LSMean|-0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.67|2.22||||||Week 24||2.22|-2.67|
90947243|NCT02349152|181773343|SUPERIORITY|Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.||||||0.284|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyzing the IL-6 CPB-30||||0.284
91038814|NCT03214588|181961951|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.231|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.38|0.39||||||Change at Week 7, Right Heel Along Shin Tap||0.39|-0.38|
90947244|NCT02349152|181773343|SUPERIORITY|Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.||||||0.779|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyzing the CPB-END||||0.779
90947245|NCT02349152|181773343|SUPERIORITY|Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.||||||0.274|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyzing the IL-6 post-bypass||||0.274
90979293|NCT02901431|181843540|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted LSMean|-0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.36|1.92||||||Communication Domain Standard Score, Week 12||1.92|-2.36|
90979294|NCT02901431|181843540|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted LSMean|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.6|3.02||||||Communication Domain Standard Score, Week 24||3.02|-1.60|
90979295|NCT02901431|181843540|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted LSMean|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.1|3.12||||||Socialization Domain Standard Score, Week 12||3.12|-2.10|
90979296|NCT02901431|181843540|SUPERIORITY|Socialization Domain Standard Score, Week 24|Difference in adjusted LSMean|-0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.74|2.51||||||||2.51|-3.74|
91038815|NCT03214588|181961951|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.222|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.23|0.51||||||Change at Week 12, Right Heel Along Shin Tap||0.51|-0.23|
90947246|NCT02349152|181773343|SUPERIORITY|Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.||||||0.601|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyzing the IL-6 8HR||||0.601
90947247|NCT02349152|181773343|SUPERIORITY|Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.||||||0.315|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyzing the TNFa Pre-bypass||||0.315
90947248|NCT02349152|181773343|SUPERIORITY|Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.||||||0.062|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyzing the TNFa CPB-30||||0.062
90947249|NCT02349152|181773343|SUPERIORITY|Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyzing the TNFa CPB-END||||0.090
90947250|NCT02349152|181773343|SUPERIORITY|Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyzing the TNFa- post-bypass||||0.004
90947251|NCT02349152|181773343|SUPERIORITY|Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.||||||0.074|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyzing the TNFa-8HR||||0.074
90947252|NCT02349152|181773344|NON_INFERIORITY|Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.||||||0.74|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyzing the ACTH Pre-bypass group||||0.740
90947253|NCT02349152|181773344|NON_INFERIORITY|Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyzing the ACTH CPB-30 group.||||<0.0001
90947254|NCT02349152|181773344|NON_INFERIORITY|Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyzing the ACTH CPB-END||||<0.0001
90947255|NCT02349152|181773344|NON_INFERIORITY|Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyzing the ACTH post-bypass||||<0.0001
90947256|NCT02349152|181773344|SUPERIORITY|Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.||||||0.014|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyzing the ACTH 8-hr||||0.014
90947257|NCT02349152|181773344|SUPERIORITY|Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.||||||0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyzing the GH- Pre-bypass||||0.100
90947258|NCT02349152|181773344|SUPERIORITY|Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||GH-CPB-30||||<0.0001
90947259|NCT02349152|181773344|SUPERIORITY|Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.||||||0.009|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyzing the GH-CPB-END||||0.009
90947260|NCT02349152|181773344|SUPERIORITY|Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.||||||0.046|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||GH-Post-bypass||||0.046
90947261|NCT02349152|181773344|SUPERIORITY|Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.||||||0.695|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyzing the GH-8-hr||||0.695
90947262|NCT02349152|181773344|SUPERIORITY|Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.||||||0.455|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyzing the Glucagon Pre Bypass||||0.455
90947263|NCT02349152|181773344|SUPERIORITY|Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.||||||0.059|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyzing the Glucagon CPB-30||||0.059
90947264|NCT02349152|181773344|SUPERIORITY|Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.||||||0.175|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyzing the Glucagon CPB-END||||0.175
90947265|NCT02349152|181773344|SUPERIORITY|Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.||||||0.062|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyzing the Glucagon Post-bypass||||0.062
90947266|NCT02349152|181773344|SUPERIORITY|Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.||||||0.261|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyzing the Glucagon 8-hr||||0.261
90947267|NCT02349152|181773345|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Chi-squared|||30-day mortality||||0.06
90947268|NCT02349152|181773345|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Chi-squared|||30-day readmission||||0.03
90947269|NCT02349152|181773345|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||Chi-squared|||Cerebral Vascular Accident||||0.24
90947270|NCT02349152|181773345|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93|||||||Chi-squared|||Prolonged Mechanical Ventilation||||0.93
90947271|NCT02349152|181773345|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||Renal Failure||||1
90947272|NCT02349152|181773345|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Chi-squared|||Atrial Fibrillation||||0.10
90947273|NCT02349152|181773345|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||cardiac arrest||||1
90947274|NCT02349152|181773346|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.205|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Hrs 0-6||||0.205
90947275|NCT02349152|181773346|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.339|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Hrs 7-12||||0.339
90947276|NCT02349152|181773346|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Hrs 13-18||||0.006
90979297|NCT02901431|181843540|SUPERIORITY|Daily Living Skills Domain Standard Score, Week 12|Difference in adjusted LSMean|2.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.63|4.9||||||||4.90|-0.63|
90979298|NCT02901431|181843540|SUPERIORITY|Daily Living Skills Domain Standard Score, Week 24|Differences in adjusted LSMean|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.87|3.22||||||||3.22|-2.87|
90947277|NCT02349152|181773346|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.747|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Hrs 19-24||||0.747
90947278|NCT02349152|181773346|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.568|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Hrs 25-30||||0.568
90979299|NCT02901431|181843546|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Adjusted LS Means|3.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.78|6.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12||6.70|0.78|
90979300|NCT02901431|181843546|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Adjusted LS means|2.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.73|5.29||||||Week 24||5.29|-0.73|
90947279|NCT02349152|181773346|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.924|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Hrs 31-36||||0.924
90947280|NCT02349152|181773346|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.501|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Hrs 37-42||||0.501
90947281|NCT02349152|181773346|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.977|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Hrs 43-48||||0.977
90947282|NCT02349152|181773350|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.350
90979301|NCT02901431|181843548|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted LS Means|0.01||||0.992|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.99|2.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.01|-1.99|0.992
90947283|NCT01732549|181773371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.0315||||||Log-rank test adjusting for presence (or absence) of visceral metastases, opioid analgesic use and region (Eastern Europe, Western Europe). Two-sided p-value.|Log Rank|||Stratified\[a\]||||=0.0315
90947284|NCT01732549|181773371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.0344|||||||Log Rank|||Unstratified\[b\]||||=0.0344
90947285|NCT01732549|181773372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.443|||||||Log Rank|Adjusting for presence (or absence) of visceral metastases, opioid analgesic use and region (Eastern Europe, Western Europe). One-sided p-value||Stratified\[a\]||||=0.4430
90947286|NCT01732549|181773373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5219|||||||Log Rank|Adjusting for presence (or absence) of visceral metastases, opioid analgesic use and region (Eastern Europe, Western Europe). One-sided p-value||Stratified\[a\]||||0.5219
90979302|NCT05775289|181843605|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.9705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.56|||Log Rank|||||1.56|0.63|0.9705
90979303|NCT05775289|181843606|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77||||0.4056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.43|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.43|0.42|0.4056
90979304|NCT04336397|181843634|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.5|||Chi-squared|||||1.5|1.0|0.04
90979305|NCT04336397|181843634|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.01
91006662|NCT00572728|181897684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||spearman correlation|0.35||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.54|||spearman correlation method||This estimate uses the Fisher's z Transformation to adjust for bias in the Spearman Correlation Statistic|H0: ρ = 0; that is, there is no correlation between SUVmax @ FLT-1 and Ki-67 LI a Fisher's z Transformation was applied to adjust for bias in the Spearman Correlation Statistic||0.54|0.13|0.002
91006663|NCT00572728|181897685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman Correlation|0.67|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.81|||Spearman Correlation method|we use Fisher's z Transformation to adjust for bias in the Spearman Correlation Statistic|this estimate uses the Fisher's z Transformation to adjust for bias in the Spearman Correlation Statistic|H0: ρ = 0; that is, there is no correlation between SUVmax @ FLT-3 and Ki-67 LI||0.81|0.47|<0.0001
90947287|NCT01732549|181773374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.5442|||||||Log Rank|Adjusting for presence (or absence) of visceral metastases, opioid analgesic use and region (Eastern Europe, Western Europe). One-sided p-value||Stratified\[a\]||||=0.5442
90947288|NCT01732549|181773375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.112|||||||Log Rank|Adjusting for presence (or absence) of visceral metastases, opioid analgesic use and region (Eastern Europe, Western Europe). One-sided p-value||Stratified\[a\]||||=0.1120
90947289|NCT01732549|181773376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.2491|||||||Log Rank|Adjusting for presence (or absence) of visceral metastases, opioid analgesic use (or not) \& region (Eastern Europe, Western Europe). One-sided p-value||Stratified\[a\]||||=0.2491
90979306|NCT00046228|181843643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.551||95.0|0.67|1.23||The null hypothesis was tested at the significance level of 0.049. If it is significant, the significance level of null hypotheses tested in the analyses 2 and 3 will be adjusted according to the modified Hochberg approach.|Log Rank|Independent Clinical Endpoints Committee confirmed components of primary endpoint except for death \& resuscitated v fib assessed by the investigator)||The null hypothesis is if reteplase/abciximab facilitated PCI is the same as the primary PCI in terms of the primary efficacy outcome. Assuming the relative risk reduction for the reteplase/abciximab facilitated PCI group versus the Primary PCI group is 15% in lower risk, 25% in medium risk, and 35% in high risk, the power of this comparison (1,000 subjects per group) is 83.4 %.||1.23|0.67|0.551
90979307|NCT00046228|181843643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.858||95.0|0.72|1.31|||Log Rank|||The null hypothesis is if abciximab facilitated PCI is the same as the primary PCI in terms of the primary efficacy outcome. Assuming the relative risk reduction for the Abciximab facilitated PCI versus the Primary PCI group is 12.7%, in lower risk, 17.9% in medium risk, and 25.0% in high risk, the power of this comparison (1000 subjects per group) is 54.1%||1.31|0.72|0.858
90979308|NCT00046228|181843643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.676||95.0|0.69|1.27|||Log Rank|||The null hypothesis is if reteplase/abciximab facilitated PCI is the same as the abciximab facilitated PCI in terms of the primary efficacy outcome. Assuming the relative risk reduction for the reteplase/abciximab facilitated PCI versus the abciximab facilitated PCI group is 2.6% in lower risk, 8.7% in medium risk, and 13.3% in high risk, the power of this comparison (1,000 subjects per group) is 13.5%.||1.27|0.69|0.676
90947290|NCT01516749|181773379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024||||||significance was accepted at p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Significance of decrease in modified Sartorius score from Baseline to 8 weeks||||0.024
90947291|NCT01516749|181773380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||||||Significance was accepted at p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Significance of reductions in Physican Global Assessment mean values between baseline and 8 weeks of therapy||||0.006
90979309|NCT00046228|181843644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.247||95.0|0.57|1.16|||Chi-squared|||The null hypothesis is if reteplase/abciximab facilitated PCI is the same as the primary PCI in complications of MI within 90 days.||1.16|0.57|0.247
90979310|NCT00046228|181843644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.278||95.0|0.58|1.17|||Chi-squared|||The null hypothesis is if abciximab facilitated PCI is the same as the primary PCI in complications of MI within 90 days.||1.17|0.58|0.278
90979311|NCT00046228|181843644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.944||95.0|0.68|1.43|||Chi-squared|||The null hypothesis is if reteplase/abciximab facilitated PCI is the same as the abciximab facilitated PCI in complications of MI within 90 days.||1.43|0.68|0.944
90979312|NCT00046228|181843645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.494||95.0|0.74|1.84|||Chi-squared|||The null hypothesis is if retaplase/abciximab facilitated PCI is the same as the primary PCI in 90-day all cause mortality.||1.84|0.74|0.494
90979313|NCT00046228|181843645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.338||95.0|0.79|1.95|||Chi-squared|||The null hypothesis is if abciximab facilitated PCI is the same as the primary PCI in 90-day all cause mortality.||1.95|0.79|0.338
90979314|NCT00046228|181843645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.781||95.0|0.61|1.45|||Chi-squared|||The null hypothesis is if retaplase/abciximab facilitated PCI is the same as the abciximab facilitated PCI in 90-day all cause mortality.||1.45|0.61|0.781
90979315|NCT00046228|181843646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.016||95.0|1.08|2.1|||Chi-squared|||The null hypothesis is if retaplase/abciximab facilitated PCI is the same as the primary PCI in ST-segment resolution \>70% from baseline.||2.10|1.08|0.016
90979316|NCT00046228|181843646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.67||95.0|0.76|1.52|||Chi-squared|||The null hypothesis is if abciximab facilitated PCI is the same as the primary PCI in ST-segment resolution \>70% from baseline.||1.52|0.76|0.670
90979317|NCT00046228|181843646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.042||95.0|1.01|1.93|||Chi-squared|||The null hypothesis is if retaplase/abciximab facilitated PCI is the same as the abciximab facilitated PCI in ST-segment resolution \>70% from baseline.||1.93|1.01|0.042
90979318|NCT00046228|181843647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.603||95.0|0.62|1.32|||Log Rank|||||1.32|0.62|0.603
90947292|NCT01516749|181773380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019||||||Significance was accepted at p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Significance of reductions in Patient Global Assessment mean values between baseline and 8 weeks of therapy||||0.019
90947293|NCT03994731|181773389|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference in proportions|32.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.157|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.3|48.3||The 2-sided p-value was calculated assuming the test statistic was distributed as a standard normal random variable.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Stratified difference (Pegloticase+MTX - Pegloticase+Placebo) is a weighted average of the difference within each stratum. Estimates from the 2 strata (tophi presence at baseline: yes, no) were combined with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights.|||48.3|16.3|< 0.0001
90947294|NCT03994731|181773390|SUPERIORITY||response rate difference|29.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.084||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.2|44.9||The 2-sided p-value was calculated assuming the test statistic was distributed as a standard normal random variable.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||response rate difference (Peg+MTX - Peg+Placebo)|||44.9|13.2|0.0003
90979319|NCT00046228|181843647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.765||95.0|0.73|1.52|||Log Rank|||||1.52|0.73|0.765
90979320|NCT00046228|181843647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.415||95.0|0.59|1.24|||Log Rank|||||1.24|0.59|0.415
90979321|NCT00046228|181843648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.218||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is if reteplase/abciximab facilitated PCI is the same as the primary PCI in the risk of ICH.||||0.218
90947295|NCT03994731|181773391|SUPERIORITY||Difference|22.8||||0.0482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|44.4||The comparison of complete response between groups is performed using an unstratified chi-squared test.|Chi-squared||Difference (Pegloticase+MTX - Pegloticase+Placebo)|||44.4|1.2|0.0482
90947296|NCT03994731|181773392|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.084||0.6287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.13||Based on mixed models repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including the following terms: baseline value, tophi presence (Y/N), treatment group, visit, visit-by-treatment interaction, and visit-by-baseline value interaction.|MMRM ANCOVA||Difference (Pegloticase+MTX - Pegloticase+Placebo)|||0.13|-0.21|0.6287
90947297|NCT03994731|181773393|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-8.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.766||0.0272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.88|-0.97||Based on mixed models repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including the following terms: baseline value, tophi presence (Y/N), treatment group, visit, visit-by-treatment interaction, and visit-by-baseline value interaction.|MMRM ANCOVA||Difference (Pegloticase+MTX - Pegloticase+Placebo)|||-0.97|-15.88|0.0272
90947298|NCT03994731|181773394|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-10.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.531||0.0222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.84|-1.48||Based on mixed models repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including the following terms: baseline value, tophi presence (Y/N), treatment group, visit, visit-by-treatment interaction, and visit-by-baseline value interaction.|MMRM ANCOVA||Difference (Pegloticase+MTX - Pegloticase+Placebo)|||-1.48|-18.84|0.0222
90947299|NCT03635086|181773434|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.1||||0.9998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|4.9|||Tukey-Kramer|||GMT ratios were estimated by applying an analysis of variance (ANOVA) including the factor treatment group. This was done using log10 transformed data and taking the anti-log of the resulting point estimates for the least squares means, least squares means differences and the corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence intervals (CI). P-values were also provided to compare GMTs between treatment groups adjusted for multiple comparisons according to Tukey-Kramer.||4.9|0.2|0.9998
90947300|NCT03635086|181773434|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.5||||0.9345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|7.5|||Tukey-Kramer|||GMT ratios were estimated by applying an analysis of variance (ANOVA) including the factor treatment group. This was done using log10 transformed data and taking the anti-log of the resulting point estimates for the least squares means, least squares means differences and the corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence intervals (CI). P values were also provided to compare GMTs between treatment groups adjusted for multiple comparisons according to Tukey-Kramer.||7.5|0.3|0.9345
90947301|NCT03635086|181773434|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|0.5||||0.5836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.1|||Tukey-Kramer|||GMT ratios were estimated by applying an analysis of variance (ANOVA) including the factor treatment group. This was done using log10 transformed data and taking the anti-log of the resulting point estimates for the least squares means, least squares means differences and the corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence intervals (CI). P-values were also provided to compare GMTs between treatment groups adjusted for multiple comparisons according to Tukey-Kramer.||2.1|0.1|0.5836
90947302|NCT03635086|181773434|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|2.4||||0.4844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|10.6|||Tukey-Kramer|||GMT ratios were estimated by applying an analysis of variance (ANOVA) including the factor treatment group. This was done using log10 transformed data and taking the anti-log of the resulting point estimates for the least squares means, least squares means differences and the corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence intervals (CI). P-values were also provided to compare GMTs between treatment groups adjusted for multiple comparisons according to Tukey-Kramer.||10.6|0.5|0.4844
90947303|NCT03635086|181773434|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.4||||0.9725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|6.8|||Tukey-Kramer|||GMT ratios were estimated by applying an analysis of variance (ANOVA) including the factor treatment group. This was done using log10 transformed data and taking the anti-log of the resulting point estimates for the least squares means, least squares means differences and the corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence intervals (CI). P-values were also provided to compare GMTs between treatment groups adjusted for multiple comparisons according to Tukey-Kramer.||6.8|0.3|0.9725
90979322|NCT00046228|181843648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.497||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is if abciximab facilitated PCI is the same as the primary PCI in the risk of ICH.||||0.497
90979323|NCT00046228|181843648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.062||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is if reteplase/abciximab facilitated PCI is the same as the abciximab facilitated PCI in the risk of ICH.||||0.062
90979324|NCT00046228|181843649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.28|||<|0.001||95.0|1.63|3.19|||Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is if reteplase/abciximab facilitated PCI is the same as the primary PCI in the risk of non-ICH TIMI bleeding events.||3.19|1.63|<0.001
90979325|NCT00046228|181843649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.025||95.0|1.05|2.15|||Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is if abciximab facilitated PCI is the same as the primary PCI in the risk of non-ICH TIMI bleeding events.||2.15|1.05|0.025
91007808|NCT00135694|181899806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-35.0|10.0||||||||10|-35|
90947304|NCT03635086|181773434|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|0.4||||0.4715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.9|||Tukey-Kramer|||GMT ratios were estimated by applying an analysis of variance (ANOVA) including the factor treatment group. This was done using log10 transformed data and taking the anti-log of the resulting point estimates for the least squares means, least squares means differences and the corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence intervals (CI). P values were also provided to compare GMTs between treatment groups adjusted for multiple comparisons according to Tukey-Kramer.||1.9|0.1|0.4715
90947305|NCT03635086|181773434|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|2.2||||0.5969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|9.6|||Tukey-Kramer|||GMT ratios were estimated by applying an analysis of variance (ANOVA) including the factor treatment group. This was done using log10 transformed data and taking the anti-log of the resulting point estimates for the least squares means, least squares means differences and the corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence intervals (CI). P-values were also provided to compare GMTs between treatment groups adjusted for multiple comparisons according to Tukey-Kramer.||9.6|0.5|0.5969
90947306|NCT03635086|181773434|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|0.3||||0.2043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.4|||Tukey-Kramer|||GMT ratios were estimated by applying an analysis of variance (ANOVA) including the factor treatment group. This was done using log10 transformed data and taking the anti-log of the resulting point estimates for the least squares means, least squares means differences and the corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence intervals (CI). P-values were also provided to compare GMTs between treatment groups adjusted for multiple comparisons according to Tukey-Kramer.||1.4|0.1|0.2043
90947307|NCT03635086|181773434|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.5||||0.9388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|7.4|||Tukey-Kramer|||GMT ratios were estimated by applying an analysis of variance (ANOVA) including the factor treatment group. This was done using log10 transformed data and taking the anti-log of the resulting point estimates for the least squares means, least squares means differences and the corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence intervals (CI). P-values were also provided to compare GMTs between treatment groups adjusted for multiple comparisons according to Tukey-Kramer.||7.4|0.3|0.9388
90947308|NCT03635086|181773434|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|5.2||||0.0251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|23.1|||Tukey-Kramer|||GMT ratios were estimated by applying an analysis of variance (ANOVA) including the factor treatment group. This was done using log10 transformed data and taking the anti-log of the resulting point estimates for the least squares means, least squares means differences and the corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence intervals (CI). P-values were also provided to compare GMTs between treatment groups adjusted for multiple comparisons according to Tukey-Kramer.||23.1|1.2|0.0251
90947309|NCT03635086|181773437|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|0.6||||0.5263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.6|||ANOVA|||Day 0||1.6|0.2|0.5263
90979326|NCT00046228|181843649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.52||||0.008||95.0|1.12|2.05|||Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is if reteplase/abciximab facilitated PCI is the same as the abciximab facilitated PCI in the risk of non-ICH TIMI bleeding events.||2.05|1.12|0.008
90979327|NCT00046228|181843650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.439||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.439
90979328|NCT00046228|181843650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.438||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.438
90979329|NCT00046228|181843650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
90979330|NCT00046228|181843651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
90979331|NCT00046228|181843651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.020
90979332|NCT00046228|181843651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
90979333|NCT00046228|181843652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.434||95.0|0.69|1.18|||Chi-squared|||||1.18|0.69|0.434
90979334|NCT00046228|181843652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.589||95.0|0.71|1.22|||Chi-squared|||||1.22|0.71|0.589
90979335|NCT00046228|181843652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.809||95.0|0.74|1.27|||Chi-squared|||||1.27|0.74|0.809
90979336|NCT03783195|181843660|OTHER|Both groups received the same intervention; however, their genetic make-up was different.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|0.76||All tests were individual tests.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis is that people with low GRS will have greater increase in liver fat as compared to high GRS group.||0.76|-1.77|0.40
90979337|NCT03783195|181843661|OTHER|Both groups received the same intervention; however, their genetic make-up was different.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.33|2.57||All tests were individual tests.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis is that people with low GRS will have greater increase in liver fat as compared to high GRS group.||2.57|-3.33|0.71
90979338|NCT03783195|181843662|OTHER|Both groups received the same intervention; however, their genetic make-up was different.|Mean Difference (Net)|-21.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.8||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.33|-10.72||All tests were individual tests.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis is that people with low GRS will have greater increase in VLDL-TG as compared to high GRS group.||-10.72|-31.33|0.0006
90979339|NCT03783195|181843663|OTHER|Both groups received the same intervention; however, their genetic make-up was different.|Median Difference (Net)|0.094|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.46|||t-test, 2 sided|||This analysis focuses on the changes in the area under the curve (AUC) for measurements at different time points between the two GRS groups.||0.46|-0.27|0.59
90979340|NCT03783195|181843664|OTHER|Both groups received the same intervention; however, their genetic make-up was different.|Mean Difference (Net)|-21.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.77||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.75|-4.38||All tests were individual tests.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis is that people with low GRS will have greater increase in serum triglycerides as compared to high GRS group.||-4.38|-37.75|0.017
90979341|NCT03783195|181843665|OTHER|Both groups received the same intervention; however, their genetic make-up was different.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.33|||t-test, 2 sided|||This analysis focuses on the changes in the area under the curve (AUC) for measurements baseline and 3hr timepoints at week 0 and week 3 between the two GRS groups.||0.33|-0.37|0.89
91007809|NCT00135694|181899812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0183|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for immunosuppression dose the subject was receiving at the time of randomization.||||||0.0183
90979342|NCT03783195|181843666|OTHER|Both groups received the same intervention; however, their genetic make-up was different.|Mean Difference (Net)|-4.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.62||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.28|5.55||All tests were individual tests.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis is that people with low GRS will have less increase in HDL cholesterol as compared to high GRS group.||5.55|-14.28|0.36
90979343|NCT03783195|181843667|OTHER|Both groups received the same intervention; however, their genetic make-up was different.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.067|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.40|-0.27|0.67
90979344|NCT03783195|181843668|OTHER|Both groups received the same intervention; however, their genetic make-up was different.|Mean Difference (Net)|-21.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.53||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.76|3.69||All tests were individual tests.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis is that people with low GRS will have greater increase in LDL cholesterol as compared to high GRS group.||3.69|-45.76|0.09
90979345|NCT03783195|181843669|OTHER|Both groups received the same intervention; however, their genetic make-up was different.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.054|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.34|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.34|-0.24|0.69
90979346|NCT03783195|181843670|OTHER|Both groups received the same intervention; however, their genetic make-up was different.|Mean Difference (Net)|-29.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.28||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.39|3.17||All tests were individual tests.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis is that people with low GRS will have greater increase in total cholesterol as compared to high GRS group.||3.17|-62.39|0.07
90979347|NCT03783195|181843671|OTHER|Both groups received the same intervention; however, their genetic make-up was different.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.036|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.33|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.33|-0.26|0.80
90979348|NCT03783195|181843672|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.91||All tests were individual tests.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis is that people with low GRS will have greater increase in serum uric acid as compared to high GRS group.||0.91|-0.18|0.17
90979349|NCT03783195|181843673|OTHER|Both groups received the same intervention; however, their genetic make-up was different.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.217|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.15|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.15|-0.58|0.22
90979350|NCT03783195|181843674|OTHER|Both groups received the same intervention; however, their genetic make-up was different.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.007||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|-0.0009||All tests were individual tests.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis is that people with low GRS will have greater increase in serum ALT as compared to high GRS group.||-0.0009|-0.03|0.04
90979351|NCT03783195|181843675|OTHER|Both groups received the same intervention; however, their genetic make-up was different.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.121|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.28|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.28|-0.52|0.53
90979352|NCT03783195|181843676|OTHER|Both groups received the same intervention; however, their genetic make-up was different.|Mean Difference (Net)|20.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.5||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.9|58.08||All tests were individual tests.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis is that people with low GRS will have greater increase in serum AST as compared to high GRS group.||58.08|-16.9|0.25
90979353|NCT03783195|181843677|OTHER|Both groups received the same intervention; however, their genetic make-up was different.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.13|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.13|-0.59|0.20
90979354|NCT03783195|181843678|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|28.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.78||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.76|75.67||All tests were individual tests.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis is that people with low GRS will have greater increase in serum ALP as compared to high GRS group.||75.67|-17.76|0.21
90979355|NCT03783195|181843679|OTHER|Both groups received the same intervention; however, their genetic make-up was different.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.054|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.214|0.321|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.321|-0.214|0.67
90979356|NCT03783195|181843680|OTHER|Both groups received the same intervention; however, their genetic make-up was different.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.28||All tests were individual tests.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis is that people with low GRS will have greater increase in serum GGT as compared to high GRS group.||0.28|-0.12|0.41
90979357|NCT03783195|181843681|OTHER|Both groups received the same intervention; however, their genetic make-up was different|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.109|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.22|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.22|-0.44|0.49
90979358|NCT00215150|181843682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Results are from a Wilcoxon signed rank test on the difference from endpoint to baseline for the intent to treat sample from the open label phase of the project.||||< 0.001
90979359|NCT00215150|181843682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Results are from a Kruskal Wallis test on the ziprasidone/placebo groups from the randomization phase of the project.||||> .05
90979360|NCT02091440|181843697|OTHER|Single group|Proportion|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
90979361|NCT02091440|181843698|OTHER|Single group|Kaplan-Meier Survival|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90979362|NCT02091440|181843699|OTHER|Single group|Incidence|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90979363|NCT02091440|181843700|OTHER|Single group|Incidence|1.66|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90979364|NCT02091440|181843701|OTHER|Single group|Change from baseline|19.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.39|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.5|31.4|||||Confidence interval based on t-distribution.|||31.4|7.5|
90979365|NCT02091440|181843702|OTHER|Single group|Percentage change|-83.33|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Percentage change from 24 months to screening in NYHA classes III and IV. Percentage change is 16.67% - 100% = -83.33%|||||
90979366|NCT02091440|181843703|OTHER|Single group|Change from baseline|130.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|275.32|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-158.9|418.9|||||Confidence interval based on t-distribution.|||418.9|-158.9|
91006664|NCT00572728|181897686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|two-sided exact p value from Wilcoxon two-sample test||"H0: Mean SUVmax (RCB 0,I) = Mean SUVmax (RCB II,III) After dichotomization, Wilcoxon two-sample test was used to compare uptake values between RCB groups.~In other words, we are comparing the means (of SUVmax) @ FLT1 between the RCB 0,I and the RCB II,III groups.."||||0.66
90947310|NCT03635086|181773437|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.8|||ANOVA|||Day 0||2.8|0.4|1.0000
90947311|NCT03635086|181773437|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.7|||ANOVA|||Day 0||2.7|0.4|1.0000
91038816|NCT03214588|181961951|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.186|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.02|0.64||||||Change at Week 12, Right Heel Along Shin Tap||0.64|0.02|
91038817|NCT03214588|181961951|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.199|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.17|0.5||||||Change at Week 2, Left Heel Along Shin Tap||0.50|-0.17|
91038818|NCT03214588|181961951|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.164|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.06|0.61||||||Change at Week 2, Left Heel Along Shin Tap||0.61|0.06|
91038819|NCT03214588|181961951|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.277|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.09|0.84||||||Change at Week 7, Left Heel Along Shin Tap||0.84|-0.09|
91038820|NCT03214588|181961951|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.234|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.19|0.6||||||Change at Week 7, Left Heel Along Shin Tap||0.60|-0.19|
91038821|NCT03214588|181961951|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.303|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|0.82||||||Change at Week 12, Left Heel Along Shin Tap||0.82|-0.20|
91038822|NCT03214588|181961951|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.17|0.67||||||Change at Week 12, Left Heel Along Shin Tap||0.67|-0.17|
91038823|NCT03214588|181961951|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|0.5||||||Change at Week 2, Siting Posture||0.5|-0.1|
91038824|NCT03214588|181961951|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|0.4||||||Change at Week 2, Siting Posture||0.4|-0.1|
91038825|NCT03214588|181961951|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|0.2||||||Change at Week 7, Siting Posture||0.2|-0.4|
90947312|NCT03635086|181773437|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.7|||ANOVA|||Day 0||2.7|0.4|1.0000
90947313|NCT03635086|181773437|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.7||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|4.7|||ANOVA|||Day 0||4.7|0.6|0.5500
90947314|NCT03635086|181773437|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.7||||0.5263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|4.6|||ANOVA|||Day 0||4.6|0.6|0.5263
90947315|NCT03635086|181773437|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.7||||0.5263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|4.6|||ANOVA|||Day 0||4.6|0.6|0.5263
91038826|NCT03214588|181961951|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.5||||||Change at Week 7, Siting Posture||0.5|0.0|
91038827|NCT03214588|181961951|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|0.2||||||Change at Week 12, Siting Posture||0.2|-0.5|
91038828|NCT03214588|181961951|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|0.3||||||Change at Week 12, Siting Posture||0.3|-0.2|
91038829|NCT03214588|181961951|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|0.4||||||Change at Week 2, SFA - TTA||0.4|-0.4|
91038830|NCT03214588|181961951|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|0.3||||||Change at Week 2, SFA - TTA||0.3|-0.3|
91038831|NCT03214588|181961951|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|0.2||||||Change at Week 7, SFA - TTA||0.2|-0.4|
91038832|NCT03214588|181961951|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|0.1||||||Change at Week 7, SFA - TTA||0.1|-0.5|
91038833|NCT03214588|181961951|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|0.4||||||Change at Week 12, SFA - TTA||0.4|-0.3|
91038834|NCT03214588|181961951|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|0.4||||||Change at Week 12, SFA - TTA||0.4|-0.2|
91038835|NCT03214588|181961951|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|0.3||||||Change at Week 2, SFA (Eyes Closed) - TTA||0.3|-0.1|
91038836|NCT03214588|181961951|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|0.1||||||Change at Week 2, SFA (Eyes Closed) - TTA||0.1|-0.2|
91038837|NCT03214588|181961951|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|0.2||||||Change at Week 7, SFA (Eyes Closed) - TTA||0.2|-0.4|
91038838|NCT03214588|181961951|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|0.1||||||Change at Week 7, SFA (Eyes Closed) - TTA||0.1|-0.4|
91038839|NCT03214588|181961951|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|0.4||||||Change at Week 12, SFA (Eyes Closed) - TTA||0.4|-0.3|
91038840|NCT03214588|181961951|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|0.1||||||Change at Week 12, SFA (Eyes Closed) - TTA||0.1|-0.5|
91038841|NCT03214588|181961951|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8|0.2||||||Change at Week 2, SFT - TTA||0.2|-0.8|
90947316|NCT03635086|181773437|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.8|||ANOVA|||Day 0||2.8|0.4|1.0000
90947317|NCT03635086|181773437|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.8|||ANOVA|||Day 0||2.8|0.4|1.0000
90947318|NCT03635086|181773437|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.7|||ANOVA|||Day 0||2.7|0.4|1.0000
90947319|NCT03635086|181773437|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|0.5||||0.5321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.7|||ANOVA|||Day 28||1.7|0.2|0.5321
90947320|NCT03635086|181773437|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.1||||0.9983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.9|||ANOVA|||Day 28||3.9|0.3|0.9983
90947321|NCT03635086|181773437|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|0.6||||0.8234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.1|||ANOVA|||Day 28||2.1|0.2|0.8234
90947322|NCT03635086|181773437|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|0.8||||0.9882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.7|||ANOVA|||Day 28||2.7|0.2|0.9882
90947323|NCT03635086|181773437|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|2.2||||0.3778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|7.6|||ANOVA|||Day 28||7.6|0.6|0.3778
90947324|NCT03635086|181773437|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.2||||0.9878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|4.1|||ANOVA|||Day 28||4.1|0.4|0.9878
90947325|NCT03635086|181773437|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.6||||0.8213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|5.3|||ANOVA|||Day 28||5.3|0.5|0.8213
91038842|NCT03214588|181961951|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.8||||||Change at Week 2, SFT - TTA||0.8|0.0|
90979367|NCT03576144|181843705|OTHER||Slope|1.0474|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0283|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9997|1.0951|||ANCOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually standard error of slope.Based on the estimate for the slope parameter (β), a 2-sided 90% CI for the slope was computed. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1.|Dose proportionality for AUC0-12 of BI 1265162 in plasma was assessed using a power model (regression model applied to log-transformed data). The corresponding ANCOVA model included the logarithm of the dose as a covariate. No statistical hypotheses were tested in a confirmatory sense.||1.0951|0.9997|
90947326|NCT03635086|181773437|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|0.6||||0.6716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.9|||ANOVA|||Day 28||1.9|0.2|0.6716
90947327|NCT03635086|181773437|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|0.7||||0.938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.5|||ANOVA|||Day 28||2.5|0.2|0.9380
90947328|NCT03635086|181773437|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.3||||0.9777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|4.3|||ANOVA|||Day 28||4.3|0.4|0.9777
90947329|NCT03635086|181773437|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.1||||0.9997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|4.7|||ANOVA|||Day 56||4.7|0.3|0.9997
90979368|NCT03576144|181843706|OTHER||Slope|1.0091|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9451|1.0732|||ANCOVA||Standard Error of the is actually standard error of slope. Based on the estimate for the slope parameter (β), a 2-sided 90% CI for the slope was computed. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1.|Dose proportionality for Cmax of BI 1265162 in plasma was assessed using a power model (regression model applied to log-transformed data). The corresponding ANCOVA model included the logarithm of the dose as a covariate. No statistical hypotheses were tested in a confirmatory sense.||1.0732|0.9451|
90947330|NCT03635086|181773437|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.5||||0.9287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|7.2|||ANOVA|||Day 56||7.2|0.3|0.9287
90947331|NCT03635086|181773437|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|0.5||||0.5598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.0|||ANOVA|||Day 56||2.0|0.1|0.5598
90947332|NCT03635086|181773437|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|3.0||||0.2117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|13.1|||ANOVA|||Day 56||13.1|0.7|0.2117
90947333|NCT03635086|181773437|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.4||||0.9699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|6.6|||ANOVA|||Day 56||6.6|0.3|0.9699
90947334|NCT03635086|181773437|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|0.4||||0.446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.8|||ANOVA|||Day 56||1.8|0.1|0.4460
90947335|NCT03635086|181773437|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|2.8||||0.292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|11.9|||ANOVA|||Day 56||11.9|0.6|0.2920
90947336|NCT03635086|181773437|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|0.3||||0.184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.4|||ANOVA|||Day 56||1.4|0.1|0.1840
90947337|NCT03635086|181773437|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|2.0||||0.7229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|9.2|||ANOVA|||Day 56||9.2|0.4|0.7229
90947338|NCT03635086|181773437|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|6.6||||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|28.6|||ANOVA|||Day 56||28.6|1.5|0.0052
90947339|NCT03635086|181773437|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|0.8||||0.9777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|3.0|||ANOVA|||Day 182||3.0|0.2|0.9777
90947340|NCT03635086|181773437|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.3||||0.9812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|5.3|||ANOVA|||Day 182||5.3|0.3|0.9812
90947341|NCT03635086|181773437|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.2||||0.9979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|4.5|||ANOVA|||Day 182||4.5|0.3|0.9979
90947342|NCT03635086|181773437|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|2.0||||0.588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|7.9|||ANOVA|||Day 182||7.9|0.5|0.5880
90947343|NCT03635086|181773437|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.7||||0.7973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|7.0|||ANOVA|||Day 182||7.0|0.4|0.7973
90979369|NCT03576144|181843707|OTHER||Slope|1.052|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0325|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9972|1.1069|||ANCOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually standard error of slope. Based on the estimate for the slope parameter (β), a 2-sided 90% CI for the slope was computed. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1.|Dose proportionality for AUCτ,ss of BI 1265162 in plasma was assessed using a power model (regression model applied to log-transformed data). The corresponding ANCOVA model included the logarithm of the dose as a covariate. No statistical hypotheses were tested in a confirmatory sense.||1.1069|0.9972|
90979370|NCT03576144|181843708|OTHER||Slope|1.0361|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0379|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9722|1.1001|||ANCOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually standard error of slope. Based on the estimate for the slope parameter (β), a 2-sided 90% CI for the slope was computed. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1.|Dose proportionality for Cmax,ss of BI 1265162 in plasma was assessed using a power model (regression model applied to log-transformed data). The corresponding ANCOVA model included the logarithm of the dose as a covariate. No statistical hypotheses were tested in a confirmatory sense.||1.1001|0.9722|
90947344|NCT03635086|181773437|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.5||||0.8992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|6.0|||ANOVA|||Day 182||6.0|0.4|0.8992
90947345|NCT03635086|181773437|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|2.7||||0.2602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|10.4|||ANOVA|||Day 182||10.4|0.7|0.2602
91007810|NCT00135694|181899813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for immunosuppression dose the subject was receiving at the time of randomization.||||||<0.0001
91007811|NCT02584660|181899814|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference|-1.202|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|-0.674|||t-test|||||-0.674|-1.730|<.0001
91007812|NCT00461552|181899820|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84||||||Treatment time month interaction|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.84
91007813|NCT00461552|181899821|OTHER|||||||0.4||||||Treatment time month interaction|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.4
90947346|NCT03635086|181773437|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|0.9||||0.9991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|3.6|||ANOVA|||Day 182||3.6|0.2|0.9991
90947347|NCT03635086|181773437|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.5||||0.9028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|6.2|||ANOVA|||Day 182||6.2|0.4|0.9028
90947348|NCT03635086|181773437|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.7||||0.7761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|6.8|||ANOVA|||Day 182||6.8|0.4|0.7761
90947349|NCT03635086|181773437|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|0.6||||0.7833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.1|||ANOVA|||Day 365||2.1|0.2|0.7833
90947350|NCT03635086|181773437|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|0.8||||0.9915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.9|||ANOVA|||Day 365||2.9|0.2|0.9915
90979371|NCT05224258|181843736|NON_INFERIORITY|The overall mean change in HbA1c from baseline to end of 3-month study period. The mean change will be estimated and compared to a threshold of -0.38% with a margin of 0.4%.|Mean difference from baseline to exit|-0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.1|||t-test, 1 sided||This is one arm study, the differences of HbA1c from baseline to exit were summarized for this endpoint|||-0.1|-0.4|<0.001
90979372|NCT05224258|181843736|NON_INFERIORITY|The overall mean change in HbA1c from baseline to end of 3-month study period. The mean change will be estimated and compared to a threshold of -0.5% with a margin of 0.4%.|Mean difference from baseline to exit|-0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.2|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||This is one arm study, the differences of HbA1c from baseline to exit were summarized for this endpoint.|||-0.2|-0.5|<0.001
90979373|NCT05224258|181843737|NON_INFERIORITY|The mean % of time in range (TIR 70-180 mg/dL \[3.9 -10.0 mmol/L\]) will be estimated and compared to a threshold of 65.3% with a margin of 7.5% and a significance level of 0.025 (one-sided).|Mean of Final Value|65.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.5|67.9|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||This is one arm study, the Percent of Time in Range (TIR 70-180 mg/dL \[3.9 -10.0 mmol/L\]) from the last 6-7 weeks of 3 month study period was summarized for this endpoint.|||67.9|63.5|<0.001
90979374|NCT05224258|181843737|NON_INFERIORITY|The mean % of time in range (TIR 70-180 mg/dL \[3.9 -10.0 mmol/L\]) will be estimated and compared to a threshold of 73.7% with a margin of 7.5% and a significance level of 0.025 (one-sided).|Mean of Final Value|77.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|75.4|78.9|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||This is one arm study, the Percent of Time in Range (TIR 70-180 mg/dL \[3.9 -10.0 mmol/L\]) from the last 6-7 weeks of 3 month study period was summarized for this endpoint.|||78.9|75.4|<0.001
91038843|NCT03214588|181961951|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|0.4||||||Change at Week 7, SFT - TTA||0.4|-0.3|
90947351|NCT03635086|181773437|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|0.9||||0.998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.0|||ANOVA|||Day 365||3.0|0.3|0.9980
90947352|NCT03635086|181773437|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.4||||0.909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|4.9|||ANOVA|||Day 365||4.9|0.4|0.9090
90947353|NCT03635086|181773437|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.3||||0.9651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|4.7|||ANOVA|||Day 365||4.7|0.4|0.9651
90947354|NCT03635086|181773437|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.4||||0.9112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|4.7|||ANOVA|||Day 365||4.7|0.4|0.9112
90979375|NCT05224258|181843738|NON_INFERIORITY|The mean % of time in hypoglycemia (\< 54 mg/dL \[3.0 mmol/L\]) will be estimated and compared to a threshold of 0.71% with a margin of 2% and a significance level of 0.025 (one-sided).|Mean of Final Value|0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.4|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||This is one arm study, the Percent of Time in Hypoglycemia (\< 54 mg/dL \[3.0 mmol/L\]) from the last 6-7 weeks of 3 month study period was summarized for this endpoint.|||0.4|0.3|<0.001
91038844|NCT03214588|181961951|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.2|0.7||||||Change at Week 7, SFT - TTA||0.7|0.2|
91038845|NCT03214588|181961951|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|0.2||||||Change at Week 12, SFT - TTA||0.2|-0.5|
90947355|NCT03635086|181773437|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|2.4||||0.257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|7.8|||ANOVA|||Day 365||7.8|0.7|0.2570
90947356|NCT03635086|181773437|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.1||||0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.8|||ANOVA|||Day 365||3.8|0.3|0.9999
90947357|NCT03635086|181773437|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.8||||0.6953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|6.2|||ANOVA|||Day 365||6.2|0.5|0.6953
90947358|NCT03635086|181773437|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.7||||0.7523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|5.4|||ANOVA|||Day 365||5.4|0.5|0.7523
90947359|NCT03635086|181773446|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|0.5||||0.5263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.7|||ANOVA|||Day 0||1.7|0.1|0.5263
90947360|NCT03635086|181773446|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.5|||ANOVA|||Day 0||3.5|0.3|1.0000
90947361|NCT03635086|181773446|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.4|||ANOVA|||Day 0||3.4|0.3|1.0000
90947362|NCT03635086|181773446|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.4|||ANOVA|||Day 0||3.4|0.3|1.0000
91038846|NCT03214588|181961951|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.7||||||Change at Week 12, SFT - TTA||0.7|0.0|
91038847|NCT03214588|181961951|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|0.1||||||Change at Week 2, SFT (Eyes Closed) - TTA||0.1|-0.2|
91038848|NCT03214588|181961951|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|0.1||||||Change at Week 2, SFT (Eyes Closed) - TTA||0.1|-0.2|
91038849|NCT03214588|181961951|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|0.2||||||Change at Week 7, SFT (Eyes Closed) - TTA||0.2|-0.2|
90947363|NCT03635086|181773446|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|2.0||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|7.0|||ANOVA|||Day 0||7.0|0.6|0.5500
90947364|NCT03635086|181773446|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|2.0||||0.5263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|6.7|||ANOVA|||Day 0||6.7|0.6|0.5263
91038850|NCT03214588|181961951|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|0.2||||||Change at Week 7, SFT (Eyes Closed) - TTA||0.2|-0.1|
90947365|NCT03635086|181773446|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|2.0||||0.5263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|6.7|||ANOVA|||Day 0||6.7|0.6|0.5263
90947366|NCT03635086|181773446|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.5|||ANOVA|||Day 0||3.5|0.3|1.0000
90947367|NCT03635086|181773446|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.5|||ANOVA|||Day 0||3.5|0.3|1.0000
90947368|NCT03635086|181773446|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.4|||ANOVA|||Day 0||3.4|0.3|1.0000
91038851|NCT03214588|181961951|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|0.2||||||Change at Week 12, SFT (Eyes Closed) - TTA||0.2|-0.2|
91038852|NCT03214588|181961951|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|0.0||||||Change at Week 12, SFT (Eyes Closed) - TTA||0.0|-0.3|
91038853|NCT03214588|181961951|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|0.1||||||Change at Week 2, Tandem Stance - TTA||0.1|-0.2|
91038854|NCT03214588|181961951|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|0.1||||||Change at Week 2, Tandem Stance - TTA||0.1|-0.1|
90947369|NCT03635086|181773446|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|0.5||||0.7708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.4|||ANOVA|||Day 28||2.4|0.1|0.7708
90947370|NCT03635086|181773446|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.2||||0.9966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|5.4|||ANOVA|||Day 28||5.4|0.3|0.9966
90947371|NCT03635086|181773446|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|0.7||||0.9503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|3.0|||ANOVA|||Day 28||3.0|0.2|0.9503
90947372|NCT03635086|181773446|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|0.7||||0.9791|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|3.2|||ANOVA|||Day 28||3.2|0.2|0.9791
90947373|NCT03635086|181773446|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|2.2||||0.5739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|9.8|||ANOVA|||Day 28||9.8|0.5|0.5739
90947374|NCT03635086|181773446|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.3||||0.9918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|5.4|||ANOVA|||Day 28||5.4|0.3|0.9918
90947375|NCT03635086|181773446|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.4||||0.9748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|5.9|||ANOVA|||Day 28||5.9|0.3|0.9748
91038855|NCT03214588|181961951|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|0.0||||||Change at Week 7, Tandem Stance - TTA||0.0|-0.2|
91038856|NCT03214588|181961951|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|0.2||||||Change at Week 7, Tandem Stance - TTA||0.2|-0.1|
91038857|NCT03214588|181961951|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|0.1||||||Change at Week 12, Tandem Stance - TTA||0.1|-0.2|
91038858|NCT03214588|181961951|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|0.2||||||Change at Week 12, Tandem Stance - TTA||0.2|-0.1|
90947376|NCT03635086|181773446|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|0.6||||0.827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.6|||ANOVA|||Day 28||2.6|0.1|0.8270
91038859|NCT03214588|181961951|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|0.1||||||Change at Week 2, Tandem Walk||0.1|-0.1|
91038860|NCT03214588|181961951|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|0.1||||||Change at Week 2, Tandem Walk||0.1|-0.1|
91038861|NCT03214588|181961951|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|0.1||||||Change at Week 7, Tandem Walk||0.1|-0.2|
91038862|NCT03214588|181961951|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|0.1||||||Change at Week 7, Tandem Walk||0.1|-0.1|
90947377|NCT03635086|181773446|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|0.6||||0.893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.8|||ANOVA|||Day 28||2.8|0.1|0.8930
90947378|NCT03635086|181773446|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.1||||0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|4.7|||ANOVA|||Day 28||4.7|0.3|0.9999
91038863|NCT03214588|181961951|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|0.0||||||Change at Week 12, Tandem Walk||0.0|-0.3|
91038864|NCT03214588|181961951|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|0.1||||||Change at Week 12, Tandem Walk||0.1|-0.2|
91038865|NCT03214588|181961951|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|0.4||||||Change at Week 2, Gait||0.4|-0.2|
91038866|NCT03214588|181961951|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.1|0.7||||||Change at Week 2, Gait||0.7|0.1|
91038867|NCT03214588|181961951|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|0.2||||||Change at Week 7, Gait||0.2|-0.4|
90947379|NCT03635086|181773446|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|0.6||||0.9105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|3.2|||ANOVA|||Day 56||3.2|0.1|0.9105
90947380|NCT03635086|181773446|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|5.5|||ANOVA|||Day 56||5.5|0.2|1.0000
90947381|NCT03635086|181773446|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|0.3||||0.3047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.7|||ANOVA|||Day 56||1.7|0.1|0.3047
91038868|NCT03214588|181961951|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.1|0.6||||||Change at Week 7, Gait||0.6|0.1|
90947382|NCT03635086|181773446|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|5.5||||0.0423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|29.2|||ANOVA|||Day 56||29.2|1.0|0.0423
90947383|NCT03635086|181773446|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.6||||0.9213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|9.1|||ANOVA|||Day 56||9.1|0.3|0.9213
90947384|NCT03635086|181773446|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|0.5||||0.8092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.8|||ANOVA|||Day 56||2.8|0.1|0.8092
91038869|NCT03214588|181961951|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|0.2||||||Change at Week 12, Gait||0.2|-0.4|
91038870|NCT03214588|181961951|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.5||||||Change at Week 12, Gait||0.5|0.0|
91038871|NCT03214588|181961952|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.889||0.599|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.31|1.76||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 2||1.76|-1.31|0.599
91038872|NCT03214588|181961952|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.625||0.978|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.26|2.42||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 2||2.42|0.26|0.978
91038873|NCT03214588|181961952|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14||0.533|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.87|2.06||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 7||2.06|-1.87|0.533
91038874|NCT03214588|181961952|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.886||0.37|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.83|1.23||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 7||1.23|-1.83|0.370
90947385|NCT03635086|181773446|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|9.1||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|48.5|||ANOVA|||Day 56||48.5|1.7|0.0040
90947386|NCT03635086|181773446|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|0.3||||0.3347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.8|||ANOVA|||Day 56||1.8|0.1|0.3347
90947387|NCT03635086|181773446|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|5.6||||0.0488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|30.7|||ANOVA|||Day 56||30.7|1.0|0.0488
90947388|NCT03635086|181773446|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|17.4||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|92.2|||ANOVA|||Day 56||92.2|3.3|0.0001
90947389|NCT03635086|181773446|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|0.6||||0.8831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|3.0|||ANOVA|||Day 182||3.0|0.1|0.8831
91038875|NCT03214588|181961952|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.078||0.972|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.32|4.04||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||4.04|0.32|0.972
91038876|NCT03214588|181961952|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.819||0.825|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.63|2.19||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||2.19|-0.63|0.825
91038877|NCT03214588|181961953|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23858||0.426|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3665|0.4565||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 2||0.4565|-0.3665|0.426
91038878|NCT03214588|181961953|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3281|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15794||0.975|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6005|-0.0557||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 2||-0.0557|-0.6005|0.975
91038879|NCT03214588|181961953|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.1448|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31186||0.324|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3931|0.6826||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 7||0.6826|-0.3931|0.324
91038880|NCT03214588|181961953|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0113|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23213||0.481|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3891|0.4117||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 7||0.4117|-0.3891|0.481
91038881|NCT03214588|181961953|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2067|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28088||0.765|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6911|0.2778||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||0.2778|-0.6911|0.765
91038882|NCT03214588|181961953|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.1173|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19778||0.28|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2238|0.4585||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||0.4585|-0.2238|0.280
91038883|NCT03214588|181961954|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.28||0.735|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.9|4.4||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 2||4.4|-9.9|0.735
91038884|NCT03214588|181961954|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.51||0.182|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.7|9.1||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 2||9.1|-2.7|0.182
91038885|NCT03214588|181961954|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.59||0.97|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.9|-0.9||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 7||-0.9|-12.9|0.970
91038886|NCT03214588|181961954|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0||0.321|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.6|6.4||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 7||6.4|-3.6|0.321
91038887|NCT03214588|181961954|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.34||0.905|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.0|1.5||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||1.5|-13.0|0.905
91038888|NCT03214588|181961954|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.57||0.199|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.9|9.0||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||9.0|-2.9|0.199
91038889|NCT03214588|181961955|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.974||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||||0.974
91038890|NCT03214588|181961955|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.893||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||||0.893
91038891|NCT03214588|181961955|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.954||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 7||||0.954
91038892|NCT03214588|181961955|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.793||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 7||||0.793
91038893|NCT03214588|181961955|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.845||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||||0.845
91038894|NCT03214588|181961955|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.816||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||||0.816
91038895|NCT03214588|181961956|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||||0.840
91038896|NCT03214588|181961956|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.854||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||||0.854
91038897|NCT03214588|181961956|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.922||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 7||||0.922
91038898|NCT03214588|181961956|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.794||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 7||||0.794
91038899|NCT03214588|181961956|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||||0.830
90947390|NCT03635086|181773446|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|5.2|||ANOVA|||Day 182||5.2|0.2|1.0000
90947391|NCT03635086|181773446|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|0.6||||0.8916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|3.1|||ANOVA|||Day 182||3.1|0.1|0.8916
90947392|NCT03635086|181773446|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.9||||0.794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|9.9|||ANOVA|||Day 182||9.9|0.4|0.7940
90947393|NCT03635086|181773446|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.6||||0.9169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|8.9|||ANOVA|||Day 182||8.9|0.3|0.9169
90947394|NCT03635086|181773446|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|5.2|||ANOVA|||Day 182||5.2|0.2|1.0000
91038900|NCT03214588|181961956|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.998||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||||0.998
90947395|NCT03635086|181773446|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|3.3||||0.2563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|17.1|||ANOVA|||Day 182||17.1|0.6|0.2563
90947396|NCT03635086|181773446|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|0.6||||0.9237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|3.3|||ANOVA|||Day 182||3.3|0.1|0.9237
90947397|NCT03635086|181773446|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|2.0||||0.7708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|10.8|||ANOVA|||Day 182||10.8|0.4|0.7708
90947398|NCT03635086|181773446|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|3.3||||0.2661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|16.9|||ANOVA|||Day 182||16.9|0.6|0.2661
90947399|NCT03635086|181773446|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|0.5||||0.7614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.6|||ANOVA|||Day 365||2.6|0.1|0.7614
90947400|NCT03635086|181773446|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|0.8||||0.9905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|4.3|||ANOVA|||Day 365||4.3|0.1|0.9905
91038901|NCT03214588|181961957|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.987||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||||0.987
91038902|NCT03214588|181961957|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.771||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||||0.771
90947401|NCT03635086|181773446|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|0.6||||0.933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|3.3|||ANOVA|||Day 365||3.3|0.1|0.9330
90947402|NCT03635086|181773446|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.3||||0.9945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|6.7|||ANOVA|||Day 365||6.7|0.2|0.9945
90947403|NCT03635086|181773446|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.5||||0.9599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|8.4|||ANOVA|||Day 365||8.4|0.3|0.9599
90947404|NCT03635086|181773446|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.3||||0.9942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|6.4|||ANOVA|||Day 365||6.4|0.2|0.9942
90947405|NCT03635086|181773446|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|2.5||||0.4932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|12.9|||ANOVA|||Day 365||12.9|0.5|0.4932
90947406|NCT03635086|181773446|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|0.8||||0.9983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|4.6|||ANOVA|||Day 365||4.6|0.2|0.9983
90947407|NCT03635086|181773446|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.7||||0.9112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|9.3|||ANOVA|||Day 365||9.3|0.3|0.9112
90947408|NCT03635086|181773446|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|2.0||||0.7431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|10.2|||ANOVA|||Day 365||10.2|0.4|0.7431
90947409|NCT02844777|181773499|OTHER|||||||0.9518|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.9518
90947410|NCT02844777|181773499|OTHER|||||||0.2458|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2458
90947411|NCT02844777|181773500|OTHER|||||||0.6201|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6201
90947412|NCT02844777|181773500|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
90947413|NCT02844777|181773501|OTHER|||||||0.2912|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2912
90947414|NCT02844777|181773501|OTHER|||||||0.4168|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.4168
91038903|NCT03214588|181961957|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.526||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 7||||0.526
91038904|NCT03214588|181961957|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.665||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 7||||0.665
91038905|NCT03214588|181961957|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.576||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||||0.576
91038906|NCT03214588|181961957|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.865||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||||0.865
90947415|NCT02844777|181773502|OTHER|||||||0.6458|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.6458
90947416|NCT02844777|181773502|OTHER|||||||0.0721|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0721
90947417|NCT02844777|181773503|OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.4200
90947418|NCT02844777|181773503|OTHER|||||||0.0241|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0241
90947419|NCT00150618|181773513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0041||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0041
90947420|NCT00150618|181773513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0176||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0176
91038907|NCT03214588|181961958|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.966||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||||0.966
91038908|NCT03214588|181961958|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.983||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||||0.983
91038909|NCT03214588|181961958|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.953||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 7||||0.953
91038910|NCT03214588|181961958|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.781||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 7||||0.781
91038911|NCT03214588|181961958|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.948||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||||0.948
91038912|NCT03214588|181961958|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.998||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||||0.998
91038913|NCT03214588|181961959|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.666||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||||0.666
91038914|NCT03214588|181961959|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.812||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||||0.812
91038915|NCT03214588|181961959|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.834||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 7||||0.834
91038916|NCT03214588|181961959|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.841||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 7||||0.841
91038917|NCT03214588|181961959|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.893||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||||0.893
91038918|NCT03214588|181961959|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.907||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||||0.907
91038919|NCT03214588|181961960|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.032||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||||0.032
91038920|NCT03214588|181961960|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.216||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||||0.216
91038921|NCT03214588|181961960|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.215||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 7||||0.215
91038922|NCT03214588|181961960|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.411||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 7||||0.411
91038923|NCT03214588|181961960|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.194||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||||0.194
91038924|NCT03214588|181961960|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.408||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||||0.408
91038925|NCT03214588|181961961|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.406||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||||0.406
91038926|NCT03214588|181961961|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.235||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||||0.235
91038927|NCT03214588|181961961|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.225||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 7||||0.225
91038928|NCT03214588|181961961|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.434||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 7||||0.434
91038929|NCT03214588|181961961|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.249||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||||0.249
91038930|NCT03214588|181961961|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||||0.380
91038931|NCT03214588|181961962|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.422||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||||0.422
91038932|NCT03214588|181961962|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.226||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||||0.226
91038933|NCT03214588|181961962|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.639||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 7||||0.639
91038934|NCT03214588|181961962|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.094||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 7||||0.094
91038935|NCT03214588|181961962|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.516||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||||0.516
91038936|NCT03214588|181961962|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.266||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||||0.266
91038937|NCT03214588|181961963|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.362||0.299|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8|0.41||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 2||0.41|-0.80|0.299
91038938|NCT03214588|181961963|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.293||0.967|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.06|1.04||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 2||1.04|0.06|0.967
91038939|NCT03214588|181961963|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.338||0.529|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.54|0.59||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 7||0.59|-0.54|0.529
91038940|NCT03214588|181961963|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.279||0.88|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.13|0.8||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 7||0.80|-0.13|0.880
91038941|NCT03214588|181961963|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.408||0.599|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.58|0.79||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||0.79|-0.58|0.599
91038942|NCT03214588|181961963|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.333||0.846|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.21|0.9||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||0.90|-0.21|0.846
91038943|NCT03214588|181961964|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0|||>|0.999||||||P-value was from Fisher's exact test. Odds ratio was obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel with ambulation status at randomization as a stratification factor.|Fisher Exact|||At Least 15% Reduction from Baseline||||>0.999
91038944|NCT03214588|181961964|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0|||>|0.999||||||P-value was from Fisher's exact test. Odds ratio was obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel with ambulation status at randomization as a stratification factor.|Fisher Exact|||At Least 15% Reduction from Baseline||||>0.999
91038945|NCT03214588|181961964|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0|||>|0.999||||||P-value was from Fisher's exact test. Odds ratio was obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel with ambulation status at randomization as a stratification factor.|Fisher Exact|||At Least 20% Reduction from Baseline||||>0.999
91038946|NCT03214588|181961964|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0|||>|0.999||||||P-value was from Fisher's exact test. Odds ratio was obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel with ambulation status at randomization as a stratification factor.|Fisher Exact|||At Least 20% Reduction from Baseline||||>0.999
91038947|NCT02679729|181961968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.625|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.396|0.853||||||Statistical Analysis for Part A||0.853|0.396|
91038948|NCT02679729|181961969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.905|1.49||||||Statistical Analysis for Part A||1.49|0.905|
91038949|NCT02679729|181961970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|1.76||||||Statistical Analysis for Part A||1.76|1.34|
91038950|NCT01124786|181962009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.994|||<|0.973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.746|1.326|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio and confidence interval presented above, so parameter dispersion not indicated in standard deviation field directly above.|If the median Overall Survival (OS) for the CO-1.01-treated patients is 7.7 months and the median OS for gemcitabine-treated patients with hENT1-low status is 4 months (hazard ratio of 0.53), then a total of 144 events of death in the hENT1-low subgroup will provide over 90% power at a 0.05 (2 sided) significance level for the comparison of CO-1.01 to gemcitabine in the hENT1-low patients.||1.326|0.746|<0.973
91038951|NCT01442376|181962020|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin of 15% at an alpha level of 2.5% in a 1-sided test (equivalent to 5.0% 2-sided test) to reject the null hypothesis that the study drug was inferior to the active control drug by more than the non-inferiority margin.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-11.7|12.4||||||The stratum adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method was used to compute the confidence interval (CI) of the difference in proportion. If the lower bound of the 97.5% CI of either the difference (CR0-24h palonosetron 20 mcg/kg - CR0-24h ondansetron) or the difference (CR0-24h palonosetron 10 mcg/kg - CR0-24h ondansetron) was strictly superior to the non-inferiority margin (δ=-0.15) then the null hypothesis (H0) was rejected. A power of 80% was used for sample size computation.||12.4|-11.7|
90947421|NCT00150618|181773513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0016||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0016
90947422|NCT00150618|181773513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0006||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0006
90947423|NCT00150618|181773514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0010
90947424|NCT00150618|181773514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0468||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0468
90947425|NCT00150618|181773514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0056||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0056
90947426|NCT00150618|181773514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0237||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0237
90947427|NCT00150618|181773515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0074||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0074
90979376|NCT05224258|181843738|NON_INFERIORITY|The mean % of time in hypoglycemia (\< 54 mg/dL \[3.0 mmol/L\]) will be estimated and compared to a threshold of 0.86% with a margin of 2% and a significance level of 0.025 (one-sided).|Mean of Final Value|0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.4|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||This is one arm study, the Percent of Time in Hypoglycemia (\< 54 mg/dL \[3.0 mmol/L\]) from the last 6-7 weeks of 3 month study period was summarized for this endpoint.|||0.4|0.2|<0.001
90979377|NCT05224258|181843739|SUPERIORITY|The mean % of time in range (TIR 70-180 mg/dL \[3.9 -10.0 mmol/L\]) will be estimated and compared to a threshold of 65.3% and a significance level of 0.025 (one-sided).|Mean of Final Value|65.7||||0.208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.5|67.9|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||This is one arm study, the Percent of Time in Range (TIR 70-180 mg/dL \[3.9 -10.0 mmol/L\]) from the last 6-7 weeks of 3 month study period was summarized for this endpoint.|||67.9|63.5|0.208
90979378|NCT05224258|181843739|SUPERIORITY|The mean % of time in range (TIR 70-180 mg/dL \[3.9 -10.0 mmol/L\]) will be estimated and compared to a threshold of 73.7% and a significance level of 0.025 (one-sided).|Mean of Final Value|77.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|75.4|78.9|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||This is one arm study, the Percent of Time in Range (TIR 70-180 mg/dL \[3.9 -10.0 mmol/L\]) from the last 6-7 weeks of 3 month study period was summarized for this endpoint.|||78.9|75.4|<0.001
90979379|NCT01381094|181843764|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|1.35||||||||1.35|0.24|
90979380|NCT01381094|181843764|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.33||||||||1.33|0.20|
90979381|NCT01381094|181843764|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.83||||||||1.83|0.73|
91050458|NCT04168190|181987010|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMC ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|1.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.49|2.22|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 17F. Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio, 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||2.22|1.49|<0.001
90979382|NCT01381094|181843764|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|2.0||||||||2.00|0.91|
90979383|NCT01381094|181843764|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
90979384|NCT01381094|181843765|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.9355|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 1).||||=0.9355
90979385|NCT01381094|181843765|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.6594|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 1).||||=0.6594
90947428|NCT00150618|181773515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1404||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1404
90947429|NCT00150618|181773515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0055||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0055
90947430|NCT00150618|181773515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0041||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0041
90947431|NCT00150618|181773516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0303||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0303
90947432|NCT00150618|181773516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4982||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4982
90947433|NCT00150618|181773516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0017||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0017
90947434|NCT00150618|181773516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0063||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0063
90947435|NCT00150618|181773517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0383||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Psychosocial category||||0.0383
90947436|NCT00150618|181773517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5859||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Psychosocial category||||0.5859
90947437|NCT00150618|181773517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2136||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Psychosocial category||||0.2136
90947438|NCT00150618|181773517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1483||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Psychosocial category||||0.1483
90979386|NCT01381094|181843765|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0203|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 1).||||=0.0203
90979387|NCT01381094|181843765|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0369|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 1).||||=0.0369
90979388|NCT01381094|181843765|SUPERIORITY|p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 1).|||||=|0.3713|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||||||=0.3713
90947439|NCT02493946|181773518|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|80.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|73.7|88.0||The treatment difference and p-value were obtained from a logistic regression on responders with treatment group, gender, baseline severity score on ILA at maximum frown and centre as fixed variables.|Regression, Logistic|||Treatment difference against placebo in the adjusted percentage of responders.||88.0|73.7|<0.0001
90947440|NCT02493946|181773519|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|75.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.1|82.8||The treatment difference and p-value were obtained from a logistic regression on responders with treatment group, gender, baseline severity score on ILA at maximum frown and centre as fixed variables.|Regression, Logistic|||Treatment difference against placebo in the adjusted percentage of responders at Day 8 Cycle 1.||82.8|67.1|<0.0001
90947441|NCT02493946|181773519|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|74.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|66.2|82.1||The treatment difference and p-value were obtained from a logistic regression on responders with treatment group, gender, baseline severity score on ILA at maximum frown and centre as fixed variables.|Regression, Logistic|||Treatment difference against placebo in the adjusted percentage of responders at Day 57 Cycle 1.||82.1|66.2|<0.0001
90947442|NCT02493946|181773519|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|53.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.2|63.1||The treatment difference and p-value were obtained from a logistic regression on responders with treatment group, gender, baseline severity score on ILA at maximum frown and centre as fixed variables.|Regression, Logistic|||Treatment difference against placebo in the adjusted percentage of responders at Day 85 Cycle 1.||63.1|44.2|<0.0001
90947443|NCT02493946|181773521|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|58.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.5|71.6||The treatment difference and p-value were obtained from a logistic regression on responders with treatment group, gender, baseline severity score on ILA at maximum frown and centre as fixed variables.|Regression, Logistic|||Treatment difference against placebo in the adjusted percentage of responders at Day 8 Cycle 1.||71.6|44.5|<0.0001
90947444|NCT02493946|181773521|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|56.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.5|69.0||The treatment difference and p-value were obtained from a logistic regression on responders with treatment group, gender, baseline severity score on ILA at maximum frown and centre as fixed variables.|Regression, Logistic|||Treatment difference against placebo in the adjusted percentage of responders at Day 29 Cycle 1.||69.0|44.5|<0.0001
90947445|NCT02493946|181773521|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|62.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.1|72.9||The treatment difference and p-value were obtained from a logistic regression on responders with treatment group, gender, baseline severity score on ILA at maximum frown and centre as fixed variables.|Regression, Logistic|||Treatment difference against placebo in the adjusted percentage of responders at Day 57 Cycle 1.||72.9|52.1|<0.0001
90947446|NCT02493946|181773521|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|42.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.5|55.7||The treatment difference and p-value were obtained from a logistic regression on responders with treatment group, gender, baseline severity score on ILA at maximum frown and centre as fixed variables.|Regression, Logistic|||Treatment difference against placebo in the adjusted percentage of responders at Day 85 Cycle 1.||55.7|29.5|<0.0001
90979389|NCT01381094|181843765|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.163|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.1630
90979390|NCT01381094|181843765|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.7615|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.7615
90979391|NCT01381094|181843765|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.004|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.0040
90979392|NCT01381094|181843765|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0003|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.0003
90979393|NCT01381094|181843765|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3978|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.3978
90979394|NCT01381094|181843765|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0083|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.0083
90979395|NCT01381094|181843765|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0323|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.0323
90979396|NCT01381094|181843765|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0003|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.0003
90947447|NCT02493946|181773522|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|61.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.9|70.3||The treatment difference and p-value were obtained from a logistic regression on responders with treatment group, gender, baseline severity score on ILA at maximum frown and centre as fixed variables.|Regression, Logistic|||Treatment difference against placebo in the adjusted percentage of responders at Day 8 Cycle 1.||70.3|51.9|<0.0001
90947448|NCT02493946|181773522|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|65.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.8|74.8||The treatment difference and p-value were obtained from a logistic regression on responders with treatment group, gender, baseline severity score on ILA at maximum frown and centre as fixed variables.|Regression, Logistic|||Treatment difference against placebo in the adjusted percentage of responders at Day 29 Cycle 1.||74.8|56.8|<0.0001
90947449|NCT02493946|181773522|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|70.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.2|78.8||The treatment difference and p-value were obtained from a logistic regression on responders with treatment group, gender, baseline severity score on ILA at maximum frown and centre as fixed variables.|Regression, Logistic|||Treatment difference against placebo in the adjusted percentage of responders at Day 57 Cycle 1.||78.8|62.2|<0.0001
90947450|NCT02493946|181773522|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|33.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.0|42.0||The treatment difference and p-value were obtained from a logistic regression on responders with treatment group, gender, baseline severity score on ILA at maximum frown and centre as fixed variables.|Regression, Logistic|||Treatment difference against placebo in the adjusted percentage of responders at Day 85 Cycle 1.||42.0|24.0|<0.0001
90979397|NCT01381094|181843765|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0001|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.0001
90979398|NCT01381094|181843765|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.423|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.4230
91050459|NCT04168190|181987010|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMC ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|2.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.81|2.83|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 20A. Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio, 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||2.83|1.81|<0.001
90947451|NCT02493946|181773523|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|68.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.2|78.3||The treatment difference and p-value were obtained from a logistic regression on responders with treatment group, gender, baseline severity score on ILA at maximum frown and centre as fixed variables.|Regression, Linear|||Treatment difference against placebo in the adjusted percentage of responders at Day 8 Cycle 1.||78.3|58.2|<0.0001
90979399|NCT01381094|181843765|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0023|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||=0.0023
90979400|NCT01381094|181843765|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0009|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||=0.0009
90979401|NCT01381094|181843765|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||<0.0001
90979402|NCT01381094|181843765|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||<0.0001
90979403|NCT01381094|181843765|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5291|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||=0.5291
90979404|NCT01381094|181843765|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0002|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.0002
90947452|NCT02493946|181773523|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|77.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.6|86.2||The treatment difference and p-value were obtained from a logistic regression on responders with treatment group, gender, baseline severity score on ILA at maximum frown and centre as fixed variables.|Regression, Logistic|||Treatment difference against placebo in the adjusted percentage of responders at Day 29 Cycle 1.||86.2|68.6|<0.0001
90947453|NCT02493946|181773523|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|74.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.7|83.1||The treatment difference and p-value were obtained from a logistic regression on responders with treatment group, gender, baseline severity score on ILA at maximum frown and centre as fixed variables.|Regression, Logistic|||Treatment difference against placebo in the adjusted percentage of responders at Day 57 Cycle 1.||83.1|65.7|<0.0001
90947454|NCT02493946|181773523|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|51.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.0|59.9||The treatment difference and p-value were obtained from a logistic regression on responders with treatment group, gender, baseline severity score on ILA at maximum frown and centre as fixed variables.|Regression, Logistic|||Treatment difference against placebo in the adjusted percentage of responders at Day 85 Cycle 1.||59.9|42.0|<0.0001
90947455|NCT02493946|181773524|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|15.296|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cox proportional hazard model|The cox proportional hazard model used centre, gender and ILA baseline severity score as covariates.||Treatment difference in median time to onset of treatment response.||||<0.0001
90947456|NCT02493946|181773525|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|8.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.2|12.0||The general linear model included mean change from baseline as a dependent variable and treatment group, gender and centre as fixed effects, and baseline severity score on ILA at maximum frown as covariates.|General linear model|||Treatment difference ( BTX-A-HAC Solution - Placebo) at Day 8 Cycle 1.||12.0|5.2|<0.0001
90947457|NCT02493946|181773525|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|11.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|14.8||The general linear model included mean change from baseline as a dependent variable and treatment group, gender and centre as fixed effects, and baseline severity score on ILA at maximum frown as covariates.|General linear model|||Treatment difference (BTX-A-HAC Solution - Placebo) at Day 29 Cycle 1.||14.8|7.4|<0.0001
90947458|NCT02493946|181773525|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|10.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|14.0||The general linear model included mean change from baseline as a dependent variable and treatment group, gender and centre as fixed effects, and baseline severity score on ILA at maximum frown as covariates.|General linear model|||Treatment difference (BTX-A-HAC Solution - Placebo) at Day 57 Cycle 1.||14.0|6.8|<0.0001
90947459|NCT02493946|181773525|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|9.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.9|13.3||The general linear model included mean change from baseline as a dependent variable and treatment group, gender and centre as fixed effects, and baseline severity score on ILA at maximum frown as covariates.|General linear model|||Treatment difference (BTX-A-HAC Solution - Placebo) at Day 85 Cycle 1.||13.3|5.9|<0.0001
90947460|NCT02493946|181773526|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|9.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|13.6||The general linear model included mean change from baseline as a dependent variable and treatment group, gender and centre as fixed effects, and baseline severity score on ILA at maximum frown as covariate.|General linear model|||Treatment difference (BTX-A-HAC Solution - Placebo) at Day 8 Cycle 1.||13.6|5.0|<0.0001
90947461|NCT02493946|181773526|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|11.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.7|16.0||The general linear model included mean change from baseline as a dependent variable and treatment group, gender and centre as fixed effects, and baseline severity score on ILA at maximum frown as covariate.|General linear model|||Treatment difference (BTX-A-HAC Solution - Placebo) at Day 29 Cycle 1.||16.0|6.7|<0.0001
90947462|NCT02493946|181773526|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|11.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.4|15.9||The general linear model included mean change from baseline as a dependent variable and treatment group, gender and centre as fixed effects, and baseline severity score on ILA at maximum frown as covariate.|General linear model|||Treatment difference (BTX-A-HAC Solution - Placebo) at Day 57 Cycle 1.||15.9|6.4|<0.0001
90947463|NCT02493946|181773526|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|8.1||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|12.6||The general linear model included mean change from baseline as a dependent variable and treatment group, gender and centre as fixed effects, and baseline severity score on ILA at maximum frown as covariate.|General linear model|||Treatment difference (BTX-A-HAC Solution - Placebo) at Day 85 Cycle 1.||12.6|3.7|0.0004
91038952|NCT01442376|181962020|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin of 15% at an alpha level of 2.5% in a 1-sided test (equivalent to 5.0% 2-sided test) to reject the null hypothesis that the study drug was inferior to the active control drug by more than the non-inferiority margin.|Risk Difference (RD)|-4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-16.4|7.6||||||The stratum adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method was used to compute the confidence interval (CI) of the difference in proportion. If the lower bound of the 97.5% CI of either the difference (CR0-24h palonosetron 20 mcg/kg - CR0-24h ondansetron) or the difference (CR0-24h palonosetron 10 mcg/kg - CR0-24h ondansetron) was strictly superior to the non-inferiority margin (δ=-0.15) then the null hypothesis (H0) was rejected. A power of 80% was used for sample size computation.||7.6|-16.4|
90947464|NCT02493946|181773527|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-0.6||||0.0174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.1||The general linear model included mean change from baseline as a dependent variable and treatment group, gender and centre as fixed effects, and baseline severity score on ILA at maximum frown as covariate.|General linear model|||Treatment difference (BTX-A-HAC Solution - Placebo) at Day 8 Cycle 1.||-0.1|-1.1|0.0174
90947465|NCT02493946|181773527|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-1.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.6||The general linear model included mean change from baseline as a dependent variable and treatment group, gender and centre as fixed effects, and baseline severity score on ILA at maximum frown as covariate.|General linear model|||Treatment difference (BTX-A-HAC Solution - Placebo) at Day 29 Cycle 1.||-0.6|-1.7|<0.0001
90947466|NCT02493946|181773527|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-1.4||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.7||The general linear model included mean change from baseline as a dependent variable and treatment group, gender and centre as fixed effects, and baseline severity score on ILA at maximum frown as covariate.|General linear model|||Treatment difference (BTX-A-HAC Solution - Placebo) at Day 57 Cycle 1.||-0.7|-2.0|0.0001
90947467|NCT02493946|181773527|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-1.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.8||The general linear model included mean change from baseline as a dependent variable and treatment group, gender and centre as fixed effects, and baseline severity score on ILA at maximum frown as covariate.|General linear model|||Treatment difference (BTX-A-HAC Solution - Placebo) at Day 85 Cycle 1.||-0.8|-2.1|<0.0001
90947468|NCT00965497|181773536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|95.0||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||There were 13 people that completed so there truly was no power to detect true differences; therefore only trends can be discussed.||||0.01
90947469|NCT01055704|181773557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.389||0.902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.835|0.739|||ANCOVA|Error degrees of freedom adjusted for number of missing values imputed.||Data were analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with gender and/or BMI included as covariates.||0.739|-0.835|0.902
90947470|NCT01055704|181773557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.132|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.351||0.709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.578|0.841|||ANCOVA|Error degrees of freedom adjusted for number of missing values imputed.||Data were analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with gender and/or BMI included as covariates.||0.841|-0.578|0.709
90947471|NCT01055704|181773558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.971|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.669||0.675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.415|7.472|||ANCOVA|Error degrees of freedom adjusted for number of missing values imputed.||Data were analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with gender and/or BMI included as covariates.||7.472|-11.415|0.675
90947472|NCT01055704|181773558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.208||0.591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.792|6.233|||ANCOVA|Error degrees of freedom adjusted for number of missing values imputed.||Data were analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with gender and/or BMI included as covariates.||6.233|-10.792|0.591
90947473|NCT01055704|181773559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-34.425|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.67||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.097|-4.753|||ANCOVA|Error degrees of freedom adjusted for number of missing values imputed.||Data were analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with gender and/or BMI included as covariates.||-4.753|-64.097|0.024
90947474|NCT01055704|181773559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.181|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.24||0.989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.962|26.598|||ANCOVA|Error degrees of freedom adjusted for number of missing values imputed.||Data were analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with gender and/or BMI included as covariates.||26.598|-26.962|0.989
90947475|NCT01055704|181773560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.401|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.211||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.827|0.025|||ANCOVA|Error degrees of freedom adjusted for number of missing values imputed.||Data were analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with gender and/or BMI included as covariates.||0.025|-0.827|0.064
90947476|NCT01055704|181773560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.098|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.287|0.482|||ANCOVA|Error degrees of freedom adjusted for number of missing values imputed.||Data were analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with gender and/or BMI included as covariates.||0.482|-0.287|0.610
90947477|NCT01055704|181773561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.728|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.497||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.278|1.734|||ANCOVA|Error degrees of freedom adjusted for number of missing values imputed.||Data were analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with gender and/or BMI included as covariates.||1.734|-0.278|0.151
90947478|NCT01055704|181773561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.111|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.448||0.806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.795|1.017|||ANCOVA|Error degrees of freedom adjusted for number of missing values imputed.||Data were analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with gender and/or BMI included as covariates.||1.017|-0.795|0.806
90947479|NCT01055704|181773562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.772|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.583||0.889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.678|27.223|||ANCOVA|Error degrees of freedom adjusted for number of missing values imputed.||Data were analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with gender and/or BMI as covariates||27.223|-23.678|0.889
90947480|NCT01055704|181773562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.607|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.356||0.274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.362|35.577|||ANCOVA|Error degrees of freedom adjusted for number of missing values imputed.||Data were analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with gender and/or BMI included as covariates.||35.577|-10.362|0.274
90947481|NCT01055704|181773563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.214|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.178||0.236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.572|0.145|||ANCOVA|Error degrees of freedom adjusted for number of missing values imputed.||Data were analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with gender and/or BMI included as covariates.||0.145|-0.572|0.236
90947482|NCT01055704|181773563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.028|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.412|0.357|||ANCOVA|Error degrees of freedom adjusted for number of missing values imputed.||Data were analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with gender and/or BMI included as covariates.||0.357|-0.412|0.885
90979405|NCT01381094|181843765|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0222|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.0222
90979406|NCT01381094|181843765|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0002|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.0002
90979407|NCT01381094|181843765|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0002|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.0002
90979408|NCT01381094|181843765|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.9314|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.9314
90979409|NCT01381094|181843766|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5219|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 1).||||=0.5219
90979410|NCT01381094|181843766|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.6743|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 1).||||=0.6743
90979411|NCT01381094|181843766|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0078|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 1).||||=0.0078
90979412|NCT01381094|181843766|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0301|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 1).||||=0.0301
90979413|NCT01381094|181843766|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.4502|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 1).||||=0.4502
90979414|NCT01381094|181843766|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.6967|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.6967
90979415|NCT01381094|181843766|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.7385|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.7385
90979416|NCT01381094|181843766|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0176|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.0176
90979417|NCT01381094|181843766|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0057|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.0057
90947483|NCT01055704|181773564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.497|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.374||0.192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.255|0.261|||ANCOVA|Error degrees of freedom adjusted for number of missing values imputed.||Data were analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with gender and/or BMI included as covariates.||0.261|-1.255|0.192
90947484|NCT01055704|181773564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.063|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.342||0.855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.756|0.63|||ANCOVA|Error degrees of freedom adjusted for number of missing values imputed.||Data were analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with gender and/or BMI included as covariates.||0.630|-0.756|0.855
90947485|NCT03434028|181773565|SUPERIORITY||difference in mortality rate|-0.9||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|2.6|||Z-test|||||2.6|-4.4|0.61
90947486|NCT03434028|181773566|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.2|||||The mean values is an estimate from the Kaplan-Meier curve, thus it is correct as reported.|||1.2|-0.5|
90947487|NCT03434028|181773567|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.6||||||||1.6|-0.4|
90947488|NCT03434028|181773568|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.2||||||||1.2|-0.8|
90947489|NCT03434028|181773569|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.3||||||||1.3|-0.5|
90947490|NCT03434028|181773570|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.0||||||||1.0|-0.8|
90947491|NCT03434028|181773571|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.9||||||||1.9|-0.3|
90947492|NCT03434028|181773572|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|1.7||||||||1.7|-5.1|
90947493|NCT03434028|181773573|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.8||||||||1.8|-1.8|
90947494|NCT03434028|181773574|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1||||||||0.1|-0.1|
90947495|NCT03434028|181773575|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.4||||||||0.4|-0.3|
90947496|NCT03434028|181773576|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.5||||||||1.5|-1.7|
90947497|NCT03434028|181773577|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|1.7||||||||1.7|-3.7|
90947498|NCT03434028|181773578|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|4.7||||||||4.7|-3.6|
90947499|NCT02037776|181773579|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between groups in Rikkunshito Placebo and Rikkunshito, based on the count of participants categorized in 1 (Significantly improved) through 7 (Much worse), using the Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney).||||0.038
90947500|NCT02037776|181773580|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline in all symptoms of modified FSSG||||0.027
90947501|NCT02037776|181773580|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.089|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline in GERD symptoms of modified FSSG||||0.089
90947502|NCT02037776|181773580|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.148|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline in dyspeptic symptoms of modified FSSG||||0.148
90947503|NCT02037776|181773581|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.051|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline in total score of PAGI-SYM||||0.051
90947504|NCT02037776|181773581|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.947|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline in Heartburn/Regurgitation of PAGI-SYM||||0.947
90947505|NCT02037776|181773581|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.157|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline in Nausea/Vomiting of PAGI-SYM||||0.157
90947506|NCT02037776|181773581|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline in Postprandial Fullness/Early satiety of PAGI-SYM||||0.004
90947507|NCT02037776|181773581|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline in Bloating of PAGI-SYM||||0.011
90947508|NCT02037776|181773581|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.245|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline in Upper Abdominal Pain of PAGI-SYM||||0.245
90947509|NCT02037776|181773581|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.387|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline in Lower Abdominal Pain of PAGI-SYM||||0.387
90947510|NCT02037776|181773582|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.034|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.034
90947511|NCT02037776|181773583|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline in PCS of SF-8||||0.270
90947512|NCT02037776|181773583|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.342|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline in MCS of SF-8||||0.342
90947513|NCT02037776|181773584|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline in overall point score of HAD||||0.036
90947514|NCT02037776|181773584|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.084|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline in depression point score of HAD||||0.084
90947515|NCT02037776|181773584|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline in anxiety point score of HAD||||0.022
90947516|NCT02296892|181773585|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Rates|0.7588|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6903|0.8274|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.8274|0.6903|<0.0001
90947517|NCT00250432|181773702|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Safety with caspofungin 150 mg daily will be non-inferior to that of caspofungin 70/50 mg. Non-inferiority was defined as upper limit of the 2-sided, 95% confidence interval for the difference (150-mg group - 70/50-mg group) must be less than 0.15 (15 percentage points).|Rate Difference|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.6||||95.0|-4.1|6.8|||||The confidence interval computation was based on the method by Miettinen and Nurminen.|A significant drug-related adverse event was defined as either a drug-related serious adverse event or a drug-related adverse event leading to discontinuation of caspofungin therapy. Comparison between the 2 caspofungin groups was based on upper bound of the 95% confidence interval for the difference.||6.8|-4.1|
90947518|NCT00250432|181773703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Difference|6.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.1||||95.0|-5.9|18.4|||||The 95% confidence interval on the difference will be based on the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|There was no formal hypothesis testing for efficacy in this study. The main efficacy analysis was the number (percentage) of patients with a favorable overall response at the end of caspofungin study therapy, together with the within treatment 95% exact binomial confidence intervals, and the estimated treatment difference, and its 95% confidence interval.||18.4|-5.9|
90947519|NCT04147858|181773704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.539|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.539
90947520|NCT04147858|181773704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.425|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.425
90947521|NCT04147858|181773705|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.824|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.824
90947522|NCT04147858|181773705|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||1.000
90947523|NCT04147858|181773706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.297|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.297
90947524|NCT04147858|181773706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.603|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.603
90947525|NCT04147858|181773707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.871|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.871
90947526|NCT04147858|181773707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.352|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.352
90947527|NCT04147858|181773708|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||1.000
90947528|NCT04147858|181773708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.626|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.626
90947529|NCT04147858|181773709|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.059|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.059
90947530|NCT04147858|181773709|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.726|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.726
90947531|NCT04147858|181773710|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.888|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.888
90947532|NCT04147858|181773710|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.832|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.832
90947533|NCT04147858|181773711|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.536|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.536
90947534|NCT04147858|181773711|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.982|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.982
90947535|NCT04147858|181773712|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.190
90947536|NCT04147858|181773712|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.764|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.764
90947537|NCT04147858|181773713|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.097|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.097
90947538|NCT04147858|181773713|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.849|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.849
90947539|NCT04121897|181773724|OTHER|||||||0.024|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.024
90947540|NCT03375320|181773741|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sided unstratified log-rank|||||||<0.0001
90947541|NCT03375320|181773741|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sided unstratified log-rank|||||||<0.0001
90947542|NCT03375320|181773742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2438|||||||One-sided stratified log-rank|||||||0.2438
90947543|NCT03375320|181773742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4426|||||||One-sided stratified log-rank|||||||0.4426
90947544|NCT03375320|181773744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.05
90947545|NCT03375320|181773744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.01
90947546|NCT03358238|181773747|OTHER||Proportion|0.404|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.264|0.557|||||Type of confidence interval = Clopper-Pearson|||0.557|0.264|
90947547|NCT03358238|181773748|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Average Proportions|0.0017||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1774|0.1807||Statistical significance was an alpha level of 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Two-sample t test. Degrees of freedom = 45.|Two-sample t confidence intervals|Null hypothesis was that the difference in average adherence rates of self-reporting between arms was zero.||0.1807|-0.1774|0.99
90947548|NCT03358238|181773749|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.0189||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2215|0.1837||Statistical significance was considered an alpha level of 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Two-sample t-test. Degrees of freedom = 45|Two-sample t confidence intervals|Null hypothesis was that the difference in average adherence rates to activity tracking between arms was zero.||0.1837|-0.2215|0.85
90947549|NCT03358238|181773750|OTHER||Proportion|0.5385|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3718|0.6991|||||Type of confidence interval = Clopper-Pearson|Estimating proportion of individuals with higher adherence rates for self-report over activity tracking among individuals with unequal adherence rates||0.6991|0.3718|
90947550|NCT03358238|181773750|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0828|||||||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom = 1||Null hypothesis is that among individuals with unequal adherence rates, the proportion of individuals with greater adherence to self-report over activity tracking in the Review Arm is equal to the proportion of individuals with greater adherence to self-report over activity tracking in the No Review Arm.||||0.0828
90947551|NCT03358238|181773751|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.79||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|1.99||Statistical significance was considered an alpha level of 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|One-sample t-test. Degrees of freedom = 46.|"One participant had a single item missing on the Young Mania Rating Scale administered at study start. A zero was imputed for the missing item to recover a total score.~One-sample t confidence intervals."|"One participant had a single item missing on the Young Mania Rating Scale administered at study start. A zero was imputed for the missing item to recover a total score.~Null hypothesis was that the average change in total scores was zero."||1.99|-0.42|0.20
90947552|NCT03358238|181773752|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.89||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|2.7||Statistical significance was considered an alpha level of 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|One-sample t test. Degrees of freedom = 46|One-sample t confidence intervals|Null hypothesis was that average change in scores on the structured interview guide for the Hamilton rating scale for depression is zero.||2.70|-0.91|0.32
90947553|NCT05101993|181773760|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
90979418|NCT01381094|181843766|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5551|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.5551
90979419|NCT01381094|181843766|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0086|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.0086
90979420|NCT01381094|181843766|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2385|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.2385
90979421|NCT01381094|181843766|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0007|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.0007
90947554|NCT01888874|181773797|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage rates|11.9||||0.1236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|26.9|||Regression, Logistic|P-value has been corrected for multiplicity according to Hommel's closed-testing method.||Pairwise comparisons of each group vs. the placebo group using a logistic regression model with factors treatment group, geographical region, and prior use of biologics.||26.9|-3.1|0.1236
91038953|NCT01075516|181962023|OTHER|Continuous data summarized as mean ± Standard Deviation (SD). For cost data Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to compare costs across groups. The analysis evaluated HCS perspective of group membership impact (SC vs RM) on total health care cost, adjusting for covariates that were significantly different between the groups at the .2 significance level. Differences between the 2 groups were assessed using differences in sample means (point estimates) and t distributions (confidence intervals)|||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
90947555|NCT01888874|181773797|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage rates|19.3||||0.0435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|34.0||P-value has been corrected for multiplicity according to Hommel's closed-testing method.|Regression, Logistic|||Pairwise comparisons of each group vs. the placebo group using a logistic regression model with factors treatment group, geographical region, and prior use of biologics.||34|4.7|0.0435
90947556|NCT01888874|181773797|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage rates|24.4||||0.0068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.1|38.8||P-value has been corrected for multiplicity according to Hommel's closed-testing method.|Regression, Logistic|||Pairwise comparisons of each group vs. the placebo group using a logistic regression model with factors treatment group, geographical region, and prior use of biologics.||38.8|10.1|0.0068
90947557|NCT01888874|181773797|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage rates|12.8||||0.1236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|27.6||P-value has been corrected for multiplicity according to Hommel's closed-testing method.|Regression, Logistic|||Pairwise comparisons of each group vs. the placebo group using a logistic regression model with factors treatment group, geographical region, and prior use of biologics.||27.6|-2|0.1236
90947558|NCT01888874|181773797|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage rates|15.8||||0.1056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|30.6||P-value has been corrected for multiplicity according to Hommel's closed-testing method.|Regression, Logistic|||Pairwise comparisons of each group vs. the placebo group using a logistic regression model with factors treatment group, geographical region, and prior use of biologics.||30.6|1|0.1056
90947559|NCT01888874|181773797|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage rates|34.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.7|48.1||P-value has been corrected for multiplicity according to Hommel's closed-testing method.|Regression, Logistic|||Pairwise comparisons of each group vs. the placebo group using a logistic regression model with factors treatment group, geographical region, and prior use of biologics.||48.1|20.7|< 0.0001
90947560|NCT00709228|181773832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||simple proportion|0.097|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.15||||||||0.15|0.06|
90947561|NCT02179177|181773838|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0||||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.11
90947562|NCT04052425|181773850|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.341|11.903||The model included the treatment group (1.5% BID and vehicle) and stratification factors (skin type and region).|exact logistic regression|||||11.903|2.341|< 0.0001
90947563|NCT04052425|181773851|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.831|9.482||The model included the treatment group (1.5% BID and vehicle) and stratification factors (skin type and region).|exact logistic regression|||||9.482|2.831|< 0.0001
90947564|NCT04052425|181773852|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.49||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.997|36.048||The model included the treatment group (1.5% BID and vehicle) and stratification factors (skin type and region).|exact logistic regression|||||36.048|1.997|0.0038
90979422|NCT01381094|181843766|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0002|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.0002
90979423|NCT01381094|181843766|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.8895|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.8895
90979424|NCT01381094|181843766|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0127|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||=0.0127
90979425|NCT01381094|181843766|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0076|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||=0.0076
90979426|NCT01381094|181843766|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0007|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||=0.0007
90979427|NCT01381094|181843766|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||<0.0001
90979428|NCT01381094|181843766|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5522|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||=0.5522
90979429|NCT01381094|181843766|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0031|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.0031
90979430|NCT01381094|181843766|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2188|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.2188
90979431|NCT01381094|181843766|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0054|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.0054
90979432|NCT01381094|181843766|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0037|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.0037
90979433|NCT01381094|181843766|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.9521|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.9521
90979434|NCT01381094|181843767|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3943|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 1).||||=0.3943
90979435|NCT01381094|181843767|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2096|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 1).||||=0.2096
90979436|NCT01381094|181843767|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0637|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 1).||||=0.0637
90979437|NCT01381094|181843767|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5016|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 1).||||=0.5016
90979438|NCT01381094|181843767|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.7549|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 1).||||=0.7549
90947565|NCT04052425|181773853|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.93||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.795|13.566||The model included the treatment group (1.5% BID and vehicle) and stratification factors (skin type and region).|exact logistic regression|||||13.566|1.795|0.0020
90979439|NCT01381094|181843767|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5991|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.5991
90979440|NCT01381094|181843767|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.4258|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.4258
90979441|NCT01381094|181843767|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0336|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.0336
91050460|NCT04168190|181987011|SUPERIORITY|Superiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMC ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>1.0 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|3.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.95|4.84|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 6A. Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio, 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||4.84|2.95|<0.001
90947566|NCT04052425|181773854|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.53||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|31.29||The model included the treatment group (1.5% BID and vehicle) and stratification factors (skin type and region).|exact logistic regression|||||31.290|2.900|0.0002
90947567|NCT04052425|181773855|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean difference|-19.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.93|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.05|-11.64||Response Variable = Treatment + Stratification Factors (Skin Type Fitzpatrick scale Type I, II versus Type III, IV, V, and VI, Region North America/Europe) + Baseline|ANCOVA|||||-11.64|-27.05|< 0.0001
90947568|NCT04052425|181773858|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.226|9.578||The model included the treatment group (1.5% BID and vehicle) and stratification factors (skin type and region).|exact logistic regression|||||9.578|3.226|< 0.0001
90947569|NCT04052425|181773860|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean difference|-30.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.28|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.03|-22.19|||mixed-effect model; repeated measurement|||||-22.19|-39.03|<0.0001
90947570|NCT04052425|181773863|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean difference|-16.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.28|-10.68|||mixed-effect model; repeated measurement|||||-10.68|-23.28|<0.0001
90947571|NCT04052425|181773865|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean difference|-9.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.49||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.96|-4.18|||mixed-effect model; repeated measurement|||||-4.18|-13.96|0.0003
90947572|NCT04052425|181773867|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.746|5.307||The model included the treatment group (1.5% BID and vehicle) and stratification factors (skin type and region).|exact logistic regression|||T-VASI25||5.307|1.746|< 0.0001
90947573|NCT04052425|181773867|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3||||0.2921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.489|10.823||The model included the treatment group (1.5% BID and vehicle) and stratification factors (skin type and region).|exact logistic regression|||T-VASI75||10.823|0.489|0.2921
90947574|NCT04052425|181773867|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.49||||||||||The p value was not evaluable because the response rate in the vehicle group was too low.||||T-VASI90||||
90947575|NCT04052425|181773870|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|0.62|||mixed-effect model; repeated measurement|||||0.62|-1.26|0.4970
90947576|NCT01189110|181773874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|2.83|||Chi-squared|||A two-proportion z-test was used to compare the proportion of self-reported abstinence at 3 weeks between groups.||2.83|0.23|0.74
90947577|NCT00945672|181773925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.959||0.9779|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.49|6.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3: Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis with cohort, treatment by time interaction as fixed effects and baseline as covariate.||6.71|-6.49|0.9779
90979442|NCT01381094|181843767|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0258|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.0258
90979443|NCT01381094|181843767|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2412|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.2412
90979444|NCT01381094|181843767|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0031|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.0031
90947578|NCT00945672|181773925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.815||0.8801|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.79|6.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6: Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis with cohort, treatment by time interaction as fixed effects and baseline as covariate.||6.94|-5.79|0.8801
90947579|NCT00945672|181773925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.845||0.9412|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.13|6.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 9: Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis with cohort, treatment by time interaction as fixed effects and baseline as covariate.||6.70|-6.13|0.9412
90947580|NCT00945672|181773925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.223||0.7486|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.38|5.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 13: Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis with cohort, treatment by time interaction as fixed effects and baseline as covariate.||5.66|-8.38|0.7486
90947581|NCT00945672|181773925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||L S Mean Difference|8.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.171||0.0534|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.24|15.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18: Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis with cohort, treatment by time interaction as fixed effects and baseline as covariate.||15.12|1.24|0.0534
90947582|NCT00945672|181773925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||L S Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.776||0.998|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.29|6.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3: Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis with cohort, treatment by time interaction as fixed effects and baseline as covariate.||6.31|-6.29|0.9980
90947583|NCT00945672|181773925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||L S Mean Difference|3.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.958||0.4004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.25|9.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6: Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis with cohort, treatment by time interaction as fixed effects and baseline as covariate.||9.94|-3.25|0.4004
90947584|NCT00945672|181773925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||L S Mean Difference|1.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.214||0.6685|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.2|8.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 9: Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis with cohort, treatment by time interaction as fixed effects and baseline as covariate.||8.82|-5.20|0.6685
90947585|NCT00945672|181773925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||L S Mean Difference|4.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.522||0.2968|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.77|12.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 13: Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis with cohort, treatment by time interaction as fixed effects and baseline as covariate.||12.25|-2.77|0.2968
90947586|NCT00945672|181773925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||L S Mean Difference|-1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.494||0.772|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.77|6.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18: Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis with cohort, treatment by time interaction as fixed effects and baseline as covariate.||6.16|-8.77|0.7720
90947587|NCT00945672|181773926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.789||0.8205|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.68|16.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6: Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis with cohort, treatment by time interaction as fixed effects and baseline as covariate.||16.69|-12.68|0.8205
90947588|NCT00945672|181773926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|11.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.789||0.2007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.31|26.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 13: Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis with cohort, treatment by time interaction as fixed effects and baseline as covariate.||26.06|-3.31|0.2007
90947589|NCT00945672|181773926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|8.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8789||0.3152|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.78|23.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18: Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis with cohort, treatment by time interaction as fixed effects and baseline as covariate.||23.59|-5.78|0.3152
90947590|NCT00945672|181773926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.964||0.8071|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.18|12.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6: Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis with cohort, treatment by time interaction as fixed effects and baseline as covariate.||12.79|-17.18|0.8071
90947591|NCT00945672|181773926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.354||0.9918|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.72|15.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 13: Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis with cohort, treatment by time interaction as fixed effects and baseline as covariate.||15.52|-15.72|0.9918
90947592|NCT00945672|181773926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-3.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.415||0.7498|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.73|12.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18: Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis with cohort, treatment by time interaction as fixed effects and baseline as covariate.||12.70|-18.73|0.7498
90947593|NCT00945672|181773927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91||0.4855|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.9|4.6|||ANCOVA|||Month 13: Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with cohort by treatment interaction as fixed effect and baseline scores as covariate.||4.60|-1.90|0.4855
90947594|NCT00945672|181773927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.185||0.5132|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.27|5.16|||ANCOVA|||Month 13: Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with cohort by treatment interaction as fixed effect and baseline scores as covariate.||5.16|-2.27|0.5132
90947595|NCT01150461|181773936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon test||||0.02
90947596|NCT01150461|181773937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon test||||0.06
90947597|NCT01681992|181773938|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) on the group difference (Inv\_MMR\_Min minus Com\_MMR) in seroresponse rate should be ≥ -5% for antibodies to measles virus when tested with ELISA.|Difference in seroresponse rate|-5.48|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-7.65|-3.43|||||Asymptotic standardized 97.5% CI for the difference in seroresponse rate.|Non-inferiority of Inv\_MMR\_Min vaccine compared to Com\_MMR vaccine in terms of seroresponse rate to measles virus at Day 42.||-3.43|-7.65|
90979445|NCT01381094|181843767|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.7705|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.7705
90979446|NCT01381094|181843767|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0024|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.0024
90947598|NCT01681992|181773938|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) on the group difference (Inv\_MMR\_Med minus Com\_MMR) in seroresponse rate should be ≥ -5% for antibodies to measles virus when tested with ELISA.|Difference in seroresponse rate|-2.08|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.96|-0.27|||||Asymptotic standardized 97.5% CI for the difference in seroresponse rate.|Non-inferiority of Inv\_MMR\_Med vaccine compared to Com\_MMR vaccine in terms of seroresponse rate to measles virus at Day 42.||-0.27|-3.96|
90947599|NCT01681992|181773939|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% CI on the group difference (Inv\_MMR\_Min minus Com\_MMR) in seroresponse rate should be ≥ -5% for antibodies to mumps virus when tested with ELISA.|Difference in seroresponse rate|-0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.91|1.04|||||Asymptotic standardized 97.5% CI for the difference in seroresponse rate.|Non-inferiority of Inv\_MMR\_Min vaccine compared to Com\_MMR vaccine in terms of seroresponse rate to mumps virus at Day 42.||1.04|-1.91|
90947600|NCT01681992|181773939|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% CI on the group difference (Inv\_MMR\_Med minus Com\_MMR) in seroresponse rate should be ≥ -5% for antibodies to mumps virus when tested with ELISA.|Difference in seroresponse rate|-0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.11|0.91|||||Asymptotic standardized 97.5% CI for the difference in seroresponse rate.|Non-inferiority of Inv\_MMR\_Med vaccine compared to Com\_MMR vaccine in terms of seroresponse rate to mumps virus at Day 42.||0.91|-2.11|
90947601|NCT01681992|181773940|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% CI on the group difference (Inv\_MMR\_Min minus Com\_MMR) in seroresponse rate should be ≥ -10% for antibodies to mumps virus when tested with PRNT.|Difference in seroresponse rate|-9.41|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-13.2|-5.62|||||Asymptotic standardized 97.5% CI for the difference in seroresponse rate.|Non-inferiority of Inv\_MMR\_Min vaccine compared to Com\_MMR vaccine in terms of seroresponse rate to mumps virus at Day 42.||-5.62|-13.20|
90947602|NCT01681992|181773940|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% CI on the group difference (Inv\_MMR\_Med minus Com\_MMR) in seroresponse rate should be ≥ -10% for antibodies to mumps virus when tested with PRNT.|Difference in seroresponse rate|-7.22|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-10.94|-3.49|||||Asymptotic standardized 97.5% CI for the difference in seroresponse rate.|Non-inferiority of Inv\_MMR\_Med vaccine compared to Com\_MMR vaccine in terms of seroresponse rate to mumps virus at Day 42.||-3.49|-10.94|
90947603|NCT01681992|181773941|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% CI on the group difference (Inv\_MMR\_Min minus Com\_MMR) in seroresponse rate should be ≥ -5% for antibodies to rubella virus when tested with ELISA.|Difference in seroresponse rate|-1.71|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.11|-0.42|||||Asymptotic standardized 97.5% CI for the difference in seroresponse rate.|Non-inferiority of Inv\_MMR\_Min vaccine compared to Com\_MMR vaccine in terms of seroresponse rate to rubella virus at Day 42.||-0.42|-3.11|
90947604|NCT01681992|181773941|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% CI on the group difference (Inv\_MMR\_Med minus Com\_MMR) in seroresponse rate should be ≥ -5% for antibodies to rubella virus when tested with ELISA.|Difference in seroresponse rate|-1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.5|0.05|||||Asymptotic standardized 97.5% CI for the difference in seroresponse rate.|Non-inferiority of Inv\_MMR\_Med vaccine compared to Com\_MMR vaccine in terms of seroresponse rate to rubella virus at Day 42.||0.05|-2.50|
90947605|NCT01681992|181773942|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% CI on the group ratio of GMCs (Inv\_MMR\_Min over pooled Com\_MMR) should to be ≥ 0.67 for antibodies to measles virus when tested with ELISA.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.72|0.88|||ANOVA|97.5% CI for GMC ratio was computed using ANOVA model on the log-transformed concentrations with vaccine group and the country as fixed effects.||Non-inferiority of Inv\_MMR\_Min vaccine compared to COM\_MMR vaccine in terms of GMCs for anti-measles antibodies at Day 42.||0.88|0.72|
90947606|NCT01681992|181773942|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% CI on the group ratio of GMCs (Inv\_MMR\_Med over pooled Com\_MMR) should to be ≥ 0.67 for antibodies to measles virus when tested with ELISA.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.83|1.01|||ANOVA|97.5% CI for GMC ratio was computed using ANOVA model on the log-transformed concentrations with vaccine group and the country as fixed effects.||Non-inferiority of Inv\_MMR\_Med vaccine compared to COM\_MMR vaccine in terms of GMCs for anti-measles antibodies at Day 42.||1.01|0.83|
90947607|NCT01681992|181773943|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% CI on the group ratio of GMCs (Inv\_MMR\_Min over pooled Com\_MMR) should to be ≥ 0.67 for antibodies to mumps virus when tested with ELISA.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.76|0.89|||ANOVA|97.5% CI for GMC ratio was computed using ANOVA model on the log-transformed concentrations with vaccine group and the country as fixed effects.||Non-inferiority of Inv\_MMR\_Min vaccine compared to COM\_MMR vaccine in terms of GMCs for anti-mumps antibodies at Day 42.||0.89|0.76|
90947608|NCT01681992|181773943|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% CI on the group ratio of GMCs (Inv\_MMR\_Med over pooled Com\_MMR) should to be ≥ 0.67 for antibodies to mumps virus when tested with ELISA.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.78|0.91|||ANOVA|97.5% CI for GMC ratio was computed using ANOVA model on the log-transformed concentrations with vaccine group and the country as fixed effects.||Non-inferiority of Inv\_MMR\_Med vaccine compared to COM\_MMR vaccine in terms of GMCs for anti-mumps antibodies at Day 42.||0.91|0.78|
90947609|NCT01681992|181773944|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% CI on the group ratio of GMCs (Inv\_MMR\_Min over pooled Com\_MMR) should to be ≥ 0.67 for antibodies to mumps virus when tested with PRNT.|Adjusted GMT ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.53|0.68|||ANOVA|97.5% CI for GMC ratio was computed using ANOVA model on the log-transformed titers with vaccine group and the country as fixed effects.||Non-inferiority of Inv\_MMR\_Min vaccine compared to COM\_MMR vaccine in terms of GMCs for anti-mumps antibodies at Day 42.||0.68|0.53|
90979447|NCT01381094|181843767|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0006|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.0006
90979448|NCT01381094|181843767|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.6189|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.6189
90947610|NCT01681992|181773944|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% CI on the group ratio of GMCs (Inv\_MMR\_Med over pooled Com\_MMR) should to be ≥ 0.67 for antibodies to mumps virus when tested with PRNT.|Adjusted GMT ratio|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.57|0.74|||ANOVA|97.5% CI for GMC ratio was computed using ANOVA model on the log-transformed titers with vaccine group and the country as fixed effects.||Non-inferiority of Inv\_MMR\_Med vaccine compared to COM\_MMR vaccine in terms of GMCs for anti-mumps antibodies at Day 42.||0.74|0.57|
90979449|NCT01381094|181843767|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0075|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||=0.0075
90979450|NCT01381094|181843767|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0259|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||=0.0259
90979451|NCT01381094|181843767|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||<0.0001
90947611|NCT01681992|181773945|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% CI on the group ratio of GMCs (Inv\_MMR\_Min over pooled Com\_MMR) should to be ≥ 0.67 for antibodies to rubella virus when tested with ELISA.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.83|0.95|||ANOVA|97.5% CI for GMC ratio was computed using ANOVA model on the log-transformed concentrations with vaccine group and the country as fixed effects.||Non-inferiority of Inv\_MMR\_Min vaccine compared to COM\_MMR vaccine in terms of GMCs for anti-rubella antibodies at Day 42.||0.95|0.83|
90947612|NCT01681992|181773945|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% CI on the group ratio of GMCs (Inv\_MMR\_Med over pooled Com\_MMR) should to be ≥ 0.67 for antibodies to rubella virus when tested with ELISA.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.83|0.95|||ANOVA|97.5% CI for GMC ratio was computed using ANOVA model on the log-transformed concentrations with vaccine group and the country as fixed effects.||Non-inferiority of Inv\_MMR\_Med vaccine compared to COM\_MMR vaccine in terms of GMCs for anti-rubella antibodies at Day 42.||0.95|0.83|
90947613|NCT00447590|181773975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||2-sided Exact Binomial Test|||p-Value is from a 2-sided exact binomial test to test the null hypothesis that 30% of subjects have at least 30% EWL.||||<0.0001
90947614|NCT03274895|181774036|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin= 0.20|difference in proportion of resolution r|-0.036|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.154|0.081||||||||0.081|-0.154|
90947615|NCT03274895|181774037|OTHER|||||||0.042|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.042
90947616|NCT03274895|181774038|OTHER|||||||0.577|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.577
90947617|NCT01814072|181774065|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.001
90947618|NCT01814072|181774066|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Change|0.1244||||0.567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3026|0.5513|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||.5513|-.3026|0.567
90947619|NCT01814072|181774066|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Change|-0.0226||||0.917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4495|0.4044|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||.4044|-.4495|0.917
90947620|NCT01814072|181774066|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Change|0.084||||0.699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3429|0.5109|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||.5109|-.3429|0.699
90947621|NCT01814072|181774066|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Change|0.1081||||0.619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3188|0.535|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||.5350|-.3188|0.619
90979452|NCT01381094|181843767|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||<0.0001
90979453|NCT01381094|181843767|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.8898|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||=0.8898
90947622|NCT01814072|181774066|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Change|-0.4353||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8622|-0.0084|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-.0084|-.8622|0.046
90947623|NCT01814072|181774067|OTHER||Estimated Change|0.424||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.002|0.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Using the results from primary aim 1, an intervention with only active treatment components with the largest treatment effect that can be obtained for implementation costs of $500 or less was identified and built.||0.850|-0.002|0.051
90947624|NCT02781311|181774074|SUPERIORITY||Least-squares Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.45||0.9239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.38|9.23||P-values were from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including fixed effects of treatment, and covariates of age and baseline TAHC value, with the Type III sum of squares.|ANCOVA|||||9.23|-8.38|0.9239
90947625|NCT02781311|181774075|SUPERIORITY||Least-squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.9101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.37||P-values were from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including fixed effects of treatment, and covariates of age, with the Type III sum of squares.|ANCOVA|||||0.37|-0.42|0.9101
90947626|NCT01936467|181774110|OTHER||Sensitivity|93.7|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90947627|NCT01936467|181774110|OTHER||Specificity|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90947628|NCT01936467|181774111|OTHER||Sensitivity|88.6|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90947629|NCT01936467|181774111|OTHER||Specificity|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90947630|NCT01936467|181774112|OTHER|||||||0.47|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.47
90947631|NCT01936467|181774113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.71
90947632|NCT01936467|181774114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.15
90947633|NCT01936467|181774115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.46
90947634|NCT01011868|181774116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.78|-0.33||Hypotheses were tested at significance level of 0.025, which is half of overall alpha of 0.05, split equally between 2 treatment comparisons. This maintained the overall type-I (alpha) at 5%. There was no a priori assumption on testing order.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA that included treatment group and geographic region as fixed effects along with baseline HbA1c as covariate.|The primary analysis consisted of the pair-wise comparisons between each dose of empagliflozin versus placebo using the adjusted means from the model.|"The null and alternative hypotheses to be tested:~* H0,1: No difference in change from baseline to Week 18 in HbA1c between empagliflozin 10 mg and placebo~* H1,1: A difference in change from baseline to Week 18 in HbA1c between empagliflozin 10 mg and placebo"||-0.33|-0.78|<0.0001
90947635|NCT01011868|181774116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.93|-0.47||Hypotheses were tested at significance level of 0.025, which is half of overall alpha of 0.05, split equally between 2 treatment comparisons. This maintained the overall type-I (alpha) at 5%. There was no a priori assumption on testing order.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA that included treatment group and geographic region as fixed effects along with baseline HbA1c as covariate.|The primary analysis consisted of the pair-wise comparisons between each dose of empagliflozin versus placebo using the adjusted means from the model.|"The null and alternative hypotheses to be tested:~* H0,2: No difference in change from baseline to Week 18 in HbA1c between empagliflozin 25 mg and placebo~* H1,2: A difference in change from baseline to Week 18 in HbA1c between empagliflozin 25 mg and placebo"||-0.47|-0.93|<0.0001
90947636|NCT01011868|181774117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.518|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.262|9.334|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression includes treatment, geographical region and baseline HbA1c.||Empagliflozin 10 mg vs Placebo at 18 weeks||9.334|3.262|<0.0001
90947637|NCT01011868|181774117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.883|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.859|8.338|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression includes treatment, geographical region and baseline HbA1c||Empagliflozin 25 mg vs Placebo at 18 weeks||8.338|2.859|<0.0001
90947638|NCT01011868|181774117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.471|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.077|5.802|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression includes treatment, geographical region and baseline HbA1c||Empagliflozin 10 mg vs Placebo at 54 weeks||5.802|2.077|<0.0001
90947639|NCT01011868|181774117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.825|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.268|6.451|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression includes treatment, geographical region and baseline HbA1c||Empagliflozin 25 mg vs Placebo at 54 weeks||6.451|2.268|<0.0001
90947640|NCT01011868|181774117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.802||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.639|4.789|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression includes treatment, geographical region and baseline HbA1c||Empagliflozin 10 mg vs Placebo at 78 weeks||4.789|1.639|0.0002
90947641|NCT01011868|181774117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.527|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.051|6.066|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression includes treatment, geographical region and baseline HbA1c||Empagliflozin 25 mg vs Placebo at 78 weeks||6.066|2.051|<0.0001
90947642|NCT01011868|181774118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-28.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.65|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.54|-19.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes, baseline FPG, baseline HbA1c as covariates, geographic region, treatment, visit and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects||Change from BL at week 18 - Empagliflozin 10 mg vs Placebo||-19.27|-37.54|<0.0001
90947643|NCT01011868|181774118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-34.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.81|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.67|-24.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes, baseline FPG, baseline HbA1c as covariates, geographic region, treatment, visit and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects||Change from BL at week 18 - Empagliflozin 25 mg vs Placebo at 18 weeks||-24.76|-43.67|<0.0001
90947644|NCT01011868|181774118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-10.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.02||0.0328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.62|-0.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes, baseline FPG, baseline HbA1c as covariates, geographic region, treatment, visit and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects||Change from BL at week 54 - Empagliflozin 10 mg vs Placebo at 18 weeks||-0.89|-20.62|0.0328
90947645|NCT01011868|181774118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-19.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.16||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.31|-9.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes, baseline FPG, baseline HbA1c as covariates, geographic region, treatment, visit and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects||Change from BL at week 54 - Empagliflozin 25 mg vs Placebo||-9.01|-29.31|0.0002
90947646|NCT01011868|181774118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-5.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.07||0.3216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.01|4.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes, baseline FPG, baseline HbA1c as covariates, geographic region, treatment, visit and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects||Change from BL at week 78 - Empagliflozin 10 mg vs Placebo||4.94|-15.01|0.3216
90947647|NCT01011868|181774118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-11.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.23||0.0229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.24|-1.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes, baseline FPG, baseline HbA1c as covariates, geographic region, treatment, visit and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects||Change from BL at week 78 - Empagliflozin 25 mg vs Placebo||-1.67|-22.24|0.0229
90947648|NCT01011868|181774119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-25.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.22|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.38|-14.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes, baseline FPG, baseline HbA1c as covariates, geographic region, treatment, visit and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects||Change from BL at week 18 - Empagliflozin 10 mg vs Placebo||-14.86|-35.38|<0.0001
90947649|NCT01011868|181774119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-31.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.62|-20.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes, baseline FPG, baseline HbA1c as covariates, geographic region, treatment, visit and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects||Change from BL at week 18 - Empagliflozin 25 mg vs Placebo||-20.39|-41.62|<0.0001
90947650|NCT01011868|181774119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-10.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.15|<|0.0484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.33|-0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes, baseline FPG, baseline HbA1c as covariates, geographic region, treatment, visit and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects||Change from BL at week 54 - Empagliflozin 10 mg vs Placebo||-0.07|-20.33|<0.0484
90947651|NCT01011868|181774119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-19.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.3||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.84|-8.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes, baseline FPG, baseline HbA1c as covariates, geographic region, treatment, visit and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects||Change from BL at week 54 - Empagliflozin 25 mg vs Placebo||-8.99|-29.84|0.0003
90947652|NCT01011868|181774119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-4.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.07||0.3517||95.0|-14.71|5.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes, baseline FPG, baseline HbA1c as covariates, geographic region, treatment, visit and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects||Change from BL at week 78 - Empagliflozin 10 mg vs Placebo||5.25|-14.71|0.3517
90947653|NCT01011868|181774119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-12.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.23||0.0185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.69|-2.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes, baseline FPG, baseline HbA1c as covariates, geographic region, treatment, visit and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects||Change from BL at week 78 - Empagliflozin 25 mg vs Placebo||-2.10|-22.69|0.0185
90947654|NCT01011868|181774120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-5.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.0213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.32|-0.84|||Mixed Models Analysis||Week 54 model includes, baseline basal insulin, baseline HbA1c as linear covariate(s), geographical region, treatment, visit and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Empagliflozin versus Placebo 10 mg at 54 weeks||-0.84|-10.32|0.0213
90947655|NCT01011868|181774120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-5.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.49||0.0237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.62|-0.77|||Mixed Models Analysis||Week 54 model includes, baseline basal insulin, baseline HbA1c as linear covariate(s), geographical region, treatment, visit and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effect(s).|Empagliflozin versus Placebo 25 mg at 54 weeks||-0.77|-10.62|0.0237
90947656|NCT01011868|181774120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-6.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.18||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-11.56|-1.77||Hierarchical testing approach was applied to Empagliflozin 10 mg vs Placebo. If null hypothesis is rejected for the primary endpoint, at 0.025 (2-sided), testing of the key secondary endpoints continued in a hierarchical fashion for the same dose.|ANCOVA|Model for Week 78 includes baseline basal insulin, baseline HbA1c as linear covariate(s) and geographical region, treatment as fixed effect(s)||"Empagliflozin versus Placebo 10 mg at 78 weeks~H0,1a: No difference in change from baseline to Week 78 in basal insulin dose between Empagliflozin 10 mg and placebo H1,1a: A difference in change from baseline to Week 78 in basal insulin dose between Empagliflozin 10 mg and placebo"||-1.77|-11.56|0.0024
90947657|NCT01011868|181774120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-5.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.25||0.009|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-11.0|-0.85||Hierarchical testing approach was applied to Empagliflozin 25 mg vs Placebo. If null hypothesis is rejected for the primary endpoint, at 0.025 (2-sided), testing of the key secondary endpoints continued in a hierarchical fashion for the same dose.|ANCOVA|Model for Week 78 includes baseline basal insulin, baseline HbA1c as linear covariate(s) and geographical region, treatment as fixed effect(s)||"Empagliflozin versus Placebo 25 mg at 78 weeks~H0,1a: No difference in change from baseline to Week 78 in basal insulin dose between Empagliflozin 25 mg and placebo H1,1a: A difference in change from baseline to Week 78 in basal insulin dose between Empagliflozin 25 mg and placebo"||-0.85|-11.00|0.0090
90979454|NCT01381094|181843767|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.001|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.0010
90979455|NCT01381094|181843767|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2864|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.2864
90947658|NCT01011868|181774121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|-0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model includes baseline weight, baseline HbA1c as linear covariates, geographical region, treatment, visit and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects|Change from BL at week 18 - Empagliflozin 10 mg vs Placebo||-0.18|-3.90|0.0320
90947659|NCT01011868|181774121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99||0.3818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.81|1.08|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model includes baseline weight, baseline HbA1c as linear covariates, geographical region, treatment, visit and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects|Change from BL at week 18 - Empagliflozin 25 mg vs Placebo||1.08|-2.81|0.3818
90947660|NCT01011868|181774121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.89|-1.05|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model includes baseline weight, baseline HbA1c as linear covariates, geographical region, treatment, visit and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects|Change from BL at week 54 - Empagliflozin 10 mg vs Placebo||-1.05|-2.89|<0.0001
90947661|NCT01011868|181774121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.13|-1.22|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model includes baseline weight, baseline HbA1c as linear covariates, geographical region, treatment, visit and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects|Change from BL at week 54 - Empagliflozin 25 mg vs Placebo||-1.22|-3.13|<0.0001
90947662|NCT01011868|181774121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-3.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.81|-1.45|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model includes baseline weight, baseline HbA1c as linear covariates, geographical region, treatment, visit and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects|Change from BL at week 78 - Empagliflozin 10 mg vs Placebo||-1.45|-5.81|0.0012
90947663|NCT01011868|181774121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-3.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15||0.0073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.39|-0.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes, baseline weight, baseline HbA1c as covariates, geographic region, treatment, visit and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects|Model includes baseline weight, baseline HbA1c as linear covariates, geographical region, treatment, visit and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects|Change from BL at week 78 - Empagliflozin 25 mg vs Placebo||-0.85|-5.39|0.0073
90947664|NCT01011868|181774123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model includes baseline HbA1c as linear covariate(s), geographical region, treatment, visit and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effect(s).|Change from BL at week 54 - Empagliflozin 10 mg vs Placebo||-0.26|-0.68|<0.0001
90947665|NCT01011868|181774123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.52|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model includes baseline HbA1c as linear covariate(s), geographical region, treatment, visit and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effect(s).|Change from BL at week 54 - Empagliflozin 25 mg vs Placebo||-0.52|-0.95|<0.0001
90947666|NCT01011868|181774123|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"For non-inferiority, a one-sided test at the significance level of 0.0125 was performed using a chosen margin of 0.3% difference between each dose of empagliflozin and placebo.~If the non-inferiority of empagliflozin to placebo with respect to change from baseline in HbA1c after 78 weeks of treatment could be concluded for a specific dose, subsequent testing of superiority was performed at the significance level of 0.025 for the relevant empagliflozin dose versus placebo comparison."|Adjusted mean difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.73|-0.19||Hierarchical testing approach was applied to Empagliflozin 10 mg vs Placebo. If null hypothesis is rejected for the primary endpoint, at 0.025 (2-sided), testing of the key secondary endpoints continued in a hierarchical fashion for the same dose.|ANCOVA||Model includes baseline HbA1c as linear covariate(s), geographical region, treatment as fixed effect(s).|"Change from BL at week 78 - Empagliflozin 10 mg vs Placebo~H0,1b: The change from baseline to Week 78 in HbA1c between empagliflozin 10 mg and placebo ≥0.3% H1,1b: The change from baseline to Week 78 in HbA1c between empagliflozin 10 mg and placebo \<0.3%"||-0.19|-0.73|0.0001
90979456|NCT01381094|181843767|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0002|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.0002
90979457|NCT01381094|181843767|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0016|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.0016
91038954|NCT01075516|181962024|OTHER|Continuous data are summarized as mean ± SD. For cost data the Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to compare costs across groups. This analysis evaluated the impact of group membership (SC vs RM) on cardiovascular hospitalization timeframe (outcome), adjusting for covariates that were significantly different between the groups at the .2 significance level. Differences between the 2 groups were assessed using differences in sample means (point estimates) and t distributions (confidence intervals).||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.003
90947667|NCT01011868|181774123|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"For non-inferiority, a one-sided test at the significance level of 0.0125 was performed using a chosen margin of 0.3% difference between each dose of empagliflozin and placebo.~If the non-inferiority of empagliflozin to placebo with respect to change from baseline in HbA1c after 78 weeks of treatment could be concluded for a specific dose, subsequent testing of superiority was performed at the significance level of 0.025 for the relevant empagliflozin dose versus placebo comparison."|Adjusted mean difference|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.9|-0.34||Hierarchical testing approach was applied to Empagliflozin 25 mg vs Placebo. If null hypothesis is rejected for the primary endpoint, at 0.025 (2-sided), testing of the key secondary endpoints continued in a hierarchical fashion for the same dose.|ANCOVA||Model includes baseline HbA1c as linear covariate(s), geographical region, treatment as fixed effect(s).|"Change from BL at week 78 - Empagliflozin 25 mg vs Placebo~H0,1b: The change from baseline to Week 78 in HbA1c between empagliflozin 25 mg and placebo ≥0.3% H1,1b: The change from baseline to Week 78 in HbA1c between empagliflozin 25 mg and placebo \<0.3%"||-0.34|-0.90|<0.0001
90979458|NCT01381094|181843767|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.9697|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.9697
90947668|NCT01011868|181774125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.096||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.846|9.088|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression includes treatment, geographical region and baseline HbA1c||Empagliflozin 10 mg vs Placebo at 18 weeks||9.088|1.846|0.0005
90979459|NCT01381094|181843768|SUPERIORITY||||||=|1|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 1).||||=1.0000
90979460|NCT01381094|181843768|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0055|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 1).||||=0.0055
90979461|NCT01381094|181843768|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0009|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 1).||||=0.0009
90979462|NCT01381094|181843768|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0002|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 1).||||=0.0002
90979463|NCT01381094|181843768|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.9722|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 1).||||=0.9722
90979464|NCT01381094|181843768|SUPERIORITY||||||=|1|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=1.0000
90979465|NCT01381094|181843768|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0008|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.0008
90979466|NCT01381094|181843768|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0002|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.0002
90979467|NCT01381094|181843768|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||<0.0001
90979468|NCT01381094|181843768|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.6579|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.6579
90979469|NCT01381094|181843768|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.4102|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.4102
90979470|NCT01381094|181843768|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0023|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.0023
90979471|NCT01381094|181843768|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0052|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.0052
90979472|NCT01381094|181843768|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0017|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.0017
90979473|NCT01381094|181843768|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.7378|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.7378
91006665|NCT00572728|181897687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|\*two-sided exact p value from Wilcoxon two-sample test||H0: SUVmax (RCB 0,I) = SUVmax (RCB II,III) in other words, we are comparing the SUVmax @ FLT2 between the RCB 0,I and the RCB II,III groups.||||0.86
91006666|NCT00572728|181897688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|two-sided exact p value from Wilcoxon two-sample test||H0: SUVmax (RCB 0,I) = SUVmax (RCB II,III) in other words, we are comparing the SUVmax @ FLT3 between the RCB 0,I and the RCB II,III groups.||||0.010
90947669|NCT01011868|181774125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.636||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.083|10.321|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression includes treatment, geographical region and baseline HbA1c||Empagliflozin 25 mg vs Placebo at 18 weeks||10.321|2.083|0.0002
90947670|NCT01011868|181774125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.75||||0.1248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.856|3.575|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression includes treatment, geographical region and baseline HbA1c||Empagliflozin 10 mg vs Placebo at 54 weeks||3.575|0.856|0.1248
90947671|NCT01011868|181774125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.423||||0.0132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.203|4.879|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression includes treatment, geographical region and baseline HbA1c||Empagliflozin 25 mg vs Placebo at 54 weeks||4.879|1.203|0.0132
90947672|NCT01011868|181774125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.939||||0.0986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.884|4.256|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression includes treatment, geographical region and baseline HbA1c||Empagliflozin 10 mg vs Placebo at 78 weeks||4.256|0.884|0.0986
90947673|NCT01011868|181774125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.239||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.518|6.911|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression includes treatment, geographical region and baseline HbA1c||Empagliflozin 25 mg vs Placebo at 78 weeks||6.911|1.518|0.0024
90947674|NCT02615938|181774126|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|No estimated value can be calculated if in any group no responder exists (i.e. no odds exists for independent groups)||||||1
90947675|NCT02615938|181774126|OTHER|McNemar test for paired samples was not calculated as in any group no responder exists (i.e. no odds exists for independent groups or no discordant pairs could be determined for dependent groups).|||||||||||||||||No estimated OR value can be calculated if in any group no responder exists (i.e. no odds exists for independent groups) and no P values can be calculated as in any group no responder existed (i.e. no odds exists for independent groups or no disconcordant pairs could be determined for dependent groups)|||
90947676|NCT02615938|181774126|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|No estimated value can be calculated if in any group no responder exists (i.e. no odds exists for independent groups)||||||1.0
90947677|NCT02615938|181774126|OTHER|McNemar test for paired samples was not calculated as in any group no responder exists (i.e. no odds exists for independent groups or no discordant pairs could be determined for dependent groups).|||||||||||||||||No estimated OR value can be calculated if in any group no responder exists (i.e. no odds exists for independent groups) and no P values can be calculated as in any group no responder existed (i.e. no odds exists for independent groups or no disconcordant pairs could be determined for dependent groups)|||
90947678|NCT02615938|181774127|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|1.1|0.079|15.16|||Fisher Exact|||||15.16|0.079|1.0
90979474|NCT01381094|181843768|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3371|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||=0.3371
90947679|NCT02615938|181774127|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.2||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.008|||McNemar|||||0.008|-0.340|1.0
90947680|NCT02615938|181774127|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.196|||||||Fisher Exact|No estimated value can be calculated if in any group no responder exists (i.e. no odds exists for independent groups)||||||0.196
90947681|NCT02615938|181774127|OTHER|McNemar test for paired samples was not calculated as in any group no responder exists (i.e. no odds exists for independent groups or no discordant pairs could be determined for dependent groups).|||||||||||||||||No estimated OR value can be calculated if in any group no responder exists (i.e. no odds exists for independent groups) and no P values can be calculated as in any group no responder existed (i.e. no odds exists for independent groups or no disconcordant pairs could be determined for dependent groups)|||
90947682|NCT02615938|181774128|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.8|-1.2|0.757
90947683|NCT02615938|181774128|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6||||0.229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.1|-0.2|0.229
90947684|NCT02615938|181774128|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|0.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.4|-2.7|0.097
90947685|NCT02615938|181774128|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9||||0.427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.8|-2.5|0.427
90947686|NCT02615938|181774129|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.8|-1.2|0.543
90947687|NCT02615938|181774129|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.3|-1.2|0.421
90947688|NCT02615938|181774129|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.1|-1.8|0.553
90947689|NCT02615938|181774129|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.8||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|-0.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.5|-5|0.1020
90947690|NCT02615938|181774130|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8||||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.9|-2.4|0.178
90947691|NCT02615938|181774130|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-0.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.1|-2.6|0.110
90947692|NCT02615938|181774130|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.6||||0.338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|3.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.9|-0.6|0.338
90947693|NCT02615938|181774130|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.3979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|1.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.1|-3|0.3979
90979475|NCT01381094|181843768|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0916|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||=0.0916
90947694|NCT02615938|181774131|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.6|-1.6|0.965
90979476|NCT01381094|181843768|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.4656|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||=0.4656
90979477|NCT01381094|181843768|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1629|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||=0.1629
91038955|NCT01075516|181962025|OTHER|Continuous data are summarized as mean ± SD. This analysis evaluated the impact of group membership (SC vs RM) on total health care cost (outcome), adjusting for covariates that were significantly different between the groups at the .2 significance level. However, as the arithmetic mean is the most informative measurement for policy decisions, differences between the 2 groups were assessed using differences in sample means (point estimates) and t distributions (confidence intervals).||||||0.8||||||Comparison of utility at baseline from the EQ-5D-3L questionnaire.|t-test, 2 sided|||For the patient perspective, the quality of life associated with the 2 strategies was assessed. Quality of life is reported as utility values from the EuroQoL Group 5-Dimension 3-Level Self-Report (EQ-5D-3L) questionnaire and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) were based on utility (patients' preferences). The EQ-5D-3L questionnaire was administered to each patient at baseline and at 12 months in order to calculate utility values (from 0 to 1).||||0.80
90947695|NCT02615938|181774131|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8||||0.374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.9|-0.4|0.374
90947696|NCT02615938|181774131|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.6||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|0.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.1|-5.2|0.149
90947697|NCT02615938|181774131|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.6||||0.2963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|5.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.3|0|0.2963
90947698|NCT02615938|181774132|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0|-1.9|0.024
90947699|NCT02615938|181774132|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.1|-1.7|0.045
90947700|NCT02615938|181774132|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5||||0.458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|2.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.0|-0.9|0.458
90947701|NCT02615938|181774132|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1||||0.4216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|0.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.7|-2.8|0.4216
90947702|NCT02615938|181774133|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.3||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.5|0.1|0.063
90947703|NCT02615938|181774133|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.6|-0.3|0.410
90947704|NCT02615938|181774133|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.3|-2.3|0.574
90979478|NCT01381094|181843768|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.7032|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||=0.7032
90979479|NCT01381094|181843768|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5194|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.5194
90979480|NCT01381094|181843768|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.8516|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.8516
90979481|NCT01381094|181843768|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0017|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.0017
90979482|NCT01381094|181843768|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0656|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.0656
90947705|NCT02615938|181774134|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.5|-0.9|0.730
90947706|NCT02615938|181774134|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.7||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.8|-0.3|0.170
90947707|NCT02615938|181774134|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.5|-2.1|0.724
90947708|NCT02615938|181774134|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.1|-2.2|0.487
90947709|NCT02615938|181774135|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.4|-1|0.850
90979483|NCT01381094|181843768|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.6495|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.6495
90979484|NCT01381094|181843769|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2065|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group.||||=0.2065
90947710|NCT02615938|181774135|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6||||0.258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.6|-0.4|0.258
90947711|NCT02615938|181774135|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.7|-1.9|0.862
90947712|NCT02615938|181774135|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.4|-1.8|0.840
90947713|NCT02615938|181774136|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0|-2.6|0.010
90947714|NCT02615938|181774136|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.5|-1.5|0.533
90947715|NCT02615938|181774136|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.9|-1.6|0.858
90947716|NCT02615938|181774136|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.8|-1.4|0.661
90947717|NCT02615938|181774137|SUPERIORITY|Due to missing values no statistical test resulting in a P was calculated|Mean Difference (Net)|-8.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|-2.7||||||||-2.7|-14|
90947718|NCT02615938|181774137|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5||||0.576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|2.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2|-0.9|0.576
90947719|NCT02615938|181774137|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.7|-1.9|0.884
90947720|NCT02615938|181774137|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8||||0.563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.9|-2.4|0.563
90947721|NCT04683510|181774148|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.647||||0.2345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.724|3.746|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.746|0.724|0.2345
90947722|NCT04683510|181774148|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.897||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.839|4.291|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.291|0.839|0.124
90947723|NCT04683510|181774149|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.905||||0.2352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.768|1.067|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.067|0.768|0.2352
90947724|NCT04683510|181774149|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.924||||0.3418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.785|1.088|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.088|0.785|0.3418
90947725|NCT04683510|181774150|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.1653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.921|1.615|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.615|0.921|0.1653
90947726|NCT04683510|181774150|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.213||||0.181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.914|1.609|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.609|0.914|0.181
91038956|NCT01075516|181962025|OTHER|Continuous data are summarized as mean ± SD. This analysis evaluated the impact of group membership (SC vs RM) on total health care cost (outcome), adjusting for covariates that were significantly different between the groups at the .2 significance level. However, as the arithmetic mean is the most informative measurement for policy decisions, differences between the 2 groups were assessed using differences in sample means (point estimates) and t distributions (confidence intervals).||||||0.38||||||Comparison of utility at 12 months from the EQ-5D-3L questionnaire.|t-test, 2 sided|||For the patient perspective, the quality of life associated with the 2 strategies was assessed. Quality of life is reported as utility values from the EQ-5D-3L questionnaire and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) were based on utility (patients' preferences). The EQ-5D-3L questionnaire was administered to each patient at baseline and at 12 months in order to calculate utility values (from 0 to 1).||||0.38
91050461|NCT04168190|181987011|SUPERIORITY|Superiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMC ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>1.0 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|7.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.12|9.64|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 15A. Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio, 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||9.64|6.12|<0.001
90947727|NCT03771638|181774151|SUPERIORITY|Minimum detectable effects: Under assumptions of the adherence of DBS TFV-DP levels \>=700 fmol/punch in the control condition as 60% and intraclass correlation of repeated binary measures of DBS TFV-DP of 0.69, and retention of 80% of participants at 24 weeks, we will have 80% power in 2-sided tests with a type-1 error rate of 5% to detect average between-group differences in adherence of 23 percentage points.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.36||GEE poisson models with robust standard errors were used to assess DBS adherence rates, averaged across visits.|GEE Poisson models|||Null hypothesis: no difference in PrEP adherence levels between DOT Diary Intervention and Control arms||1.36|0.75|0.94
90947728|NCT03771638|181774152|OTHER||Kappa statistic|0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.62|||Kappa|||Kappa statistic to assess concordance between DBS measurement and self-reported PrEP use||0.62|0.36|
90979485|NCT01381094|181843769|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1807|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group.||||=0.1807
90979486|NCT01381094|181843769|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.7869|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group.||||=0.7869
90947729|NCT02353312|181774156|EQUIVALENCE|Pairwise comparisons of VO2 max means with equal variances between participant on and off treatment.||||||0.823|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.823
90947730|NCT03023423|181774209|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|1.92||||||||1.92|0.03|
90979487|NCT01381094|181843769|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.4743|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group.||||=0.4743
90979488|NCT01381094|181843769|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.6407|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group.||||=0.6407
90979489|NCT01381094|181843770|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group.||||<0.0001
90947731|NCT01151423|181774219|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.2|||=|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|3.78||Caplacizumab was compared to placebo using a one-sided log-rank test in order to assess superiority at 2.5% significance level.|Stratified log-rank test||The HR was estimated from a Cox proportional Hazards regression model with presence (yes) / absence (no) of 1 PE session prior to randomization as covariate.|The primary analysis consisted of a Kaplan-Meier analysis with time-to-response as endpoint and treatment group as the independent variable and stratified for absence/presence of one PE session prior to randomization.||3.78|1.28|= 0.005
90947732|NCT01227616|181774258|NON_INFERIORITY|The study protocol defined the margin for non-inferiority as 0.5 g/dL meaning non-inferiority would be established in a TP if the lower limit of the 95% confidence limit for the difference between ferumoxytol and iron sucrose mean change was ≥0.5 g/dL.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Stats. of primary endpoint performed only for TP1 and TP2. 240 subjects retreated should yield 90% power to detect non-inferiority during TP2.||||||<0.05
90979490|NCT01381094|181843770|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0002|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group.||||=0.0002
90979491|NCT01381094|181843770|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group.||||<0.0001
90979492|NCT01381094|181843770|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group.||||<0.0001
90979493|NCT01381094|181843770|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group.||||<0.0001
90979494|NCT01381094|181843771|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0002|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group.||||=0.0002
90979495|NCT01381094|181843771|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0004|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group.||||=0.0004
90979496|NCT01381094|181843771|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0002|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group.||||=0.0002
90979497|NCT01381094|181843771|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group.||||<0.0001
90979498|NCT01381094|181843771|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0002|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group.||||=0.0002
90979499|NCT01381094|181843772|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group.||||<0.0001
90979500|NCT01381094|181843772|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0043|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group.||||=0.0043
90979501|NCT01381094|181843772|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group.||||<0.0001
90979502|NCT01381094|181843772|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group.||||<0.0001
90979503|NCT01381094|181843772|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0001|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group.||||=0.0001
90979504|NCT01381094|181843773|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0027|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group.||||=0.0027
90979505|NCT01381094|181843773|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group.||||<0.0001
90979506|NCT01381094|181843773|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0001|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group.||||=0.0001
90979507|NCT01381094|181843773|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group.||||<0.0001
90979508|NCT01381094|181843773|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0005|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group.||||=0.0005
90979509|NCT01381094|181843779|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.6051|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.6051
90979510|NCT01381094|181843779|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5197|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.5197
90979511|NCT01381094|181843779|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1073|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.1073
90979512|NCT01381094|181843779|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1321|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.1321
90979513|NCT01381094|181843779|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.4358|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.4358
90979514|NCT01381094|181843779|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.8109|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.8109
90979515|NCT01381094|181843779|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2575|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.2575
90979516|NCT01381094|181843779|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.8361|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.8361
90890096|NCT01571362|181644073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.374||0.867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|2.94||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Difference between treatment groups in change from Screening for Role-Emotional.||2.94|-2.48|0.8670
90890097|NCT01571362|181644073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.056||0.7259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|2.45||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Difference between treatment groups in change from Screening for Mental Health.||2.45|-1.71|0.7259
90890098|NCT01571362|181644073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.007||0.0989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|3.65||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Difference between treatment groups in change from Screening for Physical Component Score.||3.65|-0.32|0.0989
90890099|NCT01571362|181644073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.142||0.9969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|2.25||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Difference between treatment groups in change from Screening for Mental Component Score.||2.25|-2.25|0.9969
90890100|NCT01571362|181644074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90890101|NCT01571362|181644075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90890102|NCT01571362|181644076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90890103|NCT01571362|181644077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90890104|NCT01571362|181644078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.032|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0168||0.0605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|0.065||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of study drug during the Titration Period as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||0.065|-0.001|0.0605
90890105|NCT01571362|181644079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.999||0.7196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.22|4.66||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors; Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of study drug during the Titration Period as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||4.66|-3.22|0.7196
90890106|NCT01571362|181644080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0172||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.013|0.055||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.055|-0.013|0.2280
90890107|NCT01571362|181644081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.048||0.2701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|6.3||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||6.30|-1.77|0.2701
90890108|NCT01571362|181644082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3822|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Screening Period value to End of Open-Label for % Work Time Missed due to Low Back Pain.||||0.3822
90890109|NCT01571362|181644082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Screening Period value to End of Open-Label for % Impairment while Working due to Low Back Pain.||||<0.0001
90890110|NCT01571362|181644082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Screening Period value to End of Open-Label for % Overall Work Impairment due to Low Back Pain.||||<0.0001
90890111|NCT01571362|181644082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Screening Period value to End of Open-Label for % Activity Impairment due to Low Back Pain.||||<0.0001
90890112|NCT01571362|181644083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0017|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Screening Period value to Randomization Baseline for % Work Time Missed due to Low Back Pain||||0.0017
90890113|NCT01571362|181644083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Screening Period value to Randomization Baseline for % Impairment while Working due to Low Back Pain||||<0.0001
90890114|NCT01571362|181644083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Screening Period value to Randomization Baseline for % Overall Work Impairment due to Low Back Pain||||<0.0001
90890115|NCT01571362|181644083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Screening Period value to Randomization Baseline for % Activity Impairment due to Low Back Pain||||<0.0001
90890116|NCT01571362|181644084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.883||0.1389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.06|1.43||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||1.43|-10.06|0.1389
90947733|NCT05723263|181774264|OTHER||Proportional difference|94.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.2|94.8||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||It was calculated that 12 clinic sites with 1200 participants randomized in a 1:1:1 ratio between the three arms would have at least 90% power to detect a 10% difference in the proportion of test uptake between the pay-it-forward and control group participants, using a two-sided, two-sample t-test (α=0.05), assuming a 0.25\~0.31 cluster coefficient of variation, a \<5% lost-to-follow-up rate, and an intra-class correlation of 0.016.||94.8|94.2|<0.001
90947734|NCT05723263|181774264|OTHER||Proportional difference|87.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.5|88.0||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||It was estimated that 12 clinic sites with 1200 participants randomized in a 1:1:1 ratio between the three arms would have at least 90% power to detect a 10% difference in the proportion of test uptake between the pay-it-forward and control group participants, using a two-sided, two-sample t-test (α=0.05), assuming a 0.25\~0.31 cluster coefficient of variation, a \<5% lost-to-follow-up rate, and an intra-class correlation of 0.016.||88.0|86.5|<0.001
90947735|NCT05723263|181774264|OTHER||Proportional difference|7.3|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.6|7.9|||Generalized Estimating Equations|||Using a binary outcome and cluster RCT design, we estimated that 12 clinic clusters (two per city) and 1200 participants (100 per cluster) were needed to achieve a 90% power and allow for a 0.05 type-I error to detect a 10% difference in the proportion of test uptake between the pay-it-forward and control arm participants and a \<5% lost-to-follow-up rate. We anticipated a test uptake of 65% in the community-engaged pay-it-forward arm, 45% in the standard pay-it-forward arm, and 20% in control.||7.9|6.6|>0.05
90947736|NCT05723263|181774265|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
90947737|NCT05723263|181774266|OTHER|||||||0.0059|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0059
90947738|NCT05723263|181774267|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
90947739|NCT05723263|181774269|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90947740|NCT05723263|181774270|OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.007
90947741|NCT05723263|181774271|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90947742|NCT05723263|181774272|OTHER|||||||0.727|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.727
90947743|NCT05723263|181774273|OTHER||Difference in Probability Difference|-0.047||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|-0.014|||Generalized Estimating Equations||Absolute proportional difference in gonorrhea and chlamydia test uptake rate among community-led clinic participants across the three intervention arms|We anticipated a test uptake of 65% in the community-engaged pay-it-forward arm, 45% in the standard pay-it-forward arm, and 20% in the control between community-led and public STI clinic participants.||-0.014|-0.080|0.005
90947744|NCT05723263|181774274|OTHER||Difference in Probability Difference|-0.04||||0.015||95.0|-0.073|-0.008|||Generalized Estimating Equations|||We anticipated a test uptake of 65% in the community-engaged pay-it-forward arm, 45% in the standard pay-it-forward arm, and 20% in the control among MSM and non-MSM participants.||-0.008|-0.073|0.015
90947745|NCT05723263|181774275|OTHER||Difference in Probability Difference|0.015||||0.384||95.0|-0.019|0.049|||Generalized Estimating Equations|||We anticipated a test uptake of 65% in the community-engaged pay-it-forward arm, 45% in the standard pay-it-forward arm, and 20% in the control among participants 30 years and below and those above 30 years.||0.049|-0.019|0.384
90947746|NCT03974022|181774291|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||binomial exact test against H0|||||||<0.0001
90947747|NCT03974022|181774291|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||binomial exact test against H0|||||||<0.0001
90947748|NCT02065882|181774567|OTHER|Confirmatory t-test testing of the MCF difference (1 h post-dose minus pre-dose)|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90947749|NCT04486625|181774585|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare the natural log transformed AUC0-24,ss between the normal renal function group (Reference) and the severe renal impairment group (Test). The geometric least squares mean point estimate and the associated 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the difference of each comparison was estimated.|Ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means|79.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|66.52|94.96||||||||94.96|66.52|
90947750|NCT04486625|181774586|OTHER|ANOVA was used to compare the natural log transformed Cmax between the normal renal function group (Reference) and the severe renal impairment group (Test). The geometric least squares mean point estimate and the associated 90% CIs for the difference of each comparison was estimated.|Ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means|75.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|66.1|86.43||||||||86.43|66.10|
90947751|NCT04486625|181774587|OTHER|ANOVA was used to compare the natural log transformed AUC0-24,ss between the normal renal function group (Reference) and the severe renal impairment group (Test). The geometric least squares mean point estimate and the associated 90% CIs for the difference of each comparison was estimated.|Ratio (%) of of adjusted geometric means|124.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.18|153.97||||||||153.97|100.18|
90947752|NCT04486625|181774588|OTHER|ANOVA was used to compare the natural log transformed Cmax between the normal renal function group (Reference) and the severe renal impairment group (Test). The geometric least squares mean point estimate and the associated 90% CIs for the difference of each comparison was estimated.|Ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means|102.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.55|119.83||||||||119.83|87.55|
90947753|NCT01411241|181774614|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of all the 95% Confidence Interval (CI) of the difference is greater than -10% for all antigens. Wilson score (without continuity adjustment) 95% two-sided CI was used for the difference of seroprotection/booster rates.|Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|1.4||||||Non-inferiority (Group 1 - Group 2); Anti-diphtheria. Non-inferiority of Pentaxim booster dose based on seroprotection/booster response was assessed 28 days after injection.||1.40|-1.48|
90947754|NCT01411241|181774614|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of all the 95% CI of the difference is greater than -10% for all antigens. Wilson score (without continuity adjustment) 95% two-sided CI was used for the difference of seroprotection/booster rates.|Difference in percentage|0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|2.07||||||Non-inferiority (Group 1 - Group 2); Anti-tetanus. Non-inferiority of Pentaxim booster dose based on seroprotection/booster response was assessed 28 days after injection.||2.07|-1.14|
90947755|NCT01411241|181774614|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of all the 95% CI of the difference is greater than -10% for all antigens. Wilson score (without continuity adjustment) 95% two-sided CI was used for the difference of seroprotection/booster rates.|Difference in percentage|0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|2.08||||||Non-inferiority (Group 1 - Group 2); Anti-polio 1. Non-inferiority of Pentaxim booster dose based on seroprotection/booster response was assessed 28 days after injection.||2.08|-1.14|
90947756|NCT01411241|181774614|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of all the 95% CI of the difference is greater than -10% for all antigens. Wilson score (without continuity adjustment) 95% two-sided CI was used for the difference of seroprotection/booster rates.|Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|1.4||||||Non-inferiority (Group 1 - Group 2); Anti-polio 2. Non-inferiority of Pentaxim booster dose based on seroprotection/booster response was assessed 28 days after injection.||1.40|-1.48|
90947757|NCT01411241|181774614|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of all the 95% CI of the difference is greater than -10% for all antigens. Wilson score (without continuity adjustment) 95% two-sided CI was used for the difference of seroprotection/booster rates.|Difference in percentage|0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|2.09||||||Non-inferiority (Group 1 - Group 2); Anti-polio 3. Non-inferiority of Pentaxim booster dose based on seroprotection/booster response was assessed 28 days after injection.||2.09|-1.15|
90947758|NCT01411241|181774614|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of all the 95% CI of the difference is greater than -10% for all antigens. Wilson score (without continuity adjustment) 95% two-sided CI was used for the difference of seroprotection/booster rates.|Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|1.4||||||Non-inferiority (Group 1 - Group 2); Anti-PRP. Non-inferiority of Pentaxim booster dose based on seroprotection/booster response was assessed 28 days after injection.||1.40|-1.48|
90947759|NCT01411241|181774614|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of all the 95% CI of the difference is greater than -10% for all antigens. Wilson score (without continuity adjustment) 95% two-sided CI was used for the difference of seroprotection/booster rates.|Difference in percentage|-0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.93|2.69||||||Non-inferiority (Group 1 - Group 2); Anti-PT. Non-inferiority of Pentaxim booster dose based on seroprotection/booster response was assessed 28 days after injection.||2.69|-3.93|
90947760|NCT01411241|181774614|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of all the 95% CI of the difference is greater than -10% for all antigens. Wilson score (without continuity adjustment) 95% two-sided CI was used for the difference of seroprotection/booster rates.|Difference in percentage|-0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.87|4.06||||||Non-inferiority (Group 1 - Group 2); Anti-FHA. Non-inferiority of Pentaxim booster dose based on seroprotection/booster response was assessed 28 days after injection.||4.06|-4.87|
90947761|NCT00725270|181774623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.812|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Repeated Measures ANOVA was run on the Positive Symptom Scale of the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale, using Baseline and Day 9 ratings. Below is the medication \* time interaction.||||.812
90947762|NCT00725270|181774624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||eta sq|0.157||||0.203|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.203
90947763|NCT02980042|181774625|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.6616||||0.1996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3666|1.1942|||Generalized estimating equations|GEE was necessary because there are repeated measures on subjects.|This is comparing the Switching group to the Comparator group|||1.1942|.3666|0.1996
90947764|NCT02980042|181774626|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5299|1.8872|||Generalized estimating equations|GEE was used because there are repeated measures on subjects|Comparing Switching group Day 1 to combined Comparator group|||1.8872|.5299|1.0000
90947765|NCT02980042|181774626|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.2857||||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1006|0.8114|||Generalized estimating equations|GEE was used because there are repeated measures on subjects.|Switching group Day 15 was compared to combined Comparator group.|||.8114|.1006|0.0053
90947766|NCT02980042|181774626|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.8571||||0.6474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4385|1.6753|||Generalized estimating equations|GEE was used because there are repeated measures on subjects.||||1.6753|.4385|0.6474
90947767|NCT02980042|181774630|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.2857||||0.0075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1072|0.7613|||Generalized estimating equations|GEE was used because there are repeated measures on subjects.||||.7613|.1072|0.0075
90947768|NCT02980042|181774630|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.8571||||0.593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4868|1.5093|||Generalized estimating equations|GEE was used because there are repeated measures on subjects.||||1.5093|.4868|0.5930
90947769|NCT02980042|181774630|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|3.0||||0.0209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.126|7.9932|||Generalized estimating equations|GEE was used because there are repeated measures on subjects.||||7.9932|1.1260|0.0209
90947770|NCT02980042|181774635|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.05|-5.01||Controlled for the false discovery rate (alpha = 0.05) for all cytokines on day 1 using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired T-test. Degrees of freedom = 99.|Mean of post minus pre.|Paired T-test for change in means. Null hypothesis: no pre-post difference.||-5.01|-27.05|0.005
90947771|NCT02980042|181774636|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|3.56||Controlled for the false discovery rate (alpha = 0.05) for all cytokines on day 1 using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired T-test. Degrees of freedom = 99.|Mean of post minus pre.|Paired T-test for change in means. Null hypothesis: no pre-post difference.||3.56|1.54|<0.0001
90947772|NCT02980042|181774637|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|8.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.33|10.82||Controlled for the false discovery rate (alpha = 0.05) for all cytokines on day 1 using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired T-test. Degrees of freedom = 99.|Mean of post minus pre.|Paired T-test for change in means. Null hypothesis: no pre-post difference.||10.82|6.33|<0.0001
90979517|NCT01381094|181843779|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0294|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.0294
90979518|NCT01381094|181843779|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.8809|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.8809
90947773|NCT02980042|181774638|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.19|-4.55||Controlled for the false discovery rate (alpha = 0.05) for all cytokines on day 1 using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired T-test. Degrees of freedom = 99.|Mean of post minus pre.|Paired T-test for change in means. Null hypothesis: no pre-post difference.||-4.55|-10.19|<0.0001
90947774|NCT02980042|181774639|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|44.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.59|59.05||Controlled for the false discovery rate (alpha = 0.05) for all cytokines on day 1 using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired T-test. Degrees of freedom = 99.|Mean of post minus pre.|Paired T-test for change in means. Null hypothesis: no pre-post difference.||59.05|29.59|<0.0001
90947775|NCT02980042|181774640|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|353.35||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|175.23|531.46||Controlled for the false discovery rate (alpha = 0.05) for all cytokines on day 1 using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired T-test. Degrees of freedom = 99.|Mean of post minus pre.|Paired T-test for change in means. Null hypothesis: no pre-post difference.||531.46|175.23|0.0002
90947776|NCT02980042|181774641|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|176.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|124.5|229.31||Controlled for the false discovery rate (alpha = 0.05) for all cytokines on day 1 using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired T-test. Degrees of freedom = 99.|Mean of post minus pre.|Paired T-test for change in means. Null hypothesis: no pre-post difference.||229.31|124.50|<0.0001
90947777|NCT02980042|181774642|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.19||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.32||Controlled for the false discovery rate (alpha = 0.05) for all cytokines on day 1 using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired T-test. Degrees of freedom = 99.|Mean of post minus pre.|Paired T-test for change in means. Null hypothesis: no pre-post difference.||0.32|0.07|0.0020
90947778|NCT02980042|181774643|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.77||Controlled for the false discovery rate (alpha = 0.05) for all cytokines on day 1 using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired T-test. Degrees of freedom = 99.|Mean of post minus pre.|Paired T-test for change in means. Null hypothesis: no pre-post difference.||0.77|0.32|<0.0001
90947779|NCT02980042|181774644|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-46.16||||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.61|-11.72||Controlled for the false discovery rate (alpha = 0.05) for all cytokines on day 1 using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired T-test. Degrees of freedom = 99.|Mean of post minus pre.|Paired T-test for change in means. Null hypothesis: no pre-post difference.||-11.72|-80.61|0.0091
90947780|NCT02980042|181774645|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|55.26||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.0|83.52||Controlled for the false discovery rate (alpha = 0.05) for all cytokines on day 1 using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired T-test. Degrees of freedom = 99.|Mean of post minus pre.|Paired T-test for change in means. Null hypothesis: no pre-post difference.||83.52|27.00|0.0002
90947781|NCT02980042|181774646|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-17.24||||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.96|-5.51||Controlled for the false discovery rate (alpha = 0.05) for all cytokines on day 1 using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired T-test. Degrees of freedom = 99.|Mean of post minus pre.|Paired T-test for change in means. Null hypothesis: no pre-post difference.||-5.51|-28.96|0.0044
90947782|NCT02980042|181774647|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|16.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.75|22.28||Controlled for the false discovery rate (alpha = 0.05) for all cytokines on day 1 using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired T-test. Degrees of freedom = 99.|Mean of post minus pre.|Paired T-test for change in means. Null hypothesis: no pre-post difference.||22.28|9.75|<0.0001
90947783|NCT02980042|181774648|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|429.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|296.07|562.1||Controlled for the false discovery rate (alpha = 0.05) for all cytokines on day 1 using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired T-test. Degrees of freedom = 99.|Mean of post minus pre.|Paired T-test for change in means. Null hypothesis: no pre-post difference.||562.10|296.07|<0.0001
90947784|NCT02980042|181774649|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.23||||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.16||Controlled for the false discovery rate (alpha = 0.05) for all cytokines on day 1 using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired T-test. Degrees of freedom = 99.|Mean of post minus pre.|Paired T-test for change in means. Null hypothesis: no pre-post difference.||2.16|0.30|0.0101
90947785|NCT02980042|181774650|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.87|12.52||Controlled for the false discovery rate (alpha = 0.05) for all cytokines on day 1 using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired T-test. Degrees of freedom = 99.|Mean of post minus pre.|Paired T-test for change in means. Null hypothesis: no pre-post difference.||12.52|4.87|<0.0001
90947786|NCT02980042|181774651|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|2.03||Controlled for the false discovery rate (alpha = 0.05) for all cytokines on day 1 using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired T-test. Degrees of freedom = 99.|Mean of post minus pre.|Paired T-test for change in means. Null hypothesis: no pre-post difference.||2.03|1.04|<0.0001
90947787|NCT02980042|181774652|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-33.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.91|-27.44||99 patients with non-missing change scores used. Controlled for the false discovery rate (alpha = 0.05) for all cytokines on day 15 using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired T-test. Degrees of freedom = 98.|Mean of post minus pre. 99 usable change scores.|Paired T-test for change in means. Null hypothesis: no pre-post difference.||-27.44|-38.91|<0.0001
90947788|NCT02980042|181774653|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.62||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.26||99 patients with non-missing change scores used. Controlled for the false discovery rate (alpha = 0.05) for all cytokines on day 15 using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired T-test. Degrees of freedom = 98.|Mean of post minus pre. 99 usable change scores.|Paired T-test for change in means. Null hypothesis: no pre-post difference.||-0.26|-0.98|0.0008
90947789|NCT02980042|181774654|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|2.79||99 patients with non-missing change scores used. Controlled for the false discovery rate (alpha = 0.05) for all cytokines on day 15 using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired T-test. Degrees of freedom = 98.|Mean of post minus pre. 99 usable change scores.|Paired T-test for change in means. Null hypothesis: no pre-post difference.||2.79|1.23|<0.0001
90979519|NCT01381094|181843779|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.4971|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||=0.4971
90979520|NCT01381094|181843779|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3994|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||=0.3994
90947790|NCT02980042|181774655|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.84|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.87|-5.81||99 patients with non-missing change scores used. Controlled for the false discovery rate (alpha = 0.05) for all cytokines on day 15 using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired T-test. Degrees of freedom = 98.|Mean of post minus pre. 99 usable change scores.|Paired T-test for change in means. Null hypothesis: no pre-post difference.||-5.81|-9.87|<0.0001
90947791|NCT02980042|181774656|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.2||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.15|-5.25||99 patients with non-missing change scores used. Controlled for the false discovery rate (alpha = 0.05) for all cytokines on day 15 using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired T-test. Degrees of freedom = 98.|Mean of post minus pre. 99 usable change scores.|Paired T-test for change in means. Null hypothesis: no pre-post difference.||-5.25|-23.15|0.0022
90947792|NCT02980042|181774657|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.43||99 patients with non-missing change scores used. Controlled for the false discovery rate (alpha = 0.05) for all cytokines on day 15 using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired T-test. Degrees of freedom = 98.|Mean of post minus pre. 99 usable change scores.|Paired T-test for change in means. Null hypothesis: no pre-post difference.||0.43|0.17|<0.0001
90947793|NCT02980042|181774658|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.61||99 patients with non-missing change scores used. Controlled for the false discovery rate (alpha = 0.05) for all cytokines on day 15 using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired T-test. Degrees of freedom = 98.|Mean of post minus pre. 99 usable change scores.|Paired T-test for change in means. Null hypothesis: no pre-post difference.||0.61|0.22|<0.0001
90947794|NCT02980042|181774659|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.5||99 patients with non-missing change scores used. Controlled for the false discovery rate (alpha = 0.05) for all cytokines on day 15 using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired T-test. Degrees of freedom = 98.|Mean of post minus pre. 99 usable change scores.|Paired T-test for change in means. Null hypothesis: no pre-post difference.||-0.50|-0.95|<0.0001
90979521|NCT01381094|181843779|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5022|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||=0.5022
90979522|NCT01381094|181843779|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.9916|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||=0.9916
90979523|NCT01381094|181843779|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2292|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||=0.2292
90979524|NCT01381094|181843779|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1331|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.1331
90979525|NCT01381094|181843779|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5518|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.5518
90979526|NCT01381094|181843779|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.9032|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.9032
90979527|NCT01381094|181843779|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2387|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.2387
90979528|NCT01381094|181843779|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.4251|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.4251
90979529|NCT01381094|181843780|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0448|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.0448
90947795|NCT02980042|181774660|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-19.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.64|-15.98||99 patients with non-missing change scores used. Controlled for the false discovery rate (alpha = 0.05) for all cytokines on day 15 using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired T-test. Degrees of freedom = 98.|Mean of post minus pre. 99 usable change scores.|Paired T-test for change in means. Null hypothesis: no pre-post difference.||-15.98|-22.64|<0.0001
90947796|NCT02980042|181774661|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.96|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.85|-4.08||99 patients with non-missing change scores used. Controlled for the false discovery rate (alpha = 0.05) for all cytokines on day 15 using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired T-test. Degrees of freedom = 98.|Mean of post minus pre. 99 usable change scores.|Paired T-test for change in means. Null hypothesis: no pre-post difference.||-4.08|-9.85|<0.0001
90947797|NCT02980042|181774662|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-23.22||||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.66|-6.78||99 patients with non-missing change scores used. Controlled for the false discovery rate (alpha = 0.05) for all cytokines on day 15 using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired T-test. Degrees of freedom = 98.|Mean of post minus pre. 99 usable change scores.|Paired T-test for change in means. Null hypothesis: no pre-post difference.||-6.78|-39.66|0.0061
90947798|NCT02980042|181774663|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.24|-4.14||99 patients with non-missing change scores used. Controlled for the false discovery rate (alpha = 0.05) for all cytokines on day 15 using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired T-test. Degrees of freedom = 98.|Mean of post minus pre. 99 usable change scores.|Paired T-test for change in means. Null hypothesis: no pre-post difference.||-4.14|-7.24|<0.0001
90947799|NCT02980042|181774664|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.84||||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|-0.23||99 patients with non-missing change scores used. Controlled for the false discovery rate (alpha = 0.05) for all cytokines on day 15 using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired T-test. Degrees of freedom = 98.|Mean of post minus pre. 99 usable change scores.|Paired T-test for change in means. Null hypothesis: no pre-post difference.||-0.23|-1.45|0.0077
90947800|NCT02980042|181774665|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.27||99 patients with non-missing change scores used. Controlled for the false discovery rate (alpha = 0.05) for all cytokines on day 15 using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired T-test. Degrees of freedom = 98.|Mean of post minus pre. 99 usable change scores.|Paired T-test for change in means. Null hypothesis: no pre-post difference.||-0.27|-0.37|<0.0001
90947801|NCT04148989|181774666|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.6|-7.0|||Regression, gamma||Change in emergency department door-to-antibiotic time (minutes) associated with Code Sepsis implementation derived from adjusted differences-in-differences analysis|Differences-in-differences analysis using multivariable gamma regression to estimate the change in outcome after versus before intervention implementation at the intervention site adjusted for the change observed at control sites and for subjects' age, sex, Elixhauser Comorbidity Score, ED arrival via ambulance, English language preference, temperature, systolic blood pressure, Acute Physiology Score, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, and ED-diagnosed source of infection.||-7.0|-18.6|<0.001
90947802|NCT04148989|181774667|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.19|||Regression, Logistic||Change in all-cause 30-day mortality risk associated with Code Sepsis implementation derived from adjusted differences-in-differences analysis|Differences-in-differences analysis using multivariable logistic regression to estimate the change in outcome after versus before intervention implementation at the intervention site adjusted for the change observed at control sites and for subjects' age, sex, Elixhauser Comorbidity Score, ED arrival via ambulance, English language preference, temperature, systolic blood pressure, Acute Physiology Score, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, and ED-diagnosed source of infection.||1.19|0.68|0.45
90947803|NCT04148989|181774668|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.04|||Regression, Logistic||Change in all-cause 1-year mortality risk associated with Code Sepsis implementation derived from adjusted differences-in-differences analysis|Differences-in-differences analysis using multivariable logistic regression to estimate the change in outcome after versus before intervention implementation at the intervention site adjusted for the change observed at control sites and for subjects' age, sex, Elixhauser Comorbidity Score, ED arrival via ambulance, English language preference, temperature, systolic blood pressure, Acute Physiology Score, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, and ED-diagnosed source of infection.||1.04|0.67|0.10
90979530|NCT01381094|181843780|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0004|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.0004
90979531|NCT01381094|181843780|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0813|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.0813
90979532|NCT01381094|181843780|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0038|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.0038
91050462|NCT04168190|181987011|SUPERIORITY|Superiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMC ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>1.0 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|3.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|4.17|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 15C. Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio, 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||4.17|2.60|<0.001
90947804|NCT04148989|181774669|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.1|||Regression, Logistic|||Differences-in-differences analysis using multivariable logistic regression to estimate the change in outcome after versus before intervention implementation at the intervention site adjusted for the change observed at control sites and for subjects' age, sex, Elixhauser Comorbidity Score, ED arrival via ambulance, English language preference, temperature, systolic blood pressure, Acute Physiology Score, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, and ED-diagnosed source of infection.|Change in all-cause in-hospital mortality risk associated with Code Sepsis implementation derived from adjusted differences-in-differences analysis|1.10|0.53|0.15
90947805|NCT04148989|181774670|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|2.1|||Regression, gamma||Change in hospital charges ($1000s) associated with Code Sepsis implementation derived from adjusted differences-in-differences analysis|Differences-in-differences analysis using multivariable gamma regression to estimate the change in outcome after versus before intervention implementation at the intervention site adjusted for the change observed at control sites and for subjects' age, sex, Elixhauser Comorbidity Score, ED arrival via ambulance, English language preference, temperature, systolic blood pressure, Acute Physiology Score, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, and ED-diagnosed source of infection.||2.1|-1.4|0.71
90947806|NCT04148989|181774671|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1|||Regression, gamma||Change in hospital length of stay (days) associated with Code Sepsis implementation derived from adjusted differences-in-differences analysis|Differences-in-differences analysis using multivariable gamma regression to estimate the change in outcome after versus before intervention implementation at the intervention site adjusted for the change observed at control sites and for subjects' age, sex, Elixhauser Comorbidity Score, ED arrival via ambulance, English language preference, temperature, systolic blood pressure, Acute Physiology Score, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, and ED-diagnosed source of infection.||0.1|-0.4|0.19
90979533|NCT01381094|181843780|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.6861|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.6861
90979534|NCT01381094|181843780|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0553|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.0553
90979535|NCT01381094|181843780|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0004|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.0004
90979536|NCT01381094|181843780|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||<0.0001
90979537|NCT01381094|181843780|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||<0.0001
90947807|NCT04148989|181774672|SUPERIORITY|Multiple imputation was employed to account for missing covariate data affecting 3.6% of eligible patients.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.17||Model adjusted for age, sex, Elixhauser Comorbidity Score, ED arrival via ambulance, language preference, temperature, systolic blood pressure, Acute Physiology Score, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, and ED-diagnosed source of infection.|Regression, Logistic||Change in antimicrobial treatment risk associated with Code Sepsis implementation derived from adjusted differences-in-differences analysis.|Differences-in-differences analysis using multivariable logistic regression to estimate the change in outcome after versus before intervention implementation at the intervention site adjusted for the change observed at control sites and for prespecified covariates.||1.17|1.03|0.005
90979538|NCT01381094|181843780|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.7379|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.7379
90979539|NCT01381094|181843780|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.072|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||=0.0720
90979540|NCT01381094|181843780|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0002|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||=0.0002
90979541|NCT01381094|181843780|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||<0.0001
90979542|NCT01381094|181843780|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||<0.0001
90979543|NCT01381094|181843780|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.6781|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||=0.6781
90947808|NCT04148989|181774673|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.75|||Regression, Logistic||Change in risk for possible antimicrobial-associated adverse event associated with Code Sepsis implementation derived from adjusted differences-in-differences analysis|Differences-in-differences analysis using multivariable logistic regression to estimate the change in outcome after versus before intervention implementation at the intervention site adjusted for the change observed at control sites and for subjects' age, sex, Elixhauser Comorbidity Score, ED arrival via ambulance, English language preference, temperature, systolic blood pressure, Acute Physiology Score, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, and ED-diagnosed source of infection.||1.75|0.68|0.73
90947809|NCT04148989|181774674|SUPERIORITY|Multiple imputation was employed to account for missing covariate data affecting 3.6% of eligible patients.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.33||Model adjusted for age, sex, Elixhauser Comorbidity Score, ED arrival via ambulance, language preference, temperature, systolic blood pressure, Acute Physiology Score, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, and ED-diagnosed source of infection.|Regression, Logistic|||Differences-in-differences analysis using multivariable logistic regression to estimate the change in outcome after versus before intervention implementation at the intervention site adjusted for the change observed at control sites and for prespecified covariates.|Change in risk for possible antimicrobial-associated adverse event associated with Code Sepsis implementation derived from adjusted differences-in-differences analysis.|1.33|0.78|0.90
90947810|NCT04148989|181774675|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|2.17|||Regression, Logistic||Change in new-onset Clostridium difficile colitis risk associated with Code Sepsis implementation derived from adjusted differences-in-differences analysis.|Differences-in-differences analysis using multivariable logistic regression to estimate the change in outcome after versus before intervention implementation at the intervention site adjusted for the change observed at control sites and for subjects' age, sex, Elixhauser Comorbidity Score, ED arrival via ambulance, English language preference, temperature, systolic blood pressure, Acute Physiology Score, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, and ED-diagnosed source of infection.||2.17|0.49|0.94
90947811|NCT04148989|181774676|SUPERIORITY|Multiple imputation was employed to account for missing covariate data affecting 3.6% of eligible patients.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|2.14|||Regression, Logistic||Change in new-onset Clostridium difficile colitis risk associated with Code Sepsis implementation derived from adjusted differences-in-differences analysis.|Differences-in-differences analysis using multivariable logistic regression to estimate the change in outcome after versus before intervention implementation at the intervention site adjusted for the change observed at control sites and for prespecified covariates.||2.14|0.93|0.10
90947812|NCT04148989|181774677|SUPERIORITY|Multiple imputation was employed to account for missing covariate data affecting 3.1% of eligible patients.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.93|||Regression, Logistic||Change in risk for antimicrobial administration in the ED associated with Code Sepsis implementation derived from adjusted differences-in-differences analysis|Differences-in-differences analysis using multivariable logistic regression to estimate the change in outcome after versus before intervention implementation at the intervention site adjusted for the change observed at control sites and for prespecified covariates.||1.93|0.69|0.59
90947813|NCT04148989|181774678|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.58|||Regression, Linear||Change in total spectrum score of antibiotics administered within 24 hours of ED arrival associated with Code Sepsis implementation derived from adjusted differences-in-differences analysis|Differences-in-differences analysis using multivariable ??? regression to estimate the change in outcome after versus before intervention implementation at the intervention site adjusted for the change observed at control sites and for subjects' age, sex, Elixhauser Comorbidity Score, ED arrival via ambulance, English language preference, temperature, systolic blood pressure, Acute Physiology Score, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, and ED-diagnosed source of infection.||0.58|0.06|0.02
90947814|NCT04148989|181774679|SUPERIORITY|Multiple imputation was employed to account for missing covariate data affecting 2.0% of eligible patients.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.31|||Regression, Linear||Change in total spectrum score of antibiotics administered within 24 hours of ED arrival associated with Code Sepsis implementation derived from adjusted differences-in-differences analysis|Differences-in-differences analysis using multivariable linear regression to estimate the change in outcome after versus before intervention implementation at the intervention site adjusted for the change observed at control sites and for prespecified covariates.||0.31|0.03|0.02
90947815|NCT03812029|181774680|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0015||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance : \<0.05.|ANCOVA|||||||0.0015
90947816|NCT03812029|181774680|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0121||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance : \<0.05.|ANCOVA|||||||0.0121
90947817|NCT03812029|181774680|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0371||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance : \<0.05.|ANCOVA|||||||0.0371
90947818|NCT03812029|181774681|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance : \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.003
90979544|NCT01381094|181843780|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0524|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.0524
90979545|NCT01381094|181843780|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0367|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.0367
90979546|NCT01381094|181843780|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.6671|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.6671
90947819|NCT03812029|181774681|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance : \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.04
90947820|NCT03812029|181774682|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0017||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance : \<0.05.|ANCOVA|||||||0.0017
90947821|NCT03812029|181774682|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance : \<0.05.|ANCOVA|||||||0.018
90947822|NCT03812029|181774682|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance : \<0.05.|ANCOVA|||||||0.13
90947823|NCT03812029|181774683|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance : \<0.05.|ANCOVA|||||||0.001
90947824|NCT03812029|181774683|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance : \<0.05.|ANCOVA|||||||0.002
90947825|NCT03812029|181774683|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance : \<0.05.|ANCOVA|||||||0.018
90947826|NCT03812029|181774684|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance : \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.09
90979547|NCT01381094|181843780|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.6861|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.6861
90979548|NCT01381094|181843780|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.9012|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.9012
90979549|NCT01381094|181843781|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3953|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.3953
90979550|NCT01381094|181843781|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.085|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.0850
90979551|NCT01381094|181843781|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.6045|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.6045
90979552|NCT01381094|181843781|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.7743|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.7743
90979553|NCT01381094|181843781|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5326|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.5326
91050463|NCT04168190|181987011|SUPERIORITY|Superiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMC ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>1.0 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|8.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.19|10.41|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 16F. Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio, 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||10.41|7.19|<0.001
90947827|NCT03812029|181774684|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance : \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.47
90947828|NCT03812029|181774684|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance : \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.14
90947829|NCT03812029|181774685|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance : \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
90947830|NCT03812029|181774685|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance : \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
90947831|NCT03812029|181774685|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance : \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0002
90947832|NCT03812029|181774686|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance : \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.017
90947833|NCT03812029|181774686|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0006||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance : \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0006
90947834|NCT03812029|181774686|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance : \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.006
90947835|NCT03812029|181774687|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance : \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.16
90947836|NCT03812029|181774687|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance : \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.01
90947837|NCT03812029|181774687|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance : \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.57
90947838|NCT03812029|181774688|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0017||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance : \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0017
90947839|NCT03812029|181774688|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0093||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance : \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0093
90947840|NCT02362503|181774697|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.625|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.441||Hypothesis test:µfostemsavir=µPlacebo where µ is a common intercept.|ANCOVA||Difference in covariate-adjusted least squares means between treatment groups (Fostemsavir 600 mg BID-Placebo) is presented.|||-0.441|-0.810|<0.0001
90947841|NCT02362503|181774698|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|45.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.95|55.45|||||Difference between treatment groups (fostemsavir 600 mg BID-Placebo) and 95% confidence interval using Newcombe method is presented for \>0.5 log10 c/mL.|||55.45|32.95|
90947842|NCT02362503|181774698|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|35.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.16|44.25|||||Difference between treatment groups (fostemsavir 600 mg BID-Placebo) and 95% confidence interval using Newcombe method is presented for \>1.0 log10 c/mL.|||44.25|24.16|
90947843|NCT02362503|181774704|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.8|16.0|||||Difference in covariate-adjusted least squares means between treatment groups (Fostemsavir 600 mg BID-Placebo) is presented.|||16.0|-16.8|
90947844|NCT02362503|181774705|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.617|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.082|1.151|||||Difference in covariate-adjusted least squares means between treatment groups (Fostemsavir 600 mg BID-Placebo) is presented.|||1.151|0.082|
90947845|NCT01080300|181774716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.311||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.31|-1.09||P-value for the test of difference of the least square mean change from baseline between Gabapentin ER 1800 mg and placebo group is based on the F-test of Type III analysis.|Based on Van Eltereen|Multiplicity addressed by requiring significance for all primary endpoints.|Based on ANCOVA|"Baseline LOCF Average Daily Frequency at Week 4:~Null hypothesis: no treatment differences relative to placebo in mean change from baseline in average daily number of moderate to severe hot flashes at Week 4."||-1.09|-2.31|0.0003
90979554|NCT01381094|181843781|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3465|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.3465
90979555|NCT01381094|181843781|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2756|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.2756
90979556|NCT01381094|181843781|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1414|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.1414
90979557|NCT01381094|181843781|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.6941|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.6941
90979558|NCT01381094|181843781|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.9403|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.9403
90947846|NCT01080300|181774716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.335||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.48||P-value for the test of difference of the least square mean change from baseline between Gabapentin ER 1800 mg and placebo group is based on the F-test of Type III analysis.|Based on Van Elteren|Multiplicity addressed by requiring significance for all primary endpoints.|Based on ANCOVA|"Baseline LOCF Average Daily Frequency at Week 12:~Null hypothesis: no treatment differences relative to placebo in mean change from baseline in average daily number of moderate to severe hot flashes at Week 12."||-0.48|-1.80|0.1000
90947847|NCT01080300|181774717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|-0.1||P-value for the test of difference of the least square mean change from baseline between Gabapentin ER 1800 mg and placebo group is based on the F-test of Type III analysis.|Based on Van Elteren|Multiplicity addressed by requiring significance for all primary endpoints.|Based on ANCOVA|"Baseline LOCF Average Daily Severity Score at Week 4:~Null hypothesis: no treatment differences relative to placebo in mean change from baseline in average daily severity score of moderate to severe hot flashes at Week 4."||-0.10|-0.31|<0.0001
90947848|NCT01080300|181774717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.072||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|-0.04||P-value for the test of difference of the least square mean change from baseline between Gabapentin ER 1800 mg and placebo group is based on the F-test of Type III analysis.|Based on Van Elteren|Multiplicity addressed by requiring significance for all primary endpoints.|Based on ANCOVA|"Baseline LOCF Average Daily Severity Score at Week 12:~Null hypothesis: no treatment differences relative to placebo in mean change from baseline in average daily severity score of moderate to severe hot flashes at Week 12."||-0.04|-0.33|0.0004
90947849|NCT01080300|181774718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.453||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|-0.19|||Based on Van Elteren|Multiplicity addressed by requiring significance for all primary endpoints.|Based on ANCOVA|"Baseline LOCF Average Daily Frequency at Week 24:~Null hypothesis: no treatment differences relative to placebo in mean change from baseline in observed average daily number of moderate to severe hot flashes at Week 24."||-0.19|-1.98|0.1510
90947850|NCT01080300|181774719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.0|||Van Elteren|Multiplicity addressed by requiring significance for all primary endpoints.|Based on ANCOVA|"Baseline LOCF Average Daily Severity Score at Week 24:~Null hypothesis: no treatment differences relative to placebo in mean change from baseline in observed average daily severity score of moderate to severe hot flashes at Week 24."||-0.00|-0.44|0.0004
90947851|NCT01080300|181774720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.6||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|21.6|||2-sample Z test|No multiplicity adjustments were made for secondary efficacy outcomes|Risk difference defined as treatment difference in proportion of responders.|"Proportion of patients who were categorized as very much or much improved in PGIC at Week 12.~Null Hypotheses: no treatment differences, relative to placebo in the proportion of patients who were categorized as very much or much improved in the PGIC score at week 12.."||21.6|5.7|0.0008
90947852|NCT01080300|181774720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.4||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.5|21.3|||2-sample Z test|No multiplicity adjustments were made for secondary efficacy outcomes|Risk difference defined as treatment difference in proportion of responders.|"Proportion of patients who were categorized as very much or much improved in PGIC at Week 24."||21.3|5.5|0.0009
90947853|NCT01080300|181774721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.4|24.3|||2-sample Z test|No multiplicity adjustments were made for secondary efficacy outcomes|Risk difference defined as treatment difference in proportion of responders.|"Proportion of patients who were categorized as very much or much improved in CGIC at Week 12.~Null Hypotheses: no treatment differences, relative to placebo in the proportion of patients who were categorized as very much or much improved in the CGIC score at week 12."||24.3|8.4|<0.0001
90947854|NCT01080300|181774721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.0||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|19.0|||2-sample Z test|No multiplicity adjustments were made for secondary efficacy outcomes|Risk difference defined as treatment difference in proportion of responders.|Week 24||19.0|3.0|0.0070
90979559|NCT01381094|181843781|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.831|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||=0.8310
90979560|NCT01381094|181843781|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0654|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||=0.0654
90947855|NCT01080300|181774722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.5||||0.0609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|15.2|||two-sample Z test|No multiplicity adjustments were made for secondary efficacy outcomes|Risk difference defined as treatment difference in proportion of responders.|Week 12||15.2|-0.3|0.0609
90947856|NCT01080300|181774722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.3||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|15.3|||two-sample Z test|No multiplicity adjustments were made for secondary efficacy outcomes|Risk difference defined as treatment difference in proportion of responders.|Week 24||15.3|-0.7|0.0720
90947857|NCT01080300|181774723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.8||||0.1825|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|9.4|||two-sample Z test|No multiplicity adjustments were made for secondary efficacy outcomes|Risk difference defined as treatment difference in proportion of responders.|Week 12||9.4|-1.8|0.1825
90947858|NCT01080300|181774723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.4||||0.1662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|10.7|||two-sample Z test|No multiplicity adjustments were made for secondary efficacy outcomes|Risk difference defined as treatment difference in proportion of responders.|Week 24||10.7|-1.8|0.1662
90979561|NCT01381094|181843781|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.4169|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||=0.4169
90947859|NCT01080300|181774724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.196|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|-0.97||The P value (versus placebo) for the pairwise test of difference of the LS mean change from Baseline between the G-ER 1800-mg and placebo-treatment groups was based on the F test of type III analysis.|ANCOVA|No multiplicity adjustments were made for secondary efficacy outcomes||Change from Baseline to Week 4: LOCF daily sleep interference rating.||-0.97|-1.75|<0.0001
90979562|NCT01381094|181843781|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0103|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||=0.0103
90979563|NCT01381094|181843781|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3968|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||=0.3968
90947860|NCT01080300|181774724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.226|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|-0.47||The P value (versus placebo) for the pairwise test of difference of the LS mean change from Baseline between the G-ER 1800-mg and placebo-treatment groups was based on the F test of type III analysis.|ANCOVA|No multiplicity adjustments were made for secondary efficacy outcomes||Change from Baseline to Week 12: LOCF daily sleep interference rating.||-0.47|-1.36|<0.0001
90947861|NCT01080300|181774724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.237|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|-0.49||The P value (versus placebo) for the pairwise test of difference of the LS mean change from Baseline between the G-ER 1800-mg and placebo-treatment groups was based on the F test of type III analysis.|ANCOVA|No multiplicity adjustments were made for secondary efficacy outcomes||Change from Baseline to Week 24: LOCF daily sleep interference rating.||-0.49|-1.42|<0.0001
90947862|NCT01080300|181774725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.537|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.67|-1.56||The P value (versus placebo) for the pairwise test of difference of the LS mean change from Baseline between the G-ER 1800-mg and placebo-treatment groups was based on the F test of type III analysis.|ANCOVA|No multiplicity adjustments were made for secondary efficacy outcomes||Change from Baseline to Week 4: LOCF daily insomnia severity index (ISI) rating.||-1.56|-3.67|<0.0001
90947863|NCT01080300|181774725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.543||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.92|-0.78||The P value (versus placebo) for the pairwise test of difference of the LS mean change from Baseline between the G-ER 1800-mg and placebo-treatment groups was based on the F test of type III analysis.|ANCOVA|No multiplicity adjustments were made for secondary efficacy outcomes||Change from Baseline to Week 12: LOCF daily insomnia severity index (ISI) rating.||-0.78|-2.92|0.0007
90947864|NCT01080300|181774725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.548||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.84|-0.69|||ANCOVA|No multiplicity adjustments were made for secondary efficacy outcomes||Change from Baseline to Week 24: LOCF daily insomnia severity index (ISI) rating.||-0.69|-2.84|0.0014
90947865|NCT01080300|181774726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.084||0.0137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.04||The p-value (vs. Placebo) for the test of difference of the LS mean change from baseline between Gabapentin ER 1800mg and placebo group is based on the F-test of Type III analysis.|ANCOVA|No multiplicity adjustments were made for secondary efficacy outcomes||MENQOL score at Week 4||-0.04|-0.37|0.0137
90947866|NCT01080300|181774726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.084||0.0872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.02||The p-value (vs. Placebo) for the test of difference of the LS mean change from baseline between Gabapentin ER 1800mg and placebo group is based on the F-test of Type III analysis.|ANCOVA|No multiplicity adjustments were made for secondary efficacy outcomes||MENQOL score at Week 12||0.02|-0.31|0.0872
90947867|NCT01080300|181774726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.091||0.5607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.13||The p-value (vs. Placebo) for the test of difference of the LS mean change from baseline between Gabapentin ER 1800mg and placebo group is based on the F-test of Type III analysis.|ANCOVA|No multiplicity adjustments were made for secondary efficacy outcomes||MENQOL score at Week 24||0.13|-0.23|0.5607
90979564|NCT01381094|181843781|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0325|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.0325
90979565|NCT01381094|181843781|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2151|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.2151
90979566|NCT01381094|181843781|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.8436|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.8436
90979567|NCT01381094|181843781|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5962|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.5962
90947868|NCT02269423|181774750|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||p-values are pairwise comparisons of log-transformed titers between each V920 dose, between each V920 dose and placebo, between all V920 dose levels combined and placebo and are from an ANOVA model.|ANOVA|Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not performed.||Day 28||||<0.001
90947869|NCT02269423|181774750|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||p-values are pairwise comparisons of log-transformed titers between each V920 dose, between each V920 dose and placebo, between all V920 dose levels combined and placebo and are from an ANOVA model.|ANOVA|Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not performed.||Day 28||||<0.001
90947870|NCT02269423|181774750|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||p-values are pairwise comparisons of log-transformed titers between each V920 dose, between each V920 dose and placebo, between all V920 dose levels combined and placebo and are from an ANOVA model.|ANOVA|Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not performed.||Day 28||||<0.001
90947871|NCT02269423|181774750|OTHER|||||||0.161||||||p-values are pairwise comparisons of log-transformed titers between each V920 dose, between each V920 dose and placebo, between all V920 dose levels combined and placebo and are from an ANOVA model.|ANOVA|Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not performed.||Day 28||||0.161
90947872|NCT02269423|181774750|OTHER|||||||0.008||||||p-values are pairwise comparisons of log-transformed titers between each V920 dose, between each V920 dose and placebo, between all V920 dose levels combined and placebo and are from an ANOVA model.|ANOVA|Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not performed.||Day 28||||0.008
90947873|NCT02269423|181774750|OTHER|||||||0.173||||||p-values are pairwise comparisons of log-transformed titers between each V920 dose, between each V920 dose and placebo, between all V920 dose levels combined and placebo and are from an ANOVA model.|ANOVA|Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not performed.||Day 28||||0.173
90947874|NCT02269423|181774751|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||p-values are pairwise comparisons of log-transformed titers between each V920 dose, between each V920 dose and placebo, between all V920 dose levels combined and placebo and are from an ANOVA model.|ANOVA|Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not performed.||Day 28||||<0.001
90947875|NCT02269423|181774751|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||p-values are pairwise comparisons of log-transformed titers between each V920 dose, between each V920 dose and placebo, between all V920 dose levels combined and placebo and are from an ANOVA model.|ANOVA|Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not performed.||Day 28||||<0.001
90947876|NCT02269423|181774751|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||p-values are pairwise comparisons of log-transformed titers between each V920 dose, between each V920 dose and placebo, between all V920 dose levels combined and placebo and are from an ANOVA model.|ANOVA|Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not performed.||Day 28||||<0.001
90947877|NCT02269423|181774751|OTHER|||||||0.102||||||p-values are pairwise comparisons of log-transformed titers between each V920 dose, between each V920 dose and placebo, between all V920 dose levels combined and placebo and are from an ANOVA model.|ANOVA|Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not performed.||Day 28||||0.102
90979568|NCT01381094|181843781|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3957|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.3957
90979569|NCT01381094|181843782|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0294|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.0294
90979570|NCT01381094|181843782|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0021|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.0021
90947878|NCT02269423|181774751|OTHER|||||||0.124||||||p-values are pairwise comparisons of log-transformed titers between each V920 dose, between each V920 dose and placebo, between all V920 dose levels combined and placebo and are from an ANOVA model.|ANOVA|Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not performed.||Day 28||||0.124
90979571|NCT01381094|181843782|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0004|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.0004
90979572|NCT01381094|181843782|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0001|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.0001
90979573|NCT01381094|181843782|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0925|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.0925
90947879|NCT02269423|181774751|OTHER|||||||0.918||||||p-values are pairwise comparisons of log-transformed titers between each V920 dose, between each V920 dose and placebo, between all V920 dose levels combined and placebo and are from an ANOVA model.|ANOVA|Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not performed.||Day 28||||0.918
90947880|NCT04547023|181774803|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.7||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.2|30.1|||Fisher Exact|||||30.1|7.2|0.002
90947881|NCT01782690|181774841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2361|||||||Log Rank|||Comparison of Rash=Yes versus Rash=No within Erlotinib plus Gemcitabine arm||||0.2361
90947882|NCT01637077|181774863|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.56
90947883|NCT01637077|181774864|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.48
90947884|NCT01637077|181774865|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Worst pain over the past 24 hours||||0.62
90947885|NCT01637077|181774865|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Average pain over the past 24 hours||||0.22
90947886|NCT01637077|181774865|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Least pain over the past 24 hours||||0.07
90947887|NCT01637077|181774867|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.87
90947888|NCT01637077|181774868|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.84
90947889|NCT01637077|181774869|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.03
90947890|NCT01637077|181774870|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.12
90947891|NCT01637077|181774871|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.78
90947892|NCT01637077|181774872|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.16
90947893|NCT01637077|181774873|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Sensory neuropathy||||0.46
90947894|NCT01637077|181774873|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Autonomic neuropathy||||0.86
90947895|NCT01637077|181774873|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Motor neuropathy||||0.40
90947896|NCT03811002|181774917|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.5819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.34|||Log Rank|Stratified by radiation schedule (BID vs daily), chemotherapy (cisplatin vs carboplatin), and sex (male vs female). 1-sided significance level 0.025.|Stratified by radiation schedule (BID vs daily), chemotherapy (cisplatin vs carboplatin), and sex (male vs female). Reference level = Arm 1.|Assuming exponentially distributed survival times, 480 eligible patients accrued uniformly over 48 months months) with 26 months additional follow-up after the last accrued patient would provide at least 85% power to detect a hazard ratio of 0.71 (median survival times of 38 months \[Arm I\] vs. 27 months \[Arm II\]) at a one-sided significance level of 0.025, after adjusting for type 1 error using group sequential methods for two interim analyses.||1.34|0.82|0.5819
90947897|NCT03811002|181774918|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.21|||Log Rank||Stratified by radiation schedule (BID vs daily), chemotherapy (cisplatin vs carboplatin), and sex (male vs female). Reference level = Arm 1.|||1.21|0.80|
90947898|NCT03811002|181774921|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.41|||||Cause-specific hazard ratio stratified by radiation schedule (BID vs daily), chemotherapy (cisplatin vs carboplatin), and sex (male vs female). Reference level = Arm 1.|||1.41|0.52|
90947899|NCT03811002|181774922|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.2|||||Stratified by radiation schedule (BID vs daily), chemotherapy (cisplatin vs carboplatin), and sex (male vs female). Reference level = Arm I.|||1.20|0.76|
90947900|NCT05032066|181774950|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.46||0.4388|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.56|1.29|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||The primary analysis was based on a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model using observed change in FVC % predicted values from all planned post-baseline assessments (Weeks 4, 16, 28, 40 and 52) with covariates of treatment group (300 mg HZN-825 QD, 300 mg HZN-825 BID, placebo), prior use of IPF therapy \[yes or no\], FVC% predicted at baseline \[≥ 70, \<70\], visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction.||1.29|-3.56|0.4388
90947901|NCT05032066|181774950|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.493||0.7959|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.86|2.09|||MMRM|||The primary analysis was based on a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model using observed change in FVC % predicted values from all planned post-baseline assessments (Weeks 4, 16, 28, 40 and 52) with covariates of treatment group (300 mg HZN-825 QD, 300 mg HZN-825 BID, placebo), prior use of IPF therapy \[yes or no\], FVC% predicted at baseline \[≥ 70, \<70\], visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction.||2.09|-2.86|0.7959
90947902|NCT05032066|181774952|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.854||||0.7179|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.417|1.75|||Stratified logistic regression|||The percentage of participants with a decrease in FVC% predicted ≥10% from baseline at Week 52 were analyzed with observed data using a stratified logistic regression model. Baseline value and treatment were considered as factors in the model and prior use of approved IPF therapy \[yes or no\], FVC% predicted at baseline \[≥ 70, \<70\] were considered as stratification factors.||1.750|0.417|0.7179
90947903|NCT05032066|181774952|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.469||||0.0706|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.236|0.934|||Stratified logistic regression|||The percentage of participants with a decrease in FVC% predicted ≥10% from baseline at Week 52 were analyzed with observed data using a stratified logistic regression model. Baseline value and treatment were considered as factors in the model and prior use of approved IPF therapy \[yes or no\], FVC% predicted at baseline \[≥ 70, \<70\] were considered as stratification factors.||0.934|0.236|0.0706
90947904|NCT05032066|181774953|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|16.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.109||0.3579|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.3|46.73|||MMRM|||Estimated from a mixed effect repeated measurement analysis with unstructured variance-covariance matrix, that included factors treatment (300 mg HZN-825 QD, 300 mg HZN-825 BID, placebo), the Baseline factors used for stratifying randomization as covariates (prior use of approved IPF therapy \[yes/no\] and Baseline FVC% Predicted \[\>=70, \<70\], as used in IRT randomization), visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction.||46.73|-13.30|0.3579
90947905|NCT05032066|181774953|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.173||0.946|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-31.35|28.88|||MMRM|||Estimated from a mixed effect repeated measurement analysis with unstructured variance-covariance matrix, that included factors treatment (300 mg HZN-825 QD, 300 mg HZN-825 BID, placebo), the Baseline factors used for stratifying randomization as covariates (prior use of approved IPF therapy \[yes/no\] and Baseline FVC% Predicted \[\>=70, \<70\], as used in IRT randomization), visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction.||28.88|-31.35|0.9460
90947906|NCT05032066|181774954|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3||0.6091|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.0|2.6|||MMRM|||Estimated from a MMRM with unstructured variance-covariance matrix, that included treatment group, time point, treatment by timepoint interaction, and stratification factors as covariates.||2.6|-5.0|0.6091
90947907|NCT05032066|181774954|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.31||0.6374|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.9|2.7|||MMRM|||Estimated from a MMRM with unstructured variance-covariance matrix, that included treatment group, time point, treatment by timepoint interaction, and stratification factors as covariates.||2.7|-4.9|0.6374
90979574|NCT01381094|181843782|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0433|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.0433
90979575|NCT01381094|181843782|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||<0.0001
90947908|NCT05032066|181774955|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.69||0.1526|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|8.3|||MMRM|||Impact Total Score Estimated from a mixed effect repeated measurement analysis with unstructured variance-covariance matrix, that included factors baseline FVC% predicted, treatment (300 mg HZN-825 QD, 300 mg HZN-825 BID, placebo), the Baseline factors used for stratifying randomization as covariates (prior use of approved IPF therapy \[yes/no\] and Baseline FVC% Predicted \[\>=70, \<70\]), visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction.||8.3|-0.6|0.1526
90947909|NCT05032066|181774955|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.72||0.4421|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.4|6.6|||MMRM|||Impact Total Score Estimated from a mixed effect repeated measurement analysis with unstructured variance-covariance matrix, that included factors baseline FVC% predicted, treatment (300 mg HZN-825 QD, 300 mg HZN-825 BID, placebo), the Baseline factors used for stratifying randomization as covariates (prior use of approved IPF therapy \[yes/no\] and Baseline FVC% Predicted \[\>=70, \<70\]), visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction.||6.6|-2.4|0.4421
90947910|NCT05032066|181774955|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.98||0.0936|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.1|6.6|||MMRM|||Symptoms Total Score Estimated from a mixed effect repeated measurement analysis with unstructured variance-covariance matrix, that included factors baseline FVC% predicted, treatment (300 mg HZN-825 QD, 300 mg HZN-825 BID, placebo), the Baseline factors used for stratifying randomization as covariates (prior use of approved IPF therapy \[yes/no\] and Baseline FVC% Predicted \[\>=70, \<70\]), visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction.||6.6|0.1|0.0936
90947911|NCT05032066|181774955|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.3129|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.3|5.3|||MMRM|||Symptoms Total Score Estimated from a mixed effect repeated measurement analysis with unstructured variance-covariance matrix, that included factors baseline FVC% predicted, treatment (300 mg HZN-825 QD, 300 mg HZN-825 BID, placebo), the Baseline factors used for stratifying randomization as covariates (prior use of approved IPF therapy \[yes/no\] and Baseline FVC% Predicted \[\>=70, \<70\]), visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction.||5.3|-1.3|0.3129
90947912|NCT05032066|181774956|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.644||0.5832|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.42|0.71|||MMRM|||Estimated from a mixed effect repeated measurement analysis with unstructured variance-covariance matrix, that included factors baseline FVC% predicted, treatment (300 mg HZN-825 QD, 300 mg HZN-825 BID, placebo), the Baseline factors used for stratifying randomization as covariates (prior use of approved IPF therapy \[yes/no\] and Baseline FVC% Predicted \[\>=70, \<70\]), visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction.||0.71|-1.42|0.5832
90947913|NCT05032066|181774956|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.648||0.1297|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.06|0.09|||MMRM|||Estimated from a mixed effect repeated measurement analysis with unstructured variance-covariance matrix, that included factors baseline FVC% predicted, treatment (300 mg HZN-825 QD, 300 mg HZN-825 BID, placebo), the Baseline factors used for stratifying randomization as covariates (prior use of approved IPF therapy \[yes/no\] and Baseline FVC% Predicted \[\>=70, \<70\]), visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction.||0.09|-2.06|0.1297
90947914|NCT05032066|181774957|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.9996|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.34|2.9|||Regression, Cox|||Estimated from a stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model stratified by prior use of approved IPF therapy \[yes or no\] and FVC% predicted at baseline \[= 70, \<70\] and treatment group as factor. Placebo group is the reference group for the analysis.||2.90|0.34|0.9996
90947915|NCT05032066|181774957|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.66||||0.3721|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.66|4.48|||Regression, Cox|||Estimated from a stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model stratified by prior use of approved IPF therapy \[yes or no\] and FVC% predicted at baseline \[= 70, \<70\] and treatment group as factor. Placebo group is the reference group for the analysis.||4.48|0.66|0.3721
90947916|NCT05032066|181774958|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.42||||0.4778|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.63|3.32|||Regression, Cox|||Estimated from a stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model stratified by prior use of approved IPF therapy \[yes or no\] and FVC% predicted at baseline \[= 70, \<70\] and treatment group as factor. Placebo group is the reference group for the analysis.||3.32|0.63|0.4778
90947917|NCT05032066|181774958|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.52||||0.0438|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.22|5.61|||Regression, Cox|||Estimated from a stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model stratified by prior use of approved IPF therapy \[yes or no\] and FVC% predicted at baseline \[= 70, \<70\] and treatment group as factor. Placebo group is the reference group for the analysis.||5.61|1.22|0.0438
90947918|NCT01124838|181774961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.84|||Log Rank|||The primary analysis of the primary endpoint was performed on Main Study data, excluding the Japanese sub-study. The statistical test was performed at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05. The hazard ratio of adalimumab versus placebo was calculated using proportional hazards regression with treatment as factor.||0.84|0.39|0.004
90947919|NCT01124838|181774961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.74|||Log Rank|||An additional analysis of the primary endpoint was performed using the Integrated Study data (Main Study + Japan sub-study). The statistical test was performed at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05. The hazard ratio of adalimumab versus placebo was calculated using proportional hazards regression with treatment and race (Japanese versus non-Japanese) as factors.||0.74|0.37|<0.001
90979576|NCT01381094|181843782|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0005|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.0005
90979577|NCT01381094|181843782|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||<0.0001
91038957|NCT01075516|181962025|OTHER|Continuous data are summarized as mean ± SD. This analysis evaluated the impact of group membership (SC vs RM) on total health care cost (outcome), adjusting for covariates that were significantly different between the groups at the .2 significance level. However, as the arithmetic mean is the most informative measurement for policy decisions, differences between the 2 groups were assessed using differences in sample means (point estimates) and t distributions (confidence intervals).||||||0.53|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||For the patient perspective, the quality of life associated with the 2 strategies was assessed. Quality of life is reported as utility values from the EQ-5D-3L questionnaire and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) were based on utility (patients' preferences). The EQ-5D-3L questionnaire was administered to each patient at baseline and at 12 months in order to calculate utility values (from 0 to 1).||||0.53
91038958|NCT02252016|181962027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|23.3||||||The estimated difference (± 95% confidence interval \[CI\]) in percentage of participants experiencing an AE in the Immediate versus Deferred arms was determined.||23.3|-7.3|
91038959|NCT02252016|181962028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|1.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||The estimated difference (± 95% CI) in percentage of participants withdrawing from study treatment due to an AE(s) in the Immediate versus Deferred arms was determined.||1.6|-10.2|0.155
90947920|NCT01124838|181774962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference|-0.14||||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.08|||ANOVA|From ANOVA with treatment as factor adjusted for clustered observations (i.e., observations from each of the participant's eyes).|The mean difference between treatment groups with its 95% confidence interval is based on individual data from all eyes adjusted for correlated measurements within a subject in an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model.|The statistical test for the ranked secondary variables was carried out in hierarchical order at the significance level of 5%.||0.08|-0.37|0.218
90947921|NCT01124838|181774962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference|-0.15||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.06|||ANOVA|From ANOVA with treatment and race (Japanese versus non-Japanese) as factors adjusted for clustered observations.|The mean difference between treatment groups with its 95% confidence interval is based on individual data from all eyes adjusted for correlated measurements within a subject in an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model.|The statistical test for the ranked secondary variables was carried out in hierarchical order at the significance level of 5%.||0.06|-0.36|0.164
90979578|NCT01381094|181843782|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1626|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.1626
90979579|NCT01381094|181843782|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0366|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||=0.0366
90979580|NCT01381094|181843782|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0004|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||=0.0004
90947922|NCT01124838|181774963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference|-0.13||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.01|||ANOVA|From ANOVA of change from baseline to final/early termination visit with treatment as factor|The mean difference between treatment groups with its 95% confidence interval is based on individual data from all eyes adjusted for correlated measurements within a subject in an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model.|The statistical test for the ranked secondary variables was carried out in hierarchical order at the significance level of 5%.||0.01|-0.28|0.070
90947923|NCT01124838|181774963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference|-0.17||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|-0.03|||ANOVA|From ANOVA with treatment and race (Japanese versus non-Japanese) as factors adjusted for clustered observations.|The mean difference between treatment groups with its 95% confidence interval is based on individual data from all eyes adjusted for correlated measurements within a subject in an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model.|The statistical test for the ranked secondary variables was carried out in hierarchical order at the significance level of 5%.||-0.03|-0.31|0.016
90947924|NCT01124838|181774964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference|-0.04||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.01|||ANOVA|From ANOVA of change from baseline to final/early termination visit with treatment as factor adjusted for clustered observations.|The mean difference between treatment groups with its 95% confidence interval is based on individual data from all eyes adjusted for correlated measurements within a subject in an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model.|The statistical test for the ranked secondary variables was carried out in hierarchical order at the significance level of 5%.||0.01|-0.08|0.096
90947925|NCT01124838|181774964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference|-0.04||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.0|||ANOVA|From ANOVA with treatment and race (Japanese versus non-Japanese) as factors adjusted for clustered observations.|The mean difference between treatment groups with its 95% confidence interval is based on individual data from all eyes adjusted for correlated measurements within a subject in an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model.|The statistical test for the ranked secondary variables was carried out in hierarchical order at the significance level of 5%.||0.00|-0.09|0.044
90947926|NCT01124838|181774965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.69|||Log Rank||The hazard ratio of adalimumab versus placebo was calculated using proportional hazards regression with treatment as factor.|The statistical test for the ranked secondary variables was carried out in hierarchical order at the significance level of 5%.||1.69|0.34|0.491
90979581|NCT01381094|181843782|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0012|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||=0.0012
90979582|NCT01381094|181843782|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||<0.0001
90947927|NCT01124838|181774965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.28|||Log Rank||The hazard ratio of adalimumab versus placebo was calculated using proportional hazards regression with treatment and race (Japanese versus non-Japanese) as factors.|The statistical test for the ranked secondary variables was carried out in hierarchical order at the significance level of 5%.||1.28|0.28|0.185
90947928|NCT01124838|181774966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference|-2.3||||0.451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|3.8|||ANOVA|From ANOVA of change from baseline to final/early termination visit with treatment and OCT machine as factors adjusted for clustered observations.|The mean difference between treatment groups with its 95% confidence interval is based on individual data from all eyes adjusted for correlated measurements within a subject in an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model.|The statistical test for the ranked secondary variables was carried out in hierarchical order at the significance level of 5%.||3.8|-8.5|0.451
90947929|NCT01124838|181774966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference|-3.9||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|1.8|||ANOVA|From ANOVA with treatment, race (Japanese versus non-Japanese) and OCT machine as factors adjusted for clustered observations.|The mean difference between treatment groups with its 95% confidence interval is based on individual data from all eyes adjusted for correlated measurements within a subject in an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model.|The statistical test for the ranked secondary variables was carried out in hierarchical order at the significance level of 5%.||1.8|-9.7|0.174
90947930|NCT01124838|181774967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference|2.12||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|5.08|||ANOVA|From ANOVA of change from baseline to final/early termination visit with treatment as a factor.||The statistical test for the ranked secondary variables was carried out in hierarchical order at the significance level of 5%.||5.08|-0.84|0.160
90947931|NCT01124838|181774967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference|1.77||||0.205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|4.52|||ANOVA|From ANOVA of change from baseline to final/early termination visit with treatment and race (Japanese versus non-Japanese) as factors.||The statistical test for the ranked secondary variables was carried out in hierarchical order at the significance level of 5%.||4.52|-0.97|0.205
90979583|NCT01381094|181843782|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1779|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||=0.1779
90979584|NCT01381094|181843782|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5867|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.5867
90979585|NCT01381094|181843782|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1306|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.1306
90979586|NCT01381094|181843782|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.9889|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.9889
90979587|NCT01381094|181843782|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2026|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.2026
90979588|NCT01381094|181843782|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5703|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.5703
90979589|NCT01381094|181843783|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||<0.0001
90979590|NCT01381094|181843783|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0092|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.0092
90979591|NCT01381094|181843783|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0012|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.0012
90979592|NCT01381094|181843783|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||<0.0001
90979593|NCT01381094|181843783|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1157|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.1157
90979594|NCT01381094|181843783|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0069|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.0069
90979595|NCT01381094|181843783|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0034|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.0034
90979596|NCT01381094|181843783|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0067|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.0067
90979597|NCT01381094|181843783|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||<0.0001
90979598|NCT01381094|181843783|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0401|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.0401
90979599|NCT01381094|181843783|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0042|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||=0.0042
90979600|NCT01381094|181843783|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||<0.0001
90979601|NCT01381094|181843783|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0002|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||=0.0002
90979602|NCT01381094|181843783|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||<0.0001
90979603|NCT01381094|181843783|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0422|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||=0.0422
90979604|NCT01381094|181843783|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0232|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.0232
91038960|NCT00112437|181962037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|3.5|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.54|4.45||Significance for the primary endpoint was achieved through stepdown trend-test, the highest dose group was removed and the test was repeated until lack of significance was observed.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The primary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on lumbar spine BMD compared to placebo over 12 months. The primary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase lumbar spine BMD compared to placebo over 12 months.||4.45|2.54|<=0.001
91038961|NCT00112437|181962037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|2.78|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.82|3.73||Significance for the primary endpoint was achieved through stepdown trend-test, the highest dose group was removed and the test was repeated until lack of significance was observed.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The primary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on lumbar spine BMD compared to placebo over 12 months. The primary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase lumbar spine BMD compared to placebo over 12 months.||3.73|1.82|<=0.001
91038962|NCT00112437|181962037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|1.63||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|2.59||Significance for the primary endpoint was achieved through stepdown trend-test, the highest dose group was removed and the test was repeated until lack of significance was observed.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The primary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on lumbar spine BMD compared to placebo over 12 months. The primary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase lumbar spine BMD compared to placebo over 12 months.||2.59|0.68|0.003
91038963|NCT00112437|181962037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.49||||0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|0.46||Significance for the primary endpoint was achieved through stepdown trend-test, the highest dose group was removed and the test was repeated until lack of significance was observed.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The primary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on lumbar spine BMD compared to placebo over 12 months. The primary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase lumbar spine BMD compared to placebo over 12 months.||0.46|-1.44|0.343
91038964|NCT00112437|181962038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|5.67|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.32|7.02||Significance for the primary endpoint was achieved through stepdown trend-test, the highest dose group was removed and the test was repeated until lack of significance was observed.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The primary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on lumbar spine BMD compared to placebo over 24 months. The primary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase lumbar spine BMD compared to placebo over 24 months.||7.02|4.32|<=0.001
91038965|NCT00112437|181962038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|4.45|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.15|5.76||Significance for the primary endpoint was achieved through stepdown trend-test, the highest dose group was removed and the test was repeated until lack of significance was observed.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The primary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on lumbar spine BMD compared to placebo over 24 months. The primary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase lumbar spine BMD compared to placebo over 24 months.||5.76|3.15|<=0.001
91038966|NCT00112437|181962038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|3.39|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.06|4.73||Significance for the primary endpoint was achieved through stepdown trend-test, the highest dose group was removed and the test was repeated until lack of significance was observed.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The primary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on lumbar spine BMD compared to placebo over 24 months. The primary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase lumbar spine BMD compared to placebo over 24 months.||4.73|2.06|<=0.001
91038967|NCT00112437|181962038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|-0.84||||0.218||95.0|-2.19|0.51||Significance for the primary endpoint was achieved through stepdown trend-test, the highest dose group was removed and the test was repeated until lack of significance was observed.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The primary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on lumbar spine BMD compared to placebo over 24 months. The primary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase lumbar spine BMD compared to placebo over 24 months.||0.51|-2.19|0.218
90947932|NCT01124838|181774968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference|1.88||||0.401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.53|6.29|||ANOVA|From ANOVA of change from baseline to final/early termination visit with treatment as a factor.||The statistical test for the ranked secondary variables was carried out in hierarchical order at the significance level of 5%.||6.29|-2.53|0.401
90947933|NCT01124838|181774968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference|2.36||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|6.45|||ANOVA|From ANOVA of change from baseline to final/early termination visit with treatment and race (Japanese versus non-Japanese) as factors.||The statistical test for the ranked secondary variables was carried out in hierarchical order at the significance level of 5%.||6.45|-1.73|0.256
90947934|NCT01124838|181774969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mena Difference|-0.1||||0.967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.81|4.61|||ANOVA|From ANOVA of change from baseline to final/early termination visit with treatment as a factor.||The statistical test for the ranked secondary variables was carried out in hierarchical order at the significance level of 5%.||4.61|-4.81|0.967
90947935|NCT01124838|181774969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference|-0.87||||0.714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.53|3.79|||ANOVA|From ANOVA of change from baseline to final/early termination visit with treatment and race (Japanese versus non-Japanese) as factors.||The statistical test for the ranked secondary variables was carried out in hierarchical order at the significance level of 5%.||3.79|-5.53|0.714
90947936|NCT01124838|181774970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference|0.56||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.56|5.68|||ANOVA|From ANOVA of change from baseline to final/early termination visit with treatment as a factor.||The statistical test for the ranked secondary variables was carried out in hierarchical order at the significance level of 5%.||5.68|-4.56|0.830
90947937|NCT01124838|181774970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference|-0.49||||0.842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.32|4.34|||ANOVA|From ANOVA of change from baseline to final/early termination visit with treatment and race (Japanese vs. non-Japanese) as factors.||The statistical test for the ranked secondary variables was carried out in hierarchical order at the significance level of 5%.||4.34|-5.32|0.842
90947938|NCT00217737|181774984|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.11|||||Hazard ratio: Arm B/Arm A|||1.11|0.63|
90947939|NCT03660826|181775021|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.45||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|2.3||Comparing Arm II vs Arm I (reference group)|Log Rank||||Comparing Arm II vs Arm I (reference group)|2.30|0.91|0.93
90947940|NCT03660826|181775021|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.14|||Log Rank|||Comparing Arm III vs Arm I||1.14|0.43|0.06
90947941|NCT03660826|181775021|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.7|||Log Rank|||Comparing Arm IV vs Arm VII||1.70|0.67|0.62
90979605|NCT01381094|181843783|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0243|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.0243
90947942|NCT03660826|181775021|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.46|||Log Rank|||Comparing Arm V vs Arm VII||1.46|0.58|0.36
90947943|NCT03660826|181775021|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.25|||Log Rank|||Comparing Arm VI vs VII||1.25|0.49|0.14
90979606|NCT01381094|181843783|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0001|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.0001
90947944|NCT03931746|181775027|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann median difference|-3.5||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|-0.5|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|An exact Wilcoxon two-sample test was performed owing to the small sample size and number of tied observations.|Median difference is for Porcine Xenograft group minus No Porcine Xenograft group.|||-0.5|-8.0|0.04
90979607|NCT01381094|181843783|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1089|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.1089
90947945|NCT03931746|181775028|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann median difference|-2.5||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|12.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|An exact Wilcoxon two-sample test was performed owing to the small sample size and number of tied observations.|Median difference is for Porcine Xenograft minus No Porcine Xenograft.|||12|-9|0.75
90947946|NCT03931746|181775029|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann median difference|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|20.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|An exact Wilcoxon two-sample test was performed owing to the small sample size and number of tied observations.|Median difference is for Porcine Xenograft group minus No Porcine Xenograft group.|||20.0|-19.0|1
90947947|NCT03931746|181775030|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann median difference|0.01||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.33|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|An exact Wilcoxon two-sample test was performed owing to the small sample size and number of tied observations.|Median difference is for Porcine Xenograft vs. No Porcine Xenograft.|||0.33|-0.26|1
90979608|NCT01381094|181843783|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0833|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.0833
90979609|NCT01381094|181843785|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5456|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||||||=0.5456
90979610|NCT01381094|181843785|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0053|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||||||=0.0053
90979611|NCT01381094|181843785|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||||||<0.0001
90979612|NCT01381094|181843785|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.004|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||||||=0.0040
90979613|NCT01381094|181843785|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2017|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||||||=0.2017
90947948|NCT03931746|181775031|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann median difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|4.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|An exact Wilcoxon two-sample test was performed owing to the small sample size and number of tied observations.|Median difference is for Porcine Xenograft group minus No Porcine Xenograft group.|||4|-6|1
90947949|NCT03931746|181775032|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann median difference|0.5||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|An exact Wilcoxon two-sample test was performed owing to the small sample size and number of tied observations.|Median difference is for Porcine Xenograft group minus No Porcine Xenograft group.|||2|-1|0.54
90947950|NCT03931746|181775033|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|13.3|||Fisher Exact||"The No Porcine Xenograft group is the reference group."|||13.3|0.03|1
90947951|NCT03931746|181775034|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.167||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.564|0.185|||Fisher Exact||"The risk difference is calculated as the outcome risk in the Porcine Xenograft group minus the outcome risk in the No Porcine Xenograft group. The confidence interval for the risk difference was calculated using the Newcombe hybrid score method."|||0.185|-0.564|0.43
90947952|NCT03931746|181775035|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.006|55.9|||Fisher Exact||"The No Porcine Xenograft group is the reference group."|||55.9|0.006|1
90947953|NCT01183390|181775037|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|98.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.1|102.28|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||102.28|95.10|
90947954|NCT01183390|181775038|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|99.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.99|101.8|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||101.80|96.99|
90947955|NCT04057573|181775044|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.45||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.737|6.835||The model included the treatment group (1.5% BID and vehicle) and stratification factors (skin type and region).|exact logistic regression|||||6.835|1.737|0.0004
90947956|NCT04057573|181775045|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.296|6.949||The model included the treatment group (1.5% BID and vehicle) and stratification factors (skin type and region).|exact logistic regression|||||6.949|2.296|< 0.0001
90979614|NCT00996840|181843861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.562|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.228|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.357|0.885||||||Comparison at 6 h post first dose||0.885|0.357|
90979615|NCT00996840|181843861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.612|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.281|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.349|1.072||||||Comparison at 12 h post first dose||1.072|0.349|
90979616|NCT00996840|181843861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.518|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.319|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.274|0.981||||||Comparison at 18 h post first dose||0.981|0.274|
90979617|NCT00996840|181843861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.416|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.326|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.217|0.796||||||Comparison at 24 h post first dose||0.796|0.217|
90979618|NCT00996840|181843861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.517|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.262|1.021||||||Comparison at 48 h post first dose||1.021|0.262|
90979619|NCT00996840|181843861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.661|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.291|1.503||||||Comparison at 72 h post first dose||1.503|0.291|
90979620|NCT00996840|181843861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.908|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.454|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.366|2.254||||||Comparison at 96 h post first dose||2.254|0.366|
90979621|NCT00996840|181843861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.768|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.195|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.134||||||Comparison at 6 h post first dose||1.134|0.520|
90979622|NCT00996840|181843861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.701|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.248|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.427|1.15||||||Comparison at 12 h post first dose||1.150|0.427|
90979623|NCT00996840|181843861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.578|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.282|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.329|1.015||||||Comparison at 18 h post first dose||1.015|0.329|
90979624|NCT00996840|181843861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.287|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.231|0.728||||||Comparison at 24 h post first dose||0.728|0.231|
90979625|NCT00996840|181843861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.896|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.308|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.484|1.657||||||Comparison at 48 h post first dose||1.657|0.484|
90979626|NCT00996840|181843861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.739|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.374|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.563||||||Comparison at 72 h post first dose||1.563|0.350|
90979627|NCT00996840|181843861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|1.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.431|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.659|3.697||||||Comparison at 96 h post first dose||3.697|0.659|
90979628|NCT00996840|181843861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.608|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.433|0.853||||||Comparison at 6 h post first dose||0.853|0.433|
90947957|NCT04057573|181775046|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|15.29||||0.0065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.15|108.739||The model included the treatment group (1.5% BID and vehicle) and stratification factors (skin type and region).|exact logistic regression|||||108.739|2.150|0.0065
90947958|NCT04057573|181775047|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.29||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.865|9.853||The model included the treatment group (1.5% BID and vehicle) and stratification factors (skin type and region).|exact logistic regression|||||9.853|1.865|0.0006
90947959|NCT04057573|181775048|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.86||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.851|12.755||The model included the treatment group (1.5% BID and vehicle) and stratification factors (skin type and region).|exact logistic regression|||||12.755|1.851|0.0013
90947960|NCT04057573|181775049|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-19.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.59|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.46|-10.45||Response Variable = Treatment + Stratification Factors (Skin Type Fitzpatrick scale Type I, II versus Type III, IV, V, and VI, Region North America/Europe) + Baseline|ANCOVA|||||-10.45|-28.46|< 0.0001
90947961|NCT04057573|181775052|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.267|6.246||The model included the treatment group (1.5% BID and vehicle) and stratification factors (skin type and region).|exact logistic regression|||||6.246|2.267|< 0.0001
90947962|NCT04057573|181775054|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-28.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.94|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.33|-18.86|||mixed-effect model; repeated measurement|||||-18.86|-38.33|<0.0001
90947963|NCT04057573|181775057|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean difference|-19.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.55|-13.16|||mixed-effect model; repeated measurement|||||-13.16|-26.55|<0.0001
90947964|NCT04057573|181775059|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean difference|-11.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.68|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.23|-6.67|||mixed-effect model; repeated measurement|||||-6.67|-17.23|<0.0001
90947965|NCT04057573|181775061|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.75|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.121|6.63||The model included the treatment group (1.5% BID and vehicle) and stratification factors (skin type and region).|exact logistic regression|||T-VASI25||6.630|2.121|< 0.0001
90947966|NCT04057573|181775061|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.59||||0.0436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.045|20.192||The model included the treatment group (1.5% BID and vehicle) and stratification factors (skin type and region).|exact logistic regression|||T-VASI75||20.192|1.045|0.0436
90947967|NCT04057573|181775061|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||||||||The p value was not evaluable because the response rate in the vehicle group was too low.||||T-VASI90||||
90947968|NCT04057573|181775064|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.39|||mixed-effect model; repeated measurement|||||0.39|-1.60|0.2350
90947969|NCT04991753|181775068|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.45|||=|0.224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|0.28|||ANCOVA|||||0.28|-1.17|=0.224
90947970|NCT00233480|181775081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||paired t test|||||||0.025
90947971|NCT00474526|181775090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMTs|4.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.04|6.74|||ANOVA||A (Post-vaccination GMT; group ratio US1A:US2)|Using the MenACWY GMTs, immunogenicity of the fourth dose at 1 month after the 12-month vaccination in those subjects receiving MenACWY at 2, 4, and 6 months was considered superior to the immune response of a single dose given at 12-months of age if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of the two GMTs was \>= 2.0.||6.74|3.04|
90947972|NCT00474526|181775090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMTs|6.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.16|9.79|||ANOVA||C (Post-vaccination GMT; group ratio US1A:US2)|Using the MenACWY GMTs, immunogenicity of the fourth dose at 1 month after the 12-month vaccination in those subjects receiving MenACWY at 2, 4, and 6 months was considered superior to the immune response of a single dose given at 12-months of age if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of the two GMTs was \>= 2.0.||9.79|4.16|
90947973|NCT00474526|181775090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMTs|37.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.0|58.0|||ANOVA||W (Post-vaccination GMT; group ratio US1A:US2)|Using the MenACWY GMTs, immunogenicity of the fourth dose at 1 month after the 12-month vaccination in those subjects receiving MenACWY at 2, 4, and 6 months was considered superior to the immune response of a single dose given at 12-months of age if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of the two GMTs was \>= 2.0.||58|24|
90947974|NCT00474526|181775090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMTs|38.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.0|60.0|||ANOVA||Y (Post-vaccination GMT; group ratio US1A:US2)|"Using the MenACWY GMTs, immunogenicity of the fourth dose at 1 month after the 12-month vaccination in those subjects receiving MenACWY at 2, 4, and 6 months was considered superior to the immune response of a single dose given at 12-months of age if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of the two GMTs was \>= 2.0.~Ratio of GMTs"||60|24|
90947975|NCT00474526|181775099|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|LA1 was noninferior to LA3, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMTs between the 2 dose and the 3 dose schedule (GMTLA1/GMTLA3) must be \> 0.5.|Ratio of GMT|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.95|||ANOVA|||Serogroup A (Post-vaccination GMT; group ratio LA1:LA3)||0.95|0.55|
90947976|NCT00474526|181775099|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|LA1 was noninferior to LA3, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMTs between the 2 dose and the 3 dose schedule (GMTLA1/GMTLA3) must be \> 0.5.|Ratio of GMTs|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.31|||ANOVA|||Serogroup C (Post-vaccination GMT; group ratio LA1:LA3)||1.31|0.81|
90947977|NCT00474526|181775099|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|LA1 was noninferior to LA3, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMTs between the 2 dose and the 3 dose schedule (GMTLA1/GMTLA3) must be \> 0.5.|Ratio of GMTs|1.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|1.72|||ANOVA|||Serogroup W (Post-vaccination GMT; group ratio LA1:LA3)||1.72|1.18|
90947978|NCT00474526|181775099|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|LA1 was noninferior to LA3, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMTs between the 2 dose and the 3 dose schedule (GMTLA1/GMTLA3) must be \> 0.5.|Ratio of GMTs|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.58|||ANOVA|||Serogroup Y (Post-vaccination GMT; group ratio LA1:LA3)||1.58|1.02|
90947979|NCT00474526|181775102|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|LA1 was noninferior to LA3, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage of subjects with hSBA ≥ 1:8 and ≥1:4 between the 2 dose and the 3 dose schedule (PLA1 - PLA3) must be greater than -10%.|Percentage (hSBA titers >=8) difference|-15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.2|-8.5|||ANOVA|||Serogroup A (post-vaccination percentage of subjects with hSBA titer \>=8, group difference (PLA1 - PLA3))||-8.5|-21.2|
90947980|NCT00474526|181775102|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|LA1 was noninferior to LA3, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage of subjects with hSBA ≥ 1:8 and ≥1:4 between the 2 dose and the 3 dose schedule (PLA1 - PLA3) must be greater than -10%.|Percentage (hSBA titers >=8) difference|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|0.3|||ANOVA|||Serogroup C (post-vaccination percentage of subjects with hSBA titer \>=8, group difference (PLA1 - PLA3))||0.3|-7|
90947981|NCT00474526|181775102|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|LA1 was noninferior to LA3, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage of subjects with hSBA ≥ 1:8 and ≥1:4 between the 2 dose and the 3 dose schedule (PLA1 - PLA3) must be greater than -10%.|Percentage (hSBA titers >=8) difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|3.1|||ANOVA|||Serogroup W (post-vaccination percentage of subjects with hSBA titer \>=8, group difference (PLA1 - PLA3))||3.1|-1.3|
90979629|NCT00996840|181843861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.674|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.217|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.437|1.039||||||Comparison at 12 h post first dose||1.039|0.437|
90947982|NCT00474526|181775102|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|LA1 was noninferior to LA3, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage of subjects with hSBA ≥ 1:8 and ≥1:4 between the 2 dose and the 3 dose schedule (PLA1 - PLA3) must be greater than -10%.|Percentage (hSBA titers >=8) difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|1.7|||ANOVA|||Serogroup Y (post-vaccination percentage of subjects with hSBA titer \>=8, group difference (PLA1 - PLA3))||1.7|-4|
90979630|NCT00996840|181843861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.613|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.247|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.374|1.004||||||Comparison at 18 h post first dose||1.004|0.374|
90979631|NCT00996840|181843861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.558|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.251|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.338|0.921||||||Comparison at 24 h post first dose||0.921|0.338|
90979632|NCT00996840|181843861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.725|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.264|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.427|1.23||||||Comparison at 48 h post first dose||1.230|0.427|
90979633|NCT00996840|181843861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.321|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.384|1.386||||||Comparison at 72 h post first dose||1.386|0.384|
90947983|NCT00474526|181775104|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1 over US2, the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCUS1 /GMCUS2) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of all other GMCs (GMCUS1 / GMCUS2) must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMTs|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.04|||ANOVA|||Diphtheria (Post-vaccination GMT; group ratio US1:US2)||1.04|0.74|
90947984|NCT00474526|181775104|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1 over US2, the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCUS1 /GMCUS2) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of all other GMCs (GMCUS1 / GMCUS2) must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMTs|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.28|||ANOVA|||Tetanus (Post-vaccination GMT; group ratio US1:US2)||1.28|0.92|
90947985|NCT00474526|181775104|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1 over US2, the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCUS1 /GMCUS2) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of all other GMCs (GMCUS1 / GMCUS2) must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMTs|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.26|||ANOVA|||PT (Post-vaccination GMT; group ratio US1:US2)||1.26|0.79|
90947986|NCT00474526|181775104|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1 over US2, the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCUS1 /GMCUS2) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of all other GMCs (GMCUS1 / GMCUS2) must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMTs|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.25||||||FHA (Post-vaccination GMT; group ratio US1:US2)||1.25|0.85|
90947987|NCT00474526|181775104|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1 over US2, the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCUS1 /GMCUS2) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of all other GMCs (GMCUS1 / GMCUS2) must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMTs|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.32|||ANOVA|||Pertactin (Post-vaccination GMT; group ratio US1:US2||1.32|0.83|
90947988|NCT00474526|181775104|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1 over US2, the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCUS1 /GMCUS2) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of all other GMCs (GMCUS1 / GMCUS2) must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMTs|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.23|||ANOVA|||Polio Type 1 (Post-vaccination GMT; group ratio US1:US2)||1.23|0.75|
90947989|NCT00474526|181775104|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1 over US2, the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCUS1 /GMCUS2) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of all other GMCs (GMCUS1 / GMCUS2) must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMTs|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.55|||ANOVA|||Polio Type 2 (Post-vaccination GMT; group ratio US1:US2)||1.55|0.93|
90979634|NCT00996840|181843861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|1.147|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.359|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.559|2.353||||||Comparison at 96 h post first dose||2.353|0.559|
90979635|NCT00996840|181843861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.776|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.167|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.556|1.082||||||Comparison at 6 h post first dose||1.082|0.556|
90979636|NCT00996840|181843861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.602|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.212|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.394|0.919||||||Comparison at 12 h post first dose||0.919|0.394|
90979637|NCT00996840|181843861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.623|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.386|1.007||||||Comparison at 18 h post first dose||1.007|0.386|
90979638|NCT00996840|181843861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.429|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.245|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.263|0.7||||||Comparison at 24 h post first dose||0.700|0.263|
90979639|NCT00996840|181843861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.502|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.259|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.299|0.842||||||Comparison at 48 h post first dose||0.842|0.299|
90979640|NCT00996840|181843861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.479|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.317|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.255|0.903||||||Comparison at 72 h post first dose||0.903|0.255|
90979641|NCT00996840|181843861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.579|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.361|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.281|1.192||||||Comparison at 96 h post first dose||1.192|0.281|
90947990|NCT00474526|181775104|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1 over US2, the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCUS1 /GMCUS2) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of all other GMCs (GMCUS1 / GMCUS2) must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMTs|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.56|||ANOVA|||Polio Type 3 (Post-vaccination GMT; group ratio US1:US2)||1.56|0.85|
90947991|NCT00474526|181775104|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1 over US2, the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCUS1 /GMCUS2) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of all other GMCs (GMCUS1 / GMCUS2) must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMTs|0.88||||||95.0|0.65|1.2|||ANOVA|||Hepatitis B (Post-vaccination GMT; group ratio US1:US2)||1.2|0.65|
90947992|NCT00474526|181775104|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1 over US2, the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCUS1 /GMCUS2) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of all other GMCs (GMCUS1 / GMCUS2) must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMTs|1.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.77|||ANOVA|||HIb (Post-vaccination GMT; group ratio US1:US2)||1.77|0.97|
90947993|NCT00474526|181775104|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1 over US2, the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCUS1 /GMCUS2) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of all other GMCs (GMCUS1 / GMCUS2) must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMTs|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.0|||ANOVA|||PnC 4 (Post-vaccination GMT; group ratio US1:US2)||1|0.7|
90979642|NCT00996840|181843862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.484|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.219|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.312|0.75||||||Comparison at 6 h post first dose||0.750|0.312|
90947994|NCT00474526|181775104|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1 over US2, the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCUS1 /GMCUS2) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of all other GMCs (GMCUS1 / GMCUS2) must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMTs|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.03|||ANOVA|||PnC 6B (Post-vaccination GMT; group ratio US1:US2)||1.03|0.56|
90979643|NCT00996840|181843862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.282|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.399|1.229||||||Comparison at 12 h post first dose||1.229|0.399|
90979644|NCT00996840|181843862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.681|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.305|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.254||||||Comparison at 18 h post first dose||1.254|0.370|
90979645|NCT00996840|181843862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.673|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.302|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.368|1.231||||||Comparison at 24 h post first dose||1.231|0.368|
90979646|NCT00996840|181843862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.351|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.456|1.857||||||Comparison at 48 h post first dose||1.857|0.456|
90947995|NCT00474526|181775104|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1 over US2, the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCUS1 /GMCUS2) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of all other GMCs (GMCUS1 / GMCUS2) must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMTs|0.85||||||95.0|0.7|1.04|||ANOVA|||PnC 9V (Post-vaccination GMT; group ratio US1:US2)||1.04|0.7|
90947996|NCT00474526|181775104|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1 over US2, the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCUS1 /GMCUS2) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of all other GMCs (GMCUS1 / GMCUS2) must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMTs|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.26|||ANOVA|||PnC 14 (Post-vaccination GMT; group ratio US1:US2)||1.26|0.84|
90947997|NCT00474526|181775104|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1 over US2, the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCUS1 /GMCUS2) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of all other GMCs (GMCUS1 / GMCUS2) must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMTs|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.93|||ANOVA|||PnC 18C (Post-vaccination GMT; group ratio US1:US2)||0.93|0.64|
90947998|NCT00474526|181775104|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1 over US2, the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCUS1 /GMCUS2) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of all other GMCs (GMCUS1 / GMCUS2) must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMTs|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.97|||ANOVA|||PnC 19F (Post-vaccination GMT; group ratio US1:US2)||0.97|0.69|
90947999|NCT00474526|181775104|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1 over US2, the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCUS1 /GMCUS2) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of all other GMCs (GMCUS1 / GMCUS2) must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMTs|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.02|||ANOVA|||PnC 23F (Post-vaccination GMT; group ratio US1:US2)||1.02|0.62|
90948000|NCT00474526|181775105|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1 over US2, the lower limit of 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PUS1 - PUS2) must be greater than -5% for polio and -10% for all others.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|3.0|||ANOVA|||Diphtheria (Seroconversion percentage difference (PUS1 - PUS2))||3|-3|
90948001|NCT00474526|181775105|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1 over US2, the lower limit of 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PUS1 - PUS2) must be greater than -5% for polio and -10% for all others.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|4.0|||ANOVA|||Tetanus (Seroconversion percentage difference (PUS1 - PUS2))||4|-2|
90948002|NCT00474526|181775105|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1 over US2, the lower limit of 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PUS1 - PUS2) must be greater than -5% for polio and -10% for all others.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|12.0|||ANOVA|||PT (Seroconversion percentage difference (PUS1 - PUS2))||12|-7|
90979647|NCT00996840|181843862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.944|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.376|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.445|2.002||||||Comparison at 72 h post first dose||2.002|0.445|
90948003|NCT00474526|181775105|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1 over US2, the lower limit of 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PUS1 - PUS2) must be greater than -5% for polio and -10% for all others.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|17.0|||ANOVA|||FHA(Seroconversion percentage difference (PUS1 - PUS2))||17|-4|
90948004|NCT00474526|181775105|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1 over US2, the lower limit of 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PUS1 - PUS2) must be greater than -5% for polio and -10% for all others.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|10.0|||ANOVA|||Pertactin (Seroconversion percentage difference (PUS1 - PUS2))||10|-12|
90948005|NCT00474526|181775105|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1 over US2, the lower limit of 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PUS1 - PUS2) must be greater than -5% for polio and -10% for all others.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|3.0|||ANOVA|||Polio Type 1 (Seroconversion percentage difference (PUS1 - PUS2))||3|-3|
90979648|NCT00996840|181843862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.905|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.321|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.476|1.723||||||Comparison at 96 h post first dose||1.723|0.476|
90979649|NCT00996840|181843862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.726|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.199|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.488|1.08||||||Comparison at 6 h post first dose||1.080|0.488|
90979650|NCT00996840|181843862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.791|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.255|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.476|1.317||||||Comparison at 12 h post first dose||1.317|0.476|
90979651|NCT00996840|181843862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.725|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.277|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.417|1.26||||||Comparison at 18 h post first dose||1.260|0.417|
90948006|NCT00474526|181775105|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1 over US2, the lower limit of 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PUS1 - PUS2) must be greater than -5% for polio and -10% for all others.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|4.0|||ANOVA|||Polio Type 2 (Seroconversion percentage difference (PUS1 - PUS2))||4|-2|
90948007|NCT00474526|181775105|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1 over US2, the lower limit of 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PUS1 - PUS2) must be greater than -5% for polio and -10% for all others.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|3.0|||ANOVA|||Polio Type 3 (Seroconversion percentage difference (PUS1 - PUS2))||3|-3|
90948008|NCT00474526|181775105|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1 over US2, the lower limit of 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PUS1 - PUS2) must be greater than -5% for polio and -10% for all others.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|3.0|||ANOVA|||Hepatitis B(Seroconversion percentage difference (PUS1 - PUS2))||3|-4|
90948009|NCT00474526|181775105|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1 over US2, the lower limit of 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PUS1 - PUS2) must be greater than -5% for polio and -10% for all others.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|3.0|||ANOVA|||Hib (≥ 0.15 μg/mL)(Seroconversion percentage difference (PUS1 - PUS2))||3|-3|
90948010|NCT00474526|181775105|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1 over US2, the lower limit of 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PUS1 - PUS2) must be greater than -5% for polio and -10% for all others.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|14.0|||ANOVA|||Hib (≥1.0 μg/mL)(Seroconversion percentage difference (PUS1 - PUS2))||14|-3|
90979652|NCT00996840|181843862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.655|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.273|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.379|1.13||||||Comparison at 24 h post first dose||1.130|0.379|
90948011|NCT00474526|181775105|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1 over US2, the lower limit of 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PUS1 - PUS2) must be greater than -5% for polio and -10% for all others.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|2.0|||ANOVA|||PnC 4(Seroconversion percentage difference (PUS1 - PUS2))||2|-5|
90948012|NCT00474526|181775105|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1 over US2, the lower limit of 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PUS1 - PUS2) must be greater than -5% for polio and -10% for all others.|(Seroconversion percentage difference (P|-8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|-1.0|||ANOVA|||PnC 6B(Seroconversion percentage difference (PUS1 - PUS2))||-1|-14|
90948013|NCT00474526|181775105|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1 over US2, the lower limit of 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PUS1 - PUS2) must be greater than -5% for polio and -10% for all others.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|5.0|||ANOVA|||PnC 9V (Seroconversion percentage difference (PUS1 - PUS2))||5|-4|
90948014|NCT00474526|181775105|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1 over US2, the lower limit of 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PUS1 - PUS2) must be greater than -5% for polio and -10% for all others.|Diphtheria (Seroconversion percentage di|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|5.0|||ANOVA|||PnC 14 (Seroconversion percentage difference (PUS1 - PUS2))||5|-1|
90948015|NCT00474526|181775105|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1 over US2, the lower limit of 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PUS1 - PUS2) must be greater than -5% for polio and -10% for all others.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|1.0|||ANOVA|||PnC 18C (Seroconversion percentage difference (PUS1 - PUS2))||1|-6|
90948016|NCT00474526|181775105|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1 over US2, the lower limit of 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PUS1 - PUS2) must be greater than -5% for polio and -10% for all others.|(Seroconversion percentage difference (P|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|3.0|||ANOVA|||PnC 19F (Seroconversion percentage difference (PUS1 - PUS2))||3|-4|
90948017|NCT00474526|181775105|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1 over US2, the lower limit of 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PUS1 - PUS2) must be greater than -5% for polio and -10% for all others.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|5.0|||ANOVA|||PnC 23F (Seroconversion percentage difference (PUS1 - PUS2))||5|-8|
90948018|NCT00474526|181775106|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1 to LA2, the lower limit of the 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCLA1 / GMCLA2) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of the 95% CI for the ratio of all other GMCs (GMCLA1 / GMCLA2) must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.4|||ANOVA|||Diphtheria (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio LA1:LA2)||1.4|0.96|
90948019|NCT00474526|181775106|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1 to LA2, the lower limit of the 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCLA1 / GMCLA2) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of the 95% CI for the ratio of all other GMCs (GMCLA1 / GMCLA2) must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.27|||ANOVA|||Tetanus (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio LA1:LA2)||1.27|0.96|
90948020|NCT00474526|181775106|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1 to LA2, the lower limit of the 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCLA1 / GMCLA2) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of the 95% CI for the ratio of all other GMCs (GMCLA1 / GMCLA2) must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.25|||ANOVA|||PT (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio LA1:LA2)||1.25|0.87|
90948021|NCT00474526|181775106|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1 to LA2, the lower limit of the 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCLA1 / GMCLA2) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of the 95% CI for the ratio of all other GMCs (GMCLA1 / GMCLA2) must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.23|||ANOVA|||FHA (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio LA1:LA2)||1.23|0.89|
90948022|NCT00474526|181775106|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1 to LA2, the lower limit of the 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCLA1 / GMCLA2) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of the 95% CI for the ratio of all other GMCs (GMCLA1 / GMCLA2) must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.21|||ANOVA|||Pertactin (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio LA1:LA2)||1.21|0.81|
90948023|NCT00474526|181775106|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1 to LA2, the lower limit of the 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCLA1 / GMCLA2) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of the 95% CI for the ratio of all other GMCs (GMCLA1 / GMCLA2) must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMTs|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.17|||ANOVA|||Polio Type 1 (Post-vaccination GMT; group ratio LA1:LA2)||1.17|0.68|
90948024|NCT00474526|181775106|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1 to LA2, the lower limit of the 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCLA1 / GMCLA2) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of the 95% CI for the ratio of all other GMCs (GMCLA1 / GMCLA2) must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMTs|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.28|||ANOVA|||Polio Type 2 (Post-vaccination GMT; group ratio LA1:LA2)||1.28|0.73|
90948025|NCT00474526|181775106|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1 to LA2, the lower limit of the 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCLA1 / GMCLA2) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of the 95% CI for the ratio of all other GMCs (GMCLA1 / GMCLA2) must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMTs|0.95||||||95.0|0.69|1.31|||ANOVA|||Polio Type 3 (Post-vaccination GMT; group ratio LA1:LA2)||1.31|0.69|
90948026|NCT00474526|181775106|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1 to LA2, the lower limit of the 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCLA1 / GMCLA2) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of the 95% CI for the ratio of all other GMCs (GMCLA1 / GMCLA2) must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.4|||ANOVA|||Hepatitis B (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio LA1:LA2)||1.4|0.88|
90948027|NCT00474526|181775106|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1 to LA2, the lower limit of the 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCLA1 / GMCLA2) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of the 95% CI for the ratio of all other GMCs (GMCLA1 / GMCLA2) must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.65|||ANOVA|||HIb (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio LA1:LA2)||1.65|0.98|
90979653|NCT00996840|181843862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|1.111|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.323|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.583|2.12||||||Comparison at 48 h post first dose||2.120|0.583|
90979654|NCT00996840|181843862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|1.075|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.346|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.539|2.146||||||Comparison at 72 h post first dose||2.146|0.539|
90979655|NCT00996840|181843862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|1.375|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.313|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.735|2.574||||||Comparison at 96 h post first dose||2.574|0.735|
90979656|NCT00996840|181843862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.559|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.168|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.783||||||Comparison at 6 h post first dose||0.783|0.400|
90979657|NCT00996840|181843862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.216|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.539|1.277||||||Comparison at 12 h post first dose||1.277|0.539|
90979658|NCT00996840|181843862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.987|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.238|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.613|1.589||||||Comparison at 18 h post first dose||1.589|0.613|
90979659|NCT00996840|181843862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.924|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.231|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.582|1.467||||||Comparison at 24 h post first dose||1.467|0.582|
90948028|NCT00474526|181775106|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1 to LA2, the lower limit of the 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCLA1 / GMCLA2) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of the 95% CI for the ratio of all other GMCs (GMCLA1 / GMCLA2) must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.09|||ANOVA|||PnC 4 (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio LA1:LA2)||1.09|0.78|
90948029|NCT00474526|181775106|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1 to LA2, the lower limit of the 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCLA1 / GMCLA2) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of the 95% CI for the ratio of all other GMCs (GMCLA1 / GMCLA2) must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.27|||ANOVA|||PnC 6B (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio LA1:LA2)||1.27|0.74|
90948030|NCT00474526|181775106|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1 to LA2, the lower limit of the 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCLA1 / GMCLA2) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of the 95% CI for the ratio of all other GMCs (GMCLA1 / GMCLA2) must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.04|||ANOVA|||PnC 9V (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio LA1:LA2)||1.04|0.71|
90948031|NCT00474526|181775106|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1 to LA2, the lower limit of the 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCLA1 / GMCLA2) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of the 95% CI for the ratio of all other GMCs (GMCLA1 / GMCLA2) must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.14|||ANOVA|||PnC 14 (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio LA1:LA2)||1.14|0.72|
90948032|NCT00474526|181775106|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1 to LA2, the lower limit of the 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCLA1 / GMCLA2) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of the 95% CI for the ratio of all other GMCs (GMCLA1 / GMCLA2) must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.08|||ANOVA|||PnC 18C (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio LA1:LA2)||1.08|0.74|
90948033|NCT00474526|181775106|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1 to LA2, the lower limit of the 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCLA1 / GMCLA2) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of the 95% CI for the ratio of all other GMCs (GMCLA1 / GMCLA2) must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.1|||ANOVA|||PnC 19F (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio LA1:LA2)||1.1|0.74|
90948034|NCT00474526|181775106|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1 to LA2, the lower limit of the 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCLA1 / GMCLA2) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of the 95% CI for the ratio of all other GMCs (GMCLA1 / GMCLA2) must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.99|||ANOVA|||PnC 23F (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio LA1:LA2)||0.99|0.6|
90979660|NCT00996840|181843862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.716|2.11||||||Comparison at 48 h post first dose||2.110|0.716|
90979661|NCT00996840|181843862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|1.289|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.292|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.719|2.312||||||Comparison at 72 h post first dose||2.312|0.719|
91038968|NCT00112437|181962039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|2.49|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.62|3.35||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through a stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on total hip BMD compared to placebo over 12 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase total hip BMD compared to placebo over 12 months.||3.35|1.62|<=0.001
90948035|NCT00474526|181775106|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3 over LA4, the lower limit of two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCLA3 / GMCLA4) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMCs (GMCLA3 / GMCLA4) or GMTs (poliovirus antigens) for the other antigens must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.99|||ANOVA|||Diphtheria (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio LA3:LA4)||0.99|0.69|
90948036|NCT00474526|181775106|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3 over LA4, the lower limit of two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCLA3 / GMCLA4) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMCs (GMCLA3 / GMCLA4) or GMTs (poliovirus antigens) for the other antigens must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.09|||ANOVA|||Tetanus (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio LA3:LA4)||1.09|0.83|
90948037|NCT00474526|181775106|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3 over LA4, the lower limit of two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCLA3 / GMCLA4) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMCs (GMCLA3 / GMCLA4) or GMTs (poliovirus antigens) for the other antigens must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|0.93||||||95.0|0.78|1.1|||ANOVA|||PT (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio LA3:LA4)||1.1|0.78|
90948038|NCT00474526|181775106|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3 over LA4, the lower limit of two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCLA3 / GMCLA4) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMCs (GMCLA3 / GMCLA4) or GMTs (poliovirus antigens) for the other antigens must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.03|||ANOVA|||FHA (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio LA3:LA4)||1.03|0.75|
90948039|NCT00474526|181775106|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3 over LA4, the lower limit of two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCLA3 / GMCLA4) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMCs (GMCLA3 / GMCLA4) or GMTs (poliovirus antigens) for the other antigens must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.97|||ANOVA|||Pertactin (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio LA3:LA4||0.97|0.66|
90979662|NCT00996840|181843862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|1.752|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.254|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.053|2.916||||||Comparison at 96 h post first dose||2.916|1.053|
90979663|NCT00996840|181843862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.163|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.419|0.803||||||Comparison at 6 h post first dose||0.803|0.419|
90979664|NCT00996840|181843862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.657|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.209|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.433|0.996||||||Comparison at 12 h post first dose||0.996|0.433|
90979665|NCT00996840|181843862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.747|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.225|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.477|1.171||||||Comparison at 18 h post first dose||1.171|0.477|
90979666|NCT00996840|181843862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.657|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.222|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.421|1.024||||||Comparison at 24 h post first dose||1.024|0.421|
90979667|NCT00996840|181843862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.759|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.261|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.451|1.279||||||Comparison at 48 h post first dose||1.279|0.451|
90979668|NCT00996840|181843862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.968|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.282|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.701||||||Comparison at 72 h post first dose||1.701|0.550|
90979669|NCT00996840|181843862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.744|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.251|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.229||||||Comparison at 96 h post first dose||1.229|0.450|
90979670|NCT00996840|181843863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.773|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.607|0.985||||||Comparison at 6 h post first dose||0.985|0.607|
90979671|NCT00996840|181843863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.795|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.155|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.583|1.084||||||Comparison at 12 h post first dose||1.084|0.583|
90979672|NCT00996840|181843863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.778|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.189|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.533|1.135||||||Comparison at 18 h post first dose||1.135|0.533|
90979673|NCT00996840|181843863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.633|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.193|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.931||||||Comparison at 24 h post first dose||0.931|0.430|
90979674|NCT00996840|181843863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.662|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.255|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.397|1.103||||||Comparison at 48 h post first dose||1.103|0.397|
90979675|NCT00996840|181843863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.465|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.243|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.286|0.756||||||Comparison at 72 h post first dose||0.756|0.286|
90979676|NCT00996840|181843863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.525|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.287|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.295|0.935||||||Comparison at 96 h post first dose||0.935|0.295|
91050464|NCT04168190|181987011|SUPERIORITY|Superiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMC ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>1.0 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|7.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.2|9.9|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 23A. Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio, 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model||9.90|6.20|<0.001
90979677|NCT00996840|181843863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.952|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.107|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.768|1.18||||||Comparison at 6 h post first dose||1.180|0.768|
90979678|NCT00996840|181843863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.965|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.733|1.269||||||Comparison at 12 h post first dose||1.269|0.733|
90979679|NCT00996840|181843863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.992|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.168|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.387||||||Comparison at 18 h post first dose||1.387|0.710|
90979680|NCT00996840|181843863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.913|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.171|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.649|1.285||||||Comparison at 24 h post first dose||1.285|0.649|
90979681|NCT00996840|181843863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.233|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.415|1.051||||||Comparison at 48 h post first dose||1.051|0.415|
90979682|NCT00996840|181843863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.445|1.072||||||Comparison at 72 h post first dose||1.072|0.445|
90979683|NCT00996840|181843863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.724|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.268|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.423|1.239||||||Comparison at 96 h post first dose||1.239|0.423|
90979684|NCT00996840|181843863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.093|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.789|1.144||||||Comparison at 6 h post first dose||1.144|0.789|
90979685|NCT00996840|181843863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.985|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.119|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.777|1.249||||||Comparison at 12 h post first dose||1.249|0.777|
90979686|NCT00996840|181843863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|1.067|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.146|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.797|1.428||||||Comparison at 18 h post first dose||1.428|0.797|
90979687|NCT00996840|181843863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.922|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.148|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.686|1.239||||||Comparison at 24 h post first dose||1.239|0.686|
90979688|NCT00996840|181843863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.866|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.198|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.583|1.287||||||Comparison at 48 h post first dose||1.287|0.583|
90979689|NCT00996840|181843863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.649|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.444|0.95||||||Comparison at 72 h post first dose||0.950|0.444|
90979690|NCT00996840|181843863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.722|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.228|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.457|1.14||||||Comparison at 96 h post first dose||1.140|0.457|
90979691|NCT00996840|181843863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.897|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.091|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.748|1.075||||||Comparison at 6 h post first dose||1.075|0.748|
90979692|NCT00996840|181843863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.887|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.703|1.119||||||Comparison at 12 h post first dose||1.119|0.703|
90979693|NCT00996840|181843863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.846|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.142|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.638|1.123||||||Comparison at 18 h post first dose||1.123|0.638|
90979694|NCT00996840|181843863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.812|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.609|1.084||||||Comparison at 24 h post first dose||1.084|0.609|
90979695|NCT00996840|181843863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.194|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.394|0.855||||||Comparison at 48 h post first dose||0.855|0.394|
90948040|NCT00474526|181775106|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3 over LA4, the lower limit of two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCLA3 / GMCLA4) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMCs (GMCLA3 / GMCLA4) or GMTs (poliovirus antigens) for the other antigens must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMTs|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.02|||ANOVA|||Polio Type 1 (Post-vaccination GMT; group ratio LA3:LA4)||1.02|0.6|
90948041|NCT00474526|181775106|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3 over LA4, the lower limit of two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCLA3 / GMCLA4) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMCs (GMCLA3 / GMCLA4) or GMTs (poliovirus antigens) for the other antigens must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMTs|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.09|||ANOVA|||Polio Type 2 (Post-vaccination GMT; group ratio LA3:LA4)||1.09|0.63|
90948042|NCT00474526|181775106|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3 over LA4, the lower limit of two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCLA3 / GMCLA4) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMCs (GMCLA3 / GMCLA4) or GMTs (poliovirus antigens) for the other antigens must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMTs|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.11|||ANOVA|||Polio Type 3 (Post-vaccination GMT; group ratio LA3:LA4)||1.11|0.59|
90979696|NCT00996840|181843863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.439|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.188|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.301|0.639||||||Comparison at 72 h post first dose||0.639|0.301|
90979697|NCT00996840|181843863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.451|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.285|0.714||||||Comparison at 96 h post first dose||0.714|0.285|
90979698|NCT00996840|181843864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.646|1.119||||||Comparison at 6 h post first dose||1.119|0.646|
90979699|NCT00996840|181843864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|1.072|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.138|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.814|1.411||||||Comparison at 12 h post first dose||1.411|0.814|
90979700|NCT00996840|181843864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.157|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.478||||||Comparison at 18 h post first dose||1.478|0.790|
90979701|NCT00996840|181843864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.951|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.143|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.715|1.266||||||Comparison at 24 h post first dose||1.266|0.715|
90979702|NCT00996840|181843864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.918|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.168|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.655|1.285||||||Comparison at 48 h post first dose||1.285|0.655|
90979703|NCT00996840|181843864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|1.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.735|1.395||||||Comparison at 72 h post first dose||1.395|0.735|
90979704|NCT00996840|181843864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|1.168|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.169|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.831|1.64||||||Comparison at 96 h post first dose||1.640|0.831|
90979705|NCT00996840|181843864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.912|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.124|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.713|1.167||||||Comparison at 6 h post first dose||1.167|0.713|
90948043|NCT00474526|181775106|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3 over LA4, the lower limit of two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCLA3 / GMCLA4) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMCs (GMCLA3 / GMCLA4) or GMTs (poliovirus antigens) for the other antigens must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMTs|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.19|||ANOVA|||Hepatitis B (Post-vaccination GMT; group ratio LA3:LA4)||1.19|0.76|
90948044|NCT00474526|181775106|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3 over LA4, the lower limit of two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCLA3 / GMCLA4) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMCs (GMCLA3 / GMCLA4) or GMTs (poliovirus antigens) for the other antigens must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.37|||ANOVA|||HIb (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio LA3:LA4)||1.37|0.83|
90979706|NCT00996840|181843864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.963|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.123|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.753|1.233||||||Comparison at 12 h post first dose||1.233|0.753|
91038969|NCT00112437|181962039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|2.06|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.93||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through a stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on total hip BMD compared to placebo over 12 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase total hip BMD compared to placebo over 12 months.||2.93|1.20|<=0.001
90948045|NCT00474526|181775106|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3 over LA4, the lower limit of two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCLA3 / GMCLA4) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMCs (GMCLA3 / GMCLA4) or GMTs (poliovirus antigens) for the other antigens must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMTs|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.95|||ANOVA|||PnC 4 (Post-vaccination GMT; group ratio LA3:LA4)||0.95|0.68|
90979707|NCT00996840|181843864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.917|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.693|1.214||||||Comparison at 18 h post first dose||1.214|0.693|
90979708|NCT00996840|181843864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.128|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.673|1.123||||||Comparison at 24 h post first dose||1.123|0.673|
90979709|NCT00996840|181843864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|1.141|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.153|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.55||||||Comparison at 48 h post first dose||1.550|0.840|
90979710|NCT00996840|181843864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|1.122|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.146|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.837|1.505||||||Comparison at 72 h post first dose||1.505|0.837|
90948046|NCT00474526|181775106|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3 over LA4, the lower limit of two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCLA3 / GMCLA4) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMCs (GMCLA3 / GMCLA4) or GMTs (poliovirus antigens) for the other antigens must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.14|||ANOVA|||PnC 6B (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio LA3:LA4)||1.14|0.67|
90948047|NCT00474526|181775106|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3 over LA4, the lower limit of two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCLA3 / GMCLA4) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMCs (GMCLA3 / GMCLA4) or GMTs (poliovirus antigens) for the other antigens must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.0|||ANOVA|||PnC 9V (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio LA3:LA4)||1|0.69|
91050465|NCT04168190|181987011|SUPERIORITY|Superiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMC ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>1.0 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|5.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.53|6.94|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 23B. Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio, 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||6.94|4.53|<0.001
90948048|NCT00474526|181775106|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3 over LA4, the lower limit of two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCLA3 / GMCLA4) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMCs (GMCLA3 / GMCLA4) or GMTs (poliovirus antigens) for the other antigens must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|0.84||||||95.0|0.67|1.05|||ANOVA|||PnC 14 (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio LA3:LA4)||1.05|0.67|
90948049|NCT00474526|181775106|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3 over LA4, the lower limit of two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCLA3 / GMCLA4) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMCs (GMCLA3 / GMCLA4) or GMTs (poliovirus antigens) for the other antigens must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.9|||ANOVA|||PnC 18C (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio LA3:LA4)||0.9|0.62|
90948050|NCT00474526|181775106|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3 over LA4, the lower limit of two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCLA3 / GMCLA4) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMCs (GMCLA3 / GMCLA4) or GMTs (poliovirus antigens) for the other antigens must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.1|||ANOVA|||PnC 19F (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio LA3:LA4)||1.1|0.75|
90948051|NCT00474526|181775106|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3 over LA4, the lower limit of two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCLA3 / GMCLA4) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMCs (GMCLA3 / GMCLA4) or GMTs (poliovirus antigens) for the other antigens must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.12|||ANOVA|||PnC 23F (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio LA3:LA4)||1.12|0.69|
90948052|NCT00474526|181775107|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1 to LA2, the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PLA1 - PLA2) must be greater than -5% for poliovirus and greater than -10% for all other antigens.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|4.4|||ANOVA|||Diphtheria (Seroconversion percentage difference (PLA1 - PLA2))||4.4|-2.2|
90948053|NCT00474526|181775107|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1 to LA2, the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PLA1 - PLA2) must be greater than -5% for poliovirus and greater than -10% for all other antigens.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|2.6|||ANOVA|||Tetanus (Seroconversion percentage difference (PLA1 - PLA2))||2.6|-1.9|
90979711|NCT00996840|181843864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|1.474|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.164|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.063|2.045||||||Comparison at 96 h post first dose||2.045|1.063|
90948054|NCT00474526|181775107|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1 to LA2, the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PLA1 - PLA2) must be greater than -5% for poliovirus and greater than -10% for all other antigens.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|7.1|||ANOVA|||PT (Seroconversion percentage difference (PLA1 - PLA2))||7.1|-7.7|
90948055|NCT00474526|181775107|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1 to LA2, the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PLA1 - PLA2) must be greater than -5% for poliovirus and greater than -10% for all other antigens.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|5.8|||ANOVA|||FHA(Seroconversion percentage difference (PLA1 - PLA2))||5.8|-9.2|
90948056|NCT00474526|181775107|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1 to LA2, the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PLA1 - PLA2) must be greater than -5% for poliovirus and greater than -10% for all other antigens.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|-6.0||||||95.0|-12.9|2.2|||ANOVA|||Pertactin (Seroconversion percentage difference (PLA1 - PLA2))||2.2|-12.9|
90948057|NCT00474526|181775107|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1 to LA2, the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PLA1 - PLA2) must be greater than -5% for poliovirus and greater than -10% for all other antigens.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|1.0|||ANOVA|||Polio Type 1 (Seroconversion percentage difference (PLA1 - PLA2))||1.0|-4.8|
90948058|NCT00474526|181775107|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1 to LA2, the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PLA1 - PLA2) must be greater than -5% for poliovirus and greater than -10% for all other antigens.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|2.3|||ANOVA|||Polio Type 2 (Seroconversion percentage difference (PLA1 - PLA2))||2.3|-4.6|
90948059|NCT00474526|181775107|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1 to LA2, the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PLA1 - PLA2) must be greater than -5% for poliovirus and greater than -10% for all other antigens.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|5.1|||ANOVA|||Polio Type 3 (Seroconversion percentage difference (PLA1 - PLA2))||5.1|-3.2|
90979712|NCT00996840|181843864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.833|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.107|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.672|1.031||||||Comparison at 6 h post first dose||1.031|0.672|
90979713|NCT00996840|181843864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.879|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.109|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.707|1.092||||||Comparison at 12 h post first dose||1.092|0.707|
90979714|NCT00996840|181843864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|1.023|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.123|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.307||||||Comparison at 18 h post first dose||1.307|0.800|
90979715|NCT00996840|181843864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.111|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.761|1.187||||||Comparison at 24 h post first dose||1.187|0.761|
90979716|NCT00996840|181843864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.968|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.132|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.743|1.262||||||Comparison at 48 h post first dose||1.262|0.743|
90979717|NCT00996840|181843864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.926|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.127|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.718|1.193||||||Comparison at 72 h post first dose||1.193|0.718|
90979718|NCT00996840|181843864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|1.229|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.936|1.613||||||Comparison at 96 h post first dose||1.613|0.936|
90948060|NCT00474526|181775107|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1 to LA2, the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PLA1 - PLA2) must be greater than -5% for poliovirus and greater than -10% for all other antigens.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|3.5|||ANOVA|||Hepatitis B (Seroconversion percentage difference (PLA1 - PLA2))||3.5|-1.5|
90948061|NCT00474526|181775107|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1 to LA2, the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PLA1 - PLA2) must be greater than -5% for poliovirus and greater than -10% for all other antigens.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|5.0|||ANOVA|||Hib (≥ 0.15 μg/mL)(Seroconversion percentage difference (PLA1 - PLA2))||5|-1.1|
90948062|NCT00474526|181775107|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1 to LA2, the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PLA1 - PLA2) must be greater than -5% for poliovirus and greater than -10% for all other antigens.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|2.0||||||95.0|-2.8|7.7|||ANOVA|||Hib (≥1.0 μg/mL)(Seroconversion percentage difference (PLA1 - PLA2))||7.7|-2.8|
90948063|NCT00474526|181775107|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1 to LA2, the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PLA1 - PLA2) must be greater than -5% for poliovirus and greater than -10% for all other antigens.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|3.3|||ANOVA|||PnC 4(Seroconversion percentage difference (PLA1 - PLA2))||3.3|-3|
90948064|NCT00474526|181775107|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1 to LA2, the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PLA1 - PLA2) must be greater than -5% for poliovirus and greater than -10% for all other antigens.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|12.3|||ANOVA|||PnC 6B(Seroconversion percentage difference (PLA1 - PLA2))||12.3|-2.2|
90948065|NCT00474526|181775107|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1 to LA2, the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PLA1 - PLA2) must be greater than -5% for poliovirus and greater than -10% for all other antigens.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|3.6|||ANOVA|||PnC 9V (Seroconversion percentage difference (PLA1 - PLA2))||3.6|-3.9|
90979719|NCT00996840|181843864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.923|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.102|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.753|1.131||||||Comparison at 6 h post first dose||1.131|0.753|
90948066|NCT00474526|181775107|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1 to LA2, the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PLA1 - PLA2) must be greater than -5% for poliovirus and greater than -10% for all other antigens.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|6.2|||ANOVA|||PnC 14 (Seroconversion percentage difference (PLA1 - PLA2))||6.2|-1.1|
91050466|NCT04168190|181987011|SUPERIORITY|Superiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMC ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>1.0 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|23.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.35|29.74|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 24F. Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio, 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||29.74|19.35|<0.001
90948067|NCT00474526|181775107|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1 to LA2, the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PLA1 - PLA2) must be greater than -5% for poliovirus and greater than -10% for all other antigens.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|2.9|||ANOVA|||PnC 18C (Seroconversion percentage difference (PLA1 - PLA2))||2.9|-4.8|
90948068|NCT00474526|181775107|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1 to LA2, the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PLA1 - PLA2) must be greater than -5% for poliovirus and greater than -10% for all other antigens.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|2.9|||ANOVA|||PnC 19F (Seroconversion percentage difference (PLA1 - PLA2))||2.9|-4.8|
90979720|NCT00996840|181843864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.768|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.103|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.625|0.943||||||Comparison at 12 h post first dose||0.943|0.625|
90979721|NCT00996840|181843864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.826|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.655|1.042||||||Comparison at 18 h post first dose||1.042|0.655|
90979722|NCT00996840|181843864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.761|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.106|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.615|0.942||||||Comparison at 24 h post first dose||0.942|0.615|
90979723|NCT00996840|181843864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.781|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.125|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.608|1.003||||||Comparison at 48 h post first dose||1.003|0.608|
90948069|NCT00474526|181775107|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1 to LA2, the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PLA1 - PLA2) must be greater than -5% for poliovirus and greater than -10% for all other antigens.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|1.9|||ANOVA|||PnC 23F (Seroconversion percentage difference (PLA1 - PLA2))||1.9|-8|
90979724|NCT00996840|181843864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.668|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.524|0.851||||||Comparison at 72 h post first dose||0.851|0.524|
90979725|NCT00996840|181843864|OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.133|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.659|1.122||||||Comparison at 96 h post first dose||1.122|0.659|
90948070|NCT00474526|181775107|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3 over LA4, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PLA3 - PLA4) must be greater than 5% for poliovirus and greater than -10% for all other antigens.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|3.8|||ANOVA|||Diphtheria (Seroconversion percentage difference (PLA3 - PLA4))||3.8|-2.3|
91038970|NCT00112437|181962039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|1.67|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.53||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through a stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on total hip BMD compared to placebo over 12 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase total hip BMD compared to placebo over 12 months.||2.53|0.80|<=0.001
91038971|NCT00112437|181962039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.75||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|0.11||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through a stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on total hip BMD compared to placebo over 12 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase total hip BMD compared to placebo over 12 months.||0.11|-1.61|0.135
91038972|NCT00112437|181962040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|2.66|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.71|3.61||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through a stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on femoral neck BMD compared to placebo over 12 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase femoral neck BMD compared to placebo over 12 months.||3.61|1.71|<=0.001
91038973|NCT00112437|181962040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|1.89|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|2.84||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on femoral neck BMD compared to placebo over 12 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase femoral neck BMD compared to placebo over 12 months.||2.84|0.93|<=0.001
91038974|NCT00112437|181962040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.87||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|1.82||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on femoral neck BMD compared to placebo over 12 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase femoral neck BMD compared to placebo over 12 months.||1.82|-0.09|0.095
90948071|NCT00474526|181775107|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3 over LA4, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PLA3 - PLA4) must be greater than 5% for poliovirus and greater than -10% for all other antigens.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|0.0||||||95.0|-1.3|2.7|||ANOVA|||Tetanus (Seroconversion percentage difference (PLA3 - PLA4))||2.7|-1.3|
90948072|NCT00474526|181775107|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3 over LA4, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PLA3 - PLA4) must be greater than 5% for poliovirus and greater than -10% for all other antigens.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|10.7|||Seroconversion Percentage difference|||PT (Seroconversion percentage difference (PLA3 - PLA4))||10.7|-4.8|
90948073|NCT00474526|181775107|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3 over LA4, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PLA3 - PLA4) must be greater than 5% for poliovirus and greater than -10% for all other antigens.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|8.8|||ANOVA|||FHA(Seroconversion percentage difference (PLA3 - PLA4))||8.8|-7.1|
90948074|NCT00474526|181775107|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3 over LA4, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PLA3 - PLA4) must be greater than 5% for poliovirus and greater than -10% for all other antigens.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|5.7|||ANOVA|||Pertactin (Seroconversion percentage difference (PLA3 - PLA4))||5.7|-8|
90948075|NCT00474526|181775107|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3 over LA4, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PLA3 - PLA4) must be greater than 5% for poliovirus and greater than -10% for all other antigens.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|4.7|||ANOVA|||Polio Type 1 (Seroconversion percentage difference (PLA3 - PLA4))||4.7|-2|
90948076|NCT00474526|181775107|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3 over LA4, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PLA3 - PLA4) must be greater than 5% for poliovirus and greater than -10% for all other antigens.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|4.8|||ANOVA|||Polio Type 2 (Seroconversion percentage difference (PLA3 - PLA4))||4.8|-3|
90948077|NCT00474526|181775107|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3 over LA4, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PLA3 - PLA4) must be greater than 5% for poliovirus and greater than -10% for all other antigens.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|4.5|||ANOVA|||Polio Type 3 (Seroconversion percentage difference (PLA3 - PLA4))||4.5|-4.4|
90948078|NCT00474526|181775107|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3 over LA4, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PLA3 - PLA4) must be greater than 5% for poliovirus and greater than -10% for all other antigens.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|2.7|||ANOVA|||Hepatitis B (Seroconversion percentage difference (PLA3 - PLA4))||2.7|-2.3|
90948079|NCT00474526|181775107|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3 over LA4, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PLA3 - PLA4) must be greater than 5% for poliovirus and greater than -10% for all other antigens.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|1.0|||ANOVA|||Hib (≥ 0.15 μg/mL)(Seroconversion percentage difference (PLA3 - PLA4))||1|-5.3|
90948080|NCT00474526|181775107|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3 over LA4, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PLA3 - PLA4) must be greater than 5% for poliovirus and greater than -10% for all other antigens.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|-2.0||||||95.0|-6.6|3.0|||ANOVA|||Hib (≥1.0 μg/mL)(Seroconversion percentage difference (PLA3 - PLA4))||3|-6.6|
90948081|NCT00474526|181775107|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3 over LA4, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PLA3 - PLA4) must be greater than 5% for poliovirus and greater than -10% for all other antigens.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|3.0|||ANOVA|||PnC 4 (Seroconversion percentage difference (PLA3 - PLA4))||3|-4.2|
90948082|NCT00474526|181775107|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3 over LA4, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PLA3 - PLA4) must be greater than 5% for poliovirus and greater than -10% for all other antigens.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|9.0|||ANOVA|||PnC 6B (Seroconversion percentage difference (PLA3 - PLA4))||9|-4|
90948083|NCT00474526|181775107|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3 over LA4, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PLA3 - PLA4) must be greater than 5% for poliovirus and greater than -10% for all other antigens.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|6.0|||ANOVA|||PnC 9V (Seroconversion percentage difference (PLA3 - PLA4))||6|-2.8|
90948084|NCT00474526|181775107|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3 over LA4, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PLA3 - PLA4) must be greater than 5% for poliovirus and greater than -10% for all other antigens.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|3.4|||ANOVA|||PnC 14 (Seroconversion percentage difference (PLA3 - PLA4))||3.4|-3.7|
90948085|NCT00474526|181775107|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3 over LA4, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PLA3 - PLA4) must be greater than 5% for poliovirus and greater than -10% for all other antigens.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|0.8|||ANOVA|||PnC 18C (Seroconversion percentage difference (PLA3 - PLA4))||0.8|-7.2|
90948086|NCT00474526|181775107|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3 over LA4, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PLA3 - PLA4) must be greater than 5% for poliovirus and greater than -10% for all other antigens.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|7.5|||ANOVA|||PnC 19F (Seroconversion percentage difference (PLA3 - PLA4))||7.5|-0.8|
90948087|NCT00474526|181775107|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3 over LA4, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PLA3 - PLA4) must be greater than 5% for poliovirus and greater than -10% for all other antigens.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|1.0||||||95.0|-3.7|7.0|||ANOVA|||PnC 23F (Seroconversion percentage difference (PLA3 - PLA4))||7|-3.7|
90979726|NCT05127486|181843896|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.38|||pseudo likelihood-based repeated measure|||||1.38|0.81|0.695
90979727|NCT05127486|181843897|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.56|||pseudo likelihood-based repeated measure|||||1.56|0.89|
90979728|NCT05127486|181843898|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.79|||pseudo likelihood-based repeated measure|||||1.79|0.89|
90979729|NCT05127486|181843899|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.09|-0.82|
90979730|NCT05127486|181843900|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.00|-1.11|
90979731|NCT05127486|181843901|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.18|-0.90|
90979732|NCT05127486|181843902|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.37|-0.73|
90979733|NCT05127486|181843903|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|-0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.11|-0.86|
90979734|NCT05127486|181843904|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|4.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.51|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|7.37|||ANCOVA|||Total score||7.37|1.42|
90979735|NCT05127486|181843904|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|5.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|8.58|||ANCOVA|||RF-R||8.58|1.90|
90979736|NCT05127486|181843904|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|3.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.44|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|6.71|||ANCOVA|||RF-P||6.71|1.06|
90979737|NCT05127486|181843904|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|3.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.66|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|6.44|||ANCOVA|||EF||6.44|-0.08|
90948088|NCT00474526|181775122|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1A over US1B, the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of pneumococcal GMCs (GMCUS1A / GMCUS1B) had to be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.2|||ANOVA|||PnC 4 (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio US1A:US1B)||1.2|0.67|
90979738|NCT05127486|181843905|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-2.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.94|2.08|||ANCOVA|||||2.08|-6.94|
90979739|NCT00775021|181843906|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Margin = -0.5|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2334|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1618|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03501|0.2334|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as etafilconA minus nelfilcon A. Analysis is adjusted for lens type, period, lens type by period interaction, gender, lens type by gender interaction as fixed effects, subject nested within site as random effect.|The alternative hypothesis is that etafilcon A contact lenses will have equal to ro higher ratings of overall comfort than nelfilcon A contact lenses.||0.2334|-0.03501|
90979740|NCT00775021|181843907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.108|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07768|||TWO_SIDED|98.7|-0.108|0.06501|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference calculated etafilcon A minus nelfilcon A. Analysis adjusted for lens type, period, lens by period interaction, gender, lens by gender interaction as fixed effects, subject nested within site and eye within subject as random effect.|The alternative hypothesis is that eyes that wore etafilcon A contact lenses will have less inferior region corneal staining than eyes that wore nelfilcon A contact lenses.||0.06501|-0.1080|
90979741|NCT00775021|181843908|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Margin = -0.5|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1799|||TWO_SIDED|98.7|-0.0055|0.4001|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as etafilcon A minus nelfilcon A.|The alternative hypothesis is that etafilcon A contact lenses have equal to or higher comfort ratings at the end of the day than nelfilcon A.||0.4001|-0.0055|
90979742|NCT00775021|181843909|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Margin = -0.5|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1088|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1741|||TWO_SIDED|98.7|-0.5016|-0.1088|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as etafilcon A minus nelfilcon A.|The alternative hypothesis is that etafilcon A contact lenses will have equal or higher ratings of initial comfort than nelfilcon A contact lenses.||-0.1088|-0.5016|
90979743|NCT00775021|181843910|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Margin = -0.5|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2489|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.168|||TWO_SIDED|98.7|-0.1301|0.2489|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as etafilcon A minus nelfilcon A.|The alternative hypothesis is that etaflicon A contact lenses have equal to or higher ratings of ease of handling than nelfilcon A contact lenses.||0.2489|-0.1301|
90979744|NCT03193866|181843916|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|4.9||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||4.9|-1.8|
90948089|NCT00474526|181775122|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1A over US1B, the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of pneumococcal GMCs (GMCUS1A / GMCUS1B) had to be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.02|||ANOVA|||PnC 6B (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio US1A:US1B)||1.02|0.62|
90948090|NCT00474526|181775122|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1A over US1B, the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of pneumococcal GMCs (GMCUS1A / GMCUS1B) had to be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.2|||ANOVA|||PnC 9V (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio US1A:US1B)||1.2|0.67|
90948091|NCT00474526|181775122|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1A over US1B, the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of pneumococcal GMCs (GMCUS1A / GMCUS1B) had to be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.03|||ANOVA|||PnC 14 (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio US1A:US1B)||1.03|0.63|
90948092|NCT00474526|181775122|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1A over US1B, the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of pneumococcal GMCs (GMCUS1A / GMCUS1B) had to be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.34|||ANOVA|||PnC 18C (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio US1A:US1B)||1.34|0.78|
90948093|NCT00474526|181775122|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1A over US1B, the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of pneumococcal GMCs (GMCUS1A / GMCUS1B) had to be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|1.04||||||95.0|0.81|1.34|||ANOVA|||PnC 19F (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio US1A:US1B)||1.34|0.81|
90948094|NCT00474526|181775122|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1A over US1B, the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of pneumococcal GMCs (GMCUS1A / GMCUS1B) had to be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.29|||ANOVA|||PnC 23F (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio US1A:US1B)||1.29|0.69|
90948095|NCT00474526|181775123|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1A over US1B, the lower limit of 95% CI for the difference in rates (PUS1A - PUS1B) had to be greater than -10%.|Percentage difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|10.0|||ANOVA|||PnC 4 (percentage difference (US1A - US1B))||10|-8|
90948096|NCT00474526|181775123|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1A over US1B, the lower limit of 95% CI for the difference in rates (PUS1A - PUS1B) had to be greater than -10%.|Percentage difference|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|10.0|||ANOVA|||PnC 6B (percentage difference (US1A - US1B))||10|0|
90948097|NCT00474526|181775123|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1A over US1B, the lower limit of 95% CI for the difference in rates (PUS1A - PUS1B) had to be greater than -10%.|Percentage difference|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|5.0|||ANOVA|||PnC 9V (percentage difference (US1A - US1B))||5|-13|
90948098|NCT00474526|181775123|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1A over US1B, the lower limit of 95% CI for the difference in rates (PUS1A - PUS1B) had to be greater than -10%.|Percentage difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|3.0|||ANOVA|||PnC 14 (percentage difference (US1A - US1B))||3|-6|
90948099|NCT00474526|181775123|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1A over US1B, the lower limit of 95% CI for the difference in rates (PUS1A - PUS1B) had to be greater than -10%.|Percentage difference|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|3.0|||ANOVA|||PnC 18C (percentage difference (US1A:US1B))||3|-15|
90948100|NCT00474526|181775123|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1A over US1B, the lower limit of 95% CI for the difference in rates (PUS1A - PUS1B) had to be greater than -10%.|Percentage difference|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|11.0|||ANOVA|||PnC 19F (percentage difference (US1A:US1B))||11|-4|
90948101|NCT00474526|181775123|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1A over US1B, the lower limit of 95% CI for the difference in rates (PUS1A - PUS1B) had to be greater than -10%.|Percentage difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|5.0|||ANOVA|||PnC 239F (percentage difference (US1A:US1B))||5|-10|
90948102|NCT00474526|181775124|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1A over LA1B, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of pneumococcal GMCs (GMCLA1A / GMCLA1B) had to be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.02|||ANOVA|||PnC 4 (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio LA1A:LA1B)||1.02|0.61|
90948103|NCT00474526|181775124|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1A over LA1B, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of pneumococcal GMCs (GMCLA1A / GMCLA1B) had to be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.2|||ANOVA|||PnC 6B (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio LA1A:LA1B)||1.2|0.54|
90979745|NCT03193866|181843916|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|6.5||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||6.5|-6.8|
90979746|NCT03193866|181843916|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|4.3||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||4.3|-1.7|
90948104|NCT00474526|181775124|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1A over LA1B, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of pneumococcal GMCs (GMCLA1A / GMCLA1B) had to be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.94|||ANOVA|||PnC 9V (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio LA1A:LA1B)||0.94|0.58|
90948105|NCT00474526|181775124|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1A over LA1B, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of pneumococcal GMCs (GMCLA1A / GMCLA1B) had to be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.82|||ANOVA|||PnC 14 (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio LA1A:LA1B)||0.82|0.51|
90948106|NCT00474526|181775124|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1A over LA1B, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of pneumococcal GMCs (GMCLA1A / GMCLA1B) had to be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.01|||ANOVA|||PnC 18C (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio LA1A:LA1B)||1.01|0.6|
90948107|NCT00474526|181775124|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1A over LA1B, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of pneumococcal GMCs (GMCLA1A / GMCLA1B) had to be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.04|||ANOVA|||PnC 19F (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio LA1A:LA1B)||1.04|0.56|
90948108|NCT00474526|181775124|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1A over LA1B, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of pneumococcal GMCs (GMCLA1A / GMCLA1B) had to be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.01|||ANOVA|||PnC 23F (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio LA1A:LA1B)||1.01|0.54|
90948109|NCT00474526|181775125|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1A over LA1B, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in rates (PLA1A - PLA1B) had to be greater than -10%.|Percentage difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|5.2|||ANOVA|||PnC 4 (percentage difference (LA1A - LA1B))||5.2|-9.6|
90948110|NCT00474526|181775125|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1A over LA1B, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in rates (PLA1A - PLA1B) had to be greater than -10%.|Percentage difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|7.3|||ANOVA|||PnC 6B (percentage difference (LA1A - LA1B))||7.3|-11.9|
90948111|NCT00474526|181775125|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1A over LA1B, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in rates (PLA1A - PLA1B) had to be greater than -10%.|Percentage difference|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|4.3|||ANOVA|||PnC 9V (percentage difference (LA1A - LA1B))||4.3|-10.9|
90948112|NCT00474526|181775125|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1A over LA1B, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in rates (PLA1A - PLA1B) had to be greater than -10%.|Percentage difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|2.7|||ANOVA|||PnC 14 (percentage difference (LA1A - LA1B))||2.7|-5.6|
90948113|NCT00474526|181775125|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1A over LA1B, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in rates (PLA1A - PLA1B) had to be greater than -10%.|Percentage difference|-14.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.1|-5.6|||ANOVA|||PnC 18C (percentage difference (LA1A - LA1B))||-5.6|-24.1|
90948114|NCT00474526|181775125|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1A over LA1B, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in rates (PLA1A - PLA1B) had to be greater than -10%.|Percentage difference|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|5.2|||ANOVA|||PnC 19F (percentage difference (LA1A - LA1B))||5.2|-11.6|
90948115|NCT00474526|181775125|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1A over LA1B, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in rates (PLA1A - PLA1B) had to be greater than -10%.|Percentage difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|7.0|||ANOVA|||PnC 23F (percentage difference (LA1A - LA1B))||7|-7|
90948116|NCT00474526|181775126|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3A over LA3B, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMCs (GMCLA3A/GMCLA3B) had to be greater than 0.67 for PT, FHA and pertactin and greater than 0.50 for Hib, diphtheria and tetanus.|Ratio of GMCs|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.27|||ANOVA|||Diphtheria (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio LA3A:LA3B)||1.27|0.86|
90979747|NCT03193866|181843916|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|2.4||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||2.4|-4.3|
90948117|NCT00474526|181775126|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3A over LA3B, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMCs (GMCLA3A / GMCLA3B) had to be greater than 0.67 for PT, FHA and pertactin and greater than 0.50 for Hib, diphtheria and tetanus.|Ratio of GMCs|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.18|||ANOVA|||Tetanus (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio LA3A:LA3B)||1.18|0.75|
90948118|NCT00474526|181775126|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3A over LA3B, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMCs (GMCLA3A / GMCLA3B) had to be greater than 0.67 for PT, FHA and pertactin and greater than 0.50 for Hib, diphtheria and tetanus.|Ratio of GMCs|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.4|||ANOVA|||PT (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio LA3A:LA3B)||1.4|0.88|
90948119|NCT00474526|181775126|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3A over LA3B, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMCs (GMCLA3A / GMCLA3B) had to be greater than 0.67 for PT, FHA and pertactin and greater than 0.50 for Hib, diphtheria and tetanus.|Ratio of GMCs|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.44|||ANOVA|||FHA (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio LA3A:LA3B)||1.44|0.9|
90948120|NCT00474526|181775126|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3A over LA3B, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMCs (GMCLA3A / GMCLA3B) had to be greater than 0.67 for PT, FHA and pertactin and greater than 0.50 for Hib, diphtheria and tetanus.|Ratio of GMCs|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.59|||ANOVA|||Pertactin (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio LA3A:LA3B||1.59|0.92|
91006667|NCT00572728|181897688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.97|||Regression, Logistic|||H0: %SUVmax FLT1-FLT3 (RCB 0,I) = %SUVmax FLT1-FLT3 (RCB II,III) A logistic regression model is used to determine if a larger percent change in SUVmax is associated with (RCB 0,I); the null hypothesis assumes that there is no association.||0.97|0.76|0.013
90948121|NCT00474526|181775126|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3A over LA3B, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMCs (GMCLA3A / GMCLA3B) had to be greater than 0.67 for PT, FHA and pertactin and greater than 0.50 for Hib, diphtheria and tetanus.|Ratio of GMCs|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.16|||ANOVA|||Hib (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio LA3A:LA3B)||1.16|0.63|
90948122|NCT00474526|181775127|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3A over LA3B, The lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference (PLA3A-PLA3B) in percentages of subjects with seroresponse against diphtheria, tetanus, Hib and pertussis antigens (except FHA for ≥4 fold rise) was greater than -10%|Percentage difference|0.0||||||95.0|-4.2|5.4|||ANOVA|||Diphtheria (percentage difference (LA3A - LA3B))||5.4|-4.2|
90979748|NCT03193866|181843916|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|4.6||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||4.6|-1.3|
90948123|NCT00474526|181775127|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3A over LA3B, The lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference (PLA3A-PLA3B) in percentages of subjects with seroresponse against diphtheria, tetanus, Hib and pertussis antigens (except FHA for ≥4 fold rise) was greater than -10%|Percentage difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|5.4|||ANOVA|||Tetanus (percentage difference (LA3A - LA3B))||5.4|-4.2|
90948124|NCT00474526|181775127|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3A over LA3B, The lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference (PLA3A-PLA3B) in percentages of subjects with seroresponse against diphtheria, tetanus, Hib and pertussis antigens (except FHA for ≥4 fold rise) was greater than -10%|Percentage difference|6.0||||||95.0|-3.6|15.2|||ANOVA|||PT (percentage difference (LA3A - LA3B))||15.2|-3.6|
90948125|NCT00474526|181775127|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3A over LA3B, The lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference (PLA3A-PLA3B) in percentages of subjects with seroresponse against diphtheria, tetanus, Hib and pertussis antigens (except FHA for ≥4 fold rise) was greater than -10%|Percentage difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|8.2|||ANOVA|||FHA (percentage difference (LA3A - LA3B))||8.2|-10.2|
90948126|NCT00474526|181775127|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3A over LA3B, The lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference (PLA3A-PLA3B) in percentages of subjects with seroresponse against diphtheria, tetanus, Hib and pertussis antigens (except FHA for ≥4 fold rise) was greater than -10%|Percentage difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|10.6|||ANOVA|||Pertactin (percentage difference (LA3A - LA3B))||10.6|-7.2|
90948127|NCT00474526|181775127|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3A over LA3B, The lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference (PLA3A-PLA3B) in percentages of subjects with seroresponse against diphtheria, tetanus, Hib and pertussis antigens (except FHA for ≥4 fold rise) was greater than -10%|Percentage difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|3.6|||ANOVA|||Hib (≥ 0.15 μg/mL) (percentage difference (LA3A - LA3B))||3.6|-3.1|
90948128|NCT00474526|181775127|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3A over LA3B, The lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference (PLA3A-PLA3B) in percentages of subjects with seroresponse against diphtheria, tetanus, Hib and pertussis antigens (except FHA for ≥4 fold rise) was greater than -10%|Percentage difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|5.3|||ANOVA|||Hib (≥1.0 μg/mL) (percentage difference (LA3A - LA3B))||5.3|-2.2|
90948129|NCT01475305|181775130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.05|||||Relative risk was calculated as the proportion of participants with RSV infection in the MEDI-557 arm divided by the proportion of participants with RSV infection in the placebo arm.|||2.05|0.00|
90948130|NCT01475305|181775131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|6.24|||||Relative risk was calculated as the proportion of participants with RSV infection in the MEDI-557 arm divided by the proportion of participants with RSV infection in the placebo arm.|RSV infection by quantitative real-time RT-PCR||6.24|0.16|
90979749|NCT03193866|181843916|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|3.3||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||3.3|-2.7|
90979750|NCT03193866|181843916|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|4.4||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||4.4|-2.0|
90979751|NCT03193866|181843916|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|7.1||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||7.1|-3.2|
90948131|NCT01475305|181775131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.05|||||Relative risk was calculated as the proportion of participants with RSV infection in the MEDI-557 arm divided by the proportion of participants with RSV infection in the placebo arm.|RSV infection by DFA||2.05|0.00|
90948132|NCT01475305|181775131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|6.24|||||Relative risk was calculated as the proportion of participants with RSV infection in the MEDI-557 arm divided by the proportion of participants with RSV infection in the placebo arm.|RSV infection by Any Method||6.24|0.16|
90948133|NCT00132678|181775154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.4|||<|0.001||95.0|0.27|0.59|||Log Rank|Adjusting for country|RISPERDAL CONSTA hazard in numerator, placebo hazard in denominator.|||0.59|0.27|<0.001
90948134|NCT00132678|181775155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09|<|0.001||95.0|-8.08|-3.79|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with factors for treatment and country and double-blind baseline value as covariate.|Change in RISPERDAL CONSTA arm minus change in placebo arm.|||-3.79|-8.08|<0.001
90948135|NCT00132678|181775156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.02||95.0|-3.75|-0.32|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with factors for treatment and country and double-blind baseline value as covariate.|Change in RISPERDAL CONSTA arm minus change in placebo arm.|||-0.32|-3.75|0.020
90948136|NCT00953147|181775161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.04||The p-value from primary outcome was adjusted at alpha=0.025.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in primary outcome when compare active to placebo group. The alternative hypothesis is that there is a difference in primary outcome when compare active to placebo group. It was estimated that 200 subjects per group will provide at least 85% power to detect a difference between treatment groups of 0.7 in the change from baseline in iTNSS with a two-sided alpha level of 0.025.||1.04|0.35|<0.0001
90948137|NCT00953147|181775161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.54||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.84||The p-value from primary outcome was adjusted at alpha=0.025.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in primary outcome when compare active to placebo group. The alternative hypothesis is that there is a difference in primary outcome when compare active to placebo group. It was estimated that 200 subjects per group will provide at least 85% power to detect a difference between treatment groups of 0.7 in the change from baseline in iTNSS with a two-sided alpha level of 0.025.||0.84|0.24|0.0005
90948138|NCT00953147|181775162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.58||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.92|||ANCOVA|||Dmitrienko's tree-structured gatekeeping method was used for multiple comparisons||0.92|0.25|0.0014
90948139|NCT00953147|181775162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.42||||0.0122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.72|||ANCOVA|||Dmitrienko's tree-structured gatekeeping method was used for multiple comparisons||0.72|0.12|0.0122
90948140|NCT03299049|181775186|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was concluded if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the Cochran-Mantel Haenzel (CMH) adjusted treatment difference (Q8W minus Q4W) is less than 4%.|Adjusted difference|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|2.2|||||Adjusted CMH estimate of the difference in the percentage of participants with Plasma HIV-1 \>=50 c/mL between each treatment group (Q8W - Q4W) and corresponding 95% CI is presented.|||2.2|-0.6|
90948141|NCT03299049|181775187|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was concluded if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the CMH adjusted treatment difference (Q8W minus Q4W) is greater than -10%|Adjusted difference|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|3.7|||||Adjusted CMH estimate of the difference in the percentage of participants with Plasma HIV-1 \<50 c/mL between each treatment group (Q8W-Q4W) and corresponding 95% CI is presented.|||3.7|-2.1|
90948142|NCT02356705|181775245|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.39
90948143|NCT02356705|181775246|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.39
90948144|NCT02356705|181775247|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.88
90979752|NCT03193866|181843917|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|8.8||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||8.8|-7.5|
90948145|NCT02356705|181775249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.01
90948146|NCT02356705|181775250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.08
90948147|NCT00592293|181775313|OTHER||Cumulative incidence|17.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.1|27.6||||||||27.6|9.1|
90948148|NCT00592293|181775314|OTHER||Percent Survival, Local Control|87.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.1|93.7||||||||93.7|78.1|
90948149|NCT01606319|181775319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||relative rate|0.94||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.28|||log-linear model|log-linear model in which the number of exacerbations was assumed to follow a negative binomial distribution|relative rate with acetaminophen in the numerator and ibuprofen in the denominator|||1.28|.69|0.67
90948150|NCT01606319|181775320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.039|0.0019|||ANCOVA|||||.0019|-0.039|0.5
90948151|NCT01606319|181775321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.6|||ANCOVA|||||0.6|-0.9|0.69
90948152|NCT01606319|181775322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||relative rate|0.99||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.37|||log-linear model|log-linear model in which the number of exacerbations was assumed to follow a negative binomial distribution|relative rate with acetaminophen in the numerator and ibuprofen in the denominator|||1.37|0.72|.94
90948153|NCT01270828|181775323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||Kaplan-Meier method was used for the analysis.||||<0.0001
90948154|NCT01270828|181775324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||Kaplan-Meier method was used for the analysis.||||<0.0001
90948155|NCT01270828|181775325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-square test was used for analysis.||||<0.0001
90948156|NCT01270828|181775326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-square test was used for analysis.||||<0.0001
90948157|NCT01270828|181775327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|-0.62|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for SB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, pooled center decided before unblinding, and treatment in the model.||-0.62|-1.26|<0.0001
90948158|NCT01270828|181775327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|-0.61|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for DB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, pooled center decided before unblinding, and treatment in the model.||-0.61|-1.21|<0.0001
90948159|NCT01270828|181775328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|-0.75|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for SB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model.||-0.75|-1.47|<0.0001
90948160|NCT01270828|181775328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|-0.65|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for DB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model.||-0.65|-1.34|<0.0001
90948161|NCT01270828|181775329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.2||||0.0324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for Sleep Problem Index I-SB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model.||-0.3|-6.1|0.0324
90948162|NCT01270828|181775329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.3||||0.0223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|-0.5|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for Sleep Problem Index I-DB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model.||-0.5|-6.1|0.0223
90948163|NCT01270828|181775329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.8||||0.0098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|-0.9|||ANCOVA|||"This ANCOVA model analysis is for Sleep Problem Index II-SB Baseline to Week 19.~Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model."||-0.9|-6.6|0.0098
90979753|NCT03193866|181843917|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.5|12.8||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||12.8|-18.5|
90979754|NCT03193866|181843917|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|8.6||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||8.6|-8.8|
90948164|NCT01270828|181775329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|-1.4|||ANCOVA|||"This ANCOVA model analysis is for Sleep Problem Index II-DB Baseline to Week 19.~Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model."||-1.4|-6.7|0.0033
90948165|NCT01270828|181775329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.3||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|-3.5|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for Sleep Disturbance-SB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model.||-3.5|-11.1|0.0002
90948166|NCT01270828|181775329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|-5.2|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for Sleep Disturbance-DB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model.||-5.2|-12.2|<0.0001
90948167|NCT01270828|181775329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4||||0.5264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|5.6|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for Snoring-SB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model.||5.6|-2.8|0.5264
90979755|NCT03193866|181843917|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|7.2||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||7.2|-8.1|
90948168|NCT01270828|181775329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0.452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|2.3|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for Snoring-DB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model.||2.3|-5.2|0.4520
90948169|NCT01270828|181775329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.3714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|1.8|||ANCOVA|||"This ANCOVA model analysis is for Awaken Short of Breath or with a Headache-SB Baseline to Week 19.~Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model."||1.8|-4.7|0.3714
90948170|NCT01270828|181775329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.5639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|2.3|||ANCOVA|||"This ANCOVA model analysis is for Awaken Short of Breath or with a Headache-DB Baseline to Week 19.~Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model."||2.3|-4.2|0.5639
90979756|NCT03193866|181843917|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|8.9||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||8.9|-5.7|
90948171|NCT01270828|181775329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5||||0.3223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|7.3|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for Sleep adequacy-SB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model.||7.3|-2.4|0.3223
90948172|NCT01270828|181775329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.7||||0.2742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|7.6|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for Sleep adequacy-DB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model.||7.6|-2.2|0.2742
90948173|NCT01270828|181775329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.9816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|3.1|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for Somnolence-SB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model.||3.1|-3.2|0.9816
90979757|NCT03193866|181843917|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|8.0||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||8.0|-4.7|
90979758|NCT03193866|181843917|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|7.9||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||7.9|-6.2|
90979759|NCT03193866|181843917|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|7.5||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||7.5|-10.8|
90979760|NCT03193866|181843918|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|3.3||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||3.3|-2.5|
90979761|NCT03193866|181843918|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|3.4||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||3.4|-12.5|
90979762|NCT03193866|181843918|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.8||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||1.8|-2.5|
90979763|NCT03193866|181843918|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|-0.1||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||-0.1|-4.9|
91006668|NCT00572728|181897689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||AUC|0.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.72|0.94||Delong 1-sided p-value (alpha=0.05)|Delong Method|The Delong-Delong Clark-Pearson method using modified U-statistics was used to evaluate the AUC||"ROC analysis was used to compute the AUC and evaluate if %ΔSUVmax FLT1-FLT3 is predictive of pCR with alpha=0.05.~The Null Hypothesis assumes that the P(%ΔSUVmax FLT1-FLT3\|pCR)= 1 - P(%ΔSUVmax FLT1-FLT3\|non-pCR) that is: H0: AUC =0.5 (guessing)"||.94|.72|<0.001
90948174|NCT01270828|181775329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.9282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|3.2|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for Somnolence-DB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model.||3.2|-2.9|0.9282
91006669|NCT00572728|181897690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|two-sided p value from Kruskal-Wallis one-way ANOVA||"Kruskal-Wallis one-way ANOVA was used to test whether there was a difference in %SUVmax (FLT1-FLT2) among LN statuses.~H0: no difference between the 3 LN status."||||0.86
91006670|NCT00572728|181897691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|||||two-sided p value from Kruskal-Wallis one-way ANOVA|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.67
90948175|NCT01270828|181775330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.1635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.4|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for SB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model.||0.4|-0.1|0.1635
90979764|NCT03193866|181843918|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|1.1||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||1.1|-2.6|
90979765|NCT03193866|181843918|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|0.3||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||0.3|-4.2|
90979766|NCT03193866|181843918|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|0.3||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||0.3|-4.0|
90979767|NCT03193866|181843918|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|5.8||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||5.8|-0.6|
90979768|NCT03193866|181843919|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|6.8||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||6.8|-2.2|
90979769|NCT03193866|181843919|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.3|3.7||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||3.7|-20.3|
90979770|NCT03193866|181843919|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|3.5||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||3.5|-2.6|
90979771|NCT03193866|181843919|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|0.9||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||0.9|-5.8|
90979772|NCT03193866|181843919|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|2.7||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||2.7|-2.9|
90979773|NCT03193866|181843919|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|1.6||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||1.6|-4.5|
90979774|NCT03193866|181843919|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|1.5||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||1.5|-4.7|
90979775|NCT03193866|181843919|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|6.4||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||6.4|-1.7|
90979776|NCT03193866|181843920|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.48||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||0.48|0.30|
90979777|NCT03193866|181843920|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.42||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||0.42|0.11|
90979778|NCT03193866|181843920|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.23||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||0.23|0.10|
90979779|NCT03193866|181843920|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.13||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||0.13|-0.03|
90979780|NCT03193866|181843920|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.19||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||0.19|0.08|
90979781|NCT03193866|181843920|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.16||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||0.16|0.01|
90979782|NCT03193866|181843920|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.21||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||0.21|0.06|
90979783|NCT03193866|181843920|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.33||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||0.33|0.13|
90948176|NCT01270828|181775330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.0363||95.0|0.0|0.5|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for DB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model.||0.5|0.0|0.0363
90948177|NCT01270828|181775331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.432|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis is for Week 6||||0.432
90948178|NCT01270828|181775331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.987|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis is for Week 19||||0.987
90948179|NCT01270828|181775332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.85||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.65|||Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio is the probability of the event occurring in Pregabalin DB relative to the event occurring in Placebo DB.~Odds ratio \> 1 is in favor of Pregabalin DB."|This analysis is for the original score. Proportional odds Logistic regression with a term for treatment in the model.||2.65|1.30|0.0007
90948180|NCT01270828|181775332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.32||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|3.81|||Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio is the probability of the event occurring in Pregabalin DB relative to the event occurring in Placebo DB.~Odds ratio \> 1 is in favor of Pregabalin DB."|This analysis is for the categorized score. Proportional odds Logistic regression with a term for treatment in the model.||3.81|1.41|0.0009
90948181|NCT01270828|181775333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.4||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|11.5|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for Bodily pain-SB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model.||11.5|3.4|0.0003
90948182|NCT01270828|181775333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|11.3|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for Bodily pain-DB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model.||11.3|4.0|<0.0001
90979784|NCT03193866|181843921|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-71.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.6|-66.6||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||-66.6|-76.6|
90979785|NCT03193866|181843921|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-66.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.3|-56.4||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||-56.4|-76.3|
90979786|NCT03193866|181843921|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-47.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.0|-41.7||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||-41.7|-53.0|
90979787|NCT03193866|181843921|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-43.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.6|-36.6||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||-36.6|-49.6|
90979788|NCT03193866|181843921|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-41.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.4|-36.2||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||-36.2|-46.4|
90979789|NCT03193866|181843921|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-33.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.8|-28.0||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||-28.0|-39.8|
90979790|NCT03193866|181843921|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-33.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.7|-28.0||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||-28.0|-39.7|
90979791|NCT03193866|181843921|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-49.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.0|-41.6||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||-41.6|-58.0|
90979792|NCT03193866|181843922|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.3||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||0.3|-0.1|
90979793|NCT03193866|181843922|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.4||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||0.4|-0.3|
90979794|NCT03193866|181843922|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||0.1|-0.2|
90979795|NCT03193866|181843922|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||0.1|-0.3|
90979796|NCT03193866|181843922|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||0.1|-0.1|
90979797|NCT03193866|181843922|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||0.1|-0.2|
91007814|NCT00374452|181899826|OTHER||||||>|0.1|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||We compared the mean percentages of events per clinician between study arms, using mixed model regression adjusting for medical center, clinic type (community-based clinic vs not), clinician discipline (MD vs non-MD), presence of pharmacist in the clinic, and mean age of clinician's panels of patients as fixed effects, and clinic as a random effect to account for clustering of clinicians within clinics.||||>0.1
90979798|NCT03193866|181843922|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||0.2|-0.1|
90979799|NCT03193866|181843922|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.3||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||0.3|-0.1|
90979800|NCT03193866|181843923|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|11.9||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||11.9|-2.2|
90979801|NCT03193866|181843923|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|20.6||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||20.6|-2.6|
90979802|NCT03193866|181843923|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|6.2||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||6.2|-7.6|
90979803|NCT03193866|181843923|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|4.1||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||4.1|-9.4|
90979804|NCT03193866|181843923|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|3.4||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||3.4|-8.6|
91007815|NCT04623255|181899856|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Chi-squared|||The primary analysis will involve a comparison of the binary outcome '50% reduction in at least two inflammation markers' between the PEX and Standard of Care (control) trial arms using a chi-squared test. The risk difference (and ratio) will be estimated with a 95% confidence interval.||||0.16
90979805|NCT03193866|181843923|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|12.2||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||12.2|-4.7|
90979806|NCT03193866|181843923|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|8.1||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||8.1|-6.9|
91007816|NCT04623255|181899857|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||The primary analysis will involve a comparison of the binary outcome '50% reduction in inflammation marker CRP' between the PEX and Standard of Care (control) trial arms using a chi-squared test. The risk difference (and ratio) will be estimated with a 95% confidence interval.||||0.606
90979807|NCT03193866|181843923|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|14.1||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||14.1|-6.3|
91038975|NCT00112437|181962040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|0.75|||ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on femoral neck BMD compared to placebo over 12 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase femoral neck BMD compared to placebo over 12 months.||0.75|-1.14|
91038976|NCT00112437|181962041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|2.94|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.64|4.24||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on trochanter BMD compared to placebo over 12 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase trochanter BMD compared to placebo over 12 months.||4.24|1.64|<=0.001
91038977|NCT00112437|181962041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|2.65|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|3.94||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on trochanter BMD compared to placebo over 12 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase trochanter BMD compared to placebo over 12 months.||3.94|1.35|<=0.001
91038978|NCT00112437|181962041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|2.38|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|3.69||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on trochanter BMD compared to placebo over 12 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase trochanter BMD compared to placebo over 12 months.||3.69|1.08|<=0.001
91038979|NCT00112437|181962041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.29||||0.731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|1.0||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through a stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on trochanter BMD compared to placebo over 12 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase trochanter BMD compared to placebo over 12 months.||1.00|-1.58|0.731
90979808|NCT03193866|181843924|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-34.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.3|-27.9||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||-27.9|-40.3|
90979809|NCT03193866|181843924|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-32.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.0|-21.5||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||-21.5|-43.0|
90979810|NCT03193866|181843924|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-21.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.9|-15.7||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||-15.7|-27.9|
90979811|NCT03193866|181843924|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-7.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|-1.2||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||-1.2|-14.5|
90979812|NCT03193866|181843924|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-23.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.9|-18.3||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||-18.3|-28.9|
90979813|NCT03193866|181843924|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-12.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9|-6.5||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||-6.5|-18.9|
90979814|NCT03193866|181843924|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-26.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.8|-20.2||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||-20.2|-32.8|
90979815|NCT03193866|181843924|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-31.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.1|-23.2||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||-23.2|-40.1|
90979816|NCT03193866|181843925|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-33.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.4|-27.0||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||-27.0|-39.4|
90979817|NCT03193866|181843925|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-30.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.4|-19.8||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||-19.8|-41.4|
90979818|NCT03193866|181843925|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-20.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.0|-14.7||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||-14.7|-27.0|
90979819|NCT03193866|181843925|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|-0.3||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||-0.3|-13.6|
91007817|NCT04623255|181899858|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.245|||||||Chi-squared|||The primary analysis will involve a comparison of the binary outcome '50% reduction in inflammation marker D-Dimer' between the PEX and Standard of Care (control) trial arms using a chi-squared test. The risk difference (and ratio) will be estimated with a 95% confidence interval.||||0.245
90979820|NCT03193866|181843925|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-23.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.2|-18.3||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||-18.3|-29.2|
90979821|NCT03193866|181843925|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-12.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.6|-6.1||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||-6.1|-18.6|
90979822|NCT03193866|181843925|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-25.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.7|-19.0||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||-19.0|-31.7|
90979823|NCT03193866|181843925|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-29.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.2|-20.8||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||-20.8|-38.2|
90979824|NCT03193866|181843926|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.0||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||0.00|-0.07|
91007818|NCT04623255|181899859|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.653|||||||Chi-squared|||The primary analysis will involve a comparison of the binary outcome '50% reduction in inflammation marker LDH' between the PEX and Standard of Care (control) trial arms using a chi-squared test. The risk difference (and ratio) will be estimated with a 95% confidence interval.||||0.653
90948183|NCT01270828|181775333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.2||||0.0275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|6.0|||ANCOVA|||"This ANCOVA model analysis is for General Health Perceptions-SB Baseline to Week 19.~Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model."||6.0|0.4|0.0275
90948184|NCT01270828|181775333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|8.0|||ANCOVA|||"This ANCOVA model analysis is for General Health Perceptions-DB Baseline to Week 19.~Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model."||8.0|2.8|<0.0001
90948185|NCT01270828|181775333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0||||0.0735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|6.4|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for Vitality-SB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model.||6.4|-0.3|0.0735
90948186|NCT01270828|181775333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0||||0.0684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|6.2|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for Vitality-DB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model.||6.2|-0.2|0.0684
90979825|NCT03193866|181843926|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.06||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||0.06|-0.09|
90979826|NCT03193866|181843926|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.03||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||0.03|-0.03|
90979827|NCT03193866|181843926|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.05||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||0.05|-0.03|
90979828|NCT03193866|181843926|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.04||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||0.04|-0.02|
90979829|NCT03193866|181843926|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.06||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||0.06|-0.01|
91038980|NCT00112437|181962042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.29||||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|1.35||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through a stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on total body BMD compared to placebo over 12 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase total body BMD compared to placebo over 12 months.||1.35|-0.77|0.112
90948187|NCT01270828|181775333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8||||0.1197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|6.4|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for Social Functioning-SB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model.||6.4|-0.7|0.1197
90948188|NCT01270828|181775333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1||||0.221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|5.5|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for Social Functioning-DB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model.||5.5|-1.3|0.2210
90948189|NCT01270828|181775333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.3||||0.0847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|7.1|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for Role-Emotional-SB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model.||7.1|-0.5|0.0847
90948190|NCT01270828|181775333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.0||||0.0365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|7.8|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for Role-Emotional-DB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model.||7.8|0.3|0.0365
90948191|NCT01270828|181775333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6||||0.2749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|4.3|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for Mental Health-SB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model.||4.3|-1.2|0.2749
90948192|NCT01270828|181775333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5||||0.0806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|5.2|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for Mental Health-SB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model.||5.2|-0.3|0.0806
90948193|NCT01270828|181775333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.0082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.4|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for Physical component-SB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model.||3.4|0.5|0.0082
90948194|NCT01270828|181775333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|3.7|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for Physical component-DB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model.||3.7|1.0|0.0008
90948195|NCT01270828|181775333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.2097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|2.5|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for Mental component-SB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model.||2.5|-0.8|0.2097
90948196|NCT01270828|181775333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2||||0.1669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|2.8|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for Mental component-DB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model.||2.8|-0.5|0.1669
90948197|NCT01270828|181775333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8||||0.1466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|6.7|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for Physical functioning-SB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model.||6.7|-1.0|0.1466
90948198|NCT01270828|181775333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.4||||0.0439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|6.7|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for Physical functioning-DB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model.||6.7|0.1|0.0439
90979830|NCT03193866|181843926|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.06||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||0.06|0.00|
90979831|NCT03193866|181843926|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.03||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||0.03|-0.06|
91007819|NCT00998985|181899890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean (LSM) Difference|3.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.89|4.03|||||LSM Difference (grazoprevir-placebo) and confidence intervals from ANOVA model with maximum log10 HCV reduction as response and a fixed effect for treatment.|It is hypothesized that one or more doses of Grazoprevir will reduce GT1 viral load by at least 3 log10||4.03|2.89|
90979832|NCT03193866|181843927|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|5.2||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||5.2|-3.3|
90979833|NCT03193866|181843927|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|6.4||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||6.4|-9.4|
90979834|NCT03193866|181843927|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|1.4||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||1.4|-4.2|
90979835|NCT03193866|181843927|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|0.8||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||0.8|-5.9|
91007820|NCT00998985|181899890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|4.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.11|5.25|||||LSM Difference (grazoprevir-placebo) and confidence intervals from ANOVA model with maximum log10 HCV reduction as response and a fixed effect for treatment.|It is hypothesized that one or more doses of Grazoprevir will reduce GT1 viral load by at least 3 log10||5.25|4.11|
90948199|NCT01270828|181775333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.9||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|9.3|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for Role Physical-SB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model.||9.3|0.6|0.0250
90948200|NCT01270828|181775333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.4||||0.0107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|9.5|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for Role Physical-DB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model.||9.5|1.3|0.0107
90948201|NCT01270828|181775334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|-0.64|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for SB Baseline to Week 19.Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with baseline value, pooled center decided before unblinding, and treatment in the model.||-0.64|-1.23|<0.0001
90948202|NCT01270828|181775334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|-0.58|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for DB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with baseline value, pooled center decided before unblinding, and treatment in the model.||-0.58|-1.12|<0.0001
90948203|NCT01270828|181775335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.0154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for HADS-Anxiety-SB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model.||-0.1|-1.2|0.0154
90948204|NCT01270828|181775335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for HADS-Anxiety-DB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model.||-0.3|-1.3|0.0027
90948205|NCT01270828|181775335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.0166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for HADS-Depression-SB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model.||-0.1|-1.2|0.0166
90948206|NCT01270828|181775335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.0217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for HADS-Depression-DB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model.||-0.1|-1.1|0.0217
90948207|NCT01270828|181775336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|-3.0|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for Pain Severity Index-SB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model.||-3.0|-5.5|<0.0001
90948208|NCT01270828|181775336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|-2.7|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for Pain Severity Index-DB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model.||-2.7|-5.0|<0.0001
90948209|NCT01270828|181775336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|-2.7|||ANCOVA|||"This ANCOVA model analysis is for Pain Interference Index-SB Baseline to Week 19.~Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model."||-2.7|-6.5|<0.0001
90948210|NCT01270828|181775336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|-2.4|||ANCOVA|||"This ANCOVA model analysis is for Pain Interference Index-DB Baseline to Week 19.~Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model."||-2.4|-6.0|<0.0001
90948211|NCT01270828|181775337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.77||||0.0161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|17.0|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was the probability of the event occurring in pregabalin CR DB relative to the event occurring in placebo DB. Odds ratio \> 1 was in favor of pregabalin CR.|This analysis is for 'Benefit from treatment'. Proportional odds logistic regression was used with a term for treatment in the model.||17.00|1.34|0.0161
90948212|NCT01270828|181775337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.48||||0.0378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|5.85|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was the probability of the event occurring in pregabalin CR DB relative to the event occurring in placebo DB. Odds ratio \> 1 was in favor of pregabalin CR.|This analysis is for 'Satisfaction with treatment'. Proportional odds logistic regression was used with a term for treatment in the model.||5.85|1.05|0.0378
90948213|NCT01270828|181775337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.61||||0.0901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|2.81|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was the probability of the event occurring in pregabalin CR DB relative to the event occurring in placebo DB. Odds ratio \> 1 was in favor of pregabalin CR.|This analysis is for 'Willingness to continue treatment'. Proportional odds logistic regression was used with a term for treatment in the model.||2.81|0.93|0.0901
90948214|NCT02870972|181775348|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-0.458|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.703|-0.214|||ANCOVA|||The primary analysis of treatment-effect was performed using an ANCOVA with the adjusted qualifying attack rate as the covariate.||-0.214|-0.703|<0.001
90948215|NCT02870972|181775348|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-0.433||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.127|||ANCOVA|||The primary analysis of treatment-effect was performed using an ANCOVA with the adjusted qualifying attack rate as the covariate.||-0.127|-0.740|0.006
91007821|NCT00998985|181899890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|4.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.3|5.44|||||LSM Difference (grazoprevir-placebo) and confidence intervals from ANOVA model with maximum log10 HCV reduction as response and a fixed effect for treatment.|It is hypothesized that one or more doses of Grazoprevir will reduce GT1 viral load by at least 3 log10||5.44|4.30|
90948216|NCT02870972|181775348|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-0.425||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.755|-0.095|||ANCOVA|||The primary analysis of treatment-effect was performed using an ANCOVA with the adjusted qualifying attack rate as the covariate.||-0.095|-0.755|0.012
90948217|NCT02870972|181775348|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-0.703|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.033|0.373|||ANCOVA|||The primary analysis of treatment-effect was performed using an ANCOVA with the adjusted qualifying attack rate as the covariate.||0.373|-1.033|<0.001
90948218|NCT02870972|181775348|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-0.1||||0.639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.32|||ANCOVA|||The primary analysis of treatment-effect was performed using an ANCOVA with the adjusted qualifying attack rate as the covariate.||0.32|-0.52|0.639
90948219|NCT02870972|181775349|SUPERIORITY||Difference vs placebo (%)|17.7||||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|38.8|||Fisher Exact|||||38.8|-3.4|0.155
90948220|NCT02870972|181775349|SUPERIORITY||Difference vs placebo (%)|16.9||||0.277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|40.1|||Fisher Exact|||||40.1|-6.3|0.277
90948221|NCT02870972|181775349|SUPERIORITY||Difference vs placebo (%)|24.0||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|49.2|||Fisher Exact|||||49.2|-1.2|0.064
90948222|NCT02870972|181775349|SUPERIORITY||Difference vs placebo (%)|-4.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|4.2|||Fisher Exact|||||4.2|-13.2|1.000
90948223|NCT02870972|181775349|SUPERIORITY||Difference vs placebo (%)|-16.2||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.2|-2.2|||Fisher Exact|||||-2.2|-30.2|0.097
90948224|NCT02870972|181775350|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-0.061||||0.439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.216|0.094|||ANCOVA|||The primary analysis of treatment-effect was performed using an ANCOVA with the adjusted qualifying attack rate as the covariate.||0.094|-0.216|0.439
90948225|NCT02870972|181775350|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-0.004||||0.968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.198|0.19|||ANCOVA|||The primary analysis of treatment-effect was performed using an ANCOVA with the adjusted qualifying attack rate as the covariate.||0.190|-0.198|0.968
90948226|NCT02870972|181775350|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-0.045||||0.667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.254|0.164|||ANCOVA|||The primary analysis of treatment-effect was performed using an ANCOVA with the adjusted qualifying attack rate as the covariate.||0.164|-0.254|0.667
90948227|NCT02870972|181775350|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-0.197||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.406|0.012|||ANCOVA|||The primary analysis of treatment-effect was performed using an ANCOVA with the adjusted qualifying attack rate as the covariate.||0.012|-0.406|0.065
90948228|NCT02870972|181775350|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|0.035||||0.797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.232|0.301|||ANCOVA|||The primary analysis of treatment-effect was performed using an ANCOVA with the adjusted qualifying attack rate as the covariate.||0.301|-0.232|0.797
90948229|NCT02870972|181775351|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-0.364|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.547|-0.181|||ANOVA|||The primary analysis of treatment-effect was performed using an ANCOVA with the adjusted qualifying attack rate as the covariate.||-0.181|-0.547|<0.001
90948230|NCT02870972|181775351|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-0.384||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.613|-0.154|||ANCOVA|||The primary analysis of treatment-effect was performed using an ANCOVA with the adjusted qualifying attack rate as the covariate.||-0.154|-0.613|0.001
90948231|NCT02870972|181775351|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-0.401||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.647|-0.154|||ANCOVA|||The primary analysis of treatment-effect was performed using an ANCOVA with the adjusted qualifying attack rate as the covariate.||-0.154|-0.647|0.002
90948232|NCT02870972|181775351|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-0.445|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.692|-0.198|||ANCOVA|||The primary analysis of treatment-effect was performed using an ANCOVA with the adjusted qualifying attack rate as the covariate.||-0.198|-0.692|<0.001
90948233|NCT02870972|181775351|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-0.08||||0.614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.394|0.234|||ANCOVA|||The primary analysis of treatment-effect was performed using an ANCOVA with the adjusted qualifying attack rate as the covariate.||0.234|-0.394|0.614
90948234|NCT02870972|181775352|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-0.326||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.557|-0.095|||ANCOVA|||The primary analysis of treatment-effect was performed using an ANCOVA with the terms of treatment and adjusted qualifying attack rate as the covariate.||-0.095|-0.557|0.006
90948235|NCT02870972|181775352|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-0.293||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.582|0.004|||ANCOVA|||The primary analysis of treatment-effect was performed using an ANCOVA with the terms of treatment and adjusted qualifying attack rate as the covariate.||0.004|-0.582|0.047
90948236|NCT02870972|181775352|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-0.327||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.638|-0.016|||ANCOVA|||The primary analysis of treatment-effect was performed using an ANCOVA with the terms of treatment and adjusted qualifying attack rate as the covariate.||-0.016|-0.638|0.040
90948237|NCT02870972|181775352|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-0.558|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.247|||ANCOVA|||The primary analysis of treatment-effect was performed using an ANCOVA with the terms of treatment and adjusted qualifying attack rate as the covariate.||-0.247|-0.870|<0.001
90948238|NCT02870972|181775352|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|0.057||||0.775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.339|0.454|||ANCOVA|||The primary analysis of treatment-effect was performed using an ANCOVA with the terms of treatment and adjusted qualifying attack rate as the covariate.||0.454|-0.339|0.775
90948239|NCT02870972|181775353|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-4.449||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.453|2.555|||ANCOVA|||The primary analysis of treatment-effect was performed using an ANCOVA with the terms of treatment and adjusted qualifying attack rate as the covariate.||2.555|-11.453|0.209
90948240|NCT02870972|181775353|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-9.103||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.639|-1.567|||ANCOVA|||The primary analysis of treatment-effect was performed using an ANCOVA with the terms of treatment and adjusted qualifying attack rate as the covariate.||-1.567|-16.639|0.019
90948241|NCT02870972|181775353|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-11.263||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.808|-3.718|||ANCOVA|||The primary analysis of treatment-effect was performed using an ANCOVA with the terms of treatment and adjusted qualifying attack rate as the covariate.||-3.718|-18.808|0.004
90948242|NCT02870972|181775353|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|4.04||||0.405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.586|13.665|||ANCOVA|||The primary analysis of treatment-effect was performed using an ANCOVA with the terms of treatment and adjusted qualifying attack rate as the covariate.||13.665|-5.586|0.405
90948243|NCT02870972|181775354|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-8.12||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.826|2.584|||ANCOVA|||The primary analysis of treatment-effect was performed using an ANCOVA with the terms of treatment and adjusted qualifying attack rate as the covariate.||2.584|-18.826|0.135
90948244|NCT02870972|181775354|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-8.92||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.26|2.41|||ANCOVA|||The primary analysis of treatment-effect was performed using an ANCOVA with the terms of treatment and adjusted qualifying attack rate as the covariate.||2.410|-20.260|0.121
90948245|NCT02870972|181775354|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-24.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.834|-13.137|||ANOVA|||The primary analysis of treatment-effect was performed using an ANCOVA with the terms of treatment and adjusted qualifying attack rate as the covariate.||-13.137|-35.834|<0.001
90948246|NCT02870972|181775354|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-7.84||||0.284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.316|6.64|||ANCOVA|||The primary analysis of treatment-effect was performed using an ANCOVA with the terms of treatment and adjusted qualifying attack rate as the covariate.||6.640|-22.316|0.284
90948247|NCT02870972|181775355|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-8.27||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.132|0.592|||ANCOVA|||The primary analysis of treatment-effect was performed using an ANCOVA with the terms of treatment and adjusted qualifying attack rate as the covariate.||0.592|-17.132|0.067
90948248|NCT02870972|181775355|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-7.073||||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.432|2.287|||ANCOVA|||The primary analysis of treatment-effect was performed using an ANCOVA with the terms of treatment and adjusted qualifying attack rate as the covariate.||2.287|-16.432|0.136
90948249|NCT02870972|181775355|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-11.484||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.642|-2.325|||ANOVA|||The primary analysis of treatment-effect was performed using an ANCOVA with the terms of treatment and adjusted qualifying attack rate as the covariate.||-2.325|-20.642|0.015
90948250|NCT02870972|181775355|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-9.785||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.001|2.431|||ANCOVA|||The primary analysis of treatment-effect was performed using an ANCOVA with the terms of treatment and adjusted qualifying attack rate as the covariate.||2.431|-22.001|0.114
90948251|NCT01634269|181775356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Proportion of IF implanted subjects|87.5||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.7|98.4|||Exact binomial|||||98.4|61.7|0.002
90948252|NCT03334253|181775410|SUPERIORITY|"The following assumptions were used in the power calculation:~* 2:1 randomization~* treatment group difference of 0.50D~* standard deviation of 0.80D~* type 1 error of 5% (2-sided)~* up to 10% loss to follow up"|Adjusted mean difference|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.15|||||Atropine - Placebo Adjusted mean difference, adjusting for baseline refractive error, age, iris color (brown vs. not brown), and race (East Asian vs. non-East Asian).|Null Hypothesis: no difference in mean change in SER from baseline to 24 months between the atropine and placebo groups||0.15|-0.19|
90948253|NCT03334253|181775411|SUPERIORITY|"The following assumptions were used in the power calculation:~* 2:1 randomization~* treatment group difference of 0.50D~* standard deviation of 0.80D~* type 1 error of 5% (2-sided)~* up to 10% loss to follow up"|Adjusted mean difference|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.17|||||Atropine-Placebo Adjusted mean difference, adjusting for baseline refractive error, age, iris color (brown vs. not brown), and race (East Asian vs. non-East Asian).|Null Hypothesis: no difference in mean change in SER from baseline to 24 months between the atropine and placebo groups||0.17|-0.25|
90948254|NCT00584077|181775441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||Each subject served as their own control as a comparison of the airway innervated (contralateral native lung) with the denervated airway (allograft)||||<0.01
90948255|NCT00584077|181775442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||P value was adjusted for multiple comparisons using Bonferroni test|ANOVA|||For the cross-sectional and longitudinal groups, a comparison of cough frequency after airway irritation of the main carina, and the proximal and distal anastomotic sites was performed using one-way analysis of variance with Bonferroni test. In the longitudinal cohort, a comparison of the cough frequencies at different airway sites at 1.5 and 12 months was performed using one-way analysis of variance with Bonferroni test.||||<0.01
90948256|NCT00609947|181775449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|49.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|21.8|<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||||"The null and alternative hypotheses were:~H0: µSVS ≥µM H1: µSVS \< µM where µSVS was the mean in-segment 8-month percent diameter stenosis for the SVS study and µM was the mean in-segment 6-month percent diameter stenosis for Micro-Driver."|t-test, 2 sided|The sample size was not reduced below 158 evaluable subjects in order to support the analysis of the primary safety endpoint.||The 8-month in-segment percent diameter stenosis from Endeavor SVS subjects was compared to the 6-month in-segment percent diameter stenosis from Micro Driver subjects. This study assessed the superiority of SVS against the Micro-Driver regarding in-segment percent diameter stenosis at 8 months post procedure.||||<0.001
90948257|NCT00609947|181775450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|13.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.5||0.0041|ONE_SIDED|95.0||20.0|||t-test, 1 sided|||"The null and alternative hypotheses of interest are:~H0: xSVS \>= 20% vs. H1: xSVS \< 20%, where x is the true SVS 12-month MACE rate.~The assessment of the null hypothesis will be carried out at the one-sided 0.05 level of significance. Rejection of the null hypothesis indicates the SVS 12-month MACE rate is significantly below 20%."||20||0.0041
90948258|NCT04079634|181775462|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
90948259|NCT00479882|181775463|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Clinical equivalence LDL-C reduction was established if the 95% CI for the difference between these two treatments in percent change from baseline in LDL-C fell within ±3%.|Difference in Least squares mean|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|3.4|||ANOVA|Factors for sequence, participant within sequence, period and treatment||||3.4|1.3|
90948260|NCT00479882|181775463|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Clinical equivalence LDL-C reduction was established if the 95% CI for the difference between these two treatments in percent change from baseline in LDL-C fell within ±3%.|Difference in Least Squares Mean|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.4|||ANOVA|Factors for sequence, participant within sequence, period and treatment||||2.4|0.4|
90948261|NCT00479882|181775464|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Clinical equivalence HDL-C reduction was established if the 95% CI for the difference between these two treatments in percent change from baseline in LDL-C fell within ±4%.|Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.0|||ANOVA|Factors for sequence, participant within sequence, period and treatment||||1.0|-1.4|
90948262|NCT00479882|181775464|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Clinical equivalence HDL-C reduction was established if the 95% CI for the difference between these two treatments in percent change from baseline in LDL-C fell within ±4%.|Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.2|||ANOVA|Factors for sequence, participant within sequence, period and treatment||||0.2|-1.9|
90979836|NCT03193866|181843927|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|2.5||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||2.5|-2.9|
90979837|NCT03193866|181843927|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|1.8||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||1.8|-4.0|
90979838|NCT03193866|181843927|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|0.9||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||0.9|-7.0|
90979839|NCT03193866|181843927|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|5.4||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||5.4|-2.9|
90979840|NCT03193866|181843928|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|-2.9||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||-2.9|-8.1|
90979841|NCT03193866|181843928|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|-1.0||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||-1.0|-10.9|
90948263|NCT00479882|181775465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-0.2||||0.685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.8|||Fisher Exact||Wilson's Method|Periods I/II||0.8|-1.2|0.685
90948264|NCT00479882|181775465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.1|||||Wilson's Method|Period III||1.1|-1.8|
90948265|NCT00479882|181775465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-0.3||||0.753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.9|||Fisher Exact||Wilson's Method|Periods I/II||0.9|-1.6|0.753
90948266|NCT00479882|181775465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.4|||||Wilson's Method|Period III||1.4|-0.8|
90948267|NCT00479882|181775466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.6|||Fisher Exact||Wilson's Method|Periods I/II||0.6|-0.7|
90948268|NCT00479882|181775466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.5|||||Wilson's Method|Period III||1.5|-0.5|
90948269|NCT00479882|181775466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.2||||0.617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.1|||Fisher Exact||Wilson's Method|Periods I/II||1.1|-0.6|0.617
90948270|NCT00479882|181775466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.9|||||Wilson's Method|Period III||0.9|-0.8|
90948271|NCT00479882|181775467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.6|||Fisher Exact||Wilson's Method|Periods I/II||0.6|-0.7|
90979842|NCT03193866|181843928|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-0.8||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||-0.8|-4.0|
90979843|NCT03193866|181843928|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.5||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||1.5|-2.1|
90979844|NCT03193866|181843928|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.6||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||0.6|-2.2|
90979845|NCT03193866|181843928|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|2.8||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||2.8|-0.3|
90979846|NCT03193866|181843928|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|4.6||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||4.6|0.9|
90979847|NCT03193866|181843928|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|4.0||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||4.0|0.2|
90979848|NCT03464045|181843953|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.06|||Regression, Cox||Crude hazard ratio of empagliflozin/DPP-4i|Crude HRs were calculated using a Cox proportional hazards model with as-treated exposure (continuous exposure to the study drugs, defined as having consecutive treatment episodes separated by a grace period of 30 days, starting from index date) as the only included variable. Country-level HRs were analyzed separately. Thereafter, random-effects meta-analyses were conducted to pool the HRs from all countries, accounting for potential heterogeneity between the country-level effect sizes.||1.06|0.61|0.122
90979849|NCT03464045|181843953|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.18|||Regression, Cox||Base hazard ratio of empagliflozin/DPP-4i|"Base HRs were calculated using a Cox proportional hazards model by adjusting for variables unbalanced after PS matching. To be included in the Cox model, each covariate is required to have a minimum of 5 events per category level to avoid converge failure.~Country-level HRs were analyzed separately. Thereafter, random-effects meta-analyses were conducted to pool the HRs from all countries, accounting for potential heterogeneity between the country-level effect sizes."||1.18|0.67|0.417
90979850|NCT03464045|181843953|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.17|||Regression, Cox||Adjusted hazard ratio of empagliflozin/DPP-4i|Adjusted HRs were calculated using a Cox proportional hazards model by adjusting for variables unbalanced after PS matching, and pre-specified time-varying covariates. To be included in the Cox model, each covariate is required to have a minimum of 5 events per category level. Country-level HRs were analyzed separately. Thereafter, random-effects meta-analyses were conducted to pool the HRs from all countries, accounting for potential heterogeneity between the country-level effect sizes.||1.17|0.66|0.376
90979851|NCT03464045|181843954|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.15|||Regression, Cox||Crude hazard ratio of empagliflozin/DPP-4i|Crude HRs were calculated using a Cox proportional hazards model with as-treated exposure (continuous exposure to the study drugs, defined as having consecutive treatment episodes separated by a grace period of 30 days, starting from index date) as the only included variable. Country-level HRs were analyzed separately. Thereafter, random-effects meta-analyses were conducted to pool the HRs from all countries, accounting for potential heterogeneity between the country-level effect sizes.||1.15|0.55|0.220
90979852|NCT03464045|181843954|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.32|||Regression, Cox||Base hazard ratio of empagliflozin/DPP-4i|"Base HRs were calculated using a Cox proportional hazards model by adjusting for variables unbalanced after PS matching. To be included in the Cox model, each covariate is required to have a minimum of 5 events per category level to avoid converge failure.~Country-level HRs were analyzed separately. Thereafter, random-effects meta-analyses were conducted to pool the HRs from all countries, accounting for potential heterogeneity between the country-level effect sizes."||1.32|0.63|0.628
91050467|NCT04168190|181987011|SUPERIORITY|Superiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMC ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>1.0 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|10.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.32|12.33|||P-value was estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 31. Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio, 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||12.33|8.32|<0.001
90979853|NCT03464045|181843954|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.33|||Regression, Cox||Adjusted hazard ratio of empagliflozin/DPP-4i|Adjusted HRs were calculated using a Cox proportional hazards model by adjusting for variables unbalanced after PS matching, and pre-specified time-varying covariates. To be included in the Cox model, each covariate is required to have a minimum of 5 events per category level. Country-level HRs were analyzed separately. Thereafter, random-effects meta-analyses were conducted to pool the HRs from all countries, accounting for potential heterogeneity between the country-level effect sizes.||1.33|0.63|0.632
91007822|NCT00998985|181899890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|4.35|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.78|4.92|||||LSM Difference (grazoprevir-placebo) and confidence intervals from ANOVA model with maximum log10 HCV reduction as response and a fixed effect for treatment.|It is hypothesized that one or more doses of Grazoprevir will reduce GT1 viral load by at least 3 log10||4.92|3.78|
91007823|NCT00998985|181899890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|5.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.58|5.72|||||LSM Difference (grazoprevir-placebo) and confidence intervals from ANOVA model with maximum log10 HCV reduction as response and a fixed effect for treatment.|It is hypothesized that one or more doses of Grazoprevir will reduce GT1 viral load by at least 3 log10||5.72|4.58|
91007824|NCT00998985|181899890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|4.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.19|5.33|||||LSM Difference (grazoprevir-placebo) and confidence intervals from ANOVA model with maximum log10 HCV reduction as response and a fixed effect for treatment.|It is hypothesized that one or more doses of Grazoprevir will reduce GT1 viral load by at least 3 log10||5.33|4.19|
91050468|NCT04168190|181987011|SUPERIORITY|Superiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMC ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>1.0 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|18.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.59|21.45|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 35B. Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio, 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||21.45|15.59|<0.001
90948272|NCT00479882|181775467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.8|||||Wilson's Method|Period III||0.8|-0.9|
90948273|NCT00479882|181775467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.7|||Fisher Exact||Wilson's Method|Periods I/II||0.7|-0.6|
90948274|NCT00479882|181775467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.9|||||Wilson's Method|Period III||0.9|-0.8|
90948275|NCT00479882|181775468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.6|||Fisher Exact||Wilson's Method|Periods I/II||0.6|-0.7|
90948276|NCT00479882|181775468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.8|||||Wilson's Method|Period III||0.8|-0.9|
90948277|NCT00479882|181775468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.7|||Fisher Exact||Wilson's Method|Periods I/II||0.7|-0.6|
90948278|NCT00479882|181775468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.9|||||Wilson's Method|Period III||0.9|-0.8|
90948279|NCT00479882|181775469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-0.2||||0.497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.5|||Fisher Exact|||Periods I/II||0.5|-0.9|0.497
90948280|NCT00479882|181775470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-0.3||||0.449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.6|||Fisher Exact||Wilson's Method|Periods I/II||0.6|-1.4|0.449
90948281|NCT00479882|181775470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.9|||||Wilson's Method|Period III||0.9|-1.6|
90948282|NCT00479882|181775470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.2||||0.685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.2|||Fisher Exact||Wilson's Method|Period I/II||1.2|-0.8|0.685
90948283|NCT00479882|181775470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.6|||||Wilson's Method|Period III||1.6|-1.0|
90948284|NCT00479882|181775471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-1.2||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.2|||Fisher Exact||Wilson's Method|Periods I/II||-0.2|-2.4|0.020
90948285|NCT00479882|181775471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.9|||||Wilson's Method|Period III||0.9|-1.6|
90948286|NCT00479882|181775471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-0.5||||0.452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.5|||Fisher Exact||Wilson's Method|Periods I/II||0.5|-1.6|0.452
90948287|NCT00479882|181775471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.0|||||Wilson's Method|Period III||1.0|-1.9|
90948288|NCT00479882|181775472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.6|||||Wilson's Method|Periods I/II||0.6|-0.6|
90948289|NCT00479882|181775472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.2|||||Wilson's Method|Period III||1.2|-0.7|
90948290|NCT00479882|181775472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.9|||||Wilson's Method|Periods I/II||0.9|-0.5|
90948291|NCT00479882|181775472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.3|||||Wilson's Method|Period III||1.3|-0.6|
90948292|NCT00479882|181775473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|3.8|||||Wilson's Score Method|Periods I/II||3.8|-6.6|
90948293|NCT00479882|181775473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|4.3|||||Wilson's Score Method|Period III||4.3|-8.1|
90948294|NCT00479882|181775473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|5.3|||||Wilson's Score Method|Periods I/II||5.3|-5.2|
90948295|NCT00479882|181775473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|3.4|||||Wilson's Score Method|Period III||3.4|-8.9|
90948296|NCT00479882|181775474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|2.1|||||Wilson's Score Method|Periods I/II||2.1|-2.5|
90948297|NCT00479882|181775474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|5.2|||||Wilson's Score Method|Period III||5.2|-0.5|
90948298|NCT00479882|181775474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|4.2|||||Wilson's Score Method|Periods I/II||4.2|-1.0|
90948299|NCT00479882|181775474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|5.0|||||Wilson's Score Method|Period III||5.0|-0.8|
90948300|NCT00479882|181775477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.9|||||Wilson's Score Method|Periods I/II||0.9|-0.5|
90948301|NCT00479882|181775477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.5|||||Wilson's Score Method|Periods I/II||0.5|-0.9|
90948302|NCT00479882|181775478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|1.0||||0.341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|3.1|||ANOVA|Factors for treatment, country and gender||||3.1|-1.1|0.341
90948303|NCT00479882|181775478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|3.7||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|6.1|||ANOVA|Factors for treatment, country and gender.||||6.1|1.2|0.004
90948304|NCT00479882|181775479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.4||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.5|||ANOVA|Factors for treatment, country and gender||||1.5|-2.3|0.690
90948305|NCT00479882|181775479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.2||||0.879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|2.3|||ANOVA|Factors for treatment, country and gender||||2.3|-1.9|0.879
90948306|NCT00762476|181775523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Poisson regression|||||||>0.5000
90948307|NCT00762476|181775524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Poisson regression|||||||>0.5000
90948308|NCT00762476|181775525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Poisson regression|||||||0.3451
90979854|NCT03464045|181843955|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.29|||Regression, Cox||Crude hazard ratio of empagliflozin/DPP-4i|Crude HRs were calculated using a Cox proportional hazards model with as-treated exposure (continuous exposure to the study drugs, defined as having consecutive treatment episodes separated by a grace period of 30 days, starting from index date) as the only included variable. Country-level HRs were analyzed separately. Thereafter, random-effects meta-analyses were conducted to pool the HRs from all countries, accounting for potential heterogeneity between the country-level effect sizes.||1.29|0.54|0.420
90979855|NCT03464045|181843955|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.38|||Regression, Cox||Base hazard ratio of empagliflozin/DPP-4i|"Base HRs were calculated using a Cox proportional hazards model by adjusting for variables unbalanced after PS matching. To be included in the Cox model, each covariate is required to have a minimum of 5 events per category level to avoid converge failure.~Country-level HRs were analyzed separately. Thereafter, random-effects meta-analyses were conducted to pool the HRs from all countries, accounting for potential heterogeneity between the country-level effect sizes."||1.38|0.57|0.606
90979856|NCT03464045|181843955|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.38|||Regression, Cox||Adjusted hazard ratio of empagliflozin/DPP-4i|Adjusted HRs were calculated using a Cox proportional hazards model by adjusting for variables unbalanced after PS matching, and pre-specified time-varying covariates. To be included in the Cox model, each covariate is required to have a minimum of 5 events per category level. Country-level HRs were analyzed separately. Thereafter, random-effects meta-analyses were conducted to pool the HRs from all countries, accounting for potential heterogeneity between the country-level effect sizes.||1.38|0.57|0.609
90979857|NCT03878147|181843961|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was difference between least square means of trial arms at month 2.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|4.01||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome, child's age, sex, and HIV exposure status were included as covariates.|BPG minus waitlist control.|The null hypothesis was that the means of two arms were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that means of two arms were not equal. With this sample size, differences between arms corresponding to the unadjusted effect size Cohen's d=0.33 would be detectable as statistically significant with power of .80 in two-sided tests at .05 level of significance.||4.01|0.78|<.01
90979858|NCT03878147|181843961|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was difference between least square means of trial arms at month 6.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|2.44||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome, child's age, sex, and HIV exposure status were included as covariates.|BPG minus waitlist control.|The null hypothesis was that the means of two arms were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that means of two arms were not equal. With this sample size, differences between arms corresponding to the unadjusted effect size Cohen's d=0.33 would be detectable as statistically significant with power of .80 in two-sided tests at .05 level of significance.||2.44|-0.80|.32
90979859|NCT03878147|181843961|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was difference between least square means of trial arms at month 2.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.74|0.16||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome, child's age, sex, and HIV exposure status were included as covariates.|BPG minus waitlist control.|The null hypothesis was that the means of two arms were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that means of two arms were not equal. With this sample size, differences between arms corresponding to the unadjusted effect size Cohen's d=0.33 would be detectable as statistically significant with power of .80 in two-sided tests at .05 level of significance.||0.16|-3.74|.07
90979860|NCT03878147|181843961|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was difference between least square means of trial arms at month 6.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.68||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome, child's age, sex, and HIV exposure status were included as covariates.|BPG minus waitlist control.|The null hypothesis was that the means of two arms were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that means of two arms were not equal. With this sample size, differences between arms corresponding to the unadjusted effect size Cohen's d=0.33 would be detectable as statistically significant with power of .80 in two-sided tests at .05 level of significance.||1.68|-2.10|.83
90979861|NCT03878147|181843962|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was difference between least square means of trial arms at month 2.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.42||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome, child's age, sex, and HIV exposure status were included as covariates.|BPG minus waitlist control.|The null hypothesis was that the means of two arms were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that means of two arms were not equal. With this sample size, differences between arms corresponding to the unadjusted effect size Cohen's d=0.33 would be detectable as statistically significant with power of .80 in two-sided tests at .05 level of significance.||0.42|-0.71|.65
90979862|NCT03878147|181843962|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was difference between least square means of trial arms at month 6.|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.58||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome, child's age, sex, and HIV exposure status were included as covariates.|BPG minus waitlist control.|The null hypothesis was that the means of two arms were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that means of two arms were not equal. With this sample size, differences between arms corresponding to the unadjusted effect size Cohen's d=0.33 would be detectable as statistically significant with power of .80 in two-sided tests at .05 level of significance.||0.58|-0.54|.95
90979863|NCT03878147|181843962|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was difference between least square means of trial arms at month 2.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.13||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome, child's age, sex, and HIV exposure status were included as covariates.|BPG minus waitlist control.|The null hypothesis was that the means of two arms were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that means of two arms were not equal. With this sample size, differences between arms corresponding to the unadjusted effect size Cohen's d=0.33 would be detectable as statistically significant with power of .80 in two-sided tests at .05 level of significance.||0.13|-0.92|.34
90979864|NCT03878147|181843962|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was difference between least square means of trial arms at month 6.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.58||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome, child's age, sex, and HIV exposure status were included as covariates.|BPG minus waitlist control.|The null hypothesis was that the means of two arms were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that means of two arms were not equal. With this sample size, differences between arms corresponding to the unadjusted effect size Cohen's d=0.33 would be detectable as statistically significant with power of .80 in two-sided tests at .05 level of significance.||0.58|-0.73|.81
91050469|NCT03127644|181987064|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference in slopes|-0.00496|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00038|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00571|-0.0042|||Mixed Models Analysis|Confirmatory testing proceeded sequentially (ZS 10g TID, then ZS 5g TID).|Negative exponential rate of change relative to placebo indicates more rapid reduction (correction) of S-K.|Exponential rate of change in S-K through to 48 hours was analysed with a mixed effect model (random slope model).||-0.00420|-0.00571|<0.0001
90948309|NCT01430468|181775541|EQUIVALENCE|With use of previously established criteria for a malpositioned glenoid, deviations of greater than 10 degrees of version from the planned placement were considered relevant.||||||0.11||||||P-value was calculated. Threshold for statistical significance (p\<0.05)|t-test, 2 sided|||The absolute difference between the actual outcome and the planned outcome was compared between the standard surgical group and the glenoid positioning system group with use of a Student t test. Results were considered to be significant at p \< 0.05.||||0.11
90948310|NCT01281839|181775543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions of SVR12|43.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.6|53.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference in proportions of SVR12 between the treatment groups.||53.0|34.6|<0.001
90948311|NCT01281839|181775544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions of SVR72|43.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.1|52.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference in proportions of SVR72 between the treatment groups.||52.5|34.1|<0.001
90948312|NCT01281839|181775545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions of SVR24|44.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.9|53.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||There is no difference in proportions of SVR24 between the treatment groups.||53.2|34.9|<0.001
90948313|NCT01281839|181775546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions of SVR4|41.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.1|49.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||There is no difference in proportions of SVR24 between the treatment groups.||49.9|32.1|<0.001
90948314|NCT02614183|181775644|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|-1.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.37|-2.48|<.001
90948315|NCT02614183|181775644|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.31|-1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.20|-2.31|<.001
90948316|NCT02614183|181775645|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.05|3.37||||||Reduction from Baseline ≥50%||3.37|2.05|
90948317|NCT02614183|181775645|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.94|3.18||||||Reduction from Baseline ≥50%||3.18|1.94|
90948318|NCT02614183|181775645|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.04|3.45||||||Reduction from Baseline ≥75%||3.45|2.04|
90948319|NCT02614183|181775645|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.01|3.41||||||Reduction from Baseline ≥75%||3.41|2.01|
90948320|NCT02614183|181775645|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.96|4.01||||||Reduction from Baseline = 100%||4.01|1.96|
90948321|NCT02614183|181775645|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.81|3.75||||||Reduction from Baseline = 100%||3.75|1.81|
90948322|NCT02614183|181775646|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.2|10.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||10.28|5.20|<.001
90948323|NCT02614183|181775646|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.31|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.83|9.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.97|4.83|<.001
90948324|NCT02614183|181775647|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28|-1.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.33|-2.28|<.001
90948325|NCT02614183|181775647|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|-1.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.14|-2.09|<.001
90948326|NCT02614183|181775648|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.12|-0.52|<.001
90948327|NCT02614183|181775648|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.07|-0.48|<.001
90948328|NCT02614183|181775649|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.55|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.99|-8.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.97|-18.99|<.001
90948329|NCT02614183|181775649|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.57|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.68|-8.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.60|-18.68|<.001
90948330|NCT02614183|181775650|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.61|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.45|-3.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.13|-9.45|<.001
90948331|NCT02614183|181775650|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.39|-1.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.98|-8.39|<.001
90948332|NCT02614183|181775651|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.16|||||||Fisher Exact|||TE ADA Positive.||||<.160
90948333|NCT02614183|181775651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Fisher Exact|||TE ADA Positive.||||.020
90948334|NCT02614183|181775651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.131|||||||Fisher Exact|||Neutralizing Antibodies.||||.131
90948335|NCT02614183|181775651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||Fisher Exact|||Neutralizing Antibodies.||||.009
90948336|NCT01251770|181775666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Serum Sodium difference at the beginning||||0.030
90948337|NCT01251770|181775666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.871||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Serum Sodium at the end of the study||||0.871
90948338|NCT01251770|181775667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.895
90948339|NCT01901419|181775668|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.618|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.618
90948340|NCT01901419|181775669|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.410
90948341|NCT01901419|181775670|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.088|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.088
90948342|NCT01901419|181775671|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.320
90948343|NCT01901419|181775672|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.512|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.512
90948344|NCT01901419|181775673|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.144|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.144
90948345|NCT01901419|181775674|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.338|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.338
90948346|NCT01901419|181775675|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.356|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.356
91050470|NCT03127644|181987064|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference in slopes|-0.00261|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.000385|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00337|-0.00185|||Mixed Models Analysis|Confirmatory testing proceeded sequentially (ZS 10g TID, then ZS 5g TID).|Negative exponential rate of change relative to placebo indicates more rapid reduction (correction) of S-K.|Exponential rate of change in S-K through to 48 hours was analysed with a mixed effect model (random slope model).||-0.00185|-0.00337|<0.001
90948347|NCT01901419|181775676|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.478|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.478
90948348|NCT01901419|181775677|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.515|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.515
90948349|NCT01901419|181775678|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
90948350|NCT01901419|181775679|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.227|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.227
90948351|NCT01901419|181775680|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.141|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.141
90948352|NCT01901419|181775681|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.046
90948353|NCT01901419|181775682|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.800
90948354|NCT01901419|181775683|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.948|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.948
90948355|NCT01901419|181775684|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.682|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.682
90948356|NCT01901419|181775685|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.928|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.928
90948357|NCT01901419|181775686|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.672|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.672
90948358|NCT01901419|181775687|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.894|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.894
90948359|NCT01901419|181775688|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.135|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.135
90948360|NCT01901419|181775689|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.038
90948361|NCT01901419|181775690|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.852|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.852
90948362|NCT01901419|181775691|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.454|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.454
90948363|NCT01901419|181775692|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.663|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.663
90948364|NCT01901419|181775693|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.872|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.872
90948365|NCT01901419|181775694|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.318|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.318
90948366|NCT01901419|181775695|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.365|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.365
90948367|NCT01901419|181775696|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.077|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.077
90948368|NCT01901419|181775697|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.640
90948369|NCT00475644|181775702|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.031|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.86||||||||0.860|0.001|
90948370|NCT00790400|181775710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Clopper-Pearson|||||||<0.0001
90948371|NCT02412735|181775736|SUPERIORITY|The superiority threshold was 0.9875.|||||||||||||||||The posterior probability of superiority to placebo was 0.2072.|||
90948372|NCT02412735|181775736|SUPERIORITY|The superiority threshold was 0.9875.|||||||||||||||||The posterior probability of superiority to placebo was 0.6427.|||
90948373|NCT02412735|181775737|SUPERIORITY|The superiority threshold was 0.9875.|||||||||||||||||The posterior probability of superiority to placebo was 0.2754.|||
90948374|NCT02412735|181775737|SUPERIORITY|The superiority threshold was 0.9875.|||||||||||||||||The posterior probability of superiority to placebo was 0.9087.|||
90948375|NCT02412735|181775738|SUPERIORITY|The superiority threshold was 0.9875.|||||||||||||||||The posterior probability of superiority to placebo was 0.2835.|||
90948376|NCT02412735|181775738|SUPERIORITY|The superiority threshold was 0.9875.|||||||||||||||||The posterior probability of superiority to placebo was 0.4739.|||
90948377|NCT02412735|181775739|SUPERIORITY|The superiority threshold was 0.9875.|||||||||||||||||The posterior probability of superiority to placebo was 0.2650.|||
90948378|NCT02412735|181775739|SUPERIORITY|The superiority threshold was 0.9875.|||||||||||||||||The posterior probability of superiority to placebo was 0.7004.|||
90948379|NCT02412735|181775740|SUPERIORITY|The superiority threshold was 0.9875.|||||||||||||||||The posterior probability of superiority to placebo was 0.1945.|||
90948380|NCT02412735|181775740|SUPERIORITY|The superiority threshold was 0.9875.|||||||||||||||||The posterior probability of superiority to placebo was 0.8093.|||
90948381|NCT02412735|181775741|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.7842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.46|||Regression, Cox|P-value was calculated from a Cox regression model with treatment, pooled site, and opioid/non opioid use at Baseline as covariates.|Hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated from a Cox regression model with treatment, pooled site, and opioid/non opioid use at Baseline as covariates.|||2.46|0.50|0.7842
90948382|NCT02412735|181775741|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.8754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|2.14|||Regression, Cox|P-value was calculated from a Cox regression model with treatment, pooled site, and opioid/non opioid use at Baseline as covariates.|Hazard ratio and 95% CI were calculated from a Cox regression model with treatment, pooled site, and opioid/non opioid use at Baseline as covariates.|||2.14|0.41|0.8754
90948383|NCT02412735|181775742|SUPERIORITY|The superiority threshold was 0.9875.|||||||||||||||||The posterior probability of superiority to placebo was 0.2309.|||
90948384|NCT02412735|181775742|SUPERIORITY|The superiority threshold was 0.9875.|||||||||||||||||The posterior probability of superiority to placebo was 0.1241.|||
90948385|NCT02412735|181775743|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.08||0.9072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.71|6.43|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|MMRM was used with fixed effects of pooled site,baseline use of opioids,treatment,visit,treatment-by-visit interaction\&continuous covariate baseline.||Mean Change from Baseline in Low Back Pain VAS Score at Month 1||6.43|-5.71|0.9072
90948386|NCT02412735|181775743|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.14||0.2883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.51|2.83|||MMRM|MMRM was used with fixed effects of pooled site,baseline use of opioids,treatment,visit,treatment-by-visit interaction\&continuous covariate baseline.||Mean Change from Baseline in Low Back Pain VAS Score at Month 1||2.83|-9.51|0.2883
90948387|NCT02412735|181775743|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.23||0.6314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|4.8|||MMRM|MMRM was used with fixed effects of pooled site,baseline use of opioids,treatment,visit,treatment-by-visit interaction\&continuous covariate baseline.||Mean Change from Baseline in Low Back Pain VAS Score at Month 3||4.80|-7.90|0.6314
90948388|NCT02412735|181775743|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.29||0.1366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.37|1.56|||MMRM|MMRM was used with fixed effects of pooled site,baseline use of opioids,treatment,visit,treatment-by-visit interaction\&continuous covariate baseline.||Mean Change from Baseline in Low Back Pain VAS Score at Month 3||1.56|-11.37|0.1366
90979865|NCT03878147|181843963|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was difference between least square means of trial arms at month 2.|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|0.043||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome, child's age, sex, and HIV exposure status were included as covariates.|BPG minus waitlist control|The null hypothesis was that the means of two arms were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that means of two arms were not equal. With this sample size, differences between arms corresponding to the unadjusted effect size Cohen's d=0.33 would be detectable as statistically significant with power of .80 in two-sided tests at .05 level of significance.||0.043|0.004|.01
90948389|NCT02412735|181775743|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.34||0.2497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.43|2.72|||MMRM|MMRM was used with fixed effects of pooled site,baseline use of opioids,treatment,visit,treatment-by-visit interaction\&continuous covariate baseline.||Mean Change from Baseline in Low Back Pain VAS Score at Month 6||2.72|-10.43|0.2497
90948390|NCT02412735|181775743|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.42||0.0666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|0.43|||MMRM|MMRM was used with fixed effects of pooled site,baseline use of opioids,treatment,visit,treatment-by-visit interaction\&continuous covariate baseline.||Mean Change from Baseline in Low Back Pain VAS Score at Month 6||0.43|-13.00|0.0666
90948391|NCT02412735|181775743|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4||0.2147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.91|2.46|||MMRM|MMRM was used with fixed effects of pooled site,baseline use of opioids,treatment,visit,treatment-by-visit interaction\&continuous covariate baseline.||Mean Change from Baseline in Low Back Pain VAS Score at Month 12||2.46|-10.91|0.2147
90948392|NCT02412735|181775743|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-8.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.47||0.0162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.19|-1.55|||MMRM|MMRM was used with fixed effects of pooled site,baseline use of opioids,treatment,visit,treatment-by-visit interaction\&continuous covariate baseline.||Mean Change from Baseline in Low Back Pain VAS Score at Month 12||-1.55|-15.19|0.0162
90948393|NCT02412735|181775743|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.67||0.223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.69|2.74|||MMRM|MMRM was used with fixed effects of pooled site,baseline use of opioids,treatment,visit,treatment-by-visit interaction\&continuous covariate baseline.||Mean Change from Baseline in Low Back Pain VAS Score at Month 18||2.74|-11.69|0.2230
90948394|NCT02412735|181775743|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.74||0.1152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.27|1.45|||MMRM|MMRM was used with fixed effects of pooled site,baseline use of opioids,treatment,visit,treatment-by-visit interaction\&continuous covariate baseline.||Mean Change from Baseline in Low Back Pain VAS Score at Month 18||1.45|-13.27|0.1152
90948395|NCT02412735|181775743|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.66||0.4884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.75|4.67|||MMRM|MMRM was used with fixed effects of pooled site,baseline use of opioids,treatment,visit,treatment-by-visit interaction\&continuous covariate baseline.||Mean Change from Baseline in Low Back Pain VAS Score at Month 24||4.67|-9.75|0.4884
90948396|NCT02412735|181775743|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.74||0.0426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.98|-0.25|||MMRM|MMRM was used with fixed effects of pooled site,baseline use of opioids,treatment,visit,treatment-by-visit interaction\&continuous covariate baseline.||Mean Change from Baseline in Low Back Pain VAS Score at Month 24||-0.25|-14.98|0.0426
90948397|NCT02412735|181775743|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.77||0.3056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.27|3.54|||MMRM|MMRM was used with fixed effects of pooled site,baseline use of opioids,treatment,visit,treatment-by-visit interaction\&continuous covariate baseline.||Mean Change from Baseline in Low Back Pain VAS Score at Month 36||3.54|-11.27|0.3056
90948398|NCT02412735|181775743|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.85||0.1184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.59|1.54|||MMRM|MMRM was used with fixed effects of pooled site,baseline use of opioids,treatment,visit,treatment-by-visit interaction\&continuous covariate baseline.||Mean Change from Baseline in Low Back Pain VAS Score at Month 36||1.54|-13.59|0.1184
90948399|NCT01006980|181775744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.55|||Log Rank||The hazard ratio for death for vemurafenib relative to dacarbazine and the associated 95% confidence interval were computed using an unstratified Cox regression model.|The trial had a power of 80% to detect a hazard ratio of 0.65 for overall survival with an alpha level of 0.045 (an increase in median survival from 8 months for dacarbazine to 12.3 months for vemurafenib), one interim analysis for overall survival at 50% information.||0.55|0.26|<0.0001
90948400|NCT01006980|181775745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.33|||Log Rank||Hazard ratios for treatment with vemurafenib, as compared with dacarbazine, were estimated with the use of unstratified Cox regression.|The trial had a power of 90% to detect a hazard ratio of 0.55 for progression-free survival with an alpha level of 0.005 (an increase in median survival from 2.5 months for dacarbazine to 4.5 months for vemurafenib).||0.33|0.20|<.0001
90948401|NCT00078338|181775752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.943||||0.643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.21|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||1.21|0.74|0.643
90948402|NCT03445533|181775784|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9394||||||p-value was calculated for percentage difference (B-A) using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by metastasis stage and BRAF mutation.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|ORR and OS comprise a primary endpoint family; both have a priori hypotheses and were tested for statistical significance.||The ORR was defined as a percentage of subjects meeting criteria of CR and PR to calculate the p-value.||||0.9394
90948403|NCT03445533|181775785|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.955||||0.6775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.186||The p-value was calculated using the log rank test stratified by metastasis stage and BRAF mutation.|Log Rank|ORR and OS comprise a primary endpoint family; both have a priori hypotheses. ORR will be tested first followed by OS.|Hazard ratio and 95% CI (B/A) are estimated using a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by metastasis stage and BRAF mutation.|||1.186|0.770|0.6775
90948404|NCT01762904|181775787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.05
90948405|NCT01762904|181775788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.05
90948406|NCT01762904|181775789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.05
91007825|NCT00998985|181899890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|4.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.36|5.5|||||LSM Difference (grazoprevir-placebo) and confidence intervals from ANOVA model with maximum log10 HCV reduction as response and a fixed effect for treatment.|It is hypothesized that one or more doses of Grazoprevir will reduce GT1 viral load by at least 3 log10||5.50|4.36|
90948407|NCT01294397|181775791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Ratio of Day 22/Day 1|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|1.08|||||Two one-sided tests|Log-transformed AUC0-168 was analyzed with a mixed-effects model with treatment as the fixed effect and subject as the random effect. The mean difference between day 22 and day 1 was expressed as a percentage of the reference (day 1). The mean differences and the 90% CIs were back transformed to produce the ratio (day 22 vs. day 1) of the geometric means and the 90% CIs. If the CI for the ratio was within the standard acceptance range of 0.80 to 1.25, absence of an interaction was concluded.||1.08|0.85|
90948408|NCT01294397|181775792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Ratio of Day 22/Day 1|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|1.05|||||Two one-sided tests|Log-transformed Cmax was analyzed with a mixed-effects model with treatment as the fixed effect and subject as the random effect. The mean difference between day 22 and day 1 was expressed as a percentage of the reference (day 1). The mean differences and the 90% CIs were back transformed to produce the ratio (day 22 vs. day 1) of the geometric means and the 90% CIs. If the CI for the ratio was within the standard acceptance range of 0.80 to 1.25, absence of an interaction was concluded.||1.05|0.81|
90948409|NCT00790205|181775866|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Hazard Ratio of Sitagliptin/Placebo: the between-treatment difference in time to the first primary composite CV outcome measure was assessed by the hazard ratio between the sitagliptin and placebo groups. The confidence interval for the hazard ratio was computed and compared to 1.30, the non-inferiority margin.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.09|||Cox proportional hazards model|Model stratified by region with treatment group only as explanatory variable.||||1.09|0.88|<0.001
90948410|NCT00790205|181775867|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Hazard Ratio of Sitagliptin/Placebo: the between-treatment difference in time to the first primary composite CV outcome measure was assessed by the hazard ratio between the sitagliptin and placebo groups. The confidence interval for the hazard ratio was computed and compared to 1.30, the non-inferiority margin.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.08|||Cox proportional hazards model|Model stratified by region with treatment group only as explanatory variable.||||1.08|0.89|<0.001
90948411|NCT00790205|181775868|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Hazard Ratio of Sitagliptin/Placebo: the between-treatment difference in time to the first primary composite CV outcome measure was assessed by the hazard ratio between the sitagliptin and placebo groups. The confidence interval for the hazard ratio was computed and compared to 1.30, the non-inferiority margin.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.11|||Cox proportional hazards model|Model stratified by region with treatment group only as explanatory variable.||||1.11|0.89|<0.001
90948412|NCT00790205|181775869|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Hazard Ratio of Sitagliptin/Placebo: the between-treatment difference in time to the first primary composite CV outcome measure was assessed by the hazard ratio between the sitagliptin and placebo groups. The confidence interval for the hazard ratio was computed and compared to 1.30, the non-inferiority margin.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.1|||Cox proportional hazards model|Model stratified by region with treatment group only as explanatory variable.||||1.10|0.89|<0.001
90948413|NCT00790205|181775870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.24|||Cox proportional hazards model|||Hazard Ratio of Sitagliptin/Placebo: The between-treatment difference in mortality due to all causes was assessed by the hazard ratio between the Sitagliptin and Placebo groups.||1.24|0.91|0.435
90948414|NCT00790205|181775871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.14|||Cox proportional hazards model|||Hazard Ratio of Sitagliptin/Placebo: The between-treatment difference in mortality due to all causes was assessed by the hazard ratio between the Sitagliptin and Placebo groups.||1.14|0.90|0.875
90979866|NCT03878147|181843963|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was difference between least square means of trial arms at month 6.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.003|0.04||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome, child's age, sex, and HIV exposure status were included as covariates.|BPG minus waitlist control|The null hypothesis was that the means of two arms were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that means of two arms were not equal. With this sample size, differences between arms corresponding to the unadjusted effect size Cohen's d=0.33 would be detectable as statistically significant with power of .80 in two-sided tests at .05 level of significance.||0.040|0.003|.02
91007826|NCT00998985|181899890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|5.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.93|5.74|||||LSM Difference (grazoprevir-placebo) and confidence intervals from ANOVA model with maximum log10 HCV reduction as response and a fixed effect for treatment.|It is hypothesized that one or more doses of Grazoprevir will reduce GT1 viral load by at least 3 log10||5.74|4.93|
90948415|NCT00790205|181775872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.19|||Cox proportional hazards model|Model stratified by region with treatment group and history of CHF at baseline as explanatory variables.||Hazard Ratio of Sitagliptin/Placebo: The between-treatment difference in CHF cases requiring hospitalization was assessed by the hazard ratio between the Sitagliptin and Placebo groups.||1.19|0.81|0.858
90948416|NCT00790205|181775873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.2|||Cox proportional hazards model|Model stratified by region with treatment group and history of CHF at baseline as explanatory variables.||Hazard Ratio of Sitagliptin/Placebo: The between-treatment difference in CHF cases requiring hospitalization was assessed by the hazard ratio between the Sitagliptin and Placebo groups.||1.20|0.83|0.983
90948417|NCT00790205|181775880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.77|||Cox proportional hazards model|Model stratified by region with treatment group only as explanatory variable.||||0.77|0.61|<0.001
90948418|NCT00790205|181775881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.79|||Cox proportional hazards model|Model stratified by region with treatment group only as explanatory variable.||||0.79|0.63|<0.001
90948419|NCT00790205|181775882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.75|||Cox proportional hazards model|Model stratified by region with treatment group only as explanatory variable.||||0.75|0.65|<0.001
90948420|NCT00790205|181775883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.77|||Cox proportional hazards model|Model stratified by region with treatment group only as explanatory variable.||||0.77|0.68|<0.001
90948421|NCT01993849|181775894|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.61||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.81|2.59||The p-value was calculated, and is not attempting to indicate the threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||||2.59|-3.81|0.69
90948422|NCT00422734|181775915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Hypotheses were tested in a sequential fashion using a gatekeeping strategy and adjusted for multiplicity. Statistical significance at 0.05 level was required for this variable|ANCOVA|Change from baseline ANCOVA model: treatment group, baseline value, pooled site. Baseline-by-treatment interaction included if interaction at p\<0.10.||The null hypotheses (no treatment effect with respect to IIEF EF domain or SEP2 or SEP3) were each tested at a specified level of 0.05. In order to pass a serial gatekeeper, it was necessary to reject all three hypotheses. The two null hypotheses (no treatment effect with respect to subject SLQQ-SQoL domain and no treatment effect with respect to partner SLQQ-SQoL domain) were then each tested at a significance level of 0.025.||||<0.001
90948423|NCT00422734|181775916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Subject. Hypotheses were tested in a sequential fashion using a gatekeeping strategy and adjusted for multiplicity. To adjust for multiplicity, statistical significance at 0.025 level was required for this variable.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline ANCOVA model: treatment group, baseline value, pooled site. Baseline-by-treatment interaction included if interaction at p\<0.10.||The null hypotheses (no treatment effect with respect to IIEF EF domain or SEP2 or SEP3) were each tested at a specified level of 0.05. In order to pass a serial gatekeeper, it was necessary to reject all three hypotheses. The two null hypotheses (no treatment effect with respect to subject SLQQ-SQoL domain and no treatment effect with respect to partner SLQQ-SQoL domain) were then each tested at a significance level of 0.025.||||<0.001
90979867|NCT03878147|181843963|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was difference between least square means of trial arms at month 2.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.05||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome, child's age, sex, and HIV exposure status were included as covariates.|BPG minus waitlist control.|The null hypothesis was that the means of two arms were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that means of two arms were not equal. With this sample size, differences between arms corresponding to the unadjusted effect size Cohen's d=0.33 would be detectable as statistically significant with power of .80 in two-sided tests at .05 level of significance.||0.05|-0.01|.19
91050471|NCT03127644|181987065|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|46.495|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.142|213.152|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression model including treatment and baseline S-K as explanatory variables was used.||213.152|10.142|<0.0001
90979868|NCT03878147|181843963|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was difference between least square means of trial arms at month 2.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.04||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome, child's age, sex, and HIV exposure status were included as covariates.|BPG minus waitlist control.|The null hypothesis was that the means of two arms were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that means of two arms were not equal. With this sample size, differences between arms corresponding to the unadjusted effect size Cohen's d=0.33 would be detectable as statistically significant with power of .80 in two-sided tests at .05 level of significance.||0.04|-0.01|.19
90979869|NCT05817045|181843970|SUPERIORITY|adjusted for the following prognostic baseline covariates: baseline log10 nasopharyngeal viral load, ethnicity, hours since symptom onset, and baseline risk factor score|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.777|1.31|||NPANCOVA||For the HR calculation Sham was taken to be the reference group, meaning a HR \> 1 is favorable for RD-X19|NPANCOVA analysis for time to sustained resolution of COVID-19 signs and symptoms without subsequent recurrence or disease progression (until the end of the study) Full Analysis Set (FAS)||1.310|0.777|0.948
90979870|NCT05817045|181843970|SUPERIORITY|Per-Protocol Population|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.774|1.337||adjusted for the following prognostic baseline covariates: baseline log10 nasopharyngeal viral load, ethnicity, hours since symptom onset, and baseline risk factor score.|NPANCOVA||For the HR calculation Sham was taken to be the reference group, meaning a HR \> 1 is favorable for RD-X19|NPANCOVA analysis for time to sustained resolution of COVID-19 signs and symptoms without subsequent symptom recurrence or disease progression (until the end of the study) Per-Protocol Population||1.337|0.774|0.902
90979871|NCT05817045|181843970|SUPERIORITY|adjusted for the following prognostic baseline covariates: baseline log10 nasopharyngeal viral load, ethnicity, hours since symptom onset, and baseline risk factor score|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.782|1.342|||NPANCOVA||For the HR calculation Sham was taken to be the reference group, meaning a HR \> 1 is favorable for RD-X19;|NPANCOVA analysis for time to sustained resolution of COVID-19 signs and symptoms without subsequent symptom recurrence or disease progression (until the end of the study) - Secondary Analysis (FAS excluding subjects that were qPCR negative at baseline)||1.342|0.782|0.859
90979872|NCT05817045|181843972|SUPERIORITY|adjusted for the following prognostic baseline covariates: baseline log10 nasopharyngeal viral load, ethnicity, hours since symptom onset, and baseline risk factor score|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.29||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.047|1.596|||NPANCOVA||For the HR calculation Sham was taken to be the reference group, meaning a HR \> 1 is favorable for RD-X19|NPANCOVA analysis for time to first of two negative SARS-CoV-2 antigen tests (with a minimum time between tests of six hours) without subsequent virologic rebound (during the subject's remaining time on study) Full Analysis Set (FAS)||1.596|1.047|0.017
90979873|NCT05817045|181843972|SUPERIORITY|adjusted for the following prognostic baseline covariates: baseline log10 nasopharyngeal viral load, ethnicity, hours since symptom onset, and baseline risk factor score|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.33||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.059|1.665|||NPANCOVA||For the HR calculation Sham was taken to be the reference group, meaning a HR \> 1 is favorable for RD-X19;|NPANCOVA analysis for time to first of two negative SARS-CoV-2 antigen tests (with a minimum time between tests of six hours) without subsequent virological rebound (during the subject's remaining time on study) (Per-Protocol population)||1.665|1.059|0.014
90979874|NCT05817045|181843972|SUPERIORITY|adjusted for the following prognostic baseline covariates: baseline log10 nasopharyngeal viral load, ethnicity, hours since symptom onset, and baseline risk factor score|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.35||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.086|1.69|||NPANCOVA||For the HR calculation Sham was taken to be the reference group, meaning a HR \> 1 is favorable for RD-X19|NPANCOVA analysis for time to first of two negative SARS-CoV-2 antigen tests (with a minimum time between tests of six hours) without subsequent virological rebound (during the subject's remaining time on study) - Secondary analysis - (FAS excluding subjects that were qPCR negative at baseline)||1.690|1.086|0.007
90979875|NCT05817045|181843972|SUPERIORITY|SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen test type: Flowflex|Cox Proportional Hazard|1.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.064|1.997|||||For the HR calculation Sham was taken to be the reference group, meaning a HR \> 1 is favorable for RD-X19|Cox proportional hazards model for time to first of two negative SARS-CoV-2 antigen tests (with a minimum time between tests of six hours) without subsequent virological rebound (during the subject's remaining time on study) (FAS)||1.997|1.064|
90979876|NCT05817045|181843972|SUPERIORITY|SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen test type: BinaxNOW|Cox Proportional Hazard|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.801|1.561|||||For the HR calculation Sham was taken to be the reference group, meaning a HR \> 1 is favorable for RD-X19|Subgroup Analysis - Cox proportional hazards model for time to first of two negative SARS-CoV-2 antigen tests (with a minimum time between tests of six hours) without subsequent virological rebound (during the subject's remaining time on study) (FAS)||1.561|0.801|
90979877|NCT02148029|181844049|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|3.1|||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference = Exercise - Control|||3.1|-1.1|0.34
90979878|NCT02148029|181844050|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|8.0|||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference = Exercise - Control|||8.0|-7.1|0.89
90979879|NCT02148029|181844051|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.2||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.3|8.4|||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference = Exercise - Control|Note that this analysis uses only 1 of the 8 SF-36 domain scores, the Physical Functioning (PF) domain score.||8.4|-20.3|0.43
90979880|NCT02148029|181844051|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|11.6|||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference = Exercise - Control|Note that this analysis uses only 1 of the 8 SF-36 domain scores, the Role limitations due to Physical health problems (RP) domain score.||11.6|-1.6|0.13
90979881|NCT02148029|181844051|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|8.2|||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference = Exercise - Control|Note that this analysis uses only 1 of the 8 SF-36 domain scores, the Role limitations due to mental health or Emotional problems (RE) domain score.||8.2|-2.8|0.33
91050472|NCT03127644|181987065|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|71.835|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.497|382.337|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression model including treatment and baseline S-K as explanatory variables was used.||382.337|13.497|<0.0001
90979882|NCT02148029|181844051|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.1||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|20.0|||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference = Exercise - Control|Note that this analysis uses only 1 of the 8 SF-36 domain scores, the energy/fatigue/Vitality (VT) domain score.||20.0|-8.7|0.43
90979883|NCT02148029|181844051|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.6||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|8.6|||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference = Exercise - Control|Note that this analysis uses only 1 of the 8 SF-36 domain scores, the Mental Health/emotional well-being (MH) domain score.||8.6|-13.8|0.64
90979884|NCT02148029|181844051|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.3||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.5|12.8|||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference = Exercise - Control|Note that this analysis uses only 1 of the 8 SF-36 domain scores, the Social Functioning (SF) domain score.||12.8|-20.5|0.64
90979885|NCT02148029|181844051|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|9.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.1||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|29.7|||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference = Exercise - Control|Note that this analysis uses only 1 of the 8 SF-36 domain scores, the Bodily Pain (BP) domain score.||29.7|-10.7|0.35
90979886|NCT02148029|181844051|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.3||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|7.0|||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference = Exercise - Control|Note that this analysis uses only 1 of the 8 SF-36 domain scores, the General Health (GH) domain score.||7.0|-14.1|0.50
90979887|NCT02148029|181844052|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-33.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|30.1||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-95.5|27.7|||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference = Exercise - Control|||27.7|-95.5|0.27
90979888|NCT02148029|181844053|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|0.1|||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference = Reflux - No reflux|||0.1|-3.4|0.07
90979889|NCT02148029|181844054|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.9|||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference = PTS - No PTS|||0.9|-0.8|0.91
90979890|NCT03905928|181844055|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||This was a whole-brain, voxel-wise general linear model conducted in FSL software using a one-sample t-test on the tobacco\>strawberry condition contrasts conducted at the subject-level.|A whole-brain, one-sample t-test was used with a voxel threshold p \<.001 and cluster threshold p\<.05. This method results in unique p-values for each cluster identified.|||
90979891|NCT03905928|181844056|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||This was a whole-brain, voxel-wise repeated measures ANOVA conducted using FSL software on activation from baseline to post-intervention that differ by the nicotine groups (18 mg/ml vs. 0 mg/ml) for the tobacco\>strawberry condition contrasts calculated at the subject-level. The means and standard deviations presented are the average post-pre scan difference scores of the BOLD percentage signal change of tobacco \> strawberry contrasts for each group.|A whole-brain, repeated measures ANOVA was used with a voxel threshold p \<.025 and cluster threshold p\<.05. This method results in unique p-values for each cluster identified.|||
90979892|NCT03905928|181844057|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||This was a whole-brain, voxel-wise repeated measures ANOVA conducted using FSL software on activation from baseline to post-intervention between the flavor groups (tobacco vs. strawberry) for the tobacco\>strawberry condition contrasts calculated at the subject-level. The means and standard deviations presented are the average post-pre scan difference scores of the BOLD percentage signal change of tobacco \> strawberry contrasts for each group.|A whole-brain, repeated measures ANOVA was used with a voxel threshold p \<.025 and cluster threshold p\<.05. This method results in unique p-values for each cluster identified.|||
90979893|NCT03905928|181844058|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.573|||||||ANOVA|||We conducted a one-way ANOVA to compare the change in e-cigarette dependence (week 4 - week 2 PSECDI difference score) between the four e-cigarette groups.||||0.573
90979894|NCT03905928|181844060|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022|||||||ANOVA|||We conducted a one-way ANOVA to compare changes in self-reported craving across all groups.||||.022
90979895|NCT03619213|181844061|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.92|||Regression, Cox|Stratified by Type 2 Diabetes status at randomization.||Comparison Group: Placebo||0.92|0.73|0.0008
90979896|NCT03619213|181844062|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.95|||Regression, Cox|Stratified by Type 2 Diabetes status at randomization.||Comparison Group: Placebo||0.95|0.73|0.0085
90979897|NCT03619213|181844063|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio (RR)|0.77||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.89|||LWYY proportional rates model|Stratified by Type 2 Diabetes status at randomization||Comparison Group: Placebo||0.89|0.67|0.0003
90979898|NCT03619213|181844064|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio (RR)|0.77||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.9|||LWYY proportional rates model|Stratified by Type 2 Diabetes status at randomization||Comparison Group: Placebo||0.90|0.65|0.0017
90979899|NCT03619213|181844065|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio (RR)|1.11||||0.0086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.21||The p-value is obtained from a rank ANCOVA adjusted for baseline KCCQ score, stratified by T2DM status at randomisation.|Win Ratio|Stratified by Type 2 Diabetes status at randomization and including baseline score as a covariate.|The composite of change from baseline in KCCQ Total Symptom Score at 8 months, or death before 8 months.|Comparison Group: Placebo||1.21|1.03|0.0086
90979900|NCT03619213|181844066|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.1678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.05|||Regression, Cox|Stratified by Type 2 Diabetes status at randomization.||Comparison Group: Placebo||1.05|0.74|0.1678
90979901|NCT03619213|181844067|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.3425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.07|||Regression, Cox|Stratified by Type 2 Diabetes status at randomization.||Comparison Group: Placebo||1.07|0.83|0.3425
91050473|NCT03127644|181987066|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference in slopes|-0.00231|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.000645||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00359|-0.00104|||Mixed Models Analysis||Negative exponential rate of change relative to placebo indicates more rapid reduction (correction) of S-K.|Exponential rate of change in S-K through to 24 hours was analysed with a mixed effect model (random slope model).||-0.00104|-0.00359|0.0004
90948424|NCT00422734|181775916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Partner. Hypotheses were tested in a sequential fashion using a gatekeeping strategy and adjusted for multiplicity. To adjust for multiplicity, statistical significance at 0.025 level was required for this variable.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline ANCOVA model: treatment group, baseline value, pooled site. Baseline-by-treatment interaction included if interaction at p\<0.10.||The null hypotheses (no treatment effect with respect to IIEF EF domain or SEP2 or SEP3) were each tested at a specified level of 0.05. In order to pass a serial gatekeeper, it was necessary to reject all three hypotheses. The two null hypotheses (no treatment effect with respect to subject SLQQ-SQoL domain and no treatment effect with respect to partner SLQQ-SQoL domain) were then each tested at a significance level of 0.025.||||<0.001
90948425|NCT00422734|181775917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Change from baseline ANCOVA model: treatment group, baseline value, pooled site. Baseline-by-treatment interaction included if interaction at p\<0.10.||||||<0.001
90948426|NCT00422734|181775918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Change from baseline ANCOVA model: treatment group, baseline value, pooled site. Baseline-by-treatment interaction included if interaction at p\<0.10.||||||<0.001
90948427|NCT00422734|181775919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value is for subject scores|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included:treatment, baseline value of IIEF EF Domain, pooled site. Baseline-value-by-treatment interaction included if interaction at p\<0.10||||||<0.001
90948428|NCT00422734|181775919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value is for partner scores|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included:treatment, baseline value of IIEF EF Domain, pooled site. Baseline-value-by-treatment interaction included if interaction at p\<0.10||||||<0.001
90948429|NCT00422734|181775920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for SEP Question 2. Hypotheses were tested in a sequential fashion using a gatekeeping strategy and adjusted for multiplicity. Statistical significance at 0.05 level was required for this variable.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline ANCOVA model: treatment group, baseline value, pooled site. Baseline-by-treatment interaction included if interaction at p\<0.10.||The null hypotheses (no treatment effect with respect to IIEF EF domain or SEP2 or SEP3) were each tested at a specified level of 0.05. In order to pass a serial gatekeeper, it was necessary to reject all three hypotheses. The two null hypotheses (no treatment effect with respect to subject SLQQ-SQoL domain and no treatment effect with respect to partner SLQQ-SQoL domain) were then each tested at a significance level of 0.025.||||<0.001
90948430|NCT00422734|181775920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for SEP Question 3. Hypotheses were tested in a sequential fashion using a gatekeeping strategy and adjusted for multiplicity. Statistical significance at 0.05 level was required for this variable.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline ANCOVA model: treatment group, baseline value, pooled site. Baseline-by-treatment interaction included if interaction at p\<0.10.||The null hypotheses (no treatment effect with respect to IIEF EF domain or SEP2 or SEP3) were each tested at a specified level of 0.05. In order to pass a serial gatekeeper, it was necessary to reject all three hypotheses. The two null hypotheses (no treatment effect with respect to subject SLQQ-SQoL domain and no treatment effect with respect to partner SLQQ-SQoL domain) were then each tested at a significance level of 0.025.||||<0.001
90948431|NCT00422734|181775921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value for SEP Question 4|ANCOVA|Change from baseline ANCOVA model: treatment group, baseline value, pooled site. Baseline-by-treatment interaction included if interaction at p\<0.10.||||||<0.001
90979902|NCT00461175|181844073|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size calculations were based on a two group test of equivalence in proportions. These calculations are based on the following assumptions: 1) one sided α of 0.025; 2) power (1-β) of 0.80; 3) non-inferiority limit on hazard ratio of 2; and 4) an incidence of 0.5 and 1.0 per 1000 insertions.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|2.7|||||Hazard ratio was adjusted for the following prognostic factors: age, BMI, breastfeeding at time of insertion and parity status.|The null hypothesis to be tested was: The perforation incidence ratio for LNG IUS vs. copper IUD is higher than or equal to 2.||2.70|0.96|
90979903|NCT00461175|181844073|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size calculations were based on a two group test of equivalence in proportions. These calculations are based on the following assumptions: 1) one sided α of 0.025; 2) power (1-β) of 0.80; 3) non-inferiority limit on hazard ratio of 2; and 4) an incidence of 0.5 and 1.0 per 1000 insertions.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|2.78|||||Hazard ratio was adjusted for the following prognostic factors: age, BMI, time since last delivery, experience of the inserting health care provider.|The null hypothesis to be tested was: The perforation incidence ratio for LNG IUS vs. copper IUD is higher than or equal to 2.||2.78|0.99|
90979904|NCT00461175|181844074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearl Index|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.09||||||||0.09|0.04|
90979905|NCT00461175|181844074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearl Index|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.64||||||||0.64|0.42|
90979906|NCT00461175|181844074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.25|||||Hazard ratio was adjusted for the following prognostic factors: age, BMI, and parity.|||0.25|0.10|
90979907|NCT02514044|181844075|OTHER|"We also performed normalization by calculating the dependent variable as the percentage of change (proportional change) as it follows; (1) (post-active values - pre-active values)/ (pre-active values) and (2) (post-placebo values - pre-placebo values)/ (pre-placebo series). We compared the percentage of change in Bedside WAB-R® aphasia and language quotients and blood pressures for the experiments with active- and placebo drugs combined active tDCS with MIT using a two-tailed paired t-test."||||||0.008|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We tested normality using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov (KS) test for all reported measures. We compared scores of Bedside WAB-R® subtests Bedside WAB-R® AQ and LQ from before the study intervention and after the intervention in both experiments by using a two-tailed and paired t-test.||||0.008
90979908|NCT02514044|181844076|OTHER|"We also performed normalization by calculating the dependent variable as the percentage of change (proportional change) as it follows; (1) (post-active values - pre-active values)/ (pre-active values) and (2) (post-placebo values - pre-placebo values)/ (pre-placebo series). We compared the percentage of change in Bedside WAB-R® aphasia and language quotients and blood pressures for the experiments with active- and placebo drugs combined active tDCS with MIT using a two-tailed paired t-test."||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||We tested normality using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov (KS) test for all reported measures. We compared scores of Bedside WAB-R® subtests Bedside WAB-R® AQ and LQ from before the study intervention and after the intervention in both experiments by using a two-tailed and paired t-test.||||0.02
90979909|NCT01053312|181844106|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The level of association between SUVR and the amyloid levels was analyzed using a regression model.|R²|0.688||||0.098|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Contralateral to the biopsy Site||||0.098
90979910|NCT01053312|181844106|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The level of association between SUVR and the amyloid levels was analyzed using a regression model.|R²|0.482||||0.268|||||||Regression, Linear|||Ipsilateral to the biopsy Site||||0.268
90948432|NCT00422734|181775921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value for SEP Question 5|ANCOVA|Change from baseline ANCOVA model: treatment group, baseline value, pooled site. Baseline-by-treatment interaction included if interaction at p\<0.10.||||||<0.001
90979911|NCT01053312|181844106|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The level of association between SUVR and the amyloid levels was analyzed using a regression model.|R²|0.685||||0.099|||||||Regression, Linear|||Composite Region||||0.099
90979912|NCT01587989|181844127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.327||||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.165|0.82|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.820|-0.165|0.188
90979913|NCT01587989|181844127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||At Week 12.||||0.015
90979914|NCT01587989|181844127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.304|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Adjusted change in DAS28 score from Weeks 12-24.||||0.304
90948433|NCT00422734|181775922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Change from baseline ANCOVA model: treatment group, baseline value, pooled site. Baseline-by-treatment interaction included if interaction at p\<0.10.||||||<0.001
90979915|NCT01587989|181844128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.732|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.732
90979916|NCT01587989|181844129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.207|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.207
90979917|NCT01587989|181844130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.453|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.453
90979918|NCT01587989|181844131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.084|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.084
90979919|NCT01587989|181844132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.842|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.842
90979920|NCT01587989|181844133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.417|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Physical standardized value||||0.417
90979921|NCT01587989|181844133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.112|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mental standardized value||||0.112
90948434|NCT00422734|181775923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Change from baseline ANCOVA model: treatment group, baseline value, pooled site. Baseline-by-treatment interaction included if interaction at p\<0.10.||||||<0.001
90948435|NCT00422734|181775924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for GAQ Question 1|Regression, Logistic|Model included:treatment, baseline value of IIEF EF Domain, pooled site. Baseline-value-by-treatment interaction included if interaction at p\<0.10||||||<0.001
90948436|NCT00422734|181775924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for GAQ Question 2|Regression, Logistic|Model included:treatment, baseline value of IIEF EF Domain, pooled site. Baseline-value-by-treatment interaction included if interaction at p\<0.10||||||<0.001
90948437|NCT00422734|181775925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for GAQ Question 1|Regression, Logistic|Model included:treatment, baseline value of IIEF EF Domain, pooled site. Baseline-value-by-treatment interaction included if interaction at p\<0.10||||||<0.001
90948438|NCT00422734|181775925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for GAQ Question 2|Regression, Logistic|Model included:treatment, baseline value of IIEF EF Domain, pooled site. Baseline-value-by-treatment interaction included if interaction at p\<0.10||||||<0.001
90948439|NCT00422734|181775926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for SEP Question 1|ANCOVA|Change from baseline ANCOVA model: treatment group, baseline value, pooled site. Baseline-by-treatment interaction included if interaction at p\<0.10.||||||<0.001
90948440|NCT00422734|181775926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for SEP Question 2|ANCOVA|Change from baseline ANCOVA model: treatment group, baseline value, pooled site. Baseline-by-treatment interaction included if interaction at p\<0.10.||||||<0.001
90948441|NCT00422734|181775927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for SEAR Total Score|ANCOVA|Change from baseline ANCOVA model: treatment group, baseline value, pooled site. Baseline-by-treatment interaction included if interaction at p\<0.10.||||||<0.001
90948442|NCT00422734|181775927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for SEAR Sexual Relationship|ANCOVA|Change from baseline ANCOVA model: treatment group, baseline value, pooled site. Baseline-by-treatment interaction included if interaction at p\<0.10.||||||<0.001
90948443|NCT00422734|181775927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for SEAR Confidence|ANCOVA|Change from baseline ANCOVA model: treatment group, baseline value, pooled site. Baseline-by-treatment interaction included if interaction at p\<0.10.||||||<0.001
90948444|NCT00422734|181775928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for SEAR Self-Esteem|ANCOVA|Change from baseline ANCOVA model: treatment group, baseline value, pooled site. Baseline-by-treatment interaction included if interaction at p\<0.10.||||||<0.001
90948445|NCT00422734|181775928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for SEAR Overall Relationship|ANCOVA|Change from baseline ANCOVA model: treatment group, baseline value, pooled site. Baseline-by-treatment interaction included if interaction at p\<0.10.||||||<0.001
90948446|NCT02097303|181775933|OTHER||||||<|1e-05||||||Comparison of ALP levels before and after treatment|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.00001
90948447|NCT02097303|181775933|OTHER|||||||0.487||||||Comparison of PSA levels before and after treatment|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4870
90948448|NCT02975102|181775947|NON_INFERIORITY|A sample size of 33 evaluable patients per treatment group was calculated to provide at least 90% power to demonstrate non-inferiority of CBL-101 to Vismed Multi. Assumptions included a non-inferiority margin of 2 grades and a standard deviation of 2.5|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.3|||||Treatment difference : CBL-101 - Vismed Multi|||0.3|-1.2|
90948449|NCT02975102|181775948|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Significance level of 0.05|ANCOVA|Adjustment for baseline||||||> 0.05
90948450|NCT02975102|181775949|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002||||||Significance level of 0.05|ANCOVA|Adjustment for baseline||||||0.0002
90948451|NCT02975102|181775950|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Significance level of 0.05|ANCOVA|Adjustment for baseline||||||> 0.05
90948452|NCT02975102|181775951|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Significance level of 0.05|ANCOVA|Adjustment for baseline||||||> 0.05
90948453|NCT02975102|181775952|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0186||||||Significance level of 0.05|ANCOVA|Adjustment for baseline||||||0.0186
90948454|NCT02975102|181775953|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Significance level of 0.05|ANCOVA|Adjustment for baseline||||||> 0.05
90948455|NCT02975102|181775954|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Significance level of 0.05|ANCOVA|Adjustment for baseline||||||> 0.05
90979922|NCT01587989|181844134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.655|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Fatigue||||0.655
90948456|NCT02975102|181775955|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0011||||||Significance level of 0.05|ANCOVA|Adjustment for baseline||||||0.0011
90948457|NCT02975102|181775956|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Significance level of 0.05|ANCOVA|Adjustment for baseline||||||> 0.05
90948458|NCT02975102|181775957|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Significance level of 0.05|ANCOVA|Adjustment for baseline||||||> 0.05
90948459|NCT02975102|181775958|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||Significance level of 0.05|ANCOVA|Adjustment for baseline||||||0.005
90979923|NCT01587989|181844134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.839|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Pain||||0.839
90948460|NCT02975102|181775959|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0008||||||Significance level of 0.05|ANCOVA|Adjustment for baseline||||||0.0008
90979924|NCT01587989|181844135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Effectiveness||||0.580
90979925|NCT01587989|181844135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.975|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Side-effects||||0.975
90979926|NCT01587989|181844135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.421|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Convenience||||0.421
90979927|NCT01587989|181844135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.277|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Global satisfaction||||0.277
90979928|NCT04211337|181844152|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.165|0.475|||Log Rank|Stratified by RET mutation type (M918T vs. Others) and intended treatment if randomized to Arm B (Vandetanib vs. Cabozantinib).|Stratified by RET mutation type (M918T vs. Others) and intended treatment if randomized to Arm B (Vandetanib vs. Cabozantinib).|||0.475|0.165|<0.0001
90979929|NCT04211337|181844153|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.254|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.153|0.423|||Log Rank|Stratified by RET mutation type (M918T vs. Others) and intended treatment if randomized to Arm B (Vandetanib vs. Cabozantinib).|Stratified by RET mutation type (M918T vs. Others) and intended treatment if randomized to Arm B (Vandetanib vs. Cabozantinib).|||0.423|0.153|<0.0001
90979930|NCT04211337|181844154|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|6.3||Stratified by RET mutation type (M918T vs. Others) and intended treatment if randomized to Arm B (Vandetanib vs. Cabozantinib)|Clopper-Pearson method|||||6.3|2.2|<0.0001
90948461|NCT02975102|181775960|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0026||||||Significance level of 0.05|ANCOVA|Adjustment for baseline||||||0.0026
90979931|NCT04211337|181844155|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.275||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.129|0.587|||Log Rank|Stratified by RET mutation type (M918T vs. Others) and intended treatment if randomized to Arm B (Vandetanib vs. Cabozantinib).||||0.587|0.129|0.0004
90979932|NCT04211337|181844158|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|-0.1||Stratified by RET mutation type (M918T vs. Others) and intended treatment if randomized to Arm B (Vandetanib vs. Cabozantinib).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||-0.10|-0.23|<0.0001
90979933|NCT05818124|181844189|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.48||||0.783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.97|3.0|||ANOVA|||||3.00|-3.97|0.783
90979934|NCT05818124|181844190|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-2.21||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.21|-0.21|||ANOVA|||||-0.21|-4.21|0.032
90979935|NCT05818124|181844191|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|0.2||||0.756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|1.47|||ANOVA|||||1.47|-1.07|0.756
90979936|NCT05818124|181844192|OTHER|Clopper and Pearson exact binomial method|Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.21|23.21||||||||23.21|-23.21|
90948462|NCT02975102|181775961|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.077||||||Significance level of 0.05 . P-Value result provided only for Global Question|ANCOVA|Adjustment for baseline||||||0.077
90979937|NCT05818124|181844193|OTHER|Clopper and Pearson binomial method|Difference in percentage|-2.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.78|20.27||||||||20.27|-25.78|
90979938|NCT05818124|181844194|OTHER|Clopper and Pearson exact binomial method|Difference in Percentage|-8.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.26|13.38||||||||13.38|-30.26|
90979939|NCT05818124|181844195|OTHER|Clopper and Pearson binomial method|Difference in percentage|-5.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.18|13.97||||||||13.97|-25.18|
90979940|NCT05818124|181844196|OTHER|Clopper and Pearson binomial method|Difference in percentage|-5.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.18|13.97||||||||13.97|-25.18|
90948463|NCT02975102|181775962|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6097||||||Significance level of 0.05|ANCOVA|Adjustment for baseline||||||0.6097
90948464|NCT02975102|181775963|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.231||||||Significance level of 0.05|ANCOVA|Adjustment for baseline||||||0.231
90979941|NCT05818124|181844197|OTHER|Clopper and Pearson binomial method|Difference in percentage|-8.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.63|10.5||||||||10.50|-27.63|
90979942|NCT05818124|181844200|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.3102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.33|||Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate|||1.33|0.51|0.3102
90979943|NCT05818124|181844201|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.55||||0.0779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.14|||Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate|||1.14|0.27|0.0779
90979944|NCT05818124|181844204|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-3.79||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.47|-0.1|||ANOVA|||||-0.10|-7.47|0.045
90979945|NCT05818124|181844205|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-2.56||||0.226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.81|1.69|||ANOVA|||||1.69|-6.81|0.226
90979946|NCT05818124|181844206|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-1.6||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.47|0.27|||ANOVA|||||0.27|-3.47|0.090
90979947|NCT05818124|181844207|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|0.74||||0.609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.19|3.66|||ANOVA|||||3.66|-2.19|0.609
90979948|NCT05818124|181844208|OTHER|Difference in Least Squares Mean|Difference in Least Squares Mean|0.34||||0.614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|1.72|||ANOVA|||||1.72|-1.04|0.614
90979949|NCT05818124|181844209|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|0.37||||0.608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|1.83|||ANOVA|||||1.83|-1.09|0.608
90979950|NCT05818124|181844210|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|0.43||||0.288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|1.25|||ANOVA|||||1.25|-0.39|0.288
90979951|NCT05818124|181844211|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|0.09||||0.842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.97|||ANOVA|||||0.97|-0.80|0.842
90979952|NCT05818124|181844214|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.31||||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.71|||Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate|||0.71|0.14|0.0042
90948465|NCT02975102|181775964|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0135||||||Significance level of 0.05|ANCOVA|Adjustment for baseline||||||0.0135
90979953|NCT05818124|181844215|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||0.329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.46|||Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate|||1.46|0.33|0.3290
90979954|NCT05818124|181844216|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.1502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.34|||Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate|||1.34|0.27|0.1502
90979955|NCT05818124|181844217|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.32||||0.4865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.92|||Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate|||2.92|0.59|0.4865
90979956|NCT05818124|181844220|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-4.79||||0.313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.36|4.78|||ANOVA|||||4.78|-14.36|0.313
90979957|NCT05818124|181844221|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-6.87||||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.11|2.36|||ANOVA|||||2.36|-16.11|0.138
90979958|NCT05818124|181844222|OTHER||Difference in LS mean|0.74||||0.706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.26|4.74|||ANOVA|||||4.74|-3.26|0.706
90979959|NCT05818124|181844223|OTHER||Difference in LS mean|-1.58||||0.367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|1.95|||ANOVA|||||1.95|-5.10|0.367
90948466|NCT02975102|181775965|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.575||||||Significance level of 0.05|ANCOVA|Adjustment for baseline||||||0.575
90948467|NCT00594022|181775988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1275|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||.1275
90948468|NCT05262751|181775993|OTHER||gMean Ratio|16.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.28|38.24|||||gMean Ratio: MR1-1/R. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 34.1|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model (logarithmic scale) with the effects: sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||38.24|7.28|
90948469|NCT05262751|181775993|OTHER||gMean Ratio|13.54|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.1|22.64|||||gMean Ratio: MR1-2/R. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 34.1|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model (logarithmic scale) with the effects: sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||22.64|8.10|
90979960|NCT05818124|181844229|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-4.14||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|1.92|||ANOVA|||||1.92|-10.20|0.177
90979961|NCT05818124|181844230|OTHER||Difference in LS mean|-0.97||||0.395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.24|1.29|||ANOVA|||||1.29|-3.24|0.395
90979962|NCT05818124|181844242|OTHER|Difference in least squares mean|Difference in least squares means|-0.94||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.22|||ANOVA|||||0.22|-2.10|0.110
90979963|NCT05818124|181844243|OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-1.6||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.47|0.27|||ANOVA|||||0.27|-3.47|0.090
90979964|NCT01431287|181844264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.132|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.108|0.157||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.157|0.108|<0.0001
90979965|NCT01431287|181844264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.103|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.078|0.127||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.127|0.078|<0.0001
90979966|NCT01431287|181844264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.121|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.096|0.145||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.145|0.096|< 0.0001
90979967|NCT01431287|181844264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.131|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.106|0.155||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.155|0.106|<0.0001
90979968|NCT01431287|181844264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.091|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.066|0.115||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.115|0.066|<0.0001
90979969|NCT01431287|181844264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.3394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.013|0.036||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.036|-0.013|0.3394
91007827|NCT00998985|181899891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|2.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.7|2.81|||||LSM Difference (grazoprevir-placebo) and confidence intervals from ANOVA model with maximum log10 HCV reduction as response and a fixed effect for treatment.|It is hypothesized that one or more doses of Grazoprevir will reduce GT3 viral load by at least 2 log10||2.81|1.70|
91007828|NCT00998985|181899891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|2.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.38|3.49|||||LSM Difference (grazoprevir-placebo) and confidence intervals from ANOVA model with maximum log10 HCV reduction as response and a fixed effect for treatment.|It is hypothesized that one or more doses of Grazoprevir will reduce GT3 viral load by at least 2 log10||3.49|2.38|
91007829|NCT00998985|181899891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|3.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.29|4.4|||||LSM Difference (grazoprevir-placebo) and confidence intervals from ANOVA model with maximum log10 HCV reduction as response and a fixed effect for treatment.|It is hypothesized that one or more doses of Grazoprevir will reduce GT3 viral load by at least 2 log10||4.40|3.29|
90979970|NCT01431287|181844264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.143|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.118|0.167||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.167|0.118|<0.0001
90979971|NCT01431287|181844264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.0173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.005|0.054||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.054|0.005|0.0173
91050474|NCT03127644|181987066|OTHER||Treatment difference in slopes|-0.00401|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.000637|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00527|-0.00275|||Mixed Models Analysis||Negative exponential rate of change relative to placebo indicates more rapid reduction (correction) of S-K.|Exponential rate of change in S-K through to 24 hours was analysed with a mixed effect model (random slope model).||-0.00275|-0.00527|<0.0001
90948470|NCT05262751|181775993|OTHER||gMean Ratio|41.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|34.24|51.04|||||gMean Ratio: MR2-1/R. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 28.4|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model (logarithmic scale) with the effects: sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||51.04|34.24|
90948471|NCT05262751|181775993|OTHER||gMean Ratio|42.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|34.9|52.76|||||gMean Ratio: MR2-2/R. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 28.4|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model (logarithmic scale) with the effects: sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||52.76|34.90|
90948472|NCT05262751|181775994|OTHER||gMean Ratio|9.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.91|14.8|||||gMean Ratio: MR1-1/R. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 44.8|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model (logarithmic scale) with the effects: sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||14.80|5.91|
90948473|NCT05262751|181775994|OTHER||gMean Ratio|12.41|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.93|19.43|||||gMean Ratio: MR1-2/R. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 44.8|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model (logarithmic scale) with the effects: sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||19.43|7.93|
90948474|NCT05262751|181775994|OTHER||gMean Ratio|37.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|29.25|49.11|||||gMean Ratio: MR2-1/R. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 40.4|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model (logarithmic scale) with the effects: sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||49.11|29.25|
90948475|NCT05262751|181775994|OTHER||gMean Ratio|35.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|27.66|46.55|||||gMean ratio: MR2-2/R. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 40.4|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model (logarithmic scale) with the effects: sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||46.55|27.66|
90948476|NCT05262751|181775995|OTHER||gMean Ratio|12.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.73|21.71|||||gMean Ratio: MR1-1/R. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 58.8|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model (logarithmic scale) with the effects: sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||21.71|6.73|
90948477|NCT05262751|181775995|OTHER||gMean Ratio|23.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|13.51|42.42|||||gMean Ratio: MR1-2/R. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 58.8|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model (logarithmic scale) with the effects: sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||42.42|13.51|
90948478|NCT05262751|181775995|OTHER||gMean Ratio|68.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|50.07|93.86|||||gMean ratio: MR2-1/R. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 50.0|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model (logarithmic scale) with the effects: sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||93.86|50.07|
90979972|NCT01431287|181844264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.035|0.014||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.014|-0.035|0.4210
90979973|NCT01431287|181844264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.015|0.064||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.064|0.015|0.0014
91038981|NCT00112437|181962042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|0.95||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through a stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handle by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on total body BMD compared to placebo over 12 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase total body BMD compared to placebo over 12 months.||0.95|-1.13|
91038982|NCT00112437|181962042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|0.42||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through a stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handle by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on total body BMD compared to placebo over 12 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase total body BMD compared to placebo over 12 months.||0.42|-1.69|
90979974|NCT01431287|181844265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.088|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.063|0.113||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.113|0.063|<0.0001
90948479|NCT05262751|181775995|OTHER||gMean Ratio|66.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|48.77|91.64|||||gMean ratio: MR2-2/R. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 50.0|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model (logarithmic scale) with the effects: sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||91.64|48.77|
90948480|NCT05262751|181775996|OTHER||gMean Ratio|11.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.88|16.11|||||gMean ratio: MR1-1/R. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 23.5|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model (logarithmic scale) with the effects: sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||16.11|8.88|
90948481|NCT05262751|181775996|OTHER||gMean Ratio|13.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|10.59|18.46|||||gMean ratio: MR1-2/R. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 23.5|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model (logarithmic scale) with the effects: sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||18.46|10.59|
90948482|NCT05262751|181775996|OTHER||gMean Ratio|32.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|26.46|39.01|||||gMean ratio: MR2-1/R. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 29.3.|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model (logarithmic scale) with the effects: sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||39.01|26.46|
90948483|NCT05262751|181775996|OTHER||gMean Ratio|31.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|25.71|38.3|||||gMean ratio: MR2-2/R. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 29.3.|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model (logarithmic scale) with the effects: sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||38.30|25.71|
90979975|NCT01431287|181844265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.024|0.075||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.075|0.024|0.0001
90979976|NCT01431287|181844265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.067|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.042|0.092||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.092|0.042|<0.0001
90979977|NCT01431287|181844265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.062|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.037|0.087||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.087|0.037|<0.0001
90979978|NCT01431287|181844265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.029|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.0231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|0.054||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.054|0.004|0.0231
90979979|NCT01431287|181844265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.1073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.046||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.046|-0.004|0.1073
90979980|NCT01431287|181844265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.083|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.058|0.108||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.108|0.058|<0.0001
91050475|NCT03127644|181987067|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.347||||0.6167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.419|4.329|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression model including treatment and baseline S-K as explanatory variables was used.||4.329|0.419|0.6167
90979981|NCT01431287|181844265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.038|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.013|0.063||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.063|0.013|0.0029
91007830|NCT00998985|181899891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|4.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.42|5.53|||||LSM Difference (grazoprevir-placebo) and confidence intervals from ANOVA model with maximum log10 HCV reduction as response and a fixed effect for treatment.|It is hypothesized that one or more doses of Grazoprevir will reduce GT3 viral load by at least 2 log10||5.53|4.42|
91007831|NCT00998985|181899891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|4.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.6|4.81|||||LSM Difference (grazoprevir-placebo) and confidence intervals from ANOVA model with maximum log10 HCV reduction as response and a fixed effect for treatment.|It is hypothesized that one or more doses of Grazoprevir will reduce GT3 viral load by at least 2 log10||4.81|3.60|
90979982|NCT01431287|181844265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.6939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.03||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.030|-0.020|0.6939
90979983|NCT01431287|181844265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.033|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.0097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.008|0.058||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.058|0.008|0.0097
90979984|NCT01431287|181844266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.693|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.553||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.778|-0.608||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||-0.608|-2.778|0.0022
90979985|NCT01431287|181844266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.233|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.551||0.0252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.313|-0.153||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||-0.153|-2.313|0.0252
90979986|NCT01431287|181844266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.031|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.552||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.113|0.052||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.052|-2.113|0.0620
90979987|NCT01431287|181844266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.456|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.548||0.4051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.531|0.618||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.618|-1.531|0.4051
90979988|NCT01431287|181844266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.571|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.2988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.649|0.507||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.507|-1.649|0.2988
90979989|NCT01431287|181844266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.662|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.545||0.2249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.731|0.407||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.407|-1.731|0.2249
90979990|NCT01431287|181844266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.549||0.0418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.195|-0.042||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||-0.042|-2.195|0.0418
90979991|NCT01431287|181844266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.557||0.4097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.552|0.633||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.633|-1.552|0.4097
90979992|NCT01431287|181844266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.575|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.556||0.3013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.664|0.515||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.515|-1.664|0.3013
91050476|NCT03127644|181987067|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|15.334|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.006|58.697|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression model including treatment and baseline S-K as explanatory variables was used.||58.697|4.006|<0.0001
90979993|NCT01431287|181844266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.115|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.554||0.8355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|1.2||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||1.200|-0.970|0.8355
90979994|NCT01431287|181844267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.135||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.155|0.684||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.684|0.155|0.0019
90979995|NCT01431287|181844267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.356|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.135||0.0082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.092|0.619||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.619|0.092|0.0082
90979996|NCT01431287|181844267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.416|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.135||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.152|0.681||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.681|0.152|0.0020
90979997|NCT01431287|181844267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.134||0.0307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.027|0.554||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.554|0.027|0.0307
90979998|NCT01431287|181844267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.352|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.135||0.0088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.089|0.616||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.616|0.089|0.0088
90979999|NCT01431287|181844267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.134||0.9801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.259|0.266||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.266|-0.259|0.9801
90980000|NCT01431287|181844267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.294|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.134||0.0289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.557||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.557|0.030|0.0289
90980001|NCT01431287|181844267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.064|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136||0.6382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.202|0.33||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.330|-0.202|0.6382
90980002|NCT01431287|181844267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.126|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.135||0.3525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.391||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.391|-0.140|0.3525
90980003|NCT01431287|181844267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.062|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.135||0.6457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.327|0.203||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.203|-0.327|0.6457
90980004|NCT01431287|181844268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.033|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.008|0.058||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.058|0.008|0.0095
90980005|NCT01431287|181844268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.065|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.09||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.090|0.040|<0.0001
91038983|NCT00112437|181962042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.53|-0.42||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through a stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handle by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on total body BMD compared to placebo over 12 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase total body BMD compared to placebo over 12 months.||-0.42|-2.53|
90980006|NCT01431287|181844268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.033|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.0112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.007|0.058||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.058|0.007|0.0112
90980007|NCT01431287|181844268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.093|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.068|0.119||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.119|0.068|<0.0001
90980008|NCT01431287|181844268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.064|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.039|0.09||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.090|0.039|<0.0001
91050477|NCT03127644|181987071|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0586||||||Nominal p value|Log Rank|||||||0.0586
91050478|NCT03127644|181987071|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0006||||||Nominal p value|Log Rank|||||||0.0006
91050479|NCT03127644|181987072|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.025||||||Nominal p value|Log Rank|||||||0.0250
90980009|NCT01431287|181844268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.9514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.024|0.026||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.026|-0.024|0.9514
90980010|NCT01431287|181844268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.094|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.069|0.119||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.119|0.069|<0.0001
90980011|NCT01431287|181844268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.032|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.0131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.057|-0.007||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||-0.007|-0.057|0.0131
90980012|NCT01431287|181844268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.061|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.086|-0.036||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||-0.036|-0.086|<0.0001
91050480|NCT03127644|181987072|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0064||||||Nominal p value|Log Rank|||||||0.0064
90980013|NCT01431287|181844268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.029|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.0243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|0.054||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.054|0.004|0.0243
90980014|NCT01431287|181844269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.145|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.119|0.17||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.170|0.119|<0.0001
90980015|NCT01431287|181844269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.111|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.085|0.136||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.136|0.085|<0.0001
90980016|NCT01431287|181844269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.119|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.094|0.144||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.144|0.094|<0.0001
90980017|NCT01431287|181844269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.106|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.081|0.132||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.132|0.081|<0.0001
90980018|NCT01431287|181844269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.085|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.059|0.11||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.110|0.059|<0.0001
90980019|NCT01431287|181844269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.026|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.051||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.051|0.000|0.0470
90980020|NCT01431287|181844269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.132|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.107|0.158||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.158|0.107|<0.0001
90980021|NCT01431287|181844269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.034|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.009|0.06||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.060|0.009|0.0083
91050481|NCT04972123|181987073|SUPERIORITY|The primary end point was evaluated via a large sample Z-test for proportions. The test statistic was compared to a Pocock monitoring boundary at both an interim analysis and at the final analysis.||||||0.521||||||The primary end point was evaluated via a large sample Z-test for proportions. The test statistic was compared to a Pocock monitoring boundary at both an interim analysis and at the final analysis.|Large sample Z-test for population prop|The test statistic was compared to a Pocock monitoring boundary at both an interim analysis and at the final analysis.||Primary endpoint -- ITT primary endpoint analysis||||0.521
90948484|NCT03392168|181776030|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-28.5||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.6|-12.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean difference from vehicle; Estimates for LS means and accompanying 95% confidence intervals and P values are from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with center within country, treatment, study visit, and treatment-by-study visit interaction as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.||-12.4|-44.6|0.0007
90948485|NCT03392168|181776030|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-27.8||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.2|-11.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean difference from vehicle; Estimates for LS means and accompanying 95% confidence intervals and P values are from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with center within country, treatment, study visit, and treatment-by-study visit interaction as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.||-11.5|-44.2|0.0011
90948486|NCT03392168|181776031|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-3.2||||0.5493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|7.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 1; LS mean difference from vehicle; Estimates for LS means and accompanying 95% confidence intervals and P values are from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with center within country, treatment, study visit, and treatment-by-study visit interaction as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.||7.3|-13.7|0.5493
90948487|NCT03392168|181776031|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-4.9||||0.365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.7|5.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At week 1; LS mean difference from vehicle; Estimates for LS means and accompanying 95% confidence intervals and P values are from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with center within country, treatment, study visit, and treatment-by-study visit interaction as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.||5.9|-15.7|0.3650
90948488|NCT03392168|181776031|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-18.3||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.3|-5.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 2; LS mean difference from vehicle; Estimates for LS means and accompanying 95% confidence intervals and P values are from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with center within country, treatment, study visit, and treatment-by-study visit interaction as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.||-5.3|-31.3|0.0064
90948489|NCT03392168|181776031|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-19.8||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.0|-6.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 2; LS mean difference from vehicle; Estimates for LS means and accompanying 95% confidence intervals and P values are from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with center within country, treatment, study visit, and treatment-by-study visit interaction as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.||-6.5|-33.0|0.0039
90948490|NCT03392168|181776031|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-28.9||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.9|-14.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 3; LS mean difference from vehicle; Estimates for LS means and accompanying 95% confidence intervals and P values are from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with center within country, treatment, study visit, and treatment-by-study visit interaction as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.||-14.8|-42.9|0.0001
90948491|NCT03392168|181776031|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-23.0||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.3|-8.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 3; LS mean difference from vehicle; Estimates for LS means and accompanying 95% confidence intervals and P values are from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with center within country, treatment, study visit, and treatment-by-study visit interaction as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.||-8.7|-37.3|0.0019
90948492|NCT03392168|181776032|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-4.3||||0.3626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|5.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 1; LS mean difference from vehicle; Estimates for LS means and accompanying 95% confidence intervals and P values are from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with center within country, treatment, study visit, and treatment-by-study visit interaction as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.||5.0|-13.6|0.3626
90948493|NCT03392168|181776032|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-8.1||||0.1011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 1; LS mean difference from vehicle; Estimates for LS means and accompanying 95% confidence intervals and P values are from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with center within country, treatment, study visit, and treatment-by-study visit interaction as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.||1.6|-17.8|0.1011
90948494|NCT03392168|181776032|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-15.5||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.1|-6.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 2; LS mean difference from vehicle; Estimates for LS means and accompanying 95% confidence intervals and P values are from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with center within country, treatment, study visit, and treatment-by-study visit interaction as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.||-6.0|-25.1|0.0017
90948495|NCT03392168|181776032|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-19.3||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.1|-9.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 2; LS mean difference from vehicle; Estimates for LS means and accompanying 95% confidence intervals and P values are from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with center within country, treatment, study visit, and treatment-by-study visit interaction as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.||-9.4|-29.1|0.0002
90980022|NCT01431287|181844269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.013|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.3329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.013|0.038||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.038|-0.013|0.3329
90980023|NCT01431287|181844269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.0958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.047||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.047|-0.004|0.0958
90980024|NCT01431287|181844270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.132|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.105|0.158||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.158|0.105|<0.0001
90980025|NCT01431287|181844270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.112|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.086|0.139||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.139|0.086|<0.0001
90980026|NCT01431287|181844270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.092|0.144||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.144|0.092|<0.0001
90980027|NCT01431287|181844270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.092|0.144||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.144|0.092|<0.0001
90980028|NCT01431287|181844270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.098|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.072|0.125||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.125|0.072|<0.0001
90980029|NCT01431287|181844270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.014|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.3008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.012|0.04||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.040|-0.012|0.3008
90980030|NCT01431287|181844270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.132|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.105|0.158||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.158|0.105|<0.0001
90980031|NCT01431287|181844270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014||0.1484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.007|0.046||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.046|-0.007|0.1484
90980032|NCT01431287|181844270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014||0.9981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.026|0.027||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.027|-0.026|0.9981
90980033|NCT01431287|181844270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.007|0.046||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.046|-0.007|0.1480
91050482|NCT04972123|181987074|SUPERIORITY|Time to event was compared between groups via a log-rank test.||||||0.574||||||Time to event was compared between groups via a log-rank test.|Log Rank|||Secondary endpoint -- Time to event for evaluable ITT population who had a primary event.||||0.574
90980034|NCT01431287|181844271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.065|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.09||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.090|0.040|<0.0001
90980035|NCT01431287|181844271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.036|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.011|0.061||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.061|0.011|0.0050
90980036|NCT01431287|181844271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.064|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.039|0.089||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.089|0.039|<0.0001
90980037|NCT01431287|181844271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.063|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.037|0.088||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.088|0.037|<0.0001
90980038|NCT01431287|181844271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.036|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.061||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.061|0.010|0.0057
90980039|NCT01431287|181844271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.9633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.025|0.026||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.026|-0.025|0.9633
90980040|NCT01431287|181844271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.063|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.038|0.088||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.088|0.038|<0.0001
91038984|NCT00112437|181962043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|1.23|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|2.24||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through a stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on distal forearm BMD compared to placebo over 12 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase distal forearm BMD compared to placebo over 12 months.||2.24|0.22|<=0.001
91038985|NCT00112437|181962043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|1.1||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|2.11||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through a stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on distal forearm BMD compared to placebo over 12 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase distal forearm BMD compared to placebo over 12 months.||2.11|0.09|0.005
91038986|NCT00112437|181962043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.27||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|1.29||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through a stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on distal forearm BMD compared to placebo over 12 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase distal forearm BMD compared to placebo over 12 months.||1.29|-0.74|0.630
90980041|NCT01431287|181844271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.029|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|0.054||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.054|0.004|0.0250
90948496|NCT03392168|181776032|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-21.3||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.4|-10.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 3; LS mean difference from vehicle; Estimates for LS means and accompanying 95% confidence intervals and P values are from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with center within country, treatment, study visit, and treatment-by-study visit interaction as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.||-10.2|-32.4|0.0003
90948497|NCT03392168|181776032|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-21.8||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.2|-10.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 3; LS mean difference from vehicle; Estimates for LS means and accompanying 95% confidence intervals and P values are from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with center within country, treatment, study visit, and treatment-by-study visit interaction as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.||-10.4|-33.2|0.0003
90948498|NCT03392168|181776032|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-18.7||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.5|-7.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 4; LS mean difference from vehicle; Estimates for LS means and accompanying 95% confidence intervals and P values are from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with center within country, treatment, study visit, and treatment-by-study visit interaction as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.||-7.8|-29.5|0.0010
90980042|NCT01431287|181844271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.8949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.023|0.027||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.027|-0.023|0.8949
90980043|NCT01431287|181844271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.027|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.0351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.002|0.052||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.052|0.002|0.0351
90980044|NCT01431287|181844272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.055|0.105||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.105|0.055|<0.0001
90980045|NCT01431287|181844272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.047|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.022|0.073||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.073|0.022|0.0002
90980046|NCT01431287|181844272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.076|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.051|0.101||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.101|0.051|<0.0001
90980047|NCT01431287|181844272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.061|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.036|0.086||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.086|0.036|<0.0001
90980048|NCT01431287|181844272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.044|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.018|0.069||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.069|0.018|0.0007
91050483|NCT04972123|181987075|SUPERIORITY|Incidence of asystole were compared between groups using Fisher exact test.||||||1||||||Incidence of asystole were compared between groups using Fisher exact test.|Fisher Exact|Incidence of asystole were compared between groups using Fisher exact test.||Secondary endpoint -- Incidence of asystolic pause \> 3 seconds for evaluable ITT population who had a primary event.||||1.000
90980049|NCT01431287|181844272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.7755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.022|0.029||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.029|-0.022|0.7755
90980050|NCT01431287|181844272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.065|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.039|0.09||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.090|0.039|<0.0001
90980051|NCT01431287|181844272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.032|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.0118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.007|0.058||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.058|0.007|0.0118
90980052|NCT01431287|181844272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.2416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.04||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.040|-0.010|0.2416
90980053|NCT01431287|181844272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.017|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.1792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.008|0.043||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.043|-0.008|0.1792
90980054|NCT01431287|181844273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.074|0.125||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.125|0.074|<0.0001
90980055|NCT01431287|181844273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.059|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.033|0.084||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.084|0.033|<0.0001
90980056|NCT01431287|181844273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.082|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.057|0.107||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.107|0.057|<0.0001
91038987|NCT00112437|181962043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28|-0.27||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through a stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handle by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on distal forearm BMD compared to placebo over 12 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase distal forearm BMD compared to placebo over 12 months.||-0.27|-2.28|
91038988|NCT00112437|181962044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-57.86|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.33|-43.38||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through a stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance|Difference in Least Squares Means (back-transformation of difference in log-fractions from baseline)|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone resorption (u-NTx) compared to placebo over 12 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will decrease biochemical indices of bone resorption (u-NTx) over 12 months.||-43.38|-72.33|<=0.001
91038989|NCT00112437|181962044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-45.92|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.93|-30.91||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through a stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance|Difference in Least Squares Means (back-transformation of difference in log-fractions from baseline)|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone resorption (u-NTx) compared to placebo over 12 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will decrease biochemical indices of bone resorption (u-NTx) over 12 months.||-30.91|-60.93|<=0.001
90980057|NCT01431287|181844273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.023|0.073||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.073|0.023|0.0002
90980058|NCT01431287|181844273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.041|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.016|0.067||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.067|0.016|0.0014
90980059|NCT01431287|181844273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.018|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.1747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.008|0.043||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.043|-0.008|0.1747
90980060|NCT01431287|181844273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.065|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.091||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.091|0.040|<0.0001
90980061|NCT01431287|181844273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.041|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.016|0.066||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.066|0.016|0.0016
90980062|NCT01431287|181844273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.034|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.009|0.06||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.060|0.009|0.0081
90980063|NCT01431287|181844273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.019|0.032||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.032|-0.019|0.6110
90980064|NCT01431287|181844274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.085|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.059|0.111||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.111|0.059|<0.0001
90980065|NCT01431287|181844274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.025|0.076||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.076|0.025|0.0001
90980066|NCT01431287|181844274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.077|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.051|0.102||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.102|0.051|<0.0001
90980067|NCT01431287|181844274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.069|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.044|0.095||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.095|0.044|<0.0001
90980068|NCT01431287|181844274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.016|0.068||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.068|0.016|0.0013
90980069|NCT01431287|181844274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.5274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.017|0.034||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.034|-0.017|0.5274
90980070|NCT01431287|181844274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.078|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.052|0.103||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.103|0.052|<0.0001
90948499|NCT03392168|181776032|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-21.8||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.9|-10.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 4; LS mean difference from vehicle; Estimates for LS means and accompanying 95% confidence intervals and P values are from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with center within country, treatment, study visit, and treatment-by-study visit interaction as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.||-10.6|-32.9|0.0002
90948500|NCT03392168|181776033|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|2.67||||0.3209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.65|7.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 1; LS mean difference from vehicle; Estimates for LS means and accompanying 95% confidence intervals and P values are from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with center within country, treatment, study visit, and treatment-by-study visit interaction as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.||7.99|-2.65|0.3209
90948501|NCT03392168|181776033|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|3.6||||0.1947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|9.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 1; LS mean difference from vehicle; Estimates for LS means and accompanying 95% confidence intervals and P values are from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with center within country, treatment, study visit, and treatment-by-study visit interaction as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.||9.08|-1.88|0.1947
90948502|NCT03392168|181776033|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-4.58||||0.3561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|5.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 2; LS mean difference from vehicle; Estimates for LS means and accompanying 95% confidence intervals and P values are from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with center within country, treatment, study visit, and treatment-by-study visit interaction as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.||5.24|-14.40|0.3561
90980071|NCT01431287|181844274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.035|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.009|0.06||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.060|0.009|0.0083
90980072|NCT01431287|181844274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.5744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.018|0.033||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.033|-0.018|0.5744
90980073|NCT01431287|181844274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.027|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.0381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.053||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.053|0.001|0.0381
90980074|NCT01431287|181844275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.081|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.055|0.108||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.108|0.055|<0.0001
90980075|NCT01431287|181844275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.053|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.027|0.079||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.079|0.027|<0.0001
90948503|NCT03392168|181776033|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-5.82||||0.249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.79|4.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 2; LS mean difference from vehicle; Estimates for LS means and accompanying 95% confidence intervals and P values are from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with center within country, treatment, study visit, and treatment-by-study visit interaction as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.||4.16|-15.79|0.2490
90980076|NCT01431287|181844275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.065|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.039|0.091||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.091|0.039|<0.0001
90980077|NCT01431287|181844275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.055|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.029|0.081||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.081|0.029|<0.0001
90980078|NCT01431287|181844275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.037|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.011|0.063||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.063|0.011|0.0052
90980079|NCT01431287|181844275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.2273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.042||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.042|-0.010|0.2273
90980080|NCT01431287|181844275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.071|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.045|0.097||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.097|0.045|<0.0001
90980081|NCT01431287|181844275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.028|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.002|0.055||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.055|0.002|0.0330
90980082|NCT01431287|181844275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.4327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.016|0.037||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.037|-0.016|0.4327
91050484|NCT04972123|181987076|SUPERIORITY|Reporting for the 1 hour fatigue score only.||||||0.732||||||Measures of fatigue were compared between groups using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Measures of fatigue were compared between groups using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||Secondary endpoint -- Measures of Fatigue for evaluable ITT population who had a primary event.||||0.732
90980083|NCT01431287|181844275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.018|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.1764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.008|0.044||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.044|-0.008|0.1764
90980084|NCT01431287|181844276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.056|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.007|0.105||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.105|0.007|0.0241
90980085|NCT01431287|181844276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.051|0.148||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.148|0.051|<0.0001
90980086|NCT01431287|181844276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.021|0.119||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.119|0.021|0.0049
90980087|NCT01431287|181844276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.147|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.098|0.196||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.196|0.098|<0.0001
90980088|NCT01431287|181844276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.113|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.064|0.162||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.162|0.064|<0.0001
90980089|NCT01431287|181844276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.014|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.5831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.063|0.035||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.035|-0.063|0.5831
91038990|NCT00112437|181962044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-31.84|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.11|-15.58||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through a stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance|Difference in Least Squares Means (back-transformation of difference in log-fractions from baseline)|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone resorption (u-NTx) compared to placebo over 12 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will decrease biochemical indices of bone resorption (u-NTx) over 12 months.||-15.58|-48.11|<=0.001
91038991|NCT00112437|181962044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|11.17||||0.249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|43.24||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance|Difference in Least Squares Means (back-transformation of difference in log-fractions from baseline)|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone resorption (u-NTx) compared to placebo over 12 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will decrease biochemical indices of bone resorption (u-NTx) over 12 months.||43.24|-0.94|0.249
91038992|NCT00112437|181962045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-56.33|||<=|0.001||95.0|-75.86|-36.81||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance|Difference in Least Squares Means (back-transformation from difference in log-fraction)|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone resorption (s-CTx) compared to placebo over 12 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will decrease biochemical indices of bone resorption (s-CTx) over 12 months.||-36.81|-75.86|<=0.001
91038993|NCT00112437|181962045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|-35.57|||<=|0.001||95.0|-56.63|-14.51||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through a stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance|Difference in Least Square Means (back-transformation from difference in log-fraction)|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone resorption (s-CTx) compared to placebo over 12 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will decrease biochemical indices of bone resorption (s-CTx) over 12 months.||-14.51|-56.63|<=0.001
91038994|NCT00112437|181962045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-21.66||||0.08||95.0|-44.54|1.23||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance|Difference in Least Squares Means (back-transformation from difference in log-fraction)|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone resorption (s-CTx) compared to placebo over 12 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will decrease biochemical indices of bone resorption (s-CTx) over 12 months.||1.23|-44.54|0.080
90980090|NCT01431287|181844276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.133|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.084|0.182||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.182|0.084|<0.0001
90980091|NCT01431287|181844276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.043|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.092|0.006||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.006|-0.092|0.0822
91050485|NCT04972123|181987076|SUPERIORITY|Reporting for the 4 hour fatigue score only.||||||0.591||||||Measures of fatigue were compared between groups using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Measures of fatigue were compared between groups using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||Secondary endpoint -- Measures of Fatigue for evaluable ITT population who had a primary event.||||0.591
91050486|NCT04972123|181987076|SUPERIORITY|Reporting for the 8 hour fatigue score only.||||||0.034||||||Measures of fatigue were compared between groups using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Measures of fatigue were compared between groups using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||Secondary endpoint -- Measures of Fatigue for evaluable ITT population who had a primary event.||||0.034
90980092|NCT01431287|181844276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.077|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.126|-0.028||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||-0.028|-0.126|0.0020
90980093|NCT01431287|181844276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.034|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.1774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.015|0.083||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.083|-0.015|0.1774
90980094|NCT01431287|181844277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.219|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.169|0.268||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.268|0.169|<0.0001
90980095|NCT01431287|181844277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.143|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.094|0.193||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.193|0.094|<0.0001
90980096|NCT01431287|181844277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.209|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.258||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.258|0.160|<0.0001
90980097|NCT01431287|181844277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.153|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.104|0.203||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.203|0.104|<0.0001
90980098|NCT01431287|181844277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.134|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.084|0.183||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.183|0.084|<0.0001
90980099|NCT01431287|181844277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.6974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.059||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.059|-0.040|0.6974
91050487|NCT01156142|181987087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|-2.1|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||-2.1|-6.7|<0.001
91050488|NCT01156142|181987088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.6||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|5.1|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||5.1|0.1|0.0018
90980100|NCT01431287|181844277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.163|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.114|0.213||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.213|0.114|<0.0001
90980101|NCT01431287|181844277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.076|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.026|0.125||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.125|0.026|0.0027
90980102|NCT01431287|181844277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.056|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.006|0.105||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.105|0.006|0.0269
90980103|NCT01431287|181844277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.4343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.069||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.069|-0.030|0.4343
90980104|NCT01431287|181844278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.198|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.148|0.248||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.248|0.148|<0.0001
91050489|NCT01156142|181987089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.6||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|8.3|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||8.3|2.9|0.001
91050490|NCT01156142|181987090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7||||0.0297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|4.6|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||4.6|-1.2|0.0297
90948504|NCT03392168|181776033|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-12.68||||0.0276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.992|-1.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 3; LS mean difference from vehicle; Estimates for LS means and accompanying 95% confidence intervals and P values are from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with center within country, treatment, study visit, and treatment-by-study visit interaction as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.||-1.44|-23.992|0.0276
90948505|NCT03392168|181776033|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-7.04||||0.2223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.44|4.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 3; LS mean difference from vehicle; Estimates for LS means and accompanying 95% confidence intervals and P values are from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with center within country, treatment, study visit, and treatment-by-study visit interaction as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.||4.36|-18.44|0.2223
90948506|NCT03392168|181776033|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-20.27||||0.0108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.72|-4.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 4; LS mean difference from vehicle; Estimates for LS means and accompanying 95% confidence intervals and P values are from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with center within country, treatment, study visit, and treatment-by-study visit interaction as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.||-4.82|-35.72|0.0108
90948507|NCT03392168|181776033|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-16.67||||0.0372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.34|-1.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 4; LS mean difference from vehicle; Estimates for LS means and accompanying 95% confidence intervals and P values are from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with center within country, treatment, study visit, and treatment-by-study visit interaction as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.||-1.01|-32.34|0.0372
90948508|NCT03519204|181776034|SUPERIORITY||Responder Rate Difference|84.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.2|94.2||P-value was based on 2-sided Fisher's exact test comparing responder rate between treatment group and no-treated control group.|Fisher Exact|||||94.2|68.2|<0.0001
90948509|NCT03519204|181776036|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference|0.558|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.109492|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3447|0.7739||P-value was computed using Wilcoxon test with normal approximation.|Wilcoxon Rank-sum Test||The median difference (the location shift) and its 95% CI were computed using Hodges-Lehmann estimation associated with Wilcoxon statistics.|||0.77390|0.34470|<0.0001
90948510|NCT03519204|181776037|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference|13.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.122|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.861|17.18||P-value was computed using Wilcoxon test with normal approximation.|Wilcoxon Rank-sum Test||The median difference (the location shift) and its 95% CI were computed using Hodges-Lehmann estimation associated with Wilcoxon statistics.|||17.180|8.861|<0.0001
90948511|NCT01441635|181776041|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-205.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|45.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-295.77|-116.01|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.||||-116.01|-295.77|< 0.001
90948512|NCT01441635|181776041|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-189.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|44.36|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-278.33|-101.53|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.||||-101.53|-278.33|< 0.001
90948513|NCT01441635|181776041|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-138.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|40.86||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-220.18|-55.76|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.||||-55.76|-220.18|0.001
90948514|NCT01441635|181776041|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-130.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|37.68||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-206.7|-54.6|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.||||-54.60|-206.70|0.001
90948515|NCT01441635|181776042|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-75.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.71|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-102.93|-48.28|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.||||-48.28|-102.93|< 0.001
90948516|NCT01441635|181776042|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-64.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.48|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-91.14|-37.39|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.||||-37.39|-91.14|< 0.001
90948517|NCT01441635|181776042|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-67.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.73||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-113.39|-21.96|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.||||-21.96|-113.39|0.005
90948518|NCT01441635|181776042|SUPERIORITY||LS mean Difference|-56.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.24|-40.45|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.||||-40.45|-73.24|< 0.001
90948519|NCT01441635|181776043|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
90948520|NCT01441635|181776043|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
90948521|NCT01441635|181776043|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
90948522|NCT01441635|181776043|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
90948523|NCT01441635|181776044|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
90948524|NCT01441635|181776044|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
90948525|NCT01441635|181776044|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
90948526|NCT01441635|181776044|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
90948527|NCT01441635|181776045|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
90948528|NCT01441635|181776045|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
90948529|NCT01441635|181776045|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
90948530|NCT01441635|181776045|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
91038995|NCT00112437|181962045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|19.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.48|47.88||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through a stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handle by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance|Difference in Least Squares Means (back-transformation from difference in log-fraction)|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone resorption (s-CTx) compared to placebo over 12 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will decrease biochemical indices of bone resorption (s-CTx) over 12 months.||47.88|-8.48|
90948531|NCT01441635|181776047|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|2.56|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.||||2.56|0.97|< 0.001
90948532|NCT01441635|181776047|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.56|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.||||2.56|1.00|< 0.001
90948533|NCT01441635|181776047|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.75|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.||||1.75|0.13|0.024
90948534|NCT01441635|181776047|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.51|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.||||1.51|0.28|0.005
90948535|NCT01441635|181776048|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.08|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.08|-0.63|0.011
90948536|NCT01441635|181776048|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.03|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.03|-0.59|0.030
90948537|NCT01441635|181776048|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.06|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.||||0.06|-0.59|0.109
90948538|NCT01441635|181776048|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.19|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.19|-0.80|0.002
90948539|NCT01441635|181776049|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-10.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.32||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9|-1.67|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.||||-1.67|-18.90|0.020
90980105|NCT01431287|181844278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.146|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.096|0.197||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.197|0.096|<0.0001
90980106|NCT01431287|181844278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.208|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.158|0.258||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.258|0.158|<0.0001
90980107|NCT01431287|181844278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.193|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.143|0.242||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.242|0.143|<0.0001
90980108|NCT01431287|181844278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.156|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.106|0.206||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.206|0.106|<0.0001
91050491|NCT01156142|181987091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1392|||||||Chi-squared|||At 2 hours after initial mouthwash||||0.1392
90948540|NCT01441635|181776049|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.39||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.36|1.13|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.||||1.13|-16.36|0.087
90948541|NCT01441635|181776049|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-8.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.28||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.43|-0.19|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.19|-17.43|0.045
90948542|NCT01441635|181776049|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-13.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.14||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.06|-5.32|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.||||-5.32|-22.06|0.002
90980109|NCT01431287|181844278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.04||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.040|-0.060|0.6980
91050492|NCT01156142|181987091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6989|||||||Chi-squared|||At 4 hours after initial mouthwash||||0.6989
91050493|NCT01156142|181987092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0018|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0018
91050494|NCT02337959|181987147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|||||Level of significance (alpha) = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.028
90948543|NCT01441635|181776050|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.03||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.56|-1.47|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.||||-1.47|-9.56|0.008
90948544|NCT01441635|181776050|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.08||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.11|-0.8|||ANCOVA|||||-0.80|-9.11|0.020
90948545|NCT01441635|181776050|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.75||0.194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.18|1.91|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.||||1.91|-9.18|0.194
90948546|NCT01441635|181776050|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.33|-3.07|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.||||-3.07|-11.33|0.001
90948547|NCT01441635|181776053|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|One-way Kruskal-Wallis test with treatment as a factor.||||||< 0.001
90948548|NCT01441635|181776053|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|One-way Kruskal-Wallis test with treatment as a factor.||||||< 0.001
90980110|NCT01431287|181844278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.183|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.132|0.233||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.233|0.132|<0.0001
90980111|NCT01431287|181844278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.051|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.0442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.102||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.102|0.001|0.0442
90980112|NCT01431287|181844278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.5514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.035|0.065||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.065|-0.035|0.5514
90980113|NCT01431287|181844278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.036|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.1569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.014|0.086||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.086|-0.014|0.1569
90980114|NCT01431287|181844279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.202|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.253||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.253|0.150|<0.0001
90980115|NCT01431287|181844279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.183|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.132|0.234||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.234|0.132|<0.0001
90980116|NCT01431287|181844279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.218|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.167|0.269||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.269|0.167|<0.0001
90980117|NCT01431287|181844279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.181|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.232||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day\^interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.232|0.130|<0.0001
90980118|NCT01431287|181844279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.199|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.148|0.25||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.250|0.148|<0.0001
90980119|NCT01431287|181844279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.5373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.067|0.035||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.035|-0.067|0.5373
90980120|NCT01431287|181844279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.165|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.114|0.216||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.216|0.114|<0.0001
90980121|NCT01431287|181844279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.4763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.033|0.07||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.070|-0.033|0.4763
90980122|NCT01431287|181844279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.037|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.1613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.015|0.088||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.088|-0.015|0.1613
90980123|NCT01431287|181844279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.018|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.4908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.069|0.033||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.033|-0.069|0.4908
90980124|NCT01431287|181844280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.122|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.072|0.173||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.173|0.072|<0.0001
90980125|NCT01431287|181844280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.063|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.0154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.012|0.113||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.113|0.012|0.0154
91038996|NCT00112437|181962046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-18.28||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.82|-0.74||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance|Difference in Least Squares Means (back-transformation of difference in log-fractions from baseline)|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone resorption (u-DPyr) compared to placebo over 12 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will decrease biochemical indices of bone resorption (u-DPyr) over 12 months.||-0.74|-35.82|0.004
91038997|NCT00112437|181962046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.26||||0.344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.9|17.39||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance|Difference in Least Squares Means (back-transformation of difference in log-fractions from baseline)|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone resorption (u-DPyr) compared to placebo over 12 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will decrease biochemical indices of bone resorption (u-DPyr) over 12 months.||17.39|-19.90|0.344
90948549|NCT01441635|181776053|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.052|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|One-way Kruskal-Wallis test with treatment as a factor.||||||0.052
90948550|NCT01441635|181776053|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|One-way Kruskal-Wallis test with treatment as a factor.||||||< 0.001
90948551|NCT01441635|181776054|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.003
90948552|NCT01441635|181776054|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.016
90948553|NCT01441635|181776054|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.012
90948554|NCT01441635|181776054|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
90948555|NCT01441635|181776055|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.161|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|One-way Kruskal-Wallis test with treatment as a factor||||||0.161
90948556|NCT01441635|181776055|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.173|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|One-way Kruskal-Wallis test with treatment as a factor.||||||0.173
90980126|NCT01431287|181844280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.181||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.181|0.080|<0.0001
90980127|NCT01431287|181844280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.084|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.033|0.134||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.134|0.033|0.0012
90948557|NCT01441635|181776055|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.072|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|One-way Kruskal-Wallis test with treatment as a factor.||||||0.072
90948558|NCT01441635|181776055|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|One-way Kruskal-Wallis test with treatment as a factor.||||||0.003
90948559|NCT01441635|181776056|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.203|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.203
90948560|NCT01441635|181776056|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.342|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.342
90948561|NCT01441635|181776056|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.038
91050495|NCT02337959|181987148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0||||||level of significance (alpha) = 0.05|t-test, 1 sided|||Both the predicate and investigational images were randomized for the monitors. Predicate images could display on the left or the right and vice versa with the investigational. There were formulas in the spreadsheet that gave the preferences a numerical value, and subsequently became part of the analysis.||||0.000
91050496|NCT02623348|181987153|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||Threshold for significance: \<0.05|linear mixed modeling|||||||<0.01
90948562|NCT01441635|181776056|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.111|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.111
90948563|NCT02627118|181776061|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.05
90948564|NCT01154140|181776065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.454|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.346|0.596||P-value was obtained from 1-sided log rank test, stratified by eastern cooperative oncology group performance status (ECOG PS),race,brain metastases. 1-sided log-rank test at 0.0247 level of significance was used to compare PFS between the 2 arms.|Log Rank|||||0.596|0.346|<0.0001
90948565|NCT01154140|181776066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.0489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.548|1.053||P-value was obtained from 1-sided log rank test, stratified by ECOG PS, race group and brain metastases.|Log Rank||HR was calculated based on the Cox Proportional hazards model stratified by ECOG PS, race group, and brain metastases. Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio (less than)\<1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of crizotinib.|||1.053|0.548|0.0489
90948566|NCT01154140|181776068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|29.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.5|39.3||P-value was obtained from a Pearson chi-square test.|Pearson chi-square test||95% CI was calculated based on normal distribution.|If the PFS endpoint was significant, ORR was to be considered significant if the 2-sided p-value from Pearson chi-square test was (less than or equal to)\<= 0.0494.||39.3|19.5|<0.0001
90948567|NCT01154140|181776071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|10.067||||0.0381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|19.4|||Pearson chi-square test|||The confidence interval for the difference in percentage was based on normal distribution.||19.4|0.8|0.0381
90948568|NCT01154140|181776072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.441|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.335|0.582||P-value was obtained from 1-sided unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank|||Analysis was based on the Cox Proportional hazards model assuming proportional hazards, a HR \<1 indicated a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Crizotinib.||0.582|0.335|<0.0001
90948569|NCT01154140|181776073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.595||||0.0347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.338|1.048||P-value was obtained from 1-sided unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank|||Analysis was based on the Cox Proportional hazards model assuming proportional hazards, a HR less than 1 indicated a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Crizotinib.||1.048|0.338|0.0347
90948570|NCT01154140|181776074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.387|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.286|0.524||P-value was obtained from 1-sided unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank|||Analysis was based on the Cox Proportional hazards model assuming proportional hazards, a HR less than 1 indicated a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Crizotinib.||0.524|0.286|<0.0001
90948571|NCT01154140|181776081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.591||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.452|0.773||Two-sided p-value from the unstratified log rank test was used.|Log Rank|||HR was calculated based on the Cox Proportional hazards model. Assuming proportional hazards, a HR less than 1 indicated a reduction in hazard rate in favor of crizotinib.||0.773|0.452|0.0002
90948572|NCT01154140|181776082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|13.8303|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.74|16.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-C30 Global QoL: Analysis was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects).||16.92|10.74|<0.0001
90948573|NCT01154140|181776082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.3532||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|6.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-C30 cognitive functioning: Analysis was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects).||6.11|0.60|0.0170
90948574|NCT01154140|181776082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.5165|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.57|10.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-C30 emotional functioning: Analysis was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects).||10.46|4.57|<0.0001
90948575|NCT01154140|181776082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|10.4035|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.48|13.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-C30 physical functioning: Analysis was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects).||13.32|7.48|<0.0001
90948576|NCT01154140|181776082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|15.5513|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.29|19.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-C30 role functioning: Analysis was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects).||19.81|11.29|<0.0001
90948577|NCT01154140|181776082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.7641|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.69|12.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-C30 social functioning: Analysis was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects).||12.84|4.69|<0.0001
90948578|NCT01154140|181776083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.4976|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.03|-8.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-C30 appetite loss: Analysis was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects).||-8.97|-18.03|<0.0001
90948579|NCT01154140|181776083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.4336||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-C30 constipation: Analysis was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects).||0.13|-9.00|0.0570
90948580|NCT01154140|181776083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|12.4906|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.98|16.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-C30 diarrhea: Analysis was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects).||16.00|8.98|<0.0001
90948581|NCT01154140|181776083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-13.4622|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.2|-9.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-C30 dysponea: Analysis was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects).||-9.73|-17.20|<0.0001
90948582|NCT01154140|181776083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.9987|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.52|-11.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-C30 fatigue: Analysis was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects).||-11.48|-18.52|<0.0001
90948583|NCT01154140|181776083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8186||||0.6681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.56|2.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-C30 financial difficulties: Analysis was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects).||2.92|-4.56|0.6681
90948584|NCT01154140|181776083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.043|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.22|-5.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-C30 insomnia: Analysis was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects).||-5.87|-14.22|<0.0001
90948585|NCT01154140|181776083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.4446||||0.0468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.84|-0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-C30 nausea and vomiting: Analysis was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects).||-0.05|-6.84|0.0468
90948586|NCT01154140|181776083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.9277|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.23|-6.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-C30 pain: Analysis was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects).||-6.62|-13.23|<0.0001
90948587|NCT01154140|181776084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.8149||||0.0108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.52|-1.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-LC13 alopecia: Analysis was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-LC13 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects).||-1.11|-8.52|0.0108
90948588|NCT01154140|181776084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.3926|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.06|-4.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-LC13 coughing: Analysis was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-LC13 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects).||-4.72|-12.06|<0.0001
90948589|NCT01154140|181776084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6651||||0.5938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|3.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-LC13 dysphagia: Analysis was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-LC13 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects).||3.11|-1.78|0.5938
90948590|NCT01154140|181776084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.008|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.96|-6.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-LC13 dyspnoea: Analysis was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-LC13 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects).||-6.06|-11.96|<0.0001
90948591|NCT01154140|181776084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8828||||0.0656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-LC13 haemoptysis: Analysis was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-LC13 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects).||0.06|-1.82|0.0656
90948592|NCT01154140|181776084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.0475||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.22|-2.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-LC13 pain in arm or shoulder: Analysis was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-LC13 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects).||-2.88|-9.22|0.0002
90948593|NCT01154140|181776084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.0959|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.35|-4.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-LC13 pain in chest: Analysis was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-LC13 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects).||-4.84|-11.35|<0.0001
90948594|NCT01154140|181776084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.7717||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.24|-3.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-LC13 pain in other parts: Analysis was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-LC13 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects).||-3.31|-10.24|0.0001
91038998|NCT00112437|181962046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.55|17.89||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through a stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handle by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance|Difference in Least Squares Means (back-transformation of difference in log-fractions from baseline)|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone resorption (u-DPyr) compared to placebo over 12 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will decrease biochemical indices of bone resorption (u-DPyr) over 12 months.||17.89|-20.55|
91038999|NCT00112437|181962046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|28.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.84|50.46||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through a stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handle by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance|Difference in Least Squares Means (back-transformation of difference in log-fractions from baseline)|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone resorption (u-DPyr) compared to placebo over 12 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will decrease biochemical indices of bone resorption (u-DPyr) over 12 months.||50.46|5.84|
90948595|NCT01154140|181776084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.3521||||0.0427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|6.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-LC13 peripheral neuropathy: Analysis was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-LC13 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects).||6.59|0.11|0.0427
90980128|NCT01431287|181844280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.071|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.121||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.121|0.020|0.0061
90980129|NCT01431287|181844280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.7518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.059|0.042||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.042|-0.059|0.7518
90980130|NCT01431287|181844280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.076|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.025|0.126||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.126|0.025|0.0034
90980131|NCT01431287|181844280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.059|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.0209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.009|0.11||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.110|0.009|0.0209
90980132|NCT01431287|181844280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.047|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.0708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.097||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.097|-0.004|0.0708
91039000|NCT00112437|181962047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-15.57|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.11|-5.04||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance.|Difference in Least Squares Means (back-transformation from difference in log-fraction from baseline)|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone formation (s-BSAP) compared to placebo over 12 months.||-5.04|-26.11|<=0.001
90948596|NCT01154140|181776084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.1521||||0.1382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|0.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-LC13 sore mouth: Analysis was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-LC13 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects).||0.69|-5.00|0.1382
90980133|NCT01431287|181844280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.013|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.6148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.038|0.064||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.064|-0.038|0.6148
90980134|NCT01431287|181844281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.164|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.114|0.215||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.215|0.114|<0.0001
90980135|NCT01431287|181844281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.071|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.122||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.122|0.020|0.0064
90980136|NCT01431287|181844281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.152|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.102|0.203||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.203|0.102|<0.0001
90980137|NCT01431287|181844281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.075|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.025|0.126||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.126|0.025|0.0035
90980138|NCT01431287|181844281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.059|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.0233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.008|0.109||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.109|0.008|0.0233
90980139|NCT01431287|181844281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.6413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.039|0.063||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.063|-0.039|0.6413
90980140|NCT01431287|181844281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.088|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.037|0.138||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.138|0.037|0.0007
90980141|NCT01431287|181844281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.094|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.043|0.144||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.144|0.043|0.0003
90980142|NCT01431287|181844281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.077|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.026|0.127||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.127|0.026|0.0030
90980143|NCT01431287|181844281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.017|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.5159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.034|0.068||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.068|-0.034|0.5159
90980144|NCT01431287|181844282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.159|0.261||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.261|0.159|<0.0001
90980145|NCT01431287|181844282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.089|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.038|0.141||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.141|0.038|0.0006
90980146|NCT01431287|181844282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.183|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.132|0.234||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.234|0.132|<0.0001
90980147|NCT01431287|181844282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.068|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.0094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.017|0.119||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.119|0.017|0.0094
90980148|NCT01431287|181844282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.062|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.0174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.011|0.113||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.113|0.011|0.0174
91050497|NCT04647721|181987183|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of 0.5. The two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the treatment difference was constructed using the repeated-measures analysis of covariance (ANCOVA).|Difference in Least Squares Means|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.12||||||||0.12|-0.07|
90980149|NCT01431287|181844282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.028|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.2888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.023|0.079||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.079|-0.023|0.2888
90980150|NCT01431287|181844282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.095|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.044|0.146||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.146|0.044|0.0003
90980151|NCT01431287|181844282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.121|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.172||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.172|0.070|<0.0001
90980152|NCT01431287|181844282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.115|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.064|0.166||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.166|0.064|<0.0001
90980153|NCT01431287|181844282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.8241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.045|0.057||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.057|-0.045|0.8241
90980154|NCT01431287|181844283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.158|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.108|0.208||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.208|0.108|<0.0001
90980155|NCT01431287|181844283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.072|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.022|0.122||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.122|0.022|0.0048
90980156|NCT01431287|181844283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.101|0.2||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.200|0.101|<0.0001
90980157|NCT01431287|181844283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.103|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.053|0.152||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.152|0.053|<0.0001
90980158|NCT01431287|181844283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.064|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.014|0.113||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.113|0.014|0.0116
91050498|NCT04647721|181987184|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.35|6.35||||||||6.35|-6.35|
90980159|NCT01431287|181844283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.7577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.042|0.058||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.058|-0.042|0.7577
90980160|NCT01431287|181844283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.111|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.061|0.16||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.160|0.061|<0.0001
90980161|NCT01431287|181844283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.086|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.037|0.136||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.136|0.037|0.0007
90980162|NCT01431287|181844283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.002|0.097||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.097|-0.002|0.0621
91050499|NCT04647721|181987185|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|1.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.08|6.74||||||||6.74|-3.08|
91050500|NCT04380090|181987187|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|2.86|||Regression, Logistic||OR for Propylene Glycol use (vs Docusate Sodium), adjusted for operative time and sex (female vs. male)|||2.86|0.65|0.41
90948597|NCT01154140|181776085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.9908||||0.0139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|7.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was based on a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D VAS subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose were included as random effects).||7.17|0.81|0.0139
90948598|NCT00358644|181776089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of Participants|23.6||||||95.0|13.2|37.0||||||||37.0|13.2|
90948599|NCT00401258|181776108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
90948600|NCT00401258|181776109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Average pain severity statistical analysis||||<.001
90948601|NCT00401258|181776109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Average pain interference statistical analysis||||<.001
90948602|NCT00401258|181776110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.001
90948603|NCT00401258|181776111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
90948604|NCT00401258|181776113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.031
90948605|NCT00401258|181776114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
90948606|NCT00401258|181776115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||||||Refers to work/school sub-scale|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.004
90948607|NCT00401258|181776115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.087||||||Refers to social sub scale|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.087
90948608|NCT00401258|181776115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||||||Refers to family sub scale|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.006
90948609|NCT04297618|181776136|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
90948610|NCT04297618|181776137|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
90948611|NCT04944290|181776166|EQUIVALENCE|8AM Day 14|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.51||||||||0.51|-0.71|
90948612|NCT04944290|181776166|EQUIVALENCE|10AM Day 14|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.26||||||10AM Day 14||0.26|-0.86|
90948613|NCT04944290|181776166|EQUIVALENCE|8AM Day 42|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.58||||||||0.58|-0.58|
90948614|NCT04944290|181776166|EQUIVALENCE|10AM Day 42|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.47||||||||0.47|-0.70|
90948615|NCT01483144|181776230|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.3||The threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05|stratified Cox proportional (Score)||Eflornithine plus sulindac is the numerator and sulindac plus eflornithine placebo is the denominator.|Intent to treat population with all FAP-related events||1.3|0.4|0.1210
90948616|NCT01483144|181776230|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.1076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.2||The threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05|stratified Cox proportional (Score)||Eflornithine plus sulindac is the numerator and eflornithine plus sulindac placebo is the denominator.|Intent to treat population with all FAP-related events||1.2|0.4|0.1076
90948617|NCT01483144|181776230|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.2||||0.0201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.8||Threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|stratified Cox proportional (Score)||Eflornithine and sulindac is the numerator and sulindac and eflornithine placebo is the denominator. Reduction in relative risk for FAP-related events with the combination.|Lower GI population||0.8|0.0|0.0201
90948618|NCT01483144|181776230|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.17||||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.7||Threshold of significance was p=0.05|stratified Cox proportional (Score)||Eflornithine and sulindac is the numerator and eflornithine and sulindac placebo is the denominator.|Lower GI population||0.7|0|0.0101
90948619|NCT01483144|181776231|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8127||||||The threshold of significance was p=0.05|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.8127
90948620|NCT01483144|181776231|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8133||||||The threshold for significance was p=0.05|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.8133
90948621|NCT01483144|181776232|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999||||||The threshold for significance was p=0.05|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.999
90948622|NCT01483144|181776232|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2152||||||The threshold for significance was p=0.05|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.2152
90948623|NCT04307940|181776244|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|14.81||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.1|23.51||All p-values were presented using two-sided test with alpha 0.05 and were considered statistically significant.|ANCOVA|||||23.51|6.10|0.001
90948624|NCT04307940|181776244|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|39.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.08|50.18||All p-values were presented using two-sided test with alpha 0.05 and were considered statistically significant.|ANCOVA|||||50.18|29.08|<0.001
90948625|NCT04307940|181776244|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|24.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.26|35.39||All p-values were presented using two-sided test with alpha 0.05 and were considered statistically significant.|ANCOVA|||||35.39|14.26|<0.001
90948626|NCT04624243|181776257|SUPERIORITY|It was hypothesized that MK-8189 16 mg is superior to placebo in reducing Week 6 PANSS change from baseline|LS Mean Difference|-2.8||||0.241|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-8.3|2.6|||ANCOVA|||||2.6|-8.3|0.241
90948627|NCT04624243|181776257|SUPERIORITY|It was hypothesized that MK-8189 24 mg is superior to placebo in reducing Week 6 PANSS change from baseline|LS Mean Difference|-0.7||||0.784|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-6.3|4.9|||ANCOVA|||||4.9|-6.3|0.784
90948628|NCT04624243|181776259|SUPERIORITY|It was hypothesized that MK-8189 16 mg is superior to placebo in reducing Week 6 PANSS PSS change from baseline|LS Mean Difference|-1.3||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.1|0.5|||ANCOVA|||||0.5|-3.1|0.096
90948629|NCT04624243|181776259|SUPERIORITY|It was hypothesized that MK-8189 24 mg is superior to placebo in reducing Week 6 PANSS PSS change from baseline|LS Mean Difference|-1.4||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.2|0.5|||ANCOVA|||||0.5|-3.2|0.094
90948630|NCT04624243|181776260|SUPERIORITY|It was hypothesized that MK-8189 16 mg is superior to placebo in reducing Week 6 CGI-S change from baseline|LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.254|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.5|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.5|0.254
90948631|NCT04624243|181776260|SUPERIORITY|It was hypothesized that MK-8189 24 mg is superior to placebo in reducing Week 6 CGI-S change from baseline|LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.959|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.3|0.3|||ANCOVA|||||0.3|-0.3|0.959
90948632|NCT04624243|181776264|SUPERIORITY|Estimated Treatment Difference vs Risperidone|LS Mean Difference|-8.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-10.4|-6.5|||ANCOVA|Covariates were treatment, stratum (US Black, US-Non-Black, Other), gender (male, female), and with baseline value, the duration of illness and age||||-6.5|-10.4|<0.001
91050501|NCT04380090|181987188|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|2.24|||ordinal regression model||OR for Propylene Glycol use (vs Docusate Sodium), adjusted for operative time and sex (female vs. male)|||2.24|0.28|0.66
90948633|NCT04624243|181776264|SUPERIORITY|Estimated Treatment Difference vs Risperidone|LS Mean Difference|-7.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-9.3|-5.2|||ANCOVA|Covariates were treatment, stratum (US Black, US-Non-Black, Other), gender (male, female), and with baseline value, the duration of illness and age||||-5.2|-9.3|<0.001
90948634|NCT04624243|181776265|SUPERIORITY|Estimated Treatment Difference vs Risperidone|LS Mean Difference|-6.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-7.4|-4.6|||ANCOVA|Covariates were treatment, stratum (US Black, US-Non-Black, Other), gender (male, female), and with baseline value, the duration of illness and age||||-4.6|-7.4|<0.001
90948635|NCT04624243|181776265|SUPERIORITY|Estimated Treatment Difference vs Risperidone|LS Mean Difference|-5.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-7.0|-4.2|||ANCOVA|Covariates were treatment, stratum (US Black, US-Non-Black, Other), gender (male, female), and with baseline value, the duration of illness and age||||-4.2|-7.0|<0.001
90948636|NCT04896008|181776324|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.24|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.43||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by the randomization stratification factors (REVEAL Lite 2.0 risk score and PAH subtype).|Log Rank||HR and associated 95% confidence interval were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by the randomization stratification factors (REVEAL Lite 2.0 risk score and PAH subtype).|||0.43|0.13|<0.0001
90948637|NCT04896008|181776325|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.42||||0.0313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.07||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by the randomization stratification factors (REVEAL Lite 2.0 risk score and PAH subtype).|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by the randomization stratification factors (REVEAL Lite 2.0 risk score and PAH subtype).|||1.07|0.17|0.0313
90948638|NCT04896008|181776326|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.34||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.78||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by the randomization stratification factors (REVEAL Lite 2.0 risk score and PAH subtype).|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by the randomization stratification factors (REVEAL Lite 2.0 risk score and PAH subtype).|||0.78|0.15|0.0039
90948639|NCT04896008|181776327|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-7.29||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.65|2.41||Two-sided p-value is calculated based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method stratified by the randomization stratification factors (REVEAL Lite 2.0 risk score and PAH subtype).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Based on Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by the randomization stratification factors (REVEAL Lite 2.0 risk score and PAH subtype)|||2.41|-17.65|0.135
90948640|NCT04896008|181776328|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-3.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.25|-1.88||Two-sided p-value is provided using aligned rank stratified Wilcoxon test stratified by a randomization stratification factor (PAH subtype).|Aligned Rank Stratified Wilcoxon||Hodges-Lehmann location shift estimate with 95% CI is provided using aligned rank stratified Wilcoxon test stratified by a randomization stratification factor (PAH subtype).|||-1.88|-4.25|<0.001
90948641|NCT04896008|181776329|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|33.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.41|46.98||Two-sided p-value is calculated based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method stratified by a randomization stratification factor (PAH subtype).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Based on Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by a randomization stratification factors (PAH subtype).|||46.98|18.41|<0.001
90948642|NCT04896008|181776330|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-2339.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3378.74|-1299.44||Two-sided p-value is provided using aligned rank stratified Wilcoxon test stratified by the randomization stratification factors (REVEAL Lite 2.0 risk score and PAH subtype).|Aligned Rank Stratified Wilcoxon||Hodges-Lehmann location shift estimate with 95% CI is provided using aligned rank stratified Wilcoxon test stratified by the randomization stratification factors (REVEAL Lite 2.0 risk score and PAH subtype).|||-1299.44|-3378.74|<0.001
90948643|NCT04896008|181776331|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-21.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.78|-14.59||Two-sided p-value is provided using aligned rank stratified Wilcoxon test stratified by the randomization stratification factors (REVEAL Lite 2.0 risk score and PAH subtype).|Aligned Rank Stratified Wilcoxon||Hodges-Lehmann location shift estimate with 95% CI is provided using aligned rank stratified Wilcoxon test stratified by the randomization stratification factors (REVEAL Lite 2.0 risk score and PAH subtype).|||-14.59|-27.78|<0.001
90948644|NCT04896008|181776332|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-339.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-511.09|-168.06||Two-sided p-value is provided using aligned rank stratified Wilcoxon test stratified by the randomization stratification factors (REVEAL Lite 2.0 risk score and PAH subtype).|Aligned Rank Stratified Wilcoxon||Hodges-Lehmann location shift estimate with 95% CI is provided using aligned rank stratified Wilcoxon test stratified by the randomization stratification factors (REVEAL Lite 2.0 risk score and PAH subtype).|||-168.06|-511.09|<0.001
90948645|NCT04896008|181776333|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|27.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.85|40.98||Two-sided p-value is calculated based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method stratified by the randomization stratification factors (REVEAL Lite 2.0 risk score and PAH subtype).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Based on Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by the randomization stratification factors (REVEAL Lite 2.0 risk score and PAH subtype).|||40.98|12.85|<0.001
90948646|NCT04896008|181776334|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|63.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.22|102.73||Two-sided p-value is provided using aligned rank stratified Wilcoxon test stratified by randomization stratification factor (REVEAL Lite 2.0 risk score and PAH subtype).|Aligned Rank Stratified Wilcoxon||Hodges-Lehmann location shift estimate with 95% CI is provided using aligned rank stratified Wilcoxon test stratified by randomization stratification factor (REVEAL Lite 2.0 risk score and PAH subtype).|||102.73|23.22|<0.001
90948647|NCT04896008|181776335|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.5||||0.119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|1.16||Two-sided p-value is provided using aligned rank stratified Wilcoxon test stratified by randomization stratification factor (REVEAL Lite 2.0 risk score and PAH subtype)|Aligned Rank Stratified Wilcoxon||Hodges-Lehmann location shift estimate with 95% CI is provided using aligned rank stratified Wilcoxon test stratified by randomization stratification factor (REVEAL Lite 2.0 risk score and PAH subtype).|||1.16|-0.18|0.119
90948648|NCT01810939|181776348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Proportion|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.81||||||||0.81|0.7|
90948649|NCT01810939|181776349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mantel Haenszel|||Test for difference between treatment groups in proportion with serum potassium ≥ 5.5 mEq/L||||<0.001
90948650|NCT01810939|181776350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mantel Haenszel|||Test for difference between treatment groups in proportion with serum potassium ≥ 5.1 mEq/L||||<0.001
90948651|NCT01810939|181776351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Longitudinal mixed models|Test that the mean change is significantly different from zero.||Estimation of mean change in serum potassium from Part A Baseline to Part A Week 4 and test mean change different from zero.||||<0.001
90948652|NCT01810939|181776352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Test for difference between treatment groups in serum potassium change in Part B||||< 0.001
90948653|NCT05646719|181776391|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.27|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|4.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.20|1.23|<0.01
91050502|NCT04380090|181987189|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|3.63|||ordinal regression model||OR for Propylene Glycol use (vs Docusate Sodium), adjusted for operative time and sex (female vs. male)|||3.63|0.45|0.65
90948654|NCT05646719|181776391|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
91050503|NCT04380090|181987190|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence is defined as a p-value greater or equal to 0.05 (no difference between groups)||||||0.47|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.47
91050504|NCT04380090|181987191|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence is defined as a p-value greater or equal to 0.05 (no difference between groups)||||||0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.99
90948655|NCT03322540|181776403|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|-6.5||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.5|8.7|||Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen method|One-sided p-value for testing. H0: difference in % = 0 versus H1: difference in % \> 0.|Point estimate was assessed based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by predominant tumor histology (squamous vs non-squamous).|||8.7|-21.5|0.8000
90948656|NCT01677299|181776421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean diff (Day 5 - Baseline)|-22.5|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.0|-8.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Change in fasting plasma glucose from Baseline to Day 5 (end of treatment) for treatment A.||||-8|-37|<0.05
90948657|NCT01677299|181776421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean diff (Day 5 - Baseline)|-20.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.0|-9.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Change in fasting plasma glucose from Baseline to Day 5 (end of treatment) for treatment B.||||-9|-30|<0.05
90948658|NCT01677299|181776421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean diff (Day 5 - Baseline)|-16.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.0|-8.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Change in fasting plasma glucose from Baseline to Day 5 (end of treatment) for treatment C.||||-8|-24|<0.05
90948659|NCT01677299|181776421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean diff (Day 5 - Baseline)|-21.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.0|-11.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Change in fasting plasma glucose from Baseline to Day 5 (end of treatment) for treatment D.||||-11|-31|<0.05
90948660|NCT01677299|181776422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS mean ration|1.6|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|1.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.9|1.4|<0.05
90948661|NCT01677299|181776422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geo LSmean ratio of (Day 5/Baseline)|1.9|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.3|1.5|<0.05
90948662|NCT01677299|181776422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geo LSmean ratio (Day 5/Baseline)|1.7|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|2.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.0|1.4|<0.05
90948663|NCT01677299|181776422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geo LSmean ratio (Day 5/Baseline)|1.9|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.3|1.5|<0.05
90948664|NCT01677299|181776423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geo LSmean ratio (Day 5/Baseline)|1.5|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|1.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.8|1.4|<0.05
90948665|NCT01677299|181776423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geo LSmean ratio (Day 5/Baseline)|1.4|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.6|1.2|<0.05
90948666|NCT01677299|181776423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geo LSmean ratio (Day 5/Baseline)|1.5|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.6|1.3|<0.05
90980163|NCT01431287|181844283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.039|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.1266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.011|0.089||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.089|-0.011|0.1266
90980164|NCT01431287|181844284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.156|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.104|0.209||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.209|0.104|<0.0001
90980165|NCT01431287|181844284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.087|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.034|0.139||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.139|0.034|0.0013
90980166|NCT01431287|181844284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.118|0.223||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.223|0.118|<0.0001
90980167|NCT01431287|181844284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.102|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.049|0.154||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.154|0.049|0.0001
90948667|NCT01677299|181776423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geo LSmean ratio (Day 5/Baseline)|1.5|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.6|1.4|<0.05
90948668|NCT03926195|181776452|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|5.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|19.2|||||Difference in percentage and 95% confidence interval (CI) was based on a stratified Mantel-Haenszel test.|||19.2|-7.5|
90948669|NCT03926195|181776454|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|3.5|||||Difference in Medians and 95% CI for change from baseline at Week 13 was based on quantile regression.|||3.5|-6.4|
90980168|NCT01431287|181844284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.048|0.153||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.153|0.048|0.0002
90980169|NCT01431287|181844284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.014|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.6093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.066|0.039||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.039|-0.066|0.6093
90948670|NCT03926195|181776456|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.1|36.8|||||Difference in medians and 95% CI for change from baseline at Week 13 was based on quantile regression.|||36.8|-37.1|
91050505|NCT00985712|181987248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.6692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model details are given in the section of Measure Description.||Superiority criterion is met if the upper limit of Confidence Interval (CI) is below zero.||0.26|-0.17|0.6692
90948671|NCT03926195|181776458|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|7.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|20.8|||||Difference in Medians and 95% CI for change from baseline at Week 13 was based on quantile regression.|||20.8|-6.0|
90948672|NCT03926195|181776460|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.1|||||Difference in Medians and 95% CI for change from baseline at Week 13 was based on quantile regression.|||0.1|-0.6|
90948673|NCT03926195|181776462|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|1.0|||||Difference in Medians and 95% CI for change from baseline at Week 13 was based on quantile regression.|||1|-3|
90948674|NCT03054337|181776464|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.301||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.51|||ANCOVA|The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model included treatment assignment (3 dosed groups; 1 placebo group) and pre-treatment Hb value as a covariate.||||1.51|0.29|0.0045
90948675|NCT03054337|181776464|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.306|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|2.21|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment assignment (3 dosed groups; 1 placebo group) and pre-treatment Hb value as a covariate.||||2.21|0.98|<0.0001
90948676|NCT03054337|181776464|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|2.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.49|2.7|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment assignment (3 dosed groups; 1 placebo group) and pre-treatment Hb value as a covariate.||||2.70|1.49|<0.0001
90948677|NCT03054337|181776470|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.103||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.55|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model will include treatment assignment (3 dosed groups; 1 placebo group) and pre-treatment Hb value as a covariate.||RBC Count||0.55|0.13|0.0018
90948678|NCT03054337|181776470|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.103|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.72|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model will include treatment assignment (3 dosed groups; 1 placebo group) and pre-treatment Hb value as a covariate.||RBC Count||0.72|0.30|<0.0001
90948679|NCT03054337|181776470|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.102|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.86|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model will include treatment assignment (3 dosed groups; 1 placebo group) and pre-treatment Hb value as a covariate.||RBC Count||0.86|0.45|<0.0001
90948680|NCT03054337|181776470|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.005||0.7804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.01|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model will include treatment assignment (3 dosed groups; 1 placebo group) and pre-treatment Hb value as a covariate.||Absolute Reticulocyte Count||0.01|-0.01|0.7804
90948681|NCT03054337|181776470|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.005||0.0986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.02|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model will include treatment assignment (3 dosed groups; 1 placebo group) and pre-treatment Hb value as a covariate.||Absolute Reticulocyte Count||0.02|-0.00|0.0986
90948682|NCT03054337|181776470|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.005||0.1661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.02|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model will include treatment assignment (3 dosed groups; 1 placebo group) and pre-treatment Hb value as a covariate.||Absolute Reticulocyte Count||0.02|-0.00|0.1661
91050506|NCT00985712|181987249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3551||95.0||||P-value is for HbA1c ≤7.0%.|Chi-squared|||||||0.3551
91039001|NCT00112437|181962047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|5.43||||0.645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.02|16.89||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance.|Difference in Least Squares Means (back-transformation from difference in log-fraction from baseline)|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone formation (s-BSAP) compared to placebo over 12 months.||16.89|-6.02|0.645
91039002|NCT00112437|181962047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|11.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|23.92||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handle by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance.|Difference in Least Squares Means (back-transformation from difference in log-fraction from baseline)|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone formation (s-BSAP) compared to placebo over 12 months.||23.92|-0.47|
90948683|NCT03054337|181776472|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.942||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|5.2|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model will include treatment assignment (3 dosed groups; 1 placebo group) and pre-treatment Hb value as a covariate.||Hematocrit||5.20|1.40|0.0010
90948684|NCT03054337|181776472|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.953|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.38|7.22|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model will include treatment assignment (3 dosed groups; 1 placebo group) and pre-treatment Hb value as a covariate.||Hematocrit||7.22|3.38|<0.0001
90948685|NCT03054337|181776472|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|7.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.37|9.11|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model will include treatment assignment (3 dosed groups; 1 placebo group) and pre-treatment Hb value as a covariate.||Hematocrit||9.11|5.37|<0.0001
90948686|NCT03054337|181776472|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.152||0.5889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.22|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model will include treatment assignment (3 dosed groups; 1 placebo group) and pre-treatment Hb value as a covariate.||Reticulocytes||0.22|-0.39|0.5889
90948687|NCT03054337|181776472|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.151||0.8074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.34|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model will include treatment assignment (3 dosed groups; 1 placebo group) and pre-treatment Hb value as a covariate.||Reticulocytes||0.34|-0.27|0.8074
90948688|NCT03054337|181776472|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.148||0.6952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.24|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model will include treatment assignment (3 dosed groups; 1 placebo group) and pre-treatment Hb value as a covariate.||Reticulocytes||0.24|-0.36|0.6952
90948689|NCT03054337|181776474|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3702|||||||ANCOVA|test of treatment group difference based on ANCOVA model||Iron||||0.3702
90948690|NCT03054337|181776474|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5524|||||||ANCOVA|test of treatment group difference based on ANCOVA model||Iron||||0.5524
90948691|NCT03054337|181776474|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1589|||||||ANCOVA|test of treatment group difference based on ANCOVA model||Iron||||0.1589
90948692|NCT03054337|181776474|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0092|||||||ANCOVA|test of treatment group difference based on ANCOVA model||TIBC||||0.0092
90948693|NCT03054337|181776474|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|test of treatment group difference based on ANCOVA model||TIBC||||<0.0001
90948694|NCT03054337|181776474|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|test of treatment group difference based on ANCOVA model||TIBC||||<0.0001
90948695|NCT03054337|181776476|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9092|||||||ANCOVA|test of treatment group difference based on ANCOVA model||||||0.9092
90948696|NCT03054337|181776476|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1484|||||||ANCOVA|test of treatment group difference based on ANCOVA model||||||0.1484
90948697|NCT03054337|181776476|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1313|||||||ANCOVA|test of treatment group difference based on ANCOVA model||||||0.1313
90948698|NCT03054337|181776478|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.108|||||||ANCOVA|test of treatment group difference based on ANCOVA model||Ferritin||||0.1080
90948699|NCT03054337|181776478|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||ANCOVA|test of treatment group difference based on ANCOVA model||Ferritin||||0.0002
90948700|NCT03054337|181776478|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|test of treatment group difference based on ANCOVA model||Ferritin||||<0.0001
90948701|NCT03054337|181776478|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0672|||||||ANCOVA|test of treatment group difference based on ANCOVA model||Hepcidin||||0.0672
90948702|NCT03054337|181776478|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004|||||||ANCOVA|test of treatment group difference based on ANCOVA model||Hepcidin||||0.0004
90948703|NCT03054337|181776478|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|test of treatment group difference based on ANCOVA model||Hepcidin||||<0.0001
90948704|NCT03054337|181776485|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0895|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0895
90948705|NCT03054337|181776485|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
90948706|NCT03054337|181776485|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3845|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.3845
90948707|NCT02838979|181776497|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.34||0.15|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value for the interaction of treatment and sequence|ANOVA|Two-way ANOVA was used to assess differences between the groups||||||0.15
90948708|NCT02838979|181776498|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.39|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.18||0.86|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value for the interaction of treatment and sequence|ANOVA|Two-way ANOVA was used to assess differences between the groups||||||0.86
90948709|NCT02838979|181776499|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.04||0.44|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value for the interaction of treatment and sequence|ANOVA|Two-way ANOVA was used to assess differences between the groups||||||0.44
90948710|NCT02838979|181776500|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.21||0.36|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value for the interaction of treatment and sequence|ANOVA|Two-way ANOVA was used to assess differences between the groups||||||0.36
90948711|NCT02838979|181776501|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.87||0.6|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value for the interaction of treatment and sequence|ANOVA|Two-way ANOVA was used to assess differences between the groups||||||0.60
90948712|NCT00874731|181776511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.8|3.76|||||Mean Difference in CFB = Ridaforolimus - Placebo||Mean difference and 90% confidence interval generated using a repeated measures mixed model that included treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed factors and subject as random factor.|3.76|-2.80|
90948713|NCT00874731|181776514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.83|2.74|||||Mean Difference in CFB = Ridaforolimus - Placebo||Mean difference and 90% confidence interval generated using a repeated measures mixed model that included treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed factors and subject as random factor.|2.74|-3.83|
90948714|NCT00874731|181776515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|2.14|||||Mean Difference in CFB = Ridaforolimus - Placebo||Mean difference and 90% confidence interval generated using a repeated measures mixed model that included treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed factors and subject as random factor.|2.14|-4.50|
90948715|NCT00874731|181776516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.85|3.79|||||Mean Difference in CFB = Ridaforolimus - Placebo||Mean difference and 90% confidence interval generated using a repeated measures mixed model that included treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed factors and subject as random factor.|3.79|-2.85|
90948716|NCT00874731|181776517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|4.47|||||Mean Difference in CFB = Ridaforolimus - Placebo||Mean difference and 90% confidence interval generated using a repeated measures mixed model that included treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed factors and subject as random factor.|4.47|-2.10|
90948717|NCT00874731|181776518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|5.78|||||Mean Difference in CFB = Ridaforolimus - Placebo||Mean difference and 90% confidence interval generated using a repeated measures mixed model that included treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed factors and subject as random factor.|5.78|-0.79|
90948718|NCT00874731|181776519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|5.76|||||Mean Difference in CFB = Ridaforolimus - Placebo||Mean difference and 90% confidence interval generated using a repeated measures mixed model that included treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed factors and subject as random factor.|5.76|-0.80|
90948719|NCT00874731|181776520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|7.17|||||Mean Difference in CFB = Ridaforolimus - Placebo||Mean difference and 90% confidence interval generated using a repeated measures mixed model that included treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed factors and subject as random factor.|7.17|0.60|
90948720|NCT00874731|181776521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.85|1.86|||||Mean Difference in CFB = Ridaforolimus - Placebo||Mean difference and 90% confidence interval generated using a repeated measures mixed model that included treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed factors and subject as random factor.|1.86|-4.85|
90948721|NCT00955708|181776522|OTHER|Primary endpoint was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. In addition, Greenwood's formula was used to calculate the lower one-sided 95% confidence bound.|Kaplan-Meier Rate|95.3|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|94.0||||||The lower one-sided 95% confidence bound was pre-specified to be greater than 92.5%.|The endpoint data reflected here is a modified primary endpoint analysis requested by the Food and Drug Administration early in the registry to include data that is related to the left ventricular lead function in a chronic setting.|||94.0|
90948722|NCT00955708|181776522|OTHER|Primary endpoint was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. In addition, Greenwood's formula was used to calculate the lower one-sided 95% confidence bound.|Kaplan-Meier Rate|100.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|100.0|||||||The non-modified primary endpoint analysis initially included confirmed chronic LV lead related complications that result in permanent loss of therapy, invasive intervention, injury or death, and are deemed attributable to a structural lead failure by an independent Clinical Events Committee (CEC). These results are represented here.|||100|
90980170|NCT01431287|181844284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.088|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.035|0.14||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.140|0.035|0.0011
91050507|NCT00985712|181987249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2026||95.0||||P-value is for HbA1c ≤7.5%.|Chi-squared|||||||0.2026
91050508|NCT00985712|181987250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.907||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was adjusted for baseline values.||||||0.9070
91050509|NCT00985712|181987251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9817||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.9817
90948723|NCT01735175|181776548|EQUIVALENCE|The testing procedure was set up in a hierarchical structure, where first equivalence between LA-EP2006 and Neulasta® was assessed (margin ±1 day) and only if this was successfully established, non-inferiority between the two products was tested using a tighter margin of -0.6 days.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.07||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.26|||ANCOVA|The primary endpoints was analyzed with analysis of covariance (ANCOVA).|The difference between LA-EP2006 and reference pegfilgrastim was 0.07 days (95% CI \[-0.12, 0.26\]). 95% CIs were within the predefined margin of ±1 day confirming equivalence.|"The hierarchical test procedure aimed to show that~1. LA-EP2006 and Neulasta® are equivalent with respect to DSN duration in Cycle 1 (margin±1 day), and, if so~2. LA-EP2006 is non-inferior to Neulasta® with respect to DSN duration in Cycle 1 (margin of -0.6 days)."||0.26|-0.12|0.05
90948724|NCT01735175|181776548|NON_INFERIORITY|The testing procedure was set up in a hierarchical structure, where first equivalence between LA-EP2006 and Neulasta was assessed (margin ±1 day) and only if this was successfully established, non-inferiority between the two products was tested using a tighter margin of -0.6 days.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.07||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.26|||ANCOVA|The primary endpoints was analyzed with analysis of covariance (ANCOVA).|LA-EP2006 is non-inferior to Neulasta® because the lower bound of the 95% CI is entirely above the non-inferiority margin of -0.6 days.|"The hierarchical test procedure aimed to show that~1. LA-EP2006 and Neulasta® are equivalent with respect to DSN duration in Cycle 1 (margin±1 day), and, if so~2. LA-EP2006 is non-inferior to Neulasta® with respect to DSN duration in Cycle 1 (margin of -0.6 days)."||0.26|-0.12|0.05
90948725|NCT00755417|181776556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.0117|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.81|-0.11||Based on F test of type III analysis for pairwise comparison at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA|Included treatment and center factors and baseline value as a covariate, tested at the pairwise 0.025 level.||Null hypothesis was that there were no treatment differences relative to placebo in mean change from baseline in average daily number of moderate or severe hot flashes at stable dosing Week 4||-0.11|-1.81|0.0117
90948726|NCT00755417|181776556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.35|-0.66||Based on F test of type III analysis|ANCOVA|Included treatment and center factors and baseline value as a covariate, tested at the pairwise 0.025 level.||Null hypothesis was that there were no treatment differences relative to placebo in mean change from baseline in average daily number of moderate or severe hot flashes at stable dosing Week 4.||-0.66|-2.35|<0.0001
90948727|NCT00755417|181776557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.183|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.49|0.38||Based on F test of type III analysis.|ANCOVA|Included treatment and center factors and baseline value as a covariate, tested at the pairwise 0.025 level.||Null hypothesis was that there were no treatment differences relative to placebo in mean change from baseline in average daily number of moderate or severe hot flashes at stable dosing Week 12||0.38|-1.49|0.1830
90948728|NCT00755417|181776557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.1975|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.46|0.4||Based on F test of type III analysis.|ANCOVA|Included treatment and center factors and baseline value as a covariate, tested at the pairwise 0.025 level.||Null hypothesis was that there were no treatment differences relative to placebo in mean change from baseline in average daily number of moderate or severe hot flashes at stable dosing Week 12.||0.40|-1.46|0.1975
90948729|NCT00755417|181776558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.44|-0.08||Based on F test of type III analysis.|ANCOVA|Included treatment and center factors and baseline value as a covariate, tested at the pairwise 0.025 level.||Null hypothesis was that there were no treatment differences relative to placebo in mean change from baseline in average daily severity score of moderate or severe hot flashes at stable dosing Week 4.||-0.08|-0.44|0.0016
90948730|NCT00755417|181776558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.51|-0.14||Based on the F test of type III analysis.|ANCOVA|Included treatment and center factors and baseline value as a covariate, tested at the pairwise 0.025 level.||Null hypothesis was that there were no treatment differences relative to placebo in mean change from baseline in average daily severity score of moderate or severe hot flashes at stable dosing Week 4.||-0.14|-0.51|<0.0001
90980171|NCT01431287|181844284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.017|0.123||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.123|0.017|0.0095
90980172|NCT01431287|181844284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.069|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.0108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.016|0.121||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.121|0.016|0.0108
90980173|NCT01431287|181844284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.9627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.051|0.054||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.054|-0.051|0.9627
91039003|NCT00112437|181962047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|44.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.55|59.16||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through a stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handle by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance.|Difference in Least Squares Means (back-transformation from difference in log-fraction from baseline)|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone formation (s-BSAP) compared to placebo over 12 months.||59.16|30.55|
90980174|NCT01431287|181844285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.074|0.162||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.162|0.074|<0.0001
91039004|NCT00112437|181962048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-35.74|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.14|-19.33||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance.|Difference in Least Squares Means (back-transformation of difference in log-fraction from baseline)|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone formation (s-P1NP) compared to placebo over 12 months.||-19.33|-52.14|<=0.001
90980175|NCT01431287|181844285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.123|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.077|0.169||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.169|0.077|<0.0001
90980176|NCT01431287|181844285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.071|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.028|0.114||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.114|0.028|0.0012
90980177|NCT01431287|181844285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.094|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.137||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.137|0.050|<0.0001
91050510|NCT00985712|181987252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1187||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1187
90980178|NCT01431287|181844285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.076|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.031|0.121||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.121|0.031|0.0010
90980179|NCT01431287|181844285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.047|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023||0.0384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.003|0.092||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.092|0.003|0.0384
90980180|NCT01431287|181844285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.141|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.097|0.185||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.185|0.097|<0.0001
90980181|NCT01431287|181844285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023||0.8428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.049|0.04||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.040|-0.049|0.8428
90980182|NCT01431287|181844285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022||0.3048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.065|0.02||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.020|-0.065|0.3048
90980183|NCT01431287|181844285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.018|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023||0.4311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.027|0.063||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.063|-0.027|0.4311
90980184|NCT01431287|181844286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.098|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.057|0.139||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.139|0.057|<0.0001
91050511|NCT01843348|181987258|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) with tx, center, donor type factors. Raw and adjusted means were presented with one-sided p-values for un-shifted and shifted hypothesis, respectively. Significance level = 2.5% (one-sided)|Least square mean|-9.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.82|-4.88|||ANOVA|||The trial tests the null hypotheses that the treatment difference (investigational minus reference) in mean eGFR at re-assigned visit Month 12 is lower than the non-inferiority margin (Δ) of 7 mL/min per 1.73m2 versus the alternative that the treatment difference is equal to or greater than the non-inferiority margin||-4.88|-13.82|<0.0001
90980185|NCT01431287|181844286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.106|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.063|0.149||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.149|0.063|<0.0001
90980186|NCT01431287|181844286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.051|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021||0.0136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.091||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.091|0.010|0.0136
90980187|NCT01431287|181844286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.075|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.035|0.116||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.116|0.035|0.0003
90980188|NCT01431287|181844286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.059|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022||0.0065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.016|0.101||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.101|0.016|0.0065
90980189|NCT01431287|181844286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.047|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021||0.0277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.005|0.089||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.089|0.005|0.0277
90948731|NCT00755417|181776559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0433|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.43|0.02||Based on the F test of type III analysis.|ANCOVA|Included treatment and center factors and baseline value as a covariate, tested at the pairwise 0.025 level.||Null hypothesis was that there were no treatment differences relative to placebo in mean change from baseline in average daily severity score of moderate or severe hot flashes at stable dosing Week 12.||0.02|-0.43|0.0433
90948732|NCT00755417|181776559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0468|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.42|0.03||Based on the F test of type III analysis.|ANCOVA|Included treatment and center factors and baseline value as a covariate, tested at the pairwise 0.025 level.||Null hypothesis was that there were no treatment differences relative to placebo in mean change from baseline in average daily severity score of moderate or severe hot flashes at stable dosing Week 12.||0.03|-0.42|0.0468
90948733|NCT03933462|181776569|SUPERIORITY|"Categorical preference endpoints that answered at the final visit (e.g., Which device do you prefer?) were analyzed with a One-sample Binomial Test that compared the observed proportion to a 50/50 split."|||||<|0.001|||||||One Sample Binomial|||||||<0.001
90948734|NCT01266161|181776588|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.45|31.07||p-Value from analysis of variance (ANOVA) model, with treatment, baseline PSR, gender terms. To protect type I error at 5% significance, 2 primary parameters tested sequentially: SPRID 8-12 not declared significant unless SPRID 0-12 was significant.|ANOVA|||||31.07|16.45|<0.001
90948735|NCT01266161|181776589|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.13|12.71||p-Value from ANOVA model, with treatment, baseline PSR, and gender terms. To protect type I error at 5% significance, 2 primary parameters tested sequentially: SPRID 8-12 not declared significant unless SPRID 0-12 was significant.|ANOVA|||||12.71|4.13|<0.001
90948736|NCT01266161|181776590|SUPERIORITY||Least-squares means|8.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.94|11.95||p-Value from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||For SPID 0-12.||11.95|5.94|<0.001
90948737|NCT01266161|181776590|SUPERIORITY||Least-squares means|3.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|4.85||p-Value from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||For SPID 8-12.||4.85|1.45|<0.001
90948738|NCT01266161|181776590|SUPERIORITY||Least-squares means|6.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.84|10.27||p-Value from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||For SPID 12-24.||10.27|2.84|<0.001
90948739|NCT01266161|181776590|SUPERIORITY||Least-squares means|2.02||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|4.37||p-Value from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||For SPID 20-24.||4.37|-0.33|0.091
90948740|NCT01266161|181776590|SUPERIORITY||Least-squares means|14.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.12|20.79||p-Value from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||For SPID 0-24.||20.79|9.12|<0.001
90948741|NCT01266161|181776590|SUPERIORITY||Least-squares means|5.87||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|10.33||p-Value from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||For SPID 24-36.||10.33|1.42|0.010
90980190|NCT01431287|181844286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.122|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.081|0.164||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.164|0.081|<0.0001
90948742|NCT01266161|181776590|SUPERIORITY||Least-squares means|3.48||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|5.83||p-Value from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||For SPID 32-36.||5.83|1.13|0.004
90948743|NCT01266161|181776590|SUPERIORITY||Least-squares means|6.09||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.82|10.36||p-Value from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||For SPID 36-48.||10.36|1.82|0.006
90948744|NCT01266161|181776590|SUPERIORITY||Least-squares means|2.41||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|4.73||p-Value from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||For SPID 44-48.||4.73|0.09|0.042
90948745|NCT01266161|181776590|SUPERIORITY||Least-squares means|10.97||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.49|18.45||p-Value from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||For SPID 24-48.||18.45|3.49|0.004
90948746|NCT01266161|181776591|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.18|||<|0.001||95.0|0.1|0.34|||proportional hazards model|||||0.34|0.10|<0.001
90948747|NCT01266161|181776592|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-48.01|||<|0.001||95.0|-64.46|-31.56||p-Values from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||During the first dosing interval (0 to 12 hours).||-31.56|-64.46|<0.001
90980191|NCT01431287|181844286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021||0.7116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.049|0.034||Comments ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.034|-0.049|0.7116
90980192|NCT01431287|181844286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.2332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.065|0.016||Comments ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.016|-0.065|0.2332
90948748|NCT01266161|181776592|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-25.53|||<|0.001||95.0|-39.78|-11.28||p-Values from the CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||During the second dosing interval (12 to 24 hours).||-11.28|-39.78|<0.001
90980193|NCT01431287|181844286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.017|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021||0.4374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.025|0.059||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.059|-0.025|0.4374
90980194|NCT01431287|181844287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.161|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.077|0.244||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.244|0.077|0.0002
90980195|NCT01431287|181844287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.053|0.228||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.228|0.053|0.0017
90980196|NCT01431287|181844287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.128|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.042||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.046|0.21||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.210|0.046|0.0022
90980197|NCT01431287|181844287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.176|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.042|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.093|0.259||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.259|0.093|<0.0001
90980198|NCT01431287|181844287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.108|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044||0.0141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.022|0.194||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.194|0.022|0.0141
90948749|NCT01266161|181776592|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-24.05||||0.002||95.0|-38.93|-9.18||p-Values from the CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||During the third dosing interval (24 to 36 hours).||-9.18|-38.93|0.002
90948750|NCT01266161|181776592|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-13.6||||0.035||95.0|-26.41|-0.79||p-Values from the CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||During the fourth dosing interval (36 to 48 hours).||-0.79|-26.41|0.035
90948751|NCT01266161|181776592|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-48.01|||<|0.001||95.0|-64.42|-31.6||p-Values from the CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||During the study overall (0 to 48 hours).||-31.60|-64.42|<0.001
90948752|NCT01266161|181776592|SUPERIORITY||Cox proportional hazard models|0.086||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.57|||Andersen-Gill (AG)|||Time to First Dose Rescue Medication Over Entire Study Period (0-48 Hours)||0.57|0.01|0.011
90980199|NCT01431287|181844287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.032|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.4581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.053|0.118||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.118|-0.053|0.4581
90980200|NCT01431287|181844287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.208|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.124|0.293||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.293|0.124|<0.0001
90980201|NCT01431287|181844287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.6335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.064|0.105||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.105|-0.064|0.6335
90980202|NCT01431287|181844287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.047|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.129|0.034||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.034|-0.129|0.2530
90980203|NCT01431287|181844287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.068|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.1188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.017|0.153||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.153|-0.017|0.1188
90980204|NCT01431287|181844288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.137|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.057|0.217||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.217|0.057|0.0008
90980205|NCT01431287|181844288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.126|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.042|0.209||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.209|0.042|0.0032
90980206|NCT01431287|181844288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.105|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.027|0.183||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.183|0.027|0.0085
90980207|NCT01431287|181844288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.156|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.077|0.235||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.235|0.077|0.0001
90980208|NCT01431287|181844288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.094|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.042||0.0255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.011|0.176||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.176|0.011|0.0255
90980209|NCT01431287|181844288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.032|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041||0.4393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.049|0.113||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.113|-0.049|0.4393
90980210|NCT01431287|181844288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.188|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.108|0.269||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.269|0.108|<0.0001
90980211|NCT01431287|181844288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041||0.7784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.069|0.092||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.092|-0.069|0.7784
90980212|NCT01431287|181844288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.051|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.1965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.129|0.026||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.026|-0.129|0.1965
90948753|NCT01266161|181776593|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|0.84|||<|0.001||95.0|0.5|1.19||p-Values from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||Ibuprofen versus placebo at 0.5 hours.||1.19|0.50|<0.001
90980213|NCT01431287|181844288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.063|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041||0.1315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.019|0.144||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.144|-0.019|0.1315
90980214|NCT01431287|181844289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.141|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.239|-1.043||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||-1.043|-3.239|0.0001
90980215|NCT01431287|181844289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.131|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.0435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|-0.033||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||-0.033|-2.230|0.0435
90980216|NCT01431287|181844289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.528|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.559||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.623|-0.432||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||-0.432|-2.623|0.0063
90980217|NCT01431287|181844289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.517|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.558||0.3545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.611|0.577||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.577|-1.611|0.3545
90980218|NCT01431287|181844289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.518|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.559||0.3542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.614|0.578||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.578|-1.614|0.3542
90980219|NCT01431287|181844289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.613|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.556||0.2697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.702|0.476||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.476|-1.702|0.2697
91039005|NCT00112437|181962048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.68||||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.58|17.23||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance.|Difference in Least Squares Means (back-transformation of difference in log-fraction from baseline)|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone formation (s-P1NP) compared to placebo over 12 months.||17.23|-20.58|0.161
90948754|NCT01266161|181776593|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|1.53|||<|0.001||95.0|1.11|1.94||p-Values from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||Ibuprofen versus placebo at 1 hour.||1.94|1.11|<0.001
90948755|NCT01266161|181776593|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|2.0|||<|0.001||95.0|1.56|2.44||p-Values from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||Ibuprofen versus placebo at 1.5 hours.||2.44|1.56|<0.001
90948756|NCT01266161|181776593|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|2.29|||<|0.001||95.0|1.86|2.73||p-Values from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||Ibuprofen versus placebo at 2 hours.||2.73|1.86|<0.001
90980220|NCT01431287|181844289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.559||0.0434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.227|-0.033||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||-0.033|-2.227|0.0434
90980221|NCT01431287|181844289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.563||0.0732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.114|0.095||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.095|-2.114|0.0732
90980222|NCT01431287|181844289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.563||0.0724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.114|0.092||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.092|-2.114|0.0724
90980223|NCT01431287|181844289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.563||0.9983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.102|1.104||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||1.104|-1.102|0.9983
90948757|NCT01266161|181776593|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|2.18|||<|0.001||95.0|1.69|2.68||p-Values from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||Ibuprofen versus placebo at 4 hours.||2.68|1.69|<0.001
90980224|NCT01431287|181844290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.852|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.578||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.985|-0.718||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||-0.718|-2.985|0.0014
90980225|NCT01431287|181844290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.444|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.576||0.4413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.573|0.686||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.686|-1.573|0.4413
90948758|NCT01266161|181776593|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|0.92|||<|0.001||95.0|0.46|1.38||p-Values from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, and gender terms.|ANOVA||Treatment difference (ibuprofen minus placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model.|Ibuprofen versus placebo at 6 hours.||1.38|0.46|<0.001
90948759|NCT01266161|181776593|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|1.04|||<|0.001||95.0|0.54|1.54||p-Values from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||Ibuprofen versus placebo at 8 hours.||1.54|0.54|<0.001
90948760|NCT01266161|181776593|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|1.1|||<|0.001||95.0|0.59|1.6||p-Values from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||Ibuprofen versus placebo at 10 hours.||1.60|0.59|<0.001
90948761|NCT01266161|181776593|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|0.5||||0.052||95.0|0.0|1.01||p-Values from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||Ibuprofen versus placebo at 12 hours.||1.01|-0.00|0.052
90948762|NCT01266161|181776594|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|0.37|||<|0.001||95.0|0.16|0.59||p-Values from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||Ibuprofen versus placebo at 0.5 hours.||0.59|0.16|<0.001
90948763|NCT01266161|181776594|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|0.9|||<|0.001||95.0|0.63|1.18||p-Values from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline pain severity, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||Ibuprofen versus placebo at 1 hour.||1.18|0.63|<0.001
90948764|NCT01266161|181776594|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|1.22|||<|0.001||95.0|0.91|1.52||p-Values from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline pain severity, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||Ibuprofen versus placebo at 1.5 hours.||1.52|0.91|<0.001
90948765|NCT01266161|181776594|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|1.4|||<|0.001||95.0|1.1|1.71||p-Values from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline pain severity, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||Ibuprofen versus placebo at 2 hours.||1.71|1.10|<0.001
90948766|NCT01266161|181776594|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|1.32|||<|0.001||95.0|0.97|1.67||p-Values from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline pain severity, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||Ibuprofen versus placebo at 4 hours.||1.67|0.97|<0.001
90948767|NCT01266161|181776594|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|0.61|||<|0.001||95.0|0.3|0.91||p-Values from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline pain severity, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||Ibuprofen versus placebo at 6 hours.||0.91|0.30|<0.001
90948768|NCT01266161|181776594|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|0.64|||<|0.001||95.0|0.31|0.97||p-Values from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline pain severity, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||Ibuprofen versus placebo at 8 hours.||0.97|0.31|<0.001
90948769|NCT01266161|181776594|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|0.66|||<|0.001||95.0|0.36|0.97||p-Values from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline pain severity, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||Ibuprofen versus placebo at 10 hours.||0.97|0.36|<0.001
90948770|NCT01266161|181776594|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|0.27||||0.089||95.0|-0.04|0.59||p-Values from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline pain severity, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||Ibuprofen versus placebo at 12 hours.||0.59|-0.04|0.089
90948771|NCT01266161|181776594|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|1.0|||<|0.001||95.0|0.7|1.29||Ibuprofen versus placebo at 0.5 hours.|ANOVA|||Ibuprofen versus placebo at 16 hours.||1.29|0.70|<0.001
90948772|NCT01266161|181776594|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|0.47||||0.004||95.0|0.15|0.78||p-Values from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||Ibuprofen versus placebo at 20 hours.||0.78|0.15|0.004
90948773|NCT01266161|181776594|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|0.04||||0.821||95.0|-0.28|0.35||p-Values from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||Ibuprofen versus placebo at 24 hours.||0.35|-0.28|0.821
90948774|NCT01266161|181776594|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|0.56||||0.001||95.0|0.23|0.9||p-Values from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||Ibuprofen versus placebo at 28 hours.||0.90|0.23|0.001
90948775|NCT01266161|181776594|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|0.62|||<|0.001||95.0|0.3|0.94||p-Values from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||Ibuprofen versus placebo at 32 hours.||0.94|0.30|<0.001
90948776|NCT01266161|181776594|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|0.25||||0.127||95.0|-0.07|0.57||p-Values from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||Ibuprofen versus placebo at 36 hours.||0.57|-0.07|0.127
90948777|NCT01266161|181776594|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|0.67|||<|0.001||95.0|0.35|1.0||p-Values from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||Ibuprofen versus placebo at 40 hours.||1.00|0.35|<0.001
90948778|NCT01266161|181776594|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|0.34||||0.036||95.0|0.02|0.67||p-Values from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||Ibuprofen versus placebo at 44 hours.||0.67|0.02|0.036
90948779|NCT01266161|181776594|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|0.26||||0.091||95.0|-0.04|0.56||p-Values from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||Ibuprofen versus placebo at 48 hours.||0.56|-0.04|0.091
90948780|NCT01266161|181776595|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|1.22|||<|0.001||95.0|0.69|1.74||p-Values from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||Ibuprofen versus placebo at 0.5 hours.||1.74|0.69|<0.001
90948781|NCT01266161|181776595|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|2.43|||<|0.001||95.0|1.77|3.09||p-Values from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||Ibuprofen versus placebo at 1 hour.||3.09|1.77|<0.001
90948782|NCT01266161|181776595|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|3.22|||<|0.001||95.0|2.49|3.95||p-Values from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||Ibuprofen versus placebo at 1.5 hours.||3.95|2.49|<0.001
90948783|NCT01266161|181776595|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|3.7|||<|0.001||95.0|2.98|4.42||p-Values from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||Ibuprofen versus placebo at 2 hours.||4.42|2.98|<0.001
90948784|NCT01266161|181776595|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|3.5|||<|0.001||95.0|2.67|4.33||p-Values from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||Ibuprofen versus placebo at 4 hours.||4.33|2.67|<0.001
90948785|NCT01266161|181776595|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|1.53|||<|0.001||95.0|0.79|2.27||p-Values from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||Ibuprofen versus placebo at 6 hours.||2.27|0.79|<0.001
90948786|NCT01266161|181776595|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|1.67|||<|0.001||95.0|0.87|2.48||p-Values from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||Ibuprofen versus placebo at 8 hours.||2.48|0.87|<0.001
90948787|NCT01266161|181776595|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|1.76|||<|0.001||95.0|0.97|2.54||p-Values from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||Ibuprofen versus placebo at 10 hours.||2.54|0.97|<0.001
90948788|NCT01266161|181776595|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|0.78||||0.056||95.0|-0.02|1.58||p-Values from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||Ibuprofen versus placebo at 12 hours.||1.58|-0.02|0.056
90948789|NCT01266161|181776596|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|14.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.38|19.25||p-Value from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline pain severity, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||Ibuprofen versus placebo at 0 to 12 hours.||19.25|10.38|<0.001
90948790|NCT01266161|181776596|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|5.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.57|7.98||p-Value from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline pain severity, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||Ibuprofen versus placebo from 8 to 12 hours.||7.98|2.57|<0.001
91050512|NCT01843348|181987258|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The trial tests the null hypotheses that the treatment difference (investigational minus reference) in mean eGFR at re-assigned visit Month 12 is lower than the non-inferiority margin (Δ) of 7 mL/min per 1.73m2 versus the alternative that the treatment difference is equal to or greater than the non-inferiority margin|Least squares mean|-5.56||||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.56|-1.55||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) with tx, center, donor type factors. Raw and adjusted means were presented with one-sided p-values for un-shifted and shifted hypothesis, respectively. Significance level = 2.5% (one-sided)|ANOVA|||||-1.55|-9.56|0.0067
90948791|NCT01266161|181776597|SUPERIORITY||CMH-adjusted proportion|-0.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.55||p-Values from the CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for baseline PSR and gender.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For the first dosing interval.||-0.55|-0.91|<0.001
90948792|NCT01266161|181776597|SUPERIORITY||CMH-adjusted proportions|-0.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.4||Treatment difference (ibuprofen minus placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on CMH-adjusted proportions and corresponding standard errors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For the second dosing interval.||-0.40|-1.05|<0.001
90948793|NCT01266161|181776597|SUPERIORITY||CMH-adjusted proportions|-0.48||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.06||p-Values from the CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for baseline PSR and gender.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For the third dosing interval.||-0.06|-0.90|0.002
90948794|NCT01266161|181776597|SUPERIORITY||CMH-adjusted proportion|-0.68||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.35||p-Values from the CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for baseline PSR and gender.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For the fourth dosing interval.||-0.35|-1.02|0.021
90948795|NCT01266161|181776597|SUPERIORITY||CMH-adjusted proportion|-0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.51||p-Values from the CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for baseline PSR and gender.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For the overall study duration.||-0.51|-0.89|<0.001
90948796|NCT01266161|181776600|SUPERIORITY||Gamma statistic|0.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.95||p-Value from the CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for baseline PSR score and gender.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Ibuprofen versus placebo at 24 hours||0.95|0.74|<0.001
90948797|NCT01266161|181776600|SUPERIORITY||Gamma statistic|0.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.92|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p-Value from the CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for baseline PSR score and gender.||Ibuprofen versus placebo at 48 hours||0.92|0.66|<0.001
90948798|NCT04692467|181776631|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.88|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.77|-3.01|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference reflects the difference in mean change (i.e., mean change = 12 months minus baseline for each arm) between the intervention arm and SOC arm (direction = intervention arm minus SOC arm).|||-3.01|-8.77|<0.0001
90948799|NCT00848484|181776650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.277||95.0|||||constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|The repeated measures model included the terms site and sequence \* time with a restriction of the same baseline mean across treatment sequences.||||||0.277
90948800|NCT00848484|181776651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.686||95.0||||The Benjamini \& Hochberg False Discovery Rate (FDR) approach at critical value 0.1 was used to adjust p-Values among five secondary cognition endpoints.|constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|The repeated measures model included the terms site and sequence \* time with a restriction of the same baseline mean across treatment sequences.||||||0.686
90948801|NCT00848484|181776652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.933||95.0||||The Benjamini \& Hochberg False Discovery Rate (FDR) approach at critical value 0.1 was used to adjust p-Values among five secondary cognition endpoints.|constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|The repeated measures model included the terms site and sequence \* time with a restriction of the same baseline mean across treatment sequences.||||||0.933
90980226|NCT01431287|181844290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.437|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.578||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.569|-0.304||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||-0.304|-2.569|0.0129
90980227|NCT01431287|181844290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.056|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.574||0.9222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.182|1.07||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||1.070|-1.182|0.9222
90980228|NCT01431287|181844290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.029|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.576||0.9602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.157|1.1||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||1.100|-1.157|0.9602
90980229|NCT01431287|181844290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.415|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.4669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.533|0.703||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.703|-1.533|0.4669
90980230|NCT01431287|181844290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.471|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.575||0.4126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.598|0.656||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.656|-1.598|0.4126
90980231|NCT01431287|181844290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.408|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.583||0.0158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.551|-0.265||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||-0.265|-2.551|0.0158
90980232|NCT01431287|181844290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.381|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.582||0.0177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.521|-0.24||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||-0.240|-2.521|0.0177
90980233|NCT01431287|181844290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.027|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.9624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.164|1.109||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||1.109|-1.164|0.9624
91050513|NCT01843348|181987259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate|0.032|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.029|0.093||||||TAC+Certican - TAC+MPA - difference between groups||0.093|-0.029|
90980234|NCT01431287|181844291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.595|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.329|0.862||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.862|0.329|<0.0001
90980235|NCT01431287|181844291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.373|0.907||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.907|0.373|<0.0001
90980236|NCT01431287|181844291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.423|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.156|0.69||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.690|0.156|0.0019
90980237|NCT01431287|181844291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.446|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.179|0.712||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.712|0.179|0.0011
91050514|NCT01843348|181987259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate|0.149|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.076|0.221||||||CycA+Certican -Tac+MPA - difference between groups||0.221|0.076|
91050515|NCT01843348|181987263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|0.028|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.032|0.087|||Pearson's chi-square test|||BPAR - treatment differences at Month 12||0.087|-0.032|< 0.001
90980238|NCT01431287|181844291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.468|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.201|0.735||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.735|0.201|0.0006
90980239|NCT01431287|181844291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.172|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136||0.2045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.094|0.438||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.438|-0.094|0.2045
90980240|NCT01431287|181844291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.618|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.351|0.885||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.885|0.351|<0.0001
90980241|NCT01431287|181844291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.7432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.313|0.223||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.223|-0.313|0.7432
90980242|NCT01431287|181844291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.023|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136||0.8687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.245||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.245|-0.290|0.8687
90980243|NCT01431287|181844291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.8709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.246||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.246|-0.290|0.8709
90980244|NCT01431287|181844292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.362|0.898||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.898|0.362|<0.0001
90980245|NCT01431287|181844292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.434|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.166|0.703||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.703|0.166|0.0015
90980246|NCT01431287|181844292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.419|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.151|0.687||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.687|0.151|0.0022
90980247|NCT01431287|181844292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.227|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.0966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.041|0.495||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.495|-0.041|0.0966
90980248|NCT01431287|181844292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.223|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.1029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.045|0.492||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.492|-0.045|0.1029
91050516|NCT00257920|181987269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.009||0.67||95.0|-0.023|0.015||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons. A single hypothesis was tested by the primary efficacy analysis. All hypothesis tests were two-tailed and P-values \<= 0.050 were considered statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The null hypothesis was that there is no difference in the mean calcium absorption fraction between Zemplar Injection and Hectorol Injection. The power calculation applied to the primary efficacy analysis.||0.015|-0.023|0.670
90980249|NCT01431287|181844292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.211|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136||0.122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.056|0.478||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.478|-0.056|0.1220
90980250|NCT01431287|181844292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.438|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.707||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.707|0.170|0.0014
90948802|NCT00848484|181776653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.686||95.0||||The Benjamini \& Hochberg False Discovery Rate (FDR) approach at critical value 0.1 was used to adjust p-Values among 5 secondary cognition endpoints.|constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|The repeated measures model included the terms site and sequence \* time with a restriction of the same baseline mean across treatment sequences.||||||0.686
90948803|NCT00848484|181776654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.686||95.0||||The Benjamini \& Hochberg False Discovery Rate (FDR) approach at critical value 0.1 was used to adjust p-Values among five secondary cognition endpoints.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|The repeated measures model included the terms site and sequence \* time with a restriction of the same baseline mean across treatment sequences.||||||0.686
90948804|NCT00848484|181776655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.686||95.0||||The Benjamini \& Hochberg False Discovery Rate (FDR) approach at critical value 0.1 was used to adjust p-Values among 5 secondary cognition endpoints.|constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|The repeated measures model included the terms site and sequence \* time with a restriction of the same baseline mean across treatment sequences.||||||0.686
90948805|NCT02567708|181776657|OTHER||Posterior median difference.|0.007|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0468||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.083|0.102||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment difference is greater than zero.|Bayesian repeated measures model.|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted.|The data entered as the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval. The posterior median difference is calculated as GSK2269557 1000 μg minus Placebo.|||0.102|-0.083|0.57
90948806|NCT02567708|181776658|OTHER||Posterior median difference.|0.013|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0501||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.084|0.113||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment difference is greater than zero.|Bayesian repeated measures model.|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted.|The data entered as the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval. The posterior median difference is calculated as GSK2269557 1000 μg minus Placebo.|||0.113|-0.084|0.61
90948807|NCT02567708|181776659|OTHER|The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment difference is greater than zero.|Posterior median difference|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0818||0.731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.111|0.21|||Bayesian model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted.|The data entered as the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval. The posterior median difference is calculated as GSK2269557 1000 μg minus Placebo.|||0.210|-0.111|0.731
90948808|NCT02567708|181776660|OTHER||Posterior median difference|-0.009|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0712||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.151|0.131||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment difference is greater than zero.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted.|Day 7. The data entered as the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval. The posterior median difference is calculated as GSK2269557 1000 μg minus Placebo.|||0.131|-0.151|0.44
90948809|NCT02567708|181776660|OTHER||Posterior median difference|0.024|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.057||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.087|0.137||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment difference is greater than zero.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted.|Day 14. The data entered as the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval. The posterior median difference is calculated as GSK2269557 1000 μg minus Placebo.|||0.137|-0.087|0.66
90948810|NCT02567708|181776661|OTHER||Posterior median difference|-0.021|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0609||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.099||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment difference is greater than zero.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted.|Day 7. The data entered as the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval. The posterior median difference is calculated as GSK2269557 1000 μg minus Placebo.|||0.099|-0.140|0.35
90948811|NCT02567708|181776661|OTHER||Posterior median difference|0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0578||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.071|0.156||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment difference is greater than zero.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted.|Day 14. The data entered as the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval. The posterior median difference is calculated as GSK2269557 1000 μg minus Placebo.|||0.156|-0.071|0.76
91039006|NCT00112437|181962048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.99|17.82||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handle by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance.|Difference in Least Squares Means (back-transformation of difference in log-fraction from baseline)|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone formation (s-P1NP) compared to placebo over 12 months.||17.82|-20.99|
90948812|NCT02567708|181776661|OTHER||Posterior median difference|0.038|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0559||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.073|0.148||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment difference is greater than zero.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted.|Day 28. The data entered as the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval. The posterior median difference is calculated as GSK2269557 1000 μg minus Placebo.|||0.148|-0.073|0.76
90948813|NCT02567708|181776662|OTHER||Posterior median difference|0.083|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.6175||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.102|1.346||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment difference is greater than zero.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted.|Day 7. The data entered as the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval. The posterior median difference is calculated as GSK2269557 1000 μg minus Placebo.|||1.346|-1.102|0.56
90980251|NCT01431287|181844292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.196|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.1542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.074|0.465||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.465|-0.074|0.1542
90948814|NCT02567708|181776662|OTHER||Posterior median difference|0.014|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.6672||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.271|1.341||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment difference is greater than zero.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted.|Day 14. The data entered as the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval. The posterior median difference is calculated as GSK2269557 1000 μg minus Placebo.|||1.341|-1.271|0.51
90948815|NCT02567708|181776662|OTHER||Posterior median difference|-0.113|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.5148||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.125|0.908||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment difference is greater than zero.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted.|Day 28. The data entered as the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval. The posterior median difference is calculated as GSK2269557 1000 μg minus Placebo..|||0.908|-1.125|0.41
90948816|NCT02567708|181776663|OTHER||Posterior median difference|0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.59||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.7||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment difference is greater than zero.|Bayesian model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted.|The data entered as the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval. The posterior median difference is calculated as GSK2269557 1000 μg minus Placebo.|||1.7|-0.6|0.81
90948817|NCT02567708|181776666|OTHER||Posterior median ratio|0.89|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.063||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.0||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted.|Day 7. The data entered as the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval. The posterior median ratio is calculated as GSK2269557 1000 μg/ Placebo.|||1.00|0.78|0.97
90948818|NCT02567708|181776666|OTHER||Posterior median ratio|0.95|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.071||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.09||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted.|Day 14. The data entered as the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval. The posterior median ratio is calculated as GSK2269557 1000 μg/ Placebo.|||1.09|0.83|0.76
90948819|NCT02567708|181776666|OTHER||Posterior median ratio|1.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.085||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.18||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than one.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted.|Day 28. The data entered as the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval. The posterior median ratio is calculated as GSK2269557 1000 μg/ Placebo.|||1.18|0.84|0.51
90948820|NCT00706654|181776675|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The test of non-inferiority of was performed using a 95% confidence interval (CI, 2-sided) for the difference in the estimated percentage of patients meeting exacerbation of psychotic symptoms/impending relapse criteria by the end of Week 26. Non-inferiority was considered confirmed if the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was below the predefined margin, 11.5%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.64||||0.7871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.26|3.99|||z-statistics||The 95% CI of the difference in proportions of subjects with impending relapse events between aripiprazole IM depot 300 or 400 mg mg and oral aripiprazole were provided using the pooled SE with assumption of normality of the estimated difference.|Sample sizes were estimated to achieve 93% power for the primary non-inferiority 2-sided comparison at 0.05 significance using large sample normal approximations for the distribution of the difference in binomial proportions. The assumed proportion of impending relapse at or before Week 26 for the oral aripiprazole 10-30 mg arm was 18% and the predefined non-inferiority margin was 11.5%. The sample size was projected to be 260 each for the IM depot 300 or 400 mg and oral 10-30 mg arms.||3.99|-5.26|0.7871
90980252|NCT01431287|181844292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.192|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.1626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.077|0.461||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.461|-0.077|0.1626
90980253|NCT01431287|181844292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||djusted mean difference|0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.138||0.9765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.265|0.274||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.274|-0.265|0.9765
90980254|NCT01431287|181844293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.647|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.142|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.925||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.925|0.370|<0.0001
90980255|NCT01431287|181844293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.322|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141||0.0226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.045|0.6||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.600|0.045|0.0226
90980256|NCT01431287|181844293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.371|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.142||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.093|0.649||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.649|0.093|0.0089
90980257|NCT01431287|181844293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.332|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141||0.0186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.056|0.609||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.609|0.056|0.0186
90980258|NCT01431287|181844293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.046|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.142||0.7441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.231|0.324||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.324|-0.231|0.7441
90980259|NCT01431287|181844293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.276|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.551||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.551|0.001|0.0492
91039007|NCT00112437|181962048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|46.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.35|71.44||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handle by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance.|Difference in Least Squares Means (back-transformation of difference in log-fraction from baseline)|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone formation (s-P1NP) compared to placebo over 12 months.||71.44|22.35|
91078047|NCT02542293|182041282|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.845|1.147|||||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for PD-L1 status (\>= 25% Vs \< 25%), smoking status (never smoker Vs ever smoker) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by Efron approach.|"FAS:~Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab to be associated with a longer time to second progression than SoC."||1.147|0.845|
91078048|NCT02542293|182041282|OTHER|The study was not designed or powered to show statistical significance for efficacy endpoints in the China cohort, so all statistical analyses for the China cohort were considered exploratory.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.492|1.03|||||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"FAS:~China: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs China: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab to be associated with a longer time to second progression than SoC."||1.030|0.492|
90980260|NCT01431287|181844293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.608|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.332|0.884||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.884|0.332|<0.0001
90980261|NCT01431287|181844293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.325|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.143||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.045|0.605||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.605|0.045|0.0230
90980262|NCT01431287|181844293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.039|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.142||0.7855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.317||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.317|-0.240|0.7855
91039008|NCT00112437|181962049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|4.1|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.77|5.42||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on total hip BMD compared to placebo over 24 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase total hip BMD compared to placebo over 24 months.||5.42|2.77|<=0.001
91039009|NCT00112437|181962049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|3.48|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|4.77||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through a stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on total hip BMD compared to placebo over 24 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase total hip BMD compared to placebo over 24 months.||4.77|2.20|<=0.001
90948821|NCT00706654|181776675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.68||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.09|-6.27||Once non-inferiority was declared, superiority of depot 300/400 mg over depot 25/50 mg was tested by the difference between the proportion of subjects experiencing impending relapse by the end of Week 26 (2-sided 0.05 significance level z-statistic).|z-statistics|The same method was used to compare IM depot 300 or 400 mg with IM depot 25 or 50 mg in the estimated proportion of subjects with impending relapse.||For the superiority comparison (assay sensitivity analysis) of IM depot 300 or 400 mg to IM depot 25 or 50 mg, on a 2:1 randomization, sample sizes of 260 and 130, respectively, were calculated to provide about 95% power at the 0.05 significance level (2-sided). A superiority margin of 17% was assumed.||-6.27|-23.09|0.0006
90948822|NCT00706654|181776677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.875||95.0|||||z-statistics|||||||0.8750
90948823|NCT00706654|181776677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||z-statistics|||||||0.0001
90948824|NCT00706654|181776678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37||95.0|||||z-statistics|||||||0.3700
90948825|NCT00706654|181776678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1097||95.0|||||z-statistics|||||||0.1097
90948826|NCT01151215|181776685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||0.485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.75||Statistical significance threshold at this interim analysis was 5%|Log Rank|The log rank test was stratified for the IVRS stratification factor of disease classification (locally advanced / metastatic disease)|The Hazard Ratio is for AZD8931 40mg + anastrozole 1mg / Placebo + anastrozole 1mg, ie a hazard ratio \<1 favours AZD8931 40mg + anastrozole 1mg|345 patients were to be randomised to observe at least 233 progression events, based on HR=0.60, 90% power, 2-sided 5% significant level and a median of 9 months for the placebo arm. An interim analysis with futility boundary was introduced based on an IDMC recommendation.||1.75|0.77|0.485
90948827|NCT01151215|181776685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.37||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|2.06|||Log Rank|The log rank test was stratified for the IVRS stratification factor of disease classification (locally advanced / metastatic disease)|The Hazard ratio is for AZD8931 20mg + anastrozole 1mg / Placebo + anastrozole 1mg, ie a hazard ratio \< 1 favours AZD8931 20mg + anastrozole 1mg|345 patients were to be randomised to observe at least 233 progression events, based on HR=0.6, 90% power, 2-sided 5% significant level and a median of 9 months for the placebo arm. An interim analysis with futility boundary was introduced based on an IDMC recommendation.||2.06|0.91|0.135
91078049|NCT00310466|182041291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.87
91078050|NCT00310466|182041292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.04
91078051|NCT00310466|182041294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.55
90948828|NCT01727505|181776723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.44
90948829|NCT01727505|181776724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||.75
90948830|NCT01727505|181776725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.2
90948831|NCT01727505|181776726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.02
90948832|NCT01727505|181776727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||.049
90948833|NCT01727505|181776728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.006
90948834|NCT01299480|181776767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Binomial Distribution|||PMB80 \[A22\]: Response rate was compared with 50%, using 1-sided exact test based on binomial distribution. p-Value \<0.0125 was considered significant.||||<0.001
90948835|NCT01299480|181776767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Binomial Distribution|||PMB2001 \[A56\]: Response rate was compared with 50%, using 1-sided exact test based on binomial distribution. p-Value \<0.0125 was considered significant.||||<0.001
91039010|NCT00112437|181962049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|2.75|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|4.07||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on total hip BMD compared to placebo over 24 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase total hip BMD compared to placebo over 24 months.||4.07|1.43|<=0.001
91039011|NCT00112437|181962049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.51||||0.536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|0.83||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on total hip BMD compared to placebo over 24 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase total hip BMD compared to placebo over 24 months.||0.83|-1.84|0.536
90948836|NCT01299480|181776767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Binomial Distribution|||PMB2948 \[B24\]: Response rate was compared with 50%, using 1-sided exact test based on binomial distribution. p-Value \<0.0125 was considered significant.||||<0.001
90948837|NCT01299480|181776767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Binomial Distribution|||PMB2707 \[B44\]: Response rate was compared with 50%, using 1-sided exact test based on binomial distribution. p-Value \<0.0125 was considered significant.||||<0.001
90948838|NCT01299480|181776767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Binomial Distribution|||PMB80 \[A22\]: Response rate was compared with 50%, using 1-sided exact test based on binomial distribution. p-Value \<0.0125 was considered significant.||||<0.001
90948839|NCT01299480|181776767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Binomial Distribution|||PMB2001 \[A56\]: Response rate was compared with 50%, using 1-sided exact test based on binomial distribution. p-Value \<0.0125 was considered significant.||||<0.001
90948840|NCT01299480|181776767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Binomial Distribution|||PMB2948 \[B24\]: Response rate was compared with 50%, using 1-sided exact test based on binomial distribution. p-Value \<0.0125 was considered significant.||||<0.001
90948841|NCT01299480|181776767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Binomial Distribution|||PMB2707 \[B44\]: Response rate was compared with 50%, using 1-sided exact test based on binomial distribution. p-Value \<0.0125 was considered significant.||||<0.001
90948842|NCT01299480|181776769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Binomial Distribution|||PMB80 \[A22\]: Response rate was compared with 50%, using 1-sided exact test based on binomial distribution. p-Value \<0.0125 was considered significant.||||<0.001
90948843|NCT01299480|181776769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Binomial Distribution|||PMB2001 \[A56\]: Response rate was compared with 50%, using 1-sided exact test based on binomial distribution. p-Value \<0.0125 was considered significant.||||<0.001
90948844|NCT01299480|181776769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Binomial Distribution|||PMB2948 \[B24\]: Response rate was compared with 50%, using 1-sided exact test based on binomial distribution. p-Value \<0.0125 was considered significant.||||<0.001
90948845|NCT01299480|181776769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Binomial Distribution|||PMB2707 \[B44\]: Response rate was compared with 50%, using 1-sided exact test based on binomial distribution. p-Value \<0.0125 was considered significant.||||<0.001
90948846|NCT03838731|181776776|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.36|||=|0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.77|||Cox Proportional Hazard|||||0.77|0.17|= 0.0083
90948847|NCT03838731|181776777|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.24|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.48|||Cox Hazard Model|||Day 29||0.48|0.12|< 0.0001
90948848|NCT03838731|181776777|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.45|||=|0.0222||95.0|0.22|0.89|||Cox Hazard Model|||Day 57||0.89|0.22|= 0.0222
90948849|NCT03838731|181776777|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.27|||=|0.0003||95.0|0.13|0.56|||Cox Hazard Model|||Day 85||0.56|0.13|= 0.0003
90948850|NCT03838731|181776778|SUPERIORITY|Day 8|LS Mean Difference|13.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.59|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.35|20.77|||MMRM|||||20.77|6.35|<0.001
90948851|NCT03838731|181776778|SUPERIORITY|Day 29|LS Mean Difference|16.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.97|=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.18|26.24|||MMRM|||||26.24|6.18|= 0.002
90948852|NCT03838731|181776778|SUPERIORITY|Day 57|LS Mean Difference|12.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.94|=|0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|22.2|||MMRM|||||22.20|2.40|= 0.016
90948853|NCT03838731|181776778|SUPERIORITY|Day 85|LS Mean Difference|12.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.54|=|0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.43|21.65|||MMRM|||||21.65|3.43|= 0.008
90948854|NCT03838731|181776779|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.53|||MMRM|||Day 8||0.53|0.21|< 0.001
90948855|NCT03838731|181776779|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.68|||MMRM|||Day 29||0.68|0.23|<0.001
90948856|NCT03838731|181776779|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.55|||MMRM|||Day 57||0.55|0.13|= 0.002
90948857|NCT03838731|181776779|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.47|||MMRM|||Day 85||0.47|0.15|= 0.002
90948858|NCT03838731|181776780|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53|=|0.675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|1.29|||MMRM|||Day 8||1.29|-0.85|= 0.675
90948859|NCT03838731|181776780|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51|=|0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.33|||MMRM|||Day 29||0.33|-1.70|= 0.182
90948860|NCT03838731|181776780|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61|=|0.866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|1.32|||MMRM|||Day 57||1.32|-1.12|= 0.866
91039012|NCT00112437|181962050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|4.69|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.25|6.12||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on femoral neck BMD compared to placebo over 24 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase femoral neck BMD compared to placebo over 24 months.||6.12|3.25|<=0.001
90980263|NCT01431287|181844293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.286|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.142||0.0442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.007|0.564||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.564|0.007|0.0442
90980264|NCT01056107|181844309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0075||95.0|||||Dunnett's test|||||||0.0075
90980265|NCT01056107|181844309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Dunnett's test|||||||<0.001
90980266|NCT02240134|181844317|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|3.32|||Mixed Models Analysis||Odds ratio for air filter treatment relative to placebo|Mixed effects logistic regression model with presence of LRTI as outcome (yes or no); assigned treatment as primary exposure variable relative to placebo; adjusted for child age and person-time at-risk; nested random term: home:cohort:area. Results presented as odds ratios with 95% Confidence Intervals.||3.32|0.46|0.68
90980267|NCT02240134|181844317|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|2.72|||Mixed Models Analysis||Odds ratio for filter treatment relative to placebo|Mixed effects logistic regression model with presence of LRTI as outcome (yes or no); assigned treatment as primary exposure variable relative to placebo; adjusted for child age and person-time at-risk; nested random term: home:cohort:area. Results presented as odds ratios with 95% Confidence Intervals.||2.72|0.35|0.96
90980268|NCT02240134|181844318|SUPERIORITY||percent differences in geometric mean PM|-6.96||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.5|24.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model with natural-log transformed 6-day mean indoor PM2.5 as outcome; assigned treatment as primary exposure variable; adjusted for child age; nested random term: cohort:area. Results presented as effect estimates with 95% Confidence Intervals and reported as percent differences in geometric mean PM2.5.||24.55|-30.50|0.250
90980269|NCT02240134|181844318|SUPERIORITY||percent differences in geometric mean PM|11.77||||0.295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.57|49.72||Statistical significance selected as 95% confidence interval of the estimation parameter that excludes the null value, 0.|Mixed Models Analysis||Difference in indoor PM2.5 for education treatment versus placebo.|Linear mixed model with natural-log transformed 6-day mean indoor PM2.5 as outcome; assigned treatment as primary exposure variable; adjusted for child age; nested random term: cohort:area. Results presented as effect estimates with 95% Confidence Intervals and reported as percent differences in geometric mean PM2.5.||49.72|-16.57|0.295
90980270|NCT00318292|181844323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||0.003||95.0|-3.2|-0.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.7|-3.2|.003
90980271|NCT00603239|181844325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||No adjustments were made (alpha = 0.05).|ANCOVA|No adjustments for multiplicity were made.||Null hypothesis = Change from baseline in HbA1c is equal between the two treatment groups. Greater than 99% power to detect a difference between treatment groups of 0.88% in change in HbA1c from baseline using a 2-sided t-test at a significance level of 0.05.||||<0.001
90980272|NCT00603239|181844326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.113||95.0||||No adjustments (alpha = 0.05).|CMH test|No adjustment for multiplicity.||Null hypothesis = Proportion of subjects with HbA1c \<= 7% is equal between the two treatment groups.||||0.113
90980273|NCT00603239|181844327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0||||No adjustments (alpha = 0.05).|CMH test|No adjustment for multiplicity.||Null hypothesis = Proportion of subjects achieving HbA1c \<= 6.5% is equal between the two treatment groups.||||0.004
90980274|NCT00603239|181844328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0||||No adjustments (alpha = 0.05).|ANCOVA|No adjustment for multiplicity.||Null hypothesis = Change from baseline in FSG is equal between the two treatment groups.||||0.009
90980275|NCT00603239|181844329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.176||95.0||||No adjustments (alpha = 0.05).|ANCOVA|No adjustment for multiplicity.||Null hypothesis = Change from baseline to endpoint in body weight is equal between the two treatment groups.||||0.176
90980276|NCT00603239|181844331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0||||No adjustments (alpha = 0.05).|ANCOVA|No adjustment for multiplicity.||Null hypothesis = Change form baseline in HOMA-B is equal between the two treatment groups.||||0.009
90980277|NCT00603239|181844332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.794||95.0||||No adjustments (alpha = 0.05).|ANCOVA|No adjustment for multiplicity.||Null hypothesis = Change from baseline in HOMA-S is equal between the two treatment groups.||||0.794
90980278|NCT00603239|181844333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||No adjustments (alpha = 0.05).|Fisher Exact|No adjustment for multiplicity.||Null hypothesis = Incidence of minor hypoglycemia episodes is equal between the two treatment groups.||||1.00
90980279|NCT00603239|181844334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.342||95.0||||No adjustments (alpha = 0.05).|ANCOVA|No adjustment for multiplicity.||Null hypothesis = Change from baseline in IWQOL-Lite Total Score is equal between the two treatment groups. This statistical analysis is for the Total Score only.||||0.342
90980280|NCT00603239|181844335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.186||95.0||||No adjustments (alpha = 0.05)|ANCOVA|No adjustment for multiplicity.||Null hypothesis = Change from baseline in EQ-5D score is equal between the two treatment groups. This statistical analysis is for the EQ-5D Health State Score only.||||0.186
90948861|NCT03838731|181776780|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|=|0.146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.08|0.32|||MMRM|||Day 85||0.32|-2.08|= 0.146
90980281|NCT02210780|181844339|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|34.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|24.29|43.75|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs. Placebo qw|Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by randomization strata (moderate \[IGA=3\] vs. severe \[IGA=4\] AD).||43.75|24.29|<0.0001
90948862|NCT03838731|181776781|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|=|0.572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.63|||MMRM|||Day 8||0.63|-0.35|= 0.572
90948863|NCT03838731|181776781|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|=|0.997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.41|||MMRM|||Day 29||0.41|-0.41|= 0.997
90948864|NCT03838731|181776781|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|=|0.756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.49|||MMRM|||Day 57||0.49|-0.36|= 0.756
90948865|NCT03838731|181776781|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|=|0.333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.16|||MMRM|||Day 85||0.16|-0.46|= 0.333
90948866|NCT03838731|181776782|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|39.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.5|=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.36|64.65|||MMRM|||Day 8||64.65|14.36|= 0.003
90948867|NCT03838731|181776782|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|54.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.97|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.01|78.12|||MMRM|||Day 29||78.12|30.01|< 0.001
90948868|NCT03838731|181776782|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|33.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.28|=|0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.79|62.08|||MMRM|||Day 57||62.08|4.79|= 0.023
90948869|NCT03838731|181776782|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|41.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.92|=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.1|67.09|||MMRM|||Day 85||67.09|15.10|= 0.003
90948870|NCT03838731|181776783|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|205.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|102.09|=|0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|410.17|||MMRM|||Day 8||410.17|0.69|= 0.049
90948871|NCT03838731|181776783|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|244.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|99.05|=|0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.6|443.59|||MMRM|||Day 29||443.59|45.60|= 0.017
90948872|NCT03838731|181776783|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|183.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|96.91|=|0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.29|377.35|||MMRM|||Day 57||377.35|-11.29|= 0.064
90948873|NCT03838731|181776783|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|241.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|114.0|=|0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.44|469.57|||MMRM|||Day 85||469.57|12.44|= 0.039
90948874|NCT00789360|181776823|OTHER||Maximum LS mean change difference|0.0917|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.028|0.212|||||Maximum difference occurred at 10 hours|The largest treatment difference (Loxapine - Placebo) in change in FEV1 from baseline by spirometry||0.212|-0.028|
90948875|NCT00789360|181776824|OTHER||Maximum LS mean change difference|-0.154|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.29|-0.019|||||Greatest difference occurred at 9 hours after Dose 1|||-0.019|-0.290|
90948876|NCT03559062|181776825|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||||<0.0001
90948877|NCT03559062|181776826|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||||<0.0001
90948878|NCT03559062|181776827|OTHER|||||||0.0546|||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||||0.0546
90948879|NCT01757197|181776829|OTHER|Not evaluable.|Other|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||Not evaluable.||||Not evaluable.|Not evaluable.|||
90948880|NCT03443414|181776833|OTHER|A fixed-sequence testing approach was used, starting with the highest dose versus placebo. If a statistically significant difference was found at the 2-sided alpha level of 5%, the testing proceeded to the next highest dose.|LS mean difference|0.139|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.069|0.21|||MMRM|||Placebo-corrected treatment effect: LS mean difference (RPL554 6.0 mg - Placebo).||0.210|0.069|<0.001
90948881|NCT03443414|181776833|OTHER|A fixed-sequence testing approach was used, starting with the highest dose versus placebo. If a statistically significant difference was found at the 2-sided alpha level of 5%, the testing proceeded to the next highest dose.|LS mean difference|0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.131|0.27|||MMRM|||Placebo-corrected treatment effect: LS mean difference (RPL554 3.0 mg - Placebo).||0.270|0.131|<0.001
90948882|NCT03443414|181776833|OTHER|A fixed-sequence testing approach was used, starting with the highest dose versus placebo. If a statistically significant difference was found at the 2-sided alpha level of 5%, the testing proceeded to the next highest dose.|LS mean difference|0.153|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.083|0.222|||MMRM|||Placebo-corrected treatment effect: LS mean difference (RPL554 1.5 mg - Placebo).||0.222|0.083|<0.001
90948883|NCT03443414|181776833|OTHER|A fixed-sequence testing approach was used, starting with the highest dose versus placebo. If a statistically significant difference was found at the 2-sided alpha level of 5%, the testing proceeded to the next highest dose.|LS mean difference|0.146|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.075|0.216|||MMRM|||Placebo-corrected treatment effect: LS mean difference (RPL554 0.75 mg - Placebo).||0.216|0.075|<0.001
90948884|NCT03443414|181776834|OTHER|A fixed-sequence testing approach was used, starting with the highest dose versus placebo. If a statistically significant difference was found at the 2-sided alpha level of 5%, the testing proceeded to the next highest dose.|LS mean difference|0.002|||=|0.953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.061|0.065|||MMRM|||Placebo-corrected treatment effect: LS mean difference (RPL554 6.0 mg - Placebo).||0.065|-0.061|=0.953
90980282|NCT02210780|181844340|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|40.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|29.4|51.01|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs. Placebo qw|Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by randomization strata (moderate \[IGA=3\] vs. severe \[IGA=4\] AD).||51.01|29.40|<0.0001
90948885|NCT03443414|181776834|OTHER|A fixed-sequence testing approach was used, starting with the highest dose versus placebo. If a statistically significant difference was found at the 2-sided alpha level of 5%, the testing proceeded to the next highest dose.|LS mean difference|0.068|||=|0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.006|0.13|||MMRM|||Placebo-corrected treatment effect: LS mean difference (RPL554 3.0 mg - Placebo).||0.130|0.006|=0.032
90948886|NCT03443414|181776834|OTHER|A fixed-sequence testing approach was used, starting with the highest dose versus placebo. If a statistically significant difference was found at the 2-sided alpha level of 5%, the testing proceeded to the next highest dose.|LS mean difference|0.009|||=|0.773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.053|0.072|||MMRM|||Placebo-corrected treatment effect: LS mean difference (RPL554 1.5 mg - Placebo).||0.072|-0.053|=0.773
90948887|NCT03443414|181776834|OTHER|A fixed-sequence testing approach was used, starting with the highest dose versus placebo. If a statistically significant difference was found at the 2-sided alpha level of 5%, the testing proceeded to the next highest dose.|LS mean difference|0.035|||=|0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.028|0.099|||MMRM|||Placebo-corrected treatment effect: LS mean difference (RPL554 0.75 mg - Placebo).||0.099|-0.028|=0.272
91039013|NCT00112437|181962050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|3.57|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.18|4.97||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on femoral neck BMD compared to placebo over 24 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase femoral neck BMD compared to placebo over 24 months.||4.97|2.18|<=0.001
90948888|NCT03443414|181776835|OTHER|A fixed-sequence testing approach was used, starting with the highest dose versus placebo. If a statistically significant difference was found at the 2-sided alpha level of 5%, the testing proceeded to the next highest dose.|LS mean difference|0.087|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.045|0.129|||MMRM|||Placebo-corrected treatment effect: LS mean difference (RPL554 6.0 mg - Placebo) at Day 1.||0.129|0.045|<0.001
90948889|NCT03443414|181776835|OTHER|A fixed-sequence testing approach was used, starting with the highest dose versus placebo. If a statistically significant difference was found at the 2-sided alpha level of 5%, the testing proceeded to the next highest dose.|LS mean difference|0.095|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.053|0.137|||MMRM|||Placebo-corrected treatment effect: LS mean difference (RPL554 3.0 mg - Placebo) at Day 1.||0.137|0.053|<0.001
90948890|NCT03443414|181776835|OTHER|A fixed-sequence testing approach was used, starting with the highest dose versus placebo. If a statistically significant difference was found at the 2-sided alpha level of 5%, the testing proceeded to the next highest dose.|LS mean difference|0.07|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.028|0.112|||MMRM|||Placebo-corrected treatment effect: LS mean difference (RPL554 1.5 mg - Placebo) at Day 1.||0.112|0.028|=0.001
90948891|NCT03443414|181776835|OTHER|A fixed-sequence testing approach was used, starting with the highest dose versus placebo. If a statistically significant difference was found at the 2-sided alpha level of 5%, the testing proceeded to the next highest dose.|LS mean difference|0.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.038|0.122|||MMRM|||Placebo-corrected treatment effect: LS mean difference (RPL554 0.75 mg - Placebo) at Day 1.||0.122|0.038|<0.001
90948892|NCT03443414|181776835|OTHER|A fixed-sequence testing approach was used, starting with the highest dose versus placebo. If a statistically significant difference was found at the 2-sided alpha level of 5%, the testing proceeded to the next highest dose.|LS mean difference|0.065|||=|0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.129|||MMRM|||Placebo-corrected treatment effect: LS mean difference (RPL554 6.0 mg - Placebo) at Week 4.||0.129|0.001|=0.048
90948893|NCT03443414|181776835|OTHER|A fixed-sequence testing approach was used, starting with the highest dose versus placebo. If a statistically significant difference was found at the 2-sided alpha level of 5%, the testing proceeded to the next highest dose.|LS mean difference|0.119|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.055|0.183|||LS mean difference|||Placebo-corrected treatment effect: LS mean difference (RPL554 3.0 mg - Placebo) at Week 4.||0.183|0.055|<0.001
90948894|NCT03443414|181776835|OTHER|A fixed-sequence testing approach was used, starting with the highest dose versus placebo. If a statistically significant difference was found at the 2-sided alpha level of 5%, the testing proceeded to the next highest dose.|LS mean difference|0.085|||=|0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.022|0.149|||MMRM|||Placebo-corrected treatment effect: LS mean difference (RPL554 1.5 mg - Placebo) at Week 4.||0.149|0.022|=0.008
90948895|NCT03443414|181776835|OTHER|A fixed-sequence testing approach was used, starting with the highest dose versus placebo. If a statistically significant difference was found at the 2-sided alpha level of 5%, the testing proceeded to the next highest dose.|LS mean difference|0.072|||=|0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.008|0.137|||MMRM|||Placebo-corrected treatment effect: LS mean difference (RPL554 0.75 mg - Placebo) at Week 4.||0.137|0.008|=0.028
90948896|NCT02103114|181776841|EQUIVALENCE|T1 (Baseline)||||||0.982|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.982
90948897|NCT02103114|181776841|EQUIVALENCE|T2 (30 minutes after study drug)|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90948898|NCT02103114|181776841|EQUIVALENCE|T3 (30 minutes on CPB)||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
90948899|NCT02103114|181776841|EQUIVALENCE|T5 (Arrival in ICU)||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
90948900|NCT02103114|181776841|EQUIVALENCE|T6 (POD 2)||||||0.84|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.840
90948901|NCT02103114|181776841|EQUIVALENCE|T7 (POD 4)||||||0.475|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.475
90948902|NCT02103114|181776842|EQUIVALENCE|T4 (just prior to coming off of CPB)||||||0.048|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.048
90948903|NCT02103114|181776843|EQUIVALENCE|T1 (Baseline)||||||0.855|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.855
90948904|NCT02103114|181776843|EQUIVALENCE|T5 (Arrival in ICU)||||||0.225|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.225
90948905|NCT02103114|181776843|EQUIVALENCE|T6 (POD 2)||||||0.313|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.313
90948906|NCT02103114|181776843|EQUIVALENCE|T7 (POD 4)||||||0.008|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.008
90948907|NCT02103114|181776846|EQUIVALENCE|T1 (Baseline) to T5 (Arrival in ICU)||||||0.056|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.056
90948908|NCT02103114|181776847|EQUIVALENCE|T1 (Baseline) to T5 (Arrival in ICU)||||||0.545|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.545
90948909|NCT02103114|181776849|EQUIVALENCE|Baseline (intraoperatively) (Time 1) to before termination of bypass (Time 4)||||||0.757|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.757
90948910|NCT02103114|181776852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2741|||||||t-test, 2 sided|24 hour postop Fresh Frozen Plasma exposures||||||0.2741
90948911|NCT02103114|181776852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0351|||||||t-test, 2 sided|24 hour postop Platelet exposures||||||0.0351
90948912|NCT02103114|181776852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.073|||||||t-test, 2 sided|24 hour postop Cryoprecipitate exposures||||||0.073
90948913|NCT02103114|181776852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0196|||||||t-test, 2 sided|24 hour postop Red Blood Cell exposures||||||0.0196
90948914|NCT02103114|181776853|EQUIVALENCE|protamine time plus 24 hours||||||0.016|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.016
90948915|NCT02103114|181776855|EQUIVALENCE|24 Hours Post-Operatively||||||0.0004|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0004
90948916|NCT02103114|181776856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.927|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.927
90948917|NCT02103114|181776857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.738|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.738
90948918|NCT02103114|181776858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.231|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.231
90948919|NCT02103114|181776859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.661|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.661
90948920|NCT02103114|181776861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
90948921|NCT02103114|181776862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.342|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.342
90948922|NCT02103114|181776863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.961|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.961
90948923|NCT03355209|181776871|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (A-P)|-19.88||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.02|-8.74|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Hodges-Lehmann (HL) method|||-8.74|-31.02|0.0008
90948924|NCT03355209|181776874|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (A-P)|-10.5||||0.146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.99|3.99|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Hodges-Lehmann (HL) method|||3.99|-24.99|0.1460
90948925|NCT03355209|181776875|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.3||||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|7.59|||Regression, Logistic|||||7.59|1.43|0.0051
90948926|NCT03355209|181776875|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.87||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|6.7|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.70|1.23|0.0150
90948927|NCT03355209|181776876|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.58||||0.1565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.97|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Visit 12||2.97|0.84|0.1565
90948928|NCT03355209|181776876|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.86||||0.0567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|3.52|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Visit 12||3.52|0.98|0.0567
90948929|NCT01621776|181776916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|145.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|78.04||0.971||95.0|129.73|160.47|||ANOVA||This is a three arm study that is not seeking to engage in comparison between individual arms, therefore the mean difference across the study arms is reported.|||160.47|129.73|.971
90948930|NCT01621776|181776917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|161.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|62.67||0.698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|144.91|177.28|||ANOVA||This is a three arm study that is not seeking to engage in comparison between individual arms, therefore the mean difference across the study arms is reported.|||177.28|144.91|.698
90948931|NCT01621776|181776918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|220.46|STANDARD_DEVIATION|89.97||0.806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|197.22|243.71|||ANOVA||This is a three arm study that is not seeking to engage in comparison between individual arms, therefore the mean difference across the study arms is reported.|||243.71|197.22|.806
90948932|NCT03518567|181776935|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.78||||4e-08|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|"hits purchased on the MPT predicting hits actually purchased and smoked in the laboratory.~covariate: baseline total individual income"||||||.00000004
90948933|NCT03518567|181776936|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.09||9e-09|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.000000009
90948934|NCT03518567|181776937|SUPERIORITY||correlation|0.02||||0.87|TWO_SIDED||||||correlation|Correlation between puffs on the topography device and grams of cannabis used per week.||||||.87
90948935|NCT04916730|181776938|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90948936|NCT02078492|181776960|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|We assumed a minimal clinically significant difference (MCSD) of 1.3 between the three ketorolac groups at the 30-minute pain assessment and a standard deviation of 3.0. A power analysis determined that a sample of 78 subjects per group provided at least 80% power to detect an MCSD of at least 1.3 at 30 minutes with α=0.05.||||||0.783|||||||ANOVA|2 degrees of freedom||The main hypothesis was that there would be equivalence of dose effect across the three groups at every time point, and the primary comparison consisted of the pain assessment at 30 minutes.||||.783
90948937|NCT05672771|181776961|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38||||0.355|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.355
90948938|NCT05672771|181776962|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.56|||<|0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA||This is the difference between the Different Mixed and Placebo Control conditions.|||||<.02
90948939|NCT05672771|181776963|OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||for contrasts of DM, DS, and ST groups relative to the PC group.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.05
90948940|NCT00760747|181776966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean differences at week 10|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|2.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.6|-4.0|0.692
90948941|NCT00760747|181776967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean differences at week 10|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.7|-0.3|0.456
90948942|NCT00760747|181776968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean differences at week 10|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.7|-0.3|0.517
90948943|NCT00760747|181776969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean differences at week 10|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.6|-0.3|0.526
90948944|NCT00760747|181776970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean differences at week 10|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.4|-0.4|0.898
90948945|NCT00760747|181776975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean differences at week 2|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|2.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.6|-2.9|0.927
90948946|NCT03321253|181776992|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
90980283|NCT02210780|181844341|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|34.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|23.38|44.66|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs. Placebo qw|Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by randomization strata (moderate \[IGA=3\] vs. severe \[IGA=4\] AD).||44.66|23.38|<0.0001
90980284|NCT02210780|181844342|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.354|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.72|-1.55|||ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs. Placebo qw|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model which includes treatment, randomization strata, and baseline value as covariates.||-1.55|-2.72|<0.0001
90980285|NCT02210780|181844343|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-17.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.84|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.5|-13.1|||ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs. Placebo qw|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model that includes treatment, randomization strata and baseline value as covariates.||-13.1|-22.5|<0.0001
90980286|NCT02210780|181844345|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.0|-1.7|||ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs. Placebo qw|Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA model which includes treatment, randomization strata, and baseline values as covariates.||-1.7|-3.0|<0.0001
90948947|NCT00402051|181777030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||6-Month PFS Rate|52.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.3|65.3||||||Hypothesis testing was done independently for each treatment arm (no direct treatment group comparison).||65.3|40.3|
90948948|NCT00402051|181777030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||6-Month PFS Rate|39.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.8|50.8||||||Hypothesis testing was done independently for each treatment arm (no direct treatment group comparison).||50.8|27.8|
90948949|NCT00402051|181777032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Best Overall Response Rate (%)|32.3||||||95.0|21.2|45.1||||||Response rates were evaluated separately for each treatment arm||45.1|21.2|
90948950|NCT00402051|181777032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Best Overall Response Rate (%)|20.0||||||95.0|11.1|31.8||||||Response rates were evaluated separately for each treatment arm||31.8|11.1|
90948951|NCT05239598|181777077|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.5||||0.287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|13.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||13.0|-4.0|0.287
90948952|NCT05239598|181777078|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.7||||0.625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|8.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||5 minutes post intervention||8.6|-5.2|0.625
90948953|NCT05239598|181777078|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.5||||0.526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|10.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||30 minutes post intervention||10.5|-5.5|0.526
90948954|NCT05239598|181777079|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.04||||0.511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|8.1|||Signed Rank|||Povidone-iodine: 5 minutes Post-Intervention||8.1|-4.2|0.511
90948955|NCT05239598|181777079|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|5.4||||0.408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|18.6|||Signed Rank|||Povidone-iodine: 30 minutes post-intervention||18.6|-10.7|0.408
90948956|NCT05239598|181777079|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-4.9||||0.907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|17.5|||Signed Rank|||Povidone-iodine: 60 minutes post-intervention||17.5|-15.2|0.907
90948957|NCT05239598|181777079|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-2.4||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|-0.9|||Signed Rank|||Placebo: 5 minutes post intervention||-0.9|-6.5|0.008
90948958|NCT05239598|181777079|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-6.6||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|-2.2|||Signed Rank|||Placebo: 30 minutes post-intervention||-2.2|-10.1|0.080
90948959|NCT05239598|181777079|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-8.6||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.3|-3.9|||Signed Rank|||Placebo: 60 minutes post-intervention||-3.9|-22.3|0.001
90948960|NCT05239598|181777080|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|3.1||||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|5.8|||Signed Rank|||Povidone-iodine 5 minutes post-intervention||5.8|-2.2|0.212
90948961|NCT05239598|181777080|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|1.8||||0.334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|6.9|||Signed Rank|||Povidone-iodine 30 minutes post-intervention||6.9|-2.3|0.334
90948962|NCT05239598|181777080|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|1.5||||0.269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|6.8|||Signed Rank|||Povidone-iodine 60 minutes post-intervention||6.8|-3.1|0.269
90948963|NCT05239598|181777080|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-4.1||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|-0.7|||Signed Rank|||Placebo 5 minutes post-intervention||-0.7|-7.1|0.026
90948964|NCT05239598|181777080|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|2.0|||Signed Rank|||Placebo 30 minutes post-intervention||2.0|-9.4|0.182
90948965|NCT05239598|181777080|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-3.6||||0.353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|4.0|||Signed Rank|||Placebo 60 minutes post-intervention||4.0|-7.7|0.353
90948966|NCT05472740|181777106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.039|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.039
90948967|NCT04855734|181777116|SUPERIORITY||Mean ratio|0.962||||0.835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.661|1.396||Threshold for significance was \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.396|0.661|0.835
90948968|NCT04855734|181777117|SUPERIORITY||Mean ratio|0.826||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|0.986||\<0.05 was threshold for significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Meaning/Peace subscale which was a primary outcome.||0.986|0.75|0.032
90948969|NCT04855734|181777123|SUPERIORITY||Mean ratio|1.052||||0.284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.959|1.157||\<0.05 threshold for significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Caregiver strain subscale scores at 3 months post-intervention comparing intervention to TAU, controlling for baseline levels.||1.157|0.959|0.284
90948970|NCT04855734|181777123|SUPERIORITY||Mean ratioj|0.931||||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.827|1.048||\<0.05 threshold for significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Caregiver distress subscale controlling for baseline levels.||1.048|0.827|0.228
90948971|NCT04855734|181777123|SUPERIORITY||Mean ratio|0.984||||0.504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.032||\<0.05 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Family well-being subscale controlling for baseline levels.||1.032|0.94|0.504
90948972|NCT04855734|181777123|SUPERIORITY||Mean ratio|0.995||||0.741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.967|1.024||\<0.05 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Positive Caregiving Appraisals subscale at 3 month follow up, controlling for baseline levels.||1.024|0.967|0.741
90948973|NCT03832595|181777131|EQUIVALENCE|We determined that 1,653 patients provide 80% power to detect a hazard ratio of 0.64, or a 5% absolute risk reduction in intervention arm, assuming a primary end-point rate of 15% in the usual care group at 24 months, 20% loss to follow-up, α = 0.05, and within-practice intra-class correlation of 0.01|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.38|0.67|0.82
90948974|NCT03832595|181777132|EQUIVALENCE|α = 0.05|Slope difference|0.011|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.008|0.029||||||||0.029|-0.008|
90948975|NCT03832595|181777133|EQUIVALENCE|α = 0.05|Rate ratio|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.43||||||||1.43|1.02|
90948976|NCT03832595|181777134|EQUIVALENCE|α = 0.05|Rate ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.25||||||||1.25|0.51|
90948977|NCT03832595|181777135|EQUIVALENCE|α = 0.05|Rate ratio|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|53.78||||||||53.78|0.03|
90980287|NCT02210780|181844346|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-8.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.9|-6.6|||ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs. Placebo qw|Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA model which included treatment, randomization strata, and baseline value as covariates.||-6.6|-9.9|<0.0001
90980288|NCT00363415|181844381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.56|||<|0.01||95.0|1.27|1.92|||Log Rank|||||1.92|1.27|<0.01
90980289|NCT00363415|181844382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Sex: Male|Log Rank|||||||<0.001
90980290|NCT00363415|181844382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023||95.0||||P-value for Sex: Female|Log Rank|||||||0.023
90948978|NCT03832595|181777136|EQUIVALENCE|α = 0.05|Rate ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|9.96||||||||9.96|0.12|
90980291|NCT00363415|181844382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Race: Caucasian.|Log Rank|||||||<0.001
90980292|NCT00363415|181844382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0||||P-value for Race: Non-Caucasian.|Log Rank|||||||0.030
90980293|NCT00363415|181844382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for ECOG (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group) Performance Status: 0 or 1.|Log Rank|||||||<0.001
90980294|NCT00363415|181844382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.519||95.0||||P-value for ECOG (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group) Performance Status: 2.|Log Rank|||||||0.519
90980295|NCT00363415|181844382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.084||95.0||||P-value for Region: United States.|Log Rank|||||||0.084
90980296|NCT00363415|181844382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||P-value for Region: European Union.|Log Rank|||||||0.001
90980297|NCT00363415|181844382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||P-value for Region: Intercontinental Region.|Log Rank|||||||0.003
90980298|NCT00363415|181844382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||P-value for LDH (lactate dehydrogenase): \>Upper Limit of Normal.|Log Rank|||||||0.005
90980299|NCT00363415|181844382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Age: \<=65 years.|Log Rank|||||||<0.001
90980300|NCT00363415|181844382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013||95.0||||P-value for Age: \>65 years.|Log Rank|||||||0.013
90980301|NCT00363415|181844382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.092||95.0||||P-value for Number Metastatic Sites: \<=2.|Log Rank|||||||0.092
90980302|NCT00363415|181844382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Number Metastatic Sites: \>=3.|Log Rank|||||||<0.001
90980303|NCT00363415|181844382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for History of Brain Metastases: No.|Log Rank|||||||<0.001
90980304|NCT02688647|181844423|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5733|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Results are not stable due to small sample size and signal/noise ratio||GAP Stage I-- Difference: Belumosudil-WC minus BSC-NC = 38.85 (95% CI: -126.99, 204.69) mL||||0.5733
90980305|NCT02688647|181844423|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6967|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Results are not stable due to small sample size and signal/noise ratio||GAP Stage II-- Difference: Belumosudil-WC minus BSC-NC = -39.96 (95% CI: -288.63, 208.71) mL||||0.6967
90980306|NCT02688647|181844423|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5003|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Results are not stable due to small sample size and signal/noise ratio||GAP Stage III-- Difference: Belumosudil-WC minus BSC-NC = 94.16 (95% CI: -1103.56, 1291.88) mL||||0.5003
90980307|NCT02688647|181844423|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4866|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Results are not stable due to small sample size and signal/noise ratio||No Prior Pirfenidone or Nintedanib-- Difference: Belumosudil-WC minus BSC-NC = -34.13 (95% CI: -137.08, 68.82)||||0.4866
90980308|NCT02688647|181844426|SUPERIORITY|GAP Stage I-- Difference: Belumosudil-WC minus BSC-NC = 1.88 (95% CI: -2.69, 6.45)||||||0.3391|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Results are not stable due to small sample size and signal/noise ratio||||||0.3391
90948979|NCT05131477|181777157|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-32.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.01|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.9|-20.3|||ANCOVA||LS Mean Difference|||-20.3|-43.9|<0.0001
90948980|NCT05131477|181777157|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-27.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.98|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.1|-15.6|||ANCOVA||LS Mean Difference|||-15.6|-39.1|<0.0001
90948981|NCT05131477|181777157|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-22.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.01||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.0|-10.4|||ANCOVA||LS Mean Difference|||-10.4|-34.0|0.0002
90948982|NCT05131477|181777157|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-30.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.95|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.9|-18.5|||ANCOVA|||||-18.5|-41.9|<0.0001
90980309|NCT02688647|181844426|SUPERIORITY|GAP Stage II-- Difference: Belumosudil-WC minus BSC-NC = -1.72 (95% CI: -8.13, 4.69)||||||0.5201|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Results are not stable due to small sample size and signal/noise ratio||||||0.5201
90980310|NCT02688647|181844426|SUPERIORITY|GAP Stage III-- Difference: Belumosudil-WC minus BSC-NC = 2.48 (95% CI: -23.84, 28.81)||||||0.4426|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Results are not stable due to small sample size and signal/noise ratio||||||0.4426
90980311|NCT02688647|181844426|SUPERIORITY|No Prior Use of Pirfenidone or Nintedanib-- Difference: Belumosudil-WC minus BSC-NC = 8.70 (95% CI: -78.76, -96.17)||||||0.426|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Results are not stable due to small sample size and signal/noise ratio||||||0.4260
90980312|NCT02688647|181844436|SUPERIORITY|Cox Regression||||||0.8561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio: 0.86 (0.16, 4.48)||||0.8561
90980313|NCT02688647|181844436|SUPERIORITY|Cox Regression||||||0.8608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio: 0.87 (95% CI: 0.17, 4.33)||||0.8608
90980314|NCT02688647|181844437|SUPERIORITY|Cox Regression||||||0.0084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio: 0.34 (95% CI: 0.14, 0.79)||||0.0084
90980315|NCT02688647|181844437|SUPERIORITY|Cox Regression||||||0.0508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||Hazard Ratio: 0.47 (95% CI: 0.22, 1.03)||||0.0508
90980316|NCT02688647|181844439|SUPERIORITY|Cox Regression||||||0.4251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio: 0.34 (95% CI: 0.02, 5.54)||||0.4251
90980317|NCT02688647|181844439|SUPERIORITY|Cox Regression||||||0.3294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio: 0.27 (95% CI: 0.02, 4.45)||||0.3294
90980318|NCT03093402|181844458|SUPERIORITY|The fixed effects included treatment, time, time² , time- and time² by treatment interactions. The Screening FSS score and the Screening 7-day average maximum daily pain NRS were included as covariates. Within-subject random effects for intercept and slopes for time and time² were fit using an unstructured covariance matrix, assuming a different structure for placebo and pooled active treatment groups.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.6||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the estimated mean change from Day 1 to Day 84 for each of the 3 active treatment arms versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference in the change from Day 1 to Day 84 for High JBT-101 - Placebo. The estimated mean change (95% confidence interval) from Day 1 to Day 84 for Placebo was -0.3 (-1.5, 0.9).|The null hypothesis is that linear trends from Day 1 to Day 84 are equivalent for each active JBT-101 cohort and placebo. The overall test is a 3 degree of freedom F test that simultaneously compares the estimated mean change from Day 1 to Day 84 for each of the 3 active JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.||0.6|-2.5|0.4190
90980319|NCT03093402|181844458|SUPERIORITY|The fixed effects included treatment, time, time² , time- and time² by treatment interactions. The Screening FSS score and the Screening 7-day average maximum daily pain NRS were included as covariates. Within-subject random effects for intercept and slopes for time and time² were fit using an unstructured covariance matrix, assuming a different structure for placebo and pooled active treatment groups.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|0.3||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the estimated mean change from Day 1 to Day 84 for each of the 3 active treatment arms versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference in the change from Day 1 to Day 84 for Medium JBT-101 - Placebo. The estimated mean change (95% confidence interval) from Day 1 to Day 84 for Placebo was -0.3 (-1.5, 0.9).|The null hypothesis is that linear trends from Day 1 to Day 84 are equivalent for each active JBT-101 cohort and placebo. The overall test is a 3 degree of freedom F test that simultaneously compares the estimated mean change from Day 1 to Day 84 for each of the 3 active JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.||0.3|-2.7|0.4190
90980320|NCT03093402|181844458|SUPERIORITY|The fixed effects included treatment, time, time² , time- and time² by treatment interactions. The Screening FSS score and the Screening 7-day average maximum daily pain NRS were included as covariates. Within-subject random effects for intercept and slopes for time and time² were fit using an unstructured covariance matrix, assuming a different structure for placebo and pooled active treatment groups.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.8||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the estimated mean change from Day 1 to Day 84 for each of the 3 active treatment arms versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference in the change from Day 1 to Day 84 for Low JBT-101 - Placebo. The estimated mean change (95% confidence interval) from Day 1 to Day 84 for Placebo was -0.3 (-1.5, 0.9).|The null hypothesis is that linear trends from Day 1 to Day 84 are equivalent for each active JBT-101 cohort and placebo. The overall test is a 3 degree of freedom F test that simultaneously compares the estimated mean change from Day 1 to Day 84 for each of the 3 active JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.||0.8|-2.2|0.4190
91039014|NCT00112437|181962050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|2.82|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|4.25||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on femoral neck BMD compared to placebo over 24 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase femoral neck BMD compared to placebo over 24 months.||4.25|1.39|<=0.001
90980321|NCT03093402|181844468|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.594|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The dichotomous outcome is modeled using the generalized estimating equations approach under the binomial distribution with a logit link. The model includes fixed effects for visit, treatment and visit\*treatment interaction with an unstructured within-subject correlation structure across visits. The overall test p-value is a 3 degree-of-freedom test comparing each active treatment vs. placebo at Day 29.||||0.594
90980322|NCT03093402|181844468|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.487|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The dichotomous outcome is modeled using the generalized estimating equations approach under the binomial distribution with a logit link. The model includes fixed effects for visit, treatment and visit\*treatment interaction with an unstructured within-subject correlation structure across visits. The overall test p-value is a 3 degree-of-freedom test comparing each active treatment vs. placebo at Day 57.||||0.487
90980323|NCT03093402|181844468|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The dichotomous outcome is modeled using the generalized estimating equations approach under the binomial distribution with a logit link. The model includes fixed effects for visit, treatment and visit\*treatment interaction with an unstructured within-subject correlation structure across visits. The overall test p-value is a 3 degree-of-freedom test comparing each active treatment vs. placebo at Day 85.||||0.760
90980324|NCT03093402|181844468|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.676|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The dichotomous outcome is modeled using the generalized estimating equations approach under the binomial distribution with a logit link. The model includes fixed effects for visit, treatment and visit\*treatment interaction with an unstructured within-subject correlation structure across visits. The overall test p-value is a 3 degree-of-freedom test comparing each active treatment vs. placebo at Day 113.||||0.676
90980325|NCT03093402|181844469|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.796||||||This p-value is from an exact likelihood ratio test at Day 29 testing that the proportion of subjects with \>= 50% improvement is equal among the 4 treatment groups.|Exact Likelihood Ratio Test|||||||0.796
90980326|NCT03093402|181844469|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.955||||||This p-value is from an exact likelihood ratio test at Day 57 testing that the proportion of subjects with \>= 50% improvement is equal among the 4 treatment groups.|Exact Likelihood Ratio Test|||||||0.955
90980327|NCT03093402|181844469|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.211||||||This p-value is from an exact likelihood ratio test at Day 85 testing that the proportion of subjects with \>= 50% improvement is equal among the 4 treatment groups.|Exact Likelihood Ratio Test|||||||0.211
90980328|NCT03093402|181844469|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.481||||||This p-value is from an exact likelihood ratio test at Day 113 testing that the proportion of subjects with \>= 50% improvement is equal among the 4 treatment groups.|Exact Likelihood Ratio Test|||||||0.481
90980329|NCT03093402|181844470|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79||||||This p-value is from an exact likelihood ratio test at Day 29 testing that the proportion of subjects with \>= 75% improvement is equal among the 4 treatment groups.|Exact Likelihood Ratio Test|||||||0.790
90980330|NCT03093402|181844470|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.843||||||This p-value is from an exact likelihood ratio test at Day 57 testing that the proportion of subjects with \>= 75% improvement is equal among the 4 treatment groups.|Exact Likelihood Ratio Test|||||||0.843
90980331|NCT03093402|181844470|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.637||||||This p-value is from an exact likelihood ratio test at Day 85 testing that the proportion of subjects with \>= 75% improvement is equal among the 4 treatment groups.|Exact Likelihood Ratio Test|||||||0.637
90980332|NCT03093402|181844470|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.243||||||This p-value is from an exact likelihood ratio test at Day 113 testing that the proportion of subjects with \>= 75% improvement is equal among the 4 treatment groups.|Exact Likelihood Ratio Test|||||||0.243
90980333|NCT03093402|181844471|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999||||||This p-value is from an exact likelihood ratio test at Day 57 testing that the proportion of subjects with \>=100% improvement is equal among the 4 treatment groups.|Exact Likelihood Ratio Test|||JBT-101 High, JBT-101 Medium, JBT-101 Low, Placebo||||>0.999
90980334|NCT03093402|181844471|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.861||||||This p-value is from an exact likelihood ratio test at Day 85 testing that the proportion of subjects with \>= 100% improvement is equal among the 4 treatment groups.|Exact Likelihood Ratio Test|||JBT-101 High, JBT-101 Medium, JBT-101 Low, Placebo||||0.861
90980335|NCT03093402|181844472|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|8.7||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline tender joint count at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference in the change from baseline tender joint count for High JBT-101 - Placebo. The estimated tender joint count mean change from baseline (95% confidence interval) for Placebo was -6.3 (-12.0, -0.7).|Each active JBT-101 cohort is compared to placebo.||8.7|-4.8|0.390
90980336|NCT03093402|181844472|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|8.2||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline tender joint count at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference in the change from baseline tender joint count for Medium JBT-101 - Placebo. The estimated tender joint count mean change from baseline (95% confidence interval) for Placebo was -6.3 (-12.0, -0.7).|Each active JBT-101 cohort is compared to placebo.||8.2|-4.9|0.390
90980337|NCT03093402|181844472|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|4.6||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline tender joint count at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference in the change from baseline tender joint count for Low JBT-101 - Placebo. The estimated tender joint count mean change from baseline (95% confidence interval) for Placebo was -6.3 (-12.0, -0.7).|Each active JBT-101 cohort is compared to placebo.||4.6|-8.6|0.390
90980338|NCT03093402|181844473|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|3.0||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline swollen joint count at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference in the change from baseline swollen joint count for High JBT-101 - Placebo. The estimated swollen joint count mean change from baseline (95% confidence interval) for Placebo was -4.0 (-5.7, -2.4).|Each active JBT-101 cohort is compared to placebo.||3.0|-1.6|0.556
90980339|NCT03093402|181844473|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|2.0||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline swollen joint count at Day 85 for each JBT-101 cohort versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference in the change from baseline swollen joint count for Medium JBT-101 - Placebo. The estimated swollen joint count mean change from baseline (95% confidence interval) for Placebo was -4.0 (-5.7, -2.4).|Each active JBT-101 cohort is compared to placebo.||2.0|-2.5|0.556
90980340|NCT03093402|181844473|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|1.4||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline swollen joint count at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference in the change from baseline swollen joint count for High JBT-101 - Placebo. The estimated swollen joint count mean change from baseline (95% confidence interval) for Placebo was -4.0 (-5.7, -2.4).|Each active JBT-101 cohort is compared to placebo.||1.4|-3.1|0.556
90948983|NCT05131477|181777158|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-36.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.62|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.8|-23.8|||ANCOVA||LS Mean Difference|||-23.8|-49.8|<0.0001
90948984|NCT05131477|181777158|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-24.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.67||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.7|-11.6|||ANCOVA||LS Mean Difference|||-11.6|-37.7|0.0002
90980341|NCT03093402|181844474|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.669|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The dichotomous outcome is modeled using the generalized estimating equations approach under the binomial distribution with a logit link. The model includes fixed effects for visit, treatment and visit\*treatment interaction with an unstructured within-subject correlation structure across visits. The overall test p-value is a 3 degree-of-freedom test comparing each of the 3 active treatments vs. placebo at Day 29.||||0.669
90980342|NCT03093402|181844474|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.432|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The dichotomous outcome is modeled using the generalized estimating equations approach under the binomial distribution with a logit link. The model includes fixed effects for visit, treatment and visit\*treatment interaction with an unstructured within-subject correlation structure across visits. The overall test p-value is a 3 degree-of-freedom test comparing each of the 3 active treatments vs. placebo at Day 57.||||0.432
91039015|NCT00112437|181962050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.41||||0.585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|1.04||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on femoral neck BMD compared to placebo over 24 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase femoral neck BMD compared to placebo over 24 months.||1.04|-1.85|0.585
90948985|NCT05131477|181777158|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-26.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.65|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.2|-13.1|||ANCOVA||LS Mean Difference|||-13.1|-39.2|<0.0001
90948986|NCT05131477|181777158|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-26.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.58|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.7|-13.9|||ANCOVA||LS Mean Difference|||-13.9|-39.7|<0.0001
90948987|NCT05131477|181777159|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference|0.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.42|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||0.42|0.16|< 0.0001
90948988|NCT05131477|181777159|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference|0.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||0.40|0.14|< 0.0001
90948989|NCT05131477|181777159|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference|0.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.44|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||0.44|0.18|<0.0001
90948990|NCT05131477|181777159|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference|0.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.42|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||0.42|0.16|<0.0001
90948991|NCT05131477|181777159|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference|0.36|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||0.5|0.23|<0.0001
90980343|NCT03093402|181844474|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The dichotomous outcome is modeled using the generalized estimating equations approach under the binomial distribution with a logit link. The model includes fixed effects for visit, treatment and visit\*treatment interaction with an unstructured within-subject correlation structure across visits. The overall test p-value is a 3 degree-of-freedom test comparing each of the 3 active treatments vs. placebo at Day 85.||||0.780
90948992|NCT05131477|181777159|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference|0.21||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.34|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||0.34|0.07|0.0040
90980344|NCT03093402|181844474|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.285|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The dichotomous outcome is modeled using the generalized estimating equations approach under the binomial distribution with a logit link. The model includes fixed effects for visit, treatment and visit\*treatment interaction with an unstructured within-subject correlation structure across visits. The overall test p-value is a 3 degree-of-freedom test comparing each of the 3 active treatments vs. placebo at Day 113.||||0.285
90980345|NCT03093402|181844476|SUPERIORITY|The dichotomous outcome is modeled using the generalized estimating equations approach under the binomial distribution with a logit link. The model includes fixed effects for visit, treatment and visit\*treatment interaction with an unstructured within-subject correlation structure across visits. The overall test p-value is a 3 degree-of-freedom test comparing each of the 3 active treatments vs. placebo at Day 29.||||||0.872|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||JBT-101 High, JBT-101 Medium, JBT-101 Low, Placebo||||0.872
90980346|NCT03093402|181844476|SUPERIORITY|The dichotomous outcome is modeled using the generalized estimating equations approach under the binomial distribution with a logit link. The model includes fixed effects for visit, treatment and visit\*treatment interaction with an unstructured within-subject correlation structure across visits. The overall test p-value is a 3 degree-of-freedom test comparing each of the 3 active treatments vs. placebo at Day 57.||||||0.895|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||JBT-101 High, JBT-101 Medium, JBT-101 Low, Placebo||||0.895
90980347|NCT03093402|181844476|SUPERIORITY|The dichotomous outcome is modeled using the generalized estimating equations approach under the binomial distribution with a logit link. The model includes fixed effects for visit, treatment and visit\*treatment interaction with an unstructured within-subject correlation structure across visits. The overall test p-value is a 3 degree-of-freedom test comparing each of the 3 active treatments vs. placebo at Day 85.||||||0.669|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||JBT-101 High, JBT-101 Medium, JBT-101 Low, Placebo||||0.669
90980348|NCT03093402|181844476|SUPERIORITY|The dichotomous outcome is modeled using the generalized estimating equations approach under the binomial distribution with a logit link. The model includes fixed effects for visit, treatment and visit\*treatment interaction with an unstructured within-subject correlation structure across visits. The overall test p-value is a 3 degree-of-freedom test comparing each of the 3 active treatments vs. placebo at Day 113.||||||0.668|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||JBT-101 High, JBT-101 Medium, JBT-101 Low, Placebo||||0.668
90980349|NCT03093402|181844477|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.5||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline SELENA-SLEDAI Score at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference in the change from baseline SLEDAI score for High JBT-101 - Placebo. The estimated Day 85 SLEDAI mean change from baseline (95% confidence interval) for Placebo was -2.2 (-3.6, -0.8).|Each active JBT-101 cohort is compared to placebo.||1.5|-2.3|.820
91039016|NCT00112437|181962051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|5.09|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.18|7.01||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on trochanter BMD compared to placebo over 24 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase trochanter BMD compared to placebo over 24 months.||7.01|3.18|<=0.001
90948993|NCT05131477|181777159|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference|0.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.45|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.45|0.17|<0.0001
90948994|NCT05131477|181777159|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference|0.23||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.36|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.36|0.09|0.0016
90980350|NCT03093402|181844477|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.8||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline SELENA-SLEDAI Score at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference in the change from baseline SLEDAI score for Medium JBT-101 - Placebo. The estimated Day 85 SLEDAI mean change from baseline (95% confidence interval) for Placebo was -2.2 (-3.6, -0.8).|Each active JBT-101 cohort is compared to placebo.||1.8|-2.0|.820
90980351|NCT03093402|181844477|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|1.1||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline SELENA-SLEDAI Score at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference in the change from baseline SLEDAI score for Low JBT-101 - Placebo. The estimated Day 85 SLEDAI mean change from baseline (95% confidence interval) for Placebo was -2.2 (-3.6, -0.8).|Each active JBT-101 cohort is compared to placebo.||1.1|-2.6|.820
90948995|NCT05131477|181777160|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference|0.17||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.27|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||0.27|0.06|0.0022
90948996|NCT05131477|181777160|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference|0.09||||0.0562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.18|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||0.18|0|0.0562
90948997|NCT05131477|181777160|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference|0.14||||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.24|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||0.24|0.04|0.0054
90948998|NCT05131477|181777160|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference|0.2||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.31|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||0.31|0.1|0.0003
90948999|NCT05131477|181777160|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference|0.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.47|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||0.47|0.21|<0.0001
90949000|NCT05131477|181777160|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference|0.22||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.34|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||0.34|0.1|0.0008
90949001|NCT05131477|181777160|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference|0.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.41|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||0.41|0.16|<0.0001
90949002|NCT05131477|181777160|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference|0.18||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||0.3|0.06|0.0046
90949003|NCT05131477|181777161|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference|0.19||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||0.3|0.09|0.0006
90949004|NCT05131477|181777161|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference|0.14||||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.24|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||0.24|0.04|0.0057
90980352|NCT03093402|181844478|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|4.4||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline BILAG total score at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference in the change from baseline BILAG score for High JBT-101 - Placebo. The estimated Day 85 change from baseline and 95% confidence interval for the Placebo group was -4.3 (-7.0, -1.5).|Each active JBT-101 cohort is compared to placebo.||4.4|-3.0|.244
90949005|NCT05131477|181777161|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference|0.16||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.26|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||0.26|0.05|0.0038
90949006|NCT05131477|181777161|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference|0.18||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.28|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||0.28|0.07|0.0011
90949007|NCT05131477|181777161|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference|0.23||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.35|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||0.35|0.11|0.0002
90949008|NCT05131477|181777161|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference|0.17||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.28|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||0.28|0.06|0.0038
90949009|NCT05131477|181777161|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference|0.21||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.32|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||0.32|0.09|0.0006
90949010|NCT05131477|181777161|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference|20.0||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.0|32.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||32|9|0.0008
90949011|NCT02726945|181777250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.023|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Data from the groups showed a strong non-normal distribution, thus non-parametric methods were used with a Bonferroni correction for multiple comparison .~Statistical significance was defined as either of the treatment groups to be superior to the placebo group."||||0.023
90949012|NCT02726945|181777250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.043|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Data from the groups showed a strong non-normal distribution, thus non-parametric methods were used with a Bonferroni correction for multiple comparison .~Statistical significance was defined as either of the treatment groups to be superior to the placebo group."||||0.043
90949013|NCT03939689|181777260|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0025|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with adjustment for stratification factor (prostate cancer risk factor at Screening) was carried out by using complete cases for the FAS population (missing data were not imputed for this analysis). Intermediate risk at Screening: hemoglobin (Hgb) ≥11 g/dL and LDH \<262 IU/L and ALP \<414 IU/L. High-risk at Screening: Hgb \<11 g/dL or LDH ≥262 IU/L or ALP ≥414 IU/L.||||0.0025
90949014|NCT03939689|181777261|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.806||||||The p-value is based on the chi-squared test of the difference in proportions between treatment groups if expected cell frequencies are all greater than 5; otherwise, the p-value is from the Fisher's exact test.|Chi-squared|||||||0.8060
90949015|NCT03939689|181777262|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5924||||||Log-rank test of no difference between treatment groups, stratified by prostate cancer risk groups.|Log Rank|||Kaplan-Meier analysis and Greenwood formula used for estimating event-free rates and 95% confidence intervals.||||.5924
90949016|NCT03939689|181777263|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5924||||||Log-rank test of no difference between treatment groups, stratified by prostate cancer risk groups.|Log Rank|||Kaplan-Meier analysis and Greenwood formula used for estimating event-free rates and 95% confidence intervals.||||0.5924
90949017|NCT03939689|181777264|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6199||||||P value from the log-rank test of no difference between treatment groups, stratified by prostate cancer risk group at Screening.|Log Rank|||Event-free rates and 95% CI were estimated by using Kaplan-Meier method and Greenwood formula.||||0.6199
90949018|NCT03939689|181777265|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1823||||||P-value from the log-rank test of no difference between treatment groups, stratified by prostate cancer risk group at Screening.|Log Rank|||Event free rates and 95% CI were estimated by using Kaplan-Meier method and Greenwood formula.||||.1823
90949019|NCT03939689|181777266|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0006||||||P-value from the log-rank test of no difference between treatment groups, stratified by prostate cancer risk group at Screening.|Log Rank|||Event-free rates and 95% CI were estimated by using Kaplan-Meier method and Greenwood formula.||||0.0006
90949020|NCT02473965|181777282|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.868|||=|1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|2.787||The statistical inference was tested as 2-sided with alpha=0.05.|Fisher Exact|||An unstratified analysis using Fisher's exact test was used for treatment comparison without adjustment for stratified baseline prednisone equivalent dose level due to the small cell size. The odds ratio and confidence intervals are calculated overall (i.e. all mITT subjects).||2.787|0.270|=1.00
90949021|NCT02473965|181777283|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.536|=|0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.52|26.68|||ANCOVA|||Treatment comparison of percent change in daily CS dose from baseline to Week 39. The Analysis of Covariance model included the percent change from baseline in daily CS dose as the dependent variable, treatment as a fixed effect and baseline daily CS dose as covariate.||26.68|-23.52|=0.900
90949022|NCT01681277|181777305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.2208|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1386|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9354|1.5062|||||"Dose proportionality was explored using the power model (ANCOVA). The perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope β of 1.~PK endpoints on the log-transformed scale. Standard Error of the mean is actually the Standard Error of the slope"|This was non confirmatory testing (Single dose). Dose proportionality of BI 113608 for Cmax,ss was analysed.||1.5062|0.9354|
90949023|NCT01681277|181777307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.3135|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1206|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0652|1.5618|||||"Dose proportionality was explored using the power model (ANCOVA). The perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope β of 1.~PK endpoints on the log-transformed scale. Standard Error of the mean is actually the Standard Error of the slope"|This was non confirmatory testing (Single dose). Dose proportionality of BI 113608 for AUCt,ss was analysed.||1.5618|1.0652|
90949024|NCT02304705|181777311|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.052|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.052
90980353|NCT03093402|181844478|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6||||0.244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|2.0||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline BILAG total score at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference in the change from baseline BILAG score for Medium JBT-101 - Placebo. The estimated Day 85 change from baseline and 95% confidence interval for the Placebo group was -4.3 (-7.0, -1.5).|Each active JBT-101 cohort is compared to placebo.||2.0|-5.2|.244
90980354|NCT03093402|181844478|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.6||||0.244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|0.9||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline BILAG total score at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference in the change from baseline BILAG score for Low JBT-101 - Placebo. The estimated Day 85 change from baseline and 95% confidence interval for the Placebo group was -4.3 (-7.0, -1.5).|Each active JBT-101 cohort is compared to placebo.||0.9|-6.2|.244
90980355|NCT03093402|181844479|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.4||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline Physician's Global Assessment (PGA) Score at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference in the change from baseline PGA score for High JBT-101 - Placebo. The estimated Day 85 change from baseline and 95% confidence interval for the Placebo group was -0.43 (-0.70, -0.15).|Each active JBT-101 cohort is compared to placebo.||0.40|-0.27|0.408
90980356|NCT03093402|181844479|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.26||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline Physician's Global Assessment (PGA) Score at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference in the change from baseline PGA score for High JBT-101 - Placebo. The estimated Day 85 change from baseline and 95% confidence interval for the Placebo group was -0.43 (-0.70, -0.15).|Each active JBT-101 cohort is compared to placebo.||0.26|-0.40|0.408
90980357|NCT03093402|181844479|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.16||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline Physician's Global Assessment (PGA) Score at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference in the change from baseline PGA score for Low JBT-101 - Placebo. The estimated Day 85 change from baseline and 95% confidence interval for the Placebo group was -0.43 (-0.70, -0.15).|Each active JBT-101 cohort is compared to placebo.||0.16|-0.50|0.408
90980358|NCT03093402|181844480|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.48||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.24|-5.72||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline Patient Global Assessment Score at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference in the change from baseline Patient Global Assessment score for High JBT-101 - Placebo. The estimated Day 85 change from baseline and 95% confidence interval for the Placebo group was -5.27 (-16.11, 5.56).|Each active JBT-101 cohort is compared to placebo.||-5.72|-37.24|0.070
90980359|NCT03093402|181844480|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.4||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.33|4.54||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline Patient Global Assessment Score at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference in the change from baseline Patient Global Assessment score for High JBT-101 - Placebo. The estimated Day 85 change from baseline and 95% confidence interval for the Placebo group was -5.27 (-16.11, 5.56).|Each active JBT-101 cohort is compared to placebo.||4.54|-25.33|0.070
90980360|NCT03093402|181844480|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.81||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.78|4.16||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline Patient Global Assessment Score at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference in the change from baseline Patient Global Assessment score for Low JBT-101 - Placebo. The estimated Day 85 change from baseline and 95% confidence interval for the Placebo group was -5.27 (-16.11, 5.56).|Each active JBT-101 cohort is compared to placebo.||4.16|-25.78|0.070
90980361|NCT03093402|181844481|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.38|3.99||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline Physical Function T-score at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated mean difference of High JBT-101 - Placebo in the mean change from baseline at Day 85. The estimated Day 85 change from baseline and 95% confidence interval for the Placebo group was 1.8 (-0.8, 4.3).|||3.99|-3.38|0.979
90980362|NCT03093402|181844481|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.13|3.93||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline Physical Function T-score at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated mean difference of Medium JBT-101 - Placebo in the mean change from baseline at Day 85. The estimated Day 85 change from baseline and 95% confidence interval for the Placebo group was 1.8 (-0.8, 4.3).|||3.93|-3.13|0.979
90980363|NCT03093402|181844481|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.77||||0.979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.77|4.31||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline PROMIS Physical Function Score at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated mean difference of Low JBT-101 - Placebo in the mean change from baseline at Day 85. The estimated Day 85 mean change from baseline and 95% confidence interval for the Placebo group was 1.8 (-0.8, 4.3).|||4.31|-2.77|0.979
90980364|NCT03093402|181844482|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.44||||0.788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.14|3.26||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline PROMIS Anxiety T-Score at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated mean difference of High JBT-101 - Placebo in the mean change from baseline at Day 85. The estimated Day 85 mean change from baseline and 95% confidence interval for the Placebo group was -1.8 (-4.8, 1.2).|||3.26|-6.14|0.788
90949025|NCT02038842|181777317|OTHER|The co-primary immunogenicity endpoint is analysed per arm, in a frequentist framework, in all randomised participants having received at least one vaccine administration and still HIV-negative at W30.|||||=|0.02||||||One-sided test for the observed proportion being superior to the theoretical decision threshold of 50%.|Binomial|||Trial was designed to compare the observed proportion of responders at week 30 within each group to a predefined minimum immunogenicity level of 50%.||||=0.02
90949026|NCT00847626|181777329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.8|-9.5||Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance model (ANCOVA) using treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate was performed. Results for Azilsartan Medoxomil 40 mg/Chlorthalidone 25 mg QD and Azilsartan Medoxomil 80 mg/Chlorthalidone 25 mg QD pool were obtained using contrast with coefficients of 0.5 for Azilsartan Medoxomil 40 mg/Chlorthalidone 25 mg QD and 0.5 for Azilsartan Medoxomil 80 mg/Chlorthalidone 25 mg QD from the ANCOVA model.||-9.5|-15.8|<0.001
90949027|NCT00847626|181777329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.7|-10.9||Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA using treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate was performed. Results for Azilsartan Medoxomil 40 mg/Chlorthalidone 25 mg QD and Azilsartan Medoxomil 80 mg/Chlorthalidone 25 mg QD pool were obtained using contrast with coefficients of 0.5 for Azilsartan Medoxomil 40 mg/Chlorthalidone 25 mg QD and 0.5 for Azilsartan Medoxomil 80 mg/Chlorthalidone 25 mg QD from the ANCOVA model.||-10.9|-16.7|<0.001
90949028|NCT00847626|181777330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|-9.2||Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA using treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate was performed.||-9.2|-16.2|<0.001
90949029|NCT00847626|181777330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|-6.4||Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA using treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate was performed.||-6.4|-13.4|<0.001
90949030|NCT00847626|181777330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.2|-12.1||Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA using treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate was performed.||-12.1|-19.2|<0.001
90949031|NCT00847626|181777330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.8|-8.9||Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA using treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate was performed.||-8.9|-15.8|<0.001
90949032|NCT00847626|181777330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.3|-12.3||Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA using treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate was performed.||-12.3|-19.3|<0.001
90949033|NCT00847626|181777330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|-9.5||Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA using treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate was performed.||-9.5|-16.5|<0.001
90949034|NCT00847626|181777330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|-10.5||Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA using treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate was performed.||-10.5|-17.5|<0.001
90949035|NCT00847626|181777330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.6|-13.7||Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA using treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate was performed.||-13.7|-20.6|<0.001
90949036|NCT00847626|181777330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|-9.9||Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA using treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate was performed.||-9.9|-17.0|<0.001
90949037|NCT00847626|181777330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|-12.7||Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA using treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate was performed.||-12.7|-19.7|<0.001
90949038|NCT00847626|181777330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|-9.3||Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA using treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate was performed.||-9.3|-16.3|<0.001
90949039|NCT00847626|181777330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|-12.6||Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA using treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate was performed.||-12.6|-19.4|<0.001
90949040|NCT00847626|181777331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.8||||0.255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|3.5||Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA using treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate was performed. Results for Azilsartan Medoxomil 40 mg/Chlorthalidone 25 mg QD and Azilsartan Medoxomil 80mg/Chlorthalidone 25 mg QD pool were obtained using contrast with coefficients of 0.5 for Azilsartan Medoxomil 40 mg/Chlorthalidone 25 mg QD and 0.5 for Azilsartan Medoxomil 80 mg/Chlorthalidone 25 mg QD from the ANCOVA model.||3.5|-13.0|0.255
90949041|NCT00847626|181777331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.9|-10.6||Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA using treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate was performed. Results for Azilsartan Medoxomil 40 mg/Chlorthalidone 25 mg QD and Azilsartan Medoxomil 80mg/Chlorthalidone 25 mg QD pool were obtained using contrast with coefficients of 0.5 for Azilsartan Medoxomil 40 mg/Chlorthalidone 25 mg QD and 0.5 for Azilsartan Medoxomil 80 mg/Chlorthalidone 25 mg QD from the ANCOVA model.||-10.6|-25.9|<0.001
90949042|NCT00847626|181777344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|-7.0||Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA using treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate was performed.||-7.0|-13.6|< 0.001
90949043|NCT00847626|181777344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|-7.0||Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA using treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate was performed.||-7.0|-13.7|<0.001
90949044|NCT00847626|181777344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.1|-8.4||Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA using treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate was performed.||-8.4|-15.1|<0.001
90949045|NCT00847626|181777344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|-10.6||Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA using treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate was performed.||-10.6|-17.3|<0.001
90949046|NCT00847626|181777344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|-10.3||Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA using treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate was performed.||-10.3|-17.1|<0.001
90949047|NCT00847626|181777344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|-8.7||Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA using treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate was performed.||-8.7|-15.4|<0.001
90949048|NCT00847626|181777344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.2|-7.6||Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA using treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate was performed.||-7.6|-14.2|<0.001
91078321|NCT02284568|182042099|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.37||significance at 0.05. p-value was from a log-rank test, and estimate and confidence limits were from a Cox model with treatment group as fixed effect, due to the violation of the proportionality assumption.|Log Rank||Laquinimod 0.6 mg vs placebo|The statistical model was a Cox proportional hazards regression model with treatment group, categorical EDSS at baseline (≤4.5 or \>4.5), age at baseline, natural logarithm of T2 lesion volume at baseline, and country as fixed effects.||1.37|0.48|0.426
90949049|NCT00847626|181777344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6|-10.9||Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA using treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate was performed.||-10.9|-17.6|<0.001
90949050|NCT00847626|181777344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|-8.3||Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA using treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate was performed.||-8.3|-15.0|<0.001
90949051|NCT00847626|181777344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.4|-13.6||Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA using treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate was performed.||-13.6|-20.4|<0.001
90949052|NCT00847626|181777344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|-7.8||Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA using treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate was performed.||-7.8|-14.7|<0.001
90949053|NCT00847626|181777344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|-9.4||Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA using treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate was performed.||-9.4|-16.2|<0.001
90949054|NCT01128270|181777405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean of one group (2A)|1.64|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|1.97||||Analysis applies only to Arm 2A. (Period 3)|Only arm 2A is relevant to this variable. There is no intended statistical comparison, but the point estimate for the mean level and 95% confidence interval are provided.|No comparison is relevant. The statistical method is how we obtained the point estimate and confidence interval. No test was intended.||1.97|1.31|
90949055|NCT01128270|181777406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2432.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1403.0||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1260.0|3606.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Only relevant to Arm 2B.||3606|1260|0.0017
90949056|NCT01128270|181777407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|0.38|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.17|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.51||||||Only relevant for arm 2B||0.51|0.24|
90949057|NCT01602510|181777455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.86|||=|0.438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.25|||Regression, Cox||p value with Treatment Group as covariate|||1.25|0.59|=0.438
90949058|NCT01602510|181777455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.86|||=|0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.25|||Regression, Cox||p value with Site as covariate|||1.25|0.59|=0.212
90949059|NCT01602510|181777455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.86|||=|0.724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.25|||Regression, Cox||p value with CGI-S Baseline Score as covariate|||1.25|0.59|=0.724
90949060|NCT01602510|181777456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.95|||=|0.869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.66|||Regression, Cox||p value with Treatment Group as covariate|||1.66|0.55|=0.869
90949061|NCT01602510|181777456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.95|||=|0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.66|||Regression, Cox||p value with Site as covariate|||1.66|0.55|=0.061
90949062|NCT01602510|181777456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.95|||=|0.505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.66|||Regression, Cox||p value with CGI-S Baseline Score as covariate|||1.66|0.55|=0.505
90949063|NCT01602510|181777457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.79|||=|0.369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.32|||Regression, Cox||p value with Treatment Group as covariate|||1.32|0.48|=0.369
90949064|NCT01602510|181777457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.79|||=|0.955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.32|||Regression, Cox||p value with Site as covariate|||1.32|0.48|=0.955
90949065|NCT01602510|181777457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.79|||=|0.874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.32|||Regression, Cox||p value with CGI-S Baseline Score as covariate|||1.32|0.48|=0.874
90949066|NCT01602510|181777458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|1.02|||=|0.927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.4|||Regression, Cox||p value with Treatment Group as covariate|||1.40|0.73|=0.927
90949067|NCT01602510|181777458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|1.02|||=|0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.4|||Regression, Cox||p value with Site as covariate|||1.40|0.73|=0.036
90949068|NCT01602510|181777458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|1.02|||=|0.509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.4|||Regression, Cox||p value with CGI-S Baseline Score as covariate|||1.40|0.73|=0.509
90949069|NCT01602510|181777459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.5|||ANCOVA|||||0.5|-0.4|=0.833
90949070|NCT01602510|181777460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|||=|0.245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.5|=0.245
90949071|NCT01602510|181777461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|||=|0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|0.5|||ANCOVA|||||0.5|-3.0|=0.155
90949072|NCT01602510|181777462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|||=|0.661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|2.2|||ANCOVA|||||2.2|-1.4|= 0.661
90949073|NCT01602510|181777463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|||=|0.945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|3.5|||ANCOVA|||||3.5|-3.7|= 0.945
90949074|NCT01602510|181777464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.84|||=|0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||||-0.01|-1.66|=0.047
90949075|NCT01825577|181777466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.9||||0.55|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.55
90949076|NCT01825577|181777467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.67|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.67
90949077|NCT01791972|181777550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.982|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.19|-12.14||Significance level is 0.05.|mixed-effect analysis of covariance|Fixed effects of sequence, trt group, period, and center, within period baseline FEV1 as a covariate, and random effect for patient within sequence.||||-12.14|-20.19|<0.0001
91078322|NCT02284568|182042100|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.59||significance at 0.05.|Regression, Cox||Laquinimod 0.6 mg vs placebo|The statistical model was a Cox proportional hazards regression model with treatment group, categorical EDSS at baseline (≤4.5 or \>4.5), age at baseline, natural logarithm of T2 lesion volume at baseline, and country as fixed effects.||1.59|0.68|0.867
91039017|NCT00112437|181962051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|4.56|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|6.42||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on trochanter BMD compared to placebo over 24 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase trochanter BMD compared to placebo over 24 months.||6.42|2.70|<=0.001
91039018|NCT00112437|181962051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|4.43|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.52|6.33||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on trochanter BMD compared to placebo over 24 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase trochanter BMD compared to placebo over 24 months.||6.33|2.52|<=0.001
91039019|NCT00112437|181962051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.04||||0.981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.97|1.89||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on trochanter BMD compared to placebo over 24 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase trochanter BMD compared to placebo over 24 months.||1.89|-1.97|0.981
91039020|NCT00112437|181962052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least square means|1.73|||<=|0.001||95.0|0.46|3.01||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through a stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on Total Body BMD compared to placebo over 24 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase Total Body BMD compared to placebo over 24 months.||3.01|0.46|<=0.001
91039021|NCT00112437|181962052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least square means|1.11||||0.028||95.0|-0.12|2.34||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through a stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on Total Body BMD compared to placebo over 24 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase Total Body BMD compared to placebo over 24 months.||2.34|-0.12|0.028
91039022|NCT00112437|181962052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least square means|0.2||||0.804||95.0|-1.1|1.49||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through a stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on Total Body BMD compared to placebo over 24 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase Total Body BMD compared to placebo over 24 months.||1.49|-1.10|0.804
91078452|NCT03003000|182042838|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.834||||0.3129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.586|1.187||No adjustment for multiplicity issues was made for this comparison. The level of significance was 0.05.|likelihood-ratio test|The likelihood-ratio test was used to test treatment differences for patients with a decrease of ≥30%.|An odds ratio \>1 indicates better efficacy for ibuprofen and caffeine than for the comparator.||Results are based on the Logistic regression. Logistic regression model was adjusted for the categorical covariates country and worst procedure site.|1.187|0.586|0.3129
90980365|NCT03093402|181844482|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.56||||0.788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.07|2.96||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline PROMIS Anxiety T-Score at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated mean difference of Medium JBT-101 - Placebo in the mean change from baseline at Day 85. The estimated Day 85 mean change from baseline and 95% confidence interval for the Placebo group was -1.8 (-4.8, 1.2).|||2.96|-6.07|0.788
91078453|NCT03003000|182042838|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.354||||0.3301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.736|2.494||No adjustment for multiplicity issues was made for this comparison. The level of significance was 0.05.|likelihood-ratio test|The likelihood-ratio test was used to test treatment differences for patients with a decrease of ≥50%.|An odds ratio \>1 indicates better efficacy for ibuprofen and caffeine than for the comparator||Results are based on the Logistic regression. Logistic regression model was adjusted for the categorical covariates country and worst procedure site.|2.494|0.736|0.3301
90949078|NCT01791972|181777551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.075|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.84||Terms for treatment and period, computed with the generalized estimating equations (GEE) algorithm, which adjusts for potential correlation between measurements on the same patient. Significance level of 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||||0.84|0.53|<0.0001
90949079|NCT00630734|181777557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43||95.0||||Threshold of significance was P\<0.05.|ANOVA|||Relative change data were compared between SLCO1B1 diplotype groups using one-way ANOVA (with post-hoc Bonferroni tests).||||0.43
90949080|NCT00630734|181777558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.28
90949081|NCT00630734|181777559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.66
90949082|NCT00630734|181777560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.85
90949083|NCT00630734|181777561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.11
90949084|NCT00630734|181777562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.15
90949085|NCT00630734|181777563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.22
90949086|NCT00630734|181777564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.67
90949087|NCT00630734|181777565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.006
90949088|NCT00630734|181777566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.08
90949089|NCT02209181|181777590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|16.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.522|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.42|21.35||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||21.35|11.42|<0.001
90949090|NCT02209181|181777590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|4.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.503||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|9.51||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||9.51|-0.35|0.068
90949091|NCT02209181|181777590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|16.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.531|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.21|21.18||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||21.18|11.21|<0.001
90949092|NCT02209181|181777590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-11.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.503|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.73|-6.88||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||-6.88|-16.73|<0.001
90949093|NCT02209181|181777590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.531||0.941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.17|4.8||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||4.80|-5.17|0.941
90949094|NCT02209181|181777591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.42||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.42|-0.19|0.448
90949095|NCT02209181|181777591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.22||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.22|-0.38|0.618
90949096|NCT02209181|181777591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.38||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.38|-0.23|0.621
90949097|NCT02209181|181777591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.11||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.11|-0.49|0.207
90980366|NCT03093402|181844482|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47||||0.788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|4.94||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline PROMIS Anxiety T-Score at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated mean difference of Low JBT-101 - Placebo in the mean change from baseline at Day 85. The estimated Day 85 mean change from baseline and 95% confidence interval for the Placebo group was -1.8 (-4.8, 1.2).|||4.94|-4.00|0.788
91039023|NCT00112437|181962052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least square means|-1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.46|0.15||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through a stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handle by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on Total Body BMD compared to placebo over 24 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase Total Body BMD compared to placebo over 24 months.||0.15|-2.46|
91039024|NCT00112437|181962053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least square means|2.9|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|4.46||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on Distal Forearm BMD compared to placebo over 24 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase Distal Forearm BMD compared to placebo over 24 months.||4.46|1.34|<=0.001
91039025|NCT00112437|181962053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least square means|2.09|||<=|0.001||95.0|0.59|3.6||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on Distal Forearm BMD compared to placebo over 24 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase Distal Forearm BMD compared to placebo over 24 months.||3.60|0.59|<=0.001
91039026|NCT00112437|181962053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least square means|1.53||||0.094||95.0|-0.01|3.07||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on Distal Forearm BMD compared to placebo over 24 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase Distal Forearm BMD compared to placebo over 24 months.||3.07|-0.01|0.094
91039027|NCT00112437|181962053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least square means|-2.95||||||95.0|-4.5|-1.4||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handle by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on Distal Forearm BMD compared to placebo over 24 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase Distal Forearm BMD compared to placebo over 24 months.||-1.40|-4.50|
91039028|NCT00112437|181962054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|-47.21|||<=|0.001||95.0|-64.51|-29.9||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance.|Difference in Least Square Means (back-transformation of difference in log-fraction from baseline)|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone resorption (u-NTx) compared to placebo over 24 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will decrease biochemical indices of bone resorption (u-NTx) over 24 months.||-29.90|-64.51|<=0.001
90980367|NCT03093402|181844483|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.49||||0.766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.14|3.16||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline PROMIS Depression T-Score at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated mean difference of High JBT-101 - Placebo in the mean change from baseline at Day 85. The estimated Day 85 mean change from baseline and 95% confidence interval for the Placebo group was -1.7(-4.6, 1.3).|||3.16|-6.14|0.766
90980368|NCT03093402|181844483|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.76||||0.766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|5.11||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline PROMIS Depression T-Score at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated mean difference of Medium JBT-101 - Placebo in the mean change from baseline at Day 85. The estimated Day 85 change from baseline and 95% confidence interval for the Placebo group was -1.7(-4.6, 1.3).|||5.11|-3.60|0.766
90980369|NCT03093402|181844483|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.24||||0.766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.55|3.07||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline PROMIS Depression T-Score at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated mean difference of Low JBT-101 - Placebo in the mean change from baseline at Day 85. The estimated Day 85 change from baseline and 95% confidence interval for the Placebo group was -1.7(-4.6, 1.3).|||3.07|-5.55|0.766
90980370|NCT03093402|181844484|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44||||0.982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.04|5.17||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline PROMIS Fatigue T-Score at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated mean difference of High JBT-101 - Placebo in the mean change from baseline at Day 85. The estimated Day 85 mean change from baseline and 95% confidence interval for the Placebo group was -4.7 (-8.3, -1.1).|||5.17|-6.04|0.982
90980371|NCT03093402|181844484|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.86||||0.982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.22|4.5||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline PROMIS Fatigue T-Score at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated mean difference of Medium JBT-101 - Placebo in the mean change from baseline at Day 85. The estimated Day 85 mean change from baseline and 95% confidence interval for the Placebo group was -4.7 (-8.3, -1.1).|Each active JBT-101 cohort is compared to placebo.||4.50|-6.22|0.982
90980372|NCT03093402|181844484|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.98||||0.982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.32|4.36||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline PROMIS Fatigue T-Score at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated mean difference of Low JBT-101 - Placebo in the mean change from baseline at Day 85. The estimated Day 85 mean change from baseline and 95% confidence interval for the Placebo group was -4.7 (-8.3, -1.1).|||4.36|-6.32|0.982
90980373|NCT03093402|181844485|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.74|4.91||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline PROMIS Sleep Disturbance T-Score at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated mean difference of High JBT-101 - Placebo in the mean change from baseline at Day 85. The estimated Day 85 change from baseline and 95% confidence interval for the Placebo group was -3.5 (-6.8, -0.3).|Each active JBT-101 cohort is compared to placebo.||4.91|-4.74|0.607
90980374|NCT03093402|181844485|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.93||||0.607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|7.71||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline PROMIS Sleep Disturbance T-Score at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated mean difference of Medium JBT-101 - Placebo in the mean change from baseline at Day 85. The estimated Day 85 change from baseline and 95% confidence interval for the Placebo group was -3.5 (-6.8, -0.3).|Each active JBT-101 cohort is compared to placebo.||7.71|-1.85|0.607
90980375|NCT03093402|181844485|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.44||||0.607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.22|6.09||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline PROMIS Sleep Disturbance T-Score at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated mean difference of Low JBT-101 - Placebo in the mean change from baseline at Day 85. The estimated Day 85 change from baseline and 95% confidence interval for the Placebo group was -3.5 (-6.8, -0.3).|Each active JBT-101 cohort is compared to placebo.||6.09|-3.22|0.607
90980376|NCT03093402|181844486|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.66|4.3||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline PROMIS Social Role Satisfaction T-Score at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated mean difference of High JBT-101 - Placebo in the mean change from baseline at Day 85. The estimated Day 85 change from baseline and 95% confidence interval for the Placebo group was 4.2 (0.8, 7.6).|||4.30|-4.66|0.981
91050517|NCT00257920|181987270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.009||0.573||95.0|-0.024|0.014||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons. A single hypothesis was tested by the primary efficacy analysis. All hypothesis tests were two-tailed and P-values \<=0.050 were considered statistically significant.|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis was that there is no difference in mean calcium absorption between Zemplar and Hectorol. Approximately 42 subjects were to be randomized assuming 36 subjects would available in the per-protocol set. A sample size of 36 subjects has 80% power to detect a mean difference of -0.018 assuming the Zemplar group mean is 0.139, the Hectorol group mean is 0.157 and the STD is 0.037. The ANOVA model included effects for sequence, subject-within-sequence, period and treatment regimen.||0.014|-0.024|0.573
90980377|NCT03093402|181844486|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.51||||0.981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.84|4.86||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline PROMIS Social Role Satisfaction T-Score at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated mean difference of Medium JBT-101 - Placebo in the mean change from baseline at Day 85. The estimated Day 85 change from baseline and 95% confidence interval for the Placebo group was 4.2 (0.8, 7.6).|||4.86|-3.84|0.981
90980378|NCT03093402|181844486|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27||||0.981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.62|4.08||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline PROMIS Social Role Satisfaction T-Score at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated mean difference of Low JBT-101 - Placebo in the mean change from baseline at Day 85. The estimated Day 85 change from baseline and 95% confidence interval for the Placebo group was 4.2 (0.8, 7.6).|||4.08|-4.62|0.981
90949098|NCT02209181|181777591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.26||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.26|-0.34|0.794
90949099|NCT02209181|181777592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.86||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.86|0.82|<0.001
90949100|NCT02209181|181777592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.72||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.72|-0.30|0.420
90949101|NCT02209181|181777592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.97||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.97|-0.06|0.083
90949102|NCT02209181|181777592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|-0.62||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||-0.62|-1.64|<0.001
90949103|NCT02209181|181777592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.37||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||-0.37|-1.40|<0.001
90949104|NCT02209181|181777593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.28|3.59||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||3.59|2.28|<0.001
90949105|NCT02209181|181777593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|1.29||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.29|-0.02|0.058
90980379|NCT03093402|181844487|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.85||||0.653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|2.29||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline PROMIS Pain Interference T-Score at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated mean difference of High JBT-101 - Placebo in the mean change from baseline at Day 85. The estimated Day 85 change from baseline and 95% confidence interval for the Placebo group was -4.9 (-7.6, -2.1).|Each active JBT-101 cohort is compared to placebo.||2.29|-6.00|0.653
90980380|NCT03093402|181844487|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.89||||0.653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|4.88||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline PROMIS Pain Interference T-Score at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated mean difference of Medium JBT-101 - Placebo in the mean change from baseline at Day 85. The estimated Day 85 change from baseline and 95% confidence interval for the Placebo group was -4.9 (-7.6, -2.1).|Each active JBT-101 cohort is compared to placebo.||4.88|-3.10|0.653
90980381|NCT03093402|181844487|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32||||0.653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.31|3.67||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline PROMIS Pain Interference T-Score at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated mean difference of Low JBT-101 - Placebo in the mean change from baseline at Day 85. The estimated Day 85 change from baseline and 95% confidence interval for the Placebo group was -4.9 (-7.6, -2.1).|Each active JBT-101 cohort is compared to placebo.||3.67|-4.31|0.653
91078013|NCT02542293|182041274|OTHER|The study was not designed or powered to show statistical significance for efficacy endpoints in the China cohort, so all statistical analyses for the China cohort were considered exploratory.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.592|2.141|||||The HR and CI interval were calculated using an stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"PD-L1-negative analysis set:~China: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs China: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy to be associated with a longer PFS than SoC."||2.141|0.592|
90949106|NCT02209181|181777593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.89||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.89|0.57|<0.001
90949107|NCT02209181|181777593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.96|-1.65||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||-1.65|-2.96|<0.001
90949108|NCT02209181|181777593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.37|-1.04||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||-1.04|-2.37|<0.001
90949109|NCT02209181|181777594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.01|4.46||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||4.46|3.01|<0.001
90980382|NCT03093402|181844488|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.13||||0.245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.56|0.29||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline PROMIS Pain Intensity at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated mean difference of High JBT-101 - Placebo in the mean change from baseline at Day 85. The estimated Day 85 change from baseline and 95% confidence interval for the Placebo group was -1.1 (-2.1, -0.1).|||0.29|-2.56|0.245
90980383|NCT03093402|181844488|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56||||0.245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|0.8||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline PROMIS Pain Intensity at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated mean difference of Medium JBT-101 - Placebo in the mean change from baseline at Day 85. The estimated Day 85 change from baseline and 95% confidence interval for the Placebo group was -1.1 (-2.1, -0.1).|||0.80|-1.93|0.245
90980384|NCT03093402|181844488|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.28||||0.245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.64|0.09||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline PROMIS Pain Intensity at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated mean difference of Low JBT-101 - Placebo in the mean change from baseline at Day 85. The estimated Day 85 change from baseline and 95% confidence interval for the Placebo group was -1.1 (-2.1, -0.1).|||0.09|-2.64|0.245
90980385|NCT03093402|181844489|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45||||0.608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.45|3.54||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline PROMIS Cognitive Function T-Score at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated mean difference of High JBT-101 - Placebo in the change from baseline at Day 85. The estimated Day 85 change from baseline and 95% confidence interval for the Placebo group was 1.4 (-1.5, 4.4).|Each active JBT-101 cohort is compared to placebo.||3.54|-4.45|0.608
90980386|NCT03093402|181844489|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6||||0.608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.27|5.47||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline PROMIS Cognitive Function T-Score at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated mean difference of Medium JBT-101 - Placebo in the mean change from baseline at Day 85. The estimated Day 85 change from baseline and 95% confidence interval for the Placebo group was 1.4 (-1.5, 4.4).|Each active JBT-101 cohort is compared to placebo.||5.47|-2.27|0.608
91078014|NCT02542293|182041274|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.924|1.253|||||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for PD-L1 status (≥25% Vs \<25%), smoking status (never smoker Vs ever smoker) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by Efron approach.|"FAS:~Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy to be associated with a longer PFS than SoC."||1.253|0.924|
90980387|NCT03093402|181844489|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6||||0.608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|5.45||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline PROMIS Cognitive Function T-Score at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated mean difference of Low JBT-101 - Placebo in the mean change from baseline at Day 85. The estimated Day 85 change from baseline and 95% confidence interval for the Placebo group was 1.4 (-1.5, 4.4).|Each active JBT-101 cohort is compared to placebo.||5.45|-2.25|0.608
90980388|NCT00331760|181844529|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Chi-squared|||A sample size of 42 patients provides 64% power to detect a reduction in short-term grade 2 or higher bowel AEs from historical rate of 40% to 25%.||||0.12
90980389|NCT00331760|181844529|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.043|||||||Chi-squared|||A sample size of 42 patients provides 88% power to detect a reduction in short-term grade 2 or higher bowel AEs from historical rate of 40% to 20%.||||0.043
90980390|NCT00619229|181844543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.94||||0.122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.674|2.55||The criterion for significance (α) was set at one-sided α = 0.025, which means that only an effect in the expected direction was interpreted.|ANCOVA||For exploratory testing an Analysis of Variance-Covariance (ANCOVA) F-test with dependent variable 'difference in visual acuity', fixed factors 'treatment' and 'centre' and Baseline value as a covariate was used.|"The primary goal of the study was to test the following null hypothesis:~H0: μAlprostadil ≤ μPlacebo, against the alternative hypothesis H1: μAlprostadil \> μPlacebo, where μ denotes the mean differences in visual acuity between measurements at 3 months after the end of study drug infusion minus measurements at baseline as assessed as line difference on the standard ETDRS charts."||2.55|-0.674|0.1220
90980391|NCT03417440|181844554|SUPERIORITY||Estimated mean change|-898.0||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2884.82|1088.82||A single model was run including variables indicating Proof Positive (yes/no), Coach Me (yes/no), and On Your Feet (yes/no) and their interaction terms.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The original mixed effects regression model effects consisted of three treatment main effects, three two-way treatment interactions, and one three-way treatment interaction. Values are unadjusted.||1088.82|-2884.82|.37
90980392|NCT03417440|181844554|SUPERIORITY||Estimated mean change|-2602.1||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4687.44|-516.69||A single model was run including variables indicating Proof Positive (yes/no), Coach Me (yes/no), and On Your Feet (yes/no) and their interaction terms.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The original mixed effects regression model effects consisted of three treatment main effects, three two-way treatment interactions, and one three-way treatment interaction. Values are unadjusted.||-516.69|-4687.44|.02
91078015|NCT02542293|182041274|OTHER|The study was not designed or powered to show statistical significance for efficacy endpoints in the China cohort, so all statistical analyses for the China cohort were considered exploratory.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.655|1.362|||||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for PD-L1 status (≥ 25% Vs \< 25%) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"FAS:~China: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs China: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy to be associated with a longer PFS than SoC."||1.362|0.655|
90980393|NCT03417440|181844554|SUPERIORITY||Estimated mean change|-1244.9||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3287.6|797.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The original mixed effects regression model effects consisted of three treatment main effects, three two-way treatment interactions, and one three-way treatment interaction. Values are unadjusted.||797.85|-3287.60|.23
90980394|NCT03417440|181844554|SUPERIORITY||Estimated mean change|1468.5||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1368.93|4306.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The original mixed effects regression model effects consisted of three treatment main effects, three two-way treatment interactions, and one three-way treatment interaction. Values are unadjusted.||4306.02|-1368.93|0.31
90980395|NCT03417440|181844554|SUPERIORITY||Estimated mean change|388.1||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2397.51|3173.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The original mixed effects regression model effects consisted of three treatment main effects, three two-way treatment interactions, and one three-way treatment interaction. Values are unadjusted.||3173.62|-2397.51|0.78
90980396|NCT03417440|181844554|SUPERIORITY||Estimated mean change|1991.2||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-865.52|4847.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The original mixed effects regression model effects consisted of three treatment main effects, three two-way treatment interactions, and one three-way treatment interaction. Values are unadjusted.||4847.86|-865.52|0.17
90980397|NCT03417440|181844554|SUPERIORITY||Estimated mean change|-590.7||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4591.17|3409.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The original mixed effects regression model effects consisted of three treatment main effects, three two-way treatment interactions, and one three-way treatment interaction. Values are unadjusted.||3409.75|-4591.17|0.77
90949110|NCT02209181|181777594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|1.49||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.49|0.06|0.035
90949111|NCT02209181|181777594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|2.67||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||2.67|1.21|<0.001
90949112|NCT02209181|181777594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.68|-2.24||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||-2.24|-3.68|<0.001
90949113|NCT02209181|181777594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|-1.07||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||-1.07|-2.52|<0.001
90949114|NCT02209181|181777595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.21|4.77||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||4.77|3.21|<0.001
90949115|NCT02209181|181777595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.64||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.64|0.09|0.028
90949116|NCT02209181|181777595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|3.26||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||3.26|1.70|<0.001
90949117|NCT02209181|181777595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|-2.35||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||-2.35|-3.90|<0.001
90949118|NCT02209181|181777595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|-0.73||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||-0.73|-2.29|<0.001
90949119|NCT02209181|181777596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.92|4.65||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||4.65|2.92|<0.001
90949120|NCT02209181|181777596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.88||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.88|0.16|0.021
90949121|NCT02209181|181777596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.19|3.93||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||3.93|2.19|<0.001
90949122|NCT02209181|181777596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.63|-1.91||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||-1.91|-3.63|<0.001
90949123|NCT02209181|181777596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|0.15||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.15|-1.59|0.104
90949124|NCT02209181|181777597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.18|4.07||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||4.07|2.18|<0.001
91039029|NCT00112437|181962054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|-33.67|||<=|0.001||95.0|-51.44|-15.91||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance.|Difference in Least Square Means (back-transformation of difference in log-fraction from baseline)|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone resorption (u-NTx) compared to placebo over 24 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will decrease biochemical indices of bone resorption (u-NTx) over 24 months.||-15.91|-51.44|<=0.001
91039030|NCT00112437|181962054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|-35.94|||<=|0.001||95.0|-54.15|-17.74||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance.|Difference in Least Square Means (back-transformation of difference in log-fraction from baseline)|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone resorption (u-NTx) compared to placebo over 24 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will decrease biochemical indices of bone resorption (u-NTx) over 24 months.||-17.74|-54.15|<=0.001
90949125|NCT02209181|181777597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|1.92||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.92|0.04|0.041
90949126|NCT02209181|181777597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.19|4.09||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||4.09|2.19|<0.001
90949127|NCT02209181|181777597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|-1.21||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||-1.21|-3.09|<0.001
90949128|NCT02209181|181777597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.97||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.97|-0.93|0.973
90949129|NCT02209181|181777598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.87|3.87||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||3.87|1.87|<0.001
90949130|NCT02209181|181777598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.88||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.88|-0.10|0.079
90949131|NCT02209181|181777598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.27|4.27||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||4.27|2.27|<0.001
90949132|NCT02209181|181777598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.98|-1.0||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||-1.00|-2.98|<0.001
90949133|NCT02209181|181777598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|1.4||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.40|-0.61|0.440
90949134|NCT02209181|181777599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|3.57||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||3.57|1.52|<0.001
90949135|NCT02209181|181777599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|1.83||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.83|-0.21|0.118
90949136|NCT02209181|181777599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|4.16||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||4.16|2.10|<0.001
90980398|NCT03417440|181844555|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-23.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|118.7||0.17|ONE_SIDED|90.0||8.3||a priori threshold for statistical significance=0.1 for 1-sided t-test; no adjustments for multiple comparisons made; if the outcome is not in the hypothesized direction, values that meet or exceed the 0.1 threshold will not be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||||8.3||0.17
90980399|NCT03417440|181844555|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|37.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|117.8||0.94|ONE_SIDED|90.0||68.8||a priori threshold for statistical significance=0.1 for 1-sided t-test; no adjustments for multiple comparisons made; if the outcome is not in the hypothesized direction, values that meet or exceed the 0.1 threshold will not be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||||68.8||0.94
90980400|NCT03417440|181844555|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|52.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|116.4||0.99|ONE_SIDED|90.0||82.7||a priori threshold for statistical significance=0.1 for 1-sided t-test; no adjustments for multiple comparisons made; if the outcome is not in the hypothesized direction, values that meet or exceed the 0.1 threshold will not be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||||82.7||0.99
90980401|NCT03417440|181844556|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|51.0||0.47|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-12.5|||a priori threshold for statistical significance=0.1 for 1-sided t-test; no adjustments for multiple comparisons made; if the outcome is not in the hypothesized direction, values that meet or exceed the 0.1 threshold will not be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided||||||-12.5|0.47
90980402|NCT03417440|181844556|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|51.0||0.315|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-8.3|||a priori threshold for statistical significance=0.1 for 1-sided t-test; no adjustments for multiple comparisons made; if the outcome is not in the hypothesized direction, values that meet or exceed the 0.1 threshold will not be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided||||||-8.3|0.315
90949137|NCT02209181|181777599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.75|-0.71||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||-0.71|-2.75|<0.001
90980403|NCT03417440|181844556|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|51.0||0.355|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-9.4|||a priori threshold for statistical significance=0.1 for 1-sided t-test; no adjustments for multiple comparisons made; if the outcome is not in the hypothesized direction, values that meet or exceed the 0.1 threshold will not be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided||||||-9.4|0.355
90980404|NCT03417440|181844557|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.0||0.86|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-1.3|||a priori threshold for statistical significance=0.1 for 1-sided t-test; no adjustments for multiple comparisons made; if the outcome is not in the hypothesized direction, values that meet or exceed the 0.1 threshold will not be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided||||||-1.3|0.86
91078016|NCT02542293|182041274|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.621|1.024|||||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for smoking status (never smoker Vs ever smoker) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"PD-L1 TC ≥25% analysis set:~Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy to be associated with a longer PFS than SoC."||1.024|0.621|
90949138|NCT02209181|181777599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|1.62||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.62|-0.44|0.262
90980405|NCT03417440|181844557|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.0||0.38|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|||a priori threshold for statistical significance=0.1 for 1-sided t-test; no adjustments for multiple comparisons made; if the outcome is not in the hypothesized direction, values that meet or exceed the 0.1 threshold will not be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided||||||-0.6|0.38
91078017|NCT02542293|182041274|OTHER|The study was not designed or powered to show statistical significance for efficacy endpoints in the China cohort, so all statistical analyses for the China cohort were considered exploratory.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.389|1.317|||||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"PD-L1 TC ≥ 25% analysis set:~China: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs China: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy to be associated with a longer PFS than SoC."||1.317|0.389|
90949139|NCT02209181|181777600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.96||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||2.96|0.88|<0.001
90980406|NCT03417440|181844557|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.0||0.66|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-1.1|||a priori threshold for statistical significance=0.1 for 1-sided t-test; no adjustments for multiple comparisons made; if the outcome is not in the hypothesized direction, values that meet or exceed the 0.1 threshold will not be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided||||||-1.1|0.66
90980407|NCT03417440|181844558|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.2||0.69|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-6.9|||a priori threshold for statistical significance=0.1 for 1-sided t-test; no adjustments for multiple comparisons made; if the outcome is not in the hypothesized direction, values that meet or exceed the 0.1 threshold will not be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided||||||-6.9|0.69
90980408|NCT03417440|181844558|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.2||0.6|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-6.0|||a priori threshold for statistical significance=0.1 for 1-sided t-test; no adjustments for multiple comparisons made; if the outcome is not in the hypothesized direction, values that meet or exceed the 0.1 threshold will not be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided||||||-6.0|0.60
90980409|NCT03417440|181844558|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.0||0.11|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|||a priori threshold for statistical significance=0.1 for 1-sided t-test; no adjustments for multiple comparisons made; if the outcome is not in the hypothesized direction, values that meet or exceed the 0.1 threshold will not be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided||||||-0.2|0.11
90980410|NCT03417440|181844559|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.0||0.94|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|||a priori threshold for statistical significance=0.1 for 1-sided t-test; no adjustments for multiple comparisons made; if the outcome is not in the hypothesized direction, values that meet or exceed the 0.1 threshold will not be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided||||||-0.7|0.94
90980411|NCT03417440|181844559|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.1||0.73|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|||a priori threshold for statistical significance=0.1 for 1-sided t-test; no adjustments for multiple comparisons made; if the outcome is not in the hypothesized direction, values that meet or exceed the 0.1 threshold will not be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided||||||-0.4|0.73
90980412|NCT03417440|181844559|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.1||0.22|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|||a priori threshold for statistical significance=0.1 for 1-sided t-test; no adjustments for multiple comparisons made; if the outcome is not in the hypothesized direction, values that meet or exceed the 0.1 threshold will not be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided||||||-0.1|0.22
90980413|NCT03417440|181844560|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.3||0.46|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|||a priori threshold for statistical significance=0.1 for 1-sided t-test; no adjustments for multiple comparisons made; if the outcome is not in the hypothesized direction, values that meet or exceed the 0.1 threshold will not be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided||||||-0.3|0.46
91039031|NCT00112437|181962054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|17.51||||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.78|41.8||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handle by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance.|Difference in Least Square Means (back-transformation of difference in log-fraction from baseline)|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone resorption (u-NTx) compared to placebo over 24 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will decrease biochemical indices of bone resorption (u-NTx) over 24 months.||41.80|-6.78|0.101
90980414|NCT03417440|181844560|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.2||0.96|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|||a priori threshold for statistical significance=0.1 for 1-sided t-test; no adjustments for multiple comparisons made; if the outcome is not in the hypothesized direction, values that meet or exceed the 0.1 threshold will not be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided||||||-0.7|0.96
90949140|NCT02209181|181777600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|1.61||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.61|-0.45|0.271
90949141|NCT02209181|181777600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.91|3.99||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||3.99|1.91|<0.001
90980415|NCT03417440|181844560|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.3||0.495|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|||a priori threshold for statistical significance=0.1 for 1-sided t-test; no adjustments for multiple comparisons made; if the outcome is not in the hypothesized direction, values that meet or exceed the 0.1 threshold will not be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided||||||-0.3|0.495
90980416|NCT03417440|181844561|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.5||0.445|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-1.1|||a priori threshold for statistical significance=0.1 for 1-sided t-test; no adjustments for multiple comparisons made; if the outcome is not in the hypothesized direction, values that meet or exceed the 0.1 threshold will not be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided||||||-1.1|0.445
90980417|NCT03417440|181844561|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.4||0.92|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-2.5|||a priori threshold for statistical significance=0.1 for 1-sided t-test; no adjustments for multiple comparisons made; if the outcome is not in the hypothesized direction, values that meet or exceed the 0.1 threshold will not be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided||||||-2.5|0.92
90980418|NCT03417440|181844561|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.5||0.23|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|||a priori threshold for statistical significance=0.1 for 1-sided t-test; no adjustments for multiple comparisons made; if the outcome is not in the hypothesized direction, values that meet or exceed the 0.1 threshold will not be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided||||||-0.5|0.23
90980419|NCT03417440|181844562|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.1||0.78|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|||a priori threshold for statistical significance=0.1 for 1-sided t-test; no adjustments for multiple comparisons made; if the outcome is not in the hypothesized direction, values that meet or exceed the 0.1 threshold will not be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided||||||-0.5|0.78
90980420|NCT03417440|181844562|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.1||0.98|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|||a priori threshold for statistical significance=0.1 for 1-sided t-test; no adjustments for multiple comparisons made; if the outcome is not in the hypothesized direction, values that meet or exceed the 0.1 threshold will not be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided||||||-0.7|0.98
90980421|NCT03417440|181844562|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.1||0.13|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|||a priori threshold for statistical significance=0.1 for 1-sided t-test; no adjustments for multiple comparisons made; if the outcome is not in the hypothesized direction, values that meet or exceed the 0.1 threshold will not be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided||||||-0.1|0.13
90980422|NCT03417440|181844563|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.3||0.285|ONE_SIDED|90.0||0.6||a priori threshold for statistical significance=0.1 for 1-sided t-test; no adjustments for multiple comparisons made; if the outcome is not in the hypothesized direction, values that meet or exceed the 0.1 threshold will not be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||||0.6||0.285
90980423|NCT03417440|181844563|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.3||0.5|ONE_SIDED|90.0||1.1||a priori threshold for statistical significance=0.1 for 1-sided t-test; no adjustments for multiple comparisons made; if the outcome is not in the hypothesized direction, values that meet or exceed the 0.1 threshold will not be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||||1.1||0.50
90980424|NCT03417440|181844563|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.3||0.92|ONE_SIDED|90.0||2.3||a priori threshold for statistical significance=0.1 for 1-sided t-test; no adjustments for multiple comparisons made; if the outcome is not in the hypothesized direction, values that meet or exceed the 0.1 threshold will not be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||||2.3||0.92
90980425|NCT03417440|181844564|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.2||0.42|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-0.9|||a priori threshold for statistical significance=0.1 for 1-sided t-test; no adjustments for multiple comparisons made; if the outcome is not in the hypothesized direction, values that meet or exceed the 0.1 threshold will not be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided||||||-0.9|0.42
90980426|NCT03417440|181844564|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.2||0.82|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-1.9|||a priori threshold for statistical significance=0.1 for 1-sided t-test; no adjustments for multiple comparisons made; if the outcome is not in the hypothesized direction, values that meet or exceed the 0.1 threshold will not be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided||||||-1.9|0.82
90980427|NCT03417440|181844564|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.2||0.58|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-1.2|||a priori threshold for statistical significance=0.1 for 1-sided t-test; no adjustments for multiple comparisons made; if the outcome is not in the hypothesized direction, values that meet or exceed the 0.1 threshold will not be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided||||||-1.2|0.58
90980428|NCT03417440|181844565|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.0||0.45|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-0.9|||a priori threshold for statistical significance=0.1 for 1-sided t-test; no adjustments for multiple comparisons made; if the outcome is not in the hypothesized direction, values that meet or exceed the 0.1 threshold will not be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided||||||-0.9|0.45
91039032|NCT00112437|181962055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|-63.34|||<=|0.001||95.0|-88.32|-38.36||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance.|Difference in Least Square Means (back-transformation of difference in log-fraction from baseline).|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone resorption (s-CTx) compared to placebo over 24 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will decrease biochemical indices of bone resorption (s-CTx) over 24 months.||-38.36|-88.32|<=0.001
91078018|NCT02542293|182041274|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.542|1.01|||||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for smoking status (never smoker Vs ever smoker) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"PD-L1 TC ≥50% analysis set:~Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy to be associated with a longer PFS than SoC."||1.010|0.542|
90949142|NCT02209181|181777600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.37|-0.32||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||-0.32|-2.37|0.011
90949143|NCT02209181|181777600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|2.07||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||2.07|-0.01|0.052
90949144|NCT02209181|181777601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|2.29||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||2.29|0.21|0.018
90949145|NCT02209181|181777601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.56||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.56|-0.50|0.310
90949146|NCT02209181|181777601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.76|3.85||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||3.85|1.76|<0.001
90949147|NCT02209181|181777601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|0.31||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.31|-1.75|0.172
90949148|NCT02209181|181777601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|2.6||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||2.60|0.51|0.004
90949149|NCT02209181|181777602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|1.84||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.84|-0.17|0.102
90949150|NCT02209181|181777602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|1.35||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.35|-0.64|0.479
90949151|NCT02209181|181777602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.85|3.86||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||3.86|1.85|<0.001
90949152|NCT02209181|181777602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|0.52||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.52|-1.47|0.345
90949153|NCT02209181|181777602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|3.02||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||3.02|1.01|<0.001
90949154|NCT02209181|181777603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|1.51||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.51|-0.52|0.338
90949155|NCT02209181|181777603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|1.54||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.54|-0.47|0.299
90980429|NCT03417440|181844565|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.9||0.49|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|||a priori threshold for statistical significance=0.1 for 1-sided t-test; no adjustments for multiple comparisons made; if the outcome is not in the hypothesized direction, values that meet or exceed the 0.1 threshold will not be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided||||||-1.0|0.49
90980430|NCT03417440|181844565|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.9||0.61|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-1.2|||a priori threshold for statistical significance=0.1 for 1-sided t-test; no adjustments for multiple comparisons made; if the outcome is not in the hypothesized direction, values that meet or exceed the 0.1 threshold will not be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided||||||-1.2|0.61
90980431|NCT03417440|181844566|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.84
90980432|NCT03417440|181844566|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.96
90980433|NCT03417440|181844566|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.41
90980434|NCT03417440|181844567|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.13
90980435|NCT03417440|181844567|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.20
90980436|NCT03417440|181844567|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.39
90980437|NCT03417440|181844568|OTHER||Spearman Correlation|-0.10435||||0.3116|TWO_SIDED||||||t distribution with n-2 degrees of freed|||Correlation between Self-efficacy for Physical Activity change and Daily Steps change across 4 months.||||0.3116
90980438|NCT03417440|181844568|OTHER||Spearman Correlation|0.17742||||0.0838|TWO_SIDED||||||t distribution with n-2 degrees of freed|||Correlation between Correlation between Self-regulation of Physical Activity change and Daily Steps change across 4 months.||||0.0838
90980439|NCT03417440|181844568|OTHER||Spearman Correlation|-0.09834||||0.351|TWO_SIDED||||||t distribution with n-2 degrees of freed|||Correlation between Family Social Support for Physical Activity change and Daily Steps change across 4 months.||||0.3510
91078454|NCT03003000|182042838|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.68||||0.0864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.437|1.057||No adjustment for multiplicity issues was made for this comparison. The level of significance was 0.05.|likelihood-ratio test|The likelihood-ratio test was used to test treatment differences for patients with a decrease of ≥50%.|An odds ratio \>1 indicates better efficacy for ibuprofen and caffeine than for the comparator||Results are based on the Logistic regression. Logistic regression model was adjusted for the categorical covariates country and worst procedure site.|1.057|0.437|0.0864
90980440|NCT03417440|181844568|OTHER||Spearman Correlation|-0.04562||||0.6659|TWO_SIDED||||||t distribution with n-2 degrees of freed|||Correlation between Outcome Expectation for Physical Activity change and Daily Steps change across 4 months.||||0.6659
90980441|NCT03417440|181844568|OTHER||Spearman Correlation|-0.04831||||0.6402|TWO_SIDED||||||t distribution with n-2 degrees of freed|||Correlation between Aging Self-perceptions (Attitude Toward Own Aging) change and Daily Steps change across 4 months.||||0.6402
90980442|NCT03417440|181844568|OTHER||Spearman Correlation|0.13128||||0.2048|TWO_SIDED||||||t distribution with n-2 degrees of freed|||Correlation between Views of Aging--Psychosocial Loss change and Daily Steps change across 4 months.||||0.2048
90980443|NCT03417440|181844568|OTHER||Spearman Correlation|0.10022||||0.3445|TWO_SIDED||||||t distribution with n-2 degrees of freed|||Correlation between Views of Aging--Physical Change change and Daily Steps change across 4 months.||||0.3445
90980444|NCT03417440|181844568|OTHER||Spearman Correlation|-0.00866||||0.934|TWO_SIDED||||||t distribution with n-2 degrees of freed|||Correlation between Views of Aging--Psychological Growth change and Daily Steps change across 4 months.||||0.9340
90980445|NCT01773473|181844608|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Analyses were based on a pre-defined non-inferiority margin of 0.4%.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.35||||||||0.35|-0.01|
90980446|NCT00826514|181844615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.392|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|0.209||||||Analysis was based on analysis of co-variance (ANCOVA) model with baseline value, age and treatment as covariates.||0.209|-1.150|
90980447|NCT00826514|181844618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-1.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.901|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.754|1.905||||||Change at Week 6, CPSI Total Score: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with baseline value, age, baseline pain stratification group and treatment as covariates.||1.905|-4.754|
90980448|NCT00826514|181844618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.931|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.701|0.591||||||Change at Week 6, CPSI PD Score: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with baseline value, age, baseline pain stratification group and treatment as covariates.||0.591|-2.701|
90980449|NCT00826514|181844618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.789|1.541||||||Change at Week 6, CPSI US Score: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with baseline value, age, baseline pain stratification group and treatment as covariates.||1.541|-0.789|
90980450|NCT00826514|181844618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.697|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.785|0.631||||||Change at Week 6, CPSI QoL Score: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with baseline value, age, baseline pain stratification group and treatment as covariates.||0.631|-1.785|
90980451|NCT00826514|181844619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.649|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.99|1.348||||||Change at Week 6: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with baseline value, age, baseline pain stratification group and treatment as covariates.||1.348|-0.990|
90980452|NCT00826514|181844620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.829|1.452||||||Change at Week 6: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with baseline value, age, baseline pain stratification group and treatment as covariates.||1.452|-1.829|
91078455|NCT03003000|182042839|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9384||||||No adjustment for multiplicity issues was made for this comparison. The level of significance was 0.05.|Log Rank|p-value based on a stratified log-rank test||||||0.9384
91078456|NCT03003000|182042839|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3534||||||No adjustment for multiplicity issues was made for this comparison. The level of significance was 0.05.|Log Rank|p-value based on a stratified log-rank test||||||0.3534
91078457|NCT05821296|182042870|OTHER|Change of sum of total lesions at the end of the study from baseline/Day 0 to evaluate the efficacy and clinical performance of Crystal Peel for the treatment of acne.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.31|-11.84|||ANCOVA|||||-11.84|-17.31|<0.0001
91078458|NCT05821296|182042871|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.85|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.87|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|2.16||||||||2.16|1.54|
90949156|NCT02209181|181777603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|3.73||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||3.73|1.70|<0.001
90980453|NCT00826514|181844621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-33.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.026|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-64.144|-2.968||||||Change at Week 6: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with baseline value, age, baseline pain stratification group and treatment as covariates.||-2.968|-64.144|
90980454|NCT00826514|181844622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.489|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.364|0.415||||||Change at Week 6: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with baseline value, age, baseline pain stratification group and treatment as covariates.||0.415|-1.364|
90980455|NCT00826514|181844623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-1.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.146|0.401||||||Change at Week 6: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with baseline value, age, baseline pain stratification group and treatment as covariates.||0.401|-3.146|
90980456|NCT00826514|181844624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.217|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.417|0.334||||||Change at Week 6: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with baseline value, age, baseline pain stratification group and treatment as covariates.||0.334|-0.417|
90980457|NCT00826514|181844625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.765|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.791|1.822||||||Change at Week 6: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with baseline value, age, baseline pain stratification group and treatment as covariates.||1.822|-1.791|
90980458|NCT00826514|181844626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.833|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.763|4.407||||||Week 6: Logistic regression model with age, baseline pain stratification group and treatment as covariates.||4.407|0.763|
90980459|NCT00826514|181844626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.388|2.575||||||Week 16: Logistic regression model with age, baseline pain stratification group and treatment as covariates.||2.575|0.388|
90949157|NCT02209181|181777603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|1.04||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.04|-0.97|0.942
90949158|NCT02209181|181777603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|3.24||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||3.24|1.21|<0.001
90949159|NCT02209181|181777604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|1.53||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.53|-0.48|0.306
90949160|NCT02209181|181777604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|1.49||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.49|-0.51|0.335
90980460|NCT02620020|181844658|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.3876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.34||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.34|-0.88|0.3876
90980461|NCT02620020|181844658|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|-0.12||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.12|-1.32|0.0180
90980462|NCT02620020|181844658|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.0288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|-0.07||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.07|-1.26|0.0288
90980463|NCT02620020|181844660|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.65|-0.77||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.77|-3.65|0.0028
90980464|NCT02620020|181844660|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.0068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.36|-0.54||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.54|-3.36|0.0068
90980465|NCT02620020|181844660|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.88|-1.06||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.06|-3.88|0.0006
90980466|NCT02620020|181844661|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.1501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.07||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.07|-0.46|0.1501
90980467|NCT02620020|181844661|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.2603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.11||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.11|-0.41|0.2603
90980468|NCT02620020|181844661|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.07||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.07|-0.59|0.0135
90980469|NCT02203149|181844674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|10.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen Method|||95% confidence intervals were provided for between-treatment differences in the percentage of participants with events, comparing participants in the Part 2 Immediate Treatment (Grazoprevir + Elbasvir) Arm with the Part 2 Deferred Treatment (Placebo) Arm during the double blinded period through FUWK4. These analyses were performed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method, an unconditional, asymptotic method.||10.0|-14.5|
90980470|NCT02203149|181844675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|2.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen Method|||95% confidence intervals were provided for between-treatment differences in the percentage of participants with events, comparing participants in the Part 2 Immediate Treatment (Grazoprevir + Elbasvir) Arm with the Part 2 Deferred Treatment (Placebo) Arm during the double blinded period through FUWK4. These analyses were performed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method, an unconditional, asymptotic method.||2.8|-6.0|
91078459|NCT05821296|182042872|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.82|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.07|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|2.2||||||||2.20|1.44|
91078460|NCT05821296|182042873|OTHER||Mean value in local tolerance score|2.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.65|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.98|2.44||||||||2.44|1.98|
90949161|NCT02209181|181777604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|3.8||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||3.80|1.78|<0.001
90949162|NCT02209181|181777604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|0.97||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.97|-1.03|0.946
90949163|NCT02209181|181777604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|3.28||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||3.28|1.25|<0.001
90949164|NCT02209181|181777605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|1.56||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.56|-0.45|0.279
90949165|NCT02209181|181777605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|1.53||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.53|-0.46|0.292
90949166|NCT02209181|181777605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|3.68||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||3.68|1.66|<0.001
90949167|NCT02209181|181777605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|0.98||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.98|-1.02|0.971
90949168|NCT02209181|181777605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|3.12||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||3.12|1.11|<0.001
90949169|NCT02209181|181777606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.5||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.50|-0.50|0.329
91078019|NCT02542293|182041274|OTHER|The study was not designed or powered to show statistical significance for efficacy endpoints in the China cohort, so all statistical analyses for the China cohort were considered exploratory.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.335|1.251|||||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"PD-L1 TC ≥50% analysis set:~China: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs China: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy to be associated with a longer PFS than SoC."||1.251|0.335|
90949170|NCT02209181|181777606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|1.31||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.31|-0.68|0.531
90949171|NCT02209181|181777606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|3.54||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||3.54|1.53|<0.001
90949172|NCT02209181|181777606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|0.81||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.81|-1.17|0.722
90949173|NCT02209181|181777606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|3.04||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||3.04|1.03|<0.001
90949174|NCT02209181|181777607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|1.42||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.42|-0.54|0.380
91078020|NCT02542293|182041275|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.236|1.03||||||"bTMB ≥20 mut/Mb analysis set: Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~An odds ratio \>1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy over SoC."||1.030|0.236|
91078021|NCT02542293|182041275|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.288|0.968||||||"bTMB ≥16 mut/Mb analysis set: Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~An odds ratio \>1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy over SoC."||0.968|0.288|
91078022|NCT02542293|182041275|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.336|0.908||||||"bTMB ≥12 mut/Mb analysis set: Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~An odds ratio \>1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy over SoC."||0.908|0.336|
91078023|NCT02542293|182041275|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.752|5.234||||||"tTMB ≥14 mut/Mb analysis set: Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~An odds ratio \>1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy over SoC."||5.234|0.752|
90980471|NCT02537678|181844681|NON_INFERIORITY|We planned 0.41 standard deviation (SD) as the non-inferiority margin (which is less than half of the effect size) for the one-side testing. Non-inferiority analysis with alpha 2.5% was applied at post assessment.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.43||0.006|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-3.26||||t-test, 1 sided|||Based on the actual randomization of 183 participants (SC-TF-CBT=91; standard TF-CBT=92), we had more than 80% power to show that SC-TF-CBT is at least as effective as standard TF-CBT with alpha of .05 and a non-inferior margin of 0.41 SD units.|Treatment difference = standard Trauma Focused -CBT - stepped care Trauma Focused-CBT||-3.26|.006
90980472|NCT02537678|181844682|NON_INFERIORITY|We planned 0.41 standard deviation (SD) as the non-inferiority margin (which is less than half of the effect size) for the one-side testing. Non-inferiority analysis with alpha 2.5% was applied at 6-month assessment.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.49||0.004|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-3.47||||t-test, 1 sided|||Based on the actual randomization of 183 participants (SC-TF-CBT=91; standard TF-CBT=92), we had more than 80% power to show that SC-TF-CBT is at least as effective as standard TF-CBT with alpha of .05 and a non-inferior margin of 0.41 SD units.|Treatment difference = standard Trauma Focused -CBT - stepped care Trauma Focused-CBT||-3.47|.004
90980473|NCT02537678|181844683|NON_INFERIORITY|We planned 0.41standard deviation as the non-inferiority margin (which is less than half of the effect size) for the one-side testing. Non-inferiority analysis with alpha 2.5% was applied 12-month assessment.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-2.5||||t-test, 1 sided|||Based on the actual randomization of 183 participants (SC-TF-CBT=91; standard TF-CBT=92), we had more than 80% power to show that SC-TF-CBT is at least as effective as standard TF-CBT with alpha of .05 and a non-inferior margin of 0.41 standard deviation units.|Treatment difference = standard TF-CBT - stepped care TF-CBT||-2.50|.001
90980474|NCT02537678|181844684|NON_INFERIORITY|We planned 0.41 standard deviation as the non-inferiority margin (which is less than half of the effect size) for the one-side testing. Non-inferiority analysis with alpha 2.5% was applied at post assessment.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.89|<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-2.94||||t-test, 1 sided|||Based on the actual randomization of 183 participants (SC-TF-CBT=91; standard TF-CBT=92), we had more than 80% power to show that SC-TF-CBT is at least as effective as standard TF-CBT with alpha of .05 and a non-inferior margin of 0.41 standard deviation units.|Treatment difference = standard TF-CBT - stepped care TF-CBT||-2.94|<0.001
90980475|NCT02537678|181844685|NON_INFERIORITY|We planned 0.41 standard deviation as the non-inferiority margin (which is less than half of the effect size) for the one-side testing. Non-inferiority analysis with alpha 2.5% was applied at 6-month assessment.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.25||0.044|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-6.33||||t-test, 1 sided|||Based on the actual randomization of 183 participants (SC-TF-CBT=91; standard TF-CBT=92), we had more than 80% power to show that SC-TF-CBT is at least as effective as standard TF-CBT with alpha of .05 and a non-inferior margin of 0.41 standard deviation units.|Treatment difference = standard TF-CBT - stepped care TF-CBT||-6.33|.044
90980476|NCT02537678|181844686|NON_INFERIORITY|We planned 0.41 standard deviation as the non-inferiority margin (which is less than half of the effect size) for the one-side testing. Non-inferiority analysis with alpha 2.5% was applied at 12-month assessment.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.75||0.002|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-3.07||||t-test, 1 sided|||Based on the actual randomization of 183 participants (SC-TF-CBT=91; standard TF-CBT=92), we had more than 80% power to show that SC-TF-CBT is at least as effective as standard TF-CBT with alpha of .05 and a non-inferior margin of 0.41 standard deviation units.|Treatment difference = standard TF-CBT - stepped care TF-CBT||-3.07|0.002
90980477|NCT02537678|181844687|NON_INFERIORITY|We planned 0.41 standard deviation (SD) as the non-inferiority margin (which is less than half of the effect size) for the one-side testing. Non-inferiority analysis with alpha 2.5% was applied at post assessment.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52||0.016|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-4.06||||t-test, 1 sided||||Treatment difference = standard TF-CBT - stepped care TF-CBT||-4.06|0.016
90980478|NCT02537678|181844688|NON_INFERIORITY|We planned 0.41 standard deviation as the non-inferiority margin (which is less than half of the effect size) for the one-side testing. Non-inferiority analysis with alpha 2.5% was applied at 6-month assessment.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.77||0.003|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-3.72||||t-test, 1 sided|||Based on the actual randomization of 183 participants (SC-TF-CBT=91; standard TF-CBT=92), we had more than 80% power to show that SC-TF-CBT is at least as effective as standard TF-CBT with alpha of .05 and a non-inferior margin of 0.41 standard deviation units.|Treatment difference = standard TF-CBT - stepped care TF-CBT||-3.72|0.003
90980479|NCT02537678|181844689|NON_INFERIORITY|We planned 0.41 standard deviation the non-inferiority margin (which is less than half of the effect size) for the one-side testing. Non-inferiority analysis with alpha 2.5% was applied at 12-month assessment.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.89||0.007|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-3.89||||t-test, 1 sided||||Treatment difference = standard TF-CBT - stepped care TF-CBT||-3.89|0.007
90980480|NCT02537678|181844690|NON_INFERIORITY|We planned 0.41 standard deviation as the non-inferiority margin (which is less than half of the effect size) for the one-side testing. Non-inferiority analysis with alpha 2.5% was applied at post assessment.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.64||0.008|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-4.24||||t-test, 1 sided||||Treatment difference = standard TF-CBT - stepped care TF-CBT||-4.24|0.008
90980481|NCT02537678|181844691|NON_INFERIORITY|We planned 0.41 standard deviation as the non-inferiority margin (which is less than half of the effect size) for the one-side testing. Non-inferiority analysis with alpha 2.5% was applied at 6-month assessment.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.78||0.015|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-4.88||||t-test, 1 sided||||Treatment difference = standard TF-CBT - stepped care TF-CBT||-4.88|0.015
90980482|NCT02537678|181844692|NON_INFERIORITY|We planned 0.41 standard deviation as the non-inferiority margin (which is less than half of the effect size) for the one-side testing. Non-inferiority analysis with alpha 2.5% was applied at 12-month assessment.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.99||0.024|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-5.68||||t-test, 1 sided||||Treatment difference = standard TF-CBT - stepped care TF-CBT||-5.68|0.024
90980483|NCT02537678|181844693|NON_INFERIORITY|We planned 0.41 standard deviation as the non-inferiority margin (which is less than half of the effect size) for the one-side testing. Non-inferiority analysis with alpha 2.5% was applied at post assessment.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-0.39||||t-test, 1 sided||||Treatment difference = standard TF-CBT - stepped care TF-CBT||-0.39|0.001
90980484|NCT02537678|181844694|NON_INFERIORITY|We planned 0.41 standard deviation as the non-inferiority margin (which is less than half of the effect size) for the one-side testing. Non-inferiority analysis with alpha 2.5% was applied at 6-month assessment.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.003|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-0.47||||t-test, 1 sided||||Treatment difference = standard TF-CBT - stepped care TF-CBT||-0.47|0.003
90980485|NCT02537678|181844695|NON_INFERIORITY|We planned 0.41 standard deviation as the non-inferiority margin (which is less than half of the effect size) for the one-side testing. Non-inferiority analysis with alpha 2.5% was applied at 12-month assessment.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-0.3||||t-test, 1 sided||||Treatment difference = standard TF-CBT - stepped care TF-CBT||-0.30|<0.001
90980486|NCT02537678|181844696|NON_INFERIORITY|We planned 0.41 standard deviation as the non-inferiority margin (which is less than half of the effect size) for the one-side testing. Non-inferiority analysis with alpha 2.5% was applied at post assessment.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-0.29||||t-test, 1 sided||||Treatment difference = standard TF-CBT - stepped care TF-CBT||-0.29|0.001
90980487|NCT02537678|181844697|NON_INFERIORITY|We planned 0.41 standard deviation as the non-inferiority margin (which is less than half of the effect size) for the one-side testing. Non-inferiority analysis with alpha 2.5% was applied at 6-month assessment.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.004|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-0.38||||t-test, 1 sided||||Treatment difference = standard TF-CBT - stepped care TF-CBT||-0.38|0.004
90980488|NCT02537678|181844698|NON_INFERIORITY|We planned 0.41 standard deviation as the non-inferiority margin (which is less than half of the effect size) for the one-side testing. Non-inferiority analysis with alpha 2.5% was applied at 12-month assessment.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-0.19||||t-test, 1 sided||||Treatment difference = standard TF-CBT - stepped care TF-CBT||-0.19|<0.001
91050518|NCT02037165|181987277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0801|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|5.2|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 0:30h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||5.2|-3.0|
90949175|NCT02209181|181777607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|1.12||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.12|-0.83|0.767
91039033|NCT00112437|181962055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-39.29|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.4|-13.18||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance.|Difference in Least Squares Means (back-transformation of difference in log-fraction from baseline).|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone resorption (s-CTx) compared to placebo over 24 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will decrease biochemical indices of bone resorption (s-CTx) over 24 months.||-13.18|-65.40|<=0.001
91078024|NCT02542293|182041275|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.482|2.214||||||"tTMB ≥12 mut/Mb analysis set: Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~An odds ratio \>1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy over SoC."||2.214|0.482|
90949176|NCT02209181|181777607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|3.49||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||3.49|1.52|<0.001
90949177|NCT02209181|181777607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|0.68||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.68|-1.27|0.557
90949178|NCT02209181|181777607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|3.05||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||3.05|1.08|<0.001
90949179|NCT02209181|181777608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|1.35||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.35|-0.83|0.640
90949180|NCT02209181|181777608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|1.22||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.22|-0.94|0.798
90949181|NCT02209181|181777608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|3.42||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||3.42|1.23|<0.001
90949182|NCT02209181|181777608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.96||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.96|-1.20|0.829
90949183|NCT02209181|181777608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|3.16||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||3.16|0.97|<0.001
90949184|NCT02209181|181777609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.57||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.57|-0.06|0.117
90949185|NCT02209181|181777609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.38||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.38|-0.25|0.687
90949186|NCT02209181|181777609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.43||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.43|-0.21|0.497
90949187|NCT02209181|181777609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.13||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.13|-0.51|0.239
90949188|NCT02209181|181777609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.18||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.18|-0.46|0.376
90949189|NCT02209181|181777610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|2.42||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||2.42|1.14|<0.001
90949190|NCT02209181|181777610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.94||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.94|-0.33|0.350
90949191|NCT02209181|181777610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|1.08||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.08|-0.21|0.183
90949192|NCT02209181|181777610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|-0.84||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||-0.84|-2.11|<0.001
90949193|NCT02209181|181777610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|-0.7||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||-0.70|-1.98|<0.001
90949194|NCT02209181|181777611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.94|4.61||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||4.61|2.94|<0.001
90949195|NCT02209181|181777611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|1.71||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.71|0.05|0.037
90949196|NCT02209181|181777611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.3||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||2.30|0.63|<0.001
90949197|NCT02209181|181777611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.73|-2.07||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||-2.07|-3.73|<0.001
90949198|NCT02209181|181777611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.15|-1.47||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||-1.47|-3.15|<0.001
90949199|NCT02209181|181777612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|4.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.43|5.25||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||5.25|3.43|<0.001
90949200|NCT02209181|181777612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|1.75||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.75|-0.06|0.067
90949201|NCT02209181|181777612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|3.17||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||3.17|1.34|<0.001
90949202|NCT02209181|181777612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|-2.59||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||-2.59|-4.40|<0.001
90980489|NCT02537678|181844699|NON_INFERIORITY|We planned 0.41 standard deviation as the non-inferiority margin (which is less than half of the effect size) for the one-side testing. Non-inferiority analysis with alpha 2.5% was applied at post assessment.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.47||0.005|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-3.33||||t-test, 1 sided||||Treatment difference = standard TF-CBT - stepped care TF-CBT||-3.33|0.005
90980490|NCT02537678|181844700|NON_INFERIORITY|We planned 0.41 standard deviation as the non-inferiority margin (which is less than half of the effect size) for the one-side testing. Non-inferiority analysis with alpha 2.5% was applied at 6-month assessment.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.78||0.028|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-4.99||||t-test, 1 sided||||Treatment difference = standard TF-CBT - stepped care TF-CBT||-4.99|0.028
91078025|NCT02542293|182041275|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.548||||||"tTMB ≥10 mut/Mb analysis set: Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~An odds ratio \>1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy over SoC."||1.548|0.430|
91078026|NCT02542293|182041275|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.456|1.486||||||"tTMB ≥8 mut/Mb analysis set: Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~An odds ratio \>1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy over SoC."||1.486|0.456|
91078461|NCT05821296|182042874|OTHER|Descriptive analysis of subjects' satisfaction questionnaire assessing the Crystal Peel in the treatment of acne.|% of patients with positive answers|79.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.0|89.0||||||||89|61|
90949203|NCT02209181|181777612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-1.17||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||-1.17|-3.00|<0.001
90980491|NCT02537678|181844701|NON_INFERIORITY|We planned 0.41 standard deviation as the non-inferiority margin (which is less than half of the effect size) for the one-side testing. Non-inferiority analysis with alpha 2.5% was applied at 12-month assessment.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.62||0.009|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-3.64||||t-test, 1 sided||||Treatment difference = standard TF-CBT - stepped care TF-CBT||-3.64|0.009
90980492|NCT02537678|181844702|NON_INFERIORITY|We planned 0.41 standard deviation as the non-inferiority margin (which is less than half of the effect size) for the one-side testing. Non-inferiority analysis with alpha 2.5% was applied at post assessment.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.006|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-2.82||||t-test, 1 sided||||Treatment difference = standard TF-CBT - stepped care TF-CBT||-2.82|0.006
90980493|NCT02537678|181844703|NON_INFERIORITY|We planned 0.41 standard deviation as the non-inferiority margin (which is less than half of the effect size) for the one-side testing. Non-inferiority analysis with alpha 2.5% was applied at 6-month assessment.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88||0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-2.31||||t-test, 1 sided||||Treatment difference = standard TF-CBT - stepped care TF-CBT||-2.31|0.001
91039034|NCT00112437|181962055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-23.98||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.04|5.09||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance.|Difference in Least Squares Means (back-transformation of difference in log-fraction from baseline).|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone resorption (s-CTx) compared to placebo over 24 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will decrease biochemical indices of bone resorption (s-CTx) over 24 months.||5.09|-53.04|0.124
91039035|NCT00112437|181962055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|22.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.38|56.73|||ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance.|Difference in Least Squares Means (back-transformation of difference in log-fraction from baseline).|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone resorption (s-CTx) compared to placebo over 24 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will decrease biochemical indices of bone resorption (s-CTx) over 24 months.||56.73|-12.38|
91078027|NCT02542293|182041276|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.245|0.869|||||The analysis was performed using logistic regression, adjusting for smoking status (never smoker Vs ever smoker) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with 95% CI calculated by profile likelihood.|"PD-L1-negative analysis set:~Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~An odds ratio \>1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy over SoC."||0.869|0.245|
90980494|NCT02537678|181844704|NON_INFERIORITY|We planned 0.41 standard deviation as the non-inferiority margin (which is less than half of the effect size) for the one-side testing. Non-inferiority analysis with alpha 2.5% was applied at 12-month assessment.|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83|<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-1.43||||t-test, 1 sided||||Treatment difference = standard TF-CBT - stepped care TF-CBT||-1.43|<0.001
90980495|NCT02537678|181844705|NON_INFERIORITY|For the non-inferiority margin for the PCL-5, the clinically significant change threshold is 10 points although adult PTSD trials have used -5 to -10 points. We used -8.8 as the margin which was based on an expert panel and prior studies with adults. Non-inferiority analysis with alpha 2.5% was applied at post assessment.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.16|<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-5.04||||t-test, 1 sided||||Treatment difference = standard TF-CBT - stepped care TF-CBT||-5.04|<0.001
91078028|NCT02542293|182041276|OTHER|The study was not designed or powered to show statistical significance for efficacy endpoints in the China cohort, so all statistical analyses for the China cohort were considered exploratory.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.124|1.337|||Binomial exact test|||"PD-L1-negative analysis set:~China: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs China: SoC Chemotherapy~An odds ratio \>1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy over SoC."||1.337|0.124|
91078029|NCT02542293|182041276|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.356|0.647|||||The analysis was performed using logistic regression adjusting for PD-L1 status (≥25% Vs \<25%), smoking status (never smoker Vs ever smoker) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with 95% CI calculated by profile likelihood.|"FAS:~Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~An odds ratio \>1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy over SoC."||0.647|0.356|
90980496|NCT02537678|181844706|NON_INFERIORITY|For the non-inferiority margin for the PCL-5, the clinically significant change threshold is 10 points although adult PTSD trials have used -5 to -10 points. We used -8.8 as the margin which was based on an expert panel and prior studies with adults. Non-inferiority analysis with alpha 2.5% was applied at 6-month assessment.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.27||0.003|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-6.87||||t-test, 1 sided||||Treatment difference = standard TF-CBT - stepped care TF-CBT||-6.87|0.003
90980497|NCT02537678|181844707|NON_INFERIORITY|For the non-inferiority margin for the PCL-5, the clinically significant change threshold is 10 points although adult PTSD trials have used -5 to -10 points. We used -8.8 as the margin which was based on an expert panel and prior studies with adults.Non-inferiority analysis with alpha 2.5% was applied at 12-month assessment.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.06|<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-5.8||||t-test, 1 sided||||Treatment difference = standard TF-CBT - stepped care TF-CBT||-5.80|<0.001
90980498|NCT00432809|181844737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.002
90980499|NCT00432809|181844737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.008
91078030|NCT02542293|182041276|OTHER|The study was not designed or powered to show statistical significance for efficacy endpoints in the China cohort, so all statistical analyses for the China cohort were considered exploratory.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.66|||||The analysis was performed using logistic regression, adjusting for PD-L1 status (\>= 25% Vs \< 25%), smoking status (never smoker Va ever smoker) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with 95% CI calculated by profile likelihood.|"FAS:~China: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs China: SoC Chemotherapy~An odds ratio \>1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy over SoC."||1.660|0.450|
91039036|NCT00112437|181962056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|-16.71||||0.015||95.0|-36.03|2.61||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through a stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance.|Difference in Least Square Means (back-transformation of difference in log-fraction from baseline).|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of MK0822 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone resorption (u-DPyr) compared to placebo over 24 months. The secondary hypothesis states that MK0822 will decrease biochemical indices of bone resorption (u-DPyr) over 24 months.||2.61|-36.03|0.015
91039037|NCT00112437|181962056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|-8.51||||0.246||95.0|-27.31|10.29||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through a stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance.|Difference in Least Square Means (back-transformation of difference in log-fraction from baseline).|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of MK0822 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone resorption (u-DPyr) compared to placebo over 24 months. The secondary hypothesis states that MK0822 will decrease biochemical indices of bone resorption (u-DPyr) over 24 months.||10.29|-27.31|0.246
91039038|NCT00112437|181962056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|-1.79||||||95.0|-22.66|19.08|||ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance.|Difference in Least Square Means (back-transformation of difference in log-fraction from baseline).|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of MK0822 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone resorption (u-DPyr) compared to placebo over 24 months. The secondary hypothesis states that MK0822 will decrease biochemical indices of bone resorption (u-DPyr) over 24 months.||19.08|-22.66|
91039039|NCT00112437|181962056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|21.74||||||95.0|-1.32|44.81|||ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance.|Difference in Least Square Means (back-transformation of difference in log-fraction from baseline).|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of MK0822 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone resorption (u-DPyr) compared to placebo over 24 months. The secondary hypothesis states that MK0822 will decrease biochemical indices of bone resorption (u-DPyr) over 24 months.||44.81|-1.32|
91078031|NCT02542293|182041276|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.443|1.079|||||The analysis was performed using logistic regression, adjusting for smoking status (never smoker Vs ever smoker) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with 95% CI calculated by profile likelihood.|"PD-L1 TC ≥25% analysis set:~Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~An odds ratio \>1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy over SoC."||1.079|0.443|
91078032|NCT02542293|182041276|OTHER|The study was not designed or powered to show statistical significance for efficacy endpoints in the China cohort, so all statistical analyses for the China cohort were considered exploratory.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.658|4.919|||||The analysis was performed using logistic regression, adjusting for PD-L1 status (\>= 25% Vs \< 25%), smoking status (never smoker Va ever smoker) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with 95% CI calculated by profile likelihood.|"PD-L1 TC ≥ 25% analysis set:~China: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs China: SoC Chemotherapy~An odds ratio \>1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy over SoC."||4.919|0.658|
91078033|NCT02542293|182041276|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.449|1.291|||||The analysis was performed using logistic regression, adjusting for smoking status (never smoker Vs ever smoker) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with 95% CI calculated by profile likelihood.|"PD-L1 TC ≥50% analysis set:~Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~An odds ratio \>1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy over SoC."||1.291|0.449|
91078462|NCT05821296|182042874|OTHER||% of patients with positive answers|94.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|80.0|98.0||||||Descriptive analysis of subjects' satisfaction questionnaire assessing the Crystal Peel in the treatment of acne.||98|80|
91078463|NCT05821296|182042874|OTHER||% of patients with positive answers|88.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|73.0|95.0||||||Descriptive analysis of subjects' satisfaction questionnaire assessing the Crystal Peel in the treatment of acne.||95|73|
90980500|NCT00432809|181844737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Chi-squared|||||||0.59
90980501|NCT00432809|181844741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90980502|NCT00432809|181844741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90980503|NCT00432809|181844741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.85
90980504|NCT00432809|181844742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.004
90980505|NCT00432809|181844742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.003
90980506|NCT00432809|181844742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.86
90980507|NCT00432809|181844743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90980508|NCT00432809|181844743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.003
90980509|NCT00432809|181844743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.23
90980510|NCT00432809|181844744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||Medical Therapy vs. Gastric Bypass||||<0.001
90980511|NCT00432809|181844744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
90980512|NCT00432809|181844744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.10
90980513|NCT00432809|181844745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90980514|NCT00432809|181844745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90980515|NCT00432809|181844745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.02
90980516|NCT00432809|181844746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90980517|NCT00432809|181844746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90980518|NCT00432809|181844746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.02
90949204|NCT02209181|181777613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|4.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|5.84||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||5.84|3.90|<0.001
90949205|NCT02209181|181777613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|2.09||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||2.09|0.16|0.023
90949206|NCT02209181|181777613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.98|3.93||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||3.93|1.98|<0.001
90949207|NCT02209181|181777613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.71|-2.78||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||-2.78|-4.71|<0.001
90949208|NCT02209181|181777613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.89|-0.94||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||-0.94|-2.89|<0.001
90949209|NCT02209181|181777614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|4.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.64|5.78||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||5.78|3.64|<0.001
90949210|NCT02209181|181777614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.42||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||2.42|0.30|0.012
90949211|NCT02209181|181777614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.66|4.81||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||4.81|2.66|<0.001
90949212|NCT02209181|181777614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.41|-2.29||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||-2.29|-4.41|<0.001
90949213|NCT02209181|181777614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|0.09||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.09|-2.05|0.074
90949214|NCT02209181|181777615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.63|4.97||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||4.97|2.63|<0.001
90949215|NCT02209181|181777615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|2.48||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||2.48|0.16|0.026
90949216|NCT02209181|181777615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.64|4.99||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||4.99|2.64|<0.001
90949217|NCT02209181|181777615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.64|-1.32||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||-1.32|-3.64|<0.001
90949218|NCT02209181|181777615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|1.19||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.19|-1.16|0.978
90980519|NCT00432809|181844747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90949219|NCT02209181|181777616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.18|4.62||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||4.62|2.18|<0.001
90980520|NCT00432809|181844747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90980521|NCT00432809|181844747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.61
90980522|NCT00432809|181844748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90980523|NCT00432809|181844748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90980524|NCT00432809|181844748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.03
90980525|NCT00432809|181844749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.87
90980526|NCT00432809|181844749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.67
90980527|NCT00432809|181844749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.46
90980528|NCT00432809|181844750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.001
90980529|NCT00432809|181844750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.001
90980530|NCT00432809|181844750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.98
90980531|NCT00432809|181844751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
90980532|NCT00432809|181844751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.08
90980533|NCT00432809|181844751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.17
90980534|NCT00432809|181844752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90980535|NCT00432809|181844752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90980536|NCT00432809|181844752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.59
90980537|NCT00432809|181844753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
90980538|NCT00432809|181844753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||1.001
90980539|NCT00432809|181844753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.68
90980540|NCT00432809|181844754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
90980541|NCT00432809|181844754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
90980542|NCT00432809|181844754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.05
90980543|NCT00432809|181844755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
90980544|NCT00432809|181844755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
90980545|NCT00432809|181844755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.06
90980546|NCT00432809|181844756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
90980547|NCT00432809|181844756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.005
90980548|NCT00432809|181844756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.004
90980549|NCT00432809|181844757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
90980550|NCT00432809|181844757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.06
90980551|NCT00432809|181844757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.20
90980552|NCT00432809|181844758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
90980553|NCT00432809|181844758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
90980554|NCT00432809|181844758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.20
90980555|NCT00432809|181844759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.48
90980556|NCT00432809|181844759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.46
90980557|NCT00432809|181844759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.06
90980558|NCT00432809|181844760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
90980559|NCT00432809|181844760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
90980560|NCT00432809|181844760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.62
90980561|NCT00432809|181844761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
90980562|NCT00432809|181844761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
90980563|NCT00432809|181844761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.03
90980564|NCT00655928|181844769|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.09
90980565|NCT04108429|181844770|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||generalized linear mixed model - this analysis accounts for repeated measures from each participant over the course of Weeks 1, 2, 4, 6 and 8||||.830
90980566|NCT04108429|181844771|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.759|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||generalized linear mixed model - this analysis accounts for repeated measures from each participant over the course of Weeks 1, 2, 4, 6 and 8||||.759
90980567|NCT04108429|181844772|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.275|||||||Simulation Modeling Analysis (SMA) for T|||Counseling center utilization data were examined using Simulation Modeling Analysis (SMA) for Time-Series data to determine if there were changes in utilization between the pre-implementation and implementation phases. SMA evaluates the statistical significance of between-phase changes in data streams and also accounts for the presence of autocorrelation (the non-independence of data points in time-series data streams).||||.275
90980568|NCT04108429|181844774|SUPERIORITY|generalized linear mixed model||||||0.002|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.002
90980569|NCT04108429|181844775|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.489|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||generalized linear mixed model||||.489
90980570|NCT04108429|181844776|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||generalized linear mixed model||||.001
90980571|NCT00275561|181844779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.74
90980572|NCT00275561|181844780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.49
90980573|NCT00275561|181844781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
90980574|NCT00371267|181844790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.27|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.27
90980575|NCT00371267|181844791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.35|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.35
90980576|NCT00371267|181844792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.74|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.74
90980577|NCT00371267|181844793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.39
90980578|NCT00371267|181844794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.67
91006671|NCT00679380|181897692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions|3.8||||0.2876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|10.5|||Chi-squared||The difference in proportions was determined by subtracting the proportion of patients who reached the endpoint in the placebo group from that proportion in the active group (active minus placebo).|All p-values were based on the Chi-square test; comparisons of budesonide MMX and placebo were conducted at the α = 0.025 level of significance and the comparison of Entocort EC and placebo were conducted at the α = 0.05 level of significance. The study was not powered to show statistical significance for Entocort EC versus budesonide MMX.||10.5|-3.0|0.2876
90949220|NCT02209181|181777616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|2.28||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||2.28|-0.13|0.081
90949221|NCT02209181|181777616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.69|5.14||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||5.14|2.69|<0.001
90949222|NCT02209181|181777616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.53|-1.11||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||-1.11|-3.53|<0.001
90949223|NCT02209181|181777616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|1.74||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.74|-0.71|0.407
90949224|NCT02209181|181777617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|4.1||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||4.10|1.56|<0.001
90949225|NCT02209181|181777617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|2.14||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||2.14|-0.38|0.170
91006672|NCT00679380|181897692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions|12.9||||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.6|21.3|||Chi-squared||See comments from the budesonide 6 mg versus placebo comparison (statistical analysis 1).|See comments from the budesonide 6 mg versus placebo comparison (statistical analysis 1).||21.3|4.6|0.0047
91039040|NCT00112437|181962057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|-16.64||||0.002||95.0|-28.84|-4.44||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through a stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance.|Difference in Least Square Means (back-transformation of difference in log-fractions from baseline)|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of MK0822 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone formation (s-BSAP) compared to placebo over 24 months.||-4.44|-28.84|0.002
91039041|NCT00112437|181962057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|7.24||||0.852||95.0|-5.73|20.21||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through a stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance.|Difference in Least Square Means (back-transformation of difference in log-fractions from baseline)|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of MK0822 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone formation (s-BSAP) compared to placebo over 24 months.||20.21|-5.73|0.852
90949226|NCT02209181|181777617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.33|4.87||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||4.87|2.33|<0.001
90949227|NCT02209181|181777617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.21|-0.69||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||-0.69|-3.21|0.002
90949228|NCT02209181|181777617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|2.04||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||2.04|-0.50|0.235
90949229|NCT02209181|181777618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|3.39||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||3.39|0.82|0.001
90949230|NCT02209181|181777618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|1.87||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.87|-0.68|0.355
90949231|NCT02209181|181777618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.07|4.65||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||4.65|2.07|<0.001
90949232|NCT02209181|181777618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|-0.23||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||-0.23|-2.78|0.021
90949233|NCT02209181|181777618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|2.55||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||2.55|-0.03|0.056
90949234|NCT02209181|181777619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|2.5||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||2.50|-0.09|0.067
90949235|NCT02209181|181777619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|1.68||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.68|-0.89|0.547
90949236|NCT02209181|181777619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.86|4.46||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||4.46|1.86|<0.001
90949237|NCT02209181|181777619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.47||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.47|-2.10|0.214
91078464|NCT05821296|182042874|OTHER||% of patients with positive answers|85.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.0|93.0||||||Descriptive analysis of subjects' satisfaction questionnaire assessing the Crystal Peel in the treatment of acne.||93|68|
91078465|NCT05821296|182042874|OTHER||% of patients with positive answers|91.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|77.0|97.0||||||Descriptive analysis of subjects' satisfaction questionnaire assessing the Crystal Peel in the treatment of acne.||97|77|
91078466|NCT05821296|182042874|OTHER||% of patients with positive answers|85.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|69.0|93.0||||||Descriptive analysis of subjects' satisfaction questionnaire assessing the Crystal Peel in the treatment of acne.||93|69|
91078467|NCT05821296|182042874|OTHER||% of patients with positive answers|78.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.0|89.0||||||Descriptive analysis of subjects' satisfaction questionnaire assessing the Crystal Peel in the treatment of acne.||89|61|
91006673|NCT00679380|181897692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions|8.1||||0.0481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|15.9|||Chi-squared||See comments from the budesonide 6 mg versus placebo comparison (statistical analysis 1).|See comments from the budesonide 6 mg versus placebo comparison (statistical analysis 1).||15.9|0.4|0.0481
91039042|NCT00112437|181962057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|-0.39||||||95.0|-13.69|12.92|||ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance.|Difference in Least Square Means (back-transformation of difference in log-fractions from baseline)|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of MK0822 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone formation (s-BSAP) compared to placebo over 24 months.||12.92|-13.69|
91039043|NCT00112437|181962057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|36.79||||||95.0|21.19|52.38|||ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance.|Difference in Least Square Means (back-transformation of difference in log-fractions from baseline)|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of MK0822 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone formation (s-BSAP) compared to placebo over 24 months.||52.38|21.19|
91039044|NCT00112437|181962058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-21.49||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.55|-3.43||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through a stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance.|Difference in Least Squares Means (back-transformation of difference in log-fraction from baseline)|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone formation (s-P1NP) compared to placebo over 24 months.||-3.43|-39.55|0.011
91039045|NCT00112437|181962058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least square means|13.31||||0.618||95.0|-7.1|33.71||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through a stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance.|Difference in Least square means (back-transformation of difference in log-fraction from baseline)|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of MK0822 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone formation (s-P1NP) compared to placebo over 24 months.||33.71|-7.10|0.618
91039046|NCT00112437|181962058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least square means|7.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.46|29.01|||ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance.|Difference in Least Squares Means (back-transformation of difference in log-fraction from baseline)|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone formation (s-P1NP) compared to placebo over 24 months.||29.01|-13.46|
91039047|NCT00112437|181962058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|49.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.86|74.59|||ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance.|Difference in Least Square Means (back-transformation of difference in log-fraction from baseline)|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone formation (s-P1NP) compared to placebo over 24 months.||74.59|23.86|
91039048|NCT00112437|181962059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|6.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.38|9.53||||||In postmenopausal women with osteoporosis assess the time course of resolution of effect on lumbar spine BMD during the 12 month extension following 24 months of treatment with odanacatib once weekly. The primary objective was to assess the resolution of effect, on lumbar spine BMD, for the participants who received odanacatib 50 mg for 3 years compared to those who received odanacatib 50 mg in the 2nd year and switched to placebo for the 3rd year extension.||9.53|3.38|
91039049|NCT00112437|181962060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|6.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.44|9.17||||||||9.17|3.44|
91039050|NCT00112437|181962061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|2.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|5.57||||||||5.57|-0.16|
91039051|NCT00112437|181962062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|8.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|12.46||||||||12.46|3.80|
91039052|NCT00112437|181962063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|1.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|4.46||||||||4.46|-1.54|
91039053|NCT00112437|181962064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|2.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|5.88||||||||5.88|-0.93|
91039054|NCT00112437|181962065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|-78.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-119.2|-36.92||||||||-36.92|-119.20|
91039055|NCT00112437|181962066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|-34.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.7|10.2||||||||10.20|-78.70|
91039056|NCT00112437|181962067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|-39.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-87.17|8.68||||||||8.68|-87.17|
91039057|NCT00112437|181962068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|16.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.67|38.85||||||||38.85|-5.67|
91039058|NCT00112437|181962069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|-5.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.04|31.18||||||||31.18|-42.04|
91039059|NCT00112437|181962070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|49.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.37|84.83||||||||84.83|13.37|
91039060|NCT00112437|181962071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|209.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|127.14|291.73||||||||291.73|127.14|
91039061|NCT04633564|181962094|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence region is (0.73, 1.36).|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|1.12||||||||1.12|0.83|
91039062|NCT04198363|181962095|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority of vonoprazan to esomeprazole was evaluated by Farrington and Manning test using a noninferiority margin of 10% for analysis.|Difference in Proportions|0.1|||=|0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.95|6.17|||Farrington and Manning Test||Difference in proportions for vonoprazan versus esomeprazole was analyzed and the 2-sided Wald confidence interval was used for determining the 95% confidence interval.|||6.17|-5.95|=0.0009
91039063|NCT03442322|181962108|OTHER|Given that we found baseline differences in resident characteristics and outcomes, we implemented a difference-in-differences model for all outcomes.|Difference-in-Difference estimator|1.25||||0.492|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|All regressions controlled for resident characteristics and nursing home fixed effects.||||||0.492
91039064|NCT03442322|181962109|OTHER|Given that we found baseline differences in resident characteristics and outcomes, we implemented a difference-in-differences model for all outcomes.|Difference-in-Difference estimator|-0.73||||0.765|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|All regressions controlled for resident characteristics, nursing home staffing, resident COVID cases, and nursing home fixed effects.||||||0.765
91078468|NCT05821296|182042874|OTHER||% of patients with positive answers|79.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.0|89.0||||||Descriptive analysis of subjects' satisfaction questionnaire assessing the Crystal Peel in the treatment of acne.||89|62|
90949238|NCT02209181|181777619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|3.26||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||3.26|0.66|0.003
91078469|NCT05821296|182042874|OTHER||% of patients with positive answers|76.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.0|87.0||||||Descriptive analysis of subjects' satisfaction questionnaire assessing the Crystal Peel in the treatment of acne.||87|59|
90949239|NCT02209181|181777620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|1.95||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.95|-0.57|0.281
90949240|NCT02209181|181777620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|1.47||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.47|-1.03|0.729
90949241|NCT02209181|181777620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.95|4.47||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||4.47|1.95|<0.001
90949242|NCT02209181|181777620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|0.78||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.78|-1.72|0.459
90949243|NCT02209181|181777620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|3.78||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||3.78|1.26|<0.001
90949244|NCT02209181|181777621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.55||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.55|-1.00|0.674
90949245|NCT02209181|181777621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|1.79||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.79|-0.74|0.417
90949246|NCT02209181|181777621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|4.33||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||4.33|1.77|<0.001
91078470|NCT05821296|182042876|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-47.24|STANDARD_DEVIATION|56.61|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||If the test provides a p-value less than 0.05, there is a significant variation over time for the analyzed parameter.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of change from baseline of conspicuous number of detected pores at day 15 to evaluate the improvement of pores assessed by Colorface device.||||< 0.0001
91078471|NCT05821296|182042876|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-30.85|STANDARD_DEVIATION|63.92||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||If the test provides a p-value less than 0.05, there is a significant variation over time for the analyzed parameter.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of change from baseline of conspicuous number of detected pores at Day 36 to evaluate the improvement of pores assessed by Colorface device.||||0.010
91078472|NCT05821296|182042876|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-41.69|STANDARD_DEVIATION|73.69|<|0.004|TWO_SIDED|||||If the test provides a p-value less than 0.05, there is a significant variation over time for the analyzed parameter.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of change from baseline of conspicuous number of detected pores at Day 57 to evaluate the improvement of pores assessed by Colorface device.||||<0.004
91078473|NCT05821296|182042876|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|61.45||0.013|TWO_SIDED|||||If the test provides a p-value less than 0.05, there is a significant variation over time for the analyzed parameter.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of change from baseline of conspicuous number of detected pores at day 78 to evaluate the improvement of pores assessed by Colorface device.||||0.013
90980579|NCT01380899|181844837|SUPERIORITY|IHC analyses revealed intense α-synuclein positive immunostaining in PD patients, showing small nodular deposits from 1 to 2 μm in diameter in the SCL of the epidermis including the epidermal component adjacent to hair follicles, and in cells from PSUs, while control subjects presented null immunoreaction. The α-synuclein inclusions in the two groups of patients were morphologically similar but quantitatively different. These inclusions appeared to be juxtanuclear.|Median Difference (Net)|57.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.85|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.9|62.6||The presence of alpha-synuclein aggregates expressed as % of cells with inclusions was tested for normality (Shapiro-Wilk test). Then, with the nonparametric Kruskal-Wallis followed by Mann-Whitney U tests (software Statistica 7.0 at 95% confidence).|Kruskal-Wallis|The groups were analyzed with Kruskal-Wallis followed by Mann-Whitney U tests.|The expression of the abnormal protein (alpha-synuclein) must be different between the three groups (PD, AP, and control)|The patients were stratified according to the clinical diagnosis made on the basis of the clinical findings, the MRI, and the progression of the disease. Both the clinical diagnosis and the semiquantitative histological analysis were carried out independently and blind to each other. The presence of aggregates of abnormal a-synuclein, expressed as the percentage of cells with positive inclusions in each experimental group, was tested for normality with the Shapiro-Wilk test.|The patients were stratified according to the clinical diagnosis based on the clinical findings, the MRI, and the progression of the disease. Both the clinical diagnosis and the semiquantitative histological analysis were carried out independently and blind to each other. The presence of aggregates of abnormal α-synuclein, expressed as the percentage of cells with positive inclusions in each experimental group, was tested for normality with the Shapiro-Wilk test. Next, the groups were analyzed with the nonparametric Kruskal-Wallis followed by Mann-Whitney U tests. One independent analysis was performed for each structure, namely the epidermis, PSU, and EG. Assessments were performed using the software Statistica 7.0 (Tulsa, OK) at 95% confidence.|62.6|44.9|< 0.01
90980580|NCT03263091|181844869|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.582||||0.217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.761|3.29|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The odds ratio along with its 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi-square test adjusting for the stratification factors (EPO level, International Prognostic Scoring System - Revised \[IPSS-R\] risk category and RBC transfusion burden).||3.290|0.761|0.217
90980581|NCT00265941|181844889|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.32|||Log Rank||Reference arm = RT + cisplatin|A total of 945 patients were required (900 analyzable) to test for a 25% reduction in the hazard associated with progression-free survival with 84% statistical power using a one-sided log-rank test at the 0.025 significance level (0.0238 after 3 interim analyses).||1.32|0.88|0.76
90980582|NCT00265941|181844890|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.21|||Log Rank|One-sided log-rank significance level of 0.025|Reference level = RT + cisplatin|Arms were compared using a one-sided log-rank test at the 0.025 significance level.||1.21|0.74|0.32
90980583|NCT00265941|181844891|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.7|||Log Rank|One-sided significance level of 0.025|Reference level = RT + cisplatin|||1.70|0.99|0.97
91039065|NCT03442322|181962110|OTHER|Given that we found baseline differences in resident characteristics and outcomes, we implemented a difference-in-differences model for all outcomes.|Difference-in-Difference estimator|0.77||||0.808|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|All regressions controlled for resident characteristics, nursing home staffing, resident COVID cases, and nursing home fixed effects.||||||0.808
91039066|NCT03442322|181962111|OTHER|Given that we found baseline differences in resident characteristics and outcomes, we implemented a difference-in-differences model for all outcomes.|Difference-in-Difference estimator|3.86||||0.108|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|All regressions controlled for resident characteristics and nursing home fixed effects.||||||0.108
91039067|NCT03442322|181962112|OTHER|Given that we found baseline differences in resident characteristics and outcomes, we implemented a difference-in-differences model for all outcomes.|Difference-in-Difference estimator|2.59||||0.411|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|All regressions controlled for resident characteristics, nursing home staffing, resident COVID cases, and nursing home fixed effects.||||||0.411
90980584|NCT00265941|181844896|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||Kolmogorov-Smirnov|2-sided significance level of 0.05||3 months||||0.74
90980585|NCT00265941|181844896|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Kolmogorov-Smirnov|2-sided significance level of 0.05||12 months||||0.99
90980586|NCT00265941|181844897|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Chi-squared|2-sided significance level of 0.05||Diet 3-month||||0.13
90980587|NCT00265941|181844897|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||Chi-squared|2-sided significance level 0.05||Diet 12-month||||0.87
90980588|NCT00265941|181844897|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Chi-squared|2-sided significance level of 0.05||Eating 3-month||||0.39
91039068|NCT03442322|181962113|OTHER|Given that we found baseline differences in resident characteristics and outcomes, we implemented a difference-in-differences model for all outcomes.|Difference-in-Difference estimator|-0.08||||0.981|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|All regressions controlled for resident characteristics, nursing home staffing, resident COVID cases, and nursing home fixed effects.||||||0.981
90980589|NCT00265941|181844897|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Chi-squared|2-sided significance level of 0.05||Eating 12-month||||0.16
90980590|NCT00265941|181844897|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||Chi-squared|2-sided significance level of 0.05||Speech 3-month||||0.81
91039069|NCT03442322|181962114|OTHER|Given that we found baseline differences in resident characteristics and outcomes, we implemented a difference-in-differences model for all outcomes.|Difference-in-Difference estimator|3.51||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|All regressions controlled for resident characteristics and nursing home fixed effects.||||||0.020
91039070|NCT03442322|181962115|OTHER|Given that we found baseline differences in resident characteristics and outcomes, we implemented a difference-in-differences model for all outcomes.|Difference-in-Difference estimator|1.62||||0.299|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|All regressions controlled for resident characteristics, nursing home staffing, resident COVID cases, and nursing home fixed effects.||||||0.299
91039071|NCT03442322|181962116|OTHER|Given that we found baseline differences in resident characteristics and outcomes, we implemented a difference-in-differences model for all outcomes.|Difference-in-Difference estimator|1.68||||0.389|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|All regressions controlled for resident characteristics, nursing home staffing, resident COVID cases, and nursing home fixed effects.||||||0.389
90980591|NCT00265941|181844897|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||Chi-squared|2-sided significance level of 0.05||Speech 12-month||||0.67
90980592|NCT00265941|181844898|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016|||||||t-test, 2 sided|2-sided significance level of 0.05||||||0.016
90980593|NCT00265941|181844899|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.51|||Log Rank|2-sided significance level = 0.05|Reference level = low EGFR|Progression-free survival is compared between favorable risk and unfavorable risk groups.||1.51|0.79|0.60
90980594|NCT00265941|181844899|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.76|||Log Rank|2-sided significance level = 0.05|Reference level = low EGFR|Overall survival is compared between favorable risk and unfavorable risk groups.||1.76|0.81|0.37
90980595|NCT00265941|181844899|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.46|||Log Rank|2-sided significance level = 0.05|Reference level = low EGFR|Local-regional failure||1.46|0.60|0.76
90980596|NCT00265941|181844900|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.3||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.75|||Log Rank|2-sided significance level = 0.05|Reference level = low|Progression-free survival is compared between low and high SUVmax groups.||0.75|0.12|0.01
90980597|NCT00265941|181844900|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.38||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|1.2|||Log Rank|2-sided significance level = 0.05|Reference level = low|Overall survival (OS) is compared between low and high SUVmax groups.||1.20|0.12|0.10
90980598|NCT00265941|181844900|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.31||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.97|||Log Rank|2-sided significance level = 0.05|Reference level = low|Loco-regional control (LRC) is compared between low and high SUVmax groups.||0.97|0.10|0.04
90980599|NCT02432807|181844921|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2219|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2219
90980600|NCT02432807|181844922|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1817|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1817
90980601|NCT02966314|181844961|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|18.7||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.77|126.47|||Regression, Logistic|Accounting for repeated measures||||126.47|2.77|0.003
90980602|NCT02966314|181844963|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.43||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|17.63|||Regression, Linear|||||17.63|1.24|0.03
90980603|NCT02966314|181844965|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|32.8||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.49|720.54|||Regression, Logistic|Accounting for repeated measures||||720.54|1.49|0.03
90980604|NCT02966314|181844967|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|6.9||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|25.3|||Regression, Linear|Accounting for multiple measures, using poisson distribution with natural log link||||25.3|1.9|0.005
90980605|NCT00310310|181844981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.001
90980606|NCT00310310|181844982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.023
90980607|NCT00310310|181844983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.8
90980608|NCT00310310|181844985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.96
90980609|NCT00310310|181844986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.59
90980610|NCT00310310|181844987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.00
90980611|NCT00310310|181844988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.02
90980612|NCT00310310|181844989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.08
90980613|NCT00310310|181844990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.38
90980614|NCT05292755|181845064|OTHER|One-way ANOVA was used to compare mean Faith's phylogenetic diversity before and after treatment for each intervention group at a two-tailed 95% confidence interval.||||||0.232|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.232
90980615|NCT05292755|181845065|OTHER|||||||0.224|||||||ANOVA|||ANOVA was used to compare mean Shannon's diversity indices before and after treatment for each intervention group at a two-tailed 95% confidence interval.||||0.224
90980616|NCT05292755|181845066|OTHER|||||||0.227|||||||Repeated measures Mann-U-Whitney|||Repeated measures Mann-U-Whitney tests were used to compare changes in weighted and unweighted UniFrac distances between intervention groups before and after intervention at a two-tailed 95% confidence interval.||||0.227
90980617|NCT00707577|181845080|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|random effects regression models for panel data adjusted for clustering within team||||||<0.05
90980618|NCT00190775|181845081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11|<|0.001||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Model included visit, baseline, treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and treatment by visit.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine - Placebo.|Approximately 500 participants were randomized to atomoxetine or placebo (1:1) which provided at least 90% power to detect a treatment difference of 3.64 points on the CAARS-Inv:SV Total ADHD Symptoms Score assuming a SD of 9.85 based on 2-sided significance level of 0.05 using a 2-sample t-test. Mean and SD assumptions were associated with effect size of 0.37 and 30% missing data rate. These assumptions applied to Weeks 12 and 24 treatment effects. Marginal power at Weeks 12 and 24 was 86%.||||<0.001
90980619|NCT00190775|181845082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.905||95.0||||P-Value for Task Accomplishment.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.905
90980620|NCT00190775|181845082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.491||95.0||||P-Value for Role Performance.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.491
90980621|NCT00190775|181845082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6||95.0||||P-Value for Communication.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.600
90980622|NCT00190775|181845082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.052||95.0||||P-Value for Affective Expression.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.052
90980623|NCT00190775|181845082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.514||95.0||||P-Value for Involvement.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.514
90980624|NCT00190775|181845082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.515||95.0||||P-Value for Control.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.515
90980625|NCT00190775|181845082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.315||95.0||||P-Value for Values and Norms.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.315
90980626|NCT00190775|181845083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.176||95.0||||P-Value for Task Accomplishment.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.176
90949247|NCT02209181|181777621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|1.52||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.52|-1.02|0.698
90949248|NCT02209181|181777621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.49|4.05||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||4.05|1.49|<0.001
90949249|NCT02209181|181777622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|1.66||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.66|-0.87|0.541
90949250|NCT02209181|181777622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|1.79||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.79|-0.73|0.409
90949251|NCT02209181|181777622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.85|4.39||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||4.39|1.85|<0.001
90949252|NCT02209181|181777622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|1.39||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.39|-1.12|0.834
90949253|NCT02209181|181777622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|4.0||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||4.00|1.45|<0.001
90949254|NCT02209181|181777623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.63||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.63|-0.90|0.573
90949255|NCT02209181|181777623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|1.74||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.74|-0.77|0.448
90949256|NCT02209181|181777623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.71|4.25||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||4.25|1.71|<0.001
90949257|NCT02209181|181777623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|1.38||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.38|-1.13|0.848
90949258|NCT02209181|181777623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|3.89||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||3.89|1.35|<0.001
90949259|NCT02209181|181777624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|1.5||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.50|-1.04|0.720
90949260|NCT02209181|181777624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|1.45||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.45|-1.07|0.763
90980627|NCT00190775|181845083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.122||95.0||||P-Value for Role Performance.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.122
90980628|NCT00190775|181845083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.931||95.0||||P-Value for Communication.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.931
90949261|NCT02209181|181777624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|4.09||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||4.09|1.55|<0.001
90980629|NCT00190775|181845083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.788||95.0||||P-Value for Affective Expression.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.788
90980630|NCT00190775|181845083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19||95.0||||P-Value for Involvement.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.190
90980631|NCT00190775|181845083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36||95.0||||P-Value for Control.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.360
90980632|NCT00190775|181845083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.446||95.0||||P-Value for Values and Norms.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.446
91039072|NCT03442322|181962117|OTHER|Given that we found baseline differences in resident characteristics and outcomes, we implemented a difference-in-differences model for all outcomes.|Difference-in-Difference estimator|-2.14||||0.389|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|All regressions controlled for resident characteristics and nursing home fixed effects.||||||0.389
91039073|NCT03442322|181962118|OTHER|Given that we found baseline differences in resident characteristics and outcomes, we implemented a difference-in-differences model for all outcomes.|Difference-in-Difference estimator|-5.95||||0.043|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|All regressions controlled for resident characteristics, nursing home staffing, resident COVID cases, and nursing home fixed effects.||||||0.043
90949262|NCT02209181|181777624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.22||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.22|-1.30|0.952
90980633|NCT00190775|181845084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.575||95.0||||P-Value for Task Accomplishment.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.575
90980634|NCT00190775|181845084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.705||95.0||||P-Value for Role Performance.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.705
90980635|NCT00190775|181845084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.686||95.0||||P-Value for Communication.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.686
90980636|NCT00190775|181845084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.618||95.0||||P-Value for Affective Expression.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.618
91039074|NCT03442322|181962119|OTHER|Given that we found baseline differences in resident characteristics and outcomes, we implemented a difference-in-differences model for all outcomes.|Difference-in-Difference estimator|-3.91||||0.279|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|All regressions controlled for resident characteristics, nursing home staffing, resident COVID cases, and nursing home fixed effects.||||||0.279
90980637|NCT00190775|181845084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.903||95.0||||P-Value for Involvement.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.903
90980638|NCT00190775|181845084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.807||95.0||||P-Value for Control.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.807
90980639|NCT00190775|181845084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.403||95.0||||P-Value for Values and Norms.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.403
90980640|NCT00190775|181845085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.941||95.0||||P-Value for Task Accomplishment.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.941
90980641|NCT00190775|181845085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.788||95.0||||P-Value for Role Performance.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.788
90980642|NCT00190775|181845085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.391||95.0||||P-Value for Communication.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.391
90980643|NCT00190775|181845085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.685||95.0||||P-Value for Affective Expression.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.685
90980644|NCT00190775|181845085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.774||95.0||||P-Value for Involvement.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.774
90980645|NCT00190775|181845085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36||95.0||||P-Value for Control.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.360
90980646|NCT00190775|181845085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.446||95.0||||P-Value for Values and Norms.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.446
90980647|NCT00190775|181845086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.617||95.0||||P-Value for Total Dyadic Adjustment.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.617
90980648|NCT00190775|181845086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.789||95.0||||P-Value for Dyadic Consensus.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.789
90980649|NCT00190775|181845086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67||95.0||||P-Value for Dyadic Satisfaction.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.670
90980650|NCT00190775|181845086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018||95.0||||P-Value for Affectional Expression.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.018
90980651|NCT00190775|181845086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.405||95.0||||P-Value for Dyadic Cohesion.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.405
91039075|NCT03442322|181962120|OTHER|Given that we found baseline differences in resident characteristics and outcomes, we implemented a difference-in-differences model for all outcomes.|Difference-in-Difference estimator|0.92||||0.728|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|All regressions controlled for resident characteristics and nursing home fixed effects.||||||0.728
90949263|NCT02209181|181777624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|3.86||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||3.86|1.31|<0.001
90949264|NCT02209181|181777625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.39||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.39|-1.10|0.821
90949265|NCT02209181|181777625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|1.22||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.22|-1.25|0.978
90949266|NCT02209181|181777625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.63|4.13||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||4.13|1.63|<0.001
90949267|NCT02209181|181777625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|1.07||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.07|-1.39|0.799
90949268|NCT02209181|181777625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.49|3.98||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||3.98|1.49|<0.001
90949269|NCT02209181|181777626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|1.13||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.13|-1.62|0.726
90949270|NCT02209181|181777626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|1.25||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.25|-1.48|0.869
90949271|NCT02209181|181777626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|3.9||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||3.90|1.13|<0.001
90949272|NCT02209181|181777626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|1.5||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.50|-1.24|0.851
90949273|NCT02209181|181777626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|4.15||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||4.15|1.38|<0.001
90949274|NCT02209181|181777627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.042||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided). P-Value is from Log-rank test comparing survival curves.|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups. Subjects who withdrew from the study before 24 hours, but did not use rescue therapy, were censored at the time of discontinuation. Subjects who did not rescue medication during the 24-hour study period had their time to rescue set to 24 hours and were censored at 24 hours.||||0.042
90980652|NCT00190775|181845087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.544||95.0||||P-Value for Total Dyadic Adjustment.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.544
90980653|NCT00190775|181845087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.494||95.0||||P-Value for Dyadic Consensus.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.494
90980654|NCT00190775|181845087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.547||95.0||||P-Value for Dyadic Satisfaction.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.547
90980655|NCT00190775|181845087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.059||95.0||||P-Value for Affectional Expression.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.059
90980656|NCT00190775|181845087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.918||95.0||||P-Value for Dyadic Cohesion.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.918
90980657|NCT00190775|181845088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.334||95.0||||P-Value for Total Dyadic Adjustment.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.334
90980658|NCT00190775|181845088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.087||95.0||||P-Value for Dyadic Consensus.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.087
90980659|NCT00190775|181845088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.795||95.0||||P-Value for Dyadic Satisfaction.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.795
90980660|NCT00190775|181845088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.955||95.0||||P-Value for Affectional Expression.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.955
90949275|NCT02209181|181777627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.779||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided). P-Value is from Log-rank test comparing survival curves.|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups. Subjects who withdrew from the study before 24 hours, but did not use rescue therapy, were censored at the time of discontinuation. Subjects who did not rescue medication during the 24-hour study period had their time to rescue set to 24 hours and were censored at 24 hours.||||0.779
90949276|NCT02209181|181777627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided). P-Value is from Log-rank test comparing survival curves.|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups. Subjects who withdrew from the study before 24 hours, but did not use rescue therapy, were censored at the time of discontinuation. Subjects who did not rescue medication during the 24-hour study period had their time to rescue set to 24 hours and were censored at 24 hours.||||<0.001
90949277|NCT02209181|181777627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.196||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided). P-Value is from Log-rank test comparing survival curves.|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups. Subjects who withdrew from the study before 24 hours, but did not use rescue therapy, were censored at the time of discontinuation. Subjects who did not rescue medication during the 24-hour study period had their time to rescue set to 24 hours and were censored at 24 hours.||||0.196
90980661|NCT00190775|181845088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.788||95.0||||P-Value for Dyadic Cohesion.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.788
90980662|NCT00190775|181845089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.248||95.0||||P-Value for Total Dyadic Adjustment.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.248
90980663|NCT00190775|181845089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.163||95.0||||P-Value for Dyadic Consensus.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.163
90980664|NCT00190775|181845089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.947||95.0||||P-Value for Dyadic Satisfaction.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.947
90980665|NCT00190775|181845089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.214||95.0||||P-Value for Affectional Expression.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.214
90980666|NCT00190775|181845089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.543||95.0||||P-Value for Dyadic Cohesion.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.543
90949278|NCT02209181|181777627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided). P-Value is from Log-rank test comparing survival curves.|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups. Subjects who withdrew from the study before 24 hours, but did not use rescue therapy, were censored at the time of discontinuation. Subjects who did not rescue medication during the 24-hour study period had their time to rescue set to 24 hours and were censored at 24 hours.||||0.006
90949279|NCT02209181|181777628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.9||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.9|1.1|<0.001
91039076|NCT03442322|181962121|OTHER|Given that we found baseline differences in resident characteristics and outcomes, we implemented a difference-in-differences model for all outcomes.|Difference-in-Difference estimator|-1.75||||0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|All regressions controlled for resident characteristics, nursing home staffing, resident COVID cases, and nursing home fixed effects.||||||0.490
91039077|NCT03442322|181962122|OTHER|Given that we found baseline differences in resident characteristics and outcomes, we implemented a difference-in-differences model for all outcomes.|Difference-in-Difference estimator|4.44||||0.232|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|All regressions controlled for resident characteristics, nursing home staffing, resident COVID cases, and nursing home fixed effects.||||||0.232
90949280|NCT02209181|181777628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.8||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.8|-0.0|0.077
90949281|NCT02209181|181777628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.6||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.6|0.8|<0.001
90949282|NCT02209181|181777628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.7||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||-0.7|-1.6|<0.001
90949283|NCT02209181|181777628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.1||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.1|-0.7|0.148
90949284|NCT01040169|181777682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
90949285|NCT01040169|181777683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
90949286|NCT02271984|181777778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (%)|39.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|34.7|46.0|||||Percentage of Geometric Least Squares (LS) Mean Ratio (Treatment A/Treatment B) is reported.|||46.0|34.7|
90949287|NCT02271984|181777778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (%)|27.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|22.5|33.2|||||Percentage of Geometric LS Mean Ratio (Treatment C1/Treatment A) is reported.|||33.2|22.5|
90949288|NCT02271984|181777778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (%)|260.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|214.0|316.4|||||Percentage of Geometric LS Mean Ratio (Treatment C2/Treatment A) is reported.|||316.4|214.0|
90949289|NCT02271984|181777778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (%)|167.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|143.9|194.0|||||Percentage of Geometric LS Mean Ratio (Treatment A/Treatment D) is reported.|||194.0|143.9|
90949290|NCT02271984|181777778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (%)|115.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.8|134.1|||||Percentage of Geometric LS Mean Ratio (Treatment E/Treatment A) is reported.|||134.1|99.8|
90949291|NCT01088984|181777793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||1-sided p-value is calculated against the null hypothesis of a response rate of 5%.|binomial parameter exact method|||||||1.0000
91039078|NCT03442322|181962123|OTHER|Given that we found baseline differences in resident characteristics and outcomes, we implemented a difference-in-differences model for all outcomes.|Difference-in-Difference estimator|1.11||||0.708|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|All regressions controlled for resident characteristics and nursing home fixed effects.||||||0.708
90949292|NCT00770029|181777806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference response rate|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.68|||Fisher Exact|||The efficacy of the treatment was confirmed if H0 was rejected at a given α of 5%, that means if the two sided p-value was ≤0.05. Power of 90%||0.68|0.52|<0.0001
90949293|NCT05620108|181777828|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.036
90949294|NCT05602727|181777829|SUPERIORITY|Difference in LS Means (MK-1942 - Placebo)|LS Mean Difference|2.1||||0.186|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.6|5.8|||Longitudinal ANCOVA|||||5.8|-1.6|0.186
90949295|NCT05602727|181777829|SUPERIORITY|Difference in LS Means (MK-1942 - Placebo)|LS Mean Difference|-1.4||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-5.2|2.4|||Longitudinal ANCOVA|||||2.4|-5.2|0.400
90949296|NCT05602727|181777833|SUPERIORITY|Difference in LS Means|LS Mean Difference|-2.9||||0.196|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-8.0|2.2|||Longitudinal ANCOVA|||||2.2|-8.0|0.196
90949297|NCT05602727|181777833|SUPERIORITY|Difference in LS Means|LS Mean Difference|-4.2||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-9.6|1.3|||Longitudinal ANCOVA|||||1.3|-9.6|0.081
90949298|NCT05504954|181777836|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.26||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|1.59|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.59|0.04|0.15
90949299|NCT05504954|181777838|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.83||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|9.89|||Regression, Logistic|||||9.89|0.81|0.10
90949300|NCT05504954|181777839|SUPERIORITY||beta coefficient|5.0||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.78|27.78|||Regression, Linear|||||27.78|-17.78|0.65
90949301|NCT05504954|181777840|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.70
90949302|NCT05504954|181777841|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.70
91039079|NCT03442322|181962124|OTHER|Given that we found baseline differences in resident characteristics and outcomes, we implemented a difference-in-differences model for all outcomes.|Difference-in-Difference estimator|1.0||||0.775|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|All regressions controlled for resident characteristics, nursing home staffing, resident COVID cases, and nursing home fixed effects.||||||0.775
90949303|NCT05504954|181777842|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
90949304|NCT05504954|181777843|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.64
91039080|NCT03442322|181962125|OTHER|Given that we found baseline differences in resident characteristics and outcomes, we implemented a difference-in-differences model for all outcomes.|Difference-in-Difference estimator|1.77||||0.584|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|All regressions controlled for resident characteristics, nursing home staffing, resident COVID cases, and nursing home fixed effects.||||||0.584
91039081|NCT03442322|181962126|OTHER|Given that we found baseline differences in resident characteristics and outcomes, we implemented a difference-in-differences model for all outcomes.|Difference-in-Difference estimator|-0.25||||0.898|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|All regressions controlled for resident characteristics and nursing home fixed effects.||||||0.898
90949305|NCT03412773|181777856|NON_INFERIORITY|"Overall survival (OS) was compared between the tislelizumab group (Arm A) and the sorafenib group (Arm B) by testing the null hypothesis of noninferiority: the null hypothesis assumes the hazard ratio (HR) for tislelizumab versus sorafenib is greater than or equal to 1.08, while the alternative hypothesis assumes the hazard ratio is less than 1.08.~Noninferiority was declared if the upper limit of the 95.003% confidence interval (CI) for the HR was less than 1.08"|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.003|0.712|1.019|||||The hazard ratio is based on a Cox regression model with treatment, geography (Asia vs. EU/US), macrovascular invasion/extrahepatic spread (present vs. absent), etiology (HCV vs. other), and ECOG (0 vs. 1) as covariates.|||1.019|0.712|
90949306|NCT03412773|181777856|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of tislelizumab over sorafenib was tested for OS using a stratified log-rank test in the ITT analysis set only when noninferiority was demonstrated. Superiority was declared if the one-sided p-value crosses the boundary of 0.0223 (1-sided p-value \< 0.0223) in favor of Arm A in the stratified log-rank test.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.0398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.712|1.019||One sided Log-Rank Test stratified by geography (Asia vs EU/US), macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (present vs. absent), etiology (HCV vs. Other) and ECOG (0 vs. 1).|Log Rank||The hazard ratio was derived from a Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate and stratified by geography (Asia vs. EU/US), macrovascular invasion/extrahepatic spread (present vs. absent), etiology (HCV vs. other), and ECOG score (0 vs. 1).|||1.019|0.712|0.0398
90949307|NCT03412773|181777857|OTHER||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel ORR difference|8.28||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.85|12.7||The nominal P-value from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test, conducted at a 0.05 significance level, was stratified by geography, macrovascular invasion/extrahepatic spread, etiology, and ECOG.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The null hypothesis assumed that ORR is equal in both groups, while the alternative hypothesis assumed ORR is higher in the tislelizumab group (Arm A).||12.70|3.85|0.0003
90949308|NCT03412773|181777858|OTHER||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel ORR difference|9.24|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.71|13.78||The nominal P-value from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test, conducted at a 0.05 significance level, was stratified by geography, macrovascular invasion/extrahepatic spread, etiology, and ECOG.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||13.78|4.71|<0.0001
90949309|NCT03412773|181777859|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.1364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.33||One sided Log-Rank Test stratified by geography (Asia vs EU/US), macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (present vs. absent), etiology (HCV vs. Other) and ECOG (0 vs. 1).|One-sided log-rank test||The hazard ratio was derived from a Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate and stratified by geography (Asia vs. EU/US), macrovascular invasion/extrahepatic spread (present vs. absent), etiology (HCV vs. other), and ECOG score (0 vs. 1).|||1.33|0.92|0.1364
90949310|NCT03412773|181777860|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.2622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.26||One sided Log-Rank Test stratified by geography (Asia vs EU/US), macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (present vs. absent), etiology (HCV vs. Other) and ECOG (0 vs. 1).|One-sided log-rank test||The hazard ratio was derived from a Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate and stratified by geography (Asia vs. EU/US), macrovascular invasion/extrahepatic spread (present vs. absent), etiology (HCV vs. other), and ECOG score (0 vs. 1).|||1.26|0.90|0.2622
90949311|NCT03412773|181777863|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.0859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.38||One sided Log-Rank Test stratified by geography (Asia vs EU/US), macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (present vs. absent), etiology (HCV vs. Other) and ECOG (0 vs. 1).|One-sided log-rank test||The hazard ratio was derived from a Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate and stratified by geography (Asia vs. EU/US), macrovascular invasion/extrahepatic spread (present vs. absent), etiology (HCV vs. other), and ECOG score (0 vs. 1).|||1.38|0.94|0.0859
90949312|NCT03412773|181777864|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.1182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.34||One sided Log-Rank Test stratified by geography (Asia vs EU/US), macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (present vs. absent), etiology (HCV vs. Other) and ECOG (0 vs. 1).|One-sided log-rank test||The hazard ratio was derived from a Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate and stratified by geography (Asia vs. EU/US), macrovascular invasion/extrahepatic spread (present vs. absent), etiology (HCV vs. other), and ECOG score (0 vs. 1).|||1.34|0.94|0.1182
90949313|NCT03412773|181777870|OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-2.3||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|-0.8||Reported p-values are nominal.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Between-arm differences in the change from Baseline were assessed using a mixed model for repeated measures. The model included Baseline scores, stratification factors, treatment arms, visits, and treatment arm by visit interaction as fixed effects and visit as a repeated measure with an unstructured covariance matrix based on the missing at random assumption.||-0.8|-3.8|0.0033
90949314|NCT03412773|181777871|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.7||||0.0096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|-0.7||Reported p-values are nominal.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Between-arm differences in the change from Baseline were assessed using a mixed model for repeated measures. The model included Baseline scores, stratification factors, treatment arms, visits, and treatment arm by visit interaction as fixed effects and visit as a repeated measure with an unstructured covariance matrix based on the missing at random assumption.||-0.7|-4.7|0.0096
91039082|NCT03442322|181962127|OTHER|Given that we found baseline differences in resident characteristics and outcomes, we implemented a difference-in-differences model for all outcomes.|Difference-in-Difference estimator|-2.79||||0.217|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|All regressions controlled for resident characteristics, nursing home staffing, resident COVID cases, and nursing home fixed effects.||||||0.217
91039083|NCT03442322|181962128|OTHER|Given that we found baseline differences in resident characteristics and outcomes, we implemented a difference-in-differences model for all outcomes.|Difference-in-Difference estimator|-1.39||||0.56|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|All regressions controlled for resident characteristics, nursing home staffing, resident COVID cases, and nursing home fixed effects.||||||0.560
91039084|NCT03442322|181962129|OTHER|Given that we found baseline differences in resident characteristics and outcomes, we implemented a difference-in-differences model for all outcomes.|Difference-in-Difference estimator|-3.08||||0.277|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|All regressions controlled for resident characteristics and nursing home fixed effects.||||||0.277
91039085|NCT03442322|181962130|OTHER|Given that we found baseline differences in resident characteristics and outcomes, we implemented a difference-in-differences model for all outcomes.|Difference-in-Difference estimator|-2.53||||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|All regressions controlled for resident characteristics, nursing home staffing, resident COVID cases, and nursing home fixed effects.||||||0.400
90949315|NCT03412773|181777872|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.3||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|7.3||Reported p-values are nominal.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Between-arm differences in the change from Baseline were assessed using a mixed model for repeated measures. The model included Baseline scores, stratification factors, treatment arms, visits, and treatment arm by visit interaction as fixed effects and visit as a repeated measure with an unstructured covariance matrix based on the missing at random assumption.||7.3|1.4|0.0037
90949316|NCT03412773|181777873|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.0||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|8.2||Reported p-values are nominal.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Between-arm differences in the change from Baseline were assessed using a mixed model for repeated measures. The model included Baseline scores, stratification factors, treatment arms, visits, and treatment arm by visit interaction as fixed effects and visit as a repeated measure with an unstructured covariance matrix based on the missing at random assumption.||8.2|1.8|0.0022
90949317|NCT03317990|181777893|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.62|4.75|||Regression, Linear|||Normal linear regression model adjusted for recruitment site, participant's age, and IIEF-5 at baseline, in participants with available data||4.75|1.62|<0.0001
90949318|NCT03317990|181777894|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.41||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.42|-0.41|||Regression, Linear|||||-0.41|-2.42|0.006
90949319|NCT05332912|181777945|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.066|||||||t-test, 1 sided|df = 26||Null Hypothesis: Participants with Down Syndrome will exhibit no change in number of correct items in Mental Rotation performance following 8 weeks of experiential training.||||=.066
90949320|NCT05332912|181777945|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.056|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Null Hypothesis: Amount of change in Mental Rotation performance following 8 weeks of experiential training will not differ for participants with Down Syndrome who received 8 weeks of experiential intervention and Typically Developing Children in the Delayed Intervention who had not received 8 weeks of intervention.||||=.056
90949321|NCT05332912|181777945|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.65|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 55||Null Hypothesis: Amount of change in Mental Rotation performance following 8 weeks of experiential training will not differ for Typically Developing Children Immediate Intervention and Down Syndrome Participants Immediate intervention.||||=.65
90949322|NCT05332912|181777946|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.039|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Null Hypothesis: Participants with Down Syndrome will exhibit no change in number of correct items in Mental Rotation performance following 16 weeks of experiential training.||||=.039
90949323|NCT05332912|181777946|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.32|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 48||Null Hypothesis: Participants with Down Syndrome in the Immediate Intervention condition and received 16 weeks of experiential training in Mental Rotation will exhibit a similar change in performance as Typically Developing Children in the Delayed Intervention condition who received only 8 weeks of experiential training.||||= .32
90949324|NCT05332912|181777946|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.73||||||df = 55|t-test, 2 sided|||Null Hypothesis: Amount of change in Mental Rotation performance following 16 weeks of experiential training will not differ for Typically Developing Children Immediate Intervention and Down Syndrome Participants Immediate intervention.||||=.73
90949325|NCT05332912|181777947|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.023|||||||t-test, 1 sided|df = 26||Null Hypothesis: Participants with Down Syndrome will exhibit no change in Perspective Taking performance following 8 weeks of experiential training.||||=.023
90949326|NCT05332912|181777947|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||t-test, 1 sided|df = 48||Null Hypothesis: Amount of change in Perspective Taking performance following 8 weeks of experiential training will not differ for participants with Down Syndrome who received 8 weeks of experiential intervention and Typically Developing Children in the Delayed Intervention who had not received 8 weeks of intervention.||||.23
90949327|NCT05332912|181777947|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 55||Null Hypothesis: Amount of change in Mental Rotation will not differ for participants with Down Syndrome in the Immediate Intervention Condition who received 8 weeks of experiential intervention and Typically Developing Children in the Immediate Intervention who also received 8 weeks of intervention.||||.42
90949328|NCT05332912|181777948|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.01|||||||t-test, 1 sided|df = 26||Null Hypothesis: Participants with Down Syndrome will exhibit no change in Perspective Taking performance following 16 weeks of experiential training.||||=.01
90949329|NCT05332912|181777948|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.28|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 48||Null Hypothesis: Amount of change in Perspective Taking will not differ for participants with Down Syndrome in the Immediate Intervention Condition who received16 weeks of experiential intervention and Typically Developing Children in the Delayed Intervention condition who received 8 weeks of intervention.||||=.28
90949330|NCT05332912|181777948|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 55||Null Hypothesis: Amount of change in Perspective Taking will not differ for participants with Down Syndrome in the Immediate Intervention Condition who received16 weeks of experiential intervention and Typically Developing Children in the Immediate Intervention who also received 16 weeks of intervention.||||.23
90949331|NCT01174446|181777961|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence will be established if 90% C.I. of ratio is contained completely in the margins of equivalence of 0.8 to 1.25.|Ratio of Geometric Means|1.063|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.03|1.09||||||||1.09|1.03|
90949332|NCT01174446|181777988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.779||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.7790
90949333|NCT01174446|181777988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8999||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.8999
90949334|NCT01174446|181777989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0056||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.0056
90949335|NCT01174446|181777989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.413||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.4130
90949336|NCT01174446|181777990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9059||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.9059
90949337|NCT01174446|181777990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4098||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.4098
90949338|NCT01174446|181777991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0189||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.0189
90949339|NCT01174446|181777991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2974||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.2974
90949340|NCT01174446|181777992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2009||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.2009
90949341|NCT01174446|181777992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3552||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.3552
90949342|NCT01174446|181777993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5143||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.5143
90949343|NCT01174446|181777993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9223||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.9223
90949344|NCT01174446|181777994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0162||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.0162
90949345|NCT01174446|181777994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3176||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.3176
90949346|NCT01174446|181777995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.821||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.8210
90949347|NCT01174446|181777995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5565||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.5565
90949348|NCT01174446|181777996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0146||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.0146
90949349|NCT01174446|181777996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4048||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.4048
90949350|NCT01174446|181777997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1258||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.1258
90949351|NCT01174446|181777997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2567||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.2567
90949352|NCT01174446|181777998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1048||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.1048
90949353|NCT01174446|181777998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.641||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.6410
90949354|NCT01174446|181777999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0663||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.0663
90949355|NCT01174446|181777999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.489||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.4890
90949356|NCT01174446|181778000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0562||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.0562
90949357|NCT01174446|181778000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3864||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.3864
90949358|NCT01174446|181778001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5792||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.5792
90949359|NCT01174446|181778002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4208||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.4208
90949360|NCT01174446|181778003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.5000
90949361|NCT01174446|181778004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0633||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.0633
90949362|NCT01174446|181778004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9363||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.9363
91039086|NCT03442322|181962131|OTHER|Given that we found baseline differences in resident characteristics and outcomes, we implemented a difference-in-differences model for all outcomes.|Difference-in-Difference estimator|-3.18||||0.303|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|All regressions controlled for resident characteristics, nursing home staffing, resident COVID cases, and nursing home fixed effects.||||||0.303
90949363|NCT03301155|181778011|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|Comparison performed on the regression parameters scale. Estimates for mean time obtained under assumption of exponentially distributed time-to-event.||||||0.001
90949364|NCT03301155|181778011|SUPERIORITY|superiority margin for hazard ratio was prespecified as 0.846. Lower hazard is better thus the upper confidence limit of HR expected to be lesser than margin|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.645||||0.0218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.496|0.839|||Regression, Cox||Lower HR is better|||0.839|0.496|0.0218
90949365|NCT03301155|181778012|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003||||||Adjusted with Holm method for multiple comparrisons|Fisher Exact|||Comparison between groups on week 4||||0.0003
90949366|NCT03301155|181778012|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted with Holm method for multiple comparrisons||||||0.0003|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between groups on week 8||||0.0003
90949367|NCT03301155|181778012|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0021|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between groups on week 12||||0.0021
90949368|NCT03301155|181778013|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1372|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1372
90949369|NCT03301155|181778014|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
90949370|NCT03301155|181778015|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
90949371|NCT00384189|181778036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|9.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3||0.0116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|18.3|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and age as covariates. One-sided p-value, significance level 2.5%.||||18.3|1.4|0.0116
90949372|NCT00384189|181778036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Means Difference|9.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3||0.0148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|17.8|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and age as covariates. One-sided p-value, significance level 2.5%.||||17.8|0.9|0.0148
90949373|NCT00384189|181778036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Means Difference|12.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|20.4|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and age as covariates. One-sided p-value, significance level 2.5%.||||20.4|3.5|0.0028
90949374|NCT00384189|181778037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1362||||||Two-sided p-value, significance level 5%.|Log Rank|||||||0.1362
90949375|NCT00384189|181778037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0891||||||Two-sided p-value, significance level 5%.|Log Rank|||||||0.0891
90949376|NCT00384189|181778037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1574||||||Two-sided p-value, significance level 5%.|Log Rank|||||||0.1574
90949377|NCT00384189|181778038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||||||One-sided p-value for superiority, significance level 2.5%.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0010
90949378|NCT00384189|181778038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006||||||One-sided p-value for superiority, significance level 2.5%.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0006
90949379|NCT00384189|181778038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||||||One-sided p-value for superiority, significance level 2.5%.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0002
90949380|NCT02942004|181778050|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-5.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.664||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|-2.2|||MMRM|||Mixed effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-2.20|-8.80|0.0013
90949381|NCT02942004|181778050|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.622||0.0252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|-0.47|||MMRM|||MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.47|-6.90|0.0252
90980667|NCT00190775|181845090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.001||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Model included visit, baseline, treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and treatment by visit.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine - Placebo.|Approximately 500 participants were randomized to atomoxetine or placebo (1:1) which provided at least 90% power to detect a treatment difference of 3.64 points on the CAARS-Inv:SV Total ADHD Symptoms Score assuming a SD of 9.85 based on 2-sided significance level of 0.05 using a 2-sample t-test. Mean and SD assumptions were associated with effect size of 0.37 and 30% missing data rate. These assumptions applied to Weeks 12 and 24 treatment effects. Marginal power at Weeks 12 and 24 was 86%.||||0.001
90980668|NCT00190775|181845091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.446||95.0||||P-Value for Total Stress.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.446
90980669|NCT00190775|181845091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.134||95.0||||P-Value for Life Stress.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.134
90980670|NCT00190775|181845092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.056||95.0||||P-Value for Parent Domain Total.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.056
90980671|NCT00190775|181845092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.459||95.0||||P-Value for Parent Domain Competence.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.459
91039087|NCT01251393|181962153|EQUIVALENCE|"The comparisons between the placebo and the biperiden groups at baseline were performed by means of the independent t-Test. We evaluated the normality (Kolmogorov's test) and homogeneity (Levene's test) of the sample.~We used an ANOVA for repeated measures, followed by Bonferroni's post-hoc test to evaluate the efficacy of biperiden in reducing consumption of cocaine/crack."|||||<|0.05||||||We used an ANOVA for repeated measures, followed by Bonferroni's post-hoc test to evaluate the efficacy of biperiden in reducing consumption of cocaine/crack.|ANOVA|||We evaluated the normality (Kolmogorov's test) and homogeneity (Levene's test) of the sample.||||<0.05
91039088|NCT01541215|181962154|SUPERIORITY|"Stepwise hierarchical testing procedure was applied for confirmatory endpoints:~Step 1: Primary analysis: change from baseline to week 26 in HbA1c~Superiority of liraglutide over placebo was to be concluded if the 95% confidence interval for the treatment difference for change from baseline in HbA1c (%) after 26 weeks of randomised treatment was entirely below 0%, implying that the two sided p-value was less than 5%."|Treatment difference|-1.058|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.304|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.653|-0.464|||Pattern Mixture Model|||Analysis using a pattern mixture model of observed data with missing observations imputed from the placebo arm based on multiple (x10.000) imputations. The data for week 26 were then analysed with an ANCOVA model containing treatment, sex and age group as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate. The estimated treatment differences and confidence intervals were combined using Rubins formula.||-0.464|-1.653|<0.001
90980672|NCT00190775|181845092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.435||95.0||||P-Value for Parent Domain Isolation.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.435
90980673|NCT00190775|181845092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.677||95.0||||P-Value for Parent Domain Attachment.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.677
90980674|NCT00190775|181845092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.376||95.0||||P-Value for Parent Domain Health.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.376
90980675|NCT00190775|181845092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.176||95.0||||P-Value for Parent Domain Role Restriction.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.176
90980676|NCT00190775|181845092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0||||P-Value for Parent Domain Depression.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.030
90980677|NCT00190775|181845092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.434||95.0||||P-Value for Parent Domain Spouse.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.434
90980678|NCT00190775|181845093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.578||95.0||||P-Value for Child Domain Total.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.578
90980679|NCT00190775|181845093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.062||95.0||||P-Value for Defensive Responding.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.062
90980680|NCT00190775|181845093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.567||95.0||||P-Value for Child Domain Distractibility/Hyperactive.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.567
90980681|NCT00190775|181845093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.383||95.0||||P-Value for Child Domain Adaptability.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.383
90980682|NCT00190775|181845093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.963||95.0||||P-Value for Child Domain Reinforces Parent.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.963
90980683|NCT00190775|181845093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.075||95.0||||P-Value for Child Domain Demandingness.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.075
90980684|NCT00190775|181845093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.854||95.0||||P-Value for Child Domain Mood.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.854
90980685|NCT00190775|181845093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.671||95.0||||P-Value for Child Domain Acceptability.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.671
90980686|NCT00190775|181845094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28||95.0||||P-Value for Total Stress.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.280
90980687|NCT00190775|181845094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34||95.0||||P-Value for Life Stress.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.34
90980688|NCT00190775|181845095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.103||95.0||||P-Value for Parent Domain Total.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.103
90980689|NCT00190775|181845095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.182||95.0||||P-Value for Parent Domain Competence.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.182
90980690|NCT00190775|181845095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.161||95.0||||P-Value for Parent Domain Isolation.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.161
90980691|NCT00190775|181845095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.472||95.0||||P-Value for Parent Domain Attachment.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.472
90980692|NCT00190775|181845095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.949||95.0||||P-Value for Parent Domain Health.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.949
90980693|NCT00190775|181845095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.848||95.0||||P-Value for Parent Domain Role Restriction.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.848
90980694|NCT00190775|181845095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0||||P-Value for Parent Domain Depression.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.050
90980695|NCT00190775|181845095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84||95.0||||P-Value for Parent Domain Spouse.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.840
90980696|NCT00190775|181845096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.785||95.0||||P-Value for Child Domain Total.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.785
91078474|NCT05821296|182042877|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2832.39|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3217.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||If the test provides a p-value less than 0.05, there is a significant variation over time for the analyzed parameter.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of change from baseline of conspicuous area of detected pores at day 15 to evaluate the improvement of pores assessed by Colorface device.||||< 0.0001
90980697|NCT00190775|181845096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.081||95.0||||P-Value for Defensive Responding.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.081
90980698|NCT00190775|181845096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.518||95.0||||P-Value for Child Domain Distractibility/Hyperactive.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.518
90980699|NCT00190775|181845096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.883||95.0||||P-Value for Child Domain Adaptability.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.883
90980700|NCT00190775|181845096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.439||95.0||||P-Value for Child Domain Reinforces Parent.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.439
90980701|NCT00190775|181845096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.167||95.0||||P-Value for Child Domain Demandingness.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.167
90980702|NCT00190775|181845096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.381||95.0||||P-Value for Child Domain Mood.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.381
90980703|NCT00190775|181845096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.906||95.0||||P-Value for Child Domain Acceptability.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.906
90980704|NCT00190775|181845097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42||95.0||||P-Value for Parent Involvement.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.420
90980705|NCT00190775|181845097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.249||95.0||||P-Value for Parent Positive Parenting.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.249
90980706|NCT00190775|181845097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.927||95.0||||P-Value for Parent Poor Supervision.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.927
90980707|NCT00190775|181845097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.205||95.0||||P-Value for Parent Inconsistent Discipline.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.205
90980708|NCT00190775|181845097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.673||95.0||||P-Value for Parent Corporal Punishment.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.673
90980709|NCT00190775|181845097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.881||95.0||||P-Value for Parent Other Discipline Practice.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.881
90980710|NCT00190775|181845097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.808||95.0||||P-Value for Dysfunctional Parenting Composite.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.808
90980711|NCT00190775|181845097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.498||95.0||||P-Value for Negative Parenting Composite.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.498
90980712|NCT00190775|181845097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.283||95.0||||P-Value for Positive Parenting Composite.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.283
90980713|NCT00190775|181845098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.784||95.0||||P-Value for Parent Involvement.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.784
90980714|NCT00190775|181845098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.864||95.0||||P-Value for Parent Positive Parenting.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.864
90980715|NCT00190775|181845098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.884||95.0||||P-Value for Parent Poor Supervision.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.884
90980716|NCT00190775|181845098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.072||95.0||||P-Value for Parent Inconsistent Discipline.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.072
90980717|NCT00190775|181845098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12||95.0||||P-Value for Parent Corporal Punishment.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.120
90980718|NCT00190775|181845098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.925||95.0||||P-Value Other Discipline Practice.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.925
90980719|NCT00190775|181845098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.444||95.0||||P-Value for Dysfunctional Parenting Composite.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.444
90980720|NCT00190775|181845098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.166||95.0||||P-Value for Negative Parenting Composite.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.166
90980721|NCT00190775|181845098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.875||95.0||||P-Value for Positive Parenting Composite.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.875
90980722|NCT00190775|181845099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.895||95.0||||P-Value for Child Involvement Mother.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.895
90980723|NCT00190775|181845099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.792||95.0||||P-Value for Child Involvement Father.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.792
90949382|NCT02942004|181778051|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-5.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.936||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.46|-1.79|||MMRM|||MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-1.79|-9.46|0.0044
90980724|NCT00190775|181845099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.318||95.0||||P-Value for Child Positive Parenting.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.318
90980725|NCT00190775|181845099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.914||95.0||||P-Value for Child Poor Supervision.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.914
90980726|NCT00190775|181845099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.961||95.0||||P-Value for Child Inconsistent Discipline.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.961
90949383|NCT02942004|181778051|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.899||0.0481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.56|-0.03|||MMRM|||MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.03|-7.56|0.0481
90949384|NCT02942004|181778052|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.951||0.9591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|1.93|||MMRM|||Change at Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||1.93|-1.83|0.9591
90949385|NCT02942004|181778052|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.917||0.8677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|1.97|||MMRM|||Change at Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||1.97|-1.66|0.8677
90949386|NCT02942004|181778052|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.208||0.0827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.51|0.28|||MMRM|||Change at Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.28|-4.51|0.0827
90949387|NCT02942004|181778052|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.172||0.7968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.62|2.02|||MMRM|||Change at Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||2.02|-2.62|0.7968
90949388|NCT02942004|181778052|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.336||0.1292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.69|0.61|||MMRM|||Change at Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.61|-4.69|0.1292
90949389|NCT02942004|181778052|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.299||0.7801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.94|2.21|||MMRM|||Change at Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||2.21|-2.94|0.7801
90949390|NCT02942004|181778052|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.436||0.384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|1.59|||MMRM|||Change at Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||1.59|-4.10|0.3840
90949391|NCT02942004|181778052|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.395||0.6097|TWO_SIDED|0.71|-2.05|3.48|||MMRM|||Change at Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||3.48|-2.05|0.6097
90980727|NCT00190775|181845099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.807||95.0||||P-Value for Child Corporal Punishment.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.807
90980728|NCT00190775|181845099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.827||95.0||||P-Value for Child Other Discipline Practice.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.827
90980729|NCT00190775|181845100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.828||95.0||||P-Value for Child Involvement Mother.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.828
90980730|NCT00190775|181845100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.401||95.0||||P-Value for Child Involvement Father.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.401
90980731|NCT00190775|181845100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3||95.0||||P-Value for Child Positive Parenting.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.300
90980732|NCT00190775|181845100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.575||95.0||||P-Value for Child Poor Supervision.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.575
90980733|NCT00190775|181845100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.772||95.0||||P-Value for Child Inconsistent Discipline.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.772
90980734|NCT00190775|181845100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.918||95.0||||P-Value for Child Corporal Punishment.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.918
90980735|NCT00190775|181845100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.636||95.0||||P-Value for Child Other Discipline Practice.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.636
90980736|NCT00190775|181845101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.583||95.0||||P-Value for Total ADHD Score.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.583
90980737|NCT00190775|181845101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.997||95.0||||P-Value for Hyperactive-Impulsive Symptom ADHD Score.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.997
90980738|NCT00190775|181845101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.333||95.0||||P-Value for Inattention Symptom ADHD Score.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.333
90980739|NCT00190775|181845102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.792||95.0||||P-Value for Oppositional Defiant Disorder Flag|Fisher Exact|||||||.792
90980740|NCT00190775|181845102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.675||95.0||||P-Value for Conduct Disorder Flag.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.675
90980741|NCT00190775|181845103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.875||95.0||||P-Value for PSOC Total.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.875
90980742|NCT00190775|181845103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.569||95.0||||P-Value for Satisfaction Scale.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.569
90980743|NCT00190775|181845103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.399||95.0||||P-Value for Efficacy Scale.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.399
90980744|NCT00190775|181845104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.365||95.0||||P-Value for PSOC Total.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.365
90980745|NCT00190775|181845104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62||95.0||||P-Value for Satisfaction Scale.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.620
90980746|NCT00190775|181845104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.462||95.0||||P-Value for Efficacy Scale.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.462
90980747|NCT00190775|181845105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||P-Value for Total Score at 12 Weeks.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.001
90980748|NCT00190775|181845105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0||||P-Value for Hyperactivity Score at 12 Weeks.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.004
90980749|NCT00190775|181845105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-Value for Inattention Score at 12 Weeks.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||<0.001
90980750|NCT00190775|181845105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-Value for Total Score at 24 Weeks.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||<0.001
90980751|NCT00190775|181845105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-Value for Hyperactivity Score at 24 Weeks.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||<0.001
90980752|NCT00190775|181845105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-Value for Inattention Score at 24 Weeks.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||<0.001
90980753|NCT00190775|181845106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-Value for 8 Weeks.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||<0.001
90980754|NCT00190775|181845106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-Value for 24 Weeks.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||<0.001
90980755|NCT00190775|181845107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.553||95.0||||P-Value for 12 Weeks.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.553
90980756|NCT00190775|181845107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.797||95.0||||P-Value for 24 Weeks.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.797
90980757|NCT00190775|181845108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.108||95.0||||P-Value for State Anxiety Score at 12 Weeks.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.108
90980758|NCT00190775|181845108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026||95.0||||P-Value for Trait Anxiety Score at 12 Weeks.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.026
90980759|NCT00190775|181845108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.897||95.0||||P-Value is for State Anxiety Score at 24 Weeks.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.897
90980760|NCT00190775|181845108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.171||95.0||||P-Value is for Trait Anxiety Score at 24 weeks.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.171
90980761|NCT00190775|181845109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.892||95.0||||P-Value for Total ADHD Symptoms Score.|ANCOVA|Model included visit by therapy, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.892
90980762|NCT00190775|181845109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||P-Value for Total ADHD Symptoms Score.|ANCOVA|Model included visit by therapy, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.003
90980763|NCT00190775|181845109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0||||P-Value for Total ADHD Symptoms Score.|ANCOVA|Model included visit by therapy, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.007
90980764|NCT00190775|181845109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.533||95.0||||P-Value for Hyper/Impulsive Subscale.|ANCOVA|Model included visit by therapy, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.533
90980765|NCT00190775|181845109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.054||95.0||||P-Value for Hyper/Impulsive Subscale.|ANCOVA|Model included visit by therapy, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.054
90980766|NCT00190775|181845109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||95.0||||P-Value for Hyper/Impulsive Subscale.|ANCOVA|Model included visit by therapy, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.012
90980767|NCT00190775|181845109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.457||95.0||||P-Value for Inattention Subscale.|ANCOVA|Model included visit by therapy, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.457
90980768|NCT00190775|181845109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||P-Value for Inattention Subscale.|ANCOVA|Model included visit by therapy, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.001
90980769|NCT00190775|181845109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021||95.0||||P-Value for Inattention Subscale.|ANCOVA|Model included visit by therapy, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.021
90980770|NCT00190775|181845109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71||95.0||||P-Value for ADHD Index Subscale.|ANCOVA|Model included visit by therapy, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.710
90980771|NCT00190775|181845109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-Value for ADHD Index Subscale.|ANCOVA|Model included visit by therapy, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||<0.001
90980772|NCT00190775|181845109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||P-Value for ADHD Index Subscale.|ANCOVA|Model included visit by therapy, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.005
90980773|NCT00190775|181845110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.722||95.0||||P-Value for Total ADHD Symptoms Score.|ANCOVA|Model included visit by therapy, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.722
90980774|NCT00190775|181845110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011||95.0||||P-Value for Total ADHD Symptoms Score.|ANCOVA|Model included visit by therapy, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.011
90980775|NCT00190775|181845110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||P-Value for Total ADHD Symptoms Score.|ANCOVA|Model included visit by therapy, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.005
90980776|NCT00190775|181845110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.779||95.0||||P-Value for Hyper/Impulsive Scale.|ANCOVA|Model included visit by therapy, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.779
90980777|NCT00190775|181845110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0||||P-Value for Hyper/Impulsive Subscale.|ANCOVA|Model included visit by therapy, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.004
90980778|NCT00190775|181845110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-Value for Hyper/Impulsive Subscale.|ANCOVA|Model included visit by therapy, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.002
90980779|NCT00190775|181845110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.716||95.0||||P-Value for Inattention Subscale.|ANCOVA|Model included visit by therapy, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.716
90980780|NCT00190775|181845110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.071||95.0||||P-Value for Inattention Subscale.|ANCOVA|Model included visit by therapy, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.071
90980781|NCT00190775|181845110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034||95.0||||P-Value for Inattention Subscale.|ANCOVA|Model included visit by therapy, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.034
90980782|NCT00190775|181845110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.938||95.0||||P-Value for ADHD Index Subscale.|ANCOVA|Model included visit by therapy, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.938
90980783|NCT00190775|181845110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0||||P-Value for ADHD Index Subscale.|ANCOVA|Model included visit by therapy, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.004
90980784|NCT00190775|181845110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||P-Value for ADHD Index Subscale.|ANCOVA|Model included visit by therapy, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.005
90980785|NCT00190775|181845111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.546||95.0||||P-Value for Total ADHD Symptoms Score.|ANCOVA|Model included visit by therapy, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.546
90980786|NCT00190775|181845111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53||95.0||||P-Value for Hyper/Impulsive Subscale.|ANCOVA|Model included visit by therapy, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.530
90980787|NCT00190775|181845111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.569||95.0||||P-Value for Inattention Subscale.|ANCOVA|Model included visit by therapy, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.569
90980788|NCT00190775|181845111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.986||95.0||||P-Vaue for ADHD Index Subscale.|ANCOVA|Model included visit by therapy, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.986
90980789|NCT00327444|181845131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares (LS) Mean difference|31.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.59||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.56|53.05||Estimated using Wilcoxon rank-sum test with stratification of baseline paracentesis (=\<2 weeks versus \>2 weeks) at randomization.|ANOVA|Estimated from ANOVA model with stratification of baseline paracentesis (=\<2 weeks versus \>2 weeks).|The LS mean difference is estimated for aflibercept versus placebo (aflibercept-placebo).|||53.05|10.56|0.0019
90949392|NCT02942004|181778052|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-4.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.622||0.0094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|-1.07|||MMRM|||Change at Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-1.07|-7.50|0.0094
90949393|NCT02942004|181778052|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.577||0.144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.45|0.8|||MMRM|||Change at Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.80|-5.45|0.1440
90949394|NCT02942004|181778052|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-5.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.62||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.33|-1.91|||MMRM|||Change at Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-1.91|-8.33|0.0020
90949395|NCT02942004|181778052|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.572||0.3906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.47|1.76|||MMRM|||Change at Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||1.76|-4.47|0.3906
90949396|NCT02942004|181778052|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-4.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.735||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.93|-1.05|||MMRM|||Change at Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-1.05|-7.93|0.0110
90949397|NCT02942004|181778052|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.69||0.0511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.68|0.02|||MMRM|||Change at Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.02|-6.68|0.0511
90949398|NCT02942004|181778052|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-5.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.738||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.47|-1.58|||MMRM|||Change at hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-1.58|-8.47|0.0046
90949399|NCT02942004|181778052|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.694||0.1389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.88|0.83|||MMRM|||Change at Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.83|-5.88|0.1389
90949400|NCT02942004|181778052|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-4.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.837||0.0288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.71|-0.43|||MMRM|||Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.43|-7.71|0.0288
90949401|NCT02942004|181778052|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.797||0.3799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.15|1.98|||MMRM|||Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||1.98|-5.15|0.3799
90949402|NCT02942004|181778052|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.139||0.1747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.16|1.32|||MMRM|||Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||1.32|-7.16|0.1747
90949403|NCT02942004|181778052|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.08||0.631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.13|3.12|||MMRM|||Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||3.12|-5.13|0.6310
90949404|NCT02942004|181778052|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-4.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.045||0.0178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.98|-0.87|||MMRM|||Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.87|-8.98|0.0178
90949405|NCT02942004|181778052|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.976||0.0786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.43|0.41|||MMRM|||Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.41|-7.43|0.0786
90949406|NCT02942004|181778053|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.4||||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|17.4|||GEE method|||Hour 60: Generalized estimating equation (GEE) method was used for analysis. The HAM-D response at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. An exchangeable working correlation structure is assumed for the model parameters estimation.||17.4|1.7|0.0052
90949407|NCT02942004|181778053|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.6||||0.0493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|6.9|||GEE method|||Hour 60: GEE method was used for analysis. The HAM-D response at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. An exchangeable working correlation structure is assumed for the model parameters estimation.||6.9|1.0|0.0493
90949408|NCT02942004|181778053|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.5||||0.0572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|6.5|||GEE method|||Day 7: GEE method was used for analysis. The HAM-D response at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. An exchangeable working correlation structure is assumed for the model parameters estimation.||6.5|1.0|0.0572
90949409|NCT02942004|181778053|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.6768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.0|||GEE method|||Day 7: GEE method was used for analysis. The HAM-D response at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. An exchangeable working correlation structure is assumed for the model parameters estimation.||3.0|0.5|0.6768
90949410|NCT02942004|181778053|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.4||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|16.8|||GEE method|||Day 30: GEE method was used for analysis. The HAM-D response at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. An exchangeable working correlation structure is assumed for the model parameters estimation.||16.8|1.7|0.0035
90949411|NCT02942004|181778053|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.9||||0.0347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|7.8|||GEE method|||Day 30: GEE method was used for analysis. The HAM-D response at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. An exchangeable working correlation structure is assumed for the model parameters estimation.||7.8|1.1|0.0347
90949412|NCT02942004|181778054|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.0||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|17.8|||GEE method|||Hour 60: GEE method was used for analysis. The HAM-D response at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. An exchangeable working correlation structure is assumed for the model parameters estimation.||17.8|2.1|0.0011
90949413|NCT02942004|181778054|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.6||||0.0828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|7.6|||GEE method|||Hour 60: GEE method was used for analysis. The HAM-D response at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. An exchangeable working correlation structure is assumed for the model parameters estimation.||7.6|0.9|0.0828
90949414|NCT02942004|181778054|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.7749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.1|||GEE method|||Day 7: GEE method was used for analysis. The HAM-D response at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. An exchangeable working correlation structure is assumed for the model parameters estimation.||3.1|0.4|0.7749
91039089|NCT01541215|181962155|SUPERIORITY|"Stepwise hierarchical testing procedure was applied for confirmatory endpoints:~Step 2: Change from baseline in FPG after 26 weeks of treatment"|Treatment difference|-1.878|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.093|-0.662|||Pattern Mixture Model|||Analysis using a pattern mixture model of observed data with missing observations imputed from the placebo arm based on multiple (x10.000) imputations. The data for weeks 26 were then analysed with an ANCOVA model containing treatment, sex and age group as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate. The estimated treatment differences and confidence intervals were combined using Rubins formula.||-0.662|-3.093|0.002
91039090|NCT01541215|181962156|SUPERIORITY|"Stepwise hierarchical testing procedure was applied for confirmatory endpoints:~Step 3: HbA1c \< 7.0% after 26 weeks of treatment"|Treatment odds ratio|5.353|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.105|13.615|||logistic regression model|||Missing data was imputed using pattern mixture model. For each imputed data set the binary response was analysed in a logistic regression model using a logit link with treatment and stratification group (gender\*age group) as fixed factors and baseline HbA1c as covariate.The estimated treatment effects and confidence intervals were combined using Rubin´s formula.||13.615|2.105|<0.001
91078475|NCT05821296|182042877|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1754.88|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4220.25||0.025|TWO_SIDED|||||If the test provides a p-value less than 0.05, there is a significant variation over time for the analyzed parameter.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of change from baseline of conspicuous area of detected pores at day 36 to evaluate the improvement of pores assessed by Colorface device.||||0.025
91078476|NCT05821296|182042877|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2763.41|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4965.84||0.004|TWO_SIDED|||||If the test provides a p-value less than 0.05, there is a significant variation over time for the analyzed parameter.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of change from baseline of conspicuous area of detected pores at day 57 to evaluate the improvement of pores assessed by Colorface device.||||0.004
91078477|NCT05821296|182042877|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1742.41|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3974.21||0.021|TWO_SIDED|||||If the test provides a p-value less than 0.05, there is a significant variation over time for the analyzed parameter.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of change from baseline of conspicuous area of detected pores at day 78 to evaluate the improvement of pores assessed by Colorface device.||||0.021
90949415|NCT02942004|181778054|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.3401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.7|||GEE method|||Day 7: GEE method was used for analysis. The HAM-D response at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. An exchangeable working correlation structure is assumed for the model parameters estimation.||1.7|0.2|0.3401
90949416|NCT02942004|181778054|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3||||0.1052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|6.0|||GEE method|||Day 30: GEE method was used for analysis. The HAM-D response at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. An exchangeable working correlation structure is assumed for the model parameters estimation.||6.0|0.8|0.1052
90949417|NCT02942004|181778054|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6||||0.3507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|4.2|||GEE method|||Day 30: GEE method was used for analysis. The HAM-D response at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. An exchangeable working correlation structure is assumed for the model parameters estimation.||4.2|0.6|0.3507
90949418|NCT02942004|181778055|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-12.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.294||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.58|-3.56|||MMRM|||Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D subscales at each visit as the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D subscales, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables are included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center are treated as fixed effects.||-3.56|-20.58|0.0058
90949419|NCT02942004|181778055|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-5.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.188||0.1622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.19|2.41|||MMRM|||Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D subscales at each visit as the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D subscales, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables are included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center are treated as fixed effects.||2.41|-14.19|0.1622
90949420|NCT02942004|181778055|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-9.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.51||0.0462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.02|-0.16|||MMRM|||Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D subscales at each visit as the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D subscales, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables are included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center are treated as fixed effects.||-0.16|-18.02|0.0462
91078478|NCT05821296|182042878|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||If the test provides a p-value less than 0.05, there is a significant variation over time for the analyzed parameter.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of change from baseline of conspicuous relative area (density) of detected pores at Day 15 to evaluate the improvement of pores assessed by Colorface device.||||<0.0001
91039091|NCT01541215|181962157|SUPERIORITY|"Stepwise hierarchical testing procedure was applied for confirmatory endpoints:~Step 4: Change from baseline in BMI SDS after 26 weeks of treatment"|Treatment difference|-0.047|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055||0.392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.153|0.06|||Pattern Mixture Model|||Analysis using a pattern mixture model of observed data with missing observations imputed from the placebo arm based on multiple (x10.000) imputations. The data for weeks 26 were then analysed with an ANCOVA model containing treatment, sex and age group as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate. The estimated treatment differences and confidence intervals were combined using Rubins formula.||0.060|-0.153|0.392
90949421|NCT02942004|181778055|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.41||0.6124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.97|6.49|||MMRM|||Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D subscales at each visit as the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D subscales, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables are included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center are treated as fixed effects.||6.49|-10.97|0.6124
90949422|NCT02942004|181778055|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-11.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.556||0.0116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.71|-2.66|||MMRM|||Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D subscales at each visit as the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D subscales, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables are included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center are treated as fixed effects.||-2.66|-20.71|0.0116
90949423|NCT02942004|181778055|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-8.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.464||0.0667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|0.58|||MMRM|||Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D subscales at each visit as the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D subscales, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables are included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center are treated as fixed effects.||0.58|-17.10|0.0667
90949424|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.191||0.9681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.37|||MMRM|||Depressed Mood, Change at Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.37|-0.39|0.9681
90949425|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.185||0.6337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.46|||MMRM|||Depressed Mood, Change at Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.46|-0.28|0.6337
90949426|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.238||0.469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.3|||MMRM|||Depressed Mood, Change at Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.30|-0.64|0.4690
90949427|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.232||0.9905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.46|||MMRM|||Depressed Mood, Change at Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.46|-0.46|0.9905
91039092|NCT03234907|181962254|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.2|||=|0.347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.2|6.8||P-value was based on CHW test, based on weighted CMH chi-square test, with stratification according to: (1)previous failure of TNF-α antagonist therapy/concomitant use of immunomodulators(Yes/No);(2)concomitant use of oral corticosteroids(Yes/No).|Cui-Hung-Wang (CHW) test||Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the treatment difference and its variance was used to calculate the 95% confidence interval for the treatment difference. Adjustment to the stratification factors was implemented.|||6.8|-17.2|=0.347
90949428|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.3984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.27|||MMRM|||Depressed Mood, Change at Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.27|-0.68|0.3984
90949429|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.234||0.7042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.55|||MMRM|||Depressed Mood, Change at Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.55|-0.37|0.7042
90949430|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.247||0.4941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.32|||MMRM|||Depressed Mood, Change at Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.32|-0.66|0.4941
90949431|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.4572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.65|||MMRM|||Depressed Mood, Change at Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.65|-0.30|0.4572
90949432|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.236||0.9866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.46|||MMRM|||Depressed Mood, Change at Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.46|-0.47|0.9866
90949433|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.229||0.749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.38|||MMRM|||Depressed Mood, Change at Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.38|-0.53|0.7490
90949434|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.247||0.0235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.08|||MMRM|||Depressed Mood, Change at Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.08|-1.06|0.0235
90949435|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.239||0.9286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.45|||MMRM|||Depressed Mood, Change Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.45|-0.50|0.9286
90949436|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.251||0.0544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.01|||MMRM|||Depressed Mood, Change at Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.01|-0.99|0.0544
90949437|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.244||0.2903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.22|||MMRM|||Depressed Mood, Change at Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.22|-0.74|0.2903
90949438|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.244||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|-0.23|||MMRM|||Depressed Mood, Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.23|-1.19|0.0044
90949439|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.238||0.1339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.11|||MMRM|||Depressed Mood, Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.11|-0.83|0.1339
91039093|NCT03234907|181962255|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.7|||=|0.531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|6.0||P-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel, weighted CMH chi-square test, with stratification according to:(1)previous failure of TNF-α antagonist therapy/concomitant use of immunomodulators(Yes/No);(2)concomitant use of oral corticosteroids(Yes/No).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the treatment difference and its variance was used to calculate the 95% confidence interval for the treatment difference. Adjustment to the stratification factors was implemented.|||6.0|-11.5|=0.531
91039094|NCT01472432|181962256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||"* Vildagliptin vs Placebo at 3 months.~* Placebo baseline versus placebo 3 months.~* Vildagliptin baseline versus Vildagliptin 3 months."|t-test, 2 sided|"* Vildagliptin vs Placebo at 3 months.~* Placebo baseline versus placebo 3 months.~* Vildagliptin baseline versus Vildagliptin 3 months."||"* Vildagliptin vs Placebo at 3 months.~* Placebo baseline versus placebo 3 months.~* Vildagliptin baseline versus Vildagliptin 3 months."||||<0.05
91039095|NCT01472432|181962257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||"* Vildagliptin vs Placebo at 3 months.~* Placebo baseline versus placebo 3 months.~* Vildagliptin baseline versus Vildagliptin 3 months"|t-test, 2 sided|"* Vildagliptin vs Placebo at 3 months.~* Placebo baseline versus placebo 3 months.~* Vildagliptin baseline versus Vildagliptin 3 months"||"* Vildagliptin vs Placebo at 3 months.~* Placebo baseline versus placebo 3 months.~* Vildagliptin baseline versus Vildagliptin 3 months."||||<0.05
91078479|NCT05821296|182042878|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.68||0.029|TWO_SIDED|||||If the test provides a p-value less than 0.05, there is a significant variation over time for the analyzed parameter.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of change from baseline of conspicuous relative area (density) of detected pores at Day 36 to evaluate the improvement of pores assessed by Colorface device.||||0.029
90949440|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.234||0.0149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|-0.11|||MMRM|||Depressed Mood, Change at Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.11|-1.04|0.0149
90949441|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.228||0.3213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.22|||MMRM|||Depressed Mood, Change at Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.22|-0.68|0.3213
90949442|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.246||0.0703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.04|||MMRM|||Depressed Mood, Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.04|-0.94|0.0703
90949443|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.8152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.42|||MMRM|||Depressed Mood, Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.42|-0.53|0.8152
90949444|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.301||0.0805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|0.07|||MMRM|||Depressed Mood, Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.07|-1.13|0.0805
90949445|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.291||0.6964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.46|||MMRM|||Depressed Mood, Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.46|-0.69|0.6964
90949446|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.304||0.2998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.29|||MMRM|||Depressed Mood, Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.29|-0.92|0.2998
90949447|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.291||0.3448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.3|||MMRM|||Depressed Mood, Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.30|-0.85|0.3448
90949448|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.248||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|-0.17|||MMRM|||Depressed Mood, Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.17|-1.15|0.0089
90949449|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.244||0.0772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.05|||MMRM|||Depressed Mood, Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.05|-0.92|0.0772
91078480|NCT05821296|182042878|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.01||0.006|TWO_SIDED|||||If the test provides a p-value less than 0.05, there is a significant variation over time for the analyzed parameter.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of change from baseline of conspicuous relative area (density) of detected pores at Day 57 to evaluate the improvement of pores assessed by Colorface device.||||0.006
91039096|NCT01472432|181962258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||P-values from multiple comparisons: placebo at baseline vs. placebo at 3 months; placebo at 3 months vs. Vildagliptin at 3 months; Vildagliptin at baseline vs. Vildagliptin at 3 months. P\< 0.05 versus control patients. P \< 0.05 versus baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|||p-values from multiple comparisons: placebo at baseline vs. placebo at 3 months; placebo at 3 months vs. Vildagliptin at 3 months; Vildagliptin at baseline vs. Vildagliptin at 3 months.||||<0.05
91039097|NCT01472432|181962259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||P\< 0.05 versus control patients. P \< 0.05 versus baseline|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
90949450|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.191||0.6809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.3|||MMRM|||Feelings of Guilt, Change at Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.30|-0.46|0.6809
90949451|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.185||0.7297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.43|||MMRM|||Feelings of Guilt, Change at Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.43|-0.30|0.7297
90949452|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.226||0.0626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.02|||MMRM|||Feelings of Guilt, Change at Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.02|-0.87|0.0626
90949453|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.5196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.29|||MMRM|||Feelings of Guilt, Change at Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.29|-0.58|0.5196
90949454|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.234||0.0772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.05|||MMRM|||Feelings of Guilt, Change at Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.05|-0.88|0.0772
90949455|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.228||0.661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.35|||MMRM|||Feelings of Guilt, Change at Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.35|-0.55|0.6610
90949456|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.239||0.4007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.27|||MMRM|||Feelings of Guilt, Change at Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.27|-0.67|0.4007
90949457|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.232||0.2292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.74|||MMRM|||Feelings of Guilt, Change at Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.74|-0.18|0.2292
90949458|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.234||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.01|||MMRM|||Feelings of Guilt, Change at Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.01|-0.92|0.0540
90949459|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.227||0.959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.46|||MMRM|||Feelings of Guilt, Change at Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.46|-0.44|0.9590
90949460|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.218||0.1048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.08|||MMRM|||Feelings of Guilt, Change at Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.08|-0.79|0.1048
90949461|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.8979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.39|||MMRM|||Feelings of Guilt, Change at Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.39|-0.44|0.8979
90949462|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.219||0.0819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.05|||MMRM|||Feelings of Guilt, Change at Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.05|-0.82|0.0819
91078481|NCT05821296|182042878|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.65|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.67||0.037|TWO_SIDED|||||If the test provides a p-value less than 0.05, there is a significant variation over time for the analyzed parameter.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of change from baseline of conspicuous relative area (density) of detected pores at Day 78 to evaluate the improvement of pores assessed by Colorface device.||||0.037
91078482|NCT05821296|182042879|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.58||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||If the test provides a p-value less than 0.05, there is a significant variation over time for the analyzed parameter.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of change from baseline of conspicuous depth of detected pores at Day 15 to evaluate the improvement of pores assessed by Colorface device.||||0.001
91078483|NCT05821296|182042879|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.71||0.348|TWO_SIDED|||||If the test provides a p-value less than 0.05, there is a significant variation over time for the analyzed parameter.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of change from baseline of conspicuous depth of detected pores at Day 36 to evaluate the improvement of pores assessed by Colorface device.||||0.348
91078484|NCT05821296|182042879|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.75||0.091|TWO_SIDED|||||If the test provides a p-value less than 0.05, there is a significant variation over time for the analyzed parameter.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of change from baseline of conspicuous depth of detected pores at Day 57 to evaluate the improvement of pores assessed by Colorface device.||||0.091
91078485|NCT05821296|182042879|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.65||0.19|TWO_SIDED|||||If the test provides a p-value less than 0.05, there is a significant variation over time for the analyzed parameter.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of change from baseline of conspicuous depth of detected pores at Day 78 to evaluate the improvement of pores assessed by Colorface device.||||0.190
91078486|NCT05821296|182042880|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.69|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.55||0.011|TWO_SIDED|||||If the test provides a p-value less than 0.05, there is a significant variation over time for the analyzed parameter.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of change from baseline of average area of detected pores at Day 15 to evaluate the improvement of pores assessed by Colorface device.||||0.011
91078487|NCT05821296|182042880|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.64|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.28||0.281|TWO_SIDED|||||If the test provides a p-value less than 0.05, there is a significant variation over time for the analyzed parameter.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of change from baseline of average area of detected pores at Day 36 to evaluate the improvement of pores assessed by Colorface device.||||0.281
91078488|NCT05821296|182042880|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.57|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.46||0.06|TWO_SIDED|||||If the test provides a p-value less than 0.05, there is a significant variation over time for the analyzed parameter.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of change from baseline of average area of detected pores at Day 57 to evaluate the improvement of pores assessed by Colorface device.||||0.060
91078489|NCT05821296|182042880|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.87|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.8||0.209|TWO_SIDED|||||If the test provides a p-value less than 0.05, there is a significant variation over time for the analyzed parameter.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of change from baseline of average area of detected pores at Day 78 to evaluate the improvement of pores assessed by Colorface device.||||0.209
91078490|NCT05821296|182042881|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26495.83|STANDARD_DEVIATION|33223.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||If the test provides a p-value less than 0.05, there is a significant variation over time for the analyzed parameter.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of change from baseline of conspicuous volume of detected pores at Day 15 to evaluate the improvement of pores assessed by Colorface device.||||<0.0001
91078491|NCT05821296|182042881|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14447.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|44054.48||0.073|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of change from baseline of conspicuous volume of detected pores at Day 36 to evaluate the improvement of pores assessed by Colorface device.||||0.073
91078492|NCT05821296|182042881|OTHER|If the test provides a p-value less than 0.05, there is a significant variation over time for the analyzed parameter.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25315.34|STANDARD_DEVIATION|49884.67||0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of change from baseline of conspicuous volume of detected pores at Day 57 to evaluate the improvement of pores assessed by Colorface device.||||0.008
90949463|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.213||0.1099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.08|||MMRM|||Feelings of Guilt, Change at Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.08|-0.77|0.1099
90949464|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.215||0.0373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.03|||MMRM|||Feelings of Guilt, Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.03|-0.88|0.0373
90949465|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.209||0.0577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.01|||MMRM|||Feelings of Guilt, Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.01|-0.81|0.0577
90949466|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.2023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.15|||MMRM|||Feelings of Guilt, Change at Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.15|-0.69|0.2023
90949467|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.204||0.4444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.25|||MMRM|||Feelings of Guilt, Change at Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.25|-0.56|0.4444
90949468|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.3645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.24|||MMRM|||Feelings of Guilt, Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.24|-0.64|0.3645
90949469|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.214||0.4035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.24|||MMRM|||Feelings of Guilt, Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.24|-0.60|0.4035
90949470|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.232||0.4877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.3|||MMRM|||Feelings of Guilt, Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.30|-0.62|0.4877
90949471|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.226||0.3134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.22|||MMRM|||Feelings of Guilt, Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.22|-0.68|0.3134
90949472|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.07|||MMRM|||Feelings of Guilt, Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.07|-0.89|0.0922
90949473|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.04|||MMRM|||Feelings of Guilt, Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.04|-0.87|0.0761
90949474|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.217||0.3275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.22|||MMRM|||Feelings of Guilt, Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.22|-0.64|0.3275
91078493|NCT05821296|182042881|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13287.34|STANDARD_DEVIATION|39615.92||0.071|TWO_SIDED|||||If the test provides a p-value less than 0.05, there is a significant variation over time for the analyzed parameter.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of change from baseline of conspicuous volume of detected pores at Day 78 to evaluate the improvement of pores assessed by Colorface device.||||0.071
90949475|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.213||0.3041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.2|||MMRM|||Feelings of Guilt, Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.20|-0.64|0.3041
90949476|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.146||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.01|||MMRM|||Suicide, Change at Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.01|-0.59|0.0450
90949477|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.143||0.5351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.37|||MMRM|||Suicide, Change at Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.37|-0.19|0.5351
90949478|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS men difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.142||0.0525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.0|||MMRM|||Suicide, Change at Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.00|-0.56|0.0525
90980790|NCT00327444|181845132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares (LS) Mean difference|375.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|205.99||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.48|797.42||Estimated using Wilcoxon rank-sum test with stratification of baseline paracentesis (=\<2 weeks versus \>2 weeks) at randomization.|ANOVA|Estimated from ANOVA model with stratification of baseline paracentesis (=\<2 weeks versus \>2 weeks).|The LS mean difference was estimated for aflibercept versus placebo (aflibercept-placebo).|||797.42|-46.48|0.0160
90980791|NCT00327444|181845133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares (LS) Mean difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.33|-0.54||Estimated using Wilcoxon rank-sum test with stratification of baseline paracentesis (=\<2 weeks versus \>2 weeks) at randomization.|ANOVA|Estimated from ANOVA model with stratification of baseline paracentesis (=\<2 weeks versus \>2 weeks).|The LS mean difference is estimated for aflibercept versus placebo (aflibercept-placebo).|||-0.54|-4.33|0.0035
90980792|NCT02249052|181845135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-83.33|STANDARD_DEVIATION|25.0311|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-95.394|-71.265|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-71.265|-95.394|<0.0001
90949479|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.139||0.7932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.31|||MMRM|||Suicide, Change at Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.31|-0.24|0.7932
90949480|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.128||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.06|||MMRM|||Suicide, Change at Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.06|-0.45|0.1300
90949481|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.125||0.1631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.42|||MMRM|||Suicide, Change at Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.42|-0.07|0.1631
90949482|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129||0.8215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.29|||MMRM|||Suicide, Change at Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.29|-0.23|0.8215
90949483|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.126||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.51|||MMRM|||Suicide, Change at Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.51|0.01|0.0380
90949484|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.124||0.507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.16|||MMRM|||Suicide, Change at Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.16|-0.33|0.5070
90949485|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.1094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.43|||MMRM|||Suicide, Change at Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.43|-0.04|0.1094
90949486|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099||0.3112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1|||MMRM|||Suicide, Change at Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.10|-0.30|0.3112
90949487|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.096||0.1345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.33|||MMRM|||Suicide, Change at Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.33|-0.05|0.1345
90949488|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.091||0.5148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.12|||MMRM|||Suicide, Change at Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.12|-0.24|0.5148
90980793|NCT02249052|181845136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Binomial proportion|0.8947|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6686|0.987|||Sign test|||||.9870|.6686|<.0001
90980794|NCT01658514|181845141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Ratio of LS Means|51.5||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|90.0|37.77|70.23||p-values \<0.10 are considered statistically significant|ANOVA|Included treatment, renal group, sequence, period and treatment\*renal group as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||For the Normal Renal Function Cohort. Met XR is the denominator for the % ratio of LS means and the comparator for the p-values.||70.23|37.77|0.0011
90980795|NCT01658514|181845141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Ratio of LS Means|73.8||||0.0733|TWO_SIDED|90.0|55.97|97.43||p-values \<0.10 are considered statistically significant|ANOVA|Included treatment, renal group, sequence, period and treatment\*renal group as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||For the Mild RI Renal Function Cohort. Met XR is the denominator for the % ratio of LS means and the comparator for the p-values.||97.43|55.97|0.0733
90980796|NCT01658514|181845141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Ratio of LS Means|56.7||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|90.0|42.25|76.1||p-values \<0.10 are considered statistically significant|ANOVA|Included treatment, renal group, sequence, period and treatment\*renal group as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||For the Moderate RI Renal Function Cohort. Met XR is the denominator for the % ratio of LS means and the comparator for the p-values.||76.10|42.25|0.0028
90980797|NCT01658514|181845141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Ratio of LS Means|52.4||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|90.0|37.61|73.02||p-values \<0.10 are considered statistically significant|ANOVA|Included treatment, renal group, sequence, period and treatment\*renal group as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||For the Severe RI Cohort. Met XR is the denominator for the % ratio of LS means and the comparator for the p-values.||73.02|37.61|0.0025
90980798|NCT01658514|181845142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Ratio of LS Means|65.5||||0.0474|TWO_SIDED|90.0|46.32|92.68||p-values \<0.10 are considered statistically significant|ANOVA|Included treatment, renal group, sequence, period and treatment\*renal group as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||For the Normal Renal Function Cohort. Met XR is the denominator for the % ratio of LS means and the comparator for the p-values.||92.68|46.32|0.0474
90980799|NCT01658514|181845142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Ratio of LS Means|77.3||||0.1691|TWO_SIDED|90.0|56.72|105.41||p-values \<0.10 are considered statistically significant|ANOVA|Included treatment, renal group, sequence, period and treatment\*renal group as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||For the Mild RI Renal Function Cohort. Met XR is the denominator for the % ratio of LS means and the comparator for the p-values.||105.41|56.72|0.1691
90980800|NCT01658514|181845142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Ratio of LS Means|56.6||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|90.0|40.73|78.63||p-values \<0.10 are considered statistically significant|ANOVA|Included treatment, renal group, sequence, period and treatment\*renal group as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||For the Moderate RI Renal Function Cohort. Met XR is the denominator for the % ratio of LS means and the comparator for the p-values.||78.63|40.73|0.0064
90980801|NCT01658514|181845142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Ratio of LS Means|54.6||||0.0097|TWO_SIDED|90.0|37.68|79.11||p-values \<0.10 are considered statistically significant|ANOVA|Included treatment, renal group, sequence, period and treatment\*renal group as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||For the Severe RI Renal Function Cohort. Met XR is the denominator for the % ratio of LS means and the comparator for the p-values.||79.11|37.68|0.0097
90980802|NCT01658514|181845143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9444|TWO_SIDED|||||R² for Placebo-adjusted Change from Pre-dose Value in Lactate Versus Metformin Concentration|Pearson Correlation|||||||0.9444
90980803|NCT01658514|181845143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||R² for placebo-adjusted change from pre-dose value in lactate versus metformin concentration|Pearson Correlation|||||||<0.0001
90980804|NCT00144170|181845145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|18.5||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.9|24.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Weighted by the size of enfuvirtide and protease inhibitor strata||||24.0|12.9|0.0001
90980805|NCT00144170|181845146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.0001
90980806|NCT00144170|181845147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|24.9||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.6|31.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Weighted by the size of enfuvirtide and protease inhibitor strata||||31.1|18.6|0.0001
90980807|NCT00144170|181845148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|28.8||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.5|35.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||35.1|22.5|0.0001
90980808|NCT00144170|181845149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|29.4||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.2|35.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Weighted by the size of enfuvirtide and protease inhibitor strata||||35.7|23.2|0.0001
90980809|NCT00144170|181845150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|26.6||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.5|32.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Weighted by the size of enfuvirtide and protease inhibitor strata||||32.6|20.5|0.0001
90980810|NCT00144170|181845151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|22.1||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.2|27.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Weighted by the size of enfuvirtide and protease inhibitor strata||||27.9|16.2|0.0001
90980811|NCT00144170|181845152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|19.0||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.3|24.7||Weighted by the size of enfuvirtide and protease inhibitor strata|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||24.7|13.3|0.0001
91039098|NCT02986139|181962262|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.0||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|0.0|||Mixed effects analysis of variance model|||A mixed effects analysis of variance model was used to assess injection site pain with the new formulation of etanercept as the test treatment and the commercial formulation of etanercept as the reference treatment. Treatment, study period, sequence, and disease indication were evaluated as fixed effect covariates, and subject within sequence was included as a random effect.||-0.0|-8.0|0.048
91039099|NCT02583048|181962265|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|8.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.1|2.0|14.8|||||Arm 3 minus Arm 1 difference in change from baseline estimated from ANOVA model. Interim analysis conducted when week 24 QT data was available for ≥12 participants stipulated 99.9% confidence interval; original coverage of 95% was widened to 95.1%.|||14.8|2.0|
90980812|NCT00144170|181845153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|18.7||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.0|24.4||Weighted by the size of enfuvirtide and protease inhibitor strata|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||24.4|13.0|0.0001
90980813|NCT00144170|181845154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|17.2||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.7|22.7||Weighted by the size of enfuvirtide and protease inhibitor strata|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||22.7|11.7|0.0001
90980814|NCT00144170|181845155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|17.1||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.7|22.4||Weighted by the size of enfuvirtide and protease inhibitor strata|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||22.4|11.7|0.0001
90980815|NCT00144170|181845156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|17.3||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|22.5||Weighted by the size of enfuvirtide and protease inhibitor strata|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||22.5|12.0|0.0001
90980816|NCT00144170|181845157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|16.4||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.2|21.5||Weighted by the size of enfuvirtide and protease inhibitor strata|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.5|11.2|0.0001
90980817|NCT00144170|181845158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|16.2||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.1|21.3||Weighted by the size of enfuvirtide and protease inhibitor strata|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.3|11.1|0.0001
90980818|NCT00144170|181845159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|15.6||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.6|20.6||Weighted by the size of enfuvirtide and protease inhibitor strata|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||20.6|10.6|0.0001
90980819|NCT00144170|181845160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.0001
90980820|NCT00144170|181845161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.0001
90980821|NCT00144170|181845162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.0001
90980822|NCT00144170|181845236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1026||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.1026
90980823|NCT00332202|181845243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.689|1.216|||Log Rank|||||1.216|0.689|0.541
90980824|NCT00332202|181845249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.606|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis for Month 2||||0.606
90980825|NCT00332202|181845249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.971|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis for Month 4||||0.971
90980826|NCT00332202|181845249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis for Month 6||||0.580
90980827|NCT00332202|181845249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.265|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis for Month 12||||0.265
90980828|NCT00332202|181845249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis for Month 18||||0.460
90980829|NCT00332202|181845249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.441|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis for Month 24||||0.441
90980830|NCT00332202|181845249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.357|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis for Month 36||||0.357
90980831|NCT00332202|181845250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.267|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis for Month 6||||0.267
90980832|NCT00332202|181845250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.807|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis for Month 24||||0.807
90980833|NCT00332202|181845250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.864|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis for Month 33||||0.864
90980834|NCT00332202|181845251|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.768||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.415|1.42|||Regression, Cox|||||1.420|0.415|0.400
90980835|NCT00332202|181845251|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.309||||0.539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.557|3.08|||Regression, Cox|||||3.080|0.557|0.539
90980836|NCT00332202|181845252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.775||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.947|3.329|||Regression, Cox|||||3.329|0.947|0.084
90980837|NCT00332202|181845252|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.286||||0.585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.527|3.137|||Regression, Cox|||||3.137|0.527|0.585
90980838|NCT02370121|181845256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.57
90980839|NCT02370121|181845257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.07
90980840|NCT02370121|181845258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.79
90980841|NCT02370121|181845259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.08
90980842|NCT02370121|181845260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.95
90980843|NCT02370121|181845261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.92
90980844|NCT02370121|181845262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.42
90980845|NCT02370121|181845263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.77
90980846|NCT02370121|181845264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.17
90980847|NCT02370121|181845265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.02
90980848|NCT02370121|181845266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.02
90980849|NCT02370121|181845267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.83
90980850|NCT02370121|181845268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.24
90980851|NCT02370121|181845269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
90980852|NCT02370121|181845270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.32
90980853|NCT02370121|181845271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.17
90980854|NCT02370121|181845272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.89
90980855|NCT04551014|181845275|NON_INFERIORITY|For polypectomy without submucosal injection of EverLiftTM to be considered non-inferior, we calculated that 115 polyps were needed in each group to achieve an alpha value of 0.05, power of 90%, and non-inferiority margin of -10%.||||||0.424|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.424
90980856|NCT04551014|181845276|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value of \<0.05 was considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90980857|NCT04551014|181845277|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.697||||||P-value of \<0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Chi-squared|||||||0.697
90980858|NCT01392183|181845296|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.22|||||Adjusted Hazard Ratio comparing Median PFS of pazopanib (treatment group) to Temsirolimus (control group) as first line of treatment. HR \>1 treatment group performed better, \< 1 the control group performed better =1 groups performed equally.|||2.22|0.84|
90980859|NCT01392183|181845297|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.93|||||Adjusted HR comparing Median OS of pazopanib (treatment group) to Temsirolimus (control group) as first line of treatment. HR \>1 treatment group performed better, \< 1 the control group performed better =1 groups performed equally.|||1.93|0.7|
90980860|NCT00963807|181845302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.336|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.336
90980861|NCT01587950|181845305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.99||||0.8918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5|13.52|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for treatment group, application site, period and random effect for subject|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis suggested that mean change from baseline in the evaporative sensitivity within each of the treatment was zero immediately post treatment. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||13.52|-15.50|0.8918
90980862|NCT01587950|181845305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-4.89||||0.5183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.91|10.14|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for treatment group, application site, period and random effect for subject|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis suggested that mean change from baseline in the evaporative sensitivity within each of the treatment was zero immediately post treatment. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||10.14|-19.91|0.5183
91039100|NCT02583048|181962265|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|12.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.1|5.7|18.6|||||Arm 3 minus Arm 2 difference in change from baseline estimated from ANOVA model. Interim analysis conducted when week 24 QT data was available for ≥12 participants stipulated 99.9% confidence interval; original coverage of 95% was widened to 95.1%.|||18.6|5.7|
90980863|NCT01587950|181845305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-3.89||||0.5718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.59|9.8|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for treatment group, application site, period and random effect for subject.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis suggested that mean change from baseline in the evaporative sensitivity within each of the treatment was zero immediately post treatment. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||9.80|-17.59|0.5718
90980864|NCT01587950|181845305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|3.37||||0.6591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.82|18.56|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for treatment group, application site, period and random effect for subject.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis suggested that mean change from baseline in the evaporative sensitivity within each of the treatment was zero immediately post treatment. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||18.56|-11.82|0.6591
90980865|NCT01587950|181845305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-3.02||||0.6921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.17|12.13|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for treatment group, application site, period and random effect for subject.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis suggested that mean change from baseline in the evaporative sensitivity within each of the treatment was zero immediately post treatment. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||12.13|-18.17|0.6921
90949489|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.088||0.3863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.1|||MMRM|||Suicide, Change at Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.10|-0.25|0.3863
91039101|NCT02583048|181962272|EQUIVALENCE|GMRs were compared to no effect boundaries of 0.67 to 1.50.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.117|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.884|1.411|||||The numerator represents Arm 3 and the denominator represents Arm 1.|Statistical analysis for Week 2.||1.411|0.884|
90949490|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094||0.0209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.03|||MMRM|||Suicide, Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.03|-0.41|0.0209
90949491|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS men difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.092||0.0616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.01|||MMRM|||Suicide, Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.01|-0.35|0.0616
91039102|NCT02583048|181962272|EQUIVALENCE|GMRs were compared to no effect boundaries of 0.67 to 1.50.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.202|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.989|1.461|||||The numerator represents Arm 3 and the denominator represents Arm 1.|Statistical analysis for Week 8.||1.461|0.989|
90949492|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.06|||MMRM|||Suicide, Change at Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.06|-0.33|0.1860
91039103|NCT02583048|181962272|EQUIVALENCE|GMRs were compared to no effect boundaries of 0.67 to 1.50.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.958|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.774|1.187|||||The numerator represents Arm 3 and the denominator represents Arm 1.|Statistical analysis for Week 24.||1.187|0.774|
90949493|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.095||0.773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.16|||MMRM|||Suicide, Change at Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.16|-0.22|0.7730
90949494|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129||0.1593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.07|||MMRM|||Suicide, Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.07|-0.44|0.1593
91039104|NCT02583048|181962273|EQUIVALENCE|GMRs were compared to no effect boundaries of 0.67 to 1.50.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.986|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.801|1.215|||||The numerator represents Arm 3 and the denominator represents Arm 1.|Statistical analysis for Week 2.||1.215|0.801|
90980866|NCT01587950|181845305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-6.39||||0.3513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.98|7.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for treatment group, application site, period and random effect for subject|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis suggested that mean change from baseline in the evaporative sensitivity within each of the treatment was zero immediately post treatment. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||7.20|-19.98|0.3513
90949495|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.126||0.6371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.19|||MMRM|||Suicide, Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.19|-0.31|0.6371
90949496|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.124||0.5655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.18|||MMRM|||Suicide, Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.18|-0.32|0.5655
90949497|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121||0.3326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.36|||MMRM|||Suicide, Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.36|-0.12|0.3326
90949498|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.201||0.3577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.22|||MMRM|||Suicide, Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.22|-0.59|0.3577
90949499|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.192||0.1646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.11|||MMRM|||Suicide, Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.11|-0.66|0.1646
90949500|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.118||0.0545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.0|||MMRM|||Suicide, Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.00|-0.46|0.0545
90949501|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.115||0.2903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.11|||MMRM|||Suicide, Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.11|-0.35|0.2903
91039105|NCT02583048|181962273|EQUIVALENCE|GMRs were compared to no effect boundaries of 0.67 to 1.50.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.978|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.764|1.251|||||The numerator represents Arm 3 and the denominator represents Arm 1.|Statistical analysis for Week 8.||1.251|0.764|
91039106|NCT02583048|181962273|EQUIVALENCE|GMRs were compared to no effect boundaries of 0.67 to 1.50.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.859|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.667|1.108|||||The numerator represents Arm 3 and the denominator represents Arm 1.|Statistical analysis for Week 24.||1.108|0.667|
91039107|NCT02583048|181962274|EQUIVALENCE|GMRs were compared to no effect boundaries of 0.67 to 1.50.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.036|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.847|1.267|||||The numerator represents Arm 3 and the denominator represents Arm 1.|Statistical analysis for Week 2.||1.267|0.847|
91039108|NCT02583048|181962274|EQUIVALENCE|GMRs were compared to no effect boundaries of 0.67 to 1.50.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.037|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.843|1.276|||||The numerator represents Arm 3 and the denominator represents Arm 1.|Statistical analysis for Week 8.||1.276|0.843|
91039109|NCT02583048|181962274|EQUIVALENCE|GMRs were compared to no effect boundaries of 0.67 to 1.50.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.915|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.727|1.151|||||The numerator represents Arm 3 and the denominator represents Arm 1.|Statistical analysis for Week 24.||1.151|0.727|
90949502|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.112||0.0395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.45|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Early, Change at Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.45|0.01|0.0395
90949503|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.108||0.469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.29|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Early, Change at Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.29|-0.14|0.4690
90949504|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.139||0.6066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.35|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Early, Change at Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.35|-0.20|0.6066
90949505|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136||0.9737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.27|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Early, Change at Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.27|-0.26|0.9737
90949506|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.148||0.403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.42|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Early, Change at Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.42|-0.17|0.4030
91039110|NCT02583048|181962275|EQUIVALENCE|GMRs were compared to no effect boundaries of 0.67 to 1.50.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.043|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.864|1.258|||||The numerator represents Arm 3 and the denominator represents Arm 1.|Statistical analysis for Week 2.||1.258|0.864|
90980867|NCT01587950|181845305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|8.96||||0.2346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.96|23.88|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for treatment group, application site, period and random effect for subject|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis suggested that mean change from baseline in the evaporative sensitivity within each of the treatment was zero immediately post treatment. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||23.88|-5.96|0.2346
91039111|NCT02583048|181962275|EQUIVALENCE|GMRs were compared to no effect boundaries of 0.67 to 1.50.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.029|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.858|1.235|||||The numerator represents Arm 3 and the denominator represents Arm 1.|Statistical analysis for Week 8.||1.235|0.858|
91039112|NCT02583048|181962275|EQUIVALENCE|GMRs were compared to no effect boundaries of 0.67 to 1.50.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.808|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.657|0.993|||||The numerator represents Arm 3 and the denominator represents Arm 1.|Statistical analysis for Week 24.||0.993|0.657|
90949507|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145||0.6357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.22|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Early, Change at Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.22|-0.36|0.6357
90949508|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.134||0.8605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.24|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Early, Change at Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.24|-0.29|0.8605
90949509|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.7534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.22|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Early, Change at Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.22|-0.30|0.7534
90949510|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.201||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.23|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Early, Change at Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.23|-1.03|0.0021
90980868|NCT01587950|181845305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|6.24||||0.4138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.92|21.39|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for treatment group, application site, period and random effect for subject|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis suggested that mean change from baseline in the evaporative sensitivity within each of the treatment was zero immediately post treatment. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||21.39|-8.92|0.4138
90980869|NCT01587950|181845305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.72||||0.6931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.44|10.99|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for treatment group, application site, period and random effect for subject|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis suggested that mean change from baseline in the evaporative sensitivity within each of the treatment was zero immediately post treatment. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||10.99|-16.44|0.6931
90980870|NCT01587950|181845306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-6.39||||0.3867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.04|8.26|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for treatment group, application site, period and random effect for subject.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis suggested that mean change from baseline in the evaporative sensitivity within each of the treatment was zero, 10 minutes post treatment. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||8.26|-21.04|0.3867
90980871|NCT01587950|181845306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-11.22||||0.1448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.41|3.96|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for treatment group, application site, period and random effect for subject.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis suggested that mean change from baseline in the evaporative sensitivity within each of the treatment was zero, 10 minutes post treatment. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||3.96|-26.41|0.1448
90980872|NCT01587950|181845306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-4.83||||0.4874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.66|8.99|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for treatment group, application site, period and random effect for subject.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis suggested that mean change from baseline in the evaporative sensitivity within each of the treatment was zero, 10 minutes post treatment. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||8.99|-18.66|0.4874
90980873|NCT01587950|181845306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-9.87||||0.2038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.23|5.49|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for treatment group, application site, period and random effect for subject|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis suggested that mean change from baseline in the evaporative sensitivity within the treatments was zero, 10 minutes post treatment. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||5.49|-25.23|0.2038
90980874|NCT01587950|181845306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-11.12||||0.1518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.43|4.19|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for treatment group, application site, period and random effect for subject|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis suggested that mean change from baseline in the evaporative sensitivity within the treatments was zero, 10 minutes post treatment. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||4.19|-26.43|0.1518
90980875|NCT01587950|181845306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.25||||0.8567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.98|12.49|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for treatment group, application site, period and random effect for subject.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis suggested that mean change from baseline in the evaporative sensitivity within the treatments was zero, 10 minutes post treatment. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||12.49|-14.98|0.8567
91039113|NCT02583048|181962276|EQUIVALENCE|GMRs were compared to no effect boundaries of 0.67 to 1.50.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.068|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.903|1.263|||||The numerator represents Arm 3 and the denominator represents Arm 1.|Statistical analysis for Week 2.||1.263|0.903|
90949511|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.196||0.0394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.02|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Early, Change at Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.02|-0.80|0.0394
90949512|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.208||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.2|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Insomnia - Early, Change at Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.20|-1.03|0.0039
90949513|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.202||0.1591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.11|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Early, Change at Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.11|-0.69|0.1591
90949514|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.1402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.1|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Early, Change at Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.10|-0.73|0.1402
90949515|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.205||0.0143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.1|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Early, Change at Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.10|-0.91|0.0143
91039114|NCT02583048|181962276|EQUIVALENCE|GMRs were compared to no effect boundaries of 0.67 to 1.50.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.973|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.82|1.155|||||The numerator represents Arm 3 and the denominator represents Arm 1.|Statistical analysis for Week 8.||1.155|0.820|
91039115|NCT02583048|181962276|EQUIVALENCE|GMRs were compared to no effect boundaries of 0.67 to 1.50.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.803|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.656|0.983|||||The numerator represents Arm 3 and the denominator represents Arm 1.|Statistical analysis for Week 24.||0.983|0.656|
91039116|NCT02583048|181962277|EQUIVALENCE|GMRs were compared to no effect boundaries of 0.67 to 1.50.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.049|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.881|1.248|||||The numerator represents Arm 3 and the denominator represents Arm 1.|Statistical analysis for Week 2.||1.248|0.881|
91039117|NCT02583048|181962277|EQUIVALENCE|GMRs were compared to no effect boundaries of 0.67 to 1.50.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.979|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.823|1.165|||||The numerator represents Arm 3 and the denominator represents Arm 1.|Statistical analysis for Week 8.||1.165|0.823|
91039118|NCT02583048|181962277|EQUIVALENCE|GMRs were compared to no effect boundaries of 0.67 to 1.50.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.808|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.638|1.025|||||The numerator represents Arm 3 and the denominator represents Arm 1.|Statistical analysis for Week 24.||1.025|0.638|
91039119|NCT02583048|181962278|EQUIVALENCE|GMRs were compared to no effect boundaries of 0.67 to 1.50.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.903|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.778|1.049|||||The numerator represents Arm 3 and the denominator represents Arm 2.|Statistical analysis for Week 2.||1.049|0.778|
91039120|NCT02583048|181962278|EQUIVALENCE|GMRs were compared to no effect boundaries of 0.67 to 1.50.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.114|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.944|1.315|||||The numerator represents Arm 3 and the denominator represents Arm 2.|Statistical analysis for Week 8.||1.315|0.944|
91039121|NCT02583048|181962278|EQUIVALENCE|GMRs were compared to no effect boundaries of 0.67 to 1.50.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.804|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.639|1.012|||||The numerator represents Arm 3 and the denominator represents Arm 2.|Statistical analysis for Week 24.||1.012|0.639|
91039122|NCT02583048|181962279|EQUIVALENCE|GMRs were compared to no effect boundaries of 0.67 to 1.50.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.937|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|1.084|||||The numerator represents Arm 3 and the denominator represents Arm 2.|Statistical analysis for Week 2.||1.084|0.810|
90949516|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.204||0.2293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.16|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Early, Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.16|-0.65|0.2293
90949517|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.05|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Early, Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.05|-0.74|0.0884
90949518|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.207||0.0622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.02|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Early, Change at Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.02|-0.80|0.0622
90949519|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.202||0.0955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.06|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Early, Change at Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.06|-0.74|0.0955
90949520|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|-0.09|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Early, Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.09|-0.92|0.0173
90949521|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.206||0.1687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.12|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Early, Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.12|-0.69|0.1687
90949522|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.258||0.3861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.29|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Insomnia - Early, Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.29|-0.74|0.3861
90949523|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.249||0.706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.4|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Early, Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.40|-0.59|0.7060
91039123|NCT02583048|181962279|EQUIVALENCE|GMRs were compared to no effect boundaries of 0.67 to 1.50.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.107|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.929|1.318|||||The numerator represents Arm 3 and the denominator represents Arm 2.|Statistical analysis for Week 8.||1.318|0.929|
90949524|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.14|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Early, Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.14|-1.05|0.0112
90980876|NCT01587950|181845306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|11.01||||0.1493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.06|26.08|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for treatment group, application site, period and random effect for subject.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis suggested that mean change from baseline in the evaporative sensitivity within the treatments was zero, at 10 minutes post treatment. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||26.08|-4.06|0.1493
90980877|NCT01587950|181845306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|5.45||||0.4798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.86|20.76|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for treatment group, application site, period and random effect for subject|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis suggested that mean change from baseline in the evaporative sensitivity within the treatments was zero, 10 minutes post treatment. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||20.76|-9.86|0.4798
90980878|NCT01587950|181845306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-5.56||||0.4255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.42|8.29|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for treatment group, application site, period and random effect for subject|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis suggested that mean change from baseline in the evaporative sensitivity within the treatments was zero, 10 minutes post treatment. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||8.29|-19.42|0.4255
90980879|NCT01587950|181845307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.96||||0.7769||95.0|-15.71|11.8||ANCOVA with factors for treatment group, application site, period and random effect for subject.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis suggested that mean change from baseline in the evaporative sensitivity within each of the treatment was zero, 20 minutes post treatment. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||11.80|-15.71|0.7769
90980880|NCT01587950|181845307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-6.32||||0.3811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.64|8.0|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for treatment group, application site, period and random effect for subject.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis suggested that mean change from baseline in the evaporative sensitivity within each of the treatment was zero, 20 minutes post treatment. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||8.00|-20.64|0.3811
90980881|NCT01587950|181845307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-4.36||||0.5044||95.0|-17.35|8.63|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for treatment group, application site, period and random effect for subject.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis suggested that mean change from baseline in the evaporative sensitivity within each of the treatment was zero, 20 minutes post treatment. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||8.63|-17.35|0.5044
90980882|NCT01587950|181845307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-5.68||||0.4374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.2|8.84|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for treatment group, application site, period and random effect for subject.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis suggested that mean change from baseline in the evaporative sensitivity within the treatments was zero, 20 minutes post treatment. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||8.84|-20.20|0.4374
90980883|NCT01587950|181845307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-4.02||||0.5796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.46|10.41|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for treatment group, application site, period and random effect for subject|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis suggested that mean change from baseline in the evaporative sensitivity within the treatments was zero, 20 minutes post treatment. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||10.41|-18.46|0.5796
90980884|NCT01587950|181845307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.66||||0.7994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.32|14.64|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for treatment group, application site, period and random effect for subject|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis suggested that mean change from baseline in the evaporative sensitivity within the treatments was zero, 20 minutes post treatment. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05||14.64|-11.32|0.7994
90980885|NCT01587950|181845307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|7.75||||0.2784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.42|21.93|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for treatment group, application site, period and random effect for subject|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis suggested that mean change from baseline in the evaporative sensitivity within the treatments was zero, 20 minutes post treatment. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||21.93|-6.42|0.2784
91039124|NCT02583048|181962279|EQUIVALENCE|GMRs were compared to no effect boundaries of 0.67 to 1.50.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.856|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.703|1.043|||||The numerator represents Arm 3 and the denominator represents Arm 2.|Statistical analysis for Week 24.||1.043|0.703|
91039125|NCT02583048|181962280|EQUIVALENCE|GMRs were compared to no effect boundaries of 0.67 to 1.50.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.951|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.825|1.096|||||The numerator represents Arm 3 and the denominator represents Arm 2.|Statistical analysis for Week 2.||1.096|0.825|
90949525|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.219||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.01|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Early, Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.01|-0.86|0.0570
90949526|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.208||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.26|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Early, Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.26|-1.08|0.0018
90949527|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.205||0.0443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.01|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Early, Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.01|-0.83|0.0443
90949528|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.104||0.1197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.37|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Middle, Change at Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.37|-0.04|0.1197
90949529|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.101||0.7171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.16|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Middle, Change at Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.16|-0.24|0.7171
90949530|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.138||0.7151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.22|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Middle, Change at Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.22|-0.32|0.7151
90949531|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.134||0.521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.18|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Middle, Change at Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.18|-0.35|0.5210
90949532|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.142||0.7332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.33|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Middle, Change at Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.33|-0.23|0.7332
90949533|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.139||0.4163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.16|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Middle, Change at Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.16|-0.39|0.4163
90980886|NCT01587950|181845307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|6.68||||0.3581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.75|21.12|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for treatment group, application site, period and random effect for subject|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis suggested that mean change from baseline in the evaporative sensitivity within the treatments was zero, 20 minutes post treatment. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||21.12|-7.75|0.3581
90980887|NCT01587950|181845307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.07||||0.8703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.11|11.97|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for treatment group, application site, period and random effect for subject|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis suggested that mean change from baseline in the evaporative sensitivity within the treatments was zero, 20 minutes post treatment. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||11.97|-14.11|0.8703
90980888|NCT03128957|181845308|EQUIVALENCE|Given the small sample permutation are feasible.||||||0.036|||||||permutation test|Given the non-parametric nature of spearman's correlation coefficient and a small sample we used a permutation test to calculate p-values.||Non-parametric covariance adjusted Spearman's correlation ρ\_s. To test the Null that Ho: ρ\_s.=0 vs alternative that Ha: ρ\_s.≠0, we used a method that calculates the probability that it would be greater than or equal to the observed ρ ̂, given the null hypothesis, by using a permutation test. An advantage of this approach is that it automatically takes into account the number of tied data values in the sample and the way they are treated in computing the rank correlation.||||0.036
90980889|NCT03128957|181845309|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Set point 1 (FiO2 0.3 and PaCO2 30 mmHg) compared to set point 2 (FiO2 1.0 and PaCO2 40 mmHg)||||0.015
90980890|NCT03128957|181845310|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.047|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Set point 1 (FiO2 0.3 and PaCO2 30 mmHg) compared to set point 2 (FiO2 1.0 and PaCO2 40 mmHg)||||0.047
90980891|NCT00684177|181845311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|8.4||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|18.4|||Chi-squared|||||18.4|-1.6|0.098
90980892|NCT00684177|181845312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|12.1||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|23.6|||Chi-squared|||||23.6|0.6|0.04
90980893|NCT00684177|181845313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|12.1||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|23.6|||Chi-squared|||||23.6|0.6|0.04
90980894|NCT01575912|181845355|OTHER|||||||0.121||||||using Mann Whitney test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.121
90980895|NCT03093155|181845435|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.2|0.49|||Regression, Cox|||||0.49|0.20|<0.001
90980896|NCT03093155|181845436|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.003
90980897|NCT03093155|181845437|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.38|0.84|||Regression, Cox|||||0.84|0.38|0.018
90980898|NCT03093155|181845438|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.77
90980899|NCT03093155|181845439|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.068|||||||Fisher Exact|||The RECIST responses were categorized as SD/PD or NA compared to PR or Better as a binary outcome.||||0.068
91039126|NCT02583048|181962280|EQUIVALENCE|GMRs were compared to no effect boundaries of 0.67 to 1.50.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.136|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.948|1.362|||||The numerator represents Arm 3 and the denominator represents Arm 2.|Statistical analysis for Week 8.||1.362|0.948|
91039127|NCT02583048|181962280|EQUIVALENCE|GMRs were compared to no effect boundaries of 0.67 to 1.50.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.898|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.727|1.109|||||The numerator represents Arm 3 and the denominator represents Arm 2.|Statistical analysis for Week 24.||1.109|0.727|
90980900|NCT01075178|181845444|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was assessed with a 95% 1-sided confidence interval for which the upper bound of the difference in the event rates (CASES minus CONTROLS) will correspond to an odds ratio less than 2 (that is, the odds ratio calculated at the upper confidence bound of the difference in event rates will be less than 2).|Observed odds ratio|0.81|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.96|||exact binomial||"Result provided for 95% Confidence Interval (1-Sided) is the odds ratio calculated at the upper bound of the 1-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in event rates (CASES minus CONTROLS)."|The null hypothesis was that the odds ratio was greater than or equal to 2. The planned sample size of 2000 participants (1000 participants in each group) provided greater than 90% power to determine non-inferiority based on the odds ratio less than 2.||0.96||
90980901|NCT01075178|181845445|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was assessed with a 95% 1-sided confidence interval for which the upper bound of the difference in the event rates (CASES minus CONTROLS) will correspond to an odds ratio less than 2 (that is, the odds ratio calculated at the upper confidence bound of the difference in event rates will be less than 2).|Observed odds ratio|0.8|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.95|||exact binomial||"Result provided for 95% Confidence Interval (1-Sided) is the odds ratio calculated at the upper bound of the 1-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in event rates (CASES minus CONTROLS)."|The null hypothesis was that the odds ratio was greater than or equal to 2. The planned sample size of 2000 participants (1000 participants in each group) provided greater than 90% power to determine non-inferiority based on the odds ratio less than 2.||0.95||
91039128|NCT02583048|181962281|EQUIVALENCE|GMRs were compared to no effect boundaries of 0.67 to 1.50.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.939|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.806|1.094|||||The numerator represents Arm 3 and the denominator represents Arm 2.|Statistical analysis for Week 2.||1.094|0.806|
90980902|NCT01075178|181845446|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was assessed with a 95% 1-sided confidence interval for which the upper bound of the difference in the event rates (CASES minus CONTROLS) will correspond to an odds ratio less than 2 (that is, the odds ratio calculated at the upper confidence bound of the difference in event rates will be less than 2).|Observed odds ratio|1.05|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||1.64|||exact binomial||"Result provided for 95% Confidence Interval (1-Sided) is the odds ratio calculated at the upper bound of the 1-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in event rates (CASES minus CONTROLS)."|The null hypothesis was that the odds ratio was greater than or equal to 2. The planned sample size of 2000 participants (1000 participants in each group) provided greater than 90% power to determine non-inferiority based on the odds ratio less than 2.||1.64||
91039129|NCT02583048|181962281|EQUIVALENCE|GMRs were compared to no effect boundaries of 0.67 to 1.50.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.081|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.864|1.352|||||The numerator represents Arm 3 and the denominator represents Arm 2.|Statistical analysis for Week 8.||1.352|0.864|
90980903|NCT01075178|181845447|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was assessed with a 95% 1-sided confidence interval for which the upper bound of the difference in the event rates (CASES minus CONTROLS) will correspond to an odds ratio less than 2 (that is, the odds ratio calculated at the upper confidence bound of the difference in event rates will be less than 2).|Observed odds ratio|0.9|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||2.19|||exact binomial||"Result provided for 95% Confidence Interval (1-Sided) is the odds ratio calculated at the upper bound of the 1-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in event rates (CASES minus CONTROLS)."|The null hypothesis was that the odds ratio was greater than or equal to 2. The planned sample size of 2000 participants (1000 participants in each group) provided greater than 90% power to determine non-inferiority based on the odds ratio less than 2.||2.19||
90980904|NCT01748799|181845466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||The level for statistical significance was p\< 0.05.|ANOVA|||Omnibus analysis for Cannabis Withdrawal Scale (CWS) data was a Repeated measures ANOVA (including all the experimental conditions) followed by pair-wise comparisons. The level for statistical significance was p\< 0.05.||||<0.01
90980905|NCT01748799|181845466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||The level for statistical significance was p\< 0.05.|ANOVA|||Omnibus analysis for Cannabis Withdrawal Checklist (CWC) data was a Repeated measures ANOVA (including all the experimental conditions) followed by pair-wise comparisons. The level for statistical significance was p\< 0.05.||||0.01
90980906|NCT03182738|181845473|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean neuropathy score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|-0.32||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in neuropathy score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms.~Negative estimation parameter value indicates intervention arm better than control arm."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean neuropathy score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms"||||0.02
90980907|NCT03182738|181845473|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean problems maintaining an erection score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|-0.29||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in problems maintaining an erection score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms.~Negative estimation parameter value indicates intervention arm better than control arm."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean problems maintaining an erection score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms"||||0.11
90980908|NCT03182738|181845473|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean dry mouth score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|-0.29||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in dry mouth score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms.~Negative estimation parameter value indicates intervention arm better than control arm."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean dry mouth score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms"||||0.02
90980909|NCT03182738|181845473|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean ringing in ear score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|-0.29||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in ringing in ear score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms.~Negative estimation parameter value indicates intervention arm better than control arm."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean ringing in ear score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms"||||0.01
91039130|NCT02583048|181962281|EQUIVALENCE|GMRs were compared to no effect boundaries of 0.67 to 1.50.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.865|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.597|1.253|||||The numerator represents Arm 3 and the denominator represents Arm 2.|Statistical analysis for Week 24.||1.253|0.597|
91039131|NCT02583048|181962282|EQUIVALENCE|GMRs were compared to no effect boundaries of 0.67 to 1.50.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.825|1.095|||||The numerator represents Arm 3 and the denominator represents Arm 2.|Statistical analysis for Week 2.||1.095|0.825|
91039132|NCT02583048|181962282|EQUIVALENCE|GMRs were compared to no effect boundaries of 0.67 to 1.50.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.862|1.354|||||The numerator represents Arm 3 and the denominator represents Arm 2.|Statistical analysis for Week 8.||1.354|0.862|
91039133|NCT02583048|181962282|EQUIVALENCE|GMRs were compared to no effect boundaries of 0.67 to 1.50.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.865|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.605|1.239|||||The numerator represents Arm 3 and the denominator represents Arm 2.|Statistical analysis for Week 24.||1.239|0.605|
91039134|NCT02583048|181962283|EQUIVALENCE|GMRs were compared to no effect boundaries of 0.67 to 1.50.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.984|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.851|1.138|||||The numerator represents Arm 3 and the denominator represents Arm 2.|Statistical analysis for Week 2.||1.138|0.851|
91039135|NCT02583048|181962283|EQUIVALENCE|GMRs were compared to no effect boundaries of 0.67 to 1.50.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.086|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.866|1.361|||||The numerator represents Arm 3 and the denominator represents Arm 2.|Statistical analysis for Week 8.||1.361|0.866|
90980910|NCT03182738|181845473|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean vomit score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|-0.28||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in vomit score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms.~Negative estimation parameter value indicates intervention arm better than control arm."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean vomit score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms"||||0.01
90949534|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.132||0.8625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.24|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Middle, Change at Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.24|-0.28|0.8625
90980911|NCT03182738|181845473|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean dry eyes score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|-0.24||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in dry eyes score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms.~Negative estimation parameter value indicates intervention arm better than control arm."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean dry eyes score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms"||||0.02
90980912|NCT03182738|181845473|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean heartburn score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|-0.19||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in heartburn score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms.~Negative estimation parameter value indicates intervention arm better than control arm."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean heartburn score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms"||||0.11
90980913|NCT03182738|181845473|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean diarrhea score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|-0.16||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in diarrhea score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms.~Negative estimation parameter value indicates intervention arm better than control arm."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean diarrhea score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms"||||0.21
91039136|NCT02583048|181962283|EQUIVALENCE|GMRs were compared to no effect boundaries of 0.67 to 1.50.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.927|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.65|1.322|||||The numerator represents Arm 3 and the denominator represents Arm 2.|Statistical analysis for Week 24.||1.322|0.650|
91039137|NCT02155257|181962287|OTHER||Slope|0.19||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.76|||Regression, Linear|||Interaction between resting pupil diameter and correlation of cognitive-affective style to pain reporting. Note that this analysis is an INTERACTION between the primary outcome of this measure (pupil diameter) to that of the primary outcome measure of cognitive-affective style.||.76|-.39|0.540
90980914|NCT03182738|181845473|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean constipation score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|-0.14||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in constipation score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms.~Negative estimation parameter value indicates intervention arm better than control arm."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean constipation score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms"||||0.33
90980915|NCT03182738|181845473|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean appetite change score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|-0.1||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in appetite change score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms.~Negative estimation parameter value indicates intervention arm better than control arm."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean appetite change score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms"||||0.46
91039138|NCT00414726|181962290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.91||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|We used the Van-Elteren extension of the Wilcoxon rank sum test; ajustments made for baseline NIHSS categories (4-11)(12-20)(\>20).||Subjects were analyzed using an intention to treat approach. All subjects were analyzed at 24 hours. For four subjects missing 24-hour NIHSS scores, the change score was given the highest possible value.||||0.91
91039139|NCT00414726|181962291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|We used the Van Elteren extension of the Wilcoxin rank sum test that adjusts for stratified randomization.||||||0.68
91039140|NCT01993186|181962303|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimate|13.45||||0.5812|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-38.63|80.95|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Non-parametric post-hoc analysis: Hodges-Lehmann estimate of the location shift with 90% confidence interval (CI) and Wilcoxon Rank Sum test p-value, based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test||80.95|-38.63|0.5812
90980916|NCT03182738|181845473|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean difficulty remembering score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|-0.1||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in difficulty remembering score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms.~Negative estimation parameter value indicates intervention arm better than control arm."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean difficulty remembering score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms"||||0.46
90980917|NCT03182738|181845473|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean fatigue score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|-0.07||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in fatigue score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms.~Negative estimation parameter value indicates intervention arm better than control arm."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean fatigue score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms"||||0.58
90980918|NCT03182738|181845473|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean cough score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|0.01||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in cough score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean cough score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms"||||0.92
90980919|NCT03182738|181845473|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean urination score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|0.02||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in urination score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean urination score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms"||||0.84
91039141|NCT01993186|181962306|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimate|0.0||||0.8197|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-51.23|84.25|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Non-parametric post-hoc analysis: Hodges-Lehmann estimate of the location shift with 90% CI and Wilcoxon Rank Sum test p-value, based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test||84.25|-51.23|0.8197
91039142|NCT01993186|181962307|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimate|0.0||||0.7276|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|37.5|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Non-parametric post-hoc analysis: Hodges-Lehmann estimate of the location shift with 90% CI and Wilcoxon Rank Sum test p-value, based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test||37.5|0|0.7276
91039143|NCT01993186|181962311|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-2.384|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|68.1231||0.486|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-114.44|109.67||One-sided p-value. Additional model covariates include the corresponding baseline CANTAB score, visit and the interaction between visit and treatment.|GEE model|||RTISRTSD||109.67|-114.44|0.486
90980920|NCT03182738|181845473|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean clumsy score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|0.03||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in clumsy score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean clumsy score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms"||||0.83
90980921|NCT03182738|181845473|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean fever score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|0.04||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in fever score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean fever score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms"||||0.72
91039144|NCT01993186|181962311|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|63.669|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|53.0537||0.8849|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.6|150.94||One-sided p-value. Additional model covariates include the corresponding baseline CANTAB score, visit and the interaction between visit and treatment.|GEE model|||RTIMDSRT||150.94|-23.6|0.8849
91039145|NCT01993186|181962311|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-63.835|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|60.6496||0.1463|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-163.59|35.93||One-sided p-value. Additional model covariates include the corresponding baseline CANTAB score, visit and the interaction between visit and treatment.|GEE model|||RTIMDFRT||35.93|-163.59|0.1463
91039146|NCT01993186|181962312|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|17.768|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.5659||0.9378|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.26|36.79||One-sided p-value. Additional model covariates include the corresponding baseline CANTAB score, visit and the interaction between visit and treatment.|GEE model|||PALTEA||36.79|-1.26|0.9378
90949535|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.128||0.6196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.19|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Middle, Change at Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.19|-0.32|0.6196
90949536|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.197||0.0373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.02|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Middle, Change at Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.02|-0.80|0.0373
90980922|NCT03182738|181845473|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean pain during sex score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|0.06||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in pain during sex score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean pain during sex score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms"||||0.48
90980923|NCT03182738|181845473|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean dizziness score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|0.08||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in dizziness score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean dizziness score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms"||||0.54
90980924|NCT03182738|181845473|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean muscle aches score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|0.09||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in muscle aches score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean muscle aches score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms"||||0.56
90980925|NCT03182738|181845473|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean speech difficulties score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|0.1||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in speech difficulties score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean speech difficulties score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms"||||0.22
90980926|NCT03182738|181845473|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean decreased sex drive score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|0.11||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in decreased sex drive score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean decreased sex drive score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms"||||0.40
90980927|NCT03182738|181845473|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean anxiety score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|0.13||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in anxiety score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean anxiety score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms"||||0.35
90980928|NCT03182738|181845473|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean difficulty concentrating score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|0.17||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in difficulty concentrating score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean difficulty concentrating score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms"||||0.11
90980929|NCT03182738|181845473|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean shortness of breath score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|0.2||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in shortness of breath score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean shortness of breath score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms"||||0.11
91039147|NCT01993186|181962312|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.531|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1853||0.5959|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.13|3.06||One-sided p-value. Additional model covariates include the corresponding baseline CANTAB score, visit and the interaction between visit and treatment.|GEE model|||PALFTMS||3.06|-4.13|0.5959
90980930|NCT03182738|181845473|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean difficulty falling asleep score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|0.2||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in difficulty falling asleep score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean difficulty falling asleep score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms"||||0.15
90980931|NCT03182738|181845473|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean unplanned changes in weight score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|0.22||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in unplanned changes in weight score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean unplanned changes in weight score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms"||||0.08
90980932|NCT03182738|181845473|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean depression score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|0.34||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in depression score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean depression score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms"||||0.02
90980933|NCT03182738|181845473|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean difficulty staying asleep score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|0.36||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in difficulty staying asleep score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean difficulty staying asleep score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms"||||0.01
90980934|NCT03182738|181845473|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean dry mouth score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|-0.27||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in dry mouth score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms.~Negative estimation parameter value indicates intervention arm better than control arm."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean dry mouth score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms"||||0.08
90980935|NCT03182738|181845473|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean ringing in ear score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|-0.24||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in ringing in ear score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms.~Negative estimation parameter value indicates intervention arm better than control arm."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean ringing in ear score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms"||||0.08
90980936|NCT03182738|181845473|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean dry eyes score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|-0.24||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in dry eyes score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms.~Negative estimation parameter value indicates intervention arm better than control arm."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean dry eyes score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms"||||0.08
90980937|NCT03182738|181845473|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean maintaining an erection score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|-0.13||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in maintaining an erection score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms.~Negative estimation parameter value indicates intervention arm better than control arm."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean maintaining an erection score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms"||||0.71
90980938|NCT03182738|181845473|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean vomit score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|-0.11||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in vomit score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms.~Negative estimation parameter value indicates intervention arm better than control arm."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean vomit score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms"||||0.41
90980939|NCT03182738|181845473|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean neuropathy score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|-0.08||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in neuropathy score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms.~Negative estimation parameter value indicates intervention arm better than control arm."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean neuropathy score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms"||||0.84
91039148|NCT01993186|181962313|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4988||0.4522|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.76|0.88||One-sided p-value. Additional model covariates include the corresponding baseline CANTAB score, visit and the interaction between visit and treatment.|GEE model|||SSPSLF||0.88|-0.76|0.4522
90949537|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.191||0.0644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.02|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Middle, Change at Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.02|-0.74|0.0644
90949538|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.191||0.1347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.09|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Middle, Change at Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.09|-0.66|0.1347
91039149|NCT01993186|181962314|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.237|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.381||0.3017|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.15|2.68||One-sided p-value. Additional model covariates include the corresponding baseline CANTAB score, visit and the interaction between visit and treatment.|GEE model|||SWMBE48||2.68|-5.15|0.3017
90949539|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.185||0.1269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.08|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Middle, Change at Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.08|-0.65|0.1269
90949540|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.192||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.11|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Middle, Change at Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.11|-0.65|0.1650
90949541|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.188||0.1291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.08|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Middle, Change at Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.08|-0.66|0.1291
90949542|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.189||0.0402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.02|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Middle, Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.02|-0.77|0.0402
90949543|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.185||0.0342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.03|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Middle, Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.03|-0.76|0.0342
90949544|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.193||0.1269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.09|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Middle, Change at Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.09|-0.68|0.1269
90949545|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.188||0.3945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.21|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Middle, Change at Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.21|-0.53|0.3945
90949546|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.185||0.5828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.26|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Middle, Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.26|-0.47|0.5828
90980940|NCT03182738|181845473|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean urination score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|-0.07||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in urination score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms.~Negative estimation parameter value indicates intervention arm better than control arm."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean urination score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms"||||0.71
90980941|NCT03182738|181845473|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean appetite change score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|-0.05||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in appetite change score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms.~Negative estimation parameter value indicates intervention arm better than control arm."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean appetite change score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms"||||0.88
90980942|NCT03182738|181845473|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean shortness of breath score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|-0.03||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in shortness of breath score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms.~Negative estimation parameter value indicates intervention arm better than control arm."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean shortness of breath score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms"||||0.93
90949547|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.182||0.6625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.44|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Middle, Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.44|-0.28|0.6625
90980943|NCT03182738|181845473|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean difficulty remembering score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|-0.03||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in difficulty remembering score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms.~Negative estimation parameter value indicates intervention arm better than control arm."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean difficulty remembering score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms"||||0.93
91039150|NCT01993186|181962314|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.038|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6495||0.5235|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.03|1.11||One-sided p-value. Additional model covariates include the corresponding baseline CANTAB score, visit and the interaction between visit and treatment.|GEE model|||SWMS68||1.11|-1.03|0.5235
90949548|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.216||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.21|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Middle, Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.21|-1.07|0.0041
90949549|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.2222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.16|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Middle, Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.16|-0.67|0.2222
90949550|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.218||0.0245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|-0.07|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Middle, Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.07|-0.93|0.0245
90949551|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.209||0.5119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.28|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Middle, Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.28|-0.55|0.5119
90949552|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.197||0.0299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.04|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Middle, Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.04|-0.82|0.0299
90980944|NCT03182738|181845473|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean muscle aches score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|-0.03||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in muscle aches score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms.~Negative estimation parameter value indicates intervention arm better than control arm."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean muscle aches score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms"||||0.94
90980945|NCT03182738|181845473|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean diarrhea score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|0.004||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in diarrhea score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean diarrhea score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms"||||0.97
90980946|NCT03182738|181845473|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean fatigue score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|0.01||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in fatigue score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean fatigue score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms"||||0.95
90980947|NCT03182738|181845473|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean anxiety score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|0.01||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in anxiety score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean anxiety score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms"||||0.95
91039151|NCT01993186|181962315|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-6.897|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.4806||0.6205|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-43.874|30.08||One-sided p-value. Additional model covariates include the corresponding baseline value, visit and the interaction between visit and treatment.|GEE model|||6MWT distance traveled||30.08|-43.874|0.6205
91039152|NCT01993186|181962316|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-1.354|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5759||0.6476|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.236|4.527||One-sided p-value. Additional model covariates include the corresponding baseline value, visit and the interaction between visit and treatment.|GEE model|||6MWT distance traveled (percent predicted)||4.527|-7.236|0.6476
91039153|NCT01993186|181962318|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.568|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8899||0.3435|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.83|7.97||One-sided p-value. Additional model covariates include baseline GMFM-88 total score, visit and the interaction between visit and treatment.|GEE model|||GMFM-88 UX007-Placebo||7.97|-4.83|0.3435
90949553|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.195||0.2824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.18|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Middle, Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.18|-0.60|0.2824
91039154|NCT02752074|181962331|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.51711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.21||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test.|Log Rank|||||1.21|0.83|0.51711
91039155|NCT02752074|181962332|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.80666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.49||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test.|Log Rank|||||1.49|0.86|0.80666
91039156|NCT00840216|181962341|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using PROC GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|106.9||||||90.0|||||||Bioequivalence is established when the ratio of the mean falls within 80-125.|||||
91039157|NCT00840216|181962342|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using PROC GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|92.7||||||90.0|||||||Bioequivalence is established when ratio of the mean falls within 80-125.|||||
90949554|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129||0.1768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.43|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Late, Change at Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.43|-0.08|0.1768
90949555|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.126||0.6498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.19|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Late, Change at Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.19|-0.31|0.6498
90949556|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.7689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.34|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Late, Change at Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.34|-0.25|0.7689
90949557|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.146||0.2236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.11|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Late, Change at Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.11|-0.47|0.2236
90949558|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.148||0.6952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.23|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Late, Change at Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.23|-0.35|0.6952
90949559|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.144||0.1184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.06|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Late, Change at Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.06|-0.51|0.1184
90949560|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.149||0.3031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.45|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Late, Change at Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.45|-0.14|0.3031
90949561|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145||0.3091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.14|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Late, Change at Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.14|-0.44|0.3091
90949562|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.179||0.1525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.1|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Late, Change at Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.10|-0.61|0.1525
90949563|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.174||0.1214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.07|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Late, Change at Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.07|-0.62|0.1214
90949564|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.187||0.3811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.21|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Late, Change at Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.21|-0.53|0.3811
90980948|NCT03182738|181845473|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean constipation score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|0.03||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in constipation score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean constipation score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms"||||0.93
91039158|NCT00840216|181962343|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using PROC GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|93.0||||||90.0|||||||Bioequivalence is established when ratio of the mean falls within 80-125.|||||
91039159|NCT03428750|181962359|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for analysis center||CCH 0.84 mg/Buttock versus Placebo||||0.006
91039160|NCT03428750|181962360|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for analysis center||CCH 0.84 mg/Buttock versus Placebo||||<0.001
91039161|NCT03428750|181962361|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for analysis center||CCH 0.84 mg/Buttock versus Placebo||||0.001
91039162|NCT03428750|181962362|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for analysis center||CCH 0.84 mg/Buttock versus Placebo||||<0.001
91039163|NCT03428750|181962363|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for analysis center||CCH 0.84 mg/Buttock versus Placebo||||<0.001
90980949|NCT03182738|181845473|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean fever score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|0.06||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in fever score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean fever score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms"||||0.84
91039164|NCT03428750|181962364|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for analysis center||CCH 0.84 mg/Buttock versus Placebo||||<0.001
91039165|NCT03428750|181962365|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|With factors of treatment group and analysis center adjusted for baseline values in the model||CCH 0.84 mg/Buttock versus Placebo||||<0.001
91039166|NCT03428750|181962366|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for analysis center||CCH 0.84 mg/Buttock versus Placebo||||<0.001
91039167|NCT03428750|181962367|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for analysis center||CCH 0.84 mg/Buttock versus Placebo||||<0.001
91039168|NCT02944617|181962374|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
91039169|NCT02944617|181962376|OTHER|||||||0.077|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.077
91039170|NCT01604941|181962419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.296|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is from analysis of paired t-test at post treatment timepoint vs. Baseline.|paired t-test|||Analysis of Week 12 for 50 mg/kg/d dosing||||0.2960
91039171|NCT01604941|181962419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is from analysis of paired t-test at post treatment timepoint vs. Baseline.|paired t-test|||Analysis of Week 12 for all participants with BID dosing||||0.0400
91039172|NCT01604941|181962419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6303|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is from analysis of paired t-test at post treatment timepoint vs. Baseline.|paired t-test|||Analysis of Week 24 for all participants with BID dosing||||0.6303
90949565|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.3851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.2|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Late, Change at Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.20|-0.51|0.3851
90949566|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.182||0.1373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.09|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Late, Change at Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.09|-0.63|0.1373
90949567|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.177||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.09|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Late, Change at Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.09|-0.62|0.1360
90949568|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.176||0.1264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.08|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Late, Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.08|-0.62|0.1264
90949569|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.172||0.0567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.01|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Late, Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.01|-0.67|0.0567
90949570|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.176||0.7447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.29|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Late, Change at Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.29|-0.41|0.7447
91039173|NCT01604941|181962420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0365|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is from analysis of paired t-test at post treatment timepoint vs. Baseline.|paired t-test|||Analysis of Week 12 for 50 mg/kg/d dosing||||0.0365
91039174|NCT01604941|181962420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is from analysis of paired t-test at post treatment timepoint vs. Baseline.|paired t-test|||Analysis of Week 12 for all participants with BID dosing||||0.0019
90949571|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.172||0.7727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.29|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Late, Change at Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.29|-0.39|0.7727
90949572|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.183||0.659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.44|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Late, Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.44|-0.28|0.6590
90949573|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.3951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.2|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Late, Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.20|-0.51|0.3951
90949574|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.4576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.28|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Late, Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.28|-0.63|0.4576
90949575|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.223||0.7609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.37|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Late, Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.37|-0.51|0.7609
90949576|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.234||0.622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.35|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Late, Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.35|-0.58|0.6220
90949577|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.225||0.9081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.47|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Late, Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.47|-0.42|0.9081
90949578|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.191||0.1668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.11|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Late, Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.11|-0.65|0.1668
90949579|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.189||0.0935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.05|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Late, Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.05|-0.69|0.0935
90949580|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.4038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.17|||MMRM|||Work and Activities, Change at Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.17|-0.42|0.4038
91039175|NCT01604941|181962420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1695|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is from analysis of paired t-test at post treatment timepoint vs. Baseline.|paired t-test|||Analysis of Week 24 for all participants with BID dosing||||0.1695
90949581|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145||0.7559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.33|||MMRM|||Work and Activities, Change at Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.33|-0.24|0.7559
90949582|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.181||0.2006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.13|||MMRM|||Work and Activities, Change at Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.13|-0.59|0.2006
91039176|NCT01604941|181962421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0394|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is from analysis of paired t-test at post treatment timepoint vs. Baseline.|paired t-test|||Analysis of Week 12 for 50 mg/kg/d dosing||||0.0394
91039177|NCT01604941|181962421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is from analysis of paired t-test at post treatment timepoint vs. Baseline.|paired t-test|||Analysis of Week 12 for all participants with BID dosing||||0.0004
91039178|NCT01604941|181962421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0332|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is from analysis of paired t-test at post treatment timepoint vs. Baseline.|paired t-test|||Analysis of Week 24 for all participants with BID dosing||||0.0332
90980950|NCT03182738|181845473|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean cough score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|0.07||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in cough score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean cough score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms"||||0.84
91039179|NCT01604941|181962422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3202|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is from Paired t-test for log-transformed data at post treatment timepoint vs. Baseline.|paired t-test|||Analysis of Week 12 for 50 mg/kg/d dosing||||0.3202
91039180|NCT01604941|181962422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4549|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is from Paired t-test for log-transformed data at post treatment timepoint vs. Baseline.|paired t-test|||Analysis of Week 12 for all participants with BID dosing||||0.4549
90980951|NCT03182738|181845473|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean heartburn score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|0.11||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in heartburn score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean heartburn score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms"||||0.54
90980952|NCT03182738|181845473|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean pain during sex score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|0.14||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in pain during sex score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean pain during sex score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms"||||0.13
90980953|NCT03182738|181845473|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean clumsy score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|0.18||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in clumsy score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean clumsy score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms"||||0.18
90980954|NCT03182738|181845473|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean difficulty falling asleep score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|0.19||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in difficulty falling asleep score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean difficulty falling asleep score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms"||||0.29
91039181|NCT01604941|181962422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3291|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is from Paired t-test for log-transformed data at post treatment timepoint vs. Baseline.|paired t-test|||Analysis of Week 24 for all participants with BID dosing||||0.3291
90980955|NCT03182738|181845473|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean difficulty concentrating score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|0.2||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in difficulty concentrating score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean difficulty concentrating score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms"||||0.12
91039182|NCT01604941|181962423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6703|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is from Paired t-test for log-transformed data at post treatment timepoint vs. Baseline.|paired t-test|||Analysis of Week 8 for 50 mg/kg/d dosing||||0.6703
91039183|NCT01604941|181962423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2618|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is from Paired t-test for log-transformed data at post treatment timepoint vs. Baseline.|paired t-test|||Analysis of Week 8 for all participants with BID dosing||||0.2618
90980956|NCT03182738|181845473|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean decreased sex drive score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|0.24||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in decreased sex drive score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean decreased sex drive score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms"||||0.10
91039184|NCT01604941|181962423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7679|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is from Paired t-test for log-transformed data at post treatment timepoint vs. Baseline.|paired t-test|||Analysis of Week 16 for all participants with BID dosing||||0.7679
91039185|NCT01604941|181962424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1683|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is from analysis of paired t-test at post treatment timepoint vs. Baseline.|paired t-test|||Analysis of Week 12 for 50 mg/kg/d dosing||||0.1683
91039186|NCT01604941|181962424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0123|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is from analysis of paired t-test at post treatment timepoint vs. Baseline.|paired t-test|||Analysis of Week 12 for all participants with BID dosing||||0.0123
90949583|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.175||0.6334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.43|||MMRM|||Work and Activities, Change at Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.43|-0.26|0.6334
90949584|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.5431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.32|||MMRM|||Work and Activities, Change at Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.32|-0.60|0.5431
90949585|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.225||0.5278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.59|||MMRM|||Work and Activities, Change at Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.59|-0.30|0.5278
90949586|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.232||0.4312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.28|||MMRM|||Work and Activities, Change at Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.28|-0.64|0.4312
90949587|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.225||0.3947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.64|||MMRM|||Work and Activities, Change at Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.64|-0.25|0.3947
90949588|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.244||0.6081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.36|||MMRM|||Work and Activities, Change at Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.36|-0.61|0.6081
90949589|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.238||0.8949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.5|||MMRM|||Work and Activities, Change at Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.50|-0.44|0.8949
90949590|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.236||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.09|||MMRM|||Work and Activities, Change at Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.09|-0.84|0.1120
91039187|NCT01604941|181962424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2334|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is from analysis of paired t-test at post treatment timepoint vs. Baseline.|paired t-test|||Analysis of Week 24 for all participants with BID dosing||||0.2334
90980957|NCT03182738|181845473|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean speech difficulties score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|0.25||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in speech difficulties score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean speech difficulties score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms"||||0.01
90949591|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.228||0.1842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.76|||MMRM|||Work and Activities, Change at Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.76|-0.15|0.1842
90949592|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.2646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.22|||MMRM|||Work and Activities, Change at Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.22|-0.81|0.2646
90949593|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.253||0.8101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.44|||MMRM|||Work and Activities, Change at Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.44|-0.56|0.8101
90949594|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.248||0.0215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.09|||MMRM|||Work and Activities, Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.09|-1.07|0.0215
90949595|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.242||0.3226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.24|||MMRM|||Work and Activities, Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.24|-0.72|0.3226
90949596|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.238||0.0339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.04|||MMRM|||Work and Activities, Change at Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.04|-0.98|0.0339
90949597|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.232||0.9824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.47|||MMRM|||Work and Activities, Change at Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.47|-0.46|0.9824
90949598|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.254||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.08|||MMRM|||Work and Activities, Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.08|-0.93|0.0950
91039188|NCT02213263|181962484|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was tested within the pre-specified margins of (-16%, 16%) 95% confidence interval.|Difference in ORR|4.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.16|13.47||||||Difference in ORR between PF-05280586 and rituximab-EU was computed using the stratified Mantel-Haenszel method. The 95% confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the asymptotic stratified method proposed by Miettinen and Nurminen.||13.47|-4.16|
90980958|NCT03182738|181845473|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean unplanned changes in weight score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|0.26||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in unplanned changes in weight score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean unplanned changes in weight score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms"||||0.08
90980959|NCT03182738|181845473|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean dizziness score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|0.27||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in dizziness score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean dizziness score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms"||||0.08
90980960|NCT03182738|181845473|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean difficulty staying asleep score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|0.27||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in difficulty staying asleep score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean difficulty staying asleep score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms"||||0.09
90980961|NCT03182738|181845473|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean depression score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|0.38||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in depression score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean depression score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms"||||0.05
90980962|NCT03182738|181845474|SUPERIORITY|Linear mixed models to test difference in mean score of Fatigue PROMIS T-score from baseline to 3 months between two arms.|Difference in Change|-2.09||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in Fatigue PROMIS T-score from baseline to 3 months between two arms|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in Fatigue PROMIS T-score from baseline to 3 months between two arms||||0.83
91039189|NCT02213263|181962490|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.163||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.786|1.72||A log-rank test stratified by follicular lymphoma international prognostic index 2 (FLIPI2) risk was used to compare the treatment groups with respect to TTF at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio and its confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated from Cox Proportional hazards model stratified by FLIPI2 risk categorization.|||1.720|0.786|0.450
91039190|NCT02213263|181962491|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.393||||0.189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.847|2.291|||Log Rank|A log-rank test stratified by FLIPI2 risk was used to compare the treatment groups with respect to PFS at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|Hazard ratio and its CIs were estimated from Cox Proportional hazards model stratified by FLIPI2 risk categorization.|||2.291|0.847|0.189
90980963|NCT03182738|181845474|SUPERIORITY|Linear mixed models to test difference in mean score of Anxiety PROMIS T-score from baseline to 3 months between two arms.|Difference in Change|-0.94||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in Anxiety PROMIS T-score from baseline to 3 months between two arms|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in Anxiety PROMIS T-score from baseline to 3 months between two arms||||0.83
90980964|NCT03182738|181845474|SUPERIORITY|Linear mixed models to test difference in mean score of Depression PROMIS T-score from baseline to 3 months between two arms.|Difference in Change|-0.79||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in Depression PROMIS T-score from baseline to 3 months between two arms|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in Depression PROMIS T-score from baseline to 3 months between two arms||||0.83
90980965|NCT03182738|181845474|SUPERIORITY|Linear mixed models to test difference in mean score of Pain Interference PROMIS T-score from baseline to 3 months between two arms.|Difference in Change|-0.78||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in Pain Interference PROMIS T-score from baseline to 3 months between two arms|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in Pain Interference PROMIS T-score from baseline to 3 months between two arms||||0.83
90890117|NCT01571362|181644084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.34||0.5094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.56|5.8||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||5.80|-11.56|0.5094
90980966|NCT03182738|181845474|SUPERIORITY|Linear mixed models to test difference in mean score of Satisfaction with Social Role PROMIS T-score from baseline to 3 months between two arms.|Difference in Change|0.04||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in Satisfaction with Social Role PROMIS T-score from baseline to 3 months between two arms.~Positive estimation parameter value indicates intervention arm better than control arm"|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in Satisfaction with Social Role PROMIS T-score from baseline to 3 months between two arms||||0.98
90980967|NCT03182738|181845474|SUPERIORITY|Linear mixed models to test difference in mean score of Physical Function PROMIS T-score from baseline to 3 months between two arms.|Difference in Change|0.55||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in Physical Function PROMIS T-score from baseline to 3 months between two arms.~Positive estimation parameter value indicates intervention arm better than control arm."|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in Physical Function PROMIS T-score from baseline to 3 months between two arms.||||0.83
91007832|NCT01855867|181899909|SUPERIORITY|Statistical significance was determined at the alpha 0.05 level. The study regimen completion rates of participants in the current study taking a fixed dose once daily combination of elvitegravir/cobicistat/TDF/FTC were compared to historical controls who used PEP regimens consisting of TDF/FTC daily and raltegravir twice daily, or earlier regimens of twice daily zidovudine (AZT)/lamivudine (3TC) and a protease inhibitor, using chi-square tests for independence.|chi square||||<|0.05||||||Reported p-value was calculated, and is not attempting to indicate the threshold for statistical significance|Chi-squared|||using historical controls||||<0.05
91007833|NCT00542425|181899911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||0.0|||||ANOVA|||Study size provided 95 percent power to detect a difference in means of 114 (ng/mL) for PINP endpoint between BA058 (SD=147.5) and placebo (SD=34.5). Study size was based on Bauer 2006 data and utilized a 2-tailed 2-sample t-test with a significance level of alpha=0.01 with a Bonferonni adjustment for multiple testing. It included a 10 percent adjustment for within study dropouts over 6 months and a 15 percent adjustment to maintain adequate power for a per protocol analysis of key endpoints.||||<0.001
91007834|NCT00542425|181899911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||0.0|||||ANOVA|||Study size provided 95 percent power to detect a difference in means of 114 (ng/mL) for PINP endpoint between BA058 (SD=147.5) and placebo (SD=34.5). Study size was based on Bauer 2006 data and utilized a 2-tailed 2-sample t-test with a significance level of alpha=0.01 with a Bonferonni adjustment for multiple testing. It included a 10 percent adjustment for within study dropouts over 6 months and a 15 percent adjustment to maintain adequate power for a per protocol analysis of key endpoints.||||<0.001
91007835|NCT00542425|181899912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||0.0|||||ANOVA|||For the BMD endpoint, the planned study size has 80 percent power with alpha=0.02 to detect a difference in mean change from baseline of 3.0 (percent) in BMD for the BA058 group and the BA058 Placebo group using an assumed SD of 3.5-4.0. The estimates for SD are based upon results of lumbar spine BMD presented by Body 2002.||||<0.001
91007836|NCT00542425|181899912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||0.0|||||ANOVA|||For the BMD endpoint, the planned study size has 80 percent power with alpha=0.02 to detect a difference in mean change from baseline of 3.0 (percent) in BMD for the BA058 group and the BA058 Placebo group using an assumed SD of 3.5-4.0. The estimates for SD are based upon results of lumbar spine BMD presented by Body 2002.||||<0.001
91007837|NCT02096471|181899924|SUPERIORITY|Single group study. Change in Pain from Baseline amongst those with a tumor response|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Descriptive analysis only||Single group change from baseline||||0.11
90890118|NCT01571362|181644084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.043||0.4944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.81|5.26||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Week 12/ET||5.26|-10.81|0.4944
90980968|NCT03182738|181845474|SUPERIORITY|Linear mixed models to test difference in mean score of Sleep Disturbance PROMIS T-score from baseline to 3 months between two arms.|Difference in Change|0.84||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in Sleep Disturbance PROMIS T-score from baseline to 3 months between two arms.~Positive estimation parameter value indicates intervention arm better than control arm."|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in Sleep Disturbance PROMIS T-score from baseline to 3 months between two arms.||||0.83
90980969|NCT03182738|181845474|SUPERIORITY|Linear mixed models to test difference in mean score of Physical Function PROMIS T-score from baseline to 6 months between two arms.|Difference in Change|-0.43||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in Physical Function PROMIS T-score from baseline to 6 months between two arms.|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in Physical Function PROMIS T-score from baseline to 6 months between two arms.||||0.96
90980970|NCT03182738|181845474|SUPERIORITY|Linear mixed models to test difference in mean score of Depression PROMIS T-score from baseline to 6 months between two arms.|Difference in Change|0.07||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in Depression PROMIS T-score from baseline to 6 months between two arms.~Positive estimation parameter value indicates intervention arm better than control arm."|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in Depression PROMIS T-score from baseline to 6 months between two arms.||||0.96
90980971|NCT03182738|181845474|SUPERIORITY|Linear mixed models to test difference in mean score of Satisfaction with Social Role PROMIS T-score from baseline to 6 months between two arms.|Difference in Change|0.23||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in Satisfaction with Social Role PROMIS T-score from baseline to 6 months between two arms.|"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in Satisfaction with Social Role PROMIS T-score from baseline to 6 months between two arms.~Positive estimation parameter value indicates intervention arm better than control arm."|||0.96
90980972|NCT03182738|181845474|SUPERIORITY|Linear mixed models to test difference in mean score of Anxiety PROMIS T-score from baseline to 6 months between two arms.|Difference in Change|0.77||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in Anxiety PROMIS T-score from baseline to 6 months between two arms.~Positive estimation parameter value indicates intervention arm better than control arm."|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in Anxiety PROMIS T-score from baseline to 6 months between two arms.||||0.96
91007838|NCT02096471|181899924|SUPERIORITY|Single Group Study. Change in Pain from Baseline amongst those with a Tumor Response.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Descriptive Analysis Only||Single Group Change from Baseline||||0.01
90980973|NCT03182738|181845474|SUPERIORITY|Linear mixed models to test difference in mean score of Pain Interference PROMIS T-score from baseline to 6 months between two arms.|Difference in Change|1.05||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in Pain Interference PROMIS T-score from baseline to 6 months between two arms.~Positive estimation parameter value indicates intervention arm better than control arm."|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in Pain Interference PROMIS T-score from baseline to 6 months between two arms.||||0.96
90980974|NCT03182738|181845474|SUPERIORITY|Linear mixed models to test difference in mean score of Fatigue PROMIS T-score from baseline to 6 months between two arms.|Difference in Change|1.5||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in Fatigue PROMIS T-score from baseline to 6 months between two arms.~Positive estimation parameter value indicates intervention arm better than control arm."|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in Fatigue PROMIS T-score from baseline to 6 months between two arms.||||0.96
90980975|NCT03182738|181845474|SUPERIORITY|Linear mixed models to test difference in mean score of Sleep Disturbance PROMIS T-score from baseline to 6 months between two arms.|Difference in Change|2.04||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in Sleep Disturbance PROMIS T-score from baseline to 6 months between two arms.~Positive estimation parameter value indicates intervention arm better than control arm."|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in Sleep Disturbance PROMIS T-score from baseline to 6 months between two arms.||||0.64
90980976|NCT02886715|181845486|EQUIVALENCE|90% Confidence Interval for the least-squares mean Test/Reference ratios to be within 80-125%|Test-to-Reference Ratio|98.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.39|103.31||p-value was no calculated|ANOVA|with treatment and site as fixed effects in the model||||103.31|94.39|
90980977|NCT02886715|181845486|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.17||||0.0185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.46|-0.87|||ANOVA|with treatment and site as fixed effects in the model||||-0.87|-9.46|0.0185
90980978|NCT02886715|181845488|EQUIVALENCE|90% Confidence Interval for the least-squares mean Test/Reference ratios to be within 80-125%|Test-to-Reference Ratio|98.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.42|103.61||p-value was no calculated|ANOVA|with treatment and site as fixed effects in the model||||103.61|93.42|
91039191|NCT02213263|181962492|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.09|6.5||||||Difference in CR between PF-05280586 and rituximab-EU was computed using the stratified Mantel-Haenszel method. The 95% confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the asymptotic stratified method proposed by Miettinen and Nurminen.||6.50|-11.09|
90980979|NCT02886715|181845488|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.39||||0.0354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.48|-0.3|||ANOVA|with treatment and site as fixed effects in the model||||-0.30|-8.48|0.0354
90980980|NCT01128387|181845500|OTHER||Maximum Tolerated Dose|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Dose of Pantiumumab (in combination with Cisplatin \& Fluorouracil - see below)||||
90980981|NCT01128387|181845500|OTHER||Maximum Tolerated Dose|60.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Dose of Cisplatin||||
90980982|NCT01128387|181845500|OTHER||Maximum Tolerated Dose|750.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Dose of Fluorourcil||||
90980983|NCT02120417|181845506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.932||||0.762|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.694|1.252|||Log Rank|The P-value was analyzed by Log-Rank Test stratified by Hormone Receptor Status.||||1.252|0.694|0.762
90980984|NCT01440101|181845516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value obtained from the Mann-Whitney U test stratified by the presence or absence of Gd+ lesions at baseline.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90980985|NCT01440101|181845519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value obtained from the Van Elteren test stratified by the presence or absence of Gd+ lesions at baseline.|Van Elteren test|||||||<0.001
90980986|NCT01440101|181845520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.006
90980987|NCT01440101|181845521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.404|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.223|0.586|||Fisher Exact|||Relapse-free proportions compared using a two-sided Fisher exact test. In the analysis, participants with unknown status are considered to have relapsed.||0.586|0.223|<0.001
90980988|NCT01440101|181845522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.729||||||P-value for comparison between the treated and placebo groups was based on analysis of covariance, adjusted for the baseline VAS score.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 12||||0.729
90980989|NCT01440101|181845522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.942||||||P-value for comparison between the treated and placebo groups was based on analysis of covariance, adjusted for the baseline VAS score.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 24||||0.942
90980990|NCT00885079|181845535|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for change from baseline in the FCS score was determined by comparing the non-inferiority margin (0.4) with the upper limit of the confidence interval of the difference between the 2 treatment groups.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.1|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|-0.24||An analysis of change from baseline of FCS was performed using t-test. The level of singnificanse was 5 % (2-sided).|t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.24|-1.47|<0.05
90980991|NCT00885079|181845536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1|||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
90980992|NCT03303989|181845585|SUPERIORITY|Efficacy of MMF was examined by the proportion of responders in MMF+Peg compared to PBO+Peg. Rates of the primary outcome were compared using proportions and 95% confidence intervals and tested for differences using Fisher's exact test.|||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact tests were performed to compare baseline and clinical characteristics between treatment groups as appropriate.||||<0.01
90949599|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.249||0.4865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.32|||MMRM|||Work and Activities, Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.32|-0.67|0.4865
90949600|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.292||0.9861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.58|||MMRM|||Work and Activities, Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.58|-0.57|0.9861
90949601|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.283||0.9266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.54|||MMRM|||Work and Activities, Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.54|-0.59|0.9266
90949602|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.285||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|-0.04|||MMRM|||Work and Activities, Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.04|-1.17|0.0360
90949603|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.273||0.0583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|0.02|||MMRM|||Work and Activities, Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.02|-1.06|0.0583
90949604|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.254||0.0404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.02|||MMRM|||Work and Activities, Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.02|-1.03|0.0404
90949605|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.249||0.1352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.12|||MMRM|||Work and Activities, Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.12|-0.87|0.1352
90949606|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.58|||MMRM|||Retardation, Change at Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.58|0.10|0.0056
90980993|NCT05202808|181845598|NON_INFERIORITY|"The endothelial cell loss (ECL) at 6 months was compared between the LAL and Control groups. The statistical hypothesis is:~* H0: Median(LAL) - Median(control) ≥ 5% vs~* Ha: Median(LAL) - Median(control) \< 5%~The median ECL for the LAL group is at most 5% higher than the median ECL for the Control group.~The first co-primary safety endpoint is met if the median ECL of the LAL group is non-inferior to the Control group using a right-tail Wilcoxon test using a significance level of 0.05."|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|1.66|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||With a one-sided significance level of 0.05, a power of 0.80, a randomization ratio of 2:1, and then the Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon asymptotic relative efficiency (A.R.E.) efficiency adjustment, the sample size per two-sample t-test is 192 LAL eyes and 96 Control eyes (total of 288), with an assumed dropout rate of 10%.||1.66|-1.00|<0.0001
90980994|NCT05202808|181845600|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.97|7.15|||||Light adjustable lens (LAL) and Light Delivery Device (LDD) group is the numerator and Control group is the denominator. At Month 6, the odds of achieving UCDVA of 20/20 or better were 4.61 times greater for the LAL group than the Control group.|||7.15|2.97|
90980995|NCT05202808|181845601|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|20.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.05|36.14|||||Light adjustable lens (LAL) and Light Delivery Device (LDD) group is the numerator and the Control group is the denominator. The odds of achieving Absolute MRCYL of 0.5D or less was 20.74 for the LAL group versus the Control group at month 6.|||36.14|12.05|
90980996|NCT05202808|181845602|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.89|23.57|||||Light adjustable lens (LAL) and Light Delivery Device (LDD) group is the numerator and the Control group is the denominator. The odds of achieving simultaneous Absolute MRSE and MRCL of 0.5 D or less was 14.46 in the LAL group vs. Control at month 6.|||23.57|8.89|
90980997|NCT03658954|181845673|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing for group effect.||||0.75
91039192|NCT02213263|181962493|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.492||||0.185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.823|2.704||A log-rank test stratified by FLIPI2 risk was used to compare the treatment groups with respect to DOR at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio and its CIs were estimated from Cox Proportional hazards model stratified by FLIPI2 risk categorization.|||2.704|0.823|0.185
91078494|NCT05821296|182042882|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7518.25|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13340.45||0.003|TWO_SIDED|||||If the Wilcoxon test provides a p-value less than 0.05, the variation is significant over time for the studied parameter.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of change from baseline of conspicuous area of line marks at Day 15 to evaluate the improvement of line marks assessed by Colorface device.||||0.003
90980998|NCT03658954|181845674|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing for group effect.||||0.05
90980999|NCT03658954|181845675|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing for group effect.||||0.02
90981000|NCT04885257|181845678|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.896|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.896
90981001|NCT00609622|181845694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.705||||0.9963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.272|5.751|||Log Rank|||P-value was calculated from a 1-sided, log-rank test stratified for Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance Status (0 vs. 1), Baseline Lactate Dehydrogenase (LDH): greater than (\>) 1.5 vs. less than or equal to (\<=) 1.5 \* upper limit of normal range (ULN), and Prior Adjuvant Treatment (yes vs. no).||5.751|1.272|0.9963
90981002|NCT00609622|181845695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.618||||0.9289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.845|3.096|||Log Rank|||P-value was calculated from a 1-sided, log-rank test stratified for ECOG Performance Status (0 vs. 1), Baseline LDH: \>1.5 vs. \<=1.5 \* ULN, and Prior Adjuvant Treatment (yes vs. no).||3.096|0.845|0.9289
90981003|NCT00609622|181845698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||F-Distribution|3.956||||0.5898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.412|18.324|||Chi-squared|||||18.324|-10.412|0.5898
90981004|NCT00609622|181845700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.4||||0.0515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.82|0.01|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in PWB between treatment arms (C4 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||0.01|-2.82|0.0515
90981005|NCT00609622|181845700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.45||||0.0876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.11|0.22|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in PWB between treatment arms (C7 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||0.22|-3.11|0.0876
90981006|NCT00609622|181845700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.81||||0.0522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.64|0.02|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in PWB between treatment arms (C10 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||0.02|-3.64|0.0522
90949607|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.118||0.1537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.4|||MMRM|||Retardation, Change at Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.40|-0.06|0.1537
90949608|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129||0.0142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.58|||MMRM|||Retardation, Change at Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.58|0.07|0.0142
90949609|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.126||0.0159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.56|||MMRM|||Retardation, Change at Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.56|0.06|0.0159
90949610|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.132||0.2255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.42|||MMRM|||Retardation, Change at Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.42|-0.10|0.2255
90949611|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129||0.1069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.46|||MMRM|||Retardation, Change at Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.46|-0.05|0.1069
90949612|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.144||0.4932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.39|||MMRM|||Retardation, Change at Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.39|-0.19|0.4932
90949613|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.2634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.43|||MMRM|||Retardation, Change at Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.43|-0.12|0.2634
90949614|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.133||0.9284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.28|||MMRM|||Retardation, Change at Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.28|-0.25|0.9284
90949615|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129||0.9459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.26|||MMRM|||Retardation, Change at Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.26|-0.25|0.9459
90949616|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.151||0.2908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.14|||MMRM|||Retardation, Change at Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.14|-0.46|0.2908
90949617|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.146||0.6834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.35|||MMRM|||Retardation, Change at Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.35|-0.23|0.6834
91039193|NCT02213263|181962494|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.94||||0.319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0||Due to smaller number of participants with an event, upper limit of 95% CI could not be calculated.|A log-rank test stratified by FLIPI2 risk was used to compare the treatment groups with respect to overall survival at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio and its CIs were estimated from Cox Proportional hazards model stratified by FLIPI2 risk categorization.||||0.000|0.319
91039194|NCT02960295|181962529|OTHER|There was no comparison group and no test of statistical significance.||||||||||||||||In this interventional study the number of glucose checks per patient per day was calculated as stated above. There was no comparison group and no test of statistical significance.|This is a simple calculation of the mean (sd) of the number of glucose checks per pt per day|||
91039195|NCT02960295|181962530|OTHER|This is an observational study|||||<|0.05|||||||Pearson correlation (r)|||||||<0.05
91039196|NCT02960295|181962530|OTHER|This is an observational study|||||<|0.05|||||||Pearson correlation coefficient (r)|||||||<0.05
91039197|NCT02960295|181962530|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Pearson correlation coefficient (r)|||||||<0.05
91039198|NCT01906372|181962562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Frequency of achieving primary endpoint|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|||||Open label single arm pilot trial without control group.||||||||
91039199|NCT01906372|181962563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
91039200|NCT03629054|181962564|EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon two-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (gMean) (T/R).|Adjusted gMean ratio|100.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.8|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.17|102.72|||ANOVA||gMean ratio = T/R. Standard error of the mean is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV).|An ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including fixed effects for 'sequence', 'period' and 'treatment' and random effect for 'subject within sequence'.||102.72|98.17|<0.0001
91039201|NCT03629054|181962565|EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon two-sided 90% CIs for the ratios of the geometric means (T/R).|Adjusted gMean ratio|95.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.58|99.24|||ANOVA||gMean ratio = T/R. Standard Error of the mean is actually intra-individual gCV.|An ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including fixed effects for 'sequence', 'period' and 'treatment' and random effect for 'subject within sequence'.||99.24|91.58|<0.0001
91039202|NCT03629054|181962566|EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon two-sided 90% CIs for the ratios of the geometric means (T/R).|Adjusted gMean ratio|100.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.17|104.31|||ANOVA||gMean ratio = T/R. Standard Error of the mean is actually intra-individual gCV.|An ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including fixed effects for 'sequence', 'period' and 'treatment' and random effect for 'subject within sequence'.||104.31|96.17|<0.0001
91039203|NCT03629054|181962567|EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon two-sided 90% CIs for the ratios of the geometric means (T/R).|Adjusted gMean ratio|92.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.9||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.21|100.57|||ANOVA||gMean ratio = T/R. Standard Error of the mean is actually intra-individual gCV.|An ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including fixed effects for 'sequence', 'period' and 'treatment' and random effect for 'subject within sequence'.||100.57|85.21|0.0029
91039204|NCT03629054|181962568|EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon two-sided 90% CIs for the ratios of the geometric means (T/R).|Adjusted gMean ratio|97.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.9||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.99|105.26|||ANOVA||gMean ratio = T/R. Standard Error of the mean is actually intra-individual gCV.|An ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including fixed effects for 'sequence', 'period' and 'treatment' and random effect for 'subject within sequence'.||105.26|89.99|0.0001
91039205|NCT03629054|181962569|EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon two-sided 90% CIs for the ratios of the geometric means (T/R).|Adjusted gMean ratio|104.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.56|111.5|||ANOVA||gMean ratio = T/R. Standard Error of the mean is actually intra-individual gCV.|An ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including fixed effects for 'sequence', 'period' and 'treatment' and random effect for 'subject within sequence'.||111.50|98.56|<0.0001
91039206|NCT03629054|181962570|EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon two-sided 90% CIs for the ratios of the geometric means (T/R).|Adjusted gMean ratio|100.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.33|103.18|||ANOVA||gMean ratio = T/R. Standard Error of the mean is actually intra-individual gCV.|An ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including fixed effects for 'sequence', 'period' and 'treatment' and random effect for 'subject within sequence'.||103.18|98.33|<0.0001
91039207|NCT03629054|181962571|EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon two-sided 90% CIs for the ratios of the geometric means (T/R).|Adjusted gMean ratio|103.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.9|110.71|||ANOVA||gMean ratio = T/R. Standard Error of the mean is actually intra-individual gCV.|An ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including fixed effects for 'sequence', 'period' and 'treatment' and random effect for 'subject within sequence'.||110.71|96.90|<0.0001
91039208|NCT03629054|181962572|EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon two-sided 90% CIs for the ratios of the geometric means (T/R).|Adjusted gMean ratio|95.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.8|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.29|99.32|||ANOVA||gMean ratio = T/R. Standard Error of the mean is actually intra-individual gCV.|An ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including fixed effects for 'sequence', 'period' and 'treatment' and random effect for 'subject within sequence'.||99.32|92.29|<0.0001
91039209|NCT00924638|181962585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|6.4||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|21.7|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio of \> 1 indicates that Continuous Monitoring is superior to Control in detecting AF.|||21.7|1.9|0.0006
91039210|NCT00924638|181962586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|7.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|20.8|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio of \> 1 indicates that Continuous Monitoring is superior to Control in detecting AF.|||20.8|2.6|<0.0001
91039211|NCT00924638|181962587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.32|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio of \< 1 indicates that the incidence rate of recurrent stroke or TIA is lower in the Continuous Monitoring arm compared to the Control arm.|||1.32|0.35|0.25
90981007|NCT00609622|181845700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.64||||0.1339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.81|0.52|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in PWB between treatment arms (C13 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||0.52|-3.81|0.1339
90981008|NCT00609622|181845700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.05||||0.4233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.68|1.57|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in PWB between treatment arms (C16 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||1.57|-3.68|0.4233
90981009|NCT00609622|181845700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.97||||0.2211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.18|1.24|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in PWB between treatment arms (C19 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||1.24|-5.18|0.2211
90981010|NCT00609622|181845700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.41||||0.8184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.22|4.04|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in PWB between treatment arms (C22 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||4.04|-3.22|0.8184
90981011|NCT00609622|181845700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.9||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|17.23|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in PWB between treatment arms (C25 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||17.23|0.57|0.0380
91039212|NCT00924638|181962588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|14.8|||||A difference of greater than 0 means that a higher percentage of subjects in the Continuous Monitoring arm were using the OAC drugs at the 12 months visit compared to the Control arm.|||14.8|2.8|
91039213|NCT00924638|181962589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|3.1|||||A difference of greater than 0 means that a higher percentage of subjects in the Continuous Monitoring arm were using the anti-arrhythmic drugs at the 12 months visit compared to the Control arm.|||3.1|-2.3|
91039214|NCT00924638|181962590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.11
90981012|NCT00609622|181845700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.6||||0.3266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.61|17.81|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in PWB between treatment arms (C28 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||17.81|-6.61|0.3266
90981013|NCT00609622|181845700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.75||||0.4667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.26|27.76|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in PWB between treatment arms (C31 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||27.76|-16.26|0.4667
90981014|NCT00609622|181845700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in PWB between treatment arms (C34 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||0|0|<0.0001
90981015|NCT00609622|181845700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.64||||0.5587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|1.52|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in PWB between treatment arms (EOT) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||1.52|-2.80|0.5587
90981016|NCT00609622|181845700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.28||||0.6122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|0.81|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in SWB between treatment arms (C4 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||0.81|-1.37|0.6122
90981017|NCT00609622|181845700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.51||||0.4642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|0.86|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in SWB between treatment arms (C7 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||0.86|-1.87|0.4642
91039215|NCT00924638|181962591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.37||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.6|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio of \< 1 indicates that the incidence rate of cardiovascular or stroke/TIA related hospitalization is lower in the Continuous Monitoring arm compared to the Control arm.|||2.60|0.73|0.33
91039216|NCT00989950|181962597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.0||0.588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|233.0|||ANOVA|||||233|0|0.588
91039217|NCT03488108|181962617|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.009
91039218|NCT03488108|181962618|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.90
90981018|NCT00609622|181845700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.94||||0.2105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|0.54|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in SWB between treatment arms (C10 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||0.54|-2.41|0.2105
90981019|NCT00609622|181845700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.09||||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|2.76|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in SWB between treatment arms (C13 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||2.76|-0.57|0.1950
90981020|NCT00609622|181845700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6||||0.5779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|2.75|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in SWB between treatment arms (C16 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||2.75|-1.55|0.5779
90981021|NCT00609622|181845700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.67||||0.6314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|3.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in SWB between treatment arms (C19 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||3.50|-2.15|0.6314
90981022|NCT00609622|181845700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.51||||0.7554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.85|3.87|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in SWB between treatment arms (C22 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||3.87|-2.85|0.7554
90981023|NCT00609622|181845700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.94||||0.3781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.22|5.34|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in SWB between treatment arms (C25 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||5.34|-13.22|0.3781
91039219|NCT03488108|181962619|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.003
91039220|NCT03488108|181962620|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.005
90981024|NCT00609622|181845700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.85||||0.5715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.83|8.13|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in SWB between treatment arms (C28 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||8.13|-13.83|0.5715
90981025|NCT00609622|181845700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.58||||0.1271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.08|3.93|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in SWB between treatment arms (C31 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||3.93|-19.08|0.1271
90981026|NCT00609622|181845700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in SWB between treatment arms (C34 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||0|0|<0.0001
90981027|NCT00609622|181845700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.27||||0.6785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|1.58|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in SWB between treatment arms (EOT) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||1.58|-1.03|0.6785
90949618|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.142||0.3579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.15|||MMRM|||Retardation, Change at Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.15|-0.41|0.3579
90949619|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.138||0.827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.24|||MMRM|||Retardation, Change at Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.24|-0.30|0.8270
90949620|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.5292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.18|||MMRM|||Retardation, Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.18|-0.34|0.5292
90949621|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.127||0.879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.27|||MMRM|||Retardation, Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.27|-0.23|0.8790
90981028|NCT00609622|181845700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.44||||0.4623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|0.74|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in EWB between treatment arms (C4 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||0.74|-1.63|0.4623
90981029|NCT00609622|181845700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06||||0.9302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|1.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in EWB between treatment arms (C7 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||1.20|-1.31|0.9302
90981030|NCT00609622|181845700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.25||||0.7502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|1.33|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in EWB between treatment arms (C10 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||1.33|-1.84|0.7502
90981031|NCT00609622|181845700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09||||0.9335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|1.95|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in EWB between treatment arms (C13 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||1.95|-2.12|0.9335
90981032|NCT00609622|181845700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12||||0.9191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|2.17|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in EWB between treatment arms (C16 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||2.17|-2.40|0.9191
90981033|NCT00609622|181845700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.46|2.27|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in EWB between treatment arms (C19 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||2.27|-3.46|0.6750
90981034|NCT00609622|181845700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.88||||0.5874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|2.43|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in EWB between treatment arms (C22 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||2.43|-4.20|0.5874
90981035|NCT00609622|181845700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.27||||0.4507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.53|16.06|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in EWB between treatment arms (C25 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||16.06|-7.53|0.4507
90981036|NCT00609622|181845700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.9||||0.3087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.28|12.08|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in EWB between treatment arms (C28 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||12.08|-4.28|0.3087
90981037|NCT00609622|181845700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.25||||0.9635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.26|15.76|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in EWB between treatment arms (C31 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||15.76|-16.26|0.9635
90981038|NCT00609622|181845700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in EWB between treatment arms (C34 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||0|0|<0.0001
90981039|NCT00609622|181845700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.42||||0.6699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.37|1.53|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in EWB between treatment arms (EOT) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||1.53|-2.37|0.6699
90981040|NCT00609622|181845700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.34||||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.98|-0.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in FWB between treatment arms (C4 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||-0.70|-3.98|0.0055
90981041|NCT00609622|181845700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.04||||0.2793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.92|0.85|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in FWB between treatment arms (C7 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||0.85|-2.92|0.2793
90981042|NCT00609622|181845700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.09||||0.2999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.17|0.99|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in FWB between treatment arms (C10 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||0.99|-3.17|0.2999
90981043|NCT00609622|181845700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.27||||0.327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.82|1.29|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in FWB between treatment arms (C13 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||1.29|-3.82|0.3270
91039221|NCT01665508|181962626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Continuous variables were reported as the mean ± (SD) and categorical data presented as frequency and percentage of the sample. Comparisons between baseline and post-treatment SAQ scores, SF-36v2 scores, and CPET variables were performed using a paired t-test for normally distributed variables or a Wilcoxon signed-rank test for non-normally distributed variables. Normality was defined by the Shapiro-Wilk test. For categorical variables, data were compared using a chi-squared test.||||< 0.05
90981044|NCT00609622|181845700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03||||0.9779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.39|2.45|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in FWB between treatment arms (C16 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||2.45|-2.39|0.9779
90981045|NCT00609622|181845700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.8344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.25|3.45|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in FWB between treatment arms (C19 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||3.45|-4.25|0.8344
90981046|NCT00609622|181845700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.46||||0.5494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|6.41|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in FWB between treatment arms (C22 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||6.41|-3.50|0.5494
90981047|NCT00609622|181845700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|13.0||||0.0136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.15|22.85|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in FWB between treatment arms (C25 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||22.85|3.15|0.0136
90981048|NCT00609622|181845700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|13.78||||0.0247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.26|25.29|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in FWB between treatment arms (C28 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||25.29|2.26|0.0247
91039222|NCT02054715|181962630|OTHER||Mean Difference (MP - PE)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.9621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|3.9|||F-Test|||Two-sided F-Test as a statistical comparing MP and PE means.||3.9|-4.1|0.9621
91039223|NCT02054715|181962631|OTHER||Mean Difference (MP - PE)|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.57||0.9065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.89|3.26|||F-test|||Two-sided F-Test comparing the MP and PE means.||3.26|-2.89|0.9065
91039224|NCT02054715|181962632|OTHER||Mean Difference (MP - PE)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.9709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.79|2.69|||F-Test|||Two-sided F-Test comparing the MP and PE means.||2.69|-2.79|0.9709
90981049|NCT00609622|181845700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.0||||0.3527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.91|22.91|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in FWB between treatment arms (C31 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||22.91|-12.91|0.3527
90981050|NCT00609622|181845700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in FWB between treatment arms (C34 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||0|0|<0.0001
90981051|NCT00609622|181845700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.76||||0.1309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.05|0.53|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in FWB between treatment arms (EOT) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||0.53|-4.05|0.1309
90981052|NCT00609622|181845700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.36||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.72|0.01|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in CCS between treatment arms (C4 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||0.01|-2.72|0.0510
90981053|NCT00609622|181845700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.74||||0.3858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|0.95|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in CCS between treatment arms (C7 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||0.95|-2.44|0.3858
90981054|NCT00609622|181845700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.88||||0.3943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|1.15|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in CCS between treatment arms (C10 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||1.15|-2.90|0.3943
90981055|NCT00609622|181845700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.13||||0.3499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.53|1.27|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in CCS between treatment arms (C13 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||1.27|-3.53|0.3499
90981056|NCT00609622|181845700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07||||0.9567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.64|2.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in CCS between treatment arms (C16 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||2.50|-2.64|0.9567
90981057|NCT00609622|181845700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.77||||0.2901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.12|1.58|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in CCS between treatment arms (C19 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||1.58|-5.12|0.2901
90981058|NCT00609622|181845700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.07||||0.5857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.05|2.92|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in CCS between treatment arms (C22 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||2.92|-5.05|0.5857
90981059|NCT00609622|181845700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.27||||0.9635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.56|12.02|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in CCS between treatment arms (C25 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||12.02|-12.56|0.9635
90981060|NCT00609622|181845700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.4||||0.685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.36|10.56|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in CCS between treatment arms (C28 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||10.56|-15.36|0.6850
90981061|NCT00609622|181845700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.75||||0.4968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.23|11.73|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in CCS between treatment arms (C31 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||11.73|-19.23|0.4968
90981062|NCT00609622|181845700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in CCS between treatment arms (C34 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||0|0|<0.0001
91039225|NCT02054715|181962633|OTHER|||||||0.014|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-square test between MP and PE. 69% of subjects that got the Multimedia Psychoeducation intervention chose to participate in a clinical trial, compared with 62% in the Print Education group||||0.014
91039226|NCT00834873|181962718|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|94.77||||||90.0|85.04|105.61|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||105.61|85.04|
90949622|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.133||0.1347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.06|||MMRM|||Retardation, Change at Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.06|-0.46|0.1347
90981063|NCT00609622|181845700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.58||||0.5891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.71|1.55|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in CCS between treatment arms (EOT) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||1.55|-2.71|0.5891
90981064|NCT00609622|181845701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.63||||0.5081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.24|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in neurotoxicity between treatment arms (C4 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||1.24|-2.50|0.5081
90981065|NCT00609622|181845701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.44||||0.6977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.67|1.79|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in neurotoxicity between treatment arms (C7 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||1.79|-2.67|0.6977
90981066|NCT00609622|181845701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.76||||0.0797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.85|0.33|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in neurotoxicity between treatment arms (C10 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||0.33|-5.85|0.0797
90949623|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129||0.2874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.12|||MMRM|||Retardation, Change at Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.12|-0.40|0.2874
90949624|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.132||0.0086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.09|||MMRM|||Retardation, Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.09|-0.61|0.0086
90981067|NCT00609622|181845701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.22||||0.5808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.62|3.17|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in neurotoxicity between treatment arms (C13 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||3.17|-5.62|0.5808
90981068|NCT00609622|181845701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.03||||0.7046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.44|4.38|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in neurotoxicity between treatment arms (C16 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||4.38|-6.44|0.7046
90981069|NCT00609622|181845701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.18||||0.2052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|10.76|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in neurotoxicity between treatment arms (C19 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||10.76|-2.40|0.2052
90981070|NCT00609622|181845701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.27||||0.0483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|16.46|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in neurotoxicity between treatment arms (C22 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||16.46|0.07|0.0483
90981071|NCT00609622|181845701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.93||||0.6832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.41|24.26|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in neurotoxicity between treatment arms (C25 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||24.26|-16.41|0.6832
90981072|NCT00609622|181845701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0||||0.9081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.05|20.05|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in neurotoxicity between treatment arms (C28 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||20.05|-18.05|0.9081
90981073|NCT00609622|181845701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.75||||0.7289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.88|16.38|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in neurotoxicity between treatment arms (C31 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||16.38|-12.88|0.7289
90981074|NCT00609622|181845701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in neurotoxicity between treatment arms (C34 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||0|0|<0.0001
90981075|NCT00609622|181845701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.74||||0.6921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.43|2.95|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in neurotoxicity between treatment arms (EOT) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||2.95|-4.43|0.6921
90981076|NCT00609622|181845701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.9788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.19|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in item 13 between treatment arms (C4 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||0.19|-0.19|0.9788
90981077|NCT00609622|181845701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12||||0.2747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.09|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in item 13 between treatment arms (C7 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||0.09|-0.33|0.2747
90981078|NCT00609622|181845701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.18||||0.2776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.14|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in item 13 between treatment arms (C10 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||0.14|-0.50|0.2776
90981079|NCT00609622|181845701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.27||||0.1403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.09|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in item 13 between treatment arms (C13 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||0.09|-0.62|0.1403
90981080|NCT00609622|181845701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03||||0.9151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in item 13 between treatment arms (C16 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||0.50|-0.55|0.9151
90981081|NCT00609622|181845701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.34||||0.3277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|1.05|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in item 13 between treatment arms (C19 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||1.05|-0.36|0.3277
90981082|NCT00609622|181845701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.86|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in item 13 between treatment arms (C22 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||0.86|-0.86|1.0000
90981083|NCT00609622|181845701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.57||||0.5661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|2.67|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in item 13 between treatment arms (C25 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||2.67|-1.53|0.5661
90890119|NCT01571362|181644085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.295||0.1201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.33|1.81||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||1.81|-15.33|0.1201
90981084|NCT00609622|181845701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.7309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.95|2.15|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in item 13 between treatment arms (C28 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||2.15|-2.95|0.7309
90981085|NCT00609622|181845701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.25||||0.3273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|4.66|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in item 13 between treatment arms (C31 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||4.66|-2.16|0.3273
90981086|NCT00609622|181845701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in item 13 between treatment arms (C34 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||0|0|<0.0001
90981087|NCT00609622|181845701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06||||0.7108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.27|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in item 13 between treatment arms (EOT) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||0.27|-0.39|0.7108
90981088|NCT00666562|181845746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.046|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.046
90981089|NCT02811744|181845800|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was defined as no significant difference between study groups on a T-test.||||||0.5||||||No adjustments on the comparison. There was no multiple comparison adjustment for the p value, as this was the primary outcome. This is the experimental p value; the threshold for significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||No power calculation. This is an exploratory study.||||0.5
90981090|NCT01896232|181845861|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Etelcalcetide was considered non-inferior to cinacalcet if the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the treatment difference (cinacalcet - etelcalcetide) was \< 12%, the prespecified margin for non-inferiority.|Stratified Treatment Difference|-10.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.45|-3.51||||||"The analysis was conducted on the Full Analysis Set (683 participants). Imputation under the non-inferiority null method was applied to participants who did not have PTH data during the EAP.~The Mantel-Haenszel estimator was used to calculate the treatment difference between the proportions (Cinacalcet - Etelcalcetide) stratified by screening PTH level and region."||-3.51|-17.45|
90981091|NCT01896232|181845862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.65||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|2.23|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The CMH-stratified odds ratio is Etelcalcetide : Cinacalcet.|"Achievement of \> 50% reduction in mean predialysis serum PTH from baseline during the EAP was analyzed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by screening PTH level and region.~Superiority of etelcalcetide compared with cinacalcet was tested at the 5% significance level (2-sided)."||2.23|1.21|0.001
90981092|NCT01896232|181845863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.59||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|2.17|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The CMH stratified odds ratio is Etelcalcetide : Cinacalcet.|"Achievement of \> 30% reduction in mean predialysis serum PTH from baseline during the EAP was analyzed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by screening PTH level and region.~Superiority of etelcalcetide compared with cinacalcet was tested at the 5% significance level (2-sided)."||2.17|1.16|0.004
90981093|NCT01896232|181845864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Rate Ratio|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.49|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model||The treatment rate ratio is Etelcalcetide : Cinacalcet.|"Analyzed using a generalized linear mixed model with Poisson regression, including screening value of the number of days of nausea and vomiting, treatment, stratification factors (screening PTH level and region), study weeks, and treatment by study weeks as covariates.~Superiority of etelcalcetide compared with cinacalcet was tested at the 5% significance level (2-sided)."||1.49|0.89|0.27
90981094|NCT01896232|181845865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-3.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.76|-2.21|||||Treatment difference is Etelcalcetide - Cinacalcet.|Analyzed using a repeated measures mixed effects model, including treatment group, randomization stratification factors (screening PTH level and region), study week, and study week by treatment as fixed effects.||-2.21|-4.76|
90981095|NCT01896232|181845866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.59|||||The CMH-stratified odds ratio is Etelcalcetide : Cinacalcet.|Analyzed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method stratified by screening PTH level and region.||1.59|0.83|
90981096|NCT01896232|181845867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.12|||||Treatment difference is Etelcalcetide - Cinacalcet.|Analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model adjusted for screening PTH level and region.||0.12|-0.18|
90981097|NCT01896232|181845868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Rate Ratio|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.72|||||The treatment rate ratio is Etelcalcetide : Cinacalcet.|This analysis was conducted using a generalized linear mixed model with Poisson regression including screening value of the number of episodes of vomiting, treatment, stratification factors (screening PTH level and region), study weeks, and treatment by study weeks as covariates.||1.72|0.86|
90981098|NCT00686205|181845869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Clinical Specificity|99.94||||||95.0|99.88|99.97|||Binomial Exact|Sample size is based on power of 80%, alpha level of 0.05, using the binomial distribution when comparing to a lower bound of specificity at 99.84.||||99.97|99.88|
90981099|NCT00686205|181845870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Clinical Sensitivity|100.0||||||95.0|99.76|100.0|||Binomial Exact|||||100.00|99.76|
90981100|NCT03431012|181845871|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Sidak corrections were used to adjust for multiple analyses.|ANCOVA|ANCOVAs, setting baseline intentions as a covariate, were performed to determine whether post-exposure mean intentions differed between groups.||We predicted that Virus Agency (VA) and Positive Framing (PF) would lead to greater adherence intentions, compared to the human agency (HA) and negative framing (NF) versions respectively.||||>.05
90981101|NCT03431012|181845872|OTHER||||||=|0.113||||||Sidak corrections were used to adjust for multiple analyses.|MANOVA|||Based on the literature, it was predicted that the Virus Agency would lead to higher worry than the human agency assignment.||||=.113
90981102|NCT03431012|181845873|OTHER||||||=|0.809||||||Sidak corrections were used to adjust for multiple analyses|MANOVA|||Based on the literature, it was predicted that the Virus Agency would lead to higher perceptions of susceptibility than the human agency assignment.||||=.809
90981103|NCT03431012|181845874|OTHER|||||||0.025||||||Sidak corrections were used to adjust for multiple analyses.|MANOVA|||Based on the literature, it was predicted that the Virus Agency would lead to higher perceptions of severity of the pandemic than the human agency assignment.||||0.025
90981104|NCT03431012|181845875|OTHER||||||=|0.199||||||Sidak corrections were used to adjust for multiple analyses.|MANOVA|||Based on the literature, we predicted that the Agency Assignment would not affect self-efficacy, i.e. people's perceived ability to use the antivirals as recommended.||||=0.199
90981105|NCT03431012|181845876|OTHER||||||=|0.484||||||Sidak corrections were used to adjust for multiple analyses.|MANOVA|||Based on the literature, we predicted that Positive framing of the side effects would lead to higher response efficacy.||||=0.484
90981106|NCT03431012|181845877|OTHER||||||=|0.494||||||Sidak corrections were used to adjust for multiple analyses.|MANOVA|||Based on the literature, we predicted that Positive framing of the side effects would lead to lower response costs compared to Negative Framing.||||=0.494
90981107|NCT03168867|181845895|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.05
90981108|NCT01535235|181845918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.63
90981109|NCT01535235|181845919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.63
90981110|NCT01021111|181845921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The values from the three jumps were averaged in order to have one mean value per subject per session. Paired Student t-tests (baseline vs. follow-up) were used to evaluate the effects of the training.||||<0.01
90981111|NCT01021111|181845922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Pearson|||The association between the change in the thigh coronal angular velocity from baseline to follow-up and the change in the knee abduction moment from baseline to follow-up was assessed with the Pearson correlation coefficient (R), alpha =0.05||||<0.05
90981112|NCT01051739|181845945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21||||||The a priori threshold of statistical significance is p\<0.05|Kaplan Meyer survival curves|||||||.21
91007839|NCT02096471|181899924|SUPERIORITY|Single Group Study. Change in Pain from Baseline amongst those with a Tumor Response|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.18|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Descriptive Analysis Only||Single Group Change from Baseline||||0.18
91007840|NCT02096471|181899924|SUPERIORITY|Single Group Study. Change in Quality of Life (QOL) from Baseline amongst those with a Tumor Response|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Descriptive Analysis Only||Single Group Change from Baseline||||0.30
91007841|NCT02096471|181899924|SUPERIORITY|Single Group Study Change in Quality of Life from Baseline amongst those with a Tumor Response|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.87||0.61|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Descriptive Analysis Only||Single Group Change from Baseline||||0.61
90949625|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129||0.7864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.22|||MMRM|||Retardation, Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.22|-0.29|0.7864
90949626|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.172||0.4383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.21|||MMRM|||Retardation, Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.21|-0.48|0.4383
90949627|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.167||0.8767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.31|||MMRM|||Retardation, Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.31|-0.36|0.8767
90949628|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.153||0.0341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.03|||MMRM|||Retardation, Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.03|-0.63|0.0341
90981113|NCT02469246|181845981|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was assessed using a 2-sided exact 95% confidence interval (CI) approach, with a non-inferiority margin of 10%.|Difference in Percentages|-3.8||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.002|-8.9|1.1|||Fisher Exact||The difference in percentages and its 95.002% CI were calculated based on an unconditional exact method using 2 inverted 1-sided tests.|The analysis purpose of the primary efficacy endpoint was to assess the noninferiority of switching to F/TAF+3rd Agent relative to maintaining treatment with ABC/3TC+3rd Agent.||1.1|-8.9|0.15
90981114|NCT02469246|181845982|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was assessed using a 2-sided exact 95% CI approach, with a non-inferiority margin of 4%.|Difference in Percentages|-6.3||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|-0.3|||Fisher Exact||The difference in percentages and its 95% CI were calculated based on an unconditional exact method using 2 inverted 1-sided tests.|The analysis purpose of this efficacy endpoint was to assess the non-inferiority of switching to F/TAF+3rd Agent relative to maintaining treatment with ABC/3TC+3rd Agent.||-0.3|-12.3|0.042
90981115|NCT02469246|181845983|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was assessed using a 2-sided exact 95% CI approach, with a non-inferiority margin of 4%.|Difference in Percentages|1.1||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.002|-1.0|3.5|||Fisher Exact||The difference in percentages and its 95.002% CI were calculated based on an unconditional exact method using 2 inverted 1-sided tests.|The analysis purpose of this efficacy endpoint was to assess the non-inferiority of switching to F/TAF+3rd Agent relative to maintaining treatment with ABC/3TC+3rd Agent.||3.5|-1.0|0.45
90949629|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.147||0.5629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.21|||MMRM|||Retardation, Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.21|-0.38|0.5629
90949630|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.16|||MMRM|||Retardation, Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.16|-0.67|0.0016
90949631|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.126||0.0495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.0|||MMRM|||Retardation, Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.00|-0.50|0.0495
90949632|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.155||0.7177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.25|||MMRM|||Agitation, Change at Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.25|-0.36|0.7177
90949633|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.151||0.9401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.31|||MMRM|||Agitation, Change at Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.31|-0.29|0.9401
90981116|NCT02469246|181845984|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was assessed using a 2-sided exact 95% CI approach, with a non-inferiority margin of 4%.|Difference in Percentages|1.4||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|4.2|||Fisher Exact||The difference in percentages and its 95% CI were calculated based on an unconditional exact method using 2 inverted 1-sided tests.|The analysis purpose of this efficacy endpoint was to assess the non-inferiority of switching to F/TAF+3rd Agent relative to maintaining treatment with ABC/3TC+3rd Agent.||4.2|-1.0|0.34
91007842|NCT02096471|181899924|SUPERIORITY|Single Group Study Change in Baseline amongst those with a Tumor Response|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.29||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Descriptive Analysis Only||Single Group Change from Baseline||||0.12
90981117|NCT02469246|181845985|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was assessed using a 2-sided exact 95% CI approach, with a non-inferiority margin of 10%.|Difference in Percentages|-1.6||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|4.2|||Fisher Exact||The difference in percentages and its 95% CI were calculated based on an unconditional exact method using 2 inverted 1-sided tests.|The analysis purpose of this efficacy endpoint was to assess the noninferiority of switching to F/TAF+3rd Agent relative to maintaining treatment with ABC/3TC+3rd Agent.||4.2|-7.4|0.62
90981118|NCT02469246|181845986|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was assessed using a 2-sided exact 95% CI approach, with a non-inferiority margin of 10%.|Difference in Percentages|-5.9||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|0.4|||Fisher Exact||The difference in percentages and its 95% CI were calculated based on an unconditional exact method using 2 inverted 1-sided tests.|The analysis purpose of this efficacy endpoint was to assess the noninferiority of switching to F/TAF+3rd Agent relative to maintaining treatment with ABC/3TC+3rd Agent.||0.4|-12.2|0.069
91039227|NCT00834873|181962719|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|96.23||||||90.0|90.59|102.23|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||102.23|90.59|
90949634|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.147||0.3201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.15|||MMRM|||Agitation, Change at Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.15|-0.44|0.3201
90949635|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.144||0.8286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.32|||MMRM|||Agitation, Change at Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.32|-0.25|0.8286
90981119|NCT02469246|181845987|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-32.0||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.0|-4.0||P-value was adjusted by the third agent stratum (boosted protease inhibitors vs. others).|ANOVA||Difference in LSM and its 95% CI were adjusted by the third agent stratum (boosted protease inhibitors vs. others).|||-4|-61|0.026
90981120|NCT02469246|181845988|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-39.0||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.0|-8.0||P-value was adjusted by the third agent stratum (boosted protease inhibitors vs. others).|ANOVA||Difference in LSM and its 95% CI were adjusted by the third agent stratum (boosted protease inhibitors vs. others).|||-8|-70|0.013
90981121|NCT02469246|181845989|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|0.179||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.598||P-value was adjusted by the third agent stratum (boosted protease inhibitors vs. others).|ANOVA||Difference in LSM and its 95% CI were adjusted by the third agent stratum (boosted protease inhibitors vs. others).|||0.598|-0.240|0.40
90981122|NCT02469246|181845990|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|0.165||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.348|0.678||P-value was adjusted by the third agent stratum (boosted protease inhibitors vs. others).|ANOVA||Difference in LSM and its 95% CI were adjusted by the third agent stratum (boosted protease inhibitors vs. others).|||0.678|-0.348|0.53
90981123|NCT02469246|181845991|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|0.151||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.465|0.767||P-value was adjusted by the third agent stratum (boosted protease inhibitors vs. others).|ANOVA||Difference in LSM and its 95% CI were adjusted by the third agent stratum (boosted protease inhibitors vs. others).|||0.767|-0.465|0.63
91039228|NCT00834873|181962720|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|96.11||||||90.0|90.45|102.12|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||102.12|90.45|
90981124|NCT02469246|181845992|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-0.056||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.825|0.713||P-value was adjusted by the third agent stratum (boosted protease inhibitors vs. others).|ANOVA||Difference in LSM and its 95% CI were adjusted by the third agent stratum (boosted protease inhibitors vs. others).|||0.713|-0.825|0.89
90981125|NCT02690701|181845996|SUPERIORITY|This superiority trial compares secukinumab with placebo with a view of demonstrating the superiority of secukinumab over placebo with regards to a specific outcome measure.|Least Square Mean|-0.053|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059||0.3712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.169|0.064|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis (Analysis of Covariance) of change from baseline in target to background ratio for regions of the aorta at Week 12 (Full Analysis Set)||0.064|-0.169|0.3712
90981126|NCT02930174|181846032|EQUIVALENCE|Two devices were tested while measuring the differences in lung impedance under multiple pressure settings to determine whether the devices perform in an equivalent fashion. We looked at the mean differences between the 2 devices across the 4 pressure settings.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.0||0.26|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.26
90981127|NCT02930174|181846033|EQUIVALENCE|Two devices were tested while measuring the differences in lung impedance under multiple pressure settings to determine whether the devices perform in an equivalent fashion. We looked at the mean differences between the 2 devices across the 4 pressure settings.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.0||0.342|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.342
90981128|NCT02930174|181846034|EQUIVALENCE|Two devices were tested while measuring the differences in lung impedance under multiple pressure settings to determine whether the devices perform in an equivalent fashion. We looked at the mean differences between the 2 devices across the 4 pressure settings.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.0||0.184|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.184
90981129|NCT02930174|181846035|EQUIVALENCE|Two devices were tested while measuring the differences in lung impedance under multiple pressure settings to determine whether the devices perform in an equivalent fashion. We looked at the mean differences between the 2 devices across the 4 pressure settings.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.0||0.283|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.283
90949636|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.162||0.3022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.15|||MMRM|||Agitation, Change at Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.15|-0.49|0.3022
90949637|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.158||0.8022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.27|||MMRM|||Agitation, Change at Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.27|-0.35|0.8022
90949638|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.165||0.5665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.23|||MMRM|||Agitation, Change at Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.23|-0.42|0.5665
90949639|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.161||0.817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.28|||MMRM|||Agitation, Change at Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.28|-0.36|0.8170
90949640|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.155||0.0404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.01|||MMRM|||Agitation, Change at Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.01|-0.63|0.0404
90949641|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.151||0.3128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.15|||MMRM|||Agitation, Change at Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.15|-0.45|0.3128
90949642|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.162||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.13|||MMRM|||Agitation, Change at Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.13|-0.51|0.2400
90949643|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.157||0.484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.2|||MMRM|||Agitation, Change at Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.20|-0.42|0.4840
90949644|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141||0.7768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.24|||MMRM|||Agitation, Change at Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.24|-0.32|0.7768
90949645|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.7713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.23|||MMRM|||Agitation, Change at Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.23|-0.31|0.7713
90949646|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.151||0.0716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.02|||MMRM|||Agitation, Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.02|-0.58|0.0716
90949647|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.148||0.4317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.18|||MMRM|||Agitation, Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.18|-0.41|0.4317
90949648|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.162||0.2115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.12|||MMRM|||Agitation, Change at Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.12|-0.52|0.2115
90949649|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.158||0.2818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.14|||MMRM|||Agitation, Change at Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.14|-0.48|0.2818
90949650|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.2018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.1|||MMRM|||Agitation, Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.10|-0.46|0.2018
90949651|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.6554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.21|||MMRM|||Agitation, Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.21|-0.33|0.6554
90949652|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.168||0.4754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.46|||MMRM|||Agitation, Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.46|-0.21|0.4754
90949653|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.163||0.7776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.37|||MMRM|||Agitation, Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.37|-0.28|0.7776
90949654|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.213||0.7172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.35|||MMRM|||Agitation, Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.35|-0.50|0.7172
90949655|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.203||0.4791|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.26|||MMRM|||Agitation, Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.26|-0.55|0.4791
90949656|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.164||0.3562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.17|||MMRM|||Agitation, Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.17|-0.48|0.3562
90949657|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.162||0.8859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.34|||MMRM|||Agitation, Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.34|-0.30|0.8859
90949658|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.192||0.5888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.28|||MMRM|||Anxiety Psychic, Change at Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.28|-0.49|0.5888
90981130|NCT02930174|181846036|EQUIVALENCE|Two devices were tested while measuring the differences in lung impedance under multiple pressure settings to determine whether the devices perform in an equivalent fashion. We looked at the mean differences between the 2 devices across the 4 pressure settings.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.0||0.204|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.204
90981131|NCT02930174|181846037|EQUIVALENCE|Two devices were tested while measuring the differences in lung impedance under multiple pressure settings to determine whether the devices perform in an equivalent fashion. We looked at the mean differences between the 2 devices across the 4 pressure settings.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.0||0.136|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.136
90981132|NCT04325503|181846075|OTHER|A comparison is not being made between two different treatment groups.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.0905||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.022|0.159||A priori threshold statistical significance p \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired samples t-test, df = 9||||0.159|0.022|0.015
90981133|NCT04325503|181846076|OTHER|A comparison is not being made between two different treatment groups.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.333||||0.694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|2.216||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired samples t-test, df = 8||||2.216|-1.550|0.694
90981134|NCT04325503|181846077|OTHER|A comparison is not being made between two different treatment groups.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.444||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.363|3.252||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired samples t-test, df = 8||||3.252|-0.363|0.103
90981135|NCT04325503|181846078|OTHER|A comparison is not being made between two different treatment groups.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.09||||0.321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.554|2.372||A priori threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired samples t-test, df = 10||||2.372|-6.554|0.321
90981136|NCT04325503|181846079|OTHER|A comparison is not being made between two different treatment groups.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.185||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.175|0.544|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired samples t-test, df = 7||||0.544|-0.175|0.265
90981137|NCT04325503|181846080|OTHER|A comparison is not being made between two different treatment groups.|Mean Difference (Net)|8.143||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.296|15.0||A priori threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired samples t-test, df = 6||||15.0|1.296|0.0270
90981138|NCT04325503|181846081|OTHER|A comparison is not being made between two different treatment groups.||||||0.153||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.153
90981139|NCT00702143|181846091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher exact test comparing the proportion of amyloid positive subjects between clinical diagnosis groups||||0.0002
90981140|NCT00702143|181846091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher exact test comparing the proportion of amyloid positive subjects between clinical diagnosis groups||||<0.0001
90981141|NCT00702143|181846091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0014||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher exact test comparing the proportion of amyloid positive subjects between clinical diagnosis groups||||0.0014
90981142|NCT00702143|181846093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance P value testing for an overall difference in the mean cortical SUVR between the clinical diagnostic groups.||||<0.0001
90981143|NCT00702143|181846093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance contrast P value testing for difference in the mean cortical SUVR||||<0.0001
90981144|NCT00702143|181846093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance contrast P value testing for difference in the mean cortical SUVR||||<0.0001
90981145|NCT00702143|181846093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance contrast P value testing for difference in the mean cortical SUVR||||0.0003
90981146|NCT03871491|181846095|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.79||We calculated P values to test each of the primary hypotheses at an alpha level of 0.05 overall, with a nominal alpha level of 0.0001 at the interim analysis.|Regression, Logistic|Used multiple imputation for missing outcomes by means of logistic regression imputation.||The null hypothesis is there is no treatment effect on the incidence of maternal death or sepsis within 6 weeks (42 days) post-delivery||0.79|0.56|<0.001
90981147|NCT03871491|181846096|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.02||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.09||We calculated P values to test each of the primary hypotheses at an alpha level of 0.05 overall, with a nominal alpha level of 0.0001 at the interim analysis.|Regression, Logistic|Used multiple imputation for missing outcomes by means of logistic regression imputation.||The null hypothesis is there is no treatment effect on the incidence of Intrapartum/Neonatal Death or Sepsis Within 4 Weeks (28 Days) Post-delivery in Intervention vs. Placebo Group||1.09|0.95|0.56
90981148|NCT03871491|181846097|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.77||||||||0.77|0.55|
90981149|NCT03871491|181846098|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|4.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|36.14||||||||36.14|0.45|
90981150|NCT03871491|181846100|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.79||||||||0.79|0.55|
90981151|NCT03871491|181846101|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.75||||||||0.75|0.43|
90981152|NCT03871491|181846102|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.99||||||||0.99|0.65|
90981153|NCT03871491|181846103|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.85||||||||0.85|0.56|
90981154|NCT03871491|181846104|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.01||||||||1.01|0.95|
90981155|NCT03871491|181846106|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.82||||||||0.82|0.52|
90981156|NCT03871491|181846107|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.15||||||||1.15|0.70|
90981157|NCT03871491|181846108|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.84||||||||0.84|0.73|
90981158|NCT03871491|181846109|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.41||||||||1.41|0.84|
90981159|NCT03871491|181846110|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.1||||||||1.1|0.96|
90981160|NCT03871491|181846111|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.47||||||||1.47|0.73|
90981161|NCT03871491|181846112|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.07||||||||1.07|0.88|
90981162|NCT03871491|181846114|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.21||||||||1.21|0.96|
90981163|NCT03871491|181846115|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.12||||||||1.12|0.94|
90981164|NCT03871491|181846116|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.0||||||||1.0|0.93|
90981165|NCT03871491|181846117|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|10.1||||||||10.1|0.71|
90981166|NCT04996797|181846118|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|25.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.8|36.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value is computed using Cochran-Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test with stratification factors of biologic status and CDx status.|95% CI is estimated using Newcombe method for risk difference.|||36.5|11.8|<.0001
90981167|NCT04996797|181846121|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|30.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.4|43.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value is computed using Cochran-Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test with stratification factors of biologic status and CDx status.|95% CI is estimated using Newcombe method for risk difference.|||43.2|17.4|<0.0001
90981168|NCT04996797|181846122|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|43.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.4|56.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value is computed using Cochran-Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test with stratification factors of biologic status and CDx status.|95% CI is estimated using Newcombe method for risk difference.|||56.9|27.4|<.0001
90981169|NCT04996797|181846123|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.8||||0.0224||95.0|2.1|37.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value is computed using Cochran-Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test with stratification factor of biologic status.|95% CI is estimated using Newcombe method for risk difference.|||37.9|2.1|0.0224
90981170|NCT04996797|181846124|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.1||||0.0223||95.0|1.8|24.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value is computed using Cochran-Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test with stratification factors of biologic status and CDx status.|95% CI is estimated using Newcombe method for risk difference.|||24.6|1.8|0.0223
90981171|NCT04996797|181846125|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|28.6||||0.0009||95.0|12.1|42.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value is computed using Cochran-Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test with stratification factors of biologic status and CDx status.|95% CI is estimated using Newcombe method for risk difference.|||42.9|12.1|0.0009
90981172|NCT04996797|181846126|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|27.3|||<|0.0001||95.0|14.3|39.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value is computed using Cochran-Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test with stratification factors of biologic status and CDx status.|95% CI is estimated using Newcombe method for risk difference.|||39.6|14.3|<0.0001
90981173|NCT04996797|181846127|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.9||||||95.0|-2.4|36.4|||||95% CI is estimated using Newcombe method for risk difference.|||36.4|-2.4|
90981174|NCT04996797|181846128|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|22.8||||||95.0|0.4|42.2|||||95% CI is estimated using Newcombe method for risk difference.|||42.2|0.4|
90981175|NCT04996797|181846129|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.2||||||95.0|-6.9|26.9|||||95% CI is estimated using Newcombe method for risk difference.|||26.9|-6.9|
90981176|NCT04996797|181846130|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|28.9||||||95.0|5.0|48.3|||||95% CI is estimated using Newcombe method for risk difference.|||48.3|5.0|
90981177|NCT04996797|181846131|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|22.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|41.0|||||95% CI is estimated using Newcombe method for risk difference.|||41.0|0.2|
90981178|NCT04996797|181846132|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|27.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.3|39.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value is computed using Cochran-Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test with stratification factors of biologic status and CDx status.|95% CI is estimated using Newcombe method for risk difference.|||39.6|14.3|<0.0001
90981179|NCT04996797|181846133|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|22.2||||||95.0|0.2|41.0|||||95% CI is estimated using Newcombe method for risk difference.|||41.0|0.2|
90981180|NCT04996797|181846134|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|33.1|||<|0.0001||95.0|17.2|46.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value is computed using Cochran-Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test with stratification factors of biologic status and CDx status.|95% CI is estimated using Newcombe method for risk difference.|||46.8|17.2|<0.0001
90981181|NCT04996797|181846135|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|19.6||||||95.0|-1.7|38.7|||||95% CI is estimated using Newcombe method for risk difference.|||38.7|-1.7|
90981182|NCT02747004|181846211|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.293||||||Two-sided P-value.|Log Rank|Stratified by the randomization factors of presence of liver metastases and prior use of Tamoxifen in the advanced/metastatic setting.||||||0.2930
90981183|NCT02747004|181846211|OTHER|Informal phase 2 non-inferiority.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.045|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.711|1.535|||Log Rank|Stratified by the randomization factors of presence of liver metastases and prior use of Tamoxifen in the advanced/metastatic setting.||||1.535|0.711|
90981184|NCT05087030|181846221|NON_INFERIORITY|The analysis was performed with an ANCOVA model with %CfB in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 as the dependent variable, covariates were treatment arm (RGB-14-P and US-licensed Prolia).|Estimated Difference|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.465|0.826|||ANCOVA|||||0.826|-0.465|
90981185|NCT05087030|181846221|SUPERIORITY|Non-Superiority Test|Estimated Difference|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.099|1.191|||ANCOVA|||||1.191|-0.099|
90981186|NCT05087030|181846222|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.01||||0.494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.978|1.046|||ANCOVA|||Comparison between Study Treatment Groups||1.046|0.978|0.494
90981187|NCT05087030|181846223|OTHER||Estimated difference|-0.31||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.792|0.165|||Mixed model repeated measures|||at Week 26||0.165|-0.792|0.199
90981188|NCT05087030|181846223|OTHER||Estimated difference|-0.16||||0.543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.358|||mixed model repeated measures|||At Week 52||0.358|-0.680|0.543
90981189|NCT05087030|181846224|OTHER||Estimated Difference|0.03||||0.929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.703|0.769|||mixed model for repeated measures|||Week 26||0.769|-0.703|0.929
90981190|NCT01444300|181846234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||t test comparing change in outcome between active and placebo||||0.51
90981191|NCT01444300|181846235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||t test comparing change in outcome between active and placebo after 12 weeks.||||0.7
90981192|NCT01444300|181846236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||t test comparing change in outcome between active and placebo||||0.8
90981193|NCT01929083|181846252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.04
90981194|NCT01929083|181846253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.003
90981195|NCT01929083|181846254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||P value for incidence of fatigue/malaise|Fisher Exact|||||||0.04
90981196|NCT01929083|181846254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|||||p values for incidence of headache|Fisher Exact|||||||0.60
91039229|NCT02055547|181962762|OTHER|Treatment comparison (MK-8521 125μg - placebo) of the slope of ISR/G during GGI at Tmax was performed using a linear mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects and participant as random effect. The 90% confidence interval of GMR of the slope of ISR/G for MK-8521 125μg vs. placebo was calculated from the model.|Geometric mean ratio|4.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.69|5.76|||Linear mixed effect model||||Number of participants included in analysis: N=17 (3 period crossover study design was conducted for 12 participants in Part 3).|5.76|3.69|<0.001
91039230|NCT02055547|181962762|OTHER|Treatment comparison (MK-8521 35μg - placebo) of the slope of ISR/G during GGI at Tmax was performed using a linear mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects and participant as random effect. The 90% confidence interval of GMR of the slope of ISR/G for MK-8521 35μg vs. placebo was calculated from the model.|Geometric mean ratio|2.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.12|3.36|||Linear mixed effect model||||Number of participants included in analysis: N=17 (3 period crossover study design was conducted for 12 participants in Part 3).|3.36|2.12|<0.001
91039231|NCT02055547|181962762|OTHER|"Treatment comparison (MK-8521 125μg - MK-8521 35μg) of the slope of ISR/G during GGI at Tmax was performed using a linear mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects and participant as random effect. The 90% confidence interval of GMR of the slope of ISR/G for MK-8521 125μg vs.~MK-8521 35μg was calculated from the model."|Geometric mean ratio|1.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.38|2.16|||Linear mixed effect model||||Number of participants included in analysis: N=17 (3 period crossover study design was conducted for 12 participants in Part 3).|2.16|1.38|<0.001
91039232|NCT02055547|181962763|OTHER|Treatment comparison (MK-8521 125μg - placebo) of the ratio of ISR/G during GGI at Tmax was performed using a linear mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects and participant as random effect. The 90% confidence interval of GMR of TWA120-160min of ratio (ISR/G) for MK-8521 125μg vs. placebo was calculated from the model.|Geometric mean ratio|3.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.62|3.53|||Linear mixed effect model||||Number of participants included in analysis: N=17 (3-period crossover study design was conducted for 12 participants in Part 3).|3.53|2.62|<0.001
91039233|NCT02055547|181962763|OTHER|Treatment comparison (MK-8521 35μg - placebo) of the ratio of ISR/G during GGI at Tmax was performed using a linear mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects and participant as random effect. The 90% confidence interval of GMR of TWA120-160min of ratio (ISR/G) for MK-8521 35μg vs. placebo was calculated from the model.|Geometric mean ratio|1.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.67|2.26|||Linear mixed effect model||||Number of participants included in analysis: N=17 (3-period crossover study design was conducted for 12 participants in Part 3).|2.26|1.67|<0.001
91039234|NCT02055547|181962763|OTHER|Treatment comparison (MK-8521 125μg - 35μg) of the ratio of ISR/G during GGI at Tmax was performed using a linear mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects and participant as random effect. The 90% confidence interval of GMR of TWA120-160min of ratio (ISR/G) for MK-8521 125μg - 35μg was calculated from the model.|Geometric mean ratio|1.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.35|1.82|||Linear mixed effect model||||Number of participants included in analysis: N=17 (3-period crossover study design was conducted for 12 participants in Part 3).|1.82|1.35|<0.001
91039235|NCT02055547|181962764|OTHER|The least squares means and 90% confidence intervals for the treatment difference (MK-8521 125mcg - placebo) in glucose (TWA0-160min) after a single dose was determined using a linear mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects and participant as random effect.|Geometric mean ratio|0.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6|0.7|||Linear mixed effect model||||Number of participants included in analysis: N=17 (3-period crossover study design was conducted for 12 participants in Part 3).|0.7|0.6|<0.001
91039236|NCT02055547|181962764|OTHER|The least squares means and 90% confidence intervals for the treatment difference (MK-8521 35μg - placebo) in glucose (TWA0-160min) after a single dose was determined using a linear mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects and participant as random effect.|Geometric mean ratio|0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.74|0.87|||Linear mixed effect model||||Number of participants included in analysis: N=17 (3-period crossover study design was conducted for 12 participants in Part 3).|0.87|0.74|<0.001
90981197|NCT01929083|181846254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|||||p value for incidence of mood changes|Fisher Exact|||||||0.23
90981198|NCT01929083|181846254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|||||p value for incidence of breast tenderness|Fisher Exact|||||||0.23
91039237|NCT02055547|181962764|OTHER|The least squares means and 90% confidence intervals for the treatment difference (MK-8521 125μg - MK-8521 35μg) in glucose (TWA0-160min) after a single dose was determined using a linear mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects and participant as random effect.|Geometric mean ratio|0.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.75|0.87|||Linear mixed effect model||||Number of participants included in analysis: N=17 (3-period crossover study design was conducted for 12 participants in Part 3).|0.87|0.75|<0.001
90981199|NCT01929083|181846254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|||||p value for incidence of hypotension|Fisher Exact|||||||0.48
90981200|NCT01929083|181846254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|||||p value for incidence of vertigo requiring discontinuation of therapy|Fisher Exact|||||||0.48
90981201|NCT01929083|181846255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.02
90981202|NCT01929083|181846256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.002
90981203|NCT01929083|181846257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|||||p value for bradycardia|Fisher Exact|||||||0.65
90981204|NCT01929083|181846257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|||||p value for burning at infusion site|Fisher Exact|||||||>0.99
90981205|NCT01929083|181846257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|||||p value for transient QTc interval \> 500 ms|Fisher Exact|||||||> 0.99
90981206|NCT01929083|181846258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.43
90981207|NCT01929083|181846259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.36
90981208|NCT01929083|181846260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||<0.0001
90981209|NCT01929083|181846261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.0001
90949659|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.187||0.3992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.21|||MMRM|||Anxiety Psychic, Change at Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.21|-0.53|0.3992
90949660|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.227||0.1212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.1|||MMRM|||Anxiety Psychic, Change at Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.10|-0.80|0.1212
91007843|NCT02096471|181899924|SUPERIORITY|Single Group Study. Change in Quality of Life from Baseline amongst those with a Tumor Response.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.35||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Descriptive Analysis Only.||Single Group Change from Baseline||||0.05
90981210|NCT00087438|181846295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013||||||Test statistic = \[ln(estimated hazard rate) - ln(hypothesized hazard rates)\] / \[1/square root (number of patients with local progression by two years\]. Reject null hypothesis at an alpha level of 0.05 if test statistics is less than -1.645.|z-test, one-sided|||Null hypothesis = 60% two-year local control (0.02128/mo. hazard rate); alternative = 80% (0.0093/mo.) assuming at least approximately exponential distribution of time to local progression. Using the asymptotic properties of the ratio of the logarithms of hazard rates, less than 18 cases of local progression were required for a Type I error rate of 0.05 with 80% power to detect a difference in local control rates at least this large. Hazard rate estimated using life table two-year estimates.||||0.013
90981211|NCT00283387|181846302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.007
90981212|NCT03068715|181846321|SUPERIORITY|We assessed the superiority of active over sham.|||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MADRS scores were assessed with generalized linear mixed models (GLMM) that used Satterthwaite approximation of degrees of freedom and robust estimation of coefficients to handle violations of model assumptions. Fixed effects of time, treatment group (sham vs. active) and their interaction were assessed.||||<0.001
90981213|NCT03068715|181846322|SUPERIORITY|We assessed the superiority of active over sham.|||||=|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||HDRS-17 scores were assessed with generalized linear mixed models (GLMM) that used Satterthwaite approximation of degrees of freedom and robust estimation of coefficients to handle violations of model assumptions. Fixed effects of time, treatment group (sham vs. active) and their interaction were assessed.||||=0.001
90981214|NCT03068715|181846325|SUPERIORITY|We assessed the superiority of active over sham.|||||=|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||HDRS-17 scores were assessed with generalized linear mixed models (GLMM) that used Satterthwaite approximation of degrees of freedom and robust estimation of coefficients to handle violations of model assumptions. Fixed effects of time, treatment group (sham vs. active) and their interaction were assessed.||||=0.001
90981215|NCT03068715|181846326|SUPERIORITY|"FC was calculated as the correlation (Pearson) of the activity pattern across time between ROIs. All Pearson correlation coefficients were then transformed into Fisher's Z score for further analysis.~sgACC (BA25) was defined by Brodmann areas (BA). The 4 nodes of DMN were extracted from the Multi-Subject Dictionary Learning (MSDL) atlas."|||||=|0.308|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired-t test was used for the statistics.||Functional connectivity between lsgACC\_lDMN in participants receiving active iTBS.||||=0.308
90981216|NCT03068715|181846326|SUPERIORITY|FC was calculated as the correlation (Pearson) of the activity pattern across time between ROIs. All Pearson correlation coefficients were then transformed into Fisher's Z score for further analysis. sgACC (BA25) was defined by Brodmann areas (BA). The 4 nodes of DMN were extracted from the Multi-Subject Dictionary Learning (MSDL) atlas.|||||=|0.778|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was used for the statistics.||Functional connectivity between lsgACC\_lDMN in participants receiving sham iTBS.||||=0.778
90981217|NCT03068715|181846326|SUPERIORITY|"FC was calculated as the correlation (Pearson) of the activity pattern across time between ROIs. All Pearson correlation coefficients were then transformed into Fisher's Z score for further analysis.~sgACC (BA25) was defined by Brodmann areas (BA). The 4 nodes of DMN were extracted from the Multi-Subject Dictionary Learning (MSDL) atlas."|||||=|0.468|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was used for the statistics.||Functional connectivity between lDMN\_rDMN in participants receiving active iTBS.||||=0.468
90981218|NCT03068715|181846326|SUPERIORITY|FC was calculated as the correlation (Pearson) of the activity pattern across time between ROIs. All Pearson correlation coefficients were then transformed into Fisher's Z score for further analysis. sgACC (BA25) was defined by Brodmann areas (BA). The 4 nodes of DMN were extracted from the Multi-Subject Dictionary Learning (MSDL) atlas.|||||=|0.486|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was used for the statistics.||Functional connectivity between lDMN\_rDMN in participants receiving sham iTBS.||||=0.486
91039238|NCT02055547|181962765|OTHER|The least squares means and 90% confidence intervals for the treatment difference (MK-8521 125μg vs. placebo) in Gmax after a single dose was determined using a linear mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects and participant as random effect.|Geometric mean ratio|0.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.49|0.63|||Linear mixed effect model||||Number of participants included in analysis: N=17 (3 period crossover study design was conducted for 12 participants in Part 3).|0.63|0.49|<0.001
90981219|NCT03068715|181846327|SUPERIORITY|"FC was calculated as the correlation (Pearson) of the activity pattern across time between ROIs. All Pearson correlation coefficients were then transformed into Fisher's Z score for further analysis.~sgACC (BA25) was defined by Brodmann areas (BA). The 4 nodes of DMN were extracted from the Multi-Subject Dictionary Learning (MSDL) atlas."|||||=|0.447|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was used for the statistics.||Functional connectivity between lsgACC\_lDMN in participants receiving active iTBS.||||=0.447
90981220|NCT03068715|181846327|SUPERIORITY|"FC was calculated as the correlation (Pearson) of the activity pattern across time between ROIs. All Pearson correlation coefficients were then transformed into Fisher's Z score for further analysis.~sgACC (BA25) was defined by Brodmann areas (BA). The 4 nodes of DMN were extracted from the Multi-Subject Dictionary Learning (MSDL) atlas."|||||=|0.115|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was used for the statistics.||Functional connectivity between lsgACC\_lDMN in participants receiving sham iTBS.||||=0.115
90981221|NCT03068715|181846327|SUPERIORITY|"FC was calculated as the correlation (Pearson) of the activity pattern across time between ROIs. All Pearson correlation coefficients were then transformed into Fisher's Z score for further analysis.~sgACC (BA25) was defined by Brodmann areas (BA). The 4 nodes of DMN were extracted from the Multi-Subject Dictionary Learning (MSDL) atlas."|||||=|0.546|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was used for the statistics.||Functional connectivity between lDMN\_rDMN in participants receiving active iTBS.||||=0.546
90981222|NCT03068715|181846327|SUPERIORITY|"FC was calculated as the correlation (Pearson) of the activity pattern across time between ROIs. All Pearson correlation coefficients were then transformed into Fisher's Z score for further analysis.~sgACC (BA25) was defined by Brodmann areas (BA). The 4 nodes of DMN were extracted from the Multi-Subject Dictionary Learning (MSDL) atlas."|||||=|0.607|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Functional connectivity between lDMN\_rDMN in participants receiving sham iTBS.||||=0.607
90981223|NCT03068715|181846328|SUPERIORITY||P value of the interaction|0.11|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons at this time.|Mixed Models Analysis|We were interested in the interaction between treatment condition and timepoint.||We conducted a linear mixed models analysis, with a focus on the interaction term. No power analysis for this measure because number of participants was determined by other primary study aims.||||<0.05
90981224|NCT03068715|181846329|SUPERIORITY|The SDNN (the standard deviation of the RR intervals) was recorded using ECG. It was not necessary to conduct a power analysis for this measure because the number of participants in the study was based on other considerations (primary treatment goals of the study).|P value of the interaction|0.245|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||For reporting purposes here the p value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|We were interested in the significance of the interaction between treatment group and timepoint.||We used a linear mixed models analysis, with the fixed factors being treatment group and timepoint.||||<0.05
90981225|NCT00728416|181846330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.19|||ANCOVA|||The change from Baseline in average AM/PM PRIOR nasal congestion score over 15 days: MFNS 200 mcg daily vs placebo. The difference in LS means (MFNS - Placebo) was calculated from an ANCOVA model with treatment, site and baseline AM/PM PRIOR Nasal Congestion Score as covariates.||-0.19|-0.43|<0.001
90890120|NCT01571362|181644085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.288||0.3497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.6|5.62||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||5.62|-15.60|0.3497
91078495|NCT05821296|182042882|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7230.81|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17547.6||0.041|TWO_SIDED|||||If the Wilcoxon test provides a p-value less than 0.05, the variation is significant over time for the studied parameter.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of change from baseline of conspicuous area of line marks at Day 36 to evaluate the improvement of line marks assessed by Colorface device.||||0.041
91078496|NCT05821296|182042882|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9086.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|18306.64||0.007|TWO_SIDED|||||If the Wilcoxon test provides a p-value less than 0.05, the variation is significant over time for the studied parameter.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of change from baseline of conspicuous area of line marks at Day 57 to evaluate the improvement of line marks assessed by Colorface device.||||0.007
91078497|NCT05821296|182042882|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|64.71|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14542.17||0.931|TWO_SIDED|||||If the Wilcoxon test provides a p-value less than 0.05, the variation is significant over time for the studied parameter.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of change from baseline of conspicuous area of line marks at Day 78 to evaluate the improvement of line marks assessed by Colorface device.||||0.931
91078498|NCT05821296|182042883|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.66||0.005|TWO_SIDED|||||If the test provides a p-value less than 0.05, the variation is significant over time for the studied parameter.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of change from baseline of conspicuous depth of line marks at Day 15 to evaluate the improvement of line marks assessed by Colorface device.||||0.005
91078499|NCT05821296|182042883|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.8||0.035|TWO_SIDED|||||If the test provides a p-value less than 0.05, the variation is significant over time for the studied parameter.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of change from baseline of conspicuous depth of line marks at Day 36 to evaluate the improvement of line marks assessed by Colorface device.||||0.035
91078500|NCT05821296|182042883|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.86||0.036|TWO_SIDED|||||If the test provides a p-value less than 0.05, the variation is significant over time for the studied parameter.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of change from baseline of conspicuous depth of line marks at Day 57 to evaluate the improvement of line marks assessed by Colorface device.||||0.036
91078501|NCT05821296|182042883|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.77||0.784|TWO_SIDED|||||If the test provides a p-value less than 0.05, the variation is significant over time for the studied parameter.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of change from baseline of conspicuous depth of line marks at Day 78 to evaluate the improvement of line marks assessed by Colorface device.||||0.784
91078502|NCT05821296|182042884|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2249.72|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4466.14||0.011|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|If the test provides a p-value less than 0.05, the variation is significant over time for the studied parameter.||Comparison of change from baseline of conspicuous length of line marks at Day 15 to evaluate the improvement of line marks assessed by Colorface device.||||0.011
91078503|NCT05821296|182042884|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2315.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6197.86||0.074|TWO_SIDED|||||If the test provides a p-value less than 0.05, the variation is significant over time for the studied parameter.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of change from baseline of conspicuous length of line marks at Day 36 to evaluate the improvement of line marks assessed by Colorface device.||||0.074
91078504|NCT05821296|182042884|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2700.55|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5962.3||0.007|TWO_SIDED|||||If the test provides a p-value less than 0.05, the variation is significant over time for the studied parameter.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of change from baseline of conspicuous length of line marks at Day 57 to evaluate the improvement of line marks assessed by Colorface device.||||0.007
91078505|NCT05821296|182042884|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|430.65|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5021.2||0.779|TWO_SIDED|||||If the test provides a p-value less than 0.05, the variation is significant over time for the studied parameter.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of change from baseline of conspicuous length of line marks at Day 78 to evaluate the improvement of line marks assessed by Colorface device.||||0.779
91078506|NCT05821296|182042885|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-75800.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|142643.92||0.003|TWO_SIDED|||||If the test provides a p-value less than 0.05, the variation is significant over time for the studied parameter.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of change from baseline of conspicuous volume of line marks at Day 15 to evaluate the improvement of line marks assessed by Colorface device.||||0.003
91078507|NCT05821296|182042885|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-73517.86|STANDARD_DEVIATION|197224.85||0.054|TWO_SIDED|||||If the test provides a p-value less than 0.05, the variation is significant over time for the studied parameter.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of change from baseline of conspicuous volume of line marks at Day 36 to evaluate the improvement of line marks assessed by Colorface device.||||0.054
91078508|NCT05821296|182042885|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-90424.89|STANDARD_DEVIATION|198264.2||0.008|TWO_SIDED|||||If the test provides a p-value less than 0.05, the variation is significant over time for the studied parameter.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of change from baseline of conspicuous volume of line marks at Day 57 to evaluate the improvement of line marks assessed by Colorface device.||||0.008
91039239|NCT02055547|181962765|OTHER|The least squares means and 90% confidence intervals for the treatment difference (MK-8521 35μg - placebo) in Gmax after a single dose was determined using a linear mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects and participant as random effect.|Geometric mean ratio|0.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.62|0.81|||Linear mixed effect model||||Number of participants included in analysis: N=17 (3 period crossover study design was conducted for 12 participants in Part 3).|0.81|0.62|<0.001
91039240|NCT02055547|181962765|OTHER|The least squares means and 90% confidence intervals for the treatment difference (MK-8521 125μg - MK-8521 35μg) in Gmax after a single dose was determined using a linear mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects and participant as random effect.|Geometric mean ratio|0.78||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|0.89|||Linear mixed effect model||||Number of participants included in analysis: N=17 (3 period crossover study design was conducted for 12 participants in Part 3).|0.89|0.69|0.004
91078509|NCT05821296|182042885|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1314.03||||0.779|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of change from baseline of conspicuous volume of line marks at Day 78 to evaluate the improvement of line marks assessed by Colorface device.||||0.779
91078510|NCT01217385|182042886|EQUIVALENCE|under the NULL, it is assume that there is no difference between a 40% decrease in TOI, and a less than 40% decrease or an increase in TOI in their ability to predict pCR+|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.667||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|23.04||5% alpha threshold for significance.|Regression, Logistic|||"This analysis will look at the ability of the % change in DOSI measured tumor Optical Index (TOI) from baseline to mid-therapy to predict pathologic response using logistic regression.~Pathologic response (dichotomized into responders and non-responders) will be used as the reference standard and %change in TOI ratio (dichotomized at -40%) will be used to estimate pCR (+/-)= alpha + beta1(%change TOI)"||23.04|0.95|0.059
91078511|NCT01217385|182042887|EQUIVALENCE|test for the equivalence of %change in TOI ratio (dichotomized at \<=-40%), between PR+ and PR- groups, with interaction|Slope|0.4463|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.953||0.8193|TWO_SIDED|||||significance at alpha=0.05|Regression, Logistic|p-value represents the interaction between %TOI (dichotomized at \<=-40%), and PR status|Multivariate logistic regression model using % change in TOI ratio (T/N) (baseline to mid-therapy) dichotomized at -40%, PR status, and the corresponding interaction.|The Null is that the odd ratio is the same in both the PR+ and PR- subjects fro the model including %change in TOI form baseline to mid-therapy (dichotomized at \<=-40%), PR status (+/-) and the interaction between them.||||0.8193
91078512|NCT01217385|182042888|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.5||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|250.15|||Regression, Logistic|||||250.15|1.09|0.043
91078513|NCT01217385|182042888|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.86||||0.406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|33.9|||Regression, Logistic|||||33.90|0.24|0.406
91078514|NCT02952872|182042905|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|Mixed Design ANOVA||||||<.05
91078515|NCT02952872|182042906|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<.05
91078516|NCT02952872|182042907|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<.05
91078517|NCT02952872|182042908|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<.05
91078518|NCT01260584|182042909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.11||0.0624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|15.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For the sample size calculations for the co-primary endpoints, no Type 1 error rate was adjusted and both co-primary endpoints will be tested at the 0.05 level.||15.8|-0.4|0.0624
91078519|NCT01260584|182042909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|31.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.35|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.1|38.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||38.4|25.1|<0.0001
91078520|NCT01260584|182042909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.08||0.244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|12.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||12.8|-3.3|0.2440
91078521|NCT01260584|182042909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|34.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.4|41.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||41.0|28.4|<0.0001
91078522|NCT01260584|182042909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.8|35.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||35.2|18.8|<0.0001
91078523|NCT01260584|182042910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-36.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.65||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.1|-11.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-11.2|-61.1|0.0048
91078524|NCT01260584|182042910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-93.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.54|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-116.7|-71.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-71.0|-116.7|<0.0001
91078525|NCT01260584|182042910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.53||0.0924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.9|3.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.5|-45.9|0.0924
91078526|NCT01260584|182042910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-108.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.85|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-130.3|-87.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-87.3|-130.3|<0.0001
91078527|NCT01260584|182042910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-72.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.73|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-97.8|-47.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-47.5|-97.8|<0.0001
91078528|NCT01260584|182042911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.72||0.0423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.3|-15.0|0.0423
91078529|NCT01260584|182042911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.19|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.0|-16.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-16.4|-29.0|<0.0001
91078530|NCT01260584|182042911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7||0.1184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.5|-13.1|0.1184
91078531|NCT01260584|182042911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.02|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.5|-18.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-18.5|-30.5|<0.0001
91078532|NCT01260584|182042911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.76|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.3|-9.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-9.5|-24.3|<0.0001
91078533|NCT01260584|182042912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.06||||0.1331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|5.32|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.32|0.80|0.1331
90981226|NCT00728416|181846331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-1.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|-0.83|||ANCOVA|||The change from Baseline in average AM/PM PRIOR TNSS over 15 days: MFNS 200 mcg daily vs placebo. The difference in LS means (MFNS - Placebo) was calculated from an ANCOVA model with treatment, site and baseline AM/PM TNSS as covariates.||-0.83|-1.72|<0.001
90981227|NCT00509106|181846343|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% Confidence Interval (CI) for the observed difference in the primary outcome measure (clinical cure rate) between the ceftaroline group and the ceftriaxone group was calculated based on the MITTE Population at the TOC visit. Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 95% CI was higher than -10% for the MITTE populations.|Risk Difference (RD)|5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|12.7|||||Risk difference corresponds to Ceftaroline clinical cure rate minus Ceftriaxone clinical cure rate. The confidence interval was calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen method without adjustment.|The primary objective of this study was to determine the noninferiority in the clinical cure rate for ceftaroline compared with that for ceftriaxone at TOC in the MITTE Population in adult subjects with CABP.||12.7|-1.0|
90981228|NCT00594399|181846381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|||||Omnibus test of difference between groups over time with Bonferroni correction and adjustment for baseline value of insulin|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.43
90981229|NCT00594399|181846384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|||||Omnibus test of difference between groups over time with Bonferroni correction and adjustment for baseline value of glucose|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.91
90981230|NCT00594399|181846387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Omnibus test of difference between groups over time with adjustment for baseline value of physical activity|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
90981231|NCT03830281|181846388|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority margin = 0.4% for HbA1c|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.11|-0.06|0.565
90981232|NCT03830281|181846389|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-24.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.0|-12.2|||ANCOVA|||||-12.2|-36.0|<0.001
90981233|NCT03830281|181846390|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-27.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.6|-13.0|||ANCOVA|||||-13.0|-42.6|< 0.001
90981234|NCT03830281|181846391|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.7||||0.532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|2.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis during daytime is reported.||2.8|-1.4|0.532
90981235|NCT03830281|181846391|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|2.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis during 24-hour period is reported.||2.5|-1.8|0.738
90981236|NCT02201940|181846415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Participants in the SOF/VEL group were compared to the performance goal of 85% using a 2-sided exact 1-sample binomial test at the 0.05 significance level.|Binomial test|||||||< 0.001
90981237|NCT03352245|181846433|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.889|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.889
90981238|NCT03352245|181846434|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.20
90981239|NCT03352245|181846435|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|7.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.51||0.166|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.166
90981240|NCT03352245|181846436|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.41||0.853|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.853
90981241|NCT03352245|181846437|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|17.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.16||0.022|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.022
90981242|NCT03352245|181846438|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.83||0.911|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.911
90981243|NCT03352245|181846439|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.88||0.456|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.456
90981244|NCT03352245|181846440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.13||0.515|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.515
90981245|NCT03352245|181846441|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.8||0.144|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.144
90981246|NCT03352245|181846442|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.28||0.948|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.948
90981247|NCT03352245|181846443|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.45||0.254|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.254
90981248|NCT03352245|181846444|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.62||0.051|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.051
90981249|NCT03352245|181846445|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.71||0.643|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.643
90981250|NCT03352245|181846446|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.5||0.29|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.290
91078534|NCT01260584|182042912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.99||||0.5813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|23.65|||Regression, Logistic|||||23.65|0.17|0.5813
90981251|NCT03352245|181846447|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|9.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.49||0.077|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.077
90981252|NCT03352245|181846448|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.38||0.237|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.237
90981253|NCT03352245|181846449|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.49||0.861|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.861
91078535|NCT01260584|182042912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.54||||0.0127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.85|148.23|||Regression, Logistic|||||148.23|1.85|0.0127
91078536|NCT01260584|182042912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|17.11||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.13|93.65|||Regression, Logistic|||||93.65|3.13|0.0013
91078537|NCT01260584|182042913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.5684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|3.67|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.67|0.49|0.5684
91078538|NCT01260584|182042913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.7||||0.0447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|42.92|||Regression, Logistic|||||42.92|1.05|0.0447
90981254|NCT02700451|181846457|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval|||||<|0.001||||||Threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Kruskal-Wallis|||The distribution of OME total in the first 72H is the same across these arms||||<0.001
90981255|NCT02700451|181846457|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval|||||<|0.001||||||The thresholds for statistical significant was p = 0.05|Kruskal-Wallis|||The distribution of OME total to discharge is the same across these arms||||<0.001
90981256|NCT02700451|181846458|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided||||||0.048|||||||Chi-squared|||Similar Distribution of opioid use between the 3 arms||||0.048
90981257|NCT02700451|181846459|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided||||||0.595|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.595
90981258|NCT02700451|181846462|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.732|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The distribution of POD1 - Current pain level is the same across the 3 arms||||0.732
90981259|NCT02700451|181846462|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.896|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The distribution of POD1 - Best pain level is the same across the 3 arms||||0.896
90981260|NCT02700451|181846462|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.004|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The distribution of POD1 - Worst pain level is the same across the 3 arms||||0.004
90981261|NCT02700451|181846462|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.325|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The distribution of POD3 - Current pain level is the same across the 3 arms||||0.325
90981262|NCT02700451|181846462|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.283|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The distribution of POD3 - Best pain level is the same across the 3 arms||||0.283
90981263|NCT02700451|181846462|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.61|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The distribution of POD3 - Worst pain level is the same across the 3 arms||||0.610
90981264|NCT02700451|181846463|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.016|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The distribution of POD1 - Pain has interfered with General Activity is the same across the 3 arms||||0.016
90981265|NCT02700451|181846463|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.294|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The distribution of POD1 - Pain has interfered with Mood is the same across the 3 arms||||0.294
90949661|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.221||0.3185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.22|||MMRM|||Anxiety Psychic, Change at Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.22|-0.66|0.3185
90949662|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.231||0.4809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.29|||MMRM|||Anxiety Psychic, Change at Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.29|-0.62|0.4809
90949663|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.225||0.8953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.48|||MMRM|||Anxiety Psychic, Change at Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.48|-0.42|0.8953
90981266|NCT02700451|181846463|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.016|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The distribution of POD1 - Pain has interfered with Walking Ability is the same across the 3 arms||||0.016
90981267|NCT02700451|181846463|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.082|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The distribution of POD1 - Pain has interfered with Normal work is the same across the 3 arms||||0.082
90949664|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.223||0.5616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.31|||MMRM|||Anxiety Psychic, Change at Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.31|-0.57|0.5616
90949665|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.216||0.8571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.47|||MMRM|||Anxiety Psychic, Change at Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.47|-0.39|0.8571
90949666|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.213||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.21|||MMRM|||Anxiety Psychic, Change at Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.21|-1.05|0.0037
90949667|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.206||0.0386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.02|||MMRM|||Anxiety Psychic, Change at Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.02|-0.84|0.0386
90949668|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.216||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.2|||MMRM|||Anxiety Psychic, Change at Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.20|-1.05|0.0044
90949669|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.208||0.8308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.37|||MMRM|||Anxiety Psychic, Change at Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.37|-0.46|0.8308
90949670|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.215||0.0388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.02|||MMRM|||Anxiety Psychic, Change at Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.02|-0.87|0.0388
90949671|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.209||0.1622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.12|||MMRM|||Anxiety Psychic, Change at Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.12|-0.71|0.1622
90949672|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.204||0.0179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.09|||MMRM|||Anxiety Psychic, Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.09|-0.89|0.0179
90949673|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.198||0.4283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.24|||MMRM|||Anxiety Psychic, Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.24|-0.55|0.4283
90981268|NCT02700451|181846463|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.117|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The distribution of POD1 - Pain has interfered with Relation with other is the same across the 3 arms||||0.117
90981269|NCT02700451|181846463|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.061|||||||Fisher Exact|||The distribution of POD1 - Pain has interfered with Sleep is the same across the 3 arms||||0.061
90981270|NCT02700451|181846463|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.023|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The distribution of POD1 - Pain has interfered with Enjoyment of life is the same across the 3 arms||||0.023
90981271|NCT02700451|181846463|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.681|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The distribution of POD3 - Pain has interfered with General Activity is the same across the 3 arms||||0.681
90981272|NCT02700451|181846463|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.405|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The distribution of POD3 - Pain has interfered with Mood is the same across the 3 arms||||0.405
90981273|NCT02700451|181846463|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.458|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The distribution of POD3 - Pain has interfered with Walking Ability is the same across the 3 arms||||0.458
90981274|NCT02700451|181846463|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.482|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The distribution of POD3 - Pain has interfered with Normal work is the same across the 3 arms||||0.482
90981275|NCT02700451|181846463|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.544|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The distribution of POD3 - Pain has interfered with Relation with other is the same across the 3 arms||||0.544
90981276|NCT02700451|181846463|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.202|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The distribution of POD3 - Pain has interfered with Sleep is the same across the 3 arms||||0.202
90981277|NCT02700451|181846463|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.58|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The distribution of POD3 - Pain has interfered with Enjoyment of life is the same across the 3 arms||||0.580
90981278|NCT02700451|181846465|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.928|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The distribution of Total Drain output at 24H is the same across the 3 arms||||0.928
90981279|NCT02700451|181846465|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.906|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The distribution of Total Drain output at 48H is the same across the 3 arms||||0.906
90981280|NCT02700451|181846465|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.926|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The distribution of Total Drain output at 72H is the same across the 3 arms||||0.926
90981281|NCT02700451|181846465|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.934|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The distribution of Total Drain output at Discharge is the same across the 3 arms||||0.934
90981282|NCT02700451|181846466|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided||||||0.078|||||||Chi-squared|||Proportion of patient receiving at least 1 transfusion is the same across the 3 arms||||0.078
90981283|NCT02700451|181846467|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||792|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0792
90981284|NCT02700451|181846468|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.034|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The distribution of Length of stay in day is the same across these arms||||0.034
90981285|NCT02700451|181846468|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.03|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The distribution of Length of stay in hour is the same across these arms||||0.030
90981286|NCT02700451|181846469|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.974|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison of the PCS score between the 3 arms||||0.974
90981287|NCT02700451|181846469|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.444|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison of the MCS between the 3 ams||||0.444
90981288|NCT02700451|181846470|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.215|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.215
90981289|NCT02700451|181846471|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.044|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison PCS score between the 3 arms||||0.044
90981290|NCT02700451|181846471|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.767|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison MCS score between the 3 arms||||0.767
90981291|NCT02700451|181846472|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.191|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.191
91078539|NCT01260584|182042913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|58.64||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|505.58|||Regression, Logistic|||||505.58|6.80|0.0003
91078540|NCT01260584|182042913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.71||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.95|46.52|||Regression, Logistic|||||46.52|2.95|0.0006
91078541|NCT01260584|182042914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|110.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.7|130.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Prasugrel active metabolite R-138727||130.8|93.7|
91078542|NCT01260584|182042914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|118.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.8|140.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||active metabolite R-130964||140.4|99.8|
91078543|NCT01260584|182042915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|117.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.4|147.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||Estimation was based on the ratio of Geom. means between groups. Non-smoker is the denominator.|Prasugrel active metabolite R-138727||147.3|94.4|
91078544|NCT01260584|182042915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|123.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.6|155.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||Estimation was based on the ratio of Geom. means between groups. Non-smoker is the denominator.|Clopidogrel active metabolite R-130964||155.4|98.6|
91078545|NCT02069093|182042925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Incidence rate R|||A test of the incidence rate R was performed with null hypothesis H0: R\>= 0.33 and alternative hypothesis Ha: R\<0.33 with a one-sided significance level of 0.05. If the test statistic was negative (actual incidence rate was \<0.33), the one-sided p-value for the null hypothesis R\>=0.33 was presented. The null hypothesis was rejected if the statistic was negative and the corresponding p-value for the one-sided test was \<0.5.||||<0.001
91078546|NCT01969084|182042958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||A p-value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Data were expressed as the median (25th:75th percentiles) for non-normally distributed data. The mean±sd for the groups was not analyzed as per the statistical plan.||||>0.05
90981292|NCT01511445|181846482|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority margin was specified as 15 NDI points (0-100 scale).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.96||0.641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|4.5|||Fisher Exact||A negative value means that the PEEK change was slightly larger than the silicon nitride study arm.|The null hypothesis was that the mean change in NDI scores from pre-op to 24 months was equal in the two study arms.||4.5|-7.3|0.641
90981293|NCT01511445|181846483|NON_INFERIORITY|The definition of fusion is rotation on flexion-extension films of less than or equal to four degrees and translation less than 1.25 mm.||||||0.71|||||||Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis was that the fusion rates would be equal in the two study arms. The comparison includes patients with flexion-extension films at 24 months (as-treated population).||||0.710
90981294|NCT03133767|181846495|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.608|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.608
90981295|NCT03133767|181846496|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.027
90981296|NCT03133767|181846497|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.202|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.202
90981297|NCT03133767|181846498|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.361|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.361
90981298|NCT03133767|181846499|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.509|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.509
90981299|NCT01642212|181846520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
90981300|NCT01642212|181846521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-6.75||||0.0096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.808|-1.687||LS mean estimates were determined using an ANCOVA model including treatment group as a factor and the baseline score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-1.687|-11.808|0.0096
90981301|NCT01642212|181846522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-2.49||||0.2649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.895|1.92||LS mean estimates were determined using the ANCOVA model including treatment group as a factor and baseline DSQ score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Analysis of Week 8||1.920|-6.895|0.2649
91039241|NCT03966911|181962772|SUPERIORITY||Intercept from ANCOVA as agreement rate|88.0|||<|0.041|TWO_SIDED|91.8|86.05|89.95|||ANCOVA|A generalized estimating equation model was used, considering correlation structure of day of sensor wear (1-7).|A group sequential study design was utilized to perform interim analysis. For the final stage, the p-value is 0.041.|||89.95|86.05|<0.041
90981302|NCT01642212|181846522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-2.91||||0.2878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.322|2.501||LS mean estimates were determined using the ANCOVA model including treatment group as a factor and baseline DSQ score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Analysis of Week 12||2.501|-8.322|0.2878
90981303|NCT01642212|181846524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Analysis of \</= 15 Eosinophils/HPF||||0.0001
90981304|NCT01642212|181846524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Analysis of \</= 1 Eosinophils/HPF||||<0.0001
90981305|NCT01642212|181846525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0206|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's chi-square|||Analysis of \>/= 30% DSQ score reduction||||0.0206
90981306|NCT01642212|181846525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0275|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's chi-square|||Analysis of \>/= 50% DSQ score reduction||||0.0275
90981307|NCT01642212|181846526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Analysis of response and \>/= 30% DSQ score reduction||||0.0026
90981308|NCT01642212|181846526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0199|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Analysis of response and \>/= 50% DSQ score reduction||||0.0199
90981309|NCT01642212|181846527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-22.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.345|-14.334|||ANCOVA|LS mean based on the ANCOVA model including treatment group as a factor and baseline as a covariate.||||-14.334|-30.345|<0.0001
90981310|NCT01642212|181846528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-3.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.172|-2.358||LS mean estimates based on the ANCOVA model including treatment group as a factor and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-2.358|-5.172|<0.0001
90981311|NCT01642212|181846529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-35.5||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.438|-17.57||LS mean estimates based on the ANCOVA model including treatment group as a factor and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Analysis of proximal eosinophil count||-17.570|-53.438|0.0002
90981312|NCT01642212|181846529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-59.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.173|-34.948||LS mean estimates based on the ANCOVA model including treatment group as a factor and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Analysis of mid- eosinophil count||-34.948|-84.173|<0.0001
90981313|NCT01642212|181846529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-67.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-93.573|-41.18||LS mean estimates based on the ANCOVA model including treatment group as a factor and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Analysis of distal eosinophil count||-41.180|-93.573|<0.0001
90981314|NCT01642212|181846530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-18.44||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.593|-7.293||LS mean estimates were based on the ANCOVA model including treatment group as a factor and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-7.293|-29.593|0.0015
90981315|NCT01642212|181846531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.117|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value for comparison of the treatment difference was determined by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis of distribution of scores across all responses||||0.1170
90981316|NCT01642212|181846532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1947|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value for comparison of the treatment difference at baseline vs. final treatment evaluation was determined by a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test. All responses (improved, no change, worsened) were analyzed collectively for each symptom.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis of heartburn||||0.1947
90981317|NCT01642212|181846532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8029|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value for comparison of the treatment difference at baseline vs. final treatment evaluation was determined by a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test. All responses (improved, no change, worsened) were analyzed collectively for each symptom.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis of chest pain||||0.8029
90981318|NCT01642212|181846532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4963|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value for comparison of the treatment difference at baseline vs. final treatment evaluation was determined by a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test. All responses (improved, no change, worsened) were analyzed collectively for each symptom.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis of regurgitation||||0.4963
90981319|NCT01642212|181846532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5257|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value for comparison of the treatment difference at baseline vs. final treatment evaluation was determined by a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test. All responses (improved, no change, worsened) were analyzed collectively for each symptom.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis of abdominal pain||||0.5257
91078547|NCT01362244|182042963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.003||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical data is presented for NR||||0.003
91078548|NCT01362244|182042963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.016||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical data is presented for LOCF||||0.016
91078549|NCT01362244|182042964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|3.64|||Regression, Logistic||Week 1|||3.64|0.15|0.710
91078550|NCT01362244|182042964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|6.87|||Regression, Logistic||Week 2|||6.87|0.29|0.674
91078551|NCT01362244|182042964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|4.49|||Regression, Logistic||Week 5|||4.49|0.20|0.942
91078552|NCT01362244|182042964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.9||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|18.96|||Regression, Logistic||Week 9|||18.96|0.80|0.091
91078553|NCT01362244|182042964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.66||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.18|62.33|||Regression, Logistic||Week 13|||62.33|2.18|0.004
91078554|NCT01362244|182042964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.74||||0.224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|13.9|||Regression, Logistic||Week 17|||13.90|0.54|0.224
91078555|NCT01362244|182042964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.85||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|30.69|||Regression, Logistic||Week 21|||30.69|1.11|0.037
91078556|NCT01362244|182042964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.22||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|27.44|||Regression, Logistic||Week 25|||27.44|0.99|0.051
91078557|NCT01362244|182042981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.19|||repeated measures model||Week 2|||0.19|-0.10|0.567
90981320|NCT01642212|181846532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5219|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value for comparison of the treatment difference at baseline vs. final treatment evaluation was determined by a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test. All responses (improved, no change, worsened) were analyzed collectively for each symptom.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis of nausea||||0.5219
90981321|NCT01642212|181846532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2886|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value for comparison of the treatment difference at baseline vs. final treatment evaluation was determined by a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test. All responses (improved, no change, worsened) were analyzed collectively for each symptom.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis of vomiting||||0.2886
90981322|NCT01642212|181846535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value for comparison of the treatment difference at baseline vs. final treatment evaluation was determined by a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test. Both responses (no change, worsened) were analyzed collectively.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis of symptoms of participants with no symptoms at baseline||||0.1600
90981323|NCT01642212|181846537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0606|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's chi-square|||Analysis of \>/= 30% DSQ+pain score reduction||||0.0606
90981324|NCT01642212|181846537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0165|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's chi-square|||Analysis of \>/= 50% DSQ+pain score reduction||||0.0165
90981325|NCT01642212|181846538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7817|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7817
90981326|NCT01642212|181846539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.09||||0.1686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.222|0.04||Estimates are determined using an ANCOVA model including treatment group as a factor and baseline DSQ score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Analysis of Week 8||0.040|-0.222|0.1686
90981327|NCT01642212|181846539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.03||||0.8046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.269|0.21||Estimates are determined using an ANCOVA model including treatment group as a factor and baseline DSQ score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Analysis of Week 12||0.210|-0.269|0.8046
90981328|NCT01642212|181846539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.01||||0.9239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.199|0.219||Estimates are determined using an ANCOVA model including treatment group as a factor and baseline DSQ score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Analysis of Week 16||0.219|-0.199|0.9239
90981329|NCT01642212|181846540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.73||||0.4835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.806|1.339||Estimates are determined using an ANCOVA model including treatment group as a factor and baseline DSQ score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Analysis of Week 8||1.339|-2.806|0.4835
90981330|NCT01642212|181846540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.92||||0.0662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.974|0.132||Estimates are determined using an ANCOVA model including treatment group as a factor and baseline DSQ score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Analysis of Week 12||0.132|-3.974|0.0662
90981331|NCT01642212|181846540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.8||||0.1091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.006|0.41||Estimates are determined using an ANCOVA model including treatment group as a factor and baseline DSQ score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Analysis of Week 16||0.410|-4.006|0.1091
91039242|NCT03966911|181962772|SUPERIORITY||Intercept from ANCOVA as agreement rate|87.96|||<|0.041|TWO_SIDED|91.8|86.13|89.8|||ANCOVA|A generalized estimating equation model was used, considering correlation structure of day of sensor wear (1-7).|A group sequential study design was utilized to perform interim analysis. For the final stage, the p-value is 0.041.|||89.80|86.13|<0.041
91078558|NCT01362244|182042981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.21|||repeated measures model||Week 5|||0.21|-0.10|0.495
90981332|NCT00741819|181846581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|16.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|35.9|<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test]||Change in 6MWD from Baseline was calculated for patients still remaining on study at Week 12.|Analysis of endpoints was descriptive in nature. Numeric endpoints for post-baseline assessments were compared to Baseline using Wilcoxon signed rank test, and p-values were calculated for descriptive purposes; no formal hypothesis testing was planned.||||<0.001
90981333|NCT00741819|181846582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.7|<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test||Analysis based on Total CAMPHOR Score.|||||<0.001
90981334|NCT00741819|181846583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|21.3||0.895||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Side-Effects Score, change from Baseline to Week 12|||||0.895
90981335|NCT00741819|181846583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|38.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|25.9|<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Convenience Score, change from Baseline to Week 12|||||<0.001
90981336|NCT00741819|181846583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|23.7|<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Global Satisfaction, change from Baseline to Week 12|||||<0.001
90981337|NCT00741819|181846583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|21.5|<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test||Effectiveness score, change from Baseline to Week 12|||||<0.001
90981338|NCT00741819|181846585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.001
90981339|NCT02863198|181846588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||All included p-values are calculated from collected data and not threshold values for statical significance|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91078559|NCT01362244|182042981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.28|||repeated measures model||Week 9|||0.28|-0.10|0.365
91078560|NCT01362244|182042981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.34|||repeated measures model||Week 13|||0.34|-0.01|0.058
91078561|NCT01362244|182042981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.43|||repeated measures model||Week 17|||0.43|-0.01|0.056
91078562|NCT01362244|182042981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.42|||repeated measures model||Week 21|||0.42|0.03|0.028
91078563|NCT01362244|182042981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.34|||repeated measures model||Week 25|||0.34|-0.02|0.077
91078564|NCT01362244|182042982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.22|||repeated measures model||Week 2|||0.22|-0.10|0.486
91078565|NCT01362244|182042982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.22|||repeated measures model||Week 5|||0.22|-0.08|0.384
90981340|NCT02863198|181846589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||All included p-values are calculated from collected data and not threshold values for statical significance|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
90981341|NCT02863198|181846590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||All included p-values are calculated from collected data and not threshold values for statical significance|Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
90981342|NCT02863198|181846591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||All included p-values are calculated from collected data and not threshold values for statical significance|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
90981343|NCT02863198|181846592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||All included p-values are calculated from collected data and not threshold values for statical significance|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
90981344|NCT02863198|181846593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||All included p-values are calculated from collected data and not threshold values for statical significance|Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
90981345|NCT01697345|181846610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.092|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.0378|<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.928|-6.256|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-6.256|-13.928|<0.0005
90981346|NCT01697345|181846611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.88|<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.859|-0.741|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.741|-1.859|<0.0005
90981347|NCT01697345|181846612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.625|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.369||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.495|-0.755|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.755|-2.495|0.002
90981348|NCT01697345|181846613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.876||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.692|-0.308|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.308|-2.692|0.018
90981349|NCT01697345|181846614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.18168||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9508|-0.4492|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-.44920|-1.95080|0.005
90981350|NCT01697345|181846615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.355||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.761|-1.039|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-1.039|-2.761|0.001
90981351|NCT01697345|181846616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.567|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.793|<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.706|-1.428|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-1.428|-3.706|<0.0005
90981352|NCT01976806|181846652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Compound-symmetry covariance structure with age, sex, BMI, race, baseline pocket depth, baseline RBC DHA level, and intervention group variables|Mean change in pocket depth (3-month follow-up minus baseline) among dental sites with baseline pocket depths \>=5 mm in the DHA intervention group versus the placebo group.|Intent-to-treat basis with a type I error rate of 0.05. The follow-up pocket depth, was assessed in linear mixed effects models with a compound-symmetry covariance structure and age, sex, BMI, race, baseline pocket depth, baseline red blood cell (RBC) DHA level (dichotomized at median), and intervention group as fixed-effect variables.||||<0.05
90981353|NCT01245647|181846664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.82
90981354|NCT01245647|181846665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
90981355|NCT01245647|181846666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.46
90981356|NCT01245647|181846667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12||||||no significant difference by Fisher exact test|Fisher Exact|||||||0.12
90981357|NCT01245647|181846668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.67
90981358|NCT00045032|181846708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
90981359|NCT00045032|181846708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.67|||||HR for Herceptin 1-Year Arm versus Observation Arm.|||0.67|0.44|
90981360|NCT00045032|181846709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.000
90981361|NCT00045032|181846709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.53|||||HR for Herceptin 2-Year Arm versus Observation Arm.|||0.53|0.34|
90981362|NCT00045032|181846712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
90981363|NCT00045032|181846712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.86|||||HR for Herceptin 1-Year Arm versus Observation Arm.|||0.86|0.67|
90981364|NCT00045032|181846712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
90981365|NCT00045032|181846712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.85|||||HR for Herceptin 2-Year Arm versus Observation Arm.|||0.85|0.67|
90981366|NCT00045032|181846717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.86|||||HR for Herceptin 1-Year Arm versus Observation Arm.|||0.86|0.68|
90981367|NCT00045032|181846717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.87|||||HR for Herceptin 2-Year Arm versus Observation Arm.|||0.87|0.69|
90981368|NCT00045032|181846724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.7962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.17|||Log Rank||HR for Herceptin 2-Year Arm versus Herceptin 1-Year Arm.|||1.17|0.89|0.7962
90981369|NCT00045032|181846726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2379|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.2379
90981370|NCT00045032|181846726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.21|||||HR for Herceptin 1-Year Arm versus Observation Arm.|||1.21|0.47|
90981371|NCT00045032|181846727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.003
90981372|NCT00045032|181846727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.79|||||HR for Herceptin 2-Year Arm versus Observation Arm.|||0.79|0.28|
90981373|NCT00045032|181846730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0005
90981374|NCT00045032|181846730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.88|||||HR for Herceptin 1-Year Arm versus Observation Arm.|||0.88|0.65|
90981375|NCT00045032|181846730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0001
90981376|NCT00045032|181846730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.86|||||HR for Herceptin 2-Year Arm versus Observation Arm.|||0.86|0.63|
90981377|NCT00045032|181846732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.86|||||HR for Herceptin 1-Year Arm versus Observation Arm.|||0.86|0.64|
90981378|NCT00045032|181846732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.83|||||HR for Herceptin 2-Year Arm versus Observation Arm.|||0.83|0.62|
90981379|NCT00045032|181846734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.9156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.21|||Log Rank||HR for Herceptin 2-Year Arm versus Herceptin 1-Year Arm.|||1.21|0.84|0.9156
91039243|NCT03966911|181962772|SUPERIORITY||Intercept from ANCOVA as agreement rate|84.59||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|91.8|82.02|87.17|||ANCOVA|A generalized estimating equation model was used, considering correlation structure of day of sensor wear (1-7).|A group sequential study design was utilized to perform interim analysis. For the final stage, the p-value is 0.041.|||87.17|82.02|0.041
91039244|NCT03966911|181962772|SUPERIORITY||Intercept from ANCOVA as agreement rate|81.05|||<|0.041|TWO_SIDED|91.8|77.58|84.53|||ANCOVA|A generalized estimating equation model was used, considering correlation structure of day of sensor wear (1-7).|A group sequential study design was utilized to perform interim analysis. For the final stage, the p-value is 0.041.|||84.53|77.58|<0.041
91050519|NCT02037165|181987277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|2.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0796|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|6.8|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 1:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||6.8|-1.4|
90981380|NCT00045032|181846736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
90981381|NCT00045032|181846736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.83|||||HR for Herceptin 1-Year Arm versus Observation Arm.|||0.83|0.64|
90981382|NCT00045032|181846736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
90981383|NCT00045032|181846736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.79|||||HR for Herceptin 2-Year Arm versus Observation Arm.|||0.79|0.61|
90981384|NCT00045032|181846738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.4755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.11|||Log Rank||HR for Herceptin 2-Year Arm versus Herceptin 1-Year Arm.|||1.11|0.80|0.4755
90981385|NCT00045032|181846740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
90981386|NCT00045032|181846740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.87|||||HR for Herceptin 1-Year Arm versus Observation Arm.|||0.87|0.67|
90981387|NCT00045032|181846740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
90981388|NCT00045032|181846740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.85|||||HR for Herceptin 2-Year Arm versus Observation Arm.|||0.85|0.65|
90981389|NCT00045032|181846742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.9626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.17|||Log Rank||HR for Herceptin 2-Year Arm versus Herceptin 1-Year Arm.|||1.17|0.85|0.9626
90981390|NCT00045032|181846744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
90981391|NCT00045032|181846744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.83|||||HR for Herceptin 1-Year Arm versus Observation Arm.|||0.83|0.64|
90981392|NCT00045032|181846744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
90981393|NCT00045032|181846744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.79|||||HR for Herceptin 2-Year Arm versus Observation Arm.|||0.79|0.61|
90981394|NCT00045032|181846746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.1|||Log Rank||HR for Herceptin 2-Year Arm versus Herceptin 1-Year Arm.|||1.10|0.80|0.4500
90981395|NCT00045032|181846748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
90981396|NCT00045032|181846748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.83|||||HR for Herceptin 1-Year Arm versus Observation Arm.|||0.83|0.62|
90981397|NCT00045032|181846748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
90981398|NCT00045032|181846748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.79|||||HR for Herceptin 2-Year Arm versus Observation Arm.|||0.79|0.59|
90981399|NCT00045032|181846750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.6823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.15|||Log Rank||HR for Herceptin 2-Year Arm versus Herceptin 1-Year Arm.|||1.15|0.80|0.6823
90981400|NCT00045032|181846752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.7251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.13|||Log Rank||HR for Herceptin 2-Year Arm versus Herceptin 1-Year Arm.|||1.13|0.84|0.7251
90981401|NCT04364854|181846794|OTHER|This study was not designed to perform a hypothesis test. No p-values will be reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.31|1.87|||||Analyzed using a repeated measures model that included the following fixed affects: categorical visit by treatment group interaction, site, baseline aphasia severity score, baseline VPM, and age.|||1.87|-2.31|
90981402|NCT04364854|181846794|OTHER|This study was not designed to perform a hypothesis test. No p-values will be reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.94|3.15|||||Analyzed using a repeated measures model that included the following fixed affects: categorical visit by treatment group interaction, site, baseline aphasia severity score, baseline VPM, and age.|||3.15|-2.94|
90981403|NCT04364854|181846794|OTHER|This study was not designed to perform a hypothesis test. No p-values will be reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|1.33|||||Analyzed using a repeated measures model that included the following fixed affects: categorical visit by treatment group interaction, site, baseline aphasia severity score, baseline VPM, and age.|||1.33|-2.9|
90981404|NCT04364854|181846795|OTHER|This trial was not designed for hypothesis testing. No p-values will be reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.13|||||Analyzed using a repeated measures model that included the following fixed affects: categorical visit by treatment group interaction, site, baseline aphasia severity score, baseline SAQOL-39, and age.|||0.13|-0.26|
90981405|NCT04364854|181846795|OTHER|This trial was not designed for hypothesis testing. No p-values will be reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.28|||||Analyzed using a repeated measures model that included the following fixed affects: categorical visit by treatment group interaction, site, baseline aphasia severity score, baseline SAQOL-39, and age.|||0.28|-0.21|
91007844|NCT02096471|181899924|SUPERIORITY|Single Group Study. Change in Quality of Life from Baseline amongst those with a Tumor Response.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.05||0.19|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Descriptive Analysis Only||Single Group Change from Baseline||||0.19
90981406|NCT04364854|181846795|OTHER|This trial was not designed for hypothesis testing. No p-values will be reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.04|||||Analyzed using a repeated measures model that included the following fixed affects: categorical visit by treatment group interaction, site, baseline aphasia severity score, baseline SAQOL-39, and age.|||-0.04|-0.42|
90981407|NCT04364854|181846796|OTHER|This trial was not designed for hypothesis testing. No p-values will be reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.59|2.9|||||Analyzed using a repeated measures model that included the following fixed affects: categorical visit by treatment group interaction, site, baseline aphasia severity score, baseline VPM - Narrative, and age.|||2.9|-2.59|
90981408|NCT04364854|181846796|OTHER|This trial was not designed for hypothesis testing. No p-values will be reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|3.8|||||Analyzed using a repeated measures model that included the following fixed affects: categorical visit by treatment group interaction, site, baseline aphasia severity score, baseline VPM-Narrative, and age.|||3.8|-2.23|
90981409|NCT04364854|181846796|OTHER|This trial was not designed for hypothesis testing. No p-values will be reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.32|2.82|||||Analyzed using a repeated measures model that included the following fixed affects: categorical visit by treatment group interaction, site, baseline aphasia severity score, baseline VPM - Narrative, and age.|||2.82|-2.32|
90981410|NCT04364854|181846797|OTHER|This trial was not designed for hypothesis testing. No p-values will be reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.59|3.45|||||Analyzed using a repeated measures model that included the following fixed affects: categorical visit by treatment group interaction, site, baseline aphasia severity score, baseline VPM - Procedural, and age.|||3.45|-3.59|
90981411|NCT04364854|181846797|OTHER|This trial was not designed for hypothesis testing. No p-values will be reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.27|4.8|||||Analyzed using a repeated measures model that included the following fixed affects: categorical visit by treatment group interaction, site, baseline aphasia severity score, baseline VPM - Procedural, and age.|||4.8|-4.27|
90981412|NCT04364854|181846797|OTHER|This trial was not designed for hypothesis testing. No p-values will be reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.77|1.56|||||Analyzed using a repeated measures model that included the following fixed affects: categorical visit by treatment group interaction, site, baseline aphasia severity score, baseline VPM - Procedural, and age.|||1.56|-5.77|
91078566|NCT01362244|182042982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.26|||repeated measures model||Week 9|||0.26|-0.14|0.546
90981413|NCT03528681|181846816|OTHER||Back-transformed mean difference|0.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.902|0.959|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Results are derived from a longitudinal model applied to log-transformed S-K measurements adjusted for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline covariates. The back-transformation is to the original scale of the S-K measurement||0.959|0.902|<0.001
90981414|NCT03528681|181846816|OTHER||Back-transformed mean difference|0.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.825|0.876|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Results are derived from a longitudinal model applied to log-transformed S-K measurements adjusted for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline covariates. The back-transformation is to the original scale of the S-K measurement||0.876|0.825|<0.001
90981415|NCT03528681|181846821|OTHER|The analysis uses a generalized mixed model which includes a random intercept and logit link. The model includes all S-K data values collected at the scheduled visits between Days 8-29, dichotomized as normal and abnormal, as response variables, and baseline covariates. Placebo is the reference group.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.17|6.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.67|2.17|<0.001
90981416|NCT03528681|181846821|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.45|21.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The analysis uses a generalized mixed model which includes a random intercept and logit link. The model includes all S-K data values collected at the scheduled visits between Days 8-29, dichotomized as normal and abnormal, as response variables, and baseline covariates. Placebo is the reference group.||21.00|6.45|<0.001
90981417|NCT03528681|181846822|OTHER|The model included normokalaemia status (yes, no) on Day 29 as binary response variables, and baseline covariates. Placebo is the reference group.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.54||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|6.05|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.05|1.07|0.035
90981418|NCT03528681|181846822|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.56|15.27|||Regression, Logistic|||The model included normokalaemia status (yes, no) on Day 29 as binary response variables, and baseline covariates. Placebo is the reference group.||15.27|2.56|<0.001
90981419|NCT03528681|181846823|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|5.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.13|8.31|||Regression, Linear|||Results derived from a linear regression model with the following covariates: treatment group; baseline S-K values (Open-label phase and Randomized treatment phase); baseline eGFR; age category; country; baseline RAAS inhibitor, chronic kidney disease, heart failure, and diabetes mellitus statuses.||8.31|3.13|<0.001
91078567|NCT01362244|182042982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.39|||repeated measures model||Week 13|||0.39|0.00|0.050
91078568|NCT01362244|182042982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.45|||repeated measures model||Week 17|||0.45|-0.01|0.061
91078569|NCT01362244|182042982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.51|||repeated measures model||Week 21|||0.51|0.05|0.016
91078570|NCT01362244|182042982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.4|||repeated measures model||Week 25|||0.40|-0.03|0.094
91078571|NCT01362244|182042983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.11||||0.686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.91|30.12|||repeated measures model||Week 2|||30.12|-19.91|0.686
91078572|NCT01362244|182042983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.55||||0.321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|43.5|||repeated measures model||Week 5|||43.50|-14.40|0.321
91078573|NCT01362244|182042983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.91||||0.622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.79|44.6|||repeated measures model||Week 9|||44.60|-26.79|0.622
90981420|NCT03528681|181846823|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.57|13.71|||Regression, Linear|||Results derived from a linear regression model with the following covariates: treatment group; baseline S-K values (Open-label phase and Randomized treatment phase); baseline eGFR; age category; country; baseline RAAS inhibitor, chronic kidney disease, heart failure, and diabetes mellitus statuses.||13.71|8.57|<0.001
90981421|NCT03528681|181846826|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-105.248|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-161.293|-49.203|||Mixed Models Analysis|||S-Aldo Results derived from a longitudinal mixed model adjusted for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline covariates||-49.203|-161.293|<0.001
90981422|NCT03528681|181846826|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-137.267|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-192.596|-81.937|||Mixed Models Analysis|||S-Aldo Results derived from a longitudinal mixed model adjusted for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline covariates||-81.937|-192.596|<0.001
90981423|NCT03528681|181846826|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.014||||0.839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.147|||Mixed Models Analysis|||P-Renin Results derived from a longitudinal mixed model adjusted for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline covariates||0.147|-0.120|0.839
90981424|NCT03528681|181846826|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.062||||0.355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.195|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||P-Renin Results derived from a longitudinal mixed model adjusted for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline covariates||0.070|-0.195|0.355
91039245|NCT00985751|181962773|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The 95% CI for the difference between groups in the percentage of subjects with rectal temperature \> 40.0°C within the 7-day follow-up period following primary vaccination was computed for the Synflorix/GSK 2189242A Group minus Synflorix Group. No statistically significant difference between groups in rectal temperature \>40.0°C would be detected if the 95% CIs included 0 and non-inferiority would|Difference in percentage|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|5.32||||||Fever \>40°C-non-inferiority: To compare the 2 formulations of GSK Biologicals' S. pneumoniae protein containing vaccine (GSK 2189242A) combined with Synflorix™ vaccine (pooled groups) versus Synflorix™ vaccine (Synflorix/GSK 2189242A Group minus Synflorix Group) with respect to the percentage of subjects reporting fever \> 40.0°C (rectal temperature) within 7 days after at least 1 dose of primary vaccination.||5.32|-6.1|
91039246|NCT00985751|181962774|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The 95% CI for the difference between groups in the percentage of subjects with rectal temperature \> 40.0°C within the 7-day follow-up period following primary vaccination was computed for the GSK 2189242A Group minus Synflorix Group. No statistically significant difference between groups in rectal temperature \>40.0°C would be detected if the 95% CIs included 0 and non-inferiority would be express|Difference in percentage|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|5.32||||||Fever \>40°C-non-inferiority: To compare the 2 formulations of GSK Biologicals' S. pneumoniae protein containing vaccine GSK 2189242A (pooled groups) versus Synflorix™ vaccine (GSK 2189242A Group minus Synflorix Group) with respect to the percentage of subjects reporting fever \> 40.0°C (rectal temperature) within 7 days after at least 1 dose of primary vaccination.||5.32|-6.1|
91039247|NCT00829764|181962818|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model containing factors for sequence of products, subjects within sequence, periods, and products was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|93.52||||||90.0|88.49|98.83|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||98.83|88.49|
90981425|NCT03528681|181846828|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.57|||Regression, Cox|||The model included time to reoccurrence of hyperkalaemia as response variable (event: hyperkalaemia or discontinue treatment in RTP due to high S-K levels), baseline eGFR, OLP and RTP baseline S-K values as well as age (\< 55, 55-64, \> 64 years) and baseline binary indicators for RAASi, chronic kidney disease, heart failure, and diabetes mellitus as covariates. Placebo is the reference group||0.57|0.27|<0.001
90981426|NCT03528681|181846828|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.25|||Regression, Cox|||The model included time to reoccurrence of hyperkalaemia as response variable (event: hyperkalaemia or discontinue treatment in RTP due to high S-K levels), baseline eGFR, OLP and RTP baseline S-K values as well as age (\< 55, 55-64, \> 64 years) and baseline binary indicators for RAASi, chronic kidney disease, heart failure, and diabetes mellitus as covariates. Placebo is the reference group||0.25|0.10|<0.001
90981427|NCT01232946|181846834|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.65
90981428|NCT01232946|181846835|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.065|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.065
90981429|NCT01232946|181846836|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.80
90981430|NCT01614457|181846837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares (LS) Mean Difference|2.1114||||0.1979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1305|5.3532|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Analysis was based on mixed effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) with dependent variable absolute change from baseline, with treatment group, visit and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects, subject as random effect, and with adjustment for the continuous baseline value of age and percent predicted FEV1, using compound symmetry covariance matrix.||5.3532|-1.1305|0.1979
90981431|NCT01614457|181846838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.2626||||0.778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5698|2.095||p-value for the treatment effect is from the slope of BMI (kg/m2) versus time (days).|Linear Mixed model|||Analysis was based on linear mixed model with dependent variable BMI and treatment as a fixed effect, adjustment for baseline percent predicted FEV1, age and visit by treatment interaction was included as covariates and intercept, visit were included as random effects.||2.0950|-1.5698|0.7780
90981432|NCT01614457|181846839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-23.9693|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.0094|-19.9293|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Analysis was based on MMRM with dependent variable absolute change from baseline, with treatment group, visit and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects, subject as random effect, and with adjustment for the continuous baseline value of age and percent predicted FEV1, and sweat chloride, using a compound symmetry covariance matrix.||-19.9293|-28.0094|<0.0001
90981433|NCT01614457|181846840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|8.3874||||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1658|14.609|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Analysis was based on MMRM with dependent variable absolute change from baseline, with treatment group, visit and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects, subject as random effect, and with adjustment for the continuous baseline value of age and percent predicted FEV1, and CFQ-R respiratory domain score, using compound symmetry covariance matrix.||14.6090|2.1658|0.0091
90981434|NCT01614457|181846841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.928||||0.8556|TWO_SIDED||||||Cox Proportional Hazard Regression|||||||0.8556
90981435|NCT03518840|181846848|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9615|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3329|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6299|-1.2932|||paired t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that there is no change in the baseline ASLR score following four weeks of SIJ belt therapy.||-1.2932|-2.6299|<.001
90981436|NCT03518840|181846849|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.9474|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3353|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.619|-1.2757|||paired t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that there is no change in the baseline NRS score following four weeks of SIJ belt therapy.||-1.2757|-2.6190|<.001
90981437|NCT00473694|181846876|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Treatment Effect|17.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.95|21.42||A two-way ANOVA model was used with the logarithm of the recovery time taken as the response variable, and trial site and treatment group were the factors of the model.|ANOVA||The value for estimated treatment effect represents how many times faster the mean time to recovery of the T4/T1 ratio to 0.9 was for participants receiving sugammadex after NMB compared to participants receiving neostigmine after NMB.|||21.42|13.95|<0.0001
90981438|NCT00473694|181846877|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Treatment Effect|14.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.18|21.67||A two-way ANOVA model was used with the logarithm of the recovery time taken as the response variable, and trial site and treatment group were the factors of the model.|ANOVA||The value for estimated treatment effect represents how many times faster the mean time to recovery of the T4/T1 ratio to 0.9 was for participants receiving sugammadex after NMB compared to participants receiving neostigmine after NMB.|||21.67|10.18|<0.0001
90981439|NCT00473694|181846878|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Treatment Effect|15.84|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.58|19.95||A two-way ANOVA model was used with the logarithm of the recovery time taken as the response variable, and trial site and treatment group were the factors of the model.|ANOVA||The value for estimated treatment effect represents how many times faster the mean time to recovery of the T4/T1 ratio to 0.7 was for participants receiving sugammadex after NMB compared to participants receiving neostigmine after NMB.|||19.95|12.58|<0.0001
90981440|NCT00473694|181846879|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Treatment Effect|18.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.98|24.35||A two-way ANOVA model was used with the logarithm of the recovery time taken as the response variable, and trial site and treatment group were the factors of the model.|ANOVA||The value for estimated treatment effect represents how many times faster the mean time to recovery of the T4/T1 ratio to 0.7 was for participants receiving sugammadex after NMB compared to participants receiving neostigmine after NMB.|||24.35|13.98|<0.0001
90981441|NCT00473694|181846880|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Treatment Effect|17.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.62|21.31||A two-way ANOVA model was used with the logarithm of the recovery time taken as the response variable, and trial site and treatment group were the factors of the model.|ANOVA||The value for estimated treatment effect represents how many times faster the mean time to recovery of the T4/T1 ratio to 0.8 was for participants receiving sugammadex after NMB compared to participants receiving neostigmine after NMB.|||21.31|13.62|<0.0001
90981442|NCT00473694|181846881|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Treatment Effect|17.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.85|24.38||A two-way ANOVA model was used with the logarithm of the recovery time taken as the response variable, and trial site and treatment group were the factors of the model.|ANOVA||The value for estimated treatment effect represents how many times faster the mean time to recovery of the T4/T1 ratio to 0.8 was for participants receiving sugammadex after NMB compared to participants receiving neostigmine after NMB.|||24.38|12.85|<0.0001
90981443|NCT01416181|181846927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.2866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.13|||Regression, Logistic|Based on logistic regression, adjusted for Baseline EDSS (\<=5.5 or \>=6) and/or T25FW and/or 9HPT (either hand).|active/placebo|Confirmed progressors on ≥ 1 of EDSS, T25FW, or 9HPT at 2 years||1.13|0.66|0.2866
90981444|NCT01416181|181846927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.53|||Regression, Logistic|Based on logistic regression, adjusted for Baseline EDSS (\<=5.5 or \>=6) and/or T25FW and/or 9HPT (either hand).|active/placebo|Confirmed progressors on EDSS||1.53|0.74|0.7530
90981445|NCT01416181|181846927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.9137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.3|||Regression, Logistic|Based on logistic regression, adjusted for Baseline EDSS (\<=5.5 or \>=6) and/or T25FW and/or 9HPT (either hand).|active/placebo|Confirmed progressors on T25FW||1.30|0.74|0.9137
90981446|NCT01416181|181846927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.56||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.8|||Regression, Logistic|Based on logistic regression, adjusted for Baseline EDSS (\<=5.5 or \>=6) and/or T25FW and/or 9HPT (either hand).||Confirmed progressors on 9HPT (either hand)||0.80|0.40|0.0012
90981447|NCT01416181|181846927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72||||0.1251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.09|||Regression, Logistic|Based on logistic regression, adjusted for Baseline EDSS (\<=5.5 or \>=6) and/or T25FW and/or 9HPT (either hand).||Confirmed progressors on 9HPT (dominant hand)||1.09|0.48|0.1251
90981448|NCT01416181|181846927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.58||||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.87|||Regression, Logistic|Based on logistic regression, adjusted for Baseline EDSS (\<=5.5 or \>=6) and/or T25FW and/or 9HPT (either hand).||Confirmed progressors on 9HPT (non-dominant hand)||0.87|0.39|0.0091
90981449|NCT01416181|181846929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.4369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.7|||Regression, Logistic|Based on logistic regression, adjusted for baseline EDSS (\<=5.5 or \>=6) and T25FW.|active/placebo|||1.70|0.80|0.4369
90981450|NCT01416181|181846930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5409|||||||ANCOVA|p-value for comparison between the active and placebo groups at Week 96 is based on ANCOVA model, adjusted for BL EDSS (\<=5.5 or \>=6) and BL MSWS-12.||||||0.5409
90981451|NCT01416181|181846931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2586|||||||ANCOVA|p-value for comparison between active and placebo groups at Week 96 is based on ANCOVA model, adjusted for BL EDSS (\<=5.5 or \>=6) and BL ABILHAND.||||||0.2586
90981452|NCT01416181|181846932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1529|||||||ANCOVA|p-value for comparison between active \& placebo groups at Wk 96 based on ANCOVA model, adjusted for BL EDSS (≤5.5 or ≥6) \& BL MSIS-29 physical score.||||||0.1529
90981453|NCT01416181|181846933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2424||||||natalizumab participants had a baseline after 6 months of treatment and the placebo-to-natalizumab group had a baseline of initiation of treatment|ANCOVA|p-value for comparison between active and placebo groups at Week 96 is based on ANCOVA model, adjusted for BL EDSS (\<=5.5 or \>=6) and BL brain volume.||Only participants with BL brain volume are included in the p-value calculation.||||0.2424
91078574|NCT01362244|182042983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.24||||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.75|57.22|||repeated measures model||Week 13|||57.22|-10.75|0.178
91078575|NCT01362244|182042983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|38.16||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|76.66|||repeated measures model||Week 17|||76.66|-0.33|0.052
91078576|NCT01362244|182042983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|38.72||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|76.02|||repeated measures model||Week 21|||76.02|1.41|0.042
90981454|NCT01416181|181846934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78||||0.1052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.05|||Regression, Logistic|Based on logistic regression, adjusted for baseline EDSS (\<=5.5 or \>=6).||||1.05|0.58|0.1052
90981455|NCT01416181|181846935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67||||0.0205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.94|||Regression, Logistic|Based on logistic regression, adjusted for Baseline EDSS (\<=5.5 or \>=6) and/or T25FW and/or 9HPT (either hand).|active/placebo|Confirmed progressors on ≥ 1 of EDSS, T25FW, or 9HPT at 156 weeks||0.94|0.47|0.0205
90981456|NCT01416181|181846935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73||||0.1305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.1|||Regression, Logistic|Based on logistic regression, adjusted for Baseline EDSS (\<=5.5 or \>=6) and/or T25FW and/or 9HPT (either hand).|active/placebo|Confirmed progressors on EDSS at 156 weeks||1.10|0.48|0.1305
90981457|NCT01416181|181846935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.1988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.12|||Regression, Logistic|Based on logistic regression, adjusted for Baseline EDSS (\<=5.5 or \>=6) and/or T25FW and/or 9HPT (either hand).|active/placebo|Confirmed progressors on T25FW at 156 weeks||1.12|0.57|0.1988
90981458|NCT01416181|181846935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59||||0.0093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.88|||Regression, Logistic|Based on logistic regression, adjusted for Baseline EDSS (\<=5.5 or \>=6) and/or T25FW and/or 9HPT (either hand).|active/placebo|Confirmed progressors on 9HPT (either hand) at 156 weeks||0.88|0.39|0.0093
90981459|NCT01416181|181846935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.63||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.01|||Regression, Logistic|Based on logistic regression, adjusted for Baseline EDSS (\<=5.5 or \>=6) and/or T25FW and/or 9HPT (either hand).|active/placebo|Confirmed progressors onm 9HPT (dominant hand) at 156 weeks||1.01|0.39|0.0540
90981460|NCT01416181|181846935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.12|||Regression, Logistic|Based on logistic regression, adjusted for Baseline EDSS (\<=5.5 or \>=6) and/or T25FW and/or 9HPT (either hand).|active/placebo|Confirmed progressors on 9HPT (non-dominant hand) at 156 weeks||1.12|0.44|0.1410
90981461|NCT01416181|181846936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0273|||||||ANCOVA|p-value for comparison between active and placebo at Week 156 based on ANCOVA model, adjusted for BL EDSS (\<=5.5 or\>=6) and BL T25FW.||Week 156||||0.0273
90981462|NCT01416181|181846936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1974|||||||ANCOVA|p-value for comparison between active and placebo at Week 156 based on ANCOVA model, adjusted for BL EDSS (\<=5.5 or\>=6) and BL T25FW.||CP Group: Week 156||||0.1974
90981463|NCT01416181|181846936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2506|||||||ANCOVA|p-value for comparison between active and placebo at Week 156 based on ANCOVA model, adjusted for BL EDSS (\<=5.5 or\>=6) and BL T25FW.||NP Group: Week 156||||0.2506
90981464|NCT01416181|181846937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.096|||||||ANCOVA|p-value for comparison between active and placebo at Week 156 based on ANCOVA model, adjusted for BL EDSS (\<=5.5 or\>=6) and BL T25FW.||Overall: Week 156||||0.0960
90981465|NCT01416181|181846937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4957|||||||ANCOVA|p-value for comparison between active and placebo at Week 156 based on ANCOVA model, adjusted for BL EDSS (\<=5.5 or\>=6) and BL T25FW.||CP Group: Week 156||||0.4957
90949674|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.219||0.1899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.15|||MMRM|||Anxiety Psychic, Change at Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.15|-0.72|0.1899
90949675|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.213||0.8022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.37|||MMRM|||Anxiety Psychic, Change at Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.37|-0.48|0.8022
90949676|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.215||0.378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.24|||MMRM|||Anxiety Psychic, Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.24|-0.62|0.3780
90949677|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.36|||MMRM|||Anxiety Psychic, Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.36|-0.47|0.8110
90949678|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.272||0.8908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.5|||MMRM|||Anxiety Psychic, Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.50|-0.58|0.8908
90949679|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.263||0.3596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.76|||MMRM|||Anxiety Psychic, Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.76|-0.28|0.3596
90949680|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.293||0.7617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.49|||MMRM|||Anxiety Psychic, Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.49|-0.67|0.7617
90949681|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.281||0.5498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.39|||MMRM|||Anxiety Psychic, Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.39|-0.73|0.5498
90949682|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.235||0.2066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.17|||MMRM|||Anxiety Psychic, Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.17|-0.76|0.2066
90949683|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.2321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.18|||MMRM|||Anxiety Psychic, Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.18|-0.73|0.2321
90949684|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.191||0.5582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.27|||MMRM|||Anxiety Somatic, Change at Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.27|-0.49|0.5582
91039248|NCT00829764|181962819|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model containing factors for sequence of products, subjects within sequence, periods, and products was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|97.75||||||90.0|93.98|101.67|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||101.67|93.98|
91039249|NCT00829764|181962820|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model containing factors for sequence of products, subjects within sequence, periods, and products was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|98.46||||||90.0|94.78|102.28|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||102.28|94.78|
90981466|NCT01416181|181846937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2916|||||||ANCOVA|p-value for comparison between active and placebo at Week 156 based on ANCOVA model, adjusted for BL EDSS (\<=5.5 or\>=6) and BL T25FW.||NP Group: Week 156||||0.2916
90981467|NCT01416181|181846938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1119|||||||ANCOVA|p-value for comparison between active \& placebo groups at Week 156 based on ANCOVA model, adjusted for BL EDSS (≤5.5 or ≥6) \& BL 9HPT (dominant hand).||Overall, Week 156||||0.1119
90981468|NCT01416181|181846938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1129|||||||ANCOVA|p-value for comparison between active \& placebo groups at Week 156 based on ANCOVA model, adjusted for BL EDSS (≤5.5 or ≥6) \& BL 9HPT (dominant hand).||CP Group: Week 156||||0.1129
90981469|NCT01416181|181846938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2351|||||||ANCOVA|p-value for comparison between active \& placebo groups at Week 156 based on ANCOVA model, adjusted for BL EDSS (≤5.5 or ≥6) \& BL 9HPT (dominant hand).||NP Group: Week 156||||0.2351
90981470|NCT01416181|181846939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0261|||||||ANCOVA|p-value for comparison between active \& placebo groups at Week 156 based on ANCOVA model, adjusted for BL EDSS (≤5.5 or ≥6) \& BL 9HPT (dominant hand).||Overall: Week 156||||0.0261
90981471|NCT01416181|181846939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0585|||||||ANCOVA|p-value for comparison between active \& placebo groups at Week 156 based on ANCOVA model, adjusted for BL EDSS (≤5.5 or ≥6) \& BL 9HPT (dominant hand).||CP Group: Week 156||||0.0585
90981472|NCT01416181|181846939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6095|||||||ANCOVA|p-value for comparison between active \& placebo groups at Week 156 based on ANCOVA model, adjusted for BL EDSS (≤5.5 or ≥6) \& BL 9HPT (dominant hand).||NP Group: Week 156||||0.6095
90981473|NCT01416181|181846940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.723|||||||ANCOVA|p-value for comparison between active \& placebo groups at Week 156 based on ANCOVA, adjusted for BL EDSS (≤5.5 or ≥6) \& BL 9HPT (non-dominant hand).||Overall: Week 156||||0.7230
90981474|NCT01416181|181846940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8781|||||||ANCOVA|p-value for comparison between active \& placebo groups at Week 156 based on ANCOVA, adjusted for BL EDSS (≤5.5 or ≥6) \& BL 9HPT (non-dominant hand).||CP Group: Week 156||||0.8781
90981475|NCT01416181|181846940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2751|||||||ANCOVA|p-value for comparison between active \& placebo groups at Week 156 based on ANCOVA, adjusted for BL EDSS (≤5.5 or ≥6) \& BL 9HPT (non-dominant hand).||NP Group: Week 156||||0.2751
90981476|NCT01416181|181846941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5051|||||||ANCOVA|p-value for comparison between active \& placebo groups at Week 156 based on ANCOVA, adjusted for BL EDSS (≤5.5 or ≥6) \& BL 9HPT (non-dominant hand).||Overall: Week 156||||0.5051
90981477|NCT01416181|181846941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7283|||||||ANCOVA|p-value for comparison between active \& placebo groups at Week 156 based on ANCOVA, adjusted for BL EDSS (≤5.5 or ≥6) \& BL 9HPT (non-dominant hand).||CP Group: Week 156||||0.7283
90981478|NCT01416181|181846941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1666|||||||ANCOVA|p-value for comparison between active \& placebo groups at Week 156 based on ANCOVA, adjusted for BL EDSS (≤5.5 or ≥6) \& BL 9HPT (non-dominant hand).||NP Group: Week 156||||0.1666
90981479|NCT01416181|181846942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.433|||||||ANCOVA|p-value for comparison between active \& placebo groups at Week 156 based on ANCOVA, adjusted for BL EDSS (≤5.5 or ≥6).||Overall: Week 156||||0.4330
90981480|NCT01416181|181846942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7122|||||||ANCOVA|p-value for comparison between active \& placebo groups at Week 156 based on ANCOVA, adjusted for BL EDSS (≤5.5 or ≥6).||CP Group: Week 156||||0.7122
90981481|NCT01416181|181846942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3861|||||||ANCOVA|p-value for comparison between active \& placebo groups at Week 156 based on ANCOVA, adjusted for BL EDSS (≤5.5 or ≥6).||NP Group: Week 156||||0.3861
90981482|NCT01416181|181846943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7225|||||||ANCOVA|p-value for comparison between active \& placebo groups at Week 156 based on ANCOVA, adjusted for BL EDSS (≤5.5 or ≥6).||Overall: Week 156||||0.7225
90981483|NCT01416181|181846943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9121|||||||ANCOVA|p-value for comparison between active \& placebo groups at Week 156 based on ANCOVA, adjusted for BL EDSS (≤5.5 or ≥6).||CP Group: Week 156||||0.9121
90981484|NCT01416181|181846943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2594|||||||ANCOVA|p-value for comparison between active \& placebo groups at Week 156 based on ANCOVA, adjusted for BL EDSS (≤5.5 or ≥6).||NP Group: Week 156||||0.2594
90981485|NCT01416181|181846944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8066|||||||ANCOVA|p-value for comparison between active \& placebo groups at Week 156 based on ANCOVA model, adjusted for BL EDSS (≤5.5 or ≥6) \& BL 6MWT.||Week 156||||0.8066
90981486|NCT01416181|181846946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7084|||||||ANCOVA|p-value for comparison between active \& placebo at Week 156 based on ANCOVA model, adjusted for BL EDSS (≤5.5 or ≥6) \& BL MSIS-29 physical score.||||||0.7084
91078577|NCT01362244|182042983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.13||||0.484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.76|54.02|||repeated measures model||Week 25|||54.02|-25.76|0.484
91078578|NCT01362244|182042985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.16||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.49|35.83|||repeated measures model||Week 2|||35.83|6.49|0.005
91078579|NCT01362244|182042985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.89||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|32.01|||repeated measures model||Week 5|||32.01|1.77|0.029
91078580|NCT01362244|182042985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.2||||0.472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.64|27.03|||repeated measures model||Week 9|||27.03|-12.64|0.472
91078581|NCT01362244|182042985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.71||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.19|48.23|||repeated measures model||Week 13|||48.23|7.19|0.009
91078582|NCT01362244|182042985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.4||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|34.59|||repeated measures model||Week 17|||34.59|-3.80|0.114
91078583|NCT01362244|182042985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|29.51||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.06|52.96|||repeated measures model||Week 21|||52.96|6.06|0.014
91078584|NCT01362244|182042985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|26.65||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|50.21|||repeated measures model||Week 25|||50.21|3.10|0.027
91078585|NCT01362244|182042986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.79|||repeated measures model||MNS, Week 2|||0.79|-0.61|0.790
91078586|NCT01362244|182042986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.14||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.97|||repeated measures model||MNS, Week 5|||1.97|0.30|0.008
91078587|NCT01362244|182042986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.79||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|1.64|||repeated measures model||MNS, Week 9|||1.64|-0.05|0.066
90981487|NCT01416181|181846948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3465|||||||ANCOVA|p-value for comparison between active and placebo at Week 156 based on ANCOVA model, adjusted for BL EDSS (\<=5.5 or\>=6) and BL SDMT.||Week 156||||0.3465
90981488|NCT01416181|181846952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||||||natalizumab participants had a baseline after 6 months of treatment and the placebo-to-natalizumab group had a baseline of initiation of treatment|ANCOVA|p-value for comparison between active \& placebo at Week 156 based on ANCOVA model, adjusted for BL EDSS (≤5.5 or ≥6) \& BL normalized brain volume.||Percentage change from Week 24 to Week 156||||0.0070
90981489|NCT01416181|181846953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5034||||||natalizumab participants had a baseline after 6 months of treatment and the placebo-to-natalizumab group had a baseline of initiation of treatment|ANCOVA|p-value for comparison between active \& placebo at Week 156 based on ANCOVA model, adjusted for BL EDSS (≤5.5 or ≥6) \& BL WGM brain volume||Percentage hange from Baseline to Week 156||||0.5034
90981490|NCT01416181|181846954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||p-value for comparison between the active and placebo groups at Week 156 compared to Week 108 is based on negative binomial regression model, adjusted for baseline EDSS (\<=5.5 or \>=6) and baseline volume of T2 lesions.|negative binomial regression model|natalizumab participants had a baseline after 6 months of treatment and the placebo-to-natalizumab group had a baseline of initiation of treatment||Week 156||||< 0.0001
90981491|NCT00486902|181846961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Sample size was determined assuming an incidence of breakthrough pain of 75% and an absolute difference between groups of -20 to +15%. This rate of request for analgesia in the first 24 h was based on data from a parallel study utilizing the same multimodal postoperative pain regimen for cesarean delivery. Group sample sizes of 90 achieve 80% power to detect this difference using the two-sided Z test with pooled variance. The significance level of the test was targeted at 0.05.||||0.86
90981492|NCT00486902|181846962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.02
90981493|NCT00486902|181846963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.24
90981494|NCT00486902|181846964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.87
90981495|NCT00486902|181846965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.90
90981496|NCT00486902|181846966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.24
90981497|NCT00486902|181846967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
90981498|NCT00486902|181846968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.09|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||-0.09|-1.1|0.02
90981499|NCT04178590|181846974|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.429||||||p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.429
90981500|NCT04178590|181846975|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.000
90981501|NCT04178590|181846976|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.000
90981502|NCT04178590|181846977|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.000
90981503|NCT04178590|181846978|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.575||||||p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.575
90981504|NCT04178590|181846979|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.575||||||p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.575
90981505|NCT04178590|181846980|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.249||||||p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.249
90981506|NCT04178590|181846981|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.871||||||p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.871
90981507|NCT04178590|181846982|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.773||||||p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.773
90981508|NCT04178590|181846983|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.000
90981509|NCT04178590|181846984|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.05||||||0.000
90981510|NCT04178590|181846985|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.000
90981511|NCT04178590|181846986|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.063||||||p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.063
90981512|NCT04178590|181846987|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.000
90981513|NCT04178590|181846988|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.000
90981514|NCT04178590|181846989|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.000
90981515|NCT04178590|181846990|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.085||||||p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.085
90981516|NCT04178590|181846991|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.000
90981517|NCT04178590|181846992|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.000
90981518|NCT04178590|181846993|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.895||||||p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.895
90981519|NCT04178590|181846994|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999||||||p\<0.05|McNemar|||||||0.999
90981520|NCT04178590|181846995|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||p\<0.05|McNemar|||||||0.000
90981521|NCT04178590|181846996|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008||||||p\<0.05|McNemar|||||||0.008
90981522|NCT04178590|181846997|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5||||||p\<0.05|McNemar|||||||0.500
90981523|NCT04178590|181846998|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999||||||p\<0.05|McNemar|||||||0.999
90981524|NCT04178590|181846999|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||p\<0.05|McNemar|||||||0.000
90981525|NCT04178590|181847000|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4||||||p\<0.05|McNemar|||||||0.40
90981526|NCT04178590|181847001|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999|||||||McNemar|||||||0.999
90981527|NCT04178590|181847002|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999||||||p\<0.05|McNemar|||||||0.999
90981528|NCT04178590|181847003|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||p\<0.05|McNemar|||||||0.001
90981529|NCT04178590|181847004|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.453||||||p\<0.05|McNemar|||||||0.453
90981530|NCT04178590|181847005|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.625||||||p\<0.05|McNemar|||||||0.625
90981531|NCT04178590|181847006|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999|||||||McNemar|||||||0.999
90981532|NCT04178590|181847007|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||p\<0.05|McNemar|||||||0.000
90981533|NCT04178590|181847008|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||p\<0.05|McNemar|||||||0.001
90981534|NCT04178590|181847009|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.065||||||p\<0.05|McNemar|||||||0.065
90981535|NCT04178590|181847010|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.821||||||p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.821
90981536|NCT04178590|181847011|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.000
90981537|NCT04178590|181847012|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
90981538|NCT04178590|181847013|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.000
90981539|NCT04178590|181847014|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.000
90981540|NCT04178590|181847015|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.000
90981541|NCT04178590|181847016|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.000
90981542|NCT04178590|181847017|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.000
90981543|NCT04178590|181847018|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.671||||||p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.671
90981544|NCT04178590|181847019|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.000
90981545|NCT04178590|181847020|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.000
90981546|NCT04178590|181847021|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.000
90981547|NCT04178590|181847022|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.753||||||p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.753
90981548|NCT04178590|181847023|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.000
91039250|NCT03930849|181962825|OTHER||F-value for Type 3 Fixed, df=4|2.01||||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|P-value is for F-value reported below of group x time term in a mixed methods analysis.||||||0.10
90981549|NCT04178590|181847024|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.000
90981550|NCT04178590|181847025|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.000
90981551|NCT02513940|181847045|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.09
90981552|NCT02513940|181847046|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||"Pairwise comparisons:~Testosterone vs placebo: p=0.008 Progesterone vs placebo: p=0.73 Testosterone vs progesterone: p=0.0008"|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.001
90981553|NCT02513940|181847047|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.60
90981554|NCT02513940|181847048|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003||||||"Pairwise comparisons:~Testosterone vs placebo: p = 0.0001 Progesterone vs placebo: p = 0.25 Testosterone vs progesterone: p = 0.002"|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.0003
90981555|NCT02513940|181847049|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||Fatigue||||>0.99
90981556|NCT02513940|181847049|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||Rash at gel application site||||>0.99
90981557|NCT01485614|181847052|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means Difference|-0.19|||=|0.448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|"The Least Squares (LS) Mean for the arm Sitagliptin is compared against that of Placebo (pooled)."||||0.30|-0.68|= 0.448
90981558|NCT01485614|181847054|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|14.9||"Percentage of participants with ≥1 adverse event for the arm Sitagliptin was compared against that of Placebo/Metformin with Miettinen \& Nurminen."||||||14.9|-10.0|
90981559|NCT01485614|181847056|OTHER||Difference in percentage|4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|10.8||"Percentage of participants with ≥1 adverse event for the arm Sitagliptin was compared against that of Placebo/Metformin with Miettinen \& Nurminen."||||||10.8|-1.3|
90981560|NCT01485614|181847059|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|6.7|||=|0.374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|21.2||"Percentage of participants with an A1C goal (7.0%) in the arm Sitagliptin was compared against the arm Placebo (pooled)."|Miettinen and Nurminen||||For estimating the treatment difference, when the A1C result for a participant at Week 20 was not available, a multiple imputation method based on the Linear Discriminant Analysis (LDA) model was used to impute whether the participant had met the goal.|21.2|-8.1|= 0.374
90981561|NCT01485614|181847061|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|3.6|||=|0.639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|18.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen|"The percentage of participants with an A1C at the A1C goal (6.5%) in the arm Sitagliptin was compared against the arm Placebo (pooled)."|||For estimating the treatment difference, when the A1C result for a participant at Week 20 was not available, a multiple imputation method based on the LDA model was used to impute whether the participant had met the goal.|18.3|-11.6|= 0.639
90981562|NCT01485614|181847066|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means Difference|1.5|||=|0.849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|17.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|"The Least Squares (LS) Mean for the arm Sitagliptin was compared against that of Placebo (pooled)."||||17.5|-14.4|= 0.849
90981563|NCT00733902|181847142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|-0.14|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.14|-1.32|0.015
90981564|NCT00733902|181847142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|-0.25|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.25|-1.43|0.005
90981565|NCT00733902|181847142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|-0.61|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.61|-1.78|<0.001
90981566|NCT00733902|181847143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|-0.19|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.19|-1.32|0.009
90981567|NCT00733902|181847143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|-0.41|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.41|-1.54|<0.001
90981568|NCT00733902|181847143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.68|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.68|-1.80|<0.001
91039251|NCT03930849|181962826|SUPERIORITY||F statistic GroupxTime, df=4|0.025||||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|P-value is for F-value reported below of group x time analysis in a mixed methods analysis.||||||0.90
91039252|NCT03930849|181962827|SUPERIORITY||F Value Group x Time, DF=4|2.12||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value of F statistic reported below for mixed methods analysis group\*time interaction term.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.08
91078588|NCT01362244|182042986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.73||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|1.67|||repeated measures model||MNS, Week 13|||1.67|-0.21|0.127
90981569|NCT00733902|181847144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.13|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.13|-0.52|0.001
90981570|NCT00733902|181847144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.17|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.17|-0.56|<0.001
90981571|NCT00733902|181847144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.31|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.31|-0.70|<0.001
90981572|NCT00733902|181847145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.27|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.27|-0.80|0.326
90981573|NCT00733902|181847145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.83|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.83|-0.24|0.275
90981574|NCT00733902|181847145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.56|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.56|-0.51|0.918
90981575|NCT00733902|181847145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.40|-1.47|<0.001
90981576|NCT00733902|181847145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|-0.15|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.15|-1.22|0.013
90981577|NCT00733902|181847145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|-0.49|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.49|-1.57|<0.001
90981578|NCT00733902|181847145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|-0.28|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.28|-1.36|0.003
91078589|NCT01362244|182042986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38||||0.481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|1.46|||repeated measures model||MNS, Week 17|||1.46|-0.69|0.481
90890121|NCT01571362|181644085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.532||0.6008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.41|6.65||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Week 12/ET||6.65|-11.41|0.6008
90981579|NCT00733902|181847145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|-0.21|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.21|-1.29|0.006
90981580|NCT00733902|181847145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|-0.79|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.79|-1.87|<0.001
90981581|NCT00733902|181847145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|-0.53|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.53|-1.68|<0.001
90981582|NCT00733902|181847145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|-0.33|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.33|-1.48|0.002
90981583|NCT00733902|181847145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|-0.72|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.72|-1.87|<0.001
90981584|NCT00733902|181847145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|-0.08|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.08|-1.28|0.027
90981585|NCT00733902|181847145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.05|-1.15|0.071
90981586|NCT00733902|181847145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|-0.58|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.58|-1.78|<0.001
90981587|NCT00733902|181847146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.27|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.27|-0.80|0.326
90981588|NCT00733902|181847146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.83|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.83|-0.24|0.275
90981589|NCT00733902|181847146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.56|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.56|-0.51|0.918
91078590|NCT01362244|182042986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.65||||0.308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|1.9|||repeated measures model||MNS, Week 21|||1.90|-0.61|0.308
91039253|NCT02488109|181962828|OTHER|||||||0.42||||||Changes in rates of clinical remission by group over time in the mITT model.|Regression, Linear|Clinical remission was modeled as a nominal multinomial outcome (yes, no, or missing)||The study was powered to detect a difference in 12-months clinical remission rates between groups. N = 60 per arm with 85% retention would provide 80% power on a 2-sided 0.05-level test to detect a 20% difference between groups in 12-months clinical remission rates. A generalized linear mixed-effects regression model was used to compare study arms with respect to achievement and maintenance of clinical remission.||||0.42
91039254|NCT02488109|181962829|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.67||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.53||Survival analysis of time to medical stability by log-rank test, which does not assume proportional hazards. Those who did not reach medical stability before hospital discharge were censored; analyses accounted for the site effect by stratification.|Survival analysis with log rank test|Compared time to achieve medical stability by arm; participants who did not meet stability criteria by hospital discharge were right-censored||This trial was powered at 0.80 to detect a 12% to 20% difference in restored medical stability at 0.05 type I error and correlation between time points from 0.1 to 1.||2.53|1.10|0.01
91039255|NCT02488109|181962830|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|19.0||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Cost outcomes of group differences and 95% confidence intervals were estimated.||28,819|9,293|0.002
91078591|NCT01362244|182042986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.71||||0.233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|1.88|||repeated measures model||MNS, Week 25|||1.88|-0.46|0.233
91078592|NCT01362244|182042986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28||||0.444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|1.02|||repeated measures model||WNS, Week 2|||1.02|-0.45|0.444
90981590|NCT00733902|181847146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|-0.32|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.32|-1.39|0.002
90981591|NCT00733902|181847146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.00|-1.06|0.052
90981592|NCT00733902|181847146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.44|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.44|-1.50|<0.001
90981593|NCT00733902|181847146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|-0.21|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.21|-1.26|0.006
90981594|NCT00733902|181847146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.24|-1.28|0.004
90981595|NCT00733902|181847146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|-0.86|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.86|-1.91|<0.001
90981596|NCT00733902|181847146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.43|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.43|-1.50|<0.001
90981597|NCT00733902|181847146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.23|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.23|-1.30|0.005
90981598|NCT00733902|181847146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|-0.69|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.69|-1.75|<0.001
90981599|NCT00733902|181847146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.02|-1.07|0.061
90981600|NCT00733902|181847146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.10|-1.20|0.021
91078593|NCT01362244|182042986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.31||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.12|||repeated measures model||WNS, Week 5|||2.12|0.50|0.002
90981601|NCT00733902|181847146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|-0.76|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.76|-1.85|<0.001
90981602|NCT00733902|181847146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.16|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.16|-0.95|0.166
90981603|NCT00733902|181847146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.16|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 24: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.16|-0.95|0.167
91039256|NCT03969641|181962831|NON_INFERIORITY|This objective will be assessed using a one-sided noninferiority test with the alpha level set at 0.025 (1-sided) and a noninferiority margin of 10%.|Difference in Proportions (RIV4 - IIV4)|-0.0214|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|97.5||0.0406|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The upper bound of a Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used, stratified by site.|The directional comparison was the upper bound of the confidence interval using a 10% noninferiority margin.|The null hypothesis assumes that RIV4 is inferior (i.e., RIV4 will have a higher proportion) to IIV4 in regards to the proportion of pregnant women with adverse birth outcomes.||0.0406||<0.0001
90949685|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.186||0.2945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.17|||MMRM|||Anxiety Somatic, Change at Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.17|-0.56|0.2945
90949686|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.208||0.2684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.18|||MMRM|||Anxiety Somatic, Change at Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.18|-0.64|0.2684
90949687|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.202||0.9396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.39|||MMRM|||Anxiety Somatic, Change at Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.39|-0.42|0.9396
90949688|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.195||0.0283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.05|||MMRM|||Anxiety Somatic, Change at Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.05|-0.82|0.0283
90949689|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.189||0.1794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.12|||MMRM|||Anxiety Somatic, Change at Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.12|-0.63|0.1794
90949690|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.188||0.1091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.07|||MMRM|||Anxiety Somatic, Change at Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.07|-0.68|0.1091
90949691|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.182||0.7921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.31|||MMRM|||Anxiety Somatic, Change at Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.31|-0.41|0.7921
90981604|NCT00733902|181847146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|-0.64|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.64|-1.75|<0.001
90981605|NCT00733902|181847147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.02|-1.07|0.044
90981606|NCT00733902|181847147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.48|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.48|-0.57|0.875
90981607|NCT00733902|181847147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.12|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.12|-0.93|0.129
90981608|NCT00733902|181847147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|-0.45|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.45|-1.51|<0.001
90981609|NCT00733902|181847147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|-0.32|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.32|-1.38|0.002
90981610|NCT00733902|181847147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|-0.7|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.70|-1.76|<0.001
90981611|NCT00733902|181847147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.30|-1.35|0.002
90981612|NCT00733902|181847147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|-0.34|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.34|-1.39|0.001
90981613|NCT00733902|181847147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|-0.9|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.90|-1.94|<0.001
90981614|NCT00733902|181847147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.58|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.58|-1.70|<0.001
90981615|NCT00733902|181847147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|-0.45|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.45|-1.57|<0.001
90981616|NCT00733902|181847147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|-0.79|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.79|-1.91|<0.001
90981617|NCT00733902|181847147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.10|-1.26|0.021
90981618|NCT00733902|181847147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|-0.07|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.07|-1.22|0.029
90981619|NCT00733902|181847147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|-0.62|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.62|-1.78|<0.001
90981620|NCT00733902|181847148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.02|-1.07|0.044
90981621|NCT00733902|181847148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.48|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.48|-0.57|0.875
90981622|NCT00733902|181847148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.12|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.12|-0.93|0.129
90981623|NCT00733902|181847148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|-0.41|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.41|-1.46|<0.001
90981624|NCT00733902|181847148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||L Mean Difference|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.24|-1.28|0.004
90981625|NCT00733902|181847148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|-0.67|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.67|-1.71|<0.001
90981626|NCT00733902|181847148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.30|-1.33|0.002
90981627|NCT00733902|181847148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|-0.43|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.43|-1.46|<0.001
90981628|NCT00733902|181847148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|-1.02|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.02|-2.04|<0.001
90981629|NCT00733902|181847148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|-0.51|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.51|-1.56|<0.001
90981630|NCT00733902|181847148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|-0.46|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.46|-1.52|<0.001
90981631|NCT00733902|181847148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.85|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.85|-1.90|<0.001
90981632|NCT00733902|181847148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|-0.06|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.06|-1.12|0.030
90981633|NCT00733902|181847148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|-0.32|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.32|-1.39|0.002
91039257|NCT03969641|181962832|SUPERIORITY|This proportion was compared between the RIV4 group and the IIV4 group using an exact Mantel-Haenszel statistic (calculated in Proc Logistic in SAS) in a stratified analysis by site to control for the randomization blocks at the two-sided alpha 0.05 level. The site adjusted odds ratio and corresponding 95% confidence interval for the proportion of preterm birth was also calculated.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72||||0.4645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.48|||Mantel Haenszel|||Preterm birth||1.48|0.35|0.4645
90981634|NCT00733902|181847148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|-0.9|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.90|-1.96|<0.001
90981635|NCT00733902|181847148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.07|-1.03|0.085
91078594|NCT01362244|182042986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.68||||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|1.6|||repeated measures model||WNS, Week 9|||1.60|-0.24|0.143
90949692|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.166||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.14|||MMRM|||Anxiety Somatic, Change at Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.14|-0.80|0.0055
90949693|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.161||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.03|||MMRM|||Anxiety Somatic, Change at Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.03|-0.67|0.0300
90949694|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.185||0.0118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.11|||MMRM|||Anxiety Somatic, Change at Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.11|-0.84|0.0118
90949695|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.178||0.2266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.14|||MMRM|||Anxiety Somatic, Change at Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.14|-0.57|0.2266
90949696|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.181||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|-0.2|||MMRM|||Anxiety Somatic, Change at Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.20|-0.92|0.0025
90949697|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.176||0.0555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.01|||MMRM|||Anxiety Somatic, Change at Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.01|-0.69|0.0555
90949698|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.176||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|-0.23|||MMRM|||Anxiety Somatic, Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.23|-0.93|0.0013
90949699|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.171||0.0775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.03|||MMRM|||Anxiety Somatic, Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.03|-0.64|0.0775
90981636|NCT00733902|181847148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|-0.08|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.08|-1.18|0.026
90981637|NCT00733902|181847148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|-0.84|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.84|-1.94|<0.001
90949700|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.3|||MMRM|||Anxiety Somatic, Change at Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.30|-1.05|0.0006
90949701|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.185||0.0415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.01|||MMRM|||Anxiety Somatic, Change at Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.01|-0.75|0.0415
90949702|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.193||0.0581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.01|||MMRM|||Anxiety Somatic, Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.01|-0.75|0.0581
90949703|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.188||0.6826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.3|||MMRM|||Anxiety Somatic, Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.30|-0.45|0.6826
90949704|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.226||0.0912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.06|||MMRM|||Anxiety Somatic, Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.06|-0.83|0.0912
90949705|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.218||0.3988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.25|||MMRM|||Anxiety Somatic, Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.25|-0.62|0.3988
90949706|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.231||0.0504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.0|||MMRM|||Anxiety Somatic, Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.00|-0.91|0.0504
90949707|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.6019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.32|||MMRM|||Anxiety Somatic, Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.32|-0.55|0.6019
90949708|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.222||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.17|||MMRM|||Anxiety Somatic, Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.17|-1.05|0.0070
90949709|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.218||0.3785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.24|||MMRM|||Anxiety Somatic, Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.24|-0.62|0.3785
90949710|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.159||0.9609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.31|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms GI, Change at Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.31|-0.32|0.9609
90949711|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.154||0.9183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.29|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms GI, Change at Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.29|-0.32|0.9183
91078595|NCT01362244|182042986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.62||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|1.65|||repeated measures model||WNS, Week 13|||1.65|-0.42|0.240
91078596|NCT01362244|182042986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|1.35|||repeated measures model||WNS, Week 17|||1.35|-0.98|0.750
90981638|NCT00733902|181847151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|-0.14|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.14|-0.49|<0.001
90981639|NCT00733902|181847151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.11|-0.24|0.486
90981640|NCT00733902|181847151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.06|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.06|-0.42|0.008
90981641|NCT00733902|181847151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.26|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.26|-0.63|<0.001
91078597|NCT01362244|182042986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.64||||0.324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|1.91|||repeated measures model||WNS, Week 21|||1.91|-0.64|0.324
91078598|NCT01362244|182042986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44||||0.468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|1.66|||repeated measures model||WNS, Week 25|||1.66|-0.77|0.468
90949712|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.149||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.02|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms GI, Change at Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.02|-0.57|0.0710
90949713|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.143||0.2607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.12|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms GI, Change at Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.12|-0.45|0.2607
90949714|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.158||0.2466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.13|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms GI, Change at Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.13|-0.50|0.2466
90949715|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.153||0.3461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.16|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms GI, Change at Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.16|-0.45|0.3461
90949716|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.162||0.0919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.05|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms GI, Change at Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.05|-0.60|0.0919
90949717|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.157||0.7554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.26|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms GI, Change at Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.26|-0.36|0.7554
90949718|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.166||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.08|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms GI, Change at Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.08|-0.74|0.0150
90981642|NCT00733902|181847151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|-0.28|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.28|-0.64|<0.001
90981643|NCT00733902|181847151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.39|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.39|-0.76|<0.001
91078599|NCT01362244|182042987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mixed effects model|-13.2||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.2|-4.22|||ANCOVA|||||-4.22|-22.2|0.005
91078600|NCT01362244|182042988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.07||||||||0.07|-0.06|
91078601|NCT01362244|182042989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|12.68||||||||12.68|-1.33|
90981644|NCT00733902|181847151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.16|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.16|-0.53|<0.001
90981645|NCT00733902|181847151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.17|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.17|-0.54|<0.001
90981646|NCT00733902|181847151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.49|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.49|-0.85|<0.001
90981647|NCT00733902|181847151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.25|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.25|-0.63|<0.001
90981648|NCT00733902|181847151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.19|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.19|-0.57|<0.001
90981649|NCT00733902|181847151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.42|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.42|-0.80|<0.001
90981650|NCT00733902|181847151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.02|-0.42|0.035
90981651|NCT00733902|181847151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.04|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.04|-0.36|0.125
90981652|NCT00733902|181847151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|-0.18|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.18|-0.58|<0.001
90981653|NCT00733902|181847152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|-0.14|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.14|-0.49|<0.001
90981654|NCT00733902|181847152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.11|-0.24|0.486
90981655|NCT00733902|181847152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.06|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.06|-0.42|0.008
90981656|NCT00733902|181847152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|-0.28|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.28|-0.64|<0.001
90981657|NCT00733902|181847152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.26|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.26|-0.62|<0.001
90981658|NCT00733902|181847152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.39|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.39|-0.75|<0.001
90981659|NCT00733902|181847152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.16|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.16|-0.53|<0.001
90981660|NCT00733902|181847152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|-0.22|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.22|-0.58|<0.001
90981661|NCT00733902|181847152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.52|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.52|-0.89|<0.001
90981662|NCT00733902|181847152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.22|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.22|-0.59|<0.001
90981663|NCT00733902|181847152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.18|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.18|-0.55|<0.001
90981664|NCT00733902|181847152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.46|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.46|-0.83|<0.001
90981665|NCT00733902|181847152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.09|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.09|-0.47|0.004
90981666|NCT00733902|181847152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.17|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.17|-0.55|<0.001
90981667|NCT00733902|181847152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.39|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.39|-0.77|<0.001
90949719|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.0|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms GI, Change at Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.00|-0.64|0.0482
90981668|NCT00733902|181847152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.03|-0.37|0.090
90949720|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.163||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|-0.28|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms GI, Change at Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.28|-0.93|0.0003
90949721|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.156||0.1182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.06|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms GI, Change at Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.06|-0.56|0.1182
90949722|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.159||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.24|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms GI, Change at Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.24|-0.87|0.0008
90949723|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.154||0.1379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.08|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms GI, Change at Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.08|-0.54|0.1379
90949724|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.14|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms GI, Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.14|-0.71|0.0040
90949725|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.14|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms GI, Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.14|-0.42|0.3100
90949726|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.148||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.26|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms GI, Change at Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.26|-0.85|0.0003
90949727|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.143||0.0223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.05|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms GI, Change at Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.05|-0.61|0.0223
90949728|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.166||0.0276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.04|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms GI, Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.04|-0.70|0.0276
90949729|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.161||0.8516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.29|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms GI, Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.29|-0.35|0.8516
90949730|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.186||0.1669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.11|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms GI, Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.11|-0.63|0.1669
91039258|NCT03969641|181962833|SUPERIORITY|These proportions were compared between the RIV4 group and the IIV4 group using an exact Mantel-Haenszel statistic (calculated in Proc Logistic in SAS) in a stratified analysis by site to control for the randomization blocks at the two-sided alpha 0.05 level. The site adjusted odds ratio and corresponding 95% confidence interval for the proportions of combined fetal death and neonatal death was also calculated.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.00000031||||0.2447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0||The upper limit of this CI is infinity, thus no numeric value can be provided.||Mantel Haenszel|||Fetal or neonatal death|||0.00|0.2447
90981669|NCT00733902|181847152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.00|-0.39|0.053
90981670|NCT00733902|181847152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.30|-0.70|<0.001
90981671|NCT03617926|181847174|SUPERIORITY|In case superiority is not proven, non-inferiority is tested. As non-inferiority margin (δ), a 7.5% worse cure rate is regarded as clinically not relevant. The following null hypothesis will be used: H0, NI: pT-pR \< δ, whereby δ = -7.5%. The lower, 95% confidence interval of the difference pT-pR will be used for the test. If H0, NI will be rejected, non-inferiority cannot be shown.||||||0.023||||||A priori treshold p value of 0.05 for statistical significance was set prior to study start.|Chi-squared|||"Efficacy analyses is performed on the ITT population (all subjects who were included and randomized in the study, with available baseline value of the primary endpoint and at least one follow-up visit). All statistical tests are performed at a 5% level of significance. The aim of this analysis is to show superiority for the cure rate of the test product versus a predefined limit of 70%. The following null hypothesis will be tested: H0, prim: pT - pR = 0 and Ha: pT - pR \> 15%~I"||||0.023
90981672|NCT02015819|181847223|OTHER||||||||||||||||||MFD was determined to be 1.5x10\^8 in combination with oral 5-FC 37.5 mg/kg and leucovorin 25 mg every 6 hours for 7 days.|||
90981673|NCT01075087|181847238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-5.5||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-26.0|3.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||3|-26|.05
90981674|NCT01486264|181847240|NON_INFERIORITY|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model adjusted for the baseline TWSTRS Severity subscale score, was used to test the non-inferiority of Short Flex versus Long Flex treatment. Non-inferiority margin delta equal to (=) 2 points.|Least Square (LS) Mean difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|0.1||||||||0.1|-2.9|
90981675|NCT03584009|181847253|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.96||||0.7286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.86|12.94||P-value is based on Stratified Analysis (Stratified by BCL2 status (High vs Low) and Lines of Therapy (2 vs 1)).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||12.94|-16.86|0.7286
90981676|NCT03584009|181847254|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.7853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.45||P-value is based on Stratified Analysis (Stratified by BCL2 status (High vs Low) and Lines of Therapy (2 vs 1)).|Regression, Cox|||||1.45|0.61|0.7853
91039259|NCT03969641|181962834|SUPERIORITY|This proportion was compared between the RIV4 group and the IIV4 group using an exact Mantel-Haenszel statistic in a stratified analysis by site to control for the randomization blocks at the two-sided alpha 0.05 level. The site adjusted odds ratio and corresponding 95% confidence interval for the proportion of spontaneous abortion after vaccination was also calculated. This was a subgroup analysis of only those participants vaccinated at less than 20 weeks gestational age.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5||||0.6235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|5.47|||Mantel Haenszel|||Spontaneous abortion||5.47|0.04|0.6235
90949731|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.4935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.23|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms GI, Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.23|-0.48|0.4935
90949732|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.197||0.0202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|-0.07|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms GI, Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.07|-0.86|0.0202
90949733|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.188||0.2683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.16|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms GI, Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.16|-0.58|0.2683
90949734|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.165||0.0531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.0|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms GI, Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.00|-0.65|0.0531
90949735|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.5609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.22|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms GI, Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.22|-0.41|0.5609
90949736|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.123||0.6779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.19|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms General, Change at Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.19|-0.30|0.6779
90949737|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.119||0.4559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.32|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms General, Change at Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.32|-0.15|0.4559
90949738|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.133||0.2254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.1|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms General, Change at Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.10|-0.43|0.2254
90949739|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129||0.6437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.2|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms General, Change at Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.20|-0.32|0.6437
90981677|NCT03584009|181847255|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.96||||0.5978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.29|8.37||P-value is based on Stratified Analysis (Stratified by BCL2 status (High vs Low) and Lines of Therapy (2 vs 1)).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||8.37|-12.29|0.5978
90981678|NCT03584009|181847257|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.87||||0.0403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|3.43||P-value is based on Stratified Analysis (Stratified by BCL2 status (High vs Low) and Lines of Therapy (2 vs 1)).|Log Rank||Hazard ratios were estimated by Cox regression.|||3.43|1.02|0.0403
90949740|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.133||0.6678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.21|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms General, Change at Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.21|-0.32|0.6678
90981679|NCT04112914|181847262|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27||||0.021|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.021
90981680|NCT04112914|181847263|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.638|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.638
90981681|NCT04112914|181847264|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77||||0.338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|5.72|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.72|0.55|0.338
90981682|NCT04112914|181847265|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.606|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.606
90981683|NCT04112914|181847266|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.508|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.508
90981684|NCT04112914|181847267|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45||||0.042|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.042
90949741|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129||0.9321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.24|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms General, Change at Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.24|-0.27|0.9321
90949742|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.157||0.9778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.32|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms General, Change at Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.32|-0.31|0.9778
90949743|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.152||0.9307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.31|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms General, Change at Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.31|-0.29|0.9307
90949744|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.172||0.6791|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.27|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms General, Change at Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.27|-0.41|0.6791
90981685|NCT04112914|181847268|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16||||0.128|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.128
90981686|NCT00768560|181847269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.69||||||90.0|-12.62|-6.77|||||40 mg BID minus 40 mg OD|The point estimate and 90% confidence interval of the difference of changes in SBP from baseline was estimated by using the analysis of variance (ANOVA) model including the terms: group, subject within a group, dosage and administration and stage as fixed effects.||-6.77|-12.62|
90981687|NCT00768560|181847269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||||90.0|-2.87|2.98|||||80 mg OD minus 40 mg OD|The point estimate and 90% confidence interval of the difference of changes in SBP from baseline was estimated by using the ANOVA model including the terms: group, subject within a group, dosage and administration and stage as fixed effects.||2.98|-2.87|
90981688|NCT00768560|181847269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.75||||||90.0|6.83|12.67|||||80 mg OD minus 40 mg BID|The point estimate and 90% confidence interval of the difference of changes in SBP from baseline was estimated by using the ANOVA model including the terms: group, subject within a group, dosage and administration and stage as fixed effects.||12.67|6.83|
90981689|NCT00768560|181847269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.97||||||90.0|-5.5|-2.44|||||40 mg BID minus 40 mg OD|The point estimate and 90% confidence interval of the difference of changes in DBP from baseline was estimated by using the ANOVA model including the terms: group, subject within a group, dosage and administration and stage as fixed effects.||-2.44|-5.50|
90981690|NCT00768560|181847269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68||||||90.0|-2.21|0.85|||||80 mg OD minus 40 mg OD|The point estimate and 90% confidence interval of the difference of changes in DBP from baseline was estimated by using the ANOVA model including the terms: group, subject within a group, dosage and administration and stage as fixed effects.||0.85|-2.21|
90981691|NCT00768560|181847269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.29||||||90.0|1.76|4.82|||||80 mg OD minus 40 mg BID|The point estimate and 90% confidence interval of the difference of changes in DBP from baseline was estimated by using the ANOVA model including the terms: group, subject within a group, dosage and administration and stage as fixed effects.||4.82|1.76|
90981692|NCT02039947|181847281|SUPERIORITY||Response rate|59.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.3|70.4|||percent||Percent|||70.4|47.3|<.0001
90949745|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.167||0.7769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.38|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms General, Change at Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.38|-0.28|0.7769
90949746|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.163||0.7206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.26|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms General, Change at Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.26|-0.38|0.7206
90949747|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.156||0.3549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.16|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms General, Change at Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.16|-0.45|0.3549
90949748|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.164||0.0231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.05|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms General, Change at Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.05|-0.70|0.0231
90949749|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.159||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.08|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms General, Change at Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.08|-0.55|0.1450
90949750|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.162||0.0855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.04|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms General, Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.04|-0.60|0.0855
90949751|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.157||0.3068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.15|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms General, Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.15|-0.47|0.3068
90949752|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.164||0.0069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.13|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms General, Change at Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.13|-0.77|0.0069
90949753|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.159||0.2174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.12|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms General, Change at Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.12|-0.51|0.2174
90981693|NCT01772134|181847289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.147|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.107|0.187|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.187|0.107|<0.001
90981694|NCT01772134|181847289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.138|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.097|0.178|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.178|0.097|<0.001
90949754|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.174||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.06|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms General, Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.06|-0.63|0.1020
90949755|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.9587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.35|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms General, Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.35|-0.33|0.9587
90949756|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.203||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.12|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms General, Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.12|-0.69|0.1690
90949757|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.197||0.7919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.44|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms General, Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.44|-0.34|0.7919
90949758|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.205||0.0192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.08|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms General, Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.08|-0.89|0.0192
90949759|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.196||0.3887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.22|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms General, Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.22|-0.56|0.3887
90949760|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.189||0.0719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.03|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms General, Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.03|-0.72|0.0719
90949761|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.185||0.1195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.08|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms General, Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.08|-0.66|0.1195
90949762|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.079||0.9552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.15|||MMRM|||Genital Symptoms, Change at Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.15|-0.16|0.9552
90949763|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.076||0.0384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|-0.01|||MMRM|||Genital Symptoms, Change at Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.01|-0.31|0.0384
90949764|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.097||0.2582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.08|||MMRM|||Genital Symptoms, Change at Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.08|-0.30|0.2582
91007845|NCT02096471|181899924|SUPERIORITY|Single Group Study. Change in Quality of Life from Baseline amongst those with a Tumor Response.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.46||0.72|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Descriptive Analysis Only||Single Group Change from Baseline||||0.72
90949765|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094||0.1511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.05|||MMRM|||Genital Symptoms, Change at Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.05|-0.32|0.1511
90949766|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.126||0.4631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.16|||MMRM|||Genital Symptoms, Change at Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.16|-0.34|0.4631
90949767|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.123||0.4628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.15|||MMRM|||Genital Symptoms, Change at Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.15|-0.33|0.4628
90949768|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.9005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.2|||MMRM|||Genital Symptoms, Change at Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.20|-0.23|0.9005
90949769|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.107||0.1121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.04|||MMRM|||Genital Symptoms, Change at Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.04|-0.38|0.1121
90949770|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145||0.4167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.17|||MMRM|||Genital Symptoms, Change at Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.17|-0.40|0.4167
90949771|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141||0.4071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.16|||MMRM|||Genital Symptoms, Change at Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.16|-0.40|0.4071
90949772|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.1278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.07|||MMRM|||Genital Symptoms, Change at Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.07|-0.53|0.1278
90949773|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145||0.0573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.01|||MMRM|||Genital Symptoms, Change at Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.01|-0.57|0.0573
90949774|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.156||0.4842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.2|||MMRM|||Genital Symptoms, Change at Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.20|-0.42|0.4842
90949775|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.152||0.0692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.02|||MMRM|||Genital Symptoms, Change at Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.02|-0.58|0.0692
90949776|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.157||0.4028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.18|||MMRM|||Genital Symptoms, Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.18|-0.44|0.4028
91007846|NCT02096471|181899924|SUPERIORITY|Single Group Study. Change in Quality of Life from Baseline amongst those with a Tumor Response.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.74||0.36|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Descriptive Analysis Only||Single Group Change from Baseline||||0.36
90981695|NCT01740362|181847302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|137.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.77|194.69||||||1 way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) on natural log-transformed AUC(0-∞) analyzed using linear model with degrees of renal impairment(creatinine clearance\[CLcr, discrete\]) evaluated using blood samples collected at screening as fixed effect. Statistical Analysis System (SAS) mixed procedure (PROC MIXED) was used. Anti-log of adjusted mean difference (CP-690,550\[mild renal insufficiency\] - CP-690,550\[normal renal function\]), 90% confidence interval (CI) were taken to estimate mean ratio and 90% CI.||194.69|96.77|
90981696|NCT01740362|181847302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|142.59|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.53|202.24||||||One way ANOVA on natural log-transformed AUC (0 - ∞) were analyzed using linear model containing degrees of renal impairment (CLcr, discrete) calculated using blood samples collected at screening as fixed effects. SAS procedure PROC MIXED was used for analysis. Anti-log of the adjusted mean difference (CP-690,550 \[moderate renal insufficiency\] - CP-690,550 \[normal renal function\]) and its corresponding 90% CI were taken to estimate the mean ratio and corresponding 90% CI.||202.24|100.53|
90981697|NCT01740362|181847302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|222.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|157.02|315.89||||||One way ANOVA on natural log-transformed AUC (0 - ∞) were analyzed using linear model containing degrees of renal impairment (CLcr, discrete) calculated using blood samples collected at screening as fixed effects. SAS procedure PROC MIXED was used for analysis. Anti-log of the adjusted mean difference (CP-690,550 \[severe renal insufficiency\] - CP-690,550 \[normal renal function\]) and its corresponding 90% CI were taken to estimate the mean ratio and corresponding 90% CI.||315.89|157.02|
90981698|NCT01740362|181847303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|93.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|67.22|129.06||||||One way ANOVA on natural log-transformed Cmax were analyzed using linear model containing degrees of renal impairment (CLcr, discrete) calculated using blood samples collected at screening as fixed effects. SAS procedure PROC MIXED was used for analysis. Anti-log of the adjusted mean difference (CP-690,550 \[mild renal insufficiency\] - CP-690,550 \[normal renal function\]) and its corresponding 90% CI were taken to estimate the mean ratio and corresponding 90% CI.||129.06|67.22|
90981699|NCT01740362|181847303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|104.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.18|144.34||||||One way ANOVA on natural log-transformed Cmax were analyzed using linear model containing degrees of renal impairment (CLcr, discrete) calculated using blood samples collected at screening as fixed effects. SAS procedure PROC MIXED was used for analysis. Anti-log of the adjusted mean difference (CP-690,550 \[moderate renal insufficiency\] - CP-690,550 \[normal renal function\]) and its corresponding 90% CI were taken to estimate the mean ratio and corresponding 90% CI.||144.34|75.18|
90981700|NCT01740362|181847303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|117.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|84.91|163.02||||||One way ANOVA on natural log-transformed Cmax were analyzed using linear model containing degrees of renal impairment (CLcr, discrete) calculated using blood samples collected at screening as fixed effects. SAS procedure PROC MIXED was used for analysis. Anti-log of the adjusted mean difference (CP-690,550 \[severe renal insufficiency\] - CP-690,550 \[normal renal function\]) and its corresponding 90% CI were taken to estimate the mean ratio and corresponding 90% CI.||163.02|84.91|
90981701|NCT00636818|181847315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint minus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90981702|NCT00636818|181847316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint minus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90981703|NCT00636818|181847317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint minus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90981704|NCT00636818|181847318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint minus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.013
90981705|NCT00636818|181847319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint minus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.005
90981706|NCT00636818|181847320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||P-value for Word Test: Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint minus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.005
90981707|NCT00636818|181847320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||P-value for Color Test: Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint minus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.005
90981708|NCT00636818|181847320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.144||95.0||||P-value for Color-Word Test: Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint minus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.144
90981709|NCT00636818|181847321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.791||95.0||||P-value for Physical Component Summary: Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint minus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.791
90981710|NCT00636818|181847321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Mental Component Summary: Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint minus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90981711|NCT00636818|181847321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.037||95.0||||P-value for Physical Functioning: Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint minus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.037
90981712|NCT00636818|181847321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.446||95.0||||P-value for Role-Physical: Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint minus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.446
90981713|NCT00636818|181847321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.365||95.0||||P-value for Bodily Pain: Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint minus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.365
90981714|NCT00636818|181847321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.087||95.0||||P-value for General Health Perception: Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint minus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.087
90981715|NCT00636818|181847321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.043||95.0||||P-value for Vitality: Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint minus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.043
90981716|NCT00636818|181847321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.086||95.0||||P-value for Social Functioning: Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint minus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.086
90949777|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.154||0.0354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.02|||MMRM|||Genital Symptoms, Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.02|-0.63|0.0354
90949778|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.156||0.1228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.07|||MMRM|||Genital Symptoms, Change at Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.07|-0.55|0.1228
90949779|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.152||0.0099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.1|||MMRM|||Genital Symptoms, Change at Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.10|-0.70|0.0099
90949780|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.164||0.2174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.12|||MMRM|||Genital Symptoms, Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.12|-0.53|0.2174
90949781|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.161||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.04|||MMRM|||Genital Symptoms, Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.04|-0.60|0.0820
91039260|NCT03969641|181962835|SUPERIORITY|These proportions will be compared between the RIV4 group and the IIV4 group, within symptom, using an exact Mantel-Haenszel statistic (calculated in Proc Logistic in SAS) in a stratified analysis by site to control for the randomization blocks at the two-sided alpha 0.05 level.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.7029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|2.5|||Mantel Haenszel|||Injection Site Pain||2.50|0.55|0.7029
91039261|NCT03969641|181962835|SUPERIORITY|These proportions will be compared between the RIV4 group and the IIV4 group, within symptom, using an exact Mantel-Haenszel statistic (calculated in Proc Logistic in SAS) in a stratified analysis by site to control for the randomization blocks at the two-sided alpha 0.05 level.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.03||||0.6217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|22.52|||Mantel Haenszel|||Injection Site Redness||22.52|0.18|0.6217
91039262|NCT03969641|181962835|SUPERIORITY|These proportions will be compared between the RIV4 group and the IIV4 group, within symptom, using an exact Mantel-Haenszel statistic (calculated in Proc Logistic in SAS) in a stratified analysis by site to control for the randomization blocks at the two-sided alpha 0.05 level.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.3848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.39|||Mantel Haenszel|||Injection Site Tenderness||1.39|0.35|0.3848
91039263|NCT03969641|181962835|SUPERIORITY|These proportions will be compared between the RIV4 group and the IIV4 group, within symptom, using an exact Mantel-Haenszel statistic (calculated in Proc Logistic in SAS) in a stratified analysis by site to control for the randomization blocks at the two-sided alpha 0.05 level.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.53||||0.2504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.35|||Mantel Haenszel|||Nausea||1.35|0.21|0.2504
91039264|NCT03969641|181962835|SUPERIORITY|These proportions will be compared between the RIV4 group and the IIV4 group, within symptom, using an exact Mantel-Haenszel statistic (calculated in Proc Logistic in SAS) in a stratified analysis by site to control for the randomization blocks at the two-sided alpha 0.05 level.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.62||||0.5751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.93|||Mantel Haenszel|||Vomiting||1.93|0.20|0.5751
91039265|NCT03969641|181962835|SUPERIORITY|These proportions will be compared between the RIV4 group and the IIV4 group, within symptom, using an exact Mantel-Haenszel statistic (calculated in Proc Logistic in SAS) in a stratified analysis by site to control for the randomization blocks at the two-sided alpha 0.05 level.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|3.19|||Mantel Haenszel|||Diarrhea||3.19|0.32|1.0000
91039266|NCT03969641|181962835|SUPERIORITY|These proportions will be compared between the RIV4 group and the IIV4 group, within symptom, using an exact Mantel-Haenszel statistic (calculated in Proc Logistic in SAS) in a stratified analysis by site to control for the randomization blocks at the two-sided alpha 0.05 level.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|3.04|||Mantel Haenszel|||Abdominal Pain||3.04|0.21|1.0000
91039267|NCT03969641|181962835|SUPERIORITY|These proportions will be compared between the RIV4 group and the IIV4 group, within symptom, using an exact Mantel-Haenszel statistic (calculated in Proc Logistic in SAS) in a stratified analysis by site to control for the randomization blocks at the two-sided alpha 0.05 level.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.53||||0.1326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.13|||Mantel Haenszel|||Headache||1.13|0.25|0.1326
91039268|NCT03969641|181962835|SUPERIORITY|These proportions will be compared between the RIV4 group and the IIV4 group, within symptom, using an exact Mantel-Haenszel statistic (calculated in Proc Logistic in SAS) in a stratified analysis by site to control for the randomization blocks at the two-sided alpha 0.05 level.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|5.04|||Mantel Haenszel|||Chills/Shivering||5.04|0.20|1.0000
90949782|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.194||0.2642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.17|||MMRM|||Genital Symptoms, Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.17|-0.60|0.2642
91039269|NCT03969641|181962835|SUPERIORITY|These proportions will be compared between the RIV4 group and the IIV4 group, within symptom, using an exact Mantel-Haenszel statistic (calculated in Proc Logistic in SAS) in a stratified analysis by site to control for the randomization blocks at the two-sided alpha 0.05 level.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0||The upper limit of this CI is infinity, thus no numeric value can be provided.||Mantel Haenszel|||Body Rash|||0.00|1.0000
91039270|NCT03969641|181962835|SUPERIORITY|These proportions will be compared between the RIV4 group and the IIV4 group, within symptom, using an exact Mantel-Haenszel statistic (calculated in Proc Logistic in SAS) in a stratified analysis by site to control for the randomization blocks at the two-sided alpha 0.05 level.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|2.15|||Mantel Haenszel|||Malaise (Fatigue)||2.15|0.39|1.0000
91039271|NCT03969641|181962835|SUPERIORITY|These proportions will be compared between the RIV4 group and the IIV4 group, within symptom, using an exact Mantel-Haenszel statistic (calculated in Proc Logistic in SAS) in a stratified analysis by site to control for the randomization blocks at the two-sided alpha 0.05 level.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|2.48|||Mantel Haenszel|||Myalgia (Body Aches)||2.48|0.31|1.0000
91039272|NCT03969641|181962835|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71||||0.7704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|2.29|||Mantel Haenszel|||Joint Pain||2.29|0.22|0.7704
90981717|NCT00636818|181847321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0||||P-value for Role-Emotional: Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint minus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.010
91039273|NCT02906813|181962863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) Mean Ratio|0.631||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.411|0.969|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on natural logarithms of TAK-935 Cmax with fixed factors of sequence, period and regimen, and random factor of participant nested within sequence. Pairwise comparisons was used to assess relative bioavailability (BA) of TAK-935 tablet to solution. Point estimate and 90 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) in original scale were obtained by exponentiation of differences in natural-log scale.||0.969|0.411|0.079
91039274|NCT02906813|181962863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Ratio|0.403||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.262|0.618|||ANOVA|||ANOVA was performed on natural logarithms of TAK-935 Cmax with fixed factors of sequence, period, and regimen and random factor of participant nested within sequence. Pairwise comparisons was used to assess relative BA of TAK-935 administered after high-fat meal versus fasted. Point estimate and its 90% confidence interval in original scale were obtained by exponentiation of differences in natural-log scale.||0.618|0.262|0.002
90981718|NCT00636818|181847321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Mental Health: Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint minus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90981719|NCT03192904|181847331|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.004
90981720|NCT00397150|181847362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Prevalence ratio|2.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|3.92||||||||3.92|1.33|
90981721|NCT00397150|181847367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Prevalence ratio|1.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|2.11||||||||2.11|1.70|
90981722|NCT00397150|181847368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Prevalence ratio|1.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|2.63||||||||2.63|1.12|
90981723|NCT01126580|181847370|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A non-inferiority margin of 0.4% was used.|LS Mean Difference|-0.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.08||The p-value is adjusted for multiplicity using a tree-gatekeeping strategy. To determine significance, the p-value is compared to the family-wise 1-sided Type I error of 0.025. The confidence interval is not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||The study was designed with 90% power to detect non-inferiority of 1.5 mg LY2189265 vs Metformin on HbA1c change from baseline at the 26-week primary endpoint with a margin of 0.4%, a standard deviation of 1.3%, and a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 assuming no true difference between treatments. This corresponds to 223 participants per arm, with an assumed drop-out rate of 11%.||-0.08|-0.36|<0.001
90981724|NCT01126580|181847370|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A non-inferiority margin of 0.4% was used.|LS Mean Difference|-0.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|-0.01||The p-value is adjusted for multiplicity using a tree-gatekeeping strategy. To determine significance, the p-value is compared to the family-wise 1-sided Type I error of 0.025. The confidence interval is not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||-0.01|-0.29|<0.001
90981725|NCT01126580|181847370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.22||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.08||Tree gatekeeping strategy to control the family-wise Type I error rate was applied.|ANCOVA|||Superiority analysis.||-0.08|-0.36|0.002
90981726|NCT01126580|181847370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.15||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|-0.01||Tree gatekeeping strategy to control the family-wise Type I error rate was applied.|ANCOVA|||Superiority analysis.||-0.01|-0.29|0.020
90981727|NCT01126580|181847371|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A non-inferiority margin of 0.4% was used.|LS Mean Difference|-0.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.02||The p-value is adjusted for multiplicity using a tree-gatekeeping strategy. To determine significance, the p-value is compared to the family-wise 1-sided Type I error of 0.025. The confidence interval is not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||-0.02|-0.35|<0.001
90981728|NCT01126580|181847371|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A non-inferiority margin of 0.4% was used.|LS Mean Difference|-0.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.12||The p-value is adjusted for multiplicity using a tree-gatekeeping strategy. To determine significance, the p-value is compared to the family-wise 1-sided Type I error of 0.025. The confidence interval is not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||0.12|-0.20|<0.001
90981729|NCT01126580|181847371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.19||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.02||Tree gatekeeping strategy to control the family-wise Type I error rate was applied.|ANCOVA|||Superiority analysis.||-0.02|-0.35|0.024
90981730|NCT01126580|181847371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.04||||0.299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.12||Tree gatekeeping strategy to control the family-wise Type I error rate was applied.|ANCOVA|||Superiority analysis.||0.12|-0.20|0.299
90981731|NCT01126580|181847372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023||||||Treatment comparison for HbA1c less than 7.0% at 26 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.023
90981732|NCT01126580|181847372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021||||||Treatment comparison for HbA1c less than 7.0% at 26 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.021
90981733|NCT01126580|181847372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison for HbA1c less than or equal to 6.5% at 26 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
90981734|NCT01126580|181847372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011||||||Treatment comparison for HbA1c less than or equal to 6.5% at 26 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.011
90981735|NCT01126580|181847372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||||||Treatment comparison for HbA1c less than 7% at 52 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.001
90981736|NCT01126580|181847372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.269||||||Treatment comparison for HbA1c less than 7% at 52 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.269
90981737|NCT01126580|181847372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison for HbA1c less than or equal to 6.5% at 52 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
90981738|NCT01126580|181847372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.134||||||Treatment comparison for HbA1c less than or equal to 6.5% at 52 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.134
90981739|NCT01126580|181847373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.079||||||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.079
90981740|NCT01126580|181847373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.451||||||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.451
90981741|NCT01126580|181847373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025||||||Treatment comparison at 52 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.025
90981742|NCT01126580|181847373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.402||||||Treatment comparison at 52 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.402
90949783|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.189||0.0718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.03|||MMRM|||Genital Symptoms, Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.03|-0.72|0.0718
90949784|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.212||0.3055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.2|||MMRM|||Genital Symptoms, Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.20|-0.64|0.3055
90949785|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.202||0.3533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.21|||MMRM|||Genital Symptoms, Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.21|-0.59|0.3533
90949786|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.193||0.4514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.24|||MMRM|||Genital Symptoms, Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.24|-0.53|0.4514
90949787|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.191||0.4907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.25|||MMRM|||Genital Symptoms, Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.25|-0.51|0.4907
90949788|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.151||0.6949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.24|||MMRM|||Hypochondriasis, Change at Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.24|-0.36|0.6949
90949789|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.147||0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.18|||MMRM|||Hypochondriasis, Change at Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.18|-0.40|0.4670
90949790|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.6556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.25|||MMRM|||Hypochondriasis, Change at Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.25|-0.39|0.6556
90949791|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.156||0.9272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.29|||MMRM|||Hypochondriasis, Change at Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.29|-0.32|0.9272
90949792|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.164||0.1395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.08|||MMRM|||Hypochondriasis, Change at Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.08|-0.57|0.1395
90981743|NCT01126580|181847374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.061||||||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.061
90981744|NCT01126580|181847374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.647||||||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.647
90981745|NCT01126580|181847374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022||||||Treatment comparison at 52 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.022
90981746|NCT01126580|181847374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.469||||||Treatment comparison at 52 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.469
90949793|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.159||0.2601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.14|||MMRM|||Hypochondriasis, Change at Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.14|-0.50|0.2601
90949794|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.158||0.5626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.22|||MMRM|||Hypochondriasis, Change at Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.22|-0.40|0.5626
90949795|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.153||0.4622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.19|||MMRM|||Hypochondriasis, Change at Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.19|-0.42|0.4622
90981747|NCT01126580|181847375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.811||||||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.811
90981748|NCT01126580|181847375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||||||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.003
90949796|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.151||0.2858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.14|||MMRM|||Hypochondriasis, Change at Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.14|-0.46|0.2858
90949797|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.146||0.5369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.2|||MMRM|||Hypochondriasis, Change at Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.20|-0.38|0.5369
90981749|NCT01126580|181847375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44||||||Treatment comparison at 52 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.440
90981750|NCT01126580|181847375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||||||Treatment comparison at 52 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.001
90981751|NCT01126580|181847376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75||||||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.750
90981752|NCT01126580|181847376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||||||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.003
90981753|NCT01126580|181847376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.412||||||Treatment comparison at 52 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.412
90981754|NCT01126580|181847376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||||||Treatment comparison at 52 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.001
91039275|NCT02906813|181962864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Ratio|0.85||||0.146|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.706|1.024|||ANOVA|||ANOVA was performed on natural logarithms of TAK-935 AUCt with fixed factors of sequence, period, and regimen and random factor of participant nested within sequence. Pairwise comparisons was used to assess relative BA of TAK-935 tablet to solution. Point estimate and 90% CI in original scale were obtained by exponentiation of differences in natural-log scale.||1.024|0.706|0.146
90981755|NCT01126580|181847377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison of HOMA2-%B at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
90981756|NCT01126580|181847377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison of HOMA2-%B at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
90981757|NCT01126580|181847377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison of HOMA2-%B at 52 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
90981758|NCT01126580|181847377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||||||Treatment comparison of HOMA2-%B at 52 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.003
90981759|NCT01126580|181847377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||||||Treatment comparison of HOMA2-%S at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.001
90981760|NCT01126580|181847377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||||||Treatment comparison of HOMA2-%S at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.010
90981761|NCT01126580|181847377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.077||||||Treatment comparison of HOMA2-%S at 52 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.077
90981762|NCT01126580|181847377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||||||Treatment comparison of HOMA2-%S at 52 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.004
90981763|NCT03040154|181847408|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.67||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|5.35|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.35|1.33|0.006
90981764|NCT02382133|181847410|SUPERIORITY|comparing nasal and forehead oximetry sensor pressure ulcer incidence|||||=|0.006|||||||Chi-squared|||||||=.006
90981765|NCT04321343|181847412|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.313|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.587||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.1036|-6.5227|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model using a multiple imputation procedure based on the fully conditional specification method.|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in Least Squares (LS) Means estimated in the ANCOVA model.|||-6.5227|-44.1036|0.0083
90981766|NCT04321343|181847412|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.287||0.0237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.2074|-2.7991|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model using a multiple imputation procedure based on the fully conditional specification method.|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in Least Squares (LS) Means estimated in the ANCOVA model.|||-2.7991|-39.2074|0.0237
90981767|NCT04321343|181847412|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.748|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.053||0.0087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.4923|-6.0035|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model using a multiple imputation procedure based on the fully conditional specification method.|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in Least Squares (LS) Means estimated in the ANCOVA model.|||-6.0035|-41.4923|0.0087
90981768|NCT04321343|181847413|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann midpoint estimate|-26.226|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.252||0.0105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.3208|-6.1313|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Non-parametric pairwaise Wilcoxon tests using a multiple imputation procedure based on the fully conditional specification method.||||-6.1313|-46.3208|0.0105
90981769|NCT04321343|181847413|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann midpoint estimate|-21.496|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.873||0.0295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.8475|-2.1451|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Non-parametric pairwaise Wilcoxon tests using a multiple imputation procedure based on the fully conditional specification method.||||-2.1451|-40.8475|0.0295
90949798|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.08|||MMRM|||Hypochondriasis, Change at Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.08|-0.52|0.1510
90949799|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.146||0.5107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.19|||MMRM|||Hypochondriasis, Change at Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.19|-0.38|0.5107
90949800|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.151||0.3301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.15|||MMRM|||Hypochondriasis, Change at Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.15|-0.45|0.3301
90949801|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.147||0.5139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.19|||MMRM|||Hypochondriasis, Change at Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.19|-0.39|0.5139
90949802|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.144||0.4073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.17|||MMRM|||Hypochondriasis, Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.17|-0.40|0.4073
90981770|NCT04321343|181847413|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann midpoint estimate|-24.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.746||0.0127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.392|-5.1884|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Non-parametric pairwaise Wilcoxon tests using a multiple imputation procedure based on the fully conditional specification method.||||-5.1884|-43.3920|0.0127
90981771|NCT04321343|181847414|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.671|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.824||0.0105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2463|-1.0957|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model using a multiple imputation procedure based on the fully conditional specification method.|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in Least Squares (LS) Means estimated in the ANCOVA model.|||-1.0957|-8.2463|0.0105
90981772|NCT04321343|181847414|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.097|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.743||0.0188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.514|-0.6799|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model using a multiple imputation procedure based on the fully conditional specification method.|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in Least Squares (LS) Means estimated in the ANCOVA model.|||-0.6799|-7.5140|0.0188
90981773|NCT04321343|181847414|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.321|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.689||0.0105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6307|-1.0104|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model using a multiple imputation procedure based on the fully conditional specification method.|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in Least Squares (LS) Means estimated in the ANCOVA model.|||-1.0104|-7.6307|0.0105
90981774|NCT04321343|181847415|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.61||||0.1634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.677|10.087|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH with multiple imputation||||10.087|0.677|0.1634
90981775|NCT04321343|181847415|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.26||||0.0722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.899|11.831|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH with multiple imputation||||11.831|0.899|0.0722
90981776|NCT04321343|181847415|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.17||||0.0703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.909|11.052|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH with multiple imputation||||11.052|0.909|0.0703
90981777|NCT04321343|181847416|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.2||0.4318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.66|9.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||9.72|-22.66|0.4318
90981778|NCT04321343|181847416|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.0||0.8382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.37|14.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||14.10|-17.37|0.8382
90981779|NCT04321343|181847416|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.7||0.4982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.92|20.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||20.33|-9.92|0.4982
90981780|NCT04321343|181847417|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72||||0.7137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.131|3.935|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.935|0.131|0.7137
90981781|NCT04321343|181847417|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.7||||0.0597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.937|14.58|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||14.580|0.937|0.0597
90949803|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.4649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.17|||MMRM|||Hypochondriasis, Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.17|-0.38|0.4649
90981782|NCT04321343|181847417|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.61||||0.1749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.655|10.43|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.430|0.655|0.1749
90981783|NCT04321343|181847418|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.8||0.7449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.15|14.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||14.43|-20.15|0.7449
90981784|NCT04321343|181847418|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.6||0.7255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.93|13.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||13.90|-19.93|0.7255
90949804|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141||0.6926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.22|||MMRM|||Hypochondriasis, Change at Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.22|-0.34|0.6926
90949805|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.32|||MMRM|||Hypochondriasis, Change at Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.32|-0.22|0.7260
90949806|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136||0.1486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.07|||MMRM|||Hypochondriasis, Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.07|-0.47|0.1486
90949807|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.133||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.17|||MMRM|||Hypochondriasis, Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.17|-0.36|0.4800
90949808|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.177||0.7792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.3|||MMRM|||Hypochondriasis, Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.30|-0.40|0.7792
90949809|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.171||0.8644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.37|||MMRM|||Hypochondriasis, Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.37|-0.31|0.8644
90949810|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.158||0.7994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.35|||MMRM|||Hypochondriasis, Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.35|-0.27|0.7994
90949811|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.152||0.0811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.57|||MMRM|||Hypochondriasis, Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.57|-0.03|0.0811
90949812|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.144||0.6978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.23|||MMRM|||Hypochondriasis, Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.23|-0.34|0.6978
90949813|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141||0.9749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.28|||MMRM|||Hypochondriasis, Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.28|-0.28|0.9749
90949814|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.081||0.3158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.24|||MMRM|||Loss of Weight, Change at Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.24|-0.08|0.3158
90981785|NCT04321343|181847418|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.2||0.7755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.89|18.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||18.59|-13.89|0.7755
90981786|NCT04321343|181847419|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.12||||0.1325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.703|13.806|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||13.806|0.703|0.1325
90981787|NCT04321343|181847419|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.9918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.201|4.898|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.898|0.201|0.9918
90981788|NCT04321343|181847419|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.78||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.053|21.714|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.714|1.053|0.0410
90981789|NCT04321343|181847420|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.3||0.4413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.25|12.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||12.36|-28.25|0.4413
90981790|NCT04321343|181847420|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.2||0.0859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.63|2.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||2.50|-37.63|0.0859
90981791|NCT04321343|181847420|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.0||0.7887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.31|16.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||16.97|-22.31|0.7887
90981792|NCT04321343|181847421|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7||0.1166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.19|1.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||1.47|-13.19|0.1166
90981793|NCT04321343|181847421|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.26|-3.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||-3.80|-18.26|0.0030
90981794|NCT04321343|181847421|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5||0.0131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.79|-1.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||-1.87|-15.79|0.0131
90981795|NCT04321343|181847422|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.013|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.481||0.4963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9701|1.9436|||Regression, Linear||Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the linear regression.|||1.9436|-3.9701|0.4963
90981796|NCT04321343|181847422|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.712|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.402||0.6131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5109|2.0866|||Regression, Linear||Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the linear regression.|||2.0866|-3.5109|0.6131
90981797|NCT04321343|181847422|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.441|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.362||0.2939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1593|1.2779|||Regression, Linear||Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the linear regression.|||1.2779|-4.1593|0.2939
90981798|NCT04321343|181847423|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.063|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.211||0.7672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4845|0.3589|||Regression, Linear||Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the linear regression.|||0.3589|-0.4845|0.7672
90981799|NCT04321343|181847423|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.127|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.198||0.5233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5216|0.2678|||Regression, Linear||Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the linear regression.|||0.2678|-0.5216|0.5233
90981800|NCT04321343|181847423|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.279|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.1263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6376|0.0805|||Regression, Linear||Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the linear regression.|||0.0805|-0.6376|0.1263
90981801|NCT04321343|181847424|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.028|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.165||0.8662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3559|0.3002|||Regression, Linear||Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the linear regression.|||0.3002|-0.3559|0.8662
90981802|NCT04321343|181847424|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.094|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.166||0.5726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4253|0.2369|||Regression, Linear||Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the linear regression.|||0.2369|-0.4253|0.5726
90981803|NCT04321343|181847424|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.186|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.153||0.2289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4907|0.1192|||Regression, Linear||Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the linear regression.|||0.1192|-0.4907|0.2289
90981804|NCT04321343|181847425|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.254||0.8595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5509|0.4607|||Regression, Linear||Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the linear regression.|||0.4607|-0.5509|0.8595
90981805|NCT04321343|181847425|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.222|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.3776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7194|0.2759|||Regression, Linear||Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the linear regression.|||0.2759|-0.7194|0.3776
90981806|NCT04321343|181847425|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.232||0.0424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9426|0.017|||Regression, Linear||Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the linear regression.|||0.0170|-0.9426|0.0424
90981807|NCT04321343|181847426|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.31||||0.1084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.775|14.152|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||14.152|0.775|0.1084
90981808|NCT04321343|181847426|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.11||||0.0562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.959|17.594|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||17.594|0.959|0.0562
90981809|NCT04321343|181847426|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.87||||0.3333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.501|6.948|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||6.948|0.501|0.3333
90981810|NCT04321343|181847427|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.7677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.345|4.23|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.230|0.345|0.7677
90981811|NCT04321343|181847427|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.62||||0.4828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.434|6.012|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||6.012|0.434|0.4828
90981812|NCT04321343|181847427|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.97||||0.2711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.598|6.486|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||6.486|0.598|0.2711
90981813|NCT04321343|181847428|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.5981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.376|5.547|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.547|0.376|0.5981
90981814|NCT04321343|181847428|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.6228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.363|5.572|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.572|0.363|0.6228
90981815|NCT04321343|181847428|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.8799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.245|3.323|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.323|0.245|0.8799
90981816|NCT04321343|181847429|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.28||||0.1474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.625|17.208|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||17.208|0.625|0.1474
90981817|NCT04321343|181847429|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.65||||0.262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.481|14.631|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||14.631|0.481|0.2620
90949815|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.079||0.1901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.26|||MMRM|||Loss of Weight, Change at Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.26|-0.05|0.1901
90949816|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.073||0.7229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.17|||MMRM|||Loss of Weight, Change at Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.17|-0.12|0.7229
90949817|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.071||0.2715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.22|||MMRM|||Loss of Weight, Change at Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.22|-0.06|0.2715
90949818|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.086||0.5421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.22|||MMRM|||Loss of Weight, Change at Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.22|-0.12|0.5421
90949819|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.083||0.7215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.19|||MMRM|||Loss of Weight, Change at Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.19|-0.14|0.7215
90981818|NCT04321343|181847429|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.6935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.117|4.133|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.133|0.117|0.6935
90981819|NCT04321343|181847430|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.6384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.215|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||0.215|-0.350|0.6384
90981820|NCT04321343|181847430|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.547|0.006|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||0.006|-0.547|0.0549
90981821|NCT04321343|181847430|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.683|-0.142|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||-0.142|-0.683|0.0030
90981822|NCT04321343|181847431|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.051|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.389||0.8961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8165|0.7149|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||0.7149|-0.8165|0.8961
90981823|NCT04321343|181847431|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.163|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.384||0.671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5935|0.9204|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||0.9204|-0.5935|0.6710
90981824|NCT04321343|181847431|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.364||0.9846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7092|0.7233|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||0.7233|-0.7092|0.9846
90981825|NCT04321343|181847432|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-84.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|36.75||0.0216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-157.306|-12.558|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||-12.558|-157.306|0.0216
90981826|NCT04321343|181847432|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-46.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|35.72||0.1931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-116.957|23.738|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||23.738|-116.957|0.1931
90981827|NCT04321343|181847432|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-63.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|33.31||0.0581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-129.002|2.194|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||2.194|-129.002|0.0581
90981828|NCT04321343|181847433|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.256|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.153||0.0958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5577|0.0456|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Models Analysis|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||0.0456|-0.5577|0.0958
90981829|NCT04321343|181847433|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.273|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.148||0.0659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5648|0.0181|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||0.0181|-0.5648|0.0659
90981830|NCT04321343|181847433|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.301|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.138||0.0297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5728|-0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||-0.0300|-0.5728|0.0297
90981831|NCT04321343|181847434|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.197|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.175||0.2606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5423|0.1476|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||0.1476|-0.5423|0.2606
90981832|NCT04321343|181847434|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.234|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.1709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.569|0.1016|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||0.1016|-0.5690|0.1709
90981833|NCT04321343|181847434|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.321|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.155||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6274|-0.0148|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||-0.0148|-0.6274|0.0400
90981834|NCT04321343|181847435|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.3955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0139|0.0351|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||0.0351|-0.0139|0.3955
90981835|NCT04321343|181847435|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.3081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0115|0.0362|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||0.0362|-0.0115|0.3081
91039276|NCT02906813|181962864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Ratio|0.889||||0.281|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.738|1.07|||ANOVA|||ANOVA was performed on natural logarithms of TAK-935 AUCt with factors of sequence, period, and regimen and random factor of participant nested within sequence. Pairwise comparisons was used to assess relative BA of TAK-935 administered after high-fat meal versus fasted. Point estimate and its 90% CI in original scale were obtained by exponentiation of differences in natural-log scale.||1.070|0.738|0.281
90949820|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.098||0.2246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.31|||MMRM|||Loss of Weight, Change at Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.31|-0.07|0.2246
90949821|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.096||0.9671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.19|||MMRM|||Loss of Weight, Change at Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.19|-0.19|0.9671
90949822|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121||0.6527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.19|||MMRM|||Loss of Weight, Change at Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.19|-0.29|0.6527
90949823|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.118||0.1647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.07|||MMRM|||Loss of Weight, Change at Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.07|-0.40|0.1647
90949824|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.7093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.26|||MMRM|||Loss of Weight, Change at Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.26|-0.18|0.7093
90949825|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.107||0.6333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.16|||MMRM|||Loss of Weight, Change at Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.16|-0.26|0.6333
90949826|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.5238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.16|||MMRM|||Loss of Weight, Change at Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.16|-0.31|0.5238
90949827|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.117||0.0782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.02|||MMRM|||Loss of Weight, Change at Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.02|-0.44|0.0782
90981836|NCT04321343|181847435|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011||0.1374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0053|0.0383|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||0.0383|-0.0053|0.1374
90981837|NCT04321343|181847436|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-48.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.86||0.0199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-90.073|-7.817|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||-7.817|-90.073|0.0199
90981838|NCT04321343|181847436|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.66||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.558|7.009|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||7.009|-66.558|0.1120
90981839|NCT04321343|181847436|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-54.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.9||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-89.935|-19.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||-19.340|-89.935|0.0026
90949828|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.138||0.2346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.11|||MMRM|||Loss of Weight, Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.11|-0.44|0.2346
90949829|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.134||0.0631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.01|||MMRM|||Loss of Weight, Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.01|-0.52|0.0631
90981840|NCT04321343|181847437|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.674|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.896||0.0639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.098|3.447|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||3.4470|-0.0980|0.0639
90981841|NCT04321343|181847437|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.831|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.867||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1149|4.5464|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||4.5464|1.1149|0.0014
90981842|NCT04321343|181847437|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.876|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.848|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1982|6.5543|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||6.5543|3.1982|<0.0001
90981843|NCT04321343|181847438|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.183|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.909||0.1944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.608|2.9748|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||2.9748|-0.6080|0.1944
90981844|NCT04321343|181847438|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.459|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.879||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7268|4.1907|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||4.1907|0.7268|0.0056
90981845|NCT04321343|181847438|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.858||0.4288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0111|2.372|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||2.3720|-1.0111|0.4288
90981846|NCT04321343|181847439|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.251|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.093||0.2564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4307|0.9295|||Regression, Linear||Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the linear regression.|||0.9295|-3.4307|0.2564
90981847|NCT04321343|181847439|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.598|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.021||0.1222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6348|0.4392|||Regression, Linear||Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the linear regression.|||0.4392|-3.6348|0.1222
90981848|NCT04321343|181847439|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.936||0.0206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.088|-0.351|||Regression, Linear||Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the linear regression.|||-0.3510|-4.0880|0.0206
90981849|NCT04321343|181847440|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.5221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.436|5.201|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.201|0.436|0.5221
90981850|NCT04321343|181847440|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.62||||0.4828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.434|6.012|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||6.012|0.434|0.4828
90949830|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.131||0.6274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.2|||MMRM|||Loss of Weight, Change at Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.20|-0.32|0.6274
90981851|NCT04321343|181847440|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.87||||0.0914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.853|9.636|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||9.636|0.853|0.0914
90981852|NCT04321343|181847441|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.71||||0.1854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.628|11.679|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||11.679|0.628|0.1854
90981853|NCT04321343|181847441|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.11||||0.0562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.959|17.594|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||17.594|0.959|0.0562
90981854|NCT04321343|181847441|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53||||0.5223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.398|5.88|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.880|0.398|0.5223
90981855|NCT04321343|181847442|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.891||0.7532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4749|2.0356|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||2.0356|-1.4749|0.7532
90981856|NCT04321343|181847442|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.985|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.858||0.0216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2946|3.6763|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||3.6763|0.2946|0.0216
90981857|NCT04321343|181847442|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.224|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.838||0.7893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4283|1.8771|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||1.8771|-1.4283|0.7893
90981858|NCT03430310|181847443|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.05
90981859|NCT03972488|181847444|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.276|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.182|0.418|||Log Rank|Stratified one-sided P-value||||0.418|0.182|<0.0001
90981860|NCT03972488|181847445|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Odds Ratio|7.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.32|18.4|||Stratified One-sided p-value|||||18.40|3.32|<0.0001
90981861|NCT03972488|181847446|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.856||||0.2222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.283|||Log Rank|Stratified one-sided P-value||Global Health Status||1.283|0.570|0.2222
90981862|NCT01167712|181847455|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.06||||||Estimated hazard of first progression or death for weekly paclitaxel treatment relative to standard 3 week paclitaxel.||1.06|.74|
90981863|NCT01167712|181847456|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.23||||||||1.23|.72|
91039277|NCT02906813|181962865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Ratio|0.842||||0.191|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.676|1.05|||ANOVA|||ANOVA was performed on natural logarithms of TAK-935 AUC∞ with fixed factors of sequence, period, and regimen and random factor of participant nested within sequence. Pairwise comparisons was used to assess relative BA of TAK-935 tablet to solution. Point estimate and 90% CI in original scale were obtained by exponentiation of differences in natural-log scale.||1.050|0.676|0.191
90981864|NCT03063385|181847538|OTHER|\[Not specified\]|Slope|0.0153|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0067||0.0229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0022|0.0285||Statistical significance taken at the 0.05 level|GEE modeling|P-value \& estimate rely on group x time interaction effect on primary outcome when controlling for self-efficacy. Used modified Baron \& Kenny method|\[Not specified\]|The intervention effect of sexual risk communication (primary outcome in parents) controlling for self-efficacy as a mediator from baseline through 12 months was examined using longitudinal general estimating equations (GEE) modeling, with the Health promotion control condition as the reference category and adjusting for baseline sexual risk communication and average monthly income.||0.0285|0.0022|.0229
90981865|NCT03063385|181847538|OTHER|\[Not specified\]|Slope|0.0151|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0067||0.0249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0019|0.0282||Statistical significance taken at the 0.05 level|GEE modeling|P-value and estimate rely on group x time interaction effect on primary outcome when controlling for sexual communication attitudes. Same method B\&K|\[Not specified\]|The intervention effect of sexual risk communication (primary outcome in parents) controlling for sexual communication attitudes as a mediator from baseline through 12 months was examined using longitudinal general estimating equations (GEE) modeling, with the Health promotion control condition as the reference category and adjusting for baseline sexual risk communication and average monthly income.||0.0282|0.0019|0.0249
90981866|NCT03063385|181847538|OTHER|\[Not specified\]|Slope|0.0158|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0068||0.0204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0025|0.0292||Statistical significance taken at the 0.05 level|GEE modeling|Reported P-value and estimate rely on the group x time interaction effect on primary outcome when controlling for subjective norms. Same method B\&K|\[Not specified\]|The intervention effect of sexual risk communication (primary outcome in parents) controlling for subjective norms as a mediator from baseline through 12 months was examined using longitudinal general estimating equations (GEE) modeling, with the Health promotion control condition as the reference category and adjusting for baseline sexual risk communication and average monthly income.||0.0292|0.0025|0.0204
90981867|NCT00914628|181847574|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8974|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.8974
90981868|NCT00914628|181847574|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7612|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||DFS- Intention-To-Treat population- from baseline to day 21||||0.7612
90981869|NCT00914628|181847574|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5995|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.5995
90981870|NCT00914628|181847574|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4078|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||DFS- Intention-To-Treat population - day 21 after transplant||||0.4078
90981871|NCT00914628|181847574|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3351|||||||Log Rank|||DFS- Per-Protocol Set||||0.3351
90981872|NCT00914628|181847574|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1233|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||DFS- Per-Protocol Set||||0.1233
91039278|NCT02906813|181962865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Ratio|0.894||||0.355||90.0|0.726|1.1|||ANOVA|||ANOVA was performed on natural logarithms of TAK-935 AUC∞ with factors of sequence, period, and regimen and random factor of participant nested within sequence. Pairwise comparisons was used to assess relative BA of TAK-935 administered after high-fat meal versus fasted. Point estimate and its 90% CI in original scale were obtained by exponentiation of differences in natural-log scale.||1.100|0.726|0.355
91039279|NCT02466087|181962876|OTHER||diiference in differences|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||
91039280|NCT01630616|181962939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Adolescents/adults)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.62|1.26||||||||1.26|0.62|
91039281|NCT01630616|181962940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Adolescents/Adults)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.62|1.23||||||||1.23|0.62|
91039282|NCT01630616|181962941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Adolescents/Adults)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.57|1.16||||||||1.16|0.57|
91039283|NCT00506831|181963016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis is that the mRSS is not significantly different at month 6 compared with baseline. Paired t-test was used to compare the mean mRSS at month 6 compared with baseline.||||0.005
91039284|NCT01410227|181963028|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The null hypothesis of the rate of subjects with a treatment success of \<= 0.65 (H0: p \<= 0.65) versus an alternative hypothesis of \> 0.65 (HA: p \> 0.65) was tested at the 5% one-sided level of significance. The proportion of subjects with treatment success under the alternative hypothesis was expected to be approximately 0.90. If 20 subjects were treated, the study provided 86% power to reject the null hypothesis.|Clopper-Pearson|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.7|100.0|||Clopper-Pearson|||||100|84.7|
91039285|NCT00095784|181963102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|5 degrees of freedom test over six time points: day 1 (pre-treatment) and days 5, 12, 43, 47, and 54 post treatment.||Mixed effects regression analysis of change over time in CD34+ cell levels. Analysis performed on log scale.||||<0.0001
90981873|NCT00914628|181847574|EQUIVALENCE|||||||0.5995|||||||Log Rank|||DFS- Per-Protocol Set DFS-day 21 after transplant||||0.5995
90981874|NCT00914628|181847574|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4078|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||DFS- Per-Protocol Set DFS-day 21 after transplant||||0.4078
90981875|NCT00914628|181847575|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.766|||||||Log Rank|Statistical analysis was performed on Intention-To-Treat population.||||||0.7660
91039286|NCT00095784|181963108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.29|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|5 degrees of freedom test over six time points: day 1 (pre-treatment) and days 5, 12, 43, 47, and 54 post treatment.||Mixed effects regression analysis of change over time in CXCR4 levels. Analysis performed on log scale.||||0.29
90981876|NCT00914628|181847575|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6706|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Statistical analysis has been performed for Intention-To-Treat population.||||0.6706
90981877|NCT00914628|181847575|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7332|||||||Log Rank|||Statistical analysis has been performed for Per-Protocol Set)||||0.7332
90981878|NCT00914628|181847575|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6439|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Statistical analysis has been performed for Per-Protocol Set)||||0.6439
90981879|NCT00914628|181847576|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1735|||||||Chi-squared|||This Statistical analysis refers to Immune reconstitution and was performed by Gray's Test for Equality of Cumulative Incidence Functions for intention-To-Treat population||||0.1735
90981880|NCT00914628|181847576|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5958|||||||Chi-squared|||This Statistical analysis refers to deaths without previous immune reconstitution, relapse or progression and was performed by Gray's Test for Equality of Cumulative Incidence Functions for intention-To-Treat population||||0.5958
90981881|NCT00914628|181847576|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2889|||||||Chi-squared|||This Statistical Analysis refers to patients with relapse or progression without previous immune reconstitution and was performed Gray's Test for Equality of Cumulative Incidence Functions||||0.2889
90981882|NCT00914628|181847576|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1642|||||||Chi-squared|||This Statistical analysis refers to Immune reconstitution and was performed by Gray's Test for Equality of Cumulative Incidence Functions for Per-Protocol Set.||||0.1642
90981883|NCT00914628|181847576|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8739|||||||Log Rank|||This Statistical analysis refers to deaths without previous immune reconstitution, relapse or progression and was performed by Gray's Test for Equality of Cumulative Incidence Functions for intention-To-Treat population||||0.8739
90981884|NCT00914628|181847576|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2304|||||||Chi-squared|||This Statistical Analysis refers to patients with relapse or progression without previous immune reconstitution and was performed Gray's Test for Equality of Cumulative Incidence Functions||||0.2304
90981885|NCT00914628|181847581|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3526|||||||Chi-squared|||This Statistical Analysis refers to ITT Patients with relapse or progression and was performed with Gray's Test for Equality of Cumulative Incidence Functions||||0.3526
90981886|NCT00914628|181847581|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4035|||||||Chi-squared|||this Gray's Statistical Analysis refers to ITT Deaths patients without previous relapse or progression and was performed with Test for Equality of Cumulative Incidence Functions||||0.4035
90981887|NCT00914628|181847581|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2607|||||||Chi-squared|||this Gray's Statistical Analysis refers to PPS patients with relapse or progression and was performed with Test for Equality of Cumulative Incidence Functions||||0.2607
90981888|NCT00914628|181847581|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5929|||||||Chi-squared|||this Gray's Statistical Analysis refers to PPS Deaths patients without previous relapse or progression and was performed with Test for Equality of Cumulative Incidence Function||||0.5929
90981889|NCT00914628|181847585|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4035|||||||Chi-squared|||This Statistical Analysis refers to ITT Deaths without previous relapse or progression and was performed with Gray's Test for Equality of Cumulative Incidence Functions||||0.4035
90981890|NCT00914628|181847585|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3526|||||||Chi-squared|||This statistical test refers to Patients with relapse or progression and was performed to Gray's Test for Equality of Cumulative Incidence Functions.||||0.3526
90981891|NCT00914628|181847585|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5929|||||||Chi-squared|||This Statistical Analysis refers to PPS Deaths without previous relapse or progression and was performed with Gray's Test for Equality of Cumulative Incidence Functions||||0.5929
90981892|NCT00914628|181847585|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2607|||||||Chi-squared|||This statistical test refers to Patients with relapse or progression and was performed to Gray's Test for Equality of Cumulative Incidence Functions.||||0.2607
90981893|NCT01756157|181847586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean difference|-0.61||||0.0523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|0.01|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||||0.01|-1.23|0.0523
90981894|NCT02799381|181847596|SUPERIORITY|The likelihood-based mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of the change from baseline to Week 12 used all observed data. The model included fixed, categorical effects for treatment, country, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, with continuous fixed covariates for baseline score and the baseline score-by-visit interaction.|LS Mean Difference|-15.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.47|-8.63||Two-sided p-value|Mixed-effects model repeated measures||Levodopa-Carbidopa Intestinal Gel (LCIG) - Optimized Medical Treatment (OMT) at Week 12|||-8.63|-21.47|<0.0001
90981895|NCT02799381|181847597|SUPERIORITY|The likelihood-based mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of the change from baseline to Week 12 used all observed data. The model included fixed, categorical effects for treatment, country, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, with continuous fixed covariates for baseline score and the baseline score-by-visit interaction.|LS Mean Difference|3.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.71|4.83||Two-sided p-value|Mixed-effects model repeated measures||Levodopa-Carbidopa Intestinal Gel (LCIG) - Optimized Medical Treatment (OMT) at Week 12|If the primary efficacy variable was statistically significant, each of the secondary variables were to be tested using a fixed sequence as a gatekeeping procedure and at α level of 0.050. Testing was to cease at the point that a secondary variable failed to demonstrate statistical significance.||4.83|1.71|<0.0001
90949831|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.128||0.3589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.14|||MMRM|||Loss of Weight, Change at Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.14|-0.37|0.3589
90949832|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.187||0.7604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.31|||MMRM|||Loss of Weight, Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.31|-0.43|0.7604
90949833|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.185||0.1106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.07|||MMRM|||Loss of Weight, Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.07|-0.66|0.1106
90949834|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.222||0.9776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.45|||MMRM|||Loss of Weight, Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.45|-0.43|0.9776
90949835|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.217||0.3239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.22|||MMRM|||Loss of Weight, Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.22|-0.65|0.3239
90949836|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.238||0.6736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.37|||MMRM|||Loss of Weight, Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.37|-0.57|0.6736
90949837|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.231||0.6136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.34|||MMRM|||Loss of Weight, Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.34|-0.58|0.6136
90949838|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.195||0.1141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.08|||MMRM|||Loss of Weight, Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.08|-0.70|0.1141
91007847|NCT02096471|181899924|SUPERIORITY|Single Group Study. Change in Quality of Life from Baseline amongst those with a Tumor Response.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.37||0.98|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Descriptive Analysis Only||Single Group Change from Baseline||||0.98
91007848|NCT02096471|181899924|SUPERIORITY|Single Group Study. change in Quality of Life from Baseline amongst those with a Tumor Response.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.99||0.93|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Descriptive Analysis Only||Single Group Change from Baseline||||0.93
91007849|NCT02096471|181899924|SUPERIORITY|Single Group Study. Change in Quality of Life from Baseline amongst those with a Tumor Response.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.16||0.19|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Descriptive Analysis Only||Single Group Change from Baseline||||0.19
91007850|NCT02096471|181899924|SUPERIORITY|Single Group Study. Change in Quality of Life from Baseline amongst those with a Tumor Response.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.58||0.57|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Descriptive Analysis Only||Single Group Change from Baseline||||0.57
91007851|NCT02096471|181899924|SUPERIORITY|Single Group Study. Change in Quality of Life from Baseline amongst those with a Tumor Response.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.51||0.45|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Descriptive Analysis Only||Single Group Change from Baseline||||0.45
91007852|NCT02096471|181899924|SUPERIORITY|Single Group Study. Change in Quality of Life from Baseline amongst those with a Tumor Response.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.72||0.28|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Descriptive Analysis Only||Single Group Change from Baseline||||0.28
90949839|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.194||0.2185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.14|||MMRM|||Loss of Weight, Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.14|-0.62|0.2185
90949840|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054||0.6191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.13|||MMRM|||Insight, Change at Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.13|-0.08|0.6191
90949841|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053||0.6169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.13|||MMRM|||Insight, Change at Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.13|-0.08|0.6169
90949842|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054||0.9911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.11|||MMRM|||Insight, Change at Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.11|-0.11|0.9911
90949843|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053||0.336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.15|||MMRM|||Insight, Change at Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.15|-0.05|0.3360
90949844|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054||0.9638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.1|||MMRM|||Insight, Change at Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.10|-0.11|0.9638
90949845|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.18|||MMRM|||Insight, Change at Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.18|-0.03|0.1610
90949846|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054||0.5763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.08|||MMRM|||Insight, Change at Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.08|-0.14|0.5763
90949847|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053||0.0599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.2|||MMRM|||Insight, Change at Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.20|0.00|0.0599
90949848|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054||0.3916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.06|||MMRM|||Insight, Change at Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.06|-0.15|0.3916
91007853|NCT02096471|181899924|SUPERIORITY|Single Group Study. Change in Quality of Life from Baseline amongst those with a Tumor Response.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.52||0.93|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Descriptive Analysis Only||Single Group Change from Baseline||||0.93
90949849|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053||0.9602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.11|||MMRM|||Insight, Change at Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.11|-0.10|0.9602
90949850|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055||0.9676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.11|||MMRM|||Insight, Change at Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.11|-0.11|0.9676
90949851|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053||0.6397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.13|||MMRM|||Insight, Change at Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.13|-0.08|0.6397
90949852|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.16|||MMRM|||Insight, Change at Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.16|-0.05|0.3400
90949853|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053||0.3472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.15|||MMRM|||Insight, Change at Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.15|-0.05|0.3472
90949854|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054||0.916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.1|||MMRM|||Insight, Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.10|-0.11|0.9160
90949855|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053||0.5948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.08|||MMRM|||Insight, Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.08|-0.13|0.5948
90949856|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054||0.3755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.16|||MMRM|||Insight, Change at Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.16|-0.06|0.3755
90949857|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053||0.9752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.1|||MMRM|||Insight, Change at Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.10|-0.11|0.9752
90949858|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054||0.9188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.1|||MMRM|||Insight, Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.10|-0.11|0.9188
90949859|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053||0.6379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.13|||MMRM|||Insight, Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.13|-0.08|0.6379
90949860|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061||0.4967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.08|||MMRM|||Insight, Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.08|-0.16|0.4967
91039287|NCT00095784|181963114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.99|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|5 degrees of freedom test over six time points: day 1 (pre-treatment) and days 5, 12, 43, 47, and 54 post treatment.||Mixed effects regression analysis of change over time in hemoglobin F levels.||||0.99
90949861|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059||0.3492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.06|||MMRM|||Insight, Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.06|-0.17|0.3492
90949862|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062||0.7136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.14|||MMRM|||Insight, Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.14|-0.10|0.7136
90981896|NCT02799381|181847598|SUPERIORITY|The likelihood-based mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of the change from baseline to Week 12 used all observed data. The model included fixed, categorical effects for treatment, country, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, with continuous fixed covariates for baseline score and the baseline score-by-visit interaction.|LS Mean Difference|-16.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.48|-8.85||Two-sided p-value|Mixed-effects model repeated measures||Levodopa-Carbidopa Intestinal Gel (LCIG) - Optimized Medical Treatment (OMT) at Week 12|If the primary efficacy variable was statistically significant, each of the secondary variables were to be tested using a fixed sequence as a gatekeeping procedure and at α level of 0.050. Testing was to cease at the point that a secondary variable failed to demonstrate statistical significance.||-8.85|-24.48|<0.0001
90981897|NCT02799381|181847599|SUPERIORITY|The likelihood-based mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of the change from baseline to Week 12 used all observed data. The model included fixed, categorical effects for treatment, country, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, with continuous fixed covariates for baseline score and the baseline score-by-visit interaction.|LS Mean Difference|-2.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|-1.44||Two-sided p-value|Mixed-effects model repeated measures||Levodopa-Carbidopa Intestinal Gel (LCIG) - Optimized Medical Treatment (OMT) at Week 12|If the primary efficacy variable was statistically significant, each of the secondary variables were to be tested using a fixed sequence as a gatekeeping procedure and at α level of 0.050. Testing was to cease at the point that a secondary variable failed to demonstrate statistical significance.||-1.44|-2.78|<0.0001
90981898|NCT02799381|181847600|SUPERIORITY|The likelihood-based mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of the change from baseline to Week 12 used all observed data. The model included fixed, categorical effects for treatment, country, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, with continuous fixed covariates for baseline score and the baseline score-by-visit interaction.|LS Mean Difference|-5.54|||=|0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.59|-2.49||Two-sided p-value|Mixed-effects model repeated measures||Levodopa-Carbidopa Intestinal Gel (LCIG) - Optimized Medical Treatment (OMT) at Week 12|If the primary efficacy variable was statistically significant, each of the secondary variables were to be tested using a fixed sequence as a gatekeeping procedure and at α level of 0.050. Testing was to cease at the point that a secondary variable failed to demonstrate statistical significance.||-2.49|-8.59|=0.0006
90981899|NCT02799381|181847601|SUPERIORITY|The likelihood-based mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of the change from baseline to Week 12 used all observed data. The model included fixed, categorical effects for treatment, country, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, with continuous fixed covariates for baseline score and the baseline score-by-visit interaction.|LS Mean Difference|-2.35|||=|0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.51|-1.19||Two-sided p-value|Mixed-effects model repeated measures||Levodopa-Carbidopa Intestinal Gel (LCIG) - Optimized Medical Treatment (OMT) at Week 12|If the primary efficacy variable was statistically significant, each of the secondary variables were to be tested using a fixed sequence as a gatekeeping procedure and at α level of 0.050. Testing was to cease at the point that a secondary variable failed to demonstrate statistical significance.||-1.19|-3.51|=0.0002
90981900|NCT02799381|181847602|SUPERIORITY|The likelihood-based mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of the change from baseline to Week 12 used all observed data. The model included fixed, categorical effects for treatment, country, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, with continuous fixed covariates for baseline score and the baseline score-by-visit interaction.|LS Mean Difference|-4.05|||=|0.0762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.55|0.44||Two-sided p-value|Mixed-effects model repeated measures||Levodopa-Carbidopa Intestinal Gel (LCIG) - Optimized Medical Treatment (OMT) at Week 12|If the primary efficacy variable was statistically significant, each of the secondary variables were to be tested using a fixed sequence as a gatekeeping procedure and at α level of 0.050. Testing was to cease at the point that a secondary variable failed to demonstrate statistical significance.||0.44|-8.55|=0.0762
90981901|NCT02698410|181847607|OTHER|||||||0.2968||||||One-sided p-value estimated using an exact binomial proportion test for one-way tables comparing DCR to 30%.|Binomial proportion test|||Comparison of DCR to 30% clinically relevant threshold.||||0.2968
90981902|NCT02698410|181847607|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||One-sided p-value estimated using an exact binomial proportion test for one-way tables comparing DCR to 10%.|Binomial proportion test|||Comparison of DCR to 10% clinically relevant threshold.||||<0.0001
90981903|NCT02698410|181847607|OTHER|||||||0.0534||||||One-sided p-value estimated using an exact binomial proportion test for one-way tables comparing DCR to 30%.|Binomial proportion test|||Sensitivity Analyisis-1: Comparison of DCR to 30% clinically relevant threshold.||||0.0534
91039288|NCT00608322|181963124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.03||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.37
91039289|NCT00835614|181963131|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model containing factors for sequence of products, subjects within sequence, periods, and products was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|90.9||||||90.0|87.5|94.4|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||94.4|87.5|
91039290|NCT00835614|181963132|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model containing factors for sequence of products, subjects within sequence, periods, and products was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|92.1||||||90.0|90.3|93.9|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||93.9|90.3|
91039291|NCT00835614|181963133|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model containing factors for sequence of products, subjects within sequence, periods, and products was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|92.2||||||90.0|90.4|94.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||94|90.4|
91039292|NCT00606281|181963134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|-2.7|||ANCOVA|||||-2.7|-9.4|<0.001
91039293|NCT00606281|181963135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.1|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||||-0.3|-1.1|<0.001
91039294|NCT00540423|181963137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|60.0||||||95.0|35.21|84.79|||||The units of risk difference is percentage.|||84.79|35.21|
91039295|NCT00540423|181963139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of 75% responders|43.5||||||95.0|23.19|65.51|||||Confidence interval of the percentage of participants for whom at least 75% of their assessments during the course of 26 weeks of SB-494115-GR treatment met the definition of responders.|||65.51|23.19|
91039296|NCT03131895|181963161|EQUIVALENCE|A linear mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed parameters was performed with regimen, sequence and period as a fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as a random effect. The least squares means and difference of least squares means for the log-transformed parameters were exponentiated to obtain the point estimates and 90 percent (%) confidence intervals (CIs) on the original scale.|Least square (LS) mean ratio|1.0436||||0.5535|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9453|1.1521|||ANOVA|||||1.1521|0.9453|0.5535
91039297|NCT03131895|181963161|EQUIVALENCE|A linear mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed parameters was performed with regimen, sequence and period as a fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as a random effect. The least squares means and difference of least squares means for the log-transformed parameters were exponentiated to obtain the point estimates and 90% CIs on the original scale.|LS mean ratio|1.0185||||0.892|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9334|1.1113|||ANOVA|||||1.1113|0.9334|0.8920
91039298|NCT03131895|181963162|EQUIVALENCE|A linear mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed parameters was performed with regimen, sequence and period as a fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as a random effect. The least squares means and difference of least squares means for the log-transformed parameters were exponentiated to obtain the point estimates and 90% CIs on the original scale.|LS mean ratio|1.039||||0.3209|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9792|1.1024|||ANOVA|||||1.1024|0.9792|0.3209
91039299|NCT03131895|181963162|EQUIVALENCE|A linear mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed parameters was performed with regimen, sequence and period as a fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as a random effect. The least squares means and difference of least squares means for the log-transformed parameters were exponentiated to obtain the point estimates and 90% CIs on the original scale.|LS mean ratio|1.0353||||0.3896|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9719|1.1029|||ANOVA|||||1.1029|0.9719|0.3896
91039300|NCT03131895|181963163|EQUIVALENCE|A linear mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed parameters was performed with regimen, sequence and period as a fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as a random effect. The least squares means and difference of least squares means for the log-transformed parameters were exponentiated to obtain the point estimates and 90% CIs on the original scale.|LS mean ratio|1.0335||||0.4163|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9733|1.0975|||ANOVA|||||1.0975|0.9733|0.4163
91039301|NCT03131895|181963163|EQUIVALENCE|A linear mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed parameters was performed with regimen, sequence and period as a fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as a random effect. The least squares means and difference of least squares means for the log-transformed parameters were exponentiated to obtain the point estimates and 90% CIs on the original scale.|LS mean ratio|1.0031||||0.9778|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9458|1.0638|||ANOVA|||||1.0638|0.9458|0.9778
91039302|NCT01339247|181963176|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This is a bioequivalence study. The study was performed to fulfill an official requirement of the Brazilian Regulatory Agency - ANVISA - upon a manufacturing site change.|Ratio T formulation/R formulation|1.0886|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0011|1.177|||||The ratio between the geometric means of the test (T) and reference (R) formulations was calculated.|||1.1770|1.0011|
91039303|NCT01339247|181963177|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This is a bioequivalence study. The study was performed to fulfill an official requirement of the Brazilian Regulatory Agency - ANVISA - upon a manufacturing site change.|Ratio T formulation/R formulation|1.0246|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9676|1.0849|||||The ratio between the geometric means of the test (T) and reference (R) formulations was calculated.|||1.0849|0.9676|
90949863|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059||0.8163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.13|||MMRM|||Insight, Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.13|-0.10|0.8163
90949864|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055||0.2825|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.05|||MMRM|||Insight, Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.05|-0.17|0.2825
90949865|NCT02942004|181778056|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054||0.1603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.03|||MMRM|||Insight, Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.03|-0.18|0.1603
90981904|NCT02698410|181847607|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||One-sided p-value estimated using an exact binomial proportion test for one-way tables comparing DCR to 10%.|Binomial proportion test|||Sensitivity Analyisis-1: Comparison of DCR to 10% clinically relevant threshold.||||<0.0001
90981905|NCT02698410|181847607|OTHER|||||||0.032||||||One-sided p-value estimated using an exact binomial proportion test for one-way tables comparing DCR to 30%.|Binomial proportion test|||Sensitivity Analyisis-2: Comparison of DCR to 30% clinically relevant threshold.||||0.032
90981906|NCT02698410|181847607|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||One-sided p-value estimated using an exact binomial proportion test for one-way tables comparing DCR to 10%.|Binomial proportion test|||Sensitivity Analyisis-2: Comparison of DCR to 10% clinically relevant threshold.||||<0.0001
90981907|NCT03952130|181847623|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority margin = 0.4% for HbA1c|LS Mean Difference|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.24||||||||0.24|-0.11|
90981908|NCT03952130|181847624|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-17.8||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.4|-6.1|||ANCOVA|||||-6.1|-29.4|0.003
90981909|NCT03952130|181847625|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-25.5||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.1|-10.0|||ANCOVA|||||-10.0|-41.1|0.001
90981910|NCT03952130|181847626|OTHER||Relative rate|0.85||||0.834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|3.77|||Empirical method|||||3.77|0.19|0.834
90981911|NCT03952130|181847627|OTHER||Relative rate|1.0||||0.983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.38|||Negative binomial regression|||\<=30 minutes post meal||1.38|0.72|0.983
90981912|NCT03952130|181847627|OTHER||Relative rate|1.61||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.74|||Negative binomial regression|||\<=1 hour post meal||2.74|0.95|0.076
90981913|NCT03952130|181847627|OTHER||Relative rate|1.19||||0.409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.79|||Negative binomial regression|||\<=2 hours post meal||1.79|0.79|0.409
90981914|NCT03952130|181847627|OTHER||Relative rate|1.22||||0.217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.68|||Negative binomial regression|||\<=4 hours post meal||1.68|0.89|0.217
90981915|NCT03952130|181847627|OTHER||Relative rate|1.09||||0.703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.65|||Negative binomial regression|||\>1 to \<=2 hours post meal||1.65|0.71|0.703
90981916|NCT03952130|181847627|OTHER||Relative rate|1.24||||0.206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.73|||Negative binomial regression|||\>2 to \<=4 hours post meal||1.73|0.89|0.206
90981917|NCT03952130|181847627|OTHER||Relative rate|0.75||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.04|||Negative binomial regression|||\>4 hours post meal||1.04|0.55|0.082
90981918|NCT03952130|181847628|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.29||||0.309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.27|-0.86|0.309
90981919|NCT03952130|181847629|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-15.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.8|-7.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning premeal-fasting||-7.7|-23.8|<.001
90981920|NCT03952130|181847629|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-14.0||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.8|-4.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning 1-hour post meal||-4.2|-23.8|0.005
90981921|NCT03952130|181847629|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-14.9||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.0|-4.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning 2-hour post meal||-4.8|-25.0|0.004
90981922|NCT03952130|181847629|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.3||||0.616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|6.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Midday premeal||6.8|-11.4|0.616
90981923|NCT03952130|181847629|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-9.1||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.4|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Midday 1-hour post meal||0.1|-18.4|0.054
90981924|NCT03952130|181847629|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.3||||0.483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|6.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Midday 2-hour post meal||6.0|-12.6|0.483
90981925|NCT03952130|181847629|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|10.5||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|21.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening premeal||21.7|-0.6|0.064
90981926|NCT03952130|181847629|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.6||||0.262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5|4.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening 1-hour post meal||4.2|-15.5|0.262
90981927|NCT03952130|181847629|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.8||||0.117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|2.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening 2-hour post meal||2.0|-17.5|0.117
90981928|NCT03952130|181847629|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.4||||0.414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.1|6.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Bedtime||6.2|-15.1|0.414
90981929|NCT03952130|181847630|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Basal insulin dose||0.6|-0.7|0.947
90981930|NCT03952130|181847630|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.7||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|2.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Bolus insulin dose||2.6|-1.3|0.500
90981931|NCT03952130|181847630|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.6||||0.543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|2.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Total insulin dose||2.7|-1.4|0.543
90981932|NCT03952130|181847631|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.42|||Regression, Logistic|||For HbA1c \< 7%||1.42|0.47|0.462
90981933|NCT03952130|181847631|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.54||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.1|||Regression, Logistic|||For HbA1c ≤6.5%||1.10|0.26|0.089
90981934|NCT01713348|181847632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.3||0.9345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|1.19|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.19|-1.29|0.9345
91039304|NCT01339247|181963178|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This is a bioequivalence study. The study was performed to fulfill an official requirement of the Brazilian Regulatory Agency - ANVISA - upon a manufacturing site change.|Ratio T formulation/R formulation|1.0317|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9716|1.0956|||||The ratio between the geometric means of the test (T) and reference (R) formulations was calculated.|||1.0956|0.9716|
90981935|NCT01713348|181847632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.5||0.0427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|2.73|||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in time in range (70-180 mg/dL, 3.9 to 10.0 mmol/L) intervention arm compared to control arm.||2.73|0.05|0.0427
90981936|NCT01713348|181847633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.18||0.8367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.65|2.16|||ANCOVA|Performed for each type of Diabetes and adjusted for baseline Time in Range.||||2.16|-2.65|0.8367
91039305|NCT01075282|181963282|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Family-wise Type I error rate was controlled by applying gatekeeping strategy.|LS Mean Difference|-0.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.29||P-value is adjusted for multiplicity, based on tree-gatekeeping strategy. To determine significance, p-value is compared to the family-wise 1-sided Type I error of 0.025. The confidence interval is not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||The study was designed with 90% power to detect non-inferiority of LY2189265 1.5 mg vs insulin glargine on HbA1c change from baseline at the 52-week primary endpoint with a margin of 0.4%, a standard deviation of 1.3%, and a 1-sided alpha of 0.025 assuming no true difference between treatments. This corresponds to 223 participants per arm, with an assumed drop-out rate of 20%.||-0.29|-0.60|<0.001
90981937|NCT01713348|181847633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.05||0.7969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|2.4|||ANCOVA|Performed for each type of Diabetes and adjusted for baseline Time in Range.||||2.40|-1.86|0.7969
90981938|NCT01713348|181847634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.6||0.0352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.02|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.02|-0.51|0.0352
90981939|NCT01713348|181847634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.7||0.0506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.00|-0.54|0.0506
90981940|NCT01713348|181847635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.0||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|0.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.1|-6.4|0.0580
90981941|NCT01713348|181847635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.0||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|-4.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-4.9|-13.6|0.0002
90981942|NCT01713348|181847636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.8||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.01|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.01|-0.59|0.0580
90981943|NCT01713348|181847636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.1||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|-0.45|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.45|-1.24|0.0002
90981944|NCT04425850|181847649|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-squared test on the percentage of subjects who contracted COVID-19 in each arm||||< 0.0001
90981945|NCT03199911|181847651|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.0||||0.025|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.025
90981946|NCT03199911|181847653|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.3||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|4.03|||Fisher Exact|||||4.03|0.42|0.77
90981947|NCT03199911|181847654|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.93||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|14.77|||Fisher Exact|||||14.77|0.06|1.00
90981948|NCT04331899|181847655|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.81||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.19||Tests were conducted at the 0.05 level of significance.|Regression, Cox||Cox proportional hazards model covariate-adjusted for age 50+ and sex.|||1.19|0.56|0.29
90981949|NCT04331899|181847656|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|-0.06||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|1.11||Tests were conducted at the 0.05 level of significance.|Regression, Linear||Log change at Day 14. Cox proportional hazards model covariate-adjusted for age 50+ and sex.|||1.11|-1.23|0.91
90981950|NCT04331899|181847657|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.01||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.16||Tests were conducted at the 0.05 level of significance.|Regression, Linear||Cox proportional hazards model covariate-adjusted for age 50+ and sex.|||1.16|0.85|0.95
90981951|NCT04331899|181847658|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.94||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.41||Tests were conducted at the 0.05 level of significance.|Regression, Cox||Cox proportional hazards model covariate-adjusted for age 50+ and sex.|||1.41|0.60|0.76
90949866|NCT02942004|181778057|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-6.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.414||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.64|-2.07|||MMRM|||Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in MADRS total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline MADRS total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-2.07|-11.64|0.0054
90981952|NCT00101361|181847660|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|the required sample size of 400 participants provided 85% power to detect an increase in healing from 25% in the placebo group to 40% in the oxandrolone group, as assuming a 0.05 (2-sided) type I error, 13% rate of loss to follow up, and a test of proportions by using an arcsine transformation.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.7|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|6.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For spinal cord injury patients with a Stage III or IV pressure ulcer of the pelvic region who receive 24 weeks or less of optimized clinical care (i.e., guideline-driven care with nutritional support) compared with optimized clinical care and an oral anabolic steroid agent (oxandrolone) there will be no difference in the percent of healed pressure ulcers.||6.8|-17.5|<0.05
91039306|NCT01075282|181963282|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Family-wise Type I error rate was controlled by applying gatekeeping strategy.|LS Mean Difference|-0.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.02||P-value is adjusted for multiplicity, based on tree-gatekeeping strategy. To determine significance, p-value is compared to the family-wise 1-sided Type I error of 0.025. The confidence interval is not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Non-inferiority analysis.||0.02|-0.29|<0.001
90949867|NCT02942004|181778057|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.35||0.0763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.86|0.45|||MMRM|||Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in MADRS total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline MADRS total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.45|-8.86|0.0763
90949868|NCT02942004|181778057|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.673||0.1101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|0.99|||MMRM|||Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in MADRS total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline MADRS total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.99|-9.60|0.1101
90949869|NCT02942004|181778057|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.618||0.6167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|3.87|||MMRM|||Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in MADRS total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline MADRS total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||3.87|-6.50|0.6167
90949870|NCT02942004|181778057|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-5.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.777||0.0447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.14|-0.14|||MMRM|||Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in MADRS total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline MADRS total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.14|-11.14|0.0447
90949871|NCT02942004|181778057|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.726||0.1908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.99|1.81|||MMRM|||Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in MADRS total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline MADRS total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||1.81|-8.99|0.1908
90949872|NCT02942004|181778058|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.0||||0.0131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|11.7|||GEE method|||Hour 60: GEE method was used for analysis. CGI-I response at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline CGI-S score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model.||11.7|1.3|0.0131
90949873|NCT02942004|181778058|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.0||||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|11.6|||GEE method|||Hour 60: GEE method was used for analysis. CGI-I response at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline CGI-S score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model.||11.6|1.4|0.0095
90949874|NCT02942004|181778058|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.9||||0.0323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|7.5|||GEE method|||Day 7: GEE method was used for analysis. CGI-I response at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline CGI-S score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model.||7.5|1.1|0.0323
90949875|NCT02942004|181778058|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2||||0.0931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|5.3|||GEE method|||Day 7: GEE method was used for analysis. CGI-I response at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline CGI-S score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model.||5.3|0.9|0.0931
90949876|NCT02942004|181778058|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.6||||0.0139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|10.0|||GEE method|||Day 30: GEE method was used for analysis. CGI-I response at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline CGI-S score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model.||10.0|1.3|0.0139
90949877|NCT02942004|181778058|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.6||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|6.9|||GEE method|||Day 30: GEE method was used for analysis. CGI-I response at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline CGI-S score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model.||6.9|1.0|0.0460
90949878|NCT02942004|181778059|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.454||0.4389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.01|1.75|||MMRM|||Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for the analysis. The change from baseline in GAD-7 total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline GAD-7 total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||1.75|-4.01|0.4389
90949879|NCT02942004|181778059|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.427||0.4645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.88|1.78|||MMRM|||Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for the analysis. The change from baseline in GAD-7 total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline GAD-7 total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||1.78|-3.88|0.4645
90949880|NCT02942004|181778059|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.356||0.0622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.24|0.13|||MMRM|||Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for the analysis. The change from baseline in GAD-7 total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline GAD-7 total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.13|-5.24|0.0622
90949881|NCT02942004|181778059|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.338||0.8495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|2.91|||MMRM|||Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for the analysis. The change from baseline in GAD-7 total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline GAD-7 total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||2.91|-2.40|0.8495
90949882|NCT02942004|181778059|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.59||0.7063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.75|2.55|||MMRM|||Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for the analysis. The change from baseline in GAD-7 total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline GAD-7 total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||2.55|-3.75|0.7063
90949883|NCT02942004|181778059|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.552||0.9434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.19|2.97|||MMRM|||Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for the analysis. The change from baseline in GAD-7 total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline GAD-7 total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||2.97|-3.19|0.9434
91039307|NCT01075282|181963282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.29||P-value is adjusted for multiplicity, based on tree-gatekeeping strategy. To determine significance, p-value is compared to the family-wise 1-sided Type I error of 0.025. The confidence interval is not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Superiority analysis.||-0.29|-0.60|<0.001
90949884|NCT02942004|181778059|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.608||0.9701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.25|3.13|||MMRM|||Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for the analysis. The change from baseline in GAD-7 total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline GAD-7 total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||3.13|-3.25|0.9701
90981953|NCT01062399|181847661|OTHER||||||||||||||||||A dose level for RAD001 will be considered acceptable if no patient of the first 3patients or no more than 2 patients of the first 6 patients experience a DLT. If the current level is considered acceptable, then dose escalation will occur and the protocol will be reopened. Otherwise, the preceding acceptable dose level will be declared the MTD.|||
90981954|NCT01062399|181847662|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.6|||Log Rank||Reference arm = RT + TMZ|Assuming exponential distribution with median PFS (mPFS) time for control of 6.7 mos. for the control arm, tt was hypothesized that there would be a 43% improvement in mPFS time, corresponding to a mPFS time of 9.6. This is equivalent to a hazard ratio of 0.7 for the experimental arm vs. control arm. With a 1-sided significance level = 0.15 and 85% power, a total of 134 PFS events out of 180 eligible patients were required to detect the projected effect size.||1.60|0.82|0.79
90981955|NCT01062399|181847663|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.67||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|2.45|||Log Rank|2-sided significance level = 0.05|Reference level = RT + TMZ|||2.45|1.14|0.008
90981956|NCT02424539|181847666|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|-0.78|||ANCOVA||Least square (LS) mean difference between placebo and FF 55 µg QD has been presented using analysis of co-variance (ANCOVA) model adjusted for treatment, Baseline value, gender, age and type of Allergic Rhinitis.|||-0.78|-1.68|<0.001
90981957|NCT02424539|181847666|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|-0.87|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference between placebo and FF 110 µg QD has been presented using ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, Baseline value, gender, age and type of Allergic Rhinitis.|||-0.87|-1.77|<0.001
90981958|NCT02424539|181847667|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.39|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio for FF 55 µg QD versus placebo has been presented using a logistic regression model with Wald's test with treatment, gender, age and type of Allergic Rhinitis as factors.|||0.39|0.14|<0.001
90981959|NCT02424539|181847667|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.33|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio for FF 110 µg QD versus placebo has been presented using a logistic regression model with Wald's test with treatment, gender, age and type of Allergic Rhinitis as factors.|||0.33|0.12|<0.001
90981960|NCT02424539|181847668|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.84|-1.46|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference between placebo and FF 55 µg QD has been presented using ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, Baseline value, gender, age and type of Allergic Rhinitis.|||-1.46|-2.84|<0.001
90981961|NCT02424539|181847668|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.66|-1.29|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference between placebo and FF 110 µg QD has been presented using ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, Baseline value, gender, age and type of Allergic Rhinitis.|||-1.29|-2.66|<0.001
90981962|NCT02424539|181847669|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.18|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference between placebo and FF 55 µg QD has been presented using ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, Baseline value, gender, age and type of Allergic Rhinitis.|||0.18|-0.38|0.503
90981963|NCT02424539|181847669|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.03|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference between placebo and FF 110 µg QD has been presented using ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, Baseline value, gender, age and type of Allergic Rhinitis.|||0.03|-0.53|0.078
90981964|NCT02424539|181847670|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.51||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|1.02|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference between placebo and FF 55 µg QD has been presented using ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, Baseline value, gender, age and type of Allergic Rhinitis.|||1.02|0.01|0.048
90981965|NCT02424539|181847670|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.66||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.17|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference between placebo and FF 110 µg QD has been presented using ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, Baseline value, gender, age and type of Allergic Rhinitis.|||1.17|0.16|0.011
90981966|NCT02424539|181847671|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|-0.9|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference between placebo and FF 55 µg QD has been presented using ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, Baseline value, gender, age and type of Allergic Rhinitis.|||-0.90|-1.83|<0.001
90981967|NCT02424539|181847671|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.92|-0.99|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference between placebo and FF 110 µg QD has been presented using ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, Baseline value, gender, age and type of Allergic Rhinitis.|||-0.99|-1.92|<0.001
90981968|NCT02424539|181847672|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.34|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio for FF 55 µg QD versus placebo has been presented using a logistic regression model with Wald's test with treatment, gender, age and type of Allergic Rhinitis as factors.|||0.34|0.12|<0.001
90981969|NCT02424539|181847672|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.29|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio for FF 110 µg QD versus placebo has been presented using a logistic regression model with Wald's test with treatment, gender, age and type of Allergic Rhinitis as factors.|||0.29|0.10|<0.001
90981970|NCT02424539|181847673|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.23|-1.73|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference between placebo and FF 55 µg QD has been presented using ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, Baseline value, gender, age and type of Allergic Rhinitis.|||-1.73|-3.23|<0.001
90981971|NCT02424539|181847673|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.03|-1.52|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference between placebo and FF 110 µg QD has been presented using ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, Baseline value, gender, age and type of Allergic Rhinitis.|||-1.52|-3.03|<0.001
90981972|NCT02424539|181847674|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11||||0.442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.17|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference between placebo and FF 55 µg QD has been presented using ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, Baseline value, gender, age and type of Allergic Rhinitis.|||0.17|-0.38|0.442
90949885|NCT02942004|181778059|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.566||0.6307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.86|2.35|||MMRM|||Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for the analysis. The change from baseline in GAD-7 total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline GAD-7 total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||2.35|-3.86|0.6307
90949886|NCT02942004|181778059|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.488||0.1767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.97|0.93|||MMRM|||Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for the analysis. The change from baseline in GAD-7 total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline GAD-7 total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.93|-4.97|0.1767
90981973|NCT02424539|181847674|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.02|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference between placebo and FF 110 µg QD has been presented using ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, Baseline value, gender, age and type of Allergic Rhinitis.|||-0.02|-0.57|0.035
90981974|NCT02424539|181847675|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.88||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.16|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference between placebo and FF 55 µg QD has been presented using ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, Baseline value, gender, age and type of Allergic Rhinitis.|||3.16|0.60|0.004
90981975|NCT02424539|181847675|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|3.95|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference between placebo and FF 110 µg QD has been presented using ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, Baseline value, gender, age and type of Allergic Rhinitis.|||3.95|1.38|<0.001
90981976|NCT01882725|181847743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.05
90981977|NCT01882725|181847744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
90981978|NCT00500071|181847747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||Week 1||||< 0.0001
90981979|NCT00500071|181847747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||Week 2||||< 0.0001
90981980|NCT00500071|181847747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||Week 3||||< 0.0001
90981981|NCT00500071|181847747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||Week 4||||< 0.0001
90981982|NCT00500071|181847747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||Week 5||||< 0.0001
90981983|NCT00500071|181847747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||Week 6||||< 0.0001
90981984|NCT00500071|181847747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||Week 7||||< 0.0001
90981985|NCT00500071|181847748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||< 0.0001
90981986|NCT00500071|181847751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||< 0.0001
90981987|NCT00500071|181847752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||Global Executive Composite||||< 0.0001
90981988|NCT00500071|181847752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||Behavioral Recognition Index||||< 0.0001
90981989|NCT00500071|181847752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||Metacognition Index||||< 0.0001
90981990|NCT00389207|181847753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin 12% (or 0.12 as proportion)|Risk Difference (RD)|0.016||||0.684||95.0|-0.062|0.095||Test for superiority following confirmation of non-inferiority|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for screening VL and CD4+ categories (only 373 NVP patients due to empty cells)||||0.095|-0.062|0.684
90981991|NCT00389207|181847753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin 12% (or 0.12 as proportion)|Risk Difference (RD)|0.025||||0.584||95.0|-0.065|0.115||Test for superiority following confirmation of non-inferiority|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysis controlling for screening viral load and CD4+ count categories. N=186 NVP QD patients and N=193 ATZ/r patients.||||0.115|-0.065|0.584
90981992|NCT00389207|181847753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin 12% (or 0.12 as proportion)|Risk Difference (RD)|0.009||||0.855||95.0|-0.084|0.101||Test for superiority following confirmation of non-inferiority|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysis controlling for screening viral load and CD4+ count categories. N=187 NVP QD patients and N=193 ATZ/r patients.||||0.101|-0.084|0.855
90981993|NCT00389207|181847754|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin 12% (or 0.12 as proportion)|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.038||||0.321||95.0|-0.112|0.037||Test for superiority following confirmation of non-inferiority|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysis controlling for screening viral load and CD4+ count categories. N=373 NVP QD patients and N=193 ATZ/r patients.||||0.037|-0.112|0.321
90981994|NCT00389207|181847765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.461||||0.0403||95.0|0.22|0.966|||Regression, Cox|||||0.966|0.220|0.0403
90981995|NCT00389207|181847769|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin 12% (or 0.12 as proportion)|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.097||||0.0109||95.0|-0.171|-0.022||Test for superiority following confirmation of non-inferiority|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysis controlling for screening viral load and CD4+ count categories. N=373 NVP QD+BID patients and N=193 ATZ/r patients||||-0.022|-0.171|0.0109
90981996|NCT00389207|181847769|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin 12% (or 0.12 as proportion)|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.072||||0.1033||95.0|-0.158|0.015||Test for superiority following confirmation of non-inferiority|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysis controlling for screening viral load and CD4+ count categories. N=186 NVP QD patients and N=193 ATZ/r patients.||||0.015|-0.158|0.1033
90981997|NCT00389207|181847769|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin 12% (or 0.12 as proportion)|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.122||||0.0073||95.0|-0.212|-0.033||Test for superiority following confirmation of non-inferiority|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysis controlling for screening viral load and CD4+ count categories. N=187 NVP QD patients and N=193 ATZ/r patients.||||-0.033|-0.212|0.0073
91007854|NCT02096471|181899924|SUPERIORITY|Single Group Study. Change in Quality of Life from Baseline amongst those with a Tumor Response.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.53||0.89|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Descriptive Analysis Only||Single Group Change from Baseline||||0.89
90949887|NCT02942004|181778059|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.468||0.3236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.37|1.45|||MMRM|||Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for the analysis. The change from baseline in GAD-7 total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline GAD-7 total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||1.45|-4.37|0.3236
90949888|NCT01028677|181778116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|t-test, 1 sided|||Analysis of fear emotion||||.61
90949889|NCT01028677|181778117|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Positive Symptoms||||0.008
90949890|NCT01028677|181778117|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Negative Symptoms||||0.002
90949891|NCT01028677|181778117|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||General Symptoms||||0.04
90949892|NCT01028677|181778117|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Positive Symptoms||||0.05
90949893|NCT01028677|181778117|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Negative Symptoms||||0.08
90949894|NCT01028677|181778117|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.025|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||General Symptoms||||0.025
90949895|NCT01028677|181778119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.03
90949896|NCT01028677|181778121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.784|TWO_SIDED|||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|t-test, 2 sided|||IRI-total||||.784
90949897|NCT01028677|181778121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Distress analysis||||1.00
90949898|NCT01028677|181778121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Perspective-Taking||||.03
90949899|NCT01028677|181778121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.135|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Emotional empathy analysis||||.135
90949900|NCT01028677|181778121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.681|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Fantasy Analysis||||.681
90949901|NCT01028677|181778121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Distress analysis||||1.00
90949902|NCT01016262|181778165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0047||||||Statistical significance was assessed at the two-sided 5% level. As there was only a single pre-specified primary analysis, there was no adjustment for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The comparison between MAX-002 and placebo during the DB phase with respect to the primary outcome measure was the single pre-specified primary analysis, and the null hypothesis was that the percentages were equal between the two groups.||||0.0047
90949903|NCT01016262|181778165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0346||||||Statistical significance was assessed at the two-sided 5% level. As there was only a single pre-specified primary analysis, there was no adjustment for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The comparison between Canasa® and placebo during the DB phase with respect to the primary outcome measure was a pre-specified tertiary analysis only.||||0.0346
90949904|NCT03738475|181778170|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0056||||||Based on Wilcoxon Rank Sum test for the change from baseline between treatment groups.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|||||||0.0056
90949905|NCT03738475|181778174|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0799||||||Based on Wilcoxon Rank Sum test for the change from baseline between treatment groups.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|||||||0.0799
90949906|NCT03738475|181778176|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.289||||||Based on Wilcoxon Rank Sum test for the change from baseline between treatment groups.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|||||||0.2890
90949907|NCT02224703|181778193|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Ratio|0.743||||0.0299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.568|0.971|||Negative binomial regression|||Model includes total number of seizures as a response variable and age group, time (baseline and treatment period), treatment, and treatment by time interaction as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect. Log-transformed number of days in which seizures were reported by period is included as an offset. Null hypothesis was that the ratio of GWP42003-P to placebo would be 1.||0.971|0.568|0.0299
90949908|NCT02224703|181778193|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Ratio|0.702||||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.538|0.916|||Negative binomial regression|||Model includes total number of seizures as a response variable and age group, time (baseline and treatment period), treatment, and treatment by time interaction as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect. Log-transformed number of days in which seizures were reported by period is included as an offset. Null hypothesis was that the ratio of GWP42003-P to placebo would be 1.||0.916|0.538|0.0095
90949909|NCT02224703|181778194|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Ratio|0.749||||0.0255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.581|0.965|||Negative binomial regression|||Model includes total number of seizures as a response variable and age group, time (baseline and treatment period), treatment, and treatment by time interaction as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect. Log-transformed number of days in which seizures were reported by period is included as an offset.||0.965|0.581|0.0255
90949910|NCT02224703|181778194|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Ratio|0.62||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.481|0.799|||Negative binomial regression|||Model includes total number of seizures as a response variable and age group, time (baseline and treatment period), treatment, and treatment by time interaction as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect. Log-transformed number of days in which seizures were reported by period is included as an offset.||0.799|0.481|0.0003
90949911|NCT02224703|181778195|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.74||||0.0069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|5.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value calculated from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group (2-5, 6-12, and 13-18 years).||||5.70|1.32|0.0069
90949912|NCT02224703|181778195|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.21||||0.0332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|4.62|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value calculated from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group (2-5, 6-12, and 13-18 years).||||4.62|1.06|0.0332
90949913|NCT02224703|181778196|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.02||||0.0279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|3.78|||Regression, Logistic||Proportional odds modelling was carried out by including treatment group as a fixed factor. The estimated OR tested the null hypothesis that OR was equal to 1.|||3.78|1.08|0.0279
90949914|NCT02224703|181778196|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.93||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|5.53|||Regression, Logistic||Proportional odds modelling was carried out by including treatment group as a fixed factor. The estimated OR tested the null hypothesis that OR was equal to 1.|||5.53|1.56|0.0009
90949915|NCT01304498|181778231|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority required that the lower bound of the two-sided confidence interval (CI) of the GMT ratio was \>0.67|GMT Ratio|0.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.11|||ANOVA||GMT ratio = GMT (V503) / GMT (Gardasil)|HPV Type 16||1.11|0.85|<0.001
91007855|NCT02483611|181899947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|149.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|46.07||0.9651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|88.0|235.0|||ANOVA|||||235|88|0.9651
90981998|NCT00389207|181847770|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin 12% (or 0.12 as proportion)|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.117||||0.0031||95.0|-0.194|-0.04||Test for superiority following confirmation of non-inferiority|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysis controlling for screening viral load and CD4+ count categories. N=373 NVP QD+BID patients and N=193 ATZ/r patients.||||-0.040|-0.194|0.0031
90981999|NCT00389207|181847770|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin 12% (or 0.12 as proportion)|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.096||||0.0365||95.0|-0.186|-0.006||Test for superiority following confirmation of non-inferiority|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysis controlling for screening viral load and CD4+ count categories. N=186 NVP QD patients and N=193 ATZ/r patients.||||-0.006|-0.186|0.0365
90982000|NCT00389207|181847770|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin 12% (or 0.12 as proportion)|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.139||||0.0033||95.0|-0.231|-0.046||Test for superiority following confirmation of non-inferiority|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysis controlling for screening viral load and CD4+ count categories. N=187 NVP QD patients and N=193 ATZ/r patients.||||-0.046|-0.231|0.0033
90982001|NCT00389207|181847773|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|H0: Difference in proportions = 0|Difference in proportions|0.001||||0.9784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.065|0.066|||Cochran Chi-Squared|||week 48||0.066|-0.065|0.9784
90982002|NCT00389207|181847773|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|H0: Difference in proportions = 0|Difference in proportions|0.064||||0.0331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.005|0.123|||Cochran Chi-Squared|||week 96||0.123|0.005|0.0331
90982003|NCT00389207|181847773|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|H0: Difference in proportions = 0|Difference in proportions|0.058||||0.0691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|0.121|||Cochran Chi-Squared|||week 144||0.121|-0.005|0.0691
90982004|NCT00389207|181847773|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|H0: Difference in proportions = 0|Difference in proportions|-0.023||||0.4585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.084|0.038|||Cochran Chi-Squared|||week 48||0.038|-0.084|0.4585
90982005|NCT00389207|181847773|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|H0: Difference in proportions = 0|Difference in proportions|0.015||||0.5438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.034|0.064|||Cochran Chi-Squared|||week 96||0.064|-0.034|0.5438
90982006|NCT00389207|181847773|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|H0: Difference in proportions = 0|Difference in proportions|0.016||||0.5659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.039|0.071|||Cochran Chi-Squared|||week 144||0.071|-0.039|0.5659
90982007|NCT00389207|181847774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.692||||0.0002||95.0|0.57|0.839|||Regression, Cox|||||0.839|0.570|0.0002
90982008|NCT00389207|181847774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.519|0.764|||Regression, Cox|||Cox regression on responders only (N=289 in Nevirapine QD+BID and N=175 in Atazanvir/ritonavir)||0.764|0.519|<0.0001
90982009|NCT00389207|181847775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.762||||0.1329||95.0|0.535|1.086|||Regression, Cox|||||1.086|0.535|0.1329
90982010|NCT00389207|181847776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.731||||0.0444||95.0|0.539|0.992|||Regression, Cox|||||0.992|0.539|0.0444
90982011|NCT04898166|181847793|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-square value 18.90 and its asymptotic significance .000||||||0.000
90982012|NCT04898166|181847794|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.081|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-square value 7.544 and its asymptotic significance .273||||||0.081
90982013|NCT02115308|181847897|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||paired, t-test|non-adjusted||REST-TO-REGADENOSON STRESS||||0.001
90982014|NCT02115308|181847897|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017||||||non-adjusted|paired, t-test|||REST-TO-REGADENOSON STRESS||||0.017
90982015|NCT02115308|181847897|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.495||||||non-adjusted|paired, t-test|||REST-TO-REGADENOSON STRESS||||0.495
90982016|NCT02115308|181847897|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.365|||||||t-test, 2 sided|non-adjusted||REST||||0.365
90982017|NCT02115308|181847897|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.602|||||||t-test, 2 sided|non adjusted||REST||||0.602
90982018|NCT02115308|181847897|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.915|||||||t-test, 2 sided|non adjusted||REST||||0.915
90982019|NCT02115308|181847897|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.033|||||||t-test, 2 sided|non adjusted||Regadenoson STRESS||||0.033
90982020|NCT02115308|181847897|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|non adjusted||Regadenoson STRESS||||0.002
90982021|NCT02115308|181847897|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.087|||||||t-test, 2 sided|non adjusted||Regadenoson STRESS||||0.087
90890122|NCT01571362|181644086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.986||0.1458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.29|2.62||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||2.62|-17.29|0.1458
90890123|NCT01571362|181644086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.496||0.1558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.38|3.68||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||3.68|-22.38|0.1558
90982022|NCT02115308|181847897|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.399|||||||t-test, 2 sided|non adjusted||REST-TO-STRESS CHANGE||||0.399
90982023|NCT02115308|181847897|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|non adjusted||REST-TO-STRESS Change||||0.030
90982024|NCT02115308|181847897|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.048|||||||t-test, 2 sided|non adjusted||REST-TO-STRESS Change||||0.048
90982025|NCT02115308|181847898|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011||||||Non-adjusted.|paired, t-test|||Rest VS Regadenoson Stress||||0.011
90982026|NCT02115308|181847898|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||non-adjusted|paired t-test|||Rest VS Regadenoson Stress||||0.003
90982027|NCT02115308|181847898|SUPERIORITY|non-adjusted||||||0.39|||||||paired, t-test|||Rest VS Regadenoson Stress||||0.390
90890124|NCT01571362|181644086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.582||0.3604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.25|5.98||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Week 12/ET||5.98|-16.25|0.3604
90890125|NCT01571362|181644087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.389||0.0768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.95|0.46||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||0.46|-8.95|0.0768
90982028|NCT02115308|181847898|SUPERIORITY|non-adjusted|||||<|0|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||REST||||<0.000
90982029|NCT02115308|181847898|SUPERIORITY|non-adjusted|||||<|0|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||REST||||<0.000
90982030|NCT02115308|181847898|SUPERIORITY|non-adjusted||||||0.022|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||REST||||0.022
90982031|NCT02115308|181847898|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||non-adjusted|t-test, 2 sided|||Regadenoson STRESS||||0.001
90949916|NCT01304498|181778231|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority required that the lower bound of the two-sided confidence interval (CI) of the GMT ratio was \>0.67|GMT Ratio|1.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.29|||ANOVA||GMT ratio = GMT (V503) / GMT (Gardasil)|HPV Type 18||1.29|0.91|<0.001
90949917|NCT03325777|181778239|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|=|0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|1.27||a priori threshold is p\<.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized Linear Mixed Models||||1.27|.14|=.014
90949918|NCT03325777|181778240|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|172.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|33.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|106.0|238.0||a priori threshold for significance was p\<.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||238|106|<.001
90982032|NCT02115308|181847898|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0||||||non-adjusted|t-test, 2 sided|||Regadenoson STRESS||||<0.000
90982033|NCT02115308|181847898|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006||||||non-adjusted|t-test, 2 sided|||Regadenoson STRESS||||0.006
90982034|NCT02115308|181847898|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0|||||||t-test, 2 sided|non-adjusted||REST-TO-STRESS Change||||<0.000
90982035|NCT02115308|181847898|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.058|||||||t-test, 2 sided|non-adjusted||REST-TO-STRESS Changes||||0.058
90982036|NCT02115308|181847898|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||t-test, 2 sided|non-adjusted||REST-TO-STRESS Change||||0.310
90982037|NCT02115308|181847899|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||paired, t-test|non adjusted||REST vs STRESS||||0.001
90949919|NCT03004404|181778243|OTHER||Slope|0.748|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0743|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5959|0.9001|||||Standard error of the mean is actually standard error of the slope. Based on the estimate for the slope parameter, a two sided 95% confidence interval for the slope was computed. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1.|In the SRD part of the trial, dose proportionality for AUC0-inf was assessed in the 25 mg to 400 mg dose groups (BI 730357 tablets administered under fasted conditions) using a power model (regression model applied to log-transformed data).||0.9001|0.5959|
90949920|NCT03004404|181778243|OTHER||Ratio T/R|118.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.57|149.03|||||Standard error of the mean is the geometric standard error of the mean. The geometric mean ratio was calculated as: tablet 400mg fed1 (T)/400mg fed2(R), T/R.|Relative bioavailability of AUC0-inf for the SRD part was performed to test the effect of food intake on the PK of 400 mg BI 730357 tablets. The intra-individual comparison of fed conditions was done using an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale.||149.03|94.57|
90949921|NCT03004404|181778243|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio T1/R (%)|124.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.036|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|116.858|133.255|||||Standard error of the mean is actually geometric standard error of the mean. The geometric mean ratio was calculated as: oral solution in fasted state (test treatment T1)/tablet in fasted state (reference treatment R), T1/R.|Estimation of relative bioavailability of AUC0-inf was based on ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale, included effects: 'sequence', 'period' and 'treatment' as fixed and 'subjects within sequences' as random|Relative bioavailability of BI 730357 for Oral solution (PfOS) fasted (T1) vs. tablet fasted (R) was assessed by the point estimators (geometric means) of the intra-subject ratio of Auc0-inf and their two-sided 90% confidence intervals . No hypothesis was tested.|133.255|116.858|
90982038|NCT02115308|181847899|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||paired, t-test|non adjusted||REST vs STRESS||||0.002
90982039|NCT02115308|181847899|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.721|||||||paired, t-test|non adjusted||REST vs STRESS||||0.721
90982040|NCT02115308|181847899|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.797|||||||t-test, 2 sided|non adjusted||REST||||0.797
90982041|NCT02115308|181847899|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.474|||||||t-test, 2 sided|non adjusted||REST||||0.474
90982042|NCT02115308|181847899|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.537|||||||t-test, 2 sided|non adjusted||||||0.537
90982043|NCT02115308|181847899|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.717|||||||t-test, 2 sided|non adjusted||Regadenoson STRESS||||0.717
90982044|NCT02115308|181847899|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.041|||||||t-test, 2 sided|non adjusted||Regadenoson STRESS||||0.041
90982045|NCT02115308|181847899|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|non adjusted||Regadenoson STRESS||||0.050
90982046|NCT02115308|181847899|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.908||||||non adjusted|t-test, 2 sided|||REST-to-STRESS Change||||0.908
90982047|NCT02115308|181847899|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.233|||||||t-test, 2 sided|non adjusted||||||0.233
90982048|NCT02115308|181847899|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.187|||||||t-test, 2 sided|non adjusted||REST-to-STRESS Change||||0.187
90982049|NCT02115308|181847901|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||paired, t-test|non adjusted||REST vs STRESS||||0.008
90982050|NCT02115308|181847901|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||paired, t-test|non adjusted||REST vs STRESS||||0.006
90982051|NCT02115308|181847901|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.428|||||||paired, t-test|non adjusted||REST vs STRESS||||0.428
90982052|NCT02115308|181847901|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0|||||||t-test, 2 sided|non adjusted||REST||||<0.000
90982053|NCT02115308|181847901|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0|||||||t-test, 2 sided|non adjusted||REST||||<0.000
90982054|NCT02115308|181847901|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|non adjusted||REST||||0.006
90982055|NCT02115308|181847901|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|non adjusted||Regadenoson STRESS||||0.002
90982056|NCT02115308|181847901|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0|||||||t-test, 2 sided|non adjusted||Regadenoson STRESS||||<0.000
90982057|NCT02115308|181847901|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|non adjusted||Regadenoson STRESS||||0.004
90982058|NCT02115308|181847901|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0|||||||t-test, 2 sided|non adjusted||REST-to-STRESS Change||||<0.000
90982059|NCT02115308|181847901|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.172|||||||t-test, 2 sided|non adjusted||REST-to-STRESS Change||||0.172
90982060|NCT02115308|181847901|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.957|||||||t-test, 2 sided|non adjusted||REST-to-STRESS Change||||0.957
90982061|NCT01309737|181847902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.33|17.68||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for pooled investigator sites was used for the analysis. Each hypothesis was tested against placebo at significance level of 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For primary endpoint, step-down procedure used to preserve Type I error, sequential order of testing: PGA response for CP-690,550 10 mg versus (vs) placebo at Week 16; Psoriasis Area and Severity Index 75 (PASI75) response for CP-690,550 10 mg vs placebo at Week 16; PGA response for CP-690,550 5 mg vs placebo at Week 16; PASI75 response for CP-690,550 5 mg vs placebo at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, only then subsequent comparisons were significant.||17.68|5.33|<0.0001
91007856|NCT02483611|181899947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|145.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|42.48||0.9651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.0|244.0|||ANOVA|||||244|78|0.9651
90982062|NCT01309737|181847902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|20.43|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.99|30.59||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for pooled investigator sites was used for the analysis. Each hypothesis was tested against placebo at significance level of 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For primary endpoint, step-down procedure used to preserve Type I error, sequential order of testing: PGA response for CP-690,550 10 mg versus (vs) placebo at Week 16; Psoriasis Area and Severity Index 75 (PASI75) response for CP-690,550 10 mg vs placebo at Week 16; PGA response for CP-690,550 5 mg vs placebo at Week 16; PASI75 response for CP-690,550 5 mg vs placebo at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, only then subsequent comparisons were significant.||30.59|8.99|<0.0001
90982063|NCT01309737|181847902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|13.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.62||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.99|20.17|||Normal approximation|||||20.17|5.99|0.0003
90982064|NCT01309737|181847903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-45.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.69|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.98|-38.49||Mixed model analysis with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction,baseline value and repeated measures for visit. Unstructured covariance matrix was used. Each hypothesis was tested at significance level of 0.025 (2-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|||For key secondary endpoint, family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error.Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16,PASI90 response at Week 16, change in Dermatology Life Quality Index(DLQI) total score at Week 16,PGA response at Week 4,PASI75 at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in Nail Psoriasis Severity Index(NAPSI) score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, then subsequent comparisons were significant.||-38.49|-52.98|<0.0001
90982065|NCT01309737|181847903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-58.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.69|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.33|-50.86||Mixed model analysis with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction,baseline value and repeated measures for visit. Unstructured covariance matrix was used. Each hypothesis was tested at significance level of 0.025 (2-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|||For key secondary endpoint, family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error.Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16,PASI90 response at Week 16, change in Dermatology Life Quality Index(DLQI) total score at Week 16,PGA response at Week 4,PASI75 at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in Nail Psoriasis Severity Index(NAPSI) score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, then subsequent comparisons were significant.||-50.86|-65.33|<0.0001
90982066|NCT01309737|181847903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-12.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.24|-6.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean difference was derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value and repeated measures for visit. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-6.48|-18.24|<0.0001
90982067|NCT01309737|181847904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.5|||<|0.0001||95.0|3.48|17.31||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for pooled investigator sites was used for the analysis. Each hypothesis was tested at significance level of 0.025 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For key secondary endpoint, family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error. Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16, PASI90 response at Week 16, change in DLQI total score at Week 16, PGA response at Week 4, PASI75 response at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in NAPSI score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, then subsequent comparisons were significant.||17.31|3.48|<0.0001
90982068|NCT01309737|181847904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|24.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.08|46.22||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for pooled investigator sites was used for the analysis. Each hypothesis was tested at significance level of 0.025 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For key secondary endpoint, family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error. Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16, PASI90 response at Week 16, change in DLQI total score at Week 16, PGA response at Week 4, PASI75 response at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in NAPSI score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, then subsequent comparisons were significant.||46.22|8.08|<0.0001
90982069|NCT01309737|181847904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|14.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.36|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.72|20.88|||Normal Approximation|||||20.88|7.72|<0.0001
91039308|NCT01075282|181963282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.13||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.02||P-value is adjusted for multiplicity, based on tree-gatekeeping strategy. To determine significance, p-value is compared to the family-wise 1-sided Type I error of 0.025. The confidence interval is not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Superiority analysis.||0.02|-0.29|0.05
91039309|NCT01075282|181963283|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Family-wise Type I error rate was controlled by applying gatekeeping strategy.|LS Mean Difference|-0.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.37||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks. P-value is adjusted for multiplicity, based on tree-gatekeeping strategy, and compared to the family-wise 1-sided Type I error of 0.025. The confidence interval is not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Non-inferiority analysis.||-0.37|-0.65|<0.001
90890126|NCT01571362|181644087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.684||0.7109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|6.29||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||6.29|-4.30|0.7109
90890127|NCT01571362|181644087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.536||0.1031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.14|0.85||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Week 12/ET||0.85|-9.14|0.1031
90890128|NCT01571362|181644088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.776||0.0926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.26|0.8||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||0.80|-10.26|0.0926
90890129|NCT01571362|181644088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.414||0.6437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.42|5.24||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||5.24|-8.42|0.6437
90982070|NCT01309737|181847906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|<|0.0001||95.0|-3.8|-2.14||Mixed model analysis with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction,baseline value and repeated measures for visit. Unstructured covariance matrix was used. Each hypothesis was tested at significance level of 0.025 (2-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week4: For key secondary endpoint, family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error. Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16, PASI90 response at Week 16, change in DLQI total score at Week 16, PGA response at Week 4, PASI75 response at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in NAPSI score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, then subsequent comparisons were significant.||-2.14|-3.80|<0.0001
90982071|NCT01309737|181847906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.13|-3.47||Mixed model analysis with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction,baseline value and repeated measures for visit. Unstructured covariance matrix was used. Each hypothesis was tested at significance level of 0.025 (2-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: For key secondary endpoint, family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error. Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16, PASI90 response at Week 16, change in DLQI total score at Week 16, PGA response at Week 4, PASI75 response at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in NAPSI score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, then subsequent comparisons were significant.||-3.47|-5.13|<0.0001
90982072|NCT01309737|181847906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.01|-0.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: LS mean difference was derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value and repeated measures for visit. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.65|-2.01|0.0001
90982073|NCT01309737|181847906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.51|-3.42||Mixed model analysis with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction,baseline value and repeated measures for visit. Unstructured covariance matrix was used. Each hypothesis was tested at significance level of 0.025 (2-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: For key secondary endpoint, family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error. Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16, PASI90 response at Week 16, change in DLQI total score at Week 16, PGA response at Week 4, PASI75 response at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in NAPSI score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, then subsequent comparisons were significant.||-3.42|-5.51|<0.0001
90982074|NCT01309737|181847906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.14|-5.05||Mixed model analysis with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction,baseline value and repeated measures for visit. Unstructured covariance matrix was used. Each hypothesis was tested at significance level of 0.025 (2-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: For key secondary endpoint, family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error.Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16, PASI90 response at Week 16, change in DLQI total score at Week 16, PGA response at Week 4, PASI75 response at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in NAPSI score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, then subsequent comparisons were significant.||-5.05|-7.14|<0.0001
90982075|NCT01309737|181847906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|-0.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: LS mean difference was derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value and repeated measures for visit. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.79|-2.48|0.0002
90982076|NCT01309737|181847907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.89|8.95||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for pooled investigator sites was used for the analysis. Each hypothesis was tested at significance level of 0.025 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For key secondary endpoint, family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error. Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16, PASI90 response at Week 16, change in DLQI total score at Week 16, PGA response at Week 4, PASI75 response at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in NAPSI score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, then subsequent comparisons were significant.||8.95|1.89|<.0001
91007857|NCT02483611|181899947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|147.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|29.75||0.9651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|105.0|200.0|||ANOVA|||The sample size was calculated with a power of 80% to detect differences of 20% in the timing of clinical onset and the duration of NMB. The pharmacodynamic (latency, clinical duration, recovery rate and total duration) and hemodynamic variables (mean arterial pressure (MAP) and HR) were compared between the groups via analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by the Tukey post-hoc test. The significance level was set at 5%.||200|105|0.9651
91007858|NCT02483611|181899948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|82.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|72.62|99.27|||Kruskal-Wallis|||||99.27|72.62|<0.0001
90890130|NCT01571362|181644088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.391||0.748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.84|5.65||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Week 12/ET||5.65|-7.84|0.7480
90890131|NCT01571362|181644089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.666||0.0098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.68|-3.07||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||-3.07|-21.68|0.0098
90890132|NCT01571362|181644089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.336||0.0186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.63|-2.25||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||-2.25|-23.63|0.0186
90890133|NCT01571362|181644089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.785||0.0581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.72|0.32||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Week 12/ET||0.32|-18.72|0.0581
90890134|NCT01571362|181644090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.168||0.0177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.87|-2.25||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||-2.25|-22.87|0.0177
91007859|NCT02483611|181899948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|86.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.78|140.6|||Kruskal-Wallis|||||140.60|71.78|<0.0001
91039310|NCT01075282|181963283|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Family-wise Type I error rate was controlled by applying gatekeeping strategy.|LS Mean Difference|-0.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.1||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks. P-value is adjusted for multiplicity, based on tree-gatekeeping strategy, and compared to the family-wise 1-sided Type I error of 0.025. The confidence interval is not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Non-inferiority analysis.||-0.10|-0.38|<0.001
91039311|NCT01075282|181963283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.37||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks. P-value is adjusted for multiplicity, based on tree-gatekeeping strategy, and compared to the family-wise 1-sided Type I error of 0.025. The confidence interval is not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Superiority analysis.||-0.37|-0.65|<0.001
91039312|NCT01075282|181963283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.1||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks. P-value is adjusted for multiplicity, based on tree-gatekeeping strategy, and compared to the family-wise 1-sided Type I error of 0.025. The confidence interval is not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Superiority analysis.||-0.10|-0.38|<0.001
91039313|NCT01075282|181963283|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Family-wise Type I error rate was controlled by applying gatekeeping strategy.|LS Mean Difference|-0.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.13||Treatment comparison at 78 weeks. P-value is adjusted for multiplicity, based on tree-gatekeeping strategy, and compared to the family-wise 1-sided Type I error of 0.025. The confidence interval is not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Non-inferiority analysis.||-0.13|-0.50|<0.001
91039314|NCT01075282|181963283|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Family-wise Type I error rate was controlled by applying gatekeeping strategy.|LS Mean Difference|-0.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.15||Treatment comparison at 78 weeks. P-value is adjusted for multiplicity, based on tree-gatekeeping strategy, and compared to the family-wise 1-sided Type I error of 0.025. The confidence interval is not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Non-inferiority analysis.||0.15|-0.21|<0.001
91039315|NCT01075282|181963283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.13||Treatment comparison at 78 weeks. P-value is adjusted for multiplicity, based on tree-gatekeeping strategy, and compared to the family-wise 1-sided Type I error of 0.025. The confidence interval is not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Superiority analysis.||-0.13|-0.50|<0.001
91039316|NCT01075282|181963283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.03||||0.378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.15||Treatment comparison at 78 weeks. P-value is adjusted for multiplicity, based on tree-gatekeeping strategy, and compared to the family-wise 1-sided Type I error of 0.025. The confidence interval is not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Superiority analysis.||0.15|-0.21|0.378
91039317|NCT01075282|181963284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.98|7.11||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||7.11|2.98|<0.001
91039318|NCT01075282|181963284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|3.24||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||3.24|1.41|<0.001
91039319|NCT01075282|181963284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.45|5.75||Treatment comparison at 52 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||5.75|2.45|<0.001
91039320|NCT01075282|181963284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|2.15||Treatment comparison at 52 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.15|0.94|0.098
91039321|NCT01075282|181963284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.85|4.14||Treatment comparison at 78 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||4.14|1.85|<0.001
91039322|NCT01075282|181963284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.82||Treatment comparison at 78 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.82|0.82|0.334
91039323|NCT01075282|181963285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|7.63||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||7.63|2.90|<0.001
91039324|NCT01075282|181963285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|4.11||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||4.11|1.57|<0.001
91039325|NCT01075282|181963285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.81|4.85||Treatment comparison at 52 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||4.85|1.81|<0.001
91039326|NCT01075282|181963285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.07||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|3.39||Treatment comparison at 52 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||3.39|1.26|0.004
90890135|NCT01571362|181644090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.998||0.0219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.19|-2.14||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||-2.14|-26.19|0.0219
90890136|NCT01571362|181644090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.589||0.0679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.47|0.78||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Week 12/ET||0.78|-21.47|0.0679
90890137|NCT01571362|181644091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.654||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.72|-2.27||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||-2.27|-12.72|0.0052
90890138|NCT01571362|181644091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.999||0.1249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.54|1.29||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||1.29|-10.54|0.1249
90890139|NCT01571362|181644091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.818||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.74|-2.64||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Week 12/ET||-2.64|-13.74|0.0040
90890140|NCT04386096|181644127|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.08
90890141|NCT04386096|181644129|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in Adolescent Pre-Intention Factors||||0.30
90890142|NCT04386096|181644129|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in Parent Pre-Intention Factors||||0.71
90890143|NCT04386096|181644130|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in Adolescent Intention to take/give ADHD medicine regularly||||0.29
90890144|NCT04386096|181644130|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in Parent Intention to take/give ADHD medicine regularly||||0.19
90890145|NCT04386096|181644131|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.64
90890146|NCT04386096|181644132|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.81
90949922|NCT03004404|181778243|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio T2/R (%)|125.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|112.89|138.8|||||Standard error of the mean is actually geometric standard error of the mean. The geometric mean ratio was calculated as: tablet in fed state (test treatment T2)/tablet in fasted state (reference treatment R), T2/R.|Estimation of relative bioavailability of AUC0-inf was based on ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale, included effects: 'sequence', 'period' and 'treatment' as fixed and 'subjects within sequences' as random|Relative bioavailability of BI 730357 for tablet fed (T2) vs. tablet fasted (R) was assessed by the point estimators (geometric means) of the intra-subject ratio of AUC0-inf and their two-sided 90% confidence intervals . No hypothesis was tested.|138.80|112.89|
90949923|NCT03004404|181778244|OTHER||Slope|0.7065|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0587|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5863|0.8267|||||Standard error of the mean is actually standard error of the slope. Based on the estimate for the slope parameter, a two sided 95% confidence interval for the slope was computed. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1|In the SRD part of the trial, dose proportionality for Cmax was assessed in the 25 mg to 400 mg dose groups (BI 730357 tablets administered under fasted conditions) using a power model (regression model applied to log-transformed data).||0.8267|0.5863|
90949924|NCT03004404|181778244|OTHER||Ratio T/R|151.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.107|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|122.781|186.248|||||Standard error of the mean is the geometric standard error of the mean. The geometric mean ratio was calculated as: tablet 400mg fed1 (T)/400mg fed2(R), T/R.|Relative bioavailability of the Cmax for the SRD part was performed to test the effect of food intake on the PK of 400 mg BI 730357 tablets. The intra-individual comparison of fed conditions was done using an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale.||186.248|122.781|
90949925|NCT03004404|181778244|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio T1/R (%)|293.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.069|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|259.044|331.891|||||Standard error of the mean is the geometric standard error of the mean. The geometric mean ratio was calculated as: oral solution in fasted state (test treatment T1)/tablet in fasted state (reference treatment R), T1/R.|Estimation of relative bioavailability of Cmax based on ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale, included effects: 'sequence', 'period' and 'treatment' as fixed and 'subjects within sequences' as random|Relative bioavailability of BI 730357 for Oral solution (PfOS) fasted (T1) vs. tablet fasted (R) was assessed by the point estimators (geometric means) of the intra-subject ratio of Cmax and their two-sided 90% confidence intervals . No hypothesis was tested.|331.891|259.044|
90949926|NCT03004404|181778244|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio T2/R (%)|180.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.059|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|162.369|200.732|||||Standard error of the mean is the geometric standard error of the mean. The geometric mean ratio was calculated as: tablet in fed state (test treatment T2)/tablet in fasted state (reference treatment R), T2/R.|Estimation of relative bioavailability of Cmax was based on ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale, included effects: 'sequence', 'period' and 'treatment' as fixed and 'subjects within sequences' as random|Relative bioavailability of BI 730357 for tablet fasted (T2) vs. tablet fasted (R) was assessed by the point estimators (geometric means) of the intra-subject ratio of Cmax and their two-sided 90% confidence intervals . No hypothesis was tested.|200.732|162.369|
90949927|NCT01937975|181778245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|1.09|||||Geometric Mean Ratio = ESRD HD Day 10 / ESRD Non-HD Day 9|ESRD Non-HD Day 9 versus ESRD HD Day 10||1.09|0.87|
90949928|NCT01937975|181778245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.58|1.25|||||Geometric Mean Ratio = ESRD Non-HD Day 9 / Healthy Day 10|ESRD Non-HD Day 9 versus Healthy Participants Day 10||1.25|0.58|
90949929|NCT01937975|181778245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.56|1.22|||||Geometric Mean Ratio = ESRD HD Day 10 / Healthy Day 10|ESRD HD Day 10 versus Healthy Participants Day 10||1.22|0.56|
90949930|NCT01937975|181778245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.09|2.49|||||Geometric Mean Ratio = SRI Day 10 / Healthy Day 10|SRI Participants Day 10 versus Healthy Participants Day 10||2.49|1.09|
90949931|NCT01937975|181778246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|1.19|||||Geometric Mean Ratio = ESRD HD Day 10 / ESRD Non-HD Day 9|ESRD Non-HD Day 9 versus ESRD HD Day 10||1.19|0.81|
90949932|NCT01937975|181778246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.54|1.16|||||Geometric Mean Ratio = ESRD Non-HD Day 9 / Healthy Day 10|ESRD Non-HD Day 9 versus Healthy Participants Day 10||1.16|0.54|
90949933|NCT01937975|181778246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.53|1.14|||||Geometric Mean Ratio = ESRD HD Day 10 / Healthy Day 10|ESRD HD Day 10 versus Healthy Participants Day 10||1.14|0.53|
90949934|NCT01937975|181778246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.06|2.42|||||Geometric Mean Ratio = SRI Day 10 / Healthy Day 10|SRI Participants Day 10 versus Healthy Participants Day 10||2.42|1.06|
90949935|NCT01937975|181778247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.75|1.22|||||Geometric Mean Ratio = ESRD HD Day 10 / ESRD Non-HD Day 9|ESRD Non-HD Day 9 versus ESRD HD Day 10||1.22|0.75|
90949936|NCT01937975|181778247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.57|1.48|||||Geometric Mean Ratio = ESRD Non-HD Day 9 / Healthy Day 10|ESRD Non-HD Day 9 versus Healthy Participants Day 10||1.48|0.57|
90982077|NCT01309737|181847907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.08|19.95||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for pooled investigator sites was used for the analysis. Each hypothesis was tested at significance level of 0.025 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For key secondary endpoint, family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error. Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16, PASI90 response at Week 16, change in DLQI total score at Week 16, PGA response at Week 4, PASI75 response at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in NAPSI score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, then subsequent comparisons were significant.||19.95|4.08|<.0001
91007860|NCT02483611|181899948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|64.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.5|92.9|||Kruskal-Wallis|||||92.90|40.50|<0.0001
90949937|NCT01937975|181778247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.54|1.42|||||Geometric Mean Ratio = ESRD HD Day 10 / Healthy Day 10|ESRD HD Day 10 versus Healthy Participants Day 10||1.42|0.54|
91039327|NCT01075282|181963285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|3.57||Treatment comparison at 78 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment comparison at 78 weeks.||||3.57|1.44|<0.001
91039328|NCT01075282|181963285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|2.42||Treatment comparison at 78 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.42|0.96|0.073
91039329|NCT01075282|181963286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.109||||||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.109
90890147|NCT04386096|181644134|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in Adolescent: Child Seek||||0.10
91039330|NCT01075282|181963286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.335||||||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.335
91039331|NCT01075282|181963286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.091||||||Treatment comparison at 52 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.091
91039332|NCT01075282|181963286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4||||||Treatment comparison at 52 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.400
91039333|NCT01075282|181963286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.641||||||Treatment comparison at 78 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.641
91039334|NCT01075282|181963286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.055||||||Treatment comparison at 78 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.055
91039335|NCT01075282|181963289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.33|3.33||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||3.33|2.33|<0.001
90890148|NCT04386096|181644134|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in Adolescent: Child Express||||0.51
90890149|NCT04386096|181644134|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in Adolescent: Parent Seek||||0.84
90890150|NCT04386096|181644134|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in Adolescent: Parent Express||||0.93
90890151|NCT04386096|181644134|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in Adolescent: Joint/Options||||0.43
90890152|NCT04386096|181644134|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in Parent: Child Seek||||0.94
91039336|NCT01075282|181963289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.99|2.99||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||2.99|1.99|<0.001
91039337|NCT01075282|181963289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.71|3.9||Treatment comparison at 52 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||3.90|2.71|<0.001
91039338|NCT01075282|181963289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.17|3.36||Treatment comparison at 52 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||3.36|2.17|<0.001
91039339|NCT01075282|181963289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.59|3.89||Treatment comparison at 78 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||3.89|2.59|<0.001
91039340|NCT01075282|181963289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.17|3.46||Treatment comparison at 78 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||3.46|2.17|<0.001
90890153|NCT04386096|181644134|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in Parent: Child Express||||0.79
90890154|NCT04386096|181644134|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in Parent: Parent Seek||||0.61
90890155|NCT04386096|181644134|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in Parent: Parent Express||||0.10
90890156|NCT04386096|181644134|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in Parent: Joint/Options||||0.98
90890157|NCT04402866|181644205|OTHER||Common Odds Ratio|1.142||||0.6137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.706|1.846|||Van Elteren test||Common Odds Ratio (TD-0903 vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% Wald confidence interval (CI) were obtained from the proportional odds regression model of RFD adjusting for baseline age strata (≤ 60 years vs. \> 60 years).|Since this was a Phase 2 study, it was not powered for any of the secondary endpoints.||1.846|0.706|0.6137
90890158|NCT04402866|181644206|OTHER|Since this was a Phase 2 study, it was not powered for any of the secondary endpoints.|LS mean difference|-0.51||||0.962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.95|20.92|||Mixed model repeated measures model|||Part 2: TD-0903 - Parallel-Group 3 mg versus Part 2: Matching Placebo - Parallel-Group||20.92|-21.95|0.962
90949938|NCT01937975|181778247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.99|2.77|||||Geometric Mean Ratio = SRI Day 10 / Healthy Day 10|SRI Participants Day 10 versus Healthy Participants Day 10||2.77|0.99|
90949939|NCT01937975|181778250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.15|||||Geometric Mean Ratio = ESRD HD Day 10 / ESRD Non-HD Day 9|ESRD Non-HD Day 9 versus ESRD HD Day 10||1.15|0.92|
90949940|NCT01937975|181778250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|1.73|||||Geometric Mean Ratio = ESRD Non-HD Day 9 / Healthy Day 10|ESRD Non-HD Day 9 versus Healthy Participants Day 10||1.73|0.80|
90949941|NCT01937975|181778250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.82|1.78|||||Geometric Mean Ratio = ESRD HD Day 10 / Healthy Day 10|ESRD HD Day 10 versus Healthy Participants Day 10||1.78|0.82|
90949942|NCT01937975|181778250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|0.92|||||Geometric Mean Ratio = SRI Day 10 / Healthy Day 10|SRI Participants Day 10 versus Healthy Participants Day 10||0.92|0.40|
90949943|NCT01937975|181778251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.63|1.42|||||Geometric Mean Ratio = ESRD HD Day 10 / Healthy Day 10|||1.42|0.63|
90949944|NCT01937975|181778251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.39|0.94|||||Geometric Mean Ratio = SRI Day 10 / Healthy Day 10|||0.94|0.39|
90949945|NCT01937975|181778252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.08|1.21|||||Geometric Mean Ratio = ESRD HD Day 10 / ESRD Non-HD Day 9|ESRD Non-HD Day 9 versus ESRD HD Day 10||1.21|1.08|
90949946|NCT01937975|181778252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.65|1.14|||||Geometric Mean Ratio = ESRD Non-HD Day 9 / Healthy Day 10|ESRD Non-HD Day 9 versus Healthy Participants Day 10||1.14|0.65|
90949947|NCT01937975|181778252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.75|1.3|||||Geometric Mean Ratio = ESRD HD Day 10 / Healthy Day 10|ESRD HD Day 10 versus Healthy Participants Day 10||1.30|0.75|
90949948|NCT01937975|181778252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.38|2.51|||||Geometric Mean Ratio = SRI Day 10 / Healthy Day 10|SRI Participants Day 10 versus Healthy Participants Day 10||2.51|1.38|
90949949|NCT01937975|181778253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.17|1.32|||||Geometric Mean Ratio = ESRD HD Day 10 / ESRD Non-HD Day 9|ESRD Non-HD Day 9 versus ESRD HD Day 10||1.32|1.17|
90949950|NCT01937975|181778253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.56|1.06|||||Geometric Mean Ratio = ESRD Non-HD Day 9 / Healthy Day 10|ESRD Non-HD Day 9 versus Healthy Participants Day 10||1.06|0.56|
90949951|NCT01937975|181778253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|1.32|||||Geometric Mean Ratio = ESRD HD Day 10 / Healthy Day 10|ESRD HD Day 10 versus Healthy Participants Day 10||1.32|0.69|
90949952|NCT01937975|181778253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|2.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.46|2.93|||||Geometric Mean Ratio = SRI Day 10 / Healthy Day 10|SRI Participants Day 10 versus Healthy Participants Day 10||2.93|1.46|
90949953|NCT01937975|181778254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.26|||||Geometric Mean Ratio = ESRD HD Day 10 / ESRD Non-HD Day 9|ESRD Non-HD Day 9 versus ESRD HD Day 10||1.26|1.00|
90949954|NCT01937975|181778254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.62|1.13|||||Geometric Mean Ratio = ESRD Non-HD Day 9 / Healthy Day 10|ESRD Non-HD Day 9 versus Healthy Participants Day 10||1.13|0.62|
90949955|NCT01937975|181778254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7|1.27|||||Geometric Mean Ratio = ESRD HD Day 10 / Healthy Day 10|ESRD HD Day 10 versus Healthy Participants Day 10||1.27|0.70|
90949956|NCT01937975|181778254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.21|2.28|||||Geometric Mean Ratio = SRI Day 10 / Healthy Day 10|SRI Participants Day 10 versus Healthy Participants Day 10||2.28|1.21|
90949957|NCT01937975|181778257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|0.92|||||Geometric Mean Ratio = ESRD HD Day 10 / ESRD Non-HD Day 9|ESRD Non-HD Day 9 versus ESRD HD Day 10||0.92|0.83|
90949958|NCT01937975|181778257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.53|||||Geometric Mean Ratio = ESRD Non-HD Day 9 / Healthy Day 10|ESRD Non-HD Day 9 versus Healthy Participants Day 10||1.53|0.88|
90949959|NCT01937975|181778257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.77|1.34|||||Geometric Mean Ratio = ESRD HD Day 10 / Healthy Day 10|ESRD HD Day 10 versus Healthy Participants Day 10||1.34|0.77|
90949960|NCT01937975|181778257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|0.72|||||Geometric Mean Ratio = SRI Day 10 / Healthy Day 10|SRI Participants Day 10 versus Healthy Participants Day 10||0.72|0.40|
90949961|NCT01937975|181778258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7|1.3|||||Geometric Mean Ratio = ESRD HD Day 10 / Healthy Day 10|||1.30|0.70|
90949962|NCT01937975|181778258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.45|0.89|||||Geometric Mean Ratio = SRI Day 10 / Healthy Day 10|||0.89|0.45|
90949963|NCT01721954|181778273|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||The null hypothesis tested for the primary efficacy endpoint is overall survival (months) of SIRT/FOLFOX treatment versus FOLFOX is equal for both groups. The two-sided alternative hypothesis tested with 95% confidence is OS time for SIRT/FOLFOX treatment lower to that of FOLFOX.||||0.43
90949964|NCT01721954|181778274|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||A sample size of at least 209 patients for the SIRFLOX study was estimated to be needed to detect an increase in the median PFS at any site from 9.4 months to 14.5 months with 80% power and 95% confidence. Taking into account the number of patients who might receive the alternative treatment or lack of imaging data, the sample size was increased to 209. The Null hypothesis is no difference between the treatment arms with respect to PFS.||||<0.05
90949965|NCT02278484|181778279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90949966|NCT01346072|181778287|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.853|||||||Wilcoxon Two-Sample Test|Wilcoxon Two Sample Test was used with Exact Test two sided p value reported||||||0.853
90949967|NCT01346072|181778288|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035|||||||Wilcoxon Two-Sample Test|Wilcoxon Two Sample Test was used with Exact Test two sided p value reported||||||0.035
90949968|NCT01711853|181778300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5186|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale; effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'gender', 'age group', and 'renal function group'.||"Patients were classified into groups for renal function based on the median values for renal function (1: ≤ median GFR (Glomerular filtration rate), 2: \> median GFR).~Median is calculated based on trial data of treated set"||||0.5186
90949969|NCT01711853|181778300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9883|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale; effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'gender', 'age group', and 'renal function group'.||"Patients were classified into groups for renal function based on the median values for renal function (1: ≤ median age, 2: \> median age).~Median is calculated based on trial data of treated set"||||0.9883
90949970|NCT01711853|181778300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7853|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale; effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'gender', 'age group', and 'renal function group'.||Patients were classified based on the gender distribution.||||0.7853
90949971|NCT01711853|181778301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4692|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale; effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'gender', 'age group', and 'renal function group'.||"Patients were classified into groups for renal function based on the median values for renal function (1: ≤ median GFR, 2: \> median GFR).~Median is calculated based on trial data of treated set"||||0.4692
90949972|NCT01711853|181778301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9734|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale; effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'gender', 'age group', and 'renal function group'.||"Patients were classified into groups for renal function based on the median values for renal function (1: ≤ median age, 2: \> median age).~Median is calculated based on trial data of treated set"||||0.9734
90949973|NCT01711853|181778301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9201|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale; effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'gender', 'age group', and 'renal function group'.||Patients were classified based on the gender distribution.||||0.9201
90949974|NCT04535544|181778336|SUPERIORITY||Difference of percentage|23.7||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.52|43.96|||Mantel-Haenszel|||Stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel (MH) test was used to assess the difference of percentage based on stratification factor: HBeAg status at screening (positive vs negative).||43.96|3.52|0.011
90949975|NCT04535544|181778337|SUPERIORITY||Difference of percentage|26.8||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.38|46.21|||Mantel-Haenszel|||Stratum-adjusted MH test was used to assess the difference of percentage based on stratification factor: HBeAg status at screening (positive vs negative).||46.21|7.38|0.003
90982078|NCT01309737|181847907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|10.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.02||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.87|16.71|||Normal Approximation|||||16.71|4.87|0.0004
91007861|NCT02483611|181899949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.49||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|32.25|||ANOVA|||||32.25|12.00|0.0015
91007862|NCT02483611|181899949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.69||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.5|39.83|||ANOVA|||||39.83|10.50|0.0015
91007863|NCT02483611|181899949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.53|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.52||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|16.5|||ANOVA|||||16.50|11.00|0.0015
90982079|NCT01309737|181847908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72||||0.1786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|4.62||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for pooled investigator sites was used for the analysis. Each hypothesis was tested at significance level of 0.025 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For key secondary endpoint, family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error. Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16, PASI90 response at Week 16, change in DLQI total score at Week 16, PGA response at Week 4, PASI75 response at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in NAPSI score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, then subsequent comparisons were significant.||4.62|0.74|0.1786
91007864|NCT02483611|181899950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.97|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.77||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.5|41.5|||ANOVA|||||41.50|19.50|0.0003
91007865|NCT02483611|181899950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.81|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.97||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.5|49.5|||ANOVA|||||49.50|18.50|0.0003
91007866|NCT02483611|181899950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.51|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.28||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.5|30.05|||ANOVA|||||30.05|17.50|0.0003
90982080|NCT01309737|181847908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.18||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|10.25||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for pooled investigator sites was used for the analysis. Each hypothesis was tested at significance level of 0.025 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For key secondary endpoint, family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error.Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16, PASI90 response at Week 16, change in DLQI total score at Week 16, PGA response at Week 4, PASI75 response at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in NAPSI score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, then subsequent comparisons were significant.||10.25|1.77|0.0003
90982081|NCT01309737|181847908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|6.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|11.14|||Normal Approximation|||||11.14|2.30|0.0029
90982082|NCT01309737|181847909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.02|16.45||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for pooled investigator sites was used for the analysis. Each hypothesis was tested against placebo at significance level of 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For primary endpoint, step-down procedure used to preserve Type I error, sequential order of testing: PGA response for CP-690,550 10 mg versus (vs) placebo at Week 16; Psoriasis Area and Severity Index 75 (PASI75) response for CP-690,550 10 mg vs placebo at Week 16; PGA response for CP-690,550 5 mg vs placebo at Week 16; PASI75 response for CP-690,550 5 mg vs placebo at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, only then subsequent comparisons were significant.||16.45|5.02|<0.0001
90982083|NCT01309737|181847909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|17.97|||<|0.0001||95.0|9.0|30.73||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for pooled investigator sites was used for the analysis. Each hypothesis was tested against placebo at significance level of 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For primary endpoint, step-down procedure used to preserve Type I error, sequential order of testing: PGA response for CP-690,550 10 mg versus (vs) placebo at Week 16; Psoriasis Area and Severity Index 75 (PASI75) response for CP-690,550 10 mg vs placebo at Week 16; PGA response for CP-690,550 5 mg vs placebo at Week 16; PASI75 response for CP-690,550 5 mg vs placebo at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, only then subsequent comparisons were significant.||30.73|9.00|<0.0001
90982084|NCT01309737|181847909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|13.62||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.54|20.69|||Normal Approximation|||||20.69|6.54|0.0002
90982085|NCT01309737|181847910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-37.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.62||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.19|-10.68||Mixed model analysis with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction,baseline value and repeated measures for visit. Unstructured covariance matrix was used. Each hypothesis was tested at significance level of 0.025 (2-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|||For key secondary endpoint, family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error. Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16, PASI90 response at Week 16, change in DLQI total score at Week 16, PGA response at Week 4, PASI75 response at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in NAPSI score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, then subsequent comparisons were significant.||-10.68|-64.19|0.0062
90982086|NCT01309737|181847910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-41.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.75||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.8|-14.78||Mixed model analysis with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction,baseline value and repeated measures for visit. Unstructured covariance matrix was used. Each hypothesis was tested at significance level of 0.025 (2-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|||For key secondary endpoint, family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error. Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16, PASI90 response at Week 16, change in DLQI total score at Week 16, PGA response at Week 4, PASI75 response at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in NAPSI score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, then subsequent comparisons were significant.||-14.78|-68.80|0.0025
90982087|NCT01309737|181847910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.98||0.692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.91|17.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean difference was derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value and repeated measures for visit. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.||17.21|-25.91|0.6920
90982088|NCT01309737|181847914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
91039341|NCT00367133|181963308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Repeated Measures Model. Adjusted for baseline visual acuity and prior photocoagulation; Accounted for correlated data from subjects with 2 study eyes||P values for two group comparisons for difference in mean change.||||0.02
90982089|NCT01309737|181847914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
90982090|NCT01309737|181847914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
90982091|NCT01309737|181847915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
90982092|NCT01309737|181847915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
90982093|NCT01309737|181847915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
90982094|NCT01309737|181847916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
90982095|NCT01309737|181847916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
90982096|NCT01309737|181847916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
90982097|NCT01442181|181847957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Energy and fatigue 3 month vs 6 month in minimally invasive group||||0.03
90982098|NCT01442181|181847957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the fatigue and energy was done in baseline-3 month, and 6 month in each group. Minimally Invasive: baseline vs 3 month||||0.01
90982099|NCT01442181|181847957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Energy and fatigue in medical therapy group; baseline vs 3 month||||0.49
90982100|NCT01442181|181847957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Energy and fatigue 3 month vs 6 month||||0.06
90982101|NCT04233424|181848012|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|-2.8||||0.152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|1.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.0|-6.7|0.152
90982102|NCT04233424|181848013|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|-0.8||||0.6219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|2.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.3|-3.9|0.6219
90982103|NCT04233424|181848014|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|-0.8||||0.4373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|1.2|||Kaplan-Meier Analysis|||||1.2|-2.8|0.4373
90982104|NCT02698189|181848015|OTHER|80% Bayesian credible interval based on a prior distribution of Beta (1, 1).|||||||||||||||||80% 2-sided Bayesian credible interval: lower = 0.000; upper = 0.415|||
90982105|NCT02698189|181848015|OTHER|80% Bayesian credible interval based on a prior distribution of Beta (1, 1).|||||||||||||||||80% 2-sided Bayesian credible interval: lower = 0.040; upper = 0.391|||
90982106|NCT03664726|181848046|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0034||||||Comparison of differences by group|ANOVA|||||||0.0034
90982107|NCT03664726|181848047|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.76
90982108|NCT03664726|181848048|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.77
90982109|NCT03119649|181848060|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.15||0.4291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|5.0||P-value obtained from the Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate. Pairwise comparisons were not corrected for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Day 29: GLPG2222 50 mg QD vs. Pooled Placebo||5.0|-11.6|0.4291
90982110|NCT03119649|181848060|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.32||0.3477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|4.6||P-value obtained from the MMRM analysis with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate. Pairwise comparisons were not corrected for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Day 29: GLPG2222 100 mg QD vs. Pooled Placebo||4.6|-12.8|0.3477
90982111|NCT03119649|181848060|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-15.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.72|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.2|-8.3||P-value obtained from the MMRM analysis with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate. Pairwise comparisons were not corrected for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Day 29: GLPG2222 200 mg QD vs. Pooled Placebo||-8.3|-23.2|<0.0001
90982112|NCT03119649|181848060|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-6.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.76||0.0995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|1.2||P-value obtained from the MMRM analysis with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate. Pairwise comparisons were not corrected for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Day 29: GLPG2222 400 mg QD vs. Pooled Placebo||1.2|-13.9|0.0995
90982113|NCT03119649|181848061|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.11||0.594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|5.4||P-value obtained from the MMRM analysis with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate. Pairwise comparisons were not corrected for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Day 29: GLPG2222 50 mg QD vs. Pooled Placebo||5.4|-3.1|0.5940
90982114|NCT03119649|181848061|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.06||0.7553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|4.8||P-value obtained from the MMRM analysis with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate. Pairwise comparisons were not corrected for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Day 29: GLPG2222 100 mg QD vs. Pooled Placebo||4.8|-3.5|0.7553
90982115|NCT03119649|181848061|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.94||0.5958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|4.9||P-value obtained from the MMRM analysis with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate. Pairwise comparisons were not corrected for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Day 29: GLPG2222 200 mg QD vs. Pooled Placebo||4.9|-2.9|0.5958
90982116|NCT03119649|181848061|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.94||0.2403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|6.2||P-value obtained from the MMRM analysis with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate. Pairwise comparisons were not corrected for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Day 29: GLPG2222 400 mg QD vs. Pooled Placebo||6.2|-1.6|0.2403
91007867|NCT02483611|181899951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|113.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.87|136.8|||ANOVA|||||136.80|94.87|<0.0001
91007868|NCT02483611|181899951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|120.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|18.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|95.82|163.3|||ANOVA|||||163.30|95.82|<0.0001
91007869|NCT02483611|181899951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|88.19|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.34|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.0|125.2|||ANOVA|||||125.20|58|<0.0001
91007870|NCT02483611|181899952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|120.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.88|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|106.3|140.2|||ANOVA|||||140.20|106.30|<0.0001
91007871|NCT02483611|181899952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|126.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.19|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|106.5|149.4|||ANOVA|||||149.40|106.50|<0.0001
91007872|NCT02483611|181899952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|90.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.78|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.75|116.4|||ANOVA|||||116.40|71.75|<0.0001
91007873|NCT02483611|181899953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|94.63|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.18||0.0527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|70.0|112.0|||ANOVA|||||112.00|70.00|0.0527
90982117|NCT03119649|181848062|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.81||0.5749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|12.4||P-value obtained from the MMRM analysis with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate. Pairwise comparisons were not corrected for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Day 29: GLPG2222 50 mg QD vs. Pooled Placebo||12.4|-6.9|0.5749
90982118|NCT03119649|181848062|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.83||0.7381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|11.3||P-value obtained from the MMRM analysis with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate. Pairwise comparisons were not corrected for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Day 29: GLPG2222 100 mg QD vs. Pooled Placebo||11.3|-8.1|0.7381
90982119|NCT03119649|181848062|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.43||0.1282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|15.7||P-value obtained from the MMRM analysis with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate. Pairwise comparisons were not corrected for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Day 29: GLPG2222 200 mg QD vs. Pooled Placebo||15.7|-2.0|0.1282
90982120|NCT03119649|181848062|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.43||0.7212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|10.5||P-value obtained from the MMRM analysis with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate. Pairwise comparisons were not corrected for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Day 29: GLPG2222 400 mg QD vs. Pooled Placebo||10.5|-7.3|0.7212
90982121|NCT02333227|181848071|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis||||We employed generalized linear mixed methods (GLMM) with binomial distribution to examine the association between study primary outcomes of baby's birth weight (\<2500) and gestational age at delivery (\<37 weeks including up to 36 and 6/7 weeks) and assignment to the study intervention group. To account for clustering of outcomes by cluster (sites), we used random slope/random intercept GLMM models with a cluster as a random effect (level 2) and treatment as a fixed effect (level 1), since random effect modeling is an individual-level analyses that accounts for within-cluster dependence by maximum likelihood estimation. A separate model was fit to each study outcome and corresponding relative risk with 95% confidence intervals (CI) estimated. Full information maximum likelihood estimation (FIML) allows for analyses to be performed with the full sample, under conditions of Missing Completely at Random (MCAR) and Missing at Random (MAR), and with missing data rates up to 50%.|||<0.05
90982122|NCT02333227|181848072|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Co-primary outcomes|We employed generalized linear mixed methods (GLMM) with binomial distribution to examine the association between study primary outcomes of baby's birth weight (\<2500) and gestational age at delivery (\<37 weeks including up to 36 and 6/7 weeks) and assignment to the study intervention group. To account for clustering of outcomes by cluster (sites), we used random slope/random intercept GLMM models with a cluster as a random effect (level 2) and treatment as a fixed effect (level 1), since random effect modeling is an individual-level analyses that accounts for within-cluster dependence by maximum likelihood estimation. A separate model was fit to each study outcome and corresponding relative risk with 95% confidence intervals (CI) estimated. Full information maximum likelihood estimation (FIML) allows for analyses to be performed with the full sample, under conditions of Missing Completely at Random (MCAR) and Missing at Random (MAR), and with missing data rates up to 50%.|||<0.05
90982123|NCT02333227|181848073|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
90982124|NCT02333227|181848074|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis||||Specifically, the composite of periodontal disease was also created; this composite was positive if any of the following were detected: gingival bleeding, pockets of 4 mm or greater, or loss of attachment of 4 mm or greater. A scaled periodontal disease score was also created which was the sum of scores for gingival bleeding (+1 if bleeding was present, per tooth), gingival pockets (+1 for pockets of 4-5 mm and +2 for 6 mm or deeper, per tooth), and loss of attachment (+1 for 4-5 mm loss, +2 for 6-8 mm, +3 for 9-11 mm, and +4 for 12 mm or more, per tooth with values recorded for index teeth) divided by the number of teeth present.|||<0.05
91039342|NCT00367133|181963308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Repeated Measures Model. Adjusted for baseline visual acuity and prior photocoagulation; Accounted for correlated data from subjects with 2 study eyes||P Values for 2 group comparisons of difference in mean change||||0.002
90982125|NCT02333227|181848075|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
90982126|NCT01564784|181848076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate difference|51.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|38.4|64.3|||1-sided p-value based on Chi-square test|If any cell count was \<5, p-value was based on Fisher's exact test||||64.3|38.4|<0.0001
90982127|NCT01564784|181848077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.751||||0.0105|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.568|0.993|||1-sided stratified log-rank p-value||Stratified HR, i.e., based on analysis stratified by randomization stratification factors.|||0.993|0.568|0.0105
91039343|NCT00367133|181963308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Repeated Measures Model. Adjusted for baseline visual acuity and prior photocoagulation; Accounted for correlated data from subjects with 2 study eyes||P Values for 2 group comparisons of difference in mean change||||0.49
91039344|NCT00367133|181963311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0|||||GEE Repeated Measures|Hochberg procedure used to determine statistical significance.||Proportion with 15-letter or more worsening||||0.03
90982128|NCT01564784|181848078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.49||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.297|0.809|||1-sided stratified log-rank p-value||Stratified HR, i.e., based on analysis stratified by randomization stratification factors.|||0.809|0.297|0.0021
90982129|NCT01564784|181848079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.336|0.602|||1-sided stratified log-rank p-value||Stratified HR, i.e., based on analysis stratified by randomization stratification factors.|||0.602|0.336|<0.0001
90982130|NCT01564784|181848080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate difference|31.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.6|40.6|||1-sided p-value based on Chi-square test|If any cell count was \<5, p-value was based on Fisher's exact test||||40.6|22.6|<0.0001
90982131|NCT01564784|181848081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||1-sided p-value based on Chi-Square test|If any cell count is \<5, p-value was based on Fisher's exact test||||||<0.0001
90982132|NCT01564784|181848082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3168|||||||1-sided p-value based on Chi-Square test|If any cell count is \<5, p-value was based on Fisher's exact test||Abnormal at Screening||||0.3168
90982133|NCT01564784|181848082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.216|||||||1-sided p-value based on Chi-Square test|If any cell count is \<5, p-value was based on Fisher's exact test||Abnormal after remission||||0.2160
90982134|NCT01564784|181848084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.9||||0.0139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|12.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline included as covariate.||Physical Functioning||12.3|1.4|0.0139
90982135|NCT01564784|181848084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|11.4||||0.0065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|19.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline included as covariate.||Role Functioning||19.5|3.2|0.0065
90982136|NCT01564784|181848084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.3||||0.3307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline included as covariate.||Emotional Functioning||2.3|-6.9|0.3307
90982137|NCT01564784|181848084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.8||||0.1904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|7.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline included as covariate.||Cognitive Functioning||7.0|-1.4|0.1904
90982138|NCT01564784|181848084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.4||||0.0336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|16.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline included as covariate.||Social Functioning||16.1|0.7|0.0336
90982139|NCT01564784|181848084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.3||||0.1572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|10.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline included as covariate.||Global Health Status||10.3|-1.7|0.1572
90982140|NCT01564784|181848084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.7||||0.1281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline included as covariate.||Dyspnoea||1.4|-10.8|0.1281
90982141|NCT01564784|181848084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.7||||0.6207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|5.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline included as covariate.||Insomnia||5.2|-8.7|0.6207
90982142|NCT01564784|181848084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.7||||0.0193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|-1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline included as covariate.||Appetite Loss||-1.4|-16.0|0.0193
90982143|NCT01564784|181848084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.4||||0.6249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|7.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline included as covariate.||Constipation||7.3|-4.4|0.6249
90982144|NCT01564784|181848084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.0||||0.1534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline included as covariate.||Diarrhoea||1.1|-7.2|0.1534
90982145|NCT01564784|181848084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.5||||0.4915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|4.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline included as covariate.||Financial Difficulties||4.7|-9.7|0.4915
90982146|NCT01564784|181848084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.4||||0.1789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|2.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline included as covariate.||Fatigue||2.0|-10.8|0.1789
90982147|NCT01564784|181848084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.6||||0.4578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|2.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline included as covariate.||Nausea and Vomiting||2.7|-6.0|0.4578
90982148|NCT01564784|181848084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.8428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|6.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline included as covariate.||Pain||6.0|-7.3|0.8428
90982149|NCT01564784|181848085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03||||0.171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline included as covariate.||||0.07|-0.01|0.1710
90982150|NCT01564784|181848086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.6||||0.1172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|10.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline included as covariate.||||10.4|-1.2|0.1172
90982151|NCT00488631|181848117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||||||A fixed sequence testing procedure was employed to control the overall Type I error rate at the 0.05 level (i.e., testing golimumab 100 mg vs. placebo first, then, if positive, testing 50 mg vs. placebo).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical analysis for number of participants in clinical response through Week 54 were summarized using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by clinical remission status at Week 0 and the induction dose factor.||||0.010
91039345|NCT00367133|181963311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||GEE Repeated Measures|Hochberg procedure used to determine statistical significance.||Proportion with 15-letter or more worsening||||0.01
91039346|NCT00367133|181963311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82||95.0|||||GEE Repeated Measures|Hochberg procedure used to determine statistical significance.||Proportion with 15-letter or more worsening||||0.82
90982152|NCT00488631|181848117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||A fixed sequence testing procedure was employed to control the overall Type I error rate at the 0.05 level (i.e., testing golimumab 100 mg vs. placebo first, then, if positive, testing 50 mg vs. placebo).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical analysis for number of participants in clinical response through Week 54 were summarized using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by clinical remission status at Week 0 and the induction dose factor.||||<0.001
90982153|NCT00488631|181848118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.122||||||Fixed sequence testing; 100 mg group was tested if it was positive for preceding endpoint, regardless whether 50 mg group was positive;50 mg group was tested if 100 mg group positive for same endpoint and 50 mg group positive for preceding endpoint.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical analysis for number of participants with clinical remission at both Week 30 and Week 54 were summarized using the CMH test stratified by clinical remission status at Week 0 and the induction dose factor.||||0.122
90982154|NCT00488631|181848118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||||||Fixed sequence testing; 100 mg group was tested if it was positive for preceding endpoint, regardless whether 50 mg group was positive;50 mg group was tested if 100 mg group positive for same endpoint and 50 mg group positive for preceding endpoint.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical analysis for number of participants with clinical remission at both Week 30 and Week 54 were summarized using the CMH test stratified by clinical remission status at Week 0 and the induction dose factor.||||0.004
90982155|NCT00488631|181848119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011||||||Fixed sequence testing; 100 mg group was tested if it was positive for preceding endpoint, regardless whether 50 mg group was positive;50 mg group was tested if 100 mg group positive for same endpoint and 50 mg group positive for preceding endpoint.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical analysis for number of participants with mucosal healing at both Week 30 and Week 54 were summarized using CMH test stratified by clinical remission status at Week 0 and the induction dose factor.||||0.011
90982156|NCT00488631|181848119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||||||Fixed sequence testing; 100 mg group was tested if it was positive for preceding endpoint, regardless whether 50 mg group was positive;50 mg group was tested if 100 mg group positive for same endpoint and 50 mg group positive for preceding endpoint.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical analysis for number of participants with mucosal healing at both Week 30 and Week 54 were summarized using CMH test stratified by clinical remission status at Week 0 and the induction dose factor.||||0.002
90982157|NCT00488631|181848120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.365||||||Fixed sequence testing; 100 mg group was tested if it was positive for preceding endpoint, regardless whether 50 mg group was positive;50 mg group was tested if 100 mg group positive for same endpoint and 50 mg group positive for preceding endpoint.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical analysis for number of participants with clinical remission at both Week 30 and 54 among participants with clinical remission at Week 0 of maintenance study were summarized using CMH test stratified by the induction dose factor.||||0.365
91039347|NCT00367133|181963312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Repeated Measures Model. Accounted for correlated data from subjects with 2 study eyes; included baseline central subfield thickness as a covariate.||P value not adjusted for multiple comparisons||||<0.001
91039348|NCT00367133|181963312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Repeated Measures Model. Accounted for correlated data from subjects with 2 study eyes; included baseline central subfield thickness as a covariate.||P Value not adjusted for multiple comparisons||||<0.001
91039349|NCT00367133|181963312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.91||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Repeated Measures Model. Accounted for correlated data from subjects with 2 study eyes; included baseline central subfield thickness as a covariate.||P Values not adjusted for multiple comparisons||||0.91
91039350|NCT00367133|181963314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||GEE Repeated Measures|Accounted for correlated data from subjects with 2 study eyes; included baseline central subfield thickness as a covariate.||P Values not adjusted for multiple comparisons||||<0.001
91039351|NCT00367133|181963314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||GEE Repeated Measures|Accounted for correlated data from subjects with 2 study eyes; included baseline central subfield thickness as a covariate.||P Values not adjusted for multiple comparisons||||<0.001
91039352|NCT00367133|181963314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6||95.0|||||GEE Repeated Measures|Accounted for correlated data from subjects with 2 study eyes; included baseline central subfield thickness as a covariate.||P Value not adjusted for multiple comparisons||||0.60
91039353|NCT00367133|181963315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||GEE Repeated Measures|Accounted for correlated data from subjects with 2 study eyes; included baseline central subfield thickness as a covariate.||P Values not adjusted for multiple comparisons||||<0.001
91039354|NCT00367133|181963315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||GEE Repeated Measures|Accounted for correlated data from subjects with 2 study eyes; included baseline central subfield thickness as a covariate.||P Value not adjusted for statistical analysis||||<0.001
91039355|NCT00367133|181963315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55||95.0|||||GEE Repeated Measures|Accounted for correlated data from subjects with 2 study eyes; included baseline central subfield thickness as a covariate.||P Value not adjusted for statistical analysis||||0.55
91039356|NCT01252953|181963328|OTHER|Time to first event|Rate Ratio|0.91||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|0.97|||Log Rank|||||0.97|0.85|0.004
91039357|NCT01252953|181963329|OTHER|Time to first event|Rate Ratio|0.93||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.0|||Log Rank|||||1|0.86|0.052
91039358|NCT01252953|181963330|OTHER|Time to first event|Rate Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.12||In accordance with the data analysis plan, if the outcome of a major atherosclerotic event did not reach significance, there was no hypothesis testing for presumed ischemic stroke, so no P value is given.||||||1.12|0.87|
91039359|NCT01252953|181963331|OTHER|Time to first event|Rate Ratio|0.93||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|0.99|||Log Rank|||||0.99|0.88|0.02
91039360|NCT00906399|181963333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.725||||0.0114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.565|0.93|||Negative Binomial Regression|Based on negative binomial regression, with adjustment for baseline EDSS (\< 4 versus ≥ 4), baseline relapse rate, age (\< 40 versus ≥ 40 years).||||0.930|0.565|0.0114
91039361|NCT00906399|181963333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.644||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.831|||Negative Binomial Regression|Based on negative binomial regression, with adjustment for baseline EDSS (\< 4 versus ≥ 4), baseline relapse rate, age (\< 40 versus ≥ 40).||||0.831|0.500|0.0007
91039362|NCT00906399|181963334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Lesion Mean Ratio|0.72||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.87|||Negative Binomial Regression|Lesion mean ratio (95% CI) and p-value based on negative binomial regression, adjusted for baseline number of T2 lesions.||||0.87|0.60|0.0008
91039363|NCT00906399|181963334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Lesion Mean Ratio|0.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.4|||Negative Binomial Regression|Lesion mean ratio (95% CI) and p-value based on negative binomial regression, adjusted for baseline number of T2 lesions.||||0.40|0.27|<0.0001
91039364|NCT00906399|181963335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.95||Based on Cox proportion hazards model, adjusted for baseline EDSS (\< 4 versus ≥ 4), age (\<40 versus ≥ 40 years), baseline relapse rate, and baseline Gd enhancing lesions (presence versus absence).|Cox Proportion Hazards model|||||0.95|0.57|0.0200
91039365|NCT00906399|181963335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.8||Based on Cox proportion hazards model, adjusted for baseline EDSS (\< 4 versus ≥ 4), age (\<40 versus ≥ 40 years), baseline relapse rate, and baseline Gd enhancing lesions (presence versus absence).|Cox Proportion Hazards model|||||0.80|0.47|0.0003
91039366|NCT00906399|181963336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.97||Based on Cox Proportional Hazards model, adjusted for baseline EDSS (\< 4 versus ≥ 4) and age (\< 40 versus ≥ 40 years).|Cox Proportion Hazards model|||||0.97|0.40|0.0380
90982158|NCT00488631|181848120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.098||||||Fixed sequence testing; 100 mg group was tested if it was positive for preceding endpoint, regardless whether 50 mg group was positive;50 mg group was tested if 100 mg group positive for same endpoint and 50 mg group positive for preceding endpoint.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical analysis for number of participants with clinical remission at both Week 30 and 54 among participants with clinical remission at Week 0 of maintenance study were summarized using CMH test stratified by the induction dose factor.||||0.098
90982159|NCT00488631|181848121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.279||||||Fixed sequence testing; 100 mg group was tested if it was positive for preceding endpoint, regardless whether 50 mg group was positive;50 mg group was tested if 100 mg group positive for same endpoint and 50 mg group positive for preceding endpoint.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical analysis for number of participants with clinical remission at Week 54 and not receiving concomitant corticosteroids among participants on corticosteroids at Week 0 of maintenance study were summarized using the CMH test stratified by clinical remission status at Week 0 and the induction dose factor.||||0.279
90982160|NCT00488631|181848121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.423||||||Fixed sequence testing; 100 mg group was tested if it was positive for preceding endpoint, regardless whether 50 mg group was positive;50 mg group was tested if 100 mg group positive for same endpoint and 50 mg group positive for preceding endpoint.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical analysis for number of participants with clinical remission at Week 54 and not receiving concomitant corticosteroids among participants on corticosteroids at Week 0 of maintenance study were summarized using the CMH test stratified by clinical remission status at Week 0 and the induction dose factor.||||0.423
90982161|NCT05300087|181848122|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence would be demonstrated if the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of geometric means for Cmax between the test and reference products were completely contained within the FDA defined acceptance range of 80.00%-125.00%.|Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.014|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.947|1.085|||ANOVA|||||1.085|0.947|<0.0001
90982162|NCT05300087|181848123|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence would be demonstrated if the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of geometric means for AUC(0-t) between the test and reference products were completely contained within the FDA defined acceptance range of 80.00%-125.00%.|Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.022|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.993|1.051|||ANOVA|||||1.051|0.993|<0.0001
90982163|NCT05300087|181848124|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence would be demonstrated if the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of geometric means for AUC(0-inf) between the test and reference products were completely contained within the FDA defined acceptance range of 80.00%-125.00%.|Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.021|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.994|1.048|||ANOVA|||||1.048|0.994|<0.0001
90982164|NCT03248128|181848129|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.083|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.037|0.129|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of baseline, region, sex, age and treatment.||||0.129|0.037|<0.001
90982165|NCT03248128|181848130|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|3.2||||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|8.4|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariates of baseline, region, sex, age and treatment.||||8.4|-2.0|0.228
90982166|NCT03248128|181848131|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|6.2||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|10.9|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of baseline, region, sex, age and treatment.||||10.9|1.4|0.011
90982167|NCT03248128|181848132|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.073||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.028|0.118|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of baseline, region, sex, age and treatment.||||0.118|0.028|0.002
90982168|NCT03248128|181848133|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|3.8|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of baseline, region, sex, age and treatment.||||3.8|-4.5|0.870
90982169|NCT03248128|181848134|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.0||||0.988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|4.1|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of baseline, region, sex, age and treatment.||||4.1|-4.2|0.988
91039367|NCT00906399|181963336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.0383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.97||Based on Cox Proportional Hazards model, adjusted for baseline EDSS (\< 4 versus ≥ 4) and age (\< 40 versus ≥ 40 years).|Cox Proportion Hazards model|||||0.97|0.40|0.0383
90982170|NCT03248128|181848135|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.035||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|0.95|-0.01|0.08|||Repeated measures analysis|||Analysis was performed using a repeated measures analysis adjusted for baseline, region, sex, age, treatment, visit, visit by baseline interaction and visit by treatment group interaction.||0.080|-0.010|0.124
90982171|NCT03248128|181848136|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.01||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.09|||Repeated measures analysis|||Analysis was performed using a repeated measures analysis adjusted for baseline, region, sex, age, treatment, visit, visit by baseline interaction and visit by treatment group interaction.||0.09|-0.10|0.910
90982172|NCT03248128|181848137|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|1.3||||0.614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|6.2|||ANCOVA|Analysis performed using ANCOVA with covariates of baseline, region, sex, age and treatment.||||6.2|-3.6|0.614
90982173|NCT03248128|181848138|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|1.3||||0.594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|6.3|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of baseline, region, sex, age and treatment.||||6.3|-3.6|0.594
90982174|NCT03248128|181848139|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.028||||0.226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.017|0.073|||Repeated measures analysis|||Analysis was performed using a repeated measures analysis adjusted for baseline, region, sex, age, treatment, visit, visit by baseline interaction and visit by treatment group interaction.||0.073|-0.017|0.226
91039368|NCT01986647|181963346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2691|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|linear mixed model due to clustering by facility and multiple imputation for missing data||||||0.2691
91039369|NCT01986647|181963347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6087|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|linear mixed model due to clustering by facility and multiple imputation for missing data||||||0.6087
91039370|NCT01986647|181963348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0022|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|linear mixed model due to clustering by facility and multiple imputation for missing data||||||0.0022
91039371|NCT01986647|181963349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0344|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|linear mixed model due to clustering by facility and multiple imputation for missing data||||||0.0344
91039372|NCT01986647|181963350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.6879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.6|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.60|0.49|0.6879
91039373|NCT01986647|181963351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.88||||0.5719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.37|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.37|0.56|0.5719
91039374|NCT01986647|181963352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|5.53|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.53|0.44|0.489
91039375|NCT01986647|181963353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.12||||0.2981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|26.6|||Regression, Logistic|||||26.6|0.37|0.2981
91039376|NCT01986647|181963354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.9279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.74|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.74|0.30|0.9279
91007874|NCT02483611|181899953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|88.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.05||0.0527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.0|104.0|||ANOVA|||||104.00|65.00|0.0527
91007875|NCT02483611|181899953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|100.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.62||0.0527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|70.0|140.0|||ANOVA|||||140.00|70.00|0.0527
91007876|NCT02483611|181899954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|87.63|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.1||0.1996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.0|110.0|||ANOVA|||||110.00|60.00|0.1996
91007877|NCT02483611|181899954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|84.69|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.38||0.1996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.0|109.0|||ANOVA|||||109.00|67.00|0.1996
91007878|NCT02483611|181899954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|92.47|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.3||0.1996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|73.0|112.0|||ANOVA|||||112.00|73.00|0.1996
91007879|NCT02483611|181899955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|75.88|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.95||0.7145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.0|107.0|||ANOVA|||||107.00|58.00|0.7145
91007880|NCT02483611|181899955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|73.88|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.8||0.7145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.0|97.0|||ANOVA|||||97.00|59.00|0.7145
91007881|NCT02483611|181899955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|76.73|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.48||0.7145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.0|86.0|||ANOVA|||||86.00|58.00|0.7145
91007882|NCT02483611|181899956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|69.0||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.0|96.0|||Kruskal-Wallis|||||96.00|57.00|0.1130
91007883|NCT02483611|181899956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|63.0||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.0|84.0|||Kruskal-Wallis|||||84.00|55.00|0.1130
91007884|NCT02483611|181899956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|74.0||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.0|83.0|||Kruskal-Wallis|||||83.00|59.00|0.1130
91007885|NCT02483611|181899957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|62.5||||0.0731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.0|98.0|||Kruskal-Wallis|||||98.00|58.00|0.0731
91007886|NCT02483611|181899957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|61.5||||0.0731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.0|74.0|||Kruskal-Wallis|||||74.00|55.00|0.0731
91007887|NCT02483611|181899957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|67.0||||0.0731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.0|85.0|||Kruskal-Wallis|||||85.00|56.00|0.0731
91007888|NCT02483611|181899958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|64.5||||0.1002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.0|85.0|||Kruskal-Wallis|||||85.00|60.00|0.1002
91007889|NCT02483611|181899958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|64.0||||0.1002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.0|74.0|||Kruskal-Wallis|||||74.00|56.00|0.1002
91007890|NCT02483611|181899958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|69.0||||0.1002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.0|90.0|||Kruskal-Wallis|||||90.00|60.00|0.1002
91007891|NCT02483611|181899959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|79.94|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.79||0.4338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.0|109.0|||ANOVA|||||109.00|52.00|0.4338
91007892|NCT02483611|181899959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|77.25|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.13||0.4338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.0|95.0|||ANOVA|||||95.00|55.00|0.4338
91007893|NCT02483611|181899959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|73.67|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.82||0.4338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.0|92.0|||ANOVA|||||92.00|55.00|0.4338
91007894|NCT02483611|181899960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|74.69|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.76||0.9167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.0|99.0|||ANOVA|||||99.00|57.00|0.9167
91007895|NCT02483611|181899960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|73.69|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.18||0.9167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.0|96.0|||ANOVA|||||96.00|51.00|0.9167
91007896|NCT02483611|181899960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|75.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.54||0.9167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.0|90.0|||ANOVA|||||90.00|53.00|0.9167
91007897|NCT02483611|181899961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|72.94|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.96||0.8067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.0|92.0|||ANOVA|||||92.00|58.00|0.8067
91007898|NCT02483611|181899961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|74.19|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.65||0.8067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.0|86.0|||ANOVA|||||86.00|57.00|0.8067
91007899|NCT02483611|181899961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|75.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.54||0.8067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.0|90.0|||ANOVA|||||90.00|53.00|0.8067
91007900|NCT02483611|181899962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|71.94|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.87||0.1015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.0|93.0|||ANOVA|||||93.00|57.00|0.1015
91007901|NCT02483611|181899962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|72.25|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.78||0.1015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.0|89.0|||ANOVA|||||89.00|52.00|0.1015
91007902|NCT02483611|181899962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|65.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.01||0.1015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.0|81.0|||ANOVA|||||81.00|44.00|0.1015
91007903|NCT02483611|181899963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|67.56|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.05||0.3423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.0|92.0|||ANOVA|||||92.00|56.00|0.3423
91007904|NCT02483611|181899963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|69.31|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.73||0.3423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.0|83.0|||ANOVA|||||83.00|57.00|0.3423
91007905|NCT02483611|181899963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|64.27|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.81||0.3423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.0|81.0|||ANOVA|||||81.00|41.00|0.3423
91007906|NCT02483611|181899964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|66.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.11||0.6817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.0|92.0|||ANOVA|||||92.00|53.00|0.6817
91007907|NCT02483611|181899964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|68.19|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.4||0.6817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.0|82.0|||ANOVA|||||82.00|54.00|0.6817
90982175|NCT03248128|181848140|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.02||||0.663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.09|||Repeated measures analysis|||Analysis was performed using a repeated measures analysis adjusted for baseline, region, sex, age, treatment, visit, visit by baseline interaction and visit by treatment group interaction.||0.09|-0.13|0.663
90982176|NCT01446809|181848208|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4
90982177|NCT01446809|181848209|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.13
90982178|NCT05198713|181848220|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90982179|NCT02770807|181848221|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-1.37||||0.0847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.932|0.19|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||Least squares means, and p-values are derived from a mixed model repeated measures analysis with baseline modified ICARS value as covariate and the fixed effects of treatment, age, sex, region and visit and the interaction term treatment-by-visit.||0.190|-2.932|0.0847
90982180|NCT02770807|181848221|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-1.4||||0.0765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.957|0.152|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||Least squares means, and p-values are derived from a mixed model repeated measures analysis with baseline modified ICARS value as covariate and the fixed effects of treatment, age, sex, region and visit and the interaction term treatment-by-visit.||0.152|-2.957|0.0765
90982181|NCT02770807|181848222|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.946||||0.8919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.426|2.099|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression modeling (0/1), where 0 = No change or worsening and 1= improvement, with age (at 2 levels: \<10 years, ≥10 years), sex, treatment, region as fixed effects.||2.099|0.426|0.8919
90982182|NCT02770807|181848222|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.848||||0.1255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.842|4.053|||Regression, Logistic|||"Logistic regression modeling (0/1), where 0 = No change or worsening and 1= improvement, with age (at 2 levels:~\<10 years, ≥10 years), sex, treatment, region as fixed effects."||4.053|0.842|0.1255
90982183|NCT02770807|181848223|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.369||||0.4583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.597|3.144|||Ordinal Logistic Regression Analysis|||Odds ratio, confidence limits, and p-value derived using a proportional odds ordinal logistic regression analysis, with age (at 2 levels: \<10 years, ≥10 years), sex, treatment, region, visit, baseline CGI-S score, and treatment-by- visit interaction as fixed effects.||3.144|0.597|0.4583
90982184|NCT02770807|181848223|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.371||||0.4585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.595|3.16|||Ordinal Logistic Regression Analysis|||Odds ratio, confidence limits, and p-value derived using a proportional odds ordinal logistic regression analysis, with age (at 2 levels: \<10 years, ≥10 years), sex, treatment, region, visit, baseline CGI-S score, and treatment-by- visit interaction as fixed effects.||3.160|0.595|0.4585
90982185|NCT02770807|181848224|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means difference|-13.33||||0.7029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-82.261|55.601|||ANCOVA|||Least squares means difference, associated statistics, and p-values derived using ANCOVA, with age (at 2 levels: \<10 years, \>=10 years), sex, treatment, region, and baseline VABS score as fixed effects.||55.601|-82.261|0.7029
90982186|NCT02770807|181848224|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means difference|-77.31||||0.0328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-148.201|-6.421|||ANCOVA|||Least squares means difference, associated statistics, and p-values derived using ANCOVA, with age (at 2 levels: \<10 years, \>=10 years), sex, treatment, region, and baseline VABS score as fixed effects.||-6.421|-148.201|0.0328
90982187|NCT00469079|181848271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.002
90982188|NCT00469079|181848272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Product use is by self-report and daily diaries.||||0.05
90982189|NCT00469079|181848273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Other|0.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|A generalized linear mixed model was used for outcomes that had been repeatedly measured from baseline through the end of the treatment period.||This study was not powered to detect differences in smoking cessation rates between groups; however, smoking status was collected to obtain preliminary data. Point prevalence (no smoking during the previous 7 days) cigarette abstinence rates were calculated at the week-4 visit and at each of the 2 follow-up visits. Continuous abstinence rates were calculated for the 4 week period between the week 1 and week 4 visits. Abstinence at all visits was assessed by self-report and confirmed by CO.||||<0.05
90982190|NCT00469079|181848274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean difference between 3 groups|0.0|||>|0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A generalized linear mixed model was used for outcomes that had been repeatedly measured from baseline through the end of the treatment period. Each repeated-measures model included the treatment effect, a visit effect, the interaction between treatment and visit, the interaction between subject error and within-subject error terms.||||> 0.10
90982191|NCT00644592|181848321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of mean effects|1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.52|||t-test, 2 sided||The estimated mean log difference (SE) between the period 2 and period 1 effects and SE was estimated. This estimates twice the effect size\[since (B-A)-(A-B)=2B-2A\] so the actual estimate was based upon the antilog of half of this difference.|This is a crossover analysis. To convert to a ratio effect, the mean difference must be divided by two and antilogs take. The outcome represents a relative effect.||1.52|1.06|0.015
91007908|NCT02483611|181899964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|65.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.5||0.6817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.0|81.0|||ANOVA|||||81.00|47.00|0.6817
90982192|NCT00811252|181848322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.01||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.31|-1.34||Since p-value \<0.05, hierarchically testing continued|ANCOVA||A statistical testing strategy was defined a priori for a single dose of vortioxetine that was tested versus placebo in the primary and key secondary efficacy analyses.|As soon as an endpoint was non-significant at the 0.05 level of significance, the testing procedure was stopped for all subsequent endpoints.||-1.34|-5.31|0.0011
90982193|NCT00811252|181848322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|-3.46||This treatment arm was not in the testing sequence. A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA|||||-3.46|-7.50|<0.0001
90982194|NCT00811252|181848323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.98|-0.28||Since p-value \<0.05, hierarchically testing continued|ANCOVA||A statistical testing strategy was defined a priori for a single dose of vortioxetine that was tested versus placebo in the primary and key secondary efficacy analyses.|As soon as an endpoint was non-significant at the 0.05 level of significance, the testing procedure was stopped for all subsequent endpoints.||-0.28|-3.98|0.0240
90982195|NCT00811252|181848323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|-2.34||This treatment arm was not in the testing sequence. A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA|||||-2.34|-6.10|<0.0001
90982196|NCT00811252|181848324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.2134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.72|0.61||Since p-value \>0.05, hierarchically testing stopped here.|ANCOVA|||||0.61|-2.72|0.2134
90982197|NCT00811252|181848324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.99|-1.6||This treatment arm was not in the testing sequence. A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA|||||-1.60|-4.99|0.0002
90982198|NCT00811252|181848325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.6879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|1.1||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA|||||1.10|-1.67|0.6879
90982199|NCT00811252|181848325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.0827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.65|0.16||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA|||||0.16|-2.65|0.0827
90982200|NCT00811252|181848326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.4482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|0.66||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA|||||0.66|-1.49|0.4482
90982201|NCT00811252|181848326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.7971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|1.24||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA|||||1.24|-0.95|0.7971
91007909|NCT02483611|181899965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|66.0||||0.0937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.0|80.0|||Kruskal-Wallis|||||80.00|58.00|0.0937
91007910|NCT02483611|181899965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|61.5||||0.0937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.0|90.0|||Kruskal-Wallis|||||90.00|56.00|0.0937
91007911|NCT02483611|181899965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|69.0||||0.0937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.0|87.0|||Kruskal-Wallis|||||87.00|58.00|0.0937
91007912|NCT02483611|181899966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|66.5||||0.1406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.0|88.0|||Kruskal-Wallis|||||88.00|60.00|0.1406
91007913|NCT02483611|181899966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|63.5||||0.1406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.0|86.0|||Kruskal-Wallis|||||86.00|55.00|0.1406
91007914|NCT02483611|181899966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|68.0||||0.1406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.0|84.0|||Kruskal-Wallis|||||84.00|55.00|0.1406
91007915|NCT02483611|181899967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|69.25|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.74||0.0504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.0|81.0|||ANOVA|||||81.00|60.00|0.0504
91007916|NCT02483611|181899967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|63.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.62||0.0504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.0|79.0|||ANOVA|||||79.00|49.00|0.0504
91007917|NCT02483611|181899967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|69.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.56||0.0504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.0|84.0|||ANOVA|||||84.00|58.00|0.0504
91007918|NCT02483611|181899968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|68.0||||0.0205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.0|93.0|||Kruskal-Wallis|||||93.00|60.00|0.0205
91007919|NCT02483611|181899968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|62.0||||0.0205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.0|72.0|||Kruskal-Wallis|||||72.00|54.00|0.0205
91007920|NCT02483611|181899968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|66.0||||0.0205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.0|75.0|||Kruskal-Wallis|||||75.00|59.00|0.0205
91007921|NCT02483611|181899969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|68.0||||0.3004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.0|86.0|||Kruskal-Wallis|||||86.00|58.00|0.3004
91007922|NCT02483611|181899969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|66.0||||0.3004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.0|78.0|||Kruskal-Wallis|||||78.00|56.00|0.3004
91007923|NCT02483611|181899969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|69.0||||0.3004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.0|81.0|||Kruskal-Wallis|||||81.00|62.00|0.3004
91007924|NCT02483611|181899970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|64.0||||0.0178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.0|84.0|||Kruskal-Wallis|||||84.00|60.00|0.0178
91007925|NCT02483611|181899970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|64.5||||0.0178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.0|75.0|||Kruskal-Wallis|||||75.00|51.00|0.0178
91007926|NCT02483611|181899970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|72.0||||0.0178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.0|91.0|||Kruskal-Wallis|||||91.00|61.00|0.0178
91007927|NCT02483611|181899971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|68.67|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.51||0.8746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.0|99.0|||ANOVA|||||99.00|51.00|0.8746
91007928|NCT02483611|181899971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|64.38|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.96||0.8746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.0|82.0|||ANOVA|||||82.00|56.00|0.8746
91007929|NCT02483611|181899971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|73.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.94||0.8746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.0|80.0|||ANOVA|||||80.00|54.00|0.8746
91007930|NCT02483611|181899972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|67.44|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.95||0.4195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.0|92.0|||ANOVA|||||92.00|47.00|0.4195
91007931|NCT02483611|181899972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|68.38|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.28||0.4195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.0|80.0|||ANOVA|||||80.00|53.00|0.4195
90982202|NCT00811252|181848327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.32|-2.26||A nominal p-value is provided. No correction for multiplicity was made.|ANCOVA|||||-2.26|-6.32|<0.0001
90982203|NCT00811252|181848328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|-0.91||A nominal p-value is provided. No correction for multiplicity was made.|ANCOVA|||||-0.91|-3.80|0.0015
90982204|NCT00811252|181848329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.32||A nominal p-value is provided. No correction for multiplicity was made.|ANCOVA|||||-0.32|-0.88|<0.0001
90982205|NCT00811252|181848330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.31||A nominal p-value is provided. No correction for multiplicity was made.|ANCOVA|||||-0.31|-0.82|<0.0001
90982206|NCT00811252|181848331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.01||A nominal p-value is provided. No correction for multiplicity was made.|ANCOVA|||||0.01|-0.88|0.0552
90982207|NCT00811252|181848332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.43||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.7||A nominal p-value is provided. No correction for multiplicity was made.|Regression, Logistic|||||0.70|0.26|0.0008
90982208|NCT00811252|181848333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.47||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.83||A nominal p-value is provided. No correction for multiplicity was made.|Regression, Logistic|||||0.83|0.27|0.0090
90982209|NCT00749606|181848347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed linear models analyzed within-subject variation in repeated measures over time. Intention to treat analysis used 5 imputations for missing data.||||||<0.01
90982210|NCT01121406|181848357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Kaplan-Meier DC rates|-12.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.1|6.0|||||"95% CI using Greenwood´s variance estimate.~Volasertib (BI 6727) minus Cytotoxic."|Kaplan Meier estimates and confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using Greenwood's variance estimate within each treatment arm and the asymptotic CI for the difference in the rates found. The time was censored in those cases where there was no death or progression until the last trial visit||6.0|-31.1|
90982211|NCT01121406|181848358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.53|||||"Cox proportional-hazards regression model, stratified by disease status at baseline (measurable vs. non measurable disease) and platinum resistant vs platinum refractory disease at baseline.~HR calculated as Volasertib (BI 6727) /Cytotoxic"|||1.53|0.66|
90982212|NCT01121406|181848359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.42|||||"Cox proportional-hazards regression model, stratified by disease status at baseline (measurable vs. non measurable disease) and platinum resistant vs platinum refractory disease at baseline.~HR calculated as Volasertib (BI 6727) /Cytotoxic"|||1.42|0.63|
90982213|NCT01121406|181848362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.7|||||"Cox proportional-hazards regression model, stratified by disease status at baseline (measurable vs. non measurable disease) and platinum resistant vs platinum refractory disease at baseline.~HR calculated as Volasertib (BI 6727)/ Cytotoxic"|||1.70|0.73|
90982214|NCT01121406|181848363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.61|||||"Cox proportional-hazards regression model, stratified by disease status at baseline (measurable vs. non measurable disease) and platinum resistant vs platinum refractory disease at baseline.~HR calculated as Volasertib (BI 6727)/ Cytotoxic"|||1.61|0.40|
90982215|NCT01121406|181848364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.65|||||"Cox proportional-hazards regression model, stratified by disease status at baseline (measurable vs. non measurable disease) and platinum resistant vs platinum refractory disease at baseline.~HR calculated as Volasertib (BI 6727)/ Cytotoxic"|||1.65|0.37|
90982216|NCT01121406|181848365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.93|||||"Cox proportional-hazards regression model, stratified by disease status at baseline (measurable vs. non measurable disease) and platinum resistant vs platinum refractory disease at baseline.~HR calculated as Volasertib (BI 6727)/ Cytotoxic"|||1.93|0.39|
90982217|NCT01121406|181848366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.47|||||"Cox proportional-hazards regression model, stratified by disease status at baseline (measurable vs. non measurable disease) and platinum resistant vs platinum refractory disease at baseline.~HR calculated as Volasertib (BI 6727)/ Cytotoxic"|||1.47|0.33|
91007932|NCT02483611|181899972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|64.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.23||0.4195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.0|80.0|||ANOVA|||||80.00|52.00|0.4195
91007933|NCT02483611|181899973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|65.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.52||0.5796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.0|93.0|||ANOVA|||||93.00|47.00|0.5796
90982218|NCT01121406|181848367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.77|||||"Cox proportional-hazards regression model, stratified by disease status at baseline (measurable vs. non measurable disease) and platinum resistant vs platinum refractory disease at baseline.~HR calculated as Volasertib (BI 6727)/ Cytotoxic"|||0.77|0.09|
91006674|NCT00679380|181897693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions|-8.0||||0.2174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.8||||Chi-squared||The difference in proportions was determined by subtracting the proportion of patients who reached the endpoint in the placebo group from that proportion in the active group (active minus placebo).|Clinical improvement and endoscopic improvement were analyzed hierarchically. If at least one primary endpoint comparison was statistically significant, clinical improvement was to be compared between each budesonide MMX group and placebo at the α = 0.025 level of significance. If at least one comparison of clinical improvement was statistically significant, endoscopic improvement was to be compared between each budesonide MMX dose group and placebo at the α = 0.025 level of significance.||4.|-20.8|0.2174
90982219|NCT00892437|181848389|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: the response rate in the ATV+COBI+FTC/TDF group was at least 12% worse than in the ATV+RTV+FTC/TDF group; alternative hypothesis: the response rate in the ATV+COBI+FTC/TDF group was less than 12% worse than that in the ATV+RTV+FTC/TDF group. ATV+COBI+FTC/TDF was noninferior if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum-weighted difference (COBI group - RTV group) in the response rate at Week 24 was greater than -12%.|Difference in percentages|-7.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.6|9.9|||||Difference in percentages of success and its 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated based on baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel (MH) proportion.|A total planned sample size of 75 subjects had 26% power to evaluate noninferiority with respect to the response rate of HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL at Week 24 if a response rate of 84% for both arms and a noninferiority margin of 0.12 were assumed.||9.9|-24.6|
90982220|NCT00892437|181848390|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was that the response rate in the ATV+COBI+FTC/TDF group was at least 12% worse than the response rate in ATV+RTV+FTC/TDF group; the alternative hypothesis was that the response rate in the ATV+COBI+FTC/TDF group was less than 12% worse than that in the ATV+RTV+FTC/TDF group.|Difference in percentages|-8.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.9|9.4|||||Difference in percentages of success and its 95% CI were calculated based on baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum-adjusted MH proportion.|||9.4|-25.9|
90982221|NCT00892437|181848391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean (LSM)|-0.02||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.22||P-values were obtained from an ANOVA model including baseline HIV-1 RNA category in the model.|ANOVA||The difference in least squares mean (LSM) and its 95% CI were computed using ANOVA model, including baseline HIV-1 RNA category in the model.|||0.22|-0.25|0.87
90982222|NCT00892437|181848392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|-0.03||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.23||P-values were obtained from an ANOVA model including baseline HIV-1 RNA category in the model.|ANOVA||The difference in LSM and its 95% CI were computed using ANOVA model, including baseline HIV-1 RNA category in the model.|||0.23|-0.30|0.82
90982223|NCT00892437|181848393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|10.0||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.0|84.0||P-values were obtained from an ANOVA model including baseline HIV-1 RNA category in the model.|ANOVA||The difference in LSM and its 95% CI were computed using ANOVA model, including baseline HIV-1 RNA category in the model.|||84|-63|0.78
90982224|NCT00892437|181848394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|47.0||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.0|134.0||P-values were obtained from an ANOVA model including baseline HIV-1 RNA category in the model.|ANOVA||The difference in LSM and its 95% CI were computed using ANOVA model, including baseline HIV-1 RNA category in the model.|||134|-41|0.29
90982225|NCT02750410|181848421|SUPERIORITY||LS mean percent difference|-1.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|-1.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.28|-1.73|<0.001
90982226|NCT02750410|181848422|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.117||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.028|0.479|||Regression, Logistic|||analysis was based on repeated measures logistic regression||0.479|0.028|0.003
90982227|NCT02750410|181848423|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-30.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.37|-18.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-18.91|-41.37|<0.001
91039377|NCT01986647|181963355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.5835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|2.06|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.06|0.67|0.5835
90982228|NCT02750410|181848424|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-26.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.39|-16.78|||t-test, 2 sided|||Prebreakfast BG||-16.78|-36.39|<0.001
90982229|NCT02750410|181848424|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-45.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.77|-29.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Breakfast 2-hour PPBG||-29.00|-61.77|<0.001
91039378|NCT01986647|181963356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.18|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.18
90982230|NCT02750410|181848424|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-36.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.2|-24.45|||t-test, 2 sided|||Prelunch BG||-24.45|-49.20|<0.001
90982231|NCT02750410|181848424|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-50.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.85|-32.46|||t-test, 2 sided|||Lunch 2-hour PPBG||-32.46|-67.85|<0.001
90982232|NCT02750410|181848424|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-31.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.05|-18.48|||t-test, 2 sided|||Predinner BG||-18.48|-44.05|<0.001
90982233|NCT02750410|181848424|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-34.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.55|-17.38|||t-test, 2 sided|||Dinner 2-hour PPBG||-17.38|-52.55|<0.001
90982234|NCT02750410|181848424|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-41.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.81|-24.09|||t-test, 2 sided|||Bedtime BG||-24.09|-58.81|<0.001
90982235|NCT02750410|181848425|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.1||||0.776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.78|-0.59|0.776
90982236|NCT03215277|181848441|SUPERIORITY||Mean Posterior Difference|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.6|||Regression, Linear|||Results were based on a complete case (ie, data as observed) Bayesian linear model with the change from Baseline in ASDAS as the independent variable. Treatment was included as a predictor in the model and Baseline ASDAS as a covariate. The mean posterior difference and 95% credible interval were presented for the BKZ vs CZP comparison.||0.60|-0.14|
90982237|NCT03215277|181848441|SUPERIORITY||PR[Diff > 0%](%)|88.4|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Results were based on a complete case (ie, data as observed) Bayesian linear model with the change from Baseline in ASDAS as the independent variable. Treatment was included as a predictor in the model and Baseline ASDAS as a covariate. Pr\[Diff\>0%\](%) refers to the probability that the mean change from Baseline in ASDAS in the BKZ group was greater than the mean change from Baseline in ASDAS in the CZP group.||||
90982238|NCT02580058|181848495|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.8253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.867|1.497|||Log Rank|1-sided||||1.497|0.867|0.8253
90982239|NCT02580058|181848495|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.2082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.672|1.179|||Log Rank|1-sided||||1.179|0.672|0.2082
90982240|NCT02580058|181848496|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.68|||>|0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|2.16|||Log Rank|1-sided||||2.160|1.310|>0.9999
90982241|NCT02580058|181848496|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.0301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.607|1.011|||Log Rank|1-sided||||1.011|0.607|0.0301
91039379|NCT01986647|181963357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.42||0.73|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.73
91039380|NCT01986647|181963358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.71|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.71
91039381|NCT01986647|181963359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.004||0.77|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.77
91039382|NCT01986647|181963360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.80
91039383|NCT01986647|181963361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.52||||0.0324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.95|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.95|0.29|0.0324
91039384|NCT02003391|181963370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.6191|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||-3.8503|||ANCOVA|||||-3.8503||<0.0001
90982242|NCT02580058|181848515|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (Test/Reference, %)|110.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.4|126.7||||||Avelumab was the Reference treatment and Avelumab + PLD was the Test treatment||126.7|95.4|
90982243|NCT02580058|181848516|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (Test/Reference, %)|90.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.5|101.5||||||Avelumab was the Reference treatment and Avelumab + PLD was the Test treatment||101.5|79.5|
90982244|NCT02580058|181848517|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (Test/Reference, %)|96.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.0|106.0||||||PLD was the Reference treatment and Avelumab + PLD was the Test treatment.||106|87|
90982245|NCT02580058|181848518|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (Test/Reference, %)|95.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.0|104.0||||||PLD was the Reference treatment and Avelumab + PLD was the Test treatment.||104|88|
90982246|NCT02580058|181848519|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (Test/Reference, %)|90.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.0|107.0||||||PLD was the Reference treatment and Avelumab + PLD was the Test treatment.||107|76|
90982247|NCT02580058|181848520|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (Test/Reference, %)|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.0|168.0||||||PLD was the Reference treatment and Avelumab + PLD was the Test treatment.||168|60|
91006675|NCT00679380|181897693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions|8.5||||0.2215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|22.0|||Chi-squared||See comments from the budesonide 6 mg versus placebo comparison (statistical analysis 1).|See comments from the budesonide 6 mg versus placebo comparison (statistical analysis 1).||22.0|-5.0|0.2215
91006676|NCT00679380|181897693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions|-0.7||||0.9185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|12.7|||Chi-squared||See comments from the budesonide 6 mg versus placebo comparison (statistical analysis 1).|See comments from the budesonide 6 mg versus placebo comparison (statistical analysis 1).||12.7|-14.1|0.9185
91006677|NCT00679380|181897694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions|5.4||||0.4293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|18.8|||Chi-squared||The difference in proportions was determined by subtracting the proportion of patients who reached the endpoint in the placebo group from that proportion in the active group (active minus placebo).|As per the hierarchical testing procedure for secondary endpoints, because clinical improvement was not statistically significant in the ITT population, formal statistical comparisons for endoscopic improvement between the 2 budesonide MMX groups and placebo were not conducted. The statistical comparison between the Entocort EC and placebo groups is shown here.||18.8|-8.0|0.4293
91006678|NCT01833806|181897697|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference|0.78|||=|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.98|||Binomial|||The alternative hypothesis test was that the proportion of Responders would be greater than the proportion of subjects experiencing pain progression. This PAS was powered to enroll 70 subjects based on the pivotal trial proportion of 18:8 (Responders:Pain progression). The study was closed at an enrollment of 32 subjects.||0.98|0.58|= 0.01
91006679|NCT00678249|181897710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
90982248|NCT05490771|181848537|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0341|||||||one-sided exact binomial test|||The ORR was compared against a null benchmark value of 5%. If the observed ORR were ≥5 of 31 (16%), it would then be concluded that the agent is promising and worthy of further investigation. When the number of analyzable cases (who were eligible and treated, and with outside assay results confirmed by the central MATCH assay) was \<31, the one-sided exact binomial test would be used for significance test with one-side type I error rate of 5%.||||0.0341
90982249|NCT01982630|181848619|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.59|4.13|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline TWA0-24hr of heart rate as a covariate||||4.13|-4.59|
90982250|NCT01982630|181848619|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-6.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.48|-2.01|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline TWA0-24hr of heart rate as a covariate||||-2.01|-10.48|
91007934|NCT02483611|181899973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|65.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.19||0.5796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.0|79.0|||ANOVA|||||79.00|48.00|0.5796
90982251|NCT01982630|181848619|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|6.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.81|10.22|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline TWA0-24hr of heart rate as a covariate||||10.22|1.81|
90982252|NCT01982630|181848619|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.65|5.64|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline TWA0-24hr of heart rate as a covariate||||5.64|-2.65|
90982253|NCT01982630|181848619|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-4.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.52|-0.52|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline TWA0-24hr of heart rate as a covariate||||-0.52|-8.52|
90982254|NCT01982630|181848619|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|1.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.38|5.83|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline TWA0-24hr of heart rate as a covariate||||5.83|-2.38|
91039385|NCT02272803|181963375|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.67|||||Hazard Ratio of E-Ld to Ld. Stratified by stage of disease (International Staging System 1 - 2 vs 3)|||1.67|0.41|
91039386|NCT03067987|181963455|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.007|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.007
91039387|NCT03067987|181963456|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0006|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0006
91007935|NCT02483611|181899973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|62.33|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.26||0.5796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.0|79.0|||ANOVA|||||79.00|50.00|0.5796
91007936|NCT02483611|181899974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|66.19|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.82||0.5351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.0|92.0|||ANOVA|||||92.00|45.00|0.5351
91007937|NCT02483611|181899974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|65.31|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.87||0.5351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.0|82.0|||ANOVA|||||82.00|47.00|0.5351
91007938|NCT02483611|181899974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|61.93|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.0||0.5351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.0|79.0|||ANOVA|||||79.00|51.00|0.5351
91007939|NCT02483611|181899975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|66.5||||0.4988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.0|92.0|||Kruskal-Wallis|||||92.00|42.00|0.4988
91007940|NCT02483611|181899975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|63.0||||0.4988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.0|85.0|||Kruskal-Wallis|||||85.00|50.00|0.4988
91007941|NCT02483611|181899975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|58.0||||0.4988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.0|80.0|||Kruskal-Wallis|||||80.00|51.00|0.4988
91007942|NCT02483611|181899976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|66.0||||0.7723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.0|89.0|||Kruskal-Wallis|||||89.00|43.00|0.7723
91007943|NCT02483611|181899976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|61.0||||0.7723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.0|82.0|||Kruskal-Wallis|||||82.00|51.00|0.7723
91007944|NCT02483611|181899976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|61.0||||0.7723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.0|78.0|||Kruskal-Wallis|||||78.00|50.00|0.7723
91007945|NCT02590406|181899977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.005|||||||ANOVA|||We calculated our sample size using data from EPO2: PV study (Couture: simultaneous submitted manuscript), where we found a difference in the FRC of 21% between reverse Trendelenburg with non-invasive positive pressure ventilation and beach chair position without positive pressure ventilation. Assuming there would be a difference of 21% in the apnea time, with a type I error of 5% and power of 80%, a total of 17 patients by group was needed.||||0.005
91007946|NCT02590406|181899978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91007947|NCT02590406|181899979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0003|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0003
91039388|NCT00557245|181963481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.56||The a priori threshold was 0.05.|Regression, Cox||Placebo arm is the reference group.|We used Cox regression stratified according to site, to estimate the relative rates of time to first positive HIV-1 serologic test.||0.56|0.19|<0.001
91039389|NCT00557245|181963481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.45||The a priori threshold was 0.05.|Regression, Cox||Placebo arm is the reference group.|We used Cox regression stratified according to site, to estimate the relative rates of time to first positive HIV-1 serologic test.||0.45|0.13|<0.001
91039390|NCT00557245|181963482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
91039391|NCT00557245|181963482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.89
91039392|NCT00557245|181963486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||Regression, Logistic|Generalized estimating equations, with logistic link and robust standard errors to adjust for individual correlation over time.||||||0.24
91039393|NCT00557245|181963486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49|||||||Regression, Logistic|Generalized estimating equations, with logistic link and robust standard errors to adjust for individual correlation over time.||||||0.49
91039394|NCT00557245|181963487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32|||||||Regression, Logistic|Generalized estimating equations, logistic link, with robust standard errors.||||||0.32
90982255|NCT01982630|181848620|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-2.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.55|0.32|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline TWA0-24hr of heart rate as a covariate||||0.32|-4.55|
90982256|NCT01982630|181848620|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|2.53|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.61|5.66|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline TWA0-24hr of heart rate as a covariate||||5.66|-0.61|
90982257|NCT01982630|181848620|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|4.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.35|7.93|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline TWA0-24hr of heart rate as a covariate||||7.93|1.35|
90982258|NCT01982630|181848621|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.01|3.71|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline TWA0-24hr of heart rate as a covariate||||3.71|-5.01|
90982259|NCT01982630|181848621|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-6.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.66|-2.19|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline TWA0-24hr of heart rate as a covariate||||-2.19|-10.66|
90982260|NCT01982630|181848621|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|5.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.57|9.97|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline TWA0-24hr of heart rate as a covariate||||9.97|1.57|
90982261|NCT01982630|181848621|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.29|4.0|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline TWA0-24hr of heart rate as a covariate||||4.00|-4.29|
90982262|NCT01982630|181848621|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-5.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.91|-1.92|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline TWA0-24hr of heart rate as a covariate||||-1.92|-9.91|
90982263|NCT01982630|181848621|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.6|4.62|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline TWA0-24hr of heart rate as a covariate||||4.62|-3.60|
90982264|NCT01982630|181848622|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.8|2.02|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline TWA0-24hr of heart rate as a covariate||||2.02|-3.80|
90982265|NCT01982630|181848622|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|5.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.34|9.15|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline TWA0-24hr of heart rate as a covariate||||9.15|1.34|
90982266|NCT01982630|181848622|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|6.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.05|10.22|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline TWA0-24hr of heart rate as a covariate||||10.22|2.05|
90982267|NCT01982630|181848623|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.71|2.57|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline TWA0-24hr of heart rate as a covariate||||2.57|-3.71|
90982268|NCT01982630|181848623|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|7.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.5|12.03|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline TWA0-24hr of heart rate as a covariate||||12.03|3.50|
90982269|NCT01982630|181848623|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|8.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.89|12.79|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline TWA0-24hr of heart rate as a covariate||||12.79|3.89|
90982270|NCT01982630|181848624|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.4|5.09|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline TWA0-24hr of heart rate as a covariate||||5.09|-2.40|
90982271|NCT01982630|181848624|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|8.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.29|13.3|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline TWA0-24hr of heart rate as a covariate||||13.30|3.29|
91007948|NCT02590406|181899980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.9
90982272|NCT01982630|181848624|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|6.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.69|12.2|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline TWA0-24hr of heart rate as a covariate||||12.20|1.69|
90982273|NCT01982630|181848625|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|2.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.42|6.34|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline TWA0-24hr of heart rate as a covariate||||6.34|-1.42|
90982274|NCT01982630|181848625|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|9.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.42|14.81|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline TWA0-24hr of heart rate as a covariate||||14.81|4.42|
90982275|NCT01982630|181848625|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|7.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.7|12.6|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline TWA0-24hr of heart rate as a covariate||||12.60|1.70|
90982276|NCT01982630|181848626|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-3.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.8|-1.14|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline peak heart rate as a covariate||||-1.14|-6.80|
90982277|NCT01982630|181848626|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.33|2.93|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline peak heart rate as a covariate||||2.93|-4.33|
90982278|NCT01982630|181848626|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|3.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.54|7.06|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline peak heart rate as a covariate||||7.06|-0.54|
90982279|NCT01982630|181848627|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-1.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.31|2.15|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline peak heart rate as a covariate||||2.15|-5.31|
90982280|NCT01982630|181848627|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|2.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.32|7.35|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline peak heart rate as a covariate||||7.35|-2.32|
90982281|NCT01982630|181848627|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.96|9.16|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline peak heart rate as a covariate||||9.16|-0.96|
90982282|NCT01982630|181848628|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-3.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.31|0.34|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline peak heart rate as a covariate||||0.34|-7.31|
90982283|NCT01982630|181848628|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|3.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.11|9.03|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline peak heart rate as a covariate||||9.03|-1.11|
90982284|NCT01982630|181848628|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|7.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.16|12.73|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline peak heart rate as a covariate||||12.73|2.16|
90982285|NCT01982630|181848629|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.51|4.57|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline peak heart rate as a covariate||||4.57|-4.51|
90982286|NCT01982630|181848629|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.33|10.73|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline peak heart rate as a covariate||||10.73|-1.33|
90982287|NCT01982630|181848629|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|4.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.67|11.0|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline peak heart rate as a covariate||||11.00|-1.67|
91007949|NCT02590406|181899981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.03|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.03
90982288|NCT01982630|181848630|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|3.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|7.39|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline peak heart rate as a covariate||||7.39|-0.70|
90982289|NCT01982630|181848630|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|8.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.53|14.23|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline peak heart rate as a covariate||||14.23|3.53|
90982290|NCT01982630|181848630|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|5.54|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.08|11.15|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline peak heart rate as a covariate||||11.15|-0.08|
90982291|NCT01982630|181848631|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-3.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.98|-0.12|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline RMHR as a covariate||||-0.12|-6.98|
90982292|NCT01982630|181848631|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.38|5.49|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline RMHR as a covariate||||5.49|-3.38|
90982293|NCT01982630|181848631|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|4.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.02|9.23|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline RMHR as a covariate||||9.23|-0.02|
90982294|NCT01982630|181848632|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.59|2.28|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline RMHR as a covariate||||2.28|-4.59|
90982295|NCT01982630|181848632|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|8.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.99|13.31|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline RMHR as a covariate||||13.31|3.99|
90982296|NCT01982630|181848632|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|9.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.96|14.65|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline RMHR as a covariate||||14.65|4.96|
90982297|NCT01982630|181848633|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-4.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.52|-0.56|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline RMHR as a covariate||||-0.56|-7.52|
90982298|NCT01982630|181848633|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|10.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.57|14.89|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline RMHR as a covariate||||14.89|5.57|
90982299|NCT01982630|181848633|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|14.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.38|19.15|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline RMHR as a covariate||||19.15|9.38|
90982300|NCT01982630|181848634|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-2.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.7|1.47|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline RMHR as a covariate||||1.47|-5.70|
90982301|NCT01982630|181848634|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|13.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.64|18.03|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline RMHR as a covariate||||18.03|8.64|
90982302|NCT01982630|181848634|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|15.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|10.53|20.38|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline RMHR as a covariate||||20.38|10.53|
90982303|NCT01982630|181848635|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|2.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.47|5.7|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline RMHR as a covariate||||5.70|-1.47|
90982304|NCT01982630|181848635|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|10.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.73|15.13|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline RMHR as a covariate||||15.13|5.73|
90982305|NCT01982630|181848635|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|8.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.4|13.24|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline RMHR as a covariate||||13.24|3.40|
91039395|NCT00557245|181963487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66|||||||Regression, Logistic|Generalized estimating equations, logistic link, with robust standard errors.||||||0.66
91039396|NCT00557245|181963488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|Generalized estimating equations with logistic link to account for multiple pregnancies and multiple births||||||0.51
91039397|NCT00557245|181963488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|generalized estimating equations with logistic link to account for multiple pregnancies and multiple births||||||0.86
91039398|NCT00557245|181963489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|linear mixed-effects model||||||0.42
91039399|NCT00557245|181963489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope Difference over time|0.07||||0.08|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed-effects model|Placebo arm is the reference group.|||||0.08
91039400|NCT00557245|181963490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed effects model||||||0.02
91039401|NCT00557245|181963490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed effects model||||||<0.001
91039402|NCT00557245|181963491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed effects model||||||0.35
91039403|NCT00557245|181963491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed effects model||||||0.008
91039404|NCT01851876|181963498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.025
91039405|NCT02725515|181963516|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.4||||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|32.6|||Barnard's Unconditional Exact Test P-val|||||32.6|-6.6|0.1830
91039406|NCT02725515|181963517|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.5||||0.1075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|37.3|||Barnard's Unconditional Exact Test P-val|||||37.3|-3.7|0.1075
91039407|NCT02725515|181963518|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53||||0.0252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.92|||Log Rank|||||0.92|0.30|0.0252
91039408|NCT00183196|181963531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.529|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.281|0.997|||Regression, Cox|||||.997|.281|
91039409|NCT00183196|181963531|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Regression, Cox|percent heavy drinking days at baseline was used as a covariate in the analysis as it was a predictor of overall survival independent of group.||||||0.04
91039410|NCT00385736|181963532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031||95.0||||The primary endpoint analysis was carried out in hierarchical order (as presented) to handle the multiplicity issues induced by the two adalimumab groups being compared to placebo and to control the overall alpha level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.031
91039411|NCT00385736|181963532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.833||95.0||||The primary endpoint analysis was carried out in hierarchical order (as presented) to handle the multiplicity issues induced by the two adalimumab groups being compared to placebo and to control the overall alpha level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.833
91039412|NCT00385736|181963533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.107||95.0||||Ranked secondary analyses were carried out in hierarchical order (as presented) to handle the multiplicity issues and to control the overall alpha level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.107
91039413|NCT00385736|181963534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.382||95.0||||Ranked secondary analyses were carried out in hierarchical order (as presented) to handle the multiplicity issues and to control the overall alpha level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.382
91039414|NCT00385736|181963535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038||95.0||||Ranked secondary analyses were carried out in hierarchical order (as presented) to handle the multiplicity issues and to control the overall alpha level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.038
91039415|NCT00385736|181963536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035||95.0||||Ranked secondary analyses were carried out in hierarchical order (as presented) to handle the multiplicity issues and to control the overall alpha level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.035
91039416|NCT00385736|181963537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08||95.0||||Ranked secondary analyses were carried out in hierarchical order (as presented) to handle the multiplicity issues and to control the overall alpha level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.080
91039417|NCT00385736|181963538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.264||95.0||||Ranked secondary analyses were carried out in hierarchical order (as presented) to handle the multiplicity issues and to control the overall alpha level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.264
91039418|NCT00385736|181963539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.526||95.0||||Ranked secondary analyses were carried out in hierarchical order (as presented) to handle the multiplicity issues and to control the overall alpha level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.526
90982306|NCT01982630|181848651|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|29.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.34|54.77|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline 24-hour WMG as a covariate||||54.77|4.34|
90982307|NCT01982630|181848651|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|26.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.02|50.19|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline 24-hour WMG as a covariate||||50.19|2.02|
91039419|NCT00385736|181963540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.506||95.0||||Ranked secondary analyses were carried out in hierarchical order (as presented) to handle the multiplicity issues and to control the overall alpha level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.506
91039420|NCT00385736|181963541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.264||95.0||||Ranked secondary analyses were carried out in hierarchical order (as presented) to handle the multiplicity issues and to control the overall alpha level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.264
90982308|NCT01982630|181848651|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|3.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.23|27.14|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline 24-hour WMG as a covariate||||27.14|-20.23|
90982309|NCT01982630|181848651|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-26.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-49.96|-2.93|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline 24-hour WMG as a covariate||||-2.93|-49.96|
90982310|NCT01982630|181848651|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-29.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-52.04|-7.77|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline 24-hour WMG as a covariate||||-7.77|-52.04|
90982311|NCT01982630|181848651|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-56.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-79.53|-32.48|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline 24-hour WMG as a covariate||||-32.48|-79.53|
90982312|NCT01982630|181848652|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|14.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.25|40.18|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline 24-hour WMG as a covariate||||40.18|-10.25|
90982313|NCT01982630|181848652|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|6.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.52|30.65|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline 24-hour WMG as a covariate||||30.65|-17.52|
90982314|NCT01982630|181848652|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|8.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.29|32.08|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline 24-hour WMG as a covariate||||32.08|-15.29|
90982315|NCT01982630|181848652|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-35.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-58.75|-11.72|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline 24-hour WMG as a covariate||||-11.72|-58.75|
90982316|NCT01982630|181848652|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-43.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-65.77|-21.5|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline 24-hour WMG as a covariate||||-21.50|-65.77|
90982317|NCT01982630|181848652|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-50.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-73.72|-26.68|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline 24-hour WMG as a covariate||||-26.68|-73.72|
90982318|NCT01982630|181848653|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-31.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-56.59|-5.81|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline FPG as a covariate||||-5.81|-56.59|
90982319|NCT01982630|181848653|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-25.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-50.25|0.01|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline FPG as a covariate||||0.01|-50.25|
90982320|NCT01982630|181848653|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-6.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.31|5.14|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline FPG as a covariate||||5.14|-17.31|
90982321|NCT01982630|181848654|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-27.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-52.87|-2.09|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline FPG as a covariate||||-2.09|-52.87|
90982322|NCT01982630|181848654|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-30.59|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-55.72|-5.46|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline FPG as a covariate||||-5.46|-55.72|
90982323|NCT01982630|181848654|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|3.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.11|14.34|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline FPG as a covariate||||14.34|-8.11|
90982324|NCT01982630|181848655|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|4.59|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.88|30.06|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline FPG as a covariate||||30.06|-20.88|
90982325|NCT01982630|181848655|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-5.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-30.68|19.85|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline FPG as a covariate||||19.85|-30.68|
90982326|NCT01982630|181848655|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|10.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.77|21.78|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline FPG as a covariate||||21.78|-1.77|
90982327|NCT01982630|181848656|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-14.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-40.53|10.57|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline FPG as a covariate||||10.57|-40.53|
90982328|NCT01982630|181848656|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-14.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-39.77|10.76|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline FPG as a covariate||||10.76|-39.77|
90982329|NCT01982630|181848656|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.47|11.52|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline FPG as a covariate||||11.52|-12.47|
90982330|NCT01982630|181848657|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-43.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-65.81|-21.55|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline 24-hour WMG as a covariate||||-21.55|-65.81|
90982331|NCT01982630|181848657|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-47.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-69.35|-25.45|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline 24-hour WMG as a covariate||||-25.45|-69.35|
90982332|NCT01982630|181848657|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|3.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.76|13.19|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline 24-hour WMG as a covariate||||13.19|-5.76|
90982333|NCT01982630|181848658|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-34.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-56.14|-11.88|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline 24-hour WMG as a covariate||||-11.88|-56.14|
90982334|NCT01982630|181848658|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-39.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-61.15|-17.26|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline 24-hour WMG as a covariate||||-17.26|-61.15|
90982335|NCT01982630|181848658|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|5.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.28|14.67|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline 24-hour WMG as a covariate||||14.67|-4.28|
90982336|NCT01982630|181848659|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-23.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-45.89|-1.56|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline 24-hour WMG as a covariate||||-1.56|-45.89|
90982337|NCT01982630|181848659|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-33.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-55.93|-11.98|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline 24-hour WMG as a covariate||||-11.98|-55.93|
90982338|NCT01982630|181848659|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|10.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.56|19.89|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline 24-hour WMG as a covariate||||19.89|0.56|
90982339|NCT01982630|181848660|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-23.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-45.65|-1.32|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline 24-hour WMG as a covariate||||-1.32|-45.65|
90982340|NCT01982630|181848660|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-29.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-51.74|-7.79|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline 24-hour WMG as a covariate||||-7.79|-51.74|
90982341|NCT01982630|181848660|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|6.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.39|15.93|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline 24-hour WMG as a covariate||||15.93|-3.39|
90982342|NCT01273818|181848707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Fscher exact test|||||0.198|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact||we did not need an estimation parameter such as odds or relative risk because of our experimental design and hypothesis of this study.|"Comparison Group Selection: our primary outcome is infection positive or negativeso, we compared the frequencies of being positive infections for these three groups. Our null hypothesis is  positive infection frequencies are same for three groups. We calculated post-hoc power for this design and found 0.99 for the percentages which shows positive infections respectively for Topical Gentamicin, cefazoline iv and topical gentamicin and iv cefazolin; 2.3%, 3.1% and 0%."||||0.198
90982343|NCT03815175|181848708|NON_INFERIORITY|"H0: Death/(MI\[1m-DAPT\]) - Death/(MI \[XIENCE V USA\]) ≥ δ HA: Death/MI(\[1m-DAPT\]) - Death/(MI \[XIENCE V USA: NCT00676520\]) \< δ~Where δ is the non-inferiority margin. The test will be carried out with a one-sided significance level of 0.025 and a non-inferiority margin (δ) of 2.5%."||||||0.0005|||||||Farrington-Manning method|||||||0.0005
90982344|NCT03815175|181848711|SUPERIORITY|"H0: B (1m-DAPT) - B (XIENCE V USA) ≥ 0 HA: B (1m-DAPT) - B (XIENCE V USA: NCT00676520) \< 0~B 1m-DAPT and B XIENCE V USA are bleeding rates (BARC type 2-5) between 1-month and 6-month follow-up for the pooled 1-month DAPT arm and XIENCE V USA historical control, respectively."||||||0.1888|||||||Farrington and Manning method|||||||0.1888
90982345|NCT03577990|181848748|SUPERIORITY|Our sample (N = 90) had approximately 80% power (assuming 5 dropouts per arm) to detect an effect size of ∼.205 or greater at the α = .05 level of statistical significance, given a realistic range of simulated unstructured covariance matrices. An 11% rate of attrition was anticipated to yield a final sample of 80 participants, an average of 40 per arm. Participants who dropped out of the study prior to receiving the allotted intervention were not included in the analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.125||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values were computed according to a mixed-effects repeated measures model, appropriately constrained to baseline if indicated.|mixed-effects repeated measures||||For both referent (compared by month and treatment group) and constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) models, p-values were computed for the main group (G), time (T), and interaction (G x T) effects. For the first 3 months of the referent arm (IT), data were compared with usual care. Consequently, months 1 - 6 in the statistical analysis corresponds to calendar months 4 - 9 of the data collection. Months 1 - 9 of the intervention arm (ITEC) reflects months 1 - 9 of the collection. Additionally, for the cLDA model, data in the referent arm (IT) were accordingly shifted such that the starting point on the y-axis for both arms were the same (i.e. y = 0).|||.05
90982346|NCT03577990|181848749|SUPERIORITY|Our sample (N = 90) had approximately 80% power (assuming 5 dropouts per arm) to detect an effect size of ∼.205 or greater at the α = .05 level of statistical significance, given a realistic range of simulated unstructured covariance matrices. An 11% rate of attrition was anticipated to yield a final sample of 80 participants, an average of 40 per arm. Participants who dropped out of the study prior to receiving the allotted intervention were not included in the analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1250.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values were computed according to a mixed-effects repeated measures model, appropriately constrained to baseline if indicated.|mixed-effects repeated measures||||For both referent (compared by month and treatment group) and constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) models, p-values were computed for the main group (G), time (T), and interaction (G x T) effects. For the first 3 months of the referent arm (IT), data were compared with usual care. Consequently, months 1 - 6 in the statistical analysis corresponds to calendar months 4 - 9 of the data collection. Months 1 - 9 of the intervention arm (ITEC) reflects months 1 - 9 of the collection. Additionally, for the cLDA model, data in the referent arm (IT) were accordingly shifted such that the starting point on the y-axis for both arms were the same (i.e. y = 0).|||.05
90982347|NCT03577990|181848750|SUPERIORITY|Our sample (N = 90) had approximately 80% power (assuming 5 dropouts per arm) to detect an effect size of ∼.205 or greater at the α = .05 level of statistical significance, given a realistic range of simulated unstructured covariance matrices. An 11% rate of attrition was anticipated to yield a final sample of 80 participants, an average of 40 per arm. Participants who dropped out of the study prior to receiving the allotted intervention were not included in the analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|300.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values were computed according to a mixed-effects repeated measures model, appropriately constrained to baseline if indicated.|mixed-effects repeated measures||||For both referent (compared by month and treatment group) and constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) models, p-values were computed for the main group (G), time (T), and interaction (G x T) effects. For the first 3 months of the referent arm (IT), data were compared with usual care. Consequently, months 1 - 6 in the statistical analysis corresponds to calendar months 4 - 9 of the data collection. Months 1 - 9 of the intervention arm (ITEC) reflects months 1 - 9 of the collection. Additionally, for the cLDA model, data in the referent arm (IT) were accordingly shifted such that the starting point on the y-axis for both arms were the same (i.e. y = 0).|||.05
90982348|NCT03577990|181848752|SUPERIORITY|Our sample (N = 90) had approximately 80% power (assuming 5 dropouts per arm) to detect an effect size of ∼.205 or greater at the α = .05 level of statistical significance, given a realistic range of simulated unstructured covariance matrices. An 11% rate of attrition was anticipated to yield a final sample of 80 participants, an average of 40 per arm. Participants who dropped out of the study prior to receiving the allotted intervention were not included in the analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|500.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values were computed according to a mixed-effects repeated measures model, appropriately constrained to baseline if indicated.|mixed-effects repeated measures||||For both referent (compared by month and treatment group) and constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) models, p-values were computed for the main group (G), time (T), and interaction (G x T) effects. For the first 3 months of the referent arm (IT), data were compared with usual care. Consequently, months 1 - 6 in the statistical analysis corresponds to calendar months 4 - 9 of the data collection. Months 1 - 9 of the intervention arm (ITEC) reflects months 1 - 9 of the collection. Additionally, for the cLDA model, data in the referent arm (IT) were accordingly shifted such that the starting point on the y-axis for both arms were the same (i.e. y = 0).|||.05
90982349|NCT01073943|181848770|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the 1-sided 97.5% CI for the treatment difference (PICOPREP minus HalfLytely) was \>-9% for the percentage of responders. Superiority was demonstrated if the 1-sided 97.5% CI for treatment difference was \>0%.|Mean Difference (Net)|3.3|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|-2.9||||||||||-2.9|
91039421|NCT00385736|181963542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.797||95.0||||Ranked secondary analyses were carried out in hierarchical order (as presented) to handle the multiplicity issues and to control the overall alpha level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.797
91039422|NCT00385736|181963543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.614||95.0||||Ranked secondary analyses were carried out in hierarchical order (as presented) to handle the multiplicity issues and to control the overall alpha level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.614
91039423|NCT00385736|181963544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.532||95.0||||Ranked secondary analyses were carried out in hierarchical order (as presented) to handle the multiplicity issues and to control the overall alpha level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.532
91039424|NCT06078501|181963565|OTHER|||||||0.695||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Mann-Whitney U test|||||||0.695
91039425|NCT06078501|181963566|OTHER|||||||0.91|||||||Mann-Whitney U test|The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.||||||0.91
91039426|NCT06078501|181963567|OTHER|||||||1||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
90982350|NCT01073943|181848771|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the lower bound of the 97.5% confidence interval exceeds -9.0% then PicoPrep will be declared non-inferior to HalfLytely. If the non-inferiority test is satisfied then a test for superiority will be performed by comparing the lower bound of the 97.5% confidence interval with 0.0%. If the lower bound of the confidence interval is above 0.0% then superiority will be declared.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.7|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|-8.8||||||||||-8.8|
90982351|NCT01073943|181848772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
90982352|NCT01073943|181848773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
90982353|NCT01073943|181848774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91039427|NCT06078501|181963568|OTHER|||||||1||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
91039428|NCT06078501|181963569|OTHER|||||||0.887||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Mann-Whitney U test|||||||0.887
91039429|NCT06078501|181963570|OTHER|||||||0.887||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Mann-Whitney U test|||||||0.887
91039430|NCT06078501|181963572|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
91039431|NCT06078501|181963573|OTHER|||||||1||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Mann-Whitney U test|||||||1.0
91039432|NCT06078501|181963574|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
91039433|NCT01919112|181963598|OTHER|Regression models using interaction terms will used to assess for heterogeneity of intervention effects across the novel radiological variable corticobulbar tract (CBT)-lesion load, a combined measure of lesion size and location. For purposes of the analysis, the CBT-lesion load was dichotomized into 2 groups based on the median CBT-lesion load volume.||||||0.116||||||Interaction p-values will be considered statistically significant at the 0.15 level of significance given the relatively low power for tests of interaction to detect a true interaction.|2-way analysis of variance with interact|The tDCS intervention was the main variable of interest, PAS score the main outcome and CBT-lesion load was the interaction term used.||The aim for this analysis was to assess for effect modification of the trial intervention across the novel radiological variable corticobulbar tract-lesion load.||||0.116
91039434|NCT00835666|181963599|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|98.5||||||90.0|92.6|105.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||105|92.6|
91039435|NCT00835666|181963600|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|98.2||||||90.0|94.7|102.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||102|94.7|
91039436|NCT00835666|181963601|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|98.4||||||90.0|94.9|102.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||102|94.9|
91039437|NCT00985439|181963659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|11.407|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.643|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.195|16.619|||ANCOVA|||||16.619|6.195|<0.001
91039438|NCT05143801|181963660|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for environmental conditions.||||||0.003||||||Statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05.|2x2 repeated measures ANOVA|||||||0.003
91039439|NCT05143801|181963660|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for mask condition.||||||0.933||||||Statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05.|2x2 repeated measures ANOVA|||||||0.933
91039440|NCT05143801|181963660|EQUIVALENCE|Interaction effect across environmental and mask conditions.|No Method of Estimation was used|||||0.344||||||A Bonferroni post-hoc test was used if significant interaction effect was present and p-values were adjusted based on the number of comparisons. To determine if a post-hoc was needed statistical significance was set to p \< 0.05.|2x2 repeated measures ANOVA|||||||0.344
91039441|NCT05143801|181963661|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for environmental conditions.||||||0.117||||||Statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05.|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||A 2x2 repeated measures ANOVA was performed to investigate statistical differences for all variables across the four conditions. Both main and interaction effects were calculated along with effect size, reported as partial ⴄ2 as provided by the statistical software JASP (version 0.14.1.0).||||0.117
91039442|NCT05143801|181963661|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for mask condition||||||0.832||||||Statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05.|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.832
91039443|NCT05143801|181963661|EQUIVALENCE|Interaction effect across environmental and mask conditions.||||||0.879||||||A Bonferroni post-hoc test was used if significant interaction effect was present and p-values were adjusted based on the number of comparisons. To determine if a post-hoc was needed statistical significance was set to p \< 0.05.|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.879
91039444|NCT05143801|181963662|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for environmental condition.||||||0.749||||||Statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.749
91039445|NCT05143801|181963662|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for mask condition.||||||0.311||||||Statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.311
90982354|NCT01073943|181848775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
90982355|NCT01073943|181848776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
90982356|NCT01073943|181848777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
90982357|NCT01073943|181848779|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the lower bound of the 97.5% confidence interval exceeds -9.0% then PicoPrep will be declared non-inferior to HalfLytely. If the non-inferiority test is satisfied then a test for superiority will be performed by comparing the lower bound of the 97.5% confidence interval with 0.0%. If the lower bound of the confidence interval is above 0.0% then superiority will be declared.|Mean Difference (Net)|4.5|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|-0.1|||||||Mid colon comparison|||-0.1|
90982358|NCT01073943|181848779|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the lower bound of the 97.5% confidence interval exceeds -9.0% then PicoPrep will be declared non-inferior to HalfLytely. If the non-inferiority test is satisfied then a test for superiority will be performed by comparing the lower bound of the 97.5% confidence interval with 0.0%. If the lower bound of the confidence interval is above 0.0% then superiority will be declared.|Mean Difference (Net)|3.2|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|-1.5|||||||Recto-sigmoid colon comparison|||-1.5|
90982359|NCT01073943|181848779|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the lower bound of the 97.5% confidence interval exceeds -9.0% then PicoPrep will be declared non-inferior to HalfLytely. If the non-inferiority test is satisfied then a test for superiority will be performed by comparing the lower bound of the 97.5% confidence interval with 0.0%. If the lower bound of the confidence interval is above 0.0% then superiority will be declared.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.9|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|-5.7|||||||Overall comparison: ascending colon, mid colon and recto-sigmoid colon|||-5.7|
90982360|NCT05662332|181848788|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority margin (NIM) was 0.4%|LS Mean Change difference|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.12|||ANCOVA|||||0.12|-0.18|
90982361|NCT05662332|181848789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Change difference|-0.03||||0.684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.12|||ANCOVA|||||0.12|-0.18|0.684
90982362|NCT05662332|181848790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Change difference|4.16||||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|9.9|||ANCOVA|||Week 52||9.90|-1.58|0.155
90982363|NCT05662332|181848791|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Change difference|-43.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.4|-25.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52||-25.0|-62.4|<0.001
90982364|NCT05662332|181848792|SUPERIORITY||Relative Rate|0.57||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.84|||Negative binomial model|||||0.84|0.39|0.005
90982365|NCT05662332|181848794|SUPERIORITY||Relative Rate|0.58||||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.23|||Negative binomial model|||||1.23|0.28|0.155
90982366|NCT05662332|181848796|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|0.57||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.047|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.10|0.047|0.033
90982367|NCT05662332|181848797|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|1.56||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|3.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52||3.25|-0.13|0.071
90982368|NCT05662332|181848800|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|1.8||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|3.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52||3.8|-0.2|0.072
90982369|NCT01696461|181848802|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Percentage of donors mobilized with plerixafor. No comparison group was analyzed.|||
90982370|NCT01696461|181848803|OTHER||||||||||||||||||This is a descriptive analysis. Percentage of donor experiencing toxicities was assessed at 30, 60, 120, and 240 minutes after administration of plerixafor on each day of collection and graded according to the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4.0.3. Grade of maximum toxicity across all time points is reported.|||
90982371|NCT01696461|181848804|OTHER||||||||||||||||||This is a descriptive analysis. The number of donors experiencing toxicities was assessed at 30, 60, 120, and 240 minutes after administration of plerixafor on each day of collection and one, six, and 12 months post-donation. Toxicities were graded according to the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4.0.3.|||
90982372|NCT01696461|181848805|OTHER||||||||||||||||||At 100 days after HCT, all patients in both the MAC and the RIC cohorts had achieved neutrophil engraftment. All patients in the MAC arm and 97% of patients in the RIC arm had achieved platelet engraftment. The median time to neutrophil engraftment was 13 and 15 days for MAC and RIC, respectively. The median time to platelet engraftment was 19 and 18 days for MAC and RIC, respectively.|||
91006680|NCT01868594|181897721|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019||||||"The p-value associated with treatment factor of changes from baseline to Week 12, 24 and 36 endpoint between Subetta and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.019
91006681|NCT01868594|181897722|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0432||||||"The p-value associated with treatment factor of changes from baseline to Week 4, 12, 24 and 36 endpoint between Subetta and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0432
91006682|NCT01868594|181897723|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7344||||||"The p-value associated with treatment factor of changes from baseline to Week 4, 8, 12, 18, 24, 30 and 36 endpoint between Subetta and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7344
91006683|NCT01868594|181897724|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.278||||||"The p-value associated with treatment factor of changes from baseline to Week 12, 24 and 36 endpoint between Subetta and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of Total cholesterol changes from baseline to Week 12, 24 and 36 endpoint between Subetta and Placebo treatment groups.||||0.2780
91006684|NCT01868594|181897724|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8114||||||"The p-value associated with treatment factor of changes from baseline to Week 12, 24 and 36 endpoint between Subetta and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of HDL cholesterol changes from baseline to Week 12, 24 and 36 endpoint between Subetta and Placebo treatment groups.||||0.8114
91006685|NCT01868594|181897724|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1619||||||"The p-value associated with treatment factor of changes from baseline to Week 12, 24 and 36 endpoint between Subetta and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of LDL cholesterol changes from baseline to Week 12, 24 and 36 endpoint between Subetta and Placebo treatment groups.||||0.1619
91006686|NCT01868594|181897724|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0764||||||"The p-value associated with treatment factor of changes from baseline to Week 12, 24 and 36 endpoint between Subetta and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of Triglycerides changes from baseline to Week 12, 24 and 36 endpoint between Subetta and Placebo treatment groups.||||0.0764
91006687|NCT01868594|181897725|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3107||||||The p-value associated with comparison of changes from baseline to Week 36 endpoint between Subetta and Placebo treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of basal insulin changes from baseline to Week 36 endpoint between Subetta and Placebo treatment groups.||||0.3107
91006688|NCT01868594|181897725|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5236||||||The p-value associated with comparison of changes from baseline to Week 36 endpoint between Subetta and Placebo treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of prandial insulin changes from baseline to Week 36 endpoint between Subetta and Placebo treatment groups.||||0.5236
90982373|NCT01696461|181848806|OTHER||||||||||||||||||"Full donor myeloid chimerism was achieved relatively quickly in both RIC and MAC groups (median 100% at day +28 in both RIC and MAC), but conversion to full donor T-cell chimerism appeared to be slower in the RIC patients.~T-cell chimerism for MAC patients: median donor cell % (range):~Day +28: 92(59-100)%, Day +100: 97(76-100)%, Day +180: 100(91-100)%, Day +365: 100(100-100)%~T-cell chimerism for RIC patients: median donor cell % (range):~Day +28: 80(50-100)%, Day +100: 84(64-100)%, Day +180: 95(74-100)%, Day +365: 100(87-100)%"|||
90982374|NCT01696461|181848807|OTHER||||||||||||||||||This is a descriptive outcome.There were no cases of primary graft failure.|||
90982375|NCT01696461|181848808|OTHER|||||||||||||||||The cumulative incidence of acute graft-vs-host disease was examined in the RIC and MAC groups but was not directly compared with a statistical test.|The incidence of acute GVHD was quantified by computing the cumulative incidence probability and an appropriate 95% confidence interval. Death was treated as a competing risk.|||
90982376|NCT01696461|181848809|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Immune reconstitution was measured by CD3+CD4+ and CD3+CD8+ T cells in the peripheral blood of patients at days 28, 100, 180, and 365 after HCT. Notably, median CD3+CD4+ cell counts were \>200/µL at all times analyzed, including day 28 in both MAC and RIC groups.|||
90982377|NCT01696461|181848810|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Groups were not directly compared using a statistical test.|Percentage of recipients at-risk for CMV reactivation who experienced a reactivation.|||
90982378|NCT01696461|181848811|OTHER|||||||||||||||||The probability of treatment-related mortality and disease relapse/progression were examined in the RIC and MAC cohorts but were not directly compared between the two groups using a statistical test.|The incidence of treatment-related mortality and relapse was quantified by computing the cumulative incidence probability and an appropriate 95% confidence interval. When computing the cumulative incidence probability of treatment-related mortality and relapse, relapse and treatment-related mortality, respectively, were considered as a competing risk.|||
90982379|NCT01696461|181848812|OTHER|||||||||||||||||The probability of progression free survival and overall survival were examined in the RIC and MAC cohorts but were not directly compared between the two groups using a statistical test.|Kaplan-Meier curves were used to estimate the probability of progression-free survival and overall survival. Progression-free survival at 1 year was 53% (95% CI, 36% to 71%) after MAC and 64% (95% CI, 47% to 79%) after RIC. Overall survival at 1 year was 63% (95% CI, 46% to 79%) after MAC and 70% (95% CI, 53% to 84%) after RIC.|||
90982380|NCT01696461|181848813|OTHER|||||||||||||||||This outcome measure is descriptive.|This outcome measure is descriptive. The median cell dose and range are reported.|||
91039446|NCT05143801|181963662|EQUIVALENCE|Interaction effect across environmental and mask conditions.||||||0.368||||||A Bonferroni post-hoc test was used if significant interaction effect was present and p-values were adjusted based on the number of comparisons. To determine if a post-hoc was needed statistical significance was set to p \< 0.05.|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.368
90982381|NCT01696461|181848814|OTHER|||||||||||||||||The cumulative incidence of chronic graft-vs-host disease was examined in the RIC and MAC groups but was not directly compared with a statistical test.|The incidence of chronic GVHD was quantified by computing the cumulative incidence probability and an appropriate 95% confidence interval. Death was treated as a competing event.|||
91039447|NCT05143801|181963663|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for environmental condition.||||||0.789||||||Statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.789
90982382|NCT01696461|181848815|OTHER||||||||||||||||||This is a descriptive analysis. There were no cases of secondary graft failure.|||
90982383|NCT01696461|181848816|OTHER||||||||||||||||||This outcome measure is descriptive. The median cell dose and range are reported.|||
90982384|NCT00803114|181848817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.22||||0.05||95.0|0.12|0.41|||Fisher Exact||Relative risk describes the risk of requiring additional analgesics in the first 24 hours postpartum with the denominator being the arm which received placebo.|Relative risk ratio estimation with 95% CI using exact methods||0.41|0.12|0.05
90982385|NCT00803114|181848818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.05||95.0|-5.7|-2.3|||t-test, 2 sided|degrees of freedom 226|The epidural morphine group represents the baseline of comparison for difference in means, with the placebo group requiring additional analgesics earlier.|||-2.3|-5.7|0.05
90982386|NCT00803114|181848819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.05||95.0|0.7|1.8|||t-test, 2 sided|degrees of freedom 212|Difference in VAS score when compared to the baseline group, subjects receiving epidural morphine|||1.8|0.7|0.05
90982387|NCT00803114|181848820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8||||||Fisher's exact test result did not reveal statistically significant differences between expected and real frequencies in any of the categories.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.80
90982388|NCT03414359|181848849|NON_INFERIORITY|As there is no existing data in the literature that clearly defines a clinically significant reduction in the onset time of anesthesia, the non-inferiority margin was defined a priori based on clinical reasoning.||||||0.1||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is, \<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||To exclude a clinically important difference between the LEBF group and the chloroprocaine group, given a standard deviation of 4 minutes, and a non-inferiority margin of 3 minutes difference between groups, 62 mother-infant dyads (31 mother-infant dyads in each arm) are required to have a significance level of 5% and a power of 90%. In total, 70 female patients were recruited to account for any withdrawals.||||0.10
90982389|NCT04068103|181848861|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98||||||P value \<= 0.35 moves trial to phase III, \>0.35 stops trial for futility. Decision rule calls for early stopping due to futility.|Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's Exact Test of ctDNA clearance by treatment arm.||||0.98
90982390|NCT02396147|181848930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|87.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|58.56|129.52|||||T4 Formulation B Fasted (test)/T2 Formulation Fasted (reference)\*100|||129.52|58.56|
90982391|NCT02396147|181848930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|83.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|59.95|115.18|||||T4 Formulation C Fasted (test)/T2 Formulation Fasted (reference) \* 100|||115.18|59.95|
90982392|NCT02396147|181848930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|78.59|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|52.88|116.79|||||T4 Formulation B Fed (test)/T4 Formulation B Fasted (reference) \* 100|||116.79|52.88|
90982393|NCT02396147|181848930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|94.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|67.98|130.61|||||T4 Formulation C Fed (test)/T4 Formulation C Fasted (reference) \* 100|||130.61|67.98|
90982394|NCT02396147|181848931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|94.53|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.83|119.4|||||T4 Formulation B Fasted (test)/T2 Formulation Fasted (Reference) \*100|||119.40|74.83|
90982395|NCT02396147|181848931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ration|77.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|64.29|94.61|||||T4 Formulation C Fasted (test)/T2 Formulation Fasted (reference) \* 100|||94.61|64.29|
90982396|NCT02396147|181848931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|81.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|64.21|102.37|||||T4 Formulation B Fed (test)/T4 Formulation B Fasted (reference) \* 100|||102.37|64.21|
90982397|NCT02396147|181848931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|92.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.48|112.55|||||T4 Formulation C Fed (test)/T4 Formulation C Fasted (reference) \* 100|||112.55|76.48|
90982398|NCT02396147|181848932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|94.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.85|119.12|||||T4 Formulation B Fasted (test)/T2 Formulation Fasted (reference) \* 100|||119.12|74.85|
91039448|NCT05143801|181963663|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for mask condition.||||||0.739||||||Statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.739
91039449|NCT05143801|181963663|EQUIVALENCE|Interaction effect across environmental and mask conditions.||||||0.158||||||A Bonferroni post-hoc test was used if significant interaction effect was present and p-values were adjusted based on the number of comparisons. To determine if a post-hoc was needed statistical significance was set to p \< 0.05.|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.158
90982399|NCT02396147|181848932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|78.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|64.53|94.51|||||T4 Formulation C Fasted (test)/T2 Formulation Fasted (reference) \* 100|||94.51|64.53|
90982400|NCT02396147|181848932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|81.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|64.36|102.34|||||T4 Formulation B Fed (test)/T4 Formulation B Fasted (reference) \* 100|||102.34|64.36|
90982401|NCT02396147|181848932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|92.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.84|112.54|||||T4 Formulation C Fed (test)/T4 Formulation C Fasted (reference) \* 100|||112.54|76.84|
90982402|NCT02907944|181848948|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.45|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||1.45|0.82|0.55
90982403|NCT02907944|181848948|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|3.37|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||3.37|0.92|0.09
90982404|NCT02907944|181848948|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.71|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||1.71|1.14|0.001
90982405|NCT02907944|181848949|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.45|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||1.45|0.81|0.59
90982406|NCT02907944|181848949|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|3.55|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||3.55|0.88|0.11
90982407|NCT02907944|181848949|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.66|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||1.66|1.09|0.005
90982408|NCT02559505|181848962|OTHER|||||||0.005||||||p-value for H3 reactivity, difference of Acute Infected vs. Vaccinated.|ANCOVA|||||||0.005
90982409|NCT02559505|181848962|OTHER|||||||0.024||||||p-value for NP reactivity, difference of Acute Infected vs. Vaccinated.|ANCOVA|||||||0.024
90982410|NCT02559505|181848963|OTHER|||||||0.408||||||p-value for H3 reactivity, difference of Acute Infected vs. Vaccinated.|ANCOVA|||||||0.408
90982411|NCT02559505|181848963|OTHER|||||||0.004||||||p-value for NP reactivity, difference of Acute Infected vs. Vaccinated.|ANCOVA|||||||0.004
90982412|NCT02559505|181848964|OTHER|||||||0.991||||||p-value for H3 reactivity, difference of Acute Infected vs. Vaccinated.|ANCOVA|||||||0.991
91039450|NCT05143801|181963664|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for environmental condition.||||||0.394||||||Statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.394
91039451|NCT05143801|181963664|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for mask condition||||||0.157||||||Statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.157
91039452|NCT05143801|181963664|EQUIVALENCE|Interaction effect across environmental and mask conditions.||||||0.015||||||A Bonferroni post-hoc test was used if significant interaction effect was present and p-values were adjusted based on the number of comparisons. To determine if a post-hoc was needed statistical significance was set to p \< 0.05.|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.015
91039453|NCT05143801|181963665|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for environmental condition.||||||0.96||||||Statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.960
91039454|NCT05143801|181963665|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for mask condition.||||||0.073||||||Statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.073
91039455|NCT05143801|181963665|EQUIVALENCE|Interaction effect across environmental and mask conditions.||||||0.503||||||A Bonferroni post-hoc test was used if significant interaction effect was present and p-values were adjusted based on the number of comparisons. To determine if a post-hoc was needed statistical significance was set to p \< 0.05.|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.503
90982413|NCT02559505|181848964|OTHER|||||||0.334||||||p-value for NP reactivity, difference of Acute Infected vs. Vaccinated.|ANCOVA|||||||0.334
90982414|NCT02559505|181848965|OTHER|||||||0.226||||||p-value for H3 reactivity, difference of Acute Infected vs. Vaccinated.|ANCOVA|||||||0.226
90982415|NCT02559505|181848965|OTHER|||||||0.036||||||p-value for NP reactivity, difference of Acute Infected vs. Vaccinated.|ANCOVA|||||||0.036
91039456|NCT05143801|181963666|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for environmental condition.||||||0.786||||||Statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.786
91039457|NCT05143801|181963666|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for mask condition.||||||0.18||||||Statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.180
91039458|NCT05143801|181963666|EQUIVALENCE|Interaction effect across environmental and mask conditions.||||||0.239||||||A Bonferroni post-hoc test was used if significant interaction effect was present and p-values were adjusted based on the number of comparisons. To determine if a post-hoc was needed statistical significance was set to p \< 0.05.|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.239
91039459|NCT05143801|181963667|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for environmental condition.||||||0.134||||||Statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.134
90982416|NCT02559505|181848966|OTHER|||||||0.68||||||p-value for H3 reactivity, difference of Acute Infected vs. Vaccinated.|ANCOVA|||||||0.680
90982417|NCT02559505|181848966|OTHER|||||||0.002||||||p-value for H3 reactivity, difference of Acute Infected vs. Vaccinated.|ANCOVA|||||||0.002
90982418|NCT03523585|181848970|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.3589|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.284|0.4535||Stratified Log-rank p-value|Log Rank|p value based on log-rank stratified by hormone receptor status, prior treatment with pertuzumab, and history of visceral disease, as defined by IXRS|Hazard Ratio based on stratified Cox proportional hazards model with stratification factors: hormone receptor status, prior treatment with pertuzumab, and history of visceral disease, as defined by the IXRS.|||0.4535|0.2840|<0.000001
90982419|NCT03523585|181848971|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6575||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5023|0.8605||Stratified Log-rank p-value|Log Rank|p value based on log-rank stratified by hormone receptor status, prior treatment with pertuzumab, and history of visceral disease, as defined by IXRS|Hazard Ratio based on stratified Cox proportional hazards model with stratification factors: hormone receptor status, prior treatment with pertuzumab, and history of visceral disease, as defined by the IXRS.|||0.8605|0.5023|0.0021
91039460|NCT05143801|181963667|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for mask condition.||||||0.621||||||Statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.621
91039461|NCT05143801|181963667|EQUIVALENCE|Interaction effect across environmental and mask conditions.||||||0.553||||||A Bonferroni post-hoc test was used if significant interaction effect was present and p-values were adjusted based on the number of comparisons. To determine if a post-hoc was needed statistical significance was set to p \< 0.05.|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.553
91039462|NCT05143801|181963668|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for environmental condition.||||||0.461||||||Statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.461
90982420|NCT03523585|181848972|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factors: hormone receptor status, prior treatment with pertuzumab, and history of visceral disease, as defined by the IXRS.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical Analysis for BICR Assessment||||<0.0001
91039463|NCT05143801|181963668|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for mask condition.||||||0.877||||||Statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.877
91039464|NCT05143801|181963668|EQUIVALENCE|Interaction effect across environmental and mask conditions.||||||0.919||||||A Bonferroni post-hoc test was used if significant interaction effect was present and p-values were adjusted based on the number of comparisons. To determine if a post-hoc was needed statistical significance was set to p \< 0.05.|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.919
91039465|NCT05143801|181963669|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for environmental condition.||||||0.466||||||Statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.466
91039466|NCT05143801|181963669|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for mask condition.||||||0.186||||||Statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.186
91039467|NCT05143801|181963669|EQUIVALENCE|Interaction effect across environmental and mask conditions.||||||0.08||||||A Bonferroni post-hoc test was used if significant interaction effect was present and p-values were adjusted based on the number of comparisons. To determine if a post-hoc was needed statistical significance was set to p \< 0.05.|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.080
91039468|NCT05143801|181963670|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for environmental condition.||||||0.375||||||Statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.375
91039469|NCT05143801|181963670|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for mask condition.||||||0.178||||||Statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.178
91039470|NCT05143801|181963670|EQUIVALENCE|Interaction effect across environmental and mask conditions.||||||0.533||||||A Bonferroni post-hoc test was used if significant interaction effect was present and p-values were adjusted based on the number of comparisons. To determine if a post-hoc was needed statistical significance was set to p \< 0.05.|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.533
91039471|NCT05143801|181963671|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for environmental condition.||||||0.29||||||Statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.290
91039472|NCT05143801|181963671|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for mask condition.||||||0.527||||||Statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.527
91039473|NCT05143801|181963671|EQUIVALENCE|Interaction effect across environmental and mask conditions.||||||0.045||||||A Bonferroni post-hoc test was used if significant interaction effect was present and p-values were adjusted based on the number of comparisons. To determine if a post-hoc was needed statistical significance was set to p \< 0.05.|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.045
91039474|NCT05143801|181963672|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for environmental condition.||||||0.018||||||Statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05|2x2x3 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.018
91039475|NCT05143801|181963672|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for mask condition.|||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05|2x2x3 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91039476|NCT05143801|181963672|EQUIVALENCE|Interaction effect across environmental and mask conditions.||||||0.035||||||A Bonferroni post-hoc test was used if significant interaction effect was present and p-values were adjusted based on the number of comparisons. To determine if a post-hoc was needed statistical significance was set to p \< 0.05.|2x2x3 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.035
91039477|NCT05143801|181963673|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for environmental condition.|||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91039478|NCT05143801|181963673|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for mask condition.||||||0.678||||||Statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.678
91039479|NCT05143801|181963673|EQUIVALENCE|Interaction effect||||||0.678|||||||2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.678
91039480|NCT05143801|181963674|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for environmental condition.|||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91039481|NCT05143801|181963674|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for mask condition.||||||0.487||||||Statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.487
91039482|NCT05143801|181963674|EQUIVALENCE|Interaction effect across environmental and mask conditions.||||||0.79||||||A Bonferroni post-hoc test was used if significant interaction effect was present and p-values were adjusted based on the number of comparisons. To determine if a post-hoc was needed statistical significance was set to p \< 0.05.|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.790
91039483|NCT05143801|181963675|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for environmental condition.||||||0.089||||||Statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.089
91039484|NCT05143801|181963675|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for mask condition.||||||0.297||||||Statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.297
91039485|NCT05143801|181963675|EQUIVALENCE|Interaction effect across environmental and mask conditions.||||||0.111||||||A Bonferroni post-hoc test was used if significant interaction effect was present and p-values were adjusted based on the number of comparisons. To determine if a post-hoc was needed statistical significance was set to p \< 0.05.|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.111
91039486|NCT05143801|181963676|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for environmental condition.||||||0.024||||||Statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.024
91039487|NCT05143801|181963676|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for mask condition.||||||0.002||||||Statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.002
91039488|NCT05143801|181963676|EQUIVALENCE|Interaction effect across environmental and mask conditions.||||||0.014||||||A Bonferroni post-hoc test was used if significant interaction effect was present and p-values were adjusted based on the number of comparisons. To determine if a post-hoc was needed statistical significance was set to p \< 0.05.|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.014
91039489|NCT05143801|181963677|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for environmental condition.||||||0.012||||||Statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.012
91039490|NCT05143801|181963677|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for mask condition.||||||0.893||||||Statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.893
91039491|NCT05143801|181963677|EQUIVALENCE|Interaction effect across environmental and mask conditions.||||||0.969||||||A Bonferroni post-hoc test was used if significant interaction effect was present and p-values were adjusted based on the number of comparisons. To determine if a post-hoc was needed statistical significance was set to p \< 0.05.|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.969
91039492|NCT00101439|181963680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.89||||0.241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.08||Data were back-transformed from the log scale and adjusted for treatment|ANOVA||GMR=Ezetimibe divided by placebo|||1.08|0.73|0.241
90982421|NCT03523585|181848972|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factors: hormone receptor status, prior treatment with pertuzumab, and history of visceral disease, as defined by the IXRS.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical Analysis for Investigator Assessment||||<0.0001
90982422|NCT03523585|181848974|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.2828|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.227|0.3524||Stratified Log-rank p-value.|Log Rank|p value based on log-rank stratified by hormone receptor status, prior treatment with pertuzumab, and history of visceral disease, as defined by IXRS|Hazard Ratio based on stratified Cox proportional hazards model with stratification factors: hormone receptor status, prior treatment with pertuzumab, and history of visceral disease, as defined by the IXRS.|||0.3524|0.2270|<0.000001
90982423|NCT02874794|181848995|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.2||||0.7827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6|13.2|||ANCOVA|||||13.2|-17.6|0.7827
90982424|NCT02874794|181848998|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric Means|0.6667|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5858|0.7589|||ANCOVA|||||0.7589|0.5858|<.0001
90982425|NCT02874794|181848999|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.5792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.33|||ANCOVA|||||0.33|-0.58|0.5792
90982426|NCT02874794|181849000|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.02|-1.59|||ANCOVA|||||-1.59|-4.02|<.0001
90982427|NCT02874794|181849001|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.8617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.27|||ANCOVA|||||0.27|-0.33|0.8617
90982428|NCT02874794|181849002|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.75||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.76|-0.75|||ANCOVA|||vs Enalapril||-0.75|-2.76|0.0007
90982429|NCT02874794|181849003|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.63||||0.2354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|1.68|||ANCOVA|||||1.68|-0.41|0.2354
90982430|NCT02874794|181849004|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.8215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.04|||ANCOVA|||||0.04|-0.05|0.8215
90982431|NCT02874794|181849005|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.58||||0.0452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.13|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||||-0.03|-3.13|0.0452
90982432|NCT02874794|181849006|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.97||||0.0242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.68|-0.26|||ANCOVA|||||-0.26|-3.68|0.0242
90982433|NCT00698516|181849012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Greenwood variance|65.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.07||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.3|76.9||Historical data in target population showed 3-month PFS rates of \<=50%. Oral topotecan with IV bevacizumab would provide clinically meaningful improvement in 3-month PFS if it could demonstrate a 40% improvement relative to the historical data.|Z statistic|Z statistic was used to reject the null hypothesis provided Z\>=1.65, where Z = (KM estimate at 3 months - null hypothesis value \[50%\])/Greenwood SE.||||76.9|49.3|0.017
90982434|NCT03815292|181849034|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.02
90982435|NCT03815292|181849035|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0445|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis applies to ∆ between baseline and after 24 weeks total scores row.||||0.0445
90982436|NCT03815292|181849036|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0345|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0345
90982437|NCT03815292|181849037|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis applies to ∆ between baseline and after 24 weeks total scores row.||||0.04
90982438|NCT03815292|181849038|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0016|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This analysis applies to ∆ between baseline and after 24 weeks total scores row.||||0.0016
90982439|NCT03815292|181849039|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0054|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis applies to Therapeutic effect row.||||0.0054
90982440|NCT03815292|181849039|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis applies to Side effects row.||||0.78
90982441|NCT03815292|181849039|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0042|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis applies to Efficiency index row.||||0.0042
90982442|NCT03815292|181849040|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis applies to ∆ between 24 and 28 weeks total scores row.||||0.77
90982443|NCT03815292|181849041|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0118|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis applies to ∆ between 24 and 28 weeks total scores row.||||0.0118
90982444|NCT03815292|181849042|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.058|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis applies to ∆ between 24 and 28 weeks total scores row.||||0.058
90982445|NCT01584024|181849050|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.003|||||||McNemar|||||||=0.003
90982446|NCT01584024|181849051|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.17|||||||McNemar|||||||=0.17
90982447|NCT04893265|181849119|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0854|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1122||0.4471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1352|0.306|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.3060|-0.1352|0.4471
90982448|NCT04893265|181849120|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8378|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4284|1.6385|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for Demographics, COVID-19 Cases Per 100K , Test Access, Social Network, Knowledge, Test Value with random intercepts for participation mode|Adjusted odds ratio|||1.6385|0.4284|<0.05
90982449|NCT04893265|181849121|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4306|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6166|3.3192|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for Demographics, COVID-19 Cases Per 100K , Test Access, Social Network, Knowledge, Test Value with random intercepts for participation mode|Adjusted odds ratio|||3.3192|0.6166|<0.05
90982450|NCT04893265|181849122|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08661|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08125|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07311|0.2463|||||Adjusted for Demographics, COVID Cases Per 100,000 Population, Test Access, Social Network, Knowledge, and Test Value with random intercepts for Dyad and Individual|||0.2463|-0.07311|
90982451|NCT03090191|181849131|SUPERIORITY|Lower bound of confidence interval greater than 20% demonstrate vaccine efficacy.|Vaccine efficacy|31.0|||||TWO_SIDED|96.4|-38.7|66.6|||||Vaccine efficacy(VE)=100\*(1-infection rate ratio\[IRR\]),IRR=calculated ratio of first primary CDI incidence between Clostridium difficile vaccine group and placebo group. 96.4% CI was estimated using Clopper-Pearson-Method.|||66.6|-38.7|
90982452|NCT03090191|181849132|SUPERIORITY|Lower bound of confidence interval greater than 20% demonstrate vaccine efficacy.|Vaccine efficacy|28.6|||||TWO_SIDED|96.4|-28.4|61.0|||||Vaccine efficacy(VE)=100\*(1-infection rate ratio\[IRR\]),IRR=calculated ratio of first primary CDI incidence between Clostridium difficile vaccine group and placebo group. 96.4% CI was estimated using Clopper-Pearson-Method.|||61.0|-28.4|
90982453|NCT03090191|181849141|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|11.1|||||TWO_SIDED|98.2|-110.7|62.5|||||VE = 100\*(1 - Hazard Ratio). 98.2% CI was estimated using Proportional Means Model.|||62.5|-110.7|
90982454|NCT03090191|181849142|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0172|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test (2-sided)|||||||0.0172
90982455|NCT03090191|181849143|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|98.2|0.0|0.81||||||||0.81|0.00|
90982456|NCT03090191|181849144|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|-69.3|||||TWO_SIDED|98.2|-1533.1|75.6|||||Vaccine efficacy(VE)=100\*(1-infection rate ratio\[IRR\]),IRR=calculated ratio of recurrent CDI incidence between Clostridium difficile vaccine group and placebo group. 98.2% CI was estimated using Clopper-Pearson-Method.|||75.6|-1533.1|
90982457|NCT03090191|181849145|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|14.9|||||TWO_SIDED|98.2|-74.6|58.5|||||VE = 100\*(1 - Hazard Ratio). 98.2% CI was estimated using Proportional Means Model|||58.5|-74.6|
90982458|NCT03090191|181849146|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|-102.4|||||TWO_SIDED|98.2|-1770.1|67.2|||||VE = 100\*(1 - IRR), where IRR= the calculated ratio of recurrent CDI incidence between the Clostridium difficile vaccine group and the placebo group. 98.2% CI was estimated using Clopper-Pearson-Method.|||67.2|-1770.1|
90982459|NCT03090191|181849147|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|98.2|-246.7|78.5|||||Vaccine efficacy(VE)=100\*(1-infection rate ratio\[IRR\]),IRR=calculated ratio of first primary CDI incidence between Clostridium difficile vaccine group and placebo group. 98.2% CI was estimated using Clopper-Pearson-Method.|||78.5|-246.7|
91039493|NCT00101439|181963681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.02||||0.812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.2||Data were back-transformed from the log scale and adjusted for treatment|ANOVA||GMR=Ezetimibe divided by placebo|||1.20|0.87|0.812
91039494|NCT02615249|181963699|OTHER||Kappa statistic|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.58||||||Comparison between 0.12 mg/cm2 copper sulfate and copper sulfate 2% in petrolatum||0.58|-0.01|
91039495|NCT02615249|181963699|OTHER||Kappa statistic|0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.66||||||Comparison between 0.24 mg/cm2 manganese chloride and manganese chloride 2% in petrolatum||0.66|0.24|
91039496|NCT02615249|181963699|OTHER||Kappa statistic|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.38|||||Kappa statistic is for 0.33 mg/cm2 tin chloride vs 1% tin chloride in petrolatum reference allergen|Comparison between 0.33 mg/cm2 tin chloride and tin chloride 1% in petrolatum||0.38|0.07|
90982460|NCT03818815|181849150|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62||||||The p-value was calculated using multiple imputation with number of imputations equal to percentage of missing data.|Regression, Logistic|||The summary statistics are based on subjects with non-missing data only.||||0.62
90982461|NCT03818815|181849151|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07||||||The p-value was calculated using multiple imputation with number of imputations equal to percentage of missing data.|Regression, Logistic|||The summary statistics are based on subjects with non-missing data only.||||0.07
90982462|NCT04419506|181849152|OTHER||Posterior difference|88.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.5|154.2|||||Difference calculated as BI 1015550 - Placebo|Adjusted means in the placebo group were combined with the meta-analytic predictive priors derived based on the clinical trials in the nintedanib clinical development program in IPF. In order to evaluate the treatment effects, the posterior distribution for the treatment difference of BI 1015550 versus placebo with respect to the primary endpoint was used. The median of the posterior distribution for the treatment difference (and 95% credible intervals) was calculated.||154.2|29.5|
90982463|NCT04419506|181849152|OTHER||Posterior difference|62.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|125.5|||||Difference calculated as BI 1015550 - Placebo|Adjusted means in the placebo group were combined with the meta-analytic predictive priors derived based on the clinical trials in the nintedanib clinical development program in IPF. In order to evaluate the treatment effects, the posterior distribution for the treatment difference of BI 1015550 versus placebo with respect to the primary endpoint was used. The median of the posterior distribution for the treatment difference (and 95% credible intervals) was calculated.||125.5|6.3|
90982464|NCT00345605|181849190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Assuming r=0.5 between two measurements from the same subject, 12 subjects would provide a power of 0.8 to detect a 10% reduction in primary endpoints at an alpha value of 0.05.|For sample size calculation, we used the means and standard deviation for PT, PTT. Assuming r=0.5 between two measurements from the same subject, 12 subjects would provide a power of 0.8 to detect a 10% reduction in primary endpoints at an alpha value of 0.05.||||
90982465|NCT01521845|181849237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
90982466|NCT01521845|181849238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
90982467|NCT01521845|181849239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||not comparable|||||||1
90982468|NCT03047005|181849259|SUPERIORITY|Analyses used all available data. Analyses to compare treatments were all intent-to-treat.||||||0.07|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses were performed for all randomized patients who attended the first treatment session. Model adjusted for stage 1 treatment condition.||||||.07
90982469|NCT03047005|181849260|SUPERIORITY|Analyses used all available data. Analyses to compare treatments were all intent-to-treat.||||||0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses were performed for all randomized patients who attended the first treatment session. Model adjusted for stage 1 treatment condition.||||||.01
90982470|NCT02586805|181849273|OTHER||% change in mean rate (vs placebo)|-75.609|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.65|-61.243||p-values are adjusted for multiple testing.|Chi-squared||% change in mean rate corresponds to 100% \* (estimated mean rate ratio - 1).||Results from Poisson regression model with fixed effects for treatment group (categorical) and normalized baseline attack rate (continuous), and logarithm of time in days each participant was observed during treatment period as offset variable in model. Pearson chi-square scaling of standards errors was employed to account for potential overdispersion. Mean estimates are Least Squares (LS) means.|-61.243|-84.650|<0.001
90982471|NCT02586805|181849273|OTHER||% change in mean rate (vs placebo)|-73.271|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-82.379|-59.456||p-values are adjusted for multiple testing.|Chi-squared||% change in mean rate corresponds to 100% \* (estimated mean rate ratio - 1)||Results from Poisson regression model with fixed effects for treatment group (categorical) and normalized baseline attack rate (continuous), and logarithm of time in days each participant was observed during treatment period as offset variable in model. Pearson chi-square scaling of standards errors was employed to account for potential overdispersion. Mean estimates are Least Squares (LS) means.|-59.456|-82.379|<0.001
90982472|NCT02586805|181849273|OTHER||% change in mean rate (vs placebo)|-86.921|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-92.828|-76.15||p-values are adjusted for multiple testing.|Chi-squared||% change in mean rate corresponds to 100% \* (estimated mean rate ratio - 1)||Results from Poisson regression model with fixed effects for treatment group (categorical) and normalized baseline attack rate (continuous), and logarithm of time in days each participant was observed during treatment period as offset variable in model. Pearson chi-square scaling of standards errors was employed to account for potential overdispersion. Mean estimates are Least Squares (LS) means.|-76.150|-92.828|<0.001
91039497|NCT02615249|181963699|OTHER||Kappa statistic|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.65|||||Kappa statistic is for 0.22 mg Ti/cm2 ammonium titanium oxide oxalate vs 19% ammonium titanium oxide oxalate in petrolatum reference allergen|Comparison between 0.22 mg Ti/cm2 ammonium titanium oxide oxalate and ammnium titanium oxide oxalate 19% in petrolatum||0.65|0.15|
91039498|NCT02615249|181963699|OTHER||Kappa statistic|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.73|||||Kappa statistic is for 0.050 mg V/cm2 vanadium sulfate vs 1.5% vanadium sulfate in petrolatum reference allergen|Comparison between 0.050 mg/cm2 vanadium sulfate and vanadium sulfate 1.5% in petrolatum||0.73|0.30|
90982473|NCT02586805|181849274|OTHER||% change in mean rate (vs placebo)|-80.842|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-89.169|-66.114||p-values are adjusted for multiple testing.|Chi-squared||% change in mean rate corresponds to 100% \* (estimated mean rate ratio - 1).||Results from Poisson regression model with fixed effects for treatment group (categorical) and normalized baseline attack rate (continuous), and logarithm of time in days each participant was observed during treatment period as offset variable in model. Pearson chi-square scaling of standards errors was employed to account for potential overdispersion. Mean estimates are Least Squares (LS) means.|-66.114|-89.169|<0.001
90982474|NCT02586805|181849274|OTHER||% change in mean rate (vs placebo)|-74.169|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.733|-58.983||p-values are adjusted for multiple testing.|Chi-squared||% change in mean rate corresponds to 100% \* (estimated mean rate ratio - 1)||Results from Poisson regression model with fixed effects for treatment group (categorical) and normalized baseline attack rate (continuous), and logarithm of time in days each participant was observed during treatment period as offset variable in model. Pearson chi-square scaling of standards errors was employed to account for potential overdispersion. Mean estimates are Least Squares (LS) means.|-58.983|-83.733|<0.001
90982475|NCT02586805|181849274|OTHER||% change in mean rate (vs placebo)|-87.299|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-93.494|-75.204||p-values are adjusted for multiple testing.|Chi-squared||% change in mean rate corresponds to 100% \* (estimated mean rate ratio - 1)||Results from Poisson regression model with fixed effects for treatment group (categorical) and normalized baseline attack rate (continuous), and logarithm of time in days each participant was observed during treatment period as offset variable in model. Pearson chi-square scaling of standards errors was employed to account for potential overdispersion. Mean estimates are Least Squares (LS) means.|-75.204|-93.494|<0.001
90982476|NCT02586805|181849275|OTHER||% change in mean rate (vs placebo)|-70.497|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-82.696|-49.699||p-values are adjusted for multiple testing.|Chi-squared||% change in mean rate corresponds to 100% \* (estimated mean rate ratio - 1)||Results from Poisson regression model with fixed effects for treatment group (categorical) and normalized baseline attack rate (continuous), and logarithm of time in days each participant was observed during treatment period as offset variable in model. Pearson chi-square scaling of standards errors was employed to account for potential overdispersion. Mean estimates are Least Squares (LS) means.|-49.699|-82.696|<0.001
90982477|NCT02586805|181849275|OTHER||% change in mean rate (vs placebo)|-73.285|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.316|-54.496||p-values are adjusted for multiple testing.|Chi-squared||% change in mean rate corresponds to 100% \* (estimated mean rate ratio - 1)||Results from Poisson regression model with fixed effects for treatment group (categorical) and normalized baseline attack rate (continuous), and logarithm of time in days each participant was observed during treatment period as offset variable in model. Pearson chi-square scaling of standards errors was employed to account for potential overdispersion. Mean estimates are Least Squares (LS) means.|-54.496|-84.316|<0.001
90982478|NCT02586805|181849275|OTHER||% change in mean rate (vs placebo)|-83.394|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-91.618|-67.099||p-values are adjusted for multiple testing.|Chi-squared||% change in mean rate corresponds to 100% \* (estimated mean rate ratio - 1)||Results from Poisson regression model with fixed effects for treatment group (categorical) and normalized baseline attack rate (continuous), and logarithm of time in days each participant was observed during treatment period as offset variable in model. Pearson chi-square scaling of standards errors was employed to account for potential overdispersion. Mean estimates are Least Squares (LS) means.|-67.099|-91.618|<0.001
90982479|NCT02586805|181849276|OTHER||% change in mean rate (vs placebo)|-77.622|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-86.253|-63.572||p-values are adjusted for multiple testing.|Chi-squared||% change in mean rate corresponds to 100% \* (estimated mean rate ratio - 1).||Results from Poisson regression model with fixed effects for treatment group (categorical) and normalized baseline attack rate (continuous), and logarithm of time in days each participant was observed during treatment period as offset variable in model. Pearson chi-square scaling of standards errors was employed to account for potential overdispersion. Mean estimates are Least Squares (LS) means.|-63.572|-86.253|<0.001
90982480|NCT02586805|181849276|OTHER||% change in mean rate (vs placebo)|-75.377|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.115|-61.833||p-values are adjusted for multiple testing.|Chi-squared||% change in mean rate corresponds to 100% \* (estimated mean rate ratio - 1).||Results from Poisson regression model with fixed effects for treatment group (categorical) and normalized baseline attack rate (continuous), and logarithm of time in days each participant was observed during treatment period as offset variable in model. Pearson chi-square scaling of standards errors was employed to account for potential overdispersion. Mean estimates are Least Squares (LS) means.|-61.833|-84.115|<0.001
90982481|NCT02586805|181849276|OTHER||% change in mean rate (vs placebo)|-89.008|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-94.325|-78.707||p-values are adjusted for multiple testing.|Chi-squared||% change in mean rate corresponds to 100% \* (estimated mean rate ratio - 1).||Results from Poisson regression model with fixed effects for treatment group (categorical) and normalized baseline attack rate (continuous), and logarithm of time in days each participant was observed during treatment period as offset variable in model. Pearson chi-square scaling of standards errors was employed to account for potential overdispersion. Mean estimates are Least Squares (LS) means.|-78.707|-94.325|<0.001
90982482|NCT01157117|181849279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.0||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|37.3||No adjustments were made to the p-value.|Fisher Exact|The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.||Number of participants who successfully consumed 10,000 mg of milk protein followed by an open feeding of milk was compared using Fisher's Exact test with the null hypothesis that there was no difference between treatment groups.||37.3|-13.4|0.42
90982483|NCT01672892|181849383|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0476|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Since there is no prior data using this tool in this patient population, an effect size of 0.4 was chosen to calculate sample size. Based on a two-sample t-test with one interim look and a two-sided alpha=0.05, a sample size of 225 is needed to achieve 85% statistical power. Assuming an attrition rate of 10% and noncompliance of 10%, 281 patients were required in order to ensure 225 evaluable patients for the primary endpoint analysis.||||0.0476
90982484|NCT01672892|181849384|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4338|||||||Binomial test of proportions|2-sided significance level = 0.05||||||0.4338
90982485|NCT01672892|181849385|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|2-sided significance level of 0.05||Week 3 of RT||||0.04
91039499|NCT02615249|181963699|OTHER||Kappa statistic|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.38|||||Kappa statistic is for 0.24 mg/cm2 zinc chloride vs 2% zinc chloride in petrolatum reference allergen|Comparison betweenm 0.24 mg/cm2 zinc chloride and zinc chloride 2% in petrolatum||0.38|0.07|
90982486|NCT01672892|181849385|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|2-sided significance level of 0.05||Week 5 of RT||||0.03
90982487|NCT01672892|181849385|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||t-test, 2 sided|2-sided significance level of 0.05||4-6 weeks post-RT||||0.41
90982488|NCT01672892|181849386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||t-test, 2 sided|2-sided significance level = 0.05||FACT-G total score - 5 weeks||||0.54
90982489|NCT01672892|181849386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||t-test, 2 sided|FACT-G total score - 4-6 weeks post RT||FACT-G total score - 4-6 weeks post RT||||0.72
90982490|NCT01672892|181849386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|2-sided significance level = 0.05||FACT-Cx subscale score - 5 weeks||||0.01
90982491|NCT01672892|181849386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||t-test, 2 sided|2-sided significance level = 0.05||FACT-Cx subscale score - 4-6 weeks post RT||||0.45
90982492|NCT01672892|181849386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|2-sided significance level = 0.0125||Physical subscale score - 5 weeks||||0.03
90982493|NCT01672892|181849386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||t-test, 2 sided|2-sided significance level = 0.0125||Physical subscale score - 4-6 weeks post RT||||0.9
90982494|NCT01672892|181849386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||t-test, 2 sided|2-sided significance level = 0.0125||Functional subscale score - 5 weeks||||0.55
90982495|NCT01672892|181849386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||t-test, 2 sided|2-sided significance level = 0.0125||Functional subscale score - 4-6 weeks post RT||||0.35
90982496|NCT01672892|181849386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||t-test, 2 sided|2-sided significance level = 0.0125||Emotional subscale score - 5 weeks||||0.66
90982497|NCT01672892|181849386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|2-sided significance level = 0.0125||Emotional subscale score - 4-6 weeks post RT||||0.09
90982498|NCT01672892|181849386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||t-test, 2 sided|2-sided significance level = 0.0125||Social subscale score - 5 weeks||||0.66
90982499|NCT01672892|181849386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||t-test, 2 sided|2-sided significance level = 0.0125||Social subscale score - 4-6 weeks post RT||||0.35
91039500|NCT02452463|181963809|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.107|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.107
91039501|NCT02452463|181963811|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||Log Rank|||Null Hypotheses: OS distributions are equal||||0.75
90982500|NCT01672892|181849387|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||t-test, 2 sided|2-sided significance level = 0.05||5 weeks||||0.61
90982501|NCT01672892|181849387|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||t-test, 2 sided|2-sided significance level = 0.05||4-6 weeks post-RT||||0.67
90982502|NCT01672892|181849388|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||Gray's test|Two-sided significance level = 0.05||||||0.81
90982503|NCT01672892|181849389|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.39||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|2.35|||Log Rank|Two-side significance level = 0.05|Reference level = Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy|||2.35|0.82|0.21
90982504|NCT01672892|181849390|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.79|||Log Rank|Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Reference level = Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy|||1.79|0.32|0.53
90982505|NCT01672892|181849393|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||nonparametric one-sample t-test|||Baseline||||<0.0001
90982506|NCT01672892|181849393|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||nonparametric one-sample t-test|||Week 5||||<0.0001
90982507|NCT01672892|181849394|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sample t-test|||Bowel domain at baseline||||<0.0001
90982508|NCT01672892|181849394|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sample t-test|||Bowel domain at week 5||||<0.0001
90982509|NCT01672892|181849394|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sample t-test|||Urinary domain at baseline||||<0.0001
90982510|NCT01672892|181849394|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sample t-test|||Urinary domain at week 5||||<0.0001
90982511|NCT01672892|181849395|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Bowel domain||||<0.0001
90982512|NCT01672892|181849395|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Urinary domain||||<0.0001
90982513|NCT04902885|181849414|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||non-parametric ANCOVA|||70 subjects (35 per group) provided approximately 95% power at the test level of α = 0.05 (2-sided) .Assuming a dropout rate of approximately 12%, the sample size for Part II was 80 subjects (40 per group)||||0.0003
90982514|NCT01142323|181849436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Matched pairs|||||||0.008
90982515|NCT01142323|181849437|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.46
90982516|NCT00893789|181849445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8336||95.0||||The analyses performed were not done in accordance to the study protocol as the study was terminated early and therefore the analyses done were underpowered, no adjustments for multiple comparisons (or step-down analysis rules) were applied.|ANCOVA|||"P-value for Change from Baseline at Endpoint."||||0.8336
91006689|NCT01868594|181897725|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3847||||||The p-value associated with comparison of changes from baseline to Week 36 endpoint between Subetta and Placebo treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of total daily dose insulin changes from baseline to Week 36 endpoint between Subetta and Placebo treatment groups.||||0.3847
91006690|NCT01868594|181897726|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6716|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6716
91006691|NCT01868594|181897727|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2484||||||The p-value associated with comparison of Week 36 endpoint between Subetta and Placebo treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of total Treatment Satisfaction score at Week 36 endpoint between Subetta and Placebo treatment groups.||||0.2484
91006692|NCT01868594|181897727|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.761||||||The p-value associated with comparison of Week 36 endpoint between Subetta and Placebo treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||"Analysis of Perceived Hyperglycaemia question at Week 36 endpoint between Subetta and Placebo treatment groups."||||0.7610
91039502|NCT02452463|181963812|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Log Rank|||Null Hypotheses: PFS distributions are equal||||0.25
91039503|NCT02452463|181963813|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.131|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.131
91039504|NCT02452463|181963814|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.073|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.073
91039505|NCT02452463|181963815|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.616|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.616
91039506|NCT02452463|181963815|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.183|||||||Paired T-test|||Comparing change relative to baseline.||||0.183
90982517|NCT00893789|181849445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0514||95.0||||The analyses performed were not done in accordance to the study protocol as the study was terminated early and therefore the analyses done were underpowered, no adjustments for multiple comparisons (or step-down analysis rules) were applied.|ANCOVA|||"P-value for Change from Baseline at Endpoint."||||0.0514
90982518|NCT00893789|181849445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001||95.0||||The analyses performed were not done in accordance to the study protocol as the study was terminated early and therefore the analyses done were underpowered, no adjustments for multiple comparisons (or step-down analysis rules) were applied.|ANCOVA|||"P-value for Change from Baseline at Endpoint."||||0.0010
90982519|NCT00893789|181849446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7884||95.0|||||Pearson's chi-squared|||||||0.7884
90982520|NCT00893789|181849446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2359||95.0|||||Pearson's chi-squared|||||||0.2359
90982521|NCT00893789|181849446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4401||95.0|||||Pearson's chi-squared|||||||0.4401
90982522|NCT01575548|181849471|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.29|||Log Rank|Stratified log rank test was used to compare DFS between the two arms.||||1.29|0.54|0.21
90982523|NCT01244737|181849515|OTHER||Pearson correlation co-efficient|0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||This is a diagnostic test of FLT uptake (SUV max) as a predictor of cellular proliferation (MIB) and is performed as an analysis of correlation using each evaluable participant enrolled in either Arm 1 (New Diagnosis) or Arm 2 (Possible recurrent tumor). The groups (Arm 1 and Arm 2) provide pathways for enrollment. Correlation between the two measures of outcome (SUV max and MIB) is evaluated.||||< 0.001
90982524|NCT01244737|181849518|OTHER|Paired T-test to assess change in FLT uptake (SUV max) with chemotherapy.||||||0.04||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04
90982525|NCT00736229|181849523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Comparison for the difference in Median glucose values during steady state across all three groups.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Median Glucose Values (mg/dl) after steady state were evaluated across the three groups (Exenatide,Moderate and Intensive) with a Kruskal-Wallis test.||||<0.001
90982526|NCT00736229|181849523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Comparison of Median Glucose Values between Exenatide and Intensive Groups.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Median Glucose Values (mg/dl) after steady state were evaluated between the Exenatide and Intensive study groups using a Wilcoxon Rank Sum tests.||||<0.001
90982527|NCT00736229|181849523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15||||||Comparison of Median Glucose Values between Exenatide and Moderate Groups.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Median Glucose Values (mg/dl) after steady state were evaluated between the Exenatide and Moderate study groups using a Wilcoxon Rank Sum tests.||||0.15
90982528|NCT00736229|181849524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Median Time (Hrs) to steady state was evaluated across the three groups (exenatide, moderate and intensive) with a Kruskal-Wallis test.||||<0.001
90982529|NCT00736229|181849524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Median time (hours) to steady state were evaluated between the Exenatide and Intensive study groups using a Wilcoxon Rank Sum tests.||||0.80
90982530|NCT00736229|181849524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Median time (hours) to steady state were evaluated between the Exenatide and Moderate study groups using a Wilcoxon Rank Sum tests.||||<0.001
90982531|NCT00356915|181849534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|This was stratified by analysis center.||P-Value from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, . The superiority analysis was restricted to the itraconazole 200-mg tablets and placebo tablets dosing groups.||||<0.001
90982532|NCT00356915|181849535|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority was established if the lower limit of the one-sided, 97.5% CI in the observed difference between the proportions of subjects by study drug with Complete Cure at week 52 (itraconazole 200-mg tablets minus itraconazole 100-mg capsules) was greater than -10%. No p-value was calculated for this endpoint.|Wald's CI|0.56|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|-4.3||||Wald's CI|The statistical analysis used Wald's CI with Yates' continuity correction.||Comparison between the 2 itraconazole groups was based on lower bound of the 97.5% confidence interval for the difference. The non-inferiority analysis was restricted to the active dosing groups.|||-4.3|
90982533|NCT00356915|181849536|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assumption was that the Complete Cure rate at week 52 was 35% for the active dosing groups, a sample size of 552 ITT subjects per active group would have had a 93% power for testing the proportion of subjects with Complete Cure. These computations assumed a non inferiority margin of 10% and a one-sided significance level of 0.025. Power computations were performed using nQuery Advisor, Version 5.0.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.0|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-1.1||||Wald's CI|The statistical analysis used Wald's CI with Yates' continuity correction.||The test for demonstrating non-inferiority was based on a margin of 10%. Thus, non-inferiority was established if the lower limit of the one-sided, 97.5% CI in the observed difference between the proportions of subjects by study drug with Complete Cure at week 52 (itraconazole 200-mg tablets minus itraconazole 100-mg capsules) was greater than -10%. The non-inferiority analysis was restricted to the active dosing groups.|||-1.1|< 0.001
90982534|NCT00356915|181849537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|This was stratified by analysis center.||The superiority analysis was restricted to the itraconazole 200-mg tablets and placebo tablets dosing groups.||||<0.001
90982535|NCT02371629|181849548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.033|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0169||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.066|||Mixed model for repeated measure (MMRM)|||||0.066|0.000|0.051
90982536|NCT04871815|181849563|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Body Aches||||0.200
90982537|NCT04871815|181849563|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0326|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Headaches||||0.0326
90982538|NCT04871815|181849563|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0043|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Coughing/Sneezing||||0.0043
90982539|NCT04871815|181849563|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Trouble Breathing||||0.0003
90982540|NCT04871815|181849563|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3714|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Congestion||||0.3714
90982541|NCT04871815|181849563|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Fatigue||||0.300
90982542|NCT04871815|181849563|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2286|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Loss of Smell/Taste||||0.2286
90982543|NCT04871815|181849563|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Anxiety||||0.999
90982544|NCT04871815|181849564|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90982545|NCT04871815|181849565|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1963|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.1963
90982546|NCT04871815|181849566|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
90982547|NCT04871815|181849566|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0008||||||Tukey's Multiple comparison test (p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons)|Tukey's HSD|||Day 1 baseline (day 1 of study) vs Day 1 treatment (day 7 of study).||||0.0008
91039507|NCT02452463|181963815|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.203|||||||paired T-test|||Evaluating change relative to baseline.||||0.203
91039508|NCT02452463|181963816|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||1.00
90982548|NCT04871815|181849566|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Tukey's Multiple comparison test (p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons)|Tukey's HSD|||Day 1 baseline (day 1 of study) vs Day 7 treatment (day 14 of study).||||<0.0001
90982549|NCT04871815|181849566|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0114||||||Tukey's Multiple comparison test (p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons)|Tukey's HSD|||Day 7 baseline (day 7 of study) vs Day 1 treatment (day 7 of study).||||0.0114
90982550|NCT04871815|181849566|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Tukey's Multiple comparison test (p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons)|Tukey's HSD|||Day7 baseline (day 7 of study) vs Day 7 treatment (day 14 of study)||||<0.0001
90982551|NCT01193335|181849567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.65|2.88||||||Serotype 4: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||2.88|-7.65|
90982552|NCT01193335|181849567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-14.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.4|-3.21||||||Serotype 6B: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||-3.21|-26.40|
90982553|NCT01193335|181849567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.84|6.05||||||Serotype 9V: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||6.05|-5.84|
90982554|NCT01193335|181849567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|2.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|7.25||||||Serotype 14: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||7.25|-1.71|
90982555|NCT01193335|181849567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|2.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.09|8.89||||||Serotype 18C: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||8.89|-4.09|
90982556|NCT01193335|181849567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.54|4.68||||||Serotype 19F: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||4.68|-4.54|
90982557|NCT01193335|181849567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-6.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.19|1.89||||||Serotype 23F: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||1.89|-16.19|
90982558|NCT01193335|181849567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-1.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.07|4.86||||||Serotype 1: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||4.86|-9.07|
90982559|NCT01193335|181849567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-4.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|4.39||||||Serotype 3: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||4.39|-14.40|
90982560|NCT01193335|181849567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-19.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.1|-7.16||||||Serotype 5: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||-7.16|-30.10|
90982561|NCT01193335|181849567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-12.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.66|-3.26||||||Serotype 6A: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||-3.26|-21.66|
90982562|NCT01193335|181849567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.54|4.68||||||Serotype 7F: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||4.68|-4.54|
90982563|NCT01193335|181849567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.54|4.68||||||Serotype 19A: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||4.68|-4.54|
90982564|NCT01193335|181849568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.02||||||Serotype 4: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.02|0.62|
90982565|NCT01193335|181849568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.82||||||Serotype 6B: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.82|0.38|
90982566|NCT01193335|181849568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.93||||||Serotype 9V: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.93|0.59|
91039509|NCT01073631|181963818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Efficacy rate (percent)|78.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|75.07|82.73|||Normal approximation to binomial||Confidence Interval (CI) by normal approximation to binomial.|Efficacy Rate (treatment effective) = Percentage of evaluable participants with clinical response of cure or improvement||82.73|75.07|
90982567|NCT01193335|181849568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.65||||||Serotype 14: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.65|0.92|
91006693|NCT01868594|181897727|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3714||||||The p-value associated with comparison of Week 36 endpoint between Subetta and Placebo treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||"Analysis of Perceived Hypoglycemia question at Week 36 endpoint between Subetta and Placebo treatment groups."||||0.3714
91006694|NCT02598661|181897741|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|24.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.9|36.89||The p-value was calculated based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) controlling for prior RBC transfusion burden (≤6 versus\[vs.\]\>6 units RBC) \& international prognostic scoring system (IPSS) risk group (low vs. intermediate-1) applied to randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The 95% CI was calculated based on the Wilson Score method.|||36.89|9.90|<0.001
91006695|NCT02598661|181897743|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|24.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.64|34.18||The p-value was calculated based on CMH controlling for prior RBC transfusion burden (≤6 vs. \>6 units RBC) and IPSS risk group (low vs. intermediate-1) applied to randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The 95% CI was calculated based on the Wilson Score method.|||34.18|12.64|<0.001
91006696|NCT02598661|181897746|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.105|0.586||The p-value (2-sided) was calculated using the stratified log-rank test for superiority of imetelstat sodium versus placebo in hazard ratio.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were calculated using the Cox proportional hazard model, stratified by prior RBC transfusion burden (≤ 6 vs. \> 6 units RBC) and IPSS risk group (low vs. intermediate-1), with treatment as the only covariate.|||0.586|0.105|<0.001
91006697|NCT02598661|181897747|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|11.9||||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|27.56||The p-value was calculated based on CMH controlling for prior RBC transfusion burden (≤ 6 vs. \> 6 units RBC) and IPSS risk group (low vs. intermediate-1) applied to randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI was calculated based on the Wilson Score Method.|||27.56|-4.10|0.112
91006698|NCT02598661|181897750|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.526|1.823||P value (two-sided) for superiority of imetelstat sodium versus placebo in hazard ratio was calculated using stratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were calculated from the Cox proportional hazard model, stratified by prior RBC transfusion burden (≤6 vs. \>6 units RBC) and IPSS risk group (low vs. intermediate-1), with treatment as the only covariate.|||1.823|0.526|0.949
91006699|NCT01928186|181897789|OTHER|||||||0.51|||||||Fisher Exact|the mid-P adjustment to Fisher's exact test||Association between response assessed by Ki-67 protein staining (i.e. \< 10% positive cells in the surgical sample) and by the influx constant Ki decline (i.e. 30 % or larger decline between the baseline and post-therapy FLT PET) was analyzed using the mid-P adjustment to Fisher's exact test.||||0.51
91006700|NCT04540627|181897803|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5802|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5802
91006701|NCT04540627|181897804|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4868|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4868
91006702|NCT04540627|181897805|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2681|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2681
91006703|NCT04540627|181897806|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2431|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2431
91006704|NCT04540627|181897811|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4868|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4868
91006705|NCT04540627|181897813|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0403|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0403
91007950|NCT01021293|181899989|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of Poliorix™ vaccine as compared to OPV vaccine in terms of the immune response to poliovirus type 1 one month after the third vaccine dose. Non-inferiority in terms of immunogenicity to poliovirus antigens was demonstrated if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) on the group difference \[Control Group minus Poliorix Group\] in the percentage of seroprotected subjects|Difference in seroprotection rate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|1.24||||||Non-inferiority of Poliorix™ as compared to OPV||1.24|-1.28|
91039510|NCT01131260|181963820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.31||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.98|||Chi-squared|||Analysis on primary composite outcome as a whole.||1.98|0.87|0.20
91039511|NCT01131260|181963822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|3.02||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|29.1|||Fisher Exact|||||29.1|0.31|0.37
91039512|NCT01131260|181963823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.86||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|7.24|||Chi-squared|||||7.24|1.13|0.02
91039513|NCT01131260|181963824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.76||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|3.38|||Fisher Exact|||||3.38|0.17|1.0
90982568|NCT01193335|181849568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.25||||||Serotype 18C: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.25|0.80|
90982569|NCT01193335|181849568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.9||||||Serotype 19F: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.90|0.58|
90982570|NCT01193335|181849568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.86||||||Serotype 23F: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.86|0.47|
90982571|NCT01193335|181849568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.89||||||Serotype 1: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.89|0.55|
90982572|NCT01193335|181849568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.19||||||Serotype 3: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.19|0.77|
90982573|NCT01193335|181849568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.72||||||Serotype 5: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.72|0.40|
90982574|NCT01193335|181849568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.82||||||Serotype 6A: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.82|0.45|
91039514|NCT01131260|181963825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.37||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.41|||Chi-squared|||||1.41|0.10|0.13
91039515|NCT01131260|181963826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.57||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|2.54|||Chi-squared|||||2.54|0.97|0.07
90982575|NCT01193335|181849568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.88||||||Serotype 7F: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.88|0.57|
90982576|NCT01193335|181849568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.07||||||Serotype 19: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.07|0.68|
90982577|NCT01193335|181849577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.668|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||AEs: Two sided Fisher exact test, was used to calculate difference between vaccine groups.||||0.668
90982578|NCT01193335|181849577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.051|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||SAEs: Two sided Fisher exact test, was used to calculate difference between vaccine groups.||||0.051
90982579|NCT01193335|181849578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.704|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||AEs: Two sided Fisher exact test, was used to calculate difference between vaccine groups.||||0.704
90982580|NCT01193335|181849578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||SAEs: Two sided Fisher exact test, was used to calculate difference between vaccine groups.||||>0.99
90982581|NCT01193335|181849579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.531|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||AEs: Two sided Fisher exact test, was used to calculate difference between vaccine groups.||||0.531
90982582|NCT01193335|181849579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||SAEs: Two sided Fisher exact test, was used to calculate difference between vaccine groups.||||>0.99
91039516|NCT01131260|181963827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.81||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|3.0|||Fisher Exact|||||3.00|0.22|1.0
91039517|NCT01131260|181963828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.17
91039518|NCT01131260|181963829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45||||||The p value was calculated based on the entire study cohort.|Chi-squared|||||||0.45
91039519|NCT01131260|181963831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.32
91039520|NCT01131260|181963832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.35
91039521|NCT01131260|181963833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.40
91039522|NCT01131260|181963834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.59
91039523|NCT01131260|181963835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.19
91039524|NCT01131260|181963836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.77
91039525|NCT01131260|181963837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.28
91039526|NCT01131260|181963838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.54
91039527|NCT01131260|181963839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.98
91039528|NCT01131260|181963840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.05
91039529|NCT03544216|181963841|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||"Results of post-hoc analyses comparing scores of each lens type to one another:~Habitual lens and multifocal contact lens: p \<0.001 Habitual lens and single vision lens: p \<0.001 Multifocal lens and single vision lens: p = 0.08"|Generalized linear models|||Generalized linear models (controlling for repeated measures) of crossover analyses was run to compare mean CLDEQ-8 scores with habitual, multifocal, and single vision contact lenses (controlling for order)||||<0.001
91039530|NCT03544216|181963841|OTHER|||||||0.5||||||Analysis controlled for order, visit, and repeated measures.|Generalized linear model|||A generalized linear model was run to determine if there was an interaction between lens type (single vision or multifocal) and refractive error (continuous, mean binocular spherical equivalent)||||0.5
91039531|NCT03544216|181963841|OTHER|||||||0.7||||||Analysis controlled for order, visit, and repeated measures.|Generalized linear model|||A generalized linear model was run to determine if there was an interaction between magnitude in accommodative lag (measured in diopters with a 2 diopter visual target) and lens type (single vision or multifocal)||||0.7
91039532|NCT03544216|181963841|OTHER|||||||0.3||||||Analysis controlled for order, visit, and repeated measures.|Generalized linear model|||A generalized linear model was run to determine if there was an interaction between lens type (single vision or multifocal) and age (continuous, measured in self-reported years)||||0.3
91039533|NCT03544216|181963841|OTHER|||||||0.047||||||Analysis controlled for order, visit, and repeated measures|Generalized linear model|||A generalized linear model was run to determine if there was an interaction between lens type (single vision or multifocal) and age (measured categorically as 30 to \<35 years old and 35 to 40 years old, by self report)|"Post-Hoc Testing comparing CLDEQ-8 scores and the interaction between lens type and age group (denoted by lens type\*age group) produced the following results:~p = 0.01 for MF\*\<35 age group compared to Single Vision (SV)\*\<35 age group p = 0.07 for MF\*\<35 age group compared to MF\*\>35 age group p \> 0.05 for MF\*\<35 age group compared to Single Vision (SV)\*\>35 age group p \> 0.05 for SV\*\<35 age group compared to SV\*\>35 age group p \>0.05 for SV\*\<35 age group compared to MF\*\>35 age group p \> 0.05 for MF\*\>35 age group compared to SV\*\>25 age group"|||0.047
91039534|NCT01935674|181963842|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|12.7||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|22.5||P-value from Wilcoxon rank-sum test; significance threshold set at α = 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Two-sided test; analysis based on intention-to-treat population.||Comparison of percentage change in fasting total cholesterol from baseline to week 12 between rosuvastatin and PI/r switch groups. Wilcoxon rank-sum test used. Study powered to detect a 15% difference with 80% power and α = 0.05. All participants included in intention-to-treat analysis.||22.5|2.9|0.003
91039535|NCT01494532|181963850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.814||95.0||||P-values were estimated from Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM).|Mixed Models Analysis|||4mg/day vs Placebo||||0.814
91039536|NCT01494532|181963850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013||95.0||||P-values were estimated from Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM).|Mixed Models Analysis|||8 mg/day vs Placebo||||0.013
91039537|NCT01494532|181963850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.287||95.0||||P-values were estimated from Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM).|Mixed Models Analysis|||12 mg/day vs Placebo||||0.287
91039538|NCT01494532|181963850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027||95.0||||P-values were estimated from Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM).|Mixed Models Analysis|||16 mg/day vs Placebo||||0.027
91039539|NCT01494532|181963850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39||95.0||||P-values were estimated from Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM).|Mixed Models Analysis|||24 mg/day vs Placebo||||0.390
91039540|NCT01494532|181963850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.844||95.0||||P-values are from a nonparametric rank ANCOVA|ANCOVA|||4mg/day vs Placebo||||0.844
91039541|NCT01494532|181963850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0||||P-values are from a nonparametric rank ANCOVA|ANCOVA|||8 mg/day vs Placebo||||0.030
90982583|NCT01193335|181849580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.183|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||AEs: Two sided Fisher exact test, was used to calculate difference between vaccine groups.||||0.183
90982584|NCT01193335|181849580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.357|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||SAEs: Two sided Fisher exact test, was used to calculate difference between vaccine groups.||||0.357
90982585|NCT01193335|181849581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.794|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||AEs: Two sided Fisher exact test, was used to calculate difference between vaccine groups.||||0.794
90982586|NCT01193335|181849581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.782|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||SAEs: Two sided Fisher exact test, was used to calculate difference between vaccine groups.||||0.782
91039542|NCT01494532|181963850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.437||95.0||||P-values are from a nonparametric rank ANCOVA|ANCOVA|||12 mg/day vs Placebo||||0.437
91039543|NCT01494532|181963850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034||95.0||||P-values are from a nonparametric rank ANCOVA|ANCOVA|||16 mg/day vs Placebo||||0.034
91039544|NCT01494532|181963850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.808||95.0||||P-values are from a nonparametric rank ANCOVA|ANCOVA|||24 mg/day vs Placebo||||0.808
91039545|NCT01494532|181963851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.123||||0.826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.398|3.166|||Generalized Estimating Equations model|||||3.166|0.398|0.826
90982587|NCT01193335|181849582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMFR Ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.14||||||Serotype 4: GMFR ratio was calculated by back transforming the GMFR difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on Student t distribution for the ratio difference of logarithms of the measures (Group 1 - Group 2).||1.14|0.63|
90982588|NCT01193335|181849582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMFR ratio|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.62||||||Serotype 6B: GMFR ratio was calculated by back transforming the GMFR difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on Student t distribution for the ratio difference of logarithms of the measures (Group 1 - Group 2).||1.62|0.95|
90982589|NCT01193335|181849582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMFR ratio|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.47||||||Serotype 9V: GMFR ratio was calculated by back transforming the GMFR difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on Student t distribution for the ratio difference of logarithms of the measures (Group 1 - Group 2).||1.47|0.96|
90982590|NCT01193335|181849582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMFR ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.26||||||Serotype 14: GMFR ratio was calculated by back transforming the GMFR difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on Student t distribution for the ratio difference of logarithms of the measures (Group 1 - Group 2).||1.26|0.74|
90982591|NCT01193335|181849582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMFR ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.02||||||Serotype 18C: GMFR ratio was calculated by back transforming the GMFR difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on Student t distribution for the ratio difference of logarithms of the measures (Group 1 - Group 2).||1.02|0.63|
90982592|NCT01193335|181849582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMFR ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.19||||||Serotype 19F: GMFR ratio was calculated by back transforming the GMFR difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on Student t distribution for the ratio difference of logarithms of the measures (Group 1 - Group 2).||1.19|0.65|
90982593|NCT01193335|181849582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMFR ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.33||||||Serotype 23F: GMFR ratio was calculated by back transforming the GMFR difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale.||1.33|0.74|
90982594|NCT01193335|181849582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMFR ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.11||||||Serotype 1: GMFR ratio was calculated by back transforming the GMFR difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale.||1.11|0.64|
90982595|NCT01193335|181849582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMFR ratio|1.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.05||||||Serotype 3: GMFR ratio was calculated by back transforming the GMFR difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on Student t distribution for the ratio difference of logarithms of the measures (Group 1 - Group 2).||2.05|1.03|
90982596|NCT01193335|181849582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMFR ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.24||||||Serotype 5: GMFR ratio was calculated by back transforming the GMFR difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on Student t distribution for the ratio difference of logarithms of the measures (Group 1 - Group 2).||1.24|0.81|
90982597|NCT01193335|181849582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMFR ratio|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.82||||||Serotype 6A: GMFR ratio was calculated by back transforming the GMFR difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on Student t distribution for the ratio difference of logarithms of the measures (Group 1 - Group 2).||1.82|1.02|
90982598|NCT01193335|181849582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMFR ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.18||||||Serotype 7F: GMFR ratio was calculated by back transforming the GMFR difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on Student t distribution for the ratio difference of logarithms of the measures (Group 1 - Group 2).||1.18|0.78|
90982599|NCT01193335|181849582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMFR ratio|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.52||||||Serotype 19A: GMFR ratio was calculated by back transforming the GMFR difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on Student t distribution for the ratio difference of logarithms of the measures (Group 1 - Group 2).||1.52|0.88|
90982600|NCT01193335|181849584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.25|4.31||||||Serotype 4: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||4.31|-4.25|
90982601|NCT01193335|181849584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-2.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.15|1.96||||||Serotype 6B: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||1.96|-8.15|
90982602|NCT01193335|181849584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.25|4.31||||||Serotype 9V: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||4.31|-4.25|
90982603|NCT01193335|181849584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.25|4.31||||||Serotype 14: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||4.31|-4.25|
90982604|NCT01193335|181849584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.13|6.24||||||Serotype 18C: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||6.24|-3.13|
90982605|NCT01193335|181849584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.25|4.31||||||Serotype 19F: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||4.31|-4.25|
90982606|NCT01193335|181849584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.32|3.1||||||Serotype 23F: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||3.10|-6.32|
90982607|NCT01193335|181849584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.25|4.31||||||Serotype 1: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||4.31|-4.25|
90982608|NCT01193335|181849584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-8.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.93|4.42||||||Serotype 3: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||4.42|-21.93|
90982609|NCT01193335|181849584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.25|4.31||||||Serotype 5: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||4.31|-4.25|
90982610|NCT01193335|181849584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.25|4.31||||||Serotype 6A: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||4.31|-4.25|
90982611|NCT01193335|181849584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.25|4.31||||||Serotype 7F: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||4.31|-4.25|
90982612|NCT01193335|181849584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.25|4.31||||||Serotype 19A: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||4.31|-4.25|
90982613|NCT01193335|181849586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.97||||||Serotype 4: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the ratio difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.97|0.60|
90982614|NCT01193335|181849586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.66||||||Serotype 6B: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.66|0.39|
90982615|NCT01193335|181849586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.8||||||Serotype 9V: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.80|0.51|
90982616|NCT01193335|181849586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.12||||||Serotype 14: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the ratio difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.12|0.66|
90982617|NCT01193335|181849586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.32||||||Serotype 18C: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the ratio difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.32|0.85|
90982618|NCT01193335|181849586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.92||||||Serotype 19F: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the ratio difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.92|0.58|
90982619|NCT01193335|181849586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.83||||||Serotype 23F: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.83|0.43|
90982620|NCT01193335|181849586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.2||||||Serotype 1: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.20|0.77|
90982621|NCT01193335|181849586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.87||||||Serotype 3: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.87|0.41|
90982622|NCT01193335|181849586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.88||||||Serotype 5: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.88|0.56|
90982623|NCT01193335|181849586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.7||||||Serotype 6A: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.70|0.41|
91039546|NCT01494532|181963851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.622||||0.233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.732|3.593|||Generalized Estimating Equations model|||||3.593|0.732|0.233
91039547|NCT01494532|181963851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.953||||0.902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.439|2.065|||Generalized Estimating Equations model|||||2.065|0.439|0.902
91039548|NCT01494532|181963851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.866||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.837|4.158|||Generalized Estimating Equations model|||||4.158|0.837|0.127
90982624|NCT01193335|181849586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.03||||||Serotype 7F: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.03|0.71|
90982625|NCT01193335|181849586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.72||||||Serotype 19A: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.72|0.42|
90982626|NCT01193335|181849587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.82||||||Serotype 4: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.82|0.51|
90982627|NCT01193335|181849587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.79||||||Serotype 6B: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.79|0.47|
90982628|NCT01193335|181849587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.93||||||Serotype 9V: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.93|0.61|
90982629|NCT01193335|181849587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.07||||||Serotype 14: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.07|0.66|
90982630|NCT01193335|181849587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.08||||||Serotype 18C: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.08|0.66|
90982631|NCT01193335|181849587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.83||||||Serotype 19F: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.83|0.48|
90982632|NCT01193335|181849587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.79||||||Serotype 23F: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.79|0.46|
90982633|NCT01193335|181849587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.03||||||Serotype 1: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.03|0.64|
90982634|NCT01193335|181849587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.15||||||Serotype 3: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.15|0.73|
90982635|NCT01193335|181849587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.87||||||Serotype 5: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.87|0.58|
90982636|NCT01193335|181849587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.9||||||Serotype 6A: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.90|0.57|
90982637|NCT01193335|181849587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.0||||||Serotype 7F: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.00|0.69|
90982638|NCT01193335|181849587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.81||||||Serotype 19A: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.81|0.49|
91039549|NCT01494532|181963851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.362||||0.564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.477|3.888|||Generalized Estimating Equations model|||||3.888|0.477|0.564
91039550|NCT01494532|181963852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.908||||0.861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|2.659|||Generalized Estimating Equations model|||||2.659|0.310|0.861
91039551|NCT01494532|181963852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.608||||0.277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.684|3.782|||Generalized Estimating Equations model|||||3.782|0.684|0.277
91039552|NCT01494532|181963852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.074||||0.869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.461|2.5|||Generalized Estimating Equations model|||||2.500|0.461|0.869
91039553|NCT01494532|181963852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.916||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.808|4.545|||Generalized Estimating Equations model|||||4.545|0.808|0.140
90982639|NCT01193335|181849588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.04||||||Serotype 4: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.04|0.63|
90982640|NCT01193335|181849588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.83||||||Serotype 6B: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.83|0.48|
91039554|NCT01494532|181963852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.689||||0.362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.547|5.218|||Generalized Estimating Equations model|||||5.218|0.547|0.362
91039555|NCT01494532|181963853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.723||||0.525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.266|1.965|||Generalized Estimating Equations model|||||1.965|0.266|0.525
91039556|NCT01494532|181963853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.851||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.834|4.109|||Generalized Estimating Equations model|||||4.109|0.834|0.130
91039557|NCT01494532|181963853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.996||||0.992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.444|2.232|||Generalized Estimating Equations model|||||2.232|0.444|0.992
91039558|NCT01494532|181963853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.674|3.248|||Generalized Estimating Equations model|||||3.248|0.674|0.329
91039559|NCT01494532|181963853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.907||||0.856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.315|2.61|||Generalized Estimating Equations model|||||2.610|0.315|0.856
91039560|NCT01494532|181963855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.376|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.376
91039561|NCT01494532|181963855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.036
91039562|NCT01494532|181963855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.362|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.362
91039563|NCT01494532|181963855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.089
91039564|NCT01494532|181963855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.403|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.403
90982641|NCT01193335|181849588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.84||||||Serotype 9V: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.84|0.46|
90982642|NCT01193335|181849588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.12||||||Serotype 14: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.12|0.61|
91039565|NCT01494532|181963856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.419|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.419
91039566|NCT01494532|181963856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.026
91039567|NCT01494532|181963856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.230
90982643|NCT01193335|181849588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.67||||||Serotype 18C: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.67|0.37|
90982644|NCT01193335|181849588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.72||||||Serotype 19F: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.72|0.40|
91039568|NCT01494532|181963856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.033
91039569|NCT01494532|181963856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.266|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.266
91039570|NCT01494532|181963857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.073
91039571|NCT01494532|181963857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.996|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.996
91039572|NCT01494532|181963857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.791|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.791
91039573|NCT01494532|181963857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.747|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.747
91039574|NCT01494532|181963857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.600
91039575|NCT01494532|181963858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.998|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.998
91039576|NCT01494532|181963858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.017
91039577|NCT01494532|181963858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.312|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.312
91039578|NCT01494532|181963858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.008
91039579|NCT01494532|181963858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.659|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.659
91039580|NCT01494532|181963859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.337|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.337
91039581|NCT01494532|181963859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.126
91039582|NCT01494532|181963859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.283|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.283
91039583|NCT01494532|181963859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.148
91039584|NCT01494532|181963859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.581|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.581
91039585|NCT01494532|181963860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.486|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.486
91039586|NCT01494532|181963860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.026
91039587|NCT01494532|181963860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.121
91039588|NCT01494532|181963860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.081
91039589|NCT01494532|181963860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.187
91039590|NCT01494532|181963861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.134
90982645|NCT01193335|181849588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.64||||||Serotype 23F: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.64|0.35|
90982646|NCT01193335|181849588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.94||||||Serotype 1: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.94|0.61|
90982647|NCT01193335|181849588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.9||||||Serotype 3: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.90|0.39|
90982648|NCT01193335|181849588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.87||||||Serotype 5: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.87|0.52|
90982649|NCT01193335|181849588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.88||||||Serotype 6A: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.88|0.52|
90982650|NCT01193335|181849588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.02||||||Serotype 7F: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.02|0.67|
90982651|NCT01193335|181849588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.72||||||Serotype 19A: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.72|0.36|
90982652|NCT01193335|181849589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.03||||||Serotype 4: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.03|0.61|
90982653|NCT01193335|181849589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.76||||||Serotype 6B: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.76|0.38|
90982654|NCT01193335|181849589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.03||||||Serotype 9V: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.03|0.54|
90982655|NCT01193335|181849589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.17||||||Serotype 14: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.17|0.51|
90982656|NCT01193335|181849589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.78||||||Serotype 18C: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.78|0.40|
90982657|NCT01193335|181849589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.71||||||Serotype 19F: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.71|0.29|
90982658|NCT01193335|181849589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.83||||||Serotype 23F: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.83|0.38|
90982659|NCT01193335|181849589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.07||||||Serotype 1: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.07|0.63|
90982660|NCT01193335|181849589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.11||||||Serotype 3: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.11|0.39|
90982661|NCT01193335|181849589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.92||||||Serotype 5: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.92|0.50|
91039591|NCT01494532|181963861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.768|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.768
91039592|NCT01494532|181963861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.859|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.859
91039593|NCT01494532|181963861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.903|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.903
91039594|NCT01494532|181963861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.470
91039595|NCT01494532|181963862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.822|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.822
91039596|NCT01494532|181963862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.025
91039597|NCT01494532|181963862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.267
91039598|NCT01494532|181963862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.039
91039599|NCT01494532|181963862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.458|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.458
91039600|NCT01494532|181963863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.734|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.734
91039601|NCT01494532|181963863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.048
91039602|NCT01494532|181963863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.443|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.443
91039603|NCT01494532|181963863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.123|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.123
91039604|NCT01494532|181963863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.641|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.641
91039605|NCT01494532|181963864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.822|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.822
91039606|NCT01494532|181963864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.025
91039607|NCT01494532|181963864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.267
91039608|NCT01494532|181963864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.039
91039609|NCT01494532|181963864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.458|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.458
91039610|NCT01494532|181963865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.814|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.814
91039611|NCT01494532|181963865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.013
91039612|NCT01494532|181963865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.287|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.287
91039613|NCT01494532|181963865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.027
91039614|NCT01494532|181963865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.390
91039615|NCT01494532|181963866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.376|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.376
91039616|NCT01494532|181963866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.036
91039617|NCT01494532|181963866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.362|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.362
91039618|NCT01494532|181963866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.089
91039619|NCT01494532|181963866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.403|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.403
91039620|NCT01494532|181963867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.419|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.419
91039621|NCT01494532|181963867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.026
91039622|NCT01494532|181963867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.230
91039623|NCT01494532|181963867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.033
91039624|NCT01494532|181963867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.266|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.266
91039625|NCT01494532|181963868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.073
91039626|NCT01494532|181963868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.996|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.996
91039627|NCT01494532|181963868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.791|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.791
90982662|NCT01193335|181849589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.95||||||Serotype 6A: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.95|0.47|
90982663|NCT01193335|181849589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.13||||||Serotype 7F: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.13|0.70|
90982664|NCT01193335|181849589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.78||||||Serotype 19A: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.78|0.37|
90982665|NCT01193335|181849595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.81||||||Serotype 4: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.81|0.99|
90982666|NCT01193335|181849595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.2||||||Serotype 6B: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||2.20|0.59|
90982667|NCT01193335|181849595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.93||||||Serotype 9V: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.93|0.26|
90982668|NCT01193335|181849595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.98||||||Serotype 14: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.98|0.80|
90982669|NCT01193335|181849595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|2.0||||||Serotype 18C: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||2.00|1.01|
90982670|NCT01193335|181849595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.89||||||Serotype 19F: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.89|0.82|
90982671|NCT01193335|181849595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.99||||||Serotype 23F: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.99|0.80|
90982672|NCT01193335|181849595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.15||||||Serotype 1: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.15|0.56|
90982673|NCT01193335|181849595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.41||||||Serotype 3: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.41|0.83|
90982674|NCT01193335|181849595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.94||||||Serotype 5: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.94|0.36|
90982675|NCT01193335|181849595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.68||||||Serotype 6A: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.68|0.88|
90982676|NCT01193335|181849595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.39||||||Serotype 7F: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.39|0.78|
90982677|NCT01193335|181849595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.51||||||Serotype 19A: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.51|0.89|
90982678|NCT01193335|181849596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.44||||||Serotype 4: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.44|0.37|
90982679|NCT01193335|181849596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.71||||||Serotype 6B: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.71|0.37|
90982680|NCT01193335|181849596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|3.12||||||Serotype 9V: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||3.12|0.76|
90982681|NCT01193335|181849596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.17||||||Serotype 14: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.17|0.33|
90982682|NCT01193335|181849596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|1.55||||||Serotype 18C: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.55|0.24|
90982683|NCT01193335|181849596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.77||||||Serotype 19F: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.77|0.97|
90982684|NCT01193335|181849596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.46||||||Serotype 23F: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.46|0.35|
90982685|NCT01193335|181849596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.6||||||Serotype 1: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.60|1.00|
90982686|NCT01193335|181849596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.33||||||Serotype 3: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.33|0.68|
90982687|NCT01193335|181849596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.31||||||Serotype 5: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.31|0.82|
90982688|NCT01193335|181849596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|1.04||||||Serotype 6A: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.04|0.24|
90982689|NCT01193335|181849596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.53||||||Serotype 7F: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||2.53|0.58|
90982690|NCT01193335|181849596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.37||||||Serotype 19A: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.37|0.52|
90982691|NCT01193335|181849597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.97||||||Serotype 4: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.97|0.45|
91039628|NCT01494532|181963868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.747|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.747
91039629|NCT01494532|181963868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.600
91039630|NCT01494532|181963869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.007
90982692|NCT01193335|181849597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.4||||||Serotype 6B: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.40|0.54|
90982693|NCT01193335|181849597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.31||||||Serotype 9V: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.31|0.41|
90982694|NCT01193335|181849597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.14||||||Serotype 14: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.14|0.54|
90982695|NCT01193335|181849597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.87||||||Serotype 18C: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.87|0.34|
90982696|NCT01193335|181849597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.1||||||Serotype 19F: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.10|0.31|
90982697|NCT01193335|181849597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.01||||||Serotype 23F: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.01|0.40|
90982698|NCT01193335|181849597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.81||||||Serotype 1: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.81|0.38|
90982699|NCT01193335|181849597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.17||||||Serotype 3: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.17|0.76|
91039631|NCT01494532|181963869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.014
91039632|NCT01494532|181963869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.016
91039633|NCT01494532|181963869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.005
91039634|NCT01494532|181963869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.008
91039635|NCT01494532|181963870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.047
91039636|NCT01494532|181963870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.005
91039637|NCT01494532|181963870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.172
91039638|NCT01494532|181963870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.034
91039639|NCT01494532|181963870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.039
91039640|NCT01494532|181963871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.292|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.292
91039641|NCT01494532|181963871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.068
91039642|NCT01494532|181963871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.170
91039643|NCT01494532|181963871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.003
91039644|NCT01494532|181963871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.153
91039645|NCT01494532|181963872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.409|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.409
91039646|NCT01494532|181963872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.598|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.598
91039647|NCT01494532|181963872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.992|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.992
91039648|NCT01494532|181963872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.169
91039649|NCT01494532|181963872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.348|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.348
91039650|NCT01404988|181963884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|||||For this pilot study, the Type 1 error was set at 5%|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1
91039651|NCT01404988|181963884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2
91039652|NCT01404988|181963885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|||||For this pilot study, the type 1 error was set at 5%|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.3
91039653|NCT01404988|181963885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.77
91039654|NCT01404988|181963886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|||||For this pilot study, the type 1 error was set at 5%|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
91039655|NCT01404988|181963886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.06
91039656|NCT01404988|181963887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|||||For this pilot study, type 1 error was set at 5%|Fisher Exact|||||||0.60
91039657|NCT01404988|181963887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.16
91039658|NCT04158687|181964024|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.6003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|2.6|||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|MMRM included fixed effects of treatment group, analysis visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and a baseline-by-visit interaction.||||2.6|-4.5|0.6003
91039659|NCT04158687|181964024|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|5.0|||MMRM|MMRM included fixed effects of treatment group, analysis visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and a baseline-by-visit interaction.||||5.0|-2.0|0.3920
91039660|NCT04158687|181964024|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.1444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|6.0|||MMRM|MMRM included fixed effects of treatment group, analysis visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and a baseline-by-visit interaction.||||6.0|-0.9|0.1444
91039661|NCT04158687|181964025|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.8065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.2|||MMRM|MMRM included fixed effects of treatment group, analysis visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and a baseline-by-visit interaction.||||0.2|-0.3|0.8065
91039662|NCT04158687|181964025|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.2121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.4|||MMRM|MMRM included fixed effects of treatment group, analysis visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and a baseline-by-visit interaction.||||0.4|-0.1|0.2121
91039663|NCT04158687|181964025|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.5|||MMRM|MMRM included fixed effects of treatment group, analysis visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and a baseline-by-visit interaction.||||0.5|0.0|0.0264
91039664|NCT04158687|181964026|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.6101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|3.5|||MMRM|MMRM included fixed effects of treatment group, analysis visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and a baseline-by-visit interaction.||||3.5|-2.1|0.6101
91039665|NCT04158687|181964026|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.6237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|2.1|||MMRM|MMRM included fixed effects of treatment group, analysis visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and a baseline-by-visit interaction.||||2.1|-3.4|0.6237
91039666|NCT04158687|181964026|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.1764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|0.8|||MMRM|MMRM included fixed effects of treatment group, analysis visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and a baseline-by-visit interaction.||||0.8|-4.6|0.1764
91039667|NCT02856594|181964027|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.32||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.83|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.83|0.10|0.029
91039668|NCT02856594|181964029|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.03|||Regression, Linear|||||1.03|0.89|0.24
91039669|NCT02542462|181964037|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2||||||P value for the number of subjects with an increase of 1 mm or more of terminal ileum from pre to post was 0.2|Fisher Exact|||The test is to see a difference among the four groups and the pre to post change of the primary outcomes||||0.2
91039670|NCT02542462|181964037|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3||||||P value for change in the number of subjects with an increase in number of lymph nodes from pre to post was 0.3.|Fisher Exact|||The test is to see a difference among the four groups and the pre to post change of the primary outcomes||||0.3
91039671|NCT00538031|181964062|OTHER|||||||0.61|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.61
91039672|NCT00538031|181964063|OTHER|||||||0.95|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.95
91039673|NCT02450539|181964064|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.765||||0.0068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.165|2.672|||Stratified log-rank test.||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|Stratified by baseline ECOG performance status (0 vs 1), number of Prior Therapies (received only platinum-based therapy vs Received platinum-based Therapy plus Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor), and time since initiation of first line therapy (\<=9 months vs \>9 months).||2.672|1.165|0.0068
91039674|NCT02450539|181964067|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.333||||0.1746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.879|2.022|||Stratified log-rank test||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|Stratified by baseline ECOG performance status (0 vs 1), number of Prior Therapies (received only platinum-based therapy vs Received platinum-based Therapy plus Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor), and time since initiation of first line therapy (\<=9 months vs \>9 months).\]||2.022|0.879|0.1746
91039675|NCT02450539|181964068|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|-17.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.3|-6.6|||||Confidence intervals are based on the normal approximation to the binomial.|||-6.6|-29.3|
91039676|NCT02450539|181964069|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|-13.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.2|2.8|||||Confidence intervals are based on the normal approximation to the binomial.|||2.8|-29.2|
91039677|NCT02450539|181964070|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.184||||0.7039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.502|2.792|||Stratified Log Rank||Stratified Cox regression model.|Stratification factors are baseline ECOG performance status (0 vs 1), Number of Prior Therapies (received only platinum-based therapy vs Received platinum-based Therapy plus Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor), and time since initiation of first line therapy (\<=9 months vs \>9 months).||2.792|0.502|0.7039
91039678|NCT02450539|181964071|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Headache||||
91039679|NCT02450539|181964071|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Diarrhea||||
91039680|NCT02450539|181964071|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean core symptom severity||||
91039681|NCT02450539|181964071|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean interference||||
91039682|NCT02450539|181964071|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean lung cancer symptom severity||||
91039683|NCT02450539|181964071|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean core plus lung cancer symptom severity||||
91039684|NCT02450539|181964071|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean brain tumor symptom severity||||
91039685|NCT02450539|181964071|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean core plus lung worst 5 symptoms severity||||
91039686|NCT02450539|181964071|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Rash||||
91039687|NCT02450539|181964072|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.07|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||EQ VAS Overall Self-rated Health Score||||
91039688|NCT02450539|181964073|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||EQ-5D-5L Index Value||||
91039689|NCT03060486|181964078|OTHER||Signed Rank Score Difference|-60.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||<.0001
91039690|NCT02704091|181964089|SUPERIORITY|"The following Null-hypothesis was tested:~H0: λA(t) = λB (t) versus H1: λA(t) ≠ λB (t), where λ(t) represents the hazard at time t, A=diosmectite and B=placebo."|||||=|0.2524|||||||Wilcoxon-Gehan test|||The primary analysis tested the equality of time to recovery between the 2 treatment groups, applying the 2-sided Gehan-Wilcoxon test (α=5%).||||=0.2524
91039691|NCT02704091|181964090|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3511|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon test|||Comparison between the 2 treatment groups for time from diarrhoea onset to recovery, analysed using the Gehan-Wilcoxon test.||||=0.3511
91039692|NCT02704091|181964091|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.7285|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon test|||Comparison between the 2 treatment groups for time from diarrhoea onset to first formed stool, analysed using the Gehan-Wilcoxon test.||||=0.7285
91039693|NCT02704091|181964092|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1807|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon test|||Comparison between the 2 treatment groups for time from first study treatment intake to last watery stool, analysed using the Gehan-Wilcoxon test.||||=0.1807
90982700|NCT01193335|181849597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.91||||||Serotype 5: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.91|0.45|
90982701|NCT01193335|181849597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.85||||||Serotype 6A: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.85|0.47|
90982702|NCT01193335|181849597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.15||||||Serotype 7F: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.15|0.74|
90982703|NCT01193335|181849597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.88||||||Serotype 19A: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.88|0.52|
90982704|NCT01193335|181849598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|2.05||||||Serotype 4: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||2.05|0.35|
90982705|NCT01193335|181849598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|2.63||||||Serotype 6B: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||2.63|0.41|
90982706|NCT01193335|181849598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.53||||||Serotype 9V: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.53|0.22|
90982707|NCT01193335|181849598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.44||||||Serotype 14: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.44|0.38|
90982708|NCT01193335|181849598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.76||||||Serotype 18C: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.76|0.10|
90982709|NCT01193335|181849598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.3||||||Serotype 19F: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.30|0.25|
90982710|NCT01193335|181849598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.65||||||Serotype 23F: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.65|0.11|
90982711|NCT01193335|181849598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.32||||||Serotype 1: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.32|0.81|
90982712|NCT01193335|181849598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.37||||||Serotype 3: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.37|0.56|
90982713|NCT01193335|181849598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.23||||||Serotype 5: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.23|0.51|
90982714|NCT01193335|181849598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.86||||||Serotype 6A: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.86|0.17|
90982715|NCT01193335|181849598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.97||||||Serotype 7F: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.97|0.64|
90982716|NCT01193335|181849598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.97||||||Serotype 19A: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.97|0.27|
90982717|NCT01193335|181849599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|2.37||||||Serotype 4: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||2.37|0.33|
90982718|NCT01193335|181849599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|3.07||||||Serotype 6B: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||3.07|0.37|
90982719|NCT01193335|181849599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|5.36||||||Serotype 9V: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||5.36|0.57|
90982720|NCT01193335|181849599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|2.07||||||Serotype 14: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||2.07|0.38|
90982721|NCT01193335|181849599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.21||||||Serotype 18C: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.21|0.18|
91039694|NCT02704091|181964093|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.04||||0.4294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Comparison between the 2 treatment groups for number of stools for the overall time period, based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) method for repeated measurements. The model included the number of stools 24 hours before randomisation (baseline) as covariate, treatment, time point (12-hour period), the treatment by time point interaction as fixed effects and participant as random effect.||0.07|-0.15|0.4294
90982722|NCT01193335|181849599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.53||||||Serotype 19F: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.53|0.27|
91039695|NCT02704091|181964094|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.12||||0.0465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Comparison between the 2 treatment groups for number of watery stools for the overall time period, based on an ANCOVA method for repeated measurements. The model included the number of watery stools 24 hours before randomisation (baseline) as covariate, treatment, time point (12-hour period), the treatment by time point interaction as fixed effects and participant as random effect.||-0.00|-0.24|0.0465
90982723|NCT01193335|181849599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.15||||||Serotype 23F: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.15|0.17|
90982724|NCT01193335|181849599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.31||||||Serotype 1: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.31|0.96|
90982725|NCT01193335|181849599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.14||||||Serotype 3: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.14|0.41|
90982726|NCT01193335|181849599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.92||||||Serotype 5: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.92|0.49|
90982727|NCT01193335|181849599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.03||||||Serotype 6A: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.03|0.16|
90982728|NCT01193335|181849599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.48||||||Serotype 7F: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.48|0.27|
90982729|NCT01193335|181849599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.91||||||Serotype 19A: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.91|0.22|
90982730|NCT01193335|181849600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.33|5.99||||||Serotype 4: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||5.99|-6.33|
90982731|NCT01193335|181849600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-4.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.87|5.39||||||Serotype 6B: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||5.39|-16.87|
91039696|NCT02412852|181964098|OTHER||||||||||||||||||\]The pharmacokinetics data are particularly sparse, and therefore substantial interpolations and imputations were required to produce an analyzable data set. Consequently, while not ideal, the Last Observation Carried Forward method was used for these data. There was a large amount of missing data which required imputation to determine results. The large amount of interpolations and imputations required for the pharmacokinetic analysis means that the pharmacokinetic results will need to be interpreted with caution. 3 X 3 Analysis of Variance used to compare Placebo to the two active groups. Missing data required imputation of available data.|||
91039697|NCT02412852|181964100|OTHER|ANOVA on only those subjects who completed testing.||||||0.05||||||The results were analyzed using an ANOVA with one between-subjects factor (Group: both placebo groups combined, 40 mg TV1001sr, and 80 mg TV1001sr); and one within-subjects factor (Visit: Visit 1, Visit 2, and Visit 3).|ANOVA|The means of the three groups were further analyzed using a post hoc comparison procedure (the Scheffé test).||||||0.05
90982732|NCT01193335|181849600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-6.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.28|10.67||||||Serotype 9V: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||10.67|-24.28|
90982733|NCT01193335|181849600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|3.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.68|10.57||||||Serotype 14: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||10.57|-3.68|
90982734|NCT01193335|181849600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.57|5.88||||||Serotype 18C: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||5.88|-6.57|
90982735|NCT01193335|181849600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|3.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.32|11.91||||||Serotype 19F: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||11.91|-3.32|
90982736|NCT01193335|181849600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|1.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.73|9.94||||||Serotype 23F: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||9.94|-6.73|
90982737|NCT01193335|181849600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Perecent Difference|-10.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.51|4.34||||||Serotype 1: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||4.34|-25.51|
90982738|NCT01193335|181849600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|4.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|11.48||||||Serotype 3: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||11.48|0.04|
90982739|NCT01193335|181849600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-16.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.15|-2.6||||||Serotype 5: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||-2.60|-29.15|
90982740|NCT01193335|181849600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|2.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|7.97||||||Serotype 6A: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||7.97|-1.96|
90982741|NCT01193335|181849600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-2.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.55|2.1||||||Serotype 7F: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||2.10|-7.55|
91039698|NCT02412852|181964101|OTHER|The composite conduction measure and the composite velocity measure were analyzed using an Analysis of Variance with one between-subjects factor (Group: combined placebo, 40 mg TV1001, and 80 mg TV1001); and one within-subjects factor (Visit: Visit 1, Visit 2, and Visit 3).||||||0.15|||||||ANOVA|||||||.15
90982742|NCT01193335|181849600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.96|3.18||||||Serotype 19A: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||3.18|-5.96|
90982743|NCT01193335|181849601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-9.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.11|7.49||||||Serotype 4: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||7.49|-25.11|
90982744|NCT01193335|181849601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-5.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.03|10.4||||||Serotype 6B: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||10.40|-21.03|
91039699|NCT02412852|181964102|OTHER|A 3 by 3 Analysis of Variance with one between-subjects factor (Combined placebo, 40 mg TV1001, or 80 mg TV1001) and one within-subjects factor (Visit 1, Visit 2, or Visit 3) was performed for HbA1c values.||||||0.36|||||||ANOVA|||||||.36
91039700|NCT02412852|181964103|OTHER|ANOVA to compare differences from baseline to completion of testing.||||||0.93|||||||ANOVA|||||||.93
91039701|NCT00840203|181964123|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using the General Linear Model (GLM) procedure of SAS the bioequivalence of the test and reference products will be evaluated using average bioequivalence methodology for non-replicate crossover study design.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|97.6||||||90.0|88.6|107.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||107|88.6|
91039702|NCT00840203|181964124|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using the General Linear Model (GLM) procedure of SAS the bioequivalence of the test and reference products will be evaluated using average bioequivalence methodology for non-replicate crossover study design.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|97.3||||||90.0|82.8|114.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||114|82.8|
91039703|NCT00840203|181964125|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using the General Linear Model (GLM) procedure of SAS the bioequivalence of the test and reference products will be evaluated using average bioequivalence methodology for non-replicate crossover study design.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|94.0||||||90.0|83.0|107.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||107|83.0|
90982745|NCT01193335|181849601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|6.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.16|21.16||||||Serotype 9V: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||21.16|-7.16|
90982746|NCT01193335|181849601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-7.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.28|3.35||||||Serotype 14: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||3.35|-20.28|
90982747|NCT01193335|181849601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-10.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.01|8.11||||||Serotype 18C: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||8.11|-29.01|
90982748|NCT01193335|181849601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|7.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|17.65||||||Serotype 19F: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||17.65|-1.52|
90982749|NCT01193335|181849601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-13.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.57|3.31||||||Serotype 23F: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||3.31|-29.57|
91039704|NCT00840203|181964126|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using the General Linear Model (GLM) procedure of SAS the bioequivalence of the test and reference products will be evaluated using average bioequivalence methodology for non-replicate crossover study design.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|98.3||||||90.0|91.5|106.0|||||Metabolite results presented for informational purposes only.|||106|91.5|
91039705|NCT00840203|181964127|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using the General Linear Model (GLM) procedure of SAS the bioequivalence of the test and reference products will be evaluated using average bioequivalence methodology for non-replicate crossover study design.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|97.6||||||90.0|86.7|110.0|||||Metabolite results presented for informational purposes only.|||110|86.7|
91039706|NCT00840203|181964128|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using the General Linear Model (GLM) procedure of SAS the bioequivalence of the test and reference products will be evaluated using average bioequivalence methodology for non-replicate crossover study design.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|95.6||||||90.0|86.1|106.0|||||Metabolite results presented for informational purposes only.|||106|86.1|
91039707|NCT01438060|181964139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17||||0.802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|1.49||Baseline data was evaluated by analysis of variance (ANOVA) with treatment and study center as main effects.|ANOVA||Model based estimate.|Analysis at Baseline (Day 0)||1.49|-1.15|0.802
91039708|NCT01438060|181964139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.02||||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.49|0.44||ANCOVA model for LOCF data set included the baseline measure as covariate and the study center and treatment as main effects.|ANCOVA||Model based estimate|Analysis at Week 10||0.44|-2.49|0.169
91039709|NCT01438060|181964142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response ratio|0.79||||0.391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.35|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with controlling for treatment and study center||Analysis at Week 1||1.35|0.47|0.391
91039710|NCT01438060|181964142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response ratio|0.95||||0.766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.31|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test with controlling for treatment and study center||Analysis at Week 2||1.31|0.69|0.766
91039711|NCT01438060|181964142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response ratio|1.01||||0.967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.32||CMH test with controlling for treatment and study center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis at Week 3||1.32|0.76|0.967
91039712|NCT01438060|181964142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response ratio|0.92||||0.505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.19||CMH test with controlling for treatment and study center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis at Week 4||1.19|0.71|0.505
91039713|NCT01438060|181964142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response ratio|1.07||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.36||CMH test with controlling for treatment and study center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis at Week 6||1.36|0.84|0.590
91039714|NCT01438060|181964142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response ratio|1.1||||0.374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.37||CMH test with controlling for treatment and study center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis at Week 8||1.37|0.89|0.374
91039715|NCT01438060|181964142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response ratio|1.15||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.41||CMH test with controlling for treatment and study center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis at Week 10||1.41|0.94|0.175
91039716|NCT01438060|181964143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response ratio|0.88||||0.753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.92||CMH test with controlling for treatment and study center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis at week 1||1.92|0.41|0.753
90982750|NCT01193335|181849601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|8.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|17.81||||||Serotype 1: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||17.81|-0.52|
90982751|NCT01193335|181849601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-7.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.86|8.29||||||Serotype 3: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||8.29|-22.86|
91039717|NCT01438060|181964143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response ratio|0.9||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.32||CMH test with controlling for treatment and study center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis at week 2||1.32|0.62|0.600
90982752|NCT01193335|181849601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.82|10.08||||||Serotype 5: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||10.08|-8.82|
90982753|NCT01193335|181849601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-20.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.45|-3.95||||||Serotype 6A: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||-3.95|-35.45|
90982754|NCT01193335|181849601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|5.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|19.06||||||Serotype 7F: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||19.06|-8.50|
90982755|NCT01193335|181849601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-3.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.51|11.13||||||Serotype 19A: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||11.13|-17.51|
91039718|NCT01438060|181964143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response ratio|0.93||||0.673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.31||CMH test with controlling for treatment and study center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis at week 3||1.31|0.65|0.673
91039719|NCT01438060|181964143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response ratio|0.83||||0.255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.14||CMH test with controlling for treatment and study center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis at week 4||1.14|0.60|0.255
91039720|NCT01438060|181964143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response ratio|0.99||||0.958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.33||CMH test with controlling for treatment and study center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis at week 6||1.33|0.74|0.958
91039721|NCT01438060|181964143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response ratio|0.92||||0.525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.19||CMH test with controlling for treatment and study center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis at week 8||1.19|0.71|0.525
91039722|NCT01438060|181964143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response ratio|1.07||||0.602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.4||CMH test with controlling for treatment and study center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis at week 10||1.40|0.82|0.602
91039723|NCT01438060|181964147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.133||95.0||||CMH Row Means test with controlling for study center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis at Week 1||||0.133
91039724|NCT01438060|181964147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.282||95.0||||CMH Row Means test with controlling for study center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis at Week 2||||0.282
91039725|NCT01438060|181964147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.571||95.0||||CMH Row Means test with controlling for study center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis at Week 3||||0.571
91039726|NCT01438060|181964147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.895||95.0||||CMH Row Means test with controlling for study center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis at Week 4||||0.895
91039727|NCT01438060|181964147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.817||95.0||||CMH Row Means test with controlling for study center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis at Week 6||||0.817
91039728|NCT01438060|181964147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.795||95.0||||CMH Row Means test with controlling for study center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis at Week 8||||0.795
91039729|NCT01438060|181964147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.564||95.0||||CMH Row Means test with controlling for study center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis at Week 10||||0.564
91039730|NCT01438060|181964149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23||||0.733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|1.54|||ANCOVA|||Analysis at baseline||1.54|-1.08|0.733
91039731|NCT01438060|181964149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.35||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|-0.54|||ANOVA|||Analysis at Week 10||-0.54|-2.16|0.001
90982756|NCT01193335|181849602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.59|5.89||||||Serotype 4: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||5.89|-5.59|
90982757|NCT01193335|181849602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.81|7.37||||||Serotype 6B: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||7.37|-6.81|
90982758|NCT01193335|181849602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-1.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.87|7.44||||||Serotype 9V: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||7.44|-10.87|
90982759|NCT01193335|181849602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.94|5.94||||||Serotype 14: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||5.94|-5.94|
90982760|NCT01193335|181849602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-1.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.66|4.25||||||Serotype 18C: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||4.25|-8.66|
90982761|NCT01193335|181849602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-6.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.93|3.56||||||Serotype 19F: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||3.56|-17.93|
90982762|NCT01193335|181849602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.74|7.04||||||Serotype 23F: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||7.04|-6.74|
90982763|NCT01193335|181849602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-6.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.37|2.75||||||Serotype 1: CI Parameter was percent difference between the groups. Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||2.75|-16.37|
90982764|NCT01193335|181849602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.37|6.85||||||Serotype 3: CI Parameter was percent difference between the groups. Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||6.85|-3.37|
90982765|NCT01193335|181849602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.36|5.14||||||Serotype 5: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||5.14|-8.36|
90982766|NCT01193335|181849602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.73|5.04||||||Serotype 6A: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||5.04|-4.73|
90982767|NCT01193335|181849602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.48|4.55||||||Serotype 7F: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||4.55|-4.48|
90982768|NCT01193335|181849602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.48|4.55||||||Serotype 19A: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||4.55|-4.48|
90982769|NCT01193335|181849603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-7.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.5|9.9||||||Serotype 4: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||9.9|-24.5|
90982770|NCT01193335|181849603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.6|11.8||||||Serotype 6B: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||11.8|-23.6|
90982771|NCT01193335|181849603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-10.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.6|6.0||||||Serotype 9V: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||6.0|-27.6|
90982772|NCT01193335|181849603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|8.4||||||Serotype 14: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||8.4|-17.0|
90982773|NCT01193335|181849603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-23.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.0|-4.9||||||Serotype 18C: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||-4.9|-40.0|
90982774|NCT01193335|181849603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-11.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.4|3.4||||||Serotype 19F: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||3.4|-27.4|
90982775|NCT01193335|181849603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-28.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.9|-11.0||||||Serotype 23F: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||-11.0|-43.9|
90982776|NCT01193335|181849603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|10.3||||||Serotype 1: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||10.3|-10.9|
90982777|NCT01193335|181849603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|15.1||||||Serotype 3: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||15.1|-17.5|
90982778|NCT01193335|181849603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-10.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.3|4.5||||||Serotype 5: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||4.5|-25.3|
90982779|NCT01193335|181849603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-18.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.3|-3.0||||||Serotype 6A: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||-3.0|-33.3|
90982780|NCT01193335|181849603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|13.1||||||Serotype 7F: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||13.1|-7.1|
90982781|NCT01193335|181849603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-18.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.7|-2.8||||||Serotype 19A: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||-2.8|-33.7|
90982782|NCT01193335|181849604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-7.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.2|9.9||||||Serotype 4: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||9.9|-25.2|
91039732|NCT03602339|181964181|NON_INFERIORITY|"The score to evaluate the non-inferiority is calculated for each subject as (combined unenhanced/gadobutrol-enhanced - unenhanced) - 0.8\*(combined unenhanced/gadoterate-enhanced - unenhanced). The 95% CI is based on a t-distribution. The non-inferiority for gadobutrol is achieved if the one-sided p-value for H0: (gadobutrol minus unenhanced) - 0.8\*(gadoterate minus unenhanced) ≤ 0 is lower than 0.025."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.455|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.347|0.562||No type I error adjustment for multiple comparisons is needed because tests on all 3 primary efficacy variables must be significant to demonstrate primary efficacy.|Paired t-test|||Difference (gadobutrol minus unenhanced) - (gadoterate minus unenhanced)||0.562|0.347|< 0.0001
90982783|NCT01193335|181849604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.5|19.0||||||Serotype 6B: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||19.0|-18.5|
90982784|NCT01193335|181849604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|7.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|26.2||||||Serotype 9V: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||26.2|-12.0|
90982785|NCT01193335|181849604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.1|13.3||||||Serotype 14: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||13.3|-19.1|
90982786|NCT01193335|181849604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-17.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.6|-0.3||||||Serotype 18C: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||-0.3|-34.6|
90982787|NCT01193335|181849604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.6|12.1||||||Serotype 19F: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||12.1|-20.6|
90982788|NCT01193335|181849604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-21.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.8|-3.2||||||Serotype 23F: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||-3.2|-37.8|
90982789|NCT01193335|181849604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|5.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|15.2||||||Serotype 1: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||15.2|-2.7|
90982790|NCT01193335|181849604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|12.0||||||Serotype 3: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||12.0|-22.0|
90982791|NCT01193335|181849604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-14.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.7|-2.4||||||Serotype 5: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||-2.4|-26.7|
90982792|NCT01193335|181849604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-20.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.8|-3.0||||||Serotype 6A: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||-3.0|-36.8|
90982793|NCT01193335|181849604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-11.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.4|4.1||||||Serotype 7F: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||4.1|-26.4|
90982794|NCT01193335|181849604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-21.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.7|-4.6||||||Serotype 19A: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||-4.6|-37.7|
90982795|NCT01364467|181849619|OTHER|||||||0.013|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.013
90982796|NCT01364467|181849620|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.98
91039733|NCT03602339|181964182|NON_INFERIORITY|"The score to evaluate the non-inferiority is calculated for each subject as (combined unenhanced/gadobutrol-enhanced - unenhanced) - 0.8\*(combined unenhanced/gadoterate-enhanced - unenhanced). The 95% CI is based on a t-distribution. The non-inferiority for gadobutrol is achieved if the one-sided p-value for H0: (gadobutrol minus unenhanced) - 0.8\*(gadoterate minus unenhanced) ≤ 0 is lower than 0.025."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18|||=|0.0151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.017|0.342||No type I error adjustment for multiple comparisons is needed because tests on all 3 primary efficacy variables must be significant to demonstrate primary efficacy.|Paired t-test|||Difference (gadobutrol minus unenhanced) - (gadoterate minus unenhanced)||0.342|0.017|= 0.0151
90982797|NCT01364467|181849620|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.65
90982798|NCT03542682|181849693|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-55.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-124.63|13.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model adjusted for order of the clamps and accounting for within subject correlation.||||13.30|-124.63|
90982799|NCT03542682|181849695|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|3.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model adjusted for order of the clamps and accounting for within subject correlation.||||3.02|-1.10|
90982800|NCT03542682|181849696|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|131.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-246.7|510.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model adjusted for order of the clamps and accounting for within subject correlation.||||510.41|-246.70|
90982801|NCT01212445|181849702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Success Rate|0.192||||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.096|0.325|||Fisher Exact|||The treatment success rate was defined as the number of participants in a treatment group with treatment successes (BM with no straining or hard/lumpy stools) divided by the total number of participants in the treatment group. Treatment success rate was calculated for each dose group along with 95% confidence intervals (CI) based on exact binomial statistics. Treatment success rates were compared between each pair of treatments using an exact 2-sided test (Fisher's).||0.325|0.096|0.1790
90982802|NCT01212445|181849702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Success Rate|0.314||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.191|0.459|||Fisher Exact|||The treatment success rate was calculated as the number of participants in a treatment group with treatment successes (BM with no straining or hard/lumpy stools) divided by the total number of participants in the treatment group. Treatment success rate was calculated for each dose group along with 95% confidence intervals (CI) based on exact binomial statistics. Treatment success rates were compared between each pair of treatments using an exact 2-sided test (Fisher's).||0.459|0.191|1.0000
90982803|NCT01212445|181849702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Success Rate|0.196||||0.2558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.098|0.331|||Fisher Exact|||The treatment success rate was calculated as the number of participants in a treatment group with treatment successes (BM with no straining or hard/lumpy stools) divided by the total number of participants in the treatment group. Treatment success rate was calculated for each dose group along with 95% confidence intervals (CI) based on exact binomial statistics. Treatment success rates were compared between each pair of treatments using an exact 2-sided test (Fisher's).||0.331|0.098|0.2558
90982804|NCT01212445|181849702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.774|4.763|||Regression, Logistic|||"Logistic regression analysis was performed with treatment success as the dichotomous dependent variable and dose (13.125g, 26.25g, or 39.375 g) as the independent variable. The main effects for the model were tested for significance at the 5% level.~The odds of response for the 26.25 g dose level versus the 13.125 g dose level were presented together with the associated 95% confidence interval. There were no multiplicity adjustments."||4.763|0.774|
90982805|NCT01212445|181849702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.024|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.386|2.72|||Regression, Logistic|||"Logistic regression analysis was performed with treatment success as the dichotomous dependent variable and dose (13.125g, 26.25g, or 39.375 g) as the independent variable. The main effects for the model were tested for significance at the 5% level.~The odds of response for the 39.375 g dose level versus the 13.125 g dose level were presented together with the associated 95% confidence intervals. There were no multiplicity adjustments."||2.720|0.386|
90982806|NCT01212445|181849704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Success Rate|0.077||||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.021|0.185|||Fisher Exact|||The treatment success rate was calculated as the number of participants in a treatment group with treatment successes (BM with no straining or hard/lumpy stools) divided by the total number of participants in the treatment group. Treatment success rate was calculated for each dose group along with 95% confidence intervals (CI) based on exact binomial statistics. Treatment success rates were compared between each pair of treatments using an exact 2-sided test (Fisher's).||0.185|0.021|0.2350
90982807|NCT01212445|181849704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Success Rate|0.157||||0.5256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.286|||Fisher Exact|||The treatment success rate was calculated as the number of participants in a treatment group with treatment successes (BM with no straining or hard/lumpy stools) divided by the total number of participants in the treatment group. Treatment success rate was calculated for each dose group along with 95% confidence intervals (CI) based on exact binomial statistics. Treatment success rates were compared between each pair of treatments using an exact 2-sided test (Fisher's).||0.286|0.070|0.5256
90982808|NCT01212445|181849704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Success Rate|0.118||||0.7746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.044|0.239|||Fisher Exact|||The treatment success rate was calculated as the number of participants in a treatment group with treatment successes (BM with no straining or hard/lumpy stools) divided by the total number of participants in the treatment group. Treatment success rate was calculated for each dose group along with 95% confidence intervals (CI) based on exact binomial statistics. Treatment success rates were compared between each pair of treatments using an exact 2-sided test (Fisher's).||0.239|0.044|0.7746
90982809|NCT01212445|181849704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.233|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.628|7.94|||Regression, Logistic|||"Logistic regression analysis was performed with treatment success as the dichotomous dependent variable and dose (13.125g, 26.25g, or 39.375 g) as the independent variable. The main effects for the model were tested for significance at the 5% level.~The odds of response for the 26.25 g dose level versus the 13.125 g dose level were presented together with the associated 95% confidence intervals. There were no multiplicity adjustments."||7.940|0.628|
90982810|NCT01212445|181849704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.424|6.043|||Regression, Logistic|||"Logistic regression analysis was performed with treatment success as the dichotomous dependent variable and dose (13.125g, 26.25g, or 39.375 g) as the independent variable. The main effects for the model were tested for significance at the 5% level.~The odds of response for the 39.375 g dose level versus the 13.125 g dose level were presented together with the associated 95% confidence intervals. There were no multiplicity adjustments."||6.043|0.424|
90982811|NCT01212445|181849705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.752||||0.1876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.834|19.338|||ANCOVA|||||19.338|-3.834|0.1876
90982812|NCT01212445|181849705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.706||||0.768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.729|13.141|||ANCOVA|||||13.141|-9.729|0.7680
90982813|NCT01212445|181849705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.046||||0.2941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.412|5.32|||ANCOVA|||||5.320|-17.412|0.2941
90982814|NCT01212445|181849706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.302||||0.8109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.059|9.454|||ANCOVA|||||9.454|-12.059|0.8109
90982815|NCT01212445|181849706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.075||||0.6995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.693|8.544|||ANCOVA|||||8.544|-12.693|0.6995
90982816|NCT01212445|181849706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.772||||0.885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.329|9.784|||ANCOVA|||||9.784|-11.329|0.8850
90982817|NCT01212445|181849707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.886||||0.0486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.078|25.695|||ANCOVA|||||25.695|0.078|0.0486
90982818|NCT01212445|181849707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.245||||0.8465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.471|13.962|||ANCOVA|||||13.962|-11.471|0.8465
90982819|NCT01212445|181849707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.641||||0.0744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.449|1.167|||ANCOVA|||||1.167|-24.449|0.0744
90982820|NCT01212445|181849708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.69||||0.4591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.153|13.534|||ANCOVA|||||13.534|-6.153|0.4591
90982821|NCT01212445|181849708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.887||||0.5546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.765|12.539|||ANCOVA|||||12.539|-6.765|0.5546
90982822|NCT01212445|181849708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.803||||0.8685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.397|8.79|||ANCOVA|||||8.790|-10.397|0.8685
90982823|NCT01212445|181849709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.311||||0.1865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.774|0.152|||ANCOVA|||||0.152|-0.774|0.1865
90982824|NCT01212445|181849709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.139||||0.553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.602|0.323|||ANCOVA|||||0.323|-0.602|0.5530
90982825|NCT01212445|181849709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.172||||0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.293|0.637|||ANCOVA|||||0.637|-0.293|0.4670
90982826|NCT04090164|181849717|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.406||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.341|4.316|||Fisher Exact|||Fisher exact test was used for testing of association of Breast Cancer diagnosis with anti-HCV test status.||4.316|1.341|0.0027
90982827|NCT04090164|181849717|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.032||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.582|31.25|||Fisher Exact|||Fisher exact test was used to test the association of Breast Cancer diagnosis with anti-HCV test result in women younger than 45 years.||31.25|1.582|0.0034
90982828|NCT02625402|181849719|EQUIVALENCE|Knowledge scores within 10% points|Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.6|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|21.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||21.5|-8.8|<0.05
90982829|NCT01200433|181849722|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"We tested a joint hypothesis that dexmedetomidine was noninferior to propofol both in terms of cerebral blood flow velocity and brain oxygenation during DBS surgery.~A total of 44 patients provided a 90% power at the 0.05 significance level to detect noninferiority of dexmedetomidine to propofol using a noninferiority ratio of geometric means of 0.80, assuming a coefficient of variation of 25% for each of the 2 primary outcomes. Both outcomes were expected to follow a log-normal distribution."|Ratio of Geometric Means|0.94||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|1.05|||t-test, 1 sided||Dexmedetomidine vs. propofol|||1.05|0.84|0.011
90982830|NCT01200433|181849723|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"We tested a joint hypothesis that dexmedetomidine was noninferior to propofol both in terms of cerebral blood flow velocity and brain oxygenation during DBS surgery.~A total of 44 patients provided a 90% power at the 0.05 significance level to detect noninferiority of dexmedetomidine to propofol using a noninferiority ratio of geometric means of 0.80, assuming a coefficient of variation of 25% for each of the 2 primary outcomes. Both outcomes were expected to follow a log-normal distribution."|Ratio of Geometric Means|0.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.02|||t-test, 1 sided||Dexmedetomidine vs. propofol|||1.02|0.96|< 0.001
90982831|NCT01200433|181849725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.0|2.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||2|0|<0.001
90982832|NCT01200433|181849726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Means|1.0||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.86|1.18|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.18|0.86|0.91
90982833|NCT01200433|181849728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-4.1|0.2|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.2|-4.1|0.02
90982834|NCT01200433|181849729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0|0|>0.99
90982835|NCT00770861|181849740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Between-treatment comparison of efficacy was performed by ANCOVA, with treatment, baseline BMI, center as factors \& baseline value as a covariate.||H0 - There was no difference in BP reduction between Neb and Placebo. The efficacy analyses were based on the ITT population for the double-blind treatment phase. The LOCF was used to impute missing postbaseline values. Sensitivity analyses were based on observed cases for all efficacy parameters. All statistical tests were two-sided hypothesis tests performed at the 5% level of significance for main effects. All confidence intervals were two-sided 95% confidence intervals.||||<0.0001
90982836|NCT00770861|181849741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.001
90982837|NCT03439345|181849788|SUPERIORITY|For the time-to-event analyses, survival analytic methods will be used to evaluate the time to the first event during the entire study period. Cox proportional hazards regression analyses, adjusted for baseline covariates used in minimised randomisation, will be used to estimate the hazard ratios, 95% confidence intervals and corresponding p-values, comparing all participants allocated active fenofibrate with all those allocated placebo.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.91|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for baseline covariates used in minimised randomisation.||||0.91|0.58|0.006
90982838|NCT03439345|181849789|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for baseline covariates used in minimised randomisation.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.91|||Regression, Cox|||Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were used to estimate the hazard ratio and 95% confidence intervals, comparing all participants allocated active fenofibrate with all those allocated placebo.||0.91|0.57|0.005
90982839|NCT03439345|181849790|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for baseline covariates used in minimised randomisation.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.06|||Regression, Cox|||Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were used to estimate the hazard ratio and 95% confidence intervals, comparing all participants allocated active fenofibrate with all those allocated placebo.||1.06|0.31|0.08
90982840|NCT03439345|181849791|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for baseline covariates used in minimised randomisation.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.9|||Regression, Cox|||Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were used to estimate the hazard ratio and 95% confidence intervals, comparing all participants allocated active fenofibrate with all those allocated placebo.||0.90|0.61|0.003
90982841|NCT03439345|181849792|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for baseline covariates used in minimised randomisation.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.85|||Regression, Cox|||Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were used to estimate the hazard ratio and 95% confidence intervals, comparing all participants allocated active fenofibrate with all those allocated placebo.||0.85|0.52|0.001
90982842|NCT03439345|181849793|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for baseline covariates used in minimised randomisation.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.84|||Regression, Cox|||Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were used to estimate the hazard ratio and 95% confidence intervals, comparing all participants allocated active fenofibrate with all those allocated placebo.||0.84|0.30|0.008
90982843|NCT03439345|181849794|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for baseline covariates used in minimised randomisation and for the baseline visual acuity.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.01|||Regression, Cox|||The estimates were derived from linear mixed model repeated measures.||0.01|-0.01|0.36
90982844|NCT03439345|181849795|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for baseline covariates used in minimised randomisation and for baseline VFQ-25 composite score.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.0|||Regression, Cox|||The estimates were derived from linear mixed model repeated measures.||1|-1|0.58
90982845|NCT03439345|181849796|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for baseline covariates used in minimised randomisation and for baseline EQ-5D Index Score.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.02|||Regression, Cox|||The estimates were derived from linear mixed model repeated measures.||0.02|-0.02|0.93
90982846|NCT03439345|181849797|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for baseline covariates used in minimised randomisation and for baseline EQ-5D Visual Analogue Score.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.0|||Regression, Cox|||The estimates were derived from a linear mixed model repeated measures||1|-2|0.43
91039734|NCT03602339|181964183|NON_INFERIORITY|"The score to evaluate the non-inferiority is calculated for each subject as (combined unenhanced/gadobutrol-enhanced - unenhanced) - 0.8\*(combined unenhanced/gadoterate-enhanced - unenhanced). The 95% CI is based on a t-distribution. The non-inferiority for gadobutrol is achieved if the one-sided p-value for H0: (gadobutrol minus unenhanced) - 0.8\*(gadoterate minus unenhanced) ≤ 0 is lower than 0.025."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|||=|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.024|0.275||No type I error adjustment for multiple comparisons is needed because tests on all 3 primary efficacy variables must be significant to demonstrate primary efficacy.|Paired t-test|||Difference (gadobutrol minus unenhanced) - (gadoterate minus unenhanced)||0.275|0.024|= 0.0100
91039735|NCT03602339|181964184|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin is 0.35. If the lower limit of the 95% CI is \> -0.35, then non-inferiority is achieved.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.073|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.176||||||Difference (Gadobutrol - Gadoterate)||0.176|-0.030|
90982847|NCT03439345|181849798|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-254.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1062.0|624.0||||||||624|-1062|
90982848|NCT03439345|181849799|OTHER||Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio|614.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||£614 cost per QALY gained based on probabilistic analysis|||||
90982849|NCT03439345|181849800|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for baseline covariates used in minimised randomisation.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.99||||||Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were used to estimate the hazard ratio and 95% confidence intervals, comparing all participants allocated active fenofibrate with all those allocated placebo.||0.99|0.58|
90982850|NCT03439345|181849801|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for baseline covariates used in minimised randomisation.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.0||||||Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were used to estimate the hazard ratio and 95% confidence intervals, comparing all participants allocated active fenofibrate with all those allocated placebo.||1.00|0.40|
90982851|NCT03439345|181849802|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for baseline covariates used in minimised randomisation.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.97||||||Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were used to estimate the hazard ratio and 95% confidence intervals, comparing all participants allocated active fenofibrate with all those allocated placebo.||0.97|0.52|
90982852|NCT03439345|181849803|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for baseline covariates used in minimised randomisation.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.07||||||Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were used to estimate the hazard ratio and 95% confidence intervals, comparing all participants allocated active fenofibrate with all those allocated placebo.||1.07|0.55|
90982853|NCT03439345|181849804|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for baseline covariates used in minimised randomisation.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.21||||||Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were used to estimate the hazard ratio and 95% confidence intervals, comparing all participants allocated active fenofibrate with all those allocated placebo.||1.21|0.51|
90982854|NCT03439345|181849805|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for baseline covariates used in minimised randomisation.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.93||||||Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were used to estimate the hazard ratio and 95% confidence intervals, comparing all participants allocated active fenofibrate with all those allocated placebo.||0.93|0.54|
90982855|NCT03439345|181849806|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for baseline covariates used in minimised randomisation.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.93||||||Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were used to estimate the hazard ratio and 95% confidence intervals, comparing all participants allocated active fenofibrate with all those allocated placebo.||0.93|0.28|
91039736|NCT03602339|181964185|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin = 10%, if the lower limit of the confidence interval \> -10%, then non-inferiority is achieved.|Difference (Gadobutrol - Gadoterate)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|3.4|||||The 95% confidence intervals are based on McNemar's test.|Accuracy Difference (Gadobutrol - Gadoterate)||3.40|-3.40|
91039737|NCT03602339|181964185|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin = 10%, if the lower limit of the confidence interval \> -10%, then non-inferiority is achieved.|Difference (Gadobutrol - Gadoterate)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.22|5.22|||||The 95% confidence intervals are based on McNemar's test.|Sensitivity Difference (Gadobutrol - Gadoterate)||5.22|-5.22|
91039738|NCT03602339|181964185|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin = 10%, if the lower limit of the confidence interval \> -10%, then non-inferiority is achieved.|Difference (Gadobutrol - Gadoterate)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||||The 95% confidence intervals are based on McNemar's test. No continuity correction for calculation of the confidence interval was included. Zero cells lead to degenerated confidence interval.|Specificity Difference (Gadobutrol - Gadoterate)||0.00|0.00|
90982856|NCT03439345|181849807|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for baseline covariates used in minimised randomisation.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.99||||||Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were used to estimate the hazard ratio and 95% confidence intervals, comparing all participants allocated active fenofibrate with all those allocated placebo.||0.99|0.60|
90982857|NCT03439345|181849808|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for baseline covariates used in minimised randomisation.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.95||||||Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were used to estimate the hazard ratio and 95% confidence intervals, comparing all participants allocated active fenofibrate with all those allocated placebo.||0.95|0.49|
90982858|NCT03439345|181849809|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for baseline covariates used in minimised randomisation.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.06||||||Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were used to estimate the hazard ratio and 95% confidence intervals, comparing all participants allocated active fenofibrate with all those allocated placebo.||1.06|0.53|
90982859|NCT03439345|181849810|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for baseline covariates used in minimised randomisation.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|3.57||||||Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were used to estimate the hazard ratio and 95% confidence intervals, comparing all participants allocated active fenofibrate with all those allocated placebo.||3.57|0.55|
90982860|NCT03439345|181849811|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for baseline covariates used in minimised randomisation.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.03||||||Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were used to estimate the hazard ratio and 95% confidence intervals, comparing all participants allocated active fenofibrate with all those allocated placebo.||1.03|0.48|
91039739|NCT03602339|181964186|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.076|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.011|0.14||||||Difference (Gadobutrol - Gadoterate)||0.140|0.011|
91039740|NCT03602339|181964187|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.9149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.11|||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Comparison of image quality between gadobutrol and gadoterate||0.11|-0.10|0.9149
90982861|NCT03439345|181849812|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for baseline covariates used in minimised randomisation.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.99||||||Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were used to estimate the hazard ratio and 95% confidence intervals, comparing all participants allocated active fenofibrate with all those allocated placebo.||0.99|0.56|
90982862|NCT03439345|181849813|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for baseline covariates used in minimised randomisation and for the baseline UACR.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|-12.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.8|3.5|||||Estimates are in %.|Linear mixed model repeated measures analyses were conducted to estimate the trial-averaged percentage difference in geometric mean UACR between the randomised treatment groups. UACR data at baseline was available for 312 participants allocated fenofibrate and 310 participants allocated placebo.||3.5|-25.8|
90982863|NCT03439345|181849814|SUPERIORITY|"Adjusted for baseline covariates used in minimised randomisation.~."|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.6||||||Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were used to estimate the hazard ratio and 95% confidence intervals, comparing all participants allocated active fenofibrate with all those allocated placebo.||1.60|0.69|
90982864|NCT03439345|181849815|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for baseline covariates used in minimised randomisation.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|1.12||||||Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were used to estimate the hazard ratio and 95% confidence intervals, comparing all participants allocated active fenofibrate with all those allocated placebo.||1.12|0.11|
91039741|NCT03602339|181964188|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01968|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03491|-0.00445||||||Difference (Gadobutrol-Gadoterate) for Relative score||-0.00445|-0.03491|
91039742|NCT03602339|181964188|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.00586|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00589|0.01762||||||Difference (Gadobutrol-Gadoterate) for Full image score||0.01762|-0.00589|
91039743|NCT03602339|181964188|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.00139|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00471|0.00749||||||Difference (Gadobutrol-Gadoterate) for Dice score||0.00749|-0.00471|
91039744|NCT03602339|181964190|EQUIVALENCE|An equivalence test was calculated using the two one-sided t-tests (TOST) procedure with null hypotheses H01: (gadobutrol - gadoterate) ≤ -0.05 \* (gadoterate), and H02: (gadobutrol - gadoterate) ≥ +0.05 \* (gadoterate).||||||0.0049||||||The overall p-value was calculated as max(p1, p2) where p1 and p2 are the results of null hypotheses H01 and H02 respectively.|Two one-sided t-tests (TOST)|||||||0.0049
91039745|NCT03602339|181964191|EQUIVALENCE|An equivalence test was calculated using the two one-sided t-tests (TOST) procedure with null hypotheses H01: (gadobutrol - gadoterate) ≤ -0.05 \* (gadoterate) and H02: (gadobutrol - gadoterate) ≥ +0.05 \* (gadoterate).||||||0.0013||||||The overall p-value was calculated as max(p1, p2) where p1 and p2 are the results of null hypotheses H01 and H02 respectively.|Two one-sided t-tests (TOST)|||||||0.0013
91039746|NCT03602339|181964192|EQUIVALENCE|An equivalence test was calculated using the two one-sided t-tests (TOST) procedure with null hypotheses H01: (gadobutrol - gadoterate) ≤ -0.05 \* (gadoterate) and H02: (gadobutrol - gadoterate) ≥ +0.05 \* (gadoterate).||||||0.0065||||||The overall p-value was calculated as max(p1, p2) where p1 and p2 are the results of null hypotheses H01 and H02 respectively.|Two one-sided t-tests (TOST)|||||||0.0065
91039747|NCT00840281|181964193|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model containing factors for sequence of products, subjects within sequence, periods, and products was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|100.0||||||90.0|94.9|105.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%|||105|94.9|
91039748|NCT00840281|181964194|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model containing factors for sequence of products, subjects within sequence, periods, and products was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|101.0||||||90.0|98.6|103.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%|||103|98.6|
91039749|NCT00840281|181964195|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model containing factors for sequence of products, subjects within sequence, periods, and products was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|101.0||||||90.0|98.7|103.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||103|98.7|
91039750|NCT00829452|181964213|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|96.03||||||90.0|89.11|103.49|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||103.49|89.11|
91039751|NCT00829452|181964214|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|95.34||||||90.0|90.82|100.09|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||100.09|90.82|
91039752|NCT00829452|181964215|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|96.98||||||90.0|92.73|101.42|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||101.42|92.73|
91039753|NCT00829452|181964216|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|98.78||||||90.0|89.34|109.23|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||109.23|89.34|
90982865|NCT02128490|181849830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|35.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.8|51.0|||Fisher Exact|||||51.0|20.8|<0.001
90982866|NCT02128490|181849830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|44.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.9|60.5|||Fisher Exact|||||60.5|28.9|<0.001
90982867|NCT02128490|181849830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|22.4||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|41.0|||Fisher Exact|||||41.0|3.7|0.034
90982868|NCT02128490|181849830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|4.2||||0.817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.2|26.6|||Fisher Exact|||||26.6|-18.2|0.817
90982869|NCT02128490|181849831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|12.6||||0.224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|29.0|||Fisher Exact|||||29.0|-3.9|0.224
90982870|NCT02128490|181849831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|31.6||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.1|50.1|||Fisher Exact|||||50.1|13.1|0.004
90982871|NCT02128490|181849831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|-17.5||||0.139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.1|3.2|||Fisher Exact|||||3.2|-38.1|0.139
91039754|NCT00829452|181964217|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|97.59||||||90.0|94.62|100.66|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||100.66|94.62|
91039755|NCT01296841|181964220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|We performed t-test statistics for univariate comparisons for continuous variables.||||||<0.05
90982872|NCT02128490|181849831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|4.3||||0.815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.9|26.4|||Fisher Exact|||||26.4|-17.9|0.815
90982873|NCT02128490|181849832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|53.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.2|69.5|||Fisher Exact|||||69.5|38.2|<0.001
90982874|NCT02128490|181849832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|55.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.5|71.1|||Fisher Exact|||||71.1|39.5|<0.001
90982875|NCT02128490|181849832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|21.4||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|43.1|||Fisher Exact|||||43.1|-0.3|0.069
90982876|NCT02128490|181849832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|-4.2||||0.817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.6|18.2|||Fisher Exact|||||18.2|-26.6|0.817
90982877|NCT02243176|181849833|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|With a total sample size of 480 patients randomized and an expected drop-out rate of 20%, the trial will be powered at 90% to establish non-inferiority for the primary endpoint, at a one-sided alpha level of 0.025, with the non-inferiority margin of 0.4%, assuming the true effects are the same between treatments. The calculation is also based on the assumption that the standard deviation for the change in HbA1c is 1.2%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.6236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.13||This p value is for the hypothesis of superiority|Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference=Saxagliptin - Acarbose|"H01: μS-μA≥ 0.4% vs Ha1: μS-μA\< 0.4%. Null hypothesis will be rejected if the upper limit of 2-sided 95% CI is below 0.4%.If the null hypothesis above (H01) is rejected, the following hypothesis will be tested to further establish superiority:~H02: μS-μA≥ 0 vs Ha2: μS-μA\< 0. This null hypothesis (H02) will be rejected if the upper limit of 2-sided 95% CI is below 0."||0.13|-0.22|0.6236
90982878|NCT02243176|181849834|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|With a total sample size of 480 patients randomized and an expected drop-out rate of 20%, the trial will be powered at 90% to establish non-inferiority for the primary endpoint, at a one-sided alpha level of 0.025, with the non-inferiority margin of 0.4%, assuming the true effects are the same between treatments. The calculation is also based on the assumption that the standard deviation for the change in HbA1c is 1.2%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.7809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.15||This p value is for the hypothesis of superiority|Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference=Saxagliptin - Acarbose|"H01: μS-μA≥ 0.4% vs Ha1: μS-μA\< 0.4%. Null hypothesis will be rejected if the upper limit of 2-sided 95% CI is below 0.4%.If the null hypothesis above (H01) is rejected, the following hypothesis will be tested to further establish superiority:~H02: μS-μA≥ 0 vs Ha2: μS-μA\< 0. This null hypothesis (H02) will be rejected if the upper limit of 2-sided 95% CI is below 0."||0.15|-0.21|0.7809
90982879|NCT02243176|181849835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.39|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratefied by the baseline disease severity (HbA1c \< 8.0% and ≥ 8.0%)|RR = Saxagliptin/Acarbose|||0.39|0.12|<0.0001
90982880|NCT02243176|181849836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.92||||0.5044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.15|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|stratefied by baseline disease severity (HbA1c\<8%, \>=8%)||||1.15|0.74|0.5044
91039756|NCT00957021|181964249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||KSS Pain/Motion and Function Score comparison from pre-op to 1, 2 and 5 year||||<.0001
91039757|NCT00957021|181964250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||SF-36 Physical score comparison from pre-op to 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 years||||<.0001
91039758|NCT00957021|181964250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||SF-36 Mental score comparison from pre-op to 1 year||||<.0001
91039759|NCT00957021|181964250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0017|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||SF-36 Mental score comparison from pre-op to 2 year||||0.0017
91039760|NCT00957021|181964250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0055|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||SF-36 Mental score comparison from pre-op to 3 year||||0.0055
91039761|NCT00957021|181964250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||SF-36 Mental score comparison from pre-op to 4 year||||0.0050
90982881|NCT02243176|181849837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.28||||0.0518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.67|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratefied by the baseline disease severity (HbA1c \< 8.0% and ≥ 8.0%)|RR = Saxagliptin/Acarbose|||1.67|0.98|0.0518
90982882|NCT02243176|181849838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.8915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.38|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference=Saxagliptin - Acarbose|||0.38|-0.33|0.8915
90982883|NCT02243176|181849839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.249||0.2248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.186|0.791|||ANCOVA||Mean difference=Saxagliptin - Acarbose|||0.791|-0.186|0.2248
90982884|NCT02243176|181849840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.407||0.3739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.039|24.005|||ANCOVA||Mean difference=Saxagliptin - Acarbose|||24.005|-9.039|0.3739
90982885|NCT02243176|181849841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.19|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference=Saxagliptin - Acarbose|||1.19|0.18|0.0078
90982886|NCT02517515|181849870|SUPERIORITY|The superiority of the rate of sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment (SVR12) for the treatment-naïve participants in the Double-blind 3-DAA group as compared with the historical rate for treatment-naïve patients treated with TVR + pegIFN + RBV was analyzed; the lower confidence bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (95% CI) for the percentage of participants with SVR12 must exceed 84% to achieve superiority.|percentage of participants|99.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|97.0|99.9||||||Based on a 2-sided significance level of 0.05 and an underlying rate of 96% for the Double-blind 3-DAA treatment-naïve group, the sample size 180 treatment-naïve participants provided \>90% power to demonstrate superiority of the regimen to the historical rate for treatment-naïve patients treated with TVR + pegIFN + RBV (80%) (based on one-sample chi-square test of a single binomial proportion for superiority).||99.9|97.0|
90982887|NCT02517515|181849870|SUPERIORITY|The superiority of the rate of sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment for the treatment-experienced participants in the Double-blind 3-DAA group as compared with the historical rate for treatment-experienced patients treated with TVR + pegIFN + RBV was analyzed; the lower confidence bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the percentage of participants with sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment must exceed 75% to achieve superiority.|percentage of participants|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|97.4|100.0||||||Based on a 2-sided significance level of 0.05 and an underlying rate of 96% for the Double-blind 3-DAA treatment-experienced group, the sample size 180 treatment-experienced participants provided \>90% power to demonstrate superiority of the regimen to the historical rate for treatment-experienced patients treated with TVR + pegIFN + RBV (80%) (based on one-sample chi-square test of a single binomial proportion for superiority).||100.0|97.4|
90982888|NCT02517515|181849871|SUPERIORITY|The superiority of the rate of sustained virologic response at 24 weeks after treatment (SVR24) for the treatment-naïve participants in the Double-blind 3-DAA group as compared with the historical rate for treatment-naïve patients treated with TVR + pegIFN + RBV was analyzed; the lower confidence bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (95% CI) for the percentage of participants with SVR24 must exceed 84% to achieve superiority.|percentage of participants|99.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|97.0|99.9||||||Based on a 2-sided significance level of 0.05 and an underlying rate of 96% for the Double-blind 3-DAA treatment-experienced group, the sample size 180 treatment-experienced participants provided \>90% power to demonstrate superiority of the regimen to the historical rate for treatment-experienced patients treated with TVR + pegIFN + RBV (80%) (based on one-sample chi-square test of a single binomial proportion for superiority).||99.9|97.0|
90982889|NCT02517515|181849871|SUPERIORITY|The superiority of the rate of sustained virologic response at 24 weeks after treatment (SVR24) for the treatment-experienced participants in the double-blind 3-DAA group as compared with the historical rate for treatment-experienced patients treated with TVR + pegIFN + RBV was analyzed; the lower confidence bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the percentage of participants with SVR24 must exceed 75% to achieve superiority.|percentage of participants|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|97.4|100.0||||||Based on a 2-sided significance level of 0.05 and an underlying rate of 96% for the Double-blind 3-DAA treatment-experienced group, the sample size 180 treatment-experienced participants provided \>90% power to demonstrate superiority of the regimen to the historical rate for treatment-experienced patients treated with TVR + pegIFN + RBV (80%) (based on one-sample chi-square test of a single binomial proportion for superiority).||100.0|97.4|
90982890|NCT00917384|181849893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.776||||0.0473||95.0|0.603|0.998|||Stratified Log-Rank Test|Stratified Log-Rank Test and HR stratified by randomization strata (weight loss over the prior 3 months, primary tumor site and geographical region).||||0.998|0.603|0.0473
90982891|NCT00917384|181849894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.483|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.376|0.62|||Stratified Log-Rank Test|Stratified Log-Rank Test and HR stratified by randomization strata (weight loss over the prior 3 months, primary tumor site and geographical region).||||0.620|0.376|<0.0001
90982892|NCT00917384|181849895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference Between Arms|24.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.9|33.6|||Normal Approximation|||||33.6|14.9|<0.0001
90982893|NCT01458340|181849918|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.69||0.6026|ONE_SIDED|95.0||3.2||α=0.05 significance level.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|One-sided p-values were obtained from the pairwise comparisons between TD-9855 group and placebo group based on the final model.||||3.2||0.6026
90982894|NCT01458340|181849918|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.69||0.4844|ONE_SIDED|95.0||2.7||α=0.05 significance level.|MMRM|One-sided p-values were obtained from the pairwise comparisons between TD-9855 group and placebo group based on the final model.||||2.7||0.4844
90982895|NCT01458340|181849919|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.17||0.5269|ONE_SIDED|95.0||3.7||α=0.05 significance level.|MMRM|One-sided p-values were obtained from the pairwise comparisons between TD-9855 group and placebo group based on the final model.||||3.7||0.5269
90982896|NCT01458340|181849919|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.16||0.2092|ONE_SIDED|95.0||1.8||α=0.05 significance level.|MMRM|One-sided p-values were obtained from the pairwise comparisons between TD-9855 group and placebo group based on the final model.||||1.8||0.2092
91039762|NCT00957021|181964250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0018|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||SF-36 Mental score comparison from pre-op to 5 year||||0.0018
91039763|NCT00957021|181964252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||LEAS score comparison from pre-op to 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 years||||<.0001
91039764|NCT02442687|181964254|OTHER|||||||0.034||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparison. The threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as the dependent variable, baseline value as a covariate, and treatment group and diabetes stratum as factors.||||||0.034
90982897|NCT01021007|181849933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method using treatment as the factor and the baseline score as a covariate||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.005
90982898|NCT01021007|181849934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method using treatment as the factor and the baseline score as a covariate||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
90982899|NCT01021007|181849935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method using treatment as the factor and the baseline score as a covariate||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
90982900|NCT03293030|181849946|SUPERIORITY|Note: Our statistical test was run to identify the number of significant genes. The result is a number and there is no calculation of any comparative statistic such as an odds ratio.|||||<|0.05||||||P-value was adjusted for false discovery rate|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Single cell RNA-sequencing was used to calculate the number of differentially expressed genes in cutaneous CD4+ T cells between week 0 and week 12 in dupilumab-treated subjects. The calculation was performed in the software package Seurat (RRID:SCR\_016341) using the FindMarkers function, which utilizes a non-parametric Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Genes were considered significantly differentially expressed if the adjusted p-value \< 0.05 and the absolute value of log2(Fold Change) \> 1.0.||||<0.05
90982901|NCT04899271|181849947|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.807|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.807
90982902|NCT04899271|181849948|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.746|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison at month 6||||0.746
90982903|NCT04899271|181849948|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.201|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison at month 18||||0.201
90982904|NCT04899271|181849949|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.867|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison at month 6||||0.867
91039765|NCT02442687|181964254|OTHER|||||||0.1731||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparison. The threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as the dependent variable, baseline value as a covariate, and treatment group and diabetes stratum as factors.||||||0.1731
91039766|NCT02442687|181964255|OTHER|||||||0.5276||||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|ANCOVA|The change from baseline as the dependent variable, baseline value as a covariate, and treatment group and diabetes stratum as factors.||||||0.5276
91039767|NCT02442687|181964255|OTHER|||||||0.4968||||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|ANCOVA|The change from baseline as the dependent variable, baseline value as a covariate, and treatment group and diabetes stratum as factors.||||||0.4968
90982905|NCT04899271|181849949|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.769|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison at month 12||||0.769
90982906|NCT04899271|181849949|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.776|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison at month 18||||0.776
90982907|NCT04899271|181849950|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.521||||||Assumption of normality was confirmed by Kolmogorov-Smirnov test; the comparison between treatment arms was performed by means of two-sample t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison at month 6 for change from baseline||||0.521
90982908|NCT04899271|181849950|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.959||||||Assumption of normality was confirmed by Kolmogorov-Smirnov test; the comparison between treatment arms was performed by means of two-sample t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison at month 12 for change from baseline||||0.959
90982909|NCT04899271|181849950|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.773||||||Assumption of normality was confirmed by Kolmogorov-Smirnov test; the comparison between treatment arms was performed by means of two-sample t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison at month 18 for change from baseline||||0.773
90982910|NCT04899271|181849951|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.691|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Assumption of normality is confirmed by Kolmogorov-Smirnov test; comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of two-sample t-test.||Comparison at month 6 for change from baseline||||0.691
90982911|NCT04899271|181849951|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.685||||||Assumption of normality is confirmed by Kolmogorov-Smirnov test; comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of two-sample t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison at month 12 for change from baseline||||0.685
90982912|NCT04899271|181849951|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64||||||Assumption of normality is not confirmed by Kolmogorov-Smirnov test; comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of two-sample Mann-Whitney U test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison at month 18 for change from baseline||||0.640
90982913|NCT04899271|181849952|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.867||||||Comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of a Chi-squared test|Chi-squared|||Comparison at month 6||||0.867
90982914|NCT04899271|181849952|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.769||||||Comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of a Chi-squared test|Chi-squared|Comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of a Chi-squared and Fisher's Exact test separated with a /.||Comparison at month 12||||0.769
90982915|NCT04899271|181849952|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.577|||||||Chi-squared|Comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of a Chi-squared test.||Comparison at month 18||||0.577
90982916|NCT04899271|181849953|SUPERIORITY|The effect of treatment on the cumulative number of severe hypoglycemic events was evaluated by means of a Cox proportional hazards model. The Andersen-Gill intensity model with model-based variance was utilized.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.271||||0.554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.573|2.819|||Cox proportional hazards model|Analysis is based on Cox proportional hazards model.||||2.819|0.573|0.554
90982917|NCT04899271|181849955|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32||||||Assumption of normality is not confirmed by Kolmogorov-Smirnov test; comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of two-sample Mann-Whitney U test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison at month 6 for change from baseline||||0.320
90982918|NCT04899271|181849955|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.398||||||Assumption of normality is not confirmed by Kolmogorov-Smirnov test; comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of two-sample Mann-Whitney U test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison at month 12 for change from baseline||||0.398
90982919|NCT04899271|181849955|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Assumption of normality is not confirmed by Kolmogorov-Smirnov test; comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of two-sample Mann-Whitney U test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison at month 18 for change from baseline||||1.000
90982920|NCT04899271|181849956|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.892||||||Assumption of normality is confirmed by Kolmogorov-Smirnov test; comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of two-sample t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison at month 6 for change from baseline||||0.892
90982921|NCT04899271|181849956|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.412||||||Assumption of normality is confirmed by Kolmogorov-Smirnov test; comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of two-sample t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison at month 12 for change from baseline||||0.412
90982922|NCT04899271|181849956|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.371||||||Assumption of normality is not confirmed by Kolmogorov-Smirnov test; comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of two-sample Mann-Whitney U test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison at month 18 for change from baseline||||0.371
90982923|NCT01733329|181849991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.01
90982924|NCT01733329|181849992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.026
90982925|NCT01733329|181849993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.058|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.058
90982926|NCT01733329|181849994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.007
90982927|NCT01015443|181850007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.032||||0.921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.552|1.931|||Adjusted log rank|||||1.931|0.552|0.921
90982928|NCT00095303|181850041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||slope of linear trajectory of drug use|0.05||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis||The parameter estimated is the regression coefficient on the interaction of the BSFT treatment assignment and the linear time trend.|Null Hypothesis: BSFT will be significantly more effective than TAU in reducing adolescent drug abuse, defined as the percentage of drug use days in 28-day periods. The outcome variable is the percentage of days of drug use within a 28-day period. This variable constructed from the Timeline-Follow-back instrument and measured as the sum of the number of days with positive use in 28-day increments. Hypothesis tested using hierarchical linear models.||.14|-.04|.27
90982929|NCT00095303|181850043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.1||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis||The parameter estimated is the regression coefficient on the interaction of BSFT treatment assignment and the linear time trend.|Null hypothesis: It is hypothesized that BSFT will be significantly more effective than TAU in decreasing adolescent externalizing problem behaviors||0.08|-0.28|.26
90982930|NCT00095303|181850059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.94||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.09|||GEE|||Null Hypothesis: BSFT will be significantly more effective than TAU in the rates of drug use, defined as the percentage of drug use days in last 90 days. The primary hypothesis will be evaluated in terms of % of days of drug use in the last 90 days, assessed by the timeline follow-back. The general analytic approach will use generalized estimating equation (GEE) with negative binomial distribution comparing the BSFT and TAU participants||1.09|.82|.21
91039768|NCT02442687|181964256|OTHER|||||||0.2591||||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as the dependent variable, baseline value as a covariate, and treatment group and diabetes stratum as factors.||||||0.2591
91039769|NCT02442687|181964256|OTHER|||||||0.1806||||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as the dependent variable, baseline value as a covariate, and treatment group and diabetes stratum as factors.||||||0.1806
90982931|NCT00095303|181850061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|||<|0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.12|||GEE|||Null hypothesis: It is hypothesized that BSFT will be significantly more effective than TAU in the level of externalizing problem behaviors||-.12|-.71|<.006
90982932|NCT00095303|181850062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.12||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis: BSFT will be significantly more effective than TAU in improving family functioning.The four components of the 'Parenting Practices Inventory' will be used to create a composite for use in this analysis. The four component scales from the Parenting Practices Inventory are 'Positive Parenting', 'Discipline Effectiveness,' 'Avoidance of Discipline' and 'Monitoring' scales from the Pittsburgh Youth Survey. Hypothesis will be analyzed as using hierarchical linear models.||.22|.03|.015
90982933|NCT00095303|181850066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.68||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|1.54|||GEE|||||1.54|-.18|.12
90982934|NCT00095303|181850067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.33||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.76|||GEE||The parameter estimated is the regression coefficient on the interaction of BSFT treatment assignment and the linear time trend.|Null hypothesis: BSFT will be significantly more effective than TAU in decreasing sexually risky behaviors. The total score of the 'HIV/Sex Risk Behaviors' measure will be used as the outcome.Hypothesis analyzed using the hierarchical linear model.||.76|-.09|.12
90982935|NCT00095303|181850071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.14||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.37|||GEE|||||.37|-.09|.23
90982936|NCT00258154|181850108|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|non-inferiority criterion is that the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the proportion difference (Rotateq+INFANRIX hexa group minus Placebo+INFANRIX hexa group) for subjects who achieve serum antibody levels of ≥ 10 mIU/mL greater than -10%|Percentage point difference|0.0|||<|0.001||95.0|-3.7|3.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen's|Comparing percentage difference with the non-inferiority margin of 10 percentage point with Miettinen and Nurminen's method|Percentage point difference (RotaTeq - Placebo)|||3.6|-3.7|<0.001
91039770|NCT02442687|181964257|OTHER|||||||0.0882||||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|ANCOVA|The change from baseline as the dependent variable, baseline value as a covariate, and treatment group and diabetes stratum as factors.||||||0.0882
91039771|NCT02442687|181964257|OTHER|||||||0.253||||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|ANCOVA|The change from baseline as the dependent variable, baseline value as a covariate, and treatment group and diabetes stratum as factors.||||||0.2530
91039772|NCT01087502|181964307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.6|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||||-0.24|-0.60|<0.0001
91039773|NCT01087502|181964309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.59||0.1602||95.0|-22.28|3.7|||ANCOVA|||||3.7|-22.28|0.1602
91039774|NCT02705716|181964315|OTHER||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-0.12||||0.5191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.497|0.252|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA Model, Response: change from baseline in Schiff sensitivity score Factors: treatment \& site Covariates: baseline Schiff sensitivity score|Difference is first named dentifrice minus second named dentifrice such that a negative difference favors first named dentifrice.|||0.252|-0.497|0.5191
91039775|NCT01151618|181964321|OTHER|"Sensitivity and Specificity of values with respect to the Mead Whittenberger method were computed as follows (FL=flow limited and NFL = Non Flow limited):~Sensitivity = (# of FL breaths detected by FOT / # of FL breaths detected by M\&W) \* 100 Specificity =(# of NFL breaths detected by FOT / # of NFL breaths detected by M\&W) \* 100"|DeltaXrs (cmH2O*s/L)|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|100.0|||||DeltaXrs equals average inspiratory reactance minus average expiratory reactance.|||100|0|
91039776|NCT02670551|181964333|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.5||||0.0331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|-0.4||MMRM analysis was used. Fixed factors: treatment group, pooled study center, visit, treatment-group-by-visit interaction. Covariates: Baseline value, baseline value-by-visit interaction. P-value was adjusted by matched parallel gatekeeping procedure.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||To control the overall type I error rate for multiple comparisons of 2 active doses versus placebo at Week 6 for the primary and secondary efficacy parameters, the parallel gatekeeping procedure was implemented.||-0.4|-4.6|0.0331
90982937|NCT00258154|181850110|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|non-inferiority criterion is that the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the proportion difference (Rotateq+INFANRIX hexa group minus Placebo+INFANRIX hexa group) for subjects who achieve serum antibody levels of ≥ 0.15 μg/mL greater than -10%.|Percentage point difference|-3.7||||0.015||95.0|-9.3|1.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen's|Comparing percentage difference with the non-inferiority margin of 10 percentage point with Miettinen and Nurminen's method|Percentage point difference (RotaTeq - Placebo)|||1.3|-9.3|0.015
90982938|NCT03842137|181850138|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.15|||Regression, Linear|Utilizing a regression model, baseline craving scores, group condition, and their interaction are regressed on 2-week craving scores.||||-.15|-.91|.008
90982939|NCT03842137|181850139|SUPERIORITY|An ancova model was conducted comparing differences between tDCS and sham on post-stimulation theta burst rate, while controlling for pre-stimulation theta burst rate||||||0.005|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.005
90982940|NCT05139030|181850140|SUPERIORITY|A one-sided hypothesis test was performed at alpha=0.025 level of significance comparing EXPAREL admix and bupivacaine HCI|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-65.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|26.97||0.0074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-118.7|-12.9|||ANCOVA|Main effect of treatment, categorical covariate of pooled Investigator site, and continuous covariates of age||The superiority of EXPAREL admixed to bupivacaine HCI was evaluated using the Efficacy Analysis Set.||-12.9|-118.7|0.0074
90982941|NCT05139030|181850141|SUPERIORITY|A one-sided hypothesis test was performed at alpha=0.025 level of significance comparing EXPAREL admix and bupivacaine HCI|Mean Ratio|0.77||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.92|||ANCOVA|Total opioid consumption was transformed to log scale. Main effect of treatment, covariates: pooled Investigator site (categorical); age (continuous)||The superiority of EXPAREL admixed to bupivacaine HCI was evaluated using the Efficacy Analysis Set.||0.92|0.64|0.0018
90982942|NCT05139030|181850142|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.0127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.96|||Cox proportional hazards model|Cox proportional hazard model: treatment as main effect, pooled Investigator site as categorical, and age and height as continuous covariates||||0.96|0.51|0.0127
90982943|NCT05139030|181850143|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.3674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.4||Worst pain 0-24 hours|ANCOVA|Main effect of treatment, categorical covariate of pooled Investigator site, and continuous covariates of age||||0.4|-0.6|0.3674
90982944|NCT05139030|181850143|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.1016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.2||Worst pain 24-48 hours|ANCOVA|Main effect of treatment, categorical covariate of pooled Investigator site, and continuous covariates of age||||0.2|-0.9|0.1016
90982945|NCT05139030|181850143|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.0215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.0||Worst pain 48-72 hours|ANCOVA|Main effect of treatment, categorical covariate of pooled Investigator site, and continuous covariates of age||||-0.0|-1.4|0.0215
90982946|NCT05139030|181850143|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.0794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.2||Worst pain 72-96 hours|ANCOVA|Main effect of treatment, categorical covariate of pooled Investigator site, and continuous covariates of age||||0.2|-1.2|0.0794
90982947|NCT05139030|181850143|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.3606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.5||Average pain 0-24 hours|ANCOVA|Main effect of treatment, categorical covariate of pooled Investigator site, and continuous covariates of age||||0.5|-0.7|0.3606
91039777|NCT02670551|181964333|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.0||||0.0103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|-0.9||MMRM analysis was used. Fixed factors: treatment group, pooled study center, visit, treatment-group-by-visit interaction. Covariates: Baseline value, baseline value-by-visit interaction. P-value was adjusted by matched parallel gatekeeping procedure.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||To control the overall type I error rate for multiple comparisons of 2 active doses versus placebo at Week 6 for the primary and secondary efficacy parameters, the parallel gatekeeping procedure was implemented.||-0.9|-5.1|0.0103
90982948|NCT05139030|181850143|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.0184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.0||Average pain 24-48 hours|ANCOVA|Main effect of treatment, categorical covariate of pooled Investigator site, and continuous covariates of age||||-0.0|-1.1|0.0184
90982949|NCT05139030|181850143|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.0476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.1||Average pain 48-72 hours|ANCOVA|Main effect of treatment, categorical covariate of pooled Investigator site, and continuous covariates of age||||0.1|-1.1|0.0476
90982950|NCT05139030|181850143|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.0529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.1||Average pain 72-96 hours|ANCOVA|Main effect of treatment, categorical covariate of pooled Investigator site, and continuous covariates of age||||0.1|-1.1|0.0529
90982951|NCT00613626|181850173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.718||0.1|ONE_SIDED|90.0|||||Log Rank|||A one-sided log rank test with an overall sample size of 68 subjects (of which 34 are in arm A and 34 are in arm B) achieves 80% power at a 0.10 significance level to detect a difference of 3 months in PFS between 4 month median PFS and 7 month median PFS.||||0.10
90982952|NCT00613626|181850173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9518|TWO_SIDED|||||P-Value (2-tailed) is calculated based on the unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank|Degrees of freedom=1||||||0.9518
90982953|NCT00613626|181850175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2533|TWO_SIDED||||||Difference in Rates|P-value (two-tailed) is calculated based on an unadjusted, normal-distribution approximation for the difference in rates.||||||0.2533
90982954|NCT00613626|181850176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.872|TWO_SIDED||||||Difference in Rates|||||||0.8720
90982955|NCT00613626|181850177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4577|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.4577
90982956|NCT00613626|181850178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||Survival analysis of VEGF variants using cox proportional hazard analysis in arm A and arm B.|Data was not collected for safety lead-in participants and these participants were not included in the analysis.||||
90982957|NCT00613626|181850178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Logistic Regression Analysis|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||Objective Response Analysis of VEGF variants using Logistic Regression Analysis in arm A and arm B|||||
90982958|NCT00004980|181850182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.514||0.005||95.0|-4.65|-0.86||a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05|t-test, 2 sided|degree of freedom = 48||||-.86|-4.65|.005
91039778|NCT02670551|181964334|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.0714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.0||MMRM analysis was used. Fixed factors: treatment group, pooled study center, visit, treatment-group-by-visit interaction. Covariates: Baseline value, baseline value-by-visit interaction. P-value was adjusted by matched parallel gatekeeping procedure.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||To control the overall type I error rate for multiple comparisons of 2 active doses versus placebo at Week 6 for the primary and secondary efficacy parameters, the parallel gatekeeping procedure was implemented.||0.0|-0.5|0.0714
91039779|NCT02670551|181964334|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.0662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.0||MMRM analysis was used. Fixed factors: treatment group, pooled study center, visit, treatment-group-by-visit interaction. Covariates: Baseline value, baseline value-by-visit interaction. P-value was adjusted by matched parallel gatekeeping procedure.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||To control the overall type I error rate for multiple comparisons of 2 active doses versus placebo at Week 6 for the primary and secondary efficacy parameters, the parallel gatekeeping procedure was implemented.||-0.0|-0.5|0.0662
90982959|NCT00004980|181850183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.327||0.002||95.0|0.507|2.03||a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05|t-test, 2 sided|degrees of freedom = 48||null hypothesis is that the groups are the same||2.03|.507|.002
90982960|NCT00004980|181850184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.949|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.524||0.001||95.0|-1.45|-0.44||A priori threshold for statistical significance was .05|t-test, 2 sided|degrees of freedom = 46||||-.44|-1.45|.001
90982961|NCT00004980|181850185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .05|Chi-squared|||||||.01
91039780|NCT04476277|181964335|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91039781|NCT04476277|181964337|OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.28
91039782|NCT04476277|181964338|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04
91039783|NCT04476277|181964339|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
90982962|NCT01299025|181850186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
90982963|NCT01624194|181850190|OTHER|||||||0.0275|||||||General Linear Model (GLM)|||||||0.0275
90982964|NCT01624194|181850191|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Fisher's Exact Test was used to test for differences in adverse events between oxytocin-treated and placebo-treated individuals. A p-value of ≤0.05 would have been statistically significant.|Fisher Exact|||||||>0.05
90982965|NCT01624194|181850192|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed-models analysis was used to compare between groups, and between baseline and Week 4.||||||>0.05
90982966|NCT01624194|181850195|OTHER|||||||0.3395|||||||General Linear Model (GLM)|||||||0.3395
91039784|NCT04476277|181964340|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
91039785|NCT04476277|181964341|OTHER|||||||0.65|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.65
91039786|NCT04476277|181964342|OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.48
90982967|NCT01624194|181850203|OTHER|||||||0.9757|||||||General Linear Model (GLM)|||||||0.9757
90982968|NCT01624194|181850204|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed-models analysis was used to compare between groups, and between baseline and Week 4.||||||>0.05
90982969|NCT01624194|181850205|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>0.05
90982970|NCT01624194|181850206|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||For all blood pressure analyses.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>0.05
90982971|NCT04322708|181850207|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference from Placebo|81.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.5|89.0|||Fisher Exact|||||89.0|71.5|<0.0001
90982972|NCT04322708|181850207|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference from Placebo|77.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|66.1|85.4|||Fisher Exact|||||85.4|66.1|<0.0001
90982973|NCT04322708|181850208|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference from Placebo|2.7||||0.247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|7.3|||ANCOVA|||||7.3|-1.9|0.2470
90982974|NCT04322708|181850208|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference from Placebo|-2.8||||0.2372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|1.8|||ANCOVA|||||1.8|-7.3|0.2372
90982975|NCT04322708|181850209|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference from Placebo|-95.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-109.0|-82.4|||ANCOVA|||||-82.4|-109|<0.0001
91039787|NCT04476277|181964343|OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.99
91039788|NCT04476277|181964344|OTHER|||||||0.39|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.39
91039789|NCT04476277|181964345|OTHER|||||||0.43|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.43
91039790|NCT04476277|181964346|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
91039791|NCT04476277|181964347|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.01
91039792|NCT04476277|181964348|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04
91039793|NCT03105297|181964374|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0147||95.0||||p-value for comparing between treatments (strip/no strip) were computed from mixed models with treatment \& period as fixed effects, participants as random effects \& time as repeated measures effect.|ANCOVA|||||||0.0147
91039794|NCT03105297|181964375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||p-values are from a one sample t-test using SAS UNIVARIATE on change from baseline.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
91039795|NCT03105297|181964376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||p-values are from a one sample t-test using SAS UNIVARIATE on change from baseline.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
91039796|NCT03105297|181964377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0073||95.0||||p-values are from a one sample t-test using SAS (Statistical Analysis System) UNIVARIATE on change from baseline.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0073
91039797|NCT00714051|181964400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||The number of participants who fell on the tripping trial in each group were compared using Chi-square analysis||||0.45
91039798|NCT01390948|181964401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.44||||0.1292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.3|||Log Rank|||||2.30|0.90|0.1292
91039799|NCT05740098|181964418|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.378|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.278|12.689|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis tested for significant main effects of treatment condition on 7-day point prevalence abstinence at 12- and 24-week assessments||12.689|2.278|<0.001
91039800|NCT05740098|181964418|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.668||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.538|8.747|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis tested for significant main effects of treatment condition on 7-day point prevalence abstinence at 12- and 24-week assessments||8.747|1.538|0.003
91039801|NCT05740098|181964418|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.682||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.352|1.321|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis tested for significant main effects of treatment condition on 7-day point prevalence abstinence at 12- and 24-week assessments||1.321|0.352|0.256
91039802|NCT05740098|181964418|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis tested for significant main effect of time on 7-day point prevalence abstinence at 12- and 24-week assessments||||<0.001
90982976|NCT04322708|181850209|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference from Placebo|-96.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-110.0|-82.5|||ANCOVA|||||-82.5|-110|<0.0001
90982977|NCT04322708|181850210|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference from Placebo|83.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|74.4|90.8|||Fisher Exact|||||90.8|74.4|<0.0001
90982978|NCT04322708|181850210|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference from Placebo|80.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|69.8|87.9|||Fisher Exact|||||87.9|69.8|<0.0001
90982979|NCT04322708|181850211|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference from Placebo|77.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|66.4|85.5|||Fisher Exact|||||85.5|66.4|<0.0001
90982980|NCT04322708|181850211|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference from Placebo|72.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.3|81.9|||Fisher Exact|||||81.9|61.3|<0.0001
90982981|NCT04322708|181850212|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference from Placebo|36.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.9|49.5|||Fisher Exact|||||49.5|22.9|<0.0001
90982982|NCT04322708|181850212|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference from Placebo|49.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.9|61.0|||Fisher Exact|||||61.0|35.9|<0.0001
91039803|NCT05740098|181964419|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.365||0.287|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis tested for significant main effect of treatment condition on Child Urine Cotinine||||0.287
91039804|NCT05740098|181964419|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.597|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.369||0.108|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis tested for significant main effect of treatment condition on Child Urine Cotinine||||0.108
90982983|NCT04322708|181850213|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference from Placebo|-4.8||||0.5561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.2|10.0|||Fisher Exact|||||10.0|-19.2|0.5561
90982984|NCT04322708|181850213|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference from Placebo|4.9||||0.5554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|19.6|||Fisher Exact|||||19.6|-9.9|0.5554
90982985|NCT04322708|181850214|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference from Placebo|-0.6||||0.9506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.1|17.0|||ANCOVA|||||17.0|-18.1|0.9506
90982986|NCT04322708|181850214|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference from Placebo|-17.6||||0.0511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.4|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-35.4|0.0511
90982987|NCT04322708|181850215|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference from Placebo|2.6||||0.2007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|6.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Weeks 23-24 Change from Baseline||6.7|-1.4|0.2007
90982988|NCT04322708|181850215|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference from Placebo|-2.7||||0.1889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Weeks 23-24 Change from Baseline||1.3|-6.8|0.1889
90982989|NCT04322708|181850216|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference from Placebo|-0.3||||0.498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.6|||ANCOVA|||||0.6|-1.3|0.4980
90982990|NCT04322708|181850216|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference from Placebo|0.2||||0.639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.2|||ANCOVA|||||1.2|-0.7|0.6390
91039805|NCT05740098|181964419|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.987|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.361||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis tested for significant main effect of treatment condition on Child Urine Cotinine||||0.007
91039806|NCT05740098|181964419|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.878|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis tested for significant main effect of time on Child Urine Cotinine||||0.878
90982991|NCT05480514|181850220|SUPERIORITY|A superiority margin of 0.90 was used. Superiority was concluded if the lower bound of the 95% central posterior credible interval was above 0.90.|Mean Posterior Proportion|0.9741|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.01244|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9445|0.9926|||Bayesian beta-binomial model|||||0.9926|0.9445|
90982992|NCT00457639|181850277|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|13.8||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|61.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||61.1|-19.7|0.42
90982993|NCT00457639|181850278|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.4||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|50.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||50.8|-17.7|0.45
90982994|NCT00002850|181850300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.218|||||||Fisher Exact|Target accrual=70 patients per arm to provide 92% power to detect a difference of 0.31 vs. 0.08 in the proportion of patients with serious infection.||"H0: There is no significant difference in the incidence of severe bacterial infections among all three arms during the first 2 months of treatment at the two-sided 0.05 significance level.~Ha: There is a significant difference in the incidence of severe bacterial infections among all three arms during the first 2 months of treatment at the two-sided 0.05 significance level."||||0.218
90982995|NCT00630032|181850337|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.1|||Log Rank|||||1.10|0.59|0.175
90982996|NCT00630032|181850338|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.1687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.11|||Log Rank|||||1.11|0.53|0.1687
90982997|NCT00630032|181850339|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.6502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.63|||Log Rank|||||1.63|0.45|0.6502
90982998|NCT00630032|181850340|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.0665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.02|||Log Rank|||||1.02|0.49|0.0665
90982999|NCT00630032|181850341|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.08|||Log Rank|||||1.08|0.59|0.148
90983000|NCT00630032|181850342|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.8968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.42|||Log Rank|||||1.42|0.67|0.8968
90983001|NCT02332915|181850343|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0128|||||||t-test, 2 sided|dependent t-test||Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in mean effect size values for 2-week follow-up values for treated items for SPT-Intense and SPT-Traditional. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).||||.0128
90983002|NCT02332915|181850344|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.942|||||||t-test, 2 sided|dependent t-test||Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in mean effect size values for 2-week follow-up values for untreated (generalization) items for SPT-Intense and SPT-Traditional. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).||||.942
90983003|NCT02332915|181850345|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null Hypothesis: No difference in pre-treatment and post-treatment intelligibility scores||||<.001
90983004|NCT03232073|181850346|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect (Rate Ratio)|0.779||||||95.0|0.629|0.965||||||||0.965|0.629|
90983005|NCT01093612|181850404|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum|||||||<0.001
91039807|NCT05740098|181964420|SUPERIORITY||Chi-Square Test Statistic|6.909||||0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom = 1||Analysis tested for significant main effect of treatment condition on continuous abstinence at 24 weeks following quit date||||0.009
91039808|NCT05740098|181964420|SUPERIORITY||Chi-Square Test Statistic|4.287||||0.038|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom = 1||Analysis tested for significant main effect of treatment condition on continuous abstinence at 24 weeks following quit date||||0.038
90983006|NCT01093612|181850405|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum|||||||<0.001
90983007|NCT03191786|181850406|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.97|||Log Rank|||Stratified analysis. Histologic subtype, PD-L1 IHC status and brain metastases (Yes/No) were added as stratification factors.||0.97|0.63|0.025
90983008|NCT03191786|181850407|SUPERIORITY||Difference in OS Rates|6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|16.3||||||OS Rate at 6 Months||16.3|-3.3|
90983009|NCT03191786|181850407|SUPERIORITY||Difference in OS Rates|5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|15.0||||||OS Rate at 12 Months||15.0|-4.9|
90983010|NCT03191786|181850407|SUPERIORITY||Difference in OS Rates|7.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|16.5||||||OS Rate at 18 Months||16.5|-1.6|
90983011|NCT03191786|181850407|SUPERIORITY||Difference in OS Rates|11.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|19.5||||||OS Rate at 24 Months||19.5|4.4|
90983012|NCT03191786|181850409|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.07|||Log Rank|||Stratified analysis. Histologic subtype, PD-L1 IHC status and brain metastases (Yes/No) were added as stratification factors.||1.07|0.70|0.182
90983013|NCT03191786|181850414|SUPERIORITY|Stratified analysis. Histologic subtype, PD-L1 IHC status and brain metastases (Yes/No) were added as stratification factors.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.975||95.0|0.57|1.78|||Log Rank|||Time to deterioration for Dyspnoea (single item QLQ-C30)||1.78|0.57|0.975
90983014|NCT03191786|181850414|SUPERIORITY|Stratified analysis. Histologic subtype, PD-L1 IHC status and brain metastases (Yes/No) were added as stratification factors.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.42|||Log Rank|||Time to deterioration for Fatigue (multi items QLQ-C30)||1.42|0.55|0.620
90983015|NCT03191786|181850415|SUPERIORITY|Stratified analysis. Histologic subtype, PD-L1 IHC status and brain metastases (Yes/No) were added as stratification factors.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||0.653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.26|||Log Rank|||Time to deterioration for Cough (single item QLQ-LC13)||2.26|0.60|0.653
90983016|NCT03191786|181850415|SUPERIORITY|Stratified analysis. Histologic subtype, PD-L1 IHC status and brain metastases (Yes/No) were added as stratification factors.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.97|||Log Rank|||Time to deterioration for Chest pain (single item QLQ-LC13)||0.97|0.27|0.036
90983017|NCT03191786|181850415|SUPERIORITY|Stratified analysis. Histologic subtype, PD-L1 IHC status and brain metastases (Yes/No) were added as stratification factors.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.11|||Log Rank|||Time to deterioration for Dyspnoea (multiple items QLQ-LC13)||1.11|0.45|0.125
90983018|NCT03191786|181850415|SUPERIORITY|Stratified analysis. Histologic subtype, PD-L1 IHC status and brain metastases (Yes/No) were added as stratification factors.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.39|||Log Rank|||Time to deterioration for Arm and/or shoulder pain (single item QLQ-LC13)||1.39|0.41|0.362
90983019|NCT03191786|181850415|SUPERIORITY|Stratified analysis. Histologic subtype, PD-L1 IHC status and brain metastases (Yes/No) were added as stratification factors.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.99|||Log Rank|||Time to Confirmed Deterioration for the Composite of the 3 following symptoms: cough, dyspnoea (multi-items QLQ-LC13) and chest pain||0.99|0.46|0.041
91039809|NCT05740098|181964420|SUPERIORITY||Chi-Square Test Statistic|0.392||||0.531|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom = 1||Analysis tested for significant main effect of treatment condition on continuous abstinence at 24 weeks following quit date||||0.531
91039810|NCT05740098|181964421|SUPERIORITY||Chi-Square Test Statistic|3.859||||0.145|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom = 2||Analysis tested for significant main effect of treatment condition on 7-day point prevalence abstinence at 48-week follow-up||||0.145
90983020|NCT03191786|181850416|SUPERIORITY|Stratified analysis. Histologic subtype, PD-L1 IHC status and brain metastases (Yes/No) were added as stratification factors.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.15|||Log Rank|||SP263 TC\>=1%||1.15|0.61|0.272
90983021|NCT03191786|181850417|SUPERIORITY|Stratified analysis. Histologic subtype, PD-L1 IHC status and brain metastases (Yes/No) were added as stratification factors.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.18|||Log Rank|||SP263 TC\>=1%||1.18|0.64|0.366
90983022|NCT05405166|181850426|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was concluded if lower limit of relative risk 95% confidence interval (CI) was greater or equal to 0.839.|Relative risk|1.008||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.903|1.126|||Farrington-Manning||Two-sided 95% CI estimated using Farrington-Manning method.|||1.126|0.903|0.0006
90983023|NCT05405166|181850427|NON_INFERIORITY|Applied anti-log procedure to convert original scale. Non-inferiority was concluded if lower limit of ratio of geometric mean 90% CI was greater or equal to 0.80.|Ratio of geometric mean|1.532|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.316|1.784||||||||1.784|1.316|
90983024|NCT05405166|181850428|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was concluded if lower limit of relative risk 95% CI was greater or equal to 0.6312.|Relative risk|1.011|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.841|1.215|||Farrington-Manning||Two-sided 95% CI estimated using Farrington-Manning method.|A hierarchical test procedure was used to control the Type I error. Testing was performed sequentially for first 4 secondary endpoints in the order they are presented only if both co-primary endpoints achieved non-inferiority and continued when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 1-sided significance level of 0.025.||1.215|0.841|<0.0001
90983025|NCT05405166|181850429|NON_INFERIORITY|Applied anti-log procedure to convert original scale. Non-inferiority was concluded if lower limit of ratio of geometric mean 90% CI was greater or equal to 0.80.|Ratio of geometric mean|1.302|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.158|1.465||||||A hierarchical test procedure was used to control the Type I error. Testing was performed sequentially for first 4 secondary endpoints in the order they are presented only if both co-primary endpoints achieved non-inferiority and continued when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 1-sided significance level of 0.05.||1.465|1.158|
91039811|NCT05740098|181964422|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi-Square Test Statistic|1.454||||0.228|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Analysis tested for significant main effect of baseline temporal discounting on point-prevalence abstinence at 6-weeks following quit date adjusting for treatment condition.||||0.228
91039812|NCT05740098|181964422|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi-Square Test Statistic|2.7||||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Analysis tested for significant main effect of baseline temporal discounting on point-prevalence abstinence at 12-weeks following quit date adjusting for treatment condition.||||0.10
90983026|NCT05405166|181850430|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk|0.061|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.022|0.164|||Fisher Exact||Two-sided 95% CI estimated using Wald method.|A hierarchical test procedure was used to control the Type I error. Testing was performed sequentially for first 4 secondary endpoints in the order they are presented only if both co-primary endpoints achieved non-inferiority and continued when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 1-sided significance level of 0.025.||0.164|0.022|<0.0001
90983027|NCT05405166|181850431|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.036||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.425|2.908||Stratified on multiple myeloma (MM) isotype (immunoglobulin G \[IgG\] versus non-IgG), body weight (\<=65 kg, \>65 to \<=85 kg, and \>85 kg), and number of prior lines (1 to 2 versus \>=3) according to IRT.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Two-sided 95% CI estimated using the Wald method.|A hierarchical test procedure was used to control the Type I error. Testing was performed sequentially for first 4 secondary endpoints in the order they are presented only if both co-primary endpoints achieved non-inferiority and continued when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 1-sided significance level of 0.025.||2.908|1.425|0.0001
90983028|NCT05110300|181850483|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0283||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. The p-value reported above was the calculated and resultant P-value for this analysis.|ANOVA|2-Way ANOVA with Fisher's LSD correction for multiple comparisons.||To evaluate if there were differences between pre- and post-intervention data, a 2-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was utilized, with mixed-effects analysis being utilized when data was missing.||||0.0283
90983029|NCT05110300|181850484|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3118||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. The p-value reported above was the calculated and resultant P-value for this analysis.|ANOVA|2-Way ANOVA with Fisher's LSD correction for multiple comparisons.||To evaluate if there were differences between pre- and post-intervention data, a 2-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was utilized, with mixed-effects analysis being utilized when data was missing.||||0.3118
90983030|NCT05110300|181850485|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.213||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||To evaluate differences in average outcome measure score change from baseline to last study session, a 2-sided t-test was used, with non-parametric analysis used as necessary.||||0.213
90983031|NCT05110300|181850485|EQUIVALENCE|MDC of the inpatient stroke population for the BBS was used as the equivalence bounds. Equivalence bounds were set at +/- 6.9|||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90983032|NCT05110300|181850485|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. The p-value reported above was the calculated and resultant P-value for this analysis.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA, with the number of sessions completed as the covariate.||Because each participant may have had a different number of BWSS sessions completed, an ANCOVA was used to assess for mean differences in outcome score change while controlling for the number of BWSS sessions completed||||0.320
90983033|NCT05110300|181850486|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2612||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. The p-value reported above was the calculated and resultant P-value for this analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|Because some values are missing, these data were analyzed by fitting a mixed model, rather than by repeated measures ANOVA.||To evaluate if there were differences between pre- and post-intervention data, a 2-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was utilized, with mixed-effects analysis being utilized when data was missing.||||0.2612
90983034|NCT05110300|181850487|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.541||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. The p-value reported above was the calculated and resultant P-value for this analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|Because some values are missing, these data were analyzed by fitting a mixed model, rather than by repeated measures ANOVA.||To evaluate if there were differences between pre- and post-intervention data, a 2-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was utilized, with mixed-effects analysis being utilized when data was missing.||||0.5410
90983035|NCT05110300|181850488|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6282||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||To evaluate differences in average outcome measure score change from baseline to last study session, a 2-sided t-test was used, with non-parametric analysis used as necessary.||||0.6282
90983036|NCT05110300|181850488|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5056||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. The p-value reported above was the calculated and resultant P-value for this analysis.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA, with the number of sessions completed as the covariate.||Because each participant may have had a different number of BWSS sessions completed, an ANCOVA was used to assess for mean differences in outcome score change while controlling for the number of BWSS sessions completed||||0.5056
90983037|NCT05110300|181850489|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.558||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. The p-value reported above was the calculated and resultant P-value for this analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|Because some values are missing, these data were analyzed by fitting a mixed model, rather than by repeated measures ANOVA.||To evaluate if there were differences between pre- and post-intervention data, a 2-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was utilized, with mixed-effects analysis being utilized when data was missing.||||0.5580
90983038|NCT05110300|181850490|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0897||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. The p-value reported above was the calculated and resultant P-value for this analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|Because some values are missing, these data were analyzed by fitting a mixed model, rather than by repeated measures ANOVA.||To evaluate if there were differences between pre- and post-intervention data, a 2-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was utilized, with mixed-effects analysis being utilized when data was missing.||||0.0897
90983039|NCT05110300|181850491|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0549||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||To evaluate differences in average outcome measure score change from baseline to last study session, a 2-sided t-test was used, with non-parametric analysis used as necessary.||||0.0549
90983040|NCT05110300|181850491|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05626||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. The p-value reported above was the calculated and resultant P-value for this analysis.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA, with the number of sessions completed as the covariate.||Because each participant may have had a different number of BWSS sessions completed, an ANCOVA was used to assess for mean differences in outcome score change while controlling for the number of BWSS sessions completed||||0.05626
90983041|NCT05110300|181850492|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0706||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. The p-value reported above was the calculated and resultant P-value for this analysis.|ANOVA|2-Way ANOVA with Fisher's LSD correction for multiple comparisons.||To evaluate if there were differences between pre- and post-intervention data, a 2-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was utilized, with mixed-effects analysis being utilized when data was missing.||||0.0706
90983042|NCT05110300|181850493|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1629||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. The p-value reported above was the calculated and resultant P-value for this analysis.|ANOVA|2-Way ANOVA with Fisher's LSD correction for multiple comparisons.||To evaluate if there were differences between pre- and post-intervention data, a 2-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was utilized, with mixed-effects analysis being utilized when data was missing.||||0.1629
90983043|NCT05110300|181850494|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4271||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||To evaluate differences in average outcome measure score change from baseline to last study session, a 2-sided t-test was used, with non-parametric analysis used as necessary.||||0.4271
90983044|NCT05110300|181850494|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.419||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. The p-value reported above was the calculated and resultant P-value for this analysis.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA, with the number of sessions completed as the covariate.||Because each participant may have had a different number of BWSS sessions completed, an ANCOVA was used to assess for mean differences in outcome score change while controlling for the number of BWSS sessions completed||||0.4190
90983045|NCT05110300|181850495|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3444||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. The p-value reported above was the calculated and resultant P-value for this analysis.|ANOVA|2-Way ANOVA with Fisher's LSD correction for multiple comparisons.||To evaluate if there were differences between pre- and post-intervention data, a 2-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was utilized, with mixed-effects analysis being utilized when data was missing.||||0.3444
90983046|NCT05110300|181850496|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3581||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. The p-value reported above was the calculated and resultant P-value for this analysis.|ANOVA|2-Way ANOVA with Fisher's LSD correction for multiple comparisons.||To evaluate if there were differences between pre- and post-intervention data, a 2-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was utilized, with mixed-effects analysis being utilized when data was missing.||||0.3581
91039813|NCT05740098|181964422|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi-Square Test Statistic|3.202||||0.074|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Analysis tested for significant main effect of baseline temporal discounting on point-prevalence abstinence at 24-weeks following quit date adjusting for treatment condition.||||0.074
91039814|NCT05740098|181964422|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi-Square Test Statistic|0.491||||0.484|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Analysis tested for significant main effect of baseline temporal discounting on point-prevalence abstinence at 48-weeks following quit date adjusting for treatment condition.||||0.484
90983047|NCT05110300|181850497|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.906||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||To evaluate differences in average outcome measure score change from baseline to last study session, a 2-sided t-test was used, with non-parametric analysis used as necessary.||||0.9060
90983048|NCT05110300|181850497|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0848||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. The p-value reported above was the calculated and resultant P-value for this analysis.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA, with the number of sessions completed as the covariate.||Because each participant may have had a different number of BWSS sessions completed, an ANCOVA was used to assess for mean differences in outcome score change while controlling for the number of BWSS sessions completed||||0.0848
90983049|NCT01843374|181850498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.4081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.12||P-value was estimated using the method of Klein et al. 2007 and Whitehead and Whitehead 1991, stratified by EORTC status and Line of therapy.|Log Rank|The stratification factors included EORTC status and line of therapy as recorded in IVRS/IWRS.|Tremelimumab represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator|H0: No difference between tremelimumab and placebo H1: Difference between tremelimumab and placebo||1.12|0.76|0.4081
90983050|NCT01843374|181850499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.011||||0.926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.793|1.289||Estimated using the methods of Klein et al. 2007 and Whitehead and Whitehead 1991, stratified by EORTC status and line of therapy.|Log Rank||Tremelimumab is the numerator and Placebo the denominator|||1.289|0.793|0.926
90983051|NCT01843374|181850500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.0325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.98||Estimated using the methods of Klein et al. 2007 and Whitehead and Whitehead 1991, stratified by EORTC status and line of therapy.|Log Rank|Stratification factors were EORTC status and Line of therapy|Tremelimumab is the numerator and placebo, the denominator|||0.98|0.68|0.0325
90983052|NCT00955110|181850515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Means Difference|-28.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.6|-16.0||A mixed-effect model for a crossover study was used, including treatment, period, treatment sequence and first-order carryover effect as fixed effects, pre-dose measurement as covariate, and subjects nested within treatment sequence as random effect.|ANCOVA|||||-16.0|-41.6|<0.001
90983053|NCT00955110|181850515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-50.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.4|-37.5||A mixed-effect model for a crossover study was used, including treatment, period, treatment sequence and first-order carryover effect as fixed effects, pre-dose measurement as covariate, and subjects nested within treatment sequence as random effect.|ANCOVA|||||-37.5|-63.4|<0.001
91039815|NCT05740098|181964423|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi-Square Test Statistic|1.063||||0.302|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||The analysis tested for significant association between baseline price sensitivity (latent factor Amplitude) and abstinence at 6-weeks following quit date||||0.302
90983054|NCT00955110|181850515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|5.5||||0.395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|18.3||A mixed-effect model for a crossover study was used, including treatment, period, treatment sequence and first-order carryover effect as fixed effects, pre-dose measurement as covariate, and subjects nested within treatment sequence as random effect.|ANCOVA|||||18.3|-7.3|0.395
90983055|NCT00955110|181850515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|38.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.2|50.8||A mixed-effect model for a crossover study was used, including treatment, period, treatment sequence and first-order carryover effect as fixed effects, pre-dose measurement as covariate, and subjects nested within treatment sequence as random effect.|ANCOVA|||||50.8|25.2|<0.001
90983056|NCT00955110|181850515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|56.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.1|68.9||A mixed-effect model for a crossover study was used, including treatment, period, treatment sequence and first-order carryover effect as fixed effects, pre-dose measurement as covariate, and subjects nested within treatment sequence as random effect.|ANCOVA|||||68.9|43.1|<0.001
90983057|NCT00955110|181850515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|66.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.9|79.7||A mixed-effect model for a crossover study was used, including treatment, period, treatment sequence and first-order carryover effect as fixed effects, pre-dose measurement as covariate, and subjects nested within treatment sequence as random effect.|ANCOVA|||||79.7|53.9|<0.001
90983058|NCT01332435|181850516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
90983059|NCT01332435|181850516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0002
91039816|NCT05740098|181964423|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi-Square Test Statistic|0.788||||0.375|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||The analysis tested for significant association between baseline price sensitivity (latent factor Amplitude) and abstinence at 12-weeks following quit date||||0.375
90983060|NCT01332435|181850517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
90983061|NCT01332435|181850517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0006
90983062|NCT01332435|181850518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
90983063|NCT01332435|181850518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0699||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0699
91039817|NCT05740098|181964423|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi-Square Test Statistic|0.08||||0.777|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||The analysis tested for significant association between baseline price sensitivity (latent factor Amplitude) and abstinence at 24-weeks following quit date||||0.777
91039818|NCT05740098|181964423|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi-Square Test Statistic|0.006||||0.937|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||The analysis tested for significant association between baseline price sensitivity (latent factor Amplitude) and abstinence at 48-weeks following quit date||||0.937
91039819|NCT05740098|181964423|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi-Square Test Statistic|0.172||||0.678|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||The analysis tested for significant association between baseline price sensitivity (latent factor Persistence) and abstinence at 6-weeks following quit date||||0.678
90983064|NCT01332435|181850519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.001
90983065|NCT01332435|181850519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8645||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.8645
90983066|NCT01332435|181850520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.001
90983067|NCT01332435|181850520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.001
90983068|NCT03704051|181850522|EQUIVALENCE|A priori power analysis based on pilot testing with 12 dyads indicated that a sample size of at least 40 dyads would provide 80% power to detect significant within-subjects (condition, i.e., breastfeeding directly from the breast vs. bottle-feeding expressed breast milk) effects at an α = 0.05 Type I error level.||||||0.634|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|All models adjusted for order of conditions, time since last feeding and infant age.||||||0.634
90983069|NCT03704051|181850523|EQUIVALENCE|A priori power analysis based on pilot testing with 12 dyads indicated that a sample size of at least 40 dyads would provide 80% power to detect significant within-subjects (condition, i.e., breastfeeding directly from the breast vs. bottle-feeding expressed breast milk) effects at an α = 0.05 Type I error level.||||||0.115|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|All models adjusted for order of conditions, time since last feeding and infant age.||||||0.115
91039820|NCT05740098|181964423|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi-Square Test Statistic|7.99||||0.018|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||The analysis tested for significant interaction between baseline price sensitivity (latent factor Persistence) and treatment condition for 6-week abstinence outcome||||0.018
91039821|NCT05740098|181964423|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi-Square Test Statistic|0.177||||0.674|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||The analysis tested for significant association between baseline price sensitivity (latent factor Persistence) and abstinence at 12-weeks following quit date||||0.674
91039822|NCT05740098|181964423|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi-Square Test Statistic|0.646||||0.422|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||The analysis tested for significant association between baseline price sensitivity (latent factor Persistence) and abstinence at 24-weeks following quit date||||0.422
91039823|NCT05740098|181964423|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi-Square Test Statistic|0.038||||0.846|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||The analysis tested for significant association between baseline price sensitivity (latent factor Persistence) and abstinence at 48-weeks following quit date||||0.846
91039824|NCT00849797|181964434|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|90.86||||||90.0|85.47|96.6|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||96.60|85.47|
91039825|NCT00849797|181964435|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|98.6||||||90.0|96.59|100.66|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||100.66|96.59|
91039826|NCT00849797|181964436|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|98.74||||||90.0|96.71|100.8|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||100.80|96.71|
91039827|NCT00849797|181964437|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|98.5||||||90.0|95.66|100.48|||||Results presented for informational purposes only; metabolite not subjected to bioequivalence criteria.|||100.48|95.66|
91039828|NCT00849797|181964438|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|100.29||||||90.0|98.96|101.64|||||Results presented for informational purposes only, metabolite not subjected to bioequivalence criteria.|||101.64|98.96|
91039829|NCT00849797|181964439|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|100.08||||||90.0|98.91|101.27|||||Results presented for informational purposes only; metabolite not subjected to bioequivalence criteria.|||101.27|98.91|
91039830|NCT02153645|181964440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|2.6|||ANCOVA|||||2.6|-13.9|0.179
91039831|NCT02153645|181964440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.95||0.458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|5.1|||ANCOVA|||||5.1|-11.2|0.458
91039832|NCT02906917|181964562|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of IDegAsp OD versus IGlar OD + IAsp OD was considered confirmed if the 95% confidence interval for the mean treatment difference was entirely below 0.40%.|Treatment contrast|0.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.21||One-sided p-value for test of non-inferiority.|ANCOVA|Treatment, region, sex, previous insulin treatment and previous OAD treatment as categorical fixed effects and baseline response and age as covariate.||The response and change from baseline in response are analysed on 1000 complete, imputed data sets after multiple imputation for each treatment arm separately. A penalty of 0.4% is added to the week 26 values for all premature treatment discontinued subjects, and subject with missing HbA1c values at week 26 in the IDegAsp arm. Each of the imputed data sets are analysed through an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA).||0.21|-0.06|<0.0001
91039833|NCT00687739|181964574|SUPERIORITY|The primary analysis compared the GnRHAG + E2 and GnRHAG + PL groups, pooled across exercise status. It was acknowledged that the inclusion of exercisers could minimize the effects of GnRHAG but would be reflective of the effects of ovarian hormone suppression on sedentary and active women. Differences in changes across time between groups were tested using an analysis of covariance model conditioned on baseline.|||||<|0.05||||||The p value was calculated|ANCOVA|||The primary analysis was the effect of PL vs E2 collapsed across exercise (2-group comparison). The analysis of effects of exercise was exploratory (evaluated within-group changes only).||||<0.05
91039834|NCT00687739|181964575|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The p value was calculated|ANCOVA|||The primary analysis was the comparison of within-group changes in the E2 and placebo groups for cortisol AUC in response to Dex/CRH and between-group differences in the changes. Within-group changes and between-group differences in changes were evaluated by linear contrast using an ANCOVA model with adjustment for pre-intervention values of outcomes.||||<0.05
91039835|NCT00687739|181964576|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The p value was calculated|ANCOVA|||The primary analysis compared the GnRHag+E2 and GnRHag+PL groups, pooled across exercise status. Differences in change over time between groups were tested by using an ANCOVA model, first with treatment group alone, and again adding FM and FFM to the model.||||<0.05
91039836|NCT02554877|181964579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|-0.48||Two (2)-sided p-values were from mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM) with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 12||-0.48|-1.34|<0.0001
91039837|NCT02554877|181964579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-1.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|-0.73||Two (2)-sided p-values were from mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM) with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 12||-0.73|-1.59|<0.0001
91039838|NCT02554877|181964579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.74||Two (2)-sided p-values were from mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM) with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 12.||-0.74|-1.60|<0.0001
91039839|NCT02554877|181964580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.26||Two (2)-sided p-values were from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects|ANCOVA|Least squares mean (LS mean) difference from placebo adjusted for baseline values was derived from the ANCOVA model||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 2.||-0.26|-0.52|<0.0001
91039840|NCT02554877|181964580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.26||Two (2)-sided p-values were from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects|ANCOVA|LS mean difference from placebo adjusted for baseline values was derived from the ANCOVA model.||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 2.||-0.26|-0.52|<0.0001
91039841|NCT02554877|181964580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.3||Two (2)-sided p-values were from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference from placebo adjusted for baseline values was derived from the ANCOVA model.||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 2.||-0.30|-0.57|<0.0001
91039842|NCT02554877|181964580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.42||Two (2)-sided p-values were from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference from placebo adjusted for baseline values was derived from the ANCOVA model.||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 4.||-0.42|-0.76|<0.0001
91039843|NCT02554877|181964580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.46||Two (2)-sided p-values were from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference from placebo adjusted for baseline values was derived from the ANCOVA model.||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 4.||-0.46|-0.80|<0.0001
91039844|NCT02554877|181964580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.46||Two (2)-sided p-values were from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference from placebo adjusted for baseline values was derived from the ANCOVA model.||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 4.||-0.46|-0.79|<0.0001
91039845|NCT02554877|181964580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|-0.49||Two (2)-sided p-values were from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference from placebo adjusted for baseline values was derived from the ANCOVA model||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 8.||-0.49|-0.93|<0.0001
91039846|NCT02554877|181964580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|-0.74||Two (2)-sided p-values were from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects..|ANCOVA|LS mean difference from placebo adjusted for baseline values was derived from the ANCOVA model.||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 8.||-0.74|-1.17|<0.0001
91039847|NCT02554877|181964580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.76||Two (2)-sided p-values were from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference from placebo adjusted for baseline values was derived from the ANCOVA model.||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 8.||-0.76|-1.20|<0.0001
91039848|NCT02554877|181964581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-37.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.96|-27.7||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 2.||-27.70|-47.96|<0.0001
91039849|NCT02554877|181964581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-44.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.98|-34.72||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 2.||-34.72|-54.98|<0.0001
90983070|NCT01709799|181850541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons, and p \< .05 is the a priori threshold for statistical significance|Mixed Models Analysis|degrees of freedom are (2,90.577)||Occasion main effect. Null hypothesis is no improvement (Occasion main effect has p-value \> .05)||||< .001
90983071|NCT01709799|181850541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.995|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons, and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom are (4,90.564)||Occasion by arm interaction. Null hypothesis of no group differences in improvement (Interaction has p-value \> .05)||||0.995
90983072|NCT01709799|181850542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons, and p \< .05 is the a priori threshold for statistical significance|Mixed Models Analysis|degrees of freedom are (2,97.137)||Occasion main effect. Null hypothesis is no improvement (Occasion main effect has p-value \> .05)||||<.001
90983073|NCT01709799|181850542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.254|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons, and p \< .05 is the a priori threshold for statistical significance|Mixed Models Analysis|degrees of freedom are (4,97.108)||Occasion by arm interaction. Null hypothesis of no group differences in improvement (Interaction has p-value \> .05)||||0.254
90983074|NCT01709799|181850543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons, and p \< .05 is the a priori threshold for statistical significance|Mixed Models Analysis|degrees of freedom are (2,99.647)||Occasion main effect. Null hypothesis is no improvement (Occasion main effect has p-value \> .05)||||<0.001
90983075|NCT01709799|181850543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.781|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons, and p \< .05 is the a priori threshold for statistical significance|Mixed Models Analysis|degrees of freedom are (4,99.601)||Occasion by arm interaction. Null hypothesis of no group differences in improvement (Interaction has p-value \> .05)||||0.781
90983076|NCT01709799|181850544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons, and p \< .05 is the a priori threshold for statistical significance|Mixed Models Analysis|degrees of freedom are (2,102.315)||Occasion main effect. Null hypothesis is no improvement (Occasion main effect has p-value \> .05)||||<0.001
90983077|NCT01709799|181850544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons, and p \< .05 is the a priori threshold for statistical significance|Mixed Models Analysis|degrees of freedom are (4,102.216)||Occasion by arm interaction. Null hypothesis of no group differences in improvement (Interaction has p-value \> .05)||||0.026
90983078|NCT01709799|181850545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons, and p \< .05 is the a priori threshold for statistical significance|Mixed Models Analysis|degrees of freedom are (2,93.240)||Occasion main effect. Null hypothesis is no improvement (Occasion main effect has p-value \> .05)||||<0.001
91039850|NCT02554877|181964581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-48.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.18|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.81|-38.37||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 2.||-38.37|-58.81|<0.0001
90983079|NCT01709799|181850545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.313|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons, and p \< .05 is the a priori threshold for statistical significance|Mixed Models Analysis|degrees of freedom are (4,93.167)||Occasion by arm interaction. Null hypothesis of no group differences in improvement (Interaction has p-value \> .05)||||0.313
90983080|NCT01709799|181850546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons, and p \< .05 is the a priori threshold for statistical significance|Mixed Models Analysis|degrees of freedom are (2,115.573)||Occasion main effect. Null hypothesis is no improvement (Occasion main effect has p-value \> .05)||||0.630
90983081|NCT01709799|181850546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.498|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons, and p \< .05 is the a priori threshold for statistical significance|Mixed Models Analysis|degrees of freedom are (4,115.593)||Occasion by arm interaction. Null hypothesis of no group differences in improvement (Interaction has p-value \> .05)||||0.498
90983082|NCT03167619|181850553|SUPERIORITY||MLE assuming exponential distribution|0.18||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.27|||Chi-squared|Comparison to mean of historical control|Presence of patients with long PFS may have violated exponential assumption.|Assumed median PFS = 2.0 months as historical control, transformed to rate of 0.35/month||0.27|0.11|0.0023
90983083|NCT03167619|181850554|SUPERIORITY||MLE assuming exponential distribution|0.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.19|||Chi-squared|Comparison to mean of historical control|Presence of patients with long PFS may have violated exponential assumption.|Assumed median PFS = 2.0 months as historical control, transformed to rate of 0.35/month||0.19|0.07|<0.0001
90983084|NCT03440112|181850565|SUPERIORITY||Chi-Squared|3.0039||||0.391|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A pair of random-intercept mixed linear models was fitted, a visit model and an interaction model. Visit model included fixed effect of visit and a random intercept by participant. Interaction model adds an interaction by treatment term on top of the visit model. Null hypothesis is that visit by treatment interaction does not explain significant additional variance in clinical outcome scores. Likelihood ratio test comparing the interaction model to the visit model was used to derive a p-value.||||0.391
90983085|NCT03440112|181850566|SUPERIORITY||Chi-Squared|9.4836||||0.02351|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A pair of random-intercept mixed linear models was fitted, a visit model and an interaction model. Visit model included fixed effect of visit and a random intercept by participant. Interaction model adds an interaction by treatment term on top of the visit model. Null hypothesis is that visit by treatment interaction does not explain significant additional variance in clinical outcome scores. Likelihood ratio test comparing the interaction model to the visit model was used to derive a p-value.||||0.02351
90983086|NCT01362322|181850567|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper limit (UL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) on the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratios \[Boostrix-Prev Group over Boostrix-New Group\] for anti-diphtheria (anti-D) antibodies was ≤ 1.5 (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Adjusted radio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.09|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed to demonstrate that Boostrix administered using the new syringe presentation was non-inferior to Boostrix administered using the previous syringe presentation, in terms of immune response to diphteria vaccine antigens, one month after booster vaccination.||1.09|0.85|
90983087|NCT01362322|181850567|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper limit (UL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) on the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratios \[Boostrix-Prev Group over Boostrix-New Group\] for anti-tetanus (anti-T) antibodies was ≤ 1.5 (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Adjusted Ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.1|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed to demonstrate that Boostrix administered using the new syringe presentation was non-inferior to Boostrix administered using the previous syringe presentation, in terms of immune response to tetanus vaccine antigens, one month after booster vaccination.||1.1|0.86|
90983088|NCT01362322|181850568|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper limit (UL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) on the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratios \[Boostrix-Prev Group over Boostrix-New Group\] for anti-pertussis toxoid (anti-PT) antibodies was ≤ 1.5 (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Adjusted Ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.04|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed to demonstrate that Boostrix administered using the new syringe presentation was non-inferior to Boostrix administered using the previous syringe presentation, in terms of immune response to pertussis toxoid vaccine antigens, one month after booster vaccination.||1.04|0.82|
91007951|NCT01021293|181899989|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of Poliorix™ vaccine as compared to OPV vaccine in terms of the immune response to poliovirus type 2 one month after the third vaccine dose. Non-inferiority in terms of immunogenicity to poliovirus antigens was demonstrated if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) on the group difference \[Control Group minus Poliorix Group\] in the percentage of seroprotected subjects|Difference in seroprotection rate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|1.24||||||Non-inferiority of Poliorix™ as compared to OPV||1.24|-1.28|
91007952|NCT01021293|181899989|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of Poliorix™ vaccine as compared to OPV vaccine in terms of the immune response to poliovirus type 3 one month after the third vaccine dose. Non-inferiority in terms of immunogenicity to poliovirus antigens was demonstrated if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) on the group difference \[Control Group minus Poliorix Group\] in the percentage of seroprotected subjects|Difference in seroprotection rate|-1.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|-0.44||||||Non-inferiority of Poliorix™ as compared to OPV||-0.44|-3.9|
91007953|NCT00631969|181899996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.109|||<|0.0001||95.0|-8.562|-5.6561|||ANCOVA|||Power adjustment for 3 primary efficacy variables (3 variables have to be significant in favor of Vardenafil to conclude efficacy). Statistical analysis applies to the total population.||-5.6561|-8.562|< 0.0001
91007954|NCT00631969|181899997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.027|||<|0.0001||95.0|-35.519|-22.534|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to the total population.||-22.534|-35.519|< 0.0001
91007955|NCT00631969|181899998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-38.193|||<|0.0001||95.0|-45.021|-31.366|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to the total population.||-31.366|-45.021|< 0.0001
91007956|NCT00631969|181899999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|34.778|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) adjusted for age group and pooled center.||Statistical analysis applies to the total population.||||<0.0001
91007957|NCT00631969|181900000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.503|||<|0.0001||95.0|-22.424|-10.764|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to the total population.||-10.764|-22.424|< 0.0001
91007958|NCT00631969|181900001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-38.167|||<|0.0001||95.0|-45.261|-31.073|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to the total population.||-31.073|-45.261|< 0.0001
91007959|NCT00631969|181900002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-36.555|||<|0.0001||95.0|-43.645|-29.465|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to the total population.||-29.465|-43.645|< 0.0001
91007960|NCT00631969|181900003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.193|||<|0.0001||95.0|-31.562|-18.824|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to the total population.||-18.824|-31.562|< 0.0001
91007961|NCT00631969|181900005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.703|||<|0.0001||95.0|-30.067|-19.34|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to the total population.||-19.340|-30.067|< 0.0001
91007962|NCT00631969|181900006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.496|||<|0.0001||95.0|-34.865|-24.128|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to the total population.||-24.128|-34.865|< 0.0001
91007963|NCT00631969|181900007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.775|||<|0.0001||95.0|-33.155|-22.394|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to the total population.||-22.394|-33.155|< 0.0001
91007964|NCT00631969|181900008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.326|||<|0.0001||95.0|-29.062|-17.598|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to the total population.||-17.598|-29.062|< 0.0001
91007965|NCT00631969|181900009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.384|||<|0.0001||95.0|-28.594|-18.175|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to the total population.||-18.175|-28.594|< 0.0001
91007966|NCT00631969|181900010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-33.076|||<|0.0001||95.0|-38.745|-27.407|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to the total population.||-27.407|-38.745|< 0.0001
90983089|NCT01362322|181850568|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper limit (UL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) on the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratios \[Boostrix-Prev Group over Boostrix-New Group\] for anti-filamentous haemagglutinin (anti-FHA) antibodies was ≤ 1.5 (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Adjusted Ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.03||||||Analysis was performed to demonstrate that Boostrix administered using the new syringe presentation was non-inferior to Boostrix administered using the previous syringe presentation, in terms of immune response to filamentous haemagglutinin vaccine antigens, one month after booster vaccination.||1.03|0.83|
90983090|NCT01362322|181850568|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper limit (UL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) on the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratios \[Boostrix-Prev Group over Boostrix-New Group\] for anti-pertactin (anti-PRN) antibodies was ≤ 1.5 (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Adjusted ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.13||||||Analysis was performed to demonstrate that Boostrix administered using the new syringe presentation was non-inferior to Boostrix administered using the previous syringe presentation, in terms of immune response to pertactin vaccine antigens, one month after booster vaccination.||1.13|0.85|
90983091|NCT01009463|181850593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.87||||0.181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.06|||Generalized Linear Model|Assuming Negative Binomial distribution with logarithm of time on treatment as an offset variable.||||1.06|0.72|0.181
90983092|NCT01009463|181850593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.81||Nominal p-value|Generalized Linear Model|Assuming Negative Binomial distribution with logarithm of time on treatment as an offset variable.||||0.81|0.54|<0.001
90983093|NCT01009463|181850593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.85||||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.04|||Generalized Linear Model|Assuming Negative Binomial distribution with logarithm of time on treatment as an offset variable.||||1.04|0.70|0.109
90983094|NCT01009463|181850594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.13|||Regression, Cox|||||1.13|0.76|0.430
90983095|NCT01009463|181850594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.89||Nominal p-value|Regression, Cox|||||0.89|0.59|0.002
90983096|NCT01009463|181850594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.04|||Regression, Cox|||||1.04|0.69|0.114
90983097|NCT01009463|181850595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.84||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.05|||Generalized Linear Model|Assuming Negative Binomial distribution with logarithm of time on treatment as an offset variable.||||1.05|0.67|0.125
90983098|NCT01009463|181850595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.78||Nominal p-value|Generalized Linear Model|Assuming Negative Binomial distribution with logarithm of time on treatment as an offset variable||||0.78|0.49|<0.001
90983099|NCT01009463|181850595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.81||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.01|||Generalized Linear Model|Assuming Negative Binomial distribution with logarithm of time on treatment as an offset variable||||1.01|0.64|0.064
90983100|NCT01009463|181850596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.041||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.009|0.072||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.072|0.009|0.011
90983101|NCT01009463|181850596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.058|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.027|0.09||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.090|0.027|<0.001
90983102|NCT01009463|181850596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.064|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.033|0.096||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.096|0.033|<0.001
90983103|NCT00609128|181850615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA with preplanned comparisons was used to generate two tailed P values. Paired t tests were used to make appropriate post-ANOVA comparisons.||"tears were collected in season from eyes of allergic patients with or without olopatadine treatment, that is one eye was treated and the patients other eye was not.~Tears from each patient's eyes were pooled to provide enough volume."||||<0.05
90983104|NCT00843180|181850623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|4.2||unadjusted|t-test, 2 sided||this was a feasibility pilot study CI is descriptor of dispersion|comparison between groups by t-test||4.2|-5.4|0.80
90983105|NCT00843180|181850624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.38|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|2.1||unadjusted|t-test, 2 sided||CI serves as dispersion measure|||2.1|-6.9|0.29
90983106|NCT00843180|181850625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-3.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.9|24.3|||t-test, 2 sided||95% CI is dispersion parameter|||24.3|-31.9|0.78
90983107|NCT00843180|181850626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|13.2|||t-test, 2 sided|unadjusted|95%CI is dispersion measure|||13.2|-9.5|0.70
90983108|NCT03429075|181850637|EQUIVALENCE|ANCOVA||||||0.17|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.17
90983109|NCT01477450|181850666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3
90983110|NCT01477450|181850666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.47
90983111|NCT01477450|181850666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.00
90983112|NCT02234622|181850687|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|-1.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.8|-8.2|0.002
90983113|NCT02234622|181850688|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|-1.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.8|-10.3|0.005
90983114|NCT02234622|181850689|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|-1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.6|-11.9|0.042
90983115|NCT02234622|181850690|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.1|-4.2|0.482
90983116|NCT02234622|181850691|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|1.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.9|-4.7|0.635
90983117|NCT02234622|181850692|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.1|-6.0|0.367
90983118|NCT02234622|181850693|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.0|-0.5|0.668
90983119|NCT05175170|181850777|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-33.902|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||The hypothesis of this analysis was that using the AFFRMED would increase fertility-related knowledge. This paired-samples t-test compares participants' pre- and post-test knowledge scores.||||<.001
90983120|NCT05175170|181850777|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.098|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||The hypothesis of this analysis was that using the AFFRMED would increase fertility-related knowledge. This paired-samples t-test compares participants' pre- and post-test knowledge scores.||||<.001
90983121|NCT05175170|181850778|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.202||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||The hypothesis of this analysis was that using the AFFRMED would increase fertility-related decision self-efficacy. This paired-samples t-test compares participants' pre- and post-test decision self-efficacy scores.||||0.002
91007967|NCT00631969|181900011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|74.449|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) adjusted for pooled centers and age group.||Statistical analysis applies to the total population.||||<0.0001
90983122|NCT05175170|181850778|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.081||||0.051|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||The hypothesis of this analysis was that using the AFFRMED would increase fertility-related decision self-efficacy. This paired-samples t-test compares participants' pre- and post-test decision self-efficacy scores.||||0.051
90983123|NCT01650805|181850782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.074|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified Analysis by Sokal score||||||0.074
90983124|NCT01650805|181850784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified Analysis by Sokal score||||||<0.001
90983125|NCT01650805|181850785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.317|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified Analysis by Sokal score||||||0.317
90983126|NCT02082184|181850881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.114||0.8222|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.8222
90983127|NCT02082184|181850882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.7925|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.7925
90983128|NCT02082184|181850883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.134|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of time spent \<70 mg/dL||||<0.001
90983129|NCT02082184|181850883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068||0.0014|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of time spent \<55 mg/dL||||0.0014
90983130|NCT02082184|181850884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.065||0.0164|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of frequency of episodes \<70 mg/dL||||0.0164
90983131|NCT02082184|181850884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.0017|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of frequency of episodes \<55 mg/dL||||0.0017
90983132|NCT02082184|181850885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.597|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of time spent \>180 mg/dL||||0.5970
90983133|NCT02082184|181850885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.8729|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of time spent \>240 mg/dL||||0.8729
90983134|NCT02082184|181850888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.6075|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Perceived frequency of hyperglycaemia||||0.6075
90983135|NCT02082184|181850888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.2295|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Perceived frequency of hypoglycaemia||||0.2295
90983136|NCT02082184|181850888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Total treatment satisfaction score||||<0.001
90983137|NCT01943539|181850896|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size|0.62||||0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.008
90983138|NCT02413398|181850900|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference in adjusted mean change from baseline (MMRM model)||-0.15|-0.53|<0.001
90983139|NCT02413398|181850901|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|-0.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference in adjusted mean percent change from baseline (MMRM)||-0.69|-2.15|<0.001
90983140|NCT02413398|181850902|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.15||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.73|-6.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference in adjusted mean change from baseline versus placebo (MMRM)||-6.45|-26.73|0.001
90983141|NCT02413398|181850903|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference in adjusted mean change from baseline vs. placebo (MMRM)||0.0|-6.3|<0.050
90983142|NCT03715465|181850904|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.510
90983143|NCT03715465|181850905|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.411|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Per diary||||0.411
90983144|NCT03715465|181850905|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Per wrist actigraphy||||0.920
90983145|NCT03715465|181850906|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.787|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Per diary||||0.787
90983146|NCT03715465|181850906|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.916|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Per wrist actigraphy||||0.916
90983147|NCT03715465|181850907|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Per diary||||0.270
90983148|NCT03715465|181850907|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.406|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Per wrist actigraphy||||0.406
90983149|NCT03715465|181850908|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.635|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Per diary||||0.635
90983150|NCT03715465|181850908|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.383|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Per wrist actigraphy||||0.383
90983151|NCT03715465|181850909|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.456|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.456
90983152|NCT03715465|181850910|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.402|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.402
90983153|NCT03715465|181850911|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.047|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.047
90983154|NCT03715465|181850912|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.525|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.525
90983155|NCT03715465|181850913|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.106|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.106
90983156|NCT03715465|181850914|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.059|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.059
90983157|NCT03715465|181850915|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.007
90983158|NCT03715465|181850916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.246|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.246
90983159|NCT03715465|181850917|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.333|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.333
90983160|NCT02158533|181850918|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|0.4||Hypothesis tests were two-sided with an alpha of 0.05. Control of type 1 error inflation due to multiplicity was achieved by pre-specifying a fixed sequence for statistical tests.|Mixed Models Analysis|ALKS 5461 was compared to pbo using stage-specific MMRM for MADRS-10 Change from Baseline. Model-derived estimates were combined using equal weights.|Estimates below zero favor ALKS 5461.|Analysis was conducted for each stage separately and overall efficacy was based on combined stage analysis where stage-specific estimates were combined using pre-specified equal weights. Within each stage ALKS 5461 2mg/2mg was compared to placebo (i.e., ALKS 5461 2mg/2mg S1 vs Placebo S1; and ALKS 5461 2mg/2mg S2 vs Placebo S2. The pre-specified order of hypothesis tests was ALKS 5461 2/2 compared to placebo followed by ALKS 5461 0.5mg/0.5mg compared to placebo.||0.4|-4.1|0.109
90983161|NCT02158533|181850918|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17||0.975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|2.3||Hypothesis tests were two-sided with an alpha of 0.05. Control of type 1 error inflation due to multiplicity was achieved by pre-specifying a fixed sequence for statistical tests.|Mixed Models Analysis|ALKS 5461 was compared to pbo using stage-specific MMRM for MADRS-10 Change from Baseline. Model-derived estimates were combined using equal weights.|Estimates below zero favor ALKS 5461.|Analysis was conducted for each stage separately and overall efficacy was based on combined stage analysis where stage-specific estimates were combined using pre-specified equal weights. Within each stage ALKS 5461 0.5mg/0.5mg was compared to placebo (i.e., ALKS 5461 0.5mg/0.5mg S1 vs Placebo S1; and ALKS 5461 0.5mg/0.5mg S2 vs Placebo S2). The pre-specified order of hypothesis tests was ALKS 5461 2/2 compared to placebo followed by ALKS 5461 0.5/0.5 compared to placebo.||2.3|-2.3|0.975
90983162|NCT01475955|181850924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0041||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Pearson chi-square||||0.0041
90983163|NCT02498652|181851017|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|103.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.7|117.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effect for treatment and random effects for subjects.||||117|90.7|
90983164|NCT02498652|181851017|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|92.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.1|110.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effect for treatment and random effects for subjects.||||110|78.1|
90983165|NCT02498652|181851017|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|102.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.7|120.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effect for treatment and random effects for subjects. GLMSRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||120|85.7|
90983166|NCT02498652|181851017|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|88.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.4|101.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effect for treatment and random effects for subjects. GLMSRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||101|78.4|
90983167|NCT02498652|181851017|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.7|114.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effect for treatment and random effects for subjects. GLMSRs are back-transformed to the original scale||||114|87.7|
90983168|NCT02498652|181851017|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|101.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.5|119.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effect for treatment and random effects for subjects. GLMSRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||119|85.5|
90983169|NCT02498652|181851020|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.3|107.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effect for treatment and random effects for subjects. GLMSRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||107|94.3|
91039851|NCT02554877|181964581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-30.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.52|-18.74||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 4.||-18.74|-42.52|<0.0001
90983170|NCT02498652|181851020|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|98.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.4|106.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effect for treatment and random effects for subjects. GLMSRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||106|90.4|
90983171|NCT02498652|181851020|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|104.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.5|114.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effect for treatment and random effects for subjects. GLMSRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||114|94.5|
90983172|NCT02498652|181851020|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|92.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.7|97.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effect for treatment and random effects for subjects. GLMSRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||97.7|86.7|
90983173|NCT02498652|181851020|NON_INFERIORITY|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|98.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.0|107.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effect for treatment and random effects for subjects. GLMSRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||107|91.0|
90983174|NCT02498652|181851020|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|97.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.8|102.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effect for treatment and random effects for subjects. GLMSRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||102|92.8|
90983175|NCT01078753|181851026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.813||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.462|3.163||Desmopressin was considered to be superior to Placebo if the p-value for the comparison was \< 0.05 and the reduction from Baseline in number of wet nights was larger in the FE992026 group than in the Placebo group.|ANCOVA|Factors in the analysis were Gender (male, female), age (6≤x≤9, 10≤x≤15), number of wet nights at Baseline (10≤x≤13, x=14), and treatment group.||||3.163|0.462|0.009
90983176|NCT01078753|181851027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares mean Difference|1.629||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.287|2.972|||ANCOVA|Factors in the analysis were Gender (male, female), age (6≤x≤9, 10≤x≤15), number of wet nights at Baseline (10≤x≤13, x=14), and treatment group.||||2.972|0.287|0.018
90983177|NCT01078753|181851028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.183||||0.752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.968|1.335|||ANCOVA|Factors in the analysis included Gender (male, female), age (6≤x≤9, 10≤x≤15), number of wet nights at Baseline (10≤x≤13, x=14), and treatment group.||||1.335|-0.968|0.752
90983178|NCT01184989|181851030|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioavailability analysis|Ratio|102.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.8||||90.0|97.64|106.893|||Geometric Mean||Dispersion value is actually the intraindividual gCV.|Estimated local measurements are compared to HPLC-MS/MS measurements. The comparison was done for the 136 quantifiable measurements.||106.893|97.640|
90983179|NCT01184989|181851031|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioavailability analysis|Ratio|92.37|STANDARD_DEVIATION|23.5||||90.0|90.079|94.719|||Geometric Mean||The Dispersion Value is actually the intraindividual gCV.|Estimated central measurements are compared to HPLC-MS/MS measurements. The comparison was done for the 468 quantifiable measurements.||94.719|90.079|
90983180|NCT03826914|181851051|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.43||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.846|-0.015||The threshold of significance was P=0.05|Anaylsis of Covariance||Placebo - Cardioflex|The primary analysis was conducted using the post-treatment biomarker value, comparing the two groups, and controlling for their baseline values by using analysis of covariance. In this study, the dependent variable was the biomarkers being tested, the controlled independent variable was the treatment given and the uncontrolled variables were the baseline differences between participants.||-0.015|-0.846|0.042
90983181|NCT03826914|181851052|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.772||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|-2.24||The threshold of significance was P=0.05|Anaylsis of Covariance|||The primary analysis was conducted using the post-treatment biomarker value, comparing the two groups, and controlling for their baseline values by using analysis of covariance. In this study, the dependent variable was the biomarkers being tested, the controlled independent variable was the treatment given and the uncontrolled variables were the baseline differences between participants.||-2.24|-11.2|0.04
90983182|NCT04334148|181851055|OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.200
90983183|NCT04334148|181851056|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||1.0
90983184|NCT04334148|181851057|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.802|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.802
90983185|NCT05370157|181851058|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|7.74|||Regression, Linear|Satterthwaite Approximation||Intent-to-treat analyses tested changes in knowledge from baseline to follow-up using linear mixed models. Mixed models analyses were conducted in R using the lme4 package and restricted maximum likelihood estimation (REML). Models included fixed effects of time (baseline vs. follow-up), intervention condition, and their interaction as well as random effects for person and team. We used the clubSandwich package to calculate cluster robust standard errors.||7.74|0.76|.03
91039852|NCT02554877|181964581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-39.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.13|-27.35||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 4.||-27.35|-51.13|<0.0001
90983186|NCT05370157|181851059|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2|||Regression, Linear|Satterthwaite Approximation||Intent-to-treat analyses tested changes in skill use from baseline to follow-up using linear mixed models. Mixed models analyses were conducted in R using the lme4 package and restricted maximum likelihood estimation (REML). Models included fixed effects of time (baseline vs. follow-up), intervention condition, and their interaction as well as random effects for person and team. We used the clubSandwich package to calculate cluster robust standard errors.||0.20|-0.40|.30
90983187|NCT05370157|181851063|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|0.79|||Regression, Linear|||Intent-to-treat analyses tested changes in psychological safety from baseline to follow-up using linear mixed models. Mixed models analyses were conducted in R using the lme4 package and restricted maximum likelihood estimation (REML). Models included fixed effects of time (baseline vs. follow-up), intervention condition, and their interaction as well as random effects for person and team. We used the clubSandwich package to calculate cluster robust standard errors.||0.79|-1.25|.45
90983188|NCT05370157|181851064|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.4|||Regression, Linear|||Intent-to-treat analyses tested changes in learning behavior from baseline to follow-up using linear mixed models. Mixed models analyses were conducted in R using the lme4 package and restricted maximum likelihood estimation (REML). Models included fixed effects of time (baseline vs. follow-up), intervention condition, and their interaction as well as random effects for person and team. We used the clubSandwich package to calculate cluster robust standard errors.||0.40|-0.44|.89
90983189|NCT05370157|181851065|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|1.36|||Regression, Linear|||Intent-to-treat analyses tested changes in team performance from baseline to follow-up using linear mixed models. Mixed models analyses were conducted in R using the lme4 package and restricted maximum likelihood estimation (REML). Models included fixed effects of time (baseline vs. follow-up), intervention condition, and their interaction as well as random effects for person and team. We used the clubSandwich package to calculate cluster robust standard errors.||1.36|-1.51|.85
90983190|NCT01508676|181851066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.04
90983191|NCT06129487|181851078|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.256|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.256
90983192|NCT03772327|181851079|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.333||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.028|0.694|||t-test, 2 sided|A ratio of Week 12 to baseline TFV-DP levels was used rather than a raw difference as a ratio was normally distributed.|The mean difference is mean ratio (Week 12 TFV-DP level over the Week 0 TFV-DP level) in the Routine counseling + AdhereTech bottle arm less the mean ratio in the Routine counseling arm.|The power calculation was based on a null hypothesis of no difference in mean tenofovir-diphosphate (TFV-DP) concentrations between baseline versus week 12. Expected baseline mean (SD): 900 (404) fmol/punch. 12 week mean (SD): 1332 (597) fmol/punch in the AdhereTech bottle arm vs. 900 (404) fmol/punch in control arm. Type 1 error = 0.05, power = 80%, a sample size of 32 per arm (64 total) based on a two-sided t-test with equal variance.||0.694|-0.028|0.070
91039853|NCT02554877|181964581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-38.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.22|-26.38||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 4.||-26.38|-50.22|<0.0001
91039854|NCT02554877|181964581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-19.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.29||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.88|-7.05||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 8.||-7.05|-31.88|0.0023
91039855|NCT02554877|181964581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-36.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.23|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.27|-24.69||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 8.||-24.69|-49.27|<0.0001
91039856|NCT02554877|181964581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-35.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.29|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.55|-22.72||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 8.||-22.72|-47.55|<0.0001
91039857|NCT02554877|181964581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-19.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.1||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.81|-7.73||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 12.||-7.73|-31.81|0.0014
91039858|NCT02554877|181964581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-35.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.17|-23.35||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 12||-23.35|-47.17|<0.0001
91039859|NCT02554877|181964581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-36.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.43|-24.46||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 12||-24.46|-48.43|<0.0001
91039860|NCT02554877|181964582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.057||||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.68|21.82||P-value was derived from the logistic regression model with treatment (categorical) and baseline HbA1c as covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 12 (HbA1C\<7%)||21.82|1.68|0.0059
91039861|NCT02554877|181964582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.927||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.49|31.96||P-value was derived from the logistic regression model with treatment (categorical) and baseline HbA1c as covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 12 (HbA1C\<7%)||31.96|2.49|0.0008
91039862|NCT02554877|181964582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|15.116|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.34|52.67||P-value was derived from the logistic regression model with treatment (categorical) and baseline HbA1c as covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 12 (HbA1C\<7%)||52.67|4.34|<0.0001
91039863|NCT02554877|181964582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.34||||0.1532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|17.47||P-value was derived from the logistic regression model with treatment (categorical) and baseline HbA1c as covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 12 (HbA1C\<6.5%)||17.47|0.64|0.1532
91039864|NCT02554877|181964582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|4.198||||0.0826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|21.22||P-value was derived from the logistic regression model with treatment (categorical) and baseline HbA1c as covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 12 (HbA1C\<6.5%)||21.22|0.83|0.0826
90983193|NCT03772327|181851080|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence defined if a two-sided 2 sample proportion test accepts the null hypothesis with p \> 0.05.|Difference in proportions|0.045||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.179|0.27|||Chi-squared, Corrected|degrees of freedom = 1|This is the proportion of those completing a week 12 visit less those completing a week 0 visit.|The null hypothesis is that the proportion of randomized participants that complete a week 12 visit is not lower in the AdhereTech bottle arm.||0.270|-0.179|0.89
90983194|NCT03772327|181851081|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.07||||0.328|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|Log transformation of viral load|Difference of log viral load at Week 12 less the log viral load at baseline|Null hypothesis: Mean HIV viral load is not significantly different in the AdhereTech bottle group compared to the routine counseling only group.||||0.328
90983195|NCT03772327|181851082|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.395||||0.294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.058|2.044|||Fisher Exact||Odds ratio for change from HIV RNA ≥ 20 copies/mL at baseline to HIV RNA \< 20 copies/mL at week 12 due to the intervention (AdhereTech bottle).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference in proportion of participants that go from HIV RNA ≥ 20 copies/mL to HIV RNA \< 20 copies/mL between baseline to Week 12 in the AdhereTech bottle group compared the routine counseling group.||2.044|0.058|0.294
90983196|NCT03772327|181851084|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|0.019||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.237|0.276|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Null hypothesis: Adherence in the AdhereTech bottle arm is not better than the control arm at Week 12.||0.276|-0.237|1
90983197|NCT04689828|181851085|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.41||||1e-08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.56|||Log Rank|Stratified||||0.56|0.29|0.00000001
90983198|NCT04689828|181851086|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.14|||stratified Cox PH model|||||1.14|0.72|0.20
90983199|NCT00195351|181851106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.0||||0.009||95.0|-13.1|5.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.1|-13.1|0.009
90983200|NCT00195351|181851107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.4||||0.02||95.0|-14.5|7.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||||7.8|-14.5|0.020
90983201|NCT00195351|181851108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.9||||0.015||95.0|-13.9|8.1|||Method of Mehrotra and Railkar|||||8.1|-13.9|0.015
90983202|NCT03959189|181851110|SUPERIORITY||mixed effects model|-0.0796|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2768||0.7746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed effects model will be used to compare SSS effects following ERX-963 versus placebo. In the primary analysis of SSS, the cohort 1 and cohort 2 data were combined for ERX-963 and placebo treatments.||0.5|-0.6|0.7746
90983203|NCT03959189|181851110|SUPERIORITY||mixed effects model|-0.2608|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3589||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed effects model will be used to compare SSS effects following 1 mg ERX-963 versus placebo. In this analysis of SSS, the effect of 1 mg ERX-963 treatment was compared to the effect of placebo treatment.||0.5|-1.0|0.4700
90983204|NCT03959189|181851110|SUPERIORITY||mixed effects model|0.1016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4272||0.8127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed effects model will be used to compare SSS effects following 2 mg ERX-963 versus placebo. In this analysis of SSS, the effect of 2 mg ERX-963 treatment was compared to the effect of placebo treatment.||1.0|-0.8|0.8127
90983205|NCT01480180|181851140|OTHER||Poisson estimate|3.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.94|4.66||P-values are from the 1-sided test of the null hypothesis that the ABR is at least 8.5 evaluated at the 2.5% level.|Poisson regression|||The analysis is based on a Poisson regression model allowing for over-dispersion. For participants withdrawing prematurely, the log planned treatment duration is used as offset; for completers, the log actual treatment duration is used.||4.66|2.94|<0.001
90983206|NCT01480180|181851142|OTHER||Poisson estimate|3.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.59|4.11||P-values are from the 1-sided test of the null hypothesis that the ABR is at least 8.5 evaluated at the 2.5% level.|Poisson regression|||The analysis is based on a Poisson regression model allowing for over-dispersion. For participants withdrawing prematurely, the log planned treatment duration is used as offset; for completers, the log actual treatment duration is used.||4.11|2.59|<0.001
90983207|NCT01480180|181851144|OTHER||Poisson estimate|2.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.87|2.95||P-values are from the 1-sided test of the null hypothesis that the ABR is at least 8.5 evaluated at the 2.5% level.|Poisson regression|||The analysis is based on a Poisson regression model allowing for over-dispersion. For participants withdrawing prematurely, the log planned treatment duration is used as offset; for completers, the log actual treatment duration is used.||2.95|1.87|<0.001
90983208|NCT01480180|181851144|OTHER||Poisson estimate|4.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.09|6.24||P-values are from the 1-sided test of the null hypothesis that the ABR is at least 8.5 evaluated at the 2.5% level.|Poisson regression|||The analysis is based on a Poisson regression model allowing for over-dispersion. For participants withdrawing prematurely, the log planned treatment duration is used as offset; for completers, the log actual treatment duration is used.||6.24|3.09|<0.001
90983209|NCT02513446|181851217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted gMean T/R ratio|176.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|160.5|193.2|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale; Fixed effects: sequence, period and treatment; Random effects: subjects within sequences|Ratio of the treatment adjusted geometric means (gMean) of (T) versus (R).|||193.2|160.5|
90983210|NCT02513446|181851218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted gMean T/R ratio|136.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|109.9|169.4|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale; Fixed effects: sequence, period and treatment; Random effects: subjects within sequences|Ratio of the treatment adjusted geometric means (gMean) of (T) versus (R).|||169.4|109.9|
90983211|NCT02513446|181851219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted gMean T/R ratio|174.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|159.1|192.0|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale; Fixed effects: sequence, period and treatment; Random effects: subjects within sequences|Ratio of the treatment adjusted geometric means (gMean) of (T) versus (R).|||192.0|159.1|
90983212|NCT04323488|181851228|OTHER|||||||0.925||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group analysis of change from baseline and post-intervention (within 2 weeks post-intervention)||||0.925
90983213|NCT04323488|181851228|OTHER|||||||0.834||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group analysis of change from baseline and post-intervention (within 2 weeks post-intervention)||||0.834
90983214|NCT04323488|181851228|OTHER|||||||0.18||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group analysis of change from baseline and 1 year follow up||||0.180
90983215|NCT04323488|181851228|OTHER|||||||0.091||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group analysis of change from baseline and 1 year follow up||||0.091
91039865|NCT02554877|181964582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.588||||0.0272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|25.73||P-value was derived from the logistic regression model with treatment (categorical) and baseline HbA1c as covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 12 (HbA1C\<6.5%)||25.73|1.21|0.0272
91039866|NCT02554877|181964587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4||0.7618|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.66|4.59||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 2.||4.59|-6.66|0.7618
91039867|NCT02554877|181964587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.39||0.8489|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.25|4.96||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 2.||4.96|-6.25|0.8489
91039868|NCT02554877|181964587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|2.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.42||0.4699|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.17|8.12||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 2.||8.12|-3.17|0.4699
91039869|NCT02554877|181964587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-2.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.27||0.4979|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.63|3.19||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 4.||3.19|-7.63|0.4979
90983216|NCT04323488|181851229|OTHER|||||||0.524||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group analysis of change from baseline and post-intervention (within 2 weeks post-intervention)||||0.524
90983217|NCT04323488|181851229|OTHER|||||||0.379||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group analysis of change from baseline and post-intervention (within 2 weeks post-intervention)||||0.379
90983218|NCT04323488|181851229|OTHER|||||||0.01||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group analysis of change from baseline and 1 year follow up||||0.010
90983219|NCT04323488|181851229|OTHER|||||||0.017||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group analysis of change from baseline and 1 year follow up||||0.017
90983220|NCT04323488|181851230|OTHER|||||||0.6||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group analysis of change from baseline and post-intervention (within 2 weeks post-intervention)||||0.60
90983221|NCT04323488|181851230|OTHER|||||||0.03||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group analysis of change from baseline and post-intervention (within 2 weeks post-intervention)||||0.03
90983222|NCT04323488|181851230|OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group analysis of change from baseline and 1 year follow up||||0.60
90983223|NCT04323488|181851230|OTHER|||||||0.03||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group analysis of change from baseline and 1 year follow up||||0.03
91039870|NCT02554877|181964587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-3.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.27||0.2927|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.85|1.95||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 4.||1.95|-8.85|0.2927
91039871|NCT02554877|181964587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-4.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.28||0.143|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.26|0.6||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 4.||0.60|-10.26|0.1430
90983224|NCT04323488|181851231|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group analysis of change from baseline and post-intervention (within 2 weeks post-intervention)||||< 0.001
90983225|NCT04323488|181851231|OTHER|||||||0.29||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group analysis of change from baseline and post-intervention (within 2 weeks post-intervention)||||0.29
90983226|NCT04323488|181851231|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group analysis of change from baseline and 1 year follow up||||< 0.001
90983227|NCT04323488|181851231|OTHER|||||||0.26||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group analysis of change from baseline and 1 year follow up||||0.26
90983228|NCT05755438|181851245|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.09||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.659|5.744|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by IGA-CPG-S score (2 or ≥3) and geographic region (North America or outside of North America).||||5.744|1.659|0.0003
90983229|NCT05755438|181851245|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|23.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.372|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.42|36.39||||||||36.39|11.42|
90983230|NCT05755438|181851246|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.91||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|6.033|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by IGA-CPG-S score (2 or ≥3) and geographic region (North America or outside of North America).||||6.033|1.400|0.0034
90983231|NCT05755438|181851246|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|16.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.587|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.82|27.72||||||||27.72|5.82|
90983232|NCT05755438|181851247|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.46||||0.0164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.206|16.485|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by IGA-CPG-S score (2 or ≥3) and geographic region (North America or outside of North America).||||16.485|1.206|0.0164
90983233|NCT05755438|181851247|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|8.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.591|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.71|15.79||||||||15.79|1.71|
90983234|NCT05755438|181851248|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.67||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.486|14.647|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by IGA-CPG-S score (2 or ≥3) and geographic region (North America or outside of North America).||||14.647|1.486|0.0048
90983235|NCT05755438|181851248|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|11.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.06|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.71|19.62||||||||19.62|3.71|
90983236|NCT05755438|181851249|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.5||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.422|8.608|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by IGA-CPG-S score (2 or ≥3) and geographic region (North America or outside of North America).||||8.608|1.422|0.0064
90983237|NCT05755438|181851249|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|14.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.008|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.54|24.17||||||||24.17|4.54|
90983238|NCT05755438|181851250|SUPERIORITY||Least squares Mean Difference|-0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|-0.44|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|MMRM model: (Response Variable = Treatment + Stratification Factors \[IGA-CPG-S/Region\] + Visit + Treatment\*Visit)||Week 2||-0.44|-1.54|0.0005
90983239|NCT05755438|181851250|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.352|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|-0.73|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|MMRM model: (Response Variable = Treatment + Stratification Factors \[IGA-CPG-S/Region\] + Visit + Treatment\*Visit)||Week 4||-0.73|-2.11|<0.0001
90983240|NCT05755438|181851250|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.378|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.43|-0.94|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|MMRM model: (Response Variable = Treatment + Stratification Factors \[IGA-CPG-S/Region\] + Visit + Treatment\*Visit)||Week 8||-0.94|-2.43|<0.0001
90983241|NCT05755438|181851250|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.386|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.43|-0.91|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|MMRM model: (Response Variable = Treatment + Stratification Factors \[IGA-CPG-S/Region\] + Visit + Treatment\*Visit)||Week 12||-0.91|-2.43|<0.0001
90983242|NCT05755438|181851253|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.925|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.406|2.636|||Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factors between treatment and vehicle.|Cox regression model stratified by stratification factors (Baseline IGA 2/3, Region North America/ Outside of North America) was conducted to compare the difference in hazard rate between treatment and vehicle.|||2.636|1.406|<0.0001
90983243|NCT05755438|181851254|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.111||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.419|3.139|||Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factors between treatment and vehicle.|Cox regression model stratified by stratification factors (Baseline IGA 2/3, Region North America/ Outside of North America) was conducted to compare the difference in hazard rate between treatment and vehicle.|||3.139|1.419|0.0002
90983244|NCT05755438|181851257|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.264||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.16|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Week 2||-0.16|-1.20|0.0111
90983245|NCT05755438|181851257|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.342||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|-0.47|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Week 4||-0.47|-1.82|0.0010
90983246|NCT05755438|181851257|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.372||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|-0.37|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Week 8||-0.37|-1.84|0.0034
90983247|NCT05755438|181851257|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.387||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.37|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Week 12||-0.37|-1.90|0.0038
90983248|NCT05755438|181851263|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.826||0.8028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|1.42|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|MMRM model: (Response Variable = Treatment + Stratification Factors \[IGA-CPG-S/Region\] + Visit + Treatment\*Visit)||Week 2||1.42|-1.84|0.8028
90983249|NCT05755438|181851263|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.928||0.7151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.17|1.49|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|MMRM model: (Response Variable = Treatment + Stratification Factors \[IGA-CPG-S/Region\] + Visit + Treatment\*Visit)||Week 4||1.49|-2.17|0.7151
90983250|NCT05755438|181851263|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.947||0.2569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.95|0.79|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|MMRM model: (Response Variable = Treatment + Stratification Factors \[IGA-CPG-S/Region\] + Visit + Treatment\*Visit)||Week 8||0.79|-2.95|0.2569
90983251|NCT05755438|181851263|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.971||0.1555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|0.53|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|MMRM model: (Response Variable = Treatment + Stratification Factors \[IGA-CPG-S/Region\] + Visit + Treatment\*Visit)||Week 12||0.53|-3.30|0.1555
90983252|NCT05755438|181851265|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.722||0.0736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|10.27|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|MMRM model: (Response Variable = Treatment + Stratification Factors \[IGA-CPG-S/Region\] + Visit + Treatment\*Visit)||Week 2||10.27|-0.47|0.0736
90983253|NCT05755438|181851265|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.729||0.2265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|8.69|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|MMRM model: (Response Variable = Treatment + Stratification Factors \[IGA-CPG-S/Region\] + Visit + Treatment\*Visit)||Week 4||8.69|-2.07|0.2265
91039872|NCT02554877|181964587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.73||0.7373|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.42|4.92||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 8.||4.92|-7.42|0.7373
91039873|NCT02554877|181964587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-2.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7||0.5075|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.57|3.66||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 8.||3.66|-8.57|0.5075
91039874|NCT02554877|181964587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-1.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.74||0.6295|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.99|4.37||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 8.||4.37|-7.99|0.6295
91039875|NCT02554877|181964587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|3.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.95||0.4266|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.39|9.69||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 12.||9.69|-3.39|0.4266
91039876|NCT02554877|181964587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|4.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.89||0.2038|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.47|11.4||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 12.||11.40|-1.47|0.2038
91039877|NCT02554877|181964587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|2.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.92||0.5592|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.19|8.78||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 12.||8.78|-4.19|0.5592
91039878|NCT02554877|181964588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|5.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.86|16.05||||||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 2.||16.05|-5.86|
91039879|NCT02554877|181964588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|2.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.76|15.48||||||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 2.||15.48|-9.76|
91039880|NCT02554877|181964588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|17.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.91|30.34||||||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 2.||30.34|3.91|
91039881|NCT02554877|181964588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|2.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.8|16.22||||||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 4.||16.22|-10.80|
91039882|NCT02554877|181964588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|2.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.61|16.45||||||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 4.||16.45|-10.61|
91039883|NCT02554877|181964588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-2.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.08|9.94||||||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 4.||9.94|-15.08|
91039884|NCT02554877|181964588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-1.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.29|13.03||||||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 8.||13.03|-16.29|
91039885|NCT02554877|181964588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-4.59|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.4|11.22||||||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 8.||11.22|-20.40|
91039886|NCT02554877|181964588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|2.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.66|19.16||||||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 8.||19.16|-13.66|
91039887|NCT02554877|181964588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|7.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.3|19.02||||||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 12.||19.02|-3.30|
91039888|NCT02554877|181964588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.13|13.87||||||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 12.||13.87|-16.13|
91039889|NCT02554877|181964588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|5.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.07|19.04||||||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 12.||19.04|-7.07|
91039890|NCT02554877|181964589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.52||0.68|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.12|5.2||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 2.||5.20|-3.12|0.6800
91039891|NCT02554877|181964589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|1.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.52||0.515|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.52|5.8||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 2.||5.80|-2.52|0.5150
91039892|NCT02554877|181964589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|4.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.53||0.0676|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.47|8.85||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 2.||8.85|0.47|0.0676
90983254|NCT05755438|181851265|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|7.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.061||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|13.35|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|MMRM model: (Response Variable = Treatment + Stratification Factors \[IGA-CPG-S/Region\] + Visit + Treatment\*Visit)||Week 8||13.35|1.27|0.0180
90983255|NCT05755438|181851265|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.119||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|12.06|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|MMRM model: (Response Variable = Treatment + Stratification Factors \[IGA-CPG-S/Region\] + Visit + Treatment\*Visit)||Week 12||12.06|-0.25|0.0600
90983256|NCT00624338|181851305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.82||Odds ratios were calculated from a logistic regression model adjusted for race and disease severity reported at screening.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.82|0.74|0.518
90983257|NCT00624338|181851305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.49||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.78||Odds ratios were calculated from a logistic regression model adjusted for race and disease severity reported at screening.|Regression, Logistic|Atacicept 150 mg arm was discontinued prematurely. The analysis of 150 mg was considered post-hoc.||||0.78|0.31|0.003
90983258|NCT00624338|181851306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.984||||0.929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.4||Cox proportional hazards model was performed to calculate hazard ratios and adjusted for race and disease severity at time of screening.|Regression, Cox|||||1.40|0.69|0.929
90983259|NCT00624338|181851306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.562||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.87||Cox proportional hazards model was performed to calculate hazard ratios and adjusted for race and disease severity at time of screening.|Regression, Cox|Atacicept 150 mg arm was discontinued prematurely. The analysis of 150 mg was considered post-hoc.||||0.87|0.36|0.009
90983260|NCT00624338|181851307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.215||||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.94||Odds ratios were calculated from a logistic regression model, adjusted for race and disease severity reported at screening.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.94|0.76|0.412
90983261|NCT00624338|181851307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.722||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.19||Odds ratios were calculated from a logistic regression model, adjusted for race and disease severity reported at screening.|Regression, Logistic|Atacicept 150 mg arm was discontinued prematurely. The analysis of 150 mg was considered post-hoc.||||1.19|0.44|0.198
91039893|NCT02554877|181964589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.48||0.8021|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.73|3.48||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 4.||3.48|-4.73|0.8021
90983262|NCT03476850|181851330|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.883|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||An a priori sample size calculation found 24 subjects per group (48 total) provided \>80% power to detect a 2 unit difference in patient reported pain based on a 2-sided test and significance level a = 0.05 assuming at least 3 measures per subject and a within subject covariance having a compound symmetric structure with a standard deviation in pain score of 3 units and within subject correlation of 0.5.||||.883
90983263|NCT03476850|181851331|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.25||||0.977|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.977
90983264|NCT03476850|181851332|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.9||||0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||.009
90983265|NCT03476850|181851334|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|18.0||||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.110
90983266|NCT03476850|181851335|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.26||||0.719|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.719
90983267|NCT01476787|181851336|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.128|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.128
90983268|NCT01476787|181851337|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.756|1.12|||Log Rank|||||1.120|0.756|0.406
90983269|NCT01476787|181851339|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.038|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.854|1.261||||||||1.261|0.854|
90983270|NCT01476787|181851340|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.775|1.395||||||||1.395|0.775|
90983271|NCT01476787|181851341|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.809|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.651|1.006|||Regression, Cox|||||1.006|0.651|
90983272|NCT02912364|181851342|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.34|||t-test, 2 sided|degrees of freedom = 22||||.34|.13|< .001
90983273|NCT02912364|181851343|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.79|||t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 22.||||.79|.30|< .001
91039894|NCT02554877|181964589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-1.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.49||0.4346|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.06|2.16||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 4.||2.16|-6.06|0.4346
91006706|NCT00211536|181897835|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For the average A1C, the goal was to show non-inferiority of MIP compared to SC. The minimal clinically relevant increase in A1C (%) was set at 0.50%. The between-subjects standard deviation of A1C was assumed to be 1.0% based on previous studies.|Least square means|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures analysis of variance, adjusting for baseline A1C using SAS Proc Mixed to compare A1C trends over time between the treatment groups||Sample size calculations were performed on the primary endpoint: the average glycosylated hemoglobin (A1C). Sample size was estimated using a two-sample, one-sided t-test with a significance level of 0.05. The projected sample size of 50 subjects per treatment group provides 79% power to reject the null hypothesis in favor of the alternative hypothesis that the average A1C in both the MIP and SC groups are equivalent, assuming an effect size of 0.50% and a standard deviation of 1.0%.||0.5||<0.05
91006707|NCT02530281|181897853|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91006708|NCT02530281|181897854|OTHER||||||=|0.065|||||||ANCOVA|Ranked ANCOVA||||||=0.065
91006709|NCT02530281|181897855|OTHER||||||=|0.065|||||||ANCOVA|Ranked ANCOVA||||||=0.065
91006710|NCT02530281|181897856|OTHER||||||=|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|Ranked ANCOVA||||||=0.001
91006711|NCT02530281|181897857|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91006712|NCT02530281|181897858|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91006713|NCT00535236|181897862|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical criterion corresponds to the lower bound of the two-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) on the GMFR in the vaccine recipients being \>1.0|Single longitudinal regression model|Adjusted for prevaccination values||||||<0.001
91006714|NCT00535236|181897862|OTHER|||||||0.003||||||Statistical criterion corresponds to the lower bound of the two-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) on the GMFR in the vaccine recipients being \>1.0|Single longitudinal regression model|Adjusted for prevaccination values||||||0.003
91006715|NCT00535236|181897862|OTHER|||||||0.017||||||Statistical criterion corresponds to the lower bound of the two-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) on the GMFR in the vaccine recipients being \>1.0|Single longitudinal regression model|Adjusted for prevaccination values||||||0.017
91006716|NCT00535236|181897863|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical criterion corresponds to the lower bound of the two-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) on the GMFR in the vaccine recipients being \>1.0|Single longitudinal regression model|Adjustied for prevaccination values||||||<0.001
91006717|NCT00535236|181897863|OTHER|||||||0.004||||||Statistical criterion corresponds to the lower bound of the two-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) on the geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) in the vaccine recipients being \>1.0|Single longitudinal regression model|Adjusted for prevaccination values||||||0.004
91006718|NCT00535236|181897863|OTHER|||||||0.026||||||Statistical criterion corresponds to the lower bound of the two-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) on the geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) in the vaccine recipients being \>1.0|Single longitudinal regression model|Adjusted for prevaccination values||||||0.026
91006719|NCT00535236|181897864|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|12.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.7|35.3|||||V212 minus placebo = Difference|||35.3|-21.7|
91006720|NCT00535236|181897864|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.1|42.9|||||V212 minus placebo = Difference|||42.9|-15.1|
91006721|NCT00535236|181897864|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.4|15.7|||||V212 minus placebo = Difference|||15.7|-20.4|
91006722|NCT00535236|181897864|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|14.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|27.6|||||V212 minus placebo = Difference|||27.6|-6.5|
91006723|NCT00535236|181897864|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.1|17.0|||||V212 minus placebo = Difference|||17.0|-18.1|
91006724|NCT00535236|181897865|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.7|16.5|||Asymptotic method||V212 minus placebo = Difference|||16.5|-31.7|>0.999
91006725|NCT00535236|181897865|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|10.0||||0.302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.8|23.2|||Asymptotic method||V212 minus placebo = Difference|||23.2|-18.8|0.302
91006726|NCT00535236|181897865|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|31.6||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.7|46.2|||Asymptotic method||V212 minus placebo = Difference|||46.2|9.7|0.009
91006727|NCT00535236|181897865|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|22.6||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|36.6|||Asymptotic method||V212 minus placebo = Difference|||36.6|1.3|0.041
91006728|NCT00535236|181897865|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-11.7||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.2|0.6|||Asymptotic method||V212 minus placebo = Difference|||0.6|-33.2|0.064
91006729|NCT00535236|181897866|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-5.0||||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.3|9.5|||Asymptotic method||V212 minus placebo = Difference|||9.5|-36.3|0.556
91006730|NCT00535236|181897866|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|2.5||||0.617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.8|13.0|||Asymptotic method||V212 minus placebo = Difference|||13.0|-25.8|0.617
91006731|NCT00535236|181897866|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|3.5||||0.411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|12.0|||Asymptotic method||V212 minus placebo = Difference|||12.0|-13.7|0.411
91006732|NCT00535236|181897866|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|4.9||||0.328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|13.6|||Asymptotic method||V212 minus placebo = Difference|||13.6|-12.3|0.328
91006733|NCT00535236|181897866|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.2|10.0|||Asymptotic method||V212 minus placebo = Difference|||10.0|-19.2|>0.999
91006734|NCT00535236|181897867|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|10.5||||0.552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.3|41.8|||Asymptotic method||V212 minus placebo = Difference|||41.8|-21.3|0.552
91006735|NCT00535236|181897867|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|6.7||||0.696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.5|39.4|||Asymptotic method||V212 minus placebo = Difference|||39.4|-22.5|0.696
91006736|NCT00535236|181897867|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|7.5||||0.221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|18.0|||Asymptotic method||V212 minus placebo = Difference|||18.0|-9.8|0.221
91006737|NCT00535236|181897867|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|6.8||||0.402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|19.1|||Asymptotic method||V212 minus placebo = Difference|||19.1|-13.7|0.402
91006738|NCT00535236|181897867|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|3.8||||0.679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.5|18.2|||Asymptotic method||V212 minus placebo = Difference|||18.2|-18.5|0.679
90983274|NCT00443560|181851436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.3|||<|0.01||95.0|2.3|4.5|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||4.5|2.3|<0.01
90983275|NCT00443560|181851437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.2|||<|0.01||95.0|9.9|15.0|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||15.0|9.9|<0.01
90983276|NCT00443560|181851438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
90983277|NCT01494038|181851442|NON_INFERIORITY|Calculate the difference between the immediate arm incidence rate and the deferred arm incidence rate; if the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval is lower than a 5% difference in incidence rates, non-inferiority will be considered to be proven.|Incidence rate difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.77|4.98||||||||4.98|-4.77|
90983278|NCT01494038|181851443|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.093|||||||Fisher Exact|mid-P adjustment||||||0.093
90983279|NCT01494038|181851445|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.288|||||||Fisher Exact|mid-P adjustment||||||0.288
90983280|NCT01494038|181851446|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.073|||||||Fisher Exact|mid-P adjustment||||||0.073
90983281|NCT01494038|181851447|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.264|||||||Fisher Exact|mid-P adjustment||||||0.264
90983282|NCT01494038|181851448|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||Fisher Exact|Mid-P adjustment||||||0.012
90983283|NCT01494038|181851451|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.279|||||||Fisher Exact|mid-P adjustment||||||0.279
90983284|NCT01494038|181851452|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.893|||||||Fisher Exact|mid-P adjustment||||||.893
90983285|NCT01494038|181851453|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate difference|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.96||||||||0.96|-0.94|
90983286|NCT01494038|181851454|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate difference|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|1.07||||||||1.07|-1.02|
90983287|NCT01494038|181851455|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate difference|-1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.17|1.32||||||||1.32|-4.17|
90983288|NCT01494038|181851456|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate difference|-0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|0.56||||||||0.56|-1.33|
90983289|NCT01494038|181851457|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate difference|-0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|0.97||||||||0.97|-1.72|
90983290|NCT01494038|181851458|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate difference|-1.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.48|1.1||||||||1.1|-4.48|
90983291|NCT01494038|181851459|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate difference|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.86|1.25||||||||1.25|-3.86|
90983292|NCT01494038|181851460|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate difference|2.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.86|12.13||||||||12.13|-7.86|
90983293|NCT01494038|181851461|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate difference|6.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|13.86||||||||13.86|-0.08|
90983294|NCT01494038|181851462|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate difference|5.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|24.68||||||||24.68|-13.7|
90983295|NCT01494038|181851463|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate difference|15.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.11|29.65||||||||29.65|2.11|
90983296|NCT01494038|181851464|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate difference|-0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.63|3.0||||||||3|-4.63|
90983297|NCT01494038|181851465|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate difference|3.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|8.07||||||||8.07|-1.31|
90983298|NCT01494038|181851466|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate difference|-0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.63|3.0||||||||3|-4.63|
90983299|NCT01494038|181851467|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate difference|3.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|8.25||||||||8.25|-1.46|
90983300|NCT01494038|181851468|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate difference|-0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.63|3.0||||||||3|-4.63|
90983301|NCT01494038|181851469|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate difference|3.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|8.07||||||||8.07|-1.31|
90983302|NCT01494038|181851470|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate difference|-0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.63|3.0||||||||3|-4.63|
90983303|NCT01494038|181851471|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate difference|3.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|8.25||||||||8.25|-1.46|
90983304|NCT01494038|181851476|OTHER|Measuring agreement between the tests|||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|McNemars test||||||< 0.0001
90983305|NCT01494038|181851476|OTHER|Agreement between tests|Kappa coefficient|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.5||||||||0.50|0.35|
90983306|NCT01494038|181851477|OTHER|Agreement between tests||||||0.22|||||||Chi-squared|McNemar's test||||||0.22
90983307|NCT01494038|181851477|OTHER|Agreement between tests|Kappa coefficient|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.21||||||||0.21|0.001|
90983308|NCT01494038|181851478|OTHER|Agreement between tests|||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|McNemar's test||||||< 0.0001
90983309|NCT01494038|181851478|OTHER|Agreement between tests|Kappa coefficient|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.53||||||||0.53|0.39|
90983310|NCT00537940|181851481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.8708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|7.0|||Ranked ANCOVA|||Rank analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used to derive p-value with treatment as main effect and cluster as cofactor, percent change in 28-day seizure counts between Baseline and treatment periods as dependent variable. Median differences and 95% confidence interval (CI) were based on Hodges-Lehmann estimation.||7.0|-6.0|0.8708
90983311|NCT00537940|181851482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.635|1.335|||Regression, Logistic|||The odds ratio and its 95% CI are calculated by exponentiating the log odds ratio and 95% CI that correspond to the treatment contrast in the logistic regression model with treatment as fixed effect and Baseline term and country as covariate. All statistical tests for secondary efficacy parameters were two sided and performed at significance level of α = 0.05. The above statistical analysis applies to All Partial Seizures - FAS Population.||1.335|0.635|0.662
90983312|NCT00537940|181851483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9232|TWO_SIDED|||||All partial seizure: p-value was calculated from the 2-sided Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.9232
90983313|NCT00537940|181851483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6361|TWO_SIDED|||||Simple Partial: p-value was calculated from the 2-sided Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.6361
90983314|NCT00537940|181851483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9075|TWO_SIDED|||||Complex partial: p-value was calculated from the 2-sided Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.9075
91006739|NCT00848172|181897882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.345||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||=0.345
91039895|NCT02554877|181964589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-2.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.49||0.4173|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.15|2.09||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 4.||2.09|-6.15|0.4173
91039896|NCT02554877|181964589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.56||0.7036|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.21|3.26||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 8.||3.26|-5.21|0.7036
91039897|NCT02554877|181964589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-2.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.54||0.2993|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.84|1.56||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 8.||1.56|-6.84|0.2993
90983315|NCT00537940|181851483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4203|TWO_SIDED|||||SGTC seizure: p-value was calculated from the 2-sided Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.4203
90983316|NCT00537940|181851484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5069|TWO_SIDED|||||All partial seizure: p-value was calculated from the 2-sided Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.5069
90983317|NCT00537940|181851484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4721|TWO_SIDED|||||Simple partial seizure: p-value was calculated from the 2-sided Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.4721
90983318|NCT00537940|181851484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6054|TWO_SIDED|||||Complex partial seizure: p-value was calculated from the 2-sided Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.6054
90983319|NCT00537940|181851484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6603|TWO_SIDED|||||SGTC seizure: p-value was calculated from the 2-sided Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.6603
90983320|NCT00537940|181851486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1881|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value is calculated using Fisher Exact Test.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.1881
90983321|NCT00537940|181851487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.5643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.97|||ANCOVA|||Baseline, HADS-A: ANCOVA model was used to calculate least square (LS) mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and and country as covariates.||0.97|-0.53|0.5643
90983322|NCT00537940|181851487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.7712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.54|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 21 / ET , HADS-A: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and country as covariates.||0.54|-0.73|0.7712
90983323|NCT00537940|181851487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.4236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.97|||Ranked ANCOVA|||Baseline, HADS-D: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and combined center, and for post-baseline assessments baseline was included as a covariate.||0.97|-0.41|0.4236
90983324|NCT00537940|181851487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.5492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.4|||Ranked ANCOVA|||Change at Week 21/ET, HADS-D: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment1difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and combined center, and for post-baseline assessments baseline was included as a covariate.||0.40|-0.75|0.5492
90983325|NCT00537940|181851488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.07||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|7.31|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Sleep disturbance: ANCOVA model was used to calculate least square (LS) mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and country; for post-baseline, baseline was included as a covariate.||7.31|-0.81|0.1160
90983326|NCT00537940|181851488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.68||0.849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.62|2.98|||ANCOVA|||Week 21 Sleep disturbance: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and country; for post-baseline, baseline was included as a covariate.||2.98|-3.62|0.8490
90983327|NCT00537940|181851488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.82||0.6728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.34|6.73|||ANCOVA|||Baseline snoring: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and country; for post-baseline, baseline was included as a covariate.||6.73|-4.34|0.6728
90983328|NCT00537940|181851488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3||0.3954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.56|6.47|||ANCOVA|||Week 21 snoring: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and country; for post-baseline, baseline was included as a covariate.||6.47|-2.56|0.3954
90983329|NCT00537940|181851488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.52||0.1106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|8.98|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Awaken Short of Breath: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and country; for post-baseline, baseline was included as a covariate.||8.98|-0.92|0.1106
90983330|NCT00537940|181851488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.11||0.3603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.09|2.22|||ANCOVA|||Week 21 Awaken Short of Breath: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and country; for post-baseline, baseline was included as a covariate.||2.22|-6.09|0.3603
90983331|NCT00537940|181851488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.8312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.24|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Quantity of Sleep: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and country; for post-baseline, baseline was included as a covariate.||0.24|-0.30|0.8312
90983332|NCT00537940|181851488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.9101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.42|||ANCOVA|||Week 21 Quantity of Sleep: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and country; for post-baseline, baseline was included as a covariate.||0.42|-0.38|0.9101
90983333|NCT00537940|181851488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.45||0.3346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.19|2.45|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Adequacy of Sleep: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and country; for post-baseline, baseline was included as a covariate.||2.45|-7.19|0.3346
90983334|NCT00537940|181851488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.05||0.7491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.69|3.37|||ANCOVA|||Week 21 Adequacy of Sleep: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and country; for post-baseline, baseline was included as a covariate.||3.37|-4.69|0.7491
91006740|NCT00848172|181897883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.031||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||=0.031
91006741|NCT04566445|181897901|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.062|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0901|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.087|0.211|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 12||0.211|-0.087|
91006742|NCT04566445|181897901|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.084|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.091|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.066|0.234|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 12||0.234|-0.066|
91006743|NCT04566445|181897901|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.096|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1198|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.102|0.294|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 24||0.294|-0.102|
91006744|NCT04566445|181897901|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.205|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.007|0.404|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 24||0.404|0.007|
91006745|NCT04566445|181897901|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.197|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2135|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.155|0.55|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 36||0.550|-0.155|
91006746|NCT04566445|181897901|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.423|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2152|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.068|0.779|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 36||0.779|0.068|
91006747|NCT04566445|181897901|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.052|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2644|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.385|0.489|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 48||0.489|-0.385|
91006748|NCT04566445|181897901|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.488|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2662|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.049|0.928|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 48||0.928|0.049|
91006749|NCT04566445|181897901|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.307|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3361|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.248|0.862|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 72||0.862|-0.248|
91006750|NCT04566445|181897901|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.503|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3392|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.058|1.063|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 72||1.063|-0.058|
91006751|NCT04566445|181897902|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.645|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4527|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.103|1.393|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 96||1.393|-0.103|
91006752|NCT04566445|181897902|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.838|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4577|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.081|1.594|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 96||1.594|0.081|
91006753|NCT04566445|181897907|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.33|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.6|1.7|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 12||1.7|-2.6|
91006754|NCT04566445|181897907|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.0|0.4|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 12||0.4|-4.0|
91006755|NCT04566445|181897907|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.1|0.8|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 24||0.8|-4.1|
91006756|NCT04566445|181897907|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.49|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.7|-2.8|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 24||-2.8|-7.7|
91006757|NCT04566445|181897907|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.81|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.5|3.5|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 36||3.5|-2.5|
91006758|NCT04566445|181897907|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.7|-1.7|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 36||-1.7|-7.7|
91006759|NCT04566445|181897907|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.14|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.9|6.1|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 48||6.1|-0.9|
91006760|NCT04566445|181897907|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.12|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.6|1.4|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 48||1.4|-5.6|
91006761|NCT04566445|181897907|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.24|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|8.4|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 72||8.4|1.0|
91006762|NCT04566445|181897907|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.8|4.5|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 72||4.5|-2.8|
91006763|NCT04566445|181897907|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.7|11.6|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 96||11.6|2.7|
91006764|NCT04566445|181897907|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.68|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.8|7.1|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 96||7.1|-1.8|
91006765|NCT04453722|181897944|SUPERIORITY|Median difference was estimated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimator of location shift between groups and p-values from Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||variable: In hospital TWA SpO2 \<90% (%)||0|-0.4|0.120
91006766|NCT04453722|181897944|SUPERIORITY|Median difference was estimated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimator of location shift between groups and p-values from Wilcoxon rank sum test|Median Difference (Final Values)|-407.0||||0.349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1816.0|208.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||variable: In hospital AUC SpO2 \<90% (% \* min)||208|-1816|0.349
91006767|NCT04453722|181897944|SUPERIORITY|Median difference was estimated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimator of location shift between groups and p-values from Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||variable: Post-discharge TWA SpO2 \<90% (%)||0|-0.2|0.307
91006768|NCT04453722|181897944|SUPERIORITY|Median difference was estimated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimator of location shift between groups and p-values from Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-35.0||||0.431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-195.0|67.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||variable: Post-discharge AUC SpO2 \<90% (% \* min)||67|-195|0.431
91006769|NCT04453722|181897945|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.96|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|4.27|||Fisher Exact|||variable: In hospital Any event, N (%)c||4.27|0.22|>0.99
91006770|NCT04453722|181897945|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|2.9|||Chi-squared|||variable: Post-discharge Any event, N (%)||2.90|0.35|>0.99
91006771|NCT04453722|181897946|SUPERIORITY|Median difference was estimated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimator of location shift between groups and p-values from Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-6.0||||0.354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.0|4.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||variable: In hospital Number||4.0|-26.0|0.354
91006772|NCT04453722|181897946|SUPERIORITY|Median difference was estimated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimator of location shift between groups and p-values from Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-46.1||||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-274.0|5.1|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||variable: In hospital Total duration (min)||5.1|-274|0.133
91006773|NCT04453722|181897946|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-24.1||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-213.0|0.1|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||variable: In hospital Duration \>2 min (min)||0.1|-213|0.075
91006774|NCT04453722|181897946|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|-0.4|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||variable: In hospital Mean duration-all patients (min)||-0.4|-4.5|0.009
91006775|NCT04453722|181897946|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.2||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|-0.7|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||variable: in hospital mean duration for events in those with any events (min)||-0.7|-4.7|0.001
91006776|NCT04453722|181897946|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||variable: post-discharge number||1.0|-4.0|0.584
91039898|NCT02554877|181964589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.57||0.9751|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.16|4.32||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 8.||4.32|-4.16|0.9751
90983335|NCT00537940|181851488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.1162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|6.71|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Somnolence: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and country; for post-baseline, baseline was included as a covariate.||6.71|-0.74|0.1162
90983336|NCT00537940|181851488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.66||0.2163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|5.32|||ANCOVA|||Week 21 Somnolence: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and country; for post-baseline, baseline was included as a covariate.||5.32|-1.21|0.2163
90983337|NCT00537940|181851488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.61||0.0321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|6.61|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Sleep Problem Index (9): ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and country; for post-baseline, baseline was included as a covariate.||6.61|0.30|0.0321
90983338|NCT00537940|181851488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.28||0.7889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.17|2.85|||ANCOVA|||Week 21 Sleep Problem Index (9): ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and country; for post-baseline, baseline was included as a covariate.||2.85|-2.17|0.7889
90983339|NCT00537940|181851489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.653||||0.0252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.449|0.948|||Regression, Logistic|||Baseline: Logistic regression model was used to estimate odds ratio and corresponding 95% CI of treatment difference, with treatment as fixed effect and for post-baseline assessments baseline was included as a covariate.||0.948|0.449|0.0252
90983340|NCT00537940|181851489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.811||||0.3459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.524|1.254|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 21: Logistic regression model was used to estimate odds ratio and corresponding 95% CI of treatment difference, with treatment as fixed effect and for post-baseline assessments baseline was included as a covariate.||1.254|0.524|0.3459
90983341|NCT00430781|181851527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.535||90.0|0.65|1.7||Stratified log-rank test with one-sided p-value. p\<=0.0037 required for significance, and p\>0.4956 indicated futility.|Log Rank||The estimated value is the hazard ratio comparing combination to lapatinib monotherapy|||1.7|0.65|0.535
90983342|NCT00430781|181851530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.237||95.0||||One-sided p-value.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.237
90983343|NCT00430781|181851534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio, log|0.66||||0.013||90.0|0.48|0.91||Stratified log-rank test with one-sided p-value.|Log Rank|||||0.91|0.48|0.013
90983344|NCT01389128|181851541|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.01
90983345|NCT01389128|181851544|OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.68
90983346|NCT01532453|181851570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0278|TWO_SIDED|||||Rank ANCOVA With treatment, center, gender, transplanted organ as factors and age of organ transplant as a covariable.|ANCOVA|||||||0.0278
90983347|NCT01532453|181851571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.579|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2703|1.2405|||ANCOVA|||||1.2405|0.2703|<0.05
90983348|NCT03230097|181851593|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.849||||0.7873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.258|2.795|||Regression, Cox|Stratified (by baseline use of antipsychotic medication) Cox proportional hazards model was used. Treatment effect and NAPLS risk score as covariates.|Ratio = BI 409306/placebo.|||2.795|0.258|0.7873
90983349|NCT03230097|181851595|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|1.77||||0.5212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.773|7.315|||Mixed Models Analysis|||BI 409306 vs. placebo of change from baseline at week 24. Restricted maximum likelihood (REML) mixed effects model with repeated measurements (MMRM) including fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline North American Prodromal Longitudinal Study (NAPLS) risk score, baseline use of antipsychotic medication and continuous fixed covariates of baseline score and baseline-by-visit interaction.||7.315|-3.773|0.5212
90983350|NCT03230097|181851595|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|3.18||||0.3127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.071|9.425|||Mixed Models Analysis||Restricted maximum likelihood (REML) mixed effects model with repeated measurements (MMRM), see endpoint description for details.|BI 409306 vs. placebo of change from baseline at week 52. Restricted maximum likelihood (REML) mixed effects model with repeated measurements (MMRM) including fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline North American Prodromal Longitudinal Study (NAPLS) risk score, baseline use of antipsychotic medication and continuous fixed covariates of baseline score and baseline-by-visit interaction.||9.425|-3.071|0.3127
90983351|NCT03230097|181851596|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-4.99||||0.1602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.033|2.057|||Mixed Models Analysis|||BI 409306 vs. placebo of change from baseline at week 52. Restricted maximum likelihood (REML) mixed effects model with repeated measurements (MMRM) including fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline North American Prodromal Longitudinal Study (NAPLS) risk score, baseline use of antipsychotic medication and continuous fixed covariates of baseline score and baseline-by-visit interaction.||2.057|-12.033|0.1602
90983352|NCT03230097|181851597|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.8||||0.5858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.749|2.153|||Mixed Models Analysis|||BI 409306 vs. placebo of change from baseline at week 52, positive items score. Restricted maximum likelihood (REML) mixed effects model with repeated measurements (MMRM) including fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline North American Prodromal Longitudinal Study (NAPLS) risk score, baseline use of antipsychotic medication and continuous fixed covariates of baseline score and baseline-by-visit interaction.||2.153|-3.749|0.5858
90983353|NCT03230097|181851597|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|1.43||||0.3445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.604|4.462|||Mixed Models Analysis|||BI 409306 vs. placebo of change from baseline at week 52, negative items score. Restricted maximum likelihood (REML) mixed effects model with repeated measurements (MMRM) including fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline North American Prodromal Longitudinal Study (NAPLS) risk score, baseline use of antipsychotic medication and continuous fixed covariates of baseline score and baseline-by-visit interaction.||4.462|-1.604|0.3445
90983354|NCT03230097|181851597|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|1.71||||0.7154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.772|11.196|||Mixed Models Analysis|||BI 409306 vs. placebo of change from baseline at week 52, total score. Restricted maximum likelihood (REML) mixed effects model with repeated measurements (MMRM) including fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline North American Prodromal Longitudinal Study (NAPLS) risk score, baseline use of antipsychotic medication and continuous fixed covariates of baseline score and baseline-by-visit interaction.||11.196|-7.772|0.7154
90983355|NCT05740813|181851604|SUPERIORITY||Disease Rate Ratio|1.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.324||Posterior probability that the disease rate ratio (DRR) is less than 1 (i.e. ABBV-CLS-7262 slowed progression) was 0.3117 for Dose 1. NOTE: p-value is not provided for Bayesian model.|Bayesian shared-parameter mode|A Bayesian shared-parameter model of change in disease severity as measured by ALSFRS-R total score and mortality.|"DDR \<1 imply slowing of disease progression by ABBV-CLS-7262 relative to placebo. Note: reported Confidence Interval is actually a Bayesian credible interval."||The DRR parameter for active treatment represents the relative change to the rate of decline of ALSFRS-R and the rate of mortality of treated participant relative to a placebo participant. The estimated DRR can also be interpreted as the average rate of decline in function and mortality. The model incorporates participant-level random effects in the baseline value of the ALSFRS-R (intercept) and in the rate of progression (slope); covariate effects to account for covariate-explainable differences in rates of progression based on participant-specific baseline covariates; regimen-specific differences in baseline values, rates of progression and measurement error. Covariates include time since onset of symptoms, pre-baseline slope of ALSFRS-R, riluzole, edaravone, and Relyvrio use at the time of baseline as indicated in concomitant medication logs, and log-transformed baseline serum NfL.|1.324|0.850|
90983356|NCT05740813|181851604|SUPERIORITY||Disease Rate Ratio|0.96|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.119|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.753|1.22||Posterior probability that the disease rate ratio (DRR) is less than 1 (i.e. ABBV-CLS-7262 slowed progression) was 0.6426. NOTE: p-value is not provided for Bayesian model.|Bayesian shared-parameter model|A Bayesian shared-parameter model of change in disease severity as measured by ALSFRS-R total score and mortality.|"DDR \<1 imply slowing of disease progression by ABBV-CLS-7262 relative to placebo. Note: reported Confidence Interval is actually a Bayesian credible interval."||The DRR parameter for active treatment represents the relative change to the rate of decline of ALSFRS-R and the rate of mortality of treated participant relative to a placebo participant. The estimated DRR can also be interpreted as the average rate of decline in function and mortality. The model incorporates participant-level random effects in the baseline value of the ALSFRS-R (intercept) and in the rate of progression (slope); covariate effects to account for covariate-explainable differences in rates of progression based on participant-specific baseline covariates; regimen-specific differences in baseline values, rates of progression and measurement error. Covariates include time since onset of symptoms, pre-baseline slope of ALSFRS-R, riluzole, edaravone, and Relyvrio use at the time of baseline as indicated in concomitant medication logs, and log-transformed baseline serum NfL.|1.220|0.753|
90983357|NCT05740813|181851605|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.547|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5639||0.3325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.657|0.562|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: baseline (BL) use edaravone, riluzole, Relyvrio, BL log-trans. NfL, SVC, time since onset, pre-BL ALSFRS-R slope, interactions with visit|ABBV-CLS-7262 Dose 1 24-week change from baseline relative to placebo 24-week change from baseline.||Model adjusted for covariates including baseline (BL) use of edaravone, riluzole and Relyvrio, BL log-transformed NfL, and SVC, time since onset, pre-BL ALSFRS-R slope and interaction with visit.|0.562|-1.657|0.3325
90983358|NCT05740813|181851605|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.095|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6732||0.8878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|1.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: baseline (BL) use edaravone, riluzole, Relyvrio, BL log-trans. NfL, SVC, time since onset, pre-BL ALSFRS-R slope, interactions with visit|ABBV-CLS-7262 Dose 2 24-week change from baseline relative to placebo 24-week change from baseline.||Model adjusted for covariates including baseline (BL) use of edaravone, riluzole and Relyvrio, BL log-transformed NfL, and SVC, time since onset, pre-BL ALSFRS-R slope and interaction with visit.|1.420|-1.230|0.8878
90983359|NCT05740813|181851606|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1066||0.5008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.563|2.723|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: baseline (BL) use edaravone, riluzole, Relyvrio, BL log-trans. NfL, SVC, time since onset, pre-BL ALSFRS-R slope, interactions with visit|ABBV-CLS-7262 Dose 1 24-week change from baseline relative to placebo 24-week change from baseline.||Model adjusted for covariates including baseline (BL) use of edaravone, riluzole and Relyvrio, BL log-transformed NfL, and SVC, time since onset, pre-BL ALSFRS-R slope and interaction with visit.|2.723|-5.563|0.5008
90983360|NCT05740813|181851606|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.261|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5292||0.3721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.714|7.236|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: baseline (BL) use edaravone, riluzole, Relyvrio, BL log-trans. NfL, SVC, time since onset, pre-BL ALSFRS-R slope, interactions with visit|ABBV-CLS-7262 Dose 2 24-week change from baseline relative to placebo 24-week change from baseline.||Model adjusted for covariates including baseline (BL) use of edaravone, riluzole and Relyvrio, BL log-transformed NfL, and SVC, time since onset, pre-BL ALSFRS-R slope and interaction with visit.|7.236|-2.714|0.3721
91039899|NCT02554877|181964589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|4.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.86||0.1408|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|8.96||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 12.||8.96|-0.50|0.1408
91039900|NCT02554877|181964589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.83||0.0986|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.02|9.38||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 12.||9.38|0.02|0.0986
91039901|NCT02554877|181964589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|3.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.85||0.1851|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.92|8.5||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 12.||8.50|-0.92|0.1851
91039902|NCT02554877|181964590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.17||0.8559|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.19|3.98||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 2.||3.98|-3.19|0.8559
91039903|NCT02554877|181964590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|2.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.17||0.1729|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.62|6.55||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 2.||6.55|-0.62|0.1729
91039904|NCT02554877|181964590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|8.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.18||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.84|12.06||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 2.||12.06|4.84|0.0002
91039905|NCT02554877|181964590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.55||0.8837|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.85|4.59||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 4.||4.59|-3.85|0.8837
91039906|NCT02554877|181964590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|3.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.55||0.1573|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|7.84||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 4.||7.84|-0.60|0.1573
91039907|NCT02554877|181964590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|7.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.56||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.65|12.11||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 4.||12.11|3.65|0.0024
91039908|NCT02554877|181964590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|3.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.51||0.1538|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.55|7.73||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 8.||7.73|-0.55|0.1538
91039909|NCT02554877|181964590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|4.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.48||0.0789|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.28|8.49||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 8.||8.49|0.28|0.0789
91039910|NCT02554877|181964590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|10.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.51|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.98|14.3||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 8.||14.30|5.98|<0.0001
91039911|NCT02554877|181964590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|6.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.78||0.0132|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.36|11.56||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 12.||11.56|2.36|0.0132
90983361|NCT05740813|181851608|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.796|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.222||0.6707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.506|10.099|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: baseline (BL) use edaravone, riluzole, Relyvrio, BL log-trans. NfL, SVC, time since onset, pre-BL ALSFRS-R slope, interactions with visit|ABBV-CLS-7262 Dose 1 24-week change from baseline relative to placebo 24-week change from baseline.||Model adjusted for covariates including baseline (BL) use of edaravone, riluzole and Relyvrio, BL log-transformed NfL, and SVC, time since onset, pre-BL ALSFRS-R slope and interaction with visit.|10.099|-6.506|0.6707
90983362|NCT05740813|181851608|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|12.318|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.011||0.0144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.463|22.172|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: baseline (BL) use edaravone, riluzole, Relyvrio, BL log-trans. NfL, SVC, time since onset, pre-BL ALSFRS-R slope, interactions with visit|ABBV-CLS-7262 Dose 2 24-week change from baseline relative to placebo 24-week change from baseline.||Model adjusted for covariates including baseline (BL) use of edaravone, riluzole and Relyvrio, BL log-transformed NfL, and SVC, time since onset, pre-BL ALSFRS-R slope and interaction with visit.|22.172|2.463|0.0144
90983363|NCT05740813|181851609|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.092||||0.0253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.011|1.179|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: baseline (BL) use edaravone, riluzole, Relyvrio, BL log-trans. NfL, SVC, time since onset, pre-BL ALSFRS-R slope, interactions with visit|Least squares mean difference between ABBV-CLS-7262 Dose 1 24-week change from baseline and placebo 24-week change from baseline.||Model adjusted for covariates including baseline (BL) use of edaravone, riluzole and Relyvrio, BL log-transformed NfL, SVC, time since onset, pre-BL ALSFRS-R slope and interaction with visit.|1.179|1.011|0.0253
90983364|NCT05740813|181851609|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.073||||0.1364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.978|1.175|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: baseline (BL) use edaravone, riluzole, Relyvrio, BL log-trans. NfL, SVC, time since onset, pre-BL ALSFRS-R slope, interactions with visit|Least squares mean difference between ABBV-CLS-7262 Dose 2 24-week change from baseline and placebo 24-week change from baseline.||Model adjusted for covariates including baseline (BL) use of edaravone, riluzole and Relyvrio, BL log-transformed NfL, SVC, time since onset, pre-BL ALSFRS-R slope and interaction with visit.|1.175|0.978|0.1364
90983365|NCT05740813|181851610|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.058|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1327||0.9782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.254|4.137|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: baseline (BL) use edaravone, riluzole, Relyvrio, BL log-trans. NfL, SVC, time since onset, pre-BL ALSFRS-R slope, interactions with visit|ABBV-CLS-7262 Dose 1 24-week change from baseline relative to placebo 24-week change from baseline.||Model adjusted for covariates including baseline (BL) use of edaravone, riluzole and Relyvrio, BL log-transformed NfL, and SVC, time since onset, pre-BL ALSFRS-R slope and interaction with visit.|4.137|-4.254|0.9782
90983366|NCT05740813|181851610|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.652|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5101||0.5108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.59|3.286|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: baseline (BL) use edaravone, riluzole, Relyvrio, BL log-trans. NfL, SVC, time since onset, pre-BL ALSFRS-R slope, interactions with visit|ABBV-CLS-7262 Dose 2 24-week change from baseline relative to placebo 24-week change from baseline.||Model adjusted for covariates including baseline (BL) use of edaravone, riluzole and Relyvrio, BL log-transformed NfL, and SVC, time since onset, pre-BL ALSFRS-R slope and interaction with visit.|3.286|-6.590|0.5108
90983367|NCT05740813|181851611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6481|||||||Log Rank|Dose 1. See Other Statistical Analysis for model adjustment details.|||Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for age at baseline, time since ALS symptom onset, delta FRS, baseline log-transformed serum NfL level, use of riluzole at baseline, use of riluzole at baseline, and use of Relyvrio at baseline.|||0.6481
90983368|NCT05740813|181851611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6344|||||||Log Rank|Dose 2. See Other Statistical Analysis for model adjustment details.|||Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for age at baseline, time since ALS symptom onset, delta FRS, baseline log-transformed serum NfL level, use of riluzole at baseline, use of riluzole at baseline, and use of Relyvrio at baseline.|||0.6344
90983369|NCT02439775|181851631|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1194||||||p\<0.05 required for significance|ANCOVA|||||||0.1194
90983370|NCT05483127|181851660|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority in distance VA was declared if upper confidence limit was less than 0.05.|Least squares mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.003|||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.0||Since a noninferiority hypothesis is being tested, a p-value is not applicable. Confidence limit is being reported and compared to the noninferiority margin.|||LSM results based on mixed effects repeated measures model with both fixed (lens, visit, lens by visit interaction, period, sequence) and random (subject) effects. Difference=P1fA - MDT. Sign (negative or positive) is retained with the rounded value.|||-0.00||
90983371|NCT02951273|181851661|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0276|||||||repeated measure mixed model|||||||0.0276
90983372|NCT02951273|181851662|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||repeated measure mixed model|||||||<0.0001
90983373|NCT02951273|181851663|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6025|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.6025
90983374|NCT02951273|181851664|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3213|||||||repeated measure mixed model|||||||0.3213
90983375|NCT02951273|181851665|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005||||||The reported p-value was calculated|repeated measure mixed model|||||||0.0005
90983376|NCT02951273|181851666|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5404|||||||repeated measure mixed model|||||||0.5404
90983377|NCT02951273|181851667|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8947|||||||repeated measure mixed model|||||||0.8947
90983378|NCT02951273|181851668|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0068|||||||Linear mixed models|||||||0.0068
90983379|NCT02951273|181851669|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||repeated measure mixed model|||||||<0.0001
90983380|NCT02951273|181851670|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
90983381|NCT02951273|181851671|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||repeated measure mixed model|||||||<0.0001
90983382|NCT02951273|181851672|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||repeated measure mixed model|||||||<0.0001
91039912|NCT02554877|181964590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|7.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.75||0.0079|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.85|11.96||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 12.||11.96|2.85|0.0079
91039913|NCT02554877|181964590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|10.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.77||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.24|15.42||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 12.||15.42|6.24|0.0001
91039914|NCT02554877|181964591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|1.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.31||0.6597|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.01|6.92||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 2.||6.92|-4.01|0.6597
91039915|NCT02554877|181964591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.31||0.7583|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.45|6.49||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 2.||6.49|-4.45|0.7583
91039916|NCT02554877|181964591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|3.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.33||0.3516|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.39|8.61||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 2.||8.61|-2.39|0.3516
91039917|NCT02554877|181964591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-1.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.38||0.5877|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.42|3.75||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 4.||3.75|-7.42|0.5877
91039918|NCT02554877|181964591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-4.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.38||0.2016|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.92|1.26||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 4.||1.26|-9.92|0.2016
91039919|NCT02554877|181964591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-6.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.39||0.0568|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.08|-0.89||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 4.||-0.89|-12.08|0.0568
91039920|NCT02554877|181964591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-2.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.36||0.3827|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.48|2.61||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 8.||2.61|-8.48|0.3827
91039921|NCT02554877|181964591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-5.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.33||0.1126|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.81|0.2||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 8.||0.20|-10.81|0.1126
91039922|NCT02554877|181964591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-4.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.36||0.216|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.73|1.38||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 8.||1.38|-9.73|0.2160
91039923|NCT02554877|181964591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|3.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.74||0.3443|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.64|9.72||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 12.||9.72|-2.64|0.3443
90983383|NCT00315302|181851673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.24||0.21||95.0|-0.2|0.8|||ANCOVA||The difference was calculated as atropine plus plano group minus atropine group|"The primary analysis was a treatment group comparison of logMAR visual acuity scores in the amblyopic eye obtained 18 weeks after randomization, adjusted for baseline acuity scores in an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model.~The primary analysis included only patients with visual acuity of 20/40 to 20/100; sample size was based upon a two-sided alpha of 0.05, with 90% power to detect a difference if the true difference in change from baseline between groups was 0.075 logMAR at 18 weeks."||0.8|-0.2|0.21
90983384|NCT00315302|181851674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|proportion 20/25 as a function of treatment group controlling for baseline acuity||"Null hypothesis: proportion 20/25 or better at 18wks in atropine group = proportion 20/25 or better at 18wks in atropine plus plano group~Alternative hypothesis: proportion 20/25 or better at 18wks in atropine group NOT equal to proportion 20/25 or better at 18wks in atropine plus plano group"||||.03
90983385|NCT00315302|181851675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|5.8||||||95% confidence interval calculated within treatment group on the amount of change from baseline||5.8|3.2|
90983386|NCT00315302|181851675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|6.4||||||95% confidence interval calculated within treatment group on the amount of change from baseline||6.4|3.7|
90983387|NCT00315302|181851676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|proportion 20/25 as a function of treatment group controlling for baseline acuity||"Null hypothesis: proportion 3 or more lines better at 18wks in atropine group = proportion 3 or more lines better at 18wks in atropine plus plano group~Alternative hypothesis: proportion 3 or more lines better at 18wks in atropine group NOT equal to proportion 3 or more lines better at 18wks in atropine plus plano group"||||0.39
90983388|NCT00315302|181851677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test to evaluate difference in change from baseline in stereoacuity by treatment group||All patients without respect to cause of amblyopia.||||0.39
90983389|NCT00315302|181851678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test to evaluate difference in change from baseline in stereoacuity by treatment group||Among anisometropic patients only||||0.90
90983390|NCT00315302|181851680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"Null hypothesis: proportion 1 or more lines worse and worse than 20/20 at 18wks same in both groups;~Alternate: proportion 1 or more lines worse and worse than 20/20 at 18wks same in both groups"||||0.003
90983391|NCT00440401|181851736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Normal approximation to the binominal distribution is used to construct the asymptotic confidence intervals||||||<0.0001
90983392|NCT00440401|181851737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0006||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Normal approximation to the binominal distribution is used to construct the asymptotic confidence intervals||||||<0.0006
90983393|NCT00091793|181851754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.0|||<|0.0001||95.0|6.2|7.8|||ANCOVA|||||7.8|6.2|<0.0001
90983394|NCT02424149|181851775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.77
90983395|NCT02424149|181851776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.73
90983396|NCT02424149|181851777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
90983397|NCT02424149|181851778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.78
90983398|NCT02424149|181851779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.04
90983399|NCT01238120|181851784|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9168|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.9168
90983400|NCT01238120|181851785|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6536|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.6536
90983401|NCT03291197|181851803|OTHER|||||||0.043|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Our study was not powered to perform statistical analysis though was still conduct to look for a trend in reduction of VAS.||||0.043
90983402|NCT04246047|181851805|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.41|||<|1e-05||95.0|0.31|0.53|||one-sided stratified log-rank||Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox Proportional Hazards model stratified by the number of lines of prior therapy, prior bortezomib and revised international staging system (R-ISS) at screening, with a covariate of treatment.|||0.53|0.31|<0.00001
90983403|NCT00780403|181851865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Statistical tests were performed at the significance level of 5%, without multiplicity adjustment.|Mainland-Gart Test|The p-value was derived from Mainland-Gart Test applied to a 2 (treatment sequence) by 2 (preferred period) contingency table.||The Mainland-Gart test was applied to the preference rates in the subjects who showed a preference, to assess the difference in preference rates between RediTab and Zyrtec.||||<0.0001
90983404|NCT01225068|181851935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||effect size|0.22||||||||||no p value for effect size calculations ES is dimensionless; ES (Cohen's d) is a well described statistical construct and is calculated from the difference between the means (here at baseline and 6 weeks) divided by the pooled standard deviation.|effect size is endpoint and not comparis|no p value for effect size calculations||effect size is endpoint and not comparison||||
90983405|NCT05165394|181851939|SUPERIORITY||Least-Squares Mean Treatment Difference|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5||0.8663|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-8.4|||Significance level = 0.1|ANCOVA||Confidence interval and p-value are one-sided for test of null hypothesis that the LS mean difference between NBI-1065846 and placebo in DARS total score at Day 57 is greater than or equal to zero.||||-8.4|0.8663
91039924|NCT02554877|181964591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|3.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7||0.3031|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.3|9.94||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 12.||9.94|-2.30|0.3031
91039925|NCT02554877|181964591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.72||0.8129|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.27|7.04||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 12.||7.04|-5.27|0.8129
91039926|NCT02554877|181964592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.402|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.33|1.01||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 2.||1.01|-0.33|0.4020
91039927|NCT02554877|181964592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.8789|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.61|0.73||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 2.||0.73|-0.61|0.8789
91039928|NCT02554877|181964592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.0345|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.19|1.54||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 2.||1.54|0.19|0.0345
91039929|NCT02554877|181964592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|1.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.0087|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.48|2.08||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 4.||2.08|0.48|0.0087
91039930|NCT02554877|181964592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.0268|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.28|1.88||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 4.||1.88|0.28|0.0268
90983406|NCT05165394|181851940|SUPERIORITY||Least-Squares Mean Treatment Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0||0.7008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|4.8|||ANCOVA||NBI-1065846 - Placebo|||4.8|-7.1|0.7008
90983407|NCT05165394|181851941|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9051|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Chi-square test|||CGI-S scores at Day 57 for NBI-1065846 compared to placebo.||||0.9051
90983408|NCT02495077|181851947|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.9||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.73|0.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mean eGFR of the two treatment groups was compared. The p-value, estimated month 24 eGFR within each treatment group, estimate of the treatment group difference, and estimated 95% confidence intervals result from a repeated measures mixed model using available eGFR data from months 1, 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 to compare the experimental group to the control group. Random effects for the intercept and eGFR collection day were utilized in the model.||0.93|-10.73|0.099
90983409|NCT02495077|181851948|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
90983410|NCT02495077|181851949|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
90983411|NCT02495077|181851951|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.746|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.746
90983412|NCT02495077|181851952|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.242|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.242
90983413|NCT02495077|181851954|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
90983414|NCT02495077|181851955|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.497|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.497
90983415|NCT02495077|181851956|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.622|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.622
90983416|NCT02495077|181851958|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.011
90983417|NCT02495077|181851959|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.135|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.135
90983418|NCT02495077|181851960|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.157|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.157
90983419|NCT02495077|181851961|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.071|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.071
90983420|NCT02495077|181851962|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.543|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.543
90983421|NCT02495077|181851963|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.617|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.617
90983422|NCT02495077|181851964|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.275|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.275
90983423|NCT02495077|181851965|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.300
90983424|NCT02495077|181851966|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.152|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.152
90983425|NCT02495077|181851967|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.181|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.181
90983426|NCT02495077|181851968|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.03||||0.639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.37|3.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7. Mean eGFR of the two treatment groups was compared. The p-value, estimated day 7 eGFR within each treatment group, estimate of the treatment group difference, and estimated 95% confidence interval result from a repeated measures mixed model using available eGFR data from day 7 and months 1, 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 to compare the experimental group to the control group at day 7. Random effects for the intercept and eGFR collection day were utilized in the model.||3.30|-5.37|0.639
90983427|NCT02495077|181851969|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.56||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.22|3.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 30. Mean eGFR of the two treatment groups was compared. The p-value, estimated day 30 eGFR within each treatment group, estimate of the treatment group difference, and estimated 95% confidence interval result from a repeated measures mixed model using available eGFR data from months 1, 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 to compare the experimental group to the control group at day 30. Random effects for the intercept and eGFR collection day were utilized in the model.||3.10|-6.22|0.510
90983428|NCT02495077|181851969|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.85||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.45|2.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 90. Mean eGFR of the two treatment groups was compared. The p-value, estimated day 90 eGFR within each treatment group, estimate of the treatment group difference, and estimated 95% confidence interval result from a repeated measures mixed model using available eGFR data from months 1, 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 to compare the experimental group to the control group at day 90. Random effects for the intercept and eGFR collection day were utilized in the model.||2.76|-6.45|0.430
90983429|NCT02495077|181851969|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.28||||0.328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.86|2.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 180. Mean eGFR of the two treatment groups was compared. The p-value, estimated day 180 eGFR within each treatment group, estimate of the treatment group difference, and estimated 95% confidence interval result from a repeated measures mixed model using available eGFR data from months 1, 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 to compare the experimental group to the control group at day 180. Random effects for the intercept and eGFR collection day were utilized in the model.||2.31|-6.86|0.328
90983430|NCT02495077|181851970|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85||||0.725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.58|3.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7. Mean eGFR of the two treatment groups was compared. The p-value, estimated day 7 eGFR within each treatment group, estimate of the treatment group difference, and estimated 95% confidence interval result from a repeated measures mixed model using available eGFR data from day 7 and months 1, 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 to compare the experimental group to the control group at day 7. Random effects for the intercept and eGFR collection day were utilized in the model.||3.89|-5.58|0.725
90983431|NCT02495077|181851971|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.35||||0.601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.41|3.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 30. Mean eGFR of the two treatment groups was compared. The p-value, estimated day 30 eGFR within each treatment group, estimate of the treatment group difference, and estimated 95% confidence interval result from a repeated measures mixed model using available eGFR data from months 1, 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 to compare the experimental group to the control group at day 30. Random effects for the intercept and eGFR collection day were utilized in the model.||3.72|-6.41|0.601
90983432|NCT02495077|181851971|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.64||||0.519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.66|3.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 90. Mean eGFR of the two treatment groups was compared. The p-value, estimated day 90 eGFR within each treatment group, estimate of the treatment group difference, and estimated 95% confidence interval result from a repeated measures mixed model using available eGFR data from months 1, 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 to compare the experimental group to the control group at day 90. Random effects for the intercept and eGFR collection day were utilized in the model.||3.37|-6.66|0.519
90983433|NCT02495077|181851971|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.09||||0.411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.08|2.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 180. Mean eGFR of the two treatment groups was compared. The p-value, estimated day 180 eGFR within each treatment group, estimate of the treatment group difference, and estimated 95% confidence interval result from a repeated measures mixed model using available eGFR data from months 1, 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 to compare the experimental group to the control group at day 180. Random effects for the intercept and eGFR collection day were utilized in the model.||2.91|-7.08|0.411
90983434|NCT02495077|181851972|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.569|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.569
90983435|NCT02495077|181851973|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
90983436|NCT02495077|181851974|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.451|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.451
90983437|NCT02495077|181851975|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.614|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.614
90983438|NCT02495077|181851976|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.710
90983439|NCT02495077|181851977|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.622|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.622
90983440|NCT02495077|181851978|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.49||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|1.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||24 Hours/Day 1. Mean serum creatinine of the two treatment groups was compared. The p-value, estimated 24 hour creatinine level within each treatment group, estimate of the treatment group difference, and estimated 95% confidence interval result from a repeated measures mixed model using available serum creatinine data from 24, 48, and 72 hours to compare the experimental group to the control group at 24 hours/day 1. A random effect for the intercept was utilized in the model.||1.35|-0.36|0.256
91039931|NCT02554877|181964592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.58|2.19||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 4.||2.19|0.58|0.0047
91039932|NCT02554877|181964592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.0116|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.38|1.76||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 8.||1.76|0.38|0.0116
91039933|NCT02554877|181964592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.022|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.27|1.66||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 8.||1.66|0.27|0.0220
91039934|NCT02554877|181964592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.62|2.01||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 8.||2.01|0.62|0.0021
91039935|NCT02554877|181964592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|1.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.56|2.26||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 12.||2.26|0.56|0.0067
91039936|NCT02554877|181964592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.0225|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.33|2.02||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 12.||2.02|0.33|0.0225
91039937|NCT02554877|181964592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.0073|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.55|2.25||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 12.||2.25|0.55|0.0073
91039938|NCT02554877|181964592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.2391|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.12|0.73||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 2. The readings with residual greater than 3.5 times of its standard derivation were excluded from the presentation. (Excluding outliers)||0.73|-0.12|0.2391
91039939|NCT02554877|181964592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.9912|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.42|0.43||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 2. The readings with residual greater than 3.5 times of its standard derivation were excluded from the presentation. (Excluding outliers)||0.43|-0.42|0.9912
91039940|NCT02554877|181964592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.193|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.09|0.77||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 2. The readings with residual greater than 3.5 times of its standard derivation were excluded from the presentation. (Excluding outliers)||0.77|-0.09|0.1930
91039941|NCT02554877|181964592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.35|1.25||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 4. The readings with residual greater than 3.5 times of its standard derivation were excluded from the presentation. (Excluding outliers)||1.25|0.35|0.0038
91039942|NCT02554877|181964592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.0394|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.12|1.02||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 4. The readings with residual greater than 3.5 times of its standard derivation were excluded from the presentation.(Excluding outliers)||1.02|0.12|0.0394
91039943|NCT02554877|181964592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.0862|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.02|0.93||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 4. The readings with residual greater than 3.5 times of its standard derivation were excluded from the presentation.(Excluding outliers)||0.93|0.02|0.0862
90983441|NCT02495077|181851978|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37||||0.391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|1.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||48 Hours/Day 2. Mean serum creatinine of the two treatment groups was compared. The p-value, estimated 48 hour creatinine level within each treatment group, estimate of the treatment group difference, and estimated 95% confidence interval result from a repeated measures mixed model using available serum creatinine data from 24, 48, and 72 hours to compare the experimental group to the control group at 48 hours/day 2. A random effect for the intercept was utilized in the model.||1.23|-0.48|0.391
90983442|NCT02495077|181851978|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.56||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||72 Hours/Day 3. Mean serum creatinine of the two treatment groups was compared. The p-value, estimated 72 hour creatinine level within each treatment group, estimate of the treatment group difference, and estimated 95% confidence interval result from a repeated measures mixed model using available serum creatinine data from 24, 48, and 72 hours to compare the experimental group to the control group at 72 hours/day 3. A random effect for the intercept was utilized in the model.||1.42|-0.30|0.199
90983443|NCT02495077|181851979|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.812|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.812
90983444|NCT02495077|181851980|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.576|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.576
90983445|NCT02495077|181851981|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.311|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.311
90983446|NCT02495077|181851982|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.418|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.418
90983447|NCT02495077|181851983|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.030
90983448|NCT02495077|181851984|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.153|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.153
90983449|NCT02495077|181851985|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.171|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.171
90983450|NCT02495077|181851986|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.163|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.163
90983451|NCT02495077|181851987|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.572|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.572
90983452|NCT02495077|181851988|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.973|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.973
90983453|NCT02495077|181851989|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.152|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.152
90983454|NCT02495077|181851990|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.004
90983455|NCT02495077|181851991|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
90983456|NCT02495077|181851992|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.347|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.347
90983457|NCT02839746|181852001|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||non-parametric Wilcoxon signed-rank|||Within group comparison of Baseline convenience with that of Visit 2.||||<0.0001
90983458|NCT02839746|181852001|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||non-parametric Wilcoxon signed-rank|||Within group comparison of Baseline satisfaction with that of Visit 2.||||<0.0001
90983459|NCT02839746|181852002|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||non-parametric Wilcoxon signed-rank|||Within group comparison of Baseline convenience with that of Visit 3.||||<0.0001
90983460|NCT02839746|181852002|OTHER|Within group comparison of Baseline satisfaction with that of Visit 3.|||||<|0.0001|||||||non-parametric Wilcoxon signed-rank]|||||||<0.0001
90983461|NCT02839746|181852003|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||non-parametric Wilcoxon signed-rank|||Within group comparison of visit 2 convenience with that of Visit 3.||||<0.0001
90983462|NCT02839746|181852003|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||non-parametric Wilcoxon signed-rank|||Within group comparison of visit 2 satisfaction with that of Visit 3.||||<0.0001
91039944|NCT02554877|181964592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.48|1.61||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 8. The readings with residual greater than 3.5 times of its standard derivation were excluded from the presentation.(Excluding outliers)||1.61|0.48|0.0024
91039945|NCT02554877|181964592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.0068|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.37|1.48||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 8. The readings with residual greater than 3.5 times of its standard derivation were excluded from the presentation.(Excluding outliers)||1.48|0.37|0.0068
91039946|NCT02554877|181964592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.0132|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.29|1.42||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 8. The readings with residual greater than 3.5 times of its standard derivation were excluded from the presentation.(Excluding outliers)||1.42|0.29|0.0132
91039947|NCT02554877|181964592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.65|2.14||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 12. The readings with residual greater than 3.5 times of its standard derivation were excluded from the presentation.(Excluding outliers)||2.14|0.65|0.0024
91039948|NCT02554877|181964592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.0115|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|1.89||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 12. The readings with residual greater than 3.5 times of its standard derivation were excluded from the presentation.(Excluding outliers)||1.89|0.40|0.0115
91039949|NCT02554877|181964592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.0344|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.22|1.72||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 12. The readings with residual greater than 3.5 times of its standard derivation were excluded from the presentation.(Excluding outliers)||1.72|0.22|0.0344
91039950|NCT05143047|181964597|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91039951|NCT05143047|181964598|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04
91039952|NCT05143047|181964599|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.42
91039953|NCT05143047|181964600|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.17
91039954|NCT05143047|181964601|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.03
91039955|NCT05143047|181964602|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.42
91039956|NCT05143047|181964603|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.04
91039957|NCT05143047|181964604|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91039958|NCT05143047|181964605|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.22
91039959|NCT01447511|181964615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis is that the mean S-warfarin clearance among the five CYP2C9 genotypes under control conditions is the same.||||<0.0001
91039960|NCT01447511|181964615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis is that the mean S-warfarin clearance among the five CYP2C9 genotypes under fluconazole conditions is the same.||||=0.0001
91039961|NCT01447511|181964615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis is that the mean S-warfarin clearance among the five CYP2C9 genotypes under rifampin conditions is the same.||||<0.0001
91039962|NCT01447511|181964615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.3058|||||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis is that the mean R-warfarin clearance among the five CYP2C9 genotypes under control conditions is the same.||||=0.3058
91039963|NCT01447511|181964615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.3278|||||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis is that the mean R-warfarin clearance among the five CYP2C9 genotypes under fluconazole conditions is the same.||||=0.3278
91039964|NCT01447511|181964615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.6155|||||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis is that the mean R-warfarin clearance among the five CYP2C9 genotypes under rifampin conditions is the same.||||=0.6155
91039965|NCT02336074|181964617|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26||||||Treatment arms were compared in terms of absolute total HIV DNA levels (on a log10-scale) at post-randomization weeks 16 and 18 adjusted for the baseline (i.e. randomization) level and by stratum.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.26
91039966|NCT02336074|181964619|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.41||||0.145|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||"Comparison of the proportion of patients with undetectable viral outgrowth using logistic regression.~The analysis was adjusted for stratum and baseline viral outgrowth. Missing baseline values were imputed."||||0.145
91039967|NCT01694563|181964668|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||The primary effectiveness hypothesis for this study was to demonstrate a superiority success rate at 36-months follow-up in patients treated with the AtriCure Synergy Ablation System compared to a pre-established performance goal.||||0.05
91039968|NCT01694563|181964669|SUPERIORITY||Clopper-Pearson|90.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|||||||90% confidence interval calculated using the Clopper-Pearson method.|Secondary success was defined as freedom from AF regardless of antiarrhythmic drug usage at 12 months post-operatively.||||
90983463|NCT04426630|181852017|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed rank test||Heart failure patients in Uganda were enrolled in an mHealth program at the Uganda Heart Institute. The program intended to promote self-care for heart failure and improve patient healthcare quality of life.||||<0.001
90983464|NCT04426630|181852018|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed rank test||||||<0.001
90983465|NCT04426630|181852019|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed rank test||||||<0.001
90983466|NCT04426630|181852020|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028|||||||Chi-squared|Wilcoxon sign-rank test used to compared baseline outcomes to 6 month outcomes.||Heart failure patients in Uganda were enrolled in an mHealth program at the Uganda Heart Institute. The program intended to promote self-care for heart failure and improve patient healthcare quality of life.||||0.028
90983467|NCT04426630|181852021|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
90983468|NCT04426630|181852022|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
90983469|NCT04426630|181852023|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.23
90983470|NCT04426630|181852024|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
90983471|NCT04426630|181852025|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed rank test||||||<0.001
90983472|NCT04426630|181852026|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed rank test||||||<0.001
90983473|NCT04426630|181852027|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed rank test||||||0.07
90983474|NCT04426630|181852028|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
90983475|NCT02333331|181852032|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28||||0.274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|1.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.21|-0.64|0.274
90983476|NCT02333331|181852032|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|1.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.35|-0.83|0.320
90983477|NCT02333331|181852032|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.87|-0.24|0.134
90983478|NCT02333331|181852033|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.32||||0.576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.6|30.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||30.95|-37.6|0.576
90983479|NCT02333331|181852033|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.6||||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.2|61.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||61.41|-22.2|0.178
91039969|NCT01694563|181964669|SUPERIORITY||Clopper-Pearson|90.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|||||||90% confidence interval calculated using the Clopper-Pearson method.|Secondary success was defined as freedom from AF regardless of antiarrhythmic drug usage at 24 months post-operatively.||||
90983480|NCT02333331|181852033|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.31||||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|30.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||30.98|-10.4|0.163
90983481|NCT02333331|181852034|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.10|-0.10|0.488
90983482|NCT02333331|181852034|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.22|-0.02|0.055
90983483|NCT02333331|181852034|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03||||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.09|-0.03|0.161
90983484|NCT02333331|181852035|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.01||||0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.03|0.99|0.213
90983485|NCT02333331|181852035|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.09|1.03|<0.001
90983486|NCT02333331|181852035|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.08|1.05|<0.001
90983487|NCT02333331|181852036|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0||||0.458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.02|0.98|0.458
90983488|NCT02333331|181852036|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.08|1.03|<0.001
90983489|NCT02333331|181852036|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.07|1.04|<0.001
90983490|NCT03952546|181852040|NON_INFERIORITY|The test for non-inferiority was carried out by calculating the upper 95% confidence limit (one sided confidence interval) for the difference in estimated blood loss (δ = Unipolar electrocautery system - Saline-coupled bipolar sealer), with the margin of inferiority (δ), set at 200 cc.||||||0.1254|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.1254
90983491|NCT03952546|181852041|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
90983492|NCT00685178|181852047|SUPERIORITY||F-value for main effect of Condition|2.21||||0.531|TWO_SIDED|||||Using the proportion of negative urine samples obtained, the four groups were compared to determine whether there are any group differences in cocaine abstinence (as measured by negative urine samples).|Chi-squared||F-value for main effect of Drug Condition|||||0.531
90983493|NCT00685178|181852048|SUPERIORITY||Spearmann's rank correlation|0.969|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA||CR subjects only|Analyses were performed to measure the correlation between CR groups (topiramate + CR and Placebo + CR) and abstinence.||||<0.001
90983494|NCT00685178|181852048|SUPERIORITY||Spearmann's rank correlation|0.494|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)||NonCR subjects only|Analyses were performed to measure the correlation between Non-CR groups (topiramate + NonCR and Placebo + NonCR) and abstinence.||||<0.001
91039970|NCT01694563|181964669|SUPERIORITY||Clopper-Pearson|90.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0||||||||Secondary success was defined as freedom from AF regardless of antiarrhythmic drug usage at 36 months post-operatively.|90% confidence interval using the Clopper-Pearson method.|||
90983495|NCT05299892|181852072|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.46153||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.79|12.99|||ANOVA|||An ANOVA was conducted for the three SE conditions (off, moderate, strong) at 50 dBA .Post -hoc comparisons were done using Bonferroni's correction. Below result is the mean comparison between SE of and SE moderate. Analysis of age effects was not completed.||12.99|1.79|.005
90983496|NCT05299892|181852072|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.00961|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.91|15.11|||ANOVA|||An ANOVA was conducted for the three SE conditions (off, moderate, strong) at 50 dBA . Post -hoc comparisons were done using Bonferroni's correction. Below result is the mean comparison between SE of and SE strong. An analysis of age effects was not completed.||15.11|3.91|<.001
90983497|NCT05299892|181852072|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: There will be no significant differences between the mean unaided CNC score at 50 dBA and the mean aided CNC score with SE off.||||<0.001
90983498|NCT00149214|181852079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of Participants|16.5||||||95.0|10.5|24.2||||||Confidence Interval for pathological complete response in the Pemetrexed treatment arm.||24.2|10.5|
90983499|NCT00149214|181852079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of Participants|20.2||||||95.0|13.4|28.5||||||Confidence Interval for pathological complete response in the Cyclophosphamide treatment group.||28.5|13.4|
90983500|NCT00756002|181852086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values are from t-tests of the ANCOVA model for the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|Least Squares (LS) means from ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||One subject did not have postsleep questionnaire data on day 2; however, had polysomnography data recorded. Analysis was based on LOCF data.||||<0.001
90983501|NCT00756002|181852087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values are from t-tests of the ANCOVA model for the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||||||<0.001
90983502|NCT00756002|181852088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values are from t-tests of the ANCOVA model for the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||||||<0.001
90983503|NCT00756002|181852089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||P-values are from t-tests of the ANCOVA model for the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||One subject did not have postsleep questionnaire data on day 2; however, had polysomnography data recorded. Analysis was based on LOCF data.||||0.003
90983504|NCT00756002|181852090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values are from t-tests of the ANCOVA model for the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||||||<0.001
90983505|NCT00756002|181852091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values are from t-tests of the ANCOVA model for the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||||||<0.001
90983506|NCT00756002|181852092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values are from t-tests of the ANCOVA model for the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||||||<0.001
90983507|NCT00756002|181852093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values are from t-tests of the ANCOVA model for the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||||||<0.001
90983508|NCT00756002|181852094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values are from t-tests of the ANCOVA model for the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||||||<0.001
90983509|NCT00756002|181852095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values are from t-tests of the ANCOVA model for the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||||||<0.001
90983510|NCT00756002|181852096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values are from t-tests of the ANCOVA model for the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||||||<0.001
90983511|NCT00756002|181852097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values are from t-tests of the ANCOVA model for the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||||||<0.001
90983512|NCT00756002|181852098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||LS means from ANCOVA model with effects for treatment \& pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate. P-values from t-tests of the ANCOVA model for the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90983513|NCT00756002|181852099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.043||95.0||||LS means from ANCOVA model with effects for treatment \& pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate. P-values from t-tests of the ANCOVA model for the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||||0.043
91039971|NCT01026402|181964670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Maximum Tolerated Dose|50.0|||||||||||||50mg twice daily continuous dosing 20 evaluable patients|||||
90983514|NCT00756002|181852100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||P-values for differences are obtained using t-tests from the ANCOVA model of the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||||||0.005
90983515|NCT00756002|181852101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0||||P-values for differences are obtained using t-tests from the ANCOVA model of the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||||||0.010
90983516|NCT00756002|181852102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-values for differences are obtained using t-tests from the ANCOVA model of the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||||||0.002
90983517|NCT00756002|181852103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0||||P-values for differences are obtained using t-tests from the ANCOVA model of the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||||||0.006
90983518|NCT00756002|181852104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values for differences are obtained using t-tests from the ANCOVA model of the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with the Baseline value as a covariate.||||||<0.001
90983519|NCT00756002|181852105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values for differences are obtained using t-tests from the ANCOVA model of the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with the Baseline value as a covariate.||||||<0.001
90983520|NCT00756002|181852106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values for differences are obtained using t-tests from the ANCOVA model of the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with the Baseline value as a covariate.||||||<0.001
90983521|NCT00756002|181852107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values for differences are obtained using t-tests from the ANCOVA model of the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||||||<0.001
91039972|NCT01026402|181964670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Maximum Tolerated Dose|100.0|||||||||||||100mg once daily continuous dosing 16 evaluable patients|||||
91039973|NCT01026402|181964670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Maximum Tolerated Dose|125.0|||||||||||||125mg twice daily intermittent dosing (2 days on, 5 days off) 29 evaluable patients|||||
91039974|NCT05604014|181964686|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.49
90983522|NCT00756002|181852108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values for differences are obtained using t-tests from the ANCOVA model of the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||||||<0.001
90983523|NCT00756002|181852109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values for differences are obtained using t-tests from the ANCOVA model of the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||||||<0.001
90983524|NCT00756002|181852110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values for differences are obtained using t-tests from the ANCOVA model of the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||||||<0.001
90983525|NCT00756002|181852111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values for differences are obtained using t-tests from the ANCOVA model of the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||||||<0.001
90983526|NCT00756002|181852112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values for differences are obtained using t-tests from the ANCOVA model of the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||||||<0.001
90983527|NCT00756002|181852113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.785||95.0||||P-values for differences are obtained using t-tests from the ANCOVA model of the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||||||0.785
91039975|NCT05604014|181964687|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5
91039976|NCT05604014|181964688|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.44||||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.16
91039977|NCT05604014|181964689|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.78||||0.44|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.44
91039978|NCT00836758|181964690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.007
91039979|NCT03349567|181964701|SUPERIORITY||Incident rate ratio|0.99||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|Segmented regression analysis was conducted using generalized linear models to estimate change in monthly antimicrobial prescription rates.||||1.01|0.98|0.35
90983528|NCT00756002|181852114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.422||95.0||||P-values for differences are obtained using t-tests from the ANCOVA model of the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||||||0.422
90983529|NCT00756002|181852115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.665||95.0||||P-values for differences are obtained using t-tests from the ANCOVA model of the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||||||0.665
90983530|NCT00756002|181852116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.228||95.0||||P-values for differences are obtained using t-tests from the ANCOVA model of the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||||||0.228
90983531|NCT00756002|181852117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.099||95.0||||P-values for differences are obtained using t-tests from the ANCOVA model of the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||||||0.099
90983532|NCT00756002|181852118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||P-values for differences are obtained using t-tests from the ANCOVA model of the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||||||0.005
90983533|NCT00756002|181852119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0||||P-values for differences are obtained using t-tests from the ANCOVA model of the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||||||0.004
90983534|NCT00756002|181852120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||P-values for differences are obtained using t-tests from the ANCOVA model of the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||||||0.001
90983535|NCT00756002|181852121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0||||P-values for differences are obtained using t-tests from the ANCOVA model of the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||||||0.004
90983536|NCT00756002|181852122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0||||P-values for differences are obtained using t-tests from the ANCOVA model of the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||||||0.040
90983537|NCT00756002|181852123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.814||95.0||||P-values for differences are obtained using t-tests from the ANCOVA model of the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||||||0.814
90983538|NCT00756002|181852124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.929||95.0||||P-values for differences are obtained using t-tests from the ANCOVA model of the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||||||0.929
90983539|NCT00756002|181852125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.591||95.0||||P-values for differences are obtained using t-tests from the ANCOVA model of the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||||||0.591
90983540|NCT00756002|181852126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015||95.0||||P-values for differences are obtained using t-tests from the ANCOVA model of the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||||||0.015
90983541|NCT00756002|181852127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.097||95.0||||P-values for differences are obtained using t-tests from the ANCOVA model of the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||||||0.097
90983542|NCT00756002|181852128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028||95.0||||P-values for differences are obtained using t-tests from the ANCOVA model of the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||||||0.028
90983543|NCT00756002|181852129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||P-values for differences are obtained using t-tests from the ANCOVA model of the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||||||0.003
90983544|NCT00756002|181852130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.111||95.0||||P-values for differences are obtained using t-tests from the ANCOVA model of the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||||||0.111
90983545|NCT04329923|181852139|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.58||||0.28|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.28
90983546|NCT01272180|181852144|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The immune response of ABCWY+OMV group was considered to be non-inferior to that of ACWY group if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval on the difference between groups in percentage of subjects with seroresponse is greater than -10% for each of A, C, W-135and Y serogroups, at 30 days after the last vaccination.|Group Difference % (ABCWY+OMV - ACWY)|16.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|29.0||||||Non-inferiority of seroresponse against N.meningitidis serogroup A of two doses of MenABCWY combination vaccine to that of one dose of MenACWY vaccine.||29|5|
90983547|NCT01272180|181852144|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The immune response of ABCWY+OMV group was considered to be non-inferior to that of ACWY group if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval on the difference between MenABCWY and MenACWY groups in percentage of subjects with seroresponse is greater than -10% for each of A, C, W-135and Y serogroups, at 30 days after the last vaccination.|Group Difference % (ABCWY+OMV - ACWY)|32.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.0|44.0||||||Non-inferiority of seroresponse against N.meningitidis serogroup C of two doses of ABCWY+OMV combination vaccine to that of one dose of MenACWY vaccine.||44|21|
90983548|NCT01272180|181852144|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The immune response of ABCWY+OMV group was considered to be non-inferior to that of ACWY group if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval on the difference between groups in percentage of subjects with seroresponse is greater than -10% for each of A, C, W-135and Y serogroups, at 30 days after the last vaccination.|Group Difference % (ABCWY+OMV - ACWY)|15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|30.0||||||Non-inferiority of seroresponse against N.meningitidis serogroup W-135 of two doses of ABCWY+OMV combination vaccine to that of one dose of MenACWY vaccine.||30|0|
90983549|NCT01272180|181852144|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The immune response of ABCWY+OMV group was considered to be non-inferior to that of ACWY group if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval on the difference between groups in percentage of subjects with seroresponse is greater than -10% for each of A, C, W-135and Y serogroups, at 30 days after the last vaccination.|Group Difference % (ABCWY+OMV - ACWY)|18.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|31.0||||||Non-inferiority of seroresponse against N.meningitidis serogroup Y of two doses MenABCWY combination vaccine to that of one dose of MenACWY vaccine.||31|5|
91039980|NCT03349567|181964702|NON_INFERIORITY|A Poisson regression model with log link was used to estimate the rate of safety outcomes. Models were adjusted for time as a continuous covariate, an indicator for month of implementation of intervention (Oct 2018), and included random effects to account for repeated measurements. An interaction variable for the study period (baseline or intervention) and site (intervention or control) was included in the model to estimate the Incident Rate Ratio (IRR) and 95% CIs.|Incident rate ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.35||||||||1.35|0.93|
90983550|NCT01272180|181852144|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The immune response of MenABCWY+qOMV group was considered to be non-inferior to that of ACWY group if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval on the difference between groups in percentage of subjects with seroresponse is greater than -10% for each of A, C, W-135and Y serogroups, at 30 days after the last vaccination.|Group Difference % (ABCWY+qOMV - ACWY)|18.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|30.0||||||Non-inferiority of seroresponse against N.meningitidis serogroup A of two doses of MenABCWY+qOMV combination vaccine to that of one dose of MenACWY vaccine.||30|7|
90983551|NCT01272180|181852144|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The immune response of MenABCWY+qOMV group was considered to be non-inferior to that of MenACWY group if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval on the difference between groups in percentage of subjects with seroresponse is greater than -10% for each of A, C, W-135and Y serogroups, at 30 days after the last vaccination.|Group Difference % (ABCWY+qOMV - ACWY)|30.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.0|42.0||||||Non-inferiority of seroresponse against N.meningitidis serogroup C of two doses of MenABCWY+qOMV combination vaccine to that of one dose of MenACWY vaccine.||42|18|
90983552|NCT01272180|181852144|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The immune response of MenABCWY+qOMV group was considered to be non-inferior to that of MenACWY group if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval on the difference between groups in percentage of subjects with seroresponse is greater than -10% for each of A, C, W-135and Y serogroups, at 30 days after the last vaccination.|Group Difference % (ABCWY+qOMV - ACWY)|19.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|33.0||||||Non-inferiority of seroresponse against N.meningitidis serogroup W-135 of two doses of MenABCWY+qOMV combination vaccine to that of one dose of MenACWY vaccine.||33|4|
90983553|NCT01272180|181852144|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The immune response of MenABCWY+qOMV group was considered to be non-inferior to that of MenACWY group if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval on the difference between groups in percentage of subjects with seroresponse is greater than -10% for each of A, C, W-135and Y serogroups, at 30 days.|Group Difference % (ABCWY+qOMV - ACWY)|15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|29.0||||||Non-inferiority of seroresponse against N.meningitidis serogroup Y of two doses of MenABCWY+qOMV combination vaccine to that of one dose of MenACWY vaccine.||29|3|
90983554|NCT03334214|181852155|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.003
90983555|NCT03334214|181852156|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.026|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.026
90983556|NCT03334214|181852159|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.024
90983557|NCT03334214|181852160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0774|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The p-value is obtained using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the baseline liver fat stratum (\<20%, ≥20%) stratification factor.||||||0.0774
90983558|NCT03334214|181852161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.183|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.183
90983559|NCT03334214|181852162|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.682|||||||ANOVA|||Total Cholesterol||||0.682
90983560|NCT03334214|181852162|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.716|||||||ANOVA|||ApoB||||0.716
90983561|NCT03334214|181852162|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.717|||||||ANOVA|||HDL||||0.717
90983562|NCT03334214|181852162|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.463|||||||ANOVA|||LDL-C||||0.463
90983563|NCT03334214|181852162|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.555|||||||ANOVA|||Non-HDL||||0.555
90983564|NCT03334214|181852162|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.619|||||||ANOVA|||Triglycerides||||0.619
90983565|NCT03334214|181852162|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.698|||||||ANOVA|||VLDL-C||||0.698
90983566|NCT03334214|181852163|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.902|||||||ANOVA|||FPG||||0.902
90983567|NCT03334214|181852163|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.267|||||||Van Elteren test|||HOMA-IR||||0.267
90983568|NCT03334214|181852163|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Van Elteren test|||Insulin||||0.200
90983569|NCT03334214|181852164|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.933|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.933
90983570|NCT01702805|181852176|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.1|||Robust Poisson Regression|The relative risk was adjusted for birth-weight and center stratum.||Null hypothesis: A higher hemoglobin threshold for red-cell transfusions, as compared with a lower threshold, will not reduce nor increase the incidence of death or neurodevelopmental impairment in infants at 22 to 26 months of age corrected for prematurity.||1.10|0.92|0.93
90983571|NCT00121225|181852212|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.029
90983572|NCT01025336|181852220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.46|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 1: Geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.46|0.32|
90983573|NCT01025336|181852220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.41|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 1: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.41|0.30|
90983574|NCT01025336|181852220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.61|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 1: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.61|0.44|
90983575|NCT01025336|181852220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.25|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 3: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.25|0.17|
90983576|NCT01025336|181852220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.24|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 3: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.24|0.18|
90983577|NCT01025336|181852220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.41|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 3: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.41|0.31|
90983578|NCT01025336|181852220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.32|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 4: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.32|0.19|
90983579|NCT01025336|181852220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.33|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 4: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.33|0.22|
90983580|NCT01025336|181852220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.3|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 4: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.30|0.17|
90983581|NCT01025336|181852220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.39|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 5: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.39|0.25|
90983582|NCT01025336|181852220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.38|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 5: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.38|0.27|
90983583|NCT01025336|181852220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.6|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 5: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.60|0.44|
90983584|NCT01025336|181852220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.2|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.20|0.10|
90983585|NCT01025336|181852220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.25|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.25|0.17|
91039981|NCT03349567|181964703|NON_INFERIORITY|A Poisson regression model with log link was used to estimate the rate of safety outcomes. Models were adjusted for time as a continuous covariate, an indicator for month of implementation of intervention (Oct 2018), and included random effects to account for repeated measurements. An interaction variable for the study period (baseline or intervention) and site (intervention or control) was included in the model to estimate the Incident Rate Ratio (IRR) and 95% CIs.|Incident rate ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.27||||||||1.27|0.81|
91039982|NCT03349567|181964704|NON_INFERIORITY|A Poisson regression model with log link was used to estimate the rate of safety outcomes. Models were adjusted for time as a continuous covariate, an indicator for month of implementation of intervention (Oct 2018), and included random effects to account for repeated measurements. An interaction variable for the study period (baseline or intervention) and site (intervention or control) was included in the model to estimate the Incident Rate Ratio (IRR) and 95% CIs.|Incident rate ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.34||||||||1.34|0.58|
90983586|NCT01025336|181852220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.16|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.16|0.09|
90983587|NCT01025336|181852220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.62|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6B: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.62|0.41|
90983588|NCT01025336|181852220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.62|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6B: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.62|0.43|
90983589|NCT01025336|181852220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.59|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6B: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.59|0.38|
90983590|NCT01025336|181852220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.0|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 7F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.00|0.60|
90983591|NCT01025336|181852220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.75|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 7F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.75|0.51|
90983592|NCT01025336|181852220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.46|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 7F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.46|0.86|
90983593|NCT01025336|181852220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.8|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 9V: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.80|0.41|
90983594|NCT01025336|181852220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.73|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 9V: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.73|0.39|
90983595|NCT01025336|181852220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.67|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 9V: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.67|0.78|
90983596|NCT01025336|181852220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.08|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 14: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.08|0.71|
90983597|NCT01025336|181852220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.75|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 14: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.75|0.54|
90983598|NCT01025336|181852220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.06|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 14: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.06|0.78|
90983599|NCT01025336|181852220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.51|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 18C: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.51|0.29|
90983600|NCT01025336|181852220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.56|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 18C: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.56|0.39|
90983601|NCT01025336|181852220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.69|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 18C: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.69|0.53|
90983602|NCT01025336|181852220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.69|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.69|0.49|
90983603|NCT01025336|181852220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.63|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.63|0.52|
90983604|NCT01025336|181852220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.66|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.66|0.53|
90983605|NCT01025336|181852220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.64|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.64|0.42|
90983606|NCT01025336|181852220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.6|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.60|0.44|
90983607|NCT01025336|181852220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.88|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.88|0.63|
90983608|NCT01025336|181852220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.26|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 23F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.26|0.15|
90983609|NCT01025336|181852220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.35|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 23F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.35|0.23|
90983610|NCT01025336|181852220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.43|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 23F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.43|0.28|
90983611|NCT01025336|181852221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.56|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 1: Geometric mean fold rises (GMFRs) were calculated using all subjects with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.56|0.42|
90983612|NCT01025336|181852221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.72|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 1: Geometric mean fold rises (GMFRs) were calculated using all subjects with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.72|0.56|
90983613|NCT01025336|181852221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.45|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 3: Geometric mean fold rises (GMFRs) were calculated using all subjects with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.45|0.35|
90983614|NCT01025336|181852221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.57|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 3: Geometric mean fold rises (GMFRs) were calculated using all subjects with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.57|0.44|
90983615|NCT01025336|181852221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.85|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 4: Geometric mean fold rises (GMFRs) were calculated using all subjects with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.85|0.60|
90983616|NCT01025336|181852221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.97|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 4: Geometric mean fold rises (GMFRs) were calculated using all subjects with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.97|0.63|
90983617|NCT01025336|181852221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.08|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 5: Geometric mean fold rises (GMFRs) were calculated using all subjects with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.08|0.81|
90983618|NCT01025336|181852221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.99|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 5: Geometric mean fold rises (GMFRs) were calculated using all subjects with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.99|0.74|
90983619|NCT01025336|181852221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.29|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6A: Geometric mean fold rises (GMFRs) were calculated using all subjects with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.29|0.19|
90983620|NCT01025336|181852221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.29|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations|Serotype 6A: Geometric mean fold rises (GMFRs) were calculated using all subjects with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.29|0.19|
90983621|NCT01025336|181852221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.45|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6B: Geometric mean fold rises (GMFRs) were calculated using all subjects with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.45|0.31|
90983622|NCT01025336|181852221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.59|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6B: Geometric mean fold rises (GMFRs) were calculated using all subjects with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.59|0.40|
90983623|NCT01025336|181852221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.96|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations|Serotype 7F: Geometric mean fold rises (GMFRs) were calculated using all subjects with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.96|0.58|
90983624|NCT01025336|181852221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.13|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 7F: Geometric mean fold rises (GMFRs) were calculated using all subjects with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.13|0.67|
90983625|NCT01025336|181852221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.67|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 9V: Geometric mean fold rises (GMFRs) were calculated using all subjects with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.67|0.37|
90983626|NCT01025336|181852221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.12|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 9V: Geometric mean fold rises (GMFRs) were calculated using all subjects with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.12|0.57|
91006777|NCT04453722|181897946|SUPERIORITY|Median difference was estimated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimator of location shift between groups and p-values from Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.6|3.3|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||variable: Post-discharge duration (min)||3.3|-18.6|0.556
90983627|NCT01025336|181852221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.09|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 14: Geometric mean fold rises (GMFRs) were calculated using all subjects with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.09|0.85|
90983628|NCT01025336|181852221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.43|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 14: Geometric mean fold rises (GMFRs) were calculated using all subjects with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.43|1.04|
90983629|NCT01025336|181852221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.62|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 18C: Geometric mean fold rises (GMFRs) were calculated using all subjects with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.62|0.48|
90983630|NCT01025336|181852221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.83|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 18C: Geometric mean fold rises (GMFRs) were calculated using all subjects with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.83|0.59|
90983631|NCT01025336|181852221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.72|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19A: Geometric mean fold rises (GMFRs) were calculated using all subjects with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.72|0.57|
90983632|NCT01025336|181852221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.79|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19A: Geometric mean fold rises (GMFRs) were calculated using all subjects with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.79|0.65|
90983633|NCT01025336|181852221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.93|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19F: Geometric mean fold rises (GMFRs) were calculated using all subjects with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.93|0.66|
90983634|NCT01025336|181852221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.05|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19F: Geometric mean fold rises (GMFRs) were calculated using all subjects with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.05|0.75|
90983635|NCT01025336|181852221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.37|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations|Serotype 23F: Geometric mean fold rises (GMFRs) were calculated using all subjects with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.37|0.27|
91039983|NCT03349567|181964705|NON_INFERIORITY|A Poisson regression model with log link was used to estimate the rate of safety outcomes. Models were adjusted for time as a continuous covariate, an indicator for month of implementation of intervention (Oct 2018), and included random effects to account for repeated measurements. An interaction variable for the study period (baseline or intervention) and site (intervention or control) was included in the model to estimate the Incident Rate Ratio (IRR) and 95% CIs.|Incident rate ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.29||||||||1.29|0.53|
90983636|NCT01025336|181852221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.48|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 23F: Geometric mean fold rises (GMFRs) were calculated using all subjects with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.48|0.34|
91039984|NCT03349567|181964706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.001
91039985|NCT03349567|181964706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.13
90983637|NCT01025336|181852222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.22|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 1: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.22|0.85|
90983638|NCT01025336|181852222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.02|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 1: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.02|0.79|
90983639|NCT01025336|181852222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.9|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 1: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.90|0.69|
90983640|NCT01025336|181852222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.1|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 3: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.10|0.82|
90983641|NCT01025336|181852222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.32|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 3: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.32|0.98|
90983642|NCT01025336|181852222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.81|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 3: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.81|0.62|
90983643|NCT01025336|181852222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.69|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 4: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.69|0.41|
90983644|NCT01025336|181852222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.82|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 4: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.82|0.60|
90983645|NCT01025336|181852222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.76|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 4: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.76|0.47|
90983646|NCT01025336|181852222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.87|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 5: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.87|0.67|
90983647|NCT01025336|181852222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.3|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 5: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.30|0.96|
90983648|NCT01025336|181852222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.02|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 5: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.02|0.75|
90983649|NCT01025336|181852222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.79|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.79|0.48|
90983650|NCT01025336|181852222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.46|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.46|0.32|
90983651|NCT01025336|181852222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.75|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.75|0.94|
90983652|NCT01025336|181852222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|2.19|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6B: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||2.19|1.32|
90983653|NCT01025336|181852222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.6|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6B: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.60|1.14|
91039986|NCT03349567|181964707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||Regression, Logistic|Segmented regression analysis was conducted using generalized linear models to estimate change in monthly antibiotic prescription rates.||||||0.46
90983654|NCT01025336|181852222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.01|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6B: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||2.01|1.20|
90983655|NCT01025336|181852222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|2.26|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 7F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||2.26|1.24|
90983656|NCT01025336|181852222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.26|4.3|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 7F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||4.30|2.26|
90983657|NCT01025336|181852222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|2.75|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 7F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||2.75|1.53|
90983658|NCT01025336|181852222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|2.95|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 9V: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||2.95|1.48|
90983659|NCT01025336|181852222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.97|3.7|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 9V: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||3.70|1.97|
90983660|NCT01025336|181852222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.99|4.29|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 9V: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||4.29|1.99|
90983661|NCT01025336|181852222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|2.05|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 14: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||2.05|1.23|
90983662|NCT01025336|181852222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|1.78|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 14: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.78|1.18|
90983663|NCT01025336|181852222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.42|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 14: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.42|1.04|
90983664|NCT01025336|181852222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.19|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 18C: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.19|0.82|
90983665|NCT01025336|181852222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.29|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 18C: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.29|0.96|
90983666|NCT01025336|181852222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.2|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 18C: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.20|0.89|
90983667|NCT01025336|181852222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.46|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.46|1.07|
90983668|NCT01025336|181852222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|1.61|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.61|1.24|
90983669|NCT01025336|181852222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.27|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.27|0.96|
91039987|NCT01945580|181964724|NON_INFERIORITY|With type I error of 0.05 and type II error of 0.20 (power 80%), 362 subjects (181 subjects per arm) are needed to detect non-inferiority of transvaginal biologic to native tissue repair, using a margin of 12.0%.|Adjusted Difference in Percentages|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.6|5.9|||||The propensity adjusted treatment difference of Xenform transvaginal mesh (TVM) minus NTR was estimated and missing data was handled using multiple imputation method.|||5.9|-5.6|
91039988|NCT01945580|181964725|NON_INFERIORITY|With type I error of 0.05 and type II error of 0.10 (power 90%), 308 subjects (154 subjects per arm) are needed to detect non-inferiority with a margin of 11.6%.|Adjusted Difference in Percentages|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8|4.7|||||The propensity score adjusted difference in SAE rate of Xenform transvaginal mesh (TVM) vs. NTR was estimated.|||4.7|-0.8|
90983670|NCT01025336|181852222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rises|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|2.8|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations|Serotype 19F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||2.80|1.56|
90983671|NCT01025336|181852222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.82|2.88|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||2.88|1.82|
90983672|NCT01025336|181852222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|1.9|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.90|1.18|
90983673|NCT01025336|181852222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.48|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 23F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.48|0.89|
90983674|NCT01025336|181852222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.85|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 23F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.85|0.63|
90983675|NCT01025336|181852222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.51|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 23F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.51|0.99|
90983676|NCT01025336|181852223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.31|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 1: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.31|1.03|
90983677|NCT01025336|181852223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.16|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 1: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.16|0.91|
90983678|NCT01025336|181852223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.37|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 3: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.37|1.07|
90983679|NCT01025336|181852223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.13|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 3: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.13|0.91|
90983680|NCT01025336|181852223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|2.68|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 4: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||2.68|1.60|
91006778|NCT04453722|181897949|SUPERIORITY|Median difference was estimated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimator of location shift between groups and P values from Wilcoxon rank sum test|Median Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||variable: Degree of disturbing daily life except sleep (at the day of discharge)||2.0|0.0|0.096
91039989|NCT00073307|181964750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.146||95.0|0.74|1.04||According to O'Brien-Fleming type alpha spending function and total actual deaths at final analysis, threshold for statistical significance was alpha=0.037 (two-sided).|Log Rank||Two treatment groups compared using log-rank test (Sorafenib over Placebo) stratified by country and Motzer category|Sample size based on primary efficacy endpoint of OS. Clinically meaningful improvement defined as 33.3% improvement in median OS (i.e. HR of 0.75, Sorafenib over Placebo). With overall two-sided alpha of 0.04, 90% power and randomization of 1:1, two formal interim analyses and one final analysis were planned using O'Brien-Fleming type error spending function, and a total of approximately 540 events (deaths) were required for the final analysis.||1.04|0.74|0.146
91039990|NCT00073307|181964751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.0287||95.0|0.62|0.97||According to O'Brien-Fleming type alpha spending function and total actual deaths at final analysis, threshold for statistical significance was alpha=0.037 (two-sided).|Log Rank||Two treatment groups compared using log-rank test (Sorafenib over Placebo) stratified by country and Motzer category|Sample size based on primary efficacy endpoint of OS. Clinically meaningful improvement defined as 33.3% improvement in median OS (i.e. HR of 0.75, Sorafenib over Placebo). With overall two-sided alpha of 0.04, 90% power and randomization of 1:1, two formal interim analyses and one final analysis were planned using O'Brien-Fleming type error spending function, and a total of approximately 540 events (deaths) were required for the final analysis.||0.97|0.62|0.0287
91039991|NCT00073307|181964752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.44|||<|1e-06||95.0|0.35|0.55|||Log Rank||Two treatment groups compared using log-rank test (Sorafenib over Placebo) stratified by country and Motzer category|The planned final PFS analysis was to be performed when approximately 363 progressions or deaths (if death occurred before progression) were observed. The analysis had power of 90% to detect a 50% increase in PFS using a two-sided alpha of 0.01||0.55|0.35|<0.000001
91039992|NCT00073307|181964753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rates (CR+PR)|-2.1||||||95.0|-3.7|-0.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjustments for country and Motzer category|difference in response rates (CR+PR) = Placebo - Sorafenib|||-0.6|-3.7|
91039993|NCT00073307|181964754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98|||||||random coefficient model|Random coefficient model adjusted for baseline Motzer score, baseline FKSI-10 score and relative day of FKSI-10 completion.||Approximately 200 subjects per group, assuming a 10% drop out rate, were required to detect a 2 point difference between sorafenib and placebo at approximately 80% power with a two-sided alpha of 0.05||||0.98
91039994|NCT00073307|181964755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83|||||||random coefficient model|Random coefficient model adjusted for baseline Motzer score, baseline PWB score and relative day of PWB completion.||Approximately 200 subjects per group, assuming a 10% drop out rate, were required to detect a 2 point difference between sorafenib and placebo at approximately 80% power with a two-sided alpha of 0.05||||0.83
91039995|NCT00858780|181964756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.17||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|29.82|||GEE Model|||Analysis was performed using a generalized estimating equations (GEE) model, using a logit link, a binomial distribution and an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits, their interaction, and the stratification factor as factors in the model.||29.82|1.72|0.007
90983681|NCT01025336|181852223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.82|3.24|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 4: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||3.24|1.82|
90983682|NCT01025336|181852223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|2.03|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 5: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||2.03|1.55|
90983683|NCT01025336|181852223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|2.09|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 5: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||2.09|1.54|
90983684|NCT01025336|181852223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.07|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.07|0.79|
90983685|NCT01025336|181852223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|2.55|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||2.55|1.48|
90983686|NCT01025336|181852223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.53|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6B: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.53|1.05|
90983687|NCT01025336|181852223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|2.51|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6B: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||2.51|1.50|
90983688|NCT01025336|181852223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.98|3.5|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 7F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||3.50|1.98|
90983689|NCT01025336|181852223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|2.18|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 7F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||2.18|1.31|
90983690|NCT01025336|181852223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|2.61|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 9V: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||2.61|1.37|
90983691|NCT01025336|181852223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.76|3.38|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 9V: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||3.38|1.76|
91006779|NCT04453722|181897949|SUPERIORITY|Median difference was estimated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimator of location shift between groups and P values from Wilcoxon rank sum test|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||variable: Degree of disturbing sleep (at the day of discharge)||2.0|0.0|0.205
91006780|NCT04453722|181897949|SUPERIORITY|Median difference was estimated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimator of location shift between groups and P values from Wilcoxon rank sum test|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||variable: comfortable to wear (at the day of discharge)||0.0|-1.0|0.839
91039996|NCT00858780|181964756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|5.41|||GEE Model|||Analysis was performed using a GEE model, using a logit link, a binomial distribution and an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits, their interaction, and the stratification factor as factors in the model.||5.41|0.54|0.362
91039997|NCT00858780|181964756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.2||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|16.99|||GEE Model|||Analysis was performed using a GEE model, using a logit link, a binomial distribution and an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits, their interaction, and the stratification factor as factors in the model.||16.99|1.04|0.044
91039998|NCT00834405|181964784|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-72 and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|106.0||||||90.0|98.0|114.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||114|98.0|
91039999|NCT00834405|181964785|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-72 and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|107.0||||||90.0|100.0|115.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||115|100|
91040000|NCT00431041|181964799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
91040001|NCT00431041|181964800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||P-value represents overall comparison of severity of dry mouth.|Chi-squared|||||||0.0010
91040002|NCT01822119|181964803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation|||||||<0.0001
91040003|NCT01822119|181964804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation|||||||<0.0001
91040004|NCT01822119|181964805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Statistically significant changes with the same value at 500 to 4000Hz||||<0.0001
91040005|NCT01822119|181964805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Change at 6000Hz||||0.0499
91040006|NCT01822119|181964805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Change at 8000Hz||||0.0632
91040007|NCT01822119|181964806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||||||0.39
91040008|NCT01822119|181964807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||500Hz||||0.79
91040009|NCT01822119|181964807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||1000Hz||||0.26
91040010|NCT01822119|181964807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||2000Hz||||0.24
91040011|NCT01822119|181964807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||3000Hz||||0.83
91040012|NCT01822119|181964807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||4000Hz||||0.026
91040013|NCT01822119|181964807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||6000Hz||||0.0085
91040014|NCT01822119|181964807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||8000Hz||||0.13
91040015|NCT01822119|181964808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Statistically significant improvement with the same value at all presentation levels.||||<0.0001
91040016|NCT01822119|181964809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||50dB||||0.55
91040017|NCT01822119|181964809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||60dB||||0.72
91040018|NCT01822119|181964809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||80dB||||0.28
91040019|NCT01822119|181964810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||||||<0.0001
91040020|NCT01822119|181964811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||||||0.0092
91040021|NCT01822119|181964812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Aversiveness||||0.59
91040022|NCT01822119|181964812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Ease of Communication||||0.71
91040023|NCT01822119|181964812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Reverberation||||0.59
91040024|NCT01822119|181964812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Background noise||||0.40
91040025|NCT01822119|181964812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Global score||||0.50
91040026|NCT02637141|181964823|SUPERIORITY|P-values smaller than 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|LS Mean Difference|-2.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.1||0.7271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.82|11.83|||ANCOVA|The model included baseline VH:CD ratio, site, and sex as covariates and treatment group as a fixed effect.||||11.83|-16.82|0.7271
91040027|NCT02637141|181964823|SUPERIORITY|P-values smaller than 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|LS Mean Difference|6.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.67||0.3438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.07|19.85|||ANCOVA|The model included baseline VH:CD ratio, site, and sex as covariates and treatment group as a fixed effect.||||19.85|-7.07|0.3438
91040028|NCT02637141|181964824|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-14.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.85||0.4746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.39|25.74|||ANCOVA|The model included baseline VH:CD ratio, site, and sex as covariates and treatment group as a fixed effect.||||25.74|-54.39|0.4746
91040029|NCT02637141|181964824|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-41.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.85||0.0343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-79.28|-3.2|||ANCOVA|The model included baseline VH:CD ratio, site, and sex as covariates and treatment group as a fixed effect.||||-3.2|-79.28|0.0343
91040030|NCT02637141|181964826|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4402.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1717.4||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|936.39|7868.1|||Mixed-effect Model Repeat Measurement|The model included baseline value, treatment group, site, sex, time point, and a time point-by-treatment group interaction term as fixed effects.||||7868.10|936.39|0.0140
91040031|NCT02637141|181964826|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|944.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1167.22||0.4228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1410.65|3300.44|||Mixed-effect Model Repeat Measurement|The model included baseline value, treatment group, site, sex, time point, and a time point-by-treatment group interaction term as fixed effects.||||3300.44|-1410.65|0.4228
91040032|NCT02637141|181964827|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|17.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.09||0.3034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.68|52.29|||Mixed-effect Model Repeat Measurement|The model included baseline value, treatment group, site, sex, time point, and a time point-by-treatment group interaction term as fixed effects.||Analysis of Change From Baseline in Anti-DGP-IgA||52.29|-16.68|0.3034
91040033|NCT02637141|181964827|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.46||0.6569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.11|24.28|||Mixed-effect Model Repeat Measurement|The model included baseline value, treatment group, site, sex, time point, and a time point-by-treatment group interaction term as fixed effects.||Analysis of Change From Baseline in Anti-DGP-IgA||24.28|-38.11|0.6569
91040034|NCT02637141|181964827|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|13.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|26.77||0.6254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.86|67.2|||Mixed-effect Model Repeat Measurement|The model included baseline value, treatment group, site, sex, time point, and a time point-by-treatment group interaction term as fixed effects.||Analysis of Change From Baseline in Anti-DGP-IgG||67.20|-40.86|0.6254
91040035|NCT02637141|181964827|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.66||0.8955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.84|46.57|||Mixed-effect Model Repeat Measurement|The model included baseline value, treatment group, site, sex, time point, and a time point-by-treatment group interaction term as fixed effects.||Analysis of Change From Baseline in Anti-DGP IgG||46.57|-40.84|0.8955
91040036|NCT02637141|181964828|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of LS Means|0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.08|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|Generalized linear mixed model with treatment group, site, sex, time (week), and time point-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Analysis of Total Weekly Bowel Movements at Week 12||1.08|0.63|0.1610
91040037|NCT02637141|181964828|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of LS Means|1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.32|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|Generalized linear mixed model with treatment group, site, sex, time (week), and time point-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||||1.32|0.81|0.7810
91040038|NCT02637141|181964830|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-13.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.33||0.2761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.66|10.77|||Mixed-effect Model Repeat Measurement|The model included baseline value, treatment group, site, sex, time point, and a time point-by-treatment group interaction term as fixed effects.||||10.77|-37.66|0.2761
91040039|NCT02637141|181964830|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.66||0.8221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.51|20.27|||Mixed-effect Model Repeat Measurement|The model included baseline value, treatment group, site, sex, time point, and a time point-by-treatment group interaction term as fixed effects.||||20.27|-25.51|0.8221
91040040|NCT02637141|181964831|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.1908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.89|1.3|||Mixed-effect Model Repeat Measurement|The model included baseline value, treatment group, site, sex, time point, and a time point-by-treatment group interaction term as fixed effects.||||1.3|-6.89|0.1908
91040041|NCT02637141|181964831|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.98||0.4088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.53|2.25|||Mixed-effect Model Repeat Measurement|The model included baseline value, treatment group, site, sex, time point, and a time point-by-treatment group interaction term as fixed effects.||||2.25|-5.53|0.4088
91040042|NCT03031795|181964832|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at \< 0.05 for each row comparison with no adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||"A 2 point difference was used to power the study. This is consistent with previous definitions of a clinically meaningful reductions in pain and provides a visually meaningful change on the 0-10 numerical rating scale with anchors at every other point, for example moving from very severe (8) to severe pain (6) or from moderate pain (4) to mild pain (2)."||||< 0.05
91040043|NCT02227238|181964861|SUPERIORITY|Non-inferiority of DTG plus 2 NRTI's was to be declared if the lower bound of 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in snapshot response rates (DTG - LPV/RTV) is greater than - 12%. This was also performed using the Per-Protocol (PP) Population. If both analyses show non-inferiority, the hypothesis of antiviral effect of DTG + 2 NRTI's was superior to LPV/RTV + 2 NRTIs was to be tested.|Proportion difference|13.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.3|20.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Adjusted proportion difference, calculated as proportion on DTG minus that on LPV/RTV and based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel stratified analysis adjusting for Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA and number of fully active background NRTIs, has been presented.||Superiority would be declared if the lower end of the confidence interval was above 0%|20.3|7.3|<.001
91040044|NCT02227238|181964864|OTHER||Proportion difference|5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|9.3|||||Proportion difference, calculated as proportion on DTG minus proportion on LPV/RTV, at Week 24 has been presented.|||9.3|2.2|
91040045|NCT02227238|181964864|OTHER||Proportion difference|9.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|14.4|||||Proportion difference, calculated as proportion on DTG minus proportion on LPV/RTV, at Week 48 has been presented.|||14.4|5.3|
91040046|NCT02227238|181964891|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.171||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.272|-0.069|||Multiple imputation||Mean difference at Week 24 was calculated using multiple imputation using missing at random, adjusting for Baseline LDL cholesterol, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA, Baseline number of Fully Active NRTIs in the background regimen and Age|||-0.069|-0.272|0.0010
91040047|NCT02227238|181964891|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.147||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.259|-0.035|||'Multiple imputation||Mean difference at Week 48 was calculated using multiple imputation using missing at random, adjusting for Baseline LDL cholesterol, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA, Baseline number of Fully Active NRTIs in the background regimen and Age|||-0.035|-0.259|0.0100
91040048|NCT02227238|181964892|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.542|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.729|-0.356|||Multiple imputation||Estimates at Week 24 are calculated using multiple imputation using missing at random, adjusting for Baseline total cholesterol/HDL ratio, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA, Baseline number of Fully Active NRTIs in the background regimen and Age.|||-0.356|-0.729|<0.0001
91040049|NCT02227238|181964892|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.358||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.555|-0.161|||Multiple imputation||Estimates at Week 48 are calculated using multiple imputation using missing at random, adjusting for Baseline total cholesterol/HDL ratio, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA, Baseline number of Fully Active NRTIs in the background regimen and Age.|||-0.161|-0.555|0.0004
91040050|NCT00380588|181964899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38||95.0||||P-value for response (Complete Response + Partial Response).|Fisher Exact|||||||0.380
91040051|NCT00380588|181964900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.074||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.074
91040052|NCT00380588|181964901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.136||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.136
91040053|NCT02096705|181964902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0968|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|-0.71||P-value for Dapagliflozin vs. placebo|Longitudinal repeated measure analysis||Difference of Dapagliflozin from placebo|||-0.71|-1.09|<0.0001
91040054|NCT02096705|181964903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-30.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.605|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.76|-21.61|||Longitudinal repeated measure analysis|P-value for Dapagliflozin vs. placebo|Difference of Dapagliflozin from placebo|||-21.61|-39.76|<0.0001
91040055|NCT02096705|181964904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3057|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|-0.77||P-value for Dapagliflozin vs. placebo|Longitudinal repeated measure analysis||Difference of Dapagliflozin from placebo|||-0.77|-1.98|<0.0001
91040056|NCT02096705|181964905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5171||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.45|-0.42||P-value for Dapagliflozin vs. placebo|Longitudinal repeated measure analysis||Difference of Dapagliflozin from placebo|||-0.42|-2.45|0.0059
91040057|NCT02377349|181964923|SUPERIORITY|Criterion: The lower limit (LL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the GMC ratio \[dTpa Group-Mother/Control Group-Mother\] for anti-PT antibodies was greater than or equal to (≥) 1.5.|GMC ratio|8.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.02|10.2|||2-sample t-test|The CI of the group GMC ratio were computed using two-sample t-test assuming heterogeneity of variance.||GMC ratio between groups (dTpa Group-Mother/Control Group-Mother) to demonstrate that maternally transferred antibodies against pertussis in the dTpa Group-Mother was superior to that in the Control Group-mother, in the cord blood sample at the time of delivery.||10.2|7.02|
91040058|NCT02377349|181964923|SUPERIORITY|Criterion: The lower limit (LL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the GMC ratio \[dTpa Group-Mother/Control Group-Mother\] for anti-FHA antibodies was greater than or equal to (≥) 1.5.|GMC ratio|16.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.48|19.24|||2-sample t-test|The CI of the group GMC ratio were computed using two-sample t-test assuming heterogeneity of variance.||GMC ratio between groups (dTpa Group-Mother/Control Group-Mother) to demonstrate that maternally transferred antibodies against pertussis in the dTpa Group-Mother was superior to that in the Control Group-mother, in the cord blood sample at the time of delivery.||19.24|13.48|
91040059|NCT02377349|181964923|SUPERIORITY|Criterion: The lower limit (LL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the GMC ratio \[dTpa Group-Mother/Control Group-Mother\] for anti-PRN antibodies was greater than or equal to (≥) 1.5.|GMC ratio|20.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.86|26.88|||2-sample t-test|The CI of the group GMC ratio were computed using two-sample t-test assuming heterogeneity of variance.||GMC ratio between groups (dTpa Group-Mother/Control Group-Mother) to demonstrate that maternally transferred antibodies against pertussis in the dTpa Group-Mother was superior to that in the Control Group-mother, in the cord blood sample at the time of delivery.||26.88|15.86|
91040060|NCT02235870|181964970|SUPERIORITY||Least-Square Mean Difference|3.28||||0.0261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.24|4.32|||ANCOVA|||||4.32|2.24|0.0261
91040061|NCT02235870|181964971|SUPERIORITY||Exact Confidence Interval|64.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.5|71.7|||Exact Test|||Subjects in the Obalon Treatment group with at least 2 Balloons and balloon therapy for at least 18 weeks.||71.7|57.5|<0.0001
91040062|NCT02235870|181964972|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|32.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.1|42.5|||Chi-squared|||||42.5|23.1|<0.0001
91040063|NCT02286466|181965070|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|3.87||a priori threshold p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline values of criterion outcomes and psychotropic medication use||Analysis comparing the change in anxiety symptoms (HAM-A) from baseline to post-assessment between groups adjusting for baseline values of criterion outcome and psychotropic medication use.||3.87|-1.60|0.412
91040064|NCT02286466|181965071|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.51||0.997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.99|4.96||a priori threshold p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline values of criterion outcome and psychotropic medication use||Analysis comparing the change in quality of life (FACT-G) from baseline to post-assessment between groups adjusting for baseline values of criterion outcome and psychotropic medication use||4.96|-4.99|0.997
91040065|NCT02286466|181965072|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|2.02||a priori threshold p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline values of criterion outcome and psychotropic medication use||Analysis comparing the change in self-report anxiety symptoms on the HADS-Anxiety Subscale from baseline to post-assessment between groups adjusting for baseline values of criterion outcome and psychotropic medication use.||2.02|-0.46|0.215
91040066|NCT02286466|181965072|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.57||a priori threshold p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline values of criterion outcome and psychotropic medication use||Analysis comparing the change in self-report depression symptoms on the HADS-Depression Subscale from baseline to post-assessment between groups adjusting for baseline values of criterion outcome and psychotropic medication use.||1.57|-0.60|0.379
91040067|NCT02286466|181965073|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|1.75||a priori threshold p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline values of criterion outcome and psychotropic medication use||Analysis comparing the change in depression symptoms on the PHQ-9 from baseline to post-assessment between groups adjusting for baseline values of criterion outcome and psychotropic medication use.||1.75|-1.45|0.852
91040068|NCT00835081|181965074|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model containing factors for sequence of products, subjects within sequence, periods, and products was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|103.0||||||90.0|95.9|110.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%|||110|95.9|
91040069|NCT00835081|181965075|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model containing factors for sequence of products, subjects within sequence, periods, and products was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|100.0||||||90.0|97.5|103.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%|||103|97.5|
91040070|NCT00835081|181965076|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model containing factors for sequence of products, subjects within sequence, periods, and products was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|99.8||||||90.0|97.4|102.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%|||102|97.4|
91040071|NCT01139762|181965077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.41||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.27|-0.55|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||MMRM model includes treatment, region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. Baseline total IPSS was the covariate. No imputation of missing total IPSS data was performed. The within-subject errors were modeled using an unstructured covariance structure.||-0.55|-2.27|0.001
91040072|NCT01139762|181965079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.51||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.14||P-value is for IPSS storage (irritative) subscore - 4 weeks.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||MMRM model includes treatment, region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. Baseline total IPSS was the covariate. No imputation of missing total IPSS data was performed. The within-subject errors were modeled using an unstructured covariance structure.||-0.14|-0.87|0.007
91040073|NCT01139762|181965079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.41||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.02||P-value is for IPSS storage (irritative) subscore - 12 weeks.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||MMRM model includes treatment, region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. Baseline total IPSS was the covariate. No imputation of missing total IPSS data was performed. The within-subject errors were modeled using an unstructured covariance structure.||-0.02|-0.80|0.040
91040074|NCT01139762|181965079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.34||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.07||P-value is for IPSS storage (irritative) subscore - 26 weeks|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||MMRM model includes treatment, region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. Baseline total IPSS was the covariate. No imputation of missing total IPSS data was performed. The within-subject errors were modeled using an unstructured covariance structure.||0.07|-0.75|0.107
91040075|NCT01139762|181965079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|-0.68||P-value is for IPSS voiding (obstructive) subscore - 4 weeks.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||MMRM model includes treatment, region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. Baseline total IPSS was the covariate. No imputation of missing total IPSS data was performed. The within-subject errors were modeled using an unstructured covariance structure.||-0.68|-1.69|<0.001
91040076|NCT01139762|181965079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|-0.46||P-value is for IPSS voiding (obstructive) subscore - 12 weeks.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||MMRM model includes treatment, region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. Baseline total IPSS was the covariate. No imputation of missing total IPSS data was performed. The within-subject errors were modeled using an unstructured covariance structure.||-0.46|-1.62|<0.001
91040077|NCT01139762|181965079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.73||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|-0.14||P-value is IPSS voiding (obstructive) subscore - 26 weeks.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||MMRM model includes treatment, region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. Baseline total IPSS was the covariate. No imputation of missing total IPSS data was performed. The within-subject errors were modeled using an unstructured covariance structure.||-0.14|-1.32|0.015
91040078|NCT01139762|181965080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.14||P-value is for 4 weeks.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||MMRM model includes treatment, region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. Baseline total IPSS was the covariate. No imputation of missing total IPSS data was performed. The within-subject errors were modeled using an unstructured covariance structure.||-0.14|-0.50|<0.001
91040079|NCT01139762|181965080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.19||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.0||P-value is for 12 weeks.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||MMRM model includes treatment, region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. Baseline total IPSS was the covariate. No imputation of missing total IPSS data was performed. The within-subject errors were modeled using an unstructured covariance structure.||0.00|-0.38|0.051
91040080|NCT01139762|181965080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.17||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.04||P-value is for 26 weeks.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||MMRM model includes treatment, region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. Baseline total IPSS was the covariate. No imputation of missing total IPSS data was performed. The within-subject errors were modeled using an unstructured covariance structure.||0.04|-0.38|0.107
91040081|NCT01139762|181965081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.49|6.21||P-value is for 4 weeks.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||MMRM model includes treatment, region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. Baseline IIEF was the covariate. No imputation of missing IIEF data was performed. The within-subject errors were modeled using an unstructured covariance structure.||6.21|3.49|<0.001
91040082|NCT01139762|181965081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.55|5.6||P-value is for 12 weeks.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||MMRM model includes treatment, region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. Baseline IIEF was the covariate. No imputation of missing IIEF data was performed. The within-subject errors were modeled using an unstructured covariance structure.||5.60|2.55|<0.001
91040083|NCT01139762|181965081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.15|6.31||P-value is for 26 weeks.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||MMRM model includes treatment, region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. Baseline IIEF was the covariate. No imputation of missing IIEF data was performed. The within-subject errors were modeled using an unstructured covariance structure.||6.31|3.15|<0.001
91040084|NCT01139762|181965082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.4||P-value is for 4 weeks.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||MMRM model includes treatment, region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. Baseline IIEF was the covariate. No imputation of missing IIEF data was performed. The within-subject errors were modeled using an unstructured covariance structure.||1.40|0.61|<0.001
91040085|NCT01139762|181965082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.51||P-value is for 12 weeks.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||MMRM model includes treatment, region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. Baseline IIEF was the covariate. No imputation of missing IIEF data was performed. The within-subject errors were modeled using an unstructured covariance structure.||1.51|0.61|<0.001
91040086|NCT01139762|181965082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.69||P-value is for 26 weeks.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||MMRM model includes treatment, region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. Baseline IIEF was the covariate. No imputation of missing IIEF data was performed. The within-subject errors were modeled using an unstructured covariance structure.||1.69|0.74|<0.001
91040087|NCT01139762|181965083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|2.47||P-value is for 4 weeks.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||MMRM model includes treatment, region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. Baseline IIEF was the covariate. No imputation of missing IIEF data was performed. The within-subject errors were modeled using an unstructured covariance structure.||2.47|1.18|<0.001
91040088|NCT01139762|181965083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.31||P-value is for 12 weeks.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||MMRM model includes treatment, region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. Baseline IIEF was the covariate. No imputation of missing IIEF data was performed. The within-subject errors were modeled using an unstructured covariance structure.||2.31|0.88|<0.001
91040089|NCT01139762|181965083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|2.73||P-value is for 26 weeks.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||MMRM model includes treatment, region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. Baseline IIEF was the covariate. No imputation of missing IIEF data was performed. The within-subject errors were modeled using an unstructured covariance structure.||2.73|1.23|<0.001
90983692|NCT01025336|181852223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|1.86|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 14: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.86|1.33|
90983693|NCT01025336|181852223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|2.01|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 14: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||2.01|1.38|
90983694|NCT01025336|181852223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.42|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 18C: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.42|1.10|
90983695|NCT01025336|181852223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.55|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 18C: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.55|1.14|
90983696|NCT01025336|181852223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.43|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.43|1.14|
90983697|NCT01025336|181852223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|1.67|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.67|1.28|
90983698|NCT01025336|181852223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|2.6|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||2.60|1.80|
90983699|NCT01025336|181852223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|2.31|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||2.31|1.53|
90983700|NCT01025336|181852223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|2.06|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 23F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||2.06|1.44|
90983701|NCT01025336|181852223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|1.84|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 23F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.84|1.24|
90983702|NCT01025336|181852224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.29|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 1: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.29|0.19|
90983703|NCT01025336|181852224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.25|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 1: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.25|0.17|
90983704|NCT01025336|181852224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.29|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 1: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.29|0.20|
90983705|NCT01025336|181852224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.3|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 3: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.30|0.20|
90983706|NCT01025336|181852224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.42|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 3: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.42|0.31|
90983707|NCT01025336|181852224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.26|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 3: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.26|0.18|
90983708|NCT01025336|181852224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.18|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 4: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.18|0.10|
90983709|NCT01025336|181852224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.2|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 4: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.20|0.12|
90983710|NCT01025336|181852224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.18|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 4: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.18|0.10|
90983711|NCT01025336|181852224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.22|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 5: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.22|0.13|
90983712|NCT01025336|181852224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.33|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 5: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.33|0.22|
90983713|NCT01025336|181852224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.38|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 5: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.38|0.25|
91040090|NCT01139762|181965084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.13||P-value is for 4 weeks.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||MMRM model includes treatment, region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. Baseline IIEF was the covariate. No imputation of missing IIEF data was performed. The within-subject errors were modeled using an unstructured covariance structure.||2.13|0.92|<0.001
91040091|NCT01139762|181965084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.9||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.54||P-value is for 12 weeks.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||MMRM model includes treatment, region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. Baseline IIEF was the covariate. No imputation of missing IIEF data was performed. The within-subject errors were modeled using an unstructured covariance structure.||1.54|0.27|0.006
91040092|NCT01139762|181965084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.07||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.74||P-value is for 26 weeks.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||MMRM model includes treatment, region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. Baseline IIEF was the covariate. No imputation of missing IIEF data was performed. The within-subject errors were modeled using an unstructured covariance structure.||1.74|0.41|0.002
91040093|NCT01139762|181965085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.25||P-value is for 4 weeks.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||MMRM model includes treatment, region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. Baseline IIEF was the covariate. No imputation of missing IIEF data was performed. The within-subject errors were modeled using an unstructured covariance structure.||1.25|0.61|<0.001
91040094|NCT01139762|181965085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.14||P-value is for 12 weeks.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||MMRM model includes treatment, region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. Baseline IIEF was the covariate. No imputation of missing IIEF data was performed. The within-subject errors were modeled using an unstructured covariance structure.||1.14|0.44|<0.001
91040095|NCT01139762|181965085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.13||P-value is for 26 weeks.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||MMRM model includes treatment, region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. Baseline IIEF was the covariate. No imputation of missing IIEF data was performed. The within-subject errors were modeled using an unstructured covariance structure.||1.13|0.39|<0.001
91040096|NCT01139762|181965086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034||95.0||||P-value is for overall distribution of responses.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for baseline lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) severity.||||||0.034
91040097|NCT01139762|181965087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031||95.0|||||Van Elteren test|Van Elteren test was stratified by region.||||||0.031
91040098|NCT01139762|181965088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.328||95.0||||P-value is for overall distribution of responses.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for baseline lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) severity.||||||0.328
91040099|NCT01139762|181965089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.157||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test|||||||0.157
91040100|NCT01139762|181965090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.98||P-value is for Question 3 - 4 weeks.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||MMRM model includes treatment, region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. Baseline IIEF was the covariate. No imputation of missing IIEF data was performed. The within-subject errors were modeled using an unstructured covariance structure.||0.98|0.49|<0.001
91040101|NCT01139762|181965090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.93||P-value is for Question 3 - 12 weeks.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||MMRM model includes treatment, region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. Baseline IIEF was the covariate. No imputation of missing IIEF data was performed. The within-subject errors were modeled using an unstructured covariance structure.||0.93|0.43|<0.001
91040102|NCT01139762|181965090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.02||P-value is for Question 3 - 26 weeks.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||MMRM model includes treatment, region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. Baseline IIEF was the covariate. No imputation of missing IIEF data was performed. The within-subject errors were modeled using an unstructured covariance structure.||1.02|0.48|<0.001
91040103|NCT01139762|181965090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.95||P-value is for Question 4 - 4 weeks.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||MMRM model includes treatment, region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. Baseline IIEF was the covariate. No imputation of missing IIEF data was performed. The within-subject errors were modeled using an unstructured covariance structure.||0.95|0.46|<0.001
91040104|NCT01139762|181965090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.85||P-value is for Question 4 - 12 weeks.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||MMRM model includes treatment, region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. Baseline IIEF was the covariate. No imputation of missing IIEF data was performed. The within-subject errors were modeled using an unstructured covariance structure.||0.85|0.36|<0.001
91040105|NCT01139762|181965090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.89||P-value is for Question 4 - 26 weeks.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||MMRM model includes treatment, region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. Baseline IIEF was the covariate. No imputation of missing IIEF data was performed. The within-subject errors were modeled using an unstructured covariance structure.||0.89|0.35|<0.001
91040106|NCT00840879|181965094|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|98.15||||||90.0|90.96|105.9|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||105.90|90.96|
91040107|NCT00840879|181965095|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|96.34||||||90.0|91.82|101.07|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||101.07|91.82|
91040108|NCT00840879|181965096|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|97.76||||||90.0|93.31|102.42|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||102.42|93.31|
91040109|NCT01894230|181965099|EQUIVALENCE|Month 3|Slope|-0.0189|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3986||0.96|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.96
91040110|NCT01894230|181965099|EQUIVALENCE|Month 8|Slope|-0.2468|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4315||0.57|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.57
91040111|NCT01894230|181965100|EQUIVALENCE|Month 3|Slope|-11.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.68||0.0482|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.0482
91040112|NCT01894230|181965100|EQUIVALENCE|Month 8|Slope|-9.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.333||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.12
91040113|NCT01894230|181965101|EQUIVALENCE|MPR calculated from baseline to last patient follow-up (3 months or 8 months)|Slope|-0.053|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.091||0.6692|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.6692
91040114|NCT01894230|181965102|EQUIVALENCE|Baseline to Month 3|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.025||||0.0371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.043|3.929|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.929|1.043|0.0371
91040115|NCT01894230|181965102|EQUIVALENCE|Month 3 to Month 8|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.115||||0.8815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.265|4.687|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.687|0.265|0.8815
91040116|NCT01894230|181965103|EQUIVALENCE|Month 3|Slope|0.143|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.5965|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.5965
91040117|NCT01894230|181965103|EQUIVALENCE|Month 8|Slope|0.258|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.346||0.4579|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.4579
91040118|NCT01894230|181965104|EQUIVALENCE|Month 3|Slope|0.098|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.163||0.5477|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.5477
91040119|NCT01894230|181965104|EQUIVALENCE|Month 8|Slope|0.298|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145||0.0429|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.0429
91040120|NCT01894230|181965105|EQUIVALENCE|Month 3|Slope|-0.211|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.881||0.8106|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.8106
91040121|NCT01894230|181965105|EQUIVALENCE|Month 8|Slope|0.646|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.009||0.5233|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.5233
91040122|NCT01894230|181965106|EQUIVALENCE|Month 3|Slope|-0.6001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.472||0.6841|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.6841
91040123|NCT01894230|181965106|EQUIVALENCE|Month 8|Slope|-0.771|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.781||0.6658|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.6658
91040124|NCT01894230|181965107|EQUIVALENCE|Month 8|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.085||||0.8384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.495|2.38|||Regression, Logistic|Ordinal Logistic||||2.380|0.495|0.8384
91040125|NCT01894230|181965108|EQUIVALENCE|Month 3 BMQ Necessity|Slope|1.163|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.584||0.0486|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.0486
91040126|NCT01894230|181965108|EQUIVALENCE|Month 8, BMQ Necessity|Slope|0.248|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67||0.7235|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.7235
91040127|NCT01894230|181965108|EQUIVALENCE|Month 3, BMQ Concerns|Slope|-0.862|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.686||0.2113|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.2113
91040128|NCT01894230|181965108|EQUIVALENCE|Month 8, BMQ Concerns|Slope|-1.0083|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.737||0.1739|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.1739
91040129|NCT00642993|181965125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in means|0.41||||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.03|||ANOVA|Mean and standard error are least squares means and corresponding standard errors based on an ANOVA model with main effects for treatment.||||1.03|-0.20|0.187
91040130|NCT00642993|181965126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.58||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The P-value is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Test adjusting for gender.||||1.20|0.28|0.140
91040131|NCT00642993|181965127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|9.93|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The p-value is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Test adjusting for gender.||||9.93|0.24|0.515
91040132|NCT00642993|181965128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28||||0.543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.63|||ANOVA|Mean and standard error are least squares means and corresponding standard errors based on an ANOVA model with main effects for treatment.||||0.63|-1.20|0.543
91040133|NCT00642993|181965129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.35|||ANOVA|Mean and standard error are least squares means and corresponding standard errors based on an ANOVA model with main effects for treatment.||||0.35|-0.09|0.231
91040134|NCT02664415|181965131|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|This is to confirm that the p-value from Fisher's Exact test was 1.000.||||||1.000
91040135|NCT02664415|181965132|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.051|||||||Log Rank|||A comparison of time from ATI to HIV-1 RNA \>= 20 copies/mL between arms.||||0.051
91040136|NCT02664415|181965132|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Log Rank|||A comparison of time from ATI to HIV-1 RNA \>= 1000 copies/mL between arms.||||0.01
91040137|NCT02664415|181965133|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027||||||This is a p-value, comparing HIV-1 RNA levels at first detection between arms.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.027
91040138|NCT02664415|181965133|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.588||||||This is p-value, comparing HIV-1 RNA levels at ART resumption between arms.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.588
91040139|NCT02664415|181965134|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.031|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.031
91040140|NCT02664415|181965136|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.693|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.693
91040141|NCT02664415|181965137|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15||||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||A comparison of total HIV DNA at baseline ATI and ART resumption within the VRC01 arm.||||0.15
91040142|NCT02664415|181965137|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||A comparison of total HIV DNA at baseline ATI and ART resumption within the placebo arm.||||0.04
91040143|NCT02664415|181965137|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||A comparison of total HIV DNA at ART resumption and 6 months after ART resumption within the VRC01 arm.||||0.002
91040144|NCT02664415|181965137|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22||||||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||A comparison of total HIV DNA at ART resumption and 6 months after ART resumption within the placebo arm.||||0.22
91040145|NCT02664415|181965137|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||A comparison of total HIV DNA atbaseline ATI and 6 months after ART resumption within the VRC01 arm.||||0.05
91040146|NCT02664415|181965137|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||A comparison of total HIV DNA at baeline ATI versus 6 months after ART resumption in the placebo arm||||0.22
91040147|NCT02664415|181965140|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.961|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between arms at baseline ATI||||0.961
91040148|NCT02664415|181965140|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.805|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between arms at ART resumption||||0.805
91040149|NCT02664415|181965140|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.221|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Comparison between Baseline and ART resumption within VRC01 arm.||||0.221
91040150|NCT02664415|181965140|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Comparison between Baseline and ART resumption within Placebo arm.||||0.500
91040151|NCT02664415|181965141|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.522|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between groups at baseline ATI.||||0.522
91040152|NCT02664415|181965141|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.961|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A comparison between groups at ART resumption.||||0.961
91040153|NCT02664415|181965141|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||A comparison between baseline ATI and ART resumption within VRC01 group.||||0.002
91040154|NCT02664415|181965141|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.043|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||A comparison between baseline ATI and ART resumption within Placebo group.||||0.043
91040155|NCT02034513|181965142|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was considered confirmed if the 95% confidence interval for the rate ratio (IDeg/IGlar) was ≤1.10 or equivalently if the p-value for the 1-sided test of H0: RR \>1.10 against HA: RR ≤1.10 was less than 2.5%, where RR is the estimated rate ratio IDeg/IGlar.|Treatment ratio|0.89|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|0.94|||Poisson||If non-inferiority was confirmed the superiority of IDeg/IGlar was investigated outside of the test hierarchy. Superiority was considered confirmed if the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval was \<1.00.|Statistical analysis was performed on the FAS. Number of subjects analysed=subjects in the FAS, who were exposed in at least one maintenance period. Stepwise hierarchical testing procedure was applied for confirmatory endpoints: Step 1: Number of treatment-emergent severe or BG confirmed symptomatic hypoglycaemic episodes during the maintenance period.||0.94|0.85|<0.0001
91040156|NCT02034513|181965143|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was considered confirmed if the 95% confidence interval for the rate ratio (IDeg/IGlar) was ≤1.10 or equivalently if the p-value for the 1-sided test of H0: RR \>1.10 against HA: RR ≤1.10 was less than 2.5%, where RR is the estimated rate ratio IDeg/IGlar.|Treatment ratio|0.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.73|||Poisson||If non-inferiority was confirmed the superiority of IDeg/IGlar was investigated outside of the test hierarchy. Superiority was considered confirmed if the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval was \<1.00.|Statistical analysis was performed on the FAS. Number of subjects analysed=subjects in the FAS, who were exposed in at least one maintenance period. Stepwise hierarchical testing procedure was applied for confirmatory endpoints: Step 2: Number of treatment-emergent severe or BG confirmed symptomatic nocturnal hypoglycaemic episodes during the maintenance period.||0.73|0.56|<0.0001
91040157|NCT02034513|181965144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0016||||||Superiority was confirmed if the p-value was less than 0.025.|McNemar|||Statistical analysis was performed on the FAS. Number of subjects analysed=subjects in the FAS, who were exposed in both the maintenance periods. Stepwise hierarchical testing procedure was applied for confirmatory endpoints: Step 3: Proportion of subjects with one or more severe hypoglycaemic episodes during the maintenance period.||||0.0016
91040158|NCT02034513|181965146|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was considered confirmed if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval was below or equal to 0.40%. Comparison groups: IDeg versus IGlar. Number of subjects included in analysis is 437 (n=220 for IDeg and n=217 for IGlar).|Treatment contrast|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.15||||||"Change from baseline in HbA1c at week 32 (treatment period 1). Before testing the primary endpoint, the secondary supportive efficacy endpoint Change from baseline in HbA1c after 32 weeks of treatment was tested for non-inferiority as a prerequisite for testing the primary endpoint. Analysis was based on mixed model for repeated measurement (MMRM); treatment, sex, region, pre-trial insulin treatment regimen, visit and dosing time were fixed effects, and age and baseline HbA1c were covariates."||0.15|-0.10|
91040159|NCT02034513|181965146|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was considered confirmed if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval was below or equal to 0.40%. Comparison groups: IDeg versus IGlar. Number of subjects included in analysis is 410 (n=202 for IDeg and n=208 for IGlar).|Treatment contrast|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.23||||||"Change from baseline in HbA1c at week 64 (treatment period 2). The baseline values are week 32 values. Before the primary endpoint was tested, the secondary supportive efficacy endpoint Change from baseline in HbA1c after 32 weeks of treatment was tested for non-inferiority as prerequisite for testing the primary endpoint. Analysis was based on MMRM; treatment, sex, region, pre-trial insulin treatment regimen, visit and dosing time were fixed effects, and age and baseline HbA1c were covariates"||0.23|-0.00|
91040160|NCT02218541|181965187|OTHER|||||||1||||||threshold for significance will be p-value \<0.05|Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
90983714|NCT01025336|181852224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.14|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.14|0.08|
90983715|NCT01025336|181852224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.1|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.10|0.06|
90983716|NCT01025336|181852224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.46|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.46|0.22|
90983717|NCT01025336|181852224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.6|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6B: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.60|0.40|
90983718|NCT01025336|181852224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.43|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6B: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.43|0.29|
90983719|NCT01025336|181852224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.59|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6B: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.59|0.29|
90983720|NCT01025336|181852224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.38|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 7F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.38|0.17|
90983721|NCT01025336|181852224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.36|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 7F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.36|0.21|
90983722|NCT01025336|181852224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.56|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 7F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.56|0.27|
90983723|NCT01025336|181852224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.28|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 9V: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.28|0.13|
91040161|NCT02218541|181965188|OTHER|||||||0.039||||||This statistical analysis applies to Yes bleeding|Binomial|The statistical analysis was changed during the analysis phase but the protocol was not amended to reflect this change||||||0.039
90983724|NCT01025336|181852224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.39|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 9V: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.39|0.20|
90983725|NCT01025336|181852224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.67|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 9V: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.67|0.28|
90983726|NCT01025336|181852224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.83|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 14: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.83|0.48|
90983727|NCT01025336|181852224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.74|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 14: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.74|0.49|
90983728|NCT01025336|181852224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.65|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 14: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.65|0.42|
91040162|NCT02218541|181965189|EQUIVALENCE|No power calculation was done as this was a pilot study.||||||1||||||This statistical analysis applies to Yes Provisional Crown fit|Binomial|The statistical analysis was changed during the analysis phase but the protocol was not amended to reflect this change||||||1.0
91040163|NCT00856349|181965190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Increase in % on target (LIA)|13.6|||<|0.0001|||||||McNemar|||LIA (Lead Integrity Alert): Uploadable algorithm with the ability to increase the time between a lead fracture and potential delivery of an unnecessary shock.||||<0.0001
90983729|NCT01025336|181852224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.32|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 18C: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.32|0.20|
90983730|NCT01025336|181852224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.43|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 18C: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.43|0.28|
90983731|NCT01025336|181852224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.45|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 18C: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.45|0.29|
90983732|NCT01025336|181852224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.41|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.41|0.30|
90983733|NCT01025336|181852224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.45|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.45|0.35|
90983734|NCT01025336|181852224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.51|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.51|0.36|
90983735|NCT01025336|181852224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.58|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.58|0.35|
90983736|NCT01025336|181852224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.62|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.62|0.39|
90983737|NCT01025336|181852224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.54|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.54|0.34|
90983738|NCT01025336|181852224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.42|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 23F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.42|0.23|
90983739|NCT01025336|181852224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.24|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 23F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.24|0.15|
90983740|NCT01025336|181852224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.69|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 23F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.69|0.42|
90983741|NCT01025336|181852225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.5|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 1: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.50|0.36|
90983742|NCT01025336|181852225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.48|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 1: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.48|0.36|
90983743|NCT01025336|181852225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.44|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 3: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.44|0.33|
90983744|NCT01025336|181852225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.37|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 3: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.37|0.26|
91040164|NCT00856349|181965190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Increase in % on target (SVT Limit)|6.8|||<|0.0001|||||||McNemar|||SVT (Supraventricular Tachycardia) Limit: The maximum cycle length that Wavelet and PR logic will be applied to arrhythmias.||||<0.0001
90983745|NCT01025336|181852225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.68|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 4: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.68|0.42|
90983746|NCT01025336|181852225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.14|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 4: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.14|0.64|
90983747|NCT01025336|181852225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.82|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 5: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.82|0.60|
90983748|NCT01025336|181852225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.18|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 5: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.18|0.86|
90983749|NCT01025336|181852225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.33|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.33|0.22|
90983750|NCT01025336|181852225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.46|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.46|0.81|
90983751|NCT01025336|181852225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.51|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6B: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.51|0.34|
90983752|NCT01025336|181852225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.09|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6B: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.09|0.66|
90983753|NCT01025336|181852225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.68|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 7F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.68|0.37|
90983754|NCT01025336|181852225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.77|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 7F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.77|0.43|
90983755|NCT01025336|181852225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.6|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 9V: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.60|0.30|
90983756|NCT01025336|181852225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.98|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 9V: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.98|0.47|
90983757|NCT01025336|181852225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.01|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 14: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.01|0.72|
90983758|NCT01025336|181852225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.0|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 14: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.00|0.71|
90983759|NCT01025336|181852225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.66|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 18C: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.66|0.50|
90983760|NCT01025336|181852225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.8|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 18C: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.80|0.56|
90983761|NCT01025336|181852225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.69|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.69|0.54|
90983762|NCT01025336|181852225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.05|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.05|0.78|
90983763|NCT01025336|181852225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.8|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.80|0.59|
90983764|NCT01025336|181852225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.83|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.83|0.53|
90983765|NCT01025336|181852225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.74|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 23F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.74|0.51|
90983766|NCT01025336|181852225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.15|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 23F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.15|0.75|
90983767|NCT01025336|181852226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.05|10.67|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 1: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||10.67|6.05|
90983768|NCT01025336|181852226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|8.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.65|10.45|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 1: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||10.45|6.65|
90983769|NCT01025336|181852226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.71|6.14|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 1: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||6.14|3.71|
90983770|NCT01025336|181852226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.59|3.91|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 3: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||3.91|2.59|
90983771|NCT01025336|181852226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.67|5.26|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 3: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||5.26|3.67|
90983772|NCT01025336|181852226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|3.14|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 3: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||3.14|2.20|
90983773|NCT01025336|181852226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|12.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.8|21.34|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 4: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||21.34|7.80|
90983774|NCT01025336|181852226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.26|12.92|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 4: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||12.92|6.26|
90983775|NCT01025336|181852226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.71|8.07|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 4: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||8.07|3.71|
91006781|NCT04453722|181897949|SUPERIORITY|Median difference was estimated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimator of location shift between groups and P values from Wilcoxon rank sum test|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||variable: Tolerable to audible alert (at the day of discharge)||0.0|0.0|0.621
91040165|NCT00856349|181965190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Increase in % on target (VF NID PP)|9.0|||<|0.0001|||||||McNemar|||VF NID PP: Number of intervals to detect (NID) an arrhythmia in the VF zone for primary prevention (PP) patients.||||<0.0001
91040166|NCT00856349|181965190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Increase in % on target (VF NID SP)|3.5||||0.0116|||||||McNemar|||VF NID SP: Number of intervals to detect (NID) an arrhythmia in the VF zone for secondary prevention (SP) patients.||||0.0116
91040167|NCT00856349|181965190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Increase in % on target (Wavelet)|9.5|||<|0.0001|||||||McNemar|||Wavelet: Discriminator to help determine if arrhythmia is ventricular or supraventricular in single chamber ICDs.||||<0.0001
91040168|NCT00856349|181965190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Increase in % on target (PR Logic)|3.2|||<|0.0001|||||||McNemar|||PR Logic: Discriminator to help determine if arrhythmia is ventricular or supraventricular in dual chamber ICDs and CRT-Ds.||||<0.0001
90983776|NCT01025336|181852226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|6.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.35|8.8|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 5: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||8.80|4.35|
90983777|NCT01025336|181852226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|12.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.71|16.3|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 5: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||16.30|9.71|
90983778|NCT01025336|181852226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|7.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.59|10.02|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 5: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||10.02|5.59|
90983779|NCT01025336|181852226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|15.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.56|23.81|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||23.81|9.56|
90983780|NCT01025336|181852226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|12.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.66|17.38|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||17.38|8.66|
90983781|NCT01025336|181852226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.29|9.89|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||9.89|4.29|
90983782|NCT01025336|181852226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|20.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.59|34.24|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6B: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||34.24|12.59|
90983783|NCT01025336|181852226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|21.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.56|31.46|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6B: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||31.46|14.56|
90983784|NCT01025336|181852226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|11.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.24|17.01|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6B: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||17.01|7.24|
91006782|NCT04453722|181897949|SUPERIORITY|Median difference was estimated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimator of location shift between groups and P values from Wilcoxon rank sum test|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||variable: Tolerable to tactile alert||1.0|-1.0|0.898
91006783|NCT04453722|181897949|SUPERIORITY|Median difference was estimated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimator of location shift between groups and P values from Wilcoxon rank sum test|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||variable: easily cleaned/disinfected (at the day of discharge)||0.0|0.0|0.654
91006784|NCT04453722|181897949|SUPERIORITY|Median difference was estimated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimator of location shift between groups and P values from Wilcoxon rank sum test|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||variable: adequate battery life (at the day of discharge)||1.0|-1.0|0.929
91006785|NCT04453722|181897949|SUPERIORITY|Median difference was estimated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimator of location shift between groups and P values from Wilcoxon rank sum test|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||variable: Satisfy with the electrode patch (at the day of discharge)||0.0|-1.0|0.200
90983785|NCT01025336|181852226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|32.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.75|52.57|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 7F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||52.57|19.75|
90983786|NCT01025336|181852226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|47.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.0|65.43|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 7F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||65.43|34.00|
90983787|NCT01025336|181852226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|19.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.95|29.17|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 7F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||29.17|12.95|
90983788|NCT01025336|181852226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|12.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.79|21.13|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 9V: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||21.13|7.79|
90983789|NCT01025336|181852226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|12.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.56|18.68|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 9V: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||18.68|8.56|
90983790|NCT01025336|181852226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|6.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.54|10.1|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 9V: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||10.10|4.54|
90983791|NCT01025336|181852226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|12.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.16|20.02|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 14: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||20.02|8.16|
90983792|NCT01025336|181852226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|11.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.15|16.23|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 14: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||16.23|8.15|
90983793|NCT01025336|181852226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.75|11.25|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 14: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||11.25|5.75|
90983794|NCT01025336|181852226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.99|30.76|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 18C: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||30.76|12.99|
90983795|NCT01025336|181852226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|22.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.5|30.06|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 18C: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||30.06|16.50|
90983796|NCT01025336|181852226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|9.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.07|13.63|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 18C: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||13.63|7.07|
90983797|NCT01025336|181852226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.82|16.34|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||16.34|8.82|
90983798|NCT01025336|181852226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.21|16.66|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||16.66|10.21|
90983799|NCT01025336|181852226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|7.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.86|9.94|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||9.94|5.86|
90983800|NCT01025336|181852226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|12.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.05|18.34|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||18.34|8.05|
90983801|NCT01025336|181852226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|17.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.77|23.24|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||23.24|12.77|
91040169|NCT03809000|181965196|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.0671|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.61|0.96|||Log Rank|One-sided significance level = 0.10|Reference level = standard ADT|After protocol amendments, the 3-year PFS rate of the standard arm was expected to be 24%. Assuming a hazard ratio of 0.65 (treatment/control) results in a hypothesized 3-year PFS rate of 39.5% on the enhanced ADT arm. A one-sided log-rank test with alpha=0.10 at 80% statistical power was calculated to require 101 events from 170 patients, taking into account expected accrual rate and follow-up time.||0.96|0.61|0.0671
91040170|NCT03809000|181965197|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.07|||Gray's||Reference level = SRT + Standard ADT|||1.07|0.53|0.1160
91040171|NCT03809000|181965198|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.1618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.12|||Gray's||Reference level = SRT + Standard ADT|||1.12|0.50|0.1618
91040172|NCT03809000|181965203|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7184|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7184
91040173|NCT03809000|181965204|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5934|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5934
91040174|NCT03809000|181965205|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7129|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7129
91040175|NCT03809000|181965206|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006258|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.006258
91040176|NCT03809000|181965207|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0263|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0263
91040177|NCT03809000|181965208|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4599|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4599
91040178|NCT03809000|181965210|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.65||||0.3138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|4.41|||Regression, Logistic||Reference level = SRT + Standard ADT|||4.41|0.62|0.3138
91040179|NCT03809000|181965211|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3889|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3889
91040180|NCT03809000|181965212|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0461|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Hot Flashes Frequency||||0.0461
91040181|NCT03809000|181965212|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0181|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Hot Flashes Severity||||0.0181
91040182|NCT03809000|181965213|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.42|0.91||one-sided p-value|Log Rank|||||0.91|0.42|0.10
91040183|NCT02312154|181965343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The change in each of the biophysical parameters was calculated as the pretreatment value minus the posttreatment value for each visit, and these pre- vs posttreatment changes were used in the statistical analysis to minimize the intraindividual variation between the two cheeks. The Wilcoxon rank-sum test was performed to compare the week-by-week changes in parameters of the right and left cheeks (i.e., treated vs untreated).||||<0.05
91040184|NCT02312154|181965344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The change in each of the biophysical parameters was calculated as the pretreatment value minus the posttreatment value for each visit, and these pre- vs posttreatment changes were used in the statistical analysis to minimize the intraindividual variation between the two cheeks. The Wilcoxon rank-sum test was performed to compare the week-by-week changes in parameters of the right and left cheeks (i.e., treated vs untreated).||||<0.05
91040185|NCT02312154|181965345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The change in each of the biophysical parameters was calculated as the pretreatment value minus the posttreatment value for each visit, and these pre- vs posttreatment changes were used in the statistical analysis to minimize the intraindividual variation between the two cheeks. The Wilcoxon rank-sum test was performed to compare the week-by-week changes in parameters of the right and left cheeks (i.e., treated vs untreated).||||<0.05
91040186|NCT02312154|181965346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The change in each of the biophysical parameters was calculated as the pretreatment value minus the posttreatment value for each visit, and these pre- vs posttreatment changes were used in the statistical analysis to minimize the intraindividual variation between the two cheeks. The Wilcoxon rank-sum test was performed to compare the week-by-week changes in parameters of the right and left cheeks (i.e., treated vs untreated).||||<0.05
91040187|NCT02312154|181965347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The therapeutic outcome was assessed by patient self-assessment using the Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale, which rates outcome on the following 5-point scale: 3, very much improved; 2, much improved; 1, improved; 0, no change; and -1, worse. Two independent investigators also individually assessed every patient's improvement, and the values of the two scores were averaged for each patient. The Wilcoxon rank-sum test was performed to compare the pre-by-posttreatment changes in treated side.||||<0.05
91040188|NCT02312154|181965348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The therapeutic outcome was assessed by patient self-assessment using the Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale, which rates outcome on the following 5-point scale: 3, very much improved; 2, much improved; 1, improved; 0, no change; and -1, worse. Two independent investigators also individually assessed every patient's improvement, and the values of the two scores were averaged for each patient. The Wilcoxon rank-sum test was performed to compare the pre-by-posttreatment changes in treated side.||||<0.05
91040189|NCT01167829|181965349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|183.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|44.0||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
91040190|NCT00834444|181965365|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|96.9||||||90.0|87.8|107.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||107|87.8|
91040191|NCT00834444|181965366|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|100.0||||||90.0|97.9|103.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||103|97.9|
91040192|NCT00834444|181965367|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|100.0||||||90.0|97.7|103.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||103|97.7|
91040193|NCT02052895|181965368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of ROC-AUC|0.0317||||0.3924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0409|0.1043|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.1043|-0.0409|0.3924
91040194|NCT00841659|181965403|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of LS Means x 100|99.96||||||90.0|||||||Bioequivalence is established when ratio of means falls within 80-125.|||||
91040195|NCT00841659|181965404|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of LS Means x 100|93.58||||||90.0|||||||Bioequivalence is established when ratio of means falls within 80-125.|||||
90983802|NCT01025336|181852226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|11.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.01|16.45|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||16.45|8.01|
90983803|NCT01025336|181852226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.89|18.19|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 23F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||18.19|7.89|
90983804|NCT01025336|181852226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.02|8.92|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 23F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||8.92|5.02|
90983805|NCT01025336|181852226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.52|6.29|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 23F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||6.29|3.52|
90983806|NCT01025336|181852227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.05|4.49|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 1: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||4.49|3.05|
90983807|NCT01025336|181852227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.92|2.81|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 1: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||2.81|1.92|
90983808|NCT01025336|181852227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.83|2.5|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 3: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||2.50|1.83|
90983809|NCT01025336|181852227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|1.74|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 3: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.74|1.32|
90983810|NCT01025336|181852227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.82|11.09|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 4: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||11.09|5.82|
90983811|NCT01025336|181852227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.25|8.21|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 4: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||8.21|4.25|
90983812|NCT01025336|181852227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.96|6.0|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 5: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||6.00|3.96|
90983813|NCT01025336|181852227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.58|3.79|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 5: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||3.79|2.58|
91040196|NCT00841659|181965405|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of LS Means x 100|94.29||||||90.0|||||||Bioequivalence is established when ratio of means falls within 80-125.|||||
91040197|NCT01149057|181965407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired sample T-test|||Analysis was performed using paired sample t-test for change from baseline.||||<0.0001
91040198|NCT01149057|181965408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3778|TWO_SIDED|||||P value by analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) for the change from baseline, adjusted to number of days between the first and the second DXA test.|ANCOVA|||Comparison of L1-L4 T-scores||||0.3778
91040199|NCT01149057|181965408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1541|TWO_SIDED|||||P value by ANCOVA for the change from baseline, adjusted to number of days between the first and the second DXA test.|ANCOVA|||Comparison of Total spine T-score||||0.1541
91040200|NCT01149057|181965408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.789|TWO_SIDED|||||P value by ANCOVA for the change from baseline, adjusted to number of days between the first and the second DXA test.|ANCOVA|||Comparison of Total hip - left T-score||||0.7890
91040201|NCT01149057|181965408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7094|TWO_SIDED|||||P value by ANCOVA for the change from baseline, adjusted to number of days between the first and the second DXA test.|ANCOVA|||Comparison of Femoral neck - left T-scores.||||0.7094
91040202|NCT01149057|181965414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Change from baseline at Week 24||||<0.0001
91040203|NCT01149057|181965414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Change from baseline at Week 48||||<0.0001
91040204|NCT01149057|181965414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Change from baseline at Week 72||||<0.0001
91040205|NCT01149057|181965414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Change from baseline at Week 96||||<0.0001
91040206|NCT01149057|181965415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired sample T-test|||||||<0.0001
91040207|NCT01149057|181965416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired sample T-test|||||||<0.0001
91040208|NCT01149057|181965417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired sample T-test|||||||<0.0001
91040209|NCT01149057|181965418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired sample T-test|||Analysis was performed using paired sample t-test for change from baseline.||||<0.0001
91040210|NCT01149057|181965419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired sample T-test|||||||<0.0001
91040211|NCT01149057|181965420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired sample T-test|||||||<0.0001
91040212|NCT01149057|181965421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired sample T-test|||||||<0.0001
91040213|NCT01149057|181965422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Change from baseline at Week 24||||<0.0001
91040214|NCT01149057|181965422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Change from baseline at Week 48||||<0.0001
91040215|NCT01149057|181965422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Change from baseline at Week 72||||<0.0001
91040216|NCT01149057|181965422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Change from baseline at Week 96||||<0.0001
90983814|NCT01025336|181852227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|11.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.56|16.49|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||16.49|8.56|
90983815|NCT01025336|181852227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.59|4.76|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||4.76|2.59|
90983816|NCT01025336|181852227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.61|9.03|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6B: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||9.03|4.61|
90983817|NCT01025336|181852227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.32|4.24|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6B: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||4.24|2.32|
90983818|NCT01025336|181852227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|7.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.23|10.33|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 7F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||10.33|5.23|
90983819|NCT01025336|181852227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|5.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.07|7.69|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 7F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||7.69|4.07|
90983820|NCT01025336|181852227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|5.2|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 9V: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||5.20|2.50|
90983821|NCT01025336|181852227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|4.04|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 9V: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||4.04|2.10|
91040217|NCT03499873|181965432|EQUIVALENCE|90% CI on the Test-to-Reference difference for the proportion of subjects with cure should be contained within the interval \[-0.20, +0.20\]|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.026|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.124|0.073||||||||0.073|-0.124|
90983822|NCT01025336|181852227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.26|3.71|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 14: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||3.71|2.26|
90983823|NCT01025336|181852227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.23|3.63|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 14: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||3.63|2.23|
90983824|NCT01025336|181852227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.16|5.2|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 18C: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||5.20|3.16|
90983825|NCT01025336|181852227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.06|3.14|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 18C: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||3.14|2.06|
90983826|NCT01025336|181852227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.46|3.6|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||3.60|2.46|
90983827|NCT01025336|181852227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.24|3.15|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||3.15|2.24|
90983828|NCT01025336|181852227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.55|7.76|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||7.76|4.55|
91040218|NCT03499873|181965432|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0005
90983829|NCT01025336|181852227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.13|5.17|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||5.17|3.13|
90983830|NCT01025336|181852227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|6.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.16|9.25|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 23F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||9.25|5.16|
90983831|NCT01025336|181852227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.24|3.4|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 23F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||3.40|2.24|
90983832|NCT01025336|181852228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|2.08|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[13vPnC/23vPS-23vPS/13vPnC)\].|Serotype 1: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/23vPS to 23vPS/13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale.||2.08|1.02|
90983833|NCT01025336|181852228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.99|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/23vPS-23vPS/13vPnC)\].|Serotype 3: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/23vPS to 23vPS/13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale.||1.99|1.14|
90983834|NCT01025336|181852228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|3.06|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/23vPS-23vPS/13vPnC)\].|Serotype 4: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/23vPS to 23vPS/13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale.||3.06|1.22|
90983835|NCT01025336|181852228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|2.56|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/23vPS-23vPS/13vPnC)\].|Serotype 5: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/23vPS to 23vPS/13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale.||2.56|1.15|
90983836|NCT01025336|181852228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|3.53|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/23vPS-23vPS/13vPnC)\].|Serotype 6A: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/23vPS to 23vPS/13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale.||3.53|1.36|
90983837|NCT01025336|181852228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|2.91|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/23vPS-23vPS/13vPnC)\].|Serotype 6B: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/23vPS to 23vPS/13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale.||2.91|1.15|
90983838|NCT01025336|181852228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|4.44|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/23vPS-23vPS/13vPnC)\].|Serotype 7F: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/23vPS to 23vPS/13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale.||4.44|1.80|
90983839|NCT01025336|181852228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|2.96|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/23vPS-23vPS/13vPnC)\].|Serotype 9V: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/23vPS to 23vPS/13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale.||2.96|0.99|
90983840|NCT01025336|181852228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.62|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/23vPS-23vPS/13vPnC)\].|Serotype 14: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/23vPS to 23vPS/13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale.||1.62|0.73|
90983841|NCT01025336|181852228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|2.39|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/23vPS-23vPS/13vPnC)\].|Serotype 18C: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/23vPS to 23vPS/13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale.||2.39|1.02|
91006786|NCT04453722|181897949|SUPERIORITY|Median difference was estimated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimator of location shift between groups and P values from Wilcoxon rank sum test|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||variable: Willing to use after study (at the day of discharge)||0.0|0.0|0.987
90983842|NCT01025336|181852228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|2.45|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/23vPS-23vPS/13vPnC)\].|Serotype 19A: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/23vPS to 23vPS/13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale.||2.45|1.38|
90983843|NCT01025336|181852228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|3.12|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/23vPS-23vPS/13vPnC)\].|Serotype 19F: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/23vPS to 23vPS/13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale.||3.12|1.53|
90983844|NCT01025336|181852228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|2.82|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/23vPS-23vPS/13vPnC)\].|Serotype 23F: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/23vPS to 23vPS/13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale.||2.82|1.18|
90983845|NCT01025336|181852229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|2.25|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/13vPnC - 23vPS/13vPnC)\]|Serotype 1: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/13vPnC to 23vPS/13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale.||2.25|1.02|
90983846|NCT01025336|181852229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.44|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/13vPnC - 23vPS/13vPnC)\]|Serotype 3: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/13vPnC to 23vPS/13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale.||1.44|0.78|
90983847|NCT01025336|181852229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|3.0|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/13vPnC - 23vPS/13vPnC)\]|Serotype 4: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/13vPnC to 23vPS/13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale.||3.00|1.06|
90983848|NCT01025336|181852229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.04|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/13vPnC - 23vPS/13vPnC)\]|Serotype 5: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/13vPnC to 23vPS/13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale.||1.04|0.41|
90983849|NCT01025336|181852229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.82|5.24|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/13vPnC - 23vPS/13vPnC)\]|Serotype 6A: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/13vPnC to 23vPS/13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale.||5.24|1.82|
90983850|NCT01025336|181852229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|4.11|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/13vPnC - 23vPS/13vPnC)\]|Serotype 6B: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/13vPnC to 23vPS/13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale.||4.11|1.43|
90983851|NCT01025336|181852229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|3.0|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/13vPnC - 23vPS/13vPnC)\]|Serotype 7F: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/13vPnC to 23vPS/13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale.||3.00|0.96|
90983852|NCT01025336|181852229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|3.04|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/13vPnC - 23vPS/13vPnC)\]|Serotype 9V: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/13vPnC to 23vPS/13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale.||3.04|0.88|
90983853|NCT01025336|181852229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.54|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/13vPnC - 23vPS/13vPnC)\]|Serotype 14: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/13vPnC to 23vPS/13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale.||1.54|0.64|
91006787|NCT04453722|181897949|SUPERIORITY|Median difference was estimated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimator of location shift between groups and P values from Wilcoxon rank sum test|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||variable: Disturb IV line (at the day of discharge)||0.0|-1.0|0.581
90983854|NCT01025336|181852229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.93|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/13vPnC - 23vPS/13vPnC)\]|Serotype 18C: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/13vPnC to 23vPS/13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale.||1.93|0.71|
90983855|NCT01025336|181852229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|2.04|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/13vPnC - 23vPS/13vPnC)\]|Serotype 19A: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/13vPnC to 23vPS/13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale.||2.04|1.01|
90983856|NCT01025336|181852229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.06|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/13vPnC - 23vPS/13vPnC)\]|Serotype 19F: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/13vPnC to 23vPS/13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale.||2.06|0.84|
90983857|NCT01025336|181852229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.89|5.2|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/13vPnC - 23vPS/13vPnC)\]|Serotype 23F: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/13vPnC to 23vPS/13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale.||5.20|1.89|
90983858|NCT01025336|181852230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.51|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/13vPnC - 13vPnC/23vPS)\]|Serotype 1: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/13vPnC to 13vPnC/23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale.||1.51|0.72|
90983859|NCT01025336|181852230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.94|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/13vPnC - 13vPnC/23vPS)\]|Serotype 3: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/13vPnC to 13vPnC/23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale.||0.94|0.52|
91040219|NCT03499873|181965432|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0003
90983860|NCT01025336|181852230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.47|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/13vPnC - 13vPnC/23vPS)\]|Serotype 4: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/13vPnC to 13vPnC/23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale.||1.47|0.58|
90983861|NCT01025336|181852230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.59|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/13vPnC - 13vPnC/23vPS)\]|Serotype 5: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/13vPnC to 13vPnC/23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale.||0.59|0.25|
90983862|NCT01025336|181852230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|2.32|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/13vPnC - 13vPnC/23vPS)\]|Serotype 6A: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/13vPnC to 13vPnC/23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale.||2.32|0.85|
90983863|NCT01025336|181852230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|2.13|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/13vPnC - 13vPnC/23vPS)\]|Serotype 6B: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/13vPnC to 13vPnC/23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale.||2.13|0.82|
90983864|NCT01025336|181852230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.97|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/13vPnC - 13vPnC/23vPS)\]|Serotype 7F: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/13vPnC to 13vPnC/23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale.||0.97|0.37|
90983865|NCT01025336|181852230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.7|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/13vPnC - 13vPnC/23vPS)\]|Serotype 9V: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/13vPnC to 13vPnC/23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale.||1.70|0.54|
90983866|NCT01025336|181852230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.41|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/13vPnC - 13vPnC/23vPS)\]|Serotype 14: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/13vPnC to 13vPnC/23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale.||1.41|0.59|
90983867|NCT01025336|181852230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.17|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/13vPnC - 13vPnC/23vPS)\]|Serotype 18C: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/13vPnC to 13vPnC/23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale.||1.17|0.48|
90983868|NCT01025336|181852230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.05|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/13vPnC - 13vPnC/23vPS)\]|Serotype 19A: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/13vPnC to 13vPnC/23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale.||1.05|0.58|
90983869|NCT01025336|181852230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.88|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/13vPnC - 13vPnC/23vPS)\]|Serotype 19F: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/13vPnC to 13vPnC/23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale.||0.88|0.41|
90983870|NCT01025336|181852230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|2.81|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/13vPnC - 13vPnC/23vPS)\]|Serotype 23F: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/13vPnC to 13vPnC/23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale.||2.81|1.05|
90983871|NCT01025336|181852231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|2.4|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/13vPnC - 23vPS/13vPnC)\]|Serotype 1: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/13vPnC to 23vPS/13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale||2.40|1.27|
90983872|NCT01025336|181852231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.59|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/13vPnC - 23vPS/13vPnC)\]|Serotype 3: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/13vPnC to 23vPS/13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale||1.59|0.95|
90983873|NCT01025336|181852231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.29|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/13vPnC - 23vPS/13vPnC)\]|Serotype 4: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/13vPnC to 23vPS/13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale||2.29|1.03|
90983874|NCT01025336|181852231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.97|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/13vPnC - 23vPS/13vPnC)\]|Serotype 5: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/13vPnC to 23vPS/13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale||1.97|0.95|
90983875|NCT01025336|181852231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|3.31|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/13vPnC - 23vPS/13vPnC)\]|Serotype 6A: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/13vPnC to 23vPS/13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale||3.31|1.42|
91040220|NCT00577655|181965446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.496||||0.0138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.729|6.262||In order to control the overall alpha level at the 0.05 value, each of the primary endpoints were tested separately at the 0.025 level of significance.|ANCOVA|Baseline as covariate and fixed effects of treatment and pooled investigator site.|Active - Placebo|Efficacy was declared if the test for either primary efficacy endpoint was significant at the 0.025 level.||6.262|0.729|0.0138
91040221|NCT00577655|181965447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.431||||0.0403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.244|10.618||In order to control the overall alpha level at the 0.05 value, each of the primary endpoints were tested separately at the 0.025 level of significance.|ANCOVA|Baseline as covariate and fixed effects of treatment and pooled investigator site.|Active - Placebo|Efficacy was declared if the test for either primary efficacy endpoint was significant at the 0.025 level.||10.618|0.244|0.0403
91040222|NCT00577655|181965448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.536||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.567|7.505||significance level of 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Active - Placebo|"Day 1~A repeated measures mixed model, with terms for treatment, pooled center, study day, treatment by study day interaction, and baseline as a covariate, and subject as a random term, was used to make comparisons between placebo and active with respect to FEV1max%0-2 at Days 1 and 22, with observed case data."||7.505|1.567|0.0031
91040223|NCT00577655|181965448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.067||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.041|6.094||significance level of 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Active - Placebo|"Day 22~A repeated measures mixed model, with terms for treatment, pooled center, study day, treatment by study day interaction, and baseline as a covariate, and subject as a random term, was used to make comparisons between placebo and active with respect to FEV1max%0-2 at Days 1 and 22, with observed case data."||6.094|0.041|0.0470
91040224|NCT00577655|181965449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.572||||0.0074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.077|13.067||significance level of 0.05.|repeated measures ANOVA||Active - Placebo|"Day 1~A repeated measures mixed model, with terms for treatment, pooled center, study day, treatment by study day interaction, and baseline as a covariate, and subject as a random term, was used to make comparisons between placebo and active with respect to PEFmax%0-2 at Days 1 and 22, with observed case data."||13.067|2.077|0.0074
91040225|NCT00577655|181965449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.782||||0.1843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.832|9.397||significance level of 0.05.|repeated measures ANOVA||Active - Placebo|"Day 22~A repeated measures mixed model, with terms for treatment, pooled center, study day, treatment by study day interaction, and baseline as a covariate, and subject as a random term, was used to make comparisons between placebo and active with respect to PEFmax%0-2 at Days 1 and 22, with observed case data."||9.397|-1.832|0.1843
91040226|NCT00577655|181965450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.707||||0.0507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|19.445||significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|terms for treatment and center, baseline as a covariate|Active - Placebo|Day 22 Baseline||19.445|-0.030|0.0507
91040227|NCT00577655|181965450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.892||||0.924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.634|19.419||significance level of 0.05.|ANOVA|terms for treatment and center|Active - Placebo|Day 1 Baseline||19.419|-17.634|0.9240
91040228|NCT00577655|181965451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|30.124||||0.2186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.169|78.417||significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|terms for treatment and center, baseline as a covariate|Active - Placebo|Day 22 Baseline||78.417|-18.169|0.2186
91040229|NCT00577655|181965451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|42.578||||0.2375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.541|113.7||significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|terms for treatment and center, baseline as a covariate|Active - Placebo|Day 1 Baseline||113.70|-28.541|0.2375
91040230|NCT00577655|181965452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.524||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.524|10.523||significance level of 0.05.|ANOVA|terms for treatment, center, time, time x treatment, subject as a random|Active - Placebo|Day 1||10.523|2.524|0.0017
91040231|NCT00577655|181965452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.998||||0.0521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.037|8.032||significance level of 0.05.|ANOVA|terms for treatment, center, time, time x treatment, subject as a random|Active - Placebo|Day 22||8.032|-0.037|0.0521
91040232|NCT00577655|181965453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.477||||0.0647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|2.23||significance level of 0.05.|Regression, Cox||Active/Placebo|Day 1||2.23|0.98|0.0647
91040233|NCT00577655|181965453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|2.088||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|3.15||significance level of 0.05.|Regression, Cox||Active/Placebo|Day 22||3.15|1.38|0.0005
91040234|NCT00577655|181965454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.141||||0.5059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.69||significance level of 0.05.|Regression, Cox||Active/Placebo|Day 1||1.69|0.77|0.5059
91040235|NCT00577655|181965454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.533||||0.0333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.27||significance level of 0.05.|Regression, Cox||Active/Placebo|Day 22||2.27|1.03|0.0333
91040236|NCT00577655|181965455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3888||||||significance level of 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Day 1||||0.3888
91040237|NCT00577655|181965455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1249||||||significance level of 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Day 22||||0.1249
91040238|NCT00577655|181965456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0343||||||significance level of 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Day 1||||0.0343
91040239|NCT00577655|181965456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0962||||||significance level of 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Day 22||||0.0962
90983876|NCT01025336|181852231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.04|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/13vPnC - 23vPS/13vPnC)\]|Serotype 6B: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/13vPnC to 23vPS/13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale||2.04|0.88|
90983877|NCT01025336|181852231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.4|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/13vPnC - 23vPS/13vPnC)\]|Serotype 7F: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/13vPnC to 23vPS/13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale||2.40|0.95|
90983878|NCT01025336|181852231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.99|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/13vPnC - 23vPS/13vPnC)\]|Serotype 9V: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/13vPnC to 23vPS/13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale||1.99|0.70|
91040240|NCT00577655|181965457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0109||||||significance level of 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Day 1||||0.0109
91040241|NCT00577655|181965457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0845||||||significance level of 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Day 22||||0.0845
91040242|NCT00577655|181965458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0013||||||significance level of 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Day 1||||0.0013
91040243|NCT00577655|181965458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0085||||||significance level of 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Day 22||||0.0085
91040244|NCT00577655|181965459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.072||||0.4674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.265|0.122||significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|terms for treatment, center, week, week by treatment, baseline as a covariate, subject as random.|Active - Placebo|Week 1||0.122|-0.265|0.4674
91040245|NCT00577655|181965459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.171||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.365|0.023||significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|terms for treatment, center, week, week by treatment, baseline as covariate, subject as random|Active - Placebo|Week 2||0.023|-0.365|0.0840
91040246|NCT00577655|181965459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.138||||0.1699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.335|0.059||significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|terms for treatment, center, week, week by treatment, baseline as covariate, subject as random|Active - Placebo|Week 3||0.059|-0.335|0.1699
90983879|NCT01025336|181852231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.25|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/13vPnC - 23vPS/13vPnC)\]|Serotype 14: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/13vPnC to 23vPS/13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale||1.25|0.57|
90983880|NCT01025336|181852231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.12|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/13vPnC - 23vPS/13vPnC)\]|Serotype 18C: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/13vPnC to 23vPS/13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale||2.12|1.06|
90983881|NCT01025336|181852231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.69|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/13vPnC - 23vPS/13vPnC)\]|Serotype 19A: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/13vPnC to 23vPS/13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale||1.69|0.97|
90983882|NCT01025336|181852231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|2.53|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/13vPnC - 23vPS/13vPnC)\]|Serotype 19F: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/13vPnC to 23vPS/13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale||2.53|1.21|
90983883|NCT01025336|181852231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|3.42|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/13vPnC - 23vPS/13vPnC)\]|Serotype 23F: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/13vPnC to 23vPS/13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale||3.42|1.54|
90983884|NCT01025336|181852232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.63|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS)\]|Serotype 1: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/23vPS to 23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence/group on the logarithmic scale.||1.63|0.80|
90983885|NCT01025336|181852232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.39|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS)\]|Serotype 3: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/23vPS to 23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence/group on the logarithmic scale.||1.39|0.77|
90983886|NCT01025336|181852232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.69|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS)\]|Serotype 4: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/23vPS to 23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence/group on the logarithmic scale.||1.69|0.68|
90983887|NCT01025336|181852232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.31|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS)\]|Serotype 5: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/23vPS to 23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence/group on the logarithmic scale.||2.31|1.03|
90983888|NCT01025336|181852232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|4.55|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS)\]|Serotype 6A: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/23vPS to 23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence/group on the logarithmic scale.||4.55|1.66|
90983889|NCT01025336|181852232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.25|5.94|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS)\]|Serotype 6B: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/23vPS to 23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence/group on the logarithmic scale.||5.94|2.25|
90983890|NCT01025336|181852232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|6.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.85|9.98|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS)\]|Serotype 7F: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/23vPS to 23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence/group on the logarithmic scale.||9.98|3.85|
90983891|NCT01025336|181852232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.43|7.4|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS)\]|Serotype 9V: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/23vPS to 23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence/group on the logarithmic scale.||7.40|2.43|
90983892|NCT01025336|181852232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|2.13|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS)\]|Serotype 14: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/23vPS to 23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence/group on the logarithmic scale.||2.13|0.89|
90983893|NCT01025336|181852232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.57|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS)\]|Serotype 18C: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/23vPS to 23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence/group on the logarithmic scale.||2.57|1.06|
90983894|NCT01025336|181852232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|2.78|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS)\]|Serotype 19A: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/23vPS to 23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence/group on the logarithmic scale.||2.78|1.50|
90983895|NCT01025336|181852232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|5.04|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS)\]|Serotype 19F: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/23vPS to 23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence/group on the logarithmic scale.||5.04|2.30|
90983896|NCT01025336|181852232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|3.37|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS)\]|Serotype 23F: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/23vPS to 23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence/group on the logarithmic scale.||3.37|1.37|
90983897|NCT01025336|181852233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.9|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(23vPS/13vPnC - 13vPnC)\].|Serotype 1: Ratio of GMT (23vPs/13vPnC to 13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence/group on the logarithmic scale.||0.90|0.48|
90983898|NCT01025336|181852233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.09|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(23vPS/13vPnC - 13vPnC)\].|Serotype 3: Ratio of GMT (23vPs/13vPnC to 13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence/group on the logarithmic scale.||1.09|0.64|
90983899|NCT01025336|181852233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.44|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(23vPS/13vPnC - 13vPnC)\].|Serotype 4: Ratio of GMT (23vPs/13vPnC to 13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence/group on the logarithmic scale.||0.44|0.20|
90983900|NCT01025336|181852233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.26|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(23vPS/13vPnC - 13vPnC)\].|Serotype 5: Ratio of GMT (23vPs/13vPnC to 13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence/group on the logarithmic scale.||1.26|0.59|
90983901|NCT01025336|181852233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.26|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(23vPS/13vPnC - 13vPnC)\].|Serotype 6A: Ratio of GMT (23vPs/13vPnC to 13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence/group on the logarithmic scale.||0.26|0.11|
90983902|NCT01025336|181852233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.22|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(23vPS/13vPnC - 13vPnC)\].|Serotype 6B: Ratio of GMT (23vPs/13vPnC to 13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence/group on the logarithmic scale.||1.22|0.49|
91040247|NCT00577655|181965461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.926||||0.1391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.256|23.108||significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|terms for treatment, center, week, week by treatment, baseline as a covariate, subject as random.|Active - Placebo|Week 1||23.108|-3.256|0.1391
90983903|NCT01025336|181852233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.76|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(23vPS/13vPnC - 13vPnC)\].|Serotype 7F: Ratio of GMT (23vPs/13vPnC to 13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence/group on the logarithmic scale.||1.76|0.68|
90983904|NCT01025336|181852233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.55|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(23vPS/13vPnC - 13vPnC)\].|Serotype 9V: Ratio of GMT (23vPs/13vPnC to 13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence/group on the logarithmic scale.||2.55|0.90|
90983905|NCT01025336|181852233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|2.3|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(23vPS/13vPnC - 13vPnC)\].|Serotype 14: Ratio of GMT (23vPs/13vPnC to 13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence/group on the logarithmic scale.||2.30|1.02|
90983906|NCT01025336|181852233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.14|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(23vPS/13vPnC - 13vPnC)\].|Serotype 18C: Ratio of GMT (23vPs/13vPnC to 13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence/group on the logarithmic scale.||1.14|0.52|
90983907|NCT01025336|181852233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.08|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(23vPS/13vPnC - 13vPnC)\].|Serotype 19A: Ratio of GMT (23vPs/13vPnC to 13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence/group on the logarithmic scale.||1.08|0.62|
90983908|NCT01025336|181852233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.98|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(23vPS/13vPnC - 13vPnC)\].|Serotype 19F: Ratio of GMT (23vPs/13vPnC to 13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence/group on the logarithmic scale.||1.98|0.89|
90983909|NCT01025336|181852233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.59|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(23vPS/13vPnC - 13vPnC)\].|Serotype 23F: Ratio of GMT (23vPs/13vPnC to 13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence/group on the logarithmic scale.||0.59|0.26|
90983910|NCT01025336|181852234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.22|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 1: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.22|0.85|
90983911|NCT01025336|181852234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.1|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 3: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.10|0.82|
90983912|NCT01025336|181852234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.69|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 4: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.69|0.41|
90983913|NCT01025336|181852234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.87|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 5: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.87|0.67|
91040248|NCT00577655|181965461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.923||||0.1043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.278|24.124||significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|terms for treatment, center, week, week by treatment, baseline as a covariate, subject as random.|Active - Placebo|Week 2||24.124|-2.278|0.1043
91040249|NCT00577655|181965461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.546||||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.705|22.798||significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|terms for treatment, center, week, week by treatment, baseline as a covariate, subject as random.|Active - Placebo|Week 3||22.798|-3.705|0.1570
90983914|NCT01025336|181852234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.79|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.79|0.48|
90983915|NCT01025336|181852234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|2.19|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6B: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||2.19|1.32|
90983916|NCT01025336|181852234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|2.26|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 7F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||2.26|1.24|
90983917|NCT01025336|181852234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|2.95|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 9V: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||2.95|1.48|
90983918|NCT01025336|181852234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|2.05|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 14: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||2.05|1.23|
90983919|NCT01025336|181852234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.19|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 18C: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.19|0.82|
90983920|NCT01025336|181852234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.46|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.46|1.07|
90983921|NCT01025336|181852234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|2.8|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||2.80|1.56|
90983922|NCT01025336|181852234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.48|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 23F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.48|0.89|
91040250|NCT00577655|181965462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio of Active to Placebo|0.989||||0.9846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.121|2.099||significance level of 0.05.|mixed poisson regression model|||"Week 1~P-value, mean and confidence interval calculated from a 0 inflated mixed poisson regression model with fixed effect terms for treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline as a covariate and a random term for subject. The null hypothesis is that the ratio equals 1. Estimated means are conditional upon the random effect, assume a random effect of 0 and a covariate value at the average."||2.099|-0.121|0.9846
90983923|NCT01025336|181852235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.92|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(23vPS/13vPnC-13vPnC)\].|Serotype 1: Ratio of GMT (23vPS/13vPnC to 13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence/group on the logarithmic scale.||0.92|0.48|
90983924|NCT01025336|181852235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.28|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(23vPS/13vPnC-13vPnC)\].|Serotype 3: Ratio of GMT (23vPS/13vPnC to 13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence/group on the logarithmic scale.||1.28|0.76|
91040251|NCT00577655|181965462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio of Active to Placebo|0.961||||0.9447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.116|2.039||significance level of 0.05.|mixed poisson regression model|||"Week 2~P-value, mean and confidence interval calculated from a 0 inflated mixed poisson regression model with fixed effect terms for treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline as a covariate and a random term for subject. The null hypothesis is that the ratio equals 1. Estimated means are conditional upon the random effect, assume a random effect of 0 and a covariate value at the average."||2.039|-0.116|0.9447
91040252|NCT00577655|181965462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio of Active to Placebo|0.887||||0.8326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.111|1.885||significance level of 0.05.|mixed poisson regression model|||"Week 3~P-value, mean and confidence interval calculated from a 0 inflated mixed poisson regression model with fixed effect terms for treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline as a covariate and a random term for subject. The null hypothesis is that the ratio equals 1. Estimated means are conditional upon the random effect, assume a random effect of 0 and a covariate value at the average."||1.885|-0.111|0.8326
91040253|NCT03306277|181965477|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sided Exact Binomial Test|||This comparison is made to an assumed rate of zero 0 (or as low as 0.1%). By definition, children with spinal muscular atrophy Type 1 are never able to sit independently.||||<0.0001
91040254|NCT03306277|181965478|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||This comparison is made against the results from the age and gender-matched control participants selected from existing natural history data sets (PNCR) \[Neurol. 2014; 83(9):810-817\].|Data for the current study were compared to historical control data (Finkel et al,2014 - PubMed 25080519) where event-free survival was 6 out of 23 participants (26.1%) at 14 months of age.|||<0.0001
91040255|NCT01370863|181965491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Mean|-1.452||||0.869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.054|16.149|||ANCOVA|||||16.149|-19.054|0.869
91040256|NCT01370863|181965492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Diference in LS means|0.264||||0.487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.495|1.024|||ANCOVA|||||1.024|-0.495|0.487
91040257|NCT01370863|181965493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS means|-0.087||||0.637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.501|0.326|||ANCOVA|||||0.326|-0.501|0.637
91040258|NCT01968551|181965505|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Null Hypothesis: In Cohort 2, the group switching to E/C/F/TAF + DRV was at least 12% lower than the group remaining on SBR with respect to percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL at Week 24. Alternative Hypothesis: In Cohort 2, the group switching to E/C/F/TAF + DRV is less than 12% lower than the group remaining on SBR with respect to the proportion of participants with HIV-1 RNA\<50 copies/mL at Week 24.|Difference in proportion|5.3||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.001|-3.4|17.4|||Fisher Exact||Difference in percentages of virologic success and its 95.001% confidence interval (CI) calculation was based on exact method. The exact CI was estimated based on unconditional exact method using 2 inverted 1-sided tests with standardized statistic.|||17.4|-3.4|0.23
91040259|NCT01968551|181965506|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Null Hypothesis: In Cohort 2, the group switching to E/C/F/TAF + DRV was at least 12% lower than the group remaining on SBR with respect to percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL at Week 48. Alternative Hypothesis: In Cohort 2, the group switching to E/C/F/TAF + DRV is less than 12% lower than the group remaining on SBR with respect to the proportion of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL at Week 48.|Difference in proportion|18.3||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.001|3.5|33.0|||Fisher Exact||Difference in percentages of virologic success and its 95.001% CI were calculated based on exact method. The exact CI was estimated based on unconditional exact method using 2 inverted 1-sided tests with the standardized statistic.|||33.0|3.5|0.004
91040260|NCT01395017|181965519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19||||0.3864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.65||The log-rank test was used to test OS. As a sensitivity analysis, HR and its confidence interval was also provided for OS using the Cox proportional hazard model.|Cox proportional hazard model|Adjusting for baseline factors - treatment, ECOG PS, region, CA19-9 level (\< 1000 IU/mL or \>/=1000 IU/mL), and RT during trial (yes or no).||Using a 1-sided alpha=0.2, a population of 200 participants (100 GEM plus dasatinib and 100 GEM plus placebo) has 79% power to show an increase in median OS from 10 to 13.3 months (hazard ratio \[HR\] =0.75, assuming analysis of 135 deaths).||1.65|0.85|0.3864
91040261|NCT01395017|181965520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.6761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.34||The log-rank test was used to test PFS. As a sensitivity analysis, HR and its confidence interval was also provided for PFS using the Cox proportional hazard model.|Cox proportional hazard model|Adjusting for baseline factors: treatment, ECOG PS, region, CA19-9 level (\< 1000 IU/mL or \>/=1000 IU/mL), and RT during trial (yes or no).||Trial has 88% power to show a median PFS increase from 5 to 7 months (with 1-sided alpha=0.15, total 176 events, HR=0.714).||1.34|0.73|0.6761
91040262|NCT03867760|181965560|SUPERIORITY|The study was designed to detect a difference in pain intensity of at least 0.85 points corresponding to an effect size of 0.57 based on results from our pilot study. The sample size needed was 50 per group based on power of .80, alpha of .05.||||||0.809||||||An a priori significance level was set at 0.05.|ANCOVA|We controlled for pre-treatment scores in addition to baseline pain medications in the ANCOVA analysis.||Null Hypothesis: Cancer survivors with chronic pain assigned to the daily use of the hypnosis intervention for 28 days will not report significantly greater pre- to post-treatment decreases in pain intensity than cancer survivors assigned to the relaxation intervention.||||0.809
91040263|NCT03867760|181965561|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.369||||||An a priori significance level was set at 0.05.|ANCOVA|We controlled for pre-treatment scores in addition to baseline pain medications in the ANCOVA analysis.||Null Hypothesis: Cancer survivors with chronic pain assigned to the daily use of the hypnosis intervention for 28 days will not report significantly greater pre- to post-treatment decreases in pain interference than cancer survivors assigned to the relaxation intervention.||||0.369
91040264|NCT03867760|181965562|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029||||||An a priori significance level was set at 0.05.|ANCOVA|We controlled for pre-treatment scores in the ANCOVA analysis.||Null Hypothesis: Cancer survivors with chronic pain assigned to the daily use of the hypnosis intervention for 28 days will not report significantly greater pre- to post-treatment decreases in anxiety than cancer survivors assigned to the relaxation intervention.||||0.029
91040265|NCT03867760|181965563|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.236||||||An a priori significance level was set at 0.05.|ANCOVA|We controlled for pre-treatment scores in the ANCOVA analysis.||Null Hypothesis: Cancer survivors with chronic pain assigned to the daily use of the hypnosis intervention for 28 days will not report significantly greater pre- to post-treatment decreases in depression than cancer survivors assigned to the relaxation intervention.||||0.236
91040266|NCT03867760|181965564|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.904||||||An a priori significance level was set at 0.05.|ANCOVA|We controlled for pre-treatment scores in the ANCOVA analysis.||Null Hypothesis: Cancer survivors with chronic pain assigned to the daily use of the hypnosis intervention for 28 days will not report significantly greater pre- to post-treatment decreases in fatigue than cancer survivors assigned to the relaxation intervention.||||0.904
90983925|NCT01025336|181852235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.22|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(23vPS/13vPnC-13vPnC)\].|Serotype 4: Ratio of GMT (23vPS/13vPnC to 13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence/group on the logarithmic scale.||2.22|0.88|
90983926|NCT01025336|181852235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.95|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(23vPS/13vPnC-13vPnC)\].|Serotype 5: Ratio of GMT (23vPS/13vPnC to 13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence/group on the logarithmic scale.||1.95|0.93|
90983927|NCT01025336|181852235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.66|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(23vPS/13vPnC-13vPnC)\].|Serotype 6A: Ratio of GMT (23vPS/13vPnC to 13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence/group on the logarithmic scale.||0.66|0.27|
90983928|NCT01025336|181852235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.56|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(23vPS/13vPnC-13vPnC)\].|Serotype 6B: Ratio of GMT (23vPS/13vPnC to 13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence/group on the logarithmic scale.||1.56|0.64|
90983929|NCT01025336|181852235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|3.04|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(23vPS/13vPnC-13vPnC)\].|Serotype 7F: Ratio of GMT (23vPS/13vPnC to 13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence/group on the logarithmic scale.||3.04|1.14|
90983930|NCT01025336|181852235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|2.85|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(23vPS/13vPnC-13vPnC)\].|Serotype 9V: Ratio of GMT (23vPS/13vPnC to 13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence/group on the logarithmic scale.||2.85|1.01|
91040267|NCT03867760|181965565|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.936||||||An a priori significance level was set at 0.05.|ANCOVA|We controlled for pre-treatment scores in the ANCOVA analysis.||Null Hypothesis: Cancer survivors with chronic pain assigned to the daily use of the hypnosis intervention for 28 days will not report significantly greater pre- to post-treatment decreases in sleep disturbance than cancer survivors assigned to the relaxation intervention.||||0.936
91040268|NCT03867760|181965566|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||An a priori significance level was set at 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Null Hypothesis: Cancer survivors with chronic pain assigned to the daily use of the hypnosis intervention who experience a clinically meaningful improvement in pain intensity will not have a significantly higher pre-treatment treatment credibility and expectancy score than non-improvers.||||0.02
91040269|NCT00874276|181965574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Kendall's Tau-B|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.127||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.85||This is the primary outcome, and there is no adjustment.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We used a Wilcoxon test (and accompanying Kendal's Tau B) because these outcomes are outlier prone.||0.85|0.35|0.023
90983931|NCT01025336|181852235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|2.87|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(23vPS/13vPnC-13vPnC)\].|Serotype 14: Ratio of GMT (23vPS/13vPnC to 13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence/group on the logarithmic scale.||2.87|1.26|
90983932|NCT01025336|181852235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.19|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(23vPS/13vPnC-13vPnC)\].|Serotype 18C: Ratio of GMT (23vPS/13vPnC to 13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence/group on the logarithmic scale.||1.19|0.57|
90983933|NCT01025336|181852235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.31|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(23vPS/13vPnC-13vPnC)\].|Serotype 19A: Ratio of GMT (23vPS/13vPnC to 13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence/group on the logarithmic scale.||1.31|0.75|
90983934|NCT01025336|181852235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|2.04|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(23vPS/13vPnC-13vPnC)\].|Serotype 19F: Ratio of GMT (23vPS/13vPnC to 13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence/group on the logarithmic scale.||2.04|0.93|
90983935|NCT01025336|181852235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.15|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(23vPS/13vPnC-13vPnC)\].|Serotype 23F: Ratio of GMT (23vPS/13vPnC to 13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence/group on the logarithmic scale.||1.15|0.50|
90983936|NCT01025336|181852236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.31|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 1: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.31|1.03|
90983937|NCT01025336|181852236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.37|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 3: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.37|1.07|
90983938|NCT01025336|181852236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|2.68|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 4: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||2.68|1.60|
90983939|NCT01025336|181852236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|2.03|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 5: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||2.03|1.55|
91040270|NCT00874276|181965575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Kendall's Tau B|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.69|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This is the same analysis as the previous, except we use the day 5 pharmacogenetics on the amount of time needed to clear one-half of dose of the drug. This is for the environmental dose. A positive (negative) Kendall's Tau is associated with the EGT allele being faster (slower) than lacking EGT in terms of metabolization of DCA.||0.69|-0.23|0.42
90983940|NCT01025336|181852236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.07|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.07|0.79|
90983941|NCT01025336|181852236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.53|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6B: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.53|1.05|
90983942|NCT01025336|181852236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.98|3.5|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 7F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||3.50|1.98|
90983943|NCT01025336|181852236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|2.61|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 9V: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||2.61|1.37|
91040271|NCT05330975|181965597|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower bound of the 95% CI of GMR \>0.667, using a noninferiority margin of 1.5.|GMR|0.854|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.728|1.002|||||mRNA-1345+Afluria group compared mRNA-1345 alone group|||1.002|0.728|
91040272|NCT05330975|181965598|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower bound of the 95% CI of the SRR difference \>-10%, using noninferiority margin of 10%.|Difference|-14.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.5|-6.9|||||mRNA-1345+Afluria group compared mRNA-1345 alone group|||-6.9|-21.5|
90983944|NCT01025336|181852236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|1.86|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 14: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.86|1.33|
90983945|NCT01025336|181852236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.42|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 18C: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.42|1.10|
90983946|NCT01025336|181852236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.43|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.43|1.14|
90983947|NCT01025336|181852236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|2.6|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||2.60|1.80|
90983948|NCT01025336|181852236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|2.06|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 23F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||2.06|1.44|
90983949|NCT01025336|181852237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.64|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the measures \[(13vPnC - 23vPS)\].|Serotype 1: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC to 23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine group on the logarithmic scale.||1.64|0.87|
90983950|NCT01025336|181852237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.08|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the measures \[(13vPnC - 23vPS)\].|Serotype 3: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC to 23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine group on the logarithmic scale.||1.08|0.63|
90983951|NCT01025336|181852237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|2.8|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the measures \[(13vPnC - 23vPS)\].|Serotype 4: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC to 23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine group on the logarithmic scale.||2.80|1.25|
90983952|NCT01025336|181852237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.53|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the measures \[(13vPnC - 23vPS)\].|Serotype 5: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC to 23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine group on the logarithmic scale.||1.53|0.71|
90983953|NCT01025336|181852237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|7.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.67|11.44|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the measures \[(13vPnC - 23vPS)\].|Serotype 6A: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC to 23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine group on the logarithmic scale.||11.44|4.67|
90983954|NCT01025336|181852237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.61|4.17|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the measures \[(13vPnC - 23vPS)\].|Serotype 6B: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC to 23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine group on the logarithmic scale.||4.17|1.61|
90983955|NCT01025336|181852237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|3.29|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the measures \[(13vPnC - 23vPS)\].|Serotype 7F: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC to 23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine group on the logarithmic scale.||3.29|1.22|
90983956|NCT01025336|181852237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|2.77|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the measures \[(13vPnC - 23vPS)\].|Serotype 9V: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC to 23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine group on the logarithmic scale.||2.77|0.96|
90983957|NCT01025336|181852237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.28|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the measures \[(13vPnC - 23vPS)\].|Serotype 14: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC to 23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine group on the logarithmic scale.||1.28|0.54|
90983958|NCT01025336|181852237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.07|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the measures \[(13vPnC - 23vPS)\].|Serotype 18C: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC to 23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine group on the logarithmic scale.||2.07|0.92|
90983959|NCT01025336|181852237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.83|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the measures \[(13vPnC - 23vPS)\].|Serotype 19A: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC to 23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine group on the logarithmic scale.||1.83|1.01|
90983960|NCT01025336|181852237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.78|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the measures \[(13vPnC - 23vPS)\].|Serotype 19F: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC to 23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine group on the logarithmic scale.||1.78|0.77|
90983961|NCT01025336|181852237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.97|4.64|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the measures \[(13vPnC - 23vPS)\].|Serotype 23F: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC to 23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine group on the logarithmic scale.||4.64|1.97|
90983962|NCT01025336|181852238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|2.15|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the measures \[(13vPnC - 23vPS)\].|Serotype 1: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC to 23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine group on the logarithmic scale||2.15|1.15|
90983963|NCT01025336|181852238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.32|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the measures \[(13vPnC - 23vPS)\].|Serotype 3: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC to 23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine group on the logarithmic scale||1.32|0.76|
90983964|NCT01025336|181852238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|3.05|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the measures \[(13vPnC - 23vPS)\].|Serotype 4: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC to 23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine group on the logarithmic scale||3.05|1.09|
90983965|NCT01025336|181852238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.96|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the measures \[(13vPnC - 23vPS)\].|Serotype 5: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC to 23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine group on the logarithmic scale||1.96|0.95|
90983966|NCT01025336|181852238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.05|7.5|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the measures \[(13vPnC - 23vPS)\].|Serotype 6A: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC to 23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine group on the logarithmic scale||7.50|3.05|
90983967|NCT01025336|181852238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|3.64|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the measures \[(13vPnC - 23vPS)\].|Serotype 6B: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC to 23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine group on the logarithmic scale||3.64|1.40|
90983968|NCT01025336|181852238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.62|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the measures \[(13vPnC - 23vPS)\].|Serotype 7F: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC to 23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine group on the logarithmic scale||1.62|0.58|
90983969|NCT01025336|181852238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|2.32|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the measures \[(13vPnC - 23vPS)\].|Serotype 9V: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC to 23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine group on the logarithmic scale||2.32|0.83|
90983970|NCT01025336|181852238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.4|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the measures \[(13vPnC - 23vPS)\].|Serotype 14: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC to 23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine group on the logarithmic scale||1.40|0.58|
90983971|NCT01025336|181852238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|2.41|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the measures \[(13vPnC - 23vPS)\].|Serotype 18C: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC to 23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine group on the logarithmic scale||2.41|1.09|
90983972|NCT01025336|181852238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.03|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the measures \[(13vPnC - 23vPS)\].|Serotype 19A: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC to 23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine group on the logarithmic scale||2.03|1.10|
90983973|NCT01025336|181852238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|2.02|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the measures \[(13vPnC - 23vPS)\].|Serotype 19F: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC to 23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine group on the logarithmic scale||2.02|0.89|
90983974|NCT01025336|181852238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|2.97|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the measures \[(13vPnC - 23vPS)\].|Serotype 23F: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC to 23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine group on the logarithmic scale||2.97|1.27|
90983975|NCT02723630|181852308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|100.52||||0.8826|TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.84|106.53||P-value for the formulation|Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric LS Mean ratio was back-transformed least squares mean and mean treatment difference.|The effect of crystalline polymorph forms in the drug product on the PK parameters of lenvatinib was estimated using a mixed linear model of logarithmically transformed values of the primary PK parameters with fixed effects for treatment, period, and sequence and a random effect for participant within sequence.||106.53|94.84|0.8826
90983976|NCT02723630|181852308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|96.03||||0.1095|TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.11|100.12||P-value for formulation|Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric LS Mean ratio was back-transformed least squares mean and mean treatment difference.|The effect of crystalline polymorph forms in the drug product on the PK parameters of lenvatinib was estimated using a mixed linear model of logarithmically transformed values of the primary PK parameters with fixed effects for treatment, period, and sequence and a random effect for participant within sequence.||100.12|92.11|0.1095
90983977|NCT02723630|181852309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|100.8||||0.8121|TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.31|106.61||P value for formulation|Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric LS Mean ratio was back-transformed least squares mean and treatment difference mean|The effect of crystalline polymorph forms in the drug product on the PK parameters of lenvatinib was estimated using a mixed linear model of logarithmically transformed values of the primary PK parameters with fixed effects for treatment, period, and sequence and a random effect for participant within sequence.||106.61|95.31|0.8121
90983978|NCT02723630|181852309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|96.51||||0.163|TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.53|100.65||P value for formulation|Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric LS Mean ratio was back-transformed least squares mean and treatment difference mean|The effect of crystalline polymorph forms in the drug product on the PK parameters of lenvatinib was estimated using a mixed linear model of logarithmically transformed values of the primary PK parameters with fixed effects for treatment, period, and sequence and a random effect for participant within sequence.||100.65|92.53|0.1630
90983979|NCT02723630|181852310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|99.68||||0.9427|TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.45|107.47||P value for formulation|Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric LS Mean ratio was back-transformed least squares mean and treatment difference mean|The effect of crystalline polymorph forms in the drug product on the PK parameters of lenvatinib was estimated using a mixed linear model of logarithmically transformed values of the primary PK parameters with fixed effects for treatment, period, and sequence and a random effect for participant within sequence.||107.47|92.45|0.9427
90983980|NCT02723630|181852310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|93.5||||0.0403|TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.63|98.64||P value for formulation|Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric LS Mean ratio was back-transformed least squares mean and treatment difference mean|The effect of crystalline polymorph forms in the drug product on the PK parameters of lenvatinib was estimated using a mixed linear model of logarithmically transformed values of the primary PK parameters with fixed effects for treatment, period, and sequence and a random effect for participant within sequence.||98.64|88.63|0.0403
90983981|NCT02723630|181852311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|100.29||||0.9373|TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.37|106.58||P value for formulation|Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric LS Mean ratio was back-transformed least squares mean and treatment difference mean|The effect of crystalline polymorph forms in the drug product on the PK parameters of lenvatinib was estimated using a mixed linear model of logarithmically transformed values of the primary PK parameters with fixed effects for treatment, period, and sequence and a random effect for participant within sequence.||106.58|94.37|0.9373
90983982|NCT02723630|181852311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|95.17||||0.0682|TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.03|99.5||P value for formulation|Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric LS Mean ratio was back-transformed least squares mean and treatment difference mean|The effect of crystalline polymorph forms in the drug product on the PK parameters of lenvatinib was estimated using a mixed linear model of logarithmically transformed values of the primary PK parameters with fixed effects for treatment, period, and sequence and a random effect for participant within sequence.||99.50|91.03|0.0682
90983983|NCT02723630|181852312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|98.73||||0.8448|TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.57|110.06||P value for formulation|Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio was back-transformed least squares mean and treatment difference mean|The effect of crystalline polymorph forms in the drug product on the PK parameters of lenvatinib was estimated using a mixed linear model of logarithmically transformed values of the primary PK parameters with fixed effects for treatment, period, and sequence and a random effect for participant within sequence.||110.06|88.57|0.8448
90983984|NCT02723630|181852312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|90.64||||0.0498|TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.51|98.38||P value for formulation|Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric LS Mean ratio was back-transformed least squares mean and treatment difference mean|The effect of crystalline polymorph forms in the drug product on the PK parameters of lenvatinib was estimated using a mixed linear model of logarithmically transformed values of the primary PK parameters with fixed effects for treatment, period, and sequence and a random effect for participant within sequence.||98.38|83.51|0.0498
90983985|NCT02255838|181852320|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||||<0.05
90983986|NCT04207710|181852326|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.317||||||A priori threshold for significance was p\<0.05.|Friedman|||Comparison of incidence of positive growth in samples obtained following application of ChloraPrep vs. ChloraPrep followed by Gebauer's Ethyl Chloride.||||0.317
90983987|NCT04207710|181852326|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.317||||||A priori threshold was p\<0.05|Friedman|||Comparison of incidence of positive growth in samples obtained following application of ChloraPrep vs. ChloraPrep followed by Gebauer's Ethyl Chloride.||||0.317
91040273|NCT05330975|181965606|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower bound of the 95% CI of GMR \>0.667, using a noninferiority margin of 1.5.|GMR|0.888|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.791|0.995|||||mRNA-1345+mRNA-1273.214 compared with mRNA-1345 alone|||0.995|0.791|
91040274|NCT05330975|181965607|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower bound of the 95% CI of the SRR difference \>-10%, using noninferiority margin of 10%.|Difference|-5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|0.3|||||mRNA-1345+mRNA-1273.214 compared with mRNA-1345 alone|||0.3|-11.9|
91040275|NCT05330975|181965630|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower bound of the 95% CI of geometric mean ratio (GMR) \>0.667, using a noninferiority margin of 1.5.|GMR|0.807|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.668|0.974|||||mRNA-1345+Afluria group compared mRNA-1345 alone group|||0.974|0.668|
91040276|NCT05330975|181965631|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower bound of the 95% CI of the SRR difference \>-10%, using noninferiority margin of 10%.|Difference|-11.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.9|-4.1|||||mRNA-1345+Afluria group compared mRNA-1345 alone group|||-4.1|-17.9|
91040277|NCT05330975|181965632|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower bound of the 95% CI of GMR \>0.667, using a noninferiority margin of 1.5.|GMR|0.893|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.772|1.032|||||mRNA-1345+Afluria group at Day 29 compared with the GMT of anti-HA Ab in the Afluria alone group|Influenza A H1N1 Antibody||1.032|0.772|
91040278|NCT05330975|181965632|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower bound of the 95% CI of geometric mean ratio (GMR) \>0.667, using a noninferiority margin of 1.5.|GMR|0.969|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.861|1.091|||||mRNA-1345+Afluria group at Day 29 compared with the GMT of anti-HA Ab in the Afluria alone group|Influenza A H3N2 Antibody||1.091|0.861|
91040279|NCT05330975|181965632|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower bound of the 95% CI of geometric mean ratio (GMR) \>0.667, using a noninferiority margin of 1.5.|GMR|0.927|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.822|1.045|||||mRNA-1345+Afluria group at Day 29 compared with the GMT of anti-HA Ab in the Afluria alone group|Influenza B Washington Antibody||1.045|0.822|
91040280|NCT05330975|181965632|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower bound of the 95% CI of geometric mean ratio (GMR) \>0.667, using a noninferiority margin of 1.5.|GMR|0.909|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.809|1.02|||||mRNA-1345+Afluria group at Day 29 compared with the GMT of anti-HA Ab in the Afluria alone group|Influenza B Phuket Antibody||1.020|0.809|
91040281|NCT05330975|181965638|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower bound of the 95% CI of ratio of the GMT (GMR) \>0.667, using a noninferiority margin of 1.5.|GMR|0.796|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.702|0.901|||||mRNA-1345+mRNA-1273.214 compared to mRNA-1345 alone|||0.901|0.702|
91040282|NCT05330975|181965639|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower bound of the 95% CI of the SRR difference \>-10%, using noninferiority margin of 10%.|Difference|-4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|1.0|||||mRNA-1345+mRNA-1273.214 compared to mRNA-1345 alone|||1.0|-9.9|
91040283|NCT05330975|181965640|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower bound of the 95% CI of ratio of the GMT (GMR) \>0.667, using a noninferiority margin of 1.5.|GMR|0.959|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.872|1.056|||||mRNA-1345+mRNA-1273.214 compared to mRNA-1273.214 alone|GMR for Wuhan-Hu-1||1.056|0.872|
91040284|NCT05330975|181965640|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower bound of the 95% CI of ratio of the GMT (GMR) \>0.667, using a noninferiority margin of 1.5.|GMR|1.004|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.888|1.137|||||mRNA-1345+mRNA-1273.214 compared to mRNA-1273.214 alone|GMR for B.1.1.529||1.137|0.888|
91040285|NCT05330975|181965641|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower bound of the 95% CI of the SRR difference \>-10%, using noninferiority margin of 10%.|Difference|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|6.3|||||mRNA-1345+mRNA-1273.214 compared to mRNA-1273.214 alone|SRR difference for Wuhan-Hu-1||6.3|-6.0|
91040286|NCT05330975|181965641|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower bound of the 95% CI of the SRR difference \>-10%, using noninferiority margin of 10%.|Difference|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|4.7|||||mRNA-1345+mRNA-1273.214 compared to mRNA-1273.214 alone|SRR difference for B.1.1.529||4.7|-6.6|
91040287|NCT05330975|181965646|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower bound of the 95% CI of ratio of the GMT (GMR) \>0.667, using a noninferiority margin of 1.5.|GMR|1.077|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.995|1.166|||||The 95% CI for the GMR is based on t-distribution of the log-transformed values then back transformed to the original scale for presentation.|GMR of RSV-A. GMR was calculated by back transforming the mean of paired difference of antibody levels on the logarithmic scale between revaccination Day 29 and primary vaccination Day 29.||1.166|0.995|
91040288|NCT05330975|181965646|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower bound of the 95% CI of ratio of the GMT (GMR) \>0.667, using a noninferiority margin of 1.5.|GMR|0.909|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.839|0.984|||||The 95% CI for the GMR is based on t-distribution of the log-transformed values then back transformed to the original scale for presentation.|GMR of RSV-B. GMR was calculated by back transforming the mean of paired difference of antibody levels on the logarithmic scale between revaccination Day 29 and primary vaccination Day 29.||0.984|0.839|
91040289|NCT04230174|181965676|OTHER|Paired-t test baseline vs follow-up SUVR in white matter lesions of multiple sclerosis patients.||||||0.011|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.011
91040290|NCT04230174|181965676|OTHER|Paired-t test||||||0.018|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired-t test baseline vs follow-up SUVR in perilesional white matter multiple sclerosis patients.||||0.018
91040291|NCT04230174|181965676|OTHER|Paired-t test||||||0.047|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired-t test baseline vs follow-up SUVR in the thalamus of multiple sclerosis patients.|A general linear model using the FreeSurfer software was used to assess, vertex-wise, significant paired-wise SUVR differences in post vs pre ocrelizumab treatment in patients across the cortex. A clusterwise correction for multiple comparisons was also applied using a Monte-Carlo simulation with 10,000 iterations (corrected P ≤ 0.05). The surface-based analysis disclosed three clusters of decreased 11C-PBR28 uptake in the right hemisphere (Fig. 4), including insula (p=0.0009), lateral orbitofrontal (p=0.03), and opercular/frontal inferior (p=0.02) areas after adjusting for multiple comparisons.|||0.047
91040292|NCT04230174|181965677|OTHER|Paired-t test||||||0.07|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline vs follow-up MTR in NAWM||||0.07
91040293|NCT04230174|181965677|OTHER|Paired-t test||||||0.024|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline vs follow-up MTR in cortex||||0.024
91040294|NCT04230174|181965678|OTHER|Paired-t test||||||0.69|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Changes in cortical thickness after 1-year ocrelizumab treatment in patients with multiple sclerosis||||0.69
91040295|NCT04230174|181965679|OTHER|Wilcoxon related samples test||||||0.64|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon related samples test comparing baseline vs follow-up changes in white matter lesion volume of multiple sclerosis patients.||||0.64
91040296|NCT01513239|181965683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference|-10.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|-5.1||One sided p-value based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by SOC therapy (metronidazole vs. vancomycin vs. fidaxomicin) and hospitalization status (inpatient vs. outpatient)|Miettinen and Nurminen||MK-3415A + SOC minus Placebo + SOC|||-5.1|-16.4|<0.0001
91040297|NCT01513239|181965683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference|-9.9||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5|-4.3||One sided p-value based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by SOC therapy (metronidazole vs. vancomycin vs. fidaxomicin) and hospitalization status (inpatient vs. outpatient)|Miettinen and Nurminen||MK-6072 + SOC minus Placebo + SOC|||-4.3|-15.5|0.0003
91040298|NCT01513239|181965683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference|-0.8||||0.3718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|4.2||One sided p-value based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by SOC therapy (metronidazole vs. vancomycin vs. fidaxomicin) and hospitalization status (inpatient vs. outpatient)|Miettinen and Nurminen||MK-3415A + SOC minus MK-6072 + SOC|||4.2|-5.9|0.3718
91040299|NCT01513239|181965684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference|5.2||||0.0722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|12.2||One sided p-value based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by SOC therapy (metronidazole vs. vancomycin vs. fidaxomicin) and hospitalization status (inpatient vs. outpatient)|Miettinen and Nurminen||MK-3415A + SOC minus Placebo + SOC|||12.2|-1.8|0.0722
91040300|NCT01513239|181965684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference|14.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|21.4||One sided p-value based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by SOC therapy (metronidazole vs. vancomycin vs. fidaxomicin) and hospitalization status (inpatient vs. outpatient)|Miettinen and Nurminen||MK-6072 + SOC minus Placebo + SOC|||21.4|7.7|<0.0001
91040301|NCT01513239|181965684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference|-9.4||||0.9969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.1|-2.7||One sided p-value based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by SOC therapy (metronidazole vs. vancomycin vs. fidaxomicin) and hospitalization status (inpatient vs. outpatient)|Miettinen and Nurminen||MK-3415A + SOC minus MK-6072 + SOC|||-2.7|-16.1|0.9969
91040302|NCT01513239|181965685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference|-11.9||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|-4.7||One sided p-value based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by SOC therapy (metronidazole vs. vancomycin vs. fidaxomicin) and hospitalization status (inpatient vs. outpatient)|Miettinen and Nurminen||MK-3415A + SOC minus Placebo + SOC|||-4.7|-19.0|0.0006
91040303|NCT01513239|181965685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference|-13.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.4|-6.9||One sided p-value based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by SOC therapy (metronidazole vs. vancomycin vs. fidaxomicin) and hospitalization status (inpatient vs. outpatient)|Miettinen and Nurminen||MK-6072 + SOC minus Placebo + SOC|||-6.9|-20.4|<0.0001
91040304|NCT01513239|181965685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference|1.6||||0.6962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|8.0||One sided p-value based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by SOC therapy (metronidazole vs. vancomycin vs. fidaxomicin) and hospitalization status (inpatient vs. outpatient)|Miettinen and Nurminen||MK-3415A + SOC minus MK-6072 + SOC|||8.0|-4.6|0.6962
91040305|NCT01513239|181965686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-2.9||||0.408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|4.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen||MK-3415A + SOC minus Placebo +SOC|||4.0|-9.8|0.408
91040306|NCT01513239|181965686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-2.3||||0.517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|4.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen||MK-6072 + SOC minus Placebo + SOC|||4.6|-9.2|0.517
91040307|NCT01513239|181965687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-0.2||||0.931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|3.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen||MK-3415A + SOC minus Placebo + SOC|||3.5|-3.8|0.931
91040308|NCT01513239|181965687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0||||0.997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|3.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen||MK-6072 + SOC minus Placebo + SOC|||3.6|-3.7|0.997
90983988|NCT04207710|181852326|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.317||||||A priori threshold was p\<0.05|Friedman|||Comparison of incidence of positive growth in samples obtained following application of ChloraPrep vs. ChloraPrep followed by Gebauer's Pain Ease.||||0.317
90983989|NCT04207710|181852326|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.317||||||A priori threshold was p\<0.05|Friedman|||Comparison of incidence of positive growth in samples obtained following application of ChloraPrep vs. ChloraPrep followed by Gebauer's Pain Ease.||||0.317
91006788|NCT04453722|181897949|SUPERIORITY|Median difference was estimated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimator of location shift between groups and P values from Wilcoxon rank sum test|Median Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||variable: Degree of disturbing daily life except sleep (after 24 hours of discharge)||3.0|0.0|0.180
91040309|NCT01513239|181965688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.5||||0.328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|2.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen||MK-3415A + SOC minus Placebo + SOC|||2.0|-0.8|0.328
91006789|NCT04453722|181897949|SUPERIORITY|Median difference was estimated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimator of location shift between groups and P values from Wilcoxon rank sum test|Median Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||variable: degree of distributing sleep (after 24 hours of discharge)||2.0|0.0|0.171
91040310|NCT01513239|181965688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-0.3||||0.308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen||MK-6072 + SOC minus Placebo + SOC|||0.7|-1.5|0.308
91040311|NCT01513239|181965689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen||MK-3415A + SOC minus Placebo + SOC|||1.0|-1.0|>0.999
91040312|NCT01513239|181965689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen||MK-6072 + SOC minus Placebo + SOC|||1.0|-1.0|>0.999
90983990|NCT01515072|181852327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.21||This is an unadjusted comparison. P value \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Adjusted analyses for the RIPC effect are provided below.|0.08 less organs per donor in the RIPC group.|Sample Size and Power estimation: A sample size of at least 150 donors in each arm was estimated to provide 80% power to detect a difference of 0.44 of an organ recovered and 0.48 of an organ transplanted per donor. The difference criterion was chosen based on published results achieved with hormonal resuscitation in organ donors. 6 Pooled standard deviations (organs recovered: 1.35; organs transplanted: 1.5) from data of two OPOs were used.||0.21|-0.37|0.38
90983991|NCT01515072|181852328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.26||This is an unadjusted analysis. P \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Adjusted analyses are provided below.|0.03 less organs per donor in the RIPC group.|Sample Size A sample size of at least 150 donors in each arm was estimated to provide 80% power to detect a difference of 0.44 of an organ recovered and 0.48 of an organ transplanted per donor. The difference criterion was chosen based on published results achieved with hormonal resuscitation in organ donors. 6 Pooled standard deviations (organs recovered: 1.35; organs transplanted: 1.5) from data of two OPOs were used.||0.26|-0.33|0.70
90983992|NCT01515072|181852329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63||||||P\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|This is an unadjusted comparison||||||0.63
90983993|NCT01515072|181852330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.86
90983994|NCT01515072|181852331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55||||||P\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|This is an unadjusted comparison||||||0.55
90983995|NCT01515072|181852332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55||||||P\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|This is an unadjusted comparison||||||0.55
90983996|NCT01515072|181852333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48||||||P\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|This is an unadjusted comparison||||||0.48
90983997|NCT01515072|181852334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||||||P\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|This is an unadjusted comparison||||||0.04
90983998|NCT01515072|181852335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-4.7||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|19.5||P\<0.05|Regression, Linear|Final flow was modeled on RIPC and adjusted for donor stratum and duration of perfusion|Data shown above is the the adjusted mean difference in final flow in RIPC group|||19.5|-10.1|0.53
90983999|NCT01515072|181852336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.97
91040313|NCT01513239|181965690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|3.3|||||MK-3415A + SOC minus Placebo + SOC|||3.3|-4.2|
90984000|NCT01515072|181852337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.62||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.76||Adjusted analysis with recipient age as a continuous variable, sex, race as black versus not black, body mass index, diabetes, hypertension,antigen mismatches, donor age as a continuous variable and trial site.|Chi-squared|||||2.76|0.95|0.07
90984001|NCT01515072|181852337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36||||||Unadjusted analysis|Chi-squared|||||||0.36
90984002|NCT01515072|181852338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.17|||Regression, Linear|Final resistance was modeled on RIPC and adjusted for donor stratum and duration of perfusion.|Data shown above is the adjusted mean difference in final resistance in the RIPC group.|||0.17|0.03|0.006
90984003|NCT01515072|181852339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Fisher Exact|This is an unadjusted comparison||||||0.50
91040314|NCT01513239|181965690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|5.2|||||MK-6072 + SOC minus Placebo + SOC|||5.2|-2.7|
90984004|NCT01515072|181852340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Log Rank|This is an unadjusted comparison||||||0.03
90984005|NCT01515072|181852341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.19||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.9|||Log Rank|Results of adjusted Cox proportional hazard analyses for six month death-censored kidney graft survival are shown below|The proportional hazard ratio favors RIPC group|||0.90|0.04|0.01
90984006|NCT01515072|181852342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||Log Rank|This is an unadjusted comparison||||||0.37
90984007|NCT00923091|181852343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0071||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0071
90984008|NCT00923091|181852343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0323||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0323
90984009|NCT00923091|181852343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0080
90984010|NCT00923091|181852343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0071||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0071
90984011|NCT00923091|181852343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0107||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0107
90984012|NCT00923091|181852344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0006
90984013|NCT00923091|181852344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0008||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0008
90984014|NCT00923091|181852344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
90984015|NCT00923091|181852344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0034||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0034
91040315|NCT00396162|181965697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.23
91040316|NCT00396162|181965698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.31
90984016|NCT00923091|181852344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0006
90984017|NCT00923091|181852345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0295||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0295
90984018|NCT00923091|181852345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2529||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2529
90984019|NCT00923091|181852345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0037||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0037
90984020|NCT00923091|181852345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2033||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2033
90984021|NCT00923091|181852345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2529||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2529
90984022|NCT00923091|181852346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1135||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1135
90984023|NCT00923091|181852347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2765||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2765
90984024|NCT00923091|181852348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4964||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4964
90984025|NCT00923091|181852349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1301||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1301
90984026|NCT00923091|181852349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01301||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.01301
90984027|NCT00923091|181852350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0503||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0503
90984028|NCT00144300|181852361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.07||||||95.0|0.71|1.6||||||||1.60|0.71|
90984029|NCT01933672|181852382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-31.24|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-36.35|-26.12||||||Change from baseline||-26.12|-36.35|
90984030|NCT01933672|181852382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-31.33|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-37.29|-25.37||||||Change from baseline||-25.37|-37.29|
90984031|NCT01933672|181852382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.24|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-24.99|-13.5||||||Change from baseline||-13.50|-24.99|
90984032|NCT01933672|181852382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.99|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-19.81|-4.17||||||There was no hypothesis to be tested. Difference in change from baseline in WMDG between the 2 treatment groups was calculated based on the mixed effects repeated measures model.||-4.17|-19.81|
90984033|NCT01933672|181852382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.09|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-19.81|-4.17||||||There was no hypothesis to be tested. Difference in change from baseline in WMDG between the 2 treatment groups was calculated based on the mixed effects repeated measures model.||-4.17|-19.81|
90984034|NCT01933672|181852383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.92|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-27.0|-16.85||||||Compared with Baseline||-16.85|-27.00|
90984035|NCT01933672|181852383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.7|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-26.3|-15.1||||||Compared with Baseline||-15.10|-26.30|
90984036|NCT01933672|181852383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.51|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-22.24|-10.78||||||Compared with Baseline||-10.78|-22.24|
90984037|NCT01933672|181852383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-5.41|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-11.74|0.92||||||Change from baseline in FPG was analyzed in a mixed model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with regimen, period, sequence, treatment × period, and carryover as fixed effects. Subjects within sequences were modelled as random effects, with each subject's period-specific baseline response included, as fixed covariates.||0.92|-11.74|
90984038|NCT01933672|181852383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.19|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-10.86|2.49||||||Change from baseline in FPG was analyzed in a mixed model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with regimen, period, sequence, treatment × period, and carryover as fixed effects. Subjects within sequences were modelled as random effects, with each subject's period-specific baseline response included, as fixed covariates.||2.49|-10.86|
90984039|NCT01933672|181852384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.19|0.07||||||Compared with Baseline （Pre-breakfast）||0.07|-0.19|
90984040|NCT01933672|181852384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.09|0.21||||||Compared with Baseline (Pre-breakfast)||0.21|-0.09|
90984041|NCT01933672|181852384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.16|0.45||||||Compared with Baseline (Pre-breakfast)||0.45|0.16|
90984042|NCT01933672|181852384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.56|-0.36||||||Pre-breakfast; Time-matched change from baseline in pre-meal C-peptide on Day 14 was analyzed using a mixed effects model with sequence, period, treatment, the treatment by-time interaction, period-specific baseline and carryover as fixed effects. Subjects within sequences were modeled as random effects.||-0.36|-0.56|
90984043|NCT01933672|181852384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.45|-0.03||||||Pre-breakfast; Time-matched change from baseline in pre-meal C-peptide on Day 14 was analyzed using a mixed effects model with sequence, period, treatment, the treatment by-time interaction, period-specific baseline and carryover as fixed effects. Subjects within sequences were modeled as random effects.||-0.03|-0.45|
90984044|NCT01933672|181852384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.08|0.48||||||Compared with Baseline (Pre-lunch)||0.48|-0.08|
90984045|NCT01933672|181852384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.38|1.03||||||Compared with Baseline (Pre-lunch)||1.03|0.38|
90984046|NCT01933672|181852384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.26|0.37||||||Compared with Baseline (Pre-lunch)||0.37|-0.26|
90984047|NCT01933672|181852384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||||80.0|-0.28|0.57||||||Pre-lunch; Time-matched change from baseline in pre-meal C-peptide on Day 14 was analyzed using a mixed effects model with sequence, period, treatment, the treatment by-time interaction, period-specific baseline and carryover as fixed effects. Subjects within sequences were modeled as random effects.||0.57|-0.28|
90984048|NCT01933672|181852384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.19|1.11||||||Pre-lunch; Time-matched change from baseline in pre-meal C-peptide on Day 14 was analyzed using a mixed effects model with sequence, period, treatment, the treatment by-time interaction, period-specific baseline and carryover as fixed effects. Subjects within sequences were modeled as random effects.||1.11|0.19|
90984049|NCT01933672|181852384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.03|0.68||||||Compared with Baseline (Pre-dinner)||0.68|0.03|
90984050|NCT01933672|181852384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.08|0.67||||||Compared with Baseline (Pre-dinner)||0.67|-0.08|
90984051|NCT01933672|181852384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.05|0.68||||||Compared with Baseline (Pre-dinner)||0.68|-0.05|
90984052|NCT01933672|181852384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.45|0.53||||||Pre-dinner; Time-matched change from baseline in pre-meal C-peptide on Day 14 was analyzed using a mixed effects model with sequence, period, treatment, the treatment by-time interaction, period-specific baseline and carryover as fixed effects. Subjects within sequences were modeled as random effects.||0.53|-0.45|
90984053|NCT01933672|181852384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.55|0.51||||||Pre-dinner; Time-matched change from baseline in pre-meal C-peptide on Day 14 was analyzed using a mixed effects model with sequence, period, treatment, the treatment by-time interaction, period-specific baseline and carryover as fixed effects. Subjects within sequences were modeled as random effects.||0.51|-0.55|
90984054|NCT01933672|181852385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.75|1.07||||||Compared with Baseline （Pre-breakfast）||1.07|-0.75|
90984055|NCT01933672|181852385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.58|1.51||||||Compared with Baseline (Pre-breakfast)||1.51|-0.58|
90984056|NCT01933672|181852385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.58|2.63||||||Compared with Baseline (Pre-breakfast)||2.63|0.58|
90984057|NCT01933672|181852385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.84|-0.05||||||Pre-breakfast; Time-matched change from baseline in pre-meal insulin on Day 14 was analyzed using a mixed effects model with sequence, period, treatment, the treatment by-time interaction, period-specific baseline and carryover as fixed effects. Subjects within sequences were modeled as random effects.||-0.05|-2.84|
90984058|NCT01933672|181852385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.63|0.35||||||Pre-breakfast; Time-matched change from baseline in pre-meal insulin on Day 14 was analyzed using a mixed effects model with sequence, period, treatment, the treatment by-time interaction, period-specific baseline and carryover as fixed effects. Subjects within sequences were modeled as random effects.||0.35|-2.63|
90984059|NCT01933672|181852385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.69|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.5|3.88||||||Compared with Baseline (Pre-lunch)||3.88|-0.50|
90984060|NCT01933672|181852385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.07|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.56|6.58||||||Compared with Baseline (Pre-lunch)||6.58|1.56|
90984061|NCT01933672|181852385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.42|2.4||||||Compared with Baseline (Pre-lunch)||2.40|-2.42|
90984062|NCT01933672|181852385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.62|5.01||||||Pre-lunch; Time-matched change from baseline in pre-meal insulin on Day 14 was analyzed using a mixed effects model with sequence, period, treatment, the treatment by-time interaction, period-specific baseline and carryover as fixed effects. Subjects within sequences were modeled as random effects.||5.01|-1.62|
90984063|NCT01933672|181852385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.08|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.54|7.62||||||Pre-lunch; Time-matched change from baseline in pre-meal insulin on Day 14 was analyzed using a mixed effects model with sequence, period, treatment, the treatment by-time interaction, period-specific baseline and carryover as fixed effects. Subjects within sequences were modeled as random effects.||7.62|0.54|
90984064|NCT01933672|181852385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.66|2.27||||||Compared with Baseline (Pre-dinner)||2.27|-3.66|
90984065|NCT01933672|181852385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.06|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.7|8.43||||||Compared with Baseline (Pre-dinner)||8.43|1.70|
90984066|NCT01933672|181852385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.42|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.1|6.94||||||Compared with Baseline (Pre-dinner)||6.94|-0.10|
90984067|NCT01933672|181852385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.12|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-8.42|0.18||||||Pre-dinner; Time-matched change from baseline in pre-meal insulin on Day 14 was analyzed using a mixed effects model with sequence, period, treatment, the treatment by-time interaction, period-specific baseline and carryover as fixed effects. Subjects within sequences were modeled as random effects.||0.18|-8.42|
91040317|NCT01911429|181965707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference (SE)|-8.0||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|-3.7|||LS mean difference (SE)|||"The sample size was estimated to provide at least 85% power to reject at least one of the null hypotheses of no difference between placebo and lurasidone doses.~LS Mean, LS mean difference, and the associated 95% CI and p-value for change from baseline are based on Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)."||-3.7|-12.4|0.0003
91040318|NCT01911429|181965707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference (SE)|-7.7||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|-3.4|||LS mean difference (SE)|||"The sample size was estimated to provide at least 85% power to reject at least one of the null hypotheses of no difference between placebo and lurasidone doses.~LS Mean, LS mean difference, and the associated 95% CI and p-value for change from baseline are based on Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)."||-3.4|-12.1|0.0006
90984068|NCT01933672|181852385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.64|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.6|5.89||||||Pre-dinner; Time-matched change from baseline in pre-meal insulin on Day 14 was analyzed using a mixed effects model with sequence, period, treatment, the treatment by-time interaction, period-specific baseline and carryover as fixed effects. Subjects within sequences were modeled as random effects.||5.89|-2.60|
90984069|NCT01933672|181852388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.21|1.39||||||Compared with baseline||1.39|0.21|
90984070|NCT01933672|181852388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.43|0.93||||||Compared with baseline||0.93|-0.43|
90984071|NCT01933672|181852388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.92|0.4||||||Compared with baseline||0.40|-0.92|
90984072|NCT01933672|181852388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.17|1.95||||||||1.95|0.17|
90984073|NCT01933672|181852388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.45|1.47||||||||1.47|-0.45|
90984074|NCT01877655|181852397|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.85||P-value based on CMH general association test stratified by donor-recipient relatedness and donor CMV serostatus.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio (ASP0113 vs placebo) and 95% CI was based on CMH general association test stratified by donor-recipient relatedness \& donor CMV serostatus.|Analysis of all-cause mortality and adjudicated CMV EOD. Analysis was completed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test at the 1-sided 5% level stratified by use of antithymocyte globulin (ATG) and by receipt of a kidney from a living or deceased donor.||1.85|0.87|0.205
90984075|NCT01877655|181852398|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.22||P-value based on cox proportional hazards model parameter estimate for the treatment effect.|Cox Proportional Hazard Model|Parameter estimate from cox proportional hazard model (ASP0113 v placebo) with treatment \& randomization strata adjusted for death as a competing risk||Analysis of CMV viremia through 1 year posttransplant. CMV viremia was defined by the protocol as CMV plasma viral load ≥ 1000 IU/mL as assessed by the central laboratory. The 95% CI was based on cumulative incidence function CMV viremia rate at 1 year.||1.22|0.76|0.748
90984076|NCT01877655|181852399|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.29||P-value based on cox proportional hazards model parameter estimate for the treatment effect.|Cox Proportional Hazard Model|Parameter estimate from cox proportional hazard model (ASP0113 v placebo) with treatment \& randomization strata adjusted for death as a competing risk||Analysis of CMV-specific antiviral therapy (AVT) through 1 year. Time to first adjudicated CMV-specific therapy was defined as time to the start of AVT for CMV viremia. CMV-specific AVT was determined by the adjudication committee. Rate was based on cumulative incidence function estimate at 1 year.||1.29|0.80|0.888
91006790|NCT04453722|181897949|SUPERIORITY|Median difference was estimated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimator of location shift between groups and P values from Wilcoxon rank sum test|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||variable: Tolerable to audible alert (after 24 hours of discharge)||0.0|-1.0|0.074
91006791|NCT04453722|181897949|SUPERIORITY|Median difference was estimated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimator of location shift between groups and P values from Wilcoxon rank sum test|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||variable: Tolerable to tactile alert (after 24 hours of discharge)||1.0|-2.0|0.414
91006792|NCT04453722|181897949|SUPERIORITY|Median difference was estimated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimator of location shift between groups and P values from Wilcoxon rank sum test|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||variable: Easily cleaned/disinfected (after 24 hours of discharge)||0.0|0.0|0.506
91006793|NCT04453722|181897949|SUPERIORITY|Median difference was estimated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimator of location shift between groups and P values from Wilcoxon rank sum test|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||variable: Adequate battery life (after 24 hours of discharge)||0.0|-1.0|0.747
90984077|NCT01877655|181852400|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.51||P value based on CMH general association test stratified by donor-recipient relatedness and donor CMV serostatus.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio (ASP0113 vs placebo) and 95% CI based on CMH general association test stratified by donor recipient relatedness and donor CMV serostatus.|Analysis of composite of CMV viremia and adjudicated CMV-AVT. The CMV viremia was defined by the protocol as CMV plasma viral load ≥ 1000 IU/mL as assessed by the central laboratory. CMV-specific AVT was determined by the adjudication committee. Participants with no posttransplant viral load data were excluded from the analysis.||1.51|0.73|0.802
90984078|NCT01877655|181852401|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.28||P value based on cox proportional hazards model parameter estimate for the treatment effect.|Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Parameter estimate from cox proportional hazard model (ASP0113 v placebo) with treatment \& randomization strata adjusted for death as a competing risk||Analysis of rate of adjudicated CMV AVT or CMV EOD. Time to first CMV-specific AVT was defined as time to the start of AVT for CMV viremia or CMV EOD. CMV-specific AVT and EOD and were determined by the adjudication committee. Rate based on cumulative incidence function estimate at 1 year.||1.28|0.80|0.928
90984079|NCT01877655|181852402|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.73||P value based on cox proportional hazards model parameter estimate for the treatment effect.|Cox Proportional Hazards Model||Odds ratio (ASP0113 vs placebo) and 95% CI based on CMH general association test stratified by donor-recipient relatedness and donor CMV serostatus.|Analysis of all-cause mortality at 1 year. Participants with unknown survival status at 1 year were considered dead for this analysis.||1.73|0.81|0.393
90984080|NCT00095121|181852403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||End of double-blind treatment|Fisher Exact|||After unblinding the results, due to the small number of responders in the placebo group, it was determined that a statistical exact test would be more appropriate in the evaluation of treatment group differences than the originally planned 95% confidence intervals of the difference between the groups. Therefore, the results were analyzed by study visit, and a Fisher exact test was used to evaluate treatment differences between the adefovir dipivoxil and placebo groups.||||<0.001
90984081|NCT00095121|181852419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.051||||||Comparison of HBeAg Loss|Fisher Exact|||||||0.051
90984082|NCT00095121|181852419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.051||||||Comparison of HBeAg Seroconversion|Fisher Exact|||||||0.051
90984083|NCT01582282|181852433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|30.64||||0.028|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.028
90984084|NCT01582282|181852433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|40.72||||0.009|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.009
90984085|NCT01582282|181852434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.53||||0.013|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.013
90984086|NCT01582282|181852434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.65||||0.003|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.003
90984087|NCT01582282|181852435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.48||||0.808|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.808
90984088|NCT01582282|181852435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.328|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.328
90984089|NCT01582282|181852436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.1||||0.508|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.508
90984090|NCT01582282|181852436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.43||||0.962|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.962
90984091|NCT01582282|181852437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.84||||0.363|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.363
90984092|NCT01582282|181852437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.978|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.978
90984093|NCT01582282|181852438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.14||||0.785|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.785
90984094|NCT01582282|181852438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.45||||0.811|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.811
90984095|NCT00492622|181852439|EQUIVALENCE|Primary study objective was to compare the pharmacokinetics of omeprazole between IR and DR omeprazole in patients with GERD associated with gastroparesis.|||||<|0.01||||||\<0.01 is used for determining the level of significance.|paired t-tests|||||||< 0.01
90984096|NCT00492622|181852440|EQUIVALENCE|Primary study objective was to compare the pharmacokinetics of omeprazole between IR and DR omeprazole in patients with GERD associated with gastroparesis.|||||||||||||||||P\<0.05 was used as the level of significance with ANOVA for this endpoint.|||
90984097|NCT00492622|181852441|EQUIVALENCE|Primary study objective was to compare the pharmacokinetics of omeprazole between IR and DR omeprazole in patients with GERD associated with gastroparesis.||||||0.95||||||An analysis of variance model was used to compare AUC between IR and DR omeprazole using the natural logarithmic transformation. The model included the following factors: treatment, period, sequence and patient nested within the sequence.|ANOVA|||||||0.95
91040319|NCT01911429|181965708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference (SE)|-0.47||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.22|||LS mean difference (SE)|||LS Mean, LS mean difference, and the associated 95% CI and p-value for change from baseline are based on Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM).||-0.22|-0.73|0.0003
90984098|NCT01466751|181852442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Type III Tests of Fixed Effects|8.687||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|||||A-priori threshold for statistical significance: p \< 0.05. No correction for multiple comparisons. The omnibus effect from the linear mixed model for the Treatment Arm x Time Interaction was utilized to establish significance of the effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Numerator degrees of freedom=1, Denominator degrees of freedom = 168||A linear mixed model was utilized to test the null hypothesis that the intervention groups would show equivalent performance change on the outcome measure from baseline to the 3 month time points.||||0.004
90984099|NCT01466751|181852443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Type III Tests of Fixed Effects|2.032||||0.156|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold was: p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Numerator degrees of freedom: 1, Denominator degrees of freedom: 168||A linear mixed model was used to test the null hypothesis that the two treatment groups would display no differential changes in amygdala BOLD signal from baseline to 3 months as a main effect or in interaction with facial affect type (fear or happy) or by brain hemisphere (left or right).||||0.156
90984100|NCT02413255|181852452|EQUIVALENCE|Dose proportionality is declared when the 90% confidence interval of the slope lies entirely within the critical region (0.9679, 1.0321) for the dose range of 0.1 mg to 105 mg.|Slope|1.0195||||0.465|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9752|1.0637|||Power Model|||||1.0637|0.9752|0.465
90984101|NCT02413255|181852453|EQUIVALENCE|Dose proportionality is declared when the 90% confidence interval of the slope lies entirely within the critical region (0.9679, 1.0321) for the dose range of 0.1 mg to 105 mg.|Slope|1.1124||||0.126|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9913|1.2336|||Power Model|||Day 1||1.2336|0.9913|0.126
90984102|NCT02413255|181852453|EQUIVALENCE|Dose proportionality is declared when the 90% confidence interval of the slope lies entirely within the critical region (0.9679, 1.0321) for the dose range of 0.1 mg to 105 mg.|Slope|1.09||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9962|1.1838|||Power Model|||Day 9||1.1838|0.9962|0.114
90984103|NCT02413255|181852454|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5402|||||||ANOVA|Statistical analysis results were obtained using Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) with dose level as a fixed effect.||||||0.5402
90984104|NCT02413255|181852455|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7824|||||||ANOVA|Statistical analysis results were obtained using ANOVA with dose level as a fixed effect.||Day 1||||0.7824
90984105|NCT02413255|181852455|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4056|||||||ANOVA|Statistical analysis results were obtained using ANOVA with dose level as a fixed effect.||Day 9||||0.4056
90984106|NCT02413255|181852456|EQUIVALENCE|Dose proportionality is declared when the 90% confidence interval of the slope lies entirely within the critical region (0.9679, 1.0321) for the dose range of 0.1 mg to 105 mg.|Slope|1.0606||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0187|1.1026|||Power Model|||||1.1026|1.0187|0.019
90984107|NCT02413255|181852457|EQUIVALENCE|Dose proportionality is declared when the 90% confidence interval of the slope lies entirely within the critical region (0.9679, 1.0321) for the dose range of 0.1 mg to 105 mg.|Slope|1.0789||||0.258|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9628|1.195|||Power Model|||Day 1||1.1950|0.9628|0.258
90984108|NCT02413255|181852457|EQUIVALENCE|Dose proportionality is declared when the 90% confidence interval of the slope lies entirely within the critical region (0.9679, 1.0321) for the dose range of 0.1 mg to 105 mg.|Slope|1.0929||||0.144|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9878|1.198|||Power Model|||Day 9||1.1980|0.9878|0.144
90984109|NCT02413255|181852460|EQUIVALENCE|Dose proportionality is declared when the 90% confidence interval of the slope lies entirely within the critical region (0.9679, 1.0321) for the dose range of 0.1 mg to 105 mg.|Slope|1.0799||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0371|1.1227|||Power Model|||||1.1227|1.0371|0.003
90984110|NCT02413255|181852461|EQUIVALENCE|Dose proportionality is declared when the 90% confidence interval of the slope lies entirely within the critical region (0.9679, 1.0321) for the dose range of 0.1 mg to 105 mg.|Slope|1.0897||||0.201|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9735|1.206|||Power Model|||||1.2060|0.9735|0.201
90984111|NCT02413255|181852462|EQUIVALENCE|Dose proportionality is declared when the 90% confidence interval of the slope lies entirely within the critical region (0.9679, 1.0321) for the dose range of 0.1 mg to 105 mg.|Slope|1.0188||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9734|1.0642|||Power Model|||||1.0642|0.9734|0.490
90984112|NCT02413255|181852463|EQUIVALENCE|Dose proportionality is declared when the 90% confidence interval of the slope lies entirely within the critical region (0.9679, 1.0321) for the dose range of 0.1 mg to 105 mg.|Slope|1.0846||||0.224|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.969|1.2002|||Power Model|||||1.2002|0.9690|0.224
90984113|NCT02413255|181852470|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|Statistical analysis results were obtained using ANOVA with dose level as a fixed effect.||||||<.0001
90984114|NCT02413255|181852486|OTHER||Estimated Ratio|1.121|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.772|1.628||||||||1.628|0.772|
91040320|NCT01911429|181965708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference (SE)|-0.42||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.16|||LS mean difference (SE)|||LS Mean, LS mean difference, and the associated 95% CI and p-value for change from baseline are based on Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM).||-0.16|-0.67|0.0015
91040321|NCT05908162|181965748|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91040322|NCT05908162|181965749|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91040323|NCT05908162|181965749|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91040324|NCT05908162|181965749|OTHER||||||<|0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.02
91040325|NCT01634139|181965763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.108|0.231|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Stepwise testing of the null hypothesis was used to test the efficacy of Tio R5 and then Tio R2.5, each over placebo. The analysis was performed in a stepwise manner, firstly for this endpoint, then Trough FEV1. Each step was only considered confirmatory if all previous steps were successful.||0.231|0.108|<0.0001
91040326|NCT01634139|181965763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.164|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.103|0.255|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Stepwise testing of the null hypothesis was used to test the efficacy of Tio R5 and then Tio R2.5, each over placebo. The analysis was performed in a stepwise manner, firstly for this endpoint, then Trough FEV1. Each step was only considered confirmatory if all previous steps were successful.||0.255|0.103|<0.0001
91040327|NCT01634139|181965764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.116|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.046|0.186|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 24||0.186|0.046|0.0012
91040328|NCT01634139|181965764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.048|0.188|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 24||0.188|0.048|0.0010
91040329|NCT01634139|181965764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.071|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||0.0477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.142|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 48||0.142|0.001|0.0477
91040330|NCT01634139|181965764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.099|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.029|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 48||0.170|0.029|0.0059
91040331|NCT01634139|181965765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.124|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.062|0.185|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||0.185|0.062|<0.0001
91040332|NCT01634139|181965765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.127|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.065|0.188|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||0.188|0.065|<0.0001
91040333|NCT01634139|181965766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.154|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.095|0.212|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 24||0.212|0.095|<0.0001
91040334|NCT01634139|181965766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.157|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.098|0.215|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 24||0.215|0.098|<0.0001
91040335|NCT01634139|181965767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.116|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.046|0.186|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|10 minutes pre-dose (Week 24)||0.186|0.046|0.0012
91040336|NCT01634139|181965767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.048|0.188|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|10 minutes pre-dose (Week 24)||0.188|0.048|0.0010
91040337|NCT01634139|181965767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.139|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.076|0.201|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|30 minutes post-dose (Week 24)||0.201|0.076|<0.0001
91040338|NCT01634139|181965767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.151|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.088|0.213|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|30 minutes post-dose (Week 24)||0.213|0.088|<0.0001
91040339|NCT01634139|181965767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.148|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.084|0.211|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|1 hour post-dose (Week 24)||0.211|0.084|<0.0001
91040340|NCT01634139|181965767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.147|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.084|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|1 hour post-dose (Week 24)||0.210|0.084|<0.0001
90984115|NCT02413255|181852486|OTHER||Estimated Ratio|1.156|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.796|1.678||||||||1.678|0.796|
90984116|NCT02413255|181852486|OTHER||Estimated Ratio|0.982|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.676|1.425||||||||1.425|0.676|
90984117|NCT02413255|181852486|OTHER||Estimated Ratio|1.055|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.701|1.587||||||||1.587|0.701|
90984118|NCT02413255|181852486|OTHER||Estimated Ratio|1.105|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.761|1.604||||||||1.604|0.761|
90984119|NCT02413255|181852486|OTHER||Estimated Ratio|1.225|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.844|1.778||||||||1.778|0.844|
90984120|NCT00077623|181852487|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The two RO0503821 dosing schedules were compared separately to epoetin reference using ANCOVA, with Hb at BL and region as the covariates. The test for non-inferiority were based on the lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% confidence interval for the difference between the two groups. When the lower limit was greater than or equal to -0.75 g/dL, the RO0503821 groups were regarded as non-inferior to the epoetin reference group. The confidence level of 97.5% was chosen to adjust for multiplicity.|Mean Difference between groups|0.141|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.098|0.38||The p-value for the non-inferiority test can be derived via the t-test.|ANCOVA, CI for difference between groups|||The non-inferiority test for treatment differences in Hb change from baseline, based on ANCOVA analysis with a non-inferiority limit of -0.75 g/dL (Per Protocol Population)||0.380|-0.098|<0.0001
90984121|NCT00077623|181852487|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The two RO0503821 dosing schedules were compared separately to epoetin reference using ANCOVA, with Hb at BL and region as the covariates. The test for non-inferiority were based on the lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% confidence interval for the difference between the two groups. When the lower limit was greater than or equal to -0.75 g/dL, the RO0503821 groups were regarded as non-inferior to the epoetin reference group. The confidence level of 97.5% was chosen to adjust for multiplicity .|Mean Difference between groups|-0.022|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.262|0.217||The p-value for the non-inferiority test can be derived via the t-test.|ANCOVA, CI for difference between groups|||The non-inferiority test for treatment differences in Hb change from baseline, based on ANCOVA analysis with a non-inferiority limit of -0.75 g/dL (Per Protocol Population)||0.217|-0.262|<0.0001
90984122|NCT01334125|181852496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.903|TWO_SIDED|||||Individual two-way mixed ANOVA models were fitted for each of our outcomes of interest, with treatment type (metformin or placebo) as the fixed effect, and baseline values, age, gender, and BMI as covariates.|ANOVA|||Analyses were based on the intent-to-treat principle and were performed using SPSS v.22 (IBM Corporation, Armonk, NY).||||0.903
90984123|NCT01334125|181852497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.578|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Individual two-way mixed ANOVA models were fitted for each of our outcomes of interest, with treatment type (metformin or placebo) as the fixed effect, and baseline values, age, gender, and BMI as covariates.|ANOVA|||Analyses were based on the intent-to-treat principle and were performed using SPSS v.22 (IBM Corporation, Armonk, NY).||||0.578
90984124|NCT01334125|181852498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.057|||||||ANOVA|||Two way ANOVA comparison of the means of the adiponectin/leptin ratios between the metformin and placebo groups||||0.057
90984125|NCT01334125|181852499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||p value represents the analysis for minor hypoglycemia||||1.00
90984126|NCT01334125|181852499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||p value represents the analysis of the nocturnal hypoglycemia||||1.00
90984127|NCT00401973|181852524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.065||95.0||||P-value for Olanzapine versus pooled olanzapine+amantadine and olanzapine+metformin.|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated Measures Analysis||To detect a difference between treatment arms of 3.06 kg in mean weight change from baseline to endpoint, 150 patients must be enrolled in stepped intervention arm and 50 in control arm. Assuming a standard deviation of 6.87 kg, there is 80% power to detect a difference between treatment arms on a 1-sided 2-sample t-test at the 5% significance level. Primary analysis was the comparison of mean weight change for 'olanzapine only' versus pooled 'olanzapine \& adjunctive treatment' arm at Week 22.||||0.065
90984128|NCT00401973|181852524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.113||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated Measures Analysis||Hypothesis=weight gain associated with olanzapine can be prevented or mitigated with an adjunctive pharmacological algorithm.||||0.113
90984129|NCT00401973|181852524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated Measures Analysis||||||0.036
90984130|NCT00401973|181852525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.498||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline for Olanzapine versus pooled olanzapine+amantadine and olanzapine+metformin.|ANCOVA|||||||0.498
90984131|NCT00401973|181852525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.637||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.637
91040341|NCT01634139|181965767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.163|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.101|0.226|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|2 hours post-dose (Week 24)||0.226|0.101|<0.0001
91040342|NCT01634139|181965767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.168|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|<|0.0001||95.0|0.106|0.231|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|2 hours post-dose (Week 24)||0.231|0.106|<0.0001
91040343|NCT01634139|181965767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.178|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.116|0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|3 hours post-dose (Week 24)||0.240|0.116|<0.0001
91040344|NCT01634139|181965767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.176|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.114|0.238|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|3 hours post-dose (Week 24)||0.238|0.114|<0.0001
91040345|NCT01634139|181965768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.036|0.184|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 24||0.184|0.036|0.0036
90984132|NCT00401973|181852525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.125||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.125
90984133|NCT00401973|181852526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.173||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.173
91040346|NCT01634139|181965768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.091|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.0152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.018|0.165|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 24||0.165|0.018|0.0152
91040347|NCT01634139|181965768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.069|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038||0.0687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|0.143|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 48||0.143|-0.005|0.0687
91040348|NCT01634139|181965768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.052|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038||0.1666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.022|0.126|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 48||0.126|-0.022|0.1666
91040349|NCT01634139|181965769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.092|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.013|0.171|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 24||0.171|0.013|0.0228
91040350|NCT01634139|181965769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.052|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.027|0.131|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 24||0.131|-0.027|0.1980
91040351|NCT01634139|181965769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.062|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.1256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.017|0.141|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 48||0.141|-0.017|0.1256
91040352|NCT01634139|181965769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.053|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.026|0.133|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 48||0.133|-0.026|0.1880
91040353|NCT01634139|181965770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.105|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.037|0.172|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 24||0.172|0.037|0.0023
91040354|NCT01634139|181965770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.076|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034||0.0255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.009|0.143|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 24||0.143|0.009|0.0255
91040355|NCT01634139|181965771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.092|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.013|0.171|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|10 minutes pre-dose (Week 24)||0.171|0.013|0.0228
91040356|NCT01634139|181965771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.052|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.027|0.131|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|10 minutes pre-dose.(Week 24)||0.131|-0.027|0.1980
90984134|NCT00401973|181852526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.016
90984135|NCT00401973|181852526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline for Olanzapine versus pooled olanzapine+amantadine and olanzapine+metformin.|ANCOVA|||||||0.029
91040357|NCT01634139|181965771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.078|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.0344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.006|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|30 minutes post-dose (Week 24)||0.150|0.006|0.0344
91040358|NCT01634139|181965771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.067|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.0696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|0.139|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|30 minutes post-dose (Week 24)||0.139|-0.005|0.0696
90984136|NCT00401973|181852527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline for Olanzapine versus pooled olanzapine+amantadine and olanzapine+metformin.|ANCOVA|||||||0.017
90984137|NCT00401973|181852527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.015
90984138|NCT00401973|181852527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.071||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.071
90984139|NCT00401973|181852528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.152||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline for Olanzapine versus pooled olanzapine+amantadine and olanzapine+metformin.|ANCOVA|||||||0.152
90984140|NCT00401973|181852528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.350
90984141|NCT00401973|181852528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.123||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.123
90984142|NCT00401973|181852529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.499||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline for Olanzapine versus pooled olanzapine+amantadine and olanzapine+metformin.|ANCOVA|||||||0.499
90984143|NCT00401973|181852529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.833||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.833
90984144|NCT00401973|181852529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.339||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.339
90984145|NCT00401973|181852530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.278||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline for Olanzapine versus pooled olanzapine+amantadine and olanzapine+metformin.|ANCOVA|||||||0.278
90984146|NCT00401973|181852530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.976||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.976
90984147|NCT00401973|181852530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.049
90984148|NCT00401973|181852531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.122||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline for Olanzapine versus pooled olanzapine+amantadine and olanzapine+metformin.|ANCOVA|||||||0.122
90984149|NCT00401973|181852531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.225||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.225
90984150|NCT00401973|181852531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.124||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.124
90984151|NCT00401973|181852532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline for Olanzapine versus pooled olanzapine+amantadine and olanzapine+metformin.|ANCOVA|||||||0.020
90984152|NCT00401973|181852532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.037||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline|ANCOVA|||||||0.037
90984153|NCT00401973|181852532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.038
90984154|NCT00401973|181852533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.474||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline for Olanzapine versus pooled olanzapine+amantadine and olanzapine+metformin.|ANCOVA|||||||0.474
90984155|NCT00401973|181852533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.404||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.404
90984156|NCT00401973|181852533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.652||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline|ANCOVA|||||||0.652
90984157|NCT01144637|181852562|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margins to show that the 3 vaccine lots are equivalent in terms of PRNT GMTs at Week 6 was predefined as \[0.5; 2\] for the GMT ratios (pairwise)|GMT ratio (Group 1 / Group 2)|1.1012|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9992|1.2136||||||||1.2136|0.9992|
90984158|NCT01144637|181852562|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margins to show that the 3 vaccine lots are equivalent in terms of PRNT GMTs at Week 6 was predefined as \[0.5; 2\] for the GMT ratios (pairwise)|GMT ratio (Group 1 / Group 3)|0.9444|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8554|1.0427||||||||1.0427|0.8554|
90984159|NCT01144637|181852562|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margins to show that the 3 vaccine lots are equivalent in terms of PRNT GMTs at Week 6 was predefined as \[0.5; 2\] for the GMT ratios (pairwise)|GMT ratio (Group 2 / Group 3)|0.8577|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7753|0.9488||||||||0.9488|0.7753|
90984160|NCT00906789|181852574|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Given a continuous confidence score (0-100), the trapezoidal method was used to obtain the area under the LROC with bootstrapping at 10,000 iterations to obtain the 95% confidence interval (CI). Acceptance criteria for tests of non-inferiority and superiority were previously set at 95% CI upper bound of ΔAUCUA-SV less than δ=0.1 and δ=0, respectively. If the 95% CI upper bound difference of UA-SV is less than 0.1, then SV is non-inferior. If it is 0 or less than 0, then SV is superior.||||||0.05|||||||Bootstraping|||The sample size of 351 patients, in a 2:1 ratio of nodule absent to present patients was selected to provide 80% power to detect a difference in areas under the curve of 0.10 or greater. This sample size was calculated using PASS software (Hintze, 2008). Settings: • α = 0.025. • one-sided test • AUCA = 0.80 and AUCSV = 0.90.• 2:1 ratio of patients with nodules to those without • areas calculated for the entire curves • correlation 0.3\* • discrete data. • standard deviation ratios of 1\*.||||0.05
90984161|NCT02334267|181852577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||trend analysis over time|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
90984162|NCT02334267|181852578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4||||||trend analysis over time|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.4
90984163|NCT02334267|181852579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||||||trend analysis over time|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.003
90984164|NCT02334267|181852580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||trend analysis over time|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
90984165|NCT00754390|181852636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Two-way mixed model analysis of variance was used to test for main effect of dietary calcium and phytate and their interaction. Null Hypothesis: Dietary calcium does not affect zinc absorption||||0.17
90984166|NCT00754390|181852636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Two-way mixed model analysis of variance was used to test for main effect of dietary calcium and phytate and their interaction. Null Hypothesis: Dietary Phytate does not affect zinc absorption||||0.0002
90984167|NCT00754390|181852636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Two-way mixed model analysis of variance was used to test for main effect of dietary calcium and phytate and their interaction. Null Hypothesis: Dietary calcium and dietary phytate do not affect zinc absorption. Eight women were required to detect a difference in zinc absorption of 7 percentage points with a power of 90%, alpha level of 0.05.||||0.09
90984168|NCT00847613|181852637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent difference|36.48|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.73|45.23||A step-down procedure was used to control for multiple comparisons. In order for the comparison to 5 mg to be statistically significant, the comparison to 10 mg had to be statistically significant.|Normal approximation|||Normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the superiority of each dose of CP-690,550 to placebo.||45.23|27.73|<0.0001
90984169|NCT00847613|181852637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent difference|26.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.28|34.97||A step-down procedure was used to control for multiple comparisons. In order for the comparison to 5 mg to be statistically significant, the comparison to 10 mg had to be statistically significant.|Normal approximation|||Normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the superiority of each dose of CP-690,550 to placebo.||34.97|17.28|<0.0001
90984170|NCT00847613|181852638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.02||A step-down procedure was used to control for multiple comparisons. For comparison of 10 mg to placebo to be statistically significant in this measure, comparison of 10 mg to placebo in ACR20 had to be significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Month 6: Linear mixed model with treatment effect and site location as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate was used for the analysis.||-0.02|-0.79|0.0376
90984171|NCT00847613|181852638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.04||A step-down procedure was used to control for multiple comparisons. For comparison of 5 mg to placebo to be statistically significant, comparison of 10 mg to placebo and comparison of 5 mg to placebo in ACR20 had to be statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Month 6: Linear mixed model with treatment effect and site location as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate was used for the analysis.||0.04|-0.73|0.0792
90984172|NCT00847613|181852639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|-0.31||A step-down procedure was used to control for multiple comparisons. For comparison of 10 mg to placebo to be statistically significant in this measure, comparison of 10 mg to placebo in mTSS had to be significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Month 3: Least squares mean difference and corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated using a mixed-effect repeated measure model with treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect and participant as random effect.||-0.31|-0.49|<0.0001
90984173|NCT00847613|181852639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|-0.16||A step-down procedure was used to control for multiple comparisons. For comparison of 5 mg to placebo to be statistically significant, comparison of 10 mg to placebo and comparison of 5 mg to placebo in mTSS had to be statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Month 3: Least squares mean difference and corresponding 95% CI was calculated using a mixed-effect repeated measure model with treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect and participant as random effect.||-0.16|-0.34|0.0002
90984174|NCT00847613|181852640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent difference|14.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.44|19.36||A step-down procedure was used to control for multiple comparisons. For comparison of 10 mg to placebo to be statistically significant in this measure, comparison of 10 mg to placebo in HAQ-DI had to be significant.|Normal approximation|||Normal approximation to the binomial distribution was used to test the superiority of CP-690,550 10 mg to placebo and two-sided 95% CI was evaluated for the difference in percentages.||19.36|9.44|<0.0001
90984175|NCT00847613|181852640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent difference|5.61||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.85|9.38||A step-down procedure was used to control for multiple comparisons. For comparison of 5 mg to placebo to be statistically significant, comparison of 10 mg to placebo and comparison of 5 mg to placebo in HAQ-DI had to be statistically significant.|Normal approximation|||Normal approximation to the binomial distribution was used to test the superiority of CP-690,550 10 mg to placebo and two-sided 95% CI was evaluated for the difference in percentages.||9.38|1.85|0.0034
90984176|NCT03114969|181852817|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.657||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.584|13.686||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator.|||13.686|1.584|0.005
90984177|NCT03114969|181852817|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.478||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.805|7.632||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator.|||7.632|0.805|0.114
90984178|NCT03114969|181852817|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.499||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|10.555||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Incruse/Anoro Ellipta as comparator.|||10.555|1.160|0.026
91040359|NCT01634139|181965771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.109|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.037|0.182|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|1 hour post-dose (week 24)||0.182|0.037|0.0032
90984179|NCT03114969|181852817|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.943||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.348|11.534||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Incruse/Anoro Ellipta as comparator.|||11.534|1.348|0.012
90984180|NCT03114969|181852817|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.223||||0.746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.361|4.151||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator.|||4.151|0.361|0.746
90984181|NCT03114969|181852817|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.562||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.932|16.013||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator.|||16.013|1.932|0.001
90984182|NCT03114969|181852817|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.979||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.999|8.882||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator.|||8.882|0.999|0.050
90984183|NCT03114969|181852817|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.418||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.521|12.834||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Incruse/Anoro Ellipta as comparator.|||12.834|1.521|0.006
91040360|NCT01634139|181965771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.1044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.012|0.132|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|1 hour post-dose (week 24)||0.132|-0.012|0.1044
91040361|NCT01634139|181965771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.113|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.039|0.186|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|2 hours post-dose (week 24)||0.186|0.039|0.0027
91040362|NCT01634139|181965771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.093|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.166|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|2 hours post-dose (week 24)||0.166|0.020|0.0130
91040363|NCT01634139|181965771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.115|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.041|0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|3 hours post-dose (week 24)||0.190|0.041|0.0025
91040364|NCT01634139|181965771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.092|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038||0.0156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.017|0.166|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|3 hours post-dose (Week 24)||0.166|0.017|0.0156
91040365|NCT01634139|181965772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.165|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.1349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.382|0.051|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 24||0.051|-0.382|0.1349
91040366|NCT01634139|181965772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.209|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.425|0.008|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 24||0.008|-0.425|0.0588
90984184|NCT03114969|181852817|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.165||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.425|12.178||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Incruse/Anoro Ellipta as comparator.|||12.178|1.425|0.009
91040367|NCT01634139|181965772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.154|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.111||0.1675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.372|0.065|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 48||0.065|-0.372|0.1675
91040368|NCT01634139|181965772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.201|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.111||0.0709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.419|0.017|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 48||0.017|-0.419|0.0709
91040369|NCT01634139|181965773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.116|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.065||0.0749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.245|0.012|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 24||0.012|-0.245|0.0749
91040370|NCT01634139|181965773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.141|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.065||0.0305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.269|-0.013|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 24||-0.013|-0.269|0.0305
91040371|NCT01634139|181965773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.125|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066||0.0581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.255|0.004|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 48||0.004|-0.255|0.0581
91040372|NCT01634139|181965773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.131|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066||0.0464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|-0.002|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 48||-0.002|-0.260|0.0464
90984185|NCT03114969|181852817|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.209||||0.761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.357|4.095||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator.|||4.095|0.357|0.761
90984186|NCT03114969|181852818|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.292||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.853|6.163||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator.|||6.163|0.853|0.100
90984187|NCT03114969|181852818|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.642||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.994|7.022||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator.|||7.022|0.994|0.051
90984188|NCT03114969|181852819|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.995|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.808|8.829||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta+\[Relvar Ellipta+LAMA\] as comparator.|||8.829|1.808|<0.001
90984189|NCT03114969|181852819|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.181||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|5.059||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta+\[Relvar Ellipta+LAMA\] as comparator.|||5.059|0.940|0.069
90984190|NCT03114969|181852819|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.855|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.339|10.08||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta+\[Relvar Ellipta+LAMA\] as comparator.|||10.080|2.339|<0.001
90984191|NCT03114969|181852819|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.71||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.274|5.764||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta+\[Relvar Ellipta+LAMA\] as comparator.|||5.764|1.274|0.010
90984192|NCT03114969|181852820|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.503||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.818|7.659||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator.|||7.659|0.818|0.108
90984193|NCT03114969|181852820|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.409||||0.122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.792|7.331||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator.|||7.331|0.792|0.122
90984194|NCT03114969|181852821|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.887||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.851|12.903||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator.|||12.903|1.851|0.001
90984195|NCT03114969|181852821|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.484|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.106|14.284||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator.|||14.284|2.106|<0.001
90984196|NCT03114969|181852822|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.941|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.863|8.337||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta+\[Relvar Ellipta+LAMA\] as comparator.|||8.337|1.863|<0.001
90984197|NCT03114969|181852822|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.391||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.088|5.256||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta+\[Relvar Ellipta+LAMA\] as comparator.|||5.256|1.088|0.030
90984198|NCT03114969|181852822|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.728|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.388|9.364||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta+\[Relvar Ellipta+LAMA\] as comparator.|||9.364|2.388|<0.001
90984199|NCT03114969|181852822|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.957||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.473|5.936||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta+\[Relvar Ellipta+LAMA\] as comparator.|||5.936|1.473|0.002
90984200|NCT03114969|181852823|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.404||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.018|5.676||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator.|||5.676|1.018|0.045
90984201|NCT03114969|181852823|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.823||||0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|4.319||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator.|||4.319|0.770|0.172
90984202|NCT03114969|181852823|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.989||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.229|7.272||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Incruse/Anoro Ellipta as comparator.|||7.272|1.229|0.016
90984203|NCT03114969|181852823|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.747||||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.775|3.937||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Incruse/Anoro Ellipta as comparator.|||3.937|0.775|0.179
90984204|NCT03114969|181852823|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.189||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.509|2.775||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator.|||2.775|0.509|0.690
90984205|NCT03114969|181852823|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.363||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|7.639||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator.|||7.639|1.480|0.004
90984206|NCT03114969|181852823|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.848||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.264|6.42||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator.|||6.420|1.264|0.012
90984207|NCT03114969|181852823|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.986|10.791||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Incruse/Anoro Ellipta as comparator.|||10.791|1.986|<0.001
90984208|NCT03114969|181852823|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.037||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.916|4.528||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Incruse/Anoro Ellipta as comparator.|||4.528|0.916|0.081
90984209|NCT03114969|181852823|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.438|2.283||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator.|||2.283|0.438|1.000
90984210|NCT03114969|181852824|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.935||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.955|3.921||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator.|||3.921|0.955|0.067
90984211|NCT03114969|181852824|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.523||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.283|4.961||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator.|||4.961|1.283|0.007
90984212|NCT03114969|181852825|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.399||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.252|4.596||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta+\[Relvar Ellipta+LAMA\] as comparator.|||4.596|1.252|0.008
90984213|NCT03114969|181852825|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.812||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.926|3.544||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta+\[Relvar Ellipta+LAMA\] as comparator.|||3.544|0.926|0.082
90984214|NCT03114969|181852825|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.135|6.905||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta+\[Relvar Ellipta+LAMA\] as comparator.|||6.905|2.135|<0.001
90984215|NCT03114969|181852825|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.231|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.81|5.766||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta+\[Relvar Ellipta+LAMA\] as comparator.|||5.766|1.810|<0.001
90984216|NCT03114969|181852826|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.931||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.842|4.428||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator.|||4.428|0.842|0.120
90984217|NCT03114969|181852826|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.636||||0.232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|3.664||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator.|||3.664|0.730|0.232
90984218|NCT03114969|181852827|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.217|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.019|8.807||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator.|||8.807|2.019|<0.001
90984219|NCT03114969|181852827|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.66|11.005||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator.|||11.005|2.660|<0.001
91040373|NCT01634139|181965774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.096|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062||0.1182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.217|0.025|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 24||0.025|-0.217|0.1182
90984220|NCT03114969|181852828|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.477||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.274|4.815||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta+\[Relvar Ellipta+LAMA\] as comparator.|||4.815|1.274|0.007
90984221|NCT03114969|181852828|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.748||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.328|5.683||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta+\[Relvar Ellipta+LAMA\] as comparator.|||5.683|1.328|0.006
90984222|NCT03114969|181852828|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.896|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.133|7.118||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta+\[Relvar Ellipta+LAMA\] as comparator.|||7.118|2.133|<0.001
91040374|NCT01634139|181965774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.126|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061||0.0404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.246|-0.006|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 24||-0.006|-0.246|0.0404
91040375|NCT01634139|181965774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.099|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062||0.1105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.221|0.023|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 48||0.023|-0.221|0.1105
91040376|NCT01634139|181965774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.103|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062||0.0983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.224|0.019|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 48||0.019|-0.224|0.0983
90984223|NCT03114969|181852828|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.777|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.508|9.1||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta+\[Relvar Ellipta+LAMA\] as comparator.|||9.100|2.508|<0.001
90984224|NCT03114969|181852829|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.347||||0.176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.408|132.143||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||132.143|0.408|0.176
90984225|NCT03114969|181852829|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.3||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.526|164.465||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||164.465|0.526|0.128
90984226|NCT03114969|181852829|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|20.454||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|351.613||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Incruse/Anoro Ellipta as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||351.613|1.190|0.038
90984227|NCT03114969|181852829|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|18.776||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.131|311.669||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Incruse/Anoro Ellipta as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||311.669|1.131|0.041
90984228|NCT03114969|181852829|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.873||||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.484|162.775||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||162.775|0.484|0.141
90984229|NCT03114969|181852829|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.215||||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.519|200.904||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||200.904|0.519|0.126
90984230|NCT03114969|181852829|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.717||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.715|263.125||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||263.125|0.715|0.082
90984231|NCT03114969|181852829|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|28.283||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.561|512.532||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Incruse/Anoro Ellipta as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||512.532|1.561|0.024
91006794|NCT04453722|181897949|SUPERIORITY|Median difference was estimated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimator of location shift between groups and P values from Wilcoxon rank sum test|Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||variable: satisfy with the electrode patch (after 24 hours of discharge)||0.0|-2.0|0.023
91006795|NCT04453722|181897949|SUPERIORITY|Median difference was estimated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimator of location shift between groups and P values from Wilcoxon rank sum test|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||variable: Willing to use after study (after 24 hours of discharge)||0.0|-1.0|0.023
90984232|NCT03114969|181852829|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|21.736||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.183|399.541||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Incruse/Anoro Ellipta as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||399.541|1.183|0.038
90984233|NCT03114969|181852829|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.603||||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.371|155.763||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||155.763|0.371|0.188
90984234|NCT03114969|181852830|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.781||||0.147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.488|124.117||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||124.117|0.488|0.147
90984235|NCT03114969|181852830|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.786||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.553|173.301||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||173.301|0.553|0.120
90984236|NCT03114969|181852831|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.089||||0.395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.383|11.389||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta+\[Relvar Ellipta+LAMA\] as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||11.389|0.383|0.395
90984237|NCT03114969|181852831|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.25||||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.612|17.244||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta+\[Relvar Ellipta+LAMA\] as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||17.244|0.612|0.166
90984238|NCT03114969|181852831|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.196||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.596|17.14||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta+\[Relvar Ellipta+LAMA\] as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||17.140|0.596|0.175
90984239|NCT03114969|181852831|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.408||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.059|27.61||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta+\[Relvar Ellipta+LAMA\] as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||27.610|1.059|0.042
90984240|NCT03114969|181852832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.145||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|216.818||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||216.818|0.680|0.090
91006796|NCT04453722|181897950|SUPERIORITY|Median difference was estimated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimator of location shift between groups and P values from Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Degree of disturbing routine work||0.0|-1.0|0.73
91006797|NCT04453722|181897950|SUPERIORITY|Median difference was estimated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimator of location shift between groups and P values from Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Easily cleaned/disinfected||1.0|0.0|0.097
90984241|NCT03114969|181852832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.991||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.508|196.435||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||196.435|0.508|0.130
90984242|NCT03114969|181852833|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.907||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.753|188.208||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||188.208|0.753|0.079
90984243|NCT03114969|181852833|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|15.06||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.866|262.042||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||262.042|0.866|0.063
90984244|NCT03114969|181852834|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.67||||0.239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.521|13.69||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta+\[Relvar Ellipta+LAMA\] as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||13.690|0.521|0.239
90984245|NCT03114969|181852834|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.929||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.567|15.125||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta+\[Relvar Ellipta+LAMA\] as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||15.125|0.567|0.200
90984246|NCT03114969|181852834|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.269||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.848|21.489||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta+\[Relvar Ellipta+LAMA\] as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||21.489|0.848|0.078
90984247|NCT03114969|181852834|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.132||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.031|25.55||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta+\[Relvar Ellipta+LAMA\] as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||25.550|1.031|0.046
90984248|NCT03114969|181852835|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.483||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.218|9.961||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||9.961|1.218|0.020
90984249|NCT03114969|181852835|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.284||||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.757|6.895||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||6.895|0.757|0.143
90984250|NCT03114969|181852835|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.268||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.615|17.187||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Incruse/Anoro Ellipta as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||17.187|1.615|0.006
91006798|NCT04453722|181897950|SUPERIORITY|Median difference was estimated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimator of location shift between groups and P values from Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Median Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||variable: Adequate battery life||1.0|0.0|0.02
91006799|NCT04453722|181897950|SUPERIORITY|Median difference was estimated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimator of location shift between groups and P values from Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||variable: Satisfy with the electrode patch||1.0|0.0|0.037
91006800|NCT04453722|181897950|SUPERIORITY|Median difference was estimated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimator of location shift between groups and P values from Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||variable: Tolerable to audible alert||1.0|-2.0|0.482
91006801|NCT04453722|181897950|SUPERIORITY|Median difference was estimated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimator of location shift between groups and P values from Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||variable: Willing to use after study||1.0|0.0|0.031
91006802|NCT04453722|181897950|SUPERIORITY|Median difference was estimated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimator of location shift between groups and P values from Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.0||variable: Patients' complaint about the device|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||variable: Patients' complaint about the device||1.0|0.0|0.947
91006803|NCT04453722|181897950|SUPERIORITY|Median difference was estimated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimator of location shift between groups and P values from Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||variable: Disturb IV line||0.0|0.0|0.324
91006804|NCT00137267|181897951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91006805|NCT00137267|181897952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.152|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.152
91006806|NCT02061540|181897968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.841|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.0373||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.251|-2.432|||Wilcoxon's signed rank test|||Analysis was performed to compare baseline and endpoint data.||-2.432|-27.251|0.0043
90984251|NCT03114969|181852835|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.655||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.478|14.666||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Incruse/Anoro Ellipta as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||14.666|1.478|0.009
90984252|NCT03114969|181852835|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.274||||0.679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.405|4.005||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||4.005|0.405|0.679
90984253|NCT03114969|181852835|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.804||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.372|10.544||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||10.544|1.372|0.010
91006807|NCT02723019|181898029|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Analyzed using logistic regression analysis||||0.01
91006808|NCT02723019|181898030|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.19
90984254|NCT03114969|181852835|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.555||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.886|7.369||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||7.369|0.886|0.083
90984255|NCT03114969|181852835|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.93||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.89|18.611||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Incruse/Anoro Ellipta as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||18.611|1.890|0.002
90984256|NCT03114969|181852835|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.929||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.556|15.612||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Incruse/Anoro Ellipta as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||15.612|1.556|0.007
90984257|NCT03114969|181852835|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.208||||0.746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.385|3.788||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||3.788|0.385|0.746
90984258|NCT03114969|181852836|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.502||||0.404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.578|3.905||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||3.905|0.578|0.404
90984259|NCT03114969|181852836|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.591||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.625|4.05||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||4.050|0.625|0.330
90984260|NCT03114969|181852837|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.738||||0.189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.761|3.968||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta+\[Relvar Ellipta+LAMA\] as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||3.968|0.761|0.189
90984261|NCT03114969|181852837|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.079||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.901|4.799||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta+\[Relvar Ellipta+LAMA\] as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||4.799|0.901|0.086
90984262|NCT03114969|181852837|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.95||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.918|4.142||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta+\[Relvar Ellipta+LAMA\] as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||4.142|0.918|0.082
90984263|NCT03114969|181852837|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.415||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.161|5.024||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta+\[Relvar Ellipta+LAMA\] as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||5.024|1.161|0.018
91006809|NCT02723019|181898031|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73||||||P-value is for the time by group interaction effect, testing the difference in rate of change between the Intervention and Control groups from baseline to 6 months post baseline|multilevel model analysis, random interc|||multilevel model analysis, random intercepts and slopes, appropriate link function for outcome, full maximum likelihood estimation||||0.73
90984264|NCT03114969|181852838|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.492|4.633||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||4.633|0.492|0.472
90984265|NCT03114969|181852838|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.402||||0.553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.459|4.283||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||4.283|0.459|0.553
90984266|NCT03114969|181852839|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.523||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.993|6.407||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||6.407|0.993|0.052
90984267|NCT03114969|181852839|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.757||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.107|6.862||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||6.862|1.107|0.029
90984268|NCT03114969|181852840|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.434||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.123|5.276||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta+\[Relvar Ellipta+LAMA\] as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||5.276|1.123|0.024
90984269|NCT03114969|181852840|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.389||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.061|5.376||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta+\[Relvar Ellipta+LAMA\] as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||5.376|1.061|0.035
90984270|NCT03114969|181852840|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.889||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.434|5.819||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta+\[Relvar Ellipta+LAMA\] as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||5.819|1.434|0.003
90984271|NCT03114969|181852840|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.974||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.461|6.055||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta+\[Relvar Ellipta+LAMA\] as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||6.055|1.461|0.003
90984272|NCT01065428|181852894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
90984273|NCT01065428|181852895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
90984274|NCT01662999|181852896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|0.943|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.867|1.026|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The statistical model includes treatment and period as fixed effects and measurements within each participant as repeated measurements. The adjusted geometric means are from the mixed model.||1.026|0.867|
90984275|NCT01662999|181852897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ration of adjusted geometric mean|0.984|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.961|1.008|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment B versus C in AUC(INF). The statistical model includes treatment and period as fixed effects and measurements within each participant as repeated measurements. The adjusted geometric means are from the mixed model.||1.008|0.961|
90984276|NCT01662999|181852899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.966|1.014|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment B versus C in AUC(0-T). The statistical model includes treatment and period as fixed effects and measurements within each participant as repeated measurements. The adjusted geometric means are from the mixed model.||1.014|0.966|
90984277|NCT01662999|181852901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|0.927|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.883|0.972|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis assesses the effect of concomitant administration of dapagliflozin on the Pharmacokinetics of saxagliptin. The statistical model includes treatment and period as fixed effects and measurements within each participant as repeated measurements. The adjusted geometric means are from the mixed model.||0.972|0.883|
90984278|NCT01662999|181852903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|1.055|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.004|1.109|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis assesses the effect of concomitant administration of dapagliflozin on the Pharmacokinetics of 5-OH saxagliptin (metabolite of saxagliptin). The statistical model includes treatment and period as fixed effects and measurements within each participant as repeated measurements. The adjusted geometric means are from the mixed model.||1.109|1.004|
90984279|NCT01662999|181852904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|0.991|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.022|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis assesses the effect of concomitant administration of dapagliflozin on the Pharmacokinetics of saxagliptin. The statistical model includes treatment and period as fixed effects and measurements within each participant as repeated measurements. The adjusted geometric means are from the mixed model.||1.022|0.960|
90984280|NCT01662999|181852905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|0.991|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.961|1.022|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis assesses the effect of concomitant administration of dapagliflozin on the Pharmacokinetics of saxagliptin. The statistical model includes treatment and period as fixed effects and measurements within each participant as repeated measurements. The adjusted geometric means are from the mixed model.||1.022|0.961|
90984281|NCT01662999|181852906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|1.085|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.058|1.113|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis assesses the effect of concomitant administration of dapagliflozin on the Pharmacokinetics of 5-OH saxagliptin (metabolite). The statistical model includes treatment and period as fixed effects and measurements within each participant as repeated measurements. The adjusted geometric means are from the mixed model.||1.113|1.058|
90984282|NCT01662999|181852907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted geometric mean|1.085|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.058|1.113|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis assesses the effect of concomitant administration of dapagliflozin on the Pharmacokinetics of 5-OH saxagliptin (metabolite). The statistical model includes treatment and period as fixed effects and measurements within each participant as repeated measurements. The adjusted geometric means are from the mixed model.||1.113|1.058|
90984283|NCT01662999|181852908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|0.994|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis assesses the effect of concomitant administration of dapagliflozin on the Pharmacokinetics of saxagliptin total active moiety. The statistical model includes treatment and period as fixed effects and measurements within each participant as repeated measurements. The adjusted geometric means are from the mixed model.||1.030|0.960|
90984284|NCT01662999|181852909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|1.046|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.029|1.064|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis assesses the effect of concomitant administration of dapagliflozin on the AUC(0-T) of saxagliptin total active moiety. The statistical model includes treatment and period as fixed effects and measurements within each participant as repeated measurements. The adjusted geometric means are from the mixed model.||1.064|1.029|
91006810|NCT02723019|181898032|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28||||||P-value is for the time by group interaction effect, testing the difference in rate of change between the Intervention and Control groups from baseline to 6 months post baseline|multilevel model analysis, random interc|||multilevel model analysis, random intercepts and slopes, appropriate link function for outcome, full maximum likelihood estimation||||0.28
90984285|NCT00196937|181852922|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority with respect to seroconversion was shown if, for both anti-HPV-16 and anti-HPV-18 antibodies, the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference \[Cervarix (15-25 years) Group minus Cervarix (26-45 years) Group\] was below 10%.|Difference in SCR|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.97|2.29||||||Immune response to anti-HPV-16 in terms of SCR: To evaluate if the immunogenicity (as determined by ELISA) of the Cervarix vaccine, one month after the third dose (Month 7), in young women 26 - 45 years of age is non-inferior to that in women 15 - 25 years of age.||2.29|-1.97|
90984286|NCT00196937|181852922|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority with respect to seroconversion was shown if, for both anti-HPV-16 and anti-HPV-18 antibodies, the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference \[Cervarix (15-25 years) Group minus Cervarix (26-45 years) Group\] was below 10%.|Difference in SCR|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|2.03||||||Immune response to anti-HPV-18 in terms of SCR: To evaluate if the immunogenicity (as determined by ELISA) of the Cervarix vaccine, one month after the third dose (Month 7), in young women 26 - 45 years of age is non-inferior to that in women 15 - 25 years of age.||2.03|-1.87|
90984287|NCT03368404|181852943|NON_INFERIORITY|A sample size of 33 evaluable patients per treatment group was calculated to provide at least 90% power to demonstrate non-inferiority of CBL-102 to Vismed Multi. Assumptions included a non-inferiority margin of 2 grades and a standard deviation of 2.5|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|0.13|||||Treatment difference : CBL-102 - Vismed Multi|||0.13|-1.34|
90984288|NCT03368404|181852944|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0592||||||Significance level of 0.05|ANCOVA|Adjustment for baseline||||||0.0592
90984289|NCT03368404|181852945|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Significance level of 0.05|ANCOVA|Adjustment for baseline||||||>0.05
90984290|NCT03368404|181852946|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Significance level 0.05|ANCOVA|Adjustment for baseline||||||>0.05
90984291|NCT03368404|181852947|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Significance level of 0.05|ANCOVA|Adjustment for baseline||||||>0.05
90984292|NCT03368404|181852948|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0176||||||Significance level 0.05|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline in Global Sum Score of Dry Eye Symptoms at Day 28 (Visit 4)||||0.0176
90984293|NCT03368404|181852948|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||Significance level 0.05|ANCOVA|Adjustment to baseline||Change from Baseline in Global Sum Score of Dry Eye Symptoms at Day 90 (Visit 5)||||0.0010
90984294|NCT03368404|181852949|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0251||||||Significance level 0.05|ANCOVA|Adjustment for baseline||"Ocular Surface Disease-Quality of Life (OSD-QoL®) dimension:~Daily Activities"||||0.0251
90984295|NCT03368404|181852949|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0015||||||Significance level of 0.05|ANCOVA|Adjustment for baseline||"Ocular Surface Disease-Quality of Life (OSD-QoL®) dimension:~Difficulties with work and handicap"||||0.0015
90984296|NCT03368404|181852949|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2024||||||Significance level 0.05|ANCOVA|Adjustment for baseline||"Ocular Surface Disease-Quality if Life (OSD-QoL®) dimension:~Giving up makeup"||||0.2024
90984297|NCT03368404|181852949|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0421||||||Significance level 0.05|ANCOVA|Adjustment for baseline||"Ocular Surface Disease-Quality if Life (OSD-QoL®) dimension:~Acknowledgement of the Disease"||||0.0421
90984298|NCT03368404|181852949|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3945||||||Significance level 0.05|ANCOVA|Adjustment for baseline||"Ocular Surface Disease-Quality if Life (OSD-QoL®) dimension:~Acceptance of the disease"||||0.3945
90984299|NCT03368404|181852949|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0536||||||Significance level of 0.05|ANCOVA|Adjustment for baseline||"Ocular Surface Disease-Quality if Life (OSD-QoL®) dimension:~Fear for the Future"||||0.0536
90984300|NCT03368404|181852949|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1998||||||Significance level of 0.05|ANCOVA|Adjustment for baseline||"Ocular Surface Disease-Quality if Life (OSD-QoL®) dimension:~Emotional well-being"||||0.1998
90984301|NCT03368404|181852949|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0306||||||Significance level of 0.05|ANCOVA|Adjustment for baseline||"Ocular Surface Disease-Quality of Life (OSD-QoL®) questions:~Global Question"||||0.0306
90984302|NCT03368404|181852950|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Significance level of 0.05|ANCOVA|Adjustment for baseline||||||>0.05
90984303|NCT03368404|181852951|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Significance level 0.05|ANCOVA|Adjustment for baseline||||||>0.05
90984304|NCT03368404|181852952|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0017||||||Significance level of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0017
91040377|NCT01634139|181965775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.507|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.387||0.1146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.063|19.077|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 24||19.077|-2.063|0.1146
91040378|NCT01634139|181965775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.493|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.365||0.1628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.034|18.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 24||18.020|-3.034|0.1628
91040379|NCT01634139|181965775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.538|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.435||0.3085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.127|16.203|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 48||16.203|-5.127|0.3085
91040380|NCT01634139|181965775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.774|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.413||0.1053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.847|19.394|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 48||19.394|-1.847|0.1053
91040381|NCT01634139|181965776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|12.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.451||0.0236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.663|23.056|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 24||23.056|1.663|0.0236
91040382|NCT01634139|181965776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|14.146|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.427||0.0093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.497|24.794|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 24||24.794|3.497|0.0093
91040383|NCT01634139|181965776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.882|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.497||0.7322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.667|8.904|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 48||8.904|-12.667|0.7322
91040384|NCT01634139|181965776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.176|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.481||0.4463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.578|14.929|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 48||14.929|-6.578|0.4463
91040385|NCT01634139|181965777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.262|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.039||0.8008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.775|2.299|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 24||2.299|-1.775|0.8008
91040386|NCT01634139|181965777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.166|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.041||0.8731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.875|2.208|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 24||2.208|-1.875|0.8731
91040387|NCT01634139|181965777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.272|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.058||0.7975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.803|2.346|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 48||2.346|-1.803|0.7975
91040388|NCT01634139|181965777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.579|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.059||0.5845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.656|1.498|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 48||1.498|-2.656|0.5845
90984305|NCT01751646|181852981|OTHER|||||||0.1166||||||P-value from Wilcoxon rank sum test for change between baseline and Week 48 Vitamin D vs. Placebo|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1166
90984306|NCT01751646|181852983|OTHER|||||||0.8383|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test for change between baseline and Week 48 Group A (Vitamin D) vs. Group B (Placebo)||||0.8383
90984307|NCT01751646|181852986|OTHER|||||||0.1378|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test for change between baseline and Week 48 Group A (Vitamin D) vs. Group B (Placebo)||||0.1378
90984308|NCT01751646|181852988|OTHER|||||||0.4686|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test for change between baseline and Week 48 Group A (Vitamin D) vs. Group B (Placebo)||||0.4686
90984309|NCT01751646|181852990|OTHER|||||||0.7601|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test for change between baseline and Week 48 Group A (Vitamin D) vs. Group B (Placebo)||||0.7601
90984310|NCT01751646|181852992|OTHER|||||||0.3978|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test for change between baseline and Week 48 Group A (Vitamin D) vs. Group B (Placebo)||||0.3978
90984311|NCT01751646|181852994|OTHER|||||||0.1187|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test for change between baseline and Week 48 Group A (Vitamin D) vs. Group B (Placebo)||||0.1187
90984312|NCT01751646|181852997|OTHER|||||||0.5098|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test for change between baseline and Week 48 Group A (Vitamin D) vs. Group B (Placebo)||||0.5098
90984313|NCT01751646|181852998|OTHER|||||||0.255|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test for change between baseline and Week 48 Group A (Vitamin D) vs. Group B (Placebo)||||0.2550
90984314|NCT01751646|181852999|OTHER|||||||0.6499|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test for change between baseline and Week 48 Group A (Vitamin D) vs. Group B (Placebo)||||0.6499
90984315|NCT01751646|181853000|OTHER|||||||0.2348|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test for change between baseline and Week 48 Group A (Vitamin D) vs. Group B (Placebo)||||0.2348
90984316|NCT01751646|181853003|OTHER|||||||0.2648|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test for change between baseline and Week 48 Group A (Vitamin D3) vs. Group B (Placebo)||||0.2648
90984317|NCT01751646|181853006|OTHER|||||||0.3728|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test for change between baseline and Week 48 Group A (Vitamin D3) vs. Group B (Placebo)||||0.3728
90984318|NCT01751646|181853009|OTHER|||||||0.7825|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test for change between baseline and Week 48 Group A (Vitamin D3) vs. Group B (Placebo)||||0.7825
90984319|NCT01751646|181853012|OTHER|||||||0.195|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test for change between baseline and Week 48 Group A (Vitamin D3) vs. Group B (Placebo)||||0.1950
90984320|NCT01751646|181853015|OTHER|||||||0.7127|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test for change between baseline and Week 48 Group A (Vitamin D3) vs. Group B (Placebo)||||0.7127
90984321|NCT01751646|181853018|OTHER|||||||0.4676|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test for change between baseline and Week 48 Group A (Vitamin D3) vs. Group B (Placebo)||||0.4676
90984322|NCT01751646|181853021|OTHER|||||||0.021|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test for change between baseline and Week 48 Group A (Vitamin D3) vs. Group B (Placebo)||||0.0210
90984323|NCT01751646|181853024|OTHER|||||||0.0144|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test for change between baseline and Week 48 Group A (Vitamin D3) vs. Group B (Placebo)||||0.0144
90984324|NCT01751646|181853027|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test for change between baseline and Week 48 Group A (Vitamin D3) vs. Group B (Placebo)||||< 0.0001
90984325|NCT01751646|181853030|OTHER|||||||0.0814|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test for change between baseline and Week 48 Group A (Vitamin D3) vs. Group B (Placebo)||||0.0814
90984326|NCT01751646|181853033|OTHER|||||||0.4808|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test for change between baseline and Week 48 Group A (Vitamin D3) vs. Group B (Placebo)||||0.4808
90984327|NCT01751646|181853036|OTHER|||||||0.387|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test for change between baseline and Week 48 Group A (Vitamin D3) vs. Group B (Placebo)||||0.3870
90984328|NCT01751646|181853039|OTHER|||||||0.429|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test for change between baseline and Week 48 Group A (Vitamin D) vs. Group B (Placebo)||||0.4290
90984329|NCT01751646|181853040|OTHER|||||||0.9186|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test for change between baseline and Week 48 Group A (Vitamin D3) vs. Group B (Placebo)||||0.9186
90984330|NCT01751646|181853041|OTHER|||||||0.4016|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test for change between baseline and Week 48 Group A (Vitamin D3) vs. Group B (Placebo)||||0.4016
90984331|NCT01751646|181853042|OTHER|||||||0.581|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test for change between baseline and Week 48 Group A (Vitamin D3) vs. Group B (Placebo)||||0.5810
90984332|NCT01751646|181853043|OTHER|||||||0.157|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test for change between baseline and Week 48 Group A (Vitamin D3) vs. Group B (Placebo)||||0.1570
90984333|NCT01751646|181853049|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Test of change from baseline to week 48||||<0.0001
90984334|NCT01751646|181853049|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Test of change from baseline to Week 48||||<0.0001
90984335|NCT01751646|181853052|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Test of Week 48 difference from baseline||||< 0.0001
90984336|NCT01751646|181853052|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Test of Week 48 difference from baseline||||< 0.0001
90984337|NCT01151137|181853067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.294||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.337|3.936||A priori threshold for statistical significance: 0.05|Log Rank|2-sided Log-rank's asymptotic test|"Hazard ratio (HR) of Dronedarone versus placebo for stroke, systemic arterial embolism, myocardial infarction or cardiovascular death~HR and confidence interval were estimated using Cox regression model with treatment group as the only factor."|As a consequence of the early termination of the study, the analysis was performed for information only without any adjustment.||3.936|1.337|0.0019
90984338|NCT01151137|181853068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.947|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.448|2.617||A priori threshold for statistical significance: 0.05|Log Rank|2-sided Log-rank's asymptotic test|"Hazard ratio (HR) of Dronedarone versus placebo for unscheduled cardiovascular hospitalization or death from any cause~HR and confidence interval were estimated using Cox regression model with treatment group as the only factor."|As a consequence of the early termination of the study, the analysis was performed for information only without any adjustment.||2.617|1.448|<0.0001
90984339|NCT01151137|181853070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.115||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.996|4.49||A priori threshold for statistical significance: 0.05|Log Rank|2-sided Log-rank's asymptotic test|"Hazard ratio (HR) of Dronedarone versus placebo for cardiovascular death~HR and confidence interval were estimated using Cox regression model with treatment group as the only factor."|As a consequence of the early termination of the study, the analysis was performed for information only without any adjustment.||4.490|0.996|0.0460
90984340|NCT02973815|181853086|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.062|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.065||0.342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.194|0.067|||Regression, Linear|||This was adjusted for the baseline BMI-Z score, child sex, baseline child age, and economic assistance||0.067|-0.194|0.342
90984341|NCT02973815|181853087|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73104||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|2.71|||Regression, Linear|||Adjusted for: baseline HFI Fruit value, and economic assistance status||2.71|-0.20|0.09
90984342|NCT02973815|181853088|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|2.44|||Regression, Linear|||Adjusted for: baseline HFI Vegetable value, and economic assistance status||2.44|0.02|0.047
90984343|NCT02973815|181853089|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.88|||Regression, Linear|||Adjusted for: baseline healthfulness score and economic assistance status||0.88|0.08|0.019
90984344|NCT02973815|181853090|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.09|||Regression, Linear|||Adjusted for: baseline vegetable intake, child age (baseline), parent education status (bachelors or higher vs lower)||0.09|-0.4|0.218
90984345|NCT02973815|181853091|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.77|||Regression, Linear|||Adjusted for: baseline fruit intake, child age (baseline), parent education status (bachelors or higher vs lower)||0.77|-0.03|0.066
90984346|NCT02973815|181853092|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.41||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.56|3.98|||Regression, Linear|||Adjusted for: baseline MVPA, child age (baseline), and child sex||3.98|-13.56|0.28
90984347|NCT02973815|181853093|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.34|||Regression, Linear|||Adjusted for: baseline screentime, child age (baseline), and child sex||0.34|-0.31|0.928
90984348|NCT00524303|181853094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.1|17.9|||||Approximate 95% confidence interval for the difference in response rates between the trastuzumab arm and the lapatinib arm was calculated.|||17.9|-38.1|
90984349|NCT00524303|181853094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|49.4|||||Approximate 95% confidence interval for the difference in response rates between the transtuzumab arm and the transtuzumab + lapatinib arm was calculated.|||49.4|-8.0|
90984350|NCT00524303|181853095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|7.0||||0.627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|32.5|||Fisher Exact||Approximate 95% confidence interval for the difference in response rates between the transtuzumab arm and the lapatinib arm was calculated.|||32.5|-17.8|0.627
90984351|NCT00524303|181853095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.1|25.1|||Fisher Exact||Approximate 95% confidence interval for the difference in response rates between the transtuzumab arm and the transtuzumab + lapatinib arm was calculated.|||25.1|-25.1|1.000
91040389|NCT01634139|181965778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.6932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.075|0.113|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 24||0.113|-0.075|0.6932
91040390|NCT01634139|181965778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.065|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.1741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.158|0.029|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 24||0.029|-0.158|0.1741
90984352|NCT03478683|181853102|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be demonstrated, if the lower bound of the two-sided 95 percentage (%) confidence interval around the (FF/UMEC/VI versus BUD/FOR+TIO) treatment difference was above -50 milliliter.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0143|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.013|0.043|||||The primary treatment effect estimated (hypothetical effect) excluded data following intercurrent events: discontinuation of treatment, taking wrong treatment, taking prohibited medication, unblinding, noncompliance, COPD exacerbation or pneumonia.|||0.043|-0.013|
90984353|NCT03478683|181853103|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0139||0.481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.037|0.018||Only if superiority is achieved on the primary study endpoint, then inferences can be made on change from Baseline in trough FEV1 on Day 2 using p-values.|Mixed model repeated measures||Day 2|||0.018|-0.037|0.481
90984354|NCT03478683|181853103|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.061|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0124|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.037|0.086||Only if superiority is achieved on the primary study endpoint, then inferences can be made on change from Baseline in trough FEV1 on Day 28 using p-values.|Mixed model repeated measures||Day 28|||0.086|0.037|<0.001
90984355|NCT03478683|181853103|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.058|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0133|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.032|0.084||Only if superiority is achieved on the primary study endpoint, then inferences can be made on change from Baseline in trough FEV1 on Day 84 using p-values.|Mixed model repeated measures||Day 84|||0.084|0.032|<0.001
90984356|NCT03478683|181853103|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.038|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.066||Only if superiority is achieved on the primary study endpoint, then inferences can be made on change from Baseline in trough FEV1 on Day 85 using p-values.|Mixed model repeated measures||Day 85|||0.066|0.010|0.007
90984357|NCT03478683|181853104|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.009|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011||0.415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.013||Only if superiority is achieved on the primary study endpoint, then inferences can be made on weighted mean change from Baseline in FEV1 over 0-24 hours on Day 1 using p-values.|Mixed model repeated measures||The treatment effect to be estimated was hypothetical effect if all participants stayed on their randomized study treatment. Only on treatment data was included in analysis.|||0.013|-0.030|0.415
90984358|NCT03478683|181853105|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.013|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0138||0.335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.014|0.04||The analysis was performed using mixed model repeated measures analysis, which included covariates of Baseline FEV1, geographical region, treatment, visit, visit by treatment and visit by Baseline interaction.|Mixed model repeated measures||The treatment effect to be estimated was hypothetical effect if all participants stayed on their randomized study treatment. Only on treatment data was included in analysis.|||0.040|-0.014|0.335
90984359|NCT01145391|181853122|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence||||||0.5||95.0||||For systolic blood pressure|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.50
90984360|NCT03037905|181853134|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.7||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|3.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.7|-17.1|0.20
90984361|NCT03037905|181853135|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|10.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||10.3|-5.9|0.60
90984362|NCT03037905|181853136|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|5.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.1|-7.0|.76
90984363|NCT03037905|181853137|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.83
90984364|NCT02273973|181853155|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|10.71||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|21.32|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.32|0.11|0.0490
90984365|NCT02273973|181853156|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|1.21||||0.3698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|3.55|||Fisher Exact|||||3.55|-1.12|0.3698
91040391|NCT01634139|181965778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.071|0.118|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 48||0.118|-0.071|0.6250
90984366|NCT02273973|181853157|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|18.19||||0.0332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.57|33.81|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||33.81|2.57|0.0332
91040392|NCT01634139|181965778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.7597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.109|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 48||0.080|-0.109|0.7597
91040393|NCT01634139|181965779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.025|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.6166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.122|0.073|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 24||0.073|-0.122|0.6166
91040394|NCT01634139|181965779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.076|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049||0.1267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.173|0.021|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 24||0.021|-0.173|0.1267
91040395|NCT01634139|181965779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.092|0.105|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 48||0.105|-0.092|0.9000
91040396|NCT01634139|181965779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.043|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.3897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.141|0.055|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 48||0.055|-0.141|0.3897
91040397|NCT01634139|181965780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.072||0.0975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.262|0.022|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 24||0.022|-0.262|0.0975
91040398|NCT01634139|181965780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.182|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.072||0.0116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.323|-0.041|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 24||-0.041|-0.323|0.0116
91040399|NCT01634139|181965780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.065|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.073||0.3732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.208|0.078|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 48||0.078|-0.208|0.3732
91040400|NCT01634139|181965780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.093|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.073||0.1985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.236|0.049|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 48||0.049|-0.236|0.1985
91040401|NCT01634139|181965782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.176|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.072||0.0144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.035|0.316|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 24||0.316|0.035|0.0144
90984367|NCT02273973|181853158|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|1.37||||0.4803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|4.04|||Fisher Exact|||||4.04|-1.30|0.4803
91040402|NCT01634139|181965782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.127|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.071||0.0747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.013|0.267|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 24||0.267|-0.013|0.0747
91040403|NCT01634139|181965782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.072||0.7654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.163|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 48||0.120|-0.163|0.7654
91040404|NCT01634139|181965782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.017|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.072||0.8082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.124|0.158|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 48||0.158|-0.124|0.8082
90984368|NCT02273973|181853159|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|5.2||||0.5017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|19.61|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||19.61|-9.20|0.5017
91040405|NCT01634139|181965783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.175|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.085||0.0392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.009|0.341|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 24||0.341|0.009|0.0392
91040406|NCT01634139|181965783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.126|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.084||0.1351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.039|0.292|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 24||0.292|-0.039|0.1351
91040407|NCT01634139|181965783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.018|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.085||0.8291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.185|0.149|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 48||0.149|-0.185|0.8291
91040408|NCT01634139|181965783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.085||0.9655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.163|0.171|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 48||0.171|-0.163|0.9655
91040409|NCT01634139|181965784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.191|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.077||0.0139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.039|0.343|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 24||0.343|0.039|0.0139
91040410|NCT01634139|181965784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.125|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.077||0.1043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.026|0.276|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 24||0.276|-0.026|0.1043
91040411|NCT01634139|181965784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.035|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.078||0.6547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.118|0.187|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 48||0.187|-0.118|0.6547
90984369|NCT02273973|181853160|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|1.05||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.65|4.75|||Fisher Exact|||||4.75|-2.65|1.0000
90984370|NCT02273973|181853161|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|21.14||||0.0115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.59|36.68|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||36.68|5.59|0.0115
90984371|NCT02273973|181853162|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|2.66||||0.7928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.88|17.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||17.20|-11.88|0.7928
90984372|NCT02273973|181853163|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|9.45||||0.2659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|24.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||24.70|-5.80|0.2659
90984373|NCT02273973|181853164|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|7.63||||0.3299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.34|21.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.60|-6.34|0.3299
90984374|NCT02273973|181853165|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|10.68||||0.1554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.96|25.32|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||25.32|-3.96|0.1554
90984375|NCT02273973|181853166|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|2.41||||0.787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.82|16.63|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||16.63|-11.82|0.7870
90984376|NCT02273973|181853167|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Least square mean|0.83||||0.117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.05|||Regression, Linear|||Statistical analysis for changes in Ki67 levels from Baseline to Week 3.||1.05|0.65|0.117
90984377|NCT02273973|181853167|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Least square mean|1.25||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.65|||Regression, Linear|||Statistical analysis for changes in Ki67 levels from Baseline to Surgery.||1.65|0.95|0.105
90984378|NCT02273973|181853169|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-13.32||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.67|-4.96|||Regression, Linear|||||-4.96|-21.67|0.002
90984379|NCT02104180|181853175|NON_INFERIORITY|An estimate of the difference between the pain felt by patient during the two dressings removals along with a 95% confidence interval (CI) has been derived. If the upper limit of the confidence interval was less than 13 mm, clinical non-inferiority of Tulle Gras versus Urgotul has been demonstrated.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.339|1.864|||||The pain intensity has been analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA). The model for this cross-over study included sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as random effect.|||1.864|-1.339|
90984380|NCT01676116|181853176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment contrast|-0.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.78|||ANCOVA|||||-0.78|-1.11|<0.001
90984381|NCT01821677|181853187|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.16
90984382|NCT01821677|181853187|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.07
90984383|NCT01821677|181853187|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.03
90984384|NCT01821677|181853188|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.42
90984385|NCT01821677|181853188|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.28
90984386|NCT01821677|181853188|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.14
90984387|NCT03461965|181853200|OTHER|p-value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant||||||0.007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparing total responses that were correct across all participants in both arms||||0.007
90984388|NCT03461965|181853201|OTHER|p-value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant||||||0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference of pre (baseline) and post-test scores within each treatment group||||0.0001
90984389|NCT03461965|181853201|OTHER|p-value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant|||||<|0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference of pre (baseline) and post-test scores within each treatment group||||<0.03
90984390|NCT03461965|181853201|OTHER|p-value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant||||||0.352|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||Comparing change in scores (post-stage minus baseline) between experimental and control groups||||0.352
90984391|NCT03461965|181853202|OTHER|p-value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference of pre (baseline) and post-test scores within each treatment group||||<0.0001
91040412|NCT01634139|181965784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.077||0.3648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.082|0.222|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 48||0.222|-0.082|0.3648
90984392|NCT03461965|181853202|OTHER|p-value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference of pre (baseline) and post-test scores within each treatment group||||0.04
90984393|NCT03461965|181853202|OTHER|p-value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant||||||0.052|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||Comparing change in scores (post-stage minus baseline) between experimental and control groups||||0.052
90984394|NCT03461965|181853203|OTHER|p-value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference of pre (baseline) and post-test scores within each treatment group||||<0.0001
90984395|NCT03461965|181853203|OTHER|p-value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference of pre (baseline) and post-test scores within each treatment group||||<0.0001
90984396|NCT03461965|181853203|OTHER|p-value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant||||||0.208|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||Comparing change in scores (post-stage minus baseline) between experimental and control groups||||0.208
90984397|NCT03461965|181853204|OTHER|p-value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant|||||<|0.03|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.03
90984398|NCT02680301|181853207|EQUIVALENCE|Wilcoxon sign- rank test values with ranks from change in cream efficacy ratings minus change in ointment efficacy ratings.||||||0.22|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.22
90984399|NCT05278104|181853222|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was tested.|Least square mean difference|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|1.7|||ANCOVA||The treatment effect was estimated regardless of concomitant/rescue medication use or nausea/vomiting (treatment policy). Treatment discontinuation was handled with a while-on-treatment strategy.|Change from baseline was analyzed with an ANCOVA model with the BIS-11 score at baseline as covariate and treatment as fixed factor.||1.7|-2.6|
90984400|NCT05278104|181853223|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was tested.|Least square mean difference|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|0.3|||ANCOVA||The treatment effect was estimated regardless of concomitant/rescue medication use or nausea/vomiting (treatment policy). Treatment discontinuation was handled with a while-on-treatment strategy.|Change from baseline was analyzed with an ANCOVA model with the BIS-11 score at baseline as covariate and treatment as fixed factor.||0.3|-4.6|
90984401|NCT05278104|181853224|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was tested.|Least square mean|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.4|||||The treatment effect was estimated regardless of concomitant/rescue medication use or nausea/vomiting (treatment policy). Treatment discontinuation was handled with a while-on-treatment strategy.|Change from baseline was analyzed with an ANCOVA model with the S-UPPS-P score at baseline as covariate and treatment as fixed factor.||2.4|-2.1|
90984402|NCT05278104|181853225|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was tested.|Least square mean difference|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|3.1|||ANCOVA||The treatment effect was estimated regardless of concomitant/rescue medication use or nausea/vomiting (treatment policy). Treatment discontinuation was handled with a while-on-treatment strategy.|Change from baseline was analyzed with an ANCOVA model with the S-UPPS-P score at baseline as covariate and treatment as fixed factor.||3.1|-1.3|
90984403|NCT02786537|181853231|SUPERIORITY|Superiority test derived by comparing whether the 95% CI includes zero.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|0.3|||||CI for mean derived from PROC TTEST, difference in mean and its 95%CI was calculated by Satterthwaite method.|PROD vs. SOF/LDV based regimens as reported in PRO (ALL PATIENTS WHO STARTED TREATMENT BY ARM AS TREATED), population limited to as randomization date of the last PrOD patient start date - RBV FREE REGIMENS||0.3|-3.6|
90984404|NCT02786537|181853231|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|3.1|||||CI for mean derived from PROC TTEST, difference in mean and its 95%CI was calculated by Satterthwaite method. CI for median derived from PROC QUANTREG.|RBV free EBR/GZR regimen compared to PrOD in consideration that RBV usage was determined by provider and not study randomization.||3.1|-0.4|
90984405|NCT02786537|181853232|SUPERIORITY|Superiority test completed by comparing whether the 95% CI includes zero.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.0|||||CI for mean derived from PROC TTEST, difference in mean and its 95%CI was calculated by Satterthwaite method.|Analysis based on RBV free EBR/GZR regimen vs SOF/LDV (all patients who started treatment by arm as treated)||1.0|-0.6|
90984406|NCT02786537|181853234|SUPERIORITY|Superiority test comparison based on whether the 95% CI includes zero|Mean Difference (Net)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.0|||||The comparisons between regimens can be viewed as superiority test, by comparing whether the 95% CI includes zero|Analysis of EBR/GZR vs. SOF/LDV irrespective of RBV usage in consideration that RBV usage was determined by provider and not study randomization.||1.0|0.0|
90984407|NCT02786537|181853235|SUPERIORITY|Superiority test comparison based on whether the 95% CI includes zero|Mean Difference (Net)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|7.0|||||CI for mean derived from PROC TTEST, difference in mean and its 95%CI was calculated by Satterthwaite method|Analysis based on RBV free SOF/LDV vs. PrOD in consideration that RBV usage was determined by provider and not study randomization and limited RBV sample size.||7.0|-4.2|
90984408|NCT02786537|181853235|SUPERIORITY|Superiority test comparison based on whether the 95% CI includes zero.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|7.0|||||CI for mean derived from PROC TTEST, difference in mean and its 95%CI was calculated by Satterthwaite method.|RBV free PrOD vs. SOF/LDV regimens (all patients who started treatment by arm as treated, population is limited to as randomization date of the last PrOD patient start date)||7.0|-4.2|
90984409|NCT02786537|181853236|SUPERIORITY|Superiority test comparison based on whether the 95% CI includes zero|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.3|||||CI for mean derived from PROC TTEST, difference in mean and its 95%CI was calculated by Satterthwaite method.|RBV free EBR/GZR vs. SOF/LDV (all patients who started treatment by arm as treated)||1.3|-1.6|
90984410|NCT02786537|181853239|SUPERIORITY|Superiority test based on whether the 95% CI includes zero|Mean Difference (Net)|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|5.5|||||CI for mean derived from PROC TTEST, difference in mean and its 95%CI was calculated by Satterthwaite method.|RBV free EBR/GZR vs. PrOD regimens as reported in PRO (all patients who started treatment by arm as treated, population is limited to as randomization date of the last PrOD patient start date). Analysis limited to RBV free regimen in consideration RBV usage determined by provider and not study randomization.||5.5|-1.9|
90984411|NCT02786537|181853239|SUPERIORITY|Superiority test based on whether the 95% CI includes zero|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|2.7|||||CI for mean derived from PROC TTEST, difference in mean and its 95%CI was calculated by Satterthwaite method.|RBV free SOF/LDV vs. PrOD regimens as reported in PRO (all patients who started treatment by arm as treated, population is limited to as randomization date of the last PrOD patient start date)||2.7|-4.6|
90984412|NCT02786537|181853240|SUPERIORITY|Superiority test comparison based on presence of zero in 95% CI.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.6|||||CI for mean derived from PROC TTEST, difference in mean and its 95%CI was calculated by Satterthwaite method|Analysis limited to RBV free regimens in consideration that RBV usage determined by provider and not study randomization. All patients who started treatment by arm as treated.||1.6|-1.4|
91040413|NCT01634139|181965785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.166|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.074||0.0256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.312|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 24||0.312|0.020|0.0256
91040414|NCT01634139|181965785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.141|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.074||0.0561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.286|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 24||0.286|-0.004|0.0561
91040415|NCT01634139|181965785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.061|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.075||0.4127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.208|0.085|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 48||0.085|-0.208|0.4127
91040416|NCT01634139|181965785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.074||0.8922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.136|0.156|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 48||0.156|-0.136|0.8922
91040417|NCT01634139|181965787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.009|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||0.7931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.061|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 24||0.061|-0.080|0.7931
91040418|NCT01634139|181965787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.075|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||0.0369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.145|-0.005|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 24||-0.005|-0.145|0.0369
91040419|NCT01634139|181965787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||0.4086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.101|0.041|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 48||0.041|-0.101|0.4086
91040420|NCT01634139|181965787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.026|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||0.4714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.097|0.045|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 48||0.045|-0.097|0.4714
91040421|NCT01634139|181965788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047||0.988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.091|0.092|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 24||0.092|-0.091|0.9880
91040422|NCT01634139|181965788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.082|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.046||0.0794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.173|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 24||0.010|-0.173|0.0794
91040423|NCT01634139|181965788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.053|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047||0.2623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.145|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 48||0.040|-0.145|0.2623
91040424|NCT01634139|181965788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.043|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047||0.3552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.136|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 48||0.040|-0.136|0.3552
91040425|NCT01634139|181965789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.039|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049||0.4359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.135|0.058|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 24||0.058|-0.135|0.4359
91040426|NCT01634139|181965789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.059|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049||0.2293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.155|0.037|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 24||0.037|-0.155|0.2293
91040427|NCT01634139|181965789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.8372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.108|0.088|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 48||0.088|-0.108|0.8372
91040428|NCT01634139|181965789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.051|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049||0.3022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.148|0.046|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 48||0.046|-0.148|0.3022
91040429|NCT01634139|181965790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.031|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.046||0.5004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.122|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 24||0.060|-0.122|0.5004
91040430|NCT01634139|181965790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.059|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.046||0.1982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.149|0.031|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 24||0.031|-0.149|0.1982
91040431|NCT01634139|181965790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047||0.8019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.103|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 48||0.080|-0.103|0.8019
90984413|NCT02786537|181853243|SUPERIORITY|Superiority test determined by comparing presence of zero in CI.|Mean Difference (Net)|-4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|1.3|||||CI for mean derived from PROC TTEST, difference in mean and its 95%CI was calculated by Satterthwaite method|Analysis based on RBV free regimens -all patients who started treatment by arm as treated, population is limited to as randomization date of the last PrOD patient start date.||1.3|-9.9|
90984414|NCT02786537|181853243|SUPERIORITY|Superiority comparison by viewing presence of zero in CI.|Mean Difference (Net)|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|9.4||||||RBV free regimens as reported in PRO (all patients who started treatment by arm as treated, population limited to as randomization date of the last PrOD patient start date)||9.4|-3.4|
90984415|NCT02786537|181853245|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|2.1|||||CI for mean derived from PROC TTEST, difference in mean and its 95%CI was calculated by Satterthwaite method.|Analysis based on RBV free regimens in consideration that RBV usage was determined by provider and not study randomization. Population includes patients who started treatment by arm as treated.||2.1|-3.6|
90984416|NCT02786537|181853254|EQUIVALENCE|Pre-specified equivalence range +/-5%|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.3|11.3||||||||11.3|-15.3|
90984417|NCT01330381|181853255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9002|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.9002
90984418|NCT01330381|181853256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.352|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3520
90984419|NCT01330381|181853257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5228|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.5228
90984420|NCT01330381|181853266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.377|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.377
90984421|NCT01330381|181853269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1599|||||||Van Elteren test|||||||0.1599
90984422|NCT01330381|181853270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0003|||||||Van Elteren test|||||||0.0003
90984423|NCT01330381|181853271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4647|||||||Van Elteren test|||||||0.4647
90984424|NCT01330381|181853272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Van Elteren test|||||||<0.0001
90984425|NCT01330381|181853273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3044|||||||Van Elteren test|||||||0.3044
90984426|NCT04243369|181853321|OTHER|Only descriptive statistics was provided. The rate and the exact 95% CI of the rate using the Clopper-Pearson Exact method is calculated.|Rate|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|88.4|100.0||||||||100|88.4|
90984427|NCT00320671|181853368|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence Analysis|Cumulative Response Rates|56.8||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.9|69.9|||Log Rank||Only the subjects taking risperidone were analysed in this section|||69.9|43.9|.61
90984428|NCT00320671|181853368|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence Analysis|Cumulative Response Rates|62.8||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.8|74.8|||Log Rank||Only subjects taking aripiprazole were analysed in this section|||74.8|50.8|.61
90984429|NCT01335971|181853369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Applies to gene expression of NAD(P)H Quinone Dehydrogenase 1 (NQ01) in alveolar macrophages||||0.45
90984430|NCT01335971|181853369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Applies to gene expression of Heme Oxygenase 1 (HO1) in alveolar macrophages||||0.40
90984431|NCT01335971|181853369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Applies to gene expression of Aldo-Keto Reductase Family 1 Member C1 (AKR1C1) in alveolar macrophages||||0.75
90984432|NCT01335971|181853369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Applies to gene expression of Aldo-Keto Reductase Family 1 Member C3 (AKR1C3) in alveolar macrophages||||0.49
90984433|NCT01335971|181853369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Applies to gene expression of nuclear factor erythroid 2 like 2 (Nrf2) in alveolar macrophages||||0.88
90984434|NCT01335971|181853369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Applies to gene expression of Kelch Like ECH Associated Protein 1 (Keap1) in alveolar macrophages||||0.71
90984435|NCT01335971|181853370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Applies to gene expression of Nrf2 in bronchial epithelial cells||||0.68
90984436|NCT01335971|181853371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Applies to gene expression of NAD(P)H Quinone Dehydrogenase 1 (NQ01) in bronchial epithelial cells||||0.69
90984437|NCT01335971|181853371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Applies to gene expression of Kelch Like ECH Associated Protein 1 (Keap1) in bronchial epithelial cells||||<0.01
90984438|NCT01335971|181853372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Applies to gene expression of Heme Oxygenase 1 (HO1) in bronchial epithelial cells||||0.53
90984439|NCT01335971|181853373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Applies to gene expression of Aldo-Keto Reductase Family 1 Member C1 (AKR1C1) in bronchial epithelial cells.||||<0.01
90984440|NCT01335971|181853374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Applies to gene expression of Aldo-Keto Reductase Family 1 Member C3 (AKR1C3) in bronchial epithelial cells.||||0.06
90984441|NCT01335971|181853375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.20
90984442|NCT01335971|181853376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Applies to C-reactive protein concentration||||0.41
90984443|NCT01335971|181853376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Applies to Interleukin-6 concentration||||0.07
90984444|NCT01335971|181853376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Applies to Interleukin-8 concentration||||0.65
90984445|NCT01335971|181853377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Applies to interleukin-8 results||||0.71
90984446|NCT01335971|181853377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Applies to secretory leukoprotease inhibitor results||||0.33
90984447|NCT01335971|181853378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Applies to isoprostane results.||||0.80
90984448|NCT01335971|181853378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Applies to thiobarbituric acid reactive substances results.||||0.35
90984449|NCT01335971|181853378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Applies to total antioxidants results.||||0.53
90984450|NCT03351244|181853385|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.097||||0.7735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.585|2.056|||Regression, Cox|The model included the treatment effect as the only covariate and was stratified by country.||||2.056|0.585|0.7735
90984451|NCT03351244|181853385|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.7809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.468|1.77|||Regression, Cox|The model included the treatment effect as the only covariate and was stratified by country.||||1.770|0.468|0.7809
90984452|NCT03351244|181853385|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.005||||0.9862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.576|1.753|||Regression, Cox|The model included the treatment effect as the only covariate and was stratified by country.||||1.753|0.576|0.9862
90984453|NCT03351244|181853386|OTHER|A restricted maximum likelihood-based approach using a mixed model with repeated measurements was applied.|Placebo-corrected adjusted mean|0.38||||0.5289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.809|1.57|||Mixed model with repeated measurements|The analysis included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit, and the fixed continuous effects of baseline at each visit.||||1.570|-0.809|0.5289
90984454|NCT03351244|181853386|OTHER|A restricted maximum likelihood-based approach using a mixed model with repeated measurements was applied.|Placebo-corrected adjusted mean|0.21||||0.744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.055|1.475|||Mixed model with repeated measurements|The analysis included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit, and the fixed continuous effects of baseline at each visit.||||1.475|-1.055|0.7440
90984455|NCT03351244|181853386|OTHER|A restricted maximum likelihood-based approach using a mixed model with repeated measurements was applied.|Placebo-corrected adjusted mean|0.31||||0.5659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.745|1.358|||Mixed model with repeated measurements|The analysis included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit, and the fixed continuous effects of baseline at each visit.||||1.358|-0.745|0.5659
90984456|NCT03351244|181853389|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.006||||0.9938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.203|4.989|||Regression, Cox|The model included the treatment effect as the only covariate and was stratified by country.||||4.989|0.203|0.9938
90984457|NCT03351244|181853389|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.116||||0.893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.225|5.531|||Regression, Cox|The model included the treatment effect as the only covariate and was stratified by country.||||5.531|0.225|0.8930
90984458|NCT03351244|181853389|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.058||||0.936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.265|4.233|||Regression, Cox|The model included the treatment effect as the only covariate and was stratified by country.||||4.233|0.265|0.9360
90984459|NCT03351244|181853391|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.788||||0.6362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.293|2.118|||Regression, Cox|The model included the treatment effect as the only covariate and was stratified by country.||||2.118|0.293|0.6362
90984460|NCT03351244|181853391|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.612||||0.3782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.205|1.826|||Regression, Cox|The model included the treatment effect as the only covariate and was stratified by country.||||1.826|0.205|0.3782
91040432|NCT01634139|181965790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.032|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.046||0.4872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.123|0.059|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 48||0.059|-0.123|0.4872
91040433|NCT01634139|181965791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.043|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.046||0.3498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.135|0.048|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 24||0.048|-0.135|0.3498
91040434|NCT01634139|181965791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.106|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.046||0.0222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.196|-0.015|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 24||-0.015|-0.196|0.0222
91040435|NCT01634139|181965791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047||0.799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.104|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 48||0.080|-0.104|0.7990
91040436|NCT01634139|181965791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.035|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047||0.4586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.126|0.057|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 48||0.057|-0.126|0.4586
91040437|NCT01634139|181965792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056||0.4221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.156|0.065|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 24||0.065|-0.156|0.4221
91040438|NCT01634139|181965792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.093|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056||0.0959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.204|0.017|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 24||0.017|-0.204|0.0959
91040439|NCT01634139|181965792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057||0.9627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.109|0.114|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 48||0.114|-0.109|0.9627
90984461|NCT03351244|181853391|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.703||||0.4253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.296|1.671|||Regression, Cox|The model included the treatment effect as the only covariate and was stratified by country.||||1.671|0.296|0.4253
90984462|NCT01165229|181853402|OTHER|The efficacy of Herpes Zoster subunit (HZ/su) vaccine against herpes zoster disease was demonstrated if the lower limit (LL) of the two-sided 95% Confidence Interval (CI) of VE was above 10%.|Vaccine efficacy|90.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|83.54|94.32|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of vaccine efficacy in prevention of Herpes Zoster (HZ) disease between Zoster-022 GSK1437173A 70-79 YOA group and Zoster-022 Placebo 70-79 YOA group.||94.32|83.54|<0.0001
90984463|NCT01165229|181853402|OTHER|The efficacy of HZ/su vaccine against herpes zoster disease was demonstrated if the lower limit of the of the 2-sided 95% CI of VE was above 10%|Vaccine efficacy|89.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|74.65|96.16|||Poisson exact method|||Comparison of vaccine efficacy in prevention of Herpes Zoster (HZ) disease between Zoster-022 GSK1437173A \>=80YOA Group and Zoster-022 Placebo Zoster-022 Placebo \>=80YOA Group||96.16|74.65|<0.0001
91040440|NCT01634139|181965792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.054|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057||0.3457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.165|0.058|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 48||0.058|-0.165|0.3457
90984464|NCT01165229|181853402|OTHER|The efficacy of HZ/su vaccine against herpes zoster disease was demonstrated if the lower limit of the of the 2-sided 95% CI of VE was above 10%|Vaccine efficacy|89.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|84.29|93.66|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of vaccine efficacy in prevention of Herpes Zoster (HZ) disease between Zoster-022 GSK1437173A \>=70YOA Group and Zoster-022 Placebo \>=70YOA Group||93.66|84.29|<0.0001
90984465|NCT01165229|181853403|OTHER|The efficacy of HZ/su vaccine against PHN was demonstrated if the lower limit of the of the 2-sided 95% CI of VE was above 0%|Vaccine efficacy|93.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|72.47|99.19|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of vaccine efficacy in prevention of Post-Herpetic Neuralgia (PHN) between Zoster-022/006 Pooled GSK1437173A 70-79YOA Group and Zoster-022/006 Pooled Placebo 70-79YOA Group||99.19|72.47|<0.0001
90984466|NCT01165229|181853403|OTHER|The efficacy of HZ/su vaccine against PHN was demonstrated if the lower limit of the of the 2-sided 95% CI of VE was above 0%|Vaccine efficacy|71.16||||0.1844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.51|97.08|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of vaccine efficacy in prevention of PHN between Zoster-022/006 Pooled GSK1437173A \>=80YOA Group and Zoster-022/006 Pooled Placebo \>=80YOA Group||97.08|-51.51|0.1844
90984467|NCT01165229|181853403|OTHER|The efficacy of HZ/su vaccine against PHN was demonstrated if the lower limit of the of the 2-sided 95% CI of VE was above 0%|Vaccine efficacy|88.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.7|97.1|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of vaccine efficacy in prevention of PHN between Zoster-022/006 Pooled GSK1437173A \>=70YOA Group and Zoster-022/006 Pooled Placebo \>=70YOA Group||97.10|68.70|<0.0001
90984468|NCT01165229|181853404|OTHER|The efficacy of HZ/su vaccine against herpes zoster disease was demonstrated if the lower limit of the of the 2-sided 95% CI of VE was above 10%|Vaccine efficacy|91.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.04|94.85|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of vaccine efficacy in prevention of herpes zoster disease between Zoster-022/006 Pooled GSK1437173A 70-79YOA Group and Zoster-022/006 Pooled Placebo 70-79YOA Group||94.85|86.04|<0.0001
90984469|NCT01165229|181853404|OTHER|The efficacy of HZ/su vaccine against herpes zoster disease was demonstrated if the lower limit of the of the 2-sided 95% CI of VE was above 10%|Vaccine efficacy|91.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|80.22|96.94|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of vaccine efficacy in prevention of herpes zoster disease between Zoster-022/006 Pooled GSK1437173A \>=80YOA Group and Zoster-022/006 Pooled Placebo \>=80YOA Group||96.94|80.22|<0.0001
90984470|NCT01165229|181853404|OTHER|The efficacy of HZ/su vaccine against herpes zoster disease was demonstrated if the lower limit of the of the 2-sided 95% CI of VE was above 10%|Vaccine efficacy|91.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.88|94.46|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of vaccine efficacy in prevention of herpes zoster disease between Zoster-022/006 pooled GSK1437173A \>=70 YOA Group and Zoster-022/006 Pooled Placebo \>=70YOA Group||94.46|86.88|<0.0001
90984471|NCT01165229|181853405|OTHER|The efficacy of HZ/su vaccine against PHN was demonstrated if the LL of the two-sided 95% CI of VE was above 0%.|Vaccine efficacy|90.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.57|98.95|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of of Vaccine Efficacy (VE) in prevention of PHN between Zoster-022 GSK1437173A 70-79YOA Group and Zoster-022 placebo 70-79YOA Group||98.95|62.57|<0.0001
90984472|NCT01165229|181853405|OTHER|The efficacy of HZ/su vaccine against PHN was demonstrated if the lower limit of the of the 2-sided 95% CI of VE was above 0%|Vaccine efficacy|65.76||||0.3072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-91.58|96.62|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of vaccine efficacy in prevention of PHN between Zoster-022 GSK1437173A \>=80YOA Group and Zoster-022 Placebo \>=80YOA Group||96.62|-91.58|0.3072
90984473|NCT01165229|181853405|OTHER|The efficacy of HZ/su vaccine against PHN was demonstrated if the lower limit of the of the 2-sided 95% CI of VE was above 0%|Vaccine efficacy|85.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.52|96.3|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of vaccine efficacy in prevention of PHN between Zoster-022 GSK1437173A \>=70YOA Group and Zoster-022 Placebo \>=70YOA Group||96.30|58.52|<0.0001
90984474|NCT01165229|181853406|OTHER|The efficacy of HZ/su vaccine against duration of severe worst HZ associated pain was demonstrated if the LL of the two-sided 95% CI of VE derived from the Hazard ratio was above 0%.|Vaccine efficacy|21.7||||0.3749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.4|54.39|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of VE in reduction of duration of severe worst HZ associated pain between Zoster-022 GSK1437173A 70-79YOA Group and Zoster-022 Placebo 70-79YOA Group||54.39|-34.40|0.3749
90984475|NCT01165229|181853406|OTHER|The efficacy of HZ/su vaccine against duration of severe worst HZ associated pain was demonstrated if the LL of the two-sided 95% CI of VE derived from the Hazard ratio was above 0%.|Vaccine efficacy|51.76||||0.2466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.55|85.95|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of VE in reduction of duration of severe worst HZ associated pain between Zoster-022 GSK1437173A \>=80YOA Group and Zoster-022 Placebo\>=80YOA Group||85.95|-65.55|0.2466
90984476|NCT01165229|181853406|OTHER|The efficacy of HZ/su vaccine against duration of severe worst HZ associated pain was demonstrated if the LL of the two-sided 95% CI of VE derived from the Hazard ratio was above 0%.|Vaccine efficacy|28.4||||0.1877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.69|56.44|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of VE in reduction of duration of severe worst HZ associated pain between Zoster-022 GSK1437173A \>=70YOA Group and Zoster-022 Placebo\>=70YOA Group||56.44|-17.69|0.1877
90984477|NCT01165229|181853409|OTHER|Efficacy of the HZ/su vaccine against overall and HZ related hospitalizations was demonstrated if the LL of the two-sided 95% CI of VE was above 0%.|Vaccine efficacy|100.0||||0.2533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-144.13|100.0|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of VE in reduction of overall and HZ related hospitalizations between Zoster-022 GSK1437173A 70-79YOA Group and Zoster-022 Placebo 70-79YOA Group||100.00|-144.13|0.2533
90984478|NCT01165229|181853409|OTHER|Efficacy of the HZ/su vaccine against overall and HZ related hospitalizations was demonstrated if the LL of the two-sided 95% CI of VE was above 0%.|Vaccine efficacy|100.0||||0.5024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-435.14|100.0|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of VE in reduction of overall and HZ related hospitalizations between Zoster-022 GSK1437173A \>=80YOA Group and Zoster-022 Placebo \>=80YOA Group||100.00|-435.14|0.5024
90984479|NCT01165229|181853409|OTHER|Efficacy of the HZ/su vaccine against overall and HZ related hospitalizations was demonstrated if the LL of the two-sided 95% CI of VE was above 0%.|Vaccine efficacy|100.0||||0.0636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.92|100.0|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of VE in reduction of overall and HZ related hospitalizations between Zoster-022 GSK1437173A \>=70YOA Group and Zoster-022 Placebo \>=70YOA Group||100.00|-9.92|0.0636
90984480|NCT01165229|181853410|OTHER|Efficacy of the HZ/su vaccine against HZ related complications was demonstrated if the LL of the VE was above 0%.|Vaccine efficacy|-65.69||||0.4947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-827.06|73.62|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of VE in reduction of HZ related complications between Zoster-022 GSK1437173A 70-79YOA Group and Zoster-022 Placebo 70-79YOA Group||73.62|-827.06|0.4947
90984481|NCT01165229|181853410|OTHER|Efficacy of the HZ/su vaccine against HZ related complications was demonstrated if the LL of the VE was above 0%|Vaccine efficacy|100.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-558.05|100.0|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of VE in reduction of HZ related complications between Zoster-022 GSK1437173A \>=80YOA Group and Zoster-022 Placebo \>=80YOA Group||100.00|-558.05|1.0000
90984482|NCT01165229|181853410|OTHER|Efficacy of the HZ/su vaccine against HZ related complications was demonstrated if the LL of the VE was above 0%|Vaccine efficacy|0.97||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-433.32|83.16|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of VE in reduction of HZ related complications between Zoster-022 GSK1437173A \>=70YOA Group and Zoster-022 Placebo \>=70YOA Group||83.16|-433.32|1.0000
90984483|NCT01165229|181853411|OTHER|Efficacy of the HZ/su vaccine against use of pain medications was demonstrated if the LL of the two-sided 95% CI of VE was above 0%.|Vaccine efficacy|43.42||||0.0112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.77|70.53|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of VE in reduction in use of pain medication between Zoster-022 GSK1437173A 70-79YOA Group and Zoster-022 Placebo 70-79YOA Group||70.53|10.77|0.0112
90984484|NCT01165229|181853411|OTHER|Efficacy of the HZ/su vaccine against use of pain medications was demonstrated if the LL of the two-sided 95% CI of the VE was above 0%|Vaccine efficacy|27.03||||0.3903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.43|73.2|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of VE in reduction in use of pain medication between Zoster-022 GSK1437173A \>=80YOA Group and Zoster-022 Placebo \>=80YOA Group||73.20|-26.43|0.3903
90984485|NCT01165229|181853411|OTHER|Efficacy of the HZ/su vaccine against use of pain medications was demonstrated if the LL of the two-sided 95% CI of VE was above 0%.|Vaccine efficacy|39.6||||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.79|64.75|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of VE in reduction in use of pain medication between Zoster-022 GSK1437173A \>=70YOA group and Zoster-022 Placebo \>=70YOA Group||64.75|10.79|0.0083
90984486|NCT01165229|181853412|OTHER|Efficacy of the HZ/su vaccine against duration of pain medication associated with HZ was demonstrated if the LL of the two-sided 95% CI of VE derived from the hazard ratio was above 0%.|Vaccine efficacy|58.94||||0.0232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.45|80.96|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of VE in reduction in duration of pain medication associated with HZ between Zoster-022 GSK1437173A 70-79YOA Group and Zoster-022 Placebo 70-79YOA Group||80.96|11.45|0.0232
90984487|NCT01165229|181853412|OTHER|Efficacy of the HZ/su vaccine against duration of pain medication associated with HZ was demonstrated if the LL of the two-sided 95% CI of VE derived from the hazard ratio was above 0%.|Vaccine efficacy|-14.56||||0.8324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-303.3|67.46|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of VE in reduction in duration of pain medication associated with HZ between Zoster-022 GSK1437173A \>=80YOA Group and Zoster-022 Placebo \>=80YOA Group||67.46|-303.30|0.8324
90984488|NCT01165229|181853412|OTHER|Efficacy of the HZ/su vaccine against duration of pain medication associated with HZ was demonstrated if the LL of the two-sided 95% CI of VE derived from the hazard ratio was above 0%.|Vaccine efficacy|49.25||||0.0404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.92|73.47|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of VE in reduction in duration of pain medication associated with HZ between Zoster-022 GSK1437173A \>=70YOA Group and Zoster-022 Placebo \>=70YOA Group||73.47|2.92|0.0404
90984489|NCT01165229|181853421|OTHER|The efficacy of HZ/su vaccine against PHN was demonstrated if the lower limit of the of the 2-sided 95% CI of VE was above 0%|Vaccine efficacy|100.0||||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.88|100.0|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of vaccine efficacy in prevention of PHN between Zoster-022/006 Pooled GSK1437173A 50-59YOA Group and Zoster-022/006 Pooled Placebo 50-59YOA Group.Comparison of vaccine efficacy for groups 70-79 and above 80 YOA are presented in outcome measure 2.||100.00|40.88|0.0081
90984490|NCT01165229|181853421|OTHER|The efficacy of HZ/su vaccine against PHN was demonstrated if the lower limit of the of the 2-sided 95% CI of VE was above 0%|Vaccine efficacy|100.0||||0.5097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-442.83|100.0|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of vaccine efficacy in prevention of PHN between Zoster-022/006 Pooled GSK1437173A 60-69YOA Group and Zoster-022/006 Pooled Placebo 60-69YOA Group||100.00|-442.83|0.5097
90984491|NCT01165229|181853422|OTHER|The efficacy of HZ/su vaccine in reduction of PHN in subjects with confirmed HZ episodes was demonstrated if the LL of the two-sided 95% CI of VE was above 0%|Vaccine efficacy|100.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-649.86|100.0|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of Vaccine efficacy in reduction of PHN incidence in subjects with confirmed HZ episode in Zoster-022/006 Pooled GSK1437173A 50-59 YOA Group versus Zoster-022/006 Pooled Placebo 50-59 YOA Group||100.00|-649.86|1.0000
90984492|NCT01165229|181853422|OTHER|The efficacy of HZ/su vaccine in reduction of PHN in subjects with confirmed HZ episodes was demonstrated if the LL of the two-sided 95% CI of VE was above 0%|Vaccine efficacy|100.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3938.7|100.0|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of Vaccine efficacy in reduction of PHN incidence in subjects with confirmed HZ episode in Zoster-022/006 Pooled GSK1437173A 60-69 YOA Group versus Zoster-022/006 Pooled Placebo 60-69 YOA Group||100.00|-3938.70|1.0000
91006811|NCT02723019|181898033|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71||||||P-value is for the time by group interaction effect, testing the difference in rate of change between the Intervention and Control groups from baseline to 6 months post baseline|multilevel model analysis, random interc|||multilevel model analysis, random intercepts and slopes, appropriate link function for outcome, full maximum likelihood estimation||||0.71
91006812|NCT02723019|181898034|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||negative binomial regression model analy|||negative binomial regression model analysis||||0.42
91006813|NCT00779116|181898117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Statistical tests were performed atthe significance level of 5%, without multiplicity adjustment.|Mainland-Gart Test|The p-value was derived from Mainland-Gart Test applied to a 2 (treatment sequence) by 2 (preferred period) contingency table.||The Mainland-Gart test was applied to the preference rates in the subjects who showed a preference, to assess the difference in preference rates between RediTab and Zyrtec.||||<0.0001
90984493|NCT01165229|181853422|OTHER|The efficacy of HZ/su vaccine in reduction of PHN in subjects with confirmed HZ episodes was demonstrated if the LL of the two-sided 95% CI of VE was above 0%|Vaccine efficacy|21.6||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-149.41|78.91|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of Vaccine efficacy in reduction of PHN incidence in subjects with confirmed HZ episode in Zoster-022/006 Pooled GSK1437173A 70-79 YOA Group versus Zoster-022/006 Pooled Placebo 70-79 YOA Group||78.91|-149.41|1.0000
90984494|NCT01165229|181853422|OTHER|The efficacy of HZ/su vaccine in reduction of PHN in subjects with confirmed HZ episodes was demonstrated if the LL of the two-sided 95% CI of VE was above 0%|Vaccine efficacy|-223.81||||0.1528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-883.05|18.84|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of Vaccine efficacy in reduction of PHN incidence in subjects with confirmed HZ episode in Zoster-022/006 Pooled GSK1437173A \>=80 YOA Group versus Zoster-022/006 Pooled Placebo\>=80 YOA Group||18.84|-883.05|0.1528
90984495|NCT01165229|181853422|OTHER|The efficacy of HZ/su vaccine in reduction of PHN in subjects with confirmed HZ episodes was demonstrated if the LL of the two-sided 95% CI of VE was above 0%|Vaccine efficacy|0.29||||0.5417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-161.53|65.57|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of Vaccine efficacy in reduction of PHN incidence in subjects with confirmed HZ episode in Zoster-022/006 Pooled GSK1437173A \>=50 YOA Group versus Zoster-022/006 Pooled Placebo \>=50 YOA Group||65.57|-161.53|0.5417
90984496|NCT01165229|181853423|OTHER|The VE of HZ/su against duration of severe worst pain in subjects with confirmed HZ was demonstrated if the LL of the two-sided 95% CI of VE derived from the Hazard ratio was above 0%.|Vaccine efficacy|23.75||||0.2885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.8|53.78|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of VE in reduction of duration of severe worst HZ associated pain between Zoster-022/006 pooled GSK1437173A 70-79YOA Group and Zoster-022/006 pooled Placebo 70-79YOA Group||53.78|-25.80|0.2885
90984497|NCT01165229|181853423|OTHER|The VE of HZ/su against duration of severe worst pain in subjects with confirmed HZ was demonstrated if the LL of the two-sided 95% CI of VE derived from the Hazard ratio was above 0%.|Vaccine efficacy|54.93||||0.194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.03|86.46|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of VE in reduction of duration of severe worst HZ associated pain between Zoster-022/006 pooled GSK1437173A \>=80 YOA Group and Zoster-022/006 pooled Placebo \>=80 YOA Group||86.46|-50.03|0.1940
90984498|NCT01165229|181853423|OTHER|The VE of HZ/su against duration of severe worst pain in subjects with confirmed HZ was demonstrated if the LL of the two-sided 95% CI of VE derived from the Hazard ratio was above 0%.|Vaccine efficacy|30.48||||0.1243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.52|56.27|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of VE in reduction of duration of severe worst HZ associated pain between Zoster-022/006 pooled GSK1437173A \>=70 YOA Group and Zoster-022/006 pooled Placebo\>=70 YOA Group||56.27|-10.52|0.1243
90984499|NCT01873950|181853472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||For each ECG biomarker and treatment, the null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the biomarker change from baseline between the treatment and placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|For each ECG biomarker and treatment, the placebo-corrected change from baseline was computed using linear mixed effect model.||||||<0.05
90984500|NCT01873950|181853473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||For each ECG biomarker and treatment, the null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the biomarker change from baseline between the treatment and placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|For each ECG biomarker and treatment, the placebo-corrected change from baseline was computed using linear mixed effect model.||||||<0.05
90984501|NCT01873950|181853474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||For each ECG biomarker and treatment, the null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the biomarker change from baseline between the treatment and placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|For each ECG biomarker and treatment, the placebo-corrected change from baseline was computed using linear mixed effect model.||||||<0.05
90984502|NCT01745055|181853507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|103.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.0|107.29||||||Natural log transformed, AUC (0-12) of CP-690,550 was analyzed using mixed effect model with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||107.29|99.00|
90984503|NCT01745055|181853508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|102.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.79|112.47||||||Natural log transformed, Cmax of CP-690,550 was analyzed using mixed effect model with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||112.47|93.79|
90984504|NCT01745055|181853509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|89.53|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.38|103.57||||||Natural log transformed, AUClast of MTX was analyzed using mixed effect model with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||103.57|77.38|
90984505|NCT01745055|181853510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|87.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.03|100.12||||||Natural log transformed, Cmax of MTX was analyzed using mixed effect model with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||100.12|76.03|
90984506|NCT01512368|181853521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.089|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.034|0.144||All reported p values are based on two-sided tests considering ≤0.05 as significant.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, time of exercise, creatinine, waist to hip ratio, fat percentage, body mass index, mean rest heart rate, blood pressure.|Metabolic equivalents (METs) consumed were independently associated with the log of delta (final-basal) FGF21 levels.|"FGF21 was log transformed to approximate normality before analyses. Null hypothesis was Ho = Y1 (FGF21 level at baseline) = Y2 (FGF21 level after two weeks of exercising). Power calculation was 80% with 60 participants evaluated (one group). To evaluate the effect of exercise on clinical and biochemical parameters, we used the difference between final - basal levels (delta)."||0.144|0.034|<0.001
90984507|NCT01570491|181853534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||"We hypothesized that real-time US guidance would result in a 20% lower number of attempts compared to the control group.~At the 0.05 level of significance with a power of 0.8, we will require a minimum of 20 patients per group, therefore we planned to recruit 40 patients in total."||||0.83
90984508|NCT01570491|181853535|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.001
90984509|NCT01570491|181853536|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.09
90984510|NCT01570491|181853537|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.06
90984511|NCT02532543|181853548|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.863|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.863
90984512|NCT02532543|181853549|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.718|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison between each arm/group at 2 mm from the height of the bone crest||||0.718
90984513|NCT02532543|181853549|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.853|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison between each arm/group at 4 mm from the height of the bone crest||||0.853
90984514|NCT02532543|181853550|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.718|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison between each arm/group of change in mid buccal bone height||||0.718
90984515|NCT02532543|181853550|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison between each arm/group of change in mid palatal bone height||||0.999
90984516|NCT02532543|181853550|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison between each arm/group of change in mesial bone height||||0.440
90984517|NCT02532543|181853550|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.729|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison between each arm/group of change in distal bone height||||0.729
90984518|NCT02532543|181853551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.613|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.613
90984519|NCT02532543|181853552|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.492|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison between each arm/group at 2 mm from the height of the bone crest||||0.492
90984520|NCT02532543|181853552|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.917|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison between each arm/group at 4 mm from the height of the bone crest||||0.917
90984521|NCT02532543|181853553|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.353|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison between each arm/group of change in mid buccal soft tissue height||||0.353
90984522|NCT02532543|181853553|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.823|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison between each arm/group of change in mid palatal soft tissue height||||0.823
90984523|NCT02532543|181853553|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.243|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison between each arm/group of change in mesial soft tissue height||||0.243
90984524|NCT02532543|181853553|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.756|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison between each arm/group of change in distal soft tissue height||||0.756
90984525|NCT01720667|181853574|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of 24 hour seizure termination rates using a Fisher's exact test.||||<0.001
90984526|NCT01720667|181853575|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of seizure cessation at 48 hours using Fisher's exact test||||<0.001
90984527|NCT03472534|181853608|OTHER|The p-value for the overall F-test was used to determine if the mean irritation scores were equal for all four products.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
90984528|NCT01499576|181853636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent agreement|89.2|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90984529|NCT01499576|181853637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Kappa index of agreement|0.808|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Kappa index of agreement|||||||<0.01
90984530|NCT01499576|181853638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||persent of adverse event|10.48|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90984531|NCT03237845|181853683|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.6||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|11.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||11.9|3.3|0.0006
90984532|NCT03237845|181853684|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|17.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||17.9|6.9|< 0.0001
90984533|NCT03237845|181853685|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.4|20.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||20.8|9.4|< 0.0001
90984534|NCT03237845|181853686|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.9||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|16.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||16.6|3.2|0.0039
90984535|NCT03237845|181853687|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.4|21.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.2|9.4|< 0.0001
90984536|NCT03237845|181853688|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.8||||0.2084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|12.2||P-Value ≥ 0.05; therefore, all secondary outcome measures listed after this outcome measure in the hierarchy were not tested.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||12.2|-2.7|0.2084
90984537|NCT01221233|181853696|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|17.6||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.000
90984538|NCT03865407|181853702|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1839|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1839
90984539|NCT03865407|181853703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3036|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3036
90984540|NCT03865407|181853704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0001
90984541|NCT03865407|181853705|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1421|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1421
90984542|NCT03865407|181853706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0022|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0022
90984543|NCT03865407|181853707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3032|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3032
90984544|NCT01645280|181853714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.184|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Screening CRP level (\>= 1.50 mg/dL; \< 1.50 mg/dL) was used as stratification factors.||||||0.184
90984545|NCT01645280|181853714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Screening CRP level (\>= 1.50 mg/dL; \< 1.50 mg/dL) was used as stratification factors.||||||0.130
90984546|NCT01645280|181853714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.642|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Screening CRP level (\>= 1.50 mg/dL; \< 1.50 mg/dL) was used as stratification factors.||||||0.642
90984547|NCT01645280|181853714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.832|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Screening CRP level (\>= 1.50 mg/dL; \< 1.50 mg/dL) was used as stratification factors.||||||0.832
90984548|NCT01645280|181853715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019|||||||ANCOVA|Treatment, screening CRP level (\>=1.50 mg/dL, \<1.50mg/dL) and baseline score as covariates.||||||0.019
90984549|NCT01645280|181853715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025|||||||ANCOVA|Treatment, screening CRP level (\>=1.50 mg/dL, \<1.50mg/dL) and baseline score as covariates.||||||0.025
90984550|NCT01645280|181853715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.248|||||||ANCOVA|Treatment, screening CRP level (\>=1.50 mg/dL, \<1.50mg/dL) and baseline score as covariates.||||||0.248
90984551|NCT01645280|181853715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.045|||||||ANCOVA|Treatment, screening CRP level (\>=1.50 mg/dL, \<1.50mg/dL) and baseline score as covariates.||||||0.045
90984552|NCT01645280|181853716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.381|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Screening CRP level (\>= 1.50 mg/dL; \< 1.50 mg/dL) was used as stratification factors.||||||0.381
90984553|NCT01645280|181853716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.543|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Screening CRP level (\>= 1.50 mg/dL; \< 1.50 mg/dL) was used as stratification factors.||||||0.543
90984554|NCT01645280|181853716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.629|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Screening CRP level (\>= 1.50 mg/dL; \< 1.50 mg/dL) was used as stratification factors.||||||0.629
90984555|NCT01645280|181853716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.273|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Screening CRP level (\>= 1.50 mg/dL; \< 1.50 mg/dL) was used as stratification factors.||||||0.273
90984556|NCT01645280|181853717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||ANCOVA|Treatment, screening CRP level (\>=1.50 mg/dL, \<1.50mg/dL) and baseline score as covariates.||||||0.060
90984557|NCT01645280|181853717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.134|||||||ANCOVA|Treatment, screening CRP level (\>=1.50 mg/dL, \<1.50mg/dL) and baseline score as covariates.||||||0.134
90984558|NCT01645280|181853717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||ANCOVA|Treatment, screening CRP level (\>=1.50 mg/dL, \<1.50mg/dL) and baseline score as covariates.||||||0.280
90984559|NCT01645280|181853717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.345|||||||ANCOVA|Treatment, screening CRP level (\>=1.50 mg/dL, \<1.50mg/dL) and baseline score as covariates.||||||0.345
90984560|NCT00234104|181853721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.09||||0.0074||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Dunnett's test was used||||||0.0074
90984561|NCT00234104|181853721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.82||||0.0459||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Dunnett's test was used||||||0.0459
90984562|NCT00234104|181853721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.32||||0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Dunnett's test was used||||||0.0010
90984563|NCT02052960|181853727|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.736|1.359|||Log Rank|||||1.359|0.736|0.86
90984564|NCT02052960|181853728|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.9||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|10.7|||Chi-squared|||||10.7|-14.5|0.77
90984565|NCT02052960|181853729|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.21||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.05|9.63|||Chi-squared|||||9.63|-12.05|0.83
90984566|NCT02052960|181853730|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.057||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.814|1.372|||Log Rank|||||1.372|0.814|0.70
90984567|NCT02052960|181853731|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.012||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.734|1.396|||Log Rank|||||1.396|0.734|0.96
90984568|NCT03849560|181853733|NON_INFERIORITY|Odds ratio was calculated to compare seroconversion for antigen H1N1 in group Grippol® Quadri and groups Grippol® Plus, trivalent (Yamagata lineage)+Grippol® Plus, trivalent (Victoria lineage)|Odds Ratio, log|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.82||||||||1.82|0.82|
90984569|NCT03849560|181853733|NON_INFERIORITY|Odds ratio was calculated to compare seroconversion for antigen H3N2 in group Grippol® Quadri and groups Grippol® Plus, trivalent (Yamagata lineage)+Grippol® Plus, trivalent (Victoria lineage)|Odds Ratio, log|1.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|2.3||||||||2.30|1.08|
90984570|NCT03849560|181853733|NON_INFERIORITY|Odds ratio was calculated to compare seroconversion for YAMA antigen in group Grippol® Quadri and group Grippol® Plus, trivalent (Yamagata lineage)|Odds Ratio, log|1.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.15||||||||2.15|0.90|
90984571|NCT03849560|181853733|NON_INFERIORITY|Odds ratio was calculated to compare seroconversion for VICT antigen in group Grippol® Quadri and group Grippol® Plus, trivalent (Victoria lineage)|Odds Ratio, log|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.63||||||||1.63|0.68|
90984572|NCT03849560|181853734|NON_INFERIORITY|The Grippol® Quadri vaccine considered non-inferior to Grippol® Plus, trivalent (Yamagata lineage) and Grippol® Plus, trivalent (Victoria lineage) vaccines for the strain A/H1N1 if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% Confidence Interval (CI) of the ratio of means of geometric antibody titers for H1N1 was ≤1.5|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8933|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7762|1.03||||||Non-inferiority of Grippol® Quadri over Grippol® Plus, trivalent (Yamagata lineage) and Grippol® Plus, trivalent (Victoria lineage) for the strain A/H1N1||1.030|0.7762|
90984573|NCT03849560|181853734|NON_INFERIORITY|The Grippol® Quadri vaccine considered non-inferior to Grippol® Plus, trivalent (Yamagata lineage) and Grippol® Plus, trivalent (Victoria lineage) vaccines for the strain A/H3N2 if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of means of geometric antibody titers for H3N2 was ≤1.5|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.8913|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7516|1.0593||||||Non-inferiority of Grippol® Quadri over Grippol® Plus, trivalent (Yamagata lineage) and Grippol® Plus, trivalent (Victoria lineage) for the strain A/H3N2||1.0593|0.7516|
90984574|NCT03849560|181853734|NON_INFERIORITY|The Grippol® Quadri vaccine considered non-inferior to Grippol® Plus, trivalent (Yamagata lineage) vaccine for the strain B/Yamagata if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of means of geometric antibody titers for Yamagata antigen was ≤1|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8185|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6918|0.9683||||||Non-inferiority of Grippol® Quadri over Grippol® Plus, trivalent (Yamagata lineage) for the strain B/Yamagata||0.9683|0.6918|
91006814|NCT00170846|181898144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|1.1241||||0.6332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5077|5.7559|||ANCOVA|||||5.7559|-3.5077|0.6332
91006815|NCT00170846|181898144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|0.5933||||0.7943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8815|5.0682|||ANCOVA|||||5.0682|-3.8815|0.7943
91006816|NCT01714336|181898155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.75
91040441|NCT01634139|181965793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.041|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.3375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.043|0.125|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 24||0.125|-0.043|0.3375
91040442|NCT01634139|181965793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.037|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.047|0.121|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 24||0.121|-0.047|0.3880
91040443|NCT01634139|181965793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.6541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.066|0.104|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 48||0.104|-0.066|0.6541
90984575|NCT03849560|181853734|NON_INFERIORITY|The Grippol® Quadri vaccine considered non-inferior to Grippol® Plus, trivalent (Victoria lineage) vaccine for the strain B/Victoria if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of means of geometric antibody titers for Victoria antigen was ≤1|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0328||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.857|1.2445|||ANCOVA|||Non-inferiority of Grippol® Quadri over Grippol® Plus, trivalent (Victoria lineage) for the strain B/Victoria||1.2445|0.8570|0.05
90984576|NCT03849560|181853735|NON_INFERIORITY|Seroprotection for strain A/H1N1 in Grippol® Quadri group in comparison to Grippol® Plus, trivalent (Yamagata lineage)+Grippol® Plus, trivalent (Victoria lineage) groups||||||0.758|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.758
90984577|NCT03849560|181853735|NON_INFERIORITY|Seroprotection for strain A/H3N2 in Grippol® Quadri group in comparison to Grippol® Plus, trivalent (Yamagata lineage)+Grippol® Plus, trivalent (Victoria lineage) groups||||||0.282|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.282
90984578|NCT03849560|181853735|NON_INFERIORITY|Seroprotection for strain B/Yamagata in Grippol® Quadri group in comparison to Grippol® Plus, trivalent (Yamagata lineage) group||||||0.352|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.352
90984579|NCT03849560|181853735|NON_INFERIORITY|Seroprotection for strain B/Victoria in Grippol® Quadri group in comparison to Grippol® Plus, trivalent (Victoria lineage) group||||||0.815|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.815
90984580|NCT03849560|181853736|OTHER|||||||0.452|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.452
90984581|NCT03849560|181853736|OTHER|||||||0.639|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.639
90984582|NCT03849560|181853738|OTHER|The lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI (log 10) on coefficient of increase of mean geometric antibody titer for H1N1 should be ˃ 2.5|Coefficient of increase of mean geometri|4.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.22|5.6||||||Coefficient of increase of mean geometric antibody titer for H1N1 in Grippol® Quadri group||5.60|4.22|
90984583|NCT03849560|181853738|OTHER|The lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI (log 10) on coefficient of increase of mean geometric antibody titer for H3N2 should be ˃ 2.5|Coefficient of increase of GMT|5.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.53|6.24||||||Coefficient of increase of mean geometric antibody titer for H3N2 in Grippol® Quadri group||6.24|4.53|
90984584|NCT03849560|181853738|OTHER|The lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI (log 10) on coefficient of increase of mean geometric antibody titer for Yamagata should be ˃ 2.5|Coefficient of increase of GMT|5.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.78|6.25||||||Coefficient of increase of mean geometric antibody titer for Yamagata in Grippol® Quadri group||6.25|4.78|
90984585|NCT03849560|181853738|OTHER|The lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI (log 10) on coefficient of increase of mean geometric antibody titer for Victoria should be ˃ 2.5|Coefficient of increase of GMT|4.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.14|5.49||||||Coefficient of increase of mean geometric antibody titer for Victoria in Grippol® Quadri group||5.49|4.14|
90984586|NCT03849560|181853738|OTHER|The lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI (log 10) on coefficient of increase of mean geometric antibody titer for H1N1 should be ˃ 2.5|Coefficient of increase of GMT|4.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.59|4.94||||||Coefficient of increase of mean geometric antibody titer for H1N1 in Grippol® Plus, trivalent (Yamagata lineage) group||4.94|3.59|
90984587|NCT03849560|181853738|OTHER|The lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI (log 10) on coefficient of increase of mean geometric antibody titer for H3N2 should be ˃ 2.5|Coefficient of increase of GMT|5.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.45|6.12||||||Coefficient of increase of mean geometric antibody titer for H3N2 in Grippol® Plus, trivalent (Yamagata lineage) group||6.12|4.45|
90984588|NCT03849560|181853738|OTHER|The lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI (log 10) on coefficient of increase of mean geometric antibody titer for Yamagata should be ˃ 2.5|Coefficient of increase of GMT|4.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.48|4.69||||||Coefficient of increase of mean geometric antibody titer for Yamagata in Grippol® Plus, trivalent (Yamagata lineage) group||4.69|3.48|
91040444|NCT01634139|181965793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.028|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.5089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.056|0.133|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 48||0.133|-0.056|0.5089
91040445|NCT04442503|181965862|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|-1.7|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Day 15||-1.7|-6.3|0.0007
91040446|NCT04442503|181965863|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.999||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|-1.4|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Day 3||-1.4|-5.4|0.0008
91040447|NCT04442503|181965863|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.244||0.0203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|-0.5|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Day 28||-0.5|-5.4|0.0203
90984589|NCT03849560|181853738|OTHER|The lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI (log 10) on coefficient of increase of mean geometric antibody titer for H1N1 should be ˃ 2.5|Coefficient of increase of GMT|4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.97|5.34||||||Coefficient of increase of mean geometric antibody titer for H1N1 in Grippol® Plus, trivalent (Victoria lineage) group||5.34|3.97|
90984590|NCT03849560|181853738|OTHER|The lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI (log 10) on coefficient of increase of mean geometric antibody titer for H3N2 should be ˃ 2.5|Coefficient of increase of GMT|5.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.38|6.12||||||Coefficient of increase of mean geometric antibody titer for H3N2 in Grippol® Plus, trivalent (Victoria lineage) group||6.12|4.38|
90984591|NCT03849560|181853738|OTHER|The lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI (log 10) on coefficient of increase of mean geometric antibody titer for Victoria should be ˃ 2.5|Coefficient of increase of GMT|4.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|5.56||||||Coefficient of increase of mean geometric antibody titer for Victoria in Grippol® Plus, trivalent (Victoria lineage) group||5.56|4.00|
90984592|NCT01254344|181853762|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Assuming a 70% rate (i.e., proportion of participants with success of prophylaxis) for both groups and a significance level of 0.025, at least 200 evaluable participants per group were needed to have 90% probability that the lower limit of the 95% (two-sided) confidence interval for the difference in the response rates between the 2 groups was greater than -15 percentage points."|Difference in percentage of prophylaxis|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|5.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||5.5|-5.2|
90984593|NCT01254344|181853763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of prophylaxis|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|5.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||5.1|-2.2|
90984594|NCT00467649|181853764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0180
90984595|NCT01633060|181853776|OTHER|Comparison of progression-free survival (PFS) (based on local investigator assessment) between the two treatment groups using a stratified log-rank test at one-sided 2.5% level of significance|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.53||||Log Rank||||||0.53|<0.001
90984596|NCT01852344|181853855|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.159|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.159
90984597|NCT01852344|181853855|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.159|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.159
90984598|NCT01852344|181853856|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.236|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.236
90984599|NCT01852344|181853857|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.032|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.032
90984600|NCT00538642|181853881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
90984601|NCT03165981|181853905|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.87||||0.7588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|2.1|||Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenzel is stratified by site.|RR is adjusted by site.|||2.10|0.36|0.7588
90984602|NCT03165981|181853906|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.97||||0.9412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|2.4|||Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenzel is stratified by site.|RR is adjusted by site.|||2.40|0.39|.9412
90984603|NCT03165981|181853907|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3408|||||||Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenzel is stratified by site.||||||0.3408
90984604|NCT03165981|181853908|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.87||||0.8325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|3.13|||Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenzel is stratified by site.|RR is adjusted by site.|||3.13|0.24|0.8325
90984605|NCT03165981|181853909|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3408|||||||Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenzel is stratified by site.||||||0.3408
90984606|NCT03165981|181853910|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.73||||0.6101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|2.48|||Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenzel is stratified by site.|RR is adjusted by site.|||2.48|0.21|0.6101
90984607|NCT03165981|181853911|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.848|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.848
90984608|NCT03165981|181853913|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.000
90984609|NCT02858193|181853945|EQUIVALENCE|Acceptance criterion for bioequivalence was that 94.12% confidence intervals (CIs) of the T/R ratios of the geometric means of the analysed PK parameters were within the 80.00-125.00% range according to the current guidelines for bioequivalence studies.|Geometric means ratio|111.63||||0.0482|TWO_SIDED|94.12|100.51|123.99||"treatment p-value reported"|ANOVA||Estimated value and limits are expressed in %|||123.99|100.51|0.0482
90984610|NCT02858193|181853947|EQUIVALENCE|Acceptance criterion for bioequivalence was that 94.12% confidence intervals (CIs) of the T/R ratios of the geometric means of the analysed PK parameters were within the 80.00-125.00% range according to the current guidelines for bioequivalence studies|geometric means ratio|109.41||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|94.12|104.93|114.07||"treatment p-value is reported"|ANOVA||Estimated value and limits are expressed in%|||114.07|104.93|0.0002
90984611|NCT02858193|181853948|EQUIVALENCE|Acceptance criterion for bioequivalence was that 94.12% confidence intervals (CIs) of the T/R ratios of the geometric means of the analysed PK parameters were within the 80.00-125.00% range according to the current guidelines for bioequivalence studies.||||||0.593|||||||Friedman|||||||0.5930
90984612|NCT02031146|181853952|OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||Two sample test of proportion in Stata|||||||0.29
90984613|NCT02031146|181853953|OTHER|||||||0.69|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.69
90984614|NCT02031146|181853954|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.04
90984615|NCT01438710|181853955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The mean change (i.e., absolute change) from baseline (Day 7, pre-conversion) on FTM overall score to Day 14 (post-conversion) was evaluated using paired t-test (at 0.05 significance level, two sided). An estimation of mean change from baseline and the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) were provided.||||0.0048
90984616|NCT02340104|181853977|EQUIVALENCE|Geometric Least Square (LS) Means values were calculated using Log pharmacokinetic (PK) model with treatment, participant, random error as model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant and error as random effects.|Ratio of Geometric LS Means|0.789|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.769|0.81|||||Geometric Least Square (LS) Means values were calculated using Log pharmacokinetic (PK) model with treatment, participant, random error as independent variables, where participant was fitted as a random effect.|||0.810|0.769|
90984617|NCT01269125|181853978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.3|||Chi-squared|||||0.3|-0.2|0.80
90984618|NCT01269125|181853982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0.8||95.0|-0.2|0.3|||Chi-squared|||||0.3|-0.2|0.80
90984619|NCT01269125|181853982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0.48||95.0|-0.4|0.2|||Chi-squared|||In order to handle the problem of small sample size combined with the inability to identify the theoretical statistical distribution of data, bootstrap techniques are used (10). Ader and co-workers recommend the bootstrap procedure when (a) the theoretical distribution is complicated or unknown, and/or (b) power calculations have to be performed and a small sample is available (11). Finally, the bootstrap distribution has been used in order to calculate all the confidence intervals.||0.2|-0.4|0.48
91006817|NCT02724111|181898165|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91006818|NCT02724111|181898166|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91006819|NCT02724111|181898167|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91006820|NCT02724111|181898168|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91006821|NCT02724111|181898169|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91006822|NCT02724111|181898170|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91006823|NCT02724111|181898171|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.06
91006824|NCT02724111|181898172|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.202|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.202
90984620|NCT01269125|181853982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0.22||95.0|-0.4|0.1|||Chi-squared|||In order to handle the problem of small sample size combined with the inability to identify the theoretical statistical distribution of data, bootstrap techniques are used (10). Ader and co-workers recommend the bootstrap procedure when (a) the theoretical distribution is complicated or unknown, and/or (b) power calculations have to be performed and a small sample is available (11). Finally, the bootstrap distribution has been used in order to calculate all the confidence intervals.||0.1|-0.4|0.22
90984621|NCT01040832|181853983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.6|||Stratified log rank|||||1.6|0.7|0.793
90984622|NCT01040832|181853984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||>0.999
90984623|NCT01040832|181853985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.557||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.557
90984624|NCT00151411|181853988|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.3||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|18.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||18.4|-9.9|0.54
90984625|NCT00151411|181853989|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|2.5||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|6.6|||Zero-altered negative binomial model||Placebo is the reference group, i.e. for the rate ratio, Metformin represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|This statistical analysis models the probability of ovulation.||6.6|0.9|0.07
90984626|NCT00151411|181853989|SUPERIORITY||rate ratio|1.2||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.9|||Zero-altered negative binomial model||Placebo is the reference group, i.e. for the rate ratio, Metformin represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|This statistical analysis models the count of ovulations provided a woman actually ovulated.||1.9|0.7|0.51
90984627|NCT00151411|181853990|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.6||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|9.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.0|0.1|0.05
90984628|NCT00417612|181853991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.007
90984629|NCT01183858|181854025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.33||Unstratified analysis.|Log Rank|||||1.33|0.83|0.671
90984630|NCT01183858|181854031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.33|||Log Rank|||||1.33|0.84|0.625
90984631|NCT01088412|181854066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized Incidence Ratio|3.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.24|5.96||||||Epidemiological comparison between incidence of type 2 diabetes in study versus general population registry data, stratified by age and ethnicity.||5.96|2.24|
90984632|NCT01088412|181854067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized Incidence Ratio|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.2||||||Epidemiological comparison between incidence of primary malignancies in study versus general population registry data, stratified by age and gender.||1.20|0.39|
90984633|NCT01088412|181854074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized Incidence Ratio|3.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.14|4.15||||||"Epidemiological comparison between incidence of type 2 diabetes in study versus general population registry data, stratified by age and ethnicity.~Standardized Incidence Ratio for All DM (T1, T2 and DM Not Otherwise Specified \[NOS\] Combined)"||4.15|2.14|
90984634|NCT01088412|181854074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized Incidence Ratio|2.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|4.15||||||"Epidemiological comparison between incidence of type 2 diabetes in study versus general population registry data, stratified by age and ethnicity.~Standardized Incidence Ratio for GHD DM (T1, T2 and DM NOS Combined)"||4.15|1.72|
90984635|NCT01088412|181854074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized Incidence Ratio|4.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|10.69||||||"Epidemiological comparison between incidence of type 2 diabetes in study versus general population registry data, stratified by age and ethnicity.~Standardized Incidence Ratio for TS DM (T1, T2 and DM NOS Combined)"||10.69|1.80|
90984636|NCT01088412|181854074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized Incidence Ratio|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|7.93||||||"Epidemiological comparison between incidence of type 2 diabetes in study versus general population registry data, stratified by age and ethnicity.~Standardized Incidence Ratio for ISS DM (T1, T2 and DM NOS Combined)"||7.93|0.84|
90984637|NCT01088412|181854074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized Incidence Ratio|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|11.83||||||"Epidemiological comparison between incidence of type 2 diabetes in study versus general population registry data, stratified by age and ethnicity.~Standardized Incidence Ratio for SHOX-D DM (T1, T2 and DM NOS Combined)"||11.83|0.00|
90984638|NCT01088412|181854074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized Incidence Ratio|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|10.83||||||"Epidemiological comparison between incidence of type 2 diabetes in study versus general population registry data, stratified by age and ethnicity.~Standardized Incidence Ratio for SGA DM (T1, T2 and DM NOS Combined)"||10.83|0.36|
90984639|NCT01088412|181854074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized Incidence Ratio|4.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|11.66||||||"Epidemiological comparison between incidence of type 2 diabetes in study versus general population registry data, stratified by age and ethnicity.~Standardized Incidence Ratio for Other DM (T1, T2 and DM NOS Combined)"||11.66|1.24|
90984640|NCT01088412|181854074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized Incidence Ratio|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|24.3||||||"Epidemiological comparison between incidence of type 2 diabetes in study versus general population registry data, stratified by age and ethnicity.~Standardized Incidence Ratio for Unknown DM (T1, T2 and DM NOS Combined)"||24.30|0.00|
90984641|NCT01088412|181854074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized Incidence Ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.44||||||"Epidemiological comparison between incidence of type 2 diabetes in study versus general population registry data, stratified by age and ethnicity.~Standardized Incidence Ratio for All T1 DM."||1.44|0.56|
90984642|NCT01088412|181854074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized Incidence Ratio|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.4||||||"Epidemiological comparison between incidence of type 2 diabetes in study versus general population registry data, stratified by age and ethnicity.~Standardized Incidence Ratio for GHD T1DM."||1.40|0.36|
90984643|NCT01088412|181854074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized Incidence Ratio|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|4.38||||||"Epidemiological comparison between incidence of type 2 diabetes in study versus general population registry data, stratified by age and ethnicity.~Standardized Incidence Ratio for TS T1DM."||4.38|0.31|
90984644|NCT01088412|181854074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized Incidence Ratio|1.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|4.14||||||"Epidemiological comparison between incidence of type 2 diabetes in study versus general population registry data, stratified by age and ethnicity.~Standardized Incidence Ratio for ISS T1DM."||4.14|0.29|
90984645|NCT01088412|181854074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized Incidence Ratio|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|7.23||||||"Epidemiological comparison between incidence of type 2 diabetes in study versus general population registry data, stratified by age and ethnicity.~Standardized Incidence Ratio for SHOX-D T1DM."||7.23|0.00|
90984646|NCT01088412|181854074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized Incidence Ratio|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.38||||||"Epidemiological comparison between incidence of type 2 diabetes in study versus general population registry data, stratified by age and ethnicity.~Standardized Incidence Ratio for SGA T1DM."||3.38|0.00|
90984647|NCT01088412|181854074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized Incidence Ratio]|2.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|6.1||||||"Epidemiological comparison between incidence of type 2 diabetes in study versus general population registry data, stratified by age and ethnicity.~Standardized Incidence Ratio for Other T1DM."||6.10|0.43|
90984648|NCT01088412|181854074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized Incidence Ratio]|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|14.84||||||"Epidemiological comparison between incidence of type 2 diabetes in study versus general population registry data, stratified by age and ethnicity.~Standardized Incidence Ratio for Unknown T1DM."||14.84|0.00|
90984649|NCT01088412|181854074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized Incidence Ratio|3.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.24|5.96||||||"Epidemiological comparison between incidence of type 2 diabetes in study versus general population registry data, stratified by age and ethnicity.~Standardized Incidence Ratio for All T2 DM."||5.96|2.24|
90984650|NCT01088412|181854074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized Incidence Ratio|3.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.03|6.87||||||"Epidemiological comparison between incidence of type 2 diabetes in study versus general population registry data, stratified by age and ethnicity.~Standardized Incidence Ratio for GHD T2DM."||6.87|2.03|
90984651|NCT01088412|181854074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized Incidence Ratio|6.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|18.89||||||"Epidemiological comparison between incidence of type 2 diabetes in study versus general population registry data, stratified by age and ethnicity.~Standardized Incidence Ratio for TS T2DM."||18.89|1.33|
90984652|NCT01088412|181854074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized Incidence Ratio|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|7.52||||||"Epidemiological comparison between incidence of type 2 diabetes in study versus general population registry data, stratified by age and ethnicity.~Standardized Incidence Ratio for ISS T2DM."||7.52|0.00|
90984653|NCT01088412|181854074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized Incidence Ratio|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|31.16||||||"Epidemiological comparison between incidence of type 2 diabetes in study versus general population registry data, stratified by age and ethnicity.~Standardized Incidence Ratio for SHOX-D T2DM."||31.16|0.00|
90984654|NCT01088412|181854074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized Incidence Ratio|7.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|28.52||||||"Epidemiological comparison between incidence of type 2 diabetes in study versus general population registry data, stratified by age and ethnicity.~Standardized Incidence Ratio for SGA T2DM."||28.52|0.96|
90984655|NCT01088412|181854074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized Incidence Ratio|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|16.7||||||"Epidemiological comparison between incidence of type 2 diabetes in study versus general population registry data, stratified by age and ethnicity.~Standardized Incidence Ratio for Other T2DM."||16.70|0.08|
90984656|NCT01088412|181854074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized Incidence Ratio|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|63.97||||||"Epidemiological comparison between incidence of type 2 diabetes in study versus general population registry data, stratified by age and ethnicity.~Standardized Incidence Ratio for Unknown T2DM."||63.97|0.00|
91040448|NCT04442503|181965863|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.277||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|-1.0|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Day 45||-1.0|-6.0|0.0067
90984657|NCT03494725|181854081|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.757||||||Outcome was subjected to transformation to meet model assumptions. The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model||The sample size was computed for a repeated measurement ANOVA with two groups and seven repeated measurements (power=0.85, α=0.05, f=0.1). The calculation resulted in a group size of 56 participants each, which was rounded up to 60 participants per treatment group to account for attrition.||||0.757
90984658|NCT03443024|181854137|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0165|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0165
90984659|NCT03443024|181854137|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0022
90984660|NCT03443024|181854137|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0005
90984661|NCT03443024|181854138|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.061|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0610
90984662|NCT03443024|181854138|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0021|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0021
90984663|NCT03443024|181854138|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0005
90984664|NCT03443024|181854139|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1917|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1917
90984665|NCT03443024|181854139|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0392|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0392
90984666|NCT03443024|181854139|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0023|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0023
90984667|NCT03443024|181854140|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2043|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2043
90984668|NCT03443024|181854140|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0021|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0021
90984669|NCT03443024|181854140|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0018|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0018
90984670|NCT03443024|181854141|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0554|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0554
90984671|NCT03443024|181854141|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0037|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0037
90984672|NCT03443024|181854141|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0008|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0008
90984673|NCT03443024|181854142|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0800
90984674|NCT03443024|181854142|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0062|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0062
90984675|NCT03443024|181854142|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0006|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0006
90984676|NCT03443024|181854143|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0773|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0773
90984677|NCT03443024|181854143|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0459|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0459
90984678|NCT03443024|181854143|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0062
90984679|NCT03443024|181854144|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0047|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0047
90984680|NCT03443024|181854144|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0002
90984681|NCT03443024|181854144|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
90984682|NCT03443024|181854145|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6674|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.6674
90984683|NCT03443024|181854145|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1166|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1166
90984684|NCT03443024|181854145|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0119|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0119
90984685|NCT03443024|181854146|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2371|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2371
90984686|NCT03443024|181854146|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1067|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1067
90984687|NCT03443024|181854146|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0008|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0008
90984688|NCT03443024|181854147|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4631|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.4631
90984689|NCT03443024|181854147|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0368|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0368
90984690|NCT03443024|181854147|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0232|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0232
90984691|NCT03443024|181854148|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4729|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.4729
90984692|NCT03443024|181854148|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0282|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0282
90984693|NCT03443024|181854148|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0506|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0506
90984694|NCT00149825|181854157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13||95.0|||||Chi-squared|This is a one-tailed test||We hypothesized that compared with MED+CTRL, a greater percent of participants randomized to MED+CBTI will experience remission of depression||||.13
90984695|NCT00149825|181854158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||We hypothesized that compared with MED+CTRL, a greater percent of participants in MED+CBTI will experience remission of insomnia.||||.05
90984696|NCT05593432|181854160|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|29.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.17||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.55|51.33||stratified by Baseline Investigator's Global Assessment (IGA) score (3 or 4)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||stratified by Baseline IGA score (3 or 4)|||51.33|7.55|0.0129
90984697|NCT05593432|181854160|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|12.38|||||stratified by Baseline IGA score (3 or 4)|||12.38|1.32|
90984698|NCT05593432|181854161|EQUIVALENCE|A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline IGA score (3 or 4) at a 2-sided α = 0.05 level was used for the comparison between ruxolitinib 1.5% cream BID and vehicle cream BID at Week 16.|Response Rate Difference|30.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.68||0.0141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.71|53.51|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|stratified by Baseline IGA score (3 or 4)||||53.51|7.71|0.0141
90984699|NCT05593432|181854161|EQUIVALENCE|A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline IGA score (3 or 4) at a 2-sided α = 0.05 level was used for the comparison between ruxolitinib 1.5% cream BID and vehicle cream BID at Week 16.|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|13.17|||||stratified by Baseline IGA score (3 or 4)|||13.17|1.31|
90984700|NCT05593432|181854163|EQUIVALENCE|A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline IGA score (3 or 4) at a 2-sided α = 0.05 level was used for the comparison between ruxolitinib 1.5% cream BID and vehicle cream BID at Week 16.|Response Rate Difference|40.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.09||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.61|64.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|stratified by Baseline IGA score (3 or 4)||||64.00|16.61|0.0027
91040449|NCT04442503|181965864|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.196||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.2|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Day 15||-0.2|-0.9|0.0052
90984701|NCT05593432|181854163|EQUIVALENCE|A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline IGA score (3 or 4) at a 2-sided α = 0.05 level was used for the comparison between ruxolitinib 1.5% cream BID and vehicle cream BID at Week 16.|Odds Ratio (OR)|6.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.85|24.02|||||stratified by Baseline IGA score (3 or 4)|||24.02|1.85|
90984702|NCT05593432|181854165|EQUIVALENCE|A log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factor, Baseline IGA score (3 or 4), was used for between-treatment group comparisons. The hazard ratio and its 95% confidence interval was estimated based on the stratified Cox regression model. using Efron's method accounting for ties.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.85||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|5.381|||Log Rank|stratified by Baseline IGA score (3 or 4) between ruxolitinib 1.5% cream and vehicle cream|Cox regression model stratified by Baseline IGA score (3 or 4) was conducted to compare the difference in hazard rate between ruxolitinib 1.5% cream and vehicle cream|||5.381|1.510|0.0008
90984703|NCT01450137|181854174|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.45||||0.0301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.79|||Fisher Exact|||||0.79|0.11|0.0301
90984704|NCT01450137|181854175|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.65||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.94|||Fisher Exact|||||0.94|0.36|0.0010
90984705|NCT01450137|181854176|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0005
90984706|NCT01450137|181854177|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.0||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|39.0|||z-test||Difference between restricted mean survival time at 12 months|||39|11|0.0005
90984707|NCT00069121|181854221|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.93||This test used a two-sided significance level of 5%.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio was calculated as XELOX versus 5-FU/LV arms.|||0.93|0.69|0.0038
90984708|NCT00069121|181854222|OTHER|Descriptive analysis only.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.91|||Log Rank||The hazard ratio was calculated as XELOX versus 5-FU/LV arms.|||0.91|0.67|0.0015
90984709|NCT00069121|181854224|OTHER|Descriptive analysis only.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.0367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.99|||Log Rank||The hazard ratio was calculated as XELOX versus 5-FU/LV arms.|||0.99|0.70|0.0367
90984710|NCT04800315|181854226|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.76||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.81|-7.7|||ANCOVA|||||-7.70|-35.81|0.003
90984711|NCT04800315|181854226|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.38||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.19|0.43|||ANCOVA|||||0.43|-27.19|0.057
90984712|NCT04800315|181854226|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.28||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.88|-1.68|||ANCOVA|||||-1.68|-30.88|0.029
90984713|NCT04800315|181854227|OTHER|Risk Difference|Risk Difference VS Placebo|24.0||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.8|39.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||39.2|8.8|0.004
90984714|NCT04800315|181854227|OTHER|Risk Difference|Risk Difference VS Placebo|15.3||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|29.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||29.8|0.8|0.061
90984715|NCT04800315|181854227|OTHER|Risk Difference|Risk Difference VS Placebo|28.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.6|44.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||44.2|13.6|<0.001
90984716|NCT04800315|181854228|OTHER|Risk Difference|Difference VS Placebo|23.7||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.2|41.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||41.2|6.2|0.018
90984717|NCT04800315|181854228|OTHER|Risk Difference|Difference VS Placebo|21.8||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|39.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||39.3|4.3|0.033
90984718|NCT04800315|181854228|OTHER|Risk Difference|Difference VS Placebo|26.7||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.3|44.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||44.0|9.3|0.006
90984719|NCT04800315|181854229|OTHER|Risk Difference|Risk Difference|18.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|33.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||33.9|2.3|
90984720|NCT04800315|181854229|OTHER|Risk Difference|Risk Difference|10.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|25.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||25.7|-4.6|
90984721|NCT04800315|181854229|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference|15.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|31.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||31.4|0.4|
90984722|NCT04800315|181854230|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-28.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.89|-14.44|||ANCOVA|||||-14.44|-41.89|
90984723|NCT04800315|181854230|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.26|-1.46|||ANCOVA|||||-1.46|-27.26|
90984724|NCT04800315|181854230|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.53|-4.62|||ANCOVA|||||-4.62|-33.53|
90984725|NCT04800315|181854231|OTHER|Adjusted Mean Difference VS Placebo|Adjusted Mean Difference VS Placebo|-22.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.46|-3.54|||ANCOVA|||||-3.54|-41.46|
90984726|NCT04800315|181854231|OTHER|Adjusted Mean Difference VS Placebo|Adjusted Mean Difference VS Placebo|-13.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.67|4.33|||ANCOVA|||||4.33|-30.67|
90984727|NCT04800315|181854231|OTHER|Adjusted Mean Difference VS Placebo|Adjusted Mean Difference VS Placebo|-16.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.4|3.75|||ANCOVA|||||3.75|-36.40|
90984728|NCT04800315|181854232|OTHER|Risk Difference VS Placebo|Risk Difference VS Placebo|18.5||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|34.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||34.3|2.7|0.042
90984729|NCT04800315|181854232|OTHER|Risk Difference VS Placebo|Risk Difference VS Placebo|19.9||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|35.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||35.7|4.1|0.029
90984730|NCT04800315|181854232|OTHER|Risk Difference VS Placebo|Risk Difference VS Placebo|18.0||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|33.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||33.6|2.3|0.052
90984731|NCT04800315|181854234|OTHER|Adjusted mean difference VS Placebo|Adjusted mean difference VS Placebo|-23.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.48|-4.76|||ANCOVA|||||-4.76|-41.48|
90984732|NCT04800315|181854234|OTHER|Adjusted mean difference VS Placebo|Adjusted mean difference VS Placebo|-8.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.16|8.59|||ANCOVA|||||8.59|-25.16|
91040450|NCT04442503|181965865|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.02||||0.0209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.112|3.67||P-value are from a generalized estimating equation (GEE) for binary response model, with factors for treatment, baseline HAMD-17 total score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time-point-by treatment interaction.|GEE Model|||Day 15||3.670|1.112|0.0209
90984733|NCT04800315|181854234|OTHER|Adjusted mean difference VS Placebo|Adjusted mean difference VS Placebo|-10.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.39|7.66|||ANCOVA|||||7.66|-29.39|
90984734|NCT03851510|181854271|OTHER|95% confidence of prevalence measure.|prevalence|46.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.6|60.4||||||All participants that were consented, eligible, and completed the Vector EFL screening (supine).||60.4|32.6|
90984735|NCT01287117|181854307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-2.96||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.71|-1.21||A multiplicity type I error control plan was employed to adjust for the comparison of multiple omalizumab groups to the placebo group in order to maintain an overall type I error rate of 0.05 (2-sided).|ANCOVA|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline weekly itch severity score (\< 13 vs ≥ 13) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 75 mg groups.||-1.21|-4.71|0.0010
90984736|NCT01287117|181854307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-2.95||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.72|-1.18||A multiplicity type I error control plan was employed to adjust for the comparison of multiple omalizumab groups to the placebo group in order to maintain an overall type I error rate of 0.05 (2-sided).|ANCOVA|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline weekly itch severity score (\< 13 vs ≥ 13) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 150 mg groups.||-1.18|-4.72|0.0012
90984737|NCT01287117|181854307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-5.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.49|-4.1||A multiplicity type I error control plan was employed to adjust for the comparison of multiple omalizumab groups to the placebo group in order to maintain an overall type I error rate of 0.05 (2-sided).|ANCOVA|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline weekly itch severity score (\< 13 vs ≥ 13) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 300 mg groups.||-4.10|-7.49|<0.0001
90984738|NCT01287117|181854308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-5.75||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.59|-1.92||A pre-specified hierarchical order of testing was employed to adjust for the comparison of multiple omalizumab groups to the placebo group in order to maintain an overall type I error rate of 0.05 (2-sided) within each dose.|ANCOVA|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline UAS7 (\< median vs ≥ median) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 75 mg groups.||-1.92|-9.59|0.0035
91040451|NCT04442503|181965865|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.534||||0.1661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.837|2.812||P-value are from a GEE for binary response model, with factors for treatment, baseline HAMD-17 total score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time-point-by treatment interaction.|GEE Model|||Day 45||2.812|0.837|0.1661
90984739|NCT01287117|181854308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-6.54||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.33|-2.75||A pre-specified hierarchical order of testing was employed to adjust for the comparison of multiple omalizumab groups to the placebo group in order to maintain an overall type I error rate of 0.05 (2-sided) within each dose.|ANCOVA|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline UAS7 (\< median vs ≥ median) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 150 mg groups.||-2.75|-10.33|0.0008
90984740|NCT01287117|181854308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-12.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.44|-9.16||A pre-specified hierarchical order of testing was employed to adjust for the comparison of multiple omalizumab groups to the placebo group in order to maintain an overall type I error rate of 0.05 (2-sided) within each dose.|ANCOVA|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline UAS7 (\< median vs ≥ median) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 300 mg groups.||-9.16|-16.44|<0.0001
90984741|NCT01287117|181854309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-2.75||||0.0149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.95|-0.54||A pre-specified hierarchical order of testing was employed to adjust for the comparison of multiple omalizumab groups to the placebo group in order to maintain an overall type I error rate of 0.05 (2-sided) within each dose.|ANCOVA|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline weekly number of hives score (\< median vs ≥ median) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 75 mg groups.||-0.54|-4.95|0.0149
90984742|NCT01287117|181854309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-3.44||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.57|-1.32||A pre-specified hierarchical order of testing was employed to adjust for the comparison of multiple omalizumab groups to the placebo group in order to maintain an overall type I error rate of 0.05 (2-sided) within each dose.|ANCOVA|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline weekly number of hives score (\< median vs ≥ median) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 150 mg groups.||-1.32|-5.57|0.0017
90984743|NCT01287117|181854309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-6.93|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|-4.76||A pre-specified hierarchical order of testing was employed to adjust for the comparison of multiple omalizumab groups to the placebo group in order to maintain an overall type I error rate of 0.05 (2-sided) within each dose.|ANCOVA|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline weekly number of hives score (\< median vs ≥ median) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 300 mg groups.||-4.76|-9.10|<0.0001
90984744|NCT01287117|181854310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.39||||0.0879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.03||A pre-specified hierarchical order of testing was employed to adjust for the comparison of multiple omalizumab groups to the placebo group in order to maintain an overall type I error rate of 0.05 (2-sided) within each dose.|Cox proportional hazards model|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline weekly itch severity score (\< 13 vs ≥ 13) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 75 mg groups.||2.03|0.95|0.0879
90984745|NCT01287117|181854310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.49||||0.0301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|2.14||A pre-specified hierarchical order of testing was employed to adjust for the comparison of multiple omalizumab groups to the placebo group in order to maintain an overall type I error rate of 0.05 (2-sided) within each dose.|Cox proportional hazards model|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline weekly itch severity score (\< 13 vs ≥ 13) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 150 mg groups.||2.14|1.04|0.0301
90984746|NCT01287117|181854310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.63|3.36||A pre-specified hierarchical order of testing was employed to adjust for the comparison of multiple omalizumab groups to the placebo group in order to maintain an overall type I error rate of 0.05 (2-sided) within each dose.|Cox proportional hazards model|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline weekly itch severity score (\< 13 vs ≥ 13) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 300 mg groups.||3.36|1.63|<0.0001
90984747|NCT01287117|181854311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0148||95.0||||A pre-specified hierarchical order of testing was employed to adjust for the comparison of multiple omalizumab groups to the placebo group in order to maintain an overall type I error rate of 0.05 (2-sided) within each dose.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline UAS7 (\< median vs ≥ median) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 75 mg groups. The p-value was not evaluated for statistical significance in accordance with the type I error rate control plan.||||0.0148
90984748|NCT01287117|181854311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||A pre-specified hierarchical order of testing was employed to adjust for the comparison of multiple omalizumab groups to the placebo group in order to maintain an overall type I error rate of 0.05 (2-sided) within each dose.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline UAS7 (\< median vs ≥ median) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 150 mg groups.||||<0.0001
90984749|NCT01287117|181854311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||A pre-specified hierarchical order of testing was employed to adjust for the comparison of multiple omalizumab groups to the placebo group in order to maintain an overall type I error rate of 0.05 (2-sided) within each dose.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline UAS7 (\< median vs ≥ median) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 300 mg groups.||||<0.0001
90984750|NCT01287117|181854312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0118||95.0||||A pre-specified hierarchical order of testing was employed to adjust for the comparison of multiple omalizumab groups to the placebo group in order to maintain an overall type I error rate of 0.05 (2-sided) within each dose.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline weekly itch severity score (\< 13 vs ≥ 13) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 75 mg groups. The p-value was not evaluated for statistical significance in accordance with the type I error rate control plan.||||0.0118
90984751|NCT01287117|181854312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0226||95.0||||A pre-specified hierarchical order of testing was employed to adjust for the comparison of multiple omalizumab groups to the placebo group in order to maintain an overall type I error rate of 0.05 (2-sided) within each dose.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline weekly itch severity score (\< 13 vs ≥ 13) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 150 mg groups.||||0.0226
90984752|NCT01287117|181854312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||A pre-specified hierarchical order of testing was employed to adjust for the comparison of multiple omalizumab groups to the placebo group in order to maintain an overall type I error rate of 0.05 (2-sided) within each dose.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline weekly itch severity score (\< 13 vs ≥ 13) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 300 mg groups.||||<0.0001
90984753|NCT01287117|181854313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-2.34||||0.0124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.17|-0.51||A pre-specified hierarchical order of testing was employed to adjust for the comparison of multiple omalizumab groups to the placebo group in order to maintain an overall type I error rate of 0.05 (2-sided) within each dose.|ANCOVA|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline weekly size of largest hive score (\< median vs ≥ median) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 75 mg groups. The p-value was not evaluated for statistical significance in accordance with the type I error rate control plan.||-0.51|-4.17|0.0124
90984754|NCT01287117|181854313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-3.16||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.05|-1.27||A pre-specified hierarchical order of testing was employed to adjust for the comparison of multiple omalizumab groups to the placebo group in order to maintain an overall type I error rate of 0.05 (2-sided) within each dose.|ANCOVA|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline weekly size of largest hive score (\< median vs ≥ median) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 150 mg groups.||-1.27|-5.05|0.0012
90984755|NCT01287117|181854313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-5.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.59|-3.87||A pre-specified hierarchical order of testing was employed to adjust for the comparison of multiple omalizumab groups to the placebo group in order to maintain an overall type I error rate of 0.05 (2-sided) within each dose.|ANCOVA|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline weekly size of largest hive score (\< median vs ≥ median) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 300 mg groups.||-3.87|-7.59|<0.0001
90984756|NCT01287117|181854314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.26||||0.7956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|2.28||A pre-specified hierarchical order of testing was employed to adjust for the comparison of multiple omalizumab groups to the placebo group in order to maintain an overall type I error rate of 0.05 (2-sided) within each dose.|ANCOVA|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline overall DLQI score (\< median vs ≥ median) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 75 mg groups. The p-value was not evaluated for statistical significance in accordance with the type I error rate control plan.||2.28|-1.76|0.7956
90984757|NCT01287117|181854314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-1.31||||0.2286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.46|0.84||A pre-specified hierarchical order of testing was employed to adjust for the comparison of multiple omalizumab groups to the placebo group in order to maintain an overall type I error rate of 0.05 (2-sided) within each dose.|ANCOVA|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline overall DLQI score (\< median vs ≥ median) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 150 mg groups.||0.84|-3.46|0.2286
90984758|NCT01287117|181854314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-4.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.96|-2.2||A pre-specified hierarchical order of testing was employed to adjust for the comparison of multiple omalizumab groups to the placebo group in order to maintain an overall type I error rate of 0.05 (2-sided) within each dose.|ANCOVA|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline overall DLQI score (\< median vs ≥ median) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 300 mg groups.||-2.20|-5.96|<0.0001
90984759|NCT01287117|181854315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4867||95.0||||A pre-specified hierarchical order of testing was employed to adjust for the comparison of multiple omalizumab groups to the placebo group in order to maintain an overall type I error rate of 0.05 (2-sided) within each dose.|Stratified Wilcoxon|Stratification variables included in the analysis were presence of angioedema at baseline (yes vs no) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 75 mg groups. The p-value was not evaluated for statistical significance in accordance with the type I error rate control plan.||||0.4867
90984760|NCT01287117|181854315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1747||95.0||||A pre-specified hierarchical order of testing was employed to adjust for the comparison of multiple omalizumab groups to the placebo group in order to maintain an overall type I error rate of 0.05 (2-sided) within each dose.|Stratified Wilcoxon|Stratification variables included in the analysis were presence of angioedema at baseline (yes vs no) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 150 mg groups. The p-value was not evaluated for statistical significance in accordance with the type I error rate control plan.||||0.1747
90984761|NCT01287117|181854315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||A pre-specified hierarchical order of testing was employed to adjust for the comparison of multiple omalizumab groups to the placebo group in order to maintain an overall type I error rate of 0.05 (2-sided) within each dose.|Stratified Wilcoxon|Stratification variables included in the analysis were presence of angioedema at baseline (yes vs no) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 300 mg groups.||||<0.0001
90984762|NCT01287117|181854316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.458||95.0||||A pre-specified hierarchical order of testing was employed to adjust for the comparison of multiple omalizumab groups to the placebo group in order to maintain an overall type I error rate of 0.05 (2-sided) within each dose.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline UAS7 (\< median vs ≥ median) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 75 mg groups. The p-value was not evaluated for statistical significance in accordance with the type I error rate control plan.||||0.4580
90984763|NCT01287117|181854316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2087||95.0||||A pre-specified hierarchical order of testing was employed to adjust for the comparison of multiple omalizumab groups to the placebo group in order to maintain an overall type I error rate of 0.05 (2-sided) within each dose.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline UAS7 (\< median vs ≥ median) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 150 mg groups. The p-value was not evaluated for statistical significance in accordance with the type I error rate control plan.||||0.2087
90984764|NCT01287117|181854316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||A pre-specified hierarchical order of testing was employed to adjust for the comparison of multiple omalizumab groups to the placebo group in order to maintain an overall type I error rate of 0.05 (2-sided) within each dose.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline UAS7 (\< median vs ≥ median) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 300 mg groups.||||<0.0001
90984765|NCT02042131|181854317|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.082|||||||Log Rank|||Omnibus test of all three groups||||.082
90984766|NCT02042131|181854317|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028|||||||Log Rank|||Planned contrast #1: TAU vs. S-CRP/E-CRP||||.028
90984767|NCT02042131|181854317|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.24||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.96|||Regression, Cox|||Planned contrast #1: TAU vs. S-CRP/E-CRP||0.96|0.06|.040
90984768|NCT02042131|181854318|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Omnibus test comparing all three groups.||||<0.001
90984769|NCT02042131|181854318|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Planned contrast #1: TAU vs. S-CRP/E-CRP||||<0.001
90984770|NCT02042131|181854319|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Planned contrast #1: TAU vs. S-CRP/E-CRP||||<0.001
90984771|NCT02042131|181854320|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Chi-squared|||Omnibus test of all groups||||0.040
90984772|NCT02042131|181854320|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.1||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.002|0.9|||Chi-squared|||Planned contrast #2: E-CRP vs. TAU/S-CRP||0.9|0.002|0.045
90984773|NCT01274897|181854321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI|71.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.0|81.0||The immune response considered sufficient if for serogroup A the lower limit of the two-sided 95% Clopper-Pearson confidence interval (CI) of the percentage of subjects with hSBA seroresponse is ≥50%.|Clopper and Pearson||For serogroup A.|The null hypothesis associated with the primary immunogenicity objective is that for at least one of the four serogroups, the percentage of subjects with hSBA seroresponse at 29 days postvaccination is \< 50%.||81|71|
90984774|NCT01274897|181854321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI|82.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|82.0|90.0||The immune response was considered sufficient if for serogroup C, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the percentage of subjects with hSBA seroresponse was ≥50%.|Clopper and Pearson||For the serogroup C|The null hypothesis associated with the primary immunogenicity objective is that for at least one of the four serogroups, the percentage of subjects with hSBA seroresponse at 29 days postvaccination is \< 50%.||90|82|
90984775|NCT01274897|181854321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI|23.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.0|33.0||The immune response was considered sufficient if for serogroup W, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the percentage of subjects with hSBA seroresponse was ≥50%.|Clopper and Pearson||For the serogroup W|The null hypothesis associated with the primary immunogenicity objective is that for at least one of the four serogroups, the percentage of subjects with hSBA seroresponse at 29 days postvaccination is \< 50%.||33|23|
90984776|NCT01274897|181854321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI|63.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.0|74.0||The immune response was considered sufficient if for serogroup Y, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the percentage of subjects with hSBA seroresponse was ≥50%.|Clopper and Pearson||For serogroup Y|The null hypothesis associated with the primary immunogenicity objective is that for at least one of the four serogroups, the percentage of subjects with hSBA seroresponse at 29 days postvaccination is \< 50%.||74|63|
90984777|NCT00035815|181854328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.529||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of MMT was calculated as a ratio of change from baseline to last follow-up to time to duration until last follow-up. For the patients that died during the study period, the last follow-up time was considered as the time of death with a zero score for MMT measurement. Analysis was performed using intention to treat approach. Comparison of rate of change in MMT scores between the placebo and IGF-1 group was made using two sample t-test or Wilcoxon rank sum test as appropriate.||||0.529
90984778|NCT00035815|181854329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.04||||0.415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.4|||Regression, Cox|||Patients who elected to proceed to tracheostomy were assessed on the day of their procedure. Subjects who continuously utilized NIPPV for greater than 10 days were assessed as being ventilator-dependent on the first day they began continuous NIPPV. Survival between groups was compared using the Cox-proportional Hazards model.||1.4|0.77|0.415
90984779|NCT00035815|181854330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.321||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The final secondary outcome measure was the rate of change in the ALSFRS-r score. The ALSFRS-r was completed at each visit (randomization and then at 3, 6, 12, 18 and 24 months post-randomization). As with the MMT scores a score of 0 was imputed on the day of death. Analysis of the ALSFRS-r scores as a secondary outcome was performed in similar manner as MMT score.||||0.321
90984780|NCT02606877|181854346|OTHER||T1/R1 Ratio (%)|88.58|STANDARD_DEVIATION|45.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|65.4|119.97|||ANOVA|The analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on a logarithmic scale including effects: 'subject' and 'treatment'.|To get,geometric mean ratio and Confidence Interval,least square estimates of log-transformed PK endpoint for T1 and R1 were back transformed to original scale. Standard Deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric Coefficient of Variance(%).|||119.97|65.40|
90984781|NCT02606877|181854347|OTHER||T1/R1 Ratio (%)|80.63|STANDARD_DEVIATION|74.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|51.27|126.79|||ANOVA|The analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on a logarithmic scale including effects: 'subject' and 'treatment'.|To get,geometric mean ratio and Confidence Interval,least square estimates of log-transformed PK endpoint for T1 and R1 were back transformed to original scale. Standard Deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric Coefficient of Variance(%).|||126.79|51.27|
90984782|NCT02606877|181854348|OTHER||T2/R2 Ratio (%)|97.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.84|107.48|||ANOVA|The analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on a logarithmic scale including effects: 'subject' and 'treatment'.|To get,geometric mean ratio and Confidence Interval,least square estimates of log-transformed PK endpoint for T2 and R2 were back transformed to original scale. Standard Deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric Coefficient of Variance(%).|||107.48|87.84|
90984783|NCT02606877|181854349|OTHER||T2/R2 Ratio (%)|99.49|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.94|112.56|||ANOVA|The analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on a logarithmic scale including effects: 'subject' and 'treatment'.|To get,geometric mean ratio and Confidence Interval,least square estimates of log-transformed PK endpoint for T2 and R2 were back transformed to original scale. Standard Deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric Coefficient of Variance(%).|||112.56|87.94|
90984784|NCT02606877|181854350|OTHER||T1/R1 Ratio (%)|89.49|STANDARD_DEVIATION|44.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|66.33|120.73|||ANOVA|The analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on a logarithmic scale including effects: 'subject' and 'treatment'.|To get,geometric mean ratio and Confidence Interval,least square estimates of log-transformed PK endpoint for T1 and R1 were back transformed to original scale. Standard Deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric Coefficient of Variance(%).|||120.73|66.33|
90984785|NCT05635838|181854439|SUPERIORITY|Response Variable = Treatment + Baseline AN Count Category (≥3 to 4, ≥5 to 10) + Visit + Treatment\*Visit|least squares mean difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.506||0.0215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|-0.18|||ANCOVA|||||-0.18|-2.21|0.0215
90984786|NCT05635838|181854441|SUPERIORITY|Response Variable = Treatment + Baseline AN Count Category (≥3 to 4, ≥5 to 10) + Visit + Treatment\*Visit|least squares mean difference|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.485||0.1671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|0.29|||ANCOVA|||||0.29|-1.65|0.1671
90984787|NCT05635838|181854442|SUPERIORITY|Response Variable = Treatment + Baseline AN Count Category (≥3 to 4, ≥5 to 10) + Visit + Treatment\*Visit|least squares mean difference|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.728||0.7982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|1.64|||ANCOVA|||||1.64|-1.27|0.7982
90984788|NCT05635838|181854443|SUPERIORITY|Response Variable = Treatment + Baseline AN Count Category (≥3 to 4, ≥5 to 10) + Visit + Treatment\*Visit|least squares mean difference|0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.2031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|2.4|||ANCOVA|||||2.40|-0.52|0.2031
90984789|NCT05635838|181854445|SUPERIORITY|Response Variable = Treatment + Baseline AN Count Category (≥3 to 4, ≥5 to 10) + Visit + Treatment\*Visit|least squares mean difference|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.683||0.2387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.56|||ANCOVA|||||0.56|-2.20|0.2387
90984790|NCT00112151|181854453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.025|TWO_SIDED|||||A one-sided P-value of \<0.025 was used to define statistical significance|Regression, Linear|||As prespecified, the lower- and higher-range T groups were combined (any T). The primary analysis was conducted in the PRT groups and compared CS-PFP at 12 months with any T to placebo, adjusted for baseline CS-PFP score.||||<0.025
90984791|NCT00112151|181854453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.025|TWO_SIDED|||||A one-sided P-value of \<0.025 was used to define statistical significance.|Regression, Linear|||As prespecified, the lower- and higher-range T groups were combined (any T). To address whether the effects of any T on physical function are the same without PRT, the analysis was also conducted in the No PRT groups, comparing CS-PFP at 12 months with any T to placebo, adjusted for baseline CS-PFP score.||||<0.025
90984792|NCT00112151|181854454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||As prespecified, the lower- and higher-range T groups were combined (Any T). The analysis compared change from baseline to 12 months in average upper body strength with any T to placebo in subjects assigned to PRT.||||<0.05
90984793|NCT00112151|181854454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||As prespecified, the lower- and higher-range T groups were combined (Any T). The analysis compared change from baseline to 12 months in average upper body strength with any T to placebo in subjects assigned to no PRT.||||<0.05
90984794|NCT00112151|181854455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||As prespecified, the lower- and higher-range T groups were combined (Any T). The analysis compared change from baseline to 12 months in average lower body strength with any T to placebo in subjects assigned to PRT.||||<0.05
90984795|NCT00112151|181854455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||As prespecified, the lower- and higher-range T groups were combined (Any T). The analysis compared change from baseline to 12 months in average lower body strength with any T to placebo in subjects assigned to no PRT.||||<0.05
90984796|NCT00112151|181854456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||As prespecified, the lower- and higher-range T groups were combined (Any T). The analysis compared change from baseline to 12 months in leg extensor power with any T to placebo in subjects assigned to PRT.||||<0.05
90984797|NCT00112151|181854456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||As prespecified, the lower- and higher-range T groups were combined (Any T). The analysis compared change from baseline to 12 months in leg extensor power with any T to placebo in subjects assigned to no PRT.||||<0.05
91006825|NCT02996500|181898173|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.83||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.73|-1.97|||ANCOVA|Bayesian analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) modeling framework was used with baseline SDAI score as a covariate.||The confidence interval was credible interval in this analysis.||-1.97|-13.73|0.0050
90984798|NCT00112151|181854457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||As prespecified, the lower- and higher-range T groups were combined (Any T). The analysis compared change from baseline to 12 months in fat mass measured by dual x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) with any T to placebo in subjects assigned to PRT.||||<0.05
90984799|NCT00112151|181854457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||As prespecified, the lower- and higher-range T groups were combined (Any T). The analysis compared change from baseline to 12 months in fat mass measured by dual x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) with any T to placebo in subjects assigned to no PRT.||||<0.05
90984800|NCT00112151|181854458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||As prespecified, the lower- and higher-range T groups were combined (Any T). The analysis compared change from baseline to 12 months in fat free mass measured by dual x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) with any T to placebo in subjects assigned to PRT.||||<0.05
90984801|NCT00112151|181854458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||As prespecified, the lower- and higher-range T groups were combined (Any T). The analysis compared change from baseline to 12 months in fat free mass measured by dual x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) with any T to placebo in subjects assigned to no PRT.||||<0.05
90984802|NCT00945750|181854466|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CI for the AUC geometric mean ratio (famotidine CT without water/famotidine FCT with water) is within the hypothesized interval (0.80 and 1.25), then the primary hypothesis of bioequivalence between CT without water and FCT with water is accepted.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.01||||||90.0|0.94|1.09||||||||1.09|0.94|
90984803|NCT00945750|181854467|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CI for the Cmax geometric mean ratio (famotidine CT without water/famotidine FCT with water) is within the hypothesized interval (0.80 and 1.25), then the primary hypothesis of bioequivalence between CT without water and FCT with water is accepted.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.03||||||90.0|0.93|1.14||||||||1.14|0.93|
90984804|NCT00945750|181854468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.11||||||90.0|1.04|1.2||||||||1.20|1.04|
90984805|NCT00945750|181854469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.12||||||90.0|1.02|1.24||||||||1.24|1.02|
90984806|NCT02531035|181854481|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|13.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.97|17.81||P-values from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by different levels of stratification factors of BMI at Screening(\<25 kg/m\^2,\>=25 kg/m\^2),Week -2 A1C(\<=9.0%, \>9.0%),and using continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion(CSII) at Screening(yes,no).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||17.81|8.97|< 0.001
90984807|NCT02531035|181854482|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.38|||MMRM|||Testing according to hierarchical procedure. Post-Baseline LS means and p-values were obtained from MMRM model with treatment, randomization stratum of BMI at Screening (\<25 kg/m\^2, \>=25 kg/m\^2), randomization stratum of Week -2 A1C (\<=9.0%, \>9.0%), randomization stratum of use of CSII at Screening (yes, no), time (study week), and a treatment-by-time interaction as fixed categorical effects, and Baseline A1C-by-time interaction as a covariate.||-0.38|-0.54|< 0.001
90984808|NCT02531035|181854483|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-2.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.31|-2.66|||MMRM|||Testing according to hierarchical procedure. Post-Baseline LS means and p-values were obtained from MMRM model with treatment, randomization stratum of BMI at Screening (\<25 kg/m\^2, \>=25 kg/m\^2), randomization stratum of Week -2 A1C (\<=9%, \>9%), randomization stratum of Use of CSII at Screening (Yes, No), time (study week), and a treatment-by-time interaction as fixed categorical effects, and Baseline weight-by-time interaction as a covariate.||-2.66|-3.31|< 0.001
90984809|NCT02531035|181854484|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.5|||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|-1.3|||MMRM|||Testing according to the hierarchical procedure. Post-Baseline LS means and p-values were obtained from MMRM model with treatment, randomization stratum of BMI at Screening (\<25 kg/m2, \>=25 kg/m2), randomization stratum of Week -2 A1C (\<=9.0%, \>9.0%), randomization stratum of use of CSII at Screening (yes, no), time (study week), and a treatment-by- time interaction as fixed categorical effects, and Baseline SBP-by-time interaction as a covariate.||-1.3|-5.7|= 0.002
90984810|NCT02531035|181854485|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-12.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.17|-6.48|||MMRM|||Testing according to hierarchical procedure. Post-Baseline LS means and p-values were obtained from MMRM model with treatment, randomization stratum of BMI at Screening (\<25 kg/m2, \>=25 kg/m2), randomization stratum of Week -2 A1C (\<=9.0%, \>9.0%), randomization stratum of use of CSII at Screening (yes, no), time (study week), a treatment-by-time interaction as fixed categorical effects, and Baseline mean daily bolus insulin dose-by-time interaction as a covariate.||-6.48|-18.17|< 0.001
90984811|NCT01543490|181854486|SUPERIORITY|Statistical hypotheses testing for the primary efficacy endpoint was 2-sided and performed using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05.|Risk Difference (RD)|8.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.03||0.0354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|16.6||The p-value was from a 2-sided Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|The point estimate of treatment effect (ISV-305 compared with Vehicle) was reported using Fisher's exact test.|The risk difference was obtained by taking the difference in proportions (ISV-305 minus Vehicle). A 2-sided exact unconditional 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated.|||16.6|0.2|0.0354
91006826|NCT02996500|181898173|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.37|-3.66|||ANCOVA|Bayesian analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) modeling framework was used with baseline SDAI score as a covariate.||The confidence interval was credible interval in this analysis.||-3.66|-14.37|<0.001
91006827|NCT02996500|181898173|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-10.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.36|-5.63|||ANCOVA|Bayesian analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) modeling framework was used with baseline SDAI score as a covariate.||The confidence interval was credible interval in this analysis.||-5.63|-16.36|<0.001
91006828|NCT02996500|181898173|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.62|-5.92|||ANCOVA|Bayesian analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) modeling framework was used with baseline SDAI score as a covariate.||The confidence interval was credible interval in this analysis.||-5.92|-16.62|<0.001
91006829|NCT02332876|181898246|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
90984812|NCT01543490|181854487|SUPERIORITY|Statistical hypotheses testing for the secondary efficacy endpoint was 2-sided and performed using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05, and missing data imputed using the LOCF approach.|Risk Difference (RD)|7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.07||0.1036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|15.0||The p-value was from a 2-sided Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|The point estimate of treatment effect (ISV-305 compared with Vehicle) was reported using Fisher's exact test.|The risk difference was obtained by taking the difference in proportions (ISV-305 minus Vehicle). A 2-sided exact unconditional 95% CI was calculated.|||15.0|-1.3|0.1036
90984813|NCT00435539|181854505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4783|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4783
90984814|NCT00435539|181854505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0932|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0932
90984815|NCT00435539|181854505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0721|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0721
90984816|NCT00435539|181854506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4762|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4762
90984817|NCT00435539|181854506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4762|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4762
90984818|NCT00435539|181854506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5343|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.5343
90984819|NCT02767570|181854530|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.5||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Regression, Linear||Difference = Altered FPA - Consistent FPA|For the primary hypothesis that there would be a greater reduction in pain for the altered compared to the consistent FPA group, an effect size of 0.57 was assumed. To achieve 80% power with an alpha of 0.05, 39 participants per group were needed, so our recruitment goal was 40 subjects per group.||-0.5|-1.9|0.001
90984820|NCT02767570|181854531|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|-0.13||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Regression, Linear||Difference = Altered FPA - Consistent FPA|||-0.13|-0.39|<0.001
90984821|NCT02767570|181854532|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.74||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.42|-1.05||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Regression, Linear||Difference = Altered FPA - Consistent FPA|||-1.05|-6.42|0.006
90984822|NCT02767570|181854533|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|1.3||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Regression, Linear||Difference = Altered FPA - Consistent FPA|||1.30|-1.42|0.93
90984823|NCT02767570|181854534|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.29||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.38|2.8||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Regression, Linear||Difference = Altered FPA - Consistent FPA|||2.80|-3.38|0.85
90984824|NCT02767570|181854535|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.9||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Regression, Linear||Difference = Altered FPA - Consistent FPA|||0.90|-0.89|0.99
90984825|NCT03216265|181854593|OTHER||Least Square Mean difference|-1.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.78|||ANCOVA|Analysis model (ANCOVA) included participant as random effect, treatment arm and side of body as fixed effects, and baseline value as covariate.|Difference is the first named treatment adjusted (LS) mean change from baseline (Visit 2) minus the second named treatment adjusted mean change from baseline (Visit 2).|||-0.78|-2.10|<0.0001
90984826|NCT01306058|181854627|NON_INFERIORITY|Paired T-test. Two tailed.|||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.05
90984827|NCT01306058|181854628|NON_INFERIORITY|Paired T-test. Two tailed.|||||<|0.0001||||||Cycle 1 day 15 vs. cycle 1 day 1|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.0001
90984828|NCT01306058|181854628|NON_INFERIORITY|Cycle 2 day 1 vs. cycle 1 day 1. Paired T-test. Two tailed.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.0001
90984829|NCT01306058|181854628|NON_INFERIORITY|eos (end of study) vs. cycle 1 day 1. Paired T-test. Two tailed.||||||0.0009|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0009
90984830|NCT01539837|181854631|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||calculated|Pairwise comparisons,post-hoc Bonferoni|||||||<0.01
90984831|NCT00849693|181854632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.193||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.193
90984832|NCT03069690|181854688|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3996|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.665||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.649|4.85||The value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||||4.850|-5.649|.80
90984833|NCT03069690|181854688|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.387|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.755||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.813|2.039||The value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||||2.039|-8.813|.80
90984834|NCT03069690|181854688|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1729|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.72||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.53|4.184||The value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||||4.184|-6.530|.80
90984835|NCT00641147|181854704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.58
90984836|NCT00641147|181854704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.57
90984837|NCT00641147|181854705|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.76
90984838|NCT00641147|181854706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.85
90984839|NCT00641147|181854707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.16
90984840|NCT00641147|181854708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.31
90984841|NCT00641147|181854709|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.63
90984842|NCT00641147|181854710|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.24
90984843|NCT00641147|181854711|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.63
90984844|NCT00641147|181854712|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.93
90984845|NCT00641147|181854713|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.41
90984846|NCT00641147|181854714|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.14
90984847|NCT00641147|181854715|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.09
90984848|NCT00641147|181854719|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.95
90984849|NCT01629667|181854725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-1.77||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.13|0.59|||ANCOVA|||||0.59|-4.13|0.140
90984850|NCT01629667|181854725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-1.41||||0.234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.73|0.91|||ANCOVA|||||0.91|-3.73|0.234
90984851|NCT00984659|181854752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.05|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.05|-0.03|0.713
90984852|NCT00984659|181854756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) adjusted for age, gender, and percent predicted Forced Expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) at Screening.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90984853|NCT00984659|181854757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||ANCOVA adjusted for age, gender, and percent predicted FEV1 at Screening.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90984854|NCT00984659|181854758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0||||ANCOVA adjusted for age, gender, and percent predicted FEV1 at Screening|ANCOVA|||||||0.008
90984855|NCT00984659|181854760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24|||<|0.001||95.0|0.18|0.31||ANCOVA adjusted for age, gender, and SOBDA Baseline score; difference between responders and non-responders during Week prior to Day 8|ANCOVA|||||0.31|0.18|<0.001
90984856|NCT00984659|181854760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.12|||<|0.001||95.0|0.06|0.19||ANCOVA adjusted for age, gender, and SOBDA Baseline score; difference between responders and non-responders during Week prior to Day 15|ANCOVA|||||0.19|0.06|<0.001
90984857|NCT00984659|181854760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|||<|0.001||95.0|0.06|0.16||ANCOVA adjusted for age, gender, and SOBDA Baseline score; difference between responders and non-responders during Week prior to Day 22|ANCOVA|||||0.16|0.06|<0.001
90984858|NCT00984659|181854760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|||<|0.001||95.0|0.06|0.17||ANCOVA adjusted for age, gender, and SOBDA Baseline score; difference between responders and non-responders during Week prior to Day 29|ANCOVA|||||0.17|0.06|<0.001
90984859|NCT00984659|181854760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|||<|0.001||95.0|0.08|0.18||ANCOVA adjusted for age, gender, and SOBDA Baseline score; difference between responders and non-responders during Week prior to Day 36|ANCOVA|||||0.18|0.08|<0.001
90984860|NCT00984659|181854760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.18||95.0|-0.03|0.15||ANCOVA adjusted for age, gender, and SOBDA Baseline score; difference between responders and non-responders during Week prior to Day 43|ANCOVA|||||0.15|-0.03|0.180
90984861|NCT00984659|181854760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.307||95.0|-0.07|0.23||ANCOVA adjusted for age, gender, and SOBDA Baseline score; difference between responders and non-responders during Week prior to Visit 3/PD|ANCOVA|||||0.23|-0.07|0.307
90984862|NCT00984659|181854764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24|||<|0.001||95.0|0.14|0.34||ANCOVA adjusted for age, gender, and SOBDA Baseline score; comparision of mean SOBDA score for CGI-C responders and non-responders|ANCOVA|||||0.34|0.14|<0.001
90984863|NCT00984659|181854765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.4||ANCOVA adjusted for age, gender, and SOBDA Baseline score; comparision of mean SOBDA score for CRQ-SAS Dyspnea Domain responders and non-responders|ANCOVA|||||0.40|0.21|<0.001
90984864|NCT00984659|181854766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.535||95.0|-0.08|0.15||ANCOVA adjusted for age, gender, and SOBDA Baseline score; comparision of mean SOBDA score for Physician-Completed mMRC responders and non-responders|ANCOVA|||||0.15|-0.08|0.535
90984865|NCT00984659|181854766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.08||95.0|-0.02|0.19||ANCOVA adjusted for age, gender, and SOBDA Baseline score; comparison of mean SOBDA score for Participant-Completed mMRC responders and non-responders|ANCOVA|||||0.19|-0.02|0.08
90984866|NCT00909090|181854832|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
90984867|NCT00909090|181854833|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||Regression, Linear|||Analysis compared mean differences between placebo and intervention at the 12-month time point.||||0.21
90984868|NCT00909090|181854834|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Analysis compared mean change from baseline to 12-month time points.||||0.01
90984869|NCT00909090|181854835|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||analysis conducted on mean change over one year, between groups||||0.02
90984870|NCT02926573|181854838|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.94||||||||0.94|-0.27|
90984871|NCT02926573|181854839|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|9.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|21.0||||||||21|-3.0|
90984872|NCT02926573|181854841|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|11.0|||||"The estimation parameter is based on those participants who answered they were very satisfied with overall pain control."|||11|-15|
90984873|NCT02926573|181854842|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|18.3|||||This statistical analysis is for the mean difference between the 2 arms at Post-Operative Day 1 7AM.|||18.3|-3.4|
91040452|NCT04442503|181965866|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.781||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.876|3.621||P-value are from a GEE for binary response model, with factors for treatment, baseline HAMD-17 total score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time-point-by treatment interaction.|GEE Model|||Day 15||3.621|0.876|0.1110
91040453|NCT04442503|181965866|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.083||||0.0226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.108|3.915||P-value are from a GEE for binary response model, with factors for treatment, baseline HAMD-17 total score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time-point-by treatment interaction.|GEE Model|||Day 45||3.915|1.108|0.0226
91040454|NCT04442503|181965867|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.23||||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.223|4.072|||MMRM|||Day 15||4.072|1.223|0.0089
90984874|NCT02926573|181854842|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|20.3|||||This statistical analysis is for the mean difference between the 2 arms at Post-Operative Day 1 10AM.|||20.3|-2.9|
90984875|NCT02926573|181854842|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|18.9|||||This statistical analysis is for the mean difference between the 2 arms at Post-Operative Day 1 7PM.|||18.9|-4.6|
90984876|NCT02926573|181854842|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|16.8|||||This statistical analysis is for the mean difference between the 2 arms at Post-Operative Day 2 7AM.|||16.8|-6.6|
90984877|NCT02926573|181854842|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|18.3|||||This statistical analysis is for the mean difference between the 2 arms at Post-Operative Day 2 10AM.|||18.3|-3.6|
90984878|NCT02926573|181854842|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|21.6|||||This statistical analysis is for the mean difference between the 2 arms at Post-Operative Day 2 7PM.|||21.6|-5.6|
90984879|NCT02926573|181854842|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|23.8|||||This statistical analysis is for the mean difference between the 2 arms at Post-Operative Day 3 7AM.|||23.8|-3.5|
90984880|NCT02926573|181854843|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|22.3|||||This statistical analysis is for the mean difference between the 2 arms at Post-Operative Day 1 7AM.|||22.3|-0.9|
90984881|NCT02926573|181854843|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|21.6|||||This statistical analysis is for the mean difference between the 2 arms at Post-Operative Day 1 10AM.|||21.6|-3.4|
90984882|NCT02926573|181854843|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|18.6|||||This statistical analysis is for the mean difference between the 2 arms at Post-Operative Day 1 7PM.|||18.6|-6.1|
90984883|NCT02926573|181854843|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|17.8|||||This statistical analysis is for the mean difference between the 2 arms at Post-Operative Day 2 7AM.|||17.8|-7.3|
91040455|NCT04442503|181965868|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98||0.0235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|-0.3|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Day 15||-0.3|-4.2|0.0235
91040456|NCT04442503|181965869|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.706||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|-1.7|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Day 15||-1.7|-8.4|0.0034
91040457|NCT04442503|181965870|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.0151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|-1.2|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline in Core Subscale at Day 15||-1.2|-10.6|0.0151
91040458|NCT04442503|181965870|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.27||0.0123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|-1.3|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline in Anxiety Subscale at Day 15||-1.3|-10.2|0.0123
90984884|NCT02926573|181854843|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|23.8|||||This statistical analysis is for the mean difference between the 2 arms at Post-Operative Day 2 10AM.|||23.8|-1.4|
90984885|NCT02926573|181854843|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|29.9|||||This statistical analysis is for the mean difference between the 2 arms at Post-Operative Day 2 7PM.|||29.9|-0.1|
91040459|NCT04442503|181965870|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-8.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.96||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|-2.8|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline in Bech-6 Subscale at Day 15||-2.8|-14.5|0.0040
91040460|NCT04442503|181965870|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.609||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|-2.4|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline in Meier Subscale at Day 15||-2.4|-12.7|0.0041
91040461|NCT04442503|181965872|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.649||0.6912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.5|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Day 3||1.5|-1.0|0.6912
91040462|NCT04442503|181965872|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.874||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-0.1|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Day 8||-0.1|-3.5|0.0410
90984886|NCT02926573|181854843|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|26.0|||||This statistical analysis is for the mean difference between the 2 arms at Post-Operative Day 3 7AM.|||26.0|-2.8|
90984887|NCT02926573|181854844|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|11.9|||||This statistical analysis is for the mean difference between the 2 arms at Post-Operative Day 1 7AM.|||11.9|-14.7|
90984888|NCT02926573|181854844|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|19.2|||||This statistical analysis is for the mean difference between the 2 arms at Post-Operative Day 1 10AM.|||19.2|-8.6|
90984889|NCT02926573|181854844|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|24.2|||||This statistical analysis is for the mean difference between the 2 arms at Post-Operative Day 1 7PM.|||24.2|-2.4|
91040463|NCT04442503|181965872|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.922||0.0444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|0.0|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Day 15||0.0|-3.7|0.0444
91040464|NCT04442503|181965872|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.924||0.0811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|0.2|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Day 21||0.2|-3.4|0.0811
91040465|NCT04442503|181965872|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.987||0.1846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|0.6|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Day 28||0.6|-3.3|0.1846
91040466|NCT04442503|181965872|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.031||0.0625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|0.1|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Day 45||0.1|-4.0|0.0625
91040467|NCT00474058|181965931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.55||||0.0002||95.0|-5.37|-1.73||No p-value adjustment was necessary, since a multiple test procedure in a hierarchical sequentially rejective manner for the primary variable was applied.|ANCOVA|||Analyses of covariance were performed for the efficacy variables with treatment and (pooled) sites as factors, and baseline value as covariate. Least square means (LS means) for treatment effect were calculated and differences between rotigotine and placebo were presented with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and p- values.||-1.73|-5.37|0.0002
90984890|NCT02926573|181854844|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|20.7|||||||This statistical analysis is for the mean difference between the 2 arms at Post-Operative Day 2 7AM.|20.7|-6.6|
90984891|NCT02926573|181854844|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|22.3|||||This statistical analysis is for the mean difference between the 2 arms at Post-Operative Day 2 10AM.|||22.3|-6.4|
90984892|NCT02926573|181854844|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|31.7|||||This statistical analysis is for the mean difference between the 2 arms at Post-Operative Day 2 7PM.|||31.7|-0.4|
90984893|NCT02926573|181854844|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|33.4|||||This statistical analysis is for the mean difference between the 2 arms at Post-Operative Day 3 7AM.|||33.4|0.0|
90984894|NCT00949650|181854893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||||||Two-sided p-value from log-rank test stratified by EGFR mutation group and race.|Log Rank|||||||0.0002
90984895|NCT00949650|181854893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.576||||0.0002||95.0|0.426|0.778|||Regression, Cox|Cox Proportional Hazard (PH) regression stratified by epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation group and race.|Afatinib 40 mg versus Pemetrexed/Cisplatin Chemotherapy.|||0.778|0.426|0.0002
90984896|NCT00949650|181854894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.802|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.855|8.075|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression stratified for EGFR mutation group and race.|Afatinib 40 mg-Pemetrexed/Cisplatin Chemotherapy.|||8.075|2.855|<0.0001
90984897|NCT00949650|181854895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.288||||0.0118||95.0|1.202|4.356|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression stratified for EGFR mutation group and race.|Afatinib 40 mg-Pemetrexed/Cisplatin Chemotherapy.|||4.356|1.202|0.0118
90984898|NCT00949650|181854896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7916||||||Two-sided p-value from log-rank test stratified by EGFR mutation group and race.|Log Rank|||||||0.7916
90984899|NCT00949650|181854896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.385||95.0|0.66|1.174|||Regression, Cox|Cox PH regression stratified by EGFR mutation group and race.|Afatinib 40 mg-Pemetrexed/Cisplatin Chemotherapy.|||1.174|0.660|0.3850
90984900|NCT00949650|181854897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.82|||<|0.0001||95.0|-13.64|-5.99|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline SoD, EGFR mutation group and race.|Afatinib 40 mg-Pemetrexed/Cisplatin Chemotherapy.|||-5.99|-13.64|<0.0001
90984901|NCT00949650|181854900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0062||||||Two-sided p-value from log-rank test stratified by EGFR mutation group and race.|Log Rank|||||||0.0062
90984902|NCT00949650|181854900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.589||||0.2133||95.0|0.401|0.866|||Regression, Cox|Cox PH regression stratified by EGFR mutation group and race.|Afatinib 40 mg vs. Pemetrexed/Cisplatin Chemotherapy, if HR\<1 then favours Afatinib 40 mg.|||0.866|0.401|0.2133
90984903|NCT00949650|181854901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0129||||||Two-sided p-value from log-rank test stratified by EGFR mutation group and race.|Log Rank|||||||0.0129
90984904|NCT00949650|181854901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.0078||95.0|0.499|0.927|||Regression, Cox|Cox PH regression stratified by EGFR mutation group and race.|Afatinib 40 mg vs. Pemetrexed/Cisplatin Chemotherapy, if HR\<1 then favours Afatinib 40 mg.|||0.927|0.499|0.0078
90984905|NCT00949650|181854902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1882||||||Two-sided p-value from log-rank test stratified by EGFR mutation group and race.|Log Rank|||||||0.1882
90984906|NCT00949650|181854902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.826||||0.0427||95.0|0.618|1.104|||Regression, Cox|Cox PH regression stratified by EGFR mutation group and race.|Afatinib 40 mg vs. Pemetrexed/Cisplatin Chemotherapy, if HR\<1 then favours Afatinib 40 mg.|||1.104|0.618|0.0427
90984907|NCT03322657|181854906|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|6.5|||Cox proportional hazard model|||||6.5|2.2|<0.001
90984908|NCT03322657|181854907|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|6.3||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|14.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||14|-2.0|0.13
90984909|NCT03322657|181854908|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.34|||Cox proportional hazard model|||||1.34|0.43|0.30
90984910|NCT03322657|181854909|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|1.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.00|-0.35|0.21
90984911|NCT03322657|181854910|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.82||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|1.81|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.81|-0.18|0.04
90984912|NCT03249350|181854914|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression model tested for between-group differences in change over time.||||0.49
90984913|NCT03249350|181854915|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.92|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression model tested for between-group differences in change over time.||||0.92
90984914|NCT03249350|181854916|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|Main effect of group, F=13.58.||Cognitive Behavioral Components||||<0.001
90984915|NCT03249350|181854916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||ANOVA|Main effect of group, F=3.02.||Behavioral Modification Components||||0.08
90984916|NCT03249350|181854917|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression model tested for between-group differences in change over time.||||0.09
90984917|NCT03249350|181854918|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.95|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression model tested for between-group differences in change over time.||||0.95
90984918|NCT03249350|181854919|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.88|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||APQ - Poor Monitoring - Parent Report Mixed effects regression model tested for between-group differences in change over time.||||0.88
90984919|NCT03249350|181854920|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression model tested for between-group differences in change over time.||||0.06
90984920|NCT03249350|181854921|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression model tested for between-group differences in change over time.||||0.50
90984921|NCT03249350|181854922|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression model tested for between-group differences in change over time.||||0.03
90984922|NCT03249350|181854923|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.54|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||GAIN - Substance Frequency Mixed effects regression model tested for between-group differences in change over time.||||0.54
90984923|NCT03249350|181854924|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.89|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression model tested for between-group differences in change over time.||||0.89
90984924|NCT03249350|181854925|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.31|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||BISBAS Drive - Youth Report. Mixed effects regression model tested for between-group differences in change over time.||||0.31
90984925|NCT03249350|181854926|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.35|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression model tested for between-group differences in change over time.||||0.35
90984926|NCT03249350|181854927|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression model tested for between-group differences in change over time.||||0.13
90984927|NCT03249350|181854928|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression model tested for between-group differences in change over time.||||0.30
90984928|NCT03249350|181854929|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.7|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression model tested for between-group differences in change over time.||||0.70
90984929|NCT03249350|181854930|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.89|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression model tested for between-group differences in change over time.||||0.89
90984930|NCT03249350|181854931|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression model tested for between-group differences in change over time.||||0.06
90984931|NCT03249350|181854932|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||EATQ Effortful Control - Youth Report Mixed effects regression model tested for between-group differences in change over time.||||0.11
90984932|NCT03249350|181854933|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.0001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.009||0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression model tested for between-group differences in change over time.||||0.99
90984933|NCT03249350|181854934|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.0007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.003||0.82|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression model tested for between-group differences in change over time.||||0.82
90984934|NCT03249350|181854935|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Peer Delinquency||||0.23
90984935|NCT03249350|181854936|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.73|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression model tested for between-group differences in change over time.||||0.73
90984936|NCT03249350|181854937|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.31|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression model tested for between-group differences in change over time.||||0.31
90984937|NCT00553787|181854944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.328|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.96|9.25||Intersection-union method applied in a step-down testing approach|ANCOVA|||With at least 500 subjects in each of the 3 arms in this trial, the trial has more than 90% power to detect a difference of at least 3.1% between combination and placebo treatment assuming a standard deviation of 5.3% and a significance level of 0.05.||9.25|7.96|<0.0001
90984938|NCT00553787|181854944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.403|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.79|7.37||Intersection-union method applied in a step-down testing approach|ANCOVA|||With at least 500 subjects in each of the 3 arms in this trial, the trial has more than 90% power to detect a difference of at least 3.1% between combination and placebo treatment assuming a standard deviation of 5.3% and a significance level of 0.05.||7.37|5.79|<0.0001
90984939|NCT00553787|181854944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.402|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|2.82||Intersection-union method applied in a step-down testing approach|ANCOVA|||With at least 500 subjects in each of the 3 arms in this trial, the trial has more than 90% power to detect a difference of at least 3.1% between combination and placebo treatment assuming a standard deviation of 5.3% and a significance level of 0.05.||2.82|1.24|<0.0001
90984940|NCT00553787|181854945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.955|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.34|11.11||Intersection-union method applied in a step-down testing approach|Regression, Logistic|||With at least 500 subjects in each of the 3 arms in this trial, the trial has more than 90% power to detect a difference of at least 3.1% between combination and placebo treatment assuming a standard deviation of 5.3% and a significance level of 0.05.||11.11|7.34|<0.0001
90984941|NCT00553787|181854945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.768|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.93|7.97||Intersection-union method applied in a step-down testing approach|Regression, Logistic|||With at least 500 subjects in each of the 3 arms in this trial, the trial has more than 90% power to detect a difference of at least 3.1% between combination and placebo treatment assuming a standard deviation of 5.3% and a significance level of 0.05.||7.97|4.93|<0.0001
90984942|NCT00553787|181854945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.169||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|1.81||Intersection-union method applied in a step-down testing approach|Regression, Logistic|||With at least 500 subjects in each of the 3 arms in this trial, the trial has more than 90% power to detect a difference of at least 3.1% between combination and placebo treatment assuming a standard deviation of 5.3% and a significance level of 0.05.||1.81|1.15|0.0018
90984943|NCT01894516|181854950|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage rates|37.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.4|52.6||P-value has been corrected for multiplicity according to Hommel's closed-testing method.|Regression, Logistic|||Pairwise comparisons of each group vs. the placebo group using a logistic regression model with factors treatment group, geographical region, and prior use of biologics.||52.6|22.4|< 0.0001
90984944|NCT01894516|181854950|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage rates|36.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.3|51.8||P-value has been corrected for multiplicity according to Hommel's closed-testing method.|Regression, Logistic|||Pairwise comparisons of each group vs. the placebo group using a logistic regression model with factors treatment group, geographical region, and prior use of biologics.||51.8|21.3|< 0.0001
90984945|NCT01894516|181854950|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage rates|43.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.4|58.2||P-value has been corrected for multiplicity according to Hommel's closed-testing method.|Regression, Logistic|||Pairwise comparisons of each group vs. the placebo group using a logistic regression model with factors treatment group, geographical region, and prior use of biologics.||58.2|28.4|< 0.0001
90984946|NCT05652660|181854962|OTHER|Mixed Model|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|120.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|104.77|138.59|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|Rosuvastatin administered alone as the Reference and ARV-471 coadministered with rosuvastatin as the Test. Natural log transformed Cmax was analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% CIs were obtained from the model and were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||138.59|104.77|
90984947|NCT05652660|181854963|OTHER|Mixed Model|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|110.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.53|118.06|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|Rosuvastatin administered alone as the Reference and ARV-471 coadministered with rosuvastatin as the Test. Natural log transformed AUClast was analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% CIs were obtained from the model and were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||118.06|103.53|
90984948|NCT01240811|181854978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.80
90984949|NCT01240811|181854978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.97
90984950|NCT01240811|181854979|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Difference in paired change in Nugent score from baseline to 2 months||||0.08
90984951|NCT01240811|181854980|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Change in quantity of H2O2 producing Lactobacilli species by qPCR||||0.46
90984952|NCT01240811|181854980|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Change in quantity of Garnerella vaginalis species by qPCR||||0.62
91040468|NCT00474058|181965932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.26|||<|0.0001||95.0|-6.08|-2.45||No p-value adjustment was necessary, since a multiple testing in a hierarchical sequentially rejective manner for the primary variable was applied.|ANCOVA|||Analyses of covariance were performed for the efficacy variables with treatment and (pooled) sites as factors, and baseline value as covariate. Least square means (LS means) for treatment effect were calculated and differences between rotigotine and placebo were presented with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and p- values.||-2.45|-6.08|<0.0001
90984953|NCT03990766|181854987|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.6|42.3||||||||42.3|-35.6|
90984954|NCT03990766|181854988|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|5.0||||||||5|-3|
90984955|NCT03990766|181854989|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|-4.0||||||The within-subject change in QOD-NS scores from baseline and 6 weeks was calculated for each individual patient. Then the median of all the patients' change in score for each cohort was calculated. Because these were within-subject changes in scores, the median difference values for each cohort do not necessarily correspond with simply subtracting the median change in score in the theophylline cohort from the median change in score in the placebo cohort.||-4|-15|
90984956|NCT03990766|181854990|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|17.0||||||The within-subject change in ODOR scores from baseline and 6 weeks was calculated for each individual patient. Then the median of all the patients' change in score for each cohort was calculated. Because these were within-subject changes in scores, the median difference values for each cohort do not necessarily correspond with simply subtracting the median change in score in the theophylline cohort from the median change in score in the placebo cohort. We confirmed the reported results.||17|-2|
90984957|NCT01981122|181855035|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.095|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated Measures||||||.095
90984958|NCT02773758|181855040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square (LS) mean difference|-1.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.509|-1.071|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model with change from baseline in Schiff Sensitivity Score as response and treatment and baseline Schiff sensitivity score as covariates.|Difference is first named dentifrice minus second named dentifrice such that a negative difference favours first named dentifrice.|||-1.071|-1.509|<0.0001
90984959|NCT00089843|181855043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent change between 0 and 12 months|3.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|4.6||This p value was for the effect of Actonel (risedronate) on bone mineral density of the spine.|Factorial analysis|||Factorial analysis||4.6|1.8|<0.0001
90984960|NCT00089843|181855043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent change between 0 and 12 months|-0.6||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.8||This p value was for the effect of testosterone on bone mineral density of the spine.|Factorial analysis|||Factorial analysis||0.8|-2.0|0.41
90984961|NCT00089843|181855044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent change between 0 and 12 months|-41.0||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||This p value was for the effect of Actonel (risedronate).|Factorial analysis|||Factorial analysis||||0.002
90984962|NCT00089843|181855044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent change between 0 and 12 months|-11.0||||0.39||95.0||||This p value was for the effect of testosterone.|Factorial analysis|||Factorial analysis||||0.39
90984963|NCT00201201|181855070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistic (1,161)=4.44,p=0.035).||Repeated measures linear-mixed model ANOVA methodology was employed as each participant was measured on 4 visits and the 4 repeated measures are likely dependent. We used study group (intervention vs. control) and visit as categorical variables and controlled for gender, age, APRN, income, education, computer use. Non-parametric tests (Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistic), based on rank scores, controlling for participant code were used for the transformed behavior risk scores within groups.||||0.035
90984964|NCT00201201|181855071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0204||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Repeated measures linear-mixed model ANOVA methodology was employed as each participant was measured on 4 visits and the 4 repeated measures are likely dependent. We used study group (intervention vs. control) and visit as categorical variables and controlled for gender, age, APRN, income, education, computer use.||||.0204
90984965|NCT00201201|181855072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Repeated measures linear-mixed model ANOVA methodology was employed as each participant was measured on 4 visits and the 4 repeated measures are likely dependent. We used study group (intervention vs. control) and visit as categorical variables and controlled for gender, age, APRN, income, education, computer use.||||.0001
90984966|NCT00201201|181855073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Repeated measures linear-mixed model ANOVA methodology was employed as each participant was measured on 4 visits and the 4 repeated measures are likely dependent. We used study group (intervention vs. control) and visit as categorical variables and controlled for gender, age, APRN, income, education, computer use.||||0.0001
90984967|NCT00201201|181855074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0431||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0431
90984968|NCT00201201|181855075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.1||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyzed at 0 and 12 weeks.||||<.10
90984969|NCT00611455|181855089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.67|4.91|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.91|1.67|<0.001
91040469|NCT00474058|181965933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41||||0.0301||95.0|-0.79|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||Analyses of covariance were performed for the efficacy variables with treatment and (pooled) sites as factors, and baseline value as covariate. Least square means (LS means) for treatment effect were calculated and differences between rotigotine and placebo were presented with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and p- values.||-0.04|-0.79|0.0301
90984970|NCT03240081|181855138|NON_INFERIORITY|We set 2 points (20%) as the margin of difference when defining and evaluating non-inferiority in comparing the 2 arms at 4 weeks.|Median Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for significance \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.08
90984971|NCT03240081|181855139|NON_INFERIORITY|We set 2 points (20%) as the margin of difference when evaluating non-inferiority in comparing the 2 arms at 4 weeks.|Median Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.95|ONE_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.95
90984972|NCT01678846|181855147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.64|||Regression, Logistic||An odds ratio of less than 1 would demonstrate a protective effect of the intervention. Unadjusted odds ratio presented, accounting for correlation between students within schools.|Does the Toolkit intervention reduce physical violence from school staff to Ugandan primary school students.||0.64|0.26|<0.0001
90984973|NCT04382651|181855158|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.225||0.33|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.7|4.7||1-Sided|ANCOVA|||||4.7|-2.7|0.33
90984974|NCT01507545|181855169|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.7335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.67|||One-sided log-rank test|||||1.67|0.76|0.7335
90984975|NCT01507545|181855170|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.43||||0.9498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|2.19|||One-sided log-rank test|||||2.19|0.93|0.9498
90984976|NCT01507545|181855171|SUPERIORITY||Difference of arms|-2.4||||0.333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.992|2.23|||Fisher Exact|||||2.230|-6.992|0.333
90984977|NCT01753518|181855188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.053|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.053
90984978|NCT01753518|181855189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.73
90984979|NCT01753518|181855190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison for staple expulsion or suture trimming||||0.25
90984980|NCT01753518|181855190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison for Surgical Site Infection||||0.06
90984981|NCT01753518|181855190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison for Superficial Wound Separation||||0.21
90984982|NCT01753518|181855190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison for Seroma||||0.49
90984983|NCT01753518|181855190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison for Hematoma||||0.50
90984984|NCT01753518|181855191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between the arms for Tylenol use.||||0.48
90984985|NCT01753518|181855191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between the arms for Ibuprofen use.||||0.30
90984986|NCT01753518|181855191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between the arms for Toradol use.||||0.85
90984987|NCT01753518|181855191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between the arms for Oxycodone use.||||0.78
90984988|NCT01753518|181855193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"Comparison for negative responses to Appearance of incision question."||||0.51
90984989|NCT01753518|181855193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.098|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||"Comparison for negative responses to Would recommend treatment to friends question."||||0.098
90984990|NCT01753518|181855193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||"Comparison of negative responses to Willingness to use treatment again question."||||0.57
90984991|NCT01753518|181855193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"Comparison of negative responses to Overall satisfaction question."||||0.41
90984992|NCT01753518|181855194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||"Comparison between arms for appearance of incision."||||0.85
90984993|NCT01753518|181855194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||"Comparison between arms for recommend treatment."||||0.004
90984994|NCT01753518|181855194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||"Comparison between arms for willingness to use treatment again."||||<0.001
90984995|NCT01753518|181855195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90984996|NCT01753518|181855196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between arms for patient: scar painful.||||0.35
90984997|NCT01753518|181855196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between arms for patient: scar itching.||||0.48
90984998|NCT01753518|181855196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between arms for patient: scar color is different.||||0.034
90984999|NCT01753518|181855196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.041|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between arms for patient: scar stiffness is different.||||0.041
90985000|NCT01753518|181855196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between arms for patient: scar thickness is different.||||0.23
90985001|NCT01753518|181855196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between arms for patient: scar more irregular.||||0.13
90985002|NCT01753518|181855196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between arms for patient: overall opinion.||||0.11
90985003|NCT01753518|181855196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between arms for observer: vascularity.||||0.68
90985004|NCT01753518|181855196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between arms for observer: pigmentation.||||0.18
90985005|NCT01753518|181855196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between arms for observer: thickness||||0.75
90985006|NCT01753518|181855196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between arms for observer: relief.||||0.36
90985007|NCT01753518|181855196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between arms for observer: pliability.||||0.78
90985008|NCT01753518|181855196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between arms for observer: surface area.||||0.76
90985009|NCT01753518|181855196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between arms for observer: overall opinion.||||0.97
91040470|NCT00474058|181965934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.8842||95.0|-0.29|0.25|||ANCOVA|||Analyses of covariance were performed for the efficacy variables with treatment and (pooled) sites as factors, and baseline value as covariate. Least square means (LS means) for treatment effect were calculated and differences between rotigotine and placebo were presented with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and p- values.||0.25|-0.29|0.8842
90985010|NCT00514449|181855220|OTHER||number of voxels in a cluster|2037.0||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|||||p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA||Time by treatment group interaction term|||||0.004
90985011|NCT04083144|181855222|SUPERIORITY||η2|0.01||||0.98|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.98
90985012|NCT04083144|181855223|SUPERIORITY||η2|0.16||||0.76|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.76
90985013|NCT04083144|181855224|SUPERIORITY||η2|0.02||||0.98|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.98
90985014|NCT04083144|181855225|SUPERIORITY||η2|0.07||||0.24|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.24
90985015|NCT04083144|181855226|SUPERIORITY||η2|0.17||||0.26|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.26
90985016|NCT02708212|181855241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The two-sample t test will be used to compare the total doses of fentanyl and midazolam between the two study groups.||||<0.0001
90985017|NCT02708212|181855242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0012|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The two-sample t test will be used to compare the total doses of midazolam between the two study groups.||||0.0012
90985018|NCT02708212|181855243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6967|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6967
90985019|NCT04458857|181855273|OTHER||LS mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.16|||ANCOVA|||||-0.16|-1.90|0.0210
90985020|NCT01748695|181855304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.834||||||Based on a linear mixed measures model with treatment and period included as fixed effects, subject included as a random effect and between- and within- subject baseline covariates included.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.834
90985021|NCT01333189|181855307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.329|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||=0.329
90985022|NCT01333189|181855308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.891|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||=0.891
90985023|NCT01333189|181855309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.021|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||=0.021
90985024|NCT01333189|181855310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.509|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Internal moment at the hip||||=0.509
90985025|NCT01333189|181855310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Internal moment at the knee||||=0.500
90985026|NCT01333189|181855310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.607|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Internal moment at the ankle||||=0.607
90985027|NCT01333189|181855311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.068|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||=0.068
90985028|NCT01333189|181855312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.48|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Internal moment at the hip||||=0.480
90985029|NCT01333189|181855312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Internal moment at the knee||||=0.120
90985030|NCT01333189|181855312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.668|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Internal moment at the ankle||||=0.668
90985031|NCT01333189|181855313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.511|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||=0.511
90985032|NCT01333189|181855314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.402|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||=0.402
90985033|NCT01333189|181855315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.021|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||=0.021
90985034|NCT01333189|181855316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.686|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Internal moment at the hip||||=0.686
90985035|NCT01333189|181855316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.434|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Internal moment at the knee||||=0.434
90985036|NCT01333189|181855316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.227|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Internal moment at the ankle||||=0.227
90985037|NCT01333189|181855317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.068|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||=0.068
90985038|NCT01333189|181855318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Internal moment at the hip||||=0.160
90985039|NCT01333189|181855318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Internal moment at the knee||||=0.008
90985040|NCT01333189|181855318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.877|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Internal moment at the ankle||||=0.877
90985041|NCT03191396|181855393|NON_INFERIORITY|HbA1c non-inferiority was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.3.|Treatment difference|-0.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.56||The non-inferiority p-value is calculated as two times the one-sided p-value from a t-distributed test statistic comparing the treatment contrast with 0.3.|ANCOVA||Semaglutide 1.0 mg - Liraglutide 1.2 mg|The responses are analysed using an ANCOVA with treatment and stratification factor as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate. Before analysis, missing data were multiple imputed using observed data from subjects within the same group defined by randomised treatment, using a regression model including stratification factor as categorical effect and data from baseline and all previous visits as covariates.||-0.56|-0.82|<0.0001
90985042|NCT03191396|181855393|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-0.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.56|||ANCOVA||Semaglutide 1.0 mg - Liraglutide 1.2 mg|||-0.56|-0.82|<0.0001
90985043|NCT03191396|181855394|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-3.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.57|-3.09|||ANCOVA||Semaglutide 1.0 mg - Liraglutide 1.2 mg|||-3.09|-4.57|<0.0001
90985044|NCT03726671|181855434|OTHER|||||||0.0247|||||||Repeated measures ANOVA|||Betaine IER||||0.0247
90985045|NCT03726671|181855434|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures ANOVA|||Choline IER||||<0.0001
90985046|NCT03726671|181855434|OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||Repeated measures ANOVA|||Phosphatidylcholine IER||||0.0002
90985047|NCT03726671|181855435|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.48|14.7|||Fisher Exact|||||14.7|3.48|<0.001
90985048|NCT03726671|181855435|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.09||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.06|8.11|||Fisher Exact|||||8.11|2.06|0.01
90985049|NCT03726671|181855435|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.75||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|3.58|||Fisher Exact|||||3.58|0.86|0.086
90985050|NCT03726671|181855436|OTHER|||||||0.6985|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Betaine IER||||0.6985
90985051|NCT03726671|181855436|OTHER|||||||0.035|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Choline IER||||0.0350
90985052|NCT03726671|181855436|OTHER|||||||0.6864|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Phosphatidylcholine IER||||0.6864
90985053|NCT03726671|181855437|EQUIVALENCE|There are linear combinations of metabolites that differentiate (non-equivalent) the 25% choline diet from the 100% choline diet.|||||<|0.049|||||||Paired 2-sided t-test||||Supervised OPLSDA was used to determine the variable importance to projections of metabolites/signals that differentiated the 25% and 100% choline diet arms.|||<0.049
90985054|NCT03726671|181855438|OTHER|||||||0.9567|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The model evaluates effects from SNP, diet and SNP x diet interaction. Due to crossover design, period and sequence effects were adjusted in the model||Diet x SNP interaction effect on Betaine IER in Pre-Menopausal Females||||0.9567
90985055|NCT03726671|181855438|OTHER|||||||0.0899|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The model evaluates effects from SNP, diet and SNP x diet interaction. Due to crossover design, period and sequence effects were adjusted in the model||Diet x SNP interaction effect on Betaine IER in Post-Menopausal Females||||0.0899
90985056|NCT03726671|181855438|OTHER|||||||0.9003|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The model evaluates effects from SNP, diet and SNP x diet interaction. Due to crossover design, period and sequence effects were adjusted in the model||Diet x SNP interaction effect on Betaine IER in Males||||0.9003
90985057|NCT03726671|181855438|OTHER|||||||0.9932|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The model evaluates effects from SNP, diet and SNP x diet interaction. Due to crossover design, period and sequence effects were adjusted in the model||Diet x SNP interaction effect on Choline IER in Pre-Menopausal Females||||0.9932
90985058|NCT03726671|181855438|OTHER|||||||0.3984|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The model evaluates effects from SNP, diet and SNP x diet interaction. Due to crossover design, period and sequence effects were adjusted in the model||Diet x SNP interaction effect on Choline IER in Post-Menopausal Females||||0.3984
90985059|NCT03726671|181855438|OTHER|||||||0.308|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The model evaluates effects from SNP, diet and SNP x diet interaction. Due to crossover design, period and sequence effects were adjusted in the model||Diet x SNP interaction effect on Choline IER in Males||||0.3080
90985060|NCT03726671|181855438|OTHER|||||||0.7603|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The model evaluates effects from SNP, diet and SNP x diet interaction. Due to crossover design, period and sequence effects were adjusted in the model||Diet x SNP interaction effect on Phosphatidylcholine IER in Pre-Menopausal Females||||0.7603
90985061|NCT03726671|181855438|OTHER|||||||0.2995|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The model evaluates effects from SNP, diet and SNP x diet interaction. Due to crossover design, period and sequence effects were adjusted in the model||Diet x SNP interaction effect on Phosphatidylcholine IER in Post-Menopausal Females||||0.2995
90985062|NCT03726671|181855438|OTHER|||||||0.0003|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The model evaluates effects from SNP, diet and SNP x diet interaction. Due to crossover design, period and sequence effects were adjusted in the model||Diet x SNP interaction effect on Phosphatidylcholine IER in Males||||0.0003
90985063|NCT03726671|181855438|OTHER|||||||0.1303|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The model evaluates effects from SNP, diet and SNP x diet interaction. Due to crossover design, period and sequence effects were adjusted in the model||SNP effect on Betaine IER in Pre-Menopausal Females||||0.1303
90985064|NCT03726671|181855438|OTHER|||||||0.0015|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The model evaluates effects from SNP, diet and SNP x diet interaction. Due to crossover design, period and sequence effects were adjusted in the model||SNP effect on Betaine IER in Post-Menopausal Females||||0.0015
90985065|NCT03726671|181855438|OTHER|||||||0.4185|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The model evaluates effects from SNP, diet and SNP x diet interaction. Due to crossover design, period and sequence effects were adjusted in the model||SNP effect on Betaine IER in Males||||0.4185
91040471|NCT02640235|181965939|NON_INFERIORITY|The logistic regression estimates are generated from predicted values of the fitted logistic regression model. If the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval is greater than -10, Celstat is non-inferior to Surgicel. If the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval is greater than 0, Celstat will be declared superior to Surgicel.|Difference in avg predicted proportion|-8.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.6|-1.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||-1.4|-15.6|
90985066|NCT03726671|181855438|OTHER|||||||0.3464|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The model evaluates effects from SNP, diet and SNP x diet interaction. Due to crossover design, period and sequence effects were adjusted in the model||SNP effect on Choline IER in Pre-Menopausal Females||||0.3464
90985067|NCT03726671|181855438|OTHER|||||||0.0019|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The model evaluates effects from SNP, diet and SNP x diet interaction. Due to crossover design, period and sequence effects were adjusted in the model||SNP effect on Choline IER in Post-Menopausal Females||||0.0019
91040472|NCT02640235|181965942|OTHER||Difference in avg predicted proportion|4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|13.1|||Regression, Logistic|||||13.1|-3.6|
90985068|NCT03726671|181855438|OTHER|||||||0.2091|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The model evaluates effects from SNP, diet and SNP x diet interaction. Due to crossover design, period and sequence effects were adjusted in the model||SNP effect on Choline IER in Males||||0.2091
90985069|NCT03726671|181855438|OTHER|||||||0.8141|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The model evaluates effects from SNP, diet and SNP x diet interaction. Due to crossover design, period and sequence effects were adjusted in the model||SNP effect on Phosphatidylcholine IER in Pre-Menopausal Females||||0.8141
90985070|NCT03726671|181855438|OTHER|||||||0.0187|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The model evaluates effects from SNP, diet and SNP x diet interaction. Due to crossover design, period and sequence effects were adjusted in the model||SNP effect on Phosphatidylcholine IER in Post-Menopausal Females||||0.0187
91040473|NCT02640235|181965943|OTHER||Difference in avg predicted proportion|-6.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|-0.5|||Regression, Logistic|||||-0.5|-12|
91040474|NCT02640235|181965944|OTHER||Difference in avg predicted proportion|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|4.3|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.3|-5.7|
91040475|NCT02640235|181965945|OTHER||Difference in avg predicted proportion|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|4.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.4|-3.9|
91040476|NCT02426918|181965947|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority for the low dose was confirmed if the upper bound of the CI was \< 15% and if non-inferiority was confirmed for the high dose.|Risk Difference (RD)|-4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.42|3.0||||||Treatment difference estimates and 95% CIs are calculated accounting for the randomization strata infection type \[cellulitis, noncellulitis\] according to a Mantel-Haenszel type risk difference estimator.||3.00|-11.42|
91040477|NCT02426918|181965947|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority for the high dose was confirmed if the upper bound of the CI was \< 15%.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.32|8.38||||||Treatment difference estimates and 95% CIs are calculated accounting for the randomization strata infection type \[cellulitis, noncellulitis\] according to a Mantel-Haenszel type risk difference estimator.||8.38|-8.32|
91040478|NCT02420353|181965952|OTHER|||||||0.0498|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effect model||||0.0498
91040479|NCT02420353|181965953|OTHER|Mixed effects model||||||0.7024|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7024
91040480|NCT02420353|181965954|OTHER|Mixed effects model||||||0.135|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.135
91040481|NCT02420353|181965955|OTHER|Mixed effects model||||||0.6836|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.6836
91040482|NCT02420353|181965956|OTHER|mixed effects model||||||0.9271|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.9271
91040483|NCT02420353|181965957|OTHER|mixed effects model||||||0.1576|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1576
91040484|NCT02420353|181965958|OTHER|mixed effects model||||||0.5586|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.5586
91040485|NCT02420353|181965959|OTHER|mixed effects model||||||0.45|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.45
91040486|NCT02420353|181965960|OTHER|mixed effects model||||||0.8573|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8573
91040487|NCT02420353|181965961|OTHER|mixed effects model||||||0.0564|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0564
91040488|NCT02420353|181965962|OTHER|mixed effects model||||||0.7883|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7883
91040489|NCT02420353|181965963|OTHER|mixed effects model||||||0.0901|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0901
91040490|NCT02420353|181965964|OTHER|mixed effects model||||||0.6292|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.6292
91040491|NCT02420353|181965965|OTHER|mixed effects model||||||0.161|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.161
91040492|NCT02420353|181965966|OTHER|mixed effects model||||||0.4437|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.4437
91040493|NCT02420353|181965967|OTHER|mixed effects model||||||0.7325|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7325
91040494|NCT02420353|181965968|OTHER|Mixed effects analysis||||||0.6291|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.6291
91040495|NCT02420353|181965969|OTHER|Mixed-effects model||||||0.3332|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.3332
91040496|NCT02420353|181965970|OTHER|Mixed effects analysis||||||0.79|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.79
91040497|NCT02420353|181965971|OTHER|Mixed effects analysis||||||0.4965|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.4965
91040498|NCT02420353|181965972|OTHER|mixed effects analysis||||||0.1331|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1331
91040499|NCT02420353|181965973|OTHER|Mixed-model analysis||||||0.5251|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.5251
91040500|NCT02420353|181965974|OTHER|Mixed effects analysis||||||0.1064|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1064
91040501|NCT02420353|181965975|OTHER|Mixed effects analysis||||||0.4852|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.4852
91040502|NCT02420353|181965976|OTHER|||||||0.7943|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7943
91040503|NCT02420353|181965977|OTHER|||||||0.0894|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0894
91040504|NCT02420353|181965978|OTHER|Mixed effects analysis||||||0.0673|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0673
91040505|NCT02420353|181965979|OTHER|Mixed effects analysis||||||0.0185|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0185
91040506|NCT02420353|181965980|OTHER|mixed effects analysis||||||0.6094|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.6094
91040507|NCT02420353|181965981|OTHER|mixed effects analysis||||||0.3279|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.3279
91040508|NCT02420353|181965982|OTHER|mixed effects analysis||||||0.2802|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2802
91040509|NCT02420353|181965983|OTHER|||||||0.1064|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1064
91040510|NCT02420353|181965984|OTHER|mixed effects model||||||0.0509|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0509
91040511|NCT02420353|181965985|OTHER|mixed effects analysis||||||0.1605|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1605
91040512|NCT02420353|181965986|OTHER|mixed effects model||||||0.0357|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0357
91040513|NCT02420353|181965987|OTHER|mixed effects model||||||0.0122|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0122
91040514|NCT02420353|181965988|OTHER|mixed effects model||||||0.5853|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.5853
91040515|NCT02420353|181965989|OTHER|mixed effects model||||||0.6288|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.6288
91040516|NCT02420353|181965990|OTHER|mixed effects model||||||0.5022|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.5022
91040517|NCT02420353|181965991|OTHER|mixed effects model||||||0.7507|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7507
91040518|NCT02420353|181965992|OTHER|mixed effects model|||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.0001
91040519|NCT02420353|181965993|OTHER|mixed effects model||||||0.8581|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8581
91040520|NCT02420353|181965994|OTHER|mixed effects model||||||0.0208|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0208
91040521|NCT02420353|181965995|OTHER|Mixed effects model||||||0.8581|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8581
91040522|NCT05004649|181966019|OTHER|||||||0.024356||||||When Bonferroni corrected for multiple comparisons the significance level across conditions is p \< 0.0167. This is the Bonferonni corrected level for three tests applied to a baseline significance value of 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.024356
91040523|NCT05004649|181966019|OTHER|||||||0.040382||||||When Bonferroni corrected for multiple comparisons the significance level across conditions is p \< 0.0167. This is the Bonferonni corrected level for three tests applied to a baseline significance value of 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.040382
91040524|NCT05004649|181966019|OTHER|||||||0.90161||||||When Bonferroni corrected for multiple comparisons the significance level across conditions is p \< 0.0167. This is the Bonferonni corrected level for three tests applied to a baseline significance value of 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.90161
91040525|NCT01852799|181966027|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||bALP changes from baseline to cycle 1||||0.002
91040526|NCT01852799|181966027|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||b-ALP changes from baseline to cycle 4||||<0.001
91040527|NCT01852799|181966027|OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||DKK-1 changes from baseline to cycle 1||||0.005
91040528|NCT01852799|181966027|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||DKK-1 changes from baseline to cycle 4||||<0.001
91040529|NCT02654145|181966060|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|-0.66||p-value is for Difference (Mepo-Placebo) calculated based on the Historical Placebo estimate of -0.55 (Standard Error: 0.05), which was estimated from a meta-analysis of studies NCT01000506 and NCT01691521 using all Placebo participants.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Difference (Mepo-Placebo) calculated based on the Historical Placebo estimate of -0.55 (Standard Error: 0.05), which was estimated from a meta-analysis of studies NCT01000506 and NCT01691521 using all Placebo participants.|||-0.66|-1.13|<0.001
90985071|NCT03726671|181855438|OTHER|||||||0.0107|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The model evaluates effects from SNP, diet and SNP x diet interaction. Due to crossover design, period and sequence effects were adjusted in the model||SNP effect on Phosphatidylcholine IER in Males||||0.0107
90985072|NCT03726671|181855439|OTHER|||||||0.0842|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0842
90985073|NCT03726671|181855439|OTHER|||||||0.0819|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Non-parametric method was used due to data deviation from normality.||||||0.0819
90985074|NCT03726671|181855439|OTHER|||||||0.9015|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9015
90985075|NCT03726671|181855439|OTHER|||||||0.1191|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Non-parametric method was used due to data deviation from normality.||||||0.1191
90985076|NCT03726671|181855440|OTHER|||||||0.2351|||||||Pearson's Correlation Coefficient|||Liver choline concentration vs. betaine IER||||0.2351
90985077|NCT03726671|181855440|OTHER|||||||0.4501|||||||Pearson's Correlation Coefficient|||Liver choline concentration vs. Phosphatidylcholine IER||||0.4501
90985078|NCT03726671|181855440|OTHER|||||||0.4136|||||||Pearson's Correlation Coefficient|||Liver choline concentration vs. Choline IER||||0.4136
90985079|NCT03726671|181855440|OTHER|||||||0.9463|||||||Pearson's Correlation Coefficient|||Liver choline concentration vs. Betaine IER||||0.9463
90985080|NCT03726671|181855440|OTHER|||||||0.0675|||||||Pearson's Correlation Coefficient|||Liver choline concentration vs. Phosphatidylcholine IER||||0.0675
90985081|NCT03726671|181855440|OTHER|||||||0.2863|||||||Pearson's Correlation Coefficient|||Liver choline concentration vs. Choline IER||||0.2863
90985082|NCT03726671|181855440|OTHER|||||||0.5552|||||||Pearson's Correlation Coefficient|||Liver choline concentration vs. Betaine IER||||0.5552
90985083|NCT03726671|181855440|OTHER|||||||0.4209|||||||Pearson's Correlation Coefficient|||Liver choline concentration vs. Phosphatidylcholine IER||||0.4209
90985084|NCT03726671|181855440|OTHER|||||||0.6647|||||||Pearson's Correlation Coefficient|||Liver choline concentration vs. Choline IER||||0.6647
90985085|NCT04192448|181855442|OTHER|Target sample size was 200 participants. Power calculation was determined using nQuery version 8.4.1 for the 2x2 design, using 50 subject per group (including a conservative 10% dropout). Power calculation estimated 80% power to detect an effect size of 0.3 in both factors with no interaction, and greater power if there is an interaction effect. Current enrollment indicates study is underpowered. Because there are not enough participants to conduct an ANOVA or ANCOVA, t-tests were conducted.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.82||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.82|26.19|||t-test, 1 sided|This t-test examined the difference in sexual aggression intentions between those in the Alcohol condition and those in the Sober condition.|The estimation parameter refers to the mean difference in the outcome between those in the Alcohol condition and those in the Sober condition. A positive value indicates greater likelihood of sexual aggression among those in the Alcohol condition.|The number of participants enrolled in the study constrained the type of statistical analyses able to be conducted. Indeed, the Sober x Anger condition could not be compared to the other arms because no participants were randomly assigned to that arm.||26.19|-29.82|.28
90985086|NCT04192448|181855442|OTHER|Target sample size was 200 participants. Power calculation was determined using nQuery version 8.4.1 for the 2x2 design, using 50 subject per group (including a conservative 10% dropout). Power calculation estimated 80% power to detect an effect size of 0.3 in both factors with no interaction, and greater power if there is an interaction effect. Current enrollment indicates study is underpowered. Because there are not enough participants to conduct an ANOVA or ANCOVA, t-tests were conducted.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.01|35.01|||t-test, 1 sided|This t-test examined the difference in sexual aggression intentions between those in the Anger condition and those in the Control condition.|The estimation parameter refers to the mean difference in the outcome between those in the Anger condition and those in the Control condition. A negative value indicates greater likelihood of sexual aggression among those in the Control condition.|The number of participants enrolled in the study constrained the type of statistical analyses able to be conducted. Indeed, the Sober x Anger condition could not be compared to the other arms because no participants were randomly assigned to that arm.||35.01|-33.01|.39
90985087|NCT04192448|181855443|OTHER|Target sample size was 200 participants. Power calculation was determined using nQuery version 8.4.1 for the 2x2 design, using 50 subject per group (including a conservative 10% dropout). Power calculation estimated 80% power to detect an effect size of 0.3 in both factors with no interaction, and greater power if there is an interaction effect. Current enrollment indicates study is underpowered. Because there are not enough participants to conduct an ANOVA or ANCOVA, t-tests were conducted.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.88|2.63|||t-test, 1 sided|This t-test examined the difference in physical aggression intentions between those in the Alcohol Condition and those in the Sober condition.|The estimation parameter refers to the mean difference in the outcome between those in the Alcohol condition and those in the Sober condition. A positive value indicates greater likelihood of physical aggression among those in the Alcohol condition.|The number of participants enrolled in the study constrained the type of statistical analyses able to be conducted. Indeed, the Sober x Anger condition could not be compared to the other arms because no participants were randomly assigned to that arm.||2.63|-2.88|.33
90985088|NCT04192448|181855443|OTHER|Target sample size was 200 participants. Power calculation was determined using nQuery version 8.4.1 for the 2x2 design, using 50 subject per group (including a conservative 10% dropout). Power calculation estimated 80% power to detect an effect size of 0.3 in both factors with no interaction, and greater power if there is an interaction effect. Current enrollment indicates study is underpowered. Because there are not enough participants to conduct an ANOVA or ANCOVA, t-tests were conducted.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.53|2.88|||t-test, 1 sided|The t-test examined the difference in physical aggression intentions between those in the Anger condition and those in the Control condition.|The estimation parameter refers to the mean difference in the outcome between those in the Anger condition and those in the Control condition. A negative value indicates greater likelihood of physical aggression among those in the Control condition.|The number of participants enrolled in the study constrained the type of statistical analyses able to be conducted. Indeed, the Sober x Anger condition could not be compared to the other arms because no participants were randomly assigned to that arm.||2.88|-2.53|.33
91006830|NCT02402881|181898247|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|We used generalized linear mixed-effects models with multiple outputation reiterated 1000 times to bootstrap the 95% CIs and the P values.||Our primary outcome was the proportion of non-administered doses of prescribed pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis. We compared rates of VTE prophylaxis non-administration pre-post-intervention. For estimating conditional odds ratios (ORs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs), the binomial family and a logit link were used; for estimating the conditional proportions, the Poisson family and a log link were used.||||<0.05
90985089|NCT04192448|181855444|OTHER|Target sample size was 200 participants. Power calculation was determined using nQuery version 8.4.1 for the 2x2 design, using 50 subject per group (including a conservative 10% dropout). Power calculation estimated 80% power to detect an effect size of 0.3 in both factors with no interaction, and greater power if there is an interaction effect. Current enrollment indicates study is underpowered. Because there are not enough participants to conduct an ANOVA or ANCOVA, t-tests were conducted.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.67||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|6.67|||t-test, 1 sided|The t-test examined differences in psychological aggression intentions between those in the Alcohol condition and those in the Sober condition.|The estimation parameter refers to the mean difference in the outcome between those in the Alcohol condition and those in the Sober condition. A positive value indicates greater likelihood of psych aggression among those in the Alcohol condition.|The number of participants enrolled in the study constrained the type of statistical analyses able to be conducted. Indeed, the Sober x Anger condition could not be compared to the other arms because no participants were randomly assigned to that arm.||6.67|-8.00|.23
90985090|NCT04192448|181855444|OTHER|Target sample size was 200 participants. Power calculation was determined using nQuery version 8.4.1 for the 2x2 design, using 50 subject per group (including a conservative 10% dropout). Power calculation estimated 80% power to detect an effect size of 0.3 in both factors with no interaction, and greater power if there is an interaction effect. Current enrollment indicates study is underpowered. Because there are not enough participants to conduct an ANOVA or ANCOVA, t-tests were conducted.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.84|11.17|||t-test, 1 sided|The t-test examined the difference in psychological aggression intentions between those in the Anger condition and those in the Control condition.|The estimation parameter refers to the mean difference in the outcome between those in the Alcohol condition and those in the Sober condition. A negative value indicates greater likelihood of psych aggression among those in the Control condition.|The number of participants enrolled in the study constrained the type of statistical analyses able to be conducted. Indeed, the Sober x Anger condition could not be compared to the other arms because no participants were randomly assigned to that arm.||11.17|-10.84|.44
90985091|NCT00500149|181855449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||The primary efficacy variable will be onset of effect, which will be determined from the results of inferential analyses across multiple time points. No adjustment will be made to the levels of significance as a result of the multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Using a linear mixed model that includes sequence, period, and treatment group as fixed effects and subject-within-sequence as a random effect.||Statistical analysis of SKAMP scores at 1.5 hours post-dose||||<0.0001
90985092|NCT00500149|181855449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||The primary efficacy variable will be onset of effect, which will be determined from the results of inferential analyses across multiple time points. No adjustment will be made to the levels of significance as a result of the multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Using a linear mixed model that includes sequence, period, and treatment group as fixed effects and subject-within-sequence as a random effect.||Statistical analysis of SKAMP scores at 2.5 hours post-dose||||<0.0001
90985093|NCT00500149|181855449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||The primary efficacy variable will be onset of effect, which will be determined from the results of inferential analyses across multiple time points. No adjustment will be made to the levels of significance as a result of the multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Using a linear mixed model that includes sequence, period, and treatment group as fixed effects and subject-within-sequence as a random effect.||Statistical analysis of SKAMP scores at 5.0 hours post-dose||||<0.0001
90985094|NCT00500149|181855449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||The primary efficacy variable will be onset of effect, which will be determined from the results of inferential analyses across multiple time points. No adjustment will be made to the levels of significance as a result of the multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Using a linear mixed model that includes sequence, period, and treatment group as fixed effects and subject-within-sequence as a random effect.||Statistical analysis of SKAMP scores at 7.5 hours post-dose||||<0.0001
90985095|NCT00500149|181855449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||The primary efficacy variable will be onset of effect, which will be determined from the results of inferential analyses across multiple time points. No adjustment will be made to the levels of significance as a result of the multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Using a linear mixed model that includes sequence, period, and treatment group as fixed effects and subject-within-sequence as a random effect.||Statistical analysis of SKAMP scores at 10.0 hours post-dose||||<0.0001
90985096|NCT00500149|181855449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||The primary efficacy variable will be onset of effect, which will be determined from the results of inferential analyses across multiple time points. No adjustment will be made to the levels of significance as a result of the multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Using a linear mixed model that includes sequence, period, and treatment group as fixed effects and subject-within-sequence as a random effect.||Statistical analysis of SKAMP scores at 12.0 hours post-dose||||<0.0001
90985097|NCT00500149|181855449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||The primary efficacy variable will be onset of effect, which will be determined from the results of inferential analyses across multiple time points. No adjustment will be made to the levels of significance as a result of the multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Using a linear mixed model that includes sequence, period, and treatment group as fixed effects and subject-within-sequence as a random effect.||Statistical analysis of SKAMP scores at 13.0 hours post-dose||||<0.0001
90985098|NCT00500149|181855450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Using a linear mixed model that includes sequence, period, and treatment group as fixed effects and subject-within-sequence as a random effect.||Statistical analysis of SKAMP scores at 1.5 hours post-dose||||< 0.0001
90985099|NCT00500149|181855450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Using a linear mixed model that includes sequence, period, and treatment group as fixed effects and subject-within-sequence as a random effect.||Statistical analysis of SKAMP scores at 2.5 hours post-dose||||<0.0001
90985100|NCT00500149|181855450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Using a linear mixed model that includes sequence, period, and treatment group as fixed effects and subject-within-sequence as a random effect.||Statistical analysis of SKAMP scores at 5.0 hours post-dose||||<0.0001
90985101|NCT00500149|181855450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Using a linear mixed model that includes sequence, period, and treatment group as fixed effects and subject-within-sequence as a random effect.||Statistical analysis of SKAMP scores at 7.5 hours post-dose||||<0.0001
90985102|NCT00500149|181855450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Using a linear mixed model that includes sequence, period, and treatment group as fixed effects and subject-within-sequence as a random effect.||Statistical analysis of SKAMP scores at 10.0 hours post-dose||||<0.0001
90985103|NCT00500149|181855450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Using a linear mixed model that includes sequence, period, and treatment group as fixed effects and subject-within-sequence as a random effect.||Statistical analysis of SKAMP scores at 12.0 hours post-dose||||<0.001
90985104|NCT00500149|181855450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Using a linear mixed model that includes sequence, period, and treatment group as fixed effects and subject-within-sequence as a random effect.||Statistical analysis of SKAMP scores at 13.0 hours post-dose||||<0.0001
90985105|NCT01157169|181855451|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|110.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.67|120.07|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||120.07|101.67|
90985106|NCT01157169|181855452|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|105.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.74|112.45|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||112.45|99.74|
90985107|NCT01157169|181855453|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|103.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.18|111.24|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||111.24|97.18|
90985108|NCT01157169|181855454|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|93.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.37|101.93|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||101.93|85.37|
90985109|NCT01157169|181855455|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|94.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.44|101.46|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||101.46|87.44|
90985110|NCT01157169|181855456|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|95.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.56|104.39|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||104.39|86.56|
91007968|NCT00631969|181900012|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This is an exploratory analysis of Vardenafil exposure in ED patients of different age categories to assess the effect of age on the drug's pharmacokinetics.|Point estimate of ratio|117.42||||||90.0|79.59|173.23||||||Point estimate and 90% confidence interval of ratio (patients aged ≥ 65 years / patients aged \< 65 years) were calculated.||173.23|79.59|
91007969|NCT00631969|181900012|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This is an exploratory analysis of Vardenafil exposure in ED patients of different age categories to assess the effect of age on the drug's pharmacokinetics.||||||0.7064||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||A linear regression line is fitted to the logarithm of AUC. Test of the hypothesis of a zero slope using the two-sided t-test at α = 0.05.||||0.7064
90985111|NCT02940886|181855457|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority could be claimed if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) was above -0.5 g/dL.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.13|||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measurement was used for testing and included the fixed categorical effects of treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, strata, and the continuous covariates of baseline Hb and baseline Hb-by-week interaction.|"Power:~With N=1000 subjects in the iron isomaltoside/ferric derisomaltose treatment group and with N=500 subjects in the iron sucrose treatment group, assuming no difference between the treatment groups and assuming a common standard deviation (SD) of 1.5 g/dL, the power was 100% for demonstrating non-inferiority of the change in Hb from baseline to week 8, using a non-inferiority margin of -0.5 g/dL.~The significance level was set to 5%."||0.13|-0.13|
90985112|NCT02940886|181855458|OTHER||95% two-sided CI (iron isomaltoside)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.88||||||"Power:~With N=1000 subjects in the iron isomaltoside/ferric derisomaltose, the power was 88% to demonstrate that the upper bound of the 95% CI of the incidence of treatment-emergent serious and/or severe non-serious hypersensitivity AEs was less than 3%.~The significance level was set to 5%."||0.88|0.06|
90985113|NCT02940886|181855458|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.71||||||Risk difference between iron isomaltoside/ferric derisomaltose and iron sucrose was assessed for the individual trial with 95% Newcombe CI adjusted for stratum using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method.||0.71|-0.91|
90985114|NCT02940886|181855458|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority can be claimed if the upper bound of the 95% CI is below 1.5 % point.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.48||||||Risk difference between iron isomaltoside/ferric derisomaltose and iron sucrose was assessed for the pooled FERWON-IDA and FERWON-NEPHRO trials (2008 subjects treated with iron isomaltoside/ferric derisomaltose and 1000 subjects treated with iron sucrose) with 95% Newcombe CI adjusted for stratum using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method.||0.48|-0.57|
90985115|NCT02940886|181855459|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5695|||||||Fisher Exact|||Adjudicated and confirmed treatment-emergent composite cardiovascular AEs. Any treatment emergent composite cardiovascular AEs were included in the statistical evaluation. The overall incidence of adjudicated and confirmed composite cardiovascular AEs was tabulated and compared between the treatment groups by a Fisher's exact test.||||0.5695
90985116|NCT02940886|181855460|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3913|||||||Log Rank|||The time to first adjudicated and confirmed composite cardiovascular AEs was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and the hypothesis of no treatment difference was assessed by a log-rank test.||||0.3913
90985117|NCT02940886|181855462|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.44||||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|4.72|||Repeated measures logistic regressioin|||"Week 1~Hb increase of ≥2 g/dL from baseline to week 1.~Proportion of Hb responders to each week was analysed using a repeated measures logistic regression model with treatment, visit, strata, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate."||4.72|1.27|0.0077
90985118|NCT02940886|181855462|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|3.26|||Repeated measures logistic regressioin|||"Week 2~Hb increase of ≥2 g/dL from baseline to week 2.~Proportion of Hb responders to each week was analysed using a repeated measures logistic regression model with treatment, visit, strata, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate."||3.26|1.80|<0.0001
90985119|NCT02940886|181855462|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.1049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.58|||Repeated measures logistic regressioin|||"Week 4~Hb increase of ≥2 g/dL from baseline to week 4.~Proportion of Hb responders to each week was analysed using a repeated measures logistic regression model with treatment, visit, strata, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate."||1.58|0.96|0.1049
90985120|NCT02940886|181855462|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.7032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.38|||Repeated measures logistic regressioin|||"Week 8~Hb increase of ≥2 g/dL from baseline to week 8.~Proportion of Hb responders to each week was analysed using a repeated measures logistic regression model with treatment, visit, strata, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate."||1.38|0.80|0.7032
90985121|NCT02940886|181855463|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.088|||||||Log Rank|||Time to Hb response was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and the hypothesis of no treatment difference was assessed by a 2-sided log-rank test.||||0.0880
90985122|NCT02940886|181855464|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.41|||Regression, Logistic|||The proportion of subjects who achieved a Hb level of \>12 g/dL at any time from week 1 to week 8 was analysed using a logistic regression model with treatment and strata as fixed effects. The estimated treatment ratio of iron isomaltoside/ferric derisomaltose versus iron sucrose is presented with 95% CI and corresponding p-value.||1.41|0.92|0.2420
91040530|NCT02654145|181966060|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|-1.0||p- value for Difference (Mepo-Placebo) calculated based on the Historical Placebo estimate of -0.11 (Standard Error: 0.14), which was estimated from a meta-analysis of studies NCT01691521 and NCT02281318 using Placebo participants who previously used|Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Difference (Mepo-Placebo) calculated based on the Historical Placebo estimate of -0.11 (Standard Error: 0.14), which was estimated from a meta-analysis of studies NCT01691521 and NCT02281318 using Placebo participants who previously used Xolair.|||-1.00|-1.68|<0.001
91040531|NCT02654145|181966062|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.47|||Generalised Estimating Equations||Analysis performed using generalized estimating equation (GEE) model assuming a negative binomial distribution with a covariate of treatment period (pre-treatment , on- and off-treatment), logarithm of time as an offset variable|||0.47|0.28|<0.001
91040532|NCT00354835|181966071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||The incidence of anemia|0.2613|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.31||||||Compare incidence of Anemia to historical rate of 0.40 from D9803, which is Randomized Study of VCR, Actinomycin-D, and CPM (VAC) vs. VAC alternating with VCR, Topotecan, and CPM (VTC) for Patients with Intermediate Risk RMS. Comparing the incidence of anemia with VAC on ARST0531 to the historical rate of 0.40 with VAC on D9803. The 95% one-sided confidence interval for the incidence of anemia will be calculated and evaluated to see if the interval contains the null rate of 0.40.||0.31||
91040533|NCT00354835|181966071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||The incidence of nausea or hepatopathy|0.027|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.0449||||||Compare incidence of Nausea or Hepatopathy to historical rate of 0.05 from D9803, which is Randomized Study of VCR, Actinomycin-D, and CPM (VAC) vs. VAC alternating with VCR, Topotecan, and CPM (VTC) for Patients with Intermediate Risk RMS. The 95% one-sided confidence interval for the incidence of nausea or hepatopathy will be calculated and evaluated to see if the interval contains the null rate of 0.05.||0.0449||
91040534|NCT00354835|181966071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||The incidence of febrile neutropenia|0.1351|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.1729||||||Compare incidence of Febrile Neutropenia to historical rate of 0.50 from D9803, which is Randomized Study of VCR, Actinomycin-D, and CPM (VAC) vs. VAC alternating with VCR, Topotecan, and CPM (VTC) for Patients with Intermediate Risk RMS. The 95% one-sided confidence interval for the incidence of febrile neutropenia will be calculated and evaluated to see if the interval contains the null rate of 0.50.||0.1729||
91040535|NCT00354835|181966071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||The incidence of platelet count decrease|0.1216|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.1577||||||Compare incidence of Platelet Count Decreased to historical rate of 0.70 from D9803, which is Randomized Study of VCR, Actinomycin-D, and CPM (VAC) vs. VAC alternating with VCR, Topotecan, and CPM (VTC) for Patients with Intermediate Risk RMS. The 95% one-sided confidence interval for the incidence of platelet count decreased will be calculated and evaluated to see if the interval contains the null rate of 0.70.||0.1577||
91040536|NCT00354835|181966071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||The incidence of vomiting|0.0405|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.0623||||||Compare incidence of Vomiting to historical rate of 0.15 from D9803, which is Randomized Study of VCR, Actinomycin-D, and CPM (VAC) vs. VAC alternating with VCR, Topotecan, and CPM (VTC) for Patients with Intermediate Risk RMS. The 95% one-sided confidence interval for the incidence of vomiting will be calculated and evaluated to see if the interval contains the null rate of 0.15.||0.0623||
91040537|NCT00354835|181966071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||The incidence of anemia|0.2798|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.3329||||||Compare incidence of Anemia to historical rate of 0.40 from D9803, which is Randomized Study of VCR, Actinomycin-D, and CPM (VAC) vs. VAC alternating with VCR, Topotecan, and CPM (VTC) for Patients with Intermediate Risk RMS. 95% one-sided confidence interval for the incidence of anemia will be calculated and evaluated to see if the interval contains the null rate of 0.40.||0.3329||
91040538|NCT00354835|181966071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||The incidence of nausea or hepatopathy|0.0052|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.0137||||||Compare incidence of Nausea or Hepatopathy to historical rate of 0.05 from D9803, which is Randomized Study of VCR, Actinomycin-D, and CPM (VAC) vs. VAC alternating with VCR, Topotecan, and CPM (VTC) for Patients with Intermediate Risk RMS. The 95% one-sided confidence interval for the incidence of nausea or hepatopathy will be calculated and evaluated to see if the interval contains the null rate of 0.05.||0.0137||
91040539|NCT00354835|181966071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||The incidence of febrile neutropenia|0.0881|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.1216||||||Compare incidence of Febrile Neutropenia to historical rate of 0.50 from D9803, which is Randomized Study of VCR, Actinomycin-D, and CPM (VAC) vs. VAC alternating with VCR, Topotecan, and CPM (VTC) for Patients with Intermediate Risk RMS. The 95% one-sided confidence interval for the incidence of febrile neutropenia will be calculated and evaluated to see if the interval contains the null rate of 0.50.||0.1216||
91040540|NCT00354835|181966071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||The incidence of platelet count decrease|0.3264|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.3819||||||Compare incidence of Platelet Count Decreased to historical rate of 0.70 from D9803, which is Randomized Study of VCR, Actinomycin-D, and CPM (VAC) vs. VAC alternating with VCR, Topotecan, and CPM (VTC) for Patients with Intermediate Risk RMS. The 95% one-sided confidence interval for the incidence of platelet count decreased will be calculated and evaluated to see if the interval contains the null rate of 0.70.||0.3819||
91040541|NCT00354835|181966071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||The incidence of vomiting|0.0104|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.0224||||||Compare incidence of Vomiting to historical rate of 0.15 from D9803, which is Randomized Study of VCR, Actinomycin-D, and CPM (VAC) vs. VAC alternating with VCR, Topotecan, and CPM (VTC) for Patients with Intermediate Risk RMS. The 95% one-sided confidence interval for the incidence of vomiting will be calculated and evaluated to see if the interval contains the null rate of 0.15.||0.0224||
90985123|NCT02940886|181855465|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.8746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.28|||Regression, Logistic|||"The proportion of subjects who achieved an increase in Hb concentration ≥2 g/dL at any time from week 1 to week 8 was analysed using a logistic regression model with treatment and strata as fixed effects.~The estimated treatment ratio of iron isomaltoside/ferric derisomaltose versus iron sucrose was presented with 95% CI and corresponding p-value."||1.28|0.81|0.8746
90985124|NCT02940886|181855466|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.58|5.71|||Regression, Logistic|||"Proportion of subject who achieved a s-ferritin level of ≥100 ng/mL AND a TSAT of 20-50% at any time from week 1 to week 8 was analysed using a logistic regression model with treatment and strata as fixed effects.~The estimated treatment ratio of iron isomaltoside/ferric derisomaltose versus iron sucrose is presented with 95% CI and corresponding p-value."||5.71|3.58|<0.0001
90985125|NCT02940886|181855467|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.34|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Week 1~Change in Hb concentration from baseline to week 1 was analysed using a MMRM including treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and strata as factors and baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction as covariates."||0.34|0.19|<0.0001
90985126|NCT02940886|181855467|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.38|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Week 2~Change in Hb concentration from baseline to week 2 was analysed using a MMRM including treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and strata as factors and baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction as covariates."||0.38|0.19|<0.0001
90985127|NCT02940886|181855467|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.1091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.2|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Week 4~Change in Hb concentration from baseline to week 4 was analysed using a MMRM including treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and strata as factors and baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction as covariates."||0.20|-0.02|0.1091
90985128|NCT02940886|181855468|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|267.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|246.3|289.0|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Week 1~Change in concentrations of s-ferritin from baseline to week 1 was analysed using a MMRM including treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and strata as factors and baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction as covariates.~The estimated treatment differences based on the least square means of the treatment-by-week interaction effects are presented by week, include 95% CIs and corresponding p-value."||289.0|246.3|<0.0001
90985129|NCT02940886|181855468|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|41.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.6|57.8|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Week 2~Change in concentrations of s-ferritin from baseline to week 2 was analysed using MMRM including treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and strata as factors and baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction as covariates.~The estimated treatment differences based on the least square means of the treatment-by-week interaction effects are presented by week, include 95% CIs and corresponding p-value."||57.8|25.6|<0.0001
91007970|NCT00631969|181900013|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This is an exploratory analysis of Vardenafil exposure in ED patients of different age categories to assess the effect of age on the drug's pharmacokinetics.|Point estimate of ratio|133.07||||||90.0|87.46|202.46||||||Point estimate and 90% confidence interval of ratio (patients aged ≥ 65 years / patients aged \< 65 years) were calculated.||202.46|87.46|
91007971|NCT00631969|181900013|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This is an exploratory analysis of Vardenafil exposure in ED patients of different age categories to assess the effect of age on the drug's pharmacokinetics.||||||0.8749||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||A linear regression line is fitted to the logarithm of Cmax. Test of the hypothesis of a zero slope using the two-sided t-test at α=0.05.||||0.8749
91007972|NCT00631969|181900014|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This is an exploratory analysis of metabolite M-1 exposure in ED patients of different age categories to assess the effect of age on the drug's pharmacokinetics.|Point estimate of ratio|125.28||||||90.0|73.65|213.11||||||Point estimate and 90% confidence interval of ratio (patients aged ≥ 65 years/ patients aged \< 65 years) were calculated.||213.11|73.65|
91007973|NCT00631969|181900014|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This is an exploratory analysis of metabolite M-1 exposure in ED patients of different age categories to assess the effect of age on the drug's pharmacokinetics.||||||0.7375||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||A linear regression line is fitted to the logarithm of AUC. Test of the hypothesis of a zero slope using the two-sided t-test at α=0.05.||||0.7375
91007974|NCT00631969|181900015|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This is an exploratory analysis of metabolite M-1 exposure in ED patients of different age categories to assess the effect of age on the drug's pharmacokinetics.|Point estimate of ratio|123.84||||||90.0|80.12|191.42||||||Point estimate and 90% confidence interval of ratio (patients aged ≥ 65 years / patients aged \< 65 years) were calculated.||191.42|80.12|
91007975|NCT00631969|181900015|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This is an exploratory analysis of metabolite M-1 exposure in ED patients of different age categories to assess the effect of age on the drug's pharmacokinetics.||||||0.394||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||A linear regression line is fitted to the logarithm of Cmax. Test of the hypothesis of a zero slope using the two-sided t-test at α = 0.05.||||0.3940
91007976|NCT01491802|181900048|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A paired t-test using a 2-sided test of significance was used to compare values after LAMA versus LABA/LAMA treatment.||||0.090
91007977|NCT01491802|181900049|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A paired t-test using a 2-sided test of significance was used to compare values after LAMA versus LABA/LAMA treatment.||||0.680
91007978|NCT01491802|181900050|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.197|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A paired t-test using a 2-sided test of significance was used to compare values after LAMA versus LABA/LAMA treatment.||||0.197
90951739|NCT01182441|181780769|SUPERIORITY|Success for this endpoint was achieved if the probability of experiencing an event was statistically less than the performance goal, defined as 2.67%, with an upper bound of the one-sided 95% credible interval less than the performance goal.|probability of experiencing an event|2.2|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||2.652||||||Bayesian calculations were used to incorporate the data from PROTECT AF CAP Registry through a conjugate beta-binomial model. A one-sided upper 95% credible interval for the event rate was calculated based off this posterior distribution.||2.652||
90985130|NCT02940886|181855468|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.0||||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.3|2.2|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Week 4~Change in concentrations of s-ferritin from baseline to week 4 was analysed using MMRM including treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and strata as factors and baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction as covariates.~The estimated treatment differences based on the least square means of the treatment-by-week interaction effects are presented by week, include 95% CIs and corresponding p-value."||2.2|-20.3|0.1150
90985131|NCT02940886|181855468|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.3||||0.0812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|1.0|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Week 8~Change in concentrations of s-ferritin from baseline to week 8 was analysed using MMRM including treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and strata as factors and baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction as covariates.~The estimated treatment differences based on the least square means of the treatment-by-week interaction effects are presented by week, include 95% CIs and corresponding p-value."||1.0|-17.7|0.0812
90985132|NCT02940886|181855469|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.1|12.7|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Week 1~Change in TSAT from baseline to week 1 was analysed using MMRM including treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and strata as factors and baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction as covariates.~The estimated treatment differences based on the least square means of the treatment-by-week interaction effects are presented by week, include 95% CIs and corresponding p-value."||12.7|10.1|<0.0001
90985133|NCT02940886|181855469|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|3.6|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Week 2~Change in TSAT from baseline to week 2 was analysed using MMRM including treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and strata as factors and baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction as covariates.~The estimated treatment differences based on the least square means of the treatment-by-week interaction effects are presented by week, include 95% CIs and corresponding p-value."||3.6|1.2|0.0001
90985134|NCT02940886|181855469|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2||||0.0162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.1|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Week 4~Change in TSAT from baseline to week 4 was analysed using MMRM including treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and strata as factors and baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction as covariates.~The estimated treatment differences based on the least square means of the treatment-by-week interaction effects are presented by week, include 95% CIs and corresponding p-value."||2.1|0.2|0.0162
90985135|NCT02940886|181855469|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.0569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.8|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Week 8~Change in TSAT from baseline to week 8 was analysed using MMRM including treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and strata as factors and baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction as covariates.~The estimated treatment differences based on the least square means of the treatment-by-week interaction effects are presented by week, include 95% CIs and corresponding p-value."||1.8|0.0|0.0569
90985136|NCT02940886|181855470|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|43.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.1|49.3|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Week 1~Change in s-iron from baseline to week 1 was analysed using a Mixed Model for Repeated Measurement (MMRM) including treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and strata as factors and baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction as covariates.~The estimated treatment differences based on the least square means of the treatment-by-week interaction effects are presented by week, including 95% CIs and corresponding p-value."||49.3|38.1|<0.0001
90985137|NCT02940886|181855470|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.0||||0.0375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|9.8|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Week 2~Change in s-iron from baseline to week 2 was analysed using a Mixed Model for Repeated Measurement (MMRM) including treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and strata as factors and baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction as covariates.~The estimated treatment differences based on the least square means of the treatment-by-week interaction effects are presented by week, including 95% CIs and corresponding p-value."||9.8|0.3|0.0375
91007979|NCT01491802|181900051|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A paired t-test using a 2-sided test of significance was used to compare values after LAMA versus LABA/LAMA treatment.||||0.006
90951740|NCT01182441|181780770|NON_INFERIORITY|This endpoint is met if the 95% Credible Interval for the rate ratio of WATCHMAN versus Warfarin is entirely less than 1.75.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.89||||||A Bayesian piecewise exponential model was used to model the 18-month event rates. Historical priors for each interval model were based on PROTECT AF. Hazards were modeled for 0-7 day, 7-60 day, 60-182 day, and 182+ day intervals. Event rates were estimated separately by treatment group and event type. The posterior distribution for the 18-month event rate ratio (WATCHMAN vs. Warfarin), and the corresponding equitailed 95% credible interval, were determined via Monte Carlo simulations.||1.89|0.57|
90985138|NCT02940886|181855470|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.6027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|2.3|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Week 4~Change in s-iron from baseline to week 4 was analysed using a Mixed Model for Repeated Measurement (MMRM) including treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and strata as factors and baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction as covariates.~The estimated treatment differences based on the least square means of the treatment-by-week interaction effects are presented by week, including 95% CIs and corresponding p-value."||2.3|-4.0|0.6027
90985139|NCT02940886|181855470|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.8207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|3.4|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Week 8~Change in s-iron from baseline to week 8 was analysed using a Mixed Model for Repeated Measurement (MMRM) including treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and strata as factors and baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction as covariates.~The estimated treatment differences based on the least square means of the treatment-by-week interaction effects are presented by week, including 95% CIs and corresponding p-value."||3.4|-2.7|0.8207
90985140|NCT02940886|181855471|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.02||||0.0422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|2.01|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Week 1~Change in fatigue symptoms score from baseline to week 1 was analysed using MMRM including treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and strata as factors and baseline score and baseline score-by-week interaction as covariates."||2.01|0.04|0.0422
90985141|NCT02940886|181855471|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39||||0.4646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|0.66|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Week 2~Change in fatigue symptoms score from baseline to week 2 was analysed using MMRM including treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and strata as factors and baseline score and baseline score-by-week interaction as covariates."||0.66|-1.44|0.4646
90985142|NCT02940886|181855471|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31||||0.5703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|0.76|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Week 8~Change in fatigue symptoms score from baseline to week 8 was analysed using MMRM including treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and strata as factors and baseline score and baseline score-by-week interaction as covariates."||0.76|-1.39|0.5703
90985143|NCT01873742|181855523|OTHER|The BDI's Cronbach's alpha was .93 at start of therapy, and .95 at the end of therapy.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.01|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
90985144|NCT00942708|181855539|OTHER|Single group evaluation of change in PVR between 12 weeks and baseline (T-test for one group, 2-sided, p\<0.05 considered significant)||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.09
90985145|NCT00995371|181855626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.52|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|3.96|||t-test, 2 sided|||The mean change from baseline was assessed for VAS using a paired t-test. The resulting p-values are to be considered as descriptive statistics. Two-sided test with 5% Type I error was used.||3.96|1.09|<0.05
90985146|NCT00995371|181855626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|1.55|||t-test, 2 sided|||The mean change from baseline was assessed for VAS using a paired t-test. The resulting p-values are to be considered as descriptive statistics. Two-sided test with 5% Type I error was used.||1.55|-1.43|>0.05
90985147|NCT00995371|181855627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.33|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.35|19.31|||t-test, 2 sided|||The mean change from baseline was assessed for ODI using a paired t-test. The resulting p-values are to be considered as descriptive statistics. Two-sided test with 5% Type I error was used.||19.31|3.35|<0.05
90985148|NCT00995371|181855627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.65|||>|0.05||95.0|-4.12|15.41|||t-test, 2 sided|||The mean change from baseline was assessed for ODI using a paired t-test. The resulting p-values are to be considered as descriptive statistics. Two-sided test with 5% Type I error was used.||15.41|-4.12|>0.05
90985149|NCT00995371|181855628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.19|||<|0.05||95.0|0.61|3.77|||t-test, 2 sided|||The mean change from baseline was assessed for VAS using a paired t-test. The resulting p-values are to be considered as descriptive statistics. Two-sided test with 5% Type I error was used.||3.77|0.61|<0.05
90985150|NCT00995371|181855628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|||>|0.05||95.0|-0.66|2.66|||t-test, 2 sided|||The mean change from baseline was assessed for VAS using a paired t-test. The resulting p-values are to be considered as descriptive statistics. Two-sided test with 5% Type I error was used.||2.66|-0.66|>0.05
90985151|NCT00995371|181855629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.13|||<|0.05||95.0|7.43|24.83|||t-test, 2 sided|||The mean change from baseline was assessed for ODI using a paired t-test. The resulting p-values are to be considered as descriptive statistics. Two-sided test with 5% Type I error was used.||24.83|7.43|<0.05
90985152|NCT00995371|181855629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.17|||>|0.05||95.0|-1.24|13.58|||t-test, 2 sided|||The mean change from baseline was assessed for ODI using a paired t-test. The resulting p-values are to be considered as descriptive statistics. Two-sided test with 5% Type I error was used.||13.58|-1.24|>0.05
90985153|NCT01462292|181855633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.946||||0.554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.122|21.229||Due to the two comparisons for the two different doses, the type 1 error rate (5% overall) was preserved by utilizing a hierarchical approach, testing the 6mg/kg GSK2402968 dose first|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Model included terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit, centre grouping, baseline and baseline by visit||Treatment difference: Placebo Vs GSK2402968 3 mg||21.229|-39.122|0.554
90985154|NCT01462292|181855633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|27.099||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|56.408||Due to the two comparisons for the two different doses, the type 1 error rate (5% overall) was preserved by utilising a hierarchical approach, testing the 6mg/kg GSK2402968 dose first|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Model included terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit, centre grouping, baseline and baseline by visit||Treatment difference: Placebo Vs GSK2402968 6 mg||56.408|-2.210|0.069
90985155|NCT01462292|181855634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.387||||0.699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.618|2.392||No adjustment for multiplicity was made, so p-values should not be used to make conclusions with regards to statistical significance|ANCOVA|Model included terms for treatment, centre grouping and baseline||Treatment difference: Placebo Vs GSK2402968 3 mg||2.392|-1.618|0.699
90951741|NCT01182441|181780771|NON_INFERIORITY|This endpoint is met if either the 95% Credible Interval for the risk ratio \< 2.0 or the 95% Credible Interval for the risk difference is \< 0.0275.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0053|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.019|0.0273||||||A Bayesian piecewise exponential model was used to model the 18-month event rates. Historical priors for each interval were based on PROTECT AF. Hazards were modeled for 0-7 day, 7-60 day, 60-182 day, and 182+ day intervals. Event rates were estimated separately for the WATCHMAN and Warfarin groups. The posterior distribution for the 18-month event rate ratio (WATCHMAN vs. Warfarin), and the corresponding equitailed 95% credible interval, were determined via Monte Carlo simulations.||0.0273|-0.0190|
90985156|NCT01462292|181855634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.831||||0.384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.072|2.735||No adjustment for multiplicity was made, so p-values should not be used to make conclusions with regards to statistical significance|ANCOVA|Model included terms for treatment, centre grouping and baseline||Treatment difference: Placebo Vs GSK2402968 6 mg||2.735|-1.072|0.384
91007980|NCT01491802|181900052|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.044|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A paired t-test using a 2-sided test of significance was used to compare values after LAMA versus LABA/LAMA treatment.||||0.044
90951742|NCT01182441|181780771|NON_INFERIORITY|This endpoint is met if either the 95% Credible Interval for the risk ratio \< 2.0 or the 95% Credible Interval for the risk difference is \< 0.0275.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|4.2||||||A Bayesian piecewise exponential model was used to model the 18-month event rates. Historical priors for each interval were based on PROTECT AF. Hazards were modeled for 0-7 day, 7-60 day, 60-182 day, and 182+ day intervals. Event rates were estimated separately for the WATCHMAN and Warfarin groups. The posterior distribution for the 18-month event rate ratio (WATCHMAN vs. Warfarin), and the corresponding equitailed 95% credible interval, were determined via Monte Carlo simulations.||4.2|0.5|
90951743|NCT05262517|181780798|OTHER||Least square (LS) mean difference|-0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|1.48||||||LS means and CIs were estimated by an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model, using restricted maximum likelihood (REML) with baseline NRS value as a covariate and treatment group and stratification factor (use of daily medications/ oral devices to reduce the intensity of TMD symptoms) as the main effects.||1.48|-1.78|
90951744|NCT05262517|181780799|OTHER||LS mean difference|5.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.35|31.59||||||LS means and CIs were estimated by an analysis of covariance model using REML with baseline NRS value as a covariate and treatment group and stratification factor (use of daily medications/ oral devices to reduce the intensity of TMD symptoms) as the main effects.||31.59|-21.35|
90951745|NCT05262517|181780800|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|1.41||||||LS means, and CIs were based on a generalized linear mixed effect model (GLMEM) that included the baseline value as a covariate and fixed effects for treatment group, stratification factor (use of daily medications/ oral devices to reduce the intensity of TMD symptoms; yes or no), scheduled time point, and time point by-treatment group interaction.||1.41|-0.99|
90951746|NCT05262517|181780801|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-5.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.3|10.9||||||Stratified by use of daily medications/ oral devices to reduce the intensity of TMD symptoms at randomization with Mantel-Haenzsel weighting.||10.9|-21.3|
90951747|NCT05262517|181780804|OTHER||Difference in percentage|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|16.6||||||Stratified by use of daily medications/oral devices to reduce the intensity of TMD symptoms at randomization with Mantel-Haenszel weighting.||16.6|-8.7|
90951748|NCT00186017|181780822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.08
90951749|NCT00186017|181780823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>.1
90951750|NCT00186017|181780824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>.1
90951751|NCT03296800|181780830|EQUIVALENCE|The acceptance range for bioequivalence is 80.0 - 125.00%.|Point Estimate (%)|118.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|111.12|126.72|||||Point Estimate is the estimated ratio of exponentiated mean difference of log-transformed PK parameter from ANOVA. Confidence interval is obtained from ANOVA with treatment as a fixed effect, and subject as a random effect.|Geometric LS Mean was used as PK parameters||126.72|111.12|
90951752|NCT03296800|181780830|EQUIVALENCE|The acceptance range for bioequivalence is 80.0 - 125.00%.|Point Estimate (%)|119.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.39|151.59||||||Geometric LS Mean was used as PK parameters|Point Estimate is the estimated ratio of exponentiated mean difference of log-transformed PK parameter from ANOVA. Confidence interval is obtained from ANOVA with treatment as a fixed effect, and subject as a random effect.|151.59|94.39|
90951753|NCT03296800|181780830|EQUIVALENCE|The acceptance range for bioequivalence is 80.0 - 125.00%.|Point Estimate (%)|106.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.81|126.65||||||Geometric LS Mean was used as PK parameters|Point Estimate is the estimated ratio of exponentiated mean difference of log-transformed PK parameter from ANOVA. Confidence interval is obtained from ANOVA with treatment as a fixed effect, and subject as a random effect.|126.65|88.81|
90985157|NCT01462292|181855635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.002||||0.997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.883|0.886||No adjustment for multiplicity was made, so p-values should not be used to make conclusions with regards to statistical significance|ANCOVA|Model included terms for treatment,centre grouping and baseline||Placebo (combined) Vs GSK2402968 3 mg/kg/week, Ascent Week 24||0.886|-0.883|0.997
90985158|NCT01462292|181855635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.803||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.655|0.048||No adjustment for multiplicity was made, so p-values should not be used to make conclusions with regards to statistical significance|ANCOVA|Model included terms for treatment, centre grouping and baseline||Placebo (combined) Vs GSK2402968 6 mg/kg/week, Ascent, Week 24||0.048|-1.655|0.064
90985159|NCT01462292|181855635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.685||||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.033|0.662||No adjustment for multiplicity was made, so p-values should not be used to make conclusions with regards to statistical significance|ANCOVA|Model included terms for treatment, centre grouping and baseline||Placebo (combined) Vs GSK2402968 3 mg/kg/week, Descent Week 24||0.662|-2.033|0.311
90985160|NCT01462292|181855635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.412||||0.523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.702|0.878||No adjustment for multiplicity was made, so p-values should not be used to make conclusions with regards to statistical significance|ANCOVA|Model included terms for treatment, centre grouping and baseline||Placebo (combined) Vs GSK2402968 6 mg/kg/week, Descent Week 24||0.878|-1.702|0.523
90985161|NCT01462292|181855636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.564||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.127||No adjustment for multiplicity was made, so p-values should not be used to make conclusions with regards to statistical significance|ANCOVA|Model included terms for treatment, centre grouping and baseline||Treatment difference: Placebo Vs GSK2402968 3 mg||1.127|0.000|0.050
90951754|NCT03296800|181780833|EQUIVALENCE|The acceptance range for bioequivalence is 80.0 - 125.00%.|Point Estimate (%)|140.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|131.39|151.26|||||Point Estimate is the estimated ratio of exponentiated mean difference of log-transformed PK parameter from ANOVA. Confidence interval is obtained from ANOVA with treatment as a fixed effect, and subject as a random effect.|Geometric LS Mean was used as PK parameters||151.26|131.39|
90951755|NCT03296800|181780833|EQUIVALENCE|The acceptance range for bioequivalence is 80.0 - 125.00%.|Point Estimate (%)|86.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.24|105.59|||||Point Estimate is the estimated ratio of exponentiated mean difference of log-transformed PK parameter from ANOVA. Confidence interval is obtained from ANOVA with treatment as a fixed effect, and subject as a random effect.|Geometric LS Mean was used as PK parameters||105.59|70.24|
90985162|NCT01462292|181855636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.037||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.498|0.571||No adjustment for multiplicity was made, so p-values should not be used to make conclusions with regards to statistical significance|ANCOVA|Model included terms for treatment, center grouping and baseline||Treatment difference: Placebo Vs GSK2402968 6 mg||0.571|-0.498|0.890
90985163|NCT01462292|181855637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.356||||0.723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.936|15.648||No adjustment for multiplicity was made, so p-values should not be used to make conclusions with regards to statistical significance|ANCOVA|Model includes terms for Treatment, Centre Grouping and Baseline Muscle Strength Total Score||Treatment difference: Placebo Vs GSK2402968 3 mg||15.648|-10.936|0.723
90985164|NCT01462292|181855637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.821||||0.898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.034|13.676||No adjustment for multiplicity was made, so p-values should not be used to make conclusions with regards to statistical significance|ANCOVA|Model includes terms for Treatment, Centre Grouping and Baseline Muscle Strength Total Score||Treatment difference: Placebo Vs GSK2402968 6mg||13.676|-12.034|0.898
90985165|NCT01462292|181855639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.49||||0.684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|1.92||No adjustment for multiplicity was made, so p-values should not be used to make conclusions with regards to statistical significance|ANCOVA|Model included terms for treatment, center grouping and baseline||Treatment difference: Placebo Vs GSK2402968 3 mg||1.92|-2.90|0.684
90985166|NCT01462292|181855639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.18||||0.873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.49|2.12||No adjustment for multiplicity was made, so p-values should not be used to make conclusions with regards to statistical significance|ANCOVA|Model included terms for treatment, center grouping and baseline||Treatment difference: Placebo Vs GSK2402968 6 mg||2.12|-2.49|0.873
91007981|NCT01491802|181900053|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.573|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A paired t-test using a 2-sided test of significance was used to compare values after LAMA versus LABA/LAMA treatment.||||0.573
91040542|NCT00354835|181966074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||The incidences of grade 3 or higher neutropenia, with or without fever between UGT1A1 Genotypes (6/6, 6/7, 7/7) were compared by the Fisher's exact test.||||0.99
91040543|NCT00354835|181966074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||The incidences of grade 3 or higher diarrhea between UGT1A1 Genotypes (6/6, 6/7, 7/7) were compared by Fisher's exact test.||||0.036
91040544|NCT06475729|181966079|EQUIVALENCE|Log-transformed PK parameters were analyzed using a fixed-effects model. Bioequivalence will be concluded if the 2-sided 90% Confidence Interval is completely contained within the interval (0.80, 1.25).|Ratio of Geometric least squares mean|1.039|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9853|1.0956||||||||1.0956|0.9853|
90951756|NCT03296800|181780833|EQUIVALENCE|The acceptance range for bioequivalence is 80.0 - 125.00%.|Point Estimate (%)|97.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.26|106.26|||||Point Estimate is the estimated ratio of exponentiated mean difference of log-transformed PK parameter from ANOVA. Confidence interval is obtained from ANOVA with treatment as a fixed effect, and subject as a random effect.|Geometric LS Mean was used as PK parameters||106.26|90.26|
91040545|NCT06475729|181966080|EQUIVALENCE|Log-transformed PK parameters were analyzed using a fixed-effects model. Bioequivalence will be concluded if the 2-sided 90% Confidence Interval is completely contained within the interval (0.80, 1.25).|Ratio of Geometric least squares mean|1.011|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9564|1.0685||||||||1.0685|0.9564|
91040546|NCT06475729|181966081|EQUIVALENCE|Log-transformed PK parameters were analyzed using a fixed-effects model. Bioequivalence will be concluded if the 2-sided 90% Confidence Interval is completely contained within the interval (0.80, 1.25).|Ratio of Geometric least squares mean|1.011|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9568|1.0678||||||||1.0678|0.9568|
91040547|NCT03922750|181966085|OTHER||Estimated mean treatment difference|1.01||||0.7542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.33|7.35|||ANCOVA|||The response and change from baseline in response during last two weeks of treatment (week 15 and 16) were analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, pre-trial insulin treatment and SGLT2i use as fixed factors, and baseline response as covariate. Missing endpoint values were imputed using multiple imputation based on own treatment arm with baseline response as a covariate. Each imputed dataset was analysed separately and estimates were combined using Rubin's rules.||7.35|-5.33|0.7542
91040548|NCT03922750|181966085|OTHER||Estimated mean treatment difference|7.88||||0.0107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.83|13.93|||ANCOVA|||The response and change from baseline in response during last two weeks of treatment (week 15 and 16) were analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, pre-trial insulin treatment and SGLT2i use as fixed factors, and baseline response as covariate. Missing endpoint values were imputed using multiple imputation based on own treatment arm with baseline response as a covariate. Each imputed dataset was analysed separately and estimates were combined using Rubin's rules.||13.93|1.83|0.0107
91040549|NCT01046084|181966104|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|103.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.5|123.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||123|86.5|
91040550|NCT01046084|181966105|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|104.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.3|120.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||120|89.3|
91040551|NCT01046084|181966106|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|107.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.5|123.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||123|92.5|
90951757|NCT01370655|181780858|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Hypothesis supported if the upper bound of the two-sided 80% confidence interval (CI; equivalent to a one-sided upper 90% CI) is~≤0 mmHg"|Difference in Least square (LS) means|-7.4|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-10.6|-4.1|||||MK-7145 6 mg LS mean minus Placebo LS mean|Type I error rate of alpha=0.10 (1-sided) is specified for testing of the hypothesis.||-4.1|-10.6|
90951758|NCT01370655|181780858|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Hypothesis supported if the upper bound of the two-sided 90% CI (equivalent to a one-sided upper 95% CI) for the difference ≤ 3.8 mmHg.|Difference in LS means|-5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.2|-1.6|||||MK-7145 6 mg LS mean minus HCTZ 25 mg LS mean|Type I error rate of alpha=0.05 (1-sided) is specified for testing of the hypothesis.||-1.6|-9.2|
90951759|NCT01370655|181780858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|-4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.0|-0.5|||||MK-7145 3 mg LS mean minus HCTZ 25 mg LS mean|||-0.5|-9.0|
90951760|NCT01370655|181780858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.2|-2.2|||||MK-7145 3 mg LS mean minus Placebo LS mean|||-2.2|-11.2|
90951761|NCT01370655|181780858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.2|2.3|||||HCTZ 25 mg LS mean minus Placebo LS mean|||2.3|-6.2|
90951762|NCT01370655|181780859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.1|-0.3|||||MK-7145 6 mg LS mean minus Placebo LS mean|||-0.3|-6.1|
90951763|NCT01370655|181780859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|-2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.5|-0.2|||||MK-7145 6 mg LS mean minus HCTZ 25 mg LS mean|||-0.2|-5.5|
90951764|NCT01370655|181780859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.0|-0.1|||||MK-7145 3 mg LS mean minus HCTZ 25 mg LS mean|||-0.1|-6.0|
90951765|NCT01370655|181780859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|-3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.5|-0.2|||||MK-7145 3 mg LS mean minus Placebo LS mean|||-0.2|-6.5|
90951766|NCT01370655|181780859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.3|2.7|||||HCTZ 25 mg LS mean minus Placebo LS mean|||2.7|-3.3|
90951767|NCT01370655|181780860|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Hypothesis supported if the lower bound of the two-sided 80% CI (equivalent to a one-sided lower 90% CI) is \> 89.0 mmol/day.|Difference in LS means|76.5|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|49.2|103.8|||||MK-7145 6 mg LS mean minus Placebo LS mean|Type I error rate of alpha=0.10 (1-sided) is specified for testing of the hypothesis.||103.8|49.2|
90951768|NCT01370655|181780860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|-63.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-100.8|-26.7|||||MK-7145 3 mg LS mean minus HCTZ 25 mg LS mean|||-26.7|-100.8|
90951769|NCT01370655|181780860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|-18.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-49.1|12.9|||||MK-7145 6 mg LS mean minus HCTZ 25 mg LS mean|||12.9|-49.1|
90951770|NCT01370655|181780860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|30.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.0|68.7|||||MK-7145 3 mg LS mean minus Placebo LS mean|||68.7|-7.0|
90951771|NCT01370655|181780860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|94.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|58.8|130.4|||||HCTZ 25 mg LS mean minus Placebo LS mean|||130.4|58.8|
90985167|NCT01462292|181855641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-892.88||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4391.1|2605.35||No adjustment for multiplicity was made, so p-values should not be used to make conclusions with regards to statistical significance|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Model included terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit, center grouping, baseline and baseline by visit||Treatment difference: Placebo Vs GSK2402968 3 mg, Week 24||2605.35|-4391.10|0.610
91007982|NCT01491802|181900054|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A paired t-test using a 2-sided test of significance was used to compare values after LAMA versus LABA/LAMA treatment.||||0.960
91007983|NCT01491802|181900055|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.944|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A paired t-test using a 2-sided test of significance was used to compare values after LAMA versus LABA/LAMA treatment.||||0.944
90951772|NCT01370655|181780864|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper bound of the two-sided 80% CI (equivalent to a one-sided upper 90% CI) for the difference is \<13 mmol/day the hypothesis will be supported for the 3-mg dose and testing will continue with construction of a two-sided 80% CI for the 6-mg dose (6 mg MK-7145 - placebo). The hypothesis will be supported if one or both doses meet the test criterion.|Difference in LS means|7.9|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.3|18.2|||||MK-7145 3 mg LS mean minus Placebo LS mean|||18.2|-2.3|
90951773|NCT01370655|181780864|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper bound of the two-sided 80% CI (equivalent to a one-sided upper 90% CI) for the difference is \<13 mmol/day the hypothesis will be supported for the 3-mg dose and testing will continue with construction of a two-sided 80% CI for the 6-mg dose (6 mg MK-7145 - placebo). The hypothesis will be supported if one or both doses meet the test criterion.|Difference in LS means|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-8.5|10.7|||||MK-7145 6 mg LS mean minus Placebo LS mean|||10.7|-8.5|
90951774|NCT01370655|181780864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.6|15.6|||||MK-7145 3 mg LS mean minus HCTZ 25 mg LS mean|||15.6|-9.6|
90951775|NCT01370655|181780864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|-3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.0|7.2|||||MK-7145 6 mg LS mean minus HCTZ 25 mg LS mean|||7.2|-15.0|
90951776|NCT01370655|181780864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.7|17.6|||||HCTZ 25 mg LS mean minus Placebo LS mean|||17.6|-7.7|
90951777|NCT03119233|181780981|OTHER||Lower 97.5% Exact Confidence Limit|68.1|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|60.9|||||||"The primary effectiveness endpoint is defined as primary patency at 12 months as evidenced by a peak systolic velocity ratio (PSVR)~≤2.5 from DUS and no clinically-driven re-intervention within the stented segment. The primary effectiveness endpoint hypotheses are:~* H0: 12-month success rate of the PQ Bypass System ≤60.4%~* HA: 12-month success rate of the PQ Bypass System \>60.4%"|||60.9|
90951778|NCT03119233|181780982|OTHER|The rate of freedom from 30-day MAE is expected to be no less than 92%. Based on a PG of 84% and an estimated 30-day freedom from MAE rate of 92% for the PQ Bypass System, a sample size of 169 evaluable subjects provides 88% power to test the primary safety hypothesis at the one-sided alpha level of 0.025. The Exact Test Method and Commercial software PASS14 was used to determine the sample size.|Lower 97.5% Exact Confidence Limit|93.0|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|88.5|||||||"The primary safety endpoint hypotheses are:~* H0: 30-day Freedom from MAE rate of the PQ Bypass System~  ≤84%~* HA: 30-day Freedom from MAE rate of the PQ Bypass System \>84%"|||88.5|
90951779|NCT02057575|181780986|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||PG324 0.01% vs netarsudil|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90951780|NCT02057575|181780986|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||PG324 0.02% vs. netarsudil|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90951781|NCT02057575|181780986|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|PG324 0.01% vs. latanoprost||||||<0.0001
90951782|NCT02057575|181780986|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|PG324 0.02% vs. latanoprost||||||<0.0001
90951783|NCT01254552|181780992|OTHER||rate|0.071|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.043|0.1||||||||0.100|0.043|
90951784|NCT02579135|181781025|SUPERIORITY|Before the onset of the study, we conducted a power calculation to determine the appropriate sample size. We designed the study to have 80% power at a .05 significance level to detect differences in primary outcomes, assuming an effect size of 0.5 and a correlation of 0.4 between assessments. Final enrollment (n= 222) exceeded our target sample size (n= 150).|beta|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.32|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Third, to assess the effectiveness of the HEART intervention from pretest to immediate posttest, we used linear regression analyses to compute adjusted means and mean differences between intervention and control groups. We included an indicator for school to adjust for clustering by school. For each outcome, the corresponding pretest measure was included as a covariate.||||.32
90985168|NCT01462292|181855641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2054.86||||0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5587.33|1477.6||No adjustment for multiplicity was made, so p-values should not be used to make conclusions with regards to statistical significance|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Model included terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit, center grouping, baseline and baseline by visit||Treatment difference: Placebo Vs GSK2402968 3 mg, Week 48||1477.60|-5587.33|0.248
90985169|NCT01462292|181855641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1305.46||||0.439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4668.41|2057.48||No adjustment for multiplicity was made, so p-values should not be used to make conclusions with regards to statistical significance|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Model included terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit, center grouping, baseline and baseline by visit||Treatment difference: Placebo Vs GSK2402968 6 mg, Week 24||2057.48|-4668.41|0.439
90985170|NCT01462292|181855641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|167.39||||0.921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3208.98|3543.77||No adjustment for multiplicity was made, so p-values should not be used to make conclusions with regards to statistical significance|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Model included terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit, center grouping, baseline and baseline by visit||Treatment difference: Placebo Vs GSK2402968 6 mg, Week 48||3543.77|-3208.98|0.921
90985171|NCT01462292|181855648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.41||||0.541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|7.01||No adjustment for multiplicity was made, so p-values should not be used to make conclusions with regards to statistical significance|Regression, Logistic|Model includes terms for Treatment and Centre Grouping||Placebo (combined), GSK2402968 3 mg/kg/week||7.01|0.02|0.541
90985172|NCT01462292|181855648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.36||||0.417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|4.27||No adjustment for multiplicity was made, so p-values should not be used to make conclusions with regards to statistical significance|Regression, Logistic|Model includes terms for Treatment and Centre Grouping||Placebo (combined), GSK2402968 6 mg/kg/week||4.27|0.03|0.417
90985173|NCT02613572|181855661|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
90985174|NCT02613572|181855662|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.009
90985175|NCT02613572|181855663|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.09
90985176|NCT02613572|181855664|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.30
90985177|NCT02613572|181855665|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.14
90985178|NCT02613572|181855666|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.69
90985179|NCT02342561|181855673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.601|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||At end of surgery||||0.601
90985180|NCT02342561|181855673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.823|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||After skin disinfection||||0.823
90985181|NCT02342561|181855674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.731|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in prevalence of CoNs between the 2 groups was analysed. The null-hypothesis was no difference.||||0.731
90985182|NCT01282814|181855721|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|115.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|108.45|123.72|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||123.72|108.45|
90985183|NCT01282814|181855722|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|109.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.68|116.63|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||116.63|103.68|
91006831|NCT02402881|181898248|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|We used generalized linear mixed-effects models with multiple outputation reiterated 1000 times to bootstrap the 95% CIs and the P values.||Our secondary outcome was the proportion of VTE events. We compared rates of VTE prophylaxis nonadministration pre-post-intervention. For estimating conditional odds ratios (ORs) and their 95% CIs, the binomial family and a logit link were used; for estimating the conditional proportions, the Poisson family and a log link were used.||||<0.05
90951785|NCT02579135|181781026|SUPERIORITY|Before the onset of the study, we conducted a power calculation to determine the appropriate sample size. We designed the study to have 80% power at a .05 significance level to detect differences in primary outcomes, assuming an effect size of 0.5 and a correlation of 0.4 between assessments. Final enrollment (n= 222) exceeded our target sample size (n= 150).|beta|8.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.71|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||We used linear regression analyses to compute adjusted means and mean differences between intervention and control groups. We included an indicator for school to adjust for clustering by school. For each outcome, the corresponding pretest measure was included as a covariate.||||<.001
90951786|NCT01146600|181781027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA, comparing baseline, clarithromycin, and placebo||||||0.47
90951787|NCT01146600|181781028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA comparing baseline, clarithromycin, and placebo||||||0.63
90951788|NCT01146600|181781029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA comparing baseline, clarithromycin, and placebo||||||0.64
90951789|NCT01146600|181781030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA comparing baseline, clarithromycin, and placebo||||||0.002
90951790|NCT01146600|181781031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA comparing baseline, clarithromycin, and placebo||||||0.002
90951791|NCT01146600|181781032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA comparing baseline, clarithromycin, and placebo||||||0.01
90951792|NCT01146600|181781033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA comparing baseline, clarithromycin, and placebo||||||0.76
90951793|NCT00659880|181781038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||Friedman|||||||0.06
90951794|NCT02964325|181781059|NON_INFERIORITY|An NI analysis was carried out to assess the primary efficacy endpoint with the null hypothesis being the MIRASOL group is inferior to the CONTROL group and the alternative hypothesis being the MIRASOL group is non-inferior to the CONTROL group. In this study, the NI margin was 1.6.|Relative Rate|2.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.67|4.67|||||The MIRASOL group represents the numerator and the CONTROL group represents the denominator for the relative rate. For days during off-protocol intervals, bleeding data were simulated using an estimate of the individual-specific bleeding rate.|The MIRASOL and CONTROL groups were compared with respect to the number of days of WHO ≥ Grade 2 bleeding. This was carried out by fitting a negative binomial regression model with an offset defined as the natural logarithm (LN) of the number of days that bleeding was assessed in order to account for the fact that subjects had different numbers of bleeding assessment days.||4.67|1.67|
90951795|NCT02964325|181781061|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 1.2 was used to evaluated this endpoint.|Relative Risk|1.32||||0.7274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.81|||Wald Non-inferiority Test||The MIRASOL group represents the numerator and the CONTROL group represents the denominator for the relative risk.|The null hypothesis was H0: pt/pc \> 1.2 (ie, MIRASOL had more than a 20% higher probability of a patient experiencing at least one WHO ≥ Grade 2 bleed compared to CONTROL).||1.81|0.97|0.7274
90951796|NCT02964325|181781062|OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||Log-rank test|||||||0.07
90951797|NCT02964325|181781063|OTHER|||||||0.1649|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1649
90951798|NCT02964325|181781064|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.15||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|3.49|||Fisher Exact|||||3.49|1.32|0.0015
91006832|NCT02573012|181898254|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means|0.613||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.346|0.879|||ANCOVA|||||0.879|0.346|0.001
91006833|NCT02573012|181898255|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.285|0.889|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.889|0.285|0.018
91006834|NCT02573012|181898255|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk|0.833||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.714|0.972|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.972|0.714|0.021
91006835|NCT02573012|181898256|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean|2.342||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.661|4.023|||ANCOVA|||||4.023|0.661|0.006
91006836|NCT02573012|181898276|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means|2.264||||0.009||95.0|0.574|3.953|||ANCOVA|||||3.953|0.574|0.009
91006837|NCT04337203|181898294|OTHER|Feasibility study and calculated confidence interval.||||||0.54|||||||Independent samples proportions test|||||||0.54
91006838|NCT03049852|181898325|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91006839|NCT03049852|181898327|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27||||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.007
91006840|NCT02141854|181898328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|0.179||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.074|0.285||Fixed effects of treatment, sex, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), and covariates of age and baseline FEV1.|ANCOVA|||A fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure was used to control the overall Type I error rate at the 0.05 level (2-sided) for the primary endpoints analyses. Analyses appear in the defined sequence. This is the first in the sequence.||0.285|0.074|0.0009
91006841|NCT02141854|181898328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|0.182||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.074|0.291||Fixed effects of treatment, sex, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), and covariates of age and baseline FEV1.|ANCOVA|||A fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure was used to control the overall Type I error rate at the 0.05 level (2-sided) for the primary endpoints analyses. Analyses appear in the defined sequence. This is the second in the sequence.||0.291|0.074|0.0010
91006842|NCT02141854|181898328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|0.326||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.221|0.431||Fixed effects of treatment, sex, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), and covariates of age and baseline FEV1.|ANCOVA|||A fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure was used to control the overall Type I error rate at the 0.05 level (2-sided) for the primary endpoints analyses. Analyses appear in the defined sequence. This is the third in the sequence.||0.431|0.221|0.0000
90985184|NCT01282814|181855723|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|106.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.45|111.71|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||111.71|101.45|
90985185|NCT01524289|181855724|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares (LS) Means|-39.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.7|-33.7|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Between group comparison of percent change from baseline performed using Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis (cLDA) model.||||-33.7|-45.7|<0.001
90985186|NCT01524289|181855725|OTHER|Pre-specified|Difference in Percentages|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|8.4|||||||Miettinen and Nurminen|8.4|-11.5|
90951799|NCT03596762|181781067|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS means|-1.52|||=|0.1946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.83|0.78|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline to Week 4||0.78|-3.83|= 0.1946
90951800|NCT03596762|181781067|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS means|1.29|||=|0.3682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.11|1.53|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline to Week 4||1.53|-4.11|= 0.3682
90985187|NCT01524289|181855726|OTHER|Pre-specified|Difference in Percentages|4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|12.6|||||||Miettinen and Nurminen|12.6|-4.8|
90985188|NCT01524289|181855727|OTHER|Pre-specified|Difference in Percentages|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|5.6|||||||Miettinen \& Nurminen|5.6|-8.9|
90951801|NCT03596762|181781067|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS means|-3.93|||=|0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.94|-1.92|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline to Week 4||-1.92|-5.94|= 0.0002
90951802|NCT03596762|181781067|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS means|-2.63|||=|0.0115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.66|-0.6|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline to Week 4||-0.6|-4.66|= 0.0115
90985189|NCT01524289|181855728|OTHER|Pre-specified|Difference in Percentages|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|6.1|||||||Miettinen and Nurminen|6.1|-5.5|
90985190|NCT01524289|181855729|OTHER|Pre-Specified|Difference in Percentages|-8.4||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.1|3.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||3.5|-20.1|0.168
90985191|NCT01524289|181855730|OTHER|Pre-specified|Difference in Percentages|-7.4||||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.7|3.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||3.3|-18.7|0.179
90985192|NCT01524289|181855731|OTHER|Pre-specified|Difference in Percentages|-13.9||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.0|-3.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||-3.1|-25.0|0.011
90985193|NCT01524289|181855732|OTHER|Pre-specified|Difference in Percentages|1.5||||0.696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|8.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||8.4|-6.8|0.696
90985194|NCT01524289|181855733|OTHER|Pre-specified|Difference in Percentages|0.5||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|2.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||2.8|-3.2|0.480
90985195|NCT01524289|181855734|OTHER|Pre-specified|Difference in Percentages|0.5||||0.722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|3.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||3.5|-4.0|0.722
90985196|NCT01524289|181855735|OTHER|Pre-specified|Difference in Percentages|0.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|1.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||1.9|-3.7|>0.999
90985197|NCT01524289|181855736|OTHER|Pre-specified|Difference in Percentages|0.5||||0.722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|3.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||3.5|-4.0|0.722
90985198|NCT01524289|181855737|OTHER|Pre-specified|Difference in Percentages|-1.0||||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|0.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||0.9|-5.4|0.157
90985199|NCT01524289|181855738|OTHER|Pre-specified|Difference in Percentages|-1.0||||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|0.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||0.9|-5.4|0.157
90985200|NCT01524289|181855739|OTHER|Pre-specified|Difference in Percentages|1.5||||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|4.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||4.3|-2.2|0.218
90985201|NCT01524289|181855740|OTHER|Pre-specified|Difference in Percentages|0.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|1.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||1.9|-3.6|>0.999
90985202|NCT01524289|181855741|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares (LS) Means|102.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.2|110.1|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||110.1|94.2|<0.001
90985203|NCT01524289|181855742|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-36.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.7|-31.1|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||-31.1|-41.7|<0.001
90985204|NCT01524289|181855743|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-24.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.5|-20.1|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||-20.1|-29.5|<0.001
90985205|NCT01524289|181855744|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|32.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.2|37.6|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||37.6|28.2|<0.001
90985206|NCT01524289|181855745|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-27.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.7|-21.2|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of the median difference between treatments with a corresponding distribution-free confidence interval (CI) based on Wilcoxon's rank sum test.|||-21.2|-34.7|<0.001
90985207|NCT02519231|181855763|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The threshold for statistical significance was p =0.05|t-test, 2 sided|For days with bleeding/spotting outcomes, we used independent t-tests to compare the unadjusted mean difference between groups.|Treatment Difference = Naproxen - Placebo|We originally planned to enroll 60 subjects based on other similar studies that evaluated treatment for bleeding among women using contraception; as reported by Cohen et al., a sample size of 42 provided 80% power to detect a difference of 7 bleeding/spotting days in 30 days by two-sample t-test, allowing for an expected 20% drop-out.|We designed the study to include another site, in addition to the UW site enrolled participants. After 6 months of failed active recruitment at the other site, we discontinued that site from the study. Resources did not permit us to contract with an alternative recruitment site, and thus the protocol was revised to enroll 32 participants at the Seattle site only.|||.11
90985208|NCT02519231|181855764|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
90985209|NCT01707147|181855787|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.77|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.71|||Paired t-test||p-value of paired t-test for change from baseline is presented. 95% confidence interval for the mean was calculated using t-distribution.|||-0.71|-0.83|<0.0001
90985210|NCT01707147|181855790|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|61.84|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.98|-15.12|||Paired t-test||p-value of paired t-test for change from baseline is presented. 95% confidence interval for the mean was calculated using t-distribution.|||-15.12|-20.98|<0.0001
90985211|NCT00969618|181855839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for total ADHD symptoms score.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
90985212|NCT00969618|181855839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for inattention subscale score.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
90985213|NCT00969618|181855839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for hyperactivity/impulsivity subscale score.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
90985214|NCT00969618|181855839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for ADHD index subscale score.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
90985215|NCT00969618|181855840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
90985216|NCT00969618|181855841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is GEC subscale score.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
90985217|NCT00969618|181855841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for behavioral regulation subscale score.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
90985218|NCT00969618|181855841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for metacognition subscale score.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
90985219|NCT00969618|181855842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.200
90985220|NCT00969618|181855843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
90985221|NCT00969618|181855844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for GEC subscale score.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
90985222|NCT00969618|181855844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for behavioral regulation subscale score.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
90985223|NCT00969618|181855844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for metacognition subscale score.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
90985224|NCT00969618|181855845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.384||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.384
90985225|NCT01592851|181855870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.63||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons, as primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as fixed factor and baseline Schiff Score as covariate.|Difference is 0.454% SnF minus 0.76% NaMFP such that a negative difference favours first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for both treatments.||-0.63|-1.03|<0.0001
90985226|NCT01592851|181855871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.26||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.12||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons, as primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as fixed factor and baseline Schiff Score as covariate.|Difference is 0.454% SnF minus 0.76% NaMFP such that a negative difference favours first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for both treatments.||-0.12|-0.41|0.0006
90985227|NCT01592851|181855872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.28||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons, as primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as fixed factor and baseline Schiff Score as covariate.|Difference is 0.454% SnF minus 0.76% NaMFP such that a negative difference favours first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for both treatments.||-0.28|-0.63|<0.0001
91007984|NCT01491802|181900056|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A paired t-test using a 2-sided test of significance was used to compare values after LAMA versus LABA/LAMA treatment.||||0.028
90951803|NCT03596762|181781068|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS means|-1.67|||=|0.2097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.28|-0.95|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline to Week 12||-0.95|-4.28|= 0.2097
90951804|NCT03596762|181781068|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS means|-0.77|||=|0.6369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.97|2.44|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline to Week 12||2.44|-3.97|= 0.6369
90951805|NCT03596762|181781068|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS means|-2.95|||=|0.0116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.22|-0.67|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline to Week 12||-0.67|-5.22|= 0.0116
90951806|NCT03596762|181781068|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS means|-1.78|||=|0.1346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.12|0.56|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline to Week 12||0.56|-4.12|= 0.1346
90951807|NCT03596762|181781069|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS means|-0.05|||=|0.7033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.2|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline to Week 4||0.2|-0.3|= 0.7033
90951808|NCT03596762|181781069|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS means|-0.14|||=|0.3724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.17|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline to Week 4||0.17|-0.45|= 0.3724
90951809|NCT03596762|181781069|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS means|-0.19|||=|0.0896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.03|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline to Week 4||0.03|-0.41|= 0.0896
90951810|NCT03596762|181781069|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS means|-0.19|||=|0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.03|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline to Week 4||0.03|-0.41|= 0.09
90951811|NCT03596762|181781070|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS means|-0.09|||=|0.5511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.21|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline to Week 12||0.21|-0.39|= 0.5511
90951812|NCT03596762|181781070|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS means|0.16|||=|0.3822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.52|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline to Week 12||0.52|-0.2|= 0.3822
90951813|NCT03596762|181781070|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS means|-0.15|||=|0.2606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.11|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline to Week 12||0.11|-0.41|= 0.2606
90951814|NCT03596762|181781070|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS means|-0.27|||=|0.0479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.0|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline to Week 12||0|-0.53|= 0.0479
90951815|NCT01512797|181781189|OTHER|||||||0.028||||||P-value refers to paired t-test comparing pre-intervention and post-intervention timepoints in Sitagliptin group.|t-test, 2 sided|||Power analysis. Based on the effect of DPP-4 inhibitors in non-operated subjects with type 2 diabetes, showing a significant decrease in 120' post-prandial glucose by 1.67 mmol/L ± 0.98 mmol/L after a MMT, we estimated that a sample size of 16 subjects per group will show post-prandial glucose differences between placebo and sitagliptin group with α = 0.05 for a power \> 90%.||||0.028
90951816|NCT00895895|181781275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change=Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) Japan baseline baseline times(\*)visit visit treatment treatment\*visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||2.3|-1.0|0.424
90951817|NCT00895895|181781275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change equals (=) MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||1.5|-1.8|0.849
90951818|NCT00895895|181781275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||1.1|-2.2|0.520
90951819|NCT00895895|181781275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||0.7|-2.6|0.258
90951820|NCT00895895|181781276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6||||0.367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|1.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||1.9|-5.2|0.367
90951821|NCT00895895|181781276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|3.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||3.7|-3.3|0.910
90951822|NCT00895895|181781276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|6.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||6.0|-1.0|0.160
90951823|NCT00895895|181781276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.4||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|6.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||6.9|-0.1|0.060
90951824|NCT00895895|181781277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|3.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||3.1|-2.8|0.931
90951825|NCT00895895|181781277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.9||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||0.1|-5.8|0.054
90985228|NCT01592851|181855873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|19.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.7|25.15||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons, as primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as fixed factor and baseline Schiff Score as covariate.|Difference is 0.454% SnF minus 0.76% NaMFP such that a positive difference favours first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for both treatments.||25.15|13.70|<0.0001
90985229|NCT01592851|181855874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|6.84||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.54|11.13||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons, as primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as fixed factor and baseline Schiff Score as covariate.|Difference is 0.454% SnF minus 0.76% NaMFP such that a positive difference favours first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for both treatments.||11.13|2.54|0.0021
90985230|NCT01592851|181855875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean DIfference|3.87||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|6.65||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons, as primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as fixed factor and baseline Schiff Score as covariate.|Difference is 0.454% SnF minus 0.76% NaMFP such that a positive difference favours first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for both treatments.||6.65|1.08|0.0070
90985231|NCT00663858|181855876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.592|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.662||0.371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.894|0.709|||ANOVA|||||0.709|-1.894|0.371
90985232|NCT00663858|181855876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.711|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.722||0.3253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-709.0|2.132|||ANCOVA|||||2.132|-0709|0.3253
90985233|NCT00663858|181855876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.324|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.0333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.542|-0.106|||ANCOVA|||||-0.106|-2.542|0.0333
90985234|NCT01666444|181855900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.22||||0.923|ONE_SIDED|92.0||1.48||P-value is for a one-sided hypothesis test.|Log Rank|The logrank test is stratified for platinum-free interval (\<= 6 months vs \> 6 months), and performance status (0 vs 1).|Treatment Hazard ratio for overall survival (PLD+VTX relative to PLD+placebo). Survival is measured from date of enrollment and randomization on the study until death from any cause, or date of last contact.|The null hypothesis is that the hazards of death are equal for both treatment groups. The primary assessment of this hypothesis was done with a stratified logrank test and the study was to be considered sufficiently mature to assess this hypothesis when at least 211 deaths had occurred among all individuals enrolled. Type I error was to be set to 0.08 for a one-sided test and the power for detecting a 30% reduction in the hazard (hazard ratio=0.70) due to VTX-2337 was 88.2%.||1.48||0.923
91006843|NCT02141854|181898328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|0.322||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.212|0.432||Fixed effects of treatment, sex, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), and covariates of age and baseline FEV1.|ANCOVA|||A fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure was used to control the overall Type I error rate at the 0.05 level (2-sided) for the primary endpoints analyses. Analyses appear in the defined sequence. This is the fourth in the sequence.||0.432|0.212|0.0000
90985235|NCT01666444|181855901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.21||||0.943|ONE_SIDED|98.0||1.56||P-value is for a one-sided hypothesis test.|Log Rank|The logrank test is stratified for platinum-free interval (\<= 6 months vs \> 6 months), and performance status (0 vs 1).||The null hypothesis is that the hazards of first progression or death are equal for both treatment groups. The primary assessment was to use a stratified logrank test and the study was to be considered sufficiently mature when survival is mature for analysis. Type I error was to be set to 0.02 for a one-sided test and the power for detecting a 31% reduction in the hazard (hazard ratio=0.69) due to VTX-2337 was expected to be approximately 83%.||1.56||0.943
90985236|NCT00474630|181855995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.28|||<|0.001||95.0|-4.34|-2.22|||ANCOVA|||||-2.22|-4.34|<0.001
91040552|NCT03790137|181966111|OTHER|The frequency of HWE for each patient was reported as episodes/day, as determined by dividing the total number of seizures experienced over a given time period by the number of days for which seizures were recorded. Paired t-tests were performed to compare each patient's baseline seizure frequency to their seizure frequency in the last month of treatment. Change in seizure frequency is reported as percent change from baseline. An alpha of 0.05 was used for statistical significance.|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
91040553|NCT03868631|181966124|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||multilevel models for change|||Between-group differences at baseline were compared using independent t-tests. Multilevel models for change (MLM) were used to determine differences between groups over time for study outcomes. Age, sex, and number of sessions missed were included as covariates. Time and time by group interactions were examined. Analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics version 23. Significance was set at p\<0.05.||||<0.05
91040554|NCT02005562|181966195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.479|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.479
91040555|NCT02005562|181966196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6736|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.6736
91040556|NCT02005562|181966197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2172|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.2172
91040557|NCT02005562|181966198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.477|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.4770
91040558|NCT02005562|181966200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0764|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0764
90985237|NCT00474630|181855996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.27|||ANCOVA|||||-0.27|-0.71|<0.001
91040559|NCT02005562|181966201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.418|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 12||||0.418
91040560|NCT02005562|181966201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.841|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 52||||0.841
91040561|NCT02005562|181966202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.245|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 12||||0.245
91040562|NCT02005562|181966202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.637|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 52||||0.637
91040563|NCT02005562|181966203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.512||||||Mycophenolate Mofetil, Adapted Dose vs. Mycophenolate Mofetil, Fixed Dose at protocol biopsy at Week 12.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.512
91040564|NCT02005562|181966203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.718||||||Mycophenolate Mofetil, Adapted Dose vs. Mycophenolate Mofetil, Fixed Dose at protocol biopsy at Week 52.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.718
91040565|NCT02005562|181966205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.860
91040566|NCT00660387|181966207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|-1.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.05|-0.76||Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding baseline and the natural logarithm of the mean daily dose of rescue medication on valid symptom diary days as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||-0.76|-3.05|0.0015
91040567|NCT00660387|181966208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|1.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|3.17|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding baseline as a covariate.||Since the null hypothesis for the primary analysis was rejected in favor of the alternative hypothesis, hierarchical testing was performed for secondary variables on the Full Analysis data set at the 0.50 level using a gatekeeping procedure to preserve family-wise error rate.||3.17|0.56|0.0059
91040568|NCT00660387|181966209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8||0.0155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|-1.4||Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the CGI-Severity (CGI-S, see Baseline Characteristics module) as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Since the null hypothesis for the primary analysis was rejected in favor of the alternative hypothesis, hierarchical testing was performed for secondary variables on the Full Analysis data set at the 0.50 level using a gatekeeping procedure to preserve family-wise error rate.||-1.4|-12.6|0.0155
91040569|NCT00660387|181966210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.0258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.1|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the baseline CGI-S as a covariate.||Since the null hypothesis for the primary analysis was rejected in favor of the alternative hypothesis, hierarchical testing was performed for secondary variables on the Full Analysis data set at the 0.50 level using a gatekeeping procedure to preserve family-wise error rate.||-0.1|-1.4|0.0258
90951826|NCT00895895|181781277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||1.2|-4.6|0.246
90985238|NCT00474630|181855997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.15|5.5|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.50|2.15|<0.001
90985239|NCT00474630|181855998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.4||||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.007
90985240|NCT00474630|181855999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|4.84|||ANCOVA|||||4.84|1.80|<0.001
90985241|NCT00474630|181856000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.85||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.21|0.5|||ANCOVA|||||0.50|-16.21|0.065
90985242|NCT00474630|181856001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.57|-0.59||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||-0.59|-3.57|
90985243|NCT00474630|181856002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.79|7.88||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||7.88|1.79|
90985244|NCT00474630|181856003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|4.04||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||4.04|1.50|
90985245|NCT00474630|181856004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.86||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||0.86|0.35|
90985246|NCT00474630|181856005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|7.57||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||7.57|0.27|
90985247|NCT00474630|181856006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|12.67||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||12.67|0.55|
90985248|NCT00474630|181856007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.89|||||TWO_SIDED|||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||
90985249|NCT00474630|181856008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.13|||||TWO_SIDED|||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||
90985250|NCT00474630|181856009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|5.14||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||5.14|1.36|
90985251|NCT00474630|181856010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|3.51||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||3.51|-0.77|
90985252|NCT00474630|181856011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.62|||||TWO_SIDED|||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||
90985253|NCT00474630|181856013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.22|-0.74||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||-0.74|-9.22|
90985254|NCT00474630|181856014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.48|4.62||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||4.62|-7.48|
90951827|NCT00895895|181781277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||1.7|-4.1|0.426
90951828|NCT00895895|181781278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.265|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.265
90951829|NCT00895895|181781278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.682|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.682
90985255|NCT00474630|181856015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|3.33||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||3.33|-1.02|
90985256|NCT00474630|181856016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|1.86||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||1.86|-1.04|
90951830|NCT00895895|181781278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.532|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.532
90951831|NCT00895895|181781278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.087|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.087
90951832|NCT00895895|181781278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.751|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.751
90951833|NCT00895895|181781279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7||||0.553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|7.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||7.3|-3.9|0.553
90951834|NCT00895895|181781279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|5.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||5.2|-6.0|0.886
90985257|NCT00474630|181856017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.65||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||2.65|0.59|
90985258|NCT00474630|181856018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|1.27||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||1.27|-0.42|
90985259|NCT00474630|181856019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|96.0|-0.76|0.85||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||0.85|-0.76|
90985260|NCT05099991|181856020|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority would be demonstrated with a mean increase in procedure of 5 minutes.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|8.2||||||||8.2|-7.8|
90985261|NCT05099991|181856021|OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.07
90985262|NCT01954628|181856022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least sqaure mean difference|23.7||||0.759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-128.3|175.7||AAC were compared between treatments using an analysis of variance model adjusting for treatment and region as factors and including the baseline score as a covariate.|ANOVA|||Sample size based on area above the daily EXACT score curve (AAC) from Day 1 to Day 29 from subjects with an acute COPD exacerbation, collected over 28 days. Assuming a residual SD of 500 points, a sample size of 200 subjects per arm would be expected to have an 80% power to detect a true treatment difference in the AAC of 140 points over 12-weeks treatment, using a 2-sided test; alpha-level of 0.05.This difference corresponds to a mean daily improvement of 1.67 points on the EXACT symptom score||175.7|-128.3|0.759
90985263|NCT01954628|181856023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least sqaure mean difference|-0.34||||0.588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|0.89|||ANOVA|||ANOVA model with fixed factors treatment, region and baseline total CAT score as covariate were used. Missing post-treatment data were imputed using the Last Observation Carried Forward principle.||0.89|-1.57|0.588
90985264|NCT01954628|181856024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least sqaure mean difference|1.083||||0.646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.771|1.52|||Negative binomial regression model|Negative binomial regression model with fixed factors treatment, region and time in study as offset.||The number of subjects with at least one COPD exacerbation were summarised by treatment group.||1.520|0.771|0.646
90985265|NCT01954628|181856027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.226|||||||ANOVA|||Missing post-treatment data was imputed using the Last Observation Carried Forward principle.||||0.226
90985266|NCT01650779|181856034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||One sample t-test|||Baseline versus Month 2: Analysis was performed using one sample t-test.||||0.0002
90985267|NCT01650779|181856034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One sample t-test|||Baseline versus Month 4: Analysis was performed using one sample t-test.||||<0.0001
90985268|NCT01650779|181856034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One sample t-test|||Baseline versus Month 6: Analysis was performed using one sample t-test.||||<0.0001
90985269|NCT01650779|181856035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1178|||||||One sample t-test|||Baseline versus Month 2: Analysis was performed using one sample t-test.||||0.1178
90985270|NCT01650779|181856035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1176|||||||One sample t-test|||Baseline versus Month 4: Analysis was performed using one sample t-test.||||0.1176
90985271|NCT01650779|181856035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0322|||||||One sample t-test|||Baseline versus Month 6: Analysis was performed using one sample t-test.||||0.0322
90985272|NCT01650779|181856036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5811|||||||One sample test of median (sign test)|||Baseline versus Month 2: Analysis was performed using one sample test of median (sign test). The percent change and absolute change from baseline in urine GL-3 levels were not normally distributed and thus medians were evaluated.||||0.5811
90985273|NCT01650779|181856036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7744|||||||One sample test of median (sign test)|||Baseline versus Month 4: Analysis was performed using one sample test of median (sign test). The percent change and absolute change from baseline in urine GL-3 levels were not normally distributed and thus medians were evaluated.||||0.7744
90985274|NCT01650779|181856036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3877|||||||One sample test of median (sign test)|||Baseline versus Month 6: Analysis was performed using one sample test of median (sign test). The percent change and absolute change from baseline in urine GL-3 levels were not normally distributed and thus medians were evaluated.||||0.3877
90985275|NCT00958568|181856040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The test was run using an a priori 2-sided threshold for statistical significance of 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|||Power estimate assumes approximately 1230 participants enter SPII. With a 60% drop-out/disqualification rate in SPII, then 492 participants enter SPIII. If 26% of participants drop out during SPIII, then 364 participants enter SPIV. Assuming 20% drop-out rate, 25% relapse rate on OFC and 40% relapse rate for fluoxetine (hazard ratio = 0.56), the log-rank test is 80% powered to detect a difference at a 2-sided 0.05 level. A total of 95 relapse events during SPIV should satisfy these assumptions.||||<0.001
90985276|NCT00958568|181856041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The test was run using an a priori 2-sided threshold for statistical significance of 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Relapse rates were analyzed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for country.||||||<0.001
90985277|NCT00958568|181856042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The test was run using an a priori 2-sided threshold for statistical significance of 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Relapse rates were analyzed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for country.||||||<0.001
90985278|NCT00958568|181856043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.713||95.0||||The test was run using an a priori 2-sided threshold for statistical significance of 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Relapse rates were analyzed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for country.||||||0.713
90985279|NCT00958568|181856044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The test was run using an a priori 2-sided threshold for statistical significance of 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Relapse rates were analyzed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for country.||||||<0.001
90985280|NCT00958568|181856045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The test was run using an a priori 2-sided threshold for statistical significance of 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|||||||<0.001
90985281|NCT00958568|181856046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.831||95.0||||The test was run using an a priori 2-sided threshold for statistical significance of 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|||||||0.831
90985282|NCT00958568|181856047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The test was run using an a priori 2-sided threshold for statistical significance of 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|||||||<0.001
90985283|NCT00958568|181856051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047||95.0||||The test was run using an a priori 2-sided threshold for statistical significance of 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Remission rates were analyzed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for country.||||||0.047
90985284|NCT00958568|181856052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.46|-1.36||The test was run using an a priori 2-sided threshold for statistical significance of 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|The model adjusted for baseline (Week 20), treatment, country, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||||-1.36|-4.46|<0.001
90985285|NCT00958568|181856053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.39|-2.24||The test was run using an a priori 2-sided threshold for statistical significance of 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|The model adjusted for baseline (Week 20), treatment and country.||||-2.24|-5.39|<0.001
90985286|NCT00958568|181856054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.12||The test was run using an a priori 2-sided threshold for statistical significance of 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|The model adjusted for baseline (Week 20), treatment, country, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||||-0.12|-0.55|0.002
91040570|NCT00660387|181966211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.0086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|-0.8|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding baseline as a covariate.||Since the null hypothesis for the primary analysis was rejected in favor of the alternative hypothesis, hierarchical testing was performed for secondary variables on the Full Analysis data set at the 0.50 level using a gatekeeping procedure to preserve family-wise error rate.||-0.8|-5.3|0.0086
91040571|NCT00660387|181966212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|5.6|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding baseline as a covariate.||Since the null hypothesis for the primary analysis was rejected in favor of the alternative hypothesis, hierarchical testing was performed for secondary variables on the Full Analysis data set at the 0.50 level using a gatekeeping procedure to preserve family-wise error rate.||5.6|-2.8|0.5020
91040572|NCT00660387|181966213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|0.146|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding Baseline as a covariate.||Since the null hypothesis for the primary analysis was rejected in favor of the alternative hypothesis, hierarchical testing was performed for secondary variables on the Full Analysis data set at the 0.50 level using a gatekeeping procedure to preserve family-wise error rate.||0.146|-0.005|0.0670
91040573|NCT00660387|181966214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1||0.1501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|1.7|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding baseline as a covariate.||Since the null hypothesis for the primary analysis was rejected in favor of the alternative hypothesis, hierarchical testing was performed for secondary variables on the Full Analysis data set at the 0.50 level using a gatekeeping procedure to preserve family-wise error rate.||1.7|-10.7|0.1501
91040574|NCT00660387|181966215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.8574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.82|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding baseline as a covariate.||||0.82|-0.98|0.8574
91040575|NCT00660387|181966216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|-10.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3||0.0184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.1|-1.8|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding baseline as a covariate.||||-1.8|-19.1|0.0184
91040576|NCT00660387|181966217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|-11.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.6|-2.5|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding baseline as a covariate.||||-2.5|-20.6|0.0129
91040577|NCT00660387|181966218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4||0.5246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|4.6|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding baseline as a covariate.||||4.6|-9.0|0.5246
91040578|NCT00660387|181966219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8||0.2423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|3.1|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding baseline as a covariate.||||3.1|-12.0|0.2423
91040579|NCT00660387|181966220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1||0.2243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|2.4|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding baseline as a covariate.||||2.4|-9.9|0.2243
91040580|NCT00660387|181966221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4||0.2407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|2.8|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding baseline as a covariate.||||2.8|-10.8|0.2407
91040581|NCT00660387|181966222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|-13.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.8|-6.8|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding baseline as a covariate.||||-6.8|-20.8|0.0002
91040582|NCT00660387|181966223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.1||0.5213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|6.9|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding baseline as a covariate.||||6.9|-13.6|0.5213
91040583|NCT00660387|181966224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.3741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.9|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding baseline as a covariate.||||0.9|-0.4|0.3741
91040584|NCT00660387|181966225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.0361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.1|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding baseline as a covariate.||||-0.1|-2.4|0.0361
91040585|NCT00660387|181966226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.3578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.4|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding baseline as a covariate.||||0.4|-1.1|0.3578
91040586|NCT00660387|181966227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9||0.6088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|4.4|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding baseline as a covariate.||||4.4|-7.4|0.6088
91040587|NCT00660387|181966228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|11.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|18.9|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding baseline as a covariate.||||18.9|4.0|0.0033
91040588|NCT03086135|181966231|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||PTA4 at 3 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1||||<0.0001
91040589|NCT03086135|181966232|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Speech in noise at 3 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1||||<0.0001
90985287|NCT00958568|181856057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.36|-0.53||The test was run using an a priori 2-sided threshold for statistical significance of 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|The model adjusted for baseline (Week 20), treatment and country.||||-0.53|-3.36|0.007
90985288|NCT00958568|181856058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||The test was run using an a priori 2-sided threshold for statistical significance of 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
90888153|NCT01767116|181639654|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The noninferiority of the rate of sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment for the ABT-450/r/ABT-267 and ABT-333, plus RBV treatment group as compared with the historical rate for telaprevir plus pegIFN-RBV was analyzed; the lower confidence bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the percentage of participants with sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment must exceed 73% to achieve noninferiority.|Percentage of Participants|99.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.6|100.0|||||95% CI was calculated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|For the primary efficacy endpoint of sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment, based on a 2-sided significance level of 0.05 and an underlying rate of 92% or higher in each arm, a sample size of 200 participants per treatment arm provides \>95% power to demonstrate noninferiority of each regimen to the historical rate for telaprevir plus pegIFN and RBV therapy (84%) (based on the normal approximation of a single binomial proportion in a one-sample test for superiority).||100.0|98.6|
90890159|NCT04402866|181644207|OTHER|Since this was a Phase 2 study, it was not powered for any of the secondary endpoints.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.153||||0.5918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.692|1.922|||Van Elteren test||Between-group comparisons analyzed using a proportional odds model adjusting for baseline age strata (≤ 60 years vs. \> 60 years).|Part 2: TD-0903 - Parallel-Group 3 mg versus Part 2: Matching Placebo - Parallel-Group on Day 7||1.922|0.692|0.5918
90890160|NCT04402866|181644207|OTHER|Since this was a Phase 2 study, it was not powered for any of the secondary endpoints.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.105||||0.6978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.651|1.878|||Van Elteren test|||Part 2: TD-0903 - Parallel-Group 3 mg versus Part 2: Matching Placebo - Parallel-Group on Day 14|Between-group comparisons analyzed using a proportional odds model adjusting for baseline age strata (≤ 60 years vs. \> 60 years).|1.878|0.651|0.6978
90985289|NCT00958568|181856059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.248||95.0||||The test was run using an a priori 2-sided threshold for statistical significance of 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.248
90985290|NCT00958568|181856060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||The test was run using an a priori 2-sided threshold for statistical significance of 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
90985291|NCT00958568|181856061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.47||0.839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.71|7.89||The test was run using an a priori 2-sided threshold for statistical significance of 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|The model adjusted for baseline (Week 20), treatment, country, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||||7.89|-9.71|0.839
90985292|NCT00958568|181856062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.352||95.0||||P-value is for Borderline to High. The test was run using an a priori 2-sided threshold for statistical significance of 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.352
90985293|NCT00958568|181856062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||P-value is for Normal to Borderline. The test was run using an a priori 2-sided threshold for statistical significance of 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
90985294|NCT00958568|181856062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||P-value is for Normal to High. The test was run using an a priori 2-sided threshold for statistical significance of 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
91040590|NCT03086135|181966233|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||PTA4 at 4 weeks with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91040591|NCT03086135|181966233|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||PTA4 at 6 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91040592|NCT03086135|181966233|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||PTA4 at 12 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91040593|NCT03086135|181966234|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry 250Hz at 4 weeks with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91040594|NCT03086135|181966234|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry at 500Hz at 4 weeks with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91040595|NCT03086135|181966234|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry at 750Hz at 4 weeks with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91040596|NCT03086135|181966234|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry at 1000Hz at 4 weeks with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91040597|NCT03086135|181966234|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry at 1500Hz at 4 weeks with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91040598|NCT03086135|181966234|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry at 2000Hz at 4 weeks with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91040599|NCT03086135|181966234|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry at 3000Hz at 4 weeks with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91040600|NCT03086135|181966234|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry at 4000Hz at 4 weeks with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91040601|NCT03086135|181966234|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry at 6000Hz at 4 weeks with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91040602|NCT03086135|181966234|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry at 8000Hz at 4 weeks with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91040603|NCT03086135|181966234|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry at 250Hz at 3 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91040604|NCT03086135|181966234|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry at 500Hz at 3 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91040605|NCT03086135|181966234|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry at 750Hz at 3 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91040606|NCT03086135|181966234|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry at 1000Hz at 3 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91040607|NCT03086135|181966234|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry at 1500Hz at 3 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91040608|NCT03086135|181966234|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry at 2000Hz at 3 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91040609|NCT03086135|181966234|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry at 3000Hz at 3 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91040610|NCT03086135|181966234|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry at 4000Hz at 3 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
90888154|NCT01767116|181639655|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Noninferiority of the rate of sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment for the ABT-450/r/ABT-267 and ABT-333, plus placebo RBV treatment group as compared with the ABT-450/r/ABT-267 and ABT-333, plus RBV treatment group was analyzed using a noninferiority margin of -10.5%. The lower confidence bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants with sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment must exceed -10.5% to achieve noninferiority.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.4|||||95% CI was calculated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|For the secondary efficacy endpoint of sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment, based on a -10% margin, a 2-sided significance level of 0.05 and an underlying rate of 92% or higher in each arm, a sample size of 200 participants per arm provides \>95% power to demonstrate noninferiority of ABT-450/r/ABT-267 and ABT-333, plus Placebo RBV compared with ABT-450/r/ABT-267 and ABT-333, plus RBV (normal approximation of a single binomial proportion in a 1-sample test for superiority).||1.4|-0.5|
90888155|NCT01767116|181639656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
90888156|NCT01767116|181639657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of Participants|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.2|100.0|||||95% CI calculated using the Wilson score method for the single proportion; the lower confidence bound for the percentage of participants with sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment must exceed 84% to achieve superiority.|For the secondary efficacy endpoint of sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment, based on a 2-sided significance level of 0.05 and an underlying rate of 92% or higher in each arm, a sample size of 200 participants per treatment arm provides \>90% power to demonstrate superiority of each regimen to the historical rate for telaprevir plus pegIFN and RBV therapy (84%) (based on the normal approximation of a single binomial proportion in a one-sample test for superiority).||100.0|98.2|
90888157|NCT01767116|181639657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of Participants|99.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.6|100.0|||||95% CI calculated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution; the lower confidence bound for the percentage of participants with sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment must exceed 84% to achieve superiority.|For the secondary efficacy endpoint of sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment, based on a 2-sided significance level of 0.05 and an underlying rate of 92% or higher in each arm, a sample size of 200 participants per treatment arm provides \>90% power to demonstrate superiority of each regimen to the historical rate for telaprevir plus pegIFN and RBV therapy (84%) (based on the normal approximation of a single binomial proportion in a one-sample test for superiority).||100.0|98.6|
90888158|NCT00968669|181639660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.435|||||||ANOVA|Missing mean ACQ scores at Day 92 was imputed by last observation carried forward||||||0.435
90888159|NCT00968669|181639660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.828|||||||ANOVA|Missing mean ACQ scores at Day 92 was imputed by last observation carried forward||||||0.828
90888160|NCT00968669|181639660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.628|||||||ANOVA|Missing mean ACQ scores at Day 92 was imputed by last observation carried forward||||||0.628
90888161|NCT00968669|181639661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.271|||||||Pairwise Poisson Regression|||||||0.271
90888162|NCT00968669|181639661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.319|||||||Pairwise Poisson Regression|||||||0.319
90888163|NCT00968669|181639661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.502|||||||Pairwise Poisson Regression|||||||0.502
90888164|NCT00968669|181639662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.756|||||||Pairwise Poisson Regression|||||||0.756
90985295|NCT00958568|181856063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.12||0.703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.69|6.54||The test was run using an a priori 2-sided threshold for statistical significance of 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|The model adjusted for baseline (Week 20), treatment, country, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||||6.54|-9.69|0.703
90985296|NCT00958568|181856064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.139||95.0||||P-value is for Borderline to High. The test was run using an a priori 2-sided threshold for statistical significance of 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.139
90985297|NCT00958568|181856064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.746||95.0||||P-value is for Normal to Borderline. The test was run using an a priori 2-sided threshold for statistical significance of 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.746
90985298|NCT00958568|181856064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.458||95.0||||P-value is for Normal to High. The test was run using an a priori 2-sided threshold for statistical significance of 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.458
90985299|NCT00958568|181856065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.99|-1.47||The test was run using an a priori 2-sided threshold for statistical significance of 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|The model adjusted for baseline (Week 20), treatment, country, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||||-1.47|-5.99|0.001
91040611|NCT03086135|181966234|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry at 6000Hz at 3 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91040612|NCT03086135|181966234|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry at 8000Hz at 3 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91040613|NCT03086135|181966234|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry at 250Hz at 6 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91040614|NCT03086135|181966234|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry at 500Hz at 6 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91040615|NCT03086135|181966234|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry at 750Hz at 6 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91040616|NCT03086135|181966234|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry at 1000Hz at 6 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91040617|NCT03086135|181966234|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry at 1500Hz at 6 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91040618|NCT03086135|181966234|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry at 2000Hz at 6 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91040619|NCT03086135|181966234|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry at 3000Hz at 6 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91040620|NCT03086135|181966234|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry at 4000Hz at 6 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91040621|NCT03086135|181966234|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry at 6000Hz at 6 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91040622|NCT03086135|181966234|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry at 8000Hz at 6 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91040623|NCT03086135|181966234|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry at 250Hz at 12 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91040624|NCT03086135|181966234|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry at 500Hz at 12 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91040625|NCT03086135|181966234|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry at 750Hz at 12 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91040626|NCT03086135|181966234|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry at 1000Hz at 12 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91040627|NCT03086135|181966234|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry at 1500Hz at 12 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91040628|NCT03086135|181966234|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry at 2000Hz at 12 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91040629|NCT03086135|181966234|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry at 3000Hz at 12 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91040630|NCT03086135|181966234|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry at 4000Hz at 12 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
90888165|NCT00968669|181639662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047|||||||Pairwise Poisson Regression|||||||0.047
90888166|NCT00968669|181639662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Pairwise Poisson Regression|||||||1.000
90888167|NCT00968669|181639663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1764|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1764
90888168|NCT00968669|181639663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4031|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4031
90888169|NCT00968669|181639663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
90888170|NCT00968669|181639664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8475|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.8475
90888171|NCT00968669|181639664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0811|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0811
90888172|NCT00968669|181639664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
90888173|NCT00968669|181639665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.938||||0.144|||||||Log Rank|Stratified by atopic asthma and steroid use||||||0.144
90888174|NCT00968669|181639665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.618||||0.395|||||||Log Rank|Stratified by atopic asthma status and steroid use||||||0.395
90888175|NCT00968669|181639665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.899||||0.863|||||||Log Rank|Stratified by atopic asthma status and steroid use||||||0.863
90888176|NCT00968669|181639666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.162||||0.717|||||||Log Rank|Stratified by atopic asthma and steroid use||||||0.717
90888177|NCT00968669|181639666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.467||||0.07|||||||Log Rank|Stratified by atopic asthma status and steroid use||||||0.070
90888178|NCT00968669|181639666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.955||||0.934|||||||Log Rank|Stratified by atopic asthma status and steroid use||||||0.934
90888179|NCT00968669|181639667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.813|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.813
90888180|NCT00968669|181639667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.290
90888181|NCT00968669|181639667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.303|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.303
90888182|NCT00968669|181639668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.764|||||||Fisher Exact|||Combined MEDI-528 treatment was compared to placebo||||0.764
90888183|NCT00968669|181639669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.986|||||||Fisher Exact|||Combined MEDI-528 treatment was compared to placebo||||0.986
90888184|NCT00968669|181639670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.955||||0.7171|||||||Log Rank|Stratified by atopic asthma status and steroid use||||||0.7171
90888185|NCT00968669|181639670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.942||||0.6219|||||||Log Rank|Stratified by atopic asthma status and steroid use||||||0.6219
90888186|NCT00968669|181639670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.909||||0.6182|||||||Log Rank|Stratified by atopic asthma status and steroid use||||||0.6182
90888187|NCT00968669|181639671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.952||||0.712|||||||Log Rank|Stratified by atopic asthma status and steroid use||||||0.7120
90888188|NCT00968669|181639671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.928||||0.5086|||||||Log Rank|Stratified by atopic asthma status and steroid use||||||0.5086
90888189|NCT00968669|181639671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.887||||0.5184|||||||Log Rank|Stratified by atopic asthma status and steroid use||||||0.5184
90888190|NCT00968669|181639672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.837|||||||Two-sample t-test|||||||0.837
90888191|NCT00968669|181639672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.756|||||||Two-sample t-test|||||||0.756
91040631|NCT03086135|181966234|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry at 6000Hz at 12 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
90985300|NCT00958568|181856066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0||||The test was run using an a priori 2-sided threshold for statistical significance of 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.004
90985301|NCT00958568|181856067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||The test was run using an a priori 2-sided threshold for statistical significance of 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
90985302|NCT00958568|181856068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|13.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.62||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|28.26||The test was run using an a priori 2-sided threshold for statistical significance of 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|The model adjusted for baseline (Week 20), treatment, country, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||||28.26|-1.72|0.083
90985303|NCT00958568|181856069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029||95.0||||P-value is for Borderline to High. The test was run using an a priori 2-sided threshold for statistical significance of 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.029
90985304|NCT00958568|181856069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014||95.0||||P-value is for Normal to Borderline. The test was run using an a priori 2-sided threshold for statistical significance of 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.014
90888192|NCT00968669|181639672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.224|||||||Two-sample t-test|||||||0.224
90888193|NCT00968669|181639673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.409|||||||Two-sample t-test|||||||0.409
90888194|NCT00968669|181639673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.847|||||||Two-sample t-test|||||||0.847
91040632|NCT03086135|181966234|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry at 8000Hz at 12 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
90888195|NCT00968669|181639673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.968|||||||Two-sample t-test|||||||0.968
90888196|NCT00968669|181639674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.208|||||||Fisher Exact|||Combined MEDI-528 dose groups versus placebo||||0.208
90888197|NCT00968669|181639675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.574|||||||Fisher Exact|||Combined MEDI-528 dose groups versus placebo||||0.574
90888198|NCT03836287|181639681|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.34||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|3.72|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.72|1.47|0.0004
90888199|NCT03836287|181639682|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-29.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.543||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.42|-11.0|||ANCOVA|||||-11.00|-48.42|0.0019
90888200|NCT00298233|181639697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42||||||Significance assessed at the 5% level for a two-sided comparison|conditional univariate logistic regressi|analysis stratified by study site||Based on previous studies, assumption was made that 30% of children and 55% of adults treated with standard dose oseltamivir would test negative for virus on day five. This would require a sample size of 242 patients to show a 20% absolute improvement in cessation of viral shedding with 85% power and a two sided α of 0.05. To allow for study withdrawals, the target sample size was set at 300 patients.||||0.42
90888201|NCT00298233|181639698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54||||||Significance assessed at the 5% level for a two-sided comparison|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.54
90888202|NCT00298233|181639699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54||||||Significance assessed at the 5% level for a two-sided comparison|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel chi-square stratified by study site||||||0.54
90888203|NCT00298233|181639700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48||||||Significance assessed at the 5% level for a two-sided comparison|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.48
90888204|NCT00298233|181639701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66||||||Significance assessed at the 5% level for a two-sided comparison|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.66
90888205|NCT00298233|181639702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58||||||Significance assessed at the 5% level for a two-sided comparison|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.58
90888206|NCT02371369|181639703|OTHER|Treatment comparison analysis|||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher's Exact Test|||Treatment comparison between the pexidartinib and placebo groups at Week 25||||<0.0001
90985305|NCT00958568|181856069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.054||95.0||||P-value is for Normal to High. The test was run using an a priori 2-sided threshold for statistical significance of 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.054
91040633|NCT03086135|181966235|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Speech in quiet at 50dB at 4 weeks with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91040634|NCT03086135|181966235|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Speech in quiet at 65dB at 4 weeks with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91040635|NCT03086135|181966235|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Speech in quiet at 80dB at 4 weeks with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91040636|NCT03086135|181966235|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Speech in quiet at 50dB at 3 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
90985306|NCT00958568|181856070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.87||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.22|9.56||The test was run using an a priori 2-sided threshold for statistical significance of 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|The model adjusted for baseline (Week 20), treatment, country, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||||9.56|2.22|0.002
90888207|NCT02371369|181639704|OTHER|Treatment comparison analysis||||||0.0043|||||||Fisher's Exact Test|||Treatment comparison between the pexidartinib and placebo groups at Week 25||||0.0043
90888208|NCT02371369|181639705|OTHER|Treatment comparison analysis|||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher's Exact Test|||Treatment comparison between the pexidartinib and placebo groups at Week 25||||<0.0001
90888209|NCT02371369|181639706|OTHER|Treatment comparison analysis||||||0.0019|||||||Mixed effects model for repeated measure|||Treatment comparison between pexidartinib and placebo groups at Week 25||||0.0019
90888210|NCT02371369|181639707|OTHER|Treatment comparison analysis|||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed effects model for repeated measure|||Treatment comparison between the pexidartinib and placebo groups at Week 25||||<0.0001
90888211|NCT03855189|181639725|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||<0.01
90888212|NCT03855189|181639725|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from ANOVA.||||<0.01
90888213|NCT03855189|181639725|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from ANOVA.||||0.06
90888214|NCT03855189|181639726|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.04
90888215|NCT03855189|181639726|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.01
90888216|NCT03855189|181639726|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.50
90888217|NCT03855189|181639729|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||<0.01
90888218|NCT03855189|181639729|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||<0.01
90888219|NCT03855189|181639729|OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.11
90888220|NCT03855189|181639730|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.05
90888221|NCT03855189|181639730|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||<0.01
90888222|NCT03855189|181639730|OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.13
90888223|NCT03855189|181639731|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.06
90888224|NCT03855189|181639731|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.03
90888225|NCT03855189|181639731|OTHER|||||||0.81|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.81
90888226|NCT03855189|181639732|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.02
90888227|NCT03855189|181639732|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||<0.01
90888228|NCT03855189|181639732|OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.17
90888229|NCT03855189|181639733|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||<0.01
90888230|NCT03855189|181639733|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.02
90888231|NCT03855189|181639733|OTHER|||||||0.39|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.39
90888232|NCT03855189|181639734|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||<0.01
90888233|NCT03855189|181639734|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||<0.01
90888234|NCT03855189|181639734|OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.60
90888235|NCT03855189|181639735|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.03
90888236|NCT03855189|181639735|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.01
90888237|NCT03855189|181639735|OTHER|||||||0.54|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.54
90888238|NCT03855189|181639736|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||<0.01
90888239|NCT03855189|181639736|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.01
90888240|NCT03855189|181639736|OTHER|||||||0.71|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.71
90888241|NCT03855189|181639737|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||<0.01
90888242|NCT03855189|181639737|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||<0.01
90888243|NCT03855189|181639737|OTHER|||||||0.77|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.77
90888244|NCT03855189|181639738|OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.11
90888245|NCT03855189|181639738|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.03
90888246|NCT03855189|181639738|OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.60
91040637|NCT03086135|181966235|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Speech in quiet at 65dB at 3 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
90888247|NCT03855189|181639739|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||<0.01
90888248|NCT03855189|181639739|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||<0.01
90888249|NCT03855189|181639739|OTHER|||||||0.59|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.59
90888250|NCT03855189|181639740|OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.07
90888251|NCT03855189|181639740|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.01
90888252|NCT03855189|181639740|OTHER|||||||0.43|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.43
90888253|NCT03855189|181639741|OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.09
90888254|NCT03855189|181639741|OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.08
90888255|NCT03855189|181639741|OTHER|||||||0.96|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.96
90888256|NCT03855189|181639742|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.01
90985307|NCT00958568|181856071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031||95.0||||P-value is for Impaired to High. The test was run using an a priori 2-sided threshold for statistical significance of 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.031
90985308|NCT00958568|181856071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||P-value is for Normal to High. The test was run using an a priori 2-sided threshold for statistical significance of 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
90888257|NCT03855189|181639742|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||<0.01
90888258|NCT03855189|181639742|OTHER|||||||0.64|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.64
90888259|NCT03855189|181639743|OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.25
90888260|NCT03855189|181639743|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.02
90888261|NCT03855189|181639743|OTHER|||||||0.26|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.26
90888262|NCT03855189|181639744|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||<0.01
90888263|NCT03855189|181639744|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||<0.01
90888264|NCT03855189|181639744|OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.09
90888265|NCT03855189|181639745|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.05
90888266|NCT03855189|181639745|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||<0.01
90888267|NCT03855189|181639745|OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.07
90888268|NCT03855189|181639746|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.04
90888269|NCT03855189|181639746|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.01
90888270|NCT03855189|181639746|OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.53
90888271|NCT03855189|181639747|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.02
90888272|NCT03855189|181639747|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||<0.01
91040638|NCT03086135|181966235|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Speech in quiet at 80dB at 3 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
90888273|NCT03855189|181639747|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.02
90888274|NCT03855189|181639748|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.03
90888275|NCT03855189|181639748|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||<0.01
90888276|NCT03855189|181639748|OTHER|||||||0.34|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.34
90888277|NCT03855189|181639749|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||<0.01
90888278|NCT03855189|181639749|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||<0.01
90888279|NCT03855189|181639749|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.04
90888280|NCT03855189|181639750|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.06
90888281|NCT03855189|181639750|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||<0.01
90888282|NCT03855189|181639750|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.03
90888283|NCT03855189|181639751|OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.13
90888284|NCT03855189|181639751|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||<0.01
90888285|NCT03855189|181639751|OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.07
90888286|NCT03855189|181639752|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.03
90888287|NCT03855189|181639752|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||<0.01
90888288|NCT03855189|181639752|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.01
90888289|NCT00167544|181639754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.4|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.49|30.29|||ANCOVA|||The primary analysis of total brain tissue volume was performed using multiple linear regression controlling for postmenstrual age at MRI scan to adjust for differences in timing at MRI. The distributions of potentially important confounding variables at baseline were compared in the two groups using parametric and non-parametric tests as appropriate. All analyses were performed using STATA 11.0. Please see PubMed: 23140612.||30.29|-19.49|<0.05
90888290|NCT04307186|181639758|OTHER|"McNemar test was used for the exploratory analysis of difference between the percentage of participants greatly prefer/prefer gadoquatrane and greatly prefer/prefer gadobutrol."|||||<|0.0001||||||P-Value was calculated. p \< 0.05 indicates a difference between the two reads; p \> 0.05 indicates the observed data do not contradict equality.|McNemar|||Reader 1||||<0.0001
90888291|NCT04307186|181639758|OTHER|"McNemar test was used for the exploratory analysis of difference between the percentage of participants greatly prefer/prefer gadoquatrane and greatly prefer/prefer gadobutrol."||||||0.5775||||||P-Value was calculated. p \< 0.05 indicates a difference between the two reads; p \> 0.05 indicates the observed data do not contradict equality.|McNemar|||Reader 2||||0.5775
90888292|NCT04307186|181639758|OTHER|"McNemar test was used for the exploratory analysis of difference between the percentage of participants greatly prefer/prefer gadoquatrane and greatly prefer/prefer gadobutrol."||||||0.3173||||||P-Value was calculated. p \< 0.05 indicates a difference between the two reads; p \> 0.05 indicates the observed data do not contradict equality.|McNemar|||Reader 3||||0.3173
90888293|NCT04307186|181639759|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority of gadoquatrane versus gadobutrol was evaluated using CIs based on the t-distribution. A non-inferiority margin of 1 was used, i.e. meaning that a 95% two-sided CI for the mean difference gadoquatrane minus gadobutrol score must exclude the value -1.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.13||P-Value was calculated. Non-inferiority was achieved with a one-sided p-value lower than 0.025.|t-test, 1 sided|||Average reader||0.13|-0.24|<0.0001
90888294|NCT04307186|181639760|OTHER|95% two-sided CIs based on a t-distribution for the difference of combined pre- and post-contrast minus pre-contrast scores.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.34|||||Descriptive comparison of the result following gadobutrol with the result following gadoquatrane.|Average Reader||1.34|1.06|
90888295|NCT04307186|181639760|OTHER|95% two-sided CIs based on a t-distribution for the difference of combined pre- and post-contrast minus pre-contrast scores.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.25|||||Descriptive comparison of the result following gadobutrol with the result following gadoquatrane.|Average Reader||1.25|0.94|
90888296|NCT04307186|181639761|OTHER|95% two-sided CIs based on a t-distribution for the difference of combined pre- and post-contrast minus pre-contrast scores.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.87|2.28|||||Descriptive comparison of the result following gadobutrol with the result following gadoquatrane.|Average Reader||2.28|1.87|
90888297|NCT04307186|181639761|OTHER|95% two-sided CIs based on a t-distribution for the difference of combined pre- and post-contrast minus pre-contrast scores.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.86|2.25|||||Descriptive comparison of the result following gadobutrol with the result following gadoquatrane.|Average Reader||2.25|1.86|
90888298|NCT04307186|181639762|OTHER|95% two-sided CIs based on a t-distribution for the difference of combined pre- and post-contrast minus pre-contrast scores.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|1.43|||||Descriptive comparison of the result following gadobutrol with the result following gadoquatrane.|Average Reader||1.43|1.11|
90888299|NCT04307186|181639762|OTHER|95% two-sided CIs based on a t-distribution for the difference of combined pre- and post-contrast minus pre-contrast scores.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.32|||||Descriptive comparison of the result following gadobutrol with the result following gadoquatrane.|Average Reader||1.32|1.05|
90888300|NCT01587651|181639782|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was assessed using a 95% CI of the difference in mean PRU between ticagrelor and prasugrel (2 arms combined). Under the assumption of 0 difference in mean PRU between prasugrel 10 mg QD MD and ticagrelor 90 mg BID MD, a common SD of 60 PRU (based on previous DSI studies and published data), and a drop-out rate not exceeding 15%, a sample size of 105 allows for the 95% CI to stay within ± 45 PRU (non-inferiority margin) with a power of 90%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|46.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.66|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.9|67.2||||||ANCOVA model included treatment as a main effect and pre-randomization baseline PRU as a covariate. The combined prasugrel groups were modeled as a single treatment. If the upper limit of the CI for the mean difference was not greater than 45 PRU, then the PD response to prasugrel 10 mg QD MD was deemed noninferior to that achieved by ticagrelor 90 mg BID MD.||67.2|24.9|
90888301|NCT00754845|181639788|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.91|||Log Rank|Stratified by the stratification factors at randomization||||0.91|0.48|0.01
90888302|NCT00754845|181639789|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.007
90888303|NCT00754845|181639790|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.28|||Log Rank|||||1.28|0.73|0.83
90888304|NCT00754845|181639791|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.01
90888305|NCT00358735|181639798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
90888306|NCT00358735|181639799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
90888307|NCT00358735|181639800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0004
90888308|NCT00358735|181639802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.953|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.953
90888309|NCT00358735|181639803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.050
90888310|NCT00358735|181639804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.010
90985309|NCT00958568|181856071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.344||95.0||||P-value is for Normal to Impaired. The test was run using an a priori 2-sided threshold for statistical significance of 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.344
91040639|NCT03086135|181966235|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Speech in quiet at 50dB at 6 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
90951835|NCT00895895|181781279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|4.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||4.5|-6.6|0.712
90951836|NCT00895895|181781279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|6.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||6.4|-4.8|0.785
90951837|NCT00895895|181781280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||0.1|-0.5|0.251
91040640|NCT03086135|181966235|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Speech in quiet at 65dB at 6 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
90888311|NCT00358735|181639805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.507|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.507
90888312|NCT00358735|181639806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.052|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.052
90888313|NCT00358735|181639807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.798|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.798
90888314|NCT00358735|181639808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.036
90888315|NCT03238001|181639817|NON_INFERIORITY|In order to show non-inferiority, a lower 90% confidence limit (CL) for the difference in kappa scores would need to be greater than or equal to -0.20. The 90% confidence interval was calculated based on 5000 bootstrapped differences in kappa scores.|Lower 90% CL for difference in Kappas|-0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.12|0.05|||||90% CI for Kappa of DCTclock/MoCA - Kappa of MMSE/MoCA (estimated with bootstrap method using 5000 bootstraps).|A two-one-sided tests approach was taken, where, prior to analysis, it was determined that a delta (equivalence margin) of 0.20 would be considered a significant difference between the DCTclock/MoCA kappa and the MMSE/MoCA kappa. The reasoning behind this determination can be found in the study's statistical analysis plan.||0.05|-0.12|
90888316|NCT00780962|181639830|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|0.6|||>|0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|6.0|||Wald|||"The study was powered to find a 10% absolute risk reduction in the rate of contrast-induced nephropathy (a=.05, 90% power). We initially estimated the need for 600 patients and repowered to 800 patients after the 1st interim analysis. The study was halted for futility at the 2nd interim analysis.~Reported here 357 (89.4%) of the 399 enrolled subjects who completed a second blood draw at the time the study closed."||6.0|-4.8|>0.5
90888317|NCT03176693|181639839|EQUIVALENCE|A power analysis was calculated based on findings reported by Weingarten et al. of more frequent episodes of hypotension (defined as difference of mean systolic blood pressure \<30% from baseline) in phenoxybenzamine compared with doxazosin (15.7% versus 5.1%). Using a standard deviation of 16 and 11 (derived from reported interquartile ranges, assuming normal distribution), respectively, to achieve 80% power using an alpha =.05, a total sample size of 56 patients was determined.||||||0.56||||||Threshold for statistical significance = 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: hemodynamic instability time will not differ between arms||||.56
90888318|NCT03325712|181639846|OTHER||Slope|0.8188|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0725|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6966|0.941|||||Based on the estimate for slope parameter (β), a 2-sided 90% CI for the slope was computed. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1. Standard error of mean is standard error of slope.|The basic model for the investigation of dose proportionality is a power model that describes the functional relationship between the dose and PK endpoints. Statistical hypotheses were not tested in a confirmatory sense.||0.9410|0.6966|
90888319|NCT03325712|181639847|OTHER||Slope|0.7708|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0747|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6449|0.8967|||||Based on the estimate for slope parameter (β), a 2-sided 90% CI for the slope was computed. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1. Standard error of mean is standard error of slope.|The basic model for the investigation of dose proportionality is a power model that describes the functional relationship between the dose and PK endpoints. Statistical hypotheses were not tested in a confirmatory sense.||0.8967|0.6449|
90888320|NCT03325712|181639848|OTHER||Slope|0.7167|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.133|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4922|0.9412|||||Based on the estimate for slope parameter (β), a 2-sided 90% CI for the slope was computed. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1. Standard error of mean is standard error of slope.|The basic model for the investigation of dose proportionality is a power model that describes the functional relationship between the dose and PK endpoints. Statistical hypotheses were not tested in a confirmatory sense.||0.9412|0.4922|
90951838|NCT00895895|181781280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||0.3|-0.3|0.993
90951839|NCT00895895|181781280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||0.2|-0.4|0.553
90951840|NCT00895895|181781280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||0.2|-0.4|0.611
90951841|NCT00895895|181781281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||0.5|-1.5|0.340
90888321|NCT03325712|181639849|OTHER||Slope|0.6825|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1344|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4556|0.9094|||||Based on the estimate for slope parameter (β), a 2-sided 90% CI for the slope was computed. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1. Standard error of mean is standard error of slope.|The basic model for the investigation of dose proportionality is a power model that describes the functional relationship between the dose and PK endpoints. Statistical hypotheses were not tested in a confirmatory sense.||0.9094|0.4556|
90888322|NCT03325712|181639850|OTHER||Ratio (T/R)|102.81|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.18|121.25||||Standard deviation is intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|The effect of BI 705564 on midazolam is estimated by the ratio of the geometric mean (T/R) and confidence interval (CI). CI is calculated based on the residual error from ANOVA.|"Placebo matching BI 705564. Relative bioavailability of midazolam is analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on logarithmic scale including random effects for subjects and fixed effects for time point."||121.25|87.18|
90888323|NCT03325712|181639850|OTHER||Ratio (T/R)|93.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.94|108.32||||Standard deviation is intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|The effect of BI 705564 on midazolam is estimated by the ratio of the geometric mean (T/R) and confidence interval (CI). CI is calculated based on the residual error from ANOVA.|"BI 705564 dose group 2. Relative bioavailability of midazolam is analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on logarithmic scale including random effects for subjects and fixed effects for time point."||108.32|79.94|
90888324|NCT03325712|181639850|OTHER||Ratio (T/R)|109.82|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.59|116.42||||Standard deviation is intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|The effect of BI 705564 on midazolam is estimated by the ratio of the geometric mean (T/R) and confidence interval (CI). CI is calculated based on the residual error from ANOVA.|"BI 705564 dose group 3. Relative bioavailability of midazolam is analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on logarithmic scale including random effects for subjects and fixed effects for time point."||116.42|103.59|
90951842|NCT00895895|181781281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||1.2|-0.8|0.630
90888325|NCT03325712|181639850|OTHER||Ratio ( T/R)|108.37|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.0|127.66||||Standard deviation is intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|The effect of BI 705564 on midazolam is estimated by the ratio of the geometric mean (T/R) and confidence interval (CI). CI is calculated based on the residual error from ANOVA.|"BI 705564 dose group 5. Relative bioavailability of midazolam is analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on logarithmic scale including random effects for subjects and fixed effects for time point."||127.66|92.00|
90951843|NCT00895895|181781281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||1.2|-0.8|0.678
90951844|NCT00895895|181781281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||0.7|-1.3|0.518
90951845|NCT00895895|181781282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||0.7|-0.7|0.953
90951846|NCT00895895|181781282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||0.6|-0.7|0.956
90951847|NCT00895895|181781282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||0.2|-1.1|0.216
90951848|NCT00895895|181781282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||0.5|-0.8|0.665
90951849|NCT00895895|181781283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||1.7|-0.6|0.373
90951850|NCT00895895|181781283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||1.3|-1.0|0.781
90951851|NCT00895895|181781283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||1.6|-0.7|0.417
90951852|NCT00895895|181781283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||1.0|-1.3|0.853
90951853|NCT00895895|181781284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||1.1|-2.6|0.428
90890161|NCT04402866|181644207|OTHER|Since this was a Phase 2 study, it was not powered for any of the secondary endpoints.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.295||||0.399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.702|2.388|||Van Elteren test|||Part 2: TD-0903 - Parallel-Group 3 mg versus Part 2: Matching Placebo - Parallel-Group on Day 21|Between-group comparisons analyzed using a proportional odds model adjusting for baseline age strata (≤ 60 years vs. \> 60 years).|2.388|0.702|0.3990
90951854|NCT00895895|181781284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||1.5|-2.1|0.763
90951855|NCT00895895|181781284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||0.9|-2.7|0.312
90951856|NCT00895895|181781284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||0.7|-3.0|0.215
91040641|NCT03086135|181966235|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Speech in quiet at 80dB at 6 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
90890162|NCT04402866|181644207|OTHER|Since this was a Phase 2 study, it was not powered for any of the secondary endpoints.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.6445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.605|2.299|||Van Elteren test||Between-group comparisons analyzed using a proportional odds model adjusting for baseline age strata (≤ 60 years vs. \> 60 years).|Part 2: TD-0903 - Parallel-Group 3 mg versus Part 2: Matching Placebo - Parallel-Group on Day 28||2.299|0.605|0.6445
90890163|NCT04402866|181644208|OTHER|Since this was a Phase 2 study, it was not powered for any of the secondary endpoints.|Risk Difference (RD)|5.06||||0.3005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|14.63||The p-value was calculated using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by baseline age group (≤ 60 years vs. \> 60 years)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|||Part 2: TD-0903 - Parallel-Group 3 mg versus Part 2: Matching Placebo - Parallel-Group||14.63|-4.50|0.3005
90890164|NCT03667053|181644209|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||The treatment group difference between dasiglucagon and placebo was evaluated inferentially using a pairwise two-sided log rank test stratified by injection site and age group.||||<0.001
90888326|NCT03325712|181639850|OTHER||Ratio (T/R)|109.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.43|128.79||||Standard deviation is intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|The effect of BI 705564 on midazolam is estimated by the ratio of the geometric mean (T/R) and confidence interval (CI). CI is calculated based on the residual error from ANOVA.|"BI 705564 dose group 4. Relative bioavailability of midazolam is analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on logarithmic scale including random effects for subjects and fixed effects for time point."||128.79|92.43|
90888327|NCT03325712|181639851|OTHER||Ratio (T/R)|100.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|18.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.99|119.31||||Standard deviation is intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|The effect of BI 705564 on midazolam is estimated by the ratio of the geometric mean (T/R) and confidence interval (CI). CI is calculated based on the residual error from ANOVA.|"Placebo matching BI 705564. Relative bioavailability of midazolam is analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on logarithmic scale including random effects for subjects and fixed effects for time point."||119.31|83.99|
90951857|NCT00895895|181781285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|2.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||2.5|-2.7|0.956
90951858|NCT00895895|181781285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|2.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||2.5|-2.6|0.988
90951859|NCT00895895|181781285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|2.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||2.4|-2.7|0.890
91040642|NCT03086135|181966235|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Speech in quiet at 50dB at 12 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
90951860|NCT00895895|181781285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||1.2|-4.0|0.280
90951861|NCT00895895|181781286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||0.2|-1.5|0.154
90951862|NCT00895895|181781286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||0.7|-1.0|0.740
90951863|NCT00895895|181781286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||0.3|-1.4|0.179
90951864|NCT00895895|181781286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||1.1|-0.6|0.543
90951865|NCT00895895|181781287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-60.4||||0.861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-739.7|618.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||618.8|-739.7|0.861
90951866|NCT00895895|181781287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-926.6||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1596.9|-256.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||-256.3|-1596.9|0.007
90951867|NCT00895895|181781287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|141.3||||0.676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-522.1|804.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||804.6|-522.1|0.676
90951868|NCT00895895|181781287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|230.6||||0.505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-449.7|910.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||910.9|-449.7|0.505
91040643|NCT03086135|181966235|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Speech in quiet at 65dB at 12 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91040644|NCT03086135|181966235|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Speech in quiet at 80dB at 12 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91040645|NCT03086135|181966236|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Adaptive speech recognition in noise at 4 weeks with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
90951869|NCT00895895|181781288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8||||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|7.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||7.8|-2.2|0.267
90951870|NCT00895895|181781288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.6||||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|8.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||8.6|-1.3|0.145
90951871|NCT00895895|181781288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.7||||0.139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|8.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||8.6|-1.2|0.139
90951872|NCT00895895|181781288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2||||0.386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|7.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||7.2|-2.8|0.386
90951873|NCT00895895|181781289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||-0.1|-2.3|0.032
90951874|NCT00895895|181781289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||1.7|-0.5|0.264
90951875|NCT00895895|181781289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||1.1|-1.0|0.893
90951876|NCT00895895|181781289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||1.4|-0.7|0.525
90951877|NCT00895895|181781290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|60.9||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|123.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||123.5|-1.6|0.056
90951878|NCT00895895|181781290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.8||||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.0|83.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||83.5|-40.0|0.488
90951879|NCT00895895|181781290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.6||||0.783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.6|69.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||69.8|-52.6|0.783
90951880|NCT00895895|181781290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.6||||0.578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.6|79.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||79.8|-44.6|0.578
90951881|NCT00895895|181781291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|31.1||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|76.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||76.1|-13.9|0.175
91040646|NCT03086135|181966236|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Adaptive speech recognition in noise at 6 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
90888328|NCT03325712|181639851|OTHER||Ratio (T/R)|84.43|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|72.29|98.62||||Standard deviation is intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|The effect of BI 705564 on midazolam is estimated by the ratio of the geometric mean (T/R) and confidence interval (CI). CI is calculated based on the residual error from ANOVA.|"BI 705564 dose group 2. Relative bioavailability of midazolam is analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on logarithmic scale including random effects for subjects and fixed effects for time point."||98.62|72.29|
90888329|NCT03325712|181639851|OTHER||Ratio (T/R)|109.41|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.34|126.88||||Standard deviation is intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|The effect of BI 705564 on midazolam is estimated by the ratio of the geometric mean (T/R) and confidence interval (CI). CI is calculated based on the residual error from ANOVA.|"BI 705564 dose group 3. Relative bioavailability of midazolam is analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on logarithmic scale including random effects for subjects and fixed effects for time point."||126.88|94.34|
90888330|NCT03325712|181639851|OTHER||Ratio (T/R)|95.44|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.75|114.21||||Standard deviation is intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|The effect of BI 705564 on midazolam is estimated by the ratio of the geometric mean (T/R) and confidence interval (CI). CI is calculated based on the residual error from ANOVA.|"BI 705564 dose group 5. Relative bioavailability of midazolam is analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on logarithmic scale including random effects for subjects and fixed effects for time point."||114.21|79.75|
90888331|NCT03325712|181639851|OTHER||Ratio (T/R)|90.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|25.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.75|114.59||||Standard deviation is intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|The effect of BI 705564 on midazolam is estimated by the ratio of the geometric mean (T/R) and confidence interval (CI). CI is calculated based on the residual error from ANOVA.|"BI 705564 dose group 4. Relative bioavailability of midazolam is analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on logarithmic scale including random effects for subjects and fixed effects for time point."||114.59|70.75|
90890165|NCT03667053|181644210|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0073||||||Assessed at 30 minutes. Note that p-value was 0.0005 at 10 minutes and \<0.0001 at 15 and 20 minutes.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The recovery rates of dasiglucagon and placebo were compared at each time point using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group and injection site. Testing followed an a priori defined hierarchical inferential test order, proceeding until the first failure to reject the null hypothesis comparing dasiglucagon versus placebo.||||0.0073
91040647|NCT03086135|181966236|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Adaptive speech recognition in noise at 12 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91040648|NCT03086135|181966237|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||APHAB, Ease of communication, at 3 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91040649|NCT03086135|181966237|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||APHAB, Background noise, at 3 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91040650|NCT03086135|181966237|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||APHAB, Reverberation, at 3 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
90951882|NCT00895895|181781291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.0||||0.352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.3|65.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||65.4|-23.3|0.352
90951883|NCT00895895|181781291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.7||||0.797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.1|49.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||49.6|-38.1|0.797
90951884|NCT00895895|181781291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.9||||0.633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.6|33.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||33.9|-55.6|0.633
90951885|NCT00895895|181781292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|71.2||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|147.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||147.0|-4.7|0.066
90951886|NCT00895895|181781292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.0||||0.598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.6|94.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||94.7|-54.6|0.598
90951887|NCT00895895|181781292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.2||||0.766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.9|85.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||85.3|-62.9|0.766
90951888|NCT00895895|181781292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.8||||0.378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.5|109.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||109.1|-41.5|0.378
90951889|NCT00895895|181781293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.5||||0.481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.2|85.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||85.2|-40.2|0.481
90951890|NCT00895895|181781293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.2||||0.894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.5|65.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||65.9|-57.5|0.894
90951891|NCT00895895|181781293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.5|60.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||60.8|-61.5|0.991
90951892|NCT00895895|181781293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.5||||0.422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-87.9|36.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||36.9|-87.9|0.422
90951893|NCT00895895|181781294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73||||0.581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|2.22|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.22|0.24|0.581
90951894|NCT00895895|181781294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|3.19|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.19|0.42|0.770
90951895|NCT00895895|181781294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|4.55|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.55|0.71|0.216
90951896|NCT00895895|181781294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.61||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|6.42|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.42|1.06|0.037
90951897|NCT03168542|181781320|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the lower 95% of the confidence limit of the proportion of subjects who require no more than one modification was greater than 50%.|Proportion|0.952|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.756|1.0|||Agresti-Coull confidence interval|Agresti-Coull method was used to estimate the confidence interval of the binomial proportions.||||1.000|0.756|
90951898|NCT00455741|181781333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||ANOVA|||effect of age on estrogen negative feedback ( nadir LH as % of baseline LH)||||0.90
90951899|NCT00455741|181781333|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.03||||||a priori threshold for significance is p\<0.05|ANOVA|||positive feedback||||<0.03
90951900|NCT00455741|181781334|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.03||||||a priori significance level p\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||=0.03
90951901|NCT00455741|181781335|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49||||||threshold for significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.49
90951902|NCT00455741|181781336|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.02||||||a priori threshold for significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.02
90951903|NCT00455741|181781337|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.03
90951904|NCT00455741|181781338|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07||||||a priori significance set at p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.07
90951905|NCT03041792|181781339|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-235.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|43.13||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-322.25|-149.25||The p-value was calculated and was rounded to 4th decimal presenting as 0.0000, which was smaller than the required threshold of \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Visit 4||-149.25|-322.25|0.0000
90951906|NCT03041792|181781339|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-243.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|47.6||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-339.1|-148.15||The p-value was calculated and was rounded to 4th decimal presenting as 0.0000, which was smaller than the required threshold of \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Visit 5||-148.15|-339.10|0.0000
90888332|NCT02265237|181639852|SUPERIORITY|97.5% CI was calculated using the Wilson score method; the lower confidence bound for the percentage of participants with sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment must exceed 67% to achieve superiority. The predefined threshold of 67% was based on historical SVR rates for HCV genotype 4 (GT4)-infected subjects treated with pegIFN/RBV.|Percentage of Participants|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|92.4|100.0|||||The confidence interval was calculated using the Wilson score method.|The overall 2-sided significance level of 0.05 was split between Part I (arms A and B) and Part II (arm C) using a Bonferroni corrected alpha level of 0.025 for each part. Additionally, a fixed sequence procedure for Part I was used to proceed through the primary efficacy comparisons in the following order: 1) test of superiority of arm B and 2) test of superiority of arm A. The primary outcome within Arm C was tested with a Bonferroni-corrected Type 1 error rate of 0.025 for superiority.||100.0|92.4|
90888333|NCT02265237|181639852|SUPERIORITY|97.5% confidence interval (CI) was calculated using the Wilson score method; the lower confidence bound for the percentage of participants with sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment must exceed 67% to achieve superiority. The predefined threshold of 67% was based on historical SVR rates for HCV GT4-infected subjects treated with pegIFN/RBV.|Percentage of Participants|96.6|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|86.7|99.2|||||The confidence interval was calculated using the Wilson score method.|The overall 2-sided significance level of 0.05 was split between Part I (arms A and B) and Part II (arm C) using a Bonferroni corrected alpha level of 0.025 for each part. Additionally, a fixed sequence procedure for Part I was used to proceed through the primary efficacy comparisons in the following order: 1) test of superiority of arm B and 2) test of superiority of arm A. The primary outcome within Arm C was tested with a Bonferroni-corrected Type 1 error rate of 0.025 for superiority.||99.2|86.7|
90888334|NCT02265237|181639852|SUPERIORITY|97.5% CI was calculated using the Wilson score method; the lower confidence bound for the percentage of participants with sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment must exceed 67% to achieve superiority. The predefined threshold of 67% was based on historical SVR rates for HCV genotype 4 (GT4)-infected subjects treated with pegIFN/RBV.|Percentage of Participants|93.4|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|82.6|97.7|||||The confidence interval was calculated using the Wilson score method.|The overall 2-sided significance level of 0.05 was split between Part I (arms A and B) and Part II (arm C) using a Bonferroni corrected alpha level of 0.025 for each part. Additionally, a fixed sequence procedure for Part I was used to proceed through the primary efficacy comparisons in the following order: 1) test of superiority of arm B and 2) test of superiority of arm A. The primary outcome within Arm C was tested with a Bonferroni-corrected Type 1 error rate of 0.025 for superiority.||97.7|82.6|
90888335|NCT02265237|181639853|SUPERIORITY|Treatment differences (with 95% confidence intervals) and corresponding P-value for the specified comparisons were estimated using stratum adjusted Mantel-Haenszel (MH) proportion and continuity-corrected variance, adjusting for IFN/RBV treatment history (treatment-naïve or treatment-experienced).|Stratum-Adjusted MH Difference|-3.39||||0.304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.85|3.07|||Mantel Haenszel|||Within Part I (arm A and B), since superiority was demonstrated for both arms in the primary outcome measures, testing continued to the first secondary outcome measure.||3.07|-9.85|0.304
90888336|NCT02265237|181639854|SUPERIORITY|Treatment differences (with 95% confidence intervals) and corresponding P-value for the specified comparisons were estimated using stratum adjusted Mantel-Haenszel proportion and continuity-corrected variance, adjusting for IFN/RBV treatment history (treatment-naïve or treatment-experienced).|Stratum-Adjusted MH Difference|6.45||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|13.81|||Mantel Haenszel|||Within Part II (arm C), since superiority was demonstrated for the primary outcome measure, testing continued to the second secondary outcome measure.||13.81|-0.91|0.086
90888337|NCT00839072|181639878|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence is established when the ratio of geometric Least Squares means (LS means) and confidence interval calculated from the exponential of the difference between the Test and Reference product for the ln-transformed parameter Cmax does not exceed 125%.|Ratio of the mean|59.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|50.99|69.81|||||Trazodone Contramid® OAD/Desyrel®|||69.81|50.99|
90888338|NCT00839072|181639879|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence is established when the ratio of geometric Least Squares means and confidence interval calculated from the exponential of the difference between the Test and Reference product for the ln-transformed parameter AUCT is between 80% and 125%.|Ratio of the mean|78.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|69.7|88.51|||||Trazodone Contramid® OAD/Desyrel®|||88.51|69.70|
90888339|NCT00839072|181639880|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence is established when the ratio of geometric Least Squares means and confidence interval calculated from the exponential of the difference between the Test and Reference product for the ln-transformed parameter AUC∞ is between 80% and 125%.|Ratio of the mean|80.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.67|90.68|||||Trazodone Contramid® OAD/Desyrel®|||90.68|70.67|
90888340|NCT00380068|181639884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|20.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|65.64|<|0.001||95.0|11.8|29.3|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test on change from Baseline to Week 24||||29.3|11.8|<0.001
90888341|NCT00380068|181639885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.11|<|0.001||95.0|-0.8|-0.3|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test on change from Baseline to Week 24||||-0.3|-0.8|<0.001
90888342|NCT00380068|181639886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.001||95.0|-1.0|-0.2|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test on change from Baseline to Week 48||||-0.2|-1.0|0.001
90888343|NCT00380068|181639887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent change from baseline|-25.5||||||95.0|-33.6|-16.3|||||Percent change from baseline derived from Geometric Mean Ratio|||-16.3|-33.6|
90888344|NCT00380068|181639888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent change from baseline|-29.2||||||95.0|-39.8|-16.6|||||Percent change from baseline derived from Geometric Mean Ratio|||-16.6|-39.8|
90888345|NCT00380068|181639889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical test performed on actual change from baseline WHO functional Class (eg, a change from WHO Class III to II is -1; a change from WHO Class IV to II is -2; etc).|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||<0.001
90888346|NCT00380068|181639890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical test performed on actual change from baseline WHO functional Class (eg, a change from WHO Class III to II is -1; a change from WHO Class IV to II is -2; etc).|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||<0.001
90951907|NCT03041792|181781344|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-859.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|167.76||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1196.1|-523.1||The p-value was calculated and was rounded to 4th decimal presenting as 0.0000, which was smaller than the required threshold of \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Visit 4||-523.10|-1196.1|0.0000
90951908|NCT03041792|181781344|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-928.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|193.8||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1317.3|-539.86||The p-value was calculated and was rounded to 4th decimal presenting as 0.0000, which was smaller than the required threshold of \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Visit 5||-539.86|-1317.3|0.0000
90951909|NCT03041792|181781345|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|4.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.16||0.0263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|9.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Visit 4||9.29|0.61|0.0263
90951910|NCT03041792|181781345|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|5.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.06||0.0121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|9.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Visit 5||9.48|1.22|0.0121
90951911|NCT03041792|181781346|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|3.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.91||0.1768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|9.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Satiety (Visit 4)||9.82|-1.85|0.1768
90888347|NCT00380068|181639891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test on change from Baseline to Week 24||||||<0.001
90951912|NCT03041792|181781346|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|3.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.13||0.1137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|7.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Satiety (Visit 5)||7.70|-0.85|0.1137
90951913|NCT03041792|181781346|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|2.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.12||0.1858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|7.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Fullness (Visit 4)||7.11|-1.41|0.1858
90951914|NCT03041792|181781346|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|1.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.22||0.5288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.05|5.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Fullness (Visit 5)||5.86|-3.05|0.5288
90951915|NCT03041792|181781346|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-8.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.91||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|-2.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Prospective food consumption (Visit 4)||-2.61|-14.30|0.0054
90951916|NCT03041792|181781346|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-9.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.75||0.0117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.29|-2.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Prospective food consumption (Visit 5)||-2.27|-17.29|0.0117
90951917|NCT03041792|181781346|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-6.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.44||0.0093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.48|-1.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hunger (Visit 4)||-1.69|-11.48|0.0093
90888348|NCT00380068|181639892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test on change from Baseline to Week 48||||||<0.001
90888349|NCT00380068|181639893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent event free|89.4||||||95.0|84.4|92.8|||||Estimate obtained through Kaplan-Meier methods|||92.8|84.4|
90888350|NCT00380068|181639894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent event free|84.1||||||95.0|78.2|88.6|||||Estimate obtained through Kaplan-Meier methods|||88.6|78.2|
90951918|NCT03041792|181781346|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-6.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.86||0.0296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.12|-0.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hunger (Visit 5)||-0.66|-12.12|0.0296
90951919|NCT03041792|181781347|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|35.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|52.46||0.5008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.64|140.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUC0-60min (Visit 4)||140.76|-69.64|0.5008
90951920|NCT03041792|181781347|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|106.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|48.95||0.0348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.86|204.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUC0-60min (Visit 5)||204.44|7.86|0.0348
91040651|NCT03086135|181966237|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||APHAB, Aversiveness, at 3 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||0.51
90888351|NCT00380068|181639895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent event free|95.3||||||95.0|91.4|97.4|||||Estimate obtained through Kaplan-Meier methods|||97.4|91.4|
90888352|NCT00380068|181639896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent event free|92.9||||||95.0|88.3|95.8|||||Estimate obtained through Kaplan-Meier methods|||95.8|88.3|
90888353|NCT00380068|181639897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent event free|95.0||||||95.0|88.5|97.9|||||Estimate obtained through Kaplan-Meier methods|||97.9|88.5|
90888354|NCT00380068|181639898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent event free|90.0||||||95.0|81.6|94.7|||||Estimate obtained through Kaplan-Meier methods|||94.7|81.6|
90888355|NCT00380068|181639899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent event free|97.1||||||95.0|93.6|98.7|||||Estimate obtained through Kaplan-Meier methods|||98.7|93.6|
90888356|NCT00380068|181639900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent event free|95.3||||||95.0|91.2|97.6|||||Estimate obtained through Kaplan-Meier methods|||97.6|91.2|
90888357|NCT01297062|181639901|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is established if the upper limit of 2-sided 90% confidence interval (CI), equivalent to the upper limit of 1-sided 95% CI, for change from baseline in QTcP (exenatide - placebo) is below 10 msec.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.21|-0.5||No adjustment on CI for the primary outcome measure.|Mixed Models Analysis||The MMRM includes Treatment (Exenatide versus Placebo), Day, Time, Period, Sequence, and Day-Time-Treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject random intercept.|60 evaluable subjects gives more than 90% power to show non-inferiority of exenatide versus placebo, using t-test in 2-way crossover, alpha=0.05, true difference of 5 msec, and standard deviation of the within-subject difference of 10.04 msec.||-0.50|-2.21|
90888358|NCT01297062|181639902|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is established if the upper limit of 2-sided 90% CI, equivalent to the upper limit of 1-sided 95% CI, for change from baseline in QTcP (exenatide - placebo) is below 10 msec.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.88|-1.16||No adjustment on CI for the primary outcome measure.|Mixed Models Analysis||The MMRM includes Treatment (Exenatide versus Placebo), Day, Time, Period, Sequence, and Day-Time-Treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject random intercept.|60 evaluable subjects gives more than 90% power to show non-inferiority of exenatide versus placebo, using t-test in 2-way crossover, alpha=0.05, true difference of 5 msec, and standard deviation of the within-subject difference of 10.04 msec.||-1.16|-2.88|
90888359|NCT01297062|181639903|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is established if the upper limit of 2-sided 90% CI, equivalent to the upper limit of 1-sided 95% CI, for change from baseline in QTcP (exenatide - placebo) is below 10 msec.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.11|-0.15||No adjustment on CI for the primary outcome measure.|Mixed Models Analysis||The MMRM includes Treatment (Exenatide versus Placebo), Day, Time, Period, Sequence, and Day-Time-Treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject random intercept.|60 evaluable subjects gives more than 90% power to show non-inferiority of exenatide versus placebo, using t-test in 2-way crossover, alpha=0.05, true difference of 5 msec, and standard deviation of the within-subject difference of 10.04 msec.||-0.15|-2.11|
90888360|NCT01297062|181639904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|5.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.82|8.12|||Mixed Models Analysis||The MMRM includes Treatment (Moxifloxacin versus Placebo), Time, Period, Sequence, and Time-Treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject random intercept. Multiplicity adjusted CI for the mean difference is shown.|Assay sensitivity of moxifloxacin is established if the lower limit of the 2-sided 90% CI for difference in change from baseline in QTcP (moxifloxacin - placebo) is greater than 5 msec.||8.12|2.82|
90888361|NCT01297062|181639905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|10.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.46|12.67|||Mixed Models Analysis||The MMRM includes Treatment (Moxifloxacin versus Placebo), Time, Period, Sequence, and Time-Treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject random intercept. Multiplicity adjusted CI for the mean difference is shown.|Assay sensitivity of moxifloxacin is established if the lower limit of the 2-sided 90% CI for difference in change from baseline in QTcP (moxifloxacin - placebo) is greater than 5 msec.||12.67|8.46|
90888362|NCT01297062|181639906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|10.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.71|13.13|||Mixed Models Analysis||The MMRM includes Treatment (Moxifloxacin versus Placebo), Time, Period, Sequence, and Time-Treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject random intercept. Multiplicity adjusted CI for the mean difference is shown.|Assay sensitivity of moxifloxacin is established if the lower limit of the 2-sided 90% CI for difference in change from baseline in QTcP (moxifloxacin - placebo) is greater than 5 msec.||13.13|8.71|
90888363|NCT01297062|181639909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.0008||||0.5962|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0017|0.0033|||Mixed Models Analysis||The linear mixed-effects model includes placebo-adjusted change from baseline in QTcP as response, plasma exenatide concentration as covariate, fixed intercept of zero, subject random slope.|The analysis is to test the significance of the linear regression slope (null hypothesis: slope equal to zero) between placebo-adjusted change from baseline in QTcP and exenatide concentration.||0.0033|-0.0017|0.5962
91040652|NCT03086135|181966237|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||APHAB, Global score, at 3 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91040653|NCT03086135|181966237|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||APHAB, Ease of communication, at 12 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91040654|NCT03086135|181966237|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||APHAB, Background noise, at 12 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91040655|NCT03086135|181966237|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||APHAB, Reverberation, at 12 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91040656|NCT03086135|181966237|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||APHAB, Aversiveness, at 12 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||0.32
91040657|NCT03086135|181966237|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||APHAB, Global score, at 12 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91040658|NCT03086135|181966238|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||HUI Comprehensive health state at 3 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||0.026
91040659|NCT03086135|181966238|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||HUI Vision attribute at 3 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||0.50
91040660|NCT03086135|181966238|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||HUI Hearing attribute, at 3 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||0.0008
90888364|NCT03191903|181639910|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5874|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.5874
91040661|NCT03086135|181966238|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||HUI Speech attribute, at 3 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||0.082
91040662|NCT03086135|181966238|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||HUI Ambulation attribute, at 3 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||0.13
91040663|NCT03086135|181966238|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||HUI Dexterity attribute, at 3 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||0.9
91040664|NCT03086135|181966238|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||HUI Emotion attribute, at 3 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||0.43
91040665|NCT03086135|181966238|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||HUI Cognition attribute, at 3 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||0.31
91040666|NCT03086135|181966238|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||HUI Pain attribute, at 3 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||0.72
91040667|NCT03086135|181966238|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||HUI Comprehensive Health State attribute, at 12 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||0.13
91040668|NCT03086135|181966238|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||HUI Vision attribute, at 12 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||0.23
91040669|NCT03086135|181966238|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||HUI Hearing attribute, at 12 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||0.0026
91040670|NCT03086135|181966238|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||HUI Speech attribute, at 12 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||0.0024
91040671|NCT03086135|181966238|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||HUI Ambulation attribute, at 12 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||0.16
91040672|NCT03086135|181966238|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||HUI Dexterity attribute, at 12 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||0.16
91040673|NCT03086135|181966238|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||HUI Emotion attribute, at 12 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||0.85
91040674|NCT03086135|181966238|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||HUI Cognition attribute, at 12 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||1.0
91040675|NCT03086135|181966238|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||HUI Pain attribute, at 12 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||0.56
91040676|NCT03086135|181966239|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||SSQ Total score at 3 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91040677|NCT03086135|181966239|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||SSQ Speech score at 3 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91040678|NCT03086135|181966239|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||SSQ Spatial score at 3 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91040679|NCT03086135|181966239|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||SSQ Quality score at 3 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91040680|NCT03086135|181966239|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||SSQ Total score at 12 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91040681|NCT03086135|181966239|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||SSQ Speech score at 12 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91040682|NCT03086135|181966239|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||SSQ Spatial score at 12 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91040683|NCT03086135|181966239|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||SSQ Quality score at 12 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91040684|NCT03086135|181966240|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry PTA4 with Osia at 4 week vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91040685|NCT03086135|181966240|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry PTA4 with Osia at 3 months vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91040686|NCT03086135|181966240|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry PTA4 with Osia at 6 months vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91040687|NCT03086135|181966240|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry PTA4 with Osia at 12 months vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91040688|NCT03086135|181966241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 250Hz with Osia at 4 week vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||0.025
90888365|NCT03191903|181639911|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0829|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0829
91040689|NCT03086135|181966241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 500Hz with Osia at 4 week vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||0.096
91040690|NCT03086135|181966241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 750Hz with Osia at 4 week vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||0.015
91040691|NCT03086135|181966241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 1000Hz with Osia at 4 week vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||0.67
91040692|NCT03086135|181966241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 1500Hz with Osia at 4 week vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||0.73
91040693|NCT03086135|181966241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 2000Hz with Osia at 4 week vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||0.019
91040694|NCT03086135|181966241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 3000Hz with Osia at 4 week vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||0.0046
91040695|NCT03086135|181966241|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 4000Hz with Osia at 4 week vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91040696|NCT03086135|181966241|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 6000Hz with Osia at 4 week vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91040697|NCT03086135|181966241|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 8000Hz with Osia at 4 week vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91040698|NCT03086135|181966241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 250Hz with Osia at 3 months vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||0.019
91040699|NCT03086135|181966241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 500Hz with Osia at 3 months vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||0.040
91040700|NCT03086135|181966241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 750Hz with Osia at 3 months vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||0.037
91040701|NCT03086135|181966241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 1000Hz with Osia at 3 months vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||0.67
91040702|NCT03086135|181966241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 1500Hz with Osia at 3 months vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||0.34
91040703|NCT03086135|181966241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 2000Hz with Osia at 3 months vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||0.0048
91040704|NCT03086135|181966241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 3000Hz with Osia at 3 months vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||0.0008
90985310|NCT00958568|181856071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.072||95.0||||P-value is for Normal/Impaired to High. The test was run using an a priori 2-sided threshold for statistical significance of 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.072
90985311|NCT00958568|181856072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.96|4.88||The test was run using an a priori 2-sided threshold for statistical significance of 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|The model adjusted for baseline (Week 20), treatment, country, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||||4.88|2.96|<0.001
90985312|NCT00958568|181856073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
90985313|NCT00958568|181856074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.392||95.0||||P-value is for suicidal ideation. The test was run using an a priori 2-sided threshold for statistical significance of 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.392
90985314|NCT00958568|181856075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.95||0.421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.42|2.27||The test was run using an a priori 2-sided threshold for statistical significance of 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|The model adjusted for baseline (Week 20), treatment, country, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||||2.27|-5.42|0.421
91040705|NCT03086135|181966241|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 4000Hz with Osia at 3 months vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91040706|NCT03086135|181966241|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 6000Hz with Osia at 3 months vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||<0.0001
90888366|NCT03191903|181639912|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4673|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.4673
90888367|NCT03191903|181639913|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9408|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.9408
90985315|NCT00591227|181856085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.58||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.58
90985316|NCT00117338|181856112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.775||95.0|-0.06|0.08|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, region (US, non-US) and baseline FEV1 as covariate||||0.08|-0.06|0.775
90985317|NCT00117338|181856113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.931||95.0|-0.41|0.45|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, region (US, non-US) and baseline FEV1 as covariate||||0.45|-0.41|0.931
90985318|NCT00117338|181856114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.975||95.0|0.61|1.61|||Regression, Logistic|Model terms: treatment and baseline FEV1 as covariate||||1.61|0.61|0.975
90985319|NCT00117338|181856115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.612||95.0|-0.05|0.09|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, region (US, non-US) and baseline FEV1 as covariate||||0.09|-0.05|0.612
90985320|NCT00117338|181856116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.774||95.0|-0.06|0.08|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, region (US, non-US) and baseline FEV1 as covariate||||0.08|-0.06|0.774
90985321|NCT00117338|181856117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.173||95.0|-0.02|0.11|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, region (US, non-US) and baseline FEV1 as covariate||||0.11|-0.02|0.173
90985322|NCT00117338|181856118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.58||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model (Nonparametric) based on Tukey's normalized ranks with terms treatment, region (US, non-US) and baseline FEV1 as covariate||||||0.580
91040707|NCT03086135|181966241|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 8000Hz with Osia at 3 months vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91040708|NCT03086135|181966241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 250Hz with Osia at 6 months vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||0.10
90985323|NCT01380093|181856119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-24.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.7|-18.1||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons with Hochberg adjustment. At least one primary outcome for each of drug liking and high was required to be significant with adjusted p-value less than or equal to 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Least square (LS) mean and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-18.1|-31.7|<0.0001
90985324|NCT01380093|181856119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|11.9||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.1|18.6||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons with Hochberg adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean and 95% CI were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||18.6|5.1|0.0009
90888368|NCT03191903|181639914|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.777|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.7770
90888369|NCT03191903|181639915|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.759|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.7590
90985325|NCT01380093|181856119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|36.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.0|43.6||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons with Hochberg adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean and 95% CI were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||43.6|30.0|<0.0001
90985326|NCT01380093|181856120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-15.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.2|-11.1||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons with Hochberg adjustment. At least one primary outcome for each of drug liking and high was required to be significant with adjusted p-value less than or equal to 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean and 95% CI were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence. Planned power of at least 89% assumed a mean difference of 15 to 30 points and a standard deviation of paired differences of 15 to 20 points, with conservative multiple comparison adjustment for alpha of 0.025.||-11.1|-20.2|<0.0001
90985327|NCT01380093|181856120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|13.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.9|18.0||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons with Hochberg adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean and 95% CI were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||18.0|8.9|<0.0001
90985328|NCT01380093|181856120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|29.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.6|33.7||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons with Hochberg adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean and 95% CI were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||33.7|24.6|<0.0001
90888370|NCT03191903|181639916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8309|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.8309
90888371|NCT03191903|181639917|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6215|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.6215
90985329|NCT01380093|181856121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-51.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.2|-41.0||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons with Hochberg adjustment. At least one primary outcome for each of drug liking and high was required to be significant with adjusted p-value less than or equal to 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean and 95% CI were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-41.0|-61.2|<0.0001
90985330|NCT01380093|181856121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|24.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.5|34.6||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons with Hochberg adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean and 95% CI were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||34.6|14.5|<0.0001
90888372|NCT03191903|181639918|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.216|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.2160
90888373|NCT03191903|181639919|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7026|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.7026
90888374|NCT03191903|181639920|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0438|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0438
90888375|NCT03149328|181639921|EQUIVALENCE|Based on a power analysis for an ANCOVA comparing 2 groups using the area under the curve approach, a total sample 459 (655 x 70% response rate) will provide 80% power to detect effect sizes (f2) of moderate magnitude at a statistical significance level of 0.05 (e.g., f2 ranging from 0.15 for 1 covariate to 0.19 for 10 covariates).||||||0.3||||||Threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|ANCOVA|||We will examine the trajectories of outcome measures for patients in the comparator and intervention groups. The area under the curve (AUC) will be calculated for each trajectory during the period that the patient is participating to create a summary score. Null Hypothesis is that both groups are the same.||||0.30
90888376|NCT03149328|181639922|EQUIVALENCE|Based on a power analysis for an ANCOVA comparing 2 groups using the area under the curve approach, a total sample 459 (655 x 70% response rate) will provide 80% power to detect effect sizes (f2) of moderate magnitude at a statistical significance level of 0.05 (e.g., f2 ranging from 0.15 for 1 covariate to 0.19 for 10 covariates).||||||0.28|||||||ANCOVA|||We will examine the trajectories of outcome measures for patients in the comparator and intervention groups. The area under the curve (AUC) will be calculated for each trajectory during the period that the patient is participating to create a summary score. Null Hypothesis = both groups are the same||||0.28
90888377|NCT03149328|181639923|EQUIVALENCE|Based on a power analysis for an ANCOVA comparing 2 groups using the area under the curve approach, a total sample 459 (655 x 70% response rate) will provide 80% power to detect effect sizes (f2) of moderate magnitude at a statistical significance level of 0.05 (e.g., f2 ranging from 0.15 for 1 covariate to 0.19 for 10 covariates)||||||0.22||||||Threshold for statistical Significance was p = 0.05|ANCOVA|||"Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) will be used as the method of analysis to compare outcomes of both groups while controlling for within- and between-group differences, such as comorbidities, gender, age and dialysis type. ANCOVA is necessary to control for baseline and potential confounders.~Null hypotheses = No difference between groups in the number of hospitalizations"||||0.22
90888378|NCT03149328|181639923|EQUIVALENCE|Based on a power analysis for an ANCOVA comparing 2 groups using the area under the curve approach, a total sample 459 (655 x 70% response rate) will provide 80% power to detect effect sizes (f2) of moderate magnitude at a statistical significance level of 0.05 (e.g., f2 ranging from 0.15 for 1 covariate to 0.19 for 10 covariates)||||||0.1||||||Threshold for statistical Significance was p = 0.05|ANCOVA|||"Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) will be used as the method of analysis to compare outcomes of both groups while controlling for within- and between-group differences, such as comorbidities, gender, age and dialysis type. ANCOVA is necessary to control for baseline and potential confounders.~Null hypotheses = No difference between groups in the number of emergency room visits"||||0.10
90888379|NCT03149328|181639924|EQUIVALENCE|Based on a power analysis for an ANCOVA comparing 2 groups using the area under the curve approach, a total sample 459 (655 x 70% response rate) will provide 80% power to detect effect sizes (f2) of moderate magnitude at a statistical significance level of 0.05 (e.g., f2 ranging from 0.15 for 1 covariate to 0.19 for 10 covariates)||||||0.18||||||Threshold for statistical significance p = 0.05|ANCOVA|||"Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) will be used as the method of analysis to compare outcomes of both groups while controlling for within- and between-group differences, such as comorbidities, gender, age and dialysis type. ANCOVA is necessary to control for baseline and potential confounders.~Null hypotheses = No difference between groups"||||0.18
90985331|NCT01380093|181856121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|75.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.6|85.8||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons with Hochberg adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean and 95% CI were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||85.8|65.6|<0.0001
90985332|NCT01380093|181856122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-8.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|-6.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-6.0|-11.8|<0.0001
90985333|NCT01380093|181856122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.2||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|8.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||8.1|2.3|0.0006
90985334|NCT01380093|181856122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|14.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.2|17.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||17.0|11.2|<0.0001
90985335|NCT01380093|181856123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-48.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.0|-35.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-35.5|-62.0|<0.0001
90985336|NCT01380093|181856123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|29.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.8|42.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||42.3|15.8|<0.0001
91040709|NCT03086135|181966241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 500Hz with Osia at 6 months vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||0.0007
91040710|NCT03086135|181966241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 750Hz with Osia at 6 months vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||0.0003
91040711|NCT03086135|181966241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 1000Hz with Osia at 6 months vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||0.11
90985337|NCT01380093|181856123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|77.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.5|91.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||91.0|64.5|<0.0001
90985338|NCT01380093|181856124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-68.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-95.0|-42.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-42.2|-95.0|<0.0001
91040712|NCT03086135|181966241|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 1500Hz with Osia at 6 months vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91040713|NCT03086135|181966241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 2000Hz with Osia at 6 months vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||0.0001
90888380|NCT03149328|181639925|EQUIVALENCE|Based on a power analysis for an ANCOVA comparing 2 groups using the area under the curve approach, a total sample 459 (655 x 70% response rate) will provide 80% power to detect effect sizes (f2) of moderate magnitude at a statistical significance level of 0.05 (e.g., f2 ranging from 0.15 for 1 covariate to 0.19 for 10 covariates)||||||0.79||||||Threshold for statistical significance p = 0.05|ANCOVA|||"Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) will be used as the method of analysis to compare outcomes of both groups while controlling for within- and between-group differences, such as comorbidities, gender, age and dialysis type. ANCOVA is necessary to control for baseline and potential confounders.~Null hypotheses = No difference between groups"||||0.79
90888381|NCT03149328|181639926|EQUIVALENCE|Based on a power analysis for an ANCOVA comparing 2 groups using the area under the curve approach, a total sample 459 (655 x 70% response rate) will provide 80% power to detect effect sizes (f2) of moderate magnitude at a statistical significance level of 0.05 (e.g., f2 ranging from 0.15 for 1 covariate to 0.19 for 10 covariates)|||||<|0.001||||||Threshold for statistical significance p = 0.05|ANCOVA|||"Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) will be used as the method of analysis to compare outcomes of both groups while controlling for within- and between-group differences, such as comorbidities, gender, age and dialysis type. ANCOVA is necessary to control for baseline and potential confounders.~Null hypotheses = No difference between groups"||||<0.001
90888382|NCT02897141|181639946|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.541|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.156||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Model controlled for age, sex, race, education, and CD4 count ; a=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Anxiety||||0.001
90888383|NCT02897141|181639946|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.149|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.161||0.356|TWO_SIDED|||||Model controlled for age, sex, race, education, and CD4 count; a=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Cough or Shortness of Breath||||0.356
91040714|NCT03086135|181966241|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 3000Hz with Osia at 6 months vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91040715|NCT03086135|181966241|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 4000Hz with Osia at 6 months vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91040716|NCT03086135|181966241|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 6000Hz with Osia at 6 months vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91040717|NCT03086135|181966241|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 8000Hz with Osia at 6 months vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||<0.0001
90888384|NCT02897141|181639946|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.533|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.163||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Model controlled for age, sex, race, education, and CD4 count ; a=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Depression||||0.001
90888385|NCT02897141|181639946|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141||0.962|TWO_SIDED|||||Model controlled for age, sex, race, education, and CD4 count ; a=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Diarrhea||||0.962
90888386|NCT02897141|181639946|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.073|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.162||0.651|TWO_SIDED|||||Model controlled for age, sex, race, education, and CD4 count ; a=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Difficulty falling or staying asleep||||0.651
90888387|NCT02897141|181639946|SUPERIORITY|Model controlled for age, sex, race, education, and CD4 count ; a=0.05|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.174|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difficulty remembering||||0.230
90888388|NCT02897141|181639946|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.138|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.126||0.275|TWO_SIDED|||||Model controlled for age, sex, race, education, and CD4 count ; a=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Dizziness||||0.275
90888389|NCT02897141|181639946|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.175||0.987|TWO_SIDED|||||Model controlled for age, sex, race, education, and CD4 count ; a=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Fatigue||||0.987
90888390|NCT02897141|181639946|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.275|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.132||0.037|TWO_SIDED|||||Model controlled for age, sex, race, education, and CD4 count ; a=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Fever, chills, sweats||||0.037
90888391|NCT02897141|181639946|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.063|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.101||0.534|TWO_SIDED|||||Model controlled for age, sex, race, education, and CD4 count ; a=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Nausea or vomiting||||0.534
90888392|NCT02897141|181639946|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.485|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.157||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||Model controlled for age, sex, race, education, and CD4 count ; a=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Neuropathy||||0.002
90888393|NCT02897141|181639946|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.139||0.349|TWO_SIDED|||||Model controlled for age, sex, race, education, and CD4 count ; a=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Skin problems||||0.349
90888394|NCT02897141|181639946|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.107||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||Model controlled for age, sex, race, education, and CD4 count ; a=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Weight loss or wasting||||0.020
91040718|NCT03086135|181966241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 250Hz with Osia at 12 months vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||0.80
90888395|NCT02897141|181639947|SUPERIORITY|\[Not specified\]|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.27||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Model controlled for age, sex, race, education, and CD4 count ; a=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|\[Not specified\]|\[Not specified\]|Physical functioning scale||||0.001
90888396|NCT02897141|181639947|SUPERIORITY|\[Not specified\]|Median Difference (Final Values)|7.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.02||0.458|TWO_SIDED|||||Model controlled for age, sex, race, education, and CD4 count ; a=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|\[Not specified\]|\[Not specified\]|Role limitations due to physical health scale||||0.458
90888397|NCT02897141|181639947|SUPERIORITY|\[Not specified\]|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.91||0.725|TWO_SIDED|||||Model controlled for age, sex, race, education, and CD4 count ; a=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|\[Not specified\]|\[Not specified\]|Role limitations due to emotional problems scale||||0.725
90888398|NCT02897141|181639947|SUPERIORITY|\[Not specified\]|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.09||0.807|TWO_SIDED|||||Model controlled for age, sex, race, education, and CD4 count ; a=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|\[Not specified\]|\[Not specified\]|Energy/fatigue scale|\[Not specified\]|||0.807
90888399|NCT02897141|181639947|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.73||0.693|TWO_SIDED|||||Model controlled for age, sex, race, education, and CD4 count ; a=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Emotional well-being scale||||0.693
90888400|NCT02897141|181639947|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.8||0.128|TWO_SIDED|||||Model controlled for age, sex, race, education, and CD4 count ; a=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Social functioning scale||||0.128
90888401|NCT02897141|181639947|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.18||0.007|TWO_SIDED|||||Model controlled for age, sex, race, education, and CD4 count ; a=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Pain scale||||0.007
90888402|NCT02897141|181639947|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.93||0.96|TWO_SIDED|||||Model controlled for age, sex, race, education, and CD4 count ; a=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||General health scale||||0.960
90888403|NCT02897141|181639947|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.47||0.836|TWO_SIDED|||||Model controlled for age, sex, race, education, and CD4 count ; a=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Physical health summary scale||||0.836
91040719|NCT03086135|181966241|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 500Hz with Osia at 12 months vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||<0.0001
90888404|NCT02897141|181639947|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6||0.822|TWO_SIDED|||||Model controlled for age, sex, race, education, and CD4 count ; a=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mental health summary scale||||0.822
90888405|NCT02897141|181639948|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25||0.529|TWO_SIDED|||||Model controlled for age, sex, race, education, and CD4 count ; a=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Physical Function||||0.529
90888406|NCT02897141|181639948|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.68||0.312|TWO_SIDED|||||Model controlled for age, sex, race, education, and CD4 count ; a=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Anxiety||||0.312
90888407|NCT02897141|181639948|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.81||0.841|TWO_SIDED|||||Model controlled for age, sex, race, education, and CD4 count ; a=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Depression||||0.841
90888408|NCT02897141|181639948|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.07||0.848|TWO_SIDED|||||Model controlled for age, sex, race, education, and CD4 count ; a=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Fatigue||||0.848
90888409|NCT02897141|181639948|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.03||0.208|TWO_SIDED|||||Model controlled for age, sex, race, education, and CD4 count ; a=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Sleep Disturbance||||0.208
90888410|NCT02897141|181639948|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.29||0.754|TWO_SIDED|||||Model controlled for age, sex, race, education, and CD4 count ; a=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Satisfaction with participation in social roles||||0.754
90888411|NCT02897141|181639948|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.66||0.454|TWO_SIDED|||||Model controlled for age, sex, race, education, and CD4 count ; a=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Pain interference||||0.454
90888412|NCT02897141|181639949|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.19||0.252|TWO_SIDED|||||Model controlled for age, sex, race, education, and CD4 count ; a=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.252
90888413|NCT02897141|181639950|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.017|TWO_SIDED|||||Model controlled for age, sex, race, education, and CD4 count ; a=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||CASE adherence index||||0.017
90888414|NCT02897141|181639950|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.06||0.338|TWO_SIDED|||||Model controlled for age, sex, race, education, and CD4 count ; a=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Visual analogue scale||||0.338
90888415|NCT02897141|181639951|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.743|TWO_SIDED|||||Model controlled for age, sex, race, education, and CD4 count ; a=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Overall||||0.743
90888416|NCT02897141|181639951|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.166|TWO_SIDED|||||Model controlled for age, sex, race, education, and CD4 count ; a=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Quality of life||||0.166
90888417|NCT02897141|181639951|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.899|TWO_SIDED|||||Model controlled for age, sex, race, education, and CD4 count ; a=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Perceived usefulness||||0.899
90888418|NCT02897141|181639951|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.803|TWO_SIDED|||||Model controlled for age, sex, race, education, and CD4 count ; a=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Perceived ease of use||||0.803
90888419|NCT02897141|181639951|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.48|TWO_SIDED|||||Model controlled for age, sex, race, education, and CD4 count ; a=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||User Control||||0.480
90888420|NCT05732454|181640000|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-3.76|||=|0.558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.36|8.83|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor (disease severity as measured by baseline IGA score 3 \[moderate\], 4 \[severe\]) derived from clinical database via Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) approach was used.||8.83|-16.36|=0.5580
90888421|NCT05732454|181640001|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|9.07|||=|0.3685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|28.85|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor (disease severity as measured by baseline IGA score 3 \[moderate\], 4 \[severe\]) derived from clinical database via Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) approach was used.||28.85|-10.70|=0.3685
90888422|NCT05732454|181640002|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Mean|-29.22|||=|0.0303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.53|-2.9|||Rubin's rule|||Jump-to-Control (JTC) method was used for evaluation. A complete imputed dataset was analyzed using analysis of covariance model including effects of treatment group, actual stratification factor, and baseline value. Multiple results of the treatment comparison were combined using Rubin's rules, reporting the combined treatment difference, its standard error, 95% CI and 2-sided p-value, across the visits.||-2.90|-55.53|=0.0303
90888423|NCT01262651|181640037|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|3.41||||0.0854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|8.16|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||8.16|0.00|0.0854
90888424|NCT03822533|181640050|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.015||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.059|0.089|||t-test, 2 sided|||Mean difference using independent samples t-test.||0.089|-0.059|0.69
90888425|NCT03822533|181640050|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.015|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.093|0.063||The linear regression analysis was needed to calculate the incremental cost efficiency ratio (ICER). The p-value from this test was not relevant for the ICER calculation.|Regression, Linear|First step in a cost-efficiency analysis||Presenting β-values from linear regression analysis for group variable adjusted for baseline differences in EQ-5D-3L-index. The results from this analysis were used to calculate incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (mean difference in costs divided by mean difference in QALYs).||0.063|-0.093|
90888426|NCT03822533|181640051|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-364.0||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-891.0|164.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Independent-samples t-test. Dependent variable cost items, independent variable group (physiotherapist or physician assessment)||164|-891|0.17
90888427|NCT03822533|181640051|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-364.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-870.0|143.0||The linear regression analysis was needed to calculate the incremental cost efficiency ratio (ICER). The p-value from this test was not relevant for the ICER calculation.|Regression, Linear|First step in a cost-efficiency analysis||||143|-870|
90888428|NCT03822533|181640052|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-233.0||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-616.0|150.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Independent-samples t-test. Dependent variable cost items, independent variable group (physiotherapist or physician assessment)||150|-616|0.23
90888429|NCT03822533|181640052|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-233.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-605.0|139.0||The linear regression analysis was needed to calculate the incremental cost efficiency ratio (ICER). The p-value from this test was not relevant for the ICER calculation.|Regression, Linear|First step in a cost-efficiency analysis.||Linear regression analysis. The results from this analysis were used to calculate incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (mean difference in costs divided by mean difference in QALYs).||139|-605|
90888430|NCT03822533|181640055|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|48.0||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-219.0|314.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||314|-219|0.72
90888431|NCT03822533|181640056|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-178.0|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-239.0|118.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||118|-239|<0.01
90888432|NCT03822533|181640057|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.0||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.0|6.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||||6.2|-42|0.01
90888433|NCT03822533|181640058|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.0||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.0|36.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||36|-59|0.62
90888434|NCT03822533|181640059|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|15.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||15|-13|0.87
90888435|NCT03822533|181640060|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-254.0||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-728.0|220.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||220|-728|0.27
90888436|NCT03822533|181640061|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-113.0|118.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||118|-113|0.96
90888437|NCT02605954|181640094|NON_INFERIORITY|With 200 participants randomized to switch to the E/C/F/TAF FDC group at Day 1 and 100 participants randomized to the ABC/3TC+3rd Agent group at Week 24, the lower limit of the observed one sided 97.5% confidence interval was expected to be greater than -0.120 (ie, non-inferiority margin of 12%) with \> 90% power when the percentage of responders in both treatment groups for the primary endpoint is at least 90% at Week 24.|Difference in Percentages|-4.4||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|1.9|||Fisher Exact|||||1.9|-9.4|0.15
90888438|NCT02605954|181640095|NON_INFERIORITY|With 200 participants randomized to switch to the E/C/F/TAF FDC group at Day 1 and 100 participants randomized to the delayed switch group at Week 12, the lower limit of the observed one sided 97.5% confidence interval will be expected to be greater than -0.120 (ie, non-inferiority margin of 12%) with \> 90% power when the percentage of responders in both treatment groups for the primary endpoint is at least 90% at Week 12.|Difference in Percentages|-3.8||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|1.6|||Fisher Exact|||||1.6|-8.3|0.17
90888439|NCT02605954|181640097|OTHER||Difference in least square mean|-36.0||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.0|9.0|||ANOVA|||||9|-80|0.11
90888440|NCT03214367|181640132|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority margin = 0.4% for HbA1c|LS Mean Difference|-0.08||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.00|-0.16|0.060
90888441|NCT03214367|181640132|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority margin = 0.4% for HbA1c|LS Mean Difference|0.13||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.22|0.04|0.003
90888442|NCT03214367|181640133|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-27.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.3|-20.6|||ANCOVA|||||-20.6|-35.3|<0.001
90888443|NCT03214367|181640133|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|13.2||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|21.4|||ANCOVA|||||21.4|5.0|0.002
90888444|NCT03214367|181640134|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-31.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.1|-21.2|||ANCOVA|||||-21.2|-41.1|<0.001
90888445|NCT03214367|181640134|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.7||||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6|4.3|||ANCOVA|||||4.3|-17.6|0.235
90985339|NCT01380093|181856124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|56.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.1|82.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||82.8|30.1|<0.0001
90985340|NCT01380093|181856124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|125.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.7|151.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||151.5|98.7|<0.0001
90985341|NCT01380093|181856125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-76.0||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-112.8|-39.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-39.2|-112.8|0.0001
91040720|NCT03086135|181966241|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 750Hz with Osia at 12 months vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||<0.0001
90985342|NCT01380093|181856125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|66.5||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.8|103.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||103.2|29.8|0.0006
90985343|NCT01380093|181856125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|142.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|105.7|179.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||179.3|105.7|<0.0001
90985344|NCT01380093|181856126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-86.2||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-136.5|-35.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-35.9|-136.5|0.0011
91040721|NCT03086135|181966241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 1000Hz with Osia at 12 months vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||0.0010
90888446|NCT03214367|181640143|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.06||||0.184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.03|-0.16|0.184
90888447|NCT03740490|181640145|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Each outcome was modeled using a mixed-effects regression with the change score as the dependent variable and treatment group (Smart-T vs. QuitGuide) as the predictor, restricted to participants who received or would have received that type of message.||0.08|-0.28|0.284
90888448|NCT03740490|181640146|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.06||||0.477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.24|-0.11|0.477
90888449|NCT03740490|181640147|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03||||0.456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.10|-0.05|0.456
90888450|NCT03740490|181640148|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.22||||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.13|-0.56|0.215
90888451|NCT00304070|181640256|OTHER||2 Year EFS|0.89||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||2-year KM estimate|||We will test the 2-year EFS is 90% using the asymptotic distribution of the complementary log-log distribution of the Kaplan-Meier (KM) estimate.||||0.44
90888452|NCT00304070|181640256|OTHER||2 Year EFS|0.53||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||2-year KM estimate|||We will test the 2-year EFS is 50% using the asymptotic distribution of the complementary log-log distribution of the Kaplan-Meier (KM) estimate.||||0.40
90888453|NCT00304070|181640256|OTHER||2 Year EFS|0.55||||8.53e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||2-year KM estimate|||We will test the 2-year EFS is 15% using the asymptotic distribution of the complementary log-log distribution of the Kaplan-Meier (KM) estimate.||||0.00000853
90888454|NCT00320216|181640263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi square test|Stratified by baseline weight \[\<=90kg vs \> 90 kg\].||||||<0.001
91040722|NCT03086135|181966241|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 1500Hz with Osia at 12 months vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||<0.0001
90888455|NCT00320216|181640263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi square|Stratified by baseline weight \[≤ 90kg vs \> 90 kg)\].||||||<0.001
90888456|NCT00320216|181640263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi square|Stratified by baseline weight \[≤ 90kg vs \> 90 kg)\].||||||<0.001
90888457|NCT00320216|181640263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0||||To control for the multiplicity for the primary endpoint analysis, the 4 pairwise comparisons between ustekinumab groups and placebo were performed sequentially at alpha = 0.05. The order of testing was prespecified from high to low doses.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi square|Stratified by baseline weight \[≤ 90kg vs \> 90 kg)\].||Null Hypothesis:No difference between any ustekinumab group and placebo at an overall significant level of 0.05. Sample Size: With 300 participants (60 in each treatment group), simulation studies were conducted to calculate the power to detect a treatment difference in primary endpoint between ustekinumab groups and placebo using a CMH test with stratification by baseline weight \[≤ 90kg vs \> 90 kg). For all the scenarios evaluated, the power is \>99% at an overall significance level of 0.05.||||<0.01
90888458|NCT00320216|181640264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi square|Stratified by baseline weight \[≤ 90kg vs \> 90 kg)\].||||||<0.001
90888459|NCT00320216|181640264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi square|Stratified by baseline weight \[≤ 90kg vs \> 90 kg)\].||||||<0.001
90888460|NCT00320216|181640264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi square|||||||<0.001
90888461|NCT00320216|181640264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi square|Stratified by baseline weight \[≤ 90kg vs \> 90 kg)\].||Null Hypothesis: No difference between any ustekinumab group and placebo.||||<0.001
90888462|NCT04118348|181640269|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.46|7.36|||Regression, Logistic||BPA+HMT is the numerator|Passive control was set as the reference group.||7.36|4.46|<.001
90888463|NCT04118348|181640269|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.79|6.27|||Regression, Logistic||BPA-only is the numerator|Passive control was set as the reference group.||6.27|3.79|<.001
91040723|NCT03086135|181966241|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 2000Hz with Osia at 12 months vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91040724|NCT03086135|181966241|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 3000Hz with Osia at 12 months vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||<0.0001
90888464|NCT04118348|181640269|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|2.19|||Regression, Logistic||HMT-only is the numerator|Passive control was set as the reference group.||2.19|1.28|<.001
90888465|NCT04118348|181640269|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.73|4.29|||Regression, Logistic||BPA+HMT is the numerator|HMT was set as the reference group.||4.29|2.73|<.001
90888466|NCT04118348|181640269|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.32|3.66|||Regression, Logistic||BPA-only is the numerator|HMT was set as the reference group.||3.66|2.32|<.001
90888467|NCT04118348|181640269|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.43|||Regression, Logistic||BPA+HMT is the numerator|BPA was set as the reference group.||1.43|0.96|.114
90888468|NCT04118348|181640270|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|4.15|||Regression, Logistic||BPA+HMT is the numerator|Passive control was set as the reference group.||4.15|2.02|<.001
90888469|NCT04118348|181640270|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|3.3|||Regression, Logistic||BPA-only is the numerator|Passive control was set as the reference group.||3.30|1.57|<.001
90888470|NCT04118348|181640270|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.54||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|2.27|||Regression, Logistic||HMT-only is the numerator|Passive control was set as the reference group.||2.27|1.04|.030
90888471|NCT04118348|181640270|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|2.59|||Regression, Logistic||BPA+HMT is the numerator|HMT was set as the reference group.||2.59|1.37|<.001
90888472|NCT04118348|181640270|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.06|||Regression, Logistic||BPA-only is the numerator|HMT was set as the reference group.||2.06|1.06|.021
90888473|NCT04118348|181640270|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.71|||Regression, Logistic||BPA+HMT is the numerator|BPA was set as the reference group.||1.71|0.95|.107
90888474|NCT00779246|181640271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.9|||Regression, Logistic|||Null hypothesis was that ASC and CHG would be no different in preventing acquisition of MRSA.||2.9|0.5|>0.05
90888475|NCT01046643|181640313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.222||95.0||||Category = Medial Frontal Cortex|t-test, 2 sided|||"Category = Medial Frontal Cortex~p-value for null hypothesis = \<0.05"||||.222
90888476|NCT01046643|181640313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.107||95.0||||Category = Left Hippocampus|t-test, 2 sided|||"Category = Left Hippocampus~p-value for null hypothesis = \<0.05"||||.107
90888477|NCT01046643|181640313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.127||95.0||||Category = Medial Frontal Cortex|t-test, 2 sided|||"Category = Right Hippocampus~p-value for null hypothesis = \<0.05"||||.127
90888478|NCT01046643|181640313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.954||95.0||||Category = Medial Frontal Cortex|t-test, 2 sided|||"Category = Medial Frontal Cortex~p-value for null hypothesis = \<0.05"||||.954
90888479|NCT01046643|181640313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.385||95.0||||Category = Left Hippocampus|t-test, 2 sided|||"Category = Left Hippocampus~p-value for null hypothesis = \<0.05"||||.385
90888480|NCT01046643|181640313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31||95.0||||Category = Right Hippocampus|t-test, 2 sided|||"Category = Right Hippocampus~p-value for null hypothesis = \<0.05"||||.310
90888481|NCT01046643|181640314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.594||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||p-value for null hypothesis = \<0.05||||.594
90888482|NCT01046643|181640314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.653||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||p-value for null hypothesis = \<0.05||||.653
90888483|NCT01046643|181640315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.452||95.0||||Category = Medial Frontal Cortex|t-test, 2 sided|||"Category = Medial Frontal Cortex~p-value for null hypothesis = \<0.05"||||.452
90888484|NCT01046643|181640315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.868||95.0||||Category = Left Hippocampus|t-test, 2 sided|||"Category = Left Hippocampus~p-value for null hypothesis = \<0.05"||||.868
90888485|NCT01046643|181640315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.549||95.0||||Category = Right Hippocampus|t-test, 2 sided|||"Category = Right Hippocampus~p-value for null hypothesis = \<0.05"||||.549
90888486|NCT01046643|181640315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.124||95.0||||Category = Medial Frontal Cortex|t-test, 2 sided|||"Category = Medial Frontal Cortex~p-value for null hypothesis = \<0.05"||||.124
90888487|NCT01046643|181640315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.158||95.0||||Category = Left Hippocampus|t-test, 2 sided|||"Category = Left Hippocampus~p-value for null hypothesis = \<0.05"||||.158
90888488|NCT01046643|181640315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.055||95.0||||Category = Right Hippocampus|t-test, 2 sided|||"Category = Right Hippocampus~p-value for null hypothesis = \<0.05"||||.055
90888489|NCT01046643|181640316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.561||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||p-value for null hypothesis = \<0.05||||.561
90888490|NCT01046643|181640316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.726||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||p-value for null hypothesis = \<0.05||||.726
90888491|NCT00823082|181640357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91040725|NCT03086135|181966241|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 4000Hz with Osia at 12 months vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||<0.0001
90888492|NCT00823082|181640358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
91040726|NCT03086135|181966241|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 6000Hz with Osia at 12 months vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91040727|NCT03086135|181966241|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 8000Hz with Osia at 12 months vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||<0.0001
90888493|NCT00823082|181640359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6115|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||At ICU discharge visit||||0.6115
90888494|NCT00823082|181640360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1211|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Follow-up visit||||0.1211
90888495|NCT00823082|181640360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||ICU discharge visit||||1.000
90888496|NCT00823082|181640361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.487|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||ICU discharge visit||||0.4870
90888497|NCT00823082|181640362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3897|TWO_SIDED||||||Hodges-Lehmann test|||||||0.3897
90888498|NCT00823082|181640363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
90888499|NCT00823082|181640364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0004
90888500|NCT00823082|181640365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0209|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0209
90888501|NCT00823082|181640366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7433|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Number of units of packed red blood cells||||0.7433
90888502|NCT00823082|181640366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7453|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Units of fresh frozen plasma||||0.7453
90888503|NCT00823082|181640366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2705|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Units of platelets||||0.2705
90888504|NCT00823082|181640367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.446|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4460
90888505|NCT00823082|181640368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4936|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4936
90888506|NCT00823082|181640369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Follow-up visit||||1.000
90888507|NCT00823082|181640369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6218|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||ICU discharge visit||||0.6218
90888508|NCT00823082|181640370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9574|TWO_SIDED||||||Hodges-Lehmann|||||||0.9574
90888509|NCT00823082|181640371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7489|||||||Hodges-Lehmann test|||||||0.7489
90888510|NCT03452917|181640372|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.9||||0.82|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-8.0||||Chi-squared||||||-8.0|0.82
90888511|NCT03452917|181640372|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.66|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-6.5||||Chi-squared||||||-6.5|0.66
90888512|NCT03452917|181640373|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|2.6|||Chi-squared|||||2.6|-6.0|0.44
90888513|NCT03452917|181640373|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|4.0|||Chi-squared|||||4.0|-4.9|0.85
90888514|NCT03452917|181640374|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|5.4|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||5.4|-0.9|0.12
90888515|NCT03452917|181640374|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|3.6|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||3.6|-2.5|0.41
90888516|NCT03452917|181640375|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|3.5|||Chi-squared|||||3.5|-8.3|0.42
90888517|NCT03452917|181640375|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|3.9|||Chi-squared|||||3.9|-8.0|0.49
90888518|NCT03452917|181640376|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|8.6|||Chi-squared|||||8.6|-7.8|0.93
90888519|NCT03452917|181640376|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.3||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|13.3|||Chi-squared|||||13.3|-2.8|0.20
90888520|NCT03452917|181640377|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|3.8|||Chi-squared|||||3.8|-7.7|0.50
90888521|NCT03452917|181640377|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|3.7|||Chi-squared|||||3.7|-7.8|0.48
90888522|NCT03452917|181640378|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|2.6|||Chi-squared|||||2.6|-6.0|0.49
90888523|NCT03452917|181640378|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|4.0|||Chi-squared|||||4.0|-4.9|0.85
90888524|NCT03198000|181640379|EQUIVALENCE|Prespecified equivalence interval of (-0.22, 0.44).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049||0.392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.055|||ANCOVA|Mixed effect ANCOVA with treatment as factor and baseline value as a covariate.||||0.055|-0.140|0.392
90888525|NCT03198000|181640379|EQUIVALENCE|Prespecified equivalence interval of (-0.22, 0.44)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049||0.828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.086|0.107|||ANCOVA|Mixed effect ANCOVA with treatment as factor and baseline value as a covariate.||||0.107|-0.086|0.828
90888526|NCT03198000|181640380|EQUIVALENCE|Prespecified equivalence interval of (0.80, 1.25).|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.539|1.411|||GEE model|GEE model with treatment as factor.||||1.411|0.539|0.576
90888527|NCT03198000|181640380|EQUIVALENCE|Prespecified equivalence interval of (0.80, 1.25)|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.552|1.368|||GEE model|GEE model with treatment as factor.||||1.368|0.552|0.544
90888528|NCT03198000|181640381|EQUIVALENCE|No equivalence interval was specified for this time point.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.085|0.074|||ANCOVA|Mixed effect ANCOVA with treatment as factor and baseline value as a covariate.||||0.074|-0.085|0.893
90888529|NCT03198000|181640381|EQUIVALENCE|No equivalence interval was specified for this time point.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.073|0.084|||ANCOVA|Mixed effect ANCOVA with treatment as factor and baseline value as a covariate.||||0.084|-0.073|0.886
90888530|NCT03198000|181640382|EQUIVALENCE|No equivalence interval was specified for this time point.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.177|0.02|||ANCOVA|Mixed effect ANCOVA with treatment as factor and baseline value as a covariate.||||0.020|-0.177|0.117
90888531|NCT03198000|181640382|EQUIVALENCE|No equivalence interval was specified for this time point.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049||0.255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.153|0.041|||ANCOVA|Mixed effect ANCOVA with treatment as factor and baseline value as a covariate.||||0.041|-0.153|0.255
90888532|NCT03198000|181640384|EQUIVALENCE|No equivalence interval was specified.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.78|||ANCOVA|Mixed effect ANCOVA with treatment as factor and baseline value as a covariate.||||0.78|-0.05|0.085
90888533|NCT03198000|181640384|EQUIVALENCE|No equivalence interval was specified for this time point.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.64|||ANCOVA|Mixed effect ANCOVA with treatment as factor and baseline value as a covariate.||||0.64|-0.18|0.269
90888534|NCT03198000|181640385|EQUIVALENCE|No equivalence interval was specified.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.1|||ANCOVA|Mixed effect ANCOVA with treatment as factor and baseline value as a covariate.||||0.10|-0.60|0.162
90888535|NCT03198000|181640385|EQUIVALENCE|No equivalence interval was specified for this time point.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.14|||ANCOVA|Mixed effect ANCOVA with treatment as factor and baseline value as a covariate.||||0.14|-0.55|0.234
90888536|NCT03198000|181640386|EQUIVALENCE|No equivalence interval was specified.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.19|||ANCOVA|Mixed effect ANCOVA with treatment as factor and baseline value as a covariate.||||0.19|-0.48|0.398
90888537|NCT03198000|181640386|EQUIVALENCE|No equivalence interval was specified for this time point.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.13|||ANCOVA|Mixed effect ANCOVA with treatment as factor and baseline value as a covariate.||||0.13|-0.54|0.233
90888538|NCT04102501|181640432|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5858|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.5858
90888539|NCT04102501|181640433|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8061|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8061
90888540|NCT04433767|181640443|OTHER||Slope|-1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for age and gender.||||||< 0.001
90888541|NCT04433767|181640445|OTHER||Intercept|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.0127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.32|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, sex, education, and baseline task performance.||||0.32|0.04|0.0127
90888542|NCT04433767|181640446|OTHER||Intercept|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.51|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, sex, education, and baseline task performance.||||0.51|0.17|0.0005
90888543|NCT04433767|181640447|OTHER||Intercept|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.1027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.42|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, sex, education, and baseline task performance.||||0.42|-0.04|0.1027
90888544|NCT04433767|181640448|OTHER||Intercept|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.4846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.37|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, sex, education, and baseline task performance.||||0.37|-0.18|0.4846
90888545|NCT04433767|181640449|OTHER||Intercept|9.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|25.77||0.729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.28|62.36|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, sex, education, and baseline task performance.||||62.36|-44.28|0.7290
90888546|NCT04433767|181640450|OTHER||Intercept|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.43||0.9196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.28|4.78|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, sex, education, and baseline task performance.||||4.78|-5.28|0.9196
90888547|NCT04433767|181640451|OTHER||Slope|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for age and gender.||||0.33|0.01|0.033
90888548|NCT04433767|181640452|OTHER||Slope|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for age and gender.||||0.35|0.01|0.041
90888549|NCT04433767|181640453|OTHER||Slope|-11.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.36||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.81|-4.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for age and gender.||||-4.45|-17.81|0.001
90888550|NCT04433767|181640454|OTHER||Slope|-12.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.68||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.94|-5.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for age and gender.||||-5.33|-19.94|0.001
90888551|NCT04433767|181640455|OTHER||Slope|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|-0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.32|-1.15|<0.001
90888552|NCT04433767|181640456|OTHER||Slope|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|-0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for age and gender.||||-0.34|-0.92|0.001
90888553|NCT04433767|181640457|OTHER||Slope|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for age and gender.||||-0.18|-0.65|<0.001
90888554|NCT04433767|181640458|OTHER||Slope|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for age and gender.||||0.23|-1.17|0.183
90888555|NCT04433767|181640459|OTHER||Slope|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses adjusted for age and gender.||||0.13|-0.74|0.170
90888556|NCT04433767|181640460|OTHER||Slope|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses adjusted for age and gender.||||0.80|0.00|0.051
90888557|NCT04433767|181640461|OTHER||Slope|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|-0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses adjusted for age and gender.||||-0.11|-0.33|<0.001
90888558|NCT04433767|181640462|OTHER||Slope|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses adjusted for age and gender.||||0.69|0.17|0.002
90888559|NCT04433767|181640463|OTHER||Slope|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses adjusted for age and gender.||||0.83|0.21|0.002
90888560|NCT04433767|181640464|OTHER||Slope|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|1.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses adjusted for age and gender.||||1.23|-1.05|0.876
90888561|NCT04964089|181640470|NON_INFERIORITY|The maximum clinically acceptable true difference between KSI-301 and aflibercept participants to be considered non-inferior is 4.5 ETDRS letters, i.e. the non-inferiority margin (NI) is 4.5 letters.|Adjusted mean difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.03|-3.88|-0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM model with treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization stratification factors, and continuous baseline BCVA as covariates.||||-0.29|-3.88|0.0083
90888562|NCT02877485|181640493|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.5||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|8.9||"Statistical Tests:~Independent t-test to assess differences in mean change in NOSE scores when comparing the two study groups, and p\<0.05 deemed statistically significant"|t-test, 2 sided||Change in Mean NOSE score from baseline to post saline versus change in NOSE score from baseline to post intranasal steroid.|"1\) H0: mean change in NOSE score from baseline after in study group 1 = mean change in NOSE score from baseline in study group 2~Power calculation: To detect a 20% difference in NOSE scores with 80% power and a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05 required 20 participants per study group, for a total of 40 participants."||8.9|-6.0|0.7
90888563|NCT02877485|181640494|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-50.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|27.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Paired t-tests to assess differences in mean NOSE score when the treatment groups were combined (saline arm+ steroid arm) at five post-operative time intervals compared to the combined preoperative baseline scores. Significance at p\<0.05.|Paired t-test|||H0: Mean pre- treatment baseline patient NOSE score = Mean post- treatment baseline patient NOSE score.||||<0.001
90888564|NCT03403634|181640499|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046||||||significance level = 0.05|t-test, 1 sided|df = 11. one-sided as post treatment increases were of interest. the fold changes were log-transformed prior to inferences.||||||0.046
90888565|NCT00156065|181640516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier Estimate of Loss of Effect|0.8619||||||95.0|0.6912|0.9644|||||Loss of effect = increase in total PANSS \>=30% from start of current study; subjective worsening of schizophrenia/request for dose increase; Clinical Global Impressions of Severity of Illness score \>=6; discontinuation for lack of efficacy.|||0.9644|0.6912|
90888566|NCT00156065|181640516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier Estimate of Loss of Effect|0.8834||||||95.0|0.7744|0.955|||||Loss of effect = increase in total PANSS \>=30% from start of current study; subjective worsening of schizophrenia/request for dose increase; Clinical Global Impressions of Severity of Illness score \>=6; discontinuation for lack of efficacy.|||0.9550|0.7744|
90888567|NCT00156065|181640516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier Estimate of Loss of Effect|0.9376||||||95.0|0.7631|0.9952|||||Loss of effect = increase in total PANSS \>=30% from start of current study; subjective worsening of schizophrenia/request for dose increase; Clinical Global Impressions of Severity of Illness score \>=6; discontinuation for lack of efficacy.|||0.9952|0.7631|
90888568|NCT02395120|181640533|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|3.08||We addressed the issue of multiple testing, both multiple comparisons and multiple sites, using a gatekeeper approach. The use of 0.05 alpha level for each test maintained a 0.05 family-wise alpha level for the six tests (three at each site).|Regression, Logistic||||The primary outcome analysis utilized generalized estimating equations (GEE) with a logit link for the binary dental care receipt outcome. The GEE analysis was conducted using dental care receipt outcomes as restorative care alone (ICDAS codes ≥3), as well as combined preventive (i.e. sealants) and restorative care (ICDAS codes ≥1). Models were fit separately to the overall data (all sites combined), the combined EC and WA sites (based on our original plan of two predominantly low-income school districts), and the BD schools alone. Each model included, as covariates, indicator variables for intervention, site (except for the model with BD alone), child grade, and caregiver demographic variables (race, education, marital status). Corresponding estimated odds ratios and 95% Confidence Intervals were computed.|3.08|1.21|<0.05
90888569|NCT01997398|181640536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Differences in baseline and 6-month postoperative scores were assessed using a series of repeated measures general linear models with a single within-subjects factor and no between-subjects factors.|Repeated measures general linear models|||||||<0.001
90888570|NCT02250612|181640553|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.93
90888571|NCT02250612|181640553|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.92
90888572|NCT02250612|181640553|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.23
90888573|NCT02250612|181640553|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.85
90888574|NCT02250612|181640553|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.25
90888575|NCT02250612|181640553|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.18
90888576|NCT02250612|181640554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.94
90888577|NCT02250612|181640554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.38
90888578|NCT02250612|181640554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.85
90888579|NCT02250612|181640554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.412|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.412
90888580|NCT02250612|181640554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.79
90888581|NCT02250612|181640554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.28
90888582|NCT01153633|181640575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2317||95.0||||F-test (2-sided), ANCOVA with baseline target ulcer size as covariate|F-test|||||||0.2317
90888583|NCT01153633|181640579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4905||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4905
90888584|NCT01153633|181640580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9945||95.0||||F-test (2-sided), ANCOVA with baseline target ulcer size as covariate|F-test|||||||0.9945
90888585|NCT00384085|181640581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.56||||0.0628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|2.52||The type I error was controlled by performing a 2-tailed comparison at a p=0.0475 level for superiority testing.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.52|0.97|0.0628
90888586|NCT00384085|181640582|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of Lantus/Apidra-1 would be established if the upper limit of the 2 sided, 99.75% CI for the difference in the mean change from baseline between Lantus/Apidra-1 and Novolog Mix 70/30 was \<0.5%.|Adjusted Mean of difference|-0.34||||0.0359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.15||The type I error was controlled by performing a 2-tailed comparison at a p=0.0025 level for noninferiority testing.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.15|-0.82|0.0359
90888587|NCT00384085|181640583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.66||||0.0313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|2.64||The type I error was controlled by performing a 2-tailed comparison at a p=0.0475 level for superiority testing.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.64|1.04|0.0313
90888588|NCT00384085|181640584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean of difference|-0.31||||0.0565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.01|||ANCOVA|||||0.01|-0.63|0.0565
90951921|NCT03041792|181781347|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|214.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|129.48||0.104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.59|474.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUC0-300min (Visit 4)||474.07|-45.59|0.1040
90888589|NCT00384085|181640585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.79||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|2.85|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.85|1.12|0.0140
90888590|NCT00384085|181640586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.02||||0.9268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.71|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.71|0.61|0.9268
90888591|NCT00384085|181640586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|2.11||||0.0107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|3.73|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.73|1.19|0.0107
90888592|NCT00384085|181640586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|2.06||||0.0121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|3.61|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.61|1.17|0.0121
90888593|NCT05912400|181640589|OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||Spearman's rho was used to analyze correlation between OCR (Oxygen Consumption Rate) and NRS-11 Current (Numeric Pain Rating Scale for current pain).|Spearman's Rho|||||||<0.01
90888594|NCT05912400|181640589|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Spearman's Rho|Spearman's rho was used to analyze correlation between OCR (Oxygen Consumption Rate) and NRS-11 Best (Numeric Pain Rating Scale for best pain).||||||0.02
90888595|NCT05912400|181640589|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Spearman's Rho|Spearman's rho was used to analyze correlation between OCR (Oxygen Consumption Rate) and NRS-11 Worst (Numeric Pain Rating Scale for worst pain).||||||0.03
90951922|NCT03041792|181781347|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|348.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|138.29||0.0152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|70.2|626.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUC0-300min (Visit 5)||626.66|70.20|0.0152
90951923|NCT02514551|181781410|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.617|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.447|0.853|||||Unstratified cox proportional hazards model comparing Ramucirumab I4T-MC-JVCZ and I4T-IE-JVBE (NCT01170663)|"This analysis were comparison of PFS for participants treated with ramucirumab 12 mg/kg plus paclitaxel in Study I4T-MC-JVCZ versus placebo plus paclitaxel in I4T-IE-JVBE (NCT01170663) using meta-analysis.~Placebo + 80 mg/m² Paclitaxel in I4T-IE-JVBE Number of participants: 335, Median (95% CI), months: 2.86 (2.79 to 3.02)"||0.853|0.447|
90951924|NCT02514551|181781411|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.963|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.727|1.274|||||Unstratified cox proportional hazards model.|||1.274|0.727|
90985345|NCT01380093|181856126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|69.8||||0.0071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.7|120.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||120.0|19.7|0.0071
91040728|NCT03086135|181966242|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Speech in quiet at 50dB SPL with Osia at 4 weeks vs reference device BP110 on softband att visit 1.||||0.51
90951925|NCT03197766|181781419|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Confirmatory statistical testing controlling for the Type I error rate was performed on the primary analysis for the primary endpoint.|ANCOVA|Two subjects in the BMN 111 group discontinued from the study before Week 52. The values for these 2 subjects were imputed for this analysis.||||||< 0.0001
90951926|NCT03197766|181781420|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Confirmatory statistical testing controlling for the Type I error rate was performed on the primary analyses for the two key secondary endpoints.|ANCOVA|Missing assessments at Week 52 were imputed||||||< 0.0001
90985346|NCT01380093|181856126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|156.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|105.7|206.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||206.3|105.7|<0.0001
90985347|NCT01380093|181856127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.0||||0.1254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|4.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||4.7|-0.6|0.1254
90888596|NCT05912400|181640589|OTHER|||||||0.88|||||||Spearman's Rho|Correlation: OCR (Oxygen Consumption Rate) and FACIT-F TOI (Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy - Fatigue, Trial Outcome Index)||||||0.88
90888597|NCT05912400|181640589|OTHER|||||||0.36|||||||Spearman's Rho|Spearman's rho was used to analyze correlation between OCR (Oxygen Consumption Rate) and vitamin D levels.||||||0.36
90888598|NCT05912400|181640590|OTHER|||||||0.54|||||||Spearman's Rho|Spearman's rho used analyze correlation btwn ECAR (Extracellular Acidification Rate) and NRS-11 Current (Numeric Pain Rating Scale for current pain)||||||0.54
90888599|NCT05912400|181640590|OTHER|||||||0.36|||||||Spearman's Rho|Spearman's rho used to analyze correlation between ECAR (Extracellular Acidification Rate) and NRS-11 Best (Numeric Pain Rating Scale for best pain).||||||0.36
90888600|NCT05912400|181640590|OTHER|||||||0.94|||||||Spearman's Rho|Spearman's rho used to analyze correlation between ECAR (Extracellular Acidification Rate) \& NRS-11 Worst (Numeric Pain Rating Scale for worst pain).||||||0.94
90888601|NCT05912400|181640590|OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||Spearman's Rho|Correlation: ECAR (Extracellular Acidification Rate) \& FACIT-F TOI (Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy - Fatigue, Trial Outcome Index).||||||0.53
90888602|NCT05912400|181640590|OTHER|||||||0.51|||||||Spearman's Rho|Spearman's rho was used to analyze correlation between ECAR (Extracellular Acidification Rate) and vitamin D levels.||||||0.51
90888603|NCT05912400|181640591|OTHER|||||||0.36|||||||Spearman's Rho|Spearman's rho was used to analyze correlation between OCR (Oxygen Consumption Rate) and vitamin D levels.||||||0.36
90888604|NCT05912400|181640591|OTHER|||||||0.51|||||||Spearman's Rho|Spearman's rho was used to analyze correlation between ECAR (Extracellular Acidification Rate) and vitamin D levels.||||||0.51
90888605|NCT05912400|181640592|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Spearman's Rho|Spearman's rho was used to analyze correlation between OCR (Oxygen Consumption Rate) and NRS-11 Current (Numeric Pain Rating Scale for current pain).||||||<0.01
90888606|NCT05912400|181640592|OTHER|||||||0.54|||||||Spearman's Rho|Spearman's rho used analyze correlation between ECAR (Extracellular Acidification Rate) \& NRS-11 Current (Numeric Pain Rating Scale for current pain).||||||0.54
90888607|NCT05912400|181640593|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Spearman's Rho|Spearman's rho was used to analyze correlation between OCR (Oxygen Consumption Rate) and NRS-11 Best (Numeric Pain Rating Scale for best pain).||||||0.02
90985348|NCT01380093|181856127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.0||||0.4592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||1.6|-3.6|0.4592
90888608|NCT05912400|181640593|OTHER|||||||0.36|||||||Spearman's Rho|Spearman's rho used to analyze correlation between ECAR (Extracellular Acidification Rate) and NRS-11 Best (Numeric Pain Rating Scale for best pain).||||||0.36
90888609|NCT05912400|181640594|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Spearman's Rho|Spearman's rho was used to analyze correlation between OCR (Oxygen Consumption Rate) and NRS-11 Worst (Numeric Pain Rating Scale for worst pain).||||||0.03
90888610|NCT05912400|181640594|OTHER|||||||0.94|||||||Spearman's Rho|Spearman's rho used to analyze correlation between ECAR (Extracellular Acidification Rate) \& NRS-11 Worst (Numeric Pain Rating Scale for worst pain).||||||0.94
90888611|NCT05912400|181640595|OTHER|||||||0.88|||||||Spearman's Rho|Correlation: OCR (Oxygen Consumption Rate) and FACIT-F TOI (Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy - Fatigue, Trial Outcome Index).||||||0.88
90888612|NCT05912400|181640595|OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||Spearman's Rho|Correlation: ECAR (Extracellular Acidification Rate) \& FACIT-F TOI (Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy - Fatigue, Trial Outcome Index).||||||0.53
90888613|NCT01944631|181640601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.613|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.359||0.0895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.321|0.095|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as bisolviral minus placebo|||0.095|-1.321|0.0895
90888614|NCT01944631|181640602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.176|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.146||0.231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.464|0.113|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as bisolviral minus placebo|||0.113|-0.464|0.2310
90888615|NCT01944631|181640603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.443|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.304||0.1465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.042|0.156|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as bisolviral minus placebo|||0.156|-1.042|0.1465
90888616|NCT01944631|181640604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.728|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.102||0.8148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.39|6.845|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as bisolviral minus placebo|||6.845|-5.390|0.8148
90888617|NCT01944631|181640605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1887|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|Log-rank test stratifying for the variable 'baseline TSS'||||||0.1887
90888618|NCT01944631|181640606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1069||||0.6954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.666|1.84|||Regression, Logistic||A value greater than one favours bisolviral|||1.840|0.666|0.6954
90888619|NCT04389762|181640615|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
90888620|NCT04389762|181640616|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004
90888621|NCT04389762|181640617|OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.007
90888622|NCT04389762|181640618|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.040
90888623|NCT04389762|181640619|OTHER|||||||0.031|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.031
90888624|NCT04389762|181640620|OTHER|||||||0.115|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.115
90888625|NCT04389762|181640621|OTHER|||||||0.031|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.031
90888626|NCT01949480|181640639|NON_INFERIORITY|To detect an effect size of 0.92 SD units with a power of 81% and alpha level of 0.05, a total sample size of 40 patients (20 patients/group) was calculated.||||||0.643|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.643
90888627|NCT01949480|181640641|NON_INFERIORITY|To detect an effect size of 0.92 SD units with a power of 81% and alpha level of 0.05, a total sample size of 40 patients (20 patients/group) was calculated.||||||0.077|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This p-value is calculated for the NRS at rest.||||.077
90888628|NCT01949480|181640641|NON_INFERIORITY|To detect an effect size of 0.92 SD units with a power of 81% and alpha level of 0.05, a total sample size of 40 patients (20 patients/group) was calculated.||||||0.39|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This p-value is calculated for the NRS during deep inspiration at 24 hrs.||||0.39
90888629|NCT01949480|181640642|NON_INFERIORITY|To detect an effect size of 0.92 SD units with a power of 81% and alpha level of 0.05, a total sample size of 40 patients (20 patients/group) was calculated.||||||0.605|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.605
90888630|NCT01949480|181640643|NON_INFERIORITY|To detect an effect size of 0.92 SD units with a power of 81% and alpha level of 0.05, a total sample size of 40 patients (20 patients/group) was calculated.||||||0.104|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This p-value is for the Local Anesthetic infused in 24 hrs.||||0.104
90888631|NCT01949480|181640644|NON_INFERIORITY|To detect an effect size of 0.92 SD units with a power of 81% and alpha level of 0.05, a total sample size of 40 patients (20 patients/group) was calculated.||||||0.308|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.308
90888632|NCT01949480|181640645|NON_INFERIORITY|To detect an effect size of 0.92 SD units with a power of 81% and alpha level of 0.05, a total sample size of 40 patients (20 patients/group) was calculated.||||||0.487|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.487
90888633|NCT01949480|181640646|NON_INFERIORITY|To detect an effect size of 0.92 SD units with a power of 81% and alpha level of 0.05, a total sample size of 40 patients (20 patients/group) was calculated.||||||0.493|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.493
90888634|NCT01949480|181640647|NON_INFERIORITY|To detect an effect size of 0.92 SD units with a power of 81% and alpha level of 0.05, a total sample size of 40 patients (20 patients/group) was calculated.||||||0.574|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.574
90888635|NCT01949480|181640648|NON_INFERIORITY|To detect an effect size of 0.92 SD units with a power of 81% and alpha level of 0.05, a total sample size of 40 patients (20 patients/group) was calculated.||||||0.913|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.913
90888636|NCT01949480|181640649|NON_INFERIORITY|To detect an effect size of 0.92 SD units with a power of 81% and alpha level of 0.05, a total sample size of 40 patients (20 patients/group) was calculated.||||||0.783|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.783
90888637|NCT00144339|181640651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.9524||95.0|-4.0|4.0|||t-test, 2 sided|Random-effects model|Arbitrary covariance matrix; fixed treatment effect; individual patients are random; rate of decline estimated as the slope of the random effects model|Linear random effects model||4|-4|0.9524
90888638|NCT00144339|181640652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.2074||95.0|-2.0|6.0|||t-test, 2 sided|Random-effects model|Arbitrary covariance matrix; fixed treatment effect; individual patients are random; rate of decline estimated as the slope of the random effects model|Linear random effects model||6|-2|0.2074
90951927|NCT03197766|181781421|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.506||||||Confirmatory statistical testing controlling for the Type I error rate was performed on the primary analyses for the two key secondary endpoints.|ANCOVA|Missing assessments at Week 52 were imputed||||||= 0.506
90888639|NCT00144339|181640653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2488||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank-sum test|Rate calculated as (measure on 30days after completion of treatment - measure on day 1 )/ years in between||||||0.2488
90888640|NCT00144339|181640654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0145||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank-sum test|Rate calculated as (measure on 30days after completion of treatment - measure on day 1 )/ years in between||||||0.0145
90888641|NCT00144339|181640655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0||0.299||95.0|-12.0|4.0|||t-test, 2 sided||Arbitrary covariance matrix; fixed treatment effect; individual patients are random; rate of decline estimated as the slope of the random effects model|Linear random effects model||4|-12|0.2990
90888642|NCT00144339|181640656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0||0.8375||95.0|-9.0|7.0|||t-test, 2 sided||Arbitrary covariance matrix; fixed treatment effect; individual patients are random; rate of decline estimated as the slope of the random effects model|Linear random effects model||7|-9|0.8375
90888643|NCT00144339|181640657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0||0.1143||95.0|-14.0|2.0|||t-test, 2 sided||Arbitrary covariance matrix; fixed treatment effect; individual patients are random; rate of decline estimated as the slope of the random effects model|Linear random effects model||2|-14|0.1143
90888644|NCT00144339|181640658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0||0.787||95.0|-9.0|7.0|||t-test, 2 sided||Arbitrary covariance matrix; fixed treatment effect; individual patients are random; rate of decline estimated as the slope of the random effects model|Linear random effects model||7|-9|0.7870
90951928|NCT00305344|181781514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis: there will be no difference between AUC C-peptide at baseline and 1 or 2 years post cord blood infusion||||>0.05
90951929|NCT01123070|181781544|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence declared if the back transformed 90% CI of geometric mean ratio is within the predefined limits of 0.75 to 1.33|Geometric mean ratio|0.93||||0.4265|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.797|1.084|||ANCOVA|PK parameters were calculated using a logarithmic transformation. Covariates included body weight at screening, gender and treatment.|TL011 arm is the numerator and MabThera arm is the denominator|||1.084|0.797|0.4265
90888645|NCT00144339|181640659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.784||95.0|-0.2|0.3|||t-test, 2 sided||Arbitrary covariance matrix; fixed treatment effect; individual patients are random; rate of decline estimated as the slope of the random effects model|Linear random effects model||0.3|-0.2|0.7840
90888646|NCT00144339|181640660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2705||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank-sum test|Rate calculated as (measure on 30days after completion of treatment - measure on day 1 )/ years in between||||||0.2705
90888647|NCT00144339|181640661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.306||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank-sum test|Rate calculated as (measure on 30days after completion of treatment - measure on day 1 )/ years in between||||||0.306
90888648|NCT00144339|181640662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8103||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank-sum test|Rate calculated as (measure on 30days after completion of treatment - measure on day 1 )/ years in between||||||0.8103
90888649|NCT00144339|181640663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9814||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank-sum test|Rate calculated as (measure on 30days after completion of treatment - measure on day 1 )/ years in between||||||0.9814
90888650|NCT00144339|181640664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001||95.0|0.81|0.91|||Log Rank|Cox regression with treatment|Median estimated by Kaplan-Meier estimates; hazard ratio shown as tio vs. placebo|Cox regression||0.91|0.81|<0.0001
90888651|NCT00144339|181640665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001||95.0|0.81|0.91|||t-test, 2 sided||Ratio calculated as estimated number of events in tio/number of events in placebo|Poisson regression adjusted for overdispersion and treatment exposure||0.91|0.81|<0.0001
90888652|NCT00144339|181640666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3481||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.3481
90888653|NCT00144339|181640667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0011||95.0|0.83|0.95|||t-test, 2 sided||Poisson regression adjusting for overdispersion with Pearson's method adjusting for treatment exposure. The logarithm of treatment exposure is used as offset when building the Poisson model.|Poisson regression adjusted for overdispersion and treatment exposure||0.95|0.83|0.0011
90888654|NCT00144339|181640668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1766||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1766
90888655|NCT00144339|181640669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0024||95.0|0.78|0.95|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio shown as tiotropium bromide vs. placebo|Cox regression||0.95|0.78|0.0024
90888656|NCT00144339|181640670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.3413||95.0|0.82|1.07|||t-test, 2 sided||Ratio of estimated number of events between tiotropium bromide and placebo|||1.07|0.82|0.3413
90888657|NCT00144339|181640671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|1.01||||0.8624||95.0|0.87|1.18|||t-test, 2 sided||Ratio of estimated number of days of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbation leading to hospitalization between tio and placebo|Poisson regression adjusting for overdispersion with Pearson's method adjusting for treatment exposure. The logarithm of treatment exposure is used as offset when building the Poisson model.||1.18|0.87|0.8624
90888658|NCT00144339|181640672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.087|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.077|0.098|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.098|0.077|<.0001
90888659|NCT00144339|181640673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.047|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.037|0.057|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.057|0.037|<.0001
90888660|NCT00144339|181640674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.099|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.087|0.11|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.110|0.087|<.0001
90888661|NCT00144339|181640675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.058|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.047|0.069|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.069|0.047|<.0001
90888662|NCT00144339|181640676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.103|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.091|0.115|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.115|0.091|<.0001
90888663|NCT00144339|181640677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.054|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.042|0.065|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.065|0.042|<.0001
90888664|NCT00144339|181640678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.091|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.078|0.104|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.104|0.078|<.0001
90888665|NCT00144339|181640679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.053|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.04|0.066|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.066|0.040|<.0001
90888666|NCT00144339|181640680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.094|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.081|0.107|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.107|0.081|<.0001
90888667|NCT00144339|181640681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.062|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.049|0.075|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.075|0.049|<.0001
90888668|NCT00144339|181640682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.095|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.081|0.109|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.109|0.081|<.0001
90888669|NCT00144339|181640683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.061|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.047|0.075|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.075|0.047|<.0001
90888670|NCT00144339|181640684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.099|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.085|0.114|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.114|0.085|<.0001
90888671|NCT00144339|181640685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.065|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.051|0.08|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.080|0.051|<.0001
90888672|NCT00144339|181640686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.095|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.08|0.11|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.110|0.080|<.0001
90888673|NCT00144339|181640687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.061|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.045|0.076|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.076|0.045|<.0001
90888674|NCT00144339|181640688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.088|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.073|0.103|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.103|0.073|<.0001
90888675|NCT00144339|181640689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.049|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.033|0.065|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.065|0.033|<.0001
90888676|NCT00144339|181640690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.168|0.211|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.211|0.168|<.0001
90888677|NCT00144339|181640691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.055|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.037|0.073|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.073|0.037|<.0001
90888678|NCT00144339|181640692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.204|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.18|0.228|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.228|0.180|<.0001
90888679|NCT00144339|181640693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.055|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.034|0.076|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.076|0.034|<.0001
90888680|NCT00144339|181640694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.198|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.173|0.222|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.222|0.173|<.0001
90888681|NCT00144339|181640695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.048|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.026|0.07|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.070|0.026|<.0001
90888682|NCT00144339|181640696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.194|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.167|0.221|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.221|0.167|<.0001
90888683|NCT00144339|181640697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.026|0.074|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.074|0.026|<.0001
91040729|NCT03086135|181966242|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Speech in quiet at 65dB SPL with Osia at 4 weeks vs reference device BP110 on softband att visit 1.||||0.021
90888684|NCT00144339|181640698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.189|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.161|0.216|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.216|0.161|<.0001
90888685|NCT00144339|181640699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.059|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.035|0.084|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.084|0.035|<.0001
90888686|NCT00144339|181640700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.185|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.157|0.213|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.213|0.157|<.0001
90888687|NCT00144339|181640701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.047||||0.0005||95.0|0.021|0.074|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.074|0.021|0.0005
90888688|NCT00144339|181640702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.17|0.229|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.229|0.170|<.0001
90888689|NCT00144339|181640703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.065|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.038|0.093|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.093|0.038|<.0001
90888690|NCT00144339|181640704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.184|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.154|0.215|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.215|0.154|<.0001
90888691|NCT00144339|181640705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.046||||0.002||95.0|0.017|0.076|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.076|0.017|0.0020
90888692|NCT00144339|181640706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.139|0.201|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.201|0.139|<.0001
90888693|NCT00144339|181640707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.032||||0.0365||95.0|0.002|0.061|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.061|0.002|0.0365
90888694|NCT00144339|181640708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.147|0.192|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.192|0.147|<.0001
90888695|NCT00144339|181640709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.038||||0.0002||95.0|0.018|0.058|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.058|0.018|0.0002
90888696|NCT00144339|181640710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.186|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.161|0.21|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.210|0.161|<.0001
90888697|NCT00144339|181640711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.037||||0.0018||95.0|0.014|0.06|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.060|0.014|0.0018
90888698|NCT00144339|181640712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.176|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.151|0.201|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.201|0.151|<.0001
90888699|NCT00144339|181640713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.032||||0.0069||95.0|0.009|0.055|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.055|0.009|0.0069
90888700|NCT00144339|181640714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.154|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.127|0.182|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.182|0.127|<.0001
90888701|NCT00144339|181640715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.002||95.0|0.015|0.065|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.065|0.015|0.0020
90888702|NCT00144339|181640716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.167|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.139|0.194|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.194|0.139|<.0001
90888703|NCT00144339|181640717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.032||||0.0165||95.0|0.006|0.057|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.057|0.006|0.0165
90888704|NCT00144339|181640718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.141|0.199|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.199|0.141|<.0001
91040730|NCT03086135|181966242|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Speech in quiet at 80dB SPL with Osia at 4 weeks vs reference device BP110 on softband att visit 1.||||0.29
90888705|NCT00144339|181640719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.031||||0.0248||95.0|0.004|0.059|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.059|0.004|0.0248
90888706|NCT00144339|181640720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.166|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.136|0.196|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.196|0.136|<.0001
90888707|NCT00144339|181640721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.0004||95.0|0.022|0.078|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.078|0.022|0.0004
90888708|NCT00144339|181640722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.161|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.13|0.192|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.192|0.130|<.0001
90888709|NCT00144339|181640723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.027||||0.0809||95.0|-0.003|0.057|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.057|-0.003|0.0809
90888710|NCT00144339|181640724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.119|0.182|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.182|0.119|<.0001
90888711|NCT00144339|181640725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.026||||0.0915||95.0|-0.004|0.057|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.057|-0.004|0.0915
90888712|NCT00144339|181640726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.88|||<|0.0001||95.0|-3.535|-2.226|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||-2.226|-3.535|<.0001
90888713|NCT00144339|181640727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.771|||<|0.0001||95.0|-3.461|-2.081|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||-2.081|-3.461|<.0001
90888714|NCT00144339|181640728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.593|||<|0.0001||95.0|-3.352|-1.834|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||-1.834|-3.352|<.0001
90888715|NCT00144339|181640729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.384|||<|0.0001||95.0|-3.191|-1.576|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||-1.576|-3.191|<.0001
90888716|NCT00144339|181640730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.423|||<|0.0001||95.0|-3.277|-1.569|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||-1.569|-3.277|<.0001
90888717|NCT00144339|181640731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.345|||<|0.0001||95.0|-4.229|-2.462|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||-2.462|-4.229|<.0001
90888718|NCT00144339|181640732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.818|||<|0.0001||95.0|-3.742|-1.894|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||-1.894|-3.742|<.0001
90888719|NCT00144339|181640733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.303|||<|0.0001||95.0|-3.266|-1.34|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||-1.340|-3.266|<.0001
90888720|NCT00144339|181640734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.0242||95.0|0.74|0.98|||Log Rank||Cox regression with treatment; hazard ratio shown as tiotropium bromide vs. placebo|||0.98|0.74|0.0242
90888721|NCT00144339|181640735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.0339||95.0|0.76|0.99|||Log Rank||Cox regression; cut-off at 4 years ; vital status form intended at 4 years; hazard ratio shown as tio vs. placebo|Hazard ratio of all cause mortality vital status was information followed-up after discontinuation; vital status information up to 1440 days after the start of treatment was used||0.99|0.76|0.0339
90888722|NCT00144339|181640736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.0859||95.0|0.79|1.02|||Log Rank||Cox regression; cut-off at 4 years plus 30 days; vital status form intended at 4 years; hazard ratio shown as tio vs. placebo|||1.02|0.79|0.0859
90888723|NCT00144339|181640737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.1936||95.0|0.67|1.08|||Log Rank||Cox regression with treatment; hazard ratio shown as tiotropium bromide vs. placebo|||1.08|0.67|0.1936
90888724|NCT00144339|181640738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.2377||95.0|0.71|1.09|||Log Rank||Cox regression; cut-off at 4 years plus 30 days; vital status form intended at 4 years; hazard ratio shown as tiotropium bromide vs. placebo|||1.09|0.71|0.2377
90888725|NCT00144339|181640739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio of incidence rates|0.84||||0.029||95.0|0.73|0.98|||Z-test|incidence rate = number of patients with event/ time at risk|Rate ratio of incidence rates (tiotropium/placebo)|||0.98|0.73|0.0290
90888726|NCT00144339|181640740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio of incidence rates|1.44||||0.1158||95.0|0.91|2.26|||Z-test||Rate ratio of incidence rates (tiotropium/placebo)|||2.26|0.91|0.1158
90888727|NCT00144339|181640741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio of incidence rates|0.95||||0.7725||95.0|0.68|1.33|||Z-test||Rate ratio of incidence rates (tiotropium/placebo)|||1.33|0.68|0.7725
90951930|NCT01123070|181781545|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence declared if the back transformed 90% CI of geometric mean ratio is within the predefined limits of 0.75 to 1.33|Geometric mean ratio|0.862||||0.0368|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.768|0.968|||ANCOVA|PK parameters were calculated using a logarithmic transformation. Covariates included body weight at screening, gender and treatment.|TL011 arm is the numerator, MabThera arm is the denominator|||0.968|0.768|0.0368
90888728|NCT00144339|181640742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio of incidence rates|1.25||||0.2666||95.0|0.84|1.87|||Z-test||Rate ratio of incidence rates (tiotropium/placebo)|||1.87|0.84|0.2666
90888729|NCT00144339|181640743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio of incidence rates|0.59||||0.0337||95.0|0.37|0.96|||Z-test||Rate ratio of incidence rates (tiotropium/placebo)|||0.96|0.37|0.0337
90888730|NCT00144339|181640744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio of incidence rates|0.58||||0.0537||95.0|0.33|1.01|||Z-test||Rate ratio of incidence rates (tiotropium/placebo)|||1.01|0.33|0.0537
90888731|NCT00144339|181640745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio of incidence rates|0.71||||0.0403||95.0|0.52|0.99|||Z-test||Rate ratio of incidence rates (tiotropium/placebo)|||0.99|0.52|0.0403
90888732|NCT00144339|181640746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio of incidence rates|0.84||||0.0001||95.0|0.77|0.92|||Z-test||Rate ratio of incidence rates (tiotropium/placebo)|||0.92|0.77|0.0001
90888733|NCT00144339|181640747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio of incidence rates|1.2||||0.4789||95.0|0.73|1.98|||Z-test||Rate ratio of incidence rates (tiotropium/placebo)|||1.98|0.73|0.4789
90888734|NCT00144339|181640748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio of incidence rates|0.84||||0.0014||95.0|0.76|0.94|||Z-test||Rate ratio of incidence rates (tiotropium/placebo)|||0.94|0.76|0.0014
90888735|NCT00144339|181640749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio of incidence rates|0.61||||0.0236||95.0|0.4|0.94|||Z-test||Rate ratio of incidence rates (tiotropium/placebo)|||0.94|0.40|0.0236
90888736|NCT00144339|181640750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio of incidence rates|0.95||||0.5064||95.0|0.81|1.11|||Z-test||Rate ratio of incidence rates (tiotropium/placebo)|||1.11|0.81|0.5064
90888737|NCT00144339|181640751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio of incidence rates|0.69||||0.0104||95.0|0.52|0.92|||Z-test||Rate ratio of incidence rates (tiotropium/placebo)|||0.92|0.52|0.0104
90888738|NCT01156701|181640803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|1.12|||||Direct effect of Zanamivir prophylaxis on influenza risk|||1.12|-1.42|
90888739|NCT01156701|181640803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.17|||||Total effect of zanamivir prophylaxis|||0.17|-0.93|
90888740|NCT01156701|181640803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.47|||||Direct effect of zanamivir prophylaxis when index is treated|||0.47|-0.75|
90888741|NCT01156701|181640803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|1.62|||||Risk in cohort 1 minus risk in cohort 2|||1.62|-1.15|
90888742|NCT01156701|181640803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.03|||||Protective effect of zanamivir on susceptible risk|||0.03|-0.51|
90888743|NCT01156701|181640803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.01|||||Direct effect of Zanamivir prophylaxis on influenza risk|||1.01|0.99|
90888744|NCT01156701|181640803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.0|||||Total effect of zanamivir prophylaxis|||1.00|0.99|
90888745|NCT01156701|181640803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.0|||||Direct effect of zanamivir prophylaxis when index is treated|||1.00|0.99|
90888746|NCT01156701|181640803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.02|||||Risk in cohort 1 minus risk in cohort 2|||1.02|0.99|
90888747|NCT01156701|181640803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.0|||||Protective effect of zanamivir on susceptible risk|||1.00|0.99|
90888748|NCT01156701|181640804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|0.36|||||Direct effect of Zanamivir prophylaxis on asthma risk|||0.36|-1.17|
90888749|NCT01156701|181640804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.03|||||Total effect of zanamivir prophylaxis|||0.03|-0.80|
90951931|NCT01123070|181781547|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence declared if the 90% CI of geometric mean ratio is within the predefined limits of 0.75 to 1.33|Geometric mean ratio|0.909||||0.1484|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.814|1.014|||ANCOVA|PK parameters were calculated using a logarithmic transformation. Covariates included body weight at screening, gender and treatment.|TL011/MabThera|Cmax1||1.014|0.814|0.1484
90951932|NCT01123070|181781547|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence declared if the 90% CI of geometric mean ratio is within the predefined limits of 0.75 to 1.33|Geometric mean ratio|0.766||||0.0241|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.633|0.927|||ANCOVA|PK parameters were calculated using a logarithmic transformation. Covariates included body weight at screening, gender and treatment.|TL011/MabThera|Cmax2||0.927|0.633|0.0241
90951933|NCT01123070|181781548|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence declared if the 90% CI of geometric mean ratio is within the predefined limits of 0.75 to 1.33|Geometric mean ratio|0.969||||0.652|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.863|1.088|||ANCOVA|PK parameters were calculated using a logarithmic transformation. Covariates included body weight at screening, gender and treatment.|TL011 arm is the numerator, MabThera arm is the denominator|AUC1||1.088|0.863|0.6520
90951934|NCT01123070|181781548|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence declared if the 90% CI of geometric mean ratio is within the predefined limits of 0.75 to 1.33|Geometric mean ratio|0.961||||0.7835|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.757|1.222|||ANCOVA|PK parameters were calculated using a logarithmic transformation. Covariates included body weight at screening, gender and treatment.|TL011/MabThera|AUC2||1.222|0.757|0.7835
90951935|NCT00918879|181781574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.139||0.0011||95.0|-0.73|-0.18|||ANCOVA|\* adjusted for baseline HbA1c||||-0.18|-0.73|0.0011
90888750|NCT01156701|181640804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.18|||||Direct effect of zanamivir prophylaxis when index is treated|||0.18|-0.75|
90888751|NCT01156701|181640804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.85|||||Risk in cohort 1 minus risk in cohort 2|||0.85|-0.89|
90888752|NCT01156701|181640804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.11|||||Protective effect of zanamivir on susceptible risk|||0.11|-0.31|
90888753|NCT01156701|181640804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.0|||||Direct effect of Zanamivir prophylaxis on asthma risk|||1.00|0.99|
90888754|NCT01156701|181640804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.0|||||Total effect of zanamivir prophylaxis|||1.00|0.99|
90951936|NCT00918879|181781575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.438||0.0623||95.0|-20.91|0.53|||ANCOVA|\* Adjusted for baseline FPG||||0.53|-20.91|0.0623
90951937|NCT00918879|181781576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.302||0.0623||95.0|-1.17|0.02|||ANCOVA|\* Adjusted for baseline FPG||||0.02|-1.17|0.0623
90951938|NCT00918879|181781577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.8||||||95.0|-1.7|19.3|||Fisher Exact|||||19.3|-1.7|
90951939|NCT00384774|181781589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Headache Response||||1.0000
90951940|NCT00384774|181781589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0991|||||||Fisher Exact|||Headache Response||||0.0991
90951941|NCT00384774|181781589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4851|||||||Chi-squared|||Headache Response||||0.4851
90951942|NCT00384774|181781589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1178|||||||Chi-squared|||Headache Response||||0.1178
90951943|NCT00384774|181781589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1093|||||||Chi-squared|||Headache Response||||0.1093
90951944|NCT00384774|181781589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3364|||||||Fisher Exact|||Headache Response||||0.3364
90951945|NCT00478192|181781610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028||95.0||||P-Values are not adjusted on the basis of multiple comparrisons|ANCOVA|||"Statistical Analysis applies to Change from Baseline."||||0.028
90951946|NCT00478192|181781610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019||95.0||||P-Values are not adjusted on the basis of multiple comparrisons|ANCOVA|||"Statistical Analysis applies to Change from Baseline."||||0.019
90951947|NCT00478192|181781610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-Values are not adjusted on the basis of multiple comparrisons|ANCOVA|||"Statistical Analysis applies to Change from Baseline."||||<0.001
90951948|NCT00478192|181781615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.079||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.079
90888755|NCT01156701|181640804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.0|||||Direct effect of zanamivir prophylaxis when index is treated|||1.00|0.99|
90888756|NCT01156701|181640804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.01|||||Risk in cohort 1 minus risk in cohort 2|||1.01|0.99|
90888757|NCT01156701|181640804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.0|||||Protective effect of zanamivir on susceptible risk|||1.00|1.00|
90888758|NCT01156701|181640805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|1.54|||||Direct effect of Zanamivir prophylaxis on pneumonia risk|||1.54|-0.61|
90888759|NCT01156701|181640805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.04|||||Total effect of zanamivir prophylaxis|||-0.04|-0.45|
90888760|NCT01156701|181640805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.09|||||Direct effect of zanamivir prophylaxis when index is treated|||0.09|-0.39|
90888761|NCT01156701|181640805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|1.81|||||Risk in cohort 1 minus risk in cohort 2|||1.81|-0.38|
90888762|NCT01156701|181640805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.02|||||Protective effect of zanamivir on susceptible risk|||0.02|-0.22|
90888763|NCT01156701|181640805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.02|||||Direct effect of Zanamivir prophylaxis on pneumonia risk|||1.02|0.99|
90888764|NCT01156701|181640805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.0|||||Total effect of zanamivir prophylaxis|||1.00|1.00|
90888765|NCT01156701|181640805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.0|||||Direct effect of zanamivir prophylaxis when index is treated|||1.00|1.00|
90888766|NCT01156701|181640805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.02|||||Risk in cohort 1 minus risk in cohort 2|||1.02|1.00|
90888767|NCT01156701|181640805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.0|||||Protective effect of zanamivir on susceptible risk|||1.00|1.00|
90888768|NCT01156701|181640806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|3.4|||||Direct effect of Zanamivir prophylaxis on bronchitis risk|||3.40|-0.83|
90888769|NCT01156701|181640806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.47|||||Total effect of zanamivir prophylaxis|||0.47|-0.98|
90888770|NCT01156701|181640806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.67|||||Direct effect of zanamivir prophylaxis when index is treated|||0.67|-0.85|
90888771|NCT01156701|181640806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|1.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|3.76|||||Risk in cohort 1 minus risk in cohort 2|||3.76|-0.70|
90888772|NCT01156701|181640806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.12|||||Protective effect of zanamivir on susceptible risk|||0.12|-0.44|
90888773|NCT01156701|181640806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.03|||||Direct effect of Zanamivir prophylaxis on bronchitis risk|||1.03|0.99|
90888774|NCT01156701|181640806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.0|||||Total effect of zanamivir prophylaxis|||1.00|0.99|
90888775|NCT01156701|181640806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.01|||||Direct effect of zanamivir prophylaxis when index is treated|||1.01|0.99|
90888776|NCT01156701|181640806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.04|||||Risk in cohort 1 minus risk in cohort 2|||1.04|0.99|
90888777|NCT01156701|181640806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.0|||||Protective effect of zanamivir on susceptible risk|||1.00|1.00|
90888778|NCT01156701|181640807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.08|2.79|||||Direct effect of Zanamivir prophylaxis on risk of any respiratory diagnosis|||2.79|-3.08|
90888779|NCT01156701|181640807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.39|0.25|||||Total effect of zanamivir prophylaxis|||0.25|-2.39|
90888780|NCT01156701|181640807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|0.35|||||Direct effect of zanamivir prophylaxis when index is treated|||0.35|-2.51|
90888781|NCT01156701|181640807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|4.14|||||Risk in cohort 1 minus risk in cohort 2|||4.14|-2.29|
90888782|NCT01156701|181640807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.59|||||Protective effect of zanamivir on susceptible risk|||0.59|-0.58|
90888783|NCT01156701|181640807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.03|||||Direct effect of Zanamivir prophylaxis on risk of any respiratory diagnosis|||1.03|0.97|
90888784|NCT01156701|181640807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.0|||||Total effect of zanamivir prophylaxis|||1.00|0.98|
90888785|NCT01156701|181640807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.0|||||Direct effect of zanamivir prophylaxis when index is treated|||1.00|0.98|
90888786|NCT01156701|181640807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.04|||||Risk in cohort 1 minus risk in cohort 2|||1.04|0.98|
90888787|NCT01156701|181640807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.0|||||Protective effect of zanamivir on susceptible risk|||1.00|0.99|
90888788|NCT02232893|181640818|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
90888789|NCT01764945|181640819|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing).|Geometric Mean Ratio|82.58|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|73.69|92.54|||ANOVA||the standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation.|"relative bioavailability comparison of 40 mg faldaprevir soft gelatine capsules compared with the equivalent dose of an oral solution.~(treatment B : treatment A)."||92.54|73.69|
90888790|NCT01764945|181640819|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing).|Geometric Mean Ratio|83.34|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|73.65|94.3|||ANOVA||the standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation.|"relative bioavailability comparison of 40 mg faldaprevir soft gelatine capsules compared with the equivalent dose of an oral solution.~(treatment C : treatment A)."||94.30|73.65|
90888791|NCT01764945|181640819|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing).|Geometric Mean Ratio|83.92|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.69|94.28|||ANOVA||the standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation.|"relative bioavailability comparison of 40 mg faldaprevir soft gelatine capsules compared with the equivalent dose of an oral solution.~(treatment D : treatment A)."||94.28|74.69|
90888792|NCT01764945|181640819|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing).|Geometric Mean Ratio|92.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.94|97.04|||ANOVA||the standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation.|"relative bioavailability comparison of 120 mg faldaprevir soft gelatine capsules compared with the equivalent dose of an oral solution.~(treatment F : treatment E)."||97.04|88.94|
90888793|NCT01764945|181640819|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing).|Geometric Mean Ratio|96.37|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.55|101.43|||ANOVA||the standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation.|"relative bioavailability comparison of 120 mg faldaprevir soft gelatine capsules compared with the equivalent dose of an oral solution.~(treatment G : treatment E)."||101.43|91.55|
90888794|NCT01764945|181640819|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing).|Geometric Mean Ratio|94.44|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.88|99.24|||ANOVA||the standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation.|"relative bioavailability comparison of 120 mg faldaprevir soft gelatine capsules compared with the equivalent dose of an oral solution.~(treatment H : treatment E)."||99.24|89.88|
90888795|NCT01764945|181640820|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing).|Geometric Mean Ratio|74.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|21.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|65.44|83.83|||ANOVA||the standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation.|"relative bioavailability comparison of 40 mg faldaprevir soft gelatine capsules compared with the equivalent dose of an oral solution.~(treatment B : treatment A)."||83.83|65.44|
90888796|NCT01764945|181640820|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing).|Geometric Mean Ratio|73.23|STANDARD_DEVIATION|26.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|63.33|84.68|||ANOVA||the standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation.|"relative bioavailability comparison of 40 mg faldaprevir soft gelatine capsules compared with the equivalent dose of an oral solution.~(treatment C : treatment A)."||84.68|63.33|
90888797|NCT01764945|181640820|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing).|Geometric Mean Ratio|78.76|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|68.94|89.99|||ANOVA||the standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation.|"relative bioavailability comparison of 40 mg faldaprevir soft gelatine capsules compared with the equivalent dose of an oral solution.~(treatment D : treatment A)."||89.99|68.94|
90888798|NCT01764945|181640820|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing).|Geometric Mean Ratio|78.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|71.42|85.84|||ANOVA||the standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation.|"relative bioavailability comparison of 120 mg faldaprevir soft gelatine capsules compared with the equivalent dose of an oral solution.~(treatment F : treatment E)."||85.84|71.42|
90888799|NCT01764945|181640820|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing).|Geometric Mean Ratio|78.43|STANDARD_DEVIATION|30.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|69.54|88.46|||ANOVA||the standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation.|"relative bioavailability comparison of 120 mg faldaprevir soft gelatine capsules compared with the equivalent dose of an oral solution.~(treatment G : treatment E)."||88.46|69.54|
90888800|NCT01764945|181640820|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing).|Geometric Mean Ratio|78.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|29.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|69.35|87.94|||ANOVA||the standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation.|"relative bioavailability comparison of 120 mg faldaprevir soft gelatine capsules compared with the equivalent dose of an oral solution.~(treatment H : treatment E)."||87.94|69.35|
90888801|NCT01764945|181640821|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing).|Geometric Mean Ratio|82.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.98|88.55|||ANOVA||the standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation.|"relative bioavailability comparison of 40 mg faldaprevir soft gelatine capsules compared with the equivalent dose of an oral solution.~(treatment B : treatment A)."||88.55|75.98|
90888802|NCT01764945|181640821|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing).|Geometric Mean Ratio|80.93|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.58|87.83|||ANOVA||the standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation.|"relative bioavailability comparison of 40 mg faldaprevir soft gelatine capsules compared with the equivalent dose of an oral solution.~(treatment C : treatment A)."||87.83|74.58|
90888803|NCT01764945|181640821|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing).|Geometric Mean Ratio|79.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.84|84.67|||ANOVA||the standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation.|"relative bioavailability comparison of 40 mg faldaprevir soft gelatine capsules compared with the equivalent dose of an oral solution.~(treatment D : treatment A)."||84.67|74.84|
90888804|NCT01764945|181640821|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing).|Geometric Mean Ratio|91.59|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.53|95.84|||ANOVA||the standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation.|"relative bioavailability comparison of 120 mg faldaprevir soft gelatine capsules compared with the equivalent dose of an oral solution.~(treatment F : treatment E)."||95.84|87.53|
90888805|NCT01764945|181640821|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing).|Geometric Mean Ratio|94.38|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.76|99.24|||ANOVA||the standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation.|"relative bioavailability comparison of 120 mg faldaprevir soft gelatine capsules compared with the equivalent dose of an oral solution.~(treatment G : treatment E)."||99.24|89.76|
90888806|NCT01764945|181640821|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing).|Geometric Mean Ratio|92.91|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.42|97.63|||ANOVA||the standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation.|"relative bioavailability comparison of 120 mg faldaprevir soft gelatine capsules compared with the equivalent dose of an oral solution.~(treatment H : treatment E)."||97.63|88.42|
90888807|NCT02911948|181640835|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was considered confirmed if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval was strictly below 0.0% for null hypothesis (H0): D=0.0% against the alternative (HA): D≠0.0%, where D is the mean difference (IDegLira - IDeg).|Treatment contrast|-1.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-1.06|||ANCOVA|||The response and change from baseline in response after 26 weeks are analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pre-trial anti-diabetic treatment as fixed factors and corresponding baseline HbA1c value as covariate.||-1.06|-1.50|<0.0001
90888808|NCT02854540|181640864|OTHER||Mean difference (percent)|59.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.0|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90888809|NCT03819660|181640895|OTHER||percentage|38.5|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90888810|NCT01136291|181640897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||The homogeneity between the groups was compared by the Student's t test or the Mann-Whitney test for continuous variables and chi-square for categorical variables.A comparison between values before and after the study group session was performed by the Student's t test. The effect of the exercise was evaluated by repeated measures ANOVA, where the effect of time and group were evaluated on pressure, weight, Body Mass Index (BMI)and World Health Organization Quality of Life Questionnarie domains.||||<0.05
90888811|NCT03965052|181640900|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
90888812|NCT03965052|181640902|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Lissamine green treatment groups||||1.000
90888813|NCT03965052|181640902|OTHER|||||||0.667|||||||Fisher Exact|||Fluorescein treatment groups||||0.667
90888814|NCT03965052|181640903|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.000
90888815|NCT03965052|181640904|OTHER|||||||0.977|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||the analysis was per protocol||||0.977
90888816|NCT03965052|181640906|OTHER|||||||0.019|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.019
90888817|NCT02308033|181640932|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||<0.001
90888818|NCT02308033|181640933|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||<0.001
90888819|NCT02308033|181640934|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Comparison of normal Nugent scores at 7-14 days||||<0.001
90888820|NCT02308033|181640935|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.034|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Comparison of the number of subjects whose reported their symptoms completely resolved||||0.034
90888821|NCT04773015|181640948|OTHER|||||||0.6371|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6371
90888822|NCT04773015|181640949|OTHER|||||||0.1448|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1448
90888823|NCT04773015|181640950|OTHER|||||||0.1507|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1507
90888824|NCT04773015|181640951|OTHER|||||||0.1189|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1189
90888825|NCT02279641|181641010|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|133.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|111.0|159.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effect for treatment and random effects for subjects. GLMSRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||159|111|
90888826|NCT02279641|181641010|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|67.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|65.2|70.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effect for treatment and random effects for subjects. GLMSRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||70.7|65.2|
90888827|NCT02279641|181641012|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|102.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.3|111.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effect for treatment and random effects for subjects. GLMSRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||111|93.3|
90888828|NCT02279641|181641012|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|61.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|58.1|65.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effect for treatment and random effects for subjects. GLMSRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||65.7|58.1|
91040731|NCT03086135|181966242|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Speech in quiet at 50dB SPL with Osia at 3 months vs reference device BP110 on softband att visit 1.||||0.18
91040732|NCT03086135|181966242|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Speech in quiet at 65dB SPL with Osia at 3 months vs reference device BP110 on softband att visit 1.||||0.017
91040733|NCT03086135|181966242|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Speech in quiet at 80dB SPL with Osia at 3 months vs reference device BP110 on softband att visit 1.||||0.16
90888829|NCT02279641|181641012|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|95.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.4|104.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effect for treatment and random effects for subjects. GLMSRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||104|88.4|
90888830|NCT02279641|181641013|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|103.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.9|112.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effect for treatment and random effects for subjects. GLMSRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||112|94.9|
90888831|NCT02279641|181641013|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|61.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|58.1|65.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effect for treatment and random effects for subjects. GLMSRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||65.7|58.1|
90888832|NCT02279641|181641015|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|89.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.8|98.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effect for treatment and random effects for subjects. GLMSRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||98.0|81.8|
90888833|NCT02279641|181641015|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|119.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|114.0|125.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effect for treatment and random effects for subjects. GLMSRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||125|114|
90888834|NCT02279641|181641016|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|87.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.3|96.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effect for treatment and random effects for subjects. GLMSRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||96.6|79.3|
90888835|NCT02279641|181641016|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|193.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|177.0|210.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effect for treatment and random effects for subjects. GLMSRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||210|177|
90888836|NCT02279641|181641016|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|105.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.4|117.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effect for treatment and random effects for subjects. GLMSRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||117|94.4|
90888837|NCT02279641|181641019|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|98.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|87.7|111.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effect for treatment and random effects for subjects. GLMSRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||111|87.7|
91040734|NCT03086135|181966242|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Speech in quiet at 50dB SPL with Osia at 6 months vs reference device BP110 on softband att visit 1.||||0.0051
90888838|NCT02279641|181641020|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|95.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|88.4|104.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effect for treatment and random effects for subjects. GLMSRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||104|88.4|
90888839|NCT02279641|181641021|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|95.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|88.4|104.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effect for treatment and random effects for subjects. GLMSRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||104|88.4|
91040735|NCT03086135|181966242|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Speech in quiet at 65dB SPL with Osia at 6 months vs reference device BP110 on softband att visit 1.||||0.021
91040736|NCT03086135|181966242|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Speech in quiet at 80dB SPL with Osia at 6 months vs reference device BP110 on softband att visit 1.||||0.56
91040737|NCT03086135|181966242|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Speech in quiet at 50dB SPL with Osia at 12 months vs reference device BP110 on softband att visit 1.||||<0.0001
91040738|NCT03086135|181966242|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Speech in quiet at 65dB SPL with Osia at 12 months vs reference device BP110 on softband att visit 1.||||<0.0001
91040739|NCT03086135|181966242|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||Speech in quiet at 80dB SPL with Osia at 12 months vs reference device BP110 on softband att visit 1.||||0.041
91040740|NCT03086135|181966243|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Adaptive Speech Recognition in Noise with Osia at 4 weeks vs reference device BP110 on softband at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91040741|NCT03086135|181966243|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Adaptive Speech Recognition in Noise with Osia at 3 months vs reference device BP110 on softband at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91040742|NCT03086135|181966243|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Adaptive Speech Recognition in Noise with Osia at 6 months vs reference device BP110 on softband at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91040743|NCT03086135|181966243|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Adaptive Speech Recognition in Noise with Osia at 12 months vs reference device BP110 on softband at visit 1.||||<0.0001
91040744|NCT01023061|181966255|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.74|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||< 0.01
91040745|NCT01863186|181966308|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0166|||||||Pattern Mixture Model|||Due to the amount of missing data a pattern mixture model (or Jump to Reference) was utilized. The SOWS-Gossop total scores were log transformed. Each subjects available data Days 1-7 were included. The datasets created by the pattern mixture model were analyzed using a Mixed Model Repeated Measures model that included fixed effects for treatment group, baseline, sex, study day (1-7), and treatment group-by-day interaction. The overall estimate for each treatment group were compared.||||0.0166
91040746|NCT01863186|181966308|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0033|||||||Pattern Mixture Model|||Due to the amount of missing data a pattern mixture model (or Jump to Reference) was utilized. The SOWS-Gossop total scores were log transformed. Each subjects available data Days 1-7 were included. The datasets created by the pattern mixture model were analyzed using a Mixed Model Repeated Measures model that included fixed effects for treatment group, baseline, sex, study day (1-7), and treatment group-by-day interaction. The overall estimate for each treatment group were compared.||||0.0033
91040747|NCT04402489|181966341|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference vs Placebo|9.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.35||0.496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.52|38.12|||Mixed-effect model for repeated measures|||Change from BL at Week 26 (DBT EOT) - lower dose||38.12|-18.52|0.496
91040748|NCT04402489|181966341|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference vs Placebo|22.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.38||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.68|51.09|||Mixed-effect model for repeated measures|||Change from BL at Week 26 (DBT EOT) - higher dose||51.09|-5.68|0.116
91040749|NCT04402489|181966342|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference vs Placebo|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|-0.44|||Mixed-effect model for repeated measures|||||-0.44|-1.23|< 0.001
91040750|NCT04402489|181966342|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference vs Placebo|-1.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|-1.03|||Mixed-effect model for repeated measures|||||-1.03|-1.83|< 0.001
91040751|NCT04402489|181966343|SUPERIORITY|Negative binomial regression model with log link was used.|Incident rate ratio|0.76||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.16|||Refer to comments below:|Negative binomial regression model with log link was used for other method.||||1.16|0.49|0.199
91040752|NCT04402489|181966343|SUPERIORITY|Negative binomial regression model with log link was used.|Incident rate ratio|0.55||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.84|||Refer to comments below:|Negative binomial regression model with log link was used for other method.||||0.84|0.36|0.006
91040753|NCT04402489|181966344|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference vs Placebo|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.33|||mixed-effect model for repeated measures|||||0.33|-0.62|0.55
91040754|NCT04402489|181966344|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference vs Placebo|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.25|||mixed-effect model for repeated measures|||||0.25|-0.72|0.343
91040755|NCT04402489|181966345|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.805||||0.642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.323|2.007|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.007|0.323|0.642
91040756|NCT04402489|181966345|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.412||||0.431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.598|3.336|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.336|0.598|0.431
91040757|NCT04402489|181966346|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference vs Placebo|0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|1.82|||mixed-effect model for repeated measures|||||1.82|-0.08|0.072
91040758|NCT04402489|181966346|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference vs Placebo|0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.51|||mixed-effect model for repeated measures|||||1.51|-0.4|0.252
91040759|NCT05223868|181966352|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.002||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose versus (vs) placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||=0.002
91040760|NCT05223868|181966352|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91040761|NCT05223868|181966352|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91040762|NCT05223868|181966352|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91040763|NCT05223868|181966352|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91040764|NCT05223868|181966353|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||||||<0.001
91040765|NCT05223868|181966353|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||||||<0.001
91040766|NCT05223868|181966353|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||||||<0.001
91040767|NCT05223868|181966353|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||||||<0.001
91040768|NCT05223868|181966353|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||||||<0.001
91040769|NCT05223868|181966354|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.002||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||=0.002
90888840|NCT02279641|181641022|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|101.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.7|117.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effect for treatment and random effects for subjects. GLMSRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||117|86.7|
90888841|NCT01682837|181641023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.07
90888842|NCT01682837|181641024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.20
90888843|NCT01682837|181641025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.16
90888844|NCT01682837|181641026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.70
90888845|NCT01682837|181641027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.42
90888846|NCT01682837|181641028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.10
90888847|NCT01682837|181641029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.64
90888848|NCT01682837|181641030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.18
90888849|NCT01682837|181641031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.12
90888850|NCT03021187|181641034|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the in-trial observation period. The estimated treatment effect includes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (treatment policy estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-0.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.3||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0 (superiority).|Pattern mixture model||Oral semaglutide 3mg - Placebo|The analysis was based on a pattern mixture model using multiple imputation to handle missing week 26 data, assuming that data were missing at random within the groups used for imputation. The imputed data sets were analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, strata, interaction strata and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c value as covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete data sets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||-0.3|-0.7|< 0.0001
90888851|NCT03021187|181641034|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the in-trial observation period. The estimated treatment effect includes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (treatment policy estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-0.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.7||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0 (superiority).|Pattern mixture model||Oral semaglutide 7 mg - Placebo|The analysis was based on a pattern mixture model using multiple imputation to handle missing week 26 data, assuming that data were missing at random within the groups used for imputation. The imputed data sets were analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment, strata, interaction strata and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c value as covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete data sets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||-0.7|-1.1|< 0.0001
90890166|NCT03667053|181644211|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value was \<0.0001 at all time points (10, 15, 20 and 30 minutes)|ANOVA|||Change from baseline in plasma glucose at 30, 20, 15, and 10 minutes after investigational product injection was calculated using nominal sampling times and analyzed using an analysis of variance model with treatment, age group and injection site for each endpoint. Testing followed an a priori defined hierarchical inferential test order, proceeding until the first failure to reject the null hypothesis comparing dasiglucagon versus placebo.||||<0.0001
91040770|NCT05223868|181966354|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91040771|NCT05223868|181966354|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||=0.001
91040772|NCT05223868|181966354|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91040773|NCT05223868|181966354|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91040774|NCT05223868|181966355|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.021||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||=0.021
91040775|NCT05223868|181966355|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91040776|NCT05223868|181966355|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.038||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||=0.038
91040777|NCT05223868|181966355|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91040778|NCT05223868|181966355|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91040779|NCT05223868|181966356|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.003||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||=0.003
91040780|NCT05223868|181966356|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91040781|NCT05223868|181966356|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91040782|NCT05223868|181966356|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91040783|NCT05223868|181966356|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91040784|NCT05223868|181966357|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.006||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||=0.006
91040785|NCT05223868|181966357|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91040786|NCT05223868|181966357|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.009||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||=0.009
91040787|NCT05223868|181966357|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91040788|NCT05223868|181966357|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91040789|NCT05223868|181966358|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||||||<0.001
91040790|NCT05223868|181966358|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||||||<0.001
91040791|NCT05223868|181966358|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||||||<0.001
91040792|NCT05223868|181966358|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||||||<0.001
91040793|NCT05223868|181966358|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||||||<0.001
91040794|NCT05223868|181966359|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||||||<0.001
91040795|NCT05223868|181966359|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||||||<0.001
91040796|NCT05223868|181966359|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||||||<0.001
90951949|NCT00477490|181781624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.9303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.221|0.242||The a priori statistically significant difference versus placebo is p≤0.05.|ANCOVA|Treatment difference and 95% CI were adjusted for age, absence/presence of nocturnal polyuria, and baseline number of nocturnal voids.||||0.242|-0.221|0.9303
90888852|NCT03021187|181641034|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the in-trial observation period. The estimated treatment effect includes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (treatment policy estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-1.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-1.0||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0 (superiority).|Pattern mixture model||Oral semaglutide 14 mg - Placebo|The analysis was based on a pattern mixture model using multiple imputation to handle missing week 26 data, assuming that data were missing at random within the groups used for imputation. The imputed data sets were analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment, strata, interaction strata and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c value as covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete data sets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||-1.0|-1.4|< 0.0001
90951950|NCT00477490|181781624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.3104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.353|0.112||The a priori statistically significant difference versus placebo is p≤0.05.|ANCOVA|Treatment difference and 95% CI were adjusted for age, absence/presence of nocturnal polyuria, and baseline number of nocturnal voids.||||0.112|-0.353|0.3104
90951951|NCT00477490|181781624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.277||||0.0207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.511|-0.042||The a priori statistically significant difference versus placebo is p≤0.05.|ANCOVA|Treatment difference and 95% CI were adjusted for age, absence/presence of nocturnal polyuria, and baseline number of nocturnal voids.||The trial was to be declared positive only if in the 100 μg group, a statistically significant positive effect as compared to placebo on both co-primaries was demonstrated. And only then, the next higher dose group (i.e., 50 μg) could be claimed superior to placebo, if it showed a statistically significant improvement over placebo on both co-primaries.||-0.042|-0.511|0.0207
90951952|NCT00477490|181781624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.613|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.848|-0.378||The a priori statistically significant difference versus placebo is p≤0.05.|ANCOVA|Treatment difference and 95% CI were adjusted for age, absence/presence of nocturnal polyuria, and baseline number of nocturnal voids.||The trial was to be declared positive only if in the 100 μg group, a statistically significant positive effect as compared to placebo on both co-primaries was demonstrated. And only then, the next higher dose group (i.e., 50 μg) could be claimed superior to placebo, if it showed a statistically significant improvement over placebo on both co-primaries.||-0.378|-0.848|<0.0001
90951953|NCT00477490|181781625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.017||||0.942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.647|1.598||The a priori statistically significant difference versus placebo is p≤0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment difference and 95% CI were adjusted for age, absence/presence of nocturnal polyuria, and baseline number of nocturnal voids||||1.598|0.647|0.9420
90951954|NCT00477490|181781625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.147||||0.5527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.729|1.807||The a priori statistically significant difference versus placebo is p≤0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment difference and 95% CI were adjusted for age, absence/presence of nocturnal polyuria, and baseline number of nocturnal voids.||||1.807|0.729|0.5527
90951955|NCT00477490|181781625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.296||||0.2662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.821|2.05||The a priori statistically significant difference versus placebo is p≤0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment difference and 95% CI were adjusted for age, absence/presence of nocturnal polyuria, and baseline number of nocturnal voids.||The trial was to be declared positive only if in the 100 μg group, a statistically significant positive effect as compared to placebo on both co-primaries was demonstrated. And only then, the next higher dose group (i.e., 50 μg) could be claimed superior to placebo, if it showed a statistically significant improvement over placebo on both co-primaries.||2.050|0.821|0.2662
90985349|NCT01380093|181856127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.0||||0.0251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-0.4|-5.6|0.0251
90888853|NCT03021187|181641034|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The estimated treatment effect excludes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (hypothetical estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-0.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.4||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0 (superiority).|MMRM||Oral semaglutide 3 mg - Placebo|The analysis was based on a mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM) that assumed data to be missing at random. As dependent variables, the MMRM model included all post-baseline values collected at scheduled visits up to and including week 26. The independent effects were treatment, region, strata and interaction strata as categorical fixed effects and the baseline HbA1c value as a covariate, all nested within visit, and an unstructured residual covariance matrix.||-0.4|-0.7|<0.0001
90888854|NCT03021187|181641034|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The estimated treatment effect excludes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (hypothetical estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-1.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.8||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0 (superiority).|MMRM||Oral semaglutide 7 mg - Placebo|The analysis was based on a MMRM that assumed data to be missing at random. As dependent variables, the MMRM model included all post-baseline values collected at scheduled visits up to and including week 26. The independent effects were treatment, region, strata and the interaction strata as categorical fixed effects and the baseline HbA1c value as a covariate, all nested within visit, and an unstructured residual covariance matrix.||-0.8|-1.2|<0.0001
90888855|NCT03021187|181641034|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The estimated treatment effect excludes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (hypothetical estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-1.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-1.2||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0 (superiority).|MMRM||Oral semaglutide 14 mg - Placebo|The analysis was based on a MMRM that assumed data to be missing at random. As dependent variables, the MMRM model included all post-baseline values collected at scheduled visits up to and including week 26. The independent effects were treatment, region, strata and the interaction strata as categorical fixed effects and the baseline HbA1c value as a covariate, all nested within visit, and an unstructured residual covariance matrix.||-1.2|-1.6|<0.0001
90888856|NCT03021187|181641035|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the in-trial observation period. The estimated treatment effect includes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (treatment policy estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-0.9||||0.0392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.0||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0 (superiority).|Pattern mixture model||Oral semaglutide 3 mg - Placebo|The analysis was based on a pattern mixture model using multiple imputation to handle missing week 26 data, assuming that data were missing at random within the groups used for imputation. The imputed data sets were analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment, strata, interaction strata and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline body weight value as covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete data sets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||-0.0|-1.8|0.0392
90888857|NCT03021187|181641035|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the in-trial observation period. The estimated treatment effect includes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (treatment policy estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-2.0||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-1.0||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0 (superiority).|Pattern mixture model||Oral semaglutide 7 mg - Placebo|The analysis was based on a pattern mixture model using multiple imputation to handle missing week 26 data, assuming that data were missing at random within the groups used for imputation. The imputed data sets were analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment, strata, interaction strata and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline body weight value as covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete data sets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||-1.0|-3.0|0.0001
91040797|NCT05223868|181966359|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||||||<0.001
91040798|NCT05223868|181966359|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||||||<0.001
91040799|NCT05223868|181966360|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||||||<0.001
91040800|NCT05223868|181966360|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||||||<0.001
91040801|NCT05223868|181966360|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||||||<0.001
91040802|NCT05223868|181966360|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||||||<0.001
91040803|NCT05223868|181966360|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||||||<0.001
90888858|NCT03021187|181641035|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the in-trial observation period. The estimated treatment effect includes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (treatment policy estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-3.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|-2.3||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0 (superiority).|Pattern mixture model||Oral semaglutide 14 mg - Placebo|The analysis was based on a pattern mixture model using multiple imputation to handle missing week 26 data, assuming that data were missing at random within the groups used for imputation. The imputed data sets were analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment, strata, interaction strata and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline body weight value as covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete data sets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||-2.3|-4.2|<0.0001
90888859|NCT03021187|181641035|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The estimated treatment effect excludes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (hypothetical estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-0.9||||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.2||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0 (superiority).|MMRM||Oral semaglutide 3 mg - Placebo|The analysis was based on a mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM) that assumed data to be missing at random. As dependent variables, the MMRM model included all post-baseline values collected at scheduled visits up to and including week 26. The independent effects were treatment, region, strata and interaction strata as categorical fixed effects and the baseline HbA1c value as a covariate, all nested within visit, and an unstructured residual covariance matrix.||-0.2|-1.6|0.0111
90888860|NCT03021187|181641035|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The estimated treatment effect excludes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (hypothetical estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-2.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-1.8||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0 (superiority).|MMRM||Oral semaglutide 7 mg - Placebo|The analysis was based on a MMRM that assumed data to be missing at random. As dependent variables, the MMRM model included all post-baseline values collected at scheduled visits up to and including week 26. The independent effects were treatment, region, strata and the interaction strata as categorical fixed effects and the baseline body weight value as a covariate, all nested within visit, and an unstructured residual covariance matrix.||-1.8|-3.2|<0.0001
90888861|NCT03021187|181641035|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The estimated treatment effect excludes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (hypothetical estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-3.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|-3.0||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0 (superiority).|MMRM||Oral semaglutide 14 mg - Placebo|The analysis was based on a MMRM that assumed data to be missing at random. As dependent variables, the MMRM model included all post-baseline values collected at scheduled visits up to and including week 26. The independent effects were treatment, region, strata and the interaction strata as categorical fixed effects and the baseline body weight value as a covariate, all nested within visit, and an unstructured residual covariance matrix.||-3.0|-4.4|<0.0001
90888862|NCT03021187|181641055|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.0627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.02||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox|||Time to initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment, strata, interaction strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Withdrawal for any reason or lost to follow-up contributed to the analysis as events (initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication). Censoring time was one day before planned end of treatment.||1.02|0.53|0.0627
90888863|NCT03021187|181641055|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63||||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.89||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox|||Time to initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment, strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Withdrawal for any reason or lost to follow-up contributed to the analysis as events (initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication). Censoring time was one day before planned end of treatment.||0.89|0.44|0.0083
90985350|NCT01380093|181856128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-15.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.9|-11.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-11.0|-19.9|<0.0001
91040804|NCT05223868|181966361|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.006||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||=0.006
91040805|NCT05223868|181966361|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91040806|NCT05223868|181966361|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.005||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||=0.005
91040807|NCT05223868|181966361|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91040808|NCT05223868|181966361|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90888864|NCT03021187|181641055|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.81||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox|||Time to initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment, strata, interaction strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Withdrawal for any reason or lost to follow-up contributed to the analysis as events (initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication). Censoring time was one day before planned end of treatment.||0.81|0.40|0.0019
90888865|NCT03021187|181641056|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.08||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox|||Time to initiation of rescue medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment, strata, interaction strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Censoring time was one day before last day on trial product.||1.08|0.53|0.1210
90888866|NCT03021187|181641056|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.48||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.74||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox|||Time to initiation of rescue medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment, strata, interaction strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Censoring time was one day before last day on trial product.||0.74|0.32|0.0007
90888867|NCT03021187|181641056|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.48||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.73||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox|||Time to initiation of rescue medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment, strata, interaction strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Censoring time was one day before last day on trial product.||0.73|0.31|0.0006
90888868|NCT01664078|181641071|OTHER|The Intent-to-Treat (ITT) analysis set includes all subjects who had the aortic bifurcate device introduced into the body. This ITT analysis set will be used for all safety and clinical assessment endpoints.||||||0.47|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.47
90888869|NCT03351049|181641084|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Chi-squared|||Compare the effectiveness of reactive support surfaces with and without low air loss in preventing pressure injuries||||0.8
90888870|NCT01344460|181641090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage difference|18.3|||<|0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.2||Not Appropriate, upper intervals were not used in the statistical analysis and were not of interest for the study.||McNemar|Cluster adjusted McNemar||Majority reader; Superiority analysis; The percentage difference was calculated as gadobutrol-enhanced minus unenhanced MRA.|||15.2|<0.000
90888871|NCT01344460|181641090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage difference|16.4|||<|0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.2||Not Appropriate, upper intervals were not used in the statistical analysis and were not of interest for the study.||McNemar|Cluster adjusted McNemar||Blinded reader 1; Superiority analysis; The percentage difference was calculated as gadobutrol-enhanced minus unenhanced MRA.|||13.2|<0.000
90888872|NCT01344460|181641090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage difference|24.0|||<|0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.5||Not Appropriate, upper intervals were not used in the statistical analysis and were not of interest for the study.||McNemar|Cluster adjusted McNemar||Blinded reader 2; Superiority analysis; The percentage difference was calculated as gadobutrol-enhanced minus unenhanced MRA.|||20.5|<0.000
90888873|NCT01344460|181641090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage difference|17.4|||<|0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.3||Not Appropriate, upper intervals were not used in the statistical analysis and were not of interest for the study.||McNemar|||Blinded reader 3; Superiority analysis; The percentage difference was calculated as gadobutrol-enhanced minus unenhanced MRA.|||14.3|<0.000
90888874|NCT01344460|181641090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage difference|25.6|||<|0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.9||Not Appropriate, upper intervals were not used in the statistical analysis and were not of interest for the study.||McNemar|||Clinical investigator; Superiority analysis; The percentage difference was calculated as gadobutrol-enhanced minus unenhanced MRA.|||21.9|<0.000
90888875|NCT01344460|181641091|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|using a -7.5% non-inferiority margin|Percentage difference|6.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2||Not Appropriate, upper intervals were not used in the statistical analysis and were not of interest for the study.||The cluster-adjusted two-sided 95% CI|||Majority reader; The percentage difference was calculated as gadobutrol-enhanced minus unenhanced MRA.|||-2.2|
90888876|NCT01344460|181641091|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|using a -7.5% non-inferiority margin|Percentage difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7||Not Appropriate, upper intervals were not used in the statistical analysis and were not of interest for the study.||The cluster-adjusted two-sided 95% CI|||Blinded reader 1; the percentage difference was calculated as gadobutrol-enhanced minus unenhanced MRA.|||-9.7|
90888877|NCT01344460|181641091|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|using a -7.5% non-inferiority margin|Percentage difference|14.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.1||Not Appropriate, upper intervals were not used in the statistical analysis and were not of interest for the study.||The cluster-adjusted two-sided 95% CI|||Blinded reader 2; the percentage difference was calculated as gadobutrol-enhanced minus unenhanced MRA.|||5.1|
90888878|NCT01344460|181641091|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|using a -7.5% non-inferiority margin|Percentage difference|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8||Not Appropriate, upper intervals were not used in the statistical analysis and were not of interest for the study.||The cluster-adjusted two-sided 95% CI|||Blinded reader 3; the percentage difference was calculated as gadobutrol-enhanced minus unenhanced MRA.|||-5.8|
90888879|NCT01344460|181641091|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|using a -7.5% non-inferiority margin|Percentage difference|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.7||Not Appropriate, upper intervals were not used in the statistical analysis and were not of interest for the study.||The cluster-adjusted two-sided 95% CI|||Clinical investigator; the percentage difference was calculated as gadobutrol-enhanced minus unenhanced MRA.|||11.7|
90888880|NCT01344460|181641092|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|using a -7.5% non-inferiority margin|Percentage difference|9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0||Not Appropriate, upper intervals were not used in the statistical analysis and were not of interest for the study.||The cluster-adjusted two-sided 95% CI|||Majority reader; The percentage difference was calculated as gadobutrol-enhanced minus unenhanced MRA.|||7.0|
90888881|NCT01344460|181641092|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|using a -7.5% non-inferiority margin|Percentage difference|11.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.1||Not Appropriate, upper intervals were not used in the statistical analysis and were not of interest for the study.||The cluster-adjusted two-sided 95% CI|||Blinded reader 1; the percentage difference was calculated as gadobutrol-enhanced minus unenhanced MRA.|||9.1|
90888882|NCT01344460|181641092|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|using a -7.5% non-inferiority margin|Percentage difference|9.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.6||Not Appropriate, upper intervals were not used in the statistical analysis and were not of interest for the study.||The cluster-adjusted two-sided 95% CI|||Blinded reader 2; the percentage difference was calculated as gadobutrol-enhanced minus unenhanced MRA.|||7.6|
90888883|NCT01344460|181641092|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|using a -7.5% non-inferiority margin|Percentage difference|13.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.2||Not Appropriate, upper intervals were not used in the statistical analysis and were not of interest for the study.||The cluster-adjusted two-sided 95% CI|||Blinded reader 3; the percentage difference was calculated as gadobutrol-enhanced minus unenhanced MRA.|||11.2|
90888884|NCT01344460|181641092|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|using a -7.5% non-inferiority margin|Percentage difference|13.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0||Not Appropriate, upper intervals were not used in the statistical analysis and were not of interest for the study.||The cluster-adjusted two-sided 95% CI|||Clinical investigator; the percentage difference was calculated as gadobutrol-enhanced minus unenhanced MRA.|||11.0|
90888885|NCT01344460|181641093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage|54.6|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|46.2||||One sided 95% confidence interval|||Majority reader|||46.2|
90888886|NCT01344460|181641093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage|51.6|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|43.6||||One sided 95% confidence interval|||Blinded Reader 1|||43.6|
90888887|NCT01344460|181641093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage|54.4|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|45.5||||One sided 95% confidence interval|||Blinded Reader 2|||45.5|
90888888|NCT01344460|181641093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage|53.4|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|44.8||||One sided 95% confidence interval|||Blinded Reader 3|||44.8|
90888889|NCT01344460|181641093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage|71.3|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|64.7||||One sided 95% confidence interval|||Clinical investigator|||64.7|
90888890|NCT01344460|181641094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage|95.9|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|94.9||||One sided 95% confidence interval|||Majority reader|||94.9|
90888891|NCT01344460|181641094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage|95.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|93.8||||One sided 95% confidence interval|||Blinded Reader 1|||93.8|
90888892|NCT01344460|181641094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage|96.2|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|95.2||||One sided 95% confidence interval|||Blinded Reader 2|||95.2|
90888893|NCT01344460|181641094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage|95.8|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|94.8||||One sided 95% confidence interval|||Blinded Reader 3|||94.8|
90888894|NCT01344460|181641094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage|98.4|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|97.8||||One sided 95% confidence interval|||Clinical investigator|||97.8|
90888895|NCT01344460|181641097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diameter difference|0.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.28|||||||||Mean Difference|||CTA Minus Unenhanced MRA for blinded Reader on vessel DIA at normal point||||
90888896|NCT01344460|181641097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diameter difference|-0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.14|||||||||Mean Difference|||CTA minus Gadobutrol-Enhanced MRA for blinded reader on vessel DIA at normal point||||
90888897|NCT01344460|181641097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|0.41|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.15|||||||||Mean Difference|||CTA minus Unenhanced MRA for blinded reader on vessel DIA at narrowest point||||
90888898|NCT01344460|181641097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diameter difference|-0.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.01|||||||||Mean Difference|||CTA minus Gadobutrol-Enhanced MRA for blinded reader on vessel DIA at narrowest point||||
90888899|NCT02120924|181641126|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was established if the 90% CI for the ratio of Test/Reference means was contained within the interval \[0.80, 1.25\].|Mean Difference (Net)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.05|||||Bioequivalence was established if the 90% CI for the ratio of Test/Reference means was contained within the interval \[0.80, 1.25\].|The primary endpoint was the percent change from baseline to Week 12 in the inflammatory (papules and pustules) lesion counts in PP population.||1.05|0.92|
90888900|NCT02120924|181641127|EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided, continuity-corrected, 90% CI on the Test-to-Reference difference for the proportion of subjects with treatment success on the IGE was constructed.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.044|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.028|0.116|||||Bioequivalence was established if the 90% CI for the difference was contained within the interval \[-0.20, +0.20\].|||0.116|-0.028|
90888901|NCT01884350|181641128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-0.24||||0.8117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|1.7||P-value (two-sided) corresponds to the two-sample t-tests for difference in percentage of adherence at Week 24|t-test, 2 sided|||||1.7|-2.18|0.8117
90888902|NCT01884350|181641129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value is from a paired t-test comparing percent adherence at 12 and 24 Weeks. Only participants with available data at both Study Days 85 and 169 are included.|paired t-test|||Percent adherence at 12 Weeks v. Percent adherence at 24 Weeks||||<0.0001
90888903|NCT01884350|181641129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value is from a paired t-test comparing percent adherence at 12 and 24 Weeks. Only participants with available data at both Study Days 85 and 169 are included.|paired t-test|||Percent adherence at 12 Weeks v. Percent adherence at 24 Weeks||||<0.0001
90888904|NCT01884350|181641130|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|F-test p-value is obtained from the one-way ANOVA model||||||0.8707|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.8707
90888905|NCT01884350|181641130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.6399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.88|4.68||P-values are obtained from the Cochran t-test for pairwise comparison between groups (two-sided).|t-test, 2 sided|||||4.68|-2.88|0.6399
90888906|NCT01884350|181641130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.9616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.45|3.29||P-values are obtained from the Cochran t-test for pairwise comparison between groups (two-sided).|t-test, 2 sided|||||3.29|-3.45|0.9616
90888907|NCT01884350|181641130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.82||||0.6341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|4.24||P-values are obtained from the Cochran t-test for pairwise comparison between groups (two-sided).|t-test, 2 sided|||||4.24|-2.60|0.6341
90888908|NCT01884350|181641131|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1924||||||\<=2 Drink/Day Average vs None|Wald Chi-square test|||||||0.1924
90888909|NCT01884350|181641131|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0305||||||\>=3 Drink/Day Average vs None|Wald Chi-square test|||||||0.0305
90888910|NCT01884350|181641131|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0107||||||Mini-mental state examination score|Wald Chi-square test|||||||0.0107
90888911|NCT01884350|181641131|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6982||||||Higher managerial, administrative and professional occupations vs UKSOC1|Wald Chi-square test|||||||0.6982
90888912|NCT01884350|181641131|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7277||||||Higher professional occupations vs UKSOC1|Wald Chi-square test|||||||0.7277
90888913|NCT01884350|181641131|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7581||||||Intermediate occupations vs UKSOC1|Wald Chi-square test|||||||0.7581
90888914|NCT01884350|181641131|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2328||||||Large employers and higher managerial and adm. occupations vs UKSOC1|Wald Chi-square test|||||||0.2328
90888915|NCT01884350|181641131|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7507||||||Lower managerial, administrative and professional occupations vs UKSOC1|Wald Chi-square test|||||||0.7507
90888916|NCT01884350|181641131|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0091||||||Lower supervisory and technical occupations vs UKSOC1|Wald Chi-square test|||||||0.0091
90888917|NCT01884350|181641131|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.673||||||Never worked and long-term unemployed vs UKSOC1|Wald Chi-square test|||||||0.6730
90888918|NCT01884350|181641131|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0117||||||Routine occupations vs UKSOC1|Wald Chi-square test|||||||0.0117
90888919|NCT01884350|181641131|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.191||||||Semi-routine occupations vs UKSOC1|Wald Chi-square test|||||||0.1910
90888920|NCT01884350|181641131|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9559||||||Paroxysmal vs Persistent Atrial Fibrillation|Wald Chi-square test|||||||0.9559
90888921|NCT01884350|181641131|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0264||||||Permanent vs Persistant Atrial Fibrillation|Wald Chi-square test|||||||0.0264
90888922|NCT01884350|181641131|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1087||||||\<=2 Drink/Day Average vs None|Wald Chi-square test|||||||0.1087
90888923|NCT01884350|181641131|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0679||||||\>=3 Drink/Day Average vs None|Wald Chi-square test|||||||0.0679
90888924|NCT01884350|181641131|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2128||||||Paroxysmal vs Persistant Atrial Fibrillation|Wald Chi-square test|||||||0.2128
90888925|NCT01884350|181641131|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3739||||||Permanent vs Persistant Atrial Fibrillation|Wald Chi-square test|||||||0.3739
90888926|NCT01884350|181641131|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.843||||||VKA status: Naive vs. Non-Naive|Wald Chi-square test|||||||0.843
90888927|NCT01221597|181641163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0005
90888928|NCT01221597|181641164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0451|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0451
90888929|NCT01221597|181641165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<.0001
90888930|NCT01221597|181641166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0268|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0268
90888931|NCT01221597|181641167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0800
90888932|NCT01221597|181641168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3085|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.3085
90888933|NCT01221597|181641169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6321|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.6321
90888934|NCT01221597|181641170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7965|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.7965
90888935|NCT01221597|181641171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
90888936|NCT00148343|181641175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|2.75|||||Mixed model analysis. Slope is in reference to treatment x time interaction for full 36 weeks|||2.75|-0.2|
90888937|NCT00148343|181641176|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-5.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.54|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.05|-0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis||Slope is in reference to from baseline to end of follow-up at 36 weeks.|||-0.09|-10.05|<0.05
90888938|NCT00148343|181641177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.35|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.096|14.716|||Mixed Models Analysis||Slope is in reference to start of treatment to end of follow up at 36 weeks|||14.716|-14.096|<0.05
90888939|NCT00148343|181641178|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.53|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.79|8.89|||||Mixed models analysis. Slope refers to baseline to final follow up at 36 weeks|||8.89|-12.79|
90888940|NCT00148343|181641179|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.045|0.057|||Mixed Models Analysis||Slope is in reference to baseline to end of follow-up at 36 weeks|||0.057|-0.045|<0.05
90888941|NCT04153409|181641180|SUPERIORITY|No formal sample size estimation was undertaken due to the exploratory nature of the study. Statistical comparisons of the 7 mean changes from baseline to different time-points (0-24 hours) were undertaken in one mixed effects model of analysis taking into account the cross-over nature of the study and the multiple time points within each period to explore a possible treatment effect in this small proof of concept study. Change from baseline at 0.5 hours is presented in this section|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.9733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|1.19||No adjustment for multiple comparisons has been made due to the exploratory nature of the study|Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is Active-Placebo|Change from baseline at 0.5 hours||1.19|-1.23|0.9733
91040809|NCT05223868|181966362|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.317||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||=0.317
91040810|NCT05223868|181966362|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.012||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||=0.012
91040811|NCT05223868|181966362|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.038||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||=0.038
91040812|NCT05223868|181966362|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.006||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||=0.006
91040813|NCT05223868|181966362|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.011||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||=0.011
91040814|NCT05223868|181966363|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||=0.001
91040815|NCT05223868|181966363|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91040816|NCT05223868|181966363|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91040817|NCT05223868|181966363|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91040818|NCT05223868|181966363|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91040819|NCT05223868|181966364|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.002||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||Physical Function||||=0.002
91040820|NCT05223868|181966364|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||Physical Function||||<0.001
91040821|NCT05223868|181966364|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.002||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||Physical Function||||=0.002
91040822|NCT05223868|181966364|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||Physical Function||||<0.001
91040823|NCT05223868|181966364|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||Physical Function||||<0.001
91040824|NCT05223868|181966364|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.251||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||Anxiety||||=0.251
91040825|NCT05223868|181966364|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.087||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||Anxiety||||=0.087
91040826|NCT05223868|181966364|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.205||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||Anxiety||||=0.205
91040827|NCT05223868|181966364|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.082||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||Anxiety||||=0.082
91040828|NCT05223868|181966364|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.01||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||Anxiety||||=0.010
91040829|NCT05223868|181966364|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.357||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||Depression||||=0.357
91040830|NCT05223868|181966364|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.222||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||Depression||||=0.222
91040831|NCT05223868|181966364|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.987||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||Depression||||=0.987
91040832|NCT05223868|181966364|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.39||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||Depression||||=0.390
91040833|NCT05223868|181966364|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.38||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||Depression||||=0.380
91040834|NCT05223868|181966364|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.349||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||Fatigue||||=0.349
91040835|NCT05223868|181966364|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.553||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||Fatigue||||=0.553
91040836|NCT05223868|181966364|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.318||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||Fatigue||||=0.318
91040837|NCT05223868|181966364|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.207||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||Fatigue||||=0.207
91040838|NCT05223868|181966364|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.117||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||Fatigue||||=0.117
91040839|NCT05223868|181966364|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.156||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||Sleep Disturbance||||=0.156
90888942|NCT04153409|181641180|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.42||||0.4942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|0.79||No adjustment for multiple comparisons has been made due to the exploratory nature of the study|Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is Active-Placebo|Change from baseline at 1 hour. The change from baseline at 1 hour was extracted from the mixed model analysis including all time points.||0.79|-1.64|0.4942
90888943|NCT04153409|181641180|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.25||||0.6866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|0.97||No adjustment for multiple comparisons has been made due to the exploratory nature of the study|Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is Active-Placebo|Change from baseline at 1.5 hours. The change from baseline at 1.5 hours was extracted from the mixed model analysis including all time points.||0.97|-1.46|0.6866
90888944|NCT04153409|181641180|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.89||||0.1488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|0.32||No adjustment for multiple comparisons has been made due to the exploratory nature of the study|Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is Active-Placebo|Change from baseline at 2 hours. The change from baseline at 2 hours was extracted from the mixed model analysis including all time points.||0.32|-2.11|0.1488
90888945|NCT04153409|181641180|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.36||||0.5644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|0.86||No adjustment for multiple comparisons has been made due to the exploratory nature of the study|Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is Active-Placebo|Change from baseline at 4 hours. The change from baseline at 4 hours was extracted from the mixed model analysis including all time points.||0.86|-1.57|0.5644
90888946|NCT04153409|181641180|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.2561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|0.51||No adjustment for multiple comparisons has been made due to the exploratory nature of the study|Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is Active-Placebo|Change from baseline at 8 hours, The change from baseline at 8 hours was extracted from the mixed model analysis including all time points.||0.51|-1.91|0.2561
90888947|NCT04153409|181641180|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.9875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|1.2||No adjustment for multiple comparisons has been made due to the exploratory nature of the study|Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is Active-Placebo|Change from baseline at 24 hours. The change from baseline at 24 hours was extracted from the mixed model analysis including all time points.||1.20|-1.22|0.9875
90888948|NCT00574587|181641189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||95% Confidence interval|54.0|||<|0.1|TWO_SIDED|20.0|34.0|74.0|||Simon's Mimimax 2-stage design|||||74|34|<0.10
90888949|NCT00121238|181641221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.27
90888950|NCT01380327|181641225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.7||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated value \& associated CI is the ratio of change (baseline to post-baseline) in placebo group (denominator=1.18) vs. high dose group (numerator=1.98).|Analysis compared cockroach SLIT -high dose, Placebo - high dose||2.3|1.2|0.001
90888951|NCT01380327|181641225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|3.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated value \& associated CI is the ratio of change (baseline to post-baseline) in placebo group (denominator=1.18) vs. low dose group (numerator=2.69).|Analysis compared cockroach SLIT - low dose, placebo - low dose||3.1|1.7|<0.0001
90888952|NCT01380327|181641226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated value \& associated CI is the ratio of change (baseline to post-baseline) in placebo group (denominator=1.04) vs. high dose group (numerator=1.32).|Analysis compared cockroach SLIT - high dose, placebo - high dose||1.4|1.1|<0.0001
90888953|NCT01380327|181641226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated value \& associated CI is the ratio of change (baseline to post-baseline) in placebo group (denominator=1.04) vs. low dose group (numerator=1.14).|Analysis compared cockroach SLIT - low dose, placebo - low dose||1.2|1.0|0.11
90888954|NCT01380327|181641227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.5||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated value and associated CI is the ratio of change (baseline to post-baseline) in placebo group (denominator=1.03) vs. high dose group (numerator=1.57).|Analysis compared cockroach SLIT - high dose, placebo - high dose||2.4|1.0|0.06
90888955|NCT01380327|181641227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.4||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated value \& associated CI is the ratio of change (baseline to post-baseline) in placebo group (denominator=1.03) vs. low dose group (numerator=1.45).|Analysis compared cockroach SLIT - low dose, placebo - low dose||2.2|0.9|0.13
90888956|NCT01380327|181641228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment effect|-12.9||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.2|7.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated value\& associated CI is the treatment effect: baseline to post-baseline change in measurement in high dose group (-7.2) minus baseline to post-baseline change in measurement in placebo group (5.7) .|Analysis compared cockroach SLIT - high dose, placebo - high dose||7.5|-33.2|0.21
90888957|NCT01380327|181641228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment effect|13.5||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|34.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated value\& associated CI is the treatment effect: baseline to post-baseline change in measurement in high dose group (19.2) minus baseline to post-baseline change in measurement in placebo group (5.7) .|Analysis compared cockroach SLIT - low dose, placebo - low dose||34.1|-7.1|0.20
90888958|NCT03593655|181641243|SUPERIORITY||incidence rate ratio|1.01||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.12||the a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|generalized estimating equation|Poisson (log) link, adjusted for period, offset of number of visits per period, exchangeable correlation structure, and robust errors.|The incidence rate ratio compares FTC/TDF to the dapivirine vaginal ring.|Comparison of the proportion of participants experiencing a grade 2 adverse event between products, with a null hypothesis of no difference.||1.12|0.90|0.92
90888959|NCT03732209|181641249|SUPERIORITY||F value, group x time interaction|7.155||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value reflects the interaction between group (episodic future thinking, control) and time (baseline, Week 8)|ANOVA||Reported values in outcome measures data table reflect mean change in glycosylated hemoglobin for each group (Session 2 - Session 1)|Due to minimal data being available at Weeks 16 and 24 due to COVID-19-related attrition, only baseline (Week 0) and Week 8 data were included in the analysis.||||.017
90888960|NCT03732209|181641250|SUPERIORITY||F value, group x time interaction|4.885||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value reflects the interaction between group (episodic future thinking, control) and time (baseline, Week 8)|ANOVA||The values reported in the outcome measures data table reflect mean change in AUC (Session 2 - Session 1)|Due to minimal data being available at Weeks 16 and 24 due to COVID-19-related attrition, only baseline (Week 0) and Week 8 data were included in the analysis.||||.042
90888961|NCT03732209|181641251|SUPERIORITY||F value, group x time interaction|2.33||||0.146|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value reflects the interaction between group (episodic future thinking, control) and time (baseline, Week 8)|ANOVA|||Due to minimal data available at Week 16 and 24 due to COVID-19-related attrition, only ratings from Week 8 were included in the analysis.||||.146
90888962|NCT03732209|181641252|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.23||||0.042|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Due to minimal data available at Week 16 and 24 due to COVID-19-related attrition, only ratings from Week 8 were included in the analysis.||||.042
91040840|NCT05223868|181966364|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.019||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||Sleep Disturbance||||=0.019
91040841|NCT05223868|181966364|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.004||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||Sleep Disturbance||||=0.004
91040842|NCT05223868|181966364|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.228||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||Sleep Disturbance||||=0.228
91040843|NCT05223868|181966364|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.034||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||Sleep Disturbance||||=0.034
91040844|NCT05223868|181966364|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.197||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||Social Roles and Activities||||=0.197
91040845|NCT05223868|181966364|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.107||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||Social Roles and Activities||||=0.107
91040846|NCT05223868|181966364|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.606||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||Social Roles and Activities||||=0.606
91040847|NCT05223868|181966364|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.004||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||Social Roles and Activities||||=0.004
91040848|NCT05223868|181966364|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.005||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||Social Roles and Activities||||=0.005
91040849|NCT05223868|181966364|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||Pain Interference||||<0.001
91040850|NCT05223868|181966364|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||Pain Interference||||<0.001
91040851|NCT05223868|181966364|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.005||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||Pain Interference||||=0.005
91040852|NCT05223868|181966364|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.01||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||Pain Interference||||=0.010
91040853|NCT05223868|181966364|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||Pain Interference||||<0.001
90888963|NCT05046795|181641253|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|150.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|23.727|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|104.145|197.671|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||197.671|104.145|<0.0001
90888964|NCT05046795|181641254|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|144.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.192|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|102.61|186.088|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||186.088|102.610|<0.0001
90888965|NCT05046795|181641255|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|287.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|38.473|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|211.933|363.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||363.570|211.933|<0.0001
90888966|NCT05046795|181641256|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|105.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.89|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|72.6|139.12|||ANCOVA|||||139.12|72.60|<0.0001
90888967|NCT05046795|181641257|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|154.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|28.37|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.86|210.78|||ANCOVA|||||210.78|98.86|<0.0001
90888968|NCT05046795|181641258|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.49|-1.4|||ANCOVA|||||-1.40|-8.49|0.0064
90888969|NCT05046795|181641259|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1||||0.0144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|3.84|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.84|1.16|0.0144
90888970|NCT00782340|181641296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||||||Statistical analysis plan involved a hierarchical assessment of secondary endpoints to prevent inflation of type I errors.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model that includes treatment as a factor and baseline OHQ composite score as a co-variate.||||||0.003
90888971|NCT00782340|181641297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||||||Statistical analysis plan involved a hierarchical assessment of secondary endpoints to prevent inflation of type I errors.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model that includes treatment as a factor and baseline OHDAS composite score as a co-variate.||||||0.003
90888972|NCT00782340|181641298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||||||Statistical analysis plan involved a hierarchical assessment of secondary endpoints to prevent inflation of type I errors.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including a factor for randomized treatment along with the OHSA composite value at randomization as a covariate.||||||0.010
90888973|NCT00782340|181641299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||||||Statistical analysis plan involved a hierarchical assessment of secondary endpoints to prevent inflation of type I errors.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel statistic comparing treatment groups based on rank statistics adjusted for the covariate OHSA Item 1 value at baseline.||||||0.003
90888974|NCT00782340|181641300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||||||Statistical analysis plan involved a hierarchical assessment of secondary endpoints to prevent inflation of type I errors.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including a factor for randomized treatment along with the OHSA composite value at randomization as a covariate.||||||0.009
90888975|NCT00782340|181641301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical analysis plan involved a hierarchical assessment of secondary endpoints to prevent inflation of type I errors.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel statistic comparing treatment groups based on rank statistics adjusted for the covariate OHSA Item 1 value at baseline.||||||<0.001
90888976|NCT00782340|181641302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.327||||||Statistical analysis plan involved a hierarchical assessment of secondary endpoints to prevent inflation of type I errors. As the this endpoint was not positive, no additional statistical analyses will be performed on secondary endpoints.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.327
90888977|NCT01306162|181641307|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio TrtB: TrtA (%)|214.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.9||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|191.0|240.0||p-value for geometric mean ratio being outside interval 80% to 125%|ANOVA|ANOVA with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as random effect.|The standard deviation is actually the Geometric coefficient of variation.|150mg DE + 400mg DR same time (TrtB) vs 150mg DE (TrtA)||240|191|1.0000
90888978|NCT01306162|181641307|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio TrtC: TrtA (%)|130.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|25.0||0.6697|TWO_SIDED|90.0|112.0|151.0||p-value for geometric mean ratio being outside interval 80% to 125%|ANOVA|ANOVA with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as random effect.|The standard deviation is actually the Geometric coefficient of variation|150mg DE + 400mg DR 2h later (TrtC) vs 150mg DE (TrtA)||151|112|0.6697
91040854|NCT05223868|181966365|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.16||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical Function||||=0.160
91040855|NCT05223868|181966365|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical Function||||=0.001
90888979|NCT01306162|181641307|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio TrtD: TrtA (%)|236.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|21.8||0.9992||90.0|173.0|321.0||p-value for geometric mean ratio being outside interval 80% to 125%|ANOVA|ANOVA with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as random effect.|The standard deviation is actually the Geometric coefficient of variation|150mg DE + 400mg DR bid same time (TrtD) vs 150mg DE (TrtA)||321|173|0.9992
90888980|NCT01306162|181641307|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio TrtE: TrtA (%)|162.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|20.1||0.9171|TWO_SIDED|90.0|119.0|221.0||p-value for geometric mean ratio being outside interval 80% to 125%|ANOVA|ANOVA with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as random effect.|The standard deviation is actually the Geometric coefficient of variation|150mg DE + 400mg DR bid 2h later (TrtE) vs 150mg DE (TrtA)||221|119|0.9171
90888981|NCT01306162|181641308|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio TrtB: TrtA (%)|187.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|24.3||0.9999|TWO_SIDED|90.0|162.0|215.0||p-value for geometric mean ratio being outside interval 80% to 125%|ANOVA|ANOVA with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as random effect.|The standard deviation is actually the Geometric coefficient of variation|150mg DE + 400mg DR (TrtB) vs 150mg DE (TrtA)||215|162|0.9999
91040856|NCT05223868|181966365|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.008||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical Function||||=0.008
90888982|NCT01306162|181641308|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio TrtC: TrtA (%)|115.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|31.2||0.2207|TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.0|138.0||p-value for geometric mean ratio being outside interval 80% to 125%|ANOVA|ANOVA with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as random effect.|The standard deviation is actually the Geometric coefficient of variation|150mg DE + 400mg DR 2h later (TrtC) vs 150mg DE (TrtA)||138|95|0.2207
90888983|NCT01306162|181641308|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio TrtD: TrtA (%)|225.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|26.1||0.9946||90.0|156.0|326.0||p-value for geometric mean ratio being outside interval 80% to 125%|ANOVA|ANOVA with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as random effect.|The standard deviation is actually the Geometric coefficient of variation|150mg DE + 400mg DR bid same time (TrtD) vs 150mg DE (TrtA)||326|156|0.9946
90888984|NCT01306162|181641308|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio TrtE: TrtA (%)|133.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|23.0||0.6221|TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.0|190.0||p-value for geometric mean ratio being outside interval 80% to 125%|ANOVA|ANOVA with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as random effect.|The standard deviation is actually the Geometric coefficient of variation|150mg DE + 400mg DR bid 2h later (TrtE) vs 150mg DE (TrtA)||190|94|0.6221
90888985|NCT01306162|181641309|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio TrtB: TrtA (%)|214.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|20.7||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|190.0|241.0||p-value for geometric mean ratio being outside interval 80% to 125%|ANOVA|ANOVA with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as random effect.|The standard deviation is actually the Geometric coefficient of variation|150mg DE + 400mg DR (TrtB) vs 150mg DE (TrtA)||241|190|1.0000
90888986|NCT01306162|181641309|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio TrtC: TrtA (%)|132.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|26.3||0.7223|TWO_SIDED|90.0|113.0|155.0||p-value for geometric mean ratio being outside interval 80% to 125%|ANOVA|ANOVA with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as random effect.|The standard deviation is actually the Geometric coefficient of variation|150mg DE + 400mg DR 2h later (TrtC) vs 150mg DE (TrtA)||155|113|0.7223
90888987|NCT01306162|181641309|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio TrtD: TrtA (%)|258.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|24.6||0.9993||90.0|182.0|365.0||p-value for geometric mean ratio being outside interval 80% to 125%|ANOVA|ANOVA with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as random effect.|The standard deviation is actually the Geometric coefficient of variation|150mg DE + 400mg DR bid same time (TrtD) vs 150mg DE (TrtA)||365|182|0.9993
90888988|NCT01306162|181641309|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio TrtE: TrtA (%)|159.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|21.5||0.8875|TWO_SIDED|90.0|114.0|222.0||p-value for geometric mean ratio being outside interval 80% to 125%|ANOVA|ANOVA with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as random effect.|The standard deviation is actually the Geometric coefficient of variation|150mg DE + 400mg DR bid 2h later (TrtE) vs 150mg DE (TrtA)||222|114|0.8875
90888989|NCT01306162|181641310|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio TrtB: TrtA (%)|180.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|24.6||0.9998|TWO_SIDED|90.0|156.0|207.0||p-value for geometric mean ratio being outside interval 80% to 125%|ANOVA|ANOVA with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as random effect.|The standard deviation is actually the Geometric coefficient of variation|150mg DE + 400mg DR (TrtB) vs 150mg DE (TrtA)||207|156|0.9998
90888990|NCT01306162|181641310|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio TrtC: TrtA (%)|114.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|29.4||0.1866|TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.0|136.0||p-value for geometric mean ratio being outside interval 80% to 125%|ANOVA|ANOVA with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as random effect.|The standard deviation is actually the Geometric coefficient of variation|150mg DE + 400mg DR 2h later (TrtC) vs 150mg DE (TrtA)||136|95|0.1866
90888991|NCT01306162|181641310|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio TrtD: TrtA (%)|234.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|26.7||0.9958||90.0|160.0|340.0||p-value for geometric mean ratio being outside interval 80% to 125%|ANOVA|ANOVA with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as random effect.|The standard deviation is actually the Geometric coefficient of variation|150mg DE + 400mg DR bid same time (TrtD) vs 150mg DE (TrtA)||340|160|0.9958
90888992|NCT01306162|181641310|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio TrtE: TrtA (%)|126.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.6||0.5164|TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.0|179.0||p-value for geometric mean ratio being outside interval 80% to 125%|ANOVA|ANOVA with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as random effect.|The standard deviation is actually the Geometric coefficient of variation|150mg DE + 400mg DR bid 2h later (TrtE) vs 150mg DE (TrtA)||179|89|0.5164
90888993|NCT00690755|181641315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||.001
91040857|NCT05223868|181966365|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.006||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical Function||||=0.006
90951956|NCT00477490|181781625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.893|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.795|4.715||The a priori statistically significant difference versus placebo is p≤0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment difference and 95% CI were adjusted for age, absence/presence of nocturnal polyuria, and baseline number of nocturnal voids.||The trial was to be declared positive only if in the 100 μg group, a statistically significant positive effect as compared to placebo on both co-primaries was demonstrated. And only then, the next higher dose group (i.e., 50 μg) could be claimed superior to placebo, if it showed a statistically significant improvement over placebo on both co-primaries.||4.715|1.795|<0.0001
90951957|NCT00137969|181781636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4875||||||One-sided p-value.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Stratified by randomization factors (race and initial prednisone dose)||||0.4875
90951958|NCT00137969|181781637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.823|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Stratified by randomization factors (race and initial prednisone dose)||||0.8230
90951959|NCT00137969|181781638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4318|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Stratified by randomization factors (race and initial prednisone dose)||||0.4318
90951960|NCT00137969|181781639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9069|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Stratified by randomization factors (race and initial prednisone dose)||||0.9069
90951961|NCT00137969|181781640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5602|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Stratified by randomization factors (race and initial prednisone dose)||||0.5602
90951962|NCT00137969|181781641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8979|||||||Log Rank|||Stratified by randomization factors (race and initial prednisone dose)||||0.8979
90951963|NCT00137969|181781642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1277|||||||ANCOVA|||Stratified by randomization factors (race and initial prednisone dose)||||0.1277
90951964|NCT00137969|181781643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6202|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Stratified by randomization factors (race and initial prednisone dose)||||0.6202
90951965|NCT01465763|181781644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|10.3||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|16.3|||CMH Chi-square test|||P-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi-square test stratified by prior treatment with anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF), steroid use at baseline and geographic region. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using Non-responder imputation (NRI).||16.3|4.3|0.0070
90951966|NCT01465763|181781645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|15.7||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.1|23.4|||CMH Chi-square test|||P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by prior treatment with anti-TNF, steroid use at baseline and geographic region. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||23.4|8.1|0.0005
90951967|NCT01465763|181781646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|27.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.7|36.5|||CMH Chi-square test|||P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by prior treatment with anti-TNF, steroid use at baseline and geographic region. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||36.5|17.7|<0.0001
90951968|NCT01465763|181781647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|5.1||||0.0345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|8.3|||CMH Chi-square test|||P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by prior treatment with anti-TNF, steroid use at baseline and geographic region. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||8.3|1.9|0.0345
90985351|NCT01380093|181856128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|9.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.8|13.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||13.7|4.8|<0.0001
90888994|NCT02830594|181641401|EQUIVALENCE|Specifically, a sample-size of 14 patients will have 80% power to detect an effect size of 0.71 using a paired t-test with a 0.05 one-sided significance level. The effect size is the mean difference divided by the standard deviation of the difference.||||||0.6|||||||Paired t Test|||||||0.60
90888995|NCT02830594|181641402|EQUIVALENCE|Specifically, a sample-size of 14 patients will have 80% power to detect an effect size of 0.71 using a paired t-test with a 0.05 one-sided significance level. The effect size is the mean difference divided by the standard deviation of the difference.||||||0.87|||||||Paired t Test|||||||0.87
90888996|NCT02830594|181641403|EQUIVALENCE|Specifically, a sample-size of 14 patients will have 80% power to detect an effect size of 0.71 using a paired t-test with a 0.05 one-sided significance level. The effect size is the mean difference divided by the standard deviation of the difference.||||||0.64|||||||Paired t Test|||||||0.64
90888997|NCT01934218|181641408|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|2.7|||Basic longitudinal model|||||2.7|-2.7|0.988
90888998|NCT01934218|181641409|OTHER|Euflexxa would be considered superior to Gel-One if the difference in mean change from baseline in VAS pain score at week 26 was 5 mm or greater (on the 100mm VAS pain scale). If the difference in mean change values were within 5 mm, Gel-One would not be considered inferior to Euflexxa.||||||||||||||||A post-hoc non-inferiority comparison of the Gel-One mean change from baseline in VAS pain score at week 26 (Following 50-foot walk test) against the same assessment collected from subjects treated with Euflexxa in a separate study (PMID:19539353) was also performed.|Change from baseline (95% CI) for Euflexxa was -25.7 (-29.0, -22.4) and the difference between Euflexxa and Gel-One (95% CI) was -3.8 (-inf, -0.3).|||
90888999|NCT01660763|181641445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|87.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.88|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|66.2|108.98|||ANCOVA|||||108.98|66.20|<0.001
90889000|NCT04369469|181641463|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.0205||||0.6059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1703|0.1293||One-sided Mantel-Haenszel test of the difference in two proportions stratified by intubated or not intubated on Day 1 and a family-wise Type I error of 0.025.|Mantel Haenszel||Two-sided 95% confidence interval using the Sato variance estimator, combined overall imputations.|||0.1293|-0.1703|0.6059
90889001|NCT02939105|181641495|OTHER||success proportion|86.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|69.3|96.2||||||||96.2|69.3|
90889002|NCT01802411|181641501|SUPERIORITY||LSMD|13.1||||0.5598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.0|57.0|||ANCOVA|||||57|-31|0.5598
90889003|NCT03483623|181641525|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001||||||Statistical analysis applies to all combinations-NATO WELP, NATO FIS, RAVEN WELP, RAVEN FIS|ANOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to all combinations-NATO WELP, NATO FIS, RAVEN WELP, RAVEN FIS||||0.0001
90889004|NCT03483623|181641526|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001||||||Statistical analysis applies to all combinations-NATO WELP, NATO FIS, RAVEN WELP, RAVEN FIS|ANOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to all combinations-NATO WELP, NATO FIS, RAVEN WELP, RAVEN FIS||||0.0001
90889005|NCT03483623|181641527|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001||||||Statistical analysis applies to all combinations-NATO WELP, NATO FIS, RAVEN WELP, RAVEN FIS|ANOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to all combinations-NATO WELP, NATO FIS, RAVEN WELP, RAVEN FIS||||0.0001
90889006|NCT03483623|181641528|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001||||||Statistical analysis applies to all combinations-NATO WELP, NATO FIS, RAVEN WELP, RAVEN FIS|ANOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to all combinations-NATO WELP, NATO FIS, RAVEN WELP, RAVEN FIS||||0.0001
90889007|NCT03483623|181641529|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001||||||Statistical analysis applies to all combinations-NATO WELP, NATO FIS, RAVEN WELP, RAVEN FIS|ANOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to all combinations-NATO WELP, NATO FIS, RAVEN WELP, RAVEN FIS||||0.0001
90889008|NCT03483623|181641530|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001||||||Statistical analysis applies to all combinations-NATO WELP, NATO FIS, RAVEN WELP, RAVEN FIS|ANOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to all combinations-NATO WELP, NATO FIS, RAVEN WELP, RAVEN FIS||||0.0001
90889009|NCT03483623|181641531|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001||||||Statistical analysis applies to all combinations-NATO WELP, NATO FIS, RAVEN WELP, RAVEN FIS|ANOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to all combinations-NATO WELP, NATO FIS, RAVEN WELP, RAVEN FIS||||0.0001
90889010|NCT03483623|181641532|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001||||||Statistical analysis applies to all combinations-NATO WELP, NATO FIS, RAVEN WELP, RAVEN FIS|ANOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to all combinations-NATO WELP, NATO FIS, RAVEN WELP, RAVEN FIS||||0.0001
90889011|NCT05932290|181641565|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.71|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratios (HRs) were estimated using unadjusted Cox proportional hazard models.|||0.71|0.37|<.0001
90889012|NCT05932290|181641566|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.37||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.64|||Regression, Cox||IPTW HRs were estimated using weighted Cox proportional hazard models and confidence intervals were estimated using robust error variances.|||0.64|0.22|.0003
90889013|NCT05932290|181641569|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.88|||Regression, Cox||HRs were estimated using unadjusted Cox proportional hazard models.|||0.88|0.47|.0062
90889014|NCT05932290|181641570|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.46||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.77|||Regression, Cox|IPTW HRs were estimated using weighted Cox proportional hazard models and confidence intervals were estimated using robust error variances.||||0.77|0.27|.0032
90889015|NCT01760239|181641704|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.001
90889016|NCT01760239|181641705|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.36||||0.046|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.046
90889017|NCT01760239|181641706|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.13||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.001
91040858|NCT05223868|181966365|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.003||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical Function||||=0.003
91040859|NCT05223868|181966365|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.818||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Anxiety||||=0.818
91040860|NCT05223868|181966365|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.179||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Anxiety||||=0.179
91040861|NCT05223868|181966365|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.03||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Anxiety||||=0.030
91040862|NCT05223868|181966365|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.267||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Anxiety||||=0.267
91040863|NCT05223868|181966365|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.022||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Anxiety||||=0.022
91040864|NCT05223868|181966365|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.62||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Depression||||=0.620
91040865|NCT05223868|181966365|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.24||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Depression||||=0.240
91040866|NCT05223868|181966365|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.71||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Depression||||=0.710
91040867|NCT05223868|181966365|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.341||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Depression||||=0.341
91040868|NCT05223868|181966365|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.204||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Depression||||=0.204
91040869|NCT05223868|181966365|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.786||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Fatigue||||=0.786
91040870|NCT05223868|181966365|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.597||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Fatigue||||=0.597
91040871|NCT05223868|181966365|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.023||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Fatigue||||=0.023
91040872|NCT05223868|181966365|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.438||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Fatigue||||=0.438
91040873|NCT05223868|181966365|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.017||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Fatigue||||=0.017
91040874|NCT05223868|181966365|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.419||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Sleep Disturbance||||=0.419
91040875|NCT05223868|181966365|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.08||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Sleep Disturbance||||=0.080
91040876|NCT05223868|181966365|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.006||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Sleep Disturbance||||=0.006
91040877|NCT05223868|181966365|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.421||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Sleep Disturbance||||=0.421
91040878|NCT05223868|181966365|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.025||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Sleep Disturbance||||=0.025
91040879|NCT05223868|181966365|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.47||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social Roles and Activities||||=0.470
91040880|NCT05223868|181966365|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.023||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social Roles and Activities||||=0.023
91040881|NCT05223868|181966365|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.002||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social Roles and Activities||||=0.002
91040882|NCT05223868|181966365|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.04||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social Roles and Activities||||=0.040
91040883|NCT05223868|181966365|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social Roles and Activities||||=0.001
91040884|NCT05223868|181966365|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.013||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Pain Interference||||=0.013
91040885|NCT05223868|181966365|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Pain Interference||||<0.001
91040886|NCT05223868|181966365|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.004||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Pain Interference||||=0.004
91040887|NCT05223868|181966365|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.038||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Pain Interference||||=0.038
90889018|NCT03147248|181641708|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in the mean change from baseline of DAS28 (CRP) at Week 22 was greater that the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of -0.6.|Difference of Least square mean|0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.52|||||The least squares means and standard errors, estimate of treatment difference (CT-P13 SC 120 mg - CT-P13 IV 3 mg/kg), and 2-sided 95% CI obtained from the ANCOVA model.|Primary efficacy analysis were analyzed using an ANCOVA considering the treatment as fixed effect and country, serum CRP concentration at Week 2 (≤0.6 mg/dL vs. \>0.6 mg/dL), and body weight at Week 6 (≤100 kg vs. \>100 kg) as covariates.||0.52|0.02|
90889019|NCT01914926|181641715|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Chi-Square test||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||We estimated a sample size of 200 patients assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive diltiazem and metoprolol would achieve 80% power to detect non-inferiority using a one-sided two sample t-test. The margin of equivalence is -10.||||.0001
90889020|NCT00434057|181641924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Sensitivity to melanoma|98.0||||0.05||95.0|95.1|100.0|||exact mid-P||"Of 127 melanomas, 114 melanomas had a pre-biopsy diagnosis of Melanoma can not be ruled out or Not melanoma, which qualified them for primary endpoint analysis of sensitivity. MelaFind correctly identified 112/114 melanomas."|MelaFind's sensitivity to cutaneous melanoma and 95% confidence intervals were determined.||100|95.1|0.05
90889021|NCT00434057|181641924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Chi-squared|||Specificty of MelaFind and examining dermatologists on the same set of pigmented skin lesions.||||0.02
90889022|NCT03073603|181641938|NON_INFERIORITY|We performed a non-inferiority test for the proportions of the drug continuation and drug discontinuation arms experiencing a new MS relapse and/or MRI Brain Lesion over the course of the study duration. The non-inferiority margin used was 8%.|Difference in proportion|0.0753||||0.521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0063|0.15|||Exact binomial test|Exact binomial test for difference in two proportions||We tested the null hypothesis of inferiority with the proportion of disease events (i.e., new MS relapse and/or MRI brain lesion) for the drug discontinuation group being 8% greater than the proportion for the drug continuation group under the alternative that the two rates are equal.||0.1500|0.0063|0.521
90889023|NCT03073603|181641939|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.766|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.766
90889024|NCT03073603|181641940|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.604|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.604
90889025|NCT03073603|181641941|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.198|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.198
90889026|NCT03073603|181641942|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.354|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.354
90889027|NCT03073603|181641943|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.831|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.831
90889028|NCT03073603|181641944|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.252|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.252
90889029|NCT03073603|181641945|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.983|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.983
90889030|NCT03073603|181641946|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.155|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.155
90889031|NCT03073603|181641947|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.748|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.748
90889032|NCT03073603|181641948|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.773|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.773
90889033|NCT03073603|181641949|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.224|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.224
90889034|NCT03073603|181641950|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.962|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.962
90889035|NCT03073603|181641951|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.005
90889036|NCT03073603|181641952|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.406|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.406
90889037|NCT03073603|181641953|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.348|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.348
91040888|NCT05223868|181966365|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Pain Interference||||<0.001
91040889|NCT03395197|181966373|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.627|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.506|0.777||1-sided|Log Rank||Hazard ratio was based on Cox proportional hazards model; under proportional hazards, if hazard ratio \< 1, it indicates reduction in hazard rate in favor of Talazoparib+Enzalutamide compared to Placebo+Enzalutamide.|The following statistical hypotheses was tested to address the primary objectives: H01: HRrPFS ≥1 vs H11: HRrPFS \<1, where HRrPFS and HRrPFS+ are the hazard ratios (talazoparib in combination with enzalutamide vs. placebo in combination with enzalutamide) of rPFS based on BICR assessment in the all-comers population for Part 2 Cohort 1.||0.777|0.506|<0.0001
91040890|NCT03395197|181966374|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.447|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.328|0.61||1-sided|Log Rank||Hazard ratio was based on Cox proportional hazards model; under proportional hazards, hazard ratio \< 1 indicates reduction in hazard rate in favor of Talazoparib+Enzalutamide compared to Placebo+Enzalutamide.|The following statistical hypotheses was tested to address the primary objectives: H02: HRrPFS+ ≥1 vs H12: HRrPFS+ \<1, where HRrPFS and HRrPFS+ are the hazard ratios (talazoparib in combination with enzalutamide vs. placebo in combination with enzalutamide) of rPFS based on BICR assessment in the DDR deficient population for Part 2 Cohort 2.||0.610|0.328|<0.0001
91040891|NCT03123874|181966392|OTHER|Linear mixed effects models testing the effect of pump set-up on the number of live aerobic bacterial counts. The fixed effect of interest will be pump set-up. Model will also be adjusted for infant feeding status (human milk only vs. human milk and complementary foods) and randomization schedule (which pump set-up went first).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.827||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|||||Results were considered statistically significant at p\<0.05. No adjustments were made to p-values.|Mixed Models Analysis||Ratio of mean bacterial taxa in milk collected with own / sterile pump set-ups.|||||0.9
91040892|NCT03123874|181966393|OTHER|Linear mixed effects models testing the effect of pump set-up on the number of live aerobic bacterial counts. The fixed effect of interest will be pump set-up. Model will also be adjusted for infant feeding status (human milk only vs. human milk and complementary foods) and randomization schedule (which pump set-up went first).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.163||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|||||Results were considered statistically significant at p\<0.05. No adjustments were made to p-values.|Mixed Models Analysis||Ratio of mean Shannon Diversity Index in milk collected with own / sterile pump set-ups|||||0.3
91040893|NCT03123874|181966394|OTHER|Linear mixed effects models testing the effect of pump set-up on the number of live aerobic bacterial counts. The fixed effect of interest will be pump set-up. Model will also be adjusted for infant feeding status (human milk only vs. human milk and complementary foods) and randomization schedule (which pump set-up went first). Random effect was participant ID to account for multiple samples for each participant.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.95||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|||||Results were considered statistically significant at p\<0.05. No adjustments were made to p-values.|Mixed Models Analysis||Ratio of mean bacterial counts in milk collected with own / sterile pump set-ups.|||||0.0003
91040894|NCT02578641|181966402|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19||||0.1942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.56||Between-treatment comparisons were assessed using stratified log-rank test stratified by country and disease stage per randomization stratification.|Log Rank|Log-rank test of Hazards Ration equals 1, using Cox proportional hazards regression.|Hazard ratios were estimated using Cox proportional hazards regression.|||1.56|0.91|0.1942
91040895|NCT02655224|181966416|SUPERIORITY|The point estimate and 2-sided 95% confidence interval of odds ratio were calculated between relugolix 40 mg group and placebo group.|Odds Ratio (OR)|42.071|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.113|346.181|||Fisher's Exact Test||Relugolix 40 mg/Placebo|||346.181|5.113|<0.0001
91040896|NCT02655224|181966417|OTHER|The point estimate and 2-sided 95% confidence interval of odds ratio were calculated between relugolix 40 mg group and placebo group.|Odds Ratio (OR)|29.176|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.555|239.478|||||Relugolix 40 mg/Placebo|||239.478|3.555|
91040897|NCT02655224|181966418|OTHER|The mean differences between relugolix 40 mg group and placebo group and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|0.069|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Placebo|||0.069|-1.050|
90889038|NCT03073603|181641954|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.086|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.086
90889039|NCT03073603|181641955|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.575|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.575
90889040|NCT03073603|181641956|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.733|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.733
90889041|NCT03073603|181641957|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.733|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.733
90889042|NCT03073603|181641958|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.036
90889043|NCT00823719|181641971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|69.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.2|85.7|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with OR for participants receiving Ofatumumab + DHAP treatment.|||85.7|48.2|
90889044|NCT00823719|181641971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|55.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.4|71.9|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with OR for participants receiving Ofatumumab + ICE treatment.|||71.9|36.4|
90889045|NCT00823719|181641971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|61.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.4|73.5|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with OR for participants receiving Total Ofatumumab + Chemotherapy treatment.|||73.5|47.4|
90889046|NCT00958919|181641987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.0||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.69|9.38|||t-test, 2 sided|||||9.38|2.69|.0004
90889047|NCT00958919|181641988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.0||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|6.85|||t-test, 2 sided|||||6.85|0.49|.024
90951969|NCT01465763|181781648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|10.3||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|16.3|||CMH Chi-square test|||P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by prior treatment with anti-TNF, steroid use at baseline and geographic region. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||16.3|4.3|0.0070
90889048|NCT00958919|181641989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.45
90889049|NCT00958919|181641990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90889050|NCT00958919|181641991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90889051|NCT02103439|181641992|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the difference in proportions between the difference in the early virological response rate with Algeron and PegIntron should be higher than the non-inferiority margin of 0.2 (-20%)||||||0.227|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.227
90889052|NCT02103439|181641993|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|the lower limit of the 95 % confidence interval between the difference in rate of rapid virological response with Algeron and PegIntron should be more than the non-inferiority margin (-20 %)|||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||> 0.05
90889053|NCT04827212|181642021|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|||||P\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.037
90889054|NCT04827212|181642022|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons- P\<0.025; controlled for baseline values as there was a significant difference between groups at baseline|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.78
90889055|NCT04827212|181642023|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|||||adjusted for multiple comparisons- P\<0.025; controlled for baseline value due to a significant difference between groups at baseline|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.56
90889056|NCT04827212|181642024|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49||||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.4
90889057|NCT04827212|181642025|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons and significance threshold was set at P\<0.0167|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.18
90889058|NCT04827212|181642026|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons and significance threshold was set at P\<0.0167|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.86
90889059|NCT04827212|181642027|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons and significance threshold was set at P\<0.0167|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.21
90889060|NCT04827212|181642028|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons and significance threshold was set at P\<0.0167|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.19
90889061|NCT04827212|181642029|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons and significance threshold was set at P\<0.0167|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.12
90889062|NCT04827212|181642030|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.2||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons and significance threshold was set at P\<0.0167|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.41
90889063|NCT04827212|181642031|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.2||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons and significance threshold was set at P\<0.0167|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.43
90889064|NCT04827212|181642032|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.0||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons and significance threshold was set at P\<0.0167|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.53
90889065|NCT04827212|181642033|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons and significance threshold was set at P\<0.0167|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.98
90889066|NCT04827212|181642034|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons and significance threshold was set at P\<0.0167|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.96
90889067|NCT04827212|181642035|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons and significance threshold was set at P\<0.0167|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.91
90985352|NCT01380093|181856128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|24.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.3|29.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||29.1|20.3|<0.0001
90985353|NCT01380093|181856129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-116.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-136.5|-95.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-95.7|-136.5|<0.0001
90951970|NCT01465763|181781649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|6.0||||0.0601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|11.1|||CMH Chi-square test|||P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by prior treatment with anti-TNF, steroid use at baseline and geographic region. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||11.1|1.0|0.0601
90951971|NCT01465763|181781650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|6.5||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|8.7|||CMH Chi-square test|||P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by prior treatment with anti-TNF, steroid use at baseline and geographic region. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||8.7|4.3|0.0043
90951972|NCT01465763|181781652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.5|||Mixed-Effects Model|||At Week 2: The change from baseline was analyzed using mixed effect model with treatment group, prior treatment with antiTNF, steroid use at baseline, geographic region, visit and visit by treatment group all as fixed effects, and participants as a random effect.||-0.5|-1.3|<0.0001
90985354|NCT01380093|181856129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|59.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.3|80.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||80.1|39.3|<0.0001
90985355|NCT01380093|181856129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|175.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|155.4|196.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||196.2|155.4|<0.0001
90985356|NCT01380093|181856130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-202.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-239.0|-165.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-165.3|-239.0|<0.0001
90985357|NCT01380093|181856130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|122.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|85.7|159.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||159.2|85.7|<0.0001
90985358|NCT01380093|181856130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|324.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|287.7|361.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||361.5|287.7|<0.0001
91040898|NCT02655224|181966419|OTHER|The mean differences between relugolix 40 mg group and placebo group and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.201|27.112|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Placebo|||27.112|-3.201|
91040899|NCT02655224|181966420|OTHER|The point estimate and 2-sided 95% confidence interval of odds ratio were calculated between relugolix 40 mg group and placebo group.|Odds Ratio (OR)|5.625|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.605|19.709|||||Relugolix 40 mg/Placebo. Statistical analysis for Day 29 to 56 and Day 57 to 84, the odds ratio was calculated. For Day 1 to 28, its ratio was not calculated due to zero cell.|Day 29 to 56||19.709|1.605|
91040900|NCT02655224|181966420|OTHER|The point estimate and 2-sided 95% confidence interval of odds ratio were calculated between relugolix 40 mg group and placebo group.|Odds Ratio (OR)|9.865|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.784|34.955|||||Relugolix 40 mg/Placebo. Statistical analysis for Day 29 to 56 and Day 57 to 84, the odds ratio was calculated. For Day 1 to 28, its ratio was not calculated due to zero cell.|Day 57 to 84||34.955|2.784|
91040901|NCT02655224|181966421|OTHER|The point estimate and 2-sided 95% confidence interval of odds ratio were calculated between relugolix 40 mg group and placebo group.|Odds Ratio (OR)|5.438|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.071|27.609|||||Relugolix 40 mg/Placebo. Statistical analysis for Day 29 to 56 and Day 57 to 84, the odds ratio was calculated. For Day 1 to 28, its ratio was not calculated due to zero cell.|Day 29 to 56||27.609|1.071|
91040902|NCT02655224|181966421|OTHER|The point estimate and 2-sided 95% confidence interval of odds ratio were calculated between relugolix 40 mg group and placebo group.|Odds Ratio (OR)|12.794|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.603|62.88|||||Relugolix 40 mg/Placebo. Statistical analysis for Day 29 to 56 and Day 57 to 84, the odds ratio was calculated. For Day 1 to 28, its ratio was not calculated due to zero cell.|Day 57 to 84||62.880|2.603|
91040903|NCT02655224|181966422|OTHER|The mean differences between relugolix 40 mg group and placebo group and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated.|Mean Difference (Each Period)|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.574|0.745|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Placebo|Day 1 to 28||0.745|-0.574|
91040904|NCT02655224|181966422|OTHER|The mean differences between relugolix 40 mg group and placebo group and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated.|Mean Difference (Each Period)|-0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|0.049|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Placebo|Day 29 to 56||0.049|-1.190|
91040905|NCT02655224|181966422|OTHER|The mean differences between relugolix 40 mg group and placebo group and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated.|Mean Difference (Each Period)|-0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.074|-0.012|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Placebo|Day 57 to 84||-0.012|-1.074|
91040906|NCT02655224|181966423|OTHER|The mean differences between relugolix 40 mg group and placebo group and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated.|Mean Difference (Each Period)|4.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.507|19.839|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Placebo|Day 1 to 28||19.839|-11.507|
91040907|NCT02655224|181966423|OTHER|The mean differences between relugolix 40 mg group and placebo group and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated.|Mean Difference (Each Period)|12.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.098|28.494|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Placebo|Day 29 to 56||28.494|-3.098|
91040908|NCT02655224|181966423|OTHER|The mean differences between relugolix 40 mg group and placebo group and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated.|Mean Difference (Each Period)|11.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.554|26.745|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Placebo|Day 57 to 84||26.745|-3.554|
91040909|NCT04227899|181966435|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sided Chi-square test|||||||<0.0001
91040910|NCT04227899|181966436|OTHER|||||||0.0019|||||||Farrington-Manning non-inferiority (NI)|||||||0.0019
91040911|NCT04227899|181966437|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
91040912|NCT04227899|181966438|OTHER|||||||0.0081|||||||One-sided Chi-square test|||||||0.0081
91040913|NCT05151471|181966439|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.78
91040914|NCT05151471|181966440|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.704|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 72||||0.704
91040915|NCT05151471|181966440|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.131|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 96||||0.131
91040916|NCT05151471|181966441|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.954|||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 72||||0.954
91040917|NCT05151471|181966441|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.591|||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 96||||0.591
91040918|NCT05151471|181966442|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.513|||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 72||||0.513
91040919|NCT05151471|181966442|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.344|||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 84||||0.344
91040920|NCT05151471|181966442|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.142|||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 96||||0.142
91040921|NCT04998136|181966446|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-12.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.28|-10.7|||ANCOVA|||Treatment policy Estimand. The primary endpoint was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with randomized treatment as factor and baseline body weight as covariate. Analysed data is from in-trial observation period.||-10.70|-15.28|<0.0001
90889068|NCT04827212|181642036|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.1||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons and significance threshold was set at P\<0.0167|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.25
90889069|NCT04827212|181642037|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.5||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons and significance threshold was set at P\<0.0167|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.46
90889070|NCT04827212|181642038|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.6||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons and significance threshold was set at P\<0.0167|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.41
90889071|NCT04827212|181642039|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.8||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons and significance threshold was set at P\<0.0167|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.12
90889072|NCT04827212|181642040|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.9||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons and significance threshold was set at P\<0.0167|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.20
90889073|NCT04827212|181642041|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.0||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons and significance threshold was set at P\<0.0167|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.13
90889074|NCT04827212|181642042|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.83||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons and significance threshold was set at P\<0.0167|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.94
90889075|NCT04827212|181642043|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.4||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons and significance threshold was set at P\<0.0167|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.72
91040922|NCT04998136|181966447|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-13.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.7|-11.11|||MMRM|||Hypothetical Estimand. The primary endpoint was analysed using mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM). All responses prior to first discontinuation of treatment (or dose reduction, or initiation of other anti-obesity medication or bariatric surgery) were included in MMRM with randomized treatment as factor and baseline body weight as covariate. Analysed data is from on-treatment observation period.||-11.11|-15.70|<0.0001
90889076|NCT04827212|181642044|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.3||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons and significance threshold was set at P\<0.0167|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.33
90889077|NCT00784810|181642047|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|As above.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.19||0.002|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-5.65||||Mixed Models Analysis|||To achieve a study with 80% power at the 1-sided 5% significance level, for the purposes of demonstrating non inferiority, a sample size of 98 subjects per treatment group was required, i.e. a total of 196 subjects completing the study.|||-5.65|0.002
90889078|NCT02508480|181642051|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The two study arms were compared using mixed models analysis controlling for baseline scores. Variables included in the model were- baseline score, group, time, and group by time interaction. The p-value reported below is for group effect.||||0.66
90889079|NCT02508480|181642052|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.884||||||Group effect for Proactive Coping|Mixed Models Analysis|||"The two study arms were compared using mixed models analysis controlling for baseline scores. Variables included in the model were- baseline score, group, time, and group by time interaction.~The p-value reported below is for group effect for Proactive Coping."||||0.884
90889080|NCT02508480|181642052|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.543||||||Group effect for Avoidant Coping.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"The two study arms were compared using mixed models analysis controlling for baseline scores. Variables included in the model were- baseline score, group, time, and group by time interaction.~The p-value reported below is for group effect for Avoidant Coping."||||0.543
90889081|NCT02508480|181642053|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.135||||||The p-value above is for the overall group effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The two study arms were compared using mixed models analysis controlling for baseline scores. Variables included in the model were- baseline score, group, time, and group by time interaction.||||0.135
90889082|NCT02508480|181642054|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25||||||The p-value above represents the overall group effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The two study arms were compared on the interpersonal function subscale using mixed models analysis controlling for baseline scores. Variables included in the model were- baseline score, group, time, and group by time interaction.||||0.25
90889083|NCT02508480|181642054|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.118||||||The p-value represents the overall group effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The two study arms were compared on the intrapsychic foundations subscale using mixed models analysis controlling for baseline scores. Variables included in the model were- baseline score, group, time, and group by time interaction.||||0.118
90889084|NCT02508480|181642055|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.917||||||The p-value is for group effect for tcpm\_days\_participated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The two study arms were compared using mixed models analysis controlling for baseline scores. Variables included in the model were- baseline score, group, time, and group by time interaction. The p-value reported below is for group effect for tcpm\_days\_participated.||||0.917
90951973|NCT01465763|181781652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.7|||Mixed-Effects Model|||At Week 4: The change from baseline was analyzed using mixed effect model with treatment group, prior treatment with antiTNF, steroid use at baseline, geographic region, visit and visit by treatment group all as fixed effects, and participants as a random effect.||-0.7|-1.5|<0.0001
90951974|NCT01465763|181781652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-1.1|||Mixed-Effects Model|||At Week 8: The change from baseline was analyzed using mixed effect model with treatment group, prior treatment with antiTNF, steroid use at baseline, geographic region, visit and visit by treatment group all as fixed effects, and participants as a random effect.||-1.1|-1.9|<0.0001
90951975|NCT01465763|181781653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-1.4|||ANCOVA|||The change from Baseline at Week 8 was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group, prior treatment with anti-TNF, steroid use at baseline and geographic region as factors and baseline as a covariate based on the observed-case data.||-1.4|-2.5|<0.0001
90951976|NCT01646177|181781654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90951977|NCT01646177|181781654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90951978|NCT01646177|181781654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90951979|NCT01646177|181781655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90951980|NCT01646177|181781655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90951981|NCT01646177|181781655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90951982|NCT01646177|181781656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90951983|NCT01646177|181781656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90951984|NCT01646177|181781656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90951985|NCT01646177|181781657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90951986|NCT01646177|181781657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90951987|NCT01646177|181781657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90951988|NCT01646177|181781658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90951989|NCT01646177|181781658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90951990|NCT01646177|181781658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90951991|NCT01646177|181781659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90951992|NCT01646177|181781659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90951993|NCT01646177|181781659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90951994|NCT01646177|181781660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
90951995|NCT01646177|181781660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
90951996|NCT01646177|181781660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
90951997|NCT01646177|181781661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
90951998|NCT01646177|181781661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
90951999|NCT01646177|181781661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
90952000|NCT01646177|181781662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
90952001|NCT01646177|181781662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
90952002|NCT01646177|181781662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
90952003|NCT01646177|181781663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
90952004|NCT01646177|181781663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
90952005|NCT01646177|181781663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
90952006|NCT01646177|181781664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.473|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.473
90952007|NCT01646177|181781664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.015|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.015
90952008|NCT01646177|181781664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90952009|NCT01646177|181781665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Includes analysis only from Absenteeism Score.||||0.006
90952010|NCT01646177|181781665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.045|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Includes analysis only from Absenteeism Score.||||0.045
90889085|NCT02508480|181642056|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017||||||The p-value above is for the overall group effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The two study arms were compared using mixed models analysis controlling for baseline scores. Variables included in the model were- baseline score, group, time, and group by time interaction.||||0.017
90889086|NCT02508480|181642057|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.597||||||The p-value above represents the overall group effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The two study arms were compared using mixed models analysis controlling for baseline scores. Variables included in the model were- baseline score, group, time, and group by time interaction.||||0.597
90889087|NCT02508480|181642058|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.076||||||The p-value above represents the overall group effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The two study arms were compared using mixed models analysis controlling for baseline scores. Variables included in the model were- baseline score, group, time, and group by time interaction.||||0.076
90889088|NCT02508480|181642059|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.978||||||The p-value above represents the overall group effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The two study arms were compared using mixed models analysis controlling for baseline scores. Variables included in the model were- baseline score, group, time, and group by time interaction.||||0.978
90889089|NCT04969250|181642073|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.73
90889090|NCT04969250|181642074|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.40
90889091|NCT04969250|181642075|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.078|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.078
90889092|NCT04969250|181642076|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.033|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.033
90889093|NCT02119416|181642083|OTHER|Maximum heart rate after 2 mg/kg of caffeine compared to baseline was assessed using a mixed effects regression model. Sex and pubertal stage were included in the model as time invariant predictors.|||||<|0.05||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|mixed effects regression|||||||<0.05
90889094|NCT02119416|181642083|OTHER|We compared means of our dependent variables after administration of different doses of caffeine.|||||<|0.05||||||The p-value was set prior to the analysis and all comparisons were planned.|ANCOVA|||We used repeated measures ANOVAS and conducted planned comparisons between groups as post-hoc tests.||||< 0.05
90889095|NCT02119416|181642084|OTHER|mixed effects regression models were used with sex and pubertal stage as time invariant predictors.|||||<|0.05|||||||mixed effects regression|||order was included in the analysis. We examined caffeine dose.||||<0.05
90889096|NCT02119416|181642084|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
90889097|NCT00377676|181642126|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|In order to test the primary hypothesis at a one-sided alpha = .05 and have a power of 0.9, when the non-inferiority margin is 1.5, the total number of subjects with all-cause SAEs that must be observed during the study was found to be 235. Assuming the placebo rate is 0.08, the required sample size was found to be 2991.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02|||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0||1.27||Using the Lan and Demets alpha spending function for O'Brien-Fleming boundaries and the overall one-sided significance level of 5%, a level of 0.04068 was to be used at the interim analysis and 0.03938 at the time of the final analysis.|Regression, Cox||cycloset to placebo|||1.27||<0.05
90889098|NCT00377676|181642127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.58|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.96|||Regression, Cox|||In order to test the hypothesis for serious cardiovascular adverse events as for the primary endpoint at a one-sided alpha = 0.5 when the non-inferiority margin is 1.5, the final sample size of 3000 to 3300 subjects was to provide at least 62% power, assuming a hypothetical rate of events of 3.43%, or 103 to 113 cardiovascular SAEs. Upon demonstration of non-inferiority - a 2 sided using 95% CI was used to assess for superiority.||.96|.35|<0.05
90889099|NCT00377676|181642128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.4|<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||If the standard deviation of HbA1c level is about 1.0% and the baseline and 24 week scores have a correlation of 0.50 then the effect size is 0.5%/1.0% = 0.50. For the metformin/SU analysis, 160 subjects assuming a standard deviation of 1.0% would provide a power of 90% power to detect differences in mean changes of 0.5% or larger.||||<0.001
90889100|NCT00377676|181642129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90889101|NCT03579459|181642137|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was established if the 95% confidence interval of GMC ratio was within the interval (0.5, 2).|Geometric Mean ratio (GMR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.18|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) were back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations|Toxin A||1.18|0.86|
90889102|NCT03579459|181642137|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was established if the 95% confidence interval of GMC ratio was within the interval (0.5, 2).|GMR|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.18|||||CIs were back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations|Toxin A||1.18|0.86|
90889103|NCT03579459|181642137|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was established if the 95% confidence interval of GMC ratio was within the interval (0.5, 2).|GMR|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.17|||||CIs were back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations|Toxin A||1.17|0.85|
90889104|NCT03579459|181642137|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was established if the 95% confidence interval of GMC ratio was within the interval (0.5, 2).|GMR|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.31|||||CIs were back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations|Toxin B||1.31|0.87|
90889105|NCT03579459|181642137|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was established if the 95% confidence interval of GMC ratio was within the interval (0.5, 2).|GMR|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.31|||||CIs were back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations|Toxin B||1.31|0.88|
90889106|NCT03579459|181642137|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was established if the 95% confidence interval of GMC ratio was within the interval (0.5, 2).|GMR|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.23|||||CIs were back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations|Toxin B||1.23|0.83|
90952011|NCT01646177|181781665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.012|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Includes analysis only from Absenteeism Score.||||0.012
90889107|NCT02528214|181642146|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measure are reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05. Only the primary and the first 4 secondary outcome measures were included in the procedure.|Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|28.24|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.81|40.67||Threshold for significance at two-sided 0.05 level.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference represents reduction difference i.e. dupilumab - placebo.|The outcome measure was analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model which included percentage reduction of OCS dose at Week 24 as the response variable, and treatment group, baseline eosinophil level, optimized OCS dose at baseline, region as covariates. Missing data was imputed using a pattern mixture model by multiple imputation approach.||40.67|15.81|< 0.0001
90889108|NCT02528214|181642148|SUPERIORITY|Testing was performed according to the hierarchical testing procedure (continued only if previous endpoints were statistically significant).|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.06|7.67||Threshold for significance at 0.05.|Regression, Logistic||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w v Placebo q2w|The outcome measure was analyzed using a logistic regression model. The model included the binary status of whether or not a participant achieved the 50% OCS dose reduction criterion as the response variable, and treatment groups, optimized OCS dose at baseline, regions, and baseline eosinophil level subgroups as covariates. Missing data was imputed by using a pattern mixture model by multiple imputation approach.||7.67|2.06|< 0.0001
90889109|NCT02528214|181642149|SUPERIORITY|Testing was performed according to the hierarchical testing procedure (continued only if previous endpoints were statistically significant).|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.48|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.39|8.39||Threshold for significance at 0.05.|Regression, Logistic||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w v Placebo q2w|The outcome measure was analyzed using a logistic regression model. The model included the binary status of whether or not a participant achieved a reduction of OCS dose to \<5 mg/day at Week 24 as the response variable, treatment groups, optimized OCS dose at baseline, regions, and baseline eosinophil level subgroups as covariates. Missing data was imputed by using a pattern mixture model by multiple imputation approach.||8.39|2.39|< 0.0001
90889110|NCT02528214|181642150|SUPERIORITY|Testing was performed according to the hierarchical testing procedure (continued only if previous endpoints were statistically significant).|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.57||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|4.73||Threshold for significance at 0.05.|Regression, Logistic||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w v Placebo q2w|The outcome was analyzed using a logistic regression model. The model included binary status of whether or not a participant achieved their maximum possible reduction of OCS dose per protocol at Week 24 as the response variable, treatment groups, optimized OCS dose at baseline, regions, and baseline eosinophil level subgroups as covariates. Missing data was imputed by using a pattern mixture model by multiple imputation approach.||4.73|1.4|0.0024
90889111|NCT02528214|181642151|SUPERIORITY|Testing was performed according to the hierarchical testing procedure (continued only if previous endpoints were statistically significant).|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.74||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|5.1||Threshold for significance at 0.05.|Regression, Logistic||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w v Placebo q2w|The outcome measure was analyzed using a logistic regression model. The model included the binary status of whether or not a participant no longer required OCS at Week 24 as the response variable, and treatment groups, optimized OCS dose at baseline, regions, and baseline eosinophil level subgroups as covariates. Missing data was imputed using a pattern mixture model by multiple imputation approach.||5.1|1.47|0.0015
90889112|NCT00407537|181642160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSMean difference|-4.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.55|-3.89||Value at a given visit as response. Baseline value, country, and treatment were used as fixed effect and site was used as a random effect and a compound-symmetry (CS) variance-covariance matrix was used for subjects from the same site.|Mixed-effect linear model||Value at a given visit as response. Baseline value, country, and treatment were used as fixed effect and site was used as a random effect and a compound-symmetry (CS) variance-covariance matrix was used for subjects from the same site.|It was estimated that each study site would on average complete 8 evaluable participants, therefore enrolling 164 sites, 1968 participants would provide at least 90% power to detect a 10% relative reduction in the 10-year predicted risk of total CHD at 12 months (as calculated from the Framingham model) from the control arm based on a two-sided t-test with a 5% significance level.||-3.89|-5.55|<0.001
90889113|NCT00407537|181642161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSMean difference|-4.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.58|-3.93||Value at a given visit as response. Baseline value, country, and treatment were used as fixed effect and site was used as a random effect and a compound-symmetry (CS) variance-covariance matrix was used for subjects from the same site.|Mixed-effect linear model||Value at a given visit as response. Baseline value, country, and treatment were used as fixed effect and site was used as a random effect and a compound-symmetry (CS) variance-covariance matrix was used for subjects from the same site.|||-3.93|-5.58|<0.001
90889114|NCT00407537|181642162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSMean difference|-0.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|-0.72||Value at a given visit as response. Baseline value, country, and treatment were used as fixed effect and site was used as a random effect and a compound-symmetry (CS) variance-covariance matrix was used for subjects from the same site.|Mixed-effect linear model||Value at a given visit as response. Baseline value, country, and treatment were used as fixed effect and site was used as a random effect and a compound-symmetry (CS) variance-covariance matrix was used for subjects from the same site.|||-0.72|-1.23|<0.001
90889115|NCT00407537|181642163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSMean difference|-0.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|-0.59||Value at a given visit as response. Baseline value, country, and treatment were used as fixed effect and site was used as a random effect and a compound-symmetry (CS) variance-covariance matrix was used for subjects from the same site.|Mixed-effect linear model||Value at a given visit as response. Baseline value, country, and treatment were used as fixed effect and site was used as a random effect and a compound-symmetry (CS) variance-covariance matrix was used for subjects from the same site.|||-0.59|-1.16|<0.001
90889116|NCT00407537|181642164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSMean difference|-1.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|-1.15||Value at a given visit as response. Baseline value, country, and treatment were used as fixed effect and site was used as a random effect and a compound-symmetry (CS) variance-covariance matrix was used for subjects from the same site.|Mixed-effect linear model||Value at a given visit as response. Baseline value, country, and treatment were used as fixed effect and site was used as a random effect and a compound-symmetry (CS) variance-covariance matrix was used for subjects from the same site.|||-1.15|-1.56|<0.001
90889117|NCT00407537|181642165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSMean difference|-1.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|-1.14||Value at a given visit as response. Baseline value, country, and treatment were used as fixed effect and site was used as a random effect and a compound-symmetry (CS) variance-covariance matrix was used for subjects from the same site.|Mixed-effect linear model||Value at a given visit as response. Baseline value, country, and treatment were used as fixed effect and site was used as a random effect and a compound-symmetry (CS) variance-covariance matrix was used for subjects from the same site.|||-1.14|-1.57|<0.001
90889118|NCT00407537|181642170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.15|||<|0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.42|-0.88|||Mixed-effect linear model|||||-0.88|-5.42|<0.007
90889119|NCT00407537|181642171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.61|||<|0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.86|-0.37|||Mixed-effect linear model|||||-0.37|-2.86|<0.011
90889120|NCT00407537|181642172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|-3.5|||Mixed-effect linear model|||||-3.50|-8.00|<0.001
90889121|NCT00407537|181642173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.42|-1.92|||Mixed-effect linear model|||||-1.92|-4.42|<0.001
90889122|NCT00407537|181642174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-38.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.71|-34.17||Baseline value, country, and treatment were used as fixed effect and site was used as a random effect and a compound-symmetry (CS) variance-covariance matrix was used for subjects from the same site.|Mixed-effect linear model|||TC||-34.17|-43.71|<0.001
90889123|NCT00407537|181642174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-35.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.64|-30.99||Baseline value, country, and treatment were used as fixed effect and site was used as a random effect and a compound-symmetry (CS) variance-covariance matrix was used for subjects from the same site.|Mixed-effect linear model|||LDL||-30.99|-39.64|<0.001
90889124|NCT00407537|181642174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.99||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|2.13||Baseline value, country, and treatment were used as fixed effect and site was used as a random effect and a compound-symmetry (CS) variance-covariance matrix was used for subjects from the same site.|Mixed-effect linear model|||HDL||2.13|-0.14|0.087
90889125|NCT00407537|181642174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.6|-14.7||Baseline value, country, and treatment were used as fixed effect and site was used as a random effect and a compound-symmetry (CS) variance-covariance matrix was used for subjects from the same site.|Mixed-effects linear model|||Triglycerides||-14.70|-32.60|<0.001
90889126|NCT00407537|181642175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-33.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.57|-28.56||Baseline value, country, and treatment were used as fixed effect and site was used as a random effect and a compound-symmetry (CS) variance-covariance matrix was used for subjects from the same site.|Mixed-effect linear model|||TC||-28.56|-37.57|<0.001
90889127|NCT00407537|181642175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.7|-25.95||Baseline value, country, and treatment were used as fixed effect and site was used as a random effect and a compound-symmetry (CS) variance-covariance matrix was used for subjects from the same site.|Mixed-effect linear model|||LDL||-25.95|-33.70|<0.001
90889128|NCT00407537|181642175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.58||||0.379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|1.86||Baseline value, country, and treatment were used as fixed effect and site was used as a random effect and a compound-symmetry (CS) variance-covariance matrix was used for subjects from the same site.|Mixed-effect linear model|||HDL||1.86|-0.71|0.379
90889129|NCT00407537|181642175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.72|-7.81||Baseline value, country, and treatment were used as fixed effect and site was used as a random effect and a compound-symmetry (CS) variance-covariance matrix was used for subjects from the same site.|Mixed-effect linear model|||Triglycerides||-7.81|-28.72|<0.001
90889130|NCT00407537|181642176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-38.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.71|-34.17||Baseline value, country, and treatment were used as fixed effect and site was used as a random effect and a compound-symmetry (CS) variance-covariance matrix was used for subjects from the same site.|Mixed-effect linear model|||TC||-34.17|-43.71|<0.001
90889131|NCT00407537|181642176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-35.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.64|-30.99||Baseline value, country, and treatment were used as fixed effect and site was used as a random effect and a compound-symmetry (CS) variance-covariance matrix was used for subjects from the same site.|Mixed-effect linear model|||LDL||-30.99|-39.64|<0.001
90889132|NCT00407537|181642176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.99||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|2.13||Baseline value, country, and treatment were used as fixed effect and site was used as a random effect and a compound-symmetry (CS) variance-covariance matrix was used for subjects from the same site.|mixed-effect linear model|||HDL||2.13|-0.14|0.087
90889133|NCT00407537|181642176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.6|-14.7||Baseline value, country, and treatment were used as fixed effect and site was used as a random effect and a compound-symmetry (CS) variance-covariance matrix was used for subjects from the same site.|Mixed-effect linear model|||Triglycerides||-14.70|-32.60|<0.001
90889134|NCT00407537|181642177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-33.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.57|-28.56||Baseline value, country, and treatment were used as fixed effect and site was used as a random effect and a compound-symmetry (CS) variance-covariance matrix was used for subjects from the same site.|Mixed-effect linear model|||Total cholesterol||-28.56|-37.57|<0.001
90889135|NCT00407537|181642177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.7|-25.95||Baseline value, country, and treatment were used as fixed effect and site was used as a random effect and a compound-symmetry (CS) variance-covariance matrix was used for subjects from the same site.|Mixed-effect linear model|||LDL||-25.95|-33.70|<0.001
90889136|NCT00407537|181642177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.58||||0.379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|1.86||Baseline value, country, and treatment were used as fixed effect and site was used as a random effect and a compound-symmetry (CS) variance-covariance matrix was used for subjects from the same site.|mixed-effect linear model|||HDL||1.86|-0.71|0.379
90889137|NCT00407537|181642177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.72|-7.81||Baseline value, country, and treatment were used as fixed effect and site was used as a random effect and a compound-symmetry (CS) variance-covariance matrix was used for subjects from the same site.|Mixed-effect linear model|||Triglycerides||-7.81|-28.72|<0.001
90889138|NCT00762320|181642187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df=4||||||=.004
90889139|NCT00762320|181642192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df=7||||||<.001
90889140|NCT00952653|181642225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted geometric means|71.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|65.08|78.33|||||Values have been back-transformed from the log scale.|DVS SR + Midazolam (test) versus Midazolam (reference). Based on the sample size, this study has at least 85% power overall to demonstrate the lack of an interaction \[that is, equivalence in both AUCinf and Cmax and both midazolam and 1-hydroxy midazolam\], where overall study power is to be based on the product of the individual powers of the parameters of interest.||78.33|65.08|
90889141|NCT00952653|181642226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted geometric means|86.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.04|93.74|||||Values have been back-transformed from the log scale.|DVS SR + Midazolam (test) versus Midazolam (reference). Based on the sample size, this study has at least 85% power overall to demonstrate the lack of an interaction \[that is, equivalence in both AUCinf and Cmax and both midazolam and 1-hydroxy midazolam\], where overall study power is to be based on the product of the individual powers of the parameters of interest.||93.74|79.04|
90889142|NCT00952653|181642227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted geometric means|92.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.43|97.97|||||Values have been back-transformed from the log scale.|DVS SR + Midazolam (test) versus Midazolam (reference). Based on the sample size, this study has at least 85% power overall to demonstrate the lack of an interaction \[that is, equivalence in both AUCinf and Cmax and both midazolam and 1-hydroxy midazolam\], where overall study power is to be based on the product of the individual powers of the parameters of interest.||97.97|87.43|
90889143|NCT00952653|181642228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted geometric means|101.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.96|110.11|||||Values have been back-transformed from the log scale.|DVS SR + Midazolam (test) versus Midazolam (reference). Based on the sample size, this study has at least 85% power overall to demonstrate the lack of an interaction \[that is, equivalence in both AUCinf and Cmax and both midazolam and 1-hydroxy midazolam\], where overall study power is to be based on the product of the individual powers of the parameters of interest.||110.11|92.96|
90889144|NCT00952653|181642229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted geometric means|72.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|66.04|78.72|||||Values have been back-transformed from the log scale.|DVS SR + Midazolam (test) versus Midazolam (reference)||78.72|66.04|
90889145|NCT00952653|181642232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted geometric means|87.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.42|94.96|||||Values have been back-transformed from the log scale.|DVS SR + Midazolam (test) versus Midazolam (reference)||94.96|80.42|
90889146|NCT01365494|181642235|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority would be achieved if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the post vaccination (day 14) ratio of GMCs between the groups (GMCGroup Zagreb / GMCGroup Essen) was greater than 0.667|Ratio of GMCs-Zagreb and Essen at day 14|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.19|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate non-inferiority in immune response of the Zagreb postexposure schedule of Rabipur to that of the conventional Essen postexposure schedule at study day 14||1.19|0.89|
90889147|NCT01365494|181642237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMCs-Zagreb and Essen at day 7|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.48|||ANOVA|||||0.48|0.3|
90889148|NCT01365494|181642237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMCs-Zagreb and Essen at day 42|0.96||||||95.0|0.86|1.07|||ANOVA|||||1.07|0.86|
90889149|NCT00718718|181642239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.026
90889150|NCT00718718|181642239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.052|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.052
90889151|NCT00718718|181642239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.026
90889152|NCT00718718|181642239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.104|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.104
90889153|NCT00718718|181642240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Van Der Waerden ANOVA|||||||< 0.001
90889154|NCT00718718|181642240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Van Der Waerden ANOVA|||||||< 0.001
90889155|NCT00718718|181642240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Van Der Waerden ANOVA|||||||< 0.001
90889156|NCT00718718|181642240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Van Der Waerden ANOVA|||||||< 0.001
90889157|NCT00718718|181642240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Van Der Waerden ANOVA|||||||< 0.001
90889158|NCT00718718|181642241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.148|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.148
90952012|NCT01646177|181781665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Includes analysis only from Activity Impairment Score.||||<0.001
91040923|NCT04998136|181966448|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|88.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.96|359.61|||Regression, Logistic|||Treatment policy estimand. The primary endpoint was analysed using a binary logistic regression model with randomized treatment as factor and baseline body weight as covariate. Analysed data is from in-trial period.||359.61|21.96|<0.0001
91040924|NCT04998136|181966449|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|253.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.41|1672.57|||Regression, Logistic|||Hypothetical estimand. MMRM was used with randomized treatment as factor and baseline body weight as covariate. The MMRM was performed on body weight (kg) and individual missing week 44 responses were predicted from the MMRM, each participant was then classified for body weight loss \>= 5% and analysed using a binary logistic regression model with randomized treatment as factor and baseline body weight as covariate. Analysed data is from on-treatment observation period.||1672.57|38.41|<0.0001
91040925|NCT03292458|181966476|SUPERIORITY|The primary efficacy outcome was analyzed using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based linear mixed-effect model. The analysis included group, treatment, and treatment period as interacting fixed effects and subject as random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within-patient errors.||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|98.75|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.01
91040926|NCT03292458|181966477|OTHER|The minimum and average efficacy (in % symptom change) of sodium oxybate versus placebo in improving symptoms compared to the baseline was determined using binomial logistic regression.||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|98.75|||||Regression, Logistic|||The minimum and average efficacy of sodium oxybate vs. placebo in improving symptoms compared to the baseline were determined using binomial logistic regression.||||0.05
91040927|NCT03292458|181966478|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|98.75||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
91040928|NCT03292458|181966479|OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|98.75|||||ANOVA|||||||0.01
91040929|NCT03292458|181966480|OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|98.75|||||Pearson correlation|||||||0.01
90889159|NCT01812044|181642246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-value based on Wilcoxon rank sum test of difference in medians between groups.||||||0.035
90889160|NCT01812044|181642246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.189|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-value based on Wilcoxon rank sum test of difference in medians between groups.||||||0.189
90889161|NCT01812044|181642246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.298|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-value based on Wilcoxon rank sum test of difference in medians between groups.||||||0.298
90889162|NCT02670629|181642255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.003
90889163|NCT01165281|181642264|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|In order to demonstrate that the upper limit of the confidence interval of intergroup differences in change from baseline is not higher than the noninferiority margin of 1 with a 1-tailed significance level of 0.025 and 90% power, the sample size was calculated to be 133 patients in each group for a total of 266 patients. Assuming approximately 20% of patients would be excluded from the analyses, the target sample size was 330 patients.|Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.226||0.786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.506|0.383|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used with treatment and country as factors and baseline pain intensity score as a covariate.||The primary hypothesis to be tested for the study was that the JNS024 ER group was not inferior to oxycodone CR as defined by the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval of the difference between JNS024 ER and oxycodone CR on the mean change from baseline of the NRS pain intensity score during the last 3 days of study drug administration. It was to be concluded that JNS024 ER is not inferior to oxycodone CR if the upper 95% confidence limit is less than 1 point.||0.383|-0.506|0.786
90889164|NCT00364858|181642272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Agresti and Min|-0.176||||||95.0|-0.357|0.058||||||Difference in proportion of Clinical Success = (Proportion of participants with Clinical Success Q4 - Proportion of participants with Clinical Success Q2).||0.058|-0.357|
90889165|NCT02730819|181642299|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||P-values of 0.05 or lower were considered statistically significant.||||0.006
91040930|NCT03292458|181966481|OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|98.75|||||Pearson correlation|||||||0.01
91040931|NCT00874822|181966518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of Participants|19.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.6|24.4|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||"Ho: The Prevalence of obstructive sleep apnea in patients planning hip or knee arthroplasty will be no different using current screening techniques than it was in a historical control group.~The prevalence of OSA in the study population is hypothesized to be at least 10% higher than the best previous estimate of 6.7%. Employing a two-sided hypothesis test with α of 0.05 and power of 0.85 yields a sample size of 163."||24.4|13.6|<0.0001
91040932|NCT02627963|181966519|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.0165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.94||A one-sided, log-rank test stratified for IMDC risk category and prior therapy (two VEGFR TKIs vs. a checkpoint inhibitor plus a VEGFR TKI vs. a VEGFR TKI plus any other systemic agent) at a significance level of α = 0.025 was used.|Log Rank|||||0.94|0.56|0.0165
90889166|NCT02730819|181642300|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||P-values of 0.05 or lower were considered statistically significant.||||0.006
90889167|NCT02099006|181642358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired T test||Null hypothesis - that the improvement in daily genital pain would be no different with the daily application of loperamide than with the daily application of a placebo cream.||||0.30
91040933|NCT02627963|181966520|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.8174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.25|||Log Rank|||||1.25|0.75|0.8174
91040934|NCT03068780|181966527|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.84||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|3.3||P-value adjusted with CHW method using CMH test statistics based on a test stratified by EB subtype and target wound size class estimated separately before and after the interim analysis for sample size re-estimation.Threshold of superiority p\<0.05.|Cui, Hung, Wang (CHW) approach|Primary efficacy endpoint was first assessed with the CMH test, but the final statistical analysis was performed based on the CHW approach.|The CMH test statistic from the data until the interim analysis (IA) and the CMH test statistic of the data after the IA must be calculated separately. The results are then combined using the CHW weighted approach to one test-statistic.|||3.30|1.02|0.013
91040935|NCT03068780|181966528|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.302||||||Threshold of superiority is p\<0.05|Chi-squared|||||||0.302
91040936|NCT00840658|181966545|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||P-value is for the Ciudad Juarez site and it corresponds to the interaction between group (Intervention vs. Control) and study visit (12-months vs. baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Alternative hypothesis: There is a difference between the intervention and the control group with respect to the change in the odds of higher receptive needle sharing. (i.e., The interaction between study visit (baseline, 4-, 8-, and 12-months) and intervention group will be significant at 0.05 significance level. Over time, the intervention group will experience a significant decline in receptive needle sharing but the control group will not.)|To examine the receptive needle sharing outcome, we used ordinal logistic regression for correlated data via GEE with the correlation matrix estimated empirically from the data. The final analyses were stratified by site. The final ordinal logistic regression models included the following main effects: Group, Visit, and Visit\*Group interaction, with our primary interest in the Visit\*Group interaction, as a significant p-value would be indicative of an intervention effect.|||0.036
90889168|NCT02099006|181642358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired||Null hypothesis - that the improvement in daily genital pain would be no different with the daily application of ketamine than with the daily application of a placebo cream.||||0.33
90889169|NCT02099006|181642358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired||Null hypothesis - that the improvement in daily genital pain would be no different with the daily application of gabapentin than with the daily application of a placebo cream.||||0.65
90889170|NCT02099006|181642358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired||Null hypothesis - that the improvement in daily genital pain would be no different with the daily application of amitriptyline and baclofen than with the daily application of a placebo cream.||||0.25
90889171|NCT02099006|181642358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired||Null hypothesis - that the improvement in daily genital pain would be no different with the daily application of ketoprofen than with the daily application of a placebo cream.||||1.0
90889172|NCT02099006|181642359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired||Null hypothesis - that the improvement in tampon test pain would be no different with the daily application of loperamide cream than with the daily application of a placebo cream.||||0.31
90889173|NCT02099006|181642359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired||Null hypothesis - that the improvement in tampon test pain would be no different with the daily application of ketamine cream than with the daily application of a placebo cream.||||1
90889174|NCT02099006|181642359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired||Null hypothesis - that the improvement in tampon test pain would be no different with the daily application of gabapentin cream than with the daily application of a placebo cream.||||0.66
90889175|NCT02099006|181642359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired||Null hypothesis - that the improvement in tampon test pain would be no different with the daily application of ketoprofen cream than with the daily application of a placebo cream.||||0.42
90889176|NCT02099006|181642359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired||Null hypothesis - that the improvement in tampon test pain would be no different with the daily application of amitriptyline/baclofen cream than with the daily application of a placebo cream.||||0.79
91050520|NCT02037165|181987277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0792|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|7.1|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 2:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||7.1|-1.1|
90889177|NCT01308580|181642360|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin of 1.214|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.024|||||ONE_SIDED|98.89||1.184|||||Cabazitaxel 20 mg/m\^2 vs Cabazitaxel 25 mg/m\^2|The hazard ratio for OS was estimated using the Cox proportional hazards regression model. The Cox proportional hazard model was adjusted by measurability of the disease at baseline, ECOG PS score at baseline, and region at the time of randomization. Cabazitaxel 20 mg/m\^2 relative to 25 mg/m\^2 dose group was considered non-inferior if the upper bound of 1-sided 98.89% confidence interval of hazard ratio (20 mg/m\^2 versus 25 mg/m\^2) was less than the non-inferiority margin of 1.214.||1.184||
90889178|NCT01308580|181642360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.024|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.922||||||Cabazitaxel 20 mg/m\^2 vs Cabazitaxel 25 mg/m\^2|The hazard ratio for OS was estimated using the Cox proportional hazards regression model. The Cox proportional hazard model was adjusted by measurability of the disease at baseline, ECOG PS score at baseline, and region at the time of randomization. Cabazitaxel 25 mg/m\^2 was considered to be superior to 20 mg/m\^2 dose if the lower bound of 1-sided 95% confidence interval of hazard ratio was greater than 1.|||0.922|
90889179|NCT01308580|181642361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.099|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.974|1.24|||||Cabazitaxel 20 mg/m\^2 vs Cabazitaxel 25 mg/m\^2|Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox Proportional Hazards regression model. The Cox proportional hazard model was adjusted by measurability of the disease at baseline, ECOG PS score at baseline, and region at the time of randomization.||1.24|0.974|
90952013|NCT01646177|181781665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Includes analysis only from Activity Impairment Score.||||<0.001
91040937|NCT00840658|181966546|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||P-value is for the Ciudad Juarez site and it corresponds to the interaction between group (Intervention vs. Control) and study visit (12-months vs. baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Alternative hypothesis: There is a difference between the intervention and the control group with respect to the change in the mean score IRI (i.e., The interaction between study visit (baseline, 4-, 8-, and 12-months) and intervention group will be significant at 0.05 significance level. Over time, the intervention group will experience a significant decline in the IRI but the control group will not.)|We used gamma regression for correlated data via GEE, with the correlation matrix estimated empirically from the data. The final analyses were stratified by site. The final gamma regression models included the following main effects: Group, Visit, and Visit\*Group interaction, with our primary interest in the Visit\*Group interaction, as a significant p-value would be indicative of an intervention effect.|||0.013
91040938|NCT01322633|181966547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|1.93||||||Analysis was based on hazard ratio using Cox proportional hazard regression method adjusted for sex, age, cumulative PPI dose, total years of PPI treatment, diabetes, hepatitis C, hepatitis B and year of index date.||1.93|0.24|
91040939|NCT01322633|181966548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.4||||||Analysis was based on hazard ratio using Cox proportional hazard regression method adjusted for sex, age, cumulative PPI dose, total years of PPI treatment, diabetes, hepatitis C, hepatitis B and year of index date.||1.40|0.65|
90889180|NCT01308580|181642362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.096|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.902|1.331|||||Cabazitaxel 20 mg/m\^2 vs Cabazitaxel 25 mg/m\^2|Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox Proportional Hazards regression model. The Cox proportional hazard model was adjusted by measurability of the disease at baseline, ECOG PS score at baseline, and region at the time of randomization.||1.331|0.902|
90889181|NCT01308580|181642364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.195|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.025|1.393|||||Cabazitaxel 20 mg/m\^2 vs Cabazitaxel 25 mg/m\^2|Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox Proportional Hazards regression model. The Cox proportional hazard model was adjusted by measurability of the disease at baseline, ECOG PS score at baseline, and region at the time of randomization.||1.393|1.025|
90889182|NCT01308580|181642366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.046|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.874|1.251|||||Cabazitaxel 20 mg/m\^2 vs Cabazitaxel 25 mg/m\^2|Hazard ratio is estimated using a Cox Proportional Hazards regression model. The Cox proportional hazard model was adjusted by measurability of the disease at baseline, ECOG PS score at baseline, and region at the time of randomization.||1.251|0.874|
90889183|NCT01461668|181642392|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.41||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|1.86|||Fisher Exact||Confidence interval for the odds ratio is based upon the inversion Fisher's exact test|||1.86|0.08|0.320
90889184|NCT01983293|181642418|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.001
90889185|NCT03750552|181642419|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.413||0.574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|0.58|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||0.58|-1.05|0.574
90889186|NCT03750552|181642420|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.284||0.331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.28|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||0.28|-0.84|0.331
90889187|NCT03750552|181642421|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.376||0.481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|0.48|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||0.48|-1.01|0.481
90889188|NCT03750552|181642422|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.073||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.17|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by disease type|The assumed common risk difference estimate and standard error are calculated using Mantel-Haenszel stratum weights and the Sato variance estimator. Mantel-Haenszel confidence limits are shown.|||0.17|-0.12|0.740
91040940|NCT01322633|181966549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.21||||||Analysis was based on hazard ratio using Cox proportional hazard regression method adjusted for sex, age, cumulative PPI dose, total years of PPI treatment, diabetes, hepatitis C, hepatitis B and year of index date.||1.21|0.93|
90889189|NCT03750552|181642423|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.064||0.0903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.24|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by disease type|The assumed common risk difference estimate and standard error are calculated using Mantel-Haenszel stratum weights and the Sato variance estimator. Mantel-Haenszel confidence limits are shown.|||0.24|-0.02|0.0903
90889190|NCT03248739|181642424|EQUIVALENCE|Based on occlusion data from the previously referenced prospective study, as well as a P-value of 0.05 and power of 0.80, the study will need to include 90 patients to demonstrate statistical significance. To ensure that power is adequate, we will plan to enroll 120 patients (60 in each arm).||||||0.23|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.23
90889191|NCT01259713|181642429|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For the interim analysis performed when 50% of the subjects had completed the study, an alpha of 0.0003 was spent. Therefore, the significance level for the 2-sided test in the primary analysis at the end of the study was 0.0497 (corresponding to 95.03% confidence interval (CI)).|Relative risk reduction|0.33||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.03|-0.32|0.66||P-value was from a stratum-adjusted (stratified by region) CMH test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Relative risk reduction = 1 - risk ratio.|A two-group Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level and 2:1 allocation of 354 randomized subjects (236 AmBisome, 118 placebo) would have 81% power to detect a relative reduction of 75% if the rate of IFI is 10% in the placebo group (based on unpublished data from the German Multicenter Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia Working Group (GMALL) and consistent with the published rate of 16.4% in patients with hematological malignancies undergoing remission induction).||0.66|-0.32|0.24
90889192|NCT01259713|181642430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative risk reduction|0.25||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.5||P-value was from a stratum-adjusted (stratified by region) CMH test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Relative risk reduction = 1 - risk ratio.|||0.50|-0.11|0.15
90952014|NCT01646177|181781665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Includes analysis only from Activity Impairment Score.||||<0.001
91040941|NCT00270634|181966558|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size was determined holding the probability of a type-I error at a = 0.05, and the power at 0.76. The rate of BPAR at 6 months posttransplant was assumed to be 0.20 in the control arm, and the noninferiority margin was chosen to be -0.15. A sample size for this phase-2b trial is determined to be 76 subjects in each dose group or a total of 304 patients. Assuming a 10% dropout rate during the study, ∼332 subjects were to be proportionally randomized in this study.|Weighted Average Difference|-3.2|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||1.3|||t-test, 1 sided||The upper bound of the confidence interval was a measure of non-inferiority of VCS to TAC. VCS was considered non-inferior to TAC if the upper one-sided 95% confidence bound was less than 15%.|The 6-month BPAR rate was used to calculate an estimate of the difference in rates between each VCS group and TAC, combining across pooled investigative center strata, weighted by the number of patients in each of the pooled center strata. The overall standard error was estimated for the linear combination of proportions. Using this statistic and its standard error, the upper bound one-sided 95% C.I. was constructed for the difference in BPAR rates between groups (VCS - TAC).||1.3||
91040942|NCT00270634|181966558|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size was determined holding the probability of a type-I error at a = 0.05, and the power at 0.76. The rate of BPAR at 6 months posttransplant was assumed to be 0.20 in the control arm, and the noninferiority margin was chosen to be -0.15. A sample size for this phase-2b trial is determined to be 76 subjects in each dose group or a total of 304 patients. Assuming a 10% dropout rate during the study, ∼332 subjects were to be proportionally randomized in this study.|Weighted Average Difference|4.6|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||10.8|||t-test, 1 sided||The upper bound of the confidence interval was a measure of non-inferiority of VCS to TAC. VCS was considered non-inferior to TAC if the upper one-sided 95% confidence bound was less than 15%.|||10.8||
91040943|NCT00270634|181966558|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size was determined holding the probability of a type-I error at a = 0.05, and the power at 0.76. The rate of BPAR at 6 months posttransplant was assumed to be 0.20 in the control arm, and the noninferiority margin was chosen to be -0.15. A sample size for this phase-2b trial is determined to be 76 subjects in each dose group or a total of 304 patients. Assuming a 10% dropout rate during the study, ∼332 subjects were to be proportionally randomized in this study.|Weighted Average Difference|4.9|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||11.4|||t-test, 1 sided||The upper bound of the confidence interval was a measure of non-inferiority of VCS to TAC. VCS was considered non-inferior to TAC if the upper one-sided 95% confidence bound was less than 15%.|||11.4||
91040944|NCT00573313|181966566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Means at 24 weeks.|0.1505|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1615||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1853|0.4863||The data provided here are for changes in serum AST levels as representative of all clinical laboratory parameters measured.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance controlled for baseline data, e.g. AST.|Obtained median values and ranges and log transformations of SD.|Power calculation indicated that a sample size of 20 subjects per treatment arm would detect differences between groups of 0.9 within-subject standard deviations or higher at 80% power and 5% level of significance.||0.4863|-0.1853|0.36
91040945|NCT00835588|181966567|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|88.8||||||90.0|82.7|95.4|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||95.4|82.7|
91040946|NCT00835588|181966568|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|97.3||||||90.0|93.4|101.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||101|93.4|
91040947|NCT00835588|181966569|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|95.6||||||90.0|91.6|99.8|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||99.8|91.6|
91040948|NCT03405363|181966593|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Adjusted Incidence Rate Ratio|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.47|||Poisson regression model|Including exposure, natural logarithm of person-years at risk as offset, propensity score quintiles, and LAMA use at the index date as a covariate.|Olodaterol compared to 'other LABA' as reference|||1.47|0.98|
90889193|NCT01259713|181642431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative risk reduction|-0.01||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.47||P-value was from a stratum-adjusted (stratified by region) CMH test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Relative risk reduction = 1 - risk ratio.|||0.47|-0.94|0.97
90889194|NCT01259713|181642432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value is from the log-rank test stratified by region.|Log Rank|||||||0.33
90889195|NCT01259713|181642433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative risk reduction|0.25||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.53||P-value was from a stratum-adjusted (stratified by region) CMH test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Relative risk reduction = 1 - risk ratio.|||0.53|-0.19|0.22
91040949|NCT03405363|181966594|OTHER||Adjusted Incidence Rate Ratio|1.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|3.74|||Poisson regression model|Including exposure, natural logarithm of person-years at risk as offset, propensity score quintiles, and LAMA use at the index date as a covariate.|Olodaterol compared to 'other LABA' as reference|No formal hypotheses were tested.||3.74|0.90|
91040950|NCT03405363|181966595|OTHER||Adjusted Incidence Rate Ratio|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.36|||Poisson regression model|Including exposure, natural logarithm of person-years at risk as offset, propensity score quintiles, and LAMA use at the index date as a covariate.|Olodaterol compared to 'other LABA' as reference|No formal hypotheses were tested.||2.36|0.71|
90889196|NCT01259713|181642434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was from a stratum-adjusted (stratified by region) CMH test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.32
90889197|NCT01259713|181642435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was from a stratum-adjusted (stratified by region) CMH test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.32
91040951|NCT03405363|181966596|OTHER||Adjusted Incidence Rate Ratio|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.87|||Poisson regression model|Including exposure, natural logarithm of person-years at risk as offset, propensity score quintiles, and LAMA use at the index date as a covariate.|Olodaterol compared to 'other LABA' as reference|No formal hypotheses were tested.||1.87|0.79|
91040952|NCT03405363|181966597|OTHER||Adjusted Incidence Rate Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.56|||Poisson regression model|Including exposure, natural logarithm of person-years at risk as offset, propensity score quintiles, and LAMA use at the index date as a covariate.|Olodaterol compared to 'other LABA' as reference|No formal hypotheses were tested.||1.56|0.64|
91040953|NCT03405363|181966598|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Adjusted Incidence Rate Ratio|1.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|1.84|||Poisson regression model|Including exposure, natural logarithm of person-years at risk as offset, propensity score quintiles, and LAMA use at the index date as a covariate.|Olodaterol compared to 'other LABA' as reference|Analysis was based on Propensity score-trimmed population of patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) derived from the Danish Patient Registry.||1.84|1.44|
91040954|NCT03405363|181966598|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Adjusted Incidence Rate Ratio|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|1.78|||Poisson regression model||Olodaterol compared to 'other LABA' as reference|"Analysis based on post-hoc population 1.~Adjustments: propensity score decile, previous use of: LAMA, oxygen, inhaled glucocorticoid, respiratory medications, fixed-dose combinations of Short-Acting Beta2- Agonist and Short-Acting Muscarinic Antagonist and systemic antibacterials. COPD severity, number of: all-cause hospitalisations 365 and 180 days, COPD exacerbations 180 and 90 days, COPD hospitalisations 180 and 90 days, and COPD exacerbations 90 days before index date."||1.78|1.23|
91040955|NCT03405363|181966598|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Adjusted Incidende Rate Ratio|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.64|||Poisson regression model||Olodaterol compared to 'other LABA' as reference|Analysis based on post-hoc population 2. Adjustments: propensity score decile, previous use of: LAMA, oxygen, inhaled glucocorticoid, respiratory medications. COPD severity, number of all-cause hospitalisations 180 days, COPD exacerbations 180 days before cohort entry.||1.64|0.97|
91040956|NCT01559116|181966606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.252|0.309|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Placebo is calculated.|||0.309|0.252|<0.0001
91040957|NCT01559116|181966606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.115|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.087|0.143|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Olodaterol (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.143|0.087|<0.0001
90889198|NCT01259713|181642436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was from the log-rank test stratified by region.|Log Rank|Participants without consolidation/salvage therapy dates were censored using the earlier of the Early Termination and Study Completion dates.||||||0.69
90889199|NCT01259713|181642437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative risk reduction|0.08||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.19||P-value was from a stratum-adjusted (stratified by region) CMH test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Relative risk reduction = 1 - risk ratio.|Participants were not stratified for leukemia risk.||0.19|-0.04|0.20
91040958|NCT01559116|181966606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.082|0.139|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Tiotropium high dose (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.139|0.082|<0.0001
91040959|NCT01559116|181966606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.277|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.249|0.306|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to placebo is calculated.|||0.306|0.249|<0.0001
91040960|NCT01559116|181966606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.111|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.083|0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Olodaterol (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.140|0.083|<0.0001
90889200|NCT06111742|181642459|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Induction||||<0.001
90889201|NCT06111742|181642459|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||OR entry||||<0.001
90889202|NCT06111742|181642460|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.022
90889203|NCT06111742|181642462|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.046
90889204|NCT01227681|181642463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: there is significant deterioration of UPDRS part III scores from baseline to post G-CSF injection one year||||0.64
90889205|NCT00373334|181642536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.528||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.528
90889206|NCT00373334|181642536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.341||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.341
90889207|NCT00373334|181642537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.746||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of nizatidine 2.5 group to placebo group. P-value is for overall difference between groups (not comparison of individual categories).||||0.746
90889208|NCT00373334|181642537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.262||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of nizatidine 5.0 group to placebo group. P-value is for overall difference between groups (not comparison of individual categories).||||0.262
90889209|NCT00373334|181642538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.609||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of nizatidine 2.5 group to placebo group. P-value is for overall difference between groups (not comparison of individual categories).||||0.609
90889210|NCT00373334|181642538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.938||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of nizatidine 5.0 group to placebo group. P-value is for overall difference between groups (not comparison of individual categories).||||0.938
90889211|NCT00413153|181642594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Initial samples size of N=16 calculated to provide 80% power to detect a 30% change in muscle glucose uptake between groups. Student's t-test used to compare change from baseline and determine treatment effect (net difference over time between the ATV/r vs. LPV/r groups).||||0.035
90889212|NCT00413153|181642595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12||95.0|||||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Repeated measures ANCOVA, controlling for baseline values, used to assess treatment effect of the randomization over 6 months (net difference over time between ATV/r vs. LPV/r)||||0.12
90889213|NCT00413153|181642596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Repeated measures ANCOVA, controlling for baseline values, used to assess treatment effect of the randomization over 6 months (net difference over time between ATV/r vs.LPV/r).||||0.002
90889214|NCT00413153|181642597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Repeated measures ANCOVA, controlling for baseline values, used to assess treatment effect of the randomization over 6 months (net difference over time between ATV/r vs.LPV/r).||||0.02
90889215|NCT00413153|181642598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.047
90889216|NCT00413153|181642599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72||95.0|||||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Repeated measures ANCOVA, controlling for baseline values, used to assess treatment effect of the randomization over 6 months (net difference over time between ATV/r vs.LPV/r).||||0.72
90889217|NCT00413153|181642600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22||95.0|||||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Repeated measures ANCOVA, controlling for baseline values, used to assess treatment effect of the randomization over 6 months (net difference over time between ATV/r vs.LPV/r).||||0.22
90889218|NCT00413153|181642601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||Repeated Measures Ancova|||Repeated measures ANCOVA, controlling for baseline values, used to assess treatment effect of the randomization over 6 months (net difference over time between ATV/r vs.LPV/r).||||0.004
90889219|NCT00413153|181642602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||95.0|||||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Repeated measures ANCOVA, controlling for baseline values, used to assess treatment effect of the randomization over 6 months (net difference over time between ATV/r vs.LPV/r).||||0.0002
90889220|NCT03204279|181642605|OTHER|No comparison between the two dose groups is performed, thus no statistical test is applied. In the next section the goodness of fit of the loess function correlating exposure and response is reported.|Pearson R|0.076||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|||||CR in the delayed phase vs AUC0-inf|loess (Local regression or polynomial)|The p-value represents the probability found if the correlation coefficient was zero (null hypothesis).|R is the Pearson correlation is a coefficient statistic that measures linear correlation between two variables CR in the delayed phase vs AUC0-inf|The population consist of all patients having CR in the delayed phase and AUC0-inf and Cmax, there is no comparison between the two dose groups.||||0.55
90889221|NCT03204279|181642605|OTHER|No comparison between the two dose groups is performed, thus no statistical test is applied. In the next section the goodness of fit of the loess function correlating exposure and response is reported.|Pearson R|-0.041||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|||||CR in the delayed phase vs Cmax|loess (Local regression or polynomial)|The p-value represents the probability found if the correlation coefficient was zero (null hypothesis).|R is the Pearson correlation is a coefficient statistic that measures linear correlation between two variables CR in the delayed phase vs Cmax|The population consist of all patients having CR in the delayed phase and AUC0-inf and Cmax, there is no comparison between the two dose groups.||||0.75
90889222|NCT00924885|181642616|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The primary end-point was the 'overall pain experience', evaluated as described previously. Assuming the mean overall pain in the RN group to be 27 mm (value chosen after analysis of data from a previous study, Cerne et al., 2006) on VAS, with a standard deviation (SD) of 21.5 mm, 121 patients in each group would be needed to demonstrate a decrease in overall pain of 8 mm (30%) with 80% power and a significance level of 0.05 (two-tailed tests).||||0.04
91040961|NCT01559116|181966606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.124|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.096|0.152|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Tiotropium low dose (2.5 µg) is calculated.|||0.152|0.096|<0.0001
90889223|NCT04420221|181642647|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine Efficacy (VE)|-74.76||||0.8042||92.5|-680.61|36.62|||Log Rank|One-sided Group Sequential Design with non-binding beta, yielding two CIs based on cumulative alpha (92.5%) and beta (80.5%) spending|Vaccine Efficacy (VE) is defined as 1 minus the hazard ratio times 100.|||36.62|-680.61|0.8042
90889224|NCT04420221|181642648|OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy (VE)|-38.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-245.77|40.86|||||Vaccine Efficacy (VE) is defined as 1 minus the hazard ratio times 100.|||40.86|-245.77|
90889225|NCT04420221|181642649|OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy (VE)|-75.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-295.41|17.46|||||Vaccine Efficacy (VE) is defined as 1 minus the hazard ratio times 100.|||17.46|-295.41|
90889226|NCT01040130|181642653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio to placebo|1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0002||95.0|1.065|1.221|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline endurance time and period as fixed and patient as random effect. Means, CI back-transformed.|Olo 5 mcg divided by Placebo|||1.221|1.065|0.0002
90889227|NCT01040130|181642653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio to placebo|1.138|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0003||95.0|1.062|1.219|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline endurance time and period as fixed and patient as random effect. Means, CI back-transformed.|Olo 10 mcg divided by Placebo|||1.219|1.062|0.0003
90889228|NCT01040130|181642654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.182|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036|<|0.0001||95.0|0.112|0.252|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||0.252|0.112|<0.0001
90889229|NCT01040130|181642654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.174|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036|<|0.0001||95.0|0.104|0.245|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||0.245|0.104|<0.0001
90889230|NCT01040130|181642655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.766|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.223||0.0007||95.0|-1.205|-0.326|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||-0.326|-1.205|0.0007
90889231|NCT01040130|181642655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.634|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.225||0.0051||95.0|-1.077|-0.192|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||-0.192|-1.077|0.0051
90889232|NCT01040130|181642656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.258|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034|<|0.0001||95.0|0.191|0.325|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||0.325|0.191|<0.0001
90889233|NCT01040130|181642656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.294|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|<|0.0001||95.0|0.226|0.362|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||0.362|0.226|<0.0001
90889234|NCT01040130|181642657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.0001||95.0|0.107|0.252|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||0.252|0.107|<0.0001
90889235|NCT01040130|181642657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.137|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.0003||95.0|0.064|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||0.210|0.064|0.0003
90889236|NCT01040130|181642658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.103|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.051||0.0447||95.0|-0.204|-0.002|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||-0.002|-0.204|0.0447
90889237|NCT01040130|181642658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.064|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.2132||95.0|-0.166|0.037|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||0.037|-0.166|0.2132
90889238|NCT01040130|181642659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.088|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.154||0.5698||95.0|-0.391|0.216|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||0.216|-0.391|0.5698
90889239|NCT01040130|181642659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.256|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.155||0.1003||95.0|-0.05|0.561|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||0.561|-0.050|0.1003
90889240|NCT01040130|181642660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.122|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.069||0.0784||95.0|-0.258|0.014|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||0.014|-0.258|0.0784
90889241|NCT01040130|181642660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.115|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.1013||95.0|-0.252|0.023|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||0.023|-0.252|0.1013
90889242|NCT01040130|181642661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066||0.0015||95.0|-0.339|-0.081|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||-0.081|-0.339|0.0015
90889243|NCT01040130|181642661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.373|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.503|-0.243|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||-0.243|-0.503|<0.0001
90889244|NCT01040130|181642662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.119|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034||0.0005||95.0|0.052|0.185|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||0.185|0.052|0.0005
90889245|NCT01040130|181642662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.092|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034||0.0073||95.0|0.025|0.159|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||0.159|0.025|0.0073
90889246|NCT01040130|181642663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.206|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|<|0.0001||95.0|0.136|0.275|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||0.275|0.136|<0.0001
90889247|NCT01040130|181642663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.216|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036|<|0.0001||95.0|0.146|0.285|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||0.285|0.146|<0.0001
90889248|NCT01040130|181642664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062||0.9239||95.0|-0.115|0.127|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||0.127|-0.115|0.9239
90889249|NCT01040130|181642664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062||0.7368||95.0|-0.144|0.102|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||0.102|-0.144|0.7368
90889250|NCT01040130|181642665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.014|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067||0.8302||95.0|-0.146|0.118|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||0.118|-0.146|0.8302
90889251|NCT01040130|181642665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.159|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068||0.0202||95.0|-0.292|-0.025|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||-0.025|-0.292|0.0202
90889252|NCT01040130|181642666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.089|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001||95.0|0.056|0.123|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||0.123|0.056|<0.0001
91040962|NCT01559116|181966606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.107|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.079|0.136|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Tiotropium high dose (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.136|0.079|<0.0001
90889253|NCT01040130|181642666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.101|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001||95.0|0.068|0.134|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||0.134|0.068|<0.0001
90889254|NCT01040130|181642667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.224|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001||95.0|0.191|0.258|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||0.258|0.191|<0.0001
90889255|NCT01040130|181642667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.226|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001||95.0|0.193|0.259|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||0.259|0.193|<0.0001
90889256|NCT01040130|181642668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.107|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031||0.0006||95.0|0.046|0.167|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||0.167|0.046|0.0006
90889257|NCT01040130|181642668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.098|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031||0.0017||95.0|0.037|0.158|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||0.158|0.037|0.0017
90889258|NCT01040130|181642669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.285|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029|<|0.0001||95.0|0.227|0.342|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||0.342|0.227|<0.0001
90889259|NCT01040130|181642669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029|<|0.0001||95.0|0.233|0.348|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||0.348|0.233|<0.0001
90889260|NCT01040130|181642670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.318|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056|<|0.0001||95.0|0.207|0.429|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||0.429|0.207|<0.0001
90889261|NCT01040130|181642670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.303|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056|<|0.0001||95.0|0.192|0.414|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||0.414|0.192|<0.0001
90952015|NCT01646177|181781665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Includes analysis only from Presenteeism Score.||||<0.001
90889262|NCT01040130|181642671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.585|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063|<|0.0001||95.0|0.47|0.701|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||0.701|0.470|<0.0001
90889263|NCT01040130|181642671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.618|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059|<|0.0001||95.0|0.502|0.734|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||0.734|0.502|<0.0001
90889264|NCT01866410|181642699|OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.4
90889265|NCT01866410|181642700|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.5
90889266|NCT00553267|181642703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52|<|0.0001||95.0|-3.77|-1.75||Doses tested against A10 in a hierarchical manner to address issues of multiplicity. T80/A10 was tested first, then T40/A10.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline and country effect||"Testing that the combination treatments are superior to monotherapy A10.~The number of patients in the treatment arms ensure the tests have over 90% power."||-1.75|-3.77|<0.0001
90889267|NCT00553267|181642703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51|<|0.0001||95.0|-3.86|-1.84||Doses tested against A10 in a hierarchical manner to address issues of multiplicity. T80/A10 was tested first, then T40/A10.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline and country effect||"Testing that the combination treatments are superior to monotherapy A10.~The number of patients in the treatment arms ensure the tests have over 90% power."||-1.84|-3.86|<0.0001
90889268|NCT00553267|181642704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76|<|0.0001||95.0|-5.15|-2.16|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline and country effect||||-2.16|-5.15|<0.0001
90889269|NCT00553267|181642704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76|<|0.0001||95.0|-5.35|-2.36|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline and country effect||||-2.36|-5.35|<0.0001
90889270|NCT00553267|181642705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|2.32|||Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for country effect||||2.32|1.21|0.002
90889271|NCT00553267|181642705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.91|||<|0.001||95.0|1.37|2.65|||Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for country effect||||2.65|1.37|<0.001
90889272|NCT00553267|181642706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.35||||0.004||95.0|1.3|4.25|||Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for country effect||||4.25|1.30|0.004
90889273|NCT00553267|181642706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.33||||0.004||95.0|1.29|4.22|||Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for country effect||||4.22|1.29|0.004
91040963|NCT01559116|181966607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.319|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015|<|0.0001||95.0|0.289|0.349|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Placebo is calculated.|||0.349|0.289|<0.0001
90889274|NCT00553267|181642707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68||||0.002||95.0|1.21|2.34|||Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for country effect||||2.34|1.21|0.002
90889275|NCT00553267|181642707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.92|||<|0.001||95.0|1.38|2.68|||Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for country effect||||2.68|1.38|<0.001
90889276|NCT00553267|181642708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.027||95.0|1.04|2.0|||Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for country effect||||2.00|1.04|0.027
90889277|NCT00553267|181642708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.008||95.0|1.12|2.15|||Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for country effect||||2.15|1.12|0.008
90889278|NCT00553267|181642709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.58||||0.006||95.0|1.14|2.21|||Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for country effect||||2.21|1.14|0.006
91040964|NCT01559116|181966607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.126|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.096|0.156|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Olodaterol (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.156|0.096|<0.0001
90889279|NCT00553267|181642709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67||||0.002||95.0|1.2|2.32|||Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for country effect||||2.32|1.20|0.002
90889280|NCT00553267|181642710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|Stratified (for country) Wilcoxon rank sum test||||||0.006
90889281|NCT00553267|181642710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|Stratified (for country) Wilcoxon rank sum test||||||<0.001
90889282|NCT00833989|181642753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.231|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.92|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure Analysis||Mean difference = GSK249320 1 mg/kg - Placebo|Placebo Vs GSK249320 1 mg/kg, Visit 4||0.92|-0.03|
90889283|NCT00833989|181642753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.214|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.13|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure Analysis||Mean difference = GSK249320 5 mg/kg - Placebo|Placebo Vs GSK249320 5 mg/kg, Visit 4||1.13|0.25|
90889284|NCT00833989|181642753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.246|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.8|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 15 mg/kg - Placebo|Placebo Vs GSK249320 15 mg/kg, Visit 4||0.80|-0.20|
90889285|NCT00833989|181642753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.292|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.95|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 1 mg/kg - Placebo|Placebo Vs GSK249320 1 mg/kg, Visit 5||0.95|-0.24|
90889286|NCT00833989|181642753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.279|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|1.09|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 5 mg/kg- Placebo|Placebo Vs GSK249320 5 mg/kg, Visit 5||1.09|-0.05|
90889287|NCT00833989|181642753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.319|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.69|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 15 mg/kg - Placebo|Placebo Vs GSK249320 15 mg/kg, Visit 5||0.69|-0.61|
90889288|NCT00833989|181642753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.235|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.11|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 1 mg/kg - Placebo|Placebo Vs GSK249320 1 mg/kg, Visit 6||1.11|0.15|
90889289|NCT00833989|181642753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.225|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.86|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 5 mg/kg - Placebo|Placebo Vs GSK249320 5 mg/kg, Visit 6||0.86|-0.06|
90889290|NCT00833989|181642753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.259|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.77|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 15 mg/kg - Placebo|Placebo Vs GSK249320 15 mg/kg, Visit 6||0.77|-0.29|
90889291|NCT00833989|181642753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.251|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.12|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 1 mg/kg - Placebo|Placebo Vs GSK249320 1 mg/kg, Visit 7||1.12|0.10|
90889292|NCT00833989|181642753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.242|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.08|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 5 mg/kg - Placebo|Placebo Vs GSK249320 5 mg/kg, Visit 7||1.08|0.09|
90889293|NCT00833989|181642753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.277|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.73|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 15 mg/kg - Placebo|Placebo Vs GSK249320 5 mg/kg, Visit 7||0.73|-0.39|
90889294|NCT00833989|181642754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.981|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|19.71|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Mean difference =GSK249320 1 mg/kg - Placebo|Placebo Vs GSK249320 1 mg/kg, visit 4||19.71|-0.60|
90889295|NCT00833989|181642754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.801|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|18.26|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 5 mg/kg - Placebo|Placebo Vs GSK249320 5 mg/kg, Visit 4||18.26|-1.32|
90889296|NCT00833989|181642754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.47|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|11.24|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 GSK249320 15 mg/kg - Placebo|Placebo Vs GSK249320 15 mg/kg, Visit 4||11.24|-11.1|
90889297|NCT00833989|181642754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|11.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.631|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|23.15|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 1 mg/kg - Placebo|Placebo Vs GSK249320 1 mg/kg, Visit 5||23.15|0.01|
90889298|NCT00833989|181642754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.411|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|19.89|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 5 mg/kg - Placebo|Placebo Vs GSK249320 5 mg/kg, Visit 5||19.89|-2.35|
90889299|NCT00833989|181642754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.195|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|13.21|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 15 mg/kg - Placebo|Placebo Vs GSK249320 15 mg/kg, Visit 5||13.21|-12.2|
90889300|NCT00833989|181642754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.351|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|20.66|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 1 mg/kg - Placebo|Placebo Vs GSK249320 1 mg/kg, Visit 6||20.66|-1.34|
90889301|NCT00833989|181642754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.198|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.22|18.13|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 5 mg/kg - Placebo|Placebo Vs GSK249320 5 mg/kg, Visit 6||18.13|-3.22|
90889302|NCT00833989|181642754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.959|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.9|1.6|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 15 mg/kg - Placebo|Placebo Vs GSK249320 15 mg/kg, Visit 6||1.60|-22.9|
90889303|NCT00833989|181642754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.134|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.07|22.24|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 1 mg/kg - Placebo|Placebo Vs GSK249320 1 mg/kg, visit 7||22.24|-3.07|
90889304|NCT00833989|181642754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.948|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.37|18.15|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 5 mg/kg - Placebo|Placebo Vs GSK249320 5 mg/kg, Visit 7||18.15|-6.37|
90889305|NCT00833989|181642754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.768|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|10.84|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 15 mg/kg - Placebo|Placebo Vs GSK249320 15 mg/kg, Visit 7||10.84|-17.1|
90889306|NCT00833989|181642755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.047|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.81|12.86|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 1 mg/kg - Placebo.~Change in Total Fugl-Meyer assessment= Treatment + Visit + Treatment \* Visit + Baseline"|Placebo Vs GSK249320 1 mg/kg, Visit 4||12.86|-15.81|
90889307|NCT00833989|181642755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|9.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.852|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.08|23.8|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 5 mg/kg - Placebo.~Change in Total Fugl-Meyer assessment= Treatment + Visit + Treatment \* Visit + Baseline"|Placebo Vs GSK249320 5 mg/kg, Visit 4||23.80|-4.08|
90952016|NCT01646177|181781665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Includes analysis only from Presenteeism Score.||||<0.001
90889308|NCT00833989|181642755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-5.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.376|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.41|9.6|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 15 mg/kg - Placebo.~Change in Total Fugl-Meyer assessment= Treatment + Visit + Treatment \* Visit + Baseline"|Placebo Vs GSK249320 15 mg/kg, Visit 4||9.60|-20.41|
90889309|NCT00833989|181642755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.04|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.87|18.07|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 1 mg/kg - Placebo.~Change in Total Fugl-Meyer assessment= Treatment + Visit + Treatment \* Visit + Baseline"|Placebo Vs GSK249320 1 mg/kg, Visit 7||18.07|-22.87|
90889310|NCT00833989|181642755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.31|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.95|26.0|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 5 mg/kg - Placebo.~Change in Total Fugl-Meyer assessment= Treatment + Visit + Treatment \* Visit + Baseline"|Placebo Vs GSK249320 5 mg/kg, Visit 7||26.00|-15.95|
90889311|NCT00833989|181642755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-10.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.916|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.29|12.15|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 15 mg/kg - Placebo~Change in Total Fugl-Meyer assessment= Treatment + Visit + Treatment \* Visit + Baseline"|Placebo Vs GSK249320 15 mg/kg, Visit 7||12.15|-32.29|
90889312|NCT00833989|181642756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.147|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|10.61|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 1 mg/kg - Placebo~Affected Change from Baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment \* Visit + Affected Baseline + Unaffected Baseline"|Placebo Vs GSK249320 1 mg/kg, Visit 4||10.61|-10.4|
90889313|NCT00833989|181642756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.157|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.75|13.26|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 5 mg/kg - Placebo Affected Change from Baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment \* Visit + Affected Baseline + Unaffected Baseline|Placebo Vs GSK249320 5 mg/kg, Visit 4||13.26|-7.75|
90889314|NCT00833989|181642756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.409|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.17|15.88|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 15 mg/kg - Placebo Affected Change from Baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment \* Visit + Affected Baseline + Unaffected Baseline|Placebo Vs GSK249320 15 mg/kg, Visit 4||15.88|-6.17|
90889315|NCT00833989|181642756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.504|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|14.45|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 1 mg/kg - Placebo Affected Change from Baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment \* Visit + Affected Baseline + Unaffected Baseline|Placebo Vs GSK249320 1 mg/kg, Visit 5||14.45|-12.1|
90889316|NCT00833989|181642756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.426|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|15.12|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 5 mg/kg - Placebo Affected Change from Baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment \* Visit + Affected Baseline + Unaffected Baseline|Placebo Vs GSK249320 5 mg/kg, Visit 5||15.12|-11.0|
90889317|NCT00833989|181642756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.82|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.1|11.68|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 15 mg/kg - Placebo Affected Change from Baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment \* Visit + Affected Baseline + Unaffected Baseline|Placebo Vs GSK249320 15 mg/kg, Visit 5||11.68|-16.1|
91040965|NCT01559116|181966607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.119|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.089|0.149|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Tiotropium high dose (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.149|0.089|<0.0001
90889318|NCT00833989|181642756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.664|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|14.18|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 1 mg/kg - Placebo Affected Change from Baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment \* Visit + Affected Baseline + Unaffected Baseline|Placebo Vs GSK249320 1 mg/kg, Visit 6||14.18|-12.9|
90889319|NCT00833989|181642756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.595||||95.0|-12.4|14.43|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 5 mg/kg - Placebo Affected Change from Baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment \* Visit + Affected Baseline + Unaffected Baseline|Placebo Vs GSK249320 5 mg/kg, Visit 6||14.43|-12.4|
90889320|NCT00833989|181642756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|13.32|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 15 mg/kg - Placebo Affected Change from Baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment \* Visit + Affected Baseline + Unaffected Baseline|Placebo Vs GSK249320 15 mg/kg, Visit 6||13.32|-15.2|
90889321|NCT00833989|181642756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.953|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|16.4|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 1 mg/kg - Placebo Affected Change from Baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment \* Visit + Affected Baseline + Unaffected Baseline|Placebo Vs GSK249320 1 mg/kg, Visit 7||16.40|-11.9|
90889322|NCT00833989|181642756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.909|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|17.55|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 5 mg/kg - Placebo Affected Change from Baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment \* Visit + Affected Baseline + Unaffected Baseline|Placebo Vs GSK249320 5 mg/kg, Visit 7||17.55|-10.5|
90952017|NCT01646177|181781665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Includes analysis only from Presenteeism Score.||||<0.001
91040966|NCT01559116|181966607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.323|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.293|0.354|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Placebo is calculated.|||0.354|0.293|<0.0001
90889323|NCT00833989|181642756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.328|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|14.39|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 15 mg/kg - Placebo Affected Change from Baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment \* Visit + Affected Baseline + Unaffected Baseline|Placebo Vs GSK249320 15 mg/kg, Visit 7||14.39|-15.4|
90889324|NCT00833989|181642757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.42|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.33|8.65|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 1 mg/kg - Placebo.~Affected Change from Baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment \* Visit + Affected Baseline + Unaffected Baseline"|Placebo Vs GSK249320 1 mg/kg, Visit 4||8.65|-5.33|
90889325|NCT00833989|181642757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.55|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.56|6.96|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 5 mg/kg - Placebo.~Affected Change from Baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment \* Visit + Affected Baseline + Unaffected Baseline"|Placebo Vs GSK249320 5 mg/kg, Visit 4||6.96|-7.56|
90889326|NCT00833989|181642757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.534|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.67|11.78|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 15 mg/kg - Placebo.~Affected Change from Baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment \* Visit + Affected Baseline + Unaffected Baseline"|Placebo Vs GSK249320 15 mg/kg, Visit 4||11.78|-2.67|
90889327|NCT00833989|181642757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.841|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.78|9.89|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 1 mg/kg - Placebo.~Affected Change from Baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment \* Visit + Affected Baseline + Unaffected Baseline"|Placebo Vs GSK249320 1 mg/kg, Visit 5||9.89|-5.78|
90889328|NCT00833989|181642757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-2.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.958|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|5.72|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 5 mg/kg - Placebo.~Affected Change from Baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment \* Visit + Affected Baseline + Unaffected Baseline"|Placebo Vs GSK249320 5 mg/kg, Visit 5||5.72|-10.4|
90889329|NCT00833989|181642757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.978|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.68|9.55|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 15 mg/kg - Placebo.~Affected Change from Baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment \* Visit + Affected Baseline + Unaffected Baseline"|Placebo Vs GSK249320 15 mg/kg, Visit 5||9.55|-6.68|
90889330|NCT00833989|181642757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.109|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.94|11.85|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 1 mg/kg - Placebo.~Affected Change from Baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment \* Visit + Affected Baseline + Unaffected Baseline"|Placebo Vs GSK249320 1 mg/kg, Visit 6||11.85|-4.94|
90889331|NCT00833989|181642757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.235|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.15|9.12|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 5 mg/kg - Placebo.~Affected Change from Baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment \* Visit + Affected Baseline + Unaffected Baseline"|Placebo Vs GSK249320 5 mg/kg, Visit 6||9.12|-8.15|
90889332|NCT00833989|181642757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.28|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.97|9.5|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 15 mg/kg - Placebo.~Affected Change from Baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment \* Visit + Affected Baseline + Unaffected Baseline"|Placebo Vs GSK249320 15 mg/kg, Visit 6||9.50|-7.97|
91040967|NCT01559116|181966607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.131|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.101|0.161|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Olodaterol (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.161|0.101|<0.0001
90889333|NCT00833989|181642757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.205|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.53|11.61|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 1 mg/kg - Placebo.~Affected Change from Baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment \* Visit + Affected Baseline + Unaffected Baseline"|Placebo Vs GSK249320 1 mg/kg, Visit 7||11.61|-5.53|
90889334|NCT00833989|181642757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.376|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|6.32|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 5 mg/kg - Placebo.~Affected Change from Baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment \* Visit + Affected Baseline + Unaffected Baseline"|Placebo Vs GSK249320 5 mg/kg, Visit 7||6.32|-11.5|
90889335|NCT00833989|181642757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.396|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.22|12.69|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 15 mg/kg - Placebo.~Affected Change from Baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment \* Visit + Affected Baseline + Unaffected Baseline"|Placebo Vs GSK249320 15 mg/kg, Visit 7||12.69|-5.22|
90889336|NCT00833989|181642758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.926|||||||Fisher Exact|||Visit 4||||0.9260
90889337|NCT00833989|181642758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5647|||||||Fisher Exact|||Visit 6||||0.5647
90889338|NCT00833989|181642759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-1.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.896|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.17|0.49|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 1 mg/kg - Placebo Change from Baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment \* Visit + Baseline|Placebo Vs GSK249320 1 mg/kg, Visit 3||0.49|-3.17|
91040968|NCT01559116|181966607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.139|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.109|0.169|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Tiotropium low dose (2.5 µg) is calculated.|||0.169|0.109|<0.0001
90889339|NCT00833989|181642759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.861|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|1.57|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 5 mg/kg - Placebo Change from Baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment \* Visit + Baseline|Placebo Vs GSK249320 5 mg/kg, Visit 3||1.57|-1.95|
90889340|NCT00833989|181642759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.933|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.83|-1.02|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 15 mg/kg - Placebo Change from Baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment \* Visit + Baseline|Placebo Vs GSK249320 15 mg/kg, Visit 3||-1.02|-4.83|
90889341|NCT00833989|181642759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.868|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.47|1.08|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 1 mg/kg - Placebo Change from Baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment \* Visit + Baseline|Placebo Vs GSK249320 1 mg/kg, Visit 4||1.08|-2.47|
90889342|NCT00833989|181642759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.834|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|1.44|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 5 mg/kg - Placebo Change from Baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment \* Visit + Baseline|Placebo Vs GSK249320 5 mg/kg, Visit 4||1.44|-1.98|
90889343|NCT00833989|181642759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.904|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.77|0.92|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 15 mg/kg - Placebo Change from Baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment \* Visit + Baseline|Placebo Vs GSK249320 15 mg/kg, Visit 4||0.92|-2.77|
90889344|NCT00833989|181642759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.278|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.64|1.57|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 1 mg/kg - Placebo Change from Baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment \* Visit + Baseline|Placebo Vs GSK249320 1 mg/kg, Visit 6||1.57|-3.64|
90889345|NCT00833989|181642759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.278|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.97|2.24|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 5 mg/kg - Placebo Change from Baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment \* Visit + Baseline|Placebo Vs GSK249320 5 mg/kg, Visit 6||2.24|-2.97|
90889346|NCT00833989|181642759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.21|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|1.408|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 15 mg/kg - Placebo Change from Baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment \* Visit + Baseline|Placebo Vs GSK249320 15 mg/kg, Visit 6||1.408|-0.66|
90889347|NCT00833989|181642760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|19.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.584|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.11|45.04|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 1 mg/kg - Placebo Barthel Total Score= Treatment + Visit + Treatment \*Visit|Placebo Vs GSK249320 1 mg/kg, Visit 4||45.04|-6.11|
90889348|NCT00833989|181642760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|20.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.131|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.66|45.64|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 5 mg/kg - Placebo Barthel Total Score= Treatment + Visit + Treatment \*Visit|Placebo Vs GSK249320 5 mg/kg, Visit 4||45.64|-3.66|
90889349|NCT00833989|181642760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|11.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.143|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|38.5|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 15 mg/kg - Placebo Barthel Total Score= Treatment + Visit + Treatment \*Visit|Placebo Vs GSK249320 15 mg/kg, Visit 4||38.50|-14.9|
90889350|NCT00833989|181642760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|15.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.021|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.63|34.06|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 1 mg/kg - Placebo Barthel Total Score= Treatment + Visit + Treatment \*Visit|Placebo Vs GSK249320 1 mg/kg, Visit 6||34.06|-2.63|
90889351|NCT00833989|181642760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|11.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.835|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.38|29.5|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 5 mg/kg - Placebo Barthel Total Score= Treatment + Visit + Treatment \*Visit|Placebo Vs GSK249320 5 mg/kg, Visit 6||29.50|-6.38|
90889352|NCT00833989|181642760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.641|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.1|12.08|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 15 mg/kg - Placebo Barthel Total Score= Treatment + Visit + Treatment \*Visit|Placebo Vs GSK249320 15 mg/kg, Visit 6||12.08|-27.1|
90889353|NCT00833989|181642761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.849|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.12|3.43|||ANCOVA||Mean difference= GSK249320 1 mg/kg - Placebo Day 90 MoCA = Treatment + Day 5 MoCA|Placebo Vs GSK249320 1 mg/kg, Visit 6||3.43|-4.12|
90889354|NCT00833989|181642761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.856|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.96|3.62|||ANCOVA||Mean difference= GSK249320 5 mg/kg - Placebo Day 90 MoCA = Treatment + Day 5 MoCA|Placebo Vs GSK249320 5 mg/kg, Visit 6||3.62|-3.96|
90889355|NCT00833989|181642761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.037|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.31|3.01|||ANCOVA||Mean difference= GSK249320 15 mg/kg - Placebo Day 90 MoCA = Treatment + Day 5 MoCA|Placebo Vs GSK249320 15 mg/kg, Visit 6||3.01|-5.31|
90889356|NCT00833989|181642762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.408|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.12|2.63|||ANCOVA||"Mean difference= GSK249320 1 mg/kg - Placebo.~Day 90 GDS Score= Treatment + Day 5 GDS Score"|Placebo Vs GSK249320 1 mg/kg, Visit 6||2.63|-3.12|
90889357|NCT00833989|181642762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.347|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|4.3|||ANCOVA||"Mean difference= GSK249320 5 mg/kg - Placebo~Day 90 GDS Score= Treatment + Day 5 GDS Score"|Placebo Vs GSK249320 5 mg/kg, Visit 6||4.30|-1.20|
90889358|NCT00833989|181642762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.486|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|2.98|||ANCOVA||"Mean difference= GSK249320 15 mg/kg - Placebo.~Day 90 GDS Score= Treatment+Day 5 GDS Score"|Placebo Vs GSK249320 15 mg/kg, Visit 6||2.98|-3.09|
90889359|NCT00833989|181642763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.289|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2639|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.841|0.264|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 1 mg/kg - Placebo Change from Baseline= Treatment + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline|Stimulation Level 100%, Visit 4 Day 30||0.264|-0.841|
90889360|NCT00833989|181642763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2637|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.862|0.241|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 5 mg/kg - Placebo~Change from Baseline= Treatment + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline"|Stimulation Level 100%, Visit 4 Day 30||0.241|-0.862|
90889361|NCT00833989|181642763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.303|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3172|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.966|0.361|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 15 mg/kg - Placebo~Change from Baseline= Treatment + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline"|Stimulation Level 100%, Visit 4 Day 30||0.361|-0.966|
90889362|NCT00833989|181642763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.204|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1841|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.184|0.593|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 1 mg/kg - Placebo~Change from Baseline= Treatment + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline"|Stimulation Level 100%, Visit 7 Day 112||0.593|-0.184|
90889363|NCT00833989|181642763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.105|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1846|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.284|0.494|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 5 mg/kg - Placebo~Change from Baseline= Treatment + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline"|Stimulation Level 100%, Visit 7 Day 112||0.494|-0.284|
90889364|NCT00833989|181642763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.416|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2602|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.132|0.965|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 15 mg/kg - Placebo~Change from Baseline= Treatment + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline"|Stimulation Level 100%, Visit 7 Day 112||0.965|-0.132|
90889365|NCT00833989|181642763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.156|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8652|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|2.961|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 1 mg/kg - Placebo~Change from Baseline= Treatment + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline"|Stimulation Level 110%, Visit 4 Day 30||2.961|-0.650|
90889366|NCT00833989|181642763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.518|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8324|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.249|1.213|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 5 mg/kg - Placebo~Change from Baseline= Treatment + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline"|Stimulation Level 110%, Visit 4 Day 30||1.213|-2.249|
90889367|NCT00833989|181642763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.269|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0383|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.436|1.898|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 15 mg/kg - Placebo~Change from Baseline= Treatment + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline"|Stimulation Level 110%, Visit 4 Day 30||1.898|-2.436|
90889368|NCT00833989|181642763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.806|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5862|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|2.031|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 1 mg/kg - Placebo~Change from Baseline= Treatment + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline"|Stimulation Level 110%, Visit 7 Day 112||2.031|-0.420|
90889369|NCT00833989|181642763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.564|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.183|1.168|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 5 mg/kg - Placebo~Change from Baseline= Treatment + Visit + Treatment\* Visit"|Stimulation Level 110%, Visit 7 Day 112||1.168|-1.183|
90889370|NCT00833989|181642763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.506|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.757|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.064|3.077|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 15 mg/kg - Placebo~Change from Baseline= Treatment + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline"|Stimulation Level 110%, Visit 7 Day 112||3.077|-0.064|
91040969|NCT01559116|181966607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.124|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.093|0.154|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Tiotropium high dose (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.154|0.093|<0.0001
90889371|NCT00833989|181642763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.644|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2976|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.056|4.344|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 1 mg/kg - Placebo~Change from Baseline= Treatment + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline"|Stimulation Level 120%, Visit 4 Day 30||4.344|-1.056|
90889372|NCT00833989|181642763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.231|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1762|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.681|2.219|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 5 mg/kg - Placebo~Change from Baseline= Treatment + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline"|Stimulation Level 120%, Visit 4 Day 30||2.219|-2.681|
90889373|NCT00833989|181642763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.184|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4796|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.279|2.91|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 15 mg/kg - Placebo~Change from Baseline= Treatment + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline"|Stimulation Level 120%, Visit 4 Day 30||2.910|-3.279|
90889374|NCT00833989|181642763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.622|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9746|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.428|2.672|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 1 mg/kg - Placebo~Change from Baseline= Treatment + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline"|Stimulation Level 120%, Visit 7 Day 112||2.672|-1.428|
90889375|NCT00833989|181642763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.602|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.934|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.56|1.356|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 5 mg/kg - Placebo~Change from Baseline= Treatment + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline"|Stimulation Level 120%, Visit 7 Day 112||1.356|-2.560|
90889376|NCT00833989|181642763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.063|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.281|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|4.736|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 15 mg/kg - Placebo~Change from Baseline= Treatment + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline"|Stimulation Level 120%, Visit 7 Day 112||4.736|-0.610|
90889377|NCT00833989|181642763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.556|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4588|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.494|4.607|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 1 mg/kg - Placebo~Change from Baseline= Treatment + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline"|Stimulation Level 130%, Visit 4 Day 30||4.607|-1.494|
90889378|NCT00833989|181642763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.531|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2336|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.102|2.041|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 5 mg/kg - Placebo~Change from Baseline= Treatment + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline"|Stimulation Level 130%, Visit 4 Day 30||2.041|-3.102|
90952018|NCT01646177|181781665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Includes analysis only from Work Productively Loss Score.||||<0.001
90889379|NCT00833989|181642763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.185|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5697|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.471|3.101|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 15 mg/kg - Placebo~Change from Baseline= Treatment + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline"|Stimulation Level 130%, Visit 4 Day 30||3.101|-3.471|
90889380|NCT00833989|181642763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.686|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2689|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.996|3.367|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 1 mg/kg - Placebo~Change from Baseline= Treatment + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline"|Stimulation Level 130%, Visit 7 Day 112||3.367|-1.996|
90889381|NCT00833989|181642763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.556|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0822|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.838|1.726|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 5 mg/kg - Placebo~Change from Baseline= Treatment + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline"|Stimulation Level 130%, Visit 7 Day 112||1.726|-2.838|
90889382|NCT00833989|181642763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.219|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4792|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.884|5.322|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 15 mg/kg - Placebo~Change from Baseline= Treatment + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline"|Stimulation Level 130%, Visit 7 Day 112||5.322|-0.884|
90889383|NCT00833989|181642763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.631|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.589|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.696|4.958|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 1 mg/kg - Placebo~Change from Baseline= Treatment + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline"|Stimulation Level 140%, Visit 4 Day 30||4.958|-1.696|
90889384|NCT00833989|181642763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.508|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2985|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.219|2.203|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 5 mg/kg - Placebo~Change from Baseline= Treatment + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline"|Stimulation Level 140%, Visit 4 Day 30||2.203|-3.219|
90889385|NCT00833989|181642763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6603|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.369|3.588|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 15 mg/kg - Placebo~Change from Baseline= Treatment + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline"|Stimulation Level 140%, Visit 4 Day 30||3.588|-3.369|
90889386|NCT00833989|181642763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.852|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5675|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.446|4.15|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 1 mg/kg - Placebo~Change from Baseline= Treatment + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline"|Stimulation Level 140%, Visit 7 Day 112||4.150|-2.446|
90889387|NCT00833989|181642763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.357|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2918|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.074|2.359|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 5 mg/kg - Placebo~Change from Baseline= Treatment + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline"|Stimulation Level 140%, Visit 7 Day 112||2.359|-3.074|
90889388|NCT00833989|181642763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.686|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7306|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.937|5.308|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 15 mg/kg - Placebo~Change from Baseline= Treatment + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline"|Stimulation Level 140%, Visit 7 Day 112||5.308|-1.937|
90889389|NCT01827904|181642850|SUPERIORITY|Percent change from Baseline at the 3 Month visit in the Exablate test vs. Sham control arms was tested using the t-test.|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|alpha = 0.05 for the hypothesis test. H0: M3ExAblate ≤ M3Sham H1: M3ExAblate \> M3Sham||"Note that the Crossover group was a rescue treatment group and not integral to the experimental design statistical analysis."||||<0.001
90889390|NCT01910519|181642865|OTHER|||||||0.0039|||||||ANOVA|||Correlation of vaccine-induced blood transcription modules (BTMs) M183-TBA at day 1 with MN titers at day 42||||0.0039
90889391|NCT01910519|181642865|OTHER|||||||0.0368|||||||ANOVA|||Correlation of vaccine-induced blood transcription modules (BTMs) M115-cytokines-receptors cluster at day 1 with MN titers at day 42||||0.0368
90889392|NCT01910519|181642865|OTHER|||||||0.0465|||||||ANOVA|||Correlation of vaccine-induced blood transcription modules (BTMs) M74-transcriptional targets of glucocorticoid receptor at day 1 with MN titers at day 42||||0.0465
90889393|NCT01910519|181642865|OTHER|||||||0.0411|||||||ANOVA|||Correlation of vaccine-induced blood transcription modules (BTMs) M58-B cell development/activation at day 1 with MN titers at day 42||||0.0411
90889394|NCT01910519|181642865|OTHER|||||||0.0067|||||||ANOVA|||Correlation of vaccine-induced blood transcription modules (BTMs) M114.0-TBA at day 1 with MN titers at day 42||||0.0067
90889395|NCT04266028|181642866|OTHER|No statistical analyses were performed.|no statistical analyses were performed|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||No statistical analyses were performed||||No statistical analyses were performed.|No statistical analyses were performed.|||
90889396|NCT01458574|181642870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|23.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.3|31.2|||CMH chi-square test|||P-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using Non-responder imputation (NRI).||31.2|15.3|<0.0001
90889397|NCT01458574|181642870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|29.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.4|37.6|||CMH chi-square test|||P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||37.6|21.4|<0.0001
90889398|NCT01458574|181642871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|24.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.0|32.5|||CMH chi-square test|||P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||32.5|16.0|<0.0001
90889399|NCT01458574|181642871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|32.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.2|41.0|||CMH chi-square test|||P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||41.0|24.2|<0.0001
90889400|NCT01458574|181642872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|30.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.4|43.2|||CMH chi-square test|||P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||43.2|17.4|<0.0001
90889401|NCT01458574|181642872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|42.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.9|56.5|||CMH chi-square test|||P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||56.5|27.9|<0.0001
90889402|NCT01458574|181642873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|22.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.8|30.6|||CMH chi-square test|||P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||30.6|14.8|<0.0001
90889403|NCT01458574|181642873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|24.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.4|32.4|||CMH chi-square test|||P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||32.4|16.4|<0.0001
90889404|NCT01458574|181642874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|17.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.6|23.7|||CMH chi-square test|||P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||23.7|10.6|<0.0001
91040970|NCT01559116|181966608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.243|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.212|0.273|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Placebo is calculated.|||0.273|0.212|<0.0001
91040971|NCT01559116|181966608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.103|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.074|0.133|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Olodaterol (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.133|0.074|<0.0001
91040972|NCT01559116|181966608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.102|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.072|0.132|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Tiotropium high dose (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.132|0.072|<0.0001
91040973|NCT01559116|181966608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.232|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.201|0.262|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Placebo is calculated.|||0.262|0.201|<0.0001
91040974|NCT01559116|181966608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.093|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.063|0.123|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Olodaterol (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.123|0.063|<0.0001
90889405|NCT01458574|181642874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|20.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.5|27.1|||CMH chi-square test|||P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||27.1|13.5|<0.0001
90889406|NCT01458574|181642875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|26.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.1|35.5|||CMH chi-square test|||P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||35.5|18.1|<0.0001
90952019|NCT01646177|181781665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Includes analysis only from Work Productively Loss Score.||||<0.001
90952020|NCT01646177|181781665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Includes analysis only from Work Productively Loss Score.||||<0.001
91040975|NCT01559116|181966608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Tiotropium low dose (2.5 µg) is calculated.|||0.140|0.080|<0.0001
91040976|NCT01559116|181966608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.091|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.061|0.121|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Tiotropium high dose (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.121|0.061|<0.0001
91040977|NCT01559116|181966609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.207|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.173|0.241|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Placebo is calculated.|||0.241|0.173|<0.0001
91040978|NCT01559116|181966609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.092|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.059|0.126|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Olodaterol (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.126|0.059|<0.0001
91040979|NCT01559116|181966609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.079|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.045|0.113|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Tiotropium high dose (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.113|0.045|<0.0001
91040980|NCT01559116|181966609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.201|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.167|0.235|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Placebo is calculated.|||0.235|0.167|<0.0001
90889407|NCT01458574|181642875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|29.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.3|37.7|||CMH chi-square test|||P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||37.7|20.3|<0.0001
90889408|NCT01458574|181642876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|21.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.1|28.3|||CMH chi-square test|||P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||28.3|14.1|<0.0001
90889409|NCT01458574|181642876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|26.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.0|33.8|||CMH chi-square test|||P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||33.8|19.0|<0.0001
90889410|NCT01458574|181642877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|30.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.1|43.1|||CMH chi-square test|||At Week 24: P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||43.1|18.1|<0.0001
90889411|NCT01458574|181642877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|44.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.8|57.2|||CMH chi-square test|||At Week 24: P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||57.2|31.8|<0.0001
90889412|NCT01458574|181642877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|30.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.7|41.4|||CMH chi-square test|||At Week 52: P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||41.4|18.7|<0.0001
90889413|NCT01458574|181642877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|43.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.1|55.3|||CMH chi-square test|||At Week 52: P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||55.3|31.1|<0.0001
90889414|NCT01458574|181642878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|24.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.8|35.0|||CMH chi-square test|||P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||35.0|13.8|<0.0001
90889415|NCT01458574|181642878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|40.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.7|52.3|||CMH chi-square test|||P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||52.3|28.7|<0.0001
90889416|NCT01458574|181642879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|30.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.9|39.7|||CMH chi-square test|||At Week 24: P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||39.7|20.9|<0.0001
90889417|NCT01458574|181642879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|37.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.1|46.4|||CMH chi-square test|||At Week 24: P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||46.4|28.1|<0.0001
90889418|NCT01458574|181642879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|31.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.4|40.2|||CMH chi-square test|||At Week 52: P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||40.2|22.4|<0.0001
90889419|NCT01458574|181642879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|41.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.9|50.5|||CMH chi-square test|||At Week 52: P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||50.5|32.9|<0.0001
90889420|NCT01458574|181642880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|29.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.9|38.7|||CMH chi-square test|||P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||38.7|20.9|<0.0001
90889421|NCT01458574|181642880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|40.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.4|49.0|||CMH chi-square test|||P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||49.0|31.4|<0.0001
90889422|NCT01458574|181642881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|23.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.3|31.2|||CMH chi-square test|||At Week 24: P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||31.2|15.3|<0.0001
90952021|NCT01646177|181781666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Includes analysis only from PCS.||||<0.001
90889423|NCT01458574|181642881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|24.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.4|32.4|||CMH chi-square test|||At Week 24: P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||32.4|16.4|<0.0001
90889424|NCT01458574|181642881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|23.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.3|31.2|||CMH chi-square test|||At Week 52: P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||31.2|15.3|<0.0001
90889425|NCT01458574|181642881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|30.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.9|38.2|||CMH chi-square test|||At Week 52: P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||38.2|21.9|<0.0001
90889426|NCT01458574|181642882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|17.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.6|23.7|||CMH chi-square test|||P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||23.7|10.6|<0.0001
90889427|NCT01458574|181642882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|20.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.0|27.7|||CMH chi-square test|||P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||27.7|14.0|<0.0001
90889428|NCT01458574|181642883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|10.1||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|15.7|||CMH chi-square test|||At Week 24: P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||15.7|4.5|0.0006
91040981|NCT01559116|181966609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.086|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.052|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Olodaterol (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.120|0.052|<0.0001
91040982|NCT01559116|181966609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.101|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.067|0.135|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Tiotropium low dose (2.5 µg) is calculated.|||0.135|0.067|<0.0001
91040983|NCT01559116|181966609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.073|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.039|0.107|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Tiotropium high dose (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.107|0.039|<0.0001
91040984|NCT01559116|181966610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.338|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.305|0.371|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Placebo is calculated.|||0.371|0.305|<0.0001
91040985|NCT01559116|181966610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.087|0.153|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Olodaterol (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.153|0.087|<0.0001
90889429|NCT01458574|181642883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|6.6||||0.0092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|11.7|||CMH chi-square test|||At Week 24: P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||11.7|1.5|0.0092
90889430|NCT01458574|181642883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|10.6||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|16.2|||CMH chi-square test|||At Week 52: P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||16.2|5.0|0.0004
90889431|NCT01458574|181642883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|11.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.5|16.9|||CMH chi-square test|||At Week 52: P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||16.9|5.5|<0.0001
90952022|NCT01646177|181781666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Includes analysis only from PCS.||||<0.001
90952023|NCT01646177|181781666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Includes analysis only from PCS.||||<0.001
90889432|NCT01458574|181642884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|5.6||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|9.0|||CMH chi-square test|||P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||9.0|2.1|0.0029
90889433|NCT01458574|181642884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|3.0||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|5.8|||CMH chi-square test|||P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||5.8|0.3|0.0350
90889434|NCT01458574|181642885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|17.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.3|24.0|||CMH chi-square test|||At Week 24: P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||24.0|10.3|<0.0001
90889435|NCT01458574|181642885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|15.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.5|22.0|||CMH chi-square test|||At Week 24: P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||22.0|8.5|<0.0001
90889436|NCT01458574|181642885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|15.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.8|22.5|||CMH chi-square test|||At Week 52: P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||22.5|8.8|<0.0001
91040986|NCT01559116|181966610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.111|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.078|0.143|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Tiotropium high dose (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.143|0.078|<0.0001
91040987|NCT01559116|181966610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.317|0.383|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Placebo is calculated.|||0.383|0.317|<0.0001
90889437|NCT01458574|181642885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|19.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.7|27.0|||CMH chi-square test|||At Week 52: P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||27.0|12.7|<0.0001
90889438|NCT01458574|181642886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|11.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.9|16.4|||CMH chi-square test|||P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||16.4|5.9|<0.0001
90952024|NCT01646177|181781666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.031|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Includes analysis only from MCS.||||0.031
90889439|NCT01458574|181642886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|13.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|18.7|||CMH chi-square test|||P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||18.7|7.7|<0.0001
90889440|NCT01458574|181642887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|12.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|17.9|||CMH chi-square test|||At Week 24: P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||17.9|6.3|<0.0001
90889441|NCT01458574|181642887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|8.1||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|13.5|||CMH chi-square test|||At Week 24: P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||13.5|2.8|0.0021
90889442|NCT01458574|181642887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|10.6||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|16.2|||CMH chi-square test|||At Week 52: P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||16.2|5.0|0.0004
90889443|NCT01458574|181642887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|12.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|18.6|||CMH chi-square test|||At Week 52: P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||18.6|6.8|<0.0001
90889444|NCT01458574|181642888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|5.6||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|9.0|||CMH chi-square test|||P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||9.0|2.1|0.0029
90889445|NCT01458574|181642888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|4.6||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|7.8|||CMH chi-square test|||P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||7.8|1.4|0.0064
90889446|NCT01458574|181642890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-1.9|||Linear mixed effect model|||At Week 24||-1.9|-3.2|<0.0001
90889447|NCT01458574|181642890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-2.2|||Linear mixed effect model|||At Week 24||-2.2|-3.5|<0.0001
90889448|NCT01458574|181642890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-1.7|||Linear mixed effect model|||At Week 52||-1.7|-3.4|<0.0001
90889449|NCT01458574|181642890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|-2.5|||Linear mixed effect model|||At Week 52||-2.5|-4.1|<0.0001
90889450|NCT01458574|181642891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|40.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.0|55.3|||CMH chi-square test|||At Week 24: P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||55.3|25.0|<0.0001
90889451|NCT01458574|181642891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|48.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.7|64.1|||CMH chi-square test|||At Week 24: P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||64.1|32.7|<0.0001
91040988|NCT01559116|181966610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.131|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.098|0.164|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Olodaterol (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.164|0.098|<0.0001
91040989|NCT01559116|181966610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.132|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.099|0.165|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Tiotropium low dose (2.5 µg) is calculated.|||0.165|0.099|<0.0001
90889452|NCT01458574|181642891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|36.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.6|50.3|||CMH chi-square test|||At Week 52: P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||50.3|21.6|<0.0001
90889453|NCT01458574|181642891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|46.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.0|61.4|||CMH chi-square test|||At Week 52: P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||61.4|31.0|<0.0001
90889454|NCT01458574|181642892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|31.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.8|44.8|||CMH chi-square test|||P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||44.8|18.8|<0.0001
90889455|NCT01458574|181642892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|42.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.9|56.5|||CMH chi-square test|||P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||56.5|27.9|<0.0001
90889456|NCT01458574|181642893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|38.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.4|53.8|||CMH chi-square test|||At Week 24: P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||53.8|23.4|<0.0001
90952025|NCT01646177|181781666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Includes analysis only from MCS.||||<0.001
90889457|NCT01458574|181642893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|48.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.7|64.1|||CMH chi-square test|||At Week 24: P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||64.1|32.7|<0.0001
90889458|NCT01458574|181642893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|34.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.1|48.8|||CMH chi-square test|||At Week 52: P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||48.8|20.1|<0.0001
90889459|NCT01458574|181642893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|46.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.0|61.4|||CMH chi-square test|||At Week 52: P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||61.4|31.0|<0.0001
90889460|NCT01458574|181642894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|12.9||||0.0074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|23.2|||CMH chi-square test|||At Week 24: P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||23.2|2.6|0.0074
90889461|NCT01458574|181642894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|13.2||||0.0103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|24.1|||CMH chi-square test|||At Week 24: P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||24.1|2.4|0.0103
90889462|NCT01458574|181642894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|16.8||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.2|27.5|||CMH chi-square test|||At Week 52: P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||27.5|6.2|0.0018
90889463|NCT01458574|181642894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|16.7||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.5|27.9|||CMH chi-square test|||At Week 52: P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||27.9|5.5|0.0029
90889464|NCT01458574|181642895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|7.9||||0.0419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|15.7|||CMH chi-square test|||P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||15.7|0.1|0.0419
90889465|NCT01458574|181642895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|11.1||||0.0121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|19.9|||CMH chi-square test|||P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||19.9|2.3|0.0121
90889466|NCT03394924|181642954|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.6||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|52.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||52|0.6|0.106
90889467|NCT03394924|181642954|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.0||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|65.22|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||65.22|0.75|0.063
90889468|NCT03394924|181642958|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.47||||0.616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|2.32|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for total bilirubin.||2.32|-1.39|0.616
90889469|NCT03394924|181642958|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.19||||0.844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|2.16|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for total bilirubin.||2.16|-1.78|0.844
90889470|NCT03394924|181642958|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.67||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|0.32|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for conjugated bilirubin.||0.32|-1.67|0.18
91040990|NCT01559116|181966610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.122|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.089|0.155|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Tiotropium high dose (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.155|0.089|<0.0001
90889471|NCT03394924|181642958|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.64||||0.239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|0.44|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for conjugated bilirubin.||0.44|-1.71|0.239
90889472|NCT03394924|181642958|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.21||||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|2.73|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for unconjugated bilirubin.||2.73|-0.31|0.116
90889473|NCT03394924|181642958|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.72||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|2.28|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for unconjugated bilirubin.||2.28|-0.84|0.36
90889474|NCT03394924|181642959|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-25.55||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.07|-11.04|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for ALT.||-11.04|-40.07|0.001
90889475|NCT03394924|181642959|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-21.35||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.1|-5.6|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for ALT.||-5.6|-37.1|0.009
90889476|NCT03394924|181642959|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-21.42||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.48|-10.35|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for AST.||-10.35|-32.48|0.000
91040991|NCT01559116|181966611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.433|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.389|0.477|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Placebo is calculated.|||0.477|0.389|<0.0001
90889477|NCT03394924|181642959|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-20.84||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.8|-8.87|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for AST.||-8.87|-32.8|0.001
90889478|NCT03394924|181642959|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-86.49||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-123.78|-49.21|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for GGT.||-49.21|-123.78|0.000
90889479|NCT03394924|181642959|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-115.13||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-155.04|-75.22|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for GGT.||-75.22|-155.04|0.000
90889480|NCT03394924|181642960|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-26.66||||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.1|9.79|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for HA.||9.79|-63.1|0.148
90889481|NCT03394924|181642960|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-28.99||||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.02|10.05|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for HA.||10.05|-68.02|0.142
90889482|NCT03394924|181642960|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-3.09||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.68|-0.51|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for PIIINP.||-0.51|-5.68|0.02
90889483|NCT03394924|181642960|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-3.79||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|-0.97|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for PIIINP.||-0.97|-6.6|0.009
90889484|NCT03394924|181642960|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-41.96||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.47|-8.44|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for TIMP 1.||-8.44|-75.47|0.015
90889485|NCT03394924|181642960|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-46.56||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-81.91|-11.21|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for TIMP 1.||-11.21|-81.91|0.011
90889486|NCT03394924|181642960|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-9.73||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|-1.75|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for PRO C3.||-1.75|-17.7|0.018
90889487|NCT03394924|181642960|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-6.73||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.41|1.95|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for PRO C3.||1.95|-15.41|0.125
90889488|NCT03394924|181642961|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.37||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.18|||ANCOVA|||||-0.18|-0.56|0.000
90889489|NCT03394924|181642961|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.33||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.13|||ANCOVA|||||-0.13|-0.54|0.002
90889490|NCT03394924|181642962|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.35||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||||-0.04|-0.65|0.026
90889491|NCT03394924|181642962|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.26||||0.104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.05|||ANCOVA|||||0.05|-0.57|0.104
90889492|NCT03394924|181642963|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|6.81||||0.757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.17|50.78|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for fibrinogen.||50.78|-37.17|0.757
90889493|NCT03394924|181642963|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|31.77||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.42|77.97|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for fibrinogen.||77.97|-14.42|0.174
90889494|NCT03394924|181642963|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.98||||0.378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.18|1.23|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for CRP.||1.23|-3.18|0.378
90889495|NCT03394924|181642963|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-3.1||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.38|-0.83|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for CRP.||-0.83|-5.38|0.008
90889496|NCT03394924|181642964|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.34||||0.841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.07|3.76|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for IL6.||3.76|-3.07|0.841
90889497|NCT03394924|181642964|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-2.49||||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.01|1.04|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for IL6.||1.04|-6.01|0.163
90889498|NCT03394924|181642964|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.53||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for TNF α.||-0.05|-1.02|0.03
90889499|NCT03394924|181642964|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.4||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.09|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for TNF α.||0.09|-0.9|0.11
90889500|NCT03394924|181642965|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.01||||0.944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.27|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for haptoglobin.||0.27|-0.25|0.944
90889501|NCT03394924|181642965|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.03||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.24|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for haptoglobin.||0.24|-0.3|0.83
90889502|NCT03394924|181642965|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.04||||0.546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for alpha2 macroglobulin.||0.1|-0.19|0.546
90889503|NCT03394924|181642965|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.02||||0.785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.13|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for alpha2 macroglobulin.||0.13|-0.18|0.785
90889504|NCT03394924|181642966|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.17||||0.176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for TG.||0.08|-0.43|0.176
90889505|NCT03394924|181642966|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.04||||0.783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.23|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for TG.||0.23|-0.3|0.783
90889506|NCT03394924|181642966|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.64||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for TC.||0.03|-1.31|0.061
90889507|NCT03394924|181642966|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.63||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for TC.||0.08|-1.34|0.08
90889508|NCT03394924|181642966|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.08||||0.584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.37|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for HDL-C.||0.37|-0.21|0.584
90889509|NCT03394924|181642966|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.22||||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for HDL-C.||0.08|-0.51|0.148
90889510|NCT03394924|181642966|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.5||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for LDL-C.||0.05|-1.04|0.074
90889511|NCT03394924|181642966|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.3||||0.304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.28|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for LDL-C.||0.28|-0.87|0.304
90889512|NCT03394924|181642967|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.25||||0.378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.82|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for duration.||0.82|-0.32|0.378
90889513|NCT03394924|181642967|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.65||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.23|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for duration.||1.23|0.07|0.03
90889514|NCT03394924|181642967|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.53||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|1.03|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for degree.||1.03|0.04|0.036
90889515|NCT03394924|181642967|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.18||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.69|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for degree.||1.69|0.67|0.000
90889516|NCT03394924|181642967|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.02||||0.971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.96|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for direction.||0.96|-0.92|0.971
90889517|NCT03394924|181642967|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.01||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|1.99|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for direction.||1.99|0.04|0.042
90889518|NCT03394924|181642967|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.37||||0.336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.14|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for disability.||1.14|-0.4|0.336
90889519|NCT03394924|181642967|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.46||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|2.26|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for disability.||2.26|0.67|0.000
90889520|NCT03394924|181642967|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.48||||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|1.25|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for distribution.||1.25|-0.29|0.214
90889521|NCT03394924|181642967|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.23||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|2.02|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for distribution.||2.02|0.44|0.003
90889522|NCT03394924|181642967|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|2.21||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|4.9|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for total.||4.9|-0.47|0.103
90889523|NCT03394924|181642967|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|6.35||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.57|9.13|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for total.||9.13|3.57|0.000
90889524|NCT03394924|181642968|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|12.48||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.09|30.06|||ANCOVA|||||30.06|-5.09|0.16
90889525|NCT03394924|181642968|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|25.58||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.67|43.48|||ANCOVA|||||43.48|7.67|0.006
90889526|NCT03394924|181642969|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.15||||0.908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.72|2.43|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for symptoms.||2.43|-2.72|0.908
90889527|NCT03394924|181642969|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-1.41||||0.298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.09|1.27|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for symptoms.||1.27|-4.09|0.298
90889528|NCT03394924|181642969|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.91||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|3.76|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for itch.||3.76|0.07|0.042
90889529|NCT03394924|181642969|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|3.47||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|5.38|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for itch.||5.38|1.55|0.001
90889530|NCT03394924|181642969|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.46||||0.839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.96|4.04|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for fatigue.||4.04|-4.96|0.839
90889531|NCT03394924|181642969|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.32||||0.891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|4.36|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for fatigue.||4.36|-5.00|0.891
90889532|NCT03394924|181642969|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.26||||0.834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|2.77|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for cognition.||2.77|-2.25|0.834
90889533|NCT03394924|181642969|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.3||||0.327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|3.92|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for cognition.||3.92|-1.33|0.327
90889534|NCT03394924|181642969|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-2.12||||0.262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.86|1.62|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for social.||1.62|-5.86|0.262
90889535|NCT03394924|181642969|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.78||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.68|3.12|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for social.||3.12|-4.68|0.69
90889536|NCT03394924|181642969|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.62||||0.433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.19|0.95|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for emotional.||0.95|-2.19|0.433
90889537|NCT03394924|181642969|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.37||||0.653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|2.03|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for emotional.||2.03|-1.28|0.653
90889538|NCT03394924|181642973|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.34||||0.971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.51|74.18|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for FGF19.||74.18|-71.51|0.971
90889539|NCT03394924|181642973|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|5.54||||0.882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.86|79.95|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for FGF19.||79.95|-68.86|0.882
90889540|NCT03394924|181642973|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-51.66||||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-139.27|35.96|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for C4.||35.96|-139.27|0.242
90889541|NCT03394924|181642973|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-94.3||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-184.85|-3.75|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for C4.||-3.75|-184.85|0.042
90889542|NCT03394924|181642973|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-24.57||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-101.03|51.89|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for BA.||51.89|-101.03|0.52
90889543|NCT03394924|181642973|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-17.96||||0.672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-103.07|67.16|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for BA.||67.16|-103.07|0.672
90889544|NCT03394924|181642974|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|44.54||||0.611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-205.97|295.06|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for FGF19 AUC0-8.||295.06|-205.97|0.611
90889545|NCT03394924|181642974|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-29.98||||0.819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-411.28|351.31|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for FGF19 AUC0-8.||351.31|-411.28|0.819
90889546|NCT03394924|181642974|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|24.41||||0.818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-251.92|300.74|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for FGF19 AUC2-8.||300.74|-251.92|0.818
90889547|NCT03394924|181642974|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-10.53||||0.948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-435.33|414.27|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for FGF19 AUC2-8.||414.27|-435.33|0.948
90889548|NCT03394924|181642974|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-91.7||||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-475.92|292.51|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for C4 AUC0-8.||292.51|-475.92|0.412
90889549|NCT03394924|181642974|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-250.18||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-605.33|104.98|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for C4 AUC0-8.||104.98|-605.33|0.094
91040992|NCT01559116|181966611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.166|0.253|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Olodaterol (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.253|0.166|<0.0001
90889550|NCT03394924|181642974|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-83.7||||0.266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-279.15|111.75|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for C4 AUC2-8.||111.75|-279.15|0.266
90889551|NCT03394924|181642974|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-238.19||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-470.22|-6.15|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for C4 AUC2-8.||-6.15|-470.22|0.047
90889552|NCT03394924|181642974|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|28.41||||0.694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-180.2|237.02|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for BA AUC0-8.||237.02|-180.2|0.694
90889553|NCT03394924|181642974|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-39.5||||0.615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-264.32|185.32|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for BA AUC0-8.||185.32|-264.32|0.615
90889554|NCT03394924|181642974|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|2.93||||0.974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-229.6|235.46|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for BA AUC2-8.||235.46|-229.6|0.974
90889555|NCT03394924|181642974|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-26.05||||0.793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-283.24|231.15|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for BA AUC2-8.||231.15|-283.24|0.793
90889556|NCT02005471|181643039|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.29|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression model.|Stratified analysis: 17p deletion, risk status, geographic region.||0.29|0.18|<.0001
90889557|NCT02005471|181643039|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.31|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression model|Unstratified Analysis||0.31|0.19|<.0001
90889558|NCT02005471|181643041|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.28|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression model.|Stratified Analysis; Stratification factors: 17p deletion, risk status, geographic region.||0.28|0.13|<.0001
90889559|NCT02005471|181643041|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.3|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression model.|Unstratified Analysis||0.30|0.14|<.0001
90889560|NCT02005471|181643043|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.57|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression model.|Stratified Analysis; Stratification factor: geographic region.||0.57|0.21|<.0001
90889561|NCT02005471|181643043|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.56|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression model.|Unstratified Analysis||0.56|0.22|<.0001
90889562|NCT02005471|181643045|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.49|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression model.|Stratified Analysis; Stratification factor: geographic region.||0.49|0.09|<.0001
90889563|NCT02005471|181643045|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.46|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression model.|Unstratified Analysis||0.46|0.09|<.0001
90889564|NCT02005471|181643046|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|25.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.88|33.33|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for rates were constructed using Pearson- Clopper method. 95% CI for difference in rates were constructed using Anderson-Hauck method.|||33.33|17.88|<.0001
90889565|NCT02005471|181643046|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.97|15.37|||||OR was estimated using logistic regression model. The 95% CI was computed using Wald test.|||15.37|3.97|
90889566|NCT02005471|181643047|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|25.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.88|33.33|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for rates were constructed using Pearson- Clopper method. 95% CI for difference in rates were constructed using Anderson-Hauck method.|||33.33|17.88|<.0001
90889567|NCT02005471|181643047|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.97|15.37|||||OR was estimated using logistic regression model. The 95% CI was computed using Wald test.|||15.37|3.97|
90889568|NCT02005471|181643048|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|25.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.63|33.51|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The 95% CI was computed using Anderson-Hauck method.|||33.51|16.63|<.0001
90952026|NCT01646177|181781666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Includes analysis only from MCS.||||<0.001
91040993|NCT01559116|181966611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.177|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.133|0.221|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Tiotropium high dose (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.221|0.133|<0.0001
90889569|NCT02005471|181643048|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.68|7.88|||||OR was estimated using logistic regression model. The 95% CI was computed using Wald test.|||7.88|2.68|
90889570|NCT02005471|181643049|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|24.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.0|33.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The 95% CI was computed using Anderson-Hauck method.|||33.10|16.00|<.0001
90889571|NCT02005471|181643049|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.68|7.85|||||OR was estimated using logistic regression model. The 95% CI was computed using Wald test.|||7.85|2.68|
90889572|NCT02005471|181643051|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis; Stratification factors: 17p deletion, risk status, geographic region.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.74|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression model.|||0.74|0.37|0.0002
90889573|NCT02005471|181643051|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.76|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression model.|Unstratified Analysis||0.76|0.39|0.0003
90889574|NCT02005471|181643053|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.29|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression model.|Stratified Analysis; Stratification factors: 17p deletion, risk status, geographic region.||0.29|0.17|<.0001
90889575|NCT02005471|181643053|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.31|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression model.|Unstratified Analysis||0.31|0.19|<.0001
90889576|NCT02005471|181643057|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.39|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression model.|Stratified Analysis; Stratification factors: 17p deletion, risk status, geographic region.||0.39|0.23|<.0001
91040994|NCT01559116|181966611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.396|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.352|0.441|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Placebo is calculated.|||0.441|0.352|<0.0001
90889577|NCT02005471|181643057|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.41|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression model.|Unstratified Analysis||0.41|0.25|<.0001
90889578|NCT02005471|181643058|SUPERIORITY||Difference in MRD Negativity Rates|49.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.44|57.64|||Chi-squared||The 95% CI was computed using Anderson-Hauck method.|||57.64|40.44|<.0001
90889579|NCT02005471|181643058|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|17.85|||||OR was estimated using logistic regression model. The 95% CI was computed using Wald test.|||17.85|6.50|
90889580|NCT02005471|181643059|SUPERIORITY||Difference in MRD negative rates|13.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.99|18.82|||Chi-squared||The 95% CI was computed using Anderson-Hauck method.|||18.82|7.99|<.0001
90889581|NCT02005471|181643059|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.82|69.35|||||OR was estimated using logistic regression model. The 95% CI was computed using Wald test.|||69.35|3.82|
90889582|NCT00932893|181643082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.487|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.371|0.638||To control family-wise Type 1 error, a step-down procedure was applied in following order: PFS, objective response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), and disease control rate (DCR). Statistical significance: 1-sided at alpha=0.025.|Log Rank|||P-value was obtained from 1-sided log-rank test stratified by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) score, brain metastases, and prior epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor (EGFR TKI) treatment. The hazard ratio and corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) from the stratified Cox Proportional Hazards model were also presented.||0.638|0.371|<0.0001
90889583|NCT00932893|181643083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.854||||0.1145||95.0|0.661|1.104||Statistical significance: 1-sided at alpha=0.025|Log Rank|||P-value was obtained from 1-sided log-rank test stratified by ECOG PS score, brain metastases, and prior EGFR TKI treatment. The hazard ratio and corresponding 95% CI from the stratified Cox proportional hazards model were also presented.||1.104|0.661|0.1145
90889584|NCT00932893|181643085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|3.394|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.463|4.676||Statistical significance: 2-sided at alpha=0.025.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by ECOG PS, brain metastases, and prior EGFR TKI treatment. The risk ratio and corresponding 95% CI from the stratified CMH test were also reported.||4.676|2.463|<0.0001
90889585|NCT00932893|181643086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.502|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.297|1.741||Statistical significance: 2-sided at alpha=0.0004.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was obtained from CMH test stratified by ECOG PS, brain metastases, and prior EGFR TKI treatment. The risk ratio and corresponding 95% CI from the stratified CMH test were also reported.||1.741|1.297|<0.0001
90889586|NCT00932893|181643087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.697|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.368|2.103||Statistical significance: 2-sided at alpha=0.0004.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was obtained from CMH test stratified by ECOG PS, brain metastases, and prior EGFR TKI treatment. The risk ratio and corresponding 95% CI from the stratified CMH test were also reported.||2.103|1.368|<0.0001
90889587|NCT00932893|181643093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.497|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.373|0.661|||Log Rank|||The p-value was obtained from 2-sided unstratified log-rank test. The hazard ratio and corresponding 95% CI from the Cox Proportional Hazards model were also presented.||0.661|0.373|<0.0001
90889588|NCT00581230|181643113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0003
90889589|NCT00581230|181643114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0001
90889590|NCT02008890|181643128|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.5722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.53|||Regression, Logistic|with factors treatment, country, body weight at baseline visit (\> 90 kg or \>= 90kg) and presence of plaque-type psoriasis||||3.53|0.50|0.5722
90952027|NCT01646177|181781667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91040995|NCT01559116|181966611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.173|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.129|0.217|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Olodaterol (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.217|0.129|<0.0001
90889591|NCT02008890|181643128|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.62||||0.0411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|6.6|||Regression, Logistic|with factors treatment, country, body weight at baseline visit (\> 90 kg or \>= 90kg) and presence of plaque-type psoriasis||||6.60|1.04|0.0411
91040996|NCT01559116|181966611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.159|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.115|0.203|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Tiotropium low dose (2.5 µg) is calculated. is calculated.|||0.203|0.115|<0.0001
91040997|NCT01559116|181966611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.096|0.184|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Tiotropium high dose (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.184|0.096|<0.0001
90889592|NCT02008890|181643129|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56||||0.9431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.59|3.47|||Regression, Linear|with factors treatment, country, body weight at baseline visit (\> 90 kg or \>= 90kg) and presence of plaque-type psoriasis||||3.47|-4.59|0.9431
90889593|NCT02008890|181643129|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.13||||0.1576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.14|0.88|||Regression, Linear|with factors treatment, country, body weight at baseline visit (\> 90 kg or \>= 90kg) and presence of plaque-type psoriasis||||0.88|-7.14|0.1576
90889594|NCT02207816|181643136|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|74.38||||0.2235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-130.0|97.14|||Negative binomial regression|Mixed model without random effect \[Lievens, 2011\].||Vaccine efficacy (VE)/ incidence comparison against all episodes of severe malaria were estimated as 1-incidence ratio (IR; total number of events/follow-up time in the GSK257049 \[5-17M\] Group over the total number of events/follow-up time in the VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group).||97.14|-130|0.2235
90889595|NCT02207816|181643136|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|-9.57||||0.8972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-339.0|72.64|||Negative binomial regression|Mixed model without random effect \[Lievens, 2011\].||Vaccine efficacy (VE)/ incidence comparison against all episodes of severe malaria were estimated as 1-incidence ratio (IR; total number of events/follow-up time in the GSK257049 Comparator \[5-17M\] Group over the total number of events/follow-up time in the VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group).||72.64|-339|0.8972
90889596|NCT02207816|181643136|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|30.58||||0.5333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-119.0|78.0|||Negative binomial regression|Mixed model without random effect \[Lievens, 2011\].||Vaccine efficacy (VE)/ incidence comparison against all episodes of severe malaria were estimated as 1-incidence ratio (IR; total number of events/follow-up time in the GSK257049 \[6-12W\] Group over the total number of events/follow-up time in the Menjugate Comparator \[6-12W\] Group).||78.00|-119|0.5333
90889597|NCT02207816|181643136|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|44.2||||0.3523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-90.9|83.69|||Negative binomial regression|Mixed model without random effect \[Lievens, 2011\].||Vaccine efficacy (VE)/ incidence comparison against all episodes of severe malaria were estimated as 1-incidence ratio (IR; total number of events/follow-up time in the GSK257049 Comparator \[6-12W\] Group over the total number of events/follow-up time in the Menjugate Comparator \[6-12W\] Group).||83.69|-90.9|0.3523
90889598|NCT02207816|181643137|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|53.68||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|81.13|||Negative binomial regression|Mixed model without random effect \[Lievens, 2011\].||Vaccine efficacy (VE)/ incidence comparison against all episodes of severe malaria were estimated as 1-incidence ratio (IR; total number of events/follow-up time in the GSK257049 \[5-17M\] Group over the total number of events/follow-up time in the VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group).||81.13|-13.7|0.0930
90889599|NCT02207816|181643137|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|23.33||||0.5035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.1|64.82|||Negative binomial regression|Mixed model without random effect \[Lievens, 2011\].||Vaccine efficacy (VE)/ incidence comparison against all episodes of severe malaria were estimated as 1-incidence ratio (IR; total number of events/follow-up time in the GSK257049 Comparator \[5-17M\] Group over the total number of events/follow-up time in the VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group).||64.82|-67.1|0.5035
91040998|NCT01559116|181966612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.463|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.417|0.509|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to placebo is calculated.|||0.509|0.417|<0.0001
91040999|NCT01559116|181966612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.154|0.246|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Olodaterol (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.246|0.154|<0.0001
91041000|NCT01559116|181966612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.179|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.133|0.225|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Tiotropium high dose (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.225|0.133|<0.0001
90889600|NCT02207816|181643137|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|32.08||||0.3504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.1|69.87|||Negative binomial regression|Mixed model without random effect \[Lievens, 2011\].||Vaccine efficacy (VE)/ incidence comparison against all episodes of severe malaria were estimated as 1-incidence ratio (IR; total number of events/follow-up time in the GSK257049 \[6-12W\] Group over the total number of events/follow-up time in the Menjugate Comparator \[6-12W\] Group).||69.87|-53.1|0.3504
90889601|NCT02207816|181643137|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|37.57||||0.2704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.4|73.01|||Negative binomial regression|Mixed model without random effect \[Lievens, 2011\].||Vaccine efficacy (VE)/ incidence comparison against all episodes of severe malaria were estimated as 1-incidence ratio (IR; total number of events/follow-up time in the GSK257049 Comparator \[6-12W\] Group over the total number of events/follow-up time in the Menjugate Comparator \[6-12W\] Group).||73.01|-44.4|0.2704
90952028|NCT01646177|181781667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
90952029|NCT01646177|181781667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
90952030|NCT01646177|181781668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90889602|NCT02207816|181643138|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|-5.26||||0.4434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|7.69|||Negative binomial regression|Mixed model with over-dispersion parameter estimated from the random effect \[Lievens, 2011\].||Vaccine efficacy (VE)/ incidence comparison against all episodes of clinical malaria were estimated as 1-incidence ratio (IR; total number of events/follow-up time in the GSK257049 \[5-17M\] Group over the total number of events/follow-up time in the VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group).||7.69|-20.0|0.4434
90889603|NCT02207816|181643138|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|-8.1||||0.2634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.9|5.7|||Negative binomial regression|Mixed model with over-dispersion parameter estimated from the random effect \[Lievens, 2011\].||Vaccine efficacy (VE)/incidence comparison against all episodes of clinical malaria were estimated as 1-incidence ratio (IR; total number of events/follow-up time in the GSK257049 Comparator \[5-17M\] Group over the total number of events/follow-up time in the VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group).||5.70|-23.9|0.2634
90889604|NCT02207816|181643138|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|0.62||||0.9278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|13.13|||Negative binomial regression|Mixed model with over-dispersion parameter estimated from the random effect \[Lievens, 2011\].||Vaccine efficacy (VE)/ incidence comparison against all episodes of clinical malaria were estimated as 1-incidence ratio (IR; total number of events/follow-up time in the GSK257049 \[6-12W\] Group over the total number of events/follow-up time in the Menjugate Comparator \[6-12W\] Group).||13.13|-13.7|0.9278
90889605|NCT02207816|181643138|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|5.32||||0.4189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.12|17.09|||Negative binomial regression|Mixed model with over-dispersion parameter estimated from the random effect \[Lievens, 2011\].||Vaccine efficacy (VE)/ incidence comparison against all episodes of clinical malaria were estimated as 1-incidence ratio (IR; total number of events/follow-up time in the GSK257049 Comparator \[6-12W\] Group over the total number of events/follow-up time in the Menjugate Comparator \[6-12W\] Group).||17.09|-8.12|0.4189
90889606|NCT02207816|181643139|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|50.1||||0.1302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.2|82.9|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) was estimated as 1-the risk ratio (RR; proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 \[5-17M\] Group over the proportion in VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group) over the entire follow-up period (from Year 0 to Year 3).||82.90|-32.2|0.1302
90889607|NCT02207816|181643139|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|16.9||||0.6897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-96.9|65.9|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) was estimated as 1-the risk ratio (RR; proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 Comparator \[5-17M\] Group over the proportion in VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group) over the entire follow-up period (from Year 0 to Year 3).||65.90|-96.9|0.6897
90889608|NCT02207816|181643139|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|25.9||||0.5299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-82.9|70.9|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) was estimated as 1-the risk ratio (RR; proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 \[6-12W\] Group over the proportion in Menjugate Comparator \[6-12W\] Group) over the entire follow-up period (from Year 0 to Year 3).||70.90|-82.9|0.5299
90889609|NCT02207816|181643139|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|25.4||||0.5307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.1|70.7|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) was estimated as 1-the risk ratio (RR; proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 Comparator \[6-12W\] Group over the proportion in Menjugate Comparator \[6-12W\] Group) over the entire follow-up period (from Year 0 to Year 3).||70.70|-84.1|0.5307
90889610|NCT02207816|181643140|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|46.2||||0.1853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.0|81.8|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) was estimated as 1-the risk ratio (RR; proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 \[5-17M\] Group over the proportion in VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group) over the entire follow-up period (from Year 0 to Year 3).||81.80|-45.0|0.1853
90889611|NCT02207816|181643140|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|35.0||||0.3828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.3|76.6|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) was estimated as 1-the risk ratio (RR; proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 Comparator \[5-17M\] Group over the proportion in VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group) over the entire follow-up period (from Year 0 to Year 3).||76.60|-69.3|0.3828
90889612|NCT02207816|181643140|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|31.2||||0.4112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.5|72.7|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) was estimated as 1-the risk ratio (RR; proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 \[6-12W\] Group over the proportion in Menjugate Comparator \[6-12W\] Group) over the entire follow-up period (from Year 0 to Year 3).||72.70|-66.5|0.4112
90889613|NCT02207816|181643140|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|30.8||||0.4121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.6|72.5|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) was estimated as 1-the risk ratio (RR; proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 Comparator \[6-12W\] Group over the proportion in Menjugate Comparator \[6-12W\] Group) over the entire follow-up period (from Year 0 to Year 3).||72.50|-67.6|0.4121
90889614|NCT02207816|181643141|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|40.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.7|58.8|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) against prevalent parasitemia assessed at Year 1 was estimated as 1-RR, where RR is the risk ratio (proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 \[5-17M\] Group over the proportion in VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group).||58.80|15.70|<0.0001
90889615|NCT02207816|181643141|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine effiicacy|42.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.4|60.8|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) against prevalent parasitemia assessed at Year 1 was estimated as 1-RR, where RR is the risk ratio (proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 Comparator \[5-17M\] Group over the proportion in VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group).||60.80|17.40|<0.0001
90889616|NCT02207816|181643141|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|16.0||||0.0883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|33.9|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) against prevalent parasitemia assessed at Year 2 was estimated as 1-RR, where RR is the risk ratio (proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 \[5-17M\] Group over the proportion in VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group).||33.90|-6.60|0.0883
91041001|NCT01559116|181966612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.443|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.396|0.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Placebo is calculated.|||0.490|0.396|<0.0001
90889617|NCT02207816|181643141|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|13.0||||0.1889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|31.7|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) against prevalent parasitemia assessed at Year 2 was estimated as 1-RR, where RR is the risk ratio (proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 Comparator \[5-17M\] Group over the proportion in VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group).||31.70|-10.7|0.1889
90889618|NCT02207816|181643141|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|16.4||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|34.0|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) against prevalent parasitemia assessed at Year 3 was estimated as 1-RR, where RR is the risk ratio (proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 \[5-17M\] Group over the proportion in VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group).||34.00|-5.90|0.0770
90889619|NCT02207816|181643141|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|0.1||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.8|20.7|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) against prevalent parasitemia assessed at Year 3 was estimated as 1-RR, where RR is the risk ratio (proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 Comparator \[5-17M\] Group over the proportion in VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group).||20.70|-25.8|1.0000
90889620|NCT02207816|181643141|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|20.8||||0.1624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|46.9|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) against prevalent parasitemia assessed at Year 1 was estimated as 1-RR, where RR is the risk ratio (proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 \[6-12W\] Group over the proportion in Menjugate Comparator \[6-12W\] Group).||46.90|-17.5|0.1624
90889621|NCT02207816|181643141|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|-2.3||||0.9112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.6|29.0|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) against prevalent parasitemia assessed at Year 1 was estimated as 1-RR, where RR is the risk ratio (proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 Comparator \[6-12W\] Group over the proportion in Menjugate Comparator \[6-12W\] Group).||29.00|-47.6|0.9112
91041002|NCT01559116|181966612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.181|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.134|0.227|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Olodaterol (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.227|0.134|<0.0001
91041003|NCT01559116|181966612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.171|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.125|0.218|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Tiotropium low dose (2.5 µg) is calculated.|||0.218|0.125|<0.0001
90889622|NCT02207816|181643141|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|9.2||||0.4023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|30.1|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) against prevalent parasitemia assessed at Year 2 was estimated as 1-RR, where RR is the risk ratio (proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 \[6-12W\] Group over the proportion in Menjugate Comparator \[6-12W\] Group).||30.10|-18.0|0.4023
90889623|NCT02207816|181643141|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|-4.4||||0.7091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.5|18.9|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) against prevalent parasitemia assessed at Year 2 was estimated as 1-RR, where RR is the risk ratio (proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 Comparator \[6-12W\] Group over the proportion in Menjugate Comparator \[6-12W\] Group).||18.90|-34.5|0.7091
90889624|NCT02207816|181643141|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|-1.4||||0.9361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.7|23.6|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) against prevalent parasitemia assessed at Year 3 was estimated as 1-RR, where RR is the risk ratio (proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 \[6-12W\] Group over the proportion in Menjugate Comparator \[6-12W\] Group).||23.60|-34.7|0.9361
90889625|NCT02207816|181643141|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|-6.8||||0.628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.0|19.6|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) against prevalent parasitemia assessed at Year 3 was estimated as 1-RR, where RR is the risk ratio (proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 Comparator \[6-12W\] Group over the proportion in Menjugate Comparator \[6-12W\] Group).||19.60|-42.0|0.6280
90889626|NCT02207816|181643142|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|100.0||||0.4987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3779.0|100.0|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) against prevalent severe anemia assessed at Year 2 was estimated as 1-RR, where RR is the risk ratio (proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 \[5-17M\] Group over the proportion in VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group).||100.0|-3779|0.4987
90889627|NCT02207816|181643142|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|100.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4051.0|100.0|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) against prevalent severe anemia assessed at Year 2 was estimated as 1-RR, where RR is the risk ratio (proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 Comparator \[5-17M\] Group over the proportion in VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group).||100.0|-4051|1.0000
90889628|NCT02207816|181643143|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|-254.6||||0.1025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3399.0|32.5|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) against prevalent moderate anemia assessed at Year 1 was estimated as 1-RR, where RR is the risk ratio (proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 \[5-17M\] Group over the proportion in VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group).||32.50|-3399|0.1025
90889629|NCT02207816|181643143|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|-398.6||||0.0284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4642.0|-3.2|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) against prevalent moderate anemia assessed at Year 1 was estimated as 1-RR, where RR is the risk ratio (proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 Comparator \[5-17M\] Group over the proportion in VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group).||-3.20|-4642|0.0284
90952031|NCT01646177|181781668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90889630|NCT02207816|181643143|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|36.7||||0.3543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.8|79.2|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) against prevalent moderate anemia assessed at Year 2 was estimated as 1-RR, where RR is the risk ratio (proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 \[5-17M\] Group over the proportion in VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group).||79.20|-78.8|0.3543
90889631|NCT02207816|181643143|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|3.2||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-151.0|63.2|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) against prevalent moderate anemia assessed at Year 2 was estimated as 1-RR, where RR is the risk ratio (proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 Comparator \[5-17M\] Group over the proportion in VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group).||63.20|-151|1.0000
91041004|NCT01559116|181966612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.159|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.113|0.206|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Tiotropium high dose (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.206|0.113|<0.0001
91041005|NCT01559116|181966613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.404|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.355|0.453|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Placebo is calculated.|||0.453|0.355|<0.0001
90889632|NCT02207816|181643143|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|44.0||||0.3809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-120.0|88.0|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) against prevalent moderate anemia assessed at Year 3 was estimated as 1-RR, where RR is the risk ratio (proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 \[5-17M\] Group over the proportion in VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group).||88.00|-120|0.3809
90889633|NCT02207816|181643143|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|39.1||||0.549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-140.0|86.9|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) against prevalent moderate anemia assessed at Year 3 was estimated as 1-RR, where RR is the risk ratio (proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 Comparator \[5-17M\] Group over the proportion in VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group).||86.90|-140|0.5490
90952032|NCT01646177|181781668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90952033|NCT01646177|181781669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90889634|NCT02207816|181643143|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|-46.3||||0.3239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-249.0|36.2|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) against prevalent moderate anemia assessed at Year 1 was estimated as 1-RR, where RR is the risk ratio (proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 \[6-12W\] Group over the proportion in Menjugate Comparator \[6-12W\] Group).||36.20|-249|0.3239
90889635|NCT02207816|181643143|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|47.6||||0.2184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.5|84.1|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) against prevalent moderate anemia assessed at Year 1 was estimated as 1-RR, where RR is the risk ratio (proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 Comparator \[6-12W\] Group over the proportion in Menjugate Comparator \[6-12W\] Group).||84.10|-54.5|0.2184
90889636|NCT02207816|181643143|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|-116.8||||0.0724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-476.0|10.3|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) against prevalent moderate anemia assessed at Year 2 was estimated as 1-RR, where RR is the risk ratio (proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 \[6-12W\] Group over the proportion in Menjugate Comparator \[6-12W\] Group).||10.30|-476|0.0724
90889637|NCT02207816|181643143|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|-81.0||||0.2055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-393.0|27.9|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) against prevalent moderate anemia assessed at Year 2 was estimated as 1-RR, where RR is the risk ratio (proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 Comparator \[6-12W\] Group over the proportion in Menjugate Comparator \[6-12W\] Group).||27.90|-393|0.2055
90889638|NCT02207816|181643143|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|-18.4||||0.8138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-245.0|57.9|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) against prevalent moderate anemia assessed at Year 3 was estimated as 1-RR, where RR is the risk ratio (proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 \[6-12W\] Group over the proportion in Menjugate Comparator \[6-12W\] Group).||57.90|-245|0.8138
90889639|NCT02207816|181643143|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|24.4||||0.7887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-148.0|78.4|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) against prevalent moderate anemia assessed at Year 3 was estimated as 1-RR, where RR is the risk ratio (proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 Comparator \[6-12W\] Group over the proportion in Menjugate Comparator \[6-12W\] Group).||78.40|-148|0.7887
90889640|NCT02207816|181643144|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|40.5||||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.84|59.39|||Negative binomial regression|Mixed model without random effect \[Lievens, 2011\].||Vaccine efficacy (VE)/incidence comparison against all episodes of severe malaria were estimated as 1-incidence ratio (IR; total number of events/follow-up time in the GSK257049 \[5-17M\] Group over the total number of events/follow-up time in the VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group).||59.39|12.84|0.0077
90889641|NCT02207816|181643144|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|-4.52||||0.7922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.3|24.8|||Negative binomial regression|Mixed model without random effect \[Lievens, 2011\].||Vaccine efficacy (VE)/incidence comparison against all episodes of severe malaria were estimated as 1-incidence ratio (IR; total number of events/follow-up time in the GSK257049 Comparator \[5-17M\] Group over the total number of events/follow-up time in the VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group).||24.80|-45.3|0.7922
90889642|NCT02207816|181643144|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|29.03||||0.0802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.22|51.67|||Negative binomial regression|Mixed model without random effect \[Lievens, 2011\].||Vaccine efficacy (VE)/incidence comparison against all episodes of severe malaria were estimated as 1-incidence ratio (IR; total number of events/follow-up time in the GSK257049 \[6-12W\] Group over the total number of events/follow-up time in the Menjugate Comparator \[6-12W\] Group).||51.67|-4.22|0.0802
90889643|NCT02207816|181643144|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|33.87||||0.0387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.13|55.32|||Negative binomial regression|Mixed model without random effect \[Lievens, 2011\].||Vaccine efficacy (VE)/incidence comparison against all episodes of severe malaria were estimated as 1-incidence ratio (IR; total number of events/follow-up time in the GSK257049 Comparator \[6-12W\] Group over the total number of events/follow-up time in the Menjugate Comparator \[6-12W\] Group).||55.32|2.13|0.0387
90889644|NCT02207816|181643145|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|36.69||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.6|53.07|||Negative binomial regression|Mixed model without random effect \[Lievens, 2011\].||Vaccine efficacy (VE)/incidence comparison against all episodes of severe malaria were estimated as 1-incidence ratio (IR; total number of events/follow-up time in the GSK257049 \[5-17M\] Group over the total number of events/follow-up time in the VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group).||53.07|14.60|0.0028
90889645|NCT02207816|181643145|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|10.14||||0.443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.1|31.64|||Negative binomial regression|Mixed model without random effect \[Lievens, 2011\].||Vaccine efficacy (VE)/incidence comparison against all episodes of severe malaria were estimated as 1-incidence ratio (IR; total number of events/follow-up time in the GSK257049 Comparator \[5-17M\] Group over the total number of events/follow-up time in the VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group).||31.64|-18.1|0.4430
90889646|NCT02207816|181643145|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|30.99||||0.0245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.67|50.04|||Negative binomial regression|Mixed model without random effect \[Lievens, 2011\].||Vaccine efficacy (VE)/incidence comparison against all episodes of severe malaria were estimated as 1-incidence ratio (IR; total number of events/follow-up time in the GSK257049 \[6-12W\] Group over the total number of events/follow-up time in the Menjugate Comparator \[6-12W\] Group).||50.04|4.67|0.0245
90952034|NCT01646177|181781669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90952035|NCT01646177|181781669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90889647|NCT02207816|181643145|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|34.24||||0.0122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.74|52.61|||Negative binomial regression|Mixed model without random effect \[Lievens, 2011\].||Vaccine efficacy (VE)/incidence comparison against all episodes of severe malaria were estimated as 1-incidence ratio (IR; total number of events/follow-up time in the GSK257049 Comparator \[6-12W\] Group over the total number of events/follow-up time in the Menjugate Comparator \[6-12W\] Group).||52.61|8.74|0.0122
90889648|NCT02207816|181643146|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|23.67|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.93|30.71|||Negative binomial regression|Mixed model with over-dispersion parameter estimated from the random effect \[Lievens, 2011\].||Vaccine efficacy (VE)/incidence comparison against all episodes of clinical malaria were estimated as 1-incidence ratio (IR; total number of events/follow-up time in the GSK257049 \[5-17M\] Group over the total number of events/follow-up time in the VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group).||30.71|15.93|<.0001
90889649|NCT02207816|181643146|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|19.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.81|26.71|||Negative binomial regression|Mixed model with over-dispersion parameter estimated from the random effect \[Lievens, 2011\].||Vaccine efficacy (VE)/incidence comparison against all episodes of clinical malaria were estimated as 1-incidence ratio (IR; total number of events/follow-up time in the GSK257049 Comparator \[5-17M\] Group over the total number of events/follow-up time in the VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group).||26.71|10.81|<.0001
90889650|NCT02207816|181643146|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|15.55||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.72|23.54|||Negative binomial regression|Mixed model with over-dispersion parameter estimated from the random effect \[Lievens, 2011\].||Vaccine efficacy (VE)/incidence comparison against all episodes of clinical malaria were estimated as 1-incidence ratio (IR; total number of events/follow-up time in the GSK257049 \[6-12W\] Group over the total number of events/follow-up time in the Menjugate Comparator \[6-12W\] Group).||23.54|6.72|0.0009
90889651|NCT02207816|181643146|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|13.15||||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.05|21.39|||Negative binomial regression|Mixed model with over-dispersion parameter estimated from the random effect \[Lievens, 2011\].||Vaccine efficacy (VE)/incidence comparison against all episodes of clinical malaria were estimated as 1-incidence ratio (IR; total number of events/follow-up time in the GSK257049 Comparator \[6-12W\] Group over the total number of events/follow-up time in the Menjugate Comparator \[6-12W\] Group).||21.39|4.05|0.0056
90952036|NCT01646177|181781670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90952037|NCT01646177|181781670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90952038|NCT01646177|181781670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90952039|NCT01038427|181781674|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% confidence intervals were contained within the interval 80.0% to 125.0%, then the two products were considered to be therapeutically equivalent.|Ratio Test/Ref. Least Squares (LS) Means|106.644|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.86|123.997||||||||123.997|91.860|
90889652|NCT02207816|181643147|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|35.5||||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|54.0|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) was estimated as 1-the risk ratio (RR; proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 \[5-17M\] Group over the proportion in VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group), from Month 0 (study start of Malaria-055) to Year 3 (study end of Malaria-076).||54.00|10.00|0.0053
90889653|NCT02207816|181643147|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|11.7||||0.4255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|35.2|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) was estimated as 1-the risk ratio (RR; proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 Comparator \[5-17M\] Group over the proportion in VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group), Month 0 (study start of Malaria-055) to Year 3 (study end of Malaria-076).||35.20|-20.0|0.4255
90889654|NCT02207816|181643147|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|29.2||||0.0479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|51.4|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) was estimated as 1-the risk ratio (RR; proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 \[6-12W\] Group over the proportion in Menjugate Comparator \[6-12W\] Group), from Month 0 (study start of Malaria-055) to Year 3 (study end of Malaria-076).||51.40|-2.40|0.0479
90889655|NCT02207816|181643147|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|18.1||||0.2346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.9|42.8|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) was estimated as 1-the risk ratio (RR; proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 Comparator \[6-12W\] Group over the proportion in Menjugate Comparator \[6-12W\] Group), from Month 0 (study start of Malaria-055) to Year 3 (study end of Malaria-076).||42.80|-16.9|0.2346
90889656|NCT02207816|181643148|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|35.9||||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.3|54.4|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) was estimated as 1-the risk ratio (RR; proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 \[5-17M\] Group over the proportion in VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group), from Month 0 (study start of Malaria-055) to Year 3 (study end of Malaria-076).||54.40|10.30|0.0051
90889657|NCT02207816|181643148|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|14.0||||0.334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|37.1|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) was estimated as 1-the risk ratio (RR; proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 Comparator \[5-17M\] Group over the proportion in VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group), from Month 0 (study start of Malaria-055) to Year 3 (study end of Malaria-076).||37.10|-17.3|0.3340
90889658|NCT02207816|181643148|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|28.5||||0.0511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|50.5|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) was estimated as 1-the risk ratio (RR; proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 \[6-12W\] Group over the proportion in Meenjugate Comparator \[6-12W\] Group), from Month 0 (study start of Malaria-055) to Year 3 (study end of Malaria-076).||50.50|-2.90|0.0511
90889659|NCT02207816|181643148|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|20.3||||0.1729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|44.2|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) was estimated as 1-the risk ratio (RR; proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 Comparator \[6-12W\] Group over the proportion in Meenjugate Comparator \[6-12W\] Group), from Month 0 (study start of Malaria-055) to Year 3 (study end of Malaria-076).||44.20|-13.5|0.1729
90889660|NCT02207816|181643151|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|50.1||||0.6244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-859.0|99.2|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) was estimated as 1-the risk ratio (RR; proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 \[5-17M\] Group over the proportion in VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group) over the entire follow-up period (from Year 0 to Year 3).||99.20|-859|0.6244
90889661|NCT02207816|181643151|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|-5.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1358.0|92.3|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) was estimated as 1-the risk ratio (RR; proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 Comparator \[5-17M\] Group over the proportion in VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group) over the entire follow-up period (from Year 0 to Year 3).||92.30|-1358|1.0000
90889662|NCT02207816|181643151|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|-188.9||||0.6244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15000.0|76.8|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) was estimated as 1-the risk ratio (RR; proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 \[6-12W\] Group over the proportion in Menjugate Comparator \[6-12W\] Group) over the entire follow-up period (from Year 0 to Year 3).||76.80|-15000|0.6244
90889663|NCT02207816|181643151|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|3.1||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7509.0|98.8|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) was estimated as 1-the risk ratio (RR; proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 Comparator \[6-12W\] Group over the proportion in Menjugate Comparator \[6-12W\] Group) over the entire follow-up period (from Year 0 to Year 3).||98.80|-7509|1.0000
90952040|NCT01038427|181781675|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
90952041|NCT01038427|181781675|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0001
90952042|NCT01038427|181781676|EQUIVALENCE|90% confidence intervals within the interval 80.0% to 125.0%.|Ratio Test/Ref. LS Means|109.716|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.316|129.159||||||||129.159|93.316|
90952043|NCT01038427|181781677|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
90889664|NCT02207816|181643152|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|-98.8||||0.6869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2098.0|71.5|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) was estimated as 1-the risk ratio (RR; proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 \[5-17M\] Group over the proportion in VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group), from Month 0 (study start of Malaria-055) to Year 3 (study end of Malaria-076).||71.50|-2098|0.6869
90952044|NCT01038427|181781677|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91041006|NCT01559116|181966613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.219|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.267|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Olodaterol (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.267|0.170|<0.0001
90952045|NCT01038427|181781678|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2655|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2655
90889665|NCT02207816|181643152|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|-406.0||||0.0213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4650.0|-7.8|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) was estimated as 1-the risk ratio (RR; proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 Comparator \[5-17M\] Group over the proportion in VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group), from Month 0 (study start of Malaria-055) to Year 3 (study end of Malaria-076).||-7.80|-4650|0.0213
90889666|NCT02207816|181643153|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|-98.8||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12000.0|89.6|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) was estimated as 1-the risk ratio (RR; proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 \[5-17M\] Group over the proportion in VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group), from Month 0 (study start of Malaria-055) to Year 3 (study end of Malaria-076).||89.60|-12000|1.0000
90889667|NCT02207816|181643153|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|-304.8||||0.2154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20000.0|59.9|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) was estimated as 1-the risk ratio (RR; proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 Comparator \[5-17M\] Group over the proportion in VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group), from Month 0 (study start of Malaria-055) to Year 3 (study end of Malaria-076).||59.90|-20000|0.2154
90889668|NCT02207816|181643154|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|-24.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-526.0|73.3|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) was estimated as 1-the risk ratio (RR; proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 \[5-17M\] Group over the proportion in VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group), from Month 0 (study start of Malaria-055) to Year 3 (study end of Malaria-076).||73.30|-526|1.0000
90889669|NCT02207816|181643154|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|-77.1||||0.3834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-725.0|55.0|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) was estimated as 1-the risk ratio (RR; proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 Comparator \[5-17M\] Group over the proportion in VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group), from Month 0 (study start of Malaria-055) to Year 3 (study end of Malaria-076).||55.00|-725|0.3834
91041007|NCT01559116|181966613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.174|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.126|0.223|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Tiotropium high dose (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.223|0.126|<0.0001
91041008|NCT01559116|181966613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.351|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.301|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Placebo is calculated.|||0.400|0.301|<0.0001
91041009|NCT01559116|181966613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.166|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.117|0.214|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Olodaterol (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.214|0.117|<0.0001
91041010|NCT01559116|181966613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.148|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.099|0.197|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Tiotropium low dose (2.5 µg) is calculated.|||0.197|0.099|<0.0001
91041011|NCT01559116|181966613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.121|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.072|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Tiotropium high dose (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.170|0.072|<0.0001
91041012|NCT01559116|181966614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.329|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.274|0.385|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Placebo is calculated.|||0.385|0.274|<0.0001
91041013|NCT01559116|181966614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.115|0.225|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Olodaterol (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.225|0.115|<0.0001
90889670|NCT02207816|181643154|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|-297.5||||0.374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19000.0|60.7|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) was estimated as 1-the risk ratio (RR; proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 \[6-12W\] Group over the proportion in Menjugate Comparator \[6-12W\] Group), from Month 0 (study start of Malaria-055) to Year 3 (study end of Malaria-076).||60.70|-19000|0.3740
90889671|NCT02207816|181643154|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|-498.1||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27000.0|27.4|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) was estimated as 1-the risk ratio (RR; proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 Comparator \[6-12W\] Group over the proportion in Menjugate Comparator \[6-12W\] Group), from Month 0 (study start of Malaria-055) to Year 3 (study end of Malaria-076).||27.40|-27000|0.1240
90889672|NCT02349295|181643178|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.65|8.48||model includes: treatment, geographic region, and tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) experience (inadequate responder to 1 TNFi, inadequate responder to 2 TNFi, or intolerance to a TNFi).|Regression, Logistic|1\) uses a Wald's test , 2) Non-responder imputation (NRI) was used to calculate the response rates.||||8.48|2.65|<0.001
90889673|NCT02349295|181643178|OTHER|1\) uses a Wald's test , 2) Non-responder imputation (NRI) was used to calculate the response rates.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.12|6.78|||Regression, Logistic|||model includes: treatment, geographic region, and TNFi experience (inadequate responder to 1 TNFi, inadequate responder to 2 TNFi, or intolerance to a TNFi)||6.78|2.12|<0.001
90889674|NCT03508843|181643249|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||McNemar|||||||<.001
90889675|NCT03508843|181643250|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||McNemar|||||||<.001
90889676|NCT03508843|181643251|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||McNemar|||||||>.05
90889677|NCT00765843|181643253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78|||||||ANOVA|||baseline comparisons||||0.78
90889678|NCT00765843|181643253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||ANOVA|||one month comparisons||||0.21
90889679|NCT00765843|181643253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93|||||||ANOVA|||three months comparisons||||0.93
90889680|NCT03555396|181643254|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.54||||0.483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.53|6.46|||t-test, 2 sided|||||6.46|-13.53|0.483
91041014|NCT01559116|181966614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.121|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.066|0.176|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Tiotropium high dose (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.176|0.066|<0.0001
90889681|NCT03555396|181643255|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.637|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.637
90889682|NCT03555396|181643256|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|9.54||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|18.49||Difference in mean change in adherence from baseline to 6 month follow-up between individuals in the intervention and control arms.|Mixed Models Analysis|Multilevel linear mixed model with random effects (dyad \& intercept); adjusting for participant age, sex, baseline adherence, and partner HIV status||||18.49|0.59|0.037
90889683|NCT03555396|181643257|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.621|||||||Chi-squared|Fisher's Exact Test used for small sample sizes||||||0.621
90889684|NCT03814889|181643286|OTHER|||||||0.00025|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank|Paired, ordinal data||||||0.00025
90889685|NCT03814889|181643287|OTHER|||||||0.0014|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank|||||||0.0014
90889686|NCT03814889|181643288|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.02
90889687|NCT03814889|181643289|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.001
90889688|NCT03814889|181643292|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxcon Signed-Ranks|||||||0.001
90889689|NCT04256733|181643309|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.23
90889690|NCT04256733|181643310|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.57
90889691|NCT04256733|181643311|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.0001
90889692|NCT04542343|181643322|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.0|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.246|3.754|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.75400|2.24600|<0.01
90889693|NCT04542343|181643323|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.256785|-2.343215|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-2.343215|-4.256785|<0.001
90889694|NCT04542343|181643328|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.21818|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36828|-0.06809|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.06809|-0.36828|<0.01
90889695|NCT04542343|181643329|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05623|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.00459|0.10788|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.10788|0.00459|<0.05
90889696|NCT00321854|181643332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.6503||95.0|-2.2|1.4|||ANCOVA|||||1.4|-2.2|0.6503
90889697|NCT00321854|181643333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.9568||95.0|-1.7|1.8|||ANCOVA|||||1.8|-1.7|0.9568
90889698|NCT00321854|181643334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|<|0.0001||95.0|-6.3|-3.2|||ANCOVA|||||-3.2|-6.3|<0.0001
90889699|NCT00321854|181643335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|<|0.0001||95.0|-5.8|-3.0|||ANCOVA|||||-3|-5.8|<0.0001
90889700|NCT00321854|181643336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.0001||95.0|-4.1|-1.7|||ANCOVA|||||-1.7|-4.1|<0.0001
90889701|NCT00321854|181643337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.8693||95.0|-1.8|1.5|||ANCOVA|||||1.5|-1.8|0.8693
90889702|NCT00321854|181643338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.8155||95.0|-1.5|1.9|||ANCOVA|||||1.9|-1.5|0.8155
90889703|NCT00321854|181643339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|<|0.0001||95.0|-6.0|-3.0|||ANCOVA|||||-3|-6|<0.0001
90889704|NCT00321854|181643340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|<|0.0001||95.0|-5.4|-2.6|||ANCOVA|||||-2.6|-5.4|<0.0001
90889705|NCT00321854|181643341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.0001||95.0|-3.9|-1.7|||ANCOVA|||||-1.7|-3.9|<0.0001
90889706|NCT00321854|181643342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.7999||95.0|-1.5|1.1|||ANCOVA|||||1.1|-1.5|0.7999
90889707|NCT00321854|181643343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.7395||95.0|-1.1|1.5|||ANCOVA|||||1.5|-1.1|0.7395
90889708|NCT00321854|181643344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.0001||95.0|-4.5|-2.2|||ANCOVA|||||-2.2|-4.5|<0.0001
90889709|NCT00321854|181643345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.0001||95.0|-4.0|-1.8|||ANCOVA|||||-1.8|-4|<0.0001
90889710|NCT00321854|181643346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.0002||95.0|-2.7|-0.9|||ANCOVA|||||-0.9|-2.7|0.0002
90889711|NCT00321854|181643347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.9256||95.0|-0.6|0.6|||ANCOVA|||||0.6|-0.6|0.9256
90889712|NCT00321854|181643348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.9792||95.0|-0.6|0.6|||ANCOVA|||||0.6|-0.6|0.9792
90889713|NCT00321854|181643349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.0001||95.0|-1.7|-0.5|||ANCOVA|||||-0.5|-1.7|0.0001
90889714|NCT00321854|181643350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.6|-0.6|||ANCOVA|||||-0.6|-1.6|<0.0001
90889715|NCT00321854|181643351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.5|-0.6|||ANCOVA|||||-0.6|-1.5|<0.0001
90889716|NCT00321854|181643352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0376||95.0|-0.5|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0|-0.5|0.0376
90889717|NCT00321854|181643353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.1607||95.0|-0.4|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.4|0.1607
90889718|NCT00321854|181643354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0173||95.0|-0.5|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||||-0.1|-0.5|0.0173
90889719|NCT00321854|181643355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0007||95.0|-0.6|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||||-0.2|-0.6|0.0007
90889720|NCT00321854|181643356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.4381||95.0|-0.3|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.3|0.4381
90889721|NCT00321854|181643357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.796||||0.5116||95.0|0.403|1.573|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.573|0.403|0.5116
90952046|NCT01038427|181781678|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0009|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0009
90952047|NCT01038427|181781678|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1093|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1093
91041015|NCT01559116|181966614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.307|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.251|0.363|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Placebo is calculated.|||0.363|0.251|<0.0001
91041016|NCT01559116|181966614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.147|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.092|0.203|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Olodaterol (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.203|0.092|<0.0001
91041017|NCT01559116|181966614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.166|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.111|0.222|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Tiotropium low dose (2.5 µg) is calculated.|||0.222|0.111|<0.0001
91041018|NCT01559116|181966614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.099|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.043|0.154|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Tiotropium high dose (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.154|0.043|<0.0001
91041019|NCT01559116|181966615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.462|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.408|0.516|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Placebo is calculated.|||0.516|0.408|<0.0001
91041020|NCT01559116|181966615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.159|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.105|0.212|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Olodaterol (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.212|0.105|<0.0001
91041021|NCT01559116|181966615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.151|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.098|0.205|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Tiotropium high dose (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.205|0.098|<0.0001
91041022|NCT01559116|181966615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.452|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.398|0.507|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Placebo is calculated.|||0.507|0.398|<0.0001
91041023|NCT01559116|181966615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.149|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.095|0.203|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Olodaterol (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.203|0.095|<0.0001
91041024|NCT01559116|181966615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.161|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.107|0.216|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Tiotropium low dose (2.5 µg) is calculated.|||0.216|0.107|<0.0001
91041025|NCT01559116|181966615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.142|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.087|0.196|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Tiotropium high dose (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.196|0.087|<0.0001
91041026|NCT03921554|181966631|SUPERIORITY||Estimated change (52 weeks - baseline)|0.9|||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.2||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Wald test||We fit a GEE model with AGS score as outcome and an indicator variable for 52 weeks. An exchangeable correlation structure was used to model intra-participant association of AGS scores. The model allowed for up to 2 measurements per participant.|"We are testing the null hypothesis is that the change from baseline (52 weeks - baseline) in AGS is zero.~45 participants had 2 measurements (at baseline and 52 weeks); 6 participants had 1 measurement (at baseline). All participants were included in the analysis."||1.2|0.5|<0.0005
91041027|NCT03921554|181966632|SUPERIORITY||Estimated change (Day 673 - Day 0)|1.09|||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.62||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Wald test||We fit a GEE model of AGS on day of treatment (modeled with cubic splines with knots at days 0, 84, 168, 336, 506, 673, and 1006). Goodness of fit criteria were used to select GEE model with AR(1) correlation structure.|We estimate change from Day 0 to Day 673 of treatment (Day 673 minus Day 0) with 95% confidence interval (CI). All participants are included in the analysis.||1.62|0.57|<0.0005
90889722|NCT00321854|181643358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.153||||0.7913||95.0|0.403|3.299|||Regression, Logistic|||The ordinal responses (3 levels) were analysed using the proportional odds model extension of logistic regression||3.299|0.403|0.7913
90889723|NCT00321854|181643359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.1702||95.0|-1.3|0.2|||ANCOVA|||||0.2|-1.3|0.1702
90889724|NCT00321854|181643360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.0009||95.0|-2.2|-0.6|||ANCOVA|||||-0.6|-2.2|0.0009
90889725|NCT00321854|181643361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.0005||95.0|-2.1|-0.6|||ANCOVA|||||-0.6|-2.1|0.0005
90889726|NCT00321854|181643362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.0422||95.0|-1.4|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0|-1.4|0.0422
90889727|NCT00321854|181643363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.573||||0.2149||95.0|-1.823|0.677|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.677|-1.823|0.2149
90889728|NCT00321854|181643364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-2.031||||0.0001||95.0|-3.125|-0.938|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||-0.938|-3.125|0.0001
90889729|NCT00321854|181643365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.2605||95.0|0.0|0.026|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.026|0|0.2605
90889730|NCT00321854|181643366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.051|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.0|0.089|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.089|0|<0.0001
90889731|NCT00321854|181643367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|2.0||||0.0489||95.0|0.0|5.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||5|0|0.0489
90889732|NCT00321854|181643368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|3.0||||0.0282||95.0|0.0|5.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||5|0|0.0282
90889733|NCT00321854|181643384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.8397||95.0|-5.4|4.4|||ANCOVA|||||4.4|-5.4|0.8397
90889734|NCT01369342|181643389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||A fixed sequence testing procedure was used to control alpha at 0.05 over the outcome measures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test, stratified by study region (Asia, Eastern Europe, or rest of world) and CDAI score (=\< 300 or \>300).||||||< 0.001
90889735|NCT01369342|181643389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||A fixed sequence testing procedure was used to control alpha at 0.05 over the outcome measures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test, stratified by study region (Asia, Eastern Europe, or rest of world) and CDAI score (=\< 300 or \>300).||||||< 0.001
90952048|NCT01038427|181781679|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9915|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.9915
90952049|NCT01038427|181781679|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0312|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0312
91041028|NCT03921554|181966633|SUPERIORITY||Estimated change (52 weeks - baseline)|2.2||||0.295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|6.4||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Wald test||We fit a GEE model with GMFM-88 as outcome, with indicator variables for 52 weeks (vs. baseline) and cohorts B and C (vs. A); in addition, time by cohort interaction terms are included. The model allow for up to 2 measurements per participant.|"We are testing the null hypothesis that the change from baseline (52 weeks - baseline) in GMFM-88 is zero within cohorts.~35 participants had 2 measurements (at baseline and 52 weeks); 15 participants had 1 measurement (at baseline). All participants are included in the analysis."||6.4|-1.9|0.295
91041029|NCT03921554|181966633|SUPERIORITY||Estimated change (52 weeks - baseline)|7.0||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|12.0||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Wald test||We fit a GEE model with GMFM-88 as outcome, with indicator variables for 52 weeks (vs. baseline) and cohorts B and C (vs. A); in addition, time by cohort interaction terms are included. The model allow for up to 2 measurements per participant.|"We are testing the null hypothesis that the change from baseline (52 weeks - baseline) in GMFM-88 is zero within cohorts.~35 participants had 2 measurements (at baseline and 52 weeks); 15 participants had 1 measurement (at baseline). All participants are included in the analysis."||12.0|1.9|0.007
91041030|NCT03921554|181966633|SUPERIORITY||Estimated change (52 weeks - baseline)|0.26||||0.932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|6.2||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Wald test||We fit a GEE model with GMFM-88 as outcome, with indicator variables for 52 weeks (vs. baseline) and cohorts B and C (vs. A); in addition, time by cohort interaction terms are included. The model allow for up to 2 measurements per participant.|"We are testing the null hypothesis that the change from baseline (52 weeks - baseline) in GMFM-88 is zero within cohorts.~35 participants had 2 measurements (at baseline and 52 weeks); 15 participants had 1 measurement (at baseline). All participants are included in the analysis."||6.2|-5.7|0.932
91041031|NCT03921554|181966634|SUPERIORITY||Estimated change (Day 3 - Day 0)|-8.76|||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|-5.81||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Wald test||We fit a QLS model of ISG on day of treatment and indicator variable for post-treatment. Goodness of fit criteria were used to select QLS model with exchangeable correlation structure.|We estimate change from pre to post treatment (Day 3 minus Day 0) with 95% confidence interval (CI). All participants are included in the analysis.||-5.81|-11.7|<0.0005
91041032|NCT03921554|181966635|SUPERIORITY||Estimated change (day 335 minus day 0)|-0.11||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|-0.04||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Wald test||We fit a GEE model of diary average score on day of treatment and indicator variable for post-treatment. Goodness of fit criteria were used to select GEE model with exchangeable correlation structure.|We estimate change from Day 0 to Day 335 (Day 335 - Day 0) with 95% confidence interval (CI). All participants are included in the analysis.||-0.04|-0.18|0.002
91041033|NCT05194202|181966644|OTHER|||||||0.622|||||||one-sample test of proportions|Hypothesis was evaluated using a one-tailed, one-proportion z-test.||Our null hypothesis for the acceptability was P0 great than or equal to 85% vs. the alternative P0 less than 85%. Acceptability responses were dichotomized to include neutral with strongly disagree/disagree.||||.622
91041034|NCT05194202|181966645|OTHER|||||||0.038|||||||one sample test of proportions|Hypothesis was evaluated using a one-tailed, one-proportion z-test||Our null hypothesis for the acceptabnility of the ED-Heart was P0 great than or equal to 85% vs. the alternative P0 less than 85%. Acceptability responses were dichotomized to include neutral with strongly disagree/disagree.||||.038
91041035|NCT00762411|181966648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.56||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.560
91041036|NCT00762411|181966649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.959||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.959
91041037|NCT00762411|181966650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.567||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.567
91041038|NCT00762411|181966651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.199||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.199
91041039|NCT00762411|181966652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.294||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.294
91041040|NCT00762411|181966653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.477||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.477
91041041|NCT00762411|181966654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.673||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.673
91041042|NCT00762411|181966655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.622||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.622
91041043|NCT00762411|181966656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.178||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.178
91041044|NCT00762411|181966657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.632||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.632
91041045|NCT00762411|181966658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.009
91041046|NCT00762411|181966659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.426||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.426
91041047|NCT00762411|181966660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.101||95.0||||This is the p-value for the Right Hippocampal Volume.|ANCOVA|||||||0.101
91041048|NCT00762411|181966660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.772||95.0||||This is the p-value for the Left Hippocampal Volume.|ANCOVA|||||||0.772
91041049|NCT00762411|181966661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.326||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.326
91041050|NCT00762411|181966662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.117||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.117
91041051|NCT00762411|181966671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.929||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.929
91041052|NCT00762411|181966672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.437||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.437
91041053|NCT00762411|181966673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.318||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.318
91041054|NCT00762411|181966674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.417||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.417
91041055|NCT00762411|181966675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.805||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.805
91041056|NCT00762411|181966676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.893||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.893
90889736|NCT01369342|181643390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||||||A fixed sequence testing procedure was used to control alpha at 0.05 over the outcome measures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test, stratified by study region (Asia, Eastern Europe, or rest of world) and CDAI score (=\< 300 or \>300).||||||0.009
90889737|NCT01369342|181643390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||A fixed sequence testing procedure was used to control alpha at 0.05 over the outcome measures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test, stratified by study region (Asia, Eastern Europe, or rest of world) and CDAI score (=\< 300 or \>300).||||||< 0.001
90889738|NCT01369342|181643391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||A fixed sequence testing procedure was used to control alpha at 0.05 over the outcome measures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test, stratified by study region (Asia, Eastern Europe, or rest of world) and CDAI score (=\< 300 or \>300).||||||< 0.001
90889739|NCT01369342|181643391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||A fixed sequence testing procedure was used to control alpha at 0.05 over the outcome measures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test, stratified by study region (Asia, Eastern Europe, or rest of world) and CDAI score (=\< 300 or \>300).||||||< 0.001
90889740|NCT01369342|181643392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||A fixed sequence testing procedure was used to control alpha at 0.05 over the outcome measures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test, stratified by study region (Asia, Eastern Europe, or rest of world) and CDAI score (=\< 300 or \>300).||||||< 0.001
90889741|NCT01369342|181643392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||A fixed sequence testing procedure was used to control alpha at 0.05 over the outcome measures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test, stratified by study region (Asia, Eastern Europe, or rest of world) and CDAI score (=\< 300 or \>300).||||||< 0.001
90889742|NCT01369342|181643393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||A fixed sequence testing procedure was used to control alpha at 0.05 over the outcome measures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test, stratified by study region (Asia, Eastern Europe, or rest of world) and CDAI score (=\< 300 or \>300).||||||< 0.001
90889743|NCT01369342|181643393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||A fixed sequence testing procedure was used to control alpha at 0.05 over the outcome measures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test, stratified by study region (Asia, Eastern Europe, or rest of world) and CDAI score (=\< 300 or \>300).||||||< 0.001
90889744|NCT01816594|181643394|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.811|||||||Fisher Exact|(one-sided)||All participantss||||0.811
90889745|NCT01816594|181643395|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||Fisher Exact|(one-sided)||wild type cohort||||0.830
90889746|NCT01816594|181643396|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.786|||||||Fisher Exact|(one-sided)||mutant cohort||||0.786
90889747|NCT01816594|181643397|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.286|||||||Fisher Exact|(one-sided)||All participants||||0.286
90889748|NCT01816594|181643398|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.177|||||||Fisher Exact|(one-sided)||wild type cohort||||0.177
90889749|NCT01816594|181643399|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.929|||||||Fisher Exact|(one-sided)||mutant cohort||||0.929
90889750|NCT01816594|181643400|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.811|||||||Fisher Exact|(one-sided)||||||0.811
90889751|NCT01816594|181643401|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||Fisher Exact|(one-sided)||||||0.840
90889752|NCT01816594|181643402|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.724|||||||Fisher Exact|(one-sided)||||||0.724
90889753|NCT01816594|181643403|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.964|||||||Fisher Exact|(one-sided)||All participants||||0.964
90889754|NCT01816594|181643404|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.546|||||||Fisher Exact|(one-sided)||For ER+ participants - pCR||||0.546
90889755|NCT01816594|181643405|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.949|||||||Fisher Exact|(one-sided)||For ER- participants - pCR||||0.949
90889756|NCT01816594|181643406|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.053|||||||Fisher Exact|(one-sided)||For ER+ participants - ORR||||0.053
90889757|NCT01816594|181643407|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.949|||||||Fisher Exact|(one-sided)||For ER- participants - ORR||||0.949
90889758|NCT01816594|181643408|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.666|||||||Fisher Exact|(one-sided)||||||0.666
90889759|NCT01816594|181643409|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.803|||||||Fisher Exact|(one-sided)||||||0.803
90889760|NCT03905655|181643410|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||1.000
90889761|NCT03905655|181643410|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||1.000
90889762|NCT03905655|181643410|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||1.000
90889763|NCT03905655|181643411|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
90889764|NCT03905655|181643411|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
90889765|NCT03905655|181643411|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
90889766|NCT03905655|181643412|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Day 3 values||||1.000
90889767|NCT03905655|181643412|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Week 1 values||||1.000
90889768|NCT03905655|181643412|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Week 2 values||||1.000
90889769|NCT03905655|181643412|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Week 4 values||||1.000
90889770|NCT03905655|181643412|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Week 8 values||||1.000
90889771|NCT03905655|181643412|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Day 3 values||||1.000
90889772|NCT03905655|181643412|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Week 1 values||||1.000
90889773|NCT03905655|181643412|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Week 2 values||||1.000
90889774|NCT03905655|181643412|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Week 4 values||||1.000
90889775|NCT03905655|181643412|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Week 8 values||||0.001
90889776|NCT03905655|181643412|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Day 3 values||||1.000
90889777|NCT03905655|181643412|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Week 1 values||||1.000
90889778|NCT03905655|181643412|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Week 2 values||||<0.001
90889779|NCT03905655|181643412|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Week 4 values||||0.002
90889780|NCT03905655|181643412|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Week 8 values||||1.000
90889781|NCT03905655|181643413|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Day 3 values||||1.000
90889782|NCT03905655|181643413|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 1 values||||1.000
90889783|NCT03905655|181643413|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 2 values||||1.000
90889784|NCT03905655|181643413|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 4 values||||1.000
90889785|NCT03905655|181643413|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 8 values||||1.000
91041057|NCT02959840|181966677|EQUIVALENCE|Our null hypothesis is that there is no statistically significant difference between the number of people who experienced nausea in the above 2 groups.|||||<|1e-05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||< 0.00001
90889786|NCT03905655|181643413|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 12 values||||1.000
90889787|NCT03905655|181643413|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Day 3 values||||1.000
90889788|NCT03905655|181643413|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 1 values||||1.000
90889789|NCT03905655|181643413|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 2 values||||1.000
90889790|NCT03905655|181643413|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 4 values||||1.000
90889791|NCT03905655|181643413|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 8 values||||1.000
90889792|NCT03905655|181643413|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 12 values||||1.000
91041058|NCT02959840|181966677|EQUIVALENCE|Our null hypothesis is that there is no statistically significant difference between the number of people who experienced nausea in the above 2 groups.||||||5e-05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.00005
91041059|NCT02959840|181966677|EQUIVALENCE|Our null hypothesis is that there is no statistically significant difference between the number of people who experienced nausea in the above 2 groups.||||||0.1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1
91041060|NCT02959840|181966678|EQUIVALENCE|Our null hypothesis is that there is no statistically significant difference between the number of people who experienced vomiting in the above 2 groups.||||||0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.001
90889793|NCT03905655|181643413|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Day 3 values||||1.000
90889794|NCT03905655|181643413|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 1 values||||1.000
90889795|NCT03905655|181643413|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 2 values||||1.000
90889796|NCT03905655|181643413|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 4 values||||1.000
90889797|NCT03905655|181643413|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 8 values||||1.000
90889798|NCT03905655|181643413|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 12 values||||1.000
90889799|NCT03905655|181643414|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Day 3 values||||1.000
90889800|NCT03905655|181643414|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 1 values||||1.000
90889801|NCT03905655|181643414|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 2 values||||1.000
90889802|NCT03905655|181643414|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 4 values||||1.000
90889803|NCT03905655|181643414|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 8 values||||1.000
90889804|NCT03905655|181643414|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 12 values||||1.000
90889805|NCT03905655|181643414|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Day 3 values||||1.000
90889806|NCT03905655|181643414|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 1 values||||1.000
90889807|NCT03905655|181643414|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 2 values||||1.000
90889808|NCT03905655|181643414|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 4 values||||1.000
90889809|NCT03905655|181643414|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 8 values||||1.000
90889810|NCT03905655|181643414|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 12 values||||1.000
90889811|NCT03905655|181643414|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Day 3 values||||1.000
90889812|NCT03905655|181643414|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 1 values||||1.000
90889813|NCT03905655|181643414|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 2 values||||1.000
90889814|NCT03905655|181643414|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 4 values||||1.000
90889815|NCT03905655|181643414|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 8 values||||1.000
90889816|NCT03905655|181643414|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 12 values||||1.000
90889817|NCT03905655|181643415|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Day 3 values||||1.000
90889818|NCT03905655|181643415|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 1 values||||1.000
90889819|NCT03905655|181643415|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 2 values||||1.000
90889820|NCT03905655|181643415|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 4 values||||1.000
90889821|NCT03905655|181643415|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 8 values||||1.000
91041061|NCT02959840|181966678|EQUIVALENCE|Our null hypothesis is that there is no statistically significant difference between the number of people who experienced vomiting in the above 2 groups.||||||0.0002|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0002
91041062|NCT02959840|181966678|EQUIVALENCE|Our null hypothesis is that there is no statistically significant difference between the number of people who experienced vomiting in the above 2 groups.||||||0.8|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.8
91041063|NCT02959840|181966679|EQUIVALENCE|Our null hypothesis is that there is no statistically significant difference between the number of people who experienced nausea in the above 2 groups.||||||4e-05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.00004
91041064|NCT02959840|181966679|EQUIVALENCE|Our null hypothesis is that there is no statistically significant difference between the number of people who experienced nausea in the above 2 groups.||||||0.0004|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0004
90889822|NCT03905655|181643415|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 12 values||||1.000
90889823|NCT03905655|181643415|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Day 3 values||||1.000
90889824|NCT03905655|181643415|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 1 values||||1.000
90889825|NCT03905655|181643415|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 2 values||||1.000
90889826|NCT03905655|181643415|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 4 values||||1.000
90889827|NCT03905655|181643415|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 8 values||||1.000
90889828|NCT03905655|181643415|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 12 values||||1.000
90889829|NCT03905655|181643415|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Day 3 values||||1.000
90889830|NCT03905655|181643415|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 1 values||||1.000
90889831|NCT03905655|181643415|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 2 values||||1.000
90889832|NCT03905655|181643415|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 4 values||||1.000
90889833|NCT03905655|181643415|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 8 values||||1.000
90889834|NCT03905655|181643415|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 12 values||||1.000
90889835|NCT03905655|181643416|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Week 1 values||||0.006
90889836|NCT03905655|181643416|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Week 2 values||||0.003
90889837|NCT03905655|181643416|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Week 4 values||||0.004
90889838|NCT03905655|181643416|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Week 8 values||||0.006
90889839|NCT03905655|181643416|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Week 12 values||||0.002
90889840|NCT03905655|181643416|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.141|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Week 1 values||||0.141
90889841|NCT03905655|181643416|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.081|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Week 2 values||||0.081
90889842|NCT03905655|181643416|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Week 4 values||||0.160
90889843|NCT03905655|181643416|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.184|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Week 8 values||||0.184
90889844|NCT03905655|181643416|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Week 12 values||||0.046
90889845|NCT03905655|181643416|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.379|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Week 1 values||||0.379
90889846|NCT03905655|181643416|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.308|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Week 2 values||||0.308
90889847|NCT03905655|181643416|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.794|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Week 4 values||||0.794
91041065|NCT02959840|181966679|EQUIVALENCE|Our null hypothesis is that there is no statistically significant difference between the number of people who experienced nausea in the above 2 groups.||||||0.09|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.09
91041066|NCT02959840|181966680|EQUIVALENCE|Our null hypothesis is that there is no statistically significant difference between the number of people who experienced nausea in the above 2 groups.||||||0.1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1
91041067|NCT02959840|181966680|EQUIVALENCE|Our null hypothesis is that there is no statistically significant difference between the number of people who experienced nausea in the above 2 groups.||||||0.07|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.07
90889848|NCT03905655|181643416|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.297|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Week 8 values||||0.297
90889849|NCT03905655|181643416|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Week 12 values||||0.007
90889850|NCT03905655|181643417|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.123|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.123
91041068|NCT02959840|181966680|EQUIVALENCE|Our null hypothesis is that there is no statistically significant difference between the number of people who experienced nausea in the above 2 groups.||||||0.7|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7
90889851|NCT03905655|181643417|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||1.000
90889852|NCT03905655|181643417|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.266|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.266
90889853|NCT04723576|181643418|OTHER|Standard 2-sided non-equivalence test|Mean Difference (Net)|0.189||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.068|1.446|||Mixed Models Analysis||Effect sizes are the difference between SFA minus Usual Care.|||1.446|-1.068|.77
90889854|NCT04723576|181643419|OTHER|Standard 2-sided non-equivalence test|Median Difference (Net)|0.238||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.785|||Mixed Models Analysis||Effect sizes are the difference between SFA minus Usual Care.|||0.785|-0.310|.39
90889855|NCT04723576|181643420|OTHER|Standard 2-sided non-equivalence test|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.232||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.618|0.153|||Mixed Models Analysis||Effect sizes are the difference between SFA minus Usual Care.|||0.153|-0.618|.24
90889856|NCT04723576|181643421|OTHER|Standard 2-sided non-equivalence test|Median Difference (Net)|0.134||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.085|0.352|||Mixed Models Analysis||Effect sizes are the difference between SFA minus Usual Care.|||0.352|-0.085|.23
90889857|NCT04723576|181643422|OTHER|Standard 2-sided non-equivalence test|Median Difference (Net)|-0.051||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.179|0.078|||Mixed Models Analysis||Effect sizes are the difference between SFA minus Usual Care.|||0.078|-0.179|.44
90889858|NCT04723576|181643423|OTHER|Standard 2-sided non-equivalence test|Odds Ratio, log|-0.051||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.179|0.078|||Repeated measure logistic regression|using GEE method|Effect sizes are the difference between SFA minus Usual Care.|||0.078|-0.179|.85
90889859|NCT04723576|181643424|OTHER|Standard 2-sided non-equivalence test|Median Difference (Net)|0.23||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.025|0.484|||Mixed Models Analysis||Effect sizes are the difference between SFA minus Usual Care|||0.484|-0.025|.08
90889860|NCT03317002|181643448|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.04|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.05||<0.001
90889861|NCT03317002|181643448|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.08||||0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.10||0.001
90889862|NCT03317002|181643449|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.04|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.05||<0.001
90889863|NCT03317002|181643449|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.09||||0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.12||0.001
90952050|NCT01038427|181781679|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0487|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0487
91041069|NCT02959840|181966681|EQUIVALENCE|Our null hypothesis is that there is no statistically significant difference between the number of people who experienced nausea in the above 2 groups.||||||0.7|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7
91041070|NCT02959840|181966681|EQUIVALENCE|Our null hypothesis is that there is no statistically significant difference between the number of people who experienced nausea in the above 2 groups.||||||0.7|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7
91041071|NCT02959840|181966681|EQUIVALENCE|Our null hypothesis is that there is no statistically significant difference between the number of people who experienced nausea in the above 2 groups.||||||0.2|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2
91041072|NCT02959840|181966682|EQUIVALENCE|Our null hypothesis is that there is no statistically significant difference between the number of people who experienced nausea in the above 2 groups.||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1
91041073|NCT02959840|181966682|EQUIVALENCE|Our null hypothesis is that there is no statistically significant difference between the number of people who experienced nausea in the above 2 groups.||||||0.2|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2
91041074|NCT02959840|181966682|EQUIVALENCE|Our null hypothesis is that there is no statistically significant difference between the number of people who experienced nausea in the above 2 groups.||||||0.1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1
91041075|NCT02959840|181966683|EQUIVALENCE|Our null hypothesis is that there is no statistically significant difference between the number of people who experienced vomiting in the above 2 groups.||||||0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.001
90889864|NCT01592435|181643462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||||||level of significance (alpha) = 0.05 All p-values were calculated (and verified) by our statistician and are correct. They were rounded to fit four digits.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.02
90889865|NCT01592435|181643463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0||||||level of significance (alpha) = 0.05 All p-values were calculated (and verified) by our statistician and are correct. They were rounded to fit four digits.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.00
90889866|NCT02395042|181643501|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.15||||0.142|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with baseline value as a covariate and treatment group and stratification (baseline bladder pain NRS: ≤ 5 or \> 5) as factors.||||||0.142
90889867|NCT02395042|181643501|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.92||||0.319|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with baseline value as a covariate and treatment group and stratification (baseline bladder pain NRS: ≤ 5 or \> 5) as factors.||||||0.319
90889868|NCT02395042|181643502|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.46||||0.024|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with baseline value as a covariate and treatment group and stratification (baseline bladder pain NRS: ≤ 5 or \> 5) as factors.||||||0.024
90889869|NCT02395042|181643502|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.02||||0.137|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with baseline value as a covariate and treatment group and stratification (baseline bladder pain NRS: ≤ 5 or \> 5) as factors.||||||0.137
90889870|NCT03980470|181643529|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.198|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.198
90889871|NCT03980470|181643530|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.9
90889872|NCT03980470|181643531|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.8
90889873|NCT03980470|181643532|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90889874|NCT03980470|181643533|OTHER|Bland-Altmann analysis (bias)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.42|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90889875|NCT00627705|181643553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.449|||||||mixed effects regression models|F= 0.81||Cohen's d = 0.30||||0.449
90889876|NCT00627705|181643555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Aberrant Behavior Checklist irritability subscale (F = 6.80; p = \<.001; d = .96).|Mixed effects regression models|||F values were derived from the interaction of participant group (NAC vs. placebo) and time (week) in mixed effects regression models. Cohen's d was computed based on the standardized mean difference in the change from baseline to week 12.||||<.001
90889877|NCT00627705|181643557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.141|||||||mixed effects regression models|degrees of freedom were 1, 22||F-values were derived from the interaction of Participant Group (NAC vs. Placebo) and Time (Week) in mixed effects regression models.||||.141
90889878|NCT02091167|181643615|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|||We powered for a medium effect size based on our previous study with effect size (partial ղ2) of 0.10384 for the main within-subject factor in the two-way ANOVA with repeated measures. With a power of 80%, and a two-sided probability of a type I error of 5%, the resulting minimum sample size was 30 participants. To account for waiving or dropouts we increased the estimated sample size to approximately 10%, resulting in 33 subjects in total (approximately 16 to 17 subjects in each group).|"Most of data (age, patterns of crack-cocaine use, 5-items OCCS) were normally distributed according to the D'Agostino \& Pearson normality test, thus they were analyzed by parametric tests. Between-group (sham- and real tDCS) comparisons were conducted by unpaired Student´s t-tests. For all other non-parametric data (gender, schooling, employment, marital state and tobacco use), Chi-square or Fisher tests were used to compare sham and real tDCS groups.~Besides the two-way ANOVA with repeated measures followed by Bonferroni-corrected t-tests, linear regression analyses were done over craving scores obtained along the 4-week treatment (five time-points measurements) for both groups. Additional comparisons between initial and final OCDS scores were done by paired t-tests for each group, and differences between final and initial scores were compared between sham-tDCS and real tDCS groups with unpaired t-test."|||0.05
90889879|NCT02091167|181643616|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||Two patients from each group were lost to follow-up after their discharge from the hospital.||||0.05
90889880|NCT02693665|181643647|SUPERIORITY|First measure of congruence was taken at 2 weeks post-baseline for controls, or immediately post-Session 2 for intervention dyads. Analysis presented here assessed differences between groups in agreement. This represents the underlying data without examining the pattern of congruence for each dyad over time. Longitudinal latent class analysis of congruence in responses over time between adolescents/families was conducted at the person not variable level.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.22|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|9.57|||longitudinal latent class analysis|examined the pattern of change over time.||"Analysis was at the level of the dyad. AIM 1. To evaluate the efficacy of FACE-TC on patient-family congruence in treatment preferences.~H1a: FACE-TC participants will better maintain congruence over time, compared to controls.~H1b: Development of congruence may not be homogeneous and FACE-TC may influence the pattern of congruence development."||9.57|1.09|<0.05
90889881|NCT02693665|181643648|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.00743162|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.928|1.094||The generalized mixed effect models are taking into account missingness by attrition. There were not missing values for the outcomes or predictors that we used.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model forced age, gender, race, family education, family income under the Federal Poverty level, on/off treatment.||Emotional distress-anxiety analysis at baseline comparing intervention and control.||1.094|0.928|<0.05
90889882|NCT02693665|181643648|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.05037501|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96438584|1.14403138||The generalized mixed effect models are taking into account missingness by attrition. There were not missing values for the outcomes or predictors that we used.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model forced age, gender, race, family education, family income under the Federal Poverty level, on/off treatment.||Emotional distress-anxiety analysis at 3 months post baseline comparing intervention and control. We hypothesized that anxiety would be lower in the intervention group compared to controls.||1.14403138|0.96438584|<0.05
90889883|NCT02693665|181643648|SUPERIORITY|See earlier comments.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01136067|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92887892|1.10116656||See earlier comments.|t-test, 2 sided|See earlier comments.||This is analysis for 6 month outcomes of Emotional-distress - anxiety. See details in 3 month outcomes.||1.10116656|0.92887892|<0.05
90889884|NCT02693665|181643648|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.14070431|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04444724|1.2458325|||t-test, 2 sided||See earlier comments.|These are the 12 month outcomes for Emotional distress - anxiety. See earlier comments.||1.24583250|1.04444724|<0.05
90889885|NCT02693665|181643648|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98078271|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89845609|1.07065301|||t-test, 2 sided|||This analysis is for the outcome Emotional distress - depressive symptoms. We hypothesized that adolescent in the intervention would have lower depressive symptoms compared to controls at 3, 6, and 12 month outcomes. The following are the baseline comparisons between control and intervention which were controlled for in the 3, 6, and 12 month analysis of outcomes.||1.07065301|0.89845609|<0.05
90889886|NCT02693665|181643648|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.04007715|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94970156|1.13905306|||t-test, 2 sided|||The results here are for the outcome variable Emotional Distress - Depressive symptoms at 3 month outcomes. We hypothesized that adolescents randomized to the intervention would have lower depressive symptoms than controls.||1.13905306|0.94970156|<0.05
90889887|NCT02693665|181643648|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.07347088|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9806271|1.17510491|||t-test, 2 sided|||We hypothesize that Emotional Distress - Depressive symptoms would be lower in intervention adolescents compared to controls at 6 months post intervention.||1.17510491|0.98062710|<0.05
90889888|NCT02693665|181643648|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.11582434|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01653156|1.22481585|||t-test, 2 sided|||We hypothesized that adolescents randomized to the intervention would have lower scores on Emotional Distress - Depressive symptoms compared to controls at 12 months post baseline.||1.22481585|1.01653156|<0.05
90889889|NCT02693665|181643648|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio, log|0.98803061|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89065531|1.09605195|||t-test, 2 sided|||We hypothesized that adolescents randomized to the intervention would have no differences in fatigue at baseline if randomization was successful. In this analysis we examine the baseline results.||1.09605195|0.89065531|<0.05
90889890|NCT02693665|181643648|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.13509797|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01959639|1.26368376|||t-test, 2 sided|||We hypothesized that adolescents randomized to the intervention arm would report less Fatigue at 3 months outcome compared to controls.||1.26368376|1.01959639|<0.05
90889891|NCT02693665|181643648|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.04944737|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94281417|1.16814089|||t-test, 2 sided|||We hypothesized that adolescents randomized to the intervention would report less Fatigue at 6 months post baseline compared to control adolescents.||1.16814089|0.94281417|<0.05
90889892|NCT02693665|181643648|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.11042568|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99383841|1.24068981|||t-test, 2 sided|||We hypothesized that intervention adolescents would report less Fatigue than controls at 12 months post baseline.||1.24068981|0.99383841|<0.05
90889893|NCT02693665|181643648|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9683347|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88658183|1.05762611|||t-test, 2 sided|||We hypothesized that there would be no differences at baseline between intervention and control adolescents with respect to Pain Interference.||1.05762611|0.88658183|<0.05
90889894|NCT02693665|181643648|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.04450374|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95307464|1.1447037|||t-test, 2 sided|||We hypothesized that adolescents randomized to the intervention compared to controls would report less Pain Interference at 3 months post baseline.||1.14470370|0.95307464|<0.05
90889895|NCT02693665|181643648|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.07182133|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97835451|1.17421748|||t-test, 2 sided|||We hypothesized that adolescents randomized to the intervention compared to controls would report less Pain Interference at 6 months post baseline.||1.17421748|0.97835451|<0.05
90889896|NCT02693665|181643648|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio, log|1.09964781|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.00051223|1.20860622|||t-test, 2 sided|||We hypothesized that at 12 month outcome adolescents randomized to the intervention would report less Pain Interference compared to control adolescents.||1.20860622|1.00051223|<0.05
90889897|NCT02693665|181643649|SUPERIORITY||Mean ratio|0.98|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Meaning and Peace Subscale at 3 months post intervention||1.09|0.88|<0.05
90889898|NCT02693665|181643649|SUPERIORITY||Mean ratio|0.97|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Meaning and Peace subscale at 6 months post intervention||1.08|0.88|<0.05
90889899|NCT02693665|181643649|SUPERIORITY||Mean ratio|0.92|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Meaning and Peace subscale at 12 months post intervention||1.02|0.82|<0.05
90889900|NCT02693665|181643649|SUPERIORITY||Mean ratio|0.92|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Faith subscale score at 3 months post intervention||1.16|0.73|<0.05
90889901|NCT02693665|181643649|SUPERIORITY||Mean ratio|0.96|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Faith subscale at 6 months post intervention||1.21|0.76|<0.05
90889902|NCT02693665|181643649|SUPERIORITY||Mean ratio|0.92|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Faith subscale scores at 12 months post intervention||1.17|0.72|<0.05
90889903|NCT02693665|181643650|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.15|||GEE model|||Caregiver Strain subscale at 3 months post-intervention comparing intervention to TAU, controlling for baseline levels.||0.15|-0.42|<0.05
90889904|NCT02693665|181643650|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.36|||GEE model|||Positive Caregiving Appraisal subscale at 3 months post-intervention comparing intervention to TAU, controlling for baseline levels.||0.36|0.02|<0.05
90889905|NCT02693665|181643650|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.32|||GEE model|||Caregiver Distress subscale at 3 months post-intervention comparing intervention to TAU, controlling for baseline levels.||0.32|-0.35|<0.05
90889906|NCT02693665|181643650|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.38|||GEE model|||Family Well-Being subscale at 3 months post-intervention, comparing intervention to TAU, controlling for baseline levels.||0.38|-0.07|<0.05
91041076|NCT02959840|181966683|EQUIVALENCE|Our null hypothesis is that there is no statistically significant difference between the number of people who experienced vomiting in the above 2 groups.||||||0.0004|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0004
91041077|NCT02959840|181966683|EQUIVALENCE|Our null hypothesis is that there is no statistically significant difference between the number of people who experienced vomiting in the above 2 groups.||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1
91041078|NCT02959840|181966684|EQUIVALENCE|Our null hypothesis is that there is no statistically significant difference between the number of people who experienced vomiting in the above 2 groups.||||||0.008|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.008
90952051|NCT02992691|181781680|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.6674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.04||From ANCOVA analysis for change from pre-brushing with treatment and period as fixed effect, participant as random effect, participant-level baseline and period level minus participant-level baseline as covariates.|ANCOVA|||This comparison was tested under a null hypothesis of no difference against alternative hypothesis of a difference between treatments||0.04|-0.06|0.6674
90952052|NCT00588692|181781683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||For 25-49% Ejection Fraction Subgroup||||<0.05
90952053|NCT00588692|181781683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||35-49% Ejection Fraction Subgroup||||<0.05
90952054|NCT00588692|181781685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.06
90952055|NCT00588692|181781686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.5
90952056|NCT00588692|181781686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group change compared to baseline||||<0.05
91041079|NCT02959840|181966684|EQUIVALENCE|Our null hypothesis is that there is no statistically significant difference between the number of people who experienced vomiting in the above 2 groups.||||||0.07|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.07
91041080|NCT02959840|181966684|EQUIVALENCE|Our null hypothesis is that there is no statistically significant difference between the number of people who experienced vomiting in the above 2 groups.||||||0.6|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.6
90952057|NCT00588692|181781686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group change compared to baseline||||<0.05
90952058|NCT00588692|181781687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.26
90952059|NCT00588692|181781687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group change compared to baseline||||<0.05
90952060|NCT00588692|181781687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group change compared to baseline||||<0.05
90952061|NCT00588692|181781688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.4
90952062|NCT00588692|181781689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.9
90952063|NCT00588692|181781689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group change compared to baseline||||<0.05
90952064|NCT00588692|181781689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group change compared to baseline||||<0.05
90952065|NCT00588692|181781690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.9
90952066|NCT00588692|181781691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.9
90952067|NCT00588692|181781692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.3
90952068|NCT00588692|181781693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.9
90952069|NCT00588692|181781693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group change compared to baseline||||<0.05
90952070|NCT00588692|181781693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.24
90952071|NCT00588692|181781694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.6
90952072|NCT00588692|181781695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.9
90952073|NCT00588692|181781695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group change compared to baseline||||<0.05
90952074|NCT00588692|181781695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group change compared to baseline||||<0.05
90952075|NCT00588692|181781696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.11
90952076|NCT00588692|181781696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group change compared to baseline||||<0.05
90952077|NCT00588692|181781696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.16
90952078|NCT00588692|181781697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.4
91041081|NCT02959840|181966685|EQUIVALENCE|Our null hypothesis is that there is no statistically significant difference between the number of people who experienced vomiting in the above 2 groups.||||||0.2|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2
91041082|NCT02959840|181966685|EQUIVALENCE|Our null hypothesis is that there is no statistically significant difference between the number of people who experienced vomiting in the above 2 groups.||||||0.5|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5
91041083|NCT02959840|181966685|EQUIVALENCE|Our null hypothesis is that there is no statistically significant difference between the number of people who experienced vomiting in the above 2 groups.||||||0.7|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7
91041084|NCT02959840|181966686|EQUIVALENCE|Our null hypothesis is that there is no statistically significant difference between the number of people who experienced vomiting in the above 2 groups.||||||0.5|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5
91041085|NCT02959840|181966686|EQUIVALENCE|Our null hypothesis is that there is no statistically significant difference between the number of people who experienced vomiting in the above 2 groups.||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1
91041086|NCT02959840|181966686|EQUIVALENCE|Our null hypothesis is that there is no statistically significant difference between the number of people who experienced vomiting in the above 2 groups.||||||0.5|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5
91041087|NCT02959840|181966687|SUPERIORITY|Our null hypothesis is that there is no statistically significant difference between the mean satisfaction level in the above 2 groups.||||||0.02|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.02
91041088|NCT02959840|181966687|EQUIVALENCE|Our null hypothesis is that there is no statistically significant difference between the mean satisfaction level in the above 2 groups.||||||0.2|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2
90889907|NCT02693665|181643652|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.47|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Intervention effect for quality of adolescent communication score controlling for age, gender, race, income and on active treatment.|It is the standard error of the slope, but this was not an option.|Quality of communication analysis for adolescents||||0.47
90889908|NCT02693665|181643652|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Testing intervention effect for family member quality of communication score controlling for age, gender, race, income nd on active treatment.|This is standard error of the slope.|Quality of communication analysis for family member.||||<0.01
90889909|NCT02693665|181643658|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Adolescent positive score comparing intervention with TAU.||||<0.05
90889910|NCT02693665|181643658|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Adolescent negative worded score comparing intervention to TAU.||||<0.05
90889911|NCT02693665|181643658|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Family member positively worded score comparing intervention with treatment as usual.||||<0.05
90889912|NCT02693665|181643658|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Family member negative worded score comparing intervention to TAU.||||<0.05
90889913|NCT03069482|181643667|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.063|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.377|=|0.754|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||=0.754
90889914|NCT03069482|181643668|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.103|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.369||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|Zero inflated negative binomial mixed methods regression.||||2.6|1.2|0.044
90889915|NCT03069482|181643669|OTHER||Percent accrual relative to target N|102.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||||The goal of this outcome was to determine whether the trial could reach its enrollment target (90 participants).|||
90889916|NCT03069482|181643670|OTHER||Percent retention relative to target|98.3|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||||We calculated the percent of retained participants relative to the retention target (N = 62)|||
90889917|NCT03069482|181643671|OTHER||Percent of respondents|58.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90889918|NCT03069482|181643673|SUPERIORITY||Trimmed mean difference|8.29574|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.11||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.138|16.453|||Yuen's trimmed mean t-test|||||16.453|0.138|0.046
90889919|NCT03069482|181643674|SUPERIORITY||Trimmed mean difference|7.79514|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.16||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.867|17.457|||Yuen's trimmed means t-test|||||17.457|-1.867|0.109
90889920|NCT03069482|181643675|SUPERIORITY||Trimmed mean difference|2.22222|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.75||0.50537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.492|8.943|||Yuen's trimmed means t-test|||||8.943|-4.492|0.50537
90889921|NCT03069482|181643676|SUPERIORITY||Trimmed mean difference|5.83333|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3||0.27411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.88|16.54|||Yuen's trimmed means t-test|||||16.54|-4.88|0.27411
90889922|NCT04098939|181643724|EQUIVALENCE|Bland-Altman plots|Bland-Altman plots|0.39|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.04||Analysis of Bland-Altman plots|Bland-Altman plots|Analysis of Bland-Altman plots|||Analysis of Bland-Altman plots|1.04|0.26|<0.05
90889923|NCT01002872|181643778|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.037|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.037
90889924|NCT01002872|181643779|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.721|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.721
90889925|NCT01002872|181643780|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.897|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.897
90889926|NCT01002872|181643781|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.743|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.743
90889927|NCT01002872|181643782|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.416|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.416
90889928|NCT01002872|181643783|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.672|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.672
90889929|NCT01002872|181643784|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.955|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.955
90889930|NCT01002872|181643785|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
90889931|NCT01002872|181643786|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0066|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0066
90889932|NCT02388724|181643829|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the 95% confidence intervals of the difference was more than -10% (non-inferiority margin), non-inferiority for Vonoprazan relative to Lansoprazole was declared.|Difference in percentages|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.822|6.087||||||||6.087|-3.822|
90889933|NCT02388724|181643830|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|7.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.054|15.371||||||2 Weeks||15.371|-1.054|
90889934|NCT02388724|181643830|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.763|8.395||||||4 Weeks||8.395|-4.763|
90889935|NCT02479412|181643980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02691|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05697||0.6379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08626|0.1401|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 58 µg vs. PBO||0.1401|-0.08626|0.6379
90889936|NCT02479412|181643980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07604|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05663||0.1827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03645|0.1885|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 250 µg vs.PBO||0.1885|-0.03645|0.1827
90889937|NCT02479412|181643980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1478|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05679||0.0108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03494|0.2606|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 800 μg vs. PBO||0.2606|0.03494|0.0108
90889938|NCT02479412|181643981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.857|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.214||0.1342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.24|1.528|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 58 µg vs. PBO||1.528|-11.24|0.1342
90889939|NCT02479412|181643981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.19||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.75|-4.075|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 250 µg vs. PBO||-4.075|-16.75|0.0016
91041089|NCT02959840|181966687|EQUIVALENCE|Our null hypothesis is that there is no statistically significant difference between the mean satisfaction level in the above 2 groups.||||||0.3|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.3
90889940|NCT02479412|181643981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.236|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.18|-8.319|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 800 µg vs. PBO||-8.319|-21.18|<0.0001
90889941|NCT02479412|181643982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.139||0.0084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.06|-3.642|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 58 µg vs. PBO||-3.642|-24.06|0.0084
90889942|NCT02479412|181643982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.088||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.37|-4.149|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 250 µg vs. PBO||-4.149|-24.37|0.0062
91041090|NCT02959840|181966688|EQUIVALENCE|Our null hypothesis is that there is no statistically significant difference between the mean satisfaction level in the above 2 groups.||||||0.2|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2
91041091|NCT02959840|181966688|EQUIVALENCE|Our null hypothesis is that there is no statistically significant difference between the mean satisfaction level in the above 2 groups.||||||0.5|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.5
90889943|NCT02479412|181643982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.137||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.1|-9.689|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 800 µg vs. PBO||-9.689|-30.10|0.0002
90889944|NCT02479412|181643983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03051|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05856||0.6036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08579|0.1468|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 58 μg vs. PBO||0.1468|-0.08579|0.6036
90889945|NCT02479412|181643983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01744|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05869||0.767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09912|0.134|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 250 μg vs. PBO||0.1340|-0.09912|0.7670
90889946|NCT02479412|181643983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1561|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05874||0.0093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03943|0.2728|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 800 μg vs. PBO||0.2728|0.03943|0.0093
90889947|NCT02479412|181643984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03467|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05377||0.5207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1415|0.07213|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 58 μg vs. PBO||0.07213|-0.1415|0.5207
90889948|NCT02479412|181643984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02821|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05336||0.5983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07778|0.1342|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 250 μg vs. PBO||0.1342|-0.07778|0.5983
90889949|NCT02479412|181643984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06169|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05371||0.2538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04501|0.1684|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 800 μg vs. PBO||0.1684|-0.04501|0.2538
90889950|NCT02479412|181643985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02262|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05743||0.6945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1367|0.09144|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 58 μg vs. PBO||0.09144|-0.1367|0.6945
90889951|NCT02479412|181643985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.000314|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05755||0.9957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1146|0.114|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 250 μg vs. PBO||0.1140|-0.1146|0.9957
90889952|NCT02479412|181643985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06831|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05774||0.2398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04637|0.183|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 800 μg vs. PBO||0.1830|-0.04637|0.2398
90889953|NCT02479412|181643986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.877||0.0819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.335|22.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 58 μg vs. PBO||22.01|-1.335|0.0819
90889954|NCT02479412|181643986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.253|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.881||0.3741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.427|16.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 250 μg vs. PBO||16.93|-6.427|0.3741
90889955|NCT02479412|181643986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.926||0.0374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7481|24.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 800 μg vs. PBO||24.29|0.7481|0.0374
90985359|NCT01380093|181856131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-253.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-301.5|-204.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-204.5|-301.5|<0.0001
90985360|NCT01380093|181856131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|151.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|103.5|200.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||200.2|103.5|<0.0001
90985361|NCT01380093|181856131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|404.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|356.4|453.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||453.3|356.4|<0.0001
90985362|NCT01380093|181856132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-306.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-370.9|-242.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-242.6|-370.9|<0.0001
90985363|NCT01380093|181856132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|168.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|104.7|232.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||232.6|104.7|<0.0001
90985364|NCT01380093|181856132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|475.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|411.3|539.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||539.6|411.3|<0.0001
90985365|NCT01380093|181856133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.5607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||1.0|-0.6|0.5607
90985366|NCT01380093|181856133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||2.8|1.2|<0.0001
90985367|NCT01380093|181856133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||2.6|1.0|<0.0001
90985368|NCT01380093|181856134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-15.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.3|-10.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-10.3|-20.3|<0.0001
90985369|NCT01380093|181856134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|11.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|16.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||16.2|6.3|<0.0001
90985370|NCT01380093|181856134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|26.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.5|31.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||31.5|21.5|<0.0001
90985371|NCT01380093|181856135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-47.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.5|-35.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-35.9|-59.5|<0.0001
90985372|NCT01380093|181856135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|28.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.5|40.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||40.1|16.5|<0.0001
90985373|NCT01380093|181856135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|76.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.2|87.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||87.8|64.2|<0.0001
90985374|NCT01380093|181856136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-109.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-132.9|-85.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-85.6|-132.9|<0.0001
90985375|NCT01380093|181856136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|67.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.5|90.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||90.6|43.5|<0.0001
90985376|NCT01380093|181856136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|176.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|152.6|199.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||199.9|152.6|<0.0001
90985377|NCT01380093|181856137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-190.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-234.2|-147.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-147.3|-234.2|<0.0001
91041092|NCT02959840|181966688|EQUIVALENCE|Our null hypothesis is that there is no statistically significant difference between the mean satisfaction level in the above 2 groups.||||||0.7|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.7
91041093|NCT01456962|181966798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6
91041094|NCT01456962|181966798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% change in CD4+:CD8+ T cells ratio|-9.5||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.3|12.0|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for treatment group and time on antiretroviral therapy|Change based on a 1 log unit increase in genital:plasma drug ratio|Null hypothesis: Higher genital to plasma antiretroviral drug ratios are not associated with higher cervical CD4+:CD8+ T cell ratios.||12|-27.3|0.4
91041095|NCT04684485|181966819|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1966|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1966
91041096|NCT04684485|181966819|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5438|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.5438
91041097|NCT04684485|181966819|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3713|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3713
90889956|NCT02479412|181643987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.384||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.039|26.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 58 μg vs. PBO||26.43|5.039|0.0044
90889957|NCT02479412|181643987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.419||0.0098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.534|25.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 250 μg vs. PBO||25.06|3.534|0.0098
90889958|NCT02479412|181643987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.459||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.068|30.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 800 μg vs. PBO||30.75|9.068|0.0004
90889959|NCT02479412|181643988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3435|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.189||0.0723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7189|0.03179|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 58 μg vs. PBO||0.03179|-0.7189|0.0723
90889960|NCT02479412|181643988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4852|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1903||0.0124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8631|-0.1073|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 250 μg vs. PBO||-0.1073|-0.8631|0.0124
91041098|NCT04684485|181966820|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4564|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4564
91041099|NCT04684485|181966820|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2515|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2515
91041100|NCT04684485|181966820|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5055|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.5055
90889961|NCT02479412|181643988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8026|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1914|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.183|-0.4224|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 800 μg vs. PBO||-0.4224|-1.183|<0.0001
90889962|NCT02479412|181643989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3071|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1051||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5159|-0.09836|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 58 μg vs. PBO||-0.09836|-0.5159|0.0044
90889963|NCT02479412|181643989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1824|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1059||0.0883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3927|0.02789|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 250 μg vs. PBO||0.02789|-0.3927|0.0883
90889964|NCT02479412|181643989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4301|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1055|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6397|-0.2205|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 800 μg vs. PBO||-0.2205|-0.6397|<0.0001
90889965|NCT02479412|181643990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1651|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09139||0.0741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3466|0.01638|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 58 μg vs. PBO||0.01638|-0.3466|0.0741
90889966|NCT02479412|181643990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09079|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09204||0.3265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2736|0.09201|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 250 μg vs. PBO||0.09201|-0.2736|0.3265
90889967|NCT02479412|181643990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2532|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09176||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4354|-0.07092|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 800 μg vs. PBO||-0.07092|-0.4354|0.0070
90889968|NCT02479412|181643991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4185|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1626||0.0116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7414|-0.09563|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 58 μg vs. PBO||-0.09563|-0.7414|0.0116
90889969|NCT02479412|181643991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1794|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1628||0.2732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5027|0.1438|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 250 μg vs. PBO||0.1438|-0.5027|0.2732
90952079|NCT00588692|181781697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group change compared to baseline||||<0.05
90952080|NCT00588692|181781697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group change compared to baseline||||<0.05
90952081|NCT00588692|181781698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.9
90952082|NCT00588692|181781698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group change compared to baseline||||<0.05
90952083|NCT00588692|181781698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group change compared to baseline||||<0.05
90952084|NCT00755105|181781715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||< 0.05
90952085|NCT03995316|181781716|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||The slope value reflects the mean difference between conditions in the linear slope from the pretest to posttest assessment.|||||.003
90952086|NCT03995316|181781717|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.283|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||The slope value reflects the mean difference between conditions in the linear slope from the pretest to posttest assessment.|||||.283
90952087|NCT03995316|181781718|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.019|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||The slope value reflects the mean difference between conditions in the linear slope from the pretest to posttest assessment.|||||.019
90889970|NCT02479412|181643991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7661|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1636|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.091|-0.4411|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 800 μg vs. PBO||-0.4411|-1.091|<0.0001
90889971|NCT02479412|181643992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1067|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04982||0.0349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2057|-0.007755|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 58 μg vs. PBO||-0.007755|-0.2057|0.0349
90985378|NCT01380093|181856137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|134.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.5|178.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||178.0|91.5|<0.0001
90985379|NCT01380093|181856137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|325.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|282.1|368.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||368.9|282.1|<0.0001
90985380|NCT01380093|181856138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-244.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-302.0|-187.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-187.7|-302.0|<0.0001
90985381|NCT01380093|181856138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|166.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|109.5|223.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||223.5|109.5|<0.0001
90985382|NCT01380093|181856138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|411.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|354.3|468.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||468.6|354.3|<0.0001
90985383|NCT01380093|181856139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-310.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-384.5|-235.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-235.5|-384.5|<0.0001
90985384|NCT01380093|181856139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|185.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|110.8|259.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||259.5|110.8|<0.0001
90985385|NCT01380093|181856139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|495.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|420.6|569.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||569.7|420.6|<0.0001
90985386|NCT01380093|181856140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-30.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.7|-22.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-22.3|-38.7|<0.0001
90985387|NCT01380093|181856140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|30.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.6|39.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||39.0|22.6|<0.0001
90985388|NCT01380093|181856140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|61.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.1|69.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||69.5|53.1|<0.0001
90889972|NCT02479412|181643992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08205|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05015||0.1052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1817|0.01756|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 250 μg vs. PBO||0.01756|-0.1817|0.1052
90889973|NCT02479412|181643992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2027|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05044||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3028|-0.1025|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 800 μg vs. PBO||-0.1025|-0.3028|0.0001
90985389|NCT01380093|181856141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.8671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||0.8|-1.0|0.8671
90985390|NCT01380093|181856141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.8||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||2.7|0.9|0.0001
90985391|NCT01380093|181856141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||2.8|1.0|<0.0001
90985392|NCT01380093|181856142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-13.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|-9.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-9.0|-17.0|<0.0001
90985393|NCT01380093|181856142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|8.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.8|12.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||12.8|4.8|<0.0001
90985394|NCT01380093|181856142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|21.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.8|25.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||25.8|17.8|<0.0001
90985395|NCT01380093|181856143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-45.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.3|-35.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-35.3|-55.3|<0.0001
90985396|NCT01380093|181856143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|24.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.6|34.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||34.5|14.6|<0.0001
90985397|NCT01380093|181856143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|69.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.9|79.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||79.8|59.9|<0.0001
90985398|NCT01380093|181856144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-109.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-129.3|-88.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-88.8|-129.3|<0.0001
90985399|NCT01380093|181856144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|60.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.9|80.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||80.4|39.9|<0.0001
90985400|NCT01380093|181856144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|169.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|148.9|189.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||189.5|148.9|<0.0001
90985401|NCT01380093|181856145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-207.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-242.0|-172.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-172.1|-242.0|<0.0001
90985402|NCT01380093|181856145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|118.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|83.9|153.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||153.5|83.9|<0.0001
90985403|NCT01380093|181856145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|325.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|290.8|360.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||360.7|290.8|<0.0001
90985404|NCT01380093|181856146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-268.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-313.2|-223.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-223.2|-313.2|<0.0001
90985405|NCT01380093|181856146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|147.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|102.1|191.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||191.9|102.1|<0.0001
90985406|NCT01380093|181856146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|415.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|370.2|460.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||460.2|370.2|<0.0001
90985407|NCT01380093|181856147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-336.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-395.4|-276.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-276.6|-395.4|<0.0001
90985408|NCT01380093|181856147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|165.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|106.4|224.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||224.8|106.4|<0.0001
91041101|NCT05029687|181966873|OTHER|Effect size (Cohen's d)|Cohen's d|1.337|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||d1 is mean change from baseline to follow-up divided by the standard deviation of the outcome at baseline to provide an effect size that might approximate one found in a randomized clinical trial if the placebo group saw no change from baseline.|Comparison of effect size: baseline to post-intervention (d1)||||
90985409|NCT01380093|181856147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|501.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|442.2|561.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||561.0|442.2|<0.0001
90985410|NCT01380093|181856148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-33.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.7|-26.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-26.8|-40.7|<0.0001
90985411|NCT01380093|181856148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|26.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.7|33.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||33.6|19.7|<0.0001
90985412|NCT01380093|181856148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|60.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.4|67.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||67.4|53.4|<0.0001
90985413|NCT01380093|181856149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.3345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||1.3|-0.4|0.3345
90985414|NCT01380093|181856149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|3.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||3.3|1.5|<0.0001
90985415|NCT01380093|181856149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||2.8|1.1|<0.0001
90985416|NCT01380093|181856150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.0||||0.0453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-0.0|-2.0|0.0453
90985417|NCT01380093|181856150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.5637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||1.3|-0.7|0.5637
90952088|NCT03995316|181781719|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.44|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||The slope value reflects the mean difference between conditions in the linear slope from the pretest to posttest assessment.|||||.440
90952089|NCT03995316|181781720|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.055|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||The slope value reflects the mean difference between conditions in the linear slope from the pretest to posttest assessment.|||||.055
90952090|NCT03995316|181781721|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.041|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||The slope value reflects the mean difference between conditions in the linear slope from the pretest to posttest assessment.|||||.041
90889974|NCT02479412|181643993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.673|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2946||0.0247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08779|1.258|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 58 μg vs. PBO||1.258|0.08779|0.0247
90985418|NCT01380093|181856150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.3||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||2.3|0.3|0.0110
90889975|NCT02479412|181643993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4281|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2965||0.1521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1607|1.017|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 250 μg vs. PBO||1.017|-0.1607|0.1521
90889976|NCT02479412|181643993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9415|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2987||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3483|1.535|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 800 μg vs. PBO||1.535|0.3483|0.0022
90889977|NCT02479412|181643997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio Estimate (%)|272.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|237.43|312.05|||ANOVA|||AZD7594 250 μg versus AZD7594 58 μg||312.05|237.43|<0.0001
90889978|NCT02479412|181643997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio Estimate (%)|676.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|580.91|786.95|||ANOVA|||AZD7594 800 μg versus AZD7594 58 μg||786.95|580.91|<0.0001
90952091|NCT03651700|181781757|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.05
90889979|NCT02479412|181643998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio Estimate (%)|337.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|290.8|392.43|||ANOVA|||AZD7594 250 μg versus AZD7594 58 μg||392.43|290.80|<0.0001
90952092|NCT03651700|181781758|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.05
90952093|NCT05479734|181781760|SUPERIORITY|Expected Outcomes: greater number of activities while receiving parenting tips.|||||<|0.01||||||Test performed with significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|The model coefficient t-test uses Satterthwaite's degrees of freedom. An intervention effect difference by sequence is reported when significant.||Null hypothesis is the number of positive activities engaged in with the child will not differ during the periods with and without app-delivered parenting tips. Mixed effects models were performed regressing mean activity counts on a 'Tips Active' indicator and a measurement-period (1st two weeks vs last two weeks) indicator.||||<0.01
90952094|NCT05479734|181781761|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1||||||Test was performed with a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|The model coefficient t-test uses Satterthwaite's degrees of freedom. A randomization group difference over time is reported if significant.||Null hypothesis is that the mean positive parenting subscale score would not change from the baseline to the post-intervention assessment. Mixed effects models were performed regressing mean subscale scores on a timeframe (baseline vs post) indicator and a randomization group (early vs late app-delivered parenting tips) indicator. A randomization group difference over time was evaluated. This interaction effect was not included in the final statistical model unless statistically significant.||||<1.00
90985419|NCT01380093|181856151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.9||||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|-1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-1.6|-8.2|0.0041
90889980|NCT02479412|181643998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio Estimate (%)|964.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|816.13|1140.13|||ANOVA|||AZD7594 800 μg versus AZD7594 58 μg||1140.13|816.13|<0.0001
90985420|NCT01380093|181856151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.1||||0.2178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|5.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||5.3|-1.2|0.2178
90985421|NCT01380093|181856151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|10.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||10.3|3.7|<0.0001
90985422|NCT01380093|181856152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-19.4||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.8|-9.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-9.9|-28.8|0.0001
90985423|NCT01380093|181856152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.9||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|16.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||16.3|-2.6|0.1510
90985424|NCT01380093|181856152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|26.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.8|35.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||35.7|16.8|<0.0001
90985425|NCT01380093|181856153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-55.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.9|-34.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-34.4|-75.9|<0.0001
90985426|NCT01380093|181856153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|18.5||||0.0796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|39.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||39.2|-2.2|0.0796
90985427|NCT01380093|181856153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|73.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.9|94.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||94.4|52.9|<0.0001
90985428|NCT01380093|181856154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-82.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-112.9|-52.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-52.7|-112.9|<0.0001
90985429|NCT01380093|181856154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|26.9||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|56.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||56.9|-3.1|0.0780
90985430|NCT01380093|181856154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|109.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|79.6|139.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||139.8|79.6|<0.0001
90985431|NCT01380093|181856155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-111.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-153.7|-70.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-70.2|-153.7|<0.0001
90985432|NCT01380093|181856155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|33.9||||0.1089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|75.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||75.5|-7.8|0.1089
90985433|NCT01380093|181856155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|145.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|104.1|187.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||187.5|104.1|<0.0001
90985434|NCT01380093|181856156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-13.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.8|-8.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-8.6|-18.8|<0.0001
90985435|NCT01380093|181856156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.0||||0.0215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|11.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||11.1|0.9|0.0215
90985436|NCT01380093|181856156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|19.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.6|24.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||24.8|14.6|<0.0001
90985437|NCT01380093|181856157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.3||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|-1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-1.0|-3.6|0.0007
90985438|NCT01380093|181856157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.3||||0.0455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||2.6|0.0|0.0455
90985439|NCT01380093|181856157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|4.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||4.9|2.3|<0.0001
90985440|NCT01380093|181856158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.3749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||0.3|-0.9|0.3749
90985441|NCT01380093|181856158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.7939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||0.7|-0.5|0.7939
90985442|NCT01380093|181856158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.2524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||1.0|-0.3|0.2524
90985443|NCT01380093|181856159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.7||||0.1211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||0.5|-3.8|0.1211
90985444|NCT01380093|181856159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.4||||0.1997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|3.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||3.5|-0.7|0.1997
90985445|NCT01380093|181856159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.1||||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|5.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||5.2|0.9|0.0057
90985446|NCT01380093|181856160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-9.8||||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.7|-3.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-3.0|-16.7|0.0057
90985447|NCT01380093|181856160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.5||||0.1918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|11.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||11.4|-2.3|0.1918
90985448|NCT01380093|181856160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|14.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.5|21.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||21.2|7.5|<0.0001
90985449|NCT01380093|181856161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-31.5||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.2|-12.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-12.9|-50.2|0.0013
90985450|NCT01380093|181856161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|14.9||||0.1136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|33.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||33.5|-3.7|0.1136
90985451|NCT01380093|181856161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|46.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.8|65.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||65.1|27.8|<0.0001
90985452|NCT01380093|181856162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-53.6||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.2|-24.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-24.0|-83.2|0.0006
90985453|NCT01380093|181856162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|23.2||||0.1207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|52.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||52.7|-6.3|0.1207
90985454|NCT01380093|181856162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|76.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.3|106.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||106.4|47.3|<0.0001
90985455|NCT01380093|181856163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-75.8||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-118.6|-33.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-33.0|-118.6|0.0008
90985456|NCT01380093|181856163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|31.8||||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|74.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||74.5|-10.8|0.1410
90985457|NCT01380093|181856163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|107.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.9|150.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||150.5|64.9|<0.0001
90985458|NCT01380093|181856164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-10.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|-5.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-5.6|-14.4|<0.0001
90985459|NCT01380093|181856164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.3||||0.0529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|8.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||8.7|-0.1|0.0529
90985460|NCT01380093|181856164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|14.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.9|18.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||18.7|9.9|<0.0001
90985461|NCT01380093|181856165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.8||||0.0806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||0.2|-3.8|0.0806
90985462|NCT01380093|181856165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.1||||0.2769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|3.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||3.1|-0.9|0.2769
90985463|NCT01380093|181856165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.9||||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|5.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||5.0|0.9|0.0056
90985464|NCT01380093|181856166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.8||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||0.2|-1.7|0.1100
90985465|NCT01380093|181856166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.9421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||0.9|-1.0|0.9421
90985466|NCT01380093|181856166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.7||||0.1266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||1.7|-0.2|0.1266
90985467|NCT01380093|181856167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.6||||0.0723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||0.2|-5.3|0.0723
90985468|NCT01380093|181856167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.1||||0.4515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|3.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||3.8|-1.7|0.4515
90985469|NCT01380093|181856167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.6||||0.0121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|6.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||6.4|0.8|0.0121
90985470|NCT01380093|181856168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-11.0||||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.7|-3.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-3.3|-18.7|0.0059
90985471|NCT01380093|181856168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.2||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|11.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||11.8|-3.5|0.2800
90985472|NCT01380093|181856168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|15.1||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.5|22.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||22.8|7.5|0.0002
90985473|NCT01380093|181856169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-36.7||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.8|-18.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-18.6|-54.8|0.0001
90985474|NCT01380093|181856169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|13.2||||0.1488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|31.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||31.2|-4.8|0.1488
90985475|NCT01380093|181856169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|49.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.8|67.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||67.9|31.8|<0.0001
90985476|NCT01380093|181856170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-60.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-88.5|-31.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-31.6|-88.5|<0.0001
90985477|NCT01380093|181856170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|20.4||||0.1556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|48.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||48.7|-8.0|0.1556
90985478|NCT01380093|181856170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|80.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.0|108.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||108.9|52.0|<0.0001
90985479|NCT01380093|181856171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-84.0||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-124.8|-43.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-43.2|-124.8|0.0001
90985480|NCT01380093|181856171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|27.4||||0.1826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|68.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||68.1|-13.3|0.1826
90985481|NCT01380093|181856171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|111.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|70.6|152.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||152.2|70.6|<0.0001
90952095|NCT05479734|181781762|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.14||||||Test was performed with a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|The model coefficient t-test uses Satterthwaite's degrees of freedom. An intervention effect difference by sequence is reported when significant.||Null hypothesis is that the number of hours spent with the child will not differ during the periods with and without app-delivered parenting tips. Mixed effects models were performed regressing mean number of hours on a 'Tips Active' indicator and a measurement-period (1st two weeks vs last two weeks) indicator.||||<0.14
90952096|NCT05479734|181781763|OTHER|The model tested the significance of a non-zero location of the data. Effects significantly greater than zero reflect endorsement of app helpfulness.|||||<|0.01||||||Test performed with significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis was that the app was only slightly helpful (scored 0). A Wilcoxon signed rank test was first performed to evaluate potential differences across randomization groups (early vs late app-delivered parenting tips). When the test of a randomization group difference was not significant, the analysis continued with a one-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test.||||<0.01
90952097|NCT05479734|181781764|OTHER|The model tested the significance of a non-zero location of the data. Effects significantly greater than zero reflect endorsement of future app use.|||||<|0.01||||||Test performed with significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis was that there would only be slight interest (scored 0) in using the app in the future. A Wilcoxon signed rank test was, first, performed to evaluate potential differences across randomization groups (early vs late app-delivered parenting tips). When the test of a randomization group difference was not significant, the analysis continued with a one-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test.||||<0.01
90952098|NCT05479734|181781765|OTHER|The model tested the significance of a non-zero location of the data. Effects significantly greater than zero reflect a desire to recommend the app.|||||<|0.01||||||Test performed with significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis was that the participant was neither likely nor unlikely (scored 0) to recommend the app to friends. A Wilcoxon signed rank test was, first, performed to evaluate potential differences across randomization groups (early vs late app-delivered parenting tips). When the test of a randomization group difference was not significant, the analysis continued with a one-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test.||||<0.01
90952099|NCT05479734|181781766|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.54||||||Test performed with significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|The model coefficient t-test uses Satterthwaite's degrees of freedom. A randomization group difference over time is reported if significant.||Null hypothesis is that the mean general development scale score would not change from the baseline to the post-intervention assessment. Mixed effects models were performed regressing mean scale scores on a timeframe (baseline vs post) indicator and a randomization group (early vs late app-delivered parenting tips) indicator.||||<0.54
90952100|NCT05479734|181781767|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||Test performed with significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|The model coefficient t-test uses Satterthwaite's degrees of freedom. An intervention effect difference by sequence is reported if significant.||Null hypothesis is that the number of challenging child behaviors will not differ during the periods with and without app-delivered parenting tips. Mixed effects models were performed regressing mean behavior counts on a 'Tips Active' indicator and a measurement-period (1st two weeks vs last two weeks) indicator.||||<0.01
90952101|NCT05479734|181781768|SUPERIORITY|Expected Outcomes: greater number of behaviors while receiving parenting tips.|||||<|0.01||||||Test performed with significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|The model coefficient t-test uses Satterthwaite's degrees of freedom. An intervention effect difference by sequence is reported if significant.||Null hypothesis is that the daily number of positive child behaviors will not differ during the periods with and without app-delivered parenting tips. Mixed effects models were performed regressing mean behavior counts on a 'Tips Active' indicator and a measurement-period (1st two weeks vs last two weeks) indicator.||||<0.01
90952102|NCT00203268|181781775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3025|||||||clustered survival analysis|||||||.3025
90985482|NCT01380093|181856172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-11.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|-7.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-7.0|-16.4|<0.0001
90985483|NCT01380093|181856172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.2||||0.0811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|8.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||8.9|-0.5|0.0811
90985484|NCT01380093|181856172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|15.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.1|20.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||20.6|11.1|<0.0001
90952103|NCT00664534|181781795|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority margin is defined as 0.4%. If the upper 95%CI for difference in LSMeans is below 0.4% then MIX arm will be declared noninferior to GLAR arm|Least squares mean difference|-0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.13|||||Least squares mean difference = (Premix insulin Lispro -Glargine)|||0.13|-0.42|
90952104|NCT00664534|181781797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.29|||||Least squares mean difference = (Premix insulin Lispro - Glargine). 16 weeks|||0.29|-0.18|
90952105|NCT00664534|181781797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.29|||||Least squares mean difference = (Premix insulin Lispro - Glargine). 32 weeks|||0.29|-0.22|
90952106|NCT00664534|181781797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.18|||||Least squares mean difference = (Premix insulin Lispro - Glargine). 48 weeks|||0.18|-0.33|
90952107|NCT00664534|181781798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2127||95.0||||P-value is for Week 16 HbA1c \<=7.0%.|Chi-squared|||||||0.2127
90952108|NCT00664534|181781798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3281||95.0||||P-value is for Week 16 HbA1c \<=6.5%|Chi-squared|||||||0.3281
90952109|NCT00664534|181781798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2812||95.0||||P-value is for Week 32 HbA1c \<=7.0%|Chi-squared|||||||0.2812
90952110|NCT00664534|181781798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6963||95.0||||P-value is for Week 32 HbA1c \<=6.5%|Chi-squared|||||||0.6963
90952111|NCT00664534|181781798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0643||95.0||||P-value is for Week 48 HbA1c \<=7.0%|Chi-squared|||||||0.0643
90952112|NCT00664534|181781798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2524||95.0||||P-value is for Week 48 HbA1c \<=6.5%|Chi-squared|||||||0.2524
90952113|NCT00664534|181781800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6615||95.0||||P-value for Baseline|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6615
90952114|NCT00664534|181781800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9798||95.0||||P-value is for Week 16|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.9798
90952115|NCT00664534|181781800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6169||95.0||||P-value for Week 32|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6169
90952116|NCT00664534|181781800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7834||95.0||||P-value for Week 48|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7834
90952117|NCT00664534|181781802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.7|||||Least Squares Mean Difference = Premix Insulin Lispro minus Glargine.|||0.70|-0.89|
90952118|NCT00664534|181781803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4935||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4935
90952119|NCT00935532|181781812|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of exenatide QW to insulin glargine with respect to change in HbA1c was to be concluded if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the treatment difference was less than 0.4%. Change in HbA1c from baseline to endpoint was analyzed using a LOCF ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum (\<8.5%, \>=8.5%), background OAD, and presence/absence of pretreatment with SU as factors and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.26||No adjustments for multiplicity will be performed|ANCOVA|||The expected changes in HbA1c from baseline were considered to be the same between the groups, and the common standard deviation assumed to be 1.2%. Assuming a type I error of 0.025 (one-sided), a power of 0.9 and a noninferiority margin of 0.4%, 191 subjects per group would be necessary to confirm the noninferiority by the two-sample t-test. When the proportion of the subjects missing post-baseline data was assumed to be 10%, the target number of subjects were 420 in total (210 subjects/group).||-0.26|-0.59|<.001
90952120|NCT00935532|181781813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage of subjects achieving HbA1c\<=7% at endpoint were compared between treatments using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, in which background OAD and presence/absence of pretreatment with SU served as the stratification factors.||||<.001
90952121|NCT00935532|181781814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage of subjects achieving HbA1c\<=6.5% at endpoint were compared between treatments using a CMH test, in which background OAD and presence/absence of pretreatment with SU served as the stratification factors.||||<.001
90952122|NCT00935532|181781815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.23||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.62|1.07|||ANCOVA|||Change in FSG from baseline to endpoint was analyzed using a LOCF ANCOVA model with treatment, background OAD, and presence/absence of pretreatment with SU as factors and baseline FSG as a covariate.||1.07|-11.62|0.103
90952123|NCT00935532|181781816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.46|-1.56|||ANCOVA|||Change in body weight from baseline to endpoint was analyzed using a LOCF ANCOVA model with treatment, background OAD, and presence/absence of pretreatment with SU as factors and baseline body weight as a covariate.||-1.56|-2.46|<.001
90952124|NCT00935532|181781817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.33|-3.45|||ANCOVA|||Change in total cholesterol from baseline to endpoint was analyzed using a LOCF ANCOVA model with treatment, background OAD, and presence/absence of pretreatment with SU as factors and baseline total cholesterol as a covariate.||-3.45|-12.33|<.001
90952125|NCT00935532|181781818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|1.09|||ANCOVA|||Change in HDL-C from baseline to endpoint was analyzed using a LOCF ANCOVA model with treatment, background OAD, and presence/absence of pre-treatment with SU as factors and baseline HDL-C as a covariate.||1.09|-1.64|0.689
90952126|NCT00935532|181781819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.06|||ANCOVA|||Triglycerides data were logarithm-transformed and the change at endpoint to baseline, expressed as the ratio, was analyzed using a LOCF ANCOVA model with treatment, background OAD, and presence/absence of pretreatment with SU as factors and baseline triglycerides as a covariate.||1.06|0.94|0.990
90985485|NCT01380093|181856173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.5||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|-1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-1.1|-3.8|0.0007
90985486|NCT01380093|181856173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.0||||0.1631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||2.3|-0.4|0.1631
90985487|NCT01380093|181856173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|4.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||4.8|2.1|<0.0001
90985488|NCT01380093|181856174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.2||||0.2117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||0.7|-3.1|0.2117
90952127|NCT01460225|181781843|EQUIVALENCE|Based on the results of Camilleri et al, this should be adequate to detect up to a 30% difference in gastric emptying scan times with a p-value of 0.05 and 80% power.||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of meal retention between pre-treatment and post treatment at 2 hours post meal||||0.003
90985489|NCT01380093|181856174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.1||||0.0345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|4.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||4.0|0.2|0.0345
90952128|NCT01460225|181781843|EQUIVALENCE|Based on the results of Camilleri et al, this should be adequate to detect up to a 30% difference in gastric emptying scan times with a p-value of 0.05 and 80% power.||||||0.122|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of meal retention between pre-treatment and post treatment at 4 hours post meal||||0.122
90985490|NCT01380093|181856174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.3||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|5.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||5.2|1.4|0.0011
91041102|NCT05029687|181966873|OTHER|Effect size (Cohen's d)|Cohen's d|1.337|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||d2 is mean change from baseline to follow-up divided by the standard deviation of the change from baseline to follow-up, to provide an effect size that would be useful for planning similar before-after studies.|Comparison of effect size: baseline to post-intervention (d2)||||
91041103|NCT05029687|181966873|OTHER|Effect size (Cohen's d)|Cohen's d|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||d1 is mean change from baseline to follow-up divided by the standard deviation of the outcome at baseline to provide an effect size that might approximate one found in a randomized clinical trial if the placebo group saw no change from baseline.|Comparison of effect size: baseline to 1-month post-intervention (d1)||||
91041104|NCT05029687|181966873|OTHER|Effect size (Cohen's d)|Cohen's d|1.159|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||d2 is mean change from baseline to follow-up divided by the standard deviation of the change from baseline to follow-up, to provide an effect size that would be useful for planning similar before-after studies.|Comparison of effect size: baseline to 1-month post-intervention (d2)||||
90985491|NCT01380093|181856175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-12.2||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.4|-6.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-6.0|-18.4|0.0002
90985492|NCT01380093|181856175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|8.4||||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|14.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||14.6|2.3|0.0081
90985493|NCT01380093|181856175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|20.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.4|26.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||26.8|14.4|<0.0001
91041105|NCT05029687|181966873|OTHER|Effect size (Cohen's d)|Cohen's d|1.065|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||d1 is mean change from baseline to follow-up divided by the standard deviation of the outcome at baseline to provide an effect size that might approximate one found in a randomized clinical trial if the placebo group saw no change from baseline.|Comparison of effect size: baseline to post-intervention (d1)||||
91041106|NCT05029687|181966873|OTHER|Effect size (Cohen's d)|Cohen's d|1.084|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||d2 is mean change from baseline to follow-up divided by the standard deviation of the change from baseline to follow-up, to provide an effect size that would be useful for planning similar before-after studies.|Comparison of effect size: baseline to post-intervention (d2)||||
91041107|NCT05029687|181966873|OTHER|Effect size (Cohen's d)|Cohen's d|1.316|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||d1 is mean change from baseline to follow-up divided by the standard deviation of the outcome at baseline to provide an effect size that might approximate one found in a randomized clinical trial if the placebo group saw no change from baseline.|Comparison of effect size: baseline to 1-month post-intervention (d1)||||
90985494|NCT01380093|181856176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-38.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.6|-20.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-20.8|-55.6|<0.0001
90985495|NCT01380093|181856176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|34.4||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.0|51.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||51.7|17.0|0.0002
91041108|NCT05029687|181966873|OTHER|Effect size (Cohen's d)|Cohen's d|1.048|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||d2 is mean change from baseline to follow-up divided by the standard deviation of the change from baseline to follow-up, to provide an effect size that would be useful for planning similar before-after studies.|Comparison of effect size: baseline to 1-month post-intervention (d2)||||
91041109|NCT05029687|181966876|OTHER|Effect size (Cohen's d)|Cohen's d|0.846|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||d1 is mean change from baseline to follow-up divided by the standard deviation of the outcome at baseline to provide an effect size that might approximate one found in a randomized clinical trial if the placebo group saw no change from baseline.|"Comparison of effect size: baseline to post-intervention for the statement: Teach an adult how to lower their high BP. (d1)"||||
91041110|NCT05029687|181966876|OTHER|Effect size (Cohen's d)|Cohen's d|0.821|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||d2 is mean change from baseline to follow-up divided by the standard deviation of the change from baseline to follow-up, to provide an effect size that would be useful for planning similar before-after studies.|"Comparison of effect size: baseline to post-intervention for the statement: Teach an adult how to lower their high BP. (d2)"||||
90952129|NCT03083665|181781847|SUPERIORITY||Percent reduction over Placebo|24.5||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.7|35.5||Statistical testing with control of Type I error rate were based on a Hochberg multiple comparison procedure.|ANCOVA||Based on ANCOVA with log-transformed \[log(x+1)\] Treatment Period 28-day adjusted partial seizure frequency.|||35.5|11.7|0.0005
90952130|NCT03083665|181781847|SUPERIORITY||Percent reduction over Placebo|33.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.9|43.1||Statistical testing with control of Type I error rate were based on a Hochberg multiple comparison procedure.|ANCOVA||Based on ANCOVA with log-transformed \[log(x+1)\] Treatment Period 28-day adjusted partial seizure frequency.|||43.1|21.9|<0.0001
90952131|NCT04103892|181781902|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) mean difference|-1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.69||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|2.09|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures (MMRM|||||2.09|-4.60|0.46
90952132|NCT04103892|181781903|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) mean difference|-5.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.34||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.91|-0.65|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||-0.65|-9.91|0.03
90952133|NCT05576662|181781904|OTHER||Pooled treatment coefficient|0.026||||0.903|TWO_SIDED|||||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Nonparametric permutation test||Weighted average of treatment coefficients. A pooled treatment coefficient \< 0 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir; a pooled treatment coefficient \> 0 favors placebo plus ritonavir.|A proportional odds logistic regression model was fit for severity of each core symptom at week 10, adjusting for baseline severity of the corresponding symptom and fit using only those who experienced the symptom at baseline. A test statistic for overall efficacy was calculated as the weighted average of the treatment coefficient in the proportional odds model for each symptom with inverse variance weighting. The p-value was obtained by a nonparametric permutation test.||||0.903
90952134|NCT05576662|181781905|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|2.94||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Regression, odds|Proportional odds regression coefficient Wald test|An odds ratio \< 1 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir; an odds ratio \> 1 favors placebo plus ritonavir.|Analysis of fatigue score at day 15||2.94|0.82|0.174
90952135|NCT05576662|181781905|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|2.25||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Regression, odds|Proportional odds regression coefficient Wald test|An odds ratio \< 1 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir; an odds ratio \> 1 favors placebo plus ritonavir.|Analysis of brain fog score at day 15||2.25|0.65|0.548
90952136|NCT05576662|181781905|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.62||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.16||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Regression, odds|Proportional odds regression coefficient Wald test|An odds ratio \< 1 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir; an odds ratio \> 1 favors placebo plus ritonavir.|Analysis of dyspnea score at day 15||1.16|0.33|0.134
90985496|NCT01380093|181856176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|72.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.2|90.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||90.0|55.2|<0.0001
90985497|NCT01380093|181856177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-100.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-142.2|-58.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-58.4|-142.2|<0.0001
90952137|NCT05576662|181781905|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.69||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Regression, odds|Proportional odds regression coefficient Wald test|An odds ratio \< 1 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir; an odds ratio \> 1 favors placebo plus ritonavir.|Analysis of body aches score at day 15||2.69|0.78|0.241
90985498|NCT01380093|181856177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|93.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.1|135.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||135.7|52.1|<0.0001
90985499|NCT01380093|181856177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|194.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|152.3|236.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||236.1|152.3|<0.0001
90985500|NCT01380093|181856178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-147.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-205.1|-89.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-89.6|-205.1|<0.0001
91041111|NCT05029687|181966876|OTHER|Effect size (Cohen's d)|Cohen's d|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||d1 is mean change from baseline to follow-up divided by the standard deviation of the outcome at baseline to provide an effect size that might approximate one found in a randomized clinical trial if the placebo group saw no change from baseline.|"Comparison of effect size: baseline to 1-month post-intervention for the statement: Teach an adult how to lower their high BP. (d1)"||||
91041112|NCT05029687|181966876|OTHER|Effect size (Cohen's d)|Cohen's d|0.782|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||d2 is mean change from baseline to follow-up divided by the standard deviation of the change from baseline to follow-up, to provide an effect size that would be useful for planning similar before-after studies.|"Comparison of effect size: baseline to 1-month post-intervention for the statement: Teach an adult how to lower their high BP. (d2)"||||
91041113|NCT05029687|181966876|OTHER|Effect size (Cohen's d)|Cohen's d|0.643|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||d1 is mean change from baseline to follow-up divided by the standard deviation of the outcome at baseline to provide an effect size that might approximate one found in a randomized clinical trial if the placebo group saw no change from baseline.|"Comparison of effect size: baseline to post-intervention for the statement: Encourage an adult to lower their high BP. (d1)"||||
91041114|NCT05029687|181966876|OTHER|Effect size (Cohen's d)|Cohen's d|0.616|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||d2 is mean change from baseline to follow-up divided by the standard deviation of the change from baseline to follow-up, to provide an effect size that would be useful for planning similar before-after studies.|"Comparison of effect size: baseline to post-intervention for the statement: Encourage an adult to lower their high BP. (d2)"||||
91041115|NCT05029687|181966876|OTHER|Effect size (Cohen's d)|Cohen's d|0.724|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||d1 is mean change from baseline to follow-up divided by the standard deviation of the outcome at baseline to provide an effect size that might approximate one found in a randomized clinical trial if the placebo group saw no change from baseline.|"Comparison of effect size: baseline to 1-month post-intervention for the statement: Encourage an adult to lower their high BP. (d1)"||||
91041116|NCT05029687|181966876|OTHER|Effect size (Cohen's d)|Cohen's d|0.683|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||d2 is mean change from baseline to follow-up divided by the standard deviation of the change from baseline to follow-up, to provide an effect size that would be useful for planning similar before-after studies.|"Comparison of effect size: baseline to 1-month post-intervention for the statement: Encourage an adult to lower their high BP. (d2)"||||
91041117|NCT05029687|181966876|OTHER|Effect size (Cohen's d)|Cohen's d|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||d1 is mean change from baseline to follow-up divided by the standard deviation of the outcome at baseline to provide an effect size that might approximate one found in a randomized clinical trial if the placebo group saw no change from baseline.|"Comparison of effect size: baseline to post-intervention for the statement: Help an adult lower their BP. (d1)"||||
91041118|NCT05029687|181966876|OTHER|Effect size (Cohen's d)|Cohen's d|0.667|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||d2 is mean change from baseline to follow-up divided by the standard deviation of the change from baseline to follow-up, to provide an effect size that would be useful for planning similar before-after studies.|"Comparison of effect size: baseline to post-intervention for the statement: Help an adult lower their BP. (d2)"||||
91041119|NCT05029687|181966876|OTHER|Effect size (Cohen's d)|Cohen's d|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||d1 is mean change from baseline to follow-up divided by the standard deviation of the outcome at baseline to provide an effect size that might approximate one found in a randomized clinical trial if the placebo group saw no change from baseline.|"Comparison of effect size: baseline to 1-month post-intervention for the statement: Help an adult lower their BP. (d1)"||||
91041120|NCT05029687|181966876|OTHER|Effect size (Cohen's d)|Cohen's d|0.627|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||d2 is mean change from baseline to follow-up divided by the standard deviation of the change from baseline to follow-up, to provide an effect size that would be useful for planning similar before-after studies.|"Comparison of effect size: baseline to 1-month post-intervention for the statement: Help an adult lower their BP. (d2)"||||
91041121|NCT05029687|181966878|OTHER|Effect size (Cohen's d)|Cohen's d|1.457|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||d1 is mean change from baseline to follow-up divided by the standard deviation of the outcome at baseline to provide an effect size that might approximate one found in a randomized clinical trial if the placebo group saw no change from baseline.|Comparison of effect size: baseline to post-intervention (d1)||||
91041122|NCT05029687|181966878|OTHER|Effect size (Cohen's d)|Cohen's d|1.691|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||d2 is mean change from baseline to follow-up divided by the standard deviation of the change from baseline to follow-up, to provide an effect size that would be useful for planning similar before-after studies.|Comparison of effect size: baseline to post-intervention (d2)||||
91041123|NCT05029687|181966878|OTHER|Effect size (Cohen's d)|Cohen's d|1.841|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||d1 is mean change from baseline to follow-up divided by the standard deviation of the outcome at baseline to provide an effect size that might approximate one found in a randomized clinical trial if the placebo group saw no change from baseline.|Comparison of effect size: baseline to 1-month post-intervention (d1)||||
91041124|NCT05029687|181966878|OTHER|Effect size (Cohen's d)|Cohen's d|1.451|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||d2 is mean change from baseline to follow-up divided by the standard deviation of the change from baseline to follow-up, to provide an effect size that would be useful for planning similar before-after studies.|Comparison of effect size: baseline to 1-month post-intervention (d2)||||
91041125|NCT05029687|181966880|OTHER|Effect size (Cohen's d)|Cohen's d|0.763|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||d1 is mean change from baseline to follow-up divided by the standard deviation of the outcome at baseline to provide an effect size that might approximate one found in a randomized clinical trial if the placebo group saw no change from baseline.|Comparison of effect size: baseline to post-intervention (d1)||||
91041126|NCT05029687|181966880|OTHER|Effect size (Cohen's d)|Cohen's d|1.266|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||d2 is mean change from baseline to follow-up divided by the standard deviation of the change from baseline to follow-up, to provide an effect size that would be useful for planning similar before-after studies.|Comparison of effect size: baseline to post-intervention (d2)||||
91041127|NCT05029687|181966880|OTHER|Effect size (Cohen's d)|Cohen's d|0.894|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||d1 is mean change from baseline to follow-up divided by the standard deviation of the outcome at baseline to provide an effect size that might approximate one found in a randomized clinical trial if the placebo group saw no change from baseline.|Comparison of effect size: baseline to 1-month post-intervention (d1)||||
90952138|NCT05576662|181781905|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.92||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Regression, odds|Proportional odds regression coefficient Wald test|An odds ratio \< 1 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir; an odds ratio \> 1 favors placebo plus ritonavir.|Analysis of gastrointestinal symptoms score at day 15||1.92|0.55|0.922
90952139|NCT05576662|181781905|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.94||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Regression, odds|Proportional odds regression coefficient Wald test|An odds ratio \< 1 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir; an odds ratio \> 1 favors placebo plus ritonavir.|Analysis of cardiovascular symptoms score at day 15||0.94|0.26|0.032
90952140|NCT05576662|181781906|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.55||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.09||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression coefficient Wald test|An odds ratio \< 1 favors placebo plus ritonavir; an odds ratio \> 1 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir.|||1.09|0.27|0.09
90985501|NCT01380093|181856178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|134.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|76.5|191.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||191.7|76.5|<0.0001
90985502|NCT01380093|181856178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|281.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|223.7|339.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||339.2|223.7|<0.0001
90985503|NCT01380093|181856179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-201.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-279.3|-123.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-123.6|-279.3|<0.0001
90985504|NCT01380093|181856179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|169.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.5|246.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||246.7|91.5|<0.0001
90985505|NCT01380093|181856179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|370.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|292.7|448.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||448.4|292.7|<0.0001
90985506|NCT01380093|181856180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-16.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.8|-9.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-9.0|-23.8|<0.0001
90985507|NCT01380093|181856180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|25.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.3|33.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||33.1|18.3|<0.0001
90985508|NCT01380093|181856180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|42.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.7|49.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||49.5|34.7|<0.0001
90985509|NCT01380093|181856181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.4||||0.0253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-0.2|-2.6|0.0253
90985510|NCT01380093|181856181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|4.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||4.0|1.6|<0.0001
90985511|NCT01380093|181856181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|5.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||5.4|3.0|<0.0001
90985512|NCT01380093|181856182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.1||||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-0.6|-3.7|0.0062
90985513|NCT01380093|181856182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.5||||0.4998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||2.0|-1.0|0.4998
90985514|NCT01380093|181856182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.7||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|4.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||4.2|1.1|0.0008
90985515|NCT01380093|181856183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.0||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|-3.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-3.0|-11.1|0.0009
90985516|NCT01380093|181856183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.2||||0.2693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|6.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||6.3|-1.8|0.2693
90985517|NCT01380093|181856183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|9.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|13.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||13.3|5.3|<0.0001
90985518|NCT01380093|181856184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-16.2||||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.2|-5.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-5.3|-27.2|0.0042
90985519|NCT01380093|181856184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|8.7||||0.1139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|19.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||19.6|-2.2|0.1139
90985520|NCT01380093|181856184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|25.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.1|35.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||35.9|14.1|<0.0001
90985521|NCT01380093|181856185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-34.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.1|-27.7||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons with Hochberg adjustment. At least one primary outcome for each of drug liking and high was required to be significant with adjusted p-value less than or equal to 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean and 95% CI were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-27.7|-42.1|<0.0001
90985522|NCT01380093|181856185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|27.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.1|34.4||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons with Hochberg adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean and 95% CI were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||34.4|20.1|<0.0001
90985523|NCT01380093|181856185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|62.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.9|69.4||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons with Hochberg adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean and 95% CI were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||69.4|54.9|<0.0001
90985524|NCT01380093|181856186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-35.1||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.5|-11.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-11.7|-58.5|0.0039
90985525|NCT01380093|181856186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|19.3||||0.1026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|42.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||42.7|-4.0|0.1026
90985526|NCT01380093|181856186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|54.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.0|77.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||77.8|31.0|<0.0001
90985527|NCT01380093|181856187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-43.3||||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.1|-13.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-13.5|-73.1|0.0051
90985528|NCT01380093|181856187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|25.3||||0.0941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|55.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||55.0|-4.4|0.0941
90985529|NCT01380093|181856187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|68.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.8|98.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||98.4|38.8|<0.0001
90985530|NCT01380093|181856188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-49.0||||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-85.0|-13.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-13.1|-85.0|0.0083
90985531|NCT01380093|181856188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|32.3||||0.0766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|68.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||68.1|-3.5|0.0766
90952141|NCT05576662|181781907|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|2.44||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Regression, Linear|Logistic regression coefficient Wald test|An odds ratio \< 1 favors placebo plus ritonavir; an odds ratio \> 1 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir.|||2.44|0.21|.60
90952142|NCT05576662|181781908|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.62||||0.156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|3.15||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Regression, odds|Proportional odds regression coefficient Wald test|An odds ratio \< 1 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir; an odds ratio \> 1 favors placebo plus ritonavir.|Analysis of severity at week 5||3.15|0.83|0.156
90952143|NCT05576662|181781908|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.99||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|3.72||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Regression, odds|Proportional odds regression coefficient Wald test|An odds ratio \< 1 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir; an odds ratio \> 1 favors placebo plus ritonavir.|Analysis of severity at week 10||3.72|1.06|0.03
90952144|NCT05576662|181781908|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.42||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|4.6||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Regression, odds|Proportional odds regression coefficient Wald test|An odds ratio \< 1 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir; an odds ratio \> 1 favors placebo plus ritonavir.|Analysis of severity at week 15||4.60|1.27|0.01
90952145|NCT05576662|181781909|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.77||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Cox PH coefficient Wald test||A hazard ratio \< 1 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir; a hazard ratio \> 1 favors placebo plus ritonavir.|"Analysis of data for Time to relief - fatigue"||1.77|0.45|0.744
90952146|NCT05576662|181781909|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.37||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Cox PH coefficient Wald test||A hazard ratio \< 1 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir; a hazard ratio \> 1 favors placebo plus ritonavir.|"Analysis of data for Time to relief - brain fog"||1.37|0.32|0.259
90952147|NCT05576662|181781909|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.61||||0.286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|3.99||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Cox PH coefficient Wald test||A hazard ratio \< 1 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir; a hazard ratio \> 1 favors placebo plus ritonavir.|"Analysis of data for Time to relief - body aches"||3.99|0.65|0.286
90952148|NCT05576662|181781909|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|2.24||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Cox PH coefficient Wald test||A hazard ratio \< 1 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir; a hazard ratio \> 1 favors placebo plus ritonavir.|"Analysis of data for Time to relief - cardiovascular symptoms"||2.24|0.38|0.846
90952149|NCT05576662|181781909|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.56||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|4.73||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Cox PH coefficient Wald test|A hazard ratio \< 1 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir; a hazard ratio \> 1 favors placebo plus ritonavir.||"Analysis of data for Time to relief - shortness of breath"||4.73|0.51|0.410
90952150|NCT05576662|181781909|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|2.11||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Cox PH coefficient Wald test||A hazard ratio \< 1 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir; a hazard ratio \> 1 favors placebo plus ritonavir.|"Analysis of data for Time to relief - gastrointestinal symptoms"||2.11|0.42|0.880
90952151|NCT05576662|181781910|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.38||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Cox PH coefficient Wald test||A hazard ratio \< 1 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir; a hazard ratio \> 1 favors placebo plus ritonavir.|||1.38|0.40|0.33
90952152|NCT05576662|181781911|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.57||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|3.1||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Regression, Linear|Linear regression coefficient Wald test|A mean difference \< 0 favors placebo plus ritonavir; a mean difference \> 0 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir.|||3.10|-1.96|.66
90952153|NCT05576662|181781912|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.38||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|3.15||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Regression, Linear|Linear regression coefficient Wald test|A mean difference \< 0 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir; a mean difference \> 0 favors placebo plus ritonavir.|||3.15|-2.40|0.79
90952154|NCT05576662|181781913|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.55|3.75||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Regression, Linear|Linear regression coefficient Wald test|A mean difference \< 0 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir; a mean difference \> 0 favors placebo plus ritonavir.|||3.75|-2.55|.70
90952155|NCT05576662|181781914|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.21|3.28||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Regression, Linear|Linear regression coefficient Wald test|A mean difference \< 0 favors placebo plus ritonavir; a mean difference \> 0 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir.|||3.28|-3.21|.98
90952156|NCT05576662|181781915|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.73||||0.555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.06|7.53||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Regression, Linear|Linear regression coefficient Wald test|A mean difference \< 0 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir; a mean difference \> 0 favors placebo plus ritonavir.|Analysis of data for change of systolic blood pressure||7.53|-4.06|0.555
90952157|NCT05576662|181781915|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.68||||0.764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.15|3.79||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Regression, Linear|Linear regression coefficient Wald test|A mean difference \< 0 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir; a mean difference \> 0 favors placebo plus ritonavir.|Analysis of data for change of diastolic blood pressure||3.79|-5.15|0.764
90985532|NCT01380093|181856188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|81.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.4|117.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||117.3|45.4|<0.0001
90985533|NCT01380093|181856189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-8.0||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|-3.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-3.1|-12.9|0.0018
90985534|NCT01380093|181856189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.8||||0.0527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|9.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||9.7|-0.1|0.0527
90985535|NCT01380093|181856189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|12.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.9|17.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||17.7|7.9|<0.0001
90985536|NCT01380093|181856190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.3986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||0.6|-1.4|0.3986
90985537|NCT01380093|181856190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.5||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||2.5|0.6|0.0023
90985538|NCT01380093|181856190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.9||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||2.9|1.0|0.0002
90985539|NCT01380093|181856191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-11.2||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|-4.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-4|-18|0.0029
90985540|NCT01380093|181856191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|8.1||||0.0286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|15.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||15|1|0.0286
90985541|NCT01380093|181856191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|19.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|27.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||27|12|<0.0001
90985542|NCT01380093|181856192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-13.0||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|-4.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-4|-22|0.0050
90985543|NCT01380093|181856192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|8.2||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|17.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||17|-1|0.0700
90985544|NCT01380093|181856192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|21.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|30.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||30|12|<0.0001
90985545|NCT01380093|181856193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||0.9|0.5|<0.0001
90985546|NCT01380093|181856193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-0.3|-0.8|<0.0001
90985547|NCT01380093|181856193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-1.0|-1.5|<0.0001
90985548|NCT01380093|181856194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|2.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||2.9|1.9|<0.0001
90952158|NCT05576662|181781916|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.51||||0.856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.15|5.12||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Regression, Linear|Linear regression coefficient Wald test|A mean difference \< 0 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir; a mean difference \> 0 favors placebo plus ritonavir.|||5.12|-6.15|0.856
90952159|NCT05576662|181781917|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.41||||0.833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.24|3.42||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Regression, Linear|Linear regression coefficient Wald test|A mean difference \< 0 favors placebo plus ritonavir; a mean difference \> 0 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir.|||3.42|-4.24|0.833
90952160|NCT05576662|181781918|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.7||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Regression, Linear|Linear regression coefficient Wald test|A mean difference \< 0 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir; a mean difference \> 0 favors placebo plus ritonavir.|Analysis of day 15 data||0.70|-0.06|0.096
90952161|NCT05576662|181781918|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22||||0.293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.64||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Regression, Linear|Linear regression coefficient Wald test|A mean difference \< 0 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir; a mean difference \> 0 favors placebo plus ritonavir.|Analysis of week 5 data||0.64|-0.20|0.293
90952162|NCT05576662|181781918|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19||||0.396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.62||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Regression, Linear|Linear regression coefficient Wald test|A mean difference \< 0 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir; a mean difference \> 0 favors placebo plus ritonavir.|Analysis of week 10 data||0.62|-0.25|0.396
90952163|NCT05576662|181781918|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.77||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Regression, Linear|Linear regression coefficient Wald test|A mean difference \< 0 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir; a mean difference \> 0 favors placebo plus ritonavir.|Analysis of week 15 data||0.77|-0.02|0.064
90952164|NCT05576662|181781919|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19||||0.444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.67||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Regression, Linear|Linear regression coefficient Wald test|A mean difference \< 0 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir; a mean difference \> 0 favors placebo plus ritonavir.|Analysis of day 15 data||0.67|-0.30|0.444
90952165|NCT05576662|181781919|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||0.346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.28||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Regression, Linear|Linear regression coefficient Wald test|A mean difference \< 0 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir; a mean difference \> 0 favors placebo plus ritonavir.|Analysis of week 5 data||0.28|-0.78|0.346
90952166|NCT05576662|181781919|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.67||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Regression, Linear|Linear regression coefficient Wald test|A mean difference \< 0 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir; a mean difference \> 0 favors placebo plus ritonavir.|Analysis of week 10 data||0.67|-0.48|0.738
90952167|NCT05576662|181781919|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17||||0.578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.76||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Regression, Linear|Linear regression coefficient Wald test|A mean difference \< 0 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir; a mean difference \> 0 favors placebo plus ritonavir.|Analysis of week 15 data||0.76|-0.43|0.578
90952168|NCT05576662|181781920|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|1.03||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Regression, Linear|Linear regression coefficient Wald test|A mean difference \< 0 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir; a mean difference \> 0 favors placebo plus ritonavir.|Analysis of week 5 data||1.03|-1.41|0.758
90952169|NCT05576662|181781920|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|0.97||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Regression, Linear|Linear regression coefficient Wald test|A mean difference \< 0 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir; a mean difference \> 0 favors placebo plus ritonavir.|Analysis of week 10 data||0.97|-1.46|0.693
90952170|NCT05576662|181781920|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37||||0.558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|1.61||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Regression, Linear|Linear regression coefficient Wald test|A mean difference \< 0 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir; a mean difference \> 0 favors placebo plus ritonavir.|Analysis of week 15 data||1.61|-0.87|0.558
90952171|NCT05576662|181781921|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.55||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.92||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression coefficient Wald test|An odds ratio \< 1 favors placebo plus ritonavir; an odds ratio \> 1 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir.|Post-hoc analysis of fatigue data||0.92|0.33|0.02
90985549|NCT01380093|181856194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-1.3|-2.2|<0.0001
90985550|NCT01380093|181856194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|-3.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-3.6|-4.6|<0.0001
90985551|NCT01380093|181856195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|5.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||5.8|3.9|<0.0001
90985552|NCT01380093|181856195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|-4.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-4.3|-6.3|<0.0001
90985553|NCT01380093|181856195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-10.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|-9.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-9.2|-11.1|<0.0001
91041128|NCT05029687|181966880|OTHER|Effect size (Cohen's d)|Cohen's d|1.149|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||d2 is mean change from baseline to follow-up divided by the standard deviation of the change from baseline to follow-up, to provide an effect size that would be useful for planning similar before-after studies.|Comparison of effect size: baseline to 1-month post-intervention (d2)||||
90985554|NCT01380093|181856196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|8.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.6|10.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||10.7|6.6|<0.0001
90985555|NCT01380093|181856196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-13.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.9|-11.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-11.8|-15.9|<0.0001
90985556|NCT01380093|181856196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-22.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.5|-20.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-20.4|-24.5|<0.0001
90985557|NCT01380093|181856197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|11.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.7|14.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||14.7|8.7|<0.0001
90985558|NCT01380093|181856197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-21.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.5|-18.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-18.6|-24.5|<0.0001
90985559|NCT01380093|181856197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-33.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.2|-30.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-30.2|-36.2|<0.0001
90985560|NCT01380093|181856198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|17.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.6|23.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||23.3|11.6|<0.0001
90985561|NCT01380093|181856198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-37.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.6|-31.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-31.9|-43.6|<0.0001
90985562|NCT01380093|181856198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-55.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.1|-49.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-49.3|-61.1|<0.0001
90985563|NCT01380093|181856199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||1.4|0.8|<0.0001
91041129|NCT02854800|181966891|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A separate t-test for each row was used to compare dropouts and completers.||||<0.05
91041130|NCT02854800|181966893|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|If the overall F test was significant, Tukey's Honestly Significant Difference post-hoc tests were performed.||One-way ANOVA was used to compare mean medication side effect ratings across the three arms/groups to determine whether one group had more severe symptoms that may have been related to study dropout.||||<0.05
90985564|NCT01380093|181856199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-1.5|-2.1|<0.0001
90985565|NCT01380093|181856199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-2.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-2.6|-3.2|<0.0001
90985566|NCT01380093|181856200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.5||||0.0262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|4.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||4.6|0.3|0.0262
90985567|NCT01380093|181856200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.9||||0.418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|3.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||3.0|-1.3|0.4180
90985568|NCT01380093|181856200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.6||||0.1479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||0.6|-3.7|0.1479
91041131|NCT02854800|181966896|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|If the overall F test was significant, Tukey's Honestly Significant Difference post-hoc tests were performed.||Mixed ANOVA was used with Study Week (1-12) as the within-subjects, repeated-measures factor and Group as the between-subjects factor. If the overall F test was significant, Tukey's Honestly Significant Difference post-hoc tests were performed.||||<0.05
90985569|NCT01380093|181856201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.21||||0.0181|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.07|0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Tmax was analyzed using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||0.35|0.07|0.0181
90985570|NCT01380093|181856202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.75|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.68|0.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Natural log transformed Cmax was analyzed using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||0.83|0.68|<0.0001
90985571|NCT01380093|181856203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.77||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|0.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Natural log transformed AUC (0-1) was analyzed using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||0.86|0.69|0.0004
90985572|NCT01380093|181856204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.86||||0.0065|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.79|0.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Natural log transformed AUC (0-2) was analyzed using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||0.94|0.79|0.0065
90985573|NCT01380093|181856205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.98||||0.6399|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Natural log transformed AUC (0-4) was analyzed using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||1.06|0.91|0.6399
90985574|NCT01380093|181856206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.0||||0.9057|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|1.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Natural log transformed AUC (0-8) was analyzed using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||1.08|0.94|0.9057
90985575|NCT01380093|181856207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.03||||0.425|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Natural log transformed AUC (0-12) was analyzed using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||1.10|0.97|0.4250
90985576|NCT01380093|181856208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.1||||0.0204|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.03|1.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Natural log transformed AUC (0-24) was analyzed using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||1.18|1.03|0.0204
90985577|NCT01380093|181856209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.32||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.17|1.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Natural log transformed AUC (0-∞) was analyzed using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||1.49|1.17|0.0005
90985578|NCT01342640|181856231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Change from baseline in mean Hb levels at Week 20 was analyzed using paired t-test.||||<0.0001
90985579|NCT01342640|181856232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Change from baseline in mean Hb levels at Week 24 was analyzed using paired t-test.||||<.0001
90985580|NCT01342640|181856233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Change from baseline in mean Hb levels at Week 28 was analyzed using paired t-test.||||<.0001
90985581|NCT01849250|181856270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.50
90985582|NCT01849250|181856273|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.19
90985583|NCT01849250|181856274|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||ANOVA|||||||.52
90985584|NCT01849250|181856275|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.12
90985585|NCT05341466|181856309|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.528|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.188||0.0098|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0098
90985586|NCT05341466|181856309|OTHER||Adjusted R-squared|0.418||||0.014|||||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression analyses performed with the change in the MEP amplitude versus step length asymmetry.||||0.014
90952172|NCT05576662|181781921|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.82||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression coefficient Wald test|An odds ratio \< 1 favors placebo plus ritonavir; an odds ratio \> 1 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir.|Post-hoc analysis of brain fog data||0.82|0.31|0.01
90952173|NCT05576662|181781921|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|2.33||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression coefficient Wald test|An odds ratio \< 1 favors placebo plus ritonavir; an odds ratio \> 1 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir.|Post-hoc analysis of body aches data||2.33|0.74|0.34
90952174|NCT05576662|181781921|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.48||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression coefficient Wald test|An odds ratio \< 1 favors placebo plus ritonavir; an odds ratio \> 1 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir.|Post-hoc analysis of cardiovascular symptoms data||2.48|0.76|0.29
90952175|NCT05576662|181781921|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.38||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression coefficient Wald test|An odds ratio \< 1 favors placebo plus ritonavir; an odds ratio \> 1 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir.|Post-hoc analysis of shortness of breath data||2.38|0.73|0.35
90952176|NCT05576662|181781921|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.47||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression coefficient Wald test|An odds ratio \< 1 favors placebo plus ritonavir; an odds ratio \> 1 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir.|Post-hoc analysis of gastrointestinal symptoms data||2.47|0.79|0.25
90952177|NCT03008005|181781933|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||< 0.05
90952178|NCT03008005|181781934|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||< 0.05
90952179|NCT02755129|181781935|OTHER||||||||||||||||||"To assess the similarity between the Reveal LINQ measures and those from the reference system, correlation coefficients were used.~The correlation coefficient was calculated over windows of 4 seconds and averaged for each exercise. Then, the average correlation coefficient over all patients and exercise was calculated."|||
90952180|NCT00475228|181781936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.05
90952181|NCT02367040|181781963|SUPERIORITY|PFS was evaluated with the stratified log-rank test. HR and 95% CI were based on stratified Cox Regression Model.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52||||2e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.393|0.688||1-sided p-value|Log Rank|||At primary completion date||0.688|0.393|0.000002
90952182|NCT02367040|181781963|SUPERIORITY|PFS was evaluated with the stratified log-rank test. HR and 95% CI were based on stratified Cox Regression Model.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.557||||3e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.431|0.722||1-sided p-value|Log Rank|||At 2-year follow-up cut-off date||0.722|0.431|0.000003
90952183|NCT02367040|181781963|SUPERIORITY|PFS was evaluated with the stratified log-rank test. HR and 95% CI were based on stratified Cox Regression Model.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.643||||0.000199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.502|0.823||1-sided p-value|Log Rank|||At final analysis||0.823|0.502|0.000199
90952184|NCT02367040|181781964|SUPERIORITY|P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified|Difference in ORR|32.99|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.95|42.03||1-sided p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At primary completion date||42.03|23.95|<0.000001
90952185|NCT02367040|181781964|SUPERIORITY|P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified|Difference in ORR|30.67|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.63|39.72||1-sided p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At 2-year follow-up cut-off date||39.72|21.63|<0.000001
90952186|NCT02367040|181781965|SUPERIORITY|P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified|Difference in CRR|19.27|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.57|26.96||1-sided p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At primary completion date||26.96|11.57|<0.000001
90952187|NCT02367040|181781965|SUPERIORITY|P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified|Difference in CRR|18.92||||1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.11|26.73||1-sided p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At 2-year follow-up cut-off date||26.73|11.11|0.000001
90952188|NCT02367040|181781966|SUPERIORITY|DOR was evaluated with the stratified log-rank test. HR and 95% CI were based on stratified Cox Regression Model.|Kaplan-Meier estimates|0.7||||0.030371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.481|1.018||1-sided p-value|Log Rank|||At primary completion date||1.018|0.481|0.030371
90985587|NCT05341466|181856309|OTHER||Adjusted R-squared|0.496||||0.006|||||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression analyses performed with the change in the MEP amplitude versus step time asymmetry.||||0.006
90952189|NCT02367040|181781966|SUPERIORITY|DOR was evaluated with the stratified log-rank test. HR and 95% CI were based on stratified Cox Regression Model.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.761||||0.051976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.547|1.059||1-sided p-value|Log Rank|||At 2-year follow-up cut-off date||1.059|0.547|0.051976
90952190|NCT02367040|181781967|SUPERIORITY|P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified|Difference in DCR|4.43||||0.097339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|11.12||1-sided p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At primary completion date||11.12|-2.26|0.097339
90952191|NCT02367040|181781967|SUPERIORITY|P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified|Difference in DCR|4.43||||0.097339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|11.12||1-sided p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At 2-year follow-up cut-off date||11.12|-2.26|0.097339
90952192|NCT02367040|181781968|SUPERIORITY|TTP was evaluated with the stratified log-rank test. HR and 95% CI were based on Cox Regression Model.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.476|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.357|0.635||1-sided p-value|Log Rank|||At primary completion date||0.635|0.357|<.000001
90952193|NCT02367040|181781968|SUPERIORITY|TTP was evaluated with the stratified log-rank test. HR and 95% CI were based on Cox Regression Model.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.505|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.387|0.659||1-sided p-value|Log Rank|||At 2-year follow-up cut-off date||0.659|0.387|<.000001
90952194|NCT02367040|181781969|SUPERIORITY|OS was evaluated with the stratified log-rank test. HR and 95% CI were based on Cox Regression Model.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.972||||0.436458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.691|1.368||1-sided p-value|Log Rank|||||1.368|0.691|0.436458
90952195|NCT02367040|181781970|SUPERIORITY|Time to deterioration in DRS-P was evaluated with the stratified log-rank test. HR and 95% CI were based on Cox Regression Model.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.69261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.843|1.331||1-sided p-value|Log Rank|||At primary completion date||1.331|0.843|0.692610
90952196|NCT02367040|181781970|SUPERIORITY|Time to deterioration in DRS-P was evaluated with the stratified log-rank test. HR and 95% CI were based on Cox Regression Model.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.047||||0.661145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.841|1.302||1-sided p-value|Log Rank|||At 2-year follow-up cut-off date||1.302|0.841|0.661145
90952197|NCT02367040|181781971|SUPERIORITY|Time to improvement in DRS-P was evaluated with the stratified log-rank test. HR and 95% CI were based on Cox Regression Model.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.996||||0.510038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.732|1.355||1-sided p-value|Log Rank|||At primary completion date||1.355|0.732|0.510038
90952198|NCT02367040|181781971|SUPERIORITY|Time to improvement in DRS-P was evaluated with the stratified log-rank test. HR and 95% CI were based on Cox Regression Model.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.036||||0.40597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.768|1.398||1-sided p-value|Log Rank|||At 2-year follow-up cut-off date||1.398|0.768|0.405970
90952199|NCT02477618|181781975|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.056||||0.878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.527|2.118|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.118|0.527|0.878
90952200|NCT02477618|181781976|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.747||||0.636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.222|2.507|||Regression, Cox|||||2.507|0.222|0.636
90952201|NCT02477618|181781977|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.623||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.303|1.282|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.282|0.303|0.199
90952202|NCT02477618|181781978|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.683||||0.328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.318|1.466|||Regression, Cox|||||1.466|0.318|0.328
90952203|NCT02477618|181781980|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.583||||0.339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.193|1.763|||Regression, Cox|||||1.763|0.193|0.339
90952204|NCT02477618|181781981|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.086||||0.817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.539|2.189|||Regression, Cox|||||2.189|0.539|0.817
90952205|NCT02477618|181781982|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.5|||ANCOVA|||||0.5|-0.9|0.567
90952206|NCT02284009|181781995|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.24|||||Analysis was performed using a Bayesian model incorporating historical placebo data using a robust mixture prior. Values above are 95% credible intervals. Probability of treatment difference (Albiglutide - Placebo) \>= 0.2 nmol/L = 0.097.|||0.24|0.00|
90952207|NCT03841526|181782028|OTHER|Parameters that did not meet normality criterion were analyzed non-parametrically. Overall treatment effect was assessed using Friedman's test.||||||0.0002|||||||ANOVA|||The primary efficacy analysis was analyzed by analysis of variance (ANOVA) comparing the mean incidence rates among the 3 treatment groups in the Outpatient Phase. If the performed Friedman's test yielded an overall p-value less than 0.05, post-hoc analysis of groups means were conducted to statistically determine which group means differed.||||0.0002
90952208|NCT03841526|181782028|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Tukey Test/Kruskal-Wallis Test|Tukey Test (if the difference between 2 treatments was normally distributed) or Kruskal-Wallis Test (if not normally distributed).||If the overall treatment effect was significant, pairwise treatment comparisons were assessed using: If a difference between 2 treatments was normally distributed, the Tukey Test was used or if not normally distributed and the distribution was highly skewed, the sign test/Kruskal-Allis test was used.||||<0.0001
90952209|NCT03841526|181782028|OTHER|||||||0.0032|||||||Tukey Test/Kruskal-Wallis Test|Tukey Test (if the difference between 2 treatments was normally distributed) or Kruskal-Wallis Test (if not normally distributed).||If the overall treatment effect was significant, pairwise treatment comparisons were assessed using: If a difference between 2 treatments was normally distributed, the Tukey Test was used or if not normally distributed and the distribution was highly skewed, the sign test/Kruskal-Allis test was used.||||0.0032
90952210|NCT03841526|181782028|OTHER|||||||0.2072|||||||Tukey Test/Kruskal-Wallis Test|Tukey Test (if the difference between 2 treatments was normally distributed) or Kruskal-Wallis Test (if not normally distributed).||If the overall treatment effect was significant, pairwise treatment comparisons were assessed using: If a difference between 2 treatments was normally distributed, the Tukey Test was used or if not normally distributed and the distribution was highly skewed, the sign test/Kruskal-Allis test was used.||||0.2072
90952211|NCT03841526|181782031|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
90952212|NCT03841526|181782032|OTHER|||||||0.859|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.8590
90985588|NCT05341466|181856309|OTHER||Adjusted R-squared|0.666||||0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression analyses performed with the change in the MEP amplitude versus changes in net metabolic power.||||0.001
90985589|NCT05341466|181856310|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.0042|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0232||0.744|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.744
90985590|NCT05341466|181856311|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0231||0.269|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.269
90952213|NCT07025837|181782045|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Week 2 compared to the baseline.|ANOVA|||||||>0.9999
90952214|NCT07025837|181782045|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Week 4 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||>0.9999
90952215|NCT07025837|181782045|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6342||||||Week 6 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.6342
90952216|NCT07025837|181782045|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0231||||||Week 8 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0231
90952217|NCT07025837|181782045|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0862||||||Week 10 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0862
90952218|NCT07025837|181782045|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0033||||||Week 12 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0033
90952219|NCT07025837|181782046|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1176||||||Week 2 compared to baseline|ANOVA|||||||0.1176
90952220|NCT07025837|181782046|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||Week 4 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0030
90952221|NCT07025837|181782046|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001||||||Week 6 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0001
90952222|NCT07025837|181782046|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 8 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
90952223|NCT07025837|181782046|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 10 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
90952224|NCT07025837|181782047|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9751||||||Week 2 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.9751
90985591|NCT05341466|181856312|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.681||0.02|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.020
90985592|NCT01208181|181856358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least squares mean|-0.29||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|-0.09|||Tukey-Ciminera-Heysetrend test|||||-0.09|-0.49|0.004
90985593|NCT01208181|181856358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least squares mean|-0.27||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.06|||Tukey-Ciminera-Heysetrend test|||||-0.06|-0.48|0.034
90985594|NCT01208181|181856359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least squares mean|-7.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.85|-4.13|||Tukey-Ciminera-Heyse trend test|||||-4.13|-11.85|<0.001
90985595|NCT01208181|181856359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least squares mean|-10.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.74|-6.66|||Tukey-Ciminera-Heyse trend test|||||-6.66|-14.74|<0.001
90985596|NCT01208181|181856360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least squares mean|0.02||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.14|||Tukey-Ciminera-Heysetrend test|||||0.14|-0.10|0.730
90985597|NCT01208181|181856361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least squares mean|-2.71||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.98|-0.45|||Tukey-Ciminera-Heyse trend test|||||-0.45|-4.98|0.019
90985598|NCT01208181|181856362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in the least squares mean|1.61||||0.327|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.49|3.71|||covariance model|||||3.71|-0.49|0.327
90985599|NCT03425656|181856387|NON_INFERIORITY|We used a non-inferiority margin of 0.25 for the primary endpoint.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.16|||Chi-squared|||||0.16|-0.23|0.73
90985600|NCT03425656|181856388|OTHER|||||||0.72|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.72
90985601|NCT03425656|181856389|OTHER||Chi-squared|0.42||||0.42|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.42
90985602|NCT03425656|181856390|NON_INFERIORITY|We used a non-inferiority margin of 0.25 for the primary endpoint.||||||0.59|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.59
90985603|NCT00377299|181856392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0||||Significance was set at a p value of ≤ 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||||0.05
90985604|NCT00377299|181856393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0||||Significance was set at a p value of ≤ 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
90985605|NCT00377299|181856394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0||||Significance was set at a p value of ≤ 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
90985606|NCT00377299|181856395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0||||Significance was set at a p value of ≤ 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
90985607|NCT00377299|181856396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0||||Significance was set at a p value of ≤ 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
90985608|NCT02209597|181856403|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|90.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
90985609|NCT04799782|181856412|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.015
90985610|NCT04799782|181856413|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.82
90985611|NCT02316470|181856448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
90985612|NCT02316470|181856448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0261|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0261
90985613|NCT02316470|181856448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0364|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0364
90985614|NCT02316470|181856448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
90985615|NCT02316470|181856448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
90985616|NCT02316470|181856448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
90985617|NCT02316470|181856448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
90985618|NCT02316470|181856449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||p-value was \<0.0001 at each time point (Day 14, 28, 35, 120, 210)|Fisher-Freeman-Halton Test|||statistical test was applied across all treatment groups at each of the listed time points.||||<0.0001
90985619|NCT02316470|181856450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||p-value was \<0.0001 at each time point (Day 14, 28, 35, 56, 120, 210)|Fisher-Freeman-Halton Test|||statistical test was applied across all treatment groups at each of the listed time points.||||<0.0001
90985620|NCT02316470|181856451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||the p-value was \<0.0001 at each time point (Day 14, 28, 35, 56, 120, 210)|Fisher-Freeman-Halton Test|||statistical test was applied across all treatment groups at each of the listed time points.||||<0.0001
90985621|NCT02988986|181856501|SUPERIORITY|Based on prior data for Ki67 changes in the tamoxifen arm alone, we will assume null hypothesis and alternative hypotheses of 60% and 80% reduction in Ki67, respectively. A sample of 25 patients will provide 86% power to detect the hypothesized reduction in Ki67 with 5% alpha based on a two-sided, one sample t-test of mean percent change in Ki67 level.|||||=|0.0023|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The primary endpoint was the change in Ki67 after 6 weeks of treatment.||||=0.0023
90985622|NCT00634543|181856510|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority was demonstrated if lower confidence limit of 2-sided 95% CI was less than the non-inferiority margin of 1.39.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.39||||0.2143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|1.01|||t-test, 2 sided|P-value was calculated for change from baseline in pain intensity score at Day 43.||||1.01|-0.23|0.2143
90985623|NCT00634543|181856511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7539|||||||Chi-squared|P-value was evaluated for pain relief in tramadol hydrochloride/ acetaminophen versus gabapentin groups at Day 15.||||||0.7539
90985624|NCT00634543|181856511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5905|||||||Chi-squared|P-value was evaluated for pain relief in tramadol hydrochloride/ acetaminophen versus gabapentin groups at Day 29.||||||0.5905
90985625|NCT00634543|181856511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7407|||||||Chi-squared|P-value was evaluated for pain relief in tramadol hydrochloride/ acetaminophen versus gabapentin groups at Day 43.||||||0.7407
90985626|NCT00634543|181856512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3504|||||||Chi-squared|P-value was evaluated for all categories (bad, no change, good and very good).||||||0.3504
90985627|NCT00634543|181856513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.569|||||||Chi-squared|P-value was evaluated for all categories (bad, no change, good and very good).||||||0.5690
91006844|NCT02141854|181898329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|0.276||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.191|0.361||Effects due to baseline trough AM FEV1, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), and treatment.|ANCOVA|||A fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure was used to control the overall Type I error rate at the 0.05 level (2-sided) for the primary endpoints analyses. Analyses appear in the defined sequence. This is the fifth in the sequence.||0.361|0.191|0.0000
90985628|NCT01371838|181856516|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the observed difference in the primary outcome measure (clinical cure rate) between the ceftaroline group and the ceftriaxone group was calculated in CE Population at the TOC visit. Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 95% CI was higher than -10% in CE Population. If non-inferioirity was achieved then a test of superioirty was conducted whereby if lower limit of 95% CI for the difference was \>0% superioirty was concluded.|Risk Difference (RD)|9.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|17.1||||RD is Ceftaroline clinical cure rate minus Ceftriaxone clinical cure rate. The CI was calculated by Miettinen and Nurminen method without adjustment.|CI for risk difference was estimated by 95% Miettinen and Nurminen CI without adjustments.|The primary objective of this study was to determine the noninferiority in the clinical cure rate for ceftaroline compared to that for ceftriaxone at TOC in the CE in adult subjects with CABP.||17.1|2.8|
90985629|NCT01371838|181856517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|10.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|16.4||||RD is Ceftaroline clinical cure rate minus Ceftriaxone clinical cure rate. The CI was calculated by Miettinen and Nurminen method without adjustment.|CI for risk difference was estimated by 95% Miettinen and Nurminen CI without adjustments.|||16.4|4.9|
90985630|NCT01371838|181856518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|8.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|15.4||||RD is Ceftaroline clinical cure rate minus Ceftriaxone clinical cure rate. The CI was calculated by Miettinen and Nurminen method without adjustment.|CI for risk difference was estimated by 95% Miettinen and Nurminen CI without adjustments.|||15.4|1.8|
90985631|NCT01371838|181856519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|19.2||||RD is Ceftaroline clinical cure rate minus Ceftriaxone clinical cure rate. The CI was calculated by Miettinen and Nurminen method without adjustment.|CI for risk difference was estimated by 95% Miettinen and Nurminen CI without adjustments. If lower limit of 95% CI for the risk difference was \>0% superioirty was concluded in this population.|||19.2|6.8|
90985632|NCT01371838|181856520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|15.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|27.1||||RD is Ceftaroline clinical cure rate minus Ceftriaxone clinical cure rate. The CI was calculated by Miettinen and Nurminen method without adjustment.|CI for risk difference was estimated by 95% Miettinen and Nurminen CI without adjustments.|||27.1|2.7|
90985633|NCT01371838|181856521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|11.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|25.8||||RD is Ceftaroline clinical cure rate minus Ceftriaxone clinical cure rate. The CI was calculated by Miettinen and Nurminen method without adjustment.|CI for risk difference was estimated by 95% Miettinen and Nurminen CI without adjustments.|||25.8|-2.2|
91007985|NCT03993314|181900058|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.757||||||Two-sided p-value|Farrington-Manning (Score) test|||Exact Farrington-Manning (Score) test of the null hypothesis that there is no difference between the proportion of patients achieving a level of numbness of T6 or higher between the two groups.||||0.757
91007986|NCT03993314|181900059|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.186||||||Two-sided p-value|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Test performed was an exact test; no continuity correction was used.||Exact Wilcoxon test of the null hypothesis that there is no difference between the median level of numbness between the two groups.||||0.186
91007987|NCT03993314|181900060|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.132||||||Two-sided p-value|Farrington-Manning (Score) test|||Exact Farrington-Manning (Score) test of the null hypothesis that there is no difference between the proportion of patients requiring epidural activation between the two groups.||||0.132
90985634|NCT01371838|181856524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|15.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|27.1||||RD is (Ceftaroline-Ceftriaxone) microbiologically favourable outcome rate. The CI was calculated by Miettinen and Nurminen method without adjustment.|CI for risk difference was estimated by 95% Miettinen and Nurminen CI without adjustments.|||27.1|2.7|
91007988|NCT03993314|181900061|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.833||||||Two-sided p-value|Farrington-Manning (Score) test|||Exact Farrington-Manning (Score) test of the null hypothesis that there is no difference between the proportion of patients requiring supplemental IV sedation or general anesthesia between the two groups.||||0.833
90952225|NCT07025837|181782047|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0078||||||Week 4 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0078
90952226|NCT07025837|181782047|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003||||||Week 6 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0003
90952227|NCT07025837|181782047|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 8 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
90952228|NCT07025837|181782047|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 10 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
90952229|NCT07025837|181782047|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 12 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
90952230|NCT07025837|181782048|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0544||||||Week 2 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0544
90952231|NCT07025837|181782048|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0036||||||Week 4 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0036
90952232|NCT07025837|181782048|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001||||||Week 6 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0001
90952233|NCT07025837|181782048|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 8 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
90952234|NCT07025837|181782048|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 10 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
90952235|NCT07025837|181782048|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 12 compared to Baseline|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
90952236|NCT07025837|181782049|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001||||||Week 2 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0001
90952237|NCT07025837|181782049|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 4 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
90952238|NCT07025837|181782049|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 6 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
90952239|NCT07025837|181782049|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 8 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
90952240|NCT07025837|181782049|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 10 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
90952241|NCT07025837|181782049|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 12 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
90952242|NCT07025837|181782050|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1438||||||Week 2 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.1438
90952243|NCT07025837|181782050|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0092||||||Week 4 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0092
90952244|NCT07025837|181782050|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003||||||Week 6 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0003
90952245|NCT07025837|181782050|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0015||||||Week 8 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0015
90952246|NCT07025837|181782050|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001||||||Week 10 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0001
90952247|NCT07025837|181782050|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 12 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
90952248|NCT07025837|181782051|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0041||||||Week 2 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0041
90952249|NCT07025837|181782051|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001||||||Week 4 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0001
90952250|NCT07025837|181782051|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 6 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
90952251|NCT07025837|181782051|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 8 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
90952252|NCT07025837|181782051|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 10 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
90952253|NCT07025837|181782051|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 12 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
90952254|NCT07025837|181782052|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0249||||||Week 2 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0249
90952255|NCT07025837|181782052|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 4 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
90952256|NCT07025837|181782052|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 6 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
90952257|NCT07025837|181782052|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 8 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
90952258|NCT07025837|181782052|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 10 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
90952259|NCT07025837|181782052|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 12 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
90952260|NCT07025837|181782053|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Week 2 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||>0.9999
90952261|NCT07025837|181782053|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7453||||||Week 4 compared to baseline|ANOVA|||||||0.7453
90952262|NCT07025837|181782053|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2118||||||Week 6 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.2118
90952263|NCT07025837|181782053|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0111||||||Week 8 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0111
90952264|NCT07025837|181782053|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015||||||Week 10 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0150
90952265|NCT07025837|181782053|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003||||||Week 12 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0003
90952266|NCT07025837|181782054|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0199||||||Week 2 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0199
90952267|NCT07025837|181782054|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 4 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
90952268|NCT07025837|181782054|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 6 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
90952269|NCT07025837|181782054|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 8 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
90952270|NCT07025837|181782054|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 10 compared to baseline|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
90952271|NCT07025837|181782054|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 12 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
90952272|NCT07025837|181782055|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4438||||||Week 2 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.4438
90952273|NCT07025837|181782055|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0412||||||Week 4 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0412
90952274|NCT07025837|181782055|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0943||||||Week 6 compared to baseline|ANOVA|||||||0.0943
90985635|NCT01371838|181856525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|11.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|25.8||||RD is (Ceftaroline-Ceftriaxone) microbiologically favourable outcome rate. The CI was calculated by Miettinen and Nurminen method without adjustment.|CI for risk difference was estimated by 95% Miettinen and Nurminen CI without adjustments.|||25.8|-2.2|
90985636|NCT01371838|181856526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|19.2||||RD is Ceftaroline minus Ceftriaxone overall success rate. The CI was calculated by Miettinen and Nurminen method without adjustment.|CI for risk difference was estimated by 95% Miettinen and Nurminen CI without adjustments.|||19.2|6.8|
90985637|NCT01371838|181856527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|9.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|17.1||||RD is Ceftaroline clinical cure rate minus Ceftriaxone clinical cure rate. The CI was calculated by Miettinen and Nurminen method without adjustment.|CI for risk difference was estimated by 95% Miettinen and Nurminen CI without adjustments.|||17.1|2.8|
90985638|NCT01371838|181856528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|3.0||||RD is Ceftaroline minus Ceftriaxone No-relapse rate. The CI was calculated by Miettinen and Nurminen method without adjustment.|CI for risk difference was estimated by 95% Miettinen and Nurminen CI without adjustments.|||3.0|-2.5|
90985639|NCT01371838|181856529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|4.5||||RD is Ceftaroline minus Ceftriaxone No-relapse rate. The CI was calculated by Miettinen and Nurminen method without adjustment.|CI for risk difference was estimated by 95% Miettinen and Nurminen CI without adjustments.|||4.5|-2.4|
90985640|NCT01103349|181856534|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean treatment differences|3.87|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.494||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.931|6.809||α=0.025 one-sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline, treatment, day, treatment by day interaction and baseline by day interaction as fixed effects and patient as a random effect.||H0: Mean FEV1 % predicted trough change from baseline (BI671800 ED 400 mg bid) ≤ Mean FEV1 % predicted trough change from baseline (placebo)||6.809|0.931|0.0050
90985641|NCT01103349|181856534|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean treatment differences|2.369|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.567||0.0657||95.0|-0.713|5.452||α=0.025 one-sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline, treatment, day, treatment by day interaction and baseline by day interaction as fixed effects and patient as a random effect.||H0: Mean FEV1 % predicted trough change from baseline (Montelukast 10 mg qd) ≤ Mean FEV1 % predicted trough change from baseline (placebo)||5.452|-0.713|0.0657
91007989|NCT03993314|181900062|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||Two-sided p-value|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Test performed was an exact test; no continuity correction was used.||Exact Wilcoxon test of the null hypothesis that there is no difference between the median modified Bromage score between the two groups.||||0.004
90985642|NCT01103349|181856534|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean treatment differences|1.501|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.602||0.1748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.652|4.653||α=0.025 one-sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline, treatment, day, treatment by day interaction and baseline by day interaction as fixed effects and patient as a random effect.||H0: Mean FEV1 % predicted trough change from baseline (BI671800 ED 400 mg bid) ≤ Mean FEV1 % predicted trough change from baseline (Montelukast 10 mg qd)||4.653|-1.652|0.1748
90985643|NCT01103349|181856535|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean treatment differences|-0.28|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.118||0.0092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.512|-0.048||α=0.025 one-sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline, treatment, day, treatment by day interaction and baseline by day interaction as fixed effects and patient as a random effect.||||-0.048|-0.512|0.0092
90985644|NCT01103349|181856535|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean treatment differences|-0.18|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.124||0.0732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.423|0.063||α=0.025 one-sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline, treatment, day, treatment by day interaction and baseline by day interaction as fixed effects and patient as a random effect.||||0.063|-0.423|0.0732
90985645|NCT01103349|181856535|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean treatment differences|-0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.126||0.2139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.347|0.147||α=0.025 one-sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline, treatment, day, treatment by day interaction and baseline by day interaction as fixed effects and patient as a random effect.||||0.147|-0.347|0.2139
91007990|NCT03993314|181900063|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.674||||||Two-sided p-value|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Test performed was an exact test; no continuity correction was used.||Exact Wilcoxon test of the null hypothesis that there is no difference between the median modified Bromage score between the two groups.||||0.674
90952275|NCT07025837|181782055|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0017||||||Week 8 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0017
90952276|NCT07025837|181782055|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 10 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
90952277|NCT07025837|181782055|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0007||||||Week 12 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0007
90952278|NCT07025837|181782056|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6148||||||Week 2 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.6148
90952279|NCT07025837|181782056|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7953||||||Week 4 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.7953
90952280|NCT07025837|181782056|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0019||||||Week 6 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0019
90952281|NCT07025837|181782056|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0008||||||Week 8 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0008
90952282|NCT07025837|181782056|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 10 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
90952283|NCT07025837|181782056|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002||||||Week 12 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0002
90952284|NCT07025837|181782057|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0067||||||Week 2 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0067
90952285|NCT07025837|181782057|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0055||||||Week 4 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0055
90952286|NCT07025837|181782057|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 6 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
90952287|NCT07025837|181782057|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 8 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
90952288|NCT07025837|181782057|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 10 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
90952289|NCT07025837|181782057|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 12 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
90952290|NCT07025837|181782058|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1476||||||Week 2 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.1476
90952291|NCT07025837|181782058|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0106||||||Week 4 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0106
90952292|NCT07025837|181782058|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002||||||Week 6 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0002
90952293|NCT07025837|181782058|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 8 compared to baseline|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
90952294|NCT07025837|181782058|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 10 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
90952295|NCT07025837|181782058|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 12 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
90952296|NCT07025837|181782059|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3224||||||Week 2 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.3224
90952297|NCT07025837|181782059|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0426||||||Week 4 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0426
90952298|NCT07025837|181782059|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0039||||||Week 6 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0039
90952299|NCT07025837|181782059|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||Week 8 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0040
90952300|NCT07025837|181782059|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0013||||||Week 10 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0013
90952301|NCT07025837|181782059|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005||||||Week 12 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0005
90952302|NCT07025837|181782060|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3032||||||Week 2 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.3032
90952303|NCT07025837|181782060|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0237||||||Week 4 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0237
90952304|NCT07025837|181782060|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||Week 6 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0010
90952305|NCT07025837|181782060|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 8 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
90952306|NCT07025837|181782060|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002||||||Week 10 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0002
90952307|NCT07025837|181782060|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 12 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
90952308|NCT07025837|181782061|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Week 2 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||>0.9999
90952309|NCT07025837|181782061|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1147||||||Week 4 compared to baseline|ANOVA|||||||0.1147
90952310|NCT07025837|181782061|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0016||||||Week 6 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0016
90952311|NCT07025837|181782061|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0048||||||Week 8 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0048
90952312|NCT07025837|181782061|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 10 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
90952313|NCT07025837|181782061|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005||||||Week 12 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0005
90952314|NCT07025837|181782062|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0461||||||Week 2 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0461
90952315|NCT07025837|181782062|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||Week 4 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.002
90952316|NCT07025837|181782062|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002||||||Week 6 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0002
90952317|NCT07025837|181782062|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 8 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
90952318|NCT07025837|181782062|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 10 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
90952319|NCT07025837|181782062|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 12 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
90952320|NCT04854850|181782073|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90952321|NCT04092530|181782077|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.82||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for time; clustering by clinical site accounted for with random intercept||Please note that there were only 7 units (community health clinics) analyzed at Level 2 of this multilevel study, but due to the crossover design of the study, they were each observed under both the Control and Intervention conditions. Therefore, the Units Analyzed entered above reflect the 7 clinics under both conditions and should not be summed to 14.||1.05|0.64|0.12
90952322|NCT04092530|181782078|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.89||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for time; random intercept for clinical site||||1.13|0.70|0.33
90952323|NCT04092530|181782079|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|3.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for time; random intercept for clinical site||||3.73|0.33|0.88
90952324|NCT00288639|181782133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Response Ratio|-22.72|STANDARD_DEVIATION|55.232||||95.0|-34.16|-11.28|||||Response ratio = 100 x \[(t - b)/(t + b)\] where t=treatment seizure frequency and b=baseline seizure frequency.|Noncomparative study. Summary stats, 2 sided 95% CI to est. effect size. No adjustments made to alpha levels to acct for multiple 2o endpts. Sample size=83 patients (pts) sufficient to detect statistically significant difference in % change from baseline in 28-day seizure rate with 80% power, true change from baseline approximately 25%. Allowing for dropouts assume 85% pts analyzed.||-11.28|-34.16|
90952325|NCT00288639|181782134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Response Ratio|-17.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|48.797||||95.0|-27.36|-7.15|||||Response ratio = 100 x \[(t - b)/(t + b)\] where t=treatment seizure frequency and b=baseline seizure frequency.|Noncomparative study. Summary stats, 2 sided 95% CI to est. effect size. No adjustments made to alpha levels to acct for multiple 2o endpts. Sample size=83 patients (pts) sufficient to detect statistically significant difference in % change from baseline in 28-day seizure rate with 80% power, true change from baseline approximately 25%. Allowing for dropouts assume 85% pts analyzed.||-7.15|-27.36|
90952326|NCT00288639|181782135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Response Ratio|-22.43|STANDARD_DEVIATION|56.615||||95.0|-34.16|-10.71|||||1-28 Days. Response ratio = 100 x \[(t - b)/(t + b)\] where t= 4 wk interval seizure frequency and b=baseline seizure frequency.|Noncomparative study.Summary stats, 2 sided 95% CI to est. effect size. No adjustments made to alpha levels to acct for multiple 2o endpts.Sample size=83 patients (pts) sufficient to detect statistically significant difference in % change from baseline in 28-day seizure rate with 80% power, true change from baseline approximately 25%.Allowing for dropouts assume 85% pts analyzed.||-10.71|-34.16|
90985646|NCT00972244|181856539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0987|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.28||significant at alpha=0.015 (2-sided) applying Dunnett's adjustment. A sequential closed testing procedure was used to control Type I error rate across the primary and key secondary endpoints.|ANCOVA|with treatment group (all treatment groups included) as fixed effect and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0 (with alpha = 0.015 applying Dunnett's adjustment, two-sided)||-0.28|-0.67|<0.0001
90985647|NCT00972244|181856539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1009|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.26||significant at alpha=0.015 (2-sided) applying Dunnett's adjustment. A sequential closed testing procedure was used to control Type I error rate across the primary and key secondary endpoints.|ANCOVA|with treatment group (all treatment groups included) as fixed effect and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0 (with alpha = 0.015 applying Dunnett's adjustment, two-sided)||-0.26|-0.65|<0.0001
90985648|NCT00972244|181856539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|-0.53||significant at alpha=0.015 (2-sided) applying Dunnett's adjustment. A sequential closed testing procedure was used to control Type I error rate across the primary and key secondary endpoints.|ANCOVA|with treatment group (all treatment groups included) as fixed effect and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0 (with alpha = 0.015 applying Dunnett's adjustment, two-sided)||-0.53|-0.92|<0.0001
90985649|NCT00972244|181856539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1018|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.59||significant at alpha=0.015 (2-sided) applying Dunnett's adjustment. A sequential closed testing procedure was used to control Type I error rate across the primary and key secondary endpoints.|ANCOVA|with treatment group (all treatment groups included) as fixed effect and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0 (with alpha = 0.015 applying Dunnett's adjustment, two-sided)||-0.59|-0.99|<0.0001
90985650|NCT00972244|181856540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.7589|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.45|-16.7||significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a sequential closed testing procedure within treatment group.|ANCOVA|with treatment group (all treatment groups included) as fixed effect and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-16.70|-35.45|<0.0001
90985651|NCT00972244|181856540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.71|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.7|-20.14||significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a sequential closed testing procedure within treatment group.|ANCOVA|with treatment group (all treatment groups included) as fixed effect and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-20.14|-38.70|<0.0001
90952327|NCT00288639|181782135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Response Ratio|-22.83|STANDARD_DEVIATION|57.543||||95.0|-34.74|-10.91|||||29-56 Days. Response ratio = 100 x \[(t - b)/(t + b)\] where t= 4 wk interval seizure frequency and b=baseline seizure frequency.|Noncomparative study.Summary stats, 2 sided 95% CI to est. effect size. No adjustments made to alpha levels to acct for multiple 2o endpts. Sample size=83 patients (pts) sufficient to detect statistically significant difference in % change from baseline in 28-day seizure rate with 80% power,true change from baseline approximately 25%. Allowing for dropouts assume 85% pts analyzed.||-10.91|-34.74|
90952328|NCT00288639|181782135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Response Ratio|-27.18|STANDARD_DEVIATION|59.323||||95.0|-39.9|-14.46|||||57-84 Days. Response ratio = 100 x \[(t - b)/(t + b)\] where t= 4 wk interval seizure frequency and b=baseline seizure frequency. .|Noncomparative study.Summary stats, 2 sided 95% CI to est. effect size. No adjustments made to alpha levels to acct for multiple 2o endpts. Sample size=83 patients (pts) sufficient to detect statistically significant difference in % change from baseline in 28-day seizure rate with 80% power, true change from baseline approximately 25%. Allowing for dropouts assume 85% pts analyzed.||-14.46|-39.90|
90985652|NCT00972244|181856540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-32.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.7402|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.28|-23.6||significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a sequential closed testing procedure within treatment group.|ANCOVA|with treatment group (all treatment groups included) as fixed effect and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-23.60|-42.28|<0.0001
90985653|NCT00972244|181856540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-41.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.8358|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.9|-31.85||significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a sequential closed testing procedure within treatment group.|ANCOVA|with treatment group (all treatment groups included) as fixed effect and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-31.85|-50.90|<0.0001
90985654|NCT00972244|181856541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.2||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|7.6||not significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a sequential closed testing procedure within treatment group.|Fisher Exact|||H0: proportion(treat) minus proportion(placebo) = 0 versus HA: proportion(treat) minus proportion(placebo) =/= 0||7.6|-9.1|1.0000
90985655|NCT00972244|181856541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|7.3||||0.2057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|18.8||not significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a sequential closed testing procedure within treatment group.|Fisher Exact|||H0: proportion(treat) minus proportion(placebo) = 0 versus HA: proportion(treat) minus proportion(placebo) =/= 0||18.8|-2.3|0.2057
90985656|NCT00972244|181856541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|3.2||||0.6203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|13.2||not significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a sequential closed testing procedure within treatment group.|Fisher Exact|||H0: proportion(treat) minus proportion(placebo) = 0 versus HA: proportion(treat) minus proportion(placebo) =/= 0||13.2|-6.2|0.6203
90985657|NCT00972244|181856541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|7.7||||0.205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|19.5||not significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a sequential closed testing procedure within treatment group.|Fisher Exact|||H0: proportion(treat) minus proportion(placebo) = 0 versus HA: proportion(treat) minus proportion(placebo) =/= 0||19.5|-2.0|0.2050
90985658|NCT00283712|181856562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.22|0.22|||Fisher Exact|||The study goals were to gather evidence of safety and possible efficacy of infliximab for treatment of pemphigus vulgaris (PV). The analyses focused on estimation rather than hypothesis testing; therefore, there was not sufficient power to detect plausible treatment differences unless they were very large. The sample size reflects a balance between the desire to meet study goals and to expose as few participants as possible until the safety of infliximab for treatment of PV has been clarified.||0.22|-0.22|1.00
90985659|NCT00283712|181856562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.02|42.67|||Fisher Exact|||||42.67|0.02|1.00
90985660|NCT00283712|181856563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.26|0.06||||||||0.06|-0.26|
90985661|NCT00283712|181856564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.02||||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.31|0.36||All secondary analyses are considered supplemental supportive analyses|Fisher Exact|||The primary endpoint analysis was replicated using the per-protocol population.||0.36|-0.31|1.00
90985662|NCT00283712|181856564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.02|38.35||All secondary analyses are considered supplemental supportive analyses|Fisher Exact|||The primary endpoint analysis was replicated using the per-protocol population.||38.35|0.02|1.00
90985663|NCT00283712|181856565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.2||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.15|0.55|||Fisher Exact|||||0.55|-0.15|0.65
90985664|NCT00283712|181856565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.43||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.06|2.79|||Fisher Exact|||||2.79|0.06|0.650
90985665|NCT00283712|181856575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|0.3|||Fisher Exact|||||0.3|-0.3|1.00
90985666|NCT00090285|181856579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|90.6||||||95.0|70.1|98.2|||||Confidence Interval (CI) based on binomial tail probabilities and not from a dispersion parameter.|||98.2|70.1|
90985667|NCT00090285|181856587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|77.5||||||95.0|39.6|93.3||||||||93.3|39.6|
90985668|NCT00090285|181856588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|85.5||||||95.0|77.0|91.3|||||CI based on binomial tail probabilities and not from a dispersion parameter. Hochberg multiplicity adjustment applied to the CI.|||91.3|77.0|
90985669|NCT00090285|181856589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|51.0||||||95.0|40.3|59.9|||||CI based on binomial tail probabilities and not from a dispersion parameter. Hochberg multiplicity adjustment applied to the CI.|||59.9|40.3|
90985670|NCT02747043|181856618|EQUIVALENCE|Clinical equivalence of the primary endpoint will first be demonstrated by comparing the 1-sided 95% lower confidence limit of the RD of ORR by week 28 between ABP 798 and rituximab with a noninferiority margin of -15%. If this is successful, the 1-sided upper 95% confidence limit of the RD of ORR by week 28 will be compared with a nonsuperiority margin of +35.5%.|Risk Difference (RD)|7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.4|16.8|||||The 2-sided 90% confidence limits of the risk difference (RD) of ORR by week 28 used a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors (geographic region and age group).|||16.8|-1.4|
90985671|NCT02747043|181856618|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|18.6||||||||18.6|-3.2|
90985672|NCT02747043|181856619|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.3|11.2||||||The 2-sided 90% confidence limits of the risk difference (RD) of ORR at week 12 used a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors (geographic region and age group).||11.2|-9.3|
90985673|NCT02747043|181856619|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|13.2||||||The 2-sided 95% confidence limits of the risk difference (RD) of ORR at week 12 used a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors (geographic region and age group).||13.2|-11.3|
90985674|NCT02747043|181856625|OTHER|Risk difference (ABP 798 - Rituximab) and CIs were estimated by Wald asymptotic confidence limits, or exact confidence limits if n \< 25 for either treatment.|Risk Difference (RD)|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|16.3||||||Percentage risk difference for 'Any adverse event of interest'||16.3|-8.3|
90985675|NCT02747043|181856625|OTHER|Risk difference (ABP 798 - Rituximab) and CIs were estimated by Wald asymptotic confidence limits, or exact confidence limits if n \< 25 for either treatment.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|12.3||||||Percentage risk difference for 'Infusion reactions including hypersensitivity'||12.3|-12.1|
90985676|NCT02747043|181856625|OTHER|Risk difference (ABP 798 - Rituximab) and CIs were estimated by Wald asymptotic confidence limits, or exact confidence limits if n \< 25 for either treatment.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|13.0||||||Percentage risk difference for 'Hematological reactions'||13.0|-11.8|
90985677|NCT02747043|181856625|OTHER|Risk difference (ABP 798 - Rituximab) and CIs were estimated by Wald asymptotic confidence limits, or exact confidence limits if n \< 25 for either treatment.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|13.2||||||Percentage risk difference in 'Cardiac disorders'||13.2|-11.8|
90985678|NCT02747043|181856625|OTHER|Risk difference (ABP 798 - Rituximab) and CIs were estimated by Wald asymptotic confidence limits, or exact confidence limits if n \< 25 for either treatment.|Risk Difference (RD)|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|14.0||||||Percentage risk difference in 'Serious infections'||14.0|-10.9|
90985679|NCT02747043|181856625|OTHER|Risk difference (ABP 798 - Rituximab) and CIs were estimated by Wald asymptotic confidence limits, or exact confidence limits if n \< 25 for either treatment.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|13.2||||||Percentage risk difference in 'Severe mucocutaneous reactions'||13.2|-11.7|
90985680|NCT01591018|181856636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05||||||Pre-study calculations using chi-square test with a continuity correction showed that ≥60 patients in each group were needed to reach a significant difference with an alpha value of 0.05 (two-tailed) and a beta value of 0.8.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||Sample size was based on an expected 20% reduction of new ischemic lesions on DW-MRI in the sonolysis group (estimated prevalence, 10%) compared with the control group (estimated prevalence, 30%).||||<0.05
90985681|NCT02238028|181856644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Paired t-test,2 sided|||Paired Student's t tests were used in the absence and presence of wearing respirators. HRV was log-transformed before regression analyses. Linear mixed-effect models were applied to investigate the effects of wearing respirators. Age, sex, body mass index, PM2.5 concentration, 48-h mean temperature and 48-h mean humidity were introduced into the model as fixed-effect terms. At last, we incorporated random-effect intercepts for subjects to account for correlations between repeated measurements.||||<0.05
90985682|NCT02238028|181856645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test,2 sided|||||||<0.05
90985683|NCT00631488|181856668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.9||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.2|22.7|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|||Hypothesis: After 4 weeks of treatment, MK-0893+sitagliptin provide greater reduction in 24-hour WMG than sitagliptin+metformin. Using a standard deviation (SD) of 23.5 mg/dL, a sample size of 40 participants per group had 80% power to detect a true difference of 15 mg/dL in the mean change from BL in 24-hour WMG between any 2 treatment groups for a two-sided test at alpha=0.05, with a half-width of 10.3 mg/dL around the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the between group difference.||22.7|5.2|0.002
90985684|NCT00631488|181856668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.5|-9.2|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|||Hypothesis: After 4 weeks of treatment, MK-0893+metformin provide greater reduction in 24-hour WMG than sitagliptin+metformin. Using a standard deviation (SD) of 23.5 mg/dL, a sample size of 40 participants per group had 80% power to detect a true difference of 15 mg/dL in the mean change from BL in 24-hour WMG between any 2 treatment groups for a two-sided test at alpha=0.05, with a half-width of 10.3 mg/dL around the 95% confidence interval for the between group difference.||-9.2|-26.5|<0.001
90985685|NCT00631488|181856669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.1||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|18.2|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|||Hypothesis: After 4 weeks of treatment, MK-0893+sitagliptin provide greater reduction in 24-hour FPG than sitagliptin+metformin. Using a standard deviation (SD) of 23.5 mg/dL, a sample size of 40 participants per group had 80% power to detect a true difference of 15 mg/dL in the mean change from BL in 24-hour FPG between any 2 treatment groups for a two-sided test at alpha=0.05, with a half-width of 10.3 mg/dL around the 95% confidence interval for the between group difference.||18.2|0.0|0.050
90985686|NCT00631488|181856669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.0|-10.1|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|||Hypothesis: After 4 weeks of treatment, MK-0893+metformin provide greater reduction in 24-hour FPG than sitagliptin+metformin. Using a standard deviation (SD) of 23.5 mg/dL, a sample size of 40 participants per group had 80% power to detect a true difference of 15 mg/dL in the mean change from BL in 24-hour FPG between any 2 treatment groups for a two-sided test at alpha=0.05, with a half-width of 10.3 mg/dL around the 95% confidence interval for the between group difference.||-10.1|-28.0|<0.001
90985687|NCT00631488|181856670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.6||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|45.8|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|||Hypothesis: After 4 weeks of treatment, MK-0893+sitagliptin provide greater reduction in 2-hr Glucose AUC than sitagliptin+metformin. Using a SD of 23.5 mg/dL, a sample size of 40 participants per group had 80% power to detect a true difference of 15 mg/dL in the mean change from BL in 2-Hour Glucose Total AUC between any 2 treatment groups for a two-sided test at alpha=0.05, with a half-width of 10.3 mg/dL around the 95% confidence interval for the between group difference.||45.8|-0.6|0.056
90985688|NCT00631488|181856670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-44.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.3|-21.8|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|||Hypothesis: After 4 weeks of treatment, MK-0893+metformin provide greater reduction in 2-hr Glucose AUC than sitagliptin+metformin. Using a SD of 23.5 mg/dL, a sample size of 40 participants per group had 80% power to detect a true difference of 15 mg/dL in the mean change from BL in 2-Hour Glucose Total AUC between any 2 treatment groups for a two-sided test at alpha=0.05, with a half-width of 10.3 mg/dL around the 95% confidence interval for the between group difference.||-21.8|-67.3|<0.001
90985689|NCT00631488|181856671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.2||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|6.7|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|||Hypothesis: After 4 weeks of treatment, MK-0893+sitagliptin provide greater reduction in 2-Hour Total GLP-1 Total AUC than sitagliptin+metformin. Using a SD of 23.5 mg/dL, a sample size of 40 participants/group had 80% power to detect a true difference of 15 mg/dL in the mean change from BL in 2-Hour Total GLP-1 Total AUC between any 2 treatment groups for a 2-sided test at alpha=0.05, with a half-width of 10.3 mg/dL around the 95% CI for the between group difference.||6.7|1.7|0.001
91006845|NCT02141854|181898329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|0.274||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.189|0.36||Effects due to baseline trough AM FEV1, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), and treatment.|ANCOVA|||A fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure was used to control the overall Type I error rate at the 0.05 level (2-sided) for the primary endpoints analyses. Analyses appear in the defined sequence. This is the sixth in the sequence.||0.360|0.189|0.0000
90952329|NCT00288639|181782135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Response Ratio|-30.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|58.11||||95.0|-43.44|-18.06|||||85-112 Days. Response ratio=100 x \[(t - b)/(t + b)\] where t= 4 wk interval seizure frequency and b=baseline seizure frequency.|Noncomparative study.Summary stats, 2 sided 95% CI to est. effect size. No adjustments made to alpha levels to acct for multiple 2o endpts. Sample size=83 patients (pts) sufficient to detect statistically significant difference in % change from baseline in 28-day seizure rate with 80% power, true change from baseline approximately 25%.Allowing for dropouts assume 85% pts analyzed.||-18.06|-43.44|
90985690|NCT00631488|181856671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.7|15.7|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|||Hypothesis: After 4 weeks of treatment, MK-0893+metformin provide greater reduction in 2-Hour Total GLP-1 Total AUC than sitagliptin+metformin. Using a SD of 23.5 mg/dL, a sample size of 40 participants/group had 80% power to detect a true difference of 15 mg/dL in the mean change from BL in 2-Hour Total GLP-1 Total AUC between any 2 treatment groups for a 2-sided test at alpha=0.05, with a half-width of 10.3 mg/dL around the 95% CI for the between group difference.||15.7|10.7|<0.001
90985691|NCT00631488|181856672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|-3.8|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|||Hypothesis: After 4 weeks of treatment, MK-0893+sitagliptin provide greater reduction in 2-Hour Active GLP-1 Total AUC than sitagliptin+metformin. Using a SD of 23.5 mg/dL, a sample size of 40 participants/group had 80% power to detect a true difference of 15 mg/dL in the mean change from BL in 2-Hour Active GLP-1 Total AUC between any 2 treatment groups for a 2-sided test at alpha=0.05, with a half-width of 10.3 mg/dL around the 95% CI for the between group difference||-3.8|-9.5|<0.001
90985692|NCT00631488|181856672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|-8.5|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|||Hypothesis: After 4 weeks of treatment, MK-0893+metformin provide greater reduction in 2-Hour Active GLP-1 Total AUC than sitagliptin+metformin. Using a SD of 23.5 mg/dL, a sample size of 40 participants/group had 80% power to detect a true difference of 15 mg/dL in the mean change from BL in 2-Hour Active GLP-1 Total AUC between any 2 treatment groups for a 2-sided test at alpha=0.05, with a half-width of 10.3 mg/dL around the 95% CI for the between group difference.||-8.5|-14.1|<0.001
90985693|NCT00103194|181856673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||PSA response rate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|8.2||||||||8.2|0|
90985694|NCT00103194|181856674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|The analysis is testing the null hypothesis that there is no difference between the pre-treatment and post-treatment PSA slopes.||||||0.006
90985695|NCT03136705|181856686|SUPERIORITY||trend analysis|1.009||||0.3738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.989|1.031|||Mixed Models Analysis|||linear mixed model for repeated measures data||1.031|0.989|0.3738
90985696|NCT03136705|181856687|SUPERIORITY||trend analysis|0.0043||||0.854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0414|0.0499|||Mixed Models Analysis|||linear mixed model for repeated measures data||0.0499|-0.0414|0.854
90985697|NCT03136705|181856688|SUPERIORITY||trend analysis|20.38||||0.0648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|42.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||linear mixed model for repeated measures data||42.03|-1.26|0.0648
90985698|NCT00907881|181856706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||Regression, Linear|Pearson correlation coefficient||||||0.0002
90985699|NCT01097616|181856713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|19.6|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|27.1||By multiplicity strategy above, overall Type I error among primary hypotheses was controlled at two-sided 5% significance level.|Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model terms: baseline value, age group, region, gender, treatment, time, and time by treatment interaction.||The null hypothesis, that suvorexant HD did not differ from placebo for Month 1 sTSTm, had planned marginal power of 97.6%. Sleep maintenance (sTSTm, WASO) and sleep onset (sTSOm, LPS) endpoints were tested at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Both Month 1 endpoints for sleep maintenance must be significant to test Month 3 endpoints; the same approach was used for sleep onset endpoints.||27.1|12.0|<0.00001
90985700|NCT01097616|181856714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|19.7|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.9|27.6||By multiplicity strategy above, overall Type I error among primary hypotheses was controlled at two-sided 5% significance level.|Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model terms: baseline value, age group, region, gender, treatment, time, and time by treatment interaction.||The null hypothesis, that suvorexant HD did not differ from placebo for Month 3 sTSTm, had planned marginal power of 95.7%. Sleep maintenance (sTSTm, WASO) and sleep onset (sTSOm, LPS) endpoints were tested at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Both Month 1 endpoints for sleep maintenance must be significant to test Month 3 endpoints; the same approach was used for sleep onset endpoints.||27.6|11.9|<0.00001
90985701|NCT01097616|181856715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-26.3|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.5|-19.2||By multiplicity strategy above, overall Type I error among primary hypotheses was controlled at two-sided 5% significance level.|Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model terms: baseline value, age group, region, gender, treatment, time, and time by treatment interaction.||The null hypothesis, that suvorexant HD did not differ from placebo for Month 1 WASO, had planned marginal power of 99.2%. Sleep maintenance (sTSTm, WASO) and sleep onset (sTSOm, LPS) endpoints were tested at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Both Month 1 endpoints for sleep maintenance must be significant to test Month 3 endpoints; the same approach was used for sleep onset endpoints.||-19.2|-33.5|<0.00001
90985702|NCT01097616|181856716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-22.9|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.3|-15.4||By multiplicity strategy above, overall Type I error among primary hypotheses was controlled at two-sided 5% significance level.|Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model terms: baseline value, age group, region, gender, treatment, time, and time by treatment interaction.||The null hypothesis, that suvorexant HD did not differ from placebo for Month 3 WASO, had planned marginal power of 98.3%. Sleep maintenance (sTSTm, WASO) and sleep onset (sTSOm, LPS) endpoints were tested at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Both Month 1 endpoints for sleep maintenance must be significant to test Month 3 endpoints; the same approach was used for sleep onset endpoints.||-15.4|-30.3|<0.00001
91007991|NCT03993314|181900064|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.196|||||||Log Rank|||Log-rank test of the null hypothesis that there is no difference in the time to discharge from the Post Anesthesia Care Unit (PACU) between the two groups.||||0.196
90952330|NCT00288639|181782135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Response Ratio|-38.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|59.368||||95.0|-51.79|-25.7|||||113-140 Days. Response ratio=100 x \[(t - b)/(t + b)\] where t= 4 wk interval seizure frequency and b=baseline seizure frequency.|Noncomparative study.Summary stats, 2 sided 95% CI to est. effect size. No adjustments made to alpha levels to acct for multiple 2o endpts. Sample size=83 patients (pts) sufficient to detect statistically significant difference in % change from baseline in 28-day seizure rate with 80% power, true change from baseline approximately 25%.Allowing for dropouts assume 85% pts analyzed.||-25.70|-51.79|
90952331|NCT00288639|181782135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Response Ratio|-44.24|STANDARD_DEVIATION|62.703||||95.0|-58.47|-30.01|||||\>140 Days. Response ratio= 100 x \[(t - b)/(t + b)\] where t= 4 wk interval seizure frequency and b=baseline seizure frequency.|Noncomparative study.Summary stats, 2 sided 95% CI to est. effect size. No adjustments made to alpha levels to acct for multiple 2o endpts. Sample size=83 patients (pts) sufficient to detect statistically significant difference in % change from baseline in 28-day seizure rate with 80% power,true change from baseline approximately 25%.Allowing for dropouts assume 85% pts analyzed.||-30.01|-58.47|
90952332|NCT00288639|181782136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Response Ratio|7.19|STANDARD_DEVIATION|84.425||||95.0|-17.6|31.98|||||Simple Partial Seizures. Response ratio = 100 x \[(t - b)/(t + b)\] where t=treatment seizure frequency and b=baseline seizure frequency.|Noncomparative study. Summary stats, 2 sided 95% CI to est. effect size. No adjustments made to alpha levels to acct for multiple 2o endpts. Sample size=83 patients (pts) sufficient to detect statistically significant difference in % change from baseline in 28-day seizure rate with 80% power, true change from baseline approximately 25%. Allowing for dropouts assume 85% pts analyzed.||31.98|-17.60|
90952333|NCT00288639|181782136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Response Ratio|-22.24|STANDARD_DEVIATION|68.058||||95.0|-37.8|-6.69|||||Complex Partial Seizures. Response ratio = 100 x \[(t - b)/(t + b)\] where t=treatment seizure frequency and b=baseline seizure frequency.|Noncomparative study. Summary stats, 2 sided 95% CI to est. effect size. No adjustments made to alpha levels to acct for multiple 2o endpts. Sample size=83 patients (pts) sufficient to detect statistically significant difference in % change from baseline in 28-day seizure rate with 80% power, true change from baseline approximately 25%. Allowing for dropouts assume 85% pts analyzed.||-6.69|-37.80|
90952334|NCT00288639|181782136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Response Ratio|-23.85|STANDARD_DEVIATION|84.313||||95.0|-55.33|7.64|||||Evolved to Generalized. Response ratio = 100 x \[(t - b)/(t + b)\] where t=treatment seizure frequency and b=baseline seizure frequency.|Noncomparative study. Summary stats, 2 sided 95% CI to est. effect size. No adjustments made to alpha levels to acct for multiple 2o endpts. Sample size=83 patients (pts) sufficient to detect statistically significant difference in % change from baseline in 28-day seizure rate with 80% power, true change from baseline approximately 25%. Allowing for dropouts assume 85% pts analyzed.||7.64|-55.33|
90952335|NCT00288639|181782140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Response Ratio|-24.93|STANDARD_DEVIATION|60.867||||95.0|-43.66|-6.2|||||Seizure freq. ≤3 / 28 d. Resp. ratio = 100 x \[(t - b)/(t + b)\] where t=treatment seizure frequency and b=baseline seizure frequency.|Noncomparative study. Summary stats, 2 sided 95% CI to est. effect size. No adjustments made to alpha levels to acct for multiple 2o endpts. Sample size=83 patients (pts) sufficient to detect statistically significant difference in % change from baseline in 28-day seizure rate with 80% power, true change from baseline approximately 25%. Allowing for dropouts assume 85% pts analyzed.||-6.20|-43.66|
90952336|NCT00288639|181782140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Response Ratio|-20.78|STANDARD_DEVIATION|50.334||||95.0|-35.24|-6.33|||||Seizure freq. \>3 / 28 d. Resp. ratio = 100 x \[(t - b)/(t + b)\] where t=treatment seizure frequency and b=baseline seizure frequency.|Noncomparative study. Summary stats, 2 sided 95% CI to est. effect size. No adjustments made to alpha levels to acct for multiple 2o endpts. Sample size=83 patients (pts) sufficient to detect statistically significant difference in % change from baseline in 28-day seizure rate with 80% power, true change from baseline approximately 25%. Allowing for dropouts assume 85% pts analyzed.||-6.33|-35.24|
90952337|NCT02683772|181782156|NON_INFERIORITY|The method proposed for this analysis was a one-sided paired t-test using a significance level of 0.05 and a non-inferiority margin of 2 events/hour|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.45|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.23||0.0134|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0134
90952338|NCT01498887|181782161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3118|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3118
90952339|NCT04421950|181782297|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
90952340|NCT04546425|181782308|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC-13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percent Difference :|-13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.3|-8.7|||||2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 1||-8.7|-18.3|
90952341|NCT04546425|181782308|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC-13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percent Difference|-17.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.2|-12.4|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 3||-12.4|-23.2|
90952342|NCT04546425|181782308|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC-13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percent Difference|-11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|-5.9|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 4||-5.9|-16.0|
90952343|NCT04546425|181782308|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC-13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percent Difference|-12.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|-7.2|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 5||-7.2|-17.8|
90985703|NCT01097616|181856717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-7.4||||0.00298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|-2.5||By multiplicity strategy above, overall Type I error among primary hypotheses was controlled at two-sided 5% significance level.|Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model terms: baseline value, age group, region, gender, treatment, time, and time by treatment interaction.||The null hypothesis, that suvorexant HD did not differ from placebo for Month 1 sTSOm, had planned marginal power of 99.9%. Sleep maintenance (sTSTm, WASO) and sleep onset (sTSOm, LPS) endpoints were tested at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Both Month 1 endpoints for sleep maintenance must be significant to test Month 3 endpoints; the same approach was used for sleep onset endpoints.||-2.5|-12.3|0.00298
90985704|NCT01097616|181856718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||[Difference in Least Squares Means|-8.4||||0.00019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|-4.0||By multiplicity strategy above, overall Type I error among primary hypotheses was controlled at two-sided 5% significance level.|Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model terms: baseline value, age group, region, gender, treatment, time, and time by treatment interaction.||The null hypothesis, that suvorexant HD did not differ from placebo for Month 3 sTSOm, had planned marginal power of 99.6%. Sleep maintenance (sTSTm, WASO) and sleep onset (sTSOm, LPS) endpoints were tested at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Both Month 1 endpoints for sleep maintenance must be significant to test Month 3 endpoints; the same approach was used for sleep onset endpoints.||-4.0|-12.8|0.00019
91041132|NCT02854800|181966897|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|If the overall F test was significant, Tukey's Honestly Significant Difference post-hoc tests were performed.||One-way ANOVA was used for each side effect rating with Group as the between-subjects factor. If the overall F test was significant, Tukey's Honestly Significant Difference post-hoc tests were performed.||||<0.05
91041133|NCT02854800|181966898|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|If the overall F test was significant, Tukey's Honestly Significant Difference post-hoc tests were performed.||Data were analyzed via mixed ANOVA whereby Study Visit (1-4) was the repeated-measures factor and Group (weekly, biweekly, monthly) was the between-subjects factor. If the overall F test was significant, Tukey's Honestly Significant Difference post-hoc tests were performed.||||<0.05
91041134|NCT02854800|181966900|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|If the overall F test was significant, Tukey's Honestly Significant Difference post-hoc tests were performed.||Data were analyzed via mixed ANOVA whereby Study Visit (1-4) was the repeated-measures factor and Group (weekly, biweekly, monthly) was the between-subjects factor. If the overall F test was significant, Tukey's Honestly Significant Difference post-hoc tests were performed.||||<0.05
91041135|NCT05109104|181966949|OTHER|The t value from the '2-sided' Student-t distribution table corresponding to the upper 5% point with n-1 degrees of freedom was obtained and the labeled SPF value was determined as the largest whole number less than the following calculation: Labeled SPF = Mean SPF - (t\*SE).|Labeled SPF|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91041136|NCT05109104|181966949|OTHER|The t value from the '2-sided' Student-t distribution table corresponding to the upper 5% point with n-1 degrees of freedom was obtained and the labeled SPF value was determined as the largest whole number less than the following calculation: Labeled SPF = Mean SPF - (t\*SE).|Labeled SPF|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90952344|NCT04546425|181782308|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC-13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percent Difference|-14.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.5|-8.6|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 6A||-8.6|-19.5|
90952345|NCT04546425|181782308|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC-13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percent Difference|-15.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|-10.6|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 6B||-10.6|-21.0|
91041137|NCT05109104|181966949|OTHER|The t value from the '2-sided' Student-t distribution table corresponding to the upper 5% point with n-1 degrees of freedom was obtained and the labeled SPF value was determined as the largest whole number less than the following calculation: Labeled SPF = Mean SPF - (t\*SE).|Labeled SPF|27.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91041138|NCT00834561|181966992|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|104.14||||||90.0|99.99|108.47|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||108.47|99.99|
91041139|NCT00834561|181966993|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|104.07||||||90.0|101.33|106.89|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||106.89|101.33|
91041140|NCT00834561|181966994|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|103.68||||||90.0|101.42|106.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||106.00|101.42|
91041141|NCT00672984|181967000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.43||||||90.0|-4.52|-0.34||||||||-0.34|-4.52|
91041142|NCT00672984|181967000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.87||||||90.0|11.45|16.29||||||||16.29|11.45|
91041143|NCT00672984|181967001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.08||||||90.0|-11.37|-4.78||||||||-4.78|-11.37|
91041144|NCT00672984|181967001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.13||||||90.0|9.33|16.93||||||||16.93|9.33|
91041145|NCT00672984|181967002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.98||||||90.0|-1.07|3.03||||||||3.03|-1.07|
91041146|NCT00672984|181967002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.11||||||90.0|8.97|13.24||||||||13.24|8.97|
91041147|NCT00672984|181967003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.64||||||90.0|-0.99|4.27||||||||4.27|-0.99|
91041148|NCT00672984|181967003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.8||||||90.0|7.63|13.97||||||||13.97|7.63|
91041149|NCT00672984|181967004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.76||||||90.0|-8.01|-5.51||||||||-5.51|-8.01|
91041150|NCT00672984|181967004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.73||||||90.0|3.08|6.38||||||||6.38|3.08|
91041151|NCT00672984|181967005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.85||||||90.0|-21.92|-17.78||||||||-17.78|-21.92|
91041152|NCT00672984|181967005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.44||||||90.0|1.77|5.11||||||||5.11|1.77|
91041153|NCT00672984|181967006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.32||||||90.0|11.75|18.89||||||||18.89|11.75|
90985705|NCT01097616|181856719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-11.2||||2e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|-6.1||By multiplicity strategy above, overall Type I error among primary hypotheses was controlled at two-sided 5% significance level.|Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model terms: baseline value, age group, region, gender, treatment, time, and time by treatment interaction.||The null hypothesis, that suvorexant HD did not differ from placebo for Month 1 LPS, had planned marginal power of 81.4%. Sleep maintenance (sTSTm, WASO) and sleep onset (sTSOm, LPS) endpoints were tested at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Both Month 1 endpoints for sleep maintenance must be significant to test Month 3 endpoints; the same approach was used for sleep onset endpoints.||-6.1|-16.3|0.00002
90985706|NCT01097616|181856720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-9.4||||0.00037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|-4.3||By multiplicity strategy above, overall Type I error among primary hypotheses was controlled at two-sided 5% significance level.|Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model terms: baseline value, age group, region, gender, treatment, time, and time by treatment interaction.||The null hypothesis, that suvorexant HD did not differ from placebo for Month 3 LPS, had planned marginal power of 76.2%. Sleep maintenance (sTSTm, WASO) and sleep onset (sTSOm, LPS) endpoints were tested at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Both Month 1 endpoints for sleep maintenance must be significant to test Month 3 endpoints; the same approach was used for sleep onset endpoints.||-4.3|-14.6|0.00037
90985707|NCT01097616|181856721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|13.6||||7e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|20.3|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model terms: baseline value, age group, region, gender, treatment, time, and time by treatment interaction.||Sleep maintenance and sleep onset endpoints were tested at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Both Month 1 endpoints for sleep maintenance must be significant to test Month 3 endpoints and either the subjective or objective Month 3 endpoint must be significant to test the Week 1/Night 1 endpoints. A sleep maintenance LD endpoint was tested if ≥1 HD Month 3 endpoint for sleep maintenance and corresponding HD endpoint were significant. The same approach was used for sleep onset endpoints.||20.3|6.9|0.00007
90985708|NCT01097616|181856721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|21.4|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.5|27.4|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model terms: baseline value, age group, region, gender, treatment, time, and time by treatment interaction.||The null hypothesis, that suvorexant HD did not differ from placebo for Week 1 sTSTm, had planned marginal power of 98.3%. Sleep maintenance (sTSTm, WASO) and sleep onset (sTSOm, LPS) endpoints were tested at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Both Month 1 endpoints for sleep maintenance must be significant to test Month 3 endpoints and either subjective or objective Month 3 endpoint must be significant to test Week 1/Night 1 endpoints. The same approach was used for sleep onset endpoints.||27.4|15.5|<0.00001
90985709|NCT01097616|181856722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|16.3||||0.00016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.9|24.8|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model terms: baseline value, age group, region, gender, treatment, time, and time by treatment interaction.||Sleep maintenance (sTSTm, WASO) and sleep onset (sTSOm, LPS) endpoints were tested at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Both Month 1 endpoints for sleep maintenance must be significant to test Month 3 endpoints. A sleep maintenance LD endpoint was tested if ≥1 HD Month 3 endpoint for sleep maintenance and corresponding HD endpoint were significant. The same approach was used for sleep onset endpoints.||24.8|7.9|0.00016
90985710|NCT01097616|181856723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|10.7||||0.01711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|19.5|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model terms: baseline value, age group, region, gender, treatment, time, and time by treatment interaction.||Sleep maintenance (sTSTm, WASO) and sleep onset (sTSOm, LPS) endpoints were tested at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Both Month 1 endpoints for sleep maintenance must be significant to test Month 3 endpoints. A sleep maintenance LD endpoint was tested if ≥1 HD Month 3 endpoint for sleep maintenance and corresponding HD endpoint were significant. The same approach was used for sleep onset endpoints.||19.5|1.9|0.01711
90985711|NCT01097616|181856724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-32.5|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.3|-25.7|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model terms: baseline value, age group, region, gender, treatment, time, and time by treatment interaction.||Sleep maintenance and sleep onset endpoints were tested at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Both Month 1 endpoints for sleep maintenance must be significant to test Month 3 endpoints and either the subjective or objective Month 3 endpoint must be significant to test the Week 1/Night 1 endpoints. A sleep maintenance LD endpoint was tested if ≥1 HD Month 3 endpoint for sleep maintenance and corresponding HD endpoint were significant. The same approach was used for sleep onset endpoints.||-25.7|-39.3|<0.00001
90985712|NCT01097616|181856724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-38.4|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.5|-32.3|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model terms: baseline value, age group, region, gender, treatment, time, and time by treatment interaction.||The null hypothesis, that suvorexant HD did not differ from placebo for Night 1 WASO, had planned marginal power of 100.0%. Sleep maintenance (sTSTm, WASO) and sleep onset (sTSOm, LPS) endpoints were tested at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Both Month 1 endpoints for sleep maintenance must be significant to test Month 3 endpoints and either subjective or objective Month 3 endpoint must be significant to test Week 1/Night 1 endpoints. The same approach was used for sleep onset endpoints.||-32.3|-44.5|<0.00001
90985713|NCT01097616|181856725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-26.4|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.3|-18.4|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model terms: baseline value, age group, region, gender, treatment, time, and time by treatment interaction.||Sleep maintenance (sTSTm, WASO) and sleep onset (sTSOm, LPS) endpoints were tested at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Both Month 1 endpoints for sleep maintenance must be significant to test Month 3 endpoints. A sleep maintenance LD endpoint was tested if ≥1 HD Month 3 endpoint for sleep maintenance and corresponding HD endpoint were significant. The same approach was used for sleep onset endpoints.||-18.4|-34.3|<0.00001
90985714|NCT01097616|181856726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-16.6||||9e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.8|-8.3|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model terms: baseline value, age group, region, gender, treatment, time, and time by treatment interaction.||Sleep maintenance (sTSTm, WASO) and sleep onset (sTSOm, LPS) endpoints were tested at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Both Month 1 endpoints for sleep maintenance must be significant to test Month 3 endpoints. A sleep maintenance LD endpoint was tested if ≥1 HD Month 3 endpoint for sleep maintenance and corresponding HD endpoint were significant. The same approach was used for sleep onset endpoints.||-8.3|-24.8|0.00009
91006846|NCT02141854|181898329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|0.183||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.098|0.268||Effects due to baseline trough AM FEV1, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), and treatment.|ANCOVA|||A fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure was used to control the overall Type I error rate at the 0.05 level (2-sided) for the primary endpoints analyses. Analyses appear in the defined sequence. This is the seventh in the sequence.||0.268|0.098|0.0000
91041154|NCT00672984|181967006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.93||||||90.0|-2.77|4.63||||||||4.63|-2.77|
90952346|NCT04546425|181782308|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC-13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percent Difference|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|1.1|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 7F||1.1|-6.3|
90952347|NCT04546425|181782308|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC-13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percent Difference|-14.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|-8.9|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 9V||-8.9|-19.7|
90952348|NCT04546425|181782308|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC-13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percent Difference|-3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|1.4|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 14||1.4|-7.9|
90952349|NCT04546425|181782308|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC-13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percent Difference|-5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|-0.4|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 18C||-0.4|-10.6|
90952350|NCT04546425|181782308|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC-13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percent Difference|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|1.3|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 19A||1.3|-4.8|
90952351|NCT04546425|181782308|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC-13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percent Difference|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|1.2|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 19F||1.2|-4.0|
90952352|NCT04546425|181782308|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC-13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percent Difference|-18.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.6|-12.9|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 23F||-12.9|-23.6|
90952353|NCT04546425|181782308|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 6B (13vPnC serotype with the lowest percentage, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC - lowest 13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percent difference|59.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.6|64.1|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 8||64.1|55.6|
90952354|NCT04546425|181782308|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 6B (13vPnC serotype with the lowest percentage, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC - lowest 13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percent difference|-7.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|-2.1|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Percent difference for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 10A||-2.1|-13.1|
90985715|NCT01097616|181856727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-5.6||||0.01564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|-1.1|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model terms: baseline value, age group, region, gender, treatment, time, and time by treatment interaction.||Sleep maintenance and sleep onset endpoints were tested at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Both Month 1 endpoints for sleep maintenance must be significant to test Month 3 endpoints and either the subjective or objective Month 3 endpoint must be significant to test the Week 1/Night 1 endpoints. A sleep maintenance LD endpoint was tested if ≥1 HD Month 3 endpoint for sleep maintenance and corresponding HD endpoint were significant. The same approach was used for sleep onset endpoints.||-1.1|-10.2|0.01564
90952355|NCT04546425|181782308|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 6B (13vPnC serotype with the lowest percentage, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC - lowest 13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percent difference|57.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.1|61.9|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Percent difference for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 11A||61.9|53.1|
90952356|NCT04546425|181782308|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 6B (13vPnC serotype with the lowest percentage, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC - lowest 13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percent difference|-6.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|-0.7|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Percent difference for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 12F||-0.7|-11.7|
90952357|NCT04546425|181782308|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 6B (13vPnC serotype with the lowest percentage, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC - lowest 13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percent difference|57.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.3|62.1|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Percent difference for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 15B||62.1|53.3|
91041155|NCT00672984|181967007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|49.85||||||90.0|44.71|54.98||||||||54.98|44.71|
91041156|NCT00672984|181967007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.63||||||90.0|-0.41|7.66||||||||7.66|-0.41|
91041157|NCT01597791|181967019|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||Calculated.|Fisher Exact|||||||.05
91041158|NCT00354159|181967020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||6-month survival rate|90.5|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|87.7|||The survival estimate at 6-months post-implant was compared to 80%. The comparison was made using the cumulative hazard \[e.g. log survival estimate\] for the variance.|Survival estimate at 6-months|The survival estimate at 6-months post-implant was compared to 80%.||"Null hypothesis: Freedom from Chronicle system-related complications at 6-months post-implant is less than or equal to 80%.~Alternative hypothesis: Freedom from Chronicle system-related complications at 6-months is greater than 80%."|||87.7|<0.001
91041159|NCT00354159|181967022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.61||The P-value is from the Andersen-Gill model, an extension of the Cox proportional hazards model for multiple events.|Andersen-Gill||Hazard Ratio is for the Treatment Arm relative to the Control Arm.|"The study was originally powered at 80% to detect a 25% risk reduction between the treatment arm and control arm with a type I error rate of 0.05. Under these assumptions 648 HF-related events from approximately 1300 subjects were required. The study stopped after 400 were randomized.~Null Hypothesis: The HF-related event rate is the same between the treatment arm and control arm.~Alternative Hypothesis: The HF-related event rate between the treatment arm and control arm is different."||1.61|0.61|0.978
91041160|NCT00354159|181967023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.574||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Null Hypothesis: mu(Treatment) = mu(Control) Alternative Hypothesis: mu(Treatment) ne mu(Control)~where mu is the percentage of hospitalized days for heart failure."||||0.574
91041161|NCT00354159|181967024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.28||The P-value is from the Andersen-Gill model, an extension of the Cox proportional hazards model for multiple events.|Andersen-Gill Model||Hazard Ratio is for the Treatment Arm relative to the Control Arm.|"Null Hypothesis: The CV-related event rate is the same between the treatment arm and control arm.~Alternative Hypothesis: The CV-related event rate between the treatment arm and control arm is different."||1.28|0.62|0.527
91041162|NCT00354159|181967025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.32|||Regression, Cox|The treatment and control hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval was estimated using a univariate cox Regression Model.|Hazard Ratio is for the Treatment Arm relative to the Control Arm|"Null Hypothesis: Freedom from death or HF-related hospitalization is the same between the treatment arm and the control arm.~Alternative Hypothesis: Freedom from death or HF-related hospitalization is different between the treatment arm and the control arm."||1.32|0.57|0.505
91041163|NCT00354159|181967026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.04|||Andersen-Gill Model|The P-value is from the Andersen-Gill model, an extension of the Cox proportional hazards model for multiple events.|Hazard Ratio is for the Treatment Arm relative to the Control Arm.|"Null Hypothesis: The all cause event rate is the same between the treatment arm and control arm.~Alternative Hypothesis: The all cause event rate between the treatment arm and control arm is different."||1.04|0.56|0.088
91041164|NCT00354159|181967027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.54||P-value is from a proportional odds model comparing the distribution of composite endpoint response between the treatment arm and control arm.|Proportional odds model||Odds ratio represents the odds of improved score in the treatment group relative to the control group.|"Null Hypothesis: Distribution of composite response endpoint is the same between the treatment arm and the control arm.~Alternative Hypothesis: Distribution of composite response endpoint is different between the treatment arm and the control arm."||1.54|0.73|0.758
91041165|NCT00354159|181967030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|2.06|||Regression, Cox|The treatment to control hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval was estimated using a univariate Cox Regression Model|Hazard ratio estimates the hazard of death in the treatment group relative to the control group.|"Null hypothesis: Survival during the 12-month randomized follow-up period is the same between the treatment and control groups.~Alternative hypothesis: Survival during the 12-month randomized period is different between the treatment and control groups."||2.06|0.29|0.599
91041166|NCT00354159|181967031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.145||95.0|||||Negative-Binomial Regression|||The null hypothesis is that the rate of cardiovascular medication changes is the same between the Treatment Arm and Control Arm.||||0.145
91041167|NCT00354159|181967032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Null hypothesis: Average daily median ePAD is the same between the Treatment and Control arms.~Alternative hypothesis: Average daily median ePAD is the different between the Treatment and Control arms."||||0.033
91041168|NCT00354159|181967033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Null Hypothesis: The average daily median ePAD is not different among Control Arm subjects that have and that do not have a heart failure related event during the 12-month follow-up period.~Alternative Hypothesis: The average daily median ePAD is different among Control Arm subjects that have and that do not have a heart failure related event during the 12-month follow-up period."||||0.002
91041169|NCT00354159|181967034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.96|||Proportional odds regression model||Direction for odds ratio is the odds of improvement in the Treatment arm versus the odds of improvement in the Control arm.|"Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in the change in NYHA functional class between the Treatment and Control Arms.~Alternative Hypothesis: There is a difference in the change in NYHA functional class between the Treatment and Control Arms."||1.96|0.82|0.292
91041170|NCT00354159|181967035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.996||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Null Hypothesis: The change in 6-minute hall walk distance is not different between the Treatment and Control Arms.~Alternative Hypothesis: The change in 6-minute hall walk distance is different between the Treatment and Control Arms."||||0.996
91041171|NCT00354159|181967036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.154||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Null Hypothesis: The change from baseline to the 12-month follow-up visit in eGFR values is the same between the Treatment arm and Control arm.~Alternative Hypothesis: The change from baseline to the 12-month follow-up visit in eGFR values is different between the Treatment arm and Control arm."||||0.154
91041172|NCT00354159|181967039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.583||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Response was change in MNLWHF score from baseline. Model adjusted for baseline MNLWHF score. Negative changes mean an improvement in MNLWHF score.||"Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in the change in MNLWHF score from baseline to 12-months between the Treatment Arm and Control Arm.~Alternative Hypothesis: There is a difference in the change in MNLWHF score from baseline to 12-months between the Treatment Arm and Control Arm."||||0.583
91041173|NCT00354159|181967040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.48||||0.368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|3.5||The P-value is from the Andersen-Gill model which adjusts for multiple VT/VF episodes per subject.|Andersen-Gill Model|Andersen-Gill model included a term for Treatment Arm. This model adjusts for multiple events per subject.||"Null Hypothesis: Rate of VT/VF episodes during the 12-month randomized period is the same between the Treatment Arm and the Control Arm.~Alternative Hypothesis: Rate of VT/VF episodes during the 12-month randomized period is different between the Treatment Arm and the Control Arm."||3.5|0.63|0.368
91041174|NCT01328782|181967074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.4||||0.074||95.0|1.4|2.94|||ANOVA|||||2.94|1.40|0.074
91041175|NCT01328782|181967074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.556||||0.556||95.0|-1.12|2.08|||ANOVA|||||2.08|-1.12|0.556
91041176|NCT01328782|181967074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.93||||0.244||95.0|-0.64|2.49|||ANOVA|||||2.49|-0.64|0.244
91041177|NCT01328782|181967075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.81||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|3.25|||ANOVA|||||3.25|0.38|0.014
91041178|NCT01328782|181967075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.16||||0.832||95.0|-1.3|1.61|||ANOVA|||||1.61|-1.30|0.832
91041179|NCT01328782|181967075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.66||||0.027||95.0|0.2|3.12|||ANOVA|||||3.12|0.20|0.027
91041180|NCT01328782|181967076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.005
91041181|NCT01328782|181967076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3767||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.3767
91041182|NCT01328782|181967076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.039||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.039
91041183|NCT01328782|181967077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.042||||0.008||95.0|0.008|0.076|||ANOVA|||||0.076|0.008|0.008
91041184|NCT01328782|181967077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.031||||0.078||95.0|-0.004|0.066|||ANOVA|||||0.066|-0.004|0.078
91041185|NCT01328782|181967077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.011||||0.5321||95.0|-0.024|0.045|||ANOVA|||||0.045|-0.024|0.5321
91041186|NCT01328782|181967078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.004
91041187|NCT01328782|181967078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.004
91041188|NCT01328782|181967078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.499||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.499
91041189|NCT04610580|181967098|OTHER||Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio (%)|95.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.1|110.0||||||The formulation impact (12 × 1.25 mg EC mini-tablet versus 1 × 15 mg EC tablet) on plasma total Mo PK parameters was assessed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) statistical model with dosing period, treatment, and treatment sequence as the fixed effects and the participant (sequence) as a random effect, using the natural logarithms of the data.||110.0|82.1|
91041190|NCT04610580|181967099|OTHER||Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio (%)|96.243|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.384|107.227||||||The formulation impact (12 × 1.25 mg EC mini-tablet versus 1 × 15 mg EC tablet) on plasma total Mo PK parameters was assessed using ANOVA statistical model with dosing period, treatment, and treatment sequence as the fixed effects and the participant (sequence) as a random effect, using the natural logarithms of the data.||107.227|86.384|
91041191|NCT04610580|181967100|OTHER||Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio (%)|94.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.6|110.5||||||The formulation impact (12 × 1.25 mg EC mini-tablet versus 1 × 15 mg EC tablet) on plasma total Mo PK parameters was assessed using ANOVA statistical model with dosing period, treatment, and treatment sequence as the fixed effects and the participant (sequence) as a random effect, using the natural logarithms of the data.||110.5|81.6|
91041192|NCT04610580|181967101|OTHER||Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio (%)|101.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.6|145.1||||||The formulation impact (12 × 1.25 mg EC mini-tablet versus 1 × 15 mg EC tablet) on plasma total Mo PK parameters was assessed using ANOVA statistical model with dosing period, treatment, and treatment sequence as the fixed effects and the participant (sequence) as a random effect, using the natural logarithms of the data.||145.1|70.6|
91041193|NCT04610580|181967102|OTHER||Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio (%)|99.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.3|109.9||||||The formulation impact (12 × 1.25 mg EC mini-tablet versus 1 × 15 mg EC tablet) on plasma total Mo PK parameters was assessed using ANOVA statistical model with dosing period, treatment, and treatment sequence as the fixed effects and the participant (sequence) as a random effect, using the natural logarithms of the data.||109.9|89.3|
91041194|NCT01451541|181967111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means with adjusted pvalues|0.59|||<|0.05||||||Multiple comparisons were adjusted for the primary and key secondary endpoints|Bonferroni-based gatekeeping method|Bonferroni-based gatekeeping method was used for multiple comparison adjustment.||Using an estimate of the standard deviation of 2.2 for the change from baseline in daily average subject-reported AM and PM rTNSS averaged over the first 6 weeks of double-blind treatment, 284 subjects per treatment group would have provided 90% power to detect a mean difference between treatment groups of 0.6 in the change from baseline with a 2-sided significance level of 0.05. Approx. 852 subjects were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio (ie, approximately 284 subjects per treatment group).||||<0.05
91041195|NCT01451541|181967111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means with adjusted p-values.|0.47|||<|0.05||||||Multiple comparisons were adjusted for the primary and key secondary endpoints|Bonferroni-based gatekeeping method|Bonferroni-based gatekeeping method was used for multiple comparison adjustment.||Using an estimate of the standard deviation of 2.2 for the change from baseline in daily average subject-reported AM and PM rTNSS averaged over the first 6 weeks of double-blind treatment, 284 subjects per treatment group would have provided 90% power to detect a mean difference between treatment groups of 0.6 in the change from baseline with a 2-sided significance level of 0.05. Approx. 852 subjects were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio (ie, approximately 284 subjects per treatment group).||||<0.05
91041196|NCT00006436|181967141|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Two-tailed log rank test||||Compared the PFS of interim PET positive participants to the PFS of interim PET negative.|||0.10
91041197|NCT03555695|181967208|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.12
91041198|NCT01942135|181967227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.422|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.318|0.56||The overall Type-I error rate was persevered at 1-sided 0.025 level for the analysis of the primary endpoint PFS by the Haybittle-Peto efficacy boundary. The priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.00135.|Stratified Log Rank Test (1-sided)|The log rank test stratified by sensitivity to prior hormonal therapy and the presence of visceral metastases based on the randomization information.|Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of the palbociclib plus fulvestrant arm.|The primary hypothesis to be tested was H0: λ≥1 versus. HA: λ\<1, where λ was the palbociclib plus fulvestrant: placebo plus fulvestrant hazard ratio (HR). A HR less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Palbociclib + Fulvestrant. The study was planned to have 90% power and control the type-I error rate at 0.025.||0.560|0.318|<0.000001
91041199|NCT01942135|181967229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.814|||=|0.0429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.644|1.029||1-sided p-value from the log-rank test stratified by the presence of visceral metastases and sensitivity to prior endocrine therapy per randomization.|Stratified Log Rank Test (1-sided)|The log rank test stratified by sensitivity to prior hormonal therapy and the presence of visceral metastases based on the randomization information.|Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of palbociclib plus fulvestrant.|The primary hypothesis to be tested was H0: λ≥1 versus. HA: λ\<1, where λ was the palbociclib plus fulvestrant: placebo plus fulvestrant hazard ratio (HR). A HR less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Palbociclib + Fulvestrant. The study was planned to have 90% power and control the type-I error rate at 0.025.||1.029|0.644|=0.0429
91041200|NCT01942135|181967231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.783||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.563|5.603||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The priori threshold for statistical significance is 1-sided, alpha=0.025.|Exact test (1-sided)|The 1-sided p-value is from the stratified exact test.|An Odds Ratio \>1 means better response in favor of the palbociclib plus fulvestrant arm.|The exact test is testing the null hypothesis that the odds ratio of objective response rate is less than or equal to 1 vs. the alternative hypothesis that the odds ratio of objective response rate is greater than 1. An Odds Ratio \>1 means better response in favor of palbociclib plus fulvestrant arm.||5.603|1.563|0.0001
91041201|NCT01942135|181967233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.016|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.046|4.565||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The priori threshold for statistical significance is 1-sided, alpha=0.025.|Exact test (1-sided)|The 1-sided p-value is from the stratified exact test.|An odds ratio \> 1 means better clinical benefit response in favor of palbociclib plus fulvestrant arm.|The exact test is testing the null hypothesis that the odds ratio of objective response rate is less than or equal to 1 vs. the alternative hypothesis that the odds ratio of objective response rate is greater than 1. An Odds Ratio \>1 means better response in favor of palbociclib plus fulvestrant arm.||4.565|2.046|<0.0001
91041202|NCT01942135|181967237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.1||||0.0313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|6.0||The priori threshold for statistical significance is 2-sided alpha=0.05. The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model Analysis (2-sided)|Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||Statistical significance for palbociclib plus fulvestrant vs placebo plus fulvestrant for Global health status/ QoL||6.0|0.3|0.0313
91041203|NCT01942135|181967237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|3.5||The priori threshold for statistical significance is 2-sided alpha=0.05. The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model Analysis (2-sided)|Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||Statistical significance for palbociclib plus fulvestrant vs placebo plus fulvestrant for physical functioning||3.5|-1.4|0.4000
91041204|NCT01942135|181967237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9||||0.2615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|5.3||The priori threshold for statistical significance is 2-sided alpha=0.05. The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model Analysis (2-sided)|Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||Statistical significance for palbociclib plus fulvestrant vs placebo plus fulvestrant for role functioning||5.3|-1.5|0.2615
91041205|NCT01942135|181967237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.6||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|7.4||The priori threshold for statistical significance is 2-sided alpha=0.05. The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model Analysis (2-sided)|Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||Statistical significance for palbociclib plus fulvestrant vs placebo plus fulvestrant for emotional functioning||7.4|1.7|0.0016
90985716|NCT01097616|181856727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-5.7||||0.00609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|-1.6|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model terms: baseline value, age group, region, gender, treatment, time, and time by treatment interaction.||The null hypothesis, that suvorexant HD did not differ from placebo for Week 1 sTSOm, had planned marginal power of 99.6%. Sleep maintenance (sTSTm, WASO) and sleep onset (sTSOm, LPS) endpoints were tested at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Both Month 1 endpoints for sleep maintenance must be significant to test Month 3 endpoints and either subjective or objective Month 3 endpoint must be significant to test Week 1/Night 1 endpoints. The same approach was used for sleep onset endpoints.||-1.6|-9.7|0.00609
90985717|NCT01097616|181856728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-5.4||||0.05191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|0.0|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model terms: baseline value, age group, region, gender, treatment, time, and time by treatment interaction.||Sleep maintenance (sTSTm, WASO) and sleep onset (sTSOm, LPS) endpoints were tested at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Both Month 1 endpoints for sleep maintenance must be significant to test Month 3 endpoints. A sleep maintenance LD endpoint was tested if ≥1 HD Month 3 endpoint for sleep maintenance and corresponding HD endpoint were significant. The same approach was used for sleep onset endpoints.||0.0|-10.9|0.05191
90985718|NCT01097616|181856729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-5.2||||0.03771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|-0.3|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model terms: baseline value, age group, region, gender, treatment, time, and time by treatment interaction.||Sleep maintenance (sTSTm, WASO) and sleep onset (sTSOm, LPS) endpoints were tested at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Both Month 1 endpoints for sleep maintenance must be significant to test Month 3 endpoints. A sleep maintenance LD endpoint was tested if ≥1 HD Month 3 endpoint for sleep maintenance and corresponding HD endpoint were significant. The same approach was used for sleep onset endpoints.||-0.3|-10.2|0.03771
90985719|NCT01097616|181856732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-9.6||||0.00041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|-4.3|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model terms: baseline value, age group, region, gender, treatment, time, and time by treatment interaction.||Sleep maintenance and sleep onset endpoints were tested at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Both Month 1 endpoints for sleep maintenance must be significant to test Month 3 endpoints and either the subjective or objective Month 3 endpoint must be significant to test the Week 1/Night 1 endpoints. A sleep maintenance LD endpoint was tested if ≥1 HD Month 3 endpoint for sleep maintenance and corresponding HD endpoint were significant. The same approach was used for sleep onset endpoints.||-4.3|-14.9|0.00041
90985720|NCT01097616|181856732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-10.3||||2e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|-5.5|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model terms: baseline value, age group, region, gender, treatment, time, and time by treatment interaction.||The null hypothesis, that suvorexant HD did not differ from placebo for Night 1 LPS, had planned marginal power of 100.0%. Sleep maintenance (sTSTm, WASO) and sleep onset (sTSOm, LPS) endpoints were tested at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Both Month 1 endpoints for sleep maintenance must be significant to test Month 3 endpoints and either subjective or objective Month 3 endpoint must be significant to test Week 1/Night 1 endpoints. The same approach was used for sleep onset endpoints.||-5.5|-15.0|0.00002
90985721|NCT01097616|181856733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-10.3||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|-4.6|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model terms: baseline value, age group, region, gender, treatment, time, and time by treatment interaction.||Sleep maintenance (sTSTm, WASO) and sleep onset (sTSOm, LPS) endpoints were tested at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Both Month 1 endpoints for sleep maintenance must be significant to test Month 3 endpoints. A sleep maintenance LD endpoint was tested if ≥1 HD Month 3 endpoint for sleep maintenance and corresponding HD endpoint were significant. The same approach was used for sleep onset endpoints.||-4.6|-16.0|0.00040
90985722|NCT01097616|181856734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-8.1||||0.00606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|-2.3|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model terms: baseline value, age group, region, gender, treatment, time, and time by treatment interaction.||Sleep maintenance (sTSTm, WASO) and sleep onset (sTSOm, LPS) endpoints were tested at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Both Month 1 endpoints for sleep maintenance must be significant to test Month 3 endpoints. A sleep maintenance LD endpoint was tested if ≥1 HD Month 3 endpoint for sleep maintenance and corresponding HD endpoint were significant. The same approach was used for sleep onset endpoints.||-2.3|-13.8|0.00606
90985723|NCT02927171|181856751|OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.17
90985724|NCT01703819|181856783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7726||||||Threshold less than or equal to 0.05. The final analysis demonstrated reasonable doubt of the implicit normality assumption of the two sets of AUC data, thus medians presented for efficacy analysis. Need for further investigation (ex-post analyses).|ANCOVA|||The null-hypotheses of no treatment differences were tested by the two-sided t-tests from the respective ANCOVAs.||||0.7726
90985725|NCT01703819|181856784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5702||||||Threshold less than or equal to 0.05. The final analysis demonstrated reasonable doubt of the implicit normality assumption of the two sets of AUC data, thus medians presented for efficacy analysis. Need for further investigation (ex-post analyses).|ANCOVA|||The null-hypotheses of no treatment differences were tested by the two-sided t-tests from the respective ANCOV As.||||0.5702
90985726|NCT03503773|181856985|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.2682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|1.7|||ANCOVA||There was no formal hypothesis testing conducted in the study. 95% CIs are intended to be descriptive in nature only|The null hypothesis to be tested is that there is no difference in the change in 24 hour mean SBP between treatment and sham control. The Type I error rate for rejecting the null hypothesis will be set at an alpha level of 0.05.||1.7|-4.8|0.2682
90985727|NCT03503773|181856986|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6964|||||||ANCOVA|||Difference between treatment arms||||0.6964
90985728|NCT03503773|181856987|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0775|||||||ANCOVA|||Between group difference||||0.0775
90985729|NCT03503773|181856989|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4734|||||||ANCOVA|||Between group difference||||0.4734
90985730|NCT03503773|181856991|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0341|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0341
90985731|NCT03503773|181856993|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.029||||0.573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.132|0.073|||Fisher Exact|||||0.073|-0.132|0.573
90985732|NCT02285010|181857013|NON_INFERIORITY|Definition: 50% reduction of morphine consumption Type I error (alpha) 0.05, Type II error (beta) 80%||||||0.6|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.60
90985733|NCT02285010|181857014|NON_INFERIORITY|Alpha 0.05, Beta 80%||||||0.1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.10
90985734|NCT02285010|181857015|NON_INFERIORITY|alpha 0.05, beta 80%||||||0.33|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||for NRS at rest||||0.33
90985735|NCT02285010|181857015|NON_INFERIORITY|alpha 0.05, beta 80%||||||0.75|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||for NRS at movement||||0.75
90985736|NCT02285010|181857016|NON_INFERIORITY|alpha 0.05, beta 80%||||||0.16|||||||Chi-squared|||For pruritus||||0.16
90985737|NCT02285010|181857016|NON_INFERIORITY|Alpha 0.05, beta 80%||||||0.66|||||||Chi-squared|||For Nausea||||0.66
90985738|NCT02285010|181857016|NON_INFERIORITY|alpha 0.05, beta 80%||||||0.46|||||||Chi-squared|||For Vomiting||||0.46
90985739|NCT02285010|181857016|NON_INFERIORITY|Alpha 0.05, beta 80%||||||0.54|||||||Chi-squared|||For Dizziness||||0.54
90985740|NCT02285010|181857016|NON_INFERIORITY|Alpha 0.05, beta 80%||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||For visual disturbance||||0.05
90985741|NCT02285010|181857017|NON_INFERIORITY|Alpha 0.05, beta 80%||||||0.05||||||P-Value 0.05 was calculated.|Chi-squared|||||||0.05
90985742|NCT00477451|181857047|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.200
90985743|NCT00477451|181857048|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.368|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.368
90985744|NCT00477451|181857049|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.207|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.207
90985745|NCT01832961|181857072|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Friedman's Test|Friedman's test followed by Dunn's multiple comparison||The statistical analysis compared the results: immediately after to baseline values, after 20 minutes of rest to baseline values and after 20 minutes of rest to values immediately after using Friedman's Test followed by Dunn's multiple comparison test|The effect of size used to calculate responsiveness and classified as small (0.2), moderate (0.5) and large (0.8).|||<0.05
90985746|NCT01832961|181857073|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Friedman's Test|||The statistical analysis compared the results: immediately after to baseline values, after 20 minutes of rest to baseline values and after 20 minutes of rest to values immediately after using Friedman's Test followed by Dunn's multiple comparison test|The effect size was used to calculate responsiveness and classifed as small (0.2), moderate (0.5) and large (0.8)|||<0.05
90985747|NCT01832961|181857074|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Friedman's Test|||The statistical analysis compared the results: immediately after to baseline values, after 20 minutes of rest to baseline values and after 20 minutes of rest to values immediately after using Friedman's Test followed by Dunn's multiple comparison test|The effect size was used to calculate responsiveness and classifed as small (0.2), moderate (0.5) and large (0.8)|||<0.05
90985748|NCT01832961|181857075|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||T-test|T-test was used to comparisons before and after FeNO results||||||<0.05
90985749|NCT01832961|181857076|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||T-test|||||||<0.05
90985750|NCT03245814|181857080|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.42|||Ordinal cumulative probability model|Covariates included baseline score \& demographic/clinical characteristics. Multiple imputation was used to account for uncertainty (missingness).||||0.42|0.12|<.001
90985751|NCT03245814|181857081|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.4|||Ordinal cumulative probability model|Covariates included baseline scores \& demographic/clinical characteristics. Multiple imputation was used to account for uncertainty (missingness).||||0.40|0.11|<.001
90985752|NCT03245814|181857082|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.45||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.86|||Ordinal cumulative probability model|Covariates included baseline scores \& demographic/clinical characteristics. Multiple imputation was used to account for uncertainty (missingness).||||0.86|0.23|.02
90985753|NCT03245814|181857083|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.5|||Ordinal cumulative probability model|Covariates included baseline scores \& demographic/clinical characteristics. Multiple imputation was used to account for uncertainty (missingness).||||0.50|0.13|<.001
90985754|NCT03245814|181857084|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.34||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.64|||Ordinal cumulative probability model|Covariates included baseline scores \& demographic/clinical characteristics. Multiple imputation was used to account for uncertainty (missingness).||||0.64|0.18|.001
90985755|NCT03245814|181857085|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.83||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|5.45|||Ordinal cumulative probability model|Covariates included baseline scores \& demographic/clinical characteristics. Multiple imputation was used to account for uncertainty (missingness).||||5.45|1.47|.003
90985756|NCT03245814|181857086|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.48|||Ordinal cumulative probability model|Covariates included baseline scores \& demographic/clinical characteristics. Multiple imputation was used to account for uncertainty (missingness).||||0.48|0.12|<.001
90985757|NCT03245814|181857087|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|7.38|||Ordinal cumulative probability model|Covariates included baseline scores \& demographic/clinical characteristics. Multiple imputation was used to account for uncertainty (missingness).||||7.38|2.00|<.001
90985758|NCT03245814|181857088|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.28|8.83|||Ordinal cumulative probability model|Covariates included baseline scores \& demographic/clinical characteristics. Multiple imputation was used to account for uncertainty (missingness).||||8.83|2.28|<.001
90985759|NCT03245814|181857089|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.88|7.4|||Ordinal cumulative probability model|Covariates included baseline scores \& demographic/clinical characteristics. Multiple imputation was used to account for uncertainty (missingness).||||7.40|1.88|<.001
90985760|NCT03245814|181857090|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.33||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|4.47|||Ordinal cumulative probability model|Covariates included baseline scores \& demographic/clinical characteristics. Multiple imputation was used to account for uncertainty (missingness).||||4.47|1.22|.02
90985761|NCT03245814|181857091|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.39||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.75|||Ordinal cumulative probability model|Covariates included baseline scores \& demographic/clinical characteristics. Multiple imputation was used to account for uncertainty (missingness).||||0.75|0.20|.009
90985762|NCT03245814|181857092|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects regression models to account for repeated measures (multiple assessments per day) within individuals.||||||0.002
90985763|NCT01164501|181857118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.39||Hierarchical testing to adjust for multiple comparisons, no adjustment in p-values. Empa 25 mg versus placebo in mild or moderate renal impaired patients was the first step in the hierarchical sequence.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, background antidiabetic medication, renal impairment and baseline HbA1c.|Difference calculated as empa 25mg minus placebo|||-0.39|-0.62|<0.0001
90985764|NCT01164501|181857119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.32||Hierarchical testing to adjust for multiple comparisons, no adjustment in p-values. Empa 25 mg versus placebo in mild renal impaired patients was the second step in the hierarchical sequence.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, background antidiabetic medication and baseline HbA1c.|Difference calculated as empa 10mg minus placebo|||-0.32|-0.72|<0.0001
90985765|NCT01164501|181857119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.49||Hierarchical testing to adjust for multiple comparisons, no adjustment in p-values. Empa 10 mg versus placebo in mild renal impaired patients was the third step in the hierarchical sequence.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, background antidiabetic medication and baseline HbA1c.|Difference calculated as empa 25mg minus placebo|||-0.49|-0.88|<0.0001
90985766|NCT01164501|181857120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.28||Hierarchical testing to adjust for multiple comparisons, no adjustment in p-values. Empa 10 mg versus placebo in moderate renal impaired patients was the fourth step in the hierarchical sequence.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, background antidiabetic medication and baseline HbA1c.|Difference calculated as empa 25mg minus placebo|||-0.28|-0.56|<0.0001
90985767|NCT01096667|181857123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.97||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.05|-0.89||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.89|-5.05|0.034
90985768|NCT01096667|181857123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-4.0||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.17|-1.82||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||||-1.82|-6.17|0.010
90985769|NCT01096667|181857123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-3.69||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.78|-1.6||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||||-1.60|-5.78|0.012
90985770|NCT01096667|181857123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-3.21||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.3|-1.13||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||||-1.13|-5.30|0.024
90985771|NCT01096667|181857125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-3.7||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.94|-1.46||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||||-1.46|-5.94|0.018
90985772|NCT01096667|181857125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-4.43||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.78|-2.09||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||||-2.09|-6.78|0.008
90985773|NCT01096667|181857125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-4.99||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-7.24|-2.74||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||||-2.74|-7.24|0.002
90985774|NCT01096667|181857125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-3.92||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.16|-1.67||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||||-1.67|-6.16|0.013
90985775|NCT01096667|181857126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.19||||0.152|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.93|0.54||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||||0.54|-4.93|0.152
90985776|NCT01096667|181857126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-3.18||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.06|-0.3||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.30|-6.06|0.078
90985777|NCT01096667|181857126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.02||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.79|0.74||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||||0.74|-4.79|0.174
90985778|NCT01096667|181857126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.01||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.77|0.74||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||||0.74|-4.77|0.174
90985779|NCT01096667|181857128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-4.01||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-7.09|-0.94||P-value is one-sided.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|With terms for treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, participant as random effect and baseline as the covariate.||||-0.94|-7.09|0.047
90985780|NCT01096667|181857128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-7.16||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-10.25|-4.07||P-value is one-sided.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|With terms for treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, participant as random effect and baseline as the covariate.||||-4.07|-10.25|0.002
90985781|NCT01096667|181857128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-6.2||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-9.28|-3.11||P-value is one-sided.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|With terms for treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, participant as random effect and baseline as the covariate.||||-3.11|-9.28|0.005
90985782|NCT01096667|181857128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-4.37||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-7.41|-1.33||P-value is one-sided.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|With terms for treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, participant as random effect and baseline as the covariate.||||-1.33|-7.41|0.033
90985783|NCT01096667|181857130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.66||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.03|-1.29||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate. p-value is one-sided.||||-1.29|-4.03|0.007
90985784|NCT01096667|181857130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-3.11||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.55|-1.67||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate. p-value is one-sided.||||-1.67|-4.55|0.003
90985785|NCT01096667|181857130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.27||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.65|-0.88||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate. p-value is one-sided.||||-0.88|-3.65|0.018
90985786|NCT01096667|181857130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.19||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.56|-0.82||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate. p-value is one-sided.||||-0.82|-3.56|0.021
90985787|NCT01096667|181857131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.99||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.43|-1.55||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate. p-value is one-sided.||||-1.55|-4.43|0.004
90985788|NCT01096667|181857131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.75||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.26|-1.24||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate. p-value is one-sided.||||-1.24|-4.26|0.010
90985789|NCT01096667|181857131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.64||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.09|-1.19||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate. p-value is one-sided.||||-1.19|-4.09|0.010
90985790|NCT01096667|181857131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.57||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.0|-1.13||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate. p-value is one-sided.||||-1.13|-4.00|0.011
90985791|NCT01096667|181857132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.5||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.43|-0.57||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.57|-4.43|0.048
90985792|NCT01096667|181857132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-3.54||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.58|-1.51||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||||-1.51|-5.58|0.013
90985793|NCT01096667|181857132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.88||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.82|0.09||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||||0.09|-3.82|0.111
90985794|NCT01096667|181857132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.58||||0.148|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.51|0.36||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||||0.36|-3.51|0.148
90985795|NCT01096667|181857134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.2||||0.196|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.01|0.6||P-value is one-sided.|Mixed Measures Repeated Model|With terms for treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, participant as random effect and baseline as the covariate.||||0.60|-3.01|0.196
90985796|NCT01096667|181857134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.05||||0.229|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.86|0.77||P-value is one-sided.|Mixed Measures Repeated Model|With terms for treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, participant as random effect and baseline as the covariate.||||0.77|-2.86|0.229
90985797|NCT01096667|181857134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-3.02||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.83|-1.2||P-value is one-sided.|Mixed Measures Repeated Model|With terms for treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, participant as random effect and baseline as the covariate.||||-1.20|-4.83|0.017
90985798|NCT01096667|181857134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.84||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.63|-1.06||P-value is one-sided.|Mixed Measures Repeated Model|With terms for treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, participant as random effect and baseline as the covariate.||||-1.06|-4.63|0.021
90985799|NCT01096667|181857136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.22||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.83|-0.61||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.61|-3.83|0.039
90985800|NCT01096667|181857136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|0.07||||0.521|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.63|1.77||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||||1.77|-1.63|0.521
90985801|NCT01096667|181857136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.39||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.02|-0.75||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.75|-4.02|0.031
90985802|NCT01096667|181857136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.56||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.19|0.07||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||||0.07|-3.19|0.110
90985803|NCT01096667|181857137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-3.38||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.13|-1.63||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||||-1.63|-5.13|0.007
90985804|NCT01096667|181857137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.48||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.33|1.38||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||||1.38|-2.33|0.370
90985805|NCT01096667|181857137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.65||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.43|-0.87||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.87|-4.43|0.029
90985806|NCT01096667|181857137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.64||||0.118|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.42|0.13||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||||0.13|-3.42|0.118
90985807|NCT01096667|181857138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|0.02||||0.506|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.96|2.0||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||||2.00|-1.96|0.506
90985808|NCT01096667|181857138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|1.61||||0.838|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.49|3.71||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||||3.71|-0.49|0.838
90985809|NCT01096667|181857138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.82||||0.123|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.82|0.19||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||||0.19|-3.82|0.123
90985810|NCT01096667|181857138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.07||||0.246|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.06|0.93||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||||0.93|-3.06|0.246
90985811|NCT01096667|181857140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-4.2||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.3|-2.1||P-value is one-sided.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|With terms for treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, participant as random effect and baseline as the covariate.||||-2.10|-6.30|0.005
90985812|NCT01096667|181857140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.12||||0.248|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.23|0.99||P-value is one-sided.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|With terms for treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, participant as random effect and baseline as the covariate.||||0.99|-3.23|0.248
90985813|NCT01096667|181857140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-3.84||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.95|-1.73||P-value is one-sided.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|With terms for treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, participant as random effect and baseline as the covariate.||||-1.73|-5.95|0.010
90985814|NCT01096667|181857140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-3.33||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.4|-1.25||P-value is one-sided.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|With terms for treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, participant as random effect and baseline as the covariate.||||-1.25|-5.40|0.020
90985815|NCT01096667|181857142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|42.18||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|31.42|52.94||P-value is one-sided. P-value rounded to thousandths.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||||52.94|31.42|0.000
90985816|NCT01096667|181857142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|60.39||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|49.47|71.31||P-value is one-sided. P-value rounded to thousandths.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||||71.31|49.47|0.000
90985817|NCT01096667|181857142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|70.34||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|59.58|81.1||P-value is one-sided. P-value rounded to thousandths.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||||81.10|59.58|0.000
90985818|NCT01096667|181857142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-4.63||||0.713|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-15.22|5.96||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||||5.96|-15.22|0.713
90985819|NCT01096667|181857144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-18.1||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-27.45|-8.75||P-value is one-sided.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|With treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, participant as random effect and baseline FPG as the covariate.||||-8.75|-27.45|0.007
91041206|NCT01942135|181967237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2||||0.365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|3.8||The priori threshold for statistical significance is 2-sided alpha=0.05. The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model Analysis (2-sided)|Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||Statistical significance for palbociclib plus fulvestrant vs placebo plus fulvestrant for cognitive functioning||3.8|-1.4|0.3650
91041207|NCT01942135|181967237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.9615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|3.5||The priori threshold for statistical significance is 2-sided alpha=0.05. The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model Analysis (2-sided)|Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||Statistical significance for palbociclib plus fulvestrant vs placebo plus fulvestrant for social functioning||3.5|-3.4|0.9615
91041208|NCT01942135|181967238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|1.5||The priori threshold for statistical significance is 2-sided alpha=0.05. The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model Analysis (2-sided)|Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||Statistical significance for palbociclib plus fulvestrant vs placebo plus fulvestrant for fatigue||1.5|-4.5|0.3200
91041209|NCT01942135|181967238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5||||0.0369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|-0.2||The priori threshold for statistical significance is 2-sided alpha=0.05. The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model Analysis (2-sided)|Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||Statistical significance for palbociclib plus fulvestrant vs placebo plus fulvestrant for nausea and vomiting||-0.2|-4.8|0.0369
91041210|NCT01942135|181967238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.3||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|-2.1||The priori threshold for statistical significance is 2-sided alpha=0.05. The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model Analysis (2-sided)|Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||Statistical significance for palbociclib plus fulvestrant vs placebo plus fulvestrant for pain||-2.1|-8.5|0.0011
91041211|NCT01942135|181967238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.7699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|2.8||The priori threshold for statistical significance is 2-sided alpha=0.05. The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model Analysis (2-sided)|Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||Statistical significance for palbociclib plus fulvestrant vs placebo plus fulvestrant for dyspnoea||2.8|-3.7|0.7699
91041212|NCT01942135|181967238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.2721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|1.6||The priori threshold for statistical significance is 2-sided alpha=0.05. The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model Analysis (2-sided)|Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||Statistical significance for palbociclib plus fulvestrant vs placebo plus fulvestrant for insomnia||1.6|-5.5|0.2721
90985820|NCT01096667|181857144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-34.81||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-44.19|-25.43||P-value is one-sided. P-value rounded to thousandths.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|With treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, participant as random effect and baseline FPG as the covariate.||||-25.43|-44.19|0.000
90985821|NCT01096667|181857144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-35.42||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-44.78|-26.07||P-value is one-sided. P-value rounded to thousandths.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|With treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, participant as random effect and baseline FPG as the covariate.||||-26.07|-44.78|0.000
90985822|NCT01096667|181857144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.61||||0.467|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-9.86|8.65||P-value is one-sided.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|With treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, participant as random effect and baseline FPG as the covariate.||||8.65|-9.86|0.467
90985823|NCT01096667|181857145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-5.54||||0.224|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-14.89|3.82||P-value is one-sided.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|With treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, participant as random effect and baseline FPG as the covariate.||||3.82|-14.89|0.224
90985824|NCT01096667|181857145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-17.0||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-26.39|-7.61||P-value is one-sided.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|With treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, participant as random effect and baseline FPG as the covariate.||||-7.61|-26.39|0.011
90985825|NCT01096667|181857145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-26.59||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-35.84|-17.33||P-value is one-sided. P-value rounded to thousandths.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|With treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, participant as random effect and baseline FPG as the covariate.||||-17.33|-35.84|0.000
90985826|NCT01096667|181857145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|8.65||||0.886|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.56|17.87||P-value is one-sided.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|With treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, participant as random effect and baseline FPG as the covariate.||||17.87|-0.56|0.886
90985827|NCT01845077|181857153|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Standard acceptance criterion for bioequivalence: 90% confidence interval is completely within the bounds of 80-125%. No formal hypothesis test was conducted as study is exploratory.|Ratio of geometric means|99.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.3|103.5|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale, adjusted for subjects within sequences as random effect and sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects.||||103.5|95.3|
90985828|NCT01845077|181857153|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Standard acceptance criterion for bioequivalence: 90% confidence interval is completely within the bounds of 80-125%. No formal hypothesis test was conducted as study is exploratory.|Ratio of geometric means|101.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.4|104.7|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale, adjusted for subjects within sequences as random effect and sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects.||One patient was excluded from this analysis due to the lack of the 72h sample for the L+M1000 fed treatment.||104.7|98.4|
90985829|NCT01845077|181857153|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Standard acceptance criterion for bioequivalence: 90% confidence interval is completely within the bounds of 80-125%. No formal hypothesis test was conducted as study is exploratory.|Ratio of geometric means|100.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.2|103.7|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale, adjusted for subjects within sequences as random effect and sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects.||||103.7|98.2|
90985830|NCT01845077|181857154|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Standard acceptance criterion for bioequivalence: 90% confidence interval is completely within the bounds of 80-125%. No formal hypothesis test was conducted as study is exploratory.|Ratio of geometric means|94.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.8|103.6|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale, adjusted for subjects within sequences as random effect and sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects.||||103.6|86.8|
90985831|NCT01845077|181857154|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Standard acceptance criterion for bioequivalence: 90% confidence interval is completely within the bounds of 80-125%. No formal hypothesis test was conducted as study is exploratory.|Ratio of geometric means|96.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.2|103.8|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale, adjusted for subjects within sequences as random effect and sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects.||||103.8|90.2|
90985832|NCT01845077|181857154|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Standard acceptance criterion for bioequivalence: 90% confidence interval is completely within the bounds of 80-125%. No formal hypothesis test was conducted as study is exploratory.|Ratio of geometric means|108.6||||||90.0|99.5|118.5|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale, adjusted for subjects within sequences as random effect and sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects.||||118.5|99.5|
90985833|NCT01845077|181857155|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Standard acceptance criterion for bioequivalence: 90% confidence interval is completely within the bounds of 80-125%. No formal hypothesis test was conducted as study is exploratory.|Ratio of geometric means|103.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.1|110.8|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale, adjusted for subjects within sequences as random effect and sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects.||||110.8|97.1|
90985834|NCT01845077|181857155|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Standard acceptance criterion for bioequivalence: 90% confidence interval is completely within the bounds of 80-125%. No formal hypothesis test was conducted as study is exploratory.|Ratio of geometric means|105.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.9|111.0|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale, adjusted for subjects within sequences as random effect and sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects.||||111.0|99.9|
90985835|NCT01845077|181857155|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Standard acceptance criterion for bioequivalence: 90% confidence interval is completely within the bounds of 80-125%. No formal hypothesis test was conducted as study is exploratory.|Ratio of geometric means|96.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.2|104.1|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale, adjusted for subjects within sequences as random effect and sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects.||||104.1|90.2|
90985836|NCT01845077|181857156|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Standard acceptance criterion for bioequivalence: 90% confidence interval is completely within the bounds of 80-125%. No formal hypothesis test was conducted as study is exploratory.|Ratio of geometric means|96.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.8|108.2|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale, adjusted for subjects within sequences as random effect and sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects.||||108.2|86.8|
90985837|NCT01845077|181857156|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Standard acceptance criterion for bioequivalence: 90% confidence interval is completely within the bounds of 80-125%. No formal hypothesis test was conducted as study is exploratory.|Ratio of geometric means|99.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.1|103.5|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale, adjusted for subjects within sequences as random effect and sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects.||||103.5|96.1|
90985838|NCT01845077|181857156|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Standard acceptance criterion for bioequivalence: 90% confidence interval is completely within the bounds of 80-125%. No formal hypothesis test was conducted as study is exploratory.|Ratio of geometric means|95.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.7|106.0|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale, adjusted for subjects within sequences as random effect and sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects.||||106.0|86.7|
90985839|NCT01845077|181857157|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Standard acceptance criterion for bioequivalence: 90% confidence interval is completely within the bounds of 80-125%. No formal hypothesis test was conducted as study is exploratory.|Ratio of geometric means|96.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.6|108.2|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale, adjusted for subjects within sequences as random effect and sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects.||||108.2|86.6|
91041213|NCT01942135|181967238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.7334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|2.9||The priori threshold for statistical significance is 2-sided alpha=0.05. The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model Analysis (2-sided)|Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||Statistical significance for palbociclib plus fulvestrant vs placebo plus fulvestrant for appetite loss||2.9|-4.1|0.7334
91041214|NCT01942135|181967238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.6491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|3.9||The priori threshold for statistical significance is 2-sided alpha=0.05. The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model Analysis (2-sided)|Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||Statistical significance for palbociclib plus fulvestrant vs placebo plus fulvestrant for constipation||3.9|-2.5|0.6491
91041215|NCT01942135|181967238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.6293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|1.7||The priori threshold for statistical significance is 2-sided alpha=0.05. The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model Analysis (2-sided)|Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||Statistical significance for palbociclib plus fulvestrant vs placebo plus fulvestrant for diarrhoea||1.7|-2.8|0.6293
91041216|NCT01942135|181967238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.8812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|3.6||The priori threshold for statistical significance is 2-sided alpha=0.05. The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model Analysis (2-sided)|Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||Statistical significance for palbociclib plus fulvestrant vs placebo plus fulvestrant for financial difficulties||3.6|-3.1|0.8812
91041217|NCT01942135|181967239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3||||0.1386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|5.2||The priori threshold for statistical significance is 2-sided alpha=0.05. The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model Analysis (2-sided)|Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||Statistical significance for palbociclib plus fulvestrant vs placebo plus fulvestrant for body image||5.2|-0.7|0.1386
91041218|NCT01942135|181967239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.5235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|1.6||The priori threshold for statistical significance is 2-sided alpha=0.05. The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model Analysis (2-sided)|Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||Statistical significance for palbociclib plus fulvestrant vs placebo plus fulvestrant for sexual functioning||1.6|-3.1|0.5235
91041219|NCT01942135|181967239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4||||0.6271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|7.3||The priori threshold for statistical significance is 2-sided alpha=0.05. The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model Analysis (2-sided)|Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||Statistical significance for palbociclib plus fulvestrant vs placebo plus fulvestrant for sexual enjoyment||7.3|-4.4|0.6271
91041220|NCT01942135|181967239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.6||||0.0845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|7.6||The priori threshold for statistical significance is 2-sided alpha=0.05. The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model Analysis (2-sided)|Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||Statistical significance for palbociclib plus fulvestrant vs placebo plus fulvestrant for future perspective||7.6|-0.5|0.0845
91041221|NCT01942135|181967240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.7273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.3||The priori threshold for statistical significance is 2-sided alpha=0.05. The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model Analysis (2-sided)|Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||Statistical significance for palbociclib plus fulvestrant vs placebo plus fulvestrant for systemic therapy side effects||2.3|-1.6|0.7273
90985840|NCT01845077|181857157|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Standard acceptance criterion for bioequivalence: 90% confidence interval is completely within the bounds of 80-125%. No formal hypothesis test was conducted as study is exploratory.|Ratio of geometric means|99.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.6|103.4|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale, adjusted for subjects within sequences as random effect and sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects.||||103.4|95.6|
90985841|NCT01845077|181857157|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Standard acceptance criterion for bioequivalence: 90% confidence interval is completely within the bounds of 80-125%. No formal hypothesis test was conducted as study is exploratory.|Ratio of geometric means|99.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.1|109.5|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale, adjusted for subjects within sequences as random effect and sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects.||||109.5|90.1|
90985842|NCT01845077|181857158|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Standard acceptance criterion for bioequivalence: 90% confidence interval is completely within the bounds of 80-125%. No formal hypothesis test was conducted as study is exploratory.|Ratio of geometric means|96.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.8|109.8|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale, adjusted for subjects within sequences as random effect and sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects.||||109.8|84.8|
90985843|NCT01845077|181857158|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Standard acceptance criterion for bioequivalence: 90% confidence interval is completely within the bounds of 80-125%. No formal hypothesis test was conducted as study is exploratory.|Ratio of geometric means|103.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.9|107.7|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale, adjusted for subjects within sequences as random effect and sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects.||||107.7|98.9|
90985844|NCT01845077|181857158|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Standard acceptance criterion for bioequivalence: 90% confidence interval is completely within the bounds of 80-125%. No formal hypothesis test was conducted as study is exploratory.|Ratio of geometric means|107.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.5|125.4|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale, adjusted for subjects within sequences as random effect and sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects.||||125.4|92.5|
90985845|NCT01004107|181857159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||< 0.0001
90985846|NCT01004107|181857160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
90985847|NCT01004107|181857161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
90985848|NCT01004107|181857162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
90985849|NCT01004107|181857165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
90985850|NCT01004107|181857166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
90985851|NCT00044044|181857199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
90985852|NCT00044044|181857200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
90985853|NCT00044044|181857201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
90985854|NCT00044044|181857202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
90985855|NCT02179398|181857208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||1
90985856|NCT02179398|181857209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||1
91041222|NCT01942135|181967240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.2671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.7||The priori threshold for statistical significance is 2-sided alpha=0.05. The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model Analysis (2-sided)|Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||Statistical significance for palbociclib plus fulvestrant vs placebo plus fulvestrant for breast symptoms||0.7|-2.6|0.2671
91041223|NCT01942135|181967240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|2.2||The priori threshold for statistical significance is 2-sided alpha=0.05. The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model Analysis (2-sided)|Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||Statistical significance for palbociclib plus fulvestrant vs placebo plus fulvestrant for arm symptoms||2.2|-2.6|0.8750
91041224|NCT01942135|181967240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.9||||0.0255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|16.6||The priori threshold for statistical significance is 2-sided alpha=0.05. The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model Analysis (2-sided)|Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||Statistical significance for palbociclib plus fulvestrant vs placebo plus fulvestrant for upset by hair loss||16.6|1.1|0.0255
91041225|NCT01942135|181967241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.037||||0.0308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.07||The priori threshold for statistical significance is 2-sided alpha=0.05. The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model Analysis (2-sided)|Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||0.07|0.00|0.0308
91041226|NCT01942135|181967242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.5523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|3.5||The priori threshold for statistical significance is 2-sided alpha=0.05. The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model Analysis (2-sided)|Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||3.5|-1.9|0.5523
91041227|NCT01942135|181967243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.642|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.487|0.846||The priori threshold for statistical significance is 1-sided alpha=0.025. The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Unstratified log-rank test (1-sided)|1-sided p-value from the unstratified log-rank test.|Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of the palbociclib plus fulvestrant arm.|Treatment with palbociclib plus fulvestrant significantly delayed TTD in pain symptom compared with placebo plus fulvestrant for unstratified analysis.||0.846|0.487|<0.001
91041228|NCT06588530|181967250|OTHER|Log₂ transformed fold change in IgG concentration from baseline to Day 30 was compared between High and Low PFNA exposure groups using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. A two-tailed significance level of 0.05 was used.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.15||||0.85|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Tetanus||||.85
91041229|NCT06588530|181967250|OTHER|Log₂ transformed fold change in IgG concentration from baseline to Day 30 was compared between High and Low PFNA exposure groups using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. A two-tailed significance level of 0.05 was used.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.85|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Diphtheria||||.85
91041230|NCT00202839|181967273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1651||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1651
91041231|NCT03277248|181967391|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio (Ublituximab / Teriflunomide)|0.509||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.784||GEE (Generalized Estimating Equation) model for the relapse count per participant with logarithmic link function, treatment, region, and baseline Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) strata as covariates and log (years of treatment) as offset.|Negative Binomial Model|||||0.784|0.330|0.0022
91041232|NCT03277248|181967392|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio (Ublituximab / Teriflunomide)|0.035|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.019|0.064||GEE model for the relapse count per participant with logarithmic link function, treatment, region, and baseline EDSS strata as covariates and log (years of treatment) as offset.|Negative Binomial Model|||||0.064|0.019|<.0001
90952358|NCT04546425|181782308|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 6B (13vPnC serotype with the lowest percentage, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC - lowest 13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percent difference|57.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.3|62.1|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Percent difference for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 22F||62.1|53.3|
90952359|NCT04546425|181782308|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 6B (13vPnC serotype with the lowest percentage, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC - lowest 13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percent difference|10.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|16.0|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Percent difference for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 33F||16.0|4.5|
90952360|NCT04546425|181782309|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.69|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 1||0.69|0.54|
90985857|NCT02179398|181857210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Power calculation suggested 97 patients should be enrolled in each group to give 80% power at the 5% level of significance to detect a 20% difference in antibiotic prescription rate||||0.810
90985858|NCT02975349|181857296|SUPERIORITY||Lesion rate ratio|1.45||||0.2947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.91|||Negative Binomial model|||||2.91|0.72|0.2947
90985859|NCT02975349|181857296|SUPERIORITY||Lesion rate ratio|0.3||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.63|||Negative Binomial model|||||0.63|0.14|0.0015
90985860|NCT02975349|181857296|SUPERIORITY||Lesion rate ratio|0.44||||0.0313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.93|||Negative Binomial model|||||0.93|0.21|0.0313
90985861|NCT02975349|181857297|SUPERIORITY||Qualified relapse rate ratio|1.66||||0.2692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|4.09|||Negative Binomial model|||||4.09|0.67|0.2692
90985862|NCT02975349|181857297|SUPERIORITY||Qualified relapse rate ratio|0.31||||0.0896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|1.2|||Negative Binomial model|||||1.20|0.08|0.0896
90985863|NCT02975349|181857297|SUPERIORITY||Qualified relapse rate ratio|0.23||||0.0633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|1.09|||Negative Binomial model|||||1.09|0.05|0.0633
90985864|NCT02975349|181857298|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.5609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.95|||Logistic model|||||1.95|0.29|0.5609
90985865|NCT02975349|181857298|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.79||||0.0689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|8.41|||Logistic model|||||8.41|0.92|0.0689
90985866|NCT02975349|181857298|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.08||||0.1767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|5.99|||Logistic model|||||5.99|0.72|0.1767
90985867|NCT02975349|181857299|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimate|0.0||||0.407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||0.00|0.00|0.4070
90985868|NCT02975349|181857299|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimate|0.0||||0.5829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||0.00|0.00|0.5829
90985869|NCT02975349|181857299|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimate|0.0||||0.2732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||0.00|0.00|0.2732
90985870|NCT02975349|181857311|SUPERIORITY||Lesion rate ratio|1.36||||0.3676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.65|||Negative Binomial|||||2.65|0.70|0.3676
90985871|NCT02975349|181857311|SUPERIORITY||Lesion rate ratio|0.27||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.57|||Negative Binomial|||||0.57|0.13|0.0005
90985872|NCT02975349|181857311|SUPERIORITY||Lesion rate ratio|0.41||||0.0157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.85|||Negative Binomial|||||0.85|0.20|0.0157
90985873|NCT02975349|181857312|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimate|0.0||||0.9731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.25|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||0.25|-0.25|0.9731
90985874|NCT02975349|181857312|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimate|-0.25||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||0.00|-0.50|0.0017
90985875|NCT02975349|181857312|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimate|-0.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.25|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||-0.25|-0.75|< 0.0001
90985876|NCT02975349|181857313|SUPERIORITY||Lesion Rate ratio|1.29||||0.4807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.65|||Negative Binomial|||||2.65|0.63|0.4807
90985877|NCT02975349|181857313|SUPERIORITY||Lesion Rate ratio|0.5||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|1.04|||Negative Binomial|||||1.04|0.24|0.0620
90985878|NCT02975349|181857313|SUPERIORITY||Lesion Rate ratio|0.42||||0.0189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.87|||Negative Binomial|||||0.87|0.20|0.0189
90985879|NCT02975349|181857314|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.02||||0.8776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.28|||Mixed Effect Model for Repeat Measures||Difference in least squares means of change from baseline in cube root of volume measured in centimeter.|||0.28|-0.24|0.8776
90985880|NCT02975349|181857314|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.41||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.15|||Mixed Effect Model for Repeat Measures||Difference in least squares means of change from baseline in cube root of volume measured in centimeter.|||-0.15|-0.66|0.0019
90985881|NCT02975349|181857314|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.36||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.1|||Mixed Effect Model for Repeat Measures||Difference in least squares means of change from baseline in cube root of volume measured in centimeter.|||-0.10|-0.62|0.0063
90985882|NCT02975349|181857315|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimate|0.0||||0.9315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.009|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||0.009|-0.004|0.9315
90985883|NCT02975349|181857315|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimate|-0.014||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||0.000|-0.050|0.0008
90985884|NCT02975349|181857315|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimate|-0.018||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.042|0.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||0.000|-0.042|0.0014
90985885|NCT03551522|181857334|OTHER|The LS Means, confidence intervals, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with relative (percent) change from baseline as the dependent variable and treatment and stratification groups (diabetic status and fibrosis stage) as factors and baseline as a covariate.|LS Mean of Difference|11.02||||0.0874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|23.67|||ANCOVA|||||23.67|-1.63|0.0874
90985886|NCT03551522|181857334|OTHER|The LS Means, confidence intervals, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with relative (percent) change from baseline as the dependent variable and treatment and stratification groups (diabetic status and fibrosis stage) as factors and baseline as a covariate.|LS Mean of Difference|6.54||||0.3151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.28|19.37|||ANCOVA|||||19.37|-6.28|0.3151
90985887|NCT03551522|181857334|OTHER|The LS Means, confidence intervals, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with relative (percent) change from baseline as the dependent variable and treatment and stratification groups (diabetic status and fibrosis stage) as factors and baseline as a covariate.|LS Mean of Difference|7.78||||0.2313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.01|20.58|||ANCOVA|||||20.58|-5.01|0.2313
90985888|NCT05136885|181857343|SUPERIORITY||Disease Rate Ratio|0.87|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.111|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.665|1.102||Posterior probability that the disease rate ratio (DRR) is less than 1 (i.e. (Trehalose) slowed progression) was (0.8772). NOTE: p-value is not provided for Bayesian model.|Bayesian shared-parameter model|A Bayesian shared-parameter model of change in disease severity as measured by ALSFRS-R total score and mortality.|"DDR \<1 imply slowing of disease progression by Trehalose relative to placebo.Note: reported Confidence Interval is actually a Bayesian credible interval."||The DRR parameter for active treatment represents the relative change to the rate of decline of ALSFRS-R and the rate of mortality of treated participant relative to a placebo participant. The estimated DRR can also be interpreted as the average rate of decline in function and mortality. The model includes covariates for baseline use of edaravone, baseline use of riluzole, baseline use of Relyvrio, months since onset of symptoms, and pre-baseline slope of ALSFRS-R, serum NfL concentration and random effects for regimen and participant-specific slopes.|1.102|0.665|
90985889|NCT05136885|181857345|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.79||0.7607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.06|2.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates include baseline use of edaravone and riluzole, months since symptom onset, pre-baseline ALSFRS-R slope, and baseline log-transformed NfL.|Trehalose 24-week change from baseline relative to placebo 24-week change from baseline.|||2.97|-4.06|0.7607
90985890|NCT05136885|181857346|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.204||0.7737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.37|7.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates include baseline use of edaravone and riluzole, months since symptom onset, pre-baseline ALSFRS-R slope, and baseline log-transformed NfL.|Trehalose 24-week change from baseline relative to placebo 24-week change from baseline.|||7.21|-5.37|0.7737
90985891|NCT05136885|181857347|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2137|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.2137
90985892|NCT03270085|181857348|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
90985893|NCT03270085|181857349|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.81
90985894|NCT03270085|181857350|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.91
90985895|NCT03825042|181857351|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.01||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.8|-15.2|||ANCOVA|||||-15.20|-26.80|0.0000
90952361|NCT04546425|181782309|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.79|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 3||0.79|0.64|
90952362|NCT04546425|181782309|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.69|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 4||0.69|0.52|
90952363|NCT04546425|181782309|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.7|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 5||0.70|0.52|
90952364|NCT04546425|181782309|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.65|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6A||0.65|0.45|
90952365|NCT04546425|181782309|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.61|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6B||0.61|0.43|
90952366|NCT04546425|181782309|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.8|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 7F||0.80|0.64|
90952367|NCT04546425|181782309|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.69|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 9V||0.69|0.50|
90952368|NCT04546425|181782309|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.96|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 14||0.96|0.70|
90952369|NCT04546425|181782309|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.92|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 18C||0.92|0.67|
90952370|NCT04546425|181782309|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.69|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19A||0.69|0.51|
90952371|NCT04546425|181782309|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.82|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19F||0.82|0.64|
90985896|NCT03825042|181857352|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.08||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.45|-3.61|||ANCOVA|||||-3.61|-8.45|0.0000
90985897|NCT03825042|181857353|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.56||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.02|-9.11|||ANCOVA|||||-9.11|-20.02|0.0000
90985898|NCT00521339|181857387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.013|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.013
90985899|NCT00521339|181857388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.074|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.074
90985900|NCT00521339|181857389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.018|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.018
90985901|NCT00521339|181857390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
90985902|NCT00521339|181857391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.632|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.632
90985903|NCT00521339|181857392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.242|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.242
90985904|NCT00521339|181857393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.329|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.329
90985905|NCT00521339|181857394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.13|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.130
90985906|NCT00521339|181857396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.008
90985907|NCT00521339|181857397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.031|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.031
90985908|NCT00521339|181857398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.039|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.039
90985909|NCT00521339|181857400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.014|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.014
90985910|NCT00521339|181857401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.015|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.015
90985911|NCT00521339|181857402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.018|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.018
90985912|NCT00521339|181857403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.018|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.018
90985913|NCT00521339|181857404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90985914|NCT00521339|181857405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.031|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.031
90985915|NCT00521339|181857406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.217|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.217
90985916|NCT00521339|181857407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.539|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.539
90985917|NCT00521339|181857408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.169|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.169
90985918|NCT00521339|181857409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.339|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.339
90985919|NCT00521339|181857410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.898|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.898
90985920|NCT00521339|181857411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.622|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.622
90985921|NCT01819935|181857425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.2||||||Propensity Cox proportional hazards regression model was used.||1.20|0.72|
90985922|NCT01819935|181857426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.05||||||Propensity Cox proportional hazards regression model was used.||1.05|0.53|
90985923|NCT01819935|181857427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.15||||||Propensity Cox proportional hazards regression model was used.||1.15|0.90|
90985924|NCT01819935|181857428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.09||||||Propensity Cox proportional hazards regression model was used.||1.09|0.39|
90985925|NCT01819935|181857429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.37||||||Propensity Cox proportional hazards regression model was used.||1.37|0.68|
90985926|NCT01819935|181857430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.13||||||Propensity Cox proportional hazards regression model was used.||1.13|0.68|
90985927|NCT01819935|181857431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.48||||||Propensity Cox proportional hazards regression model was used.||1.48|0.54|
90952372|NCT04546425|181782309|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.62|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 23F||0.62|0.44|
90985928|NCT01819935|181857432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.45||||||Propensity Cox proportional hazards regression model was used.||1.45|1.06|
90985929|NCT04003155|181857433|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|<|0.001||95.0|-2.69|-1.05||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Least squares Mean (LSM), Standard error (SE), Confidence interval (CI), Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM), Change from Baseline (CFB), Dependent variable (dv), Treatment (tr), Week (wk), Baseline (bl), Weight (wt)||-1.05|-2.69|<0.001
90985930|NCT04003155|181857433|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|<|0.001||95.0|-2.89|-1.25||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||||-1.25|-2.89|<0.001
90985931|NCT04003155|181857433|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||Hochberg|||||||0.012
90985932|NCT04003155|181857433|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Hochberg|||||||0.007
90985933|NCT04003155|181857434|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44|<|0.001||95.0|-3.25|-1.52||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||||-1.52|-3.25|<0.001
90985934|NCT04003155|181857434|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|<|0.001||95.0|-3.4|-1.7||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||||-1.70|-3.40|<0.001
90985935|NCT04003155|181857434|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||Hochberg|||||||0.012
90985936|NCT04003155|181857434|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Hochberg|||||||0.007
90985937|NCT04003155|181857435|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.012||95.0|-0.27|-0.03||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||||-0.03|-0.27|0.012
90985938|NCT04003155|181857435|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.002||95.0|-0.3|-0.07||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||||-0.07|-0.30|0.002
90985939|NCT04003155|181857435|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||Hochberg|||||||0.012
90985940|NCT04003155|181857435|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Hochberg|||||||0.007
90985941|NCT04003155|181857436|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.002||95.0|-0.39|-0.09||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||||-0.09|-0.39|0.002
90985942|NCT04003155|181857436|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.007||95.0|-0.35|-0.06||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||||-0.06|-0.35|0.007
90985943|NCT04003155|181857436|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||Hochberg|||||||0.012
90985944|NCT04003155|181857436|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Hochberg|||||||0.007
90985945|NCT04003155|181857437|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.489||95.0|-2.0|1.0||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||||1.0|-2.0|0.489
90985946|NCT04003155|181857437|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.155||95.0|-2.5|0.4||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||||0.4|-2.5|0.155
90985947|NCT04003155|181857438|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.53|-1.09||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 1||-1.09|-2.53|<0.001
90985948|NCT04003155|181857438|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.97|-0.53||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 1||-0.53|-1.97|<0.001
90985949|NCT04003155|181857438|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.75|-1.19||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 2||-1.19|-2.75|<0.001
90985950|NCT04003155|181857438|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-1.05||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 2||-1.05|-2.60|<0.001
90985951|NCT04003155|181857438|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.79|-1.19||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 3||-1.19|-2.79|<0.001
90985952|NCT04003155|181857438|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-1.31||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 3||-1.31|-2.90|<0.001
90985953|NCT04003155|181857438|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.87|-1.27||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 5||-1.27|-2.87|<0.001
90985954|NCT04003155|181857438|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.98|-1.39||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 5||-1.39|-2.98|<0.001
90985955|NCT04003155|181857438|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.92|-1.3||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 6||-1.30|-2.92|<0.001
90985956|NCT04003155|181857438|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.19|-1.59||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 6||-1.59|-3.19|<0.001
90985957|NCT04003155|181857438|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.95|-1.25||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 7||-1.25|-2.95|<0.001
90985958|NCT04003155|181857438|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.11|-1.42||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 7||-1.42|-3.11|<0.001
90985959|NCT04003155|181857438|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.25|-1.54||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 8||-1.54|-3.25|<0.001
90985960|NCT04003155|181857438|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.23|-1.55||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 8||-1.55|-3.23|<0.001
90985961|NCT04003155|181857438|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.93|-1.22||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 9||-1.22|-2.93|<0.001
90985962|NCT04003155|181857438|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-1.31||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 9||-1.31|-3.00|<0.001
90985963|NCT04003155|181857438|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.05|-1.37||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 10||-1.37|-3.05|<0.001
90985964|NCT04003155|181857438|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.98|-1.33||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 10||-1.33|-2.98|<0.001
90985965|NCT04003155|181857438|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.34|-1.62||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 11||-1.62|-3.34|<0.001
90985966|NCT04003155|181857438|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-1.6||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 11||-1.60|-3.30|<0.001
90985967|NCT04003155|181857439|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|-0.03||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 1||-0.03|-0.17|0.006
90985968|NCT04003155|181857439|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|-0.03||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 1||-0.03|-0.17|0.006
90985969|NCT04003155|181857439|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|-0.05||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 2||-0.05|-0.24|0.003
90985970|NCT04003155|181857439|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|-0.06||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 2||-0.06|-0.25|0.002
90985971|NCT04003155|181857439|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|-0.05||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 3||-0.05|-0.27|0.004
90985972|NCT04003155|181857439|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|-0.06||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 3||-0.06|-0.28|0.003
90985973|NCT04003155|181857439|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|-0.05||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 5||-0.05|-0.29|0.006
90985974|NCT04003155|181857439|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|-0.06||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 5||-0.06|-0.29|0.004
90985975|NCT04003155|181857439|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|-0.07||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 6||-0.07|-0.33|0.003
90985976|NCT04003155|181857439|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.13||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 6||-0.13|-0.38|<0.001
90985977|NCT04003155|181857439|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.11||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 7||-0.11|-0.37|<0.001
90985978|NCT04003155|181857439|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|-0.13||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 7||-0.13|-0.39|<0.001
90985979|NCT04003155|181857439|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.15||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 8||-0.15|-0.41|<0.001
90985980|NCT04003155|181857439|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.11||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 8||-0.11|-0.37|<0.001
90985981|NCT04003155|181857439|SUPERIORITY||MMRM|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.12||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 9||-0.12|-0.41|<0.001
90985982|NCT04003155|181857439|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.06||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 9||-0.06|-0.35|0.004
90985983|NCT04003155|181857439|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.13||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 10||-0.13|-0.43|<0.001
91041233|NCT03277248|181967393|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio (Ublituximab / Teriflunomide)|0.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.073|0.136||GEE model for the relapse count per participant with logarithmic link function, treatment, region, and baseline EDSS strata as covariates and log (years of treatment) as offset.|Negative Binomial Model|||||0.136|0.073|<.0001
91041234|NCT03277248|181967395|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (Ublituximab / Teriflunomide)|7.946|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.917|12.841||Logistic regression model with treatment, region, baseline EDSS strata and log transformed baseline MRI lesion counts (T1-unenhancing, T2, Gd-enhancing) as covariates.|Regression, Logistic|||||12.841|4.917|<.0001
91041235|NCT03277248|181967396|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (Ublituximab / Teriflunomide)|0.862||||0.429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.596|1.246||Logistic regression model with treatment, region, baseline EDSS strata and log transformed baseline MRI lesion counts (T1 unenhancing, T2, Gd enhancing) as covariates.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.246|0.596|0.4290
91041236|NCT03277248|181967397|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.018||||0.3108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.053|0.017||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) model includes treatment, region, baseline EDSS strata, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline volume (cube root transformed) as covariates and an unstructured covariance matrix.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||0.017|-0.053|0.3108
91041237|NCT01993940|181967399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|18.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.8|27.0||To control the overall type I error rate to be ≤ 0.05 for the primary and secondary efficacy endpoints, a fixed-sequence (hierarchical) testing approach was applied.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was calculated by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted by the opioid dose strata.||||27.0|10.8|<0.0001
91041238|NCT01993940|181967400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.243|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.88|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model has the terms for treatment group as a fixed effect and the opioid dose strata as a covariate.||||1.88|0.92|<0.0001
91041239|NCT01993940|181967401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.277|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.63|2.71|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model has the terms for treatment group as a fixed effect and the opioid dose strata as a covariate.||||2.71|1.63|<0.0001
91041240|NCT01993940|181967402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.232|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.61|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model has the terms for treatment group as a fixed effect and the opioid dose strata as a covariate.||||1.61|0.70|<0.0001
91041241|NCT01993940|181967403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.227||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.19|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model has the terms for treatment group as a fixed effect and the opioid dose strata as a covariate.||||1.19|0.30|0.0011
91041242|NCT01949532|181967404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|132.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.6|249.63|||||The point estimates of the geometric mean ratios for the PK parameters were calculated by exponentiation of the differences in the least-squares means between the renal impairment group (test) and participants with normal renal function (reference).|||249.63|70.60|
91041243|NCT01949532|181967405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|133.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.93|251.73||||||||251.73|70.93|
91041244|NCT01277510|181967497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference (Cinacalcet - Placebo)|35.5||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.76|62.24|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran- Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by baseline age group (6 -\<12 years old or 12 - \<18 years old).||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to test the primary and biochemical secondary endpoints (Outcome Measures 1-5). The primary endpoint was tested at a significance level of 0.05. The four biochemical secondary endpoints were to be tested using Holm's method at 0.05 should the primary endpoint achieve a significant result.||62.24|8.76|0.017
91041245|NCT01277510|181967498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference (Cinacalcet - Placebo)|3.46||||0.826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.58|29.51|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran- Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by baseline age group (6 -\<12 years old or 12 - \<18 years old).||The secondary endpoint with the smallest p-value was first compared at a significance level of 0.0125. If the p-value was \> 0.0125, all 4 secondary endpoints were non-significant; if ≤ 0.0125, the null hypothesis for that endpoint was rejected. Next, the 2nd smallest p-value was compared at a level of 0.0167; if \> 0.0167, the remaining 3 endpoints were not significant, or, the null hypothesis of that endpoint was rejected. The other 2 endpoints were analyzed similarly, at 0.025 and 0.05.||29.51|-22.58|0.826
91041246|NCT01277510|181967499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-3.7||||0.147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|1.3|||ANCOVA|Baseline age group was used as covariate.|Cinacalcet-Placebo|The secondary endpoint with the smallest p-value was first compared at a significance level of 0.0125. If the p-value was \> 0.0125, all 4 secondary endpoints were non-significant; if ≤ 0.0125, the null hypothesis for that endpoint was rejected. Next, the 2nd smallest p-value was compared at a level of 0.0167; if \> 0.0167, the remaining 3 endpoints were not significant, or, the null hypothesis of that endpoint was rejected. The other 2 endpoints were analyzed similarly, at 0.025 and 0.05.||1.3|-8.6|0.147
91041247|NCT01277510|181967500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-5.3||||0.454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|8.9|||ANCOVA|Baseline age group was used as covariate|Cinacalcet-Placebo|The secondary endpoint with the smallest p-value was first compared at a significance level of 0.0125. If the p-value was \> 0.0125, all 4 secondary endpoints were non-significant; if ≤ 0.0125, the null hypothesis for that endpoint was rejected. Next, the 2nd smallest p-value was compared at a level of 0.0167; if \> 0.0167, the remaining 3 endpoints were not significant, or, the null hypothesis of that endpoint was rejected. The other 2 endpoints were analyzed similarly, at 0.025 and 0.05.||8.9|-19.4|0.454
91041248|NCT01277510|181967501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-10.0||||0.117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.5|2.6|||ANCOVA|Baseline age group was used as covariate.|Cinacalcet-Placebo|The secondary endpoint with the smallest p-value was first compared at a significance level of 0.0125. If the p-value was \> 0.0125, all 4 secondary endpoints were non-significant; if ≤ 0.0125, the null hypothesis for that endpoint was rejected. Next, the 2nd smallest p-value was compared at a level of 0.0167; if \> 0.0167, the remaining 3 endpoints were not significant, or, the null hypothesis of that endpoint was rejected. The other 2 endpoints were analyzed similarly, at 0.025 and 0.05.||2.6|-22.5|0.117
91041249|NCT01277510|181967502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|3.6||No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|ANCOVA|Baseline age group was used as covariate.|Cinacalcet-Placebo|||3.6|-3.1|0.896
91041250|NCT01277510|181967504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.8||||0.854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|7.9|||ANCOVA|Baseline age group was used as covariate.|Cinacalcet-Placebo|||7.9|-9.4|0.854
90985984|NCT04003155|181857439|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.08||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 10||-0.08|-0.37|0.002
90985985|NCT04003155|181857439|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.12||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 11||-0.12|-0.43|<0.001
90985986|NCT04003155|181857439|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.09||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 11||-0.09|-0.40|0.002
90985987|NCT04003155|181857440|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-15.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.99|-9.06||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 1||-9.06|-21.99|<0.001
91041251|NCT01426854|181967535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
90985988|NCT04003155|181857440|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-12.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.69|-5.74||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 1||-5.74|-18.69|<0.001
90985989|NCT04003155|181857440|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-17.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.57|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.32|-10.27||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 2||-10.27|-24.32|<0.001
90985990|NCT04003155|181857440|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-18.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.57|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.3|-11.29||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 2||-11.29|-25.30|<0.001
90985991|NCT04003155|181857440|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-18.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.63|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.25|-11.0||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 3||-11.00|-25.25|<0.001
90985992|NCT04003155|181857440|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-21.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.61|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.29|-14.09||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 3||-14.09|-28.29|<0.001
90985993|NCT04003155|181857440|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-16.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.81|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.24|-9.26||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 4||-9.26|-24.24|<0.001
90985994|NCT04003155|181857440|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-21.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.79|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.5|-13.61||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 4||-13.61|-28.50|<0.001
90985995|NCT04003155|181857440|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-17.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.79|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.02|-10.12||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 5||-10.12|-25.02|<0.001
90985996|NCT04003155|181857440|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-21.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.76|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.18|-14.39||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 5||-14.39|-29.18|<0.001
90985997|NCT04003155|181857440|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-18.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.89|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.03|-10.75||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 6||-10.75|-26.03|<0.001
90985998|NCT04003155|181857440|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-23.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.85|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.39|-16.27||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 6||-16.27|-31.39|<0.001
90985999|NCT04003155|181857440|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-18.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.33|-10.25||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 7||-10.25|-26.33|<0.001
91041252|NCT04569084|181967557|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.777|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.777
90986000|NCT04003155|181857440|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-21.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.04|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.35|-13.48||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 7||-13.48|-29.35|<0.001
90986001|NCT04003155|181857440|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-20.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.14|-12.19||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 8||-12.19|-28.14|<0.001
90986002|NCT04003155|181857440|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-21.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.01|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.04|-13.3||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 8||-13.30|-29.04|<0.001
90986003|NCT04003155|181857440|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-16.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.73|-8.61||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 9||-8.61|-24.73|<0.001
90986004|NCT04003155|181857440|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-18.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.05|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.84|-10.94||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 9||-10.94|-26.84|<0.001
90986005|NCT04003155|181857440|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-17.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.01|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.77|-9.99||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 10||-9.99|-25.77|<0.001
90986006|NCT04003155|181857440|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-19.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.96|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.28|-11.72||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 10||-11.72|-27.28|<0.001
90986007|NCT04003155|181857440|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-20.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.3|-12.35||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 11||-12.35|-28.30|<0.001
91041253|NCT04569084|181967558|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.169|||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||||0.169
91041254|NCT04729101|181967672|OTHER|Additional statistics were descriptive in nature.|Least-squares mean difference|38.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.94|46.02||||||Vonoprazan versus lansoprazole on Day 1 of each treatment period.||46.02|31.94|
91041255|NCT04729101|181967672|OTHER|Additional statistics were descriptive in nature|Least-squares mean difference|44.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.55|51.69||||||Vonoprazan versus lansoprazole on Day 7 of each treatment period.||51.69|37.55|
91041256|NCT04729101|181967673|OTHER|Additional statistics were descriptive in nature.|Least-squares mean difference|1.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|2.04||||||Vonoprazan versus lansoprazole on Day 1 of each treatment period.||2.04|1.40|
90986008|NCT04003155|181857440|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-22.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.0|-14.28||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 11||-14.28|-30.00|<0.001
90986009|NCT04003155|181857440|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-20.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.13|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.19|-11.96||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 12||-11.96|-28.19|<0.001
91041257|NCT04729101|181967673|OTHER|Additional statistics were descriptive in nature.|Least-squares mean difference|2.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.74|2.44||||||Vonoprazan versus lansoprazole on Day 7 of each treatment period.||2.44|1.74|
91041258|NCT04556734|181967685|OTHER|F-test|LS Mean Difference|-14.14||||0.2579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.933|10.648|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM) was used for evaluation. The model included the treatment group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, disease duration and baseline SALT I score as covariates.||10.648|-38.933|0.2579
91041259|NCT04556734|181967685|OTHER|F-test|LS Mean Difference|-21.79||||0.0592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.446|0.871|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM was used for evaluation. The model included the treatment group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, disease duration and baseline SALT I score as covariates.||0.871|-44.446|0.0592
90952373|NCT04546425|181782309|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 6B (13vPnC serotype with the lowest GMC, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/lowest 13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|26.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.98|30.67|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 8||30.67|22.98|
91041260|NCT04556734|181967686|OTHER|F-test|Least square (LS) Mean Difference|-9.23||||0.1283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.217|2.748|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM was used for evaluation. The model included the treatment group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, disease duration and baseline SALT I score as covariates.||2.748|-21.217|0.1283
90952374|NCT04546425|181782309|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 6B (13vPnC serotype with the lowest GMC, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/lowest 13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|2.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.25|3.17|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 10A||3.17|2.25|
90952375|NCT04546425|181782309|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 6B (13vPnC serotype with the lowest GMC, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/lowest 13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|26.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.95|30.82|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 11A||30.82|22.95|
90952376|NCT04546425|181782309|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 6B (13vPnC serotype with the lowest GMC, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/lowest 13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|2.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.08|2.97|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 12F||2.97|2.08|
91041261|NCT04556734|181967686|OTHER|F-test|LS Mean Difference|-8.99||||0.1057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.936|1.962|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM was used for evaluation. The model included the treatment group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, disease duration and baseline SALT I score as covariates.||1.962|-19.936|0.1057
91041262|NCT04556734|181967687|OTHER||Response rate difference|11.5||||0.4067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.22|37.31||P-values were based on the comparison of etrasimod versus placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Clopper-Pearson method|\>= 30% Improvement: Response rate difference was difference in response rates between DB Treatment period: Etrasimod 2 mg and DB Treatment period: Placebo||37.31|-14.22|0.4067
91041263|NCT04556734|181967687|OTHER||Response rate difference|17.5||||0.2171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.23|43.19||P-values were based on the comparison of etrasimod versus placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Clopper-Pearson method|\>= 30% Improvement: Response rate difference was difference in response rates between DB Treatment period: Etrasimod 3 mg and DB Treatment period: Placebo||43.19|-8.23|0.2171
90986010|NCT04003155|181857440|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-24.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.16|-16.2||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 12||-16.20|-32.16|<0.001
90986011|NCT04003155|181857441|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.245|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.823|5.999||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||5.999|1.823|<0.001
90986012|NCT04003155|181857441|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.964|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.658|5.497||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||5.497|1.658|<0.001
90986013|NCT04003155|181857441|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.187||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.363|3.549||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||3.549|1.363|0.001
90986014|NCT04003155|181857441|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.847|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.786|4.601||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||4.601|1.786|<0.001
90986015|NCT04003155|181857441|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.096||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.326|3.345||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||3.345|1.326|0.002
90986016|NCT04003155|181857441|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.333|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.121|5.302||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||5.302|2.121|<0.001
90986017|NCT04003155|181857441|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.061||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.323|3.233||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||3.233|1.323|0.001
90986018|NCT04003155|181857441|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.025|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.947|4.746||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||4.746|1.947|<0.001
90986019|NCT04003155|181857441|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.363|3.357||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||3.357|1.363|<0.001
90986020|NCT04003155|181857441|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.223|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.067|5.08||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||5.080|2.067|<0.001
90986021|NCT04003155|181857441|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.049||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.317|3.21||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||3.210|1.317|0.002
90986022|NCT04003155|181857441|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.097|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.994|4.858||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||4.858|1.994|<0.001
90986023|NCT04003155|181857441|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.984||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|3.097||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||3.097|1.280|0.002
90986024|NCT04003155|181857441|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.062|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.977|4.788||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||4.788|1.977|<0.001
90986025|NCT04003155|181857441|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.748|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.774|4.294||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||4.294|1.774|<0.001
90986026|NCT04003155|181857441|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.379|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.536|3.712||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||3.712|1.536|<0.001
91041264|NCT04556734|181967687|OTHER||Response rate difference|-0.8||||0.9425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.18|21.48||P-values were based on the comparison of etrasimod versus placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Clopper-Pearson method|\>= 50% Improvement: Response rate difference was difference in response rates between DB Treatment period: Etrasimod 2 mg and DB Treatment period: Placebo||21.48|-23.18|0.9425
91041265|NCT04556734|181967687|OTHER||Response rate difference|8.9||||0.4959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.19|32.94||P-values were based on the comparison of etrasimod versus placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Clopper-Pearson method|\>= 50% Improvement: Response rate difference was difference in response rates between DB Treatment period: Etrasimod 3 mg and DB Treatment period: Placebo||32.94|-15.19|0.4959
91041266|NCT04556734|181967687|OTHER||Response rate difference|5.6||||0.3576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.39|16.59||P-values are based on the comparison of Etrasimod versus placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Clopper-Pearson method|\>= 75% Improvement: Response rate difference was difference in response rates between DB Treatment period: Etrasimod 2 mg and DB Treatment period: Placebo||16.59|-5.39|0.3576
91041267|NCT04556734|181967687|OTHER||Response rate difference|8.3||||0.2904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.43|20.12||P-values were based on the comparison of etrasimod versus placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Clopper-Pearson method|\>= 75% Improvement: Response rate difference was difference in response rates between DB Treatment period: Etrasimod 3 mg and DB Treatment period: Placebo.||20.12|-3.43|0.2904
91041268|NCT01680016|181967695|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was achieved if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the observed ratio of GMCs between the groups (GMCGroup Zagreb / GMCGroup Essen) was greater than 0.5|Ratio of GMCs between two groups(Day 15)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.02|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate noninferiority in immune response of the Zagreb post-exposure schedule of Rabipur to that of the conventional Essen post-exposure schedule at day 15 in children aged ≥6 to ≤17 years||1.02|0.69|
91041269|NCT01680016|181967696|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was achieved if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the observed ratio of GMCs between the groups (GMCGroup Zagreb / GMCGroup Essen) was greater than 0.5|Ratio of GMCs between two groups(Day 15)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.35|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate noninferiority in immune response of the Zagreb post-exposure schedule of Rabipur to that of the conventional Essen post-exposure schedule at day 15 in older adults aged ≥51 years||1.35|0.87|
91041270|NCT01958060|181967716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.0604|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0337|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9901|1.1308|||||Dose proportionality was explored using linear regression model (ANOVA).The perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope β of 1.PK endpoints on the log-transformed scale.Standard error (SE) of the mean is actually the SE of the slope.|This was non confirmatory testing (Single dose). Dose proportionality of BI 1034020 following iv administration of single rising doses of 5 mg, 10 mg, 20 mg and 50 mg for Cmax was analysed.||1.1308|0.9901|
91041271|NCT01958060|181967718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.5629|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1056|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3426|1.7833|||||Dose proportionality was explored using the linear regression model.The perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope β of 1. PK endpoints on the log-transformed scale.Standard error of the mean is actually the standard error of the slope.|This was non confirmatory testing (Single dose). Dose proportionality of BI 1034020 following iv administration of single rising doses of 5 mg, 10 mg, 20 mg and 50 mg for AUClast was analysed.||1.7833|1.3426|
91041272|NCT00769314|181967719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.0685||||0.0419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0025|0.1339||p-value \< 0.05 considered significant|Chi-squared||Treatment difference was the proportion of patients with aborted lesions in the acyclovir Lauriad group minus the proportion of patients with aborted lesions in the placebo group.|||0.1339|0.0025|0.0419
91041273|NCT00769314|181967720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0683||||||p-value \< 0.05 considered significant|Log Rank|||||||0.0683
91041274|NCT00769314|181967721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0033||||||p-value \< 0.05 considered significant|Log Rank|||||||0.0033
91041275|NCT00769314|181967722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0098||||||p-value \< 0.05 considered significant|Log Rank|||||||0.0098
91041276|NCT00769314|181967723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8005||||||p-value \< 0.05 considered significant|Log Rank|||||||0.8005
91041277|NCT00769314|181967724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015||||||p-value \< 0.05 considered significant|Log Rank|||||||0.015
91041278|NCT00769314|181967725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0412||||||p-value \< 0.05 considered significant|Log Rank|||||||0.0412
91041279|NCT00769314|181967726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0271||||||p-value \< 0.05 considered significant|Chi-squared|||||||0.0271
91041280|NCT00769314|181967727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5695||||||p-value \< 0.05 considered significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis conducted between treatment groups at Day 1 timepoint.||||0.5695
91041281|NCT00769314|181967727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1824||||||p-value \< 0.05 considered significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis conducted between treatment groups at Day 3 timepoint||||0.1824
91041282|NCT00769314|181967727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0078||||||p-value \< 0.05 considered significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis conducted between treatment groups at the Day 5 timepoint||||0.0078
91041283|NCT00769314|181967727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3303||||||p-value \< 0.05 considered significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis conducted between treatment groups at the Day 7 timepoint||||0.3303
91041284|NCT00769314|181967727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6045||||||p-value \< 0.05 considered significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis conducted between treatment groups at the Day 14 timepoint||||0.6045
91041285|NCT00769314|181967728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0022||||||p-value \< 0.05 considered significant|Chi-squared|||||||0.0022
90986027|NCT04003155|181857441|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.051||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.329|3.186||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||3.186|1.329|0.001
90986028|NCT04003155|181857441|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.701|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.75|4.204||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||4.204|1.750|<0.001
90986029|NCT04003155|181857441|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.725|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.742|4.306||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||4.306|1.742|<0.001
90986030|NCT04003155|181857441|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.921|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.505|6.214||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||6.214|2.505|<0.001
90986031|NCT04003155|181857441|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.104|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.363|3.27||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||3.270|1.363|<0.001
90986032|NCT04003155|181857441|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.953|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.912|4.602||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||4.602|1.912|<0.001
90986033|NCT04003155|181857441|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.894||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|2.961||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||2.961|1.220|0.005
90986034|NCT04003155|181857441|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.156|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.035|4.944||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||4.944|2.035|<0.001
90986035|NCT04003155|181857442|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.158||||0.322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.398|64.304||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||64.304|0.398|0.322
90986036|NCT04003155|181857442|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.925||||0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.569|77.353||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||77.353|0.569|0.225
90986037|NCT04003155|181857442|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.334||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.064|120.422||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||120.422|1.064|0.089
90986038|NCT04003155|181857442|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.026||||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.797|96.916||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||96.916|0.797|0.143
90986039|NCT04003155|181857442|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.257||||0.711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|4.468||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||4.468|0.370|0.711
90986040|NCT04003155|181857442|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.57||||0.441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.508|5.328||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||5.328|0.508|0.441
90986041|NCT04003155|181857442|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.351||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.383|35.172||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||35.172|1.383|0.032
90986042|NCT04003155|181857442|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.059||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.693|21.086||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||21.086|0.693|0.175
90986043|NCT04003155|181857442|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.225||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.039|28.29||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||28.290|1.039|0.071
90986044|NCT04003155|181857442|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.22||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.348|34.323||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||34.323|1.348|0.035
90986045|NCT04003155|181857442|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.064||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.912|45.64||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||45.640|1.912|0.011
90986046|NCT04003155|181857442|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.949||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.881|44.892||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||44.892|1.881|0.012
90986047|NCT04003155|181857442|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.344||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.381|35.134||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||35.134|1.381|0.032
90986048|NCT04003155|181857442|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.514||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.055|48.354||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||48.354|2.055|0.008
90986049|NCT04003155|181857442|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.238||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.222|10.148||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||10.148|1.222|0.026
90986050|NCT04003155|181857442|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.438||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.311|10.714||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||10.714|1.311|0.019
90986051|NCT04003155|181857442|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.626||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.101|6.951||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||6.951|1.101|0.037
90986052|NCT04003155|181857442|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.758||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.167|7.263||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||7.263|1.167|0.027
90986053|NCT04003155|181857442|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.69||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.753|3.968||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||3.968|0.753|0.210
90986054|NCT04003155|181857442|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.01||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.923|4.634||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||4.634|0.923|0.087
90986055|NCT04003155|181857442|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1||||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.795|6.157||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||6.157|0.795|0.148
90986056|NCT04003155|181857442|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.262||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.329|9.194||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||9.194|1.329|0.015
90986057|NCT04760314|181857470|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|22.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.6|33.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||33.6|11.6|<0.001
90986058|NCT04760314|181857470|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|27.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.5|37.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||37.0|17.5|<0.001
90986059|NCT04760314|181857471|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|33.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.6|45.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||45.8|20.6|<0.001
90986060|NCT04760314|181857471|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|37.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.2|49.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||49.0|26.2|<0.001
90986061|NCT04760314|181857472|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-34.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.1|-24.9|||ANCOVA|||||-24.9|-44.1|<0.001
90986062|NCT04760314|181857472|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-38.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.7|-30.3|||ANCOVA|||||-30.3|-47.7|<0.001
90986063|NCT04760314|181857473|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.4||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|29.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||29.9|6.8|0.003
90986064|NCT04760314|181857473|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|24.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.9|34.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||34.5|13.9|<0.001
90986065|NCT04760314|181857474|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.2||||0.404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|3.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.6|-1.2|0.404
90986066|NCT04760314|181857475|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.8||||0.294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|5.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.1|-1.6|0.294
90986067|NCT04760314|181857475|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.7||||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|7.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||7.8|-0.5|0.138
90986068|NCT04760314|181857476|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.2||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|16.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||16.5|1.8|0.013
90986069|NCT04760314|181857476|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.2||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.1|24.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||24.3|8.1|0.001
90986070|NCT04760314|181857477|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.6||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.7|32.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||32.4|8.7|0.001
90986071|NCT04760314|181857477|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|29.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.9|40.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||40.4|17.9|<0.001
90986072|NCT04315363|181857484|EQUIVALENCE|Two by two Mixed Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) models (i.e., within-subject effect: pre- and post- intervention \* between-subject effect: intervention and control group) were estimated to investigate the primary outcome changes (i.e., sedentary time) before and after the intervention.||||||0.8|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.8
90986073|NCT04315363|181857485|EQUIVALENCE|Two by two Mixed Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) models (i.e., within-subject effect: pre- and post- intervention \* between-subject effect: intervention and control group) were estimated to investigate the secondary outcome changes (i.e., moderate-to-vigorous physical activity) before and after the intervention.||||||0.35|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.35
90986074|NCT00641043|181857492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.71|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin vs. Placebo||-0.30|-0.71|<0.0001
90986075|NCT00641043|181857493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.52|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin vs. Placebo||-0.24|-0.52|<0.0001
90986076|NCT00641043|181857494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.67|-0.32|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin vs. Placebo||-0.32|-0.67|<0.0001
90986077|NCT00641043|181857495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.7|-0.32|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin vs. Placebo||-0.32|-0.70|<0.0001
90986078|NCT00641043|181857496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5|<|0.0001||95.0|-21.1|-7.3|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin vs. Placebo||-7.3|-21.1|<0.0001
90986079|NCT00641043|181857497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0|<|0.0001||95.0|-22.3|-10.5|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin vs. Placebo||-10.5|-22.3|<0.0001
90986080|NCT00641043|181857498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2|<|0.0001||95.0|-19.5|-7.0|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin vs. Placebo||-7.0|-19.5|<0.0001
90986081|NCT00641043|181857499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4|<|0.0001||95.0|-20.5|-7.3|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin vs. Placebo||-7.3|-20.5|<0.0001
90986082|NCT00641043|181857500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.103||||0.0051||95.0|1.25|3.539|||Regression, Logistic|||"Linagliptin vs. Placebo~The odds-ratio is based on a logistic regression model including baseline HbA1c and previous antidiabetes medication."||3.539|1.25|0.0051
90986083|NCT00641043|181857502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.348||||0.3547||95.0|0.716|2.537|||Regression, Logistic|||"Linagliptin vs. Placebo~The odds-ratio is based on a logistic regression model including baseline HbA1c and previous antidiabetes medication."||2.537|0.716|0.3547
90986084|NCT00641043|181857504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.823|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.286|6.394|||Regression, Logistic|||"Linagliptin vs. Placebo~The odds-ratio is based on a logistic regression model including baseline HbA1c and previous antidiabetes medication."||6.394|2.286|<0.0001
90986085|NCT03088605|181857534|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline. ANCOVA model includes baseline scores as a covariate||0|-0.7|0.02
90986086|NCT03088605|181857535|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.4|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Change form baseline. ANCOVA model includes baseline score as a covariate.||0.5|-1.4|0.0001
90986087|NCT03088605|181857536|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.42||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.36|-0.47|||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline. ANCOVA model includes baseline score as a covariate.||-0.47|-2.36|0.03
90986088|NCT03088605|181857537|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.199||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.177|0.575|||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline; ANCOVA model includes baseline score as a covariate.||0.575|-0.177|0.39
90986089|NCT03088605|181857538|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.7|2.0|||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline. ANCOVA model includes baseline score as a covariate.||2.0|-1.7|0.97
90986090|NCT03088605|181857539|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.23||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.48|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline. ANCOVA model includes baseline score as a covariate.||0.03|-0.48|0.06
90986091|NCT02345161|181857540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted LS mean difference|0.171|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0118|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.148|0.194|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||0.194|0.148|<0.001
90986092|NCT02345161|181857541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted LS mean difference|0.179|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0242|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.131|0.226|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||0.226|0.131|<0.001
90986093|NCT02345161|181857542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted LS mean difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-1.0|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||-1.0|-3.5|<0.001
90986094|NCT02345161|181857543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted LS mean difference|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.44||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|0.2|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||0.2|-5.5|0.065
90986095|NCT02345161|181857544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.138|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.84|||Mixed effect repeated measures model|||||0.84|0.30|<0.001
90986096|NCT02345161|181857545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.317||0.279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.97|||Mixed effect repeated measures model|||||0.97|-0.28|0.279
90986097|NCT02345161|181857546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.1|||ANCOVA|||||1.1|-0.9|0.817
90986098|NCT02345161|181857547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.6|||ANCOVA|||||1.6|-2.1|0.767
90986099|NCT02345161|181857548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.65||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.86|||Generalized linear modeL|Generalized linear model assuming a negative binomial distribution||||0.86|0.49|0.002
90986100|NCT02345161|181857549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.56||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.85|||Generalized Linear model|Generalized linear model assuming a negative binomial distribution||||0.85|0.37|0.006
90986101|NCT02345161|181857550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|-0.66|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||EXACT-RS Scores, Week 1-4|||-0.66|-1.25|<0.001
90986102|NCT02345161|181857550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.183|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|-0.87|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||EXACT-RS Scores, Week 5-8|||-0.87|-1.59|<0.001
90986103|NCT02345161|181857550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.201|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|-0.78|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||EXACT-RS Scores, Week 9-12|||-0.78|-1.57|<0.001
90986104|NCT02345161|181857550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.213|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|-0.91|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||EXACT-RS Scores, Week 13-16|||-0.91|-1.75|<0.001
90986105|NCT02345161|181857550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-1.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.223|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|-0.97|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||EXACT-RS Scores, Week 17-20|||-0.97|-1.85|<0.001
90986106|NCT02345161|181857550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|-1.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.224|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.79|-0.91|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||EXACT-RS Scores, Week 21-24|||-0.91|-1.79|<0.001
90986107|NCT02345161|181857550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.36|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Breathlessness EXACT-RS Score, Week 1-4|||-0.36|-0.67|<0.001
90986108|NCT02345161|181857550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.098|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.5|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Breathlessness EXACT-RS Score, Week 5-8|||-0.50|-0.88|<0.001
90986109|NCT02345161|181857550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.108|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.48|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Breathlessness EXACT-RS Score, Week 9-12|||-0.48|-0.90|<0.001
90986110|NCT02345161|181857550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.115|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.52|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Breathlessness EXACT-RS Score, Week 13-16|||-0.52|-0.97|<0.001
90986111|NCT02345161|181857550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.56|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Breathlessness EXACT-RS Score, Week 17-20|||-0.56|-1.03|<0.001
90986112|NCT02345161|181857550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.122|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.54|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Breathlessness EXACT-RS Score, Week 21-24|||-0.54|-1.01|<0.001
90986113|NCT02345161|181857550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|-0.09|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Cough and sputum EXACT-RS Score, Week 1-4|||-0.09|-0.26|<0.001
90986114|NCT02345161|181857550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|-0.1|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Cough and sputum EXACT-RS Score, Week 5-8|||-0.10|-0.31|<0.001
90986115|NCT02345161|181857550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.058||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|-0.05|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Cough and sputum EXACT-RS Score, Week 9-12|||-0.05|-0.28|0.004
90986116|NCT02345161|181857550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|-0.1|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Cough and sputum EXACT-RS Score, Week 13-16|||-0.10|-0.34|<0.001
90986117|NCT02345161|181857550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.064|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.11|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Cough and sputum EXACT-RS Score, Week 17-20|||-0.11|-0.36|<0.001
90986118|NCT02345161|181857550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.065|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.1|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Cough and sputum EXACT-RS Score, Week 21-24|||-0.10|-0.35|<0.001
90986119|NCT02345161|181857550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.18|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Chest EXACT-RS Scores, Week 1-4|||-0.18|-0.37|<0.001
90986120|NCT02345161|181857550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.23|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Chest EXACT-RS Scores, Week 5-8|||-0.23|-0.46|<0.001
90986121|NCT02345161|181857550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.21|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Chest EXACT-RS Scores, Week 9-12|||-0.21|-0.47|<0.001
90986122|NCT02345161|181857550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.25|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Chest EXACT-RS Scores, Week 13-16|||-0.25|-0.51|<0.001
90986123|NCT02345161|181857550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.071|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.26|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Chest EXACT-RS Scores, Week 17-20|||-0.26|-0.53|<0.001
90986124|NCT02345161|181857550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.072|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.22|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Chest EXACT-RS Scores, Week 21-24|||-0.22|-0.50|<0.001
90986125|NCT02345161|181857551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.311||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|0.09|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||EXACT-RS Scores, Week 1-4|||0.09|-1.13|0.094
91078034|NCT02542293|182041276|OTHER|The study was not designed or powered to show statistical significance for efficacy endpoints in the China cohort, so all statistical analyses for the China cohort were considered exploratory.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.585|5.27|||||The analysis was performed using logistic regression, adjusting for PD-L1 status (\>= 25% Vs \< 25%), smoking status (never smoker Va ever smoker) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with 95% CI calculated by profile likelihood.|"PD-L1 TC ≥50% analysis set:~China: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs China: SoC Chemotherapy~An odds ratio \>1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy over SoC."||5.270|0.585|
90986126|NCT02345161|181857551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.371||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.34|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||EXACT-RS Scores, Week 5-8|||-0.34|-1.80|0.004
90986127|NCT02345161|181857551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.419||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.79|-0.14|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||EXACT-RS Scores, Week 9-12|||-0.14|-1.79|0.022
90986128|NCT02345161|181857551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.445||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|-0.13|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||EXACT-RS Scores, Week 13-16|||-0.13|-1.88|0.024
90986129|NCT02345161|181857551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.481||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|-0.17|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||EXACT-RS Scores, Week 17-20|||-0.17|-2.06|0.021
90986130|NCT02345161|181857551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.481||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|-0.16|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||EXACT-RS Score, Week 21-24|||-0.16|-2.05|0.022
90986131|NCT02345161|181857551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-1.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.492||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|-0.35|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||EXACT-RS Scores, Week 25-28|||-0.35|-2.29|0.008
90986132|NCT02345161|181857551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-1.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.494||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.46|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||EXACT-RS Scores, Week 29-32|||-0.46|-2.40|0.004
90986133|NCT02345161|181857551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.519||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|-0.48|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||EXACT-RS Scores, Week 33-36|||-0.48|-2.52|0.004
90986134|NCT02345161|181857551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.507||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|-0.23|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||EXACT-RS Scores, Week 37-40|||-0.23|-2.22|0.016
90986135|NCT02345161|181857551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-1.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.513||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-0.48|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||EXACT-RS Scores, Week 41-44|||-0.48|-2.50|0.04
90986136|NCT02345161|181857551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-1.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.525||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.56|-0.5|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||EXACT-RS Scores, Week 45-49|||-0.50|-2.56|0.007
90986137|NCT02345161|181857551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-1.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.524||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.45|-0.39|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||EXACT-RS Scores, Week 49-52|||-0.39|-2.45|0.007
90986138|NCT02345161|181857551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.169||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.0|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Breathlessness EXACT-RS score, Week 1-4|||0.00|-0.66|0.051
90986139|NCT02345161|181857551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.207||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.2|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Breathlessness EXACT-RS score, Week 5-8|||-0.20|-1.02|0.003
90986140|NCT02345161|181857551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.234||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.15|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Breathlessness EXACT-RS score, Week 9-12|||-0.15|-1.07|0.010
90986141|NCT02345161|181857551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.247||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.13|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Breathlessness EXACT-RS score, Week 13-16|||-0.13|-1.10|0.013
90986142|NCT02345161|181857551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.265||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|-0.15|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Breathlessness EXACT-RS score, Week 17-20|||-0.15|-1.19|0.012
90986143|NCT02345161|181857551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.268||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|-0.11|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Breathlessness EXACT-RS score, Week 21-24|||-0.11|-1.16|0.018
90952377|NCT04546425|181782309|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 6B (13vPnC serotype with the lowest GMC, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/lowest 13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|54.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.35|64.3|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 15B||64.30|46.35|
90952378|NCT04546425|181782309|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 6B (13vPnC serotype with the lowest GMC, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/lowest 13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|36.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.57|42.89|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 22F||42.89|31.57|
90952379|NCT04546425|181782309|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 6B (13vPnC serotype with the lowest GMC, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/lowest 13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|5.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.27|5.92|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 33F||5.92|4.27|
90952380|NCT04546425|181782310|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.75|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 1||0.75|0.60|
90952381|NCT04546425|181782310|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.73|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 3||0.73|0.59|
90952382|NCT04546425|181782310|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.87|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 4||0.87|0.68|
90952383|NCT04546425|181782310|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.81|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 5||0.81|0.64|
90952384|NCT04546425|181782310|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.75|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6A||0.75|0.57|
90952385|NCT04546425|181782310|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.67|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6B||0.67|0.48|
90986144|NCT02345161|181857551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.275||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.21|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Breathlessness EXACT-RS score, Week 25-28|||-0.21|-1.30|0.006
90986145|NCT02345161|181857551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.276||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.31|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Breathlessness EXACT-RS score, Week 29-32|||-0.31|-1.40|0.002
90986146|NCT02345161|181857551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.288||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|-0.38|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Breathlessness EXACT-RS score, Week 33-36|||-0.38|-1.51|0.001
90986147|NCT02345161|181857551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.287||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|-0.2|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Breathlessness EXACT-RS score, Week 37-40|||-0.20|-1.32|0.008
90986148|NCT02345161|181857551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.294||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.24|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Breathlessness EXACT-RS score, Week 41-44|||-0.24|-1.40|0.006
90986149|NCT02345161|181857551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.299||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|-0.27|||Breathlessness score, Week 41-44||Breathlessness EXACT-RS score, Week 45-48|||-0.27|-1.44|0.004
90986150|NCT02345161|181857551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.294||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|-0.3|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Breathlessness EXACT-RS score, Week 49-52EXA|||-0.30|-1.45|0.003
90986151|NCT02345161|181857551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.091||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.16|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Cough and sputum EXACT-RS score, Week 1-4|||0.16|-0.20|0.840
90986152|NCT02345161|181857551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.106||0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.06|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Cough and sputum EXACT-RS score, Week 5-8|||-0.06|-0.36|0.167
90986153|NCT02345161|181857551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.117||0.359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.12|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Cough and sputum EXACT-RS score, Week 9-12|||0.12|-0.34|0.359
90986154|NCT02345161|181857551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.124||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.13|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Cough and sputum EXACT-RS score, Week 13-16|||0.13|-0.36|0.360
90986155|NCT02345161|181857551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.134||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.17|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Cough and sputum EXACT-RS score, Week 17-20|||0.17|-0.36|0.490
90986156|NCT02345161|181857551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.138||0.388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.15|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Cough and sputum EXACT-RS score, Week 21-24|||0.15|-0.39|0.388
90986157|NCT02345161|181857551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.1|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Cough and sputum EXACT-RS score, Week 25-28|||0.10|-0.44|0.218
90986158|NCT02345161|181857551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.07|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Cough and sputum EXACT-RS score, Week 29-32|||0.07|-0.47|0.138
90986159|NCT02345161|181857551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.11|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Cough and sputum EXACT-RS score, Week 33-36|||0.11|-0.44|0.239
90986160|NCT02345161|181857551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.138||0.417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.16|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Cough and sputum EXACT-RS score, Week 37-40|||0.16|-0.38|0.417
90986161|NCT02345161|181857551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.144||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.03|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Cough and sputum EXACT-RS score, Week 41-44|||0.03|-0.54|0.078
90986162|NCT02345161|181857551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.01|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Cough and sputum EXACT-RS score, Week 45-48|||0.01|-0.54|0.058
90986163|NCT02345161|181857551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141||0.231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.11|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Cough and sputum EXACT-RS score, Week 49-52|||0.11|-0.45|0.231
90986164|NCT02345161|181857551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.097||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.01|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Chest EXACT-RS score, Week 1-4|||0.01|-0.37|0.068
90986165|NCT02345161|181857551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.118||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.09|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Chest EXACT-RS score, Week 5-8|||-0.09|-0.56|0.006
90986166|NCT02345161|181857551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.131||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.01|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Chest EXACT-RS score, Week 9-12|||-0.01|-0.53|0.042
90986167|NCT02345161|181857551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.03|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Chest EXACT-RS score, Week 13-16|||-0.03|-0.57|0.027
90986168|NCT02345161|181857551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.146||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.09|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Chest EXACT-RS score, Week 17-20|||-0.09|-0.67|0.010
90986169|NCT02345161|181857551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.144||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.09|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Chest EXACT-RS score, Week 21-24|||-0.09|-0.66|0.010
90986170|NCT02345161|181857551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.148|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.12|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Chest EXACT-RS score, Week 25-28|||-0.12|-0.70|
90986171|NCT02345161|181857551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.152||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.09|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Chest EXACT-RS score, Week 29-32|||-0.09|-0.68|0.011
90986172|NCT02345161|181857551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.157||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.09|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Chest EXACT-RS score, Week 33-36|||-0.09|-0.71|0.011
90986173|NCT02345161|181857551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.151||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.07|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Chest EXACT-RS score, Week 37-40|||-0.07|-0.67|0.014
90986174|NCT02345161|181857551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.153||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.12|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Chest EXACT-RS score, Week 41-44|||-0.12|-0.72|0.007
90986175|NCT02345161|181857551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.13|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Chest EXACT-RS score, Week 45-48|||-0.13|-0.76|0.006
90986176|NCT02345161|181857551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.163||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.09|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Chest EXACT-RS score, Week 49-52|||-0.09|-0.73|0.013
91041286|NCT02846883|181967730|SUPERIORITY|These power estimates are based on linear regression of regulatory T-cell counts at each time point. These data will be summarized with the mean, median, standard deviation, standard error, minimum and maximum.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|81.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||P value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Cox|See above|Estimates for the differences in the secondary endpoints will be used to perform a power estimation using a Monte Carlo simulation method.|The primary statistical evaluation for Aim 1 will focus on the chronologically increasing counts of T-regulatory cells over time following MSC administration in both delivery groups. Using the pattern of increased counts with time and the standard deviation reported by Ito and colleagues in healthy subjects, 36 subjects provides 81.0% power to detect such a change.A p value of \<0.05 will be considered significant.||||<0.05
91078035|NCT02542293|182041277|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.113|0.532|||||The HR and CI were calculated using an unstratified Cox proportional hazards model, with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"bTMB ≥20 mut/Mb analysis set: Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy to be associated with a longer DoR than SoC."||0.532|0.113|
91078036|NCT02542293|182041277|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.196|0.639|||||The HR and CI were calculated using an unstratified Cox proportional hazards model, with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"bTMB ≥16 mut/Mb analysis set: Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy to be associated with a longer DoR than SoC."||0.639|0.196|
91078037|NCT02542293|182041277|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.233|0.611|||||The HR and CI were calculated using an unstratified Cox proportional hazards model, with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"bTMB ≥12 mut/Mb analysis set: Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy to be associated with a longer DoR than SoC."||0.611|0.233|
90986177|NCT02345161|181857560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.4|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||For QTcF|||3.4|0.3|0.023
90986178|NCT02345161|181857560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.0|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||For PR interval|||1.0|-2.1|0.471
90986179|NCT02345161|181857561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.83||0.564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|2.5|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||For QTcF|||2.5|-4.7|0.564
90986180|NCT02345161|181857561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.57||0.908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|3.3|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||For PR interval|||3.3|-2.9|0.908
90986181|NCT02345161|181857564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.2|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 24, SBP|||1.2|-1.0|0.849
90986182|NCT02345161|181857564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.9|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 24, DBP|||0.9|-0.6|0.613
90986183|NCT02345161|181857565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||: LS mean difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.19||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|0.8|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 52, SBP|||0.8|-3.9|0.183
90986184|NCT02345161|181857565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.6|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 52, DBP|||0.6|-2.3|0.253
90986185|NCT02345161|181857567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.2|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||1.2|-0.6|0.526
90986186|NCT02345161|181857568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|4.5|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||4.5|0.7|0.007
90986187|NCT03567291|181857608|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|2.6|||ANCOVA|||||2.6|-3.4|0.78
90986188|NCT02677701|181857626|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.44||||0.0846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|7.35|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline: ppFEV1 (25%-50%, \>50%-75%, \>75%), azithromycin use (current vs. non-current), inhaled tobramycin type (powder vs. solution).||||7.35|-0.48|0.0846
90986189|NCT02677701|181857627|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.31||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.64|5.26|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline: ppFEV1 (25%-50%, \>50%-75%, \>75%), azithromycin use (current vs. non-current), inhaled tobramycin type (powder vs. solution).||||5.26|-2.64|0.51
90986190|NCT02677701|181857628|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.89||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.01|1.22|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline: ppFEV1 (25%-50%, \>50%-75%, \>75%), azithromycin use (current vs. non-current), inhaled tobramycin type (powder vs. solution).||||1.22|-7.01|0.17
90986191|NCT02677701|181857629|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.53||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|6.77||Adjusted for baseline: ppFEV1 (25%-50%, \>50%-75%, \>75%), azithromycin use (current vs. non-current), inhaled tobramycin type (powder vs. solution).|Regression, Linear|||||6.77|-3.70|0.56
90986192|NCT02677701|181857630|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.75||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|1.47||Adjusted for baseline: ppFEV1 (25%-50%, \>50%-75%, \>75%), azithromycin use (current vs. non-current), inhaled tobramycin type (powder vs. solution).|Regression, Linear|||||1.47|0.03|0.043
90986193|NCT02487745|181857657|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.29||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||.05
90986194|NCT02487745|181857658|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.88||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||.05
90986195|NCT00532883|181857672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93||95.0||||This is a global test comparing all four treatment arms.|Mixed Models Analysis|||F-test from a longitudinal mixed model (controlling for baseline measurement)testing the hypothesis of no difference in mean percent dense cells between the four treatment groups at Visit 6. The study was originally powered to detect a difference of 20%, but it was stopped early.||||0.93
90986196|NCT01214434|181857676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
90986197|NCT01214434|181857678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.03||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.03
90986198|NCT01214434|181857679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.6||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.6
90986199|NCT01214434|181857680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.24||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=.24
90986200|NCT01214434|181857681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.8||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.8
90986201|NCT02075255|181857683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|33.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.7|50.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Hodges-Lehmann estimate is used.|||50.00|16.70|<0.001
90986202|NCT02075255|181857683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|37.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.8|50.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Hodges Lehmann estimate is used.|||50.00|20.80|<0.001
90986203|NCT02075255|181857684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.22|7.57|||proportional odds model|Controlling for treatment group, region, and baseline OCS dose.||||7.57|2.22|<0.001
90986204|NCT02075255|181857684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.22|7.63|||proportional odds model|Controlling for treatment group, region, and baseline OCS dose.||||7.63|2.22|<0.001
90986205|NCT02075255|181857685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|50.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.0|66.7|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Hodges Lehmann estimate is used.|||66.70|25.00|<0.001
90986206|NCT02075255|181857685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|50.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.0|66.7|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Hodges Lehmann estimate is used.|||66.70|25.00|<0.001
90986207|NCT02075255|181857686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.79|7.22|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for region.||||7.22|1.79|<0.001
90986208|NCT02075255|181857686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|5.86|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for region.||||5.86|1.57|<0.001
90986209|NCT02075255|181857687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.92|14.21|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for region.||||14.21|1.92|<0.001
90986210|NCT02075255|181857687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.19||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|11.12|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for region.||||11.12|1.58|0.002
90986211|NCT02075255|181857688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.42||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.83|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for region.||||0.83|0.21|0.012
90986212|NCT02075255|181857688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.52||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.01|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for region.||||1.01|0.27|0.053
90986213|NCT02075255|181857689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|6.23|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for region.||||6.23|1.60|<0.001
90986214|NCT02075255|181857689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.74||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|5.31|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for region.||||5.31|1.41|0.002
90986215|NCT02075255|181857690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.32||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.65|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for region.||||0.65|0.16|0.001
90986216|NCT02075255|181857690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.56|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for region.||||0.56|0.14|<0.001
90986217|NCT02075255|181857691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.66|||Regression, Cox|Including covariates treatment group, region, number of exacerbations in the previous year.||||0.66|0.22|<0.001
90986218|NCT02075255|181857691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.57|||Regression, Cox|Including covariates treatment group, region, number of exacerbations in the previous year.||||0.57|0.17|<0.001
90986219|NCT02075255|181857692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53||||0.291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|1.64|||Regression, Cox|Including covariates treatment group, region, any exacerbations in the previous year requiring hospitalization or ER visit.||||1.64|0.14|0.291
90986220|NCT02075255|181857692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.12||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.63|||Regression, Cox|Including covariates treatment group, region, any exacerbations in the previous year requiring hospitalization or ER visit.||||0.63|0.01|0.042
90986221|NCT02075255|181857693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.45||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.76|||negative binomial model|Including covariates treatment group, region, number of exacerbations in the previous year. The log of follow-up time is used as offset variable.||||0.76|0.27|0.003
90986222|NCT02075255|181857693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.53|||negative binomial model|Including covariates treatment group, region, number of exacerbations in the previous year. The log of follow-up time is used as offset variable.||||0.53|0.17|<0.001
90986223|NCT02075255|181857694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.44||||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.49|||negative binomial model|Covariates include treatment, region, any exacerbations in the previous year requiring hospitalization/ER. Log of follow-up time is the offset.||||1.49|0.13|0.187
90986224|NCT02075255|181857694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.07||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.63|||negative binomial model|Covariates include treatment, region, any exacerbations in the previous year requiring hospitalization/ER. Log of follow-up time is the offset.||||0.63|0.01|0.018
90986225|NCT02075255|181857696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.105||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.251|||Mixed Models Analysis|Including covariates: treatment group, region, baseline pre-BD FEV1 value, visit, and visit by treatment interaction.||||0.251|-0.040|0.153
90986226|NCT02075255|181857696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.112||||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.033|0.258|||Mixed Models Analysis|Including covariates: treatment group, region, baseline pre-BD FEV1 value, visit, and visit by treatment interaction.||||0.258|-0.033|0.129
90986227|NCT02075255|181857697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|Include covariates: treatment group, baseline asthma symptom score, region, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||0.32|-0.35|0.947
90986228|NCT02075255|181857697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|Include covariates: treatment group, baseline asthma symptom score, region, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||0.16|-0.51|0.291
90986229|NCT02075255|181857698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|Include covariates: treatment group, baseline asthma symptom score, region, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||0.18|-0.18|0.998
90986230|NCT02075255|181857698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|Include covariates: treatment group, baseline asthma symptom score, region, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||0.05|-0.30|0.177
90986231|NCT02075255|181857699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|Include covariates: treatment group, baseline asthma symptom score, region, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||0.17|-0.17|0.973
90986232|NCT02075255|181857699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|Include covariates: treatment group, baseline asthma symptom score, region, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||0.11|-0.23|0.480
90986233|NCT02075255|181857700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43||||0.397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|0.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|Include covariates: treatment group, baseline total asthma rescue medication use, region, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||0.57|-1.44|0.397
90986234|NCT02075255|181857700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.41||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.42|-0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|Include covariates: treatment group, baseline total asthma rescue medication use, region, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||-0.41|-2.42|0.006
90986235|NCT02075255|181857701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.25||||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.58|45.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|Include covariates: treatment group, baseline morning PEF, region, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||45.07|-6.58|0.143
90986236|NCT02075255|181857701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|30.01||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.26|55.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|Include covariates: treatment group, baseline morning PEF, region, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||55.76|4.26|0.023
90986237|NCT02075255|181857702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.19||||0.237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.08|40.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|Include covariates: treatment group, baseline evening PEF, region, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||40.46|-10.08|0.237
90986238|NCT02075255|181857702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|31.52||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.32|56.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|Include covariates: treatment group, baseline evening PEF, region, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||56.71|6.32|0.014
90986239|NCT02075255|181857703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|Including covariates: treatment group, baseline proportion of nights with noctural awakenings, region, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||0.11|-0.08|0.742
90986240|NCT02075255|181857703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|Including covariates: treatment group, baseline proportion of nights with noctural awakenings, region, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||0.07|-0.11|0.693
90986241|NCT02075255|181857704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|Include covariates: treatment group, baseline ACQ-6 score, region, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||0.08|-0.55|0.139
90986242|NCT02075255|181857704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|-0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|Include covariates: treatment group, baseline ACQ-6 score, region, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||-0.23|-0.86|0.001
90986243|NCT02075255|181857705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.165||||0.658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.592|2.295|||Regression, Logistic|Including covariates: treatment group, baseline ACQ-6 score, region, number of exacerbations in the previous year.||||2.295|0.592|0.658
90986244|NCT02075255|181857705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.661||||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.826|3.34|||Regression, Logistic|Including covariates: treatment group, baseline ACQ-6 score, region, number of exacerbations in the previous year.||||3.340|0.826|0.155
90986245|NCT02075255|181857706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|Including covariates: treatment group, region, baseline AQLQ(S)+12 score, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||0.53|-0.08|0.151
91041287|NCT01435824|181967765|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence is assessed by means of ratios of AUC, Cmax and Tmax between the comparison group and the reference group. According to a common regulatory definition, the comparison preparation (human milk-dissolved amoxicillin in this project) is considered bioequivalent to a standard preparation (water dissolved) if 90% CIs of these ratios between the two preparations for Cmax, Tmax, AUClast and AUC∞ are within a range between 0.80 and 1.25.|mean %ratio and 90% confidence interval|106.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.5|115.4||||||A 2x2 crossover design was chosen to examine bioequivalence of milk-based amoxicillin preparation, based on the FDA-recommended design for bioavailability studies. The recommendation suggests that 12 subjects is the minimum number of subjects acceptable for this type of design. We have decided to enrol 16 subjects to account for problems or attrition.||115.4|97.5|
91078038|NCT02542293|182041278|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.199|0.787|||||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for smoking status (never smoker Vs ever smoker) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"PD-L1-negative analysis set:~Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy to be associated with a longer DoR than SoC."||0.787|0.199|
91078039|NCT02542293|182041278|OTHER|The study was not designed or powered to show statistical significance for efficacy endpoints in the China cohort, so all statistical analyses for the China cohort were considered exploratory.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.183|2.86|||||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"PD-L1-negative analysis set:~China: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs China: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy to be associated with a longer DoR than SoC."||2.860|0.183|
91078040|NCT02542293|182041278|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.324|0.588|||||The HR and CI were calculated using an unstratified Cox proportional hazards model, with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"FAS:~Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy to be associated with a longer DoR than SoC."||0.588|0.324|
90986246|NCT02075255|181857706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|Including covariates: treatment group, region, baseline AQLQ(S)+12 score, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||0.76|0.14|0.004
90986247|NCT02075255|181857707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.538||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.773|3.06|||Regression, Logistic|Including covariates: treatment group, region, baseline AQLQ(S)+12 score, number of exacerbations in the previous year.||||3.060|0.773|0.220
90986248|NCT02075255|181857707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.783||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.882|3.605|||Regression, Logistic|Including covariates: treatment group, region, baseline AQLQ(S)+12 score, number of exacerbations in the previous year.||||3.605|0.882|0.108
90986249|NCT02075255|181857711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-162.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-220.1|-104.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Include covariates: treatment group, baseline eosinophil count, region, visit, treatment by visit|Percent change|||-104.3|-220.1|<0.001
90986250|NCT02075255|181857711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-159.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-217.9|-100.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|Include covariates: treatment group, baseline eosinophil count, region, visit, treatment by visit.|Percent change|||-100.9|-217.9|<0.001
90986251|NCT00394914|181857740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.973|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.973
90986252|NCT00394914|181857741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.425|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.425
90986253|NCT02099799|181857759|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.0||||0.189|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.189
90986254|NCT02099799|181857760|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1||||0.572|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.572
90986255|NCT02099799|181857761|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.799|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.799
90986256|NCT02099799|181857762|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1312.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
90986257|NCT02099799|181857763|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2265|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2265
90986258|NCT02099799|181857764|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8897|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.8897
90986259|NCT00465738|181857770|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% Newcombe-Wilson confidence interval for the difference between the response rates of the groups was calculated. The lower bound of the Newcombe-Wilson CI for the difference of proportions was compared to the non-inferiority margin of -25%.|difference in response rates|10.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|24.9|||||difference in response rates = response rate for high volume dilution group (20 U/ml) - response rate for low volume dilution group (50 U/ml)|Null hypothesis: The response rate for the low volume dilution group (50 U/ml) is greater than the response rate for the high volume dilution group (20 U/ml).||24.9|-4.4|
90986260|NCT01855789|181857825|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of TCZ + PBO was claimed if the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the mean difference was below 0.6.|Estimated Mean Difference|0.318|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.139|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.045|0.592||||||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model included Week 24 DAS28 as a covariate, treatment group, and the randomization stratification factors: DAS28 remission status at Week 24 (\<2.6, \>/=2.6 to \</=3.2), baseline weight-by-dosing group (\<80 kg q2w, \<80 kg qw, 80-\<100 kg q2w, 80-\<100 kg qw, \>/=100 kg qw), participant anti-tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) exposure (Yes/No).||0.592|0.045|
90986261|NCT01855789|181857826|SUPERIORITY||ACR 20 Response Rate Difference|-10.2||||0.0746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.2|-0.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Observed difference in percentages (TCZ + PBO minus TCZ + MTX) and the asymptotic Wald 95% CI is presented.|Week 40: Analysis of association between treatment group and response, stratified by the randomization stratification factors: DAS28 remission status at Week 24 (\<2.6, \>=2.6 to \<=3.2), baseline weight-by-dosing group (\<80 kg q2w, \<80 kg qw, 80-\<100 kg q2w, 80-\<100 kg qw, \>=100 kg qw), participant anti-TNF exposure (Yes/No).||-0.2|-20.2|0.0746
90986262|NCT01855789|181857826|SUPERIORITY||ACR 20 Response Rate Difference|-8.8||||0.1159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.3|1.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Observed difference in percentages (TCZ + PBO minus TCZ + MTX) and the asymptotic Wald 95% CI is presented.|Week 52: Analysis of association between treatment group and response, stratified by the randomization stratification factors: DAS28 remission status at Week 24 (\<2.6, \>=2.6 to \<=3.2), baseline weight-by-dosing group (\<80 kg q2w, \<80 kg qw, 80-\<100 kg q2w, 80-\<100 kg qw, \>=100 kg qw), participant anti-TNF exposure (Yes/No).||1.6|-19.3|0.1159
90986263|NCT01855789|181857826|SUPERIORITY||ACR 20 Response Rate Difference|-8.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.8|-0.6|||||Observed difference in percentages (TCZ + PBO minus TCZ + MTX) and the asymptotic Wald 95% CI is presented.|Week 24||-0.6|-15.8|
91050521|NCT02037165|181987277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|2.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.079|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|6.6|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 3:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||6.6|-1.6|
90986264|NCT01855789|181857827|SUPERIORITY||ACR 50 Response Rate Difference|-13.6||||0.0377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.8|-2.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Observed difference in percentages (TCZ + PBO minus TCZ + MTX) and the asymptotic Wald 95% CI is presented.|Week 40: Analysis of association between treatment group and response, stratified by the randomization stratification factors: DAS28 remission status at Week 24 (\<2.6, \>=2.6 to \<=3.2), baseline weight-by-dosing group (\<80 kg q2w, \<80 kg qw, 80-\<100 kg q2w, 80-\<100 kg qw, \>=100 kg qw), participant anti-TNF exposure (Yes/No).||-2.4|-24.8|0.0377
90986265|NCT01855789|181857827|SUPERIORITY||ACR 50 Response Rate Difference|-15.0||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.2|-3.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Observed difference in percentages (TCZ + PBO minus TCZ + MTX) and the asymptotic Wald 95% CI is presented.|Week 52: Analysis of association between treatment group and response, stratified by the randomization stratification factors: DAS28 remission status at Week 24 (\<2.6, \>=2.6 to \<=3.2), baseline weight-by-dosing group (\<80 kg q2w, \<80 kg qw, 80-\<100 kg q2w, 80-\<100 kg qw, \>=100 kg qw), participant anti-TNF exposure (Yes/No).||-3.7|-26.2|0.0130
90986266|NCT01855789|181857827|SUPERIORITY||ACR 50 Response Rate Difference|-10.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.4|-0.4|||||Observed difference in percentages (TCZ + PBO minus TCZ + MTX) and the asymptotic Wald 95% CI is presented.|Week 24||-0.4|-21.4|
90986267|NCT01855789|181857828|SUPERIORITY||ACR 70 Response Rate Difference|-8.2||||0.3599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.2|2.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Observed difference in percentages (TCZ + PBO minus TCZ + MTX) and the asymptotic Wald 95% CI is presented.|Week 40: Analysis of association between treatment group and response, stratified by the randomization stratification factors: DAS28 remission status at Week 24 (\<2.6, \>=2.6 to \<=3.2), baseline weight-by-dosing group (\<80 kg q2w, \<80 kg qw, 80-\<100 kg q2w, 80-\<100 kg qw, \>=100 kg qw), participant anti-TNF exposure (Yes/No).||2.9|-19.2|0.3599
90986268|NCT01855789|181857828|SUPERIORITY||ACR 70 Response Rate Difference|-11.6||||0.0663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.8|-0.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Observed difference in percentages (TCZ + PBO minus TCZ + MTX) and the asymptotic Wald 95% CI is presented.|Week 52: Analysis of association between treatment group and response, stratified by the randomization stratification factors: DAS28 remission status at Week 24 (\<2.6, \>=2.6 to \<=3.2), baseline weight-by-dosing group (\<80 kg q2w, \<80 kg qw, 80-\<100 kg q2w, 80-\<100 kg qw, \>=100 kg qw), participant anti-TNF exposure (Yes/No).||-0.3|-22.8|0.0663
90986269|NCT01855789|181857828|SUPERIORITY||ACR 70 Response Rate Difference|-8.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|3.1|||||Observed difference in percentages (TCZ + PBO minus TCZ + MTX) and the asymptotic Wald 95% CI is presented.|Week 24||3.1|-19.4|
90986270|NCT01855789|181857829|SUPERIORITY||DAS28 Worsening Rate Difference|7.5||||0.2371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|17.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||TCZ + PBO minus TCZ + MTX|Week 40: Analysis of association between treatment group and worsening in DAS28, stratified by the randomization stratification factors: DAS28 remission status at Week 24 (\<2.6, \>=2.6 to \<=3.2), baseline weight-by-dosing group (\<80 kg q2w, \<80 kg qw, 80-\<100 kg q2w, 80-\<100 kg qw, \>=100 kg qw), participant anti-TNF exposure (Yes/No).||17.3|-2.4|0.2371
90986271|NCT01855789|181857829|SUPERIORITY||DAS28 Worsening Rate Difference|3.4||||0.4811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|13.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||TCZ + PBO minus TCZ + MTX|Week 52: Analysis of association between treatment group and worsening in DAS28, stratified by the randomization stratification factors: DAS28 remission status at Week 24 (\<2.6, \>=2.6 to \<=3.2), baseline weight-by-dosing group (\<80 kg q2w, \<80 kg qw, 80-\<100 kg q2w, 80-\<100 kg qw, \>=100 kg qw), participant anti-TNF exposure (Yes/No).||13.7|-6.9|0.4811
90986272|NCT01855789|181857830|SUPERIORITY||DAS28 Remission Rate Difference|-9.5||||0.1062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.9|1.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||TCZ + PBO minus TCZ + MTX|Week 40: Analysis of association between treatment group and response, stratified by the randomization stratification factors: DAS28 remission status at Week 24 (\<2.6, \>=2.6 to \<=3.2), baseline weight-by-dosing group (\<80 kg q2w, \<80 kg qw, 80-\<100 kg q2w, 80-\<100 kg qw, \>=100 kg qw), participant anti-TNF exposure (Yes/No).||1.8|-20.9|0.1062
90986273|NCT01855789|181857830|SUPERIORITY||DAS28 Remission Rate Difference|-6.8||||0.3611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.2|4.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||TCZ + PBO minus TCZ + MTX|Week 52: Analysis of association between treatment group and response, stratified by the randomization stratification factors: DAS28 remission status at Week 24 (\<2.6, \>=2.6 to \<=3.2), baseline weight-by-dosing group (\<80 kg q2w, \<80 kg qw, 80-\<100 kg q2w, 80-\<100 kg qw, \>=100 kg qw), participant anti-TNF exposure (Yes/No).||4.6|-18.2|0.3611
90986274|NCT01855789|181857831|SUPERIORITY||Low DAS28 Rate Difference|-13.6||||0.0228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.0|-3.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||TCZ + PBO minus TCZ + MTX|Week 40: Analysis of association between treatment group and response, stratified by the randomization stratification factors: DAS28 remission status at Week 24 (\<2.6, \>=2.6 to \<=3.2), baseline weight-by-dosing group (\<80 kg q2w, \<80 kg qw, 80-\<100 kg q2w, 80-\<100 kg qw, \>=100 kg qw), participant anti-TNF exposure (Yes/No).||-3.3|-24.0|0.0228
90986275|NCT01855789|181857831|SUPERIORITY||Low DAS28 Rate Difference|-5.4||||0.3665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|5.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||TCZ + PBO minus TCZ + MTX|Week 52: Analysis of association between treatment group and response, stratified by the randomization stratification factors: DAS28 remission status at Week 24 (\<2.6, \>=2.6 to \<=3.2), baseline weight-by-dosing group (\<80 kg q2w, \<80 kg qw, 80-\<100 kg q2w, 80-\<100 kg qw, \>=100 kg qw), participant anti-TNF exposure (Yes/No).||5.4|-16.3|0.3665
90986276|NCT01855789|181857832|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.68|||||TCZ + PBO minus TCZ + MTX|ANCOVA model included Week 24 bone erosion as a covariate, treatment group, and the randomization stratification factors: DAS28 remission status at Week 24 (\<2.6, \>/=2.6 to \</=3.2), participant anti-TNF exposure (Yes/No), baseline weight-by-dosing group (\<80 kg q2w, 80-\<100 kg q2w, 80-\<100 kg qw, \>=100 kg qw).||0.68|-0.21|
90986277|NCT01863758|181857836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Annualized number of bleeding episodes|3.13|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.56|3.8|||2-sided, 1-sample Poisson test||The annualized number of bleeding episodes in study GENA-01 was 49.36.|This study was considered as showing efficacy if the annualized number of bleeding episodes (BE) was reduced by 50% compared to the number of BEs observed in study GENA-01 (NCT00989196).||3.80|2.56|<0.05
90986278|NCT01863758|181857837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Annualized number of spontaneous BEs|1.9|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|2.43|||2-sided, 1-sample Poisson test||The annualized number of spontaneous bleeding episodes in study GENA-01 was 32.23|This study was considered as showing efficacy if the annualized number of spontaneous bleeding episodes (BE) was reduced by 50% compared to the number of spontaneous BEs observed in study GENA-01 (NCT00989196).||2.43|1.46|<0.05
91041288|NCT01435824|181967766|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence is assessed by means of ratios of AUC, Cmax and Tmax between the comparison group and the reference group. According to a common regulatory definition, the comparison preparation (human milk-dissolved amoxicillin in this project) is considered bioequivalent to a standard preparation (water dissolved) if 90% CIs of these ratios between the two preparations for Cmax, Tmax, AUClast and AUC∞ are within a range between 0.80 and 1.25.|mean %ratio and 90% confidence interval|106.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.5|115.7||||||A 2x2 crossover design was chosen to examine bioequivalence of milk-based amoxicillin preparation, based on the FDA-recommended design for bioavailability studies. The recommendation suggests that 12 subjects is the minimum number of subjects acceptable for this type of design. We have decided to enrol 16 subjects to account for problems or attrition.||115.7|97.5|
90986279|NCT02961764|181857841|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.289|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.156|0.532|||Fisher Exact|||||0.532|0.156|<0.001
90986280|NCT02961764|181857842|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.005
90986281|NCT02961764|181857843|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.050
90986282|NCT02961764|181857845|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.002
90986283|NCT02160977|181857884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
90986284|NCT02160977|181857885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
90986285|NCT02160977|181857886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
90986286|NCT01663740|181857887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|-40.166|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.1387||0.0075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.869|-11.463|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for Cohort,visit,Cohort by visit interaction,baseline sperm density,age,\& duration of pre-transplant dialysis as explanatory variables.|Change in sperm density from Baseline to EOT|||-11.463|-68.869|0.0075
90986287|NCT01663740|181857888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|1.758|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.646||0.5109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.619|7.135|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for Cohort,visit,Cohort by visit interaction,baseline TUNEL score,age,\& duration of pre-transplant dialysis as explanatory variables.|Change in TUNEL score from Baseline to EOT|||7.135|-3.619|0.5109
90986288|NCT01663740|181857888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|-1.051|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2058||0.7449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.566|5.464|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for Cohort,visit,Cohort by visit interaction,baseline TUNEL score,age,\& duration of pre-transplant dialysis as explanatory variables.|Change in TUNEL score from Baseline to end of FU|||5.464|-7.566|0.7449
90986289|NCT01663740|181857889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|2.869|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2934||0.394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.001|9.739|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for Cohort,visit,Cohort by visit interaction,baseline TUNEL score,age,\& duration of pre-transplant dialysis as explanatory variables.|Change in TUNEL score from EOT to end of FU|||9.739|-4.001|0.3940
91041289|NCT01435824|181967767|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence is assessed by means of ratios of AUC, Cmax and Tmax between the comparison group and the reference group. According to a common regulatory definition, the comparison preparation (human milk-dissolved amoxicillin in this project) is considered bioequivalent to a standard preparation (water dissolved) if 90% CIs of these ratios between the two preparations for Cmax, Tmax, AUClast and AUC∞ are within a range between 0.80 and 1.25.|mean %ratio and 90% confidence interval|101.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.4|114.9||||||A 2x2 crossover design was chosen to examine bioequivalence of milk-based amoxicillin preparation, based on the FDA-recommended design for bioavailability studies. The recommendation suggests that 12 subjects is the minimum number of subjects acceptable for this type of design. We have decided to enrol 16 subjects to account for problems or attrition.||114.9|89.4|
91041290|NCT01435824|181967768|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence is assessed by means of ratios of AUC, Cmax and Tmax between the comparison group and the reference group. According to a common regulatory definition, the comparison preparation (human milk-dissolved amoxicillin in this project) is considered bioequivalent to a standard preparation (water dissolved) if 90% CIs of these ratios between the two preparations for Cmax, Tmax, AUClast and AUC∞ are within a range between 0.80 and 1.25.|mean %ratio and 90% confidence interval|107.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.5|137.8||||||A 2x2 crossover design was chosen to examine bioequivalence of milk-based amoxicillin preparation, based on the FDA-recommended design for bioavailability studies. The recommendation suggests that 12 subjects is the minimum number of subjects acceptable for this type of design. We have decided to enrol 16 subjects to account for problems or attrition.||137.8|84.5|
91041291|NCT00117806|181967778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.008
91041292|NCT01765751|181967780|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|5.6|||||High vs Low group, mean difference adjusted for the baseline value of the respective variable centered at its mean. NDI also adjusted for traction-force feedback method.|||5.6|-0.1|
91041293|NCT01765751|181967780|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|5.9|||||Medium vs Low group, mean difference adjusted for the baseline value of the respective variable centered at its mean. NDI also adjusted for traction-force feedback method.|||5.9|0.1|
91041294|NCT01765751|181967780|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|2.7|||||High vs Medium group, mean difference adjusted for the baseline value of the respective variable centered at its mean. NDI also adjusted for traction-force feedback method.|||2.7|-3.2|
91041295|NCT01765751|181967781|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|29.7|||||High vs Low group, mean difference adjusted for the baseline value of the respective variable centered at its mean. NDI also adjusted for traction-force feedback method.|||29.7|1.6|
91041296|NCT01765751|181967781|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|23.3|||||Medium vs Low group, mean difference adjusted for the baseline value of the respective variable centered at its mean. NDI also adjusted for traction-force feedback method.|||23.3|-3.7|
91041297|NCT01765751|181967781|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|20.3|||||High vs Medium group, mean difference adjusted for the baseline value of the respective variable centered at its mean. NDI also adjusted for traction-force feedback method.|||20.3|-8.6|
91041298|NCT01765751|181967782|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|0.4|||||Pain Interference - High vs. Low Group - The scale for the PROMIS measures uses a T-score metric in which 50 is the mean of a relevant reference population and 10 is the standard deviation (SD) of that population.|Pain Interference||0.4|-8.1|
91041299|NCT01765751|181967782|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|5.6|||||Pain Interference - Medium vs Low Group - The scale for the PROMIS measures uses a T-score metric in which 50 is the mean of a relevant reference population and 10 is the standard deviation (SD) of that population.|Pain Interference||5.6|-2.6|
91041300|NCT01765751|181967782|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|1.0|||||Pain Interference - High vs. Medium Group - The scale for the PROMIS measures uses a T-score metric in which 50 is the mean of a relevant reference population and 10 is the standard deviation (SD) of that population.|Pain Interference||1.0|-9.8|
91041301|NCT01765751|181967782|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|3.8|||||Physical Function - High vs. Low Group - The scale for the PROMIS measures uses a T-score metric in which 50 is the mean of a relevant reference population and 10 is the standard deviation (SD) of that population.|Physical Function||3.8|-2.2|
91041302|NCT01765751|181967782|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|3.2|||||Physical Function - Medium vs. Low Group - The scale for the PROMIS measures uses a T-score metric in which 50 is the mean of a relevant reference population and 10 is the standard deviation (SD) of that population.|Physical Funtion||3.2|-2.9|
91041303|NCT01765751|181967782|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|3.7|||||Physical Function- High vs. Medium Group - The scale for the PROMIS measures uses a T-score metric in which 50 is the mean of a relevant reference population and 10 is the standard deviation (SD) of that population|Physical Function||3.7|-2.4|
91041304|NCT01765751|181967782|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|10.5|||||Fatigue - High vs. Low Group - The scale for the PROMIS measures uses a T-score metric in which 50 is the mean of a relevant reference population and 10 is the standard deviation (SD) of that population.|Fatigue||10.5|1.1|
90986290|NCT01663740|181857890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|0.155|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3687||0.6773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.594|0.903|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for Cohort,visit,Cohort by visit interaction,baseline semen volume,age,\& duration of pre-transplant dialysis as explanatory variables.|Change in seminal volume from Basline to EOT|||0.903|-0.594|0.6773
90986291|NCT01663740|181857890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|-0.128|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3343||0.7046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.806|0.551|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for Cohort,visit,Cohort by visit interaction,baseline semen volume,age,\& duration of pre-transplant dialysis as explanatory variables.|Change in seminal volume from Baseline to end of FU|||0.551|-0.806|0.7046
90986292|NCT01663740|181857891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|-0.128|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3684||0.7323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.888|0.633|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for Cohort,visit,Cohort by visit interaction,baseline semen volume,age,\& duration of pre-transplant dialysis as explanatory variables.|Change in seminal volume from EOT to end of FU|||0.633|-0.888|0.7323
90986293|NCT01663740|181857892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|51.267|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|36.6869||0.1756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.626|127.159|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for Cohort,visit,Cohort by visit interaction,baseline sperm density,age,\& duration of pre-transplant dialysis as explanatory variables.|Change in sperm density from EOT to end of FU|||127.159|-24.626|0.1756
90986294|NCT01663740|181857893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|-10.195|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.5745||0.6058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.934|29.543|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for Cohort,visit,Cohort by visit interaction,baseline sperm density,age,\& duration of pre-transplant dialysis as explanatory variables.|Change in sperm density from Baseline to end of FU|||29.543|-49.934|0.6058
90986295|NCT01663740|181857894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|-21.828|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.1214||0.0222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.346|-3.311|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for Cohort,visit,Cohort by visit interaction,baseline sperm motility,age,duration of pre-transplant dialysis as explanatory variables.|Change in total motility of sperm from Baseline to EOT|||-3.311|-40.346|0.0222
90986296|NCT01663740|181857894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|-9.802|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.3702||0.2495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.795|7.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for Cohort,visit,Cohort by visit interaction,baseline sperm motility,age,duration of pre-transplant dialysis as explanatory variables.|Change in total motility of sperm from Baseline to end of FU|||7.190|-26.795|0.2495
90986297|NCT01663740|181857895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|-11.683|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.2576||0.3505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.039|13.674|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for Cohort,visit,Cohort by visit interaction,baseline sperm motility,age,duration of pre-transplant dialysis as explanatory variables.|Change in total motility of sperm from EOT to end of FU|||13.674|-37.039|0.3505
90986298|NCT01663740|181857896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|-5.741|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.7578||0.4021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.524|8.042|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for Cohort,visit,Cohort by visit interaction,baseline sperm morphology,age,pre-transplant dialysis duration as explanatory variables.|Change in sperm morphology from Baseline to EOT|||8.042|-19.524|0.4021
90986299|NCT01663740|181857896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|-1.854|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.1817||0.7229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.423|8.714|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for Cohort,visit,Cohort by visit interaction,baseline sperm morphology,age,pre-transplant dialysis duration as explanatory variables.|Change in sperm morphology from Baseline to end of FU|||8.714|-12.423|0.7229
90986300|NCT01663740|181857897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|-2.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.7598||0.708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.192|13.291|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for Cohort,visit,Cohort by visit interaction,baseline sperm morphology,age,pre-transplant dialysis duration as explanatory variables.|Change in sperm morphology from EOT to end of FU|||13.291|-19.192|0.7080
90986301|NCT01663740|181857898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|-1.861|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6512||0.2673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.213|1.491|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for Cohort,visit,Cohort by visit interaction,baseline testosterone,age,duration of pre-transplant dialysis as explanatory variables.|Change in total testosterone level from Baseline to EOT|||1.491|-5.213|0.2673
90986302|NCT01663740|181857898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|-1.114|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6147||0.4949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.392|2.164|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for Cohort,visit,Cohort by visit interaction,baseline testosterone,age,duration of pre-transplant dialysis as explanatory variables.|Change in total testosterone level from Baseline to end of FU|||2.164|-4.392|0.4949
90986303|NCT01663740|181857899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|0.047|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.51||0.9753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.063|3.157|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for Cohort,visit,Cohort by visit interaction,baseline testosterone,age,duration of pre-transplant dialysis as explanatory variables.|Change in total testosterone level from EOT to end of FU|||3.157|-3.063|0.9753
90986304|NCT01663740|181857900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|0.076|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6347||0.9053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.214|1.366|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for Cohort,visit,Cohort by visit interaction,baseline LH concentration,age,pre-transplant dialysis duration as explanatory variables.|Change in LH level from Baseline to EOT|||1.366|-1.214|0.9053
90986305|NCT01663740|181857900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|-1.215|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4477||0.0104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.125|-0.305|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for Cohort,visit,Cohort by visit interaction,baseline LH concentration,age,pre-transplant dialysis duration as explanatory variables.|Change in LH level from Baseline to end of FU|||-0.305|-2.125|0.0104
90986306|NCT01663740|181857901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|-1.065|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4057||0.0143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.899|-0.231|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for Cohort,visit,Cohort by visit interaction,baseline LH concentration,age,\& pre-transplant dialysis duration as explanatory variables.|Change in LH level from EOT to end of FU|||-0.231|-1.899|0.0143
90986307|NCT01663740|181857902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|2.541|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7274||0.1505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.969|6.052|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for Cohort,visit,Cohort by visit interaction,baseline FSH concentration,age,pre-transplant dialysis duration as explanatory variables.|Change in FSH level from Baseline to EOT|||6.052|-0.969|0.1505
90986308|NCT01663740|181857902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|-0.983|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6739||0.1539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.352|0.387|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for Cohort,visit,Cohort by visit interaction,baseline FSH concentration,age,pre-transplant dialysis duration as explanatory variables.|Change in FSH level from Baseline to end of FU|||0.387|-2.352|0.1539
90986309|NCT01663740|181857903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|-1.474|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8084||0.0798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.136|0.188|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for Cohort,visit,Cohort by visit interaction,baseline FSH concentration,age,pre-transplant dialysis duration as explanatory variables.|Change in FSH level from EOT to end of FU|||0.188|-3.136|0.0798
90986310|NCT01663740|181857904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|-0.104|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|23.466||0.9965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.792|47.585|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for Cohort,visit,Cohort by visit interaction,baseline prolactin level,age,pre-transplant dialysis duration as explanatory variables.|Change in prolactin level from Baseline to EOT|||47.585|-47.792|0.9965
90986311|NCT01663740|181857904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|15.272|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.6031||0.4636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.599|57.142|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for Cohort,visit,Cohort by visit interaction,baseline prolactin level,age,pre-transplant dialysis duration as explanatory variables.|Change in prolactin level from Baseline to end of FU|||57.142|-26.599|0.4636
90986312|NCT01663740|181857905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|8.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.0805||0.6134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.438|43.917|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for Cohort,visit,Cohort by visit interaction,baseline prolactin level,age,pre-transplant dialysis duration as explanatory variables.|Change in prolactin level from EOT to end of FU|||43.917|-26.438|0.6134
90986313|NCT01663740|181857906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|8.142|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.9301||0.5002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.223|32.506|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for Cohort,visit,Cohort by visit interaction,baseline inhibin B level,age,pre-transplant dialysis duration as explanatory variables.|Change in inhibin B level from Baseline to EOT|||32.506|-16.223|0.5002
90986314|NCT01663740|181857906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|40.682|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.6084||0.0279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.72|76.643|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for Cohort,visit,Cohort by visit interaction,baseline inhibin B level,age,pre-transplant dialysis duration as explanatory variables.|Change in inhibin B level from Baseline to end of FU|||76.643|4.720|0.0279
90986315|NCT01663740|181857907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|25.881|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.1348||0.2548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.024|71.786|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for Cohort,visit,Cohort by visit interaction,baseline inhibin B level,age,pre-transplant dialysis duration as explanatory variables|Change in inhibin B level from EOT to end of FU|||71.786|-20.024|0.2548
90986316|NCT01663740|181857908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|14.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.3|45.3|||||Change in abnormal to abnormal sperm density from Baseline to EOT|||45.3|-19.3|
90986317|NCT01663740|181857908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.3|43.3|||||Change in abnormal to abnormal sperm density from Baseline to end of FU|||43.3|-34.3|
90986318|NCT01663740|181857908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|17.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.3|48.8|||||Change in normal to abnormal sperm density from Baseline to EOT|||48.8|-15.3|
90986319|NCT01663740|181857909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.5|42.5|||||Change in abnormal to abnormal sperm density from EOT to end of FU|||42.5|-34.5|
90986320|NCT01663740|181857910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.3|33.7|||||Improvement from Baseline to EOT|||33.7|-31.3|
90986321|NCT01663740|181857910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.1|44.4|||||Improvement from Baseline to end of FU|||44.4|-31.1|
90986322|NCT01663740|181857911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-11.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.0|29.3|||||Improvement from EOT to end of FU|||29.3|-50.0|
90986323|NCT01663740|181857912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-31.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.7|2.7|||||Improvement from Baseline to EOT|||2.7|-59.7|
90986324|NCT01663740|181857912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.7|47.7|||||Improvement from Baseline to end of FU|||47.7|-29.7|
90986325|NCT01663740|181857913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-9.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.2|27.9|||||Improvement from EOT to end of FU|||27.9|-47.2|
90986326|NCT02658656|181857923|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.91||||0.798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.85|||Chi-squared|||||1.85|.45|0.798
90986327|NCT02658656|181857924|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.97||||0.935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|2.15|||Chi-squared|||||2.15|0.44|0.935
90986328|NCT02658656|181857925|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.93||||0.829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.79|||Chi-squared|||||1.79|0.49|0.829
90986329|NCT02658656|181857926|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.09||||0.809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|2.11|||Chi-squared|||||2.11|0.56|0.809
90986330|NCT02658656|181857927|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.15||||0.717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|2.47|||Chi-squared|||||2.47|0.54|0.717
90986331|NCT02658656|181857928|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.11||||0.738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|2.02|||Chi-squared|||||2.02|0.61|0.738
90986332|NCT02026908|181858014|OTHER|Paired T- test|p value|0.05||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|0.0||||P value was calculated with threshold of significance \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||A p-value was calculated. Pretreatment (baseline) values for each parameter are compared to post-treatment values in a paired fashion.|||||0.0001
90986333|NCT02026908|181858015|OTHER|Paired t test|p value|0.05||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|0.0||||P value was calculated and a value of \<0.05 was considered significant. A p-value was calculated. Comments: Pretreatment (baseline) values for each parameter are compared to post-treatment values in a paired fashion.|t-test, 2 sided||P value was calculated with threshold of significance \<0.05.|||||0.0001
90986334|NCT02026908|181858016|OTHER|Paired T test|p value|0.05||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|0.0||||P value was calculated and a value of \<0.05 was considered significant. A p-value was calculated. Comments: Pretreatment (baseline) values for each parameter are compared to post-treatment values in a paired fashion.|t-test, 2 sided||P value was calculated with threshold of significance \<0.05.|||||0.0001
90986335|NCT02026908|181858017|OTHER|Paired T Test|p value|0.05||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P value was calculated and a value of \<0.05 was considered significant. A p-value was calculated. Comments: Pretreatment (baseline) values for each parameter are compared to post-treatment values in a paired fashion.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0001
90986336|NCT02026908|181858018|OTHER|Paired T test|p value|0.05||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|0.0||||P value was calculated and a value of \<0.05 was considered significant. A p-value was calculated. Comments: Pretreatment (baseline) values for each parameter are compared to post-treatment values in a paired fashion.|t-test, 2 sided||P value was calculated and a value of \<0.05 was considered significant. A p-value was calculated. Comments: Pretreatment (baseline) values for each parameter are compared to post-treatment values in a paired fashion.|||||0.008
90986337|NCT00128206|181858025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.51|||>|0.05||95.0|0.13|2.01|||Chi-squared|||The null hypothesis was that there would be no difference in toxicity by study group, and a sample of 360 participants (180 in each group)was estimated to have sufficient power to detect a difference.||2.01|.13|>.05
90986338|NCT00408421|181858070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for treatment effect at last visit. Effects evaluated based on 2-sided significance level=0.05. Model: treatment, NSAID use, investigator, week, treatment-by-week interaction, baseline score and baseline-by-week interaction.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.||Null hypothesis: the difference in 24-hour average pain score between duloxetine and placebo treatment groups at last visit of treatment phase is zero. This study will have at least 80% power to detect a treatment group difference of 1.0 point in the baseline-to-endpoint mean change on the weekly mean of 24-hour average pain severity between duloxetine and placebo treatment groups based on Baseline Observation Carried Forward (BOCF).||||<0.001
90986339|NCT00408421|181858071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.53||||0.001||95.0|-0.84|-0.21||Treatment effects and interaction effects were evaluated based on a two-sided significance level of 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used which contains the terms of treatment, NSAID use (Yes/No), PGI severity at baseline, and investigator. Type III sum-of-squares for the least-squares mean (LSMean) was used to test the null hypothesis that there is no treatment difference on the mean outcome measure at endpoint.||-0.21|-0.84|0.001
90986340|NCT00408421|181858072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.41||||0.003||95.0|-2.33|-0.48||P-value for Change from Baseline. Treatment effects and interaction effects were evaluated based on a two-sided significance level of 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. Change=Endpoint-Baseline.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used which contains the terms of treatment, NSAID use (Yes/No), the outcome score at baseline, and investigator. Type III sum-of-squares for the least-squares mean (LSMean) was used to test the null hypothesis that there is no treatment difference on the mean change from baseline to the endpoint of the outcome measure.||-0.48|-2.33|0.003
90986341|NCT00408421|181858073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.65||||0.004||95.0|-1.09|-0.22||P-value for Change from Baseline. Treatment effects and interaction effects were evaluated based on a two-sided significance level of 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. Change=Endpoint-Baseline.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used which contains the terms of treatment, NSAID use (Yes/No), the outcome score at baseline, and investigator. Type III sum-of-squares for the least-squares mean (LSMean) was used to test the null hypothesis that there is no treatment difference on the mean change from baseline to the endpoint of the outcome measure.||-0.22|-1.09|0.004
91006847|NCT02141854|181898329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|0.123||||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.038|0.208||Effects due to baseline trough AM FEV1, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), and treatment.|ANCOVA|||A fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure was used to control the overall Type I error rate at the 0.05 level (2-sided) for the primary endpoints analyses. Analyses appear in the defined sequence. This is the eighth in the sequence.||0.208|0.038|0.0047
90986342|NCT00408421|181858074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.18||||0.001||95.0|-8.33|-2.03||P-value for Change from Baseline. Treatment effects and interaction effects were evaluated based on a two-sided significance level of 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. Change=Endpoint-Baseline.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used which contains the terms of treatment, NSAID use (Yes/No), the outcome score at baseline, and investigator. Type III sum-of-squares for the least-squares mean (LSMean) was used to test the null hypothesis that there is no treatment difference on the mean change from baseline to the endpoint of the outcome measure.||-2.03|-8.33|0.001
90986343|NCT00408421|181858075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.42||||0.004||95.0|-10.72|-2.11||P-value for Change from Baseline. Treatment effects and interaction effects were evaluated based on a two-sided significance level of 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. Change=Endpoint-Baseline.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used which contains the terms of treatment, NSAID use (Yes/No), the outcome score at baseline, and investigator. Type III sum-of-squares for the least-squares mean (LSMean) was used to test the null hypothesis that there is no treatment difference on the mean change from baseline to the endpoint of the outcome measure.||-2.11|-10.72|0.004
90986344|NCT00408421|181858076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.83||||0.005||95.0|-1.4|-0.25||P-value for Change from Baseline. Treatment effects and interaction effects were evaluated based on a two-sided significance level of 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. Change=Endpoint-Baseline.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used which contains the terms of treatment, NSAID use (Yes/No), the outcome score at baseline, and investigator. Type III sum-of-squares for the least-squares mean (LSMean) was used to test the null hypothesis that there is no treatment difference on the mean change from baseline to the endpoint of the outcome measure.||-0.25|-1.40|0.005
90986345|NCT00408421|181858077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for treatment effect at last visit. Effects evaluated based on 2-sided significance level=0.05. Model: treatment, NSAID use, investigator, week, treatment-by-week interaction, baseline score and baseline-by-week interaction.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.||||||<0.001
90986346|NCT00408421|181858078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.87||||0.039||95.0|-1.69|-0.05||P-value for Change from Baseline. Treatment effects and interaction effects were evaluated based on a two-sided significance level of 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. Change=Endpoint-baseline.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used which contains the terms of treatment, NSAID use (Yes/No), the outcome score at baseline, and investigator. Type III sum-of-squares for the least-squares mean (LSMean) was used to test the null hypothesis that there is no treatment difference on the mean change from baseline to the endpoint of the outcome measure.||-0.05|-1.69|0.039
90986347|NCT00408421|181858079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.35||||0.001||95.0|-0.56|-0.14||P-value for Change from Baseline. Treatment effects and interaction effects were evaluated based on a two-sided significance level of 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. Change=Endpoint-baseline.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used which contains the terms of treatment, NSAID use (Yes/No), the outcome score at baseline, and investigator. Type III sum-of-squares for the least-squares mean (LSMean) was used to test the null hypothesis that there is no treatment difference on the mean change from baseline to the endpoint of the outcome measure.||-0.14|-0.56|0.001
90986348|NCT00408421|181858080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.06|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.66|-0.46||P-value for Change from Baseline. Treatment effects and interaction effects were evaluated based on a two-sided significance level of 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. Change=Endpoint-baseline.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used which contains the terms of treatment, NSAID use (Yes/No), the outcome score at baseline, and investigator. Type III sum-of-squares for the least-squares mean (LSMean) was used to test the null hypothesis that there is no treatment difference on the mean change from baseline to the endpoint of the outcome measure.||-0.46|-1.66|<0.001
90986349|NCT00408421|181858081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.76||||0.004||95.0|-1.28|-0.24||P-value for Change from Baseline. Treatment effects and interaction effects were evaluated based on a two-sided significance level of 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. Change=Endpoint-baseline.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used which contains the terms of treatment, NSAID use (Yes/No), the outcome score at baseline, and investigator. Type III sum-of-squares for the least-squares mean (LSMean) was used to test the null hypothesis that there is no treatment difference on the mean change from baseline to the endpoint of the outcome measure.||-0.24|-1.28|0.004
90986350|NCT00408421|181858082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.97|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.52|-0.42||P-value for Change from Baseline. Treatment effects and interaction effects were evaluated based on a two-sided significance level of 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. Change=Endpoint-baseline.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used which contains the terms of treatment, NSAID use (Yes/No), the outcome score at baseline, and investigator. Type III sum-of-squares for the least-squares mean (LSMean) was used to test the null hypothesis that there is no treatment difference on the mean change from baseline to the endpoint of the outcome measure.||-0.42|-1.52|<0.001
90952386|NCT04546425|181782310|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.8|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 7F||0.80|0.67|
90952387|NCT04546425|181782310|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.81|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 9V||0.81|0.66|
90952388|NCT04546425|181782310|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.92|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 14||0.92|0.69|
90952389|NCT04546425|181782310|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.84|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 18C||0.84|0.67|
90952390|NCT04546425|181782310|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.93|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19A||0.93|0.72|
91041305|NCT01765751|181967782|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|8.2|||||Fatigue - Medium vs. Low Group - The scale for the PROMIS measures uses a T-score metric in which 50 is the mean of a relevant reference population and 10 is the standard deviation (SD) of that population.|Fatigue||8.2|-1.5|
90986351|NCT00408421|181858083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.91||||0.003||95.0|-1.5|-0.32||P-value for Change from Baseline. Treatment effects and interaction effects were evaluated based on a two-sided significance level of 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. Change=Endpoint-baseline.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used which contains the terms of treatment, NSAID use (Yes/No), the outcome score at baseline, and investigator. Type III sum-of-squares for the least-squares mean (LSMean) was used to test the null hypothesis that there is no treatment difference on the mean change from baseline to the endpoint of the outcome measure.||-0.32|-1.50|0.003
90986352|NCT00408421|181858084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.71||||0.019||95.0|-1.3|-0.12||P-value for Change from Baseline. Treatment effects and interaction effects were evaluated based on a two-sided significance level of 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. Change=Endpoint-baseline.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used which contains the terms of treatment, NSAID use (Yes/No), the outcome score at baseline, and investigator. Type III sum-of-squares for the least-squares mean (LSMean) was used to test the null hypothesis that there is no treatment difference on the mean change from baseline to the endpoint of the outcome measure.||-0.12|-1.30|0.019
90986353|NCT00408421|181858085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.164||95.0|-0.97|0.17||P-value for Change from Baseline. Treatment effects and interaction effects were evaluated based on a two-sided significance level of 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. Change=Endpoint-baseline.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used which contains the terms of treatment, NSAID use (Yes/No), the outcome score at baseline, and investigator. Type III sum-of-squares for the least-squares mean (LSMean) was used to test the null hypothesis that there is no treatment difference on the mean change from baseline to the endpoint of the outcome measure.||0.17|-0.97|0.164
90986354|NCT00408421|181858086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.63||||0.049||95.0|-1.25|0.0||P-value for Change from Baseline. Treatment effects and interaction effects were evaluated based on a two-sided significance level of 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. Change=Endpoint-baseline.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used which contains the terms of treatment, NSAID use (Yes/No), the outcome score at baseline, and investigator. Type III sum-of-squares for the least-squares mean (LSMean) was used to test the null hypothesis that there is no treatment difference on the mean change from baseline to the endpoint of the outcome measure.||0.00|-1.25|0.049
90986355|NCT00408421|181858087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.51||||0.093||95.0|-1.1|0.08||P-value for Change from Baseline. Treatment effects and interaction effects were evaluated based on a two-sided significance level of 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. Change=Endpoint-baseline.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used which contains the terms of treatment, NSAID use (Yes/No), the outcome score at baseline, and investigator. Type III sum-of-squares for the least-squares mean (LSMean) was used to test the null hypothesis that there is no treatment difference on the mean change from baseline to the endpoint of the outcome measure.||0.08|-1.10|0.093
90986356|NCT00408421|181858088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.29||||0.287||95.0|-0.82|0.24||P-value for Change from Baseline. Treatment effects and interaction effects were evaluated based on a two-sided significance level of 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. Change=Endpoint-baseline.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used which contains the terms of treatment, NSAID use (Yes/No), the outcome score at baseline, and investigator. Type III sum-of-squares for the least-squares mean (LSMean) was used to test the null hypothesis that there is no treatment difference on the mean change from baseline to the endpoint of the outcome measure.||0.24|-0.82|0.287
90986357|NCT00408421|181858089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.64||||0.033||95.0|-1.23|-0.05||P-value for Change from Baseline. Treatment effects and interaction effects were evaluated based on a two-sided significance level of 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. Change=Endpoint-baseline.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used which contains the terms of treatment, NSAID use (Yes/No), the outcome score at baseline, and investigator. Type III sum-of-squares for the least-squares mean (LSMean) was used to test the null hypothesis that there is no treatment difference on the mean change from baseline to the endpoint of the outcome measure.||-0.05|-1.23|0.033
91041306|NCT01765751|181967782|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|7.3|||||Fatigue - High vs. Medium Group - The scale for the PROMIS measures uses a T-score metric in which 50 is the mean of a relevant reference population and 10 is the standard deviation (SD) of that population.|Fatigue||7.3|-2.3|
91041307|NCT01765751|181967782|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|3.5|||||Sleep Disturbance - High vs. Low Group - The scale for the PROMIS measures uses a T-score metric in which 50 is the mean of a relevant reference population and 10 is the standard deviation (SD) of that population.|Sleep Disturbance||3.5|-0.9|
91041308|NCT01765751|181967782|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|0.9|||||Sleep Disturbance - Medium vs. Low Group - The scale for the PROMIS measures uses a T-score metric in which 50 is the mean of a relevant reference population and 10 is the standard deviation (SD) of that population.|Sleep Disturbance||0.9|-3.6|
91041309|NCT01765751|181967782|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|5.0|||||Sleep Disturbance - High vs. Medium Group - The scale for the PROMIS measures uses a T-score metric in which 50 is the mean of a relevant reference population and 10 is the standard deviation (SD) of that population.|Sleep Disturbance||5.0|0.4|
91041310|NCT01765751|181967782|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|3.9|||||Anxiety - High vs. Low Group - The scale for the PROMIS measures uses a T-score metric in which 50 is the mean of a relevant reference population and 10 is the standard deviation (SD) of that population.|Anxiety||3.9|-4.5|
90986358|NCT00408421|181858090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.78||||0.015||95.0|-1.4|-0.15||P-value for Change from Baseline. Treatment effects and interaction effects were evaluated based on a two-sided significance level of 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. Change=Endpoint-baseline.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used which contains the terms of treatment, NSAID use (Yes/No), the outcome score at baseline, and investigator. Type III sum-of-squares for the least-squares mean (LSMean) was used to test the null hypothesis that there is no treatment difference on the mean change from baseline to the endpoint of the outcome measure.||-0.15|-1.40|0.015
90986359|NCT00408421|181858091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.56||||0.029||95.0|-1.06|-0.06||P-value for Change from Baseline. Treatment effects and interaction effects were evaluated based on a two-sided significance level of 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. Change=Endpoint-baseline.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used which contains the terms of treatment, NSAID use (Yes/No), the outcome score at baseline, and investigator. Type III sum-of-squares for the least-squares mean (LSMean) was used to test the null hypothesis that there is no treatment difference on the mean change from baseline to the endpoint of the outcome measure.||-0.06|-1.06|0.029
90986360|NCT00408421|181858092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||This study will also have at least 85% power to detect a treatment group difference of 25% in the response rates (≥30% reduction from baseline) based on the weekly mean of 24-hour average pain severity between duloxetine and placebo treatment groups.||||0.033
90986361|NCT00408421|181858093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.075||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||This study will also have at least 85% power to detect a treatment group difference of 25% in the response rates (≥30% reduction from baseline) based on the weekly mean of 24-hour average pain severity between duloxetine and placebo treatment groups.||||0.075
91041311|NCT01765751|181967782|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|5.1|||||Anxiety - Medium vs. Low Group - The scale for the PROMIS measures uses a T-score metric in which 50 is the mean of a relevant reference population and 10 is the standard deviation (SD) of that population.|Anxiety||5.1|-2.9|
91041312|NCT01765751|181967782|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|2.9|||||Anxiety - High vs. Medium Group - The scale for the PROMIS measures uses a T-score metric in which 50 is the mean of a relevant reference population and 10 is the standard deviation (SD) of that population.|Anxiety||2.9|-5.7|
91041313|NCT01765751|181967782|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|0.6|||||Depression - High vs. Low Group - The scale for the PROMIS measures uses a T-score metric in which 50 is the mean of a relevant reference population and 10 is the standard deviation (SD) of that population.|Depression||0.6|-6.7|
91041314|NCT01765751|181967782|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|2.6|||||Depression - Medium vs. Low Group - The scale for the PROMIS measures uses a T-score metric in which 50 is the mean of a relevant reference population and 10 is the standard deviation (SD) of that population.|Depression||2.6|-4.1|
91041315|NCT01765751|181967782|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|1.4|||||Depression - High vs. Medium Group - The scale for the PROMIS measures uses a T-score metric in which 50 is the mean of a relevant reference population and 10 is the standard deviation (SD) of that population.|Depression||1.4|-5.4|
91041316|NCT01765751|181967782|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|4.9|||||Satisfaction with Social Role - High vs. Low Group - The scale for the PROMIS measures uses a T-score metric in which 50 is the mean of a relevant reference population and 10 is the standard deviation (SD) of that population.|Satisfaction with Social Role||4.9|-4.5|
91041317|NCT01765751|181967782|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|7.7|||||Satisfaction with Social Role - Medium vs. Low Group - The scale for the PROMIS measures uses a T-score metric in which 50 is the mean of a relevant reference population and 10 is the standard deviation (SD) of that population.|Satisfaction with Social Role||7.7|-1.8|
91041318|NCT01765751|181967782|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|2.0|||||Satisfaction with Social Role - High vs. Medium Group - The scale for the PROMIS measures uses a T-score metric in which 50 is the mean of a relevant reference population and 10 is the standard deviation (SD) of that population.|Satisfaction with Social Role||2.0|-7.6|
91041319|NCT00452348|181967805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|0.04||||0.09||95.0|-0.01|0.09|||ANCOVA|||||0.09|-0.01|0.090
91041320|NCT01390415|181967810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0374||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Between-group comparison of Change from Baseline at Month 6||||0.0374
90986362|NCT00408421|181858094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.83||||0.088||95.0|-0.28|3.94||P-value for Change from Baseline. Treatment effects and interaction effects were evaluated based on a two-sided significance level of 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. Change=Endpoint-baseline.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used which contains the terms of treatment, NSAID use (Yes/No), the outcome score at baseline, and investigator. Type III sum-of-squares for the least-squares mean (LSMean) was used to test the null hypothesis that there is no treatment difference on the mean change from baseline to the endpoint of the outcome measure.||3.94|-0.28|0.088
90986363|NCT00408421|181858095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.87||||0.08||95.0|-0.22|3.96||P-value for Change from Baseline. Treatment effects and interaction effects were evaluated based on a two-sided significance level of 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. Change=Endpoint-baseline.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used which contains the terms of treatment, NSAID use (Yes/No), the outcome score at baseline, and investigator. Type III sum-of-squares for the least-squares mean (LSMean) was used to test the null hypothesis that there is no treatment difference on the mean change from baseline to the endpoint of the outcome measure.||3.96|-0.22|0.080
90986364|NCT00408421|181858096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.06|||<|0.001||95.0|0.03|0.1||P-value for Change from Baseline. Treatment effects and interaction effects were evaluated based on a two-sided significance level of 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. Change=Endpoint-baseline.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used which contains the terms of treatment, NSAID use (Yes/No), the outcome score at baseline, and investigator. Type III sum-of-squares for the least-squares mean (LSMean) was used to test the null hypothesis that there is no treatment difference on the mean change from baseline to the endpoint of the outcome measure.||0.10|0.03|<0.001
90986365|NCT00408421|181858097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.23||||0.641||95.0|-1.19|0.74||P-value for Change from Baseline. Treatment effects and interaction effects were evaluated based on a two-sided significance level of 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. Change=Endpoint-baseline.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used which contains the terms of treatment, NSAID use (Yes/No), the outcome score at baseline, and investigator. Type III sum-of-squares for the least-squares mean (LSMean) was used to test the null hypothesis that there is no treatment difference on the mean change from baseline to the endpoint of the outcome measure.||0.74|-1.19|0.641
90986366|NCT00408421|181858098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.47||||0.193||95.0|-1.17|0.24||P-value for Change from Baseline. Treatment effects and interaction effects were evaluated based on a two-sided significance level of 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. Change=Endpoint-baseline.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used which contains the terms of treatment, NSAID use (Yes/No), the outcome score at baseline, and investigator. Type III sum-of-squares for the least-squares mean (LSMean) was used to test the null hypothesis that there is no treatment difference on the mean change from baseline to the endpoint of the outcome measure.||0.24|-1.17|0.193
90986367|NCT00408421|181858099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline. Treatment effects and interaction effects were evaluated based on a two-sided significance level of 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. Change=Endpoint-baseline.|ANOVA|ANOVA on ranked data.||An analysis of variance (ANOVA) model was used which contains the terms of treatment and investigator. Rank-transformed data will be used in the analysis given the view that the change scores for most of the laboratory analytes are not normally distributed. Type III sum-of-squares for the least-squares mean (LSMean) was used to test the null hypothesis that there is no treatment difference on the mean change from baseline to the endpoint of the outcome measure.||||0.003
91041321|NCT01390415|181967811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0566||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Between-group comparison of Change from Baseline at Month 6||||0.0566
91041322|NCT02435433|181967812|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.0199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.531|0.949|||Log Rank||Stratified analysis|||0.949|0.531|0.0199
91041323|NCT02435433|181967813|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.452|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.339|0.603|||Log Rank||Stratified analysis|||0.603|0.339|<0.0001
90986368|NCT00408421|181858100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline. Treatment effects and interaction effects were evaluated based on a two-sided significance level of 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. Change=Endpoint-baseline.|ANOVA|ANOVA on ranked data.||An analysis of variance (ANOVA) model was used which contains the terms of treatment and investigator. Rank-transformed data will be used in the analysis given the view that the change scores for most of the laboratory analytes are not normally distributed. Type III sum-of-squares for the least-squares mean (LSMean) was used to test the null hypothesis that there is no treatment difference on the mean change from baseline to the endpoint of the outcome measure.||||0.026
90986369|NCT00408421|181858101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8||||0.459||95.0|-1.32|2.92||P-value for Change from Baseline. Treatment effects and interaction effects were evaluated based on a two-sided significance level of 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. Change=Endpoint-baseline.|ANOVA||Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo|An analysis of variance (ANOVA) model was used which contains the terms of treatment and investigator. Type III sum-of-squares for the least-squares mean (LSMean) was used to test the null hypothesis that there is no treatment difference on the mean change from baseline to the endpoint of the outcome measure.||2.92|-1.32|0.459
90986370|NCT00408421|181858102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.09||||0.326||95.0|-1.1|3.28||P-value for Change from Baseline. Treatment effects and interaction effects were evaluated based on a two-sided significance level of 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. Change=Endpoint-baseline.|ANOVA||Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo|An analysis of variance (ANOVA) model was used which contains the terms of treatment and investigator. Type III sum-of-squares for the least-squares mean (LSMean) was used to test the null hypothesis that there is no treatment difference on the mean change from baseline to the endpoint of the outcome measure.||3.28|-1.10|0.326
90986371|NCT00408421|181858103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.16||||0.069||95.0|-0.25|6.56||P-value for Change from Baseline. Treatment effects and interaction effects were evaluated based on a two-sided significance level of 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. Change=Endpoint-baseline.|ANOVA||Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo|An analysis of variance (ANOVA) model was used which contains the terms of treatment and investigator. Type III sum-of-squares for the least-squares mean (LSMean) was used to test the null hypothesis that there is no treatment difference on the mean change from baseline to the endpoint of the outcome measure.||6.56|-0.25|0.069
90986372|NCT00408421|181858104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.54||||0.107||95.0|-1.2|0.12||P-value for Change from Baseline. Treatment effects and interaction effects were evaluated based on a two-sided significance level of 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. Change=Endpoint-baseline.|ANOVA||Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo|An analysis of variance (ANOVA) model was used which contains the terms of treatment and investigator. Type III sum-of-squares for the least-squares mean (LSMean) was used to test the null hypothesis that there is no treatment difference on the mean change from baseline to the endpoint of the outcome measure.||0.12|-1.20|0.107
90986373|NCT02772965|181858105|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.05|||Log Rank|||||1.05|0.45|0.08
91041324|NCT02435433|181967814|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.427|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.313|0.582|||Log Rank||Stratified analysis|||0.582|0.313|<0.0001
90986374|NCT02772965|181858106|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.32|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.32
90986375|NCT02772965|181858107|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.69
90986376|NCT02772965|181858108|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.72|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.72
90986377|NCT02772965|181858109|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.64|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.64
90986378|NCT02772965|181858110|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.71||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.04|||Chi-squared|||||1.04|0.49|0.08
90986379|NCT00494871|181858116|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin of 2.0|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.42|||Regression, Cox|||||1.42|0.87|0.025
90986380|NCT00494871|181858117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|1.0||||||||1.00|0.24|
90986381|NCT00494871|181858118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.22||||||||1.22|0.34|
90986382|NCT00494871|181858119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.34||||||||1.34|0.41|
90986383|NCT00494871|181858120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.98||||||||0.98|0.22|
90986384|NCT00494871|181858121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|15.85||||||||15.85|0.06|
90986385|NCT00494871|181858122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|28.16||||||||28.16|0.30|
90986386|NCT00494871|181858123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|14.7||||||||14.70|0.60|
90986387|NCT00494871|181858124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.4||||||||1.40|0.16|
90986388|NCT00494871|181858125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|4.31||||||||4.31|0.43|
90986389|NCT00494871|181858126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.43||||||||1.43|0.50|
90986390|NCT00494871|181858127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.56||||||||1.56|0.92|
90986391|NCT02435173|181858131|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted means difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.11|||ANCOVA|Treatment as a fixed effect and log10 transformed baseline SPD as a covariate.||||-0.11|-0.37|0.0012
90986392|NCT02435173|181858132|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted means difference|40.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.51|51.75|||ANCOVA|Treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||||51.75|28.51|<0.0001
90986393|NCT02639182|181858170|SUPERIORITY|The difference between treatment groups was tested using a stratified log rank test at a one-sided 0.1 significance level.||||||0.983||||||The stratification factors were the ECOG PS at baseline and the number of prior systemic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) regimens, without any other covariate(s). The model contained terms for treatment group and stratum.|Log Rank|||||||0.983
90986394|NCT02639182|181858171|SUPERIORITY|The difference between treatment groups was tested using a stratified log rank test at a one-sided 0.1 significance level.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.423||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.924|2.192||The stratification factors were the ECOG PS at baseline and the number of prior systemic RCC regimens, without any other covariate(s). The model contained terms for treatment group and stratum.|Log Rank|||||2.192|0.924|0.110
90986395|NCT02639182|181858172|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.1||A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) analysis of the ORR, stratified for baseline ECOG-PS and number of prior systemic therapies for RCC, was conducted at a two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the odds ratio for experiencing objective response, with the axitinib arm as the reference level, was reported.||||1.1|0.1|0.062
90986396|NCT02639182|181858173|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.376||||0.439||95.0|0.031|4.482||The stratification factors were the ECOG PS at baseline and the number of prior systemic RCC regimens, without any other covariate(s). The model contained terms for treatment group and stratum.|Log Rank|The difference between treatment groups was tested using a stratified log rank test at a one-sided 0.1 significance level.||||4.482|0.031|0.439
91041325|NCT02435433|181967815|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.6||||0.1697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|37.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Stratified analysis|||37.3|0.6|0.1697
91041326|NCT02435433|181967819|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.799||||0.2382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.545|1.171|||Log Rank||Stratified analysis|||1.171|0.545|0.2382
91041327|NCT01243151|181967836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-54.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.323|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.37|-37.99|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-37.99|-71.37|<0.0001
91041328|NCT01243151|181967836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-44.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.53|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.28|-27.08|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-27.08|-61.28|<0.0001
91041329|NCT01243151|181967836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-64.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.433|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-81.35|-47.53|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-47.53|-81.35|<0.0001
90986397|NCT02639182|181858174|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.746||||||Test conducted at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05. The stratification factors were the ECOG PS at baseline and number of prior systemic RCC regimens.|Log Rank|||||||0.746
90986398|NCT02639182|181858175|SUPERIORITY|A CMH analysis of the DCR, stratified for baseline ECOG-PS and number of prior systemic therapies for RCC, was conducted at a two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5||||0.152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.3||The stratified Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the odds ratio for experiencing objective response, with the axitinib arm as the reference level, was reported as a measure of relative treatment effect, along with its two-sided 95% CI.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.3|0.2|0.152
90986399|NCT03864237|181858192|SUPERIORITY||beta coefficient for condition|0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93||0.568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|2.37|||Regression, Linear|Regression controls for baseline value of outcome and sex to determine pre-post change in the outcome as a function of condition.||||2.37|-1.31|0.568
90986400|NCT03864237|181858193|SUPERIORITY||beta coefficient for condition|1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|2.59|||Regression, Linear|||||2.59|-0.13|0.077
90986401|NCT03864237|181858194|SUPERIORITY||beta coefficient for condition|-1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.52|1.11|||Regression, Linear|||||1.11|-3.52|0.30
90986402|NCT03864237|181858195|SUPERIORITY||beta coefficient for condition|0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|3.0|||Regression, Linear|||||3.0|-1.31|0.44
90986403|NCT03864237|181858196|SUPERIORITY||Beta coefficient for condition|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29||0.845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.81|2.3|||Regression, Linear|||||2.30|-2.81|0.845
90986404|NCT03864237|181858197|SUPERIORITY||Beta coefficient for condition|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.01||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|2.31|||Regression, Linear|||||2.31|-1.72|0.77
90986405|NCT03864237|181858198|SUPERIORITY||Beta coefficient for condition|1.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|4.54|||Regression, Linear|||||4.54|-1.0|0.21
90986406|NCT02546856|181858199|NON_INFERIORITY|For the hypothesis that the relative dose of BBs would reach 52% by the end of the study and using an equivalence margin of 7%, we would need 157 patients per group for an alpha level of significance of 0.05 and a statistical power of 80% (beta of 0.80).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.5|22.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||22.1|7.5|<0.001
90986407|NCT02546856|181858200|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence margin of 5%|Difference in percentages|1.4||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.33|6.32|||Chi-squared|||||6.32|-3.33|0.52
90986408|NCT02546856|181858201|NON_INFERIORITY|Equivalence margin of 5%|Difference in percentages|2.1||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|6.1|||Chi-squared|||||6.1|-1.9|0.31
90986409|NCT02546856|181858202|NON_INFERIORITY|Equivalence margin of 5%|Difference in percentages|-0.63||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|5.85|||Chi-squared|||||5.85|-7.1|0.85
90986410|NCT02546856|181858203|NON_INFERIORITY|Equivalence margin of 5%|Difference in percentages|2.12||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|7.54|||Chi-squared|||||7.54|-3.3|0.44
90986411|NCT02546856|181858205|NON_INFERIORITY|equivalence margin of 5%|Difference in percentages|0.7||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|3.04|||Chi-squared|||||3.04|-1.6|0.56
90986412|NCT02546856|181858209|NON_INFERIORITY|Equivalence margin of 5%|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.69|2.83|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.83|-2.69|0.96
90986413|NCT02546856|181858210|NON_INFERIORITY|Equivalence margin of 5%|Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.47||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-781.0|748.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||748|-781|0.97
90986414|NCT02546856|181858211|NON_INFERIORITY|Equivalence margin of 5%|Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.28||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.27|25.83|||t-test, 2 sided|||||25.83|-11.27|0.44
90986415|NCT02546856|181858213|NON_INFERIORITY|Equivalence margin of 5%|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.91||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.63|4.81|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.81|-6.63|0.75
90986416|NCT02546856|181858214|NON_INFERIORITY|Equivalence margin of 5%|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.28|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.28|-0.2|0.20
90986417|NCT02546856|181858215|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence margin of 5%|Difference in percentages|-5.5||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|-1.4|||Chi-squared|||||-1.4|-9.7|0.01
91041330|NCT01243151|181967836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-61.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.282|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.36|-45.15|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-45.15|-78.36|<0.0001
90986418|NCT02546856|181858216|NON_INFERIORITY|Equivalence margin of 5%|Difference in percentages|-0.68||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|2.87|||Chi-squared|Equivalence margin of 7%||||2.87|-4.2|0.71
90986419|NCT02546856|181858217|NON_INFERIORITY|Equivalence margin of 7%|Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.7|24.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||24.3|8.7|<0.001
90986420|NCT02546856|181858218|NON_INFERIORITY|Equivalence margin of 7%|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.1|17.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||17.1|-15.1|0.93
90986421|NCT02546856|181858219|NON_INFERIORITY|Equivalence margin of 7%|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|8.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||||8.2|-7.1|0.86
90986422|NCT04655586|181858242|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4715||||||All rNAPc2 vs. Heparin|Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||All rNAPc2 doses (lower and higher) were pooled and compared to Heparin for statistical analysis presentation.||||0.4715
90986423|NCT04655586|181858243|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1883|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||All rNAPc2 doses (lower and higher) were pooled and compared to Heparin for statistical analysis presentation.||||0.1883
90986424|NCT04655586|181858246|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||All rNAPc2 doses (lower and higher) were pooled and compared to Heparin for statistical analysis presentation.||||1.0
90986425|NCT04655586|181858247|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0254|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||All rNAPc2 doses (lower and higher) were pooled and compared to Heparin for statistical analysis presentation.||||0.0254
90986426|NCT04655586|181858248|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0535|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||All rNAPc2 doses (lower and higher) were pooled and compared to Heparin for statistical analysis presentation.||||0.0535
90986427|NCT04655586|181858249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||All rNAPc2 doses (lower and higher) were pooled and compared to Heparin for statistical analysis presentation.||||0.8300
90986428|NCT05057988|181858295|OTHER|paired T test|Mean Difference (Net)|1.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.55|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.55|0.53|<.001
90986429|NCT05057988|181858296|OTHER|Paired T test|Mean Difference (Net)|0.98|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.17||0.208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|3.37|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.37|-1.42|.208
90986430|NCT05057988|181858297|OTHER|Paired T test|Mean Difference (Net)|0.86|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.20|0.52|<.001
90986431|NCT05057988|181858298|OTHER|Paired t test|Mean Difference (Net)|0.81|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.65||0.328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|2.47|||t-test, 1 sided|||||2.47|-.84|.328
90986432|NCT05057988|181858299|OTHER|Paired T test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.71|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.95|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|4.16|||t-test, 1 sided|||||4.16|1.26|<.001
90986433|NCT05057988|181858300|OTHER|Paired T test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.65|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.38||0.486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|2.53|||t-test, 1 sided|||||2.53|-1.22|.486
90986434|NCT05057988|181858301|OTHER|Paired T test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.57||0.832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.46|1.99|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.99|-2.46|.832
90986435|NCT05057988|181858302|OTHER|Paired T test|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.43|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.06||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|0.47|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.47|-1.33|.340
90986436|NCT05057988|181858304|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.89|||t-test, 2 sided|paired sample t test||paired sample t test||0.89|-0.34|0.370
90986437|NCT05057988|181858304|OTHER|Paired T test|Mean Difference (Net)|0.28|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.09||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.89|||t-test, 2 sided|||||.89|-.34|.370
90986438|NCT03065530|181858340|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The sample size was calculated on the basis of an our initial pilot study, and the SD was 1.4 between the four groups. We hypothesized that the differences in VAS between the four groups and the SDs would be 15%. A power analysis suggested that there will be 80% power to detect differences at an α=0.05 significance level (two-tailed), including 24 individuals per treatment group. Considering the exclusion of 25% of patients, 30 parturients were eventually recruited in each group.||||<0.05
90986439|NCT00479466|181858359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-30.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.0|-17.3|||ANCOVA|||||-17.3|-44.0|<0.001
90986440|NCT00479466|181858359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-46.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.7|-33.4|||ANCOVA|||||-33.4|-59.7|<0.001
90986441|NCT00479466|181858359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-51.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.3|-38.0|||ANCOVA|||||-38.0|-64.3|<0.001
90986442|NCT00479466|181858359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-61.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.6|-47.8|||ANCOVA|||||-47.8|-74.6|<0.001
90986443|NCT00479466|181858359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-35.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.6|-22.4|||ANCOVA|||||-22.4|-48.6|<0.001
90986444|NCT00479466|181858360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|-0.76|||ANCOVA|||||-0.76|-1.53|<0.001
90986445|NCT00479466|181858360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|-1.15|||ANCOVA|||||-1.15|-1.91|<0.001
90986446|NCT00479466|181858360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|-1.31|||ANCOVA|||||-1.31|-2.07|<0.001
90986447|NCT00479466|181858360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.45|-1.68|||ANCOVA|||||-1.68|-2.45|<0.001
90986448|NCT00479466|181858360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.95|||ANCOVA|||||-0.95|-1.70|<0.001
90986449|NCT00479466|181858361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-56.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-79.4|-34.3|||ANCOVA|||||-34.3|-79.4|<0.001
90986450|NCT00479466|181858361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-70.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-91.8|-48.2|||ANCOVA|||||-48.2|-91.8|<0.001
90986451|NCT00479466|181858361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-87.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-109.4|-65.3|||ANCOVA|||||-65.3|-109.4|<0.001
90986452|NCT00479466|181858361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-101.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-124.2|-79.1|||ANCOVA|||||-79.1|-124.2|<0.001
90986453|NCT00479466|181858361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-60.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-82.7|-38.8|||ANCOVA|||||-38.8|-82.7|<0.001
90986454|NCT03626415|181858364|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Mean|94.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|62.96|141.55|||ANOVA|||Mild Hepatic Impairment (Test) versus Normal Hepatic Function (Reference)||141.55|62.96|
90986455|NCT03626415|181858364|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Ratio of Adusted Geometric Means|105.53|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.38|158.24|||ANOVA|||Moderate Hepatic Impairment (Test) versus Normal Hepatic Function (Reference)||158.24|70.38|
90986456|NCT03626415|181858365|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|133.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.17|206.28|||ANOVA|||Mild Hepatic Impairment (Test) versus Normal Hepatic Function (Reference)||206.28|86.17|
90986457|NCT03626415|181858365|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Mean|153.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.52|238.25|||ANOVA|||Moderate Hepatic Impairment (Test) versus Normal Hepatic Function (Reference)||238.25|99.52|
90986458|NCT03626415|181858366|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|75.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|57.39|100.47|||ANOVA|||Mild Hepatic Impairment (Test) versus Normal Hepatic Function (Reference)||100.47|57.39|
90986459|NCT03626415|181858366|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|84.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|63.59|111.33|||ANOVA|||Moderate Hepatic Impairment (Test) versus Normal Hepatic Function (Reference)||111.33|63.59|
90986460|NCT03626415|181858367|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|95.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|72.71|126.08|||ANOVA|||Mild Hepatic Impairment (Test) versus Normal Hepatic Function (Reference)||126.08|72.71|
90986461|NCT03626415|181858367|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|114.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.19|151.2|||ANOVA|||Moderate Hepatic Impairment (Test) versus Normal Hepatic Function (Reference)||151.20|87.19|
90986462|NCT02544984|181858375|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.473|||||||negative binomial model|negative binomial model adjusting for use of Synagis and tracheostomy||The numbers of unscheduled clinic visits due to respiratory symptoms are compared.||||0.473
90986463|NCT02544984|181858375|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.505|||||||negative binomial model|negative binomial model adjusting for use of Synagis and tracheostomy||Unscheduled clinic visits due to symptoms other than respiratory symptoms are compared||||0.505
90986464|NCT02544984|181858375|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.047|||||||negative binomial model|negative binomial model adjusting for use of Synagis and tracheostomy||Numbers of emergency room visits are compared||||0.047
90986465|NCT02544984|181858375|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.675|||||||negative binomial model|negative binomial model adjusting for use of Synagis and tracheostomy||Numbers of hospital admissions are compared||||0.675
90986466|NCT02544984|181858376|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.435|||||||negative binomial model|negative binomial model adjusting for use of Synagis and tracheostomy||||||0.435
90986467|NCT01469013|181858407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
90986468|NCT01469013|181858409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Armitage trend test|||||||0.009
90986469|NCT05232097|181858427|OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: the median of differences of the rumination score before and after therapy equals 0.||||0.005
90986470|NCT05232097|181858428|OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||Chi-squared|||The null hypothesis is that the same number of patients has intragastric pressure peaks indicating rumination before and after therapy.||||0.11
90986471|NCT05232097|181858429|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: The differences of means of 15D before and after therapy equals 0.||||0.060
90986472|NCT05232097|181858430|OTHER|||||||0.865|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: The median of differences of WHODAS 2.0 before and after therapy equals 0.||||0.865
90986473|NCT05232097|181858431|OTHER|||||||0.149|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis : the differences of median BDI before and after behavioral therapy equals 0.||||0.149
90986474|NCT05232097|181858432|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: The differences of median of BAI before and after behavioral therapy equals 0.||||1.000
90986475|NCT05232097|181858433|OTHER|||||||0.102|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: The differences of median weight before and after therapy equals 0.||||0.102
90986476|NCT01847547|181858473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||||95.0|0.64|1.7|||Regression, Cox||Cox Proportional Hazard's regression following propensity score matching.|These current feasibility data are limited by a small sample size, short follow up, and few outcome events resulting in wide 95% confidence intervals. At this early stage, no comparative conclusions are possible. Future data with an increased number of patients are planned.||1.70|0.64|
90986477|NCT01847547|181858474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||||95.0|0.69|1.36|||Regression, Cox||Cox Proportional Hazard's regression following propensity score matching.|These current feasibility data are limited by a small sample size, short follow up, and few outcome events resulting in wide 95% confidence intervals. At this early stage, no comparative conclusions are possible. Future data with an increased number of patients are planned.||1.36|0.69|
90986478|NCT01847547|181858475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.24||||||95.0|0.62|2.45|||Regression, Cox||Cox Proportional Hazard's regression following propensity score matching.|These current feasibility data are limited by a small sample size, short follow up, and few outcome events resulting in wide 95% confidence intervals. At this early stage, no comparative conclusions are possible. Future data with an increased number of patients are planned.||2.45|0.62|
90986479|NCT01847547|181858476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.29||||||95.0|0.15|0.59|||Regression, Cox||Cox Proportional Hazard's regression following propensity score matching.|These current feasibility data are limited by a small sample size, short follow up, and few outcome events resulting in wide 95% confidence intervals. At this early stage, no comparative conclusions are possible. Future data with an increased number of patients are planned.||0.59|0.15|
90986480|NCT01847547|181858477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.31||||||95.0|0.15|0.67|||Regression, Cox||Cox Proportional Hazard's regression following propensity score matching.|These current feasibility data are limited by a small sample size, short follow up, and few outcome events resulting in wide 95% confidence intervals. At this early stage, no comparative conclusions are possible.||0.67|0.15|
90986481|NCT01847547|181858478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.27||||||95.0|0.09|0.84|||Regression, Cox||Cox Proportional Hazard's regression following propensity score matching.|These current feasibility data are limited by a small sample size, short follow up, and few outcome events resulting in wide 95% confidence intervals. At this early stage, no comparative conclusions are possible. Future data with an increased number of patients are planned.||0.84|0.09|
90986482|NCT01847547|181858479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.25||||||95.0|0.78|2.01|||Regression, Cox||Cox Proportional Hazard's regression following propensity score matching.|These current feasibility data are limited by a small sample size, short follow up, and few outcome events resulting in wide 95% confidence intervals. At this early stage, no comparative conclusions are possible. Future data with an increased number of patients are planned.||2.01|0.78|
90986483|NCT01847547|181858481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||||95.0|0.48|1.14|||Regression, Cox||Cox Proportional Hazard's regression following propensity score matching.|These current feasibility data are limited by a small sample size, short follow up, and few outcome events resulting in wide 95% confidence intervals. At this early stage, no comparative conclusions are possible. Future data with an increased number of patients are planned.||1.14|0.48|
90986484|NCT01847547|181858482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||||95.0|0.47|2.2|||Regression, Cox||Cox Proportional Hazard's regression following propensity score matching.|These current feasibility data are limited by a small sample size, short follow up, and few outcome events resulting in wide 95% confidence intervals. At this early stage, no comparative conclusions are possible. Future data with an increased number of patients are planned.||2.20|0.47|
90986485|NCT01847547|181858483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||||95.0|0.21|1.98|||Regression, Cox||Cox Proportional Hazard's regression following propensity score matching.|These current feasibility data are limited by a small sample size, short follow up, and very few outcome events resulting in wide 95% confidence intervals. At this early stage, no comparative conclusions are possible. Future data with an increased number of patients are planned.||1.98|0.21|
90986486|NCT01847547|181858484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||||95.0|0.5|1.08|||Regression, Cox||Cox Proportional Hazard's regression following propensity score matching.|These current feasibility data are limited by a small sample size, short follow up, and few outcome events resulting in wide 95% confidence intervals. At this early stage, no comparative conclusions are possible. Future data with an increased number of patients are planned.||1.08|0.50|
90986487|NCT01847547|181858485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.4||||||95.0|0.21|0.76|||Regression, Cox||Cox Proportional Hazard's regression following propensity score matching.|These current feasibility data are limited by a small sample size, short follow up, and few outcome events resulting in wide 95% confidence intervals. At this early stage, no comparative conclusions are possible. Future data with an increased number of patients are planned.||0.76|0.21|
90986488|NCT01847547|181858486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||||95.0|0.58|1.55|||Regression, Cox||Cox Proportional Hazard's regression following propensity score matching.|These current feasibility data are limited by a small sample size, short follow up, and few outcome events resulting in wide 95% confidence intervals. At this early stage, no comparative conclusions are possible. Future data with an increased number of patients are planned.||1.55|0.58|
90986489|NCT01847547|181858487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.36||||||95.0|0.32|5.72|||Regression, Cox||Cox Proportional Hazard's regression following propensity score matching.|These current feasibility data are limited by a small sample size, short follow up, and very few outcome events resulting in wide 95% confidence intervals. At this early stage, no comparative conclusions are possible. Future data with an increased number of patients are planned.||5.72|0.32|
90986490|NCT01847547|181858488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.6||||||95.0|0.83|3.08|||Regression, Cox||Cox Proportional Hazard's regression following propensity score matching.|These current feasibility data are limited by a small sample size, short follow up, and few outcome events resulting in wide 95% confidence intervals. At this early stage, no comparative conclusions are possible. Future data with an increased number of patients are planned.||3.08|0.83|
90986491|NCT01847547|181858489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.45||||||95.0|0.57|3.7|||Regression, Cox||Cox Proportional Hazard's regression following propensity score matching.|These current feasibility data are limited by a small sample size, short follow up, and few outcome events resulting in wide 95% confidence intervals. At this early stage, no comparative conclusions are possible. Future data with an increased number of patients are planned.||3.70|0.57|
90986492|NCT01847547|181858490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||||95.0|0.67|1.35|||Regression, Cox||Cox Proportional Hazard's regression following propensity score matching.|These current feasibility data are limited by a small sample size, short follow up, and few outcome events resulting in wide 95% confidence intervals. At this early stage, no comparative conclusions are possible.||1.35|0.67|
90986493|NCT01847547|181858491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.26||||||95.0|0.79|2.01|||Regression, Cox||Cox Proportional Hazard's regression following propensity score matching.|These current feasibility data are limited by a small sample size, short follow up, and few outcome events resulting in wide 95% confidence intervals. At this early stage, no comparative conclusions are possible. Future data with an increased number of patients are planned.||2.01|0.79|
90986494|NCT02795767|181858532|OTHER||ABR Ratio|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.006|0.023|||||Emicizumab QW is the numerator and Prophylactic/Episodic Bypassing Agent is the denominator.|||0.023|0.006|
90986495|NCT02795767|181858533|OTHER||ABR Ratio|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.051|0.21|||||Emicizumab QW is the numerator and Prophylactic/Episodic Bypassing Agent is the denominator.|||0.210|0.051|
90986496|NCT01748760|181858568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||.87
90986497|NCT03918642|181858589|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|-0.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.83|-2.35|<0.001
90986498|NCT03918642|181858590|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.01||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|-0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.24|-1.78|0.01
90986499|NCT03918642|181858591|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.45|0.12|<0.001
90986500|NCT03918642|181858592|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.42||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|0.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.46|-3.30|0.14
90986501|NCT03918642|181858593|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.21||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|2.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.42|-1.99|0.85
90952391|NCT04546425|181782310|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.87|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19F||0.87|0.68|
90952392|NCT04546425|181782310|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.69|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 23F||0.69|0.52|
90986502|NCT03918642|181858594|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.06||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.88|-0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.25|-5.88|0.03
90986503|NCT03918642|181858595|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.39||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.33|-0.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.45|-4.33|0.02
90986504|NCT03918642|181858596|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.49||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|-0.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.68|-4.30|0.006
90986505|NCT03918642|181858597|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.95||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.34|0.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.45|-4.34|0.11
90952393|NCT04546425|181782310|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 5 (13vPnC serotype with the lowest GMC, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/lowest 13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|1.66|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 8||1.66|1.32|
90986506|NCT03918642|181858598|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.39||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.44|-0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.34|-8.44|0.03
90952394|NCT04546425|181782310|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 5 (13vPnC serotype with the lowest GMC, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/lowest 13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|2.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|2.3|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 10A||2.30|1.77|
90986507|NCT03918642|181858599|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.76||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.83|0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.32|-7.83|0.07
90986508|NCT03918642|181858600|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.23||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|2.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.10|0.36|0.005
90986509|NCT03918642|181858601|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.95||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|2.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.29|-0.40|0.17
90986510|NCT03918642|181858602|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.85||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.14|0.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.44|-4.14|0.11
90986511|NCT03918642|181858603|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.57||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.73|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.60|-5.73|0.11
90986512|NCT03918642|181858604|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.78||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|0.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.78|-2.33|0.33
90986513|NCT03918642|181858605|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|1.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.14|-1.74|0.69
90986514|NCT03918642|181858606|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.15|0.77|<0.001
90986515|NCT03918642|181858607|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.86|0.62|<0.001
90986516|NCT03918642|181858608|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|21.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.66|99.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||99.56|4.66|<0.001
90986517|NCT03918642|181858609|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.24||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.74|30.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||30.06|1.74|0.006
90986518|NCT03918642|181858610|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.77||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.38|58.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||58.25|2.38|0.002
90986519|NCT03918642|181858611|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.58||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|43.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||43.67|0.99|0.05
90986520|NCT03918642|181858612|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.93||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|225.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||225.44|0.86|0.06
90986521|NCT03918642|181858613|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.61||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|89.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||89.30|0.35|0.22
90986522|NCT03504774|181858619|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6||||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||analysis of the change from baseline in CD28 expression||||0.30
90986523|NCT03504774|181858620|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9||||0.82|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||within-group analysis of change from baseline to week 52||||0.82
90986524|NCT03504774|181858620|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.2||||0.053|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||within-group analysis on the change from baseline to week 58||||0.053
90986525|NCT03504774|181858620|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.062|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||within-group analysis of change from week 52 to week 58||||0.062
90986526|NCT03504774|181858620|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||within-group analysis of change from baseline to week 52||||0.30
90986527|NCT03504774|181858620|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0||||0.54|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||within-group analysis of change from baseline to week 58||||0.54
90986528|NCT03504774|181858620|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.2||||0.82|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||within-group analysis of change from week 52 to week 58||||0.82
90986529|NCT03504774|181858621|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.8||||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||within-group analysis of change in INFG from baseline to week 52||||0.25
90986530|NCT03504774|181858621|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|10.8||||0.24|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||within-group analysis of change in INFG from baseline to week 58||||0.24
90986531|NCT03504774|181858621|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.0||||0.61|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||within-group analysis of change in INFG from week 52 to week 58||||0.61
90986532|NCT03504774|181858621|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.5||||0.034|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||within-group analysis of change in INFG from baseline to week 52||||0.034
90986533|NCT03504774|181858621|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8||||0.45|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||within-group analysis of change in INFG from baseline to week 58||||0.45
90986534|NCT03504774|181858621|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.7||||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||within-group analysis of change in INFG from week 52 to week 58||||0.12
90986535|NCT03504774|181858621|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0||||0.83|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||within-group analysis of change in IL4 from baseline to week 52||||0.83
90986536|NCT03504774|181858621|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.0||||0.67|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||within-group analysis of change in IL4 from baseline to week 58||||0.67
90986537|NCT03504774|181858621|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0||||0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||within-group analysis of change in IL4 from week 52 to week 58||||0.80
90986538|NCT03504774|181858621|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.7||||0.46|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||within-group analysis of change in IL4 from baseline to week 52||||0.46
90986539|NCT03504774|181858621|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.2||||0.48|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||within-group analysis of change in IL4 from baseline to week 58||||0.48
90986540|NCT03504774|181858621|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.2||||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||within-group analysis of change in IL4 from week 52 to week 58||||0.25
90986541|NCT03504774|181858621|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.6||||0.14|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||within-group analysis of change in IL10 from baseline to week 52||||0.14
90986542|NCT03504774|181858621|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6||||0.73|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||within-group analysis of change in IL10 from baseline to week 58||||0.73
90986543|NCT03504774|181858621|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.0||||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||within-group analysis of change in IL10 from week 52 to week 58||||0.16
90986544|NCT03504774|181858621|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.8||||0.47|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||within-group analysis of change in IL10 from baseline to week 52||||0.47
90986545|NCT03504774|181858621|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.1||||0.84|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||within-group analysis of change in IL10 from baseline to week 58||||0.84
90986546|NCT03504774|181858621|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.7||||0.55|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||within-group analysis of change in IL10 from week 52 to week 58||||0.55
90986547|NCT03504774|181858622|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2269.0||||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||within-group analysis of change in GPR15 from baseline to week 52||||0.23
90986548|NCT03504774|181858622|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1311.0||||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||within-group analysis of change in GPR15 from baseline to week 58||||0.12
90986549|NCT03504774|181858622|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|958.0||||0.79|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||within-group analysis of change in GPR15 from week 52 to week 58||||0.79
90986550|NCT03504774|181858622|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|347.0||||0.29|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||within-group analysis of change in GPR15 from baseline to week 52||||0.29
90986551|NCT03504774|181858622|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4364.0||||0.29|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||within-group analysis of change in GPR15 from baseline to week 58||||0.29
90986552|NCT03504774|181858622|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4017.0||||0.42|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||within-group analysis of change in GPR15 from week 52 to week 58||||0.42
90986553|NCT01035606|181858653|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<.01
90986554|NCT01035606|181858654|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.01
90986555|NCT02385123|181858656|OTHER||||||||||||||||||A single group analysis was used to determine this outcome measure. These are basic science, hypothesis-generating studies with limited numbers of participants and no control group. The outcomes have no comparisons built into them - the outcomes are stating what the cell counts are, what the antibody titers are, what percentage of people seroconverted, etc. As such, we cannot report any p-values etc. for comparisons (e.g. with unvaccinated people).|||
90986556|NCT02385123|181858657|OTHER|A single group analysis was used to determine this outcome measure.|||||||||||||||||A single group analysis was used to determine this outcome measure. These are basic science, hypothesis-generating studies with limited numbers of participants and no control group. The outcomes have no comparisons built into them - the outcomes are stating what the cell counts are, what the antibody titers are, what percentage of people seroconverted, etc. As such, we cannot report any p-values etc. for comparisons (e.g. with unvaccinated people).|||
90986557|NCT02385123|181858658|OTHER|A single group analysis was used to determine this outcome measure.|||||||||||||||||A single group analysis was used to determine this outcome measure. These are basic science, hypothesis-generating studies with limited numbers of participants and no control group. The outcomes have no comparisons built into them - the outcomes are stating what the cell counts are, what the antibody titers are, what percentage of people seroconverted, etc. As such, we cannot report any p-values etc. for comparisons (e.g. with unvaccinated people).|||
90986558|NCT02385123|181858659|OTHER|A single group analysis was used to determine this outcome measure.|||||||||||||||||A single group analysis was used to determine this outcome measure. These are basic science, hypothesis-generating studies with limited numbers of participants and no control group. The outcomes have no comparisons built into them - the outcomes are stating what the cell counts are, what the antibody titers are, what percentage of people seroconverted, etc. As such, we cannot report any p-values etc. for comparisons (e.g. with unvaccinated people|||
90986559|NCT02385123|181858660|OTHER|A single group analysis was used to determine this outcome measure.|||||||||||||||||A single group analysis was used to determine this outcome measure. These are basic science, hypothesis-generating studies with limited numbers of participants and no control group. The outcomes have no comparisons built into them - the outcomes are stating what the cell counts are, what the antibody titers are, what percentage of people seroconverted, etc. As such, we cannot report any p-values etc. for comparisons (e.g. with unvaccinated people).|||
90986560|NCT02385123|181858661|OTHER|A single group analysis was used to determine this outcome measure.|||||||||||||||||A single group analysis was used to determine this outcome measure. These are basic science, hypothesis-generating studies with limited numbers of participants and no control group. The outcomes have no comparisons built into them - the outcomes are stating what the cell counts are, what the antibody titers are, what percentage of people seroconverted, etc. As such, we cannot report any p-values etc. for comparisons (e.g. with unvaccinated people).|||
91041331|NCT01243151|181967836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-72.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.097|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-92.4|-51.92|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-51.92|-92.40|<0.0001
90986561|NCT02385123|181858662|OTHER|A single group analysis was used to determine this outcome measure.|||||||||||||||||A single group analysis was used to determine this outcome measure. These are basic science, hypothesis-generating studies with limited numbers of participants and no control group. The outcomes have no comparisons built into them - the outcomes are stating what the cell counts are, what the antibody titers are, what percentage of people seroconverted, etc. As such, we cannot report any p-values etc. for comparisons (e.g. with unvaccinated people).|||
91041332|NCT01243151|181967836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-63.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.328|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.59|-43.19|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-43.19|-84.59|<0.0001
91041333|NCT01243151|181967836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-88.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.327|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-109.39|-68.0|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-68.00|-109.39|<0.0001
91041334|NCT01243151|181967836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-84.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.028|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-104.76|-64.54|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-64.54|-104.76|<0.0001
91041335|NCT01243151|181967836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-78.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.854|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-96.22|-60.71|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-60.71|-96.22|<0.0001
91041336|NCT01243151|181967836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-84.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.998|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-102.51|-66.4|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-66.40|-102.51|<0.0001
91041337|NCT01243151|181967836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-96.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.994|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-114.12|-78.03|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-78.03|-114.12|<0.0001
91041338|NCT01243151|181967836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-92.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.703|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-109.8|-74.86|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-74.86|-109.80|<0.0001
91041339|NCT01243151|181967836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-71.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.534|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-90.51|-52.3|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-52.30|-90.51|<0.0001
90986562|NCT02385123|181858663|OTHER|||||||||||||||||A single group analysis was used to determine this outcome measure.|A single group analysis was used to determine this outcome measure. These are basic science, hypothesis-generating studies with limited numbers of participants and no control group. The outcomes have no comparisons built into them - the outcomes are stating what the cell counts are, what the antibody titers are, what percentage of people seroconverted, etc. As such, we cannot report any p-values etc. for comparisons (e.g. with unvaccinated people).|||
91041340|NCT01243151|181967836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-76.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.659|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-95.37|-56.65|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-56.65|-95.37|<0.0001
91041341|NCT01243151|181967836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-93.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.678|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-113.18|-74.38|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-74.38|-113.18|<0.0001
91041342|NCT01243151|181967836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-89.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.362|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-108.35|-70.81|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-70.81|-108.35|<0.0001
91041343|NCT01243151|181967837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-33.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.077|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.99|-23.65|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-23.65|-43.99|<0.0001
91041344|NCT01243151|181967837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-27.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.202|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.35|-17.51|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-17.51|-38.35|<0.0001
91041345|NCT01243151|181967837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-39.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.143|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.89|-29.28|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-29.28|-49.89|<0.0001
91041346|NCT01243151|181967837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-37.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.051|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.75|-27.51|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-27.51|-47.75|<0.0001
91041347|NCT01243151|181967837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-45.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.384|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.78|-33.2|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-33.20|-58.78|<0.0001
91041348|NCT01243151|181967837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-41.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.527|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.9|-28.74|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-28.74|-54.90|<0.0001
91041349|NCT01243151|181967837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-56.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.531|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.43|-43.27|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-43.27|-69.43|<0.0001
90986563|NCT02385123|181858664|OTHER|A single group analysis was used to determine this outcome measure.|||||||||||||||||A single group analysis was used to determine this outcome measure. These are basic science, hypothesis-generating studies with limited numbers of participants and no control group. The outcomes have no comparisons built into them - the outcomes are stating what the cell counts are, what the antibody titers are, what percentage of people seroconverted, etc. As such, we cannot report any p-values etc. for comparisons (e.g. with unvaccinated people).|||
90986564|NCT02385123|181858665|OTHER|A single group analysis was used to determine this outcome measure.|||||||||||||||||A single group analysis was used to determine this outcome measure. These are basic science, hypothesis-generating studies with limited numbers of participants and no control group. The outcomes have no comparisons built into them - the outcomes are stating what the cell counts are, what the antibody titers are, what percentage of people seroconverted, etc. As such, we cannot report any p-values etc. for comparisons (e.g. with unvaccinated people).|||
90986565|NCT02385123|181858666|OTHER|A single group analysis was used to determine this outcome measure.|||||||||||||||||A single group analysis was used to determine this outcome measure. These are basic science, hypothesis-generating studies with limited numbers of participants and no control group. The outcomes have no comparisons built into them - the outcomes are stating what the cell counts are, what the antibody titers are, what percentage of people seroconverted, etc. As such, we cannot report any p-values etc. for comparisons (e.g. with unvaccinated people).|||
91041350|NCT01243151|181967837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-53.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.344|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.17|-40.74|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-40.74|-66.17|<0.0001
91041351|NCT01243151|181967837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-49.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.498|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.7|-38.64|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-38.64|-60.70|<0.0001
91041352|NCT01243151|181967837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-53.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.592|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.14|-42.7|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-42.70|-65.14|<0.0001
91041353|NCT01243151|181967837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-60.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.59|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.81|-49.38|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-49.38|-71.81|<0.0001
91041354|NCT01243151|181967837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-57.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.413|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.53|-46.8|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-46.80|-68.53|<0.0001
90986566|NCT02385123|181858667|OTHER|A single group analysis was used to determine this outcome measure.|||||||||||||||||A single group analysis was used to determine this outcome measure. These are basic science, hypothesis-generating studies with limited numbers of participants and no control group. The outcomes have no comparisons built into them - the outcomes are stating what the cell counts are, what the antibody titers are, what percentage of people seroconverted, etc. As such, we cannot report any p-values etc. for comparisons (e.g. with unvaccinated people).|||
90986567|NCT02385123|181858668|OTHER|A single group analysis was used to determine this outcome measure.|||||||||||||||||A single group analysis was used to determine this outcome measure. These are basic science, hypothesis-generating studies with limited numbers of participants and no control group. The outcomes have no comparisons built into them - the outcomes are stating what the cell counts are, what the antibody titers are, what percentage of people seroconverted, etc. As such, we cannot report any p-values etc. for comparisons (e.g. with unvaccinated people).|||
91041355|NCT01243151|181967837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-44.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.8|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.8|-32.57|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-32.57|-55.80|<0.0001
91041356|NCT01243151|181967837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-47.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.881|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.06|-35.5|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-35.50|-59.06|<0.0001
90952395|NCT04546425|181782310|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 5 (13vPnC serotype with the lowest GMC, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/lowest 13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|1.75|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 11A||1.75|1.37|
90952396|NCT04546425|181782310|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 5 (13vPnC serotype with the lowest GMC, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/lowest 13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.87|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 12F||0.87|0.68|
90952397|NCT04546425|181782310|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 5 (13vPnC serotype with the lowest GMC, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/lowest 13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|5.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.82|6.1|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 15B||6.10|4.82|
90952398|NCT04546425|181782310|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 5 (13vPnC serotype with the lowest GMC, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/lowest 13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|3.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|4.34|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 22F||4.34|3.40|
90952399|NCT04546425|181782310|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 5 (13vPnC serotype with the lowest GMC, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/lowest 13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|2.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.33|2.99|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 33F||2.99|2.33|
90952400|NCT04546425|181782311|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC -13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percent difference|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.8|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions (20vPnc - 13vPnC) expressed as a percentage.|Diphtheria||0.8|-1.3|
90986568|NCT02385123|181858669|OTHER|A single group analysis was used to determine this outcome measure.|||||||||||||||||A single group analysis was used to determine this outcome measure. These are basic science, hypothesis-generating studies with limited numbers of participants and no control group. The outcomes have no comparisons built into them - the outcomes are stating what the cell counts are, what the antibody titers are, what percentage of people seroconverted, etc. As such, we cannot report any p-values etc. for comparisons (e.g. with unvaccinated people).|||
90986569|NCT02385123|181858671|OTHER|A single group analysis was used to determine this outcome measure.|||||||||||||||||These are basic science, hypothesis-generating studies with limited numbers of participants and no control group. The outcomes have no comparisons built into them - the outcomes are stating what the cell counts are, what the antibody titers are, what percentage of people seroconverted, etc. As such, we cannot report any p-values etc. for comparisons (e.g. with unvaccinated people).|||
91041357|NCT01243151|181967837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-57.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.891|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.53|-45.94|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-45.94|-69.53|<0.0001
91041358|NCT01243151|181967837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-54.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.701|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.38|-43.54|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-43.54|-66.38|<0.0001
91041359|NCT01243151|181967838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|24.972||||0.0472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|599.65|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 15: Logistic regression model with treatment and baseline LDL-C stratum as factors was used for the analysis.||599.65|1.04|0.0472
91041360|NCT01243151|181967838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.815||||0.1368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|305.54|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 15: Logistic regression model with treatment and baseline LDL-C stratum as factors was used for the analysis.||305.54|0.46|0.1368
91041361|NCT01243151|181967838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|47.527||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.89|1198.29|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 15: Logistic regression model with treatment and baseline LDL-C stratum as factors was used for the analysis.||1198.29|1.89|0.0190
91041362|NCT01243151|181967838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|45.328||||0.0192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.86|1103.73|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 15: Logistic regression model with treatment and baseline LDL-C stratum as factors was used for the analysis.||1103.73|1.86|0.0192
91041363|NCT01243151|181967838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|74.273||||0.0105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.74|2014.67|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 22: Logistic regression model with treatment and baseline LDL-C stratum as factors was used for the analysis.||2014.67|2.74|0.0105
91041364|NCT01243151|181967838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|86.088||||0.0086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|2389.27|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 22: Logistic regression model with treatment and baseline LDL-C stratum as factors was used for the analysis.||2389.27|3.10|0.0086
91041365|NCT01243151|181967838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|87.733||||0.0084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.14|2449.11|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 22: Logistic regression model with treatment and baseline LDL-C stratum as factors was used for the analysis.||2449.11|3.14|0.0084
91041366|NCT01243151|181967838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|112.272||||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.07|3097.22|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 22: Logistic regression model with treatment and baseline LDL-C stratum as factors was used for the analysis.||3097.22|4.07|0.0053
91041367|NCT01243151|181967838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|27.697||||0.0403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|662.2|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 29: Logistic regression model with treatment and baseline LDL-C stratum as factors was used for the analysis.||662.20|1.16|0.0403
91041368|NCT01243151|181967838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|30.247||||0.0361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|733.32|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 29: Logistic regression model with treatment and baseline LDL-C stratum as factors was used for the analysis.||733.32|1.25|0.0361
91041369|NCT01243151|181967838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|89.341||||0.0069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.43|2326.44|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 29: Logistic regression model with treatment and baseline LDL-C stratum as factors was used for the analysis.||2326.44|3.43|0.0069
91041370|NCT01243151|181967838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|76.034||||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.08|1875.15|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 29: Logistic regression model with treatment and baseline LDL-C stratum as factors was used for the analysis.||1875.15|3.08|0.0081
91041371|NCT01243151|181967838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.018||||0.9931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|64.41|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 36: Logistic regression model with treatment and baseline LDL-C stratum as factors was used for the analysis.||64.41|0.02|0.9931
91041372|NCT01243151|181967838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|38.943||||0.0259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|975.84|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 36: Logistic regression model with treatment and baseline LDL-C stratum as factors was used for the analysis.||975.84|1.55|0.0259
91041373|NCT01243151|181967838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|57.766||||0.0142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.26|1477.88|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 36: Logistic regression model with treatment and baseline LDL-C stratum as factors was used for the analysis.||1477.88|2.26|0.0142
91041374|NCT01243151|181967838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|48.734||||0.0179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.95|1216.9|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 36: Logistic regression model with treatment and baseline LDL-C stratum as factors was used for the analysis.||1216.90|1.95|0.0179
91041375|NCT01243151|181967839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|353.058||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.95|12528.19|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 15: Logistic regression model with treatment and baseline LDL-C stratum as factors was used for the analysis.||12528.19|9.95|0.0013
91041376|NCT01243151|181967839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|129.984||||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.44|3808.21|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 15: Logistic regression model with treatment and baseline LDL-C stratum as factors was used for the analysis.||3808.21|4.44|0.0047
91041377|NCT01243151|181967839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|300.099||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.35|10787.45|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 15: Logistic regression model with treatment and baseline LDL-C stratum as factors was used for the analysis.||10787.45|8.35|0.0018
91041378|NCT01243151|181967839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|190.835||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.34|5743.12|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 15: Logistic regression model with treatment and baseline LDL-C stratum as factors was used for the analysis.||5743.12|6.34|0.0025
91041379|NCT01243151|181967839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|255.421||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.87|8290.22|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 22: Logistic regression model with treatment and baseline LDL-C stratum as factors was used for the analysis.||8290.22|7.87|0.0018
90986570|NCT02385123|181858672|OTHER|A single group analysis was used to determine this outcome measure.|||||||||||||||||These are basic science, hypothesis-generating studies with limited numbers of participants and no control group. The outcomes have no comparisons built into them - the outcomes are stating what the cell counts are, what the antibody titers are, what percentage of people seroconverted, etc. As such, we cannot report any p-values etc. for comparisons (e.g. with unvaccinated people).|||
90952401|NCT04546425|181782311|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC-13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percent difference|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.2|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions (20vPnc - 13vPnC) expressed as a percentage.|Tetanus||0.2|-1.8|
90986571|NCT02385123|181858673|OTHER|Single group analysis.|||||||||||||||||A single group analysis was used to determine this outcome measure. These are basic science, hypothesis-generating studies with limited numbers of participants and no control group. The outcomes have no comparisons built into them - the outcomes are stating what the cell counts are, what the antibody titers are, what percentage of people seroconverted, etc. As such, we cannot report any p-values etc. for comparisons (e.g. with unvaccinated people).|||
90952402|NCT04546425|181782311|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC-13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percent difference|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|0.7|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|PT||0.7|-5.3|
90952403|NCT04546425|181782311|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC-13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percent difference|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|2.9|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|FHA||2.9|-2.6|
90986572|NCT02385123|181858674|OTHER|A single group analysis was used to determine this outcome measure.|||||||||||||||||A single group analysis was used to determine this outcome measure. These are basic science, hypothesis-generating studies with limited numbers of participants and no control group. The outcomes have no comparisons built into them - the outcomes are stating what the cell counts are, what the antibody titers are, what percentage of people seroconverted, etc. As such, we cannot report any p-values etc. for comparisons (e.g. with unvaccinated people).|||
90986573|NCT02385123|181858675|OTHER|A single group analysis was used to determine this outcome measure.|||||||||||||||||A single group analysis was used to determine this outcome measure. These are basic science, hypothesis-generating studies with limited numbers of participants and no control group. The outcomes have no comparisons built into them - the outcomes are stating what the cell counts are, what the antibody titers are, what percentage of people seroconverted, etc. As such, we cannot report any p-values etc. for comparisons (e.g. with unvaccinated people).|||
90986574|NCT02385123|181858676|OTHER|A single group analysis was used to determine this outcome measure.|||||||||||||||||A single group analysis was used to determine this outcome measure. These are basic science, hypothesis-generating studies with limited numbers of participants and no control group. The outcomes have no comparisons built into them - the outcomes are stating what the cell counts are, what the antibody titers are, what percentage of people seroconverted, etc. As such, we cannot report any p-values etc. for comparisons (e.g. with unvaccinated people).|||
90986575|NCT02385123|181858677|OTHER|A single group analysis was used to determine this outcome measure.|||||||||||||||||A single group analysis was used to determine this outcome measure. These are basic science, hypothesis-generating studies with limited numbers of participants and no control group. The outcomes have no comparisons built into them - the outcomes are stating what the cell counts are, what the antibody titers are, what percentage of people seroconverted, etc. As such, we cannot report any p-values etc. for comparisons (e.g. with unvaccinated people).|||
90986576|NCT04498910|181858678|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Estimated change|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|1.2|||Bayesian Mixed Model Analysis|||||1.2|-3.6|
90986577|NCT04498910|181858679|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Estimated change|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|1.0|||Bayesian Mixed Model Analysis|||||1.0|-4.2|
90986578|NCT01809262|181858710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.0005||95.0|0.031|0.109|||ANCOVA|||||0.109|0.031|0.0005
90986579|NCT01809262|181858710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.099|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.06|0.138|||ANCOVA|||||0.138|0.060|<0.0001
90986580|NCT01809262|181858710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.113|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.074|0.152|||ANCOVA|||||0.152|0.074|<0.0001
90986581|NCT01809262|181858710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.119|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.08|0.158|||ANCOVA|||||0.158|0.080|<0.0001
90986582|NCT01809262|181858711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.108|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016|<|0.0001||95.0|0.077|0.139|||ANCOVA|||||0.139|0.077|<0.0001
90986583|NCT01809262|181858711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.155|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016|<|0.0001||95.0|0.124|0.186|||ANCOVA|||||0.186|0.124|<0.0001
90986584|NCT01809262|181858711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.161|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016|<|0.0001||95.0|0.13|0.192|||ANCOVA|||||0.192|0.130|<0.0001
90986585|NCT01809262|181858711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.192|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016|<|0.0001||95.0|0.161|0.223|||ANCOVA|||||0.223|0.161|<0.0001
90986586|NCT01809262|181858712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.099|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016|<|0.0001||95.0|0.068|0.131|||ANCOVA|||||0.131|0.068|<0.0001
90986587|NCT01809262|181858712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.139|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016|<|0.0001||95.0|0.107|0.171|||ANCOVA|||||0.171|0.107|<0.0001
90986588|NCT01809262|181858712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.153|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016|<|0.0001||95.0|0.122|0.185|||ANCOVA|||||0.185|0.122|<0.0001
90986589|NCT01809262|181858712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.184|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016|<|0.0001||95.0|0.152|0.215|||ANCOVA|||||0.215|0.152|<0.0001
90986590|NCT01809262|181858713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.087|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015|<|0.0001||95.0|0.056|0.117|||ANCOVA|||||0.117|0.056|<0.0001
91041380|NCT01243151|181967839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|150.547||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.28|4291.89|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 22: Logistic regression model with treatment and baseline LDL-C stratum as factors was used for the analysis.||4291.89|5.28|0.0034
90986591|NCT01809262|181858713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015|<|0.0001||95.0|0.087|0.148|||ANCOVA|||||0.148|0.087|<0.0001
90986592|NCT01809262|181858713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.138|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015|<|0.0001||95.0|0.107|0.168|||ANCOVA|||||0.168|0.107|<0.0001
90986593|NCT01809262|181858713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.162|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015|<|0.0001||95.0|0.132|0.193|||ANCOVA|||||0.193|0.132|<0.0001
90986594|NCT01809262|181858714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.074|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001||95.0|0.041|0.108|||ANCOVA|||||0.108|0.041|<0.0001
90986595|NCT01809262|181858714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.096|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001||95.0|0.062|0.13|||ANCOVA|||||0.130|0.062|<0.0001
90986596|NCT01809262|181858714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.122|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001||95.0|0.089|0.156|||ANCOVA|||||0.156|0.089|<0.0001
90986597|NCT01809262|181858714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.141|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001||95.0|0.107|0.174|||ANCOVA|||||0.174|0.107|<0.0001
90986598|NCT01809262|181858715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.121|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.084|0.158|||ANCOVA|||||0.158|0.084|<0.0001
90986599|NCT01809262|181858715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.166|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.129|0.203|||ANCOVA|||||0.203|0.129|<0.0001
90986600|NCT01809262|181858715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.176|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.139|0.214|||ANCOVA|||||0.214|0.139|<0.0001
90986601|NCT01809262|181858715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.213|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.176|0.25|||ANCOVA|||||0.250|0.176|<0.0001
90986602|NCT01809262|181858716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.306|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049|<|0.0001||95.0|0.21|0.402|||ANCOVA|||||0.402|0.210|<0.0001
90986603|NCT01809262|181858716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.355|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049|<|0.0001||95.0|0.258|0.452|||ANCOVA|||||0.452|0.258|<0.0001
90986604|NCT01809262|181858716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049|<|0.0001||95.0|0.253|0.447|||ANCOVA|||||0.447|0.253|<0.0001
90986605|NCT01809262|181858716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.455|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049|<|0.0001||95.0|0.359|0.551|||ANCOVA|||||0.551|0.359|<0.0001
90986606|NCT02345434|181858742|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.35|13.4||||||||13.4|-6.35|
90986607|NCT02345434|181858743|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.68|2.1||||||||2.1|-3.68|
90986608|NCT00859898|181858751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1056|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.32||Dapagliflozin 10 mg plus metformin XR treatment group had to be superior to both monotherapy treatment groups to be considered significant. Two-sided significance level at α=0.05|ANCOVA|treatment group as an effect and the baseline HbA1c value as a covariate.||||-0.32|-0.74|<0.0001
90986609|NCT00859898|181858751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1072|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.33||Dapagliflozin 10 mg plus metformin XR treatment group had to be superior to both monotherapy treatment groups to be considered significant. Two-sided significance level at α=0.05|ANCOVA|treatment group as an effect and the baseline HbA1c value as a covariate.||||-0.33|-0.75|<0.0001
90986610|NCT00859898|181858751|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority of dapagliflozin 10 mg versus metformin XR was demonstrated when the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval of the difference in change in HbA1c from baseline to Week 24 (LOCF) between dapagliflozin 10 mg and metformin XR was less than 0.35%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1054|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.2|||ANCOVA|treatment group as an effect and the baseline value as a covariate||||0.20|-0.22|
90986611|NCT00859898|181858751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1054||0.9144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.2||two-sided significance level at α=0.05|ANCOVA|treatment group as an effect and the baseline HbA1c value as a covariate.||When testing for superiority, significance is claimed only if dapagliflozin 10 mg is superior to metformin XR||0.20|-0.22|0.9144
90986612|NCT00859898|181858752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.558|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.9|-7.0||two-sided significance level at α=0.05. Dapagliflozin 10 mg plus metformin XR treatment group had to be superior to both monotherapy treatment groups to be considered significant.|ANCOVA|treatment group as an effect and the baseline value as a covariate.||A hierarchical closed testing procedure was implemented to control the familywise type I error rate related to this endpoint at the two-sided 0.05 level. Statistical tests were only performed for a given secondary endpoint if all previous sequential tests versus that treatment group were also significant.||-7.0|-20.9|<0.0001
90986613|NCT00859898|181858752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.59|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.6|-18.5||two-sided significance level at α=0.05. Dapagliflozin 10 mg plus metformin XR treatment group had to be superior to both monotherapy treatment groups to be considered significant.|ANCOVA|treatment group as an effect and the baseline value as a covariate.||A hierarchical closed testing procedure was implemented to control the familywise type I error rate related to this endpoint at the two-sided 0.05 level. Statistical tests were only performed for a given secondary endpoint if all previous sequential tests versus that treatment group were also significant.||-18.5|-32.6|<0.0001
90952404|NCT04546425|181782311|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC-13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percent difference|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|4.2|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|PRN||4.2|-0.9|
90952405|NCT04546425|181782311|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC-13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percent difference|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|4.0|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions (20vPnc - 13vPnC) expressed as a percentage.|Hepatitis B||4.0|-1.1|
90952406|NCT04546425|181782311|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC -13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|4.2|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions (20vPnc - 13vPnC) expressed as a percentage.|Poliovirus Type 1||4.2|-4.6|
90952407|NCT04546425|181782311|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC-13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|4.2|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions (20vPnc - 13vPnC) expressed as a percentage.|Poliovirus Type 2||4.2|-4.6|
90952408|NCT04546425|181782311|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC-13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|4.2|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions (20vPnc - 13vPnC) expressed as a percentage.|Poliovirus Type 3||4.2|-4.6|
90952409|NCT04546425|181782311|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC-13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|2.2|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions (20vPnc - 13vPnC) expressed as a percentage.|Hib||2.2|-2.0|
90952410|NCT04546425|181782312|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.42|||||GMR and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the concentrations (20vPnC - 13vPnC) and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student's t distribution).|Measles||1.42|0.79|
90952411|NCT04546425|181782313|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.44|||||GMR and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the concentrations (20vPnC - 13vPnC) and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student's t distribution).|Mumps||1.44|0.76|
90952412|NCT04546425|181782314|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.1|||||GMR and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the concentrations (20vPnC - 13vPnC) and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student's t distribution).|Rubella||1.10|0.63|
90952413|NCT04546425|181782315|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.57|||||GMR and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the concentrations (20vPnC - 13vPnC) and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student's t distribution).|Varicella||1.57|0.98|
90952414|NCT04546425|181782329|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group.|Percent difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|0.9|||||2-Sided 95% CIs are calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 1 \\||0.9|-3.1|
90952415|NCT04546425|181782329|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group.|Percent difference|-10.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|-6.7|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 3||-6.7|-14.7|
90952416|NCT04546425|181782329|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group.|Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.3|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 4||1.3|-1.4|
90952417|NCT04546425|181782329|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group.|Percent difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|2.2|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 5||2.2|-1.4|
90952418|NCT04546425|181782329|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group.|Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.5|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 6A||1.5|-1.6|
90952419|NCT04546425|181782329|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group.|Percent difference|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.7|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 6B||2.7|-1.1|
90952420|NCT04546425|181782329|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group.|Percent difference|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.4|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 7F||0.4|-1.5|
91041381|NCT01243151|181967839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|745.542||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.6|47929.45|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 22: Logistic regression model with treatment and baseline LDL-C stratum as factors was used for the analysis.||47929.45|11.60|0.0018
90986614|NCT00859898|181858752|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority of dapagliflozin 10 mg versus metformin XR was demonstrated when the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval of the difference in change FPG from baseline to Week 24 (LOCF) between dapagliflozin 10 mg and metformin XR was less than 15 mg/dL.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.566|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.6|-4.6|||ANCOVA|treatment group as an effect and the baseline value as a covariate||||-4.6|-18.6|
90986615|NCT00859898|181858752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.566||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.6|-4.6||two-sided significance level at α=0.05.|ANCOVA|treatment group as an effect and the baseline value as a covariate.||When testing for superiority, significance is claimed only if dapagliflozin 10 mg is superior to metformin XR||-4.6|-18.6|0.0012
90986616|NCT00859898|181858753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.598||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.9|23.9||Dapagliflozin 10 mg plus metformin XR treatment group had to be superior to both monotherapy treatment groups to be considered significant.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression based on the methodology of Zhang, Tsiatis and Davidian and Tsiatis, Davidian, Zhang and Lu, with adjustment for baseline HbA1c.||The probability of response was modeled using a logistic regression model with baseline HbA1c as the covariate. Treatment group estimates of response rate were then obtained by integrating each group's modeled probability of response over the observed distribution of baseline covariate (combined across groups).||23.9|5.9|0.0012
90986617|NCT00859898|181858753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.73||0.0165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|20.6||Dapagliflozin 10 mg plus metformin XR treatment group had to be superior to both monotherapy treatment groups to be considered significant.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression based on the methodology of Zhang, Tsiatis and Davidian and Tsiatis, Davidian, Zhang and Lu, with adjustment for baseline HbA1c.||The probability of response was modeled using a logistic regression model with baseline HbA1c as the covariate. Treatment group estimates of response rate were then obtained by integrating each group's modeled probability of response over the observed distribution of baseline covariate (combined across groups).||20.6|2.1|0.0165
90986618|NCT00859898|181858754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1807||0.0133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.09||two-sided significance level at α=0.05. Dapagliflozin 10 mg plus metformin XR treatment group had to be superior to both monotherapy treatment groups to be considered significant.|ANCOVA|: treatment group as an effect and the baseline HbA1c value as a covariate.||A hierarchical closed testing procedure was implemented to control the familywise type I error rate related to this endpoint at the two-sided 0.05 level. Statistical testing was only performed if the dapagliflozin 10 mg plus metformin XR group was statistically significantly superior to both control groups for the primary efficacy endpoint. Tests were only performed for a given secondary endpoint if all previous sequential tests versus that treatment group were also significant.||-0.09|-0.81|0.0133
90986619|NCT00859898|181858754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1817||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.18||two-sided significance level at α=0.05. Dapagliflozin 10 mg plus metformin XR treatment group had to be superior to both monotherapy treatment groups to be considered significant.|ANCOVA|treatment group as an effect and the baseline HbA1c value as a covariate.||A hierarchical closed testing procedure was implemented to control the familywise type I error rate related to this endpoint at the two-sided 0.05 level. Statistical testing was only performed if the dapagliflozin 10 mg plus metformin XR group was statistically significantly superior to both control groups for the primary efficacy endpoint. Tests were only performed for a given secondary endpoint if all previous sequential tests versus that treatment group were also significant.||-0.18|-0.89|0.0036
90986620|NCT00859898|181858755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3401|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.64|-1.3||two-sided significance level at α=0.05|ANCOVA|treatment group as an effect and the baseline value as a covariate.||A hierarchical closed testing procedure was implemented to control the familywise type I error rate related to this endpoint at the two-sided 0.05 level. Statistical testing was only performed if the dapagliflozin 10 mg plus metformin XR group was statistically significantly superior to both control groups for the primary efficacy endpoint. Tests were only performed for a given secondary endpoint if all previous sequential tests versus that treatment group were also significant.||-1.30|-2.64|<0.0001
90986621|NCT00859898|181858755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3362|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.03|-0.71||two-sided significance level at α=0.05|ANCOVA|treatment group as an effect and the baseline value as a covariate||Statistical tests were only performed for a given secondary endpoint if all previous sequential tests versus that treatment group were also significant.||-0.71|-2.03|<0.0001
90986622|NCT02145156|181858766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.36
90986623|NCT02145156|181858766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.18
90986624|NCT02145156|181858766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.22
90986625|NCT02145156|181858766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.88
90986626|NCT02145156|181858767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.35
90986627|NCT02145156|181858767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
90986628|NCT02145156|181858767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.23
90986629|NCT02145156|181858767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.23
90986630|NCT02145156|181858768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.37
90986631|NCT02145156|181858768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.23
90986632|NCT02145156|181858768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.25
90986633|NCT02145156|181858768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.70
90986634|NCT02145156|181858769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.59
90986635|NCT02145156|181858769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.52
90986636|NCT02145156|181858769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.71
90952421|NCT04546425|181782329|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group.|Percent difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.9|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 9V||1.9|-1.0|
90986637|NCT02145156|181858769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.34
90952422|NCT04546425|181782329|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group.|Percent difference|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|0.6|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 14||0.6|-3.7|
90952423|NCT04546425|181782329|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group.|Percent difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|2.7|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 18C||2.7|-0.5|
90952424|NCT04546425|181782329|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group.|Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.1|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 19A||1.1|-1.1|
90952425|NCT04546425|181782329|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group.|Percent difference|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.4|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 19F||1.4|-0.9|
90952426|NCT04546425|181782329|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group.|Percent difference|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|1.4|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 23F||1.4|-3.2|
90952427|NCT04546425|181782329|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 23F(13vPnC serotype with the lowest percentage, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group.|Percent difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.9|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 8||3.9|0.4|
90952428|NCT04546425|181782329|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 23F(13vPnC serotype with the lowest percentage, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group.|Percent difference|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.7|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 10A||2.7|-1.5|
90952429|NCT04546425|181782329|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 23F (13vPnC serotype with the lowest percentage, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group.|Percent difference|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|3.2|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 11A||3.2|-0.7|
90952430|NCT04546425|181782329|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 23F (13vPnC serotype with the lowest percentage, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group.|Percent difference|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|1.6|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 12F||1.6|-2.9|
90952431|NCT04546425|181782329|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 23F (13vPnC serotype with the lowest percentage, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group.|Percent difference|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|4.1|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 15B||4.1|0.7|
90952432|NCT04546425|181782329|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 23F(13vPnC serotype with the lowest percentage, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group.|Percent difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.9|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 22F||3.9|0.4|
90952433|NCT04546425|181782329|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 23F (13vPnC serotype with the lowest percentage, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group.|Percent difference|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|3.4|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 33F||3.4|-0.4|
90952434|NCT04546425|181782333|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Percent difference|-4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|2.1|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions (20vPnC - 13vPnC) expressed as a percentage.|Diphtheria||2.1|-11.2|
90952435|NCT04546425|181782333|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Percent difference|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|0.4|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions (20vPnC - 13vPnC) expressed as a percentage.|Tetanus||0.4|-7.0|
90952436|NCT04546425|181782333|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Percent difference|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|4.1|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions (20vPnC - 13vPnC) expressed as a percentage.|PT||4.1|-5.2|
90952437|NCT04546425|181782333|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Percent difference|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|3.3|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions (20vPnC - 13vPnC) expressed as a percentage.|FHA||3.3|-6.4|
90986638|NCT02145156|181858770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.16
90986639|NCT02145156|181858770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.15
90986640|NCT02145156|181858770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.98
90986641|NCT02145156|181858770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.34
90986642|NCT02145156|181858771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.37
90952438|NCT04546425|181782333|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Percent difference|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|3.3|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions (20vPnC - 13vPnC) expressed as a percentage.|PRN||3.3|-6.4|
90952439|NCT04546425|181782333|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Percent difference|-3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|2.2|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions (20vPnC - 13vPnC) expressed as a percentage.|Poliovirus Type 1||2.2|-10.0|
90952440|NCT04546425|181782333|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Percent difference|-2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|5.8|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions (20vPnC - 13vPnC) expressed as a percentage.|Poliovirus Type 2||5.8|-11.8|
90986643|NCT02145156|181858771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.23
90986644|NCT02145156|181858771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.25
90986645|NCT02145156|181858771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.70
90986646|NCT02145156|181858772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.87
90952441|NCT04546425|181782333|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Percent difference|-4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|-0.5|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions (20vPnC - 13vPnC) expressed as a percentage.|Poliovirus Type 3||-0.5|-10.2|
90952442|NCT04546425|181782333|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|2.0|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions (20vPnC - 13vPnC) expressed as a percentage.|Hib||2.0|-1.8|
90952443|NCT00672737|181782463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.0025|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0009|0.0041|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for body mass index, age of the volunteers, and a binary variable indicating the type (home-based vs. in-laboratory).|Mixed linear regression|Beta for IGFBP-1: for every 1-pg/mL increase in its serum level the cold pain threshold will additionally increase by 0.0025 seconds for every 1-mcg/mL increase in the plasma level of remifentanil.||0.0041|0.0009|<0.05
90952444|NCT00672737|181782463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.9694||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9127|-0.0261|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for body mass index, age of the volunteers, and a binary variable indicating the type (home-based vs. in-laboratory).|Mixed linear regression|Beta for SaO2: for every 1-%-absolute decrease in the nadir SaO2 the cold pain threshold will additionally increase by 0.9694 seconds for every 1-mcg/mL increase in the plasma level of remifentanil.||-0.0261|-1.9127|0.05
90986647|NCT02145156|181858772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.62
90986648|NCT02145156|181858772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.81
90986649|NCT02145156|181858772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.76
90986650|NCT02145156|181858773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.70
90986651|NCT02145156|181858773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.41
90986652|NCT02145156|181858773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.59
90986653|NCT02145156|181858773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.74
90986654|NCT02145156|181858774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.38
90986655|NCT02145156|181858774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.17
90986656|NCT02145156|181858774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.60
90986657|NCT02145156|181858774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.35
90986658|NCT02145156|181858775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.39
90986659|NCT02145156|181858775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.51
90986660|NCT02145156|181858775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.49
90986661|NCT02145156|181858775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.14
90986662|NCT02145156|181858776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.09
90986663|NCT02145156|181858776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.51
90986664|NCT02145156|181858776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.15
90986665|NCT02145156|181858776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.03
90986666|NCT02145156|181858777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.38
90986667|NCT02145156|181858777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.17
90986668|NCT02145156|181858777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.60
90986669|NCT02145156|181858777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.35
90986670|NCT02064439|181858780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.34||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.59||P-value and hazard ratio estimates based on stratified proportional hazards model, with stratification based index event (DVT or PE with or without DVT).|Wald test|||Statistical analysis was performed on the first occurrence of the composite outcome.||0.59|0.20|0.0001
90986671|NCT02064439|181858780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.0|0.14|0.47||P-value and hazard ratio estimates based on stratified proportional hazards model, with stratification based index event (DVT or PE with or without DVT).|Wald test|||Statistical analysis was performed on the first occurrence of the composite outcome.||0.47|0.14|<0.0001
90986672|NCT02064439|181858780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.34||||0.4328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|2.75||P-value and hazard ratio estimates based on stratified proportional hazards model, with stratification based index event (DVT or PE with or without DVT).|Wald test|||Statistical analysis was performed on the first occurrence of the composite outcome.||2.75|0.65|0.4328
91041382|NCT01243151|181967839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|146.296||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.4|3963.01|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 22: Logistic regression model with treatment and baseline LDL-C stratum as factors was used for the analysis.||3963.01|5.40|0.0031
90986673|NCT02064439|181858781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.01||||0.3235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|8.04||P-value and hazard ratio estimates based on stratified proportional hazards model, with stratification based index event (DVT or PE with or without DVT).|Wald test|||Statistical analysis was performed on the first occurrence of the composite outcome.||8.04|0.50|0.3235
90986674|NCT02064439|181858781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.64||||0.5005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|6.84||P-value and hazard ratio estimates based on stratified proportional hazards model, with stratification based index event (DVT or PE with or without DVT).|Wald test|||Statistical analysis was performed on the first occurrence of the composite outcome.||6.84|0.39|0.5005
90986675|NCT02064439|181858781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.23||||0.7337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|4.03||P-value and hazard ratio estimates based on stratified proportional hazards model, with stratification based index event (DVT or PE with or without DVT).|Wald test|||Statistical analysis was performed on the first occurrence of the composite outcome.||4.03|0.37|0.7337
90986676|NCT02064439|181858782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.57||P-value and hazard ratio estimates based on stratified proportional hazards model, with stratification based index event (DVT or PE with or without DVT).|Wald test|||Statistical analysis was performed on the first occurrence of the composite outcome.||0.57|0.20|<0.0001
91041383|NCT01243151|181967839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|213.512||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.13|6396.64|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 29: Logistic regression model with treatment and baseline LDL-C stratum as factors was used for the analysis.||6396.64|7.13|0.0020
91041384|NCT01243151|181967839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|124.439||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.73|3277.13|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 29: Logistic regression model with treatment and baseline LDL-C stratum as factors was used for the analysis.||3277.13|4.73|0.0038
91041385|NCT01243151|181967839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|622.309||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.51|36846.03|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 29: Logistic regression model with treatment and baseline LDL-C stratum as factors was used for the analysis.||36846.03|10.51|0.0020
90986677|NCT02064439|181858782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.54||P-value and hazard ratio estimates based on stratified proportional hazards model, with stratification based index event (DVT or PE with or without DVT).|Wald test|||Statistical analysis was performed on the first occurrence of the composite outcome.||0.54|0.19|<0.0001
91041386|NCT01243151|181967839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|224.427||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.63|6598.0|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 29: Logistic regression model with treatment and baseline LDL-C stratum as factors was used for the analysis.||6598.00|7.63|0.0017
90986678|NCT02064439|181858782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.8172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|2.06||P-value and hazard ratio estimates based on stratified proportional hazards model, with stratification based index event (DVT or PE with or without DVT).|Wald test|||Statistical analysis was performed on the first occurrence of the composite outcome.||2.06|0.57|0.8172
90986679|NCT02064439|181858783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.44||||0.3318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|3.02||P-value and hazard ratio estimates based on stratified proportional hazards model, with stratification based index event (DVT or PE with or without DVT).|Wald test|||||3.02|0.69|0.3318
90986680|NCT02064439|181858783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.9726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|2.2||P-value and hazard ratio estimates based on stratified proportional hazards model, with stratification based index event (DVT or PE with or without DVT).|Wald test|||||2.20|0.44|0.9726
90986681|NCT02064439|181858783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.46||||0.3137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|3.06||P-value and hazard ratio estimates based on stratified proportional hazards model, with stratification based index event (DVT or PE with or without DVT).|Wald test|||||3.06|0.70|0.3137
90986682|NCT02433288|181858784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0019|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0019
90986683|NCT02433288|181858785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0017|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0017
90986684|NCT02433288|181858786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.39|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.91|-13.57|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-13.57|-26.91|<0.0001
90986685|NCT02433288|181858787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.3939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.56|1.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.80|-4.56|0.3939
91041387|NCT01243151|181967839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.158||||0.2751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|161.08|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 36: Logistic regression model with treatment and baseline LDL-C stratum as factors was used for the analysis.||161.08|0.24|0.2751
91041388|NCT01243151|181967839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|152.977||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.05|4633.92|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 36: Logistic regression model with treatment and baseline LDL-C stratum as factors was used for the analysis.||4633.92|5.05|0.0038
91041389|NCT01243151|181967839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|756.203||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.18|51133.53|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 36: Logistic regression model with treatment and baseline LDL-C stratum as factors was used for the analysis.||51133.53|11.18|0.0020
91041390|NCT01243151|181967839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|258.938||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.53|8902.61|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 36: Logistic regression model with treatment and baseline LDL-C stratum as factors was used for the analysis.||8902.61|7.53|0.0021
91041391|NCT01243151|181967840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.896||||0.958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|52.79|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression model with treatment and baseline LDL-C stratum as factors was used for the analysis.||52.79|0.02|0.9580
91041392|NCT01243151|181967840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|17.375||||0.0732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|394.65|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression model with treatment and baseline LDL-C stratum as factors was used for the analysis.||394.65|0.76|0.0732
90952445|NCT00672737|181782464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.0001|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0001|-0.0001|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for body mass index, age of the volunteers, and a binary variable indicating the type (home-based vs. in-laboratory).|Mixed linear regression|Beta for IGFBP-1: for every 1-pg/mL increase in its serum level, the heat pain threshold will additionally decrease by 0.0001 'C for every 1-mcg/mL increase in the plasma level of remifentanil.||-0.0001|-0.0001|<0.05
90986686|NCT02433288|181858788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.99||0.7514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.27|4.53|||ANCOVA|linear model including terms for randomized group and baseline LDL-C||||4.53|-3.27|0.7514
90986687|NCT00858702|181858797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0158||95.0||||No consideration for multiplicity|Fisher Exact|||||||0.0158
90952446|NCT00672737|181782464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.0172|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.018|0.0556|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for body mass index, age of the volunteers, and a binary variable indicating the type (home-based vs. in-laboratory).|Mixed linear regression|Beta for SaO2: for every 1-%-absolute decrease in the nadir SaO2, the heat pain threshold will additionally increase by 0.0172 'C for every 1-mcg/mL increase in the plasma level of remifentanil.||0.0556|-0.018|<0.05
90952447|NCT02193490|181782483|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.001
90952448|NCT02193490|181782484|OTHER|||||||0.078|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.078
90952449|NCT02193490|181782485|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
90952450|NCT02299414|181782490|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.92|||Chi-squared|||||.92|.73|<0.001
90952451|NCT02299414|181782490|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.9||||||||.90|.70|
90952452|NCT02299414|181782490|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.89||||||||.89|.60|
90952453|NCT02299414|181782490|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.64||||||||1.64|.49|
90952454|NCT02299414|181782490|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.21||||||||1.21|.54|
90952455|NCT02299414|181782491|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.07||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.36|||Chi-squared|||||1.36|0.85|0.56
90952456|NCT02299414|181782492|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.26||||||||1.26|.45|
90952457|NCT02299414|181782493|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.91||||||||0.91|0.77|
90952458|NCT02299414|181782494|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.99||||||||.99|.77|
90952459|NCT02299414|181782495|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.3||||||||1.3|.45|
90952460|NCT02299414|181782496|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.18||||||||1.18|.98|
90952461|NCT02299414|181782497|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.89||||||||.89|.69|
90952462|NCT02299414|181782498|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.04||||||||1.04|0.68|
90952463|NCT02299414|181782499|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.9||||||||.90|.74|
90952464|NCT02299414|181782500|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.1||||||||1.10|.93|
90952465|NCT02299414|181782501|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.27||||||||1.27|.59|
90952466|NCT02299414|181782502|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.02||||||||1.02|.81|
90952467|NCT02299414|181782503|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.97||||||||.97|.71|
90952468|NCT02299414|181782504|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.43||||||||0.43|-0.11|
90986688|NCT00858702|181858798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0566||95.0||||No consideration for multiplicity|Fisher Exact|||||||0.0566
90986689|NCT00858702|181858799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||No consideration for multiplicity|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
90986690|NCT00367640|181858813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|||||ANCOVA of the average RTSS, with treatment and pooled sites as factors, and retrospective RTSS, asthma and sensitised status as covariates.|ANCOVA|||A step-down approach is performed to address the multiplicity issue.||||0.0006
90986691|NCT00367640|181858813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||ANCOVA of the average RTSS, with treatment and pooled sites as factors, and retrospective RTSS, asthma and sensitised status as covariates.|ANCOVA|||A step-down approach is performed to address the multiplicity issue.||||0.0001
90986692|NCT00367640|181858813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4606|TWO_SIDED|||||ANCOVA of the average RTSS, with treatment and pooled sites as factors, and retrospective RTSS, asthma and sensitised status as covariates.|ANCOVA|||A step-down approach is performed to address the multiplicity issue.||||0.4606
90952469|NCT02299414|181782505|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.56||||||||0.56|0.05|
90952470|NCT02299414|181782506|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6|20.9||||||||20.9|-17.6|
90952471|NCT02299414|181782507|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.17||||||||1.17|.81|
90952472|NCT02299414|181782508|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.42||||||||1.42|.55|
90952473|NCT02299414|181782509|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.05||||||||1.05|.18|
90952474|NCT02299414|181782510|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.06||||||||1.06|.71|
90986693|NCT02417233|181858814|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.958||||0.848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.49|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.49|0.62|0.848
90952475|NCT02299414|181782511|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|1.35||||||||1.35|.24|
90952476|NCT02299414|181782512|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.12||||||||1.12|.85|
90952477|NCT02299414|181782513|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.37||||||||1.37|0.30|
90952478|NCT02299414|181782514|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|7.06||||||||7.06|.14|
90952479|NCT02299414|181782515|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.08||||||||1.08|.81|
90952480|NCT02299414|181782516|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.16||||||||1.16|0.62|
90952481|NCT02299414|181782517|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.05||||||||1.05|.36|
90952482|NCT02299414|181782518|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.03||||||||0.03|-0.2|
90952483|NCT02299414|181782519|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1||||||||0.1|-0.1|
90952484|NCT02299414|181782520|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.002||||||||0.002|-0.12|
90986694|NCT02417233|181858814|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.492||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.49|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.49|0.90|0.125
90952485|NCT02299414|181782521|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.04||||||||0.04|-0.02|
90986695|NCT02417233|181858815|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.866||||0.636|TWO_SIDED|96.0|0.48|1.57|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.57|0.48|0.636
90986696|NCT02417233|181858815|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.401||||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|2.26|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.26|0.87|0.165
90986697|NCT02417233|181858816|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|2.55|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.55|0.86|0.16
90986698|NCT02417233|181858816|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.82||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|3.14|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.14|1.06|0.03
90986699|NCT02417233|181858817|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.27||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|2.45|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.45|0.03|0.24
90986700|NCT02417233|181858817|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.68||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|12.16|||Regression, Logistic|||||12.16|0.59|0.20
90986701|NCT02417233|181858818|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.943||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|4.21|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.21|0.90|0.093
90986702|NCT02417233|181858818|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.764||||0.152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|3.83|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.83|0.81|0.152
90986703|NCT03408873|181858862|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-31.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We compared the repeated measure outcome across 2 time-points (difference between screen \& week 24 to determine whether the population medians differed matched on participant with complete data. Of the 29 participants with screen data only 11 had Week 24 data. Statistical Analysis was conducted for 11 participants with data at the 2 timepoints. Thus, the mean difference reported is not consistent with the mean values reported because only those with complete data were included in the analysis.||||<0.001
90952486|NCT02299414|181782522|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.06||||||||1.06|0.90|
90986704|NCT03408873|181858862|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.7||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We compared the repeated measure outcome across 2 time-points (difference between baseline \& week 24 to determine whether the population medians differed matched on participant with complete data. Of the 28 participants with baseline data only 11 had Week 24 data. Statistical Analysis was conducted for 11 participants with data at the 2 timepoints. The mean difference reported is not consistent with the mean values reported because only those with complete data were included in the analysis.||||0.12
90986705|NCT03408873|181858863|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.6||||0.0599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We compared the repeated measure outcome across 2 time-points (difference between screen \& week 24 to determine whether the population medians differed matched on participant with complete data. Of the 29 participants with screen data only 11 had Week 24 data. Statistical Analysis was conducted for 11 participants with data at the 2 timepoints. Thus, the mean difference reported is not consistent with the mean values reported because only those with complete data were included in the analysis.||||0.0599
90986706|NCT03408873|181858863|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.2||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We compared the repeated measure outcome across 2 time-points (difference between baseline \& week 24 to determine whether the population medians differed matched on participant with complete data. Of the 28 participants with baseline data only 11 had Week 24 data. Statistical Analysis was conducted for 11 participants with data at the 2 timepoints. The mean difference reported is not consistent with the mean values reported because only those with complete data were included in the analysis.||||0.63
90986707|NCT03408873|181858865|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We compared the repeated measure outcome across 2 time-points (difference between baseline \& week 24 to determine whether the population medians differed matched on participant with complete data. Of the 30 participants with baseline data only 19 had Week 24 data. Statistical Analysis was conducted for 19 participants with data at the 2 timepoints. The mean difference reported is not consistent with the mean values reported because only those with complete data were included in the analysis.||||<0.001
90986708|NCT03408873|181858866|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We compared the repeated measure outcome across 2 time-points (difference between screen \& week 24 to determine whether the population medians differed matched on participant with complete data. Of the 30 participants with screen data, only 19 had Week 24 data. Statistical Analysis was conducted for 19 participants with data at the 2 timepoints. Thus, the mean difference reported is not consistent with the mean values reported because only those with complete data were included in the analysis.||||<0.001
90986709|NCT03408873|181858866|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We compared for the primary and secondary outcomes across two sets of time-points: 1) difference between screen and week 24, and 2) between baseline and week 24. A non-parametric Wilcoxon signed-rank test compared these repeated measurements (matched on participant) between these time-points to determine whether the population medians differed.||||<0.001
91007992|NCT01005966|181900091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-3.01||||0.2117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.75|1.73||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) based on a mixed model with the factors subject, treatment and period was used.|Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.|Null hypothesis considered population means for NaF toothpaste and AmF toothpaste to be equal with respect to enamel remineralization potential.||1.73|-7.75|0.2117
90986710|NCT03408873|181858867|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We compared the repeated measure outcome across 2 time-points (difference between screen \& week 24 to determine whether the population medians differed matched on participant with complete data. Of the 30 participants with screen data, only 21 had Week 24 data. Statistical Analysis was conducted for 21 participants with data at the 2 timepoints. Thus, the mean difference reported is not consistent with the mean values reported because only those with complete data were included in the analysis.||||<0.001
90986711|NCT03408873|181858867|OTHER|We compared the repeated measure outcome across 2 time-points (difference between baseline \& week 24) to determine whether the population medians differed matched on participant with complete data. Of the 30 participants with baseline data, only 21 had Week 24 data. Statistical Analysis was conducted for 21 participants with data at the 2 timepoints. The mean difference reported is not consistent with the mean values reported because only those with complete data were included in the analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.1||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We compared for the primary and secondary outcomes across two sets of time-points: 1) difference between screen and week 24, and 2) between baseline and week 24. A non-parametric Wilcoxon signed-rank test compared these repeated measurements (matched on participant) between these time-points to determine whether the population medians differed.||||0.003
90986712|NCT03408873|181858868|OTHER|We compared the repeated measure outcome across 2 time-points (difference between screen \& week 24 to determine whether the population medians differed matched on participant with complete data.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90986713|NCT03408873|181858868|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We compared for the primary and secondary outcomes across two time-points: difference between baseline and week 24. A non-parametric Wilcoxon signed-rank test compared these repeated measurements (matched on participant with complete data) between these time-points to determine whether the population medians differed.||||<0.001
90986714|NCT03408873|181858869|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.0566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We compared for the primary and secondary outcomes across two sets of time-points: 1) difference between screen and week 24, and 2) between baseline and week 24. A non-parametric Wilcoxon signed-rank test compared these repeated measurements (matched on participant) between these time-points to determine whether the population medians differed.||||0.0566
90986715|NCT03408873|181858870|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We compared for the primary and secondary outcomes across two time-points: difference between screen and week 24. A non-parametric Wilcoxon signed-rank test compared these repeated measurements (matched on participant with complete data) between these time-points to determine whether the population medians differed.||||<0.001
90986716|NCT03408873|181858871|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We compared the repeated measure outcome across 2 time-points (difference between screen \& week 24 to determine whether the population medians differed matched on participant with complete data. Of the 30 participants with screen data, only 21 had Week 24 data. Statistical Analysis was conducted for 21 participants with data at the 2 timepoints. Thus, the mean difference reported is not consistent with the mean values reported because only those with complete data were included in the analysis.||||<0.001
90986717|NCT03408873|181858872|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We compared the repeated measure outcome across 2 time-points (difference between baseline \& week 24 to determine whether the population medians differed matched on participant with complete data. Of the 30 participants with baseline data, only 21 had Week 24 data. Statistical Analysis was conducted for 21 participants with data at the 2 timepoints. The mean difference reported is not consistent with the mean values reported because only those with complete data were included in the analysis.||||<0.001
90986718|NCT03408873|181858873|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We compared the repeated measure outcome across 2 time-points (difference between screen \& week 24 to determine whether the population medians differed matched on participant with complete data. Of the 29 participants with screen data, only 21 had Week 24 data. Statistical Analysis was conducted for 21 participants with data at the 2 timepoints. Thus, the mean difference reported is not consistent with the mean values reported because only those with complete data were included in the analysis.||||<0.001
91041393|NCT01243151|181967840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|47.86||||0.0159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.07|1109.11|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression model with treatment and baseline LDL-C stratum as factors was used for the analysis.||1109.11|2.07|0.0159
91041394|NCT01243151|181967840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|33.246||||0.0264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|733.62|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression model with treatment and baseline LDL-C stratum as factors was used for the analysis.||733.62|1.51|0.0264
91041395|NCT01243151|181967841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.131||0.2883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.77|15.77|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||15.77|-4.77|0.2883
91041396|NCT01243151|181967841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.277||0.2563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.51|16.61|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||16.61|-4.51|0.2563
90986719|NCT03408873|181858874|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We compared the repeated measure outcome across 2 time-points (difference between screen \& week 24 to determine whether the population medians differed matched on participant with complete data. Of the 30 participants with screen data, only 21 had Week 24 data. Statistical Analysis was conducted for 21 participants with data at the 2 timepoints. Thus, the mean difference reported is not consistent with the mean values reported because only those with complete data were included in the analysis.||||<0.001
91041397|NCT01243151|181967841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.225||0.7149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.54|12.37|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||12.37|-8.54|0.7149
91041398|NCT01243151|181967841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.174||0.448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|14.3|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||14.30|-6.40|0.4480
91041399|NCT01243151|181967841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|14.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.214||0.0231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.06|26.94|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||26.94|2.06|0.0231
91041400|NCT01243151|181967841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|11.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.369||0.0858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|23.87|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||23.87|-1.62|0.0858
91041401|NCT01243151|181967841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.431||0.244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|20.44|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||20.44|-5.30|0.2440
91041402|NCT01243151|181967841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|11.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.249||0.0702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|24.03|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||24.03|-0.98|0.0702
91041403|NCT01243151|181967841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|9.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.878||0.0531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|19.41|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||19.41|-0.13|0.0531
91041404|NCT01243151|181967841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|8.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.94||0.0758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|18.83|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||18.83|-0.96|0.0758
91041405|NCT01243151|181967841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.975||0.6965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.01|11.92|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||11.92|-8.01|0.6965
91041406|NCT01243151|181967841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|13.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.842||0.0071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.83|23.22|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||23.22|3.83|0.0071
91041407|NCT01243151|181967841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|11.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.155||0.0339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|21.52|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||21.52|0.88|0.0339
91041408|NCT01243151|181967841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|8.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.235||0.1075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.92|19.03|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||19.03|-1.92|0.1075
91041409|NCT01243151|181967841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.258||0.2601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.54|16.5|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||16.50|-4.54|0.2601
90952487|NCT04954326|181782547|EQUIVALENCE|The 90% Confidence Interval of the geometric mean ratios of the Lyophilisate compared to the Liquid formulations for AUCinf should be completely contained within the predefined \[80.00%-125.00%\] equivalence interval.|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|102.8||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.4|115.6|||ANOVA|||AUCinf was natural log-transformed and analyzed using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) with fixed effect for formulation. The two one-sided tests procedures were performed on the geometric mean ratio (GMR) between test (S95014 lyophilizate) and reference (S95014 liquid formulation) treatments. The 90% confidence interval for the ratio was obtained within the framework of the ANOVA.||115.6|91.4|0.05
90952488|NCT04954326|181782548|EQUIVALENCE|The 90% Confidence Interval of the geometric mean ratios of the Lyophilisate compared to the Liquid formulations for Cmax should be completely contained within the predefined \[80.00%-125.00%\] equivalence interval.|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|93.5||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.9|105.5|||ANOVA|||Cmax was natural log-transformed and analyzed using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) with fixed effect for formulation. The two one-sided tests procedures were performed on the geometric mean ratio (GMR) between test (S95014 lyophilizate) and reference (S95014 liquid formulation) treatments. The 90% confidence interval for the ratio was obtained within the framework of the ANOVA.||105.5|82.9|0.05
90952489|NCT04954326|181782549|EQUIVALENCE|The 90% Confidence Interval of the geometric mean ratios of the Lyophilisate compared to the Liquid formulations for Cday14 should be completely contained within the predefined \[80.00%-125.00%\] equivalence interval.|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|121.5||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.7|149.6|||ANOVA|||Cday14 was natural log-transformed and analyzed using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) with fixed effect for formulation. The two one-sided tests procedures were performed on the geometric mean ratio (GMR) between test (S95014 lyophilizate) and reference (S95014 liquid formulation) treatments. The 90% confidence interval for the ratio was obtained within the framework of the ANOVA.||149.6|98.7|0.05
90952490|NCT01310231|181782552|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.31||One-sided p-value for group-effect obtained from Cox model. The prespecified threshold was 0.20 (one-sided).|Regression, Cox|Cox model for PFS with metf/plac and the two randomization stratification variables line of chemotherapy and hormone receptor status.|Ratio of hazard of progression in the Metformin group relative to hazard in the Placebo group|Power: Final study plan called for 40 progression events, giving 80% power to detect a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.58 for PFS with a one-sided type I error of 20%, where the relatively high type I error reflects the Phase II status of the trial||2.31|0.63|0.71
90952491|NCT01310231|181782553|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|6.99||Two-side p-value from a logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model included metf/plac and the two stratification variables line of chemotherapy and hormone receptor status.||||6.99|0.45|0.41
90952492|NCT01495598|181782563|OTHER|Other = Kaplan Meier||||||0.43|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.43
90952493|NCT01495598|181782573|OTHER|\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.19||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IFNƴ among all participants. Two tailed Wilcoxon signed rank test without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.19
90952494|NCT01495598|181782573|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.72||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IFNƴ among all participants. Two tailed Wilcoxon signed rank test without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.72
90952495|NCT01495598|181782573|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.03||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IFNƴ among all participants. Two tailed Wilcoxon signed rank test without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.03
90952496|NCT01495598|181782573|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.|||||<|0.0001||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IL4 among all participants. Two tailed Wilcoxon signed rank test without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.0001
90986720|NCT03408873|181858875|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We compared the repeated measure outcome across 2 time-points (difference between screen \& week 24 to determine whether the population medians differed matched on participant with complete data. Of the 30 participants with screen data, only 21 had Week 24 data. Statistical Analysis was conducted for 21 participants with data at the 2 timepoints. Thus, the mean difference reported is not consistent with the mean values reported because only those with complete data were included in the analysis.||||0.73
90986721|NCT03408873|181858876|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.7||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We compared the repeated measure outcome across 2 time-points (difference between screen \& week 24 to determine whether the population medians differed matched on participant with complete data. Of the 30 participants with screen data, only 21 had Week 24 data. Statistical Analysis was conducted for 21 participants with data at the 2 timepoints. Thus, the mean difference reported is not consistent with the mean values reported because only those with complete data were included in the analysis.||||0.02
90986722|NCT00062738|181858878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.7|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|15.9|||Fisher Exact|||For the responder analysis, an LOCF approach was used in which a clinical response was operationally defined as at least a 50% reduction in the HAM-D score from baseline to 8 weeks. Clinical response was cross-tabulated with treatment and Fisher exact test was used to distinguish differences among these groups.||15.9|0.8|<.05
90986723|NCT01600131|181858879|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.72||0.693|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori \<.05 threshold|Mixed Models Analysis||group X time interaction|||||0.693
90986724|NCT01600131|181858880|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.07||0.693|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori \<.05 threshold|Mixed Models Analysis||group x time interaction|||||0.693
90986725|NCT01600131|181858881|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08||0.055|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||group X time interaction|||||0.055
90986726|NCT01600131|181858882|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15||0.346|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||group X time interaction|||||0.346
90986727|NCT01600131|181858884|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.79||0.688|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||group X time interaction|||||0.688
90986728|NCT01600131|181858885|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.87||0.418|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori \<.05|Mixed Models Analysis||group X time interaction|||||0.418
90986729|NCT01600131|181858886|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45||0.18|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||group X time interaction|||||0.180
90986730|NCT01600131|181858887|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.332|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||group X time interaction|||||0.332
90986731|NCT01600131|181858888|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.318|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||group X time interaction|||||0.318
90986732|NCT01600131|181858889|SUPERIORITY||Slope|2.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.31||0.077|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori \<.05|Mixed Models Analysis||group X time interaction|||||0.077
90986733|NCT01600131|181858890|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.46||0.305|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||group X time interaction|||||0.305
90986734|NCT01600131|181858893|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94||0.514|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||group X time interaction|||||0.514
90986735|NCT01600131|181858894|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94||0.09|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||group X time interaction|||||0.090
90986736|NCT01600131|181858895|SUPERIORITY||Slope|6.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.57||0.009|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||group X time interaction|||||0.009
90986737|NCT01600131|181858896|SUPERIORITY||Slope|4.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.53||0.225|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||group X time interaction|||||0.225
90986738|NCT01600131|181858897|SUPERIORITY||Slope|3.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.89||0.443|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori \<.05 threshold|Mixed Models Analysis||group X time interaction|||||0.443
90986739|NCT01600131|181858898|SUPERIORITY||Slope|7.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.23||0.158|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||group x time interaction|||||0.158
90986740|NCT01600131|181858899|SUPERIORITY||Slope|7.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.64||0.046|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori \<.05 threshold|Mixed Models Analysis||group X time interaction|||||0.046
90986741|NCT01600131|181858900|SUPERIORITY||Slope|5.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.83||0.149|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||group X time interaction|||||0.149
90986742|NCT01600131|181858901|SUPERIORITY||Slope|4.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.95||0.034|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||group X time interaction|||||0.034
90986743|NCT01600131|181858902|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52||0.846|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||group X time interaction|||||0.846
90986744|NCT01600131|181858903|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.17||0.0442|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||group X time interaction|||||.0442
90986745|NCT01600131|181858904|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.88||0.293|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||group X time interaction|||||0.293
90986746|NCT01327339|181858922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|7.8|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with an adverse event.|||7.8|4.3|
90986747|NCT04392011|181858930|OTHER||AUC ratio (geometric mean)|1.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.23|1.57||||||||1.57|1.23|
90986748|NCT04392011|181858931|OTHER||AUC ratio (geometric mean)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|1.19||||||||1.19|0.83|
90986749|NCT04392011|181858933|OTHER||Cmax ratio (midazolam)|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.32|1.7||||||||1.70|1.32|
90986750|NCT04392011|181858933|OTHER||Cmax ratio (dextromethorphan)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.78|1.19||||||||1.19|0.78|
90986751|NCT04392011|181858935|OTHER||half-life ratio (dextromethorphan)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.08||||||||1.08|0.92|
90986752|NCT04392011|181858935|OTHER||half-life ratio (midazolam)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|1.17||||||||1.17|0.98|
90986753|NCT00700752|181858937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1636|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1887|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.789|1.1636|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as senofilcon A minus balafilcon A.|Alternative hypothesis is senofilcon A is superior to balafilcon A for comfort.||1.1636|0.7890|
90986754|NCT03303339|181858959|OTHER||Maximum Tolerated Dose|60.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90986755|NCT00510692|181858974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.06||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|-0.35|||ANCOVA|||||-0.35|-1.78|0.005
90986756|NCT02116972|181858979|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.58||||0.0821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|0.07|||Logitudinal mixed effects model|||The step-down testing procedure to control for multiplicity would be voided if the primary endpoint is not met and analyses proceeded for exploratory purposes.||0.07|-1.22|0.0821
90986757|NCT00784784|181858993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.23||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|4.8|||Fisher Exact|||That in a year with mismatch between influenza vaccine antigen and infecting H3N2 strain, seasonal (10-13 weeks) antiviral prophylaxis in adults will provide better protection from symptomatic influenza infection than trivalent inactivated split virus influenza vaccine.||4.8|0.01|0.25
90986758|NCT00872898|181859001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-2.2||||0.1197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|0.6|||mixed-model for repeated measures|||||0.6|-4.9|0.1197
90986759|NCT00872898|181859002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.1||||0.9781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|7.0|||mixed-model for repeated measures|||||7.0|-7.2|0.9781
90986760|NCT00872898|181859003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-1.4||||0.1459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|0.5|||mixed-model for repeated measures|||||0.5|-3.2|0.1459
90986761|NCT00872898|181859004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.8||||0.1344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.3|||mixed-model for repeated measures|||||0.3|-1.9|0.1344
90986762|NCT00872898|181859005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.2||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.0|||mixed-model for repeated measures|||||1.0|-1.5|0.7000
90986763|NCT00872898|181859006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.1||||0.9069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.1|||mixed-model for repeated measures|||||1.1|-1.3|0.9069
90986764|NCT00872898|181859007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.3||||0.4679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.6|||mixed-model for repeated measures|||||0.6|-1.2|0.4679
90986765|NCT00872898|181859008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.0||||0.9598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.3|||mixed-model for repeated measures|||||1.3|-1.3|0.9598
90986766|NCT00872898|181859009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.0||||0.9898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.3|||mixed-model for repeated measures|||||1.3|-1.3|0.9898
90986767|NCT00872898|181859010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.5||||0.4228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.6|||mixed-model for repeated measures|||||1.6|-0.7|0.4228
90986768|NCT00872898|181859011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|1.4||||0.0201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.5|||mixed-model for repeated measures|||||2.5|0.2|0.0201
90986769|NCT00872898|181859012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.2||||0.6889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.9|||mixed-model for repeated measures|||||0.9|-1.3|0.6889
90986770|NCT00872898|181859013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.2||||0.7481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.2|||mixed-model for repeated measures|||||1.2|-0.9|0.7481
90986771|NCT00872898|181859014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.0||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.1|||mixed-model for repeated measures|||||1.1|-1.2|0.9500
90986772|NCT02428140|181859030|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|3.29||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|7.42|||t-test, 2 sided|||||7.42|1.45|0.003
90986773|NCT02428140|181859031|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.7||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|17.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||||17.9|3.4|.005
90986774|NCT02428140|181859032|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.7||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|6.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||6.3|-1.0|0.28
90986775|NCT02428140|181859034|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.8||||||||1.8|-1.8|
90986776|NCT02428140|181859035|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|3.2||||||||3.2|-3.2|
90986777|NCT02989727|181859045|SUPERIORITY||ANOVA estimate|1.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.51||0.59|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Weighted ANOVA models were used to compare change scores between lamotrigine and placebo groups while testing for interactions by melancholic status. The estimate and test reported is for the the interaction between treatment condition and melancholic status.||||.59
90986778|NCT02989727|181859046|SUPERIORITY||ANOVA estimate|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.56||0.84|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Weighted ANOVA models were used to compare change scores between lamotrigine and placebo groups while testing for interactions by melancholic status. The estimate and test reported is for the the interaction between treatment condition and melancholic status.||||.84
90986779|NCT02989727|181859047|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.08|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||"Weighted Cox regression with treatment condition (lamotrigine vs. placebo) predicting treatment response. Response is defined as a score reduction of at least 50% from baseline. The outcome variable is binary coded with 1 being a response at anytime point and 0 indicating no response."||||.08
90952497|NCT01495598|181782573|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.|||||<|0.0001||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IL4 among all participants. Two tailed Wilcoxon signed rank test without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.0001
90952498|NCT01495598|181782573|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.|||||<|0.0001||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IL4 among all participants. Two tailed Wilcoxon signed rank test without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.0001
90952499|NCT01495598|181782573|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.005||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IL6 among all participants. Two tailed Wilcoxon signed rank test without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.005
90952500|NCT01495598|181782573|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.06||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IL6 among all participants. Two tailed Wilcoxon signed rank test without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.06
90952501|NCT01495598|181782573|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.007||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IL6 among all participants. Two tailed Wilcoxon signed rank test without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.007
90952502|NCT01495598|181782573|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.0003||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IL8 among all participants. Two tailed Wilcoxon signed rank test without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0003
90952503|NCT01495598|181782573|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.0002||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IL8 among all participants. Two tailed Wilcoxon signed rank test without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0002
90952504|NCT01495598|181782573|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.01||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IL8 among all participants. Two tailed Wilcoxon signed rank test without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.01
90952505|NCT01495598|181782573|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.03||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IL6 among all participants. Two tailed Wilcoxon signed rank test without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.03
90986780|NCT02989727|181859047|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.53|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||"Weighted Cox regression with treatment condition (lamotrigine vs. placebo) predicting treatment response. Response is defined as a score reduction of at least 50% from baseline. The outcome variable is binary coded with 1 being a response at anytime point and 0 indicating no response."||||.53
90986781|NCT02989727|181859055|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||"Weighted Cox regression with treatment condition (lamotrigine vs. placebo) predicting treatment response. Response is defined as a score reduction of at least 50% from baseline. The outcome variable is binary coded with 1 being a response at any time point and 0 indicating no response."||||.02
90952506|NCT01495598|181782573|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.91||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IL10 among all participants. Two tailed Wilcoxon signed rank test without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.91
90952507|NCT01495598|181782573|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.64||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IL10 among all participants. Two tailed Wilcoxon signed rank test without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.64
90952508|NCT01495598|181782573|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.7||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IL12 among all participants. Two tailed Wilcoxon signed rank test without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.70
90952509|NCT01495598|181782573|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.59||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IL12 among all participants. Two tailed Wilcoxon signed rank test without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.59
90952510|NCT01495598|181782573|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.26||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IL12 among all participants. Two tailed Wilcoxon signed rank test without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.26
90952511|NCT01495598|181782573|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.0008||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IL13 among all participants. Two tailed Wilcoxon signed rank test without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0008
90952512|NCT01495598|181782573|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.|||||<|0.0001||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IL13 among all participants. Two tailed Wilcoxon signed rank test without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.0001
90952513|NCT01495598|181782573|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.007||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IL13 among all participants. Two tailed Wilcoxon signed rank test without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.007
90952514|NCT01495598|181782573|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.005||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of TNFα among all participants. Two tailed Wilcoxon signed rank test without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.005
90952515|NCT01495598|181782573|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.007||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of TNFα among all participants. Two tailed Wilcoxon signed rank test without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.007
90952516|NCT01495598|181782573|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.007||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of TNFα among all participants. Two tailed Wilcoxon signed rank test without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.007
90952517|NCT01495598|181782573|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.42||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IP-10 among all participants. Two tailed Wilcoxon signed rank test without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.42
90952518|NCT01495598|181782573|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.85||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IP-10 among all participants. Two tailed Wilcoxon signed rank test without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.85
90952519|NCT01495598|181782573|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.16||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IP-10 among all participants. Two tailed Wilcoxon signed rank test without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.16
90952520|NCT01495598|181782574|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.07||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD4+ cells/µL among all participants.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.07
90952521|NCT01495598|181782574|NON_INFERIORITY|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.13||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD4+cells/µL among all participants.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.13
90952522|NCT01495598|181782574|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.15||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD4+cells/µL among all participants.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.15
90952523|NCT01495598|181782574|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.03||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD4+cells/µL among HIV+ participants.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.03
90952524|NCT01495598|181782574|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.06||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD4+cells/µL among HIV+ participants.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.06
90952525|NCT01495598|181782574|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.79||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD4+cells/µL among HIV+ participants.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.79
90952526|NCT01495598|181782574|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.03||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD8+ cells/µL among all participants.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.03
90952527|NCT01495598|181782574|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.008||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD8+ cells/µL among all participants.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.008
90952528|NCT01495598|181782574|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.12||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD8+ cells/µL among all participants.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.12
90952529|NCT01495598|181782574|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.02||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD8+ cells/µL among HIV+ participants.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.02
90952530|NCT01495598|181782574|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.02||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD8+ cells/µL among HIV+ participants.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.02
90952531|NCT01495598|181782574|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.36||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD8+ cells/µL among HIV+ participants.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.36
90952532|NCT01495598|181782574|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.002||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD19+ cells/µL among all participants.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.002
90952533|NCT01495598|181782574|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.0002||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD19+ cells/µL among all participants.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0002
90952534|NCT01495598|181782574|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.|||||<|0.0001||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD19+ cells/µL among all participants.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.0001
90952535|NCT01495598|181782575|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.13|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.13
90952536|NCT01495598|181782575|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.65|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.65
90952537|NCT01495598|181782575|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.32|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.32
90952538|NCT01495598|181782575|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.06|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.06
90952539|NCT01495598|181782575|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.007|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.007
90952540|NCT01495598|181782576|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.56|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.56
90952541|NCT01495598|181782576|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.65|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.65
90952542|NCT01495598|181782576|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.56|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.56
90952543|NCT03635099|181782602|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.0||||0.3091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|11.8|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||11.8|-1.8|0.3091
90952544|NCT03635099|181782602|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|7.7||||0.203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.1|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||16.1|-0.7|0.2030
90952545|NCT03635099|181782602|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|10.3||||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|19.8|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||19.8|0.7|0.1380
90952546|NCT03635099|181782602|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|30.0||||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.8|44.2|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||44.2|15.8|0.0062
90952547|NCT03635099|181782602|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|25.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.5|38.6|||||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|The 95% confidence interval for the unadjusted absolute difference in proportion (%) between active group and placebo group was estimated by Chi-square method. As pre-specified, no hypothesis testing was carried out for Part 2 of this trial and no p-values were provided.||38.6|12.5|
90952548|NCT03635099|181782602|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|23.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.9|36.7|||||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|The 95% confidence interval for the unadjusted absolute difference in proportion (%) between active group and placebo group was estimated by Chi-square method. As pre-specified, no hypothesis testing was carried out for Part 2 of this trial and no p-values were provided.||36.7|10.9|
90986782|NCT02989727|181859055|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.73|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||"Weighted Cox regression with treatment condition (lamotrigine vs. placebo) predicting treatment response. Response is defined as a score reduction of at least 50% from baseline. The outcome variable is binary coded with 1 being a response at any time point and 0 indicating no response."||||.73
90986783|NCT03625986|181859089|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-186.68||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0039
90986784|NCT03625986|181859090|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.8103|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8103
90986785|NCT03625986|181859091|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.14||||0.0105|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0105
90986786|NCT03625986|181859092|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2415.93||||0.0182|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0182
90986787|NCT03625986|181859093|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.18||||0.8429|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8429
90986788|NCT03625986|181859094|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.49||||0.4881|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4881
90986789|NCT03625986|181859095|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.76||||0.0835|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0835
90952549|NCT03635099|181782602|OTHER|First the response rate of PASI 75 at week 12 for each dosage group was estimated by a logistic regression model including the fixed effect of treatment (categorical dose) and baseline PASI score as covariate was performed. The dose-response relationships were then tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedures and Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach based on the estimates from logistic regression.||||||0.0004||||||The multiple comparison procedure was implemented using optimal contrast tests which control the family-wise type I error rate at one-sided α = 0.05.|MCPMod Linear model fit.|||||||0.0004
90952550|NCT03635099|181782602|OTHER|First the response rate of PASI 75 at week 12 for each dosage group was estimated by a logistic regression model including the fixed effect of treatment (categorical dose) and baseline PASI score as covariate was performed. The dose-response relationships were then tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedures and Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach based on the estimates from logistic regression.||||||0.0012||||||The multiple comparison procedure was implemented using optimal contrast tests which control the family-wise type I error rate at one-sided α = 0.05.|MCPMod Logistic model fit.|Model assumption: 10% of the maximum effect is achieved at 25 mg and 80% of the maximum effect is achieved at 100 mg.||||||0.0012
90952551|NCT03635099|181782602|OTHER|First the response rate of PASI 75 at week 12 for each dosage group was estimated by a logistic regression model including the fixed effect of treatment (categorical dose) and baseline PASI score as covariate was performed. The dose-response relationships were then tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedures and Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach based on the estimates from logistic regression.||||||0.0008||||||The multiple comparison procedure was implemented using optimal contrast tests which control the family-wise type I error rate at one-sided α = 0.05.|MCPMod Emax1 model fit.|Model assumption: 30% of the maximum effect is achieved at 50 mg.||||||0.0008
90952552|NCT03635099|181782602|OTHER|First the response rate of PASI 75 at week 12 for each dosage group was estimated by a logistic regression model including the fixed effect of treatment (categorical dose) and baseline PASI score as covariate was performed. The dose-response relationships were then tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedures and Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach based on the estimates from logistic regression.||||||0.0217||||||The multiple comparison procedure was implemented using optimal contrast tests which control the family-wise type I error rate at one-sided α = 0.05.|MCPMod Emax2 model fit.|Model assumption: 80% of the maximum effect is achieved at 50 mg.||||||0.0217
90952553|NCT03635099|181782602|OTHER|First the response rate of PASI 75 at week 12 for each dosage group was estimated by a logistic regression model including the fixed effect of treatment (categorical dose) and baseline PASI score as covariate was performed. The dose-response relationships were then tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedures and Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach based on the estimates from logistic regression.||||||0.0004||||||The multiple comparison procedure was implemented using optimal contrast tests which control the family-wise type I error rate at one-sided α = 0.05.|MCPMod Exponential model fit.|Model assumption: 5% of the maximum effect is achieved at 25 mg.||||||0.0004
90952554|NCT03635099|181782603|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.5||||0.4758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|7.3|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||7.3|-2.3|0.4758
90952555|NCT03635099|181782603|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|7.7||||0.203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.1|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||16.1|-0.7|0.2030
90986790|NCT03625986|181859096|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.96||||0.043|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.043
90986791|NCT03625986|181859097|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.35||||0.0052|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0052
90986792|NCT03625986|181859098|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.95||||0.0797|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0797
90986793|NCT03625986|181859099|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.44||||0.1084|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1084
90986794|NCT03625986|181859100|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.81||||0.3469|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3469
90986795|NCT03625986|181859101|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.3632||||0.0272|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0272
90986796|NCT03625986|181859102|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.589|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.589
90986797|NCT03625986|181859103|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.5448|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5448
90986798|NCT03625986|181859104|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.3||||0.65|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.65
90986799|NCT03625986|181859105|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0||||0.1567|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1567
90986800|NCT01850563|181859119|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.76|TWO_SIDED||||||Kaplan-Meier|||||||0.76
90986801|NCT01850563|181859121|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.76|TWO_SIDED||||||Kaplan-Meier|||||||0.76
90986802|NCT03151148|181859131|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.56||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.06|||Negative Binomial Regression|Negative binomial generalized linear model, adjusting for site, offset by follow-up days within the outcome measure time frame|TMT represents the numerator, placebo represents the denominator|||1.06|0.29|0.075
90986803|NCT03151148|181859132|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.28||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.04|||Chi-squared||95% exact unconditional confidence interval is based on the Santner and Snell method|||-0.04|-0.51|0.044
90986804|NCT03151148|181859133|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.63||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.13|||Negative Binomial Regression|Negative binomial generalized linear model, adjusting for site, offset by follow-up days within the outcome measure time frame|TMT represents the numerator, placebo represents the denominator|||1.13|0.36|0.121
90986805|NCT03151148|181859134|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.25||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.04|||Chi-squared||95% exact unconditional confidence interval is based on the Santner and Snell method|||-0.04|-0.46|0.053
90986806|NCT03151148|181859139|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|2.76||||0.261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.469|16.226|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within TMT at Day 0~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||16.226|0.469|0.261
90986807|NCT03151148|181859139|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.41||||0.319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.069|2.393|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within TMT at Day 4~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||2.393|0.069|0.319
90986808|NCT03151148|181859139|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.02||||0.978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.174|6.027|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within TMT at Day 7~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||6.027|0.174|0.978
90986809|NCT03151148|181859139|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|3.44||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|20.749|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within TMT at Day 8~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||20.749|0.570|0.177
90986810|NCT03151148|181859139|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.7||||0.558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.288|9.973|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within TMT at Day 11~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||9.973|0.288|0.558
91006848|NCT02141854|181898330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|18.45||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.751|25.15||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||The analysis of change from baseline in weekly average of daily (AM predose and pre rescue bronchodilator) PEF over the 12-week treatment period was performed using an mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline weekly average of daily AM PEF, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||25.150|11.751|0.0000
90986811|NCT03151148|181859139|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.04||||0.977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.082|13.151|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within Placebo at Day 0~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||13.151|0.082|0.977
90986812|NCT03151148|181859139|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|33.86||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.672|429.219|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within Placebo at Day 4~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||429.219|2.672|0.007
90986813|NCT03151148|181859139|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|11.97||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.945|151.752|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within Placebo at Day 7~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||151.752|0.945|0.055
90986814|NCT03151148|181859139|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.93||||0.957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.062|13.875|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within Placebo at Day 8~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||13.875|0.062|0.957
90986815|NCT03151148|181859139|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.78||||0.654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.141|22.607|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within Placebo at Day 11~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||22.607|0.141|0.654
90986816|NCT03151148|181859141|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|2.722||||0.432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2227|33.2594|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within TMT at Day 0~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||33.2594|0.2227|0.432
90986817|NCT03151148|181859141|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.147||||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0121|1.8018|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within TMT at Day 4~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||1.8018|0.0121|0.133
91006849|NCT02141854|181898330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|16.718||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.988|23.449||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||The analysis of change from baseline in weekly average of daily (AM predose and pre rescue bronchodilator) PEF over the 12-week treatment period was performed using an mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline weekly average of daily AM PEF, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||23.449|9.988|0.0000
90986818|NCT03151148|181859141|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.371||||0.437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0304|4.5392|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within TMT at Day 7~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||4.5392|0.0304|0.437
90986819|NCT03151148|181859141|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.247||||0.863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1002|15.5231|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within TMT at Day 8~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||15.5231|0.1002|0.863
90986820|NCT03151148|181859141|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.615||||0.702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0503|7.5106|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within TMT at Day 11~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||7.5106|0.0503|0.702
90986821|NCT03151148|181859141|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.465||||0.675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0128|16.8576|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within Placebo at Day 0~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||16.8576|0.0128|0.675
90986822|NCT03151148|181859141|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|32.638||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8994|1184.4298|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within Placebo at Day 4~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||1184.4298|0.8994|0.057
90986823|NCT03151148|181859141|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|11.539||||0.181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.318|418.7586|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within Placebo at Day 7~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||418.7586|0.3180|0.181
90986824|NCT03151148|181859141|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.895||||0.953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0219|36.5559|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within Placebo at Day 8~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||36.5559|0.0219|0.953
90986825|NCT03151148|181859141|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.719||||0.767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0474|62.3828|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within Placebo at Day 11~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||62.3828|0.0474|0.767
91041410|NCT01243151|181967841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|9.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.132||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|20.24|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||20.24|-0.31|0.0570
91041411|NCT01243151|181967842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-32.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.008|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.93|-22.84|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-22.84|-42.93|<0.0001
91041412|NCT01243151|181967842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-30.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.26|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.34|-20.26|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-20.26|-41.34|<0.0001
90986826|NCT03151148|181859143|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.395||||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5429|3.5835|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within TMT at Day 0~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||3.5835|0.5429|0.488
90986827|NCT03151148|181859143|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|2.823||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1038|7.221|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within TMT at Day 4~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||7.2210|1.1038|0.030
90986828|NCT03151148|181859143|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|2.077||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8122|5.3135|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within TMT at Day 7~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||5.3135|0.8122|0.127
90986829|NCT03151148|181859143|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.789||||0.623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3065|2.0331|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within TMT at Day 8~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||2.0331|0.3065|0.623
91041413|NCT01243151|181967842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-39.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.088|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.18|-29.77|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-29.77|-50.18|<0.0001
91041414|NCT01243151|181967842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-38.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.54|-28.2|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-28.20|-48.54|<0.0001
91041415|NCT01243151|181967842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-42.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.271|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.73|-29.63|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-29.63|-54.73|<0.0001
91041416|NCT01243151|181967842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-42.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.512|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.72|-29.67|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-29.67|-55.72|<0.0001
90986830|NCT03151148|181859143|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.627||||0.328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.245|1.6028|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within TMT at Day 11~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||1.6028|0.2450|0.328
90986831|NCT03151148|181859143|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|2.231||||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5799|8.5866|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within Placebo at Day 0~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||8.5866|0.5799|0.242
90986832|NCT03151148|181859143|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.977||||0.321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5137|7.6055|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within Placebo at Day 4~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||7.6055|0.5137|0.321
90986833|NCT03151148|181859143|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.86||||0.366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4833|7.1564|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within Placebo at Day 7~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||7.1564|0.4833|0.366
90986834|NCT03151148|181859143|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|3.713||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.908|15.1856|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within Placebo at Day 8~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||15.1856|0.9080|0.068
90986835|NCT03151148|181859143|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|2.858||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7328|11.1434|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within Placebo at Day 11~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||11.1434|0.7328|0.130
91041417|NCT01243151|181967842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-54.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.445|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.45|-41.67|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-41.67|-67.45|<0.0001
91041418|NCT01243151|181967842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-51.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.321|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.54|-39.25|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-39.25|-64.54|<0.0001
91041419|NCT01243151|181967842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-47.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.359||95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.1|-36.59|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-36.59|-58.10|95
90986836|NCT03151148|181859144|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|3.16||||0.233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.476|20.952|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Lesional Skin at Day 0~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||20.952|0.476|0.233
90986837|NCT03151148|181859144|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.08||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.012|0.514|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Lesional Skin at Day 4~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||0.514|0.012|0.008
90986838|NCT03151148|181859144|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.04||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.007|0.298|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Lesional Skin at Day 7~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||0.298|0.007|0.001
90986839|NCT03151148|181859144|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.09||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.013|0.651|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Lesional Skin at Day 8~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||0.651|0.013|0.017
90986840|NCT03151148|181859144|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.04||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.007|0.292|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Lesional Skin at Day 11~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||0.292|0.007|0.001
90986841|NCT03151148|181859144|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|2.42||||0.358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.366|15.967|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Non-lesional Skin at Day 0~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||15.967|0.366|0.358
90986842|NCT03151148|181859144|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.1||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.016|0.683|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Non-lesional Skin at Day 4~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||0.683|0.016|0.019
91006850|NCT02141854|181898330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|31.221||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.513|37.93||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||The analysis of change from baseline in weekly average of daily (AM predose and pre rescue bronchodilator) PEF over the 12-week treatment period was performed using an mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline weekly average of daily AM PEF, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||37.930|24.513|0.0000
90986843|NCT03151148|181859144|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.11||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.017|0.739|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Non-lesional Skin at Day 7~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||0.739|0.017|0.023
90986844|NCT03151148|181859144|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.09||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.013|0.647|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Non-lesional Skin at Day 8~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||0.647|0.013|0.017
90986845|NCT03151148|181859144|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.37||||0.299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.056|2.436|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Non-lesional Skin at Day 11~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||2.436|0.056|0.299
90986846|NCT03151148|181859145|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.49||||0.538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.415|5.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"TMT vs Placebo on Lesional Skin at Day 0~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."|All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|5.380|0.415|0.538
90986847|NCT03151148|181859145|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.88||||0.849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.245|3.18|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Lesional Skin at Day 4~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||3.180|0.245|0.849
90986848|NCT03151148|181859145|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.4||||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|1.424|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Lesional Skin at Day 7~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||1.424|0.110|0.155
90986849|NCT03151148|181859145|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.45||||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.117|1.722|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Lesional Skin at Day 8~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||1.722|0.117|0.242
91006851|NCT02141854|181898330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|29.597||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.839|36.354||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||The analysis of change from baseline in weekly average of daily (AM predose and pre rescue bronchodilator) PEF over the 12-week treatment period was performed using an mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline weekly average of daily AM PEF, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||36.354|22.839|0.0000
90952556|NCT03635099|181782603|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.1||||0.3028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|12.1|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||12.1|-1.8|0.3028
90952557|NCT03635099|181782603|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|27.5||||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.7|41.3|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||41.3|13.7|0.0095
90952558|NCT03635099|181782603|OTHER|First the response rate of sPGA 0/1 at week 12 for each dosage group was estimated by a logistic regression model including the fixed effect of treatment (categorical dose) and baseline sPGA score as covariate was performed. The dose-response relationships were then tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedures and Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach based on the estimates from logistic regression.||||||0.0007||||||The multiple comparison procedure was implemented using optimal contrast tests which control the family-wise type I error rate at one-sided α = 0.05.|MCPMod Linear model fit.|||||||0.0007
90952559|NCT03635099|181782603|OTHER|First the response rate of sPGA 0/1 at week 12 for each dosage group was estimated by a logistic regression model including the fixed effect of treatment (categorical dose) and baseline sPGA score as covariate was performed. The dose-response relationships were then tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedures and Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach based on the estimates from logistic regression.||||||0.0023||||||The multiple comparison procedure was implemented using optimal contrast tests which control the family-wise type I error rate at one-sided α = 0.05.|MCPMod Logistic model fit.|Model assumption: 10% of the maximum effect is achieved at 25 mg and 80% of the maximum effect is achieved at 100 mg.||||||0.0023
90952560|NCT03635099|181782603|OTHER|First the response rate of sPGA 0/1 at week 12 for each dosage group was estimated by a logistic regression model including the fixed effect of treatment (categorical dose) and baseline sPGA score as covariate was performed. The dose-response relationships were then tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedures and Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach based on the estimates from logistic regression.||||||0.0018||||||The multiple comparison procedure was implemented using optimal contrast tests which control the family-wise type I error rate at one-sided α = 0.05.|MCPMod Emax1 model fit.|Model assumption: 30% of the maximum effect is achieved at 50 mg.||||||0.0018
90952561|NCT03635099|181782603|OTHER|First the response rate of sPGA 0/1 at week 12 for each dosage group was estimated by a logistic regression model including the fixed effect of treatment (categorical dose) and baseline sPGA score as covariate was performed. The dose-response relationships were then tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedures and Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach based on the estimates from logistic regression.||||||0.0386||||||The multiple comparison procedure was implemented using optimal contrast tests which control the family-wise type I error rate at one-sided α = 0.05.|MCPMod Emax2 model fit.|Model assumption: 80% of the maximum effect is achieved at 50 mg.||||||0.0386
90952562|NCT03635099|181782603|OTHER|First the response rate of sPGA 0/1 at week 12 for each dosage group was estimated by a logistic regression model including the fixed effect of treatment (categorical dose) and baseline sPGA score as covariate was performed. The dose-response relationships were then tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedures and Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach based on the estimates from logistic regression.||||||0.0004||||||The multiple comparison procedure was implemented using optimal contrast tests which control the family-wise type I error rate at one-sided α = 0.05.|MCPMod Exponential model fit.|Model assumption: 5% of the maximum effect is achieved at 25 mg.||||||0.0004
90952563|NCT03635099|181782604|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|11.7|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||11.7|-11.7|1.0000
90952564|NCT03635099|181782604|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|20.6||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|37.3|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||37.3|3.9|0.0540
90952565|NCT03635099|181782604|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|15.5||||0.1167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|31.4|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||31.4|-0.4|0.1167
90952566|NCT03635099|181782604|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|45.0||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.8|63.2|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||63.2|26.8|0.0006
90952567|NCT03635099|181782604|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|45.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.0|69.6|||||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|The 95% confidence interval for the unadjusted absolute difference in proportion (%) between active group and placebo group was estimated by Chi-square method. As pre-specified, no hypothesis testing was carried out for Part 2 of this trial and no p-values were provided.||69.6|22.0|
90952568|NCT03635099|181782604|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|35.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.3|59.2|||||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|The 95% confidence interval for the unadjusted absolute difference in proportion (%) between active group and placebo group was estimated by Chi-square method. As pre-specified, no hypothesis testing was carried out for Part 2 of this trial and no p-values were provided.||59.2|11.3|
90952569|NCT03635099|181782605|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.1||||0.3028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|12.1|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||12.1|-1.8|0.3028
90952570|NCT03635099|181782605|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.6||||0.4701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|7.5|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||7.5|-2.4|0.4701
90986850|NCT03151148|181859145|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.47||||0.258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.129|1.735|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Lesional Skin at Day 11~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||1.735|0.129|0.258
90986851|NCT03151148|181859145|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.26||||0.726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.349|4.52|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Non-lesional Skin at Day 0~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||4.520|0.349|0.726
90986852|NCT03151148|181859145|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.32||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.088|1.145|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Non-lesional Skin at Day 4~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||1.145|0.088|0.080
90986853|NCT03151148|181859145|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.81||||0.748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.225|2.917|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Non-lesional Skin at Day 7~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||2.917|0.225|0.748
90986854|NCT03151148|181859145|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.23||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.327|4.617|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Non-lesional Skin at Day 8~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||4.617|0.327|0.760
90986855|NCT03151148|181859145|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.79||||0.713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.219|2.832|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Non-lesional Skin at Day 11~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||2.832|0.219|0.713
90986856|NCT03151148|181859146|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|12.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.524|41.435|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs Non-Lesional within TMT at Day 0~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||41.435|3.524|<0.001
91006852|NCT02141854|181898330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|12.771||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.179|19.363||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||The analysis of change from baseline in weekly average of daily (AM predose and pre rescue bronchodilator) PEF over the 12-week treatment period was performed using an mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline weekly average of daily AM PEF, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||19.363|6.179|0.0002
91006853|NCT02141854|181898330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|12.879||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.216|19.541||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||The analysis of change from baseline in weekly average of daily (AM predose and pre rescue bronchodilator) PEF over the 12-week treatment period was performed using an mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline weekly average of daily AM PEF, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||19.541|6.216|0.0002
90952571|NCT03635099|181782605|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|17.5||||0.0465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|29.3|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||29.3|5.7|0.0465
90952572|NCT03635099|181782605|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|9.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|18.0|||||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|The 95% confidence interval for the unadjusted absolute difference in proportion (%) between active group and placebo group was estimated by Chi-square method. As pre-specified, no hypothesis testing was carried out for Part 2 of this trial and no p-values were provided.||18.0|0.6|
90952573|NCT03635099|181782605|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|11.2|||||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|The 95% confidence interval for the unadjusted absolute difference in proportion (%) between active group and placebo group was estimated by Chi-square method. As pre-specified, no hypothesis testing was carried out for Part 2 of this trial and no p-values were provided.||11.2|-1.7|
90952574|NCT03635099|181782606|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.6||||0.4701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|7.5|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||7.5|-2.4|0.4701
90952575|NCT03635099|181782606|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.0||||0.3091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|11.8|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||11.8|-1.8|0.3091
90952576|NCT03635099|181782606|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|6.8|||||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|The 95% confidence interval for the unadjusted absolute difference in proportion (%) between active group and placebo group was estimated by Chi-square method. As pre-specified, no hypothesis testing was carried out for Part 2 of this trial and no p-values were provided.||6.8|-2.2|
90952577|NCT03635099|181782606|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|7.0|||||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|The 95% confidence interval for the unadjusted absolute difference in proportion (%) between active group and placebo group was estimated by Chi-square method. As pre-specified, no hypothesis testing was carried out for Part 2 of this trial and no p-values were provided.||7.0|-2.2|
90952578|NCT03635099|181782607|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.5||||0.4758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|7.3|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||7.3|-2.3|0.4758
90952579|NCT03635099|181782607|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.6||||0.4701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|7.5|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||7.5|-2.4|0.4701
90952580|NCT03635099|181782607|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|12.8||||0.0942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|23.3|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||23.3|2.3|0.0942
90952581|NCT03635099|181782607|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|27.5||||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.7|41.3|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||41.3|13.7|0.0095
90952582|NCT03635099|181782607|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.0||||0.3091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|11.8|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||11.8|-1.8|0.3091
90952583|NCT03635099|181782607|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|7.7||||0.203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.1|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||16.1|-0.7|0.2030
90952584|NCT03635099|181782607|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|10.3||||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|19.8|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||19.8|0.7|0.1380
90952585|NCT03635099|181782607|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|32.5||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.0|47.0|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||47.0|18.0|0.0040
90952586|NCT03635099|181782607|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|10.3||||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|19.8|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||19.8|0.7|0.1380
90952587|NCT03635099|181782607|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|35.0||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.2|49.8|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||49.8|20.2|0.0025
90952588|NCT03635099|181782608|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.6||||0.4701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|7.5|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||7.5|-2.4|0.4701
90952589|NCT03635099|181782608|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.0||||0.3091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|11.8|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||11.8|-1.8|0.3091
90952590|NCT03635099|181782609|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.5||||0.4758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|7.3|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||7.3|-2.3|0.4758
90952591|NCT03635099|181782609|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.1||||0.3028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|12.1|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||12.1|-1.8|0.3028
90952592|NCT03635099|181782609|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|7.7||||0.203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.1|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||16.1|-0.7|0.2030
90952593|NCT03635099|181782609|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|30.0||||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.8|44.2|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||44.2|15.8|0.0062
90952594|NCT03635099|181782609|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|10.3||||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|19.8|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||19.8|0.7|0.1380
90986857|NCT03151148|181859146|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|2.58||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.753|8.853|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs Non-Lesional within TMT at Day 4~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||8.853|0.753|0.131
90986858|NCT03151148|181859146|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|2.2||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|7.527|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs Non-Lesional within TMT at Day 7~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||7.527|0.640|0.210
90986859|NCT03151148|181859146|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|3.98||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.138|13.29|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs Non-Lesional within TMT at Day 8~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||13.290|1.138|0.031
90986860|NCT03151148|181859146|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.64||||0.429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.479|5.63|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs Non-Lesional within TMT at Day 11~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||5.630|0.479|0.429
90986861|NCT03151148|181859146|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|9.26||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.712|50.043|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs Non-Lesional within Placebo at Day 0~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||50.043|1.712|0.010
90986862|NCT03151148|181859146|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|3.45||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.637|18.627|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs Non-Lesional within Placebo at Day 4~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||18.627|0.637|0.150
90986863|NCT03151148|181859146|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|5.47||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.012|29.578|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs Non-Lesional within Placebo at Day 7~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||29.578|1.012|0.048
90986864|NCT03151148|181859146|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|3.98||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.665|23.821|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs Non-Lesional within Placebo at Day 8~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||23.821|0.665|0.130
91006854|NCT02141854|181898330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|11.146||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.511|17.782||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||The analysis of change from baseline in weekly average of daily (AM predose and pre rescue bronchodilator) PEF over the 12-week treatment period was performed using an mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline weekly average of daily AM PEF, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||17.782|4.511|0.0010
90986865|NCT03151148|181859146|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|13.74||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.542|74.304|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs Non-Lesional within Placebo at Day 11~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||74.304|2.542|0.002
90986866|NCT03151148|181859147|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|3.68||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.689|8.028|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs Non-Lesional within TMT at Day 0~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||8.028|1.689|0.001
90986867|NCT03151148|181859147|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|2.42||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.109|5.267|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs Non-Lesional within TMT at Day 4~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||5.267|1.109|0.027
90986868|NCT03151148|181859147|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.76||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|3.847|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs Non-Lesional within TMT at Day 7~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||3.847|0.810|0.153
90986869|NCT03151148|181859147|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.76||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.799|3.884|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs Non-Lesional within TMT at Day 8~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||3.884|0.799|0.160
90986870|NCT03151148|181859147|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.32||||0.489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.603|2.868|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs Non-Lesional within TMT at Day 11~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||2.868|0.603|0.489
90986871|NCT03151148|181859147|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|3.1||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.032|9.295|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs Non-Lesional within Placebo at Day 0~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||9.295|1.032|0.044
90986872|NCT03151148|181859147|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.87||||0.805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|2.614|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs Non-Lesional within Placebo at Day 4~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||2.614|0.290|0.805
91041420|NCT01243151|181967842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-51.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.566|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.24|-39.91|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-39.91|-62.24|<0.0001
90986873|NCT03151148|181859147|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|3.62||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.205|10.859|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs Non-Lesional within Placebo at Day 7~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||10.859|1.205|0.022
90986874|NCT03151148|181859147|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|4.83||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.458|15.978|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs Non-Lesional within Placebo at Day 8~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||15.978|1.458|0.010
90986875|NCT03151148|181859147|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|2.19||||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.716|6.692|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs Non-Lesional within Placebo at Day 11~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||6.692|0.716|0.169
90986876|NCT03151148|181859148|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.176||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0351|0.8807|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within TMT at Day 0~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||0.8807|0.0351|0.035
90986877|NCT03151148|181859148|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.214||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0427|1.0702|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within TMT at Day 4~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||1.0702|0.0427|0.060
90986878|NCT03151148|181859148|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.182||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0363|0.91|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within TMT at Day 7~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||0.9100|0.0363|0.038
90986879|NCT03151148|181859148|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.329||||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.065|1.6691|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within TMT at Day 8~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||1.6691|0.0650|0.179
91006855|NCT02141854|181898331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|-0.156||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.248|-0.063||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||The change from baseline in the weekly average of the total daily asthma symptom scores over weeks 1 to 12 was analyzed using an MMRM with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline score, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||-0.063|-0.248|0.0010
90952595|NCT03635099|181782609|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.1||||0.3028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|12.1|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||12.1|-1.8|0.3028
90952596|NCT03635099|181782609|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|25.0||||0.0143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.6|38.4|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||38.4|11.6|0.0143
90986880|NCT03151148|181859148|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.136||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0271|0.6805|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within TMT at Day 11~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||0.6805|0.0271|0.015
90986881|NCT03151148|181859148|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.302||||0.309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0299|3.0493|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within Placebo at Day 0~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||3.0493|0.0299|0.309
90986882|NCT03151148|181859148|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.372||||0.401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0369|3.7569|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within Placebo at Day 4~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||3.7569|0.0369|0.401
90986883|NCT03151148|181859148|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.591||||0.655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0586|5.9658|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within Placebo at Day 7~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||5.9658|0.0586|0.655
91041421|NCT01243151|181967842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-59.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.482|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.89|-48.89|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-48.89|-70.89|<0.0001
91041422|NCT01243151|181967842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-57.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.377|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.83|-46.24|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-46.24|-67.83|<0.0001
91041423|NCT01243151|181967842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-49.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.767|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.61|-37.51|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-37.51|-60.61|<0.0001
90952597|NCT03635099|181782609|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|7.7||||0.203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.1|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||16.1|-0.7|0.2030
90952598|NCT03635099|181782609|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|10.3||||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|19.8|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||19.8|0.7|0.1380
90952599|NCT03635099|181782609|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|32.5||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.0|47.0|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||47.0|18.0|0.0040
91041424|NCT01243151|181967842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-51.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.974|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.48|-39.56|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-39.56|-63.48|<0.0001
90952600|NCT03635099|181782610|OTHER||Adjusted mean|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.7008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|2.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|MMRM model included treatment, visit and treatment by visit as fixed effects, baseline PSS score and baseline PSS by visit as covariates, patient as a random effect, and an unstructured covariance structure for within patient variation.|||2.8|-1.9|0.7008
90952601|NCT03635099|181782610|OTHER||Adjusted mean|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.6268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|3.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|MMRM model included treatment, visit and treatment by visit as fixed effects, baseline PSS score and baseline PSS by visit as covariates, patient as a random effect, and an unstructured covariance structure for within patient variation.|||3.0|-1.8|0.6268
90986884|NCT03151148|181859148|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.43||||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0395|4.6836|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within Placebo at Day 8~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||4.6836|0.0395|0.488
90986885|NCT03151148|181859148|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.485||||0.737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1471|14.9869|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within Placebo at Day 11~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||14.9869|0.1471|0.737
90986886|NCT03151148|181859149|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.248||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0844|0.7281|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within TMT at Day 0~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||0.7281|0.0844|0.011
91041425|NCT01243151|181967842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-64.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.901|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.04|-52.4|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-52.40|-76.04|<0.0001
91041426|NCT01243151|181967842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-60.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.785|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.59|-48.42|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-48.42|-71.59|<0.0001
91041427|NCT01243151|181967843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-54.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.392|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.54|-34.29|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-34.29|-75.54|<0.0001
90986887|NCT03151148|181859149|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.656||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2245|1.9178|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within TMT at Day 4~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||1.9178|0.2245|0.440
90986888|NCT03151148|181859149|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.479||||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.164|1.4007|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within TMT at Day 7~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||1.4007|0.1640|0.178
91041428|NCT01243151|181967843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-44.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.646|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.21|-22.94|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-22.94|-65.21|<0.0001
91041429|NCT01243151|181967843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-67.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.547|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-88.92|-47.05|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-47.05|-88.92|<0.0001
91041430|NCT01243151|181967843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-60.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.381|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-81.11|-39.9|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-39.90|-81.11|<0.0001
90986889|NCT03151148|181859149|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.478||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1624|1.4091|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within TMT at Day 8~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||1.4091|0.1624|0.180
90986890|NCT03151148|181859149|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.357||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1222|1.0441|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within TMT at Day 11~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||1.0441|0.1222|0.060
91006856|NCT02141854|181898331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|-0.195||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.288|-0.102||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||The change from baseline in the weekly average of the total daily asthma symptom scores over weeks 1 to 12 was analyzed using an MMRM with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline score, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||-0.102|-0.288|0.0000
90952602|NCT03635099|181782610|OTHER||Adjusted mean|2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.0266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|5.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|MMRM model included treatment, visit and treatment by visit as fixed effects, baseline PSS score and baseline PSS by visit as covariates, patient as a random effect, and an unstructured covariance structure for within patient variation.|||5.1|0.3|0.0266
90952603|NCT03635099|181782610|OTHER||Adjusted mean|4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|6.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|MMRM model included treatment, visit and treatment by visit as fixed effects, baseline PSS score and baseline PSS by visit as covariates, patient as a random effect, and an unstructured covariance structure for within patient variation.|||6.3|1.7|0.0009
90952604|NCT03635099|181782610|OTHER||Adjusted mean|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|5.8|||||MMRM model included treatment, visit and treatment by visit as fixed effects, baseline PSS score and baseline PSS by visit as covariates, patient as a random effect, and an unstructured covariance structure for within patient variation.|||5.8|0.4|
90952605|NCT03635099|181782610|OTHER||Adjusted mean|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|5.8|||||MMRM model included treatment, visit and treatment by visit as fixed effects, baseline PSS score and baseline PSS by visit as covariates, patient as a random effect, and an unstructured covariance structure for within patient variation.|||5.8|0.4|
90952606|NCT03635099|181782611|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.5||||0.7144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|15.1|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||15.1|-10.1|0.7144
90952607|NCT03635099|181782611|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.7||||0.697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|15.4|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||15.4|-10.0|0.6970
90952608|NCT03635099|181782611|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.7||||0.697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|15.4|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||15.4|-10.0|0.6970
90952609|NCT03635099|181782611|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|15.0||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|30.6|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||30.6|-0.6|0.1250
90952610|NCT03635099|181782611|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|7.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.3|36.1|||||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|The 95% confidence interval for the unadjusted absolute difference in proportion (%) between active group and placebo group was estimated by Chi-square method. As pre-specified, no hypothesis testing was carried out for Part 2 of this trial and no p-values were provided.||36.1|-20.3|
90952611|NCT03635099|181782611|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|6.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.9|34.3|||||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|The 95% confidence interval for the unadjusted absolute difference in proportion (%) between active group and placebo group was estimated by Chi-square method. As pre-specified, no hypothesis testing was carried out for Part 2 of this trial and no p-values were provided.||34.3|-21.9|
90952612|NCT05140915|181782642|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.77
90952613|NCT05292586|181782673|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.104|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.061|0.148|||ANCOVA|||"1\_Change from baseline~Statistical analysis used all available data and imputed missing data (i.e., whether due to missed visits, unperformed or unevaluable assessments at intermediate timepoints, or early study discontinuation) in ITT population (overall population N=283 in CHF 1535 pMDI 800/24 μg study group; N=280 in the CHF 718 pMDI 800 μg study group)."||0.148|0.061|<0.001
90986891|NCT03151148|181859149|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.498||||0.373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1068|2.3188|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within Placebo at Day 0~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||2.3188|0.1068|0.373
90952614|NCT05292586|181782674|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.124|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.076|0.173|||ANCOVA|||"1\_Change from baseline~Statistical analysis used all available data and imputed missing data (i.e., whether due to missed visits, unperformed or unevaluable assessments at intermediate timepoints, or early study discontinuation) in ITT population (overall population N=283 in CHF 1535 pMDI 800/24 μg study group; N=280 in the CHF 718 pMDI 800 μg study group)."||0.173|0.076|<0.001
90952615|NCT05292586|181782675|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.101|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.063|0.139|||ANCOVA|||"1\_Change from baseline~Statistical analysis used all available data and imputed missing data (i.e., whether due to missed visits, unperformed or unevaluable assessments at intermediate timepoints, or early study discontinuation) in ITT population (overall population N=283 in CHF 1535 pMDI 800/24 μg study group; N=280 in the CHF 718 pMDI 800 μg study group)."||0.139|0.063|<0.001
90952616|NCT05292586|181782676|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.113|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.071|0.154|||ANCOVA|||"1\_Change from baseline~Statistical analysis used all available data and imputed missing data (i.e., whether due to missed visits, unperformed or unevaluable assessments at intermediate timepoints, or early study discontinuation) in ITT population (overall population N=283 in CHF 1535 pMDI 800/24 μg study group; N=280 in the CHF 718 pMDI 800 μg study group)."||0.154|0.071|<0.001
90952617|NCT05292586|181782677|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.069||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.023|0.115|||ANCOVA|||"1\_Change from baseline~Statistical analysis used all available data and imputed missing data (i.e., whether due to missed visits, unperformed or unevaluable assessments at intermediate timepoints, or early study discontinuation) in ITT population (overall population N=283 in CHF 1535 pMDI 800/24 μg study group; N=280 in the CHF 718 pMDI 800 μg study group)."||0.115|0.023|0.003
90986892|NCT03151148|181859149|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.281||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0604|1.3106|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within Placebo at Day 4~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||1.3106|0.0604|0.106
90986893|NCT03151148|181859149|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.168||||0.843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2507|5.4434|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within Placebo at Day 7~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||5.4434|0.2507|0.843
90986894|NCT03151148|181859149|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.559||||0.587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3122|7.7818|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within Placebo at Day 8~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||7.7818|0.3122|0.587
90986895|NCT03151148|181859149|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.707||||0.661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1495|3.3426|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within Placebo at Day 11~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||3.3426|0.1495|0.661
90986896|NCT03151148|181859150|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1197.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|525.563|2726.953|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Lesional Skin at Day 0 (post-treatment)~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||2726.953|525.563|<0.001
90986897|NCT03151148|181859150|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|779.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|342.093|1774.996|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Lesional Skin at Day 4~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||1774.996|342.093|<0.001
90986898|NCT03151148|181859150|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|673.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|295.697|1534.265|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Lesional Skin at Day 7~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||1534.265|295.697|<0.001
91041431|NCT01243151|181967843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-68.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.392|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-89.02|-47.76|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-47.76|-89.02|<0.0001
91041432|NCT01243151|181967843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-60.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.646|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-81.54|-39.27|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-39.27|-81.54|<0.0001
91041433|NCT01243151|181967843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-86.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.656|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-107.74|-65.46|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-65.46|-107.74|<0.0001
90986899|NCT03151148|181859150|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|60.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.92|145.027|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"TMT vs Placebo on Lesional Skin at Day 8~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."|All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|145.027|24.920|<0.001
90986900|NCT03151148|181859150|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|3.79||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.636|8.767|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Lesional Skin at Day 11~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||8.767|1.636|0.002
90986901|NCT03151148|181859150|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|757.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|331.143|1732.242|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Non-lesional Skin at Day 0 (post-treatment)~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||1732.242|331.143|<0.001
90986902|NCT03151148|181859150|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|199.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|87.636|455.127|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Non-lesional Skin at Day 4~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||455.127|87.636|<0.001
90986903|NCT03151148|181859150|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|508.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|223.113|1158.715|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"TMT vs Placebo on Non-lesional Skin at Day 7~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."|All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|1158.715|223.113|<0.001
90986904|NCT03151148|181859150|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|107.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.568|255.313|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Non-lesional Skin at Day 8~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||255.313|45.568|<0.001
90986905|NCT03151148|181859150|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|16.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.058|36.657|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Non-lesional Skin at Day 11~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||36.657|7.058|<0.001
90986906|NCT03151148|181859151|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|142.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.484|349.119|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Lesional Skin at Day 0 (post-treatment)~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||349.119|58.484|<0.001
91041434|NCT01243151|181967843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-81.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.381|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-101.73|-60.52|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-60.52|-101.73|<0.0001
91041435|NCT01243151|181967843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-80.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.479|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.96|-59.37|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-59.37|-100.96|<0.0001
90986907|NCT03151148|181859151|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|35.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.402|85.972|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Lesional Skin at Day 4~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||85.972|14.402|<0.001
90986908|NCT03151148|181859151|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|41.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.043|101.739|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Lesional Skin at Day 7~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||101.739|17.043|<0.001
90986909|NCT03151148|181859151|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|3.61||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.395|9.33|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Lesional Skin at Day 8~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||9.330|1.395|0.008
90986910|NCT03151148|181859151|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.39||||0.474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.561|3.458|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Lesional Skin at Day 11~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||3.458|0.561|0.474
90986911|NCT03151148|181859151|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|266.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|108.86|654.231|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Non-lesional Skin at Day 0 (post-treatment)~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||654.231|108.860|<0.001
90986912|NCT03151148|181859151|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|51.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.907|124.768|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Non-lesional Skin at Day 4~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||124.768|20.907|<0.001
90986913|NCT03151148|181859151|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|74.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.686|183.125|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Non-lesional Skin at Day 7~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||183.125|30.686|<0.001
90986914|NCT03151148|181859151|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|26.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.262|66.169|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Non-lesional Skin at Day 8~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||66.169|10.262|<0.001
91006857|NCT02141854|181898331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|-0.304||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.397|-0.212||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||The change from baseline in the weekly average of the total daily asthma symptom scores over weeks 1 to 12 was analyzed using an MMRM with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline score, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||-0.212|-0.397|0.0000
90952618|NCT05292586|181782678|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.044||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.088|||ANCOVA|||"1\_Change from baseline -- Week 4~Statistical analysis used all available data and imputed missing data (i.e., whether due to missed visits, unperformed or unevaluable assessments at intermediate timepoints, or early study discontinuation) in ITT population (overall population N=283 in CHF 1535 pMDI 800/24 μg study group; N=280 in the CHF 718 pMDI 800 μg study group)."||0.088|0.000|0.050
90986915|NCT03151148|181859151|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|3.41||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.397|8.338|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Non-lesional Skin at Day 11~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||8.338|1.397|0.007
90986916|NCT03151148|181859152|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|51.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.692|120.379|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Lesional Skin at Day 0 (post-treatment)~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||120.379|21.692|<0.001
90986917|NCT03151148|181859152|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|12.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.463|30.317|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Lesional Skin at Day 4~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||30.317|5.463|<0.001
91006858|NCT02141854|181898331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|-0.277||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.184||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||The change from baseline in the weekly average of the total daily asthma symptom scores over weeks 1 to 12 was analyzed using an MMRM with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline score, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||-0.184|-0.370|0.0000
90952619|NCT05292586|181782678|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.041||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.007|0.089|||ANCOVA|||"2\_Change from baseline -- Week 8~Statistical analysis used all available data and imputed missing data (i.e., whether due to missed visits, unperformed or unevaluable assessments at intermediate timepoints, or early study discontinuation) in ITT population (overall population N=283 in CHF 1535 pMDI 800/24 μg study group; N=280 in the CHF 718 pMDI 800 μg study group)."||0.089|-0.007|0.098
90986918|NCT03151148|181859152|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|11.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.863|26.986|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Lesional Skin at Day 7~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||26.986|4.863|<0.001
90986919|NCT03151148|181859152|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|2.42||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.971|6.024|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Lesional Skin at Day 8~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||6.024|0.971|0.058
90986920|NCT03151148|181859152|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.75||||0.526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.315|1.805|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Lesional Skin at Day 11~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||1.805|0.315|0.526
90986921|NCT03151148|181859152|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|55.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.49|131.279|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Non-lesional Skin at Day 0 (post-treatment)~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||131.279|23.490|<0.001
90986922|NCT03151148|181859152|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|11.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|27.755|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Non-lesional Skin at Day 4~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||27.755|5.000|<0.001
90986923|NCT03151148|181859152|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|23.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.833|54.579|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Non-lesional Skin at Day 7~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||54.579|9.833|<0.001
90986924|NCT03151148|181859152|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|11.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.516|27.052|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Non-lesional Skin at Day 8~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||27.052|4.516|<0.001
91041436|NCT01243151|181967843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-83.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.646|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-104.14|-61.87|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-61.87|-104.14|<0.0001
91041437|NCT01243151|181967843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-104.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.656|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-125.91|-83.62|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-83.62|-125.91|<0.0001
90986925|NCT03151148|181859152|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|2.43||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.031|5.724|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Non-lesional Skin at Day 11~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||5.724|1.031|0.042
90986926|NCT03046472|181859153|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90986927|NCT03046472|181859154|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90986928|NCT03046472|181859155|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
90986929|NCT01614769|181859164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.41|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.98|51.8||||||||51.80|-22.98|
90986930|NCT01614769|181859164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|35.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.08|72.74||||||||72.74|-2.08|
90986931|NCT01614769|181859165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.21|0.0||||||||0.00|-0.21|
90986932|NCT01614769|181859165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.24|-0.03||||||||-0.03|-0.24|
90986933|NCT01614769|181859166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.12|1.05||||||||1.05|-11.12|
90986934|NCT01614769|181859166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.3|-1.24||||||||-1.24|-13.30|
90986935|NCT04985799|181859173|NON_INFERIORITY|For the sample size, a total of 143 participants, or 72 participants per group was needed, based on a 90% effectiveness for both slings 14% non-inferiority margin, 80% power, alpha of 0.05 and a 20% dropout rate.|Risk Difference (RD)|14.8||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|28.5|||Chi-squared|||||28.5|1.1|0.04
90986936|NCT04985799|181859174|NON_INFERIORITY|For the sample size, a total of 143 participants, or 72 participants per group was needed, based on a 90% effectiveness for both slings 14% non-inferiority margin, 80% power, alpha of 0.05 and a 20% dropout rate.|Risk Difference (RD)|7.4||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|21.1|||Chi-squared|||||21.1|-6.2|0.29
90986937|NCT04985799|181859176|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.11
90986938|NCT04011436|181859179|SUPERIORITY|In the bivariate analysis, a comparison was initially made of each of the domains of the Kujala test, for the assessment of pain at baseline, assessing the differences between the intervention groups using the chi-square or Fisher's exact tests. The Spearman correlation coefficient was used to evaluate the relationship between two continuous variables, such as Q angle and anterior knee pain, assessing the correlation marginally and conditionally on each of the treatment groups.|difference in frequency distribution|0.05|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.025|0.05|||Fisher Exact|we also used Chi-squared for the domains of pain and limp.||||0.05|0.025|<0.05
91006859|NCT02141854|181898331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|-0.149||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.239|-0.058||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||The change from baseline in the weekly average of the total daily asthma symptom scores over weeks 1 to 12 was analyzed using an MMRM with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline score, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||-0.058|-0.239|0.0014
91006860|NCT02141854|181898331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|-0.082||||0.0818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.174|0.01||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||The change from baseline in the weekly average of the total daily asthma symptom scores over weeks 1 to 12 was analyzed using an MMRM with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline score, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||0.010|-0.174|0.0818
91006861|NCT02141854|181898331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|-0.121||||0.0094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.213|-0.03||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||The change from baseline in the weekly average of the total daily asthma symptom scores over weeks 1 to 12 was analyzed using an MMRM with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline score, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||-0.030|-0.213|0.0094
91006862|NCT02141854|181898332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|-0.702||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.001|-0.403||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||The change from baseline in the weekly average of total daily (24-hour) use of albuterol/ salbutamol inhalation aerosol (number of inhalations) over weeks 1 to 12 was analyzed using an MMRM with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline value, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||-0.403|-1.001|0.0000
91006863|NCT02141854|181898332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|-0.607||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.908|-0.307||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||The change from baseline in the weekly average of total daily (24-hour) use of albuterol/ salbutamol inhalation aerosol (number of inhalations) over weeks 1 to 12 was analyzed using an MMRM with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline value, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||-0.307|-0.908|0.0001
91006864|NCT02141854|181898332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|-1.066||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.365|-0.766||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||The change from baseline in the weekly average of total daily (24-hour) use of albuterol/ salbutamol inhalation aerosol (number of inhalations) over weeks 1 to 12 was analyzed using an MMRM with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline value, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||-0.766|-1.365|0.0000
91006865|NCT02141854|181898332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|-0.989||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.291|-0.686||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||The change from baseline in the weekly average of total daily (24-hour) use of albuterol/ salbutamol inhalation aerosol (number of inhalations) over weeks 1 to 12 was analyzed using an MMRM with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline value, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||-0.686|-1.291|0.0000
90986939|NCT04011436|181859180|SUPERIORITY|For the analysis of the differences in medians between the groups, taking into account that the outcomes did not present a normal distribution, and assuming the assumption of independence of the variables, the non-parametric Mann-Whitney U test was used.|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.058|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||"Estimated Value was done for the assessment of change in pain with Visual Analogue Scale.~The dispersion parameter that was calculated were interquartile ranges for the differences in medians between groups."|||||<0.05
90986940|NCT04011436|181859181|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.75|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||"Estimated value was calculated for Change in Patellofemoral Misalignment With Q Angle´s Exam.~The dispersion parameter that was calculated were interquartile ranges for the differences in medians between groups."|||||<0.05
90986941|NCT04011436|181859182|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.001|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||"Estimated Value was calculated for the change in core strength with McGill´s Exam.~The dispersion parameter that was calculated were interquartile ranges for the differences in medians between groups."|||||<0.05
90986942|NCT04011436|181859183|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.67|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||"Estimated value was calculated for the change in Quadriceps and Gluteus Strength With Squat´s Test.~The dispersion parameter that was calculated were interquartile ranges for the differences in medians between groups."|||||<0.05
90986943|NCT04011436|181859184|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.55|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||||"Estimated value was calculated for the change in Static Balance with Single Leg Stance.~The dispersion parameter that was calculated were interquartile ranges for the differences in medians between groups."|||<0.05
90986944|NCT04011436|181859185|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.492|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||||"Estimated value was calculated for the change in the total amount of Physical Activity reported in minutes.~The dispersion parameter that was calculated were interquartile ranges for the differences in medians between groups."|||<0.05
90986945|NCT00960440|181859186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|23.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.73|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.45|34.92||A step-down procedure was used to control for multiple comparisons. In order for the comparison to 5 mg to be statistically significant, the comparison to 10 mg had to be statistically significant.|Normal Approximation|||Normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the superiority of CP-690,550 10 mg to placebo and 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was evaluated for the difference in percentages.||34.92|12.45|<0.0001
90986946|NCT00960440|181859186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|17.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.06|28.41||A step-down procedure was used to control for multiple comparisons. In order for the comparison to 5 mg to be statistically significant, the comparison to 10 mg had to be statistically significant.|Normal Approximation|||Normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the superiority of CP-690,550 5 mg to placebo and 2-sided 95% CI was evaluated for the difference in percentages.||28.41|6.06|0.0024
90986947|NCT00960440|181859187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.17||A step-down procedure was used to control for multiple comparisons. For the comparison of 10 mg to placebo to be statistically significant in this measure, the comparison of 10 mg to placebo in ACR20 had to be significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Least squares mean difference (LS Mean Difference) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated using a mixed effect repeated measure model with treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and geographic region as fixed effects and participants as a random effect.||-0.17|-0.38|<0.0001
91041438|NCT01243151|181967843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-90.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.381|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-110.84|-69.63|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-69.63|-110.84|<0.0001
91041439|NCT01243151|181967843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-71.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.479|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-92.34|-50.75|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-50.75|-92.34|<0.0001
91041440|NCT01243151|181967843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-74.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.646|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-95.59|-53.32|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-53.32|-95.59|<0.0001
91041441|NCT01243151|181967843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-102.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.656|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-123.49|-81.21|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-81.21|-123.49|<0.0001
91041442|NCT01243151|181967843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-87.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.381|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-107.76|-66.55|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-66.55|-107.76|<0.0001
90986948|NCT00960440|181859187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.15||Step-down procedure: For the comparison of 5 mg to placebo to be statistically significant in this measure, the comparison of 10 mg to placebo as well as the comparison of 5 mg to placebo in ACR20 had to be statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|||LS Mean Difference and corresponding 95% CI was calculated using a mixed effect repeated measure model with treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and geographic region as fixed effects and participants as a random effect.||-0.15|-0.36|<0.0001
90986949|NCT00960440|181859188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|9.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.05||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.54|15.51||A step-down procedure was used to control for multiple comparisons. For the comparison of 10 mg to placebo to be statistically significant in this measure, the comparison of 10 mg to placebo in HAQ-DI had to be statistically significant.|Normal Approximation|||Normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the superiority of CP-690,550 10 mg to placebo and 2-sided 95% CI was evaluated for the difference in percentages.||15.51|3.54|0.0017
90986950|NCT00960440|181859188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|5.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.57||0.0496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|10.1||Step-down procedure: For the comparison of 5 mg to placebo to be statistically significant in this measure, the comparison of 10 mg to placebo as well as comparison of 5 mg to placebo in HAQ-DI had to be statistically significant.|Normal Approximation|||Normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the superiority of CP-690,550 5 mg to placebo and 2-sided 95% CI was evaluated for the difference in percentages.||10.10|0.00|0.0496
90986951|NCT02553915|181859235|OTHER|Comparisons were made for each biomarker within each arm pre and post 12 weeks of treatment.|||||<|0.1|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||To evaluate whether a dose-response relationship exists between dose of EPA and decrease either in plasma IL-6 levels or in mitogen-stimulated PBMC TNF-α expression and secretion, when compared with placebo. \[Time Frame: 12 weeks\]. Comparisons were made within each arm pre and post 12 weeks of treatment.||||<0.10
90986952|NCT02553915|181859236|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.1|||||||ANOVA|||"To evaluate:~1. whether EPA treatment produces a decrease in ratings of depression severity, when compared with placebo-treated subjects; and~2. whether the changes in IL-6 or mitogen- stimulated PBMC TNF-α expression mediate changes observed in ratings of depression.~\[Time Frame: 12 weeks\]"||||<0.1
90986953|NCT02553915|181859237|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Change in IDS-C30 scores were compared pre and post 12 weeks of treatment with each intervention, within each arm.||||<0.01
90986954|NCT02553915|181859238|OTHER|Exploratory.|||||<|0.1|||||||Spearman Rank Order Correlation|||To evaluate whether EPA treatment produces decreases in mitogen-stimulated PBMC IL-6. \[Time Frame: 12 weeks\] Comparisons were made between pre and post treatment levels in each of the 4 treatment arms.||||<0.1
90986955|NCT02553915|181859239|OTHER|Exploratory|||||<|0.1|||||||Spearman Rank Order Correlation|||To evaluate whether EPA treatment produces decreases in the expression of inflammation pathway-related genes. \[Time Frame: 12 weeks\] (We evaluated gene expression of IL-6 and TNF-α.)||||<0.1
90986956|NCT01426386|181859331|OTHER|Based on the ANCOVA model the slope of the dose-response curve was estimated. Null hypothesis: Slope of dose-response curve equal to 0 (zero)|Slope of the dose-response curve|7.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.69|10.18||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 5% (two-sided)|ANCOVA|Number of oocytes retrieved as dependent variable, centre and AMH strata (5.0-14.9 pmol/L and 15.0-44.9 pmol/L) as factors and log(dose) as covariate||The dose-response relationship was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model||10.18|5.69|<0.001
90986957|NCT01426386|181859332|OTHER|Based on the ANCOVA model the slope of the dose-response curve was estimated. Null hypothesis: Slope of dose-response curve equal to 0 (zero)|Slope of the dose-response curve|11.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.78|15.48||No adjustment for multiplicity was applied for the secondary endpoints|ANCOVA|Follicular volume as dependent variable, centre and AMH strata (5.0-14.9 pmol/L and 15.0-44.9 pmol/L) as factors and log(dose) as covariate||The dose-response relationship was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model||15.48|6.78|<0.001
90986958|NCT01426386|181859333|OTHER|Based on the ANCOVA model the slope of the dose-response curve was estimated. Null hypothesis: Slope of dose-response curve equal to 0 (zero)|Slope of the dose-response curve|0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.11||No adjustment for multiplicity was applied for the secondary endpoints|ANCOVA|Log(estradiol) as dependent variable, AMH strata (5.0-14.9 pmol/L and 15.0-44.9 pmol/L) as factor, log(dose) and log(baseline estradiol) as covariates||The dose-response relationship was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model||1.11|0.56|<0.001
90986959|NCT01426386|181859335|OTHER|Based on the ANCOVA model the slope of the dose-response curve was estimated. Null hypothesis: Slope of dose-response curve equal to 0 (zero)|Slope of the dose-response curve|3.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.71|4.78||No adjustment for multiplicity was applied for the secondary endpoints|ANCOVA|Fertilised oocytes as dependent variable, AMH strata (5.0-14.9 pmol/L and 15.0-44.9 pmol/L) as factor and log(dose) as covariate||The dose-response relationship was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model||4.78|1.71|<0.001
90986960|NCT01426386|181859337|OTHER|Treatment groups were compared using the chi-squared test.||||||0.248||||||No adjustment for multiplicity was applied for the secondary endpoints|Chi-squared|||||||0.248
90986961|NCT03694522|181859339|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.0727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.04|||Stratified log-rank test|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors of geographic region and administration of mFOLFOX6 single dose prior to randomization.|Hazard ratio and 95% CIs were calculated using the Cox proportional hazards model, adjusted for randomization stratification factors, including geographic region and administration of mFOLFOX6 single dose prior to randomization.|||1.04|0.44|0.0727
90986962|NCT03694522|181859340|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58||||0.0268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.95|||Stratified log-rank test|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors, including geographic region and administration of mFOLFOX6 single dose prior to randomization.|Hazard ratio and 95% CIs were calculated using the Cox proportional hazards model, adjusted for randomization stratification factors, including geographic region and administration of mFOLFOX6 single dose prior to randomization.|||0.95|0.35|0.0268
91041443|NCT01243151|181967844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.945||0.3064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|5.9|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||5.90|-1.89|0.3064
91041444|NCT01243151|181967844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.025||0.1922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|6.73|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||6.73|-1.38|0.1922
91041445|NCT01243151|181967844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.984||0.6827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.16|4.79|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||4.79|-3.16|0.6827
91041446|NCT01243151|181967844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.981||0.2211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|6.42|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||6.42|-1.52|0.2211
91041447|NCT01243151|181967844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.158||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.31|10.97|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||10.97|2.31|0.0033
91041448|NCT01243151|181967844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.237||0.0269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|9.57|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||9.57|0.60|0.0269
91041449|NCT01243151|181967844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.232||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|8.34|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||8.34|-0.61|0.0890
91041450|NCT01243151|181967844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.19||0.0242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|9.47|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||9.47|0.69|0.0242
91041451|NCT01243151|181967844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.101||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|7.46|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||7.46|-0.95|0.1270
90986963|NCT03694522|181859341|SUPERIORITY||Difference|13.1||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|29.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was calculated based on stratum-adjusted Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) proportions||||29.0|-2.8|0.1060
90986964|NCT03694522|181859343|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.94|||||Hazard ratio and 95% CIs were calculated using the Cox proportional hazards model, adjusted for randomization stratification factors, including geographic region and administration of mFOLFOX6 single dose prior to randomization.|||0.94|0.38|
90986965|NCT02760407|181859344|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.183|0.352|||Chi-squared|2x2 chi-square test||The OKZ ACR20 response rate for the 64 mg q4w treatment group at Week 12 was expected to be at least 50% resulting in an expected difference in ACR20 response rates of 25 percentage points between the respective OKZ treatment group and placebo. Sample size yield 100% disjunctive power for testing the primary hypothesis||0.352|0.183|<0.0001
91041452|NCT01243151|181967844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.151||0.1199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|7.7|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||7.70|-0.91|0.1199
91041453|NCT01243151|181967844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.15||0.8123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.79|4.82|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||4.82|-3.79|0.8123
91041454|NCT01243151|181967844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.106||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|9.87|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||9.87|1.44|0.0095
91041455|NCT01243151|181967844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.492||0.1141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|8.99|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||8.99|-0.99|0.1141
90986966|NCT02760407|181859344|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.258|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.171|0.341|||Chi-squared|2x2 chi-square test||The OKZ ACR20 response rate for the 64 mg q2w treatment group at Week 12 was expected to be at least 55%, resulting in an expected difference in ACR20 response rate of 30 percentage points between the respective OKZ treatment group and placebo. Sample size yield 100% disjunctive power for testing the primary hypothesis||0.341|0.171|<0.0001
90986967|NCT02760407|181859345|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.224|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.148|0.298|||Chi-squared|2x2 chi-square test||The ACR20 response rate for adalimumab was expected to be at least 52.5% at Week 12.||0.298|0.148|<0.0001
90986968|NCT02760407|181859345|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-Inferiority for each OKZ dosing regimen versus Adalimumab is achieved if the lower limit of the 97.5% confidence interval is greater than the protocol defined non-inferiority margin of -12%.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.045|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.022|0.112||||||A noninferiority margin of 12% was used for the comparison between OKZ and adalimumab with respect to this endpoint.||0.112|-0.022|
90986969|NCT02760407|181859345|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-Inferiority for each OKZ dosing regimen versus Adalimumab is achieved if the lower limit of the 97.5% confidence interval is greater than the protocol defined non-inferiority margin of -12%.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.034|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.035|0.102||||||A noninferiority margin of 12% was used for the comparison between OKZ and adalimumab with respect to this endpoint.||0.102|-0.035|
90986970|NCT02760407|181859346|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.332|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.257|0.397|||Chi-squared|2x2 chi-square test||The DAS28 low disease activity (based on DAS28 \[CRP\] \<3.2) response rate at Week 12 is estimated to be 10% in the placebo group and 22% in the 64 mg q4w OKZ group, resulting in an expected difference of 12 percentage points between respective OKZ group and placebo.||0.397|0.257|<0.0001
90986971|NCT02760407|181859346|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.325|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.25|0.391|||Chi-squared|2x2 chi-square test||The DAS28 low disease activity (based on DAS28 \[CRP\] \<3.2) response rate at Week 12 is estimated to be 10% in the placebo group and 30% in the 64 mg q2w OKZ group, resulting in an expected difference of 20 percentage points between respective OKZ group and placebo.||0.391|0.250|<0.0001
90986972|NCT02760407|181859347|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.256|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.191|0.313|||Chi-squared|2x2 chi-square test||The DAS28 low disease activity response rate for adalimumab was expected to be at least 27% at Week 12.||0.313|0.191|<0.0001
90952620|NCT05292586|181782678|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.043||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|0.086|||ANCOVA|||"3\_Change from baseline -- Week 12~Statistical analysis used all available data and imputed missing data (i.e., whether due to missed visits, unperformed or unevaluable assessments at intermediate timepoints, or early study discontinuation) in ITT population (overall population N=283 in CHF 1535 pMDI 800/24 μg study group; N=280 in the CHF 718 pMDI 800 μg study group)."||0.086|-0.001|0.056
90952621|NCT05292586|181782679|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.327||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.949|1.855|||Logistic regression model|||1\_Responders at Week 4||1.855|0.949|0.098
90952622|NCT05292586|181782679|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.262||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.898|1.772|||Logistic regression model|||2\_Responders at Week 8||1.772|0.898|0.180
90952623|NCT05292586|181782679|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.568||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.117|2.203|||Logistic regression model|||3\_Responders at Week 12||2.203|1.117|0.009
90986973|NCT02760407|181859347|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-Inferiority for each OKZ dosing regimen versus Adalimumab is achieved if the lower limit of the 97.5% confidence interval is greater than the protocol defined noninferiority margin of -7.5%.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.076|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.004|0.147||||||A noninferiority margin of 7.5% was used for the comparison between OKZ and adalimumab with respect to this endpoint.||0.147|0.004|
90986974|NCT02760407|181859347|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-Inferiority for each OKZ dosing regimen versus Adalimumab is achieved if the lower limit of the 97.5% confidence interval is greater than the protocol defined noninferiority margin of -7.5%.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.069|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.003|0.141||||||A noninferiority margin of 7.5% was used for the comparison between OKZ and adalimumab with respect to this endpoint.||0.141|-0.003|
90986975|NCT02760407|181859348|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.046|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.29|-0.09|||ANCOVA|||||-0.09|-0.29|<0.0001
90986976|NCT02760407|181859348|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.046|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.33|-0.12|||ANCOVA|||||-0.12|-0.33|<0.0001
90986977|NCT02760407|181859348|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.046|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|-0.1||||||||-0.10|-0.28|
90986978|NCT02760407|181859349|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.275|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.192|0.349|||Chi-squared|2x2 chi-square test||||0.349|0.192|<0.0001
90986979|NCT02760407|181859349|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.278|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.195|0.353|||Chi-squared|2x2 chi-square test||||0.353|0.195|<0.0001
90986980|NCT02760407|181859349|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.237|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.165|0.303||||||||0.303|0.165|
90986981|NCT02760407|181859350|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.08||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.031|0.123|||Chi-squared|2x2 chi-square test||||0.123|0.031|0.0003
90986982|NCT02760407|181859350|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.069||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.02|0.111|||Chi-squared|2x2 chi-square test||||0.111|0.020|0.001
90986983|NCT02760407|181859350|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.089|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.046|0.127||||||||0.127|0.046|
90986984|NCT02522377|181859351|SUPERIORITY|Superiority test based upon group differences pooled across infusions|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.28||0.72|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes main effect for treatment group and infusion number categorically. Satterthwaite DF=9.987.|Midazolam - Ketamine Infusions|||||0.72
90986985|NCT02522377|181859352|SUPERIORITY|Superiority test based upon group differences pooled across infusions in mixed effect model|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.4||0.77|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes main effect for treatment group and infusion number categorically. Satterthwaite DF=7.836.|Midazolam - Ketamine Infusions|||||0.77
90986986|NCT02522377|181859353|SUPERIORITY|Superiority test based upon group differences pooled across infusions|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes main effect for treatment group and infusion number categorically. Satterthwaite DF=9.987.|Midazolam - Ketamine Infusions|||||0.40
90986987|NCT02522377|181859354|SUPERIORITY|Superiority test based upon group differences pooled across infusions|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes main effect for treatment group and infusion number categorically. Satterthwaite DF=9.3634.|Midazolam - Ketamine Infusions|||||0.009
91041456|NCT01243151|181967844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.536||0.1552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|8.73|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||8.73|-1.42|0.1552
91041457|NCT01243151|181967844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.547||0.5407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.53|6.67|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||6.67|-3.53|0.5407
91041458|NCT01243151|181967844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.485||0.0107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|11.53|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||11.53|1.58|0.0107
91041459|NCT01243151|181967845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-60.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.152|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.74|-43.97|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-43.97|-76.74|<0.0001
91041460|NCT01243151|181967845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-52.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.422|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.45|-35.61|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-35.61|-69.45|<0.0001
91041461|NCT01243151|181967845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-69.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.26|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-86.06|-52.86|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-52.86|-86.06|<0.0001
91041462|NCT01243151|181967845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-66.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.112|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-82.55|-49.94|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-49.94|-82.55|<0.0001
91041463|NCT01243151|181967845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-78.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.766|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.05|-56.87|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-56.87|-100.05|<0.0001
91041464|NCT01243151|181967845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-71.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.051|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-93.43|-49.13|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-49.13|-93.43|<0.0001
90986988|NCT02522377|181859355|SUPERIORITY|Superiority test based upon group differences pooled across infusions|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.71||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes main effect for treatment group and infusion number categorically. Satterthwaite DF=9.987.|Midazolam - Ketamine Infusions|||||0.34
90986989|NCT02522377|181859356|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.36||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|7.2|||Fisher Exact||Odds Ratio of Midazolam (numerator) to Ketamine Infusions (denominator)|||7.20|0.01|0.58
90986990|NCT01158950|181859357|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.032||||||The threshold for statistical significance was set to p \< 0.05.|Fisher transformation|||The comparison group represents the difference in ICR and the baseline impulsiveness scale.||||0.032
91041465|NCT01243151|181967845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-91.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.018|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-113.92|-69.74|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-69.74|-113.92|<0.0001
91041466|NCT01243151|181967845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-89.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.736|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-111.03|-67.97|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-67.97|-111.03|<0.0001
91041467|NCT01243151|181967845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-86.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.452|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-103.73|-69.72|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-69.72|-103.73|<0.0001
90986991|NCT01158950|181859358|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The threshold is set to p \< 0.05, corrected for multiple comparisons.|Fisher transformation|Statistical tests are computed across multiple subregions (voxels) within each area. Thus, the correlation coefficient above is a summary score.||||||< 0.05
90986992|NCT01765712|181859379|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.48||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|1.03|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.03|-1.99|0.55
90986993|NCT02137772|181859386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-23.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.5|-14.6||A 1-sided p-value ≤0.0249 for the risk difference was used for declaring statistical significance|Mantel Haenszel|The Mantel Haenszel analysis was adjusted for sample size for each stratum (high or low risk for CMV reactivation)||||-14.6|-32.5|<0.0001
90986994|NCT02137772|181859387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Nominal 2-sided p-value|Log Rank|The log rank test was adjusted for sample size for each stratum (high or low risk for CMV reactivation)||||||<0.0001
90986995|NCT02137772|181859388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-31.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.9|-22.6||Nominal 1-sided p-value|Mantel Haenszel|The Mantel Haenszel analysis was adjusted for sample size for each stratum (high or low risk for CMV reactivation)||||-22.6|-39.9|<0.0001
91041468|NCT01243151|181967845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-92.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.643|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-109.57|-74.8|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-74.80|-109.57|<0.0001
90952624|NCT05292586|181782680|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.822|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.284|2.587|||Logistic regression model|||1\_Responders at Week 12||2.587|1.284|<0.001
90952625|NCT05292586|181782681|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|8.78||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|14.27|||ANCOVA|||"1\_Change From Baseline; Week 0 -- Week 12~Statistical analysis used all available data and imputed missing data (i.e., whether due to missed visits, unperformed or unevaluable assessments at intermediate timepoints, or early study discontinuation) in ITT population (overall population N=283 in CHF 1535 pMDI 800/24 μg study group; N=280 in the CHF 718 pMDI 800 μg study group)."||14.27|3.30|0.002
90952626|NCT05292586|181782682|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|8.73||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.32|14.14|||ANCOVA|||"1\_Change From Baseline; Week 0 -- Week 12~Statistical analysis used all available data and imputed missing data (i.e., whether due to missed visits, unperformed or unevaluable assessments at intermediate timepoints, or early study discontinuation) in ITT population (overall population N=283 in CHF 1535 pMDI 800/24 μg study group; N=280 in the CHF 718 pMDI 800 μg study group)."||14.14|3.32|0.002
90952627|NCT05292586|181782683|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.112||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.211|-0.013|||ANCOVA|||"1\_Change From Baseline in ACQ-7 at Week 12~Statistical analysis used all available data and imputed missing data (i.e., whether due to missed visits, unperformed or unevaluable assessments at intermediate timepoints, or early study discontinuation) in ITT population (overall population N=283 in CHF 1535 pMDI 800/24 μg study group; N=280 in the CHF 718 pMDI 800 μg study group)."||-0.013|-0.211|0.026
90952628|NCT05292586|181782683|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.02||||0.686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.077|0.118|||ANCOVA|||"2\_Change from baseline in ACQ-5 at Week 12~Statistical analysis used all available data and imputed missing data (i.e., whether due to missed visits, unperformed or unevaluable assessments at intermediate timepoints, or early study discontinuation) in ITT population (overall population N=283 in CHF 1535 pMDI 800/24 μg study group; N=280 in the CHF 718 pMDI 800 μg study group)."||0.118|-0.077|0.686
90952629|NCT05292586|181782684|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|3.82||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|7.33|||ANCOVA|||"1\_Change From Baseline~Statistical analysis used all available data and imputed missing data (i.e., whether due to missed visits, unperformed or unevaluable assessments at intermediate timepoints, or early study discontinuation) in ITT population (overall population N=283 in CHF 1535 pMDI 800/24 μg study group; N=280 in the CHF 718 pMDI 800 μg study group)."||7.330|0.310|0.033
90952630|NCT05292586|181782685|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|3.78||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.425|7.985|||ANCOVA|||"1\_Change From Baseline~Statistical analysis used all available data and imputed missing data (i.e., whether due to missed visits, unperformed or unevaluable assessments at intermediate timepoints, or early study discontinuation) in ITT population (overall population N=283 in CHF 1535 pMDI 800/24 μg study group; N=280 in the CHF 718 pMDI 800 μg study group)."||7.985|-0.425|0.078
90952631|NCT03238963|181782724|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.057|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.053|0.192|||Chan and Zhang method|95% confidence interval was calculating using the Chan and Zhang method.|Risk difference of BI 1467335 10 milligram (mg) group minus Placebo group.|||0.192|-0.053|
90952632|NCT01424813|181782735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.128|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.08||Significance at the 0.05 level.|mixed-model repeated-measures (MMRM)|Fixed effects- pooled center, treatment group, study day, and study day by drug interaction, with baseline measured at each study day as covariate.||||1.08|0.57|<0.0001
90952633|NCT01424813|181782736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.198|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.46||To adjust for multiplicity, so that the overall alpha level for all tests was controlled at the 0.05 level, tests were done sequentially \[day 1, then day 8, then day 85\] and terminated if individual results were not significant at the 0.05 level.|mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|Fixed effects- pooled center, treatment group, study day, and study day by drug interaction, with baseline measured at each study day as covariate.||||1.46|0.68|<0.0001
90986996|NCT02137772|181859389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.4||||0.4056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|3.2||Nominal 1-sided p-value|Mantel Haenszel|The Mantel Haenszel analysis was adjusted for sample size for each stratum (high or low risk for CMV reactivation)||||3.2|-4.0|0.4056
90986997|NCT02137772|181859390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.0||||0.2258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|1.5||Nominal 1-sided p-value|Mantel Haenszel|The Mantel Haenszel analysis was adjusted for sample size for each stratum (high or low risk for CMV reactivation)||||1.5|-3.5|0.2258
90986998|NCT02137772|181859391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-31.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.6|-22.4||Nominal 1-sided p-value|Mantel Haenszel|The Mantel Haenszel analysis was adjusted for sample size for each stratum (high or low risk for CMV reactivation)||||-22.4|-39.6|<0.0001
90986999|NCT02137772|181859392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-23.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.3|-14.3||Nominal 1-sided p-value|Mantel Haenszel|The Mantel Haenszel analysis was adjusted for sample size for each stratum (high or low risk for CMV reactivation)||||-14.3|-32.3|<0.0001
90987000|NCT02137772|181859393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Nominal 2-sided p-value|Log Rank|The log rank test analysis was adjusted for sample size for each stratum (high or low risk for CMV reactivation)||||||<0.0001
90987001|NCT03290300|181859407|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The pre-specified threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA with multiple comparisons to baseline||||||<0.0001
90987002|NCT03320512|181859424|SUPERIORITY||Average Treatment Effect|0.15||||0.04965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.29|||TMLE estimation of ATE and Wald test|Targeted Maximum Likelihood Estimation (TMLE) Average Treatment Effect (ATE)||Month 3 The analysis includes the intent-to-treat population||0.29|0.00|0.04965
90987003|NCT03320512|181859424|SUPERIORITY||Average Treatment Effect|-0.04||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.13|||TMLE estimation of ATE and Wald test|||Month 6 The analysis includes the intent-to-treat population||0.13|-0.21|0.62
90987004|NCT03320512|181859425|SUPERIORITY||Average Treatment Effect|0.12||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.26|||TMLE estimation of ATE and Wald test|||Month 3 The analysis includes the intent-to-treat population||0.26|-0.03|0.11
90987005|NCT03320512|181859425|SUPERIORITY||Average Treatment Effect|0.06||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.21|||TMLE estimation of ATE and Wald test|||Month 6 The analysis includes the intent-to-treat population||0.21|-0.08|0.38
90987006|NCT03320512|181859426|SUPERIORITY||Average Treatment Effect|0.04||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.16||P-values adjusted using the Benjamini Hochberg procedure.|TMLE estimation of ATE and Wald test|||Month 3 The analysis includes the intent-to-treat population and compares P3 and P3+ vs. Control.||0.16|-0.09|0.68
90987007|NCT03320512|181859426|SUPERIORITY||Average Treatment Effect|0.11||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.25||P-values adjusted using the Benjamini Hochberg procedure.|TMLE estimation of ATE and Wald test|||Month 6 The analysis includes the intent-to-treat population and compares P3 and P3+ vs. Control.||0.25|-0.03|0.53
91041469|NCT01243151|181967845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-106.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.585|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-123.34|-88.78|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-88.78|-123.34|<0.0001
90987008|NCT03320512|181859427|SUPERIORITY||Average Treatment Effect|0.06||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.15||P-values adjusted using the Benjamini Hochberg procedure.|TMLE estimation of ATE and Wald test|||Month 3 The analysis includes the intent-to-treat population and compares P3 and P3+ vs. Control.||0.15|-0.02|0.53
90987009|NCT03320512|181859427|SUPERIORITY||Average Treatment Effect|0.0||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.12||P-values adjusted using the Benjamini Hochberg procedure.|TMLE estimation of ATE and Wald test|||Month 6 The analysis includes the intent-to-treat population and compares P3 and P3+ vs. Control.||0.12|-0.12|0.96
90987010|NCT03320512|181859428|SUPERIORITY||Average Treatment Effect|0.08||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|1.0||P-values adjusted using the Benjamini Hochberg procedure.|TMLE estimation of ATE and Wald test|||Month 3 The analysis includes the intent-to-treat population and compares P3 and P3+ vs. Control.||1.00|-0.84|0.93
90987011|NCT03320512|181859428|SUPERIORITY||Average Treatment Effect|-1.12||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.16|1.91||P-values adjusted using the Benjamini Hochberg procedure.|TMLE estimation of ATE and Wald test|||Month 6 The analysis includes the intent-to-treat population and compares P3 and P3+ vs. Control.||1.91|-4.16|0.60
90987012|NCT03320512|181859429|SUPERIORITY||Average Treatment Effect|0.73||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|2.48||P-values adjusted using the Benjamini Hochberg procedure.|TMLE estimation of ATE and Wald test|||Month 3 The analysis includes the intent-to-treat population and compares P3 and P3+ vs. Control.||2.48|-1.03|0.60
90987013|NCT03320512|181859429|SUPERIORITY||Average Treatment Effect|-0.91||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.86|1.04||P-values adjusted using the Benjamini Hochberg procedure.|TMLE estimation of ATE and Wald test|||Month 6 The analysis includes the intent-to-treat population and compares P3 and P3+ vs. Control.||1.04|-2.86|0.60
90987014|NCT03320512|181859430|SUPERIORITY||Average Treatment Effect|-0.06||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.08||P-values adjusted using the Benjamini Hochberg procedure.|TMLE estimation of ATE and Wald test|||Month 3 Gonorrhea The analysis includes the intent-to-treat population and compares P3 and P3+ vs. Control.||0.08|-0.20|0.60
90987015|NCT03320512|181859430|SUPERIORITY||Average Treatment Effect|-0.06||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.09||P-values adjusted using the Benjamini Hochberg procedure.|TMLE estimation of ATE and Wald test|||Month 6 Gonorrhea The analysis includes the intent-to-treat population and compares P3 and P3+ vs. Control.||0.09|-0.21|0.60
90987016|NCT03320512|181859430|SUPERIORITY||Average Treatment Effect|-0.13||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.03||P-values adjusted using the Benjamini Hochberg procedure.|TMLE estimation of ATE and Wald test|||Month 3 Chlamydia The analysis includes the intent-to-treat population and compares P3 and P3+ vs. Control.||0.03|-0.30|0.53
90987017|NCT03320512|181859430|SUPERIORITY||Average Treatment Effect|-0.08||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.08||P-values adjusted using the Benjamini Hochberg procedure.|TMLE estimation of ATE and Wald test|||Month 6 Chlamydia The analysis includes the intent-to-treat population and compares P3 and P3+ vs. Control.||0.08|-0.24|0.60
90987018|NCT03320512|181859430|SUPERIORITY||Average Treatment Effect|-0.11||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.04||P-values adjusted using the Benjamini Hochberg procedure.|TMLE estimation of ATE and Wald test|||Month 3 Syphillis The analysis includes the intent-to-treat population and compares P3 and P3+ vs. Control.||0.04|-0.25|0.53
90987019|NCT03320512|181859430|SUPERIORITY||Average Treatment Effect|-0.07||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.07||P-values adjusted using the Benjamini Hochberg procedure.|TMLE estimation of ATE and Wald test|||Month 6 Syphillis The analysis includes the intent-to-treat population and compares P3 and P3+ vs. Control.||0.07|-0.20|0.60
90987020|NCT03320512|181859431|SUPERIORITY||Average Treatment Effect|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.29|||||TMLE estimation of ATE and Wald Confidence Interval|Month 3 The analysis includes the intent-to-treat population and compares P3 vs. Control.||0.29|-0.07|
90987021|NCT03320512|181859431|SUPERIORITY||Average Treatment Effect|0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.34|||||TMLE estimation of ATE and Wald Confidence Interval|Month 3 The analysis includes the intent-to-treat population and compares P3+ vs. Control.||0.34|0.03|
90987022|NCT03320512|181859431|SUPERIORITY||Average Treatment Effect|-0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.15|||||TMLE estimation of ATE and Wald Confidence Interval|Month 6 The analysis includes the intent-to-treat population and compares P3 vs. Control.||0.15|-0.27|
90952634|NCT01424813|181782751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.164|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.06||To adjust for multiplicity, so that the overall alpha level for all tests was controlled at the 0.05 level, tests were done sequentially \[day 1, then day 8, then day 85\] and terminated if individual results were not significant at the 0.05 level.|mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|Fixed effects- pooled center, treatment group, study day, and study day by drug interaction, with baseline measured at each study day as covariate.||||1.06|0.41|<0.0001
90952635|NCT01424813|181782752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.154|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.99||To adjust for multiplicity, so that the overall alpha level for all tests was controlled at the 0.05 level, tests were done sequentially \[day 1, then day 8, then day 85\] and terminated if individual results were not significant at the 0.05 level.|mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|Fixed effects- pooled center, treatment group, study day, and study day by drug interaction, with baseline measured at each study day as covariate.||||0.99|0.38|<0.0001
90952636|NCT00515671|181782763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8868|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.8868
90952637|NCT00515671|181782764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3328|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.3328
90952638|NCT00225017|181782774|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|25 subjects per arm will have 80% power to detect a difference between groups in mean FMD change of 2.9%, and 90% power to detect a mean FMD change of 3.4%|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.384|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.0||0.601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.08|1.312|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.312|-2.080|0.601
90952639|NCT00225017|181782775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.009||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.009
90952640|NCT00225017|181782776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.141||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.141
90952641|NCT03079297|181782783|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.4128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.56|7.56|||t-test, 2 sided|||||7.56|-3.56|0.4128
90952642|NCT03079297|181782784|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4286|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4286
90952643|NCT03079297|181782785|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.999
90952644|NCT03079297|181782786|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9932||||||P-value for Adverse effect burden 3 days Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit|MMRM|||||||0.9932
90952645|NCT03079297|181782786|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9932||||||P-value for Adverse effect burden 7 days Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit|MMRM|||||||0.9932
90952646|NCT03079297|181782786|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2242||||||P-value for Adverse effect burden 14 days Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit|MMRM|||||||0.2242
90952647|NCT03079297|181782787|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7282||||||P-value for General fatigue 3 days Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit|MMRM|||||||0.7282
90952648|NCT03079297|181782787|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8781||||||P-value for General fatigue 7 days Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit|MMRM|||||||0.8781
90952649|NCT03079297|181782787|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.226||||||P-value for General fatigue 14 days Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit|MMRM|||||||0.226
90952650|NCT03079297|181782787|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2158||||||P-value for Mental fatigue 3 days Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit|MMRM|||||||0.2158
90952651|NCT03079297|181782787|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0081||||||P-value for Mental fatigue 7 days Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit|MMRM|||||||0.0081
90952652|NCT03079297|181782787|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6768||||||P-value for Mental fatigue 14 days Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit|MMRM|||||||0.6768
90952653|NCT03079297|181782787|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0076||||||P-value for Physical fatigue 3 days Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit|MMRM|||||||0.0076
90952654|NCT03079297|181782787|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0858||||||P-value for Physical fatigue 7 days Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit|MMRM|||||||0.0858
90952655|NCT03079297|181782787|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2065||||||P-value for Physical fatigue 14 days Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit|MMRM|||||||0.2065
90952656|NCT03079297|181782787|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9712||||||P-value for Reduced motivation 3 days Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit|MMRM|||||||0.9712
90952657|NCT03079297|181782787|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7572||||||P-value for Reduced motivation 7 days Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit|MMRM|||||||0.7572
90952658|NCT03079297|181782787|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0588||||||P-value for Reduced motivation 14 days Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit|MMRM|||||||0.0588
90952659|NCT03079297|181782787|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1857||||||P-value for Reduced activity 3 days Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit|MMRM|||||||0.1857
90952660|NCT03079297|181782787|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9225||||||P-value for Reduced activity 7 days Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit|MMRM|||||||0.9225
90952661|NCT03079297|181782787|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0414||||||P-value for Reduced activity 14 days Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit|MMRM|||||||0.0414
90952662|NCT03079297|181782788|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4603||||||P-value for Psychosocial function 3 days Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit|MMRM|||||||0.4603
90987023|NCT03320512|181859431|SUPERIORITY||Average Treatment Effect|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.16|||||TMLE estimation of ATE and Wald Confidence Interval|Month 6 The analysis includes the intent-to-treat population and compares P3+ vs. Control.||0.16|-0.21|
90987024|NCT03320512|181859432|SUPERIORITY||Average Treatment Effect|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.26|||||TMLE estimation of ATE and Wald Confidence Interval|Month 3 The analysis includes the intent-to-treat population and compares P3 vs. Control.||0.26|-0.05|
90987025|NCT03320512|181859432|SUPERIORITY||Average Treatment Effect|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.29|||||TMLE estimation of ATE and Wald Confidence Interval|Month 3 The analysis includes the intent-to-treat population and compares P3+ vs. Control.||0.29|-0.04|
90987026|NCT03320512|181859432|SUPERIORITY||Average Treatment Effect|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.26|||||TMLE estimation of ATE and Wald Confidence Interval|Month 6 The analysis includes the intent-to-treat population and compares P3 vs. Control.||0.26|-0.08|
90987027|NCT03320512|181859432|SUPERIORITY||Average Treatment Effect|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.19|||||TMLE estimation of ATE and Wald Confidence Interval|Month 6 The analysis includes the intent-to-treat population and compares P3+ vs. Control.||0.19|-0.13|
90987028|NCT03320512|181859433|SUPERIORITY||Average Treatment Effect|0.09||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.19|||TMLE estimation of ATE and Wald test|||Month 3 The analysis includes the intent-to-treat population and compares P3 and P3+ vs. Control.||0.19|-0.02|0.11
90987029|NCT03320512|181859433|SUPERIORITY||Average Treatment Effect|-0.01||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.11|||TMLE estimation of ATE and Wald test|||Month 6 The analysis includes the intent-to-treat population and compares P3 and P3+ vs. Control.||0.11|-0.14|0.82
90987030|NCT03320512|181859434|SUPERIORITY||Average Treatment Effect|8.95||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|17.83||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.025.|TMLE estimation of ATE and Wald test|||Month 3 The analysis includes the intent-to-treat population and compares P3 and P3+ vs. Control.||17.83|0.07|0.05
90987031|NCT03320512|181859434|SUPERIORITY||Average Treatment Effect|-3.69||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.33|5.95|||TMLE estimation of ATE and Wald test|||Month 6 The analysis includes the intent-to-treat population and compares P3 and P3+ vs. Control.||5.95|-13.33|0.45
90987032|NCT03320512|181859435|SUPERIORITY||Incremental cost effectiveness ratio|25.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-194.05|236.81|||||The confidence interval was created using percentile bootstrap.|Participants were included if they were at an active site with cost data and had a 3-month binary TFV measure.||236.81|-194.05|
90987033|NCT00638846|181859436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.739|||||TWO_SIDED|97.4|1.136|1.739|||Generalized Linear Model||Odds ratio was senofilcon A toric / balafilcon A toric|Alternative hypothesis is senofilcon A toric is superior to balfilcon A toric by having less degrees of rotation||1.739|1.136|
90987034|NCT00638846|181859437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.138|||||TWO_SIDED|97.4|0.624|1.138|||Generalized Linear Model||Odds ratio was senofilcon A toric/balafilcon A toric|Alternative hypothesis is that senofilcon A toric is superior to balafilcon A toric by having less degrees of instability.||1.138|0.624|
90987035|NCT00638846|181859438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1307|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2856|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.1307|-0.568|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as senofilcon A toric minus balafilcon At toric.|Alternative hypothesis is that senofilcon A toric is superior to balafilcon A toric by having less time required to fit.||-0.5680|-1.1307|
90987036|NCT00638846|181859439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.368|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1331|||TWO_SIDED|97.4|0.07001|0.368|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as senofilcon A toric minus balafilcon A toric.|Alternative hypothesis is that senofilcon A is superior to balafilcon A.||0.3680|0.07001|
90987037|NCT00638846|181859440|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin is -0.4.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0688|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1648|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.0688|-0.0197|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as senofilcon A toric minus balafilcon A toric.|Alternative hypothesis is that senofilcon A toric is superior to balafilcon A toric by having a lower grade fo corneal staining.||-0.0197|-0.0688|
90987038|NCT00638846|181859441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.368|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1331|||TWO_SIDED|97.4|0.07001|0.368|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as senofilcon A toric minus balafilcon A toric.|Alternative hypothesis is that senofilcon A toric is superior to balafilcon A toric.||0.3680|0.07001|
90987039|NCT02746679|181859451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|The comparison of the change from baseline to 8 weeks later between MBSR Group and wait-list control group.||||||<0.001
90987040|NCT02746679|181859452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
90987041|NCT02746679|181859453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
90987042|NCT02746679|181859454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.024
90987043|NCT02746679|181859455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|The comparison of the change from baseline to 8 weeks later between MBSR Group and wait-list control group.||||||<0.001
90987044|NCT02746679|181859456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||ANOVA|The comparison of the change from baseline to 8 weeks later between MBSR Group and wait-list control group.||||||0.001
90987045|NCT02746679|181859457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||ANOVA|The comparison of the change from baseline to 8 weeks later between MBSR Group and wait-list control group.||||||0.003
90987046|NCT02746679|181859458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024|||||||ANOVA|The comparison of the change from baseline to 8 weeks later between MBSR Group and wait-list control group.||||||0.024
90987047|NCT02746679|181859459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||ANOVA|The comparison of the change from baseline to 8 weeks later between MBSR Group and wait-list control group.||||||0.004
90987048|NCT02746679|181859460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|The comparison of the change from baseline to 8 weeks later between MBSR Group and wait-list control group.||||||<0.001
90987049|NCT02746679|181859461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|The comparison of the change from baseline to 8 weeks later between MBSR Group and wait-list control group.||||||<0.001
90987050|NCT02746679|181859462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.277|||||||ANOVA|The comparison of the change from baseline to 8 weeks later between MBSR Group and wait-list control group.||||||0.277
90987051|NCT02746679|181859463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||ANOVA|The comparison of the change from baseline to 8 weeks later between MBSR Group and wait-list control group.||||||0.001
90987052|NCT01520922|181859488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|95.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|84.53|99.44|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with OR (CR+CRi+nPR+PR) while receiving ofatumumab + bendamustine 90 mg/m\^2.|||99.44|84.53|
90987053|NCT01520922|181859488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|74.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.67|84.74|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with OR (CR+CRi+nPR+PR) while receiving ofatumumab + bendamustine 70 mg/m\^2.|||84.74|59.67|
90987054|NCT01422304|181859528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.29|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Relative risk is Sugammadex versus Usual Care|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method was stratified for renal function (estimated creatinine clearance \< or ≥ 60 mL/min) and prophylactic antithrombotic therapy (including low molecular weight heparin \[LMWH\], including unfractionated heparin \[UFH\], or not including either LMWH or UFH)||1.29|0.38|
90987055|NCT01422304|181859529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR) (%)|5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|7.3|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model included those in APaT population with any baseline or post baseline aPTT value in 10 or 60 minute window (Sugammadex, Usual Care N=567, 548)|Estimate of difference in Sugammadex versus Usual Care change from baseline at 10 minutes post dose calculated with log of aPTT values as dependent variable. Results transformed back to GMR of respective changes (expressed as %, = \[GMR - 1\]\*100).|Model was restricted to have no difference between treatment groups for baseline assessment, and was adjusted for center, usual care group (active reversal or spontaneous recovery), renal function (estimated creatinine clearance \< or ≥ 60 mL/min), prophylactic antithrombotic therapy (including LMWH, including UFH, or not including either LMWH or UFH), type of hip/knee surgical procedure, and the interaction of time by treatment.||7.3|3.7|
90987056|NCT01422304|181859529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||GMR (%)|0.9||||||95.0|-0.9|2.8|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model included those in APaT population with any baseline or post baseline aPTT value in 10 or 60 minute window (Sugammadex, Usual Care N=567, 548)|Estimate of difference in Sugammadex versus Usual Care change from baseline at 60 minutes post dose calculated with log of aPTT values as dependent variable. Results transformed back to GMR of respective changes (expressed as %, = \[GMR - 1\]\*100).|Model was restricted to have no difference between treatment groups for baseline assessment, and was adjusted for center, usual care group (active reversal or spontaneous recovery), renal function (estimated creatinine clearance \< or ≥ 60 mL/min), prophylactic antithrombotic therapy (including LMWH, including UFH, or not including either LMWH or UFH), type of hip/knee surgical procedure, and the interaction of time by treatment.||2.8|-0.9|
90987057|NCT01422304|181859530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||GMR (%)|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|4.7|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model included those in APaT population with any baseline or post baseline PT(INR) value in 10 or 60 minute window (Sugammadex, Usual Care N=567, 548)|Estimate of difference in Sugammadex versus Usual Care change from baseline at 10 minutes post dose calculated with log of PT(INR) values as dependent variable. Results transformed back to GMR of respective changes (expressed as %, = \[GMR - 1\]\*100).|Model was restricted to have no difference between treatment groups for baseline assessment, and was adjusted for center, usual care group (active reversal or spontaneous recovery), renal function (estimated creatinine clearance \< or ≥ 60 mL/min), prophylactic antithrombotic therapy (including LMWH, including UFH, or not including either LMWH or UFH), type of hip/knee surgical procedure, and the interaction of time by treatment.||4.7|1.3|
90987058|NCT01422304|181859530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||GMR (%)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.9|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model included those in APaT population with any baseline or post baseline PT(INR) value in 10 or 60 minute window (Sugammadex, Usual Care N=567, 548)|Estimate of difference in Sugammadex versus Usual Care change from baseline at 60 minutes post dose calculated with log of PT(INR) values as dependent variable. Results transformed back to GMR of respective changes (expressed as %, = \[GMR - 1\]\*100).|Model was restricted to have no difference between treatment groups for baseline assessment, and was adjusted for center, usual care group (active reversal or spontaneous recovery), renal function (estimated creatinine clearance \< or ≥ 60 mL/min), prophylactic antithrombotic therapy (including LMWH, including UFH, or not including either LMWH or UFH), type of hip/knee surgical procedure, and the interaction of time by treatment.||2.9|-1.0|
90987059|NCT01422304|181859531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (%)|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|1.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Risk difference (%) = Sugammadex incidence - Usual Care incidence|||1.8|-3.0|
90987060|NCT01422304|181859532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (%)|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|0.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Risk difference (%) = Sugammadex incidence - Usual Care incidence|||0.5|-3.4|
90987061|NCT01422304|181859533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (%)|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|1.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Risk difference (%) = Sugammadex incidence - Usual Care incidence|||1.2|-3.1|
90987062|NCT01422304|181859534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (%)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Risk difference (%) = Sugammadex incidence - Usual Care incidence|||1.5|-0.7|
90987063|NCT01422304|181859536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.0|30.5|||Generalized Linear Model||Difference is Sugammadex versus Usual Care. A negative value indicates that the average adjusted drainage volume was lower in the sugammadex treatment group.|Generalized Linear Model was adjusted for strata (renal function and use of prophylactic antithrombotic therapy) and investigational site.||30.5|-45.0|
90987064|NCT01422304|181859537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (%)|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|2.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Risk difference (%) = Sugammadex incidence - Usual Care incidence, adjusted for strata and investigational site|Miettinen and Nurminen Method was adjusted for strata (renal function and use of prophylactic antithrombotic therapy) and investigational site||2.0|-7.4|
90987065|NCT01422304|181859538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||GMR|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.24|||Generalized Linear Model||GMR is Sugammadex versus Usual Care|Generalized Linear Model was applied to transfusion volume transformed to the log-scale, adjusted for strata (renal function and use of prophylactic antithrombotic therapy) and investigational site. Result and 95% Confidence Interval was transformed back to the original scale.||1.24|0.98|
90987066|NCT01422304|181859539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|3.1|||Generalized Linear Model||Difference is Sugammadex versus Usual Care. A positive value indicates that the average adjusted reduction in Hgb at Visit 3 (bleeding index) was lower in the sugammadex treatment group.|Generalized Linear Model was adjusted for strata (renal function and use of prophylactic antithrombotic therapy), investigational site and baseline hemoglobin value.||3.1|-0.4|
90987067|NCT01422304|181859540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (%)|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|3.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Risk difference (%) = Sugammadex incidence - Usual Care incidence|||3.1|-6.3|
90987068|NCT03461289|181859559|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Proportion|0.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.87|||Fisher Exact||||Data for the current study were compared to historical control data (Finkel et al 2014 - PubMed 25080519) where 6 out of 23 (26.1%) babies were alive and did not need mechanical ventilation at 14 months of age.|0.87|0.48|<0.0001
90987069|NCT00515463|181859583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||||95.0|-0.7|0.7|||||Risk difference \> 0 indicates that incidence of binding anti-denosumab antibodies in denosumab PFS is greater than denosumab vial. 95% CI based on a normal approximation with continuity correction.|||0.7|-0.7|
90987070|NCT00515463|181859584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||||95.0|-0.7|0.7||||||||0.7|-0.7|
90987071|NCT02273323|181859671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|0.23|-0.37|0.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Estimated effect of tea vs placebo||0.83|-0.37|0.43
90987072|NCT02273323|181859672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.71||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|Subject=random factor; treatment, on/off medication, period = fixed effects||Estimated effect of tea vs. placebo||1.82|-0.40|0.20
90987073|NCT02273323|181859673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.26|2.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.55|-5.26|
91041470|NCT01243151|181967845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-99.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.334|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-115.95|-82.4|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-82.40|-115.95|<0.0001
91041471|NCT01243151|181967845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-79.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.557|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-96.22|-61.93|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-61.93|-96.22|<0.0001
91041472|NCT01243151|181967845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-83.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.736|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-101.4|-66.39|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-66.39|-101.40|<0.0001
90987074|NCT02273323|181859674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|1.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.37|-2.16|
90987075|NCT02273323|181859675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.65|0.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.87|-4.65|
90987076|NCT02273323|181859676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|4.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.09|-0.73|
90987077|NCT00121810|181859677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|18.7||||0.012||95.0|4.2|33.2||P value comparing the treatment groups calculated using ANCOVA model treatment and baseline calcineurin inhibitor (cyclosporine or tacrolimus) as factors and baseline measurement and time from transplant to randomization as covariates.|ANCOVA|||The primary analysis tested the null hypothesis that mean percent change from baseline to 12 months for Group 1 (mycophenolate mofetil + sirolimus) was equal to that for Group 2 (mycophenolate mofetil + cyclosporine or tacrolimus) based on the intent-to-treat population.||33.2|4.2|0.012
90987078|NCT00121810|181859678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.3||||0.543||95.0|-9.6|18.2||P value comparing the treatment groups calculated using ANCOVA model treatment and baseline calcineurin inhibitor (cyclosporine or tacrolimus) type as factors and baseline measurement and time from transplant to randomization as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||18.2|-9.6|0.543
90987079|NCT00121810|181859679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-10.8||||0.003||95.0|-17.9|-3.7||P value comparing the two treatment groups is calculated using ANCOVA with treatment and baseline calcineurin inhibitor type (cyclosporine or tacrolimus) as factors, and baseline measurement and time from transplant to randomization as covariates.|ANCOVA|||6 months||-3.7|-17.9|0.003
90987080|NCT00121810|181859679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.0||||0.108||95.0|-35.4|3.5||P value comparing the two treatment groups is calculated using ANCOVA with treatment and baseline calcineurin inhibitor type (cyclosporine or tacrolimus) as factors, and baseline measurement and time from transplant to randomization as covariates.|ANCOVA|||12 months||3.5|-35.4|0.108
90987081|NCT00121810|181859679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-24.4||||0.039||95.0|-47.7|-1.2||P value comparing the two treatment groups is calculated using ANCOVA with treatment and baseline calcineurin inhibitor type (cyclosporine or tacrolimus) as factors, and baseline measurement and time from transplant to randomization as covariates.|ANCOVA|||24 months||-1.2|-47.7|0.039
90987082|NCT00121810|181859680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.7|||<|0.001||95.0|4.1|13.3||P value comparing the two treatment groups is calculated using ANCOVA with treatment and baseline calcineurin inhibitor type (cyclosporine or tacrolimus) as factors, and baseline measurement and time from transplant to randomization as covariates.|ANCOVA|||6 months||13.3|4.1|<0.001
91041473|NCT01243151|181967845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-104.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.679|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-122.13|-87.35|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-87.35|-122.13|<0.0001
90987083|NCT00121810|181859680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.9||||0.029||95.0|0.7|13.1||P value comparing the two treatment groups is calculated using ANCOVA with treatment and baseline calcineurin inhibitor type (cyclosporine or tacrolimus) as factors, and baseline measurement and time from transplant to randomization as covariates.|ANCOVA|||12 months||13.1|0.7|0.029
90987084|NCT00121810|181859680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.8||||0.015||95.0|1.7|15.9||P value comparing the two treatment groups is calculated using ANCOVA with treatment and baseline calcineurin inhibitor type (cyclosporine or tacrolimus) as factors, and baseline measurement and time from transplant to randomization as covariates.|ANCOVA|||24 months||15.9|1.7|0.015
90987085|NCT00121810|181859681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.5|||<|0.001||95.0|4.2|12.9||P value comparing the two treatment groups is calculated using ANCOVA with treatment and baseline calcineurin inhibitor type (cyclosporine or tacrolimus) as factors, and baseline measurement and time from transplant to randomization as covariates.|ANCOVA|||6 months||12.9|4.2|<0.001
90987086|NCT00121810|181859681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.8||||0.059||95.0|-0.2|11.9||P value comparing the two treatment groups is calculated using ANCOVA with treatment and baseline calcineurin inhibitor type (cyclosporine or tacrolimus) as factors, and baseline measurement and time from transplant to randomization as covariates.|ANCOVA|||12 months||11.9|-0.2|0.059
90987087|NCT00121810|181859681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.5||||0.036||95.0|0.5|14.5||P value comparing the two treatment groups is calculated using ANCOVA with treatment and baseline calcineurin inhibitor type (cyclosporine or tacrolimus) as factors, and baseline measurement and time from transplant to randomization as covariates.|ANCOVA|||24 months||14.5|0.5|0.036
90952663|NCT03079297|181782788|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2521||||||P-value for Psychosocial function 7 days Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit|MMRM|||||||0.2521
90952664|NCT03079297|181782788|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6635||||||P-value for Psychosocial function 14 days Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit|MMRM|||||||0.6635
90952665|NCT03079297|181782789|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7839||||||P-value for Anhedonia 3 days Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit|MMRM|||||||0.7839
90987088|NCT00633139|181859682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4013|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.4013
90987089|NCT00633139|181859683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2750
90987090|NCT00633139|181859684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1363
90952666|NCT03079297|181782789|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0248||||||P-value for Anhedonia function 7 days Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit|MMRM|||||||0.0248
91041474|NCT01243151|181967845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-97.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.426|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-113.89|-80.11|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-80.11|-113.89|<0.0001
90952667|NCT03079297|181782789|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0199||||||P-value for Anhedonia 14 days Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit|MMRM|||||||0.0199
90952668|NCT02993406|181782790|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.96|||Log Rank|||||0.96|0.79|0.004
90952669|NCT02993406|181782791|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.96|||Log Rank|||||0.96|0.76|0.0058
90952670|NCT02993406|181782792|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.91|||Log Rank|||||0.91|0.66|0.0016
90952671|NCT02993406|181782793|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.92|||Log Rank|||||0.92|0.72|0.0013
90987091|NCT01507246|181859687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|2.62||||0.0251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|6.03|||least-squares mean ratio||Group 1 represents the numerator.|Null hypothesis: Mean ratio of geometric least-squares mean for each group is identical.||6.03|1.14|0.0251
90952672|NCT02993406|181782794|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.1593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.07|||Log Rank|||||1.07|0.67|0.1593
90987092|NCT01507246|181859688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|1.24||||0.02767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.49|||least-squares mean ratio||Group 1 represents the numerator.|Null hypothesis = distribution of costs is identical between the two groups.||1.49|1.03|0.02767
90987093|NCT03103750|181859692|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The primary hypothesis of calcitriol-related differences in amphetamine-induced dopamine release was determined by significance of the main effect of medication (calcitriol vs. placebo) on %change in BPND (i.e., post-Amp relative to pre-Amp scans) at a threshold of p\<0.05.||||0.016
90987094|NCT03103750|181859694|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.55
90987095|NCT01522651|181859718|OTHER|Pairwise Comparative analysis|Percentage Difference|-19.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|25.7||0.493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.5|51.5||An equal-slopes analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was fitted to log-transformed AFB over 12 weeks, with baseline AFB as the covariate. AFB values \< 1% (\> 99%) were set to 1% (99%) before transformation.|ANCOVA|||||51.5|-57.5|0.493
90987096|NCT01522651|181859718|OTHER|Pairwise Comparative analysis|Percentage Difference|8.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|32.9||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.2|98.2||An equal-slopes ANCOVA model was fitted to log-transformed AFB over 12 weeks, with baseline AFB as the covariate. AFB values \< 1% (\> 99%) were set to 1% (99%) before transformation.|ANCOVA|||||98.2|-40.2|0.780
90987097|NCT01522651|181859718|OTHER|Pairwise Comparative analysis|Percentage Difference|-57.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.4||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.8|-20.1||An equal-slopes ANCOVA model was fitted to log-transformed AFB over 12 weeks, with baseline AFB as the covariate. AFB values \< 1% (\> 99%) were set to 1% (99%) before transformation.|ANCOVA|||||-20.1|-76.8|0.008
90987098|NCT01522651|181859718|OTHER|Pairwise Comparative analysis|Percentage Difference|-42.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.5||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.7|5.2||An equal-slopes ANCOVA model was fitted to log-transformed AFB over 12 weeks, with baseline AFB as the covariate. AFB values \< 1% (\> 99%) were set to 1% (99%) before transformation.|ANCOVA|||||5.2|-68.7|0.072
90952673|NCT02993406|181782795|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.6227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.24|||Log Rank|||||1.24|0.88|0.6227
91041475|NCT01243151|181967846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-22.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|29.336||0.448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.08|35.49|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||35.49|-80.08|0.4480
90987099|NCT01522651|181859718|OTHER|Pairwise Comparative analysis||||||0.315||||||An equal-slopes ANCOVA model was fitted to log-transformed AFB over 12 weeks, with baseline AFB as the covariate. AFB values \< 1% (\> 99%) were set to 1% (99%) before transformation.|ANCOVA|||||||0.315
90987100|NCT01522651|181859718|OTHER|Pairwise Comparative analysis||||||0.049||||||An equal-slopes ANCOVA model was fitted to log-transformed AFB over 12 weeks, with baseline AFB as the covariate. AFB values \< 1% (\> 99%) were set to 1% (99%) before transformation.|ANCOVA|||||||0.049
90987101|NCT01522651|181859718|OTHER|Pairwise Comparative analysis||||||0.275||||||An equal-slopes ANCOVA model was fitted to log-transformed AFB over 12 weeks, with baseline AFB as the covariate. AFB values \< 1% (\> 99%) were set to 1% (99%) before transformation.|ANCOVA|||||||0.275
90987102|NCT01522651|181859718|OTHER|Pairwise Comparative analysis||||||0.002||||||An equal-slopes ANCOVA model was fitted to log-transformed AFB over 12 weeks, with baseline AFB as the covariate. AFB values \< 1% (\> 99%) were set to 1% (99%) before transformation.|ANCOVA|||||||0.002
90987103|NCT01522651|181859718|OTHER|Pairwise Comparative analysis||||||0.028||||||An equal-slopes ANCOVA model was fitted to log-transformed AFB over 12 weeks, with baseline AFB as the covariate. AFB values \< 1% (\> 99%) were set to 1% (99%) before transformation.|ANCOVA|||||||0.028
90987104|NCT01522651|181859718|OTHER|Pairwise Comparative analysis||||||0.334||||||An equal-slopes ANCOVA model was fitted to log-transformed AFB over 12 weeks, with baseline AFB as the covariate. AFB values \< 1% (\> 99%) were set to 1% (99%) before transformation.|ANCOVA|||||||0.334
90987105|NCT03478878|181859721|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.83||||0.705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.43|13.11||Result of statistical analyses were considered significant if the p-value from the two-sided test was \<0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|Student's paired t-test||The estimate was the difference in mean change in RIT between baseline and the treatment completion visit.|"Analysis: Student's paired t-test on study eyes alone at a two-sided Type I error rate of 5%.~Null hypothesis: the mean RIT at Baseline = the mean RIT at the treatment completion visit (Month 2 for Cohort 1)."||13.11|-9.43|0.705
90987106|NCT03478878|181859721|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8||||0.577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.43|31.02||Result of statistical analyses were considered significant if the p-value from the two-sided test was \<0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|Student's paired t-test||The estimate was the difference in mean change in RIT between baseline and the treatment completion visit.|"Analysis: Student's paired t-test on study eyes alone at a two-sided Type I error rate of 5%.~Null hypothesis: the mean RIT at Baseline = the mean RIT at the treatment completion visit (Month 1 for Cohort 2)."||31.02|-27.43|0.577
90987107|NCT03478878|181859722|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.87||||0.646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|11.35||Result of statistical analyses were considered significant if the p-value from the two-sided test was \<0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|Student's paired t-test||The estimate was the difference in mean change in RIT between baseline and the treatment completion visit.|"Analysis: Student's paired t-test on study eyes alone at a two-sided Type I error rate of 5%.~Null hypothesis: the mean RIT at Baseline = the mean RIT at the post-treatment follow-up visit (Month 3 for Cohort 1)."||11.35|-7.60|0.646
90987108|NCT03478878|181859722|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3||||0.405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.3|23.9||Result of statistical analyses were considered significant if the p-value from the two-sided test was \<0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|Student's paired t-test||The estimate was the difference in mean change in RIT between baseline and the treatment completion visit.|"Analysis: Student's paired t-test on study eyes alone at a two-sided Type I error rate of 5%.~Null hypothesis: the mean RIT at Baseline = the mean RIT at the post-treatment follow-up visit (Month 2 for Cohort 2)."||23.90|-19.30|0.405
91041476|NCT01243151|181967846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-32.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|30.091||0.2809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-91.8|26.76|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||26.76|-91.80|0.2809
90987109|NCT04688346|181859755|NON_INFERIORITY|t-test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
90987110|NCT00059215|181859756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.933||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.933
90987111|NCT00059215|181859756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.590
90987112|NCT00059215|181859757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.945||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.945
90987113|NCT00059215|181859757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.260
90987114|NCT00059215|181859758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
90987115|NCT00059215|181859758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.544||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.544
90987116|NCT00059215|181859759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.370
90987117|NCT04494633|181859761|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.482314|||||||t-test, 2 sided|The change for each group was analyzed using a 2-tailed, unpaired, independent means, t-test with 61 degrees of freedom.||||||0.482314
90987118|NCT04494633|181859762|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.876964|||||||t-test, 2 sided|The change for each group was analyzed using a 2-tailed, unpaired, independent means, t test with 61 degrees of freedom.||||||.876964
90987119|NCT04494633|181859763|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66602|||||||t-test, 2 sided|The change for each group was analyzed using a 2-tailed, unpaired, independent means, with 61 degrees of freedom.||||||.66602
90987120|NCT04494633|181859764|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.726421|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Two-tailed unpaired t test comparing change for control (Pre to 2 weeks later) to case (Pre- to 2 weeks post) with 61 degrees of freedom.||||||.726421
90987121|NCT04494633|181859765|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.908468|||||||t-test, 2 sided|The statistical test used was a 2 tailed, unpaired t test with 61 degrees of freedom.||||||0.908468
91041477|NCT01243151|181967846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-31.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|29.942||0.2875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-90.9|27.07|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||27.07|-90.90|0.2875
91041478|NCT01243151|181967846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-16.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|29.37||0.5743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.38|41.33|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||41.33|-74.38|0.5743
90987122|NCT04494633|181859766|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.468104|||||||t-test, 2 sided|The groups were compared using a two tailed unpaired t test with 61 degrees of freedom.||||||.468104
90987123|NCT01254604|181859772|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The study was planned to enroll 248 subjects (124 per treatment group) to yield approximately 230 evaluable subjects (115 per treatment group). The study had power of 90% to test the primary hypothesis. The power and sample size were based on the following assumptions for treatment difference in change from baseline in IOP at Week 4: α = 0.025 (1-sided), Non-inferiority margin = 1.5 mmHg, True treatment difference = 0 mmHg, Standard deviation = 3.5 mmHg.|Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-0.7|||ANCOVA|Analysis model includes terms for treatment, baseline IOP and ocular diagnosis (open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension)|Difference is tafluprost - timolol|The study hypothesis was that tafluprost is non-inferior to timolol with respect to change from baseline in diurnal IOP at Week 4 in participants with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension. The study hypothesis would be met if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the between-treatment difference in mean diurnal IOP change from baseline at Week4 (tafluprost - timolol) was ≤1.5 mmHg.||-0.7|-2.6|
90987124|NCT01254604|181859773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|19.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|33.4|||Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen method|Participants were stratified by baseline IOP (\<26 mmHg or ≥26 mmHg at 0800 hours) and ocular diagnosis (open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension)|Between-group difference in percentage of participants with ≥25% reduction in IOP at Week 4 = percentage (tafluprost) - percentage (timolol)|||33.4|5.7|
90987125|NCT01254604|181859774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|9.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Between-group difference in percentage of participants with an AE = percentage (tafluprost) - percentage (timolol)|||9.4|-17.3|
90987126|NCT01254604|181859775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|5.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Between-group difference in percentage of participants discontinued study drug due to an AE = percentage (tafluprost) - percentage (timolol)|||5.7|-3.5|
90952674|NCT02993406|181782796|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.6608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.18|||Log Rank|||||1.18|0.90|0.6608
90952675|NCT04325282|181782799|OTHER|||||||0.04||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Within-group analysis of change after active rTMS (post-rTMS compared to pre-rTMS).||||0.04
90952676|NCT04325282|181782799|OTHER|||||||0.46||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Within-group analysis of change after sham rTMS (post-rTMS compared to pre-rTMS).||||0.46
90952677|NCT04325282|181782799|OTHER|||||||0.12||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Between-group analysis of change induced by active rTMS versus sham rTMS||||0.12
90952678|NCT04325282|181782800|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.|||||<|0.0001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0076.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Within-group analysis of change in cF-iT connectivity during active rTMS (post-rTMS versus pre-rTMS).||||<0.0001
90952679|NCT04325282|181782800|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.69||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0076.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Within-group analysis of change in cF-iT connectivity during sham rTMS (post-rTMS versus pre-rTMS).||||0.69
91041479|NCT01243151|181967846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-19.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|29.336||0.4997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.62|37.96|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||37.96|-77.62|0.4997
90952680|NCT04325282|181782800|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.|||||<|0.0001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0071.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Between-group analysis of change in cF-iT connectivity induced by active versus sham rTMS.||||<0.0001
90952681|NCT04325282|181782800|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.|||||<|0.0001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0076.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Within-group analysis of change in cM-iT connectivity during active rTMS (post-rTMS versus pre-rTMS).||||<0.0001
90952682|NCT04325282|181782800|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.43||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0076.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Within-group analysis of change in cM-iT connectivity during sham rTMS (post-rTMS versus pre-rTMS).||||0.43
91041480|NCT01243151|181967846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-21.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|30.091||0.4756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.78|37.78|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||37.78|-80.78|0.4756
91041481|NCT01243151|181967846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-17.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|30.458||0.561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.73|42.26|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||42.26|-77.73|0.5610
91041482|NCT01243151|181967846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-21.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|29.37||0.4667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-79.27|36.44|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||36.44|-79.27|0.4667
91041483|NCT01243151|181967846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-30.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|29.828||0.3045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-89.45|28.06|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||28.06|-89.45|0.3045
90987127|NCT03074162|181859776|EQUIVALENCE|The statistical model was an variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale including fixed effects for sequence, subject nested within sequence, period and treatment for comparison of B with R.|Geometric Mean (gMean) Ratio (%)|45.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|35.99|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|40.11|51.7|||ANOVA|Only the data for the comparison under investigation were included in the statistical analysis.|gMean Ratio=(B/R) \*100. Standard Error of the mean is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation.|||51.70|40.11|
91041484|NCT01243151|181967846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-23.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|30.091||0.4301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.06|35.5|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||35.50|-83.06|0.4301
91041485|NCT01243151|181967846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-52.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|30.458||0.0881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-112.15|7.85|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||7.85|-112.15|0.0881
90987128|NCT03074162|181859776|EQUIVALENCE|The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale including fixed effects for sequence, subject nested within sequence, period and treatment for comparison of B with A.|Geometric Mean (gMean) Ratio (%)|85.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|42.05|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.11|98.77|||ANOVA|Only the data for the comparison under investigation were included in the statistical analysis.|gMean Ratio=(B/A) \*100. Standard Error of the mean is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation|||98.77|74.11|
90987129|NCT03074162|181859777|EQUIVALENCE|The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale including fixed effects for sequence, subject nested within sequence, period and treatment for comparison of B with R.|Geometric Mean (gMean) Ratio (%)|49.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|38.13|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|43.39|56.71|||ANOVA|Only the data for the comparison under investigation were included in the statistical analysis.|gMean Ratio=(B/R) \*100. Standard Error of the mean is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation.|||56.71|43.39|
90987130|NCT03074162|181859777|EQUIVALENCE|The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale including fixed effects for sequence, subject nested within sequence, period and treatment for comparison of B with A.|Geometric Mean (gMean) Ratio (%)|83.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|72.45|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|66.33|105.31|||ANOVA|Only the data for the comparison under investigation were included in the statistical analysis.|gMean Ratio=(B/A) \*100. Standard Error of the mean is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation|||105.31|66.33|
90987131|NCT01958671|181859781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|-0.76|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Fixed effects for treatment, time, prior anti-hyperglycemic medication, baseline eGFR and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-0.76|-1.22|<0.001
91041486|NCT01243151|181967846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-31.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|29.37||0.2844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-89.36|26.35|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||26.35|-89.36|0.2844
91041487|NCT01243151|181967846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-26.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|29.828||0.3741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-85.32|32.19|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||32.19|-85.32|0.3741
91041488|NCT01243151|181967846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-23.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|30.091||0.4283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.16|35.4|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||35.40|-83.16|0.4283
90987132|NCT01958671|181859781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|-0.93|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Fixed effects for treatment, time, prior anti-hyperglycemic medication, baseline eGFR and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-0.93|-1.39|<0.001
90987133|NCT01958671|181859782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|8.1|||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||8.1|-13.1|
90987134|NCT01958671|181859782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|6.6|||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||6.6|-14.8|
91041489|NCT01243151|181967846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-56.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|30.458||0.0657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-116.31|3.68|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||3.68|-116.31|0.0657
91041490|NCT01243151|181967846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-33.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|29.37||0.2586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-91.11|24.6|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||24.60|-91.11|0.2586
91041491|NCT01243151|181967847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.404||0.3326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.49|10.14|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||10.14|-3.49|0.3326
91041492|NCT01243151|181967847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.502||0.2967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.32|10.7|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||10.70|-3.32|0.2967
91041493|NCT01243151|181967847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.466||0.8812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.42|7.46|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||7.46|-6.42|0.8812
90987135|NCT01958671|181859783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|3.3|||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||3.3|-7.7|
90987136|NCT01958671|181859783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|2.7|||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||2.7|-8.2|
90987137|NCT01958671|181859784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-34.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.76|-26.29|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Fixed effects for treatment, time, prior anti-hyperglycemic medication, baseline eGFR and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-26.29|-42.76|<0.001
91041494|NCT01243151|181967847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.433||0.3227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.45|10.3|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||10.30|-3.45|0.3227
90987138|NCT01958671|181859784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-44.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.28|-35.74|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Fixed effects for treatment, time, prior anti-hyperglycemic medication, baseline eGFR and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-35.74|-52.28|<0.001
90987139|NCT01958671|181859785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.57|-0.95|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Fixed effects for treatment, time, prior anti-hyperglycemic medication, baseline eGFR and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-0.95|-2.57|<0.001
90987140|NCT01958671|181859785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.98|-1.34|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Fixed effects for treatment, time, prior anti-hyperglycemic medication, baseline eGFR and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-1.34|-2.98|<0.001
90987141|NCT01958671|181859786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.85|6.95|||Regression, Logistic|Fixed effects for treatment, prior antihyperglycemic medication, covariates for baseline A1C and baseline eGFR.||||6.95|1.85|<0.001
90987142|NCT01958671|181859786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.46|13.24|||Regression, Logistic|Fixed effects for treatment, prior antihyperglycemic medication, covariates for baseline A1C and baseline||||13.24|3.46|<0.001
91041495|NCT01243151|181967847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|10.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.221||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|18.46|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||18.46|1.56|0.0210
91041496|NCT01243151|181967847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.326||0.1192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|15.49|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||15.49|-1.82|0.1192
91041497|NCT01243151|181967847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.367||0.2529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.69|13.78|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||13.78|-3.69|0.2529
91041498|NCT01243151|181967847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.244||0.0725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|16.25|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||16.25|-0.73|0.0725
91041499|NCT01243151|181967847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.214||0.0405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|13.18|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||13.18|0.30|0.0405
90987143|NCT01958671|181859788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-69.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.24|-54.83|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Fixed effects for treatment, time, prior anti-hyperglycemic medication, baseline eGFR and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-54.83|-83.24|<0.001
90987144|NCT01958671|181859788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-67.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-81.73|-52.93|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Fixed effects for treatment, time, prior anti-hyperglycemic medication, baseline eGFR and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-52.93|-81.73|<0.001
90987145|NCT01958671|181859790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-3.31||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.98|-0.65||Nominal p-value|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Fixed effects for treatment, time, prior anti-hyperglycemic medication, baseline eGFR and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-0.65|-5.98|0.015
90987146|NCT01958671|181859790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.71||||0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|0.98|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Fixed effects for treatment, time, prior anti-hyperglycemic medication, baseline eGFR and the interaction of time by treatment.||||0.98|-4.40|0.213
90987147|NCT01958671|181859792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|-1.8||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.51|-0.09||Nominal p-value|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Fixed effects for treatment, time, prior anti-hyperglycemic medication, baseline eGFR and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-0.09|-3.51|0.039
90987148|NCT01958671|181859792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.37||||0.669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|1.35||Nominal p-value|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Fixed effects for treatment, time, prior anti-hyperglycemic medication, baseline eGFR and the interaction of time by treatment.||||1.35|-2.09|0.669
90987149|NCT02778867|181859793|OTHER|||||||0.58||||||α \< 0.05|Fisher Exact|Two-sided||||||0.58
90987150|NCT02778867|181859794|OTHER|||||||0.06||||||α \< 0.05|Fisher Exact|Two sided||||||0.06
90987151|NCT02778867|181859797|OTHER|||||||0.9||||||α \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.90
90987152|NCT02778867|181859798|OTHER|||||||0.22||||||α \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Two sample t-test||||||0.22
90987153|NCT02778867|181859799|OTHER|||||||0.71||||||α \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.71
90987154|NCT02948777|181859800|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91041500|NCT01243151|181967847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.258||0.0593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|12.8|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||12.80|-0.25|0.0593
91041501|NCT01243151|181967847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.279||0.5936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.81|8.33|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||8.33|-4.81|0.5936
90987155|NCT02948777|181859801|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91041502|NCT01243151|181967847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|9.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.192||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.38|16.17|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||16.17|3.38|0.0034
91041503|NCT01243151|181967847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.428||0.0305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|14.46|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||14.46|0.74|0.0305
91041504|NCT01243151|181967847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.479||0.1252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|12.37|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||12.37|-1.55|0.1252
90987156|NCT02948777|181859802|OTHER|||||||0.31|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.31
90987157|NCT02948777|181859803|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90987158|NCT02948777|181859804|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90987159|NCT02948777|181859805|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90987160|NCT02948777|181859806|OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.27
90987161|NCT02948777|181859807|OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.22
90987162|NCT02948777|181859808|OTHER|||||||0.31|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.31
90987163|NCT02948777|181859809|OTHER|||||||0.61|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.61
90987164|NCT02948777|181859810|OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.11
90987165|NCT02948777|181859811|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.003
90987166|NCT02948777|181859812|OTHER|||||||0.027|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.027
90987167|NCT02948777|181859813|OTHER|||||||0.84|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.84
90987168|NCT02948777|181859814|OTHER|||||||0.59|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.59
90987169|NCT02948777|181859815|OTHER|||||||0.81|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.81
91041505|NCT01243151|181967847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.495||0.2923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.28|10.71|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||10.71|-3.28|0.2923
90987170|NCT02948777|181859816|OTHER|||||||0.91|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.91
90987171|NCT02948777|181859817|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1
90987172|NCT02948777|181859818|OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.68
90987173|NCT02948777|181859819|OTHER|||||||0.013|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.013
90987174|NCT02948777|181859820|OTHER|||||||0.91|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.91
90987175|NCT02948777|181859821|OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.27
90987176|NCT02948777|181859823|OTHER|||||||0.84|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.84
90987177|NCT02948777|181859824|OTHER|||||||0.89|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.89
90987178|NCT02311478|181859825|OTHER|Given that this is a observational cohort design we do not use either non-inferiority or equivalence analysis. Using ANOVA we test for differences in the number of days per month of bleeding between the 90 days pre-insertion, the 90 days following insertion, and 91-180 days following insertion.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.3||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|df=2||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the number of days of bleeding per month at baseline and the days of bleeding per month during 90 days after insertion, and months or 91-180 days following insertion.||2.3|1.2|<0.05
90987179|NCT02311478|181859825|EQUIVALENCE|α of 0.05 or lower.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.93|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||The estimation parameter compares the 90 days following to the 90 days prior.||1.5|0.36|<0.05
90987180|NCT01290484|181859828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean percentage volume change|-3.47||||||||||||||||||
90987181|NCT03242928|181859829|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.087|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|=|0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.161|-0.013|||ANCOVA|||||-0.013|-0.161|= 0.021
90987182|NCT03242928|181859830|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.177|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.077|=|0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.331|-0.023|||ANOVA|||||-0.023|-0.331|= 0.025
91041506|NCT01243151|181967847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.411||0.0297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|14.43|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||14.43|0.78|0.0297
91041507|NCT01243151|181967848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-26.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.117|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.59|-18.1|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-18.10|-34.59|<0.0001
90987183|NCT03242928|181859831|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038|=|0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.146|0.006|||ANCOVA|||||0.006|-0.146|= 0.072
90987184|NCT00943319|181859841|OTHER||Median Survival time|161.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|121.0|305.0|||Product limit survival estimate|||||305|121|
90987185|NCT00943319|181859842|OTHER||Median Disease Free Survival Time|172.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|85.0|436.0||||||Estimated median survival time||436|85|
90987186|NCT02043301|181859843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Ratios (and 90% confidence intervals) were expressed as percentages.|Adjusted Geometric Means Ratio (%)|120.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.99|143.45|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and log-transformed body weight as a covariate.||Thigh (Test) versus Abdomen (Reference)||143.45|101.99|
90987187|NCT02043301|181859843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Ratios (and 90% confidence intervals) were expressed as percentages.|Adjusted Geometric Means Ratio (%)|94.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.2|112.38|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and log-transformed body weight as a covariate.||Upper Arm (Test) versus Abdomen (Reference)||112.38|80.20|
90987188|NCT02043301|181859844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Ratios (and 90% confidence intervals) were expressed as percentages.|Adjusted Geometric Means Ratio (%)|127.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|107.19|152.02|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and log-transformed body weight as a covariate.||Thigh (Test) versus Abdomen (Reference)||152.02|107.19|
90987189|NCT02043301|181859844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Ratios (and 90% confidence intervals) were expressed as percentages.|Adjusted Geometric Means Ratio (%)|86.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|72.49|102.4|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and log-transformed body weight as a covariate.||Upper Arm (Test) versus Abdomen (Reference)||102.40|72.49|
90987190|NCT02043301|181859845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Ratios (and 90% confidence intervals) were expressed as percentages.|Adjusted Geometric Means Ratio (%)|129.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|106.76|158.27|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and log-transformed body weight as a covariate.||Thigh (Test) versus Abdomen (Reference)||158.27|106.76|
90987191|NCT02043301|181859845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Ratios (and 90% confidence intervals) were expressed as percentages.|Adjusted Geometric Means Ratio (%)|100.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.54|121.82|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and log-transformed body weight as a covariate.||Upper Arm (Test) versus Abdomen (Reference)||121.82|82.54|
90987192|NCT02043301|181859850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Ratios (and 90% confidence intervals) were expressed as percentages.|Adjusted Geometric Means Ratio (%)|97.35|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.659|111.943|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and log-transformed baseline LDL-C as a covariate.||||111.943|84.659|
90987193|NCT02043301|181859850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Ratios (and 90% confidence intervals) were expressed as percentages.|Adjusted Geometric Means Ratio (%)|103.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.405|119.557|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and log-transformed baseline LDL-C as a covariate.||||119.557|90.405|
90987194|NCT02043301|181859851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Ratios (and 90% confidence intervals) were expressed as percentages.|Adjusted Geometric Means Ratio (%)|97.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.558|108.926|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and log-transformed baseline LDL-C as a covariate.||||108.926|86.558|
90987195|NCT02043301|181859851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Ratios (and 90% confidence intervals) were expressed as percentages.|Adjusted Geometric Means Ratio (%)|93.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.359|104.912|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and log-transformed baseline LDL-C as a covariate.||||104.912|83.359|
90987196|NCT02043301|181859852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Ratios (and 90% confidence intervals) were expressed as percentages.|Adjusted Geometric Means Ratio (%)|97.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.558|108.926|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and log-transformed baseline LDL-C as a covariate.||||108.926|86.558|
91041508|NCT01243151|181967848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-24.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.325|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.95|-15.63|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-15.63|-32.95|<0.0001
91041509|NCT01243151|181967848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-31.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.182|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.58|-22.83|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-22.83|-39.58|<0.0001
91041510|NCT01243151|181967848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-30.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.169|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.78|-22.08|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-22.08|-38.78|<0.0001
90987197|NCT02043301|181859852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Ratios (and 90% confidence intervals) were expressed as percentages.|Adjusted Geometric Means Ratio (%)|93.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.359|104.912|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and log-transformed baseline LDL-C as a covariate.||||104.912|83.359|
90987198|NCT02043301|181859854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Ratios (and 90% confidence intervals) were expressed as percentages.|Adjusted Geometric Means Ratio (%)|102.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.555|107.717|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and log-transformed baseline LDL-C as a covariate.||||107.717|97.555|
90987199|NCT02043301|181859854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Ratios (and 90% confidence intervals) were expressed as percentages.|Adjusted Geometric Means Ratio (%)|102.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.131|107.151|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and log-transformed baseline LDL-C as a covariate.||||107.151|97.131|
90987200|NCT02043301|181859855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Ratios (and 90% confidence intervals) were expressed as percentages.|Adjusted Geometric Means Ratio (%)|79.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.883|102.735|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and log-transformed baseline LDL-C as a covariate.||||102.735|60.883|
90987201|NCT02043301|181859855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Ratios (and 90% confidence intervals) were expressed as percentages.|Adjusted Geometric Means Ratio (%)|91.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.269|118.248|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and log-transformed baseline LDL-C as a covariate.||||118.248|70.269|
90987202|NCT02043301|181859856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Ratios (and 90% confidence intervals) were expressed as percentages.|Adjusted Geometric Means Ratio (%)|79.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.883|102.735|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and log-transformed baseline LDL-C as a covariate.||||102.735|60.883|
90987203|NCT02043301|181859856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Ratios (and 90% confidence intervals) were expressed as percentages.|Adjusted Geometric Means Ratio (%)|91.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.269|118.248|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and log-transformed baseline LDL-C as a covariate.||||118.248|70.269|
90987204|NCT03703375|181859862|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.0541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.09|||Stratified Cox|Stratified Cox proportional hazards model||||1.09|0.41|0.0541
90987205|NCT03703375|181859863|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56||||0.0166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.96|||Efron|Stratified Cox proportional hazards model||||0.96|0.32|0.0166
90987206|NCT03703375|181859864|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.2139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.33|||Stratified Cox|Stratified Cox proportional hazards model||||1.33|0.51|0.2139
90987207|NCT01703286|181859876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (net)|0.884||||0.5403|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.633|1.235|||ANOVA|||||1.235|0.633|0.5403
90987208|NCT01703286|181859876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (net)|0.884||||0.5402|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.632|1.235|||ANOVA|||||1.235|0.632|0.5402
90987209|NCT01703286|181859876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (net)|1.0||||0.9989|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.715|1.397|||ANOVA|||||1.397|0.715|0.9989
90987210|NCT01703286|181859877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (net)|1.208||||0.3885|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|1.738|||ANOVA|||||1.738|0.840|0.3885
90987211|NCT01703286|181859877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (net)|1.251||||0.3105|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.868|1.801|||ANOVA|||||1.801|0.868|0.3105
90987212|NCT01703286|181859877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (net)|1.035||||0.8749|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.721|1.485|||ANOVA|||||1.485|0.721|0.8749
90987213|NCT01703286|181859878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.2982|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.13|0.03|||ANOVA|||||0.030|-0.130|0.2982
90987214|NCT01703286|181859878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.6601|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.059|0.101|||ANOVA|||||0.101|-0.059|0.6601
90987215|NCT01703286|181859878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.072|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.1412|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.009|0.152|||ANOVA|||||0.152|-0.009|0.1412
90987216|NCT00931892|181859880|OTHER|||||||0.67|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.670
90987217|NCT00931892|181859881|OTHER|||||||0.409|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.409
90987218|NCT00931892|181859882|OTHER|||||||0.387|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.387
90987219|NCT00931892|181859882|OTHER|||||||0.208|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.208
90987220|NCT00931892|181859883|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||P Value for IgA anti-tTG||||0.010
90987221|NCT00931892|181859883|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036|||||||ANOVA|||P Value for IgA/IgG anti-DGP||||0.036
90987222|NCT00931892|181859883|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013|||||||ANOVA|||P Value for IgA anti-tTG||||0.013
90987223|NCT00931892|181859883|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||ANOVA|||P Value for IgA/IgG anti-DGP||||0.006
90987224|NCT00931892|181859885|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||P Value for Celiac Symptom Index (CSI) score for Day 3 of Gluten Challenge||||0.05
90987225|NCT00931892|181859885|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||P Value for Celiac Symptom Index (CSI) Score from baseline to Day 14||||0.020
90987226|NCT00931892|181859885|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||ANOVA|||P Value for Celiac Symptom Index (CSI)score between high gluten group and low gluten group across study||||0.060
90987227|NCT00931892|181859887|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||P Value for the Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale (GSRS) on Day 3 of the Gluten Challenge||||0.01
90987228|NCT00931892|181859887|OTHER|||||||0.012|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||P Value for Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale (GSRS) from baseline to Day 14 of Gluten Challenge||||0.012
90987229|NCT00931892|181859887|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||ANOVA|||P Value for Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale (GSRS) between high gluten group and low gluten group across study||||0.090
91041511|NCT01243151|181967848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-33.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.055|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.42|-23.19|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-23.19|-43.42|<0.0001
90952683|NCT04325282|181782800|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.|||||<|0.0001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0071.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Between-group analysis of change in cM-iT connectivity induced by active versus sham rTMS.||||<0.0001
90952684|NCT04325282|181782800|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.002||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0076.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Within-group analysis of change in iF-cM connectivity during active rTMS (post-rTMS versus pre-rTMS).||||0.002
90952685|NCT04325282|181782800|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.54||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0076.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Within-group analysis of change in iF-cM connectivity during sham rTMS (post-rTMS versus pre-rTMS).||||0.54
90952686|NCT04325282|181782800|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.007||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0071.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Between-group analysis of change in iF-cM connectivity induced by active versus sham rTMS.||||0.007
90952687|NCT04325282|181782800|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.002||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0076.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Within-group analysis of change in iF-iT connectivity during active rTMS (post-rTMS versus pre-rTMS).||||0.002
90952688|NCT04325282|181782800|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.32||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0076.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Within-group analysis of change in iF-iT connectivity during sham rTMS (post-rTMS versus pre-rTMS).||||0.32
90952689|NCT04325282|181782800|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.01||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0071.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Between-group analysis of change in iF-iT connectivity induced by active versus sham rTMS.||||0.01
90952690|NCT04325282|181782800|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.003||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0076.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Within-group analysis of change in iF-cF connectivity during active rTMS (post-rTMS versus pre-rTMS).||||0.003
90952691|NCT04325282|181782800|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.29||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0076.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Within-group analysis of change in iF-cF connectivity during sham rTMS (post-rTMS versus pre-rTMS).||||0.29
90952692|NCT04325282|181782800|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.02||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0071.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Between-group analysis of change in iF-cF connectivity induced by active versus sham rTMS.||||0.02
90952693|NCT04325282|181782800|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.003||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0076.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Within-group analysis of change in iM-cT connectivity during active rTMS (post-rTMS versus pre-rTMS).||||0.003
90952694|NCT04325282|181782800|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.66||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0076.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Within-group analysis of change in iM-cT connectivity during sham rTMS (post-rTMS versus pre-rTMS).||||0.66
90952695|NCT04325282|181782800|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.008||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0071.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Between-group analysis of change in iM-cT connectivity induced by active versus sham rTMS.||||0.008
91041512|NCT01243151|181967848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-34.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.255|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.65|-23.63|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-23.63|-44.65|<0.0001
91041513|NCT01243151|181967848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-42.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.194|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.96|-32.18|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-32.18|-52.96|<0.0001
91041514|NCT01243151|181967848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-41.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.097|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.07|-31.67|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-31.67|-52.07|<0.0001
91041515|NCT01243151|181967848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-37.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.343|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.46|-29.05|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-29.05|-46.46|<0.0001
90952696|NCT04325282|181782800|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.005||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0076.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Within-group analysis of change in iF-cT connectivity during active rTMS (post-rTMS versus pre-rTMS).||||0.005
90952697|NCT04325282|181782800|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.87||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0076.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Within-group analysis of change in iF-cT connectivity during sham rTMS (post-rTMS versus pre-rTMS).||||0.87
91041516|NCT01243151|181967848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-40.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.519|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.04|-31.93|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-31.93|-50.04|<0.0001
90952698|NCT04325282|181782800|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.11||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0071.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Between-group analysis of change in iF-cT connectivity induced by active versus sham rTMS.||||0.11
90952699|NCT04325282|181782800|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.012||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0076.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Within-group analysis of change in iF-iM connectivity during active rTMS (post-rTMS versus pre-rTMS).||||0.012
90952700|NCT04325282|181782800|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.46||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0076.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Within-group analysis of change in iF-iM connectivity during active rTMS (post-rTMS versus pre-rTMS).||||0.46
90952701|NCT04325282|181782800|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.02||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0071.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Between-group analysis of change in iF-iM connectivity induced by active versus sham rTMS.||||0.02
90952702|NCT04325282|181782800|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.01||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0076.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Within-group analysis of change in iT-cT connectivity during active rTMS (post-rTMS versus pre-rTMS).||||0.01
91041517|NCT01243151|181967848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-46.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.441|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.88|-38.08|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-38.08|-55.88|<0.0001
91041518|NCT01243151|181967848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-45.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.363|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.52|-37.03|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-37.03|-54.52|<0.0001
91041519|NCT01243151|181967848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-38.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.616|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.85|-29.37|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-29.37|-47.85|<0.0001
90987230|NCT00719576|181859909|SUPERIORITY|The Wilks lambda test statistic and associated single P value from the MANOVA model were used to test the statistical significance of the difference in the co-primary endpoint between MACI and microfracture.||||||0.001|||||||MANOVA|||The changes from Baseline to Week 104 in KOOS Pain and Function (SRA) scores (co-primary efficacy parameter) were analyzed with a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) model, with the last observation carried forward (LOCF) method for handling missing data. Terms included in the model are treatment and center as class variables and baseline KOOS pain and Function (SRA) as continuous covariates.||||0.001
90987231|NCT00719576|181859910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.717||||||Differences between groups were tested using analysis of variance|ANOVA|ANOVA with terms for treatment and center||||||.717
90987232|NCT00719576|181859911|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel Haenszel Row Mean Score Chi-Square||Differences between groups were tested by the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score chi-squared test for defect fill.||||.920
90987233|NCT00719576|181859912|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016||||||KOOS Response Rate: a participant is regarded as a responder for KOOS if a 10-point improvement in both KOOS Pain and Function (SRA) scores was achieved with respect to Baseline. Otherwise, the patient is regarded as a nonresponder.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p-value was calculated for response categories 'Responded' and 'Not responded' using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel χ2 Test stratified by Center||Differences between groups were tested by the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-squared test stratified by center for responders.||||0.016
90987234|NCT00719576|181859914|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||KOOS activities of daily living p-value \<0.001|ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance was conducted with treatment and center as fixed effects and Baseline subscale as covariate, conducted at α = 0.05 level of significance. Last observation carried forward was used for missing data imputation.||||<0.001
90987235|NCT00719576|181859914|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029||||||KOOS knee-related quality of life p-value 0.029|ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance was conducted with treatment and center as fixed effects and Baseline subscale as covariate, conducted at α = 0.05 level of significance. Last observation carried forward was used for missing data imputation.||||0.029
90987236|NCT00719576|181859914|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||KOOS other symptoms p-value \<0.001|ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance was conducted with treatment and center as fixed effects and Baseline subscale as covariate, conducted at α = 0.05 level of significance. Last observation carried forward was used for missing data imputation.||||<0.001
90987237|NCT04964063|181859944|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|-1.19|||ANOVA||Q1: How intense are the sensation|||-1.19|-1.47|<.0001
90987238|NCT04964063|181859944|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|-1.45|||ANOVA||Q2: How bothered are you by any sensation|||-1.45|-1.77|<.0001
90987239|NCT04964063|181859944|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-1.0|||ANOVA||Q3: How well can you tolerate sensations|||-1.00|-1.33|<.0001
90987240|NCT04964063|181859945|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|-1.7|||ANOVA||Q1: How intense are the sensation|||-1.70|-1.98|<.0001
90987241|NCT04964063|181859945|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|-2.02|||ANOVA||Q2: How bothered are you by any sensation|||-2.02|-2.33|<.0001
90987242|NCT04964063|181859945|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|-1.29|||ANOVA||Q3: How well can you tolerate sensations|||-1.29|-1.61|<.0001
90987243|NCT04964063|181859946|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.43|-2.15|||ANOVA||Q1: How intense are the sensation|||-2.15|-2.43|<.0001
90987244|NCT04964063|181859946|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.79|-2.47|||ANOVA||Q2: How bothered are you by any sensation|||-2.47|-2.79|<.0001
90987245|NCT04964063|181859946|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|-1.7|||ANOVA||Q3: How well can you tolerate sensations|||-1.70|-2.02|<.0001
90987246|NCT04964063|181859947|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.68|-2.4|||ANOVA||Q1: How intense are the sensation|||-2.40|-2.68|<.0001
90987247|NCT04964063|181859947|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.05|-2.73|||ANOVA||Q2: How bothered are you by any sensation|||-2.73|-3.05|<.0001
90987248|NCT04964063|181859947|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-1.87|||ANOVA||Q3: How well can you tolerate sensations|||-1.87|-2.20|<.0001
90987249|NCT04964063|181859948|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.84|-2.55|||ANOVA||Q1: How intense are the sensation|||-2.55|-2.84|<.0001
90987250|NCT04964063|181859948|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.15|-2.83|||ANOVA||Q2: How bothered are you by any sensation|||-2.83|-3.15|<.0001
90987251|NCT04964063|181859948|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|-2.02|||ANOVA||Q3: How well can you tolerate sensations|||-2.02|-2.35|<.0001
90987252|NCT04964063|181859949|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.08|-2.79|||ANOVA||Q1: How intense are the sensation|||-2.79|-3.08|<.0001
90987253|NCT04964063|181859949|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-3.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-3.08|||ANOVA||Q2: How bothered are you by any sensation|||-3.08|-3.40|<.0001
90987254|NCT04964063|181859949|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.53|-2.21|||ANOVA||Q3: How well can you tolerate sensations|||-2.21|-2.53|<.0001
90987255|NCT04964063|181859951|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.81|-15.05|||ANOVA|||||-15.05|-20.81|<.0001
90987256|NCT04964063|181859952|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-31.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.04|-28.36|||ANOVA|||||-28.36|-34.04|<.0001
90987257|NCT04964063|181859953|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-39.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.3|-36.59|||ANOVA|||||-36.59|-42.30|<.0001
90987258|NCT04964063|181859954|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-44.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.24|-41.49|||ANOVA|||||-41.49|-47.24|<.0001
90987259|NCT04964063|181859955|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-48.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.96|-45.12|||ANOVA|||||-45.12|-50.96|<.0001
90987260|NCT04964063|181859956|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-52.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.33|-49.62|||ANOVA|||||-49.62|-55.33|<.0001
91041520|NCT01243151|181967848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-41.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.795|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.78|-31.6|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-31.60|-50.78|<0.0001
90987261|NCT04964063|181859958|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.88|-2.02|||ANOVA|||||-2.02|-2.88|<.0001
90987262|NCT04964063|181859959|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.69|-3.85|||ANOVA|||||-3.85|-4.69|<.0001
90987263|NCT04964063|181859960|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.13|-5.28|||ANOVA|||||-5.28|-6.13|<.0001
90987264|NCT04964063|181859961|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.88|-6.02|||ANOVA|||||-6.02|-6.88|<.0001
90987265|NCT04964063|181859962|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-7.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.45|-6.58|||ANOVA|||||-6.58|-7.45|<.0001
90987266|NCT04964063|181859963|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.87|-7.01|||ANOVA|||||-7.01|-7.87|<.0001
90987267|NCT04964063|181859965|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.46|-5.2|||ANOVA|||||-5.20|-7.46|<.0001
90987268|NCT04964063|181859966|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.64|-10.41|||ANOVA|||||-10.41|-12.64|<.0001
90987269|NCT04964063|181859967|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.66|-13.42|||ANOVA|||||-13.42|-15.66|<.0001
90987270|NCT04964063|181859968|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-16.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.67|-15.41|||ANOVA|||||-15.41|-17.67|<.0001
90987271|NCT04964063|181859969|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.87|-16.58|||ANOVA|||||-16.58|-18.87|<.0001
90987272|NCT04964063|181859970|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.96|-17.72|||ANOVA|||||-17.72|-19.96|<.0001
90987273|NCT04964063|181859972|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|-1.56|||ANOVA|||||-1.56|-2.52|<.0001
90987274|NCT04964063|181859973|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.17|-3.22|||ANOVA|||||-3.22|-4.17|<.0001
90987275|NCT04964063|181859974|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.15|-4.2|||ANOVA|||||-4.20|-5.15|<.0001
90987276|NCT04964063|181859975|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.72|-4.76|||ANOVA|||||-4.76|-5.72|<.0001
90987277|NCT04964063|181859976|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.12|-5.14|||ANOVA|||||-5.14|-6.12|<.0001
90987278|NCT04964063|181859977|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.72|-5.77|||ANOVA|||||-5.77|-6.72|<.0001
90987279|NCT04964063|181859979|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.06|-4.44|||ANOVA|||||-4.44|-6.06|<.0001
90987280|NCT04964063|181859980|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.32|-7.72|||ANOVA|||||-7.72|-9.32|<.0001
90987281|NCT04964063|181859981|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.35|-9.75|||ANOVA|||||-9.75|-11.35|<.0001
90987282|NCT04964063|181859982|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.41|-10.79|||ANOVA|||||-10.79|-12.41|<.0001
90987283|NCT04964063|181859983|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.45|-11.81|||ANOVA|||||-11.81|-13.45|<.0001
90987284|NCT04964063|181859984|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.69|-13.08|||ANOVA|||||-13.08|-14.69|<.0001
90987285|NCT04964063|181859986|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.43|-1.33|||ANOVA|||||-1.33|-2.43|<.0001
90952703|NCT04325282|181782800|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.99||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0076.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Within-group analysis of change in iT-cT connectivity during sham rTMS (post-rTMS versus pre-rTMS).||||0.99
90952704|NCT04325282|181782800|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.04||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0071.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Between-group analysis of change in iT-cT connectivity induced by active versus sham rTMS.||||0.04
90952705|NCT04325282|181782800|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.01||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0076.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Within-group analysis of change in cF-cT connectivity during active rTMS (post-rTMS versus pre-rTMS).||||0.01
90952706|NCT04325282|181782800|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.31||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0076.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Within-group analysis of change in cF-cT connectivity during sham rTMS (post-rTMS versus pre-rTMS).||||0.31
90952707|NCT04325282|181782800|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.05||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0071.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Between-group analysis of change in cF-cT connectivity induced by active versus sham rTMS.||||0.05
90952708|NCT04325282|181782800|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0076.||Within-group analysis of change in cF-cM connectivity during active rTMS (post-rTMS versus pre-rTMS).||||0.03
90952709|NCT04325282|181782800|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.2||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0076.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Within-group analysis of change in cF-cM connectivity during sham rTMS (post-rTMS versus pre-rTMS).||||0.20
90952710|NCT04325282|181782800|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.04||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0071.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Between-group analysis of change in cF-cM connectivity induced by active versus sham rTMS.||||0.04
90952711|NCT04325282|181782800|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.05||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0076.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Within-group analysis of change in cF-iM connectivity during active rTMS (post-rTMS versus pre-rTMS).||||0.05
90952712|NCT04325282|181782800|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.59||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0076.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Within-group analysis of change in cF-iM connectivity during sham rTMS (post-rTMS versus pre-rTMS).||||0.59
90952713|NCT04325282|181782800|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.12||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0071.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Between-group analysis of change in cF-iM connectivity induced by active versus sham rTMS.||||0.12
90952714|NCT04325282|181782800|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.1||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0076.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Within-group analysis of change in iM-iT connectivity during active rTMS (post-rTMS versus pre-rTMS).||||0.10
90952715|NCT04325282|181782800|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.57||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0076.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Within-group analysis of change in iM-iT connectivity during sham rTMS (post-rTMS versus pre-rTMS).||||0.57
90987286|NCT04964063|181859987|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.74|-2.65|||ANOVA|||||-2.65|-3.74|<.0001
90987287|NCT04964063|181859988|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.53|-3.44|||ANOVA|||||-3.44|-4.53|<.0001
90987288|NCT04964063|181859989|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|-4.0|||ANOVA|||||-4.00|-5.10|<.0001
90987289|NCT04964063|181859990|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-5.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|-4.48|||ANOVA|||||-4.48|-5.60|<.0001
90987290|NCT04964063|181859991|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.62|-5.53|||ANOVA|||||-5.53|-6.62|<.0001
90987291|NCT04964063|181859993|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.1091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.01|||ANOVA|||||0.01|-0.12|0.1091
90987292|NCT04964063|181859994|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|-0.06|||ANOVA|||||-0.06|-0.19|<.0001
90987293|NCT04964063|181859995|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|-0.1|||ANOVA|||||-0.10|-0.23|<.0001
90987294|NCT04964063|181859996|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|-0.11|||ANOVA|||||-0.11|-0.24|<.0001
90987295|NCT04964063|181859997|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|-0.13|||ANOVA|||||-0.13|-0.26|<.0001
90987296|NCT04964063|181859998|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|-0.18|||ANOVA|||||-0.18|-0.31|<.0001
90987297|NCT04964063|181860000|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|-1.45|||ANOVA|||||-1.45|-1.95|<.0001
90987298|NCT04964063|181860001|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.94|-2.44|||ANOVA|||||-2.44|-2.94|<.0001
90987299|NCT04964063|181860002|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.35|-2.84|||ANOVA|||||-2.84|-3.35|<.0001
90987300|NCT04964063|181860003|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.69|-3.19|||ANOVA|||||-3.19|-3.69|<.0001
90987301|NCT04964063|181860004|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.06|-3.55|||ANOVA|||||-3.55|-4.06|<.0001
91041521|NCT01243151|181967848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-49.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.722|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.2|-40.3|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-40.30|-59.20|<0.0001
90987302|NCT04964063|181860005|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.51|-4.0|||ANOVA|||||-4.00|-4.51|<.0001
90987303|NCT01397071|181860008|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of change in PAT measurements was made to beef alone vs. beef with avocado 2 hours post-ingestion||||0.052
90987304|NCT01397071|181860009|OTHER||% of baseline|0.58||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance is defined as p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison was made to beef patty alone vs. beef patty with avocado added 3 hours post-ingestion.||||0.03
90987305|NCT03350750|181860010|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Model Effect (Open vs. Closed)|0.22||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.46|||ANCOVA||This is the coefficient for an indicator variable comparing the Open versus Closed shunt group, in a linear regression model with Month 4 gait velocity as the outcome and Baseline gait velocity included as a predictor along with treatment.|||0.46|-0.02|0.071
90987306|NCT03350750|181860011|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.337|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.337
90987307|NCT03350750|181860012|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.007
90987308|NCT03350750|181860013|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.201|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.201
90987309|NCT03350750|181860014|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.172|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.172
90987310|NCT03350750|181860015|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.780
90987311|NCT03350750|181860016|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90987312|NCT03350750|181860017|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.240
90987313|NCT03350750|181860018|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.013
90987314|NCT03350750|181860019|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.019
90987315|NCT03350750|181860020|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.040
90987316|NCT03350750|181860021|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.013
90987317|NCT03350750|181860022|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.235|||||||Fisher Exact|Fisher's exact test with a mid-p-value correction||||||0.235
90987318|NCT00406315|181860027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||One-sided upper confidence limit|-0.53|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||||A one-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was constructed for the mean weight change from baseline to infer whether there was a significant decrease in weight.|Week 16.||||
90987319|NCT00406315|181860027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||One-sided upper confidence limit|-0.33|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||||A one-sided 95% CI was constructed for the mean weight change from baseline to infer whether there was a significant decrease in weight.|Week 16 LOCF. Based on past information, the standard deviation of the mean weight difference was expected to be 2.2. The sample size of the study was estimated so that the one-sided CI of the mean weight decrease has a certain width. To obtain a one-sided CI with a width of 0.27 kg, a sample size of 180 subjects was needed. In other words, we were 95% certain that the true mean weight decrease was in an interval starting from the observed weight decrease and extending 0.27 kg unit above it.||||
90987320|NCT00406315|181860028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.48|2.41||||||Week 16. The arithmetic mean and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI are reported. All CIs are unadjusted for any multiplicity.||2.41|-8.48|
90987321|NCT00406315|181860029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|1.44||||||HDL. The arithmetic mean and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI are reported. All CIs are unadjusted for any multiplicity.||1.44|-1.82|
91041522|NCT01243151|181967848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-48.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.639|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.33|-38.76|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-38.76|-57.33|<0.0001
90987322|NCT00406315|181860029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.07|2.09||||||LDL. The arithmetic mean and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI are reported. All CIs are unadjusted for any multiplicity.||2.09|-7.07|
90987323|NCT00406315|181860029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.44|13.15||||||Triglycerides. The arithmetic mean and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI are reported. All CIs are unadjusted for any multiplicity.||13.15|-16.44|
90987324|NCT00406315|181860030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.14||||||The arithmetic mean and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI are reported. All CIs are unadjusted for any multiplicity.||0.14|-0.02|
90987325|NCT00406315|181860031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|6.15||||||The arithmetic mean and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI are reported. All CIs are unadjusted for any multiplicity.||6.15|-0.09|
90987326|NCT00406315|181860032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean|134.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.43|289.98||||||The arithmetic mean and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI are reported. All CIs are unadjusted for any multiplicity.||289.98|-20.43|
90987327|NCT00406315|181860033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean|-2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.93|0.11||||||Waist. The arithmetic mean and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI are reported. All CIs are unadjusted for any multiplicity.||0.11|-5.93|
90987328|NCT00406315|181860033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|0.1||||||Hip. The arithmetic mean and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI are reported. All CIs are unadjusted for any multiplicity.||0.10|-6.20|
90987329|NCT00406315|181860034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.42||||||Total Score. The arithmetic mean and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI are reported. All CIs are unadjusted for any multiplicity.||0.42|-0.32|
90987330|NCT00406315|181860034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.11||||||Global Severity Score. The arithmetic mean and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI are reported. All CIs are unadjusted for any multiplicity.||0.11|-0.05|
90987331|NCT00406315|181860034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.07||||||Global Incapacitation Score. The arithmetic mean and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI are reported. All CIs are unadjusted for any multiplicity.||0.07|-0.06|
90987332|NCT00406315|181860035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean|-10.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|-7.75||||||Total Score, Week 16. The arithmetic mean and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI are reported. All CIs are unadjusted for any multiplicity.||-7.75|-12.70|
90987333|NCT00406315|181860035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean|-6.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.59|-4.63||||||Total Score, Week 16 LOCF. The arithmetic mean and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI are reported. All CIs are unadjusted for any multiplicity.||-4.63|-8.59|
90987334|NCT00406315|181860035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean|-3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.07|-2.53||||||Positive Subscale Score, Week 16. The arithmetic mean and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI are reported. All CIs are unadjusted for any multiplicity.||-2.53|-4.07|
90987335|NCT00406315|181860035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean|-2.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.03|-1.83||||||Positive Subscale Score, Week 16 LOCF. The arithmetic mean and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI are reported. All CIs are unadjusted for any multiplicity.||-1.83|-3.03|
90987336|NCT00406315|181860035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean|-1.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.36|-0.99||||||Negative Subscale Score, Week 16. The arithmetic mean and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI are reported. All CIs are unadjusted for any multiplicity.||-0.99|-2.36|
90987337|NCT00406315|181860035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean|-0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|-0.35||||||Negative Subscale Score, Week 16 LOCF. The arithmetic mean and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI are reported. All CIs are unadjusted for any multiplicity.||-0.35|-1.48|
90987338|NCT00406315|181860036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean|-0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.61||||||Week 16. The arithmetic mean and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI are reported. All CIs are unadjusted for any multiplicity.||-0.61|-0.90|
90987339|NCT00406315|181860036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean|-0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|-0.36||||||Week 16 LOCF. The arithmetic mean and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI are reported. All CIs are unadjusted for any multiplicity.||-0.36|-0.58|
90987340|NCT00406315|181860037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.52|2.88||||||Week 16. The arithmetic mean and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI are reported. All CIs are unadjusted for any multiplicity.||2.88|2.52|
90987341|NCT00406315|181860037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean|3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.02|3.34||||||Week 16 LOCF. The arithmetic mean and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI are reported. All CIs are unadjusted for any multiplicity.||3.34|3.02|
90987342|NCT00406315|181860038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean|-2.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.27|-1.83||||||Week 16. The arithmetic mean and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI are reported. All CIs are unadjusted for any multiplicity.||-1.83|-3.27|
90987343|NCT00406315|181860038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean|-1.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|-0.99||||||Week 16 LOCF. The arithmetic mean and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI are reported. All CIs are unadjusted for any multiplicity.||-0.99|-2.16|
90987344|NCT00406315|181860039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean|-4.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.95|-3.26||||||Total Score, Week 16. The arithmetic mean and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI are reported. All CIs are unadjusted for any multiplicity.||-3.26|-5.95|
90987345|NCT00406315|181860039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean|-4.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.57|-2.85||||||Total Score, Week 16 LOCF. The arithmetic mean and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI are reported. All CIs are unadjusted for any multiplicity.||-2.85|-5.57|
90987346|NCT00406315|181860039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean|-1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|-0.73||||||Global Rating, Week 16. The arithmetic mean and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI are reported. All CIs are unadjusted for any multiplicity.||-0.73|-1.31|
91041523|NCT01243151|181967849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-22.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.211|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.06|-14.34|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-14.34|-31.06|<0.0001
90987347|NCT00406315|181860039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean|-0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|-0.63||||||Global Rating, Week 16 LOCF. The arithmetic mean and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI are reported. All CIs are unadjusted for any multiplicity.||-0.63|-1.13|
90987348|NCT00406315|181860040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean|7.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.07|9.69||||||Week 16. The arithmetic mean and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI are reported. All CIs are unadjusted for any multiplicity.||9.69|6.07|
90987349|NCT00406315|181860040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean|5.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.89|6.65||||||Week 16 LOCF. The arithmetic mean and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI are reported. All CIs are unadjusted for any multiplicity.||6.65|3.89|
90987350|NCT00406315|181860041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean|10.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.95|15.02||||||Effectiveness, Week 16. The arithmetic mean and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI are reported. All CIs are unadjusted for any multiplicity.||15.02|5.95|
90987351|NCT00406315|181860041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean|10.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.95|15.02||||||Effectiveness, Week 16 LOCF. The arithmetic mean and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI are reported. All CIs are unadjusted for any multiplicity.||15.02|5.95|
90987352|NCT00406315|181860041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean|18.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.94|25.04||||||Side Effect, Week 16. The arithmetic mean and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI are reported. All CIs are unadjusted for any multiplicity.||25.04|11.94|
90987353|NCT00406315|181860041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean|18.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.94|25.04||||||Side Effect, Week 16 LOCF. The arithmetic mean and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI are reported. All CIs are unadjusted for any multiplicity.||25.04|11.94|
90987354|NCT00406315|181860041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean|6.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.98|9.93||||||Convenience, Week 16. The arithmetic mean and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI are reported. All CIs are unadjusted for any multiplicity.||9.93|2.98|
90987355|NCT00406315|181860041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean|6.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.98|9.93||||||Convenience, Week 16 LOCF. The arithmetic mean and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI are reported. All CIs are unadjusted for any multiplicity.||9.93|2.98|
90987356|NCT00406315|181860041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean|15.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.97|20.68||||||Global Satisfaction, Week 16. The arithmetic mean and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI are reported. All CIs are unadjusted for any multiplicity.||20.68|9.97|
90987357|NCT00406315|181860041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean|15.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.97|20.68||||||Global Satisfaction, Week 16 LOCF. The arithmetic mean and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI are reported. All CIs are unadjusted for any multiplicity.||20.68|9.97|
90987358|NCT02202031|181860047|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24||||0.6222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|1.21|||ANCOVA|change from baseline, adjusted for baseline value||||1.21|-0.73|0.6222
90987359|NCT02202031|181860048|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.7695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.47|||ANCOVA|change from baseline, adjusted for baseline value||||0.47|-0.64|0.7695
90987360|NCT02202031|181860049|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.6456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.39|||ANCOVA|change from baseline value, adjusted for baseline value||||0.39|-0.24|0.6456
90987361|NCT02202031|181860050|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.6|||ANCOVA|change from baseline, adjusted for baseline value||||0.60|-0.66|0.9190
90987362|NCT02202031|181860051|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.16||||0.5358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|4.84|||ANCOVA|change from baseline, adjusted for baseline value.||||4.84|-2.51|0.5358
90987363|NCT02202031|181860052|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.72||||0.4663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|6.34|||ANCOVA|change from baseline, adjusted for baseline value||||6.34|-2.90|0.4663
90987364|NCT02202031|181860053|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.17||||0.3134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|6.38|||ANCOVA|change from baseline, adjusted for baseline value||||6.38|-2.05|0.3134
90987365|NCT02202031|181860054|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.76||||0.5146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.05|3.53|||ANCOVA|change from baseline, adjusted for baseline value||||3.53|-7.05|0.5146
90987366|NCT02202031|181860055|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.3611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.16|||ANCOVA|change from baseline, adjusted for baseline value||||0.16|-0.44|0.3611
90987367|NCT02202031|181860056|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43||||0.6722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.43|1.57|||ANCOVA|change from baseline, adjusted for baseline value||||1.57|-2.43|0.6722
90987368|NCT02202031|181860057|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.67||||0.0786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.07|||ANCOVA|change from baseline, adjusted for baseline value||||0.07|-1.4|0.0786
90987369|NCT02202031|181860058|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.04||||0.2284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.87|0.79|||ANCOVA|change from baseline, adjusted for baseline value||||0.79|-2.87|0.2284
90987370|NCT02202031|181860059|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.71||||0.0335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.28|-0.13|||ANCOVA|change from baseline, adjusted for baseline value||||-0.13|-3.28|0.0335
90987371|NCT02202031|181860060|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.8408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.81|||ANCOVA|change from baseline, adjusted for baseline value||||0.81|-0.66|0.8408
90987372|NCT02202031|181860061|SUPERIORITY|adjusted for baseline value, diabetes and the following medications: beta-blockers, alpha-agonists, and sympathomimetic|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.5578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.6|||ANCOVA|||||0.60|-0.32|0.5578
90987373|NCT02202031|181860062|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5578|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline value, diabetes and the following medications: beta-blockers, alpha-agonists, and sympathomimetic.||||||0.5578
90987374|NCT02202031|181860063|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.7301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.31|||ANCOVA|adjusted for baseline value, diabetes and the following medications: beta-blockers, alpha-agonists, and sympathomimetic.||||0.31|-0.79|0.7301
91041524|NCT01243151|181967849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-18.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.315|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.17|-10.03|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-10.03|-27.17|<0.0001
90987375|NCT02202031|181860064|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43||||0.6646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.04|||ANCOVA|adjusted for baseline value, diabetes and the following medications: beta-blockers, alpha-agonists, and sympathomimetic||||0.04|-0.89|0.6646
90987376|NCT02202031|181860065|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4993|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline value, diabetes and the following medications: beta-blockers, alpha-agonists, and sympathomimetic.||||||0.4993
90987377|NCT02202031|181860066|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.59||||0.7506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.05|4.23|||ANCOVA|adjusted for baseline value, diabetes and the following medications: beta-blockers, alpha-agonists, and sympathomimetic.||||4.23|-3.05|0.7506
90987378|NCT02202031|181860067|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.55||||0.6268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.98|3.87|||ANCOVA|adjusted for baseline value, diabetes and the following medications: beta-blockers, alpha-agonists, and sympathomimetic.||||3.87|-6.98|0.6268
90987379|NCT00321984|181860072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05||||||The overall 0.0025 level of significance for the multiple comparisons of each dexlansoprazole MR dose to placebo was controlled using Hochberg's method.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The comparison between the two treatment groups was made using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||||<0.00001
90987380|NCT00321984|181860072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05||||||The overall 0.0025 level of significance for the multiple comparisons of each dexlansoprazole MR dose to placebo was controlled using Hochberg's method.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The comparison between the two treatment groups was made using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||||<0.00001
90987381|NCT00321984|181860072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72941||||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.0025 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The comparison between the two treatment groups was made using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||||0.72941
90987382|NCT00321984|181860074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05||||||The overall 0.0025 level of significance for the multiple comparisons of each dexlansoprazole MR dose to placebo was controlled using Hochberg's method.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The comparison between the two treatment groups was made using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||||<0.00001
90987383|NCT00321984|181860074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05||||||The overall 0.0025 level of significance for the multiple comparisons of each dexlansoprazole MR dose to placebo was controlled using Hochberg's method.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The comparison between the two treatment groups was made using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||||<0.00001
90987384|NCT00321984|181860074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3146||||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.0025 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The comparison between the two treatment groups was made using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||||0.31460
90952716|NCT04325282|181782800|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.06||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0071.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Between-group analysis of change in iM-iT connectivity induced by active versus sham rTMS.||||0.06
90952717|NCT04325282|181782800|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.12||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0076.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Within-group analysis of change in cM-cT connectivity during active rTMS (post-rTMS versus pre-rTMS).||||0.12
90952718|NCT04325282|181782800|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.69||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0076.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Within-group analysis of change in cM-cT connectivity during sham rTMS (post-rTMS versus pre-rTMS).||||0.69
90987385|NCT03078608|181860091|SUPERIORITY||F statistic|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||1.00
90987386|NCT03078608|181860092|SUPERIORITY||F statistic|2.58||||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.11
90987387|NCT03078608|181860093|SUPERIORITY||F statistic|0.07||||0.79|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.79
90987388|NCT03078608|181860094|SUPERIORITY||F statistic|1.17||||0.29|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.29
90987389|NCT03078608|181860095|SUPERIORITY||F statistic|0.18||||0.67|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.67
90987390|NCT03078608|181860096|SUPERIORITY||F statistic|1.41||||0.24|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.24
90987391|NCT03078608|181860097|SUPERIORITY||F statistic|1.36||||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.25
90987392|NCT03078608|181860098|SUPERIORITY||F statistic|0.53||||0.47|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.47
90987393|NCT03078608|181860099|SUPERIORITY||F statistic|1.54||||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.23
90987394|NCT03078608|181860100|SUPERIORITY||F statistic|0.8||||0.39|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.39
90987395|NCT01905397|181860122|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|0.05||||0.27|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.27
90987396|NCT04172831|181860200|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.1|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Treatment Difference = TNX-102 - Placebo|||-0.1|-0.7|0.010
90987397|NCT04172831|181860201|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|2.1|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.10|0.99|0.058
90987398|NCT04172831|181860202|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|-1.2|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Treatment Difference = TNX-102 - Placebo|||-1.2|-7.5|0.007
90987399|NCT04172831|181860203|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.69||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|-1.1|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Treatment Difference = TNX-102 - Placebo|||-1.1|-7.7|0.009
90987400|NCT04172831|181860204|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|-1.3|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Treatment Difference = TNX-102 - Placebo|||-1.3|-4.5|<0.001
90987401|NCT04172831|181860205|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-0.3|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Treatment Difference = TNX-102 - Placebo|||-0.3|-3.3|0.018
90987402|NCT04172831|181860206|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.3|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Treatment Difference = TNX-102 - Placebo|||-0.3|-0.9|<0.001
90987403|NCT04036136|181860207|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin is 0.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36||||0.724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|1.68|||ANCOVA|||Model covariates are Baseline SHAPS, age, and sex.||1.68|-2.41|0.724
90987404|NCT04036136|181860208|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin is 0.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.043||||0.292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.124|0.038|||Regression, Linear|||Model covariates are Baseline fMRI, age, and sex.||0.038|-0.124|0.292
91041525|NCT01243151|181967849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-27.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.274|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.46|-19.49|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-19.49|-36.46|<0.0001
90987405|NCT04036136|181860209|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin is 0.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.148||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.316|0.02||The equivalence margin is 0.|Regression, Linear|||Model covariates are Baseline fMRI, age, and sex.||0.020|-0.316|0.084
90987406|NCT01899144|181860212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.87|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.0|32.2|||ANOVA|Mixed effect analysis of variance with fixed effects of sequence, treatment group, and period, and random effect for the patient within sequence|Active - Placebo|"The mean difference between each active group and placebo was tested in a sequential manner:~* Albuterol MDPI 180 mcg to placebo~* Albuterol MDPI 90 mcg to placebo~* ProAir HFA 180 mcg to placebo~* ProAir HFA 90 mcg to placebo Each test was 2 sided and done at the 0.05 level of significance. However, if a test was not significant at this level, no further tests were done. This sequential process assured that the overall alpha level for the entire series was not greater than 0.05."||32.20|13.00|<0.0001
90987407|NCT01899144|181860212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.87|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.6|30.81|||ANOVA|Mixed effect analysis of variance with fixed effects of sequence, treatment group, and period, and random effect for the patient within sequence|Active - Placebo|"The mean difference between each active group and placebo was tested in a sequential manner:~* Albuterol MDPI 180 mcg to placebo~* Albuterol MDPI 90 mcg to placebo~* ProAir HFA 180 mcg to placebo~* ProAir HFA 90 mcg to placebo Each test was 2 sided and done at the 0.05 level of significance. However, if a test was not significant at this level, no further tests were done. This sequential process assured that the overall alpha level for the entire series was not greater than 0.05."||30.81|11.6|<0.0001
90987408|NCT01899144|181860212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.85|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.13|33.23|||ANOVA|Mixed effect analysis of variance with fixed effects of sequence, treatment group, and period, and random effect for the patient within sequence|Active - Placebo|"The mean difference between each active group and placebo was tested in a sequential manner:~* Albuterol MDPI 180 mcg to placebo~* Albuterol MDPI 90 mcg to placebo~* ProAir HFA 180 mcg to placebo~* ProAir HFA 90 mcg to placebo Each test was 2 sided and done at the 0.05 level of significance. However, if a test was not significant at this level, no further tests were done. This sequential process assured that the overall alpha level for the entire series was not greater than 0.05."||33.23|14.13|<0.0001
90987409|NCT01899144|181860212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.85||0.0107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.93|22.05|||ANOVA|Mixed effect analysis of variance with fixed effects of sequence, treatment group, and period, and random effect for the patient within sequence|Active - Placebo|"The mean difference between each active group and placebo was tested in a sequential manner:~* Albuterol MDPI 180 mcg to placebo~* Albuterol MDPI 90 mcg to placebo~* ProAir HFA 180 mcg to placebo~* ProAir HFA 90 mcg to placebo Each test was 2 sided and done at the 0.05 level of significance. However, if a test was not significant at this level, no further tests were done. This sequential process assured that the overall alpha level for the entire series was not greater than 0.05."||22.05|2.93|0.0107
91041526|NCT01243151|181967849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-24.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.207|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.24|-16.54|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-16.54|-33.24|<0.0001
91041527|NCT01243151|181967849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-28.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.211|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.25|-20.53|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-20.53|-37.25|<0.0001
90987410|NCT01899144|181860212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.88||0.7772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|8.23||0.05 level of significance|ANOVA||90 mcg - 180 mcg|Pre-specified, exploratory analysis||8.23|-11.00|0.7772
90987411|NCT01899144|181860212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.87||0.0226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.8|-1.59||0.05 level of significance|ANOVA||90 mcg - 180 mcg|Pre-specified, exploratory analysis||-1.59|-20.80|0.0226
90987412|NCT01899144|181860213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.64|||ANOVA|Mixed effect analysis of variance with fixed effects of sequence, treatment group, and period, and random effect for the patient within sequence|Active - Placebo|"The mean difference between each active group and placebo was tested in a sequential manner:~* Albuterol MDPI 180 mcg to placebo~* Albuterol MDPI 90 mcg to placebo~* ProAir HFA 180 mcg to placebo~* ProAir HFA 90 mcg to placebo Each test was 2 sided and done at the 0.05 level of significance. However, if a test was not significant at this level, no further tests were done. This sequential process assured that the overall alpha level for the entire series was not greater than 0.05."||0.64|0.26|<0.0001
90987413|NCT01899144|181860213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.59|||ANOVA|Mixed effect analysis of variance with fixed effects of sequence, treatment group, and period, and random effect for the patient within sequence|Active - Placebo|"The mean difference between each active group and placebo was tested in a sequential manner:~* Albuterol MDPI 180 mcg to placebo~* Albuterol MDPI 90 mcg to placebo~* ProAir HFA 180 mcg to placebo~* ProAir HFA 90 mcg to placebo Each test was 2 sided and done at the 0.05 level of significance. However, if a test was not significant at this level, no further tests were done. This sequential process assured that the overall alpha level for the entire series was not greater than 0.05."||0.59|0.21|<0.0001
90987414|NCT01899144|181860213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.64|||ANOVA|Mixed effect analysis of variance with fixed effects of sequence, treatment group, and period, and random effect for the patient within sequence|Active - Placebo|"The mean difference between each active group and placebo was tested in a sequential manner:~* Albuterol MDPI 180 mcg to placebo~* Albuterol MDPI 90 mcg to placebo~* ProAir HFA 180 mcg to placebo~* ProAir HFA 90 mcg to placebo Each test was 2 sided and done at the 0.05 level of significance. However, if a test was not significant at this level, no further tests were done. This sequential process assured that the overall alpha level for the entire series was not greater than 0.05."||0.64|0.26|<0.0001
90987415|NCT01899144|181860213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.45|||ANOVA|Mixed effect analysis of variance with fixed effects of sequence, treatment group, and period, and random effect for the patient within sequence|Active - Placebo|"The mean difference between each active group and placebo was tested in a sequential manner:~* Albuterol MDPI 180 mcg to placebo~* Albuterol MDPI 90 mcg to placebo~* ProAir HFA 180 mcg to placebo~* ProAir HFA 90 mcg to placebo Each test was 2 sided and done at the 0.05 level of significance. However, if a test was not significant at this level, no further tests were done. This sequential process assured that the overall alpha level for the entire series was not greater than 0.05."||0.45|0.08|0.0062
90987416|NCT01899144|181860213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.6342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.14||0.05 level of significance|ANOVA||90 mcg - 180 mcg|Pre-specified, exploratory analysis||0.14|-0.23|0.6342
90987417|NCT01899144|181860213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.0||0.05 level of significance|ANOVA||90 mcg - 180 mcg|Pre-specified, exploratory analysis||0.00|-0.38|0.0488
90987418|NCT00866294|181860215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|-1.1||The hypothesis test was conducted with a two-sided significance level of 5% to show the superiority of paroxetine CR relative to placebo.|ANCOVA|The primary analysis was based on an ANCOVA with a model adjusting for baseline HAM-D total score and region (Japan and South Korea).|Mean difference = paroxetine CR minus placebo|||-1.1|-3.8|<0.001
90987419|NCT02222129|181860240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Statistical analysis was performed using SAS, version 9.2 (Statistical Analysis Software, Cary, NC). All power calculations were at the 80% level with an alpha of 0.05. Based upon opioid consumption data previously reported for robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy, a sample size of 74 would be necessary to detect a 10 mg difference in morphine equivalents totaled over the entire hospital stay. (Webster TM, Herrell SD, Chang SS, et al. The Journal of Urology 2005;174(3):912-914.||||0.39
90987420|NCT00916721|181860245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Multiple significance testing:we adjusted p-value by controlling the expected proportion of falsely rejected hypotheses:false discovery rate,Benjamini||||||0.05
90987421|NCT00798967|181860278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002||95.0||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the randomization stratification variable (\<= 6 or \> 6 L/week of PN at baseline)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.002
90987422|NCT00798967|181860279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Last Dosing Visit||||< 0.001
91041528|NCT01243151|181967849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-26.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.315|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.92|-17.79|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-17.79|-34.92|<0.0001
90987423|NCT01354691|181860280|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.67|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.67
90987424|NCT01354691|181860281|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.21|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.21
90987425|NCT01354691|181860282|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.78|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.78
90987426|NCT01354691|181860283|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.83|||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.83
90987427|NCT01354691|181860284|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.77|||||||ANCOVA|||||||=.77
91041529|NCT01243151|181967849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-35.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.318|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.46|-27.33|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-27.33|-44.46|<0.0001
91041530|NCT01243151|181967849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-34.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.207|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.58|-25.88|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-25.88|-42.58|<0.0001
91041531|NCT01243151|181967849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-33.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.246|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.39|-25.53|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-25.53|-42.39|<0.0001
91041532|NCT01243151|181967849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-35.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.315|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.98|-26.85|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-26.85|-43.98|<0.0001
91041533|NCT01243151|181967849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-43.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.318|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.85|-34.71|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-34.71|-51.85|<0.0001
91041534|NCT01243151|181967849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-38.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.207|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.35|-29.65|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-29.65|-46.35|<0.0001
91041535|NCT01243151|181967849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-29.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.246|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.19|-21.34|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-21.34|-38.19|<0.0001
91041536|NCT01243151|181967849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-31.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.315|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.79|-22.65|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-22.65|-39.79|<0.0001
91041537|NCT01243151|181967849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-41.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.318|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.91|-32.78|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-32.78|-49.91|<0.0001
91041538|NCT01243151|181967849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-36.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.207|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.39|-27.69|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-27.69|-44.39|<0.0001
91041539|NCT01243151|181967850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.975||0.269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.53|12.41|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||12.41|-3.53|0.2690
91041540|NCT01243151|181967850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.133||0.2122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.07|13.5|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||13.50|-3.07|0.2122
91041541|NCT01243151|181967850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.054||0.8953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.59|8.67|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||8.67|-7.59|0.8953
91041542|NCT01243151|181967850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.045||0.1723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|13.7|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||13.70|-2.51|0.1723
91041543|NCT01243151|181967850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|14.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.293||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.34|23.56|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||23.56|6.34|0.0010
91041544|NCT01243151|181967850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|10.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.451||0.0179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.95|19.78|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||19.78|1.95|0.0179
91041545|NCT01243151|181967850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|9.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.44||0.0462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|17.96|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||17.96|0.16|0.0462
91041546|NCT01243151|181967850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|11.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.358||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.05|20.52|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||20.52|3.05|0.0091
90987428|NCT01301742|181860287|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ratio calculated as empa and gemfibrozil divided by empa alone|Geometric Mean Ratio|158.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|151.77|165.53|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV)|||165.53|151.77|
90987429|NCT01301742|181860288|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ratio calculated as empa and gemfibrozil divided by empa alone|Geometric Mean Ratio|115.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.8|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|106.15|124.59|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV|||124.59|106.15|
90987430|NCT01301742|181860289|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ratio calculated as empa and gemfibrozil divided by empa alone|Geometric Mean Ratio|158.29|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|151.41|165.49|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV|||165.49|151.41|
90987431|NCT04083222|181860290|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was analyzed using Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) with treatment and screening angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/ angiotensin receptor blockers (ACEi/ARB) dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||||||< 0.001
90987432|NCT04083222|181860291|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.399||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 3||||0.399
90987433|NCT04083222|181860291|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.338||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 8||||0.338
90987434|NCT04083222|181860291|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.207||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 15||||0.207
90987435|NCT04083222|181860291|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.927||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 22||||0.927
90987436|NCT04083222|181860291|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.146||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 29||||0.146
90987437|NCT04083222|181860291|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.055||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 36||||0.055
90987438|NCT04083222|181860291|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.095||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 43||||0.095
90987439|NCT04083222|181860291|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 50||||0.046
90987440|NCT04083222|181860291|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.246||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 57||||0.246
91041547|NCT01243151|181967850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.064||0.0774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|15.45|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||15.45|-0.83|0.0774
90987441|NCT04083222|181860291|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 64||||0.170
90987442|NCT04083222|181860291|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.527||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 78||||0.527
90987443|NCT04083222|181860291|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.167||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 92||||0.167
90987444|NCT04083222|181860291|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.266||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 120||||0.266
90987445|NCT04083222|181860291|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.078||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 141||||0.078
90987446|NCT04083222|181860292|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.661||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 3||||0.661
90987447|NCT04083222|181860292|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 8||||<0.001
90987448|NCT04083222|181860292|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 15||||<0.001
90987449|NCT04083222|181860292|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 22||||<0.001
90987450|NCT04083222|181860292|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 29||||<0.001
90987451|NCT04083222|181860292|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 36||||<0.001
90987452|NCT04083222|181860292|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 43||||<0.001
90987453|NCT04083222|181860292|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 50||||<0.001
90987454|NCT04083222|181860292|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 57||||<0.001
90987455|NCT04083222|181860292|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 64||||<0.001
90987456|NCT04083222|181860292|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 78||||<0.001
91041548|NCT01243151|181967850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.165||0.0909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|15.5|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||15.50|-1.18|0.0909
91041549|NCT01243151|181967850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.157||0.6107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|10.45|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||10.45|-6.20|0.6107
91041550|NCT01243151|181967850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|11.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.076||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.42|19.75|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||19.75|3.42|0.0062
91041551|NCT01243151|181967850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|8.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.712||0.0702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|18.13|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||18.13|-0.74|0.0702
91041552|NCT01243151|181967850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.807||0.1692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.93|16.32|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||16.32|-2.93|0.1692
91041553|NCT01243151|181967850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.819||0.3751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.34|13.96|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||13.96|-5.34|0.3751
91041554|NCT01243151|181967850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|13.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.709||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.23|23.08|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||23.08|4.23|0.0053
91041555|NCT01243151|181967851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-30.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.951|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.56|-22.72|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-22.72|-38.56|<0.0001
91041556|NCT01243151|181967851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-26.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.084|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.8|-18.44|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-18.44|-34.80|<0.0001
91041557|NCT01243151|181967851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-35.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.003|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.29|-27.24|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-27.24|-43.29|<0.0001
91041558|NCT01243151|181967851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-33.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.931|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.3|-25.54|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-25.54|-41.30|<0.0001
91041559|NCT01243151|181967851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-41.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.467|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.34|-30.42|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-30.42|-52.34|<0.0001
91041560|NCT01243151|181967851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-38.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.61|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.36|-26.88|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-26.88|-49.36|<0.0001
91041561|NCT01243151|181967851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-47.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.599|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.64|-36.2|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-36.20|-58.64|<0.0001
91041562|NCT01243151|181967851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-46.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.453|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.87|-36.0|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-36.00|-57.87|<0.0001
91041563|NCT01243151|181967851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-45.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.275|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.96|-36.77|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-36.77|-53.96|<0.0001
91041564|NCT01243151|181967851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-48.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.374|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.58|-39.99|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-39.99|-57.58|<0.0001
91041565|NCT01243151|181967851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-54.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.346|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.23|-45.75|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-45.75|-63.23|<0.0001
90987457|NCT04083222|181860292|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 92||||<0.001
90987458|NCT04083222|181860292|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.106||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 120||||0.106
90987459|NCT04083222|181860292|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.318||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 141||||0.318
90987460|NCT04083222|181860293|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.609||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 3||||0.609
90987461|NCT04083222|181860293|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 8||||<0.001
90987462|NCT04083222|181860293|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 15||||<0.001
90987463|NCT04083222|181860293|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 22||||<0.001
90987464|NCT04083222|181860293|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 29||||<0.001
90987465|NCT04083222|181860293|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 36||||<0.001
90987466|NCT04083222|181860293|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 43||||<0.001
90987467|NCT04083222|181860293|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 50||||<0.001
90987468|NCT04083222|181860293|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 64||||<0.001
90987469|NCT04083222|181860293|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 78||||<0.001
90987470|NCT04083222|181860293|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 92||||<0.001
90987471|NCT04083222|181860293|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.112||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 120||||0.112
90987472|NCT04083222|181860293|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.371||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 141||||0.371
90987473|NCT04400318|181860294|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.13|30.82|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds Ratio, 95% confidence interval (CI) of the odds ratio and p-value between the dupilumab and placebo group based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted by ICS dose level (medium/high) and region (Eastern Europe/ROW).||30.82|3.13|<0.001
90987474|NCT04400318|181860295|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|21.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.022||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.73|51.25|||MMRM|||The mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) included study intervention, baseline value, region, ICS dose level, visits, study intervention by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction terms all as fixed effects. Region, ICS, study intervention and visits were considered as categorical parameters.||51.25|-7.73|0.138
90987475|NCT04400318|181860296|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measure is reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05. Only 2 secondary outcome measures (#4 and #5) were included in this procedure.|Least square mean difference|-4.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.798|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|-3.34|||MMRM|||MMRM model included study intervention (dupilumab, placebo), baseline value of global lung UCSF mucus scoring, region (Eastern Europe/ROW), ICS dose level (medium/high), visit (up to Week 24), study intervention-by-visit interaction and baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates.||-3.34|-6.50|<0.001
90987476|NCT04400318|181860297|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measure is reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05. Only 2 secondary outcome measures (#4 and #5) were included in this procedure.|Least square mean difference|-53.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|39.562||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-132.09|25.19|||MMRM|||MMRM model included study intervention (dupilumab, placebo), baseline value of trimmed distal \[s\]iRaw at TLC, region (Eastern Europe/ROW), ICS dose level (medium/high), visit (up to Week 24), study intervention-by-visit interaction, and baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates.||25.19|-132.09|0.180
90987477|NCT02078713|181860307|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.22||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison at 7 months post-enrollment||1.22|0.65|0.46
90987478|NCT02078713|181860307|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.1||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison at 4 months post-enrollment||1.10|0.57|0.16
90987479|NCT02078713|181860308|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.05||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|||2.05|1.03|0.03
90987480|NCT02078713|181860309|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.61||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|2.33||P-value calculated in imputed dataset|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|||2.33|1.11|0.01
90987481|NCT02078713|181860310|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.67||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|||1.67|0.74|0.62
90987482|NCT02078713|181860311|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk ratio|1.1||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.04||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The estimation value represents the relative risk of the outcome in the intervention group, compared to relative risk in the control group.|Comparison of patients who wished provider had been less involved to right amount (ref)||3.04|0.40|0.85
90987483|NCT02078713|181860311|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk ratio|1.6||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|3.5||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The estimation value represents the relative risk of the outcome in the intervention group, compared to relative risk in the control group.|Comparison of patients who reported they wished their providers had been more involved, compared to right amount (ref)||3.50|0.73|0.24
90987484|NCT02078713|181860312|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk ratio|1.0||||0.997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.25||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The estimation value represents the relative risk of the outcome in the intervention group, compared to relative risk in the control group.|Comparison of patients who wished provider had expressed preference less strongly to right amount (ref).||2.25|0.45|0.997
91041566|NCT01243151|181967851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-51.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.222|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.25|-43.26|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-43.26|-60.25|<0.0001
91041567|NCT01243151|181967851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-40.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.373|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.58|-32.07|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-32.07|-49.58|<0.0001
91041568|NCT01243151|181967851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-43.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.464|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.68|-34.81|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-34.81|-52.68|<0.0001
90952719|NCT04325282|181782800|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.14||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0071.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Between-group analysis of change in cM-cT connectivity induced by active versus sham rTMS.||||0.14
90952720|NCT04325282|181782800|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.12||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0076.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Within-group analysis of change in iM-cM connectivity during active rTMS (post-rTMS versus pre-rTMS).||||0.12
90952721|NCT04325282|181782800|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.6||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0076.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Within-group analysis of change in iM-cM connectivity during sham rTMS (post-rTMS versus pre-rTMS).||||0.60
90952722|NCT04325282|181782800|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.04||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0071.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Between-group analysis of change in iM-cM connectivity induced by active versus sham rTMS.||||0.04
90952723|NCT04020185|181782815|OTHER||maximum tolerated dose (monotherapy)|1200.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90952724|NCT00527787|181782820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||proportions|4.1||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|7.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by use of low-dose aspirin (Yes/No) at randomization.||The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of subjetcs developing gastric ulcers throughout 6 months of study treatment. A summary, including cumulative frequency and percentage with associated 95% confidence intervals was produced for the observational incidences of gastric ulcers at 6 months. The cumulative proportion of subjects developing gastric ulcers at 6 months was analyzed using the CMH test stratified by use of low-dose aspirin (Yes/No) at randomization.||7.7|1.9|0.001
90952725|NCT00527787|181782821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.001
90987485|NCT02078713|181860312|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk ratio|0.69||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.16||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The estimation value represents the relative risk of the outcome in the intervention group, compared to relative risk in the control group.|Comparison of patients who reported they wished provider had expressed preference more strongly, compared to right amount (ref).||1.16|0.41|0.16
90952726|NCT00527787|181782822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.001
90952727|NCT00527787|181782823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.003
90952728|NCT00527787|181782824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.001
90952729|NCT02783027|181782829|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Two sample t-test on the change in sleep quality from baseline to 4 months.||||||0.76
90952730|NCT02783027|181782830|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Test for group\*time interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
90952731|NCT02783027|181782831|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Test for group\*time interaction.||||||<0.0001
90952732|NCT02783027|181782832|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Test for group\*time interaction.||||||<0.0001
90952733|NCT02783027|181782833|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Two sample t-test for change in Occupational Fatigue Exhaustion Recovery (OFER) inter-shift recovery between groups||||||0.91
90952734|NCT02175641|181782880|OTHER|Generalized linear mixed-effects models with a logistic link|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.84|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.84|0.62|>0.05
90952735|NCT02175641|181782881|OTHER|Mixed effect models controlling for study site.|Time by treatment interaction coefficien|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.804|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.804
90952736|NCT02175641|181782882|OTHER||Time*treatment interaction coefficient|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.91|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.91
90952737|NCT02175641|181782883|OTHER|Mixed effect models controlling for study site.|time*treatment interaction coefficient|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.64|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.64
90952738|NCT02175641|181782884|OTHER|Mixed effect models controlling for study site.|Time*treatment interaction coefficient|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.38|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.38
90952739|NCT02175641|181782885|OTHER|Mixed effect models controlling for study site.|Time*treatment interaction coefficient|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.39|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.39
90952740|NCT02175641|181782886|OTHER|Mixed effect models controlling for study site.|Time*treatment interaction coefficient|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.52|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.52
90952741|NCT02175641|181782887|OTHER|Mixed effect models controlling for study site.|Time*treatment interaction coefficient|3.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.28||0.24|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.24
90952742|NCT03031496|181782921|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence of hydrochlorothiazide and amiloride hydrochloride was determined.|Least square mean ratio|91.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.77|95.43|||||Comparison of AUC (0-t) of hydrochlorothiazide for test and reference product has been presented.|||95.43|87.77|
90952743|NCT03031496|181782921|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence of hydrochlorothiazide and amiloride hydrochloride was determined.|Least square mean ratio|102.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.12|106.91|||||Comparison of AUC (0-t) of amiloride for test and reference product has been presented.|||106.91|98.12|
90952744|NCT03031496|181782922|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence of hydrochlorothiazide and amiloride hydrochloride was determined.|Least square mean ratio|82.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.37|88.74|||||Comparison of Cmax of hydrochlorothiazide for test and reference product has been presented.|||88.74|77.37|
90952745|NCT03031496|181782922|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence of hydrochlorothiazide and amiloride hydrochloride was determined.|Least square mean ratio|103.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.42|110.86|||||Comparison of Cmax of amiloride for test and reference product has been presented.|||110.86|97.42|
90952746|NCT03031496|181782923|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence of hydrochlorothiazide and amiloride hydrochloride was determined.|Least square mean ratio|92.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.75|96.12|||||Comparison of Tmax of hydrochlorothiazide for test and reference product has been presented.|||96.12|88.75|
90952747|NCT03031496|181782923|OTHER||Least square mean ratio|101.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.84|105.23|||||Comparison of Tmax of amiloride for test and reference product has been presented.|||105.23|97.84|
90952748|NCT01399697|181782942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.700
90952749|NCT01399697|181782943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.328|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.328
90952750|NCT01399697|181782944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.518|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.518
90952751|NCT01399697|181782945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.358|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.358
90952752|NCT01399697|181782946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square (LS) Mean|0.032||||0.674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.119|0.184|||ANCOVA||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as factor and DAS28 value at Week 16 as covariate.|||0.184|-0.119|0.674
90952753|NCT01399697|181782947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-1.873||||0.204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.775|1.03|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and mental component score (MCS) as covariate.|||1.030|-4.775|0.204
90952754|NCT01399697|181782948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|3.376||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.676|6.076|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and physical component score (PCS) as covariate.|||6.076|0.676|0.015
90952755|NCT01399697|181782949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.969||||0.769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.526|7.464|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and VAS performed by the participant at Week 16 as a covariate.|||7.464|-5.526|0.769
90952756|NCT01399697|181782950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-1.216||||0.655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.573|4.141|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and VAS performed by the investigator at Week 16 as covariate.|||4.141|-6.573|0.655
90952757|NCT01712061|181782965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean changes|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.09|||ANCOVA|Bayesian ANCOVA with covariates for baseline UACR and systolic blood pressure (SBP).||||1.09|0.75|
90952758|NCT00504777|181782987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90952759|NCT00504777|181782990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0054|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0054
90952760|NCT01572740|181783002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference, Mean|-1.3|||<|0.0001||95.0|-1.47|-1.13|||ANCOVA|||||-1.13|-1.47|<0.0001
90952761|NCT01572740|181783003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference, Mean|-0.81|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.99|-0.63|||ANCOVA|||||-0.63|-0.99|<0.0001
90952762|NCT01572740|181783004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference, Mean|-0.83|||<|0.0006||95.0|-1.3|-0.36|||ANCOVA|||||-0.36|-1.30|<0.0006
90952763|NCT01572740|181783005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference, Mean|-0.26||||0.2511||95.0|-0.7|0.18|||ANCOVA|||||0.18|-0.70|0.2511
90952764|NCT01572740|181783006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference, Mean|-1.87|||<|0.0001||95.0|-2.37|-1.38|||ANCOVA|||||-1.38|-2.37|<0.0001
90952765|NCT01572740|181783007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference, Mean|-1.28|||<|0.0001||95.0|-1.73|-0.83|||ANCOVA|||||-0.83|-1.73|<0.0001
90952766|NCT01572740|181783008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference, Mean|-0.73||||0.0023||95.0|-1.2|-0.26|||ANCOVA|||||-0.26|-1.20|0.0023
90952767|NCT01572740|181783009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference, Mean|-0.39||||0.1787||95.0|-0.97|0.18|||ANCOVA|||||0.18|-0.97|0.1787
90952768|NCT01572740|181783010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference, Mean|-0.14||||0.4806||95.0|-0.54|0.25|||ANCOVA|||||0.25|-0.54|0.4806
90952769|NCT01572740|181783011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference, Mean|-0.35||||0.2074||95.0|-0.91|0.2|||ANCOVA|||||0.20|-0.91|0.2074
91041569|NCT01243151|181967851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-52.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.437|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.25|-43.48|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-43.48|-61.25|<0.0001
91041570|NCT01243151|181967851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-49.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.312|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.58|-41.31|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-41.31|-58.58|<0.0001
91041571|NCT01243151|181967852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.581||0.9789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.08|38.04|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||38.04|-39.08|0.9789
90987486|NCT02078713|181860313|SUPERIORITY|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.82||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic||The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|||1.82|0.93|0.13
90987487|NCT02078713|181860314|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk ratio|1.13||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.61||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The estimation value represents the relative risk of the outcome in the intervention group, compared to relative risk in the control group.|Comparison of patient decision to both (ref)||1.61|0.79|0.50
90987488|NCT02078713|181860314|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk ratio|2.14||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|5.15||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The estimation value represents the relative risk of the outcome in the intervention group, compared to relative risk in the control group.|Comparison of provider decision to both (ref)||5.15|0.89|0.09
90987489|NCT02078713|181860315|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.71||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|||1.71|0.94|0.12
90987490|NCT02078713|181860316|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.74||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of overall score||1.74|0.80|0.41
90987491|NCT02078713|181860316|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.0496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.8|||Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of informed decision subscale||1.80|1.00|0.0496
90987492|NCT02078713|181860316|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.05||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of uncertainty subscale of DCS||2.05|1.03|0.03
90987493|NCT02078713|181860316|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.59||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of effective decision subscale||1.59|0.80|0.5
90987494|NCT02078713|181860316|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.59||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of values clarity subscale||1.59|0.86|0.31
91041572|NCT01243151|181967852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-11.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.069||0.5525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.46|27.59|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||27.59|-51.46|0.5525
90987495|NCT02078713|181860316|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.49||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of support subscale||1.49|0.76|0.73
90987496|NCT02078713|181860317|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.72||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of correct knowledge - pills are more effective than condoms||1.72|0.94|0.12
90987497|NCT02078713|181860317|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.94|3.62||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of correct knowledge - IUDs are more effective than pills||3.62|1.94|<0.0001
90987498|NCT02078713|181860317|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|2.44||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of correct knowledge - depo is more effective than condoms||2.44|1.29|0.0004
90987499|NCT02078713|181860317|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.92||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|2.71||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of correct knowledge - IUDs are an option for nulliparous young women||2.71|1.36|0.0002
90987500|NCT02078713|181860317|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.86||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|2.71||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of correct knowledge - Methods causing periods to stop are safe.||2.71|1.28|0.001
90987501|NCT02078713|181860317|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.57||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of correct knowledge - LARC can be removed early||1.57|0.85|0.36
90987502|NCT02078713|181860317|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|4.41||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of knowledge - Copper IUD can act as EC||4.41|1.72|<0.0001
90987503|NCT02078713|181860317|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.63||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a regression model in a multiply imputed dataset. This outcome was not adjusted for site due to model being unable to run with imputed data.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of knowledge - After sex, there is something you can do to prevent pregnancy||1.63|0.36|0.49
90987504|NCT02078713|181860317|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.34||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a regression model in a multiply imputed dataset. This outcome was not adjusted for site due to model being unable to run with imputed data.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of knowledge - EC can prevent pregnancy after sex||1.34|0.39|0.31
90987505|NCT02078713|181860317|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.84||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of correct knowledge - pill does not affect fertility||1.84|0.96|0.08
90987506|NCT02078713|181860317|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.65||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.26||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.||Comparison of correct knowledge - patch does not affect fertility|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|2.26|1.2|0.002
91041573|NCT01243151|181967852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-13.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.979||0.5035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.73|25.96|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||25.96|-52.73|0.5035
90987507|NCT02078713|181860317|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|2.35||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of correct knowledge - ring does not affect fertility||2.35|1.23|0.002
90987508|NCT02078713|181860317|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.43||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of correct knowledge - Depo does affect fertility||1.43|0.62|0.77
90987509|NCT02078713|181860317|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.61||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|2.17||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of correct knowledge - Hormonal IUD does not affect fertility||2.17|1.19|0.002
90987510|NCT02078713|181860317|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|2.1||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of correct knowledge - Non-hormonal IUD does not affect fertility||2.1|1.15|0.004
90987511|NCT02078713|181860317|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.54||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|2.07||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of correct knowledge - Implant does not affect fertility||2.07|1.14|0.005
90987512|NCT02078713|181860317|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.75|3.49||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic||OR calculated in multiply imputed dataset. Intervention patients had 2.47 times the odds of control patients to give correct answer.|Comparison of correct knowledge - composite IUD knowledge item (all correct responses on items related to IUD knowledge, versus any incorrect)||3.49|1.75|<0.0001
90987513|NCT02078713|181860318|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.61||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of percentage of patients giving top score at baseline||1.61|0.88|0.25
90987514|NCT02078713|181860318|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.22||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention groups in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of percentage of patients giving top score at 4 months post-enrollment||1.22|0.66|0.5
90987515|NCT02078713|181860318|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.13||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of percentage of patients giving a top score on the 5-point Likert scale at 7 months post-enrollment.||1.13|0.60|0.23
90987516|NCT02078713|181860319|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.25||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|||1.25|0.66|0.55
90987517|NCT02078713|181860320|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.6||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of rating for hormonal IUD. Patients excluded from analysis if they had not heard of hormonal IUD.||1.6|0.92|0.13
90987518|NCT02078713|181860320|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.3||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of rating on non-hormonal IUD. Patients were excluded from this analysis if they reported not having heard of the non-hormonal IUD in the post-visit survey.||1.3|0.75|0.92
90987519|NCT02078713|181860320|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.07||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of rating of implant||1.07|0.67|0.17
91041574|NCT01243151|181967852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.601||0.8302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.81|34.39|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||34.39|-42.81|0.8302
91041575|NCT01243151|181967852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-11.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.581||0.559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.01|27.1|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||27.10|-50.01|0.5590
91041576|NCT01243151|181967852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-11.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.069||0.5558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.36|27.69|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||27.69|-51.36|0.5558
91041577|NCT01243151|181967852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-8.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.332||0.6835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.34|31.74|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||31.74|-48.34|0.6835
91041578|NCT01243151|181967852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-11.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.601||0.5699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.75|27.45|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||27.45|-49.75|0.5699
91041579|NCT01243151|181967852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-17.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.918||0.3826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.64|21.8|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||21.80|-56.64|0.3826
91041580|NCT01243151|181967852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-12.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.069||0.5233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.35|26.7|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||26.70|-52.35|0.5233
91041581|NCT01243151|181967852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-19.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.332||0.3391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.51|20.57|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||20.57|-59.51|0.3391
91041582|NCT01243151|181967852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-17.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.601||0.3606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.55|20.65|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||20.65|-56.55|0.3606
91041583|NCT01243151|181967852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-12.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.918||0.5364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.55|26.89|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||26.89|-51.55|0.5364
91041584|NCT01243151|181967852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-11.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.069||0.5651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.08|27.96|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||27.96|-51.08|0.5651
91041585|NCT01243151|181967852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-14.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.332||0.4719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.69|25.39|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||25.39|-54.69|0.4719
91041586|NCT01243151|181967852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-16.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.601||0.3999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.13|22.07|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||22.07|-55.13|0.3999
91041587|NCT02898740|181967921|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|models were adjusted for age|treatment difference = Exercise - Health Education|||-0.0|-6.8|<0.05
91041588|NCT01710358|181967922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.001
91041589|NCT00799708|181967944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.345||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.345
91041590|NCT00799708|181967944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.166||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.166
91041591|NCT00799708|181967945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.16|0.92|||ANCOVA|||||0.92|-0.16|0.120
91041592|NCT00880334|181967946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.49|||Log Rank|||The study was designed with 80% power to detect 60% improvement in median PFS from 18 to 28.8 weeks (Vandetanib+docetaxel/Placebo+docetaxel hazard ratio of 0.625) with the addition of Vandetanib while maintaining an overall significance level of 5% in a one-sided test. This assumed exponential distribution of events, accrual of 1.75 patients per week (7-8 patients per month) for 78 weeks with 34 weeks of additional follow-up (112 weeks total). Full information was 118 PFS events.||1.49|0.69|0.939
91041593|NCT00880334|181967948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.21||||0.873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.79|||Log Rank|||||1.79|0.81|.873
91041594|NCT00880334|181967949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.56|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.56
91041595|NCT00880334|181967950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.31
91041596|NCT02951195|181968010|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|6.4||||0.0207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|12.6|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||12.6|0.3|0.0207
91041597|NCT02951195|181968010|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|10.5||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|15.9|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||15.9|5.0|0.0002
91041598|NCT02951195|181968010|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|8.8||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|14.5|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||14.5|3.0|0.0019
91041599|NCT02951195|181968010|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|8.3||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|18.7|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||18.7|-2.1|0.0540
90987520|NCT02078713|181860320|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.92||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of rating on condoms. Patients were excluded from this analysis if they reported not having heard of condoms in the post-visit survey.||0.92|0.54|0.009
90987521|NCT02078713|181860320|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.12||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of rating on the shot (Depo Provera). Patients were excluded from this analysis if they reported not having heard of the the shot (Depo Provera) in the post-visit survey.||1.12|0.65|0.26
91041600|NCT02951195|181968011|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|8.7||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|13.8|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||13.8|3.7|0.0007
91041601|NCT02951195|181968012|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-19.5||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.2|-6.8|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-6.8|-32.2|0.0018
91041602|NCT02951195|181968012|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-13.6||||0.0106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.0|-2.1|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-2.1|-25.0|0.0106
91041603|NCT02951195|181968012|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-27.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.6|-16.3|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-16.3|-38.6|<0.0001
91041604|NCT02951195|181968012|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-24.8||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.0|-9.7|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-9.7|-40.0|0.0017
91041605|NCT02951195|181968013|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-23.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.7|-14.1|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-14.1|-33.7|<0.0001
91041606|NCT02951195|181968014|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|12.5||||0.0166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|24.0|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||24.0|1.1|0.0166
91041607|NCT02951195|181968014|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|21.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.2|31.4|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||31.4|11.2|<0.0001
91041608|NCT02951195|181968014|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|17.1||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|27.8|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||27.8|6.3|0.0013
91041609|NCT02951195|181968014|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|14.5||||0.0563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|32.9|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||32.9|-3.8|0.0563
91041610|NCT02951195|181968015|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|13.6||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|21.9|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||21.9|5.3|0.0012
91041611|NCT02951195|181968016|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|14.1||||0.0476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|30.9|||ANCOVA|||||30.9|-2.6|0.0476
91041612|NCT02951195|181968016|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|29.4||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.8|44.0|||ANCOVA|||||44.0|14.8|0.0001
91041613|NCT02951195|181968016|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|26.2||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.3|41.1|||ANCOVA|||||41.1|11.3|0.0006
91041614|NCT02951195|181968016|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.8||||0.2714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|21.2|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||21.2|-11.6|0.2714
91041615|NCT02951195|181968017|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|11.3||||0.0138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|21.2|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||21.2|1.3|0.0138
91041616|NCT04281472|181968074|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.394|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.253|0.614||||||||0.614|0.253|
91041617|NCT05053360|181968099|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.87||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|6.93|||Regression, Logistic|||HIGH PAIN = score over 6 on a 0-10 pain scale (higher number indicating higher pain)||6.93|1.19|.019
91041618|NCT05053360|181968100|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.28||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.47|-1.09|||ANCOVA|||||-1.09|-3.47|.0002
90987522|NCT02078713|181860320|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.11||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of rating on the pill. Patients were excluded from this analysis if they reported not having heard of the pill in the post-visit survey.||1.11|0.64|0.23
90987523|NCT02078713|181860320|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.22||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of rating on the patch. Patients were excluded from this analysis if they reported not having heard of the patch in the post-visit survey.||1.22|0.69|0.55
90987524|NCT02078713|181860320|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.25||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of rating on the pull-out method. Patients were excluded from this analysis if they reported not having heard of the pull-out method in the post-visit survey.||1.25|0.76|0.84
90987525|NCT02078713|181860320|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.02||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of rating on the ring. Patients were excluded from this analysis if they reported not having heard of the ring in the post-visit survey.||1.02|0.64|0.07
90987526|NCT02078713|181860320|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.82||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of rating on female sterilization/tubal ligation. Patients were excluded from this analysis if they reported not having heard of female sterilization/tubal ligation in the post-visit survey.||0.82|0.42|0.002
90987527|NCT02078713|181860320|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.58||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.85||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of rating on male sterilization/vasectomy. Patients were excluded from this analysis if they reported not having heard of male sterilization/vasectomy in the post-visit survey.||0.85|0.4|0.005
90987528|NCT02078713|181860321|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|3.42||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of patients who newly heard of hormonal IUD||3.42|0.71|0.27
90987529|NCT02078713|181860321|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.65||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|3.4||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of patients who newly heard of non-hormonal IUD||3.40|0.80|0.18
91041619|NCT04561115|181968117|EQUIVALENCE|The relative alpha level for statistical significance was 0.1 (alpha=0.05 for one-sided test), or a 90% CI was used for the bioequivalence test.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|0.948|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.926|0.972||||||||0.972|0.926|
91041620|NCT04561115|181968118|EQUIVALENCE|The relative alpha level for statistical significance was 0.1 (alpha=0.05 for one-sided test), or a 90% CI was used for the bioequivalence test.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|0.978|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.937|1.021||||||||1.021|0.937|
91041621|NCT00784095|181968166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.9||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|5.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Intervention (Preparation and Completion) versus True Control at 8 weeks||5.7|.04|.047
91041622|NCT00784095|181968166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|4.7||||||Intervention (Preparation and Completion) versus Attention Control at 8 weeks||4.7|-1.1|
91041623|NCT00784095|181968167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|5.6||||||Intervention (Preparation and Completion) versus True Control at 8 weeks||5.6|-3.2|
91041624|NCT00784095|181968167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|3.3||||||Intervention (Preparation and Completion) versus Attention Control at 8 weeks||3.3|-5.6|
91041625|NCT00784095|181968168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|2.9||||||Intervention (Preparation and Completion) versus True Control at 8 weeks||2.9|-6.2|
91041626|NCT00784095|181968168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|1.0||||||Intervention (Preparation and Completion) versus Attention Control at 8 weeks||1.0|-8.2|
91041627|NCT00784095|181968169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|3.4||||||Intervention (Preparation and Completion) versus True Control at 8 weeks||3.4|-4.5|
91041628|NCT00784095|181968169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|3.0||||||Intervention versus Attention Control at 8 weeks.||3.0|-5.1|
91041629|NCT00784095|181968170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|3.7||||||Intervention (Preparation and Completion) versus True Control at 8 weeks||3.7|-4.8|
90987530|NCT02078713|181860321|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.69||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of patients who newly heard of implant||2.69|0.62|0.5
90987531|NCT02078713|181860321|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|4.89||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of patients who newly heard of the patch||4.89|0.59|0.32
91041630|NCT00784095|181968170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|6.7||||||Intervention (Preparation and Completion) versus Attention Control at 8 weeks.||6.7|-1.9|
91041631|NCT01874535|181968171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.009|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
91041632|NCT02616380|181968174|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|The mean change was tested with a paired t-test without adjusting for baseline disease severity.||||||<0.0001
91041633|NCT02616380|181968175|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Change From Baseline in Physical Component Score at Week 12||||<0.0001
91041634|NCT02616380|181968175|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Change From Baseline in Physical Component Score at Week 24||||<0.0001
91041635|NCT02616380|181968175|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Change From Baseline in Mental Component Score at Week 12||||<0.0001
91041636|NCT02616380|181968175|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Change From Baseline in Mental Component Score at Week 24||||<0.0001
91041637|NCT02616380|181968176|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Change from Baseline in EQ-5D-3L at 12 weeks||||<0.0001
91041638|NCT02616380|181968176|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Change from Baseline in EQ-5D-3L at 24 weeks||||<0.0001
91041639|NCT02616380|181968177|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Change From Baseline in Overall Work Impairment at Week 12||||<0.0001
91041640|NCT02616380|181968177|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Change From Baseline in Overall Work Impairment at Week 24||||<0.0001
91041641|NCT02616380|181968177|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Change From Baseline in Activity Impairment at Week 12||||<0.0001
91041642|NCT02616380|181968177|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Change From Baseline in Activity Impairment at Week 24||||<0.0001
91041643|NCT02616380|181968178|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|The mean change was tested with a paired t-test without adjusting for baseline disease severity.||||||<0.0001
91041644|NCT01929681|181968209|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.049|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.049
91041645|NCT01929681|181968210|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.182|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.182
91041646|NCT01929681|181968211|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.449|||||||Regression, Linear|Mixed effects analysis||||||<0.449
91041647|NCT01929681|181968212|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.444|||||||Regression, Linear|Mixed effects analysis||||||<0.444
91041648|NCT01929681|181968213|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.182|||||||Regression, Linear|Mixed effects analysis||||||<0.182
91041649|NCT03505151|181968224|OTHER||Ratio T/R|44.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|36.9||||90.0|32.62|61.06|||||Standard Error of the mean is actually Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) of the mean|Absolute bioavailability was evaluated using an Analysis of variance model (ANOVA) on BI 409306 AUC0-inf versus 0.1 mg BI 409306 C-13/N-15 i.v. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'subjects' and 'formulation'. The effect 'subjects' was considered as random, whereas 'formulation' was considered as fixed. The dose normalised PK endpoints were log transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model.||61.06|32.62|
90987532|NCT02078713|181860321|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|2.81||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of patients who newly heard of ring||2.81|0.68|0.37
90987533|NCT02078713|181860321|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.73||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of patients who newly heard of male sterilization (vasectomy)||3.73|0.60|0.39
90987534|NCT02078713|181860321|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.73||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of patients who newly heard of female sterilization||3.73|0.6|0.39
90987535|NCT02078713|181860322|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.81||P-value calculated from multiply imputed dataset|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|"The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group rating their appointment as much better, in the numerator, over the odds of the control group giving this rating in the denominator."|Patients excluded from test if they reported not having had a previous contraceptive counseling appointment.||1.81|0.90|0.18
90987536|NCT02078713|181860323|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.54|18.66||P-value calculated in multiple imputed dataset|Regression, Linear|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The estimation parameter is a beta coefficient from a linear regression model, calculated in an imputed dataset. It represents additional minutes in an intervention visit versus a control visit.|||18.66|8.54|<0.001
90987537|NCT02078713|181860324|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.05||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.19|5.29||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset|Regression, Linear|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The estimation parameter is a beta coefficient from a linear regression model, calculated in an imputed dataset. It represents additional minutes in an intervention visit versus a control visit.|||5.29|-3.19|0.63
90987538|NCT02078713|181860325|SUPERIORITY||Observed coefficient|-3.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.34||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.62|2.68|||Regression, Linear||Tool group is compared to control group (ref). Bootstrapping used for standard error.|Test of follow-up score of emotional exhaustion subscale of Maslach Burnout Inventory, controlling for baseline score and site||2.68|-10.62|0.24
90987539|NCT02078713|181860325|SUPERIORITY||Observed coefficient|-1.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.76|1.72|||Regression, Linear||Tool group is compared to control group (ref). Bootstrapping used for standard error|Linear regression of follow-up score for depersonalization subscale of Maslach Burnout Inventory, controlling for baseline score and site.||1.72|-4.76|0.36
90987540|NCT02078713|181860325|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.34||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.61|1.34|||Regression, Linear||Tool group compared to control group (ref). Bootstrapping used for standard error.|Linear regression of follow-up score for personal accomplishment subscale of Maslach Burnout Inventory, controlling for site and baseline score.||1.34|-4.61|0.28
90987541|NCT02078713|181860326|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.65||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|||1.65|0.69|0.78
90987542|NCT02078713|181860327|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.35||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison at 4 months post-enrollment||1.35|0.66|0.75
90987543|NCT02078713|181860327|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.53||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison at 7 months post-enrollment||1.53|0.75|0.71
90987544|NCT02078713|181860328|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.34||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison at 4 months post-enrollment||1.34|0.66|0.75
90987545|NCT02078713|181860328|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.64||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison at 7 months post-enrollment||1.64|0.83|0.37
90987546|NCT02078713|181860329|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|3.37||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison at 4 months post-enrollment||3.37|0.48|0.63
91041650|NCT03505151|181968225|OTHER||Ratio T/R|47.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|68.8||||90.0|27.38|81.55|||||Standard Error of the mean is actually Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) of the mean|Ratios of BI 409306 for Cmax versus 0.1 mg BI 409306 C-13/N-15 i.v. was evaluated using ANOVA model. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'subjects' and 'formulation'. The effect 'subjects' was considered as random, whereas 'formulation' was considered as fixed. The dose normalised PK endpoints were log transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model.||81.55|27.38|
91041651|NCT00421304|181968236|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.218|||||||Wilcoxon's rank-sum test|||||||0.218
91041652|NCT00421304|181968236|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.643|||||||Wilcoxon's rank-sum test|||||||0.643
91041653|NCT00421304|181968236|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.677|||||||Wilcoxon's rank-sum test|||||||0.677
91041654|NCT00421304|181968237|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.257|||||||Wilcoxon's rank-sum test|||||||0.257
91041655|NCT00421304|181968237|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.726|||||||Wilcoxon's rank-sum test|||||||0.726
91041656|NCT00421304|181968237|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.551|||||||Wilcoxon's rank-sum test|||||||0.551
91041657|NCT00421304|181968238|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.591|||||||Wilcoxon's rank-sum test|||||||0.591
90987547|NCT02078713|181860329|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.83||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|3.8||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison at 7 months post-enrollment||3.80|0.88|0.11
91041658|NCT00421304|181968238|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.393|||||||Wilcoxon's rank-sum test|||||||0.393
91041659|NCT00421304|181968238|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.586|||||||Wilcoxon's rank-sum test|||||||0.586
91041660|NCT00421304|181968239|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.894|||||||Wilcoxon's rank-sum test|||||||0.894
90987548|NCT00372190|181860377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
91041661|NCT00421304|181968239|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.674|||||||Wilcoxon's rank-sum test|||||||0.674
91041662|NCT00421304|181968239|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.636|||||||Wilcoxon's rank-sum test|||||||0.636
91041663|NCT00421304|181968240|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.397|||||||Wilcoxon's rank-sum test|||||||0.397
91041664|NCT00421304|181968240|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.238|||||||Wilcoxon's rank-sum test|||||||0.238
90987549|NCT00623467|181860381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.86|<|0.0001||||||for contrast enhancement|paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
91041665|NCT00421304|181968240|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.461|||||||Wilcoxon's rank-sum test|||||||0.461
91041666|NCT00421304|181968241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.322|||||||Wilcoxon's rank-sum test|||||||0.322
91041667|NCT00421304|181968241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.747|||||||Wilcoxon's rank-sum test|||||||0.747
91041668|NCT00421304|181968241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.717|||||||Wilcoxon's rank-sum test|||||||0.717
91041669|NCT00421304|181968242|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.847|||||||Wilcoxon's rank-sum test|||||||0.847
91041670|NCT00421304|181968242|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon's rank-sum test|||||||1.000
91041671|NCT00421304|181968242|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon's rank-sum test|||||||1.000
91041672|NCT00421304|181968243|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.653|||||||Wilcoxon's rank-sum test|||||||0.653
91041673|NCT00421304|181968243|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.283|||||||Wilcoxon's rank-sum test|||||||0.283
91041674|NCT00421304|181968243|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.411|||||||Wilcoxon's rank-sum test|||||||0.411
91041675|NCT00421304|181968244|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.988|||||||Wilcoxon's rank-sum test|||||||0.988
91041676|NCT00421304|181968244|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.832|||||||Wilcoxon's rank-sum test|||||||0.832
91041677|NCT00421304|181968244|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.748|||||||Wilcoxon's rank-sum test|||||||0.748
91041678|NCT00421304|181968245|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Wilcoxon's rank-sum test|||||||0.280
91041679|NCT00421304|181968245|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.108|||||||Wilcoxon's rank-sum test|||||||0.108
91041680|NCT00421304|181968245|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon's rank-sum test|||||||1.000
91041681|NCT00421304|181968246|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.742|||||||Wilcoxon's rank-sum test|||||||0.742
91041682|NCT00421304|181968246|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.486|||||||Wilcoxon's rank-sum test|||||||0.486
91041683|NCT00421304|181968246|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||Wilcoxon's rank-sum test|||||||0.490
91041684|NCT00421304|181968247|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon's rank-sum test|||||||1.000
91041685|NCT00421304|181968248|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon's rank-sum test|||||||0.050
91041686|NCT00421304|181968249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||Wilcoxon's rank-sum test|||||||0.008
91041687|NCT00421304|181968250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||Wilcoxon's rank-sum test|||||||0.012
91041688|NCT00421304|181968251|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon's rank-sum test|||||||<0.001
91041689|NCT00919711|181968271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.0|||ANCOVA||Denosumab - Risedronate|||2.0|1.2|<0.0001
91041690|NCT00919711|181968272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91041691|NCT00919711|181968273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.8|||ANCOVA||Denosumab - Risedronate|||1.8|0.9|<0.0001
91041692|NCT00919711|181968274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|2.8|||ANCOVA||Denosumab - Risedronate|||2.8|1.8|<0.0001
91041693|NCT02940522|181968308|OTHER|Comparison of bioavailability|||||||||||||||||The PK parameters were compared between treatments using an analysis of variance statistical model with treatment as the fixed effect, using the natural logarithms of the data. As the objective was to assess whether comparable exposure could be obtained using the higher SQ dose, the data were not normalized for dose before the statistical analysis.|||
91041694|NCT02940522|181968309|OTHER|Comparison of bioavailability data|||||||||||||||||The PK parameters were compared between treatments using an analysis of variance statistical model with treatment as the fixed effect, using the natural logarithms of the data. As the objective was to assess whether comparable exposure could be obtained using the higher SQ dose, the data were not normalized for dose before the statistical analysis.|||
91041695|NCT02940522|181968310|OTHER|Comparison of bioavailability data|||||||||||||||||The PK parameters were compared between treatments using an analysis of variance statistical model with treatment as the fixed effect, using the natural logarithms of the data. As the objective was to assess whether comparable exposure could be obtained using the higher SQ dose, the data were not normalized for dose before the statistical analysis.|||
91041696|NCT02940522|181968311|OTHER|Comparison of bioavailability data|||||||||||||||||The PK parameters were compared between treatments using an analysis of variance statistical model with treatment as the fixed effect, using the natural logarithms of the data. As the objective was to assess whether comparable exposure could be obtained using the higher SQ dose, the data were not normalized for dose before the statistical analysis.|||
91041697|NCT02940522|181968312|OTHER|Comparison of bioavailability data|||||||||||||||||The PK parameters were compared between treatments using an analysis of variance statistical model with treatment as the fixed effect, using the natural logarithms of the data. As the objective was to assess whether comparable exposure could be obtained using the higher SQ dose, the data were not normalized for dose before the statistical analysis.|||
90987550|NCT00623467|181860381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.85|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.74|<|0.0001||||||for border delineation|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
90987551|NCT00623467|181860381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.53|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.54|<|0.0001||||||for internal morphology|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
90987552|NCT00623467|181860382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.94|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.8|<|0.0001||||||for contrast enhancement|paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
91041698|NCT02940522|181968313|OTHER|Comparison of bioavailability data|||||||||||||||||The PK parameters were compared between treatments using an analysis of variance statistical model with treatment as the fixed effect, using the natural logarithms of the data. As the objective was to assess whether comparable exposure could be obtained using the higher SQ dose, the data were not normalized for dose before the statistical analysis.|||
91041699|NCT00274625|181968314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.60
91041700|NCT03460990|181968335|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|10.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|12.5|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||12.5|7.4|< 0.0001
91041701|NCT03460990|181968336|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-48.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.9|-43.5|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||-43.5|-53.9|<0.0001
91041702|NCT03460990|181968337|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|13.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.8|18.3|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||18.3|8.8|<0.0001
90987553|NCT00623467|181860382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.94|<|0.0001||||||for border delineation|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
91041703|NCT00377572|181968340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed-effects models w/ random intercept and slope (to account for within-subject correlation over time) and visit and group as fixed effects.||Maximum Symptom Day Comparison||||<0.001
91041704|NCT00377572|181968341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed-effects models w/ random intercept and slope (to account for within-subject correlation over time) and visit and group as fixed effects.||||||0.04
91041705|NCT00377572|181968342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1111||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed-effects models w/ random intercept (to account for within-subject correlation) and visit and group as fixed effects.||||||0.1111
91041706|NCT00377572|181968343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed-effects models w/ random intercept and slope (to account for within-subject correlation over time) and visit and group as fixed effects.||Childhood Asthma Control Test comparison||||0.007
90987554|NCT00623467|181860382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.74|<|0.0001||||||for internal morphology|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
90987555|NCT00623467|181860383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.93|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.82|<|0.0001||||||for contrast enhancement|paired t-test|||||||<0.0001
90987556|NCT00623467|181860383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.74|<|0.0001||||||for border delineation|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
90987557|NCT00623467|181860383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.77|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.57|<|0.0001||||||for internal morphology|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
90987558|NCT00623467|181860384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.94|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.77|<|0.0001||||||for contrast enhancement|paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
90987559|NCT00623467|181860384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.71|<|0.0001||||||for border delineation|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
90987560|NCT00623467|181860384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.78|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.53|<|0.0001||||||for internal morphology|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
90987561|NCT00623467|181860385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.66|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.31|||||||||||for BR1|||||
90987562|NCT00623467|181860385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.77|||||||||||for BR2|||||
91041707|NCT00377572|181968344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed-effects models w/ random intercept and slope (to account for within-subject correlation over time) and visit and group as fixed effects.||Asthma Control Test comparison||||0.54
90987563|NCT00623467|181860385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.2|||||||||||for BR3|||||
90987564|NCT00623467|181860385|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|noninferiority margin = -0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.53|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.704|||95% confidence interval for paired means||confidence interval provided for average reader, lower limit is compared to noninferiority margin|||0.704|-0.070|
90987565|NCT00623467|181860386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.89|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.68|<|0.0001||||||for border delineation|paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
90987566|NCT00623467|181860386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.74|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.65|<|0.0001||||||for internal morphology|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
90987567|NCT00623467|181860387|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|noninferiority margin = -0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.6||||95.0|0.03|0.381|||||lower limit of the confidence interval is compared to the noninferiority margin|||0.381|0.030|
90987568|NCT00623467|181860388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.59|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.47|<|0.0001||||||for contrast enhancement|paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
90987569|NCT00623467|181860388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.34|<|0.0001||||||for border delineation|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
90987570|NCT00623467|181860388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.03|<|0.0001||||||for internal morphology|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
90987571|NCT00623467|181860389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.49|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.38|<|0.0001||||||for contrast enhancement|paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
90987572|NCT00623467|181860389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.6|<|0.0001||||||for border delineation|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
90987573|NCT00623467|181860389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.25|<|0.0001||||||for internal morphology|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
90987574|NCT00623467|181860390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.67|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.39|<|0.0001||||||for contrast enhancement|paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
90987575|NCT00623467|181860390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.3|<|0.0001||||||for border delineation|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
90987576|NCT00623467|181860390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.91|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.02|<|0.0001||||||for internal morphology|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
90987577|NCT00623467|181860391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.51|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.32|<|0.0001||||||for contrast enhancement|paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
90987578|NCT00623467|181860391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.27|<|0.0001||||||for border delineation|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
90987579|NCT00623467|181860391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.77|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.99|<|0.0001||||||for internal morphology|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
90987580|NCT00623467|181860392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.48|<|0.0001||||||for contrast enhancement|paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
90987581|NCT00623467|181860392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.93|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.46|<|0.0001||||||for border delineation|paired t test|||||||<0.0001
90987582|NCT00623467|181860392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.62|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.32|<|0.0001||||||for internal morphology|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
90987583|NCT00623467|181860393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.35|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.4|<|0.0001||||||for contrast enhancement|paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
90987584|NCT00623467|181860393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.27|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.38|<|0.0001||||||for border delineation|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
90987585|NCT00623467|181860393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.34|<|0.0001||||||for internal morphology|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
90987586|NCT00623467|181860394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.37|<|0.0001||||||for contrast enhancement|paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
90987587|NCT00623467|181860394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.45|<|0.0001||||||for border delineation|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
90987588|NCT00623467|181860394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.72|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.3|<|0.0001||||||for internal morphology|paired t test|||||||<0.0001
90987589|NCT00623467|181860395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.32|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.34|<|0.0001||||||for contrast enhancement|paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
90987590|NCT00623467|181860395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.3|<|0.0001||||||for border delineation|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
90987591|NCT00623467|181860395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.84|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.22|<|0.0001||||||for internal morphology|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
90987592|NCT00623467|181860397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.82|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.0|<|0.0001||||||for border delineation|paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
90987593|NCT00623467|181860397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.66|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.9|<|0.0001||||||for internal morphology|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
90987594|NCT00623467|181860398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.99|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.63|<|0.0001||||||for border delineation|paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
90987595|NCT00623467|181860398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.85|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.64|<|0.0001||||||for internal morphology|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
90987596|NCT00623467|181860399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|9.4||||0.0002|||||||McNemar|||||||0.0002
90987597|NCT00623467|181860400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|7.3||||0.0001|||||||McNemar|||||||0.0001
90987598|NCT00623467|181860401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.0||||0.0285|||||||McNemar|||||||0.0285
90987599|NCT00623467|181860402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|8.5||||0.0004|||||||McNemar|||||||0.0004
90987600|NCT00623467|181860403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-12.5||||0.0588|||||||McNemar|||||||0.0588
90987601|NCT00623467|181860404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.0||||0.0093|||||||McNemar|||||||0.0093
90987602|NCT00623467|181860405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|20.6||||0.0003|||||||McNemar|||||||0.0003
90987603|NCT00623467|181860406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|||||||McNemar|||||||1.0000
90987604|NCT00623467|181860407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|3.8||||0.0016|||||||McNemar|||||||0.0016
90987605|NCT00623467|181860408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|7.9||||0.0253|||||||McNemar|||||||0.0253
90987606|NCT00623467|181860409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.5||||0.0253|||||||McNemar|||||||0.0253
90987607|NCT00623467|181860410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.7|<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
90987608|NCT00623467|181860411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.84|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.81|<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
90987609|NCT03691623|181860423|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-588.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-719.8|-456.35|||ANCOVA|||||-456.35|-719.8|< 0.001
90987610|NCT03691623|181860423|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-564.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-689.23|-440.02|||ANCOVA|||||-440.02|-689.23|< 0.001
90987611|NCT03691623|181860423|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-716.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-879.92|-552.24|||ANCOVA|||||-552.24|-879.92|< 0.001
90987612|NCT03691623|181860423|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-736.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-916.36|-556.11|||ANCOVA|||||-556.11|-916.36|< 0.001
90987613|NCT03691623|181860424|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-355.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-506.12|-205.69|||ANCOVA|||||-205.69|-506.12|< 0.001
90987614|NCT03691623|181860424|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-326.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-469.68|-183.6|||ANCOVA|||||-183.6|-469.68|< 0.001
90987615|NCT03691623|181860424|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-313.98|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-494.27|-133.69|||ANCOVA|||||-133.69|-494.27|= 0.001
90987616|NCT03691623|181860424|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-312.73|||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-508.05|-117.4|||ANCOVA|||||-117.4|-508.05|= 0.003
90987617|NCT03691623|181860425|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|-2.0|||ANCOVA|||||-2|-5.3|< 0.001
90987618|NCT03691623|181860425|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|-2.4|||ANCOVA|||||-2.4|-5.5|< 0.001
90987619|NCT03691623|181860425|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.0|||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|-1.2|||ANCOVA|||||-1.2|-4.9|= 0.002
90987620|NCT03691623|181860425|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.9|||=|0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|-0.9|||ANCOVA|||||-0.9|-4.9|= 0.006
90987621|NCT03691623|181860427|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.82|||=|0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|0.44|||ANCOVA|||||0.44|-2.09|= 0.199
90987622|NCT03691623|181860427|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.22|||=|0.714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|1.43|||ANCOVA|||||1.43|-0.98|= 0.714
90987623|NCT03691623|181860427|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.19|||=|0.844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|1.77|||ANCOVA|||||1.77|-2.15|= 0.844
90987624|NCT03691623|181860427|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.34|||=|0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.46|0.79|||ANCOVA|||||0.79|-3.46|= 0.21
90987625|NCT03691623|181860428|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.01|||=|0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.37|0.36|||ANCOVA|||||0.36|-2.37|= 0.145
90987626|NCT03691623|181860428|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.65|||=|0.352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.03|0.73|||ANCOVA|||||0.73|-2.03|= 0.352
90987627|NCT03691623|181860428|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.85|||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.55|-1.15|||ANCOVA|||||-1.15|-4.55|= 0.002
90987628|NCT03691623|181860428|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.19|-1.61|||ANCOVA|||||-1.61|-5.19|< 0.001
90987629|NCT03691623|181860429|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-24.081|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.554|-11.607|||ANCOVA|||||-11.607|-36.554|< 0.001
90987630|NCT03691623|181860429|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-25.954|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.695|-14.213|||ANCOVA|||||-14.213|-37.695|< 0.001
90987631|NCT03691623|181860429|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-18.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.176|-9.083|||ANCOVA|||||-9.083|-27.176|< 0.001
90987632|NCT03691623|181860429|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-19.329|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.106|-9.552|||ANCOVA|||||-9.552|-29.106|< 0.001
90987633|NCT03691623|181860430|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.1292|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8491|-1.4093|||ANCOVA|||||-1.4093|-2.8491|< 0.001
90987634|NCT03691623|181860430|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.1129|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7938|-1.4319|||ANCOVA|||||-1.4319|-2.7938|< 0.001
90987635|NCT03691623|181860430|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.2191|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1915|-2.2467|||ANCOVA|||||-2.2467|-4.1915|< 0.001
90987636|NCT03691623|181860430|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.7831|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8522|-1.714|||ANCOVA|||||-1.714|-3.8522|< 0.001
90987637|NCT03691623|181860431|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.67|-1.35|||ANCOVA|||||-1.35|-2.67|< 0.001
90987638|NCT03691623|181860431|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-1.16|||ANCOVA|||||-1.16|-2.4|< 0.001
90987639|NCT03691623|181860431|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.98|||=|0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.43|-0.54|||ANCOVA|||||-0.54|-3.43|= 0.009
90987640|NCT03691623|181860431|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.41|||=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-0.82|||ANCOVA|||||-0.82|-4|= 0.004
90987641|NCT03691623|181860432|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.04|-1.17|||ANCOVA|||||-1.17|-3.04|< 0.001
90987642|NCT03691623|181860432|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.89|-1.11|||ANCOVA|||||-1.11|-2.89|< 0.001
90987643|NCT03691623|181860432|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.06|-0.89|||ANCOVA|||||-0.89|-3.06|< 0.001
90987644|NCT03691623|181860432|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.64|-1.29|||ANCOVA|||||-1.29|-3.64|< 0.001
90987645|NCT03691623|181860433|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||||||< 0.001
90987646|NCT03691623|181860433|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||||||< 0.001
90987647|NCT03691623|181860433|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||||||= 0.001
90987648|NCT03691623|181860433|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||||||< 0.001
90987649|NCT01070550|181860474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.903||||0.0126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.833|0.978|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for age per 10 years. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.978|0.833|0.0126
90987650|NCT01070550|181860474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.966||||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.944|0.989|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Body Mass Index (BMI) in kilogram per square meter (kg/m\^2). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.989|0.944|0.0042
90987651|NCT01070550|181860474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.732|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.656|0.816|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for HCV RNA at Baseline (BL) in log10(IU/mL). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.816|0.656|<0.0001
90987652|NCT01070550|181860474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.686|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.347|2.109|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for liver fibrosis (no cirrhosis vs cirrhosis). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||2.109|1.347|<0.0001
90987653|NCT01070550|181860474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.103||||0.4759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.843|1.442|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for liver fibrosis (not assessed/missed vs cirrhosis). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.442|0.843|0.4759
90987654|NCT01070550|181860474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.656||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.462|0.93|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Alanine transaminase (ALT) ratio at BL (\<=1 vs \> 3). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.930|0.462|0.0180
90987655|NCT01070550|181860474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.742||||0.0262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.965|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for ALT ratio at BL (\> 1 - 3 vs \> 3). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.965|0.570|0.0262
90987656|NCT01070550|181860474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.717||||0.0069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.563|0.913|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for aspartate aminotransferase (AST) ratio at BL (\> 1.5 vs \<=1.5). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.913|0.563|0.0069
90987657|NCT01070550|181860474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.062|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.056|1.067|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for treatment duration after VR in weeks. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.067|1.056|<0.0001
90987658|NCT01070550|181860474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.107||||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.029|1.191|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for cumulative ribavirin dose per 10000 mg, first 12 weeks. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.191|1.029|0.0062
90987659|NCT01070550|181860474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.739||||0.0295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.563|0.97|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for age per 10 years. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.970|0.563|0.0295
91041708|NCT00377572|181968345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed-effects models w/ random intercept and slope (to account for within-subject correlation over time) and visit and group as fixed effects.||FEV1 % of predicted value comparison||||0.30
91041709|NCT00377572|181968346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed-effects models w/ random intercept and slope (to account for within-subject correlation over time) and visit and group as fixed effects.||FEV1:FVC ×100 comparison||||0.81
91041710|NCT00377572|181968347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed-effects models w/ random intercept and slope (to account for within-subject correlation over time) and visit and group as fixed effects.||||||<0.0001
91041711|NCT00377572|181968348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed-effects models w/ random intercept and slope (to account for within-subject correlation over time) and visit and group as fixed effects.||Percent Adherence Comparison||||0.12
90987660|NCT01070550|181860474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.166|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.083|0.329|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for sex (male vs female). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.329|0.083|<0.0001
90987661|NCT01070550|181860474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.049||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.015|1.084|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for treatment duration after VR in weeks. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.084|1.015|0.0048
90987662|NCT01070550|181860474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.797||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.136|28.458|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for cumulative PEG-IFN alfa-2a dose per 1000 ug, first 12 weeks. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||28.458|2.136|0.0019
90987663|NCT01070550|181860474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.638||||0.0255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.431|0.946|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for sex (male vs female). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.946|0.431|0.0255
90987664|NCT01070550|181860474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.755||||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.618|0.922|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for HCV RNA at BL in log10(IU/mL). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.922|0.618|0.0059
90987665|NCT01070550|181860474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.521||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.501|4.236|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for liver fibrosis (no cirrhosis vs cirrhosis). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||4.236|1.501|0.0005
90987666|NCT01070550|181860474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.602||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.463|4.627|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for liver fibrosis (not assessed/missed vs cirrhosis). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||4.627|1.463|0.0011
91041712|NCT00377572|181968349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed-effects models w/ random intercept and slope (to account for within-subject correlation over time) and visit and group as fixed effects.||Step level 1- 2 (mild asthma) Percent Comparison||||0.001
91041713|NCT00377572|181968350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed-effects models w/ random intercept and slope (to account for within-subject correlation over time) and visit and group as fixed effects.||Step level 4 - 6 (severe asthma)percent comparison||||<0.001
90987667|NCT01070550|181860474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.727||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.198|2.491|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for mode of infection (other vs injection drug U). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||2.491|1.198|0.0034
91041714|NCT00377572|181968351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed-effects models w/ random intercept and slope (to account for within-subject correlation over time) and visit and group as fixed effects.||Inhaled glucocorticoids prescribed - mcg per day comparison||||<0.001
91041715|NCT00377572|181968352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed-effects models w/ random intercept and slope (to account for within-subject correlation over time) and visit and group as fixed effects.||Comparison percent prescribed long-acting beta 2 agonists||||0.003
90987668|NCT01070550|181860474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.545||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.376|0.792|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for AST ratio at BL (\> 1.5 vs \<=1.5). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.792|0.376|0.0014
90987669|NCT01070550|181860474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.047|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.029|1.065|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for treatment duration after VR in weeks. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.065|1.029|<0.0001
90987670|NCT01070550|181860474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.896||||0.0074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.827|0.971|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for age per 10 years. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.971|0.827|0.0074
90987671|NCT01070550|181860474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.971||||0.0088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|0.993|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for BMI in kg/m\^2. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.993|0.950|0.0088
90987672|NCT01070550|181860474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.719|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.643|0.803|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for HCV RNA at BL in log10(IU/mL). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.803|0.643|<0.0001
90987673|NCT01070550|181860474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.683|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.346|2.106|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for liver fibrosis (no cirrhosis vs cirrhosis). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||2.106|1.346|<0.0001
90987674|NCT01070550|181860474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.4479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.848|1.453|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for liver fibrosis (not assessed/missing vs cirrhosis). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.453|0.848|0.4479
90987675|NCT01070550|181860474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.64||||0.0123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.451|0.908|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for ALT ratio at BL (\<=1 vs \> 3). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.908|0.451|0.0123
91041716|NCT00377572|181968353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|Hospitalizations were summed over the course of the double-blind \& analyzed with logistic regression (LR) of 'any' vs. 'none'. The LR was unadjusted.||||||0.02
91041717|NCT00377572|181968354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|Exacerbations were summed over the course of the double-blind and analyzed with an LR of 'any' versus 'none'. LR adjusted for study site and dosing.||||||<0.001
91041718|NCT00377572|181968355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.84
91041719|NCT00377572|181968356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.58
90987676|NCT01070550|181860474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72||||0.0147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.553|0.937|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for ALT ratio at BL (\> 1 - 3 vs \> 3). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.937|0.553|0.0147
90987677|NCT01070550|181860474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.718||||0.0071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.564|0.914|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for AST ratio at BL (\> 1.5 vs \<=1.5). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.914|0.564|0.0071
91041720|NCT04980456|181968383|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority in distance VA was declared if the least squares means difference upper confidence limit was less than 0.05.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.003|||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.01||Since a noninferiority hypothesis is being tested, a p-value is not applicable. Confidence limit is being reported and compared to the noninferiority margin.|||LSM results based on mixed effects repeated measures model with both fixed (lens, visit, lens by visit interaction, period, and sequence) and random (subject) effects. Difference = TOTAL30 minus Biofinity|||0.01||
91041721|NCT00500318|181968392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean|116.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|40.113||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.28|195.61|||ANCOVA|||||195.610|37.280|0.0042
91041722|NCT01579006|181968420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||<0.0001
91041723|NCT01579006|181968421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||<0.0001
91041724|NCT01579006|181968422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||<0.0001
91041725|NCT01579006|181968424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||<0.0001
91041726|NCT01579006|181968425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||<0.0001
91041727|NCT01579006|181968431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||<0.0001
90952770|NCT01401153|181783014|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation based on parallel group design --\> revealed that 68 children are needed to detect a difference of 45ms in the mean reaction time between the groups, with α=.05 and a power of 0.8.||||||0.79|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Individual differences of both test days compared on group level (having lunch/skipping lunch vs. skipping lunch/having lunch)||Power calculation had been performed.||||0.79
90952771|NCT01401153|181783015|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No power calculation had been performed based on this measure||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Individual differences of both test days compared on group level (having lunch/skipping lunch vs. skipping lunch/having lunch)||||||0.07
90952772|NCT01401153|181783016|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No power calculation had been performed based on this measure||||||0.61|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Individual differences of both test days compared on group level (having lunch/skipping lunch vs. skipping lunch/having lunch)||||||0.61
90952773|NCT01401153|181783017|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No power calculation had been perfomed based on this measure||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Individual differences of both test days compared on group level (having lunch/skipping lunch vs. skipping lunch/having lunch)||||||0.03
90952774|NCT01401153|181783018|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No power calculation had been performed based on this measure||||||0.25|||||||Generalized linear models|The fixed statement considered treatment, test day and the interaction between treatment and test day||||||0.25
90952775|NCT01401153|181783019|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No power calculation had been performed based on this measure||||||0.7|||||||Generalized linear models|||||||0.70
90952776|NCT01401153|181783020|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No power calculation had been performed based on this measure||||||0.33|||||||Generalized linear models|||||||0.33
90952777|NCT01401153|181783021|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No power calculation had been performed based on this measure||||||0.63|||||||Generalized linear models|||||||0.63
90952778|NCT01401153|181783022|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No power calculation had been performed based on this measure||||||0.62|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Individual differences of both test days compared on group level (having lunch/skipping lunch vs. skipping lunch/having lunch)||||||0.62
90952779|NCT01401153|181783023|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No power calculation had been performed based on this measure||||||0.11|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Individual differences of both test days compared on group level (having lunch/skipping lunch vs. skipping lunch/having lunch)||||||0.11
90952780|NCT01401153|181783024|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No power calculation had been performed based on this measure||||||0.45|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Individual differences of both test days compared on group level (having lunch/skipping lunch vs. skipping lunch/having lunch)||||||0.45
90952781|NCT01401153|181783025|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No power calculation had been performed based on this measure||||||0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Individual differences of both test days compared on group level (having lunch/skipping lunch vs. skipping lunch/having lunch)||||||0.13
90952782|NCT01401153|181783026|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No power calculation had been performed based on this measure||||||0.68|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Individual differences of both test days compared on group level (having lunch/skipping lunch vs. skipping lunch/having lunch)||||||0.68
90952783|NCT01401153|181783027|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No power calculation had been performed based on this measure||||||0.67|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Individual differences of both test days compared on group level (having lunch/skipping lunch vs. skipping lunch/having lunch)||||||0.67
90952784|NCT00392925|181783094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004|||||||ANCOVA|||Based on an Analysis of Covariance model including factors for treatment group, sex, enrollment body mass index (BMI) category, lead-in body weight loss category, and baseline (Day 1) weight as a covariate. The p-value is for testing the null hypothesis of no difference between treatments. Analysis performed two-sided at a 5% significance level to compare treatment groups.||||0.0004
90952785|NCT04145700|181783122|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Hazard Ratio|2.62||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.19|4.46|||Bayesian hierarchical model|||To conclude success for the intervention, the Bayesian analysis must yield a minimum of 99% posterior probability for PFS Hazard ratio less than 1 \[i.e., Pr(HR \< 1) \> 99%\]. The Bayesian analyses below include posterior mean of Hazard ratio, posterior probabilities instead of p-values, and credible intervals instead of confidence intervals.||4.46|1.19|0.051
90952786|NCT01840410|181783139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.502|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.97|12.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||12.91|6.97|<0.001
90952787|NCT02206061|181783160|OTHER|Repeated measure analyses testing the overall treatment effect were performed by fitting the Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) with SFD at the three follow-up time points (3, 5, 7 months) as the dependent variable and treatment as independent variable. Normal error and identity link was specified and standard error was calculated using Sandwich estimator. Baseline SFDs, poverty level, and the presence of smokers in the home were controlled in the regression model.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.6|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<.05
90952788|NCT04662060|181783182|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.04||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant.|Cox proportional hazards model|Two-sided Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for age, sex, and receipt of baseline receipt of monoclonal antibodies.||A two-sided log rank test at the 0.04999 level of significance for the final analysis required 78 events (i.e., sustained symptom resolution) to provide 80% power to detect a hazard ratio of 1.91. Based on previous outpatient COVID-19 trials at Stanford, assumed placebo and treatment arm median time to symptom resolution of 10 and 5 days, respectively, for a total sample size of 120 patients. Participants with missing data lasting through Day 28 were censored on Day 28.||1.04|0.34|0.07
90952789|NCT04662060|181783183|OTHER|||||||0.2||||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant.|Linear mixed-effects regression model|||A generalized linear mixed effects model with parameterization was utilized to capture the difference in change in viral shedding at day 10 between treatment arms. SARS-CoV2 viral RNA CT values were transformed using a standard Reference curve.||||0.20
90952790|NCT04662060|181783185|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.01|||Linear mixed-effects regression model|||||1.01|0.38|0.05
90987678|NCT01070550|181860474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.058|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.052|1.064|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for treatment duration after VR in weeks. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.064|1.052|<0.0001
90987679|NCT01070550|181860474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.014||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.005|1.023|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for cumulative ribavirin dose per 10000 mg. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.023|1.005|0.0019
90987680|NCT01070550|181860474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.701||||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.539|0.913|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for age per 10 years. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.913|0.539|0.0083
90987681|NCT01070550|181860474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.174|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.338|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for sex (male vs female). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.338|0.090|<0.0001
90987682|NCT01070550|181860474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.057||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.023|1.091|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for treatment duration after VR in weeks. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.091|1.023|0.0008
90987683|NCT01070550|181860474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.638||||0.0255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.431|0.946|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for sex (male vs female). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.946|0.431|0.0255
90987684|NCT01070550|181860474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.755||||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.618|0.922|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for HCV RNA at BL in log10(IU/mL). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.922|0.618|0.0059
90987685|NCT01070550|181860474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.521||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.501|4.236|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for liver fibrosis (no cirrhosis vs cirrhosis). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||4.236|1.501|0.0005
90987686|NCT01070550|181860474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.602||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.463|4.627|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for liver fibrosis (not assessed/missing vs cirrhosis). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||4.627|1.463|0.0011
90987687|NCT01070550|181860474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.727||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.198|2.491|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for mode of infection (other vs injection drug U). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||2.491|1.198|0.0034
90987688|NCT01070550|181860474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.545||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.376|0.792|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for AST ratio at BL (\> 1.5 vs \<=1.5). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.792|0.376|0.0014
90987689|NCT01070550|181860474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.822|0.964|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for age per 10 years. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.964|0.822|0.0042
91041728|NCT01579006|181968432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||<0.0001
91041729|NCT01579006|181968433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||<0.0001
91041730|NCT01579006|181968434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||<0.0001
91041731|NCT01579006|181968435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||<0.0001
91041732|NCT01579006|181968437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||<0.0001
91041733|NCT01708954|181968448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.25|0.53|||||Hazard ratio of Arm C/Arm A|||0.53|0.25|
91041734|NCT01708954|181968448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.27|0.55|||||Hazard ratio of Arm B/Arm A|||0.55|0.27|
91041735|NCT01192776|181968453|SUPERIORITY|Generalized Estimating Equations models with log link, adjusted for level of encephalopathy and intra-center correlations|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.98||||||32.0°C for 72 hours vs. 33.5°C for 72 hours (33.5°C for 72 hours is the comparison group)||1.98|0.76|
90987690|NCT01070550|181860474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.824||||0.0363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.687|0.988|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for sex (male vs female). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.988|0.687|0.0363
90987691|NCT01070550|181860474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.842||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.751|0.944|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for HCV RNA at BL in log10(IU/mL). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.944|0.751|0.0033
90987692|NCT01070550|181860474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.477||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.183|1.844|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for liver fibrosis (no cirrhosis vs cirrhosis). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.844|1.183|0.0006
90987693|NCT01070550|181860474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.128||||0.381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.862|1.477|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for liver fibrosis (not assessed/missing vs cirrhosis). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.477|0.862|0.3810
90987694|NCT01070550|181860474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.812||||0.0279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.674|0.978|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for AST ratio at BL (\> 1.5 vs \<=1.5). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.978|0.674|0.0279
90987695|NCT01070550|181860474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|45.894|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.972|75.299|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for On-treatment response (RVR vs no RVR/EVR). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||75.299|27.972|<0.0001
90987696|NCT01070550|181860474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|32.176|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.129|51.434|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for on-treatment response (cEVR vs no RVR/EVR). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||51.434|20.129|<0.0001
90987697|NCT01070550|181860474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.928|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.291|11.188|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for on-treatment response (pEVR vs NO RVR/EVR). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||11.188|4.291|<0.0001
91041736|NCT01192776|181968453|SUPERIORITY|Generalized Estimating Equations models with log link, adjusted for level of encephalopathy and intra-center correlations|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.87||||||33.5°C for 120 hours vs. 33.5°C for 72 hours (33.5°C for 72 hours is the comparison group)||1.87|0.78|
90952791|NCT04662060|181783186|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.01||||||||1.01|0.34|
90987698|NCT01070550|181860474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.733||||0.0204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.564|0.953|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for age per 10 years. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.953|0.564|0.0204
90987699|NCT01070550|181860474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.087|0.331|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for sex (male vs female). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.331|0.087|<0.0001
91041737|NCT01192776|181968453|SUPERIORITY|Generalized Estimating Equations models with log link, adjusted for level of encephalopathy and intra-center correlations|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.35||||||32.0°C for 120 hours vs. 33.5°C for 72 hours (33.5°C for 72 hours is the comparison group)||1.35|0.53|
91041738|NCT01192776|181968454|SUPERIORITY|Generalized Estimating Equations models with log link, adjusted for level of encephalopathy and intra-center correlations|Risk Ratio (RR)|2.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|8.49||||||32.0°C for 72 hours vs. 33.5°C for 72 hours (33.5°C for 72 hours is the comparison group)||8.49|0.55|
90952792|NCT04662060|181783187|OTHER|||||||0.21||||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant.|Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence of ED visits||||0.21
90952793|NCT05718466|181783228|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.11
90952794|NCT05718466|181783229|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.001
90952795|NCT01882543|181783230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.0|||ANCOVA|||A sample size of 28 subjects per group had 80% power to detect a 1.5-point difference in the change from baseline pain score between AQX-1125 and placebo assuming a between-subject SD of 2.0 and a 2-sided 5% significance level. Average daily pain scores were calculated using an average of up to the last 7 recordings within 9 days before each visit. Missing data, including premature discontinuation, was imputed using the LOCF approach for the primary efficacy end point of average daily pain score||0.0|-2.1|0.061
91041739|NCT01192776|181968454|SUPERIORITY|Generalized Estimating Equations models with log link, adjusted for level of encephalopathy and intra-center correlations|Risk Ratio (RR)|2.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|5.95||||||33.5°C for 120 hours vs. 33.5°C for 72 hours (33.5°C for 72 hours is the comparison group)||5.95|1.06|
90987700|NCT01070550|181860474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.806||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.514|5.201|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for on-treatment response, combined (RVR vs no RVR). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||5.201|1.514|0.0010
90987701|NCT01070550|181860474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.663||||0.0459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.443|0.993|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for sex (male vs female). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.993|0.443|0.0459
90987702|NCT01070550|181860474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.758||||0.0087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.616|0.932|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for HCV RNA at BL in log10(IU/mL). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.932|0.616|0.0087
90987703|NCT01070550|181860474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.054||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.224|3.447|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for liver fibrosis (no cirrhosis vs cirrhosis). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||3.447|1.224|0.0064
90987704|NCT01070550|181860474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.931||||0.0271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.077|3.461|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for liver fibrosis (not assessed/missed vs cirrhosis). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||3.461|1.077|0.0271
90987705|NCT01070550|181860474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.738||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.194|2.528|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for mode of infection (other vs injection drug U). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||2.528|1.194|0.0039
90987706|NCT01070550|181860474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.565||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.386|0.829|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for AST ratio at BL (\> 1.5 vs \<=1.5). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.829|0.386|0.0035
90987707|NCT01070550|181860474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.533||||0.0071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.593|19.219|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for on-treatment response (RVR vs no RVR/EVR). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||19.219|1.593|0.0071
90987708|NCT01070550|181860474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.964||||0.3042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.542|7.114|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for on-treatment response (cEVR vs no RVR/EVR). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||7.114|0.542|0.3042
90987709|NCT01070550|181860474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.726||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.471|6.318|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for on-treatment response (pEVR vs no RVR/EVR). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||6.318|0.471|0.4100
90987710|NCT01070550|181860490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.379|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.236|1.538|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for age per 10 years. The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 weeks after EOT was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.538|1.236|<0.0001
90987711|NCT01070550|181860490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.033||||0.0251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.004|1.063|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for BMI in kg/m\^2. The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 Weeks after EOT was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.063|1.004|0.0251
90987712|NCT01070550|181860490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.585|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.358|1.849|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for HCV RNA at BL in log10(IU/mL). The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 Weeks after EOT was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.849|1.358|<0.0001
90987713|NCT01070550|181860490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.501||||0.0317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.036|2.174|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for ALT ratio at BL (\<=1 vs \> 3). The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 Weeks after EOT was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||2.174|1.036|0.0317
90987714|NCT01070550|181860490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.493||||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.089|2.048|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for ALT ratio at BL (\> 1 - 3 vs \> 3). The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 Weeks after EOT was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||2.048|1.089|0.0129
90952796|NCT01882543|181783231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||E-diary maximum daily pain scores were calculated using an average of up to the last 7 recordings within 9 days before each visit. Missing data, including premature discontinuation, was imputed using the LOCF approach for the secondary efficacy variable of maximum daily pain score||-0.1|-2.5|0.030
90952797|NCT01882543|181783232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-0.5|||ANCOVA|||Analyses of the secondary variable was based on observed data without imputation.||-0.5|-2.8|0.008
90987715|NCT01070550|181860490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.616||||0.0128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.107|2.357|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Platelets x 10\^9/L at BL (\< 140 vs \>=180). The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 Weeks after EOT was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||2.357|1.107|0.0128
90987716|NCT01070550|181860490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.046||||0.7809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.763|1.432|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Platelets x 10\^9/L at BL (\>=140 - \< 180 vs \>=180). The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 Weeks after EOT was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.432|0.763|0.7809
90987717|NCT01070550|181860490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.969|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.962|0.976|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for treatment duration after VR in weeks. The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 Weeks after EOT was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.976|0.962|<0.0001
90987718|NCT01070550|181860490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.298||||0.0189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.273|14.512|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Cumulative PEG-IFN alfa-2a dose per 1000 ug, first 12 weeks. The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 Weeks after EOT was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||14.512|1.273|0.0189
90987719|NCT01070550|181860490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.567||||0.0316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|2.359|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for age per 10 years. The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 weeks after EOT was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||2.359|1.040|0.0316
90987720|NCT01070550|181860490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.495||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.701|11.879|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for sex (male vs female). The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 Weeks after EOT was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||11.879|1.701|0.0024
90987721|NCT01070550|181860490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.112||||0.0247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.014|1.219|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for BMI in kg/m\^2. The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 weeks after EOT was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.219|1.014|0.0247
90987722|NCT01070550|181860490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.844||||0.0258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.077|3.158|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for HCV RNA at BL in log10(IU/mL). The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 weeks after EOT was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||3.158|1.077|0.0258
90987723|NCT01070550|181860490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.677||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.243|2.263|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for age per 10 years. The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 weeks after EOT was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||2.263|1.243|0.0007
91041740|NCT01192776|181968454|SUPERIORITY|Generalized Estimating Equations models with log link, adjusted for level of encephalopathy and intra-center correlations|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|4.31||||||32.0°C for 120 hours vs. 33.5°C for 72 hours (33.5°C for 72 hours is the comparison group)||4.31|0.79|
90952798|NCT01882543|181783233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||Analyses of the secondary variable was based on observed data without imputation.||-0.2|-3.0|0.028
90952799|NCT01882543|181783234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.4||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|-1.3|||ANCOVA|||Analyses of the secondary variable was based on observed data without imputation.||-1.3|-9.5|0.011
90952800|NCT01882543|181783235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.1||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|-1.4||ICSI/PI|ANCOVA|||Analyses of the secondary variable was based on observed data without imputation.||-1.4|-8.8|0.007
90952801|NCT01882543|181783235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|-0.9||ICSI|ANCOVA|||Analyses of the secondary variable was based on observed data without imputation.||-0.9|-4.6|0.005
90952802|NCT01882543|181783235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|-0.5||ICPI|ANCOVA|||Analyses of the secondary variable was based on observed data without imputation.||-0.5|-4.5|0.014
90952803|NCT01882543|181783236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|3.6||Mental Component|ANCOVA|||Analyses of the secondary variable was based on observed data without imputation.||3.6|-6.3|0.592
90952804|NCT01882543|181783236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5||||0.221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|6.7||Physical Component|ANCOVA|||Analyses of the secondary variable was based on observed data without imputation.||6.7|-1.6|0.221
90987724|NCT01070550|181860490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.384||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.166|1.641|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for weight per 10 kg. The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 weeks after EOT was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.641|1.166|0.0002
90952805|NCT01882543|181783237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.8||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|-0.1|||ANOVA|||Analyses of the secondary variable was based on observed data without imputation.||-0.1|-5.5|0.040
90987725|NCT01070550|181860490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.09||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.421|3.074|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for HCV RNA at BL in log10 (IU/mL). The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 Weeks after EOT was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||3.074|1.421|0.0002
90987726|NCT01070550|181860490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.288||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.141|0.588|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for liver fibrosis (no cirrhosis vs cirrhosis). The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 Weeks after EOT was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.588|0.141|0.0006
90987727|NCT01070550|181860490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.247||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.106|0.579|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for liver fibrosis (not assessed/missing vs cirrhosis). The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 Weeks after EOT was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.579|0.106|0.0013
90987728|NCT01070550|181860490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.959||||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.931|0.988|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for treatment duration after VR in weeks. The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 Weeks after EOT was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.988|0.931|0.0062
90987729|NCT01070550|181860490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.708||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.568|0.881|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for cumulative ribavirin dose per 10000 mg, first 12 weeks. The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 weeks after EOT was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.881|0.568|0.0020
90987730|NCT01070550|181860490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.434|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.288|1.596|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for age per 10 years. The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 Weeks after EOT was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.596|1.288|<0.0001
90987731|NCT01070550|181860490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.475|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|1.726|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for HCV RNA at BL in log10 (IU/mL). The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 weeks after EOT was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.726|1.260|<0.0001
90987732|NCT01070550|181860490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.963|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.956|0.97|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for treatment duration after VR in weeks. The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 weeks after EOT was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.970|0.956|<0.0001
91041741|NCT01192776|181968459|SUPERIORITY|Generalized Estimating Equations models with log link, adjusted for level of encephalopathy and intra-center correlations|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|2.38||||||32.0°C for 72 hours vs. 33.5°C for 72 hours (33.5°C for 72 hours is the comparison group)||2.38|0.64|
91041742|NCT01192776|181968459|SUPERIORITY|Generalized Estimating Equations models with log link, adjusted for level of encephalopathy and intra-center correlations|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.9||||||33.5°C for 120 hours vs. 33.5°C for 72 hours (33.5°C for 72 hours is the comparison group)||1.90|0.36|
91041743|NCT01192776|181968459|SUPERIORITY|Generalized Estimating Equations models with log link, adjusted for level of encephalopathy and intra-center correlations|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.57||||||32.0°C for 120 hours vs. 33.5°C for 72 hours (33.5°C for 72 hours is the comparison group)||1.57|0.26|
90952806|NCT01253135|181783239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.7||0.3393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.08|0.84|||Prentice-Wilcoxon test||The Confidence Interval was based on a t-distribution|||0.84|-3.08|.3393
90952807|NCT01253135|181783240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4771|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|Testing was by a Log Rank test with significance being at P \< 0.05||||||.4771
90952808|NCT00264303|181783294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.25||||0.005||95.0|0.08|0.43|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline CIU composite score as covariate.||||0.43|0.08|0.005
90987733|NCT01070550|181860490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.195|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.275|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for cumulative PEG-IFN alfa-2a dose per 1000 ug. The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 weeks after EOT was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.275|1.120|<0.0001
90987734|NCT01070550|181860490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.567||||0.0316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|2.359|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for age per 10 years. The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 weeks after EOT was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||2.359|1.040|0.0316
90987735|NCT01070550|181860490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.495||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.701|11.879|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for sex (male vs female). The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 Weeks after EOT was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||11.879|1.701|0.0024
90987736|NCT01070550|181860490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.112||||0.0247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.014|1.219|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for BMI in kg/m\^2. The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 weeks after EOT was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.219|1.014|0.0247
90987737|NCT01070550|181860490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.844||||0.0258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.077|3.158|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for HCV RNA at BL in log10 (IU/mL). The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 weeks after EOT was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||3.158|1.077|0.0258
90987738|NCT01070550|181860490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.66||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.232|2.235|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for age per 10 years. The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 weeks after EOT was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||2.235|1.232|0.0009
90987739|NCT01070550|181860490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.255||||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.073|1.467|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for weight per 10 kg. The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 weeks after EOT was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.467|1.073|0.0045
90987740|NCT01070550|181860490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.086||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.434|3.034|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for HCV RNA at BL in log10 (IU/mL). The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 weeks after EOT was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||3.034|1.434|0.0001
90987741|NCT01070550|181860490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.318||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.63|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for liver fibrosis (no cirrhosis vs cirrhosis). The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 weeks after EOT was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.630|0.160|0.0010
90987742|NCT01070550|181860490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.275||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.121|0.626|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for liver fibrosis (not assessed/missing vs cirrhosis). The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 weeks after EOT was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.626|0.121|0.0021
90987743|NCT01070550|181860490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.962||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.935|0.989|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for treatment duration after VR in weeks. The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 weeks after EOT was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.989|0.935|0.0064
90987744|NCT01070550|181860490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.391|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.245|1.553|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for age per 10 years. The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 weeks after EOT was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.553|1.245|<0.0001
91041744|NCT01192776|181968461|SUPERIORITY|Generalized Estimating Equations models with log link, adjusted for level of encephalopathy and intra-center correlations|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.77||||||32.0°C for 72 hours vs. 33.5°C for 72 hours (33.5°C for 72 hours is the comparison group)||2.77|0.63|
91041745|NCT01192776|181968461|SUPERIORITY|Generalized Estimating Equations models with log link, adjusted for level of encephalopathy and intra-center correlations|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|2.04||||||33.5°C for 120 hours vs. 33.5°C for 72 hours (33.5°C for 72 hours is the comparison group)||2.04|0.09|
91041746|NCT01192776|181968461|SUPERIORITY|Generalized Estimating Equations models with log link, adjusted for level of encephalopathy and intra-center correlations|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.99||||||32.0°C for 120 hours vs. 33.5°C for 72 hours (33.5°C for 72 hours is the comparison group)||2.99|0.20|
90987745|NCT01070550|181860490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.295||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.092|1.535|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for HCV RNA at BL in log10(IU/mL). The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 weeks after EOT was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.535|1.092|0.0029
90987746|NCT01070550|181860490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.109|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.236|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for On-treatment response (RVR vs no RVR/EVR). The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 weeks after EOT was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.236|0.050|<0.0001
90987747|NCT01070550|181860490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.32||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.159|0.645|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for on-treatment response (cEVR vs no RVR/EVR). The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 weeks after EOT was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.645|0.159|0.0014
90987748|NCT01070550|181860490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.248||||0.539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.616|2.528|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for on-treatment response (pEVR vs no RVR/EVR). The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 weeks after EOT was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||2.528|0.616|0.5390
90987749|NCT01070550|181860490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.604||||0.0223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.069|2.405|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for age per 10 years. The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 weeks after EOT was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||2.405|1.069|0.0223
90987750|NCT01070550|181860490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.444||||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.547|12.766|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for sex (male vs female). The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 weeks after EOT was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||12.766|1.547|0.0056
90987751|NCT01070550|181860490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.403||||0.0267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.892|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for weight per 10 kg. The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 weeks after EOT was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.892|1.040|0.0267
90987752|NCT01070550|181860490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.226||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.089|0.575|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for on-treatment response, combined (RVR vs no RVR). The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 weeks after EOT was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.575|0.089|0.0018
90987753|NCT01070550|181860490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.529||||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.116|2.097|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for age per 10 years. The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 weeks after EOT was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||2.097|1.116|0.0083
90987754|NCT01070550|181860490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.285||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.515|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for weight per 10 kg. The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 weeks after EOT was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.515|1.090|0.0028
90987755|NCT01070550|181860490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.061||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.401|3.032|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for HCV RNA at BL in log10(IU/mL). The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 weeks after EOT was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||3.032|1.401|0.0002
90987756|NCT01070550|181860490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.327||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.162|0.662|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for liver fibrosis (no cirrhosis vs cirrhosis). The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 Weeks after EOT was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.662|0.162|0.0019
90987757|NCT01070550|181860490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.32||||0.0086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.137|0.749|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for liver fibrosis (not assessed/missed vs cirrhosis). The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 weeks after EOT was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.749|0.137|0.0086
90952809|NCT00264303|181783295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17||||0.041||95.0|0.01|0.34|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline CIU composite score as covariate||||0.34|0.01|0.041
90952810|NCT00264303|181783296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.13||||0.004||95.0|0.04|0.22|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline pruritus severity score as covariate.||||0.22|0.04|0.004
90952811|NCT00264303|181783297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.16||||0.002||95.0|0.06|0.26|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline pruritus duration as covariate.||||0.26|0.06|0.002
90952812|NCT00264303|181783298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12||||0.009||95.0|0.03|0.22|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and pooled centers as factors and baseline pruritus duration score as covariate.||||0.22|0.03|0.009
90952813|NCT00264303|181783299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.16|||<|0.001||95.0|0.07|0.26|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline severity as covariate.||The primary hypothesis to be tested in this study was that the clinical efficacy of Levocetirizine 5 mg is superior to that of Desloratidine 5 mg||0.26|0.07|<0.001
90952814|NCT02815579|181783300|SUPERIORITY||Difference in log odds|-0.08||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The investigators produced a difference-in-difference estimate between baseline and year 2 using multi-level logistic regression. Units are in log odds.||0.84|-1.0|0.86
90952815|NCT02815579|181783301|SUPERIORITY||Difference in log odds|0.32||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The investigators analyzed longitudinal data measured every 6 months to assess trends in the two study arms and produced a difference-in-differences estimate between baseline and year 2 using multi-level logistic regression. Units are in log odds.||0.92|-0.28|0.23
90952816|NCT02815579|181783302|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.39||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|3.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The investigators analyzed longitudinal data measured every 6 months to assess trends in the two study arms and produced a difference-in-differences estimate between baseline and year 2.||3.78|-1.01|0.26
90952817|NCT02815579|181783303|SUPERIORITY||Difference in log odds|0.84||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|2.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The investigators analyzed longitudinal data measured every 6 months to assess trends in the two study arms and produced a difference-in-differences estimate between baseline and year 2 using multi-level logistic regression. Units are in log odds.||2.47|-0.79|0.31
90952818|NCT02815579|181783304|SUPERIORITY||Difference in log odds|-0.34||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|0.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The investigators analyzed longitudinal data measured every 6 months to assess trends in the two study arms and produced a difference-in-differences estimate between baseline and year 2 using multi-level logistic regression. Units are in log odds.||0.53|-1.22|0.44
90952819|NCT02815579|181783305|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.16|-2.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The investigators analyzed longitudinal data measured every 6 months to assess trends in the two study arms and produced a difference-in-differences estimate between baseline and year 2.||-2.92|-4.16|<0.001
90952820|NCT02815579|181783306|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.21||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|-0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The investigators analyzed longitudinal data measured every 6 months to assess trends in the two study arms and produced a difference-in-differences estimate between baseline and year 2.||-0.04|-0.39|0.02
90952821|NCT02815579|181783307|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The investigators analyzed longitudinal data measured every 6 months to assess trends in the two study arms and produced a difference-in-differences estimate between baseline and year 2.||0.84|-0.82|0.98
90952822|NCT02815579|181783308|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.37||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The investigators analyzed longitudinal data measured every 6 months to assess trends in the two study arms and produced a difference-in-differences estimate between baseline and year 2.||-0.15|-0.59|0.001
90952823|NCT02815579|181783309|SUPERIORITY||Difference in log odds|-0.83||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The investigators analyzed longitudinal data measured every 6 months to assess trends in the two study arms and produced a difference-in-differences estimate between baseline and year 2 using multi-level logistic regression. Units are in log odds.||-0.20|-1.45|0.001
90952824|NCT02815579|181783310|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.31|-0.52|<0.001
91041747|NCT01192776|181968462|SUPERIORITY|Generalized Estimating Equations models with log link, adjusted for level of encephalopathy and intra-center correlations|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|3.01||||||32.0°C for 72 hours vs. 33.5°C for 72 hours (33.5°C for 72 hours is the comparison group)||3.01|0.14|
91041748|NCT01192776|181968462|SUPERIORITY|Generalized Estimating Equations models with log link, adjusted for level of encephalopathy and intra-center correlations|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|3.91||||||33.5°C for 120 hours vs. 33.5°C for 72 hours (33.5°C for 72 hours is the comparison group)||3.91|0.44|
90952825|NCT02389452|181783311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||||||<0.0001
90952826|NCT02311673|181783329|OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|2.5||One sided p-value.|Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance||A longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, treatment-by-baseline weight interaction, baseline weight as covariate and participant as random effect was used.|||2.5|-3.1|0.420
90987758|NCT01070550|181860490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.247|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.138|0.441|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for on-treatment response, combined (RVR vs NO RVR). The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 weeks after EOT was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.441|0.138|<0.0001
90987759|NCT01505491|181860531|EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside interval 80% to 125%|Geometric mean ratio (%)|113.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.086||0.1163|TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.752|129.812|||ANOVA||Bio-equivalence of BI 695501 vs. Humira US was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard error of the mean is actually geometric standard error.|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'treatment' and 'age' as fixed effect.||129.812|98.752|0.1163
90987760|NCT01505491|181860531|EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside interval 80% to 125%|Geometric mean ratio (%)|132.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.094||0.7345|TWO_SIDED|90.0|113.984|153.412|||ANOVA||Bio-equivalence of BI 695501 vs. Humira EU was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard error of the mean is actually geometric standard error.|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'treatment' and 'age' as fixed effect.||153.412|113.984|0.7345
90987761|NCT01505491|181860531|EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside interval 80% to 125%|Geometric mean ratio (%)|86.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09||0.1833|TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.974|99.83|||ANOVA||Bio-equivalence of Humira EU vs. Humira US was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard error of the mean is actually geometric standard error.|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'treatment' and 'age' as fixed effect.||99.830|74.974|0.1833
90987762|NCT01505491|181860532|EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside interval 80% to 125%|Geometric mean ratio (%)|109.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.073||0.0303|TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.384|122.935|||ANOVA||Bio-equivalence of BI 695501 vs. Humira US was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard error of the mean is actually geometric standard error.|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'treatment' and 'age' as fixed effect.||122.935|97.384|0.0303
90987763|NCT01505491|181860532|EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside interval 80% to 125%|Geometric mean ratio (%)|128.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08||0.6547|TWO_SIDED|90.0|113.492|146.365|||ANOVA||Bio-equivalence of BI 695501 vs. Humira EU was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard error of the mean is actually geometric standard error.|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'treatment' and 'age' as fixed effect.||146.365|113.492|0.6547
90987764|NCT01505491|181860532|EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside interval 80% to 125%|Geometric mean ratio (%)|86.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.077||0.1572|TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.238|97.564|||ANOVA||Bio-equivalence of Humira EU vs. Humira US was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard error of the mean is actually geometric standard error.|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'treatment' and 'age' as fixed effect.||97.564|76.238|0.1572
91041749|NCT01192776|181968462|SUPERIORITY|Generalized Estimating Equations models with log link, adjusted for level of encephalopathy and intra-center correlations|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|2.89||||||32.0°C for 120 hours vs. 33.5°C for 72 hours (33.5°C for 72 hours is the comparison group)||2.89|0.03|
91041750|NCT01192776|181968463|SUPERIORITY|Generalized Estimating Equations models with log link, adjusted for level of encephalopathy and intra-center correlations|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|2.07||||||32.0°C for 72 hours vs. 33.5°C for 72 hours (33.5°C for 72 hours is the comparison group)||2.07|0.37|
91041751|NCT01192776|181968463|SUPERIORITY|Generalized Estimating Equations models with log link, adjusted for level of encephalopathy and intra-center correlations|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.35||||||33.5°C for 120 hours vs. 33.5°C for 72 hours (33.5°C for 72 hours is the comparison group)||1.35|0.30|
90987765|NCT01505491|181860533|EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside interval 80% to 125%|Geometric mean ratio (%)|110.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.063||0.0212|TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.687|122.035|||ANOVA||Bio-equivalence of BI 695501 vs. Humira US was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard error of the mean is actually geometric standard error.|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'treatment' and 'age' as fixed effect.||122.035|99.687|0.0212
90987766|NCT01505491|181860533|EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside interval 80% to 125%|Geometric mean ratio (%)|117.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.066||0.17|TWO_SIDED|90.0|105.638|130.757|||ANOVA||Bio-equivalence of BI 695501 vs. Humira EU was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard error of the mean is actually geometric standard error.|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'treatment' and 'age' as fixed effect.||130.757|105.638|0.1700
91041752|NCT01192776|181968463|SUPERIORITY|Generalized Estimating Equations models with log link, adjusted for level of encephalopathy and intra-center correlations|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.64||||||32.0°C for 120 hours vs. 33.5°C for 72 hours (33.5°C for 72 hours is the comparison group)||1.64|0.13|
90987767|NCT01505491|181860533|EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside interval 80% to 125%|Geometric mean ratio (%)|96.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.064||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.064|107.017|||ANOVA||Bio-equivalence of Humira EU vs. Humira US was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard error of the mean is actually geometric standard error.|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'treatment' and 'age' as fixed effect.||107.017|87.064|0.0016
90987768|NCT02759146|181860536|SUPERIORITY||Difference between least squared means|0.09||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.52||Adjusted for baseline and balancing factors used in the randomization|Mixed Models Analysis||Difference between reflexology and meditative practice for weeks 1-4|Aim 1: Comparing reflexology vs meditative practice for weeks 1-4||.52|-.36|.72
90987769|NCT02759146|181860536|SUPERIORITY||Difference between least squared means|-0.15||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference between reflexology and control for weeks 1-4|Aim 1: Comparing reflexology vs control for weeks 1-4||.41|-.72|.58
90987770|NCT02759146|181860536|SUPERIORITY||Difference between least squared means|-0.24||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference between meditative practice and control for weeks 1-4|Aim 1: Comparing meditative practices vs control for weeks 1-4||.34|-.81|.42
90987771|NCT02759146|181860537|SUPERIORITY||Difference between least squared means|-0.01||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.42|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference between reflexology and meditative practice for weeks 1-4|Aim 1: Comparing reflexology vs meditative practice for weeks 1-4||0.42|-0.44|0.96
90987772|NCT02759146|181860537|SUPERIORITY||Difference between least squared means|-0.2||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference between reflexology and control for weeks 1-4|Aim 1: Comparing reflexology vs control for weeks 1-4||0.35|-0.75|0.48
90987773|NCT02759146|181860537|SUPERIORITY||Difference between least squared means|-0.19||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.38|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference between meditative practice and control for weeks 1-4|Aim 1: Comparing meditative practice vs control for weeks 1-4||0.38|-0.75|0.52
90987774|NCT02759146|181860538|SUPERIORITY||Difference between least squared means|0.67||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|3.86|||Mixed Models Analysis||Comparing reflexology to meditative practices for weeks 1-4|Aim 1: Comparing reflexology vs meditative practice for weeks 1-4||3.86|-2.52|.68
90987775|NCT02759146|181860538|SUPERIORITY||Difference between least squared means|-2.53||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.64|1.58|||Mixed Models Analysis||Comparing reflexology to control for weeks 1-4|Aim 1: Comparing reflexology vs control for weeks 1-4||1.58|-6.64|.23
90987776|NCT02759146|181860538|SUPERIORITY||Difference between least squared means|-3.2||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.41|1.01|||Mixed Models Analysis||Comparing meditative practice to control for weeks 1-4|Aim 1: Comparing meditative practice vs control for weeks 1-4||1.01|-7.41|0.14
90987777|NCT02759146|181860539|SUPERIORITY||Difference between least squared means|0.01||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.39|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference between reflexology and meditative practice for weeks 1-4|Aim 1: Comparing reflexology vs meditative practice for weeks 1-4||0.39|-0.38|0.98
90987778|NCT02759146|181860539|SUPERIORITY||Difference between least squared means|-0.24||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis||Comparing reflexology to control for weeks 1-4|Aim 1: Comparing reflexology vs control for weeks 1-4||0.25|-0.74|0.34
90987779|NCT02759146|181860539|SUPERIORITY||Difference between least squared means|-0.25||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis||Comparing meditative practices vs control for weeks 1-4|Aim 1: Comparing meditative practices vs control for weeks 1-4||0.26|-0.76|0.34
90987780|NCT02759146|181860540|SUPERIORITY||Difference between least squared means|0.25||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|1.14|||Mixed Models Analysis||After the initial 4 weeks of reflexology, comparing continued reflexology to added meditative practice|Aim 2: After 4 weeks of reflexology, comparing continuing reflexology vs adding meditative practice||1.14|-.63|0.57
90987781|NCT02759146|181860540|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean|0.49||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|1.63|||Mixed Models Analysis||After the initial 4 weeks of meditative practices, comparing continuing meditative practice to adding reflexology|Aim 3: After 4 weeks of meditative practice, comparing continuing with meditative practice vs. adding reflexology for weeks 5-12||1.63|-0.64|0.39
90987782|NCT02759146|181860541|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean|1.94||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.93|7.04|||Mixed Models Analysis||After 4 weeks of reflexology, comparing continued reflexology vs adding meditative practice|Aim 2: After 4 weeks of reflexology, comparing continued reflexology vs added meditative practice for weeks 5-12||7.04|-10.93|0.67
90987783|NCT02759146|181860541|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean|-1.85||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.59|10.29|||Mixed Models Analysis||After 4 weeks of meditative practice, comparing continued meditative practice vs adding reflexology for weeks 5-12|Aim 3: After 4 weeks of meditative practices, comparing continued meditative practice vs adding reflexology for weeks 5-12||10.29|-6.59|0.66
91041753|NCT01586039|181968486|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73||||||Contrasting LED vs. CFL at 90 lux intensity|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Contrasting LED vs. CFL at 90 lux intensity. Melatonin suppression is measured as the percentage of melatonin AUC relative to the AUC measured in dim light on the previous day. Higher values indicate more light-induced melatonin suppression.||||0.73
90987784|NCT02759146|181860542|SUPERIORITY||Difference between least squared means|-0.19||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.57|||Mixed Models Analysis||After 4 weeks of reflexology, comparing continued reflexology vs added meditative practice for weeks 5-12|Aim 2: After 4 weeks of reflexology, comparing continued reflexology vs added meditative practice for weeks 5-12||0.57|-0.95|0.62
90952827|NCT02311673|181783329|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.6|||Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance|One sided p-value.|A longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, treatment-by-baseline weight interaction, baseline weight as covariate and participant as random effect was used.|||1.6|-2.3|0.348
91041754|NCT01586039|181968486|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||Contrasting LED vs. CFL at 50 lux intensity|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Contrasting LED vs. CFL at 50 lux intensity||||0.001
91041755|NCT01586039|181968487|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.19
90952828|NCT02311673|181783329|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.8||||0.779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|2.9||One sided p-value.|Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance||A longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, treatment-by-baseline weight interaction, baseline weight as covariate and participant as random effect was used.|||2.9|-1.3|0.779
90952829|NCT02311673|181783331|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|21.5||||0.901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|54.8||One sided p-value.|Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance||A longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, treatment-by-baseline weight interaction, baseline weight as covariate and participant as random effect was used.|||54.8|-11.8|0.901
90952830|NCT02311673|181783331|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.9||||0.362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.3|18.5||One sided p-value.|Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance||A longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, treatment-by-baseline weight interaction, baseline weight as covariate and participant as random effect was used.|||18.5|-26.3|0.362
90952831|NCT02311673|181783331|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.7||||0.378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.0|20.5||One sided p-value.|Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance||A longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, treatment-by-baseline weight interaction, baseline weight as covariate and participant as random effect was used.|||20.5|-28.0|0.378
90952832|NCT02311673|181783332|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|20.6||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.9|62.2||One sided p-value.|Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance||A longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, treatment-by-baseline weight interaction, baseline weight as covariate and participant as random effect was used.|||62.2|-20.9|0.840
90952833|NCT02311673|181783332|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-10.2||||0.236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.7|18.4||One sided p-value.|Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance||A longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, treatment-by-baseline weight interaction, baseline weight as covariate and participant as random effect was used.|||18.4|-38.7|0.236
90952834|NCT02311673|181783332|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-13.4||||0.191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.2|17.4|||Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance|One sided p-value.||||17.4|-44.2|0.191
90952835|NCT02311673|181783333|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|19.5||||0.812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.8|63.8||One sided p-value.|Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance||||A longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, treatment-by-baseline weight interaction, baseline weight as covariate and participant as random effect was used.|63.8|-24.8|0.812
90952836|NCT02311673|181783333|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.3||||0.464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.9|27.4||One sided p-value.|Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance||A longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, treatment-by-baseline weight interaction, baseline weight as covariate and participant as random effect was used.|||27.4|-29.9|0.464
90952837|NCT02311673|181783333|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.6||||0.432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.6|28.4||One sided p-value.|Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance||A longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, treatment-by-baseline weight interaction, baseline weight as covariate and participant as random effect was used.|||28.4|-33.6|0.432
90952838|NCT02311673|181783334|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|49.9||||0.988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.7|93.2||One sided p-value.|Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance||A longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, treatment-by-baseline weight interaction, baseline weight as covariate and participant as random effect was used.|||93.2|6.7|0.988
90952839|NCT02311673|181783334|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|16.0||||0.859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|45.6||One sided p-value.|Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance||A longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, treatment-by-baseline weight interaction, baseline weight as covariate and participant as random effect was used.|||45.6|-13.7|0.859
91041756|NCT01586039|181968489|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||||||0.17
91041757|NCT01586039|181968489|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired test.||||||1.0
91041758|NCT01717313|181968492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-0.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.19|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Terms for treatment, time, prior antihyperglycemic agent (AHA) therapy status, interaction of time by treatment, and time by prior AHA therapy status||||-0.19|-0.59|<0.001
90952840|NCT02311673|181783334|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|22.2||||0.916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|54.3||One sided p-value.|Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance||A longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, treatment-by-baseline weight interaction, baseline weight as covariate and participant as random effect was used.|||54.3|-9.8|0.916
90952841|NCT02311673|181783335|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|32.7||||0.943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|73.8||One sided p-value.|Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance||A longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, treatment-by-baseline weight interaction, baseline weight as covariate and participant as random effect was used.|||73.8|-8.4|0.943
90952842|NCT02311673|181783335|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.2||||0.339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.4|16.1||One sided p-value.|Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance||A longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, treatment-by-baseline weight interaction, baseline weight as covariate and participant as random effect was used.|||16.1|-24.4|0.339
90987785|NCT02759146|181860542|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean|-0.04||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|1.22|||Mixed Models Analysis||After 4 weeks of meditative practice, comparing continued meditative practice vs adding reflexology for weeks 5-12|Aim 3: After 4 weeks of meditative practice, comparing continuing meditative practice vs adding reflexology for weeks 5-12||1.22|-1.15|0.95
90987786|NCT02759146|181860543|SUPERIORITY||Difference between least squared means|-0.14||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|0.77|||Mixed Models Analysis||After 4 weeks of reflexology, comparing continued reflexology vs added meditative practice for weeks 5-12|Aim 2: After 4 weeks of reflexology, comparing continued reflexology vs adding meditative practice for weeks 5-12||0.77|-1.04|0.77
90987787|NCT02759146|181860543|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean|0.22||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||After 4 weeks of meditative practice, comparing continued meditative practice vs added reflexology for weeks 5-12|Aim 3: After 4 weeks of meditative practice, comparing continued meditative practice vs added reflexology for weeks 5-12||0.80|-1.23|0.67
90987788|NCT02759146|181860544|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean|0.09||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.37|||Mixed Models Analysis||Comparing reflexology vs control for weeks 5-12|Aim 4: Comparing reflexology vs control for weeks 5-12||0.37|-0.88|0.42
90987789|NCT02759146|181860544|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean|-0.34||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis||Comparing meditative practice vs control for weeks 5-12|Aim 4: Comparing meditative practices vs control for weeks 5-12||0.29|-0.98|0.29
90987790|NCT02759146|181860545|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean|-0.42||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis||Comparing reflexology vs control for weeks 5-12|Aim 4: Comparing reflexology vs control for weeks 5-12||0.15|-1.00|0.15
90987791|NCT02759146|181860545|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean|-0.2||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.39|||Mixed Models Analysis||Comparing meditative practice vs control for weeks 5-12|Aim 4: Comparing meditative practice vs control for weeks 5-12||0.39|-0.80|0.50
90987792|NCT02759146|181860546|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean|-0.27||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis||Comparing reflexology vs control for week 5-12|Aim 4: Comparing reflexology vs control for weeks 5-12||0.28|-0.83|0.33
90987793|NCT02759146|181860546|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean|-0.36||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Aim 4: Comparing meditative practice vs control for weeks 5-12||0.21|-0.93|0.22
90987794|NCT02759146|181860547|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean|0.92||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.62|1.52|||Mixed Models Analysis||Comparing reflexology vs control for weeks 5-12|Aim 4: Comparing reflexology vs control for weeks 5-12||1.52|-8.62|0.17
90987795|NCT02759146|181860547|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean|-4.48||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.66|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||Comparing meditative practice vs control for weeks 5-12|Aim 4: Comparing meditative practice vs control for weeks 5-12||0.70|-9.66|0.09
90987796|NCT00385268|181860557|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|5.14|||GEE model of repeated measures|GEE on repeated binary indicators of BE positive / negative test||||5.14|0.55|0.44
90987797|NCT02214186|181860602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Mann-Whitney followed by Friedman test||||||<0.05
90987798|NCT02214186|181860603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Mann-Whitney followed by Friedman test||||||<0.05
90987799|NCT02214186|181860604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|ANOVA for repeated measures||||||<0.05
90987800|NCT02214186|181860605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Mann-Whitney followed by Friedman test||||||<0.05
90987801|NCT02214186|181860606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|ANOVA for repeated measures.||||||>0.05
90987802|NCT02214186|181860607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Mann-Whitney followed by Friedman test||||||<0.05
90987803|NCT02214186|181860608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
90987804|NCT02214186|181860609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|ANOVA for repeated measures.||||||<0.05
90987805|NCT02214186|181860610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91041759|NCT01717313|181968493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Differences in percentages vs. placebo|-8.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.8|2.6||||||||2.6|-18.8|
91041760|NCT01717313|181968494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages vs. placebo|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|4.5||||||||4.5|-3.1|
90952843|NCT02311673|181783335|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.1||||0.533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.0|27.2||One sided p-value.|Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance||A longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, treatment-by-baseline weight interaction, baseline weight as covariate and participant as random effect was used.|||27.2|-25.0|0.533
90952844|NCT02311673|181783343|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|2.6||One sided p-value.|Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance||A longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, treatment-by-baseline weight interaction, baseline weight as covariate and participant as random effect was used.|||2.6|-3.0|0.439
90952845|NCT02311673|181783343|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.6||One sided p-value.|Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance||A longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, treatment-by-baseline weight interaction, baseline weight as covariate and participant as random effect was used.|||1.6|-2.3|0.366
90987806|NCT01525849|181860630|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Significance level=0.025 (1-sided alpha), power=90%, delta=0.8, true difference=0, SD for both arms=1.0. A total sample size of 72 participants (36 per arm) was required to test the hypothesis.|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Non-inferiority test to demonstrate that the long-term (1-year) change in sinus symptoms (overall SNOT-20 score) after balloon dilation is not worse than after FESS.||||<0.001
90987807|NCT01525849|181860631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Test for superiority of balloon dilation over FESS. Significance level=0.025 (1-sided alpha), power=90%, BD estimate=0.5, FESS estimate=1.5, SD for both arms=1.0. A total sample size of 46 participants (23 per arm) was required to test the hypothesis.||||<0.0001
90987808|NCT01525849|181860632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.628|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.628
90987809|NCT01525849|181860634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90987810|NCT00431847|181860635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.0323|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00619|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0448|-0.02013|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group. The overall slope of the model (below) is reported as a continuous variable for time since injury.||-0.02013|-0.0448|<0.0001
90987811|NCT00431847|181860635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi Squared|2.65||||0.4492|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Degrees of Freedom: 3||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The time interaction component of the model is reported below.||||0.4492
90987812|NCT00431847|181860635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.108|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2308||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5621|0.3461|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.|Estimated intercept group difference|A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||0.3461|-0.5621|0.640
90987813|NCT00431847|181860635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3299|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3372||0.3286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3334|0.9932|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||0.9932|-0.3334|0.3286
90987814|NCT00431847|181860635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8591|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4716||0.0694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06841|1.7866|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||1.7866|-0.06841|0.0694
91041761|NCT01717313|181968495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages vs. placebo|-5.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|4.9||||||||4.9|-16.4|
91041762|NCT01717313|181968496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages vs. placebo|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|4.8||||||||4.8|-3.5|
91041763|NCT01717313|181968497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Between-group rate difference|20.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.5|29.8|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||29.8|10.5|<0.001
91041764|NCT01717313|181968498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Between-group rate difference|11.4||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.8|18.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||18.6|4.8|0.001
91041765|NCT01717313|181968499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-10.3||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.9|-0.7|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Terms for treatment, time, prior AHA therapy status, the interaction of time by treatment, and time by prior AHA therapy status||||-0.7|-19.9|0.036
90952846|NCT02311673|181783343|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.7||||0.744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|2.8||One sided p-value.|Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance||A longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, treatment-by-baseline weight interaction, baseline weight as covariate and participant as random effect was used.|||2.8|-1.4|0.744
90987815|NCT00431847|181860636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.02332|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.003777|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03076|-0.01589|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group. The overall slope of the model (below) is reported as a continuous variable for time since injury.||-0.01589|-0.03076|<0.0001
90987816|NCT00431847|181860636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-Squared|2.49||||0.4772|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Degrees of Freedom: 3||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The time interaction component of the model is reported below.||||0.4772
90987817|NCT00431847|181860636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07724|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1503||0.6077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2184|0.3729|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||0.3729|-0.2184|0.6077
91041766|NCT01717313|181968500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-11.6||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.6|5.3|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Terms for treatment, time, prior AHA therapy status, the interaction of time by treatment, and time by prior AHA therapy status||||5.3|-28.6|0.177
90952847|NCT02311673|181783344|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.0||||0.883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|2.8||One sided p-value.|Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance||A longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, treatment-by-baseline weight interaction, baseline weight as covariate and participant as random effect was used.|||2.8|-0.7|0.883
90952848|NCT02311673|181783344|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.9||One sided p-value.|Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance||A longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, treatment-by-baseline weight interaction, baseline weight as covariate and participant as random effect was used.|||0.9|-1.3|0.338
90952849|NCT02311673|181783344|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.2||One sided p-value.|Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance||A longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, treatment-by-baseline weight interaction, baseline weight as covariate and participant as random effect was used.|||1.2|-1.6|0.381
90952850|NCT02311673|181783346|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.3||||0.679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|7.0||One sided p-value.|Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance||A longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, treatment-by-baseline weight interaction, baseline weight as covariate and participant as random effect was used.|Statistical analysis is provided for percent change from baseline at Day 56.||7.0|-4.5|0.679
90952851|NCT02311673|181783346|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.7||||0.641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|4.7||One sided p-value.|Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance||A longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, treatment-by-baseline weight interaction, baseline weight as covariate and participant as random effect was used.|Statistical analysis is provided for percent change from baseline at Day 56.||4.7|-3.3|0.641
90952852|NCT02311673|181783346|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.9||||0.809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|6.4||One sided p-value.|Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance||A longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, treatment-by-baseline weight interaction, baseline weight as covariate and participant as random effect was used.|Statistical analysis is provided for percent change from baseline at Day 56.||6.4|-2.6|0.809
90987818|NCT00431847|181860636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2194||0.3616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2311|0.6319|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||0.6319|-0.2311|0.3616
90987819|NCT00431847|181860636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3082|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3066||0.3155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2948|0.9112|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||0.9112|-0.2948|0.3155
91041767|NCT01717313|181968505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-0.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.32|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Terms for treatment, time, prior AHA therapy status, the interaction of time by treatment, and time by prior AHA therapy status||||-0.32|-0.75|<0.001
91041768|NCT01717313|181968506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-13.2||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.7|-2.7|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Terms for treatment, time, prior AHA therapy status, the interaction of time by treatment, and time by prior AHA therapy status||||-2.7|-23.7|0.014
90952853|NCT02311673|181783347|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.5||||0.633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|3.6||One sided p-value.|Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance||A longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, treatment-by-baseline weight interaction, baseline weight as covariate and participant as random effect was used.|||3.6|-2.6|0.633
90952854|NCT02311673|181783347|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.3||One sided p-value.|Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance||A longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, treatment-by-baseline weight interaction, baseline weight as covariate and participant as random effect was used.|||2.3|-2.1|0.528
90952855|NCT02311673|181783347|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.5||||0.648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|2.9||One sided p-value.|Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance||A longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, treatment-by-baseline weight interaction, baseline weight as covariate and participant as random effect was used.|||2.9|-2.0|0.648
91041769|NCT01717313|181968507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-20.5||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.0|-1.9|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Terms for treatment, time, prior AHA therapy status, the interaction of time by treatment, and time by prior AHA therapy status||||-1.9|-39.0|0.031
91041770|NCT01943435|181968508|SUPERIORITY|For this superiority study, sample size estimation was based upon hypothesized changes in our primary outcome measure, the Swiss Spinal Stenosis (SSS) questionnaire. We calculated that a total sample size of 180 subjects (n=60 per group) would give us 80% power to detect a difference as small as 3.6 points on the Swiss Spinal Stenosis questionnaire score. Sample size was increased at the request of the funding agency without any interim analysis performed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.2|||Regression, Linear|Linear mixed models were adjusted for randomization stratification factors.||The primary analysis was a between-groups comparison of means using linear mixed models with SSS total score as the dependent variable, while adjusting for randomization stratification factors.||2.2|-1.5|0.73
91041771|NCT01943435|181968508|SUPERIORITY|For this superiority study, sample size estimation was based upon hypothesized changes in our primary outcome measure, the Swiss Spinal Stenosis (SSS) questionnaire. We calculated that a total sample size of 180 subjects (n=60 per group) would give us 80% power to detect a difference as small as 3.6 points on the Swiss Spinal Stenosis questionnaire score. Sample size was increased at the request of the funding agency without any interim analysis performed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|-0.3|||Regression, Linear|Linear mixed models were adjusted for randomization stratification factors.||The primary analysis was a between-groups comparison of means using linear mixed models with SSS total score as the dependent variable, while adjusting for randomization stratification factors.||-0.3|-3.9|0.02
90987820|NCT00431847|181860637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.02746|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.004202|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03573|-0.01919|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group. The overall slope of the model (below) is reported as a continuous variable for time since injury.||-0.01919|-0.03573|<0.0001
90987821|NCT00431847|181860637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-Squared|3.4||||0.3345|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Degrees of Freedom: 3||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The time interaction component of the model is reported below.||||0.3345
90987822|NCT00431847|181860637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0386|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1718||0.8223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2993|0.3765|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||0.3765|-0.2993|0.8223
90987823|NCT00431847|181860637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2919|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2506||0.2448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2009|0.7848|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||0.7848|-0.2009|0.2448
90987824|NCT00431847|181860637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4482|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3502||0.2014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2405|1.1369|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||1.1369|-0.2405|0.2014
90987825|NCT00431847|181860638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.0403|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.007196|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5446|-0.02613|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||-0.02613|-0.5446|<0.0001
90987826|NCT00431847|181860638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-Squared|3.19||||0.3631|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Degrees of Freedom: 3||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The time interaction component of the model is reported below.||||0.3631
90987827|NCT00431847|181860638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2746||0.7148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6404|0.4396|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||0.4396|-0.6404|0.7148
90987828|NCT00431847|181860638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3568|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4009||0.3741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4318|1.1453|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||1.1453|-0.4318|0.3741
91041772|NCT01943435|181968508|SUPERIORITY|For this superiority study, sample size estimation was based upon hypothesized changes in our primary outcome measure, the Swiss Spinal Stenosis (SSS) questionnaire. We calculated that a total sample size of 180 subjects (n=60 per group) would give us 80% power to detect a difference as small as 3.6 points on the Swiss Spinal Stenosis questionnaire score. Sample size was increased at the request of the funding agency without any interim analysis performed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|4.3|||Regression, Linear|Linear mixed models were adjusted for randomization stratification factors.||The primary analysis was a between-groups comparison of means using linear mixed models with SSS total score as the dependent variable, while adjusting for randomization stratification factors.||4.3|0.6|0.01
91041773|NCT01943435|181968509|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|87.0||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.2|249.2|||Regression, Linear|Linear mixed models were adjusted for randomization stratification factors.||This analysis consisted of a between-groups comparison of means using linear mixed models with SPWT as the dependent variable, while adjusting for randomization stratification factors.||249.2|-75.2|0.29
91041774|NCT01943435|181968509|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|129.7||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.2|286.6|||Regression, Linear|Linear mixed models were adjusted for randomization stratification factors.||This analysis consisted of a between-groups comparison of means using linear mixed models with SPWT as the dependent variable, while adjusting for randomization stratification factors.||286.6|-27.2|0.10
91041775|NCT01943435|181968509|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-42.7||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-205.4|120.0|||Regression, Linear|Linear mixed models were adjusted for randomization stratification factors.||This analysis consisted of a between-groups comparison of means using linear mixed models with SPWT as the dependent variable, while adjusting for randomization stratification factors.||120.0|-205.4|0.61
91041776|NCT01943435|181968510|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|30.5||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|57.9|||Regression, Linear|Linear mixed models were adjusted for randomization stratification factors.||This secondary analysis consisted of a between-groups comparison of means using linear regression with physical activity as the dependent variable (average number of minutes spent daily in activities \>1.5 METs), while adjusting for randomization stratification factors.||57.9|3.1|0.03
91041777|NCT01943435|181968510|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.7||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|45.0|||Regression, Linear|Linear mixed models were adjusted for randomization stratification factors.||This secondary analysis consisted of a between-groups comparison of means using linear regression with physical activity as the dependent variable (average number of minutes spent daily in activities \>1.5 METs), while adjusting for randomization stratification factors.||45.0|-7.6|0.16
91041778|NCT01943435|181968510|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.8||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.6|39.1|||Regression, Linear|Linear mixed models were adjusted for randomization stratification factors.||This secondary analysis consisted of a between-groups comparison of means using linear regression with physical activity as the dependent variable (average number of minutes spent daily in activities \>1.5 METs), while adjusting for randomization stratification factors.||39.1|-15.6|0.40
91041779|NCT04535986|181968522|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.0868|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0162|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0551|0.1185||The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used to model the change from baseline FEV1 to average FEV1 AUC0-12h with treatment, region, background medication strata and smoking strata as fixed effects and baseline FEV1 as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.1185|0.0551|<0.0001
91041780|NCT02533466|181968532|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalent analyses was executed using scale transformation or non-parametric methods.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.2673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||P-value was calculated from Wilcoxon Rank Sum test.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test||"Median difference and 95% CI intervals were calculated from the Hodges Lehnmann estimate.~Difference was calculated as reference product minus test product."|||0.0|-1.0|0.2673
91041781|NCT02533466|181968533|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalent analyses was executed using scale transformation or non-parametric methods|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.92||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.0||P-value was calculated from Wilcoxon Rank Sum test.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test||"Median difference and 95% CI intervals were calculated from the Hodges Lehnmann estimate.~Difference was calculated as reference product minus test product."|||0.0|-1.8|0.0690
90952856|NCT02311673|181783349|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.7||||0.712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|3.1||One sided p-value.|Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance||A longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, treatment-by-baseline weight interaction, baseline weight as covariate and participant as random effect was used.|||3.1|-1.8|0.712
90952857|NCT02311673|181783349|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.5||One sided p-value.|Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance||A longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, treatment-by-baseline weight interaction, baseline weight as covariate and participant as random effect was used.|||1.5|-1.9|0.414
90987829|NCT00431847|181860638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.2969|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5609||0.0213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1938|2.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||2.4000|0.1938|0.0213
90987830|NCT00431847|181860639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.02776|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.004706|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03702|-0.0185|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group. The overall slope of the model (below) is reported as a continuous variable for time since injury.||-0.01850|-0.03702|<0.0001
90987831|NCT00431847|181860639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-Squared|3.88||||0.2752|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Degrees of Freedom: 3||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The time interaction component of the model is reported below.||||0.2752
90987832|NCT00431847|181860639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3079|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1918||0.1094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6851|0.06941|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||0.06941|-0.6851|0.1094
90987833|NCT00431847|181860639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0428|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.8786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5079|0.5935|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||0.5935|-0.5079|0.8786
90987834|NCT00431847|181860639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6759|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.391||0.0847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09297|1.4448|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||1.4448|-0.09297|0.0847
90987835|NCT00431847|181860640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.03645|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.005913|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04808|-0.02481|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group. The overall slope of the model (below) is reported as a continuous variable for time since injury.||-0.02481|-0.04808|<0.0001
91041782|NCT02533466|181968534|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalent analyses was executed using scale transformation or non-parametric methods|Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|0.0||P-value was calculated from Wilcoxon Rank Sum test.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test||"Median difference and 95% CI intervals were calculated from the Hodges Lehnmann estimate.~Difference was calculated as reference product minus test product."|||0.0|-2.7|0.0680
90987836|NCT00431847|181860640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-Squared|3.16||||0.3677|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Degrees of Freedom: 3||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The time interaction component of the model is reported below.||||0.3677
90987837|NCT00431847|181860640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05816|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.221||0.7926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4929|0.3766|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||0.3766|-0.4929|0.7926
90987838|NCT00431847|181860640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1708|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3212||0.5953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.461|0.8026|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||0.8026|-0.4610|0.5953
90987839|NCT00431847|181860640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6873|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4482||0.1261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1943|1.5689|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||1.5689|-0.1943|0.1261
91041783|NCT02533466|181968535|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalent analyses was executed using scale transformation or non-parametric methods|Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.83||||0.0654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|0.0||P-value is calculated from Wilcoxon Rank Sum test.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test.||"Median difference and 95% CI intervals were calculated from the Hodges Lehnmann estimate.~Difference was calculated as reference product minus test product"|||0.0|-3.0|0.0654
91041784|NCT02533466|181968536|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalent analyses was executed using scale transformation or non-parametric methods.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0.6061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|4.1||P value obtained from the ANCOVA analysis|ANCOVA||Difference and 95 % CI obtained from the ANCOVA analysis. Difference was calculated as reference product minus test product.|||4.1|-6.8|0.6061
91041785|NCT02533466|181968537|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalent analyses was executed using scale transformation or non-parametric methods.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3||||0.408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|3.3||P value obtained from the ANCOVA analysis.|ANCOVA||Difference and 95 % CI obtained from the ANCOVA analysis. Difference was calculated as reference product minus test product|||3.3|-7.9|0.4080
90952858|NCT02311673|181783349|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.6||||0.732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|2.5||One sided p-value|Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance||A longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, treatment-by-baseline weight interaction, baseline weight as covariate and participant as random effect was used.|||2.5|-1.3|0.732
90952859|NCT01006252|181783351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.23||||0.121||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05.|Stratified log rank|||||||0.121
90952860|NCT01006252|181783352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3||||0.048||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05.|Stratified log rank|Analysis adjusted for Baseline Lactate Dehydrogenase (LDH); Disease Stage; Sex; Previous Single Agent Immunotherapy Treatment; Age Group||||||0.048
90987840|NCT00431847|181860641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.4831|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1243||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7286|-0.2377|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group. The overall slope of the model (below) is reported as a continuous variable for time since injury.||-0.2377|-0.7286|0.0002
90987841|NCT00431847|181860641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-Squared|3.2||||0.3617|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Degrees of Freedom: 3||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The time interaction component of the model is reported below.||||0.3617
90987842|NCT00431847|181860641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.1574|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7573||0.2532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2715|8.5863|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||8.5863|-2.2715|0.2532
90987843|NCT00431847|181860641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.2227|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9633||0.758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5833|9.0286|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||9.0286|-6.5833|0.7580
90987844|NCT00431847|181860641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.1649|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.3759||0.1837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7484|3.4187|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||3.4187|-17.7484|0.1837
90987845|NCT00431847|181860642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.4741|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03909|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3971|0.5511|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group. The overall slope of the model (below) is reported as a continuous variable for time since injury.||0.5511|0.3971|<0.0001
90952861|NCT01006252|181783353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.396||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05.|Unadjusted normal distribution|Unadjusted normal-distribution approximation for the difference in rates||||||0.396
90952862|NCT01006252|181783355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.483||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05.|Unadjusted normal distribution|Unadjusted normal-distribution approximation for the difference in rates.||||||0.483
90952863|NCT01006252|181783356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.505||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05.|Stratified log rank|||||||0.505
90952864|NCT01006252|181783357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.902||95.0||||P-value given for Overall Main Treatment Effect from the repeated measure model where time was a class variable. Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|MMRM analyses limited to first 4 cycles due to sparse data; data from 30-day follow-up visit coded to first cycle after last on-treatment cycle.||||||0.902
90952865|NCT01006252|181783357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97||95.0||||P-value given for Treatment-By-Cycle Interaction from the repeated measure model where time was a class variable. Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|MMRM analyses limited to first 4 cycles due to sparse data; data from 30-day follow-up visit coded to first cycle after last on-treatment cycle.||||||0.970
90952866|NCT01006252|181783359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.902||95.0||||P-value given for Overall Main Treatment Effect from the repeated measure model where time was a class variable. Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|MMRM analyses limited to first 4 cycles due to sparse data; data from 30-day follow-up visit coded to first cycle after last on-treatment cycle.||||||0.902
90952867|NCT01006252|181783359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97||95.0||||P-value given for Overall Treatment-By-Cycle Interaction from the repeated measure model where time was a class variable. Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|MMRM analyses limited to first 4 cycles due to sparse data; data from 30-day follow-up visit coded to first cycle after last on-treatment cycle.||||||0.970
90952868|NCT01006252|181783360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.547||95.0||||P-value given for Main Treatment Effect from the repeated measure model where time was a class variable. Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|MMRM analyses limited to first 4 cycles due to sparse data; data from 30-day follow-up visit coded to first cycle after last on-treatment cycle.||||||0.547
90952869|NCT01006252|181783360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.414||95.0||||P-value given for Treatment-By-Cycle Interaction from the repeated measure model where time was a class variable. Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|MMRM analyses limited to first 4 cycles due to sparse data; data from 30-day follow-up visit coded to first cycle after last on-treatment cycle.||||||0.414
90952870|NCT01006252|181783362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.547||95.0||||P-value given for Main Treatment Effect from the repeated measure model where time was a class variable. Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|MMRM analyses limited to first 4 cycles due to sparse data; data from 30-day follow-up visit coded to first cycle after last on-treatment cycle.||||||0.547
90952871|NCT01006252|181783362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.414||95.0||||P-value given for Treatment-By-Cycle Interaction from the repeated measure model where time was a class variable. Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|MMRM analyses limited to first 4 cycles due to sparse data; data from 30-day follow-up visit coded to first cycle after last on-treatment cycle.||||||0.414
90952872|NCT00414908|181783372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Non parametric ANCOVA|||The following null hypothesis was tested (μ0 and μ1 denote the treatment group means respectively in the placebo and pancrelipase delayed release capsules group): H0: μ0 = μ1 (i.e., placebo and pancrelipase delayed release capsules are equal). The hypothesis corresponded to the primary objective to show superior efficacy of pancrelipase delayed release capsules over placebo. A non-parametric ANCOVA was used because the necessary assumptions were not met for the parametric ANCOVA.||||<0.0001
90952873|NCT00414908|181783373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||95.0|||||Non parametric ANCOVA|||The following null hypothesis was tested (μ0 and μ1 denote the treatment group means respectively in the placebo and pancrelipase delayed release capsules group): H0: μ0 = μ1 (i.e., placebo and pancrelipase delayed release capsules are equal). The hypothesis corresponded to the primary objective to show superior efficacy of pancrelipase delayed release capsules over placebo. A non-parametric ANCOVA was used because the necessary assumptions were not met for the parametric ANCOVA.||||0.0002
90952874|NCT00414908|181783374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means difference|-112.45|||<|0.0001||95.0|-147.04|-77.87|||ANCOVA|||"The following null hypothesis was tested (μ0 and μ1 denote the treatment group means in the placebo and pancrelipase delayed release capsules group): H0: μ0 = μ1 (i.e., placebo and pancrelipase capsules are equal).~The hypothesis was to show superior efficacy of pancrelipase delayed release capsules over placebo.~For this secondary efficacy variable, an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was assumed with the treatment group as a fixed factor and the Stool fat at baseline as a covariate."||-77.87|-147.04|<0.0001
90952875|NCT00414908|181783375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means difference|-11.68|||<|0.0001||95.0|-17.3|-6.06|||ANCOVA|||"The following null hypothesis was tested (μ0 and μ1 denote the treatment group means in the placebo and pancrelipase delayed release capsules group): H0: μ0 = μ1 (i.e., placebo and pancrelipase capsules are equal).~The hypothesis was to show superior efficacy of pancrelipase delayed release capsules over placebo. For this secondary efficacy variable, an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was assumed with the treatment group as a fixed factor and the Stool nitrogen at baseline as a covariate."||-6.06|-17.30|<0.0001
90987846|NCT00431847|181860642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-Squared|1.83||||0.6075|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Degrees of Freedom: 3||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The time interaction component of the model is reported below.||||0.6075
90987847|NCT00431847|181860642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9534|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2763||0.4558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4675|1.5607|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||1.5607|-3.4675|0.4558
90987848|NCT00431847|181860642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.3505|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.977||0.0914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2442|0.5432|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||0.5432|-7.2442|0.0914
90987849|NCT00431847|181860642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0921||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4589|-2.281|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||-2.2810|-14.4589|0.007
90987850|NCT00431847|181860643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.2169|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04148|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2987|-0.1352|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group. The overall slope of the model (below) is reported as a continuous variable for time since injury.||-0.1352|-0.2987|<0.0001
90987851|NCT00431847|181860643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-Squared|6.37||||0.095|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Degrees of Freedom: 3||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The time interaction component of the model is reported below.||||0.0950
90987852|NCT00431847|181860643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.7246|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3351||0.5878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9056|3.3547|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||3.3547|-1.9056|0.5878
90987853|NCT00431847|181860643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2466|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0697||0.9053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3231|3.8299|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||3.8299|-4.3231|0.9053
90987854|NCT00431847|181860643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.3457|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2285||0.4682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7034|4.012|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||4.0120|-8.7034|0.4682
90987855|NCT00431847|181860644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.04639|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03562||0.1938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02369|0.1165|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group. The overall slope of the model (below) is reported as a continuous variable for time since injury.||0.1165|-0.02369|0.1938
90987856|NCT00431847|181860644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-Squared|2.43||||0.4884|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Degrees of Freedom: 3||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The time interaction component of the model is reported below.||||0.4884
90987857|NCT00431847|181860644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6174|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3991||0.6593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1348|3.3696|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||3.3696|-2.1348|0.6593
90987858|NCT00431847|181860644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.4575|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0263||0.0889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.528|7.4431|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||7.4431|-0.5280|0.0889
90987859|NCT00431847|181860644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4499|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8061||0.8727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9692|5.0694|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||5.0694|-5.9692|0.8727
90987860|NCT00431847|181860645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.523|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08855|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6973|-0.3486|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group. The overall slope of the model (below) is reported as a continuous variable for time since injury.||-0.3486|-0.6973|<.0001
90987861|NCT00431847|181860645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-Squared|4.89||||0.18|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Degrees of Freedom: 3||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The time interaction component of the model is reported below.||||0.1800
91041786|NCT02533466|181968538|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalent analyses was executed using scale transformation or non-parametric methods.|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||0.4611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.8||P value obtained from the ANCOVA analysis.|ANCOVA||Difference and 95 % CI obtained from the ANCOVA analysis. Difference was calculated as reference product minus test product.|||0.8|-0.4|0.4611
90987862|NCT00431847|181860645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.302|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8198||0.4151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.253|7.857|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||7.8570|-3.2530|0.4151
90987863|NCT00431847|181860645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.3376|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.314||0.3157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1592|12.8344|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||12.8344|-4.1592|0.3157
90987864|NCT00431847|181860645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|11.825|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.9715||0.0911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.904|25.5541|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||25.5541|-1.9040|0.0911
90987865|NCT00431847|181860646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.2888|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09078||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4675|-0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group. The overall slope of the model (below) is reported as a continuous variable for time since injury.||-0.1100|-0.4675|0.0016
90987866|NCT00431847|181860646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-Squared|6.33||||0.0966|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Degrees of Freedom: 3||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The time interaction component of the model is reported below.||||0.0966
90987867|NCT00431847|181860646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.9879|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4264||0.2195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7938|7.7697|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||7.7697|-1.7938|0.2195
90987868|NCT00431847|181860646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.4636|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7381||0.5105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8289|4.9018|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||4.9018|-9.8289|0.5105
90987869|NCT00431847|181860646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.3871|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.1087||0.0903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.4174|1.6433|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||1.6433|-22.4174|0.0903
90987870|NCT00431847|181860647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.04113|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|-0.04113||0.6602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2252|0.1429|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group. The overall slope of the model (below) is reported as a continuous variable for time since injury.||0.1429|-0.2252|0.6602
90987871|NCT00431847|181860647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-Squared|1.53||||0.6764|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Degrees of Freedom: 3||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The time interaction component of the model is reported below.||||0.6764
91041787|NCT02533466|181968539|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalent analyses was executed using scale transformation or non-parametric methods.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.09||||0.3939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.3||P value obtained from the ANCOVA analysis.|ANCOVA|||||0.3|-0.1|0.3939
91041788|NCT02533466|181968540|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalent analyses was executed using scale transformation or non-parametric methods.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34||||0.7829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|2.8||P value obtained from the ANCOVA analysis.|ANCOVA||Difference and 95 % CI obtained from the ANCOVA analysis. Difference was calculated as reference product minus test product.|||2.8|-2.2|0.7829
91041789|NCT02533466|181968541|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalent analyses was executed using scale transformation or non-parametric methods|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.9121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.4||P value obtained from the ANCOVA analysis.|ANCOVA||Difference and 95 % CI obtained from the ANCOVA analysis. Difference was calculated as reference product minus test product.|||1.4|-1.6|0.9121
90987872|NCT00431847|181860647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.4902|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6357||0.3458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7036|7.684|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||7.6840|-2.7036|0.3458
90987873|NCT00431847|181860647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.2518|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0583||0.1969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2466|2.743|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||2.7430|-13.2466|0.1969
90987874|NCT00431847|181860647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.9796|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.5287||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.8429|-0.1162|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||-0.1162|-25.8429|0.0480
90987875|NCT00431847|181860648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.2349|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1003||0.0199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4323|-0.03745|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group. The overall slope of the model (below) is reported as a continuous variable for time since injury.||-0.03745|-0.4323|0.0199
90987876|NCT00431847|181860648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-Squared|2.6||||0.4577|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Degrees of Freedom: 3||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The time interaction component of the model is reported below.||||0.4577
90987877|NCT00431847|181860648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9502|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8797||0.7417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.624|4.7236|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||4.7236|-6.6240|0.7417
90952876|NCT00414908|181783376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means difference|-0.76||||0.005||95.0|-1.27|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||"The following null hypothesis was tested (μ0 and μ1 denote the treatment group means in the placebo and pancrelipase delayed release capsules group): H0: μ0 = μ1 (i.e., placebo and pancrelipase capsules are equal). The hypothesis was to show superior efficacy of pancrelipase capsules over placebo.~For this secondary efficacy variable, an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was assumed with the treatment group as a fixed factor and the Stool frequency at baseline as a covariate."||-0.24|-1.27|0.005
91041790|NCT01196390|181968548|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.36|||Log Rank|Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Reference level = Chemoradiation arm|Assuming a median DFS time of 15 months (Arm 2), hypothesized increase in DFS corresponding to median DFS time of 25 months (Arm 1). Assuming an exponential distribution and constant hazards, 183 HER2-positive participants accrued over 5 years and followed for 3 years would result in 162 disease-free survival events and provide 90% statistical power to detect this difference with a 2-sided α of 0.05 and 2 interim analyses. See Limitations and Caveats section.||1.36|0.69|0.85
91041791|NCT01196390|181968549|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||Chi-squared|Two-sided significance level = 0.05||||||0.71
90952877|NCT00414908|181783380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Paired t-test|Mean difference based on all subjects combined using the paired t-test between baseline and visit 8 or early termination||||||<0.001
90952878|NCT04143945|181783390|OTHER|Comparison|Estimated treatment difference|2.6||||0.0395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|5.1|||ANOVA|||The intensity of pain was analysed by a fixed analysis of variance model with VAS pain score as the dependent variable, and product, injection side (right side, left side), injection number (first injection, second injection), and participant as fixed effects.||5.1|0.1|0.0395
90952879|NCT01145898|181783440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6261||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||There will be (as shown) differences in the number of subjects based upon the time of analysis due to patient loss, data of insufficient quality at visit, or change in the drug use during period of study (patient switched off treatment by their doctor) so the number of data points varies throughout the analysis by availability.||||.6261
90952880|NCT01145898|181783441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6081||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.6081
90952881|NCT01145898|181783442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1822||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.1822
90952882|NCT01145898|181783443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2383||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.2383
90952883|NCT01145898|181783444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2383||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.2383
90952884|NCT01145898|181783445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1564||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.1564
90952885|NCT01145898|181783446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2265||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.2265
90952886|NCT01145898|181783447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4645||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.4645
90952887|NCT01145898|181783448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5998||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.5998
90952888|NCT01145898|181783449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8119||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.8119
90952889|NCT01145898|181783450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1319||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.1319
90952890|NCT01145898|181783451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0199||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.0199
90952891|NCT01145898|181783452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7597||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.7597
90952892|NCT01145898|181783453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2528||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.2528
90952893|NCT02833077|181783471|SUPERIORITY||Responder Rate Difference|28.85||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.16|45.6||If the 2-sided p-value is \< 0.05, the responder rate is greater for treatment than for control group, and point estimate of the responder rater for treatment group is greater than 50%, then treatment will be considered superior to control group.|Fisher's exact test|||Superiority of treatment group was established if responder rate at month 6 was statistically greater than that for the control group at month 6 and the observed responder rate at month 6 for the treatment group was greater than 50%.||45.60|11.16|0.0019
90952894|NCT02833077|181783472|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value is based on a 2-sided paired t-test at the 5% level to demonstrate that the mean overall satisfaction score at month 6 visit is statistically greater than that at the baseline for the treatment group.|Two sided paired t-test|||||||<.0001
90952895|NCT04608773|181783475|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.501|||||||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of Dry mouth score between Refresh and Biotene. ANCOVA model was performed by regressing the difference in after-treatment measurement between Refresh and Biotene over the difference of baseline between Refresh and Biotene. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05 (two- sided)||||<0.501
90952896|NCT04608773|181783476|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.109|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.109
90952897|NCT04608773|181783477|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.107|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.107
90952898|NCT04608773|181783478|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.489|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.489
90952899|NCT04608773|181783479|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.213|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.213
90952900|NCT04608773|181783480|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.486|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.486
90952901|NCT01077518|181783495|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Cox propor.hazards regression|0.82||||0.139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.07|||Stratified Log-Rank|||||1.07|0.62|0.1390
90952902|NCT01077518|181783496|OTHER||Stratified Cox propor.hazards regression|0.76||||0.1076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.06|||Stratified Log-Rank|||||1.06|0.55|0.1076
90952903|NCT01077518|181783497|OTHER|||||||0.8003|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|adjusted for stratum||for All participants||||0.8003
91041792|NCT01196390|181968550|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.47|||Log Rank|Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Reference level = Chemoradiation arm|||1.47|0.69|0.95
91041793|NCT01196390|181968552|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39||||||One-side significance level = 0.05|Chi-squared|||6-8 weeks||||0.39
90952904|NCT01077518|181783498|OTHER|||||||0.613|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|adjusted for stratum||for Follicular Lymphoma (FL) participants||||0.6130
90952905|NCT01077518|181783499|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.4046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.21|||Stratified Log Rank|||for All patients||1.21|0.62|0.4046
90952906|NCT01077518|181783500|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.3768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.25|||Stratified Log Rank|||for FL participants||1.25|0.55|0.3768
90952907|NCT00972322|181783523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.7||0.083|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-29.87|-0.82|||Least Squares Means Difference||Placebo - MK-8245 on Day 28|||-0.82|-29.87|0.083
90952908|NCT00316017|181783534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.91||95.0||||The Statistical Analysis applies to the 7.5% hypertonic saline/6% Dextran-70 (HSD),7.5% hypertonic saline (HS), and 0.9% normal saline groups.|test for proportions|||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the percent of patients who survived to day 28 day between the three groups.||||0.91
90952909|NCT00316017|181783535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.94||95.0||||The Statistical Analysis applies to the 7.5% hypertonic saline/6% Dextran-70 (HSD),7.5% hypertonic saline (HS), and 0.9% normal saline groups.|test for proportions|||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in ARDS-free survival through day 28 between the three groups.||||0.94
90952910|NCT00316017|181783536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73||95.0||||The Statistical Analysis applies to the 7.5% hypertonic saline/6% Dextran-70 (HSD),7.5% hypertonic saline (HS), and 0.9% normal saline groups.|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in average Worst Multiple Organ Dysfunction Scores (MODS) through day 28 between the three groups.||||0.73
90952911|NCT00316017|181783537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8||95.0||||The Statistical Analysis applies to the 7.5% hypertonic saline/6% Dextran-70 (HSD),7.5% hypertonic saline (HS), and 0.9% normal saline groups.|test for proportions|||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the percent of patients with the Presence of Nosocomial Infection through day 28 between the three groups.||||0.8
90952912|NCT00316017|181783538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69||95.0||||The Statistical Analysis applies to the 7.5% hypertonic saline/6% Dextran-70 (HSD),7.5% hypertonic saline (HS), and 0.9% normal saline groups.|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the average number of PRBC units given within the first 24 hours between the three groups.||||0.69
91041794|NCT01196390|181968552|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78||||||One-side significance level = 0.05|Chi-squared|||1 year||||0.78
90952913|NCT00316017|181783539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57||95.0||||The Statistical Analysis applies to the 7.5% hypertonic saline/6% Dextran-70 (HSD),7.5% hypertonic saline (HS), and 0.9% normal saline groups.|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the average amount of Total fluids given within the first 24 hours between the three groups.||||0.57
90952914|NCT00316017|181783540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66||95.0||||The Statistical Analysis applies to the 7.5% hypertonic saline/6% Dextran-70 (HSD),7.5% hypertonic saline (HS), and 0.9% normal saline groups.|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the average number of Ventilator-free days through day 28 between the three groups.||||0.66
90952915|NCT00316017|181783541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82||95.0||||The Statistical Analysis applies to the 7.5% hypertonic saline/6% Dextran-70 (HSD),7.5% hypertonic saline (HS), and 0.9% normal saline groups.|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the average number of Days alive out of the ICU through day 28 between the three groups.||||0.82
90952916|NCT00316017|181783542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98||95.0||||The Statistical Analysis applies to the 7.5% hypertonic saline/6% Dextran-70 (HSD),7.5% hypertonic saline (HS), and 0.9% normal saline groups.|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the average number of Days alive out of the hospital through day 28 between the three groups.||||0.98
90952917|NCT00316017|181783543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85||95.0||||The Statistical Analysis applies to the 7.5% hypertonic saline/6% Dextran-70 (HSD),7.5% hypertonic saline (HS), and 0.9% normal saline groups.|test for proportions|||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the percent of patients who survived to hospital discharge between the three groups.||||0.85
90952918|NCT00316017|181783544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48||95.0||||The Statistical Analysis applies to the 7.5% hypertonic saline/6% Dextran-70 (HSD),7.5% hypertonic saline (HS), and 0.9% normal saline groups.|test for proportions|||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the percent of patients who received zero units of PRBC in the first 24 hours between the three groups.||||0.48
90952919|NCT00316017|181783545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0||||The Statistical Analysis applies to the 7.5% hypertonic saline/6% Dextran-70 (HSD),7.5% hypertonic saline (HS), and 0.9% normal saline groups.|test for proportions|||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the percent of patients who died in field or ED between the three groups among the patients who received zero units of PRBC.||||<0.01
90952920|NCT00316017|181783546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.02||95.0||||The Statistical Analysis applies to the 7.5% hypertonic saline/6% Dextran-70 (HSD),7.5% hypertonic saline (HS), and 0.9% normal saline groups.|test for proportions|||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in percent of patients who died within 6 hours of admission to the hospital between the three groups among patients who received zero units of PRBC.||||<0.02
91041795|NCT01196390|181968552|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28||||||One-side significance level = 0.05|Chi-squared|||2 years||||0.28
91041796|NCT01196390|181968555|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.35||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|4.86|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression was used to model the association of treatment arm (Arm 1 vs. 2 \[reference level(RL)\]), T stage (T3 vs.T1,T2 \[RL\]), Zubrod (1,2 vs. 0 \[RL\]), gender (male vs. female \[RL\]), presence of adenopathy (yes vs. no \[RL\]), and age (≥ 60 vs. \<60 \[RL\]) with the occurrence of any cardiac AE, using backwards step-wise model selection requiring p≤0.05 for a covariate to remain in the model. Final model covariates are reported. Age is reported here. No other covariates reported.||4.86|1.13|0.021
90987878|NCT00431847|181860648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.258|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.4523||0.7778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5129|10.0289|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||10.0289|-7.5129|0.7778
90987879|NCT00431847|181860648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.5232|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.2532||0.2411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7608|22.8073|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||22.8073|-5.7608|0.2411
90987880|NCT00431847|181860649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.1629|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08284||0.0504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00029|0.3261|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group. The overall slope of the model (below) is reported as a continuous variable for time since injury.||0.3261|-0.00029|0.0504
90987881|NCT00431847|181860649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-Squared|1.45||||0.6942|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Degrees of Freedom: 3||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The time interaction component of the model is reported below.||||0.6942
90987882|NCT00431847|181860649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.5241|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4216||0.5297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2469|6.2951|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||6.2951|-3.2469|0.5297
90987883|NCT00431847|181860649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.7679|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7464||0.3155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1478|3.612|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||3.6120|-11.1478|0.3155
90987884|NCT00431847|181860649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.7558|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.092||0.1105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.7515|2.2399|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||2.2399|-21.7515|0.1105
90987885|NCT00431847|181860650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.2979|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07538||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4465|-0.1493|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group. The overall slope of the model (below) is reported as a continuous variable for time since injury.||-0.1493|-0.4465|0.001
90987886|NCT00431847|181860650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-Squared|2.72||||0.4361|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Degrees of Freedom: 3||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The time interaction component of the model is reported below.||||0.4361
90952921|NCT00316017|181783547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0||||The Statistical Analysis applies to the 7.5% hypertonic saline/6% Dextran-70 (HSD),7.5% hypertonic saline (HS), and 0.9% normal saline groups.|test for proportions|||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the percent of patients who died within 28 days from the time of the 911 call between the three groups among the patients who received zero units of PRBC.||||<0.01
90952922|NCT00316017|181783548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51||95.0||||The Statistical Analysis applies to the 7.5% hypertonic saline/6% Dextran-70 (HSD),7.5% hypertonic saline (HS), and 0.9% normal saline groups.|test for proportions|||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the percent of patients who received 1-9 units PRBC in the first 24 hours between the three groups.||||0.51
90952923|NCT00316017|181783549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73||95.0||||The Statistical Analysis applies to the 7.5% hypertonic saline/6% Dextran-70 (HSD),7.5% hypertonic saline (HS), and 0.9% normal saline groups.|test for proportions|||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the percent of patients who died in Field or ED between the three groups among the patients who received 1-9 units of PRBC.||||0.73
90987887|NCT00431847|181860650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6015||0.7297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0247|4.2246|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||4.2246|-6.0247|0.7297
90987888|NCT00431847|181860650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.2896|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0186||0.2868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.625|12.2043|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||12.2043|-3.6250|0.2868
90952924|NCT00316017|181783550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83||95.0||||The Statistical Analysis applies to the 7.5% hypertonic saline/6% Dextran-70 (HSD),7.5% hypertonic saline (HS), and 0.9% normal saline groups.|test for proportions|||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the percent of patients who died within 6 hours of admission to the hospital between the three groups among the patients who received 1-9 units of PRBC.||||0.83
90952925|NCT00316017|181783551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31||95.0||||The Statistical Analysis applies to the 7.5% hypertonic saline/6% Dextran-70 (HSD),7.5% hypertonic saline (HS), and 0.9% normal saline groups.|test for proportions|||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the percent of patients who died within 28 days from the time of the 911 call between the three groups among the patients who received 1-9 units of PRBC.||||0.31
90952926|NCT00316017|181783552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97||95.0||||The Statistical Analysis applies to the 7.5% hypertonic saline/6% Dextran-70 (HSD),7.5% hypertonic saline (HS), and 0.9% normal saline groups.|test for proportions|||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the percent of patients who received greater than 10 units of PRBC in first 24 hours between the three groups.||||0.97
90987889|NCT00431847|181860650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.0118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.2663||0.1516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.327|21.3505|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||21.3505|-3.3270|0.1516
90987890|NCT00431847|181860651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.9776|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1426|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2584|-0.6967|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group. The overall slope of the model (below) is reported as a continuous variable for time since injury. T||-0.6967|-1.2584|<0.0001
90987891|NCT00431847|181860651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-Squared|0.78||||0.8548|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Degrees of Freedom: 3||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The time interaction component of the model is reported below.||||0.8548
90987892|NCT00431847|181860651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.3635|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8899||0.3882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3026|11.0296|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||11.0296|-4.3026|0.3882
90987893|NCT00431847|181860651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5029|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.9044||0.9322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1376|11.1317|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||11.1317|-12.1376|0.9322
90987894|NCT00431847|181860651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|21.1166|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.2462||0.0233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8992|39.3341|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||39.3341|2.8992|0.0233
90987895|NCT00339183|181860660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Normal score|-2.91||||0.0036|||||||Stratified log-rank test|P-value based on a 2-sided log-rank test stratified by ECOG (0 or 1 vs. 2), prior bevacizumab exposure, and prior oxaliplatin exposure (yes or no).|A normal score \<0 indicates fewer than expected events for the Panitumumab plus FOLFIRI arm and therefore a longer progression-free survival time.|An overall 5% significance level was used to compare treatments with respect to both overall survival (OS) and PFS. A 4% and 1% level (2-sided) was used to independently test OS and PFS, respectively.||||0.0036
90987896|NCT00339183|181860660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Normal score|-1.46||||0.1448|||||||Stratified log-rank test|P-value based on a 2-sided log-rank test stratified by ECOG (0 or 1 vs. 2), prior bevacizumab exposure and prior oxaliplatin exposure (yes or no).|A normal score \<0 indicates fewer than expected events for the Panitumumab plus FOLFIRI arm and therefore a longer progression-free survival time.|PFS in the Mutant Efficacy Analysis Set was compared at a 1% level conditional upon first demonstrating a significant difference in PFS in the Wild-type KRAS Efficacy Analysis Set.||||0.1448
90987897|NCT00339183|181860661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Normal score|-1.57||||0.1154|||||||Stratified log-rank test|P-value based on a 2-sided log-rank test stratified by ECOG (0 or 1 vs. 2), prior bevacizumab exposure, and prior oxaliplatin exposure (yes or no).|A normal score \<0 indicates fewer than expected events for the Panitumumab plus FOLFIRI arm and therefore a longer overall survival time.|An overall 5% significance level was used to compare treatments with respect to both overall survival (OS) and PFS. A 4% and 1% level (2-sided) was used to independently test OS and PFS, respectively.||||0.1154
91041797|NCT01632215|181968567|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.05
91041798|NCT03480022|181968576|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.002|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated measures general linear model (SS/drug treatments by visits) where arm of drug therapy as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and 32 weeks of treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.002
91041799|NCT03480022|181968577|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.006|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated measures general linear model (SS/drug treatments by visits) where arm of drug therapy as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and 32 weeks of treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.006
90952927|NCT00316017|181783554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35||95.0||||The Statistical Analysis applies to the 7.5% hypertonic saline/6% Dextran-70 (HSD),7.5% hypertonic saline (HS), and 0.9% normal saline groups.|test for proportions|||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the percent of patients who died within 6 hours of admission to the hospital between the three groups among the patients who received greater than 10 units of PRBC.||||0.35
90952928|NCT00316017|181783555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34||95.0||||The Statistical Analysis applies to the 7.5% hypertonic saline/6% Dextran-70 (HSD),7.5% hypertonic saline (HS), and 0.9% normal saline groups.|test for proportions|||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the percent of patients who died within 28 days from the time of the 911 call between the three groups among the patients who received greater than 10 units of PRBC.||||0.34
90952929|NCT04157400|181783556|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.01
90952930|NCT04157400|181783557|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90952931|NCT04157400|181783558|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Segments of EMG recorded during walking at self-selected walking speed were used to investigate complexity of muscle synergies using a nonnegative matrix factorization (NNMF) algorithm (MATLAB®, Mathworks, Natick, MA). The approach involves calculation of an mxt matrix of the original EMG data (EMG0), where m represents the number of muscles being measured and t represents a time base normalized to percentage of gait cycle. The algorithm also calculates two surrogate matrices, mxn and nxt, where n is the amplitude of muscle activation. The product of the surrogate matrices are considered a reconstruction of EMG (EMGr). EMGr for each module is then compared to EMG0 by finding the variability accounted for (VAF). A threshold necessary for module classification was chosen to be 90% for all conditions (8 muscles + 6 phases of gait) based on similar studies in the literature. Classifications were not increased unless the higher module VAF was at least 5% higher than the preceding module.|||
90952932|NCT00422812|181783578|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0012||||||Overall effect at 2 hr (by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel) for TREATMENT|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0012
90952933|NCT00422812|181783579|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.281|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.281
90952934|NCT00422812|181783579|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0226|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0226
90987898|NCT00339183|181860661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Normal score|-0.6||||0.5503|||||||Stratified log-rank test|P-value based on a 2-sided log-rank test stratified by ECOG (0 or 1 vs. 2), prior bevacizumab exposure, and prior oxaliplatin exposure (yes or no).|A normal score \<0 indicates fewer than expected events for the Panitumumab plus FOLFIRI arm and therefore a longer overall survival time.|The treatment effect on OS in the Mutant KRAS Efficacy Analysis Set was compared at the 4% level conditional on first demonstrating a significant OS treatment effect in the Wild-type KRAS Efficacy Analysis Set.||||0.5503
90987899|NCT00339183|181860662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.21|8.6|||Stratified exact test|Adjusted for ECOG score, prior bevacizumab exposure, prior oxaliplatin exposure.|The odds ratio is defined as the odds of having an objective response in the panitumumab plus arm relative to the odds on the FOLFIRI alone arm.|||8.60|3.21|<0.0001
91041800|NCT03480022|181968578|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures nested design||Repeated measures general linear model (SS/drug treatments by visits) where arm of drug therapy as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and 32 weeks of treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.001
90952935|NCT00422812|181783579|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0019|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0019
90987900|NCT00339183|181860662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.76|||Stratified exact test|Adjusted for ECOG score, prior bevacizumab exposure, prior oxaliplatin exposure.|The odds ratio is defined as the odds of having an objective response in the panitumumab plus arm relative to the odds on the FOLFIRI alone arm.|||1.76|0.56|1.0000
90987901|NCT00076219|181860674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.40|0.86|0.47
91041801|NCT03480022|181968579|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.002|||||||ANOVA|one-way ANOVA||||||<0.002
90952936|NCT00422812|181783580|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0007||||||Overall effect (0-4 hr) for TREATMENT by Log-rank p-value|Log Rank|There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons.||||||0.0007
90952937|NCT00422812|181783580|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0008|||||||Log Rank|No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons||||||0.0008
90952938|NCT00422812|181783580|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0008||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons|Log Rank|||||||0.0008
90952939|NCT00422812|181783580|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons|Log Rank|||||||0.0003
90952940|NCT02671500|181783584|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||2-sided 1 sample exact binomial test|||A sample size of 260 participants in Region 1 would provide more than 80% power to detect an improvement of at least 6 percentage points in SVR12 rate from the performance goal of 85% by using a two-sided exact one-sample binomial test at the significance level of 0.05.||||<0.001
90952941|NCT03852719|181783634|OTHER||Difference in percentages|46.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|96.0|30.5|61.4||Fisher's exact test was used for comparison of bulevirtide 10 mg versus Delayed Treatment using a significance level of 0.04 at Week 48.|Fisher Exact|||||61.4|30.5|<0.0001
90952942|NCT03852719|181783634|OTHER||Difference in percentages|42.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|96.0|27.0|58.5||Fisher's exact test was used for comparison of bulevirtide 2 mg versus Delayed Treatment using a significance level of 0.04 at Week 48.|Fisher Exact|||||58.5|27.0|<0.0001
90987902|NCT02142894|181860683|EQUIVALENCE|The results are analyzed in a 2x2 contingency table with 95%CI.|2 x 2 contingency table|87.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|72.7|95.2||||||||95.2|72.7|
90987903|NCT01455428|181860710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.188||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.34||Primary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis performed using a general linear model with treatment and center as factors, and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.34|-1.08|0.0002
90987904|NCT01455428|181860711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.149||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.2||All analyses were 2-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||Week 1 Modelled Results. The model used was a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center, and treatment by week interaction as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.||-0.20|-0.79|0.0010
90987905|NCT01455428|181860711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.35||All analyses were 2-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||Week 2 Modelled Results. The model used was a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center, and treatment by week interaction as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.||-0.35|-0.94|<0.0001
90987906|NCT01455428|181860711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.151||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.29||All analyses were 2-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||Week 3 Modelled Results. The model used was a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center, and treatment by week interaction as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.||-0.29|-0.88|0.0001
90987907|NCT01455428|181860711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.152||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.21||All analyses were 2-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||Week 4 Modelled Results. The model used was a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center, and treatment by week interaction as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.||-0.21|-0.81|0.0009
90987908|NCT01455428|181860711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.153||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.21||All analyses were 2-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||Week 5 Modelled Results. The model used was a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center, and treatment by week interaction as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.||-0.21|-0.81|0.0009
90987909|NCT01455428|181860711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.153||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.29||All analyses were 2-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||Week 6 Modelled Results. The model used was a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center, and treatment by week interaction as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.||-0.29|-0.89|0.0001
90987910|NCT01455428|181860711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.154|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.41||All analyses were 2-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||Week 7 Modelled Results. The model used was a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center, and treatment by week interaction as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.||-0.41|-1.01|<0.0001
90987911|NCT01455428|181860711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.154|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.4||All analyses were 2-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||Week 8 Modelled Results. The model used was a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center, and treatment by week interaction as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.||-0.40|-1.00|<0.0001
90987912|NCT01455428|181860713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|-0.14||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis performed using a general linear model with treatment and center as factors, and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.14|-0.93|0.0079
90987913|NCT01455428|181860714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.172||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|-0.19||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||Week 1 Modelled Results. The model used was a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center, and treatment by week interaction as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.||-0.19|-0.86|0.0024
90987914|NCT01455428|181860714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.173||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.31||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||Week 2 Modelled Results. The model used was a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center, and treatment by week interaction as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.||-0.31|-0.99|0.0002
91041802|NCT03480022|181968580|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.007|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.007
91041803|NCT03480022|181968581|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.049|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.049
90952943|NCT03852719|181783635|OTHER||Difference in percentages|7.8||||0.4139|TWO_SIDED|96.0|-8.5|24.3||Fisher's exact test was used for the comparison of bulevirtide 10 mg versus bulevirtide 2 mg using a significance level of 0.04 at Week 48.|Fisher Exact|||||24.3|-8.5|0.4139
90952944|NCT03852719|181783636|OTHER||Difference in percentages|39.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.0|55.8||Fisher's exact test was used for comparison of bulevirtide 2 mg versus Delayed treatment using a significance level of 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||55.8|20.0|<0.0001
90952945|NCT03852719|181783636|OTHER||Difference in percentage|44.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.8|59.9||Fisher's exact test was used for comparison of bulevirtide 10 mg versus Delayed treatment using a significance level of 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||59.9|25.8|<0.0001
90952946|NCT03852719|181783637|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-4.02||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.39|-1.65|||ANCOVA|||||-1.65|-6.39|0.0010
90952947|NCT03852719|181783637|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-3.93||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.23|-1.63|||ANCOVA|||||-1.63|-6.23|0.0009
90952948|NCT03852719|181783638|OTHER||Difference in Least Square (LS) Mean|0.57||||0.5156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|2.3|||MMRM|||||2.30|-1.16|0.5156
90952949|NCT03852719|181783639|OTHER||Difference in Least Square (LS) Mean|-1.21||||0.2977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|1.08|||MMRM|||||1.08|-3.50|0.2977
90952950|NCT03852719|181783640|SUPERIORITY||LS-Mean of Diffrence|-0.04||||0.9719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|2.15||P-value was based on the mixed-effects model for repeated measurements (MMRM) model.|MMRM||Least squares (LS) means, standard errors (SE), 95% CIs and p-values were based on the mixed-effects model for repeated measurements (MMRM) model for change from baseline.|||2.15|-2.23|0.9719
90952951|NCT03852719|181783641|SUPERIORITY|P-value was based on the mixed-effects model for repeated measurements (MMRM) model.|LS-Mean of Difference|2.11||||0.2369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|5.63|||MMRM||Least squares (LS) means, standard errors (SE), 95% CIs and p-values were based on the mixed-effects model for repeated measurements (MMRM) model for change from baseline.|||5.63|-1.41|0.2369
90952952|NCT03852719|181783642|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|7.6||||0.4695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|24.4||P-value was based on Fisher's Exact Test.|Fisher Exact||For response rate difference, the 95% exact unconditional confidence interval (CI) based on the score statistic was presented.|||24.4|-9.6|0.4695
90952953|NCT03852719|181783642|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|-0.4||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|15.5||P-value was based on Fisher's Exact Test.|Fisher Exact||For response rate difference, the 95% exact unconditional confidence interval (CI) based on the score statistic was presented|||15.5|-16.3|1.0000
90952954|NCT03852719|181783643|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|7.7||||0.4539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|24.0||P-value was based on Fisher's Exact Test.|Fisher Exact||For response rate difference, the 95% exact unconditional confidence interval (CI) based on the score statistic was presented|||24.0|-8.8|0.4539
90952955|NCT03852719|181783643|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|-0.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.6|15.5||P-value was based on Fisher's Exact Test.|Fisher Exact||For response rate difference, the 95% exact unconditional confidence interval (CI) based on the score statistic was presented.|||15.5|-15.6|1.0000
91041804|NCT03480022|181968582|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.011|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated measures general linear model (SS/drug treatments by visits) where arm of drug therapy as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and 32 weeks of treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.011
90987915|NCT01455428|181860714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.173||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.22||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||Week 3 Modelled Results. The model used was a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center, and treatment by week interaction as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.||-0.22|-0.91|0.0012
90987916|NCT01455428|181860714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.174||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.11||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||Week 4 Modelled Results. The model used was a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center, and treatment by week interaction as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.||-0.11|-0.79|0.0101
90987917|NCT01455428|181860714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.175||0.0258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.05||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||Week 5 Modelled Results. The model used was a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center, and treatment by week interaction as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.||-0.05|-0.73|0.0258
90987918|NCT01455428|181860714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.175||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.05||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||Week 6 Modelled Results. The model used was a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center, and treatment by week interaction as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.||-0.05|-0.74|0.0260
90987919|NCT01455428|181860714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.175||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.14||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||Week 7 Modelled Results. The model used was a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center, and treatment by week interaction as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.||-0.14|-0.83|0.0062
90987920|NCT01455428|181860714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.176||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.12||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||Week 8 Modelled Results. The model used was a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center, and treatment by week interaction as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.||-0.12|-0.81|0.0081
90987921|NCT01455428|181860715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0007||||||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test comparing pregabalin to placebo adjusted for center.||||0.0007
90987922|NCT01455428|181860718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-8.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.932|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.99|-4.37||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis performed using a general linear model with treatment and center as factors, and baseline value as a covariate.||-4.37|-11.99|<0.0001
90987923|NCT01455428|181860719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.107||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|-0.16||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis performed using a general linear model with treatment and center as factors, and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.16|-0.58|0.0007
90987924|NCT01455428|181860721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.464||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.08|-2.35||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis performed using a general linear model with treatment and center as factors, and baseline value as a covariate.||-2.35|-12.08|0.0039
91041805|NCT03480022|181968583|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.038|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated measures general linear model (SS/drug treatments by visits) where arm of drug therapy as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and 32 weeks of treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.038
90987925|NCT01455428|181860722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.783||0.5351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.76|7.22||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis performed using a general linear model with treatment and center as factors, and baseline value as a covariate.||7.22|-3.76|0.5351
91041806|NCT03480022|181968584|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.048|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated measures general linear model (SS/drug treatments by visits) where arm of drug therapy as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and 32 weeks of treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.048
91041807|NCT03480022|181968585|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.018|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated measures general linear model (SS/drug treatments by visits) where arm of drug therapy as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and 32 weeks of treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.018
91041808|NCT03480022|181968586|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.028|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated measures general linear model (SS/drug treatments by visits) where arm of drug therapy as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and 32 weeks of treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.028
91041809|NCT03480022|181968587|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.034|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated measures general linear model (SS/drug treatments by visits) where arm of drug therapy as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and 32 weeks of treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.034
91041810|NCT03480022|181968588|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.035|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated measures general linear model (SS/drug treatments by visits) where arm of drug therapy as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and 32 weeks of treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.035
91041811|NCT03480022|181968589|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated measures general linear model (SS/drug treatments by visits) where arm of drug therapy as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and 32 weeks of treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.0001
91041812|NCT03480022|181968590|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated measures general linear model (SS/drug treatments by visits) where arm of drug therapy as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and 32 weeks of treatment) as within subject effect||||>0.05
91041813|NCT03480022|181968591|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated measures general linear model (SS/drug treatments by visits) where arm of drug therapy as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and 32 weeks of treatment) as within subject effect||||>0.05
91041814|NCT03480022|181968592|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.021|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated measures general linear model (SS/drug treatments by visits) where arm of drug therapy as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and 32 weeks of treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.021
91041815|NCT03480022|181968593|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.009|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated measures general linear model (SS/drug treatments by visits) where arm of drug therapy as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and 32 weeks of treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.009
91041816|NCT03480022|181968594|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.035|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated measures general linear model (SS/drug treatments by visits) where arm of drug therapy as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and 32 weeks of treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.035
91041817|NCT03480022|181968595|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.028|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated measures general linear model (SS/drug treatments by visits) where arm of drug therapy as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and 32 weeks of treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.028
91041818|NCT03480022|181968596|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.042|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated measures general linear model (SS/drug treatments by visits) where arm of drug therapy as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and 32 weeks of treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.042
91041819|NCT03480022|181968597|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.033|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated measures general linear model (SS/drug treatments by visits) where arm of drug therapy as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and 32 weeks of treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.033
91041820|NCT03480022|181968598|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated measures general linear model (SS/drug treatments by visits) where arm of drug therapy as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and 32 weeks of treatment) as within subject effect||||>0.05
91041821|NCT03480022|181968599|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated measures general linear model (SS/drug treatments by visits) where arm of drug therapy as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and 32 weeks of treatment) as within subject effect||||>0.05
91041822|NCT03480022|181968600|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.016|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated measures general linear model (SS/drug treatments by visits) where arm of drug therapy as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and 32 weeks of treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.016
91041823|NCT03480022|181968601|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.028|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated measures general linear model (SS/drug treatments by visits) where arm of drug therapy as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and 32 weeks of treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.028
91041824|NCT03480022|181968602|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated measures general linear model (SS/drug treatments by visits) where arm of drug therapy as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and 32 weeks of treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.01
91041825|NCT03480022|181968603|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated measures general linear model (SS/drug treatments by visits) where arm of drug therapy as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and 32 weeks of treatment) as within subject effect||||>0.05
91041826|NCT03480022|181968604|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated measures general linear model (SS/drug treatments by visits) where arm of drug therapy as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and 32 weeks of treatment) as within subject effect||||>0.05
91041827|NCT03980522|181968638|OTHER||Inter-subject variance|19.1908|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Inter-subject variability of CRP levels for Part 1, 2, and 4 participants was a designated primary endpoint.~Estimates of inter-subject variance and standard deviation (SD) from a mixed model for repeated measures with CRP level as the outcome, repeated effect of visit and random effect of subject. Variance Components covariance structure was assumed. The data from all scheduled pre-baseline visits was used."||||
91041828|NCT03980522|181968638|OTHER||Inter-subject variance|0.0018|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Inter-subject variability of CRP levels for Part 1, 2, and 4 participants was a designated primary endpoint.~Estimates of inter-subject variance and SD from a mixed model for repeated measures with CRP level as the outcome, repeated effect of visit and random effect of subject. Variance Components covariance structure was assumed. The data from all scheduled pre-baseline visits was used."||||
91041829|NCT03980522|181968638|OTHER||Inter-subject variance|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Inter-subject variability of CRP levels for Part 1, 2, and 4 participants was a designated primary endpoint.~Estimates of inter-subject variance and SD from a mixed model for repeated measures with CRP level as the outcome, repeated effect of visit and random effect of subject. Variance Components covariance structure was assumed. The data from all scheduled pre-baseline visits was used."||||
91041830|NCT03980522|181968638|OTHER||Intra-subject variance|12.6852|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Intra-subject variability of CRP levels for Part 1, 2, and 4 participants was a designated primary endpoint.~Estimates of intra-subject variance and SD from a mixed model for repeated measures with CRP level as the outcome, repeated effect of visit and random effect of subject. Variance Components covariance structure was assumed. The data from all scheduled pre-baseline visits was used."||||
91041831|NCT03980522|181968638|OTHER||Intra-subject variance|0.1842|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Intra-subject variability of CRP levels for Part 1, 2, and 4 participants was a designated primary endpoint.~Estimates of intra-subject variance and SD from a mixed model for repeated measures with CRP level as the outcome, repeated effect of visit and random effect of subject. Variance Components covariance structure was assumed. The data from all scheduled pre-baseline visits was used."||||
91041832|NCT03980522|181968638|OTHER||Intra-subject variance|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Intra-subject variability of CRP levels for Part 1, 2, and 4 participants was a designated primary endpoint.~Estimates of intra-subject variance and SD from a mixed model for repeated measures with CRP level as the outcome, repeated effect of visit and random effect of subject. Variance Components covariance structure was assumed. The data from all scheduled pre-baseline visits was used."||||
91041833|NCT03980522|181968639|OTHER||Inter-subject variance|34.1446|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Inter-subject variability of CRP levels for Part 1, 2, and 4 participants was a designated primary endpoint.~Estimates of inter-subject variance and SD from a mixed model for repeated measures with change from baseline in CRP level as the outcome, repeated effect of visit and random effect of subject. Variance Components covariance structure was assumed. The data from all scheduled post-baseline visits was used."||||
91041834|NCT03980522|181968639|OTHER||Inter-subject variance|0.1326|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Inter-subject variability of CRP levels for Part 1, 2, and 4 participants was a designated primary endpoint.~Estimates of inter-subject variance and SD from a mixed model for repeated measures with change from baseline in CRP level as the outcome, repeated effect of visit and random effect of subject. Variance Components covariance structure was assumed. The data from all scheduled post-baseline visits was used."||||
91041835|NCT03980522|181968639|OTHER||Inter-subject variance|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Inter-subject variability of CRP levels for Part 1, 2, and 4 participants was a designated primary endpoint.~Estimates of inter-subject variance and SD from a mixed model for repeated measures with change from baseline in CRP level as the outcome, repeated effect of visit and random effect of subject. Variance Components covariance structure was assumed. The data from all scheduled post-baseline visits was used."||||
91041836|NCT03980522|181968639|OTHER||Intra-subject variance|0.0548|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Intra-subject variability of CRP levels for Part 1, 2, and 4 participants was a designated primary endpoint.~Estimates of intra-subject variance and SD from a mixed model for repeated measures with change from baseline in CRP level as the outcome, repeated effect of visit and random effect of subject. Variance Components covariance structure was assumed. The data from all scheduled post-baseline visits was used."||||
91041837|NCT03980522|181968639|OTHER||Intra-subject variance|0.0134|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Intra-subject variability of CRP levels for Part 1, 2, and 4 participants was a designated primary endpoint.~Estimates of intra-subject variance and SD from a mixed model for repeated measures with change from baseline in CRP level as the outcome, repeated effect of visit and random effect of subject. Variance Components covariance structure was assumed. The data from all scheduled post-baseline visits was used."||||
91041838|NCT03980522|181968639|OTHER||Intra-subject variance|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Intra-subject variability of CRP levels for Part 1, 2, and 4 participants was a designated primary endpoint.~Estimates of intra-subject variance and SD from a mixed model for repeated measures with change from baseline in CRP level as the outcome, repeated effect of visit and random effect of subject. Variance Components covariance structure was assumed. The data from all scheduled post-baseline visits was used."||||
91041839|NCT03980522|181968640|OTHER||Inter-subject variance|2.8139|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Inter-subject variability of NRS Scores for Part 1, 2, and 4 participants was a designated primary endpoint.~Estimates of inter-subject variance and SD from a mixed model for repeated measures with NRS level as the outcome, repeated effect of visit and random effect of subject. Variance Components covariance structure was assumed. The data from all scheduled pre-baseline visits was used."||||
91041840|NCT03980522|181968640|OTHER||Inter-subject variance|6.9999|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Inter-subject variability of NRS Scores for Part 1, 2, and 4 participants was a designated primary endpoint.~Estimates of inter-subject variance and SD from a mixed model for repeated measures with NRS level as the outcome, repeated effect of visit and random effect of subject. Variance Components covariance structure was assumed. The data from all scheduled pre-baseline visits was used."||||
91041841|NCT03980522|181968640|OTHER||Inter-subject variance|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Inter-subject variability of NRS Scores for Part 1, 2, and 4 participants was a designated primary endpoint.~Estimates of inter-subject variance and SD from a mixed model for repeated measures with NRS level as the outcome, repeated effect of visit and random effect of subject. Variance Components covariance structure was assumed. The data from all scheduled pre-baseline visits was used."||||
91041842|NCT03980522|181968640|OTHER||Intra-subject variance|0.9693|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Intra-subject variability of NRS Scores for Part 1, 2, and 4 participants was a designated primary endpoint.~Estimates of intra-subject variance and SD from a mixed model for repeated measures with NRS level as the outcome, repeated effect of visit and random effect of subject. Variance Components covariance structure was assumed. The data from all scheduled pre-baseline visits was used."||||
91041843|NCT03980522|181968640|OTHER||Intra-subject variance|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Intra-subject variability of NRS Scores for Part 1, 2, and 4 participants was a designated primary endpoint.~Estimates of intra-subject variance and SD from a mixed model for repeated measures with NRS level as the outcome, repeated effect of visit and random effect of subject. Variance Components covariance structure was assumed. The data from all scheduled pre-baseline visits was used."||||
91041844|NCT03980522|181968640|OTHER||Intra-subject variance|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Intra-subject variability of NRS Scores for Part 1, 2, and 4 participants was a designated primary endpoint.~Estimates of intra-subject variance and SD from a mixed model for repeated measures with NRS level as the outcome, repeated effect of visit and random effect of subject. Variance Components covariance structure was assumed. The data from all scheduled pre-baseline visits was used."||||
91041845|NCT03980522|181968641|OTHER||Inter-subject variance|1.9968|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Inter-subject variability of NRS Scores for Part 1, 2, and 4 participants was a designated primary endpoint.~Estimates of inter-subject variance and SD from a mixed model for repeated measures with change from baseline in NRS level as the outcome, repeated effect of visit and random effect of subject. Variance Components covariance structure was assumed. The data from all scheduled post-baseline visits was used."||||
91041846|NCT03980522|181968641|OTHER||Inter-subject variance|0.9047|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Inter-subject variability of NRS Scores for Part 1, 2, and 4 participants was a designated primary endpoint.~Estimates of inter-subject variance and SD from a mixed model for repeated measures with change from baseline in NRS level as the outcome, repeated effect of visit and random effect of subject. Variance Components covariance structure was assumed. The data from all scheduled post-baseline visits was used."||||
91041847|NCT03980522|181968641|OTHER||Inter-subject variance|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Inter-subject variability of NRS Scores for Part 1, 2, and 4 participants was a designated primary endpoint.~Estimates of inter-subject variance and SD from a mixed model for repeated measures with change from baseline in NRS level as the outcome, repeated effect of visit and random effect of subject. Variance Components covariance structure was assumed. The data from all scheduled post-baseline visits was used."||||
91041848|NCT03980522|181968641|OTHER||Intra-subject variance|1.7598|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Intra-subject variability of NRS Scores for Part 1, 2, and 4 participants was a designated primary endpoint.~Estimates of intra-subject variance and SD from a mixed model for repeated measures with change from baseline in NRS level as the outcome, repeated effect of visit and random effect of subject. Variance Components covariance structure was assumed. The data from all scheduled post-baseline visits was used."||||
91041849|NCT03980522|181968641|OTHER||Intra-subject variance|2.849|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Intra-subject variability of NRS Scores for Part 1, 2, and 4 participants was a designated primary endpoint.~Estimates of intra-subject variance and SD from a mixed model for repeated measures with change from baseline in NRS level as the outcome, repeated effect of visit and random effect of subject. Variance Components covariance structure was assumed. The data from all scheduled post-baseline visits was used."||||
91041850|NCT03980522|181968641|OTHER||Intra-subject variance|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Intra-subject variability of NRS Scores for Part 1, 2, and 4 participants was a designated primary endpoint.~Estimates of intra-subject variance and SD from a mixed model for repeated measures with change from baseline in NRS level as the outcome, repeated effect of visit and random effect of subject. Variance Components covariance structure was assumed. The data from all scheduled post-baseline visits was used."||||
91041851|NCT01320722|181968644|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||Repeated Measures Analysis|||Week 8||||0.72
91041852|NCT01320722|181968645|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77||||||Statistical significance was set for P\>0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 8||||0.77
91041853|NCT01320722|181968646|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57||||||Statistical significance was set for P\>0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 8||||0.57
91041854|NCT01320722|181968647|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Repeated Measures Analysis|||||||0.8
91041855|NCT01320722|181968647|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Repeated Measures Analysis|||||||0.6
91041856|NCT01320722|181968648|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Repeated Measures Analysis|||||||0.6
91041857|NCT01320722|181968648|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Repeated Measures Analysis|||||||0.7
91041858|NCT01320722|181968649|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Repeated Measures Analysis|||||||0.3
91041859|NCT01320722|181968649|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Repeated Measures Analysis|||||||0.1
91041860|NCT01320722|181968650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Statistical significance was set for a 2-tailed P \<0.05.||Week 8||||0.35
91041861|NCT01320722|181968650|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7||||||Statistical significance was set for a 2-tailed P \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 8||||0.7
91041862|NCT01320722|181968650|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06||||||Statistical significance was set for a 2-tailed P \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 8||||0.06
91041863|NCT01320722|181968651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92||||||Statistical significance was set for P\>0.05.|Repeated Measures Analysis|||Overall SBP||||0.92
91041864|NCT01320722|181968651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64||||||Statistical significance was set for P\>0.05.|Repeated Measures Analysis|||Overall DBP||||0.64
91041865|NCT01320722|181968651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8||||||Statistical significance was set for P\>0.05.|Repeated Measures Analysis|||Awake SBP||||0.80
91041866|NCT01320722|181968651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97||||||Statistical significance was set for P\>0.05.|Repeated Measures Analysis|||Asleep SBP at Week 8||||0.97
91041867|NCT01320722|181968651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Repeated Measures Analysis|||Overall SBP||||0.34
91041868|NCT01320722|181968651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||Repeated Measures Analysi|||Overall DBP||||0.59
91041869|NCT01320722|181968651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||Repeated Measures Analysis|||Awake SBF||||0.57
91041870|NCT01320722|181968651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Repeated Measures Analysis|||Asleep SBP||||0.08
91041871|NCT01320722|181968651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||Repeated Measures Analysis|||Overall SBP||||0.59
91041872|NCT01320722|181968651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53|||||||Repeated Measures Analysis|||||||0.53
91041873|NCT01320722|181968651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||Repeated Measures Analysis|||Awake SBP||||0.55
91041874|NCT01320722|181968651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Repeated Measures Analysis|||Asleep SBP||||0.80
91041875|NCT01320722|181968652|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||Repeated Measures Analysis|||||||0.98
91041876|NCT01320722|181968652|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Repeated Measures Analysis|||||||0.07
91041877|NCT01320722|181968652|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||Repeated Measures Analysis|||||||0.97
91041878|NCT01091363|181968653|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.67|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.67|12.99|||Regression, Logistic|||||12.99|1.67|<0.01
91041879|NCT01091363|181968654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Hayes' PROCESS computation tool for a serial multiple mediator model predicting a binary logistic outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.92||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|6.32|||Mediation Analysis|||Mediation analyses were performed to examine the effect of the intervention on abstinence via the three theoretic variables (attitudes, perceived family norms, and self-efficacy), using the Hayes' PROCESS computation tool for a serial multiple mediator model with a binary outcome variable (quitting vs. smoking).||6.32|0.34|0.02
91041880|NCT00021541|181968666|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||Repeated measures ANOVA|||||||0.012
91041881|NCT00021541|181968666|OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||Repeated measures ANOVA|||Post hoc test: tipifarnib group F=7.40||||0.015
91041882|NCT00021541|181968666|OTHER|||||||0.66|||||||Repeated measures ANOVA|||Post hoc test: placebo group F=0.19||||0.66
91041883|NCT04892147|181968669|OTHER|"Mean value of Enjoyment (8-item summed scale) tested against the value of a Neutral Likert response (Neutral value = 3)."|||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05. The reported value is a calculated -p-value.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91041884|NCT04892147|181968670|EQUIVALENCE|Analyses were conducted using general linear models, controlling for baseline levels only with treatment group as the predictor of interest.||||||0.259||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Regression, Linear|||||||0.259
91041885|NCT04892147|181968671|EQUIVALENCE|Analyses were conducted using general linear models, controlling for baseline levels only with treatment group as the predictor of interest.||||||0.711||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.711
91041886|NCT04892147|181968672|EQUIVALENCE|Analyses were conducted using general linear models, controlling for baseline levels only with treatment group as the predictor of interest.||||||0.214||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.214
91041887|NCT04892147|181968673|EQUIVALENCE|Analyses were conducted using general linear models, controlling for baseline levels only with treatment group as the predictor of interest.||||||0.317||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.317
91041888|NCT04892147|181968674|EQUIVALENCE|Analyses were conducted using general linear models, controlling for baseline levels only with treatment group as the predictor of interest.||||||0.056||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.056
91041889|NCT04892147|181968675|EQUIVALENCE|Analyses were conducted using general linear models, controlling for baseline levels only with treatment group as the predictor of interest.||||||0.562||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.562
91041890|NCT00556673|181968698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.28|0.51||"Linear mixed effect model fitting treatment, sequence and period as fixed factors, patient within sequence as a random factor and pre-dose FEV1 as covariate.~A significance level of 5% was used to determine statistical significance."|1-sided|||The primary hypothesis tested was that the change from period baseline of trough FEV1 for placebo and indacaterol/mometasone was equal. The one-sided alternative was that the increase from period baseline of trough FEV1 for indacaterol/mometasone was higher than for placebo.||0.51|0.28|< 0.0001
91041891|NCT01971554|181968713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|30.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|11.3|50.3|||||A constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model was used to fit to the FPG data from the MK-8666 dose groups and placebo. Time was treated as a categorical variable so that no restriction was imposed on the trajectory of the means over time.|||50.3|11.3|
91041892|NCT01971554|181968713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|36.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|20.0|51.9|||||A cLDA model was used to fit to the FPG data from the MK-8666 dose groups and placebo. Time was treated as a categorical variable so that no restriction was imposed on the trajectory of the means over time.|||51.9|20.0|
91041893|NCT01971554|181968713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|54.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|38.1|70.0|||||A cLDA model was used to fit to the FPG data from the MK-8666 dose groups and placebo. Time was treated as a categorical variable so that no restriction was imposed on the trajectory of the means over time.|||70.0|38.1|
91041894|NCT01971554|181968719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|22.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.2|38.4|||||A cLDA model was used to fit to the FPG data from the MK-8666 dose groups and placebo. Time was treated as a categorical variable so that no restriction was imposed on the trajectory of the means over time.|||38.4|6.2|
91041895|NCT01971554|181968719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|30.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|17.4|43.8|||||A cLDA model was used to fit to the FPG data from the MK-8666 dose groups and placebo. Time was treated as a categorical variable so that no restriction was imposed on the trajectory of the means over time.|||43.8|17.4|
91041896|NCT01971554|181968719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|48.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|35.6|62.0|||||A cLDA model was used to fit to the FPG data from the MK-8666 dose groups and placebo. Time was treated as a categorical variable so that no restriction was imposed on the trajectory of the means over time.|||62.0|35.6|
91041897|NCT00087529|181968723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.773||||0.1442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.546|1.093||Stratified using the following variables: Baseline EDSS (less than or equal to \[≤\] 4.0 versus \>4.0 points) and prior treatment with interferon-beta or glatiramer acetate.|Log Rank|||||1.093|0.546|0.1442
91041898|NCT00087529|181968725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-718.24||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1504.48|68.0|||Friedman ranked ANOVA test|||Treatment difference in least-squares (LS) means and the associated 95% confidence intervals were estimated from the analysis of variance (ANOVA) model, which included the following factors: Baseline EDSS (≤ 4.0 versus \>4.0 points), prior treatment with interferon-beta or glatiramer acetate, and treatment group.||68.00|-1504.48|0.0008
91041899|NCT00087529|181968726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.08||||0.6237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.49|7.34|||Friedman ranked ANOVA test|||Treatment difference in LS means and the associated 95% confidence intervals were estimated from the ANOVA model, which included the following factors: Baseline EDSS (≤ 4.0 versus \>4.0 points), prior treatment with interferon-beta or glatiramer acetate, and treatment group.||7.34|-9.49|0.6237
91041900|NCT02535923|181968727|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.04
91041901|NCT02535923|181968727|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.83
91041902|NCT02535923|181968728|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.83
91041903|NCT02535923|181968729|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.003
91041904|NCT02535923|181968730|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.16
91041905|NCT02535923|181968731|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.82
91041906|NCT04388787|181968733|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.03
91041907|NCT04388787|181968734|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0008|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0008
91041908|NCT00122447|181968750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.941|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.229||0.449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.435|1.552||Association between treatment arm, compared to placebo, on change in hsCRP from baseline to 12 months of intervention, adjusted for age, sex, and race.|Regression, Linear|||||1.552|-3.435|0.449
91041909|NCT00122447|181968750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-2.677|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.211||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.133|-0.221||Association between treatment arm, compared to placebo, on change in hsCRP from baseline to 12 months of intervention, adjusted for age, sex, and race.|Regression, Linear|||||-0.221|-5.133|0.034
91041910|NCT00122447|181968750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.088|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21||0.943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.367|2.542||Association between treatment arm, compared to placebo, on change in hsCRP from baseline to 12 months of intervention, adjusted for age, sex, and race.|Regression, Linear|||||2.542|-2.367|0.943
91041911|NCT00122447|181968751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.025|0.023||Association between treatment arm, compared to placebo, on change in FMD from baseline to 12 months of intervention, adjusted for age, sex, race, and LDL-cholesterol.|Regression, Linear|||Null hypothesis: no difference between active treatment group compared to placebo.||0.023|-0.025|0.943
91041912|NCT00122447|181968751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.014|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.012|0.039||Association between treatment arm, compared to placebo, on change in FMD from baseline to 12 months of intervention, adjusted for age, sex, race, and LDL-cholesterol.|Regression, Linear|||||0.039|-0.012|0.280
91041913|NCT00122447|181968751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.012|0.037||Association between treatment arm, compared to placebo, on change in FMD from baseline to 12 months of intervention, adjusted for age, sex, race, and LDL-cholesterol.|Regression, Linear|||||0.037|-0.012|0.313
91041914|NCT04284553|181968754|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.49|||||"The Odds Ratio compares having open encounter as an intervention factor in the arm the patients' primary care providers were assigned to vs. all others not having an open encounter alert in the arm they were assigned to."|Outcomes were evaluated using generalized linear mixed models with a logit link and binary errors, evaluating the association between the intervention factors (i.e., behavioral components) and the primary outcome, pooling across both stages of the trial and adjusting for provider-level clustering.||1.49|0.97|
91041915|NCT04284553|181968754|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.59|||||"The OR compares between having boostering as an intervention factor in the arm the patients' primary care providers were assigned to vs. all others not having boostering in the arm they were assigned to."|Outcomes were evaluated using generalized linear mixed models with a logit link and binary errors, evaluating the association between the intervention factors (i.e., behavioral components) and the primary outcome, pooling across both stages of the 2-stage Atrius adaptive trial and adjusting for provider-level clustering. As noted in our Study Protocol and pre-specified, the analyses are conducted across the intervention factors across the study arms, rather than between the study arms.||1.59|0.83|
91041916|NCT04284553|181968754|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.16|||||"The OR compares between having cold-state priming as an intervention factor in the arm the patient's primary care providers were assigned to vs. all others not having cold-state priming in the arm they were assigned to."|Outcomes were evaluated using generalized linear mixed models with a logit link and binary errors, evaluating the association between the intervention factors (i.e., behavioral components) and the primary outcome, pooling across both stages of the 2-stage Atrius adaptive trial and adjusting for provider-level clustering. As noted in our Study Protocol and pre-specified, the analyses are conducted across the intervention factors across the study arms, rather than between the study arms.||1.16|0.61|
90987926|NCT01455428|181860723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.579||0.8892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.45|4.73||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis performed using a general linear model with treatment and center as factors, and baseline value as a covariate.||4.73|-5.45|0.8892
90987927|NCT01455428|181860724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.147||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.72||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis performed using a general linear model with treatment and center as factors, and baseline value as a covariate.||0.72|0.14|0.0035
91041917|NCT04284553|181968754|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.64|||||"The OR compares between having simplification as an intervention factor in the arm the patients' primary care providers were assigned to vs. all others not having simplification in the arm they were assigned to."|Outcomes were evaluated using generalized linear mixed models with a logit link and binary errors, evaluating the association between the intervention factors (i.e., behavioral components) and the primary outcome, pooling across both stages of the 2-stage Atrius adaptive trial and adjusting for provider-level clustering. As noted in our Study Protocol and pre-specified, the analyses are conducted across the intervention factors across the study arms, rather than between the study arms.||1.64|0.88|
90987928|NCT01455428|181860725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.0972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|3.6||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||Analysis performed using a logistic regression model with treatment and center as factors, and baseline value as a covariate.||3.60|0.90|0.0972
90987929|NCT01455428|181860726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.161||0.5702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.44|8.03||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis performed using a general linear model with treatment and center as factors, and baseline value as a covariate.||8.03|-4.44|0.5702
90987930|NCT01455428|181860727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.194||0.6929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.46|5.2||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis performed using a general linear model with treatment and center as factors, and baseline value as a covariate.||5.20|-3.46|0.6929
90987931|NCT01455428|181860728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.92||0.1403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.63|0.94||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis performed using a general linear model with treatment and center as factors, and baseline value as a covariate.||0.94|-6.63|0.1403
90987932|NCT01455428|181860729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.118|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|-0.39||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|ANOVA|||Analysis was performed using a general linear model with treatment and center as factors.||-0.39|-0.86|<0.0001
90987933|NCT01455428|181860730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.113|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.27||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|ANOVA|||Analysis was performed using a general linear model with treatment and center as factors.||-0.27|-0.72|<0.0001
90987934|NCT01455428|181860732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.315||0.506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.41||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using a general linear model with treatment and center as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.||0.41|-0.83|0.5060
90987935|NCT01455428|181860733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.285||0.7247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.46||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using a general linear model with treatment and center as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.||0.46|-0.66|0.7247
90987936|NCT00257192|181860748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.28|0.67||Mixed effects repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance model with subject as random effect, treatment, region, visit and visit-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|P-value for final analysis is to be adjusted due to planned interim analysis (0.0462).||Sample size for 85% power 2-tailed 0.05 significance level based on expected difference of -5 with average within-group standard deviation=13 was 276 subjects (2 to 1 ratio of enrollment: 184 ziprasidone, 92 placebo). Interim analysis at 60 percent (%) enrollment (ITT population): may stop trial early for efficacy (2-sided p-value less than (\<) 0.0124) or for futility (2-sided p-value greater than (\>) 0.4772; The final analysis is to employ a 2-sided p-value \<0.0462.||0.67|-4.28|0.1530
90987937|NCT00257192|181860749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.1289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.06||Mixed effects repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance model with subject as random effect, treatment, region, visit and visit-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|Hochberg procedure was applied to p-value to preserve type I error in the analysis of key secondary endpoints (PANSS total score and CGI-S).||Difference from placebo||0.06|-0.48|0.1289
90987938|NCT00257192|181860750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|-2.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.1987||95.0|-6.5|1.36||Mixed effects repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance model with subject as random effect, treatment, region, visit and visit-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|Hochberg procedure was applied to p-value to preserve type I error in the analysis of key secondary endpoints (PANSS total score and CGI-S).||Total score: difference from placebo||1.36|-6.50|0.1987
90987939|NCT00257192|181860751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|-1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.0412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|-0.05||Mixed effects repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance model with subject as random effect, treatment, region, visit, and visit-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Positive score: difference from placebo||-0.05|-2.61|0.0412
91041918|NCT04284553|181968754|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.98|||||"The OR compares between having sign-off approval as an intervention factor in the arm the patients' primary care providers were assigned to vs. all others not having sign-off approval in the arm they were assigned to."|Outcomes were evaluated using generalized linear mixed models with a logit link and binary errors, evaluating the association between the intervention factors (i.e., behavioral components) and the primary outcome, pooling across both stages of the 2-stage Atrius adaptive trial and adjusting for provider-level clustering. As noted in our Study Protocol and pre-specified, the analyses are conducted across the intervention factors across the study arms, rather than between the study arms.||0.98|0.52|
90987940|NCT00257192|181860751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.4661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|0.72||Mixed effects repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance model with subject as random effect, treatment, region, visit, and visit-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Negative score: difference from placebo||0.72|-1.57|0.4661
90987941|NCT00257192|181860752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.09||Mixed effects MMRM with subject as random effect, treatment, region, visit and visit-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|ANOVA|||Difference from placebo||0.09|-0.47|0.1820
90987942|NCT00257192|181860760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|1.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.19||0.2613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|3.69||SAS PROC MIXED to fit a mixed model analysis of covariance with treatment and region as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.|ANCOVA|Observed cases at Week 6.||Neurocognitive Index score at Week 6: difference from placebo||3.69|-1.01|0.2613
90987943|NCT00492401|181860780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Expression levels of miR-29b in pre treatment marrow samples from responding or non responding patients were compared using Wilcoxon rank sum tests||||.02
90987944|NCT00492401|181860780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Expression levels of DNMT3a in pre treatment marrow samples from responding or non responding patients were compared using Wilcoxon rank sum tests||||.06
90987945|NCT01651260|181860784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||upper probability of failure|0.05||||||||||Minimum sample size of 60 subjects was required based on the ability of the device to perform at an observed level of non-failure equivalent to an expected upper probability of failure not to exceed 5%.|||Minimum sample size of 60 subjects was required based on the ability of the device to perform at an observed level of non-failure equivalent to an expected upper probability of failure not to exceed 5%.|||||
90987946|NCT01797029|181860807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
90987947|NCT03141307|181860866|EQUIVALENCE|95% margin|||||<|0.001||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance set for p \< .05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
90987948|NCT03141307|181860867|EQUIVALENCE|95% margin|||||<|0.05||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance set for p \< .05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.05
90987949|NCT03141307|181860868|EQUIVALENCE|95% margin|||||=|0.502||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance set for p \< .05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||=.502
90987950|NCT03141307|181860869|EQUIVALENCE|95% margin|||||=|0.071||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance set for p \< .05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||=.071
90987951|NCT03141307|181860870|EQUIVALENCE|95% margin|||||=|0.124||||||a prior threshold for statistical significance set for p \< .05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||=.124
90987952|NCT03141307|181860871|EQUIVALENCE|95% margin|||||<|0.05||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance set for p \< .05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.05
90987953|NCT00227877|181860872|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Relative Risk Ratio|1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.8|||Regression, Logistic|Group Conditional Risk Ratio adjusting for the multi-site sample design using GEE logistic regression (SUDAAN 10.0)|Risk Ratio: (Intervention Cessation)/(Control Cessation) controlling for age; gender; parent education; number of parents in home; visit type; perceived parent, sibling, and peer substance use; provider gender; and connectedness to provider.|||1.80|1.08|< 0.05
90987954|NCT00227877|181860873|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Relative Risk Ratio|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.42|||Regression, Logistic|Group Conditional Risk Ratio adjusting for the multi-site sample design using GEE logistic regression (SUDAAN 10.0)|Risk Ratio: (Intervention Initiation)/(Control Initiation) controlling for age; gender; parent education; number of parents in home; visit type; perceived parent, sibling, and peer substance use; provider gender; and connectedness to provider.|||1.42|0.34|.32
90987955|NCT00227877|181860874|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Relative Risk Ratio|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|3.27|||Regression, Logistic|Group Conditional Risk Ratio adjusting for the multi-site sample design using GEE logistic regression (SUDAAN 10.0)|||Risk Ratio: (Intervention Cessation)/(Control Cessation) controlling for age; gender; parent education; number of parents in home; visit type; perceived parent, sibling, and peer substance use; provider gender; and connectedness to provider.|3.27|.99|0.05
90987956|NCT00227877|181860875|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Relative Risk Ratio|0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.16|||Regression, Logistic|Group Conditional Risk Ratio adjusting for the multi-site sample design using GEE logistic regression (SUDAAN 10.0)|Risk Ratio: (Intervention Initiation)/(Control Initiation) controlling for age; gender; parent education; number of parents in home; visit type; perceived parent, sibling, and peer substance use; provider gender; and connectedness to provider.|||1.16|.53|0.23
90987957|NCT00227877|181860876|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Relative Risk Ratio|1.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|2.36|||Regression, Logistic|Group Conditional Risk Ratio adjusting for the multi-site sample design using GEE logistic regression (SUDAAN 10.0)|Risk Ratio: (Intervention Cessation)/(Control Cessation) controlling for age and gender.|||2.36|.97|.07
90987958|NCT00227877|181860877|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Relative Risk Ratio|0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|2.21|||Regression, Logistic||Risk Ratio: (Intervention Initiation)/(Control Initiation) controlling for age and gender.|||2.21|.42|.93
90987959|NCT00227877|181860878|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Relative Risk Ratio|0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|2.7|||Regression, Logistic|Group Conditional Risk Ratio adjusting for the multi-site sample design using GEE logistic regression (SUDAAN 10.0)|Risk Ratio: (Intervention Cessation)/(Control Cessation) controlling for age and gender.|||2.70|.27|.78
90987960|NCT00227877|181860879|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Relative Risk Ratio|0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.09|||Regression, Logistic|Group Conditional Risk Ratio adjusting for the multi-site sample design using GEE logistic regression (SUDAAN 10.0)|Risk Ratio: (Intervention Initiation)/(Control Initiation) controlling for age and gender.|||1.09|.51|.13
90987961|NCT00227877|181860880|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Relative Risk Ratio|0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.91|||Regression, Logistic|Group Conditional Risk Ratio adjusting for the multi-site sample design using GEE logistic regression (SUDAAN 10.0)|Risk Ratio: (Intervention)/(Control) controlling for age; gender; parent education; number of parents in home; visit type; provider gender; connectedness to provider, and baseline DRWI risk.|||.91|.48|.66
90987962|NCT00227877|181860881|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Relative Risk Ratio|0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.17||Group Conditional Risk Ratio adjusting for the multi-site sample design using GEE logistic regression (SUDAAN 10.0)|Regression, Logistic||Risk Ratio: (Intervention)/(Control) controlling for age; gender; parent education; number of parents in home; visit type; provider gender; connectedness to provider, and baseline DRWI risk.|||1.17|.64|.35
90987963|NCT00227877|181860882|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Relative Risk Ratio|0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.87|||Regression, Logistic||Risk Ratio: (Intervention)/(Control) controlling for age; gender; connectedness to provider, and baseline DRWI risk.|||.87|.46|<.01
90987964|NCT00227877|181860883|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Relative Risk Ratio|0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.98|||Regression, Logistic||Risk Ratio: (Intervention)/(Control) controlling for age; gender; connectedness to provider, and baseline DRWI risk.|||.98|.54|< 0.05
90987965|NCT03596177|181860894|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.58||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.15|-1.0|||ANCOVA|||||-1.00|-4.15|0.011
90987966|NCT03596177|181860895|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-45.481||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-67.777|-23.186|||ANCOVA|||Statistical Analysis for Day 32||-23.186|-67.777|0.002
90987967|NCT03596177|181860895|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-41.323||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-66.74|-15.907|||ANCOVA|||Statistical Analysis for Day 59||-15.907|-66.740|0.011
90987968|NCT03596177|181860896|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1551.194|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2190.515|-911.873|||ANCOVA|||Statistical Analysis for Day 32||-911.873|-2190.515|<0.001
90987969|NCT03596177|181860896|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1332.515||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2187.711|-477.318|||ANCOVA|||Statistical Analysis for Day 59||-477.318|-2187.711|0.015
90987970|NCT03596177|181860897|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.173||||0.384|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.368|3.022|||ANCOVA|||||3.022|-9.368|0.384
90987971|NCT03596177|181860898|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.039||||0.351|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-28.287|8.209|||ANCOVA|||||8.209|-28.287|0.351
90987972|NCT03596177|181860899|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.186||||0.968|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.858|8.229|||ANCOVA|||||8.229|-7.858|0.968
90987973|NCT03596177|181860900|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.867||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.81|3.545|||ANCOVA|||||3.545|-1.810|0.580
90987974|NCT03596177|181860901|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.645||||0.324|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.894|2.603|||ANCOVA|||||2.603|-9.894|0.324
90987975|NCT03596177|181860902|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.672||||0.412|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.415|6.072|||ANCOVA|||||6.072|-17.415|0.412
90987976|NCT03596177|181860903|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|7.357||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.742|16.456|||ANCOVA|||||16.456|-1.742|0.177
90987977|NCT03596177|181860904|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|15.186||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.151|33.523|||ANCOVA|||||33.523|-3.151|0.168
90987978|NCT03596177|181860905|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.54||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.05|-1.03|||ANCOVA|||||-1.03|-4.05|0.009
90987979|NCT03596177|181860906|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.122||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.364|0.119|||ANCOVA|||||0.119|-10.364|0.107
90987980|NCT03596177|181860907|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.848||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.605|-0.091|||ANCOVA|||||-0.091|-3.605|0.085
90987981|NCT03596177|181860908|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.159||||0.204|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.326|1.007|||ANCOVA|||||1.007|-7.326|0.204
90987982|NCT03596177|181860909|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.019||||0.145|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.041|0.003|||ANCOVA|||||0.003|-0.041|0.145
90987983|NCT03596177|181860910|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-26.001||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-37.801|-14.201|||ANCOVA|||||-14.201|-37.801|0.001
90987984|NCT03596177|181860911|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.332||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-19.726|-4.938|||ANCOVA|||||-4.938|-19.726|0.010
90987985|NCT02522481|181860917|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0896|||||||McNemar|||Sensitivity: superiority test comparing CE-DSE and UE-DSE based on the difference||||0.0896
90987986|NCT02522481|181860917|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||McNemar|||Specificity: superiority test comparing CE-DSE and UE-DSE based on the difference||||<0.0001
90987987|NCT02531373|181860964|EQUIVALENCE|Miettinen and Nurminen method|Risk Difference (RD)|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|3.1||||||||3.1|-13.5|
90987988|NCT02531373|181860964|EQUIVALENCE|Miettinen and Nurminen method|Risk Difference (RD)|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|1.2||||||||1.2|-16.3|
90987989|NCT02531373|181860964|EQUIVALENCE|Miettinen and Nurminen method|Risk Difference (RD)|-3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|3.2||||||||3.2|-13.3|
90987990|NCT02531373|181860964|EQUIVALENCE|Miettinen and Nurminen method|Risk Difference (RD)|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|5.1||||||||5.1|-10.2|
90987991|NCT02531373|181860965|EQUIVALENCE|Miettinen and Nurminen method|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|7.2||||||||7.2|-6.9|
90987992|NCT02531373|181860965|EQUIVALENCE|Miettinen and Nurminen method|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|7.2||||||||7.2|-6.9|
90987993|NCT02531373|181860965|EQUIVALENCE|Miettinen and Nurminen method|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|7.1||||||||7.1|-6.9|
90987994|NCT02531373|181860965|EQUIVALENCE|Miettinen and Nurminen method|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|6.9||||||||6.9|-6.9|
90987995|NCT02531373|181860966|EQUIVALENCE|Miettinen and Nurminen method|Risk Difference (RD)|20.3||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|37.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||||37.3|2.1|0.029
90987996|NCT02531373|181860966|EQUIVALENCE|Miettinen and Nurminen method|Risk Difference (RD)|22.3||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|39.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||||39.1|4.3|0.016
90987997|NCT02531373|181860966|EQUIVALENCE|Miettinen and Nurminen method|Risk Difference (RD)|1.1||||0.908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|19.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||||19.9|-17.7|0.908
90987998|NCT02531373|181860966|EQUIVALENCE|Miettinen and Nurminen method|Risk Difference (RD)|23.1||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.4|39.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||||39.6|5.4|0.011
91041919|NCT04284553|181968754|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.64|||||"The OR compares between having pre-commitment as an intervention factor in the arm the patients' primary care providers were assigned to vs. all others not having pre-commitment in the arm they were assigned to."|Outcomes were evaluated using generalized linear mixed models with a logit link and binary errors, evaluating the association between the intervention factors (i.e., behavioral components) and the primary outcome, pooling across both stages of the 2-stage Atrius adaptive trial and adjusting for provider-level clustering. As noted in our Study Protocol and pre-specified, the analyses are conducted across the intervention factors across the study arms, rather than between the study arms.||1.64|0.89|
91041920|NCT04284553|181968754|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.19|||||"The OR compares patients having risk framing as an intervention factor in the arm the patients' primary care providers were assigned to vs. all others not having risk framing in the arm they were assigned to."|Outcomes were evaluated using generalized linear mixed models with a logit link and binary errors, evaluating the association between the intervention factors (i.e., behavioral components) and the primary outcome, pooling across both stages of the 2-stage Atrius adaptive trial and adjusting for provider-level clustering. As noted in our Study Protocol and pre-specified, the analyses are conducted across the intervention factors across the study arms, rather than between the study arms.||1.19|0.55|
91041921|NCT04284553|181968756|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6|21.2|||||"The estimate compares having open encounter as an intervention factor in the arm the patients' primary care providers were assigned to vs. all others not having open encounter in the arm they were assigned to."|Outcomes were evaluated using generalized linear mixed models with an identity link and normally-distributed errors, evaluating the association between the intervention factors (i.e., behavioral components) and secondary outcome, pooling across both stages of the 2-stage Atrius adaptive trial and adjusting for provider-level clustering. As noted in our Study Protocol and pre-specified, the analyses are conducted across intervention factors across study arms, rather than between the study arms.||21.2|-17.6|
91041922|NCT04284553|181968756|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.8|17.5|||||"The estimate compares having boostering as an intervention factor in the arm the patients' primary care providers were assigned to vs. all others not having boostering in the arm they were assigned to."|Outcomes were evaluated using generalized linear mixed models with an identity link and normally-distributed errors, evaluating the association between the intervention factors (i.e., behavioral components) and secondary outcome, pooling across both stages of the 2-stage Atrius adaptive trial and adjusting for provider-level clustering. As noted in our Study Protocol and pre-specified, the analyses are conducted across intervention factors across study arms, rather than between the study arms.||17.5|-41.8|
91041923|NCT04284553|181968756|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|39.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.6|67.4|||||"The estimate compares having cold-state priming as an intervention factor in the arm the patients' primary care providers were assigned to vs. all others not having cold-state priming in the arm they were assigned to."|Outcomes were evaluated using generalized linear mixed models with an identity link and normally-distributed errors, evaluating the association between the intervention factors (i.e., behavioral components) and secondary outcome, pooling across both stages of the 2-stage Atrius adaptive trial and adjusting for provider-level clustering. As noted in our Study Protocol and pre-specified, the analyses are conducted across intervention factors across study arms, rather than between the study arms.||67.4|11.6|
91041924|NCT04284553|181968756|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.4|26.9|||||"The estimate compares having simplification as an intervention factor in the arm the patients' primary care providers were assigned to vs. all others not having simplification in the arm they were assigned to."|Outcomes were evaluated using generalized linear mixed models with an identity link and normally-distributed errors, evaluating the association between the intervention factors (i.e., behavioral components) and secondary outcome, pooling across both stages of the 2-stage Atrius adaptive trial and adjusting for provider-level clustering. As noted in our Study Protocol and pre-specified, the analyses are conducted across intervention factors across study arms, rather than between the study arms.||26.9|-30.4|
91041925|NCT04284553|181968756|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.6|17.4|||||"The estimate compares having sign-off approval as an intervention factor in the arm the patients' primary care providers were assigned to vs. all others not having sign-off approval in the arm they were assigned to."|Outcomes were evaluated using generalized linear mixed models with an identity link and normally-distributed errors, evaluating the association between the intervention factors (i.e., behavioral components) and secondary outcome, pooling across both stages of the 2-stage Atrius adaptive trial and adjusting for provider-level clustering. As noted in our Study Protocol and pre-specified, the analyses are conducted across intervention factors across study arms, rather than between the study arms.||17.4|-37.6|
91041926|NCT04284553|181968756|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.1|32.5|||||"The estimate compares having pre-commitment as an intervention factor in the arm the patients' primary care providers were assigned to vs. all others not having pre-commitment in the arm they were assigned to."|Outcomes were evaluated using generalized linear mixed models with an identity link and normally-distributed errors, evaluating the association between the intervention factors (i.e., behavioral components) and secondary outcome, pooling across both stages of the 2-stage Atrius adaptive trial and adjusting for provider-level clustering. As noted in our Study Protocol and pre-specified, the analyses are conducted across intervention factors across study arms, rather than between the study arms.||32.5|-24.1|
91041927|NCT04284553|181968756|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.5|21.5|||||"The estimate compares having risk framing as an intervention factor in the arm the patients' primary care providers were assigned to vs. all others not having risk framing in the arm they were assigned to."|Outcomes were evaluated using generalized linear mixed models with an identity link and normally-distributed errors, evaluating the association between the intervention factors (i.e., behavioral components) and secondary outcome, pooling across both stages of the 2-stage Atrius adaptive trial and adjusting for provider-level clustering. As noted in our Study Protocol and pre-specified, the analyses are conducted across intervention factors across study arms, rather than between the study arms.||21.5|-45.5|
91041928|NCT00578968|181968757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.01
91041929|NCT00578968|181968758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91041930|NCT00578968|181968759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91041931|NCT00578968|181968760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91041932|NCT00578968|181968761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Comparison between the two groups at baseline resting.||||0.13
91041933|NCT00578968|181968761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Comparison was made between the two groups at baseline peak exercise||||<0.01
91041934|NCT00578968|181968762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91041935|NCT00578968|181968763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91041936|NCT00578968|181968764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.15
91041937|NCT00578968|181968765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.01
91041938|NCT00578968|181968766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.85
91041939|NCT00578968|181968767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.03
91041940|NCT00578968|181968768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.009
91041941|NCT00578968|181968769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.005
91041942|NCT00578968|181968770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.06
91041943|NCT00578968|181968771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.003
91041944|NCT00578968|181968772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.60
91041945|NCT00578968|181968773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.35
91041946|NCT00578968|181968774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.65
91041947|NCT00578968|181968775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.43
91041948|NCT00578968|181968776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Comparison was made between groups at pretreatment resting time period.||||0.73
91041949|NCT00578968|181968776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Comparison was made between groups at pretreatment peak exercise time period.||||0.11
91041950|NCT00578968|181968777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.22
91041951|NCT00578968|181968778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.06
91041952|NCT00578968|181968779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.09
91041953|NCT00578968|181968780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.04
91041954|NCT00578968|181968781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.04
91041955|NCT00578968|181968782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.19
91041956|NCT00578968|181968783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.16
91041957|NCT00578968|181968784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.04
91041958|NCT00603564|181968787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||endpoint was analyzed in terms of time by comparison of mean +- SD||||<0.001
91041959|NCT00603564|181968788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||7e-06||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.000007
91041960|NCT01350934|181968789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated Difference|1.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|3.1|||Longitudinal data analysis|||||3.1|0.8|<0.001
91041961|NCT01350934|181968790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated Difference|2.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|4.1|||Longitudinal data analysis|||||4.1|1.8|<0.001
91041962|NCT01350934|181968791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-42.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.16|-36.67|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-36.67|-48.16|<0.001
91041963|NCT01350934|181968792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-52.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.04|-45.3|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-45.30|-59.04|<0.001
90952956|NCT04201262|181783657|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.014|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.103|||Log Rank||HR based on a Cox proportional hazards model, with Firth's adjustment. Confidence interval (CI)= Wald CI or Profile Likelihood CI Limits. HR for ravulizumab compared with placebo presented a 98.6% reduction in risk of relapse, 95% CI (89.7%, 100.0%).|||0.103|0.000|< 0.0001
90952957|NCT04201262|181783659|OTHER|||||||0.0122||||||Proportional Odds p-value|Univariate models|||The test of proportional odds was determined from a score test. The proportional odds was evaluated in univariate models.||||0.0122
90952958|NCT01647542|181783672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.126|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|-0.78||Stepwise Comparison: 1) TAK-875 50 mg versus (vs.) placebo, 2) TAK-875 25 mg vs. placebo. Step 2 was performed only if p-value at step 1 was \<=0.050.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Treatment, country, visit, and visit-by-treatment interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as covariate.||Assuming a standard deviation of 0.9% in change from baseline in HbA1c to Week 24 and a dropout rate of 15%, 210 participants per group provided at least 95% power to detect a treatment difference of 0.5% between treatment arms at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.||-0.78|-1.27|<0.001
90987999|NCT02531373|181860967|EQUIVALENCE|Miettinen and Nurminen method|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.5||||0.943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|12.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||||12.9|-14.0|0.943
90988000|NCT02531373|181860967|EQUIVALENCE|Miettinen and Nurminen method|Risk Difference (RD)|-2.5||||0.711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|11.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||||11.2|-16.4|0.711
90988001|NCT02531373|181860967|EQUIVALENCE|Miettinen and Nurminen method|Risk Difference (RD)|3.7||||0.529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|16.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||||16.4|-8.7|0.529
90988002|NCT02531373|181860967|EQUIVALENCE|Miettinen and Nurminen method|Risk Difference (RD)|5.8||||0.298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|18.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||||18.2|-5.8|0.298
90988003|NCT02531373|181860968|EQUIVALENCE|2-sample t-test|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.1||||||Serotype 1||1.10|0.61|
90988004|NCT02531373|181860968|EQUIVALENCE|2-sample t-test|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|2.35||||||Serotype 3||2.35|1.33|
90988005|NCT02531373|181860968|EQUIVALENCE|2-sample t-test|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.81||||||Serotype 4||1.81|0.91|
90988006|NCT02531373|181860968|EQUIVALENCE|2-sample t-test|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.51||||||Serotype 5||1.51|0.59|
90988007|NCT02531373|181860968|EQUIVALENCE|2-sample t-test|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.5||||||95.0|0.29|0.86||||||Serotype 6A||0.86|0.29|
90988008|NCT02531373|181860968|EQUIVALENCE|2-sample t-test|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.1||||||Serotype 6B||2.10|0.58|
90952959|NCT01647542|181783672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.126|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.57||Stepwise Comparison: 1) TAK-875 50 mg versus (vs.) placebo, 2) TAK-875 25 mg vs. placebo. Step 2 was performed only if p-value at step 1 was \<=0.050.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Treatment, country, visit, and visit-by-treatment interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as covariate.||Assuming a standard deviation of 0.9% in change from baseline in HbA1c to Week 24 and a dropout rate of 15%, 210 participants per group provided at least 95% power to detect a treatment difference of 0.5% between treatment arms at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.||-0.57|-1.07|<0.001
90988009|NCT02531373|181860968|EQUIVALENCE|2-sample t-test|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.03||||||Serotype 7F||1.03|0.55|
90988010|NCT02531373|181860968|EQUIVALENCE|2-sample t-test|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.75||||||Serotype 9V||1.75|0.74|
90988011|NCT02531373|181860968|EQUIVALENCE|2-sample t-test|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.27||||||Serotype 14||1.27|0.58|
90988012|NCT02531373|181860968|EQUIVALENCE|2-sample t-test|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.63||||||95.0|0.43|0.92||||||Serotype 18C||0.92|0.43|
90988013|NCT02531373|181860968|EQUIVALENCE|2-sample t-test|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.26||||||Serotype 19A||1.26|0.64|
90988014|NCT02531373|181860968|EQUIVALENCE|2-sample t-test|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.11||||||Serotype 19F||1.11|0.62|
90988015|NCT02531373|181860968|EQUIVALENCE|2-sample t-test|Risk Ratio (RR)|81.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.51|109.68||||||Serotype 22F (non-Prevnar serotype)||109.68|60.51|
90988016|NCT02531373|181860968|EQUIVALENCE|2-sample t-test|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.47||||||Serotype 23F||1.47|0.56|
90988017|NCT02531373|181860968|EQUIVALENCE|2-sample t-test|Risk Ratio (RR)|22.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.77|41.97||||||Serotype 33F (non-Prevnar serotype)||41.97|11.77|
90988018|NCT02531373|181860968|EQUIVALENCE|2-sample t-test|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.23||||||Serotype 1||1.23|0.68|
90988019|NCT02531373|181860968|EQUIVALENCE|2-sample t-test|Risk Ratio (RR)|2.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|2.8||||||Serotype 3||2.80|1.60|
90988020|NCT02531373|181860968|EQUIVALENCE|2-sample t-test|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.62||||||Serotype 4||1.62|0.82|
90988021|NCT02531373|181860968|EQUIVALENCE|2-sample t-test|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.31||||||Serotype 5||1.31|0.53|
90988022|NCT02531373|181860968|EQUIVALENCE|2-sample t-test|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.92||||||Serotype 6A||0.92|0.31|
90988023|NCT02531373|181860968|EQUIVALENCE|2-sample t-test|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.5||||||Serotype 6B||1.50|0.42|
91041964|NCT01350934|181968793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-51.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.29|-44.99|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-44.99|-57.29|<0.001
91041965|NCT01350934|181968794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-51.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.77|-45.39|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-45.39|-58.77|<0.001
91041966|NCT01350934|181968795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0279|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0074|0.1048|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds Ratio comparison of percentage of participants with \<20 ng/mL of serum 25-hydroxyvitamin (OH) D between Fosamax Plus group and Calcitriol group.||0.1048|0.0074|<0.001
91041967|NCT02274558|181968826|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|-2.0|||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures|||"Control for multiplicity was accomplished through the a fixed-sequence testing procedure for Week 6 outcomes:~* AIMS dyskinesia total score mean change from baseline (CFB): valbenazine 80 mg vs. placebo.~* CGI-TD mean score: VBZ 80 mg vs. PBO.~* AIMS: VBZ 40 mg vs. PBO.~* CGI-TD: VBZ 40 mg vs. PBO.~For a test result in the above list to be considered statistically significant, all of the test results higher in the list must have been significant at the 0.05 level of significance."||-2.0|-4.2|<0.0001
91041968|NCT02274558|181968826|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-0.7||Nominal P-value, not adjusted for multiplicity. See comments in above statistical analysis overview regarding the fixed-sequence testing procedure to control for multiplicity.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures|||||-0.7|-3.0|0.0021
91041969|NCT02274558|181968827|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.0|||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures|||||0.0|-0.5|0.0742
91041970|NCT02274558|181968827|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.0|||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures|||||0.0|-0.5|0.0560
91041971|NCT02274558|181968828|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0200
90988024|NCT02531373|181860968|EQUIVALENCE|2-sample t-test|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.31||||||Serotype 7F||1.31|0.71|
90988025|NCT02531373|181860968|EQUIVALENCE|2-sample t-test|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.49||||||Serotype 9V||1.49|0.64|
90988026|NCT02531373|181860968|EQUIVALENCE|2-sample t-test|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.37||||||Serotype 14||1.37|0.63|
90988027|NCT02531373|181860968|EQUIVALENCE|2-sample t-test|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.16||||||Serotype 18C||1.16|0.55|
90988028|NCT02531373|181860968|EQUIVALENCE|2-sample t-test|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.22||||||Serotype 19A||1.22|0.63|
90988029|NCT02531373|181860968|EQUIVALENCE|2-sample t-test|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.44||||||Serotype 19F||1.44|0.81|
90988030|NCT02531373|181860968|EQUIVALENCE|2-sample t-test|Risk Ratio (RR)|89.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.02|120.51||||||Serotype 22F (non-Prevnar serotype)||120.51|67.02|
90988031|NCT02531373|181860968|EQUIVALENCE|2-sample t-test|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.57||||||Serotype 23F||1.57|0.61|
90988032|NCT02531373|181860968|EQUIVALENCE|2-sample t-test|Risk Ratio (RR)|18.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.82|34.41||||||Serotype 33F (non-Prevnar serotype)||34.41|9.82|
91041972|NCT02274558|181968828|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91041973|NCT02733627|181968830|OTHER||Slope|3.8266|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2967|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2155|4.4376||||||The basic model for the investigation of dose proportionality was a power model. The model consisted of a regression model applied to log-transformed data. The corresponding ANCOVA model included the logarithm of the dose as a covariate. The assumption of a linear relationship between the log-transformed pharmacokinetic endpoint and the log-transformed dose was checked.|Standard Error of the mean is actually Standard Error of the slope. Based on the estimate for slope parameter (β), a 2-sided 95% CI for the slope was computed. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1.|4.4376|3.2155|
90988033|NCT01623531|181860980|SUPERIORITY||Mann-Whitney U test|386.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|47.5||0.908|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The distributions of cumulative transfusion units did not differ significantly between patients receiving either RiaSTAP (median = 0, IQR = 0-1) or Placebo (median = 0, IQR = 0.1), U = 386, SE = 47.60, p = .908.|Normality among study outcomes was investigated with Shapiro-Wilk tests, histograms, boxplots, and graphing of residuals, revealing that the data were not normally distributed, and primary outcomes were zero inflated. Therefore, we used non-parametric Mann-Whitney U-tests with a 2-sided type I error rate of 5%. We tested the null hypothesis of no difference in primary and secondary outcomes between groups 24 hours after infusion of the study drug.||||.908
90988034|NCT01623531|181860981|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.498|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.239||0.047|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Unequal variances assumed.|Unequal variances T-test comparing placebo to RiaSTAP.|We tested the null hypothesis of no difference in primary and secondary outcomes between groups 24 hours after infusion of the study drug. Normality among study outcomes was investigated with Shapiro-Wilk tests, histograms, boxplots, and graphing of residuals. For normally distributed data unequal variance t tests were used.||||.047
91041974|NCT02733627|181968831|OTHER||Slope|4.181|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3247|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5094|4.8527||||||The basic model for the investigation of dose proportionality was a power model. The model consisted of a regression model applied to log-transformed data. The corresponding ANCOVA model included the logarithm of the dose as a covariate. The assumption of a linear relationship between the log-transformed pharmacokinetic endpoint and the log-transformed dose was checked.|Standard Error of the mean is actually Standard Error of the slope. Based on the estimate for slope parameter (β), a 2-sided 95% CI for the slope was computed. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1.|4.8527|3.5094|
90988035|NCT01623531|181860982|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0116||0.729|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Unequal variances assumed.|Unequal variances T-test comparing placebo to RiaSTAP.|We tested the null hypothesis of no difference in primary and secondary outcomes between groups 24 hours after infusion of the study drug. Normality among study outcomes was investigated with Shapiro-Wilk tests, histograms, boxplots, and graphing of residuals. For normally distributed data unequal variance t tests were used.||||.729
90988036|NCT01623531|181860983|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.321|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.699||0.93|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Unequal variances assumed.|Unequal variances T-test comparing placebo to RiaSTAP.|We tested the null hypothesis of no difference in primary and secondary outcomes between groups 24 hours after infusion of the study drug. Normality among study outcomes was investigated with Shapiro-Wilk tests, histograms, boxplots, and graphing of residuals. For normally distributed data unequal variance t tests were used.||||.93
90988037|NCT01623531|181860984|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.821|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.471||0.169|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Unequal variances assumed.|Unequal variances T-test comparing placebo to RiaSTAP.|||||.169
90988038|NCT01623531|181860985|SUPERIORITY||Mann-Whitney U test|450.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|54.163||0.035|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Normality among study outcomes was investigated with Shapiro-Wilk tests, histograms, boxplots, and graphing of residuals, revealing that this variable was not normally distributed. Therefore, we used non-parametric Mann-Whitney U-tests with a 2-sided type I error rate of 5%. We tested the null hypothesis of no difference in secondary outcomes between groups 24 hours after infusion of the study drug.||||.035
90988039|NCT01623531|181860986|SUPERIORITY||Mann-Whitney U test|337.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|51.591||0.794|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Normality among study outcomes was investigated with Shapiro-Wilk tests, histograms, boxplots, and graphing of residuals, revealing that this variable was not normally distributed. Therefore, we used non-parametric Mann-Whitney U-tests with a 2-sided type I error rate of 5%. We tested the null hypothesis of no difference in secondary outcomes between groups 24 hours after infusion of the study drug.||||.794
90988040|NCT01623531|181860987|SUPERIORITY||Mann-Whitney U test|335.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|52.957||0.828|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Normality among study outcomes was investigated with Shapiro-Wilk tests, histograms, boxplots, and graphing of residuals, revealing that this variable was not normally distributed. Therefore, we used non-parametric Mann-Whitney U-tests with a 2-sided type I error rate of 5%. We tested the null hypothesis of no difference in secondary outcomes between groups 24 hours after infusion of the study drug.||||.828
90988041|NCT01623531|181860988|SUPERIORITY||Mann-Whitney U test|396.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|60.944||0.941|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Normality among study outcomes was investigated with Shapiro-Wilk tests, histograms, boxplots, and graphing of residuals, revealing that this variable was not normally distributed. Therefore, we used non-parametric Mann-Whitney U-tests with a 2-sided type I error rate of 5%. We tested the null hypothesis of no difference in secondary outcomes between groups 24 hours after infusion of the study drug.||||.941
90988042|NCT01623531|181860989|SUPERIORITY||Mann-Whitney U test|494.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|60.783||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Normality among study outcomes was investigated with Shapiro-Wilk tests, histograms, boxplots, and graphing of residuals, revealing that this variable was not normally distributed. Therefore, we used non-parametric Mann-Whitney U-tests with a 2-sided type I error rate of 5%. We tested the null hypothesis of no difference in secondary outcomes between groups 24 hours after infusion of the study drug.||||.09
90988043|NCT01623531|181860990|SUPERIORITY||Mann-Whitney U test|418.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|60.93||0.658|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Normality among study outcomes was investigated with Shapiro-Wilk tests, histograms, boxplots, and graphing of residuals, revealing that this variable was not normally distributed. Therefore, we used non-parametric Mann-Whitney U-tests with a 2-sided type I error rate of 5%. We tested the null hypothesis of no difference in secondary outcomes between groups 24 hours after infusion of the study drug.||||.658
90988044|NCT01623531|181860991|SUPERIORITY||Mann-Whitney U test|472.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|60.727||0.182|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Normality among study outcomes was investigated with Shapiro-Wilk tests, histograms, boxplots, and graphing of residuals, revealing that this variable was not normally distributed. Therefore, we used non-parametric Mann-Whitney U-tests with a 2-sided type I error rate of 5%. We tested the null hypothesis of no difference in secondary outcomes between groups 24 hours after infusion of the study drug.||||.182
90988045|NCT01623531|181860992|SUPERIORITY||Mann-Whitney U test|428.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|60.919||0.549|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Normality among study outcomes was investigated with Shapiro-Wilk tests, histograms, boxplots, and graphing of residuals, revealing that this variable was not normally distributed. Therefore, we used non-parametric Mann-Whitney U-tests with a 2-sided type I error rate of 5%. We tested the null hypothesis of no difference in secondary outcomes between groups 24 hours after infusion of the study drug.||||.549
90988046|NCT01623531|181860993|SUPERIORITY||Mann-Whitney U test|530.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|60.816||0.022|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The distribution of FIBTEM MCF (maximum clot firmness) was significantly different between RiaSTAP (median = 27 mm, IQR = 24, 30), and placebo (median = 23 mm, IQR = 22, 27) groups, U-test = 530.5, SE = 60.816, p = .022).|Normality among study outcomes was investigated with Shapiro-Wilk tests, histograms, boxplots, and graphing of residuals, revealing that the FIBTEM MCF data was not normally distributed. Therefore, we used non-parametric Mann-Whitney U-tests with a 2-sided type I error rate of 5%. We tested the null hypothesis of no difference in secondary outcomes between groups 24 hours after infusion of the study drug.||||.022
90952960|NCT01647542|181783673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.99|10.72||No multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment and baseline HbA1c as explanatory variables.||||10.72|2.99|<0.001
90952961|NCT01647542|181783673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.81|6.49||No multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment and baseline HbA1c as explanatory variables.||||6.49|1.81|<0.001
90952962|NCT01647542|181783674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-35.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.36|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.2|-26.9||No multiplicity adjustment.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Treatment, country, visit, and visit-by-treatment interaction as fixed factors, baseline value covariate.||||-26.9|-44.2|<0.001
90988047|NCT01623531|181860994|SUPERIORITY||Mann-Whitney U test|437.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|60.93||0.455|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Normality among study outcomes was investigated with Shapiro-Wilk tests, histograms, boxplots, and graphing of residuals, revealing that this variable was not normally distributed. Therefore, we used non-parametric Mann-Whitney U-tests with a 2-sided type I error rate of 5%. We tested the null hypothesis of no difference in secondary outcomes between groups 24 hours after infusion of the study drug.||||.455
90988048|NCT01623531|181860995|SUPERIORITY||Mann-Whitney U test|432.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|60.819||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Normality among study outcomes was investigated with Shapiro-Wilk tests, histograms, boxplots, and graphing of residuals, revealing that this variable was not normally distributed. Therefore, we used non-parametric Mann-Whitney U-tests with a 2-sided type I error rate of 5%. We tested the null hypothesis of no difference in secondary outcomes between groups 24 hours after infusion of the study drug.||||.5
90988049|NCT01623531|181860996|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|Significance (2-sided) using Fisher's Exact Test.||||||1.0
90988050|NCT04705597|181861008|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.366||||0.3312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.728|2.562|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.562|0.728|0.3312
90988051|NCT04705597|181861010|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.574||||0.4561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.133|2.475|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 14||2.475|0.133|0.4561
90988052|NCT04705597|181861010|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.521||||0.1559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.212|1.282|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 28||1.282|0.212|0.1559
90988053|NCT04705597|181861010|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.498||||0.1293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.203|1.226|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 57||1.226|0.203|0.1293
90988054|NCT04705597|181861011|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2687|||||||Log Rank|||Statistical analysis was only performed for Day 28. This is timeframe used for the primary endpoint||||0.2687
90952963|NCT01647542|181783674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares mean Difference|-35.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.36|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.3|-27.1||No multiplicity adjustment.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Treatment, country, visit, and visit-by-treatment interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as covariate.||||-27.1|-44.3|<0.001
90952964|NCT01647542|181783675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|29.72||0.846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.9|69.6||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and country as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate.||||69.6|-57.9|0.846
90952965|NCT01647542|181783675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-24.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|30.4||0.427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-90.1|40.3||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and country as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate.||||40.3|-90.1|0.427
90952966|NCT02819024|181783676|OTHER|||||||0.087|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.087
90952967|NCT03548220|181783711|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||2-sided p-value|Exact Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
90988055|NCT04705597|181861012|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3977|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.3977
90988056|NCT04705597|181861013|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2229|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.2229
90988057|NCT04705597|181861014|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.388||||0.2941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.752|2.561|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.561|0.752|0.2941
90988058|NCT04705597|181861015|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3325|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.3325
90988059|NCT04705597|181861016|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.64||||0.0254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|1.2||Change at Day 14|ANCOVA|||||1.2|0.08|0.0254
90988060|NCT04705597|181861016|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.53||||0.1109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|1.18|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 28||1.18|-0.12|0.1109
90988061|NCT04705597|181861016|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.12|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 57||0.12|-0.10|0.8640
90988062|NCT04705597|181861017|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.046||||0.0919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|4.706|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.706|0.89|0.0919
90988063|NCT04705597|181861018|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.83||||0.749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|8.08|||ANCOVA|||||8.08|-0.42|0.749
90988064|NCT04705597|181861019|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.69||||0.1769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|9.13|||ANCOVA|||||9.13|-1.75|0.1769
90988065|NCT04705597|181861020|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.54||||0.2621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.184|1.586|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.586|0.184|0.2621
90988066|NCT04705597|181861021|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.81||||0.2265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|7.37|||ANCOVA|||||7.37|-1.76|0.2265
90988067|NCT04705597|181861022|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.223||||0.5497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.633|2.364|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.364|0.633|0.5497
90988068|NCT04705597|181861023|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.89||||0.1172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|11.05|||ANCOVA|||||11.05|-1.27|0.1172
90988069|NCT04705597|181861024|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.914||||0.853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.353|2.368|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.368|0.353|0.853
90988070|NCT04705597|181861025|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.16||||0.1991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|8.18|||ANCOVA|||||8.18|-1.86|0.1991
90988071|NCT04705597|181861026|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.103||||0.0166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.293|13.027|||Regression, Logistic|||||13.027|1.293|0.0166
90988072|NCT04705597|181861027|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.56||||0.1297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|10.64|||ANCOVA|||||10.64|-1.51|0.1297
90988073|NCT04705597|181861028|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.1916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Baseline||0.07|-0.35|0.1916
90988074|NCT04705597|181861028|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.1097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Day 2||0.05|-0.44|0.1097
90988075|NCT04705597|181861028|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33||||0.0276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Day 3||-0.04|-0.63|0.0276
90988076|NCT04705597|181861028|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36||||0.0463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Day 4||-0.01|-0.71|0.0463
90988077|NCT04705597|181861028|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33||||0.0969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Day 5||0.06|-0.71|0.0969
90988078|NCT04705597|181861028|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16||||0.4367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.25|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Day 6||0.25|-0.57|0.4367
90988079|NCT04705597|181861028|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.6685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.35|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Day 7||0.35|-0.54|0.6685
90988080|NCT04705597|181861028|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28||||0.2287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.18|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Day 8||0.18|-0.73|0.2287
90988081|NCT04705597|181861028|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43||||0.1061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.09|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Day 9||0.09|-0.96|0.1061
90988082|NCT04705597|181861028|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.54||||0.0415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Day 10||-0.02|-1.06|0.0415
90988083|NCT04705597|181861028|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44||||0.1236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.12|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Day 11||0.12|-1.00|0.1236
90988084|NCT04705597|181861028|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71||||0.0097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|-0.18|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Day 12||-0.18|-1.23|0.0097
90988085|NCT04705597|181861028|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57||||0.0157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Day 13||-0.11|-1.02|0.0157
90988086|NCT04705597|181861028|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.84||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|-0.36|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Day 14||-0.36|-1.32|0.0010
90988087|NCT04705597|181861028|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.25|||ANCOVA|||Time of Discharge Visit||0.25|-0.40|0.6440
90988088|NCT04705597|181861028|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.9869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.59|||ANCOVA|||Follow up Day 28||0.59|-0.60|0.9869
90988089|NCT04705597|181861029|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.69||||0.2399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|4.52|||ANCOVA|||||4.52|-1.14|0.2399
90988090|NCT04705597|181861030|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.869||||0.8081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|2.695|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.695|0.28|0.8081
90988091|NCT04705597|181861031|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.436||||0.3193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.704|2.929|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.929|0.704|0.3193
90988092|NCT02606045|181861032|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|46.0||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|90.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||90|2|0.039
90988093|NCT02606045|181861033|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.7|-0.7|0.998
90988094|NCT02606045|181861034|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|5.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.8|-1.0|0.168
90988095|NCT02606045|181861035|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.1|-4.9|0.055
90988096|NCT02606045|181861036|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|3.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.2|-4.8|0.681
90988097|NCT02606045|181861036|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4||||0.633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|7.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Role limitations of physical health||7.6|-12.4|0.633
90988098|NCT02606045|181861036|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.8||||0.362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|15.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Role limitations of emotional health||15.3|-5.7|0.362
90988099|NCT02606045|181861036|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3||||0.375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|2.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Energy/fatigue||2.8|-7.4|0.375
90988100|NCT02606045|181861036|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.6||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|7.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Emotional well-being||7.4|-0.3|0.068
90988101|NCT02606045|181861036|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.5||||0.189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|11.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Social functioning||11.3|-2.3|0.189
90988102|NCT02606045|181861036|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4||||0.489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|4.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pain||4.5|-9.2|0.489
90988103|NCT02606045|181861036|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|4.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||General Health||4.3|-3.2|0.786
90988104|NCT02606045|181861037|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Physically Unhealthy Days||0.2|-2.3|0.098
90988105|NCT02606045|181861037|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|3.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mentally Unhealthy Days||3.0|-1.6|0.557
90988106|NCT02606045|181861038|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4||||0.266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle Severity Rating||2.7|0.8|0.266
90988107|NCT00365716|181861040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|89.5||||||95.0|70.7|97.3|||||"Vaccine Efficacy (% relative risk reduction)~Confidence Interval based on binomial tail probabilities and not from a dispersion parameter."|||97.3|70.7|
90988108|NCT02853331|181861041|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||0.00012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.84|||Log Rank||HR based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by IMDC risk group (favorable vs. intermediate vs. poor) and geographic region (North America vs. Western Europe vs. Rest of World).|||0.84|0.56|0.00012
90988109|NCT02853331|181861042|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53||||5e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.74|||Log Rank||HR based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by IMDC risk group (favorable vs. intermediate vs. poor) and geographic region (North America vs. Western Europe vs. Rest of World).|||0.74|0.38|0.00005
90988110|NCT02853331|181861043|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|23.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.2|29.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|H0: difference in %=0 versus H1: difference in % \>0|Difference in percentages based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by IMDC risk group (favorable vs. intermediate vs. poor) and geographic region (North America vs. Western Europe vs. Rest of World).|||29.9|17.2|<0.0001
90988111|NCT02853331|181861044|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.8|17.0|||||Difference in percentages based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by IMDC risk group (favorable vs. intermediate vs. poor) and geographic region (North America vs. Western Europe vs. Rest of World).|||17.0|4.8|
90988112|NCT00844428|181861079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of TMA event-free responders|80.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.0|94.0||||||"With a total of 20 patients enrolled between both protocols and, assuming that the true expected probability of TMA Event-Free for eculizumab-treated patients is 40%, then the study had 93.5% power to detect a statistically significant difference. Up to approximately 30 patients were to be enrolled.~All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: C08-003A (adult) and C08-003B (adolescent), a similar protocol, for patients \<18 years with aHUS."||94|56|
90952968|NCT03548220|181783712|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|18.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.41|24.01|||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measure||Standard error = 2.913|||24.01|12.41|<0.0001
90952969|NCT03548220|181783715|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-26.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.82|-14.7|||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measure||Standard error = 5.788|||-14.70|-37.82|<0.0001
90952970|NCT03548220|181783716|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-70.81||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-115.88|-25.74|||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measure||Standard error = 22.488|||-25.74|-115.88|0.0027
90952971|NCT03548220|181783717|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.158||||0.0079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.043|0.273|||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measure||Standard error = 0.0578|||0.273|0.043|0.0079
90952972|NCT03548220|181783718|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1011|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1391|-0.0632|||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measure||Standard error = 0.01904|||-0.0632|-0.1391|<0.0001
90952973|NCT03548220|181783719|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.11||||0.0247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|-0.41|||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measure||Standard error = 1.352|||-0.41|-5.80|0.0247
90952974|NCT03548220|181783720|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.25||||0.0421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.39|-0.12|||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measure||Standard error = 1.574|||-0.12|-6.39|0.0421
90952975|NCT02187159|181783845|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.183||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.25|||Difference of means|||Analysis was based on multiple imputation and pattern mixture model with delta shifting.||-0.25|-0.97|0.0008
90952976|NCT02187159|181783845|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.183||0.0392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.02|||Difference of means|||Analysis was based on multiple imputation and pattern mixture model with delta shifting.||-0.02|-0.74|0.0392
90952977|NCT02187159|181783845|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.183||0.2192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.13|||Difference of means|||Analysis was based on multiple imputation and pattern mixture model with delta shifting.||0.13|-0.58|0.2192
90952978|NCT02187159|181783845|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.184||0.2095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.59|||Difference of means|||Analysis was based on multiple imputation and pattern mixture model with delta shifting.||0.59|-0.13|0.2095
90952979|NCT02187159|181783845|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.185||0.0381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.75|||Difference of means|||Analysis was based on multiple imputation and pattern mixture model with delta shifting.||0.75|0.02|0.0381
90952980|NCT02187159|181783847|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.598|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.71|-4.44|||Difference of means|||Analysis was based on multiple imputation and pattern mixture model with delta shifting.||-4.44|-10.71|<0.0001
90952981|NCT02187159|181783847|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.613||0.0289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.68|-0.36|||Difference of means|||Analysis was based on multiple imputation and pattern mixture model with delta shifting.||-0.36|-6.68|0.0289
90952982|NCT02187159|181783847|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.625||0.1148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.75|0.62|||Difference of means|||Analysis was based on multiple imputation and pattern mixture model with delta shifting.||0.62|-5.75|0.1148
90952983|NCT02187159|181783847|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.621||0.0125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|7.23|||Difference of means|||Analysis was based on multiple imputation and pattern mixture model with delta shifting.||7.23|0.87|0.0125
90952984|NCT02187159|181783847|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.647||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|8.24|||Difference of means|||Analysis was based on multiple imputation and pattern mixture model with delta shifting.||8.24|1.78|0.0023
90952985|NCT02187159|181783849|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.7|||ANCOVA|||||-0.7|-1.8|<0.0001
90952986|NCT02187159|181783849|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.0247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||||-0.1|-1.2|0.0247
90952987|NCT02187159|181783849|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.0411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||-0.0|-1.1|0.0411
90952988|NCT02187159|181783849|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.0352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.2|||ANCOVA|||||1.2|0.0|0.0352
90952989|NCT02187159|181783849|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.0214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.2|||ANCOVA|||||1.2|0.1|0.0214
90952990|NCT02187159|181783850|SUPERIORITY||Difference of least squares means|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||Anxiety: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||-0.4|-1.5|0.0003
90952991|NCT02187159|181783850|SUPERIORITY||Difference of least squares means|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.5066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Anxiety: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.3|-0.7|0.5066
90952992|NCT02187159|181783850|SUPERIORITY||Difference of least squares means|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.1462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Anxiety: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.1|-0.9|0.1462
90952993|NCT02187159|181783850|SUPERIORITY||Difference of least squares means|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.3|||ANCOVA|||Anxiety: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||1.3|0.3|0.0035
90988113|NCT00844428|181861080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of hematologic normalization|90.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.0|99.0||||||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: C08-003A (adult) and C08-003B (adolescent), a similar protocol, for patients \<18 years with aHUS.||99|68|
90988114|NCT00844428|181861081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of complete TMA response|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.0|49.0||||||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: C08-003A (adult) and C08-003B (adolescent), a similar protocol, for patients \<18 years with aHUS.||49|9|
90988115|NCT00844428|181861082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: C08-003A (adult) and C08-003B (adolescent), a similar protocol, for patients \<18 years with aHUS.||||<0.0001
90988116|NCT00844428|181861083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean change from baseline|6.75||||0.5423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.73|29.23|||ANOVA|Change from baseline were analyzed using a repeated measurement ANOVA model with time and baseline as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: C08-003A (adult) and C08-003B (adolescent), a similar protocol, for patients \<18 years||29.23|-15.73|0.5423
90988117|NCT00844428|181861084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of platelet count normalization|90.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.0|99.0||||||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: C08-003A (adult) and C08-003B (adolescent), a similar protocol, for patients \<18 years||99|68|
90988118|NCT00844428|181861085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of TMA event-free responders|95.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|75.0|100.0||||||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: C08-003A (adult) and C08-003B (adolescent), a similar protocol, for patients \<18 years with aHUS.||100|75|
90988119|NCT00844428|181861086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of hematologic normalization|90.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.0|99.0||||||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: C08-003A (adult) and C08-003B (adolescent), a similar protocol, for patients \<18 years with aHUS.||99|68|
90988120|NCT00844428|181861087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of complete TMA response|55.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.0|77.0||||||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: C08-003A (adult) and C08-003B (adolescent), a similar protocol, for patients \<18 years with aHUS.||77|32|
90988121|NCT00844428|181861088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: C08-003A (adult) and C08-003B (adolescent), a similar protocol, for patients \<18 years with aHUS.||||<0.0001
90988122|NCT00844428|181861089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean change from baseline|-3.68||||0.7307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.15|17.79|||ANOVA|Change from baseline were analyzed using a repeated measurement ANOVA model with time and baseline as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: C08-003A (adult) and C08-003B (adolescent), a similar protocol, for patients \<18 years with aHUS.||17.79|-25.15|0.7307
90988123|NCT00844428|181861090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of platelet count normalization|90.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.0|99.0||||||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: C08-003A (adult) and C08-003B (adolescent), a similar protocol, for patients \<18 years||99|68|
90988124|NCT00455858|181861097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean|-1.356|||<|0.0001||95.0|-1.368|-1.344|||t-test|||||-1.344|-1.368|<.0001
90988125|NCT00455858|181861098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean|-1.338|||<|0.0001||95.0|-1.35|-1.327|||t-test|||||-1.327|-1.350|<.0001
90988126|NCT00455858|181861099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean|-69.553|||<|0.0001||95.0|-70.047|-69.06|||Paired t-test|||Estimated mean decrease in FPG at week 12||-69.060|-70.047|<.0001
90988127|NCT00455858|181861099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean|-72.159|||<|0.0001||95.0|-72.647|-71.671|||Paired t-test|||Estimated mean decrease in FPG at week 20||-71.671|-72.647|<.0001
90988128|NCT01276847|181861145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016||95.0||||unadjusted 1-sided p-value, α = 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|One-sample test||Week 1||||0.016
90988129|NCT01276847|181861145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0||||unadjusted 1-sided p-value, α = 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|One-sample test||Week 2||||0.007
90988130|NCT01276847|181861145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.00015||95.0||||unadjusted 1-sided p-value, α = 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|One-sample test||Week 4||||0.00015
90988131|NCT01276847|181861145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.000184||95.0||||unadjusted 1-sided p-value, α = 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|One-sample test||Week 16||||0.000184
90988132|NCT01276847|181861146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.397||95.0||||unadjusted 1-sided p-value, α = 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|One-sample test||Week 1||||0.397
90988133|NCT01276847|181861146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0||||unadjusted 1-sided p-value, α = 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|One-sample test||Week 2||||0.010
90988134|NCT01276847|181861146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||unadjusted 1-sided p-value, α = 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|One-sample test||Week 4||||0.002
91041975|NCT02733627|181968832|OTHER||Slope|1.8868|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3069|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2503|2.5234||||||The basic model for the investigation of dose proportionality was a power model. The model consisted of a regression model applied to log-transformed data. The corresponding ANCOVA model included the logarithm of the dose as a covariate. The assumption of a linear relationship between the log-transformed pharmacokinetic endpoint and the log-transformed dose was checked.|Standard Error of the mean is actually Standard Error of the slope. Based on the estimate for slope parameter (β), a 2-sided 95% CI for the slope was computed. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1.|2.5234|1.2503|
91041976|NCT02733627|181968833|OTHER||Slope|3.0677|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4844|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0631|4.0723||||||The basic model for the investigation of dose proportionality was a power model. The model consisted of a regression model applied to log-transformed data. The corresponding ANCOVA model included the logarithm of the dose as a covariate. The assumption of a linear relationship between the log-transformed pharmacokinetic endpoint and the log-transformed dose was checked.|Standard Error of the mean is actually Standard Error of the slope. Based on the estimate for slope parameter (β), a 2-sided 95% CI for the slope was computed. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1.|4.0723|2.0631|
91041977|NCT02048813|181968865|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.56|||Log Rank|||||0.56|0.22|<.001
91041978|NCT02048813|181968866|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.54|||Log Rank|||||0.54|0.05|<.001
91041979|NCT01721772|181968925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.6|||Stratified Log Rank Test|||||0.60|0.30|<0.0001
91041980|NCT01721772|181968926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.56|||Stratified Log Rank Test|||||0.56|0.34|<0.0001
91041981|NCT01721772|181968928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.43|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.75|7.13|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||7.13|2.75|<0.0001
91041982|NCT01721772|181968929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Unstratified Hazard Ratio|0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.56|||||PD-L1 positive group|||0.56|0.24|
91041983|NCT01721772|181968929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Unstratified Hazard Ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.8|||||PD-L1 negative group|||0.80|0.45|
91041984|NCT01721772|181968932|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.65||||||||0.65|0.41|
91041985|NCT02754492|181968934|OTHER|A procedure is a success if the subject's platelet product has a residual WBC count of \< 5.0 × 10\^6 for the single platelet product group. The FDA requirements are met if the lower one-sided 95% confidence interval for the procedure success rate is at least 95%.|Simple Sample Proportion|0.989|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0107|||ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.95|||||||Up to 350 healthy adult subjects will be enrolled in this study to ensure 93 evaluable single platelet product collections, 93 evaluable double platelet product collections, and 93 evaluable triple platelet product collections. This number was chosen to meet the FDA requirements of at least 95% of platelet units with an acceptable residual WBC level with 95% confidence. With 93 platelet products, this allowed for at most 1 failure.|||0.950|
90952994|NCT02187159|181783850|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.0338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.1|||ANCOVA|||Anxiety: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||1.1|0.0|0.0338
91041986|NCT02754492|181968934|OTHER|A procedure is a success if the subject's platelet product has a residual WBC count of \< 8.0 × 10\^6 for the double platelet product group, or \< 5.0 × 10\^6 for each transfusable unit . The FDA requirements are met if the lower one-sided 95% confidence interval for the procedure success rate is at least 95%.|Simple Sample Proportion|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0|||ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.968||||||When estimated proportion is 100%, standard error of the mean is estimated as 0.|Up to 350 healthy adult subjects will be enrolled in this study to ensure 93 evaluable single platelet product collections, 93 evaluable double platelet product collections, and 93 evaluable triple platelet product collections. This number was chosen to meet the FDA requirements of at least 95% of platelet units with an acceptable residual WBC level with 95% confidence. With 93 platelet products, this allowed for at most 1 failure.|||0.968|
91041987|NCT02754492|181968934|OTHER|A procedure is a success if the subject's platelet product has a residual WBC count of \< 12.0 × 10\^6 for the triple platelet product group, or \< 5.0 × 10\^6 for each transfusable unit . The FDA requirements are met if the lower one-sided 95% confidence interval for the procedure success rate is at least 95%.|Simple Sample Proportion|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0|||ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.968||||||When estimated proportion is 100%, standard error of the mean is estimated as 0.|Up to 350 healthy adult subjects will be enrolled in this study to ensure 93 evaluable single platelet product collections, 93 evaluable double platelet product collections, and 93 evaluable triple platelet product collections. This number was chosen to meet the FDA requirements of at least 95% of platelet units with an acceptable residual WBC level with 95% confidence. With 93 platelet products, this allowed for at most 1 failure.|||0.968|
91041988|NCT02754492|181968935|OTHER|A procedure is a success if the subject's platelet product has a platelet yield of ≥ 3.0 × 10\^11 for the single platelet product group. The requirements are met if the lower one-sided 95% confidence interval for the procedure success rate is at least 75%.|Simple Sample Proportion|0.989|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0107|||ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.95|||||||Up to 350 healthy subjects were enrolled to ensure 93 evaluable single, double, and triple platelet product collections. With 93 platelet products being collected, 16 failures or less was required to show that the proportion of units with an acceptable platelet yield is at least 75% with 95% confidence.|||0.950|
90952995|NCT02187159|181783850|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.0116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||Depression: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||-0.2|-1.3|0.0116
90952996|NCT02187159|181783850|SUPERIORITY||Difference of least squares means|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.7085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Depression: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.4|-0.7|0.7085
91041989|NCT02754492|181968935|OTHER|A procedure is a success if the subject's platelet product has a platelet yield of ≥ 6.2 × 10\^11 for the double platelet product group. The requirements are met if the lower one-sided 95% confidence interval for the procedure success rate is at least 75%.|Simple Sample Proportion|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0|||ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.968||||||When estimated proportion is 100%, standard error of the mean is estimated as 0.|Up to 350 healthy subjects were enrolled to ensure 93 evaluable single, double, and triple platelet product collections. With 93 platelet products being collected, 16 failures or less was required to show that the proportion of units with an acceptable platelet yield is at least 75% with 95% confidence.|||0.968|
91041990|NCT02754492|181968935|OTHER|A procedure is a success if the subject's platelet product has a platelet yield of ≥ 9.3 × 10\^11 for the triple platelet product group. The requirements are met if the lower one-sided 95% confidence interval for the procedure success rate is at least 75%.|Simple Sample Proportion|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0|||ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.968||||||When estimated proportion is 100%, standard error of the mean is estimated as 0.|Up to 350 healthy subjects were enrolled to ensure 93 evaluable single, double, and triple platelet product collections. With 93 platelet products being collected, 16 failures or less was required to show that the proportion of units with an acceptable platelet yield is at least 75% with 95% confidence.|||0.968|
90952997|NCT02187159|181783850|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.9392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Depression: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.6|-0.5|0.9392
90952998|NCT02187159|181783850|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.0311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.2|||ANCOVA|||Depression: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||1.2|0.1|0.0311
90952999|NCT02187159|181783850|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.0094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.3|||ANCOVA|||Depression: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||1.3|0.2|0.0094
90953000|NCT02187159|181783851|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|1.256|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6027||0.0373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.074|2.439|||ANCOVA|||Physical Component: Placebo vs Pregabalin||2.439|0.074|0.0373
90953001|NCT02187159|181783851|SUPERIORITY||Difference of least squares means|0.364|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.602||0.5458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.817|1.545|||ANCOVA|||Physical Component: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||1.545|-0.817|0.5458
90953002|NCT02187159|181783851|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.235|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6038||0.6968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.949|1.42|||ANCOVA|||Physical Component: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||1.420|-0.949|0.6968
90953003|NCT02187159|181783851|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.893|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6014||0.1379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.073|0.287|||ANCOVA|||Physical Component: Pregabalin vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.287|-2.073|0.1379
90953004|NCT02187159|181783851|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-1.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6033||0.0908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.205|0.163|||ANCOVA|||Physical Component: Pregabalin vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.163|-2.205|0.0908
90953005|NCT02187159|181783851|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|1.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6965||0.0068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.523|3.256|||ANCOVA|||Mental Component: Placebo vs Pregabalin||3.256|0.523|0.0068
90953006|NCT02187159|181783851|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.406|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6956||0.5594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.959|1.771|||ANCOVA|||Mental Component: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||1.771|-0.959|0.5594
90953007|NCT02187159|181783851|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.023|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6979||0.9736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.346|1.392|||ANCOVA|||Mental Component: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||1.392|-1.346|0.9736
90953008|NCT02187159|181783851|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-1.484|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6953||0.0331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.848|-0.119|||ANCOVA|||Mental Component: Pregabalin vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||-0.119|-2.848|0.0331
90953009|NCT02187159|181783851|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-1.867|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6976||0.0076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.235|-0.498|||ANCOVA|||Mental Component: Pregabalin vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||-0.498|-3.235|0.0076
90953010|NCT02187159|181783852|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.0309|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01328||0.0201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0048|0.057|||ANCOVA|||||0.0570|0.0048|0.0201
90953011|NCT02187159|181783852|SUPERIORITY||Difference of least squares means|0.0178|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01324||0.1798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0082|0.0438|||ANCOVA|||||0.0438|-0.0082|0.1798
90953012|NCT02187159|181783852|SUPERIORITY||Difference of least squares means|0.0071|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01329||0.5922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0189|0.0332|||ANCOVA|||||0.0332|-0.0189|0.5922
90953013|NCT02187159|181783852|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.0131|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01326||0.3221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0392|0.0129|||ANCOVA|||||0.0129|-0.0392|0.3221
90953014|NCT02187159|181783852|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.0238|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0133||0.0739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0499|0.0023|||ANCOVA|||||0.0023|-0.0499|0.0739
90953015|NCT02187159|181783853|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.153||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.19|-0.79|0.0015
90953016|NCT02187159|181783853|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.153||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|-0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.26|-0.86|0.0003
90953017|NCT02187159|181783853|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.153||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.21|-0.81|0.0008
90953018|NCT02187159|181783853|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.154||0.6464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.23|-0.37|0.6464
90953019|NCT02187159|181783853|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.154||0.8543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.27|-0.33|0.8543
90953020|NCT02187159|181783855|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Worst pain: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||0.2|-1.0|0.0014
91041991|NCT04542694|181968942|SUPERIORITY||The difference in proportions|0.1313||||0.0372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0004|0.2367|||Chi-squared|||A comparative analysis of the rate of clinical status improvement by 2 or more categories. The difference in percentages between the AREPLIVIR arm and the standard therapy arm (pa-pb)||0.2367|-0.0004|0.0372
91041992|NCT04542694|181968943|SUPERIORITY||The difference in days|4.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Comparative analysis of time to clinical status improvement by categorical ordinal clinical improvement scale between the AREPLIVIR arm and the standard therapy arm||||<0.0001
91041993|NCT04542694|181968944|SUPERIORITY||The difference in percentages|22.5||||0.00016|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.00016
91041994|NCT04542694|181968945|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.55||||0.052|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.052
91041995|NCT04542694|181968946|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1953|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1953
91041996|NCT04542694|181968947|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4975|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.4975
91041997|NCT04633642|181968956|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.74|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significances was p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
91041998|NCT04633642|181968957|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.61|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.17|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
91041999|NCT04633642|181968958|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.56|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.79|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
91042000|NCT04633642|181968959|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.28|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.44||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||We analyzed 51 patients (24 in surgical group and 27 in UAW group) with a statistical power of 0.80 and an alpha of 0.05, with a power of the clinical di↵erence of 37% to detect a statistically significant between groups.||||0.01
91042001|NCT04633642|181968960|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistics significance was p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.93
91042002|NCT04633642|181968961|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.18||0.711|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We analyzed 51 patients (24 in surgical group and 27 in UAW group) with a statistical power of 0.80 and an alpha of 0.05, with a power of the clinical difference of 37% to detect a statistically significant between groups.||||0.711
91042003|NCT01207752|181968977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.55|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.550
91042004|NCT00323258|181969010|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Equivalence analysis. Null hypothesis: The will be no difference in proportion of participants adherent to triple therapy in the treatment arm compared to those who receive usual care."||||||0.5|||||||Chi-squared|||Sample size of 286 patients(143 patients per group).Based on an estimated absolute improvement in medication adherence of 15% in the intervention group (eg, 85% in the intervention group, 70% in the control group), a 2-sided test with α level of .05, a 15% dropout rate, and power of 0.80.||||.50
90988135|NCT01276847|181861146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.000215||95.0||||unadjusted 1-sided p-value, α = 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|One-sample test||Week 16||||0.000215
90988136|NCT01276847|181861147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.787||95.0||||unadjusted 1-sided p-value, α = 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|One-sample test||Week 1||||0.787
90988137|NCT01276847|181861147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.577||95.0||||unadjusted 1-sided p-value, α = 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|One-sample test||Week 2||||0.577
90988138|NCT01276847|181861147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.053||95.0||||unadjusted 1-sided p-value, α = 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|One-sample test||Week 4||||0.053
90988139|NCT01276847|181861147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.098||95.0||||unadjusted 1-sided p-value, α = 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|One-sample test||Week 16||||0.098
90988140|NCT00751881|181861148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative risk reduction (%)|36.3||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"Step down approach used to adjust for multiplicity:~* H1 tested first~* H2 tested only if the comparison H1 was statistically significant~A priori threshold for statistical significance for both comparisons ≤0.05"|Regression, Poisson||Relative risk reduction with teriflunomide 14 mg compared to placebo|"Null hypothesis:~* H1: No difference between teriflunomide 14 mg and placebo~* H2: No difference between teriflunomide 7 mg and placebo~The study was sized to have 94% power to detect a 25% relative risk reduction in ARR with teriflunomide compared to placebo at a 2-sided 0.05 significance level."||||0.0001
90988141|NCT00751881|181861148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk Reduction (%)|22.3||||0.0183|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"Step down approach used to adjust for multiplicity:~* H1 tested first~* H2 tested only if the comparison H1 was statistically significant~A priori threshold for statistical significance for both comparisons ≤0.05"|Regression, Poisson||Relative risk reduction with teriflunomide 7 mg compared to placebo|||||0.0183
90988142|NCT00751881|181861149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard ratio reduction (%)|31.5||||0.0442|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"Step down approach:~* S1 tested only if both comparisons on the primary outcome measure were statistically significant~* S2 tested only if the comparison S1 was statistically significant~A priori threshold for statistical significance ≤0.05"|Log Rank|Two-sided Log-rank test stratified by region of enrollment and baseline EDSS stratum|Relative reduction in the hazard rate with teriflunomide 14 mg compared to placebo (estimated from a Cox proportional hazard model with treatment arm, region of enrollment and baseline EDSS stratum as covariates)|"Null hypothesis:~* S1: No difference between teriflunomide 14 mg and placebo~* S2: No difference between teriflunomide 7 mg and placebo~The study was also sized to have 75% power to detect a 37% hazard ratio reduction in time to disability progression with teriflunomide compared to placebo."||||0.0442
90988143|NCT00751881|181861149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard ratio reduction (%)|4.5||||0.762|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"Step down approach:~* S1 tested only if both comparisons on the primary outcome measure were statistically significant~* S2 tested only if the comparison S1 was statistically significant~A priori threshold for statistical significance ≤0.05"|Log Rank|Two-sided Log-rank test stratified by region of enrollment and baseline EDSS stratum|Relative reduction in the hazard rate with teriflunomide 7 mg compared to placebo (estimated from a Cox proportional hazard model with treatment arm, region of enrollment and baseline EDSS stratum as covariates)|||||0.7620
90988144|NCT02101411|181861236|OTHER|The Chi-squared test was used for comparisons of all categorical variables. If 20% of the cells had an expected value \< 5, then Fisher's exact test was used.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.005||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||The Chi-squared test was used for comparisons of all categorical variables. If 20% of the cells had an expected value \< 5, then Fisher's exact test was used.|Chi-squared|The differences among the three PRU groups (\<85, 85-208,\>208) and ADEs were compared using the Chi-squared test.||The differences among the three PRU groups (\<85, 85-208,\>208) and MACE rate at 24 months were compared using the Chi-squared test. was recorded.||||0.002
91042005|NCT00323258|181969011|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Equivalence analysis. Null hypothesis: The will be no difference in the proportion of participants who are \>/= 75% adherent to combined beta-blocker and statin therapy in the treatment arm compared to those who receive usual care."|||||=|0.11|||||||Chi-squared|||Sample Size calculated as 286 total or 143 patient per treatment group. Based on a baseline adherence rate of 70%, an estimated absolute improvement in medication adherence of 15.0% in the intervention group, we would require 122 patients per group assuming a 2-sided test with alpha-level of .05 and power of .80. To sustain a 15% dropout/ loss to follow-up rate, about 143 patients per group (286 patients total) would need to be consented.||||=0.11
91042006|NCT00323258|181969012|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Equivalence analysis. Null hypothesis: The will be no difference in the proportion of participants who are \>/= 75% adherent to beta-blockers in the treatment arm compared to those who receive usual care."||||||0.03|||||||Chi-squared|||Sample Size calculated as 286 total or 143 patient per treatment group. Based on a baseline adherence rate of 70%, an estimated absolute improvement in medication adherence of 15.0% in the intervention group, we would require 122 patients per group assuming a 2-sided test with alpha-level of .05 and power of .80. To sustain a 15% dropout/ loss to follow-up rate, about 143 patients per group (286 patients total) would need to be consented.||||0.03
91042007|NCT00323258|181969013|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Equivalence analysis. Null hypothesis: The will be no difference in the proportion of participants who are \>/= 75% adherent to statins in the treatment arm compared to those who receive usual care."||||||0.34|||||||Chi-squared|||Sample Size calculated as 286 total or 143 patient per treatment group. Based on a baseline adherence rate of 70%, an estimated absolute improvement in medication adherence of 15.0% in the intervention group, we would require 122 patients per group assuming a 2-sided test with alpha-level of .05 and power of .80. To sustain a 15% dropout/ loss to follow-up rate, about 143 patients per group (286 patients total) would need to be consented.||||0.34
91042008|NCT01728636|181969015|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.05
91042009|NCT01097694|181969051|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Our null hypothesis was that the mean of this ratio will be 0 after log2-transformed.~The target enrollment was 60 assuming 10% drop-out for 54 completions which gave us 80% power to detect a doubling-dose change in PC20."||||<0.05
91042010|NCT01097694|181969052|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline.||||||<0.05
91042011|NCT01097694|181969053|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline.||||||0.12
91042012|NCT01097694|181969054|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline.||||||0.10
91042013|NCT01097694|181969055|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||Poisson regression model|||||||0.36
91042014|NCT01097694|181969056|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for baseline values||For FEV1 we used a linear mixed-effects model to assess the between-group difference in the change from baseline over weeks 8-24.||||<0.05
91042015|NCT01097694|181969057|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline.||For FEV1% we used a linear mixed-effects model to assess the between-group difference in the change from baseline over weeks 8-24.||||0.06
90953021|NCT02187159|181783855|SUPERIORITY||Difference of least squares means|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.1285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Worst pain: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.1|-0.7|0.1285
91042016|NCT01097694|181969058|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline||||||0.38
91042017|NCT01097694|181969059|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline.||||||0.31
91042018|NCT01097694|181969060|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline||||||0.11
91042019|NCT01097694|181969061|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline.||||||0.31
91042020|NCT01097694|181969062|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline||||||0.11
91042021|NCT01097694|181969063|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline.||||||0.62
91042022|NCT01097694|181969064|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline.||||||0.57
91042023|NCT01097694|181969065|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline||||||0.15
91042024|NCT01097694|181969066|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline.||||||0.33
91042025|NCT01097694|181969067|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline.||||||0.11
91042026|NCT01097694|181969068|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline.||||||0.07
91042027|NCT01097694|181969069|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline.||||||0.94
91042028|NCT01097694|181969070|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline||||||0.13
91042029|NCT01097694|181969071|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline||||||0.25
91042030|NCT01097694|181969072|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline.||||||0.54
91042031|NCT01097694|181969073|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline.||||||0.18
91042032|NCT01097694|181969074|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline.||||||0.56
91042033|NCT01097694|181969075|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline.||||||0.47
91042034|NCT05068661|181969095|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.75||||0.486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.39|||Chi-squared|||||1.39|0.40|0.486
91042035|NCT05068661|181969096|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.85||||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.06||This is adjusted P value for hypotension|Chi-squared|||||1.06|0.69|0.148
91042036|NCT05068661|181969097|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.04|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.1||This is adjusted P value|Chi-squared|||||1.10|0.98|>0.999
91042037|NCT05068661|181969098|SUPERIORITY||Mean Ratio|1.9||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|3.18||Adjusted P value|Regression, Linear|||||3.18|1.14|0.128
91042038|NCT05068661|181969099|SUPERIORITY||Mean Ratio|1.04|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.35||Adjusted P value|Regression, Linear|||||1.35|0.80|>0.999
91042039|NCT05068661|181969100|SUPERIORITY||Mean Ratio|0.97|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.3||Adjusted P value|Regression, Linear|||||1.30|0.93|>0.999
91042040|NCT05068661|181969101|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.81|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.25||Adjusted P value|Chi-squared|||||1.25|0.52|>0.999
90953022|NCT02187159|181783855|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.6595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Worst pain: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.3|-0.5|0.6595
90953023|NCT02187159|181783855|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Worst pain: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.7|-0.1|0.0938
90953024|NCT02187159|181783855|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.9|||ANCOVA|||Worst pain: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.9|0.1|0.0061
90953025|NCT02187159|181783855|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||Least pain: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||-0.1|-0.8|0.0235
90953026|NCT02187159|181783855|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.3652|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Least pain: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.2|-0.5|0.3652
90953027|NCT02187159|181783855|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.6885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Least pain: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.3|-0.4|0.6885
90953028|NCT02187159|181783855|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.1726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Least pain: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.6|-0.1|0.1726
90953029|NCT02187159|181783855|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Least pain: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.7|-0.0|0.0627
90953030|NCT02187159|181783855|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||Average pain: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||-0.2|-0.8|0.0026
90953031|NCT02187159|181783855|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.1362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Average pain: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.1|-0.6|0.1362
90953032|NCT02187159|181783855|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.4344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Average pain: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.2|-0.4|0.4344
90953033|NCT02187159|181783855|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.1264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Average pain: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.6|-0.1|0.1264
90953034|NCT02187159|181783855|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Average pain: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.7|0.0|0.0260
90953035|NCT02187159|181783855|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||Pain right now: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||-0.4|-1.1|0.0002
90953036|NCT02187159|181783855|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Pain right now: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.0|-0.8|0.0597
90953037|NCT02187159|181783855|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.1198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Pain right now: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.1|-0.7|0.1198
90953038|NCT02187159|181783855|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.563|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1644||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.885|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||Severity score: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||-0.240|-0.885|0.0006
90953039|NCT02187159|181783855|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.261|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.164||0.1118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.583|0.061|||ANCOVA|||Severity score: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.061|-0.583|0.1118
90953040|NCT02187159|181783855|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.142|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1646||0.387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.465|0.18|||ANCOVA|||Severity score: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.180|-0.465|0.3870
90953041|NCT02187159|181783855|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.302|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1642||0.0633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.624|||ANCOVA|||Severity score: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.624|-0.020|0.0633
90953042|NCT02187159|181783855|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1647||0.0108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.097|0.744|||ANCOVA|||Severity score: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.744|0.097|0.0108
90953043|NCT02187159|181783855|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|7.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.41||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|12.2|||ANCOVA|||Relief by treatment of pain: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||12.2|2.7|0.0020
90953044|NCT02187159|181783855|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.41||0.2188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|7.7|||ANCOVA|||Relief by treatment of pain: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||7.7|-1.8|0.2188
90953045|NCT02187159|181783855|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.41||0.0991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|8.7|||ANCOVA|||Relief by treatment of pain: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||8.7|-0.8|0.0991
90953046|NCT02187159|181783855|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.41||0.0611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Relief by treatment of pain: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.2|-9.2|0.0611
90953047|NCT02187159|181783855|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.41||0.1489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|1.2|||ANCOVA|||Relief by treatment of pain: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||1.2|-8.2|0.1489
90953048|NCT02187159|181783855|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-6.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.751||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.47|-2.6|||ANCOVA|||Interference: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||-2.60|-9.47|0.0006
90953049|NCT02187159|181783855|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-4.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.747||0.0193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.52|-0.67|||ANCOVA|||Interference: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||-0.67|-7.52|0.0193
90953050|NCT02187159|181783855|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-1.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.752||0.3506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.07|1.8|||ANCOVA|||Interference: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||1.80|-5.07|0.3506
90953051|NCT02187159|181783855|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|1.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.748||0.266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|5.37|||ANCOVA|||Interference: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||5.37|-1.48|0.2660
90953052|NCT02187159|181783855|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.754||0.0122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|7.84|||ANCOVA|||Interference: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||7.84|0.96|0.0122
90953053|NCT02187159|181783855|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||General activity: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||-0.1|-0.9|0.0119
90953054|NCT02187159|181783855|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.0|||ANCOVA|||General activity: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.0|-0.8|0.0659
90953055|NCT02187159|181783855|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.5104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.3|||ANCOVA|||General activity: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.3|-0.5|0.5104
90953056|NCT02187159|181783855|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.4934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.5|||ANCOVA|||General activity: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.5|-0.3|0.4934
90953057|NCT02187159|181783855|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.8|||ANCOVA|||General activity: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.8|-0.0|0.0634
90953058|NCT02187159|181783855|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||Mood: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||-0.3|-1.1|0.0007
90953059|NCT02187159|181783855|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Mood: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.0|-0.8|0.0837
90953060|NCT02187159|181783855|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.2379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Mood: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.2|-0.7|0.2379
90953061|NCT02187159|181783855|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Mood: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.8|-0.1|0.0980
90953062|NCT02187159|181783855|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.9|||ANCOVA|||Mood: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.9|0.0|0.0283
90953063|NCT02187159|181783855|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.2179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Walking ability: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||0.2|-0.7|0.2179
91042041|NCT05068661|181969102|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.85|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.24||Adjusted P value|Chi-squared|||||1.24|0.58|>0.999
91042042|NCT05068661|181969103|SUPERIORITY||Mean Ratio|1.03|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.22||Adjusted P value|Regression, Linear|||||1.22|0.86|>0.999
91042043|NCT01567527|181969104|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.451|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.299|0.678|||Log Rank||"Using the Cox proportional hazards model with term for treatment group.~HR is estimated for Aripiprazole IM depot relative to Placebo."|Significance level 0.05.||0.678|0.299|< 0.0001
91042044|NCT01567527|181969104|SUPERIORITY|Using the Cox proportional hazards model with term for treatment group.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.475|3.34|||||HR is estimated for Placebo relative to Aripiprazole IM depot.|||3.34|1.475|
91042045|NCT01567527|181969105|SUPERIORITY|Using a hierarchical procedure to preserve the overall Type I error rate at 0.05, after testing the primary outcome.|Percentage Difference (Final Values)|-24.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.7|-12.5|||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for any mood episode||-12.5|-36.7|< 0.0001
91042046|NCT01567527|181969106|SUPERIORITY|Using mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis with a restricted maximum likelihood (REML) approach. Analyses included the categorically fixed effects of treatment, region, trial week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the continuously fixed covariates of baseline-score-by-week interaction. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within-subject errors and Kenward-Rodger degree of freedom was used to test the fixed effects.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43|||=|0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.17|||Mixed model repeated measure analysis|||||-0.17|-0.69|= 0.0011
91042047|NCT01567527|181969107|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.137|||=|0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.465|||Log Rank||"Using the Cox proportional hazards model with term for treatment group.~HR is estimated for Aripiprazole IM depot relative to Placebo."|||0.465|0.04|= 0.0002
91042048|NCT01567527|181969107|SUPERIORITY|Using the Cox proportional hazards model with term for treatment group.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|7.313|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.151|24.865|||||HR is estimated for Placebo relative to Aripiprazole IM depot.|||24.865|2.151|
91042049|NCT02004691|181969109|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|19.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.7576|=|0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.319|28.696||Threshold for significance was 0.05.|Mixed model for repeated measures||The 95% Confidence Interval (CI) and p-values were based on mixed model for repeated measures approach with Baseline Derived % Predicted DLco adjusted for Hb and pressure, age, treatment group, visit, and study visit by treatment group as covariates.|||28.696|9.319|=0.0004
91042050|NCT02004691|181969111|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-39.927|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4957|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.051|-32.803||Threshold for significance was 0.05.|Mixed model for repeated measures||The 95% CI and p-values were based on a mixed model for repeated measures approach with Baseline Spleen Volume (MN), Baseline age, treatment group, study visit, and study visit by treatment group interaction as covariates.|||-32.803|-47.051|<.0001
91042051|NCT02004691|181969113|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.618|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3877|=|0.6364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.302|8.538||Threshold for significance was 0.15.|Mixed model for repeated measures||The 95% CI and p-values are based on a mixed model for repeated measures approach with Baseline Splenomegaly Related Score, Baseline age, treatment group, study visit, and study visit by treatment group interaction as covariates.|||8.538|-5.302|=0.6364
91042052|NCT02004691|181969118|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-26.596|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5862|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.911|-19.281||Threshold for significance was 0.05.|Mixed model for repeated measures||The 95% CI and p-values are based on a mixed model for repeated measures approach with Baseline Liver Volume (MN), Baseline age, treatment group, study visit, and study visit by treatment group interaction as covariates.|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in an order the outcome measure were reported and continued when previous endpoint was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05.||-19.281|-33.911|<.0001
91042053|NCT02004691|181969119|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|14.332|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7822|=|0.0185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.564|26.099||Threshold for significance was 0.05.|Mixed model for repeated measures||The 95% CI and p-values are based on a mixed model for repeated measures approach with Baseline Platelets, Baseline age, treatment group, study visit, and study visit by treatment group interaction as covariates.|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in an order the outcome measure were reported and continued when previous endpoint was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05.||26.099|2.564|=0.0185
91042054|NCT02004691|181969120|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.056|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7384|=|0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.566|1.454||Threshold for significance was 0.05.|Mixed model for repeated measures||The 95% CI and p-values are based on a mixed model for repeated measures approach with Baseline BFI item 3 (Worst Fatigue), Baseline age, treatment group, study visit, and study visit by treatment group interaction as covariates.|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in an order the outcome measure were reported and continued when previous endpoint was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05.||1.454|-1.566|=0.9400
90953064|NCT02187159|181783855|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.6683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Walking ability: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.3|-0.5|0.6683
90953065|NCT02187159|181783855|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.2247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Walking ability: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.7|-0.2|0.2247
90953066|NCT02187159|181783855|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.4198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Walking ability: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.6|-0.2|0.4198
90953067|NCT02187159|181783855|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.9|||ANCOVA|||Walking ability: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.9|0.1|0.0146
90953068|NCT02187159|181783855|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Normal work: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||0.0|-0.8|0.0662
90953069|NCT02187159|181783855|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.2282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Normal work: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.2|-0.7|0.2282
90953070|NCT02187159|181783855|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.7336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Normal work: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.3|-0.5|0.7336
90953071|NCT02187159|181783855|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Normal work: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.5|-0.3|0.5240
91042055|NCT03407729|181969141|OTHER|Using seed-based analysis with a 1) Left Thalamus seed and 2) Left Middle Temporal Gyrus seed, cluster size was set at 50 voxels and p-value was thresholded at p\<0.05. This was used to compare the differences between the two study groups in terms of number of activated voxels during during cognitive testing using the N-back.|||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05 and statistical power was set at a minimum of 0.80.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
90953072|NCT02187159|181783855|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.1349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Normal work: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.7|-0.1|0.1349
90953073|NCT02187159|181783855|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Relations with other people: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||-0.0|-0.8|0.0464
90953074|NCT02187159|181783855|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Relations with other people: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.1|-0.7|0.0975
90953075|NCT02187159|181783855|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.6088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Relations with other people: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.5|-0.3|0.6088
90953076|NCT02187159|181783855|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.7341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Relations with other people: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.5|-0.3|0.7341
90953077|NCT02187159|181783855|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.9|||ANCOVA|||Relations with other people: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.9|0.1|0.0125
90953078|NCT02187159|181783855|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.5|||ANCOVA|||Sleep: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||-0.5|-1.4|<0.0001
90953079|NCT02187159|181783855|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||Sleep: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||-0.4|-1.3|0.0003
90953080|NCT02187159|181783855|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||Sleep: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||-0.2|-1.1|0.0040
90953081|NCT02187159|181783855|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.5801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Sleep: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.6|-0.3|0.5801
90953082|NCT02187159|181783855|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.1869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Sleep: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.7|-0.1|0.1869
90953083|NCT02187159|181783855|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||Enjoyment of life: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||-0.4|-1.3|0.0002
90953084|NCT02187159|181783855|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||Enjoyment of life: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||-0.1|-0.9|0.0271
90953085|NCT02187159|181783855|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.1123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Enjoyment of life: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.1|-0.8|0.1123
90953086|NCT02187159|181783855|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.1183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Enjoyment of life: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.8|-0.1|0.1183
90953087|NCT02187159|181783855|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.9|||ANCOVA|||Enjoyment of life: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.9|0.0|0.0299
90953088|NCT02187159|181783856|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0249||0.5578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.063|0.034|||ANCOVA|||||0.034|-0.063|0.5578
90953089|NCT02187159|181783856|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.009|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0248||0.7034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.058|0.039|||ANCOVA|||||0.039|-0.058|0.7034
91042056|NCT04387617|181969143|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.6||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.6|-0.8|0.5
90988145|NCT02101411|181861236|OTHER|The Chi-squared test was used for comparisons of all categorical variables. If 20% of the cells had an expected value \< 5, then Fisher's exact test was used.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.005||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||The Chi-squared test was used for comparisons of all categorical variables. If 20% of the cells had an expected value \< 5, then Fisher's exact test was used.|Chi-squared|||The differences among the three PRU groups (\<85, 85-208,\>208) and ADEs were compared using the Chi-squared test.||||0.002
90988146|NCT03242759|181861240|OTHER|||||||0.505|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Intra-group difference comparing to baseline was analyzed.||||0.505
90988147|NCT03242759|181861240|OTHER|||||||0.181|||||||Paired t-test|||Intra-group difference comparing to baseline was analyzed.||||0.181
90988148|NCT03242759|181861241|OTHER|||||||0.571|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Intra-group difference comparing to baseline was analyzed.||||0.571
90988149|NCT03242759|181861241|OTHER|||||||0.232|||||||Paired t-test|||Intra-group difference comparing to baseline was analyzed.||||0.232
90988150|NCT03242759|181861242|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Intra-group difference comparing to baseline was analyzed.||||< 0.001
91042057|NCT00830167|181969150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.11||The analysis was conducted using 1-sided test with the significance level of 0.025. Actual significance level was calculated based on O'Brien-Fleming type alpha spending function of Lan and DeMets (1983).|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was to assume that there was no difference between the pregabalin and placebo groups. The alternative was that the pregabalin group was superior to the placebo group.||-0.11|-0.78|0.0046
90988151|NCT03242759|181861242|OTHER|||||||0.375|||||||Paired t-test|||Intra-group difference comparing to baseline was analyzed.||||0.375
90988152|NCT03242759|181861243|OTHER|||||||0.027|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Intra-group difference comparing to baseline was analyzed.||||0.027
90988153|NCT03242759|181861243|OTHER|||||||0.938|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Intra-group difference comparing to baseline was analyzed.||||0.938
90988154|NCT03242759|181861244|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Intra-group difference comparing to baseline was analyzed.||||0.001
90988155|NCT03242759|181861244|OTHER|||||||0.048|||||||Paired t-test|||Intra-group difference comparing to baseline was analyzed.||||0.048
90988156|NCT03242759|181861245|OTHER|||||||0.018|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Intra-group difference comparing to baseline was analyzed.||||0.018
90988157|NCT03242759|181861245|OTHER|||||||0.125|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Intra-group difference comparing to baseline was analyzed.||||0.125
90988158|NCT03242759|181861246|OTHER|||||||0.073|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Intra-group difference comparing to baseline was analyzed.||||0.073
90988159|NCT03242759|181861246|OTHER|||||||0.755|||||||Paired t-test|||Intra-group difference comparing to baseline was analyzed.||||0.755
90988160|NCT03242759|181861247|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Intra-group difference comparing to baseline was analyzed.||||< 0.001
90988161|NCT03242759|181861247|OTHER|||||||0.281|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Intra-group difference comparing to baseline was analyzed.||||0.281
90988162|NCT03242759|181861248|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Intra-group difference comparing to baseline was analyzed.||||< 0.001
90988163|NCT03242759|181861248|OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Intra-group difference comparing to baseline was analyzed.||||0.008
90988164|NCT03242759|181861249|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Intra-group difference comparing to baseline was analyzed.||||< 0.001
90988165|NCT03242759|181861249|OTHER|||||||0.031|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Intra-group difference comparing to baseline was analyzed.||||0.031
90988166|NCT03242759|181861251|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Paired t-test|||Intra-group difference comparing to baseline was analyzed.||||< 0.001
90988167|NCT03242759|181861251|OTHER|||||||0.939|||||||Paired t-test|||Intra-group difference comparing to baseline was analyzed.||||0.939
90988168|NCT03242759|181861252|OTHER|||||||0.169|||||||Paired t-test|||Intra-group difference comparing to baseline was analyzed.||||0.169
90988169|NCT03242759|181861252|OTHER|||||||0.545|||||||Paired t-test|||Intra-group difference comparing to baseline was analyzed.||||0.545
90988170|NCT03242759|181861253|OTHER|||||||0.333|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Intra-group difference comparing to baseline was analyzed.||||0.333
90988171|NCT03242759|181861253|OTHER|||||||0.786|||||||Paired t-test|||Intra-group difference comparing to baseline was analyzed.||||0.786
90988172|NCT03242759|181861254|OTHER|||||||0.245|||||||Paired t-test|||Intra-group difference comparing to baseline was analyzed.||||0.245
90988173|NCT03242759|181861254|OTHER|||||||0.454|||||||Paired t-test|||Intra-group difference comparing to baseline was analyzed.||||0.454
90988174|NCT03242759|181861255|OTHER|||||||0.543|||||||Paired t-test|||Intra-group difference comparing to baseline was analyzed.||||0.543
90988175|NCT03242759|181861255|OTHER|||||||0.733|||||||Paired t-test|||Intra-group difference comparing to baseline was analyzed.||||0.733
90988176|NCT03242759|181861256|OTHER|||||||0.046|||||||Paired t-test|||Intra-group difference comparing to baseline was analyzed.||||0.046
90988177|NCT03242759|181861256|OTHER|||||||0.898|||||||Paired t-test|||Intra-group difference comparing to baseline was analyzed.||||0.898
90988178|NCT03415464|181861260|OTHER|||||||0.134|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.134
90988179|NCT03117049|181861269|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|96.37|0.43|0.71|||Stratified log-rank test|||||0.71|0.43|<0.0001
90988180|NCT03117049|181861270|SUPERIORITY||Stratified hazard ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.14||||||||1.14|0.63|
90988181|NCT03117049|181861271|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|2.17||||||||2.17|1.11|
90988182|NCT03117049|181861272|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.31||||||||1.31|0.46|
91042058|NCT00830167|181969151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|||||The analysis was conducted using 2-sided test with the significance level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||The null hypothesis was to assume that there was no difference between the pregabalin and placebo groups. The alternative was that there was a difference between the pregabalin and the placebo groups.||||0.0078
91042059|NCT00830167|181969152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.85|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.12|-5.85||The analysis was conducted using 1-sided test with the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was to assume that there was no difference between the pregabalin and placebo groups. The alternative was that the pregabalin group was superior to the placebo group.||-5.85|-13.12|<0.0001
91042060|NCT00830167|181969153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.88||0.9958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|8.68||The analysis was conducted using 1-sided test with the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was to assume that there was no difference between the pregabalin and placebo groups. The alternative was that the pregabalin group was superior to the placebo group.||8.68|1.29|0.9958
91042061|NCT00830167|181969154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.92||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.77|-1.21||The analysis was conducted using 1-sided test with the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was to assume that there was no difference between the pregabalin and placebo groups. The alternative was that the pregabalin group was superior to the placebo group.||-1.21|-8.77|0.0049
91042062|NCT00830167|181969155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.47||The analysis was conducted using 1-sided test with the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was to assume that there was no difference between the pregabalin and placebo groups. The alternative was that the pregabalin group was superior to the placebo group.||0.47|0.11|0.0007
91042063|NCT00830167|181969156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.99|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.58|11.38||The analysis was conducted using 1-sided test with the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was to assume that there was no difference between the pregabalin and placebo groups. The alternative was that the pregabalin group was superior to the placebo group.||11.38|3.58|<0.0001
91042064|NCT00830167|181969157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.82||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.74|14.87||The analysis was conducted using 1-sided test with the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was to assume that there was no difference between the pregabalin and placebo groups. The alternative was that the pregabalin group was superior to the placebo group.||14.87|7.74|1.0000
91042065|NCT00830167|181969158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.35||0.0137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.65|-0.33||The analysis was conducted using 1-sided test with the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was to assume that there was no difference between the pregabalin and placebo groups. The alternative was that the pregabalin group was superior to the placebo group.||-0.33|-5.65|0.0137
91042066|NCT00830167|181969159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.0687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.35||The analysis was conducted using 1-sided test with the significance level of 0.025.|Regression, Logistic|||The null hypothesis was to assume that there was no difference between the pregabalin and placebo groups. The alternative was that the pregabalin group was superior to the placebo group.||2.35|0.90|0.0687
91042067|NCT00830167|181969160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.4||The analysis was conducted using 1-sided test with the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was to assume that there was no difference between the pregabalin and placebo groups. The alternative was that the pregabalin group was superior to the placebo group.||-0.40|-1.06|<0.0001
91042068|NCT00830167|181969161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52||0.0144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.31|-0.35||The analysis was conducted using 1-sided test with the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was to assume that there was no difference between the pregabalin and placebo groups. The alternative was that the pregabalin group was superior to the placebo group.||-0.35|-6.31|0.0144
91042069|NCT00830167|181969162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.03||The analysis was conducted using 1-sided test with the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was to assume that there was no difference between the pregabalin and placebo groups. The alternative was that the pregabalin group was superior to the placebo group.||0.03|-0.59|0.0376
91042070|NCT00830167|181969163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|-0.15||The analysis was conducted using 1-sided test with the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was to assume that there was no difference between the pregabalin and placebo groups. The alternative was that the pregabalin group was superior to the placebo group.||-0.15|-1.12|0.0052
91042071|NCT00830167|181969164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.4768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.4||The analysis was conducted using 1-sided test with the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was to assume that there was no difference between the pregabalin and placebo groups. The alternative was that the pregabalin group was superior to the placebo group.||0.40|-0.42|0.4768
90953090|NCT02187159|181783856|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0249||0.4143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.069|0.028|||ANCOVA|||||0.028|-0.069|0.4143
90953091|NCT02187159|181783856|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0249||0.8365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.044|0.054|||ANCOVA|||||0.054|-0.044|0.8365
90988183|NCT00872833|181861276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<.001
90988184|NCT00872833|181861277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.028
90953092|NCT02187159|181783856|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0249||0.8189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.055|0.043|||ANCOVA|||||0.043|-0.055|0.8189
90953093|NCT04833127|181783864|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: no difference between the groups|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.8||generalized linear models (GLM) and generalized estimating equations (GEE) for clustering within recruitment chain|GLM (logit link) with GEE|||||1.80|0.56|1.0
90953094|NCT04833127|181783864|EQUIVALENCE|Null H: No difference between the groups|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.07||GLM with GEE to account for clustering by recruitment chain.|GLM (logit link) with GEE|Adjusted for age, education, if has a main male partner, which differed between the two groups at baseline.||||2.07|0.62|0.69
90953095|NCT04833127|181783865|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: No difference between the groups.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|2.85|||GLM with GEE|GLM with GEE accounting for clustering by recruitment chain||||2.85|0.35|1.00
90953096|NCT04833127|181783865|EQUIVALENCE|Null H: No difference between the 2 groups|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|2.9||GLM (logit link) with GEE to account for clustering by recruitment chain|GLM (logit link) with GEE|adjusted for baseline differences in age, educational status, and whether has a primary male partner.||||2.90|0.31|0.927
90953097|NCT04833127|181783866|EQUIVALENCE|Null Hypothesis: No difference between the groups|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72||||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|4.04|||GLM (logit link) with GEE|Used GEE to account for clustering by recruitment chain.||||4.04|0.73|0.215
90953098|NCT04833127|181783866|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: No difference between the groups|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.64||||0.295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|4.13|||GLM (logit link) with GEE|GEE used to account for clustering by recruitment chain|adjusted for baseline differences in age, education, and whether has a main male partner.|||4.13|0.65|0.295
90953099|NCT00461981|181783874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate differences|-60.6||||||95.0|-79.7|-31.7||||||The seroconversion rates (the proportions of baseline seronegative subjects achieving a 4 or more fold increase in titer from baseline) were summarized for baseline seronegative subjects by treatment group and by dose number. A two-sided exact 95% confidence interval (CI) was constructed on the rate differences using the unconditional exact method proposed by Chan and Zhang (Chan, 1999).||-31.7|-79.7|
90953100|NCT00461981|181783875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate differences|-60.9||||||95.0|-83.8|-26.0||||||The seroconversion rates (the proportions of baseline seronegative subjects achieving a 4 or more fold increase in titer from baseline) were summarized for baseline seronegative subjects by treatment group and by dose number. A two-sided exact 95% confidence interval (CI) was constructed on the rate differences using the unconditional exact method proposed by Chan and Zhang (Chan, 1999).||-26.0|-83.8|
90953101|NCT00461981|181783876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate differences|44.2||||||95.0|12.0|67.8||||||The seroconversion rates (the proportions of baseline seronegative subjects achieving a 4 or more fold increase in titer from baseline) were summarized for baseline seronegative subjects by treatment group and by dose number. A two-sided exact 95% confidence interval (CI) was constructed on the rate differences using the unconditional exact method proposed by Chan and Zhang (Chan, 1999).||67.8|12.0|
90953102|NCT00461981|181783877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate differences|16.2||||||95.0|-17.6|45.4||||||The seroconversion rates (the proportions of baseline seronegative subjects achieving a 4 or more fold increase in titer from baseline) were summarized for baseline seronegative subjects by treatment group and by dose number. A two-sided exact 95% confidence interval (CI) was constructed on the rate differences using the unconditional exact method proposed by Chan and Zhang (Chan, 1999).||45.4|-17.6|
90953103|NCT00461981|181783878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate differences|-18.2||||||95.0|-40.0|4.9||||||The seroconversion rates (the proportions of baseline seronegative subjects achieving a 4 or more fold increase in titer from baseline) were summarized for baseline seronegative subjects by treatment group and by dose number. A two-sided exact 95% confidence interval (CI) was constructed on the rate differences using the unconditional exact method proposed by Chan and Zhang (Chan, 1999).||4.9|-40.0|
90953104|NCT00461981|181783879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate differences|-5.6||||||95.0|-27.4|13.3||||||The seroconversion rates (the proportions of baseline seronegative subjects achieving a 4 or more fold increase in titer from baseline) were summarized for baseline seronegative subjects by treatment group and by dose number. A two-sided exact 95% confidence interval (CI) was constructed on the rate differences using the unconditional exact method proposed by Chan and Zhang (Chan, 1999).||13.3|-27.4|
90953105|NCT00461981|181783880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate differences|35.7||||||95.0|9.5|57.1||||||The seroconversion rates (the proportions of baseline seronegative subjects achieving a 4 or more fold increase in titer from baseline) were summarized for baseline seronegative subjects by treatment group and by dose number. A two-sided exact 95% confidence interval (CI) was constructed on the rate differences using the unconditional exact method proposed by Chan and Zhang (Chan, 1999).||57.1|9.5|
90953106|NCT00461981|181783881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate differences|-5.0||||||95.0|-27.7|16.0||||||The seroconversion rates (the proportions of baseline seronegative subjects achieving a 4 or more fold increase in titer from baseline) were summarized for baseline seronegative subjects by treatment group and by dose number. A two-sided exact 95% confidence interval (CI) was constructed on the rate differences using the unconditional exact method proposed by Chan and Zhang (Chan, 1999).||16.0|-27.7|
90953107|NCT00461981|181783882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate differences|14.7||||||95.0|-6.5|38.4||||||The seroconversion rates (the proportions of baseline seronegative subjects achieving a 4 or more fold increase in titer from baseline) were summarized for baseline seronegative subjects by treatment group and by dose number. A two-sided exact 95% confidence interval (CI) was constructed on the rate differences using the unconditional exact method proposed by Chan and Zhang (Chan, 1999).||38.4|-6.5|
90953108|NCT00461981|181783883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate differences|38.1||||||95.0|0.9|65.9||||||The seroconversion rates (the proportions of baseline seronegative subjects achieving a 4 or more fold increase in titer from baseline) were summarized for baseline seronegative subjects by treatment group and by dose number. A two-sided exact 95% confidence interval (CI) was constructed on the rate differences using the unconditional exact method proposed by Chan and Zhang (Chan, 1999).||65.9|0.9|
91042072|NCT00830167|181969165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.11||The analysis was conducted using 1-sided test with the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was to assume that there was no difference between the pregabalin and placebo groups. The alternative was that the pregabalin group was superior to the placebo group.||0.11|-0.74|0.0729
91042073|NCT00830167|181969166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.0||The analysis was conducted using 1-sided test with the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was to assume that there was no difference between the pregabalin and placebo groups. The alternative was that the pregabalin group was superior to the placebo group.||0.00|-0.81|0.0238
91042074|NCT00830167|181969167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.1||The analysis was conducted using 1-sided test with the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was to assume that there was no difference between the pregabalin and placebo groups. The alternative was that the pregabalin group was superior to the placebo group.||-0.10|-0.89|0.0075
91042075|NCT00830167|181969168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.18||The analysis was conducted using 1-sided test with the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was to assume that there was no difference between the pregabalin and placebo groups. The alternative was that the pregabalin group was superior to the placebo group.||-0.18|-1.01|0.0023
91042076|NCT00830167|181969169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.2568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.29||The analysis was conducted using 1-sided test with the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was to assume that there was no difference between the pregabalin and placebo groups. The alternative was that the pregabalin group was superior to the placebo group.||0.29|-0.57|0.2568
91042077|NCT00830167|181969170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.1011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.15||The analysis was conducted using 1-sided test with the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was to assume that there was no difference between the pregabalin and placebo groups. The alternative was that the pregabalin group was superior to the placebo group.||0.15|-0.72|0.1011
91042078|NCT00830167|181969171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.4165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.35||The analysis was conducted using 1-sided test with the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was to assume that there was no difference between the pregabalin and placebo groups. The alternative was that the pregabalin group was superior to the placebo group.||0.35|-0.44|0.4165
91042079|NCT00830167|181969172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|6.88||The analysis was conducted using 1-sided test with the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was to assume that there was no difference between the pregabalin and placebo groups. The alternative was that the pregabalin group was superior to the placebo group.||6.88|1.70|0.0006
91042080|NCT00830167|181969173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.84||0.1805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|5.29||The analysis was conducted using 1-sided test with the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was to assume that there was no difference between the pregabalin and placebo groups. The alternative was that the pregabalin group was superior to the placebo group.||5.29|-1.93|0.1805
91042081|NCT00830167|181969174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|5.1||The analysis was conducted using 1-sided test with the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was to assume that there was no difference between the pregabalin and placebo groups. The alternative was that the pregabalin group was superior to the placebo group.||5.10|-0.81|0.0770
90988185|NCT00839098|181861278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.27
90988186|NCT00839098|181861279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
90988187|NCT00839098|181861280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.04
90988188|NCT00839098|181861281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
90988189|NCT00839098|181861282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
90988190|NCT00839098|181861283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||P values below 0.05 were considered statistically significant in this study.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
90988191|NCT00839098|181861284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
90988192|NCT01345786|181861285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Acceptance criteria of 80 - 125% were used for bioequivalence evaluations (bioequivalence concluded when 90% confidence interval fully contained within acceptance criteria).|Ratio (Test/Ref %)|137.5||||||90.0|131.0|144.4|||||Commercial Batch Test / Phase 3 Batch Reference.|||144.4|131|
90988193|NCT01345786|181861285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Acceptance criteria of 80 - 125% were used for bioequivalence evaluations (bioequivalence concluded when 90% confidence interval fully contained within acceptance criteria).|Ratio (Test/Ref %)|111.8||||||90.0|107.5|116.4|||||Commercial Batch Test / Phase 3 Batch Reference.|||116.4|107.5|
90988194|NCT01345786|181861286|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Acceptance criteria of 80 - 125% were used for bioequivalence evaluations (bioequivalence concluded when 90% confidence interval fully contained within acceptance criteria).|Ratio (Test/Ref %)|107.3||||||90.0|99.0|116.4|||||Commercial Batch Test / Phase 3 Batch Reference.|||116.4|99|
90988195|NCT01345786|181861286|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Acceptance criteria of 80 - 125% were used for bioequivalence evaluations (bioequivalence concluded when 90% confidence interval fully contained within acceptance criteria).|Ratio (Test/Ref %)|103.6||||||90.0|99.2|108.2|||||"Commercial Batch Test / Phase 3 Batch Reference.~In addition to the participants/profiles excluded, 1 participant from the Phase 3 Batch Reference group did not contribute to this comparison."|||108.2|99.2|
90988196|NCT01345786|181861287|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Acceptance criteria of 80 - 125% were used for bioequivalence evaluations (bioequivalence concluded when 90% confidence interval fully contained within acceptance criteria).|Ratio (Test/Ref %)|110.0||||||90.0|106.4|113.7|||||Commercial Batch Test / Phase 3 Batch Reference.|Analysis for AUClast||113.7|106.4|
90988197|NCT01345786|181861287|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Acceptance criteria of 80 - 125% were used for bioequivalence evaluations (bioequivalence concluded when 90% confidence interval fully contained within acceptance criteria).|Ratio (Test/Ref %)|103.3||||||90.0|100.9|105.7|||||Commercial Batch Test / Phase 3 Batch Reference|Analysis for AUC last||105.7|100.9|
90988198|NCT01345786|181861287|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Acceptance criteria of 80 - 125% were used for bioequivalence evaluations (bioequivalence concluded when 90% confidence interval fully contained within acceptance criteria).|Ratio (Test/Ref %)|108.1||||||90.0|104.7|111.6|||||Commercial Batch Test / Phase 3 Batch Reference.|Analysis for AUC infinity||111.6|104.7|
90988199|NCT01345786|181861287|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Acceptance criteria of 80 - 125% were used for bioequivalence evaluations (bioequivalence concluded when 90% confidence interval fully contained within acceptance criteria).|Ratio (Test/Ref %)|103.1||||||90.0|100.5|105.8|||||Commercial Batch Test / Phase 3 Batch Reference|Analysis for AUC infinity||105.8|100.5|
90988200|NCT01345786|181861288|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Acceptance criteria of 80 - 125% were used for bioequivalence evaluations (bioequivalence concluded when 90% confidence interval fully contained within acceptance criteria).|Ratio (Test/Ref %)|101.5||||||90.0|96.7|106.4|||||Commercial Batch Test / Phase 3 Batch Reference.|||106.4|96.7|
90988201|NCT01345786|181861288|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Acceptance criteria of 80 - 125% were used for bioequivalence evaluations (bioequivalence concluded when 90% confidence interval fully contained within acceptance criteria).|Ratio (Test/Ref %)|101.3||||||90.0|98.1|104.7|||||"Commercial Batch Test / Phase 3 Batch Reference.~In addition to the participants/profiles excluded, 1 participant from the Phase 3 Batch Reference group did not contribute to this comparison."|||104.7|98.1|
90988202|NCT02986958|181861300|OTHER|We used generalized estimating equations with an exchangeable correlation structure to assess the direction, magnitude, and statistical significance of between-group differences. Regression models included treatment assignment and patient-level covariates (patient age, gender, and MMSE score) that were postulated as affecting communication outcomes. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05. Analyses were performed in SAS statistical software, version 9.4 (SAS, Cary, NC).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.046|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.046
90988203|NCT02260193|181861312|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Differences|0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.82||||||||0.82|-0.25|
90988204|NCT02260193|181861312|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Differences|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.9||||||||0.90|-0.19|
90988205|NCT02260193|181861312|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Differences|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.61||||||||0.61|-0.48|
90988206|NCT02260193|181861313|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Differences|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.61||||||||0.61|-0.54|
90988207|NCT02260193|181861313|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Differences|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.7||||||||0.70|-0.49|
90988208|NCT02260193|181861313|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.66||||||||0.66|-0.53|
90988209|NCT02260193|181861314|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.04||||||||0.04|-0.71|
90988210|NCT02260193|181861314|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.29||||||||0.29|-0.50|
90988211|NCT02260193|181861314|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.62||||||||0.62|-0.16|
90988212|NCT01000064|181861407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.053
90988213|NCT01000064|181861408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.052
90988214|NCT01000064|181861409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.047
90988215|NCT01000064|181861410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.047
90988216|NCT01000064|181861411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
90988217|NCT01000064|181861412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.040
90988218|NCT01000064|181861413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.047
91042082|NCT00830167|181969175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.0648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|4.19||The analysis was conducted using 1-sided test with the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was to assume that there was no difference between the pregabalin and placebo groups. The alternative was that the pregabalin group was superior to the placebo group.||4.19|-0.54|0.0648
91042083|NCT00830167|181969176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.94||0.2068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|5.41||The analysis was conducted using 1-sided test with the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was to assume that there was no difference between the pregabalin and placebo groups. The alternative was that the pregabalin group was superior to the placebo group.||5.41|-2.23|0.2068
91042084|NCT00830167|181969177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.92||0.548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|3.54||The analysis was conducted using 1-sided test with the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was to assume that there was no difference between the pregabalin and placebo groups. The alternative was that the pregabalin group was superior to the placebo group.||3.54|-4.00|0.5480
91042085|NCT00830167|181969178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.72||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|7.8||The analysis was conducted using 1-sided test with the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was to assume that there was no difference between the pregabalin and placebo groups. The alternative was that the pregabalin group was superior to the placebo group.||7.80|1.04|0.0052
91042086|NCT00830167|181969179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.39||0.0287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|5.37||The analysis was conducted using 1-sided test with the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was to assume that there was no difference between the pregabalin and placebo groups. The alternative was that the pregabalin group was superior to the placebo group.||5.37|-0.08|0.0287
91042087|NCT00830167|181969180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.0262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|0.01||The analysis was conducted using 1-sided test with the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was to assume that there was no difference between the pregabalin and placebo groups. The alternative was that the pregabalin group was superior to the placebo group.||0.01|-0.97|0.0262
91042088|NCT00830167|181969181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.1561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.27||The analysis was conducted using 1-sided test with the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was to assume that there was no difference between the pregabalin and placebo groups. The alternative was that the pregabalin group was superior to the placebo group.||0.27|-0.83|0.1561
91042089|NCT00830167|181969182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|-2.18||The analysis was conducted using 1-sided test with the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was to assume that there was no difference between the pregabalin and placebo groups. The alternative was that the pregabalin group was superior to the placebo group.||-2.18|-10.20|0.0013
91042090|NCT00360490|181969204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis: the absolute change from Baseline MBL to End of Study MBL is equal in the LNG IUS group and the MPA group.||||<0.001
91042091|NCT00360490|181969205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|62.59|||<|0.001||95.0|50.56|74.61|||Chi-squared|||The null hypothesis: the proportion of subjects with successful treatment is equal in the LNG IUS group and the MPA group.||74.61|50.56|<0.001
91042092|NCT00360490|181969206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-49.2|||<|0.001||95.0|-70.2|-28.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis: the percent change from Baseline MBL to End of Study MBL is equal in the LNG IUS group and the MPA group.||-28.3|-70.2|<0.001
91042093|NCT00360490|181969207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis: the absolute change from Baseline MBL to Mid-study MBL is equal in the LNG IUS group and the MPA group.||||<0.001
91042094|NCT00360490|181969208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-50.6|||<|0.001||95.0|-63.8|-37.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis: the percent change from Baseline MBL to Mid-study MBL is equal in the LNG IUS group and the MPA group.||-37.4|-63.8|<0.001
91042095|NCT00360490|181969218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|26.06||||||95.0|14.75|37.36||||||A two-sided 95% confidence interval for the improvement rate will be provided for cycle 6||37.36|14.75|
91042096|NCT00950300|181969240|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 90% confidence interval (CI) was greater than or equal to (≥) 0.8 for the geometric mean ratio.|Geometric mean ratio|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.24|1.44|||||Ratio of test treatment group (Herceptin SC + Chemotherapy) to reference treatment group (Herceptin IV + Chemotherapy).|PK sample size calculations based on percentage of coefficient of variation (CV%) for Ctrough of trastuzumab from previous metastatic breast cancer (MBC) and early breast cancer (EBC) studies. Because pre-surgery situation was comparable to MBC setting, interpatient CV% of 60 percent (%) was assumed and 130 participants per arm (260 participants total) were needed to demonstrate Ctrough comparability with 80% power if the true means of the two formulations did not differ by greater than (\>) 5%.||1.44|1.24|
91042097|NCT00950300|181969241|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the one-sided 97.5% CI was above -12.5% for the difference in response (pCR) rates.|Difference in response rates|4.7|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|-4.0||||||The one-sided 97.5% CI for the difference in response (pCR) rates was calculated using the Anderson-Hauck continuity correction.|Assuming pCR rates of at least 40% in both arms, 552 participants were necessary to conclude non-inferiority in pCR rate with a power of 80% using a one-sided 97.5% CI for the difference of the response rates and a non-inferiority margin of 12.5%.|||-4.0|
91042098|NCT00950300|181969242|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.4|1.63|||||Ratio of test treatment group (Herceptin SC + Chemotherapy) to reference treatment group (Herceptin IV + Chemotherapy).|Additional supportive analysis.||1.63|1.40|
91042099|NCT00950300|181969243|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.46|1.64|||||Ratio of test treatment group (Herceptin SC + Chemotherapy) to reference treatment group (Herceptin IV + Chemotherapy).|Additional supportive analysis.||1.64|1.46|
91042100|NCT00950300|181969244|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.45|1.64|||||Ratio of test treatment group (Herceptin SC + Chemotherapy) to reference treatment group (Herceptin IV + Chemotherapy).|Additional supportive analysis.||1.64|1.45|
90953109|NCT00461981|181783884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate differences|11.7||||||95.0|-13.0|34.9||||||The seroconversion rates (the proportions of baseline seronegative subjects achieving a 4 or more fold increase in titer from baseline) were summarized for baseline seronegative subjects by treatment group and by dose number. A two-sided exact 95% confidence interval (CI) was constructed on the rate differences using the unconditional exact method proposed by Chan and Zhang (Chan, 1999).||34.9|-13.0|
90953110|NCT00461981|181783885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate differences|-15.8||||||95.0|-40.7|8.0||||||The seroconversion rates (the proportions of baseline seronegative subjects achieving a 4 or more fold increase in titer from baseline) were summarized for baseline seronegative subjects by treatment group and by dose number. A two-sided exact 95% confidence interval (CI) was constructed on the rate differences using the unconditional exact method proposed by Chan and Zhang (Chan, 1999).||8.0|-40.7|
90953111|NCT00461981|181783886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||GMT ratio|0.43||||||95.0|0.24|0.87||||||Corresponding two-sided 95% CIs based on 10,000 bootstrap data sets for the ratios of strain-specific GMTs (FluMist/TIV) were constructed by drawing replicates with replacement from each of the 2 cells (2 treatment groups) of observed data. The number of replicates drawn from each cell in this fashion was equal to the observed sample size within each cell. For each of the 10,000 bootstrap data sets, the overall GMT ratio was calculated.||0.87|0.24|
90953112|NCT00461981|181783887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||GMT Ratio|0.2||||||95.0|0.09|0.48||||||Corresponding two-sided 95% CIs based on 10,000 bootstrap data sets for the ratios of strain-specific GMTs (FluMist/TIV) were constructed by drawing replicates with replacement from each of the 2 cells (2 treatment groups) of observed data. The number of replicates drawn from each cell in this fashion was equal to the observed sample size within each cell. For each of the 10,000 bootstrap data sets, the overall GMT ratio was calculated.||0.48|0.09|
90953113|NCT00461981|181783888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||GMT Ratio|3.36||||||95.0|1.54|7.13||||||The seroconversion rates (the proportions of baseline seronegative subjects achieving a 4 or more fold increase in titer from baseline) were summarized for baseline seronegative subjects by treatment group and by dose number. A two-sided exact 95% confidence interval (CI) was constructed on the rate differences using the unconditional exact method proposed by Chan and Zhang (Chan, 1999).||7.13|1.54|
90988219|NCT01377467|181861434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.059|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.967|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.137|6.98|||ANCOVA||Percentage change in BMD was compared between the two treatment groups while controlling for the effects of baseline BMD.|We calculated that a sample size of 43 patients per group would provide a statistical power of 86% to detect a 4% difference in the percentage change of areal BMD at the total lumbar spine at 12 months, using a two-sided t-test with an α-level of 0.05 and assuming a mean ± SD change of 4 ± 6% in the denosumab group and 0 ± 6% in the control group. To account for a dropout rate of 5%, it was planned to randomize a total of 90 patients.||6.980|3.137|<0.001
90988220|NCT01377467|181861435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.895|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.887||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.132|3.659|||ANCOVA||Percentage change in BMD was compared between the two treatment groups while controlling for the effects of baseline BMD.|||3.659|0.132|0.035
90988221|NCT01377467|181861436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.059|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.201||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.329|3.447|||ANCOVA||Percentage change in BMD was compared between the two treatment groups while controlling for the effects of baseline BMD.|||3.447|-1.329|0.380
90988222|NCT01377467|181861437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.567|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.806|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.975|6.178|||ANCOVA||Percentage change in BMD was compared between the two treatment groups while controlling for the effects of baseline BMD.|||6.178|2.975|<0.001
90988223|NCT01377467|181861438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.756|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.662||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|3.072|||ANCOVA||Percentage change in BMD was compared between the two treatment groups while controlling for the effects of baseline BMD.|||3.072|0.440|0.009
90988224|NCT01377467|181861439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.035|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.085||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.122|4.193|||ANCOVA||Percentage change in BMD was compared between the two treatment groups while controlling for the effects of baseline BMD.|||4.193|-0.122|0.064
90988225|NCT01377467|181861440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||between-subjects effect|10.466|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||repeated measures GLM||Within-subjects effect: p=0.007. Time\*treatment interaction: p=0.002. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|||||<0.001
90988226|NCT01377467|181861441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||between-subjects effect|275622.016|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||repeated measures GLM||Within-subjects effect: p\<0.001. Time\*treatment interaction: p=0.012. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|||||<0.001
90988227|NCT01377467|181861442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||between-subjects effect|0.717||||0.014|TWO_SIDED||||||repeated measures GLM||Within-subjects effect: p\<0.001. Time\*treatment interaction: p\<0.001. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|||||0.014
90988228|NCT01377467|181861443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||between-subjects effect|0.707||||0.068|TWO_SIDED||||||repeated measures GLM||Within-subjects effect: p\<0.001. Time\*treatment interaction: p=0.047. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|||||0.068
90988229|NCT01377467|181861444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||between-subjects effect|99952.126||||0.114|TWO_SIDED||||||repeated measures GLM||Within-subjects effect: p\<0.001. Time\*treatment interaction: p=0.047. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|||||0.114
90988230|NCT01377467|181861445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||between-subjects effect|84.83||||0.578|TWO_SIDED||||||repeated measures GLM||Within-subjects effect: p\<0.001. Time\*treatment interaction: p=0.593. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|||||0.578
90988231|NCT01377467|181861446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||between-subjects effect|248.686||||0.607|TWO_SIDED||||||repeated measures GLM||Within-subjects effect: p\<0.001. Time\*treatment interaction: p=0.296. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|||||0.607
90988232|NCT01377467|181861447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||z value|-2.342||||0.019|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.019
90988233|NCT01377467|181861448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||z value|-2.049||||0.042|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.042
90988234|NCT01377467|181861449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||z value|-0.937||||0.371|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.371
90988235|NCT01377467|181861450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||z value|-2.752||||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.005
90988236|NCT01377467|181861451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||z value|-2.166||||0.031|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.031
90988237|NCT01377467|181861452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||z value|-1.288||||0.212|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.212
90988238|NCT01377467|181861453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||z value|-1.64||||0.108|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.108
90988239|NCT01377467|181861454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||z value|-1.991||||0.048|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.048
90988240|NCT01355068|181861478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of Adjusted Means|101.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.85|104.94||||||Natural log transformed AUClast was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||104.94|97.85|
90988241|NCT01355068|181861479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of Adjusted Means|102.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.18|107.47||||||Natural log transformed Cmax was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||107.47|97.18|
90988242|NCT01355068|181861480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of Adjusted Means|101.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.56|105.47||||||Natural log transformed AUC (0-∞) was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||105.47|97.56|
90988243|NCT00336492|181861490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.146|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.146
90988244|NCT00410280|181861518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.44||||0.0947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.04|1.15|||ANOVA|||Repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with fixed effects for treatment, time and interaction between treatment and time, and random effects for participant was used. Point estimate for difference between the treatment groups, corresponding 95 % confidence interval (CI) and p-value were derived from the model.||1.15|-14.04|0.0947
90988245|NCT00410280|181861519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.24||||0.2673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.84|3.35|||ANOVA|||Repeated measures ANOVA model with fixed effects for treatment, time and interaction between treatment and time, and random effects for participant was used. Point estimate for difference between the treatment groups, corresponding 95% CI and p-value were derived from the model.||3.35|-11.84|0.2673
90988246|NCT00410280|181861520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.8||||0.0391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.35|-1.24|||ANOVA|||Day 14: Repeated measures ANOVA model with fixed effects for treatment, time and interaction between treatment and time, and random effects for participant was used. Point estimate for difference between the treatment groups, corresponding 95% CI and p-value were derived from the model.||-1.24|-46.35|0.0391
90988247|NCT00410280|181861520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.17||||0.1326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.72|5.39|||ANOVA|||Day 35: Repeated measures ANOVA model with fixed effects for treatment, time and interaction between treatment and time, and random effects for participant was used. Point estimate for difference between the treatment groups, corresponding 95% CI and p-value were derived from the model.||5.39|-39.72|0.1326
90988248|NCT00410280|181861521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.76||||0.0423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.16|-0.35|||ANOVA|||Day 14: Repeated measures ANOVA model with fixed effects for treatment, time and interaction between treatment and time, and random effects for participant was used. Point estimate for difference between the treatment groups, corresponding 95% CI and p-value were derived from the model.||-0.35|-19.16|0.0423
90988249|NCT00410280|181861521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.06||||0.3902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.46|5.35|||ANOVA|||Day 35: Repeated measures ANOVA model with fixed effects for treatment, time and interaction between treatment and time, and random effects for participant was used. Point estimate for difference between the treatment groups, corresponding 95% CI and p-value were derived from the model.||5.35|-13.46|0.3902
90988250|NCT00410280|181861522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.05||||0.0302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.21|-1.9|||ANOVA|||Day 14: Repeated measures ANOVA model with fixed effects for treatment, time and interaction between treatment and time, and random effects for participant was used. Point estimate for difference between the treatment groups, corresponding 95% CI and p-value were derived from the model.||-1.90|-36.21|0.0302
90988251|NCT00410280|181861522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.19||||0.1289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.34|3.97|||ANOVA|||Day 35: Repeated measures ANOVA model with fixed effects for treatment, time and interaction between treatment and time, and random effects for participant was used. Point estimate for difference between the treatment groups, corresponding 95% CI and p-value were derived from the model.||3.97|-30.34|0.1289
90988252|NCT00410280|181861523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.8469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Screening: Mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, time and interaction between treatment and time, and random effects for participants was used. Point estimate for difference between the treatment groups, corresponding 95% CI and p-values were derived from the model.||0.96|-0.79|0.8469
90988253|NCT00410280|181861523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.9995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14: Mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, time and interaction between treatment and time, and random effects for participants was used. Point estimate for difference between the treatment groups, corresponding 95% CI and p-values were derived from the model.||0.86|-0.86|0.9995
90953114|NCT00461981|181783889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||GMT ratio|3.26||||||95.0|1.44|7.19||||||Corresponding two-sided 95% CIs based on 10,000 bootstrap data sets for the ratios of strain-specific GMTs (FluMist/TIV) were constructed by drawing replicates with replacement from each of the 2 cells (2 treatment groups) of observed data. The number of replicates drawn from each cell in this fashion was equal to the observed sample size within each cell. For each of the 10,000 bootstrap data sets, the overall GMT ratio was calculated.||7.19|1.44|
90953115|NCT00461981|181783890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||GMT Ratio|1.06||||||95.0|0.56|1.96||||||Corresponding two-sided 95% CIs based on 10,000 bootstrap data sets for the ratios of strain-specific GMTs (FluMist/TIV) were constructed by drawing replicates with replacement from each of the 2 cells (2 treatment groups) of observed data. The number of replicates drawn from each cell in this fashion was equal to the observed sample size within each cell. For each of the 10,000 bootstrap data sets, the overall GMT ratio was calculated.||1.96|0.56|
90953116|NCT00461981|181783891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||GMT Ratio|0.58||||||95.0|0.31|1.12||||||Corresponding two-sided 95% CIs based on 10,000 bootstrap data sets for the ratios of strain-specific GMTs (FluMist/TIV) were constructed by drawing replicates with replacement from each of the 2 cells (2 treatment groups) of observed data. The number of replicates drawn from each cell in this fashion was equal to the observed sample size within each cell. For each of the 10,000 bootstrap data sets, the overall GMT ratio was calculated.||1.12|0.31|
90953117|NCT00461981|181783892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||GMT Ratio|2.4||||||95.0|1.48|3.97||||||Corresponding two-sided 95% CIs based on 10,000 bootstrap data sets for the ratios of strain-specific GMTs (FluMist/TIV) were constructed by drawing replicates with replacement from each of the 2 cells (2 treatment groups) of observed data. The number of replicates drawn from each cell in this fashion was equal to the observed sample size within each cell. For each of the 10,000 bootstrap data sets, the overall GMT ratio was calculated.||3.97|1.48|
90953118|NCT00461981|181783893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||GMT Ratio|0.48||||||95.0|0.27|0.87||||||Corresponding two-sided 95% CIs based on 10,000 bootstrap data sets for the ratios of strain-specific GMTs (FluMist/TIV) were constructed by drawing replicates with replacement from each of the 2 cells (2 treatment groups) of observed data. The number of replicates drawn from each cell in this fashion was equal to the observed sample size within each cell. For each of the 10,000 bootstrap data sets, the overall GMT ratio was calculated.||0.87|0.27|
90953119|NCT00461981|181783894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||GMT Ratio|1.45||||||95.0|0.8|2.66||||||Corresponding two-sided 95% CIs based on 10,000 bootstrap data sets for the ratios of strain-specific GMTs (FluMist/TIV) were constructed by drawing replicates with replacement from each of the 2 cells (2 treatment groups) of observed data. The number of replicates drawn from each cell in this fashion was equal to the observed sample size within each cell. For each of the 10,000 bootstrap data sets, the overall GMT ratio was calculated.||2.66|0.80|
90953120|NCT00461981|181783895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||GMT Ratio|1.75||||||95.0|0.88|3.39||||||Corresponding two-sided 95% CIs based on 10,000 bootstrap data sets for the ratios of strain-specific GMTs (FluMist/TIV) were constructed by drawing replicates with replacement from each of the 2 cells (2 treatment groups) of observed data. The number of replicates drawn from each cell in this fashion was equal to the observed sample size within each cell. For each of the 10,000 bootstrap data sets, the overall GMT ratio was calculated.||3.39|0.88|
90953121|NCT00461981|181783896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||GMT Ratio|1.49||||||95.0|0.8|2.69||||||Corresponding two-sided 95% CIs based on 10,000 bootstrap data sets for the ratios of strain-specific GMTs (FluMist/TIV) were constructed by drawing replicates with replacement from each of the 2 cells (2 treatment groups) of observed data. The number of replicates drawn from each cell in this fashion was equal to the observed sample size within each cell. For each of the 10,000 bootstrap data sets, the overall GMT ratio was calculated.||2.69|0.80|
90988254|NCT00410280|181861523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28||||0.528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|0.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 35: Mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, time and interaction between treatment and time, and random effects for participants was used. Point estimate for difference between the treatment groups, corresponding 95% CI and p-values were derived from the model.||0.59|-1.14|0.5280
90988255|NCT03059810|181861575|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of -5 points was used. This margin is based on a 10% shift in the distribution of CLUE scores.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.63|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|5.9|||Linear mixed model (LMM)|A 95% Confidence Interval for the least squares mean difference between the follow up and baseline was used to test for non-inferiority.|Mean difference was calculated as Test (at 12-16 days follow up) - Habitual (at baseline)|It was a single arm study and the subjects' overall vision was compared against the baseline with the habitual lens. Sample size was determined using Power procedure in SAS 9.4 using the input from historical data (alpha=0.05).||5.9|-4.6|
90953122|NCT00461981|181783897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||GMT Ratio|0.62||||||95.0|0.33|1.16||||||Corresponding two-sided 95% CIs based on 10,000 bootstrap data sets for the ratios of strain-specific GMTs (FluMist/TIV) were constructed by drawing replicates with replacement from each of the 2 cells (2 treatment groups) of observed data. The number of replicates drawn from each cell in this fashion was equal to the observed sample size within each cell. For each of the 10,000 bootstrap data sets, the overall GMT ratio was calculated.||1.16|0.33|
90953123|NCT00461981|181783898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate differences|-45.9||||||95.0|-71.7|-11.6||||||The seroconversion rates (the proportions of baseline seronegative subjects achieving a 4 or more fold increase in titer from baseline) were summarized for baseline seronegative subjects by treatment group and by dose number. A two-sided exact 95% confidence interval (CI) was constructed on the rate differences using the unconditional exact method proposed by Chan and Zhang (Chan, 1999).||-11.6|-71.7|
90988256|NCT00747617|181861587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
90988257|NCT04657016|181861599|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-24.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.1|-22.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-22.8|-26.1|<0.001
90953124|NCT00461981|181783899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate difference|-25.0||||||95.0|-57.2|4.8||||||The seroconversion rates (the proportions of baseline seronegative subjects achieving a 4 or more fold increase in titer from baseline) were summarized for baseline seronegative subjects by treatment group and by dose number. A two-sided exact 95% confidence interval (CI) was constructed on the rate differences using the unconditional exact method proposed by Chan and Zhang (Chan, 1999).||4.8|-57.2|
90953125|NCT00461981|181783900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate difference|65.0||||||95.0|34.4|85.3||||||The seroconversion rates (the proportions of baseline seronegative subjects achieving a 4 or more fold increase in titer from baseline) were summarized for baseline seronegative subjects by treatment group and by dose number. A two-sided exact 95% confidence interval (CI) was constructed on the rate differences using the unconditional exact method proposed by Chan and Zhang (Chan, 1999).||85.3|34.4|
90988258|NCT04657016|181861600|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|130.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|69.98|242.84|||Regression, Logistic|||||242.84|69.98|<0.001
90988259|NCT04657016|181861601|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|101.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.17|263.55|||Regression, Logistic|||||263.55|39.17|<0.001
90988260|NCT04657016|181861602|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|153.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.9|300.37|||Regression, Logistic|||||300.37|78.90|<0.001
90988261|NCT04657016|181861603|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|144.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.65|333.21|||Regression, Logistic|||||333.21|62.65|<0.001
90988262|NCT04657016|181861604|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|118.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.08|347.74|||Regression, Logistic|||||347.74|40.08|<0.001
90988263|NCT04657016|181861605|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-17.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.5|-16.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-16.3|-19.5|<0.001
90988264|NCT04657016|181861606|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-25.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.9|-23.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-23.2|-26.9|<0.001
90988265|NCT04657016|181861607|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|-8.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.3|-9.6|<0.001
90988266|NCT04657016|181861608|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|-8.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.1|-12.2|<0.001
90988267|NCT04657016|181861609|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|-4.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.3|-7.2|<0.001
90988268|NCT04657016|181861610|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.348|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|-5.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.10|-10.40|<0.001
90988269|NCT04657016|181861611|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|11.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.67|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.2|14.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||14.7|8.2|<0.001
90988270|NCT04657016|181861612|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.97|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.3|-7.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-7.53|-15.30|<0.001
90988271|NCT04657016|181861613|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-27.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.25|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.1|-23.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-23.2|-32.1|<0.001
90988272|NCT04657016|181861614|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-28.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.3|-23.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-23.4|-32.3|<0.001
90988273|NCT04657016|181861615|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-21.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.76|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.4|-13.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-13.6|-28.4|<0.001
90988274|NCT04657016|181861616|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|-8.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.8|-13.5|<0.001
90988275|NCT04657016|181861617|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.42|-0.53|<0.001
90988276|NCT04657016|181861618|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-48.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.04|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.7|-41.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-41.7|-53.7|<0.001
90988277|NCT04657016|181861619|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|4.9|||ANCOVA|||||4.9|2.8|<0.001
90988278|NCT04657016|181861620|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|12.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.7|16.0|||ANCOVA|||||16.0|9.7|<0.001
90988279|NCT00738543|181861669|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A minimal sample of 20 volunteers was calculated to to find a difference of 200 CFU/mL, with a power of 80% and bilateral error of 5%.|||||<|0.05||||||Post-hoc test of Kruskal-Wallis for multiple comparisons of Z values was used to determine which arm was different.|Kruskal-Wallis|2 degrees of freedom corrected for ties||The null hypothesis established that the three medians were equal. To test significant differences for non-normally distributed data, a range test (Kruskal-Wallis) was used.||||<0.05
90988280|NCT00738543|181861671|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The minimal sample of 20 volunteers was calculated to find a difference of 200 CFU/mL.|||||<|0.05||95.0||||Post-hoc test of Kruskal-Wallis for multiple comparisons of Z values was used to determine which arm was different.|Kruskal-Wallis|2 degrees of freedom corrected for ties||The null hypothesis established that the 3 medians were equal. To test significant differences for non-normally distributed data, a range test (Kruskal-Wallis) was used. The alpha level for significance was established at 5%. A minimal sample of 20 volunteers was calculated for a power of 80%, and bilateral error of 5%.||||<0.05
90988281|NCT05070429|181861845|SUPERIORITY||Maximum likelihood (MLE)|-0.035||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.727|0.657||To account for the non-normal distribution of the outcome, confidence intervals and p-values were obtained using a bias corrected and accelerated bootstrap resampling procedure with 10,000 replicates.|generalized linear model (GLM)|generalized linear model (GLM) with an identity link|Confidence intervals and p-values were obtained using a bias-corrected and accelerated bootstrap resampling procedure with 10,000 replicates.|Used a weighted regression model with an identity link to compare average daily hours of hearing aid use at one-year post-randomization between participants assigned to the telehealth HHC or conventional HHC. Inverse probability of treatment weights will be calculated and included in the model for the primary outcome.||0.657|-0.727|0.92
90988282|NCT05070429|181861846|SUPERIORITY||Maximum likelihood (MLE)|-0.011||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.147|0.125|||generalized linear model (GLM)||To account for the non-normal distribution of the outcome, confidence intervals and p-values were obtained using a bias corrected and accelerated bootstrap resampling procedure with 10,000 replicates.|Used a weighted regression model with an identity link to compare treatment satisfaction at one-year post-randomization between participants assigned to the telehealth HHC or conventional HHC. Inverse probability of treatment weights will be calculated and included in the model for the secondary outcome.||0.125|-0.147|0.87
91042101|NCT00950300|181969253|OTHER||Difference in response rates|5.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|13.5|||||The 95% CI for the difference in response (tpCR) rates was calculated using the Anderson-Hauck continuity correction.|||13.5|-3.5|
91042102|NCT00950300|181969254|OTHER||Difference in response rates|-1.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|4.2|||||The 95% CI for the difference in response (CR+PR) rates was calculated using the Anderson-Hauck continuity correction.|||4.2|-7.4|
91042103|NCT00950300|181969254|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.46|||||OR of test treatment group (Herceptin SC + Chemotherapy) to reference treatment group (Herceptin IV + Chemotherapy).|||1.46|0.50|
91042104|NCT00950300|181969257|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.8651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.29|||Log Rank||HR of test treatment group (Herceptin SC + Chemotherapy) to reference treatment group (Herceptin IV + Chemotherapy).|||1.29|0.74|0.8651
91042105|NCT00950300|181969259|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.7767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.45|||Log Rank||HR of test treatment group (Herceptin SC + Chemotherapy) to reference treatment group (Herceptin IV + Chemotherapy).|||1.45|0.61|0.7767
91042106|NCT02614196|181969268|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.55|-1.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.48|-2.55|<.001
91042107|NCT02614196|181969268|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|-1.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.36|-2.44|<.001
91042108|NCT02614196|181969269|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.03|3.32||||||Reduction from Baseline ≥50%||3.32|2.03|
91042109|NCT02614196|181969269|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.81|2.96||||||Reduction from Baseline ≥50%||2.96|1.81|
91042110|NCT02614196|181969269|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|3.06||||||Reduction from Baseline ≥75%||3.06|1.78|
91042111|NCT02614196|181969269|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.84|3.17||||||Reduction from Baseline ≥75%||3.17|1.84|
91042112|NCT02614196|181969269|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|3.12||||||Reduction from Baseline ≥100%||3.12|1.50|
91042113|NCT02614196|181969269|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.87|3.81||||||Reduction from Baseline ≥100%||3.81|1.87|
91042114|NCT02614196|181969270|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|8.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.33|11.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.31|6.33|<.001
91042115|NCT02614196|181969270|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|7.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.88|9.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.90|4.88|<.001
91042116|NCT02614196|181969271|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|-1.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.36|-2.29|<.001
91042117|NCT02614196|181969271|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|-1.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.31|-2.25|<.001
91042118|NCT02614196|181969272|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.11|-0.47|.002
91042119|NCT02614196|181969272|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.05|-0.41|.012
91042120|NCT02614196|181969273|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-15.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.59|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.27|-10.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-10.11|-20.27|<.001
91042121|NCT02614196|181969273|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-13.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.67|-8.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.44|-18.67|<.001
91042122|NCT02614196|181969274|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-9.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.76|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.61|-5.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.69|-12.61|<.001
91042123|NCT02614196|181969274|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-8.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.78|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.71|-4.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.72|-11.71|<.001
91042124|NCT02614196|181969275|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||TE ADA Positive.||||<.001
91042125|NCT02614196|181969275|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||TE ADA Positive||||<.001
91042126|NCT00633022|181969294|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.4519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.06|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model, fitting fixed effect treatment term, and including baseline TBR value as a covariate.ANCOVA model, fitting fixed effect treatment term,|The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (final values) of Losmapimod 7.5 mg twice daily and Placebo.|Losmapimod 7.5 mg BID versus Placebo||0.06|-0.14|0.4519
91042127|NCT00633022|181969294|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.5789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.06|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model, fitting fixed effect treatment term, and including baseline TBR value as a covariate.|The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (final values) of Losmapimod 7.5 mg once daily and Placebo.|Losmapimod 7.5 mg once daily versus Placebo||0.06|-0.11|0.5789
91042128|NCT00633022|181969295|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.6986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model, fitting fixed effect treatment term, and including baseline TBR value as a covariate.|The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (final values) of Losmapimod 7.5 mg twice daily and Placebo.|Losmapimod 7.5 mg twice daily versus placebo||0.10|-0.15|0.6986
91042129|NCT00633022|181969295|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.9486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.12|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model, fitting fixed effect treatment term, and including baseline TBR value as a covariate.|The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (final values) of Losmapimod 7.5 mg once daily and Placebo.|Losmapimod 7.5 mg once daily versus Placebo||0.12|-0.13|0.9486
91042130|NCT00840840|181969329|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|ANOVA|Test/Reference Ratio of the mean x 100|101.45||||||90.0|97.71|105.33|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||105.33|97.71|
91042131|NCT00840840|181969330|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|ANOVA|Test/Reference Ratio of the mean x 100|103.05||||||90.0|101.25|104.88|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||104.88|101.25|
91042132|NCT00840840|181969331|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|ANOVA|Test/Reference Ratio of the mean x 100|102.94||||||90.0|101.08|104.83|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||104.83|101.08|
91042133|NCT00840840|181969332|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|ANOVA|Test/Reference Ratio of the mean x 100|99.68||||||90.0|92.41|107.52|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||107.52|92.41|
91042134|NCT00840840|181969333|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|ANOVA|Test/Reference Ratio of the mean x 100|101.48||||||90.0|94.73|108.71|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||108.71|94.73|
91042135|NCT00840840|181969334|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|ANOVA|Test/Reference Ratio of the mean x 100|100.17||||||90.0|91.95|109.13|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||109.13|91.95|
91042136|NCT04662710|181969356|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.0244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.0||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by region, ECOG performance status, and chemotherapy type|Log Rank||HR based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by region, ECOG performance status, and chemotherapy type|||1.00|0.71|.0244
91042137|NCT04662710|181969357|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.01||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by region, ECOG performance status and chemotherapy type.|Log Rank||HR based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by region, ECOG performance status, and chemotherapy|||1.01|0.75|0.0330
91042138|NCT04662710|181969358|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.9||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by region, performance status, and chemotherapy type|Log Rank||HR Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by region, ECOG performance status, and chemotherapy type.|||0.90|0.62|.0012
91042139|NCT04662710|181969359|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.92||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by region, ECOG performance status, and chemotherapy type.|Log Rank||HR based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by region, ECOG performance status, and chemotherapy type.|||0.92|0.66|0.0019
91042140|NCT04662710|181969360|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|14.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|21.5|||t-test, 1 sided|||ORR comparison between groups is based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by region, ECOG performance status, and type of chemotherapy||21.5|6.9|<0.0001
91042141|NCT04662710|181969361|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|14.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|20.6|||t-test, 1 sided|||ORR comparison between groups is based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by region, ECOG performance status, and type of chemotherapy||20.6|7.7|<0.0001
91042142|NCT01453153|181969438|SUPERIORITY||percentage of participants|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|60.0||||||||60|0|
91042143|NCT01453153|181969438|SUPERIORITY||percentage of participants|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|93.0||||||||93|7|
91042144|NCT01453153|181969438|SUPERIORITY||percentage of participants|40.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.0|64.0||||||||64|19|
91042145|NCT01453153|181969439|SUPERIORITY||percentage of participants|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|81.0||||||||81|1|
91042146|NCT01453153|181969439|SUPERIORITY||percentage of participants|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.0|100.0||||||||100|40|
91042147|NCT01453153|181969439|SUPERIORITY||percentage of participants|70.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.0|88.0||||||||88|46|
91042148|NCT01196117|181969446|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0009|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0009
91042149|NCT01196117|181969447|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8938|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8938
91042150|NCT01196117|181969448|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.014|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.014
91042151|NCT01196117|181969449|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0200
91042152|NCT01196117|181969450|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1321|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1321
91042153|NCT01196117|181969451|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.249|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.2490
91042154|NCT01196117|181969452|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5139|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5139
91042155|NCT01196117|181969453|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0597|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0597
91042156|NCT01196117|181969454|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2134|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2134
91042157|NCT00288704|181969481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Comparison of p-value was a parametric ANCOVA main effects model with part A Baseline variable as covariate and treatment.||The sample size calculations at the time suggested 50 subjects would be enrolled at baseline. The Full Analysis Set (FAS) was used. The FAS included subjects who received at least one dose of rilonacept. Last observation carried forward was used.||||<.0001
91042158|NCT00288704|181969482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Comparison of p-value was a parametric ANCOVA main effects model with part A Baseline variable as covariate and treatment.||"Subjects received rilonacept 160 mg for 9 weeks (weeks 6-15), and then were re-randomized 1:1 into either Placebo or rilonacept 160 mg. The endpoint for the period was 9 weeks later (week 24).~The sample size calculations at the time suggested 50 subjects would be enrolled at baseline. The Full Analysis Set (FAS) was used. The FAS included subjects who received at least one dose of rilonacept. Last observation carried forward was used."||||<0.001
91042159|NCT00288704|181969483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Comparison of p-value was a parametric ANCOVA main effects model with part A Baseline variable as covariate and treatment.||The sample size calculations at the time suggested 50 subjects would be enrolled at baseline. The Full Analysis Set (FAS) was used. The FAS included subjects who received at least one dose of rilonacept. Last observation carried forward was used.||||<.0001
91042160|NCT00288704|181969484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Comparison P-Value was a parametric ANCOVA main effects model with Part A Baseline variable as covariate and treatment.||The sample size calculations at the time suggested 50 subjects would be enrolled at baseline. The Full Analysis Set (FAS) was used. The FAS included subjects who received at least one dose of rilonacept. Last observation carried forward was used.||||<0.0001
91042161|NCT00288704|181969485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Comparison p-value is a parametric ANCOVA main effects model with Part A Baseline variable as covariate and treatment.||The sample size calculations at the time suggested 50 subjects would be enrolled at baseline. The Full Analysis Set (FAS) was used. The FAS included subjects who received at least one dose of rilonacept. Last observation carried forward was used.||||<.0001
91042162|NCT00288704|181969486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Comparison p-value was a parametric ANCOVA main effects model with Part A Baseline variable as covariate and treatment.||"Please note that the changes are medians (not means).~The sample size calculations at the time suggested 50 subjects would be enrolled at baseline. The Full Analysis Set (FAS) was used. The FAS included subjects who received at least one dose of rilonacept. Last observation carried forward was used."||||<0.0001
91042163|NCT00288704|181969487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Comparison p-value was a parametric ANCOVA main effects model with Part A Baseline variable as covariate and treatment.||"Please note that the changes are medians (not means).~The sample size calculations at the time suggested 50 subjects would be enrolled at baseline. The Full Analysis Set (FAS) was used. The FAS included subjects who received at least one dose of rilonacept. Last observation carried forward was used."||||<0.01
91042164|NCT00288704|181969488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||The sample size calculations at the time suggested 50 subjects would be enrolled at baseline. The Full Analysis Set (FAS) was used. The FAS included subjects who received at least one dose of rilonacept. Last observation carried forward was used.||||<0.0001
91042165|NCT00288704|181969489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||The sample size calculations at the time suggested 50 subjects would be enrolled at baseline. The Full Analysis Set (FAS) was used. The FAS included subjects who received at least one dose of rilonacept. Last observation carried forward was used.||||<0.0001
91042166|NCT00288704|181969490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||The sample size calculations at the time suggested 50 subjects would be enrolled at baseline. The Full Analysis Set (FAS) was used. The FAS included subjects who received at least one dose of rilonacept. Last observation carried forward was used.||||<0.0001
91042167|NCT00676650|181969494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.914||||0.1678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.762|1.097||1-sided p-value from the stratified log-rank test|Log Rank||Based on the Cox Proportional hazards model stratified by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) and Disease Progression Base.|||1.097|0.762|0.1678
91042168|NCT00676650|181969495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.725|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.591|0.89||1-sided p-value from the stratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Based on Cox Proportional Hazards Model stratified by ECOG and Disease Progression Base.|||0.890|0.591|<0.001
91042169|NCT00676650|181969496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.561||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|19.0||p-value from 2-sided Fisher's Exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||19.0|1.0|0.040
91042170|NCT05061992|181969503|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in SF-8||||0.6
91042171|NCT05061992|181969503|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||ANCOVA|||End of trial SF-8||||0.2
91042172|NCT05061992|181969504|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in ANT||||0.001
91042173|NCT05061992|181969504|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||End of trial ANT||||0.09
91042174|NCT05061992|181969505|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.05
91042175|NCT05061992|181969506|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.02
91042176|NCT05061992|181969507|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6
91042177|NCT05061992|181969508|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2
91042178|NCT02153723|181969517|OTHER|Wilcoxon signed rank sum test|Median Difference (Final Values)|21.6||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
91042179|NCT02153723|181969518|OTHER|Wilcoxon signed rank sum test|Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
91042180|NCT02153723|181969519|OTHER|Wilcoxon signed rank sum test|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.004
91042181|NCT02153723|181969520|OTHER|Wilcoxon signed rank sum test|Median Difference (Final Values)|15.9||||0.08|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.08
91042182|NCT02153723|181969521|OTHER|Wilcoxon signed rank sum test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.86|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.86
90988283|NCT05070429|181861847|SUPERIORITY||Maximum likelihood (MLE)|0.059||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.201|0.32|||generalized linear model (GLM)||To account for the non-normal distribution of the outcome, confidence intervals and p-values were obtained using a bias corrected and accelerated bootstrap resampling procedure with 10,000 replicates.|Used a weighted regression model with an identity link to compare primary COSI goal achievement at one-year post-randomization between participants assigned to the telehealth HHC or conventional HHC. Inverse probability of treatment weights will be calculated and included in the model for the secondary outcome.||0.320|-0.201|0.66
90988284|NCT05070429|181861848|SUPERIORITY||Maximum likelihood (MLE)|-1.96||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.349|2.435|||generalized linear model (GLM)||To account for the non-normal distribution of the outcome, confidence intervals and p-values were obtained using a bias corrected and accelerated bootstrap resampling procedure with 10,000 replicates.|Used a weighted regression model with an identity link to compare hearing-specific quality of life at one-year post-randomization between participants assigned to the telehealth HHC or conventional HHC. Inverse probability of treatment weights will be calculated and included in the model for the secondary outcome.||2.435|-6.349|0.38
90988285|NCT03041116|181861850|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|=|0.9115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|1.51||p-value was derived from test of contrast between treatment effects using LSM estimate, adjusted for baseline score and age group from Type III analysis. The test of contrast at Week 24 was considered the primary comparison.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.51|-1.69|=0.9115
90988286|NCT03041116|181861852|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38|=|0.1421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|4.78||p-value was derived from the test of contrast between treatment effects using the LSM estimate, adjusted for baseline score and age group from the Type III analysis. The test of contrast at week 24 was considered the primary comparison.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.78|-0.7|=0.1421
90988287|NCT01345123|181861853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0019994|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0400918||0.9602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0765899|0.080588716|||ANCOVA|Covariates: age, gender, Charlson Comorbidity Index, prior year total medical costs pmpm||||.080588716|-.07658990|0.9602
90988288|NCT01345123|181861853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.013717|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04018791||0.7329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0924947|0.06506063|||ANCOVA|||||0.06506063|-0.0924947|0.7329
90988289|NCT01345123|181861854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.805||||0.0511||95.0|0.647|1.001|||Regression, Logistic|Covariates: Age, Gender, Charlson Comorbidity index, calculated risk of knee replacement, hip replacement, herniated disc surgery (score 1-99)||||1.001|0.647|0.0511
90988290|NCT01345123|181861857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.31257||||0.0106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06895|0.55618|||ANOVA|||||0.55618|0.06895|0.0106
90988291|NCT01345123|181861857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.15982||||0.0106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06477|0.38441|||ANOVA|||||0.38441|-0.06477|0.0106
90988292|NCT01345123|181861860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.009122|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0467091||0.8454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1008434|0.08259938|||ANCOVA|||||0.08259938|-0.1008434|0.8454
90953126|NCT00461981|181783901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate difference|-0.6||||||95.0|-30.4|30.3||||||The seroconversion rates (the proportions of baseline seronegative subjects achieving a 4 or more fold increase in titer from baseline) were summarized for baseline seronegative subjects by treatment group and by dose number. A two-sided exact 95% confidence interval (CI) was constructed on the rate differences using the unconditional exact method proposed by Chan and Zhang (Chan, 1999).||30.3|-30.4|
90988293|NCT01345123|181861860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0183548|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04690321||0.6956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1102961|0.07358642|||ANCOVA|||||0.07358642|-0.1102961|0.6956
90988294|NCT02436577|181861870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|93.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.8|101.15|||ANOVA|||Statistical Assessment of Bioequivalence for Ticagrelor Following Ticagrelor OD Tablets Compared to Ticagrelor IR Tablets.||101.15|85.80|
90988295|NCT02436577|181861870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|93.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.88|99.84|||ANOVA|||Statistical Assessment of Bioequivalence for Ticagrelor Following Ticagrelor OD Tablets Compared to Ticagrelor IR Tablets.||99.84|87.88|
90988296|NCT02436577|181861870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|96.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.27|106.14|||ANOVA|||Statistical Assessment of Bioequivalence for metabolite AR-C124910XX Following Ticagrelor OD Tablets Compared to Ticagrelor IR Tablets.||106.14|88.27|
90953127|NCT00461981|181783902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate difference|-37.0||||||95.0|-57.8|-17.5||||||The seroconversion rates (the proportions of baseline seronegative subjects achieving a 4 or more fold increase in titer from baseline) were summarized for baseline seronegative subjects by treatment group and by dose number. A two-sided exact 95% confidence interval (CI) was constructed on the rate differences using the unconditional exact method proposed by Chan and Zhang (Chan, 1999).||-17.5|-57.8|
90988297|NCT02436577|181861870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|92.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.04|100.23|||ANOVA|||Statistical Assessment of Bioequivalence for metabolite AR-C124910XX Following Ticagrelor OD Tablets Compared to Ticagrelor IR Tablets.||100.23|85.04|
90988298|NCT02436577|181861871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|97.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.46|101.18|||ANOVA|||Statistical Assessment of Bioequivalence for Ticagrelor Following Ticagrelor OD Tablets Compared to Ticagrelor IR Tablets.||101.18|94.46|
90988299|NCT02436577|181861871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean ratio|96.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.24|99.63|||ANOVA|||Statistical Assessment of Bioequivalence for Ticagrelor Following Ticagrelor OD Tablets Compared to Ticagrelor IR Tablets.||99.63|93.24|
90988300|NCT02436577|181861871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|98.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.75|102.25|||ANOVA|||Statistical assessment of metabolite AR-C124910XX relative bioavailability following ticagrelor OD tablets administered compared to ticagrelor IR tablets.||102.25|94.75|
90988301|NCT02436577|181861871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|95.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.59|98.85|||ANOVA|||Statistical assessment of metabolite AR-C124910XX relative bioavailability following ticagrelor OD tablets administered compared to ticagrelor IR tablets.||98.85|91.59|
90988302|NCT02436577|181861872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|97.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.4|101.21|||ANOVA|||Statistical Assessment of Bioequivalence for Ticagrelor Following Ticagrelor OD Tablets Compared to Ticagrelor IR Tablets.||101.21|94.40|
90988303|NCT02436577|181861872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|96.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.31|99.8|||ANOVA|||Statistical Assessment of Bioequivalence for Ticagrelor Following Ticagrelor OD Tablets Compared to Ticagrelor IR Tablets.||99.80|93.31|
90988304|NCT02436577|181861872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|98.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.85|102.2|||ANOVA|||Statistical assessment of metabolite AR-C124910XX relative bioavailability following ticagrelor OD tablets administered compared to ticagrelor IR tablets.||102.20|94.85|
90988305|NCT02436577|181861872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|95.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.99|99.08|||ANOVA|||Statistical assessment of metabolite AR-C124910XX relative bioavailability following ticagrelor OD tablets administered compared to ticagrelor IR tablets.||99.08|91.99|
90988306|NCT00366548|181861896|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|-0.8||||||95.0|-5.4|3.7||||||For serotype 4 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||3.7|-5.4|
90988307|NCT00366548|181861896|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|-5.5||||||95.0|-14.2|3.3||||||For serotype 6B the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||3.3|-14.2|
90988308|NCT00366548|181861896|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|-0.4||||||95.0|-3.7|2.8||||||For serotype 9V the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||2.8|-3.7|
90988309|NCT00366548|181861896|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|-2.9||||||95.0|-6.9|0.7||||||For serotype 14 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||0.7|-6.9|
90988310|NCT00366548|181861896|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-3.0|3.0||||||For serotype 18C the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||3.0|-3.0|
90988311|NCT00366548|181861896|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|-2.5||||||95.0|-6.1|0.6||||||For serotype 19F the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||0.6|-6.1|
90988312|NCT00366548|181861896|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|-6.3||||||95.0|-12.1|-0.7||||||For serotype 23F the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||-0.7|-12.1|
90988313|NCT00366548|181861896|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|3.4||||||95.0|-0.9|7.9||||||For serotype 1 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||7.9|-0.9|
90988314|NCT00366548|181861896|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|-1.3||||||95.0|-4.1|1.1||||||For serotype 3 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||1.1|-4.1|
90988315|NCT00366548|181861896|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|1.7||||||95.0|-3.0|6.4||||||For serotype 5 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||6.4|-3.0|
90988316|NCT00366548|181861896|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|0.4||||||95.0|-5.8|6.7||||||For serotype 6A the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||6.7|-5.8|
90988317|NCT00366548|181861896|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|-0.8||||||95.0|-3.2|1.2||||||For serotype 7F the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||1.2|-3.2|
90988318|NCT00366548|181861896|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|-1.3||||||95.0|-3.6|0.3||||||For serotype 19A the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||0.3|-3.6|
90988319|NCT00366548|181861897|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-2.1|1.9||||||For serotype 4 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated.||1.9|-2.1|
90988320|NCT00366548|181861897|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|0.4||||||95.0|-1.7|2.6||||||For serotype 6B the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated.||2.6|-1.7|
90988321|NCT00366548|181861897|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|-0.4||||||95.0|-2.4|1.1||||||For serotype 9V the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||1.1|-2.4|
91042183|NCT02153723|181969522|OTHER|Wilcoxon signed rank sum test|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.44|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.44
90953128|NCT00461981|181783903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate difference|-8.3||||||95.0|-38.5|14.5||||||The seroconversion rates (the proportions of baseline seronegative subjects achieving a 4 or more fold increase in titer from baseline) were summarized for baseline seronegative subjects by treatment group and by dose number. A two-sided exact 95% confidence interval (CI) was constructed on the rate differences using the unconditional exact method proposed by Chan and Zhang (Chan, 1999).||14.5|-38.5|
90953129|NCT00461981|181783904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate difference|21.9||||||95.0|-6.7|48.1||||||The seroconversion rates (the proportions of baseline seronegative subjects achieving a 4 or more fold increase in titer from baseline) were summarized for baseline seronegative subjects by treatment group and by dose number. A two-sided exact 95% confidence interval (CI) was constructed on the rate differences using the unconditional exact method proposed by Chan and Zhang (Chan, 1999).||48.1|-6.7|
90988322|NCT00366548|181861897|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-2.1|1.9||||||For serotype 14 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||1.9|-2.1|
90953130|NCT00461981|181783905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate difference|-22.4||||||95.0|-54.4|12.2||||||The seroconversion rates (the proportions of baseline seronegative subjects achieving a 4 or more fold increase in titer from baseline) were summarized for baseline seronegative subjects by treatment group and by dose number. A two-sided exact 95% confidence interval (CI) was constructed on the rate differences using the unconditional exact method proposed by Chan and Zhang (Chan, 1999).||12.2|-54.4|
90953131|NCT00461981|181783906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate difference|33.3||||||95.0|-81.1|90.6||||||The seroconversion rates (the proportions of baseline seronegative subjects achieving a 4 or more fold increase in titer from baseline) were summarized for baseline seronegative subjects by treatment group and by dose number. A two-sided exact 95% confidence interval (CI) was constructed on the rate differences using the unconditional exact method proposed by Chan and Zhang (Chan, 1999).||90.6|-81.1|
90953132|NCT00461981|181783907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate difference|0.0||||||95.0|-97.5|84.2||||||The seroconversion rates (the proportions of baseline seronegative subjects achieving a 4 or more fold increase in titer from baseline) were summarized for baseline seronegative subjects by treatment group and by dose number. A two-sided exact 95% confidence interval (CI) was constructed on the rate differences using the unconditional exact method proposed by Chan and Zhang (Chan, 1999).||84.2|-97.5|
90953133|NCT00461981|181783908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate difference|-9.5||||||95.0|-65.2|58.8||||||The seroconversion rates (the proportions of baseline seronegative subjects achieving a 4 or more fold increase in titer from baseline) were summarized for baseline seronegative subjects by treatment group and by dose number. A two-sided exact 95% confidence interval (CI) was constructed on the rate differences using the unconditional exact method proposed by Chan and Zhang (Chan, 1999).||58.8|-65.2|
90953134|NCT00461981|181783909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate difference|-20.0||||||95.0|-71.6|33.9||||||The seroconversion rates (the proportions of baseline seronegative subjects achieving a 4 or more fold increase in titer from baseline) were summarized for baseline seronegative subjects by treatment group and by dose number. A two-sided exact 95% confidence interval (CI) was constructed on the rate differences using the unconditional exact method proposed by Chan and Zhang (Chan, 1999).||33.9|-71.6|
90953135|NCT00461981|181783910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||GMT Ratio|0.23||||||95.0|0.15|0.35||||||Corresponding two-sided 95% CIs based on 10,000 bootstrap data sets for the ratios of strain-specific GMTs (FluMist/TIV) were constructed by drawing replicates with replacement from each of the 2 cells (2 treatment groups) of observed data. The number of replicates drawn from each cell in this fashion was equal to the observed sample size within each cell. For each of the 10,000 bootstrap data sets, the overall GMT ratio was calculated.||0.35|0.15|
90953136|NCT00461981|181783911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||GMT Ratio|0.11||||||95.0|0.05|0.22||||||Corresponding two-sided 95% CIs based on 10,000 bootstrap data sets for the ratios of strain-specific GMTs (FluMist/TIV) were constructed by drawing replicates with replacement from each of the 2 cells (2 treatment groups) of observed data. The number of replicates drawn from each cell in this fashion was equal to the observed sample size within each cell. For each of the 10,000 bootstrap data sets, the overall GMT ratio was calculated.||0.22|0.05|
90953137|NCT00461981|181783912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||GMT Ratio|4.85||||||95.0|2.51|9.22||||||Corresponding two-sided 95% CIs based on 10,000 bootstrap data sets for the ratios of strain-specific GMTs (FluMist/TIV) were constructed by drawing replicates with replacement from each of the 2 cells (2 treatment groups) of observed data. The number of replicates drawn from each cell in this fashion was equal to the observed sample size within each cell. For each of the 10,000 bootstrap data sets, the overall GMT ratio was calculated.||9.22|2.51|
90953138|NCT00461981|181783913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||GMT Ratio|3.31||||||95.0|1.46|7.54||||||Corresponding two-sided 95% CIs based on 10,000 bootstrap data sets for the ratios of strain-specific GMTs (FluMist/TIV) were constructed by drawing replicates with replacement from each of the 2 cells (2 treatment groups) of observed data. The number of replicates drawn from each cell in this fashion was equal to the observed sample size within each cell. For each of the 10,000 bootstrap data sets, the overall GMT ratio was calculated.||7.54|1.46|
90953139|NCT00461981|181783914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||GMT Ratio|1.35||||||95.0|0.58|3.04||||||Corresponding two-sided 95% CIs based on 10,000 bootstrap data sets for the ratios of strain-specific GMTs (FluMist/TIV) were constructed by drawing replicates with replacement from each of the 2 cells (2 treatment groups) of observed data. The number of replicates drawn from each cell in this fashion was equal to the observed sample size within each cell. For each of the 10,000 bootstrap data sets, the overall GMT ratio was calculated.||3.04|0.58|
91042184|NCT01157234|181969534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|28.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.93|55.53||||||||55.53|1.93|
90953140|NCT00461981|181783915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||GMT Ratio|0.44||||||95.0|0.16|1.07||||||Corresponding two-sided 95% CIs based on 10,000 bootstrap data sets for the ratios of strain-specific GMTs (FluMist/TIV) were constructed by drawing replicates with replacement from each of the 2 cells (2 treatment groups) of observed data. The number of replicates drawn from each cell in this fashion was equal to the observed sample size within each cell. For each of the 10,000 bootstrap data sets, the overall GMT ratio was calculated.||1.07|0.16|
90988323|NCT00366548|181861897|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|0.4||||||95.0|-1.2|2.3||||||For serotype 18C the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||2.3|-1.2|
91042185|NCT01157234|181969535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|8.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.58|29.12||||||||29.12|-12.58|
90988324|NCT00366548|181861897|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|0.4||||||95.0|-2.0|2.9||||||For serotype 19F the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||2.9|-2.0|
90988325|NCT00366548|181861897|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|-0.9||||||95.0|-3.4|1.1||||||For serotype 23F the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||1.1|-3.4|
90988326|NCT00366548|181861897|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|0.8||||||95.0|-0.8|3.0||||||For serotype 1 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||3.0|-0.8|
90988327|NCT00366548|181861897|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|0.6||||||95.0|-3.7|4.9||||||For serotype 3 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||4.9|-3.7|
90988328|NCT00366548|181861897|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|-0.4||||||95.0|-2.4|1.1||||||For serotype 5 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||1.1|-2.4|
90988329|NCT00366548|181861897|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|-0.4||||||95.0|-2.4|1.2||||||For serotype 6A the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||1.2|-2.4|
90988330|NCT00366548|181861897|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-1.7|1.6||||||For serotype 7F the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||1.6|-1.7|
90988331|NCT00366548|181861897|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-1.7|1.6||||||For serotype 19A the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||1.6|-1.7|
90988332|NCT00366548|181861900|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Difference|0.96||||||95.0|0.81|1.13||||||For serotype 4 the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.13|0.81|
90988333|NCT00366548|181861900|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Difference|0.9||||||95.0|0.72|1.14||||||For serotype 6B the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.14|0.72|
90988334|NCT00366548|181861900|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Difference|0.97||||||95.0|0.85|1.1||||||For serotype 9V the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.10|0.85|
90988335|NCT00366548|181861900|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Difference|0.96||||||95.0|0.79|1.15||||||For serotype 14 the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.15|0.79|
90988336|NCT00366548|181861900|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Difference|0.98||||||95.0|0.86|1.13||||||For serotype 18C the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.13|0.86|
91042186|NCT01157234|181969536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.87|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.74|9.2||||||||9.20|-6.74|
91042187|NCT01157234|181969540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|11.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|23.4||||||||23.40|0.48|
91042188|NCT01157234|181969541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|69.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.83|||TWO_SIDED|99.7|12.71|126.37||||||||126.37|12.71|
91042189|NCT01157234|181969542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|68.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.24|||TWO_SIDED|99.17|13.02|123.36||||||||123.36|13.02|
90953141|NCT00461981|181783916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||GMT Ratio|2.46||||||95.0|1.26|5.06||||||Corresponding two-sided 95% CIs based on 10,000 bootstrap data sets for the ratios of strain-specific GMTs (FluMist/TIV) were constructed by drawing replicates with replacement from each of the 2 cells (2 treatment groups) of observed data. The number of replicates drawn from each cell in this fashion was equal to the observed sample size within each cell. For each of the 10,000 bootstrap data sets, the overall GMT ratio was calculated.||5.06|1.26|
90988337|NCT00366548|181861900|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Difference|0.84||||||95.0|0.72|0.97||||||For serotype 19F the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||0.97|0.72|
90988338|NCT00366548|181861900|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Difference|0.84||||||95.0|0.71|0.98||||||For serotype 23F the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||0.98|0.71|
90988339|NCT00366548|181861900|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Difference|0.94||||||95.0|0.81|1.1||||||For serotype 1 the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.10|0.81|
90988340|NCT00366548|181861900|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Difference|0.93||||||95.0|0.83|1.04||||||For serotype 3 the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.04|0.83|
90988341|NCT00366548|181861900|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Difference|0.97||||||95.0|0.83|1.13||||||For serotype 5 the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.13|0.83|
90988342|NCT00366548|181861900|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Difference|0.96||||||95.0|0.81|1.13||||||For serotype 6A the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.13|0.81|
90988343|NCT00366548|181861900|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Difference|1.05||||||95.0|0.93|1.18||||||For serotype 7F the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.18|0.93|
90988344|NCT00366548|181861900|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Difference|0.91||||||95.0|0.8|1.04||||||For serotype 19A the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.04|0.80|
90988345|NCT03650452|181861915|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Estimation|-30.48||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.99|-13.19||The p-value is 2-sided and it is for the difference of percent change from baseline between TAK-935 and Placebo were computed using Rank Transformed Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) adjusting for baseline seizure frequency and indication.|Ranked ANCOVA||The location shift (TAK-935 - Placebo) and Asymptotic 95% confidence interval between TAK-935 and Placebo (TAK-935 - Placebo) were based on Hodges-Lehmann Estimation from un-adjusted rank statistics.|||-13.19|-46.99|0.0007
90988346|NCT03650452|181861916|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Estimate|-25.93||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.96|-10.69||The p-value is 2-sided and it is for the difference of percent change from baseline between TAK-935 and Placebo were computed using Rank Transformed ANCOVA adjusting for baseline seizure frequency and indication.|Ranked ANCOVA||The location shift (TAK-935 - Placebo) and Asymptotic 95% confidence interval between TAK-935 and Placebo (TAK-935 - Placebo) were based on Hodges-Lehmann Estimation from un-adjusted rank statistics.|||-10.69|-43.96|0.0024
90953142|NCT00461981|181783917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||GMT Ratio|0.89||||||95.0|0.7|1.0||||||Corresponding two-sided 95% CIs based on 10,000 bootstrap data sets for the ratios of strain-specific GMTs (FluMist/TIV) were constructed by drawing replicates with replacement from each of the 2 cells (2 treatment groups) of observed data. The number of replicates drawn from each cell in this fashion was equal to the observed sample size within each cell. For each of the 10,000 bootstrap data sets, the overall GMT ratio was calculated.||1.00|0.70|
90988347|NCT03650452|181861917|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Estimate|-50.0||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.03|-25.09||The p-value is 2-sided and it is for the difference of percent change from baseline between TAK-935 and Placebo were computed using Rank Transformed ANCOVA adjusting for baseline seizure frequency.|Ranked ANCOVA||The location shift (TAK-935 - Placebo) and Asymptotic 95% confidence interval between TAK-935 and Placebo (TAK-935 - Placebo) were based on Hodges-Lehmann Estimation from un-adjusted rank statistics.|||-25.09|-75.03|0.0001
90988348|NCT03650452|181861918|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Estimate|-16.22||||0.147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.5|4.49||The p-value is 2-sided and it is for the difference of percent change from baseline between TAK-935 and Placebo were computed using Rank Transformed ANCOVA adjusting for baseline seizure frequency.|Ranked ANCOVA||The location shift (TAK-935 - Placebo) and Asymptotic 95% confidence interval between TAK-935 and Placebo (TAK-935 - Placebo) were based on Hodges-Lehmann Estimation from un-adjusted rank statistics.|||4.49|-39.50|0.1470
91042190|NCT01157234|181969543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.32|||TWO_SIDED|99.17|-48.25|51.03||||||||51.03|-48.25|
91042191|NCT01157234|181969544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.96|||TWO_SIDED|99.17|-48.74|54.22||||||||54.22|-48.74|
90988349|NCT03650452|181861921|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.21||0.6829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.49||The p-value is 2-sided and it is for the difference (TAK-935 - Placebo) of change from baseline between TAK-935 and Placebo was computed using MMRM.|Mixed-Model Repeated Measure (MMRM)||The MMRM model included treatment and visit as factors along with treatment\*visit interaction and baseline score as a covariate; and visit as repeated measure.|||0.49|-0.32|0.6829
90988350|NCT00390780|181861967|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Non inferiority assumptions:~Type of test: one-sided Inferiority margin: -15% Expected cure rate: 70% Type I error: 2.5% Type II error: 5%"|comparison of proportion clinical cure|0.15|||>|0.025|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|||Significance level was \<0.025|one-sided test|||"Analyses for ITT and PP populations:~H0: clinical cure rate for miconazole Lauriad minus clinical cure rate for clotrimazole troches is less than or equal to -0.15 H1: clinical cure rate for miconazole Lauriad minus clinical cure rate for Mycelex troches is greater than -0.15"|||-0.15|>0.025
91006866|NCT02141854|181898332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|-0.364||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.659|-0.068||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||The change from baseline in the weekly average of total daily (24-hour) use of albuterol/ salbutamol inhalation aerosol (number of inhalations) over weeks 1 to 12 was analyzed using an MMRM with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline value, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||-0.068|-0.659|0.0160
90953143|NCT00461981|181783918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||GMT Ratio|0.51||||||95.0|0.23|1.22||||||Corresponding two-sided 95% CIs based on 10,000 bootstrap data sets for the ratios of strain-specific GMTs (FluMist/TIV) were constructed by drawing replicates with replacement from each of the 2 cells (2 treatment groups) of observed data. The number of replicates drawn from each cell in this fashion was equal to the observed sample size within each cell. For each of the 10,000 bootstrap data sets, the overall GMT ratio was calculated.||1.22|0.23|
90953144|NCT00461981|181783919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||GMT Ratio|4.0||||||95.0|4.0|4.0||||||Corresponding two-sided 95% CIs based on 10,000 bootstrap data sets for the ratios of strain-specific GMTs (FluMist/TIV) were constructed by drawing replicates with replacement from each of the 2 cells (2 treatment groups) of observed data. The number of replicates drawn from each cell in this fashion was equal to the observed sample size within each cell. For each of the 10,000 bootstrap data sets, the overall GMT ratio was calculated.||4.00|4.00|
90953145|NCT00461981|181783920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||GMT Ratio|0.8||||||95.0|0.22|3.63||||||Corresponding two-sided 95% CIs based on 10,000 bootstrap data sets for the ratios of strain-specific GMTs (FluMist/TIV) were constructed by drawing replicates with replacement from each of the 2 cells (2 treatment groups) of observed data. The number of replicates drawn from each cell in this fashion was equal to the observed sample size within each cell. For each of the 10,000 bootstrap data sets, the overall GMT ratio was calculated.||3.63|0.22|
90953146|NCT00461981|181783921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||GMT Ratio|0.66||||||95.0|0.25|1.73||||||Corresponding two-sided 95% CIs based on 10,000 bootstrap data sets for the ratios of strain-specific GMTs (FluMist/TIV) were constructed by drawing replicates with replacement from each of the 2 cells (2 treatment groups) of observed data. The number of replicates drawn from each cell in this fashion was equal to the observed sample size within each cell. For each of the 10,000 bootstrap data sets, the overall GMT ratio was calculated.||1.73|0.25|
90953147|NCT00461981|181783926|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Equivalence|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||< 0.001
90953148|NCT02383940|181783932|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.207||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.06||Threshold for significance = 0.05|MMRM||Difference is sotagliflozin - placebo|Between-group comparison was based on MMRM model with treatment, randomization strata of insulin delivery (MDI, CSII) and Week-4 A1C (\<=10%, \>10%), time (study week), and a treatment-by-time interaction as fixed categorical effects, and baseline A1C-by-time interaction as a covariate.||0.06|-0.76|0.10
90953149|NCT01240915|181783966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.223||0.96|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.12|0.69||1-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Pooled MultiStem versus Pooled Placebo||0.69|0.12|0.96
90953150|NCT01240915|181783967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.161||0.54|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.19|0.22||1-sided p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM using data up to Week 8||Pooled MultiStem versus Pooled Placebo (Week 4)||0.22|-0.19|0.54
90953151|NCT01240915|181783968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.174||0.67|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.15|0.3||1-sided p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM using data up to Week 8||Pooled MultiStem versus Pooled Placebo (Week 8)||0.30|-0.15|0.67
90953152|NCT01240915|181783975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.02||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.73|1.42||1-sided p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM using data up to Week 16||Pooled MultiStem versus Pooled Placebo (Week 4)||1.42|0.73|0.53
91006867|NCT02141854|181898332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|-0.382||||0.0124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.681|-0.083||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||The change from baseline in the weekly average of total daily (24-hour) use of albuterol/ salbutamol inhalation aerosol (number of inhalations) over weeks 1 to 12 was analyzed using an MMRM with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline value, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||-0.083|-0.681|0.0124
91006868|NCT02141854|181898332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|-0.287||||0.0588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.584|0.011||Significance level of 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The change from baseline in the weekly average of total daily (24-hour) use of albuterol/ salbutamol inhalation aerosol (number of inhalations) over weeks 1 to 12 was analyzed using an MMRM with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline value, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||0.011|-0.584|0.0588
91006869|NCT02141854|181898333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0001||||||Significance level of 0.05.|Log Rank|||||||0.0001
90953153|NCT01240915|181783975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.48||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.02|2.14||1-sided p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM using data up to Week 16||Pooled MultiStem versus Pooled Placebo (Week 8)||2.14|1.02|0.91
90953154|NCT01240915|181783975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.38||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.86|2.23||1-sided p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM using data up to Week 16||Cohort 3 MM versus Cohort 3 PP (Week 12)||2.23|0.86|0.81
90953155|NCT01240915|181783975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.94||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.59|1.51||1-sided p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM using data up to Week 16||Cohort 3 MP versus Cohort 3 PP (Week 12)||1.51|0.59|0.44
90953156|NCT01240915|181783975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.18||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.72|1.94||1-sided p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM using data up to Week 16||Cohort 3 PM versus Cohort 3 PP (Week 12)||1.94|0.72|0.67
90953157|NCT01240915|181783975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.12||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.68|1.84||1-sided p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM using data up to Week 16||Cohort 3 MM versus Cohort 3 PP (Week 16)||1.84|0.68|0.62
90953158|NCT01240915|181783975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.95||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.58|1.57||1-sided p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM using data up to Week 16||Cohort 3 MP versus Cohort 3 PP (Week 16)||1.57|0.58|0.95
90953159|NCT01240915|181783975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.81||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.49|1.36||1-sided p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM using data up to Week 16||Cohort 3 PM versus Cohort 3 PP (Week 16)||1.36|0.49|0.30
90953160|NCT01240915|181783976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.17||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.91|1.51||1-sided p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM using data up to Week 16||Pooled MultiStem versus Pooled Placebo (Week 4)||1.51|0.91|0.79
90953161|NCT01240915|181783976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.21||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.9|1.63||1-sided p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM using data up to Week 16||Pooled MultiStem versus Pooled Placebo (Week 8)||1.63|0.90|0.80
90953162|NCT01240915|181783976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|2.75||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.63|4.64||1-sided p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM using data up to Week 16||Cohort 3 MM versus Cohort 3 PP (Week 12)||4.64|1.63|0.99
90953163|NCT01240915|181783976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.96||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.19|3.25||1-sided p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM using data up to Week 16||Cohort 3 MP versus Cohort 3 PP (Week 12)||3.25|1.19|0.96
90953164|NCT01240915|181783976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.98||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.15|3.41||1-sided p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM using data up to Week 16||Cohort 3 PM versus Cohort 3 PP (Week 12)||3.41|1.15|0.95
90953165|NCT01240915|181783976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|2.3||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.52|3.48||1-sided p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM using data up to Week 16||Cohort 3 MM versus Cohort 3 PP (Week 16)||3.48|1.52|0.99
90953166|NCT01240915|181783976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.1||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.74|1.63||1-sided p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM using data up to Week 16||Cohort 3 MP versus Cohort 3 PP (Week 16)||1.63|0.74|0.62
90953167|NCT01240915|181783976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.51||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.98|2.32||1-sided p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM using data up to Week 16||Cohort 3 PM versus Cohort 3 PP (Week 16)||2.32|0.98|0.89
90953168|NCT01240915|181783977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.66|2.19||1-sided p-value|Regression, Logistic|||Pooled MultiStem versus Pooled Placebo (Week 4)||2.19|0.66|0.34
90953169|NCT01240915|181783977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.68|2.23||1-sided p-value|Regression, Logistic|||Pooled MultiStem versus Pooled Placebo (Week 8)||2.23|0.68|0.33
90953170|NCT01240915|181783977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.37||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.99|5.67||1-sided p-value|Regression, Logistic|||Cohort 3 MM versus Cohort 3 PP (Week 12)||5.67|0.99|0.10
90953171|NCT01240915|181783977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.66||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.28|1.55||1-sided p-value|Regression, Logistic|||Cohort 3 MP versus Cohort 3 PP (Week 12)||1.55|0.28|0.74
90953172|NCT01240915|181783977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.41|2.64||1-sided p-value|Regression, Logistic|||Cohort 3 PM versus Cohort 3 PP (Week 12)||2.64|0.41|0.48
90953173|NCT01240915|181783977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.38|2.03||1-sided p-value|Regression, Logistic|||Cohort 3 MM versus Cohort 3 PP (Week 16)||2.03|0.38|0.58
90953174|NCT01240915|181783977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.33|1.66||1-sided p-value|Regression, Logistic|||Cohort 3 MP versus Cohort 3 PP (Week 16)||1.66|0.33|0.68
90953175|NCT01240915|181783977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.51||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.21|1.23||1-sided p-value|Regression, Logistic|||Cohort 3 PM versus Cohort 3 PP (Week 16)||1.23|0.21|0.84
90953176|NCT01240915|181783978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.22|3.07||1-sided p-value|Regression, Logistic|||Pooled MultiStem versus Pooled Placebo||3.07|0.22|0.57
90953177|NCT01240915|181783979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.39||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.12|1.23||1-sided p-value|Regression, Logistic|||Pooled MultiStem versus Pooled Placebo||1.23|0.12|0.85
90953178|NCT01240915|181783980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.27||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.21|4.24||1-sided p-value|Regression, Logistic|||Pooled MultiStem versus Pooled Placebo (Week 4)||4.24|1.21|0.05
90953179|NCT01240915|181783980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.61|1.95||1-sided p-value|Regression, Logistic|||Pooled MultiStem versus Pooled Placebo (Week 8)||1.95|0.61|0.43
90988351|NCT00390780|181861968|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Non inferiority assumptions:~Type of test: one-sided Inferiority margin: -15% Expected cure rate: 70% Type I error: 2.5% Type II error: 5%"|comparison of proportion clinical cure|0.15|||>|0.025|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|||Significance level was \<0.025.|one-sided noninferiority test|||"Analysis for ITT and PP populations:~H0: clinical cure rate for miconazole Lauriad minus clinical cure rate for clotrimazole troches is less than or equal to -0.15 H1: clinical cure rate for miconazole Lauriad minus clinical cure rate for Mycelex troches is greater than -0.15"|||-0.15|>0.025
90988352|NCT00390780|181861969|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Non inferiority assumptions:~Type of test: one-sided Inferiority margin: -15% Type I error: 2.5% Type II error: 5%"|compare proportion of clinical success|0.15||||0.0974|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|||Significance level was \<0.025.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Analysis for ITT population:~H0: clinical success rate for miconazole Lauriad minus clinical success rate for clotrimazole troches is less than or equal to -0.15 H1: clinical success rate for miconazole Lauriad minus clinical success rate for Mycelex troches is greater than -0.15"|||-0.15|0.0974
90988353|NCT00390780|181861969|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Non inferiority assumptions:~Type of test: one-sided Inferiority margin: -15% Type I error: 2.5% Type II error: 5%"|Compare proportion of clinical success|0.15||||0.1115|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|||Significance level was \<0.025.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Analysis for PP population:~H0: clinical success rate for miconazole Lauriad minus clinical success rate for clotrimazole troches is less than or equal to -0.15 H1: clinical success rate for miconazole Lauriad minus clinical success rate for Mycelex troches is greater than -0.15"|||-0.15|0.1115
90988354|NCT00390780|181861970|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Non inferiority assumptions:~Type of test: one-sided Inferiority margin: -15% Type I error: 2.5% Type II error: 5%"|compare proportion of clinical success|0.15||||0.8787|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|||Significance level was \<0.025.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Analysis for ITT population:~H0: clinical success rate for miconazole Lauriad minus clinical success rate for clotrimazole troches is less than or equal to -0.15 H1: clinical success rate for miconazole Lauriad minus clinical success rate for Mycelex troches is greater than -0.15"|||-0.15|0.8787
90988355|NCT00390780|181861970|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Non inferiority assumptions:~Type of test: one-sided Inferiority margin: -15% Type I error: 2.5% Type II error: 5%"|compare proportion of clinical success|0.15||||0.7969|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|||Significance level was \<0.025.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Analysis for PP population:~H0: clinical success rate for miconazole Lauriad minus clinical success rate for clotrimazole troches is less than or equal to -0.15 H1: clinical success rate for miconazole Lauriad minus clinical success rate for Mycelex troches is greater than -0.15"|||-0.15|0.7969
90988356|NCT00390780|181861971|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Non inferiority assumptions:~Type of test: one-sided Inferiority margin: -15% Type I error: 2.5% Type II error: 5%"|compare proportion of partial response|0.15||||0.882|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|||Significance level was \<0.025.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Analysis for ITT population:~H0: partial response rate for miconazole Lauriad minus partial response rate for clotrimazole troches is less than or equal to -0.15 H1: partial response rate for miconazole Lauriad minus partial response rate for Mycelex troches is greater than -0.15"|||-0.15|0.8820
90988357|NCT00390780|181861971|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Non inferiority assumptions:~Type of test: one-sided Inferiority margin: -15% Type I error: 2.5% Type II error: 5%"|compare proportion of partial response|0.15||||0.9033|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|||Significance level was \<0.025.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Analysis for PP population:~H0: partial response rate for miconazole Lauriad minus partial response rate for clotrimazole troches is less than or equal to -0.15 H1: partial response rate for miconazole Lauriad minus partial response rate for Mycelex troches is greater than -0.15"|||-0.15|0.9033
90988358|NCT00390780|181861972|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority statistical analysis for ITT population.|difference in proportion mycologic cure|0.15||||0.5816|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|||Significance level was \<0.025.|Chi-squared||||||-0.15|0.5816
90988359|NCT00390780|181861972|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority statistical analysis for PP population|difference in proportion mycologic cure|0.15||||0.4439|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|||Significance level was \<0.025.|Chi-squared||||||-0.15|0.4439
90988360|NCT00390780|181861973|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority statistical analysis for ITT population.|difference in proportion relapsed|0.15||||0.833|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|||Significance level is \<0.025.|Chi-squared||||||-0.15|0.8330
90988361|NCT00390780|181861973|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority statistical analysis for PP population.|difference in proportion relapsed|0.15||||0.9738|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|||Significance level is \<0.025.|Chi-squared||||||-0.15|0.9738
90988362|NCT00390780|181861978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.186||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis for Clotrimazole minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) between treatment groups||||0.1860
90988363|NCT00390780|181861978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9564||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis for Miconazole minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) between treatment groups||||0.9564
90988364|NCT00305006|181861980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.0|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||ANOVA|ANOVA|||ANOVA||||<0.01
90988365|NCT01996319|181861982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||null hypoth|0.2021|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1583|0.246|||ANCOVA|||||0.2460|0.1583|<0.0001
90988366|NCT01996319|181861983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Null hypoth|36.7126||||0.0399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7241|71.7011|||ANCOVA|||||71.7011|1.7241|0.0399
90988367|NCT01671085|181862000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-50.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-71.27|-29.7||P-value is for Day 43.|Mixed Effects Model Analysis|||||-29.70|-71.27|<0.001
90953180|NCT01240915|181783980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.45|2.76||1-sided p-value|Regression, Logistic|||Cohort 3 MM versus Cohort 3 PP (Week 12)||2.76|0.45|0.44
90988368|NCT01671085|181862000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-45.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-65.91|-24.31||P-value is for Day 57.|Mixed Effects Models Analysis|||||-24.31|-65.91|<0.001
90988369|NCT00637273|181862001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.131|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.89||Adjusted p-value was derived using Hochberg's procedure for multiple treatment comparisons.|ANOVA|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model includes treatment, country, and baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9.0% or \>=9.0%) as factors.||Null hypothesis: no difference across treatments. Alternative hypothesis: a difference exists between exenatide once weekly and at least one comparator group (sitagliptin or pioglitazone). Power: Assuming 10% dropout, delta=0.5%, and common SD=1.2%, 450 subjects would provide \>90% power to detect a treatment difference (alpha=0.05, two-sided) in the change in HbA1c between exenatide once weekly and sitagliptin or pioglitazone, with Hochberg's multiplicity adjustment method.||0.89|0.37|<.0001
90988370|NCT00637273|181862001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.131||0.0165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.57||Adjusted p-value was derived using Hochberg's procedure for multiple treatment comparisons.|ANOVA|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model includes treatment, country, and baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9.0% or \>=9.0%) as factors.||Null hypothesis: no difference across treatments. Alternative hypothesis: a difference exists between exenatide once weekly and at least one comparator group (sitagliptin or pioglitazone). Power: Assuming 10% dropout, delta=0.5%, and common SD=1.2%, 450 subjects would provide \>90% power to detect a treatment difference (alpha=0.05, two-sided) in the change in HbA1c between exenatide once weekly and sitagliptin or pioglitazone, with Hochberg's multiplicity adjustment method.||0.57|0.06|0.0165
90988371|NCT00637273|181862002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted p-value was derived using Hochberg's procedure for multiple treatment comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis: Percentage of subjects achieving HbA1c target of \<7% at Week 26 were compared between treatments using a Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test, in which baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9% or \>=9%) and country served as stratification factors. Null hypothesis: no difference across treatments. Power: based on the primary measurement.||||<.0001
90988372|NCT00637273|181862002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted p-value was derived using Hochberg's procedure for multiple treatment comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis: Percentage of subjects achieving HbA1c target of \<7% at Week 26 were compared between treatments using a Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test, in which baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9% or \>=9%) and country served as stratification factors. Null hypothesis: no difference across treatments. Power: based on the primary measurement.||||0.0015
90988373|NCT00637273|181862003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted p-value was derived using Hochberg's procedure for multiple treatment comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis: Percentages of subjects achieving HbA1c target of \<=6.5% at Week 26 were compared between treatments using a CMH test, in which baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9% or \>=9%) and country served as stratification factors. Null hypothesis: no difference across treatments. Power: based on the primary measurement.||||<.0001
90988374|NCT00637273|181862003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted p-value was derived using Hochberg's procedure for multiple treatment comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis: Percentages of subjects achieving HbA1c target of \<=6.5% at Week 26 were compared between treatments using a CMH test, in which baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9% or \>=9%) and country served as stratification factors. Null hypothesis: no difference across treatments. Power: based on the primary measurement.||||0.0120
90988375|NCT00637273|181862004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted p-value was derived using Hochberg's procedure for multiple treatment comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis: Percentages of subjects achieving HbA1c target of \<=6.0% at Week 26 were compared between treatments using a CMH test, in which baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9% or \>=9%) and country served as stratification factors. Null hypothesis: no difference across treatments. Power: based on the primary measurement.||||0.1700
90953181|NCT01240915|181783980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.5|3.04||1-sided p-value|Regression, Logistic|||Cohort 3 MP versus Cohort 3 PP (Week 12)||3.04|0.50|0.38
90953182|NCT01240915|181783980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.38||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.14|1.04||1-sided p-value|Regression, Logistic|||Cohort 3 PM versus Cohort 3 PP (Week 12)||1.04|0.14|0.89
90953183|NCT01240915|181783980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.45|2.42||1-sided p-value|Regression, Logistic|||Cohort 3 MM versus Cohort 3 PP (Week 16)||2.42|0.45|0.47
90988376|NCT00637273|181862004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted p-value was derived using Hochberg's procedure for multiple treatment comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis: Percentages of subjects achieving HbA1c target of \<=6.0% at Week 26 were compared between treatments using a CMH test, in which baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9% or \>=9%) and country served as stratification factors. Null hypothesis: no difference across treatments. Power: based on the primary measurement.||||0.0091
91006870|NCT02141854|181898333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Significance level of 0.05.|Log Rank|||||||<.0001
91006871|NCT02141854|181898333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0003||||||Significance level of 0.05.|Log Rank|||||||0.0003
90953184|NCT01240915|181783980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.58||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.7|3.57||1-sided p-value|Regression, Logistic|||Cohort 3 MP versus Cohort 3 PP (Week 16)||3.57|0.70|0.24
90988377|NCT00637273|181862005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.416||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.35||Adjusted p-value was derived using Hochberg's procedure for multiple treatment comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Analysis: Change in body weight from baseline (Day 1) to Week 26 was analyzed by an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including treatment, country, and baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9.0% or \>=9.0%) as factors, and baseline value of body weight as a covariate. Null hypothesis: no difference across treatments. Power: based on the primary measurement.||2.35|0.72|0.0002
90988378|NCT00637273|181862005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.415|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.28|5.91||Adjusted p-value was derived using Hochberg's procedure for multiple treatment comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Analysis: Change in body weight from baseline (Day 1) to Week 26 was analyzed by an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including treatment, country, and baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9.0% or \>=9.0%) as factors, and baseline value of body weight as a covariate. Null hypothesis: no difference across treatments. Power: based on the primary measurement.||5.91|4.28|<.0001
90988379|NCT00637273|181862006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|15.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.95||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|25.2||Adjusted p-value was derived using Hochberg's procedure for multiple treatment comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Analysis: Change in fasting plasma glucose from baseline (Day 1) to Week 26 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model including treatment, country, and baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9.0% or \>=9.0%) as factors, and baseline value of fasting plasma glucose as a covariate. Null hypothesis: no difference across treatments. Power: based on the primary measurement.||25.2|5.7|0.0038
90988380|NCT00637273|181862006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.98||0.3729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|14.2||Adjusted p-value was derived using Hochberg's procedure for multiple treatment comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Analysis: Change in fasting plasma glucose from baseline (Day 1) to Week 26 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model including treatment, country, and baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9.0% or \>=9.0%) as factors, and baseline value of fasting plasma glucose as a covariate. Null hypothesis: no difference across treatments. Power: based on the primary measurement.||14.2|-5.3|0.3729
90988381|NCT00637273|181862007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|6.3||Adjusted p-value was derived using Hochberg's procedure for multiple treatment comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Analysis: Change in systolic blood pressure from baseline (Day 1) to Week 26 was analyzed by an ANCOVA model including treatment, country, and baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9.0% or \>=9.0%) as factors, and baseline value of systolic blood pressure as a covariate. Null hypothesis: no difference across treatments. Power: based on the primary measurement.||6.3|1.3|0.0055
90953185|NCT01240915|181783980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.53||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.22|1.32||1-sided p-value|Regression, Logistic|||Cohort 3 PM versus Cohort 3 PP (Week 16)||1.32|0.22|0.81
90953186|NCT01240915|181783981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.49||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.2|1.24||1-sided p-value|Regression, Logistic|||Pooled MultiStem versus Pooled Placebo||1.24|0.20|0.84
90953187|NCT01240915|181783982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.3||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.12|0.73||1-sided p-value|Regression, Logistic|||Pooled MultiStem versus Pooled Placebo||0.73|0.12|0.96
90953188|NCT01240915|181783983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.513||0.87|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.08|1.24||1-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Pooled MultiStem versus Pooled Placebo||1.24|-0.08|0.87
90953189|NCT01240915|181783984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.345||0.8|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.15|0.74||1-sided p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM using data up to Week 16||Pooled MultiStem versus Pooled Placebo (Week 4)||0.74|-0.15|0.80
90953190|NCT01240915|181783984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.418||0.77|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.23|0.84||1-sided p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM using data up to Week 16||Pooled MultiStem versus Pooled Placebo (Week 8)||0.84|-0.23|0.77
90953191|NCT01240915|181783984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.666||0.74|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.42|1.3||1-sided p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM using data up to Week 16||Cohort 3 MM versus Cohort 3 PP (Week 12)||1.30|-0.42|0.74
90953192|NCT01240915|181783984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.645||0.88|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.08|1.59||1-sided p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM using data up to Week 16||Cohort 3 MP versus Cohort 3 PP (Week 12)||1.59|-0.08|0.88
91006872|NCT02141854|181898333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Significance level of 0.05.|Log Rank|||||||<.0001
90953193|NCT01240915|181783984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.705||0.72|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.5|1.33||1-sided p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM using data up to Week 16||Cohort 3 PM versus Cohort 3 PP (Week 12)||1.33|-0.50|0.72
90953194|NCT01240915|181783984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.656||0.97|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.37|2.06||1-sided p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM using data up to Week 16||Cohort 3 MM versus Cohort 3 PP (Week 16)||2.06|0.37|0.97
90988382|NCT00637273|181862007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25||0.1117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|4.5||Adjusted p-value was derived using Hochberg's procedure for multiple treatment comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Analysis: Change in systolic blood pressure from baseline (Day 1) to Week 26 was analyzed by an ANCOVA model including treatment, country, and baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9.0% or \>=9.0%) as factors, and baseline value of systolic blood pressure as a covariate. Null hypothesis: no difference across treatments. Power: based on the primary measurement.||4.5|-0.5|0.1117
90953195|NCT01240915|181783984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.635||0.75|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.39|1.25||1-sided p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM using data up to Week 16||Cohort 3 MP versus Cohort 3 PP (Week 16)||1.25|-0.39|0.75
90953196|NCT01240915|181783984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.692||0.85|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.16|1.63||1-sided p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM using data up to Week 16||Cohort 3 PM versus Cohort 3 PP (Week 16)||1.63|-0.16|0.85
90953197|NCT01240915|181783985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.753||0.75|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.46|1.49||1-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Pooled MultiStem versus Pooled Placebo||1.49|-0.46|0.75
90953198|NCT01240915|181783986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.144||0.51|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.18|0.19||1-sided p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM using data up to Week 16||Pooled MultiStem versus Pooled Placebo (Week 4)||0.19|-0.18|0.51
90953199|NCT01240915|181783986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.158||0.62|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.16|0.25||1-sided p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM using data up to Week 16||Pooled MultiStem versus Pooled Placebo (Week 8)||0.25|-0.16|0.62
90953200|NCT01240915|181783986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.213||0.29|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.39|0.16||1-sided p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM using data up to Week 16||Cohort 3 MM versus Cohort 3 PP (Week 12)||0.16|-0.39|0.29
90953201|NCT01240915|181783986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.209||0.74|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.14|0.4||1-sided p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM using data up to Week 16||Cohort 3 MP versus Cohort 3 PP (Week 12)||0.40|-0.14|0.74
90953202|NCT01240915|181783986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.226||0.36|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.37|0.21||1-sided p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM using data up to Week 16||Cohort 3 PM versus Cohort 3 PP (Week 12)||0.21|-0.37|0.36
90953203|NCT01240915|181783986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.234||0.56|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.26|0.34||1-sided p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM using data up to Week 16||Cohort 3 MM versus Cohort 3 PP (Week 16)||0.34|-0.26|0.56
90953204|NCT01240915|181783986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.231||0.18|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.51|0.09||1-sided p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM using data up to Week 16||Cohort 3 MP versus Cohort 3 PP (Week 16)||0.09|-0.51|0.18
90953205|NCT01240915|181783986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.31|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.45|0.2||1-sided p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM using data up to Week 16||Cohort 3 PM versus Cohort 3 PP (Week 16)||0.20|-0.45|0.31
90953206|NCT02574845|181783992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted geometric mean ratio T1/REF (%)|101.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.49|116.15|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale including the effects: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequence', 'period' and 'treatment'.||This statistical analysis assess the effect of coadministration of 10 mg metformin hydrochloride on the primary outcome measure of the REF treatment.||116.15|89.49|
90953207|NCT02574845|181783992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted geometric mean ratio T2/REF (%)|106.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.12|117.11|||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including the effects: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequence', 'period' and 'treatment'.||This statistical analysis assess the effect of coadministration of 50 mg metformin hydrochloride on the primary outcome measure of the REF treatment.||117.11|96.12|
90953208|NCT02574845|181783992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted geometric mean ratio T3/REF (%)|152.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|135.12|171.41|||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including the effects: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequence', 'period' and 'treatment'.||This statistical analysis assess the effect of coadministration of 500 mg metformin hydrochloride on the primary outcome measure of the REF treatment.||171.41|135.12|
91006873|NCT02141854|181898333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7203||||||Significance level of 0.05.|Log Rank|||||||0.7203
91006874|NCT02141854|181898333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.996||||||Significance level of 0.05.|Log Rank|||||||0.9960
90953209|NCT02574845|181783992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted geometric mean ratio T4/REF (%)|106.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.34|121.3|||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including the effects: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequence', 'period' and 'treatment'.||This statistical analysis assess the effect of coadministration of 1 mg furosemide on the primary outcome measure of the REF treatment.||121.30|94.34|
90953210|NCT02574845|181783992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted geometric mean ratio T5/REF (%)|115.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.93|131.82|||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including the effects: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequence', 'period' and 'treatment'.||This statistical analysis assess the effect of coadministration of 5 mg furosemide on the primary outcome measure of the REF treatment.||131.82|101.93|
90953211|NCT02574845|181783993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted geometric mean ratio T1/REF (%)|102.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.19|120.42|||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including the effects: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequence', 'period' and 'treatment'.||This statistical analysis assess the effect of coadministration of 10 mg metformin hydrochloride on the primary outcome measure of the REF treatment.||120.42|87.19|
90988383|NCT00637273|181862008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.1685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|2.5||Adjusted p-value was derived using Hochberg's procedure for multiple treatment comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Analysis: Change in diastolic blood pressure from baseline (Day 1) to Week 26 was analyzed by an ANCOVA model including treatment, country, and baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9.0% or \>=9.0%) as factors, and baseline value of diastolic blood pressure as a covariate. Null hypothesis: no difference across treatments. Power: based on the primary measurement.||2.5|-0.4|0.1685
90988384|NCT00637273|181862008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.1685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.4||Adjusted p-value was derived using Hochberg's procedure for multiple treatment comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Analysis: Change in diastolic blood pressure from baseline (Day 1) to Week 26 was analyzed by an ANCOVA model including treatment, country, and baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9.0% or \>=9.0%) as factors, and baseline value of diastolic blood pressure as a covariate. Null hypothesis: no difference across treatments. Power: based on the primary measurement.||0.4|-2.6|0.1685
90988385|NCT00637273|181862009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.31||0.2686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|10.2||Adjusted p-value was derived using Hochberg's procedure for multiple treatment comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Analysis: Change in fasting total cholesterol from baseline (Day 1) to Week 26 was analyzed by an ANCOVA model including treatment, country, and baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9.0% or \>=9.0%) as factors, and baseline value of fasting total cholesterol as a covariate. Null hypothesis: no difference across treatments. Power: based on the primary measurement.||10.2|-2.8|0.2686
90953212|NCT02574845|181783993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted geometric mean ratio T2/REF (%)|106.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.54|123.69|||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including the effects: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequence', 'period' and 'treatment'.||This statistical analysis assess the effect of coadministration of 50 mg metformin hydrochloride on the primary outcome measure of the REF treatment.||123.69|92.54|
90953213|NCT02574845|181783993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted geometric mean ratio T3/REF (%)|154.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|131.7|180.24|||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including the effects: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequence', 'period' and 'treatment'.||This statistical analysis assess the effect of coadministration of 500 mg metformin hydrochloride on the primary outcome measure of the REF treatment.||180.24|131.70|
90953214|NCT02574845|181783993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted geometric mean ratio T4/REF (%)|106.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.78|124.3|||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including the effects: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequence', 'period' and 'treatment'.||This statistical analysis assess the effect of coadministration of 1 mg furosemide on the primary outcome measure of the REF treatment.||124.30|91.78|
90953215|NCT02574845|181783993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted geometric mean ratio T5/REF (%)|117.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.27|141.65|||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including the effects: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequence', 'period' and 'treatment'.||This statistical analysis assess the effect of coadministration of 5 mg furosemide on the primary outcome measure of the REF treatment.||141.65|98.27|
91006875|NCT02141854|181898333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.325||||||Significance level of 0.05.|Log Rank|||||||0.3250
90953216|NCT02574845|181783994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted geometric mean ratio T1/REF (%)|101.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.23|114.82|||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including the effects: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequence', 'period' and 'treatment'.||This statistical analysis assess the effect of coadministration of 10 mg metformin hydrochloride on the primary outcome measure of the REF treatment.||114.82|89.23|
90953217|NCT02574845|181783994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted geometric mean ratio T2/REF (%)|107.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.65|117.81|||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including the effects: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequence', 'period' and 'treatment'.||This statistical analysis assess the effect of coadministration of 50 mg metformin hydrochloride on the primary outcome measure of the REF treatment.||117.81|97.65|
90953218|NCT02574845|181783994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted geometric mean ratio T3/REF (%)|146.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|135.21|158.62|||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including the effects: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequence', 'period' and 'treatment'.||This statistical analysis assess the effect of coadministration of 500 mg metformin hydrochloride on the primary outcome measure of the REF treatment.||158.62|135.21|
90953219|NCT02574845|181783994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted geometric mean ratio T4/REF (%)|105.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.2|121.0|||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including the effects: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequence', 'period' and 'treatment'.||This statistical analysis assess the effect of coadministration of 1 mg furosemide on the primary outcome measure of the REF treatment.||121.00|92.20|
90953220|NCT02574845|181783994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted geometric mean ratio T5/REF (%)|118.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|106.75|130.67|||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including the effects: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequence', 'period' and 'treatment'.||This statistical analysis assess the effect of coadministration of 5 mg furosemide on the primary outcome measure of the REF treatment.||130.67|106.75|
90988386|NCT00637273|181862009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3||0.0814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|13.2||Adjusted p-value was derived using Hochberg's procedure for multiple treatment comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Analysis: Change in fasting total cholesterol from baseline (Day 1) to Week 26 was analyzed by an ANCOVA model including treatment, country, and baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9.0% or \>=9.0%) as factors, and baseline value of fasting total cholesterol as a covariate. Null hypothesis: no difference across treatments. Power: based on the primary measurement.||13.2|0.3|0.0814
90988387|NCT00637273|181862010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.9546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.5||Adjusted p-value was derived using Hochberg's procedure for multiple treatment comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Analysis: Change in fasting HDL from baseline (Day 1) to Week 26 was analyzed by an ANCOVA model including treatment, country, and baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9.0% or \>=9.0%) as factors, and baseline value of fasting HDL as a covariate. Null hypothesis: no difference across treatments. Power: based on the primary measurement.||1.5|-1.6|0.9546
90988388|NCT00637273|181862010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|5.7||Adjusted p-value was derived using Hochberg's procedure for multiple treatment comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Analysis: Change in fasting HDL from baseline (Day 1) to Week 26 was analyzed by an ANCOVA model including treatment, country, and baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9.0% or \>=9.0%) as factors, and baseline value of fasting HDL as a covariate. Null hypothesis: no difference across treatments. Power: based on the primary measurement.||5.7|2.6|<.0001
90988389|NCT00637273|181862011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.9718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.08||Adjusted p-value was derived using Hochberg's procedure for multiple treatment comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Analysis: Triglycerides data were logarithm-transformed and the change at Week 26 to baseline (Day 1), expressed as the ratio, was analyzed by an ANCOVA model including treatment, country, and baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9.0% or \>=9.0%) as factors, and baseline value of fasting triglycerides as a covariate. Null hypothesis: no difference across treatments. Power: based on the primary measurement.||1.08|0.93|0.9718
90988390|NCT00637273|181862011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|0.96||Adjusted p-value was derived using Hochberg's procedure for multiple treatment comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Analysis: Triglycerides data were logarithm-transformed and the change at Week 26 to baseline (Day 1), expressed as the ratio, was analyzed by an ANCOVA model including treatment, country, and baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9.0% or \>=9.0%) as factors, and baseline value of fasting triglycerides as a covariate. Null hypothesis: no difference across treatments. Power: based on the primary measurement.||0.96|0.82|0.0062
90988391|NCT00064662|181862066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Other|0.0||||0.01||95.0|||||Log Rank|||Time to event analysis of 24 month success rates. Null hypothesis is that the distributions in the two groups are equal.||||0.01
90988392|NCT00064662|181862067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-square|16.2|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Log Rank|||Time to event analysis of cumulative success rates in the two groups. Null hypothesis is that the distributions are equal in the two groups.||||<0.001
90988393|NCT00064662|181862067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Other|0.0|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Kalpan Meier (Wald statistic)|||Kaplan Meier time-to-event analysis of cumulative success rates. Used Wald test of equality of survival distributions.||||<0.0001
90988394|NCT03008590|181862068|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9||||||Significance pre-specified at P\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Data from the primary or secondary outcome measures were the dependent variables. The patient was the random effect. Dependent fixed effects variables included treatment at the time of data collection (naltrexone or placebo), group (naltrexone first or placebo first), and week (4, 8, 12, and 16).||||0.90
90988395|NCT03008590|181862069|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22||||||Significance pre-specified at P\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Data from the primary or secondary outcome measures were the dependent variables. The patient was the random effect. Dependent fixed effects variables included treatment at the time of data collection (naltrexone or placebo), group (naltrexone first or placebo first), and week (4, 8, 12, and 16).||||0.22
90988396|NCT03008590|181862070|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||Although significance was pre-specified at P\<0.05, it is suspected that this result is spurious due to multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|||Data from the primary or secondary outcome measures were the dependent variables. The patient was the random effect. Dependent fixed effects variables included treatment at the time of data collection (naltrexone or placebo), group (naltrexone first or placebo first), and week (4, 8, 12, and 16).||||0.02
90988397|NCT03008590|181862071|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3||||||Significance pre-specified at P\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Data from the primary or secondary outcome measures were the dependent variables. The patient was the random effect. Dependent fixed effects variables included treatment at the time of data collection (naltrexone or placebo), group (naltrexone first or placebo first), and week (4, 8, 12, and 16).||||0.3
90988398|NCT03008590|181862072|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||Although significance was pre-specified at P\<0.05, it is suspected that this result is spurious due to multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|||Data from the primary or secondary outcome measures were the dependent variables. The patient was the random effect. Dependent fixed effects variables included treatment at the time of data collection (naltrexone or placebo), group (naltrexone first or placebo first), and week (4, 8, 12, and 16).||||0.04
90988399|NCT03008590|181862073|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78||||||Significance pre-specified at P\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Data from the primary or secondary outcome measures were the dependent variables. The patient was the random effect. Dependent fixed effects variables included treatment at the time of data collection (naltrexone or placebo), group (naltrexone first or placebo first), and week (4, 8, 12, and 16).||||0.78
90953221|NCT03151993|181783995|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority hypothesis would be declared if the lower limit of the 95% CI for an mRS score of 0-1 on day 90 did not cross the margin of noninferiority of 16%. The non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using Welch's t-test for the primary outcome only.|Odds Ratio (OR)|9.5|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|20.7|||Welch's t-test|||||20.7|-1.7|<0.01
90953222|NCT03101462|181784008|OTHER|ANOVA||||||0.89|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A/H1N1 Day 0||||0.89
90953223|NCT03101462|181784008|OTHER|||||||0.00082||||||This is the calculated p-value.|t-test, 2 sided|||A/H1N1 Day 7||||0.00082
90953224|NCT03101462|181784008|OTHER|||||||7.6e-05||||||This is the calculated p-value|t-test, 2 sided|||A/H1N1 Day 45||||0.000076
90953225|NCT03101462|181784008|OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A/H3N2 Day 0||||0.63
90953226|NCT03101462|181784008|OTHER|||||||0.0186||||||This is the calculated p-value|t-test, 2 sided|||A/H3N2 Day 7||||0.0186
90953227|NCT03101462|181784008|OTHER|||||||0.0052||||||This is the calculated p-value|t-test, 2 sided|||A/H3N2 Day 45||||0.0052
90953228|NCT03101462|181784008|OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Influenza B Day 0||||0.25
90953229|NCT03101462|181784008|OTHER|||||||0.061|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Influenza B Day 7||||0.061
90953230|NCT03101462|181784008|OTHER|||||||0.0025|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Influenza B Day 45||||0.0025
90953231|NCT03101462|181784009|OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Peptide Pool 1 and 2, Day 0 and Day 7||||0.24
90988400|NCT03008590|181862074|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92||||||Significance pre-specified at P\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Data from the primary or secondary outcome measures were the dependent variables. The patient was the random effect. Dependent fixed effects variables included treatment at the time of data collection (naltrexone or placebo), group (naltrexone first or placebo first), and week (4, 8, 12, and 16).||||0.92
90988401|NCT01555463|181862081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|center-adjusted||||||<.001
90953232|NCT03101462|181784009|OTHER|||||||0.76|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Peptide Pool 1 and 2, Day 0 and Day 45||||0.76
90953233|NCT03101462|181784009|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Live H3N2, Day 0 and Day 7||||0.06
90953234|NCT03101462|181784009|OTHER|||||||0.56|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Live H3N2, Day 0 and Day 45||||0.56
90953235|NCT03101462|181784009|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Flumist, Day 0 and Day 7||||0.04
90953236|NCT03101462|181784009|OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Flumist, Day 0 and Day 45||||0.16
90953237|NCT03101462|181784009|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Peptide Pool 1 and 2, Day 0 and Day 7||||0.02
90953238|NCT03101462|181784009|OTHER|||||||0.94|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Peptide Pool 1 and 2, Day 0 and Day 45||||0.94
90953239|NCT03101462|181784009|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Live H3N2, Day 0 and Day 7||||0.002
90953240|NCT03101462|181784009|OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Live H3N2, Day 0 and Day 45||||0.16
90953241|NCT03101462|181784009|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Flumist, Day 0 and Day 7||||0.02
90953242|NCT03101462|181784009|OTHER|||||||0.98|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Flumist, Day 0 and Day 45||||0.98
90953243|NCT03101462|181784010|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Peptide Pool 1 CD4+/CFSE(low)/IFN-gamma+, Day 0 and Day 7||||0.04
90953244|NCT03101462|181784010|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Peptide Pool 1 CD4+/CFSE(low)/IFN-gamma+, Day 0 and Day 45||||0.02
90953245|NCT03101462|181784010|OTHER|||||||0.95|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Peptide Pool 2 CD4+/CFSE(low)/IFN-gamma+, Day 0 and Day 7||||0.95
90953246|NCT03101462|181784010|OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Peptide Pool 2 CD4+/CFSE(low)/IFN-gamma+, Day 0 and Day 45||||0.17
90953247|NCT03101462|181784010|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Peptide Pool 1 and Peptide Pool 2 CD4+/CFSE(low)/IFN-gamma+, Day 0 and Day 7||||0.06
90953248|NCT03101462|181784010|OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Peptide Pool 1 and Peptide Pool 2 CD4+/CFSE(low)/IFN-gamma+, Day 0 and Day 45||||0.14
90953249|NCT03101462|181784010|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Live H3N2 CD4+/CFSE(low)/IFN-gamma+, Day 0 and Day 7||||0.02
90953250|NCT03101462|181784010|OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Live H3N2 CD4+/CFSE(low)/IFN-gamma+, Day 0 and Day 45||||0.09
90953251|NCT03101462|181784010|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Flumist CD4+/CFSE(low)/IFN-gamma+, Day 0 and Day 7||||0.01
90953252|NCT03101462|181784010|OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Flumist CD4+/CFSE(low)/IFN-gamma+, Day 0 and Day 45||||0.08
90953253|NCT03101462|181784010|OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Peptide Pool 1 CD4+/CFSE(low)/IFN-gamma+, Day 0 and Day 7||||0.16
90953254|NCT03101462|181784010|OTHER|||||||0.76|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Peptide Pool 1 CD4+/CFSE(low)/IFN-gamma+, Day 0 and Day 45||||0.76
90953255|NCT03101462|181784010|OTHER|||||||0.84|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Peptide Pool 2 CD4+/CFSE(low)/IFN-gamma+, Day 0 and Day 7||||0.84
90953256|NCT03101462|181784010|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Peptide Pool 2 CD4+/CFSE(low)/IFN-gamma+, Day 0 and Day 45||||0.04
90953257|NCT03101462|181784010|OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Peptide Pool 1 and Peptide Pool 2 CD4+/CFSE(low)/IFN-gamma+, Day 0 and Day 7||||0.07
90953258|NCT03101462|181784010|OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Peptide Pool 1 and Peptide Pool 2 CD4+/CFSE(low)/IFN-gamma+, Day 0 and Day 45||||0.27
90988402|NCT01555463|181862082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|F-test for treatment effect of the ANCOVA model with treatment group and study center as the factors and baseline lesion count as the covariate.||||||<.001
90953259|NCT03101462|181784010|OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Live H3N2 CD4+/CFSE(low)/IFN-gamma+, Day 0 and Day 7||||0.11
91042192|NCT00059332|181969581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|ONE_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For the primary efficacy analysis, data were analyzed to test the null hypothesis that the distribution of scores over all 7 levels of the modified Rankin Scale at Day 90 was identical in the magnesium sulfate and placebo groups, vs. the one-sided alternative that the distribution of scores is shifted lower in the active magnesium sulfate therapy group. The statistic used to test the primary hypothesis was the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test statistic stratified by transport vehicle.||||0.28
91042193|NCT00059332|181969582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.2|||Chi-squared|||||1.20|0.81|0.87
90953260|NCT03101462|181784010|OTHER|||||||0.46|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Live H3N2 CD4+/CFSE(low)/IFN-gamma+, Day 0 and Day 45||||0.46
90953261|NCT03101462|181784010|OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Flumist CD4+/CFSE(low)/IFN-gamma+, Day 0 and Day 7||||0.006
90953262|NCT03101462|181784010|OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Flumist CD4+/CFSE(low)/IFN-gamma+, Day 0 and Day 45||||0.41
90953263|NCT03101462|181784011|OTHER|||||||0.72|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Influenza A/H1N1 HA, Day 0 and Day 45||||0.72
90953264|NCT03101462|181784011|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Influenza A/H3N2 HA, Day 0 and 45||||0.06
90953265|NCT03101462|181784011|OTHER|||||||0.75|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Influenza B HA, Day 0 and Day 45||||0.75
90953266|NCT03101462|181784011|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Influenza A/H1N1 HA, Day 0 and Day 45||||0.05
90953267|NCT03101462|181784011|OTHER|||||||0.0004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Influenza A/H3N2 HA, Day 0 and Day 45||||0.0004
90953268|NCT03101462|181784011|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Influenza B HA, Day 0 and Day 45||||0.02
90953269|NCT03101462|181784012|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Fisher Exact|||Fold increase IgA anti-H1N1 HA, Day 7||||0.02
90953270|NCT03101462|181784012|OTHER|||||||0.67|||||||Fisher Exact|||Fold increase IgA anti-H3N2, Day 7||||0.67
90953271|NCT03101462|181784012|OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||Fisher Exact|||Fold increase IgA anti-influenza B HA, Day 7||||0.30
90953272|NCT01669577|181784115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GEE(Generalyzed Estimation Equation)|0.989214|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.982855|0.995613||arterial hemoglobin Oxygen saturation|ANOVA|Non parametric(NPar) ANOVA|GEE model (dichotomous response variable)with logit link function. The NPar ANOVA (p\<0.1 for death) was the test used for inclusion in the model variables for the final models - backward method, with alpha equal to 0.05.|"significance level of 0.05, power of 0.80, moderate correlation of 0.5 between time periods and assumption that the variability is equal within each factor (non-sphericity). Due to the effect size between 0.1 and 0.5, there was no need for samples larger than 140 patients. A total of 200 patients was defined conservatively, with a margin for possible deaths. The software G\*Power 3.1.7 was used for sample size calculation.~Fischer's test, Mann-Whitney, t-test; Non parametric ANOVA and GEE"||0.995613|0.982855|< 0.001
90953273|NCT01669577|181784115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GEE|0.99728|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.995791|0.998772|||ANOVA|||diastolic arterial blood pressure||0.998772|0.995791|< 0.001
90953274|NCT01669577|181784115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GEE|1.046961|||<|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.012521|1.082572|||ANOVA|||lactate||1.082572|1.012521|< 0.004
90953275|NCT01669577|181784115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GEE|0.973987|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.965308|0.982744|||ANOVA|||Glasgow coma score||0.982744|0.965308|<0.001
90953276|NCT01669577|181784115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GEE|1.000013|||<|0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.000025|||ANOVA|||amount of Infused crystalloids||1.000025|1.000000|<0.023
90953277|NCT02917603|181784116|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis is that there would be no mean difference between baseline and last measure between intervention and control groups with p\<.05|Mean Difference (Net)|0.12|||<|0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the mean differences between baseline and last measure in the PHQ- 9 score will not differ between groups. Study is powered a two-tailed test of significance, allowing the detection of a significant difference in either direction and the following assumptions: expected difference in PHQ-9 is 5 points, the documented clinically significant effect;78 (2) the variance of scores is 5.33; (3) error protection: α =.10, β = .20 and, (4) anticipated attrition of 15%||||<.009
90953278|NCT02917603|181784117|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis is there will be the mean differences between baseline scores will be the same between groups. Study powered after primary outcome measure.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.46|||<|0.21|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.21
90953279|NCT02917603|181784118|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis is there will be the mean differences between baseline scores will be the same between groups. Study powered after primary outcome measure.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.02|||<|0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.06
90953280|NCT02917603|181784119|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis is there will be the mean differences between baseline scores will be the same between groups. Study powered after primary outcome measure.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.23|||<|0.73|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.73
90953281|NCT01327846|181784164|SUPERIORITY|A HR \< 1 favors Canakinumab|Cox Proportional Hazard|0.86||||0.0648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|0.99||1-sided adjusted for multiplicity using weighted Dunnett test. \[significance level 0.0245\]|Log Rank||MACE|H11: The hazard rate of first adjudication committee confirmed MACE in the canakinumab 300 mg dose group is greater than or equal to the hazard rate of the placebo group||0.99|0.75|0.0648
90953282|NCT01327846|181784164|SUPERIORITY|A HR \< 1 favors Canakinumab|Cox Proportional Hazard|0.85||||0.0241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.98||1-sided adjusted for multiplicity using weighted Dunnett test. \[significance level 0.0245\]|Log Rank||MACE|H21: The hazard rate of first adjudication committee confirmed MACE in the canakinumab 150 mg dose group is greater than or equal to the hazard rate of the placebo group||0.98|0.74|0.0241
90953283|NCT01327846|181784164|SUPERIORITY|A HR \< 1 favors Canakinumab|Cox Proportional Hazard|0.93||||0.1895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.07||1-sided adjusted for multiplicity using weighted Dunnett test. \[significance level 0.0245\]|Log Rank||MACE|H31: The hazard rate of first adjudication committee confirmed MACE in the canakinumab 50 mg dose group is greater than or equal to the hazard rate of the placebo group.||1.07|0.80|0.1895
90953284|NCT01327846|181784164|SUPERIORITY|A HR \< 1 favors Canakinumab|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.16||2-sided unadjusted p-value|Regression, Cox||CV death|||1.16|0.77|0.572
90953285|NCT01327846|181784164|SUPERIORITY|A HR \< 1 favors Canakinumab|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.1||2-sided unadjusted p-value|Regression, Cox||CV death|||1.10|0.73|0.296
90988403|NCT04436510|181862099|SUPERIORITY||Disease Rate Ratio|0.98|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.118|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.769|1.237||Posterior probability that the disease rate ratio (DRR) is less than 1 (i.e. verdiperstat slowed progression) was 0.57467. NOTE: p-value is not provided for Bayesian model.|Bayesian shared-parameter model|A Bayesian shared-parameter model of change in disease severity as measured by ALSFRS-R total score and mortality.|"DDR \<1 imply slowing of disease progression by verdiperstat relative to placebo. Note: reported Confidence Interval is actually a Bayesian credible interval."||The model includes covariates for baseline use of edaravone, baseline use of riluzole, months since onset of symptoms, and pre-baseline slope of ALSFRS-R, and random effects for regimen and participant-specific slopes.|1.237|0.769|
90988404|NCT04436510|181862101|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.054||0.8875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.74|4.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates include baseline use of edaravone and riluzole, months since symptom onset, and pre-baseline ALSFRS-R slope.|Verdiperstat 24-week change from baseline relative to placebo 24-week change from baseline.|||4.32|-3.74|0.8875
90988405|NCT04436510|181862102|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.848||0.3538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.99|11.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates include baseline use of edaravone and riluzole, months since symptom onset, and pre-baseline ALSFRS-R slope.|Verdiperstat 24-week change from baseline relative to placebo 24-week change from baseline.|||11.13|-3.99|0.3538
90988406|NCT04436510|181862103|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.318|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.318
90988407|NCT01323673|181862134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.151||95.0||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by center was used for analysis.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.151
90988408|NCT01109004|181862149|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87||||||The primary analysis involved pairwise comparisons of PFS between the three treatment arms. To control the familywise type I error rate at 0.05, two-sided testing was performed at a Bonferroni-adjusted significance level of 0.0167 = 0.05 / 3.|Log Rank|The log rank test was stratified on risk status (high risk vs. standard risk)||The null hypothesis is that the percentages of participants with PFS at 38 months post-randomization are equal for those receiving Tandem auto transplant and RVD consolidation therapy.||||0.87
90988409|NCT01109004|181862149|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37||||||The primary analysis involved pairwise comparisons of PFS between the three treatment arms. To control the familywise type I error rate at 0.05, two-sided testing was performed at a Bonferroni-adjusted significance level of 0.0167 = 0.05 / 3.|Log Rank|The log rank test was stratified on risk status (high risk vs. standard risk)||The null hypothesis is that the percentages of participants with PFS at 38 months post-randomization are equal for those receiving Tandem auto transplant and Lenalidomide maintenance therapy.||||0.37
90988410|NCT01109004|181862149|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27||||||The primary analysis involved pairwise comparisons of PFS between the three treatment arms. To control the familywise type I error rate at 0.05, two-sided testing was performed at a Bonferroni-adjusted significance level of 0.0167 = 0.05 / 3.|Log Rank|The log rank test was stratified on risk status (high risk vs. standard risk)||The null hypothesis is that the percentages of participants with PFS at 38 months post-randomization are equal for those receiving RVD consolidation and Lenalidomide maintenance therapy.||||0.27
90988411|NCT01109004|181862150|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92||||||Two sided testing was performed at a significance level of 0.05|Gray's test|Death prior to disease progression was treated as a competing risk||The null hypothesis is that the percentages of participants with disease progression at 38 months post-randomization are equal for those receiving Tandem auto transplant and RVD consolidation therapy.||||0.92
90988412|NCT01109004|181862150|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21||||||Two sided testing was performed at a significance level of 0.05|Gray's test|Death prior to disease progression was treated as a competing risk||The null hypothesis is that the percentages of participants with disease progression at 38 months post-randomization are equal for those receiving Tandem auto transplant and Lenalidomide maintenance therapy.||||0.21
91042194|NCT00059332|181969583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.19|||Chi-squared|||||1.19|0.81|0.87
91042195|NCT00059332|181969584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.276|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2760
90988413|NCT01109004|181862150|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22||||||Two sided testing was performed at a significance level of 0.05|Gray's test|Death prior to disease progression was treated as a competing risk||The null hypothesis is that the percentages of participants with disease progression at 38 months post-randomization are equal for those receiving RVD consolidation and Lenalidomide maintenance therapy.||||0.22
90988414|NCT01109004|181862151|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26||||||Two sided testing was performed at a significance level of 0.05|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis is that the percentages of participants with OS at 38 months post-randomization are equal for those receiving Tandem auto transplant and RVD consolidation therapy.||||0.26
90988415|NCT01109004|181862151|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53||||||Two sided testing was performed at a significance level of 0.05|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis is that the percentages of participants with OS at 38 months post-randomization are equal for those receiving Tandem auto transplant and Lenalidomide maintenance therapy.||||0.53
90988416|NCT01109004|181862151|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57||||||Two sided testing was performed at a significance level of 0.05|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis is that the percentages of participants with OS at 38 months post-randomization are equal for those receiving RVD consolidation and Lenalidomide maintenance therapy.||||0.57
90988417|NCT01109004|181862152|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63||||||Two sided testing was performed at a significance level of 0.05|Gray's test|Death prior to disease progression was treated as a competing risk||The null hypothesis is that the percentages of participants with TRM at 38 months post-randomization are equal for those receiving Tandem auto transplant and RVD consolidation therapy.||||0.63
90988418|NCT01109004|181862152|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15||||||Two sided testing was performed at a significance level of 0.05|Gray's test|Death prior to disease progression was treated as a competing risk||The null hypothesis is that the percentages of participants with TRM at 38 months post-randomization are equal for those receiving Tandem auto transplant and Lenalidomide maintenance therapy.||||0.15
90988419|NCT01109004|181862152|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33||||||Two sided testing was performed at a significance level of 0.05|Gray's test|Death prior to disease progression was treated as a competing risk||The null hypothesis is that the percentages of participants with TRM at 38 months post-randomization are equal for those receiving RVD consolidation and Lenalidomide maintenance therapy.||||0.33
90988420|NCT00137436|181862184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.942||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||C1D14 : C1D1||||0.942
90988421|NCT00137436|181862184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.323||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||C2.D1 : C1D1||||0.323
90988422|NCT00137436|181862184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.865||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||C2.D14 : C1D1||||0.865
90988423|NCT00137436|181862184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.873||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||C3.D14 : C1D1||||0.873
90988424|NCT00137436|181862185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.736||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||C1D14 : C1D1||||0.736
90988425|NCT00137436|181862185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.962||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||C2.D1 : C1D1||||0.962
90988426|NCT00137436|181862185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.185||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||C2.D14 : C1D1||||0.185
90988427|NCT00137436|181862185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||C3.D14 : C1D1||||1.000
90988428|NCT00137436|181862186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.386||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||C1D14 : C1D1||||0.386
90988429|NCT00137436|181862186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.904||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||C2.D1 : C1D1||||0.904
90988430|NCT00137436|181862186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.812||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||C2.D14 : C1D1||||0.812
90988431|NCT00137436|181862186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||C3.D14 : C1D1||||0.490
90988432|NCT00137436|181862187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.839||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||C1D14 : C1D1||||0.839
90988433|NCT00137436|181862187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.219||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||C2.D1 : C1D1||||0.219
90988434|NCT00137436|181862187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.788||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||C2.D14 : C1D1||||0.788
90988435|NCT00137436|181862187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.164||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||C3.D14 : C1D1||||0.164
90988436|NCT00137436|181862188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.656||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||C1D14 : C1D1||||0.656
90988437|NCT00137436|181862188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.628||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||C2.D1 : C1D1||||0.628
90988438|NCT00137436|181862188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||C2.D14 : C1D1||||0.420
90988439|NCT00137436|181862188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.296||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||C3.D14 : C1D1||||0.296
90988440|NCT00137436|181862189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.903||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||C1D14 : C1D1||||0.903
90988441|NCT00137436|181862189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.434||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||C2.D1 : C1D1||||0.434
90988442|NCT00137436|181862189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.687||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||C2.D14 : C1D1||||0.687
90988443|NCT00137436|181862189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.296||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||C3.D14 : C1D1||||0.296
90988444|NCT00701727|181862194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.019
90988445|NCT00701727|181862195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90988446|NCT00701727|181862196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90988447|NCT00701727|181862197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.12
90988448|NCT00701727|181862198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
90988449|NCT00701727|181862199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90988450|NCT00701727|181862200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.95
91042196|NCT00059332|181969585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3912|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3912
91042197|NCT00059332|181969586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.323|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3230
90988451|NCT00696657|181862201|SUPERIORITY||Estimated treatment differences|-1.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|-0.8|||ANOVA|Confidence interval (CIs) for treatment differences versus placebo are based on Dunnett's method.||"The comparison sequence should be read as Semaglutide 1.6 mg (with titration) - Placebo. The estimates are from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with treatment, country and previous treatment as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate."||-0.80|-1.58|<0.0001
90988452|NCT00696657|181862201|SUPERIORITY||Estimated treatment differences|-0.95|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.57|||ANOVA|CIs for treatment differences versus placebo are based on Dunnett's method.||"The comparison sequence should be read as Semaglutide 0.8 mg (with titration) - Placebo. The estimates are from an ANOVA model with treatment, country and previous treatment as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate."||-0.57|-1.33|<0.0001
90988453|NCT00696657|181862201|SUPERIORITY||Estimated treatment differences|-0.97|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|-0.59|||ANOVA|CIs for treatment differences versus placebo are based on Dunnett's method.||"The comparison sequence should be read as Semaglutide 0.8 mg - Placebo. The estimates are from an ANOVA model with treatment, country and previous treatment as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate."||-0.59|-1.35|<0.0001
90988454|NCT00696657|181862201|SUPERIORITY||Estimated treatment differences|-0.61||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.23|||ANOVA|CIs for treatment differences versus placebo are based on Dunnett's method.||"The comparison sequence should be read as Semaglutide 0.4 mg - Placebo. The estimates are from an ANOVA model with treatment, country and previous treatment as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate."||-0.23|-0.98|0.0002
90988455|NCT00696657|181862201|SUPERIORITY||Estimated treatment differences|-0.41||||0.0324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.02|||ANOVA|CIs for treatment differences versus placebo are based on Dunnett's method.||"The comparison sequence should be read as Semaglutide 0.2 mg - Placebo. The estimates are from an ANOVA model with treatment, country and previous treatment as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate."||-0.02|-0.79|0.0324
90988456|NCT00696657|181862201|SUPERIORITY||Estimated treatment differences|-0.09||||0.9772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.28|||ANOVA|CIs for treatment differences versus placebo are based on Dunnett's method.||"The comparison sequence should be read as Semaglutide 0.1 mg - Placebo. The estimates are from an ANOVA model with treatment, country and previous treatment as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate."||0.28|-0.46|0.9772
90988457|NCT00696657|181862201|OTHER||Estimated treatment differences|-0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|-0.06|||ANOVA|CIs for treatment differences versus liraglutide are not corrected for multiple testing.||"The comparison sequence should be read as Semaglutide 1.6 mg (with titration) - Liraglutide 1.8 mg. The estimates are from an ANOVA model with treatment, country and previous treatment as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate."||-0.06|-0.64|
90988458|NCT00696657|181862201|OTHER||Estimated treatment differences|-0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.18|||ANOVA|CIs for treatment differences versus liraglutide are not corrected for multiple testing.||"The comparison sequence should be read as Semaglutide 0.8 mg (with titration) - Liraglutide 1.8 mg. The estimates are from an ANOVA model with treatment, country and previous treatment as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate."||0.18|-0.39|
90988459|NCT00696657|181862201|OTHER||Estimated treatment differences|-0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.16|||ANOVA|CIs for treatment differences versus liraglutide are not corrected for multiple testing.||"The comparison sequence should be read as Semaglutide 0.8 mg - Liraglutide 1.8 mg. The estimates are from an ANOVA model with treatment, country and previous treatment as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate."||0.16|-0.42|
90988460|NCT00696657|181862201|OTHER||Estimated treatment differences|0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.52|||ANOVA|CIs for treatment differences versus liraglutide are not corrected for multiple testing.||"The comparison sequence should be read as Semaglutide 0.4 mg - Liraglutide 1.8 mg. The estimates are from an ANOVA model with treatment, country and previous treatment as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate."||0.52|-0.05|
90988461|NCT00696657|181862201|OTHER||Estimated treatment differences|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.73|||ANOVA|CIs for treatment differences versus liraglutide are not corrected for multiple testing.||"The comparison sequence should be read as Semaglutide 0.2 mg - Liraglutide 1.8 mg. The estimates are from an ANOVA model with treatment, country and previous treatment as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate."||0.73|0.15|
90988462|NCT00696657|181862201|OTHER||Estimated treatment differences|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.03|||ANOVA|CIs for treatment differences versus liraglutide are not corrected for multiple testing.||"The comparison sequence should be read as Semaglutide 0.1 mg - Liraglutide 1.8 mg. The estimates are from an ANOVA model with treatment, country and previous treatment as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate."||1.03|0.48|
90988463|NCT00696657|181862201|OTHER||Estimated treatment differences|-0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|-0.56|||ANOVA|CIs for treatment differences versus liraglutide are not corrected for multiple testing.||"The comparison sequence should be read as Liraglutide 1.8 mg - Placebo . The estimates are from an ANOVA model with treatment, country and previous treatment as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate."||-0.56|-1.12|
90988464|NCT00696657|181862201|OTHER||Estimated treatment differences|-0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.22|||ANOVA|CIs for treatment differences versus liraglutide are not corrected for multiple testing.||"The comparison sequence should be read as Semaglutide 1.6 mg (with titration) - Liraglutide 1.2 mg. The estimates are from an ANOVA model with treatment, country and previous treatment as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate."||-0.22|-0.80|
90988465|NCT00696657|181862201|OTHER||Estimated treatment differences|-0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.02|||ANOVA|CIs for treatment differences versus liraglutide are not corrected for multiple testing.||"The comparison sequence should be read as Semaglutide 0.8 mg (with titration) - Liraglutide 1.2 mg. The estimates are from an ANOVA model with treatment, country and previous treatment as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate."||0.02|-0.56|
90953286|NCT01327846|181784164|SUPERIORITY|A HR \< 1 favors Canakinumab|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.12||2-sided unadjusted p-value|Regression, Cox||CV death|||1.12|0.73|0.369
90953287|NCT01327846|181784164|SUPERIORITY|A HR \< 1 favors Canakinumab|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.01||2-sided unadjusted p-value|Regression, Cox||MI (fatal and non-fatal)|||1.01|0.69|0.067
90988466|NCT00696657|181862201|OTHER||Estimated treatment differences|-0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.01|||ANOVA|CIs for treatment differences versus liraglutide are not corrected for multiple testing.||"The comparison sequence should be read as Semaglutide 0.8 mg - Liraglutide 1.2 mg. The estimates are from an ANOVA model with treatment, country and previous treatment as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate."||0.01|-0.58|
90988467|NCT00696657|181862201|OTHER||Estimated treatment differences|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.37|||ANOVA|CIs for treatment differences versus liraglutide are not corrected for multiple testing.||"The comparison sequence should be read as Semaglutide 0.4 mg - Liraglutide 1.2 mg. The estimates are from an ANOVA model with treatment, country and previous treatment as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate."||0.37|-0.22|
90988468|NCT00696657|181862201|OTHER||Estimated treatment differences|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.57|||ANOVA|CIs for treatment differences versus liraglutide are not corrected for multiple testing.||"The comparison sequence should be read as Semaglutide 0.2 mg - Liraglutide 1.2 mg. The estimates are from an ANOVA model with treatment, country and previous treatment as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate."||0.57|-0.02|
90988469|NCT00696657|181862201|OTHER||Estimated treatment differences|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.88|||ANOVA|CIs for treatment differences versus liraglutide are not corrected for multiple testing.||"The comparison sequence should be read as Semaglutide 0.1 mg - Liraglutide 1.2 mg. The estimates are from an ANOVA model with treatment, country and previous treatment as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate."||0.88|0.31|
90988470|NCT00696657|181862201|OTHER||Estimated treatment differences|-0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.4|||ANOVA|CIs for treatment differences versus liraglutide are not corrected for multiple testing.||"The comparison sequence should be read as Liraglutide 1.2 mg - Placebo. The estimates are from an ANOVA model with treatment, country and previous treatment as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate."||-0.40|-0.97|
90988471|NCT05137041|181862242|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.002
90988472|NCT05137041|181862244|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.817|-0.137|||ANCOVA|The p-value was adjusted using a False Discovery Rate approach (Benjamini-Hochberg).||||-0.137|-0.817|0.015
90953288|NCT01327846|181784164|SUPERIORITY|A HR \< 1 favors Canakinumab|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.92||2-sided unadjusted p-value|Regression, Cox||MI (fatal and non-fatal)|||0.92|0.63|0.006
90953289|NCT01327846|181784164|SUPERIORITY|A HR \< 1 favors Canakinumab|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.14||2-sided unadjusted p-value|Regression, Cox||MI (fatal and non-fatal)|||1.14|0.78|0.542
90988473|NCT05137041|181862245|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-15.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.47||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.661|0.828||The p-value was adjusted using a False Discovery Rate approach (Benjamini-Hochberg).|ANCOVA|||||0.828|-32.661|0.103
90988474|NCT05137041|181862246|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.511|1.581||The p-value was adjusted using a False Discovery Rate approach (Benjamini-Hochberg).|ANCOVA|||||1.581|0.511|<0.001
90953290|NCT01327846|181784164|OTHER|A HR \< 1 favors Canakinumab|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.0|||||MI (non-fatal)|||1.00|0.68|
90953291|NCT01327846|181784164|OTHER|A HR \< 1 favors Canakinumab|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.92|||||MI (non-fatal)|||0.92|0.62|
90953292|NCT01327846|181784164|OTHER|A HR \< 1 favors Canakinumab|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.14|||||MI (non-fatal)|||1.14|0.78|
91042198|NCT00059332|181969587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.27|||Chi-squared|||||1.27|0.87|0.95
91042199|NCT00059332|181969588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.62||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.14|||Chi-squared|||||1.14|0.34|0.12
91042200|NCT00059332|181969589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.29|||Chi-squared|||||1.29|0.76|0.95
91042201|NCT00487695|181969595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank|||Our hypothesis was that the yield for neoplasia would be higher using confocal laser endomicroscopy compared to standard endoscopy. The null hypothesis would be that there is no difference in yield for neoplasia when CLE is used compared to standard endoscopy. We estimated that the yield for neoplasia would increase from 10% to 40% using CLE and the calculated sample size was 37. We planned to enroll 48 patients to allow for possible dropouts.||||0.01
91042202|NCT00487695|181969596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.89||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank|||The number of biopsies showing neoplasia was determined for each procedure (confocal laser endomicroscopy, standard EGD). These were compared.||||0.89
91042203|NCT00487695|181969597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002||95.0|||||wilcoxon signed rank test|||The null hypothesis would be that CLE does not decrease the number of biopsies needed to make a diagnosis compared to standard endoscopy||||0.002
91042204|NCT00487695|181969599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank|||The number of biopsies showing neoplasia was determined for each procedure (confocal laser endomicroscopy, standard EGD). These were compared. This analysis looks at the patients referred for Barrett's surveillance EGD (no suspected neoplasia).||||1.0
91042205|NCT00487695|181969600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank|||The null hypothesis would be that CLE does not decrease the number of biopsies needed to make a diagnosis compared to standard endoscopy||||<0.0001
91042206|NCT00766493|181969635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion|0.043|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.021|0.077||Reject H0 if z\<-1.96, or 1-sided p\<0.025.|One Sample Binomial|Significance test was based on a one-sample normal approximation to the binomial test.|The 2-sided 95% CI is reported for descriptive purposes; the statistical hypothesis test is 1-sided.|"This study is designed to test the primary null hypothesis that the composite MAE outcome of all death, stroke, and/or MI when using the GORE Embolic Filter is equal to or higher than a Performance Goal (PG) of 6.4% established from published carotid stenting studies utilizing distal embolic protection, versus the alternative hypothesis that the composite MAE outcome is less than the performance goal.~The sample size was calculated based on 80% power and a 1-sided Type I error rate of 0.025."||0.077|0.021|0.0001
91042207|NCT01849458|181969641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|26.0||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.2|40.0|||2-sided, paired t-test|||Difference from baseline (6M-Baseline)||40|25.2|0.0001
91042208|NCT01849458|181969642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|35.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|23.6||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.7|42.7|||2-sided, paired t-test|||Difference from baseline (12M-Baseline)||42.7|28.7|0.0001
91042209|NCT01849458|181969643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|43.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.2||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.4|50.1|||2-sided, paired t-test|||Difference from baseline (6M-Baseline)||50.1|37.4|0.0001
91042210|NCT01849458|181969644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|49.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|20.2||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.2|55.2|||2-sided, paired t-test|||Difference from baseline (12M-Baseline)||55.2|43.2|0.0001
91042211|NCT03950674|181969652|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.12511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.42||One-sided p-value based on unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by PD-L1 status (≥1% vs. \<1%), platinum chemotherapy (cisplatin vs. carboplatin) \& smoking status (never vs. former/current). Pembrolizumab=numerator; Control=denominator.|||1.42|0.27|0.12511
91042212|NCT03950674|181969653|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.29||||0.03127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.15||One-sided p-value based on unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by PD-L1 status (≥1% vs. \<1%), platinum chemotherapy (cisplatin vs. carboplatin) \& smoking status (never vs. former/current). Pembrolizumab=numerator; Control=denominator.|||1.15|0.07|0.03127
90988475|NCT05137041|181862247|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.976|0.25||The p-value was adjusted using a False Discovery Rate approach (Benjamini-Hochberg).|ANCOVA|||||0.250|-2.976|0.121
90988476|NCT05137041|181862248|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.564||||||The p-value is adjusted using a False Discovery Rate approach (Benjamini-Hochberg).|Log Rank|||||||0.564
90988477|NCT05137041|181862249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.289|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.289
90988478|NCT05137041|181862250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Satterthwaite t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 1 Evening||||0.001
90988479|NCT05137041|181862250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035|||||||Satterthwaite t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 2 Morning||||0.035
90988480|NCT05137041|181862250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Satterthwaite t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 2 Evening||||0.004
90988481|NCT05137041|181862250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Satterthwaite t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 3 Morning||||0.007
90988482|NCT05137041|181862250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Satterthwaite t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 3 Evening||||0.005
90988483|NCT05137041|181862250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Satterthwaite t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 4 Morning||||0.001
90988484|NCT05137041|181862250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Satterthwaite t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 4 Evening||||0.007
90988485|NCT05137041|181862250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.096|||||||Satterthwaite t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 5 Morning||||0.096
90988486|NCT05137041|181862250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015|||||||Satterthwaite t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 5||||0.015
90988487|NCT05137041|181862251|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Satterthwaite t-test|||VRS: Day 1 Evening||||<0.001
90988488|NCT05137041|181862251|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Satterthwaite t-test|||VRS: Day 2 Morning||||0.001
90988489|NCT05137041|181862251|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Satterthwaite t-test|||VRS: Day 2 Evening||||<0.001
90988490|NCT05137041|181862251|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Satterthwaite t-test|||VRS: Day 3 Morning||||<0.001
90988491|NCT05137041|181862251|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Satterthwaite t-test|||VRS: Day 3 Evening||||<0.001
90988492|NCT05137041|181862251|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Satterthwaite t-test|||VRS: Day 4 Morning||||<0.001
90988493|NCT05137041|181862251|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Satterthwaite t-test|||VRS: Day 4 Evening||||<0.001
90988494|NCT05137041|181862251|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024|||||||Satterthwaite t-test|||VRS: Day 5 Morning||||0.024
90988495|NCT05137041|181862251|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Satterthwaite t-test|||VRS: Day 5||||<0.001
90988496|NCT05137041|181862252|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.415|0.903|||ANCOVA|||||0.903|0.415|<0.001
90988497|NCT02433210|181862253|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the difference was considered significant at the p\<0.05 level.|t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and equal variance was used. If data failed either non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 1 clearance beta 2 microglobilin Optiflux vs Revaclear.||||<0.001
90988498|NCT02433210|181862253|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The p value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons and a p\<0.05 is considered significant.|t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and equal variance was used. If data failed either non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 1 Clearance beta 2 microglobulin Optiflux vs ELISIO.||||<0.001
90988499|NCT02433210|181862253|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.178||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the difference was considered significant at the p\<0.05 level.|t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and equal variance was used. If data failed either non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 1 clearance beta 2 microglobulin Revaclear vs ELISIO..||||=0.178
90988500|NCT02433210|181862253|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.016||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the difference was considered significant at the p\<0.05 level.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and equal variance was used. If data failed either non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 1 Clearance of myoglobin Optiflux vs Revaclear.||||=0.016
90988501|NCT02433210|181862253|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.033||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the difference was considered significant at the p\<0.05 level.|t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and equal variance was used. If data failed either non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 1 Clearance of myoglobin Optiflux vs ELISIO.||||=0.033
90988502|NCT02433210|181862253|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.935|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and equal variance was used. If data failed either non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 1 Clearance of myoglobin Revaclear vs ELISIO.||||=0.935
90988503|NCT02433210|181862253|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.463|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and equal variance was used. If data failed either non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 2 Clearance of urea nitrogen Optiflux vs Revaclaer.||||=0.463
91042213|NCT00608634|181969671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.10
91042214|NCT00608634|181969671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.41
91042215|NCT00608634|181969672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
91042216|NCT00494013|181969673|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The noninferiority margin was 0.4%.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.21||||0.026||95.0|-0.39|-0.03|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Country + Baseline Sulfonylurea Group.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval is for the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments (Insulin Lispro Protamine Suspension minus Determir).|Hypothesis: Basal analog insulin lispro protamine suspension, injected once or twice daily is noninferior to basal analog insulin determir, injected once or twice daily, with regard to glycemic control as measured by change in HbA1c from baseline to endpoint (last observation carried forward).||-0.03|-0.39|0.026
91042217|NCT00494013|181969674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11||||0.213||95.0|-0.28|0.06||P-value for 12 Week Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable = Treatment + Baseline + Country + Baseline Sulfonylurea Group.|The two-sides 95% confidence interval is for the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments (Insulin Lispro Protamine Suspension minus Detemir).|||0.06|-0.28|0.213
90953293|NCT01327846|181784164|SUPERIORITY|A HR \< 1 favors Canakinumab|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.12||2-sided unadjusted p-value|Regression, Cox||Stroke (fatal and non-fatal)|||1.12|0.56|0.190
91042218|NCT00494013|181969674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11||||0.213||95.0|-0.28|0.06||P-value for 12 Week HbA1c.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable = Treatment + Baseline + Country + Baseline Sulfonylurea Group.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval is for the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments (Insulin Lispro Protamine Suspension minus Detemir).|||0.06|-0.28|0.213
91042219|NCT00494013|181969674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.038||95.0|-0.38|-0.01||P-value for 24 Week Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable = Treatment + Baseline + Country + Baseline Sulfonylurea Group.|The two-sides 95% confidence interval is for the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments (Insulin Lispro Protamine Suspension minus Detemir).|||-0.01|-0.38|0.038
91042220|NCT00494013|181969674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.038||95.0|-0.38|-0.01||P-value for Week 24 HbA1c.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable = Treatment + Baseline + Country + Baseline Sulfonylurea Group.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval is for the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments (Insulin Lispro Protamine Suspension minus Detemir).|||-0.01|-0.38|0.038
91042221|NCT00494013|181969675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.463||95.0||||P-value for HbA1c \<7.0%.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.463
90953294|NCT01327846|181784164|SUPERIORITY|A HR \< 1 favors Canakinumab|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.35||2-sided unadjusted p-value|Regression, Cox||Stroke (fatal and non-fatal)|||1.35|0.71|0.912
90953295|NCT01327846|181784164|SUPERIORITY|A HR \< 1 favors Canakinumab|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.43||2-sided unadjusted p-value|Regression, Cox||Stroke (fatal and non-fatal)|||1.43|0.74|0.871
90953296|NCT01327846|181784164|OTHER|A HR \< 1 favors Canakinumab|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.13|||||Stroke (nonfatal)|||1.13|0.57|
91042222|NCT00494013|181969675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.135||95.0||||P-value for HbA1c ≤6.5%.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.135
91042223|NCT00494013|181969676|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority margin of 0.8 millimoles per Liter (mmol/L).|Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.107||95.0|-0.02|0.23|||ANOVA|ANOVA model: Variable=Treatment + Country + Baseline HbA1c + Baseline Sulfonylurea Group.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval is for the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments (Insulin Lispro Protamine Suspension minus Determir).|The first gatekeeping hypothesis was that Insulin Lispro Protamine Suspension was noninferior to determir.||0.23|-0.02|0.107
91042224|NCT00494013|181969677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.952||95.0||||P-value for Average 7-Point SMBG.|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Variable = Treatment + Country + Baseline HbA1c + Baseline Sulfonylurea Group.||||||0.952
91042225|NCT00494013|181969677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.856||95.0||||P-value for Average Pre-Meal.|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Variable = Treatment + Country + Baseline HbA1c + Baseline Sulfonylurea Group.||||||0.856
91042226|NCT00494013|181969677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79||95.0||||P-value for Average Post-Meal.|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Variable = Treatment + Country + Baseline HbA1c + Baseline Sulfonylurea Group.||||||0.790
91042227|NCT00494013|181969677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.632||95.0||||P-value for Average Morning+Evening Pre-Meal.|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Variable = Treatment + Country + Baseline HbA1c + Baseline Sulfonylurea Group.||||||0.632
91042228|NCT00494013|181969678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.472||95.0||||P-value for All Hypoglycemic Events.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.472
91042229|NCT00494013|181969678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||P-value for Nocturnal Hypoglycemic Events.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.005
91042230|NCT00494013|181969678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45||95.0||||P-value for Severe Hypoglycemic Events.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.450
91042231|NCT00494013|181969679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||P-value for Hypoglycemic Rate.|ANOVA|Nonparametric ANOVA Model: Rank of Variable = Treatment + Country + Baseline HbA1c + Baseline Sulfonylurea Group.||||||0.001
91042232|NCT00494013|181969679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||P-value for Nocturnal Hypoglycemic Rate.|ANOVA|Nonparametric ANOVA Model: Rank of Variable = Treatment + Country + Baseline HbA1c + Baseline Sulfonylurea Group.||||||0.001
90953297|NCT01327846|181784164|OTHER|A HR \< 1 favors Canakinumab|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.37|||||Stroke (nonfatal)|||1.37|0.72|
90953298|NCT01327846|181784164|OTHER|A HR \< 1 favors Canakinumab|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.45|||||Stroke (nonfatal)|||1.45|0.75|
90953299|NCT01327846|181784167|SUPERIORITY|A HR \< 1 favors Canakinumab|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.0648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.94||1-sided adjusted for multiplicity using weighted Dunnett test. \[significance level 0.0245\]|Log Rank||MACE or unstable angina|||0.94|0.72|0.0648
90953300|NCT01327846|181784167|SUPERIORITY|A HR \< 1 favors Canakinumab|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.0241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.95||1-sided adjusted for multiplicity using weighted Dunnett test. \[significance level 0.0245\]|Log Rank||MACE or unstable angina|||0.95|0.73|0.0241
90988504|NCT02433210|181862253|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.392|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and equal variance was used. If data failed either non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 2 Clearance of urea nitrogen Optiflux vs ELISIO.||||=0.392
90988505|NCT02433210|181862253|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.597|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and equal variance was used. If data failed either non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 2 Clearance urea nitrogen Revaclear vs ELISIO.||||=0.597
90953301|NCT01327846|181784167|SUPERIORITY|A HR \< 1 favors Canakinumab|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.1895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.03||1-sided adjusted for multiplicity using weighted Dunnett test. \[significance level 0.0245\]|Log Rank||MACE or unstable angina|||1.03|0.79|0.1895
90953302|NCT01327846|181784167|SUPERIORITY|A HR \< 1 favors Canakinumab|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.86||2-sided unadjusted p-value|Regression, Cox||unstable angina|||0.86|0.39|0.007
90953303|NCT01327846|181784167|SUPERIORITY|A HR \< 1 favors Canakinumab|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.94||2-sided unadjusted p-value|Regression, Cox||unstable angina|||0.94|0.44|0.022
90953304|NCT01327846|181784167|SUPERIORITY|A HR \< 1 favors Canakinumab|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.05||2-sided unadjusted p-value|Regression, Cox||unstable angina|||1.05|0.48|0.086
90953305|NCT01327846|181784168|SUPERIORITY|A HR \< 1 favors Canakinumab|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.8456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.23||1-sided adjusted for multiplicity using weighted Dunnett test. \[significance level 0.0245\]|Log Rank|||||1.23|0.83|0.8456
90953306|NCT01327846|181784168|SUPERIORITY|A HR \< 1 favors Canakinumab|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.8456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.29||1-sided adjusted for multiplicity using weighted Dunnett test. \[significance level 0.0245\]|Log Rank|||||1.29|0.87|0.8456
90953307|NCT01327846|181784168|SUPERIORITY|A HR \< 1 favors Canakinumab|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.6541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.2||1-sided adjusted for multiplicity using weighted Dunnett test. \[significance level 0.0245\]|Log Rank|||||1.20|0.80|0.6541
90953308|NCT01327846|181784169|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.99||2-sided unadjusted p-value|Regression, Cox||All-cause mortality or MI or Stroke|||0.99|0.77|0.028
90988506|NCT02433210|181862253|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.162|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and equal variance was used. If data failed either non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 2 Clearance of creatinine Optiflux vs Revaclear.||||=0.162
90988507|NCT02433210|181862253|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.186|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and equal variance was used. If data failed either non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 2 Clearance of creatinine Optiflux vs ELISIO.||||0.186
90988508|NCT02433210|181862253|SUPERIORITY|No Significant difference.||||||0.624|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and equal variance was used. If data failed either non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 1 Urea nitrogen clearance Optiflux vs Revaclear.||||0.624
90988509|NCT02433210|181862253|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.732|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and equal variance was used. If data failed either non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 1 Urea nitrogen clearance Optiflux vs ELISIO.||||0.732
90988510|NCT02433210|181862253|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.427|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and equal variance was used. If data failed either non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 1 Urea Nitrogen clearance Revaclear vs Optiflux.||||0.427
90988511|NCT02433210|181862253|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.379|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and equal variance was used. If data failed either non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 1 Creatinine clearance Optiflux vs Revaclear..||||0.379
90988512|NCT02433210|181862253|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.318|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and equal variance was used. If data failed either non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 1 Creatinine clearance Optiflux vs ELISIO.||||0.318
90988513|NCT02433210|181862253|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.914|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and equal variance was used. If data failed either non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 1 Creatinine clearance Revaclear vs ELISIO.||||=0.914
91042233|NCT00494013|181969679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.226||95.0||||P-value for Severe Hypoglycemic Rate.|ANOVA|Nonparametric ANOVA Model: Rank of Variable = Treatment + Country + Baseline HbA1c + Baseline Sulfonylurea Group.||||||0.226
90988514|NCT02433210|181862253|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.623|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and equal variance was used. If data failed either non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 1 Phosphate clearance Optiflux vs Revaclear.||||=0.623
90988515|NCT02433210|181862253|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.403|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and equal variance was used. If data failed either non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 1 Phosphate clearance Optiflux vs ELISIO.||||=0.403
90988516|NCT02433210|181862253|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.85|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 1 Phosphate clearance Revaclear vs ELISIO.||||=0.850
90988517|NCT02433210|181862253|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.815|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 2 Clearance of creatinine Revaclear vs ELISIO.||||=0.815
90988518|NCT02433210|181862253|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.367|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 2 Clearance of Phosphate Optiflux vs Revaclear.||||=0.367
90988519|NCT02433210|181862253|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.821|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 2 Clearance of phosphate Optiflux vs Elisio.||||=0.821
90988520|NCT02433210|181862253|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.364|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 2 Clearance phosphate Revaclear vs ELISIO.||||=0.364
90988521|NCT02433210|181862253|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the difference was considered significant at the p\<0.05 level.|t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 2 Clearance of beta 2 microglobulin Optiflux vs Revaclear.||||<0.001
90988522|NCT02433210|181862253|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the difference was considered significant at the p\<0.05 level.|t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 2 Clearance of beta 2 microglobulin Optiflux vs ELISIO.||||<0.001
90988523|NCT02433210|181862253|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.254|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Session 2 Clearance of beta 2 microglobulin Revaclear vs ELISIO.||||=0.254
91042234|NCT00494013|181969681|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority margin of 1.5 kilograms (kg).|Mean Difference (Net)|1.5|||<|0.001||95.0|0.93|2.06||P-value for Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Country + Baseline HbA1c + Baseline Sulfonylurea Group.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval is for the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments (Insulin Lispro Protamine Suspension minus Determir).|The second gatekeeping hypothesis was that Insulin Lispro Protamine Suspension was noninferior to detemir with regard to change in absolute body weight from baseline to endpoint (last observation carried forward).||2.06|0.93|<0.001
90953309|NCT01327846|181784169|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|0.96||2-sided unadjusted p-value|Regression, Cox||All-cause mortality or MI or Stroke|||0.96|0.75|0.011
90953310|NCT01327846|181784169|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.07||2-sided unadjusted p-value|Regression, Cox||All-cause mortality or MI or Stroke|||1.07|0.83|0.377
90953311|NCT01327846|181784170|SUPERIORITY|A HR \< 1 favors Canakinumab|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.1||2-sided unadjusted p-value|Regression, Cox||All-cause mortality|||1.10|0.79|0.406
90953312|NCT01327846|181784170|SUPERIORITY|A HR \< 1 favors Canakinumab|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.09||2-sided unadjusted p-value|Regression, Cox||All-cause mortality|||1.09|0.78|0.329
90953313|NCT01327846|181784170|SUPERIORITY|A HR \< 1 favors Canakinumab|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.13||2-sided unadjusted p-value|Regression, Cox||All-cause mortality|||1.13|0.81|0.597
90953314|NCT03746392|181784187|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.036
90953315|NCT03843554|181784198|SUPERIORITY|Primary hypothesis. Null hypothesis is that the proportion of patients with a successful outcome of WHO OM severity grades 0-2 at the post study evaluation will not differ between the two randomized intervention groups. The estimated proportion of successes from our pilot trial is 0.30 with SOC. The alternative hypothesis is that the proportion of patients with a successful outcome differs between the two groups from the SOC proportion of 0.30 by +/-0.265 or more.||||||0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|OM WHO grading scale (less or equal to 2) severity employed a two-sided Fisher's exact test to compare the two arms at Visit 9.||||||0.999
90953316|NCT03843554|181784199|SUPERIORITY|OMDP-STANDARD|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|174.6||0.6336|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The above t-test p-value is for IL1a.|t-test, 2 sided|||The change in the inflammatory marker from baseline to the final intervention visit was analyzed using 95% confidence intervals and presented by treatment group. The two-sided t-test was used to compare the change in inflammatory markers between the two groups.||||0.6336
90953317|NCT03843554|181784199|SUPERIORITY|OMDP-STANDARD|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|52.1||0.351|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||IL1b|t-test, 2 sided|||The change in the inflammatory marker from baseline to the final intervention visit was analyzed using 95% confidence intervals and presented by treatment group. The two-sided t- test was used to compare the change in inflammatory markers between the two groups.||||0.3510
90953318|NCT03843554|181784199|SUPERIORITY|OMDP-STANDARD|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-102.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|252.8||0.351|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||IL2|t-test, 2 sided|||The change in the inflammatory marker from baseline to the final intervention visit was analyzed using 95% confidence intervals and presented by treatment group. The two-sided t- test was used to compare the change in inflammatory markers between the two groups.||||0.3510
90953319|NCT03843554|181784199|SUPERIORITY|IL4|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|46.0||0.8371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The change in the inflammatory marker from baseline to the final intervention visit was analyzed using 95% confidence intervals and presented by treatment group. The two-sided t- test was used to compare the change in inflammatory markers between the two groups.||||0.8371
90953320|NCT03843554|181784199|SUPERIORITY|IL5|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.7||0.2991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The change in the inflammatory marker from baseline to the final intervention visit was analyzed using 95% confidence intervals and presented by treatment group. The two-sided t- test was used to compare the change in inflammatory markers between the two groups.||||0.2991
90953321|NCT03843554|181784200|SUPERIORITY|OMDP-STANDARD|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2293|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8555||0.2373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.906|1.4475|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.4475|-1.9060|0.2373
90988524|NCT02433210|181862253|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.079|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 2 Clearance of myoglobin Optiflux vs Revaclear.||||=0.079
90988525|NCT02433210|181862253|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.086|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 2 Clearance of myoglobin Optiflux vs ELISIO.||||=0.086
90988526|NCT02433210|181862253|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.888|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 2 Clearance myoglobin Revaclear vs ELISIO.||||=0.888
90988527|NCT02433210|181862253|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.663||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the difference was considered significant at the p\<0.05 level.|t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 3 Clearance of urea nitrogen Optiflux vs Revaclear.||||=0.663
90988528|NCT02433210|181862253|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.391|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 3 Clearance of urea nitrogen Optiflux vs ELISIO.||||=0.391
90988529|NCT02433210|181862253|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.214|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 3 Clearance of urea nitrogen Revaclear vs ELISIO.||||=0.214
90988530|NCT02433210|181862253|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.918|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 3 Clearance of creatinine Optiflux vs Revaclear.||||=0.918
90988531|NCT02433210|181862253|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.394|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 3 Clearance of creatinine Optiflux vs ELISIO.||||=0.394
90988532|NCT02433210|181862253|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.211|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 3 Clearance of creatinine Revaclear vs ELISIO.||||=0.211
90988533|NCT02433210|181862253|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.222|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 3 Clearance of phosphate Optiflux vs ELISIO.||||=0.222
90988534|NCT02433210|181862253|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.162|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 3 Clearances of phosphate Revaclear vs ELISIO.||||=0.162
90988535|NCT02433210|181862253|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the difference was considered significant at the p\<0.05 level.|t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 3 Clearance of beta 2 microglobulin Optiflux vs Revaclear.||||<0.001
90988536|NCT02433210|181862253|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.025||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the difference was considered significant at the p\<0.05 level.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 3 Clearances of beta 2 microglobulin Optiflux vs ELISIO.||||=0.025
90988537|NCT02433210|181862253|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.903|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 3 Clearance of beta 2 microglobulin Revaclear vs ELISIO.||||=0.903
90988538|NCT02433210|181862253|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.003||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the difference was considered significant at the p\<0.05 level.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 3 Clearances of myoglobin Optiflux vs Revaclear.||||=0.003
90988539|NCT02433210|181862253|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the difference was considered significant at the p\<0.05 level.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 3 Clearance of myoglobin Optiflux vs ELISIO.||||<0.001
90988540|NCT02433210|181862253|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.472|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 3 Clearance of myoglobin Revaclear vs ELISIO.||||=0.472
90988541|NCT02433210|181862254|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.216||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the difference was considered significant at the p\<0.05 level.|t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.216
90988542|NCT02433210|181862254|SUPERIORITY|No significant difference|||||=|0.216||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the difference was considered significant at the p\<0.05 level.|t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.216
90988543|NCT02433210|181862254|SUPERIORITY|No significant difference|||||=|0.952||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the difference was considered significant at the p\<0.05 level.|t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.952
90988544|NCT02433210|181862254|SUPERIORITY|No Significant difference|||||=|0.714||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the difference was considered significant at the p\<0.05 level.|t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.714
91042235|NCT00494013|181969682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.074||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Country + Baseline HbA1c + Baseline Sulfonylurea Group + Change in HbA1c from Baseline.||||||0.074
91042236|NCT00494013|181969683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.039||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Country + Baseline HbA1c + Baseline Sulfonylurea Group + Change in HbA1c from Baseline.||||||0.039
91042237|NCT00494013|181969684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.026
91042238|NCT00834613|181969691|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|103.45||||||90.0|99.87|107.15|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||107.15|99.87|
90988545|NCT02433210|181862254|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.156||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the difference was considered significant at the p\<0.05 level.|t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.156
90988546|NCT02433210|181862254|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.427||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the difference was considered significant at the p\<0.05 level.|t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.427
90988547|NCT02433210|181862254|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.487||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the difference was considered significant at the p\<0.05 level.|t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||No significant difference||||=0.487
90988548|NCT02433210|181862254|SUPERIORITY|Failed normality test|||||=|0.111||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the difference was considered significant at the p\<0.05 level.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|The difference in the median values between the two groups is not \> enough to exclude that the difference is due to random sampling variability||No significant difference||||=0.111
90988549|NCT02433210|181862254|SUPERIORITY|Failed normality test|||||=|0.198||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the difference was considered significant at the p\<0.05 level.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||No significant difference||||=0.198
90988550|NCT02433210|181862254|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.007||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the difference was considered significant at the p\<0.05 level.|t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Showed a significant difference||||=0.007
90988551|NCT02433210|181862254|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.202||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the difference was considered significant at the p\<0.05 level.|t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||No significant difference||||=0.202
90988552|NCT02433210|181862254|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.54||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the difference was considered significant at the p\<0.05 level.|t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||No significant difference||||=0.540
90988553|NCT02433210|181862255|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.204|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||=0.204
90988554|NCT02433210|181862255|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.234|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||=0.234
90988555|NCT02433210|181862255|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.015||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the difference was considered significant at the \<0.050 level.|t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either then the non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank Sum Test was used.||||||=0.015
90988556|NCT02433210|181862255|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.413||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the difference was considered significant at the p\<0.05 level.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.413
91042239|NCT00834613|181969692|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|97.63||||||90.0|95.21|100.11|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||100.11|95.21|
91042240|NCT00834613|181969693|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|97.63||||||90.0|95.22|100.1|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||100.1|95.22|
91042241|NCT05186415|181969740|OTHER||Intraclass coefficient|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Intraclass coefficient using a two-way mixed effects model|Measurements of right ventricular end-diastolic volumes were compared between two groups using an intraclass coefficient||||
90988557|NCT02433210|181862255|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.314||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the difference was considered significant at the p\<0.05 level.|t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.314
91042242|NCT05186415|181969740|OTHER||Intraclass coefficient|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Intraclass coefficient using a two-way mixed effects model|Measurements of right ventricular end-diastolic volumes were compared between two groups using an intraclass coefficient||||
91042243|NCT05186415|181969740|OTHER||Intraclass coefficient|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Intraclass coefficient using a two-way mixed effects model|Measurements of right ventricular end-systolic volumes were compared between two groups using an intraclass coefficient||||
91042244|NCT05186415|181969740|OTHER||Intraclass coefficient|0.685|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Intraclass coefficient using a two-way mixed effects model|Measurements of right ventricular end-systolic volumes were compared between two groups using an intraclass coefficient||||
91042245|NCT05186415|181969741|OTHER||Intraclass Coefficient|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Intraclass coefficient using a two-way mixed effects model|Measurements of right ventricular ejection fraction were compared between non-contrast echocardiogram and cardiac MRI using an intraclass coefficient||||
90988558|NCT02433210|181862255|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.769||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the difference was considered significant at the p\<0.05 level.|t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.769
90988559|NCT02433210|181862256|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.376|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.376
90988560|NCT02433210|181862256|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the difference was considered significant at the p\<0.05 level.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||1.000
90988561|NCT02433210|181862256|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.713|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||0.713
90988562|NCT02433210|181862256|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.424|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.424
90988563|NCT02433210|181862256|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.23|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.230
90988564|NCT02433210|181862256|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.678|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.678
90988565|NCT02433210|181862256|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.643|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.643
90988566|NCT02433210|181862256|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.43|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.430
90988567|NCT02433210|181862256|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.295|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.295
90988568|NCT02433210|181862256|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.723|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.723
90988569|NCT02433210|181862256|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.749|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.749
90988570|NCT02433210|181862256|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.967|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.967
90988571|NCT02433210|181862257|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.67|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.670
90988572|NCT02433210|181862257|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.993|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.993
90988573|NCT02433210|181862257|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.65|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.650
90988574|NCT02433210|181862257|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.299|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.299
91042246|NCT05186415|181969741|OTHER||Intraclass coefficient|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Intraclass coefficient using a two-way mixed effects model|Measurements of right ventricular ejection fraction were compared between contrast echocardiogram and cardiac MRI using an intraclass coefficient||||
91042247|NCT05186415|181969743|OTHER|Intraclass coefficient used to assess agreement between non-contrast echocardiographic values and cardiac MRI global longitudinal strain|Intraclass coefficient|0.419|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Intraclass coefficient using a two-way mixed effects model|||||
91042248|NCT05186415|181969743|OTHER|Intraclass coefficient used to assess agreement between contrast echocardiographic values and cardiac MRI global longitudinal strain|Intraclass coefficient|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Intraclass coefficient using a two-way mixed effects model|||||
90953322|NCT03843554|181784201|SUPERIORITY|OMDP-STANDARD|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0569|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116||0.6263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1755|0.2893||A Week 8 general linear mixed effects model (GLM) was used to compare the change in saliva flow rate from Baseline (day 0) to week 8 (day 56) between the two groups. The change was calculated by subtracting week 8 saliva flow rate from the Baseline.|ANCOVA||Estimation of the difference in least-square means for the change from Baseline to FIV in saliva flow rate.|||0.2893|-0.1755|0.6263
90953323|NCT03843554|181784202|SUPERIORITY|OMDP-STANDARD|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.94||||0.6956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|A Week 8 (Day 56) GLM analyzing the pain change Week 8 relative to Baseline (Day 0) was used with treatment and Baseline pain as covariates.|Difference in least-square mean change from baseline to Visit 9 in pain score.|||||0.6956
90953324|NCT03843554|181784203|SUPERIORITY|OMDP-STANDARD|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.188|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.113||0.1153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4095|0.0334|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA via generalized linear mixed repeated measures model (GLMER)||The statistical analysis comprised an ANCOVA for a longitudinal response based on a generalized linear mixed effects repeated measures model (GLMER). The response variable is the mean change from Baseline to Visit 9 in EORTC QLQ-C30 Questions 31-48 (total).||0.0334|-0.4095|0.1153
90953325|NCT01531673|181784267|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|4.77||||0.0647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|9.84|||Mixed-effect repeated measure (MMRM)|||||9.84|-0.3|0.0647
90988575|NCT02433210|181862257|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.659|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.659
90988576|NCT02433210|181862257|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.176|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.176
90988577|NCT02433210|181862257|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.853|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.853
90988578|NCT02433210|181862257|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.494|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.494
90988579|NCT02433210|181862257|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.631|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.631
90988580|NCT02433210|181862257|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.37|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.370
90953326|NCT01531673|181784267|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.91||||0.1686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|1.68|||MMRM|||||1.68|-9.5|0.1686
90953327|NCT01531673|181784267|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.2||||0.0348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|-0.31|||MMRM|||||-0.31|-8.1|0.0348
90953328|NCT01531673|181784267|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-19.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.57|-14.59|||MMRM|||||-14.59|-24.57|<0.0001
90953329|NCT01531673|181784267|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.14||||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.03|-1.25|||MMRM|||||-1.25|-9.03|0.0101
90953330|NCT01531673|181784267|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.19||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.16|-1.21|||MMRM|||||-1.21|-9.16|0.011
90953331|NCT01531673|181784267|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.6||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.38|-4.82|||MMRM|||||-4.82|-14.38|0.0001
90953332|NCT01531673|181784267|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.77||||0.3745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.71|2.17|||MMRM|||||2.17|-5.71|0.3745
90953333|NCT01531673|181784268|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.7||||0.0357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.94|-0.46|||MMRM|||||-0.46|-12.94|0.0357
90953334|NCT01531673|181784269|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-17.2||||0.0238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.75|-2.65|||MMRM|||||-2.65|-31.75|0.0238
90953335|NCT02385240|181784284|EQUIVALENCE|provides 85% power of success|Equivalence ratio|1.034|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.52|10.72|||Wald's method|||||10.72|-7.52|
90953336|NCT02385240|181784285|EQUIVALENCE|provides 85% power of success|Equivalence ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.94|11.33|||Wald's method|||||11.33|-6.94|
90953337|NCT02385240|181784286|EQUIVALENCE|provides 85% power of success|Equivalence ratio|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.77|15.46|||Wald's method|||||15.46|-1.77|
90953338|NCT01014208|181784287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.42||p-value from stratified log-rank test are adjusted for stratification factors.|Stratified Log-rank test||The Pike estimator was the statistical method used to estimate the hazard ratio.|||1.42|0.89|0.333
90988581|NCT02433210|181862257|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.95|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.950
90988582|NCT02433210|181862257|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.377|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.377
90988583|NCT02433210|181862258|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.534|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.534
90988584|NCT02433210|181862258|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.578|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.578
90988585|NCT02433210|181862258|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.225|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.225
90988586|NCT02433210|181862258|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.125|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.125
90988587|NCT02433210|181862258|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.466|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.466
90988588|NCT02433210|181862258|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.534|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.534
90988589|NCT02433210|181862258|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.584|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.584
90988590|NCT02433210|181862258|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.981|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.981
90988591|NCT02433210|181862258|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.568|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.568
90988592|NCT02433210|181862258|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.24|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.240
90988593|NCT02433210|181862258|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.724|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.724
90988594|NCT02433210|181862258|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.445|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.445
90988595|NCT02433210|181862259|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.114|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.114
90988596|NCT02433210|181862259|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.292|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.292
90988597|NCT02433210|181862259|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.714|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.714
90988598|NCT02433210|181862259|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.176|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.176
90988599|NCT02433210|181862259|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.19|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.190
90988600|NCT02433210|181862259|SUPERIORITY|||||||-0.009|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||-0.009
90988601|NCT02433210|181862259|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.911|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.911
90988602|NCT02433210|181862259|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.388|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.388
90988603|NCT02433210|181862259|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.337|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.337
90988604|NCT02433210|181862259|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.575|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.575
90988605|NCT02433210|181862259|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.88|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.880
90988606|NCT02433210|181862259|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.731|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.731
90988607|NCT00051558|181862292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||All comparisons were conducted using a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Change in BMD=treatment+region+prior bisphosponate use+gender. Least Squares Means from treatment.||This is a last observation carried forward analysis that included all patients with a baseline and at least one postbaseline lumbar spine bone mineral density (BMD) measurement.||||<0.001
90988608|NCT00051558|181862293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||All comparisons were conducted using a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Change in BMD=treatment+region+prior bisphosponate use. Least Squares Means from treatment.||This is a last observation carried forward analysis that included all patients with a baseline and at least one postbaseline lumbar spine bone mineral density (BMD) measurement.||||<0.001
90988609|NCT00051558|181862294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.058||95.0||||P-value for Month 3|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Means obtained from the treatment\*visit interaction term from the above mixed model repeated measures model.||Mixed Model Repeated Measures: Change in BMD=treatment+region+prior bisphosphonate use+gender+baseline BMD+visit+treatment\*visit.||||0.058
90953339|NCT01014208|181784288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.4053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.24||p-value for the test of Odds Ratio being 1.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||For Category title- Independent reviewer-assessed OR|||1.24|0.56|0.4053
90953340|NCT01014208|181784288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.66||||0.1167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.1||p-value for the test of Odds Ratio being 1.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||For Category title- Independent reviewer-assessed CR|||1.10|0.39|0.1167
90988610|NCT00051558|181862294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for 6 months|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Means obtained from the treatment\*visit interaction term from the above mixed model repeated measures model.||Mixed Model Repeated Measures: Change in BMD=treatment+region+prior bisphosphonate use+gender+baseline BMD+visit+treatment\*visit.||||<0.001
90953341|NCT01014208|181784289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.8209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|2.43||p-value for the test of Odds Ratio being 1.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||For Category title- Independent reviewer-assessed OR|||2.43|0.55|0.8209
90953342|NCT01014208|181784289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.6313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.43||p-value for the test of Odds Ratio being 1.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||For Category title- Independent reviewer-assessed CR|||2.43|0.62|0.6313
90988611|NCT00051558|181862294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for 12 months|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Means obtained from the treatment\*visit interaction term from the above mixed model repeated measures model.||Mixed Model Repeated Measures: Change in BMD=treatment+region+prior bisphosphonate use+gender+baseline BMD+visit+treatment\*visit.||||<0.001
90988612|NCT00051558|181862294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for 18 months|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Means obtained from the treatment\*visit interaction term from the above mixed model repeated measures model.||Mixed Model Repeated Measures: Change in BMD=treatment+region+prior bisphosphonate use+gender+baseline BMD+visit+treatment\*visit.||||<0.001
90988613|NCT00051558|181862294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for 24 months|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Means obtained from the treatment\*visit interaction term from the above mixed model repeated measures model.||Mixed Model Repeated Measures: Change in BMD=treatment+region+prior bisphosphonate use+gender+baseline BMD+visit+treatment\*visit.||||<0.001
90953343|NCT01014208|181784290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.36||p-value from stratified log-rank test are adjusted for stratification factors.|Stratified log-rank test||Confidence Interval estimated using the Brookmeyer-Crowley method. HR are estimated using Pike estimator. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower probability of recovery with Ofatumumab compared to Rituximab. HR was adjusted for stratification factors.|||1.36|0.90|0.346
90953344|NCT01014208|181784291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.15||p-value from stratified log-rank test are adjusted for stratification factors.|Stratified log-rank test||Confidence Interval estimated using the Brookmeyer-Crowley method. HR are estimated using Pike estimator. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower probability of recovery with Ofatumumab compared to Rituximab. HR was adjusted for stratification factors.|||1.15|0.70|0.377
90953345|NCT01014208|181784292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.57||||0.1161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|9.5||p-value for the test of Odds Ratio being 1.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||9.50|0.83|0.1161
90953346|NCT01014208|181784293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.4481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.27||p-value for the test of Odds Ratio being 1.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Statistics are presented for Completion rate|||1.27|0.56|0.4481
90953347|NCT01014208|181784294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|2.17|||ANCOVA|||||2.170|-2.110|0.978
90953348|NCT01014208|181784295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.129||||0.387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.434|3.691|||ANCOVA|||||3.691|-1.434|0.387
90953349|NCT01014208|181784296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.16||p-value from stratified log-rank test are adjusted for stratification factors.|Stratified Log-Rank|||Statistics are presented for Category-Neutrophils, Cycle 1. Confidence Interval (CI) estimated using the Brookmeyer-Crowley method. HR are estimated using the Pike estimator. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower probability of recovery with Ofatumumab compared to Rituximab. HR was adjusted for stratification factors.||1.16|0.74|0.479
90953350|NCT01014208|181784296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.02||p-value from stratified log-rank test are adjusted for stratification factors.|Stratified Log-Rank|||Statistics are presented for Category-Neutrophils, Cycle 2. Confidence Interval (CI) estimated using the Brookmeyer-Crowley method. HR are estimated using the Pike estimator. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower probability of recovery with Ofatumumab compared to Rituximab. HR was adjusted for stratification factors.||1.02|0.64|0.059
90988614|NCT00051558|181862294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for 36 months|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Means obtained from the treatment\*visit interaction term from the above mixed model repeated measures model.||Mixed Model Repeated Measures: Change in BMD=treatment+region+prior bisphosphonate use+gender+baseline BMD+visit+treatment\*visit.||||<0.001
90988615|NCT00051558|181862295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12||95.0||||P-value for 3 Months|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Means obtained from the treatment\*visit interaction term from the above mixed model repeated measures model.||Mixed Model Repeated Measures: Change in BMD=treatment+region+prior bisphosphonate use+gender+baseline BMD+visit+treatment\*visit.||||0.120
90988616|NCT00051558|181862295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for 6 months|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Means obtained from the treatment\*visit interaction term from the above mixed model repeated measures model.||Mixed Model Repeated Measures: Change in BMD=treatment+region+prior bisphosphonate use+gender+baseline BMD+visit+treatment\*visit.||||<0.001
90988617|NCT00051558|181862295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for 12 months|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Means obtained from the treatment\*visit interaction term from the above mixed model repeated measures model.||Mixed Model Repeated Measures: Change in BMD=treatment+region+prior bisphosphonate use+gender+baseline BMD+visit+treatment\*visit.||||<0.001
90988618|NCT00051558|181862295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for 18 months|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Means obtained from the treatment\*visit interaction term from the above mixed model repeated measures model.||Mixed Model Repeated Measures: Change in BMD=treatment+region+prior bisphosphonate use+gender+baseline BMD+visit+treatment\*visit.||||<0.001
90988619|NCT00051558|181862296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value for 36 month endpoint|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Change in BMD=treatment+region+prior bisphosponate use+gender. Least Squares Means from treatment.||This is a last observation carried forward analysis that included all patients with a baseline and at least one postbaseline lumbar spine bone mineral density (BMD) measurement.||||<0.001
90988620|NCT00051558|181862296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value for 36 months|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Means obtained from the treatment\*visit interaction term from the above mixed model repeated measures model.||Mixed Model Repeated Measures: Change in BMD=treatment+region+prior bisphosphonate use+gender+baseline BMD+visit+treatment\*visit.||||<0.001
90988621|NCT00051558|181862296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for 24 months|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Means obtained from the treatment\*visit interaction term from the above mixed model repeated measures model.||Mixed Model Repeated Measures: Change in BMD=treatment+region+prior bisphosphonate use+gender+baseline BMD+visit+treatment\*visit.||||<0.001
90988622|NCT00051558|181862297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for 36-month endpoint|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Change in BMD=treatment+region+prior bisphosponate use+gender. Least Squares Means from treatment.||This is a last observation carried forward analysis that included all patients with a baseline and at least one postbaseline femoral neck bone mineral density (BMD) measurement.||||<0.001
90988623|NCT00051558|181862297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for 36 months|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Means obtained from the treatment\*visit interaction term from the above mixed model repeated measures model.||Mixed Model Repeated Measures: Change in BMD=treatment+region+prior bisphosphonate use+gender+baseline BMD+visit+treatment\*visit.||||<0.001
90988624|NCT00051558|181862297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-value for 24 months|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Means obtained from the treatment\*visit interaction term from the above mixed model repeated measures model.||Mixed Model Repeated Measures: Change in BMD=treatment+region+prior bisphosphonate use+gender+baseline BMD+visit+treatment\*visit.||||0.002
90988625|NCT00051558|181862297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011||95.0||||P-value for 18 month endpoint|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Change in BMD=treatment+region+prior bisphosponate use+gender. Least Squares Means from treatment.||This is a last observation carried forward analysis that included all patients with a baseline and at least one postbaseline femoral neck bone mineral density (BMD) measurement.||||0.011
90988626|NCT00051558|181862297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015||95.0||||P-value for 18 months|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Means obtained from the treatment\*visit interaction term from the above mixed model repeated measures model.||Mixed Model Repeated Measures: Change in BMD=treatment+region+prior bisphosphonate use+gender+baseline BMD+visit+treatment\*visit.||||0.015
90988627|NCT00051558|181862298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for 36 month endpoint|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Change in BMD=treatment+region+prior bisphosponate use+gender. Least Squares Means from treatment.||This is a last observation carried forward analysis that included all patients with a baseline and at least one postbaseline total hip bone mineral density (BMD) measurement.||||<0.001
90988628|NCT00051558|181862298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for 36 months|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Means obtained from the treatment\*visit interaction term from the above mixed model repeated measures model.||Mixed Model Repeated Measures: Change in BMD=treatment+region+prior bisphosphonate use+gender+baseline BMD+visit+treatment\*visit.||||<0.001
90988629|NCT00051558|181862298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for 24 months|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Means obtained from the treatment\*visit interaction term from the above mixed model repeated measures model.||Mixed Model Repeated Measures: Change in BMD=treatment+region+prior bisphosphonate use+gender+baseline BMD+visit+treatment\*visit.||||<0.001
90988630|NCT00051558|181862298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0||||P-value for 18 month endpoint|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Change in BMD=treatment+region+prior bisphosponate use+gender. Least Squares Means from treatment.||This is a last observation carried forward analysis that included all patients with a baseline and at least one postbaseline total hip bone mineral density (BMD) measurement.||||0.006
90988631|NCT00051558|181862298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0||||P-value for 18 months|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Means obtained from the treatment\*visit interaction term from the above mixed model repeated measures model.||Mixed Model Repeated Measures: Change in BMD=treatment+region+prior bisphosphonate use+gender+baseline BMD+visit+treatment\*visit.||||0.009
90988632|NCT00051558|181862299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for 12 months|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Means obtained from the treatment\*visit interaction term from the above mixed model repeated measures model.||Mixed Model Repeated Measures: Change in BMD=treatment+region+prior bisphosphonate use+gender+baseline BMD+visit+treatment\*visit.||||<0.001
90988633|NCT00051558|181862299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015||95.0||||P-value for 18 months|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Means obtained from the treatment\*visit interaction term from the above mixed model repeated measures model.||Mixed Model Repeated Measures: Change in BMD=treatment+region+prior bisphosphonate use+gender+baseline BMD+visit+treatment\*visit.||||0.015
90988634|NCT00051558|181862299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-value for 24 months|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Means obtained from the treatment\*visit interaction term from the above mixed model repeated measures model.||Mixed Model Repeated Measures: Change in BMD=treatment+region+prior bisphosphonate use+gender+baseline BMD+visit+treatment\*visit.||||0.002
90988635|NCT00051558|181862299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for 36 months|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Means obtained from the treatment\*visit interaction term from the above mixed model repeated measures model.||Mixed Model Repeated Measures: Change in BMD=treatment+region+prior bisphosphonate use+gender+baseline BMD+visit+treatment\*visit.||||<0.001
90988636|NCT00051558|181862300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011||95.0||||P-value for 12 months|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Means obtained from the treatment\*visit interaction term from the above mixed model repeated measures model.||Mixed Model Repeated Measures: Change in BMD=treatment+region+prior bisphosphonate use+gender+baseline BMD+visit+treatment\*visit.||||0.011
90988637|NCT00051558|181862300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0||||P-value for 18 months|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Means obtained from the treatment\*visit interaction term from the above mixed model repeated measures model.||Mixed Model Repeated Measures: Change in BMD=treatment+region+prior bisphosphonate use+gender+baseline BMD+visit+treatment\*visit.||||0.009
90988638|NCT00051558|181862300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for 24 months|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Means obtained from the treatment\*visit interaction term from the above mixed model repeated measures model.||Mixed Model Repeated Measures: Change in BMD=treatment+region+prior bisphosphonate use+gender+baseline BMD+visit+treatment\*visit.||||<0.001
90988639|NCT00051558|181862300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for 36 months|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Means obtained from the treatment\*visit interaction term from the above mixed model repeated measures model.||Mixed Model Repeated Measures: Change in BMD=treatment+region+prior bisphosphonate use+gender+baseline BMD+visit+treatment\*visit.||||<0.001
90988640|NCT00051558|181862301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Month 1|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test using the aligned ranks for scores.||||||<0.001
90988641|NCT00051558|181862301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Month 6|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test using the aligned ranks for scores.||||||<0.001
90988642|NCT00051558|181862301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Month 18|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test using the aligned ranks for scores.||||||<0.001
90988643|NCT00051558|181862301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Month 36|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test using the aligned ranks for scores.||||||<0.001
90988644|NCT00051558|181862302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Month 1|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test using the aligned ranks for scores.||||||<0.001
90988645|NCT00051558|181862302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Month 6|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test using the aligned ranks for scores.||||||<0.001
90988646|NCT00051558|181862302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0||||P-value for Month 18|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test using the aligned ranks for scores.||||||0.004
90988647|NCT00051558|181862302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013||95.0||||P-value for Month 36|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test using the aligned ranks for scores.||||||0.013
90988648|NCT00051558|181862303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Month 1|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test using the aligned ranks for scores.||||||<0.001
90988649|NCT00051558|181862303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Month 6|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test using the aligned ranks for scores.||||||<0.001
90988650|NCT00051558|181862303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Month 18|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test using the aligned ranks for scores.||||||<0.001
90988651|NCT00051558|181862303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Month 36|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test using the aligned ranks for scores.||||||<0.001
90988652|NCT00051558|181862304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Month 1|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test using the aligned ranks for scores.||||||<0.001
90988653|NCT00051558|181862304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Month 6|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test using the aligned ranks for scores.||||||<0.001
90988654|NCT00051558|181862304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Month 18|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test using the aligned ranks for scores.||||||<0.001
90988655|NCT00051558|181862304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Month 36|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test using the aligned ranks for scores.||||||<0.001
90988656|NCT00051558|181862305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Month 1|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test using the aligned ranks for scores.||||||<0.001
90988657|NCT00051558|181862305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value at Month 6|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test using the aligned ranks for scores.||||||<0.001
90988658|NCT00051558|181862305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value at Month 18|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test using the aligned ranks for scores.||||||<0.001
90988659|NCT00051558|181862305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value at Month 36|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test using the aligned ranks for scores.||||||<0.001
90988660|NCT00051558|181862306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.212||95.0||||p-value for Any Fracture|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.212
90988661|NCT00051558|181862306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.843||95.0||||p-value for Nonvertebral Fracture|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.843
90988662|NCT00051558|181862306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0||||p-value for Vertebral Fracture|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.007
90988663|NCT00051558|181862306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.037||95.0||||p-value for Clinical Vertebral Fracture|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.037
90988664|NCT00051558|181862306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.256||95.0||||p-value for Nonvertebral Fragility Fracture|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.256
90988665|NCT02163993|181862312|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.57|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.42|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.24|||Bayesian Dose Response Model|||||0.24|-1.40|
90988666|NCT02163993|181862312|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.41|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|0.56|||Bayesian Dose Response Model|||||0.56|-1.06|
90988667|NCT02163993|181862312|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-1.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.44|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|-0.29|||Bayesian Dose Response Model|||||-0.29|-2.02|
90988668|NCT02163993|181862312|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.62|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.45|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.27|||Bayesian Dose Response Model|||||0.27|-1.50|
90988669|NCT01808118|181862325|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||2-sided Pearson's chi-square test|Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
90988670|NCT01808118|181862344|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||The statistical test was performed at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05. Time to flare analysis showed statistically significant lower risk of flare in the adalimumab group than in the placebo group.||||<0.001
90988671|NCT02369835|181862359|OTHER|||||||0.8872|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.8872
90988672|NCT01984346|181862380|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|16.7||||0.0472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|33.2||A prior threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|Chi-square test|||||33.2|0.1|0.0472
90988673|NCT02042404|181862395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||repeated measures ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
90988674|NCT02042404|181862396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||repeated measures ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
90988675|NCT02042404|181862397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||repeated measures ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
90988676|NCT02042404|181862398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0281|TWO_SIDED||||||repeated measures ANOVA|||||||0.0281
90988677|NCT03100942|181862400|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|15.6||||0.1597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|37.6||P-values were obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by randomization stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||For the analysis of the difference in response rates, the data with missing response values were imputed by multiple imputation method with logistic regression.|||37.6|-6.3|0.1597
90988678|NCT03100942|181862400|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|16.6||||0.1694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|38.3||P-values were obtained from CMH test stratified by randomization stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||For the analysis of the difference in response rates, the data with missing response values were imputed by multiple imputation method with logistic regression.|||38.3|-5.1|0.1694
90988679|NCT03100942|181862400|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|8.1||||0.3309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|29.4||P-values were obtained from CMH test stratified by randomization stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||For the analysis of the difference in response rates, the data with missing response values were imputed by multiple imputation method with logistic regression.|||29.4|-13.2|0.3309
90988680|NCT03100942|181862401|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.2066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|3.4|||MMRM|||Least Squares (LS) Means, 95% confidence interval (CI), and P-values were obtained from Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) with the terms for baseline value, treatment, stratification factors, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||3.4|-0.7|0.2066
90988681|NCT03100942|181862401|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.3998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|1.2|||MMRM|||LS Means, 95% CI, and P-values were obtained from MMRM with the terms for baseline value, treatment, stratification factors, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||1.2|-2.9|0.3998
90988682|NCT03100942|181862401|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.5113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|2.7|||MMRM|||LS Means, 95% CI, and P-values were obtained from MMRM with the terms for baseline value, treatment, stratification factors, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||2.7|-1.4|0.5113
90988683|NCT03100942|181862402|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.9446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.0|||MMRM|||LS Means, 95% CI, and P-values were obtained from MMRM with the terms for baseline value, treatment, stratification factors, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||1.0|-0.9|0.9446
90988684|NCT03100942|181862402|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.3977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.5|||MMRM|||LS Means, 95% CI, and P-values were obtained from MMRM with the terms for baseline value, treatment, stratification factors, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||0.5|-1.3|0.3977
90988685|NCT03100942|181862402|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.4966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.6|||MMRM|||LS Means, 95% CI, and P-values were obtained from MMRM with the terms for baseline value, treatment, stratification factors, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||0.6|-1.2|0.4966
91042249|NCT03403439|181969744|OTHER||Geometric Mean (T/R) ratio (%)|222.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|203.47|242.49|||||To get, gMean ratio (T/R) and confidence interval, least square estimates of log-transformed PK endpoint for T and R were back transformed to original scale. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variance (%) = 14.2.|The analysis of variance (ANOVA) model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'subject' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subject' was considered as random, whereas the effect 'treatment' was considered as fixed. No hypothesis was tested and no acceptance range was specified.||242.49|203.47|
90988686|NCT03100942|181862403|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.9564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|2.1|||MMRM|||LS Means, 95% CI, and P-values were obtained from MMRM with the terms for baseline value, treatment, stratification factors, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||2.1|-2.2|0.9564
90988687|NCT03100942|181862403|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.07||0.2788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|0.9|||MMRM|||LS Means, 95% CI, and P-values were obtained from MMRM with the terms for baseline value, treatment, stratification factors, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||0.9|-3.3|0.2788
90988688|NCT03100942|181862403|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06||0.8047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|2.3|||MMRM|||LS Means, 95% CI, and P-values were obtained from MMRM with the terms for baseline value, treatment, stratification factors, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||2.3|-1.8|0.8047
90988689|NCT03100942|181862404|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.6782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.7|||MMRM|||LS Means, 95% CI, and P-values were obtained from MMRM with the terms for baseline value, treatment, stratification factors, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||0.7|-1.1|0.6782
90988690|NCT03100942|181862404|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.9171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.9|||MMRM|||LS Means, 95% CI, and P-values were obtained from MMRM with the terms for baseline value, treatment, stratification factors, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||0.9|-0.8|0.9171
90988691|NCT03100942|181862404|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.4641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.5|||MMRM|||LS Means, 95% CI, and P-values were obtained from MMRM with the terms for baseline value, treatment, stratification factors, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||0.5|-1.2|0.4641
90988692|NCT01876732|181862415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047||||||"P- value for social function"|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.047
90988693|NCT01876732|181862415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.688||||||"P- value of  symptom/problem list "|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.688
90988694|NCT01876732|181862415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.772||||||"P- value of  effects of kidney disease "|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.772
90988695|NCT01876732|181862415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.301||||||"P-value of  burden of kidney disease "|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.301
90988696|NCT01876732|181862415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25||||||"P-value of  work status "|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.250
90988697|NCT01876732|181862415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.895||||||"P-value of  cognitive function "|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.895
90988698|NCT01876732|181862415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.281||||||"P-value of  quality of social interaction "|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.281
90988699|NCT01876732|181862415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||"P-value of  sleep "|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||1.00
90988700|NCT01876732|181862415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||"P-value of  social support "|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||1.00
90988701|NCT01876732|181862415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.943||||||"P-value of  dialysis staff encouragement "|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.943
90988702|NCT01876732|181862415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||"P-value of  overall health "|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||1.00
90988703|NCT01876732|181862415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09||||||"P-value of  patient satisfaction "|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.090
90988704|NCT01876732|181862415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.391||||||"P-value of  physical functioning "|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.391
90988705|NCT01876732|181862415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.438||||||"P-value of  role-physical "|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.438
90988706|NCT01876732|181862415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.424||||||"P-value of  pain "|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.424
90988707|NCT01876732|181862415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.169||||||"P-value of  general health "|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.169
90988708|NCT01876732|181862415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.858||||||"P-value of  emotional well-being "|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.858
90988709|NCT01876732|181862415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.156||||||"P-value of  role-emotional "|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.156
91042250|NCT03403439|181969745|OTHER||Geometric Mean (T/R) ratio (%)|127.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|117.65|139.17|||||To get, gMean ratio (T/R) and confidence interval, least square estimates of log-transformed PK endpoint for T and R were back transformed to original scale. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variance (%) = 13.6.|The analysis of variance (ANOVA) model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'subject' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subject' was considered as random, whereas the effect 'treatment' was considered as fixed. No hypothesis was tested and no acceptance range was specified.||139.17|117.65|
91042251|NCT03403439|181969746|OTHER||Geometric Mean (T/R) ratio (%)|229.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|207.82|252.93|||||To get, gMean ratio (T/R) and confidence interval, least square estimates of log-transformed PK endpoint for T and R were back transformed to original scale. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variance (%) = 15.9.|The analysis of variance (ANOVA) model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'subject' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subject' was considered as random, whereas the effect 'treatment' was considered as fixed. No hypothesis was tested and no acceptance range was specified.||252.93|207.82|
91042252|NCT02293460|181969748|SUPERIORITY|The response rate was tested against the historical response rate of 33.3%.|Responder rate|76.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.5|87.9||One-sided test at nominal level of significance alpha = 2.5 %|exact binomial Clopper-Pearson|||"For this single-arm study, the response rate was tested against the historical response rate of 33.3% with a 1-sided Clopper-Pearson exact test at the nominal level of significance of 2.5% on the Full Analysis Set. The null and alternative hypotheses were as follows:~H0: pI10E \<= 33.3% H1: pI10E \> 33.3%"||87.9|60.5|<0.0001
90988710|NCT01876732|181862415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.084||||||"P-value of  energy/fatigue "|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.084
90988711|NCT01876732|181862415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.583||||||"P-value of  SF-12 physical composite "|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.583
90988712|NCT01876732|181862415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.358||||||"p-value of  SF-12 mental composite "|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.358
90988713|NCT04184622|181862438|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference (Net)|-13.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|-12.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-12.5|-14.6|<0.001
90988714|NCT04184622|181862438|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Net)|-18.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|-17.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-17.8|-20.0|<0.001
90988715|NCT04184622|181862438|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Net)|-20.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.2|-19.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-19.0|-21.2|<0.001
90988716|NCT04184622|181862439|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|23.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.43|33.02|||Regression, Logistic|||||33.02|17.43|<0.001
90988717|NCT04184622|181862439|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|73.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.98|115.39|||Regression, Logistic|||||115.39|46.98|<0.001
90988718|NCT04184622|181862439|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|75.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.86|119.03|||Regression, Logistic|||||119.03|47.86|<0.001
90988719|NCT04184622|181862440|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Net)|-10.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|-10.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-10.1|-11.2|<0.001
90988720|NCT04184622|181862441|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|19.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.15|25.6|||Regression, Logistic|||||25.60|14.15|<0.001
90988721|NCT04184622|181862441|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|44.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.75|61.45|||Regression, Logistic|||||61.45|31.75|<.001
90988722|NCT04184622|181862441|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|65.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.94|93.77|||Regression, Logistic|||||93.77|45.94|<.001
90988723|NCT04184622|181862442|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|17.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.83|24.66|||Regression, Logistic|||||24.66|11.83|<0.001
90988724|NCT04184622|181862442|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|51.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.42|75.88|||Regression, Logistic|||||75.88|35.42|<0.001
90988725|NCT04184622|181862442|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|66.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.23|98.16|||Regression, Logistic|||||98.16|45.23|<0.001
90988726|NCT04184622|181862443|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|36.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.37|74.22|||Regression, Logistic|||||74.22|18.37|<0.001
90988727|NCT04184622|181862443|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|109.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.5|219.81|||Regression, Logistic|||||219.81|54.50|<0.001
90988728|NCT04184622|181862443|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|150.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|74.85|302.97|||Regression, Logistic|||||302.97|74.85|<0.001
90988729|NCT04184622|181862444|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Net)|-11.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|-10.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-10.0|-12.3|<0.001
91042253|NCT03239496|181969753|NON_INFERIORITY|All non-inferiority comparisons of seroconversion rates will be made utilizing the lower bound of two-sided score-based confidence intervals (α = 0.05) with non-inferiority margin 10%.||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||The group sizes are chosen to provide ≥ 80% power for each of the primary objectives, for the individual statistical tests of each serotype, as well as across both serotypes simultaneously. Power of ≥80% is also available for all secondary objectives, except for the comparison of the f-IPV regimen administered at weeks 14 and 36 to the 3-dose IPV regimen, which has power of 62% for individual serotypes, and 39% for the combined serotypes.||||0.05
91042254|NCT03239496|181969754|NON_INFERIORITY|All non-inferiority comparisons of seroconversion rates will be made utilizing the lower bound of two-sided score-based confidence intervals (α = 0.05) with non-inferiority margin 10%.||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The group sizes are chosen to provide ≥ 80% power for each of the primary objectives, for the individual statistical tests of each serotype, as well as across both serotypes simultaneously. Power of ≥80% is also available for all secondary objectives, except for the comparison of the f-IPV regimen administered at weeks 14 and 36 to the 3-dose IPV regimen, which has power of 62% for individual serotypes, and 39% for the combined serotypes.||||0.05
91042255|NCT03239496|181969755|NON_INFERIORITY|All non-inferiority comparisons of seroconversion rates will be made utilizing the lower bound of two-sided score-based confidence intervals (α = 0.05) with non-inferiority margin 10%.||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The group sizes are chosen to provide ≥ 80% power for each of the primary objectives, for the individual statistical tests of each serotype, as well as across both serotypes simultaneously. Power of ≥80% is also available for all secondary objectives, except for the comparison of the f-IPV regimen administered at weeks 14 and 36 to the 3-dose IPV regimen, which has power of 62% for individual serotypes, and 39% for the combined serotypes.||||0.05
91042256|NCT03239496|181969756|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||The group sizes are chosen to provide ≥ 80% power for each of the primary objectives, for the individual statistical tests of each serotype, as well as across both serotypes simultaneously. Power of ≥80% is also available for all secondary objectives, except for the comparison of the f-IPV regimen administered at weeks 14 and 36 to the 3-dose IPV regimen, which has power of 62% for individual serotypes, and 39% for the combined serotypes.||||0.0001
91042257|NCT03239496|181969757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||The group sizes are chosen to provide ≥ 80% power for each of the primary objectives, for the individual statistical tests of each serotype, as well as across both serotypes simultaneously. Power of ≥80% is also available for all secondary objectives, except for the comparison of the f-IPV regimen administered at weeks 14 and 36 to the 3-dose IPV regimen, which has power of 62% for individual serotypes, and 39% for the combined serotypes.||||0.0001
91042258|NCT03239496|181969758|NON_INFERIORITY|All non-inferiority comparisons of seroconversion rates will be made utilizing the lower bound of two-sided score-based confidence intervals (α = 0.05) with non-inferiority margin 10%.||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The group sizes are chosen to provide ≥ 80% power for each of the primary objectives, for the individual statistical tests of each serotype, as well as across both serotypes simultaneously. Power of ≥80% is also available for all secondary objectives, except for the comparison of the f-IPV regimen administered at weeks 14 and 36 to the 3-dose IPV regimen, which has power of 62% for individual serotypes, and 39% for the combined serotypes.||||0.05
91042259|NCT03239496|181969759|NON_INFERIORITY|All non-inferiority comparisons of seroconversion rates will be made utilizing the lower bound of two-sided score-based confidence intervals (α = 0.05) with non-inferiority margin 10%.||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The group sizes are chosen to provide ≥ 80% power for each of the primary objectives, for the individual statistical tests of each serotype, as well as across both serotypes simultaneously. Power of ≥80% is also available for all secondary objectives, except for the comparison of the f-IPV regimen administered at weeks 14 and 36 to the 3-dose IPV regimen, which has power of 62% for individual serotypes, and 39% for the combined serotypes.||||0.05
91042260|NCT03239496|181969760|NON_INFERIORITY|All non-inferiority comparisons of seroconversion rates will be made utilizing the lower bound of two-sided score-based confidence intervals (α = 0.05) with non-inferiority margin 10%.||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The group sizes are chosen to provide ≥ 80% power for each of the primary objectives, for the individual statistical tests of each serotype, as well as across both serotypes simultaneously. Power of ≥80% is also available for all secondary objectives, except for the comparison of the f-IPV regimen administered at weeks 14 and 36 to the 3-dose IPV regimen, which has power of 62% for individual serotypes, and 39% for the combined serotypes.||||0.05
91042261|NCT02459418|181969774|EQUIVALENCE|The 90% CIs of the ratios of geometric means of log-transformed baseline corrected AUC(0-last) were used to assess bioequivalence between Gonal-f® RFF and AFOLIA using the bioequivalence interval of 80.00% to 125.00%.|Geometric LS Mean Ratio|164.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|137.82|197.45||||||A mixed-effects analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with sequence, treatment and period as fixed effects, and subject nested within sequence as random effect was used. Least squares (LS) means and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for treatment differences on log-scale were obtained and back transformed to provide geometric LS mean ratios of AFOLIA over Gonal-f® RFF.||197.45|137.82|
90988730|NCT04184622|181862444|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Net)|-16.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.2|-14.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-14.9|-17.2|<0.001
90953351|NCT01014208|181784296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.48||p-value from stratified log-rank test are adjusted for stratification factors.|Stratified Log-Rank|||Statistics are presented for Category-Neutrophils, Cycle 3. Confidence Interval (CI) estimated using the Brookmeyer-Crowley method. HR are estimated using the Pike estimator. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower probability of recovery with Ofatumumab compared to Rituximab. HR was adjusted for stratification factors.||1.48|0.83|0.451
90953352|NCT01014208|181784296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.29||p-value from stratified log-rank test are adjusted for stratification factors.|Stratified Log-Rank|||Statistics are presented for Category-Platelets, Cycle 1. Confidence Interval (CI) estimated using the Brookmeyer-Crowley method. HR are estimated using the Pike estimator. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower probability of recovery with Ofatumumab compared to Rituximab. HR was adjusted for stratification factors.||1.29|0.86|0.597
90988731|NCT04184622|181862444|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Net)|-16.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|-15.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-15.4|-17.7|<0.001
90988732|NCT04184622|181862445|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Net)|2.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|2.9|||ANCOVA|||||2.9|1.6|<0.001
90988733|NCT04184622|181862446|SUPERIORITY||Estimate Difference|-22.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.6|-19.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-19.8|-25.6|<0.001
90988734|NCT04184622|181862447|SUPERIORITY||Estimate Difference|-4.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|-3.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.41|-6.40|<0.001
90988735|NCT04184622|181862448|SUPERIORITY||Estimate Difference|7.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.85|9.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.49|5.85|<0.001
90988736|NCT04184622|181862449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Net)|-6.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|-5.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.7|-7.9|<0.001
90988737|NCT04184622|181862450|SUPERIORITY||Estimate Difference|-41.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.9|-37.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-37.3|-44.9|<0.001
90988738|NCT04184622|181862451|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Net)|-13.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.3|-11.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-11.1|-15.3|<.0001
90953353|NCT01014208|181784296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.1||p-value from stratified log-rank test are adjusted for stratification factors.|Stratified Log-Rank|||Statistics are presented for Category-Platelets, Cycle 2. Confidence Interval (CI) estimated using the Brookmeyer-Crowley method. HR are estimated using the Pike estimator. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower probability of recovery with Ofatumumab compared to Rituximab. HR was adjusted for stratification factors.||1.10|0.70|0.199
90953354|NCT01014208|181784296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.21||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.59||p-value from stratified log-rank test are adjusted for stratification factors.|Stratified Log-Rank|||Statistics are presented for Category-Platelets, Cycle 3. Confidence Interval (CI) estimated using the Brookmeyer-Crowley method. HR are estimated using the Pike estimator. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower probability of recovery with Ofatumumab compared to Rituximab. HR was adjusted for stratification factors.||1.59|0.93|0.102
90988739|NCT04184622|181862451|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Net)|-17.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.8|-15.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-15.7|-19.8|<.0001
90988740|NCT04184622|181862451|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Net)|-20.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.8|-18.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-18.6|-22.8|<.0001
90988741|NCT04184622|181862452|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.13|||Regression, Cox|||||0.13|0.03|<0.0001
90988742|NCT04184622|181862453|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.21|||Regression, Cox|||||0.21|0.07|<0.0001
90988743|NCT04184622|181862454|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Net)|-5.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|-4.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.6|-5.5|<0.001
90988744|NCT04184622|181862454|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Net)|-7.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|-6.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-6.8|-7.7|<0.001
90988745|NCT04184622|181862454|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Net)|-7.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|-7.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-7.3|-8.2|<0.001
90988746|NCT04184622|181862455|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Net)|-0.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.30|-0.36|<0.001
90953355|NCT01014208|181784297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.0||p-value from stratified log-rank test are adjusted for stratification factors.|Stratified Log-Rank||Confidence Interval estimated using the Brookmeyer-Crowley method. HR are estimated using Pike estimator. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower probability of recovery with Ofatumumab compared to Rituximab. HR was adjusted for stratification factors.|||1.00|0.36|0.035
90988747|NCT04184622|181862455|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Net)|-0.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.38|-0.45|<0.001
90988748|NCT04184622|181862455|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Net)|-0.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.41|-0.48|<0.001
90988749|NCT04184622|181862456|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Net)|-8.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.97|-7.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-7.20|-9.97|<0.001
90988750|NCT04184622|181862456|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Net)|-10.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.98|-9.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-9.21|-11.98|<0.001
90988751|NCT04184622|181862456|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Net)|-11.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|-10.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-10.30|-12.80|<0.001
90988752|NCT04184622|181862457|SUPERIORITY||Estimate Difference|-6.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.32|-3.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.75|-8.32|<0.001
90988753|NCT04184622|181862458|SUPERIORITY||Estimate Difference|-23.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.1|-20.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-20.4|-26.1|<0.001
90988754|NCT04184622|181862459|SUPERIORITY||Estimate Difference|-11.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.1|-6.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-6.2|-16.1|<0.001
90988755|NCT04184622|181862460|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Net)|-4.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|-3.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.5|-5.0|<0.001
90988756|NCT04184622|181862461|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|29.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.73|50.05|||Regression, Logistic|||||50.05|17.73|<.0001
90988757|NCT04184622|181862461|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|35.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.63|59.53|||Regression, Logistic|||||59.53|20.63|<.0001
90988758|NCT04184622|181862461|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|55.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.61|102.34|||Regression, Logistic|||||102.34|29.61|<.0001
90988759|NCT04184622|181862462|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Net)|7.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.6|9.8|||ANCOVA|||||9.8|5.6|<0.001
90988760|NCT04184622|181862462|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Net)|10.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.6|12.8|||ANCOVA|||||12.8|8.6|<0.001
90988761|NCT04184622|181862462|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Net)|11.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.6|13.8|||ANCOVA|||||13.8|9.6|<0.001
90988762|NCT02795988|181862465|SUPERIORITY||Cox proportional hazard regression model|0.603||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.38|0.957||1-sided p-value was calculated from Log-rank test stratified by factor tumor stage which used for randomization at screening.|Log Rank|||||0.957|0.380|0.078
90988763|NCT01617681|181862493|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.96||0.0096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.86|-2.01|||ANCOVA|||||-2.01|-13.86|0.0096
90988764|NCT01617681|181862493|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.07||0.6531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.07|3.2|||ANCOVA|||||3.20|-5.07|0.6531
90988765|NCT01617681|181862494|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.54||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.94|-2.78|||ANCOVA|||||-2.78|-12.94|0.0030
90988766|NCT01617681|181862494|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.98|-1.77|||ANCOVA|||||-1.77|-8.98|0.0042
90988767|NCT01617681|181862495|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68||||0.411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|5.8|||ANCOVA|||||5.8|0.49|0.411
90988768|NCT01617681|181862495|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.5443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|4.79|||ANCOVA|||||4.79|0.44|0.5443
90988769|NCT01617681|181862496|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.517||||0.2624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.64|||ANCOVA|||||1.64|0.16|0.2624
90988770|NCT01883440|181862511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.037|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model||||||<0.037
90953356|NCT01008410|181784299|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0324||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|||The logistic regression test was used to test for a difference in the percentages between the 2 treatment arms after adjusting for analysis center (country).||||0.0324
90988771|NCT01883440|181862512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.381|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||In the material when all were included, there were a lot of persons with few symptoms in both Groups, which means that a larger study would be needed in order to detect significant differences.||||0.381
90988772|NCT03480282|181862513|OTHER|Because the observations were matched by the patient, we used the Wilcoxon signed-rank test, a nonparametric paired test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||This was a descriptive feasibility study.|This was an exploratory and descriptive study to learn if it was feasible to provide PCPs with their patients (aged 76-89) with information about their 10-year prognosis and engage in shared decision making around stopping screening. We measured among the 90 patients that the 45 PCPs saw whether their intentions to be screened declined after seeing their PCP.|This was a descriptive feasibility study.|||<0.001
90953357|NCT00297427|181784310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
90953358|NCT00297427|181784311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.32
90953359|NCT00297427|181784312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.16
90953360|NCT00297427|181784313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.18
90953361|NCT00297427|181784315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.04
90953362|NCT00297427|181784316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.38
90953363|NCT00297427|181784317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.43
90953364|NCT00297427|181784319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Repeated measures using GEE|||||||0.04
90953365|NCT00297427|181784320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Repeated measures using GEE|||||||0.01
90953366|NCT00297427|181784321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||Repeated measures using GEE|||||||0.41
90953367|NCT00297427|181784322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||||||Bivariate (unadjusted) analysis|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04
90988773|NCT03480282|181862513|OTHER|This was a descriptive feasibility study.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This was a descriptive feasibility study.|Because the observations were matched by the patient, we used the Wilcoxon signed-rank test, a nonparametric paired test|||<0.001
90953368|NCT00297427|181784322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.208||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.039|1.405|||Regression, Logistic||These are the adjusted results of a multivariate logistic regression.|||1.405|1.039|0.014
90953369|NCT00297427|181784323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023||||||This is the result from the bivariate (unadjusted) analysis.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.023
91042262|NCT02459418|181969775|EQUIVALENCE|The 90% CIs of the ratios of geometric means of log-transformed baseline corrected Cmax were used to assess bioequivalence between Gonal-f® RFF and AFOLIA using the bioequivalence interval of 80.00% to 125.00%.|Geometric LS Mean Ratio|123.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|108.12|140.28||||||An ANOVA model with sequence, treatment and period as fixed effects, and subject nested within sequence as random effect was used. LS means and 90% CIs for treatment differences on log-scale were obtained and back-transformed to provide geometric LS mean ratios of AFOLIA over Gonal-f® RFF.||140.28|108.12|
90953370|NCT00297427|181784323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.936||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.881|0.994|||Regression, Logistic||These are the adjusted results from a multivariate logistic regression analysis.|||0.994|0.881|0.030
90953371|NCT00297427|181784324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.64
90953372|NCT00297427|181784325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.78
90953373|NCT00297427|181784327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<.001
90953374|NCT00297427|181784328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.48
90953375|NCT00297427|181784329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.86
90953376|NCT01262677|181784352|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.99||||0.9076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.28|17.11||Statistical testing was done at 95% confidence intervals, two-sided, least square means and their standard errors.|ANCOVA||Value is percent reduction in seizures relative to placebo.|ANCOVA model with the following fixed terms was used to calculate the p-value: loge (baseline 28-day seizure rate + 1) as a coninuous covariate, sites pooled by geographic region (ie, U.S., Europe, Asia, rest of the world), and treatment group (placebo, pregabalin 165 mg controlled-release (CR), pregabalin 330 mg CR). 88 participants in each group (264 total) should have provided approximately 90% power.||17.11|-16.28|0.9076
90953377|NCT01262677|181784352|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-13.05||||0.0907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.07|2.25||Statistical testing was done at 95% confidence intervals, two-sided, least square means and their standard errors.|ANCOVA||Value is percent reduction in seizures relative to placebo.|ANCOVA model with the following fixed terms was used to calculate the p-value: loge (baseline 28-day seizure rate + 1) as a coninuous covariate, sites pooled by geographic region (ie, U.S., Europe, Asia, rest of the world), and treatment group (placebo, pregabalin 165 mg controlled-release (CR), pregabalin 330 mg CR). 88 participants in each group (264 total) should have provided approximately 90% power.||2.25|-26.07|0.0907
90953378|NCT01262677|181784353|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.752||||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by geographical region (U.S., Europe, Asia, or Rest of the World) was used to calculate the p-value. No adjustments for multiplicity were taken.||||0.752
90953379|NCT01262677|181784353|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.125||||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by geographical region (U.S., Europe, Asia, or Rest of the World) was used to calculate the p-value. No adjustments for multiplicity were taken.||||0.125
90953380|NCT01262677|181784354|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.3||||0.5404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.16|20.56||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided.|ANCOVA||Value is percent reduction in seizures relative to placebo.|ANCOVA model was used to calculate the p-value.||20.56|-39.16|0.5404
90953381|NCT01262677|181784354|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-25.84||||0.0786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.64|2.97||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided.|ANCOVA||Value is percent reduction in seizures relative to placebo.|ANCOVA model was used to calculate the p-value.||2.97|-54.64|0.0786
90953382|NCT01262677|181784355|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.11||||0.6073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.31||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided.|Generalized linear model (GLM)|||A generalized linear model accounting for treatment and geographical region as fixed effects and baseline seizure frequency as a covariate was used to calculate the p-value. This generalized linear model assumed that the SGTC seizure frequency was from a Poisson distribution with a canonical log link function.||0.31|-0.53|0.6073
90953383|NCT01262677|181784355|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.16||||0.4109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.22||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided.|GLM|||A generalized linear model accounting for treatment and geographical region as fixed effects and baseline seizure frequency as a covariate was used to calculate the p-value. This generalized linear model assumed that the SGTC seizure frequency was from a Poisson distribution with a canonical log link function.||0.22|-0.53|0.4109
90953384|NCT01262677|181784356|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.38||||0.8268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.97|11.75||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided.|ANCOVA||Value is percent reduction in seizures relative to placebo.|ANCOVA model with the following fixed terms was used to calculate the p-value: loge (baseline 28-day seizure rate + 1) as a coninuous covariate, sites pooled by geographic region (ie, U.S., Europe, Asia, rest of the world), and treatment group (placebo, pregabalin 165 mg CR, pregabalin 330 mg CR).||11.75|-12.97|0.8268
90953385|NCT01262677|181784356|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.75||||0.9024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.69|13.66||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided.|ANCOVA||Value is percent reduction in seizures relative to placebo.|ANCOVA model with the following fixed terms was used to calculate the p-value: loge (baseline 28-day seizure rate + 1) as a coninuous covariate, sites pooled by geographic region (ie, U.S., Europe, Asia, rest of the world), and treatment group (placebo, pregabalin 165 mg CR, pregabalin 330 mg CR).||13.66|-10.69|0.9024
90953386|NCT01262677|181784357|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67||||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by geographical region (U.S., Europe, Asia, or Rest of the World) wtih percentage of responders summarized by treatment group was used to calculate the p-value.||||0.670
90953387|NCT01262677|181784357|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.927||||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by geographical region (U.S., Europe, Asia, or Rest of the World) wtih percentage of responders summarized by treatment group was used to calculate the p-value.||||0.927
90953388|NCT01262677|181784358|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.28||||0.8034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.37|22.15||Statistical testing was done at 95% confidence intervals, two-sided, least square means and their standard errors.|ANCOVA||Value is percent reduction in seizures relative to placebo.|ANCOVA model with the following fixed terms was used to calculate the p-value: loge (baseline 28-day seizure rate + 1) as a coninuous covariate, sites pooled by geographic region (ie, U.S., Europe, Asia, rest of the world), and treatment group (placebo, pregabalin 165 mg CR, pregabalin 330 mg CR).||22.15|-14.37|0.8034
90953389|NCT01262677|181784358|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-10.78||||0.1905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.81|5.87||Statistical testing was done at 95% confidence intervals, two-sided, least square means and their standard errors.|ANCOVA||Value is percent reduction in seizures relative to placebo.|ANCOVA model with the following fixed terms was used to calculate the p-value: loge (baseline 28-day seizure rate + 1) as a coninuous covariate, sites pooled by geographic region (ie, U.S., Europe, Asia, rest of the world), and treatment group (placebo, pregabalin 165 mg CR, pregabalin 330 mg CR).||5.87|-24.81|0.1905
90953390|NCT01262677|181784359|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.5||Statistical testing was done at 95% confidence intervals, two-sided, least square means and their standard errors.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with the following fixed terms was used to calculate the p-value: HADS-A baseline score as a coninuous covariate, sites pooled by geographic region (ie, U.S., Europe, Asia, rest of the world), and treatment group (placebo, pregabalin 165 mg controlled-release (CR), pregabalin 330 mg CR). No adjustments for multiplicity were taken.||0.5|-1.1|0.4650
90953391|NCT01262677|181784359|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.9692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.8||Statistical testing was done at 95% confidence intervals, two-sided, least square means and their standard errors.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with the following fixed terms was used to calculate the p-value: HADS-A baseline score as a coninuous covariate, sites pooled by geographic region (ie, U.S., Europe, Asia, rest of the world), and treatment group (placebo, pregabalin 165 mg controlled-release (CR), pregabalin 330 mg CR). No adjustments for multiplicity were taken.||0.8|-0.8|0.9692
90988774|NCT01405313|181862514|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|80.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.022
90988775|NCT01405313|181862515|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|80.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.016
90988776|NCT00109733|181862518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.177|||||||ANOVA|||"The null hypothesis (% change in trunk fat (kg) from baseline to Wk24 within the treatment group = 0) was tested against the alternative hypothesis (% change in trunk fat (kg) from baseline to Wk24 within the treatment group ≠0).~P-Values for testing this hypothesis for each treatment group are from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on ranked data with effects for treatment group, gender and their interaction."||||0.177
90988777|NCT00109733|181862518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||ANOVA|||"The null hypothesis (% change in trunk fat (kg) from baseline to Wk24 within the treatment group = 0) was tested against the alternative hypothesis (% change in trunk fat (kg) from baseline to Wk24 within the treatment group ≠0).~P-Values for testing this hypothesis for each treatment group are from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on ranked data with effects for treatment group, gender and their interaction."||||0.004
90988778|NCT00109733|181862519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||ANOVA|||"The null hypothesis (% change in lean body mass (kg) from baseline to Wk24 within the treatment group = 0) was tested against the alternative hypothesis (% change in lean body mass (kg) from baseline to Wk24 within the treatment group ≠0).~P-Values for testing this hypothesis for each treatment group are from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on ranked data with effects for treatment group, gender and their interaction."||||0.004
90988779|NCT00109733|181862519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||"The null hypothesis (% change in lean body mass (kg) from baseline to Wk24 within the treatment group = 0) was tested against the alternative hypothesis (% change in lean body mass (kg) from baseline to Wk24 within the treatment group ≠0).~P-Values for testing this hypothesis for each treatment group are from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on ranked data with effects for treatment group, gender and their interaction."||||<0.001
90988780|NCT00109733|181862520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.653|||||||ANOVA|||"The null hypothesis (% change in total body fat (kg) from baseline to Wk24 within the treatment group = 0) was tested against the alternative hypothesis (% change in total body fat (kg) from baseline to Wk24 within the treatment group ≠0).~P-Values for testing this hypothesis for each treatment group are from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on ranked data with effects for treatment group, gender and their interaction."||||0.653
90988781|NCT00109733|181862520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||ANOVA|||"The null hypothesis (% change in total body fat (kg) from baseline to Wk24 within the treatment group = 0) was tested against the alternative hypothesis (% change in total body fat (kg) from baseline to Wk24 within the treatment group ≠0).~P-Values for testing this hypothesis for each treatment group are from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on ranked data with effects for treatment group, gender and their interaction."||||0.002
90988782|NCT00109733|181862521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.755|||||||ANOVA|||"The null hypothesis (% change in limb fat (kg) from baseline to Wk24 within the treatment group = 0) was tested against the alternative hypothesis (% change in limb fat (kg) from baseline to Wk24 within the treatment group ≠0).~P-Values for testing this hypothesis for each treatment group are from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on ranked data with effects for treatment group, gender and their interaction."||||0.755
90988783|NCT00109733|181862521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||"The null hypothesis (% change in limb fat (kg) from baseline to Wk24 within the treatment group = 0) was tested against the alternative hypothesis (% change in limb fat (kg) from baseline to Wk24 within the treatment group ≠0).~P-Values for testing this hypothesis for each treatment group are from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on ranked data with effects for treatment group, gender and their interaction."||||<0.001
90988784|NCT00109733|181862522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.041|||||||ANOVA|||"The null hypothesis (% change in trunk to limb fat ratio from baseline to Wk24 within the treatment group = 0) was tested against the alternative hypothesis (% change in trunk to limb fat ratio from baseline to Wk24 within the treatment group ≠0).~P-Values for testing this hypothesis for each treatment group are from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on ranked data with effects for treatment group, gender and their interaction."||||0.041
90988785|NCT00109733|181862522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.044|||||||ANOVA|||"The null hypothesis (% change in trunk to limb fat ratio from baseline to Wk24 within the treatment group = 0) was tested against the alternative hypothesis (% change in trunk to limb fat ratio from baseline to Wk24 within the treatment group ≠0).~P-Values for testing this hypothesis for each treatment group are from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on ranked data with effects for treatment group, gender and their interaction."||||0.044
90988786|NCT01234402|181862546|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.691||||0.1315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.429|1.114|||Log Rank|||Kaplan-Meier methodology estimated median PFS||1.114|0.429|0.1315
90988787|NCT01234402|181862546|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.48||||0.0851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.938|2.335|||Log Rank|||Kaplan-Meier methodology estimated median PFS||2.335|0.938|0.0851
90988788|NCT01234402|181862547|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.833||||0.0283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|3.169|||Log Rank|||||3.169|1.060|0.0283
90953392|NCT01262677|181784360|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.2693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.4||Statistical testing was done at 95% confidence intervals, two-sided, least square means and their standard errors.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with the following fixed terms was used to calculate the p-value: HADS-D baseline score as a coninuous covariate, sites pooled by geographic region (ie, U.S., Europe, Asia, rest of the world), and treatment group (placebo, pregabalin 165 mg controlled-release (CR), pregabalin 330 mg CR). No adjustments for multiplicity were taken.||0.4|-1.3|0.2693
90953393|NCT01262677|181784360|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.1893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.3||Statistical testing was done at 95% confidence intervals, two-sided, least square means and their standard errors.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with the following fixed terms was used to calculate the p-value: HADS-D baseline score as a coninuous covariate, sites pooled by geographic region (ie, U.S., Europe, Asia, rest of the world), and treatment group (placebo, pregabalin 165 mg controlled-release (CR), pregabalin 330 mg CR). No adjustments for multiplicity were taken.||0.3|-1.4|0.1893
90953394|NCT01262677|181784361|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.8||||0.7347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|3.6||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided.|ANOVA|||ANCOVA model with the following fixed terms was used to calculate the p-value: sleep disturbance score at baseline as a coninuous covariate, sites pooled by geographic region (ie, U.S., Europe, Asia, rest of the world), and treatment group (placebo, pregabalin 165 mg CR, pregabalin 330 mg CR).||3.6|-5.2|0.7347
90953395|NCT01262677|181784361|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.8971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|4.6||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with the following fixed terms was used to calculate the p-value: sleep disturbance score at baseline as a coninuous covariate, sites pooled by geographic region (ie, U.S., Europe, Asia, rest of the world), and treatment group (placebo, pregabalin 165 mg CR, pregabalin 330 mg CR).||4.6|-4.0|0.8971
90953396|NCT01262677|181784362|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.7||||0.3972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|3.6||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided.|ANOVA|||ANCOVA model with the following fixed terms was used to calculate the p-value: snoring score at baseline as a coninuous covariate, sites pooled by geographic region (ie, U.S., Europe, Asia, rest of the world), and treatment group (placebo, pregabalin 165 mg CR, pregabalin 330 mg CR).||3.6|-9.1|0.3972
90988789|NCT01234402|181862547|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.468||||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.862|2.501|||Log Rank|||||2.501|0.862|0.1550
90988790|NCT01234402|181862548|OTHER|||||||0.6691|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6691
90988791|NCT01234402|181862548|OTHER|||||||0.1743|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1743
90988792|NCT00316303|181862566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wald Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
90988793|NCT00316303|181862567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wald Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
90988794|NCT00316303|181862568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wald Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
90988795|NCT00316303|181862569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011|||||||Wald Chi-squared|||||||0.011
90988796|NCT00316303|181862570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.6
90988797|NCT00570739|181862580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.0123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|-0.03||P-Value is for the LS mean difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 4 weeks||-0.03|-0.27|0.0123
90988798|NCT00570739|181862580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.0201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|-0.03||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups.|ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 8 Weeks||-0.03|-0.33|0.0201
90953397|NCT01262677|181784362|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|6.7||||0.0319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|12.9||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with the following fixed terms was used to calculate the p-value: snoring score at baseline as a coninuous covariate, sites pooled by geographic region (ie, U.S., Europe, Asia, rest of the world), and treatment group (placebo, pregabalin 165 mg CR, pregabalin 330 mg CR).||12.9|0.6|0.0319
90953398|NCT01262677|181784363|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.8||||0.7708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|5.9||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided.|ANOVA|||ANCOVA model with the following fixed terms was used to calculate the p-value: awaken short of breath or with headache score at baseline as a coninuous covariate, sites pooled by geographic region (ie, U.S., Europe, Asia, rest of the world), and treatment group (placebo, pregabalin 165 mg CR, pregabalin 330 mg CR).||5.9|-4.4|0.7708
90953399|NCT01262677|181784363|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.4||||0.356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|7.4||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with the following fixed terms was used to calculate the p-value: awaken short of breath or with headache score at baseline as a coninuous covariate, sites pooled by geographic region (ie, U.S., Europe, Asia, rest of the world), and treatment group (placebo, pregabalin 165 mg CR, pregabalin 330 mg CR).||7.4|-2.7|0.3560
90953400|NCT01262677|181784364|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.1129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.5||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided.|ANOVA|||ANCOVA model with the following fixed terms was used to calculate the p-value: quantity of sleep at baseline as a coninuous covariate, sites pooled by geographic region (ie, U.S., Europe, Asia, rest of the world), and treatment group (placebo, pregabalin 165 mg CR, pregabalin 330 mg CR).||0.5|-0.1|0.1129
90953401|NCT01262677|181784364|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.9388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with the following fixed terms was used to calculate the p-value: quantity of sleep at baseline as a coninuous covariate, sites pooled by geographic region (ie, U.S., Europe, Asia, rest of the world), and treatment group (placebo, pregabalin 165 mg CR, pregabalin 330 mg CR).||0.3|-0.3|0.9388
90988799|NCT00570739|181862580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.0239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.03||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups.|ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 12 weeks||-0.03|-0.36|0.0239
90953402|NCT01262677|181784365|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.9053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|6.6||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided.|ANOVA|||ANCOVA model with the following fixed terms was used to calculate the p-value: sleep adequacy score at baseline as a coninuous covariate, sites pooled by geographic region (ie, U.S., Europe, Asia, rest of the world), and treatment group (placebo, pregabalin 165 mg CR, pregabalin 330 mg CR).||6.6|-7.5|0.9053
90953403|NCT01262677|181784365|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.6||||0.6371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|5.2||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with the following fixed terms was used to calculate the p-value: sleep adequacy score at baseline as a coninuous covariate, sites pooled by geographic region (ie, U.S., Europe, Asia, rest of the world), and treatment group (placebo, pregabalin 165 mg CR, pregabalin 330 mg CR).||5.2|-8.5|0.6371
90953404|NCT01262677|181784366|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.4||||0.0119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|-1.4||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided.|ANOVA|||ANCOVA model with the following fixed terms was used to calculate the p-value: sleep somnolence score at baseline as a coninuous covariate, sites pooled by geographic region (ie, U.S., Europe, Asia, rest of the world), and treatment group (placebo, pregabalin 165 mg CR, pregabalin 330 mg CR).||-1.4|-11.4|0.0119
90953405|NCT01262677|181784366|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.9909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|4.8||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with the following fixed terms was used to calculate the p-value: sleep somnolence score at baseline as a coninuous covariate, sites pooled by geographic region (ie, U.S., Europe, Asia, rest of the world), and treatment group (placebo, pregabalin 165 mg CR, pregabalin 330 mg CR).||4.8|-4.9|0.9909
90953406|NCT01262677|181784367|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.1||||0.5903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|2.8||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided.|ANOVA|||ANCOVA model with the following fixed terms was used to calculate the p-value: sleep problems index I score at baseline as a coninuous covariate, sites pooled by geographic region (ie, U.S., Europe, Asia, rest of the world), and treatment group (placebo, pregabalin 165 mg CR, pregabalin 330 mg CR).||2.8|-5.0|0.5903
90953407|NCT01262677|181784367|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.7||||0.7126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|4.5||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with the following fixed terms was used to calculate the p-value: sleep problems index I score at baseline as a coninuous covariate, sites pooled by geographic region (ie, U.S., Europe, Asia, rest of the world), and treatment group (placebo, pregabalin 165 mg CR, pregabalin 330 mg CR).||4.5|-3.1|0.7126
90953408|NCT01262677|181784368|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.1||||0.2431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|1.5||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided.|ANOVA|||ANCOVA model with the following fixed terms was used to calculate the p-value: sleep problems index II score at baseline as a coninuous covariate, sites pooled by geographic region (ie, U.S., Europe, Asia, rest of the world), and treatment group (placebo, pregabalin 165 mg CR, pregabalin 330 mg CR).||1.5|-5.8|0.2431
90988800|NCT00570739|181862580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.08||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups.|ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 16 weeks||-0.08|-0.42|0.0046
90988801|NCT00570739|181862581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.1||||0.1112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|1.2|||ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 4 Weeks||1.2|-11.3|0.1112
90988802|NCT00570739|181862581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.3||||0.2167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|2.0|||ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 8 Weeks||2.0|-8.6|0.2167
90988803|NCT00570739|181862581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.7269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|4.9|||ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 12 weeks||4.9|-7.0|0.7269
90988804|NCT00570739|181862581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5||||0.4063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|3.4|||ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 16 weeks||3.4|-8.4|0.4063
90988805|NCT00570739|181862581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1||||0.4909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|3.9|||ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 16 weeks (LOCF)||3.9|-8.0|0.4909
90988806|NCT00570739|181862582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.303||||0.7606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.259|1.653||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups.|ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 4 weeks||1.653|-2.259|0.7606
91042263|NCT02459418|181969776|EQUIVALENCE|The 90% CIs of the ratios of geometric means of log-transformed baseline corrected AUC(0-∞) were used to assess bioequivalence between Gonal-f® RFF and AFOLIA using the bioequivalence interval of 80.00% to 125.00%.|Geometric LS mean ratio|133.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.42|174.49||||||An ANOVA model with sequence, treatment and period as fixed effects, and subject nested within sequence as random effect was used. LS means and 90% CIs for treatment differences on log-scale were obtained and back-transformed to provide geometric LS mean ratios of AFOLIA over Gonal-f® RFF.||174.49|102.42|
91042264|NCT02459418|181969777|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|7.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.5|11.5||||||Non-transformed Tmax was tested using the non-parametric Wilcoxon signed rank test to assess the differences between Gonal-f® RFF and AFOLIA. Median differences and corresponding 90% CIs were calculated using an exact Hodges-Lehmann estimate.||11.5|4.5|
90988807|NCT00570739|181862582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.015||||0.1782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.477|0.447||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups.|ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 8 weeks||0.447|-2.477|0.1782
90988808|NCT00570739|181862582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.504||||0.0332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.887|-0.121||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups.|ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 12 weeks||-0.121|-2.887|0.0332
90988809|NCT00570739|181862582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.176||||0.861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.805|2.158||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups.|ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 16 weeks||2.158|-1.805|0.8610
90988810|NCT00570739|181862582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||0.8196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.599|2.019||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups.|ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 16 weeks (LOCF)||2.019|-1.599|0.8196
90988811|NCT00570739|181862583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.153||||0.1078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.034||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups.|ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 weeks||0.034|-0.340|0.1078
90988812|NCT00570739|181862583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.141||||0.1146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.317|0.035||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups.|ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 16 weeks (LOCF)||0.035|-0.317|0.1146
90988813|NCT00570739|181862584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.9933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|9.4||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups.|ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 weeks||9.4|-9.3|0.9933
90988814|NCT00570739|181862584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.8203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|8.3||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups.|ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 weeks LOCF||8.3|-10.5|0.8203
90988815|NCT00570739|181862585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.0||||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|3.6||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups.|ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 16 weeks||3.6|-17.5|0.1950
90988816|NCT00570739|181862585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.7||||0.1583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.3|3.0||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups.|ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||3.0|-18.3|0.1583
90988817|NCT00570739|181862586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.1||||0.3663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.1|6.0||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups.|ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 16 Weeks||6.0|-16.1|0.3663
91042265|NCT02459418|181969779|EQUIVALENCE|The 90% CIs of the ratios of geometric means of log-transformed baseline corrected AUC(0-last) were used to assess bioequivalence between Gonal-f® RFF and AFOLIA using the bioequivalence interval of 80.00% to 125.00%.|Geometric LS Mean Ratio|163.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.0|282.67||||||An ANOVA model with sequence, treatment and period as fixed effects, and subject nested within sequence as random effect was used. LS means and 90% CIs for treatment differences on log-scale were obtained and back-transformed to provide geometric LS mean ratios of AFOLIA over Gonal-f® RFF.||282.67|94|
91042266|NCT02459418|181969780|EQUIVALENCE|The 90% CIs of the ratios of geometric means of log-transformed baseline corrected Cmax were used to assess bioequivalence between Gonal-f® RFF and AFOLIA using the bioequivalence interval of 80.00% to 125.00%.|Geometric LS Mean Ratio|177.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|125.65|249.81||||||An ANOVA model with sequence, treatment and period as fixed effects, and subject nested within sequence as random effect was used. LS means and 90% CIs for treatment differences on log-scale were obtained and back-transformed to provide geometric LS mean ratios of AFOLIA over Gonal-f® RFF.||249.81|125.65|
91042267|NCT02459418|181969781|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|2.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.91|12.29||||||Non-transformed Tmax was tested using the non-parametric Wilcoxon signed rank test to assess the differences between Gonal-f® RFF and AFOLIA. Median difference and corresponding 90% CIs were was calculated using an Exact Hodges-Lehmann estimate with an exact confidence interval.||12.29|-9.91|
91042268|NCT01884844|181969801|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.89
91042269|NCT03653026|181969815|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|29.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.2|34.7||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for Baseline corticosteroid use (yes or no), Baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 or \> 7), and bio-IR status (bio-IR or non-bio-IR).|Difference = Upadacitinib 45 mg - Placebo|||34.7|23.2|<0.001
91042270|NCT03653026|181969816|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|35.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.6|41.6||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for Baseline corticosteroid use (yes or no), Baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 or \> 7), and bio-IR status (bio-IR or non-bio-IR).|Difference = Upadacitinib 45 mg - Placebo|||41.6|28.6|<0.001
91042271|NCT03653026|181969817|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|15.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.4|20.3||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for Baseline corticosteroid use (yes or no), Baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 or \> 7), and bio-IR status (bio-IR or non-bio-IR).|Difference = Upadacitinib 45 mg - Placebo|||20.3|11.4|<0.001
91042272|NCT03653026|181969818|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|49.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.7|57.1||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for Baseline corticosteroid use (yes or no), Baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 or \> 7), and bio-IR status (bio-IR or non-bio-IR).|Difference = Upadacitinib 45 mg - Placebo|||57.1|41.7|<0.001
91042273|NCT03653026|181969819|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|37.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.8|45.1||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for Baseline corticosteroid use (yes or no), Baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 or \> 7), and bio-IR status (bio-IR or non-bio-IR).|Difference = Upadacitinib 45 mg - Placebo|||45.1|28.8|<0.001
91042274|NCT03653026|181969820|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|30.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.1|36.2||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for Baseline corticosteroid use (yes or no), Baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 or \> 7), and bio-IR status (bio-IR or non-bio-IR).|Difference = Upadacitinib 45 mg - placebo|||36.2|24.1|<0.001
91042275|NCT03653026|181969821|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|27.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.0|35.3||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for Baseline corticosteroid use (yes or no), Baseline Adapted Mayo score (\<= 7 or \> 7), and bio-IR status (bio-IR or non-bio-IR).|Difference = Upadacitinib 45 mg - Placebo|||35.3|19.0|<0.001
91042276|NCT03653026|181969822|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|29.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.9|37.4||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for Baseline corticosteroid use (yes or no), Baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 or \> 7), and bio-IR status (bio-IR or non-bio-IR).|Difference = Upadacitinib 45 mg - Placebo|||37.4|20.9|<0.001
91042277|NCT03653026|181969823|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|37.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.8|46.1||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for Baseline corticosteroid use (yes or no), Baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 or \> 7), and bio-IR status (bio-IR or non-bio-IR).|Difference = Upadacitinib 45 mg - Placebo|||46.1|29.8|<0.001
91042278|NCT03653026|181969824|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|31.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.98|37.36||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Mixed-effect model repeated measurement|MMRM with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and strata (Baseline Adapted Mayo score, corticosteroid use, and bio-IR status).|Difference = Upadacitinib 45 mg - Placebo|||37.36|24.98|<0.001
91042279|NCT03653026|181969825|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|11.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.2|15.3||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for Baseline corticosteroid use (yes or no), Baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 or \> 7), and bio-IR status (bio-IR or non-bio-IR).|Difference = Upadacitinib 45 mg - Placebo|||15.3|7.2|<0.001
91042280|NCT03653026|181969826|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.19|7.73||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Mixed-effect model repeated measurement|MMRM with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and strata (Baseline Adapted Mayo score, corticosteroid use, and bio-IR status).|Difference = Upadacitinib 45 mg - Placebo|||7.73|4.19|<0.001
91042281|NCT02104817|181969861|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.09||The hypothesis is tested at the 5% level. A hierarchical test sequence is used to address the issue of multiple testing.|Regression, Cox|||||1.09|0.90|0.837
91042282|NCT02104817|181969862|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.05||The hypothesis is tested at the 5% level. A hierarchical test sequence is used to address the issue of multiple testing.|Regression, Cox|||||1.05|0.84|0.269
90889981|NCT01571362|181644019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.246||0.0114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.14||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons. Statistical significance was if unadjusted p was less than or equal to (\<=) 0.05.|ANCOVA|||Null Hypothesis: No treatment difference. Power was 90%, 2-sided Alpha of 0.05, with assumed difference of 1 point and assumed standard deviation of 2.4 points.||-0.14|-1.11|0.0114
90889982|NCT01571362|181644020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.565||0.7547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|1.29||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and Baseline score and final total daily dose of Titration Period as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||1.29|-0.94|0.7547
91042283|NCT02104817|181969863|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.19||The hypothesis is tested at the 5% level. A hierarchical test sequence is used to address the issue of multiple testing|Regression, Cox|||||1.19|0.93|0.402
90889983|NCT01571362|181644021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1272|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) stratified by prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid)||||||0.1272
90889984|NCT01571362|181644022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH was stratified by prior pain analgesic (opioid and non-opioid).||||||0.0210
90889985|NCT01571362|181644023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0248|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH test was stratified by prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid).||||||0.0248
90889986|NCT01571362|181644024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH test was stratified by prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid).||||||0.0090
90889987|NCT01571362|181644025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0874|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH test was stratified by prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid).||||||0.0874
90889988|NCT01571362|181644026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Screening Period value to end of the OL Period for Worst Pain Score||||<0.0001
90889989|NCT01571362|181644026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Screening Period value to end of the OL Period for Least Pain Score||||<0.0001
90889990|NCT01571362|181644026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Screening Period value to end of the OL Period for Average Pain Score||||<0.0001
90889991|NCT01571362|181644026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Screening Period value to end of the OL Period for Pain Right Now||||<0.0001
90889992|NCT01571362|181644026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Screening Period value to end of the OL Period for Pain Severity Index||||<0.0001
90889993|NCT01571362|181644026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Screening Period value to end of the OL Period for Pain Interference Index||||<0.0001
90889994|NCT01571362|181644027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Screening Period value to Randomization Baseline for Worst Pain Score||||<0.0001
90889995|NCT01571362|181644027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Screening Period value to Randomization Baseline for Least Pain Score||||<0.0001
90889996|NCT01571362|181644027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Screening Period value to Randomization Baseline for Average Pain Score||||<0.0001
90889997|NCT01571362|181644027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Screening Period value to Randomization Baseline for Pain Right Now||||<0.0001
90889998|NCT01571362|181644027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Screening Period value to Randomization Baseline for Pain Severity Index||||<0.0001
90889999|NCT01571362|181644027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Screening Period value to Randomization Baseline for Pain Interference Index||||<0.0001
90890000|NCT01571362|181644028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.222||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.18|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Randomization Baseline to Week 2.||-0.18|-1.06|0.0056
91042284|NCT02104817|181969864|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.16||The hypothesis is tested at the 5% level. A hierarchical test sequence is used to address the issue of multiple testing|Regression, Cox|||||1.16|0.87|0.940
91042285|NCT02104817|181969865|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.02||The hypothesis is tested at the 5% level. A hierarchical test sequence is used to address the issue of multiple testing|Regression, Cox|||||1.02|0.81|0.092
91042286|NCT02104817|181969866|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|0.97||The hypothesis is tested at the 5% level. A hierarchical test sequence is used to address the issue of multiple testing.|Regression, Cox|||||0.97|0.75|0.016
91042287|NCT02104817|181969867|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.31||The hypothesis is tested at the 5% level. A hierarchical test sequence is used to address the issue of multiple testing|Regression, Cox|||||1.31|0.90|0.372
91042288|NCT02104817|181969868|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.41||The hypothesis is tested at the 5% level. A hierarchical test sequence is used to address the issue of multiple testing.|Regression, Cox|||||1.41|0.89|0.336
91042289|NCT02104817|181969869|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.31||The hypothesis is tested at the 5% level. A hierarchical test sequence is used to address the issue of multiple testing.|Regression, Cox|||||1.31|0.97|0.112
91042290|NCT02104817|181969870|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.42||The hypothesis is tested at the 5% level. A hierarchical test sequence is used to address the issue of multiple testing.|Regression, Cox|||||1.42|0.97|0.091
90953409|NCT01262677|181784368|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.8654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|3.8||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with the following fixed terms was used to calculate the p-value: sleep problems index II score at baseline as a coninuous covariate, sites pooled by geographic region (ie, U.S., Europe, Asia, rest of the world), and treatment group (placebo, pregabalin 165 mg CR, pregabalin 330 mg CR).||3.8|-3.2|0.8654
91042291|NCT02104817|181969871|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.08||This endpoint was not in the testing sequence and therefore not under type I error control.|Regression, Cox|||||1.08|0.83|0.408
91042292|NCT02104817|181969872|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.12||This endpoint was not in the testing sequence and therefore not under type I error control.|Regression, Cox|||||1.12|0.63|0.233
91042293|NCT02104817|181969873|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.17||This endpoint was not in the testing sequence and therefore not under type I error control.|Regression, Cox|||||1.17|0.81|0.770
91042294|NCT02104817|181969874|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.45||This endpoint was not in the testing sequence and therefore not under type I error control.|Regression, Cox|||||1.45|0.90|0.278
91042295|NCT01358877|181969884|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.99||Statistical significance was controlled at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression.|Analysis was performed using stratified log-rank test, which included nodal status, protocol version, central hormone receptor status, and adjuvant chemotherapy regimen as stratification factors in the randomization.||0.99|0.68|0.0430
91042296|NCT01358877|181969887|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.0327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.98||Statistical significance was controlled at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression.|Analysis was performed using stratified log-rank test, which included nodal status, protocol version, central hormone receptor status, and adjuvant chemotherapy regimen as stratification factors in the randomization.||0.98|0.67|0.0327
91042297|NCT01358877|181969890|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.4673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.21||The O'Brien-Fleming stopping boundary of the Lan-DeMets alpha-spending function for the first interim OS analysis was HR\<0.52; p\<0.00001.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression.|Analysis was performed using stratified log-rank test, which included nodal status, protocol version, central hormone receptor status, and adjuvant chemotherapy regimen as stratification factors in the randomization.||1.21|0.66|0.4673
91042298|NCT01358877|181969891|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.0441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.0||The p-value threshold according to the alpha-spending function at this final analysis was 0.0496.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression.|Analysis was performed using stratified log-rank test, which included nodal status, protocol version, central hormone receptor status, and adjuvant chemotherapy regimen as stratification factors in the randomization.||1.00|0.69|0.0441
90953410|NCT01262677|181784369|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.3241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|2.5||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided.|Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression model was used to calculate the p-value, with the fixed effects for sites pooled by geographic region (ie, U.S., Europe, Asia, rest of the world), and treatment group (placebo, pregabalin 165 mg controlled-release (CR), pregabalin 330 mg CR), average hours per night of sleep at baseline as a coninuous covariate, and optimal sleep at Week 14 as dependent variable. No adjustments for multiplicity were taken.||2.50|0.74|0.3241
90988818|NCT00570739|181862586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.6||||0.2524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.9|4.7||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups.|ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||4.7|-17.9|0.2524
90988819|NCT00570739|181862587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.051||||0.8158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.828|9.929||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups.|ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 16 Weeks||9.929|-7.828|0.8158
90988820|NCT00570739|181862587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.565||||0.7433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.966|7.836||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups.|ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||7.836|-10.966|0.7433
90988821|NCT00570739|181862588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.215||||0.5161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.437|0.867||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups.|ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 16 Weeks||0.867|-0.437|0.5161
90988822|NCT00570739|181862588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.8319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.581|0.722||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups.|ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||0.722|-0.581|0.8319
90988823|NCT00570739|181862589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.61|-13.76|||ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 8 Weeks||-13.76|-22.61|<0.0001
90988824|NCT00570739|181862589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.09|-12.08|||ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 16 Weeks||-12.08|-22.09|<0.0001
90988825|NCT00570739|181862589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.96|-11.69|||ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||-11.69|-20.96|<0.0001
90988826|NCT00570739|181862590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.99|-8.81|||ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 8 Weeks||-8.81|-15.99|<0.0001
90988827|NCT00570739|181862590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.23|-5.34|||ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 16 Weeks||-5.34|-13.23|<0.0001
90988828|NCT00570739|181862590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.98|-4.67|||ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 16 Week LOCF||-4.67|-11.98|<0.0001
90988829|NCT00570739|181862591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.63||||0.2026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|6.7|||ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 8 Weeks||6.70|-1.43|0.2026
90988830|NCT00570739|181862591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.32||||0.4506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|4.75|||ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 16 Weeks||4.75|-2.12|0.4506
90988831|NCT00570739|181862591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.81||||0.2609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|4.97|||ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||4.97|-1.35|0.2609
90988832|NCT00570739|181862592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.53|-6.08|||ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 8 Weeks||-6.08|-11.53|<0.0001
90988833|NCT00570739|181862592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.94|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.23|-3.66|||ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 16 Weeks||-3.66|-10.23|<0.0001
91042299|NCT01358877|181969894|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.99|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression.|Analysis was performed using stratified log-rank test, which included nodal status, protocol version, central hormone receptor status, and adjuvant chemotherapy regimen as stratification factors in the randomization.||0.99|0.63|0.0430
91042300|NCT01358877|181969897|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.1007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.04|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression.|Analysis was performed using stratified log-rank test, which included nodal status, protocol version, central hormone receptor status, and adjuvant chemotherapy regimen as stratification factors in the randomization.||1.04|0.64|0.1007
91042301|NCT01358877|181969900|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.8|||||The difference in percentage of participants with a primary cardiac event between the pertuzumab and placebo arms. The 95% confidence interval (CI) was estimated using Hauck-Anderson correction.|||0.8|0.0|
90953411|NCT01262677|181784369|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.8932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.71||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided.|Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression model was used to calculate the p-value, with the fixed effects for sites pooled by geographic region (ie, U.S., Europe, Asia, rest of the world), and treatment group (placebo, pregabalin 165 mg controlled-release (CR), pregabalin 330 mg CR), average hours per night of sleep at baseline as a coninuous covariate, and optimal sleep at Week 14 as dependent variable. No adjustments for multiplicity were taken.||1.71|0.54|0.8932
90953412|NCT02787044|181784392|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.17|||Regression, Cox|||Note, each participant can be included in the primary analysis up to 3 times (participating seasons).||1.17|0.97|0.21
90953413|NCT02787044|181784393|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.15|||Regression, Cox|||||1.15|0.94|0.44
90953414|NCT02787044|181784394|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.2|||Regression, Cox|||Each participant can be analyzed up to three times (seasons)||1.2|.97|0.16
90953415|NCT02787044|181784395|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.15|||Regression, Cox|||||1.15|.96|0.26
90953416|NCT02787044|181784396|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.21|||Regression, Cox|||||1.21|0.84|0.96
90953417|NCT00567567|181784397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Log Rank Test Statistic|6.9883||||0.0082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||The event-free survival distributions of patients randomized to Regimen A - Single HST (CEM) and randomized to Regimen B - Tandem HST (CEM) were compared using the log-rank test.||||0.0082
90953418|NCT00567567|181784398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Chi-squared test statistic|8.5751||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Chi-square test of proportions in all patients to compare the proportion of responders (complete response \[CR\]+ very good partial response \[VGPR\]) at the end of induction therapy in this study to an analogous cohort of responders in A3973.||||0.0034
90953419|NCT00567567|181784399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Gray's test statistic|0.33709||||0.5615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Gray's test for competing risks|||The cumulative incidence rates of local recurrence between patients from ANBL0532 randomized or assigned to receive single CEM transplant and boost radiation and A3973 patients who were transplanted and received boost radiation were compared using Gray's test.||||0.5615
90953420|NCT00567567|181784400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|-0.0557||||0.0939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.0939
91042302|NCT01358877|181969901|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.9|||||The difference in percentage of participants with a primary cardiac event between the pertuzumab and placebo arms. The 95% confidence interval (CI) was estimated using Hauck-Anderson correction.|||0.9|-0.1|
91042303|NCT01358877|181969902|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.9|||||95% CI was estimated using Hauck-Anderson correction.|||0.9|-1.0|
91042304|NCT01358877|181969903|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.9|||||95% CI was estimated using Hauck-Anderson correction.|||0.9|-1.1|
91042305|NCT01358877|181969904|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.5|||||95% CI was estimated using Hauck-Anderson correction.|||0.5|-0.3|
90953421|NCT00567567|181784401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|0.0543||||0.3277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.3277
90953422|NCT00567567|181784402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4328||||0.7598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4105|5.001|||Fisher Exact|Fisher's exact test was used instead of chi-square test due to small expected cell counts.||Null Hypothesis: The response rate after two cycles of induction therapy and the presence of a polymorphism are independent in the study population||5.001|0.4105|0.7598
90953423|NCT00567567|181784406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.015||||0.6853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Cox|||The relationship between the peak serum isotretinoin concentration level with event-free survival was explored with a Cox proportional hazards model. Eligible patients treated with isotretinoin on A3973, ANBL0032, ANBL0532, or ANBL0931 with peak serum concentration level data were included in the analysis.||||0.6853
90953424|NCT03433677|181784414|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.00|0.00|0.375
90953425|NCT03433677|181784415|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.468|||||||Prescott's Exact test|||||||0.468
90953426|NCT03433677|181784416|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.028
90953427|NCT03433677|181784417|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.8||||0.304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.7|-5.3|0.304
90953428|NCT03433677|181784418|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.4||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.1|-4.8|0.057
90953429|NCT03433677|181784419|SUPERIORITY||LSMeans|0.11||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSMean Difference|||0.27|-0.05|0.177
90953430|NCT04552899|181784466|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Change from Baseline|-20.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|34.11||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-87.94|46.29|||RCRM|Random Coefficient Regression Model (RCRM)||||46.29|-87.94|0.54
90953431|NCT04552899|181784469|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||0.2512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.47|||Log Rank|||||1.47|0.91|0.2512
90953432|NCT04552899|181784470|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.9833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.97|||Log Rank|||||1.97|0.51|0.9833
90953433|NCT04552899|181784473|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.7005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.86|||Log Rank|||||1.86|0.40|0.7005
90953434|NCT02672852|181784498|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|70.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.7|76.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Across strata, P value was calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for strata. Within each stratum, P value was calculated based on the chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if ≥25% of the cells had expected cell count \<5).||76.0|65.7|< 0.001
91042306|NCT01358877|181969905|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4|||||95% CI was estimated using Hauck-Anderson correction.|||0.4|-0.4|
90953435|NCT02672852|181784499|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|76.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|70.4|82.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Across strata, P value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata. Within each stratum, P value was calculated based on the chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if ≥25% of the cells had expected cell count \<5).||82.5|70.4|< 0.001
90953436|NCT02672852|181784500|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|25.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.3|34.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Across strata, P value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata. Within each stratum, P value was calculated based on the chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if ≥25% of the cells had expected cell count \<5).||34.6|17.3|< 0.001
90953437|NCT02672852|181784501|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|80.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|74.5|86.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Across strata, P value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata. Within each stratum, P value was calculated based on the chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if ≥25% of the cells had expected cell count \<5).||86.6|74.5|< 0.001
90953438|NCT02672852|181784502|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|45.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.3|50.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Across strata, P value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata. Within each stratum, P value was calculated based on the chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if ≥25% of the cells had expected cell count \<5).||50.8|40.3|< 0.001
90953439|NCT02672852|181784503|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|44.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.5|50.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Across strata, P value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata. Within each stratum, P value was calculated based on the chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if ≥25% of the cells had expected cell count \<5).||50.0|39.5|< 0.001
90953440|NCT02672852|181784504|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|62.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.4|67.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Across strata, P value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata. Within each stratum, P value was calculated based on the chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if ≥25% of the cells had expected cell count \<5).||67.9|56.4|< 0.001
90988834|NCT00570739|181862592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.09||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.14|-3.05|||ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||-3.05|-9.14|0.0001
90953441|NCT02672852|181784505|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|73.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|66.0|81.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Across strata, P value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata. Within each stratum, P value was calculated based on the chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if ≥25% of the cells had expected cell count \<5).||81.9|66.0|< 0.001
90953442|NCT02672852|181784506|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|21.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.7|28.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Across strata, P value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata. Within each stratum, P value was calculated based on the chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if ≥25% of the cells had expected cell count \<5).||28.7|13.7|< 0.001
90953443|NCT02672852|181784507|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|33.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.0|42.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Across strata, P value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata. Within each stratum, P value was calculated based on the chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if ≥25% of the cells had expected cell count \<5).||42.2|24.0|< 0.001
90953444|NCT02672852|181784508|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|33.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.2|44.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Across strata, P value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata. Within each stratum, P value was calculated based on the chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if ≥25% of the cells had expected cell count \<5).||44.2|23.2|< 0.001
90953445|NCT01725126|181784557|OTHER|The analysis used an Estimation approach. No hypothesis testing was performed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|1.75|||ANCOVA|Repeated measures analysis of variance was used with terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and Baseline.|Point estimate was calculated as difference in least squares means: Part B-GSK2890457+Liraglutide minus Part B-Placebo+Liraglutide.|Part B-Placebo+Liraglutide versus Part B-GSK2890457+Liraglutide for Day 42 change from Baseline in body weight.||1.75|-1.38|
90953446|NCT01725126|181784557|OTHER|The analysis used an Estimation approach. No hypothesis testing was performed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|2.36|||ANCOVA|Repeated measures analysis of variance was used with terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and Baseline.|Point estimate was calculated as difference in least squares means: Part C-GSK2890457+Metformin minus Part C-Placebo+Metformin.|Part C-Placebo+Metformin versus Part C-GSK2890457+Metformin for Day 42 change from Baseline in body weight.||2.36|-0.20|
90953447|NCT01725126|181784558|OTHER|The analysis used an Estimation approach. No hypothesis testing was performed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|1.87|||ANCOVA|Repeated measures analysis of variance was used with terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and Baseline.|Point estimate was calculated as difference in least squares means: Part B-GSK2890457+Liraglutide minus Part B-Placebo+Liraglutide.|Part B-Placebo+Liraglutide versus Part B-GSK2890457+Liraglutide for Day 42 percent change from Baseline in body weight.||1.87|-1.64|
90988835|NCT00570739|181862593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.05||||0.0171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|13.99||The P-Value was from the non-parametric ANCOVA stratified by country.|ANCOVA|The median difference was calculated using Hodges-Lehmann point estimate and corresponding 95% CI was constructed using the method of Moses.||Baseline to 8 weeks||13.99|-0.33|0.0171
90953448|NCT01725126|181784558|OTHER|The analysis used an Estimation approach. No hypothesis testing was performed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|2.75|||ANCOVA|Repeated measures analysis of variance was used with terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and Baseline.|Point estimate was calculated as difference in least squares means: Part C-GSK2890457+Metformin minus Part C-Placebo+Metformin.|Part C-Placebo+Metformin versus Part C-GSK2890457+Metformin for Day 42 percent change from Baseline in body weight.||2.75|-0.24|
90953449|NCT01725126|181784559|OTHER|The analysis used an Estimation approach. No hypothesis testing was performed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.182|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.694|1.331|||ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and Baseline were included in the model.|Point estimate was calculated as difference in least squares means: Part B-GSK2890457+Liraglutide minus Part B-Placebo+Liraglutide.|Part B-Placebo+Liraglutide versus Part B-GSK2890457+Liraglutide for Day 42 change from Baseline in AUC (0-4 hour) weighted mean glucose.||1.331|-1.694|
90953450|NCT01725126|181784559|OTHER|The analysis used an Estimation approach. No hypothesis testing was performed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.356|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.409|0.698|||ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and Baseline were included in the model.|Point estimate was calculated as difference in least squares means: Part B-GSK2890457+Liraglutide minus Part B-Placebo+Liraglutide.|Part B-Placebo+Liraglutide versus Part B-GSK2890457+Liraglutide for Day 42 change from Baseline in AUC (0-24 hour) weighted mean glucose.||0.698|-1.409|
90953451|NCT01725126|181784559|OTHER|The analysis used an Estimation approach. No hypothesis testing was performed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.853|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.232|0.526|||ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and Baseline were included in the model.|Point estimate was calculated as difference in least squares means: Part C-GSK2890457+Metformin minus Part C-Placebo+Metformin.|Part C-Placebo+Metformin versus Part C-GSK2890457+Metformin for Day 42 change from Baseline in AUC (0-4 hour) weighted mean glucose.||0.526|-2.232|
90953452|NCT01725126|181784559|OTHER|The analysis used an Estimation approach. No hypothesis testing was performed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.219|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.447|0.009|||ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and Baseline were included in the model.|Point estimate was calculated as difference in least squares means: Part C-GSK2890457+Metformin minus Part C-Placebo+Metformin.|Part C-Placebo+Metformin versus Part C-GSK2890457+Metformin for Day 42 change from Baseline in AUC (0-24 hour) weighted mean glucose.||0.009|-2.447|
90953453|NCT01725126|181784560|OTHER|The analysis used an Estimation approach. No hypothesis testing was performed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.155|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.277|1.587|||ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and Baseline were included in the model.|Point estimate was calculated as difference in least squares means: Part B-GSK2890457+Liraglutide minus Part B -Placebo+Liraglutide.|Part B-Placebo+Liraglutide versus Part B-GSK2890457+Liraglutide for Day 42 change from Baseline in fasting glucose.||1.587|-1.277|
90953454|NCT01725126|181784560|OTHER|The analysis used an Estimation approach. No hypothesis testing was performed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.524|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.939|0.892|||ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and Baseline were included in the model.|Point estimate was calculated as difference in least squares means: Part C-GSK2890457+Metformin minus Part C-Placebo+Metformin.|Part C-Placebo+Metformin versus Part C-GSK2890457+Metformin for Day 42 change from Baseline in fasting glucose.||0.892|-1.939|
90953455|NCT01725126|181784562|OTHER|The analysis used an Estimation approach. No hypothesis testing was performed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.065|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.495|0.365|||ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and Baseline were included in the model.|Point estimate was calculated as difference in least squares means: Part B-GSK2890457+Liraglutide minus Part B-Placebo+Liraglutide.|Part B-Placebo+Liraglutide versus Part B-GSK2890457+Liraglutide for Day 42 change from Baseline in HbA1c.||0.365|-0.495|
90953456|NCT01725126|181784562|OTHER|The analysis used an Estimation approach. No hypothesis testing was performed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.219|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.472|||ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and Baseline were included in the model.|Point estimate was calculated as difference in least squares means: Part C-GSK2890457+Metformin minus Part Part C-Placebo+Metformin.|Part C-Placebo+Metformin versus Part C-GSK2890457+Metformin for Day 42 change from Baseline in HbA1c.||0.472|-0.910|
90953457|NCT01725126|181784566|OTHER|The analysis used an Estimation approach. No hypothesis testing was performed.|Ratio|1.046|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.729|1.5008|||Mixed Models Analysis|The PK parameter was log-transformed prior to analysis.|The difference in least squares means and corresponding confidence interval were back-transformed to form ratio of geometric least squares means (Day 42/ Day -1) and confidence interval.|Comparison of Day 42 to Day -1 in GSK2890457+Liraglutide treated participants in the Liraglutide PK Population.||1.5008|0.7290|
90953458|NCT01725126|181784567|OTHER|The analysis used an Estimation approach. No hypothesis testing was performed.|Ratio|1.0334|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.781|1.3673|||Mixed Models Analysis|The PK parameter was log-transformed prior to analysis.|The difference in least squares means and corresponding confidence interval were back-transformed to form ratio of geometric least squares means (Day 42/ Day -1) and confidence interval.|Comparison of Day 42 to Day -1 in GSK2890457+Liraglutide treated participants in the Liraglutide PK Population.||1.3673|0.7810|
90953459|NCT01725126|181784569|OTHER|The analysis used an Estimation approach. No hypothesis testing was performed.|Ratio|0.675|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.585|0.779|||Mixed Models Analysis|The PK parameter was log-transformed prior to analysis.|The difference in least squares means and corresponding confidence interval were back-transformed to form ratio of geometric least squares means (Day 42/ Day 1) and confidence interval.|Comparison of Day 42 to Day 1 in GSK2890457 treated participants in the PK Population.||0.779|0.585|
90953460|NCT01725126|181784570|OTHER|The analysis used an Estimation approach. No hypothesis testing was performed.|Ratio|0.662|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.578|0.757|||Mixed Models Analysis|The PK parameter was log-transformed prior to analysis.|The difference in least squares means and corresponding confidence interval were back-transformed to form ratio of geometric least squares means (Day 42/ Day 1) and confidence interval.|Comparison of Day 42 to Day 1 in GSK2890457 treated participants in the PK Population.||0.757|0.578|
90953461|NCT02406677|181784634|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.073||||0.3503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.925|1.246|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional hazards model accounting for within hospital clustering using robust standard errors|Usual Care arm is the reference group|||1.246|0.925|0.3503
91042307|NCT01358877|181969921|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.0446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.0||Statistical significance was controlled at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression.|Analysis was performed using stratified log-rank test, which included nodal status, protocol version, central hormone receptor status, and adjuvant chemotherapy regimen as stratification factors in the randomization.||1.00|0.66|0.0446
91042308|NCT01841073|181969960|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||p-value was calculated, and is not attempting to indicate the threshold for statistical significance|ANCOVA|||||||0.005
91042309|NCT01841073|181969961|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.027
91042310|NCT01841073|181969962|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.13
91042311|NCT03174158|181969963|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07||||||a priori p value threshold \< 0.05|Chi-squared|||||||0.07
91042312|NCT03174158|181969963|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||Chi-squared|a priori threshold p\<0.05||||||0.18
91042313|NCT03174158|181969963|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21||||||a priori threshold p\<0.05|Chi-squared|||||||0.21
91042314|NCT00283842|181969972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.084|||||||Hochberg|||Statistical analysis provided for 50mg.||||0.084
91042315|NCT00283842|181969972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.084|||||||Hochberg|||Statistical analysis provided for 100mg.||||0.084
91042316|NCT00283842|181969972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Hochberg|||Statistical analysis provided for 200mg.||||0.001
91042317|NCT00283842|181969972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027|||||||Hochberg|||Statistical analysis provided for 400mg.||||0.027
91042318|NCT00283842|181969973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.375|||||||Hochberg|||Statistical analysis provided for 50mg.||||0.375
91042319|NCT00283842|181969973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.342|||||||Hochberg|||Statistical analysis provided for 100mg.||||0.342
91042320|NCT00283842|181969973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.342|||||||Hochberg|||Statistical analysis provided for 200mg.||||0.342
91042321|NCT00283842|181969973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.375|||||||Hochberg|||Statistical analysis provided for 400mg.||||0.375
91042322|NCT00550147|181969974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.125|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1933|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|-0.72|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test (comparing augmentation period start score with end score), 23 df. Value is Visit 10 score minus Visit 5 score (null hypothesis=0).|This was a comparison of pre-post change in a single group, with treatment administered open-label.|This was a repeated-measures analysis, using a single group of subjects who were administered quetiapine in addition to OROS mph. See Kronenberger et al. (2007, Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychopharmacology) for additional information.||-0.72|-1.52|<0.05
91042323|NCT00550147|181969975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2056|<|0.05||95.0|-1.75|-0.91|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test (comparing augmentation period start score with end score), 23 df. Value is Visit 10 score minus Visit 5 score (null hypothesis=0).|This was a comparison of pre-post change in a single group, with treatment administered open-label.|This was a repeated-measures analysis, using a single group of subjects who were administered quetiapine in addition to OROS mph. Results reported here are for the augmentation period (Visit 5-10). See Kronenberger et al. (2007, Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychopharmacology) for additional information.||-0.91|-1.75|<0.05
91042324|NCT00550147|181969976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-47.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.06|<|0.05||95.0|-74.3|-20.2|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test (comparing augmentation period start score with end score), 23 df. Value is Visit 10 score minus Visit 5 score (null hypothesis=0).|This was a comparison of pre-post change in a single group, with treatment administered open-label.|This was a repeated-measures analysis, using a single group of subjects who were administered quetiapine in addition to OROS mph. Results reported here are for the augmentation period (Visit 5-10). See Kronenberger et al. (2007, Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychopharmacology) for additional information.||-20.2|-74.3|<0.05
91042325|NCT00550147|181969977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.39|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.04|-1.29|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test (comparing augmentation period start score with end score), 23 df. Value is Visit 10 score minus Visit 5 score (null hypothesis=0).|This was a comparison of pre-post change in a single group, with treatment administered open-label.|This was a repeated-measures analysis, using a single group of subjects who were administered quetiapine in addition to OROS mph. Results reported here are for the augmentation period (Visit 5-10). See Kronenberger et al. (2007, Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychopharmacology) for additional information.||-1.29|-7.04|<0.05
91042326|NCT00550147|181969978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.16|<|0.05||95.0|-17.76|-8.82|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test (comparing augmentation period start score with end score), 23 df. Value is Visit 10 score minus Visit 5 score (null hypothesis=0).|This was a comparison of pre-post change in a single group, with treatment administered open-label.|This was a repeated-measures analysis, using a single group of subjects who were administered quetiapine in addition to OROS mph. Results reported here are for the augmentation period (Visit 5-10). See Kronenberger et al. (2007, Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychopharmacology) for additional information.||-8.82|-17.76|<0.05
91042327|NCT01742208|181970018|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-25.14||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.78|-7.49||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA||Difference is sotagliflozin - placebo|Between-group comparison of the 2 Expansion Groups was based on an ANCOVA model with covariates of baseline mean total daily bolus insulin, treatment group, factor used to stratify the randomization (screening A1C \<= 8%, \> 8%), and random effect of participant\*treatment group.||-7.49|-42.78|0.007
91042328|NCT00715676|181970044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.641||||||The Hochberg method was used to compare dose groups to placebo and control the Type 1 error rate.|ANOVA|||A sample size of 49 per treatment group was calculated to have at least 90% power to detect a 2% or greater increase over placebo assuming the following: (1) a standard deviation of the percent change of 2.75% (2) a dropout rate of 30%, and (3) one-sided 0.05 level of significance||||0.641
91042329|NCT00715676|181970044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.243||95.0||||The Hochberg method was used to compare dose groups to placebo and control the Type 1 error rate.|ANOVA|||A sample size of 49 per treatment group was calculated to have at least 90% power to detect a 2% or greater increase over placebo assuming the following: (1) a standard deviation of the percent change of 2.75% (2) a dropout rate of 30%, and (3) one-sided 0.05 level of significance||||0.243
91042330|NCT00715676|181970045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.778||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.778
90988836|NCT00570739|181862593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.66|25.54||The P-Value was from the non-parametric ANCOVA stratified by country.|ANCOVA|The median difference was calculated using Hodges-Lehmann point estimate and corresponding 95% CI was constructed using the method of Moses.||Baseline to 16 Weeks||25.54|9.66|<0.0001
90988837|NCT00570739|181862593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.18|25.74||The P-Value was from the non-parametric ANCOVA stratified by country.|ANCOVA|The median difference was calculated using Hodges-Lehmann point estimate and corresponding 95% CI was constructed using the method of Moses.||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||25.74|11.18|<0.0001
90988838|NCT00570739|181862594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.81||||0.0496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|5.62|||ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 8 weeks||5.62|0.0|0.0496
90988839|NCT00570739|181862594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.65||||0.0117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|6.47|||ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 16 Weeks||6.47|0.82|0.0117
90988840|NCT00570739|181862594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.43||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.83|7.03|||ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||7.03|1.83|0.0009
90988841|NCT00570739|181862595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.74|-8.38|||ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 8 Weeks||-8.38|-14.74|<0.0001
90988842|NCT00570739|181862595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.53||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.14|-5.92|||ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 16 Weeks||-5.92|-13.14|0.0001
90988843|NCT00570739|181862595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.97|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.35|-4.59|||ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||-4.59|-11.35|<0.0001
90988844|NCT00570739|181862596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.57||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.76|19.38|||ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 8 Weeks||19.38|5.76|0.0003
90988845|NCT00570739|181862596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.52||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.64|22.4|||ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 16 Weeks||22.40|6.64|0.0003
90988846|NCT00570739|181862596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.95|22.2|||ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||22.20|7.95|<0.0001
90988847|NCT00570739|181862597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.84||||0.0363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|13.24||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Total Very Low Density Lipoprotein (VLDL) Particles||13.24|0.44|0.0363
90988848|NCT00570739|181862597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.39||||0.0347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|12.31||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Total Very Low Density Lipoprotein (VLDL) Particles||12.31|0.46|0.0347
90988849|NCT00570739|181862597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.31||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|3.81||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||VLDL Chylomicron Particles||3.81|0.80|0.0028
90988850|NCT00570739|181862597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.34||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|3.73||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||VLDL Chylomicron Particles||3.73|0.96|0.0010
90988851|NCT00570739|181862597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.13||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|11.21||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Medium VLDL Particles||11.21|3.10|0.0006
90988852|NCT00570739|181862597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.13||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.35|10.91||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Medium VLDL Particles||10.91|3.35|0.0003
90988853|NCT00570739|181862597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.88||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.04|1.29||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Small VLDL Particles||1.29|-7.04|0.1750
90988854|NCT00570739|181862597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.23||||0.1007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|0.63||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Small VLDL Particles||0.63|-7.10|0.1007
90988855|NCT00570739|181862597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-199.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-272.9|-125.8||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Total Low Density Lipoprotein (LDL) Particles||-125.8|-272.9|<0.0001
91042331|NCT00715676|181970045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.173||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.173
91042332|NCT00715676|181970046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.395||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.395
90988856|NCT00570739|181862597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-186.1||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-255.9|-116.3||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Total Low Density Lipoprotein (LDL) Particles||-116.3|-255.9|0.0001
90988857|NCT00570739|181862597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.7||||0.0466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.3|-0.2||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Intermediate Density Lipoprotein Particles||-0.2|-23.3|0.0466
90988858|NCT00570739|181862597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.7||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.8|0.3||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Intermediate Density Lipoprotein Particles||0.3|-21.8|0.0570
90988859|NCT00570739|181862597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-77.7||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-120.3|-35.0||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Large LDL Particles||-35.0|-120.3|0.0004
90988860|NCT00570739|181862597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-69.3||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-109.2|-29.3||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Large LDL Particles||-29.3|-109.2|0.0007
90988861|NCT00570739|181862597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-109.9||||0.0124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-195.8|-23.9||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Small LDL Particles||-23.9|-195.8|0.0124
90988862|NCT00570739|181862597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-106.8||||0.0098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-187.6|-26.0||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Small LDL Particles||-26.0|-187.6|0.0098
90988863|NCT00570739|181862597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.2||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.6|3.2||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Medium Small LDL Particles||3.2|-35.6|0.1020
90988864|NCT00570739|181862597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.4||||0.0997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.8|3.0||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Medium Small LDL Particles||3.0|-33.8|0.0997
90988865|NCT00570739|181862597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-93.7||||0.0069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-161.6|-25.9||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Very Small LDL Particles||-25.9|-161.6|0.0069
90988866|NCT00570739|181862597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-91.4||||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-155.2|-27.5||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Very Small LDL Particles||-27.5|-155.2|0.0052
90988867|NCT00570739|181862597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.94||||0.0524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|1.9||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Total High Density Lipoprotein (HDL) Particles||1.90|-0.01|0.0524
90988868|NCT00570739|181862597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.01||||0.0301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.91||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Total High Density Lipoprotein (HDL) Particles||1.91|0.10|0.0301
90988869|NCT00570739|181862597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45||||0.0416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.89||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Large HDL Particles||0.89|0.02|0.0416
90988870|NCT00570739|181862597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.46||||0.0333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.88||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Large HDL Particles||0.88|0.04|0.0333
91042333|NCT00715676|181970046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.523||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.523
91042334|NCT00715676|181970047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.928||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.928
90953462|NCT02406677|181784635|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.838||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.717|0.979|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with parameters estimated using GEE to account for within hospital clustering for selected patient characteristics||||0.979|0.717|0.0260
90953463|NCT02406677|181784636|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.035|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.564|2.649|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with GEE to account for within hospital clustering||||2.649|1.564|<0.0001
90953464|NCT02145468|181784647|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||0.238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.47|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio and CI are estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model stratified by baseline STEMI/NSTEMI status with treatment as the only covariate. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with the treatment compared with placebo.|||1.47|0.91|0.238
90953465|NCT02145468|181784648|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.38|||Log Rank||"Hazard ratio and CI are estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model stratified by baseline STEMI/NSTEMI status with treatment as the only covariate. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk.~with the treatment compared with placebo."|||1.38|0.90|0.329
90953466|NCT02145468|181784649|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.47|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio and CI are estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model stratified by baseline STEMI/NSTEMI status with treatment as the only covariate. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with the treatment compared with placebo.|CV death or MI, Placebo Vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg BID at Week 12||1.47|0.88|0.338
90953467|NCT02145468|181784649|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.38|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio and CI are estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model stratified by baseline STEMI/NSTEMI status with treatment as the only covariate. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with the treatment compared with placebo.|CV death or MI, Placebo Vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg BID at Week 24||1.38|0.88|0.410
90953468|NCT02145468|181784650|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.38|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio and CI are estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model stratified by baseline STEMI/NSTEMI status with treatment as the only covariate. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with the treatment compared with placebo.|CV death, MI or hospitalization for HF, Placebo Vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg BID at Week 12||1.38|0.86|0.472
90953469|NCT02145468|181784651|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.44|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio and CI are estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model stratified by baseline STEMI/NSTEMI status with treatment as the only covariate. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with the treatment compared with placebo.|Composite of arterial CV events (CV death, MI, SRI-UR or stroke), Placebo Vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg BID at Week 12||1.44|0.91|
90953470|NCT02145468|181784652|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.36|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio and CI are estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model stratified by baseline STEMI/NSTEMI status with treatment as the only covariate. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with the treatment compared with placebo.|Composite of coronary events (CHD death, MI, SRI-UR or any unplanned coronary artery revascularization), Placebo Vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg BID at Week 12||1.36|0.86|0.505
90953471|NCT02145468|181784653|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.26|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio and CI are estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model stratified by baseline STEMI/NSTEMI status with treatment as the only covariate. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with the treatment compared with placebo.|Composite of CV death or hospitalization for HF, Placebo Vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg BID at Week 12||1.26|0.64|0.536
90953472|NCT02145468|181784653|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.24|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio and CI are estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model stratified by baseline STEMI/NSTEMI status with treatment as the only covariate. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with the treatment compared with placebo.|Composite of CV death or hospitalization for HF, Placebo Vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg BID at Week 24||1.24|0.69|0.6
90953473|NCT02145468|181784654|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.43|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio and CI are estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model stratified by baseline STEMI/NSTEMI status with treatment as the only covariate. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with the treatment compared with placebo.|Composite of CV death, MI or stroke, Placebo Vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg BID at Week 12||1.43|0.88|0.356
90953474|NCT02145468|181784655|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.39|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio and CI are estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model stratified by baseline STEMI/NSTEMI status with treatment as the only covariate. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with the treatment compared with placebo.|Composite of CV death, MI, SRI-UR, stroke or hospitalization for HF, Placebo Vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg BID at Week 12||1.39|0.9|0.329
90953475|NCT02145468|181784656|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.47|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio and CI are estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model stratified by baseline STEMI/NSTEMI status with treatment as the only covariate. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with the treatment compared with placebo.|Composite of CHD death, MI or SRI-UR, Placebo Vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg BID at Week 12||1.47|0.89|0.285
90953476|NCT02145468|181784657|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.46|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio and CI are estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model stratified by baseline STEMI/NSTEMI status with treatment as the only covariate. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with the treatment compared with placebo.|Composite of CHD death or MI, Placebo Vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg BID at Week 12||1.46|0.86|0.401
91042335|NCT00715676|181970047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.124||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.124
90953477|NCT02145468|181784658|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.44|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio and CI are estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model stratified by baseline STEMI/NSTEMI status with treatment as the only covariate. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with the treatment compared with placebo.|Composite of all-cause death, MI or SRI-UR,Placebo Vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg BID at Week 12||1.44|0.89|0.295
90953478|NCT02145468|181784659|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.43|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio and CI are estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model stratified by baseline STEMI/NSTEMI status with treatment as the only covariate. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with the treatment compared with placebo.|Composite of all-cause death or MI, Placebo Vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg BID at Week 12||1.43|0.86|0.412
90953479|NCT02145468|181784660|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.49|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio and CI are estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model stratified by baseline STEMI/NSTEMI status with treatment as the only covariate. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with the treatment compared with placebo.|Composite of CV death, type I (spontaneous) MI or SRI-UR, Placebo Vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg BID at Week 12||1.49|0.83|0.469
90953480|NCT02145468|181784661|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.48|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio and CI are estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model stratified by baseline STEMI/NSTEMI status with treatment as the only covariate. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with the treatment compared with placebo.|Composite of CV death or type I (spontaneous) MI, Placebo Vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg BID at Week 12||1.48|0.78|0.664
90953481|NCT02145468|181784662|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.19|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio and CI are estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model stratified by baseline STEMI/NSTEMI status with treatment as the only covariate. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with the treatment compared with placebo.|Participants with first occurrence of definite or probable stent thrombosis, Placebo Vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg BID at Week 12||1.19|0.27|0.130
90953482|NCT02145468|181784663|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.27|||Wald chi-squared||Odds ratio is estimated using a logistic regression model stratified by baseline STEMI/NSTEMI status with treatment as the only covariate. An odds ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with the treatment compared with placebo.|||1.27|0.84|0.744
90953483|NCT02145468|181784664|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.22|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio and CI are estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model stratified by baseline STEMI/NSTEMI status with treatment as the only covariate. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with the treatment compared with placebo.|Participants with all-cause mortality, Placebo Vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg BID at Week 12||1.22|0.53|0.309
90953484|NCT02145468|181784665|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.28|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio and CI are estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model stratified by baseline STEMI/NSTEMI status with treatment as the only covariate. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with the treatment compared with placebo.|CV death events, Placebo Vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg BID at Week 12||1.28|0.53|0.398
90953485|NCT02145468|181784665|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.18|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio and CI are estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model stratified by baseline STEMI/NSTEMI status with treatment as the only covariate. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with the treatment compared with placebo.|CV death events, Placebo Vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg BID at Week 24||1.18|0.55|0.264
90953486|NCT02145468|181784666|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.22|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio and CI are estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model stratified by baseline STEMI/NSTEMI status with treatment as the only covariate. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with the treatment compared with placebo.|CHD death events, Placebo Vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg BID at Week 12||1.22|0.47|0.251
91042336|NCT00715676|181970048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.173||||||90.0|0.164|0.181||||||||0.181|0.164|
91042337|NCT00715676|181970048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.582||||||90.0|0.573|0.591||||||||0.591|0.573|
91042338|NCT03828539|181970052|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.27|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio is obtained from a logistic regression model that includes treatment group and stratification factor (MMD at baseline)||||0.27|0.13|<.001
90953487|NCT02145468|181784667|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.23||||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.67|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio and CI are estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model stratified by baseline STEMI/NSTEMI status with treatment as the only covariate. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with the treatment compared with placebo.|Myocardial infarction (fatal and non-fatal) events, Placebo Vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg BID at Week 12||1.67|0.91|0.182
90953488|NCT02145468|181784667|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.21||||0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.58|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio and CI are estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model stratified by baseline STEMI/NSTEMI status with treatment as the only covariate. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with the treatment compared with placebo.|Myocardial infarction (fatal and non-fatal) events, Placebo Vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg BID at Week 24||1.58|0.93|0.158
90953489|NCT02145468|181784668|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.34||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|2.12|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio and CI are estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model stratified by baseline STEMI/NSTEMI status with treatment as the only covariate. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with the treatment compared with placebo.|Type I (spontaneous) MI events, Placebo Vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg BID at Week 12||2.12|0.85|0.21
90953490|NCT02145468|181784669|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.24|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio and CI are estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model stratified by baseline STEMI/NSTEMI status with treatment as the only covariate. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with the treatment compared with placebo.|SRI-UR events, Placebo Vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg BID at Week 12||2.24|0.58|0.697
90953491|NCT02145468|181784670|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.96|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio and CI are estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model stratified by baseline STEMI/NSTEMI status with treatment as the only covariate. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with the treatment compared with placebo.|Stroke (fatal and non-fatal) events, Placebo Vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg BID at Week 12||1.96|0.46|0.883
90953492|NCT02145468|181784671|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.32|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio and CI are estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model stratified by baseline STEMI/NSTEMI status with treatment as the only covariate. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with the treatment compared with placebo.|Hospitalization for HF, Placebo Vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg BID at Week 12||1.32|0.54|0.457
90953493|NCT02145468|181784671|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.38|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio and CI are estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model stratified by baseline STEMI/NSTEMI status with treatment as the only covariate. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with the treatment compared with placebo.|Hospitalization for HF, Placebo Vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg BID at Week 24||1.38|0.63|0.736
90953494|NCT02145468|181784672|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.59|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio and CI are estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model stratified by baseline STEMI/NSTEMI status with treatment as the only covariate. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with the treatment compared with placebo.|Any unplanned coronary revascularization, Placebo Vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg BID at Week 12||1.59|0.77|0.581
90953495|NCT00515723|181784688|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance in this planned primary test was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Primary analysis for change in DEXA total fat used a likelihood-based mixed-effects model using time (0, 6, and 12 weeks) as the independent variable, with Toeplitz covariance structure specified, based on Akaike Information Criterion-Corrected (AIC-C). The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the outcome over time (main effect of time).||||0.002
90953496|NCT00515723|181784688|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance in this planned primary test was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Primary analysis for change in DEXA total fat used a likelihood-based mixed-effects model using time (0, 6, and 12 weeks) and treatment group as independent variables, with Toeplitz covariance structure specified, based on Akaike Information Criterion-Corrected (AIC-C). The null hypothesis was that there were no differences between groups in the change over time (time by treatment condition).||||0.002
90953497|NCT00515723|181784689|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance in this planned primary test was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Primary analysis for change in insulin sensitivity used a likelihood-based mixed-effects model using time (0 and 12 weeks) as the independent variable, with an unstructured covariance structure specified, based on the Akaike Information Criterion-Corrected (AIC-C). The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the outcome over time (main effect of time).||||0.05
90988871|NCT00570739|181862597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.69||||0.0693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|1.44||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Medium HDL Particles||1.44|-0.05|0.0693
90953498|NCT00515723|181784689|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance in this planned primary test was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Primary analysis for change in insulin sensitivity used a likelihood-based mixed-effects model using time (0 and 12 weeks) and treatment group as the independent variables, with an unstructured covariance structure specified, based on the Akaike Information Criterion-Corrected (AIC-C). The null hypothesis was that there were no differences between groups in the change over time (time by treatment condition).||||0.22
90953499|NCT00798434|181784723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|-0.97|||ANCOVA|Covariates were treatment, study center, dosing time, age category, and baseline urgency episodes.||Based on a 2-sided t-test (5% significance). Null hypothesis: no difference in mean change in mean micturition-related urgency episodes per 24 hours at Week 12 for the 2 groups. Last observation carried forward (LOCF) method used for statistical analyses of the FAS (change from baseline to Week 12).||-0.97|-2.12|<0.0001
90953500|NCT00798434|181784724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-14.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.67|-14.25|||2-sided Van Elteren's test||Hodges-Lehman estimate of median treatment difference and confidence interval (CI)|Week 12 LOCF||-14.25|-14.67|<0.0001
90953501|NCT00798434|181784725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|-0.42|||ANCOVA|Covariates were treatment, study center, dosing time, age category, and baseline severe urgency episodes||Week 12 LOCF||-0.42|-1.28|0.0001
90953502|NCT00798434|181784726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||2-sided Van Elteren's test||Hodges-Lehman estimate of median treatment difference and CI|Week 12 LOCF||0.00|0.00|0.0005
90953503|NCT00798434|181784727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.64|||ANCOVA|Covariates were treatment, study center, dosing time, age category, and baseline number of micturitions||Week 12 LOCF||-0.64|-1.33|<0.0001
90953504|NCT00798434|181784728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-7.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|-7.19|||2-sided Van Elteren's test|||Week 12 LOCF||-7.19|-7.40|<0.0001
90953505|NCT00798434|181784729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.09|||ANCOVA|Covariates were treatment, study center, dosing time, age category, and baseline number of night-time micturitions||Week 12 LOCF||-0.09|-0.40|0.0026
90953506|NCT00798434|181784730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-9.52||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.52|-9.09|||2-sided Van Elteren's test|||Week 12 LOCF||-9.09|-9.52|0.0012
90953507|NCT00798434|181784731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehman estimate|0.0||||0.1005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||The protocol-defined analysis (ANOVA, parametric) not presented because normality assumptions were not met, instead an alternative analysis (Van-Elteren'ts test, non-parametric) as defined in the statistical analysis plan presented.|Van-Elteren's Test||Hodges-Lehman estimate of median treatment difference and CI|Week 12 LOCF||0.00|0.00|0.1005
90953508|NCT00798434|181784732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.0218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||2-sided Van Elteren's test|||Week 12 LOCF||0.00|0.00|0.0218
90988872|NCT00570739|181862597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.85||||0.0187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|1.56||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Medium HDL Particles||1.56|0.14|0.0187
90988873|NCT00570739|181862597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.5765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|0.75||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Small HDL Particles||0.75|-1.34|0.5765
90988874|NCT00570739|181862597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36||||0.4762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|0.63||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment group|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Small HDL Particles||0.63|-1.35|0.4762
90988875|NCT00570739|181862598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.21||||0.0652|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|4.57||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Very Low Density Lipoprotein Particles||4.57|-0.14|0.0652
90988876|NCT00570739|181862598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.74||||0.0137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|4.92||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Very Low Density Lipoprotein Particles||4.92|0.57|0.0137
90988877|NCT00570739|181862598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.4726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.09||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Low Density Lipoprotien Particles||0.09|-0.20|0.4726
90988878|NCT00570739|181862598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.5715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.1||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Low Density Lipoprotein Particles||0.10|-0.17|0.5715
90988879|NCT00570739|181862598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.15||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||High Density Lipoprotein Particles||0.15|0.02|0.0083
90988880|NCT00570739|181862598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.15||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||High Density Lipoprotein Particles||0.15|0.03|0.0022
90988881|NCT00570739|181862599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|26.0||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.6|43.5||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks||43.5|8.6|0.0036
90988882|NCT00570739|181862599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.2||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.2|43.3||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||43.3|11.2|0.0010
91042339|NCT03828539|181970053|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.06|3.71|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio is obtained from a logistic regression model that includes treatment group and stratification factor (MMD at baseline)||||3.71|2.06|<.001
90988883|NCT00570739|181862600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|29.8||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.5|47.0||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks||47.0|12.5|0.0008
90988884|NCT00570739|181862600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|30.7||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.9|46.6||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||46.6|14.9|0.0002
90988885|NCT00570739|181862601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.6||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|4.3||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks||4.3|0.9|0.0033
90988886|NCT00570739|181862601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|4.4||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||4.4|1.2|0.0008
90988887|NCT00570739|181862602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.09||P-Value is for the LS mean difference between the treatment groups|ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||||-0.09|-0.44|0.0035
90988888|NCT00570739|181862603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5848||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by country.||Baseline to 4 Weeks||||0.5848
90988889|NCT00570739|181862603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8147||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by country||Baseline to 8 weeks||||0.8147
90988890|NCT00570739|181862603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4957||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by country||Baseline to 12 Weeks||||0.4957
90988891|NCT00570739|181862603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0467||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by country||Baseline to 16 Weeks||||0.0467
90988892|NCT00570739|181862603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0589||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by country.||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||||0.0589
90988893|NCT00570739|181862603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.9||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|6.1|||Regression, Logistic|Contained treatment and country as factors and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks||6.10|1.38|0.0049
90988894|NCT00570739|181862603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.44||||0.0092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|4.76|||Regression, Logistic|Contained treatment and country as factors and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||4.76|1.25|0.0092
90988895|NCT00570739|181862604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0008||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Startified by country||Baseline to 4 Weeks||||0.0008
90988896|NCT00570739|181862604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by country||Baseline to 8 Weeks||||0.0280
90988897|NCT00570739|181862604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0414||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by country||Baseline to 12 Weeks||||0.0414
90988898|NCT00570739|181862604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.084||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by country||Baseline to 16 Weeks||||0.0840
90988899|NCT00570739|181862604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0589||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by country||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||||0.0589
90988900|NCT00570739|181862604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.19||||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|3.96|||Regression, Logistic|Contained treatment and country as factors and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks||3.96|1.21|0.0095
90988901|NCT00570739|181862604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.08||||0.0088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|3.6|||Regression, Logistic|Contained treatment and country as factors and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||3.60|1.20|0.0088
90988902|NCT00570739|181862605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by country||Baseline to 8 Weeks||||<0.0001
90988903|NCT00570739|181862605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by country||Baseline to 16 Weeks||||<0.0001
90988904|NCT00570739|181862605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by country||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||||<0.0001
90988905|NCT00570739|181862605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.78|11.23|||Regression, Logistic|Contained treatment and country as factors and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks||11.23|2.78|<0.0001
90988906|NCT00570739|181862605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.53|9.1|||Regression, Logistic|Contained treatment and country as factors and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||9.10|2.53|<0.0001
90988907|NCT00570739|181862606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by country||Baseline to 8 Weeks||||0.0004
90988908|NCT00570739|181862606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0326||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by country||Baseline to 16 Weeks||||0.0326
90988909|NCT00570739|181862606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0157||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by country||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||||0.0157
90988910|NCT00570739|181862606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.49||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|7.07|||Regression, Logistic|Contained treatment and country as factors and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks||7.07|0.88|0.0870
90988911|NCT00570739|181862606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.86||||0.00439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|7.94|||Regression, Logistic|Contained treatment and country as factors and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||7.94|1.03|0.00439
90988912|NCT00570739|181862607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.7959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|1.72||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks||1.72|-1.32|0.7959
90988913|NCT00570739|181862607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.8371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|1.57||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||1.57|-1.28|0.8371
90988914|NCT00570739|181862608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0033||||0.4584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0122|0.0055||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks||0.0055|-0.0122|0.4584
90988915|NCT00570739|181862608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0035||||0.4039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0118|0.0048||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||0.0048|-0.0118|0.4039
90988916|NCT00570739|181862609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.07|-10.11||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||||-10.11|-21.07|<0.0001
90988917|NCT00570739|181862610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.46||||0.2289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.53|6.62||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks||6.62|-27.53|0.2289
90988918|NCT00570739|181862610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.54||||0.1997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.22|6.14||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||6.14|-29.22|0.1997
90988919|NCT00570739|181862611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.81||||0.0144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.57|23.05||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Calculated Triglycerides||23.05|2.57|0.0144
90988920|NCT00570739|181862611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.12||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.63|23.61||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Calculated Triglycerides||23.61|4.63|0.0037
90988921|NCT00570739|181862611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.79||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.59|39.0||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Calculated Very Low Density Lipoprotein Triglycerides||39.00|6.59|0.0060
90988922|NCT00570739|181862611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.72||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.71|39.73||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Calculated Very Low Density Lipoprotein Triglycerides||39.73|9.71|0.0013
90988923|NCT00570739|181862611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.35||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.71|13.0|||ANCOVA|||Calculated High Density Lipoprotein-Cholesterol||13.00|3.71|0.0005
90988924|NCT00570739|181862611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.69||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.27|13.11||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Calculated High Density Lipoprotein-Cholesterol||13.11|4.27|0.0001
90988925|NCT00570739|181862612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.8804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.34||P-Value for comparing percentages was from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Baseline to 16 Weeks||2.34|0.63|0.8804
90988926|NCT00570739|181862612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.5525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.6||P-Value for comparing percentages was from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||2.60|0.73|0.5525
90988927|NCT00570739|181862612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5648||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|Contained treatment and country as factors and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks||||0.5648
90988928|NCT00570739|181862612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.317||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|Contained treatment and country as factors and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||||0.3170
90988929|NCT00570739|181862613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.64||||0.9008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|4.06||P-Value for comparing percentages was from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Baseline to 16 Weeks||4.06|0.66|0.9008
90988930|NCT00570739|181862613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.9035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.37||P-Value for comparing percentages was from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||3.37|0.60|0.9035
90988931|NCT00570739|181862613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2874||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|Contained treatment and country as factors and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks||||0.2874
90988932|NCT00570739|181862613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4344||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|Contained treatment and country as factors and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||||0.4344
91042340|NCT03828539|181970054|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|3.12|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio is obtained from a logistic regression model that includes treatment group and stratification factor (MMD at baseline)||||3.12|1.70|<.001
90953509|NCT00798434|181784733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|-3.1|||ANCOVA|Covariates were treatment, study center, dosing time, age category, and daily sum rating of USS at baseline||Week 12 LOCF||-3.10|-6.30|<0.0001
90953510|NCT00798434|181784734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.515||||0.1113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.909|2.528||Logistic regression determined the odds of improvement versus no improvement in dryness, where improvement was defined as dry at both weeks 8 and 12 relative to baseline incontinence.|Regression, Logistic|Covariates were treatment, study center, dosing time, and age category||LOCF||2.528|0.909|0.1113
90988933|NCT00570739|181862614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.61|-14.63||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 8 Weeks||-14.63|-24.61|<0.0001
90988934|NCT00570739|181862614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.24|-11.69||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks||-11.69|-23.24|<0.0001
90988935|NCT00570739|181862615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.26|-8.69||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 8 Weeks||-8.69|-16.26|<0.0001
90988936|NCT00570739|181862615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.15|-5.41||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks||-5.41|-15.15|<0.0001
90988937|NCT00570739|181862615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.06||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.69|-4.42||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||-4.42|-13.69|0.0002
90953511|NCT00798434|181784735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.04|||ANCOVA|Covariates were treatment, study center, dosing time, age category, and baseline number of pads per 24 hours||Incontinence pads at Week 12 LOCF||-0.04|-0.47|0.0230
90988938|NCT00570739|181862616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.96||||0.0357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|7.66||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 8 Weeks||7.66|0.27|0.0357
91042341|NCT03828539|181970055|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|2.43|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio is obtained from a logistic regression model that includes treatment group and stratification factor (MMD at baseline)||Physical Component Summary (PCS)||2.43|1.26|<0.001
90953512|NCT00798434|181784735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.01|||ANCOVA|Covariates were treatment, study center, dosing time, age category, and baseline number of creams per 24 hours||Creams at Week 12 LOCF||0.01|-0.12|0.0909
90953513|NCT00798434|181784735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.2039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.02|||ANCOVA|Covariates were treatment, study center, dosing time, age category, and baseline number of powders per 24 hours||Powder at Week 12 LOCF||0.02|-0.08|0.2039
90953514|NCT00798434|181784736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.096|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.181|4.395|||Regression, Logistic|Covariates were treatment, study center, dosing time, and age category||Week 12 LOCF||4.395|2.181|<0.0001
90953515|NCT00798434|181784739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.506|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.767|3.556||Logistic regression determined the odds of improvement versus no improvement in PPBC score, where improvement was defined as a negative change from baseline.|Regression, Logistic|Covariates were treatment, study center, dosing time, age category, and baseline PPBC category||Week 12 LOCF||3.556|1.767|<0.0001
90953516|NCT00798434|181784743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.916||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.305|2.811||Logistic regression determined the odds of improvement versus no improvement in PPBC score, where improvement was defined as an increase of 1 or more points in difference of scores relative to baseline.|Regression, Logistic|Covariates were treatment, study center, dosing time, age category, and baseline PPUS category||LOCF||2.811|1.305|0.0009
90953517|NCT00798434|181784745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.65|-4.59|||ANCOVA|Covariates were treatment, study center, dosing time, age category, and baseline symptom/bother score||Week 12 LOCF||-4.59|-9.65|<0.0001
90953518|NCT00798434|181784746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.24|6.73|||ANCOVA|Covariates were treatment, study center, dosing time, age category, and baseline total health-related quality of life (HRQL) score.||Week 12 LOCF||6.73|2.24|<0.0001
90953519|NCT00798434|181784747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.44||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.57|8.22|||ANCOVA|Covariates were treatment, study center, dosing time, age category, and baseline HRQL subscale score||Coping Subscale at Week 12; LOCF||8.22|2.57|0.0002
90953520|NCT00798434|181784747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.84|7.93|||ANCOVA|Covariates were treatment, study center, dosing time, age category, and baseline HRQL subscale score||Concern Subscale at Week 12; LOCF||7.93|2.84|<0.0001
90953521|NCT00798434|181784747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|6.81|||ANCOVA|Covariates were treatment, study center, dosing time, age category, and baseline HRQL subscale score||Sleep Subscale at Week 12; LOCF||6.81|1.38|0.0032
90953522|NCT00798434|181784747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.0152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|4.53|||ANCOVA|Covariates were treatment, study center, dosing time, age category, and baseline HRQL subscale score||Social Subscale at Week 12; LOCF||4.53|0.49|0.0152
90953523|NCT00798434|181784748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.537|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.281|5.484||Analysis determined the odds of responding on the OAB-S scale (satisfaction with OAB control) for Fesoterodine versus placebo, where a responder was defined as a response of 'satisfied' or better on all 7 questions at week 12.|Regression, Logistic|Covariates were treatment, study center, dosing time and age category||LOCF||5.484|2.281|<0.001
90953524|NCT00798434|181784749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.881|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.045|4.058||Analysis determined the odds of responding on the OAB-S scale (OAB medication expectation) for Fesoterodine versus placebo, where a responder was defined as a response of 'satisfied' or better on all 7 questions at week 12.|Regression, Logistic|Covariates were treatment, study center, dosing time and age category||LOCF||4.058|2.045|<0.0001
90953525|NCT00798434|181784750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.12||0.3163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.13|12.49|||ANCOVA|Covariates were treatment, study center, dosing time, age category, and baseline total domain score||General Health Perception; LOCF||12.49|-4.13|0.3163
90953526|NCT00798434|181784750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.63||0.4698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.7|11.11|||ANCOVA|Covariates were treatment, study center, dosing time, age category, and baseline total domain score||Incontinence Impact; LOCF||11.11|-23.70|0.4698
90953527|NCT00798434|181784750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.28||0.5321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.58|12.88|||ANCOVA|Covariates were treatment, study center, dosing time, age category, and baseline total domain score||Role Limitations; LOCF||12.88|-24.58|0.5321
90953528|NCT00798434|181784750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.39||0.6523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.74|13.12|||ANCOVA|Covariates were treatment, study center, dosing time, age category, and baseline total domain score||Physical Limitations; LOCF||13.12|-20.74|0.6523
90953529|NCT00798434|181784750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.8||0.6344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.47|16.99|||ANCOVA|Covariates were treatment, study center, dosing time, age category, and baseline total domain score||Social Limitations; LOCF||16.99|-10.47|0.6344
90988939|NCT00570739|181862616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85||||0.6878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.01|3.31||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks||3.31|-5.01|0.6878
90988940|NCT00570739|181862616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.7972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.37|3.36||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||3.36|-4.37|0.7972
91042342|NCT03828539|181970055|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.79||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|2.69|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio is obtained from a logistic regression model that includes treatment group and stratification factor (MMD at baseline)||Mental Component Summary (MCS)||2.69|1.29|0.005
90953530|NCT00798434|181784750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.38||0.2013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.71|6.49|||ANCOVA|Covariates were treatment, study center, dosing time, age category, and baseline total domain score||Personal Relationships; LOCF||6.49|-28.71|0.2013
90953531|NCT00798434|181784750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.88||0.3831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.96|7.83|||ANCOVA|Covariates were treatment, study center, dosing time, age category, and baseline total domain score||Emotions; LOCF||7.83|-19.96|0.3831
90953532|NCT00798434|181784750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.82||0.5167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|18.23|||ANCOVA|Covariates were treatment, study center, dosing time, age category, and baseline total domain score||Sleep/Energy; LOCF||18.23|-9.30|0.5167
90953533|NCT00798434|181784750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.12||0.0532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.53|0.15|||ANCOVA|Covariates were treatment, study center, dosing time, age category, and baseline total domain score||Severity of Urinary Symptoms; LOCF||0.15|-20.53|0.0532
90953534|NCT00798434|181784751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0125||0.8959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0229|0.0262|||ANCOVA|Covariates were treatment, study center, dosing time, age category, and baseline single utility score||||0.0262|-0.0229|0.8959
90953535|NCT00558792|181784800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0099||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0099
90953536|NCT00558792|181784801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
90953537|NCT00558792|181784802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1212||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1212
90988941|NCT00570739|181862617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.91|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.02|-5.8||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 8 Weeks||-5.80|-12.02|<0.0001
90953538|NCT00558792|181784804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.0200
90953539|NCT00558792|181784805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0044||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.0044
90953540|NCT00558792|181784806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0371||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.0371
90953541|NCT00558792|181784807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Sensitivity between Doses|14.1||||0.2758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|39.6||Study was not powered for diagnostic performance analyses. Sample size was based on quality of visualization of coronary artery segments.|Chi-squared|||||39.6|-11.4|0.2758
90953542|NCT00558792|181784807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Sensitivity between Doses|12.3||||0.3102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|35.6||Study was not powered for diagnostic performance analyses. Sample size was based on quality of visualization of coronary artery segments.|Chi-squared|||||35.6|-11.1|0.3102
90953543|NCT00558792|181784807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Sensitivity between Doses|1.9||||0.8893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.6|28.4||Study was not powered for diagnostic performance analyses. Sample size was based on quality of visualization of coronary artery segments.|Chi-squared|||||28.4|-24.6|0.8893
90953544|NCT00558792|181784808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Specificity between Doses|-1.7||||0.2511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|1.3||Study was not powered for diagnostic performance analyses. Sample size was based on quality of visualization of coronary artery segments.|Chi-squared|||||1.3|-4.7|0.2511
90953545|NCT00558792|181784808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Specificity between Doses|1.3||||0.4985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|5.3||Study was not powered for diagnostic performance analyses. Sample size was based on quality of visualization of coronary artery segments.|Chi-squared|||||5.3|-2.6|0.4985
90953546|NCT00558792|181784808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Specificity between Doses|-3.1||||0.0693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|0.4||Study was not powered for diagnostic performance analyses. Sample size was based on quality of visualization of coronary artery segments.|Chi-squared|||||0.4|-6.5|0.0693
90953547|NCT00558792|181784809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Sensitivity between Doses|-1.5||||0.9104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.9|24.8||Study was not powered for diagnostic performance analyses. Sample size was based on quality of visualization of coronary artery segments.|Chi-squared|||||24.8|-27.9|0.9104
90953548|NCT00558792|181784809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Sensitivity between Doses|-12.6||||0.2857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.7|10.5||Study was not powered for diagnostic performance analyses. Sample size was based on quality of visualization of coronary artery segments.|Chi-squared|||||10.5|-35.7|0.2857
90953549|NCT00558792|181784809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Sensitivity between Doses|11.1||||0.3664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|35.5||Study was not powered for diagnostic performance analyses. Sample size was based on quality of visualization of coronary artery segments.|Chi-squared|||||35.5|-13.3|0.3664
90953550|NCT00558792|181784810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Specifcity between Doses|-3.7||||0.1322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|1.2||Study was not powered for diagnostic performance analyses. Sample size was based on quality of visualization of coronary artery segments.|Chi-squared|||||1.2|-8.7|0.1322
90953551|NCT00558792|181784810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Specificity between Doses|-1.3||||0.6381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|4.2||Study was not powered for diagnostic performance analyses. Sample size was based on quality of visualization of coronary artery segments.|Chi-squared|||||4.2|-6.9|0.6381
90953552|NCT00558792|181784810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Specificity between Doses|-2.4||||0.3217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|2.4||Study was not powered for diagnostic performance analyses. Sample size was based on quality of visualization of coronary artery segments.|Chi-squared|||||2.4|-7.2|0.3217
90953553|NCT00558792|181784811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Sensitivity between Doses|7.6||||0.5843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.6|34.7||Study was not powered for diagnostic performance analyses. Sample size was based on quality of visualization of coronary artery segments.|Chi-squared|||||34.7|-19.6|0.5843
90988942|NCT00570739|181862617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.25|-4.26||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks||-4.26|-12.25|<0.0001
90988943|NCT00570739|181862617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.23||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.03|-3.44||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||-3.44|-11.03|0.0002
90953554|NCT00558792|181784811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Sensitivity between Doses|4.6||||0.7197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.5|29.7||Study was not powered for diagnostic performance analyses. Sample size was based on quality of visualization of coronary artery segments.|Chi-squared|||||29.7|-20.5|0.7197
90953555|NCT00558792|181784811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Sensitivity between Doses|3.0||||0.8292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.1|30.1||Study was not powered for diagnostic performance analyses. Sample size was based on quality of visualization of coronary artery segments.|Chi-squared|||||30.1|-24.1|0.8292
91042343|NCT02760433|181970060|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.19||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.03|0.337|||Chi-squared|2x2 chi-square test||The ACR20 response rate at Week 12 for the placebo group is estimated to be 20% in this study population. The OKZ ACR20 response rate for 64 mg q4w treatment group at Week 12 are expected to be at least 45%, resulting in an expected difference in ACR20 response rates of 25 percentage points between the respective OKZ treatment group and placebo. Sample size yield 100% disjunctive power for testing the primary hypothesis||0.337|0.030|0.004
90953556|NCT00558792|181784812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Specificity between Doses|-4.2||||0.0888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|0.7||Study was not powered for diagnostic performance analyses. Sample size was based on quality of visualization of coronary artery segments.|Chi-squared|||||0.7|-9.0|0.0888
90953557|NCT00558792|181784812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Specificity between Doses|-0.8||||0.7796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|4.8||Study was not powered for diagnostic performance analyses. Sample size was based on quality of visualization of coronary artery segments.|Chi-squared|||||4.8|-6.4|0.7796
90953558|NCT00558792|181784812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Specificity between Doses|-3.4||||0.1662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|1.5||Study was not powered for diagnostic performance analyses. Sample size was based on quality of visualization of coronary artery segments.|Chi-squared|||||1.5|-8.2|0.1662
90953559|NCT03578887|181784816|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90953560|NCT03578887|181784817|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.85
90953561|NCT00095498|181784819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.264|||||||van Elteren stratified rank test|||||||0.264
90953562|NCT00095498|181784819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.018|||||||van Elteren stratified rank test|||||||0.018
90953563|NCT00095498|181784820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.032|||||||van Elteren Stratified Rank Test|||||||0.032
90953564|NCT00095498|181784820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.18|||||||van Elteren Stratified Rank Test|||||||0.180
90953565|NCT00095498|181784821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.602|||||||van Elteren Stratified Rank Test|||||||0.602
90953566|NCT00095498|181784821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.181|||||||van Elteren Stratified Rank Test|||||||0.181
90953567|NCT00095498|181784822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.012|||||||van Elteren Stratified Rank Test|||||||0.012
90953568|NCT00095498|181784822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.007|||||||van Elteren Stratified Rank Test|||||||0.007
90953569|NCT00095498|181784823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.277|||||||van Elteren Stratified Rank Test|||||||0.277
90953570|NCT00095498|181784823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.019|||||||van Elteren Stratified Rank Test|||||||0.019
90953571|NCT00095498|181784824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.382|||||||van Elteren Stratified Rank Test|||||||0.382
90953572|NCT00095498|181784824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.488|||||||van Elteren Stratified Rank Test|||||||0.488
90953573|NCT00095498|181784825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.236|||||||van Elteren Stratified Rank Test|||||||0.236
90953574|NCT00095498|181784825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.712|||||||van Elteren Stratified Rank Test|||||||0.712
90953575|NCT00095498|181784826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.93||||0.026||95.0|0.11|1.74|||Repeated Measures Model|||||1.74|0.11|0.026
90953576|NCT00095498|181784826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.59||||0.155||95.0|-0.23|1.41|||Repeated measures model|||||1.41|-0.23|0.155
90953577|NCT00095498|181784827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.67||||0.002||95.0|0.62|2.72|||Repeated Measures Model|||||2.72|0.62|0.002
90953578|NCT00095498|181784827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.89|||<|0.001||95.0|0.84|2.94|||Repeated Measures Model|||||2.94|0.84|<0.001
90953579|NCT00095498|181784828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2|||<|0.001||95.0|1.1|3.29|||Repeated Measures Model|||||3.29|1.1|<0.001
90953580|NCT00095498|181784828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.29|||<|0.001||95.0|2.18|4.39|||Repeated Measures Model|||||4.39|2.18|<0.001
90953581|NCT00095498|181784829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.986||95.0|-1.06|1.08|||Repeated Measures Model|||||1.08|-1.06|0.986
90953582|NCT00095498|181784829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.141||95.0|-0.27|1.86|||Repeated Measures Model|||||1.86|-0.27|0.141
90953583|NCT00095498|181784830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.95||||0.073||95.0|-0.09|1.99|||Repeated Measures Model|||||1.99|-0.09|0.073
90953584|NCT00095498|181784830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.89||||0.09||95.0|-0.14|1.93|||Repeated Measures Model|||||1.93|-0.14|0.09
90953585|NCT00095498|181784831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.81||||0.007||95.0|0.51|3.12|||Repeated Measures Model|||||3.12|0.51|0.007
90953586|NCT00095498|181784831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.98||||0.003||95.0|0.67|3.29|||Repeated Measures Model|||||3.29|0.67|0.003
90953587|NCT00095498|181784832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.938||95.0|-0.58|0.63|||Repeated Measures Model|||||0.63|-0.58|0.938
90953588|NCT00095498|181784832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.787||95.0|-0.53|0.69|||Repeated Measures Model|||||0.69|-0.53|0.787
90953589|NCT00095498|181784833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.004||95.0|0.33|1.67|||Repeated Measures Model|||||1.67|0.33|0.004
90953590|NCT00095498|181784833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.18|||<|0.001||95.0|0.51|1.85|||Repeated Measures Model|||||1.85|0.51|<0.001
90953591|NCT00095498|181784834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.94|||<|0.001||95.0|1.02|2.85|||Repeated Measures Model|||||2.85|1.02|<0.001
90953592|NCT00095498|181784834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.04|||<|0.001||95.0|1.13|2.96|||Repeated Measures Model|||||2.96|1.13|<0.001
90953593|NCT00095498|181784835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||van Elteren Stratified Rank Test|||||||<0.001
90953594|NCT00095498|181784835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||van Elteren Stratified Rank Test|||||||<0.001
90953595|NCT00095498|181784836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||van Elteren Stratified Rank Test|||||||<0.001
90953596|NCT00095498|181784836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||van Elteren Stratified Rank Test|||||||<0.001
90953597|NCT00095498|181784837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||van Elteren Stratified Rank Test|||||||<0.001
90953598|NCT00095498|181784837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||van Elteren Stratified Rank Test|||||||<0.001
90953599|NCT00095498|181784838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||van Elteren Stratified Rank Test|||||||<0.001
90953600|NCT00095498|181784838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||van Elteren Stratified Rank Test|||||||<0.001
90953601|NCT00095498|181784839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||van Elteren Stratified Rank Test|||||||<0.001
90953602|NCT00095498|181784839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||van Elteren Stratified Rank Test|||||||<0.001
90953603|NCT00095498|181784840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.016|||||||van Elteren Stratified Rank Test|||||||0.016
90953604|NCT00095498|181784840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||van Elteren Stratified Rank Test|||||||<0.001
90953605|NCT00095498|181784841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||van Elteren Stratified Rank Test|||||||<0.001
90953606|NCT00095498|181784841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||van Elteren Stratified Rank Test|||||||<0.001
90953607|NCT00095498|181784842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.673|||||||van Elteren Stratified Rank Test|||||||0.673
90953608|NCT00095498|181784842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.589|||||||van Elteren Stratified Rank Test|||||||0.589
90988944|NCT00570739|181862618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.5||||0.0257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|6.57||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 8 Weeks||6.57|0.43|0.0257
90988945|NCT00570739|181862618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.13||||0.2238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|5.58||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks||5.58|-1.32|0.2238
90953609|NCT00095498|181784843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.175|||||||van Elteren Stratified Rank Test|||||||0.175
90953610|NCT00095498|181784843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.133|||||||van Elteren Stratified Rank Test|||||||0.133
90953611|NCT00926497|181784987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||The trial was designed to obtain a power of 90% to detect a 30% difference between the two groups in the duration of antibiotic therapy with an estimated standard deviation of 50%.||||0.002
90953612|NCT00926497|181784988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.012
90953613|NCT00926497|181784988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.004
90953614|NCT03439254|181784989|OTHER||Response ratio(Mantel-Haenszel estimate)|1.13||||0.6172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.79|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Treatment / Placebo Response Ratio = Percentage of Responders in Active Treatment Arm / Percentage of Responders in Placebo, stratified by Baseline diabetes status (yes/no).|||1.79|0.71|0.6172
90953615|NCT03439254|181784989|OTHER||Response ratio(Mantel-Haenszel estimate)|1.2||||0.4184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.89|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Treatment / Placebo Response Ratio = Percentage of Responders in Active Treatment Arm / Percentage of Responders in Placebo, stratified by Baseline diabetes status (yes/no).|||1.89|0.77|0.4184
90953616|NCT00128102|181785005|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.17|||Log Rank|||||1.17|0.83|0.858
90953617|NCT00128102|181785009|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.88|||Likelihood Based Score Test|||||0.88|0.63|<0.001
90953618|NCT00128102|181785010|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|0.3||||0.621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|1.97|||Fisher Exact|||||1.97|-1.18|0.621
90953619|NCT00128102|181785011|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percent Change|-52.4||||0.259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-143.5|38.6|||Longitudinal Model|||||38.6|-143.5|0.259
90953620|NCT00128102|181785012|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|-1.3||||0.736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|4.53|||Fisher Exact|||||4.53|-7.20|0.736
90953621|NCT00128102|181785013|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percent Change|-0.06||||0.979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.61|4.49|||Longitudinal Model|||||4.49|-4.61|0.979
90953622|NCT00128102|181785014|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|3.1||||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.97|11.17|||Fisher Exact|||||11.17|-4.97|0.488
90953623|NCT00568178|181785015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio in Geometric Mean|0.63||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.74|0.54|0.001
90953624|NCT00568178|181785016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.4||||||95.0|-9.9|-1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.0|-9.9|
90953625|NCT00568178|181785017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.6||||||95.0|-9.2|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.1|-9.2|
90953626|NCT00568178|181785018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.6||No P Value was calculated for this outcome.|Mixed Models Analysis|An unstructured variance-covariance was used.||||1.60|0.86|
90953627|NCT00568178|181785019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean|-3.8||||||95.0|-15.2|7.6||A P-Value was not calculated for this outcome.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.6|-15.2|
90953628|NCT01008553|181785028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0003
90953629|NCT00574873|181785057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.667||||||p-value was based on a Cochran Mantel Haenszel test for general association between treatment and responder stratification by Sokal risk group (low, intermediate, high) and region (1 to 3) as determined at time of randomization.|Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.667
90953630|NCT00574873|181785058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||||||p-value was based on a Cochran Mantel Haenszel test for general association between treatment and responder stratification by Sokal risk group (low, intermediate, high) and region (1 to 3) as determined at time of randomization.|Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.002
90953631|NCT00574873|181785059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.31|||||Hazard ratio (95% confidence interval) based on the treatment effect (bosutinib compared with imatinib) in a stratified (by Sokal risk group and region at randomization) Cox model for the hazard of the respective event.|||1.31|0.31|
90953632|NCT00574873|181785060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.08|||||Hazard ratio (95% confidence interval) based on the treatment effect (bosutinib compared with imatinib) in a stratified (by Sokal risk group and region at randomization) Cox model for the hazard of the respective event.|||1.08|0.32|
90953633|NCT00574873|181785061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|11.72|||||Hazard ratio (95% confidence interval) based on the treatment effect (bosutinib compared with imatinib) in a stratified (by Sokal risk group and region at randomization) Cox model for the hazard of the respective event.|||11.72|0.90|
90953634|NCT00574873|181785062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.29|||||The hazard ratio (95% confidence interval) is obtained from a Cox model for cause-specific hazard as a function of the covariate treatment (bosutinib compared with imatinib) with stratification by region and Sokal risk group at randomization.|||1.29|0.13|
90953635|NCT00581555|181785063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.5||0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|14.7||P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity and the priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|mixed model of ANCOVA|Treatment groups and visits were fixed factors, participant was a random factor and baseline was covariate.||Analysis at randomization to Week 8.||14.7|-14.7|0.999
90953636|NCT00581555|181785063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.5||0.795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|16.7||P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity and the priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|mixed model of ANCOVA|Treatment groups and visits were fixed factors, participant was a random factor and baseline was covariate.||Analysis at randomization to Week 10.||16.7|-12.8|0.795
90953637|NCT00581555|181785063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.6||0.758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|17.1||P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity and the priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|mixed model of ANCOVA|Treatment groups and visits were fixed factors, participant was a random factor and baseline was covariate.||Analysis at randomization to Week 12.||17.1|-12.5|0.758
90953638|NCT00581555|181785063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.6||0.381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|21.6||P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity and the priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|mixed model of ANCOVA|Treatment groups and visits were fixed factors, participant was a random factor and baseline was covariate.||Analysis at randomization to Week 16.||21.6|-8.3|0.381
90953639|NCT00581555|181785063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.8||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|31.4||P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity and the priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|mixed model of ANCOVA|Treatment groups and visits were fixed factors, participant was a random factor and baseline was a covariate.||Analysis at randomization to Week 20.||31.4|0.8|0.041
90953640|NCT00581555|181785063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|30.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.8|46.3||P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity and the priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|mixed model of ANCOVA|Treatment groups and visits were fixed factors, participant was a random factor and baseline was covariate.||Analysis at randomization to Week 24.||46.3|14.8|<0.001
90953641|NCT00581555|181785064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.2||P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity and the priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|mixed model of ANCOVA|Treatment groups and visits were fixed factors, participant was a random factor and baseline was a covariate.||Analysis from randomization to Week 24.||1.2|0.0|0.049
90953642|NCT00581555|181785065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity and the priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Pearson chi-square|Treatment groups and visits were fixed factors with a logit link, a binomial distribution and an auto-regressive correlation structure.||Analysis from randomization to Week 24.||||0.002
90953643|NCT00581555|181785066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003||95.0|||||Log Rank|Time to first relapse was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier's, and comparisons between groups was performed using log rank tests.||||||0.0003
90953644|NCT00581555|181785067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|7.3||P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity and the priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|mixed model of ANCOVA|Treatment groups and visits were fixed factors, participant was a random factor and baseline was a covariate.||Analysis from randomization to Week 24.||7.3|2.1|<0.001
90953645|NCT00581555|181785068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|135.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|42.3||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.3|218.1||P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity and the priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|mixed model of ANCOVA|Treatment groups and visits were fixed factors, participant was a random factor and baseline was a covariate.||Analysis from randomization to Week 24.||218.1|52.3|0.001
90953646|NCT00581555|181785069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.139||95.0|-0.8|5.5||P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity and the priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|mixed model of ANCOVA|Treatment groups and visits were fixed factors, participant was a random factor and baseline was a covariate.||Analysis from randomization to Week 24.||5.5|-0.8|0.139
90953647|NCT00581555|181785070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|2.5||P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity and the priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|mixed model of ANCOVA|Treatment groups and visits were fixed factors, participant was a random factor and baseline was a covariate.||Analysis from baseline to Week 2.||2.5|-2.3|0.956
90953648|NCT00581555|181785070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|1.5||P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity and the priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|mixed model of ANCOVA|Treatment groups and visits were fixed factors, participant was a random factor and baseline was a covariate.||Analysis from baseline to Week 4.||1.5|-3.6|0.41
90953649|NCT00581555|181785070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2||0.844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|3.9||P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity and the priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|mixed model of ANCOVA|Treatment groups and visits were fixed factors, participant was a random factor and baseline was a covariate.||Analysis from baseline to Week 6.||3.9|-4.8|0.844
90953650|NCT00581555|181785070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.8||P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity and the priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|mixed model of ANCOVA|Treatment groups and visits were fixed factors, participant was a random factor and baseline was a covariate.||Analysis from baseline to Week 8.||1.8|-1.8|0.968
90953651|NCT00581555|181785070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.5||P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity and the priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|mixed model of ANCOVA|Treatment groups and visits were fixed factors, participant was a random factor and baseline was a covariate.||Analysis from baseline to Week 10.||2.5|-1.1|0.441
90953652|NCT00581555|181785070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|2.8||P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity and the priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|mixed model of ANCOVA|Treatment groups and visits were fixed factors, participant was a random factor and baseline was a covariate.||Analysis from baseline to Week 12.||2.8|-0.9|0.3
90953653|NCT00581555|181785070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|4.5||P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity and the priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|mixed model of ANCOVA|Treatment groups and visits were fixed factors, participant was a random factor and baseline was a covariate.||Analysis from baseline to Week 16.||4.5|0.7|0.008
90953654|NCT00581555|181785070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|5.0||P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity and the priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|mixed model of ANCOVA|Treatment groups and visits were fixed factors, participant was a random factor and baseline was a covariate.||Analysis from baseline to Week 20.||5.0|0.9|0.005
90953655|NCT00581555|181785070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|4.6||P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity and the priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|mixed model of ANCOVA|Treatment groups and visits were fixed factors, participant was a random factor and baseline was a covariate.||Analysis from baseline to Week 24.||4.6|0.2|0.031
90988946|NCT00570739|181862618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.78||||0.2763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|4.99||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||4.99|-1.44|0.2763
90988947|NCT00570739|181862619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.68|-5.98||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 8 Weeks||-5.98|-13.68|<0.0001
90953656|NCT00581555|181785071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1196||95.0||||P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity and the priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Pearson chi-square or Fisher exact test|Treatment groups and visits were fixed factors with a logit link, a binomial distribution and an auto-regressive correlation structure.||Analysis from baseline to Week 24.||||0.1196
90953657|NCT01638429|181785073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Values compared in methane eradicators only pre- and post-treatment||||0.16
90953658|NCT01638429|181785075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-value is comparing change in methane eradiacators before and after treatment to change in methane non-eradiacators before and after treatment||||0.028
90953659|NCT01638429|181785076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-value is comparing change in methane eradiacators before and after treatment to change in methane non-eradiacators before and after treatment||||0.01
90953660|NCT01638429|181785077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Values compared in methane eradicators only pre- and post-treatment||||0.97
90953661|NCT01638429|181785077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Values compared in total study population pre- and post-treatment||||0.85
90953662|NCT01638429|181785078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Values compared in methane eradicators only pre- and post-treatment||||0.61
90953663|NCT01638429|181785078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Values compared in total study population pre- and post-treatment||||0.45
90953664|NCT01638429|181785079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Values compared in methane eradicators only pre- and post-treatment||||0.018
90953665|NCT01638429|181785079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Values compared in total study population pre- and post-treatment||||0.14
90953666|NCT01638429|181785080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Values compared in total study population pre- and post-treatment||||0.43
90953667|NCT01638429|181785080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Values compared in methane eradicators only pre- and post-treatment||||0.44
90953668|NCT01638429|181785081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Values compared in total study population pre- and post-treatment||||0.13
90953669|NCT01638429|181785081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Values compared in methane eradicators only pre- and post-treatment||||0.25
90953670|NCT01638429|181785082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Values compared in total study population pre- and post-treatment||||0.29
90953671|NCT01638429|181785082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Values compared in methane eradicators only pre- and post-treatment||||0.27
90953672|NCT01638429|181785083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Values compared in total study population pre- and post-treatment||||0.22
90953673|NCT01638429|181785083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.059|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Values compared in methane eradicators only pre- and post-treatment||||0.059
90953674|NCT01638429|181785084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Values compared in total study population pre- and post-treatment||||0.33
90953675|NCT01638429|181785084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.075|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Values compared in methane eradicators only pre- and post-treatment||||0.075
90953676|NCT00731133|181785092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|2.6466|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9016||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7858|4.5073|||Mixed Models Analysis|7,24||Open-label study testing for change in side-effects ratings over time (i.e., slope).||4.5073|.7858|0.05
90953677|NCT00731133|181785093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.373|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2196||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8075|0.0615|||Mixed Models Analysis|7,24||Open label study testing changes in amphetamine use over time (i.e., slope).||0.06150|-0.8075|0.05
90953678|NCT00943852|181785094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||1-sided, alpha = 0.05|ANOVA|Fixed effects model with terms for subject, treatment and period||||||<0.001
90953679|NCT00943852|181785095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||1-sided, alpha = 0.05|ANOVA|Fixed effects model with terms for subject, treatment and period||||||<0.001
90953680|NCT03098563|181785096|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.021|||||||ANOVA|||||||.021
90953681|NCT04978493|181785228|OTHER||Difference of adjusted means|1.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|4.84|||||(Adjusted mean BI 706321 and ustekinumab) - (adjusted mean Placebo and ustekinumab)|The analysis was a restricted maximum likelihood (REML) based analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). For the ANCOVA model, absolute change in SES-CD score was the dependent variable, treatment group and baseline corticosteroid use (yes/no) were fixed effects and baseline SES-CD score was a continuous covariate.||4.84|-0.99|
90953682|NCT04978493|181785229|OTHER||Difference of adjusted means|13.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.32|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.46|36.14|||||(Adjusted mean BI 706321 and ustekinumab) - (adjusted mean Placebo and ustekinumab)|The analysis was a restricted maximum likelihood (REML) based analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). For the ANCOVA model, absolute change in SES-CD score was the dependent variable, treatment group and baseline corticosteroid use (yes/no) were fixed effects and baseline SES-CD score was a continuous covariate.||36.14|-9.46|
90953683|NCT04978493|181785230|OTHER||Unadjusted risk difference|-27.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.42|-2.64|||||BI 706321 and ustekinumab - Placebo and ustekinumab|Unadjusted risk difference between treatment groups were calculated simply as the difference in the observed percentage of patients. The method to provide confidence intervals for the unadjusted risk differences was derived from the Newcombe method.||-2.64|-48.42|
90953684|NCT04978493|181785231|OTHER||Unadjusted risk difference|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.49|22.12|||||BI 706321 and ustekinumab - Placebo and ustekinumab|Unadjusted risk difference between treatment groups were calculated simply as the difference in the observed percentage of patients. The method to provide confidence intervals for the unadjusted risk differences was derived from the Newcombe method.||22.12|-20.49|
90988948|NCT00570739|181862619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.67||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|-3.94||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks||-3.94|-13.40|0.0004
90988949|NCT00570739|181862619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.09||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|-3.68||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||-3.68|-12.50|0.0004
90988950|NCT00570739|181862620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.8||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.87|21.74||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 8 Weeks||21.74|5.87|0.0007
90988951|NCT00570739|181862620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.58||||0.0901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|24.99||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks||24.99|-1.83|0.0901
90988952|NCT00570739|181862620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.45||||0.0918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|22.62||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||22.62|-1.71|0.0918
90988953|NCT00570739|181862621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|15.78||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.27|25.83||P-Value is from the non-parametric ANCOVA stratified by country|ANCOVA|Non-parametric|The median difference was calculated using Hodges-Lehmann point estimates and corresponding 95% confidence interval was constructed using the method of Moses.|Baseline to 8 Weeks||25.83|6.27|0.0005
90988954|NCT00570739|181862621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|16.07||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.33|26.02||P-Value is from the non-parametric ANCOVA stratified by country|ANCOVA|Non-parametric|The median difference was calculated using Hodges-Lehmann point estimates and corresponding 95% confidence interval was constructed using the method of Moses.|Baseline to 16 Weeks||26.02|6.33|0.0011
90988955|NCT00570739|181862621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|14.33||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.11|23.84||P-Value is from the non-parametric ANCOVA stratified by country|ANCOVA|Non-parametric|The median difference was calculated using Hodges-Lehmann point estimates and corresponding 95% confidence interval was constructed using the method of Moses.|Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||23.84|5.11|0.0009
90988956|NCT00570739|181862622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-3.29||||0.6523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|10.32||P-Value was from the non-parametric ANCOVA stratified by country|ANCOVA|Non-parametric|The median difference was calculated using Hodges-Lehmann point estimates and corresponding 95% confidence interval was constructed using the method of Moses.|Baseline to 16 Weeks||10.32|-17.50|0.6523
90988957|NCT00570739|181862622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-4.38||||0.3934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.51|8.77||P-Value was from the non-parametric ANCOVA stratified by country|ANCOVA|Non-parametric|The median difference was calculated using Hodges-Lehmann point estimates and corresponding 95% confidence interval was constructed using the method of Moses.|Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||8.77|-17.51|0.3934
90988958|NCT00570739|181862623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.9838|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.66|8.84||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Total VLDL Particles||8.84|-8.66|0.9838
90988959|NCT00570739|181862623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.53||||0.7157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.73|9.79||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Total VLDL Particles||9.79|-6.73|0.7157
90988960|NCT00570739|181862623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|3.63||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Large VLDL Chylomicron Particles||3.63|1.25|<0.0001
90988961|NCT00570739|181862623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|3.51||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Large VLDL Chylomicron Particles||3.51|1.27|<0.0001
90988962|NCT00570739|181862623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.04||||0.0577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|10.24||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Medium VLDL Chylomicron Particles||10.24|-0.17|0.0577
90988963|NCT00570739|181862623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.24||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|10.22||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Medium VLDL Chylomicron Particles||10.22|0.27|0.0390
90988964|NCT00570739|181862623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.49||||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.61|-2.37||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Small VLDL Particles||-2.37|-12.61|0.0044
90988965|NCT00570739|181862623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.24||||0.0118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.09|-1.4||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Small VLDL Particles||-1.40|-11.09|0.0118
90988966|NCT00570739|181862623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-110.6||||0.0293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-209.9|-11.3||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Total Low Density Lipoprotein (LDL) Particles||-11.3|-209.9|0.0293
90988967|NCT00570739|181862623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-112.7||||0.0202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-207.6|-17.8||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Total Low Density Lipoprotein (LDL) Particles||-17.8|-207.6|0.0202
90988968|NCT00570739|181862623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.9629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|14.5|||ANCOVA|||Intermediate Density Lipoprotein (LDL) Particles||14.5|-15.2|0.9629
90988969|NCT00570739|181862623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3||||0.7485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|11.9||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Intermediate Density Lipoprotein (LDL) Particles||11.9|-16.5|0.7485
90988970|NCT00570739|181862623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-63.6||||0.1007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-139.7|12.5||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Large LDL Particles||12.5|-139.7|0.1007
90988971|NCT00570739|181862623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-63.8||||0.0768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-134.6|6.9||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Large LDL Particles||6.9|-134.6|0.0768
90988972|NCT00570739|181862623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-47.7||||0.4143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-162.7|67.3||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Small LDL Particles||67.3|-162.7|0.4143
90988973|NCT00570739|181862623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-46.9||||0.402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-157.1|63.3||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Small LDL Particles||63.3|-157.1|0.4020
90988974|NCT00570739|181862623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.6||||0.6378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.1|17.9||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Medium Small LDL Particles||17.9|-29.1|0.6378
90988975|NCT00570739|181862623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.7||||0.5528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.1|15.6||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Medium Small LDL Particles||15.6|-29.1|0.5528
90988976|NCT00570739|181862623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-42.0||||0.373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-134.8|50.8||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Very Small LDL Particles||50.8|-134.8|0.3730
90988977|NCT00570739|181862623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-40.0||||0.3764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-129.0|49.0||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Very Small LDL Particles||49.0|-129.0|0.3764
90988978|NCT00570739|181862623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.9807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.17||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Total High Density Lipoprotein (HDL) Particles||1.17|-1.20|0.9807
90988979|NCT00570739|181862623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.8615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|1.03||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Total High Density Lipoprotein (HDL) Particles||1.03|-1.23|0.8615
90988980|NCT00570739|181862623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.59||||0.0364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|1.14||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Large HDL Particles||1.14|0.04|0.0364
90988981|NCT00570739|181862623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.56||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|1.08||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Large HDL Particles||1.08|0.04|0.0340
90988982|NCT00570739|181862623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.6587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|1.07||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Medium HDL Particles||1.07|-0.68|0.6587
90988983|NCT00570739|181862623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19||||0.6554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|1.0||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Medium HDL Particles||1.00|-0.63|0.6554
90988984|NCT00570739|181862623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.82||||0.1957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|0.42||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Small HDL Particles||0.42|-2.06|0.1957
90988985|NCT00570739|181862623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85||||0.1622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.03|0.34||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Small HDL Particles||0.34|-2.03|0.1622
90988986|NCT00570739|181862624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.51|8.48||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Very Low Density Lipoprotein Particles||8.48|3.51|<0.0001
90988987|NCT00570739|181862624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|7.63||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Very Low Density Lipoprotein Particles||7.63|3.00|<0.0001
90988988|NCT00570739|181862624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.1742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.05||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Low Density Lipoprotein Particles||0.05|-0.30|0.1742
90953685|NCT04978493|181785232|OTHER||Unadjusted risk difference|-3.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.14|13.25|||||BI 706321 and ustekinumab - Placebo and ustekinumab|Unadjusted risk difference between treatment groups were calculated simply as the difference in the observed percentage of patients. The method to provide confidence intervals for the unadjusted risk differences was derived from the Newcombe method.||13.25|-21.14|
90988989|NCT00570739|181862624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11||||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Low Density Lipoprotein Particles||0.06|-0.28|0.1870
91042344|NCT02760433|181970060|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.203||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.038|0.353|||Chi-squared|2x2 chi-square test||The ACR20 response rate at Week 12 for the placebo group is estimated to be 20% in this study population .The OKZ ACR20 response rate for 64 mg q2w treatment group at Week 12 is expected to be at least 50%, resulting in an expected difference in ACR20 response rates of 30 percentage points between the respective OKZ treatment group and placebo. Sample size yield 100% disjunctive power for testing the primary hypothesis||0.353|0.038|0.0029
90953686|NCT04978493|181785233|OTHER||Unadjusted risk difference|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.67|18.78|||||BI 706321 and ustekinumab - Placebo and ustekinumab|Unadjusted risk difference between treatment groups were calculated simply as the difference in the observed percentage of patients. The method to provide confidence intervals for the unadjusted risk differences was derived from the Newcombe method.||18.78|-17.67|
90953687|NCT04978493|181785234|OTHER||Unadjusted risk difference|-3.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.91|18.85|||||BI 706321 and ustekinumab - Placebo and ustekinumab|Unadjusted risk difference between treatment groups were calculated simply as the difference in the observed percentage of patients. The method to provide confidence intervals for the unadjusted risk differences was derived from the Newcombe method.||18.85|-24.91|
90988990|NCT00570739|181862624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.16||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||High Density Lipoprotein Particles||0.16|0.03|0.0063
90988991|NCT00570739|181862624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.16||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||High Density Lipoprotein Particles||0.16|0.04|0.0020
91042345|NCT02760433|181970061|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.176||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.041|0.281|||Chi-squared|2x2 chi-square test||The DAS28 low disease activity (based on DAS28 \[CRP\] \<3.2) response rate at Week 12 was estimated to be 5% in the placebo group and 18% and 21% in 64 mg q4w and q2w OKZ groups, respectively, resulting in an expected difference of 13 and 16 percentage points between respective OKZ groups and placebo.||0.281|0.041|0.0021
90953688|NCT04978493|181785235|OTHER||Unadjusted risk difference|-3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.86|17.34|||||BI 706321 and ustekinumab - Placebo and ustekinumab|Unadjusted risk difference between treatment groups were calculated simply as the difference in the observed percentage of patients. The method to provide confidence intervals for the unadjusted risk differences was derived from the Newcombe method.||17.34|-23.86|
90953689|NCT04978493|181785236|OTHER||Unadjusted risk difference|-18.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.32|8.89|||||BI 706321 and ustekinumab - Placebo and ustekinumab|Unadjusted risk difference between treatment groups were calculated simply as the difference in the observed percentage of patients. The method to provide confidence intervals for the unadjusted risk differences was derived from the Newcombe method.||8.89|-42.32|
90953690|NCT04978493|181785237|OTHER||Unadjusted risk difference|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.53|23.41|||||BI 706321 and ustekinumab - Placebo and ustekinumab|Unadjusted risk difference between treatment groups were calculated simply as the difference in the observed percentage of patients. The method to provide confidence intervals for the unadjusted risk differences was derived from the Newcombe method.||23.41|-21.53|
90953691|NCT04978493|181785238|OTHER||Unadjusted risk difference|-22.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.42|5.19|||||BI 706321 and ustekinumab - Placebo and ustekinumab|Unadjusted risk difference between treatment groups were calculated simply as the difference in the observed percentage of patients. The method to provide confidence intervals for the unadjusted risk differences was derived from the Newcombe method.||5.19|-45.42|
90953692|NCT03524092|181785346|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|23.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.2|31.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||31.2|15.2|<0.001
90953693|NCT03524092|181785347|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|28.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.2|36.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||36.8|20.2|<0.001
90953694|NCT03524092|181785348|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|22.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.5|30.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||30.5|14.5|<0.001
90953695|NCT03524092|181785349|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|30.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.9|38.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||38.6|21.9|<0.001
90953696|NCT03524092|181785350|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|31.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.4|39.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||39.6|22.4|<0.001
90953697|NCT03524092|181785351|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|30.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.3|38.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||38.9|22.3|<0.001
90953698|NCT03524092|181785352|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|25.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.094|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.16|31.32|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with modified baseline observation carried forward (mBOCF).||||31.32|19.16|<0.001
90953699|NCT03524092|181785353|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-839.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|245.99|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1323.08|-356.21|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with modified baseline observation carried forward (mBOCF).||||-356.21|-1323.08|<0.001
90953700|NCT03524092|181785354|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.228|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|-0.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.61|-1.51|<0.001
90953701|NCT04303780|181785357|EQUIVALENCE|A hazard ratio \<1.0 indicates a lower average event rate and a longer PFS for AMG 510 relative to docetaxel. P-value was calculated using a stratified log-rank test.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.663||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.509|0.864|||Log Rank|||||0.864|0.509|0.002
90953702|NCT03826030|181785358|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The null hypothesis was no overall difference in FM-UE scale change between the three groups on day 15. The change in FM-UE was modelled using a linear mixed-effects repeated measures model adjusted for visit (ie, day 15, day 45, and day 105), treatment group, treatment group by visit interaction, baseline FM-UE, time from stroke (30-90 vs. 91-180 days), and enrolment site. An AR(1) autocorrelation structure was used for visit, and variance components structure for sites.||||0.39
90953703|NCT04893460|181785361|SUPERIORITY|This model is a paired t-test that tests for change in cognitive dissonance from baseline to after the Cost activity|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.003
90953704|NCT04893460|181785361|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This model is a paired t-test that tests for change in cognitive dissonance from baseline to after the Quit Letter activity||||<.001
90988992|NCT00570739|181862625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.4||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.9|39.9||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Changes in Calculated Total Triglycerides||39.9|8.9|0.0022
90953705|NCT04893460|181785361|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This model is a paired t-test that tests for change in cognitive dissonance from baseline to after the Pitfalls activity||||.004
90953706|NCT04893460|181785361|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.098|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This model is a paired t-test that tests for change in cognitive dissonance from baseline to after the Smoke Free activity||||.098
90953707|NCT04893460|181785361|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.042|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This model is a paired t-test that tests for change in cognitive dissonance from baseline to after the Letter to Youth activity||||.042
90953708|NCT04893460|181785361|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.364|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This model is a paired t-test that tests for change in cognitive dissonance from baseline to 6 weeks post baseline.||||.364
90953709|NCT04893460|181785362|SUPERIORITY||median pairwise average|17.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxson Signed Rank Test|||The non-parametric Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to evaluate whether participants were smoking fewer cigarettes per day.||||<.001
90953710|NCT04893460|181785363|SUPERIORITY|This model is a paired t-test that tests for change in readiness to quit smoking from baseline to after the Cost activity|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.776|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.776
90953711|NCT04893460|181785363|SUPERIORITY|This model is a paired t-test that tests for change in readiness to quit smoking from baseline to after the Quit Latter activity|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.219|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.219
90988993|NCT00570739|181862625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.3||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.6|39.1||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Changes in Calculated Total Triglycerides||39.1|9.6|0.0013
90988994|NCT00570739|181862625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|26.3||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.5|41.0||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Changes: Calculated Very Low Density Triglycerides||41.0|11.5|0.0006
90988995|NCT00570739|181862625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|26.5||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.5|40.6||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Changes: Calculated Very Low Density Triglycerides||40.6|12.5|0.0003
90988996|NCT00570739|181862625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5||||0.1257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|3.5||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Changes in Calculated High Density Lipoprotein-Cholesterol||3.5|-0.4|0.1257
90988997|NCT00570739|181862625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5||||0.1054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|3.3||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Changes in Calculated High Density Lipoprotein-Cholesterol||3.3|-0.3|0.1054
90988998|NCT00570739|181862626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.2971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.03||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 4 Weeks||0.03|-0.11|0.2971
90988999|NCT00570739|181862626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.2567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.03||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 8 Weeks||0.03|-0.11|0.2567
90989000|NCT00570739|181862626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.1081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.01||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 12 Weeks||0.01|-0.13|0.1081
90989001|NCT00570739|181862626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.01||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks||0.01|-0.17|0.0790
91042346|NCT02760433|181970061|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.283|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.139|0.396|||Chi-squared|2x2 chi-square test||The DAS28 low disease activity (based on DAS28 \[CRP\] \<3.2) response rate at Week 12 was estimated to be 5% in the placebo group and 18% and 21% in 64 mg q4w and q2w OKZ groups, respectively, resulting in an expected difference of 13 and 16 percentage points between respective OKZ groups and placebo.||0.396|0.139|<0.0001
91042347|NCT02760433|181970062|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.081|=|0.1814|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.26|0.11||p-value was greater than the threshold p-value of 0.0125|ANCOVA|||||0.11|-0.26|=0.1814
91042348|NCT02760433|181970062|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.083|=|0.0227|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.35|0.02||p-value was greater than the threshold p-value of 0.0125|ANCOVA|||||0.02|-0.35|=0.0227
91042349|NCT02760433|181970063|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.164|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.02|0.278||Due to the hierarchical nature of pre-planned statistical testing (gate-keeping strategy) a formal statement could not be made||||||0.278|0.020|
90989002|NCT00570739|181862626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.0206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|-0.01||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||-0.01|-0.18|0.0206
90989003|NCT00570739|181862627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.3||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|-1.8||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 4 Weeks||-1.8|-6.8|0.0009
90989004|NCT00570739|181862627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.1184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|0.5||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 8 Weeks||0.5|-4.5|0.1184
90989005|NCT00570739|181862627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.8||||0.0615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|0.1||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 12 Weeks||0.1|-5.8|0.0615
90989006|NCT00570739|181862627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3||||0.3617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|2.6||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks||2.6|-7.2|0.3617
90989007|NCT00570739|181862627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.6||||0.2372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|1.7||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||1.7|-7.0|0.2372
91042350|NCT02760433|181970063|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.174|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.027|0.294||Due to the hierarchical nature of pre-planned statistical testing (gate-keeping strategy) a formal statement could not be made||||||0.294|0.027|
91042351|NCT02760433|181970064|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.031|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.052|0.083||Due to the hierarchical nature of pre-planned statistical testing (gate-keeping strategy) a formal statement could not be made|||means continuity correction applied because expected cell counts \< 5|||0.083|-0.052|
91042352|NCT02760433|181970064|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.065|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.023|0.134||Due to the hierarchical nature of pre-planned statistical testing (gate-keeping strategy) a formal statement could not be made|||means continuity correction applied because expected cell counts \< 5|||0.134|-0.023|
90953712|NCT04893460|181785363|SUPERIORITY|This model is a paired t-test that tests for change in readiness to quit smoking from baseline to after the Pitfalls activity|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.043|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.043
90953713|NCT04893460|181785363|SUPERIORITY|This model is a paired t-test that tests for change in readiness to quit smoking from baseline to after the Smoke Free activity|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67||0.219|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.219
90953714|NCT04893460|181785363|SUPERIORITY|This model is a paired t-test that tests for change in readiness to quit smoking from baseline to after the Letter to Youth activity|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.110
90953715|NCT04893460|181785363|SUPERIORITY|This model is a paired t-test that tests for change in readiness to quit smoking from baseline to 6 week post baseline assessment|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.868|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.868
90953716|NCT01325311|181785380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.922|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Using the Student t-test. If the normality assumption is tenuous, an appropriate transformation of the data such as logarithm will be considered for Student t-test or a nonparametric test such as Wilcoxon rank-sum test will be used for comparison.||||0.922
90953717|NCT00215137|181785434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A Wilcoxon Signed Rank test was performed on the difference between the open label endpoint and baseline YBOCS scores.||||0.0002
90953718|NCT00215137|181785434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||A Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test was performed on the difference in the pre and post randomization YBOCS scores, using grouping to either escitalopram or placebo as a grouping variable.||||.0417
90953719|NCT03333876|181785435|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Each group was compared to baseline.||||<.001
90989008|NCT00570739|181862628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.921||||0.2982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.821|2.663||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 4 Weeks||2.663|-0.821|0.2982
90989009|NCT00570739|181862628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.695||||0.2361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.458|1.848||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 8 Weeks||1.848|-0.458|0.2361
91042353|NCT02707276|181970065|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.625|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.0|<|0.76|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|repeated measures ANCOVA|mean raw change active-sham; pooled standard deviation|Repeated measures ANCOVA with baseline MADRS scores as covariate for treatment and order effects of difference in MADRS scores.||||<0.76
90953720|NCT02055781|181785478|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0011|||||||Fisher Exact|||BAT arm compared to pooled pacritinib arms (QD + BID - ITT Efficacy)||||0.0011
90953721|NCT02055781|181785478|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0173|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0173
90953722|NCT02055781|181785478|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0007|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0007
90953723|NCT02055781|181785479|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0791|||||||Fisher Exact|||BAT arm compared to pooled pacritinib arms (QD + BID - ITT Efficacy)||||0.0791
91042354|NCT02707276|181970065|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.96|<|0.33|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Baseline covariate|Pooled deviation|ANCOVA: Analysis of group differences in change scores with baseline as a covariate||||<0.33
90953724|NCT02055781|181785479|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6524|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6524
90953725|NCT02055781|181785479|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0106|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0106
90953726|NCT00201643|181785489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1162||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.75||Analysis were also conducted in all randomized women with a known outcome \& in randomized treatment group(modified intent to treat). Analysis of the primary outcome used a repeated measures approach where each baby was considered a repeated measure|Fisher Exact|||Our Hypothesis was that administration of a rescue ACS would show a 40% reduction in incidence of composite neonatal morbity in patients delivering \< 34 weeks. Sample size estimates based on composite morbidity of 28%. Each arm required 217 subjects to have 80% power to detect a 40% reduction to 16.8%(2-tailed,alpha =0.05)using comparison for proportions/groups(Fisher exact test) OR,95% CI \& P values were determined using a repeated measure model where each twin is considered a repeat measure.||0.75|0.27|0.002
91042355|NCT02707276|181970066|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.1|<|0.61|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|repeated measures ANCOVA|raw change active-sham mean; pooled standard deviation|Repeated measures ANCOVA with baseline HARS scores as covariate for treatment and order effects of difference in HARS scores.||||<0.61
90953727|NCT03446781|181785498|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for analysis center||CCH 0.84 mg/Buttock versus Placebo||||0.002
90953728|NCT03446781|181785499|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for analysis center||CCH 0.84 mg/Buttock versus Placebo||||<0.001
90953729|NCT03446781|181785500|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for analysis center||CCH 0.84 mg/Buttock versus Placebo||||<0.001
90953730|NCT03446781|181785501|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for analysis center||CCH 0.84 mg/Buttock versus Placebo||||<0.001
90953731|NCT03446781|181785502|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.033|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for analysis center||CCH 0.84 mg/Buttock versus Placebo||||0.033
90953732|NCT03446781|181785503|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for analysis center||CCH 0.84 mg/Buttock versus Placebo||||<0.001
90989010|NCT00570739|181862628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.218||||0.0413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.388|-0.049|||ANCOVA|||Baseline to 12 Weeks||-0.049|-2.388|0.0413
90989011|NCT00570739|181862628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.434||||0.7858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.583|2.715|||ANCOVA|||Baseline to 16 Weeks||2.715|-3.583|0.7858
91042356|NCT02707276|181970066|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.33|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.0|<|0.32|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|baseline as covariate|pooled deviation|ANCOVA: Analysis of group differences in change scores with baseline as a covariate||||<0.32
91042357|NCT02707276|181970067|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.625|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.2|<|0.78|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|repeated measures ANCOVA|raw active-sham mean; pooled standard deviation|Repeated measures ANCOVA with baseline PANAS (Positive sub scale) scores as covariate for treatment and order effects of difference in PANAS (Positive sub scale) scores.||||<0.78
90989012|NCT00570739|181862628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.493||||0.7314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.321|2.335|||ANCOVA|||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||2.335|-3.321|0.7314
90989013|NCT00570739|181862629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.089||||0.553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.385|0.207||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks||0.207|-0.385|0.5530
90989014|NCT00570739|181862629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.105||||0.4554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.383|0.172||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||0.172|-0.383|0.4554
90989015|NCT00570739|181862630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.8583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|8.9||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks||8.9|-10.7|0.8583
90989016|NCT00570739|181862630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.7975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|8.1||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||8.1|-10.5|0.7975
90953733|NCT03446781|181785504|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|With factors of treatment group and analysis center adjusted for baseline values in the model||CCH 0.84 mg/Buttock versus Placebo||||<0.001
90953734|NCT03446781|181785505|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for analysis center||CCH 0.84 mg/Buttock versus Placebo||||<0.001
90953735|NCT03446781|181785506|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for analysis center||CCH 0.84 mg/Buttock versus Placebo||||<0.001
90953736|NCT02898077|181785567|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.765||||0.0184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.613|0.955|||Log Rank|||||0.955|0.613|0.0184
90953737|NCT02898077|181785568|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.963|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.771|1.203||||||||1.203|0.771|
90953738|NCT02898077|181785569|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.761|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.598|0.968||||||||0.968|0.598|
90953739|NCT02898077|181785570|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.2||||||||1.2|0.5|
90953740|NCT02898077|181785571|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.905|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.577|1.421||||||||1.421|0.577|
90953741|NCT02040584|181785576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9423|||||||Fisher Exact|Week 52||"Null hypothesis (H0): there were no differences in kidney function between the two groups, in contrast with the alternative hypothesis (H1), in which there were differences:~HO: CBS = CBC versus H1: CBS ≠ CBC, where CBS and CBC were percentages of patients who showed clinical benefit at Week 52 for the study group and control group, respectively."||||0.9423
90989017|NCT00570739|181862631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.0||||0.233||95.0|-18.5|4.5||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks||4.5|-18.5|0.2330
90989018|NCT00570739|181862631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.2||||0.1412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.2|2.8||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||2.8|-19.2|0.1412
90989019|NCT00570739|181862632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0.8192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|10.8||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks||10.8|-13.7|0.8192
90989020|NCT00570739|181862632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||0.7513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|9.7||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||9.7|-13.5|0.7513
90989021|NCT00570739|181862633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.91||||0.4301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.156|10.336||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks||10.336|-24.156|0.4301
90989022|NCT00570739|181862633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.17||||0.5369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.661|11.321||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||11.321|-21.661|0.5369
90989023|NCT00570739|181862634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.151||||0.7447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.068|0.765||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks||0.765|-1.068|0.7447
90989024|NCT00570739|181862634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.029||||0.9476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.853|0.911||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||0.911|-0.853|0.9476
90989025|NCT00570739|181862635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||P-Value for comparing percentages was from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Baseline to 8 Weeks||||<0.0001
90989026|NCT00570739|181862635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.23||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.06|13.58||P-Value for comparing percentages was from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Baseline to 16 Weeks||13.58|2.06|0.0018
90989027|NCT00570739|181862635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.46||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.89|10.54||P-Value for comparing percentages was from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||10.54|1.89|0.0019
90989028|NCT00570739|181862635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|Contained treatment and country as factors and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks||||0.0005
90989029|NCT00570739|181862635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0007||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|Contained treatment and country as factors and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||||0.0007
90989030|NCT00570739|181862636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0104||95.0||||P-Value for comparing percentages was from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Baseline to 8 Weeks||||0.0104
90953742|NCT00996476|181785587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.83|-1.97|||ANCOVA||TMC435 50 mg minus PR48 control|Difference in least square (LS) mean change from baseline from the PR48 control group||-1.97|-2.83|
90953743|NCT00996476|181785587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means difference|-2.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.85|-1.98|||ANCOVA||TMC435 100 mg minus PR48 control|Difference in least square (LS) mean change from baseline from the PR48 control group||-1.98|-2.85|
90953744|NCT00996476|181785592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|-24.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.3|11.8|||||PR48 control minus TMC12/PR24|The difference in the percentage of participants between The TMC12/PR24 50 mg treatment group and the PR48 control group||11.8|-58.3|
90953745|NCT00996476|181785592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|-27.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.1|9.8|||||PR48 control minus TMC12/PR24|The difference in the percentage of participants between The TMC12/PR24 100 mg treatment group and the PR48 control group||9.8|-61.1|
90953746|NCT00996476|181785592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|-23.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.9|19.4|||||PR48 control minus TMC24/PR24|The difference in the percentage of participants between The TMC24/PR24 50 mg treatment group and the PR48 control group||19.4|-59.9|
90953747|NCT00996476|181785592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|-32.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.6|8.3|||||PR48 control minus TMC24/PR24|The difference in the percentage of participants between The TMC24/PR24 100 mg treatment group and the PR48 control group||8.3|-66.6|
90953748|NCT01470001|181785604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.7||||0.1135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|39.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model with repeated measurements||A planned sample size of 56 subjects per group provided 80% power to detect a difference of 0.25 between post void dribbling response rates (assumed to be 0.35 under the null hypothesis and 0.60 under the alternative hypothesis) at a one-sided 0.05 significance level.||39.7|-4.3|.1135
90953749|NCT01470001|181785605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|14.3||||0.0919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|30.8|||Regression, Logistic|logistic regression with repeated measurements||||30.8|-2.3|.0919
90953750|NCT01470001|181785606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.7||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|6.2||p value was adjusted for age.|ANCOVA||we calculated the estimated difference in change between the placebo and treatment groups.|the difference in change between the groups was measured||6.2|-17.5|0.44
90953751|NCT02387970|181785707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.088|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.088
90953752|NCT02387970|181785708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.235|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.235
90989031|NCT00570739|181862636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.22||||0.2224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|9.39||P-Value for comparing percentages was from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Baseline to 16 Weeks||9.39|0.53|0.2224
90989032|NCT00570739|181862636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.21||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|9.33||P-Value for comparing percentages was from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||9.33|0.53|0.1990
90953753|NCT02387970|181785709|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.165|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.165
90953754|NCT02387970|181785710|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.297|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.297
90953755|NCT02387970|181785711|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.121|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.121
90953756|NCT02387970|181785712|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.248|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.248
90989033|NCT00570739|181862636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2778||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|Contained treatment and country as factors and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks||||0.2778
90953757|NCT02387970|181785713|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.854|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.854
90953758|NCT02628028|181785715|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.473|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.473
90953759|NCT02628028|181785715|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.670
90953760|NCT02628028|181785715|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.823|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.823
90953761|NCT02628028|181785716|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.743|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.743
90953762|NCT02628028|181785716|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.124|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.124
90953763|NCT02628028|181785716|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.858|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.858
90953764|NCT02628028|181785717|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.199|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.199
90953765|NCT02628028|181785717|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.028
90953766|NCT02628028|181785717|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.863|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.863
90953767|NCT02628028|181785718|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.44|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.44|-0.53|0.863
90953768|NCT02628028|181785718|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.65|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.65|-0.32|0.503
90953769|NCT02628028|181785718|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.23|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.23|-0.77|0.289
90953770|NCT02628028|181785719|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.626|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.626
90953771|NCT02628028|181785719|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.418|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.418
90953772|NCT02628028|181785719|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.951|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.951
90953773|NCT02628028|181785720|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.905|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.905
90953774|NCT02628028|181785720|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.069|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.069
90953775|NCT02628028|181785720|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.547|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.547
90953776|NCT01743989|181785753|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.383|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.383
90953777|NCT04655027|181785784|OTHER|Treatment effect|Difference in Estimate (LSM)|19.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.62||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.155|50.15|||ANCOVA|||||50.150|-11.155|0.212
90953778|NCT04655027|181785785|OTHER|Baseline hepcidin by treatment effect|Difference in Estimate|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.477|0.208|||ANCOVA|||||0.208|-0.477|0.441
90953779|NCT04655027|181785785|OTHER|Baseline hs CRP by treatment effect|Difference in Estimates|-2.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.76||0.532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.707|5.017|||ANCOVA|||||5.017|-9.707|0.532
90953780|NCT04655027|181785786|OTHER|Treatment effect|Ratio of Estimates|1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.23||0.688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.723|1.635|||Geometric ANCOVA|Geometric ANCOVA of relative change from baseline. The Standard error of Mean (SEM) refers to Geometric SEM.||||1.635|0.723|0.688
90953781|NCT04655027|181785786|OTHER|Baseline hepcidin-by-treatment effect|Difference in Estimates|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.045|0.822|||ANCOVA|||||0.822|0.045|0.029
90953782|NCT04655027|181785786|OTHER|Baseline hs-CRP-by-treatment effect|Difference in Estimates|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.201|0.366|||ANCOVA|||||0.366|-0.201|0.568
90953783|NCT04655027|181785787|OTHER|Treatment effect|Ratio of Estimates|0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.687|1.031|||Geometric ANCOVA|Geometric ANCOVA of relative change from baseline. The Standard error of Mean (SEM) refers to Geometric SEM.||||1.031|0.687|0.096
90953784|NCT04655027|181785787|OTHER|Baseline hepcidin-by-treatment effect|Difference in Estimates|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.282|0.171|||ANCOVA|||||0.171|-0.282|0.630
90953785|NCT04655027|181785787|OTHER|Baseline hs-CRP-by-treatment effect|Difference in Estimates|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.037|0.342|||ANCOVA|||||0.342|0.037|0.015
90953786|NCT04655027|181785788|OTHER|Treatment effect|Ratio of Estimates|1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.123|1.354|||Geometric ANCOVA|Geometric ANCOVA of relative change from baseline. The Standard error of Mean (SEM) refers to Geometric SEM.||||1.354|1.123|< 0.001
90953787|NCT04655027|181785788|OTHER|Baseline hepcidin-by-treatment effect|Difference in Estimates|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.027|0.149|||ANCOVA|||||0.149|-0.027|0.171
90953788|NCT04655027|181785788|OTHER|Baseline hs-CRP-by-treatment effect|Difference in Estimates|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.039|0.101|||ANCOVA|||||0.101|-0.039|0.387
90989034|NCT00570739|181862636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2785||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|Contained treatment and country as factors and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||||0.2785
90989035|NCT00570739|181862637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68||||0.5353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.84|1.48||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks||1.48|-2.84|0.5353
90953789|NCT04655027|181785789|OTHER|Treatment effect|Ratio of Estimates|0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.22||0.561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.606|1.312|||Geometric ANCOVA|Geometric ANCOVA of relative change from baseline. The Standard error of Mean (SEM) refers to Geometric SEM.||||1.312|0.606|0.561
90953790|NCT04655027|181785789|OTHER|Baseline hepcidin-by-treatment effect|Difference in Estimates|0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.013|0.75|||ANCOVA|||||0.750|0.013|0.043
90953791|NCT04655027|181785789|OTHER|Baseline hs-CRP-by-treatment effect|Difference in Estimates|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.222|0.302|||ANCOVA|||||0.302|-0.222|0.766
90953792|NCT04655027|181785790|OTHER|Treatment effect|Ratio of Estimates|1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.108|1.369|||Geometric ANCOVA|Geometric ANCOVA of relative change from baseline. The Standard error of Mean (SEM) refers to Geometric SEM.||||1.369|1.108|< 0.001
90953793|NCT04655027|181785790|OTHER|Baseline hepcidin-by-treatment effect|Difference in Estimates|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.059|0.159|||ANCOVA|||||0.159|-0.059|0.351
91042358|NCT02707276|181970067|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.42|<|0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|baseline as covariate|pooled deviation|ANCOVA: Analysis of group differences in change scores with baseline as a covariate||||<0.99
90953794|NCT04655027|181785790|OTHER|Baseline hs-CRP-by-treatment effect|Difference in Estimates|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.031|0.114|||ANCOVA|||||0.114|-0.031|0.248
90989036|NCT00570739|181862637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62||||0.5475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.64|1.4||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||1.40|-2.64|0.5475
91042359|NCT02786927|181970083|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90953795|NCT04655027|181785791|OTHER|Treatment effect|Ratio of Estimates|1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.043|1.598|||Geometric ANCOVA|Geometric ANCOVA of relative change from baseline. The Standard error of Mean (SEM) refers to Geometric SEM.||||1.598|1.043|0.021
90953796|NCT04655027|181785791|OTHER|Baseline hepcidin-by-treatment effect|Difference in Estimates|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.276|0.223|||ANCOVA|||||0.223|-0.276|0.826
90953797|NCT04655027|181785791|OTHER|Baseline hs-CRP-by-treatment effect|Difference in Estimates|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.212|0.132|||ANCOVA|||||0.132|-0.212|0.634
90953798|NCT04655027|181785792|OTHER|Treatment effect|Ratio of Estimates|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.31||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.257|0.786|||Geometric ANCOVA|Geometric ANCOVA of relative change from baseline. The Standard error of Mean (SEM) refers to Geometric SEM.||||0.786|0.257|0.007
90953799|NCT04655027|181785792|OTHER|Baseline hepcidin-by-treatment effect|Difference in Estimates|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.798|0.48|||ANCOVA|||||0.480|-0.798|0.610
90953800|NCT04655027|181785792|OTHER|Baseline hs-CRP-by-treatment effect|Difference in Estimates|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.387|0.536|||ANCOVA|||||0.536|-0.387|0.740
90953801|NCT00186888|181785825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Binomial Proportion|88.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.3|96.9||||||||96.9|71.3|
90953802|NCT00186888|181785826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Binomial Proportion|91.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.1|99.6||||||||99.6|65.1|
90953803|NCT00186888|181785827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.452||95.0|||||ANOVA|||CYP3A4\*1B: The null hypothesis is there is not a statistically significant difference between the genotype groups.||||0.452
90953804|NCT00186888|181785827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.106||95.0|||||ANOVA|||CYP3A5\*3: The null hypothesis is there is not a statistically significant difference between the genotype groups.||||0.106
91042360|NCT02786927|181970084|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91042361|NCT02786927|181970085|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90953805|NCT00186888|181785828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.245||95.0|||||ANOVA|||BCRP 1143: The null hypothesis is there is not a statistically significant difference between the genotype groups.||||0.245
90953806|NCT00186888|181785828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.297||95.0|||||ANOVA|||BCRP 15622: The null hypothesis is there is not a statistically significant difference between the genotype groups.||||0.297
90953807|NCT00186888|181785828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.372||95.0|||||ANOVA|||BCRP Exon 2: The null hypothesis is there is not a statistically significant difference between the genotype groups.||||0.372
90953808|NCT00186888|181785828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.844||95.0|||||ANOVA|||BCRP Exon 5: The null hypothesis is there is not a statistically significant difference between the genotype groups.||||0.844
90953809|NCT00186888|181785828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.616||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Pgp Exon 21: The null hypothesis is there is not a statistically significant difference between the genotype groups.||||0.616
90953810|NCT00186888|181785828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.424||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Pgp Exon 26: The null hypothesis is there is not a statistically significant difference between the genotype groups.||||0.424
90953811|NCT04777864|181785869|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Parent group only||||0.18
90953812|NCT04777864|181785869|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Adolescent group only||||0.91
90953813|NCT04777864|181785870|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.975|||||||Regression, Linear|||Parent: Post-Index Visit||||0.975
90953814|NCT04777864|181785870|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.854|||||||Regression, Linear|||Adolescent: Post-Index Visit||||0.854
90953815|NCT04777864|181785873|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Post-Index Visit||||0.03
90953816|NCT04777864|181785873|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||3 months after initial clinic visit||||0.21
90953817|NCT04777864|181785874|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline||||0.76
90953818|NCT04777864|181785874|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Post-Index Visit||||0.96
90953819|NCT04777864|181785874|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||3 months after initial clinic visit||||0.96
90953820|NCT03086655|181785875|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.93|||||This is the 'inflation part' of the zero inflated negative binomial model. We used cluster robust standard errors due to the multiple observations over time being nested within participant. Result shows odds of intervention group relative to control.|"We used zero inflated negative binomial regression due to the count variable being overdispersed and containing a large number of 0. The analysis aggregated over multiple time points per participant. It simultaneously tests the odds of having 0 openings and the difference in the rate of openings between the 2 intervention groups. These 2 results are reported separately.~Null hypothesis 1: the odds of having 0 openings is lower in intervention than control group."||1.93|0.90|
90953821|NCT03086655|181785875|SUPERIORITY||incidence rate ratio (IRR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.98|||||This is the negative binomial part of the model. We used cluster robust standard errors due to the multiple observations being nested within participant. Result shows intervention group had lower rate of openings relative to control.|"We used zero inflated negative binomial regression due to the count variable being overdispersed and containing many 0s. The analysis aggregated over multiple time points per participant. It simultaneously tests the odds of having 0 openings and the difference in the rate of openings between the 2 intervention groups. These 2 results are reported separately.~Null hypothesis 2: the incidence rate ratio for # days with box opening is \>1, i.e. more openings in intervention than control group."||0.98|0.61|
90953822|NCT03086655|181785876|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Chi-squared|overall Wald chi2 (2 d.f.), simultaneously testing if parameters for both 6 mo. by intervention and 12 mo. by intervention are different from 0.||"statistical analyses is a GEE model with logit link function and binomial distribution with odds of undetectable VL as outcome and as predictors: intervention, time and time\*intervention. We hypothesize that over time, the odds of undetectable VL will be higher for the intervention than the control group, which would be reflected in a significant interaction effect time\*intervention.~H0: no significant interaction effect time\*intervention"||||0.08
90953823|NCT03086655|181785877|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.43||a priori threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|(equal variances assumed)|Difference = control group - treatment group|||0.43|-0.11|<0.05
90953824|NCT03086655|181785878|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Chi-squared|overall Wald chi2 (4 d.f.), simultaneously testing if parameters for all follow-ups by intervention are different from 0.||"statistical analyses is a GEE model with logit link function and binomial distribution with odds of optimal adherence as outcome and as predictors: intervention, time and time\*intervention. We hypothesize that over time, the odds of optimal adherence will be higher for the intervention than the control group, which would be reflected in a significant interaction effect time\*intervention.~H0: no significant interaction effect time\*intervention"||||0.08
90953825|NCT04531982|181785884|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4825||||||Two-sided p-value for treatment difference at Week 26 from MMRM analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference between LSM changes for adjunctive pimavanserin and adjunctive placebo (pimavanserin - placebo) at the specified visit from MMRM analysis.||||0.4825
90953826|NCT04531982|181785885|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8872||||||Two-sided p-value for treatment difference at Week 26 from MMRM analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8872
90953827|NCT01732822|181785903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.13||The hypothesis will be tested at the 4.94% two-sided significance level to account for the planned interim analysis with the overall type I error preserved at 5%. A hierarchical test sequence will be used to address the issue of multiple testing|Regression, Cox|||||1.13|0.92|0.650
90953828|NCT01732822|181785904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.12||The hypothesis will be tested at the 4.94% two-sided significance level to account for the planned interim analysis with the overall type I error preserved at 5%. A hierarchical test sequence will be used to address the issue of multiple testing|Regression, Cox|||||1.12|0.92|0.738
90989037|NCT00570739|181862638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0116||||0.0678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0241|0.0009||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks||0.0009|-0.0241|0.0678
90989038|NCT00570739|181862638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0112||||0.0585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0228|0.0004||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||0.0004|-0.0228|0.0585
90989039|NCT00570739|181862639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0||||0.7051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.64|12.64||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks||12.64|-18.64|0.7051
90989040|NCT00570739|181862639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.8||||0.5267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.72|10.13||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||10.13|-19.72|0.5267
90989041|NCT00570739|181862640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.5882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.83||P-Value for comparing percentages was from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Baseline to 16 Weeks||1.83|0.40|0.5882
90989042|NCT00570739|181862640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.7098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.96||P-Value for comparing percentages was from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||1.96|0.44|0.7098
90989043|NCT00570739|181862640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6835||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|Contained treatment and country as factors and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks||||0.6835
90989044|NCT00570739|181862640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8461||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|Contained treatment and country as factors and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||||0.8461
90989045|NCT00570739|181862641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2079||95.0||||P-Value for comparing percentages was from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Baseline to 4 Weeks||||0.2079
90989046|NCT00570739|181862641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4053||95.0||||P-Value for comparing percentages was from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Baseline to 8 Weeks||||0.4053
90989047|NCT00570739|181862641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5752||95.0||||P-Value for comparing percentages was from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Baseline to 12 Weeks||||0.5752
90989048|NCT00570739|181862641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.7994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|2.29||P-Value for comparing percentages was from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Baseline to 16 Weeks||2.29|0.25|0.7994
90989049|NCT00570739|181862641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|3.03||P-Value for comparing percentages was from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||3.03|0.32|0.9960
90989050|NCT00570739|181862641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7783||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|Contained treatment and country as factors and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks||||0.7783
90989051|NCT00570739|181862641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9774||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|Contained treatment and country as factors and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||||0.9774
90989052|NCT00570739|181862642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||P-Value for comparing percentages was from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Baseline to 4 Weeks||||<0.0001
90989053|NCT00570739|181862642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4058||95.0||||P-Value for comparing percentages was from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Baseline to 8 Weeks||||0.4058
90989054|NCT00570739|181862642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0254||95.0||||P-Value for comparing percentages was from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Baseline to 12 Weeks||||0.0254
90989055|NCT00570739|181862642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.62||||0.1499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|3.55||P-Value for comparing percentages was from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Baseline to 16 Weeks||3.55|0.74|0.1499
90989056|NCT00570739|181862642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.08||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|4.45||P-Value for comparing percentages was from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||4.45|0.97|0.0420
90989057|NCT00570739|181862642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.224||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|Contained treatment and country as factors and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks||||0.2240
90989058|NCT00570739|181862642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0593||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|Contained treatment and country as factors and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||||0.0593
90989059|NCT00570739|181862643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.66||||0.4794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.4||P-Value for comparing percentages was from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Baseline to 16 Weeks||1.40|0.31|0.4794
90989060|NCT00570739|181862643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.6667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.55||P-Value for comparing percentages was from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||1.55|0.37|0.6667
90989061|NCT00570739|181862643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2768||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|Contained treatment and country as factors and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks||||0.2768
90989062|NCT00570739|181862643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4395||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|Contained treatment and country as factors and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||||0.4395
90989063|NCT00570739|181862644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.43||||0.1375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|6.64||P-Value for comparing percentages was from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Baseline to 16 Weeks||6.64|0.89|0.1375
90989064|NCT00570739|181862644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.22||||0.1996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|5.82|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-Value for comparing percentages was from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country.||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||5.82|0.85|0.1996
90989065|NCT00570739|181862644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0829||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|Contained treatment and country as factors and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks||||0.0829
90953829|NCT01732822|181785905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.23||The hypothesis will be tested at the 4.94% two-sided significance level to account for the planned interim analysis with the overall type I error preserved at 5%. A hierarchical test sequence will be used to address the issue of multiple testing|Regression, Cox|||||1.23|0.92|0.400
90953830|NCT01732822|181785906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.23||The hypothesis will be tested at the 4.94% two-sided significance level to account for the planned interim analysis with the overall type I error preserved at 5%. A hierarchical test sequence will be used to address the issue of multiple testing|Regression, Cox|||||1.23|0.91|0.482
90953831|NCT01732822|181785907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.11||The hypothesis will be tested at the 4.94% two-sided significance level to account for the planned interim analysis with the overall type I error preserved at 5%. A hierarchical test sequence will be used to address the issue of multiple testing|Regression, Cox|||||1.11|0.89|0.913
90953832|NCT01732822|181785908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.13||The hypothesis will be tested at the 4.94% two-sided significance level to account for the planned interim analysis with the overall type I error preserved at 5%. A hierarchical test sequence will be used to address the issue of multiple testing|Regression, Cox|||||1.13|0.92|0.724
90953833|NCT01732822|181785909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.33||The hypothesis will be tested at the 4.94% two-sided significance level to account for the planned interim analysis with the overall type I error preserved at 5%. A hierarchical test sequence will be used to address the issue of multiple testing|Regression, Cox|||||1.33|0.79|0.846
90953834|NCT01732822|181785910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.05||The hypothesis will be tested at the 4.94% two-sided significance level to account for the planned interim analysis with the overall type I error preserved at 5%. A hierarchical test sequence will be used to address the issue of multiple testing|Regression, Cox|||||1.05|0.87|0.298
90953835|NCT01732822|181785911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.05||The hypothesis will be tested at the 4.94% two-sided significance level to account for the planned interim analysis with the overall type I error preserved at 5%. A hierarchical test sequence will be used to address the issue of multiple testing|Regression, Cox|||||1.05|0.90|0.462
90953836|NCT01732822|181785912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.12|||Regression, Cox|||||1.12|0.92|0.793
90953837|NCT01732822|181785913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.09|||Regression, Cox|||||1.09|0.92|1.000
90953838|NCT01732822|181785914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.08|||Regression, Cox|||||1.08|0.91|0.829
90953839|NCT01732822|181785915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.08|||Regression, Cox|||||1.08|0.92|0.949
90953840|NCT01732822|181785916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.1|||Regression, Cox|||||1.10|0.78|0.377
90953841|NCT01732822|181785920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.06|||Regression, Cox|||||1.06|0.71|0.164
90953842|NCT01732822|181785921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.14|||Regression, Cox|||||1.14|0.67|0.306
90953843|NCT01732822|181785922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.09|||Regression, Cox|||||1.09|0.93|0.887
90953844|NCT01732822|181785923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.43|||Regression, Cox|||||1.43|0.84|0.489
90953845|NCT01732822|181785924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.43|||Regression, Cox|||||1.43|0.95|0.138
90953846|NCT01732822|181785925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||0.139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.41|||Regression, Cox|||||1.41|0.95|0.139
90953847|NCT01732822|181785926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|2.0|||Regression, Cox|||||2.00|1.24|<0.001
90953848|NCT02314780|181785927|OTHER||||||=|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||=0.001
90953849|NCT02314780|181785928|OTHER||||||=|0.002|||||||ANOVA|||||||=0.002
90953850|NCT02314780|181785929|OTHER||||||=|0.002|||||||ANOVA|||||||=0.002
90989066|NCT00570739|181862644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1037||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|Contained treatment and country as factors and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||||0.1037
90953851|NCT02314780|181785930|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90953852|NCT02314780|181785931|OTHER||||||=|0.138|||||||ANOVA|||||||=0.138
90953853|NCT02314780|181785932|OTHER||||||=|0.696|||||||ANOVA|||||||=0.696
90953854|NCT00379288|181785933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||percentage of subjects with TEAEs|77.4||||||95.0||||||||||||
90953855|NCT00379288|181785933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||percentage of subjects with related AEs|28.4||||||95.0||||||||||||
90953856|NCT00379288|181785933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||percentage of subjects with severe AEs|5.7||||||95.0||||||||||||
90953857|NCT00379288|181785933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||percentage of subjects with serious AEs|4.9||||||95.0||||||||||||
90953858|NCT00379288|181785933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||percentage of subjects with TEAEs|79.2||||||95.0||||||||||||
90953859|NCT00379288|181785933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||percentage of subjects with related AEs|23.1||||||95.0||||||||||||
90953860|NCT00379288|181785933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||percentage of subjects with severe AEs|3.8||||||95.0||||||||||||
90953861|NCT00379288|181785933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||percentage of subjects with serious AEs|6.1||||||95.0||||||||||||
90953862|NCT00379288|181785933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||percentage of subjects with TEAEs|82.4||||||95.0||||||||||||
90953863|NCT00379288|181785933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||percentage of subjects with related AEs|23.5||||||95.0||||||||||||
90953864|NCT00379288|181785933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||percentage of subjects with severe AEs|5.9||||||95.0||||||||||||
90953865|NCT00379288|181785933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||percentage of subjects with serious AEs|5.8||||||95.0||||||||||||
90953866|NCT00379288|181785933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||percentage of subjects with TEAEs|76.9||||||95.0||||||||||||
90989067|NCT02086565|181862648|SUPERIORITY||Group differences in expected 12 month c|-0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.15||||||||0.15|-0.56|
90989068|NCT02086565|181862649|SUPERIORITY||Group differences in expected 12 month c|0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.68|||||Estimation parameter: Other. Group differences in expected 12 month change from baseline|||0.68|-0.27|
90953867|NCT00379288|181785933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||percentage of subjects with related AEs|20.0||||||95.0||||||||||||
90953868|NCT00379288|181785933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||percentage of subjects with severe AEs|6.2||||||95.0||||||||||||
90953869|NCT00379288|181785933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||percentage of subjects with serious AEs|3.1||||||95.0||||||||||||
90953870|NCT00833833|181785976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.99||||||With a 12-month accrual period and 12-month follow-up after the study closed to accrual, assuming a 10% drop out rate, 96 participants in each treatment arm would have had 85% power to detect a hazard rate ratio of 1.67 using a one-sided log rank test with an overall significance level of 0.025 adjusted for one interim analysis) and a significance level of 0.0245 for the final analysis.||0.99|0.54|
90953871|NCT00833833|181785981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|6.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|46.66||||||||46.66|0.84|
90953872|NCT00833833|181785982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.070
90953873|NCT00833833|181785983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.29||||||||1.29|0.57|
90953874|NCT00921687|181786003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|2.3|||Generalized Estimating Equation||Intervention clinic (vs control clinic)|||2.30|1.01|0.04
90953875|NCT00921687|181786004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.44||95.0|0.84|1.49|||Generalized Estimating Equation||Intervention clinic (vs control clinic)|||1.49|0.84|0.44
90953876|NCT00316602|181786005|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin to show that Group 2 (Atopic Dermatitis Participants) is non-inferior to Group 1 (Healthy Participants) in terms of seroconversion rate at Week 6 was predefined as -5% for the difference in seroconversion rates.|Difference in seroconversion rates (%)|-1.2|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|-4.3||||||||||-4.3|
90953877|NCT00626990|181786020|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|99.1|0.73|1.28|||Regression, Cox|||||1.28|0.73|0.76
90953878|NCT00626990|181786020|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.79|||Regression, Cox|||||0.79|0.52|<0.0001
90953879|NCT00626990|181786021|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.03|||Regression, Cox|||||1.03|0.72|0.11
90953880|NCT00626990|181786021|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.7|||Regression, Cox|||||0.70|0.49|<0.0001
90953881|NCT03268603|181786037|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.38
90953882|NCT03248882|181786046|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.7|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-19.4|-1.1||||||||-1.1|-19.4|
90953883|NCT03248882|181786046|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-46.0|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-51.3|-40.1||||||||-40.1|-51.3|
90953884|NCT03248882|181786046|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-52.4|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-57.2|-47.1||||||||-47.1|-57.2|
90953885|NCT03248882|181786046|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-62.1|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-66.0|-57.8||||||||-57.8|-66.0|
90953886|NCT03248882|181786047|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-14.0|6.3||||||||6.3|-14.0|
90953887|NCT03248882|181786047|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-21.0|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-29.0|-12.2||||||||-12.2|-29.0|
90953888|NCT03248882|181786047|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-32.8|-16.1||||||||-16.1|-32.8|
90953889|NCT03248882|181786047|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-41.8|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-47.9|-35.0||||||||-35.0|-47.9|
90953890|NCT02236988|181786052|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|65.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|55.0|77.6|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Apremilast Modified Release 1 / Apremilast Immediate Release) expressed as a percentage.|To compare each test formulation with the reference formulation in each group, an analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on the natural log-transformed Cmax value. The ANOVA model included treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||77.6|55.0|
90953891|NCT02236988|181786052|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|80.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|67.8|95.5|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Apremilast Modified Release 2 / Apremilast Immediate Release) expressed as a percentage.|To compare each test formulation with the reference formulation in each group, an ANOVA was performed on the natural log-transformed Cmax value. The ANOVA model included treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||95.5|67.8|
90953892|NCT02236988|181786052|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|84.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.9|99.9|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Apremilast Modified Release 3 / Apremilast Immediate Release) expressed as a percentage.|To compare each test formulation with the reference formulation in each group, an ANOVA was performed on the natural log-transformed Cmax value. The ANOVA model included treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||99.9|70.9|
90953893|NCT02236988|181786054|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|61.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|51.7|73.9|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Apremilast Modified Release 1 / Apremilast Immediate Release) expressed as a percentage.|To compare each test formulation with the reference formulation in each group, an ANOVA was performed on the natural log-transformed AUC0-t value. The ANOVA model included treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||73.9|51.7|
90953894|NCT02236988|181786054|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|71.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|59.6|85.1|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Apremilast Modified Release 2 / Apremilast Immediate Release) expressed as a percentage.|To compare each test formulation with the reference formulation in each group, an ANOVA was performed on the natural log-transformed AUC0-t value. The ANOVA model included treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||85.1|59.6|
90953895|NCT02236988|181786054|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|73.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|61.7|88.2|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Apremilast Modified Release 3 / Apremilast Immediate Release) expressed as a percentage.|To compare each test formulation with the reference formulation in each group, an ANOVA was performed on the natural log-transformed AUC0-t value. The ANOVA model included treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||88.2|61.7|
90989069|NCT02086565|181862650|SUPERIORITY||Group differences in expected 12 month c|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|0.97||||||||0.97|-2.21|
90989070|NCT02086565|181862651|SUPERIORITY||Group differences in expected 12 month c|-0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.24||||||||-0.24|-1.08|
90989071|NCT02086565|181862652|SUPERIORITY||Group differences in expected 12 month c|-0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.06||||||||0.06|-0.24|
90989072|NCT00739297|181862653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-Squares Means|0.04||||||95.0|-0.01|0.08|||||Mixed effects model with terms for treatment (including dose of montelukast), period and baseline covariate.|||0.08|-0.01|
90953896|NCT02236988|181786055|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|62.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|52.1|74.4|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Apremilast Modified Release 1 / Apremilast Immediate Release) expressed as a percentage.|To compare each test formulation with the reference formulation in each group, an ANOVA was performed on the natural log-transformed AUC0-∞ value. The ANOVA model included treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||74.4|52.1|
90953897|NCT02236988|181786055|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|71.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|59.7|85.2|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Apremilast Modified Release 2 / Apremilast Immediate Release) expressed as a percentage.|To compare each test formulation with the reference formulation in each group, an ANOVA was performed on the natural log-transformed AUC0-∞ value. The ANOVA model included treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||85.2|59.7|
90953898|NCT02236988|181786055|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|74.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|62.0|88.4|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Apremilast Modified Release 3 / Apremilast Immediate Release) expressed as a percentage.|To compare each test formulation with the reference formulation in each group, an ANOVA was performed on the natural log-transformed AUC0-∞ value. The ANOVA model included treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||88.4|62.0|
90953899|NCT02236988|181786056|OTHER||Median Difference|1.0||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|2.0|||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Median difference (Apremilast Modified Release 1 - Apremilast Immediate Release) calculated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimate.|Tmax was analyzed by nonparametric methods. The median difference and 90% CI of the median difference were calculated from the Hodges-Lehrmann estimate.||2.00|0.5|0.0090
90953900|NCT02236988|181786056|OTHER||Median Difference|1.26||||0.0073|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|3.0|||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Median difference (Apremilast Modified Release 2 - Apremilast Immediate Release) calculated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimate.|Tmax was analyzed by nonparametric methods. The median difference and 90% CI of the median difference were calculated from the Hodges-Lehrmann estimate.||3.00|0.50|0.0073
90953901|NCT02236988|181786056|OTHER||Median Difference|2.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|3.0|||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Median difference (Apremilast Modified Release 3 - Apremilast Immediate Release) calculated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimate|Tmax was analyzed by nonparametric methods. The median difference and 90% CI of the median difference were calculated from the Hodges-Lehrmann estimate.||3.00|1.00|<0.0001
90953902|NCT02236988|181786062|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|90.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.8|101.1|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Apremilast Modified Release 4 / Apremilast Immediate Release) expressed as a percentage.|To compare each test formulation with the reference formulation in each group, an ANOVA was performed on the natural log-transformed Cmax value. The ANOVA model included treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||101.1|81.8|
90953903|NCT02236988|181786062|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|73.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|66.3|82.0|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Apremilast Modified Release 5 / Apremilast Immediate Release) expressed as a percentage.|To compare each test formulation with the reference formulation in each group, an ANOVA was performed on the natural log-transformed Cmax value. The ANOVA model included treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||82.0|66.3|
90953904|NCT02236988|181786062|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|80.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|72.2|89.2|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Apremilast Modified Release 6 / Apremilast Immediate Release) expressed as a percentage.|To compare each test formulation with the reference formulation in each group, an ANOVA was performed on the natural log-transformed Cmax value. The ANOVA model included treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||89.2|72.2|
90953905|NCT02236988|181786063|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|84.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.5|93.0|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Apremilast Modified Release 4 / Apremilast Immediate Release) expressed as a percentage.|To compare each test formulation with the reference formulation in each group, an ANOVA was performed on the natural log-transformed AUC0-t value. The ANOVA model included treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||93.0|77.5|
90953906|NCT02236988|181786063|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|72.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|65.8|78.9|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Apremilast Modified Release 5 / Apremilast Immediate Release) expressed as a percentage.|To compare each test formulation with the reference formulation in each group, an ANOVA was performed on the natural log-transformed AUC0-t value. The ANOVA model included treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||78.9|65.8|
90953907|NCT02236988|181786063|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|78.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|71.2|85.5|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Apremilast Modified Release 6 / Apremilast Immediate Release) expressed as a percentage.|To compare each test formulation with the reference formulation in each group, an ANOVA was performed on the natural log-transformed AUC0-t value. The ANOVA model included treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||85.5|71.2|
90953908|NCT02236988|181786064|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|85.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.1|93.6|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Apremilast Modified Release 4 / Apremilast Immediate Release) expressed as a percentage.|To compare each test formulation with the reference formulation in each group, an ANOVA was performed on the natural log-transformed AUC0-∞ value. The ANOVA model included treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||93.6|78.1|
90953909|NCT02236988|181786064|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|72.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|66.3|79.5|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Apremilast Modified Release 5 / Apremilast Immediate Release) expressed as a percentage.|To compare each test formulation with the reference formulation in each group, an ANOVA was performed on the natural log-transformed AUC0-∞ value. The ANOVA model included treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||79.5|66.3|
90953910|NCT02236988|181786064|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|78.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|72.0|86.4|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Apremilast Modified Release 6 / Apremilast Immediate Release) expressed as a percentage.|To compare each test formulation with the reference formulation in each group, an ANOVA was performed on the natural log-transformed AUC0-∞ value. The ANOVA model included treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||86.4|72.0|
90953911|NCT02236988|181786065|OTHER||Median Difference|2.0||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|3.0|||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Median difference (Apremilast Modified Release 4 - Apremilast Immediate Release) calculated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimate.|Tmax was analyzed by nonparametric methods. The median difference and 90% CI of the median difference were calculated from the Hodges-Lehrmann estimate.||3.00|1.00|0.0002
90953912|NCT02236988|181786065|OTHER||Median Difference|1.02||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|2.0|||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Median difference (Apremilast Modified Release 5 - Apremilast Immediate Release) calculated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimate.|Tmax was analyzed by nonparametric methods. The median difference and 90% CI of the median difference were calculated from the Hodges-Lehrmann estimate.||2.00|0.50|0.0049
90953913|NCT02236988|181786065|OTHER||Median Difference|1.5||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|2.0|||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Median difference (Apremilast Modified Release 6 - Apremilast Immediate Release) calculated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimate|Tmax was analyzed by nonparametric methods. The median difference and 90% CI of the median difference were calculated from the Hodges-Lehrmann estimate.||2.00|1.00|0.0010
90953914|NCT02236988|181786071|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|91.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.4|103.0|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Apremilast Modified Release 8 / Apremilast Immediate Release) expressed as a percentage.|To compare each test formulation with the reference formulation in each group, an ANOVA was performed on the natural log-transformed Cmax value. The ANOVA model included treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||103.0|80.4|
90953915|NCT02236988|181786071|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|88.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.1|100.0|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Apremilast Modified Release 9 / Apremilast Immediate Release) expressed as a percentage.|To compare each test formulation with the reference formulation in each group, an ANOVA was performed on the natural log-transformed Cmax value. The ANOVA model included treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||100.0|78.1|
90953916|NCT02236988|181786072|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|80.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|73.8|88.0|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Apremilast Modified Release 8 / Apremilast Immediate Release) expressed as a percentage.|To compare each test formulation with the reference formulation in each group, an ANOVA was performed on the natural log-transformed AUC0-t value. The ANOVA model included treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||88.0|73.8|
90953917|NCT02236988|181786072|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|78.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|71.9|85.7|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Apremilast Modified Release 9 / Apremilast Immediate Release) expressed as a percentage.|To compare each test formulation with the reference formulation in each group, an ANOVA was performed on the natural log-transformed AUC0-t value. The ANOVA model included treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||85.7|71.9|
90953918|NCT02236988|181786073|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|81.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.3|88.6|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Apremilast Modified Release 8 / Apremilast Immediate Release) expressed as a percentage.|To compare each test formulation with the reference formulation in each group, an ANOVA was performed on the natural log-transformed AUC0-∞ value. The ANOVA model included treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||88.6|74.3|
90953919|NCT02236988|181786073|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|79.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|72.3|86.3|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Apremilast Modified Release 9 / Apremilast Immediate Release) expressed as a percentage.|To compare each test formulation with the reference formulation in each group, an ANOVA was performed on the natural log-transformed AUC0-∞ value. The ANOVA model included treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||86.3|72.3|
90953920|NCT02236988|181786074|OTHER||Median Difference|0.98||||0.0374|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.02|1.5|||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Median difference (Apremilast Modified Release 8 - Apremilast Immediate Release) calculated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimate.|Tmax was analyzed by nonparametric methods. The median difference and 90% CI of the median difference were calculated from the Hodges-Lehrmann estimate.||1.50|0.02|0.0374
90953921|NCT02236988|181786074|OTHER||Median Difference|0.51||||0.1907|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|1.5|||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Median difference (Apremilast Modified Release 9 - Apremilast Immediate Release) calculated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimate.|Tmax was analyzed by nonparametric methods. The median difference and 90% CI of the median difference were calculated from the Hodges-Lehrmann estimate.||1.50|0.00|0.1907
90953922|NCT02236988|181786080|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|109.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.6|121.3|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Apremilast Modified Release 11 / Apremilast Immediate Release) expressed as a percentage.|To compare each test formulation with the reference formulation in each group, an ANOVA was performed on the natural log-transformed Cmax value. The ANOVA model included treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||121.3|98.6|
90953923|NCT02236988|181786080|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|107.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.4|119.2|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Apremilast Modified Release 12 / Apremilast Immediate Release) expressed as a percentage.|To compare each test formulation with the reference formulation in each group, an ANOVA was performed on the natural log-transformed Cmax value. The ANOVA model included treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||119.2|96.4|
90953924|NCT02236988|181786080|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|72.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|65.5|80.8|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Apremilast Modified Release 13 / Apremilast Immediate Release) expressed as a percentage.|To compare each test formulation with the reference formulation in each group, an ANOVA was performed on the natural log-transformed Cmax value. The ANOVA model included treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||80.8|65.5|
90953925|NCT02236988|181786080|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|103.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.1|114.9|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Apremilast Modified Release 14 / Apremilast Immediate Release) expressed as a percentage.|To compare each test formulation with the reference formulation in each group, an ANOVA was performed on the natural log-transformed Cmax value. The ANOVA model included treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||114.9|93.1|
90953926|NCT02236988|181786081|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|81.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.2|88.3|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Apremilast Modified Release 11 / Apremilast Immediate Release) expressed as a percentage.|To compare each test formulation with the reference formulation in each group, an ANOVA was performed on the natural log-transformed AUC0-t value. The ANOVA model included treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||88.3|75.2|
90953927|NCT02236988|181786081|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|82.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.9|89.5|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Apremilast Modified Release 12 / Apremilast Immediate Release) expressed as a percentage.|To compare each test formulation with the reference formulation in each group, an ANOVA was performed on the natural log-transformed AUC0-t value. The ANOVA model included treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||89.5|75.9|
90953928|NCT02236988|181786081|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|68.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|62.9|74.0|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Apremilast Modified Release 13 / Apremilast Immediate Release) expressed as a percentage.|To compare each test formulation with the reference formulation in each group, an ANOVA was performed on the natural log-transformed AUC0-t value. The ANOVA model included treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||74.0|62.9|
90953929|NCT02236988|181786081|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|77.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|71.3|84.0|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Apremilast Modified Release 14 / Apremilast Immediate Release) expressed as a percentage.|To compare each test formulation with the reference formulation in each group, an ANOVA was performed on the natural log-transformed AUC0-t value. The ANOVA model included treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||84.0|71.3|
90989073|NCT00739297|181862653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-Squares Means|0.1||||||95.0|0.04|0.15|||||Mixed effects model with terms for treatment (including dose of montelukast), period and baseline covariate.|||0.15|0.04|
90989074|NCT00739297|181862653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-Squares Means|0.06||||||95.0|0.02|0.11|||||Mixed effects model with terms for treatment (including dose of montelukast), period and baseline covariate.|||0.11|0.02|
90989075|NCT00739297|181862653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-Squares Means|0.05||||||95.0|-0.01|0.11|||||Mixed effects model with terms for treatment (including dose of montelukast), period and baseline covariate.|||0.11|-0.01|
90989076|NCT00739297|181862653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-Squares Means|0.08||||||95.0|0.04|0.13|||||Mixed effects model with terms for treatment (including dose of montelukast), period and baseline covariate.|||0.13|0.04|
90953930|NCT02236988|181786082|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|81.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.6|88.6|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Apremilast Modified Release 11 / Apremilast Immediate Release) expressed as a percentage.|To compare each test formulation with the reference formulation in each group, an ANOVA was performed on the natural log-transformed AUC0-∞ value. The ANOVA model included treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||88.6|75.6|
90953931|NCT02236988|181786082|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|83.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.5|90.1|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Apremilast Modified Release 12 / Apremilast Immediate Release) expressed as a percentage.|To compare each test formulation with the reference formulation in each group, an ANOVA was performed on the natural log-transformed AUC0-∞ value. The ANOVA model included treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||90.1|76.5|
90989077|NCT00739297|181862654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-Squares Means|0.19||||||95.0|0.04|0.34|||||Repeated measures model with terms for treatment (Albuterol/Placebo), dose, treatment-by-dose interaction and baseline FEV1|||0.34|0.04|
91042362|NCT01801917|181970086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Bayesian|0.586||||||||||||||It was a Bayesian analysis with non-informative prior for co-primary endpoints, MMT-24 and CK, with dual criteria for statistical significance: ≥ 90% posterior probability (PP) of achieving an increase from baseline in MMT24 and decrease in CK and clinical relevance: ≥ 50% PP achieving an increase of 15 points in MMT24 and a decrease of 30% in CK vs. placebo. For this table the value is the posterior probability of achieving an increase in MMT24 and a decrease in CK in 2mg group vs. placebo||||
91042363|NCT01801917|181970086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Bayesian|0.022||||||||||||||It was a Bayesian analysis with non-informative prior for co-primary endpoints, MMT-24 and CK, with dual criteria for statistical significance: ≥ 90% posterior probability (PP) of achieving an increase from baseline in MMT24 and decrease in CK and clinical relevance: ≥ 50% PP achieving an increase of 15 points in MMT24 and a decrease of 30% in CK vs. placebo. . For this table the value is the PP of achieving an increase of 15 points in MMT24 and a decrease of 30% in CK in 2mg group vs. placebo||||
91042364|NCT01801917|181970086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Bayesian|0.963||||||||||||||It was a Bayesian analysis with non-informative prior for co-primary endpoints, MMT-24 and CK, with dual criteria for statistical significance: ≥ 90% posterior probability (PP) of achieving an increase from baseline in MMT24 and decrease in CK and clinical relevance: ≥ 50% PP achieving an increase of 15 points in MMT24 and a decrease of 30% in CK vs. placebo. For this table the value is the posterior probability of achieving an increase in MMT24 and a decrease in CK in 10mg group vs. placebo||||
91042365|NCT01801917|181970086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Bayesian|0.837||||||||||||||It was a Bayesian analysis with non-informative prior for co-primary endpoints, MMT-24 and CK, with dual criteria for statistical significance: ≥ 90% posterior probability (PP) of achieving an increase from baseline in MMT24 and decrease in CK and clinical relevance: ≥ 50% PP achieving an increase of 15 points in MMT24 and a decrease of 30% in CK vs. placebo. . For this table the value is the PP of achieving an increase of 15 points in MMT24 and a decrease of 30% in CK in 10mg group vs. placebo||||
91042366|NCT03919695|181970097|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.29||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.73|||GEE model specifying a logistic distribu||time x arm effect for the comparison at 6-month follow-up|Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) model specifying a logistic distribution examining the time x arm interaction||.73|.11|.002
91042367|NCT02416934|181970103|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5392|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7176||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9761|-0.1022|||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparing DSQ between Dexamethasone and Saline at Day 1 post-op||-.1022|-2.9761|0.036
90989078|NCT00739297|181862655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-Squares Means|0.06||||||95.0|-0.01|0.12|||||Mixed effects model with terms for treatment (including dose of montelukast), period and baseline covariate.|||0.12|-0.01|
90989079|NCT00739297|181862655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-Squares Means|0.07||||||95.0|0.0|0.15|||||Mixed effects model with terms for treatment (including dose of montelukast), period and baseline covariate.|||0.15|-0.00|
90989080|NCT00739297|181862655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-Squares Means|0.05||||||95.0|-0.01|0.11|||||Mixed effects model with terms for treatment (including dose of montelukast), period and baseline covariate.|||0.11|-0.01|
91042368|NCT02416934|181970103|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.604|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2543|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1151|-0.093|||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparing Bazaz between Dexamethasone and Saline at 6 months post-op||-.0930|-1.1151|<.05
90953932|NCT02236988|181786082|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|68.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|63.4|74.5|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Apremilast Modified Release 13 / Apremilast Immediate Release) expressed as a percentage.|To compare each test formulation with the reference formulation in each group, an ANOVA was performed on the natural log-transformed AUC0-∞ value. The ANOVA model included treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||74.5|63.4|
90953933|NCT02236988|181786082|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|77.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|71.8|84.4|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Apremilast Modified Release 14 / Apremilast Immediate Release) expressed as a percentage.|To compare each test formulation with the reference formulation in each group, an ANOVA was performed on the natural log-transformed AUC0-∞ value. The ANOVA model included treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||84.4|71.8|
90953934|NCT02236988|181786083|OTHER||Median Difference|0.98||||0.0523|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.03|1.5|||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Median difference (Apremilast Modified Release 11 - Apremilast Immediate Release) calculated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimate.|Tmax was analyzed by nonparametric methods. The median difference and 90% CI of the median difference were calculated from the Hodges-Lehrmann estimate.||1.50|0.03|0.0523
90989081|NCT00739297|181862655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-Squares Means|0.06||||||95.0|-0.03|0.14|||||Mixed effects model with terms for treatment (including dose of montelukast), period and baseline covariate.|||0.14|-0.03|
90989082|NCT00739297|181862655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-Squares Means|0.08||||||95.0|0.01|0.15|||||Mixed effects model with terms for treatment (including dose of montelukast), period and baseline covariate.|||0.15|0.01|
90989083|NCT00739297|181862656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-Squares Means|0.04||||||95.0|-0.03|0.1|||||Mixed effects model with terms for treatment (including dose of montelukast), period and baseline covariate.|||0.10|-0.03|
90989084|NCT00739297|181862656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-Squares Means|0.09||||||95.0|0.01|0.17|||||Mixed effects model with terms for treatment (including dose of montelukast), period and baseline covariate.|||0.17|0.01|
90989085|NCT00739297|181862656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-Squares Means|0.05||||||95.0|-0.01|0.1|||||Mixed effects model with terms for treatment (including dose of montelukast), period and baseline covariate.|||0.10|-0.01|
90953935|NCT02236988|181786083|OTHER||Median Difference|0.5||||0.2598|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Median difference (Apremilast Modified Release 12 - Apremilast Immediate Release) calculated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimate.|Tmax was analyzed by nonparametric methods. The median difference and 90% CI of the median difference were calculated from the Hodges-Lehrmann estimate.||1.00|0.00|0.2598
90953936|NCT02236988|181786083|OTHER||Median Difference|1.5||||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|3.0|||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Median difference (Apremilast Modified Release 13 - Apremilast Immediate Release) calculated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimate.|Tmax was analyzed by nonparametric methods. The median difference and 90% CI of the median difference were calculated from the Hodges-Lehrmann estimate.||3.00|1.00|0.0053
90953937|NCT02236988|181786083|OTHER||Median Difference|0.5||||0.1093|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Median difference (Apremilast Modified Release 14 - Apremilast Immediate Release) calculated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimate.|Tmax was analyzed by nonparametric methods. The median difference and 90% CI of the median difference were calculated from the Hodges-Lehrmann estimate.||1.00|0.00|0.1093
90953938|NCT04308590|181786092|EQUIVALENCE|The primary analysis will determine whether there is a difference between treatment groups in terms of change from Baseline to Week 22 in 24-hour average SBP. This was performed using a linear mixed-model-for-repeated-measures (MMRM) analysis using a placebo wash-out multiple imputation for treatment discontinuation and for patients that use rescue medication.|Least squares mean difference|-2.67||||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.096|3.766|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.766|-9.096|0.4160
90953939|NCT01072630|181786201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1||||0.1302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.67|0.6||All statistical tests were 2-tailed at the 0.05 level of significance.|mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM)|Treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, concurrent mood-stabilizing medication, and region of the world used as fixed factors.||||0.60|-4.67|0.1302
90953940|NCT01072630|181786201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.51|0.61||All statistical tests were 2-tailed at the 0.05 level of significance.|mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM)|Treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, concurrent mood-stabilizing medication, and region of the world used as fixed factors.||||0.61|-4.51|0.1350
90953941|NCT05032872|181786224|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, and self-reported functional health|Mixed Models Analysis|||Time by condition interaction||||.49
90953942|NCT05032872|181786225|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, and self-reported functional health|Mixed Models Analysis|||Time x condition interaction||||.48
90953943|NCT05032872|181786226|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, and self-reported functional health|Mixed Models Analysis|||Time x condition interaction predicting satisfaction with contact quality||||.04
90953944|NCT05032872|181786226|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, and self-reported functional health|Mixed Models Analysis|||Time x condition interaction predicting dissatisfaction with contact quantity||||.44
90953945|NCT05032872|181786226|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, and self-reported functional health|Mixed Models Analysis|||Time x condition interaction predicting satisfaction with contact quantity||||.99
90953946|NCT05032872|181786226|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, and self-reported functional health|Mixed Models Analysis|||Time x condition interaction predicting knowing others' experience||||.87
90953947|NCT05032872|181786226|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, and self-reported functional health|Mixed Models Analysis|||Time x condition interaction predicting shared understanding||||.98
90953948|NCT05032872|181786226|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, and self-reported functional health|Mixed Models Analysis|||Time x condition interaction predicting relationship salience||||.76
90953949|NCT05032872|181786227|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, and self-reported functional health|Mixed Models Analysis|||Time x condition interaction||||.29
90953950|NCT05032872|181786228|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, and self-reported functional health|Mixed Models Analysis|||Time x condition predicting positive affect||||.51
90953951|NCT05032872|181786228|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, and self-reported functional health|Mixed Models Analysis|||Time x condition predicting negative affect||||.83
90989086|NCT00739297|181862656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-Squares Means|0.07||||||95.0|-0.02|0.15|||||Mixed effects model with terms for treatment (including dose of montelukast), period and baseline covariate.|||0.15|-0.02|
90989087|NCT00739297|181862656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-Squares Means|0.08||||||95.0|0.01|0.15|||||Mixed effects model with terms for treatment (including dose of montelukast), period and baseline covariate.|||0.15|0.01|
90953952|NCT05032872|181786229|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, and self-reported functional health|Mixed Models Analysis|||Time x condition interaction||||.51
90953953|NCT05032872|181786230|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, and self-reported functional health|Mixed Models Analysis|||Time x condition interaction||||.65
90953954|NCT05032872|181786231|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, and self-reported functional health|Mixed Models Analysis|||Time x condition interaction predicting management of distress||||.01
90953955|NCT05032872|181786231|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, and self-reported functional health|Mixed Models Analysis|||time x condition interaction predicting caregiver overload||||.75
90989088|NCT01400971|181862657|OTHER|Multivariable logistic regression model examined baseline participant-, physician-, and healthcare system-related factors associated with the occurrence of any change in insulin therapy.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.92||||||Public insurance||0.92|0.54|
90989089|NCT01400971|181862657|OTHER|Multivariable logistic regression model examined baseline participant-, physician-, and healthcare system-related factors associated with the occurrence of any change in insulin therapy.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|2.46||||||Diabetes support service available||2.46|1.50|
90953956|NCT05032872|181786231|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, and self-reported functional health|Mixed Models Analysis|||Time x condition interaction predicting relational deprivation||||.59
90953957|NCT05032872|181786231|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, and self-reported functional health|Mixed Models Analysis|||Time x condition interaction predicting job caregiving conflict||||.51
90953958|NCT05032872|181786231|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, and self-reported functional health|Mixed Models Analysis|||Time x condition interaction predicting role captivity||||.25
90953959|NCT05032872|181786231|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, and self-reported functional health|Mixed Models Analysis|||Time x condition interaction predicting sense of self||||.34
90953960|NCT05032872|181786231|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, and self-reported functional health|Mixed Models Analysis|||Time x condition interaction predicting personal gain||||.75
90953961|NCT05032872|181786231|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, and self-reported functional health|Mixed Models Analysis|||Time x condition interaction predicting caregiving competence||||.99
90953962|NCT05032872|181786231|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, and self-reported functional health|Mixed Models Analysis|||Time x condition interaction predicting management of situition||||.61
90953963|NCT05032872|181786231|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, and self-reported functional health|Mixed Models Analysis|||Time x condition interaction predicting management of meaning||||.92
90953964|NCT05032872|181786231|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, and self-reported functional health|Mixed Models Analysis|||Time x condition interaction predicting expressive support||||.96
90953965|NCT05032872|181786232|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, and self-reported functional health|Mixed Models Analysis|||Time x condition interaction||||.37
90953966|NCT05032872|181786233|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, and self-reported functional health|Mixed Models Analysis|||Time x condition interaction||||.89
90953967|NCT05032872|181786234|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, and self-reported functional health|Mixed Models Analysis|||Time x condition interaction||||.30
90989090|NCT01400971|181862657|OTHER|Multivariable logistic regression model examined baseline participant-, physician-, and healthcare system-related factors associated with the occurrence of any change in insulin therapy.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|2.49||||||Baseline HbA1c \> 7.80 (reference:HbA1c≤7.80 median)||2.49|1.38|
90953968|NCT05032872|181786235|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, and self-reported functional health|Mixed Models Analysis|||Time x condition interaction||||.52
90953969|NCT05032872|181786236|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Independent sample T-test comparing the treatment and control group||||.45
90953970|NCT00338962|181786238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferonni adjustments were applied. Mixed effects models were used to assess changes in PTSD symptoms over time.|Mixed Models Analysis|F=49.633||||||0.00
90953971|NCT00338962|181786240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Gastrointestinal symptoms compared||||0.007
90953972|NCT03733314|181786241|SUPERIORITY||Difference|10.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.9|45.4|||||The difference of percentage was calculated as E6011 minus placebo.|||45.4|-24.9|
90953973|NCT03733314|181786246|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.1|18.0|||||The difference of percentage was calculated as E6011 minus placebo.|||18.0|-32.1|
90953974|NCT03733314|181786247|SUPERIORITY||Difference|8.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|24.0|||||The difference of percentage was calculated as E6011 minus placebo.|||24.0|-7.3|
90953975|NCT04155047|181786276|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.323|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1861||0.0987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.711|0.066|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.066|-0.711|0.0987
90953976|NCT04514510|181786277|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||ANCOVA with Multiple Imputation|||||||0.64
90953977|NCT04514510|181786283|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.149|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.149
90953978|NCT00821587|181786287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||We hypothesize that subjects on CsA are more likely to achieve undetectable viral level in patients receiving antiviral therapy for recurrent HCV after Liver Transplant|Chi-squared|||We hypothesize that subjects on CsA are more likely to achieve undetectable viral levels after liver transplant. Comparisons between the two groups (Undetectable viral level vs. Detectable viral level) were performed with Pearson Chi-square tests or Fisher's exact test for categorical variables, and Mann-Whitney U test for continuous variables.||||<0.05
90953979|NCT05731999|181786309|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for Dbase at 50 lux is reported."|Slope|7.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||<0.0001
90989091|NCT01400971|181862657|OTHER|Multivariable logistic regression model examined baseline participant-, physician-, and healthcare system-related factors associated with the occurrence of any change in insulin therapy.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|2.07||||||Baseline HbA1c missing (reference:HbA1c≤7.80 median)||2.07|1.15|
90989092|NCT01400971|181862657|OTHER|Multivariable logistic regression model examined baseline participant-, physician-, and healthcare system-related factors associated with the occurrence of any change in insulin therapy.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|1.88||||||Diabetes duration \> 11 years||1.88|1.13|
90953980|NCT05731999|181786309|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for Dcon at 50 lux is reported."|Slope|5.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||<0.0001
90953981|NCT05731999|181786309|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for Ctime at 50 lux is reported."|Slope|7.17||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||0.0006
90953982|NCT05731999|181786309|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for Dend at 50 lux is reported."|Slope|4.75|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||<0.0001
90953983|NCT05731999|181786309|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for MCA at 50 lux is reported."|Slope|5.95||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||0.0002
90953984|NCT05731999|181786309|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for D2m at 500 lux is reported."|Slope|6.92||||0.0285|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||0.0285
90953985|NCT05731999|181786309|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for Dbase at 500 lux is reported."|Slope|6.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||<0.0001
90989093|NCT01400971|181862657|OTHER|Multivariable logistic regression model examined baseline participant-, physician-, and healthcare system-related factors associated with the occurrence of any change in insulin therapy.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.0||||||Age (per year increase)||1.00|0.97|
90989094|NCT01400971|181862657|OTHER|Multivariable logistic regression model examined baseline participant-, physician-, and healthcare system-related factors associated with the occurrence of any change in insulin therapy.|Odds Ratio (OR)|10.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|33.41||||||Baseline insulin therapy: combination||33.41|3.30|
91042369|NCT02416934|181970104|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7874|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1273|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5153|8.0902|||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparing the changes in VNDI between Dexamethasone and Saline from baseline to last visit||8.0902|-4.5153|<.05
91042370|NCT02416934|181970105|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.375||||||Fisher's Exact Test|Fisher Exact|||||||.375
90989095|NCT01400971|181862657|OTHER|Multivariable logistic regression model examined baseline participant-, physician-, and healthcare system-related factors associated with the occurrence of any change in insulin therapy.|Odds Ratio (OR)|5.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|18.37||||||Baseline insulin therapy: prandial only||18.37|1.77|
91042371|NCT01374451|181970146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.991||||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.636|1.543|||Log Rank|||||1.543|0.636|0.488
91042372|NCT04640194|181970163|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|2.61|||||A hazard ratio \> 1 favours the alteplase dose group over standard of care alone.|Unadjusted Hazard Ratio: Cox proportional hazard model containing fixed effect for treatment. The confidence intervals was determined using the Wald method to determine the variance.||2.61|0.39|
91042373|NCT04640194|181970163|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|3.27|||||A hazard ratio \> 1 favours the alteplase dose group over standard of care alone.|Adjusted Hazard Ratio: Cox proportional hazard model containing fixed effect for treatment,ventilation status at baseline and age. The confidence intervals was determined using the Wald method to determine the variance.||3.27|0.46|
91042374|NCT04640194|181970163|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|4.15|||||A hazard ratio \> 1 favours the alteplase dose group over standard of care alone.|Unadjusted Hazard Ratio: Cox proportional hazard model containing fixed effect for treatment. The confidence intervals was determined using the Wald method to determine the variance.||4.15|0.73|
91042375|NCT04640194|181970163|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|5.01|||||A hazard ratio \> 1 favours the alteplase dose group over standard of care alone.|Adjusted Hazard Ratio: Cox proportional hazard model containing fixed effect for treatment,ventilation status at baseline and age. The confidence intervals was determined using the Wald method to determine the variance.||5.01|0.83|
91042376|NCT04640194|181970163|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|3.66|||||A hazard ratio \> 1 favours the alteplase dose group over standard of care alone.|Unadjusted Hazard Ratio: Cox proportional hazard model containing fixed effect for treatment. The confidence intervals was determined using the Wald method to determine the variance.||3.66|0.35|
91042377|NCT04640194|181970163|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|4.22|||||A hazard ratio \> 1 favours the alteplase dose group over standard of care alone.|Adjusted Hazard Ratio: Cox proportional hazard model containing fixed effect for treatment,ventilation status at baseline and age. The confidence intervals was determined using the Wald method to determine the variance.||4.22|0.33|
91042378|NCT04640194|181970164|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.892|24.8734|||||Chan and Zhang exact confidence interval.|||24.8734|-10.892|
91042379|NCT04640194|181970164|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3075|43.6615|||||Chan and Zhang exact confidence interval.|||43.6615|2.3075|
91042380|NCT04640194|181970164|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|11.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.127|36.9012|||||Chan and Zhang exact confidence interval.|||36.9012|-24.127|
91042381|NCT04640194|181970165|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-16.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.6|5.5|||||Calculated as alteplase dose group - standard of care alone.|Adjusted risk difference and 95% confidence interval is based upon average marginal effect Delta method, adjusting for baseline ventilation status, age and treatment.||5.5|-38.6|
91042382|NCT04640194|181970165|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-11.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.1|11.6|||||Calculated as alteplase dose group - standard of care alone.|Adjusted risk difference and 95% confidence interval is based upon average marginal effect Delta method, adjusting for baseline ventilation status, age and treatment.||11.6|-35.1|
91042383|NCT04640194|181970165|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-19.1||||0.2419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.1|12.9|||The delta method and average marginal.||Calculated as alteplase dose group - standard of care alone.|Unadjusted risk difference and 95% CI is based upon average marginal effect Delta method, adjusting for treatment.||12.9|-51.1|0.2419
91042384|NCT04640194|181970166|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.1|19.1|||||Calculated as alteplase dose group - standard of care alone.|Adjusted risk difference and 95% confidence interval is based upon average marginal effect Delta method, adjusting for baseline ventilation status, age and treatment.||19.1|-37.1|
91042385|NCT04640194|181970166|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.2|19.0|||||Calculated as alteplase dose group - standard of care alone.|Adjusted risk difference and 95% confidence interval is based upon average marginal effect Delta method, adjusting for baseline ventilation status, age and treatment.||19.0|-37.2|
91042386|NCT04640194|181970166|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|14.5||||0.2523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|39.3|||The delta method and average marginal.||Calculated as alteplase dose group - standard of care alone.|Adjusted risk difference and 95% CI is based upon average marginal effect Delta method, adjusting for baseline D-dimer status, age, days of NIV support and treatment.||39.3|-10.3|0.2523
91042387|NCT04640194|181970167|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|10.6|||||Calculated as alteplase dose group - standard of care alone.|Parameters included in model: treatment,ventilation status at baseline, and age.||10.6|-4.4|
91042388|NCT04640194|181970167|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|11.8|||||Calculated as alteplase dose group - standard of care alone.|Parameters included in model: treatment,ventilation status at baseline, and age.||11.8|-3.2|
91042389|NCT04640194|181970168|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.0|19.2|||||Calculated as alteplase dose group - standard of care alone.|Adjusted risk difference and 95% confidence interval is based upon average marginal effect Delta method, adjusting for baseline ventilation status, age and treatment.||19.2|-29.0|
91042390|NCT04640194|181970168|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-15.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.8|6.3|||||Calculated as alteplase dose group - standard of care alone.|Adjusted risk difference and 95% confidence interval is based upon average marginal effect Delta method, adjusting for baseline ventilation status, age and treatment.||6.3|-36.8|
90953986|NCT05731999|181786309|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for Dcon at 500 lux is reported."|Slope|6.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||<0.0001
90953987|NCT05731999|181786309|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for Dend at 500 lux is reported."|Slope|5.94||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||0.0001
90953988|NCT05731999|181786309|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for MCA at 500 lux is reported."|Slope|5.85||||0.012|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||0.012
90989096|NCT01400971|181862657|OTHER|Multivariable logistic regression model examined baseline participant-, physician-, and healthcare system-related factors associated with the occurrence of any change in insulin therapy.|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.02|5.73||||||Baseline insulin therapy: pre-mixed only||5.73|3.02|
91042391|NCT04640194|181970169|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|17.193|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.45|52.33|||||Calculated as alteplase dose group - standard of care alone.|Based upon Hedges-Lehmann estimator handling deaths as failure and Wilcoxon rank sum test methodology.||52.33|-28.45|
90989097|NCT01400971|181862657|OTHER|Multivariable logistic regression model examined baseline participant-, physician-, and healthcare system-related factors associated with the occurrence of any change in insulin therapy. IPC ranges from 1-5 with higher scores indicating more discrimination.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.65||||||Discrimination domain of the IPC||0.65|0.39|
90989098|NCT01400971|181862657|OTHER|Multivariable logistic regression model examined baseline participant-, physician-, and healthcare system-related factors associated with the occurrence of any change in insulin therapy. Diabetes Distress Scale ranges from 1-6 with higher scores indicating more distress.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.95||||||Diabetes Distress Scale total score \> 2||0.95|0.57|
90989099|NCT00325442|181862661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann|11.0||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|22.0|||ANCOVA|||Change in 6MWD from Baseline to Week 16||22|0|0.072
90989100|NCT00325442|181862662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann (H-L)|0.0||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change in Borg dyspnea score from Baseline to Week 16||0.0|-1.0|0.062
90989101|NCT00325442|181862663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.491||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.491
90953989|NCT05731999|181786309|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for NYmass at 500 lux is reported."|Slope|-9.62||||0.0174|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||0.0174
90989102|NCT00325442|181862664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann (H-L)|0.0||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon sum-rank test|||Change in dyspnea-fatigue index from Baseline to Week 16||1.0|0.0|0.011
90989103|NCT00325442|181862666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann (H-L)|13.0||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|23.0|||ANCOVA|||Change in 6MWD from Baseline to Week 12||23.0|3.0|0.015
90989104|NCT00325442|181862667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann|9.0||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|18.0|||ANCOVA|||Change in 6MWD from Baseline to Week 8||18.0|0.0|0.051
90989105|NCT00325442|181862668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann ( H-L)|4.0||||0.238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|12.0|||ANCOVA|||Change in 6MWD from Baseline to Week 4||12.0|-2.4|0.238
90989106|NCT00325442|181862669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann (H-L)|24.0||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|45.0|||ANCOVA|||Change in 6MWD from Baseline to Week 16||45|0|0.121
90989107|NCT00325442|181862670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann (H-L)|15.0||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|41.0|||ANCOVA|||Change in 6MWD from Baseline to Week 16||41|-7|0.069
90989108|NCT00325442|181862671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann (H-L)|4.0||||0.889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|24.0|||ANCOVA|||Change in 6MWD from Baseline to Week 16||24|-15|0.889
90989109|NCT00325442|181862672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann (H-L)|0.0||||0.966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.0|24.0|||ANCOVA|||Change in 6MWD from Baseline to Week 16||24|-23|0.966
90989110|NCT00325442|181862674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann (H-L)|5.0||||0.853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|28.0|||ANCOVA|||Change in 6MWD from Baseline to Week 16||28|-16|0.853
90989111|NCT00325442|181862675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann (H-L)|7.0||||0.327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|21.0|||ANCOVA|||Change in 6MWD from Baseline to Week 16||21|-7|0.327
90989112|NCT00325442|181862676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann (H-L)|29.5||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|73.0|||ANCOVA|||Change in 6MWD from Baseline to Week 16||73|1|0.085
90989113|NCT00325442|181862677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann (H-L)|5.0||||0.615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|24.0|||ANCOVA|||Change in 6MWD from Baseline to Week 16||24|-12|0.615
90989114|NCT00325442|181862678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann (H-L)|17.0||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|40.0|||ANCOVA|||Change in 6MWD from Baseline to Week 16||40|-6|0.230
90989115|NCT00325442|181862679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann (H-L)|10.0||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|28.0|||ANCOVA|||Change in 6MWD from Baseline to Week 16||28|-6|0.209
90989116|NCT01729598|181862682|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.55
90989117|NCT01729598|181862683|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.19
90989118|NCT01729598|181862684|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
90989119|NCT01729598|181862685|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.31
90989120|NCT01041573|181862690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.641|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.641
90989121|NCT01041573|181862690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
90989122|NCT03848221|181862711|EQUIVALENCE|||||||0.3|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.30
90989123|NCT03848221|181862712|EQUIVALENCE|||||||0.0002|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0002
90989124|NCT00506077|181862731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.939||95.0||||The Benjamini \& Hochberg False Discovery Rate (FDR) approach at critical value 0.05 was used among 1 primary and 3 secondary cognition efficacy endpoints to control the false positive rate.|constrained longitudinal data analysis|The model factors were treatment, sequence, period, week (as categorical variable), site, treatment-by-week, sequence-by-week, and period-by-week.||||||0.939
90989125|NCT00506077|181862732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.736||95.0||||P-Value Comments (limit 250 characters): The Benjamini \& Hochberg False Discovery Rate (FDR) approach at critical value 0.05 was used among 1 primary and 3 secondary cognition efficacy endpoints to control the false positive rate.|constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|The model factors were treatment, sequence, period, week (as categorical variable), site, treatment-by-week, sequence-by-week, and period-by-week.||||||0.736
90989126|NCT00506077|181862733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.736||95.0||||The Benjamini \& Hochberg False Discovery Rate (FDR) approach at critical value 0.05 was used among 1 primary and 3 secondary cognition efficacy endpoints to control the false positive rate.|constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|The model factors were treatment, sequence, period, week (as categorical variable), site, treatment-by-week, sequence-by-week, and period-by-week.||||||0.736
90989127|NCT00506077|181862734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.736||95.0||||The Benjamini \& Hochberg False Discovery Rate (FDR) approach at critical value 0.05 was used among 1 primary and 3 secondary cognition efficacy endpoints to control the false positive rate.|constrained Logitudinal Data Analysis|The model factors were treatment, sequence, period, week (as categorical variable), site, treatment-by-week, sequence-by-week, and period-by-week.||||||0.736
90989128|NCT04174638|181862743|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05. The p value was the value of the total score of the Fluid Control in Hemodialysis Patients Scale.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90989129|NCT04174638|181862744|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90989130|NCT04174638|181862745|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||It was calculated for detect of difference in mean the knowledge sub-dimension score of Modified Morisky Scale between intervention and control group from baseline to week 12.||||<0.001
90989131|NCT04174638|181862745|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||It was calculated for detect of difference in mean the motivation sub-dimension score of Modified Morisky Scale between intervention and control group from baseline to week 12.||||<0.001
90953990|NCT05731999|181786309|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for D1m at 500 lux is reported."|Slope|-9.15||||0.013|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||0.013
90953991|NCT05731999|181786309|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for NCdiff at 50 lux is reported."|Slope|-4.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||<0.0001
90953992|NCT05731999|181786309|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for Dbase at 50 lux is reported."|Slope|0.99||||0.0068|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||0.0068
90953993|NCT05731999|181786309|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for MCV at 50 lux is reported."|Slope|1.12||||0.0485|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||0.0485
90989132|NCT04174638|181862749|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.297||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||It was calculated for detect of difference in mean the physical functions sub-dimension score of Kidney Disease Quality of Life Instrument 36 Scale between intervention and control group from baseline to week 12.||||0.297
90989133|NCT04174638|181862749|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.742||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||It was calculated for detect of difference in mean the mental functions sub-dimension score of Kidney Disease Quality of Life Instrument 36 Scale between intervention and control group from baseline to week 12.||||0.742
90989134|NCT04174638|181862749|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.719||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||It was calculated for detect of difference in mean the burden of kidney disease sub-dimension score of Kidney Disease Quality of Life Instrument 36 Scale between intervention and control group from baseline to week 12.||||0.719
90989135|NCT04174638|181862749|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.063||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||It was calculated for detect of difference in mean the symptoms/problems sub-dimension score of Kidney Disease Quality of Life Instrument 36 Scale between intervention and control group from baseline to week 12.||||0.063
90989136|NCT04174638|181862749|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||It was calculated for detect of difference in mean the effects of kidney disease on daily life sub-dimension score of Kidney Disease Quality of Life Instrument 36 Scale between intervention and control group from baseline to week 12.||||<0.001
90989137|NCT02985450|181862770|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|513.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|73.6||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Anti-HBs levels difference: high risk obesity group - low risk obesity group NAFLD patients|||||0.02
90989138|NCT00069576|181862772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.87||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|97.0|0.72|1.07|||Chi-squared|||For Total Composite End Point||1.07|0.72|0.14
90989139|NCT00069576|181862772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.06||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|97.0|0.73|1.53|||Chi-squared|||Analysis for Hypoglycemia||1.53|0.73|0.75
90989140|NCT00069576|181862772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.74||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|97.0|0.49|1.12|||Chi-squared|||Analysis for hyperbilirubinemia||1.12|0.49|0.12
90989141|NCT00069576|181862772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.78||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|97.0|0.57|1.05|||Chi-squared|||Analysis for elevated cord-blood C-peptide level||1.05|0.57|0.07
90989142|NCT00069576|181862772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.48||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|97.0|0.1|2.2|||Chi-squared|||Analysis for birth trauma||2.20|0.10|0.33
90989143|NCT00069576|181862773|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.28||||||||1.28|0.68|
90989144|NCT00069576|181862774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.0|0.32|0.76|||Chi-squared|||||0.76|0.32|<0.001
90989145|NCT00069576|181862775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.0|0.26|0.66|||Chi-squared|||||0.66|0.26|<0.001
90989146|NCT00069576|181862776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.81||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|97.0|0.53|1.23|||Chi-squared|||||1.23|0.53|0.27
90989147|NCT00069576|181862777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.003
90989148|NCT00069576|181862778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.18||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|97.0|0.7|1.99|||Chi-squared|||||1.99|0.70|0.49
90989149|NCT00069576|181862779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90989150|NCT00069576|181862780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.77||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|97.0|0.51|1.18|||Chi-squared|||||1.18|0.51|0.19
90989151|NCT00069576|181862781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.77||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|97.0|0.44|1.36|||Chi-squared|||||1.36|0.44|0.32
90989152|NCT00069576|181862782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.66||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|97.0|0.26|1.67|||Chi-squared|||||1.67|0.26|0.33
90989153|NCT00069576|181862783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.02||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|97.0|0.81|1.29|||Chi-squared|||||1.29|0.81|0.86
90989154|NCT00069576|181862784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.79||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|97.0|0.64|0.99|||Chi-squared|||||0.99|0.64|0.02
90989155|NCT00069576|181862785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.37||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|97.0|0.14|0.97|||Chi-squared|||||0.97|0.14|0.02
90989156|NCT00069576|181862786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.46||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|97.0|0.22|0.97|||Chi-squared|||||0.97|0.22|0.02
90989157|NCT00069576|181862787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.63||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|97.0|0.42|0.96|||Chi-squared|||||0.96|0.42|0.01
90989158|NCT00069576|181862788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90989159|NCT00069576|181862789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90989160|NCT00069576|181862790|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.1||||||||1.10|0.71|
90989161|NCT00069576|181862791|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.69||||||||1.69|0.65|
90989162|NCT00069576|181862792|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|2.05||||||||2.05|0.74|
90989163|NCT00069576|181862793|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.62||||||||1.62|0.36|
90989164|NCT00069576|181862794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.87
90989165|NCT00905307|181862795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-4.7||||0.2846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|0.82||The Hochberg procedure using two-sided alpha of 0.05 was applied to control the type I error rate at 0.05 level (two-sided) due to multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|With treatment and trial center as main effects, and baseline value as covariate||Sample size was determined to achieve at least 80% power at alpha level of 0.0167 (two-sided) to detect a difference of -11.5 points in the mean change from baseline in PANSS Total Score at week 6 (LOCF) between an individual OPC-34712 treatment group (except the 0.25 mg QD fixed dose group) and placebo using a two-sided z-test.||0.82|-10.2|0.2846
90989166|NCT00905307|181862795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-1.44||||0.6066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.96|4.07||The Hochberg procedure using two-sided alpha of 0.05 was applied to control the type I error rate at 0.05 level (two-sided) due to multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|With treatment and trial center as main effects, and baseline value as covariate||Sample size was determined to achieve at least 80% power at alpha level of 0.0167 (two-sided) to detect a difference of -11.5 points in the mean change from baseline in PANSS Total Score at week 6 (LOCF) between an individual OPC-34712 treatment group (except the 0.25 mg QD fixed dose group) and placebo using a two-sided z-test||4.07|-6.96|0.6066
90989167|NCT00905307|181862795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-3.86||||0.3293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.32|1.59||The Hochberg procedure using two-sided alpha of 0.05 was applied to control the type I error rate at 0.05 level (two-sided) due to multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|With treatment and trial center as main effects, and baseline value as covariate||Sample size was determined to achieve at least 80% power at alpha level of 0.0167 (two-sided) to detect a difference of -11.5 points in the mean change from baseline in PANSS Total Score at week 6 (LOCF) between an individual OPC-34712 treatment group (except the 0.25 mg QD fixed dose group) and placebo using a two-sided z-test||1.59|-9.32|0.3293
91042392|NCT04640194|181970169|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|54.436|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|110.36|||||Calculated as alteplase dose group - standard of care alone.|Based upon Hedges-Lehmann estimator handling deaths as failure and Wilcoxon rank sum test methodology.||110.36|0.49|
90989168|NCT00905307|181862795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|4.62||||0.2263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.89|12.12|||ANCOVA|With treatment and trial center as main effects, and baseline value as covariate||Sample size was determined to achieve at least 80% power at alpha level of 0.0167 (two-sided) to detect a difference of -11.5 points in the mean change from baseline in PANSS Total Score at week 6 (LOCF) between an individual OPC-34712 treatment group (except the 0.25 mg QD fixed dose group) and placebo using a two-sided z-test||12.12|-2.89|0.2263
90989169|NCT00905307|181862795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-3.64||||0.3074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|3.38|||ANCOVA|With treatment and trial center as main effects, and baseline value as covariate||||3.38|-10.7|0.3074
90989170|NCT00905307|181862796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|1.61||||0.1807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|3.97|||ANCOVA|With treatment and trial center as main effects, and baseline value as covariate||Sample size was determined to achieve at least 80% power at alpha level of 0.0167 (two-sided) to detect a difference of -11.5 points in the mean change from baseline in PANSS positive subscale score at week 6 (LOCF) between an individual OPC-34712 treatment group (except the 0.25 mg QD fixed dose group) and placebo using a two-sided z-test.||3.97|-0.75|0.1807
90989171|NCT00905307|181862796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-1.41||||0.1313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.24|0.42|||ANCOVA|With treatment and trial center as main effects, and baseline value as covariate||Sample size was determined to achieve at least 80% power at alpha level of 0.0167 (two-sided) to detect a difference of -11.5 points in the mean change from baseline in PANSS positive subscale score at week 6 (LOCF) between an individual OPC-34712 treatment group (except the 0.25 mg QD fixed dose group) and placebo using a two-sided z-test.||0.42|-3.24|0.1313
90989172|NCT00905307|181862796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.13||||0.8879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|1.69|||ANCOVA|||Sample size was determined to achieve at least 80% power at alpha level of 0.0167 (two-sided) to detect a difference of -11.5 points in the mean change from baseline in PANSS positive subscale score at week 6 (LOCF) between an individual OPC-34712 treatment group (except the 0.25 mg QD fixed dose group) and placebo using a two-sided z-test||1.69|-1.96|0.8879
90989173|NCT00905307|181862796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-1.24||||0.1764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.05|0.56|||ANCOVA|With treatment and trial center as main effects, and baseline value as covariate||Sample size was determined to achieve at least 80% power at alpha level of 0.0167 (two-sided) to detect a difference of -11.5 points in the mean change from baseline in PANSS positive subscale score at week 6 (LOCF) between an individual OPC-34712 treatment group (except the 0.25 mg QD fixed dose group) and placebo using a two-sided z-test.||0.56|-3.05|0.1764
90989174|NCT00905307|181862796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-1.79||||0.1111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|0.42|||ANCOVA|With treatment and trial center as main effects, and baseline value as covariate||Sample size was determined to achieve at least 80% power at alpha level of 0.0167 (two-sided) to detect a difference of -11.5 points in the mean change from baseline in PANSS positive subscale score at week 6 (LOCF) between an individual OPC-34712 treatment group (except the 0.25 mg QD fixed dose group) and placebo using a two-sided z-test.||0.42|-4.00|0.1111
90989175|NCT00905307|181862797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|1.0||||0.2896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|2.86|||ANCOVA|With treatment and trial center as main effects, and baseline value as covariate||Sample size was determined to achieve at least 80% power at alpha level of 0.0167 (two-sided) to detect a difference of -11.5 points in the mean change from baseline in PANSS negative subscale score at week 6 (LOCF) between an individual OPC-34712 treatment group (except the 0.25 mg QD fixed dose group) and placebo using a two-sided z-test.||2.86|-0.86|0.2896
90989176|NCT00905307|181862797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.61||||0.3701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|0.72|||ANCOVA|With treatment and trial center as main effects, and baseline value as covariate||Sample size was determined to achieve at least 80% power at alpha level of 0.0167 (two-sided) to detect a difference of -11.5 points in the mean change from baseline in PANSS negative subscale score at week 6 (LOCF) between an individual OPC-34712 treatment group (except the 0.25 mg QD fixed dose group) and placebo using a two-sided z-test.||0.72|-1.94|0.3701
90989177|NCT00905307|181862797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.35||||0.6074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|0.99|||ANCOVA|With treatment and trial center as main effects, and baseline value as covariate||Sample size was determined to achieve at least 80% power at alpha level of 0.0167 (two-sided) to detect a difference of -11.5 points in the mean change from baseline in PANSS negative subscale score at week 6 (LOCF) between an individual OPC-34712 treatment group (except the 0.25 mg QD fixed dose group) and placebo using a two-sided z-test.||0.99|-1.69|0.6074
90989178|NCT00905307|181862797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.73||||0.2777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|0.59|||ANCOVA|With treatment and trial center as main effects, and baseline value as covariate||Sample size was determined to achieve at least 80% power at alpha level of 0.0167 (two-sided) to detect a difference of -11.5 points in the mean change from baseline in PANSS negative subscale score at week 6 (LOCF) between an individual OPC-34712 treatment group (except the 0.25 mg QD fixed dose group) and placebo using a two-sided z-test||0.59|-2.05|0.2777
90989179|NCT00905307|181862797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.15||||0.8611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.59|||ANCOVA|With treatment and trial center as main effects, and baseline value as covariate||Sample size was determined to achieve at least 80% power at alpha level of 0.0167 (two-sided) to detect a difference of -11.5 points in the mean change from baseline in PANSS negative subscale score at week 6 (LOCF) between an individual OPC-34712 treatment group (except the 0.25 mg QD fixed dose group) and placebo using a two-sided z-test.||1.59|-1.90|0.8611
90989180|NCT00905307|181862798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-2.36||||0.3726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.57|2.85|||ANCOVA|With treatment and trial center as main effects, and baseline value as covariate||Sample size was determined to achieve at least 80% power at alpha level of 0.0167 (two-sided) to detect a difference of -11.5 points in the mean change from baseline in PSP score at week 6 (LOCF) between an individual OPC-34712 treatment group (except the 0.25 mg QD fixed dose group) and placebo using a two-sided z-test.||2.85|-7.57|0.3726
90989181|NCT00905307|181862798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|3.8||||0.0664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|7.85|||ANCOVA|With treatment and trial center as main effects, and baseline value as covariate||Sample size was determined to achieve at least 80% power at alpha level of 0.0167 (two-sided) to detect a difference of -11.5 points in the mean change from baseline in PSP score at week 6 (LOCF) between an individual OPC-34712 treatment group (except the 0.25 mg QD fixed dose group) and placebo using a two-sided z-test.||7.85|-0.26|0.0664
90989182|NCT00905307|181862798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|2.2||||0.2944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.92|6.32|||ANCOVA|With treatment and trial center as main effects, and baseline value as covariate||Sample size was determined to achieve at least 80% power at alpha level of 0.0167 (two-sided) to detect a difference of -11.5 points in the mean change from baseline in PANSS Total Score at week 6 (LOCF) between an individual OPC-34712 treatment group (except the 0.25 mg QD fixed dose group) and placebo using a two-sided z-test||6.32|-1.92|0.2944
90989183|NCT00905307|181862798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|3.86||||0.0596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|7.89|||ANCOVA|With treatment and trial center as main effects, and baseline value as covariate||Sample size was determined to achieve at least 80% power at alpha level of 0.0167 (two-sided) to detect a difference of -11.5 points in the mean change from baseline in PANSS Total Score at week 6 (LOCF) between an individual OPC-34712 treatment group (except the 0.25 mg QD fixed dose group) and placebo using a two-sided z-test||7.89|-0.16|0.0596
90989184|NCT00905307|181862798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|3.25||||0.1819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|8.03|||ANCOVA|With treatment and trial center as main effects, and baseline value as covariate||Sample size was determined to achieve at least 80% power at alpha level of 0.0167 (two-sided) to detect a difference of -11.5 points in the mean change from baseline in PANSS Total Score at week 6 (LOCF) between an individual OPC-34712 treatment group (except the 0.25 mg QD fixed dose group) and placebo using a two-sided z-test||8.03|-1.53|0.1819
90989185|NCT00905307|181862799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.38||||0.0685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.79|||ANCOVA|With treatment and trial center as main effects, and baseline value as covariate||Sample size was determined to achieve at least 80% power at alpha level of 0.0167 (two-sided) to detect a difference of -11.5 points in the mean change from baseline in CGI-S score at week 6 (LOCF) between an individual OPC-34712 treatment group (except the 0.25 mg QD fixed dose group) and placebo using a two-sided z-test||0.79|-0.03|0.0685
90989186|NCT00905307|181862799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.28||||0.0989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.05|||ANCOVA|With treatment and trial center as main effects, and baseline value as covariate||Sample size was determined to achieve at least 80% power at alpha level of 0.0167 (two-sided) to detect a difference of -11.5 points in the mean change from baseline in PANSS Total Score at week 6 (LOCF) between an individual OPC-34712 treatment group (except the 0.25 mg QD fixed dose group) and placebo using a two-sided z-test||0.05|-0.60|0.0989
90989187|NCT00905307|181862799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.04||||0.8006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.28|||ANCOVA|With treatment and trial center as main effects, and baseline value as covariate||Sample size was determined to achieve at least 80% power at alpha level of 0.0167 (two-sided) to detect a difference of -11.5 points in the mean change from baseline in PANSS Total Score at week 6 (LOCF) between an individual OPC-34712 treatment group (except the 0.25 mg QD fixed dose group) and placebo using a two-sided z-test.||0.28|-0.37|0.8006
90989188|NCT00905307|181862799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.28||||0.0898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.04|||ANCOVA|With treatment and trial center as main effects, and baseline value as covariate||Sample size was determined to achieve at least 80% power at alpha level of 0.0167 (two-sided) to detect a difference of -11.5 points in the mean change from baseline in PANSS Total Score at week 6 (LOCF) between an individual OPC-34712 treatment group (except the 0.25 mg QD fixed dose group) and placebo using a two-sided z-test||0.04|-0.60|0.0898
90989189|NCT00905307|181862799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.21||||0.2851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.18|||ANCOVA|With treatment and trial center as main effects, and baseline value as covariate||Sample size was determined to achieve at least 80% power at alpha level of 0.0167 (two-sided) to detect a difference of -11.5 points in the mean change from baseline in PANSS Total Score at week 6 (LOCF) between an individual OPC-34712 treatment group (except the 0.25 mg QD fixed dose group) and placebo using a two-sided z-test||0.18|-0.59|0.2851
90989190|NCT00905307|181862800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4008|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) row mean scores differ test controlling for study center was applied to mean CGI-I score||Sample size was determined to achieve at least 80% power at alpha level of 0.0167 (two-sided) to detect a difference of -11.5 points in the mean change from baseline in PANSS Total Score at week 6 (LOCF) between an individual OPC-34712 treatment group (except the 0.25 mg QD fixed dose group) and placebo using a two-sided z-test||||0.4008
90989191|NCT00905307|181862800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1117|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH row mean scores differ test controlling for study center was applied to mean CGI-I score||Sample size was determined to achieve at least 80% power at alpha level of 0.0167 (two-sided) to detect a difference of -11.5 points in the mean change from baseline in PANSS Total Score at week 6 (LOCF) between an individual OPC-34712 treatment group (except the 0.25 mg QD fixed dose group) and placebo using a two-sided z-test||||0.1117
90989192|NCT00905307|181862800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2739|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH row mean scores differ test controlling for study center was applied to mean CGI-I score||Sample size was determined to achieve at least 80% power at alpha level of 0.0167 (two-sided) to detect a difference of -11.5 points in the mean change from baseline in PANSS Total Score at week 6 (LOCF) between an individual OPC-34712 treatment group (except the 0.25 mg QD fixed dose group) and placebo using a two-sided z-test.||||0.2739
90989193|NCT00905307|181862800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1045|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH row mean scores differ test controlling for study center was applied to mean CGI-I score||Sample size was determined to achieve at least 80% power at alpha level of 0.0167 (two-sided) to detect a difference of -11.5 points in the mean change from baseline in PANSS Total Score at week 6 (LOCF) between an individual OPC-34712 treatment group (except the 0.25 mg QD fixed dose group) and placebo using a two-sided z-test.||||0.1045
90989194|NCT00905307|181862800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1149|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH row mean scores differ test controlling for study center was applied to mean CGI-I score||Sample size was determined to achieve at least 80% power at alpha level of 0.0167 (two-sided) to detect a difference of -11.5 points in the mean change from baseline in PANSS Total Score at week 6 (LOCF) between an individual OPC-34712 treatment group (except the 0.25 mg QD fixed dose group) and placebo using a two-sided z-test.||||0.1149
90989195|NCT00905307|181862801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|0.89||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for study center will be applied to the analysis of response rate||Sample size was determined to achieve at least 80% power at alpha level of 0.0167 (two-sided) to detect a difference of -11.5 points in the mean change from baseline in PANSS Total Score at week 6 (LOCF) between an individual OPC-34712 treatment group (except the 0.25 mg QD fixed dose group) and placebo using a two-sided z-test.||1.40|0.57|0.6200
90989196|NCT00905307|181862801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|1.19||||0.1501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.48|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for study center will be applied to the analysis of response rate||Sample size was determined to achieve at least 80% power at alpha level of 0.0167 (two-sided) to detect a difference of -11.5 points in the mean change from baseline in PANSS Total Score at week 6 (LOCF) between an individual OPC-34712 treatment group (except the 0.25 mg QD fixed dose group) and placebo using a two-sided z-test.||1.48|0.95|0.1501
90989197|NCT00905307|181862801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|0.91||||0.5271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.25|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for study center will be applied to the analysis of response rate||Sample size was determined to achieve at least 80% power at alpha level of 0.0167 (two-sided) to detect a difference of -11.5 points in the mean change from baseline in PANSS Total Score at week 6 (LOCF) between an individual OPC-34712 treatment group (except the 0.25 mg QD fixed dose group) and placebo using a two-sided z-test.||1.25|0.66|0.5271
90989198|NCT00905307|181862801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|1.02||||0.867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.34|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for study center will be applied to the analysis of response rate||Sample size was determined to achieve at least 80% power at alpha level of 0.0167 (two-sided) to detect a difference of -11.5 points in the mean change from baseline in PANSS Total Score at week 6 (LOCF) between an individual OPC-34712 treatment group (except the 0.25 mg QD fixed dose group) and placebo using a two-sided z-test||1.34|0.78|0.8670
90989199|NCT00905307|181862801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|1.15||||0.3892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.56|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for study center will be applied to the analysis of response rate||Sample size was determined to achieve at least 80% power at alpha level of 0.0167 (two-sided) to detect a difference of -11.5 points in the mean change from baseline in PANSS Total Score at week 6 (LOCF) between an individual OPC-34712 treatment group (except the 0.25 mg QD fixed dose group) and placebo using a two-sided z-test.||1.56|0.85|0.3892
90989200|NCT00905307|181862802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative risk|1.06||||0.854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.88||Derived using CMH test stratified by trial center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Sample size was determined to achieve at least 80% power at alpha level of 0.0167 (two-sided) to detect a difference of -11.5 points in the mean change from baseline in PANSS Total Score at week 6 (LOCF) between an individual OPC-34712 treatment group (except the 0.25 mg QD fixed dose group) and placebo using a two-sided z-test.||1.88|0.59|0.8540
90989201|NCT00905307|181862802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|0.82||||0.4492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.38||Derived using CMH test stratified by trial center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Sample size was determined to achieve at least 80% power at alpha level of 0.0167 (two-sided) to detect a difference of -11.5 points in the mean change from baseline in PANSS Total Score at week 6 (LOCF) between an individual OPC-34712 treatment group (except the 0.25 mg QD fixed dose group) and placebo using a two-sided z-test||1.38|0.49|0.4492
91006876|NCT02141854|181898334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|0.473||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.269|0.677||Significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|||The change from baseline in AQLQ(S) score (patients ≥18 years of age) at endpoint (ie, last postbaseline observation) was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with effects due to baseline AQLQ(S) score, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), and treatment, imputing missing data via last observation carried forward (LOCF).||0.677|0.269|0.0000
90953994|NCT05731999|181786309|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for Ctime at 50 lux is reported."|Slope|2.08||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||0.0031
90953995|NCT05731999|181786309|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for MCA at 50 lux is reported."|Slope|1.18||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||0.0036
90953996|NCT05731999|181786309|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for RMCA at 50 lux is reported."|Slope|1.05||||0.0089|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||0.0089
90953997|NCT05731999|181786309|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for NCdiff at 500 lux is reported."|Slope|-4.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||<0.0001
90953998|NCT05731999|181786309|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for MM30 at 500 lux is reported."|Slope|1.62||||0.0239|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||0.0239
90953999|NCT05731999|181786309|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for Dcon at 500 lux is reported."|Slope|0.93||||0.0435|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||0.0435
90954000|NCT05731999|181786309|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for Ctime at 500 lux is reported."|Slope|1.26||||0.0126|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||0.0126
91006877|NCT02141854|181898334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|0.428||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.224|0.632||Significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|||The change from baseline in AQLQ(S) score (patients ≥18 years of age) at endpoint (ie, last postbaseline observation) was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with effects due to baseline AQLQ(S) score, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), and treatment, imputing missing data via last observation carried forward (LOCF).||0.632|0.224|0.0000
90954001|NCT05731999|181786309|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for NCdiff at 50 lux is reported."|Slope|-0.73||||0.0294|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||0.0294
90954002|NCT05731999|181786309|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for D1m at 50 lux is reported."|Slope|0.96||||0.0204|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||0.0204
90954003|NCT05731999|181786309|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for D2m at 50 lux is reported."|Slope|1.41||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||0.0004
90954004|NCT05731999|181786309|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for MCV at 50 lux is reported."|Slope|-0.95||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||0.0013
90989202|NCT00905307|181862802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|0.67||||0.1854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.23||Derived using CMH test stratified by trial center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Sample size was determined to achieve at least 80% power at alpha level of 0.0167 (two-sided) to detect a difference of -11.5 points in the mean change from baseline in PANSS Total Score at week 6 (LOCF) between an individual OPC-34712 treatment group (except the 0.25 mg QD fixed dose group) and placebo using a two-sided z-test.||1.23|0.36|0.1854
90989203|NCT00905307|181862802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|0.61||||0.0946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.1||Derived using CMH test stratified by trial center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Sample size was determined to achieve at least 80% power at alpha level of 0.0167 (two-sided) to detect a difference of -11.5 points in the mean change from baseline in PANSS Total Score at week 6 (LOCF) between an individual OPC-34712 treatment group (except the 0.25 mg QD fixed dose group) and placebo using a two-sided z-test.||1.10|0.33|0.0946
90954005|NCT05731999|181786309|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for MCA at 50 lux is reported."|Slope|-0.77||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||0.0003
90954006|NCT05731999|181786309|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for RMCA at 50 lux is reported."|Slope|-0.94|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||<0.0001
90954007|NCT05731999|181786309|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for Redness at 50 lux is reported."|Slope|0.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||<0.0001
90954008|NCT05731999|181786309|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for NCdiff at 500 lux is reported."|Slope|-0.87||||0.0096|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||0.0096
90954009|NCT05731999|181786309|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for Redness at 500 lux is reported."|Slope|0.36||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||0.0003
90954010|NCT05731999|181786309|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for MM10 at 50 lux is reported."|Slope|2.13||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||0.0063
90954011|NCT05731999|181786309|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for MM30 at 50 lux is reported."|Slope|2.3||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||0.0018
91042393|NCT04640194|181970171|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6||0.9856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|7.6|||ANCOVA||Calculated as alteplase dose group - standard of care alone.|Unadjusted mean difference: A restricted maximum likelihood (REML) based Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) was used. Adjustment was made for treatment.||7.6|-7.5|0.9856
90989204|NCT00905307|181862802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|0.63||||0.2133||95.0|0.3|1.34||Derived using CMH test stratified by trial center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Sample size was determined to achieve at least 80% power at alpha level of 0.0167 (two-sided) to detect a difference of -11.5 points in the mean change from baseline in PANSS Total Score at week 6 (LOCF) between an individual OPC-34712 treatment group (except the 0.25 mg QD fixed dose group) and placebo using a two-sided z-test.||1.34|0.30|0.2133
90989205|NCT03015610|181862817|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8716|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8716
90989206|NCT03015610|181862818|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2471|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2471
90989207|NCT03015610|181862819|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.039|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.039
90989208|NCT03015610|181862820|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2765|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2765
90989209|NCT03015610|181862821|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.32||||0.191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|8.2|||Negative binomial regression|||||8.20|0.66|0.191
90989210|NCT03015610|181862822|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.53||||0.0435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.98|||Negative binomial regression|||||0.98|0.29|0.0435
90989211|NCT03015610|181862823|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3808|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3808
90954012|NCT05731999|181786309|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for Pa at 50 lux is reported."|Slope|3.22||||0.0134|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||0.0134
90989212|NCT00358917|181862825|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 95% confidence interval for the difference in response rates (once daily \[QD\] minus twice daily \[BID\], based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution) was used to assess noninferiority. The QD regimen was considered noninferior to the BID regimen if the lower limit of the confidence interval remained above -12%.|Diff. in Percentage of Subj. Responding|3.5||||0.413||95.0|-4.5|11.5|||normal approx. to binomial distribution|||The null hypothesis was that the response rate for the once daily (QD) regimen was more than 12% lower than the response rate for the twice daily (BID) regimen. The planned sample size of 600 participants (300 participants in each of the QD and BID treatment regimens) provided 83% power (with a type I error rate of 0.05) to reject the null hypothesis, i.e., to determine noninferiority based on the 12% margin.||11.5|-4.5|0.413
91042394|NCT04640194|181970171|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8||0.8729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|7.3|||ANCOVA||Calculated as alteplase dose group - standard of care alone.|Adjusted mean difference: A restricted maximum likelihood (REML) based Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) was used. Adjustment was made for treatment, the number of days under NIV support, baseline D-Dimer level and age.||7.3|-8.5|0.8729
90989213|NCT00358917|181862826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff. in Percentage of Subj. Responding|3.8||||0.389||95.0|-4.3|11.9|||normal approx. to binomial distribution|||||11.9|-4.3|0.389
90989214|NCT00358917|181862827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.281||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.281
90989215|NCT00358917|181862829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.222||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.222
90989216|NCT01417780|181862857|OTHER|||||||0.016|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.016
90989217|NCT01417780|181862858|OTHER|||||||0.019|||||||Chi-squared|||The null hypothesis was that the frequency of Day 14 SOFA score less than or equal to 1 was not different among treatment groups.||||0.019
90989218|NCT01417780|181862859|OTHER|||||||0.11||||||Wilcoxon p value represents comparison of active dose groups versus placebo group.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.11
90989219|NCT01417780|181862860|OTHER|||||||0.18||||||Wilcoxon p value represents comparison of active dose groups versus placebo group.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.18
90989220|NCT01417780|181862861|OTHER|||||||0.19||||||Wilcoxon p value represents comparison of active dose groups versus placebo group.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.19
90989221|NCT01757704|181862864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|56.0|||<|0.01||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
90989222|NCT02650284|181863002|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence defined as less than or equal to 1 standard deviation between the two means.||||||0.46||||||The number of recruited patients did not reach the required sample size. Power score assessments no longer hold, thus there is low confidence in the findings.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between groups at pre-operation timepoint.||||0.46
90989223|NCT02650284|181863002|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence defined as less than or equal to 1 standard deviation between the two means.||||||0.23||||||The number of recruited patients did not reach the required sample size. Power score assessments no longer hold, thus there is low confidence in the findings.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between groups at 6-week timepoint.||||0.23
90989224|NCT02650284|181863002|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence defined as less than or equal to 1 standard deviation between the two means.||||||0.1||||||The number of recruited patients did not reach the required sample size. Power score assessments no longer hold, thus there is low confidence in the findings.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between groups at 3-month timepoint.||||0.10
90989225|NCT02650284|181863002|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence defined as less than or equal to 1 standard deviation between the two means.||||||0.98||||||The number of recruited patients did not reach the required sample size. Power score assessments no longer hold, thus there is low confidence in the findings.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between groups at 12-month timepoint.||||0.98
90989226|NCT02650284|181863002|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence defined as less than or equal to 1 standard deviation between the two means.||||||0.5||||||The number of recruited patients did not reach the required sample size. Power score assessments no longer hold, thus there is low confidence in the findings.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between groups at 24-month timepoint.||||0.50
90989227|NCT02650284|181863003|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence defined as less than or equal to 1 standard deviation between the two means.||||||0.59||||||The number of recruited patients did not reach the required sample size. Power score assessments no longer hold, thus there is low confidence in the findings.|t-test, 2 sided|||To compare EQ-5D Index preoperatively between both groups.||||0.59
90989228|NCT02650284|181863003|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence defined as less than or equal to 1 standard deviation between the two means.||||||0.9||||||The number of recruited patients did not reach the required sample size. Power score assessments no longer hold, thus there is low confidence in the findings.|t-test, 2 sided|||To compare EQ-5D index at 3-months between both groups.||||0.90
90989229|NCT02650284|181863003|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence defined as less than or equal to 1 standard deviation between the two means.||||||0.57||||||The number of recruited patients did not reach the required sample size. Power score assessments no longer hold, thus there is low confidence in the findings.|t-test, 2 sided|||To compare EQ-5D index at 12-months between both groups.||||0.57
90989230|NCT02650284|181863003|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence defined as less than or equal to 1 standard deviation between the two means.||||||0.49||||||The number of recruited patients did not reach the required sample size. Power score assessments no longer hold, thus there is low confidence in the findings.|t-test, 2 sided|||To compare EQ-5D index at 24-months between both groups.||||0.49
90989231|NCT02650284|181863003|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence defined as less than or equal to 1 standard deviation between the two means||||||0.65||||||The number of recruited patients did not reach the required sample size. Power score assessments no longer hold, thus there is low confidence in the findings.|t-test, 2 sided|||To compare EQ-5D VAS preoperatively between both groups.||||0.65
90989232|NCT02650284|181863003|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence defined as less than or equal to 1 standard deviation between the two means.||||||0.3||||||The number of recruited patients did not reach the required sample size. Power score assessments no longer hold, thus there is low confidence in the findings.|t-test, 2 sided|||To compare EQ-5D VAS at 3-months between both groups.||||0.30
90989233|NCT02650284|181863003|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence defined as less than or equal to 1 standard deviation between the two means.||||||0.06||||||The number of recruited patients did not reach the required sample size. Power score assessments no longer hold, thus there is low confidence in the findings.|t-test, 2 sided|||To compare EQ-5D VAS at 12-months between both groups.||||0.06
90989234|NCT02650284|181863003|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence defined as less than or equal to 1 standard deviation between the two means.||||||0.44||||||The number of recruited patients did not reach the required sample size. Power score assessments no longer hold, thus there is low confidence in the findings.|t-test, 2 sided|||To compare EQ-5D VAS at 24-months between both groups.||||0.44
90989235|NCT02650284|181863004|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence defined as less than or equal to 1 standard deviation between the two means.||||||0.97||||||The number of recruited patients did not reach the required sample size. Power score assessments no longer hold, thus there is low confidence in the findings.|t-test, 2 sided|||To compare VAS Pain at Rest preoperatively between both groups.||||0.97
90989236|NCT02650284|181863004|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence defined as less than or equal to 1 standard deviation between the two means.||||||0.45||||||The number of recruited patients did not reach the required sample size. Power score assessments no longer hold, thus there is low confidence in the findings.|t-test, 2 sided|||To compare VAS Pain at Rest at 3-months between both groups.||||0.45
90989237|NCT02650284|181863004|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence defined as less than or equal to 1 standard deviation between the two means.||||||0.64||||||The number of recruited patients did not reach the required sample size. Power score assessments no longer hold, thus there is low confidence in the findings.|t-test, 2 sided|||To compare VAS Pain at Rest at 12-months between both groups.||||0.64
90989238|NCT02650284|181863004|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence defined as less than or equal to 1 standard deviation between the two means.||||||0.19||||||The number of recruited patients did not reach the required sample size. Power score assessments no longer hold, thus there is low confidence in the findings.|t-test, 2 sided|||To compare VAS Pain at Rest at 24-months between both groups.||||0.19
90989239|NCT02650284|181863004|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence defined as less than or equal to 1 standard deviation between the two means.||||||0.57||||||The number of recruited patients did not reach the required sample size. Power score assessments no longer hold, thus there is low confidence in the findings.|t-test, 2 sided|||To compare VAS Pain at Mobilisation preoperatively between both groups.||||0.57
90989240|NCT02650284|181863004|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence defined as less than or equal to 1 standard deviation between the two means.||||||0.98||||||The number of recruited patients did not reach the required sample size. Power score assessments no longer hold, thus there is low confidence in the findings.|t-test, 2 sided|||To compare VAS Pain at Mobilisation at 3-months between both groups.||||0.98
90989241|NCT02650284|181863004|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence defined as less than or equal to 1 standard deviation between the two means.||||||0.58||||||The number of recruited patients did not reach the required sample size. Power score assessments no longer hold, thus there is low confidence in the findings.|t-test, 2 sided|||To compare VAS Pain at Mobilisation at 12-months between both groups.||||0.58
90989242|NCT02650284|181863004|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence defined as less than or equal to 1 standard deviation between the two means.||||||0.16||||||The number of recruited patients did not reach the required sample size. Power score assessments no longer hold, thus there is low confidence in the findings.|t-test, 2 sided|||To compare VAS Pain at Mobilisation at 24-months between both groups.||||0.16
90989243|NCT02650284|181863005|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence defined as less than or equal to 1 standard deviation between the two means.||||||0.62||||||The number of recruited patients did not reach the required sample size. Power score assessments no longer hold, thus there is low confidence in the findings.|t-test, 2 sided|||To compare New Knee Society Function Score preoperatively between both groups.||||0.62
90989244|NCT02650284|181863005|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence defined as less than or equal to 1 standard deviation between the two means.||||||0.06||||||The number of recruited patients did not reach the required sample size. Power score assessments no longer hold, thus there is low confidence in the findings.|t-test, 2 sided|||To compare New Knee Society Function Score at 3-months between both groups.||||0.06
90989245|NCT02650284|181863005|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence defined as less than or equal to 1 standard deviation between the two means.||||||0.93||||||The number of recruited patients did not reach the required sample size. Power score assessments no longer hold, thus there is low confidence in the findings.|t-test, 2 sided|||To compare New Knee Society Function Score at 24-months between both groups.||||0.93
90989246|NCT02650284|181863006|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence defined as less than or equal to 1 standard deviation between the two means.||||||0.57||||||The number of recruited patients did not reach the required sample size. Power score assessments no longer hold, thus there is low confidence in the findings.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between groups at pre-operation timepoint.||||0.57
90989247|NCT02650284|181863006|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence defined as less than or equal to 1 standard deviation between the two means.||||||0.17||||||The number of recruited patients did not reach the required sample size. Power score assessments no longer hold, thus there is low confidence in the findings.|t-test, 2 sided|||To compare FJS at 3-months between both groups.||||0.17
90989248|NCT02650284|181863006|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence defined as less than or equal to 1 standard deviation between the two means.||||||0.8||||||The number of recruited patients did not reach the required sample size. Power score assessments no longer hold, thus there is low confidence in the findings.|t-test, 2 sided|||To compare FJS at 12-months between both groups.||||0.80
91042395|NCT04640194|181970172|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|70.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|35.8||0.0603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|145.1|||ANCOVA||Calculated as alteplase dose group - standard of care alone.|Unadjusted mean difference: A restricted maximum likelihood (REML) based Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) was used. Adjustment was made for treatment.||145.1|-3.3|0.0603
91042396|NCT04640194|181970172|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|87.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|38.5||0.0362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|168.0|||ANCOVA||Calculated as alteplase dose group - standard of care alone.|Adjusted mean difference: A restricted maximum likelihood (REML) based Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) was used. Adjustment was made for treatment, the number of days under NIV support, baseline D-Dimer level, baseline PaO2/FiO2 ratio and age.||168.0|6.3|0.0362
91042397|NCT03201003|181970196|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|56.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.1|65.2|||Fisher Exact|||Treatment difference at 1000 mg||65.2|44.1|<0.0001
91042398|NCT03201003|181970197|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|58.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.2|69.3|||Fisher Exact|||Treatment difference at 600 mg||69.3|44.2|<0.0001
90989249|NCT02650284|181863006|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence defined as less than or equal to 1 standard deviation between the two means.||||||0.9||||||The number of recruited patients did not reach the required sample size. Power score assessments no longer hold, thus there is low confidence in the findings.|t-test, 2 sided|||To compare FJS at 24-months between both groups.||||0.90
90989250|NCT02650284|181863008|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence defined as less than or equal to 1 standard deviation between the two means.||||||0.81||||||The number of recruited patients did not reach the required sample size. Power score assessments no longer hold, thus there is low confidence in the findings.|t-test, 2 sided|||To compare length of hospital stay (number of nights) between both groups.||||0.81
90989251|NCT04525222|181863009|OTHER||Slope|0.42||||0.0088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.74|||Regression, Linear|Adjusting for Treatment Arm, Sex Assigned at Birth, Baseline Level of Smoking (\<20 Cigs/ \>=20 Cigs), Baseline Depression Severity (PHQ-8\<5 / PHQ-8\>=5)||"Treatment satisfaction items are reported on a Likert-type scale, with response choices ranging from not at all to very much. We used a linear regression adjusting for Treatment Arm, Sex Assigned at Birth, Baseline Level of Smoking (\<20 Cigs/ \>=20 Cigs), and Baseline Depression Severity (PHQ-8\<5 / PHQ-8\>=5) to test for differences between arms."||0.74|0.10|0.0088
91042399|NCT03201003|181970198|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|57.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.2|69.1|||Fisher Exact|||Treatment difference at 300 mg||69.1|41.2|<0.0001
91042400|NCT03201003|181970199|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistic (with equally spaced scores) stratified by country||Treatment difference in Maximum Severity||||<0.0001
91042401|NCT01994980|181970200|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||This is a calculated p value.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
91042402|NCT00096460|181970222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier Survival Probability|62.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.8|89.6||||||||89.6|43.8|
91042403|NCT00096460|181970222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier Survival Probability|85.7||||||95.0|63.3|100.0||||||||100|63.3|
91042404|NCT00697619|181970251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.370
91042405|NCT00697619|181970251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90954013|NCT05731999|181786309|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for Dbase at 50 lux is reported."|Slope|-1.48|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||<0.0001
90954014|NCT05731999|181786309|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for MCV at 50 lux is reported."|Slope|-2.48|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||<0.0001
90954015|NCT05731999|181786309|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for Dcon at 50 lux is reported."|Slope|-1.264|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||<0.0001
90989252|NCT04525222|181863010|OTHER||Slope|2.92||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.22|21.07|||Negative Binomial Regression|Adjusting for Treatment Arm, Sex Assigned at Birth, Baseline Level of Smoking (\<20 Cigs/ \>=20 Cigs), Baseline Depression Severity (PHQ-8\<5 / PHQ-8\>=5)||||21.07|-15.22|0.75
91042406|NCT00697619|181970251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
90989253|NCT04525222|181863011|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.48|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusting for Treatment Arm, Sex Assigned at Birth, Baseline Level of Smoking (\<20 Cigs/ \>=20 Cigs), Baseline Depression Severity (PHQ-8\<5 / PHQ-8\>=5)||||3.48|0.5|0.55
90989254|NCT04525222|181863012|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|3.32|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusting for Treatment Arm, Sex Assigned at Birth, Baseline Level of Smoking \<20 Cigs/ \>=20 Cigs, Baseline Depression Severity PHQ-8\<5 / PHQ-8\>=5||||3.32|0.80|0.17
90989255|NCT04525222|181863013|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|3.81|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusting for Treatment Arm, Sex Assigned at Birth, Baseline Level of Smoking (\<20 Cigs/ \>=20 Cigs), Baseline Depression Severity (PHQ-8\<5 / PHQ-8\>=5)||||3.81|0.70|0.25
90989256|NCT04525222|181863014|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.88||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|3.72||Adjusting for Treatment Arm, Sex Assigned at Birth, Baseline Level of Smoking (\<20 Cigs/ \>=20 Cigs), Baseline Depression Severity (PHQ-8\<5 / PHQ-8\>=5)|Regression, Logistic|Adjusting for Treatment Arm, Sex Assigned at Birth, Baseline Level of Smoking (\<20 Cigs/ \>=20 Cigs), Baseline Depression Severity (PHQ-8\<5 / PHQ-8\>=5)||||3.72|0.94|0.07
90989257|NCT04525222|181863015|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.42||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|5.85|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusting for Treatment Arm, Sex Assigned at Birth, Baseline Level of Smoking (\<20 Cigs/ \>=20 Cigs), Baseline Depression Severity (PHQ-8\<5 / PHQ-8\>=5)||||5.85|1.00|0.04
90989258|NCT04525222|181863016|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.89|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusting for Treatment Arm, Sex Assigned at Birth, Baseline Level of Smoking (\<20 Cigs/ \>=20 Cigs), Baseline Depression Severity (PHQ-8\<5 / PHQ-8\>=5)||||2.89|0.75|0.25
90989259|NCT04525222|181863017|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.78||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|4.12|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusting for Treatment Arm, Sex Assigned at Birth, Baseline Level of Smoking (\<20 Cigs/ \>=20 Cigs), Baseline Depression Severity (PHQ-8\<5 / PHQ-8\>=5)||||4.12|0.77|0.17
90989260|NCT04525222|181863018|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.91||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|4.73|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusting for Treatment Arm, Sex Assigned at Birth, Baseline Level of Smoking (\<20 Cigs/ \>=20 Cigs), Baseline Depression Severity (PHQ-8\<5 / PHQ-8\>=5)||||4.73|0.77|0.15
90989261|NCT04525222|181863019|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|3.86|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusting for Treatment Arm, Sex Assigned at Birth, Baseline Level of Smoking (\<20 Cigs/ \>=20 Cigs), Baseline Depression Severity (PHQ-8\<5 / PHQ-8\>=5)||||3.86|0.41|0.68
90989262|NCT04525222|181863020|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|3.46|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusting for Treatment Arm, Sex Assigned at Birth, Baseline Level of Smoking (\<20 Cigs/ \>=20 Cigs), Baseline Depression Severity (PHQ-8\<5 / PHQ-8\>=5)||||3.46|0.75|0.21
90989263|NCT04525222|181863021|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|4.19|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusting for Treatment Arm, Sex Assigned at Birth, Baseline Level of Smoking (\<20 Cigs/ \>=20 Cigs), Baseline Depression Severity (PHQ-8\<5 / PHQ-8\>=5)||||4.19|0.63|0.30
90989264|NCT04525222|181863022|OTHER||Slope|-1.68||||0.0072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-0.46|||Regression, Linear|Adjusting for Treatment Arm, Sex Assigned at Birth, Baseline Level of Smoking (\<20 Cigs/ \>=20 Cigs), Baseline Depression Severity (PHQ-8\<5 / PHQ-8\>=5)||||-0.46|-2.90|.0072
91042407|NCT01705717|181970263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.034
90954016|NCT05731999|181786309|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for Dend at 50 lux is reported."|Slope|-1.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||<0.0001
90954017|NCT05731999|181786309|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for MCA at 50 lux is reported."|Slope|-1.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||<0.0001
91042408|NCT01705717|181970264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.007
91042409|NCT00706719|181970269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.118|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Group A and B observed values at Baseline.||||0.118
91042410|NCT00706719|181970269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Group A and B observed values at Month 3.||||0.006
90954018|NCT05731999|181786309|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for RMCA at 50 lux is reported."|Slope|-1.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||<0.0001
90954019|NCT05731999|181786309|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for PESC at 50 lux is reported."|Slope|1.43||||0.0313|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||0.0313
90954020|NCT05731999|181786309|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for MM5 at 500 lux is reported."|Slope|1.92||||0.0481|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||0.0481
90954021|NCT05731999|181786309|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for MM10 at 500 lux is reported."|Slope|2.57||||0.0171|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||0.0171
90954022|NCT05731999|181786309|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for MM30 at 500 lux is reported."|Slope|3.84||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||0.0007
90954023|NCT05731999|181786309|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for dbase at 500 lux is reported."|Slope|-2.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||<0.0001
90989265|NCT04525222|181863023|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.829||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|4.344|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusting for Treatment Arm, Sex Assigned at Birth, Baseline Level of Smoking (\<20 Cigs/ \>=20 Cigs), Baseline Depression Severity (PHQ-8\<5 / PHQ-8\>=5)||||4.344|0.770|0.1770
90989266|NCT04525222|181863024|OTHER||Slope|3.62||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|5.95|||Regression, Linear|Adjusting for Treatment Arm, Sex Assigned at Birth, Baseline Level of Smoking (\<20 Cigs/ \>=20 Cigs), Baseline Depression, Baseline Activation Score||||5.95|1.28|0.0025
90989267|NCT00374907|181863030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Percent Difference|18.5||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|38.7||Between-group comparisons significant at alpha = 0.05, significance testing based on hierarchical testing. Primary and secondary endpoints are presented in order of testing.|ANCOVA|Adjusted percent difference for saxagliptin 5 mg vs placebo in Week 12 (LOCF) to baseline ratio. Adjusted for baseline.|ANCOVA model: logarithm(post/pre) = logarithm(pre) treatment|||38.7|1.3|0.0350
90989268|NCT00374907|181863031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Percent Difference|27.9||||0.0204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|57.1||Between-group comparisons significant at alpha = 0.05, significance testing based on hierarchical testing. Primary and secondary endpoints are presented in order of testing.|ANCOVA|Adjusted percent difference for saxagliptin 5 mg vs placebo in Week 12 (LOCF) to baseline ratio. Adjusted for baseline.|ANCOVA model: logarithm(post/pre) = logarithm(pre) treatment|||57.1|4.2|0.0204
90989269|NCT02389946|181863050|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of the 12-month TLF rate for the Orsiro stent vs. the Xience stent was assessed as the primary endpoint. The null hypothesis H0 was that the Orsiro stent would have a primary endpoint (12-month TLF) rate equal to or exceeding that of the Xience group by the non-inferiority margin or more. The alternative hypothesis HA was that the Orsiro stent would have a 12-month TLF rate less than the Xience group rate plus the non-inferiority margin of 3.85%.|Posterior Probability of non-inferioriry|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Bayesian calculation using a hierarchical model to incorporate data from previous BIOFLOW-II and BIOFLOW-IV trials.||||
90989270|NCT02389946|181863051|OTHER|||||||0.415|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.415
91042411|NCT00706719|181970269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Group A and B observed values at Month 6.||||0.009
90989271|NCT01605396|181863063|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18||||0.565|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.81|1.72|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard ratio (HR) and p-value for treatment difference based on Cox regression model with Efron tie handling for treatment comparison (Ridaforolimus + Dalotuzumab + Exemestane arm versus Ridaforolimus + Exemestane arm).||1.72|0.81|0.565
90989272|NCT01605396|181863065|OTHER||Difference of Percentages|-10.0||||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.8|8.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen's Method|||Miettinen and Nurminen's method was used to compare ORR between the two treatment arms (Ridaforolimus + Dalotuzumab + Exemestane arm versus Ridaforolimus + Exemestane arm), and to calculate a p-value and 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in response rates.||8.0|-27.8|0.267
90989273|NCT01605396|181863066|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.38||||0.562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|4.13|||Regression, Cox|||HR and p-value for treatment difference based on Cox regression model with Efron tie handling for treatment comparison (Ridaforolimus + Dalotuzumab + Exemestane arm versus Ridaforolimus + Exemestane arm).||4.13|0.46|0.562
90989274|NCT04598165|181863067|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.25||||0.314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.92||The primary intention to treat analysis was adjusted for differences in exposure to other SMS programs and phone ownership. The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Poisson regression||SMS group is the numerator|We estimated a sample size of 5000 to detect a risk ratio of ≤0.53 assuming a neonatal mortality rate of 23 per 1000 in the control arm with 80% power and, 95% confidence and taking into account a 10% attrition. Multiple imputation with chain equations (MICE) was used to impute missing values for any outcome with greater than 10% missingness. Any variables associated with the outcome or outcome missingness were included in the imputation model.||1.92|0.81|0.314
90989275|NCT04598165|181863068|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.36||||0.217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.21||The intention to treat analysis was adjusted for differences in exposure to other SMS programs and phone ownership. We corrected for multiple comparisons using the Benjamini-Hochberg method. The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Poisson regression||SMS group is the numerator|We estimated a sample size of 5000 to detect a risk ratio of ≤0.53 assuming a neonatal mortality rate of 23 per 1000 in the control arm with 80% power and, 95% confidence and taking into account a 10% attrition. Multiple imputation with chain equations (MICE) was used to impute missing values for any outcome with greater than 10% missingness. Any variables associated with the outcome or outcome missingness were included in the imputation model.||2.21|0.84|0.217
90989276|NCT04598165|181863069|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.04||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.08||The intention to treat analysis was adjusted for differences in exposure to other SMS programs and phone ownership. We corrected for multiple comparisons using the Benjamini-Hochberg method. The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Poisson regression||SMS group is the numerator|We estimated a sample size of 5000 to detect a risk ratio of ≤0.53 assuming a neonatal mortality rate of 23 per 1000 in the control arm with 80% power and, 95% confidence and assuming 10% attrition. With this sample size, assuming alpha=0.0045 (Bonferroni adjusted for 11 tests), we also had 80% power to detect a risk ratio of 1.05 in early initiation of breast feeding assuming 80% uptake in controls.||1.08|1.00|0.064
91042412|NCT00706719|181970269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Group A and B observed values at Follow-up (Month 7).||||0.0024
91042413|NCT00706719|181970270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of Group A and B observed values at Baseline.||||0.15
91042414|NCT00706719|181970270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0067|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of Group A and B observed values at Month 3.||||0.0067
90954024|NCT05731999|181786309|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for MCV at 500 lux is reported."|Slope|-2.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||<0.0001
90954025|NCT05731999|181786309|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for Dcon at 500 lux is reported."|Slope|-2.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||<0.0001
91042415|NCT00706719|181970270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of Group A and B observed values at Month 6.||||0.10
91042416|NCT00706719|181970270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Group A and B observed values at Follow-up (Month 7).||||0.26
91042417|NCT00706719|181970271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Group A and B observed values at Baseline.||||0.880
91042418|NCT00706719|181970271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.612|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Group A and B observed values at Month 3.||||0.612
91042419|NCT00706719|181970271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.488|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Group A and B observed values at Month 6.||||0.488
91042420|NCT00706719|181970271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.054|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Group A and B observed values at Follow-up (Month 7).||||0.054
90989277|NCT04598165|181863070|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99||||0.363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.01||The intention to treat analysis was adjusted for differences in exposure to other SMS programs and phone ownership. We corrected for multiple comparisons using the Benjamini-Hochberg method. The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Poisson regression||SMS group is the numerator|We estimated a sample size of 5000 to detect a risk ratio of ≤0.53 assuming a neonatal mortality rate of 23 per 1000 in the control arm with 80% power and, 95% confidence and assuming 10% attrition. With this sample size, assuming alpha=0.0045 (Bonferroni adjusted for 11 tests), we also had 80% power to detect a risk ratio of 1.05 in exclusive breast feeding assuming 80% uptake in controls.||1.01|0.98|0.363
90989278|NCT04598165|181863071|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.02||The intention to treat analysis was adjusted for differences in exposure to other SMS programs and phone ownership. We corrected for multiple comparisons using the Benjamini-Hochberg method. The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Poisson regression||SMS group is the numerator|We estimated a sample size of 5000 to detect a risk ratio of ≤0.53 assuming a neonatal mortality rate of 23 per 1000 in the control arm with 80% power and, 95% confidence and assuming 10% attrition. With this sample size, assuming alpha=0.0045 (Bonferroni adjusted for 11 tests), we also had 80% power to detect a risk ratio of 1.11 in application of substances to the cord or delaying first bath assuming 50% in controls.||1.02|1.00|0.093
90989279|NCT04598165|181863072|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03||||0.353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.09||The intention to treat analysis was adjusted for differences in exposure to other SMS programs and phone ownership. We corrected for multiple comparisons using the Benjamini-Hochberg method. The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Poisson regression||SMS group is the numerator|We estimated a sample size of 5000 to detect a risk ratio of ≤0.53 assuming a neonatal mortality rate of 23 per 1000 in the control arm with 80% power and, 95% confidence and assuming 10% attrition. With this sample size, assuming alpha=0.0045 (Bonferroni adjusted for 11 tests), we also had 80% power to detect a risk ratio of 1.11 in application of substances to the cord or delaying first bath assuming 50% in controls.||1.09|0.97|0.353
90989280|NCT04598165|181863073|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.14||||0.751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.61||The intention to treat analysis was adjusted for differences in exposure to other SMS programs and phone ownership. We corrected for multiple comparisons using the Benjamini-Hochberg method. The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Poisson regression||SMS group is the numerator|We estimated a sample size of 5000 to detect a risk ratio of ≤0.53 assuming a neonatal mortality rate of 23 per 1000 in the control arm with 80% power and, 95% confidence and assuming 10% attrition. With this sample size, assuming alpha=0.0045 (Bonferroni adjusted for 11 tests), we also had 80% power to detect a risk ratio of 1.53 in provision of Kangaroo Mother Care assuming 25% in controls.||2.61|0.50|0.751
90989281|NCT04598165|181863074|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||0.431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.01||The intention to treat analysis was adjusted for differences in exposure to other SMS programs and phone ownership. We corrected for multiple comparisons using the Benjamini-Hochberg method. The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Poisson generalized estimating equations||n (%) are values at 6-week visit, and RR compares change over time for enrollment, 2- and 6-week visits. SMS group is the numerator.|We estimated a sample size of 5000 to detect a risk ratio of ≤0.53 assuming a neonatal mortality rate of 23 per 1000 in the control arm with 80% power and, 95% confidence and assuming 10% attrition. With this sample size, assuming alpha=0.0045 (Bonferroni adjusted for 11 tests), we also had 80% power to detect a risk ratio of 1.04 in number of danger signs correctly named assuming median of 3 in controls.||1.01|1.00|0.431
90989282|NCT04598165|181863075|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03||||0.321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.08||The intention to treat analysis was adjusted for differences in exposure to other SMS programs and phone ownership. We corrected for multiple comparisons using the Benjamini-Hochberg method. The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Poisson regression||SMS group is the numerator.|We estimated a sample size of 5000 to detect a risk ratio of ≤0.53 assuming a neonatal mortality rate of 23 per 1000 in the control arm with 80% power and, 95% confidence and assuming 10% attrition. With this sample size, assuming alpha=0.0045 (Bonferroni adjusted for 11 tests), we also had 80% power to detect a risk ratio of 1.11 in appropriate care seeking assuming 1 clinic visit in the 6-weeks postpartum for controls.||1.08|0.98|0.321
90989283|NCT04598165|181863076|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.04||The intention to treat analysis was adjusted for differences in exposure to other SMS programs and phone ownership. We corrected for multiple comparisons using the Benjamini-Hochberg method. The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Poisson generalized estimating equations||n (%) are values at 6-week visit, and RR compares change over time for enrollment, 2- and 6-week visits. SMS group is the numerator.|We estimated a sample size of 5000 to detect a risk ratio of ≤0.53 assuming a neonatal mortality rate of 23 per 1000 in the control arm with 80% power and, 95% confidence and assuming 10% attrition. With this sample size, assuming alpha=0.0045 (Bonferroni adjusted for 11 tests), we also had 80% power to detect a risk ratio of 0.76 in elevated depression symptoms assuming 19% in controls.||1.04|0.98|0.650
91042421|NCT00706719|181970272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.705|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Group A and B observed values at Baseline.||||0.705
91042422|NCT00706719|181970272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Group A and B observed values at Month 3.||||0.013
91042423|NCT00706719|181970272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Group A and B observed values at Month 6.||||0.004
91042424|NCT00706719|181970272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.808|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Group A and B observed values at Follow-up (Month 7).||||0.808
91042425|NCT00706719|181970273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Group A and B observed values at Baseline.||||0.008
91042426|NCT00706719|181970273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Group A and B observed values at Month 3.||||0.015
91042427|NCT00706719|181970273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Group A and B observed values at Month 6.||||0.003
90989284|NCT04598165|181863077|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient|0.09||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.007|0.18||The intention to treat analysis was adjusted for differences in exposure to other SMS programs and phone ownership. We corrected for multiple comparisons using the Benjamini-Hochberg method. The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Linear generalized estimating equations||n (%) are values at 6-week visit, and RR compares change over time for enrollment, 2- and 6-week visits. SMS group is the numerator. Coefficient (95% CI) for linear GEE using enrollment, 2- and 6-week visits.|||0.18|-0.007|0.071
90989285|NCT04598165|181863078|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient|0.02||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.04||The intention to treat analysis was adjusted for differences in exposure to other SMS programs and phone ownership. We corrected for multiple comparisons using the Benjamini-Hochberg method. The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Linear generalized estimating equations||n (%) are values at 6-week visit, and RR compares change over time for enrollment, 2- and 6-week visits. SMS group is the numerator. Coefficient (95% CI) for linear GEE using enrollment, 2- and 6-week visits.|||0.04|-0.01|0.190
90989286|NCT00426751|181863101|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For the assessment of differences between both treatment groups, a generalized model (under binomial probability distribution), adjusted for center, was applied.|Median Difference (Final Values)|2.1||||||90.0|-8.5|12.8||||||||12.8|-8.5|
90989287|NCT00426751|181863102|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For the assessment of differences between both treatment groups a generalised model (under binomial probability distribution), adjusted for centre, was applied.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.8||||||95.0|-3.0|16.6|||||Analysis based on the ITT population confirmed the results observed in the PP population.|||16.6|-3.0|
90989288|NCT00576693|181863125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0252|||||||Log Rank|||The statistical analysis was based on a comparison of the of the two treatment groups with respect to the time to a primary outcome using the logrank test.||||0.0252
90989289|NCT01721408|181863131|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assuming that the 2 treatments were equally effective, with cure rates of 75 % at the TOC assessment, the study was powered to ensure with 90% probability that the lower limit of a 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the true difference (tigecycline minus imipenem/cilastatin) in cure rates was greater than -15%.|Difference in percentage|-6.7||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|-1.4|||See method of CI||Used the asymptotic method corrected for continuity with normal distribution approximation. Non-inferiority test was conducted on the CE population. If non-inferiority was concluded, superiority test was conducted on both the CE and mITT populations.|||-1.4|-12.0|0.0008
90989290|NCT01721408|181863132|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided CI for the difference in cure rates between treatment groups (tigecycline minus imipenem/cilastatin) was greater than -15%.|Difference in percentage|-7.3||||0.0277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|0.5|||See method of CI||CIs and p-values for between-group treatment difference in cure rate were calculated by the asymptotic method corrected for continuity with normal distribution approximation.|||0.5|-15.2|0.0277
91042428|NCT00706719|181970273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.109|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Group A and B observed values at Follow-up (Month 7).||||0.109
91042429|NCT01074008|181970274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was ≤ 0.05.|ANCOVA|Treatment was the factor and baseline log10 HCV RNA level was the covariate.||Eight participants per ABT-450/r group and 11 participants in the placebo group would provide \> 95% power to detect a 1.0 log10 difference with a common standard deviation of 0.5 log10 IU/mL using a two-sided, two-sample t-test with a significance level of 0.05.||||<0.001
91042430|NCT01074008|181970274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was ≤ 0.05.|ANCOVA|Treatment was the factor and baseline log10 HCV RNA level was the covariate.||Eight participants per ABT-450/r group and 11 participants in the placebo group would provide \> 95% power to detect a 1.0 log10 difference with a common standard deviation of 0.5 log10 IU/mL using a two-sided, two-sample t-test with a significance level of 0.05.||||<0.001
91042431|NCT01074008|181970274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was ≤ 0.05.|ANCOVA|Treatment was the factor and baseline log10 HCV RNA level was the covariate.||Eight participants per ABT-450/r group and 11 participants in the placebo group would provide \> 95% power to detect a 1.0 log10 difference with a common standard deviation of 0.5 log10 IU/mL using a two-sided, two-sample t-test with a significance level of 0.05.||||<0.001
90989291|NCT01721408|181863133|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided CI for the difference in eradication rates between treatment groups (tigecycline minus imipenem/cilastatin) was greater than -15%.|Difference in percentage|-7.3||||0.0277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|0.5|||See method of CI||CIs and p-values for between-group treatment difference in eradication rates were calculated by the asymptotic method corrected for continuity with normal distribution approximation.|||0.5|-15.2|0.0277
90989292|NCT01721408|181863135|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided CI for the difference in cure rates between treatment groups (tigecycline minus imipenem/cilastatin) was greater than -15%.|Difference in percentage|-6.0||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|0.8|||See method of CI||Used the asymptotic method corrected for continuity with normal distribution approximation. Non-inferiority test was conducted on the CE population. If non-inferiority was concluded, superiority test was conducted on both the CE and mITT populations.|||0.8|-12.8|0.0040
90989293|NCT01187901|181863136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90989294|NCT01187901|181863137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90989295|NCT01187901|181863138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90989296|NCT01187901|181863139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90954026|NCT05731999|181786309|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for Dend at 500 lux is reported."|Slope|-3.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||<0.0001
90989297|NCT01187901|181863140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90989298|NCT01187901|181863141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90989299|NCT04160468|181863142|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.6||||0.392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.6|12.4|||Fisher Exact|||||12.4|-33.6|0.392
90989300|NCT06018350|181863208|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||McNemar|||||||0.002
90989301|NCT01096446|181863212|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The Chi Square satistical calculation was used for analysis.||||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Four infants(44%)in the control group developed hypertriglyceridemia (\>200 mg/dl) while 100% of the infants in the experimental group developed hypertriglyceridemia (\>200 mg/dl) during the first week of life.||||0.011
90989302|NCT02410902|181863217|OTHER|ANCOVA using MMRM analysis|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.56||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.98|-0.14|||ANCOVA|||||-0.14|-4.98|0.038
90989303|NCT02410902|181863218|OTHER|ANCOVA using MMRM analysis|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.07||||0.325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.21|1.07|||ANCOVA|||||1.07|-3.21|0.325
90989304|NCT02279524|181863223|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square means|-3.09||||0.0655|TWO_SIDED|1.6|||||Mixed Models Analysis||||Post-Hoc Responder Analysis - was also carried out. See Post-Hoc analysis|||0.0655
91042432|NCT01074008|181970274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||||||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was ≤ 0.05.|ANCOVA|Treatment was the factor and baseline log10 HCV RNA level was the covariate.||Eight participants per ABT-072 and 11 participants in the placebo group would provide 92% power to detect a 1.0 log10 difference with a standard deviation of 0.6 log10 IU/mL and a two-sided, two-sample t-test with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.009
91042433|NCT01074008|181970274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||||||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was ≤ 0.05.|ANCOVA|Treatment was the factor and baseline log10 HCV RNA level was the covariate.||Eight participants per ABT-072 and 11 participants in the placebo group would provide 92% power to detect a 1.0 log10 difference with a standard deviation of 0.6 log10 IU/mL and a two-sided, two-sample t-test with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.012
91042434|NCT01074008|181970274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was ≤ 0.05.|ANCOVA|Treatment was the factor and baseline log10 HCV RNA level was the covariate.||Eight participants per ABT-072 and 11 participants in the placebo group would provide 92% power to detect a 1.0 log10 difference with a standard deviation of 0.6 log10 IU/mL and a two-sided, two-sample t-test with a significance level of 0.05.||||<0.001
90989305|NCT02279524|181863223|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square means|-3.32||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|1.6|||||Mixed Models Analysis||||Post-Hoc Responder Analysis - was also carried out. See Post-Hoc analysis|||0.0450
90989306|NCT02279524|181863224|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.74||||0.0514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|22.66|||Regression, Logistic|The method used was a Baseline Adjusted Logistic Regression||||22.66|0.99|0.0514
90989307|NCT02279524|181863224|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.79||||0.4955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|9.61|||Regression, Logistic|||||9.61|0.33|0.4955
90989308|NCT02279524|181863225|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.88||||0.211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|5.04|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.04|0.70|0.2110
90989309|NCT02279524|181863225|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.8425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.05|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.05|0.40|0.8425
90989310|NCT02279524|181863226|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square means|-29.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
90989311|NCT02279524|181863226|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square means|-23.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.3||0.0002|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0002
90989312|NCT02279524|181863227|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square means|-0.447||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7063|-0.1877|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.1877|-0.7063|0.0008
90989313|NCT02279524|181863227|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square means|-0.362||||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6196|-0.1043|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.1043|-0.6196|0.0061
90989314|NCT02279524|181863228|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square means|-17.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
90989315|NCT02279524|181863228|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square means|-13.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.2||0.0011|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0011
90989316|NCT02279524|181863229|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.77||||0.0279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|6.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.88|1.11|0.0279
90989317|NCT02279524|181863229|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2||||0.0878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|5.46|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.46|0.89|0.0878
90989318|NCT02279524|181863230|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.14||||0.1008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|1.46|||Regression, Logistic||This analysis is limited by low number of events, and the duration of the study.|||1.46|0.01|0.1008
90989319|NCT02279524|181863230|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.63||||0.5693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|3.05|||Regression, Logistic||This analysis is limited by low number of events, and the duration of the study.|||3.05|0.13|0.5693
90989320|NCT01441440|181863309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|2.87||Two-sided p-value from an analysis of covariance model including treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA||Adjusted mean difference = Placebo group - Venlafaxine 75 mg/day Fixed group|||2.87|0.14|0.031
90989321|NCT01441440|181863309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.12||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|2.48||Two-sided p-value from an analysis of covariance model including treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA||Adjusted mean difference = Placebo group - Venlafaxine 75-225 mg/day Flexible group|||2.48|-0.24|0.106
90989322|NCT01441440|181863310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.88||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|5.0||Two-sided p-value from an analysis of covariance model including treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA||Adjusted mean difference = Placebo group - Venlafaxine 75 mg/day Fixed group|||5.00|0.77|0.008
90989323|NCT01441440|181863310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.64||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|4.74||Two-sided p-value from an analysis of covariance model including treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA||Adjusted mean difference = Placebo group - Venlafaxine 75-225 mg/day Flexible group|||4.74|0.54|0.014
90989324|NCT01441440|181863311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.49||Two-sided p-value from an analysis of covariance model including treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA||Adjusted mean difference = Placebo group - Venlafaxine 75 mg/day Fixed group|||0.49|0.03|0.025
90989325|NCT01441440|181863311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.48||Two-sided p-value from an analysis of covariance model including treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA||Adjusted mean difference = Placebo group - Venlafaxine 75-225 mg/day Flexible group|||0.48|0.02|0.032
90989326|NCT01441440|181863312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.18||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.97||Two-sided p-value from an analysis of covariance model including treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA||Adjusted mean difference = Placebo group - Venlafaxine 75 mg/day Fixed group|||1.97|0.39|0.004
90989327|NCT01441440|181863312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.06||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.85||Two-sided p-value from an analysis of covariance model including treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA||Adjusted mean difference = Placebo group - Venlafaxine 75-225 mg/day Flexible group|||1.85|0.28|0.008
90989328|NCT01441440|181863313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|2.53||Two-sided p-value from an analysis of covariance model including treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA||Adjusted mean difference = Placebo group - Venlafaxine 75 mg/day Fixed group|||2.53|0.48|0.004
90989329|NCT01441440|181863313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.77||||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|1.79||Two-sided p-value from an analysis of covariance model including treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA||Adjusted mean difference = Placebo group - Venlafaxine 75-225 mg/day Flexible group|||1.79|-0.25|0.137
90989330|NCT01441440|181863314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.45||Two-sided p-value from an analysis of covariance model including treatment as a factor and baseline score of CGI-S as a covariate.|ANCOVA||Adjusted mean difference = Placebo group - Venlafaxine 75 mg/day Fixed group|||0.45|-0.02|0.073
90989331|NCT01441440|181863314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.48||Two-sided p-value from an analysis of covariance model including treatment as a factor and baseline score of CGI-S as a covariate.|ANCOVA||Adjusted mean difference = Placebo group - Venlafaxine 75-225 mg/day Flexible group|||0.48|0.02|0.034
91042435|NCT01074008|181970274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.032||||||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, 2-sided significance level was ≤ 0.05.|ANCOVA|Treatment was the factor and baseline log10 HCV RNA level was the covariate.||Eight subjects per ABT-333 group and 11 subjects in the placebo group would provide 82% power to detect a 1.0 log10 IU/mL difference with a standard deviation of 0.7 log10 IU/mL and a 2-sided 2-sample t-test with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.032
91042436|NCT01074008|181970274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.053||||||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was ≤ 0.05.|ANCOVA|Treatment was the factor and baseline log10 HCV RNA level was the covariate.||Eight participants per ABT-333 group and 11 participants in the placebo group would provide 82% power to detect a 1.0 log10 IU/mL difference with a standard deviation of 0.7 log10 IU/mL and a two-sided, two-sample t-test with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.053
91042437|NCT01074008|181970275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was ≤ 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.001
90989332|NCT01993329|181863315|SUPERIORITY||Geometric means ratio|1.108||||0.616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.734|1.673|||ANOVA||Analysis was based on an ANOVA model with log (base 2) PC20 methacholine challenge at each period as dependent variable, treatment and period as fixed effects and participant as random effect.|||1.673|0.734|0.616
90989333|NCT01993329|181863315|SUPERIORITY||Geometric means ratio|1.016||||0.939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.673|1.534|||ANOVA||Analysis was based on an ANOVA model with log (base 2) PC20 methacholine challenge at each period as dependent variable, treatment and period as fixed effects and participant as random effect.|||1.534|0.673|0.939
90989334|NCT01993329|181863315|SUPERIORITY||Geometric means ratio|0.917||||0.671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.607|1.384|||ANOVA||Analysis was based on an ANOVA model with log (base 2) PC20 methacholine challenge at each period as dependent variable, treatment and period as fixed effects and participant as random effect.|||1.384|0.607|0.671
90989335|NCT01993329|181863316|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.111||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.008|||ANOVA||Analysis is based on an ANOVA model with minimum highest FEV1 after methacholine challenge at each period as dependent variable, treatment and period as fixed effects and participant as random effect.|||0.008|-0.230|0.066
90989336|NCT01993329|181863316|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.012||||0.843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.131|0.107|||ANOVA||Analysis is based on an ANOVA model with minimum highest FEV1 after methacholine challenge at each period as dependent variable, treatment and period as fixed effects and participant as random effect|||0.107|-0.131|0.843
90989337|NCT01993329|181863316|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.099||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.218|0.02|||ANOVA||Analysis is based on an ANOVA model with minimum highest FEV1 after methacholine challenge at each period as dependent variable, treatment and period as fixed effects and participant as random effect|||0.020|-0.218|0.098
91042438|NCT01074008|181970275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|||||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was ≤ 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.006
91042439|NCT01074008|181970275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was ≤ 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91042440|NCT01074008|181970275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.262|TWO_SIDED|||||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was ≤ 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.262
91042441|NCT01074008|181970275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was ≤ 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
91042442|NCT01074008|181970275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.245|TWO_SIDED|||||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was ≤ 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.245
91042443|NCT01074008|181970275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|||||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was ≤ 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.111
90954027|NCT05731999|181786309|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for MCA at 500 lux is reported."|Slope|-1.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||<0.0001
90954028|NCT05731999|181786309|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for RMCA at 500 lux is reported."|Slope|-1.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||<0.0001
90954029|NCT05731999|181786311|OTHER||probability|0.000244|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||The null hypothesis is that the logistic regression classifier is unable to correctly classify subjects into sober or under the influence of D1-D4. The smallest odds ratio from the group false positives and false negative is reported.||||<0.05
90954030|NCT05731999|181786311|OTHER||probability|0.00586|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||The null hypothesis is that the logistic regression classifier is unable to correctly classify subjects into sober or under the influence of D1-D4. The greatest p value from the group false positives and false negative is reported.||||<0.05
90954031|NCT05731999|181786311|OTHER||probability|0.0193|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||The null hypothesis is that the logistic regression classifier is unable to correctly classify subjects into sober or under the influence of D1-D4. The greatest p value from the group false positives and false negative is reported.||||<0.05
90954032|NCT05731999|181786311|OTHER||probability|0.000488|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||The null hypothesis is that the logistic regression classifier is unable to correctly classify subjects into sober or under the influence of D1-D4. The greatest p value from the group false positives and false negative is reported.||||<0.05
91042444|NCT01074008|181970275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|||||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was ≤ 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.111
91042445|NCT01074008|181970276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|||||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was ≤ 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.013
91042446|NCT01074008|181970276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|||||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was ≤ 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.059
91042447|NCT01074008|181970276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|||||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was ≤ 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.013
91042448|NCT01074008|181970276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|||||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was ≤ 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.013
90989338|NCT00883558|181863317|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of INSULIN-PH20 NP to insulin lispro was supported if the upper limit of the one-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in blood glucose between the treatments did not exceed 21.6 mg/dL.|LS Mean Difference|3.06||||0.3217|ONE_SIDED|95.0||14.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjustments included treatment, phase, and treatment sequence as fixed effects and participant within treatment sequence as a random effect.||A total of at least 40 participants were to be enrolled in the study, and 30 participants were expected to complete both treatment cycles. Assuming a standard deviation for blood glucose of 45 milligrams per deciliter (mg/dL) and a true difference between the treatments of 0 mg/dL, the study had approximately 80% power to show that INSULIN-PH20 NP was non-inferior to insulin lispro with respect to the overall two-hour postprandial blood glucose excursion.||14.11||0.3217
90989339|NCT04742907|181863384|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.91||||0.767|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.74|1.12||P-value is from the Wald Chi-Square statistic testing hypotheses of each dose of TU-100 compared with placebo: H0: hazard ratio (HR) = 1 vs. Ha: HR \> 1|Chi-squared||Hazard ratio and confidence intervals (CIs) are derived from a Cox proportional hazard model that includes main effects for treatment and surgical approach.|||1.12|0.74|0.767
90989340|NCT04742907|181863384|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.17||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|1.44||P-value is from the Wald Chi-Square statistic testing hypotheses of each dose of TU-100 compared with placebo: H0: HR = 1 vs. Ha: HR \> 1|Chi-squared||Hazard ratio and CIs are derived from a Cox proportional hazard model that includes main effects for treatment and surgical approach.|||1.44|0.95|0.107
90989341|NCT04742907|181863385|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.9||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.71|1.13||P-value is from the Wald Chi-Square statistic testing hypotheses of each dose of TU-100 compared with placebo: H0: HR = 1 vs. Ha: HR \> 1|Chi-squared||Hazard ratio and CIs are derived from a Cox proportional hazard model that includes main effects for treatment and surgical approach.|For Time to GI-2||1.13|0.71|0.780
90989342|NCT04742907|181863385|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.06||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|1.34||P-value is from the Wald Chi-Square statistic testing hypotheses of each dose of TU-100 compared with placebo: H0: HR = 1 vs. Ha: HR \> 1|Chi-squared||Hazard ratio and CIs are derived from a Cox proportional hazard model that includes main effects for treatment and surgical approach.|For Time to GI-2||1.34|0.84|0.330
90989343|NCT04742907|181863385|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.9||||0.788|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.73|1.11||P-value is from the Wald Chi-Square statistic testing hypotheses of each dose of TU-100 compared with placebo: H0: HR = 1 vs. Ha: HR \> 1|Chi-squared||Hazard ratio and CIs are derived from a Cox proportional hazard model that includes main effects for treatment and surgical approach.|For Time to first toleration of clear liquids||1.11|0.73|0.788
90989344|NCT04742907|181863385|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.22||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.99|1.51||P-value is from the Wald Chi-Square statistic testing hypotheses of each dose of TU-100 compared with placebo: H0: HR = 1 vs. Ha: HR \> 1|Chi-squared||Hazard ratio and CIs are derived from a Cox proportional hazard model that includes main effects for treatment and surgical approach.|For Time to first toleration of clear liquids||1.51|0.99|0.055
90989345|NCT04742907|181863385|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.07||||0.306|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.86|1.32||P-value is from the Wald Chi-Square statistic testing hypotheses of each dose of TU-100 compared with placebo: H0: HR = 1 vs. Ha: HR \> 1|Chi-squared||Hazard ratio and CIs are derived from a Cox proportional hazard model that includes main effects for treatment and surgical approach.|For Time to absence of distension and presence of bowel sounds and flatus||1.32|0.86|0.306
90989346|NCT04742907|181863385|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.09||||0.243|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.35||P-value is from the Wald Chi-Square statistic testing hypotheses of each dose of TU-100 compared with placebo: H0: HR = 1 vs. Ha: HR \> 1|Chi-squared||Hazard ratio and CIs are derived from a Cox proportional hazard model that includes main effects for treatment and surgical approach.|For Time to absence of distension and presence of bowel sounds and flatus||1.35|0.88|0.243
90989347|NCT04742907|181863386|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.0||||0.489|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|1.24||P-value is from the Wald Chi-Square statistic testing hypotheses of each dose of TU-100 compared with placebo: H0: HR = 1 vs. Ha: HR \> 1|Chi-squared||Hazard ratio and CIs are derived from a Cox proportional hazard model that includes main effects for treatment and surgical approach.|For Time to ready for discharge||1.24|0.81|0.489
91042449|NCT01074008|181970276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|||||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was ≤ 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.370
91042450|NCT01074008|181970276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|||||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was ≤ 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.013
90989348|NCT04742907|181863386|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.15||||0.138|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|1.42||P-value is from the Wald Chi-Square statistic testing hypotheses of each dose of TU-100 compared with placebo: H0: HR = 1 vs. Ha: HR \> 1|Chi-squared||Hazard ratio and CIs are derived from a Cox proportional hazard model that includes main effects for treatment and surgical approach.|For Time to ready for discharge||1.42|0.93|0.138
90989349|NCT04742907|181863386|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.01||||0.473|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.82|1.24||P-value is from the Wald Chi-Square statistic testing hypotheses of each dose of TU-100 compared with placebo: H0: HR = 1 vs. Ha: HR \> 1|Chi-squared||Hazard ratio and CIs are derived from a Cox proportional hazard model that includes main effects for treatment and surgical approach.|For Time to discharge order written||1.24|0.82|0.473
91042451|NCT01074008|181970276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|||||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was ≤ 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.013
91042452|NCT01074008|181970276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|||||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was ≤ 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.013
91042453|NCT01074008|181970289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|||||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was ≤ 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.005
90989350|NCT04742907|181863386|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.24||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.01|1.53||P-value is from the Wald Chi-Square statistic testing hypotheses of each dose of TU-100 compared with placebo: H0: HR = 1 vs. Ha: HR \> 1|Chi-squared||Hazard ratio and CIs are derived from a Cox proportional hazard model that includes main effects for treatment and surgical approach.|For Time to discharge order written||1.53|1.01|0.045
90989351|NCT04742907|181863387|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.923||||||P-value is from two-sample t-test comparing TU-100 15 g/day treatment group versus placebo.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.923
90989352|NCT04742907|181863387|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.039||||||P-value is from two-sample t-test comparing TU-100 7.5 g/day treatment group versus placebo.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.039
90989353|NCT04742907|181863389|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.42||p value is assessing the null hypothesis that the odds ratio is equal to 1.|Regression, Logistic||Responder status is analyzed using logistic regression with GIR response as the dependent variable; treatment and surgical approach (open, laparoscopic) as covariates.|For Day 1||1.42|0.44|0.434
90989354|NCT04742907|181863389|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.59||p value is assessing the null hypothesis that the odds ratio is equal to 1.|Regression, Logistic||Responder status is analyzed using logistic regression with GIR response as the dependent variable; treatment and surgical approach (open, laparoscopic) as covariates.|For Day 1||1.59|0.51|0.710
90989355|NCT04742907|181863389|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.02||p value is assessing the null hypothesis that the odds ratio is equal to 1.|Chi-squared||Responder status is analyzed using logistic regression with GIR response as the dependent variable; treatment and surgical approach (open, laparoscopic) as covariates.|For Day 2||2.02|0.75|0.410
90989356|NCT04742907|181863389|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.81||p value is assessing the null hypothesis that the odds ratio is equal to 1.|Regression, Logistic||Responder status is analyzed using logistic regression with GIR response as the dependent variable; treatment and surgical approach (open, laparoscopic) as covariates.|For Day 2||2.81|1.03|0.037
90989357|NCT04742907|181863389|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.55||p value is assessing the null hypothesis that the odds ratio is equal to 1.|Regression, Logistic||Responder status is analyzed using logistic regression with GIR response as the dependent variable; treatment and surgical approach (open, laparoscopic) as covariates.|For Day 3||1.55|0.46|0.579
90989358|NCT04742907|181863389|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.63||||0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.21||p value is assessing the null hypothesis that the odds ratio is equal to 1.|Regression, Logistic|||For Day 3||1.21|0.33|0.167
91042454|NCT01074008|181970289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|||||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was ≤ 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.005
91042455|NCT01074008|181970289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was ≤ 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91042456|NCT01074008|181970289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|||||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was ≤ 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.024
91042457|NCT01074008|181970289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.319|TWO_SIDED|||||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was ≤ 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.319
90989359|NCT04742907|181863389|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.63||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.86||p value is assessing the null hypothesis that the odds ratio is equal to 1.|Regression, Logistic||Responder status is analyzed using logistic regression with GIR response as the dependent variable; treatment and surgical approach (open, laparoscopic) as covariates.|For Day 4||1.86|0.21|0.400
90989360|NCT04742907|181863389|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.28||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.18|||Regression, Logistic||Responder status is analyzed using logistic regression with GIR response as the dependent variable; treatment and surgical approach (open, laparoscopic) as covariates.|For Day 4||1.18|0.07|0.083
90989361|NCT04742907|181863390|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|4.14||p value is assessing the null hypothesis that the odds ratio is equal to 1.|Regression, Logistic||POI-related Morbidity status is analyzed using logistic regression with POI-related morbidity as the dependent variable; treatment and surgical approach (open, laparoscopic) as covariates.|||4.14|0.43|0.621
90989362|NCT04742907|181863390|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|3.46||p value is assessing the null hypothesis that the odds ratio is equal to 1.|Regression, Logistic||POI-related Morbidity status is analyzed using logistic regression with POI-related morbidity as the dependent variable; treatment and surgical approach (open, laparoscopic) as covariates.|||3.46|0.31|0.962
90989363|NCT04742907|181863392|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.05||p value is assessing the null hypothesis that the odds ratio is equal to 1.|Regression, Logistic||Subject-reported (eDiary) - Nausea status is analyzed using logistic regression with Subject-reported (eDiary) - Nausea as the dependent variable; treatment and surgical approach (open, laparoscopic) as covariates.|For Day 1||2.05|0.66|0.604
90989364|NCT04742907|181863392|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.99||p value is assessing the null hypothesis that the odds ratio is equal to 1.|Regression, Logistic||Subject-reported (eDiary) - Nausea status is analyzed using logistic regression with Subject-reported (eDiary) - Nausea as the dependent variable; treatment and surgical approach (open, laparoscopic) as covariates.|For Day 1||1.99|0.63|0.693
91042458|NCT01074008|181970289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|||||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was ≤ 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.013
91042459|NCT01074008|181970289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|||||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was ≤ 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.005
91042460|NCT01074008|181970289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|||||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was ≤ 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.074
91042461|NCT02339415|181970313|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|included predictors: treatment, assigned treatment sequence and pre-treatment biomarker level.|because biomarkers were analyzed on natural log scale, the estimated parameter is the log-transformed mean percent difference in treatment effect on Edoxaban vs. Placebo.|||0.21|-0.06|0.26
90954033|NCT05731999|181786311|OTHER||probability|0.1133|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||The null hypothesis is that the logistic regression classifier is unable to correctly classify subjects into sober or under the influence of D1-D4. The greatest p value from the group false positives and false negative is reported.||||<0.05
90954034|NCT05731999|181786311|OTHER||probability|0.0107|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.05
90954035|NCT02551653|181786345|OTHER||Mean Ratio|0.832|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.682|0.979|||||||Volume of Distribution - Heart, Left Ventricular Wall: The mean ratio was calculated using the posterior distribution of the ratio of group means (PAH subjects to Healthy Volunteers). The 95% confidence interval is a 95% Bayesian credible interval based on the highest posterior density interval.|0.979|0.682|
90954036|NCT02551653|181786345|OTHER||Mean Ratio|1.472|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.113|1.891|||||||Volume of Distribution - Heart, Right Ventricular Wall: The mean ratio was calculated using the posterior distribution of the ratio of group means (PAH subjects to Healthy Volunteers). The 95% confidence interval is a 95% Bayesian credible interval based on the highest posterior density interval.|1.891|1.113|
90954037|NCT02551653|181786345|OTHER||Mean Ratio|0.958|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.692|1.241|||||||Volume of Distribution - Lung: The mean ratio was calculated using the posterior distribution of the ratio of group means (PAH subjects to Healthy Volunteers). The 95% confidence interval is a 95% Bayesian credible interval based on the highest posterior density interval.|1.241|0.692|
90954038|NCT02551653|181786346|OTHER||Mean Ratio|1.013|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.846|1.189|||||||Mean Standardized Uptake Values - Heart, Left Ventricular Wall: The mean ratio was calculated using the posterior distribution of the ratio of group means (PAH subjects to Healthy Volunteers). The 95% confidence interval is a 95% Bayesian credible interval based on the highest posterior density interval.|1.189|0.846|
90954039|NCT02551653|181786346|OTHER||Mean Ratio|1.056|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.853|1.269|||||||Mean Standardized Uptake Values - Heart, Right Ventricular Wall: The mean ratio was calculated using the posterior distribution of the ratio of group means (PAH subjects to Healthy Volunteers). The 95% confidence interval is a 95% Bayesian credible interval based on the highest posterior density interval.|1.269|0.853|
90954040|NCT02551653|181786346|OTHER||Mean Ratio|1.047|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.786|1.34|||||||Mean Standardized Uptake Values - Lung: The mean ratio was calculated using the posterior distribution of the ratio of group means (PAH subjects to Healthy Volunteers). The 95% confidence interval is a 95% Bayesian credible interval based on the highest posterior density interval.|1.340|0.786|
90954041|NCT02683785|181786347|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.36||||0.442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|0.58||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value,Treatment Group,Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used.p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Difference from placebo for Week 6 is presented.|||0.58|-1.31|0.442
90954042|NCT02683785|181786348|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.46||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.01||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Difference from placebo for Week 1 is presented|||-0.01|-0.90|0.046
90954043|NCT02683785|181786348|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.38||||0.257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|0.29||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Difference from placebo for Week 2 is presented|||0.29|-1.05|0.257
90954044|NCT02683785|181786348|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|0.31||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Difference from placebo for Week 3 is presented|||0.31|-1.31|0.220
90954045|NCT02683785|181786348|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.74||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|0.11||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Difference from placebo for Week 4 is presented|||0.11|-1.59|0.085
90954046|NCT02683785|181786348|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.36||||0.442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|0.58||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Difference from placebo for Week 6 is presented|||0.58|-1.31|0.442
90954047|NCT02683785|181786348|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.83||||0.139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|0.28||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Difference from placebo for Week 8 is presented|||0.28|-1.93|0.139
90954048|NCT02683785|181786348|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.19||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Difference from placebo for Week 10 is presented|||0.19|-2.00|0.103
90954049|NCT02683785|181786348|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.89||||0.132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|0.28||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Difference from placebo for Week 12 is presented.|||0.28|-2.06|0.132
91042462|NCT02339415|181970314|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|included predictors: treatment, assigned treatment sequence and pre-treatment biomarker level.|because biomarkers were analyzed on natural log scale, the estimated parameter is the log-transformed mean percent difference in treatment effect on Edoxaban vs. Placebo.|||-0.20|-0.88|0.002
91042463|NCT01841736|181970316|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.42|0.69|||Log Rank|Stratified log rank||||0.69|0.42|0.0005
90954050|NCT02683785|181786349|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.45||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|0.06||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Difference from placebo for Week 1 is presented.|||0.06|-0.97|0.082
90954051|NCT02683785|181786349|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.27||||0.426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.41||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Difference from placebo for Week 2 is presented|||0.41|-0.96|0.426
90954052|NCT02683785|181786349|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|0.18||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Difference from placebo for Week 3 is presented|||0.18|-1.38|0.129
90954053|NCT02683785|181786349|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.78||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|0.06||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Difference from placebo for Week 4 is presented.|||0.06|-1.63|0.067
90954054|NCT02683785|181786349|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.33||||0.494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|0.63||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Difference from placebo for Week 6 is presented|||0.63|-1.28|0.494
90954055|NCT02683785|181786349|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.94||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.08|0.21||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Difference from placebo for Week 8 is presented.|||0.21|-2.08|0.107
90954056|NCT02683785|181786349|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.98||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|0.17||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Difference from placebo for Week 10 is presented.|||0.17|-2.13|0.092
90954057|NCT02683785|181786349|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.01||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|0.2||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Difference from placebo for Week 12 is presented.|||0.20|-2.22|0.098
90954058|NCT02683785|181786354|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.8||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|0.1||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||For Pain component, Week 1|||0.1|-5.6|0.061
90954059|NCT02683785|181786354|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.0||||0.282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|1.7||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||For Pain component, Week 2|||1.7|-5.6|0.282
90954060|NCT02683785|181786354|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.7||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|0.9||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||For Pain component Week 4|||0.9|-8.4|0.113
90954061|NCT02683785|181786354|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|4.0||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||For Pain component, Week 6|||4.0|-5.9|0.695
90954062|NCT02683785|181786354|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.8||||0.176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|1.8||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||For Pain component, Week 8|||1.8|-9.4|0.176
90954063|NCT02683785|181786354|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.5||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|-0.2||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||For Pain component, Week 10|||-0.2|-10.8|0.041
91042464|NCT01841736|181970318|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.84|1.51|||Log Rank|Stratified Log-Rank||||1.51|0.84|0.7
91042465|NCT00003404|181970324|OTHER||rate of occurance|0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|8.0|||||The local recurrence rate was estimated by dividing the number of recurrences by the total sample size. An exact 95% confidence interval (95% CI) for this rate was determined by binomial distribution.|||8|0|
90989365|NCT04742907|181863392|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|3.78||p value is assessing the null hypothesis that the odds ratio is equal to 1.|Regression, Logistic||Subject-reported (eDiary) - Nausea status is analyzed using logistic regression with Subject-reported (eDiary) - Nausea as the dependent variable; treatment and surgical approach (open, laparoscopic) as covariates.|For Day 2||3.78|0.85|0.122
90989366|NCT04742907|181863392|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78||||0.518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.67||p value is assessing the null hypothesis that the odds ratio is equal to 1.|Regression, Logistic||Subject-reported (eDiary) - Nausea status is analyzed using logistic regression with Subject-reported (eDiary) - Nausea as the dependent variable; treatment and surgical approach (open, laparoscopic) as covariates.|For Day 2||1.67|0.36|0.518
90954064|NCT02683785|181786354|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.7||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|0.6||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||For Pain component, Week 12|||0.6|-10.1|0.082
90954065|NCT02683785|181786354|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.6||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||For Stiffness component, Week 1|||0.6|-1.1|0.587
90989367|NCT04742907|181863392|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|4.53||p value is assessing the null hypothesis that the odds ratio is equal to 1.|Regression, Logistic||Subject-reported (eDiary) - Nausea status is analyzed using logistic regression with Subject-reported (eDiary) - Nausea as the dependent variable; treatment and surgical approach (open, laparoscopic) as covariates.|For Day 3||4.53|0.46|0.528
90989368|NCT04742907|181863392|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|4.07||p value is assessing the null hypothesis that the odds ratio is equal to 1.|Regression, Logistic||Subject-reported (eDiary) - Nausea status is analyzed using logistic regression with Subject-reported (eDiary) - Nausea as the dependent variable; treatment and surgical approach (open, laparoscopic) as covariates.|For Day 3||4.07|0.40|0.689
90989369|NCT04742907|181863392|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.68||||0.653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|3.7||p value is assessing the null hypothesis that the odds ratio is equal to 1.|Regression, Logistic||Subject-reported (eDiary) - Nausea status is analyzed using logistic regression with Subject-reported (eDiary) - Nausea as the dependent variable; treatment and surgical approach (open, laparoscopic) as covariates.|For Day 4||3.70|0.12|0.653
90989370|NCT04742907|181863392|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.85||||0.452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|9.25||p value is assessing the null hypothesis that the odds ratio is equal to 1.|Regression, Logistic||Subject-reported (eDiary) - Nausea status is analyzed using logistic regression with Subject-reported (eDiary) - Nausea as the dependent variable; treatment and surgical approach (open, laparoscopic) as covariates.|For Day 4||9.25|0.37|0.452
90989371|NCT04742907|181863393|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Day 1, least square (LS) mean difference between placebo and TU-100 15 g/day. Mixed Model Repeated Measures approach was used to assess the bothersomeness of Nausea as the dependent variable and treatment group, surgical approach and treatment group by visit as covariates. An unstructured covariance structure is used to model the within-subject errors, shared across treatments.||0.6|-1.8|0.359
91042466|NCT05480800|181970346|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|0.44||||||95.0|0.06|3.43|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR) is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-Vi Ag IgG, Day 29||3.43|0.06|
90989372|NCT04742907|181863393|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Day 1, LS mean difference between placebo and TU-100 7.5 g/day. Mixed Model Repeated Measures approach was used to assess the bothersomeness of Nausea as the dependent variable and treatment group, surgical approach and treatment group by visit as covariates. An unstructured covariance structure is used to model the within-subject errors, shared across treatments.||1.2|-1.3|0.907
90989373|NCT04742907|181863393|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Day 2, LS mean difference between placebo and TU-100 15 g/day. Mixed Model Repeated Measures approach was used to assess the bothersomeness of Nausea as the dependent variable and treatment group, surgical approach and treatment group by visit as covariates. An unstructured covariance structure is used to model the within-subject errors, shared across treatments.||1.6|-1.3|0.856
90989374|NCT04742907|181863393|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Day 2, LS mean difference between placebo and TU-100 7.5 g/day. Mixed Model Repeated Measures approach was used to assess the bothersomeness of Nausea as the dependent variable and treatment group, surgical approach and treatment group by visit as covariates. An unstructured covariance structure is used to model the within-subject errors, shared across treatments.||0.5|-2.7|0.180
90989375|NCT04742907|181863393|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|2.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Day 3, LS mean difference between placebo and TU-100 15 g/day. Mixed Model Repeated Measures approach was used to assess the bothersomeness of Nausea as the dependent variable and treatment group, surgical approach and treatment group by visit as covariates. An unstructured covariance structure is used to model the within-subject errors, shared across treatments.||2.4|-1.9|0.814
90989376|NCT04742907|181863393|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Day 3, LS mean difference between placebo and TU-100 7.5 g/day. Mixed Model Repeated Measures approach was used to assess the bothersomeness of Nausea as the dependent variable and treatment group, surgical approach and treatment group by visit as covariates. An unstructured covariance structure is used to model the within-subject errors, shared across treatments.||1.3|-3.2|0.409
91042467|NCT05480800|181970346|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|0.66||||||95.0|0.25|1.7|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted GMR is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-Vi Ag IgG, Day 29||1.70|0.25|
91042468|NCT05480800|181970346|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|0.43||||||95.0|0.06|2.94|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted GMR is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-Vi Ag IgG, Day 57||2.94|0.06|
91042469|NCT05480800|181970346|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|0.51||||||95.0|0.19|1.37|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted GMR is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-Vi Ag IgG, Day 57||1.37|0.19|
90954066|NCT02683785|181786354|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.6||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||For Stiffness component, Week 2|||0.6|-1.3|0.457
90954067|NCT02683785|181786354|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.6||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||For Stiffness component, Week 4|||0.6|-1.8|0.298
90954068|NCT02683785|181786354|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.9||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||For Stiffness component, Week 6|||0.9|-1.3|0.726
90954069|NCT02683785|181786354|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.4||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||For Stiffness component, Week 8|||0.4|-1.9|0.213
90954070|NCT02683785|181786354|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.7||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||For Stiffness component, Week 10|||0.7|-1.9|0.331
90954071|NCT02683785|181786354|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8||||0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.6||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||For Stiffness component, Week 12|||0.6|-2.1|0.248
90954072|NCT02683785|181786354|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.9||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|3.3||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||For Physical Function component, Week 1|||3.3|-9.0|0.350
90954073|NCT02683785|181786354|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.0||||0.383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|3.8||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||For Physical Function component, Week 2|||3.8|-9.8|0.383
90954074|NCT02683785|181786354|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.8||||0.271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|3.9||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||For Physical Function component, Week 4|||3.9|-13.5|0.271
90954075|NCT02683785|181786354|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.7||||0.565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|6.7||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||For Physical Function component, Week 6|||6.7|-12.1|0.565
90954076|NCT02683785|181786354|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.9||||0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|5.4||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||For Physical Function component, Week 8|||5.4|-15.2|0.343
90954077|NCT02683785|181786354|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.2||||0.266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|4.9||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||For Physical Function component, Week 10|||4.9|-17.3|0.266
90954078|NCT02683785|181786354|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.2||||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.1|2.7||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||For Physical Function component, Week 12|||2.7|-19.1|0.136
91042470|NCT05480800|181970346|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|0.59||||||95.0|0.13|2.65|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted GMR is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-Vi Ag IgG, Day 85||2.65|0.13|
90954079|NCT02683785|181786354|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.5||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|3.6||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||For Total of all component scores, Week 1|||3.6|-14.5|0.230
90954080|NCT02683785|181786354|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.6||||0.381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|5.9||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||For Total of all component scores, Week 2|||5.9|-15.2|0.381
90954081|NCT02683785|181786354|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.7||||0.207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.4|5.0||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||For Total of all component scores, Week 4|||5.0|-22.4|0.207
90954082|NCT02683785|181786354|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.4||||0.648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.4|11.6||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||For Total of all component scores, Week 6|||11.6|-18.4|0.648
90954083|NCT02683785|181786354|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.0||||0.278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.4|7.5||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||For Total of all component scores, Week 8|||7.5|-25.4|0.278
90954084|NCT02683785|181786354|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.1||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.1|5.0||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||For Total of all component scores, Week 10|||5.0|-29.1|0.160
90954085|NCT02683785|181786354|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.3||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.5|3.9||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||For Total of all component scores, Week 12|||3.9|-30.5|0.127
90954086|NCT02683785|181786355|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.8||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Difference from placebo for Week 1 is presented|||1.8|-1.9|0.957
90954087|NCT02683785|181786355|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.8||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Difference from placebo for Week 2 is presented|||2.8|-2.1|0.775
90954088|NCT02683785|181786355|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|1.7||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Difference from placebo for Week 4 is presented|||1.7|-2.7|0.624
90954089|NCT02683785|181786355|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.4||||0.243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|3.8||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Difference from placebo for Week 6 is presented|||3.8|-1.0|0.243
90989377|NCT04742907|181863394|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.4||p value is assessing the null hypothesis that the odds ratio is equal to 1.|Regression, Logistic||Subject-reported (eDiary) - Abdominal Bloating status is analyzed using logistic regression with Subject-reported (eDiary) - Abdominal Bloating as the dependent variable; treatment and surgical approach (open, laparoscopic) as covariates.|For Day 1||1.40|0.46|0.430
90989378|NCT04742907|181863394|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.96||p value is assessing the null hypothesis that the odds ratio is equal to 1.|Regression, Logistic||Subject-reported (eDiary) - Abdominal Bloating status is analyzed using logistic regression with Subject-reported (eDiary) - Abdominal Bloating as the dependent variable; treatment and surgical approach (open, laparoscopic) as covariates.|For Day 1||1.96|0.62|0.739
90954090|NCT02683785|181786355|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|2.9||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Difference from placebo for Week 8 is presented|||2.9|-2.5|0.875
90954091|NCT02683785|181786355|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|2.8||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Difference from placebo for Week 10 is presented|||2.8|-3.4|0.848
90954092|NCT02683785|181786355|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|2.4||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Difference from placebo for Week 12 is presented|||2.4|-2.8|0.883
90954093|NCT02683785|181786356|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2||||0.463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|2.0||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Difference from placebo for Week 1 is presented|||2.0|-4.4|0.463
90954094|NCT02683785|181786356|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|2.9||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Difference from placebo for Week 2 is presented|||2.9|-3.7|0.809
90954095|NCT02683785|181786356|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.9||||0.324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|2.0||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Difference from placebo for Week 4 is presented|||2.0|-5.8|0.324
90954096|NCT02683785|181786356|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|3.2||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Difference from placebo for Week 6 is presented|||3.2|-4.2|0.783
90954097|NCT02683785|181786356|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.4||||0.464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|2.5||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Difference from placebo for Week 8 is presented|||2.5|-5.4|0.464
90954098|NCT02683785|181786356|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|3.5||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Difference from placebo for Week 10 is presented|||3.5|-4.9|0.736
90954099|NCT02683785|181786356|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|3.7||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Difference from placebo for Week 12 is presented|||3.7|-4.8|0.806
90954100|NCT02683785|181786357|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.6||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Difference from placebo for Week 2 is presented|||1.6|-0.9|0.586
90954101|NCT02683785|181786357|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.8||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Difference from placebo for Week 4 is presented|||0.8|-1.9|0.416
91042471|NCT05480800|181970346|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|0.66||||||95.0|0.3|1.43|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted GMR is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-Vi Ag IgG, Day 85||1.43|0.30|
90954102|NCT02683785|181786357|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|0.3||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Difference from placebo for Week 8 is presented|||0.3|-2.8|0.120
90954103|NCT02683785|181786357|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.4||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Difference from placebo for Week 12 is presented|||1.4|-2.1|0.687
90954104|NCT02683785|181786358|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.8||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Difference from placebo for Week 2 is presented.|||0.8|-1.3|0.651
90989379|NCT04742907|181863394|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.54||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.2||p value is assessing the null hypothesis that the odds ratio is equal to 1.|Regression, Logistic||Subject-reported (eDiary) - Abdominal Bloating status is analyzed using logistic regression with Subject-reported (eDiary) - Abdominal Bloating as the dependent variable; treatment and surgical approach (open, laparoscopic) as covariates.|For Day 2||1.20|0.25|0.130
90989380|NCT04742907|181863394|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.52||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|1.13||p value is assessing the null hypothesis that the odds ratio is equal to 1.|Regression, Logistic||Subject-reported (eDiary) - Abdominal Bloating status is analyzed using logistic regression with Subject-reported (eDiary) - Abdominal Bloating as the dependent variable; treatment and surgical approach (open, laparoscopic) as covariates.|For Day 2||1.13|0.24|0.099
90989381|NCT04742907|181863394|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78||||0.686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|2.63||p value is assessing the null hypothesis that the odds ratio is equal to 1.|Regression, Logistic||Subject-reported (eDiary) - Abdominal Bloating status is analyzed using logistic regression with Subject-reported (eDiary) - Abdominal Bloating as the dependent variable; treatment and surgical approach (open, laparoscopic) as covariates.|For Day 3||2.63|0.23|0.686
90989382|NCT04742907|181863394|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|2.56||p value is assessing the null hypothesis that the odds ratio is equal to 1.|Regression, Logistic||Subject-reported (eDiary) - Abdominal Bloating status is analyzed using logistic regression with Subject-reported (eDiary) - Abdominal Bloating as the dependent variable; treatment and surgical approach (open, laparoscopic) as covariates.|For Day 3||2.56|0.22|0.644
90989383|NCT04742907|181863394|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.54||||0.498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|3.18||p value is assessing the null hypothesis that the odds ratio is equal to 1.|Regression, Logistic||Subject-reported (eDiary) - Abdominal Bloating status is analyzed using logistic regression with Subject-reported (eDiary) - Abdominal Bloating as the dependent variable; treatment and surgical approach (open, laparoscopic) as covariates.|For Day 4||3.18|0.09|0.498
90989384|NCT04742907|181863394|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|4.05||p value is assessing the null hypothesis that the odds ratio is equal to 1.|Regression, Logistic||Subject-reported (eDiary) - Abdominal Bloating status is analyzed using logistic regression with Subject-reported (eDiary) - Abdominal Bloating as the dependent variable; treatment and surgical approach (open, laparoscopic) as covariates.|For Day 4||4.05|0.12|0.700
90989385|NCT04742907|181863395|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Day 1, LS mean difference between placebo and TU-100 15 g/day. Mixed Model Repeated Measures approach was used to assess the bothersomeness of Abdominal Bloating as the dependent variable and treatment group, surgical approach and treatment group by visit as covariates. An unstructured covariance structure is used to model the within-subject errors, shared across treatments.||0.8|-0.9|0.919
90989386|NCT04742907|181863395|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Day 1, LS mean difference between placebo and TU-100 7.5 g/day. Mixed Model Repeated Measures approach was used to assess the bothersomeness of Abdominal Bloating as the dependent variable and treatment group, surgical approach and treatment group by visit as covariates. An unstructured covariance structure is used to model the within-subject errors, shared across treatments.||-0.2|-1.8|0.016
90989387|NCT04742907|181863395|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|2.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Day 2, LS mean difference between placebo and TU-100 15 g/day. Mixed Model Repeated Measures approach was used to assess the bothersomeness of Abdominal Bloating as the dependent variable and treatment group, surgical approach and treatment group by visit as covariates. An unstructured covariance structure is used to model the within-subject errors, shared across treatments.||2.0|-0.1|0.064
90989388|NCT04742907|181863395|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Day 2, LS mean difference between placebo and TU-100 7.5 g/day. Mixed Model Repeated Measures approach was used to assess the bothersomeness of Abdominal Bloating as the dependent variable and treatment group, surgical approach and treatment group by visit as covariates. An unstructured covariance structure is used to model the within-subject errors, shared across treatments.||0.8|-1.3|0.683
90989389|NCT04742907|181863395|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Day 3, LS mean difference between placebo and TU-100 15 g/day. Mixed Model Repeated Measures approach was used to assess the bothersomeness of Abdominal Bloating as the dependent variable and treatment group, surgical approach and treatment group by visit as covariates. An unstructured covariance structure is used to model the within-subject errors, shared across treatments.||2.1|-1.0|0.462
90989390|NCT04742907|181863395|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Day 3, LS mean difference between placebo and TU-100 7.5 g/day. Mixed Model Repeated Measures approach was used to assess the bothersomeness of Abdominal Bloating as the dependent variable and treatment group, surgical approach and treatment group by visit as covariates. An unstructured covariance structure is used to model the within-subject errors, shared across treatments.||0.8|-2.3|0.343
90989391|NCT01005719|181863404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0242||95.0||||p-value for 10-15 mins Post-dose on Day 7. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons. P-values \<= 0.05 were reported as statistically significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0242
90989392|NCT01005719|181863404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027||95.0||||p-value for 15-20 mins Post-dose on Day 7. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons. P-values \<= 0.05 were reported as statistically significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0270
90989393|NCT01005719|181863404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0067||95.0||||p-value for 20-25 mins Post-dose on Day 7. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons. P-values \<= 0.05 were reported as statistically significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0067
90989394|NCT01005719|181863405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0465||95.0||||p-value for 10-15 mins Post-dose on Day 1|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0465
91042472|NCT05480800|181970346|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|0.96||||||95.0|0.18|5.12|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted GMR is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-Vi Ag IgG, Day 169||5.12|0.18|
91042473|NCT05480800|181970346|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|0.76||||||95.0|0.36|1.6|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted GMR is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-Vi Ag IgG, Day 169||1.60|0.36|
91042474|NCT05480800|181970346|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|1.16||||||95.0|0.23|5.79|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted GMR is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-Vi Ag IgG, Day 197||5.79|0.23|
91042475|NCT05480800|181970346|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|0.9||||||95.0|0.44|1.84|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted GMR is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-Vi Ag IgG, Day 197||1.84|0.44|
91042476|NCT05480800|181970347|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|2.92||||||95.0|0.48|17.8|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted GMR is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-S.Typhimurium OAg IgG Day 29||17.80|0.48|
90989395|NCT01005719|181863405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0012||95.0||||p-value for 15-20 mins Post-dose on Day 1|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0012
90989396|NCT01005719|181863405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||p-value for 20-25 mins Post-dose on Day 1|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
90989397|NCT01005719|181863406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0||||The statistical analysis is for Day 1 (0-5 mins).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91042477|NCT05480800|181970347|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|0.95||||||95.0|0.41|2.19|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted GMR is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-S.Typhimurium OAg IgG Day 29||2.19|0.41|
90989398|NCT01005719|181863406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0||||The statistical analysis is for Day 1 (0-5 mins).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
90989399|NCT01005719|181863406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0||||The statistical analysis is for Day 7 (0-5 mins).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
90989400|NCT01005719|181863406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0||||The statistical analysis is for Day 7 (0-5 mins).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
90989401|NCT01753076|181863422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-30.0||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.9|7.9|||ANCOVA||A negative mean difference means that the direction of effect is in favor of placebo.|||7.9|-67.9|0.120
90989402|NCT01753076|181863423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.4|-3.1|0.139
90989403|NCT01753076|181863424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.05|||Random coefficients analysis|||||0.05|-0.30|0.173
90989404|NCT01753076|181863425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.127||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.351|0.097|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.097|-0.351|0.265
90989405|NCT01753076|181863426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.2||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.7|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.3|-18.7|0.125
90989406|NCT01753076|181863427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73||||0.393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.49|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.49|0.36|0.393
90954105|NCT02683785|181786358|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.5||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Difference from placebo for Week 4 is presented|||0.5|-1.9|0.271
90954106|NCT02683785|181786358|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9||||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.4||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Difference from placebo for Week 8 is presented|||0.4|-2.2|0.186
90954107|NCT02683785|181786358|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1||||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.2||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Difference from placebo for Week 12 is presented|||0.2|-2.4|0.109
90954108|NCT01305408|181786372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0.2717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.76|1.06||Statistical tests were 2-tailed at the 0.05 level of significance.|mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM)|Treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, concurrent mood-stabilizing medication, and region of the world used as fixed factors.||||1.06|-3.76|0.2717
90954109|NCT02770612|181786395|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We used a one sided one sample Wilcoxon test to compare the median number of oxycodone tablets chosen and prescribed to the institutional standard of 40 tablets of oxycodone 5mg on discharge||||<0.001
90954110|NCT02233803|181786396|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority (NI) is demonstrated as the lower limit of CI for the difference is greater than the pre-specified NI margin of -1.25ML. The lower limit of the 95% CI for the treatment difference (NEUMOTEROL 400 -Symbicort Forte) was greater than the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of -1.25 mL.|Difference of LS means|0.044|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.008|0.096||||||Sample size calculations are based on the primary efficacy endpoint (change from baseline in trough FEV1 at day 29). Assuming a within-subject standard deviation of 210 mL, 168 completed subjects are required to demonstrate the non-inferiority of BFF 400/12 mcg SINGLE CAPSULE INHALER and BFF 320/9 mcg TURBUHALER BID, assuming a true difference of -50 mL with 90% power and a 2.5% one-sided significance level. The pre-specified NI margin is set at -1.25mL.||0.096|-0.008|
90954111|NCT02233803|181786397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS means|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.576|1.384||||||||1.384|0.576|
90954112|NCT02233803|181786398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS means|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.1||||||||1.1|0.1|
90954113|NCT03846453|181786399|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.064||0.1871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.21||P-value calculated using a model with treatment, baseline score, and site as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||0.21|-0.04|0.1871
90954114|NCT03846453|181786400|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.5549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.23|||ANCOVA|P-value calculated using a model with treatment, baseline score, and site as covariates.||||0.23|-0.12|0.5549
90954115|NCT01989169|181786479|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|If the 90% CI of the geometric mean ratios were within the range (0.80, 1.25), then equivalence was assumed and the hypothesis that a drug interaction occurred was rejected. If the 90% CIs were not wholly contained within the range (0.80, 1.25), then a drug interaction was not excluded.|Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.215|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.116|1.323|||Mixed-effects Model||The ratio of geometric LS means and 90% CIs for the geometric mean ratio is for Treatment B to Treatment A.|The means of the log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters were compared between treatments using a mixed-effects model with period and treatment as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect. In order to estimate the magnitude of the treatment regimen differences in AUCinf, the geometric mean ratio (i.e., the least squares mean difference in the log-transformed parameters back transformed to the original scale) and their 90% CIs were calculated.||1.323|1.116|
90989407|NCT01753076|181863428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|2.89|||Regression, Cox||Week 48|||2.89|0.34|0.986
90989408|NCT01753076|181863428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|2.01|||Chi-squared||Week 60|||2.01|0.53|0.923
90989409|NCT01753076|181863429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.42|||Regression, Cox|||||1.42|0.81|0.642
90989410|NCT01753076|181863430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.004|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.062|0.053||||||||0.053|-0.062|
90989411|NCT01753076|181863431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|5.5||||||||5.5|-2.8|
90954116|NCT01989169|181786480|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|If the 90% CI of the geometric mean ratios fell within the range (0.80, 1.25), then equivalence was assumed and the hypothesis that a drug interaction occurred was rejected. If the 90% CIs were not wholly contained within the range (0.80, 1.25), then a drug interaction was not excluded.|Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.216|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.115|1.327|||Mixed-effects Model||The ratio of geometric LS means and 90% CIs for the geometric mean ratio is for Treatment B to Treatment A.|The means of the log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters were compared between treatments using a mixed-effects model with period and treatment as fixed effects, and subject nested within sequence as a random effect. In order to estimate the magnitude of the treatment regimen differences in AUClast, the geometric mean ratio (i.e., the least squares mean difference in the log-transformed parameters back transformed to the original scale) and their 90% CIs were calculated.||1.327|1.115|
90989412|NCT00436969|181863444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.472||||0.696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.888|5.943||The a priori threshold for significance was a two-sided p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures ANCOVA|The analysis included baseline score as a covariate. Site was dropped from the model due to statistical insignificance.||Anticipated VAS difference of 10 mm and SD of 25 mm indicated a sample size of 225 subjects in a 2:1 randomization would provide 80% power to detect a significant difference with a two-sided significance level of 5%. To account for a 15% dropout rate the sample size was increased to 270 subjects (180 Orthovisc, 90 control). The primary null hypothesis (Ho) no difference in VAS means at 6 months and the alternative hypothesis (Ha) was that Orthovisc (mean VAS) is superior to the control.||5.943|-8.888|0.696
90989413|NCT00436969|181863445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.6|15.1||||||Asymptotic 95% confidence interval for the treatment group difference (Orthovisc - Control) in proportions of responders was calculated. The null hypothesis (Ho) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 6 months is equal and the corresponding alternative hypothesis (Ha) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 6 months is unequal.||15.1|-15.6|
90954117|NCT01989169|181786481|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|If the 90% CI of the geometric mean ratios fell within the range (0.80, 1.25), then equivalence was assumed and the hypothesis that a drug interaction occurred was rejected. If the 90% CIs were not wholly contained within the range (0.80, 1.25), then a drug interaction was not excluded.|Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.383|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.282|1.491|||Mixed-effects Model||The ratio of geometric LS means and 90% CIs for the geometric mean ratio is for Treatment B to Treatment A.|The means of the log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters were compared between treatments using a mixed-effects model with period and treatment as fixed effects, and subject nested within sequence as a random effect. In order to estimate the magnitude of the treatment regimen differences in Cmax, the geometric mean ratio (i.e., the least squares mean difference in the log-transformed parameters back transformed to the original scale) and their 90% CIs were calculated.||1.491|1.282|
90954118|NCT01114880|181786482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
90954119|NCT01114880|181786484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
90954120|NCT01114880|181786486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
90954121|NCT01114880|181786488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
90954122|NCT01114880|181786490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
90954123|NCT01114880|181786492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||< 0.001
90954124|NCT01114880|181786494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
90954125|NCT01114880|181786496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
90954126|NCT01114880|181786498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
90954127|NCT01114880|181786500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
90954128|NCT01114880|181786502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
90989414|NCT00436969|181863446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|9.1||||||Asymptotic 95% confidence interval for the treatment group difference (Orthovisc - Control) in proportions of responders was calculated. The null hypothesis (Ho) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 6 months is equal and the corresponding alternative hypothesis (Ha) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 6 months is unequal.||9.1|-19.7|
90954129|NCT03361605|181786554|SUPERIORITY|"Our study adopted a within-subject design, which is not a randomized controlled trial (RCT) such as testing if one treatment is superior to another. Therefore, here the Superiority indicates if propofol administration has a statistically significant impact on the brain activity in response to sensory stimuli."|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.349|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.223|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05. The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons, as only one comparison was performed.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = BOLD Response During Sedation - BOLD Response During Baseline|The null hypothesis is no difference in BOLD response between sedated state and baseline.||||<0.0001
90954130|NCT03361605|181786555|SUPERIORITY|"Our study adopted a within-subject design, which is not a randomized controlled trial (RCT) such as testing if one treatment is superior to another. Therefore, here the Superiority indicates if propofol administration has a statistically significant impact on the squeeze pressure in response to verbal instructions."|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.09||0.00148|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05. The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons, as only one comparison was performed.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = Squeeze Pressure During Sedation - Squeeze Pressure During Baseline|The null hypothesis is no difference in squeeze pressure between sedated state and baseline.||||0.00148
90954131|NCT06988800|181786563|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|37.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVAs and post hoc Tukey pairwise tests||||<.001
90954132|NCT06988800|181786564|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|19.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVAs and post hoc Tukey pairwise tests.||||<.001
90954133|NCT06988800|181786565|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|18.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVAs and post hoc Tukey pairwise tests||||<.001
90954134|NCT02344290|181786566|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.84|||||Hazard ratio is shown as pitavastatin/placebo. Two-sided 95% repeated confidence interval that adjusts for interim looks according to the realized Lan and DeMets implementation of the O'Brien-Fleming sequential stopping boundary is presented.|||0.84|0.48|
90989415|NCT00436969|181863447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.87||||0.827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.698|6.957||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for significance was a two-sided p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures ANCOVA|The analysis included baseline score as a covariate. Site was dropped from the model due to statistical insignificance.||The null hypothesis (Ho) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 12 weeks is equal and the corresponding alternative hypothesis (Ha) is that the effect of the two treatment groups is unequal.||6.957|-8.698|0.827
90989416|NCT00436969|181863448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.875||||0.392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.472|3.723||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for significance was a two-sided p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures ANCOVA|The analysis included baseline score as a covariate. Site was dropped from the model due to statistical insignificance.||The null hypothesis (Ho) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 12 weeks is equal and the corresponding alternative hypothesis (Ha) is that the effect of the two treatment groups is unequal.||3.723|-9.472|0.392
90989417|NCT00436969|181863449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.932||||0.772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.26|5.396||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for significance was a two-sided p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures ANCOVA|The analysis included baseline score as a covariate. Site was dropped from the model due to statistical insignificance.||The null hypothesis (Ho) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 12 weeks is equal and the corresponding alternative hypothesis (Ha) is that the effect of the two treatment groups is unequal.||5.396|-7.260|0.772
90989418|NCT00436969|181863450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.028||||0.707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.338|6.393||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for significance was a two-sided p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures ANCOVA|The analysis included baseline score as a covariate. Site was dropped from the model due to statistical insignificance.||The null hypothesis (Ho) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 12 weeks is equal and the corresponding alternative hypothesis (Ha) is that the effect of the two treatment groups is unequal.||6.393|-4.338|0.707
90989419|NCT00436969|181863451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.82||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.866|5.227||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for significance was a two-sided p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures ANCOVA|The analysis included baseline score as a covariate. Site was dropped from the model due to statistical insignificance.||The null hypothesis (Ho) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 6 months is equal and the corresponding alternative hypothesis (Ha) is that the effect of the two treatment groups is unequal.||5.227|-6.866|0.790
90989420|NCT00436969|181863452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.13||||0.685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.341|6.001||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for significance was a two-sided p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures ANCOVA|The analysis included baseline score as a covariate. Site was dropped from the model due to statistical insignificance.||The null hypothesis (Ho) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 6 months is equal and the corresponding alternative hypothesis (Ha) is that the effect of the two treatment groups is unequal.||6.001|-4.341|0.685
90989421|NCT00436969|181863453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|7.317||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.249|13.386||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for significance was a two-sided p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures ANCOVA|The analysis included baseline score as a covariate. Site was dropped from the model due to statistical insignificance.||The null hypothesis (Ho) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 12 weeks is equal and the corresponding alternative (Ha) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 6 months is unequal.||13.386|1.249|0.018
90989422|NCT00436969|181863454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|2.361||||0.369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.801|7.522||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for significance was a two-sided p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures ANCOVA|The analysis included baseline score as a covariate. Site was dropped from the model due to statistical insignificance.||The null hypothesis (Ho) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 12 weeks is equal and the corresponding alternative hypothesis (Ha) is that the effect of the two treatment groups is unequal.||7.522|-2.801|0.369
90989423|NCT00436969|181863455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.79||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.441|3.861||The a priori threshold for significance was a two-sided p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures ANCOVA|The analysis included baseline score as a covariate. Site was dropped from the model due to statistical insignificance.||Anticipated VAS difference of 10 mm and SD of 25 mm indicated a sample size of 225 subjects in a 2:1 randomization would provide 80% power to detect a significant difference with a two-sided significance level of 5%. To account for a 15% dropout rate the sample size was increased to 270 subjects (180 Orthovisc, 90 control). The primary null hypothesis (Ho) no difference in VAS means at 6 months and the alternative hypothesis (Ha) was that Orthovisc (mean VAS) is superior to the control.||3.861|-9.441|0.410
90989424|NCT00436969|181863456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|2.617||||0.379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.226|8.46||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for significance was a two-sided p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures ANCOVA|The analysis included baseline score as a covariate. Site was dropped from the model due to statistical insignificance.||The null hypothesis (Ho) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 6 months is equal and the corresponding alternative (Ha) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 6 months is unequal.||8.460|-3.226|0.379
90989425|NCT00436969|181863457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.208||||0.409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.455|3.039||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for significance was a two-sided p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures ANCOVA|The analysis included baseline score as a covariate. Site was dropped from the model due to statistical insignificance.||The null hypothesis (Ho) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 6 months is equal and the corresponding alternative hypothesis (Ha) is that the effect of the two treatment groups is unequal.||3.039|-7.455|0.409
91042478|NCT05480800|181970347|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|3.03||||||95.0|0.43|21.45|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted GMR is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-S.Typhimurium OAg IgG Day 57||21.45|0.43|
90954135|NCT02344290|181786567|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.87|||||Hazard ratio is shown as pitavastatin/placebo.|||0.87|0.36|
90954136|NCT02344290|181786568|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.97|||||Hazard ratio is shown as pitavastatin/placebo.|||0.97|0.40|
90954137|NCT02344290|181786569|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|4.02|||||Hazard ratio is shown as pitavastatin/placebo.|||4.02|0.11|
90954138|NCT02344290|181786570|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.38|||||Hazard ratio is shown as pitavastatin/placebo.|||1.38|0.35|
90954139|NCT02344290|181786571|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.03|||||Hazard ratio is shown as pitavastatin/placebo.|||1.03|0.44|
90954140|NCT02344290|181786572|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.05|||||||Hazard ratio is shown as pitavastatin/placebo.|1.05|0.36|
90954141|NCT02344290|181786574|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.54|||||||Hazard ratio is shown as pitavastatin/placebo. Estimation of the confidence interval used a Bayes analysis with a non-informative prior using adaptive rejection Metropolis sampling. In this case, the interval shown is a 95% highest posterior density (HPD) interval.|0.54|0.00|
90954142|NCT02344290|181786575|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.94|||||Hazard ratio is shown as pitavastatin/placebo.|||0.94|0.64|
90954143|NCT02344290|181786576|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.12|||||Hazard ratio is shown as pitavastatin/placebo.|||1.12|0.70|
90954144|NCT02344290|181786577|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.13|||||Hazard ratio is shown as pitavastatin/placebo.|||1.13|0.76|
90954145|NCT02344290|181786578|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.2|||||Hazard ratio is shown as pitavastatin/placebo.|||1.20|0.71|
90954146|NCT02344290|181786579|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.31|||||Hazard ratio is shown as pitavastatin/placebo.|||1.31|0.68|
90954147|NCT02344290|181786580|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|2.51|||||Hazard ratio is shown as pitavastatin/placebo.|||2.51|0.14|
90954148|NCT02344290|181786581|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|2.02|||||Hazard ratio is shown as pitavastatin/placebo.|||2.02|0.42|
90954149|NCT02344290|181786582|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.1|||||Incidence rate ratio is shown as pitavastatin/placebo.|||1.10|0.90|
90954150|NCT02344290|181786583|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate ratio|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.57|||||Incidence rate ratio is shown as pitavastatin/placebo.|||1.57|1.07|
90954151|NCT02344290|181786584|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate ratio|1.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|2.19|||||Incidence rate ratio is shown as pitavastatin/placebo.|||2.19|1.14|
90954152|NCT02344290|181786585|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate ratio|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|3.37|||||Incidence rate ratio is shown as pitavastatin/placebo.|||3.37|0.17|
90954153|NCT02344290|181786586|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate ratio|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|3.18|||||Incidence rate ratio is shown as pitavastatin/placebo.|||3.18|0.56|
90954154|NCT02344290|181786587|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.12|||||Incidence rate ratio is shown as pitavastatin/placebo.|||1.12|0.97|
90954155|NCT02344290|181786590|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate ratio|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.08|||||Incidence rate ratio is shown as pitavastatin/placebo.|||1.08|0.52|
90954156|NCT02344290|181786591|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.16|||||Incidence rate ratio is shown as pitavastatin/placebo.|||1.16|0.96|
90954157|NCT02344290|181786592|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.3||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|-0.1|||Regression, Linear||Treatment group difference was estimated as baseline-adjusted mean difference in change at year 2, using linear regression.|||-0.1|-8.6|0.04
90954158|NCT02344290|181786593|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.67||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.88|||Chi-squared||Treatment effect was estimated as relative risk (pitavastatin/placebo), adjusted for presence of NCP at entry.|||0.88|0.52|0.003
90954159|NCT02344290|181786594|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|0.62|||||Treatment group difference was estimated as baseline-adjusted difference in mean change at year 2, using linear regression.|||0.62|-9.2|
90954160|NCT02344290|181786595|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of LpPla2 Levels at Month 24||||<0.001
90954161|NCT02344290|181786596|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of Change in LpPla2 from Baseline at Month 24||||<0.001
90954162|NCT02344290|181786597|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of hsCRP Levels at Month 24||||0.02
90954163|NCT02344290|181786598|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of Change in hsCRP from Baseline at Month 24||||0.09
90954164|NCT02344290|181786599|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of soluble CD163 Levels at Month 24.||||0.65
90954165|NCT02344290|181786600|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of Change in soluble CD163 from Baseline at Month 24||||0.88
90989426|NCT00436969|181863458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.558||||0.232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.119|1.003||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for significance was a two-sided p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures ANCOVA|The analysis included baseline score as a covariate. Site was dropped from the model due to statistical insignificance.||The null hypothesis (Ho) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 12 weeks is equal and the corresponding alternative (Ha) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 6 months is unequal.||1.003|-4.119|0.232
90989427|NCT00436969|181863459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.228||||0.832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.343|1.887||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for significance was a two-sided p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures ANCOVA|The analysis included baseline score as a covariate. Site was dropped from the model due to statistical insignificance.||The null hypothesis (Ho) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 12 weeks is equal and the corresponding alternative hypothesis (Ha) is that the effect of the two treatment groups is unequal.||1.887|-2.343|0.832
90989428|NCT00436969|181863460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.068||||0.957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.396|2.532||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for significance was a two-sided p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures ANCOVA|The analysis included baseline score as a covariate. Site was dropped from the model due to statistical insignificance.||The null hypothesis (Ho) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 6 months is equal and the corresponding alternative (Ha) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 6 months is unequal.||2.532|-2.396|0.957
90989429|NCT00436969|181863461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.22||||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.937|3.378||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for significance was a two-sided p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures ANCOVA|The analysis included baseline score as a covariate. Site was dropped from the model due to statistical insignificance.||The null hypothesis (Ho) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 6 months is equal and the corresponding alternative hypothesis (Ha) is that the effect of the two treatment groups is unequal.||3.378|-0.937|0.267
90989430|NCT00436969|181863462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.19||||0.333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.225|3.604||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for significance was a two-sided p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures ANCOVA|The analysis included baseline score as a covariate. Site was dropped from the model due to statistical insignificance.||The null hypothesis (Ho) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 12 weeks is equal and the corresponding alternative (Ha) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 6 months is unequal.||3.604|-1.225|0.333
90989431|NCT00436969|181863463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.771||||0.473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.339|2.881||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for significance was a two-sided p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures ANCOVA|The analysis included baseline score as a covariate. Site was dropped from the model due to statistical insignificance.||The null hypothesis (Ho) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 12 weeks is equal and the corresponding alternative hypothesis (Ha) is that the effect of the two treatment groups is unequal.||2.881|-1.339|0.473
90989432|NCT00436969|181863464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.018||||0.988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.314|2.278||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for significance was a two-sided p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures ANCOVA|The analysis included baseline score as a covariate. Site was dropped from the model due to statistical insignificance.||The null hypothesis (Ho) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 6 months is equal and the corresponding alternative (Ha) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 6 months is unequal.||2.278|-2.314|0.988
90989433|NCT00436969|181863465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.467||||0.671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.692|2.627||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for significance was a two-sided p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures ANCOVA|The analysis included baseline score as a covariate. Site was dropped from the model due to statistical insignificance.||The null hypothesis (Ho) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 6 months is equal and the corresponding alternative hypothesis (Ha) is that the effect of the two treatment groups is unequal.||2.627|-1.692|0.671
90989434|NCT02749721|181863550|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
90989435|NCT02749721|181863551|OTHER|||||||0.012|||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.012
90989436|NCT02749721|181863552|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.125||||0.61|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between MADRS and AOB P200 (amplitude) baseline scores||||0.610
90989437|NCT02749721|181863552|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.294||||0.288|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between MADRS and AOB P3a (amplitude) baseline scores||||0.288
90989438|NCT02749721|181863552|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.405||||0.134|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between MADRS and AOB P3b (amplitude) baseline scores||||0.134
90989439|NCT02749721|181863552|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.397||||0.083|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between MADRS and VGNG P200 (amplitude) baseline scores||||0.083
90989440|NCT02749721|181863552|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.476||||0.034|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between MADRS and VGNG P3a (amplitude) baseline scores||||0.034
90989441|NCT02749721|181863552|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.509||||0.031|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between DSST and AOB P200 baseline scores||||0.031
90989442|NCT02749721|181863552|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.197||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between DSST and AOB P3a (amplitude) baseline scores||||0.500
90989443|NCT02749721|181863552|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.376||||0.185|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between DSST and AOB P3b baseline scores||||0.185
90989444|NCT02749721|181863552|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.108||||0.659|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between DSST and VGNG P200 baseline scores||||0.659
90989445|NCT02749721|181863552|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.125||||0.611|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between DSST and VGNG P3a baseline scores||||0.611
90989446|NCT02749721|181863552|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.111||||0.671|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P200 (amplitude) and MADRS (baseline to endpoint percent change)||||0.671
90989447|NCT02749721|181863552|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.026||||0.931|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3a (amplitude) and MADRS (baseline to endpoint percent change)||||0.931
90989448|NCT02749721|181863552|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.516||||0.155|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3b (amplitude) and MADRS (baseline to endpoint percent change)||||0.155
90989449|NCT02749721|181863552|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.268||||0.297|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P200 (amplitude) and MADRS (baseline to endpoint percent change)||||0.297
90989450|NCT02749721|181863552|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.184||||0.494|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P3a (amplitude) and MADRS (baseline to endpoint percent change)||||0.494
90989451|NCT02749721|181863552|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.065||||0.811|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P200 (amplitude) and DSST (baseline to endpoint percent change)||||0.811
90989452|NCT02749721|181863552|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.048||||0.877|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3a (amplitude) and DSST (baseline to endpoint percent change)||||0.877
90989453|NCT02749721|181863552|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.246||||0.557|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3b (amplitude) and DSST (baseline to endpoint percent change)||||0.557
90989454|NCT02749721|181863552|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.182||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P200 (amplitude) and DSST (baseline to endpoint percent change)||||0.500
90989455|NCT02749721|181863552|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.288||||0.297|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P3a (amplitude) and DSST (baseline to endpoint percent change)||||0.297
90989456|NCT02749721|181863552|OTHER|Differences in BNA scores between MDD and healthy subjects were analyzed for baseline visits using an ANCOVA model with group as a factor, and age as a covariate.|F statistic|0.318||||0.575|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||"A comparison between vortioxetine arm patients' and healthy controls' AOB P200 amplitudes at baseline.~The healthy control group subjects have been previously documented in NCT02418208 (Clinical trials of the Rockies, Inc. Denver, Colorado, US and Clinical Research Center of Nevada Las Vegas, Nevada, US ) and in NCT02875496 (The Villages Health, The Villages, Florida, US)."||||0.575
90989457|NCT02749721|181863552|OTHER||F statistic|0.378||||0.541|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||"A comparison between vortioxetine arm patients' and healthy controls' AOB P200 amplitudes at Endpoint.~The healthy control group subjects have been previously documented in NCT02418208 (Clinical trials of the Rockies, Inc. Denver, Colorado, US and Clinical Research Center of Nevada Las Vegas, Nevada, US ) and in NCT02875496 (The Villages Health, The Villages, Florida, US)."||||0.541
90989458|NCT02749721|181863552|OTHER||F|0.012||||0.912|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||"A comparison between vortioxetine arm patients' and healthy controls' AOB P3a amplitudes at baseline.~The healthy control group subjects have been previously documented in NCT02418208 (Clinical trials of the Rockies, Inc. Denver, Colorado, US and Clinical Research Center of Nevada Las Vegas, Nevada, US ) and in NCT02875496 (The Villages Health, The Villages, Florida, US)."||||0.912
90989459|NCT02749721|181863552|OTHER||F statistic|1.586||||0.214|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||"A comparison between vortioxetine arm patients' and healthy controls' AOB P3a amplitudes at Endpoint.~The healthy control group subjects have been previously documented in NCT02418208 (Clinical trials of the Rockies, Inc. Denver, Colorado, US and Clinical Research Center of Nevada Las Vegas, Nevada, US ) and in NCT02875496 (The Villages Health, The Villages, Florida, US)."||||0.214
90989460|NCT02749721|181863552|OTHER||F statistic|0.453||||0.504|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||"A comparison between vortioxetine arm patients' and healthy controls' AOB P3b amplitudes at baseline.~The healthy control group subjects have been previously documented in NCT02418208 (Clinical trials of the Rockies, Inc. Denver, Colorado, US and Clinical Research Center of Nevada Las Vegas, Nevada, US ) and in NCT02875496 (The Villages Health, The Villages, Florida, US)."||||0.504
90954166|NCT02344290|181786601|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||Regression, Cox|Treatment effect modification by sex was evaluated via interaction of treatment and sex in the Cox proportional hazards regression model.||Evaluation of treatment effect modification by sex (i.e. pitavastatin effect differing in females compared to males).||||0.98
90954167|NCT02344290|181786601|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.04|||||Hazard ratio is shown as pitavastatin/placebo among females.|Evaluation of pitavastatin effect among females.||1.04|0.39|
90989461|NCT02749721|181863552|OTHER||F statistic|0.37||||0.546|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||"A comparison between vortioxetine arm patients' and healthy controls' AOB P3b amplitudes at Endpoint.~The healthy control group subjects have been previously documented in NCT02418208 (Clinical trials of the Rockies, Inc. Denver, Colorado, US and Clinical Research Center of Nevada Las Vegas, Nevada, US ) and in NCT02875496 (The Villages Health, The Villages, Florida, US)."||||0.546
90989462|NCT02749721|181863552|OTHER||F statistic|0.017||||0.895|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||"A comparison between vortioxetine arm patients' and healthy controls' VGNG P200 amplitudes at baseline.~The healthy control group subjects have been previously documented in NCT02418208 (Clinical trials of the Rockies, Inc. Denver, Colorado, US and Clinical Research Center of Nevada Las Vegas, Nevada, US ) and in NCT02875496 (The Villages Health, The Villages, Florida, US)."||||0.895
90989463|NCT02749721|181863552|OTHER||F statistic|0.179||||0.673|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||"A comparison between vortioxetine arm patients' and healthy controls' VGNG P200 amplitudes at Endpoint.~The healthy control group subjects have been previously documented in NCT02418208 (Clinical trials of the Rockies, Inc. Denver, Colorado, US and Clinical Research Center of Nevada Las Vegas, Nevada, US ) and in NCT02875496 (The Villages Health, The Villages, Florida, US)."||||0.673
90989464|NCT02749721|181863552|OTHER||F statistic|1.241||||0.27|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||"A comparison between vortioxetine arm patients' and healthy controls' VGNG P3a amplitudes at baseline.~The healthy control group subjects have been previously documented in NCT02418208 (Clinical trials of the Rockies, Inc. Denver, Colorado, US and Clinical Research Center of Nevada Las Vegas, Nevada, US ) and in NCT02875496 (The Villages Health, The Villages, Florida, US)."||||0.27
90989465|NCT02749721|181863552|OTHER||F statistic|0.042||||0.837|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||"A comparison between vortioxetine arm patients' and healthy controls' VGNG P3a amplitudes at Endpoint.~The healthy control group subjects have been previously documented in NCT02418208 (Clinical trials of the Rockies, Inc. Denver, Colorado, US and Clinical Research Center of Nevada Las Vegas, Nevada, US ) and in NCT02875496 (The Villages Health, The Villages, Florida, US)."||||0.837
90989466|NCT02749721|181863553|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.359||||0.143|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between DSST and AOB P200 (Latency) baseline scores||||0.143
90989467|NCT02749721|181863553|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.197||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between DSST and AOB P3b (latency) baseline scores||||0.500
90989468|NCT02749721|181863553|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.277||||0.337|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between DSST and AOB P3b (latency) baseline scores||||0.337
90954168|NCT02344290|181786601|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.86|||||Hazard ratio is shown as pitavastatin/placebo among males.|Evaluation of pitavastatin effect among males.||0.86|0.48|
90989469|NCT02749721|181863553|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.052||||0.832|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between DSST and VGNG P200 (latency) baseline scores||||0.832
90954169|NCT02344290|181786602|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||Regression, Cox|Treatment effect modification by race was evaluated via interaction of treatment and race in the Cox proportional hazards regression model.||Evaluation of treatment effect modification by race (i.e. pitavastatin effect differing between races).||||0.14
90989470|NCT02749721|181863553|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.103||||0.68|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between DSST and VGNG P3a (latency) baseline scores||||0.68
90954170|NCT02344290|181786602|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.59||||||Pitavastatin effect among Asians from subgroup analysis by race.|Hazard ratio is shown as pitavastatin/placebo among Asians.|0.59|0.09|
90989471|NCT02749721|181863553|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.074||||0.777|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between DSST and AOB P200 (Latency) baseline to endpoint percentage change||||0.777
90989472|NCT02749721|181863553|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.061||||0.834|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between DSST and AOB P3a (Latency) baseline to endpoint percentage change||||0.834
90989473|NCT02749721|181863553|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.006||||0.988|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between DSST and AOB P3b (Latency) baseline to endpoint percentage change||||0.988
90989474|NCT02749721|181863553|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.073||||0.788|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between DSST and VGNG P200 (Latency) baseline to endpoint percentage change||||0.788
90989475|NCT02749721|181863553|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.375||||0.168|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between DSST and VGNG P3a (Latency) baseline to endpoint percentage change||||0.168
90954171|NCT02344290|181786602|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.96|||||Hazard ratio is shown as pitavastatin/placebo among Blacks.|Pitavastatin effect among Blacks from subgroup analysis by race.||0.96|0.46|
90989476|NCT02749721|181863553|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.392||||0.108|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between MADRS and AOB P200 (Latency) baseline scores||||0.108
90989477|NCT02749721|181863553|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.415||||0.124|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between MADRS and AOB P3a (Latency) baseline scores||||0.124
90989478|NCT02749721|181863553|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.362||||0.185|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between MADRS and AOB P3b (Latency) baseline scores||||0.185
90989479|NCT02749721|181863553|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.023||||0.923|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between MADRS and VGNG P200 (Latency) baseline scores||||0.923
90989480|NCT02749721|181863553|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.071||||0.77|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between MADRS and VGNG P3a (Latency) baseline scores||||0.77
90989481|NCT02749721|181863553|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.097||||0.712|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between MADRS and AOB P200 (Latency) baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.712
90954172|NCT02344290|181786602|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.13|||||Hazard ratio is shown as pitavastatin/placebo among Whites.|Pitavastatin effect among Whites from subgroup analysis by race.||1.13|0.49|
90954173|NCT02344290|181786602|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|2.1||||||Pitavastatin effect among Other race from subgroup analysis by race.|Hazard ratio is shown as pitavastatin/placebo among Other race.|2.10|0.36|
90989482|NCT02749721|181863553|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.058||||0.845|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between MADRS and AOB P3a (Latency) baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.845
90989483|NCT02749721|181863553|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.194||||0.616|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between MADRS and AOB P3b (Latency) baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.616
90989484|NCT02749721|181863553|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.255||||0.323|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between MADRS and VGNG P200 (Latency) baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.323
90989485|NCT02749721|181863553|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.193||||0.473|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between MADRS and VGNG P3a (Latency) baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.473
90989486|NCT02749721|181863553|OTHER||F statistic|4.909||||0.031|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||"A comparison between vortioxetine arm patients' and healthy controls' AOB P200 latencies at baseline.~The healthy control group subjects have been previously documented in NCT02418208 (Clinical trials of the Rockies, Inc. Denver, Colorado, US and Clinical Research Center of Nevada Las Vegas, Nevada, US ) and in NCT02875496 (The Villages Health, The Villages, Florida, US)."||||0.031
90989487|NCT02749721|181863553|OTHER||F statistic|1.189||||0.281|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||"A comparison between vortioxetine arm patients' and healthy controls' AOB P200 latencies at Endpoint.~The healthy control group subjects have been previously documented in NCT02418208 (Clinical trials of the Rockies, Inc. Denver, Colorado, US and Clinical Research Center of Nevada Las Vegas, Nevada, US ) and in NCT02875496 (The Villages Health, The Villages, Florida, US)."||||0.281
90989488|NCT02749721|181863553|OTHER||F statistic|0.001||||0.966|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||"A comparison between vortioxetine arm patients' and healthy controls' AOB P3a latencies at baseline.~The healthy control group subjects have been previously documented in NCT02418208 (Clinical trials of the Rockies, Inc. Denver, Colorado, US and Clinical Research Center of Nevada Las Vegas, Nevada, US ) and in NCT02875496 (The Villages Health, The Villages, Florida, US)."||||0.966
90989489|NCT02749721|181863553|OTHER||F statistic|4.121||||0.048|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||"A comparison between vortioxetine arm patients' and healthy controls' AOB P3a latencies at Endpoint.~The healthy control group subjects have been previously documented in NCT02418208 (Clinical trials of the Rockies, Inc. Denver, Colorado, US and Clinical Research Center of Nevada Las Vegas, Nevada, US ) and in NCT02875496 (The Villages Health, The Villages, Florida, US)."||||0.048
90989490|NCT02749721|181863553|OTHER||F statistic|8.573||||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||"A comparison between vortioxetine arm patients' and healthy controls' AOB P3b latencies at baseline.~The healthy control group subjects have been previously documented in NCT02418208 (Clinical trials of the Rockies, Inc. Denver, Colorado, US and Clinical Research Center of Nevada Las Vegas, Nevada, US ) and in NCT02875496 (The Villages Health, The Villages, Florida, US)."||||0.005
90989491|NCT02749721|181863553|OTHER||F statistic|2.823||||0.101|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||"A comparison between vortioxetine arm patients' and healthy controls' AOB P3b latencies at Endpoint.~The healthy control group subjects have been previously documented in NCT02418208 (Clinical trials of the Rockies, Inc. Denver, Colorado, US and Clinical Research Center of Nevada Las Vegas, Nevada, US ) and in NCT02875496 (The Villages Health, The Villages, Florida, US)."||||0.101
90989492|NCT02749721|181863553|OTHER||F statistic|0.806||||0.373|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||"A comparison between vortioxetine arm patients' and healthy controls' VGNG P200 latencies at baseline.~The healthy control group subjects have been previously documented in NCT02418208 (Clinical trials of the Rockies, Inc. Denver, Colorado, US and Clinical Research Center of Nevada Las Vegas, Nevada, US ) and in NCT02875496 (The Villages Health, The Villages, Florida, US)."||||0.373
90989493|NCT02749721|181863553|OTHER||F statistic|1.822||||0.183|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||"A comparison between vortioxetine arm patients' and healthy controls' VGNG P200 latencies at Endpoint.~The healthy control group subjects have been previously documented in NCT02418208 (Clinical trials of the Rockies, Inc. Denver, Colorado, US and Clinical Research Center of Nevada Las Vegas, Nevada, US ) and in NCT02875496 (The Villages Health, The Villages, Florida, US)."||||0.183
90989494|NCT02749721|181863553|OTHER||F statistic|0.516||||0.475|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||"A comparison between vortioxetine arm patients' and healthy controls' VGNG P3a latencies at baseline.~The healthy control group subjects have been previously documented in NCT02418208 (Clinical trials of the Rockies, Inc. Denver, Colorado, US and Clinical Research Center of Nevada Las Vegas, Nevada, US ) and in NCT02875496 (The Villages Health, The Villages, Florida, US)."||||0.475
90989495|NCT02749721|181863553|OTHER||F statistic|0.214||||0.645|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||"A comparison between vortioxetine arm patients' and healthy controls' VGNG P3a latencies at Endpoint.~The healthy control group subjects have been previously documented in NCT02418208 (Clinical trials of the Rockies, Inc. Denver, Colorado, US and Clinical Research Center of Nevada Las Vegas, Nevada, US ) and in NCT02875496 (The Villages Health, The Villages, Florida, US)."||||0.645
90989496|NCT02749721|181863554|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
90989497|NCT02749721|181863555|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
90989498|NCT02749721|181863556|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
90989499|NCT02749721|181863557|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
90989500|NCT02749721|181863558|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.044||||0.859|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P200 (amplitude) and HDRS-28 baseline scores||||0.859
90989501|NCT02749721|181863558|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.211||||0.451|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||AOB P3a (amplitude)||||0.451
90989502|NCT02749721|181863558|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.015||||0.957|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||AOB P3b (amplitude)||||0.957
90989503|NCT02749721|181863558|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.322||||0.166|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||VGNG P200 (amplitude)||||0.166
90989504|NCT02749721|181863558|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.374||||0.105|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||VGNG P3a (amplitude)||||0.105
90989505|NCT02749721|181863558|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.137||||0.601|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P200 (amplitude) and HDRS-28 baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.601
90989506|NCT02749721|181863558|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.234||||0.421|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3a (amplitude) and HDRS-28 baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.421
90989507|NCT02749721|181863558|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.378||||0.316|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3b (amplitude) and HDRS-28 baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.316
90989508|NCT02749721|181863558|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.185||||0.478|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||||||0.478
90989509|NCT02749721|181863558|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.011||||0.969|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3a (amplitude) and HDRS-28 baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.969
90989510|NCT02749721|181863558|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.018||||0.943|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P200 (amplitude) and HDRS-17 baseline scores||||0.943
90989511|NCT02749721|181863558|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.074||||0.795|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3a (amplitude) and HDRS-17 baseline scores||||0.795
90989512|NCT02749721|181863558|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.011||||0.969|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3b (amplitude) and HDRS-17 baseline scores||||0.969
90989513|NCT02749721|181863558|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.197||||0.406|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P200 (amplitude) and HDRS-17 baseline scores||||0.406
90989514|NCT02749721|181863558|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.309||||0.185|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P3a (amplitude) and HDRS-17 baseline scores||||0.185
90989515|NCT02749721|181863558|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.195||||0.454|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P200 (amplitude) and HDRS-17 baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.454
90989516|NCT02749721|181863558|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.162||||0.579|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3a (amplitude) and HDRS-17 baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.579
90989517|NCT02749721|181863558|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.232||||0.549|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3b (amplitude) and HDRS-17 baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.549
90989518|NCT02749721|181863558|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.169||||0.518|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P200 (amplitude) and HDRS-17 baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.518
90989519|NCT02749721|181863558|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.027||||0.922|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P3a (amplitude) and HDRS-17 baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.922
90989520|NCT02749721|181863558|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.064||||0.796|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P200 (amplitude) and QIDS-SR baseline scores||||0.796
90989521|NCT02749721|181863558|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.506||||0.054|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3a (amplitude) and QIDS-SR baseline scores||||0.054
90989522|NCT02749721|181863558|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.002||||0.995|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3b (amplitude) and QIDS-SR baseline scores||||0.995
90989523|NCT02749721|181863558|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.102||||0.668|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P200 (amplitude) and QIDS-SR baseline scores||||0.668
90989524|NCT02749721|181863558|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.037||||0.875|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P3a (amplitude) and QIDS-SR baseline scores||||0.875
90989525|NCT02749721|181863558|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.049||||0.852|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P200 (amplitude) and QIDS-SR baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.852
90989526|NCT02749721|181863558|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.34||||0.234|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3a (amplitude) and QIDS-SR baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.234
90989527|NCT02749721|181863558|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.655||||0.056|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||||||0.056
90989528|NCT02749721|181863558|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.297||||0.248|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P200 (amplitude) and QIDS-SR baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.248
90989529|NCT02749721|181863558|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.179||||0.507|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P3a (amplitude) and QIDS-SR baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.507
90989530|NCT02749721|181863558|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.049||||0.841|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P200 (amplitude) and PDQ baseline scores||||0.841
90989531|NCT02749721|181863558|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.185||||0.508|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3a (amplitude) and PDQ baseline scores||||0.508
90989532|NCT02749721|181863558|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.03||||0.916|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3b (amplitude) and PDQ baseline scores||||0.916
90989533|NCT02749721|181863558|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.345||||0.147|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P200 (amplitude) and PDQ baseline scores||||0.147
90989534|NCT02749721|181863558|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.284||||0.225|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P3a (amplitude) and PDQ baseline scores||||0.225
90989535|NCT02749721|181863558|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.044||||0.868|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P200 (amplitude) and PDQ baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.868
90989536|NCT02749721|181863558|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.18||||0.537|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3a (amplitude) and PDQ baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.537
90989537|NCT02749721|181863558|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.476||||0.195|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3b (amplitude) and PDQ baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.195
90989538|NCT02749721|181863558|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.594||||0.015|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P200 (amplitude) and PDQ baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.015
90989539|NCT02749721|181863558|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.009||||0.972|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P3a (amplitude) and PDQ baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.972
90989540|NCT02749721|181863558|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.067||||0.785|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P200 (amplitude) and MGH-CPFQ baseline scores||||0.785
90989541|NCT02749721|181863558|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.129||||0.646|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3a (amplitude) and MGH-CPFQ baseline scores||||0.646
90989542|NCT02749721|181863558|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.364||||0.182|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3b (amplitude) and MGH-CPFQ baseline scores||||0.182
90989543|NCT02749721|181863558|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.414||||0.069|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P200 (amplitude) and MGH-CPFQ baseline scores||||0.069
90989544|NCT02749721|181863558|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.416||||0.068|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P3a (amplitude) and MGH-CPFQ baseline scores||||0.068
90989545|NCT02749721|181863558|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.023||||0.929|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P200 (amplitude) and MGH-CPFQ baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.929
90989546|NCT02749721|181863558|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.074||||0.802|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3a (amplitude) and MGH-CPFQ baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.802
90989547|NCT02749721|181863558|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.518||||0.153|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3b (amplitude) and MGH-CPFQ baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.153
90989548|NCT02749721|181863558|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.268||||0.298|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P200 (amplitude) and MGH-CPFQ baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.298
90989549|NCT02749721|181863558|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.001||||0.996|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P3a (amplitude) and MGH-CPFQ baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.996
90989550|NCT02749721|181863558|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.242||||0.531|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P200 (amplitude) and WLQ baseline scores||||0.531
91042479|NCT05480800|181970347|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|0.89||||||95.0|0.33|2.45|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted GMR is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-S.Typhimurium OAg IgG Day 57||2.45|0.33|
91042480|NCT05480800|181970347|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|1.69||||||95.0|0.26|10.96|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted GMR is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-S.Typhimurium OAg IgG Day 85||10.96|0.26|
90989551|NCT02749721|181863558|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.598||||0.21|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3a (amplitude) and WLQ baseline scores||||0.210
90989552|NCT02749721|181863558|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.054||||0.899|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3b (amplitude) and WLQ baseline scores||||0.899
90989553|NCT02749721|181863558|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.568||||0.087|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||||||0.087
90989554|NCT02749721|181863558|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.568||||0.087|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P3a (amplitude) and WLQ baseline scores||||0.087
90989555|NCT02749721|181863558|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.231||||0.55|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P200 (amplitude) and WLQ baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.550
90989556|NCT02749721|181863558|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.158||||0.766|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3a (amplitude) and WLQ baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.766
90989557|NCT02749721|181863558|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.406||||0.498|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3b (amplitude) and WLQ baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.498
90989558|NCT02749721|181863558|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.221||||0.599|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P200 (amplitude) and WLQ baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.599
90989559|NCT02749721|181863558|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.679||||0.064|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P3a (amplitude) and WLQ baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.064
90989560|NCT02749721|181863559|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.038||||0.881|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P200 (latency) and HDRS-28 baseline scores||||0.881
90989561|NCT02749721|181863559|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.299||||0.279|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3a (latency) and HDRS-28 baseline scores||||0.279
90989562|NCT02749721|181863559|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.538||||0.039|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3b (latency) and HDRS-28 baseline scores||||0.039
90989563|NCT02749721|181863559|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.018||||0.94|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P200 (latency) and HDRS-28 baseline scores||||0.940
90989564|NCT02749721|181863559|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.107||||0.65|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P3a (latency) and HDRS-28 baseline scores||||0.65
90989565|NCT02749721|181863559|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.247||||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P200 (latency) and HDRS-28 baseline to endpoint percentage change||||0.340
90989566|NCT02749721|181863559|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.067||||0.819|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3a (latency) and HDRS-28 baseline to endpoint percentage change||||0.819
90989567|NCT02749721|181863559|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.321||||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3b (latency) and HDRS-28 baseline to endpoint percentage change||||0.400
90989568|NCT02749721|181863559|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.279||||0.278|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P200 (latency) and HDRS-28 baseline to endpoint percentage change||||0.278
90989569|NCT02749721|181863559|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.136||||0.614|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P3a (latency) and HDRS-28 baseline to endpoint percentage change||||0.614
90989570|NCT02749721|181863559|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.0||||0.999|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P200 (latency) and HDRS-17 baseline scores||||0.999
90989571|NCT02749721|181863559|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.193||||0.491|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3a (latency) and HDRS-17 baseline scores||||0.491
90989572|NCT02749721|181863559|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.567||||0.028|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3b (latency) and HDRS-17 baseline scores||||0.028
90989573|NCT02749721|181863559|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.03||||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P200 (latency) and HDRS-17 baseline scores||||0.900
90989574|NCT02749721|181863559|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.141||||0.55|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P3a (latency) and HDRS-17 baseline scores||||0.55
90989575|NCT02749721|181863559|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.231||||0.373|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P200 (latency) and HDRS-17 baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.373
91042481|NCT05480800|181970347|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|0.76||||||95.0|0.29|2.0|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted GMR is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-S.Typhimurium OAg IgG Day 85||2.00|0.29|
91042482|NCT05480800|181970347|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|2.49||||||95.0|0.24|26.3|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted GMR is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-S.Typhimurium OAg IgG Day 169||26.30|0.24|
90989576|NCT02749721|181863559|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.019||||0.949|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3a (latency) and HDRS-17 baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.949
90989577|NCT02749721|181863559|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.122||||0.754|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3b (latency) and HDRS-17 baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.754
90989578|NCT02749721|181863559|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.176||||0.499|TWO_SIDED||||||0.176|||Correlation between VGNG P200 (latency) and HDRS-17 baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.499
90989579|NCT02749721|181863559|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.162||||0.549|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P3a (latency) and HDRS-17 baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.549
90989580|NCT02749721|181863559|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.126||||0.617|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P200 (latency) and QIDS-SR baseline scores||||0.617
90989581|NCT02749721|181863559|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.1||||0.722|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3a (latency) and QIDS-SR baseline scores||||0.722
90989582|NCT02749721|181863559|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.249||||0.371|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3b (latency) and QIDS-SR baseline scores||||0.371
90989583|NCT02749721|181863559|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.072||||0.764|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P200 (latency) and QIDS-SR baseline scores||||0.764
90989584|NCT02749721|181863559|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.225||||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P3a (latency) and QIDS-SR baseline scores||||0.34
90989585|NCT02749721|181863559|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.148||||0.57|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P200 (latency) and QIDS-SR baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.570
90989586|NCT02749721|181863559|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.228||||0.434|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3a (latency) and QIDS-SR baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.434
90989587|NCT02749721|181863559|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.22||||0.569|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3b (latency) and QIDS-SR baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.569
90989588|NCT02749721|181863559|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.645||||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P200 (latency) and QIDS-SR baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.005
90989589|NCT02749721|181863559|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.105||||0.698|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P3a (latency) and QIDS-SR baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.698
90989590|NCT02749721|181863559|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.073||||0.774|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P200 (latency) and PDQ baseline scores||||0.774
90989591|NCT02749721|181863559|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.577||||0.024|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3a (latency) and PDQ baseline score||||0.024
90989592|NCT02749721|181863559|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.146||||0.603|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3b (latency) and PDQ baseline scores||||0.603
90989593|NCT02749721|181863559|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.232||||0.326|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P200 (latency) and PDQ baseline scores||||0.326
90989594|NCT02749721|181863559|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.098||||0.68|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P3a (latency) and PDQ baseline scores||||0.68
90989595|NCT02749721|181863559|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.073||||0.774|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P200 (latency) and PDQ baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.774
90989596|NCT02749721|181863559|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.577||||0.024|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3a (latency) and PDQ baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.024
90989597|NCT02749721|181863559|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.146||||0.603|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3b (latency) and PDQ baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.603
90989598|NCT02749721|181863559|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.232||||0.326|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P200 (latency) and PDQ baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.326
90989599|NCT02749721|181863559|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.098||||0.68|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P3a (latency) and PDQ baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.68
90989600|NCT02749721|181863559|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.1||||0.692|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P200 (latency) and MGH-CPFQ baseline scores||||0.692
90989601|NCT02749721|181863559|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.498||||0.059|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3a (latency) and MGH-CPFQ baseline scores||||0.059
90989602|NCT02749721|181863559|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.332||||0.227|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3b (latency) and MGH-CPFQ baseline scores||||0.227
90989603|NCT02749721|181863559|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.125||||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P200 (latency) and MGH-CPFQ baseline scores||||0.600
90989604|NCT02749721|181863559|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.096||||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P3a (latency) and MGH-CPFQ baseline scores||||0.69
90989605|NCT02749721|181863559|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.259||||0.315|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P200 (latency) and MGH-CPFQ baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.315
90989606|NCT02749721|181863559|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.002||||0.996|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3a (latency) and MGH-CPFQ baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.996
90989607|NCT02749721|181863559|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.234||||0.544|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3b (latency) and MGH-CPFQ baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.544
90989608|NCT02749721|181863559|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.455||||0.066|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P200 (latency) and MGH-CPFQ baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.066
90989609|NCT02749721|181863559|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.28||||0.293|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P3a (latency) and MGH-CPFQ baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.293
90989610|NCT02749721|181863559|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.783||||0.013|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P200 (latency) and WLQ baseline scores||||0.013
90989611|NCT02749721|181863559|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.135||||0.799|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3a (latency) and WLQ baseline scores||||0.799
90989612|NCT02749721|181863559|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.506||||0.201|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3b (latency) and WLQ baseline scores||||0.201
90989613|NCT02749721|181863559|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.197||||0.586|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P200 (latency) and WLQ baseline scores||||0.586
90989614|NCT02749721|181863559|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.024||||0.95|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P3a (latency) and WLQ baseline scores||||0.95
90989615|NCT02749721|181863559|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.039||||0.92|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P200 (latency) and WLQ baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.920
91042483|NCT05480800|181970347|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|0.74||||||95.0|0.26|2.11|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted GMR is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-S.Typhimurium OAg IgG Day 169||2.11|0.26|
91042484|NCT05480800|181970347|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|1.53||||||95.0|0.19|12.41|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted GMR is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-S.Typhimurium OAg IgG Day 197||12.41|0.19|
91042485|NCT05480800|181970347|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|0.85||||||95.0|0.34|2.15|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted GMR is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-S.Typhimurium OAg IgG Day 197||2.15|0.34|
90989616|NCT02749721|181863559|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.113||||0.831|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3a (latency) and WLQ baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.831
90989617|NCT02749721|181863559|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.655||||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3b (latency) and WLQ baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.230
90989618|NCT02749721|181863559|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.602||||0.115|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P200 (latency) and WLQ baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.115
90989619|NCT02749721|181863559|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.313||||0.45|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P3a (latency) and WLQ baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.450
90989620|NCT00772967|181863560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.611||||0.089||90.0|-1.36|0.14||1-sided, alpha = 0.05|ANCOVA|Baseline measurement included as covariate: Time-weighted average pain intensity during pretreatment walk||||0.14|-1.36|0.089
90989621|NCT00772967|181863560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.804||||0.043||90.0|-1.57|-0.04||1-sided, alpha = 0.05|ANCOVA|Baseline measurement included as covariate: Time-weighted average pain intensity during pretreatment walk||||-0.04|-1.57|0.043
90989622|NCT00772967|181863561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.518||||0.048||90.0|-1.03|-0.01||1-sided, alpha = 0.05|ANCOVA|Baseline measurement included as covariate: Time-weighted average pain intensity during pretreatment walk||||-0.01|-1.03|0.048
90989623|NCT00772967|181863561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.03||||0.001||90.0|-1.54|-0.53||1-sided, alpha = 0.05|ANCOVA|Baseline measurement included as covariate: Time-weighted average pain intensity during pretreatment walk||||-0.53|-1.54|0.001
90989624|NCT00772967|181863562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.658||||0.052||90.0|-1.32|0.01||1-sided, alpha = 0.05|ANCOVA|Baseline measurement included as covariate: Time-weighted average pain intensity during pretreatment walk||||0.01|-1.32|0.052
90989625|NCT00772967|181863562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.15||||0.003||90.0|-1.81|-0.49||1-sided, alpha = 0.05|ANCOVA|Baseline measurement included as covariate: Time-weighted average pain intensity during pretreatment walk||||-0.49|-1.81|0.003
90989626|NCT00772967|181863563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.875||||0.019||90.0|-1.56|-0.19||1-sided, alpha = 0.05|ANCOVA|Baseline measurement included as covariate: Time-weighted average pain intensity during pretreatment walk||||-0.19|-1.56|0.019
91042486|NCT05480800|181970347|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|5.43||||||95.0|0.61|48.17|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted GMR is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-S.Enteritidis OAg IgG Day 29||48.17|0.61|
90989627|NCT00772967|181863563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.07||||0.007||90.0|-1.77|-0.37||1-sided, alpha = 0.05|ANCOVA|Baseline measurement included as covariate: Time-weighted average pain intensity during pretreatment walk||||-0.37|-1.77|0.007
90989628|NCT00803244|181863567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.49||||0.2344||95.0|-1.3|0.32|||ANCOVA|||||0.32|-1.30|0.2344
90989629|NCT00803244|181863568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference vs. Placebo|-0.09||||0.0401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.0|||ANCOVA||Relative LS Means difference (%) = -19.7|||0.00|-0.18|0.0401
91042487|NCT05480800|181970347|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|1.19||||||95.0|0.43|3.26|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted GMR is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-S.Enteritidis OAg IgG Day 29||3.26|0.43|
91042488|NCT05480800|181970347|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|5.88||||||95.0|0.58|59.45|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted GMR is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-S.Enteritidis OAg IgG Day 57||59.45|0.58|
90989630|NCT03382899|181863601|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.7626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds Ratio stratified by histology type, squamous versus non-squamous based on interactive web response system (IWRS). 95% Confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using the Clopper-Pearson method.|||2.5|0.5|0.7626
91042489|NCT05480800|181970347|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|1.35||||||95.0|0.41|4.45|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted GMR is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-S.Enteritidis OAg IgG Day 57||4.45|0.41|
91042490|NCT05480800|181970347|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|4.22||||||95.0|0.48|37.19|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted GMR is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-S.Enteritidis OAg IgG Day 85||37.19|0.48|
91042491|NCT05480800|181970347|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|1.13||||||95.0|0.37|3.48|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted GMR is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-S.Enteritidis OAg IgG Day 85||3.48|0.37|
91042492|NCT05480800|181970347|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|13.24||||||95.0|1.02|172.55|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted GMR is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-S.Enteritidis OAg IgG Day 169||172.55|1.02|
91042493|NCT05480800|181970347|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|1.24||||||95.0|0.4|3.88|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted GMR is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-S.Enteritidis OAg IgG Day 169||3.88|0.40|
90989631|NCT03382899|181863602|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.53||||0.263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.722|3.243|||Log Rank||Hazard Ratio stratified by histology type, squamous versus non-squamous based on IWRS. 95% CIs were estimated using the methods of Brookmeyer and Crowley, and Greenwood, respectively.|||3.243|0.722|0.263
90989632|NCT03382899|181863603|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.975||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.571|1.663|||Log Rank||Hazard Ratio stratified by histology type, squamous versus non-squamous based on IWRS. 95% CIs were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method.|||1.663|0.571|0.20
91042494|NCT05480800|181970347|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|5.56||||||95.0|0.53|58.61|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted GMR is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-S.Enteritidis OAg IgG Day 197||58.61|0.53|
91042495|NCT05480800|181970347|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|1.37||||||95.0|0.48|3.86|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted GMR is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-S.Enteritidis OAg IgG Day 197||3.86|0.48|
91042496|NCT05480800|181970351|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|0.92||||||95.0|0.54|1.58|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted GMR is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-Vi Ag IgG Day 29||1.58|0.54|
91042497|NCT05480800|181970351|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|0.93||||||95.0|0.54|1.59|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted GMR is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-Vi Ag IgG Day 57||1.59|0.54|
91042498|NCT05480800|181970351|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|0.95||||||95.0|0.61|1.49|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted GMR is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-Vi Ag IgG Day 85||1.49|0.61|
91042499|NCT05480800|181970351|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|0.78||||||95.0|0.45|1.34|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted GMR is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-Vi Ag IgG Day 169||1.34|0.45|
90989633|NCT03382899|181863604|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.9418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds Ratio stratified by histology type, squamous versus non-squamous based on IWRS. 95% CIs were estimated using the Clopper-Pearson method.|||2.3|0.5|0.9418
90989634|NCT03382899|181863605|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.124||||0.8312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.384|3.289|||Log Rank||Hazard Ratio stratified by histology type, squamous versus non-squamous based on IWRS. 95% CIs were estimated using the methods of Brookmeyer and Crowley, and Greenwood, respectively.|||3.289|0.384|0.8312
91042500|NCT05480800|181970351|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|0.94||||||95.0|0.63|1.4|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted GMR is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-Vi Ag IgG Day 197||1.40|0.63|
91042501|NCT05480800|181970352|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Adjusted GMR|0.95||||||95.0|0.69|1.32|||Mixed Models Analysis||Results based on a linear mixed model with fixed effects; denominator degrees of freedom adjusted using Satterthwaite's method.|Anti-S.Typhimurium OAg IgG Day 29|Heterogeneity was observed at baseline for S. Typhimurium in Africa between iNTS - GMMA + TCV Full dose and iNTS-TCV Ful dose, which influenced other timepoints. Hence, adjusted GMRs are presented.|1.32|0.69|
91042502|NCT05480800|181970352|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Adjusted GMR|1.01||||||95.0|0.74|1.37|||Mixed Models Analysis||Results based on a linear mixed model with fixed effects; denominator degrees of freedom adjusted using Satterthwaite's method.|Anti-S.Typhimurium OAg IgG Day 57|Heterogeneity was observed at baseline for S. Typhimurium in Africa between iNTS - GMMA + TCV Full dose and iNTS-TCV Ful dose, which influenced other timepoints. Hence, adjusted GMRs are presented.|1.37|0.74|
91042503|NCT05480800|181970352|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Adjusted GMR|1.04||||||95.0|0.77|1.41|||Mixed Models Analysis||Results based on a linear mixed model with fixed effects; denominator degrees of freedom adjusted using Satterthwaite's method.|Anti-S.Typhimurium OAg IgG Day 85|Heterogeneity was observed at baseline for S. Typhimurium in Africa between iNTS - GMMA + TCV Full dose and iNTS-TCV Ful dose, which influenced other timepoints. Hence, adjusted GMRs are presented.|1.41|0.77|
91042504|NCT05480800|181970352|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Adjusted GMR|1.2||||||95.0|0.81|1.77|||Mixed Models Analysis||Results based on a linear mixed model with fixed effects; denominator degrees of freedom adjusted using Satterthwaite's method.|Anti-S.Typhimurium OAg IgG Day 169|Heterogeneity was observed at baseline for S. Typhimurium in Africa between iNTS - GMMA + TCV Full dose and iNTS-TCV Ful dose, which influenced other timepoints. Hence, adjusted GMRs are presented.|1.77|0.81|
91042505|NCT05480800|181970352|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Adjusted GMR|0.97||||||95.0|0.65|1.44|||Mixed Models Analysis||Results based on a linear mixed model with fixed effects; denominator degrees of freedom adjusted using Satterthwaite's method.|Anti-S.Typhimurium OAg IgG Day 197|Heterogeneity was observed at baseline for S. Typhimurium in Africa between iNTS - GMMA + TCV Full dose and iNTS-TCV Ful dose, which influenced other timepoints. Hence, adjusted GMRs are presented.|1.44|0.65|
90989635|NCT00540449|181863624|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the lower limit of the 95% 2-sided confidence interval of the difference in proportions (TMC278 - EFV) exceeds -12%, non-inferiority of TMC278 versus EFV can be concluded.|Difference in proportion of response|-0.4|||<|0.0001||95.0|-5.9|5.2||Significance level was set at 2.5% (one-sided). No adjustment of p-value for multiple comparisons, since there was only single comparison for the primary endpoint.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model included treatment arm as factor and baseline (log10) viral load as covariate.|Difference in proportion responders was estimated through the logistic regression model.|Assuming a response rate of 75% at 48 weeks for both treatment groups, 340 subjects were needed per treatment (TMC278 or EFV) to establish non-inferiority of TMC278 versus EFV with a maximum allowable difference of 12% and a 1-sided significance level of 2.5%, to yield 95% power.||5.2|-5.9|<0.0001
90989636|NCT00540449|181863625|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the lower limit of the 95% 2-sided confidence interval of the difference in proportions (TMC278 - EFV) exceeds -12%, non-inferiority of TMC278 versus EFV can be concluded.|Difference in proportion of response|0.3|||<|0.0001||95.0|-5.4|5.9|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model included treatment arm as factor and baseline (log10) viral load as covariate.|Difference in proportion responders was estimated through the logistic regression model.|||5.9|-5.4|<0.0001
90989637|NCT00540449|181863626|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the lower limit of the 95% 2-sided confidence interval of the difference in proportions (TMC278 - EFV) exceeds -12%, non-inferiority of TMC278 versus EFV can be concluded.|Difference in proportion of response|-3.2||||0.0055||95.0|-9.4|3.1|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model included treatment arm as factor and baseline (log10) viral load as covariate.|Difference in proportion responders was estimated through the logistic regression model.|||3.1|-9.4|0.0055
90989638|NCT00540449|181863627|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the lower limit of the 95% 2-sided confidence interval of the difference in proportions (TMC278 - EFV) exceeds -12%, non-inferiority of TMC278 versus EFV can be concluded.|Difference in proportion of response|-1.7||||0.0013||95.0|-8.0|4.5|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model included treatment arm as factor and baseline (log10) viral load as covariate.||||4.5|-8.0|0.0013
91042506|NCT05480800|181970352|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|0.82||||||95.0|0.49|1.37|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted GMR is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-S.Enteritidis OAg IgG Day 29||1.37|0.49|
91042507|NCT05480800|181970352|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|0.97||||||95.0|0.59|1.59|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted GMR is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-S.Enteritidis OAg IgG Day 57||1.59|0.59|
90989639|NCT03283163|181863633|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired samples t-test to compare PTSD severity from baseline to endpoint (week 13).||||.040
90989640|NCT03283163|181863634|OTHER|||||||0.69|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired samples t-test to compare degree of pain-related interference from baseline to endpoint (week 13).||||.69
90989641|NCT03283163|181863635|OTHER|||||||0.098|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired samples t-test to compare severity of pain catastrophizing from baseline to endpoint (week 13).||||.098
90989642|NCT03283163|181863636|OTHER|||||||0.194|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired samples t-tests were conducted for comparison of resting ALLO+PA levels from baseline to endpoint (week 13).||||.194
90989643|NCT03283163|181863637|OTHER|paired samples t-test||||||0.343|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired samples t-tests were conducted for comparison of peak ALLO+PA levels (30 minutes post MAXEX) from baseline to endpoint (week 13).||||.343
90989644|NCT04238663|181863645|EQUIVALENCE|"Two treatments are judged not to be different from one another if the 90% CI of the ratio of a log-transformed exposure measure (Cmax) falls completely within the range 0.80-1.25.~The PK parameter Cmax was log-transformed (base e) prior to analysis and was analysed using an ANCOVA model. The model included treatment as a fixed effect and body weight as a covariate."|Ratio of Geometric Least Square Mean|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.976|1.16|||||For the comparison, MB02 represents the numerator and EU Avastin represents the denominator.|||1.16|0.976|
90989645|NCT04238663|181863645|EQUIVALENCE|"Two treatments are judged not to be different from one another if the 90% CI of the ratio of a log-transformed exposure measure (Cmax) falls completely within the range 0.80-1.25.~The PK parameter Cmax was log-transformed (base e) prior to analysis and was analysed using an ANCOVA model. The model included treatment as a fixed effect and body weight as a covariate."|Ratio of Geometric Least Square Mean|0.983|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.897|1.08||||||For the comparison, MB02 represents the numerator and US Avastin represents the denominator.||1.08|0.897|
90989646|NCT04238663|181863645|EQUIVALENCE|"Two treatments are judged not to be different from one another if the 90% CI of the ratio of a log-transformed exposure measure (Cmax) falls completely within the range 0.80-1.25.~The PK parameter Cmax was log-transformed (base e) prior to analysis and was analysed using an ANCOVA model. The model included treatment as a fixed effect and body weight as a covariate."|Ratio of Geometric Least Square Mean|0.926|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.851|1.01|||||For Ratio of geometric least square mean (GLSM): EU is the numerator and US Avastin acts as the denominator|||1.01|0.851|
90989647|NCT04238663|181863646|EQUIVALENCE|"Two treatments are judged not to be different from one another if the 90% CI of the ratio of a log-transformed exposure measure (AUC) falls completely within the range 0.80-1.25.~The PK parameter AUC\[0-∞\] was log-transformed (base e) prior to analysis and was analysed using an ANCOVA model. The model included treatment as a fixed effect and body weight as a covariate."|Ratio of GLSM|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.14|||||For the comparison, MB02 represents the numerator and EU Avastin represents the denominator|||1.14|1.00|
90989648|NCT04238663|181863646|EQUIVALENCE|"Two treatments are judged not to be different from one another if the 90% CI of the ratio of a log-transformed exposure measure (AUC) falls completely within the range 0.80-1.25.~The PK parameter AUC\[0-∞\] was log-transformed (base e) prior to analysis and was analysed using an ANCOVA model. The model included treatment as a fixed effect and body weight as a covariate."|Ratio of GLSM|0.998|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.944|1.05|||||For the comparison, MB02 represents the numerator and US Avastin represents the denominator.|||1.05|0.944|
90989649|NCT04238663|181863646|EQUIVALENCE|"Two treatments are judged not to be different from one another if the 90% CI of the ratio of a log-transformed exposure measure (AUC) falls completely within the range 0.80-1.25.~The PK parameter AUC\[0-∞\] was log-transformed (base e) prior to analysis and was analysed using an ANCOVA model. The model included treatment as a fixed effect and body weight as a covariate."|Ratio of GLSM|0.934|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.884|0.988|||||EU Avastin corresponds to the numerator and US Avastin corresponds to the denominator|||0.988|0.884|
90989650|NCT00337467|181863660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of Participants|21.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.9|33.7|||exact binomial methods|Given the small sample size, the 95% confidence interval is made with exact binomial methods.||||33.7|11.9|
90989651|NCT00337467|181863661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of Participants|34.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.7|47.7|||exact binomial methods|Given the small sample size, the 95% confidence interval is made with exact binomial methods.||||47.7|22.7|
90989652|NCT00337467|181863666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Change (Final Values)|61.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|24.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.3|109.8|||normal approximation for 95% CI|||||109.8|12.3|
90989653|NCT00337467|181863667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Change (Final Values)|53.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|30.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|113.7|||normal approximation for 95% CI|||||113.7|-7.1|
90989654|NCT00337467|181863668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Change (Final Values)|63.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|32.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|129.1|||normal approximation for 95% CI|||||129.1|-4.0|
90989655|NCT00337467|181863670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Change|9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|14.6|||normal approximation for 95% CI|||Percent Change from Baseline in Fasting Total Cholesterol at Week 48||14.6|2.5|
90989656|NCT00337467|181863670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Change|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|8.8|||normal approximation for 95% CI|||Percent Change from Baseline in Fasting HDL Cholesterol at Week 48||8.8|-3.9|
90989657|NCT00337467|181863670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Change|12.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|20.8|||normal approximation for 95% CI|||Percent Change from Baseline in Fasting Non-HDL Cholesterol at Week 48||20.8|4.0|
90989658|NCT00337467|181863670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Change|20.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|31.7|||normal approximation for 95% CI|||Percent Change from Baseline in Fasting LDL Cholesterol at Week 48||31.7|8.0|
90989659|NCT00337467|181863670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Change|17.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|34.4|||normal approximation for 95% CI|||Percent Change from Baseline in Fasting Triglycerides at Week 48||34.4|-0.4|
90989660|NCT00337467|181863671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Change|14.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2||||95.0|6.9|20.1|||normal approximation for 95% CI|||Percent Change from Baseline in Fasting Total Cholesterol at Week 96||20.1|6.9|
90989661|NCT00337467|181863671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Change|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|10.2|||normal approximation for 95% CI|||Percent Change from Baseline in Fasting HDL Cholesterol at Week 96||10.2|-6.0|
90989662|NCT00337467|181863671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Change|19.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.3|28.4|||normal approximation for 95% CI|||Percent Change from Baseline in Fasting Non-HDL Cholesterol at Week 96||28.4|10.3|
90989663|NCT00337467|181863671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Change|29.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.3|42.0|||normal approximation for 95% CI|||Percent Change from Baseline in Fasting LDL Cholesterol at Week 96||42.0|15.3|
90989664|NCT00337467|181863671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Change|16.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|41.6|||normal approximation for 95% CI|||Percent Change from Baseline in Fasting Triglycerides at Week 96||41.6|-9.5|
90989665|NCT03141086|181863676|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.711||||0.1272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|4.762|||ANOVA|||||4.762|-1.340|0.1272
90989666|NCT03141086|181863677|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.866||||0.0607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.821|6.553|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3.5 hours post dose||6.553|-0.821|0.0607
90989667|NCT03141086|181863677|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.975||||0.0919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.024|4.973|||Mixed Models Analysis|||5.5 hours post dose||4.973|-1.024|0.0919
90989668|NCT03141086|181863677|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.576||||0.0811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.697|3.848|||Mixed Models Analysis|||7.5 hours post dose||3.848|-0.697|0.0811
90989669|NCT03141086|181863677|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.879||||0.2026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.268|3.026|||Mixed Models Analysis|||9.5 hours post dose||3.026|-1.268|0.2026
90989670|NCT04430582|181863690|OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.90
90989671|NCT04430582|181863691|OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.24
90989672|NCT04430582|181863692|OTHER|||||||0.74|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.74
90989673|NCT04430582|181863693|OTHER|||||||0.51|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.51
90989674|NCT04430582|181863694|OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.70
90989675|NCT04430582|181863695|OTHER|||||||0.95|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.95
90989676|NCT04430582|181863696|OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.48
90989677|NCT04430582|181863697|OTHER|||||||0.85|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.85
90989678|NCT04430582|181863698|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.01
90989679|NCT04430582|181863699|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.01
90989680|NCT04430582|181863700|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
90989681|NCT04430582|181863701|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
90989682|NCT04430582|181863702|OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.30
90989683|NCT04430582|181863703|OTHER|||||||0.045|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.045
90989684|NCT04430582|181863704|OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.37
90989685|NCT00074412|181863722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||6 month Rate of Cum. HIV Infection (%)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.8|||Kaplan-Meier Method|||||1.8|0.3|
90989686|NCT00074412|181863722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||6 month Rate of Cum. HIV Infection (%)|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|3.6|||Kaplan-Meier Method|||||3.6|1.3|
90989687|NCT00074412|181863722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Z statistic|1.973||||0.049||95.0||||P-value has not been adjusted for interim analysis or multiple testing. A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Z-test|||Assuming the cumulative HIV infection rate in placebo group would be 4.2% (2.6 at 6 wk. \& 6.7 at 6 mon.), we estimated 1500 mother/infant pairs would provide 90% power to detect a reduction in HIV infection from 4.2% to 1.4% at 6 mon. with a Pearson χ² test statistic and a one-sided false positive error rate of 0.025. Rate of cumulative infection was calculated using Kaplan-Meier method and rates between extended NVP group and placebo were done with the Z statistic.||||0.049
90989688|NCT00074412|181863724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cum. Rate of HIV-free Survival 6mon (%)|97.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.6|98.8|||Kaplan-Meier Method|||The cumulative rate of HIV-free survival at 6 months in the extended NVP arm was calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method; while the 95% CI was calculated using Greenwood's formula.||98.8|96.6|
90989689|NCT00074412|181863724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cum. Rate of HIV-free Survival 6mon (%)|96.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|95.5|98.0|||Kaplan-Meier Method|||The cumulative rate of HIV-free survival at 6 months in the placebo arm was calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method; while the 95% CI was calculated using Greenwood's formula.||98.0|95.5|
90989690|NCT00074412|181863724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Z statistic|1.095||||0.274||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for interim analysis or multiple testing.|Z-test|||The cumulative rates of HIV-free survival at 6 months were compared between the two groups using a Z-statistic.||||0.274
90989691|NCT00074412|181863724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cum. Rate of HIV-free Survival 18mon (%)|94.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|92.9|96.2|||Kaplan-Meier Method|||The cumulative rate of HIV-free survival at 18 months in the extended NVP arm was calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method; while 95% confidence intervals were calculated using Greenwood's formula.||96.2|92.9|
90989692|NCT00074412|181863724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cum. Rate of HIV-free Survival 18mon (%)|93.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.5|95.1|||Kaplan-Meier Method|||The cumulative rate of HIV-free survival at 18 months in the placebo arm was calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method; while the 95% confidence interval was calculated using Greenwood's formula.||95.1|91.5|
90989693|NCT00074412|181863724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Z statistic|0.988||||0.323||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for interim analysis or multiple testing.|Z-test|||The cumulative rates of HIV-free survival at 18 months were compared between the two groups using a Z statistic.||||0.323
90989694|NCT00074412|181863725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||18 mon. Rate of Cum HIV Infection (%)|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|3.3|||Kaplan-Meier Method|||The cumulative rate of HIV infection at 18 months in the extended NVP arm was calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method; while the 95% confidence interval was calculated using Greenwood's formula.||3.3|1.1|
90989695|NCT00074412|181863725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||18 mon. Rate of Cum. HIV Infection (%)|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|4.4|||Kaplan-Meier Method|||The cumulative rate of HIV infection at 18 months in the placebo arm was calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method; while the 95% confidence interval was calculated using Greenwood's formula.||4.4|1.9|
91042508|NCT05480800|181970352|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|1.03||||||95.0|0.64|1.67|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted GMR is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-S.Enteritidis OAg IgG Day 85||1.67|0.64|
91042509|NCT05480800|181970352|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|0.93||||||95.0|0.56|1.54|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted GMR is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-S.Enteritidis OAg IgG Day 169||1.54|0.56|
91042510|NCT05480800|181970352|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|0.82||||||95.0|0.51|1.33|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted GMR is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-S.Enteritidis OAg IgG Day 197||1.33|0.51|
90989696|NCT00074412|181863725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Z statistic|1.081||||0.28||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for interim analysis or multiple testing.|Z-test|||The cumulative rates of HIV infection at 18 months were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method and were compared between arms using a Z statistic.||||0.280
90989697|NCT00074412|181863726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cumulative Mortality Rate at 18mon (%)|4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|7.4|||Kaplan-Meier Method|||||7.4|2.0|
90989698|NCT00074412|181863726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cumulative Mortality Rate at 18mon (%)|4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|5.6|||Kaplan-Meier Method|||||5.6|2.7|
91042511|NCT00377156|181970399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentage|-28.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-41.9|-14.4|||Fisher Exact||Cognitive deterioration, the primary end point in evaluable patients at 3 months, was less frequent after Arm I than Arm II (40/63 \[63.5%\] vs 44/48 \[91.7%\],\> respectively. The percent difference was -28.2%; 90% CI, -41.9% to -14.4%; P \< .001).|||-14.4|-41.9|<0.001
90989699|NCT00074412|181863726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Z statistic|-0.247||||0.805||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for interim analysis or multiple testing|Z-test|||The cumulative rates of mortality at 6 months, as calculated by Kaplan-Meier, were compared between the two groups using a Z-statistic.||||0.805
90989700|NCT00074412|181863726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cumulative Mortality Rate at 6mon (%)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.0|||Kaplan-Meier Method|||||2.0|0.4|
90989701|NCT00074412|181863726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cumulative Mortality Rate at 6mon (%)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.8|||Kaplan-Meier Method|||||1.8|0.3|
91042512|NCT00377156|181970400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentage|-18.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.0|-7.8|||Fisher Exact|||||-7.8|-29.0|<0.001
90989702|NCT00074412|181863726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Z statistic|-0.36||||0.719||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for interim analysis or multiple testing.|Z-test|||The cumulative mortality rates at 18 months, as calculated by Kaplan-Meier, were compared between the two groups using a Z statistic.||||0.719
90989703|NCT00074412|181863726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.611||95.0|||||Log Rank|||We compared the cumulative mortality rates, as calculated using Kaplan-Meier, between the two study groups over all 18 months of the study follow-up using a log-rank test.||||0.611
90989704|NCT03656926|181863757|SUPERIORITY|Estimates are from a Linear Mixed Model on the response variable change from baseline in FEV1 with factors for time splines, treatment, the interactions of time splines by treatment, baseline FEV1, the interactions of time splines with baseline FEV1, region (North America vs all other countries together), age (\<55 versus \>=55 years), use of azithromycin at randomization, and time as random effect.|least square mean difference|-0.028||||0.6639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.104||This is a 1-side p value.|Mixed Models Analysis|||V9 - week 48||0.104|-0.160|0.6639
90989705|NCT02902172|181863760|NON_INFERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.85|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
90989706|NCT00850759|181863762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.04|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
90989707|NCT01773135|181863765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||U statistic|||||||<0.001
90989708|NCT01212172|181863792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.9||||0.2879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|21.1|||t-test, 1 sided|||||21.1|-6.7|0.2879
90989709|NCT00578864|181863794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.367||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.367
91042513|NCT00377156|181970401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.9||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.8|19.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||19.0|4.8|0.001
91042514|NCT00377156|181970402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-34.4||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.4|5.5|||Fisher Exact||The incidence of cognitive deterioration was less in Arm I than Arm II at 12 months (6/10 \[60%\] vs 17/18 \[94.4%\]. The percent difference was -34.4% (95% CI: -74.4% to 5.5%; P = .04)|||5.5|-74.4|0.04
91042515|NCT00377156|181970403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.38|||Regression, Cox|||||1.38|0.75|0.92
90989710|NCT00578864|181863797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.592||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.592
90989711|NCT01253044|181863839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.912|TWO_SIDED||||||MMRM|||||||.912
90989712|NCT01253044|181863840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.273|TWO_SIDED||||||MMRM|||||||.273
90989713|NCT02262039|181863841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
90989714|NCT02262039|181863842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.92
90989715|NCT02262039|181863843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.78
90989716|NCT02262039|181863844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.52
90989717|NCT02262039|181863845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.25
90989718|NCT02262039|181863846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.82
90989719|NCT02262039|181863847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.45
91006878|NCT02141854|181898334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|0.623||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.418|0.828||Significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|||The change from baseline in AQLQ(S) score (patients ≥18 years of age) at endpoint (ie, last postbaseline observation) was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with effects due to baseline AQLQ(S) score, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), and treatment, imputing missing data via last observation carried forward (LOCF).||0.828|0.418|0.0000
91042516|NCT03978598|181970406|NON_INFERIORITY|We used a 15% difference in our primary outcome for the non-inferiority margin as this is the upper end of the estimated prevalence of lactation failure in the literature and is consistent with previous studies (Neifert 2001, Gurtcheff 2011, Turok 2017).|Risk Difference (RD)|3.7|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|-16.7|||||||To achieve 80% power with a 1-sided type 1 error of 5% utilizing the Z-test (unpooled), 62 participants would be required in each group, for a total of 124 participants. Accounting for expected loss to follow-up of 20%, we aimed to recruit 149 participants and rounded up to final recruitment goal of 150.|The risk-difference between immediate and standard placement in the modified intention-to-treat analysis (mITT) was -0.6% with a -12.8% lower limit of the 95% confidence interval. In the mITT analysis, 78.3% (54/69) and 78.9% (45/57) of participants were breastfeeding at 8 weeks in the immediate and delayed groups, respectively.||-16.7|
91042517|NCT03978598|181970408|OTHER|||||||0.221|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baby had trouble sucking or latching||||0.221
91042518|NCT03978598|181970408|OTHER|||||||0.786|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baby got sick||||0.786
91042519|NCT03978598|181970408|OTHER|||||||0.064|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||I was sick||||0.064
91042520|NCT03978598|181970408|OTHER|||||||0.044|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Provider said baby was underweight||||0.044
91042521|NCT03978598|181970408|OTHER|||||||0.666|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Insufficient milk||||0.666
90989720|NCT00962000|181863858|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The sample size required for the study was estimated using a web-based power calculation tool. Analysis of data from some 50,000 hemodialysis patients showed a within-patient between-treatment standard deviation of 0.21 for Kt/Vurea. Using this estimate of standard deviation, 38 subjects would be needed to detect a difference in Kt/Vurea of 0.1 with a significance level of 0.05 and a power of 90% with two determinations per subject at each level of dialysate flow rate.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02217|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.064|0.024||There is no p values because the power calculation is based on the primary outcome variable|ANOVA|The three centers and the two flow rates were treated as fixed effects and the subjects within centers modeled as a random effect.||Increasing the dialysate flow rates from 600 mL/min to 800 mL/min will not significantly increase Kt/Vurea.||0.024|-0.064|
90989721|NCT00962000|181863859|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The sample size required for the study was estimated using a web-based power calculation tool. Analysis of data from some 50,000 hemodialysis patients showed a within-patient between-treatment standard deviation of 0.21 for Kt/Vurea. Using this estimate of standard deviation, 38 subjects would be needed to detect a difference in Kt/Vurea of 0.1 with a significance level of 0.05 and a power of 90% with two determinations per subject at each level of dialysate flow rate.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.014|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01849|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.051|0.023||There is no p value for eKt/V because the power calculation is based on the primary outcome variable (Kt/Vsp) alone.|ANOVA|The three centers and the two flow rates were treated as fixed effects and the subjects within centers modeled as a random effect.||Increasing the dialysate flow rates from 600 mL/min to 800 mL/min will not significantly increase Kt/Vurea.||0.023|-0.051|
90989722|NCT00962000|181863860|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The sample size required for the study was estimated using a web-based power calculation tool. Analysis of data from some 50,000 hemodialysis patients showed a within-patient between-treatment standard deviation of 0.21 for Kt/Vurea. Using this estimate of standard deviation, 38 subjects would be needed to detect a difference in Kt/Vurea of 0.1 with a significance level of 0.05 and a power of 90% with two determinations per subject at each level of dialysate flow rate.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.035|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03103||||95.0|-0.029|0.099||There is no p value for Kt/VID because the power calculation is based on the primary outcome variable (Kt/Vsp) alone.|ANOVA|||Increasing the dialysate flow rates from 600 mL/min to 800 mL/min will not significantly increase Kt/Vurea.||0.099|-0.029|
90989723|NCT01519245|181863865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0493||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Intention to Treat principles of data analysis were applied. The two-sided T-test (95% confidence interval) was used for statistical calculation of primary outcomes. The null hypothesis was that no difference in chest tube losses would be found between the topical tranexamic acid and placebo groups in low-risk cardiac patients undergoing CABG.||||0.0493
90989724|NCT01519245|181863867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1876||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Intention to Treat principles of data analysis were applied. The two-sided T-test (95% confidence interval) was used for statistical calculation of secondary outcomes. The null hypothesis was that no difference in chest tube losses would be found between the topical tranexamic acid and placebo groups in low-risk cardiac patients undergoing CABG.||||0.1876
90989725|NCT01519245|181863868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.093||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Intention to Treat principles of data analysis were applied. The two-sided T-test (95% confidence interval) was used for statistical calculation of secondary outcomes. The null hypothesis was that no difference in chest tube losses would be found between the topical tranexamic acid and placebo groups in low-risk cardiac patients undergoing CABG.||||0.0930
90989726|NCT02873715|181863875|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.21|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.14|-2.29|||ANCOVA||Results are pooled across 10 multiple imputations and reported as mean (standard error)|||-2.29|-10.14|<0.05
90989727|NCT02873715|181863876|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.97||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.68|-2.26|||ANCOVA||Results are pooled across 10 multiple imputations and reported as mean (standard error)|||-2.26|-5.68|0.001
90989728|NCT02873715|181863878|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5384||||0.65|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|time x group analysis.||repeated measures analysis of variance for parent delay discounting changes from 0 to 24-month. This includes only parents with complete data for both time points and does not exclude based on johnson-bickel rules. Reporting time x group analysis.||||0.65
90989729|NCT02873715|181863878|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3913||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|||||time x group analysis|ANOVA|||repeated measures analysis of variance for child delay discounting changes from 0 to 24-month. This includes only parents with complete data for both time points and does not exclude based on johnson-bickel rules. Reporting time x group analysis.||||0.87
90989730|NCT02144220|181863882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.39
91042522|NCT03978598|181970408|OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||I had trouble; breast issues||||0.006
90989731|NCT01254396|181863886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of Adjusted Means|41.35|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|32.4|52.76||||||Natural log transformed Cmax of sildenafil was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% confidence intervals for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% confidence intervals for the ratios.||52.76|32.40|
91042523|NCT03978598|181970408|OTHER|||||||0.476|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||I quit breastfeeding; life issues||||0.476
91042524|NCT03978598|181970409|OTHER|||||||0.717|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Respecting me as a person||||0.717
91042525|NCT03978598|181970409|OTHER|||||||0.808|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Letting me say what mattered to me about my birth control method||||0.808
91042526|NCT03978598|181970409|OTHER|||||||0.967|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Taking my preferences about my birth control seriously||||0.967
91042527|NCT03978598|181970409|OTHER|||||||0.826|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Giving me enough information to make the best decision about my birth control method||||0.826
91042528|NCT03978598|181970410|OTHER|||||||0.264|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||2 weeks postpartum||||0.264
91042529|NCT03978598|181970410|OTHER|||||||0.414|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||4 weeks postpartum||||0.414
90989732|NCT01254396|181863888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of Adjusted Means|93.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.23|108.78||||||Natural log transformed AUC (0-∞) of sildenafil was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% confidence intervals for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% confidence intervals for the ratios.||108.78|80.23|
90989733|NCT01254396|181863889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of Adjusted Means|87.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.62|98.99||||||Natural log transformed AUClast of sildenafil was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% confidence intervals for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% confidence intervals for the ratios.||98.99|77.62|
90989734|NCT00053846|181863901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.483|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.275||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|0.0576|||ANCOVA||Multiple Imputation (MI) used for estimates. MICE software in R was used to generate 100 imputed datasets. ANCOVA was run on each, and results were pooled.|H0: The true difference in means is equal to zero. Ha: The true difference in means is not equal to zero.||0.0576|-1.020|0.080
90989735|NCT04590937|181863906|OTHER|"ANOVA model including subject as random and treatment as fixed effect was used."|Geometric means ratio|98.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.89|101.67|||||The geometric means ratio was calculated as Metformin + BI 730357 / Metformin. Standard error of the mean is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV).|||101.67|94.89|
90989736|NCT04590937|181863907|OTHER|"ANOVA model including subject as random and treatment as fixed effect was used."|Geometric means ratio|123.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|112.22|134.98|||||The geometric means ratio was calculated as Rosuvastatin + BI 730357 / Rosuvastatin. Standard error of the mean is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV).|||134.98|112.22|
90989737|NCT04590937|181863908|OTHER|"ANOVA model including subject as random and treatment as fixed effect was used."|Geometric means ratio|117.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|110.57|125.34|||||The geometric means ratio was calculated as Furosemide + BI 730357 / Furosemide. Standard error of the mean is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV).|||125.34|110.57|
90989738|NCT04590937|181863909|OTHER|"ANOVA model including subject as random and treatment as fixed effect was used."|Geometric means ratio|170.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|25.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|143.73|201.76|||||The geometric means ratio was calculated as Digoxin + BI 730357 / Digoxin. Standard error of the mean is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV).|||201.76|143.73|
91042530|NCT03978598|181970410|OTHER|||||||0.482|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||8 weeks postpartum||||0.482
90989739|NCT04590937|181863910|OTHER|"ANOVA model including subject as random and treatment as fixed effect was used."|Geometric means ratio|91.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.04|94.93|||||The geometric means ratio was calculated as Metformin + BI 730357 / Metformin. Standard error of the mean is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV).|||94.93|88.04|
90989740|NCT04590937|181863911|OTHER|"ANOVA model including subject as random and treatment as fixed effect was used."|Geometric means ratio|139.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|124.29|155.51|||||The geometric means ratio was calculated as Rosuvastatin + BI 730357 / Rosuvastatin. Standard error of the mean is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV).|||155.51|124.29|
90989741|NCT04590937|181863912|OTHER|"ANOVA model including subject as random and treatment as fixed effect was used."|Geometric means ratio|112.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.26|124.11|||||The geometric means ratio was calculated as Furosemide + BI 730357 / Furosemide. Standard error of the mean is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV).|||124.11|101.26|
90989742|NCT04590937|181863913|OTHER|"ANOVA model including subject as random and treatment as fixed effect was used."|Geometric means ratio|161.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|34.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|129.17|201.39|||||The geometric means ratio was calculated as Digoxin + BI 730357 / Digoxin. Standard error of the mean is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV).|||201.39|129.17|
90989743|NCT04590937|181863914|OTHER|"ANOVA model including subject as random and treatment as fixed effect was used."|Geometric means ratio|98.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.86|101.73|||||The geometric means ratio was calculated as Metformin + BI 730357 / Metformin. Standard error of the mean is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV).|||101.73|94.86|
90989744|NCT04590937|181863915|OTHER|"ANOVA model including subject as random and treatment as fixed effect was used."|Geometric means ratio|118.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|108.83|129.4|||||The geometric means ratio was calculated as Rosuvastatin + BI 730357 / Rosuvastatin. Standard error of the mean is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV).|||129.40|108.83|
90989745|NCT04590937|181863916|OTHER|"ANOVA model including subject as random and treatment as fixed effect was used."|Geometric means ratio|114.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|107.93|120.56|||||The geometric means ratio was calculated as Furosemide + BI 730357 / Furosemide. Standard error of the mean is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV).|||120.56|107.93|
91042531|NCT03978598|181970411|OTHER|||||||0.583|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||4 weeks postpartum||||0.583
91042532|NCT03978598|181970411|OTHER|||||||0.062|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||8 weeks postpartum||||0.062
91042533|NCT03978598|181970411|OTHER|||||||0.705|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||12 weeks postpartum||||0.705
91042534|NCT03978598|181970412|OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||2 weeks postpartum||||0.60
91042535|NCT03978598|181970412|OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||4 weeks postpartum||||0.07
91042536|NCT03978598|181970412|OTHER|||||||0.36|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||8 weeks postpartum||||0.36
91042537|NCT03978598|181970413|OTHER|||||||0.0376|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0376
91042538|NCT00683592|181970415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean Change|-2.5||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|-0.6|||ANCOVA|||The model was an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), with terms for treatment group and center, adjusting for baseline MADRS total score. Missing values at week 8 were handled using the last observation carried forward (LOCF) approach.||-0.6|-4.4|0.009
90989746|NCT04590937|181863917|OTHER|"ANOVA model including subject as random and treatment as fixed effect was used."|Geometric means ratio|173.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|30.8|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|141.9|212.8|||||The geometric means ratio was calculated as Digoxin + BI 730357 / Digoxin. Standard error of the mean is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV).|||212.80|141.90|
90989747|NCT01544595|181863921|SUPERIORITY|"H1: Secukinumab 150 mg was not different from placebo with respect to the cumulative rate for patients who lost PASI 75 response up to Week 68~• H2: Secukinumab 300 mg was not different from placebo with respect to the cumulative rate for patients who lost PASI 75 response up to Week 68"|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.42|||Log Rank|||"The following hypotheses were tested for 52 weeks≤ t ≤68 weeks~* H1: p1(t) - p0,1(t) = 0 versus HA1: p1(t)- p0,1(t) ≥ 0,~* H2: p2(t) - p0,2(t) = 0 versus HA2: p2(t) - p0,2(t) ≥ 0,"||0.42|0.22|<0.0001
90989748|NCT01544595|181863921|SUPERIORITY|"H1: Secukinumab 150 mg was not different from placebo with respect to the cumulative rate for patients who lost PASI 75 response up to Week 68~• H2: Secukinumab 300 mg was not different from placebo with respect to the cumulative rate for patients who lost PASI 75 response up to Week 68"|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.29|||Log Rank|||"The following hypotheses were tested for 52 weeks≤ t ≤68 weeks~* H1: p1(t) - p0,1(t) = 0 versus HA1: p1(t)- p0,1(t) ≥ 0,~* H2: p2(t) - p0,2(t) = 0 versus HA2: p2(t) - p0,2(t) ≥ 0,"||0.29|0.14|<0.0001
90989749|NCT01929044|181863943|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|One-sided test relative to the non-inferiority margin of 1|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation is used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom. An unstructured covariance matrix is used.|REML-based repeated measures approach includes baseline pain intensity as continuous covariate, treatment, centre, time and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects. The difference was calculated as Buscopan minus 654-II.|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML) -repeated measures approach||0.04|-0.88|<0.0001
90989750|NCT01929044|181863943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation is used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom. An unstructured covariance matrix is used.|REML-based repeated measures approach includes baseline pain intensity as continuous covariate, treatment, centre, time and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects. The difference was calculated as Buscopan minus 654-II.|||0.04|-0.88|0.0743
90989751|NCT01929044|181863944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation is used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom. An unstructured covariance matrix is used.|REML-based repeated measures approach includes baseline pain intensity as continuous covariate, treatment, centre, time and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects. The difference was calculated as Buscopan minus 654-II.|||0.08|-0.70|0.1210
90989752|NCT01929044|181863945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation is used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom. An unstructured covariance matrix is used.|REML-based repeated measures approach includes baseline pain intensity as continuous covariate, treatment, centre, time and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects. The difference was calculated as Buscopan minus 654-II.|||0.03|-0.82|0.0658
90989753|NCT01929044|181863946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation is used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom. An unstructured covariance matrix is used.|REML-based repeated measures approach includes baseline pain intensity as continuous covariate, treatment, centre, time and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects. The difference was calculated as Buscopan minus 654-II.|||-0.07|-0.85|0.0220
90989754|NCT01929044|181863947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation is used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom. An unstructured covariance matrix is used.|REML-based repeated measures approach includes baseline pain intensity as continuous covariate, treatment, centre, time and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects. The difference was calculated as Buscopan minus 654-II.|||-0.09|-0.81|0.0149
90989755|NCT01929044|181863948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0113|||||||van Elteren test|The van Elteren test stratifying for centre (Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using modified ridit scores) was performed.||||||0.0113
90989756|NCT01929044|181863949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.64||||0.0992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.09|||Regression, Logistic|A logistic regression model was used to evaluate the response with treatment as fixed effect and baseline pain intensity as continuous covariate.|Exact 95% confidence interval obtained by Clopper and Pearson approach.|||1.09|0.37|0.0992
90989757|NCT00554294|181863950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69|||<|0.05||95.0|0.48|0.98|||Regression, Logistic|The Odds Ratio (OR) describes the probability ob beeing overweight of the intervention group compared to the control group (reference, denominator).||adjusted for overweight at baseline, age at baseline,sex and clustering by school||0.98|0.48|<0.05
90989758|NCT05022004|181863955|EQUIVALENCE|Type of Statistical Test - Therapeutic equivalence. Sample size was based on 90% power at an alpha=0.05 significance level when the true difference between the means is 0 and SD=3.5 and the 95% equivalence limits are -1.0 and 1.0; 20% dropout was assumed|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.91|||||The reported mean difference represents value for Left Eye at Week 2, 08:00am|||0.91|-0.28|
90989759|NCT05022004|181863955|EQUIVALENCE|Type of Statistical Test - Therapeutic equivalence. Sample size was based on 90% power at an alpha=0.05 significance level when the true difference between the means is 0 and SD=3.5 and the 95% equivalence limits are -1.0 and 1.0; 20% dropout was assumed|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.76|||||The reported mean difference represents value for Right Eye at Week 2, 08:00am|||0.76|-0.39|
90989760|NCT05022004|181863955|EQUIVALENCE|Type of Statistical Test - Therapeutic equivalence. Sample size was based on 90% power at an alpha=0.05 significance level when the true difference between the means is 0 and SD=3.5 and the 95% equivalence limits are -1.0 and 1.0; 20% dropout was assumed|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.5|||||The reported mean difference represents value for Left Eye at Week 6, 08:00am|||0.50|-0.59|
90989761|NCT05022004|181863955|EQUIVALENCE|Type of Statistical Test - Therapeutic equivalence. Sample size was based on 90% power at an alpha=0.05 significance level when the true difference between the means is 0 and SD=3.5 and the 95% equivalence limits are -1.0 and 1.0; 20% dropout was assumed|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.4|||||The reported mean difference represents value for Right Eye at Week 6, 08:00am|||0.40|-0.64|
90989762|NCT05022004|181863956|EQUIVALENCE|Type of Statistical Test - Therapeutic equivalence. Sample size was based on 90% power at an alpha=0.05 significance level when the true difference between the means is 0 and SD=3.5 and the 95% equivalence limits are -1.0 and 1.0; 20% dropout was assumed||||||0.0015||||||P value reported for Left Eye at Week 2; 08:00 am|two-sample t-test|||||||0.0015
90989763|NCT05022004|181863956|EQUIVALENCE|Type of Statistical Test - Therapeutic equivalence. Sample size was based on 90% power at an alpha=0.05 significance level when the true difference between the means is 0 and SD=3.5 and the 95% equivalence limits are -1.0 and 1.0; 20% dropout was assumed||||||0.0008|||||||two-sample t-test|P value reported for Right Eye at Week 2; 08:00am||||||0.0008
90989764|NCT05022004|181863956|EQUIVALENCE|Type of Statistical Test - Therapeutic equivalence. Sample size was based on 90% power at an alpha=0.05 significance level when the true difference between the means is 0 and SD=3.5 and the 95% equivalence limits are -1.0 and 1.0; 20% dropout was assumed|||||<|0.0001|||||||two-sample t-test|P value reported for left eye at week 6, 08:00 am||||||<.0001
90989765|NCT05022004|181863956|EQUIVALENCE|Type of Statistical Test - Therapeutic equivalence. Sample size was based on 90% power at an alpha=0.05 significance level when the true difference between the means is 0 and SD=3.5 and the 95% equivalence limits are -1.0 and 1.0; 20% dropout was assumed|||||<|0.0001|||||||two-sample t-test|P value reported for Right eye at Week 6; 08:00 am||||||<.0001
90989766|NCT01128972|181863968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|11.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.09|16.24||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and subject (random effect).|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means for the test dentifrice+ test MR treatment regimen and test dentifrice + sterile water rinse treatment regimen to be equal with respect to percent NER. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||16.24|7.09|<0.0001
90989767|NCT01128972|181863968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean DIfference|26.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.02|31.18||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons as primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and subject (random effect).|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means for the test dentifrice+ test MR treatment regimen and reference dentifrice + sterile water rinse treatment regimen to be equal with respect to percent NER. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||31.18|22.02|<0.0001
90989768|NCT01128972|181863968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|37.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.59|41.74||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and subject (random effect).|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means for the test dentifrice+ test MR treatment regimen and placebo dentifrice + sterile water rinse treatment regimen to be equal with respect to percent NER. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||41.74|32.59|<0.0001
90989769|NCT01128972|181863969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|4.11||||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|7.15||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and subject (random effect).|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means for the test dentifrice+ test MR treatment regimen and test dentifrice + Sterile water rinse to be equal with respect to percent SMH recovery. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||7.15|1.07|0.0083
90989770|NCT01128972|181863969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean DIfference|11.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.22|14.29||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and subject (random effect)|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means for the test dentifrice+ test MR treatment regimen and reference dentifrice + Sterile water rinse treatment regimen to be equal with respect to percent SMH recovery. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||14.29|8.22|<0.0001
90989771|NCT01128972|181863969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|11.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.53|14.6||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and subject (random effect)|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means for the test dentifrice+ test MR treatment regimen and placebo dentifrice + Sterile water rinse treatment regimen to be equal with respect to percent SMH recovery. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||14.60|8.53|<0.0001
90989772|NCT01128972|181863970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.88||||0.7041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.46|3.69||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and subject (random effect).|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means for the Placebo Dentifrice + Test MR and Test dentifrice+ Test MR treatment regimen treatment regimen to be equal with respect to percent NER. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||3.69|-5.46|0.7041
90989773|NCT01128972|181863970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|10.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.21|15.36||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and subject (random effect).|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means for the Placebo dentifrice+ test MR treatment regimen and test dentifrice + sterile water rinse treatment regimen to be equal with respect to percent NER. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||15.36|6.21|<0.0001
90989774|NCT01128972|181863970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|25.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.14|30.29||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and subject (random effect).|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means for the Placebo dentifrice+ Test MR treatment regimen and Reference dentifrice + sterile water rinse treatment regimen to be equal with respect to percent NER. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||30.29|21.14|<0.0001
90989775|NCT01128972|181863970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|36.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.71|40.86||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and subject (random effect).|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means for the Placebo dentifrice+ test MR treatment regimen and Placebo dentifrice + sterile water rinse treatment regimen to be equal with respect to percent NER. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||40.86|31.71|<0.0001
90989776|NCT01128972|181863971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-4.39||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.43|-1.35||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and subject (random effect).|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment|Null hypothesis considered population means for the Placebo dentifrice+ Test MR treatment regimen and Test dentifrice + Test MR to be equal with respect to percent SMH recovery. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||-1.35|-7.43|0.0049
90989777|NCT01128972|181863971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.28||||0.8571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.31|2.76||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and subject (random effect).|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means for the Placebo dentifrice+ test MR treatment regimen and test dentifrice + sterile water rinse to be equal with respect to percent SMH recovery. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||2.76|-3.31|0.8571
90989778|NCT01128972|181863971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|6.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.83|9.9||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and subject (random effect).|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means for the Placebo Dentifrice + Test MR treatment regimen and Reference Dentifrice + Sterile water rinse to be equal with respect to percent SMH recovery. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||9.90|3.83|<0.0001
90989779|NCT01128972|181863971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|7.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.14|10.21||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and subject (random effect).|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means for the Placebo Dentifrice + Test MR treatment regimen and Placebo dentifrice + Sterile water rinse to be equal with respect to percent SMH recovery. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||10.21|4.14|<0.0001
90989780|NCT01128972|181863972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|14.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.36|19.51||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and subject (random effect).|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means for the Test Dentifrice + Sterile water rinse treatment regimen andReference Dentifrice + Sterile water rinse treatment regimen to be equal with respect to percent NER. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||19.51|10.36|
90989781|NCT01128972|181863973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|7.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.11|10.18||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and subject (random effect).|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means for the Test Dentifrice + Sterile water rinse treatment regimen and Reference Dentifrice + Sterile water rinse to be equal with respect to percent SMH recovery. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||10.18|4.11|<0.0001
90989782|NCT02574312|181863974|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-Inferiority Analysis of absolute value of mechanical axis alignment with NI margin of 1.5 degrees, using a 1-sided T-test with alpha of 0.05. Anticipated power was 95%.||||||0.028|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.028
90989783|NCT04467164|181863987|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis is that there were no differences in change of brain activity in the subgenual anterior cingulate cortex (fMRI BOLD signal) between exhalatory-gated and inhalatory-gated tVNS. An ANCOVA model was used with average beta weights in response to stress task at baseline as a covariate. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).||||0.03
90989784|NCT04467164|181863987|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022|||||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis is that there were no differences in change of brain activity in the orbitofrontal cortex (fMRI BOLD signal) between exhalatory-gated and inhalatory-gated tVNS. An ANCOVA model was used with average beta weights in response to stress task at baseline as a covariate. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).||||0.022
90989785|NCT04467164|181863987|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027|||||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis is that there were no differences in change of brain activity in the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (fMRI BOLD signal) between exhalatory-gated and inhalatory-gated tVNS. An ANCOVA model was used with average beta weights in response to stress task at baseline as a covariate. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).||||0.027
90989786|NCT04467164|181863988|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in the change in BDI scale score between exhalatory-gated tVNS and inhalatory-gated tVNS. A repeated measures ANOVA controlled by baseline values was used to test this difference. A p\<0.05 was designated for statistical significance. A positive difference indicates an increase in depressive symptomatology, whereas a negative difference indicates a reduction in depressive symptoms.||||0.03
90989787|NCT04467164|181863989|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Regression, Linear|||The null hypothesis is that there were no differences in percent HFn changes post-pre stimulation between exhalatory-gated and inhalatory-gated tVNS. A General Linear Model (GLM) analysis adjusted by baseline values was used for evaluating differences in this measure between treatment groups. A p\<0.05 was designated for statistical significance. A positive percent change value indicates an increase in cardiovagal activity, whereas a negative change indicates a reduction in cardiovagal activity.||||0.01
90989788|NCT03463941|181863995|OTHER||||||||||||||||||descriptive|||
90989789|NCT03463941|181863996|OTHER||||||||||||||||||descriptive|||
90989790|NCT03463941|181863998|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
90989791|NCT03463941|181863999|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
90989792|NCT03463941|181864000|OTHER||||||||||||||||||descriptive|||
90989793|NCT03463941|181864001|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
90989794|NCT02273050|181864002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.885|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0994|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.689|||ANCOVA|||||-0.689|-1.080|<0.001
90989795|NCT02273050|181864002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.213|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1005||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.016|||ANCOVA|||||-0.016|-0.410|0.034
90989796|NCT02273050|181864003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|37.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.0|46.0|||Fisher Exact|||||46.0|29.0|<0.001
90989797|NCT02273050|181864003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|10.7||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|18.9|||Fisher Exact|||||18.9|2.6|0.011
90989798|NCT02273050|181864004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.158|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-1.08|||ANCOVA|||||-1.08|-1.70|<0.001
90989799|NCT02273050|181864004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.159||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.00|-0.63|0.046
90989800|NCT02273050|181864005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-416.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|51.54|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-517.3|-314.6|||ANCOVA|||||-314.6|-517.3|<0.001
90989801|NCT02273050|181864005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-169.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|52.05||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-271.7|-66.9|||ANCOVA|||||-66.9|-271.7|0.001
90989802|NCT02273050|181864006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|34.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.0|43.9|||Fisher Exact|||||43.9|26.0|<0.001
90989803|NCT02273050|181864006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|11.6||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|20.9|||Fisher Exact|||||20.9|2.3|0.020
90989804|NCT02273050|181864007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|-2.25|||ANCOVA|||||-2.25|-3.70|<0.001
90989805|NCT02273050|181864007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.374||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|-0.41|||ANCOVA|||||-0.41|-1.88|0.002
90989806|NCT02273050|181864008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|-4.5|||Fisher Exact|||||-4.5|-13.3|<0.001
90989807|NCT02273050|181864008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|2.3|||Fisher Exact|||||2.3|-2.3|>0.999
90989808|NCT00903032|181864017|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Previously provided||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Unpaired t tests were used to compare continuous variables, and χ2 testswere used to compare categorical variables across the intervention and usual care. We used a log-rank test to compare the hazardof first hospitalization for MI, revascularization, or death.We used a Wilcoxon rank sum test to compare PDCs between study arms. For all other outcomes, χ2 tests and t testswere used for comparisons, as appropriate.||||0.003
90989809|NCT01763905|181864060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-38.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.87|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.73|-32.99||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||The null hypothesis was that there is no mean difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and ezetimibe, and the alternative hypothesis is that a mean difference does exist.||-32.99|-43.73|<0.001
90989810|NCT01763905|181864060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-37.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.33|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.16|-32.94||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||The null hypothesis was that there is no mean difference in the percent change from baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and ezetimibe, and the alternative hypothesis is that a mean difference does exist.||-32.94|-42.16|<0.001
91042539|NCT00683592|181970416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean Change|-1.6||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||The model was an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), with terms for treatment group and center, adjusting for baseline HAM-D 17 total score. Missing values at week 8 were handled using the last observation carried forward (LOCF) approach.||-0.2|-3.1|0.026
91042540|NCT00683592|181970417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean Improve|-0.3||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.1|||ANOVA|||The model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA), with terms for treatment group and center. Missing values at week 8 were handled using the last observation carried forward (LOCF) approach.||-0.1|-0.5|0.004
91042541|NCT00683592|181970418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean Change|-1.2||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||The model was an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), with terms for treatment group and center, adjusting for baseline HAM-A total score. Missing values at week 8 were handled using the last observation carried forward (LOCF) approach.||-0.1|-2.4|0.037
91042542|NCT00683592|181970419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.134||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.047|0.221|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel tests were used to compare MADRS response rates between the treatment groups, stratifying by center. The asymptotic confidence interval of the risk difference was estimated by the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.||0.221|0.047|0.002
91042543|NCT00683592|181970420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.069||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.008|0.147|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel tests were used to compare MADRS remission rates between the treatment groups, stratifying by center. The asymptotic confidence interval of the risk difference was estimated by the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.||0.147|-0.008|0.066
91042544|NCT02697617|181970431|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024||||||First analyzed using a Linear Mixed Model to assess if there were carryover effects and then subsequently analyzed using paired t-tests to compare the mean differences between treatments.|Paired t-test|||||||0.024
90989811|NCT01763905|181864061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-66.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.9|-54.7||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-54.7|-77.9|<0.001
90989812|NCT01763905|181864061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-70.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.5|-60.7||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-60.7|-80.5|<0.001
91042545|NCT02697617|181970432|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14||||||First analyzed using a Linear Mixed Model to assess if there were carryover effects and then subsequently analyzed using paired t-tests to compare the mean differences between treatments.|Paired t-test|||||||0.14
91042546|NCT02697617|181970434|OTHER||||||||||||||||||comparison by paired t-test|||
91042547|NCT02697617|181970435|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15||||||First analyzed using a Linear Mixed Model to assess if there were carryover effects and then subsequently analyzed using paired t-tests to compare the mean differences between treatments.|Paired t-test|||||||0.15
91042548|NCT02697617|181970436|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4||||||First analyzed using a Linear Mixed Model to assess if there were carryover effects and then subsequently analyzed using paired t-tests to compare the mean differences between treatments.|paired t test|||||||0.4
91042549|NCT05661344|181970447|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|104.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.89|118.98|||||"Ratio \[%\] = (adjusted geometric mean of mild hepatic impairment / adjusted geometric mean of normal hepatic function matched to mild hepatic impairment)\*100.~Intra-matched pair geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 13.7"|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. The pharmacokinetic endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. This model included the effect 'degree of hepatic impairment' as a fixed effect and 'matched pair' as random effect. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale.||118.98|91.89|
90989813|NCT01763905|181864062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-69.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-82.0|-57.5||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-57.5|-82.0|<0.001
90989814|NCT01763905|181864062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-68.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-79.2|-58.4||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-58.4|-79.2|<0.001
91042550|NCT05661344|181970447|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|130.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.34|191.75|||||"Ratio \[%\] = (adjusted geometric mean of moderate hepatic impairment / adjusted geometric mean of normal hepatic function matched to moderate hepatic impairment)\*100.~Intra-matched pair geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 42.0"|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. The pharmacokinetic endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. This model included the effect 'degree of hepatic impairment' as a fixed effect and 'matched pair' as random effect. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale.||191.75|89.34|
91042551|NCT05661344|181970448|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|83.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.47|114.71|||||"Ratio \[%\] = (adjusted geometric mean of mild hepatic impairment / adjusted geometric mean of normal hepatic function matched to mild hepatic impairment)\*100.~Intra-matched pair geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 34.8"|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. The pharmacokinetic endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. This model included the effect 'degree of hepatic impairment' as a fixed effect and 'matched pair' as random effect. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale.||114.71|60.47|
90989815|NCT01763905|181864063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|43.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.9|53.4||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline LDL-C and statin use. For testing, non-achievement was imputed for participants with missing data.||||53.4|30.9|<0.001
90989816|NCT01763905|181864063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|42.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.3|51.8||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline LDL-C and statin use. For testing, non-achievement was imputed for participants with missing data.||||51.8|30.3|<0.001
91042552|NCT05661344|181970448|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|68.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|46.48|101.41|||||"Ratio \[%\] = (adjusted geometric mean of moderate hepatic impairment / adjusted geometric mean of normal hepatic function matched to moderate hepatic impairment)\*100.~Intra-matched pair geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 43.0"|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. The pharmacokinetic endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. This model included the effect 'degree of hepatic impairment' as a fixed effect and 'matched pair' as random effect. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale.||101.41|46.48|
90989817|NCT01763905|181864064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|48.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.0|57.8||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline LDL-C and statin use. For testing, non-achievement was imputed for participants with missing data.||||57.8|35.0|<0.001
90989818|NCT01763905|181864064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|37.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.5|47.5||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline LDL-C and statin use. For testing, non-achievement was imputed for participants with missing data.||||47.5|25.5|<0.001
90989819|NCT01763905|181864065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-31.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.43|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.34|-26.73||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-26.73|-36.34|<0.001
90989820|NCT01763905|181864065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-34.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.05|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.63|-30.54||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-30.54|-38.63|<0.001
90989821|NCT01763905|181864066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-32.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.63|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.28|-26.9||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-26.90|-37.28|<0.001
90989822|NCT01763905|181864066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-32.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.19|-28.79||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-28.79|-37.19|<0.001
90989823|NCT01763905|181864067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-32.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.39|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.92|-27.49||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-27.49|-36.92|<0.001
90989824|NCT01763905|181864067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-34.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.33|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.59|-30.39||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-30.39|-39.59|<0.001
90989825|NCT01763905|181864068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-32.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.62|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.04|-27.68||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-27.68|-38.04|<0.001
90989826|NCT01763905|181864068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-33.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.04|-28.17||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-28.17|-38.04|<0.001
90989827|NCT01763905|181864069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-27.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.39|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.11|-22.67||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-22.67|-32.11|<0.001
90989828|NCT01763905|181864069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-29.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.42|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.72|-25.17||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-25.17|-34.72|<0.001
90989829|NCT01763905|181864070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-26.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.42|-21.15||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-21.15|-31.42|<0.001
90989830|NCT01763905|181864070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-28.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.64|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.88|-23.43||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-23.43|-33.88|<0.001
90989831|NCT01763905|181864071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-34.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.52|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.84|-29.88||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-29.88|-39.84|<0.001
90989832|NCT01763905|181864071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-36.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.71|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.73|-31.01||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-31.01|-41.73|<0.001
90989833|NCT01763905|181864072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-34.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.79|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.05|-29.0||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-29.00|-40.05|<0.001
90989834|NCT01763905|181864072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-34.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.91|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.87|-28.39||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-28.39|-39.87|<0.001
90989835|NCT01763905|181864073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-23.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.73|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.27|-16.54||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-16.54|-31.27|<0.001
91042553|NCT05661344|181970449|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|105.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.36|120.38|||||"Ratio \[%\] = (adjusted geometric mean of mild hepatic impairment / adjusted geometric mean of normal hepatic function matched to mild hepatic impairment)\*100.~Intra-matched pair geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 14.1"|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. The pharmacokinetic endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. This model included the effect 'degree of hepatic impairment' as a fixed effect and 'matched pair' as random effect. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale.||120.38|92.36|
90989836|NCT01763905|181864073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-25.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.75|-16.77||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-16.77|-33.75|<0.001
90989837|NCT01763905|181864074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-25.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.03|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.26|-17.33||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-17.33|-33.26|<0.001
90989838|NCT01763905|181864074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-27.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.73|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.21|-16.56||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-16.56|-39.21|<0.001
90989839|NCT01763905|181864075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-2.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.45||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.38|6.2||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||6.20|-11.38|0.97
90989840|NCT01763905|181864075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-6.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.13||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.55|3.71||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||3.71|-16.55|0.33
90989841|NCT01763905|181864076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|1.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.92||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.14|11.31||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||11.31|-8.14|0.97
90989842|NCT01763905|181864076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-4.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.25||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.04|7.67||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||7.67|-17.04|0.33
90989843|NCT01763905|181864077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|5.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.23||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|9.56||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||9.56|0.74|0.068
90989844|NCT01763905|181864077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|5.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.28||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|10.24||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||10.24|1.23|0.13
90989845|NCT01763905|181864078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|3.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.56||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|8.63||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||8.63|-1.49|0.068
91042554|NCT05661344|181970449|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|131.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.96|191.05|||||"Ratio \[%\] = (adjusted geometric mean of moderate hepatic impairment / adjusted geometric mean of normal hepatic function matched to moderate hepatic impairment)\*100.~Intra-matched pair geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 41.4"|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. The pharmacokinetic endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. This model included the effect 'degree of hepatic impairment' as a fixed effect and 'matched pair' as random effect. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale.||191.05|89.96|
90989846|NCT01763905|181864078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|4.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.52||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|9.81||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||9.81|-0.16|0.13
91042555|NCT05212948|181970450|OTHER|Vaccine Efficacy|Efficacy|34.2||||0.2409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.9|44.6||One-sided P-value was calculated to test the null hypothesis, vaccine efficacy ≤30%.|Poisson Regression Model|Robust Error Variance||Vaccine efficacy was calculated with its 95% confidence interval and defined as 1 minus the relative risk (S-268019-b versus placebo), which included the intervention group, baseline age (continuous) as factors as well as the log of the follow-up time as an offset.||44.6|21.9|0.2409
90989847|NCT01763905|181864079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-1.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.35||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.43|6.75||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||6.75|-10.43|0.97
90989848|NCT01763905|181864079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-3.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.85||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.12|6.06||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||6.06|-13.12|0.33
90989849|NCT01763905|181864080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.7||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.96|8.61||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||8.61|-9.96|0.97
90989850|NCT01763905|181864080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.72||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.24|11.39||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||11.39|-11.24|0.33
90989851|NCT01763905|181864081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-36.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.71|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.26|-31.55||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||The null hypothesis was that there is no mean difference in the percent change from Baseline in the average value of LDL-C at Weeks 10 and 12 between evolocumab and ezetimibe, and the alternative hypothesis is that a mean difference does exist.||-31.55|-42.26|<0.001
90989852|NCT01763905|181864081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-38.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.21|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.06|-34.22||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||The null hypothesis was that there is no mean difference in the percent change from Baseline in the average value of LDL-C at Weeks 10 and 12 between evolocumab and ezetimibe, and the alternative hypothesis is that a mean difference does exist.||-34.22|-43.06|<0.001
90989853|NCT04346628|181864082|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.2||The final test was performed at the alpha = 0.04999 level of significance, adjusted for age group and sex.|Cox proportional hazards model||Hazard ratio adjusted for age and sex|||1.20|0.48|0.24
90989854|NCT04346628|181864084|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06||||||A p-value of 0.05 would have been considered statistically significant.|Fisher Exact|||Difference in hospitalizations||||0.06
90989855|NCT04346628|181864084|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56||||||A p-value of 0.05 would have been considered statistically significant.|Fisher Exact|||Difference in ED visits||||0.56
90989856|NCT04346628|181864086|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.29||A p-value of 0.05 would have been considered statistically significant.|Cox proportional hazards model||Hazard ratio adjusted for age and sex|Difference in days until initial resolution of symptoms||1.29|0.54|0.43
90989857|NCT04346628|181864086|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.45||A p-value of 0.05 would have been considered statistically significant.|Cox proportional hazards model||Hazard ratio adjusted for age and sex|Difference in days until sustained resolution of symptoms||1.45|0.52|0.59
90989858|NCT03456713|181864099|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares mean|1.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.12|1.94||||||||1.94|1.12|
90989859|NCT03456713|181864100|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares mean|1.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.15|1.81||||||||1.81|1.15|
90989860|NCT03456713|181864101|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares mean|1.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.31|2.11||||||||2.11|1.31|
90989861|NCT03456713|181864102|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.43|1.23||||||||1.23|0.43|
90989862|NCT03456713|181864103|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares mean|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.58|1.67||||||||1.67|0.58|
90989863|NCT03456713|181864104|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares mean|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.41|1.2||||||||1.20|0.41|
90989864|NCT00630812|181864136|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|54.14||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.97|110.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||110.26|-1.97|0.059
90989865|NCT00630812|181864136|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.69||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|2.8||Response defined as change of \>=100mL at week 26|Regression, Logistic|45.7% response on Mannitol 400mg, 35.5% on Control||||2.80|1.02|0.041
90989866|NCT00630812|181864137|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|43.49||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.8|106.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||106.78|-19.8|0.177
90989867|NCT00630812|181864138|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.85||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.41|||Poisson regression|Offset of the natural logarithm of follow-up time||||1.41|0.51|0.520
90989868|NCT00630812|181864139|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.75||||0.328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.33|||Poisson regression|Offset of the natural logarithm of follow-up time||||1.33|0.42|0.328
90989869|NCT00630812|181864140|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.89||||0.368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.15|||Poisson regression|||||1.15|0.69|0.368
90989870|NCT00630812|181864141|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.42||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|4.51|||ANCOVA|||||4.51|0.33|0.024
90989871|NCT00630812|181864142|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|71.35||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.57|132.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||132.13|10.57|0.022
90989872|NCT00630812|181864143|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|34.34||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.47|132.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||132.14|-63.47|0.49
90989873|NCT00630812|181864144|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.042|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.042
90989874|NCT05761444|181864145|OTHER||Least Squares (LS) mean difference|-21.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.26|-13.19||The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group (ezetimibe/atorvastatin, atorvastatin) and history of statin administration (yes, no) as fixed effects and baseline LDL-C as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-13.19|-29.26|<0.0001
90989875|NCT05761444|181864148|OTHER||LS mean difference|-15.96|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.56|-8.36||The ANCOVA model with treatment group (ezetimibe/atorvastatin, atorvastatin) and history of statin administration (yes, no) as fixed effects and baseline LDL-C as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-8.36|-23.56|<0.0001
90989876|NCT02868216|181864165|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.84||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|3.98|||ANOVA|||||3.98|0.63|0.05
90989877|NCT03161678|181864166|OTHER|The effect of CES1 genotype on agonist-stimulated change in platelet aggregation was calculated using variance component method that simultaneously adjusted for age, sex, body mass index (BMI), and relatedness among study participants. Relatedness among participants were accounted for by including a polygenic component as a random effect. Please see the Study Protocol and Statistical Analysis Plan document for additional information.|||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|All analyses were adjusted for age, sex, body mass index (BMI), and relatedness among study participants.||Change in platelet aggregation was assessed between the wild-type group and the carriers of the CES1 G143E mutation. The null hypothesis is that, following drug intervention, there is no difference in the change in platelet aggregation between genotype groups.||||<0.001
90989878|NCT03161678|181864166|OTHER|The effect of CES1 genotype on agonist-stimulated change in platelet aggregation was calculated using variance component method that simultaneously adjusted for age, sex, body mass index (BMI), and relatedness among study participants. Relatedness among participants were accounted for by including a polygenic component as a random effect. Please see the Study Protocol and Statistical Analysis Plan document for additional information.||||||0.24|||||||Regression, Linear|All analyses were adjusted for age, sex, body mass index (BMI), and relatedness among study participants.||Change in platelet aggregation was assessed between the wild-type group and the carriers of the CES1 functional mutation (rs7498748). The null hypothesis is that, following drug intervention, there is no difference in the change in platelet aggregation between genotype groups.||||0.24
90989879|NCT03161678|181864167|OTHER|The effect of CES1 genotype on agonist-stimulated change in platelet aggregation was calculated using variance component method that simultaneously adjusted for age, sex, body mass index (BMI), and relatedness among study participants. Relatedness among participants were accounted for by including a polygenic component as a random effect. Please see the Study Protocol and Statistical Analysis Plan document for additional information.||||||0.75|||||||Regression, Linear|All analyses were adjusted for age, sex, body mass index (BMI), and relatedness among study participants.||Change in platelet aggregation was assessed between the wild-type group and the carriers of the CES1 G143E mutation. The null hypothesis is that, following drug intervention, there is no difference in the change in platelet aggregation between genotype groups.||||0.75
90989880|NCT03161678|181864167|OTHER|The effect of CES1 genotype on agonist-stimulated change in platelet aggregation was calculated using variance component method that simultaneously adjusted for age, sex, body mass index (BMI), and relatedness among study participants. Relatedness among participants were accounted for by including a polygenic component as a random effect. Please see the Study Protocol and Statistical Analysis Plan document for additional information.||||||0.011|||||||Regression, Linear|All analyses were adjusted for age, sex, body mass index (BMI), and relatedness among study participants.||Change in platelet aggregation was assessed between the wild-type group and the carriers of the CES1 functional mutation (rs7498748). The null hypothesis is that, following drug intervention, there is no difference in the change in platelet aggregation between genotype groups.||||0.011
90989881|NCT00752609|181864168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change from baseline|-0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.19|||||A two-sided 95% CI of the estimated mean change from Baseline in hemoglobin was derived from the t-distribution.|||-0.19|-0.65|
90989882|NCT00752609|181864168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change from baseline|0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.71|||||A two-sided 95% CI of the estimated mean change from Baseline in hemoglobin was derived from the t-distribution.|||0.71|0.26|
90989883|NCT00904826|181864183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between before treatment and one year after treatment.||||<0.0001
90989884|NCT00904826|181864185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0078||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison was made between baseline and after 12 months of treatment.||||0.0078
90989885|NCT00904826|181864189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison is between 6 weeks and baseline.||||<0.0001
90989886|NCT00904826|181864189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison is between 3 months and baseline.||||<0.0001
90989887|NCT00904826|181864189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison is between 6 months and baseline||||0.0001
90989888|NCT00904826|181864189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison is between 9 months and baseline.||||0.0001
90989889|NCT00904826|181864189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison is between 12 months and baseline.||||<0.0001
90989890|NCT00904826|181864191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0019||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison was between 3 months and baseline.||||0.0019
90989891|NCT02026271|181864223|OTHER||||||||||||||||||"MTD was not determined in this study. Dose escalation decision rules were based on a standard 3+3 design modified to independently evaluate the two stratified subject groups that may exhibit different safety and tolerability profiles.~The study was planned to explore 4 veledimex (V) dose cohorts of 20, 40, 80 and 120 mg once daily, and two doses of Ad-RTS-hIL-12 (2x10\^11vp and 1x10\^12vp). Dose cohorts were treated at 10, 20, 30 and 40 mg of V. Only one dose of Ad-RTS-hIL-12 was explored (2x10\^11vp).~If ≥ 33% of subjects in the expansion cohort experience DLTs, additional subjects may be enrolled at the next lower dose, or at an intermediate dose, as recommended by the SRC.~Grp 1: After 20mg cohort, SRC approved 40mg, which was deemed the MAD due to DLTs. SRC approved 30mg cohort to determine MTD, but due to poor compliance, SRC opened a 20mg exp cohort and then an intermediate 10mg cohort. Based on V compliance and efficacy, 20mg was determined to be the optimal dose."|||
90989892|NCT00783705|181864303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|3.0|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Generalized estimating equation model on lesions (progressive disease vs. complete response/stable disease) was used to account for intra-patient correlation in the lesion-specific analysis.||3.0|0.7|0.39
90989893|NCT00783705|181864307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum|||Comparison of the median difference in biomarker CC-16 level between arms.||||0.10
90989894|NCT00783705|181864308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum|||Comparison of the median difference in biomarker IL-6 level between arms.||||0.03
90989895|NCT00783705|181864309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum|||Comparison of the median difference in biomarker CCL-2 level between arms.||||0.58
90989896|NCT00783705|181864310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum|||Comparison of the median difference in biomarker MPO level between arms.||||0.06
90989897|NCT00783705|181864311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum|||Comparison of the median difference in biomarker CC18 level between arms.||||0.63
90989898|NCT00783705|181864312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum|||Comparison of the median difference in biomarker SFTPD level between arms.||||0.22
90989899|NCT00783705|181864313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum|||Comparison of the median difference in biomarker Total Glutathione level between arms.||||0.06
90989900|NCT00783705|181864314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum|||Comparison of the median difference in biomarker CC-16 level between arms.||||0.35
90989901|NCT00783705|181864315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum|||Comparison of the median difference in biomarker CRP level between arms.||||0.80
90989902|NCT00783705|181864316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum|||Comparison of the median difference in biomarker IL-6 level between arms.||||0.22
90989903|NCT00783705|181864317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum|||Comparison of the median difference in biomarker CCL-2 level between arms.||||0.74
90989904|NCT00783705|181864318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum|||Comparison of the median difference in biomarker MPO level between arms.||||0.55
90989905|NCT00783705|181864319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.91|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum|||Comparison of the median difference in biomarker Nitrotyrosine level between arms.||||0.91
90989906|NCT00783705|181864320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum|||Comparison of the median difference in biomarker CC18 level between arms.||||0.46
90989907|NCT00783705|181864321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum|||Comparison of the median difference in biomarker SFTPD level between arms.||||0.52
90989908|NCT04743635|181864327|OTHER|"Performance goal.~Hypothesis:~Ho: D \< 1 Ha: D ≥ 1, where D = reduction in the CSS score from baseline to 3 months, and 1 is the performance goal. If the lower bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval is greater than or equal to 1 then we will reject the null hypothesis and conclude the device performs effectively."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.9||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|1.71|||t-test, 2 sided|The 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the mean reduction in CSS was calculated along with the corresponding p-value (Student's t-test).||The endpoint tested the mean of the changes for each treated participant, not a 1-point change between mean score of the group at baseline versus 3 months. Success is achieved when the mean change across all treated participants is at least one point.||1.71|1.28|.0001
90989909|NCT04743635|181864328|OTHER|Performance goal. The hierarchal endpoint is met if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval is greater than or equal to 0.6.|Percentage improved|95.6||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|87.6|99.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||"The GAIS scale counted if at least two of the three evaluators selected it, otherwise the median between the three was counted (e.g., if improved, worse and much worse, worse was counted). A participant is considered improved if the GAIS assessment is improved (1), much improved (2) or very much improved (3)."||99.1|87.6|.0001
90989910|NCT04743635|181864331|OTHER|Performance goal. In order to meet the endpoint, the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval had to be greater than or equal to 0.6.|Percentage improved|72.1||||0.0264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.9|82.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||82.3|59.9|.0264
90989911|NCT00804193|181864333|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|90% CI was constructed for the difference in the Therapeutic Success rates between the Test Product and Reference Product at Visit 4/Week 6 (Follow-Up). The interval was calculated using Wald's method with Yates' continuity correction. Therapeutic equivalence (bioequivalence) was established if this 90% CI was contained within the interval -0.20 to +0.20 (-20% to +20%).|Difference in Percentage of Participants|9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.69|18.85|||Wald's method, Yates|CI calculated using Wald's method with Yates' continuity correction.|The sample size for this study was calculated assuming that both active treatments would have equivalent success proportions of at least 55% and the Vehicle would have a success proportion no greater than 25%.|||18.85|-0.69|
90989912|NCT00804193|181864334|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|90% CI was constructed for the difference in the Success rates between the Test Product and Reference Product at Visit 4/Week 6 (Follow-Up). The interval was calculated using Wald's method with Yates' continuity correction. Bioequivalence was established if this 90% confidence interval was contained within the interval -0.20 to +0.20).|Difference in Percentage of Participants|1.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.08|9.24|||Wald's method with Yates' continuity cor||The sample size for this study was calculated assuming that both active treatments would have equivalent success proportions of at least 55% and the Vehicle would have a success proportion no greater than 25%.|||9.24|-7.08|0.001
90989913|NCT00804193|181864335|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|90% CI was constructed for the difference in the Success rates between the Test Product and Reference Product at Visit 4/Week 6 (Follow-Up). The interval was calculated using Wald's method with Yates' continuity correction. Bioequivalence was established if this 90% confidence interval was contained within the interval -0.20 to +0.20).|Difference in Percentage of Participants|4.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.6|14.24|||Wald's method Yates' continuity cor||The sample size for this study was calculated assuming that both active treatments would have equivalent success proportions of at least 55% and the Vehicle would have a success proportion no greater than 25%.|||14.24|-4.60|0.001
90989914|NCT04415489|181864336|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.57
90989915|NCT04415489|181864337|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
91042556|NCT05347693|181970467|EQUIVALENCE|"Prespecified estimates for sample size calculation~* Equivalence margin: 0.29~* Sample size estimate parameters:~  * Two-group χ² test~ * Significance level (α): 5% (two-sided)~ * Power: 80%~* Assumed proportions with NK (K+ between 3.5 and 5.0 mmol/L, inclusive) at 180 days post-discharge:~  * Arm A: 0.88~ * Arm B: 0.59~Note: Assumed proportions for statistical planning; not actual results."|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.66|||Regression, Logistic|Model included response as the dependent variable, and randomised treatment and participant recruitment country as independent factors.|OR \>1 indicated increased odds of K+ between 3.5 and 5.0 mmol/L on SZC compared to SoC.|||1.66|0.39|0.558
90989916|NCT04415489|181864338|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.11
90989917|NCT04415489|181864339|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.16
90989918|NCT04415489|181864340|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.01
90989919|NCT04415489|181864344|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.12
90989920|NCT01193348|181864345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of Complete TMA Response|63.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.7|82.8||||||||82.8|40.7|
90989921|NCT01193348|181864346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of Complete Hematologic Response|81.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.7|94.8||||||||94.8|59.7|
90989922|NCT01193348|181864347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of Platelet Count Normalization|95.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|77.2|99.9||||||||99.9|77.2|
90989923|NCT01193348|181864348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of eGFR Improvement|86.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.1|97.1||||||||97.1|65.1|
90989924|NCT01193348|181864349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean change from baseline|204.96|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|164.44|245.49|||ANOVA|||||245.49|164.44|<0.0001
90989925|NCT01193348|181864350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of Complete TMA Response|68.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.1|86.1||||||||86.1|45.1|
90989926|NCT01193348|181864351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of Complete Hematologic Response|90.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|70.8|98.9||||||||98.9|70.8|
90989927|NCT01193348|181864352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of Platelet Count Normalization|95.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|77.2|99.9||||||||99.9|77.2|
90989928|NCT01193348|181864353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of eGFR Improvement|86.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.1|97.1||||||||97.1|65.1|
90989929|NCT01193348|181864354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean change from baseline|165.43|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.43|232.43|||ANOVA|||||232.43|98.43|<0.0001
90989930|NCT00968253|181864360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Maximum tolerated dose|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of Everolimus measured in mg/day in combination with HyperCVAD|||||
90989931|NCT03302416|181864371|SUPERIORITY|Baseline scan VT vs. Post-hydrocortisone scan VT||||||0.005|||||||Linear mixed model|||||||0.005
90989932|NCT05319535|181864376|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|6.1|||Regression, Linear|||Models included the arm indicator variable in addition to the stratification variables used in randomization (site complexity level (high complexity '1a', '1b' or '1c' vs. all others); prior implementation of Caregivers First (yes vs. no)).||6.1|-1.8|0.26
90989933|NCT05319535|181864377|SUPERIORITY||rate ratio|1.7||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|3.4|||negative binomial regression|||Models included the arm indicator variable in addition to the stratification variables used in randomization (site complexity level (high complexity '1a', '1b' or '1c' vs. all others); prior implementation of Caregivers First (yes vs. no)).||3.4|0.9|0.11
90989934|NCT05319535|181864378|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|37.6||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.1|93.3|||Regression, Linear|||Models included the arm indicator variable in addition to the stratification variables used in randomization (site complexity level (high complexity '1a', '1b' or '1c' vs. all others); prior implementation of Caregivers First (yes vs. no)).||93.3|-18.1|0.17
90989935|NCT05319535|181864379|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.4|||Regression, Linear|||Models included the arm indicator variable in addition to the stratification variables used in randomization (site complexity level (high complexity '1a', '1b' or '1c' vs. all others); prior implementation of Caregivers First (yes vs. no)).||1.4|-0.1|0.10
90989936|NCT05319535|181864380|SUPERIORITY||rate ratio|1.3||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.3|||negative binomial regression|||Models included the arm indicator variable in addition to the stratification variables used in randomization (site complexity level (high complexity '1a', '1b' or '1c' vs. all others); prior implementation of Caregivers First (yes vs. no)).||2.3|0.7|0.36
90989937|NCT05319535|181864381|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.3||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|18.5|||Regression, Logistic|||Model included the arm indicator variable.||18.5|0.6|0.17
90989938|NCT01678807|181864413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|13.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|30.3|||||Estimate based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by asthma status.|||30.3|-3.4|
90989939|NCT01678807|181864413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|27.4|||||Estimate based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by asthma status.|||27.4|-6.4|
90989940|NCT01678807|181864414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|6.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|14.8|||||Estimate based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by asthma status.|||14.8|0.4|
90989941|NCT01678807|181864414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|6.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|14.8|||||Estimate based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by asthma status.|||14.8|0.4|
90989942|NCT05281523|181864415|OTHER|Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment group, baseline score, log(e) baseline blood eosinophil count, region, previous surgery for nasal polyps, visit, visit by baseline, and visit by treatment group.|Difference in Least Square Means|-0.6||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||To assess the efficacy of depemokimab 100mg SC + SoC compared to placebo + SoC at Week 52 in participants with a diagnosis of CRSwNP||-0.2|-1.0|0.004
90989943|NCT05281523|181864416|OTHER|Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment group, baseline score, log(e) baseline blood eosinophil count, region, previous surgery for nasal polyps, visit, subgroup, visit by baseline, visit by treatment group.|Difference in Least Square Means|-0.25||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||To assess the efficacy of depemokimab 100mg SC + SoC compared to placebo + SoC at Week 52 in participants with a diagnosis of CRSwNP||-0.03|-0.46|0.025
90989944|NCT05281523|181864417|OTHER|Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment group, baseline score, log(e) baseline blood eosinophil count, region, previous surgery for nasal polyps, visit, subgroup, visit by baseline, visit by treatment group, subgroup by treatment group and subgroup by visit by treatment group.|Difference in Least Square Means|-0.18||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||To assess the efficacy of depemokimab 100mg SC + SoC compared to placebo + SoC at Week 49 to Week 52 in participants with a diagnosis of CRSwNP||0.05|-0.40|0.125
90989945|NCT05281523|181864418|OTHER|Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment group, baseline score, log(e) baseline blood eosinophil count, region, previous surgery for nasal polyps, visit, subgroup, visit by baseline, visit by treatment group, subgroup by treatment group and subgroup by visit by treatment group. If the hierarchy is broken, subsequent endpoints were evaluated for nominal significance in a descriptive manner, using a 5% reference level.|Difference in Least Square Means|-0.26||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||To assess the efficacy of depemokimab 100mg SC + SoC compared to placebo + SoC at Week 49 to Week 52 in participants with a diagnosis of CRSwNP||-0.07|-0.45|0.007
90989946|NCT05281523|181864419|OTHER|Analysis performed using an analysis of covariance model with covariates of treatment group, baseline score, log(e) baseline blood eosinophil count, region and previous surgery for nasal polyps. If the hierarchy is broken, subsequent endpoints were evaluated for nominal significance in a descriptive manner, using a 5% reference level|Difference in Least Square Means|-3.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|-2.0|||ANCOVA|||To assess the efficacy of depemokimab 100mg SC + SoC compared to placebo + SoC at Week 52 in participants with a diagnosis of CRSwNP||-2.0|-4.4|<0.001
90989947|NCT05281523|181864420|OTHER|Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment group, baseline score, log(e) baseline blood eosinophil count, region, previous surgery for nasal polyps, visit, visit by baseline, and visit by treatment group. If the hierarchy is broken, subsequent endpoints were evaluated for nominal significance in a descriptive manner, using a 5% reference level.|Difference in Least Square Means|-9.9||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.9|-2.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||To assess the efficacy of depemokimab 100mg SC + SoC compared to placebo + SoC at Week 52 in participants with a diagnosis of CRSwNP||-2.0|-17.9|0.015
90989948|NCT05281523|181864421|OTHER|Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment group, baseline score, log(e) baseline blood eosinophil count, region, previous surgery for nasal polyps, visit, visit by baseline, and visit by treatment group. If the hierarchy is broken, subsequent endpoints were evaluated for nominal significance in a descriptive manner, using a 5% reference level.|Difference in Least Square Means|-0.24||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||To assess the efficacy of depemokimab 100mg SC + SoC compared to placebo + SoC at Week 21 to Week 24 in participants with a diagnosis of CRSwNP||-0.04|-0.43|0.016
90989949|NCT05281523|181864422|OTHER|Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment group, baseline score, log(e) baseline blood eosinophil count, region, previous surgery for nasal polyps, visit, visit by baseline, and visit by treatment group. If the hierarchy is broken, subsequent endpoints were evaluated for nominal significance in a descriptive manner, using a 5% reference level.|Difference in Least Square Means|-0.3||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||To assess the efficacy of depemokimab 100mg SC + SoC compared to placebo + SoC at Week 26 in participants with a diagnosis of CRSwNP||0.0|-0.7|0.066
90989950|NCT05281523|181864423|OTHER|Cox Proportional Hazards Model with covariates of treatment, baseline total endoscopic nasal polyps score, baseline nasal obstruction score (VRS), log(e) baseline blood eosinophil count, region, study and previous surgery for nasal polyps. The covariate for study is removed for the individual-study analyses.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.735||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.495|1.092|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||To assess the efficacy of depemokimab 100mg SC + SoC compared to placebo + SoC at Week 52 in participants with a diagnosis of CRSwNP (pooled analysis)||1.092|0.495|0.128
90989951|NCT05281523|181864424|OTHER|Cox Proportional Hazards Model with covariates of treatment, baseline total endoscopic nasal polyps score, baseline nasal obstruction score (VRS), log(e) baseline blood eosinophil count, region, study and previous surgery for nasal polyps. The covariate for study is removed for the individual-study analyses. If the hierarchy is broken, subsequent endpoints were evaluated for nominal significance in a descriptive manner, using a 5% reference level.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.713||||0.146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.453|1.124|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||To assess the efficacy of depemokimab 100mg SC + SoC compared to placebo + SoC at Week 52 in participants with a diagnosis of CRSwNP (pooled analysis)||1.124|0.453|0.146
90989952|NCT05281523|181864425|OTHER|Logistic regression with covariates of treatment, number of courses of systemic CS in 12 months prior to screening for NP (0, 1,\>1), log(e) baseline blood eosinophil count, baseline total endoscopic NP score, baseline nasal obstruction score (VRS), region, study and previous surgery for NPs. The study covariate is removed for individual study analyses. If the hierarchy is broken, subsequent endpoints were evaluated for nominal significance in a descriptive manner, using a 5% reference level.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.58||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.86|||Regression, Logistic|||To assess the efficacy of depemokimab 100mg SC + SoC compared to placebo + SoC at Week 52 in participants with a diagnosis of CRSwNP (pooled analysis)||0.86|0.40|0.006
90989953|NCT05281523|181864426|OTHER|The pooled statistical analyses was performed using a Mixed Models Repeated Measures (MMRM) model with covariates of treatment group, baseline score, log(e) baseline blood eosinophil count, region, previous surgery for nasal polyps, study, visit and interaction terms for visit by baseline score and visit by treatment group. If the hierarchy is broken, subsequent endpoints were evaluated for nominal significance in a descriptive manner, using a 5% reference level.|Difference in Least Square Means|-0.75||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|-0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||To assess the efficacy of depemokimab 100mg SC + SoC compared to placebo + SoC at Week 52 in participants with a diagnosis of CRSwNP (pooled analysis).||-0.25|-1.26|0.004
90989954|NCT05299983|181864479|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<.001
90989955|NCT05299983|181864480|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.02
90989956|NCT05299983|181864481|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.22
90989957|NCT05299983|181864482|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.45
90989958|NCT02614287|181864499|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
90989959|NCT02614287|181864503|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.215|||||||Fisher Exact|||TE ADA Positive (TE ADA+)||||.215
90989960|NCT02614287|181864504|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.04|-1.76|0.60
90989961|NCT02614287|181864505|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.89|-0.72|.835
90989962|NCT02614287|181864506|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.467||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.979|2.197|||CPLRM|CPLRM: Categorical pseudo likelihood-based repeated measures model||||2.197|0.979|.063
90989963|NCT02614287|181864507|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|1.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.04|-0.96|.937
90989964|NCT02614287|181864508|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.02|-0.40|0.073
90989965|NCT02614287|181864509|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.82||0.747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.65|6.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.47|-4.65|.747
90989966|NCT02614287|181864510|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|1.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.55||0.203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|5.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Total Score||5.03|-1.07|0.203
90989967|NCT02614287|181864510|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|1.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.59||0.247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|4.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Role Function-Restrictive Domain Score||4.98|-1.29|.247
90989968|NCT02614287|181864510|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.49||0.399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|4.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Role Function-Preventive Domain Score||4.19|-1.67|0.399
90989969|NCT02614287|181864510|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|3.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|6.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Emotional Function Domain Score||6.64|-0.46|0.88
90989970|NCT00418834|181864513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|<|0.001||95.0|-16.0|-11.7|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, baseline LDL-C, and AVD status|(Atorva 10 mg + EZ minus Atorva 20 mg)|||-11.7|-16.0|<0.001
90989971|NCT00418834|181864514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4|<|0.001||95.0|-7.4|-1.8|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, baseline LDL-C, and AVD status|(Atorva 10 mg + EZ minus Atorva 20 mg)|||-1.8|-7.4|<0.001
90989972|NCT00418834|181864515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.32|||<|0.001||95.0|4.52|8.84|||Regression, Logistic|Model terms: treatment, baseline LDL-C, and AVD status|Estimated ratio is the predictive odds of attaining LDL-C target on Atorva 10 mg + EZ versus Atorva 20 mg|||8.84|4.52|<0.001
90989973|NCT00418834|181864516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.87|||<|0.001||95.0|1.4|2.5|||Regression, Logistic|Model terms: treatment, baseline LDL-C, and AVD status|Estimated ratio is the predictive odds of attaining LDL-C target on Atorva 10 mg + EZ versus Atorva 20 mg / Atorva 40 mg|||2.50|1.40|<0.001
90989974|NCT00418834|181864517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.48|||<|0.001||95.0|3.98|7.55|||Regression, Logistic|Model terms: treatment, baseline LDL-C, and AVD status|Estimated ratio is the predictive odds of attaining LDL-C target on Atorva 10 mg + EZ versus Atorva 20 mg|||7.55|3.98|<0.001
90989975|NCT00418834|181864518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.75|||<|0.001||95.0|1.32|2.31|||Regression, Logistic|Model terms: treatment, baseline LDL-C, and AVD status|Estimated ratio is the predictive odds of attaining LDL-C target on Atorva 10 mg + EZ versus Atorva 20 mg / Atorva 40 mg|||2.31|1.32|<0.001
90989976|NCT00418834|181864519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|<|0.001||95.0|0.3|3.5|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, baseline HDL-C, and AVD status|(Atorva 10 mg + EZ minus Atorva 20 mg)|||3.5|0.3|<0.001
90989977|NCT00418834|181864520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|<|0.001||95.0|1.5|4.8|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, baseline HDL-C, and AVD status|(Atorva 10 mg + EZ minus Atorva 20 mg / Atorva 40 mg)|||4.8|1.5|<0.001
90989978|NCT00418834|181864521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0|<|0.001||95.0|-14.2|-10.3|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, baseline non-HDL-C, and AVD status|(Atorva 10 mg + EZ minus Atorva 20 mg)|||-10.3|-14.2|<0.001
90989979|NCT00418834|181864522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3|<|0.001||95.0|-6.8|-1.7|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, baseline non-HDL-C, and AVD status|(Atorva 10 mg + EZ minus Atorva 20 mg)|||-1.7|-6.8|<0.001
90989980|NCT00418834|181864523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|<|0.001||95.0|-9.4|-6.5|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, baseline Total Cholesterol, and AVD status|(Atorva 10 mg + EZ minus Atorva 20 mg)|||-6.5|-9.4|<0.001
90989981|NCT00418834|181864524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|<|0.001||95.0|-3.8|-0.2|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, baseline Total Cholesterol, and AVD status|(Atorva 10 mg + EZ minus Atorva 20 mg / Atorva 40 mg)|||-0.2|-3.8|<0.001
90989982|NCT00418834|181864525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-6.2|||<|0.001||95.0|-9.0|-3.4|||Nonparametric ANCOVA|ANCOVA using ranks based on normal scores (Tukey method) with model terms for treatment, baseline TG value (normalized scores), and AVD status|"(Atorva 10 mg + EZ minus Atorva 20 mg)~The median difference is based on the Hodges-Lehmann estimates of shift; The distribution-free 95% CI is based on Wilcoxon's rank sum test statistic"|||-3.4|-9.0|<0.001
90989983|NCT00418834|181864526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.1|||<|0.001||95.0|-5.2|1.0|||Nonparametric ANCOVA|ANCOVA using ranks based on normal scores (Tukey method) with model terms for treatment, baseline TG value (normalized scores), and AVD status|"(Atorva 10 mg + EZ minus Atorva 20 mg)~The median difference is based on the Hodges-Lehmann estimates~of shift; The distribution-free 95% CI is based on Wilcoxon's rank sum test statistic"|||1.0|-5.2|<0.001
90989984|NCT00418834|181864527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|<|0.001||95.0|-11.0|-7.3|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, baseline Apo B, and AVD status|(Atorva 10 mg + EZ minus Atorva 20 mg)|||-7.3|-11.0|<0.001
90989985|NCT00418834|181864528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<|0.001||95.0|-5.5|-0.9|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, baseline Apo B, and AVD status|(Atorva 10 mg + EZ minus Atorva 20 mg / Atorva 40 mg)|||-0.9|-5.5|<0.001
90989986|NCT00418834|181864529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.401||95.0|-0.9|2.1|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, baseline Apo A-I, and AVD status|(Atorva 10 mg + EZ minus Atorva 20 mg)|||2.1|-0.9|0.401
90989987|NCT00418834|181864530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|<|0.001||95.0|1.1|4.2|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, baseline Apo A-I, and AVD status|(Atorva 10 mg + EZ minus Atorva 20 mg / Atorva 40 mg)|||4.2|1.1|<0.001
90989988|NCT00418834|181864531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|<|0.001||95.0|-10.7|-7.3|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, baseline Total-C:HDL-C, and AVD status|(Atorva 10 mg + EZ minus Atorva 20 mg)|||-7.3|-10.7|<0.001
90989989|NCT00418834|181864532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|<|0.001||95.0|-6.8|-2.4|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, baseline Total-C:HDL-C, and AVD status|(Atorva 10 mg + EZ minus Atorva 20 mg / Atorva 40 mg)|||-2.4|-6.8|<0.001
90989990|NCT00418834|181864533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<|0.001||95.0|-17.0|-12.2|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, baseline LDL-C:HDL-C, and AVD status|(Atorva 10 mg + EZ minus Atorva 20 mg)|||-12.2|-17.0|<0.001
90989991|NCT00418834|181864534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7|<|0.001||95.0|-10.1|-3.7|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, baseline LDL-C:HDL-C, and AVD status|(Atorva 10 mg + EZ minus Atorva 20 mg / Atorva 40 mg)|||-3.7|-10.1|<0.001
90989992|NCT00418834|181864535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0|<|0.001||95.0|-11.6|-7.5|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, baseline Apo B:Apo A-I, and AVD status|(Atorva 10 mg + EZ minus Atorva 20 mg)|||-7.5|-11.6|<0.001
90989993|NCT00418834|181864536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<|0.001||95.0|-7.7|-2.9|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, baseline Apo B:Apo A-I, and AVD status|(Atorva 10 mg + EZ minus Atorva 20 mg / Atorva 40 mg)|||-2.9|-7.7|<0.001
90989994|NCT00418834|181864537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<|0.001||95.0|-15.3|-10.5|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, baseline non-HDL-C:HDL-C, and AVD status|(Atorva 10 mg + EZ minus Atorva 20 mg)|||-10.5|-15.3|<0.001
90989995|NCT00418834|181864538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6|<|0.001||95.0|-9.8|-3.6|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, baseline non-HDL-C:HDL-C, and AVD status|(Atorva 10 mg + EZ minus Atorva 20 mg / Atorva 40 mg)|||-3.6|-9.8|<0.001
90989996|NCT00418834|181864539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.8||||0.534||95.0|-11.9|6.4|||Longitudinal Data Analysis (LDA)|LDA method of Liang and Zeger with model terms: treatment, time, AVD status, and the interaction of time by treatment|"(Atorva 10 mg + EZ minus Atorva 20 mg)~Data for analysis was transformed by the natural log and the difference in geometric mean % change from BL calculated based on the difference in the back-transformed least squares means."|||6.4|-11.9|0.534
90989997|NCT00418834|181864540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.0||||0.09||95.0|-15.6|1.6|||Longitudinal Data Analysis (LDA)|LDA method of Liang and Zeger with model terms: treatment, time, AVD status, and the interaction of time by treatment|"(Atorva 10 mg + EZ minus Atorva 20 mg / Atorva 40 mg)~Data for analysis was transformed by the natural log and the difference in geometric mean % change from BL calculated based on the difference in the back-transformed least squares means."|||1.6|-15.6|0.090
90989998|NCT01953328|181864541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-73.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.54|-69.41||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the percent change from baseline at the mean of Weeks 10 and 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-69.41|-78.54|<0.001
90989999|NCT01953328|181864541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-72.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.22|-68.57||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the percent change from baseline at the mean of Weeks 10 and 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-68.57|-77.22|<0.001
90990000|NCT01953328|181864541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-74.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.43|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-81.21|-67.61||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the percent change from baseline at the mean of Weeks 10 and 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-67.61|-81.21|<0.001
90990001|NCT01953328|181864541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-74.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.35|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.93|-69.6||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the percent change from baseline at the mean of Weeks 10 and 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-69.60|-78.93|<0.001
91006879|NCT02141854|181898334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|0.681||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.478|0.885||Significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|||The change from baseline in AQLQ(S) score (patients ≥18 years of age) at endpoint (ie, last postbaseline observation) was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with effects due to baseline AQLQ(S) score, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), and treatment, imputing missing data via last observation carried forward (LOCF).||0.885|0.478|0.0000
90990002|NCT01953328|181864542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-74.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.71|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.22|-69.47||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the percent change from baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-69.47|-80.22|<0.001
90990003|NCT01953328|181864542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-69.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.36|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.6|-65.23||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the percent change from baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-65.23|-74.60|<0.001
90990004|NCT01953328|181864542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-78.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.88|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.55|-68.15||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the percent change from baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-68.15|-83.55|<0.001
90990005|NCT01953328|181864542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-66.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.03|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.88|-60.87||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the percent change from baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-60.87|-72.88|<0.001
90990006|NCT01953328|181864543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-89.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-98.4|-80.2||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-80.2|-98.4|<0.001
90990007|NCT01953328|181864543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-86.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-95.1|-77.5||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-77.5|-95.1|<0.001
90990008|NCT01953328|181864543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-68.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.3|-62.1||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-62.1|-75.3|<0.001
90990009|NCT01953328|181864543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-72.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-79.5|-64.6||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-64.6|-79.5|<0.001
90990010|NCT01953328|181864544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-90.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.9|-80.7||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-80.7|-100.9|<0.001
91042557|NCT05347693|181970468|EQUIVALENCE|"Prespecified estimates for sample size calculation~* Equivalence margin: 0.262~* Sample size estimate parameters:~  * Log-Rank Test for Equality of Survival Curves~ * α: 5%~ * Power: 80%~* HR (SZC/SoC): 0.329~* Assumed proportions without the main secondary composite outcome (event-free) at 180 days post-discharge~  * Arm A: 83% (17% with the outcome/event of interest)~ * Arm B: 56.8% (43.2% with the outcome/event of interest)~Note: Assumed proportions for statistical planning; not actual results"|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.51|||Regression, Cox|Randomised treatment group and participant recruitment country were used as the independent variables. SoC group used as reference level in Cox model.|An HR \<1 favoured SZC to be associated with a longer time to first component of composite endpoint than SoC.|||1.51|0.56|0.743
91042558|NCT05347693|181970469|EQUIVALENCE|This outcome is unpowered.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.79|||Regression, Cox|Randomised treatment group and participant recruitment country were used as the independent variables. SoC group used as reference level in Cox model.|An HR \<1 favoured SZC to be associated with a longer time to first component of composite endpoint than SoC.|||1.79|0.58|0.951
91042559|NCT05347693|181970470|EQUIVALENCE|This outcome is unpowered.|Incidence rate ratio|1.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|2.53|||Negative binomial regression model|Model included the randomised treatment group as the independent variable and duration of time in study as an offset.|A rate ratio \<1 favours SZC compared to SoC.|||2.53|0.86|0.152
90990011|NCT01953328|181864544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-83.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-92.5|-74.8||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-74.8|-92.5|<0.001
90990012|NCT01953328|181864544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-69.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.5|-62.6||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-62.6|-76.5|<0.001
90990013|NCT01953328|181864544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-65.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.8|-57.1||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-57.1|-73.8|<0.001
90990014|NCT01953328|181864545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-68.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.21|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.06|-64.27||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-64.27|-73.06|<0.001
90990015|NCT01953328|181864545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-65.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.74|-62.16||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-62.16|-69.74|<0.001
91042560|NCT05347693|181970471|EQUIVALENCE|This outcome is unpowered.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.42||||0.515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|4.35|||Regression, Cox|Randomised treatment group and participant recruitment country were used as the independent variables. SoC group used as reference level in Cox model.|An HR \<1 favoured SZC to be associated with a longer time to first component of composite endpoint than SoC.|||4.35|0.50|0.515
91042561|NCT05347693|181970472|EQUIVALENCE|This outcome is unpowered.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.41||||0.258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.83|||Regression, Cox|Randomised treatment group and participant recruitment country were used as the independent variables. SoC group used as reference level in Cox model.|An HR \<1 favoured SZC to be associated with a longer time to first component of composite endpoint than SoC.|||1.83|0.07|0.258
90990016|NCT01953328|181864545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-68.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.3|-62.99||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-62.99|-73.30|<0.001
90990017|NCT01953328|181864545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-67.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.94|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.14|-63.42||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-63.42|-71.14|<0.001
90990018|NCT01953328|181864546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-68.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.54|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.96|-63.89||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-63.89|-73.96|<0.001
90990019|NCT01953328|181864546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-63.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.96|-59.21||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-59.21|-67.96|<0.001
90990020|NCT01953328|181864546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-68.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.01|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.79|-62.86||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-62.86|-74.79|<0.001
90990021|NCT01953328|181864546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-60.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.47|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.78|-55.99||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-55.99|-65.78|<0.001
90990022|NCT01953328|181864547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-64.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.49|-60.39||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-60.39|-68.49|<0.001
90990023|NCT01953328|181864547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-59.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.05|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.3|-55.17||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-55.17|-63.30|<0.001
90990024|NCT01953328|181864547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-60.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.42|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.87|-55.25||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-55.25|-64.87|<0.001
91042562|NCT05347693|181970473|EQUIVALENCE|This outcome is unpowered.|Incidence risk ratio|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.81|||Negative binomial regression model|Model included the randomised treatment group as the independent variable and duration of time in study as an offset.|A rate ratio \<1 favours SZC compared to SoC.|||1.81|0.10|0.239
91042563|NCT04404907|181970489|OTHER|ANOVA||||||0.02|||||||ANOVA|||feel more attractive||||0.02
90990025|NCT01953328|181864547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-63.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.15|-59.62||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-59.62|-67.15|<0.001
91042564|NCT04404907|181970489|OTHER|ANOVA||||||0.001|||||||ANOVA|||tanning helps relax||||0.001
91042565|NCT04404907|181970489|OTHER|||||||0.34|||||||ANOVA|||confident with a tan||||0.34
91042566|NCT04404907|181970489|OTHER|||||||0.0004|||||||ANOVA|||Social activity||||0.0004
91042567|NCT04404907|181970489|OTHER|||||||0.66|||||||ANOVA|||Important to protect skin from the sun||||0.66
91042568|NCT04404907|181970489|OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||ANOVA|||Concern about develop skin cancer||||0.16
90990026|NCT01953328|181864548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-65.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.34|-60.79||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-60.79|-70.34|<0.001
91042569|NCT04404907|181970489|OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||ANOVA|||Chances of getting skin cancer are high||||0.29
90990027|NCT01953328|181864548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-57.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.43|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.05|-52.4||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-52.40|-62.05|<0.001
90990028|NCT01953328|181864548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-60.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.79|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.91|-54.83||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-54.83|-65.91|<0.001
90990029|NCT01953328|181864548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-56.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.92|-51.39||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-51.39|-60.92|<0.001
90990030|NCT01953328|181864549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-45.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.92|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.35|-41.73||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-41.73|-49.35|<0.001
90990031|NCT01953328|181864549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-43.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.69|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.78|-40.08||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-40.08|-46.78|<0.001
90990032|NCT01953328|181864549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-40.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.96|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.88|-37.08||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-37.08|-44.88|<0.001
90990033|NCT01953328|181864549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-43.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.68|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.48|-39.8||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-39.80|-46.48|<0.001
90990034|NCT01953328|181864550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-45.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.21|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.83|-41.05||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-41.05|-49.83|<0.001
90990035|NCT01953328|181864550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-41.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.76|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.84|-37.85||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-37.85|-44.84|<0.001
90990036|NCT01953328|181864550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-40.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.21|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.35|-36.57||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-36.57|-45.35|<0.001
90990037|NCT01953328|181864550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-38.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.26|-34.62||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-34.62|-42.26|<0.001
90990038|NCT01953328|181864551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-54.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.32|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.37|-50.17||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-50.17|-59.37|<0.001
90990039|NCT01953328|181864551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-52.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.95|-48.36||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-48.36|-56.95|<0.001
91042570|NCT01653405|181970490|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Difference in differences|||||||<0.001
91042571|NCT01653405|181970491|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||test of differences|||||||0.43
91042572|NCT01653405|181970492|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||difference in differences|||||||<0.001
90990040|NCT01953328|181864551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-50.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.96|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.72|-46.93||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-46.93|-54.72|<0.001
90990041|NCT01953328|181864551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-49.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.74|-45.64||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-45.64|-53.74|<0.001
90990042|NCT01953328|181864552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-55.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.76|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.93|-49.98||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-49.98|-60.93|<0.001
90990043|NCT01953328|181864552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-50.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.91|-46.0||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-46.00|-55.91|<0.001
90990044|NCT01953328|181864552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-51.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.93|-46.8||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-46.80|-55.93|<0.001
90990045|NCT01953328|181864552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-45.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.33|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.08|-40.81||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-40.81|-50.08|<0.001
90990046|NCT01953328|181864553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-66.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.58|-62.36||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-62.36|-70.58|<0.001
90990047|NCT01953328|181864553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-64.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.35|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.01|-59.66||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-59.66|-69.01|<0.001
90990048|NCT01953328|181864553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-64.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.44|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.9|-59.2||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-59.20|-68.90|<0.001
90990049|NCT01953328|181864553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-67.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.36|-63.15||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-63.15|-71.36|<0.001
90990050|NCT01953328|181864554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-68.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.75|-63.84||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-63.84|-72.75|<0.001
90990051|NCT01953328|181864554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-62.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.81|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.11|-56.94||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-56.94|-68.11|<0.001
90990052|NCT01953328|181864554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-63.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.75|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.44|-58.5||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-58.50|-69.44|<0.001
90990053|NCT01953328|181864554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-60.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.47|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.51|-55.72||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-55.72|-65.51|<0.001
90990054|NCT01953328|181864555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|98.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.8|99.6||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factor (HeFH diagnosis and lipid-lowering therapy).||||99.6|86.8|<0.001
90990055|NCT01953328|181864555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|96.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|84.1|98.9||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factor (HeFH diagnosis and lipid-lowering therapy).||||98.9|84.1|<0.001
91042573|NCT01653405|181970493|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Difference in differences|||||||<0.001
91042574|NCT01653405|181970494|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||difference in differences|||||||0.002
90990056|NCT01953328|181864555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|73.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.1|83.4||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factor (HeFH diagnosis and lipid-lowering therapy).||||83.4|57.1|<0.001
90990057|NCT01953328|181864555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|82.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.5|90.0||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factor (HeFH diagnosis and lipid-lowering therapy).||||90.0|67.5|<0.001
90990058|NCT01953328|181864556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|98.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.7|99.6||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factor (HeFH diagnosis and lipid-lowering therapy).||||99.6|86.7|<0.001
90990059|NCT01953328|181864556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|91.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.2|96.0||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factor (HeFH diagnosis and lipid-lowering therapy).||||96.0|78.2|<0.001
90990060|NCT01953328|181864556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|75.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.3|85.0||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factor (HeFH diagnosis and lipid-lowering therapy).||||85.0|59.3|<0.001
90990061|NCT01953328|181864556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|78.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.6|86.9||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factor (HeFH diagnosis and lipid-lowering therapy).||||86.9|62.6|<0.001
90990062|NCT01953328|181864557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-51.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.39|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.88|-38.52||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-38.52|-63.88|<0.001
90990063|NCT01953328|181864557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-49.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.94|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.89|-39.27||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-39.27|-58.89|<0.001
90990064|NCT01953328|181864557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-49.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.74|-39.35||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-39.35|-59.74|<0.001
90990065|NCT01953328|181864557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-43.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.95|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.75|-34.12||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-34.12|-53.75|<0.001
90990066|NCT01953328|181864558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-50.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.64|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.25|-34.9||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-34.90|-65.25|<0.001
90990067|NCT01953328|181864558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-48.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.49|-37.05||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-37.05|-60.49|<0.001
90990068|NCT01953328|181864558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-52.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.73|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.06|-41.3||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-41.30|-64.06|<0.001
90990069|NCT01953328|181864558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-39.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.46|-29.48||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-29.48|-50.46|<0.001
90990070|NCT01953328|181864559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-27.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.72|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.27|-14.59||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-14.59|-41.27|<0.001
90990071|NCT01953328|181864559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-21.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.34|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.54|-11.35||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-11.35|-32.54|<0.001
90990072|NCT01953328|181864559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-20.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.83|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.59|-10.43||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-10.43|-29.59|<0.001
90990073|NCT01953328|181864559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-20.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.78||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.18|-7.26||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-7.26|-34.18|0.010
90990074|NCT01953328|181864560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-27.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.45|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.33|-8.81||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-8.81|-46.33|<0.001
90990075|NCT01953328|181864560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-19.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.68|-8.25||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-8.25|-31.68|<0.001
91042575|NCT01321177|181970531|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0145|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.0145
90990076|NCT01953328|181864560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-17.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.53|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.15|-6.19||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-6.19|-28.15|<0.001
90990077|NCT01953328|181864560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-16.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.24||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.29|-2.56||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-2.56|-31.29|0.010
90990078|NCT01953328|181864561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|12.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.49|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.39|17.27||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||17.27|7.39|<0.001
90990079|NCT01953328|181864561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|14.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.36|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.93|19.3||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||19.30|9.93|<0.001
90990080|NCT01953328|181864561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|15.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.64|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.12|20.6||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||20.60|10.12|<0.001
90990081|NCT01953328|181864561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|9.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.67|13.62||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||13.62|4.67|0.001
90990082|NCT01953328|181864562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|13.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|19.53||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||19.53|7.40|<0.001
91042576|NCT01540045|181970550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.013|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the paired analysis of taste acuity we used Wilcoxon for difference between baseline and 6 weeks later.||||0.013
91042577|NCT01540045|181970551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.671|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||we evaluated body fat before and after 2 cycles of cisplatin/paclitaxel based chemotheprapy||||0.671
91042578|NCT01540045|181970551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.694|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||we evaluated lean body mass before and after 2 cycles of cisplatin/paclitaxel based chemotheprapy||||0.694
91042579|NCT01540045|181970552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.118|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.118
90990083|NCT01953328|181864562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|15.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.68|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.87|20.52||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||20.52|9.87|<0.001
90990084|NCT01953328|181864562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|16.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.74|22.95||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||22.95|10.74|<0.001
90990085|NCT01953328|181864562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|10.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.85|15.55||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||15.55|4.85|0.001
90990086|NCT01953328|181864563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-27.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.37|-16.34||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-16.34|-39.37|<0.001
90990087|NCT01953328|181864563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-22.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.91|-12.39||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-12.39|-32.91|<0.001
90990088|NCT01953328|181864563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-18.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.69||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.4|-8.77||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-8.77|-27.40|0.001
90990089|NCT01953328|181864563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-27.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.31|-15.01||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-15.01|-39.31|<0.001
90990090|NCT01953328|181864564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-28.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.48|-14.36||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-14.36|-42.48|<0.001
90990091|NCT01953328|181864564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-20.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.78|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.29|-9.33||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-9.33|-32.29|<0.001
90990092|NCT01953328|181864564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-15.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.37||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.72|-4.39||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-4.39|-25.72|0.001
90990093|NCT01953328|181864564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-24.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.22|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.7|-11.99||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-11.99|-36.70|<0.001
90990094|NCT05113953|181864575|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.42||||0.1893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|0.21||P-value was analysed by MMRM method with change from baseline in binge eating days per week at scheduled visit as dependent variable and included fixed effect terms for treatment, trial center, visit week, interaction term of treatment by visit week.|MMRM|||||0.21|-1.06|0.1893
90990095|NCT05113953|181864575|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.06||||0.8502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.57||P-value was analysed by MMRM method with change from baseline in binge eating days per week at scheduled visit as dependent variable and included fixed effect terms for treatment, trial center, visit week, interaction term of treatment by visit week.|MMRM|||||0.57|-0.69|0.8502
90990096|NCT05113953|181864576|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.54||||0.0313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.05||P-value was analysed by MMRM method with change from baseline value as dependent variable and included treatment, trial center, visit week, treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline-by-week interaction as covariates.|MMRM|||Change from baseline at Week 8||-0.05|-1.02|0.0313
90990097|NCT05113953|181864576|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.19||||0.4471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.67||P-value was analysed by MMRM method with change from baseline value as dependent variable and included treatment, trial center, visit week, treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline-by-week interaction as covariates.|MMRM|||Change from baseline at Week 8||0.67|-0.30|0.4471
90990098|NCT03987919|181864603|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|-0.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.38|-0.64|<0.001
90990099|NCT03987919|181864603|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.47|-0.73|<0.001
90990100|NCT03987919|181864604|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.10|-0.36|<0.001
90990101|NCT03987919|181864605|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.7|-2.6|<0.001
90990102|NCT03987919|181864605|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|-3.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.2|-5.0|<0.001
90990103|NCT03987919|181864605|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|-5.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.3|-7.1|<0.001
90990104|NCT03987919|181864606|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.54||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.23|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.23|1.06|0.023
90990105|NCT03987919|181864606|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|3.17|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.17|1.44|<0.001
90990106|NCT03987919|181864606|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.97|4.66|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.66|1.97|<0.001
90990107|NCT03987919|181864607|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.3||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|-3.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.0|-11.7|0.001
90990108|NCT03987919|181864607|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-13.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.4|-8.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.6|-17.4|<0.001
90990109|NCT03987919|181864607|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-14.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.1|-10.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-10.3|-19.1|<0.001
90990110|NCT03987919|181864609|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.58||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.08|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.08|1.20|0.001
90990111|NCT03987919|181864609|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.57|4.75|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.75|2.57|<0.001
90990112|NCT03987919|181864609|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.32|6.38|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.38|3.32|<0.001
90990113|NCT03987919|181864610|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.24||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Hyperglycemia||0.03|-0.50|0.084
90990114|NCT03987919|181864610|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Hyperglycemia||0.00|-0.54|0.050
90990115|NCT03987919|181864610|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.39||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.12|||ANCOVA|||Hyperglycemia||-0.12|-0.66|0.005
90990116|NCT03987919|181864610|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.06||||0.688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.22|||ANCOVA|||Hypoglycemia||0.22|-0.33|0.688
90990117|NCT03987919|181864610|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02||||0.909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.26|||ANCOVA|||Hypoglycemia||0.26|-0.29|0.909
90990118|NCT03987919|181864610|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.13||||0.358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.15|||ANCOVA|||Hypoglycemia||0.15|-0.40|0.358
90990119|NCT03987919|181864610|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.41|||ANCOVA|||Total Score||0.41|-0.62|0.701
90990120|NCT03987919|181864610|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.25||||0.341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.27|||ANCOVA|||Total Score||0.27|-0.78|0.341
90990121|NCT03987919|181864610|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.26||||0.321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.79|||ANCOVA|||Total Score||0.79|-0.26|0.321
90990122|NCT03987919|181864612|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|2.57|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.57|1.35|<0.001
90990123|NCT03987919|181864612|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.88|5.39|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.39|2.88|<0.001
90990124|NCT03987919|181864612|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.73|6.97|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.97|3.73|<0.001
90990125|NCT03470922|181864620|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.75||||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.92|||Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified by LAG-3 (≥ 1% vs \< 1%), BRAF (mutation positive vs mutation wild-type), AJCC M-stage (M0/M1any\[0\] vs M1any\[1\])||||0.92|0.62|0.0055
90990126|NCT02626819|181864653|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Weight change was analyzed using Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test along with multiple imputation to adjust for missing data||||||<0.05
90990127|NCT02626819|181864654|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Weight change was analyzed using Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test along with multiple imputation to adjust for missing data.||||||<0.05
90990128|NCT02626819|181864655|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Weight change was analyzed using Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test along with multiple imputation to adjust for missing data||||||<0.05
90990129|NCT02626819|181864656|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
90990130|NCT02626819|181864657|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
90990131|NCT02626819|181864658|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
90990132|NCT02626819|181864659|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
90990133|NCT02626819|181864660|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
90990134|NCT02361762|181864661|OTHER|||||||0.36|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA-of-change was used to compare the Training and Waitlist groups at post-testing while controlling for baseline (baseline was co-varied)||||||0.36
90990135|NCT02361762|181864662|OTHER|||||||0.79|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA-of-change was used to compare the Training and Waitlist groups at post-testing while controlling for baseline (baseline was co-varied)||||||0.79
90990136|NCT02361762|181864663|OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA compared group (Training/Waitlist) by time (Pre/Post) by condition (Congruent/Incongruent)||||||0.009
90990137|NCT02361762|181864664|OTHER|||||||0.79||||||ANCOVA-of-change was used to compare the Training and Waitlist groups at post-testing while controlling for baseline (baseline was co-varied)|ANCOVA|Compared scores at post testing with baseline scores covaried.||||||.79
90990138|NCT02361762|181864665|OTHER|||||||0.61|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA-of-change was used to compare the Training and Waitlist groups at post-testing while controlling for baseline (baseline was co-varied)||||||0.61
90990139|NCT02361762|181864666|OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA-of-change was used to compare the Training and Waitlist groups at post-testing while controlling for baseline (baseline was co-varied)0.||||||0.68
90990140|NCT02361762|181864667|OTHER|||||||0.54|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA-of-change was used to compare the Training and Waitlist groups at post-testing while controlling for baseline (baseline was co-varied)||||||0.54
90990141|NCT02361762|181864668|OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA-of-change was used to compare the Training and Waitlist groups at post-testing while controlling for baseline (baseline was co-varied)||||||0.08
90990142|NCT02361762|181864669|OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA-of-change was used to compare the Training and Waitlist groups at post-testing while controlling for baseline (baseline was co-varied)||||||0.37
90990143|NCT02361762|181864671|OTHER|||||||0.62|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA-of-change was used to compare the Training and Waitlist groups at post-testing while controlling for baseline (baseline was co-varied)||||||0.62
91042580|NCT01540045|181970553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.607|TWO_SIDED||||||McNemar|||Subjective global assessment (PG-SGA) was used to assess and classify patients as having severe or moderate malnourishment (B or C) or as being well nourished (A).||||0.607
91042581|NCT01540045|181970554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.015|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||protein consumption was estimated by questionnaire SNUT difference between ≥ Sweet perception thresholds compared to \< Sweet perception thresholds after chemotherapy||||0.015
90990144|NCT02361762|181864672|OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||ANCOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA compared group (Training/Waitlist) by time (Pre/Post) by condition (Go/Nogo)||||||0.10
90990145|NCT02361762|181864673|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA-of-change was used to compare the Training and Waitlist groups at post-testing while controlling for baseline (baseline was co-varied)||||||0.02
90990146|NCT00502307|181864675|OTHER||Exact binomial distribution|24.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.6|30.2||||||||30.2|19.6|
90990147|NCT00502307|181864675|OTHER||Exact binomial distribution|18.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.6|23.1||||||||23.1|13.6|
90990148|NCT00502307|181864676|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.001
90990149|NCT00502307|181864676|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.001
90990150|NCT00502307|181864677|OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.005
90990151|NCT00502307|181864677|OTHER|||||||0.129|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.129
90990152|NCT00502307|181864678|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.003
90990153|NCT00502307|181864678|OTHER|||||||0.089|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.089
90990154|NCT02713230|181864742|SUPERIORITY||LSMD|-117.688|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-150.896|-84.48|||ANOVA|||||-84.480|-150.896|<0.0001
90990155|NCT02713230|181864743|SUPERIORITY||LSM treatment ratio|0.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.131|0.371|||ANOVA|||||0.371|0.131|<0.0001
90990156|NCT02713230|181864744|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|0.116||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.032|0.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.200|0.032|0.008
90990157|NCT02713230|181864745|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
91042582|NCT01540045|181970554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||animal protein consumption was estimated by questionnaire SNUT difference between ≥ Sweet perception thresholds vs \< Sweet perception thresholds after chemotherapy||||0.010
91042583|NCT01540045|181970554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||FAT consumption was estimated by questionnaire SNUT difference between ≥ Sweet perception thresholds vs \< Sweet perception thresholds after chemotherapy||||0.004
91042584|NCT01540045|181970556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.28|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the paired analysis of taste acuity we used Wilcoxon for difference between baseline and 6 weeks later.||||0.28
90990158|NCT04149899|181864763|OTHER|The null hypothesis is that the mean change from Baseline, Hour 2 = 0 at Day 14, Hour 2.|Mean Difference (Net)|-4.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.85|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.73|-4.14||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||A within-group comparison was performed between Baseline, Hour 2 and Day 14, Hour 2, the timepoint for the peak effect of Timolol 0.5%.||-4.14|-5.73|<0.001
90990159|NCT04149899|181864763|OTHER|The null hypothesis is that the mean change from Baseline, Hour 2 = 0 at Day 14, Hour 2.|Mean Difference (Net)|-5.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.51|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.14|-4.02||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||A within-group comparison was performed between Baseline, Hour 2 and Day 14, Hour 2, the timepoint for the peak effect of Timolol 0.5%.||-4.02|-6.14|<0.001
90990160|NCT04149899|181864763|OTHER|The null hypothesis is that the mean change from Baseline, Hour 2 = 0 at Day 14, Hour 2.|Mean Difference (Net)|-6.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.05|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.93|-4.07||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||A within-group comparison was performed between Baseline, Hour 2 and Day 14, Hour 2, the timepoint for the peak effect of Timolol 0.5%.||-4.07|-7.93|<0.001
91042585|NCT01540045|181970557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.889|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||change in status global of quality of life between ≤ compared to \> umami recognition threshold after chemotherapy by EORT questionnaire||||0.889
90990161|NCT04149899|181864763|NON_INFERIORITY|A pairwise treatment group comparison was performed versus timolol ophthalmic solution 0.5%. A 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the treatment difference (WB007 minus Timolol) was constructed based on an ANCOVA model. If WB007 was determined to be non-inferior to Timolol, an attempt to show superiority of WB007 over Timolol was made.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.14||||0.828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|1.43||The p-value (2-sided) for superiority was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model used the Baseline IOP values at Hour 2 as the covariate.|The estimated treatment difference is based on the least-square means from the ANCOVA model.|The mean IOP change from Baseline, Hour 2 to Day 14, Hour 2 (the timepoint for the peak effect of Timolol 0.5%) was compared between WB007 0.15% and Timolol 0.5%.||1.43|-1.16|0.828
90990162|NCT04149899|181864763|NON_INFERIORITY|A pairwise treatment group comparison was performed versus timolol ophthalmic solution 0.5%. A 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the treatment difference (WB007 minus Timolol) was constructed based on an ANCOVA model. If WB007 was determined to be non-inferior to Timolol, an attempt to show superiority of WB007 over Timolol was made.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.42||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|0.89||The p-value (2-sided) for superiority was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model used the Baseline IOP values at Hour 2 as the covariate.|The estimated treatment difference is based on the least-square means from the ANCOVA model.|The mean IOP change from Baseline, Hour 2 to Day 14, Hour 2 (the timepoint for the peak effect of Timolol 0.5%) was compared between WB007 0.4% and Timolol 0.5%.||0.89|-1.73|0.520
90990163|NCT04149899|181864764|NON_INFERIORITY|A pairwise treatment group comparison was performed versus timolol ophthalmic solution 0.5%. A 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the treatment difference (WB007 minus Timolol) was constructed based on an ANCOVA model. If WB007 was determined to be non-inferior to Timolol, an attempt to show superiority of WB007 over Timolol was made.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|1.43||The p-value (2-sided) for superiority was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||The estimated treatment difference is based on the least-square means from the ANCOVA model.|The mean IOP for WB007 0.15% was compared to Timolol 0.5% at Day 14, Hour 2, the timepoint for the peak effect of Timolol 0.5% and the primary efficacy timepoint for the study.||1.43|-1.16|0.828
90990164|NCT04149899|181864764|NON_INFERIORITY|A pairwise treatment group comparison was performed versus timolol ophthalmic solution 0.5%. A 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the treatment difference (WB007 minus Timolol) was constructed based on an ANCOVA model. If WB007 was determined to be non-inferior to Timolol, an attempt to show superiority of WB007 over Timolol was made.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|0.89||The p-value (2-sided) for superiority was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||The estimated treatment difference is based on the least-square means from the ANCOVA model.|The mean IOP for WB007 0.4% was compared to Timolol 0.5% at Day 14, Hour 2, the timepoint for the peak effect of Timolol 0.5% and the primary efficacy timepoint for the study.||0.89|-1.73|0.520
90990165|NCT04149899|181864764|NON_INFERIORITY|A pairwise treatment group comparison was performed versus timolol ophthalmic solution 0.5%. A 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the treatment difference (WB007 minus Timolol) was constructed based on an ANOVA model. If WB007 was determined to be non-inferior to Timolol, an attempt to show superiority of WB007 over Timolol was made.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.84||||0.283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.39|0.71||The p-value (2-sided) for superiority was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|The ANOVA model has the treatment group as the main effect.|The estimated treatment difference is based on the least-square means from the ANOVA model.|The mean IOP for WB007 0.15% was compared to Timolol 0.5% at Day 14, Hour 2, the timepoint for the peak effect of Timolol 0.5% and the primary efficacy timepoint for the study.||0.71|-2.39|0.283
91042586|NCT01540045|181970557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.293|TWO_SIDED|||||clinically significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||change in functional role of quality of life between ≤ compared to \> umami recognition threshold after chemotherapy by EORT questionnaire||||0.293
90990166|NCT04149899|181864764|NON_INFERIORITY|A pairwise treatment group comparison was performed versus timolol ophthalmic solution 0.5%. A 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the treatment difference (WB007 minus Timolol) was constructed based on an ANOVA model. If WB007 was determined to be non-inferior to Timolol, an attempt to show superiority of WB007 over Timolol was made.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.02||||0.189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.56|0.52||The p-value (2-sided) for superiority was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|The ANOVA model has the treatment group as the main effect.|The estimated treatment difference is based on the least-square means from the ANOVA model.|The mean IOP for WB007 0.4% was compared to Timolol 0.5% at Day 14, Hour 2, the timepoint for the peak effect of Timolol 0.5% and the primary efficacy timepoint for the study.||0.52|-2.56|0.189
90990167|NCT01533935|181864830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.265|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.215|0.315|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 5/5 QD minus Placebo QD|||0.315|0.215|<0.0001
90990168|NCT01533935|181864830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.031|0.129|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 5/5 QD minus Olodaterol 5 mcg QD|||0.129|0.031|0.0015
90990169|NCT01533935|181864830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.088|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.039|0.137|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 5/5 QD minus Tiotropium 5 mcg QD|||0.137|0.039|0.0005
90990170|NCT01533935|181864830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.274|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.224|0.324|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 2.5/5 QD minus Placebo QD|||0.324|0.224|<0.0001
90990171|NCT01533935|181864830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.089|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.039|0.138|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 2.5/5 QD minus Olodaterol 5 mcg QD|||0.138|0.039|0.0004
90990172|NCT01533935|181864830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.097|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.047|0.147|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 2.5/5 QD minus Tiotropium 5 mcg QD|||0.147|0.047|0.0001
90990173|NCT01533935|181864831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.134|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.065|1.206|||Mixed Models Analysis||Ratio calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 5/5 QD divided by Placebo QD|||1.206|1.065|<0.0001
90990174|NCT01533935|181864831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.111|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.045|1.182|||Mixed Models Analysis||Ratio calculated Tiotropium + olodaterol 5/5 QD as divided by Olodaterol 5 mcg QD|||1.182|1.045|0.0009
90990175|NCT01533935|181864831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.043|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033||0.1807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.981|1.109|||Mixed Models Analysis||Ratio calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 5/5 QD divided by Tiotropium 5 mcg QD|||1.109|0.981|0.1807
90990176|NCT01533935|181864831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.121|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.054|1.193|||Mixed Models Analysis||Ratio calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 2.5/5 QD divided by Placebo QD|||1.193|1.054|0.0003
90990177|NCT01533935|181864831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.099|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.033|1.17|||Mixed Models Analysis||Ratio calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 2.5/5 QD divided by Olodaterol 5 mcg QD|||1.170|1.033|0.0029
90990178|NCT01533935|181864831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.032|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033||0.324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.098|||Mixed Models Analysis||Ratio calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 2.5/5 QD divided by Tiotropium 5 mcg QD|||1.098|0.970|0.3240
90990179|NCT01533935|181864832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|-0.002|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 5/5 QD minus Placebo QD|||-0.002|-0.004|<0.0001
90990180|NCT01533935|181864832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.003|-0.001|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 5/5 QD minus Olodaterol 5 mcg QD|||-0.001|-0.003|0.0033
90990181|NCT01533935|181864832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001||0.2306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.002|0.001|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 5/5 QD minus Tiotropium 5 mcg QD|||0.001|-0.002|0.2306
90990182|NCT01533935|181864832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|-0.002|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 2.5/5 QD minus Placebo QD|||-0.002|-0.005|<0.0001
90990183|NCT01533935|181864832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|-0.001|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 2.5/5 QD minus Olodaterol 5 mcg QD|||-0.001|-0.004|0.0010
90990184|NCT01533935|181864832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001||0.1206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.002|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 2.5/5 QD minus Tiotropium 5 mcg QD|||0.000|-0.002|0.1206
90990185|NCT01533935|181864833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.329|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.294|0.364|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 5/5 QD minus Placebo QD|||0.364|0.294|<0.0001
90990186|NCT01533935|181864833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.134|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.099|0.169|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 5/5 QD minus Olodaterol 5 mcg QD|||0.169|0.099|<0.0001
90990187|NCT01533935|181864833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.135|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 5/5 QD minus Tiotropium 5 mcg QD|||0.170|0.100|<0.0001
90990188|NCT01533935|181864833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.305|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.269|0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 2.5/5 QD minus Placebo QD|||0.340|0.269|<0.0001
90990189|NCT01533935|181864833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.075|0.145|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 2.5/5 QD minus Olodaterol 5 mcg QD|||0.145|0.075|<0.0001
90990190|NCT01533935|181864833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.111|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.076|0.146|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 2.5/5 QD minus Tiotropium 5 mcg QD|||0.146|0.076|<0.0001
90990191|NCT00681538|181864834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|-0.84||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||||-0.40|-1.29|0.0002
90990192|NCT00681538|181864835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.731||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.589|4.694|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio\>1 indicates an improvement in favour of Sativex|30% responders||4.694|1.589|0.0003
90990193|NCT00681538|181864835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.647||||0.0612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.977|2.777|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio\>1 indicates an improvement in favour of Sativex|50% Responders||2.777|0.977|0.0612
90990194|NCT00681538|181864836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment difference|-2.53||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.27|-0.79|||ANCOVA||A negative difference indicates an improvement in spasm frequency in favour of Sativex.|||-0.79|-4.27|0.0046
90990195|NCT00681538|181864837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||treatment difference|-0.88|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|-0.51|||ANCOVA||A negative difference indicates an improvement in sleep disruption in favour of Sativex.|||-0.51|-1.25|<0.0001
90990196|NCT00681538|181864838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||treatment difference|-1.75||||0.0939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|0.3|||ANCOVA||A negative difference indicates an improvement in spasticity in favour of Sativex.|||0.30|-3.80|0.0939
90990197|NCT00681538|181864839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||treatment difference|-2.85||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.75|7.04|||ANCOVA||A positive treatment difference indicates an improvement in favour of Sativex.|For Arm||7.04|-12.75|0.56
90990198|NCT00681538|181864839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment difference|0.04||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.56|2.64|||ANCOVA||A positive treatment difference indicates an improvement in favour of Sativex.|For leg||2.64|-2.56|0.98
90990199|NCT00681538|181864840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment difference|-3.34||||0.0687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.95|0.26|||ANCOVA||A negative treatment difference indicates an improvement in favour of Sativex.|||0.26|-6.95|0.0687
90990200|NCT00681538|181864841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.703||||0.0234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.075|2.698|||Regression, Logistic||An odds ratio \> 1 indicates an improvement in favour of Sativex.|||2.698|1.075|0.0234
90990201|NCT00681538|181864842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.4||||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.297|4.443|||Regression, Logistic||An odds ratio \> 1 indicates an improvement in favour of Sativex.|||4.443|1.297|0.0053
90990202|NCT00681538|181864843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.792||||0.0613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.973|3.301|||Regression, Logistic||An odds ratio \> 1 indicates an improvement in favour of Sativex.|||3.301|0.973|0.0613
90990203|NCT00681538|181864844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.958||||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.232|3.112|||Regression, Logistic||An odds ratio \> 1 indicates an improvement in favour of Sativex.|||3.112|1.232|0.0045
90990204|NCT00681538|181864845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|0.02||||0.2836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.07|||ANCOVA||A positive difference indicates an improvement in favour of Sativex.|For Health State Index||0.07|-0.02|0.2836
90990205|NCT00681538|181864845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|1.24||||0.5644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.01|5.5|||ANCOVA||A positive difference indicates an improvement in favour of Sativex.|Health Status VAS||5.50|-3.01|0.5644
90990206|NCT00681538|181864846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|-0.06||||0.9369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|1.49|||ANCOVA||A negative difference indicates an improvement in depression in favour of Sativex.|||1.49|-1.62|0.9369
90990207|NCT00069095|181864853|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the hazard ratio (HR) was less than the predefined limit of 1.23 (the non-inferiority margin). A stratified Cox model was used. In order to retain an experiment-wise two-sided type I error of 5%, the non-inferiority analysis for PFS used a two-sided significance level of 2.5%.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.94|1.18||||||Equivalence of treatment arm A ('XELOX') to treatment arm B ('FOLFOX-4') was tested via the following hypotheses - H0: HRA/B \>/= 1.23 versus H1: HRA/B \< 1.23. HRA/B denotes the hazard of disease progression or death under treatment A ('XELOX') divided by the hazard of disease progression or death under treatment B ('FOLFOX-4').||1.18|0.94|
90990208|NCT00069095|181864854|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the hazard ratio (HR) was less than the predefined limit of 1.23 (the non-inferiority margin). A stratified Cox model was used. In order to retain an experiment-wise two-sided type I error of 5%, the non-inferiority analysis for PFS used a two-sided significance level of 2.5%.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.05|1.42||||||Equivalence of treatment arm A ('XELOX') to treatment arm B ('FOLFOX-4') was tested via the following hypotheses - H0: HRA/B \>/= 1.23 versus H1: HRA/B \< 1.23. HRA/B denotes the hazard of disease progression or death under treatment A ('XELOX') divided by the hazard of disease progression or death under treatment B ('FOLFOX-4').||1.42|1.05|
90990209|NCT00069095|181864855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.58|0.83|||Log Rank|||Testing for superiority was based on the stratified log-rank test and used a two-sided significance level of 2.5%.The hazard ratio (HR) of bevacizumab in combination with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone \[HR(FOLFOX-4+P/XELOX+P)/(FOLFOX-4+BV/XELOX+BV)\] was presented.||0.83|0.58|<0.0001
90990210|NCT00069095|181864856|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Fewer events were expected in the 'on-treatment analysis', thus leading to reduced power. No formal statistical testing was therefore applied.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.07|1.44||||||HRs and 97.5% confidence interval were reported for treatment arm A (XELOX/XELOX+P/XELOX+BV) versus treatment arm B (FOLFOX-4/FOLFOX-4+P/FOLFOX-4+BV).||1.44|1.07|
90990211|NCT00069095|181864857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.52|0.75|||Log Rank|||Testing for superiority was based on the stratified log-rank test and used a two-sided significance level of 2.5%.The hazard ratio (HR) of bevacizumab in combination with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone \[HR(FOLFOX-4+P/XELOX+P)/(FOLFOX-4+BV/XELOX+BV)\] was presented.||0.75|0.52|<0.0001
90990212|NCT00069095|181864858|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the hazard ratio (HR) was less than the predefined limit of 1.23 (the non-inferiority margin). A stratified Cox model was used. In order to retain an experiment-wise two-sided type I error of 5%, the non-inferiority analysis for PFS used a two-sided significance level of 2.5%.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.92|1.15||||||Equivalence of treatment arm A ('XELOX') to treatment arm B ('FOLFOX-4') was tested via the following hypotheses - H0: HRA/B \>/= 1.23 versus H1: HRA/B \< 1.23. HRA/B denotes the hazard of disease progression or death under treatment A ('XELOX') divided by the hazard of disease progression or death under treatment B ('FOLFOX-4').||1.15|0.92|
90990213|NCT00069095|181864859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.72|0.95|||Log Rank|||Testing for superiority was based on the stratified log-rank test and used a two-sided significance level of 2.5%.The hazard ratio (HR) of bevacizumab in combination with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone \[HR(FOLFOX-4+P/XELOX+P)/(FOLFOX-4+BV/XELOX+BV)\] was presented.||0.95|0.72|0.0015
90990214|NCT00069095|181864860|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This study was not powered for testing non-inferiority of XELOX vs FOLFOX-4 with respect to overall survival and no margin could be derived following the effect retention concept. The same margins used for the PFS analysis \[Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the hazard ratio (HR) was less than the predefined limit of 1.23 (the non-inferiority margin)\] were therefore applied to OS as well.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.84|1.14||||||HRs and 97.5% confidence interval were reported for treatment arm A (XELOX/XELOX+P/XELOX+BV) versus treatment arm B (FOLFOX-4/FOLFOX-4+P/FOLFOX-4+BV).||1.14|0.84|
90990215|NCT00069095|181864861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.1921|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.72|1.09|||Log Rank|||Testing for superiority was based on the stratified log-rank test and used a two-sided significance level of 2.5%.The hazard ratio (HR) of bevacizumab in combination with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone \[HR(FOLFOX-4+P/XELOX+P)/(FOLFOX-4+BV/XELOX+BV)\] was presented together with the 97.5% confidence interval.||1.09|0.72|0.1921
91042587|NCT01540045|181970557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||change in emotional functioning of quality of life between ≤ compared to \> umami recognition threshold after chemotherapy by EORT questionnaire||||0.009
91042588|NCT01540045|181970557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.213|TWO_SIDED|||||clinically significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||change in fatigue scale of quality of life between ≤ compared to \> umami recognition threshold after chemotherapy by EORT questionnaire||||0.213
90990216|NCT00069095|181864862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.72|0.95|||Log Rank|||Testing for superiority was based on the stratified log-rank test and used a two-sided significance level of 2.5%.The hazard ratio (HR) of bevacizumab in combination with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone \[HR(FOLFOX-4+P/XELOX+P)/(FOLFOX-4+BV/XELOX+BV)\] was presented.||0.95|0.72|0.0023
90990217|NCT00069095|181864863|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The analysis was based on the two-sided 97.5% confidence interval for OR(XELOX/XELOX+P/XELOX+BV)/(FOLFOX-4/FOLFOX-4+P/FOLFOX-4+BV). Non-inferiority of XELOX with/without bevacizumab to FOLFOX-4 with/without bevacizumab was concluded if the lower limit of this confidence interval is above 0.66.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.72|1.09||||||Non-inferiority of XELOX with/without bevacizumab to FOLFOX-4 with/without bevacizumab was tested by the pair of hypotheses - H0: OR(XELOX/XELOX+P/XELOX+BV)/(FOLFOX-4/FOLFOX-4+P/FOLFOX-4+BV) \</= 0.66 versus H1: OR(XELOX/XELOX+P/XELOX+BV)/(FOLFOX-4/FOLFOX-4+P/FOLFOX-4+BV) \> 0.66, where OR denotes Odds ratio.||1.09|0.72|
90990218|NCT00069095|181864864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.3091|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.71|1.14|||Chi-squared|||Superiority of adding bevacizumab to chemotherapy was tested as follows - H0: OR(FOLFOX-4+BV/XELOX+BV)/(FOLFOX-4+P/XELOX+P) \</= 1.0 versus H1: OR(FOLFOX-4+BV/XELOX+BV)/(FOLFOX-4+P/XELOX+P) \> 1.0. The test used a two-sided significance level of 2.5%.||1.14|0.71|0.3091
90990219|NCT00069095|181864865|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The analysis was based on the two-sided 97.5% confidence interval for OR(XELOX/XELOX+P/XELOX+BV)/(FOLFOX-4/FOLFOX-4+P/FOLFOX-4+BV). Non-inferiority of XELOX with/without bevacizumab to FOLFOX-4 with/without bevacizumab shall be concluded if the lower limit of this confidence interval is above 0.66.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.76|1.16||||||Non-inferiority of XELOX with/without bevacizumab to FOLFOX-4 with/without bevacizumab was tested by the pair of hypotheses - H0: OR(XELOX/XELOX+P/XELOX+BV)/(FOLFOX-4/FOLFOX-4+P/FOLFOX-4+BV) \</= 0.66 versus H1: OR(XELOX/XELOX+P/XELOX+BV)/(FOLFOX-4/FOLFOX-4+P/FOLFOX-4+BV) \> 0.66||1.16|0.76|
90990220|NCT00069095|181864866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.9887|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.78|1.28|||Chi-squared|||Superiority of adding bevacizumab to chemotherapy was tested as follows - H0: OR(FOLFOX-4+BV/XELOX+BV)/(FOLFOX 4+P/XELOX+P) \</= 1.0 versus H1: OR(FOLFOX-4+BV/XELOX+BV)/(FOLFOX-4+P/XELOX+P) \> 1.0. The test used a two-sided significance level of 2.5%||1.28|0.78|0.9887
90990221|NCT00069095|181864867|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal statistical testing was done.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.97|1.2||||||General approach: HRs and 97.5% confidence interval were reported for treatment arm A (XELOX/XELOX+P/XELOX+BV) versus treatment arm B (FOLFOX-4/FOLFOX-4+P/FOLFOX-4+BV)||1.20|0.97|
90990222|NCT00069095|181864867|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Fewer events were expected in analyses using the on-treatment approach than in the analyses using the general approach, thus leading to reduced power.Therefore, no formal statistical testing was performed.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.98|1.23||||||On-treatment Approach: HRs and 97.5% confidence interval were reported for treatment arm A (XELOX/XELOX+P/XELOX+BV) versus treatment arm B (FOLFOX-4/FOLFOX-4+P/FOLFOX-4+BV).||1.23|0.98|
90990223|NCT00069095|181864868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.74|0.96|||Log Rank|||General approach: Testing for superiority was based on the stratified log-rank test and used a two-sided significance level of 2.5%.The hazard ratio (HR) of bevacizumab in combination with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone \[HR(FOLFOX-4+P/XELOX+P)/(FOLFOX-4+BV/XELOX+BV)\] was presented.||0.96|0.74|0.0030
90990224|NCT00069095|181864868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.7|0.92|||Log Rank|||On treatment approach: Testing for superiority was based on the stratified log-rank test and used a two-sided significance level of 2.5%.The hazard ratio (HR) of bevacizumab in combination with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone \[HR(FOLFOX-4+P/XELOX+P)/(FOLFOX-4+BV/XELOX+BV)\] was presented.||0.92|0.70|0.0004
90990225|NCT00069095|181864871|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal statistical testing was performed for duration of overall response.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.86|1.22||||||HRs and 97.5% confidence interval were reported for treatment arm A (XELOX/XELOX+P/XELOX+BV) versus treatment arm B (FOLFOX-4/FOLFOX-4+P/FOLFOX-4+BV)||1.22|0.86|
90990226|NCT00069095|181864872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.0307|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.66|1.01|||Log Rank|||Testing for superiority was based on the stratified log-rank test and used a two-sided significance level of 2.5%.The hazard ratio (HR) of bevacizumab in combination with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone \[HR(FOLFOX-4+P/XELOX+P)/(FOLFOX-4+BV/XELOX+BV)\] was presented.||1.01|0.66|0.0307
90990227|NCT00069095|181864873|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal statistical testing was done.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.09|1.39||||||HRs and 97.5% confidence interval were reported for treatment arm A (XELOX/XELOX+P/XELOX+BV) versus treatment arm B (FOLFOX-4/FOLFOX-4+P/FOLFOX-4+BV).||1.39|0.09|
90990228|NCT00069095|181864874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.8207|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.2|7.05|||Log Rank|||Testing for superiority was based on the stratified log-rank test and used a two-sided significance level of 2.5%.The hazard ratio (HR) of bevacizumab in combination with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone \[HR(FOLFOX-4+P/XELOX+P)/(FOLFOX-4+BV/XELOX+BV)\] was presented.||7.05|0.20|0.8207
90990229|NCT00818324|181864889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The p value represents the comparison between baseline data and data at Week 2|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90990230|NCT00818324|181864889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The p value represents the comparison between baseline data and data at Week 4.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90990231|NCT00818324|181864889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The p value represents the comparison between baseline data and data at Week 28.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90990232|NCT00818324|181864889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The p value represents the comparison between baseline data and data at Week 52.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90990233|NCT00818324|181864890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The p value represents the comparison between baseline data and data at Week 2.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90990234|NCT00818324|181864890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The p value represents the comparison between baseline data and data at Week 4.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90990235|NCT00818324|181864890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The p value represents the comparison between baseline data and data at Week 28.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90990236|NCT00818324|181864890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The p value represents the comparison between baseline data and data at Week 52.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90990237|NCT02389816|181864914|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) mean difference|-2.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.999||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.63|-0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Models for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||||-0.70|-4.63|0.0080
90990238|NCT02389816|181864914|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.003||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.05|-1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Models for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||||-1.10|-5.05|0.0023
90990239|NCT02389816|181864915|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.621||||0.0341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.037|2.533|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.533|1.037|0.0341
91042589|NCT01540045|181970557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.595|TWO_SIDED|||||clinically significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||change in appetite loss of quality of life between ≤ compared to \> umami recognition threshold after chemotherapy by EORT questionnaire||||0.595
90990240|NCT02389816|181864915|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.788||||0.011||95.0|1.143|2.799|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.799|1.143|0.0110
90990241|NCT02389816|181864916|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.839||||0.0186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.107|3.054|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.054|1.107|0.0186
90990242|NCT02389816|181864916|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.0418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|2.834|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.834|1.020|0.0418
90990243|NCT02389816|181864917|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.753||0.0165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.29|-0.332|||ANCOVA|||||-0.332|-3.290|0.0165
90990244|NCT02389816|181864917|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.759||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.278|-0.295|||ANCOVA|||||-0.295|-3.278|0.0190
90990245|NCT02389816|181864918|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.121|||ANCOVA|||||-0.121|-0.590|0.0031
90990246|NCT02389816|181864918|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.629|-0.158|||ANCOVA|||||-0.158|-0.629|0.0011
90990247|NCT02389816|181864919|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.123||0.0609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.474|0.011|||ANCOVA|||||0.011|-0.474|0.0609
90990248|NCT02389816|181864919|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.124||0.0179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.537|-0.051|||ANCOVA|||||-0.051|-0.537|0.0179
90990249|NCT02389816|181864920|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.621||0.0311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.564|-0.122|||ANCOVA|||||-0.122|-2.564|0.0311
90990250|NCT02389816|181864920|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.628||0.0126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.807|-0.339|||ANCOVA|||||-0.339|-2.807|0.0126
90990251|NCT02389816|181864921|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.893||0.3793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.539|0.968|||ANCOVA|||||0.968|-2.539|0.3793
90990252|NCT02389816|181864921|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.891||0.9011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.862|1.641|||ANCOVA|||||1.641|-1.862|0.9011
90990253|NCT02389816|181864922|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.329||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.512|-0.218|||ANCOVA|||||-0.218|-1.512|0.0089
90990254|NCT02389816|181864922|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.332||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.922|-0.619|||ANCOVA|||||-0.619|-1.922|0.0001
90990255|NCT00300469|181864923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||alpha = 0.05, all 3 primary endpoints had to show superiority of combo therapy in order to declare combo therapy successful at a given statin dose, Hochberg method for multiple comparison adjustment for 2 statin doses|ANCOVA|||An n = 92 per arm would provide \>99% power to detect a 20% decrease in triglycerides relative to statin monotherapy for each combo therapy dose, assuming an SD of 30%||||<0.001
90990256|NCT00300469|181864923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||alpha = 0.05, all 3 primary endpoints had to show superiority of combo therapy in order to declare combo therapy successful at a given statin dose, Hochberg method for multiple comparison adjustment for 2 statin doses|ANCOVA|||An n = 92 per arm would provide \>99% power to detect a 20% decrease in triglycerides relative to statin monotherapy for each combo therapy dose, assuming an SD of 30%||||<0.001
90990257|NCT00300469|181864924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||alpha = 0.05, all 3 primary endpoints had to show superiority of combo therapy in order to declare combo therapy successful at a given statin dose, Hochberg method for multiple comparison adjustment for 2 statin doses|ANCOVA|||An n = 92 per arm would provide 99% power to detect a 13% increase in HDL-C relative to statin monotherapy for each combo therapy dose, assuming an SD of 15%||||0.005
90990258|NCT00300469|181864924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0||||alpha = 0.05, all 3 primary endpoints had to show superiority of combo therapy in order to declare combo therapy successful at a given statin dose, Hochberg method for multiple comparison adjustment for 2 statin doses|ANCOVA|||An n = 92 per arm would provide 99% power to detect a 13% increase in HDL-C relative to statin monotherapy for each combo therapy dose, assuming an SD of 15%||||0.010
91042590|NCT01540045|181970557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|||||clinically significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||change in constipation scale of quality of life between ≤ compared to \> umami recognition threshold after chemotherapy by EORT questionnaire||||0.068
91042591|NCT01540045|181970558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
90990259|NCT00300469|181864925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||alpha = 0.05, all 3 primary endpoints had to show superiority of combo therapy in order to declare combo therapy successful at a given statin dose, Hochberg method for multiple comparison adjustment for 2 statin doses|ANCOVA|||An n = 92 per arm would provide \>99% power to detect a 31% decrease in LDL-C relative to ABT-335 monotherapy for each combo therapy dose, assuming an SD of 15%||||<0.001
90990260|NCT00300469|181864925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||alpha = 0.05, all 3 primary endpoints had to show superiority of combo therapy in order to declare combo therapy successful at a given statin dose, Hochberg method for multiple comparison adjustment for 2 statin doses|ANCOVA|||An n = 92 per arm would provide \>99% power to detect a 31% decrease in LDL-C relative to ABT-335 monotherapy for each combo therapy dose, assuming an SD of 15%||||<0.001
90990261|NCT01943864|181864998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||non PD rate at Week 12|10.0||||0.976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|31.7|||Exact Binomial Test|||||31.7|1.2|0.976
90990262|NCT01943864|181864999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||non PD rate at Week 12|15.0||||0.909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|37.9|||Exact Binomial Test|||||37.9|3.2|0.909
90990263|NCT01943864|181865014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median PFS|10.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.6|12.1|||||Lower and upper limits and estimation value are in terms of weeks|||12.1|4.6|
90990264|NCT01943864|181865015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median PFS|10.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.6|12.7|||||Lower and upper limits and estimation value are in terms of weeks|||12.7|4.6|
90990265|NCT01943864|181865016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Overall Survival|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.2|39.3||||||||39.3|6.2|
90990266|NCT01943864|181865017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ORR|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|16.8||||||||16.8|0|
90990267|NCT01943864|181865018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ORR|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|24.9||||||||24.9|0.1|
90990268|NCT00320385|181865023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.93|||Log Rank||The Pike estimator of the treatment hazard ratio based on the log-rank test was provided, together with a 95% confidence interval.|||0.93|0.57|0.008
90990269|NCT00320385|181865024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.07|||Log Rank||The Pike estimator of the treatment hazard ratio based on the log-rank test was provided, together with a 95% confidence interval.|||1.07|0.53|0.106
90990270|NCT00320385|181865025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.9|||Fisher Exact||Responses were compared between treatment arms using stratified Fisher's exact tests.|||3.9|0.6|0.460
90990271|NCT00320385|181865026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|4.5|||Fisher Exact||Clinical Benefit was compared between treatment arms using stratified Fisher's exact tests.|||4.5|1.2|0.010
90990272|NCT04370028|181865031|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.57|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.42|4.72|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired test was performed||||4.72|4.42|<0.00001
90990273|NCT04370028|181865032|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.2|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.01|8.67|||Fisher Exact||OR estimated (week 1 to week 12) the higher the better|Odds ratio of occuring MoCA score \<26 was assessed||8.67|6.01|<0.00001
90990274|NCT04370028|181865033|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.31|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.28|6.64|||Fisher Exact||OR estimated (week 1 to week 12) the higher the better|Odds ratio of occuring MoCA score \<17 was assessed||6.64|4.28|<0.00001
90990275|NCT04370028|181865034|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.375|||<|0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|4.96|||ANOVA|||Change of mean MoCA score||4.96|-0.21|<0.07
90990276|NCT04370028|181865034|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.74|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.17|5.31|||ANOVA|||Change of mean MoCA score||5.31|4.17|<0.01
90990277|NCT04370028|181865034|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.55|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.16|4.94|||ANOVA|||Change of mean MoCA score||4.94|4.16|<0.01
90990278|NCT04370028|181865034|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.49|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|5.27|||ANOVA|||Change of mean MoCA score||5.27|3.7|<0.01
90990279|NCT04370028|181865036|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.803|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.246||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.321|1.28|||ANOVA|||||1.28|0.321|0.0011
90990280|NCT00872170|181865038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models with participant-specific intercepts and slopes controlled for time effects were used.||This study had 80% power at level alpha=0.05 to detect a 60 m change in 6MWT among N=10 participants, assuming a 60 m standard deviation for 12-week change.||||0.97
90990281|NCT00872170|181865039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models with participant-specific intercepts and slopes controlled for time effects were used.||||||0.04
90990282|NCT00872170|181865040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models with participant-specific intercepts and slopes controlled for time effects were used.||||||0.005
90990283|NCT00872170|181865041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models with participant-specific intercepts and slopes controlled for time effects were used.||||||0.02
90990284|NCT00872170|181865042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models with participant-specific intercepts and slopes controlled for time effects were used.||||||0.05
90990285|NCT00872170|181865043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models with participant-specific intercepts and slopes controlled for time effects were used.||||||0.02
90990286|NCT00872170|181865044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models with participant-specific intercepts and slopes controlled for time effects were used.||||||0.04
90990287|NCT00872170|181865045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models with participant-specific intercepts and slopes controlled for time effects were used.||||||0.33
90990288|NCT00872170|181865046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models with participant-specific intercepts and slopes controlled for time effects were used.||||||0.18
91042592|NCT01540045|181970559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|||||clinically significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||change in peripheral neuropathy scale of quality of life between \> ó = compared to \< umami recognition threshold after chemotherapy by EORT questionnaire||||0.240
90990289|NCT00872170|181865047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models with participant-specific intercepts and slopes controlled for time effects were used.||||||0.97
90990290|NCT00872170|181865048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models with participant-specific intercepts and slopes controlled for time effects were used.||||||0.96
90990291|NCT04937816|181865073|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.9946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.2|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression of time to first vascular AE. Cox regression model with terms for study, baseline diabetes status and treatment.|Comparison versus Placebo \[Treatment/ Placebo\].|Time to first vascular AE (SAF-M1)||1.20|0.83|0.9946
90990292|NCT04937816|181865073|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.7474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.27|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression of time to first vascular AE. Cox regression model with terms for study, baseline diabetes status and treatment.|Comparison versus placebo. \[Treatment/Placebo\].|Time to first vascular AE (SAF-M2)||1.27|0.72|0.7474
90990293|NCT04937816|181865073|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.7943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.31|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression for time to first vascular AE on-treatment. Cox regression model with a term for treatment.|Comparison vs. Placebo \[Treatment / Placebo\]|Time to first vascular AE (Trial NCT01131676, all empagliflozin (10 and 25 mg vs. Placebo))||1.31|0.81|0.7943
90990294|NCT04937816|181865073|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.8518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.36|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression for time to first vascular AE on-treatment. Cox regression model with terms for baseline diabetes status and treatment.|Comparison vs. Placebo \[Treatment / Placebo\].|Time to first vascular AE (Trial NCT03057951)||1.36|0.69|0.8518
90990295|NCT04937816|181865073|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.53|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression for time to first vascular AE on-treatment. Cox regression model with terms for baseline diabetes status and treatment.|Comparison vs Placebo \[Treatment/Placebo\]|Time to first vascular AE (Trial NCT03057977)||1.53|0.56|0.7660
90990296|NCT04937816|181865073|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||0.3612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.55|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression of time to first diabetic foot related AE. Cox regression model with terms for study, baseline diabetes status and treatment.|Comparison versus placebo \[Treatment/Placebo\].|Time to first diabetic foot related AE (SAF-M1)||1.55|0.85|0.3612
90990297|NCT04937816|181865073|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.44||||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|2.4|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression of time to first diabetic foot related AE. Cox regression model with terms for study, baseline diabetes status and treatment.|Comparison versus Placebo \[Treatment/Placebo\].|Time to first diabetic foot related AE (SAF-M2)||2.40|0.86|0.1610
90990298|NCT04937816|181865073|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.9128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.47|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression for time to first diabetic foot related AE on treatment. Cox regression model with a term for treatment.|Comparison vs. Placebo \[Treatment/Placebo\]|Time to first diabetic foot related AE (Trial NCT01131676, all empagliflozin (10 and 25 mg) vs. Placebo)||1.47|0.71|0.9128
90990299|NCT04937816|181865073|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.5276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.54|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression for time to first diabetic foot related AE. Cox regression model with terms for baseline diabetes status and treatment.|Comparison vs. Placebo \[Treatment/Placebo\]|Time to first diabetic foot related AE (Trial NCT03057951)||1.54|0.43|0.5276
91042593|NCT01540045|181970560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.036|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||change in status global of quality of life between \> ó = compared to \< umami recognition threshold after chemotherapy by EORT questionnaire||||0.036
90990300|NCT04937816|181865073|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.72||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|13.87|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression for time to first diabetic foot related AE. Cox regression model with terms for baseline diabetes status and treatment.|Comparison vs Placebo \[Treatment / Placebo\]|Time to first diabetic foot related AE (Trial NCT03057977)||13.87|1.60|0.0048
90990301|NCT04937816|181865073|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.1526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.04|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression of time to first infections potentially related to LLA's. Cox regression with terms for study, baseline diabetes status and treatment.|Comparison versus Placebo \[Treatment/Placebo\].|Time to first infections potentially related to LLA's (SAF-M1)||1.04|0.77|0.1526
90990302|NCT04937816|181865073|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.21|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression of time to first infection potentially related to LLA's. Cox regression with terms for study, baseline diabetes status and treatment.|Comparison versus Placebo \[Treatment/Placebo\].|Time to first infection potentially related to LLA's (SAF-M2)||1.21|0.76|0.7430
90990303|NCT04937816|181865073|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.1049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.04|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression for infections potentially related to LLA-on treatment. Cox regression model with a term for treatment.|Comparison vs Placebo \[Treatment/Placebo\]|Time to first infections potentially related to LLA (Trial NCT01131676, all Empagliflozin (10 mg and 25 mg) vs. Placebo)||1.04|0.69|0.1049
91042594|NCT01540045|181970561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.312|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the paired analysis of taste acuity we used Wilcoxon for difference between baseline and 6 weeks later.||||0.312
91042595|NCT01540045|181970562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.608|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the paired analysis of taste acuity we used Wilcoxon for difference between baseline and 6 weeks later.||||0.608
91042596|NCT01540045|181970563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.035|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the paired analysis of taste acuity we used Wilcoxon for difference between baseline and 6 weeks later.||||0.035
90990304|NCT04937816|181865073|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.17|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression for infections potentially related to LLA on treatment. Cox regression model with terms for baseline diabetes status and treatment.|Comparison vs Placebo \[Treatment/Placebo\]|Time to first infections potentially related to LLA (Trial NCT03057951)||1.17|0.67|0.3950
90990305|NCT04937816|181865073|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19||||0.4429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.87|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression for infections potentially related to LLA on-treatment. Cox regression model with terms for baseline diabetes status and treatment.|Comparison vs Placebo \[Treatment/Placebo\]|Time to first infections potentially related to LLA (Trial NCT03057977)||1.87|0.76|0.4429
90990306|NCT04937816|181865073|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.3396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.13|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression of time to first wound infections. Cox regression with terms for study, baseline diabetes status and treatment.|Comparison versus Placebo \[Treatment/Placebo\].|Time to first wound/infection (SAF-M1)||1.13|0.70|0.3396
90990307|NCT04937816|181865073|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.08|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression of time to first wound infections. Cox regression with terms for study, baseline diabetes status and treatment|Comparison versus Placebo \[Treatment/Placebo\].|Time to first wound/infection (SAF-M2)||1.08|0.46|0.1050
90990308|NCT04937816|181865073|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.9919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.35|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression for time to first wound/infection on-treatment.|Comparison vs Placebo \[Treatment/Placebo\]|Time to first wound/infection (Trial NCT01131676, all Empagliflozin (10 mg and 25 mg) vs Placebo)||1.35|0.74|0.9919
90990309|NCT04937816|181865073|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.3634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.31|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression for time to first wound/infection on-treatment. Cox regression model with terms for baseline diabetes status and treatment.|Comparison vs Placebo \[Treatment/Placebo\]|Time to first wound/infection (Trial NCT03057951)||1.31|0.48|0.3634
90990310|NCT04937816|181865073|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52||||0.1177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.18|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression for time to first wound/infection on-treatment. Cox regression model with terms for baseline diabetes status and treatment.|Comparison vs Placebo \[Treatment/Placebo\]|Time to first wound/infection (Trial NCT03057977)||1.18|0.23|0.1177
90990311|NCT04937816|181865073|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.9992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.19|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression of time to first nervous system disorder. Cox regression with terms for study, baseline diabetes status and treatment.|Comparison versus Placebo \[Treatment/Placebo\].|Time to first nervous system disorder (SAF-M1)||1.19|0.84|0.9992
90990312|NCT04937816|181865073|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.6274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.52|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression of time to first nervous system disorder. Cox regression model with terms for study, baseline diabetes status and treatment.|Comparison versus Placebo \[Treatment/Placebo\].|Time to first nervous system disorder (SAF-M2)||1.52|0.78|0.6274
90990313|NCT04937816|181865073|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.7597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.19|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression for time to first nervous system disorder on-treatment. Cox regression model with a term for treatment.|Comparison vs Placebo \[Treatment/Placebo\]|Time to first nervous system disorder (Trial NCT01131676, all Empagliflozin (10 mg and 25 mg) vs Placebo)||1.19|0.79|0.7597
90990314|NCT04937816|181865073|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.7067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.57|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression for time to first nervous system disorder on-treatment. Cox regression model with terms for baseline diabetes status and treatment.|Comparison vs Placebo \[Treatment/Placebo\]|Time to first nervous system disorder (Trial NCT03057951)||1.57|0.74|0.7067
90990315|NCT04937816|181865073|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.7404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|2.25|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression for time to first nervous system disorder on-treatment. Cox regression model with terms for baseline diabetes status and treatment.|Comparison vs Placebo \[Treatment/Placebo\]|time to first nervous system disorder (Trial NCT03057977)||2.25|0.56|0.7404
90990316|NCT04937816|181865073|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.21||||0.1765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.58|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression of time to first volume depletion AE. Cox regression model with terms for study, baseline diabetes status and treatment.|Comparison versus Placebo \[Treatment/Placebo\].|Time to first volume depletion AE (SAF-M1)||1.58|0.92|0.1765
90990317|NCT04937816|181865073|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.22||||0.1978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.66|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression of time to first volume depletion AE. Cox regression with terms for study, baseline diabetes status and treatment.|Comparison versus Placebo \[Treatment/Placebo\].|Time to first volume depletion AE (SAF-M2)||1.66|0.90|0.1978
90990318|NCT04937816|181865073|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.6561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|2.05|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression for time to first volume depletion on-treatment. Cox regression model with a term for treatment.|Comparison vs Placebo \[Treatment/Placebo\]|Time to first volume depletion (Trial NCT01131676, all Empagliflozin (10 mg and 25 mg) vs Placebo)||2.05|0.64|0.6561
90990319|NCT04937816|181865073|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.29||||0.1699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.87|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression for time to first volume depletion on-treatment. Cox regression model with terms for baseline diabetes status and treatment.|Comparison vs Placebo \[Treatment/Placebo\]|Time to first volume depletion (Trial NCT03057951)||1.87|0.90|0.1699
90990320|NCT04937816|181865073|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.7944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.87|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression for time to first volume depletion on-treatment. Cox regression model with terms for baseline diabetes status and treatment.|Comparison vs Placebo \[Treatment/Placebo\]|Time to first volume depletion (Trial NCT03057977)||1.87|0.62|0.7944
90990321|NCT04937816|181865074|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.9276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.42|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression model with terms for study, baseline diabetes status and treatment.|Comparison versus placebo \[Treatment/Placebo\].|||1.42|0.73|0.9276
90990322|NCT04937816|181865074|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.6205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.6|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression model with terms for study, baseline diabetes status and treatment.|Comparison versus placebo \[Treatment/Placebo\]|||1.60|0.45|0.6205
90990323|NCT04937816|181865074|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.6768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.63|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression model with terms for treatment.|Comparison vs Placebo \[Treatment/Placebo\]|Empagliflozin (10 mg + 25 mg) versus Placebo.||1.63|0.73|0.6768
90990324|NCT04937816|181865074|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.4294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.59|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression model with terms for baseline diabetes status and treatment.|Comparison versus Placebo \[Treatment /Placebo\]|||1.59|0.34|0.4294
90990325|NCT04937816|181865074|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.7826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|3.47|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression model with terms for baseline diabetes status and treatment.|Comparison versus Placebo \[Treatment /Placebo\]|||3.47|0.39|0.7826
90990326|NCT05513053|181865078|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the ratio of GMTs between groups (9 to 17 years/18 to 49 years) was \> 0.667 for each strain.|GMT Ratio|1.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.73|2.27||||||Statistical analysis for A/H1N1||2.27|1.73|
90990327|NCT05513053|181865078|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs between groups (9 to 17 years/18 to 49 years) was \> 0.667 for each strain.|GMT Ratio|3.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.76|3.87||||||Statistical analysis for A/H3N2||3.87|2.76|
90990328|NCT05513053|181865078|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs between groups (9 to 17 years/18 to 49 years) was \> 0.667 for each strain.|GMT Ratio|1.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|1.82||||||Statistical analysis for B/Victoria||1.82|1.35|
90990329|NCT05513053|181865078|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs between groups (9 to 17 years/18 to 49 years) was \> 0.667 for each strain.|GMT Ratio|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.37||||||Statistical analysis for B/Yamagata||1.37|1.09|
90990330|NCT05513053|181865079|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority for seroconversion rates was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was \>-10% for the 4 strains.|Percent Difference|1.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|6.62||||||Statistical analysis for A/H1N1||6.62|-2.78|
90990331|NCT05513053|181865079|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority for seroconversion rates was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was \>-10% for the 4 strains.|Percent Difference|-0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.41|3.23||||||Statistical analysis for A/H3N2||3.23|-4.41|
90990332|NCT05513053|181865079|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority for seroconversion rates was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was \>-10% for the 4 strains.|Percent Difference|3.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|8.14||||||Statistical analysis for B/Victoria||8.14|-1.57|
90990333|NCT05513053|181865079|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority for seroconversion rates was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was \>-10% for the 4 strains.|Percent Difference|14.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.17|19.3||||||Statistical analysis for B/Yamagata||19.3|9.17|
90990334|NCT02429258|181865113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.08|<|0.001||95.0|-36.1|-12.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-12.0|-36.1|<0.001
90990335|NCT02429258|181865114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.8||0.01||95.0|-26.8|-3.8|||ANCOVA|||||-3.8|-26.8|0.010
90990336|NCT02429258|181865115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.023||95.0|0.1|1.8|||ANCOVA|||||1.8|0.1|0.023
90990337|NCT02429258|181865116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.65|<|0.001||95.0|7.7|22.2|||ANCOVA|||||22.2|7.7|<0.001
91042597|NCT01540045|181970564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.402|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the paired analysis of taste acuity we used Wilcoxon for difference between baseline and 6 weeks later.||||0.402
90990338|NCT02429258|181865117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.72|<|0.001||95.0|-23.5|-8.7|||ANCOVA|||||-8.7|-23.5|<0.001
90990339|NCT02429258|181865118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.47|<|0.001||95.0|-46.6|-12.9|||ANCOVA|||||-12.9|-46.6|<0.001
90990340|NCT02429258|181865119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-40.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.14|<|0.001||95.0|-59.0|-22.7|||ANCOVA|||||-22.7|-59.0|<0.001
90990341|NCT02429258|181865120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.024||95.0|-0.43|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||||-0.03|-0.43|0.024
90990342|NCT02429258|181865121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.55||0.019||95.0|-19.9|-1.8|||ANCOVA|||||-1.8|-19.9|0.019
90990343|NCT02429258|181865122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-36.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.25|<|0.001||95.0|-54.7|-17.9|||ANCOVA|||||-17.9|-54.7|<0.001
90990344|NCT02429258|181865123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.86||0.017||95.0|1.3|12.7|||ANCOVA|||||12.7|1.3|0.017
90990345|NCT03364335|181865124|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline body weight as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.5461|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.5461
90990346|NCT03364335|181865124|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline body weight as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.0364|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0364
90990347|NCT03364335|181865124|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline body weight as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.0156|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0156
90990348|NCT03364335|181865124|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline body weight as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.0349|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0349
90990349|NCT03364335|181865125|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline body weight as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.5348|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.5348
90990350|NCT03364335|181865125|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline body weight as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.0379|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0379
90990351|NCT03364335|181865125|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline body weight as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.0215|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0215
91042598|NCT01540045|181970565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.109|TWO_SIDED||||||McNemar|||for the paired analysis of taste acuity, we used Mc Nemar test for dividing into high and low sensibility to umami, bitter and sweet tastes.||||0.109
91042599|NCT01540045|181970566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.092|TWO_SIDED||||||McNemar|||for the paired analysis of taste acuity, we used Mc Nemar test for dividing into high and low sensibility to umami, bitter and sweet tastes.||||0.092
90990352|NCT03364335|181865125|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline body weight as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.0464|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0464
90990353|NCT03364335|181865126|OTHER|Pearson's Chi Square Test is used. Fisher exact test is used when any expected cell count is less than 5. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.0000
90990354|NCT03364335|181865126|OTHER|Pearson's Chi Square Test is used. Fisher exact test is used when any expected cell count is less than 5. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.2646|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2646
90990355|NCT03364335|181865126|OTHER|Pearson's Chi Square Test is used. Fisher exact test is used when any expected cell count is less than 5. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.0749|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0749
90990356|NCT03364335|181865126|OTHER|Pearson's Chi Square Test is used. Fisher exact test is used when any expected cell count is less than 5. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.6758|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.6758
90990357|NCT03364335|181865127|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline waist circumference as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.9656|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.9656
90990358|NCT03364335|181865127|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline waist circumference as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.4254|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.4254
90990359|NCT03364335|181865127|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline waist circumference as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.1276|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1276
90990360|NCT03364335|181865127|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline waist circumference as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.5937|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.5937
90990361|NCT03364335|181865128|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline fasting plasma lipid as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.601|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.6010
90990362|NCT03364335|181865128|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline fasting plasma lipid as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.6513|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.6513
90990363|NCT03364335|181865128|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline fasting plasma lipid as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.4354|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.4354
90990364|NCT03364335|181865128|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline fasting plasma lipid as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.031|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0310
90990365|NCT03364335|181865129|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline fasting plasma lipid as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.4644|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.4644
90990366|NCT03364335|181865129|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline fasting plasma lipid as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.8573|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.8573
90990367|NCT03364335|181865129|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline fasting plasma lipid as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.8167|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.8167
90990368|NCT03364335|181865129|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline fasting plasma lipid as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.9223|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.9223
90990369|NCT03364335|181865130|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline fasting plasma lipid as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.6574|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.6574
90990370|NCT03364335|181865130|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline fasting plasma lipid as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.8971|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.8971
90990371|NCT03364335|181865130|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline fasting plasma lipid as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.6317|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.6317
90990372|NCT03364335|181865130|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline fasting plasma lipid as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.0341|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0341
90990373|NCT03364335|181865131|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline fasting plasma lipid as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.372|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3720
90990374|NCT03364335|181865131|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline fasting plasma lipid as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.2302|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2302
91042600|NCT01540045|181970567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.022|TWO_SIDED||||||McNemar|||We divide dilutions in two groups and dichotomized the patients into high and low sensibility to bitter taste. (PERCEPTION)||||0.022
90990375|NCT03364335|181865131|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline fasting plasma lipid as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.1377|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1377
90990376|NCT03364335|181865131|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline fasting plasma lipid as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.4295|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.4295
90990377|NCT03364335|181865132|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline Fasting Plasma Glucose as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.6726|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.6726
90990378|NCT03364335|181865132|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline Fasting Plasma Glucose as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.7934|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.7934
90990379|NCT03364335|181865132|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline Fasting Plasma Glucose as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.5485|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.5485
90990380|NCT03364335|181865132|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline Fasting Plasma Glucose as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.3676|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3676
90990381|NCT03364335|181865133|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline HbA1c as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.1653|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1653
90990382|NCT03364335|181865133|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline HbA1c as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.197|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1970
90990383|NCT03364335|181865133|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline HbA1c as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.0608|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0608
90990384|NCT03364335|181865133|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline HbA1c as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.1583|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1583
90990385|NCT03364335|181865134|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline diastolic blood pressure as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.0524|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0524
90990386|NCT03364335|181865134|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline diastolic blood pressure as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.5221|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.5221
90990387|NCT03364335|181865134|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline diastolic blood pressure as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.3702|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3702
90990388|NCT03364335|181865134|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline diastolic blood pressure as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.5426|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.5426
90990389|NCT03364335|181865135|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline systolic blood pressure as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.1843|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1843
90990390|NCT03364335|181865135|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline systolic blood pressure as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.4411|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.4411
90990391|NCT03364335|181865135|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline systolic blood pressure as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.6991|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.6991
90990392|NCT03364335|181865135|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline systolic blood pressure as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.3721|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3721
90990393|NCT03364335|181865136|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline hsCRP as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.0318|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0318
90990394|NCT03364335|181865136|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline hsCRP as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.3827|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3827
90990395|NCT03364335|181865136|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline hsCRP as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.005|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0050
90990396|NCT03364335|181865136|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline hsCRP as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.1045|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1045
90990397|NCT04710862|181865137|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0005|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0005
90990398|NCT04710862|181865138|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0005|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0005
90990399|NCT04710862|181865139|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.012
90990400|NCT04710862|181865140|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.001
90990401|NCT04710862|181865141|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.004
90990402|NCT04710862|181865142|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.001
90990403|NCT04710862|181865143|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.328|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.328
90990404|NCT03725202|181865144|SUPERIORITY|Across the strata, 95% CI for adjusted difference and p-value are calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline CS dose (prednisone or prednisolone \> 30 mg or ≤30 mg) and disease status (new onset or relapsing disease)) for the comparison of two treatment groups. Within each stratum, 95% CI for difference are calculated using normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|17.1|||=|0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|27.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Response rate difference = 15 mg Upadacitinib - Placebo|15 mg Upadacitinib + 26-week CS taper vs Placebo + 52-week CS taper||27.8|6.3|=0.0019
90990405|NCT03725202|181865144|SUPERIORITY|Across the strata, 95% CI for adjusted difference and p-value are calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline CS dose (prednisone or prednisolone \> 30 mg or ≤30 mg) and disease status (new onset or relapsing disease)) for the comparison of two treatment groups. Within each stratum, 95% CI for difference are calculated using normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|12.1|||=|0.0579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|24.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Response rate difference = 7.5 mg Upadacitinib - Placebo|7.5 mg Upadacitinib + 26-week CS taper vs Placebo + 52-week CS taper||24.6|-0.4|=0.0579
90990406|NCT03725202|181865145|SUPERIORITY|Across the strata, 95% CI for adjusted difference and p-value are calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline CS dose (prednisone or prednisolone \> 30 mg or ≤30 mg) and disease status (new onset or relapsing disease)) for the comparison of two treatment groups. Within each stratum, 95% CI for difference are calculated using normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|20.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.3|30.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Response rate difference = 15 mg Upadacitinib - Placebo|15 mg Upadacitinib + 26-week CS taper vs Placebo + 52-week CS taper||30.2|11.3|<0.0001
90990407|NCT03725202|181865145|SUPERIORITY|Across the strata, 95% CI for adjusted difference and p-value are calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline CS dose (prednisone or prednisolone \> 30 mg or ≤30 mg) and disease status (new onset or relapsing disease)) for the comparison of two treatment groups. Within each stratum, 95% CI for difference are calculated using normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|9.9|||=|0.0699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|20.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Response rate difference = 7.5 mg Upadacitinib - Placebo|7.5 mg Upadacitinib + 26-week CS taper vs Placebo + 52-week CS taper||20.6|-0.8|=0.0699
90990408|NCT03725202|181865146|SUPERIORITY|P-value is based on the van Elteren test, adjusting for the strata (Baseline CS dose (prednisone or prednisolone \> 30 mg or ≤ 30 mg) and disease status (new onset or relapsing disease)).|||||<|0.0001|||||||van Elteren test|||15 mg Upadacitinib + 26-week CS taper vs Placebo + 52-week CS taper||||<0.0001
90990409|NCT03725202|181865146|SUPERIORITY|P-value is based on the van Elteren test, adjusting for the strata (Baseline CS dose (prednisone or prednisolone \> 30 mg or ≤ 30 mg) and disease status (new onset or relapsing disease)).|||||<|0.0001|||||||van Elteren test|||7.5 mg Upadacitinib + 26-week CS taper vs Placebo + 52-week CS taper||||<0.0001
90990410|NCT03725202|181865147|SUPERIORITY|Treatment comparisons in the distribution of time-to-event between each upadacitinib group and the placebo are conducted using stratified log-rank test stratified by stratification factors (Baseline CS dose (prednisone or prednisolone \> 30 mg or ≤ 30 mg) and disease status (new onset or relapsing disease). Within each stratum, 95% CI for difference are calculated using Cox proportional hazards model with stratification factors as covariates|Cox Proportional Hazard|0.57|||=|0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.399|0.826|||Log-rank test|||15 mg Upadacitinib + 26-week CS taper vs Placebo + 52-week CS taper||0.826|0.399|=0.0025
91042601|NCT00936351|181970568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.21||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.04
90990411|NCT03725202|181865147|SUPERIORITY|Treatment comparisons in the distribution of time-to-event between each upadacitinib group and the placebo are conducted using stratified log-rank test stratified by stratification factors (Baseline CS dose (prednisone or prednisolone \> 30 mg or ≤ 30 mg) and disease status (new onset or relapsing disease). Within each stratum, 95% CI for difference are calculated using Cox proportional hazards model with stratification factors as covariates|Cox Proportional Hazard|0.75|||=|0.1778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.499|1.136|||Log-rank test|||7.5 mg Upadacitinib + 26-week CS taper vs Placebo + 52-week CS taper||1.136|0.499|=0.1778
90990412|NCT03725202|181865148|SUPERIORITY|The point estimate of flare rate at Week 52 from the Kaplan-Meier estimate for each stratum is used to derive the stratified disease flare rate. P-value, and 95% CI for the odds ratio between each upadacitinib group and placebo is also provided. Stratification factors (Baseline CS dose (prednisone or prednisolone \> 30 mg or ≤ 30 mg) and disease status (new onset or relapsing disease) were used.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.47|||=|0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.74|||Stratified Test for Odds Ratio|This method is described in J Immunother Cancer. 2021 Nov;9(11):e003323. doi: 10.1136/jitc-2021-003323.||15 mg Upadacitinib + 26-week CS taper vs Placebo + 52-week CS taper||0.74|0.29|=0.0014
90990413|NCT03725202|181865148|SUPERIORITY|The point estimate of flare rate at Week 52 from the Kaplan-Meier estimate for each stratum is used to derive the stratified disease flare rate. P-value, and 95% CI for the odds ratio between each upadacitinib group and placebo is also provided. Stratification factors (Baseline CS dose (prednisone or prednisolone \> 30 mg or ≤ 30 mg) and disease status (new onset or relapsing disease) were used.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6|||=|0.0633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.03|||Stratified Test for Odds Ratio|This method is described in J Immunother Cancer. 2021 Nov;9(11):e003323. doi: 10.1136/jitc-2021-003323.||7.5 mg Upadacitinib + 26-week CS taper vs Placebo + 52-week CS taper||1.03|0.35|=0.0633
90990414|NCT03725202|181865149|SUPERIORITY|Across the strata, 95% CI for adjusted difference and p-value are calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline CS dose (prednisone or prednisolone \> 30 mg or ≤30 mg) and disease status (new onset or relapsing disease)) for the comparison of two treatment groups. Within each stratum, 95% CI for difference are calculated using normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|30.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.4|40.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||15 mg Upadacitinib + 26-week CS taper vs Placebo + 52-week CS taper||40.2|20.4|<0.0001
90990415|NCT03725202|181865149|SUPERIORITY|Across the strata, 95% CI for adjusted difference and p-value are calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline CS dose (prednisone or prednisolone \> 30 mg or ≤30 mg) and disease status (new onset or relapsing disease)) for the comparison of two treatment groups. Within each stratum, 95% CI for difference are calculated using normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|23.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.7|35.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7.5 mg Upadacitinib + 26-week CS taper vs Placebo + 52-week CS taper||35.3|11.7|<0.0001
90990416|NCT03725202|181865150|SUPERIORITY|Across the strata, 95% CI for adjusted difference and p-value are calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline CS dose (prednisone or prednisolone \> 30 mg or ≤30 mg) and disease status (new onset or relapsing disease)) for the comparison of two treatment groups. Within each stratum, 95% CI for difference are calculated using normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|20.8|||=|0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.7|31.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||15 mg Upadacitinib + 26-week CS taper vs Placebo + 52-week CS taper||31.9|9.7|=0.0002
90990417|NCT03725202|181865150|SUPERIORITY|Across the strata, 95% CI for adjusted difference and p-value are calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline CS dose (prednisone or prednisolone \> 30 mg or ≤30 mg) and disease status (new onset or relapsing disease)) for the comparison of two treatment groups. Within each stratum, 95% CI for difference are calculated using normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|3.2|||=|0.6276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|16.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7.5 mg Upadacitinib + 26-week CS taper vs Placebo + 52-week CS taper||16.0|-9.6|=0.6276
90990418|NCT03725202|181865151|SUPERIORITY|The Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement with Baseline value, categorical fixed effects of treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction, stratification factors at randomization (Baseline CS dose (prednisone or prednisolone \>30 mg, prednisone or prednisolone ≤30 mg) and Baseline disease status (new onset disease, relapsing disease)) included in the model. An unstructured variance covariance matrix is used. Data after initiation of corticosteroid escape therapy are excluded from the model.|LS Mean Difference|3.7526|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1981|=|0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3932|6.1119|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement||Difference = 15 mg Upadacitinib - Placebo|15 mg Upadacitinib + 26-week CS taper vs Placebo + 52-week CS taper||6.1119|1.3932|=0.0019
90990419|NCT03725202|181865151|SUPERIORITY|The Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement with Baseline value, categorical fixed effects of treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction, stratification factors at randomization (Baseline CS dose (prednisone or prednisolone \>30 mg, prednisone or prednisolone ≤30 mg) and Baseline disease status (new onset disease, relapsing disease)) included in the model. An unstructured variance covariance matrix is used. Data after initiation of corticosteroid escape therapy are excluded from the model.|LS Mean Difference|2.6094|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4185|=|0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1841|5.4028|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement||Difference = 7.5 mg Upadacitinib - Placebo|7.5 mg Upadacitinib + 26-week CS taper vs Placebo + 52-week CS taper||5.4028|-0.1841|=0.0670
90990420|NCT03725202|181865152|SUPERIORITY|Comparisons between each upadacitinib treatment group and the placebo group are carried out using Poisson regression model with stratification factors as covariates and log(duration of study participation in years) as an offset. Robust standard error is used in inference.|Rate Ratio|0.6||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.8|||Poisson regression model|||15 mg Upadacitinib + 26-week CS taper vs Placebo + 52-week CS taper||0.8|0.4|0.0010
90990421|NCT03725202|181865152|SUPERIORITY|Comparisons between each upadacitinib treatment group and the placebo group are carried out using Poisson regression model with stratification factors as covariates and log(duration of study participation in years) as an offset. Robust standard error is used in inference.|Rate Ratio|0.8|||=|0.2722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.2|||Poisson regression model|||7.5 mg Upadacitinib + 26-week CS taper vs Placebo + 52-week CS taper||1.2|0.6|=0.2722
91042602|NCT02151149|181970571|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01||||0.9258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.21|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on stratification factors of ECOG PS at screening (0 vs. 1) and histology (squamous cell carcinoma vs. non-squamous cell carcinoma).||||1.21|0.84|0.9258
90990422|NCT03725202|181865153|SUPERIORITY|The Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement with Baseline value, categorical fixed effects of treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction, stratification factors at randomization (Baseline CS dose (prednisone or prednisolone \>30 mg, prednisone or prednisolone ≤30 mg) and Baseline disease status (new onset disease, relapsing disease)) included in the model. An unstructured variance covariance matrix is used. Data after initiation of corticosteroid escape therapy are excluded from the model.|LS Mean Difference|4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38|=|0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|6.76|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement||Difference = 15 mg Upadacitinib -Placebo|15 mg Upadacitinib + 26-week CS taper vs Placebo + 52-week CS taper||6.76|1.33|=0.0036
90990423|NCT03725202|181865153|SUPERIORITY|The Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement with Baseline value, categorical fixed effects of treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction, stratification factors at randomization (Baseline CS dose (prednisone or prednisolone \>30 mg, prednisone or prednisolone ≤30 mg) and Baseline disease status (new onset disease, relapsing disease)) included in the model. An unstructured variance covariance matrix is used. Data after initiation of corticosteroid escape therapy are excluded from the model.|LS Mean Difference|3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63|=|0.0338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|6.7|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement||Difference = 7.5 mg Upadacitinib -Placebo|7.5 mg Upadacitinib + 26-week CS taper vs Placebo + 52-week CS taper||6.70|0.27|=0.0338
90990424|NCT03725202|181865154|SUPERIORITY|The Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement with Baseline value, categorical fixed effects of treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction, stratification factors at randomization (Baseline CS dose (prednisone or prednisolone \>30 mg, prednisone or prednisolone ≤30 mg) and Baseline disease status (new onset disease, relapsing disease)) included in the model. An unstructured variance covariance matrix is used. Data after initiation of corticosteroid escape therapy are excluded from the model.|LS Mean Difference|2.7325|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9635|=|0.3573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.102|8.567|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement||Difference = 15 mg Upadacitinib -Placebo|15 mg Upadacitinib + 26-week CS taper vs Placebo + 52-week CS taper||8.5670|-3.1020|=0.3573
90990425|NCT03725202|181865154|SUPERIORITY|The Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement with Baseline value, categorical fixed effects of treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction, stratification factors at randomization (Baseline CS dose (prednisone or prednisolone \>30 mg, prednisone or prednisolone ≤30 mg) and Baseline disease status (new onset disease, relapsing disease)) included in the model. An unstructured variance covariance matrix is used. Data after initiation of corticosteroid escape therapy are excluded from the model.|LS Mean Difference|5.4216|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4785|=|0.1203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4269|12.2701|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement||Difference = 7.5 mg Upadacitinib -Placebo|7.5 mg Upadacitinib + 26-week CS taper vs Placebo + 52-week CS taper||12.2701|-1.4269|=0.1203
90990426|NCT03725202|181865155|SUPERIORITY|Comparisons between each upadacitinib treatment group and the placebo group are carried out using Poisson regression model with stratification factors as covariates and log(duration of study participation in years) as an offset. Robust standard error is used in inference.|Rate Ratio|1.1|||=|0.4371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.6|||Poisson regression model|||15 mg Upadacitinib + 26-week CS taper vs Placebo + 52-week CS taper||1.6|0.8|=0.4371
90990427|NCT03725202|181865155|SUPERIORITY|Comparisons between each upadacitinib treatment group and the placebo group are carried out using Poisson regression model with stratification factors as covariates and log(duration of study participation in years) as an offset. Robust standard error is used in inference.|Rate Ratio|0.9|||=|0.7749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.4|||Poisson regression model|||7.5 mg Upadacitinib + 26-week CS taper vs Placebo + 52-week CS taper||1.4|0.6|=0.7749
90990428|NCT01520324|181865156|OTHER|The data documented in this trial and the parameters measured were described using classic statistics, i.e. mean, SD, CV(%), median, minimum and maximum values for quantitative variables and frequencies for qualitative variables.||||||||||||||||The number of detected neoplasiae for each patient was listed and summarised by descriptive statistics. Number and percentage of patients with intraepithelial neoplasiae was presented|The data documented in this trial and the parameters measured were described using classic statistics, i.e. mean, SD, CV(%), median, minimum and maximum values for quantitative variables and frequencies for qualitative variables.|||
90990429|NCT01328249|181865167|OTHER|Fisher's Exact test||||||0.4422||||||Null hypothesis: The feasibility rates of Cohort 1 and Cohort 2 are same.|Fisher Exact|Exploratory analysis comparing primary feasibilities between 2 cohorts, based on Fisher's Exact test.||||||0.4422
90990430|NCT02330549|181865176|OTHER|This was a proof of concept study, and is not powered for statistical detection of differences between groups, no adjustments for multiplicity was made, or no-imputation for missing data.|LS Mean Difference|-0.2286|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.195||0.2483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.17||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model that included treatment and presence or absence of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) as factors, and the baseline value of Matsuda index as a covariate was used for analysis.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 12||0.17|-0.62|0.2483
90990431|NCT02330549|181865176|OTHER|This was a proof of concept study, and is not powered for statistical detection of differences between groups, no adjustments for multiplicity was made, or no-imputation for missing data.|LS Mean Difference|-0.4113|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.205||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.01||An ANCOVA model that included treatment and presence or absence of NASH as factors, and the baseline value of Matsuda index as a covariate was used for analysis.|ANCOVA|||Change form Baseline to Week 24||0.01|-0.83|0.053
90990432|NCT02330549|181865177|OTHER|This was a proof of concept study, and is not powered for statistical detection of differences between groups, no adjustments for multiplicity was made, or no-imputation for missing data.|LS Mean Difference|-1.505|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.369||0.5297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.33|3.32||An ANCOVA model that included treatment and presence or absence of NASH as factors, and the baseline value of ADIPO-IR as a covariate was used for analysis.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 12||3.32|-6.33|0.5297
90990433|NCT02330549|181865177|OTHER|This was a proof of concept study, and is not powered for statistical detection of differences between groups, no adjustments for multiplicity was made, or no-imputation for missing data.|LS Mean Difference|3.2146|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.757||0.2522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|8.83||An ANCOVA model that included treatment and presence or absence of NASH as factors, and the baseline value of ADIPO-IR as a covariate was used for analysis.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 24||8.83|-2.4|0.2522
90990434|NCT00495495|181865241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.02||||0.1126|ONE_SIDED||||||McNemar|||"Null hypothesis: there is no difference between the HealOzone and Placebo devices in the proportion of teeth with lesion progression after 1 year.~Power calculation: the study was sized to have 90% power to detect a 15% difference between treatments in the percentage of teeth with lesion progression at one year (i.e., assuming 45% for the lesions treated with the Placebo device and 30% for the lesions treated with the HealOzone device) with a sample size of 258 subjects completing the study."||||0.1126
90990435|NCT00495495|181865242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.08||||0.9777|ONE_SIDED||||||McNemar|||||||.9777
90990436|NCT00495495|181865243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0416|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||McNemar|||||||.0416
90990437|NCT00495495|181865244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.01||||0.6585|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||McNemar|||||||0.6585
90990438|NCT00495495|181865245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.02||||0.7666|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||McNemar|||||||.7666
90990439|NCT04009096|181865250|OTHER|||||||0.14||||||Two tailed p value reported for Mann-Whitney test comparing controls with each vaccinees|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of pooled data from Groups 1, 2 and 3 volunteers who completed CHMI with pooled data of infectivity controls (unvaccinated) from CHMI study running in parallel (VAC069 study)||||0.14
90990440|NCT04263142|181865255|OTHER||Ratio|0.998|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9263|1.0757|||||Analysis was performed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant as a random effect on the natural log-transformed parameter AUC(0-inf). Ratio of GSK3640254 200 mg tablets/capsules.|||1.0757|0.9263|
90990441|NCT04263142|181865256|OTHER||Ratio|1.002|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9321|1.0781|||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant as a random effect on the natural log-transformed parameter AUC(0-t). Ratio of GSK3640254 200 mg tablets/capsules.|||1.0781|0.9321|
90990442|NCT04263142|181865257|OTHER||Ratio|1.093|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9885|1.208|||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant as a random effect on the natural log-transformed parameter Cmax. Ratio of GSK3640254 200 mg tablets/capsules.|||1.2080|0.9885|
90990443|NCT04263142|181865259|OTHER||Ratio|2.926|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.3703|3.6107|||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant as a random effect on the natural log-transformed parameter AUC(0-inf). Ratio of GSK3640254 200 mg tablet (moderate fat)/(fasted)|||3.6107|2.3703|
90990444|NCT04263142|181865259|OTHER||Ratio|2.594|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.1003|3.2038|||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant as a random effect on the natural log-transformed parameter AUC(0-inf). Ratio of GSK3640254 200 mg tablet (high fat)/(fasted)|||3.2038|2.1003|
90990445|NCT04263142|181865260|OTHER||Ratio|3.146|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.5925|3.8178|||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant as a random effect on the natural log-transformed parameter AUC(0-t). Ratio of GSK3640254 200 mg tablet (moderate fat)/(fasted)|||3.8178|2.5925|
90990446|NCT04263142|181865260|OTHER||Ratio|2.785|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.2943|3.3807|||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant as a random effect on the natural log-transformed parameter AUC(0-t). Ratio of GSK3640254 200 mg tablet (high fat)/(fasted)|||3.3807|2.2943|
90990447|NCT04263142|181865261|OTHER||Ratio|4.101|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.2442|5.183|||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant as a random effect on the natural log-transformed parameter Cmax. Ratio of GSK3640254 200 mg tablet (moderate fat)/(fasted)|||5.1830|3.2442|
90990448|NCT04263142|181865261|OTHER||Ratio|3.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.4359|3.8935|||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant as a random effect on the natural log-transformed parameter Cmax. Ratio of GSK3640254 200 mg tablet (high fat)/(fasted)|||3.8935|2.4359|
90990449|NCT00769704|181865353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|14.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.3|19.0|||Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the durable response rate between the talimogene laherparepvec and control arms. Study success was defined as the rejection of this hypothesis such that talimogene laherparepvec was found to be superior to GM-CSF using the 2-sided Fisher's exact test, with a p-value of ≤ 0.0488.||19.0|9.3|<0.0001
91042603|NCT02151149|181970578|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.81|||Stratified Log Rank|Based on stratification factors of ECOG PS at screening (0 vs. 1) and histology (squamous cell carcinoma vs. non-squamous cell carcinoma).||||0.81|0.33|0.0036
90990450|NCT00769704|181865354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.0511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.0|||Log Rank||The hazard ratio was obtained from the unadjusted Cox Proportional Hazard Model. A hazard ratio \< 1.0 indicates a lower average death rate and a longer overall survival for talimogene laherparepvec relative to GM-CSF.|The primary method for analysis of overall survival was an unadjusted log-rank test. Testing of overall survival was conditional on a statistically significance difference in the primary endpoint of durable response. Success was defined as a p-value ≤ 0.05.||1.00|0.62|0.0511
90990451|NCT00769704|181865355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|20.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.4|27.1||Descriptive|Fisher Exact|||||27.1|14.4|<0.0001
90990452|NCT00769704|181865356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.4||||0.0868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|1.18||Descriptive|Log Rank||The hazard ratio was obtained from the unadjusted Cox Proportional Hazard Model. A hazard ratio \< 1.0 indicates a longer average duration of response for talimogene laherparepvec relative to GM-CSF.|||1.18|0.14|0.0868
90990453|NCT00769704|181865357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.3||Descriptive|Log Rank||The hazard ratio was obtained from the unadjusted Cox Proportional Hazard Model. A hazard ratio \> 1.0 indicates a a higher average response onset rate for talimogene laherparepvec relative to GM-CSF.|||1.30|0.30|0.2020
90990454|NCT00769704|181865358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.54||Descriptive|Log Rank||The hazard ratio was obtained from the unadjusted Cox Proportional Hazard Model. A hazard ratio \< 1.0 indicates a longer average time to treatment failure for talimogene laherparepvec relative to GM-CSF.|||0.54|0.32|<0.0001
90990455|NCT00769704|181865359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.3||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.73||Descriptive|Log Rank||The hazard ratio was obtained from the unadjusted Cox Proportional Hazard Model. A hazard ratio \< 1.0 indicates a longer response interval for talimogene laherparepvec relative to GM-CSF.|||0.73|0.13|0.0050
90990456|NCT00520676|181865371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.6||The comparison was conducted at a 1-sided significance level of 0.05.|Log Rank|Note that the 2-sided p-value for log rank is reported, which is \<0.001, hence 1-sided p-value is \<0.001.|Cox regression model is used for HR estimate.|||0.60|0.34|<0.001
90990457|NCT00520676|181865372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.42||The comparison was conducted at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Log Rank||Cox regression model is used for hazard ratio (HR) estimate.|||1.42|0.72|0.934
90990458|NCT00520676|181865373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.29||The comparison was conducted at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Log Rank|Cox regression model is used for hazard ratio (HR) estimate.||||1.29|0.72|0.800
90990459|NCT00520676|181865374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|3.15||The comparison of tumor response rates was conducted at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Fisher Exact|Tumor response rate= # participants with a confirmed best response of CR or PR / # of participants who qualify for the analysis population.|Logistic regression model is used for odds ratio (OR) estimate.|||3.15|0.93|0.081
90990460|NCT00520676|181865375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.55||The comparison was conducted at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Log Rank||Cox regression model is used for hazard ratio (HR) estimate.|||1.55|0.49|0.641
90990461|NCT00520676|181865376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.71||The comparison was conducted at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Log Rank||Cox regression model is used for unadjusted hazard ratio (HR) estimate.|||0.71|0.40|<0.001
90990462|NCT00520676|181865377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.66||The comparison was conducted at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Log Rank||Cox regression model is used for unadjusted hazard ratio (HR) estimate.|||0.66|0.35|<0.001
90990463|NCT03439748|181865379|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05. Univariate tests were corrected for false discovery rate using the Benjamin-Hochberg approach.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline levels of outcomes were covaried in all analyses to reduce error variance and correct for group differences.||This analysis compares the PAT and NAT groups at post-treatment. For this analysis, we have greater than .80 power to detect an effect size difference between PAT and NAT as small as d=.35.||||.002
90990464|NCT03439748|181865380|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05. Univariate tests were corrected for false discovery rate using the Benjamin-Hochberg approach.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline levels of outcomes were covaried in all analyses to reduce error variance and correct for group differences.||This analysis compares the PAT and NAT groups at post-treatment. For this analysis, we have greater than .80 power to detect an effect size difference between PAT and NAT as small as d=.35.||||>.05
90990465|NCT03439748|181865381|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05. Univariate tests were corrected for false discovery rate using the Benjamin-Hochberg approach.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline levels of outcomes were covaried in all analyses to reduce error variance and correct for group differences.||This analysis compares the PAT and NAT groups at post-treatment. For this analysis, we have greater than .80 power to detect an effect size difference between PAT and NAT as small as d=.35.||||.024
90990466|NCT03439748|181865385|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.922||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05. Univariate tests were corrected for false discovery rate using the Benjamin-Hochberg approach.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline levels of outcomes were covaried in all analyses to reduce error variance and correct for group differences.||This analysis compares the PAT and NAT groups at post-treatment. For this analysis, we have greater than .80 power to detect an effect size difference as small as d=.39.||||.922
90990467|NCT03439748|181865386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.049||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05. Univariate tests were corrected for false discovery rate using the Benjamin-Hochberg approach.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline levels of outcomes were covaried in all analyses to reduce error variance and correct for group differences.||This analysis compares the PAT and NAT groups at post-treatment. For this analysis, we have greater than .80 power to detect an effect size difference as small as d=.39.||||.049
90990468|NCT03439748|181865387|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.591||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05. Univariate tests were corrected for false discovery rate using the Benjamin-Hochberg approach.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline levels of outcomes were covaried in all analyses to reduce error variance and correct for group differences.||This analysis compares the PAT and NAT groups at post-treatment. For this analysis, we have greater than .80 power to detect an effect size difference as small as d=.39.||||.591
91042604|NCT02151149|181970579|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.3537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.25|||Stratified log-rank test|Based on stratification factors of ECOG PS at screening (0 vs. 1) and histology (squamous cell carcinoma vs. non-squamous cell carcinoma).||||1.25|0.54|0.3537
91042605|NCT02151149|181970580|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.56||||0.0597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.971|2.511|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on stratification factors of ECOG PS at screening (0 vs. 1) and histology (squamous cell carcinoma vs. non-squamous cell carcinoma)..||||2.511|0.971|0.0597
90990469|NCT03439748|181865388|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05. Univariate tests were corrected for false discovery rate using the Benjamin-Hochberg approach.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline levels of outcomes were covaried in all analyses to reduce error variance and correct for group differences.||This analysis compares the PAT and NAT groups at post-treatment. For this analysis, we have greater than .80 power to detect an effect size difference as small as d=.39.||||.004
90990470|NCT03439748|181865389|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05. Univariate tests were corrected for false discovery rate using the Benjamin-Hochberg approach.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline levels of outcomes were covaried in all analyses to reduce error variance and correct for group differences.||This analysis compares the PAT and NAT groups at post-treatment. For this analysis, we have greater than .80 power to detect an effect size difference as small as d=.39.||||.030
90990471|NCT03439748|181865390|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05. Univariate tests were corrected for false discovery rate using the Benjamin-Hochberg approach.|Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis compares the PAT and NAT groups at post-treatment. For this analysis, we have greater than .80 power to detect an effect size difference as small as d=.39.||||.029
90990472|NCT03439748|181865392|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.494||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05. Univariate tests were corrected for false discovery rate using the Benjamin-Hochberg approach.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline levels of outcomes were covaried in all analyses to reduce error variance and correct for group differences.||This analysis compares the PAT and NAT groups at post-treatment. For this analysis, we have greater than .80 power to detect an effect size difference as small as d=.39.||||.494
90990473|NCT03439748|181865393|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.231||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05. Univariate tests were corrected for false discovery rate using the Benjamin-Hochberg approach.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline levels of outcomes were covaried in all analyses to reduce error variance and correct for group differences.||This analysis compares the PAT and NAT groups at post-treatment. For this analysis, we have greater than .80 power to detect an effect size difference as small as d=.39.||||.231
90990474|NCT03439748|181865394|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.344||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05. Univariate tests were corrected for false discovery rate using the Benjamin-Hochberg approach.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline levels of outcomes were covaried in all analyses to reduce error variance and correct for group differences.||This analysis compares the PAT and NAT groups at post-treatment. For this analysis, we have greater than .80 power to detect an effect size difference as small as d=.39.||||.344
90990475|NCT03439748|181865395|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.267||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05. Univariate tests were corrected for false discovery rate using the Benjamin-Hochberg approach.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline levels of outcomes were covaried in all analyses to reduce error variance and correct for group differences.||This analysis compares the PAT and NAT groups at post-treatment. For this analysis, we have greater than .80 power to detect an effect size difference as small as d=.39.||||.267
90990476|NCT03439748|181865396|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.051||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05. Univariate tests were corrected for false discovery rate using the Benjamin-Hochberg approach.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline levels of outcomes were covaried in all analyses to reduce error variance and correct for group differences.||This analysis compares the PAT and NAT groups at post-treatment. For this analysis, we have greater than .80 power to detect an effect size difference as small as d=.39.||||.051
90990477|NCT00335504|181865401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3||95.0||||Adjusting for multiple comparisons yields 84% power to detect a difference of at least 25% in % change of ACF at the 0.016 level of significance and using a two-sample, 2-sided t-test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The study was designed to test the hypotheses of observing a 25% difference in % change ACF over baseline, between patients treated with atorvastatin compared to placebo. N=25 subjects per group yielded 93% power to detect this difference using a 2 sided t-test at significance level of 0.05. Non-parametric tests (eg, Wilcoxon Rank Sum) could be used if the statistical assumptions of the t-test were violated.||||0.30
91006880|NCT02141854|181898334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|0.15||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.054|0.354||Significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|||The change from baseline in AQLQ(S) score (patients ≥18 years of age) at endpoint (ie, last postbaseline observation) was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with effects due to baseline AQLQ(S) score, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), and treatment, imputing missing data via last observation carried forward (LOCF).||0.354|-0.054|0.1490
91006881|NCT02141854|181898334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|0.253||||0.0143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.051|0.455||Significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|||The change from baseline in AQLQ(S) score (patients ≥18 years of age) at endpoint (ie, last postbaseline observation) was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with effects due to baseline AQLQ(S) score, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), and treatment, imputing missing data via last observation carried forward (LOCF).||0.455|0.051|0.0143
91006882|NCT02141854|181898334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|0.209||||0.0435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.006|0.411||Significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|||The change from baseline in AQLQ(S) score (patients ≥18 years of age) at endpoint (ie, last postbaseline observation) was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with effects due to baseline AQLQ(S) score, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), and treatment, imputing missing data via last observation carried forward (LOCF).||0.411|0.006|0.0435
90990478|NCT00335504|181865401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6||95.0||||Adjusting for multiple comparisons yields 84% power to detect a difference of at least 25% in % change of ACF at the 0.016 level of significance and using a two-sample, 2-sided t-test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The study was designed to test the hypotheses of observing a 25% difference in % change ACF over baseline, between patients treated with sulindac compared to placebo. N=25 subjects per group yielded 93% power to detect this difference using a 2 sided t-test at significance level of 0.05. Non-parametric tests (eg, Wilcoxon Rank Sum) could be used if the statistical assumptions of the t-test were violated.||||0.60
90990479|NCT00335504|181865401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92||95.0||||Adjusting for multiple comparisons yields 84% power to detect a difference of at least 25% in % change of ACF at the 0.016 level of significance and using a two-sample, 2-sided t-test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The study was designed to test the hypotheses of observing a 25% difference in % change ACF over baseline, between patients treated with oligofructose-enriched inulin compared to placebo. N=25 subjects per group yielded 93% power to detect this difference using a 2 sided t-test at significance level of 0.05. Non-parametric tests (eg, Wilcoxon Rank Sum) could be used if the statistical assumptions of the t-test were violated.||||0.92
90990480|NCT00335504|181865401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59||95.0|||||Sign test|||Signed Rank p-value for comparison of % change in ACF within each randomization arm.||||0.59
90990481|NCT00335504|181865401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12||95.0|||||Sign test|||Signed Rank p-value for comparison of % change in ACF within each randomization arm.||||0.12
90990482|NCT00335504|181865401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54||95.0|||||Sign test|||Signed Rank p-value for comparison of % change in ACF within each randomization arm.||||0.54
90990483|NCT00335504|181865401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41||95.0|||||Sign test|||Signed Rank p-value for comparison of % change in ACF within each randomization arm.||||0.41
90990484|NCT00335504|181865402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum p-value for comparison of % change in Ki67 between atorvastatin and placebo.||||0.37
90990485|NCT00335504|181865402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum p-value for comparison of % change in Ki67 between sulindac and placebo.||||1.00
90990486|NCT00335504|181865402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum p-value for comparison of % change in Ki67 between oligofructose-enriched inulin and placebo.||||0.58
90990487|NCT00335504|181865403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum p-value for comparison of % change in apoptosis between atorvastatin calcium and placebo.||||0.26
90990488|NCT00335504|181865403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum p-value for comparison of % change in apoptosis between sulindac and placebo.||||0.88
90990489|NCT00335504|181865403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum p-value for comparison of % change in apoptosis between oligofructose-enriched inulin and placebo.||||0.38
90990490|NCT01856595|181865439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference (Net)|-2.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.532||0.7457|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.93|11.38||Two-sided p-values are from analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||11.38|-16.93|0.7457
90990491|NCT01856595|181865439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference (Net)|-21.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.334||0.0108|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-35.47|-7.81||Two-sided p-values are from analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||-7.81|-35.47|0.0108
90990492|NCT01856595|181865439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference (Net)|-26.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.309||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-40.38|-12.8||Two-sided p-values are from analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||-12.80|-40.38|0.0018
90990493|NCT01856595|181865439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference (Net)|-32.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.038||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-45.66|-18.99||Two-sided p-values are from analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||-18.99|-45.66|0.0001
90990494|NCT01856595|181865439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference (Net)|-42.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.34|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-56.23|-28.55||Two-sided p-values are from analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||-28.55|-56.23|<0.0001
90990495|NCT01856595|181865440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference (Net)|10.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.621||0.279|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.5|26.43||Two-sided p-values are from ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||26.43|-5.50|0.2790
90990496|NCT01856595|181865440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference (Net)|-19.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.777||0.0299||90.0|-33.89|-4.76||Two-sided p-values are from ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||-4.76|-33.89|0.0299
90990497|NCT01856595|181865441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference (Net)|-29.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.609||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-42.28|-16.57||Two-sided p-values are from analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||-16.57|-42.28|0.0005
90990498|NCT01856595|181865441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference (Net)|-11.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.321||0.1133|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-24.26|0.48||Two-sided p-values are from analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||0.48|-24.26|0.1133
90990499|NCT01856595|181865442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.066||0.853|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.89|1.1||Two-sided p-values are from analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate using the natural log-transformed AUC0-4. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||1.10|0.89|0.8530
90990500|NCT01856595|181865442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.065||0.0172|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.77|0.95||Two-sided p-values are from analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate using the natural log-transformed AUC0-4. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||0.95|0.77|0.0172
90990501|NCT01856595|181865442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.064||0.0106|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.77|0.94||Two-sided p-values are from analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate using the natural log-transformed AUC0-4. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||0.94|0.77|0.0106
90990502|NCT01856595|181865442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.062||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.74|0.9||Two-sided p-values are from analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate using the natural log-transformed AUC0-4. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||0.90|0.74|0.0012
90990503|NCT01856595|181865442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.065|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|0.85||Two-sided p-values are from analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate using the natural log-transformed AUC0-4. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||0.85|0.69|<0.0001
90990504|NCT01856595|181865443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.075||0.7804|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|1.1||Two-sided p-values are from analysis of ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate using the natural log-transformed AUC0-4. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||1.10|0.87|0.7804
90990505|NCT01856595|181865443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.068||0.0908|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.77|1.0||Two-sided p-values are from ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate using the natural log-transformed AUC0-4. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||1.00|0.77|0.0908
90990506|NCT01856595|181865444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.083||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.68|0.88||Two-sided p-values are from ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate using the natural log-transformed AUC0-4. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||0.88|0.68|0.0027
90990507|NCT01856595|181865444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.079||0.0908|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.77|1.0||Two-sided p-values are from ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate using the natural log-transformed AUC0-4. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||1.00|0.77|0.0908
90990508|NCT01856595|181865448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.123||0.8723|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|1.19||Two-sided p-values are from ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate using the natural log-transformed AUC0-4. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||1.19|0.81|0.8723
90990509|NCT01856595|181865448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.124||0.5158|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.76|1.13||Two-sided p-values are from ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate using the natural log-transformed AUC0-4. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||1.13|0.76|0.5158
90990510|NCT01856595|181865448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.126||0.1258|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.68|1.01||Two-sided p-values are from ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate using the natural log-transformed AUC0-4. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||1.01|0.68|0.1258
90990511|NCT01856595|181865448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.115||0.2883|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.74|1.07||Two-sided p-values are from ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate using the natural log-transformed AUC0-4. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||1.07|0.74|0.2883
90990512|NCT01856595|181865448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12||0.8437|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|1.18||Two-sided p-values are from ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate using the natural log-transformed AUC0-4. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||1.18|0.81|0.8437
90990513|NCT01856595|181865449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.154||0.4405|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.42||Two-sided p-values are from ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate using the natural log-transformed AUC0-4. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||1.42|0.88|0.4405
90990514|NCT01856595|181865449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.146||0.5178|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|1.37||Two-sided p-values are from ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate using the natural log-transformed AUC0-4. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||1.37|0.87|0.5178
90990515|NCT01856595|181865450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.181||0.034|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.52|0.92||Two-sided p-values are from ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate using the natural log-transformed AUC0-4. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||0.92|0.52|0.0340
90990516|NCT01856595|181865450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.173||0.2519|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.58||Two-sided p-values are from ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate using the natural log-transformed AUC0-4. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||1.58|0.92|0.2519
90990517|NCT01856595|181865451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.079||0.4579|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|1.2||Two-sided p-values are from ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate using the natural log-transformed AUC0-4. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||1.20|0.93|0.4579
90990518|NCT01856595|181865451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.079||0.8144|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|1.11||Two-sided p-values are from ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate using the natural log-transformed AUC0-4. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||1.11|0.87|0.8144
90990519|NCT01856595|181865451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.082||0.3425|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|1.06||Two-sided p-values are from ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate using the natural log-transformed AUC0-4. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||1.06|0.81|0.3425
90990520|NCT01856595|181865451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.076||0.967|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.13||Two-sided p-values are from ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate using the natural log-transformed AUC0-4. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||1.13|0.88|0.9670
90990521|NCT01856595|181865451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.079||0.319|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|1.23||Two-sided p-values are from ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate using the natural log-transformed AUC0-4. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||1.23|0.95|0.3190
90990522|NCT01856595|181865452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.095||0.1617|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|1.32||Two-sided p-values are from ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate using the natural log-transformed AUC0-4. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||1.32|0.98|0.1617
90990523|NCT01856595|181865452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.084||0.3703|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|1.23||Two-sided p-values are from ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate using the natural log-transformed AUC0-4. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||1.23|0.94|0.3703
90990524|NCT01856595|181865453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.119||0.6833|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.79|1.15||Two-sided p-values are from ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate using the natural log-transformed AUC0-4. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||1.15|0.79|0.6833
90990525|NCT01856595|181865453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.112||0.1318|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|1.41||Two-sided p-values are from ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate using the natural log-transformed AUC0-4. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||1.41|0.98|0.1318
90990526|NCT00458406|181865495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.512||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||"We hypothesized that Bi-Flex would result in improved adherence but similar efficacy to CPAP.~Description of power calculation: The study sample size of 45 in the Bi-Flex group and 15 in the CPAP group had 80% power to detect an effect size ≥ 0.85 with a 0.05 two-sided significance level. In addition, with this sample size, the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference between the 2 means had a range of 1.282 standard deviation (SD)."||||0.512
90990527|NCT00458406|181865496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Two-sided t-test. We hypothesized that Bi-Flex would result in improved adherence but similar effi cacy to CPAP.~The study sample size of 45 in the Bi-Flex group and 15 in the CPAP group had 80% power to detect an effect size ≥ 0.85 with a 0.05 two-sided significance level. In addition, with this sample size, the 95% CI for the difference between the 2 means had a range of 1.282 SD."||||>0.05
90990528|NCT00458406|181865497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Two-sided t-test. We hypothesized that Bi-Flex would result in improved adherence but similar effi cacy to CPAP.~The study sample size of 45 in the Bi-Flex group and 15 in the CPAP group had 80% power to detect an effect size ≥ 0.85 with a 0.05 two-sided significance level. In addition, with this sample size, the 95% CI for the difference between the 2 means had a range of 1.282 SD."||||>0.05
90990529|NCT00458406|181865498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||"Chi-Square test. We hypothesized that Bi-Flex would result in improved adherence but similar efficacy to CPAP.~The study sample size of 45 in the Bi-Flex group and 15 in the CPAP group had 80% power to detect an effect size ≥ 0.85 with a 0.05 two-sided significance level. In addition, with this sample size, the 95% CI for the difference between the 2 means had a range of 1.282 SD."||||>0.05
90990530|NCT00458406|181865499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mann-Whitney test. We hypothesized that Bi-Flex would result in improved adherence but similar efficacy to CPAP. The study sample size of 45 in the Bi-Flex group and 15 in the CPAP group had 80% power to detect an effect size ≥ 0.85 with a 0.05 two-sided significance level. In addition, with this sample size, the 95% CI for the difference between the 2 means had a range of 1.282 SD.||||>0.05
90990531|NCT00458406|181865499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Two-sided t-test. We hypothesized that Bi-Flex would result in improved adherence but similar efficacy to CPAP.~The study sample size of 45 in the Bi-Flex group and 15 in the CPAP group had 80% power to detect an effect size ≥ 0.85 with a 0.05 two-sided significance level. In addition, with this sample size, the 95% CI for the difference between the 2 means had a range of 1.282 SD."||||<0.05
90990532|NCT00458406|181865501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Mann-Whitney test. We hypothesized that Bi-Flex would result in improved adherence but similar efficacy to CPAP.~The study sample size of 45 in the Bi-Flex group and 15 in the CPAP group had 80% power to detect an effect size ≥ 0.85 with a 0.05 two-sided significance level. In addition, with this sample size, the 95% CI for the difference between the 2 means had a range of 1.282 SD."||||>0.05
90990533|NCT00458406|181865502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Mann-Whitney test. We hypothesized that Bi-Flex would result in improved adherence but similar efficacy to CPAP.~The study sample size of 45 in the Bi-Flex group and 15 in the CPAP group had 80% power to detect an effect size ≥ 0.85 with a 0.05 two-sided significance level. In addition, with this sample size, the 95% CI for the difference between the 2 means had a range of 1.282 SD."||||>0.05
90990534|NCT03161938|181865504|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.508||||0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.159|1.62|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Null hypothesis: Patients receiving 48 mg of preoperative dexamethasone have less postoperative pain. Power calculation: Acute pain is reduced from 70% to 35% for patients receiving 48 mg of dexamathesone, 80% power, 0.05 statistical significance level.||1.620|0.159|0.248
90990535|NCT03161938|181865505|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.519|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.519
90990536|NCT03161938|181865506|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.468|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.468
90990537|NCT03161938|181865507|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.913|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Maximal pain||||0.913
90990538|NCT03161938|181865507|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.722|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Average pain||||0.722
90990539|NCT03161938|181865508|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.374|3.793|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||3.793|0.374|0.768
90990540|NCT03161938|181865509|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.133|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.133
90990541|NCT03161938|181865510|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.768||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons, statistical level of significance 0.01 (bonferroni correction)|Chi-squared, Corrected|||Day 0||||0.768
90990542|NCT03161938|181865510|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.376|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Day 1||||0.376
90990543|NCT03161938|181865510|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Day 2||||0.590
90990544|NCT03161938|181865510|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Day 3||||0.320
90990545|NCT03161938|181865510|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.666|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||day 4||||0.666
90990546|NCT03161938|181865511|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||day 0||||>0.999
90990547|NCT03161938|181865511|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.154|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||day 1||||0.154
90990548|NCT03161938|181865511|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.447|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||day 2||||0.447
90990549|NCT03161938|181865511|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.678|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||day 3||||0.678
90990550|NCT03161938|181865511|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.604|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||day 4||||0.604
90990551|NCT03161938|181865512|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.075|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||day 0, sadness||||0.075
90990552|NCT03161938|181865512|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.447|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||day 0, restlessness||||0.447
90990553|NCT03161938|181865512|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.703|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Day 0, fatigue||||0.703
90990554|NCT03161938|181865512|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.731|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Day 1, sadness||||0.731
90990555|NCT03161938|181865512|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.052|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Day 1, restlessness||||0.052
90990556|NCT03161938|181865512|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.807|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Day 1, fatigue||||0.807
90990557|NCT03161938|181865512|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.371|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Day 2, sadness||||0.371
90990558|NCT03161938|181865512|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.064|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Day 2, restlessness||||0.064
90990559|NCT03161938|181865512|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||day 2, fatigue||||0.110
90990560|NCT03161938|181865512|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.531|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Day 3, sadness||||0.531
90990561|NCT03161938|181865512|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.954|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Day 3, restlessness||||0.954
90990562|NCT03161938|181865512|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.526|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Day 3, fatigue||||0.526
90990563|NCT03161938|181865512|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.491|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Day 4, sadness||||0.491
90990564|NCT03161938|181865512|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.042|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Day 4, restlessness||||0.042
90990565|NCT03161938|181865512|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.097|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Day 4, fatigue||||0.097
90990566|NCT03161938|181865513|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.613|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.613
90990567|NCT02492750|181865515|OTHER||Maximum Tolerated Dose (MTD) Level|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||MTD is defined as the dose level below the lowest dose that induces DLT in at least one-third of patients. A total of 6 patients treated at the MTD will be sufficient to identify common toxicities at the MTD.|||||
90990568|NCT01954121|181865570|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin for the adjusted difference in seizure free proportion in the LEV minus the seizure free proportion in the CBZ-IR group was set to absolute -20% points.|adjusted difference in proportions|-22.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.1|-12.6||||||The adjusted absolute difference in treatment group seizure-free proportions (referenced as 'Adjusted difference in proportions' in 'Method of Estimation' below) was derived from the adjusted treatment group proportions of seizure-free subjects. The adjusted proportions were derived from a logistic regression model of seizure freedom using treatment and the categories for the number of seizures in the 3-month period prior to Visit 1 (≤2 seizures and \>2 seizures) as covariates.||-12.6|-33.1|
90990569|NCT01617434|181865597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.19|||<|0.0001||95.0|-1.39|-0.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The null hypothesis of no difference between the two treatment arms with regard to changes from baseline in HbA1c (%) after 26 weeks of randomised treatment was analysed using a mixed model repeated measurements (MMRM) analysis with treatment, country, stratification groups as factors and baseline HbA1c as a covariate, all nested within visit.||-0.99|-1.39|<0.0001
90990570|NCT01617434|181865598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.28|||<|0.0001||95.0|-1.7|-0.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The response was analysed using a mixed model repeated measurements (MMRM) analysis with treatment, country, stratification groups as factors and baseline as a covariate, all nested within visit.||-0.86|-1.70|<0.0001
90990571|NCT01617434|181865599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.59|||<|0.0001||95.0|-2.01|-1.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The response was analysed using a mixed model repeated measurements (MMRM) analysis with treatment, country, stratification groups as factors and baseline as a covariate, all nested within visit.||-1.18|-2.01|<0.0001
90990572|NCT01617434|181865600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.11|||<|0.0001||95.0|-3.85|-2.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The response was analysed using a mixed model repeated measurements (MMRM) analysis with treatment, country, stratification groups as factors and baseline as a covariate, all nested within visit.||-2.37|-3.85|<0.0001
90990573|NCT01617434|181865601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.91|||<|0.0001||95.0|5.45|14.59|||Regression, Logistic|||This endpoint was analysed using a logistic regression model with treatment and stratification factors as fixed factors and the HbA1c value at baseline as a covariate. Subjects previously treated with insulin detemir without the use of metformin were not included in the analysis due to the small size of the stratum.||14.59|5.45|<0.0001
90990574|NCT01617434|181865602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|20.12|||<|0.0001||95.0|9.92|40.84|||Regression, Logistic|||This endpoint was analysed using a logistic regression model with treatment and stratification factors as fixed factors and the HbA1c value at baseline as a covariate. Subjects previously treated with insulin detemir without the use of metformin were not included in the analysis due to the small size of the stratum.||40.84|9.92|<0.0001
90990575|NCT02915367|181865611|OTHER|Pearson chi-square||||||0.93|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.93
90990576|NCT02915367|181865613|OTHER|Pearson chi-square||||||0.96|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.96
90990577|NCT03342469|181865621|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Significance level \</= 0.05. This was chosen due to the small sample size. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons as this was a pilot study and a power analysis for sample size was not conducted.|repeated measures General Linear Model|||Difference in Delta Power in ADHD group with and without exposure to AFC. General linear model assessed the impact of treatment (AFC v. placebo) on each EEG frequency band, taking into account order of materials. Dependent variable = Treatment (EEG power during AFC, EEG power during placebo); independent variable = order (AFC/placebo, placebo/AFC) This is a pilot study, thus a power calculation was not done and it was not power to correct for multiple comparisons.||||>0.05
90990578|NCT03342469|181865621|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Significance level \</= 0.05. This was chosen due to the small sample size. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons as this was a pilot study and a power analysis for sample size was not conducted.|repeated measures General Linear Model|||Difference in Theta Power in ADHD group with and without exposure to AFC. General linear model assessed the impact of treatment (AFC v. placebo) on each EEG frequency band, taking into account order of materials. Dependent variable = Treatment (EEG power during AFC, EEG power during placebo); independent variable = order (AFC/placebo, placebo/AFC) This is a pilot study, thus a power calculation was not done and it was not power to correct for multiple comparisons.||||>0.05
90990579|NCT03342469|181865621|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Significance level \</= 0.05. This was chosen due to the small sample size. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons as this was a pilot study and a power analysis for sample size was not conducted.|repeated measures General Linear Model|||Difference in Alpha Power in ADHD group with and without exposure to AFC. General linear model assessed the impact of treatment (AFC v. placebo) on each EEG frequency band, taking into account order of materials. Dependent variable = Treatment (EEG power during AFC, EEG power during placebo); independent variable = order (AFC/placebo, placebo/AFC) This is a pilot study, thus a power calculation was not done and it was not power to correct for multiple comparisons.||||>0.05
90990580|NCT03342469|181865621|OTHER|||||||0.08||||||Significance level \</= 0.05. This was chosen due to the small sample size. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons as this was a pilot study and a power analysis for sample size was not conducted.|repeated measures General Linear Model|||Difference in Beta Power in ADHD group with and without exposure to AFC. General linear model assessed the impact of treatment (AFC v. placebo) on each EEG frequency band, taking into account order of materials. Dependent variable = Treatment (EEG power during AFC, EEG power during placebo); independent variable = order (AFC/placebo, placebo/AFC) This is a pilot study, thus a power calculation was not done and it was not power to correct for multiple comparisons.||||0.08
90990581|NCT03342469|181865621|OTHER|||||||0.05||||||Significance level \</= 0.05. This was chosen due to the small sample size. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons as this was a pilot study and a power analysis for sample size was not conducted.|repeated measures General Linear Model|F(1,14)= 4.55||Difference in Gamma Power in ADHD group with and without exposure to AFC. General linear model assessed the impact of treatment (AFC v. placebo) on each EEG frequency band, taking into account order of materials. Dependent variable = Treatment (EEG power during AFC, EEG power during placebo); independent variable = order (AFC/placebo, placebo/AFC) This is a pilot study, thus a power calculation was not done and it was not power to correct for multiple comparisons.||||0.05
90990582|NCT03342469|181865621|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Significance level \</= 0.05. This was chosen due to the small sample size. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons as this was a pilot study and a power analysis for sample size was not conducted.|repeated measures General Linear Model|||Difference in Delta Power in control group with and without exposure to AFC. General linear model assessed the impact of treatment (AFC v. placebo) on each EEG frequency band, taking into account order of materials. Dependent variable = Treatment (EEG power during AFC, EEG power during placebo); independent variable = order (AFC/placebo, placebo/AFC) This is a pilot study, thus a power calculation was not done and it was not power to correct for multiple comparisons.||||>0.05
91006883|NCT02545049|181898373|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.0264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.98||A hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary efficacy endpoints with each variable being tested at the adjusted two-sided significance level of 0.04967388.|Log Rank|Stratified log rank test|A stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model was used to provide a point estimate of the hazard ratio and a corresponding two-sided 95% confidence interval.|||0.98|0.76|0.0264
90990583|NCT03342469|181865621|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Significance level \</= 0.05. This was chosen due to the small sample size. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons as this was a pilot study and a power analysis for sample size was not conducted.|repeated measures General Linear Model|||Difference in Theta Power in control group with and without exposure to AFC. General linear model assessed the impact of treatment (AFC v. placebo) on each EEG frequency band, taking into account order of materials. Dependent variable = Treatment (EEG power during AFC, EEG power during placebo); independent variable = order (AFC/placebo, placebo/AFC) This is a pilot study, thus a power calculation was not done and it was not power to correct for multiple comparisons.||||>0.05
90990584|NCT03342469|181865621|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Significance level \</= 0.05. This was chosen due to the small sample size. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons as this was a pilot study and a power analysis for sample size was not conducted.|repeated measures General Linear Model|||Difference in Alpha Power in control group with and without exposure to AFC. General linear model assessed the impact of treatment (AFC v. placebo) on each EEG frequency band, taking into account order of materials. Dependent variable = Treatment (EEG power during AFC, EEG power during placebo); independent variable = order (AFC/placebo, placebo/AFC) This is a pilot study, thus a power calculation was not done and it was not power to correct for multiple comparisons.||||>0.05
91042606|NCT02224053|181970598|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|90% CIs of geometric mean ratios being within 80% to 125%|Geometric mean ratio|106.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.26|113.46|||||AZD9291+omeprazole / AZD9291 alone|Study sized so experiment-wise power for the 90% CIs of geometric mean ratios for both AUC and Cmax of AZD9291 being within 80% to 125% was 90% (95% for each parameter). Within subject CV assumed to be 23%. 5% change in exposure also assumed.||113.46|100.26|
90990585|NCT03342469|181865621|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Significance level \</= 0.05. This was chosen due to the small sample size. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons as this was a pilot study and a power analysis for sample size was not conducted.|repeated measures General Linear Model|||Difference in Beta Power in control group with and without exposure to AFC. General linear model assessed the impact of treatment (AFC v. placebo) on each EEG frequency band, taking into account order of materials. Dependent variable = Treatment (EEG power during AFC, EEG power during placebo); independent variable = order (AFC/placebo, placebo/AFC)||||>0.05
90990586|NCT03342469|181865621|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Significance level \</= 0.05. This was chosen due to the small sample size. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons as this was a pilot study and a power analysis for sample size was not conducted.|repeated measures General Linear Model|||"Difference in Gamma Power in control group with and without exposure to AFC. General linear model assessed the impact of treatment (AFC v. placebo) on each EEG frequency band, taking into account order of materials. Dependent variable = Treatment (EEG power during AFC, EEG power during placebo); independent variable = order (AFC/placebo, placebo/AFC)~This is a pilot study, thus a power calculation was not done and it was not power to correct for multiple comparisons."||||>0.05
91007993|NCT01005966|181900092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|8.96||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.27|13.66||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA based on a mixed model with factors subject, treatment and period was used.|Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.|Null hypothesis considered population means for the NaF toothpaste (1426ppmF) and NaF toothpaste (675ppmF) to be equal with respect to enamel remineralization potential.||13.66|4.27|0.0002
91007994|NCT01005966|181900092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|4.57||||0.0557||95.0|-0.11|9.24||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA based on a mixed model with factors subject, treatment and period was used.|Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.|Null hypothesis considered population means for the NaF toothpaste (1426ppmF) and Na MFP/NaF toothpaste (1450ppmF) to be equal with respect to enamel remineralization potential.||9.24|-0.11|0.0557
90990587|NCT03342469|181865622|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Significance level \</= 0.05. This was chosen due to the small sample size. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons as this was a pilot study and a power analysis for sample size was not conducted.|repeated measures General Linear Model|||"Difference in Delta Power in ADHD group with and without exposure to AFC. General linear model assessed the impact of treatment (AFC v. placebo) on each EEG frequency band, taking into account order of materials. Dependent variable = Treatment (EEG power during AFC, EEG power during placebo); independent variable = order (AFC/placebo, placebo/AFC)~This is a pilot study, thus a power calculation was not done and it was not power to correct for multiple comparisons."||||>0.05
90990588|NCT03342469|181865622|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Significance level \</= 0.05. This was chosen due to the small sample size. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons as this was a pilot study and a power analysis for sample size was not conducted.|repeated measures General Linear Model|||"Difference in Theta Power in ADHD group with and without exposure to AFC. General linear model assessed the impact of treatment (AFC v. placebo) on each EEG frequency band, taking into account order of materials. Dependent variable = Treatment (EEG power during AFC, EEG power during placebo); independent variable = order (AFC/placebo, placebo/AFC)~This is a pilot study, thus a power calculation was not done and it was not power to correct for multiple comparisons."||||>0.05
90990589|NCT03342469|181865622|OTHER|||||||0.04||||||Significance level \</= 0.05. This was chosen due to the small sample size. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons as this was a pilot study and a power analysis for sample size was not conducted.|repeated measures General Linear Model|F(1.14)= 4.88, p=0.04||"Difference in Alpha Power in ADHD group with and without exposure to AFC. General linear model assessed the impact of treatment (AFC v. placebo) on each EEG frequency band, taking into account order of materials. Dependent variable = Treatment (EEG power during AFC, EEG power during placebo); independent variable = order (AFC/placebo, placebo/AFC)~This is a pilot study, thus a power calculation was not done and it was not power to correct for multiple comparisons."||||0.04
90990590|NCT03342469|181865622|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Significance level \</= 0.05. This was chosen due to the small sample size. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons as this was a pilot study and a power analysis for sample size was not conducted.|repeated measures General Linear Model|||"Difference in Beta Power in ADHD group with and without exposure to AFC. General linear model assessed the impact of treatment (AFC v. placebo) on each EEG frequency band, taking into account order of materials. Dependent variable = Treatment (EEG power during AFC, EEG power during placebo); independent variable = order (AFC/placebo, placebo/AFC)~This is a pilot study, thus a power calculation was not done and it was not power to correct for multiple comparisons."||||>0.05
90990591|NCT03342469|181865622|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Significance level \</= 0.05. This was chosen due to the small sample size. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons as this was a pilot study and a power analysis for sample size was not conducted.|repeated measures General Linear Model|||"Difference in Gamma Power in ADHD group with and without exposure to AFC. General linear model assessed the impact of treatment (AFC v. placebo) on each EEG frequency band, taking into account order of materials. Dependent variable = Treatment (EEG power during AFC, EEG power during placebo); independent variable = order (AFC/placebo, placebo/AFC)~This is a pilot study, thus a power calculation was not done and it was not power to correct for multiple comparisons."||||>0.05
90990592|NCT03342469|181865622|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Significance level \</= 0.05. This was chosen due to the small sample size. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons as this was a pilot study and a power analysis for sample size was not conducted.|repeated measures General Linear Model|||"Difference in Delta Power in control group with and without exposure to AFC. General linear model assessed the impact of treatment (AFC v. placebo) on each EEG frequency band, taking into account order of materials. Dependent variable = Treatment (EEG power during AFC, EEG power during placebo); independent variable = order (AFC/placebo, placebo/AFC)~This is a pilot study, thus a power calculation was not done and it was not power to correct for multiple comparisons."||||>0.05
90990593|NCT03342469|181865622|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||repeated measures General Linear Model|||"Difference in Theta Power in control group with and without exposure to AFC. General linear model assessed the impact of treatment (AFC v. placebo) on each EEG frequency band, taking into account order of materials. Dependent variable = Treatment (EEG power during AFC, EEG power during placebo); independent variable = order (AFC/placebo, placebo/AFC)~This is a pilot study, thus a power calculation was not done and it was not power to correct for multiple comparisons"||||>0.05
90990594|NCT03342469|181865622|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Significance level \</= 0.05. This was chosen due to the small sample size. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons as this was a pilot study and a power analysis for sample size was not conducted.|repeated measures General Linear Model|||"Difference in Alpha Power in control group with and without exposure to AFC. General linear model assessed the impact of treatment (AFC v. placebo) on each EEG frequency band, taking into account order of materials. Dependent variable = Treatment (EEG power during AFC, EEG power during placebo); independent variable = order (AFC/placebo, placebo/AFC)~This is a pilot study, thus a power calculation was not done and it was not power to correct for multiple comparisons."||||>0.05
90990595|NCT03342469|181865622|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Significance level \</= 0.05. This was chosen due to the small sample size. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons as this was a pilot study and a power analysis for sample size was not conducted.|repeated measures General Linear Model|||"Difference in Beta Power in control group with and without exposure to AFC. General linear model assessed the impact of treatment (AFC v. placebo) on each EEG frequency band, taking into account order of materials. Dependent variable = Treatment (EEG power during AFC, EEG power during placebo); independent variable = order (AFC/placebo, placebo/AFC)~This is a pilot study, thus a power calculation was not done and it was not power to correct for multiple comparisons."||||>0.05
91042607|NCT02224053|181970599|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|90% CIs of geometric mean ratios being within 80% to 125%|Geometric mean ratio|101.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.65|109.16|||||AZD9291+omeprazole / AZD9291 alone|Study sized so experiment-wise power for the 90% CIs of geometric mean ratios for both AUC and Cmax of AZD9291 being within 80% to 125% was 90% (95% for each parameter). Within subject CV assumed to be 23%. 5% change in exposure also assumed.||109.16|94.65|
91042608|NCT02224053|181970608|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|90% CIs of geometric mean ratios being within 80% to 125%|Geometric mean ratio|94.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.77|101.21||||||AZ5104||101.21|88.77|
91042609|NCT02224053|181970608|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|90% CIs of geometric mean ratios being within 80% to 125%|Geomteric mean ratio|89.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.89|95.91||||||AZ7550||95.91|83.89|
90990596|NCT03342469|181865622|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Significance level \</= 0.05. This was chosen due to the small sample size. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons as this was a pilot study and a power analysis for sample size was not conducted.|repeated measures General Linear Model|||"Difference in Gamma Power in control group with and without exposure to AFC. General linear model assessed the impact of treatment (AFC v. placebo) on each EEG frequency band, taking into account order of materials. Dependent variable = Treatment (EEG power during AFC, EEG power during placebo); independent variable = order (AFC/placebo, placebo/AFC)~This is a pilot study, thus a power calculation was not done and it was not power to correct for multiple comparisons."||||>0.05
90990597|NCT03342469|181865623|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Significance level \</= 0.05. This was chosen due to the small sample size. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons as this was a pilot study and a power analysis for sample size was not conducted.|repeated measures General Linear Model|F(1,15) = 3.65, p = 0.08||"Difference in inattentive ASRS in ADHD group with/without exposure to AFC. General linear model assessed the impact of treatment (AFC v. placebo) on each EEG frequency band, taking into account order of materials. Dependent variable = Treatment (inattentive ASRS score during AFC, inattentive ASRS score during placebo); independent variable = order (AFC/placebo, placebo/AFC)~This is a pilot study, thus a power calculation was not done and it was not power to correct for multiple comparisons."||||>0.05
90990598|NCT03342469|181865623|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Significance level \</= 0.05. This was chosen due to the small sample size. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons as this was a pilot study and a power analysis for sample size was not conducted.|repeated measures General Linear Model|||"Difference in hyperactive ASRS in ADHD group with/without exposure to AFC. General linear model assessed the impact of treatment (AFC v. placebo) on each EEG frequency band, taking into account order of materials. Dependent variable = Treatment (hyperactive ASRS score during AFC, hyperactive ASRS score during placebo); independent variable = order (AFC/placebo, placebo/AFC)~This is a pilot study, thus a power calculation was not done and it was not power to correct for multiple comparisons."||||>0.05
90990599|NCT03342469|181865623|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Significance level \</= 0.05. This was chosen due to the small sample size. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons as this was a pilot study and a power analysis for sample size was not conducted.|repeated measures General Linear Model|||"Difference in total ASRS in ADHD group with/without exposure to AFC. General linear model assessed the impact of treatment (AFC v. placebo) on each EEG frequency band, taking into account order of materials. Dependent variable = Treatment (total ASRS score during AFC, total ASRS score during placebo); independent variable = order (AFC/placebo, placebo/AFC)~This is a pilot study, thus a power calculation was not done and it was not power to correct for multiple comparisons."||||>0.05
90990600|NCT03342469|181865623|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Significance level \</= 0.05. This was chosen due to the small sample size. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons as this was a pilot study and a power analysis for sample size was not conducted.|repeated measures General Linear Model|||"inattentive ASRS in control group with/without exposure to AFC. General linear model assessed the impact of treatment (AFC v. placebo) on each EEG frequency band, taking into account order of materials. Dependent variable = Treatment (inattentive ASRS score during AFC, inattentive ASRS score during placebo); independent variable = order (AFC/placebo, placebo/AFC)~This is a pilot study, thus a power calculation was not done and it was not power to correct for multiple comparisons."||||>0.05
90990601|NCT03342469|181865623|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Significance level \</= 0.05. This was chosen due to the small sample size. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons as this was a pilot study and a power analysis for sample size was not conducted.|repeated measures General Linear Model|||"Hyperactive ASRS in control group with/without exposure to AFC. General linear model assessed the impact of treatment (AFC v. placebo) on each EEG frequency band, taking into account order of materials. Dependent variable = Treatment (hyperactive ASRS score during AFC, hyperactive ASRS score during placebo); independent variable = order (AFC/placebo, placebo/AFC)~This is a pilot study, thus a power calculation was not done and it was not power to correct for multiple comparisons."||||>0.05
90990602|NCT03342469|181865623|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Significance level \</= 0.05. This was chosen due to the small sample size. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons as this was a pilot study and a power analysis for sample size was not conducted.|repeated measures General Linear Model|||"Difference in total ASRS in control group with/without exposure to AFC. General linear model assessed the impact of treatment (AFC v. placebo) on each EEG frequency band, taking into account order of materials. Dependent variable = Treatment (total ASRS score during AFC, total ASRS score during placebo); independent variable = order (AFC/placebo, placebo/AFC)~This is a pilot study, thus a power calculation was not done and it was not power to correct for multiple comparisons."||||>0.05
90990603|NCT05515601|181865626|OTHER|A linear fixed-effects model is used to estimate the relative bioavailability.|Ratio of Geometric least squares mean|0.986|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.929|1.05||||||||1.05|0.929|
90990604|NCT05515601|181865627|OTHER|A linear fixed-effects model is used to estimate the relative bioavailability.|Ratio of Geometric least squares mean|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.948|1.08||||||||1.08|0.948|
90990605|NCT05515601|181865628|OTHER|A linear fixed-effects model is used to estimate the relative bioavailability|Ratio of Geometric least squares mean|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.09||||||||1.09|0.960|
90990606|NCT00540436|181865629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change|33.49||||||95.0|15.231|51.744||||||||51.744|15.231|
90990607|NCT00540436|181865630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change|46.82||||||95.0|24.566|69.076||||||||69.076|24.566|
90990608|NCT01515306|181865640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of Geo LS means|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|1.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|Ratio of Geo LS mean is AUC(0-∞) of Cycle 2/Cycle 1.||||1.29|0.93|
90990609|NCT01515306|181865642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of Geo LS means|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|1.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|Ratio of Geo LS mean is Cmax of Cycle 2/Cycle 1.||||1.13|0.83|
90990610|NCT01064648|181865657|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.54|0.95||1-sided p-value|Log Rank|Stratified log rank test by performance status and histology type.||||0.95|0.54|0.06
90990611|NCT01064648|181865658|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.65|1.17||1-sided p-value|Log Rank|Stratified log-rank test by performance status and histology.||||1.17|0.65|0.28
90990612|NCT01064648|181865659|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.85||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|5.83||1-sided p-value|Chi-squared|Stratified Chi-square by performance status and histology.||||5.83|0.59|0.15
90990613|NCT01064648|181865660|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.45||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|1.49||1-sided p-value|Chi-squared|Stratified Chi-Square by performance status and histology||||1.49|0.14|0.09
90990614|NCT01064648|181865661|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.3||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|13.3||1-sided p-value|Chi-squared|Stratified Chi-Square by performance status and histology.||||13.3|1.4|0.006
90990615|NCT01064648|181865662|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.94||1-sided p-value|Chi-squared|Stratified Chi-Square by performance status and histology||||1.94|0.18|0.19
90990616|NCT05513391|181865665|NON_INFERIORITY|Non inferiority for GMTs was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the GMT ratio was greater than (\>) 0.667 for each virus strain.|GMT Ratio|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.948|1.73||||||Statistical analysis for A/H1N1||1.73|0.948|
90990617|NCT05513391|181865665|NON_INFERIORITY|Non inferiority for GMTs was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio was \> 0.667 for each virus strain.|GMT Ratio|2.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.93|3.3||||||Statistical analysis for A/H3N2||3.30|1.93|
90990618|NCT05513391|181865665|NON_INFERIORITY|Non inferiority for GMTs was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio was \> 0.667 for each virus strain.|GMT Ratio|0.515|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.397|0.668||||||Statistical analysis for B/Victoria||0.668|0.397|
90990619|NCT05513391|181865665|NON_INFERIORITY|Non inferiority for GMTs was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio was \> 0.667 for each virus strain.|GMT Ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.799|1.3||||||Statistical analysis for B/Yamagata||1.30|0.799|
90990620|NCT05513391|181865666|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority for SC was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was \> -10% for the 4 strains.|Difference in percentage of participants|7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|15.7||||||Statistical analysis for A/H1N1||15.7|-1.55|
90990621|NCT05513391|181865666|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority for SC was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was \> -10% for the 4 strains.|Difference in percentage of participants|15.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.8|24.7||||||Statistical analysis for A/H3N2||24.7|5.80|
90990622|NCT05513391|181865666|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority for SC was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was \> -10% for the 4 strains.|Difference in percentage of participants|-6.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.02|0.1||||||Statistical analysis for B/Victoria||0.10|-14.02|
90990623|NCT05513391|181865666|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority for SC was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was \> -10% for the 4 strains.|Difference in percentage of participants|5.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|13.6||||||Statistical analysis for B/Yamagata||13.6|-1.99|
90990624|NCT02429427|181865675|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.17|||Log Rank|Analysis stratified by oestrogen receptor status and country.|Analysis stratified by oestrogen receptor status and country.|||1.17|0.80|0.751
90990625|NCT02429427|181865676|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.22|||Log Rank|Analysis is stratified for oestrogen receptor status and country.|Analysis is stratified for oestrogen receptor status and country.|||1.22|0.76|0.781
90990626|NCT05138783|181865715|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority in distance VA was declared if upper confidence limit was less than 0.05.|Least squares mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.004|||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.0||Since a noninferiority hypothesis is being tested, a p-value is not applicable. Confidence limit is being reported and compared to the noninferiority margin.|||LSM results based on mixed effects repeated measures model with both fixed (lens, period, and sequence) and random (subject) effects. Difference = PRECISION1 minus BIOTRUE. Sign (either negative or positive) is retained with the rounded value.|||0.00||
90990627|NCT00948818|181865716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.6||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|4.47||The p-value is still less than 0.05 after adjusting multiplicity using a serial gatekeeping multiple comparison procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between the 290 μg dose and placebo groups in the proportion of 9/12 Week APC 3 + 1 Responders.~The power, adjusted for multiplicity, was expected to be 93% based on NCT00460811 (MCP-103-202) study data."||4.47|1.51|0.0004
90990628|NCT00948818|181865718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.26|5.88||The p-value is still less than 0.05 after adjusting multiplicity using a serial gatekeeping multiple comparison procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between the 290 μg dose and placebo groups in the proportion of 9/12 Week CSBM 3 + 1 Responders.~The power, adjusted for multiplicity, was expected to be 93% based on NCT00460811 (MCP-103-202) study data."||5.88|2.26|<0.0001
90990629|NCT00948818|181865719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.0262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.91||The p-value is still less than 0.05 after adjusting multiplicity using a serial gatekeeping multiple comparison procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between the 290 μg dose and placebo groups in the proportion of 9/12 Week Abdominal Pain Responders.~The power, adjusted for multiplicity, was expected to be 93% based on NCT00460811 (MCP-103-202) study data."||1.91|1.04|0.0262
90990630|NCT00948818|181865720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.93|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|2.66||The p-value is still less than 0.05 after adjusting multiplicity using a serial gatekeeping multiple comparison procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between the 290 μg dose and placebo groups in the proportion of 6/12 Week APC + 1 Responders.~The power, adjusted for multiplicity, was expected to be 86% based on NCT00460811 (MCP-103-202) study data."||2.66|1.40|<0.0001
90990631|NCT01156597|181865730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|The percent change of HDL and triglycerides from baseline between groups was evaluated by ANOVA using baseline, 12 week and 24 week values||||||0.05
90990632|NCT02364947|181865733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effect of treatment, sex, time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, baseline value, and baseline value-by-time point interaction with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix structure was used.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.05|-2.62||Efficacy of the doses (change from baseline in the number of HDDs vs placebo) was assessed using a closed testing procedure. The 20 mg dose was tested at a 5% level of significance and only if significant, the testing would proceed to the 10 mg dose.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.62|-6.05|0.0001
90990633|NCT02364947|181865733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effect of treatment, sex, time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, baseline value, and baseline value-by-time point interaction with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix structure was used.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.05|-2.32||Efficacy of the doses (change from baseline in the number of HDDs vs placebo) was assessed using a closed testing procedure. The 20 mg dose was tested at a 5% level of significance and only if significant, the testing would proceed to the 10 mg dose.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.32|-6.05|0.0001
90990634|NCT02364947|181865734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effect of treatment, sex, time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, baseline value, and baseline value-by-time point interaction with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix structure was used.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.69|-2.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.16|-5.69|<0.0001
90990635|NCT02364947|181865734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effect of treatment, sex, time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, baseline value, and baseline value-by-time point interaction with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix structure was used.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.46|-2.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.63|-6.46|<0.0001
90990636|NCT02364947|181865735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effect of treatment, sex, time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, baseline value, and baseline value-by-time point interaction with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix structure was used.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.72|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.81|-7.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in total alcohol consumption (TAC) from baseline at Week 12||-7.13|-17.81|<0.0001
90990637|NCT02364947|181865735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effect of treatment, sex, time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, baseline value, and baseline value-by-time point interaction with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix structure was used.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.95|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.72|-7.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-7.15|-18.72|<0.0001
90990638|NCT02364947|181865736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effect of treatment, sex, time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, baseline value, and baseline value-by-time point interaction with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix structure was used.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.86||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.77|-5.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.53|-16.77|0.0001
90990639|NCT02364947|181865736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effect of treatment, sex, time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, baseline value, and baseline value-by-time point interaction with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix structure was used.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.11||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.37|-5.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.17|-17.37|0.0003
90990640|NCT02364947|181865737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by sex and baseline DRL|Risk Difference (RD)|22.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.6|30.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||30.4|13.6|<0.0001
90990641|NCT02364947|181865737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by sex and baseline DRL|Risk Difference (RD)|15.7||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|25.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||25.0|6.5|0.0007
90990642|NCT02364947|181865738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by sex and baseline DRL|Risk Difference (RD)|18.0||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.8|27.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||27.2|8.8|0.0002
90990643|NCT02364947|181865738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by sex and baseline DRL|Risk Difference (RD)|20.6||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.4|30.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||30.8|10.4|0.0001
90990644|NCT02364947|181865739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by sex and baseline DRL|Risk Difference (RD)|17.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.5|25.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||25.1|10.5|<0.0001
90990645|NCT02364947|181865739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by sex and baseline DRL|Risk Difference (RD)|14.3||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.4|22.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||22.2|6.4|0.0002
90990646|NCT02364947|181865740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by sex and baseline DRL|Risk Difference (RD)|11.0||||0.0079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|19.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||19.1|2.9|0.0079
90990647|NCT02364947|181865740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by sex and baseline DRL|Risk Difference (RD)|14.8||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.8|23.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||23.9|5.8|0.0010
90990648|NCT02364947|181865741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by sex and baseline value|Risk Difference (RD)|9.9||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|16.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||16.3|3.5|0.0022
90990649|NCT02364947|181865741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by sex and baseline value|Risk Difference (RD)|11.1||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|18.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||18.3|3.8|0.0016
90990650|NCT02364947|181865742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by sex and baseline value|Risk Difference (RD)|13.6||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.2|20.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||20.9|6.2|0.0003
90990651|NCT02364947|181865742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by sex and baseline value|Risk Difference (RD)|12.8||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.6|21.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.0|4.6|0.0013
90990652|NCT02364947|181865743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by sex and baseline value|Risk Difference (RD)|15.2||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.1|23.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||23.3|7.1|0.0002
90990653|NCT02364947|181865743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by sex and baseline value|Risk Difference (RD)|17.9||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.9|26.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||26.9|8.9|0.0001
90990654|NCT02364947|181865744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by sex and baseline value|Risk Difference (RD)|8.0||||0.0724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||16.7|-0.7|0.0724
90990655|NCT02364947|181865744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by sex and baseline value|Risk Difference (RD)|19.6||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.9|29.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||29.2|9.9|0.0001
90990656|NCT02364947|181865745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effect of treatment, sex, time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, baseline value, and baseline value-by-time point interaction with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix structure was used.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.13|-0.40|0.0002
90990657|NCT02364947|181865745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effect of treatment, sex, time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, baseline value, and baseline value-by-time point interaction with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix structure was used.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.15|-0.45|0.0001
90990658|NCT02364947|181865746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effect of treatment, sex, time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, baseline value, and baseline value-by-time point interaction with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix structure was used.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.18|-0.48|<0.0001
90990659|NCT02364947|181865746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effect of treatment, sex, time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, baseline value, and baseline value-by-time point interaction with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix structure was used.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.19|-0.51|<0.0001
90990660|NCT02364947|181865747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effect of treatment, sex, time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, baseline value, and baseline value-by-time point interaction with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix structure was used. Baseline CGI-S value was used as baseline value in MMRM.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.33|-0.69|<0.0001
90990661|NCT02364947|181865747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effect of treatment, sex, time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, baseline value, and baseline value-by-time point interaction with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix structure was used. Baseline CGI-S value was used as baseline value in MMRM.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.27|-0.67|<0.0001
90990662|NCT02364947|181865748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effect of treatment, sex, time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, baseline value, and baseline value-by-time point interaction with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix structure was used. Baseline CGI-S value was used as baseline value in MMRM.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.31|-0.70|<0.0001
90990663|NCT02364947|181865748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effect of treatment, sex, time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, baseline value, and baseline value-by-time point interaction with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix structure was used. Baseline CGI-S value was used as baseline value in MMRM.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.33|-0.77|<0.0001
90990664|NCT02364947|181865749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effect of treatment, sex, time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, logarithm scale baseline value, and logarithm scale baseline value-by-time point interaction with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix structure was used.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.192|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.262|-0.121|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.121|-0.262|<0.0001
91042610|NCT02224053|181970609|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|90% CIs of geometric mean ratios being within 80% to 125%|Geometric mean ratio|102.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.87|108.07|||||AZD9291+omeprazole / AZD9291 alone|AZ5104||108.07|96.87|
91042611|NCT02224053|181970609|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|90% CIs of geometric mean ratios being within 80% to 125%|Geometric mean ratio|94.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.92|98.33||||||AZ7550||98.33|89.92|
91042612|NCT01898598|181970622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Clinical Response Rates|-21.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.6|32.1||||||The 95 % confidence interval (CI) for the difference in response rates was computed using the exact unconditional confidence limits method.||32.1|-71.6|
91042613|NCT01898598|181970623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|-40.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-85.3|14.2||||||||14.2|-85.3|
91042614|NCT01499160|181970640|OTHER|Not done due to low accrual||||||||||||Not done due to low accrual|Not done due to low accrual|Not done due to low accrual||Not done due to low accrual|Not done due to low accrual|||
91042615|NCT02033317|181970655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.14|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||||||= 0.14
90990665|NCT02364947|181865749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effect of treatment, sex, time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, logarithm scale baseline value, and logarithm scale baseline value-by-time point interaction with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix structure was used.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.156|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.232|-0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.080|-0.232|0.0001
90990666|NCT02364947|181865750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effect of treatment, sex, time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, logarithm scale baseline value, and logarithm scale baseline value-by-time point interaction with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix structure was used.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.168|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.248|-0.088|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.088|-0.248|<0.0001
90990667|NCT02364947|181865750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effect of treatment, sex, time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, logarithm scale baseline value, and logarithm scale baseline value-by-time point interaction with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix structure was used.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.139|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.226|-0.052|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.052|-0.226|0.0017
90990668|NCT02364947|181865751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effect of treatment, sex, time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, logarithm scale baseline value, and logarithm scale baseline value-by-time point interaction with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix structure was used.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031||0.0234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|-0.009|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.009|-0.130|0.0234
90990669|NCT02364947|181865751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.049|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033||0.1374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.115|0.016|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effect of treatment, sex, time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, logarithm scale baseline value, and logarithm scale baseline value-by-time point interaction with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix structure was used.||0.016|-0.115|0.1374
90990670|NCT02364947|181865752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effect of treatment, sex, time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, logarithm scale baseline value, and logarithm scale baseline value-by-time point interaction with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix structure was used.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.066|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031||0.0348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.127|-0.005|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.005|-0.127|0.0348
90990671|NCT02364947|181865752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effect of treatment, sex, time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, logarithm scale baseline value, and logarithm scale baseline value-by-time point interaction with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix structure was used.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.049|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034||0.1444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.116|0.017|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.017|-0.116|0.1444
90990672|NCT02702518|181865770|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||p-values were calculated via linear quantile mixed model for continuous variables with missing data.|Mixed Models Analysis|||For the outcome measure corneal staining, data at week 8 was compared with data at baseline to determine if a change was significant (threshold p \< 0.05).||||<0.001
90990673|NCT02702518|181865770|OTHER|||||||0.2324||||||p-values were calculated via linear quantile mixed model for continuous variables with missing data.|Mixed Models Analysis|||For the outcome measure corneal staining data at week 8 was compared with data at baseline to determine significant change.||||0.2324
90990674|NCT02702518|181865771|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||p-values were calculated via linear quantile mixed model for continuous variables.|Mixed Models Analysis|||For the outcome measure OSDI, data at week 8 was compared with data at baseline to determine if a change was significant (threshold p \< 0.05).||||0.001
90990675|NCT02702518|181865771|OTHER|||||||0.2257||||||p-values were calculated via linear quantile mixed model for continuous variables.|Mixed Models Analysis|||For the outcome measure OSDI data at week 8 was compared with data at baseline to determine significant change.||||0.2257
91042616|NCT02033317|181970656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||||||= 0.02
91042617|NCT02911935|181970669|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.49||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.34||unadjusted P-value. The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Log Rank|||The primary analysis tested the statistical null hypothesis of equal recurrent wheeze rates between the azithromycin and placebo groups.||2.34|0.95|0.08
91042618|NCT02911935|181970669|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.45||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.29||p-value is adjusted for race, parental history of asthma, ever exposed to smoke and ever exposed to pets. The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Regression, Cox|||||2.29|0.92|0.11
91042619|NCT02911935|181970670|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.95||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|4.61||Unadjusted. The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Log Rank|||||4.61|0.83|0.12
91042620|NCT02911935|181970671|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|1.18||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.62||Unadjusted. The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Negative Binomial Regression Analysis|||||1.62|0.86|0.31
90990676|NCT02658994|181865791|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.07||||||||0.07|-0.33|
90990677|NCT02658994|181865792|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|1.19||||||||1.19|-1.39|
90990678|NCT02658994|181865793|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.09||||||||0.09|-0.33|
90990679|NCT02658994|181865794|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.96||||||Child Bayley scaled receptive score||0.96|-0.19|
90990680|NCT02658994|181865794|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.9||||||Child Bayley scaled fine motor score||0.90|-0.83|
90990681|NCT02658994|181865795|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.05||||||||1.05|0.43|
90990682|NCT02658994|181865796|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|-0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.15||||||Length-for-age z-scores||0.15|-0.32|
90990683|NCT02658994|181865796|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|-0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.1||||||Weight-for-age z-scores||0.10|-0.33|
90990684|NCT00262080|181865797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.037||95.0||||no adjustment was made for multiple comparisons. Treatment effect will be deemed statistically significant if the coefficient for the treatment group within the statistical model is significant at level 0.05.|non-parametric Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|||The primary efficacy analysis compared the TOS at 4 hours post-dosing for patients treated with ecallantide and placebo. Treatment effect was assessed by the non-parametric Wilcoxon Rank Sum test because of an assumed non-normal distribution.||||0.037
90990685|NCT00262080|181865798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.044||95.0||||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons. Treatment effect will be deemed statistically significant if the coefficient for the treatment group within the statistical model is significant at level 0.05.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test.|||The analysis compared the change from baseline in MSCS score at 4 hours post-dosing for patients treated with ecallantide and placebo. Treatment effect was assessed by the non-parametric Wilcoxon Rank Sum test because of an assumed non-normal distribution.||||0.044
90990686|NCT00262080|181865802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.055||95.0||||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons. Treatment effect will be deemed statistically significant if the coefficient for the treatment group within the statistical model is significant at level 0.05.|Log Rank|||The Log-Rank test was used to compare the time distribution between the two treatment groups.||||0.055
90990687|NCT01725152|181865815|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4475|||||||Linear mixed-effect|||Null hypothesis of no treatment difference in CGI-I will be assessed using a linear mixed-effects model for repeated measures, accounting for treatment (ganaxolone versus placebo) and period at a significant level of 0.05. A sample size of 30 participants in each arm/group was planned in the study will have 90% power to detect a modest effect size of 0.6 at level 0.05 in CGI-I. With a possible dropout rate of 15%, the power for testing the effect size becomes 84%.||||0.4475
90990688|NCT01111539|181865833|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-1.0|||=|0.644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|3.3|||ANCOVA|||The statistical analyses was performed by fitting an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model to the change from baseline data (Week 8 Visit) for the MADRS Total Score at the Week 14 visit (LOCF). The model included baseline MADRS Total Score as a covariate and treatment as the main effect.||3.3|-5.2|=0.644
90990689|NCT01111539|181865833|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-3.7|||=|0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|0.4|||ANCOVA|||The statistical analyses will be performed by fitting an ANCOVA model to the change from baseline data (Week 8 Visit) for the MADRS Total Score at the Week 14 visit (LOCF). The model will include baseline MADRS Total Score as a covariate and treatment as the main effect.||0.4|-7.8|=0.080
90990690|NCT01111539|181865834|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.3|||=|0.366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.3|-0.8|=0.366
90990691|NCT01111539|181865834|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.4|||=|0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.1|-0.9|=0.138
90990692|NCT01111539|181865835|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.0|||=|0.995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.2|||ANCOVA|||||1.2|-1.2|=0.995
90990693|NCT01111539|181865835|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.9|||=|0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.2|||ANCOVA|||||0.2|-2.1|=0.118
90990694|NCT03007485|181865836|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Reported p-value was calculated|t-test, 2 sided|||Sample size and power calculation was a composite of COPD-related hospital readmissions or death within 6 months of discharge. First level of analysis was the ITT, which included all the patients randomly assigned to an arm at the beginning of the study (excluding those who were found to not meet inclusion criteria for referral). The second included all the patients medically cleared and third included all the patients who were medically cleared and who had participated in at least 1 PR session.|"The primary outcome was a composite of COPD-related hospital readmissions or death within 6 months of discharge (binary: yes/no). Logistic regression was used to compare the primary outcome in terms of the OR of event rates between the 2 arms, in 3 sets of models (per each of the 3 aforementioned level of analyses):~* Model 1: Treatment arm only with no other covariates added to the model~* Model 2: Treatment arm, adjusted for race and clinical site (stratification variables)~* Model 3: Treatment arm, adjusted for race, clinical site, and risk factors reported in the literature to be associated with the primary outcome, for explanatory purposes To examine the role of adherence on the primary outcome, we included adherence as a binary variable and as a continuous variable (percentage of sessions attended) in the 3 models."|||<.05
90990695|NCT01848054|181865841|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The primary efficacy analysis of retention in treatment at Day 3 was assessed in the per protocol population. In addition, a sensitivity analysis assessed retention in treatment in the full analysis population. For these assessments, the margin to determine non-inferiority (i.e., lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference between BNX and generic buprenorphine of ≥-10%) was selected based on clinical experience to justify comparison between the 2 treatments.|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Comparisons between treatment groups were reported with 2-sided p values using 95% CIs for the difference.||||||<0.05
91042621|NCT02911935|181970672|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|1.22||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.48||Unadjusted. The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Negative Binomial Regression Analysis|||||2.48|0.6|0.57
90990696|NCT01848054|181865848|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The primary efficacy analysis of retention in treatment at Day 3 was assessed in the per protocol population. In addition, a sensitivity analysis assessed retention in treatment in the full analysis population. For these assessments, the margin to determine non-inferiority (i.e., lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference between BNX and generic buprenorphine of ≥-10%) was selected based on clinical experience to justify comparison between the 2 treatments.|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Comparisons between treatment groups were reported with 2-sided p values using 95% CIs for the difference.||||||<0.05
90990697|NCT02808312|181865851|OTHER|Two-sided 90% Confidence Intervals (CIs) were calculated for the ratios of geometric least-squares means (GLSMs) of PK parameters between mild hepatic impairment group and the control (normal hepatic function) group.|GLSM ratio|1.7869|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.2885|2.4781||||||An analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with hepatic function group as a fixed effect was fitted to the natural logarithmic transformation of PK parameters (AUClast) for each cohort.||2.4781|1.2885|
90990698|NCT02808312|181865851|OTHER|Two-sided 90% CIs were calculated for the ratios of GLSMs of PK parameters between moderate hepatic impairment group and the control (normal hepatic function) group.|GLSM ratio|2.4868|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.6735|3.6954||||||An ANOVA model with hepatic function group as a fixed effect was fitted to the natural logarithmic transformation of PK parameters (AUClast) for each cohort.||3.6954|1.6735|
90990699|NCT02808312|181865851|OTHER|Two-sided 90% CIs were calculated for the ratios of GLSMs of PK parameters between severe hepatic impairment group and the control (normal hepatic function) group.|GLSM ratio|6.324|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.3675|9.1569||||||An ANOVA model with hepatic function group as a fixed effect was fitted to the natural logarithmic transformation of PK parameters (AUClast) for each cohort.||9.1569|4.3675|
90990700|NCT02808312|181865852|OTHER|Two-sided 90% CIs were calculated for the ratios of GLSMs of PK parameters between mild hepatic impairment group and the control (normal hepatic function) group.|GLSM ratio|1.7628|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.275|2.4374||||||An ANOVA model with hepatic function group as a fixed effect was fitted to the natural logarithmic transformation of PK parameters (AUCinf) for each cohort.||2.4374|1.2750|
90990701|NCT02808312|181865852|OTHER|Two-sided 90% CIs were calculated for the ratios of GLSMs of PK parameters between moderate hepatic impairment group and the control (normal hepatic function) group.|GLSM ratio|2.4559|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.6531|3.6486||||||An ANOVA model with hepatic function group as a fixed effect was fitted to the natural logarithmic transformation of PK parameters (AUCinf) for each cohort.||3.6486|1.6531|
90990702|NCT02808312|181865852|OTHER|Two-sided 90% CIs were calculated for the ratios of GLSMs of PK parameters between severe hepatic impairment group and the control (normal hepatic function) group.|GLSM ratio|6.2497|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.2965|9.091||||||An ANOVA model with hepatic function group as a fixed effect was fitted to the natural logarithmic transformation of PK parameters (AUCinf) for each cohort.||9.0910|4.2965|
90990703|NCT02808312|181865853|OTHER|Two-sided 90% CIs were calculated for the ratios of GLSMs of PK parameters between mild hepatic impairment group and the control (normal hepatic function) group.|GLSM ratio|1.5703|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0723|2.2995||||||An ANOVA model with hepatic function group as a fixed effect was fitted to the natural logarithmic transformation of PK parameters (Cmax) for each cohort.||2.2995|1.0723|
90990704|NCT02808312|181865853|OTHER|Two-sided 90% CIs were calculated for the ratios of GLSMs of PK parameters between moderate hepatic impairment group and the control (normal hepatic function) group.|GLSM ratio|1.7343|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.2193|2.4667||||||An ANOVA model with hepatic function group as a fixed effect was fitted to the natural logarithmic transformation of PK parameters (Cmax) for each cohort.||2.4667|1.2193|
90990705|NCT02808312|181865853|OTHER|Two-sided 90% CIs were calculated for the ratios of GLSMs of PK parameters between severe hepatic impairment group and the control (normal hepatic function) group.|GLSM ratio|2.5369|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.7562|3.6648||||||An ANOVA model with hepatic function group as a fixed effect was fitted to the natural logarithmic transformation of PK parameters (Cmax) for each cohort.||3.6648|1.7562|
90990706|NCT02808312|181865864|OTHER|Two-sided 90% CIs were calculated for the ratios of GLSMs of PD parameters between mild hepatic impairment group and the control (normal hepatic function) group.|GLSM ratio|0.8722|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6827|1.1144||||||||1.1144|0.6827|
90990707|NCT02808312|181865864|OTHER|Two-sided 90% CIs were calculated for the ratios of GLSMs of PD parameters between moderate hepatic impairment group and the control (normal hepatic function) group.|GLSM ratio|1.0731|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8295|1.3883||||||||1.3883|0.8295|
90990708|NCT02808312|181865864|OTHER|Two-sided 90% CIs were calculated for the ratios of GLSMs of PD parameters between severe hepatic impairment group and the control (normal hepatic function) group.|GLSM ratio|1.1475|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8783|1.4992||||||||1.4992|0.8783|
90990709|NCT02808312|181865865|OTHER|Two-sided 90% CIs were calculated for the ratios of GLSMs of PD parameters between mild hepatic impairment group and the control (normal hepatic function) group.|GLSM ratio|0.8188|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5837|1.1486||||||||1.1486|0.5837|
90990710|NCT02808312|181865865|OTHER|Two-sided 90% CIs were calculated for the ratios of GLSMs of PD parameters between moderate hepatic impairment group and the control (normal hepatic function) group.|GLSM ratio|1.1323|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8772|1.4615||||||||1.4615|0.8772|
90990711|NCT02808312|181865865|OTHER|Two-sided 90% CIs were calculated for the ratios of GLSMs of PD parameters between severe hepatic impairment group and the control (normal hepatic function) group.|GLSM ratio|1.3563|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0468|1.7574||||||||1.7574|1.0468|
90990712|NCT02808312|181865866|OTHER|Two-sided 90% CIs were calculated for the ratios of GLSMs of PD parameters between mild hepatic impairment group and the control (normal hepatic function) group.|GLSM ratio|1.0658|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8275|1.3726||||||||1.3726|0.8275|
90990713|NCT02808312|181865866|OTHER|Two-sided 90% CIs were calculated for the ratios of GLSMs of PD parameters between moderate hepatic impairment group and the control (normal hepatic function) group.|GLSM ratio|1.2942|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9663|1.7334||||||||1.7334|0.9663|
90990714|NCT02808312|181865866|OTHER|Two-sided 90% CIs were calculated for the ratios of GLSMs of PD parameters between severe hepatic impairment group and the control (normal hepatic function) group.|GLSM ratio|0.8225|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5479|1.2347||||||||1.2347|0.5479|
90990715|NCT02808312|181865867|OTHER|Two-sided 90% CIs were calculated for the ratios of GLSMs of PD parameters between mild hepatic impairment group and the control (normal hepatic function) group.|GLSM ratio|1.0806|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.791|1.4762||||||||1.4762|0.7910|
90990716|NCT02808312|181865867|OTHER|Two-sided 90% CIs were calculated for the ratios of GLSMs of PD parameters between moderate hepatic impairment group and the control (normal hepatic function) group.|GLSM ratio|1.3729|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9663|1.9506||||||||1.9506|0.9663|
90990717|NCT02808312|181865867|OTHER|Two-sided 90% CIs were calculated for the ratios of GLSMs of PD parameters between severe hepatic impairment group and the control (normal hepatic function) group.|GLSM ratio|0.903|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6142|1.3275||||||||1.3275|0.6142|
90990718|NCT03628417|181865868|NON_INFERIORITY|Examined the objective response rate (ORR) that there was 20% difference between the 2 treatment arms at day 180. With a significance level of 0,05 and a power of 80% the study required 28 evaluable metastases.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4489629||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|53.3|||Fisher Exact|||After reviewing existing data from electrochemotherapy with intratumoral bleomycin on small cutaneous metastases ≤3cm , we estimated the expected response rate for electrochemotherapy to 85%. We have no clinical results for the treatment of calcium electroporation, but on the basis of preclinical studies, we decided to accept a difference in response of 20%. All statistical analysis were done using IBM SPSS v24.||53.30|-13.30|0.30
90990719|NCT02420223|181865871|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||.017
90990720|NCT02420223|181865871|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.337|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.337
90990721|NCT02420223|181865874|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.14
90990722|NCT02420223|181865875|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.41
90990723|NCT02420223|181865876|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Likelihood ration Chi-Square test|||||||0.06
90990724|NCT01826422|181865882|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||Between-groups analysis (omega 3 vs placebo) at 3 and 6 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
90990725|NCT01826422|181865883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Between-groups analysis (omega 3 vs placebo) at 3 and 6 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
90990726|NCT01826422|181865884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Between-groups analysis (omega 3 vs placebo) at 3 and 6 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
90990727|NCT01826422|181865885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||Between-groups analysis (omega 3 vs placebo) at 3 and 6 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
90990728|NCT01826422|181865886|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||Between-groups analysis (omega 3 vs placebo) at 3 and 6 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
90990729|NCT01826422|181865887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Between-groups analysis (omega 3 vs placebo) at 3 and 6 months.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||>0.05
90990730|NCT01826422|181865888|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||Between-groups analysis (omega 3 vs placebo) at 3 and 6 months.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.05
90990731|NCT01826422|181865889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||Between-groups analysis (omega 3 vs placebo) at 3 and 6 months.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.05
90990732|NCT01826422|181865890|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||Between-groups analysis (omega 3 vs placebo) at 3 and 6 months.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.05
90990733|NCT01826422|181865891|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||Between-groups analysis (omega 3 vs placebo) at 3 and 6 months.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.05
90990734|NCT01826422|181865892|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||Between-groups analysis (omega 3 vs placebo) at 3 and 6 months.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.05
90990735|NCT01826422|181865893|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||Between-groups analysis (omega 3 vs placebo) at 3 and 6 months.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.05
90990736|NCT01826422|181865894|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Between-groups analysis (omega 3 vs placebo) at 3 and 6 months.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||>0.05
90990737|NCT01826422|181865895|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Between-groups analysis (omega 3 vs placebo) at 3 and 6 months.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||>0.05
90990738|NCT01826422|181865896|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Between-groups analysis (omega 3 vs placebo) at 3 and 6 months.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||>0.05
90990739|NCT01826422|181865897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Between-groups analysis (omega 3 vs placebo) at 3 and 6 months.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||>0.05
90990740|NCT01826422|181865898|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Between-groups analysis (omega 3 vs placebo) at 3 and 6 months.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||>0.05
90990741|NCT01826422|181865899|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||Between-groups analysis (omega 3 vs placebo) at 3 and 6 months.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.05
90990742|NCT01826422|181865900|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||Between-groups analysis (omega 3 vs placebo) at 3 and 6 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
90990743|NCT01826422|181865901|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||Between-groups analysis (omega 3 vs placebo) at 3 and 6 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
90990744|NCT04716933|181865953|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.97||||||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate||0.97|0.48|
90990745|NCT04716933|181865954|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.12||||||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate||1.12|0.54|
90990746|NCT04716933|181865955|OTHER||Percent Difference|11.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|24.2||||||Comparision based on unstratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method||24.2|-2.0|
90990747|NCT01071044|181865978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.005||95.0|||||ANOVA|These data were initially analyzed with a one-way ANOVA.||These scores were calculated by subtracting participants' endpoint scores from their initial baseline scores. These change scores show the total change in executive functioning over the course of the trial. Higher values indicate improved executive functioning at the end of the trial compared to the beginning.||||.005
90990748|NCT01071044|181865979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||These scores were calculated by subtracting participants' endpoint scores from their initial baseline scores. These change scores show the total change in executive functioning over the course of the trial. Higher values indicate improved executive functioning at the end of the trial compared to the beginning.||||0.008
90990749|NCT01071044|181865980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.183||95.0|||||ANOVA|||These scores were calculated by subtracting participants' endpoint scores from their initial baseline scores. These change scores show the total change in executive functioning over the course of the trial. Higher values indicate improved executive functioning at the end of the trial compared to the beginning.||||0.183
90990750|NCT01071044|181865981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.046||95.0|||||ANOVA|||These scores were calculated by subtracting participants' endpoint scores from their initial baseline scores. These change scores show the total change in executive functioning over the course of the trial. Higher values indicate improved executive functioning at the end of the trial compared to the beginning.||||0.046
90990751|NCT01071044|181865982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.219||95.0|||||ANOVA|||These scores were calculated by subtracting participants' endpoint scores from their initial baseline scores. These change scores show the total change in executive functioning over the course of the trial. Higher values indicate improved executive functioning at the end of the trial compared to the beginning.||||0.219
90990752|NCT01071044|181865983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.038||95.0|||||ANOVA|||These scores were calculated by subtracting participants' endpoint scores from their initial baseline scores. These change scores show the total change in executive functioning over the course of the trial. Higher values indicate improved executive functioning at the end of the trial compared to the beginning.||||0.038
90990753|NCT01071044|181865984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.022||95.0|||||ANOVA|||These scores were calculated by subtracting participants' endpoint scores from their initial baseline scores. These change scores show the total change in executive functioning over the course of the trial. Higher values indicate improved executive functioning at the end of the trial compared to the beginning.||||0.022
90990754|NCT02913222|181865998|OTHER|||||||1||||||The threshold for statistical significance was set at p = 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||A priori criteria for success was that we would achieve 90% adherence to attending treatment sessions. Fisher's exact test compared patient adherence to treatment session rates by site and by group.||||1.0
90990755|NCT02913222|181865999|OTHER|The purpose of this study was to determine preliminary estimates of the effect of movement pattern training and standard rehabilitation on patient-reported function.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.51|2.11||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|ANCOVA|||We hypothesized MPT would demonstrate greater improvement in HOOS compared to Standard. Data collected at pretest and posttest were analyzed with ANCOVA where posttest was the dependent variable, pretest was the covariate, and treatment group was the independent variable which tests the null hypothesis that after adjusting for pretest, posttest is not significantly different across treatment groups.||2.11|-6.51|0.32
90990756|NCT02913222|181866000|OTHER|The purpose of this study was to determine preliminary estimates of the effect of movement pattern training and standard rehabilitation on patient-reported function.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.55||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|1.99||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANCOVA|||We hypothesized MPT would demonstrate greater improvement in HOOS compared to Standard. Data collected at pretest and posttest were analyzed with ANCOVA where posttest was the dependent variable, pretest was the covariate, and treatment group was the independent variable which tests the null hypothesis that after adjusting for pretest, posttest is not significantly different across treatment groups.||1.99|-13.10|0.14
90990757|NCT01201798|181866036|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The noninferiority margin was 0.5 units, meaning that the upper limit of the two-tailed 95% confidence interval must have been less than 0.5 to establish noninferiority.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.09|||ANCOVA|||A two-tailed 95% confidence interval was calculated for the difference in change from baseline in anterior chamber cell grade at Day 14 (difluprednate minus prednisolone). The confidence interval was derived from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), with investigative site included as a fixed effect to match the stratification used in the randomization process. Treatment and baseline anterior chamber cell grade were also included as fixed effects.||0.09|-0.53|
90990758|NCT05692154|181866058|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-4.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.015||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.24|-0.23|||ANCOVA||Least-squares means, standard errors and p-value are taken from an analysis of covariance model, with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline TNSS (H0 at Visit 4) as covariate.|||-0.23|-8.24|0.038
90990759|NCT05692154|181866059|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-4.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.088||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|-0.6|||ANCOVA||Least-squares means, standard errors and p-value are taken from an analysis of covariance, with treatment group as fixed categorical effect and baseline TOSS (H0 at Visit 4) as covariate.|||-0.60|-8.90|0.025
90990760|NCT05692154|181866060|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-6.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.247||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.95|-0.05|||ANCOVA||Least-squares means, standard errors and p-value are taken from an analysis of covariance model, with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline TNSS (H0 at Visit 4) as covariate.|||-0.05|-12.95|0.048
90990761|NCT05692154|181866061|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-7.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.89||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.21|-1.73|||ANCOVA||Least-squares means, standard errors and p-value are taken from an analysis of covariance, with treatment group as fixed categorical effect and baseline TOSS (H0 at Visit 4) as covariate.|||-1.73|-13.21|0.011
90990762|NCT05692154|181866062|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-18.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.211||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.74|1.83|||ANCOVA||Least-squares means, standard errors and p-value are taken from an analysis of covariance, with treatment group as fixed categorical effect and baseline TNSS (Day 1) as covariate.|||1.83|-38.74|0.074
91042622|NCT02911935|181970673|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|1.34||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.57||unadjusted P-value. The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Negative Binomial Regression Analysis|||||2.57|0.70|0.38
90990763|NCT05692154|181866063|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-4.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.672||0.729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.24|19.12|||ANCOVA||Least-squares means, standard errors and p-value are taken from an analysis of covariance, with treatment group as fixed categorical effect and baseline TOSS (H0 at Day 1) as covariate.|||19.12|-27.24|0.729
90990764|NCT01125176|181866099|OTHER|Exact Clopper-Pearson 95% confidence interval for overall response rate.|Proportion (percent)|85.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|73.5|100.0||||||||100.0|73.5|
90990765|NCT01052012|181866124|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.597||0.1473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|0.33|||ANCOVA|With pooled site and treatment group as factors and incision length as a covariate.||||0.33|-2.11|0.1473
90990766|NCT01052012|181866124|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.547||0.0601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|0.05|||ANCOVA|with pooled site and treatment group as factors and incision length as a covariate.||||0.05|-2.16|0.0601
90990767|NCT01052012|181866124|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.233||0.1483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.12|||ANCOVA|with pooled site and treatment group as factors and incision length as a covariate.||||0.12|-0.80|0.1483
90990768|NCT01052012|181866125|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Hodge-Lehmann)|-1.0||||0.9901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.5|52.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||52.0|-54.5|0.9901
90990769|NCT01052012|181866125|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Hodge-Lehmann)|-5.0||||0.201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|3.4|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum|||||3.4|-14.0|0.2010
90990770|NCT01052012|181866125|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Hodge-Lehmann)|-3.0||||0.5897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|8.0|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum|||||8.0|-15.0|0.5897
90990771|NCT00418262|181866140|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.3|||||This is the (growth) model-estimated mean difference between visit 1 and visit 8. This estimate utilizes imputed values for missing observations.|"Tested single-group change over time from baseline (visit 1) to the study endpoint (visit 10). The null hypothesis stated that there was no change in PSE ratings over time. Bayesian growth curve models were estimated using Markov Chain Monte Carlo techniques. Several linear and nonlinear trajectory models were compared on fit to data. Mean differences and confidence intervals were generated from the posterior-predictive distribution of the best fitting growth model."||0.30|-0.21|
90990772|NCT00418262|181866140|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.6|||||This is the (growth) model-estimated mean difference between visit 1 and visit 10. This estimate utilizes imputed values for missing observations.|"Tested single-group change over time from baseline (visit 1) to the study endpoint (visit 10). The null hypothesis stated that there was no change in PSE ratings over time. Bayesian growth curve models were estimated using Markov Chain Monte Carlo techniques. Several linear and nonlinear trajectory models were compared on fit to data. Mean differences and confidence intervals were generated from the posterior-predictive distribution of the best fitting growth model."||0.60|-0.42|
90990773|NCT00418262|181866141|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.39|||||This is the (growth) model-estimated mean difference between visit 1 and visit 8. This estimate utilizes imputed values for missing observations.|"Tested single-group change over time from baseline (visit 1) to the study endpoint (visit 10). The null hypothesis stated that there was no change in PSE ratings over time. Bayesian growth curve models were estimated using Markov Chain Monte Carlo techniques. Several linear and nonlinear trajectory models were compared on fit to data. Mean differences and confidence intervals were generated from the posterior-predictive distribution of the best fitting growth model."||0.39|-0.11|
90990774|NCT00418262|181866141|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.77|||||This is the (growth) model-estimated mean difference between visit 1 and visit 10. This estimate utilizes imputed values for missing observations.|"Tested single-group change over time from baseline (visit 1) to the study endpoint (visit 10). The null hypothesis stated that there was no change in PSE ratings over time. Bayesian growth curve models were estimated using Markov Chain Monte Carlo techniques. Several linear and nonlinear trajectory models were compared on fit to data. Mean differences and confidence intervals were generated from the posterior-predictive distribution of the best fitting growth model."||0.77|-0.23|
90990775|NCT00418262|181866142|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.36|||||This is the (growth) model-estimated mean difference between visit 1 and visit 8. This estimate utilizes imputed values for missing observations.|"Tested single-group change over time from baseline (visit 1) to the study endpoint (visit 10). The null hypothesis stated that there was no change in PSE ratings over time. Bayesian growth curve models were estimated using Markov Chain Monte Carlo techniques. Several linear and nonlinear trajectory models were compared on fit to data. Mean differences and confidence intervals were generated from the posterior-predictive distribution of the best fitting growth model."||0.36|-0.17|
90990776|NCT00418262|181866142|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.36|||||This is the (growth) model-estimated mean difference between visit 1 and visit 10. This estimate utilizes imputed values for missing observations.|"Tested single-group change over time from baseline (visit 1) to the study endpoint (visit 10). The null hypothesis stated that there was no change in PSE ratings over time. Bayesian growth curve models were estimated using Markov Chain Monte Carlo techniques. Several linear and nonlinear trajectory models were compared on fit to data. Mean differences and confidence intervals were generated from the posterior-predictive distribution of the best fitting growth model."||0.36|-0.17|
91042623|NCT02911935|181970674|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.92||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.22||Unadjusted. The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Negative Binomial Regression Analysis|||||1.22|0.7|0.56
91042624|NCT04979858|181970703|OTHER|The statistical analysis involved the use of a single-factor ANOVA test to assess the importance of the various factors associated with the design of the Focal Mask (the Treatment) that would impact its performance in reducing the spread of COVID-19, which is caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus. The Bonferroni t-test was conducted post hoc to assess the statistical significance of the various factors.|||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
91042625|NCT02063217|181970732|SUPERIORITY|Mixed linear models|Mean Difference (Net)|17.0||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni correction was used for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean (standard error), units = %. 17(7.2) increase in overnight amyloid-beta 40 concentrations over waking baseline between the sleep deprivation group and controls.|Mixed linear modeling of change in overnight amyloid beta concentrations from waking baseline between 01:00 and 11:00. Data provided for amyloid beta-40.||||0.07
90990777|NCT00418262|181866143|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.4|||||This is the (growth) model-estimated mean difference between visit 1 and visit 8. This estimate utilizes imputed values for missing observations.|"Tested single-group change over time from baseline (visit 1) to the study endpoint (visit 10). The null hypothesis stated that there was no change in PSE ratings over time. Bayesian growth curve models were estimated using Markov Chain Monte Carlo techniques. Several linear and nonlinear trajectory models were compared on fit to data. Mean differences and confidence intervals were generated from the posterior-predictive distribution of the best fitting growth model."||0.40|-0.16|
90990778|NCT00418262|181866143|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.4|||||This is the (growth) model-estimated mean difference between visit 1 and visit 10. This estimate utilizes imputed values for missing observations.|"Tested single-group change over time from baseline (visit 1) to the study endpoint (visit 10). The null hypothesis stated that there was no change in PSE ratings over time. Bayesian growth curve models were estimated using Markov Chain Monte Carlo techniques. Several linear and nonlinear trajectory models were compared on fit to data. Mean differences and confidence intervals were generated from the posterior-predictive distribution of the best fitting growth model."||0.40|-0.16|
90990779|NCT00418262|181866144|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.18|||||This is the (growth) model-estimated mean difference between visit 1 and visit 8. This estimate utilizes imputed values for missing observations.|"Tested single-group change over time from baseline (visit 1) to the study endpoint (visit 10). The null hypothesis stated that there was no change in PSE ratings over time. Bayesian growth curve models were estimated using Markov Chain Monte Carlo techniques. Several linear and nonlinear trajectory models were compared on fit to data. Mean differences and confidence intervals were generated from the posterior-predictive distribution of the best fitting growth model."||0.18|-0.36|
90990780|NCT00418262|181866144|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.18|||||This is the (growth) model-estimated mean difference between visit 1 and visit 10. This estimate utilizes imputed values for missing observations.|"Tested single-group change over time from baseline (visit 1) to the study endpoint (visit 10). The null hypothesis stated that there was no change in PSE ratings over time. Bayesian growth curve models were estimated using Markov Chain Monte Carlo techniques. Several linear and nonlinear trajectory models were compared on fit to data. Mean differences and confidence intervals were generated from the posterior-predictive distribution of the best fitting growth model."||0.18|-0.36|
90990781|NCT00418262|181866145|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.35|||||This is the (growth) model-estimated mean difference between visit 1 and visit 8. This estimate utilizes imputed values for missing observations.|"Tested single-group change over time from baseline (visit 1) to the study endpoint (visit 10). The null hypothesis stated that there was no change in PSE ratings over time. Bayesian growth curve models were estimated using Markov Chain Monte Carlo techniques. Several linear and nonlinear trajectory models were compared on fit to data. Mean differences and confidence intervals were generated from the posterior-predictive distribution of the best fitting growth model."||0.35|-0.20|
90990782|NCT00418262|181866145|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.35|||||This is the (growth) model-estimated mean difference between visit 1 and visit 10. This estimate utilizes imputed values for missing observations.|"Tested single-group change over time from baseline (visit 1) to the study endpoint (visit 10). The null hypothesis stated that there was no change in PSE ratings over time. Bayesian growth curve models were estimated using Markov Chain Monte Carlo techniques. Several linear and nonlinear trajectory models were compared on fit to data. Mean differences and confidence intervals were generated from the posterior-predictive distribution of the best fitting growth model."||0.35|-0.20|
90990783|NCT00418262|181866146|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.24|||||This is the (growth) model-estimated mean difference between visit 1 and visit 8. This estimate utilizes imputed values for missing observations.|"Tested single-group change over time from baseline (visit 1) to the study endpoint (visit 10). The null hypothesis stated that there was no change in PSE ratings over time. Bayesian growth curve models were estimated using Markov Chain Monte Carlo techniques. Several linear and nonlinear trajectory models were compared on fit to data. Mean differences and confidence intervals were generated from the posterior-predictive distribution of the best fitting growth model."||0.24|-0.24|
90990784|NCT00418262|181866146|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.49|||||This is the (growth) model-estimated mean difference between visit 1 and visit 10. This estimate utilizes imputed values for missing observations.|"Tested single-group change over time from baseline (visit 1) to the study endpoint (visit 10). The null hypothesis stated that there was no change in PSE ratings over time. Bayesian growth curve models were estimated using Markov Chain Monte Carlo techniques. Several linear and nonlinear trajectory models were compared on fit to data. Mean differences and confidence intervals were generated from the posterior-predictive distribution of the best fitting growth model."||0.49|-0.49|
90990785|NCT00418262|181866147|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.26|||||This is the (growth) model-estimated mean difference between visit 1 and visit 8. This estimate utilizes imputed values for missing observations.|"Tested single-group change over time from baseline (visit 1) to the study endpoint (visit 10). The null hypothesis stated that there was no change in PSE ratings over time. Bayesian growth curve models were estimated using Markov Chain Monte Carlo techniques. Several linear and nonlinear trajectory models were compared on fit to data. Mean differences and confidence intervals were generated from the posterior-predictive distribution of the best fitting growth model."||0.26|-0.28|
90990786|NCT00418262|181866147|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.52|||||This is the (growth) model-estimated mean difference between visit 1 and visit 10. This estimate utilizes imputed values for missing observations.|"Tested single-group change over time from baseline (visit 1) to the study endpoint (visit 10). The null hypothesis stated that there was no change in PSE ratings over time. Bayesian growth curve models were estimated using Markov Chain Monte Carlo techniques. Several linear and nonlinear trajectory models were compared on fit to data. Mean differences and confidence intervals were generated from the posterior-predictive distribution of the best fitting growth model."||0.52|-0.56|
91042626|NCT02063217|181970732|SUPERIORITY|Mixed linear models|Mean Difference (Net)|7.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni correction was used for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean= 7%, standard error = 7.6%. 7% increase in overnight amyloid beta 40 concentrations over the waking baseline between the sleep induction group and control group.|Mixed linear modeling of change in overnight amyloid beta concentrations from waking baseline between 01:00 and 11:00. Data provided for amyloid beta-40.||||1.0
91042627|NCT04291508|181970733|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.5|-1.6|0.65
90990787|NCT00418262|181866148|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.2|||||This is the (growth) model-estimated mean difference between visit 1 and visit 8. This estimate utilizes imputed values for missing observations.|"Tested single-group change over time from baseline (visit 1) to the study endpoint (visit 10). The null hypothesis stated that there was no change in PSE ratings over time. Bayesian growth curve models were estimated using Markov Chain Monte Carlo techniques. Several linear and nonlinear trajectory models were compared on fit to data. Mean differences and confidence intervals were generated from the posterior-predictive distribution of the best fitting growth model."||0.20|-0.32|
90990788|NCT00418262|181866148|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.39|||||This is the (growth) model-estimated mean difference between visit 1 and visit 10. This estimate utilizes imputed values for missing observations.|"Tested single-group change over time from baseline (visit 1) to the study endpoint (visit 10). The null hypothesis stated that there was no change in PSE ratings over time. Bayesian growth curve models were estimated using Markov Chain Monte Carlo techniques. Several linear and nonlinear trajectory models were compared on fit to data. Mean differences and confidence intervals were generated from the posterior-predictive distribution of the best fitting growth model."||0.39|-0.64|
90990789|NCT00418262|181866149|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.24|||||This is the (growth) model-estimated mean difference between visit 1 and visit 8. This estimate utilizes imputed values for missing observations.|"Tested single-group change over time from baseline (visit 1) to the study endpoint (visit 10). The null hypothesis stated that there was no change in PSE ratings over time. Bayesian growth curve models were estimated using Markov Chain Monte Carlo techniques. Several linear and nonlinear trajectory models were compared on fit to data. Mean differences and confidence intervals were generated from the posterior-predictive distribution of the best fitting growth model."||0.24|-0.28|
90990790|NCT00418262|181866149|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.47|||||This is the (growth) model-estimated mean difference between visit 1 and visit 10. This estimate utilizes imputed values for missing observations.|"Tested single-group change over time from baseline (visit 1) to the study endpoint (visit 10). The null hypothesis stated that there was no change in PSE ratings over time. Bayesian growth curve models were estimated using Markov Chain Monte Carlo techniques. Several linear and nonlinear trajectory models were compared on fit to data. Mean differences and confidence intervals were generated from the posterior-predictive distribution of the best fitting growth model."||0.47|-0.57|
90990791|NCT00418262|181866150|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.32|||||This is the (growth) model-estimated mean difference between visit 1 and visit 8. This estimate utilizes imputed values for missing observations.|"Tested single-group change over time from baseline (visit 1) to the study endpoint (visit 10). The null hypothesis stated that there was no change in PSE ratings over time. Bayesian growth curve models were estimated using Markov Chain Monte Carlo techniques. Several linear and nonlinear trajectory models were compared on fit to data. Mean differences and confidence intervals were generated from the posterior-predictive distribution of the best fitting growth model."||0.32|-0.21|
90990792|NCT00418262|181866150|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.32|||||This is the (growth) model-estimated mean difference between visit 1 and visit 10. This estimate utilizes imputed values for missing observations.|"Tested single-group change over time from baseline (visit 1) to the study endpoint (visit 10). The null hypothesis stated that there was no change in PSE ratings over time. Bayesian growth curve models were estimated using Markov Chain Monte Carlo techniques. Several linear and nonlinear trajectory models were compared on fit to data. Mean differences and confidence intervals were generated from the posterior-predictive distribution of the best fitting growth model."||0.32|-0.21|
90990793|NCT00418262|181866151|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.13|||||This is the (growth) model-estimated mean difference between visit 1 and visit 8. This estimate utilizes imputed values for missing observations.|"Tested single-group change over time from baseline (visit 1) to the study endpoint (visit 10). The null hypothesis stated that there was no change in PSE ratings over time. Bayesian growth curve models were estimated using Markov Chain Monte Carlo techniques. Several linear and nonlinear trajectory models were compared on fit to data. Mean differences and confidence intervals were generated from the posterior-predictive distribution of the best fitting growth model."||0.13|-0.36|
90990794|NCT00418262|181866151|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.27|||||This is the (growth) model-estimated mean difference between visit 1 and visit 10. This estimate utilizes imputed values for missing observations.|"Tested single-group change over time from baseline (visit 1) to the study endpoint (visit 10). The null hypothesis stated that there was no change in PSE ratings over time. Bayesian growth curve models were estimated using Markov Chain Monte Carlo techniques. Several linear and nonlinear trajectory models were compared on fit to data. Mean differences and confidence intervals were generated from the posterior-predictive distribution of the best fitting growth model."||0.27|-0.72|
90990795|NCT00418262|181866152|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.35|||||This is the (growth) model-estimated mean difference between visit 1 and visit 8. This estimate utilizes imputed values for missing observations.|"Tested single-group change over time from baseline (visit 1) to the study endpoint (visit 10). The null hypothesis stated that there was no change in PSE ratings over time. Bayesian growth curve models were estimated using Markov Chain Monte Carlo techniques. Several linear and nonlinear trajectory models were compared on fit to data. Mean differences and confidence intervals were generated from the posterior-predictive distribution of the best fitting growth model."||0.35|-0.19|
91042628|NCT04291508|181970733|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|7.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||7.6|-3.5|0.464
91042629|NCT04291508|181970734|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.3||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|3.3|||Chi-squared|||||3.3|-12.0|0.26
91042630|NCT04291508|181970734|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-13.6||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.8|8.7|||Fisher Exact|||||8.7|-35.8|0.31
90990796|NCT00418262|181866152|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.35|||||This is the (growth) model-estimated mean difference between visit 1 and visit 10. This estimate utilizes imputed values for missing observations.|"Tested single-group change over time from baseline (visit 1) to the study endpoint (visit 10). The null hypothesis stated that there was no change in PSE ratings over time. Bayesian growth curve models were estimated using Markov Chain Monte Carlo techniques. Several linear and nonlinear trajectory models were compared on fit to data. Mean differences and confidence intervals were generated from the posterior-predictive distribution of the best fitting growth model."||0.35|-0.19|
90990797|NCT00418262|181866153|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.76|-7.04|||||This is the (growth) model-estimated mean difference between visit 1 and visit 8. This estimate utilizes imputed values for missing observations.|"Tested single-group change over time from baseline (visit 1) to the study endpoint (visit 10). The null hypothesis stated that there was no change in PSE ratings over time. Bayesian growth curve models were estimated using Markov Chain Monte Carlo techniques. Several linear and nonlinear trajectory models were compared on fit to data. Mean differences and confidence intervals were generated from the posterior-predictive distribution of the best fitting growth model."||-7.04|-7.76|
90990798|NCT00418262|181866153|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.03|-1.9|||||This is the (growth) model-estimated mean difference between visit 1 and visit 10. This estimate utilizes imputed values for missing observations.|"Tested single-group change over time from baseline (visit 1) to the study endpoint (visit 10). The null hypothesis stated that there was no change in PSE ratings over time. Bayesian growth curve models were estimated using Markov Chain Monte Carlo techniques. Several linear and nonlinear trajectory models were compared on fit to data. Mean differences and confidence intervals were generated from the posterior-predictive distribution of the best fitting growth model."||-1.90|-3.03|
90990799|NCT00418262|181866154|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|1.38|||||This is the (growth) model-estimated mean difference between visit 1 and visit 8. This estimate utilizes imputed values for missing observations.|"Tested single-group change over time from baseline (visit 1) to the study endpoint (visit 10). The null hypothesis stated that there was no change in PSE ratings over time. Bayesian growth curve models were estimated using Markov Chain Monte Carlo techniques. Several linear and nonlinear trajectory models were compared on fit to data. Mean differences and confidence intervals were generated from the posterior-predictive distribution of the best fitting growth model."||1.38|-0.69|
90990800|NCT00418262|181866154|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|1.38|||||This is the (growth) model-estimated mean difference between visit 1 and visit 10. This estimate utilizes imputed values for missing observations.|"Tested single-group change over time from baseline (visit 1) to the study endpoint (visit 10). The null hypothesis stated that there was no change in PSE ratings over time. Bayesian growth curve models were estimated using Markov Chain Monte Carlo techniques. Several linear and nonlinear trajectory models were compared on fit to data. Mean differences and confidence intervals were generated from the posterior-predictive distribution of the best fitting growth model."||1.38|-0.69|
91042631|NCT04291508|181970735|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.9|-1.0|0.35
91042632|NCT04291508|181970735|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|7.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||7.6|-3.4|0.45
90990801|NCT00829166|181866156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.549|0.771|||Log Rank||HR (relative to Lapatinib + Capecitabine) was estimated by Cox regression.|Analysis stratified by region of enrollment, number of prior chemotherapeutic regimens (0-1 or greater than \[\>\] 1), and visceral/ non-visceral disease.||0.771|0.549|<0.0001
90990802|NCT00829166|181866158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.682||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.548|0.849|||Log Rank||HR (relative to Lapatinib + Capecitabine) was estimated by Cox regression.|Analysis stratified by region of enrollment, number of prior chemotherapeutic regimens (0-1 or \>1), and visceral/ non-visceral disease.||0.849|0.548|0.0006
90990803|NCT00829166|181866160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.749||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.639|0.877|||Log Rank||HR (relative to Lapatinib + Capecitabine) was estimated by Cox regression.|Analysis stratified by region of enrollment, number of prior chemotherapeutic regimens (0-1 or \>1), and visceral/ non-visceral disease.||0.877|0.639|0.0003
90990804|NCT00829166|181866164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.658|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.774|||Log Rank||HR (relative to Lapatinib + Capecitabine) was estimated by Cox regression.|Analysis stratified by region of enrollment, number of prior chemotherapeutic regimens (0-1 or \>1), and visceral/ non-visceral disease.||0.774|0.560|<0.0001
90990805|NCT00829166|181866165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Objective Response Rates|12.7||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|19.4|||Mantel-Haenszel chi-squared test||The 95% CI for the difference in objective response rate (Trastuzumab emtansine minus Lapatinib + Capecitabine) was computed by using the approximate normal method.|Analysis stratified by region of enrollment, number of prior chemotherapeutic regimens (0-1 or \>1), and visceral/ non-visceral disease.||19.4|6.0|0.0002
90990806|NCT00829166|181866167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Clinical Benefit Rate|14.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|20.9|||||The 95% CI for the difference in clinical benefit rate (Trastuzumab emtansine minus Lapatinib + Capecitabine) was computed by using the normal approximation method.|||20.9|7.0|
90990807|NCT00829166|181866169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.703|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.602|0.82|||Log Rank||HR (relative to Lapatinib + Capecitabine) was estimated by Cox regression.|Analysis stratified by region of enrollment, number of prior chemotherapeutic regimens (0-1 or \>1), and visceral/ non-visceral disease.||0.820|0.602|<0.0001
90990808|NCT00829166|181866171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.796||||0.0121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.667|0.951|||Log Rank||HR (relative to Lapatinib + Capecitabine) was estimated by Cox regression.|Analysis stratified by region of enrollment, number of prior chemotherapeutic regimens (0-1 or \>1), and visceral/ non-visceral disease.||0.951|0.667|0.0121
90990809|NCT02538666|181866172|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.3693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.12|||Stratified Log Rank|Stratified by response to ECOG PS (0vs1), gender (MvF), irradiation following chemotherapy (YorN) as entered in IVRS|based on stratified 3-arms Cox proportional hazard model|nivolumab + ipilimumab over placebo||1.12|0.75|0.3693
90990810|NCT02538666|181866173|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.97|||||Hazard Ratios are based on stratified 3-arms Cox proportional hazard model.|Global nivolumab over global placebo||0.97|0.68|
90990811|NCT02538666|181866173|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.66|||||Hazard Ratios are based on unstratified 3-arms Cox proportional hazard model.|China nivolumab over China Placebo||1.66|0.53|
90990812|NCT02538666|181866174|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.36|||||Hazard Ratios are based on stratified 3-arms Cox proportional hazard model.|Global nivolumab + ipilimumab over global nivolumab||1.36|0.94|
90990813|NCT02538666|181866174|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.79|||||Hazard Ratios are based on unstratified 3-arms Cox proportional hazard model.|China nivolumab + ipilimumab over China nivolumab||1.79|0.56|
91042633|NCT04291508|181970736|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.5|-1.9|0.83
90990814|NCT02538666|181866175|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.88|||||Hazard Ratios are based on stratified 3-arms Cox proportional hazard model.|Global nivolumab + ipilimumab over global placebo||0.88|0.62|
90990815|NCT02538666|181866175|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.79|||||Hazard Ratios are based on stratified 3-arms Cox proportional hazard model.|Global nivolumab over global placebo||0.79|0.55|
91042634|NCT04291508|181970736|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.0||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|8.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||||8.9|-0.8|0.10
90990816|NCT02538666|181866175|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.35|||||Hazard Ratios are based on stratified 3-arms Cox proportional hazard model.|Global nivolumab+ ipilimumab over nivolumab||1.35|0.94|
90990817|NCT02538666|181866175|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.12|||||Hazard Ratios are based on unstratified 3-arms Cox proportional hazard model.|China Nivolumab + Ipilimumab over China placebo||1.12|0.33|
90990818|NCT02538666|181866175|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.85|||||Hazard Ratios are based on unstratified 3-arms Cox proportional hazard model.|China Nivolumab over China placebo||0.85|0.24|
90990819|NCT02538666|181866175|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.49|||||Hazard Ratios are based on unstratified 3-arms Cox proportional hazard model.|China Nivolumab + Ipilimumab over China Nivolumab||2.49|0.72|
90990820|NCT02538666|181866176|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.15|||||Unstratified Cox proportional hazard model. Hazard Ratios are experimental treatment group over placebo.|TMB cutoff ≥10 mutations/mb: Nivo+Ipi over placebo||1.15|0.61|
91042635|NCT04291508|181970737|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|2.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.4|-1.2|0.55
91042636|NCT04291508|181970737|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.5||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|8.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||||8.7|-1.6|0.18
91042637|NCT04291508|181970738|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|3.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.6|-0.8|0.21
91042638|NCT04291508|181970738|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|8.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||8.5|-3.4|0.40
91042639|NCT04291508|181970739|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|3.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.4|-0.8|0.23
90990821|NCT02538666|181866176|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.04|||||Unstratified Cox proportional hazard model. Hazard Ratios are experimental treatment group over placebo.|TMB cutoff ≥10 mutations/mb: Nivo over placebo||1.04|0.55|
90990822|NCT02538666|181866176|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.92|||||Unstratified Cox proportional hazard model. Hazard Ratios are experimental treatment group over placebo.|TMB cutoff ≥13 mutations/mb: Nivo+Ipi over placebo||0.92|0.42|
90990823|NCT02538666|181866176|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.93|||||Unstratified Cox proportional hazard model. Hazard Ratios are experimental treatment group over placebo.|TMB cutoff ≥13 mutations/mb: Nivo over placebo||0.93|0.44|
90990824|NCT02538666|181866176|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.21|||||Unstratified Cox proportional hazard model. Hazard Ratios are experimental treatment group over placebo.|TMB cutoff \<10 mutations/mb: Nivo+Ipi over placebo||1.21|0.68|
90990825|NCT02538666|181866176|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.18|||||Unstratified Cox proportional hazard model. Hazard Ratios are experimental treatment group over placebo.|TMB cutoff \<10 mutations/mb: Nivo over placebo||1.18|0.66|
90990826|NCT02538666|181866176|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.35|||||Unstratified Cox proportional hazard model. Hazard Ratios are experimental treatment group over placebo.|TMB cutoff \<13 mutations/mb: Nivo+Ipi over placebo||1.35|0.81|
90990827|NCT02538666|181866176|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.2|||||Unstratified Cox proportional hazard model. Hazard Ratios are experimental treatment group over placebo.|TMB cutoff \<13 mutations/mb: Nivo over placebo||1.20|0.72|
90990828|NCT02538666|181866177|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.09|||||Unstratified Cox proportional hazard model. Hazard Ratios are experimental treatment group over placebo.|TMB cutoff ≥10 mutations/mb: Nivo+Ipi over placebo||1.09|0.58|
90990829|NCT02538666|181866177|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.92|||||Unstratified Cox proportional hazard model. Hazard Ratios are experimental treatment group over placebo.|TMB cutoff ≥10 mutations/mb: Nivo over placebo||0.92|0.50|
90990830|NCT02538666|181866177|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.07|||||Unstratified Cox proportional hazard model. Hazard Ratios are experimental treatment group over placebo.|TMB cutoff ≥13 mutations/mb: Nivo+Ipi over placebo||1.07|0.50|
90990831|NCT02538666|181866177|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.95|||||Unstratified Cox proportional hazard model. Hazard Ratios are experimental treatment group over placebo.|TMB cutoff ≥13 mutations/mb: Nivo over placebo||0.95|0.46|
90990832|NCT02538666|181866177|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.96|||||Unstratified Cox proportional hazard model. Hazard Ratios are experimental treatment group over placebo.|TMB cutoff \<10 mutations/mb: Nivo+Ipi over placebo||0.96|0.54|
91042640|NCT04291508|181970739|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.6||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|9.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||||9.4|-2.2|0.22
90990833|NCT02538666|181866177|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.89|||||Unstratified Cox proportional hazard model. Hazard Ratios are experimental treatment group over placebo.|TMB cutoff \<10 mutations/mb: Nivo over placebo||0.89|0.49|
91042641|NCT04291508|181970740|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.8|-1.6|0.58
90990834|NCT02538666|181866177|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.01|||||Unstratified Cox proportional hazard model. Hazard Ratios are experimental treatment group over placebo.|TMB cutoff \<13 mutations/mb: Nivo+Ipi over placebo||1.01|0.60|
90990835|NCT02538666|181866177|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.89|||||Unstratified Cox proportional hazard model. Hazard Ratios are experimental treatment group over placebo.|TMB cutoff \<13 mutations/mb: Nivo over placebo||0.89|0.53|
90990836|NCT02538666|181866178|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.09|||Stratified Log Rank||Hazard Ratios are based on stratified 3-arms Cox proportional hazard model.|Global nivolumab + ipilimumab over Global placebo||1.09|0.76|
90990837|NCT02538666|181866178|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.67|||Stratified Log Rank||Hazard Ratios are based on unstratified 3-arms Cox proportional hazard model.|China nivolumab + ipilimumab over China placebo||1.67|0.52|
90990838|NCT02993224|181866197|SUPERIORITY||Difference of proportion|0.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|0.89|||McNemar|||Preference for deferasirox DT vs deferasirox FCT||0.89|0.75|<.0001
90990839|NCT02993224|181866198|SUPERIORITY||Difference of proportion|0.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.88|||McNemar|||Preference of deferasirox FCT vs deferasirox DT||0.88|0.65|<0.0001
91042642|NCT04291508|181970740|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.5||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|10.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||10.5|-1.4|0.13
91042643|NCT04291508|181970741|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.3||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|3.2|||Chi-squared|||||3.2|-11.8|0.26
91042644|NCT04291508|181970741|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-13.6||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.8|8.7|||Fisher Exact|||||8.7|-35.8|0.31
91042645|NCT04291508|181970742|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.2|-1.6|0.76
90990840|NCT02993224|181866198|SUPERIORITY||Difference of proportion|0.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.91|||McNemar|||Preference for deferasirox FCT vs previous iron chelation therapy||0.91|0.71|<0.0001
90990841|NCT02993224|181866199|SUPERIORITY||Difference of proportion|0.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.77|||McNemar|||Deferasirox DT vs previous iron chelation therapy at Week 4||0.77|0.51|< 0.0001
90990842|NCT02993224|181866199|SUPERIORITY||Difference of proportion|0.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.72|||McNemar|||Deferasirox DT vs previous iron chelation therapy at Week 24||0.72|0.44|< 0.0001
90990843|NCT02993224|181866201|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3||0.1191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|0.9|||ANCOVA|||Compliance of deferasirox DT vs deferasirox FCT||0.9|-8.1|0.1191
90990844|NCT03696758|181866238|OTHER|Descriptive statistics||||||0.004||||||p value is 0.004 for 'Pre-Metoprolol' vs 'post-Metoprolol' subgroup|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.004
90990845|NCT03696758|181866239|OTHER|Descriptive statistics||||||0.13||||||P-Value is 0.13 for 'Pre-Sildenafil' vs 'Post-Sildenafil' subgroup|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.13
90990846|NCT03696758|181866240|OTHER|descriptive statistics||||||0.004||||||p value is 0.004 for 'Pre-Metoprolol' vs 'post-Metoprolol' subgroup|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.004
90990847|NCT03696758|181866241|OTHER|Descriptive statistics||||||0.1||||||p value is 0.10 for 'Pre-Metoprolol' vs 'post-Metoprolol' subgroup|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.1
90990848|NCT03696758|181866242|OTHER|Descriptive statistics||||||0.09||||||p value is 0.09 for 'Pre-Metoprolol' vs 'post-Metoprolol' subgroup|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.09
90990849|NCT03696758|181866243|OTHER|Descriptive statistics||||||0.1||||||p value is 0.10 for 'Pre-Metoprolol' vs 'post-Metoprolol' subgroup|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.10
90990850|NCT03696758|181866244|OTHER|Descriptive statistics||||||0.82||||||p value is 0.82 for 'Pre-Metoprolol' vs 'post-Metoprolol' subgroup|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.82
90990851|NCT03696758|181866245|OTHER|Descriptive statistics||||||0.3||||||p value is 0.30 for 'Pre-Metoprolol' vs 'post-Metoprolol' subgroup|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.30
90990852|NCT03696758|181866246|OTHER|Descriptive statistics||||||0.36||||||p value is 0.36 for 'Pre-Metoprolol' vs 'post-Metoprolol' subgroup|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.36
90990853|NCT03696758|181866247|OTHER|Descriptive statistics||||||0.36||||||p value is 0.36 for 'Pre-Metoprolol' vs 'post-Metoprolol' subgroup|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.36
90990854|NCT03696758|181866248|OTHER|Descriptive statistics||||||0.65||||||P-Value is 0.65 for 'Pre-Metoprolol' vs 'post-Metoprolol' subgroup|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.65
90990855|NCT03696758|181866249|OTHER|Descriptive statistics||||||0.25||||||P-Value is 0.25 for 'Pre-Sildenafil' vs 'Post-Sildenafil' subgroup|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.25
90990856|NCT03696758|181866250|OTHER|Descriptive statistics||||||0.43||||||P-Value is 0.43 for 'Pre-Sildenafil' vs 'Post-Sildenafil' subgroup|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.43
90990857|NCT03696758|181866251|OTHER|Descriptive statistics||||||0.66||||||P-Value is 0.66 for 'Pre-Sildenafil' vs 'Post-Sildenafil' subgroup|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.66
90990858|NCT03696758|181866252|OTHER|Descriptive statistics||||||0.13||||||P-Value is 0.13 for 'Pre-Sildenafil' vs 'Post-Sildenafil' subgroup|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.13
90990859|NCT03696758|181866253|OTHER|Descriptive statistics||||||0.57||||||P-Value is 0.57 for 'Pre-Sildenafil' vs 'Post-Sildenafil' subgroup|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.57
90990860|NCT03696758|181866254|OTHER|Descriptive statistics||||||0.25||||||P-Value is 0.25 for 'Pre-Sildenafil' vs 'Post-Sildenafil' subgroup|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.25
90990861|NCT03696758|181866255|OTHER|Descriptive statistics||||||0.07||||||P-Value is 0.07 for 'Pre-Sildenafil' vs 'Post-Sildenafil' subgroup|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.07
90990862|NCT03696758|181866256|OTHER|Descriptive statistics||||||0.36||||||P-Value is 0.36 for 'Pre-Sildenafil' vs 'Post-Sildenafil' subgroup|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.36
90990863|NCT03696758|181866257|OTHER|Descriptive statistics||||||0.91||||||P-Value is 0.91 for 'Pre-Sildenafil' vs 'Post-Sildenafil' subgroup|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.91
90990864|NCT00115349|181866265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89||0.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models with treatment, time, and treatment x time interaction were used, allowing for random participant-specific intercepts and slopes.||The intended sample size of 86 patients (N=43 per arm) had 80% power to detect a 5% difference in LVEF between the two arms after 1 year of treatment, assuming a standard deviation of change in LVEF of 7.46%, and 20% loss to follow-up. The study was stopped early by NHLBI when analysis of the interim data confirmed a required sample size of 86 that was not achievable within the required time frame within the participating or planned centres.||||0.89
90990865|NCT03207022|181866284|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90990866|NCT03207022|181866285|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
90990867|NCT03207022|181866286|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90990868|NCT06150573|181866287|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.498||0.9141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|0.93|||ANOVA|||||0.93|-1.04|0.9141
90990869|NCT06150573|181866288|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.494||0.4583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|1.34|||ANOVA|||||1.34|-0.61|0.4583
90990870|NCT06150573|181866289|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.06|||ANOVA|||Week 12||-0.06|-0.30|0.0042
90990871|NCT06150573|181866289|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.074|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.17|||ANOVA|||Week 24||-0.17|-0.46|<0.0001
90990872|NCT06150573|181866290|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016||0.2478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.01|||ANOVA|||Mean Gingival MLSI, Week 12||0.01|-0.05|0.2478
90990873|NCT06150573|181866290|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.0957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.01|||ANOVA|||Mean Gingival MLSI, Week 24||0.01|-0.07|0.0957
90990874|NCT06150573|181866290|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.122||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|-0.1|||ANOVA|||Mean Interproximal MLSI, Week 12||-0.10|-0.58|0.0063
90990875|NCT06150573|181866290|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.147|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.31|||ANOVA|||Mean Interproximal MLSI, Week 24||-0.31|-0.89|<0.0001
90990876|NCT06150573|181866290|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.1536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.01|||ANOVA|||Mean Body MLSI, Week 12||0.01|-0.03|0.1536
90990877|NCT06150573|181866290|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.006||0.1166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.0|||ANOVA|||Mean Body MLSI, Week 24||0.00|-0.02|0.1166
90990878|NCT06150573|181866291|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|-0.07|||ANOVA|||Week 12||-0.07|-0.21|<0.0001
90990879|NCT06150573|181866291|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|-0.1|||ANOVA|||Week 24||-0.10|-0.25|<0.0001
90990880|NCT06150573|181866292|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.0|||ANOVA|||Week 12||-0.00|-0.13|0.0400
90990881|NCT06150573|181866292|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|-0.05|||ANOVA|||Week 24||-0.05|-0.20|0.0010
90990882|NCT00210158|181866293|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.7||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.4|42.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test for a difference of means, assuming independant samples and unequal variances||42.8|-23.4|0.5
90990883|NCT02702193|181866328|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE)|GEE allowed the examination of trajectories from baseline through the 12 month follow-up.||To determine sample size for the grant proposal we conducted simulation studies in Mplus (Muthén \& Muthén, 2010) following the procedure described by Muthén and Muthén (2002). Each simulation created 10,000 datasets, assuming a medium-size (d = .5) intervention effect, and attrition of 10% at each assessment. For α= .05, the power estimate was at or above 80% with a sample of 172 mothers.||||<.05
90990884|NCT02512068|181866366|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) mean difference|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.124|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.966|-0.473|||ANCOVA|||||-0.473|-0.966|<0.0001
90990885|NCT02512068|181866369|OTHER||Point estimate|-0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.385|-0.18||||||Change from baseline in HbA1c at Week 2 was compared between the treatment groups.||-0.180|-0.385|
90990886|NCT02512068|181866369|OTHER||Point estimate|-0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.621|-0.338||||||Change from baseline in HbA1c at Week 4 was compared between the treatment groups.||-0.338|-0.621|
90990887|NCT02512068|181866369|OTHER||Point estimate|-0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.797|-0.367||||||Change from baseline in HbA1c at Week 8 was compared between the treatment groups.||-0.367|-0.797|
91042646|NCT04291508|181970742|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|6.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||6.5|-4.9|0.78
90990888|NCT02512068|181866369|OTHER||Point estimate|-0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.975|-0.441||||||Change from baseline in HbA1c at Week 12 was compared between the treatment groups.||-0.441|-0.975|
90990889|NCT02512068|181866369|OTHER||Point estimate|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.948|-0.452||||||Change from baseline in HbA1c at End of Treatment Period I was compared between the treatment groups.||-0.452|-0.948|
90990890|NCT02512068|181866370|OTHER||Point estimate|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.598|9.919||||||The data of participants achieving \<6.0% at the end of Treatment Period I were compared between the treatment groups.||9.919|-6.598|
90990891|NCT02512068|181866370|OTHER||Point estimate|32.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.194|51.66||||||The data of participants achieving \<7.0% at the end of Treatment Period I were compared between the treatment groups.||51.660|14.194|
90990892|NCT02512068|181866370|OTHER||Point estimate|45.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.528|75.7||||||The data of participants achieving \<8.0% at the end of Treatment Period I were compared between the treatment groups.||75.700|15.528|
90990893|NCT02512068|181866371|OTHER||Point estimate|-15.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.59|-6.88||||||Change from baseline in fasting plasma glucose at Week 2 was compared between the treatment groups.||-6.88|-23.59|
90990894|NCT02512068|181866371|OTHER||Point estimate|-8.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.98|3.58||||||Change from baseline in fasting plasma glucose at Week 4 was compared between the treatment groups.||3.58|-20.98|
90990895|NCT02512068|181866371|OTHER||Point estimate|-8.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.76|2.11||||||Change from baseline in fasting plasma glucose at Week 8 was compared between the treatment groups.||2.11|-18.76|
90990896|NCT02512068|181866371|OTHER||Point estimate|-15.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.14|-4.03||||||Change from baseline in fasting plasma glucose at Week 12 was compared between the treatment groups.||-4.03|-27.14|
90990897|NCT02512068|181866371|OTHER||Point estimate|-15.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.67|-4.62||||||Change from baseline in fasting plasma glucose at End of Treatment Period I was compared between the treatment groups.||-4.62|-26.67|
90990898|NCT02512068|181866372|OTHER||Point estimate|-1.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.184|-1.34||||||Change from baseline in glycoalbumin at Week 2 was compared between the treatment groups.||-1.340|-2.184|
90990899|NCT02512068|181866372|OTHER||Point estimate|-2.45||||||95.0|-3.03|-1.87||||||Change from baseline in glycoalbumin at Week 4 was compared between the treatment groups.||-1.870|-3.030|
90990900|NCT02512068|181866372|OTHER||Point estimate|-2.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.289|-1.679||||||Change from baseline in glycoalbumin at Week 8 was compared between the treatment groups.||-1.679|-3.289|
90990901|NCT02512068|181866372|OTHER||Point estimate|-2.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.608|-1.715||||||Change from baseline in glycoalbumin at Week 12 was compared between the treatment groups.||-1.715|-3.608|
90990902|NCT02512068|181866372|OTHER||Point estimate|-2.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.608|-1.715||||||Change from baseline in glycoalbumin at End of Treatment Period I was compared between the treatment groups.||-1.715|-3.608|
90990903|NCT02458690|181866397|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA models adjusted for the stratification variables of age group and sex||||||0.60
90990904|NCT02458690|181866398|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA models adjusted for the stratification variables of age group and sex||||||<0.01
90990905|NCT02458690|181866399|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA models adjusted for the stratification variables of age group and sex||||||0.81
90990906|NCT02458690|181866400|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA models adjusted for the stratification variables of age group and sex||||||0.20
90990907|NCT02458690|181866401|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA models adjusted for the stratification variables of age group and sex||||||0.09
90990908|NCT02458690|181866402|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA models adjusted for the stratification variables of age group and sex||||||0.23
90990909|NCT02458690|181866403|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA models adjusted for the stratification variables of age group and sex||||||0.09
90990910|NCT04891770|181866418|OTHER||percentage difference|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|7.3|||||For Cohort 2A versus Cohort 2B, the percentage difference and the corresponding 95% confidence interval was calculated using the stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method, stratified by HBsAg group (\> 3 and ≤ 3 log10 IU/mL).|||7.3|-2.3|
90990911|NCT03280550|181866443|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|-0.69||Tested at the two-sided 0.05 significance level. There was no adjustment for multiplicity for the co-primary outcome measures.|Mixed-Effect Model of Repeated Measures|Adjustments: geographic region, asthma/aspirin sensitivity, treatment, timepoint, baseline NPS, treatment and baseline NPS by timepoint interactions.|Difference in least squares means: Omalizumab arm minus Placebo arm.|The primary analysis tested the null hypothesis that no treatment group difference existed for change from baseline in NPS at Week 24. As NPS and NCS are co-primary outcome measures, both null hypotheses for NPS and NCS must be rejected, with parameter estimates indicating a benefit of omalizumab over placebo, for the study to be deemed positive.||-0.69|-1.59|<0.0001
91042647|NCT04291508|181970743|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.9|-2.3|0.84
91042648|NCT04291508|181970743|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.5||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|10.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||10.0|-0.9|0.10
91042649|NCT04291508|181970744|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.3||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|8.3|||Chi-squared|||||8.3|-10.9|0.79
91042650|NCT04291508|181970744|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.9||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|27.3|||Fisher Exact|||||27.3|-17.5|1.00
91042651|NCT04291508|181970745|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.7||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|7.2|||Chi-squared|||||7.2|-3.7|0.53
91042652|NCT04291508|181970745|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|13.0|||Fisher Exact|||||13.0|-17.0|1.00
91042653|NCT04291508|181970746|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.6|-0.9|0.70
91042654|NCT04291508|181970746|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|2.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.5|-2.7|0.96
91042655|NCT04291508|181970747|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|7.3|||Fisher Exact|||||7.3|-2.3|1.00
91042656|NCT04291508|181970748|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.4||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|4.2|||Chi-squared|||||4.2|-13.1|0.31
91042657|NCT04291508|181970748|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-27.9||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.7|-4.0|||Chi-squared|||||-4.0|-51.7|0.02
91042658|NCT04291508|181970749|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.5||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|7.5|||Chi-squared|||||7.5|-8.5|0.90
91042659|NCT04291508|181970749|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-27.9||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.7|-4.0|||Chi-squared|||||-4.0|-51.7|0.02
91042660|NCT04291508|181970750|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.3||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|-2.4|||Chi-squared|||||-2.4|-12.2|0.003
91042661|NCT04291508|181970750|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.7||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|15.6|||Fisher Exact|||||15.6|-2.3|0.52
91042662|NCT04291508|181970751|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.2|-0.2|0.68
91042663|NCT04291508|181970751|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.4|||Fisher Exact|||||0.4|-0.7|0.62
91042664|NCT04291508|181970752|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.5||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|8.8|||Chi-squared|||||8.8|-7.8|0.90
91042665|NCT04291508|181970752|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-15.6||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.1|8.9|||Chi-squared|||||8.9|-40.1|0.2
91042666|NCT04291508|181970753|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.3|-1.1|0.88
91042667|NCT04291508|181970753|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|6.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||6.6|-0.6|0.10
91042668|NCT03566238|181970754|SUPERIORITY||percentage difference|0.435||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2195|0.6551|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Analysis was based on the Cochran Mantel Haenszel test adjusting PFIC type. A pooled analysis for the closed testing procedure was applied to control multiplicity. The 1-sided adjusted p-value for an individual dose was calculated as the maximum value of the unadjusted p-value for the pooled analysis and the unadjusted p-value for the individual doses.~1-sided adjusted p-value was reported."||0.6551|0.2195|0.0015
91042669|NCT03566238|181970754|SUPERIORITY||percentage difference|0.211||||0.0174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.021|0.4557|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Analysis was based on the Cochran Mantel Haenszel test adjusting PFIC type. A pooled analysis for the closed testing procedure was applied to control multiplicity. The 1-sided adjusted p-value for an individual dose was calculated as the maximum value of the unadjusted p-value for the pooled analysis and the unadjusted p-value for the individual doses.~1-sided adjusted p-value was reported."||0.4557|0.021|0.0174
91042670|NCT03566238|181970755|SUPERIORITY|"Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model including treatment, baseline pruritus score at AM and PM, PFIC type, and age category was used for treatment comparisons. A pooled analysis for the closed testing procedure was applied to control multiplicity. The 1-sided adjusted p-value for an individual dose was calculated as the maximum value of the unadjusted p-value for the pooled analysis and the unadjusted p-value for the individual doses.~1-sided adjusted p-value was reported."|Least Square (LS) mean difference|28.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.182||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.83|46.64|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of the Proportion of Positive Pruritus Assessments at Participant Level over the 24-Week Treatment Period - Albireo ObsRO Instrument (AM and PM Scores).||46.64|9.83|0.0019
91042671|NCT03566238|181970755|SUPERIORITY|"An ANCOVA model including treatment, baseline pruritus score at AM and PM, PFIC type, and age category was used for treatment comparisons. A pooled analysis for the closed testing procedure was applied to control multiplicity. The 1-sided adjusted p-value for an individual dose was calculated as the maximum value of the unadjusted p-value for the pooled analysis and the unadjusted p-value for the individual doses.~1-sided adjusted p-value was reported."|LS mean difference|21.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.892||0.0163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.87|41.54|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of the Proportion of Positive Pruritus Assessments at Participant Level over the 24-Week Treatment Period - Albireo ObsRO Instrument (AM and PM Scores).||41.54|1.87|0.0163
91042672|NCT00593827|181970777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.03
91042673|NCT00593827|181970778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.05
91042674|NCT00593827|181970781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.11
91042675|NCT02627001|181970796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks|||||||<0.001
91042676|NCT01049581|181970797|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANCOVA was used and the result reveled (F1, 17 = 7.565, η2= 0.308, p = 0.007)||||||0.007|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||null hypothesis : there is no difference in gross motor performance in pediatric aquatic therapy group and conventional therapy group||||0.007
91042677|NCT01049581|181970798|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANCOVA : p value 0.393|Mean Difference (Net)|1.762||||0.393|ONE_SIDED|95.0||||"Effect Size η2~0.023"|ANCOVA|F1,17= 0.380||We hypothesize that Children with CP receiving PAT would have better outcomes in motor function and translate to ADL||||0.393
91042678|NCT01049581|181970799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.332|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||null hypothesis : there is no difference in social participation between pediatric aquatic therapy group and conventional therapy group||||0.332
90990912|NCT03280550|181866444|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.25||Tested at the two-sided 0.05 significance level. There was no adjustment for multiplicity for the co-primary outcome measures.|Mixed-Effect Model of Repeated Measures|Adjustments: geographic region, asthma/aspirin sensitivity, treatment, timepoint, baseline NCS, treatment and baseline NCS by timepoint interactions.|Difference in least squares means: Omalizumab arm minus Placebo arm.|The primary analysis tested the null hypothesis that no treatment group difference existed for change from baseline in NCS at Week 24. As NPS and NCS are co-primary outcome measures, both null hypotheses for NPS and NCS must be rejected, with parameter estimates indicating a benefit of omalizumab over placebo, for the study to be deemed positive.||-0.25|-0.84|0.0004
90990913|NCT03280550|181866445|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.06||Tested at the two-sided 0.05 significance level.|Mixed-Effect Model of Repeated Measures|Adjustments: geographic region, asthma/aspirin sensitivity, treatment, timepoint, baseline SSS, treatment and baseline SSS by timepoint interactions.|Difference in least squares means: Omalizumab arm minus Placebo arm.|The null hypothesis was that no difference exists between the treatment groups for change from baseline in the average daily Sense of Smell Score (SSS) at Week 24.||-0.06|-0.60|0.0161
91007995|NCT01005966|181900092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|23.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.86|28.24||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA based on a mixed model with factors subject, treatment and period was used.|Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.|Null hypothesis considered population means for the NaF toothpaste (1426ppmF) and Placebo toothpaste (0ppmF) to be equal with respect to enamel remineralization potential.||28.24|18.86|<0.0001
90990914|NCT03280550|181866446|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.28||Tested at the two-sided 0.05 significance level.|Mixed-Effect Model of Repeated Measures|Adjustments: geographic region, asthma/aspirin sensitivity, treatment, timepoint, baseline PRS, treatment and baseline PRS by timepoint interactions.|Difference in least squares means: Omalizumab arm minus Placebo arm.|The null hypothesis was that no difference exists between the treatment groups for change from baseline in the average daily Posterior Rhinorrhea Score (PRS) at Week 24.||-0.28|-0.84|0.0001
90990915|NCT03280550|181866447|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|-0.6||Tested at the two-sided 0.05 significance level.|Mixed-Effect Model of Repeated Measures|Adjustments: geographic region, asthma/aspirin sensitivity, treatment, timepoint, baseline NPS, treatment and baseline NPS by timepoint interactions.|Difference in least squares means: Omalizumab arm minus Placebo arm.|The null hypothesis was that no difference exists between the treatment groups for change from baseline in the NPS at Week 16.||-0.60|-1.43|<0.0001
90990916|NCT03280550|181866448|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.31||Tested at the two-sided 0.05 significance level.|Mixed-Effect Model of Repeated Measures|Adjustments: geographic region, asthma/aspirin sensitivity, treatment, timepoint, baseline NCS, treatment and baseline NCS by timepoint interactions.|Difference in least squares means: Omalizumab arm minus Placebo arm.|The null hypothesis was that no difference exists between the treatment groups for change from baseline in the average daily NCS at Week 16.||-0.31|-0.83|<0.0001
90990917|NCT03280550|181866449|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-16.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.86|-10.38||Tested at the two-sided 0.05 significance level.|Mixed-Effect Model of Repeated Measures|Adjustments: geographic region, asthma/aspirin sensitivity, treatment, timepoint, baseline, treatment and baseline by timepoint interactions.|Difference in least squares means: Omalizumab arm minus Placebo arm.|The null hypothesis was that no difference exists between the treatment groups for change from baseline in the SNOT-22 score at Week 24.||-10.38|-21.86|<0.0001
90990918|NCT03280550|181866450|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.16||Tested at the two-sided 0.05 significance level.|Mixed-Effect Model of Repeated Measures|Adjustments: geographic region, asthma/aspirin sensitivity, treatment, timepoint, baseline ARS, treatment and baseline ARS by timepoint interactions.|Difference in least squares means: Omalizumab arm minus Placebo arm.|The null hypothesis was that no difference exists between the treatment groups for change from baseline in the average daily Anterior Rhinorrhea Score (ARS) at Week 24.||-0.16|-0.70|0.0023
90990919|NCT03280550|181866451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.61||||0.6716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|5.51||Tested at the two-sided 0.05 significance level.|Fisher Exact|Unadjusted|Odds ratio is comparing Omalizumab arm to Placebo arm.|The null hypothesis was that no difference exists between the treatment groups for requirement of rescue medication through Week 24.||5.51|0.05|0.6716
90990920|NCT03280550|181866452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||0.4815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|17.64||Tested at the two-sided 0.05 significance level.|Fisher Exact|Unadjusted|Odds ratio is comparing Omalizumab arm to Placebo arm.|The null hypothesis was that no difference exists between the treatment groups for having had surgery for nasal polyps through Week 24.||17.64|0.00|0.4815
90990921|NCT03280550|181866453|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.71||||0.0492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|13.71|||Wald Chi-Square|Adjusted for Baseline AQLQ, geographic region, and aspirin sensitivity status.|Odds ratio is comparing Omalizumab arm to Placebo arm.|The null hypothesis was that no difference exists between the treatment groups for number of participants with a change from baseline in AQLQ score of ≥0.5 at Week 24.||13.71|1.00|0.0492
90990922|NCT03280550|181866454|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.61||||0.6716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|5.51||Tested at the two-sided 0.05 significance level.|Fisher Exact|Unadjusted|Odds ratio is comparing Omalizumab arm to Placebo arm.|The null hypothesis was that no difference exists between the treatment groups for requirement of rescue treatment through Week 24.||5.51|0.05|0.6716
90990923|NCT03280550|181866455|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.25||||0.0209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|29.6||Tested at the two-sided 0.05 significance level.|Wald Chi-Square|Adjusted for geographic region and asthma/aspirin sensitivity comorbidity status.|Odds ratio is comparing Omalizumab arm to Placebo arm.|The null hypothesis was that no difference exists between the treatment groups for change from baseline in reduction in the need for surgery for nasal polyps by Week 24.||29.60|1.32|0.0209
90990924|NCT03280550|181866456|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.85|-0.96||Tested at the two-sided 0.05 significance level.|Mixed-Effect Model of Repeated Measures|Adjustments: geographic region, asthma/aspirin sensitivity, treatment, timepoint, baseline TNSS, treatment and baseline by timepoint interactions.|Difference in least squares means: Omalizumab arm minus Placebo arm.|The null hypothesis was that no difference exists between the treatment groups for change from baseline in the average daily Total Nasal Symptom Score (TNSS) at Week 24.||-0.96|-2.85|0.0001
90990925|NCT03280550|181866457|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|3.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.23||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|6.24||Tested at the two-sided 0.05 significance level.|Mixed-Effect Model of Repeated Measures|Adjustments: geographic region, asthma/aspirin sensitivity, treatment, timepoint, baseline UPSIT, treatment and baseline by timepoint interactions.|Difference in least squares means: Omalizumab arm minus Placebo arm|The null hypothesis was that no difference exists between the treatment groups for change from baseline in the UPSIT score at Week 24.||6.24|1.38|0.0024
90990926|NCT01318083|181866466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.936|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.097|-0.775||||||||-0.775|-1.097|
90990927|NCT01318083|181866466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.998|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|-0.837||||||||-0.837|-1.160|
90990928|NCT01318083|181866467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.196|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.261|-0.131||||||||-0.131|-0.261|
90990929|NCT01318083|181866467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.213|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.273|-0.154||||||||-0.154|-0.273|
90990930|NCT01318083|181866468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.507|-0.312||||||||-0.312|-0.507|
90990931|NCT01318083|181866468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.453|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.547|-0.358||||||||-0.358|-0.547|
90990932|NCT01318083|181866469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.695|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.834|-0.556||||||||-0.556|-0.834|
90990933|NCT01318083|181866469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.911|-0.629||||||||-0.629|-0.911|
90990934|NCT01318083|181866470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.6|-10.83||||||||-10.83|-24.60|
90990935|NCT01318083|181866470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.93|-10.25||||||||-10.25|-24.93|
90990936|NCT01318083|181866471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.33|-16.02||||||||-16.02|-30.33|
90990937|NCT01318083|181866471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.33|-17.43||||||||-17.43|-32.33|
90990938|NCT01318083|181866472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.32|-19.91||||||||-19.91|-35.32|
90990939|NCT01318083|181866472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.76|-14.69||||||||-14.69|-30.76|
90990940|NCT01318083|181866473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-28.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.14|-19.59||||||||-19.59|-37.14|
90990941|NCT01318083|181866473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.33|-13.54||||||||-13.54|-30.33|
90990942|NCT01318083|181866474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.58|-10.23||||||||-10.23|-36.58|
90990943|NCT01318083|181866474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.4|-4.95||||||||-4.95|-33.40|
90990944|NCT05896761|181866475|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.926|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.831|1.03||||||||1.03|0.831|
90990945|NCT05896761|181866475|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.929|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.816|1.06||||||||1.06|0.816|
90990946|NCT05896761|181866476|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.966|1.17||||||||1.17|0.966|
90990947|NCT05896761|181866476|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.07|1.29||||||||1.29|1.07|
90990948|NCT05896761|181866477|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.22|1.49||||||||1.49|1.22|
90990949|NCT05896761|181866477|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.975|1.24||||||||1.24|0.975|
90990950|NCT05896761|181866478|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.12|1.4||||||||1.40|1.12|
90990951|NCT05896761|181866478|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.09|1.28||||||||1.28|1.09|
90990952|NCT05896761|181866479|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.13|1.3||||||||1.30|1.13|
90990953|NCT05896761|181866479|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.2||||||||1.20|1.00|
90990954|NCT05896761|181866480|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.07|1.23||||||||1.23|1.07|
90990955|NCT05896761|181866480|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.2|1.38||||||||1.38|1.20|
90990956|NCT05896761|181866481|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.08|1.25||||||||1.25|1.08|
90990957|NCT05896761|181866481|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.983|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.89|1.09||||||||1.09|0.890|
90990958|NCT05896761|181866482|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.991|1.13||||||||1.13|0.991|
90990959|NCT05896761|181866482|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.974|1.12||||||||1.12|0.974|
90990960|NCT05896761|181866483|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.11|1.25||||||||1.25|1.11|
90990961|NCT05896761|181866483|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.989|1.14||||||||1.14|0.989|
90990962|NCT05896761|181866484|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.03|1.12||||||||1.12|1.03|
90990963|NCT05896761|181866484|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.997|1.08||||||||1.08|0.997|
90990964|NCT05896761|181866485|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.08|1.19||||||||1.19|1.08|
90990965|NCT05896761|181866485|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.11||||||||1.11|0.97|
90990966|NCT05896761|181866486|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.02|1.11||||||||1.11|1.02|
90990967|NCT05896761|181866486|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.01|1.11||||||||1.11|1.01|
90990968|NCT03552549|181866525|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.77|||||Hazard ratio presented as PEG-Intron/INTRON A; HR \<1 indicates treatment effect in favor of PEG-Intron.|||1.77|0.28|
90990969|NCT02094586|181866540|EQUIVALENCE|The GMT of each lot was required to be within ±50% of each other lot with 95% confidence. Specifically, the 95% CI around each pairwise ratio of GMTs was required to be within \[0.67, 1.5\].|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.08||||||Lot A vs. Lot B||1.08|0.78|
90990970|NCT02094586|181866545|EQUIVALENCE|The GMT of each lot was required to be within ±50% of each other lot with 95% confidence. Specifically, the 95% CI around each pairwise ratio of GMTs was required to be within \[0.67, 1.5\].|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.2||||||Lot B vs Lot C||1.20|0.87|
90990971|NCT02094586|181866546|EQUIVALENCE|The GMT of each lot was required to be within ±50% of each other lot with 95% confidence. Specifically, the 95% CI around each pairwise ratio of GMTs was required to be within \[0.67, 1.5\].|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.1||||||Lot A vs. Lot C||1.10|0.80|
90990972|NCT02761993|181866547|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.341||||||Since there were two (2) primary hypotheses, Bonferroni corrections were used to control for multiplicity, with p \< 0.025 considered significant.|Generalized Estimating Equation|Generalized estimating equations (GEE) method with a linear link and exchangeable covariance matrix (with subject correlation structure)||||||0.341
90990973|NCT02761993|181866547|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.774||||||Since there were two (2) primary hypotheses, Bonferroni corrections were used to control for multiplicity, with p \< 0.025 considered significant.|Generalized Estimating Equations|Generalized estimating equations (GEE) method with a linear link and exchangeable covariance matrix (with subject correlation structure)||||||0.774
90990974|NCT02761993|181866548|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.501||||||Since there were two (2) primary hypotheses, Bonferroni corrections were used to control for multiplicity, with p \< 0.025 considered significant.|Generalized Estimating Equations|Generalized estimating equations (GEE) method with a linear link and exchangeable covariance matrix (with subject correlation structure)||||||0.501
90990975|NCT02761993|181866548|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.486||||||Since there were two (2) primary hypotheses, Bonferroni corrections were used to control for multiplicity, with p \< 0.025 considered significant.|Generalized Estimating Equations|Generalized estimating equations (GEE) method with a linear link and exchangeable covariance matrix (with subject correlation structure)||||||0.486
90990976|NCT02761993|181866549|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.816|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.816
90990977|NCT02761993|181866549|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.706|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.706
90990978|NCT00256867|181866550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio Expressed as percent difference|-37.186|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.219|-32.879|||ANCOVA||Estimation parameter was Ratio to RSG Group expressed as percent difference from RSG group. Based on ANCOVA : Log(value) - log(baseline)= log(baseline) + sex + country + Treatment + Prior Sulfonylurea use|||-32.879|-41.219|<0.0001
90990979|NCT00256867|181866551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|-0.55|||ANCOVA||Change = Baseline + sex + country + Treatment + Prior Sulfonylurea use|||-0.55|-1.09|<0.0001
90990980|NCT00256867|181866555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|36.32|||<|0.0001||95.0|16.52|79.85|||ANCOVA||Odds (logistic regression:log odds=Baseline + sex + Treatment + Prior Sulfonylurea use) of having an LDL-c \< 100 mg/dL at Week 6 on All FDC RSG/SIMV groups compared to All RSG monotherapy groups|||79.85|16.52|<.0001
90990981|NCT00256867|181866556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.32|7.07|||ANCOVA||Odds (logistic regression: log odds=Baseline + sex + Treatment + Prior SU use) of having an HbA1c \< 7% or reduction of HbA1c \>= 0.7% at Week 16 on All FDC group compared to Simv group.|||7.07|2.32|<0.0001
90990982|NCT00256867|181866557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.93|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.21|7.0|||ANCOVA||Odds (logistic regression:log odds=Baseline + sex + Treatment + Prior SU use) of having an FPG \< 7.0 mmol/L or reduction of FPG \>= 1.67 mmol/L at Week 16 on All FDC group compared to Simv group.|||7|2.21|<0.0001
90990983|NCT00875017|181866586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-65.75|||<|0.001||95.0|-96.01|-35.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Net phosphorus absorption was analysed using a mixed linear effect model with fixed effects for sequence group, period and treatment group. Subject within sequence effect was included as a random effect.||-35.49|-96.01|<0.001
90990984|NCT00875017|181866586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-125.65|||<|0.001||95.0|-155.91|-95.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Net phosphorus absorption was analysed using a mixed linear effect model with fixed effects for sequence group, period and treatment group. Subject within sequence effect was included as a random effect.||-95.39|-155.91|<0.001
90990985|NCT00875017|181866586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-59.9|||<|0.001||95.0|-89.87|-29.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Net phosphorus absorption was analysed using a mixed linear effect model with fixed effects for sequence group, period and treatment group. Subject within sequence effect was included as a random effect.||-29.93|-89.87|<0.001
90990986|NCT00875017|181866587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|71.9|||<|0.001||95.0|40.03|103.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Phosphorus binding was analysed using a mixed linear effect model with fixed effects for sequence group, period and treatment group. Subject within sequence effect was included as a random effect.||103.77|40.03|<0.001
90990987|NCT00875017|181866588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-20.67||||0.049||95.0|-41.22|-0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Net calcium absorption was analysed using a mixed linear effect model with fixed effects for sequence group, period and treatment group. Subject within sequence effect was included as a random effect.||-0.13|-41.22|0.049
90990988|NCT00875017|181866588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-15.56||||0.133||95.0|-36.11|4.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Net calcium absorption was analysed using a mixed linear effect model with fixed effects for sequence group, period and treatment group. Subject within sequence effect was included as a random effect.||4.99|-36.11|0.133
90990989|NCT00875017|181866588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|5.11||||0.612||95.0|-15.24|25.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Net calcium absorption was analysed using a mixed linear effect model with fixed effects for sequence group, period and treatment group. Subject within sequence effect was included as a random effect.||25.47|-15.24|0.612
90990990|NCT02932475|181866602|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.19|||||The odds ratio was calculated and adjusted for study site, timing of diabetes diagnosis, gestational age at randomization stratified at 18 weeks, and baseline maternal BMI.|The sample size gave adequate power over a range of expected primary outcome event rates, with type I error set at 0.044 (reduced from 0.05 for interim analysis), with reasonable power under a conservative scenario assuming that 20% of subjects immediately stopped taking study agent.||1.19|0.63|
90990991|NCT02932475|181866603|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|0.2||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.4
90990992|NCT02932475|181866604|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||comparison of mean (sd) between groups|||||0.4
90990993|NCT02932475|181866605|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|0.0||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.6
90990994|NCT02932475|181866606|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|0.0||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.08
90990995|NCT00364845|181866609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion achieving target|0.389||||||95.0|0.173|0.643||||||||0.643|0.173|
90990996|NCT00364845|181866609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion achieving target|0.95||||||95.0|0.751|0.999||||||||0.999|0.751|
90990997|NCT02426658|181866612|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7044|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7044
90990998|NCT00088634|181866617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Comparisons between SM-13496 and placebo will be performed by means of a 2-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and study center as factors, and baseline BPRS score as a covariate. Ninety-five percent (95%) confidence intervals will be constructed using the variability estimates from the ANCOVA model.||||<0.05
90990999|NCT00088634|181866618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Comparisons between SM-13496 and placebo will be performed by means of a 2-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and study center as factors, and baseline PANSS score as a covariate. Ninety-five percent (95%) confidence intervals will be constructed using the variability estimates from the ANCOVA model.||||<0.05
90991000|NCT00088634|181866619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Comparisons between SM-13496 and placebo will be performed by means of a 2-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and study center as factors, and baseline CGI-S score as a covariate. Ninety-five percent (95%) confidence intervals will be constructed using the variability estimates from the ANCOVA model.||||<0.05
90991001|NCT00088634|181866620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Comparisons between SM-13496 and placebo will be performed by means of a 2-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and study center as factors, and baseline MADRS score as a covariate. Ninety-five percent (95%) confidence intervals will be constructed using the variability estimates from the ANCOVA model.||||<0.05
90991002|NCT03255291|181866621|SUPERIORITY|A Dunnett adjustment was used to adjust for multiple comparisons||||||0.0288|||||||ANCOVA|Covariates: sex, race, age, education, health literacy, season, risk display problem, acceptability, self-reported health, and baseline exercise.||The investigators tested whether weekly minutes of exercise at 90 day follow-up was higher in the exercise mental imagery condition than in the sleep mental imagery condition||||0.0288
90991003|NCT03255291|181866621|SUPERIORITY|-A Dunnett adjustment was used to adjust for multiple comparisons||||||0.3329|||||||ANCOVA|Covariates: sex, race, age, education, health literacy, season, risk display problem, acceptability, self-reported health, and baseline exercise.||-The investigators tested whether weekly minutes of exercise differed among the three risk display formats: risk ladder, table, and alphanumeric text.||||0.3329
90991004|NCT03255291|181866621|SUPERIORITY|-A Dunnett adjustment was used to adjust for multiple comparisons||||||0.0215|||||||ANCOVA|Covariates: sex, race, age, education, health literacy, season, risk display problem, acceptability, self-reported health, and baseline exercise.||-The investigators tested whether weekly minutes of exercise was influenced by an interaction between risk display format and mental imagery behavior||||0.0215
90991005|NCT03255291|181866622|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0333||||||-A Dunnett adjustment was used to adjust for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|Covariates were sex, race, age, education, numeracy, and graph literacy.||-This study was designed as a 3X2 factorial design and only the risk display format intervention (risk ladder, table, or text) was looked at for this outcome, as participants had not yet received the mental imagery intervention, thus it could not affect this outcome. A Dunnett adjustment was used to adjust for multiple comparisons.||||0.0333
90991006|NCT03255291|181866623|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4946||||||-A Dunnett adjustment was used to adjust for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|Covariates were sex, race, age, education, numeracy, and graph literacy.||This study was designed as a 3X2 factorial design \& only the risk display format intervention (risk ladder, table, or text) was looked at for this outcome, as participants had not yet received the mental imagery intervention, thus it could not affect this outcome.||||0.4946
90991007|NCT03255291|181866624|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1397|||||||ANCOVA|Covariates were sex, race, age, education, numeracy, and graph literacy.||This study was designed as a 3X2 factorial design \& only the risk display format intervention (risk ladder, table, or text) was looked at for this outcome, as participants had not yet received the mental imagery intervention, thus it could not affect this outcome.||||0.1397
90991008|NCT03255291|181866625|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007||||||Covariates: sex, race, age, education, risk display issue, health literacy, season, acceptability, self-reported health, adherence, baseline exercise|Mixed Models Analysis|||The secondary outcomes are hypothesized mediators of the effect of exercise-related mental imagery activities on future exercise behavior (e.g., exercise mental imagery will increase future exercise behavior by increasing exercise maintenance self-efficacy). Because these analyses are relevant only for the exercise condition, and the dichotomous mental imagery variable includes both exercise and sleep, it is not appropriate to include the dichtomous mental imagery variable in this analysis.||||0.0070
90991009|NCT03255291|181866626|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8793||||||Covariates: sex, race, age, education, risk display issue, health literacy, season, acceptability, self-reported health, adherence, baseline exercise|Mixed Models Analysis|||The secondary outcomes are hypothesized mediators of the effect of exercise-related mental imagery activities on future exercise behavior (e.g., exercise mental imagery will increase future exercise behavior by increasing exercise recovery self-efficacy). Because these analyses are relevant only for the exercise condition, and the dichotomous mental imagery variable includes both exercise and sleep, it is not appropriate to include the dichtomous mental imagery variable in this analysis.||||0.8793
90991010|NCT03255291|181866627|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4673||||||Covariates: sex, race, age, education, risk display issue, health literacy, season, acceptability, self-reported health, adherence, baseline exercise|Mixed Models Analysis|||The secondary outcomes are hypothesized mediators of the effect of the exercise-related mental imagery activities on future exercise behavior (e.g., exercise mental imagery will increase future exercise behavior by increasing exercise affective attitudes). Because these analyses are relevant only for the exercise condition, and the dichotomous mental imagery variable includes both exercise and sleep, it is not appropriate to include the dichotomous mental imagery variable in this analysis.||||0.4673
90991011|NCT03255291|181866628|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1916||||||Covariates: sex, race, age, education, risk display issue, health literacy, season, acceptability, self-reported health, adherence, baseline exercise|Mixed Models Analysis|||The secondary outcomes are hypothesized mediators of the effect of the exercise-related mental imagery activities on future exercise behavior (e.g., exercise mental imagery will increase future exercise behavior by increasing exercise unpleasant feelings). Because these analyses are relevant only for the exercise condition, and the dichotomous mental imagery variable includes both exercise and sleep, it is not appropriate to include the dichotomous mental imagery variable in this analysis.||||0.1916
90991012|NCT03255291|181866629|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8661||||||Covariates: sex, race, age, education, risk display issue, health literacy, season, acceptability, self-reported health, adherence, baseline exercise|Mixed Models Analysis|||The secondary outcomes are hypothesized mediators of the effect of the exercise-related mental imagery activities on future exercise behavior (e.g., exercise mental imagery will increase future exercise behavior by increasing exercise imagery vividness). Because these analyses are relevant only for the exercise condition, and the dichotomous mental imagery variable includes both exercise and sleep, it is not appropriate to include the dichotomous mental imagery variable in this analysis.||||0.8661
90991013|NCT03255291|181866630|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0711||||||Covariates: sex, race, age, education, risk display issue, health literacy, season, acceptability, self-reported health, adherence, baseline exercise|Mixed Models Analysis|||The secondary outcomes are hypothesized mediators of the effect of the exercise-related mental imagery activities on future exercise behavior (e.g., exercise mental imagery will increase future exercise behavior by increasing exercise action planning). Because these analyses are relevant only for the exercise condition, and the dichotomous mental imagery variable includes both exercise and sleep, it is not appropriate to include the dichotomous mental imagery variable in this analysis.||||0.0711
90991014|NCT03255291|181866631|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0365||||||Covariates: sex, race, age, education, risk display issue, health literacy, season, acceptability, self-reported health, adherence, baseline exercise|Mixed Models Analysis|||The secondary outcomes are hypothesized mediators of the effect of the exercise-related mental imagery activities on future exercise behavior (e.g., exercise mental imagery will increase future exercise behavior by increasing exercise coping planning). Because these analyses are relevant only for the exercise condition, and the dichotomous mental imagery variable includes both exercise and sleep, it is not appropriate to include the dichotomous mental imagery variable in this analysis.||||0.0365
90991015|NCT03255291|181866632|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1511||||||Covariates: sex, race, age, education, risk display issue, health literacy, season, acceptability, self-reported health, adherence, baseline exercise|Mixed Models Analysis|||The secondary outcomes are hypothesized mediators of the effect of the exercise-related mental imagery activities on future exercise behavior (e.g., exercise mental imagery will increase future exercise behavior by increasing exercise action self-efficacy). Because these analyses are relevant only for the exercise condition, and the dichotomous mental imagery variable includes both exercise and sleep, it is not appropriate to include the dichotomous mental imagery variable in this analysis.||||0.1511
90991016|NCT01204658|181866651|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was supported if one could rule out an increase in terms of percentage of subjects (10PP-LD Group minus Synflorix Group) above 5% + half the incidence in the Synflorix Group (= null hypothesis) as shown by a 1-sided P-value \< 5%.|Difference in percentage|0.0||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|2.57||1-sided P-value computed using Kem Philips' approach for ruling out an increase in % subjects with fever \> 40.0°C and causal relationship to vaccination \> the boundary expressed as 5% + 0.5\*rate in the Synflorix group.|Kem Phillip's statistical test|||Non-inferiority of 10PP-LD vaccine vs Synflorix™ vaccine post dose 1 was assessed by computing the difference in percentages of subjects reporting Grade 3 fever causally related to dose 1 vaccination in the 10PP-LD Group minus Synflorix Group.||2.57|-2.61|0.003
91007996|NCT01005966|181900092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|4.4||||0.0625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|9.03||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA based on a mixed model with factors subject, treatment and period was used.|Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.|Null hypothesis considered population means for the Na MFP/NaF toothpaste (1450ppmF) and NaF toothpaste (675ppmF) to be equal with respect to enamel remineralization potential.||9.03|-0.23|0.0625
91007997|NCT01005966|181900092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|18.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.36|23.61||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA based on a mixed model with factors subject, treatment and period was used.|Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.|Null hypothesis considered population means for the Na MFP/NaF toothpaste (1450ppmF) and Placebo toothpaste (0ppmF) to be equal with respect to enamel remineralization potential.||23.61|14.36|<0.0001
91007998|NCT01005966|181900092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|14.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.95|19.23||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA based on a mixed model with factors subject, treatment and period was used.|Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.|Null hypothesis considered population means for the NaF toothpaste (675ppmF) and Placebo toothpaste (0ppmF) to be equal with respect to enamel remineralization potential.||19.23|9.95|<0.0001
90991017|NCT01204658|181866651|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was supported if one could rule out an increase in terms of percentage of subjects (10PP-LD Group minus Synflorix Group) above 5% + half the incidence in the Synflorix Group (= null hypothesis) as shown by a 1-sided P-value \< 5%.|Difference in percentage|0.0||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|2.57||1-sided P-value computed using Kem Philips' approach for ruling out an increase in % subjects with fever \> 40.0°C and causal relationship to vaccination \> the boundary expressed as 5% + 0.5\*rate in the Synflorix group.|Kem Phillip's statistical test|||Non-inferiority of 10PP-LD vaccine vs Synflorix™ vaccine post dose 2 was assessed by computing the difference in percentages of subjects reporting Grade 3 fever causally related to dose 2 vaccination in the 10PP-LD Group minus Synflorix Group.||2.57|-2.61|0.003
90991018|NCT01204658|181866651|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was supported if one could rule out an increase in terms of percentage of subjects (10PP-LD Group minus Synflorix Group) above 5% + half the incidence in the Synflorix Group (= null hypothesis) as shown by a 1-sided P-value \< 5%.|Difference in percentage|0.0||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.62|2.57||1-sided P-value computed using Kem Philips' approach for ruling out an increase in % subjects with fever \> 40.0°C and causal relationship to vaccination \> the boundary expressed as 5% + 0.5\*rate in the Synflorix group.|Kem Phillip's statistical test|||Non-inferiority of 10PP-LD vaccine vs Synflorix™ vaccine post dose 3 was assessed by computing the difference in percentages of subjects reporting Grade 3 fever causally related to dose 3 vaccination in the 10PP-LD Group minus Synflorix Group.||2.57|-2.62|0.003
90991019|NCT01204658|181866651|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was supported if one could rule out an increase in terms of percentage of subjects (10PP-LD Group minus Synflorix Group) above 5% + half the incidence in the Synflorix Group (= null hypothesis) as shown by a 1-sided P-value \< 5%.|Difference in percentage|0.0||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|2.57||1-sided P-value computed using Kem Philips' approach for ruling out an increase in % subjects with fever \> 40.0°C and causal relationship to vaccination \> the boundary expressed as 5% + 0.5\*rate in the Synflorix group.|Kem Phillip's statistical test|||Non-inferiority of 10PP-LD vaccine vs Synflorix™ vaccine across doses was assessed by computing the difference in percentages of subjects reporting Grade 3 fever causally related to vaccination, across doses, in the 10PP-LD Group minus Synflorix Group.||2.57|-2.61|0.003
90991020|NCT01204658|181866652|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was supported if one could rule out an increase in terms of percentage of subjects (10PP-HD Group minus Synflorix Group) above 5% + half the incidence in the Synflorix Group (= null hypothesis) as shown by a 1-sided P-value \< 5%.|Difference in percentage|0.0||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|2.64||1-sided P-value computed using Kem Philips' approach for ruling out an increase in % subjects with fever \> 40.0°C and causal relationship to vaccination \> the boundary expressed as 5% + 0.5\*rate in the Synflorix group.|Kem Phillip's statistical test|||Non-inferiority of 10PP-HD vaccine vs Synflorix™ vaccine post dose 1 was assessed by computing the difference in percentages of subjects reporting Grade 3 fever causally related to dose 1 vaccination in the 10PP-HD Group minus Synflorix Group.||2.64|-2.61|0.003
90991021|NCT01204658|181866652|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was supported if one could rule out an increase in terms of percentage of subjects (10PP-HD Group minus Synflorix Group) above 5% + half the incidence in the Synflorix Group (= null hypothesis) as shown by a 1-sided P-value \< 5%.|Difference in percentage|0.0||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|2.64||1-sided P-value computed using Kem Philips' approach for ruling out an increase in % subjects with fever \> 40.0°C and causal relationship to vaccination \> the boundary expressed as 5% + 0.5\*rate in the Synflorix group.|Kem Phillip's statistical test|||Non-inferiority of 10PP-HD vaccine vs Synflorix™ vaccine post dose 2 was assessed by computing the difference in percentages of subjects reporting Grade 3 fever causally related to dose 2 vaccination in the 10PP-HD Group minus Synflorix Group.||2.64|-2.61|0.003
90991022|NCT01204658|181866652|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was supported if one could rule out an increase in terms of percentage of subjects (10PP-HD Group minus Synflorix Group) above 5% + half the incidence in the Synflorix Group (= null hypothesis) as shown by a 1-sided P-value \< 5%.|Difference in percentage|0.0||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.63|2.66||1-sided P-value computed using Kem Philips' approach for ruling out an increase in % subjects with fever \> 40.0°C and causal relationship to vaccination \> the boundary expressed as 5% + 0.5\*rate in the Synflorix group.|Kem Phillip's statistical test|||Non-inferiority of 10PP-HD vaccine vs Synflorix™ vaccine post dose 3 was assessed by computing the difference in percentages of subjects reporting Grade 3 fever causally related to dose 3 vaccination in the 10PP-HD Group minus Synflorix Group.||2.66|-2.63|0.003
90991023|NCT01204658|181866652|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was supported if one could rule out an increase in terms of percentage of subjects (10PP-HD Group minus Synflorix Group) above 5% + half the incidence in the Synflorix Group (= null hypothesis) as shown by a 1-sided P-value \< 5%.|Difference in percentage|0.0||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|2.64||1-sided P-value computed using Kem Philips' approach for ruling out an increase in % subjects with fever \> 40.0°C and causal relationship to vaccination \> the boundary expressed as 5% + 0.5\*rate in the Synflorix group.|Kem Phillip's statistical test|||Non-inferiority of 10PP-HD vaccine vs Synflorix™ vaccine across doses was assessed by computing the difference in percentages of subjects reporting Grade 3 fever causally related to vaccination, across doses, in the 10PP-HD Group minus Synflorix Group.||2.64|-2.61|0.003
90991024|NCT04594239|181866681|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|78.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|66.3|85.6||||||||85.6|66.3|
90991025|NCT04594239|181866681|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|85.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|70.5|92.3||||||||92.3|70.5|
90991026|NCT04594239|181866681|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|71.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.2|82.5||||||||82.5|55.2|
90991027|NCT03050359|181866705|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the 95% CI was ≥-6%, the DU healing rate for TAK-438 was considered to be noninferior to that seen with lansoprazole.|Exact (Clopper-Pearson)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.998|3.791||||||||3.791|-2.998|
90991028|NCT03050359|181866706|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the 95% CI was ≥-10%, the HP eradication rate for TAK-438 was considered to be noninferior to that seen with lansoprazole.|Exact (Clopper-Pearson)|4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.281|10.69||||||||10.690|-1.281|
90991029|NCT03050359|181866707|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the 95% CI was ≥-6%, the DU healing rate for TAK-438 was considered to be noninferior to that seen with lansoprazole.|Exact (Clopper-Pearson)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.901|6.319||||||||6.319|-4.901|
90991030|NCT03050359|181866708|OTHER||Difference in percentages|-4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.579|7.344||||||Epigastric Pain (Postprandial)||7.344|-15.579|
90991031|NCT03050359|181866708|OTHER||Difference in percentages|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.23|8.422||||||Epigastric Pain (Fasting/Nocturnal)||8.422|-5.230|
90991032|NCT03050359|181866708|OTHER||Difference in percentages|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.338|9.401||||||Abdominal Bloating||9.401|-17.338|
90991033|NCT03050359|181866708|OTHER||Difference in percentages|-9.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.334|7.815||||||Nausea/Vomiting||7.815|-26.334|
90991034|NCT03050359|181866708|OTHER||Difference in percentages|4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.159|13.25||||||Heartburn||13.250|-4.159|
90991035|NCT03050359|181866708|OTHER||Difference in percentages|-9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.104|2.922||||||Lack of Appetite||2.922|-21.104|
90991036|NCT02020031|181866709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison at approximately 3 minutes, adjusted by BMI, age, and length of surgical procedure.||||<0.0001
90991037|NCT02020031|181866709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison at approximately 30 minutes, adjusted by BMI, age, and length of surgical procedure.||||<0.0001
90991038|NCT02020031|181866709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison at approximately 50 minutes, adjusted by BMI, age, and length of surgical procedure.||||<0.0001
90991039|NCT02020031|181866709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison at approximately 115 minutes, adjusted by BMI, age, and length of surgical procedure.||||<0.0001
90991040|NCT02020031|181866709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison at approximately 150 minutes, adjusted by BMI, age, and length of surgical procedure.||||<0.0001
90991041|NCT02020031|181866709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison at approximately 180 minutes, adjusted by BMI, age, and length of surgical procedure.||||<0.0001
90991042|NCT00755846|181866712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.135||0.001||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and body mass index (BMI), diabetes duration and baseline HbA1c as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in HbA1c. With at least 234 patients, a two-group t-test with a 0.05 two-sided significance has at least 98% power to detect a treatment difference (all active versus placebo) in HbA1c change from baseline as small as 0.55%, assuming a common standard deviation of 0.7%.||||0.001
90991043|NCT00755846|181866712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.171||0.004||95.0||||A step-down sequential approach was used to test the hypothesis that the treatment coefficient in the model is 0 for each of the five individual active treatment groups vs. placebo.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline HbA1c as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in HbA1c. With at least 234 patients, a two-group t-test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level has 90% power to detect a treatment difference (each active dose versus placebo) in HbA1c change from baseline as small as 0.55%, assuming a common standard deviation of 0.7%.||||0.004
91042679|NCT00653159|181970800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4003|||||||Fisher Exact|Two-sided test||Fisher's exact test was used to examine the significance of the association between IUD type (Paragard or Mirena) and whether or not the subject completed the final study visit at 6 months. Under the null hypothesis, study completion rates are similar for both IUD types.||||0.4003
90991044|NCT00755846|181866712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.176||0.017||95.0||||A step-down sequential approach was used to test the hypothesis that the treatment coefficient in the model is 0 for each of the five individual active treatment groups vs. placebo.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline HbA1c as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in HbA1c. With at least 234 patients, a two-group t-test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level has 90% power to detect a treatment difference (each active dose versus placebo) in HbA1c change from baseline as small as 0.55%, assuming a common standard deviation of 0.7%.||||0.017
90991045|NCT00755846|181866712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.001||95.0||||A step-down sequential approach was used to test the hypothesis that the treatment coefficient in the model is 0 for each of the five individual active treatment groups vs. placebo.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline HbA1c as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in HbA1c. With at least 234 patients, a two-group t-test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level has 90% power to detect a treatment difference (each active dose versus placebo) in HbA1c change from baseline as small as 0.55%, assuming a common standard deviation of 0.7%.||||0.001
90991046|NCT00755846|181866712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.174||0.003||95.0||||A step-down sequential approach was used to test the hypothesis that the treatment coefficient in the model is 0 for each of the five individual active treatment groups vs. placebo.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline HbA1c as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in HbA1c. With at least 234 patients, a two-group t-test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level has 90% power to detect a treatment difference (each active dose versus placebo) in HbA1c change from baseline as small as 0.55%, assuming a common standard deviation of 0.7%.||||0.003
90991047|NCT00755846|181866712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.173||0.307||95.0||||A step-down sequential approach was used to test the hypothesis that the treatment coefficient in the model is 0 for each of the five individual active treatment groups vs. placebo.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline HbA1c as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in HbA1c. With at least 234 patients, a two-group t-test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level has 90% power to detect a treatment difference (each active dose versus placebo) in HbA1c change from baseline as small as 0.55%, assuming a common standard deviation of 0.7%.||||0.307
90991048|NCT00755846|181866713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.106||0.004||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline HbA1c as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in HbA1c. With at least 234 patients, a two-group t-test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level has at least 98% power to detect a treatment difference (all active versus placebo) in HbA1c change from baseline as small as 0.55%, assuming a common standard deviation of 0.7%.||||0.004
90991049|NCT00755846|181866713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.134||0.017||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline HbA1c as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in HbA1c. With at least 234 patients, a two-group t-test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level has 90% power to detect a treatment difference (each active dose versus placebo) in HbA1c change from baseline as small as 0.55%, assuming a common standard deviation of 0.7%.||||0.017
90991050|NCT00755846|181866713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.138||0.016||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline HbA1c as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in HbA1c. With at least 234 patients, a two-group t-test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level has 90% power to detect a treatment difference (each active dose versus placebo) in HbA1c change from baseline as small as 0.55%, assuming a common standard deviation of 0.7%.||||0.016
90991051|NCT00755846|181866713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.134||0.005||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline HbA1c as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in HbA1c. With at least 234 patients, a two-group t-test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level has 90% power to detect a treatment difference (each active dose versus placebo) in HbA1c change from baseline as small as 0.55%, assuming a common standard deviation of 0.7%.||||0.005
90991052|NCT00755846|181866713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.008||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline HbA1c as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in HbA1c. With at least 234 patients, a two-group t-test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level has 90% power to detect a treatment difference (each active dose versus placebo) in HbA1c change from baseline as small as 0.55%, assuming a common standard deviation of 0.7%.||||0.008
90991053|NCT00755846|181866713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136||0.321||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline HbA1c as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in HbA1c. With at least 234 patients, a two-group t-test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level has 90% power to detect a treatment difference (each active dose versus placebo) in HbA1c change from baseline as small as 0.55%, assuming a common standard deviation of 0.7%.||||0.321
90991054|NCT00755846|181866714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.65|<|0.001||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and body mass index (BMI), diabetes duration, and baseline FPG as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in fasting plasma glucose (FPG). The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of all doses of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||<0.001
90991055|NCT00755846|181866714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-30.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4|<|0.001||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline FPG as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in FPG. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||<0.001
90991056|NCT00755846|181866714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.68||0.009||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline FPG as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in FPG. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.009
90991057|NCT00755846|181866714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.38|<|0.001||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline FPG as covariates|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in FPG. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||<0.001
90991058|NCT00755846|181866714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.57||0.057||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline FPG as covariates|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in FPG. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.057
90991059|NCT00755846|181866714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.56||0.156||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline FPG as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in FPG. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.156
90991060|NCT00755846|181866715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.05|<|0.001||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline FPG as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between all doses of alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in FPG. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of all doses of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||<0.001
90991061|NCT00755846|181866715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.91||0.001||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline FPG as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in FPG. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.001
90991062|NCT00755846|181866715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.2||0.008||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline FPG as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in FPG. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.008
91007999|NCT01005966|181900092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|7.58||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.88|12.27||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA based on a mixed model with factors subject, treatment and period was used.|Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.|Null hypothesis considered population means for the AmF toothpaste (1400ppmF) and Na MFP/NaF toothpaste (1450ppmF) to be equal with respect to enamel remineralization potential.||12.27|2.88|0.0017
91008000|NCT01005966|181900092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|11.97|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.31|16.64||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA based on a mixed model with factors subject, treatment and period was used.|Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.|Null hypothesis considered population means for AmF toothpaste (1400ppmF) and NaF toothpaste (675ppmF) to be equal with respect to enamel remineralization potential.||16.64|7.31|<0.0001
91008001|NCT01005966|181900092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|26.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.88|31.24||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA based on a mixed model with factors subject, treatment and period was used.|Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.|Null hypothesis considered population means for AmF toothpaste (1400ppmF) and placebo toothpaste (0ppmF) to be equal with respect to enamel remineralization potential.||31.24|21.88|<0.0001
91008002|NCT01005966|181900093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|37.24||||0.7912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-239.62|314.09||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA based on a mixed model with factors subject, treatment and period was used.|Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.|Null hypothesis considered population means for the NaF toothpaste (1426ppmF) and AmF toothpaste (1400ppmF) to be equal with respect to enamel fluoride uptake potential.||314.09|-239.62|0.7912
91008003|NCT01005966|181900093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|532.61||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|259.06|806.16||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA based on a mixed model with factors subject, treatment and period was used.|Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.|Null hypothesis considered population means for the NaF toothpaste (1426ppmF) and Na MFP/NaF toothpaste (1450ppmF) to be equal with respect to enamel fluoride uptake potential.||806.16|259.06|0.0002
91008004|NCT01005966|181900093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|692.91|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|418.73|967.09||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA based on a mixed model with factors subject, treatment and period was used.|Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05|Null hypothesis considered population means for the NaF toothpaste (1426ppmF) and NaF toothpaste (675ppmF) to be equal with respect to enamel fluoride uptake potential.||967.09|418.73|<0.0001
90991063|NCT00755846|181866715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-35.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.88|<|0.001||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and body mass index, diabetes duration, and baseline HbA1c as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in FPG. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||<0.001
90991064|NCT00755846|181866715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.09||0.136||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline HbA1c as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in FPG. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.136
90991065|NCT00755846|181866715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.07||0.073||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline HbA1c as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in FPG. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.073
90991066|NCT00755846|181866716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.85|<|0.001||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline fasting fructosamine as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in fasting fructosamine. The treatment effect will be evaluated as a contrast of all doses of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||<0.001
90991067|NCT00755846|181866716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.37||0.01||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline fasting fructosamine as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in fasting fructosamine. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.010
90991068|NCT00755846|181866716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.71||0.002||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline fasting fructosamine as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in fasting fructosamine. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.002
90991069|NCT00755846|181866716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.33||0.003||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline fasting fructosamine as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in fasting fructosamine. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.003
90991070|NCT00755846|181866716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.44||0.006||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline fasting fructosamine as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in fasting fructosamine. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.006
90991071|NCT00755846|181866716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.45||0.117||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline fasting fructosamine as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in fasting fructosamine. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.117
90991072|NCT00755846|181866717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.6||0.014||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline fasting fructosamine as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in fasting fructosamine. The treatment effect will be evaluated as a contrast of all doses of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.014
90991073|NCT00755846|181866717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.35||0.136||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline fasting fructosamine as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in fasting fructosamine. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.136
90991074|NCT00755846|181866717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.73||0.022||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline fasting fructosamine as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in fasting fructosamine. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.022
90991075|NCT00755846|181866717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.26||0.004||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline fasting fructosamine as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in fasting fructosamine. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.004
90991076|NCT00755846|181866717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.48||0.04||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline fasting fructosamine as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in fasting fructosamine. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.040
90991077|NCT00755846|181866717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.47||0.378||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline fasting fructosamine as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in fasting fructosamine. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.378
90991078|NCT00755846|181866718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.37||0.718||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline total cholesterol as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in total cholesterol. The treatment effect will be evaluated as a contrast of all doses of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.718
90991079|NCT00755846|181866718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.8||0.346||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline total cholesterol as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in total cholesterol. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.346
90991080|NCT00755846|181866718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.13||0.901||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline total cholesterol as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in total cholesterol. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.901
90991081|NCT00755846|181866718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.79||0.851||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline total cholesterol as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in total cholesterol. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.851
91042680|NCT00653159|181970801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4136|||||||Fisher Exact|Two-sided test||Fisher's exact test was used to examine the significance of the association between IUD type (Paragard or Mirena) and whether or not the subject experienced heavy bleeding. Under the null hypothesis, heavy bleeding rates are similar for both IUD types.||||0.4136
90991082|NCT00755846|181866718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.86||0.825||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline total cholesterol as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in total cholesterol. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.825
90991083|NCT00755846|181866718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.94||0.843||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline total cholesterol as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in total cholesterol. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.843
90991084|NCT00755846|181866719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.88||0.069||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline total cholesterol as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in total cholesterol. The treatment effect will be evaluated as a contrast of all doses of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.069
90991085|NCT00755846|181866719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.14||0.018||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline total cholesterol as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in total cholesterol. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.018
91042681|NCT00653159|181970802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4783|||||||Fisher Exact|Two-sided test||Fisher's exact test was used to examine the significance of the association between IUD type (Paragard or Mirena) and whether or not the subject became pregnant within 6 months of IUD insertion. Under the null hypothesis, pregnancy rates are similar for both IUD types.||||0.4783
91042682|NCT00653159|181970803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2174|||||||Fisher Exact|Two-sided test||Fisher's exact test was used to examine the significance of the association between IUD type (Paragard or Mirena) and whether or not the subject experienced expulsion of the IUD. Under the null hypothesis, expulsion rates are similar for both IUD types.||||0.2174
91042683|NCT00653159|181970804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|Two-sided test||"Fisher's exact test was used to examine the significance of the association between IUD type (Paragard or Mirena) and whether or not the subject reported being satisfied (happy or very happy) at the 6 month study visit. Under the null hypothesis, satisfaction rates are similar for both IUD types."||||1.0000
90991086|NCT00755846|181866719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.47||0.258||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline total cholesterol as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in total cholesterol. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.258
90991087|NCT00755846|181866719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.13||0.299||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline total cholesterol as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in total cholesterol. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.299
90991088|NCT00755846|181866719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.27||0.103||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline total cholesterol as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in total cholesterol. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.103
90991089|NCT00755846|181866719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.32||0.34||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline total cholesterol as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in total cholesterol. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.340
90991090|NCT00755846|181866720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.689||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline HDL cholesterol as covariates.|Positive mean treatment difference indicates larger increase from baseline (more positive change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in HDL cholesterol. The treatment effect will be evaluated as a contrast of all doses of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.689
90991091|NCT00755846|181866720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.742||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline HDL cholesterol as covariates.|Positive mean treatment difference indicates larger increase from baseline (more positive change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in HDL cholesterol. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.742
90991092|NCT00755846|181866720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.22||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline HDL cholesterol as covariates.|Positive mean treatment difference indicates larger increase from baseline (more positive change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in HDL cholesterol. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.220
90991093|NCT00755846|181866720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.348||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline HDL cholesterol as covariates.|Positive mean treatment difference indicates larger increase from baseline (more positive change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in HDL cholesterol. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.348
91042684|NCT01848210|181970809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.65||||0.531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.81|10.51|||Regression, Linear|||||10.51|-19.81|0.531
90991094|NCT00755846|181866720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06||0.627||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline HDL cholesterol as covariates.|Positive mean treatment difference indicates larger increase from baseline (more positive change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in HDL cholesterol. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.627
90991095|NCT00755846|181866720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06||0.418||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline HDL cholesterol as covariates.|Positive mean treatment difference indicates larger increase from baseline (more positive change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in HDL cholesterol. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.418
90991096|NCT00755846|181866721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.617||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline HDL cholesterol as covariates.|Positive mean treatment difference indicates larger increase from baseline (more positive change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in HDL cholesterol. The treatment effect will be evaluated as a contrast of all doses of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.617
90991097|NCT00755846|181866721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.052||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline HDL cholesterol as covariates.|Positive mean treatment difference indicates larger increase from baseline (more positive change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in HDL cholesterol. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.052
90991098|NCT00755846|181866721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.28||0.906||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline HDL cholesterol as covariates.|Positive mean treatment difference indicates larger increase from baseline (more positive change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in HDL cholesterol. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.906
90991099|NCT00755846|181866721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.19||0.628||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline HDL cholesterol as covariates.|Positive mean treatment difference indicates larger increase from baseline (more positive change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in HDL cholesterol. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.628
90991100|NCT00755846|181866721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.22||0.749||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline HDL cholesterol as covariates.|Positive mean treatment difference indicates larger increase from baseline (more positive change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in HDL cholesterol. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.749
90991101|NCT00755846|181866721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.22||0.34||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline HDL cholesterol as covariates.|Positive mean treatment difference indicates larger increase from baseline (more positive change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in HDL cholesterol. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.340
91042685|NCT04592419|181970813|NON_INFERIORITY|The maximum clinically acceptable true difference between KSI-301 and aflibercept among BRVO participants to be considered non-inferior is 4.5 ETDRS letters, i.e. the non-inferiority margin (NI) is 4.5 letters.|Adjusted mean difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.02|-3.11|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM model with treatment, visit, treatment × visit interaction, baseline BCVA, disease duration, and geographical location as covariates.||||0.30|-3.11|.0004
91042686|NCT04592419|181970814|NON_INFERIORITY|The maximum clinically acceptable true difference between KSI-301 and aflibercept among BRVO participants to be considered non-inferior is 4.5 ETDRS letters, i.e. the non-inferiority margin (NI) is 4.5 letters.|Adjusted mean difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.0243|TWO_SIDED|95.02|-4.24|-0.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM model treatment, visit, treatment × visit interaction, RVO subtype, baseline BCVA, disease duration, and geographical location as covariates.||||-0.71|-4.24|.0243
90991102|NCT00755846|181866722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.31||0.269||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline LDL cholesterol as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in LDL cholesterol. The treatment effect will be evaluated as a contrast of all doses of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.269
90991103|NCT00755846|181866722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.46||0.076||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline LDL cholesterol as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in LDL cholesterol. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.076
90991104|NCT00755846|181866722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.66||0.867||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline LDL cholesterol as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in LDL cholesterol. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.867
90991105|NCT00755846|181866722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4||0.169||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline LDL cholesterol as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in LDL cholesterol. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.169
90991106|NCT00755846|181866722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.45||0.645||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline LDL cholesterol as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in LDL cholesterol. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.645
90991107|NCT00755846|181866722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.51||0.351||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline LDL cholesterol as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in LDL cholesterol. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.351
90991108|NCT00755846|181866723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.03||0.003||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline LDL cholesterol as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in LDL cholesterol. The treatment effect will be evaluated as a contrast of all doses of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.003
90991109|NCT00755846|181866723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.06|<|0.001||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline LDL cholesterol as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in LDL cholesterol. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||<0.001
90991110|NCT00755846|181866723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.26||0.103||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline LDL cholesterol as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in LDL cholesterol. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.103
91008005|NCT01005966|181900093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1879.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1605.75|2153.04||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA based on a mixed model with factors subject, treatment and period was used.|Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.|Null hypothesis considered population means for the NaF toothpaste (1426ppmF) and Placebo toothpaste (0ppmF) to be equal with respect to enamel fluoride uptake potential.||2153.04|1605.75|<0.0001
90991111|NCT00755846|181866723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.98||0.009||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline LDL cholesterol as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in LDL cholesterol. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.009
90991112|NCT00755846|181866723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.14||0.034||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline LDL cholesterol as covariates|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in LDL cholesterol. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.034
90991113|NCT00755846|181866723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.16||0.033||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline LDL cholesterol as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in LDL cholesterol. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.033
90991114|NCT00755846|181866724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.17||0.897||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline triglycerides as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in triglycerides. The treatment effect will be evaluated as a contrast of all doses of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.897
90991115|NCT00755846|181866724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.85||0.557||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline triglycerides as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in triglycerides. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.557
90991116|NCT00755846|181866724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.85||0.616||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline triglycerides as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in triglycerides. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.616
90991117|NCT00755846|181866724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.73||0.679||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline triglycerides as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in triglycerides. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.679
90991118|NCT00755846|181866724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.94||0.697||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline triglycerides as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in triglycerides. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.697
90991119|NCT00755846|181866724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.03||0.672||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline triglycerides as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in triglycerides. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.672
91042687|NCT00381849|181970823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired t test for supersaturation of CaOx between baseline and after 6 weeks' treatment on placebo.||||0.32
90991120|NCT00755846|181866725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.37||0.809||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline triglycerides as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in triglycerides. The treatment effect will be evaluated as a contrast of all doses of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.809
90991121|NCT00755846|181866725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.74||0.597||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline triglycerides as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in triglycerides. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.597
90991122|NCT00755846|181866725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.77||0.982||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline triglycerides as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in triglycerides. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.982
90991123|NCT00755846|181866725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.62||0.358||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline triglycerides as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in triglycerides. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.358
90991124|NCT00755846|181866725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.06||0.274||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline triglycerides as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in triglycerides. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.274
90991125|NCT00755846|181866725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.06||0.554||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline triglycerides as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in triglycerides. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.554
90991126|NCT04047121|181866727|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2531|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2531
90991127|NCT04047121|181866727|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0295|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0295
90991128|NCT04047121|181866727|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1857|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1857
90991129|NCT04047121|181866727|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8401||||0.3297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5919|1.1925|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement.) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.1925|0.5919|0.3297
90991130|NCT04047121|181866727|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5066||||0.2003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8046|2.8209|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement.) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||2.8209|0.8046|0.2003
91042688|NCT00381849|181970823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired t test for supersaturation of CaOx between baseline and after 6 weeks' treatment on cystone.||||0.23
91042689|NCT00381849|181970823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired t test for supersaturation of CaOx between six weeks' treatment on cystone and 6 weeks' treatment on placebo.||||0.41
90991131|NCT04047121|181866727|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4052||||0.2276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8086|2.442|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement.) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||2.4420|0.8086|0.2276
90991132|NCT04047121|181866728|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8786|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.8786
90991133|NCT04047121|181866728|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1178|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1178
90991134|NCT04047121|181866728|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5337|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5337
90991135|NCT04047121|181866728|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0283||||0.9212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5911|1.789|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement.) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.7890|0.5911|0.9212
90991136|NCT04047121|181866728|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7464||||0.4693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.338|1.6482|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement.) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.6482|0.3380|0.4693
90991137|NCT04047121|181866728|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8212||||0.5593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4239|1.591|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement.) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.5910|0.4239|0.5593
90991138|NCT04047121|181866729|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6205|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.6205
90991139|NCT04047121|181866729|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4924|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.4924
90991140|NCT04047121|181866729|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4982|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.4982
90991141|NCT04047121|181866729|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3182||||0.5494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5335|3.257|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement.) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||3.2570|0.5335|0.5494
90991142|NCT04047121|181866729|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1664||||0.783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|3.4883|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement.) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||3.4883|0.3900|0.7830
90991143|NCT04047121|181866730|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3817|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3817
91042690|NCT00381849|181970823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired t test for supersaturation of CaOx between baseline and after 46 weeks' treatment on cystone.||||0.32
91042691|NCT00381849|181970824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired t test for supersaturation of Brushite between baseline and after 6 weeks' treatment on placebo.||||0.49
90991144|NCT04047121|181866730|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7397|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7397
90991145|NCT04047121|181866730|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7942|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7942
90991146|NCT04047121|181866730|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0682||||0.7924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6537|1.7455|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement.) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.7455|0.6537|0.7924
90991147|NCT04047121|181866730|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0414||||0.9339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3997|2.7134|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement.) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||2.7134|0.3997|0.9339
90991148|NCT04047121|181866730|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8195||||0.6497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.347|1.935|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement.) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.9350|0.3470|0.6497
90991149|NCT04047121|181866731|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7936|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7936
90991150|NCT04047121|181866731|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5621|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5621
90991151|NCT04047121|181866731|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.6800
90991152|NCT04047121|181866731|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1438||||0.5051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7705|1.6978|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement.) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.6978|0.7705|0.5051
90991153|NCT04047121|181866731|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8576||||0.7131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3781|1.9452|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement.) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.9452|0.3781|0.7131
91042692|NCT00381849|181970824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired t test for supersaturation of Brushite between baseline and after 6 weeks' treatment on cystone.||||0.64
91042693|NCT00381849|181970824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired t test for supersaturation of Brushite between six weeks' treatment on cystone and 6 weeks' treatment on placebo.||||0.72
91042694|NCT00381849|181970824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired t test for supersaturation of Brushite between baseline and after 46 weeks' treatment on cystone.||||0.84
91042695|NCT00381849|181970827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired t test for urinary cystine between baseline and after 6 weeks' treatment on placebo.||||0.69
91042696|NCT00381849|181970827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired t test for urinary cystine between baseline and after 6 weeks' treatment on cystone.||||0.25
90991154|NCT04047121|181866731|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8415||||0.649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4003|1.769|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement.) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.7690|0.4003|0.6490
90991155|NCT04047121|181866732|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5217|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5217
90991156|NCT04047121|181866732|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0432|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0432
90991157|NCT04047121|181866732|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2573|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2573
90991158|NCT04047121|181866732|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1637||||0.5368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7193|1.8827|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement.) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.8827|0.7193|0.5368
90991159|NCT04047121|181866732|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7757||||0.4685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3904|1.5413|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement.) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.5413|0.3904|0.4685
90991160|NCT04047121|181866732|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7354||||0.3112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4057|1.333|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement.) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.3330|0.4057|0.3112
90991161|NCT04047121|181866733|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8122|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.8122
90991162|NCT04047121|181866733|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7766|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.7766
90991163|NCT04047121|181866733|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8305|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.8305
90991164|NCT04047121|181866733|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5814||||0.1845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.261|1.2952|||Regression, Cox|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement.) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.2952|0.2610|0.1845
90991165|NCT04047121|181866733|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.5908||||0.2951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6671|3.7936|||Regression, Cox|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement.) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||3.7936|0.6671|0.2951
90991166|NCT04047121|181866733|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3546||||0.4907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6584|2.787|||Regression, Cox|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement.) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||2.7870|0.6584|0.4907
90991167|NCT04047121|181866734|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6006|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.6006
90991168|NCT04047121|181866734|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2941|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.2941
90991169|NCT04047121|181866734|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.961|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.9610
90991170|NCT04047121|181866734|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5571||||0.0455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.314|0.9884|||Regression, Cox|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement.) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||0.9884|0.3140|0.0455
90991171|NCT04047121|181866734|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.1781||||0.0274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0904|4.3506|||Regression, Cox|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement.) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||4.3506|1.0904|0.0274
90991172|NCT04047121|181866734|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8896||||0.6787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5114|1.5475|||Regression, Cox|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement.) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.5475|0.5114|0.6787
90991173|NCT04047121|181866735|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9084|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.9084
90991174|NCT04047121|181866735|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8325|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.8325
90991175|NCT04047121|181866735|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.963|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.9630
90991176|NCT04047121|181866735|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0508||||0.7909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7284|1.516|||Regression, Cox|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement.) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.5160|0.7284|0.7909
90991177|NCT04047121|181866735|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8117||||0.6027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.7808|||Regression, Cox|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement.) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.7808|0.3700|0.6027
90991178|NCT04047121|181866735|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1742||||0.6978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5222|2.6404|||Regression, Cox|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement.) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||2.6404|0.5222|0.6978
90991179|NCT04047121|181866736|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1736|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.1736
90991180|NCT04047121|181866736|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0195|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0195
90991181|NCT04047121|181866736|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2104|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.2104
90991182|NCT04047121|181866736|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1723||||0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9357|1.4687|||Regression, Cox|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement.) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.4687|0.9357|0.1670
91042697|NCT00381849|181970827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired t test for urinary cystine between six weeks' treatment on cystone and 6 weeks' treatment on placebo.||||0.15
90991183|NCT04047121|181866736|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7228||||0.1087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4861|1.0747|||Regression, Cox|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement.) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.0747|0.4861|0.1087
90991184|NCT04047121|181866736|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8402||||0.3212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5957|1.1852|||Regression, Cox|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement.) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.1852|0.5957|0.3212
90991185|NCT04047121|181866737|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9361|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.9361
90991186|NCT04047121|181866737|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3851|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3851
90991187|NCT04047121|181866737|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.599|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5990
90991188|NCT04047121|181866737|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9954||||0.986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5962|1.662|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement.) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.6620|0.5962|0.9860
90991189|NCT04047121|181866737|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2959||||0.5813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5158|3.2558|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement.) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||3.2558|0.5158|0.5813
90991190|NCT04047121|181866737|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8182||||0.1789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7604|4.3473|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||4.3473|0.7604|0.1789
90991191|NCT04047121|181866738|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4009|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.4009
90991192|NCT04047121|181866738|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9765|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.9765
90991193|NCT04047121|181866738|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2849|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2849
91042698|NCT00381849|181970827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired t test for urinary cystine between baseline and after 46 weeks' treatment on cystone.||||0.20
91042699|NCT00381849|181970828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Right Kidney Stone Density; P-value comparing one year to baseline||||0.85
91042700|NCT00381849|181970828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Left Kidney Stone Density; P-value comparing one year to baseline||||0.63
91042701|NCT00381849|181970828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Right Kidney Stone Density; P-value comparing one year to baseline||||0.97
91042702|NCT00381849|181970828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Left Kidney Stone Density; P-value comparing one year to baseline||||0.15
91042703|NCT00381849|181970829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Right Kidney Stone Volume; P-value comparing one year to baseline||||0.81
91042704|NCT00381849|181970829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Left Kidney Stone Volume; P-value comparing one year to baseline||||0.78
91042705|NCT00381849|181970829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Right Kidney Stone Volume; P-value comparing one year to baseline||||0.96
91042706|NCT00381849|181970829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Left Kidney Stone Volume; P-value comparing one year to baseline||||0.13
91042707|NCT02152982|181970924|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1673|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.1673
91042708|NCT02152982|181970925|OTHER|Interaction test|Cox Proportional Hazard|0.89||||0.6659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.5|||Type 3 likelihood-ratio p-value|||||1.50|0.53|0.6659
91042709|NCT02152982|181970926|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Cox Proportional Hazard|1.05||||0.3164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.29|||Stratified Log Rank|||||1.29|0.86|0.3164
91042710|NCT02152982|181970927|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7018|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7018
91042711|NCT02152982|181970928|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0003
91042712|NCT02003222|181970975|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.44||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.76|||Log Rank||hazard ratio: blinatumomab + chemotherapy vs. chemotherapy alone|||0.76|0.25|0.003
91042713|NCT02003222|181970976|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.89|||Log Rank||hazard ratio: Blinatumomab + Chemotherapy vs. Chemotherapy alone|||0.89|0.31|0.015
91042714|NCT02003222|181970977|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|2.65|||Log Rank|||||2.65|0.22|0.67
91042715|NCT02003222|181970978|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|3.63|||Log Rank|||||3.63|0.28|1.00
91042716|NCT02003222|181970979|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|2.11|||Log Rank||hazard ratio: blinatumomab + chemotherapy vs. chemotherapy alone|||2.11|0.17|0.41
91042717|NCT03302078|181971033|OTHER||Geometric Mean (T/R) ratio (%)|102.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.31|107.15|||||To get geometric mean ratio and confidence interval, least square estimates of log-transformed PK endpoint for T and R were back transformed to original scale. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variance (%) = 5.5|The analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on a logarithmic scale included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequence', 'period', and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed. No hypothesis was tested and no acceptance range was specified. This was an intra-individual assessment and actually only 12 subjects were analyzed.||107.15|98.31|
91042718|NCT03302078|181971034|OTHER||Geometric Mean (T/R) ratio (%)|79.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|69.96|89.4|||||To get geometric mean ratio and confidence interval, least square estimates of log-transformed PK endpoint for T and R were back transformed to original scale. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variance (%) = 16.0|The analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on a logarithmic scale included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequence', 'period', and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed. No hypothesis was tested and no acceptance range was specified. This was an intra-individual assessment and actually only 12 subjects were analyzed.||89.40|69.96|
91042719|NCT03302078|181971035|OTHER||Geometric Mean (T/R) ratio (%)|102.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.8|107.3|||||To get geometric mean ratio and confidence interval, least square estimates of log-transformed PK endpoint for T and R were back transformed to original scale. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variance (%) = 5.9|The analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on a logarithmic scale included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequence', 'period', and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed. No hypothesis was tested and no acceptance range was specified. This was an intra-individual assessment and actually only 12 subjects were analyzed.||107.30|97.80|
91042720|NCT01886872|181971036|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.58||(1-sided)|Log Rank|||Arm B (Ibrutinib) versus Arm A (Rituximab, Bendamustine Hydrochloride)||0.58|0.26|<0.001
91042721|NCT01886872|181971036|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.59||(1-sided)|Log Rank|||Arm C (Ibrutinib, Rituximab) versus Arm A (Rituximab, Bendamustine Hydrochloride)||0.59|0.25|<0.001
91042722|NCT01886872|181971036|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.62||(1-sided)|Log Rank|||Arm C (Ibrutinib, Rituximab) versus Arm B (Ibrutinib)||1.62|0.62|0.49
91042723|NCT01957150|181971085|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of 95 % confidence interval (CI) for the overall treatment difference change from Baseline between FF/VI and VI was greater than -1 % year|Percentage Change from Baseline|-0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|0.06|||||Treatment comparison for overall weeks|||0.06|-0.97|
91042724|NCT01957150|181971086|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of 95% CI for the overall treatment difference change from Baseline between FF/VI and VI was greater than -1 % year|Percentage Change from Baseline|-0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|0.24|||||Overall Weeks for Male|||0.24|-1.17|
91042725|NCT01957150|181971087|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of 95% CI for the overall treatment difference change from Baseline between FF/VI and VI was greater than -1 % year|Percentage Change from Baseline|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.36|||||Overall Weeks for female|||0.36|-1.16|
91042726|NCT01957150|181971088|OTHER||Percentage Change from Baseline|-1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.13|||||Overall Weeks for Male|||-0.13|-1.90|
90991194|NCT04047121|181866738|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8252||||0.5289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4538|1.5007|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.5007|0.4538|0.5289
90991195|NCT04047121|181866738|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9408||||0.927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2553|3.4678|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||3.4678|0.2553|0.9270
90991196|NCT04047121|181866738|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.3968||||0.0707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1456|1.0812|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.0812|0.1456|0.0707
90991197|NCT04047121|181866739|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2061|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2061
90991198|NCT04047121|181866739|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1908|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1908
90991199|NCT04047121|181866740|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8033|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.8033
90991200|NCT04047121|181866740|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6669|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.6669
90991201|NCT04047121|181866740|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6477|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.6477
90991202|NCT04047121|181866740|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7948||||0.5509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3736|1.6907|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.6907|0.3736|0.5509
90991203|NCT04047121|181866740|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6814||||0.6216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1486|3.125|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||3.1250|0.1486|0.6216
90991204|NCT04047121|181866740|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6974||||0.5506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2135|2.2781|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||2.2781|0.2135|0.5506
90991205|NCT04047121|181866741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.103|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1030
90991206|NCT04047121|181866741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9317|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.9317
90991207|NCT04047121|181866741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.242|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2420
90991208|NCT04047121|181866741|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7474||||0.0869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9222|3.3107|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||3.3107|0.9222|0.0869
90991209|NCT04047121|181866741|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1346||||0.8228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3757|3.4266|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||3.4266|0.3757|0.8228
90991210|NCT04047121|181866741|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.565||||0.4855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4446|5.5086|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||5.5086|0.4446|0.4855
90991211|NCT04047121|181866743|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5092|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5092
90991212|NCT04047121|181866743|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0201|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0201
90991213|NCT04047121|181866743|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2799|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2799
90991214|NCT04047121|181866743|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9021||||0.5772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6281|1.2958|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.2958|0.6281|0.5772
90991215|NCT04047121|181866743|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3953||||0.3272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7166|2.7169|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||2.7169|0.7166|0.3272
90991216|NCT04047121|181866743|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3527||||0.3011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.763|2.3983|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||2.3983|0.7630|0.3011
90991217|NCT04047121|181866744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2931|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2931
90991218|NCT04047121|181866744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3135|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3135
90991219|NCT04047121|181866744|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
90991220|NCT04047121|181866744|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8369||||0.6772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3618|1.9356|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.9356|0.3618|0.6772
90991221|NCT04047121|181866744|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.253||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9061|14.477|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||14.4770|1.9061|0.0013
90991222|NCT04047121|181866745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5217|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5217
90991223|NCT04047121|181866745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0432|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0432
90991224|NCT04047121|181866745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2573|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2573
90991225|NCT04047121|181866745|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8593||||0.5368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5311|1.3902|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.3902|0.5311|0.5368
90991226|NCT04047121|181866745|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2892||||0.4685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6488|2.5616|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||2.5616|0.6488|0.4685
90991227|NCT04047121|181866745|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3598||||0.3112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7502|2.4648|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||2.4648|0.7502|0.3112
90991228|NCT04047121|181866746|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.409|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.4090
90991229|NCT04047121|181866746|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0249|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0249
90991230|NCT04047121|181866746|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0103|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0103
90991231|NCT04047121|181866746|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1302||||0.5415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.763|1.6741|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.6741|0.7630|0.5415
90991232|NCT04047121|181866746|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0118||||0.0596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9722|4.1632|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||4.1632|0.9722|0.0596
90991233|NCT04047121|181866746|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.4823||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.793|6.7633|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||6.7633|1.7930|0.0002
90991234|NCT04047121|181866747|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2361|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2361
90991235|NCT04047121|181866747|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7474|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7474
90991236|NCT04047121|181866747|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2118|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2118
90991237|NCT04047121|181866747|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3811||||0.1978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8449|2.2576|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||2.2576|0.8449|0.1978
90991238|NCT04047121|181866747|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0614||||0.8893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4587|2.4559|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||2.4559|0.4587|0.8893
90991239|NCT04047121|181866747|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5811||||0.1553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2748|1.2286|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.2286|0.2748|0.1553
90991240|NCT04047121|181866748|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6767|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.6767
90991241|NCT04047121|181866748|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1141|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1141
90991242|NCT04047121|181866748|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1497|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1497
90991243|NCT04047121|181866748|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8556||||0.5228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5303|1.3804|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.3804|0.5303|0.5228
90991244|NCT04047121|181866748|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.5125||||0.0277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1062|5.7063|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||5.7063|1.1062|0.0277
90991245|NCT04047121|181866748|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6993||||0.324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3435|1.4236|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.4236|0.3435|0.3240
90991246|NCT04047121|181866749|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6318|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6318
90991247|NCT04047121|181866749|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3802|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3802
90991248|NCT04047121|181866749|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2424|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2424
90991249|NCT04047121|181866749|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0347||||0.1753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0155|0.0848|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||0.0848|-0.0155|0.1753
90991250|NCT04047121|181866749|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0194||||0.6114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0553|0.0941|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||0.0941|-0.0553|0.6114
90991251|NCT04047121|181866749|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0345||||0.2977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0304|0.0993|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||0.0993|-0.0304|0.2977
90991252|NCT04047121|181866750|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1473|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1473
90991253|NCT04047121|181866750|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8747|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.8747
90991254|NCT04047121|181866750|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5265|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5265
91042727|NCT01957150|181971089|OTHER||Percentage Change from Baseline|-0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.78|||||Overall Weeks for female|||0.78|-0.87|
91042728|NCT01957150|181971090|OTHER||Percentage Change from Baseline|-0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|0.1|||||Overall week|||0.10|-1.11|
91042729|NCT01856192|181971091|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Log Rank|Stratified log rank test||||||0.03
91042730|NCT00098475|181971097|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The low-dose response would be considered unacceptable if the difference in response rates was 15% or greater (the upper confidence limit exceeds the 15% acceptable difference) regardless of a decrease in toxicity rate.|Difference in response rate between arms|0.107|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.052|0.162||||||The study was designed to determine if a reduced dose of dexamethasone in combination with CC-5013 reduced toxicity rate without reducing response rate. The standard-dose response was expected to be 70%. The low dose would be deemed unacceptable if the difference in response rate between arms was \>=15%. The null hypothesis was that response rates were equal and the alternative was that the low-dose response was no worse than 55%. The design had a 1-sided 0.10 type I error rate and 95% power.||0.162|0.052|
91042731|NCT01405469|181971106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.44|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.66|<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||this pilot study was created ro evaluate sample size for the following multicenter study, based on manometric outcomes. Mean values between baseline and follow-up were compared using Student ' s t -test for paired samples. P values less then 0.05, two-sided, were considered significant.R 2.13.1(R Development Core Team (2011). Subgroups (partial vs. complete myotomy) were compared using an analysis of variance test adjusted for initial values.||||<0.001
91042732|NCT01067521|181971115|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.656|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.539|0.799||The overall significance level for this study is 5%|Negative Binomial Regression||GA 40 mg vs. placebo|"Relapses were estimated by a baseline-adjusted, Negative Binomial Regression with an offset based on the log of subject's exposure to treatment. The model included the following covariates: - Baseline EDSS score. - Log of the prior 2-year number of relapses. - Volume of T2 lesions at baseliner. - Status of Gd-enhancing T1 activity at baseline (=0 no Gd-enhancing T1 at baseline; =1 at least one Gd-enhancing T1 at baseline). - CGR."||0.799|0.539|<0.0001
91042733|NCT01067521|181971116|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.653|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.546|0.78||The overall significance level for this study is 5%|Negative binomial regression||GA 40 mg vs. placebo|Negative binomial regression||0.780|0.546|<.0001
91042734|NCT01067521|181971117|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.552|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.436|0.699||The overall significance level for this study is 5%|Negative Binomial Regression||GA 40 mg vs. placebo|||0.699|0.436|<0.0001
91042735|NCT01067521|181971118|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.061|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.2058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.154|0.033||The overall significance level for this study is 5%|ANCOVA||GA 40 mg vs Placebo|||0.033|-0.154|0.2058
91042736|NCT01067521|181971119|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.8332|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0744||0.0409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6995|0.9925||not adjusted for multiplicity|Negative Binomial Regression||Early Start vs Delayed Start|Entire Study The Negative Binomial Regression model covariates: • treatment group • PCBL (Placebo-Controlled Baseline) Kurtzke's Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score as 1 degree of freedom variable • Log of the # of relapses in the 2 years prior to PCBL • Volume of T2 lesions at PCBL • Status of Gd-enhancing T1 lesion activity at PCBL (=0 if no Gd-enhancing T1 lesions at PCBL; =1 if at least one Gd-enhancing T1 lesion at PCBL) • Country or Geographical Region (CGR)||0.9925|0.6995|0.0409
91042737|NCT01067521|181971120|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.736|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.081||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.592|0.914||not adjusted for multiplicity|Negative binomial regression||Early Start vs Delayed Start|Month 6 Negative binomial regression||0.914|0.592|0.0056
91042738|NCT01067521|181971120|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.633|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.524|0.765||not adjusted for multiplicity|Negative binomial regression||Early Start vs Delayed Start|Month 12 Negative binomial regression||0.765|0.524|<0.0001
91042739|NCT01067521|181971120|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.666|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.557|0.797||not adjusted for multiplicity|Negative binomial regression||Early Start vs Delayed Start|Month 36 Negative binomial regression||0.797|0.557|<0.0001
91042740|NCT01067521|181971121|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.556|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.093||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.773||not adjusted for multiplicity|Negative Binomial Regression||Early Start vs Delayed Start|Month 6||0.773|0.4|0.0005
91042741|NCT01067521|181971121|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.514|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.073|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.388|0.679||not adjusted for multiplicity|Negative binomial regression||Early Start vs Delayed Start|Month 12||0.679|0.388|<0.0001
91042742|NCT01067521|181971121|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.663|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.086||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.514|0.854||not adjusted for multiplicity|Negative binomial regression||Early Start vs Delayed Start|Month 36||0.854|0.514|0.0015
91042743|NCT01067521|181971122|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.084|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041||0.0425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.166|-0.003||not adjusted for multiplicity|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Early Start vs Delayed Start|Month 6||-0.003|-0.166|0.0425
91042744|NCT01067521|181971122|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.086|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.0844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.184|0.012||not adjusted for multiplicity|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Early Start vs Delayed Start|Month 12||0.012|-0.184|0.0844
91042745|NCT01067521|181971122|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.017|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.106||0.8701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.225||not adjusted for multiplicity|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Early Start vs Delayed Start|Month 36||0.225|-0.91|0.8701
91042746|NCT02413008|181971138|OTHER|The primary endpoint, the variation of FSH between week 12 and baseline and also comparing by arm will be analyzed using a non-parametric test (Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon test).||||||0.1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"The variations of the levels of FSH after treatment was studied in each women at baseline, week 3 and week12 weeks, the variation of levels between two arms were analysed using a non-parametric test Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon.~The intra individual variation (differences between the pre study determinations screening and baseline) was compared to the variation between baseline and the values obtained at every study visit."||||0.10
91042747|NCT02413008|181971138|OTHER|The primary endpoint, the variation of FSH between week 12 and baseline and also comparing by arm will be analyzed using a non-parametric test (Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon test).||||||0.413|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The variations in the intensities for each one of the symptoms and signs of the vaginal atrophy, after 3 and 12 weeks, in each treatment arm, will be compared using the non-parametric test Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon.||||0.413
91042748|NCT02413008|181971138|OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.15
91042749|NCT02413008|181971139|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Dunn Test|||Variation in serum levels of FSH at week 1||||<0.05
91042750|NCT02413008|181971139|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Dunn Test|||Variation in serum levels of FSH at week 3||||<0.05
91042751|NCT02413008|181971139|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Dunn Test|||Variation in serum levels of FSH at week 8||||>0.05
91042752|NCT02413008|181971140|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Dunn Test|||Change in serum levels of Luteinizing hormone (LH) from baseline to week 1||||>0.05
91042753|NCT02413008|181971140|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Dunn Test|||Change in serum levels of Luteinizing hormone (LH) from baseline to week 3||||>0.05
91042754|NCT02413008|181971140|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Dunn Test|||Change in serum levels of Luteinizing hormone (LH) from baseline to week 8||||>0.05
91042755|NCT02413008|181971140|OTHER|||||||0.135|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in serum levels of Luteinizing hormone (LH) from baseline to week 12||||0.135
91042756|NCT02413008|181971141|OTHER|||||||0.043|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to week 1 in plasma levels of estriol||||0.043
91042757|NCT02413008|181971141|OTHER|||||||0.649|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to week 3 in plasma levels of estriol||||0.649
90991255|NCT04047121|181866750|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.0457||||0.2522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1239|0.0325|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||0.0325|-0.1239|0.2522
90991256|NCT04047121|181866750|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0278||||0.6701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1003|0.1559|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||0.1559|-0.1003|0.6701
91042758|NCT02413008|181971141|OTHER|||||||0.588|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to week 8 in plasma levels of estriol||||0.588
91042759|NCT02413008|181971141|OTHER|||||||0.67|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to week 12 in plasma levels of estriol||||0.67
91042760|NCT02413008|181971142|OTHER|||||||0.342|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to week 1 in plasma levels of estradiol.||||0.342
91042761|NCT02413008|181971142|OTHER|||||||0.523|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to week 3 in plasma levels of estradiol.||||0.523
91042762|NCT02413008|181971142|OTHER|||||||0.523|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in plasma levels of estradiol from baseline to week 8||||0.523
90991257|NCT04047121|181866750|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.1693||||0.1017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0334|0.372|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||0.3720|-0.0334|0.1017
90991258|NCT04047121|181866751|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2246|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2246
90991259|NCT04047121|181866751|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2101|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2101
90991260|NCT04047121|181866751|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0030
90991261|NCT04047121|181866751|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.414||||0.3324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4231|1.2511|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.2511|-0.4231|0.3324
90991262|NCT04047121|181866751|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1712||||0.1367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3713|2.7138|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||2.7138|-0.3713|0.1367
91042763|NCT02413008|181971142|OTHER|||||||0.163|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in plasma levels of estradiol from baseline to week 12||||0.163
91042764|NCT02413008|181971143|OTHER|||||||0.418|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in plasma levels of estrona from baseline to week 1||||0.418
91042765|NCT02413008|181971143|OTHER|||||||0.642|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in plasma levels of estrona from baseline to week 3||||0.642
90991263|NCT04047121|181866751|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8099||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6219|2.9978|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||2.9978|0.6219|0.0028
91042766|NCT02413008|181971143|OTHER|||||||0.175|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in plasma levels of estrona from baseline to week 8||||0.175
91042767|NCT02413008|181971143|OTHER|||||||0.084|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in plasma levels of estrona from baseline to week 12||||0.084
91042768|NCT02413008|181971144|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in pH between baseline and week 3||||<0.01
91042769|NCT02413008|181971144|OTHER|||||||0.057|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in pH between baseline and week 12||||0.057
91042770|NCT02413008|181971145|OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Changes in dyspareunia from baseline to week 3||||0.14
91042771|NCT02413008|181971145|OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Changes in dyspareunia from baseline to week 12||||0.25
91042772|NCT02413008|181971146|OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to week 3||||0.28
91042773|NCT02413008|181971146|OTHER|||||||0.34|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to week 12||||0.34
91042774|NCT02413008|181971147|OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Changes in vaginal dryness from baseline to week 3||||0.14
91042775|NCT02413008|181971147|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Changes in vaginal dryness from baseline to week 12||||<0.01
91042776|NCT02413008|181971148|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Changes in total score of symptoms of vaginal atrophy from baseline to week 3||||0.03
91042777|NCT02413008|181971148|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Changes in total score of symptoms of vaginal atrophy from baseline to week 12||||0.04
91042778|NCT02413008|181971149|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Changes in dryness of the mucosa between baseline and week 3||||<0.001
91042779|NCT02413008|181971149|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Changes in dryness of the mucosa betweeen baseline and week 12||||<0.01
91042780|NCT02413008|181971150|OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Changes in dryness of the mucosa between baseline and week 3||||0.13
91042781|NCT02413008|181971150|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Changes in dryness of the mucosa between baseline and week 12||||<0.01
91042782|NCT02413008|181971151|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to week 3||||<0.001
90991264|NCT04047121|181866752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2667|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2667
91042783|NCT02413008|181971151|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to week 12||||<0.001
91042784|NCT02413008|181971152|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in total score of signs between week 3 and baseline||||<0.001
91042785|NCT02413008|181971152|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in total score of signs between week 12 and baseline||||<0.001
91042786|NCT02413008|181971153|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in maturation value from baseline to week 3||||<0.0001
90991265|NCT04047121|181866752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.657|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6570
90991266|NCT04047121|181866752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5403|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5403
90991267|NCT04047121|181866752|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9159||||0.1167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2283|2.06|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||2.0600|-0.2283|0.1167
90991268|NCT04047121|181866752|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.0336||||0.9722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9238|1.8567|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.8567|-1.9238|0.9722
90991269|NCT04047121|181866752|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.2064||||0.8455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8689|2.2817|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||2.2817|-1.8689|0.8455
91042787|NCT02413008|181971153|OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in maturation value from baseline to week 12||||0.006
91042788|NCT03538262|181971167|OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 12||||0.006
91042789|NCT03538262|181971167|OTHER|Statistical analysis for BL to Month 24|||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91042790|NCT03538262|181971168|OTHER|||||||0.011|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 12||||0.011
91042791|NCT03538262|181971168|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 24||||<0.001
91042792|NCT03538262|181971169|OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 3||||0.007
90991270|NCT04047121|181866753|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3142|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3142
90991271|NCT04047121|181866753|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2465|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2465
90991272|NCT04047121|181866753|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5933|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5933
90991273|NCT04047121|181866753|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.0089||||0.7815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0716|0.0538|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||0.0538|-0.0716|0.7815
90991274|NCT04047121|181866753|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0337||||0.4446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0528|0.1202|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||0.1202|-0.0528|0.4446
91042793|NCT03538262|181971169|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 6||||<0.001
91042794|NCT03538262|181971169|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 9||||0.004
91042795|NCT03538262|181971169|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 12||||<0.001
91042796|NCT03538262|181971169|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 15||||<0.001
91042797|NCT03538262|181971169|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 18||||<0.001
91042798|NCT03538262|181971169|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 21||||<0.001
91042799|NCT03538262|181971169|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 24||||<0.001
91042800|NCT03538262|181971170|OTHER|||||||0.996|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 6||||0.996
91042801|NCT03538262|181971170|OTHER|||||||0.054|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 12||||0.054
91042802|NCT03538262|181971170|OTHER|||||||0.025|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 18||||0.025
91042803|NCT03538262|181971170|OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 24||||0.006
91042804|NCT03538262|181971171|OTHER|||||||0.145|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 12||||0.145
91042805|NCT03538262|181971171|OTHER|||||||0.029|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 24||||0.029
91042806|NCT03538262|181971172|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 12||||<.001
91042807|NCT03538262|181971172|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 24||||<0.001
91042808|NCT03538262|181971173|OTHER|||||||0.382|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 12||||0.382
91042809|NCT03538262|181971173|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 24||||<0.001
91042810|NCT03538262|181971174|OTHER|||||||0.688|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Secondary analysis for BL to Month 12||||0.688
91042811|NCT03538262|181971174|OTHER|||||||0.293|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Secondary analysis for BL to Month 24||||0.293
91042812|NCT03538262|181971175|OTHER|||||||0.446|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 12||||0.446
91042813|NCT03538262|181971175|OTHER|||||||0.565|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 24||||0.565
91042814|NCT03538262|181971176|OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 12||||0.006
91042815|NCT03538262|181971176|OTHER|||||||0.937|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 24||||0.937
91042816|NCT03538262|181971177|OTHER|||||||0.041|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 3||||0.041
90991275|NCT04047121|181866753|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.0333||||0.4733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1243|0.0577|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||0.0577|-0.1243|0.4733
90991276|NCT04047121|181866754|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0658|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0658
90991277|NCT04047121|181866754|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3785|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3785
90991278|NCT04047121|181866754|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6202|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6202
90991279|NCT04047121|181866754|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.0425||||0.2523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1154|0.0303|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||0.0303|-0.1154|0.2523
90991280|NCT04047121|181866754|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.0388||||0.4068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1305|0.0529|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||0.0529|-0.1305|0.4068
90991281|NCT04047121|181866754|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0706||||0.5858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1833|0.3244|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||0.3244|-0.1833|0.5858
90991282|NCT04047121|181866755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3832|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3832
90991283|NCT04047121|181866755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4631|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4631
90991284|NCT04047121|181866755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6202|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6202
90991285|NCT04047121|181866755|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.5353||||0.3158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5812|0.5107|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||0.5107|-1.5812|0.3158
90991286|NCT04047121|181866755|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3543||||0.1016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2669|2.9755|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||2.9755|-0.2669|0.1016
90991287|NCT04047121|181866755|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8677||||0.2576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6347|2.37|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||2.3700|-0.6347|0.2576
90991288|NCT04047121|181866756|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3107|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3107
90991289|NCT04047121|181866756|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3735|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3735
90991290|NCT04047121|181866756|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3863|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3863
90991291|NCT04047121|181866756|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-1.0337||||0.1918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5858|0.5184|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||0.5184|-2.5858|0.1918
90991292|NCT04047121|181866756|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.9749||||0.4281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3864|1.4366|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.4366|-3.3864|0.4281
90991293|NCT04047121|181866756|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-1.8599||||0.1014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0854|0.3657|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||0.3657|-4.0854|0.1014
90991294|NCT04047121|181866757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4555|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4555
90991295|NCT04047121|181866757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7164|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7164
90991296|NCT04047121|181866757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2456|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2456
90991297|NCT04047121|181866757|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0568||||0.0962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0101|0.1238|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||0.1238|-0.0101|0.0962
90991298|NCT04047121|181866757|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.0432||||0.3844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1405|0.0541|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||0.0541|-0.1405|0.3844
90991299|NCT04047121|181866757|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0233||||0.5899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0615|0.1082|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||0.1082|-0.0615|0.5899
90991300|NCT04047121|181866758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4133|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4133
90991301|NCT04047121|181866758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7171|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7171
90991302|NCT04047121|181866758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8609|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.8609
90991303|NCT04047121|181866758|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.0445||||0.6224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2218|0.1327|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||0.1327|-0.2218|0.6224
90991304|NCT04047121|181866758|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.0884||||0.5655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.2132|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||0.2132|-0.3900|0.5655
90991305|NCT04047121|181866758|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.1809||||0.4044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2444|0.6062|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||0.6062|-0.2444|0.4044
90991306|NCT04047121|181866759|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0104|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0104
91042817|NCT03538262|181971177|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 6||||<0.001
90991307|NCT04047121|181866759|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5949|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5949
90991308|NCT04047121|181866759|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0801|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0801
90991309|NCT04047121|181866759|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-3.7075||||0.0072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.411|-1.004|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||-1.0040|-6.4110|0.0072
90991310|NCT04047121|181866759|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-1.4296||||0.5406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.008|3.1489|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||3.1489|-6.0080|0.5406
90991311|NCT04047121|181866759|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.3527||||0.8603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.279|3.5737|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||3.5737|-4.2790|0.8603
90991312|NCT04047121|181866760|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6344|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6344
90991313|NCT04047121|181866760|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3037|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3037
90991314|NCT04047121|181866760|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1344|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1344
90991315|NCT04047121|181866760|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2586||||0.5092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4787|4.9958|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||4.9958|-2.4787|0.5092
90991316|NCT04047121|181866760|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.7696||||0.8047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8683|5.3292|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||5.3292|-6.8683|0.8047
90991317|NCT04047121|181866760|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.094||||0.9757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9628|6.1507|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||6.1507|-5.9628|0.9757
90991318|NCT04047121|181866761|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0839|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0839
90991319|NCT04047121|181866761|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9577|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9577
90991320|NCT04047121|181866761|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9497|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9497
90991321|NCT04047121|181866761|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.031||||0.4873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1185|0.0565|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||0.0565|-0.1185|0.4873
90991322|NCT04047121|181866761|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.0312||||0.678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1783|0.1159|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||0.1159|-0.1783|0.6780
90991323|NCT04047121|181866761|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0099||||0.9327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2207|0.2406|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||0.2406|-0.2207|0.9327
90991324|NCT04047121|181866762|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0021|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0021
90991325|NCT04047121|181866762|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5396|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5396
90991326|NCT04047121|181866762|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6121|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6121
91042818|NCT03538262|181971177|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 9||||<0.001
91042819|NCT03538262|181971177|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 12||||<0.001
91042820|NCT03538262|181971177|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 15||||<0.001
91042821|NCT03538262|181971177|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 18||||<0.001
90991327|NCT04047121|181866762|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.1895||||0.0303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.361|-0.0181|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||-0.0181|-0.3610|0.0303
90991328|NCT04047121|181866762|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.1901||||0.1807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4685|0.0883|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||0.0883|-0.4685|0.1807
90991329|NCT04047121|181866762|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.1594||||0.7445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7991|1.1178|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.1178|-0.7991|0.7445
90991330|NCT04047121|181866763|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0035|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0035
91042822|NCT03538262|181971177|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 21||||<0.001
91042823|NCT03538262|181971177|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 24||||<0.001
90991331|NCT04047121|181866763|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.504|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5040
90991332|NCT04047121|181866763|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1366|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1366
90991333|NCT04047121|181866763|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-3.4084||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2497|0.433|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||0.4330|-7.2497|0.0820
90991334|NCT04047121|181866763|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-1.5342||||0.5845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0336|3.9652|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||3.9652|-7.0336|0.5845
90991335|NCT04047121|181866763|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.987||||0.7284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.583|6.557|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||6.5570|-4.5830|0.7284
90991336|NCT04047121|181866764|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1125|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1125
90991337|NCT04047121|181866764|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7156|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7156
90991338|NCT04047121|181866764|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2056|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2056
90991339|NCT04047121|181866764|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-1.8061||||0.4288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2797|2.6675|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||2.6675|-6.2797|0.4288
90991340|NCT04047121|181866764|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-1.6946||||0.6303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5962|5.2069|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||5.2069|-8.5962|0.6303
90991341|NCT04047121|181866764|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.9873||||0.7477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0028|5.0281|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||5.0281|-7.0028|0.7477
90991342|NCT04047121|181866765|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3919|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3919
90991343|NCT04047121|181866765|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90991344|NCT04047121|181866765|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0193|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0193
90991345|NCT04047121|181866765|SUPERIORITY||Cost Ratio|1.2232||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.994|1.5053|||Regression, Linear||Since health care costs were skewed, hence estimated cost was modeled using a generalized linear model (GLM). Coefficients from a generalized linear model were estimated as cost ratios.|To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.5053|0.9940|0.0570
90991346|NCT04047121|181866765|SUPERIORITY||Cost Ratio|1.8479|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4378|2.3749|||Regression, Linear||Since health care costs were skewed, hence estimated cost was modeled using a GLM. Coefficients from a generalized linear model were estimated as cost ratios.|To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||2.3749|1.4378|<0.0001
90991347|NCT04047121|181866765|SUPERIORITY||Cost Ratio|1.1868||||0.0924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9722|1.4487|||Regression, Linear||Since health care costs were skewed, hence estimated cost was modeled using a GLM. Coefficients from a generalized linear model were estimated as cost ratios.|To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.4487|0.9722|0.0924
90991348|NCT04047121|181866766|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6184|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6184
90991349|NCT04047121|181866766|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1952|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1952
90991350|NCT04047121|181866766|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1638|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1638
91042824|NCT03538262|181971178|OTHER|||||||0.595|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 6||||0.595
91042825|NCT03538262|181971178|OTHER|||||||0.44|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 12||||0.440
91042826|NCT03538262|181971178|OTHER|||||||0.909|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 18||||0.909
91042827|NCT03538262|181971178|OTHER|||||||0.068|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 24||||0.068
91042828|NCT03538262|181971179|OTHER|||||||0.074|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 3||||0.074
91042829|NCT03538262|181971179|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 6||||<0.001
91042830|NCT03538262|181971179|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 9||||<0.001
91042831|NCT03538262|181971179|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 12||||<0.001
91042832|NCT03538262|181971179|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 15||||<0.001
90991351|NCT04047121|181866766|SUPERIORITY||Cost Ratio|0.9773||||0.6732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8782|1.0875|||Regression, Linear||Since health care costs were skewed, hence estimated cost was modeled using a GLM. Coefficients from a generalized linear model were estimated as cost ratios.|To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.0875|0.8782|0.6732
90991352|NCT04047121|181866766|SUPERIORITY||Cost Ratio|0.9629||||0.6345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.824|1.1253|||Regression, Linear||Since health care costs were skewed, hence estimated cost was modeled using a GLM. Coefficients from a generalized linear model were estimated as cost ratios.|To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.1253|0.8240|0.6345
90991353|NCT04047121|181866766|SUPERIORITY||Cost Ratio|0.8327||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.738|0.9395|||Regression, Linear||Since health care costs were skewed, hence estimated cost was modeled using a GLM. Coefficients from a generalized linear model were estimated as cost ratios.|To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||0.9395|0.7380|0.0029
90991354|NCT04047121|181866767|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3087|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3087
90991355|NCT04047121|181866767|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0003
90991356|NCT04047121|181866767|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0647|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0647
90991357|NCT04047121|181866767|SUPERIORITY||Cost Ratio|0.9762||||0.7684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8316|1.146|||Regression, Linear||Since health care costs were skewed, hence estimated cost was modeled using a GLM. Coefficients from a generalized linear model were estimated as cost ratios.|To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.1460|0.8316|0.7684
90991358|NCT04047121|181866767|SUPERIORITY||Cost Ratio|1.3862||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1379|1.6886|||Regression, Linear||Since health care costs were skewed, hence estimated cost was modeled using a GLM. Coefficients from a generalized linear model were estimated as cost ratios.|To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.6886|1.1379|0.0012
90991359|NCT04047121|181866767|SUPERIORITY||Cost Ratio|1.0065||||0.9422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8452|1.1985|||Regression, Linear||Since health care costs were skewed, hence estimated cost was modeled using a GLM. Coefficients from a generalized linear model were estimated as cost ratios.|To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.1985|0.8452|0.9422
90991360|NCT04047121|181866768|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0421|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0421
90991361|NCT04047121|181866768|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8137|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.8137
90991362|NCT04047121|181866768|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9416|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9416
90991363|NCT04047121|181866768|SUPERIORITY||Cost Ratio|0.9515||||0.319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8628|1.0493|||Regression, Linear||Since health care costs were skewed, hence estimated cost was modeled using a GLM. Coefficients from a generalized linear model were estimated as cost ratios.|To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.0493|0.8628|0.3190
90991364|NCT04047121|181866768|SUPERIORITY||Cost Ratio|0.8991||||0.1368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7815|1.0343|||Regression, Linear||Since health care costs were skewed, hence estimated cost was modeled using a GLM. Coefficients from a generalized linear model were estimated as cost ratios.|To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.0343|0.7815|0.1368
90991365|NCT04047121|181866768|SUPERIORITY||Cost Ratio|0.8514||||0.0231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7411|0.9782|||Regression, Linear||Since health care costs were skewed, hence estimated cost was modeled using a GLM. Coefficients from a generalized linear model were estimated as cost ratios.|To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||0.9782|0.7411|0.0231
90991366|NCT02604810|181866774|NON_INFERIORITY|Method of estimation = least-squares means based on analysis of variance (ANOVA) with a mixed-effect model. The lower bound of the 90% confidence interval (CI) for the geometric LSM ratio (SC/IV) of the primary PK endpoint of steady state AUC0-7 days for the PK population should be above 0.80.|Geometric least-squares mean ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.07||||||||1.07|1.00|
90991367|NCT02891798|181866782|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of SF-MPQ2 Total Score Difference From Baseline between the 4-drug nerve block group and the bupivacaine only group||||0.003
90991368|NCT02891798|181866783|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of SF-MPQ2 Continuous Pain Subscore Difference From Baseline between the 4-drug nerve block group and the bupivacaine only group||||0.001
90991369|NCT02891798|181866784|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of SF-MPQ2 Intermittent Pain Subscore Difference From Baseline between the 4-drug nerve block group and the bupivacaine only group||||0.038
90991370|NCT02891798|181866785|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of QoR-15 Total Score at post-operative day 1 between the 4-drug nerve block group and the bupivacaine only group||||0.009
90991371|NCT02891798|181866786|NON_INFERIORITY|Testing the null hypothesis that Bupivacaine + BCD (buprenorphine, clonidine, dexamethasone) does not adversely affect recovery by producing a significantly lower score for the QoR-15 Total Score.||||||0.861|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of QoR-15 Total Score at 6 week post-procedure between the 4-drug nerve block group and the bupivacaine only group||||0.861
91042833|NCT03538262|181971179|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 18||||<0.001
91042834|NCT03538262|181971179|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 21||||<0.001
90991372|NCT02891798|181866787|NON_INFERIORITY|Testing the null hypothesis that Bupivacaine + BCD (buprenorphine, clonidine, dexamethasone) does not adversely affect recovery by producing a significantly lower score for the Standing Balance test.||||||0.512|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Standing Balance Test score at 6 week post-procedure between the 4-drug nerve block group and the bupivacaine only group||||0.512
90991373|NCT02891798|181866788|NON_INFERIORITY|Testing the null hypothesis that Bupivacaine + BCD (buprenorphine, clonidine, dexamethasone) does not adversely affect recovery by producing a significantly slower rate for the Self-Selected Gait Speed test.||||||0.339|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Self-Selected Gait Speed rate at 6 week post-procedure between the 4-drug nerve block group and the bupivacaine only group.||||0.339
90991374|NCT02891798|181866789|NON_INFERIORITY|Testing the null hypothesis that Bupivacaine + BCD (buprenorphine, clonidine, dexamethasone) does not adversely affect recovery by producing a significantly slower time for the Repeated Chair Stand test.||||||0.711|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Repeated Chair Stand time at 6 week post-procedure between the 4-drug nerve block group and the bupivacaine only group.||||0.711
90991375|NCT00762372|181866816|NON_INFERIORITY|Time to extubation = treatment group + surgical site +surgery time|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|-2.7||||||||-2.7|-6.6|
90991376|NCT00762372|181866817|NON_INFERIORITY|"Adjusted means of time from the end of study drug inhalation to extubation in the BLM-240 N2O group and sevoflurane group, which were obtained by analysis of covariance with surgical site and surgery time as covariates, were used to verify the non-inferiority of BLM-240 to the comparator sevoflurane, with a delta = 1.0 (minute) and significance level alpha = 2.5% (one-sided)."||||||0.15|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1500
90991377|NCT00762372|181866818|NON_INFERIORITY|Two-sample t-test||||||0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0001
90991378|NCT00762372|181866822|NON_INFERIORITY|Fisher's exact test||||||0.3113|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.3113
90991379|NCT00762372|181866824|NON_INFERIORITY|Fisher's exact test||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
90991380|NCT00833248|181866884|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was to be established if the treatment difference in adjusted (for baseline volume, and baseline total IPSS) mean percentage reduction was significantly greater (two-sided at α=0.05 level) than Δ = 10 points (non-inferiority margin) in both the FAS and PP analyses sets.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.8942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.74|4.14|||ANCOVA|The baseline IPSS and baseline Prostate volume were used as covariates and treatment was used as a factor in the analysis.||FAS. Estimates from analysis of variance with treatment as factors and baseline IPSS and baseline Prostate volume as covariates.||4.14|-4.74|0.8942
90991381|NCT00833248|181866885|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was to be established if the treatment difference in adjusted (for baseline volume, and baseline total IPSS) mean percentage reduction was significantly greater (two-sided at α=0.05 level) than Δ = 10 points (non-inferiority margin) in both the FAS and PP analyses sets.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.268||||0.9123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.05|4.52|||ANCOVA|The baseline IPSS and baseline Prostate volume were used as covariates and treatment was used as a factor in the analysis.||PP analysis set. Estimates from analysis of variance with treatment as factors and baseline IPSS and baseline Prostate volume as covariates.||4.52|-5.05|0.9123
91042835|NCT03538262|181971179|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 24||||<0.001
90991382|NCT01830543|181866893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.76|||Log Rank|||||0.76|0.47|<0.001
91042836|NCT03538262|181971180|OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 3||||0.200
90991383|NCT01830543|181866893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.8|||Log Rank|||||0.8|0.5|<0.001
90991384|NCT01830543|181866894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.31|||Log Rank|||||1.31|0.33|0.234
90991385|NCT01830543|181866894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.16|||Log Rank|||||1.16|0.28|0.114
91042837|NCT03538262|181971180|OTHER|||||||0.888|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 6||||0.888
90991386|NCT01830543|181866895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51||||0.144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.28|||Log Rank|||||1.28|0.2|0.144
90991387|NCT01830543|181866895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.26|||Log Rank|||||1.26|0.2|0.134
90991388|NCT01830543|181866896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.8|||Log Rank|||||0.8|0.47|<0.001
90991389|NCT01830543|181866896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.86|||Log Rank|||||0.86|0.52|0.002
90991390|NCT01830543|181866897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.68|||Log Rank|||||1.68|0.69|0.75
90991391|NCT01830543|181866897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.48|||Log Rank|||||1.48|0.59|0.765
90991392|NCT01830543|181866898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.29||||0.523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.8|||Log Rank|||||2.8|0.59|0.523
90991393|NCT01830543|181866898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19||||0.664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|2.62|||Log Rank|||||2.62|0.54|0.664
90991394|NCT01830543|181866899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.59|||Log Rank|||||1.59|0.46|0.625
90991395|NCT01830543|181866899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.42|||Log Rank|||||1.42|0.4|0.374
90991396|NCT01830543|181866900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|2.96|||Log Rank|||||2.96|0.39|0.891
90991397|NCT01830543|181866900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.36||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|3.58|||Log Rank|||||3.58|0.52|0.53
91042838|NCT03538262|181971180|OTHER|||||||0.837|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 9||||0.837
91042839|NCT03538262|181971180|OTHER|||||||0.394|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 12||||0.394
91042840|NCT03538262|181971180|OTHER|||||||0.268|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 15||||0.268
91042841|NCT03538262|181971180|OTHER|||||||0.039|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 18||||0.039
91042842|NCT03538262|181971180|OTHER|||||||0.979|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 21||||0.979
91042843|NCT03538262|181971180|OTHER|||||||0.014|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 24||||0.014
90991398|NCT01830543|181866901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|4.45|||Log Rank|||||4.45|0.32|0.79
90991399|NCT01830543|181866901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.44||||0.574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|5.09|||Log Rank|||||5.09|0.4|0.574
90991400|NCT01728584|181866931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares (LS) Means|1.09||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|2.04|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model included factors depth of NMB, level of pressure, surgeon and body mass index (BMI)|Difference is deep versus standard NMB|Primary hypothesis - deep NMB improves surgeon's overall satisfaction with the surgical conditions compared to standard NMB||2.04|0.13|0.026
90991401|NCT01728584|181866931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-3.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.99|-2.05|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included factors depth of NMB, level of pressure, surgeon and BMI|Difference is low versus standard pressure|||-2.05|-3.99|<0.001
90991402|NCT01728584|181866932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares (LS) Means|3.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|5.02|||||Difference is standard NMB/standard pressure versus standard NMB/low pressure|ANCOVA model included factors depth of NMB, level of pressure, surgeon and BMI||5.02|2.30|
90991403|NCT01728584|181866932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.91|||||Difference is standard NMB/standard pressure versus deep NMB/standard pressure|ANCOVA model included factors depth of NMB, level of pressure, surgeon and BMI||0.91|-1.80|
90991404|NCT01728584|181866932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|3.36|||||Difference is standard NMB/standard pressure versus deep NMB/low pressure|ANCOVA model included factors depth of NMB, level of pressure, surgeon and BMI||3.36|0.57|
90991405|NCT01728584|181866932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.42|-2.78|||||Difference is standard NMB/low pressure versus deep NMB/standard pressure|ANCOVA model included factors depth of NMB, level of pressure, surgeon and BMI||-2.78|-5.42|
90991406|NCT01728584|181866932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.01|-0.38|||||Difference is standard NMB/low pressure versus deep NMB/low pressure|ANCOVA model included factors depth of NMB, level of pressure, surgeon and BMI||-0.38|-3.01|
90991407|NCT01728584|181866932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|2.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|3.74|||||Difference is deep NMB/standard pressure versus deep NMB/low pressure|ANCOVA model included factors depth of NMB, level of pressure, surgeon and BMI||3.74|1.08|
90991408|NCT01728584|181866933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.35||||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.84|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model included factors depth of NMB, level of pressure, gender and surgeon|Difference is deep versus standard NMB|||0.84|-0.13|0.148
90991409|NCT01728584|181866933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.17||||0.494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.33||To control for multiple testing, this difference was formally tested only if comparison of surgeon's overall satisfaction with surgical conditions for deep versus standard NMB was significant at the 5% level, with greater satisfaction for deep NMB.|ANOVA|ANOVA model included factors depth of NMB, level of pressure, gender and surgeon|Difference is low versus standard pressure|Key secondary hypothesis - low insufflation pressure improves overall average pain score in first 24 hours compared to standard insufflation pressure||0.33|-0.67|0.494
91042844|NCT03538262|181971181|OTHER|||||||0.285|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 3||||0.285
90991410|NCT01728584|181866934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.52|||||Difference is standard NMB/standard pressure versus standard NMB/low pressure|ANOVA model included factors treatment group, gender and surgeon||0.52|-0.92|
90991411|NCT01728584|181866934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|-0.02|||||Difference is standard NMB/standard pressure versus deep NMB/standard pressure|ANOVA model included factors treatment group, gender and surgeon||-0.02|-1.27|
90991412|NCT01728584|181866934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.53|||||Difference is standard NMB/standard pressure versus deep NMB/low pressure|ANOVA model included factors treatment group, gender and surgeon||0.53|-0.84|
91042845|NCT03538262|181971181|OTHER|||||||0.267|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 9||||0.267
90991413|NCT01728584|181866934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|0.26|||||Difference is standard NMB/low pressure versus deep NMB/standard pressure|ANOVA model included factors treatment group, gender and surgeon||0.26|-1.15|
90991414|NCT01728584|181866934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.78|||||Difference is standard NMB/low pressure versus deep NMB/low pressure|ANOVA model included factors treatment group, gender and surgeon||0.78|-0.69|
90991415|NCT01728584|181866934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|1.16|||||Difference is deep NMB/standard pressure versus deep NMB/low pressure|ANOVA model included factors treatment group, gender and surgeon||1.16|-0.17|
90991416|NCT01728584|181866935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.91||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|1.87||Not controlled for multiple testing|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included factors depth of NMB, level of pressure, surgeon and BMI|Difference is deep versus standard NMB|||1.87|-0.05|0.063
90991417|NCT01728584|181866936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.82||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.37||Not controlled for multiple testing|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included factors depth of NMB, level of pressure, surgeon and BMI|Difference is deep versus standard NMB|||1.37|0.27|0.004
90991418|NCT01728584|181866937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.12||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.92||Not controlled for multiple testing|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included factors depth of NMB, level of pressure, surgeon and BMI|Difference is deep versus standard NMB|||1.92|0.32|0.006
91042846|NCT03538262|181971181|OTHER|||||||0.564|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 15||||0.564
91042847|NCT03538262|181971181|OTHER|||||||0.034|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 21||||0.034
91042848|NCT03538262|181971182|OTHER|||||||0.409|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 12||||0.409
91042849|NCT03538262|181971182|OTHER|||||||0.149|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 0.149||||0.149
90991419|NCT01728584|181866938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.61||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|0.06||Not controlled for multiple testing|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included factors depth of NMB, level of pressure, surgeon and BMI|Difference is deep versus standard NMB|||0.06|-1.27|0.073
90991420|NCT01728584|181866939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.74||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.28||Not controlled for multiple testing|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included factors depth of NMB, level of pressure, surgeon and BMI|Difference is deep versus standard NMB|||1.28|0.19|0.009
90991421|NCT02190747|181867002|OTHER|||||||0.1664|||||||Cochran-Armitage test of trend|||Cochran-Armitage test of trend (one-sided). The Cochran-Armitage test of trend assessed the overall trend of response across the dose groups (from the lowest dose \[or placebo\], to the highest dose).||||0.1664
90991422|NCT02190747|181867003|OTHER|||||||0.2335|||||||Cochran-Armitage test of trend|||Week 6: Cochran-Armitage test of trend (one-sided). The Cochran-Armitage test of trend assessed the overall trend of response across the dose groups (from the lowest dose \[or placebo\], to the highest dose).||||0.2335
90991423|NCT02190747|181867003|OTHER|||||||0.0837|||||||Cochran-Armitage test of trend|||Week 12: Cochran-Armitage test of trend (one-sided). The Cochran-Armitage test of trend assessed the overall trend of response across the dose groups (from the lowest dose \[or placebo\], to the highest dose).||||0.0837
90991424|NCT02190747|181867004|OTHER||Least square (LS) mean|-86.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|220.57||0.6984|TWO_SIDED||||||Pairwise test|||Week 6: Analysis of area of new HO||||0.6984
90991425|NCT02190747|181867004|OTHER||LS mean|-38.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|252.192||0.8811|TWO_SIDED||||||Pairwise test|||Week 6: Analysis of area of new HO||||0.8811
90991426|NCT02190747|181867004|OTHER||LS mean|-764.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|220.57||0.0017|TWO_SIDED||||||Pairwise test|||Week 12: Analysis of area of new HO||||0.0017
90991427|NCT02190747|181867004|OTHER||LS mean|-703.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|252.192||0.0094|TWO_SIDED||||||Pairwise test|||Week 12: Analysis of area of new HO||||0.0094
90991428|NCT02190747|181867005|OTHER|||||||0.1503|||||||Cochran-Armitage test of trend|||Cochran-Armitage test of trend (one-sided). The Cochran-Armitage test of trend assessed the overall trend of response across the dose groups (from the lowest dose \[or placebo\], to the highest dose).||||0.1503
90991429|NCT04322994|181867029|OTHER|||||||0.18||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Chi-squared|Chi-squared test of independence||Analysis of between-group difference for participants with any desaturation event.||||0.18
90991430|NCT04322994|181867029|OTHER|||||||0.26||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Chi-squared|Chi-squared test of independence||Analysis of between-group difference for participants with 1 desaturation event versus 2 or more events.||||0.26
90991431|NCT04322994|181867030|OTHER|||||||0.26||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Chi-squared|Chi-squared test of independence||Analysis of between-group difference for participants with at any qualifying desaturation event.||||0.26
90991432|NCT04322994|181867030|OTHER|||||||0.08||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Chi-squared|Chi-squared test of independence||Analysis of between-group difference for participants with 1 qualifying desaturation event versus 2 or more qualifying events.||||0.08
90991433|NCT04322994|181867031|OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||Chi-squared|||Analysis of between-group difference for participants with any qualifying event.||||0.28
90991434|NCT04322994|181867031|OTHER|||||||0.38||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Chi-squared|||Analysis of between-group difference for participants with 1 qualifying event versus 2 or more events.||||0.38
90991435|NCT04322994|181867032|OTHER|||||||0.88||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of between-group difference for participants with at any qualifying desaturation event.||||0.88
90991436|NCT04322994|181867033|OTHER|||||||0.14||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Chi-squared, Corrected|Chi-squared test of independence||Analysis of between-group difference for participants with any surgical interruption.||||0.14
90991437|NCT04322994|181867033|OTHER|||||||0.21||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Chi-squared|Chi-squared test of independence||Analysis of between-group difference for participants with 1 surgical interruption versus 2 or more interruptions.||||0.21
90991438|NCT02345252|181867042|NON_INFERIORITY|A sample size of 275 HIV-1 infected participants per treatment group would provide 85% power to detect a noninferiority margin of 8% in the Week 48 response rate difference between the FTC/RPV/TAF group and FTC/RPV/TDF group. For sample size and power computation, it is assumed that both treatment groups will have a response rate of 89% (based on Gilead Study GS-US-292-0109), that a noninferiority margin is 8%, and that the significance level of the test is at a one-sided alpha level of 0.025.|Difference in Percentages|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.001|-4.2|3.7|||||The difference in percentages and its 95.001% confidence interval (CI) were calculated based on an unconditional exact method using 2 inverted 1-sided tests.|The null hypothesis was that the percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL at Week 48 in the FTC/RPV/TAF group was at least 8% lower than the rate in the FTC/RPV/TDF group; the alternative hypothesis was that the percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL in the FTC/RPV/TAF group was less than 8% lower than that in the FTC/RPV/TDF group.||3.7|-4.2|
90991439|NCT02345252|181867042|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
90991440|NCT02336594|181867055|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size is not based on formal power calculations, as this study is designed only to provide an initial assessment of the Pharmacokinetics (PK), Pharmacodynamics (PD), and safety profile of RDEA3170.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|107.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.2|120.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed PK parameters Cmax, AUClast, and AUC∞ with fixed effect for treatment.||||120|95.2|
90991441|NCT02336594|181867057|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size is not based on formal power calculations, as this study is designed only to provide an initial assessment of the PK, PD, and safety profile of RDEA3170.|Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio (%)|97.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.6|111.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed PK parameters Cmax, AUClast, and AUC∞ with fixed effect for treatment.||||111|85.6|
90991442|NCT02336594|181867058|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size is not based on formal power calculations, as this study is designed only to provide an initial assessment of the PK, PD, and safety profile of RDEA3170.|Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio (%)|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.3|115.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed PK parameters Cmax, AUClast, and AUC∞ with fixed effect for treatment.||||115|87.3|
90991443|NCT02336594|181867060|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size is not based on formal power calculations, as this study is designed only to provide an initial assessment of the PK, PD, and safety profile of RDEA3170.|Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio (%)|182.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|144.0|230.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed PK parameters Cmax, AUClast, and AUC∞ with fixed effect for treatment.||||230|144|
90991444|NCT02336594|181867061|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size is not based on formal power calculations, as this study is designed only to provide an initial assessment of the PK, PD, and safety profile of RDEA3170.|Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio (%)|140.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|121.0|163.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed PK parameters Cmax, AUClast, and AUC∞ with fixed effect for treatment.||||163|121|
90991445|NCT02336594|181867062|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size is not based on formal power calculations, as this study is designed only to provide an initial assessment of the PK, PD, and safety profile of RDEA3170.|Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio (%)|134.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|114.0|156.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed PK parameters Cmax, AUClast, and AUC∞ with fixed effect for treatment.||||156|114|
90991446|NCT02336594|181867063|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size is not based on formal power calculations, as this study is designed only to provide an initial assessment of the PK, PD, and safety profile of RDEA3170.|Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio (%)|79.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|66.4|94.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed PK parameters Cmax, AUClast, and AUC∞ with fixed effect for treatment.||||94.2|66.4|
90991447|NCT02336594|181867064|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size is not based on formal power calculations, as this study is designed only to provide an initial assessment of the PK, PD, and safety profile of RDEA3170.|Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio (%)|85.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|73.9|98.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed PK parameters Cmax, AUClast, and AUC∞ with fixed effect for treatment.||||98.8|73.9|
90991448|NCT02336594|181867065|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size is not based on formal power calculations, as this study is designed only to provide an initial assessment of the PK, PD, and safety profile of RDEA3170.|Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio (%)|83.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|73.5|94.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed PK parameters Cmax, AUClast, and AUC∞ with fixed effect for treatment.||||94.7|73.5|
90991449|NCT02403830|181867074|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-32.0||||0.261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-90.0|25.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||25|-90|0.261
90991450|NCT01954251|181867100|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Comparison at one month after the last dose of HZ/su was performed between the Control group and GSK1437173A + GSK2321138A group. The GSK1437173A + GSK2321138A group was considered as statistically significant non-inferior compared to the Control group in terms of immunogenicity if the UL of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMs between the Control and the Co-Ad group (Control over GSK1437173A + GSK2321138A) was below 1.5.|Adjusted Geometric mean concentration ra|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.2||||||Adjusted ratios of Control group over GSK1437173A + GSK2321138A group in anti-gE antibody ELISA concentrations GMCs at one month after last vaccine dose. An Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model was used to analyse post-vaccination log-transformed concentrations of anti-gE. The fixed-effect model included the minimisation variable (age cohorts) and the treatment as fixed effect. The pre-vaccination log-transformed concentrations were included as continuous covariate.||1.20|0.97|
90991451|NCT01954251|181867101|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Comparisons at Day 21 after the FLU-D-QIV dose were performed between the Control group and GSK1437173A + GSK2321138A group. The GSK1437173A + GSK2321138A group was considered as statistically significant non inferior compared to the Control group in terms of immunogenicity (for each strain) if the UL of 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs between the Control and the GSK1437173A + GSK2321138A (Control/ GSK1437173A + GSK2321138A) group is below 1.5.|Adjusted geometric mean Titer ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.22||||||For the Flu A/California/7/2009 H1N1 strain ,an ANOVA model was used to analyze post-vaccination log-transformed titers. The fixed-effect model included the minimization variable (age cohorts) and the treatment as fixed effect. The pre-vaccination log-transformed concentrations were included as continuous covariate. GMs of post-vaccination titers (Day 21) were calculated conditionally to the means of the pre-vaccination log-transformed titers (Month 0) for this strain.||1.22|0.88|
90991452|NCT01954251|181867101|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Comparisons at Day 21 after the FLU-D-QIV dose were performed between the Control group and GSK1437173A + GSK2321138A group. The GSK1437173A + GSK2321138A group was considered as statistically significant non inferior compared to the Control group in terms of immunogenicity (for each strain) if the UL of 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs between the Control and the GSK1437173A + GSK2321138A (Control/ GSK1437173A + GSK2321138A) group is below 1.5.|Adjusted geometric mean Titer ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.17||||||For the Flu A/Texas/50/2012 H3N2 strain ,an ANOVA model was used to analyze post-vaccination log-transformed titers. The fixed-effect model included the minimization variable (age cohorts) and the treatment as fixed effect. The pre-vaccination log-transformed concentrations were included as continuous covariate. GMs of post-vaccination titers (Day 21) were calculated conditionally to the means of the pre-vaccination log-transformed titers (Month 0) for this strain.||1.17|0.91|
90991453|NCT01954251|181867101|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Comparisons at Day 21 after the FLU-D-QIV dose were performed between the Control group and GSK1437173A + GSK2321138A group. The GSK1437173A + GSK2321138A group was considered as statistically significant non inferior compared to the Control group in terms of immunogenicity (for each strain) if the UL of 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs between the Control and the GSK1437173A + GSK2321138A (Control/ GSK1437173A + GSK2321138A) group is below 1.5.|Adjusted geometric mean Titer ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.2||||||For the Flu B/Brisbane/60/2008 Victoria strain ,an ANOVA model was used to analyze post-vaccination log-transformed titers. The fixed-effect model included the minimization variable (age cohorts) and the treatment as fixed effect. The pre-vaccination log-transformed concentrations were included as continuous covariate. GMs of post-vaccination titers (Day 21) were calculated conditionally to the means of the pre-vaccination log-transformed titers (Month 0) for this strain.||1.20|0.95|
90991454|NCT01954251|181867101|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Comparisons at Day 21 after the FLU-D-QIV dose were performed between the Control group and GSK1437173A + GSK2321138A group. The GSK1437173A + GSK2321138A group was considered as statistically significant non inferior compared to the Control group in terms of immunogenicity (for each strain) if the UL of 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs between the Control and the GSK1437173A + GSK2321138A (Control/ GSK1437173A + GSK2321138A) group is below 1.5.|Adjusted geometric mean Titer ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.09||||||For the Flu B/Massachusetts/2/2012 Yamagata strain ,an ANOVA model was used to analyze post-vaccination log-transformed titers. The fixed-effect model included the minimization variable (age cohorts) and the treatment as fixed effect. The pre-vaccination log-transformed concentrations were included as continuous covariate. GMs of post-vaccination titers (Day 21) were calculated conditionally to the means of the pre-vaccination log-transformed titers (Month 0) for this strain.||1.09|0.88|
91042850|NCT01294449|181971190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.161|||Regression, Cox||The hazard ratio was calculated as the hazard rate of mortality in the CRT-D group over the hazard rate of mortality in the ICD group. A hazard ratio lower than 1 represents a reduction in relative risk of mortality for CRT-D compared to ICD.|The sample size for the analysis included subjects from the original MADIT-CRT IDE (NCT00180271) that did not participate in the Registry portion, these subjects are censored at the time of study conclusion, withdrawal or death during the IDE. This was done as the Registry is a post approval continuation of the follow-up from the MADIT-CRT IDE trial. This is not a pooled analysis from separate studies.||1.161|0.670|0.370
91042851|NCT01294449|181971190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.484|0.96|||Regression, Cox||The hazard ratio was calculated as the hazard rate of mortality in the CRT-D arm over the hazard rate of mortality in the ICD arm. A hazard ratio lower than 1 represents a reduction in relative risk of mortality for CRT-D compared to ICD.|These data represent the indicated sub population of left bundle branch block subjects only. (Left bundle branch block N= 110 ICD group: 181 CRT-D group)||0.960|0.484|0.028
90991455|NCT02232087|181867118|EQUIVALENCE|The potency of the test and reference product was considered equivalent if the 90% CI for the estimate of relative potency was completely contained within the limits of 0.67 to 1.50|Odds Ratio, log|1.0|||>|0.1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.67|1.5||test for parallelism of dose response lines|ANOVA||Test is the numerator|The measurement of relative potency was conducted for the pair of doses which met the above criteria and lay on the steepest linear portion of the dose response curve. The log estimate of relative potency was obtained as the ratio of the estimated treatment effect as measured by the difference in the intercepts of the parallel lines divided by the estimate of the common slope for log dose.||1.50|0.67|>0.10
91042852|NCT04718129|181971253|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.044|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.003|0.085|||Regression, Linear|||||.085|.003|.048
90991456|NCT02232087|181867119|EQUIVALENCE|The potency of the test and reference product was considered equivalent if the 90% CI for the estimate of relative potency was completely contained within the limits of 0.67 to 1.50|Odds Ratio, log|1.0|||>|0.1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.67|1.5||test for parallelism of dose response lines|ANOVA||Test is the numerator|The measurement of relative potency was conducted for the pair of doses which met the above criteria and lay on the steepest linear portion of the dose response curve. The log estimate of relative potency was obtained as the ratio of the estimated treatment effect as measured by the difference in the intercepts of the parallel lines divided by the estimate of the common slope for log dose.||1.50|0.67|>0.10
90991457|NCT02232087|181867120|EQUIVALENCE|Comparability confirmed if confidence interval includes zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.4||Comparability demonstrated for p\>0.05|ANOVA||Comparability confirmed if confidence interval includes zero.|For each dose, the 95% CIs for the mean differences for the test product versus the reference product were calculated.||1.4|-2.5|0.55
90991458|NCT02232087|181867120|EQUIVALENCE|Comparability confirmed if confidence interval includes zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.3||Comparability demonstrated for p\>0.05|ANOVA||Comparability confirmed if confidence interval includes zero.|For each dose, the 95% CIs for the mean differences for the test product versus the reference product were calculated.||1.3|-2.5|0.53
90991459|NCT02232087|181867120|EQUIVALENCE|Comparability confirmed if confidence interval includes zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.3||Comparability demonstrated for p\>0.05|ANOVA||Comparability confirmed if confidence interval includes zero.|For each dose, the 95% CIs for the mean differences for the test product versus the reference product were calculated.||1.3|-2.5|0.011
90991460|NCT02232087|181867121|EQUIVALENCE|Comparability confirmed if confidence interval includes zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.1||Comparability demonstrated for p\>0.05|ANOVA||Comparability confirmed if confidence interval includes zero.|For each dose, the 95% CIs for the mean differences for the test product versus the reference product were calculated.||0.10|-0.03|0.26
90991461|NCT02232087|181867121|EQUIVALENCE|Comparability confirmed if confidence interval includes zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.06||Comparability demonstrated for p\>0.05|ANOVA||Comparability confirmed if confidence interval includes zero.|For each dose, the 95% CIs for the mean differences for the test product versus the reference product were calculated.||0.06|-0.06|0.93
90991462|NCT02232087|181867121|EQUIVALENCE|Comparability confirmed if confidence interval includes zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.08||Comparability demonstrated for p\>0.05|ANOVA||Comparability confirmed if confidence interval includes zero.|For each dose, the 95% CIs for the mean differences for the test product versus the reference product were calculated.||0.08|-0.04|0.48
90991463|NCT02232087|181867122|EQUIVALENCE|Comparability confirmed if confidence interval includes zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Comparability demonstrated for p\>0.05|ANOVA||Comparability confirmed if confidence interval includes zero.|For each dose, the 95% CIs for the mean differences for the test product versus the reference product were calculated.||||0.93
90991464|NCT02232087|181867122|EQUIVALENCE|Comparability confirmed if confidence interval includes zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.224|0.093||Comparability demonstrated for p\>0.05|ANOVA||Comparability confirmed if confidence interval includes zero.|For each dose, the 95% CIs for the mean differences for the test product versus the reference product were calculated.||0.093|-0.224|0.42
90991465|NCT02232087|181867122|EQUIVALENCE|Comparability confirmed if confidence interval includes zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.302|0.016||Comparability demonstrated for p\>0.05|ANOVA||Comparability confirmed if confidence interval includes zero.|For each dose, the 95% CIs for the mean differences for the test product versus the reference product were calculated.||0.016|-0.302|0.078
90991466|NCT02232087|181867123|EQUIVALENCE|Comparability confirmed if confidence interval includes zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|5.7||Comparability demonstrated for p\>0.05|ANOVA||Comparability confirmed if confidence interval includes zero.|For each dose, the 95% CIs for the mean differences for the test product versus the reference product were calculated.||5.7|-3.9|0.71
90991467|NCT02232087|181867123|EQUIVALENCE|Comparability confirmed if confidence interval includes zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|4.7||Comparability demonstrated for p\>0.05|ANOVA||Comparability confirmed if confidence interval includes zero.|For each dose, the 95% CIs for the mean differences for the test product versus the reference product were calculated.||4.7|-4.7|1.00
90991468|NCT02232087|181867123|EQUIVALENCE|Comparability confirmed if confidence interval includes zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|-1.1||Comparability demonstrated for p\>0.05|ANOVA||Comparability confirmed if confidence interval includes zero.|For each dose, the 95% CIs for the mean differences for the test product versus the reference product were calculated.||-1.1|-10.6|0.016
90991469|NCT04096326|181867129|SUPERIORITY||Rate difference|40.6||||0.0096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.6|57.6||P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) tests stratified by baseline GL severity at maximum frown to compare each AGN-151586 study intervention group versus placebo for each cohort.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||57.6|23.6|0.0096
90991470|NCT04096326|181867129|SUPERIORITY||Rate difference|46.4||||0.0094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.0|64.9||P-value was based on CMH tests stratified by baseline GL severity at maximum frown to compare each AGN-151586 study intervention group versus placebo for each cohort.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||64.9|28.0|0.0094
90991471|NCT04096326|181867129|SUPERIORITY||Rate difference|52.2||||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.6|80.8||P-value was based on CMH tests stratified by baseline GL severity at maximum frown to compare each AGN-151586 study intervention group versus placebo for each cohort.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||80.8|23.6|0.0044
90991472|NCT04096326|181867129|SUPERIORITY||Rate difference|63.3||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.2|91.5||P-value was based on CMH tests stratified by baseline GL severity at maximum frown to compare each AGN-151586 study intervention group versus placebo for each cohort.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||91.5|35.2|0.0026
90991473|NCT04096326|181867129|SUPERIORITY||Rate difference|85.7||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.2|100.0||P-value was based on CMH tests stratified by baseline GL severity at maximum frown to compare each AGN-151586 study intervention group versus placebo for each cohort.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||100.0|64.2|0.0000
90991474|NCT04804033|181867135|OTHER||Difference in least square mean (LSM)|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.72|-0.12|||||Linear mixed effects model with repeated measures with number of total migraine days per month in the OP as covariate, treatment group, randomization stratum, month, month-by treatment group interaction as fixed effects using migraine analysis set.|||-0.12|-2.72|
90991475|NCT04804033|181867135|OTHER||Difference in LSM|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.07|0.69|||||Linear mixed effects model with repeated measures with number of total migraine days per month in the OP as covariate, treatment group, randomization stratum, month, month-by treatment group interaction as fixed effects using migraine analysis set.|||0.69|-2.07|
90991476|NCT04804033|181867136|OTHER||Difference in percentage|16.6|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|4.4|28.8|||||Stratified by randomization stratum using Mantel-Haenszel risk estimation.|||28.8|4.4|
90991477|NCT04804033|181867136|OTHER||Difference in percentage|6.6|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-5.6|18.9|||||Stratified by randomization stratum using Mantel-Haenszel risk estimation.|||18.9|-5.6|
91042853|NCT02212457|181971254|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was concluded when, at 1 month after the second meningococcal vaccination (Visit Month 3), the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the between-group ratios of GMTs (ABCWY\_0\_2 versus rMenB\_0\_2) was greater than 0.5 for each of the four serogroup B test strains.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.02|||ANCOVA|||Non-inferiority response against N. meningitidis serogroup B test strain M14459 of the MenABCWY vaccine to that of the Bexsero vaccine, administered according to 0, 2 month schedule.||1.02|0.53|
91042854|NCT02212457|181971254|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was concluded when, at 1 month after the second meningococcal vaccination (Visit Month 3), the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the between-group ratios of GMTs (ABCWY\_0\_2 versus rMenB\_0\_2) was greater than 0.5 for each of the four serogroup B test strains.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.94|||ANCOVA|||Non-inferiority response against N. meningitidis serogroup B test strain M07-0241084 of the MenABCWY vaccine to that of the Bexsero vaccine, administered according to 0, 2 month schedule.||0.94|0.54|
91042855|NCT02212457|181971254|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was concluded when, at 1 month after the second meningococcal vaccination (Visit Month 3), the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the between-group ratios of GMTs (ABCWY\_0\_2 versus rMenB\_0\_2) was greater than 0.5 for each of the four serogroup B test strains.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.85|||ANCOVA|||Non-inferiority response against N. meningitidis serogroup B test strain 96217 of the MenABCWY vaccine to that of the Bexsero vaccine, administered according to 0, 2 month schedule.||0.85|0.51|
91042856|NCT02212457|181971254|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was concluded when, at 1 month after the second meningococcal vaccination (Visit Month 3), the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the between-group ratios of GMTs (ABCWY\_0\_2 versus rMenB\_0\_2) was greater than 0.5 for each of the four serogroup B test strains.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.66|||ANCOVA|||Non-inferiority response against N. meningitidis serogroup B test strain NZ98/254 of the MenABCWY vaccine to that of the Bexsero vaccine, administered according to 0, 2 month schedule.||0.66|0.37|
91042857|NCT00688844|181971301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.655574|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.060658||0.692782|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Objective was to evaluate BMI across one year in PKU patients introduced to sapropterin after baseline. Study was prospective cohort in design.||||0.692782
91042858|NCT00688844|181971302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.005401|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0243|<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Objective was to evaluate total body bone mineral density (BMD) one year via DXA in PKU patients introduced to sapropterin after baseline. Study was prospective cohort in design.||||<0.001
91042859|NCT00688844|181971303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.419224|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.4666||0.017941|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Objective was to evaluate % lean mass across one year via DXA in PKU patients introduced to sapropterin after baseline. Study was prospective cohort in design.||||0.017941
91042860|NCT00688844|181971304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.208889|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.51967||0.026009|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Objective was to evaluate % fat mass across one year via DXA in PKU patients introduced to sapropterin after baseline. Study was prospective cohort in design.||||0.026009
90991478|NCT04804033|181867137|OTHER||Difference in LSM|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.68|0.58|||||Linear mixed effects model with repeated measures with number of total migraine days per month in the OP as covariate, treatment group, randomization stratum, month, month-by treatment group interaction as fixed effects using migraine analysis set.|||0.58|-2.68|
90991479|NCT04804033|181867137|OTHER||Difference in LSM|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.1|1.31|||||Linear mixed effects model with repeated measures with number of total migraine days per month in the OP as covariate, treatment group, randomization stratum, month, month-by treatment group interaction as fixed effects using migraine analysis set.|||1.31|-2.10|
91042861|NCT00688844|181971305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-67.5187|STANDARD_DEVIATION|362.9412||0.303864|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Objective was to evaluate plasma phenylalanine across one year in PKU patients introduced to sapropterin after baseline. Study was prospective cohort in design.||||0.303864
90991480|NCT04804033|181867138|OTHER||Difference in LSM|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.16|-0.42|||||Linear mixed effects model with repeated measures with number of total migraine days per month in the OP as covariate, treatment group, randomization stratum, month, month-by treatment group interaction as fixed effects using migraine analysis set.|||-0.42|-3.16|
90991481|NCT04804033|181867138|OTHER||Difference in LSM|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.53|0.22|||||Linear mixed effects model with repeated measures with number of total migraine days per month in the OP as covariate, treatment group, randomization stratum, month, month-by treatment group interaction as fixed effects using migraine analysis set.|||0.22|-2.53|
90991482|NCT04804033|181867139|OTHER||Difference in LSM|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.59|0.05|||||Linear mixed effects model with repeated measures with number of total migraine days per month in the OP as covariate, treatment group, randomization stratum, month, month-by treatment group interaction as fixed effects using migraine analysis set.|||0.05|-1.59|
90991483|NCT04804033|181867139|OTHER||Difference in LSM|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.06|0.74|||||Linear mixed effects model with repeated measures with number of total migraine days per month in the OP as covariate, treatment group, randomization stratum, month, month-by treatment group interaction as fixed effects using migraine analysis set.|||0.74|-1.06|
90991484|NCT04804033|181867140|OTHER||Difference in LSM|3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.5|9.39|||||Linear regression model had the following variables: Week 12 change from baseline in domain score as the dependent variable; baseline domain score as a covariate; treatment group and randomization stratum as fixed effects.|||9.39|-1.50|
90991485|NCT04804033|181867140|OTHER||Difference in LSM|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-5.66|5.86|||||Linear regression model had the following variables: Week 12 change from baseline in domain score as the dependent variable; baseline domain score as a covariate; treatment group and randomization stratum as fixed effects.|||5.86|-5.66|
90991486|NCT04804033|181867141|OTHER||Difference in LSM|-9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-18.1|0.19|||||Linear regression model had the following variables: Week 12 change from baseline in domain score as the dependent variable; baseline domain score as a covariate; treatment group and randomization stratum as fixed effects.|||0.19|-18.10|
90991487|NCT04804033|181867141|OTHER||Difference in LSM|-9.3|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-18.95|0.41|||||Linear regression model had the following variables: Week 12 change from baseline in domain score as the dependent variable; baseline domain score as a covariate; treatment group and randomization stratum as fixed effects.|||0.41|-18.95|
90991488|NCT01106625|181867157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.097|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.904|-0.524|||ANCOVA|||||-0.524|-0.904|<0.001
90991489|NCT01106625|181867157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.097|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.114|-0.732|||ANCOVA|||||-0.732|-1.114|<0.001
90991490|NCT01106625|181867158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.48|7.87|||Regression, Logistic|||||7.87|2.48|<0.001
90991491|NCT01106625|181867158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.86|15.95|||Regression, Logistic|||||15.95|4.86|<0.001
90991492|NCT01106625|181867159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-22.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.627|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.53|-13.16|||ANCOVA|||||-13.16|-31.53|<0.001
90991493|NCT01106625|181867159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-34.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.692|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.86|-25.42|||ANCOVA|||||-25.42|-43.86|<0.001
91042862|NCT00688844|181971306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.9549|STANDARD_DEVIATION|20.10814||0.00088|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Objective was to evaluate protein intake (grams per day) across one year in PKU patients introduced to sapropterin after baseline. Study was prospective cohort in design.||||0.00088
90991494|NCT01106625|181867160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.7|||ANCOVA|||||-0.7|-2.1|<0.001
90991495|NCT01106625|181867160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-1.3|||ANCOVA|||||-1.3|-2.7|<0.001
90991496|NCT01106625|181867161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-2.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.262||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.719|0.241|||ANCOVA|||||0.241|-4.719|0.077
90991497|NCT01106625|181867161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-1.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.266||0.201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.111|0.866|||ANCOVA|||||0.866|-4.111|0.201
90991498|NCT01106625|181867162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-6.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.9|4.5|||ANCOVA|||||4.5|-16.9|0.256
90991499|NCT01106625|181867162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.5||0.571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|7.6|||ANCOVA|||||7.6|-13.8|0.571
90991500|NCT01106625|181867163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|5.9|||ANCOVA|||||5.9|-0.9|0.153
90991501|NCT01106625|181867163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|6.8|||ANCOVA|||||6.8|-0.1|0.056
90991502|NCT04490265|181867173|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90991503|NCT04490265|181867174|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90991504|NCT04490265|181867179|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Belonging Subscale change from baseline to 12-weeks||||
90991505|NCT04490265|181867179|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Belonging subscale Baseline to 6-months||||
90991506|NCT04490265|181867179|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Change in Burdensome subscale Baseline to 12-weeks||||
90991507|NCT04490265|181867179|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Change in Burdensome subscale Baseline to 6 months||||
90991508|NCT04490265|181867180|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Baseline to 12-weeks||||
90991509|NCT04490265|181867180|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Baseline to 6-months||||
90991510|NCT04490265|181867181|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90991511|NCT04490265|181867182|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90991512|NCT04490265|181867183|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90991513|NCT04490265|181867184|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90991514|NCT04490265|181867185|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90991515|NCT04490265|181867186|SUPERIORITY||cohen's d|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90991516|NCT04490265|181867187|SUPERIORITY||Cohens d|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Severity||||
90991517|NCT04490265|181867187|SUPERIORITY||Cohens d|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||interference||||
90991518|NCT04490265|181867188|SUPERIORITY||Cohens d|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Severity Subscale||||
90991519|NCT04490265|181867188|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Interference subscale||||
90991520|NCT02439281|181867198|OTHER|||||||0.451|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4510
90991521|NCT02439281|181867199|OTHER|||||||0.8914|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8914
90991522|NCT02439281|181867202|OTHER|||||||0.9531|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.9531
90991523|NCT02439281|181867203|OTHER|||||||0.778|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7780
90991524|NCT02439281|181867204|OTHER|||||||0.5692|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5692
90991525|NCT05372575|181867206|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% confidential interval (CI) on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|13.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.99|19.28|||||GMR=(GMC of 13vPnC Cohort)/(GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort)|Geometric mean ratio (GMR) of 13vPnC Cohort/Non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 1||19.28|8.99|
90991526|NCT05372575|181867206|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|5.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.32|8.01|||||GMR=(GMC of 13vPnC Cohort)/(GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/Non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 3||8.01|4.32|
90991527|NCT05372575|181867206|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|17.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.07|26.78|||||GMR=(GMC of 13vPnC Cohort)/(GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/Non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 4||26.78|12.07|
90991528|NCT05372575|181867206|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|2.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|3.08|||||GMR=(GMC of 13vPnC Cohort)/(GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/Non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 5||3.08|1.90|
90991529|NCT05372575|181867206|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|6.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.68|8.61|||||GMR=(GMC of 13vPnC Cohort)/(GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/Non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 6A||8.61|4.68|
90991530|NCT05372575|181867206|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|6.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.92|8.97|||||GMR=(GMC of 13vPnC Cohort)/(GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/Non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 6B||8.97|4.92|
90991531|NCT05372575|181867206|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|9.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.91|12.83|||||GMR=(GMC of 13vPnC Cohort)/(GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/Non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 7F||12.83|6.91|
91042863|NCT00688844|181971307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.131676|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.797247||0.3811|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Objective was to evaluate dietary phenylalanine intake across one year in PKU patients introduced to sapropterin after baseline. Study was prospective cohort in design.||||0.3811
90991532|NCT05372575|181867206|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|3.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.96|5.1|||||GMR=(GMC of 13vPnC Cohort)/(GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/Non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 9V||5.10|2.96|
90991533|NCT05372575|181867206|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|62.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.16|96.12|||||GMR=(GMC of 13vPnC Cohort)/(GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/Non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 14||96.12|40.16|
90991534|NCT05372575|181867206|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|16.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.22|23.89|||||GMR=(GMC of 13vPnC Cohort)/(GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/Non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 18C||23.89|11.22|
90991535|NCT05372575|181867206|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|4.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.22|5.62|||||GMR=(GMC of 13vPnC Cohort)/(GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/Non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 19A||5.62|3.22|
90991536|NCT05372575|181867206|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|8.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.24|12.21|||||GMR=(GMC of 13vPnC Cohort)/(GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/Non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 19F||12.21|6.24|
91042864|NCT00178711|181971309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.08|||=|0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.53|||Regression, Logistic|||The primary hypothesis was a two-sided test assessing whether the induction of hypothermia modified the percentage of subjects with poor outcomes at 6 months after injury. Percentages in each group were compared using a generalized linear model with a binomial distribution and log link function, logistic regression model with admission age and baseline GCS as covariates.||1.53|0.76|=0.67
90991537|NCT05372575|181867206|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|8.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.15|11.29|||||GMR=(GMC of 13vPnC Cohort)/(GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/Non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 23F||11.29|6.15|
90991538|NCT05372575|181867207|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMR (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|4.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.32|9.86|||||GMR=(GMT of 13vPnC Cohort)/(GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/Non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 1||9.86|2.32|
90991539|NCT05372575|181867207|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|9.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.72|17.39|||||GMR=(GMT of 13vPnC Cohort)/(GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/Non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 3||17.39|4.72|
90991540|NCT05372575|181867207|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|14.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.25|33.05|||||GMR=(GMT of 13vPnC Cohort)/(GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/Non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 4||33.05|6.25|
90991541|NCT05372575|181867207|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|18.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.84|36.8|||||GMR=(GMT of 13vPnC Cohort)/(GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/Non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 5||36.80|8.84|
90991542|NCT05372575|181867207|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|33.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.33|80.13|||||GMR=(GMT of 13vPnC Cohort)/(GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/Non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 6A||80.13|14.33|
90991543|NCT05372575|181867207|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|14.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.07|32.52|||||GMR=(GMT of 13vPnC Cohort)/(GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/Non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 6B||32.52|6.07|
90991544|NCT05372575|181867207|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|16.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.85|36.76|||||GMR=(GMT of 13vPnC Cohort)/(GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/Non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 7F||36.76|7.85|
90991545|NCT05372575|181867207|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|19.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.13|40.84|||||GMR=(GMT of 13vPnC Cohort)/(GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/Non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 9V||40.84|9.13|
90991546|NCT05372575|181867207|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|10.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.74|23.1|||||GMR=(GMT of 13vPnC Cohort)/(GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/Non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 14||23.10|4.74|
90991547|NCT05372575|181867207|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|12.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|24.51|||||GMR=(GMT of 13vPnC Cohort)/(GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/Non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 18C||24.51|6.00|
90991548|NCT05372575|181867207|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|23.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.94|51.1|||||GMR=(GMT of 13vPnC Cohort)/(GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/Non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 19A||51.10|10.94|
90991549|NCT05372575|181867207|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|17.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.65|35.93|||||GMR=(GMT of 13vPnC Cohort)/(GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/Non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 19F||35.93|8.65|
90991550|NCT05372575|181867207|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|44.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.11|103.43|||||GMR=(GMT of 13vPnC Cohort)/(GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/Non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 23F||103.43|19.11|
91042865|NCT01745952|181971346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9819|TWO_SIDED||||||negative binomial model + overdispersion|||||||0.9819
91042866|NCT00493792|181971387|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.77|||Regression, Cox|||||1.77|0.29|0.47
90991551|NCT05372575|181867208|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.42|||||GMR=(GMC of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMC of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in 13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 1||1.42|0.16|
90991552|NCT05372575|181867208|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.98|||||GMR=(GMC of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMC of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in 13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 3||1.98|0.27|
90991553|NCT05372575|181867208|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|2.19|||||GMR=(GMC of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMC of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in 13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 4||2.19|0.21|
90991554|NCT05372575|181867208|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.86|||||GMR=(GMC of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMC of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in 13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 5||1.86|0.36|
90991555|NCT05372575|181867208|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.89|||||GMR=(GMC of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMC of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in 13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 6A||1.89|0.25|
90991556|NCT05372575|181867208|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|2.07|||||GMR=(GMC of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMC of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in 13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 6B||2.07|0.27|
90991557|NCT05372575|181867208|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.09|||||GMR=(GMC of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMC of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in 13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 7F||1.09|0.16|
90991558|NCT05372575|181867208|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.81|||||GMR=(GMC of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMC of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in 13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 9V||1.81|0.35|
90991559|NCT05372575|181867208|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.24|||||GMR=(GMC of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMC of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in 13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 14||2.24|0.20|
90991560|NCT05372575|181867208|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.65|||||GMR=(GMC of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMC of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in 13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 18C||1.65|0.22|
90991561|NCT05372575|181867208|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|1.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|3.93|||||GMR=(GMC of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMC of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in 13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 19A||3.93|0.61|
90991562|NCT05372575|181867208|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|4.99|||||GMR=(GMC of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMC of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in 13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 19F||4.99|0.65|
90991563|NCT05372575|181867208|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.31|||||GMR=(GMC of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMC of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in 13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 23F||1.31|0.17|
91042867|NCT00493792|181971388|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.49||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.03|||Regression, Cox|||||1.03|0.23|0.06
91042868|NCT00493792|181971389|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.18|||Regression, Cox|||||1.18|.45|0.193
90991564|NCT05372575|181867208|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.38|||||GMR=(GMC of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMC of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 1||1.38|0.31|
90991565|NCT05372575|181867208|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.24|||||GMR=(GMC of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMC of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 3||1.24|0.40|
90991566|NCT05372575|181867208|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.59|||||GMR=(GMC of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMC of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 4||1.59|0.33|
90991567|NCT05372575|181867208|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.25|||||GMR=(GMC of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMC of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 5||1.25|0.52|
90991568|NCT05372575|181867208|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.52|||||GMR=(GMC of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMC of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 6A||1.52|0.57|
90991569|NCT05372575|181867208|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|1.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.47|||||GMR=(GMC of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMC of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 6B||2.47|0.95|
90991570|NCT05372575|181867208|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.34|||||GMR=(GMC of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMC of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 7F||1.34|0.41|
90991571|NCT05372575|181867208|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.57|||||GMR=(GMC of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMC of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 9V||1.57|0.34|
90991572|NCT05372575|181867208|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.18|||||GMR=(GMC of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMC of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 14||1.18|0.16|
90991573|NCT05372575|181867208|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.4|||||GMR=(GMC of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMC of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 18C||1.40|0.25|
90991574|NCT05372575|181867208|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.23|||||GMR=(GMC of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMC of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 19A||1.23|0.50|
90991575|NCT05372575|181867208|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.18|||||GMR=(GMC of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMC of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 19F||2.18|0.60|
90991576|NCT05372575|181867208|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.72|||||GMR=(GMC of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMC of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 23F||1.72|0.68|
91042869|NCT00685035|181971400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.23||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.02
91042870|NCT02426541|181971404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.68||||0.3794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|5.54|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for sex and baseline||||5.54|-2.18|0.3794
91042871|NCT02426541|181971405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.32||||0.5317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|2.96|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for sex and baseline||||2.96|-5.60|0.5317
90991577|NCT05372575|181867208|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|10.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.44|43.49|||||GMR=(GMC of 13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)/(GMC of non-13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT+ Subgroups for Serotype: 1||43.49|2.44|
90991578|NCT05372575|181867208|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|6.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.07|18.42|||||GMR=(GMC of 13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)/(GMC of non-13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT+ Subgroups for Serotype: 3||18.42|2.07|
90991579|NCT05372575|181867208|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|18.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.35|80.37|||||GMR=(GMC of 13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)/(GMC of non-13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT+ Subgroups for Serotype: 4||80.37|4.35|
90991580|NCT05372575|181867208|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|5.52|||||GMR=(GMC of 13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)/(GMC of non-13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT+ Subgroups for Serotype: 5||5.52|1.14|
90991581|NCT05372575|181867208|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|5.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.33|11.8|||||GMR=(GMC of 13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)/(GMC of non-13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT+ Subgroups for Serotype: 6A||11.80|2.33|
90991582|NCT05372575|181867208|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|3.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|9.65|||||GMR=(GMC of 13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)/(GMC of non-13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT+ Subgroups for Serotype: 6B||9.65|1.47|
90991583|NCT05372575|181867208|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|5.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|21.36|||||GMR=(GMC of 13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)/(GMC of non-13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT+ Subgroups for Serotype: 7F||21.36|1.65|
90991584|NCT05372575|181867208|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|4.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|16.87|||||GMR=(GMC of 13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)/(GMC of non-13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT+ Subgroups for Serotype: 9V||16.87|1.17|
90991585|NCT05372575|181867208|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|90.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.67|494.56|||||GMR=(GMC of 13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)/(GMC of non-13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT+ Subgroups for Serotype: 14||494.56|16.67|
90991586|NCT05372575|181867208|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|17.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.79|83.78|||||GMR=(GMC of 13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)/(GMC of non-13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT+ Subgroups for Serotype: 18C||83.78|3.79|
90991587|NCT05372575|181867208|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|8.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.6|18.3|||||GMR=(GMC of 13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)/(GMC of non-13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT+ Subgroups for Serotype: 19A||18.30|3.60|
90991588|NCT05372575|181867208|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|15.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.64|50.35|||||GMR=(GMC of 13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)/(GMC of non-13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT+ Subgroups for Serotype: 19F||50.35|4.64|
90991589|NCT05372575|181867208|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|4.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|10.25|||||GMR=(GMC of 13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)/(GMC of non-13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT+ Subgroups for Serotype: 23F||10.25|1.72|
91042872|NCT02426541|181971406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.003||||0.9984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.07|3.07|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for sex and baseline||||3.07|-3.07|0.9984
91042873|NCT00745134|181971409|OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.33
91042874|NCT04241133|181971417|OTHER|The experimental and control groups were not compared due to the inability to collect post data with the control group because of stay at home orders during the COVID-19 pandemic.|||||<|0.05||||||The reported P-value was calculated.|t-test, 2 sided|The a priori threshold for statistical significance was P\<0.05.||The experimental group was tested for significant difference in Healthy Eating Index 2015 (HEI-2015) scores at baseline and 12 weeks. SAS macros provided by the National Cancer Institute were used to compute HEI-2015 scores for each dietary recall at pre- (baseline) and post-intervention (12 weeks) using the Simple HEI Scoring Algorithm.||||<0.05
91042875|NCT01503333|181971418|EQUIVALENCE|Linear mixed-effect models were applied to examine the intervention effect on MVPA at post-intervention. Models included the group variable, cluster random effect of school, and the following fixed effects: age, BMI z-score, race, SES, ethnicity, pubertal stage, and study year. Baseline MVPA was included when evaluating the intervention effect at post-intervention.|parameter estimate|-0.08||||0.207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hypotheses: Post-intervention, weighted mean minutes of MVPA/week will be greater by 16 minutes among girls in intervention than control schools. Mean minutes per week is determined by multiplying mean minutes/hour by 90 hours that girls are awake in a week (10 hours awake on each weekend day; 14 hours awake on each weekday).||0.05|-0.21|.207
91042876|NCT01503333|181971419|EQUIVALENCE|Linear mixed models were used to analyze intervention effect on CV fitness according to intention-to-treat, with school pairs treated as random effect and students nested within school and treatment condition. Models included main intervention predictor (control or intervention), incorporated cluster random effect, specified school pairs (random intercept), and controlled for baseline CV fitness, physical activity, race, socioeconomic status, ethnicity, pubertal stage, and study year cohort.|parameter estimate|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Immediately post-intervention, cardiovascular (CV) fitness will be higher among girls in the intervention than control schools.||0.36|0.03|.018
91042877|NCT01503333|181971420|OTHER|Linear mixed models were used to analyze intervention effect on BMI-z according to intention-to-treat, with school pairs treated as random effect and students nested within school and treatment condition. Models for BMI-z included main intervention predictor (control or intervention), incorporated cluster random effect, specified school pairs (random intercept), and controlled for baseline BMI-z, physical activity, race, socioeconomic status, ethnicity, pubertal stage, and study year cohort.|parameter estimate|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Immediately post-intervention, BMI z-score will be significantly lower among girls in the intervention than control schools.||0.01|-0.05|.191
91042878|NCT01503333|181971421|EQUIVALENCE|Linear mixed models were used to analyze intervention effect on % body fat according to intention-to-treat, with school pairs treated as random effect and students nested within school and treatment condition. Models included main intervention predictor (control or intervention), incorporated cluster random effect, specified school pairs (random intercept), and controlled for baseline % body fat, age, physical activity, race, socioeconomic status, ethnicity, pubertal stage, and year cohort.|parameter estimate|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Immediately post-intervention, percent body fat will be significantly lower among girls in the intervention than control schools.||-0.10|-0.64|.007
91042879|NCT01503333|181971422|EQUIVALENCE|Linear mixed-effect models were applied to examine the intervention effect on MVPA at 9-month follow up. Models included the group variable, cluster random effect of school, and the following fixed effects: age, BMI z-score, race, SES, ethnicity, pubertal stage, and study year. Baseline MVPA was included when evaluating the intervention effect at follow up.|parameter estimate|-0.09||||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.02|-0.21|.118
91042880|NCT01503333|181971423|OTHER||parameter estimate|-0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Path analysis was performed to examine study mediation model. Maximum likelihood estimates were computed. Model fit was evaluated based on fit indices: (a) Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI) ≥.95, (b) Comparative Fit Index (CFI) ≥.95, (c) Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) ≤.05; (d) standardized root mean squared residual (SRMR) ≤.08; and (e) chi-square test p\>.05.26.||||
91042881|NCT01503333|181971424|OTHER||parameter estimate|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Path analysis was performed to examine study mediation model. Maximum likelihood estimates were computed. Model fit was evaluated based on fit indices: (a) Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI) ≥.95, (b) Comparative Fit Index (CFI) ≥.95, (c) Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) ≤.05; (d) standardized root mean squared residual (SRMR) ≤.08; and (e) chi-squar||||
91042882|NCT01503333|181971425|OTHER||parameter estimate|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Path analysis was performed to examine study mediation model. Maximum likelihood estimates were computed. Model fit was evaluated based on fit indices: (a) Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI) ≥.95, (b) Comparative Fit Index (CFI) ≥.95, (c) Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) ≤.05; (d) standardized root mean squared residual (SRMR) ≤.08; and (e) chi-squar||||
91042883|NCT01503333|181971426|OTHER||parameter estimate|30.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Path analysis|||Path analysis was performed to examine study mediation model. Maximum likelihood estimates were computed. Model fit was evaluated based on fit indices: (a) Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI) ≥.95, (b) Comparative Fit Index (CFI) ≥.95, (c) Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) ≤.05; (d) standardized root mean squared residual (SRMR) ≤.08; and (e) chi-squar||||<.001
91042884|NCT01503333|181971427|OTHER||parameter estimate|24.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Path analysis|||Path analysis was performed to examine study mediation model. Maximum likelihood estimates were computed. Model fit was evaluated based on fit indices: (a) Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI) ≥.95, (b) Comparative Fit Index (CFI) ≥.95, (c) Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) ≤.05; (d) standardized root mean squared residual (SRMR) ≤.08; and (e) chi-squar||||<.001
91042885|NCT01503333|181971428|OTHER||parameter estimate|3.19|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Path analysis was performed to examine study mediation model. Maximum likelihood estimates were computed. Model fit was evaluated based on fit indices: (a) Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI) ≥.95, (b) Comparative Fit Index (CFI) ≥.95, (c) Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) ≤.05; (d) standardized root mean squared residual (SRMR) ≤.08; and (e) chi-squar||||
91042886|NCT04254198|181971429|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.231|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116||0.0473|TWO_SIDED|98.3|-0.0474|0.509||To adjust for multiplicity due to three primary outcomes, the p-value should be compared to a Bonferroni-corrected type-I error level of 0.05/3 = 0.017.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model is adjusted for cohort, site, marital status, and overall health status.|The beta coefficient (0.231) is for the treatment x time interaction effect on log-transformed CES-D scores. Delta method used for calculating confidence intervals for the Least Squares (LS) Mean changes over time per arm with cov=compound symmetry.|||0.509|-0.0474|0.0473
90991590|NCT05372575|181867208|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|13.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.14|21.23|||||GMR=(GMC of 13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)/(GMC of non-13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT- or Sp- Subgroups for Serotype: 1||21.23|9.14|
90991591|NCT05372575|181867208|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|5.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.17|8.24|||||GMR=(GMC of 13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)/(GMC of non-13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT- or Sp- Subgroups for Serotype: 3||8.24|4.17|
90991592|NCT05372575|181867208|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|19.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.8|31.15|||||GMR=(GMC of 13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)/(GMC of non-13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT- or Sp- Subgroups for Serotype: 4||31.15|12.80|
90991593|NCT05372575|181867208|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|2.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.87|3.24|||||GMR=(GMC of 13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)/(GMC of non-13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT- or Sp- Subgroups for Serotype: 5||3.24|1.87|
90991594|NCT05372575|181867208|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|7.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.05|10.03|||||GMR=(GMC of 13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)/(GMC of non-13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT- or Sp- Subgroups for Serotype: 6A||10.03|5.05|
90991595|NCT05372575|181867208|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|7.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.54|10.92|||||GMR=(GMC of 13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)/(GMC of non-13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT- or Sp- Subgroups for Serotype: 6B||10.92|5.54|
90991596|NCT05372575|181867208|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|10.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|14.61|||||GMR=(GMC of 13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)/(GMC of non-13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT- or Sp- Subgroups for Serotype: 7F||14.61|7.40|
90991597|NCT05372575|181867208|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|4.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.04|5.47|||||GMR=(GMC of 13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)/(GMC of non-13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT- or Sp- Subgroups for Serotype: 9V||5.47|3.04|
90991598|NCT05372575|181867208|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|60.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.25|97.67|||||GMR=(GMC of 13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)/(GMC of non-13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT- or Sp- Subgroups for Serotype: 14||97.67|37.25|
90991599|NCT05372575|181867208|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|17.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.37|26.47|||||GMR=(GMC of 13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)/(GMC of non-13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT- or Sp- Subgroups for Serotype: 18C||26.47|11.37|
90991600|NCT05372575|181867208|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|4.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|5.62|||||GMR=(GMC of 13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)/(GMC of non-13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT- or Sp- Subgroups for Serotype: 19A||5.62|3.00|
91042887|NCT04254198|181971430|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.383|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.0464|0.72||To adjust for multiplicity due to three primary outcomes, the p-value should be compared to a Bonferroni-corrected type-I error level of 0.05/3 = 0.017.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model is adjusted for cohort, site, overall health status and the interaction between cohort and site.|The beta coefficient (0.383) is for the treatment x time interaction effect on log-transformed CD-RISC scores. Delta method used for calculating confidence intervals for the LS Mean changes over time per arm with cov=compound symmetry.|||0.720|0.0464|0.0067
91042888|NCT04254198|181971431|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.747|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.194||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|98.3|-1.215|-0.28||To adjust for multiplicity due to three primary outcomes, the p-value should be compared to a Bonferroni-corrected type-I error level of 0.05/3 = 0.017.|Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model with beta distribution, adjusted for cohort, site, overall health status and interaction between arm and cohort.|The beta coefficient (-0.747) is for the treatment x time interaction effect on MOS-SS scores on a logit scale. The CIs for the LS Mean changes over time per arm were estimated via the delta method and are reported on the original MOS-SS scale.|||-0.280|-1.215|0.0002
91042889|NCT04254198|181971432|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.913|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21||0.451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.82|2.0||P-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Model is adjusted for cohort and site.|The beta coefficient (-0.913) is for the treatment x time interaction effect on non-transformed PSS scores.|||2.00|-3.82|0.4510
91042890|NCT04968925|181971438|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 10% was used.|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|22.54|||Generalized linear Mixed Model Analysis||Odds ratio was calculated as Test over Control|Phase I was not powered to test for non-inferiority for any endpoints. The data collected from this Phase was used to estimate the sample size required to achieve the primary endpoints for Phase II of the study.||22.54|0.80|
91042891|NCT04968925|181971439|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 10% was used.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|10.16|||Generalized linear Mixed Model Analysis||Odds ratio was calculated as Test over Control|Phase I was not powered to test for non-inferiority for any endpoints. The data collected from this Phase was used to estimate the sample size required to achieve the primary endpoints for Phase II of the study.||10.16|1.16|
91042892|NCT04968925|181971440|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 10% was used.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|6.76|||Generalized linear Mixed Model Analysis||Odds ratio was calculated as Test over Control|Phase I was not powered to test for non-inferiority for any endpoints. The data collected from this Phase was used to estimate the sample size required to achieve the primary endpoints for Phase II of the study.||6.76|1.05|
91042893|NCT04968925|181971441|SUPERIORITY|"The Fallback Method was used to test primary hypotheses in Phase II. An alpha of 0.167 was allocated for each test. Every successful test passed the unused alpha to the next."|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76|||||TWO_SIDED|98.33|1.09|2.83|||Generalized linear Mixed Model Analysis||Odds ratio was calculated as Test over Control|It was calculated based on Phase I using Stroup's Method that 200 subjects were required to test superiority for each endpoint in Phase II.||2.83|1.09|
91042894|NCT04968925|181971442|SUPERIORITY|"The Fallback Method was used to test primary hypotheses in Phase II. An alpha of 0.167 was allocated for each test. Every successful test passed the unused alpha to the next."|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.52|||||TWO_SIDED|96.66|1.02|2.28|||Generalized linear Mixed Model Analysis||Odds ratio was calculated as Test over Control|It was calculated based on Phase I using Stroup's Method that 200 subjects were required to test superiority for each endpoint in Phase II.||2.28|1.02|
91042895|NCT04968925|181971443|SUPERIORITY|"The Fallback Method was used to test primary hypotheses in Phase II. An alpha of 0.167 was allocated for each test. Every successful test passed the unused alpha to the next."|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.03|||Generalized linear Mixed Model Analysis||Odds ratio was calculated as Test over Control|It was calculated based on Phase I using Stroup's Method that 200 subjects were required to test superiority for each endpoint in Phase II.||2.03|0.77|
91042896|NCT00835796|181971456|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|101.0||||||90.0|94.2|109.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||109|94.2|
91042897|NCT00835796|181971457|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|98.7||||||90.0|94.0|104.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||104|94.0|
91042898|NCT00835796|181971458|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|98.8||||||90.0|94.5|103.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||103|94.5|
91078637|NCT01964716|182043068|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for a given antibody serotype was declared if lower bound of the 2-sided, 97.5% confidence interval for the geometric mean concentration ratio (GMC MDV /GMC SDS) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMC Ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.87|1.22||||||Serotype 1: Ratio of GMCs, MDV to SDS, was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale; CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS).||1.22|0.87|
91078638|NCT01964716|182043068|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for a given antibody serotype was declared if lower bound of the 2-sided, 97.5% confidence interval for the geometric mean concentration ratio (GMC MDV /GMC SDS) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMC Ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.71|0.9||||||Serotype 3: Ratio of GMCs, MDV to SDS, was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale; CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS).||0.90|0.71|
91078639|NCT01964716|182043068|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for a given antibody serotype was declared if lower bound of the 2-sided, 97.5% confidence interval for the geometric mean concentration ratio (GMC MDV /GMC SDS) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMC Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.86|1.18||||||Serotype 4: Ratio of GMCs, MDV to SDS, was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale; CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS).||1.18|0.86|
91042899|NCT00876265|181971468|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 95% CI or the difference between LS mean (Belotero) and LS mean (Zyplast) lies entirely above -Δ, noninferiority of Belotero will be concluded (first step). If, in addition, the CI lies entirely above 0, superiority of Belotero over Zyplast will be concluded (second step).|Adjusted (LS) mean difference|0.048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.139||0.733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.228|0.323||Treatment term and all significant (p ≤ 0.10) covariate and covariate by treatment interactions will be retained in the final ANCOVA model. From the final ANCOVA model, adjusted (LS) means for Belotero and Zyplast was computed.|ANCOVA|||"The null, H0, and the alternative hypothesis, H1, are as follows:~H0(1): adjusted mean(dadj\[i\]) ≤ -Δ versus H1(1): adjusted mean(dadj\[i\]) \> -Δ H0(2): adjusted mean(dadj\[i\]) ≤ 0 versus H1(2): adjusted mean(dadj\[i\]) \> 0 The sample size calculation was based on the following assumptions: Type I error α = 0.025 (one sided); Power = 90%; Non-inferiority margin Δ = 0.25; Estimated common standard deviation (SD) = 0.75. Under these assumptions, a total of 100 evaluable subjects were needed."||0.323|-0.228|0.733
91042900|NCT02327325|181971469|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.94||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.24|0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between physical activity only and the wait list group. Rejection of the null hypothesis means that the physical activity group had greater improvement than the wait list group.||0.35|-6.24|0.08
91042901|NCT02327325|181971469|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.26||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.69|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison of the PA \& CBT group to the wait list group. Rejection of the null hypothesis means that the PA + CBT group was superior on this outcome to the wait list group.||0.06|-6.69|0.06
91042902|NCT02327325|181971470|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.11||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.85|0.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison of the PA only group with the wait list control. Rejection of the null hypothesis means that the PA group was superior to the wait list group.||0.64|-12.85|0.07
91042903|NCT02327325|181971470|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.1||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.69|3.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison of the PA + CBT only group with the wait list control. Rejection of the null hypothesis means that the PA + CBT group was superior to the wait list group.||3.48|-11.69|0.28
91042904|NCT02327325|181971471|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.64||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|7.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison of the PA only group with the wait list control. Rejection of the null hypothesis means that the PA group was superior to the wait list group.||7.96|-0.69|0.097
91042905|NCT02327325|181971471|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.91||||0.196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|7.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison of the PA+CBT group with the wait list control. Rejection of the null hypothesis means that the PA+CBT group was superior to the wait list group.||7.39|-1.55|0.196
91042906|NCT02327325|181971472|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.1|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.85|-1.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison of the PA only group with the wait list control. Rejection of the null hypothesis means that the PA group was superior to the wait list group.||-1.34|-6.85|<0.01
91042907|NCT02327325|181971472|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.99||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.85|0.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison of the PA + CBT only group with the wait list control. Rejection of the null hypothesis means that the PA + CBT group was superior to the wait list group.||0.86|-4.85|0.17
91042908|NCT02327325|181971473|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.16||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.86|5.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison of the PA only group with the wait list control. Rejection of the null hypothesis means that the PA group was superior to the wait list group.||5.19|-4.86|0.95
91042909|NCT02327325|181971473|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.07|1.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison of the PA+CBT group with the wait list control. Rejection of the null hypothesis means that the PA+CBT group was superior to the wait list group.||1.07|-7.07|0.97
91042910|NCT04443569|181971522|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Post-Op Day 1||||0.3
91042911|NCT04443569|181971522|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Post-Op Day 2||||0.9
91042912|NCT04443569|181971522|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Post-Op Day 3||||0.07
91042913|NCT04443569|181971522|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Post-Op Day 4||||0.09
91042914|NCT04443569|181971523|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
91042915|NCT01118026|181971524|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9669|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.9669
91042916|NCT01933919|181971538|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Fluvoxamine-Placebo)|-4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.07||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|-0.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline JCY-BOCS (10-item) total score and age as covariates and treatment as fixed effect.|The model included the fixed effects of treatment, with baseline JCY-BOCS (10-item) total score and age as covariates.|||-0.1|-8.5|0.044
91042917|NCT00108082|181971584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33||||0.7651||95.0|-1.83|2.49|||ANCOVA|||The null hypotheses (tested hierarchically) were that the effect of carvedilol CR + lisinopril on LV mass regression was no different than the effect of atenolol + lisinopril, and that the effect of carvedilol CR + lisinopril was no different than the effect of lisinopril + lisinopril. The primary analysis was based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with a model adjusting for treatment, stratification by hypertension class, region, and baseline value, at a 0.05 level of significance.||2.49|-1.83|0.7651
91042918|NCT00108082|181971584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6||||0.1711||95.0|-0.7|3.9|||ANCOVA|||||3.90|-0.70|0.1711
91042919|NCT01091103|181971606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9427|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9427
91042920|NCT01091103|181971607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.337|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3370
91042921|NCT00809965|181971651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.97|||Log Rank||Based upon the Cox proportional hazards model|||0.97|0.72|0.020
91042922|NCT00809965|181971651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.98|||Log Rank||Based upon the Cox proportional hazards model|||0.98|0.73|0.028
91042923|NCT00809965|181971652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.97|||Log Rank||Based on the Cox proportional hazards model|||0.97|0.72|0.016
91042924|NCT00809965|181971652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.98|||Log Rank||Based on the Cox proportional hazards model|||0.98|0.73|0.025
91042925|NCT00809965|181971653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.07|||Log Rank||Based upon the Cox proportional hazards model|||1.07|0.81|0.320
91042926|NCT00809965|181971653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.1|||Log Rank||Based upon the Cox proportional hazards model|||1.10|0.83|0.508
91042927|NCT00809965|181971654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.04|||Log Rank||Based upon the Cox proportional hazards model|||1.04|0.80|0.185
91042928|NCT00809965|181971654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.01|||Log Rank||Based upon the Cox proportional hazards model|||1.01|0.78|0.081
91042929|NCT00809965|181971655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.96|||Log Rank||Based upon the Cox proportional hazards model|||0.96|0.73|0.011
91042930|NCT00809965|181971655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.01|||Log Rank||Based upon the Cox proportional hazards model|||1.01|0.78|0.070
91042931|NCT02780167|181971656|OTHER||Estimate difference|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|4.4|||Emax model|Emax model with non-responder imputation (NRI)|Test group: PF-04965842 10 mg QD, Reference group: Placebo.|||4.4|-0.7|0.1210
91042932|NCT02780167|181971656|OTHER||Estimate difference|6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.05||0.1065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|13.8|||Emax model|Emax model with non-responder imputation (NRI)|Test group: PF-04965842 30 mg QD, Reference group: Placebo.|||13.8|-1.8|0.1065
91042933|NCT02780167|181971656|OTHER||Estimate difference|21.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.25||0.0184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.5|37.6|||Emax model|Emax model with non-responder imputation (NRI)|Test group: PF-04965842 100 mg QD, Reference group: Placebo.|||37.6|5.5|0.0184
91042934|NCT02780167|181971656|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|38.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.18||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.7|56.6|||Emax model|Emax model with non-responder imputation (NRI)|Test group: PF-04965842 200 mg QD, Reference group: Placebo.|||56.6|19.7|0.0032
91042935|NCT02780167|181971657|OTHER||LS mean difference|4.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.667||0.6731|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.88|20.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) with observed cases (OC)|Test group: PF-04965842 10 mg QD, Reference group: Placebo.|||20.05|-11.88|0.6731
91042936|NCT02780167|181971657|OTHER||LS mean difference|-5.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.474||0.561|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.16|10.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with OC|Test group: PF-04965842 30 mg QD, Reference group: Placebo.|||10.13|-21.16|0.5610
91042937|NCT02780167|181971657|OTHER||LS mean difference|-23.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.043||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-38.76|-8.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with OC|Test group: PF-04965842 100 mg QD, Reference group: Placebo.|||-8.88|-38.76|0.0091
91042938|NCT02780167|181971657|OTHER||LS mean difference|-47.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.008|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-62.23|-32.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with OC|Test group: PF-04965842 200 mg QD, Reference group: Placebo.|||-32.47|-62.23|<0.0001
91042939|NCT05552261|181971691|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.8||||0.5158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|1.2|||Wilcoxon signed-rank|||||1.2|-6.7|0.5158
91042940|NCT05552261|181971691|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.9||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|-0.6|||Wilcoxon signed-rank|||||-0.6|-9.2|0.0670
91042941|NCT05552261|181971691|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.6307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|2.8|||Wilcoxon signed-rank|||||2.8|-4.4|0.6307
91042942|NCT05552261|181971691|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.1||||0.0357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|-0.6|||Wilcoxon signed-rank|||||-0.6|-5.6|0.0357
90991601|NCT05372575|181867208|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|9.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.65|14.08|||||GMR=(GMC of 13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)/(GMC of non-13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT- or Sp- Subgroups for Serotype: 19F||14.08|6.65|
90991602|NCT05372575|181867208|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|9.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|13.64|||||GMR=(GMC of 13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)/(GMC of non-13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT- or Sp- Subgroups for Serotype: 23F||13.64|6.90|
90991603|NCT05372575|181867209|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|3.91|||||GMR=(GMT of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMT of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in 13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 1||3.91|0.06|
91042943|NCT05552261|181971692|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.695||||0.2836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.353|1.743|||Wilcoxon signed-rank|||||1.743|-0.353|0.2836
91042944|NCT05552261|181971692|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.539||||0.5153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|1.628|||Wilcoxon signed-rank|||||1.628|-0.550|0.5153
91042945|NCT05552261|181971692|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.384||||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.295|0.527|||Wilcoxon signed-rank|||||0.527|-1.295|0.2530
91042946|NCT05552261|181971692|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.561||||0.3828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.574|0.451|||Wilcoxon signed-rank|||||0.451|-1.574|0.3828
91042947|NCT05552261|181971694|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.023||||0.745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.064|||Wilcoxon signed-rank|||||0.064|-0.110|0.7450
91042948|NCT05552261|181971694|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.124|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.071|0.177|||Wilcoxon signed-rank|||||0.177|0.071|<0.0001
91042949|NCT05552261|181971694|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.056||||0.1619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.134|0.021|||Wilcoxon signed-rank|||||0.021|-0.134|0.1619
91042950|NCT05552261|181971694|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.087||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.154|||Wilcoxon signed-rank|||||0.154|0.020|0.0100
91042951|NCT03259789|181971750|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.32|||Mixed-effects repeated measures|Mixed-effects repeated measures analysis includes country, treatment, visit, treatment and baseline HbA1c value as fixed effect covariates||||-0.32|-0.74|< 0.0001
91042952|NCT03259789|181971752|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-1.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|-0.86|||Mixed-effects repeated measures|Mixed-effects repeated measures analysis includes country, treatment, visit, treatment and baseline HbA1c value as fixed effect covariates||||-0.86|-1.83|< 0.0001
91042953|NCT03259789|181971754|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-7.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.83|-4.32|||Mixed-effects repeated measures|Mixed-effects repeated measures analysis includes country, treatment, visit, treatment and baseline HbA1c value as fixed effect covariates||||-4.32|-9.83|< 0.0001
90991604|NCT05372575|181867209|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.92|||||GMR=(GMT of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMT of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in 13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 3||2.92|0.10|
90991605|NCT05372575|181867209|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.07|||||GMR=(GMT of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMT of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in 13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 4||2.07|0.10|
90991606|NCT05372575|181867209|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|1.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|11.75|||||GMR=(GMT of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMT of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in 13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 5||11.75|0.27|
91042954|NCT03259789|181971755|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.69||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|12.95||P-value is presented based on one-sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance|Mixed-effects repeated measures|Mixed-effects repeated measures analysis includes country, treatment, visit, treatment and baseline HbA1c value as fixed effect covariates|The odds ratios of bexagliflozin group over the placebo group at each visit will be estimated from LS means based on the model with the corresponding p-values and their two-sided 95% CIs presented.|Odds ratio at Week 6 was calculated as the odds ratio of bexagliflozin group over placebo group.||12.95|1.70|0.0014
90991607|NCT05372575|181867209|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|1.65|||||GMR=(GMT of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMT of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in 13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 6A||1.65|0.03|
91042955|NCT03259789|181971755|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.18||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.96|8.92||P-value is presented based on one-sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance|Mixed-effects repeated measures|Mixed-effects repeated measures analysis includes country, treatment, visit, treatment and baseline HbA1c value as fixed effect covariates|The odds ratios of bexagliflozin group over the placebo group at each visit will be estimated from LS means based on the model with the corresponding p-values and their two-sided 95% CIs presented.|Odds ratio at Week 12 was calculated as the odds ratio of bexagliflozin group over placebo group.||8.92|1.96|0.0001
90991608|NCT05372575|181867209|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.44|||||GMR=(GMT of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMT of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in 13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 6B||0.44|0.01|
90991609|NCT05372575|181867209|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|2.65|||||GMR=(GMT of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMT of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in 13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 7F||2.65|0.56|
90991610|NCT05372575|181867209|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|1.26|||||GMR=(GMT of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMT of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in 13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 9V||1.26|0.03|
90991611|NCT05372575|181867209|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|1.55|||||GMR=(GMT of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMT of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in 13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 14||1.55|0.08|
90991612|NCT05372575|181867209|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|4.47|||||GMR=(GMT of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMT of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in 13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 18C||4.47|0.15|
90991613|NCT05372575|181867209|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|9.44|||||GMR=(GMT of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMT of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in 13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 19A||9.44|0.19|
90991614|NCT05372575|181867209|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|3.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|22.42|||||GMR=(GMT of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMT of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in 13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 19F||22.42|0.67|
90991615|NCT05372575|181867209|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|1.52|||||GMR=(GMT of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMT of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in 13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 23F||1.52|0.05|
90991616|NCT05372575|181867209|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|3.07|||||GMR=(GMT of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMT of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 1||3.07|0.19|
90991617|NCT05372575|181867209|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|2.46|||||GMR=(GMT of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMT of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 3||2.46|0.42|
91042956|NCT03259789|181971755|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.57||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|5.04||P-value is presented based on one-sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance|Mixed-effects repeated measures|Mixed-effects repeated measures analysis includes country, treatment, visit, treatment and baseline HbA1c value as fixed effect covariates|The odds ratios of bexagliflozin group over the placebo group at each visit will be estimated from LS means based on the model with the corresponding p-values and their two-sided 95% CIs presented.|Odds ratio at Week 18 was calculated as the odds ratio of bexagliflozin group over placebo group.||5.04|1.31|0.0030
91042957|NCT03259789|181971755|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.88|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.99|7.58||P-value is presented based on one-sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance|Mixed-effects repeated measures|Mixed-effects repeated measures analysis includes country, treatment, visit, treatment and baseline HbA1c value as fixed effect covariates|The odds ratios of bexagliflozin group over the placebo group at each visit will be estimated from LS means based on the model with the corresponding p-values and their two-sided 95% CIs presented.|Odds ratio at Week 24 was calculated as the odds ratio of bexagliflozin group over placebo group.||7.58|1.99|< 0.0001
91042958|NCT03259789|181971757|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-2.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.45|-1.57|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis includes country, treatment, visit, treatment and baseline HbA1c value as fixed effect covariates||||-1.57|-3.45|< 0.0001
91042959|NCT03259789|181971759|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.38||P-value is presented based on one-sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance|Mixed-effects repeated measures|Mixed-effects repeated measures analysis includes country, treatment, visit, treatment and baseline HbA1c value as fixed effect covariates||Model-adjusted change from baseline at week 6 was calculated as the difference in LS Mean between bexagliflozin group and placebo group.||-0.38|-0.74|< 0.0001
91042960|NCT03259789|181971759|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|-0.46||P-value is presented based on one-sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance|Mixed-effects repeated measures|Mixed-effects repeated measures analysis includes country, treatment, visit, treatment and baseline HbA1c value as fixed effect covariates||Model-adjusted change from baseline at week 12 was calculated as the difference in LS Mean between bexagliflozin group and placebo group.||-0.46|-0.86|< 0.0001
91042961|NCT03259789|181971759|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.3||P-value is presented based on one-sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance|Mixed-effects repeated measures|Mixed-effects repeated measures analysis includes country, treatment, visit, treatment and baseline HbA1c value as fixed effect covariates||Model-adjusted change from baseline at week 18 was calculated as the difference in LS Mean between bexagliflozin group and placebo group.||-0.30|-0.69|< 0.0001
91042962|NCT03259789|181971759|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.32||P-value is presented based on one-sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance|Mixed-effects repeated measures|Mixed-effects repeated measures analysis includes country, treatment, visit, treatment and baseline HbA1c value as fixed effect covariates||Model-adjusted change from baseline at week 24 was calculated as the difference in LS Mean between bexagliflozin group and placebo group.||-0.32|-0.74|< 0.0001
91042963|NCT00860262|181971763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|-8.3|||Repeated measures ANCOVA||Difference calculated as T80+A10 minus Telmisartan 80 mg|||-8.3|-12.9|<0.0001
91042964|NCT00860262|181971763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|-2.1|||Repeated measures ANCOVA||Difference calculated as T80+A10 minus amlodipine 10 mg|||-2.1|-6.7|0.0002
91042965|NCT00860262|181971764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|-8.2|||Repeated measures ANCOVA||Difference calculated as T80+A10 minus telmisartan 80 mg|||-8.2|-13.1|<0.0001
91042966|NCT00860262|181971764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.24||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|-2.4|||Repeated measures ANCOVA||Difference calculated as T80+A10 minus amlodipine 10 mg|||-2.4|-7.3|0.0001
90991618|NCT05372575|181867209|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|3.73|||||GMR=(GMT of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMT of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 4||3.73|0.05|
90991619|NCT05372575|181867209|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|2.73|||||GMR=(GMT of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMT of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 5||2.73|0.15|
90991620|NCT05372575|181867209|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|6.99|||||GMR=(GMT of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMT of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 6A||6.99|0.11|
90991621|NCT05372575|181867209|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|12.51|||||GMR=(GMT of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMT of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 6B||12.51|0.29|
90991622|NCT05372575|181867209|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|2.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|17.43|||||GMR=(GMT of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMT of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 7F||17.43|0.34|
90991623|NCT05372575|181867209|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|7.7|||||GMR=(GMT of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMT of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 9V||7.70|0.27|
90991624|NCT05372575|181867209|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|17.41|||||GMR=(GMT of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMT of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 14||17.41|0.30|
90991625|NCT05372575|181867209|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|2.97|||||GMR=(GMT of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMT of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 18C||2.97|0.14|
90991626|NCT05372575|181867209|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|1.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|8.21|||||GMR=(GMT of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMT of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 19A||8.21|0.28|
90991627|NCT05372575|181867209|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|2.97|||||GMR=(GMT of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMT of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 19F||2.97|0.13|
90991628|NCT05372575|181867209|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|10.24|||||GMR=(GMT of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMT of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 23F||10.24|0.15|
90991629|NCT05372575|181867209|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|3.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|23.91|||||GMR=(GMT of 13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)/(GMT of non-13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT+ Subgroups for Serotype: 1||23.91|0.41|
91042967|NCT00860262|181971765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.24|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|-7.7|||Repeated measures ANCOVA||Difference calculated as T80+A10 minus telmisartan 80 mg|||-7.7|-12.6|<0.0001
90991630|NCT05372575|181867209|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|5.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|17.39|||||GMR=(GMT of 13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)/(GMT of non-13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT+ Subgroups for Serotype: 3||17.39|1.45|
90991631|NCT05372575|181867209|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|13.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|141.81|||||GMR=(GMT of 13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)/(GMT of non-13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT+ Subgroups for Serotype: 4||141.81|1.32|
90991632|NCT05372575|181867209|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|48.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.16|380.54|||||GMR=(GMT of 13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)/(GMT of non-13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT+ Subgroups for Serotype: 5||380.54|6.16|
90991633|NCT05372575|181867209|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|10.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|229.1|||||GMR=(GMT of 13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)/(GMT of non-13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT+ Subgroups for Serotype: 6A||229.10|0.48|
90991634|NCT05372575|181867209|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|19.83|||||GMR=(GMT of 13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)/(GMT of non-13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT+ Subgroups for Serotype: 6B||19.83|0.02|
90991635|NCT05372575|181867209|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|10.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.98|55.96|||||GMR=(GMT of 13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)/(GMT of non-13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT+ Subgroups for Serotype: 7F||55.96|1.98|
90991636|NCT05372575|181867209|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|3.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|56.82|||||GMR=(GMT of 13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)/(GMT of non-13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT+ Subgroups for Serotype: 9V||56.82|0.19|
90991637|NCT05372575|181867209|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|63.12|||||GMR=(GMT of 13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)/(GMT of non-13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT+ Subgroups for Serotype: 14||63.12|0.06|
90991638|NCT05372575|181867209|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|16.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.15|123.48|||||GMR=(GMT of 13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)/(GMT of non-13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT+ Subgroups for Serotype: 18C||123.48|2.15|
90991639|NCT05372575|181867209|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|24.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|367.81|||||GMR=(GMT of 13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)/(GMT of non-13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT+ Subgroups for Serotype: 19A||367.81|1.59|
90991640|NCT05372575|181867209|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|95.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.08|691.01|||||GMR=(GMT of 13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)/(GMT of non-13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT+ Subgroups for Serotype: 19F||691.01|13.08|
90991641|NCT05372575|181867209|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|10.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|171.84|||||GMR=(GMT of 13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)/(GMT of non-13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT+ Subgroups for Serotype: 23F||171.84|0.64|
91042968|NCT00860262|181971765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.24||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|-2.4|||Repeated measures ANCOVA||Difference calculated as T80+A10 minus amlodipine 10 mg|||-2.4|-7.2|0.0001
91042969|NCT00860262|181971766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|-5.4|||Repeated measures ANCOVA||Difference calculated as T80+A10 minus telmisartan 80 mg|||-5.4|-10.2|<0.0001
91042970|NCT00860262|181971766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|-2.3|||Repeated measures ANCOVA||Difference calculated as T80+A10 minus amlodipine 10 mg|||-2.3|-7.0|0.0001
91042971|NCT00860262|181971767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.23|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|-4.0|||Repeated measures ANCOVA||Difference calculated as T80+A10 minus telmisartan 80 mg|||-4.0|-8.8|<0.0001
91042972|NCT00860262|181971767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.23||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|-0.9|||Repeated measures ANCOVA||Difference calculated as T80+A10 minus amlodipine 10 mg|||-0.9|-5.7|0.0077
91042973|NCT00420095|181971806|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Non-inferiority hypothesis testing where paired t-test for equivalence of means was used to estimate the sample size.~Pre-defined non-inferiority margin of 0.3%."|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05||||0.497||95.0|-0.2|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom. Adjusted means were presented.||Mixed model where period, sequence, treatment are fixed effects and patient within sequence are random effects.||0.10|-0.20|0.497
91042974|NCT00420095|181971807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.497||95.0|-0.1|0.2||All comparisons were conducted using a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted means||||0.20|-0.10|0.497
91042975|NCT00420095|181971808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14||||0.419||95.0|-0.48|0.2||All comparisons were conducted using a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted means||||0.20|-0.48|0.419
91042976|NCT00420095|181971809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.16||||0.741||95.0|-1.09|0.78||All comparisons were conducted using a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted means||||0.78|-1.09|0.741
90991642|NCT05372575|181867209|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|4.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.15|10.96|||||GMR=(GMT of 13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)/(GMT of non-13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT- or Sp- Subgroups for Serotype: 1||10.96|2.15|
90991643|NCT05372575|181867209|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|9.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|20.36|||||GMR=(GMT of 13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)/(GMT of non-13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT- or Sp- Subgroups for Serotype: 3||20.36|4.50|
91042977|NCT00420095|181971810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.644||95.0||||P-value for the HbA1c Percentage Criteria (7%)|Fisher Exact|||||||0.644
91042978|NCT00420095|181971810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.672||95.0||||P-value for the HbA1c Percentage Criteria (6.5%)|Fisher Exact|||||||0.672
91042979|NCT00420095|181971812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03||||0.67||95.0|-0.16|0.11||All comparisons were conducted using a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted means||||0.11|-0.16|0.670
91042980|NCT00393705|181971813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2519||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Model: Value = Treatment + Lead-in + Treatment\*Lead-in + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Value at baseline + error.||||||0.2519
91042981|NCT00393705|181971814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0287||95.0||||P-value for HbA1c \<7%. Additional statistically significant terms from the model below were baseline HbA1c and treatment by lead-in interaction.|Regression, Logistic|Model: Logit(p(response)/1-p(response)) = U + r' X, where u = intercept parameter, X = vector of parameters (treatment, baseline value, lead-in).||||||0.0287
91042982|NCT00393705|181971814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0471||95.0||||P-value for HbA1c ≤6.5%. Additional statistically significant term from the model below was baseline HbA1c.|Regression, Logistic|Model: Logit(p(response)/1-p(response)) = U + r' X, where u = intercept parameter, X = vector of parameters (treatment, baseline value, lead-in).||||||0.0471
91042983|NCT00393705|181971816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0077||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Model: Value = Treatment + Lead-in + Treatment\*Lead-in + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Value at baseline + error.||||||0.0077
91042984|NCT00393705|181971817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Model: Value = Treatment + Lead-in + Treatment\*Lead-in + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Value at baseline + error.||||||0.0002
91042985|NCT00393705|181971818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0129||95.0||||P-value for Fasting.|ANCOVA|Model: Value = Treatment + Lead-in + Treatment\*Lead-in + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Value at baseline + error.||||||0.0129
91042986|NCT00393705|181971818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0027||95.0||||P-value for 2-Hours After Breakfast.|ANCOVA|Model: Value = Treatment + Lead-in + Treatment\*Lead-in + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Value at baseline + error.||||||0.0027
91042987|NCT00393705|181971818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1947||95.0||||P-value for Pre-Lunch.|ANCOVA|Model: Value = Treatment + Lead-in + Treatment\*Lead-in + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Value at baseline + error.||||||0.1947
90991644|NCT05372575|181867209|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|13.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.2|34.51|||||GMR=(GMT of 13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)/(GMT of non-13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT- or Sp- Subgroups for Serotype: 4||34.51|5.20|
90991645|NCT05372575|181867209|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|17.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.76|37.91|||||GMR=(GMT of 13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)/(GMT of non-13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT- or Sp- Subgroups for Serotype: 5||37.91|7.76|
90991646|NCT05372575|181867209|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|40.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.16|106.65|||||GMR=(GMT of 13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)/(GMT of non-13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT- or Sp- Subgroups for Serotype: 6A||106.65|15.16|
90991647|NCT05372575|181867209|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|20.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.39|49.51|||||GMR=(GMT of 13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)/(GMT of non-13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT- or Sp- Subgroups for Serotype: 6B||49.51|8.39|
90991648|NCT05372575|181867209|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|21.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.65|52.07|||||GMR=(GMT of 13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)/(GMT of non-13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT- or Sp- Subgroups for Serotype: 7F||52.07|8.65|
90991649|NCT05372575|181867209|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|23.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.39|54.19|||||GMR=(GMT of 13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)/(GMT of non-13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT- or Sp- Subgroups for Serotype: 9V||54.19|10.39|
90991650|NCT05372575|181867209|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|12.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.46|30.22|||||GMR=(GMT of 13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)/(GMT of non-13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT- or Sp- Subgroups for Serotype: 14||30.22|5.46|
90991651|NCT05372575|181867209|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|12.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.95|27.88|||||GMR=(GMT of 13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)/(GMT of non-13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT- or Sp- Subgroups for Serotype: 18C||27.88|5.95|
90991652|NCT05372575|181867209|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|26.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.46|63.58|||||GMR=(GMT of 13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)/(GMT of non-13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT- or Sp- Subgroups for Serotype: 19A||63.58|11.46|
90991653|NCT05372575|181867209|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|15.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.02|34.38|||||GMR=(GMT of 13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)/(GMT of non-13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT- or Sp- Subgroups for Serotype: 19F||34.38|7.02|
90991654|NCT05372575|181867209|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|48.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.67|127.16|||||GMR=(GMT of 13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)/(GMT of non-13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT- or Sp- Subgroups for Serotype: 23F||127.16|18.67|
91042988|NCT00393705|181971818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0077||95.0||||P-value for 2-Hours After Lunch.|ANCOVA|Model: Value = Treatment + Lead-in + Treatment\*Lead-in + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Value at baseline + error.||||||0.0077
90991655|NCT03345836|181867210|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|17.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|25.8||P-value was calculated using Cochran-Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for randomization stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Point estimate and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using CMH risk difference estimate.|||25.8|10.0|<0.0001
90991656|NCT03345836|181867211|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|31.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.5|37.0||P-value was calculated using CMH test adjusted for randomization stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Point estimate and 95% CI was calculated using CMH risk difference estimate.|||37.0|25.5|<0.0001
90991657|NCT03345836|181867213|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|25.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.7|33.1||P-value was calculated using CMH test adjusted for randomization stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Point estimate and 95% CI was calculated using CMH.|||33.1|18.7|<0.0001
90991658|NCT03345836|181867214|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|16.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|21.6||P-value was calculated using CMH test adjusted for randomization stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Point estimate and 95% CI was calculated using CMH.|||21.6|12.0|<0.0001
90991659|NCT03345836|181867215|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|22.5||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.1|34.0||P-value was calculated using CMH test adjusted for randomization stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Point estimate and 95% CI was calculated using CMH.|||34.0|11.1|0.0001
90991660|NCT03345836|181867216|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|7.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.2|9.8||P-value was calculated using mixed effect model repeat measurement (MMRM) with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and stratification factors in the model.|MMRM||Point estimate and 95% CI was calculated using MMRM.|||9.8|5.2|< 0.0001
90991661|NCT03345836|181867217|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|24.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.2|31.5||P-value was calculated using MMRM with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and stratification factors in the model.|MMRM||Point estimate and 95% CI was calculated using MMRM.|||31.5|17.2|< 0.0001
90991662|NCT03345836|181867218|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|20.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.7|27.8||P-value was calculated using CMH test adjusted for randomization stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Point estimate and 95% CI was calculated using CMH.|||27.8|13.7|<0.0001
90991663|NCT03345836|181867219|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|22.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.4|31.2||P-value was calculated using CMH test adjusted for randomization stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Point estimate and 95% CI was calculated using CMH.|||31.2|14.4|<0.0001
90991664|NCT03345836|181867220|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|12.1||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|19.5||P-value was calculated using CMH test adjusted for randomization stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Point estimate and 95% CI was calculated using CMH.|||19.5|4.7|0.0013
90991665|NCT03345836|181867221|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-2.6||||0.2834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|2.4||P-value was calculated using Chi-squared test.|Chi-squared||Point estimate and 95% CI was calculated using Chi-squared test.|||2.4|-7.6|0.2834
90991666|NCT03345836|181867222|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|11.5||||0.0833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|24.4||P-value was calculated using CMH test adjusted for randomization stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Point estimate and 95% CI was calculated using CMH.|||24.4|-1.5|0.0833
90991667|NCT03510663|181867223|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|4.1||||||1 hour postdose||4.1|-0.4|
90991668|NCT03510663|181867223|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|4.9||||||1.5 hours postdose||4.9|0.4|
90991669|NCT03510663|181867223|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|4.4||||||2 hours postdose||4.4|-0.1|
90991670|NCT03510663|181867223|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.8|1.7||||||3 hours postdose||1.7|-2.8|
90991671|NCT03510663|181867223|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.3|-1.8||||||4 hours postdose||-1.8|-6.3|
90991672|NCT03510663|181867223|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.7|-1.2||||||6 hours postdose||-1.2|-5.7|
90991673|NCT03510663|181867223|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.1|-2.6||||||12 hours postdose||-2.6|-7.1|
90991674|NCT03510663|181867223|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.1|1.4||||||24 hours postdose||1.4|-3.1|
90991675|NCT03510663|181867223|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.4|3.1||||||1 hour postdose||3.1|-1.4|
91042989|NCT00393705|181971818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1885||95.0||||P-value for Pre-Dinner.|ANCOVA|Model: Value = Treatment + Lead-in + Treatment\*Lead-in + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Value at baseline + error.||||||0.1885
91042990|NCT00393705|181971818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5525||95.0||||P-value for 2-Hours After Dinner.|ANCOVA|Model: Value = Treatment + Lead-in + Treatment\*Lead-in + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Value at baseline + error.||||||0.5525
90991676|NCT03510663|181867223|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|4.2||||||1.5 hours postdose||4.2|-0.2|
90991677|NCT03510663|181867223|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.4|3.1||||||2 hours postdose||3.1|-1.4|
90991678|NCT03510663|181867223|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.8|0.7||||||3 hours postdose||0.7|-3.8|
90991679|NCT03510663|181867223|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.9|-1.5||||||4 hours postdose||-1.5|-5.9|
90991680|NCT03510663|181867223|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.6|-0.1||||||6 hours postdose||-0.1|-4.6|
90991681|NCT03510663|181867223|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.3|-2.8||||||12 hours postdose||-2.8|-7.3|
90991682|NCT03510663|181867223|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.4|2.1||||||24 hours postdose||2.1|-2.4|
90991683|NCT03510663|181867223|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|98.0|7.6|14.0||||||1 hour postdose||14.0|7.6|
90991684|NCT03510663|181867223|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|10.2|||||TWO_SIDED|98.0|7.0|13.4||||||1.5 hours postdose||13.4|7.0|
90991685|NCT03510663|181867223|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|11.2|||||TWO_SIDED|98.0|8.0|14.4||||||2 hours postdose||14.4|8.0|
90991686|NCT03510663|181867223|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|11.5|||||TWO_SIDED|98.0|8.3|14.7||||||3 hours postdose||14.7|8.3|
90991687|NCT03510663|181867223|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|9.7|||||TWO_SIDED|98.0|6.5|12.8||||||4 hours postdose||12.8|6.5|
90991688|NCT03510663|181867223|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|10.4|||||TWO_SIDED|98.0|7.2|13.5||||||6 hours postdose||13.5|7.2|
90991689|NCT03510663|181867223|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|7.3|||||TWO_SIDED|98.0|4.1|10.4||||||12 hours postdose||10.4|4.1|
90991690|NCT03510663|181867223|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|98.0|3.8|10.2||||||24 hours postdose||10.2|3.8|
90991691|NCT01798706|181867241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.088|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.464||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA||Lixisenatide vs Placebo|Analysis was performed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment groups, randomization strata of Week -1 HbA1c (\<8.0, ≥8.0%), randomization strata of basal insulin use at screening, randomization strata of Week -1 glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) (≥30 to \<60, ≥60 ml/min/1.73 m\^2), and country as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c value as a covariate.||-0.464|-0.81|< 0.0001
90991692|NCT01798706|181867242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.464|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.96|-4.132||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level. Testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05.|ANCOVA||Lixisenatide vs Placebo|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of Week -1 HbA1c (\<8.0, ≥8.0%), randomization strata of basal insulin use at screening, randomization strata of Week -1 eGFR (≥30 to \<60, ≥60 ml/min/1.73 m\^2), and country as fixed effects and baseline 2-hour PPG value as a covariate. Hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error at 0.05. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints were reported.||-4.132|-5.96|< 0.0001
90991693|NCT01798706|181867243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.219|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|-0.527||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA||Lixisenatide vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of Week -1 HbA1c (\<8.0, ≥8.0%), randomization strata of basal insulin use at screening, randomization strata of Week -1 eGFR (≥30 to \<60, ≥60 ml/min/1.73 m\^2), and country as fixed effects and baseline 7-point SMPG value as a covariate.||-0.527|-1.39|< 0.0001
90991694|NCT01798706|181867244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.278|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.862|-0.769||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA||Lixisenatide vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of Week -1 HbA1c (\<8.0, ≥8.0%), randomization strata of basal insulin use at screening, randomization strata of Week -1 eGFR (≥30 to \<60, ≥60 ml/min/1.73 m\^2), and country as fixed effects and baseline body weight value as a covariate.||-0.769|-1.862|< 0.0001
91008006|NCT01005966|181900093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|495.38||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|221.09|769.66||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA based on a mixed model with factors subject, treatment and period was used.|Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.|Null hypothesis considered population means for AmF toothpaste (1400ppmF) and Na MFP/ NaF toothpaste (1450ppmF) and to be equal with respect to enamel fluoride uptake potential.||769.66|221.09|0.0005
91008007|NCT01005966|181900093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|655.67|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|382.41|928.93||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA based on a mixed model with factors subject, treatment and period was used.|Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.|Null hypothesis considered population means for AmF toothpaste (1400ppmF) and NaF toothpaste (675ppmF) to be equal with respect to enamel fluoride uptake potential.||928.93|382.41|<0.0001
90991695|NCT01798706|181867245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.262||0.2347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.828|0.204||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA||Lixisenatide vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of Week -1 HbA1c (\<8.0, ≥8.0%), randomization strata of basal insulin use at screening, randomization strata of Week -1 eGFR (≥30 to \<60, ≥60 ml/min/1.73 m\^2), and country as fixed effects and baseline FPG value as a covariate.||0.204|-0.828|0.2347
91042991|NCT00393705|181971818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4994||95.0||||P-value for 3:00 A.M.|ANCOVA|Model: Value = Treatment + Lead-in + Treatment\*Lead-in + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Value at baseline + error.||||||0.4994
90991696|NCT00962039|181867285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.1||Analyses were conducted over 8 week follow-up.|Chi-squared|||||0.10|-0.12|0.92
90991697|NCT00962039|181867286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|-0.01|||Chi-squared|||||-0.01|-0.15|0.034
90991698|NCT00962039|181867287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03||||0.261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.02|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.02|-0.07|0.261
90991699|NCT00962039|181867288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09||||0.519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.18|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.18|-0.36|0.519
90991700|NCT00962039|181867289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12||||0.704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.52|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.52|-0.77|0.704
90991701|NCT00962039|181867290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.59||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|1.17|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.17|0.01|0.046
90991702|NCT02592629|181867291|EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA|||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
90991703|NCT02669862|181867292|OTHER|||||||0.555|||||||ANCOVA|Baseline values were the covariate||"In this table Study Day 01 / Visit 2 has been considered as Baseline visit for calculating mean and mean change.~PVal\*- ANCOVA used for calculating P-value by comparing Vehicle against each Active treatment group using baseline values as the covariate."||||0.555
91042992|NCT00393705|181971820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.723||95.0||||P-value for Total Hypoglycemic Episodes/30 Days.|ANCOVA|Model: Value = Treatment + Lead-in + Treatment\*Lead-in + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Value at baseline + error.||||||0.7230
91042993|NCT00393705|181971820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0063||95.0||||P-value for Nocturnal Hypoglycemic Episodes/30 Days.|ANCOVA|Model: Value = Treatment + Lead-in + Treatment\*Lead-in + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Value at baseline + error.||||||0.0063
91042994|NCT00393705|181971820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8876||95.0||||P-value for Severe Hypoglycemic Episodes/30 Days.|ANCOVA|Model: Value = Treatment + Lead-in + Treatment\*Lead-in + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Value at baseline + error.||||||0.8876
91042995|NCT00393705|181971821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0009||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Model: Value = Treatment + Lead-in + Treatment\*Lead-in + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Value at baseline + error.||||||0.0009
91042996|NCT00393705|181971822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0056||95.0||||P-value for Week 4|ANCOVA|Model: Value = Treatment + Lead-in + Treatment\*Lead-in + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Value at baseline + error.||||||0.0056
91042997|NCT00393705|181971822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0421||95.0||||P-value for Week 12|ANCOVA|Model: Value = Treatment + Lead-in + Treatment\*Lead-in + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Value at baseline + error.||||||0.0421
91042998|NCT02367872|181971853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|51.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.22|74.08||||||TAK-272F: Least square mean (LS) mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 2R) and the reference group (Cohort 1R) with their 95 percent (%) confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model for natural log-transformed data.||74.08|35.22|
91042999|NCT02367872|181971853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|117.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|81.32|171.07||||||TAK-272F: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 3R) and the reference group (Cohort 1R) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||171.07|81.32|
91043000|NCT02367872|181971853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|272.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|188.14|395.76||||||TAK-272F: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 4R) and the reference group (Cohort 1R) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||395.76|188.14|
91043001|NCT02367872|181971853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|183.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|126.36|265.81||||||TAK-272F: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 5R-Part 2) and the reference group (Cohort 1R) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||265.81|126.36|
91043002|NCT02367872|181971853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|101.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.95|149.9||||||TAK-272F: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 2H) and the reference group (Cohort 1H) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||149.90|68.95|
91043003|NCT02367872|181971853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|135.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|92.23|200.5||||||TAK-272F: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 3H) and the reference group (Cohort 1H) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||200.50|92.23|
91043004|NCT02367872|181971853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|62.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.17|107.45||||||M-I: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 2R) and the reference group (Cohort 1R) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||107.45|36.17|
91043005|NCT02367872|181971853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|93.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.08|160.64||||||M-I: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 3R) and the reference group (Cohort 1R) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||160.64|54.08|
91043006|NCT02367872|181971853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|274.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|159.1|472.63||||||M-I: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 4R) and the reference group (Cohort 1R) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||472.63|159.10|
91043007|NCT02367872|181971853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|261.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|151.5|450.05||||||M-I: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 5R-Part 2) and the reference group (Cohort 1R) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||450.05|151.50|
91043008|NCT02367872|181971853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|112.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|69.34|182.41||||||M-I: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 2H) and the reference group (Cohort 1H) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||182.41|69.34|
91043009|NCT02367872|181971853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|176.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|108.97|286.67||||||M-I: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 3H) and the reference group (Cohort 1H) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||286.67|108.97|
91043010|NCT02367872|181971854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|57.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.76|87.14||||||TAK-272F: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 2R) and the reference group (Cohort 1R) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||87.14|37.76|
91043011|NCT02367872|181971854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|77.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.72|117.03||||||TAK-272F: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 3R) and the reference group (Cohort 1R) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||117.03|50.72|
91043012|NCT02367872|181971854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|206.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|135.88|313.54||||||TAK-272F: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 4R) and the reference group (Cohort 1R) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||313.54|135.88|
91043013|NCT02367872|181971854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|143.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.21|217.39||||||TAK-272F: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 5R-Part 2) and the reference group (Cohort 1R) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||217.39|94.21|
91043014|NCT02367872|181971854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|85.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.03|142.61||||||TAK-272F: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 2H) and the reference group (Cohort 1H) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||142.61|51.03|
91043015|NCT02367872|181971854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|131.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.74|220.04||||||TAK-272F: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 3H) and the reference group (Cohort 1H) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||220.04|78.74|
90991704|NCT02669862|181867292|OTHER|||||||0.009||||||PVal\*- ANCOVA used for calculating P-value by comparing Vehicle against each Active treatment group using baseline values as the covariate. No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||"In this table Study Day 01 / Visit 2 has been considered as Baseline visit for calculating mean and mean change.~PVal\*- ANCOVA used for calculating P-value by comparing Vehicle against each Active treatment group using baseline values as the covariate."||||0.009
90991705|NCT02669862|181867294|OTHER|||||||0.9313||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Chi-squared|||PVal\*- Chi-Square test used for calculating P-value by comparing Vehicle against each Active treatment group||||0.9313
90991706|NCT02669862|181867294|OTHER|||||||0.0236||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Chi-squared|||||||0.0236
90991707|NCT01194804|181867295|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Sign test|||||||<0.001
90991708|NCT02670915|181867300|NON_INFERIORITY|Stepwise hierarchical testing procedure was applied: Step 1-Primary analysis: HbA1c non-inferiority of mealtime faster aspart versus mealtime NovoRapid®/NovoLog® both in combination with insulin degludec. Non-inferiority of mealtime faster aspart was considered confirmed if the upper boundary of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was below or equal to 0.4%.|Treatment difference|-0.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.03||p-values are from the 1-sided test for non-inferiority evaluated at the 2.5% level.|Multiple imputation|Analyses were adjusted for region, strata (age), as factors, and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||The primary analysis was implemented as a statistical model using multiple imputation where the participants without any available HbA1c measurements at scheduled visits had their change from baseline HbA1c value (s) imputed from the available information from the treatment the participant had been randomised to.||-0.03|-0.30|<0.001
90991709|NCT02670915|181867300|NON_INFERIORITY|Stepwise hierarchical testing procedure was applied: Step 2-Confirmatory secondary analysis: HbA1c non-inferiority of postmeal faster aspart versus mealtime NovoRapid®/NovoLog® both in combination with insulin degludec. Non-inferiority of mealtime faster aspart was considered confirmed if the upper boundary of the two-sided 95% CI was below or equal to 0.4%.|Treatment difference|0.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.26||p-values are from the 1-sided test for non-inferiority evaluated at the 2.5% level.|Multiple imputation|Analyses were adjusted for region, strata (age), as factors, and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||The analysis was implemented as a statistical model using multiple imputation where the participants without any available HbA1c measurements at scheduled visits had their change from baseline HbA1c value(s) imputed from the available information from the treatment the participant had been randomised to.||0.26|-0.01|<0.001
90991710|NCT02670915|181867300|SUPERIORITY|Stepwise hierarchical testing procedure was applied: Step 3-Confirmatory secondary analysis: HbA1c superiority of mealtime faster aspart versus mealtime NovoRapid®/NovoLog® both in combination with insulin degludec. Superiority of mealtime faster aspart was considered confirmed if the upper boundary of the two-sided 95% CI was below 0.|Treatment difference|-0.17|||=|0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.03||p-values are from the 1-sided test for superiority evaluated at the 2.5% level.|multiple imputation|Analyses were adjusted for region, strata (age), as factors, and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||The analysis was implemented as a statistical model using multiple imputation where the participants without any available HbA1c measurements at scheduled visits had their change from baseline HbA1c value(s) imputed from the available information from the treatment the participant had been randomised to.||-0.03|-0.30|=0.007
90991711|NCT00818207|181867380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.64||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|2.18|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratios and p-values were obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of intervention and pooled center.||2.18|1.23|0.0007
90991712|NCT00818207|181867381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|2.33|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratios and p-values were obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of intervention and pooled center.||2.33|1.21|0.0018
90991713|NCT00818207|181867382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.2979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.9||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 39 odds ratios and p-values were obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of intervention and pooled center.||1.90|0.82|0.2979
90991714|NCT00818207|181867382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.4388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.87||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 52 odds ratios and p-values were obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of intervention and pooled center.||1.87|0.76|0.4388
90991715|NCT00818207|181867383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|2.2||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratios and p-values were obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of intervention and pooled center.||2.20|1.35|<0.0001
90991716|NCT00818207|181867384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.4551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.62||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 52 odds ratios and p-values were obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of intervention and pooled center.||1.62|0.81|0.4551
90991717|NCT00839423|181867415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.42|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.49|-2.91||"A hierarchical hypothesis testing procedure was used. The comparison of 10 mg to placebo was primary.~Since p-value was \<0.05, hierarchically testing continued."|ANCOVA|||"The statistical model was an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) of the change from baseline in MADRS total score (FAS, LOCF) with treatment and centre as fixed factors and the baseline MADRS score as a covariate.~Null hypothesis: No difference between 10 mg Vortioxetine and placebo at Week 6.~With 96 patients in each treatment arm and a standard deviation of 9 points, the power to detect a true effect of 3.7 points on the MADRS total score at Week 6 will be 80%."||-2.91|-8.49|<0.0001
90991718|NCT00839423|181867415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.39|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.64|-3.17||"The hierarchical hypothesis testing meant that comparison of 5 mg to placebo was performed at a 5% significance level since significance was achieved for the primary comparison of 10 mg to placebo.~Since p-value \<0.05, hierarchically testing contd."|ANCOVA|||"The statistical model was ANCOVA of the change from baseline in MADRS total score (FAS, LOCF) with treatment and centre as fixed factors and the baseline MADRS score as a covariate.~Null hypothesis: No difference between 5 mg Vortioxetine and placebo at Week 6."||-3.17|-8.64|<0.0001
90991719|NCT00839423|181867415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.13|-3.72||This treatment arm was not in the testing sequence. A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA|||||-3.72|-9.13|<0.0001
90991720|NCT00839423|181867416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.2377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.17|0.54||"The hierarchical procedure meant that the above hypothesis was tested at a 5% significance level since significance was achieved for both 10 and 5 mg at Week 6.~Since p-value was \>0.05, hierarchically testing stopped here."|ANCOVA|||"The statistical model was ANCOVA of the change from baseline in MADRS total score (FAS, LOCF) with treatment and centre as fixed factors and the baseline MADRS score as a covariate.~Null hypothesis: No difference between 10 mg Vortioxetine and placebo at Week 1."||0.54|-2.17|0.2377
90991721|NCT00839423|181867416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67||0.7489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|1.11||The hierarchical procedure meant that the above hypothesis was not tested since significance was not achieved for 10 mg at Week 1. A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA|||"The statistical model was ANCOVA of the change from baseline in MADRS total score (FAS, LOCF) with treatment and centre as fixed factors and the baseline MADRS score as a covariate.~Null hypothesis: No difference between 5 mg Vortioxetine and placebo at Week 1."||1.11|-1.54|0.7489
90991722|NCT00839423|181867416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67||0.4142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|1.85||This treatment arm was not in the testing sequence. A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA|||||1.85|-0.77|0.4142
90991723|NCT00839423|181867417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.22|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.69|-2.88||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA|||||-2.88|-7.69|<0.0001
90991724|NCT00839423|181867417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.79|-2.88||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA|||||-2.88|-7.79|<0.0001
90991725|NCT00839423|181867418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.27|-1.33||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA|||||-1.33|-5.27|0.0011
90991726|NCT00839423|181867418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.01|-1.0||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA|||||-1.00|-5.01|0.0034
90991727|NCT00839423|181867419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|-0.52||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA|||||-0.52|-1.28|<0.0001
90991728|NCT00839423|181867419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|-0.56||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA|||||-0.56|-1.34|<0.0001
90991729|NCT00839423|181867420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.27||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA|||||-0.27|-0.90|0.0003
90991730|NCT00839423|181867420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|-0.27||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA|||||-0.27|-0.92|0.0003
90991731|NCT00839423|181867421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference %|21.9||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.89|34.92||A nominal p-value is provided.|Fisher Exact|||||34.92|8.89|0.002
90991732|NCT00839423|181867421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference %|23.34||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.05|36.43||A nominal p-value is provided.|Fisher Exact|||||36.43|10.05|0.001
91043016|NCT02367872|181971854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|70.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.42|122.53||||||M-I: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 2R) and the reference group (Cohort 1R) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||122.53|40.42|
90991733|NCT00839423|181867422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference %|22.41||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.74|35.07||A nominal p-value is provided.|Fisher Exact|||||35.07|9.74|0.001
91043017|NCT02367872|181971854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|55.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.61|95.81||||||M-I: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 3R) and the reference group (Cohort 1R) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||95.81|31.61|
90991734|NCT00839423|181867422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference %|22.33||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.39|35.28||A nominal p-value is provided.|Fisher Exact|||||35.28|9.39|0.001
90991735|NCT03377244|181867438|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1013||||||The p-value above reflects results of between-arms analysis of percent change in weight from baseline to 6 months post-intervention.|general linear model|Model adjusted for age, sex, education, marital status, and employment status.||||||0.1013
90991736|NCT03377244|181867439|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.495||||||The p-value above reflects results of between-arms analysis of change in mean HbA1c from baseline to 6 months post-intervention.|general linear model|Model adjusted for age, sex, education, marital status, and employment.||||||0.4950
90991737|NCT03377244|181867440|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7416||||||The p-value above reflects results of between-arms analysis of change in systolic blood pressure from baseline to 6 months post-intervention.|general linear model|Model adjusted for age, sex, education, marital status, and employment status.||||||0.7416
90991738|NCT03377244|181867441|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0702||||||The p-value above reflects results of between-arms analysis of change in diastolic blood pressure from baseline to 6 months post-intervention.|general linear model|Model adjusted for age, sex, education, marital status, and employment status.||||||0.0702
90991739|NCT03377244|181867442|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007||||||The p-value above reflects results of between-arms analysis of change in eating habits self-efficacy scores from baseline to 6 months post-intervention.|general linear model|Model adjusted for age, sex, education, marital status, and employment status.||||||0.0070
90991740|NCT03377244|181867443|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0009||||||The p-value above reflects results of between-arms analysis of change in physical activity self-efficacy scale scores from baseline to 6 months post-intervention.|general linear model|Model adjusted for age, sex, education, marital status, and employment status.||||||0.0009
90991741|NCT03377244|181867444|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.374||||||The p-value above reflects results of between-arms analysis for the probability of participants to engage in sufficient physical activity at 6 months post-intervention.|Regression, Logistic|Model adjusted for age, sex, education, marital status, employment status, and baseline physical activity.||||||0.3740
90991742|NCT03377244|181867445|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9556||||||The p-value above reflects results of between-arms analysis of change in participants' sugar-sweetened beverage consumption per day from baseline to 6 months post-intervention.|general linear model|Model adjusted for age, sex, education, marital status, and employment status.||||||0.9556
90991743|NCT03377244|181867446|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1726||||||The p-value above reflects results of between-arms analysis of change in participants' fruit and vegetable consumption scale scores from baseline to 6 months post-intervention.|general linear model|Model adjusted for age, sex, education, marital status, and employment status.||||||0.1726
90991744|NCT03377244|181867447|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0478||||||The p-value above reflects results of between-arms analysis of change in participants' family support scale scores from baseline to 6 months post-intervention.|general linear model|Model adjusted for age, sex, education, marital status, and employment status.||||||0.0478
90991745|NCT04348656|181867455|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.16||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.43|||wald test|||||1.43|0.94|0.18
90991746|NCT04348656|181867456|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.47|||Regression, Cox|||||1.47|0.89|0.30
90991747|NCT04348656|181867457|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.7|||t-test, 2 sided|bootstrap estimates based on resampling process|bootstrap estimates based on resampling process|||0.7|-2.1|0.41
91043018|NCT02367872|181971854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|125.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|72.35|219.3||||||M-I: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 4R) and the reference group (Cohort 1R) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||219.30|72.35|
90991748|NCT04348656|181867458|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.12||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.46|||wald test|||||1.46|0.86|0.40
90991749|NCT04348656|181867459|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.7|-0.3|0.22
90991750|NCT04348656|181867460|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.83||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|2.27|||t-test, 2 sided|bootstrap estimates based on resampling process|bootstrap estimates based on resampling process|||2.27|0.31|0.72
90991751|NCT04348656|181867463|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.13||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.45|||wald test|||||1.45|0.88|0.33
90991752|NCT04348656|181867464|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.35|||Regression, Cox|competing risk analysis|competing risk analysis|||1.35|0.76|0.91
90991753|NCT04348656|181867465|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.04|||Regression, Cox|||||1.04|0.80|0.18
90991754|NCT04348656|181867466|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.53||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|2.26|||wald test|||||2.26|1.04|0.03
90991755|NCT04348656|181867466|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.7||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|2.69|||Regression, Cox|competing risk analysis|competing risk analysis|The cumulative incidence of Grade 3 and 4 serious AEs is described as a hazard ratio.||2.69|1.08|0.02
90991756|NCT04348656|181867468|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.27||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.57|||wald test|||||1.57|1.02|0.03
90991757|NCT04348656|181867471|OTHER|Incremental cost per quality-adjusted life day gained (ICER)- this is a summary measure of the cost-effectiveness of the intervention, compared to the control group. This is calculated using the cost (derived from cost of the intervention and cost of hospital stay based on the payer's perspective) per patient and the quality-adjusted life days calculated using the EQ-5D-5L results.|ICER (CAD)|-44623.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-525369.24|436123.22|||||ICER is reported in Canadian dollars. 95% CI is calculated by 1000 bootstrap sampling using bias-corrected accelerated method.|||436123.22|-525369.24|
91043019|NCT02367872|181971854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|103.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.7|180.95||||||M-I: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 5R-Part 2) and the reference group (Cohort 1R) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||180.95|59.70|
91043020|NCT02367872|181971854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|91.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.45|171.06||||||M-I: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 2H) and the reference group (Cohort 1H) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||171.06|49.45|
90991758|NCT00922194|181867479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-8.36|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.3|<|0.05||95.0|-9.03|-7.72|||Paired t test|||Analysis of difference between 12 months or more and baseline values||-7.72|-9.03|<0.05
90991759|NCT00922194|181867480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-3.27|||<|0.05||95.0|-3.5|-3.0|||Wilcoxon paired signed rank-sum test|||Analysis of difference between 12 months or more and baseline values||-3.0|-3.5|<0.05
90991760|NCT00922194|181867481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-7.41|||<|0.05||95.0|-8.37|-6.47|||Wilcoxon paired signed rank-sum test|||Analysis of difference between 12 months and baseline values||-6.47|-8.37|<0.05
90991761|NCT00922194|181867482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.014|||<|0.05||95.0|-0.02|0.001|||Wilcoxon paired sign rank-sum test|||Analysis of difference between 12 months or more and baseline values||0.001|-0.02|<0.05
90991762|NCT00922194|181867483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-4.61|||<|0.05||95.0|-5.2|-3.8|||Wilcoxon paired signed rank-sum test|||Analysis of difference between 12 months and baseline values||-3.8|-5.2|<0.05
90991763|NCT00922194|181867484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.97|||<|0.05||95.0|-3.57|-2.38|||Wilcoxon paired signed rank-sum test|||Analysis of difference between 12 months and baseline values||-2.38|-3.57|<0.05
90991764|NCT00922194|181867485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.37|||<|0.05||95.0|-2.65|-2.08|||Wilcoxon paired signed rank-sum test|||Analysis of difference between 12 months and baseline values||-2.08|-2.65|<0.05
90991765|NCT04131517|181867486|OTHER|A lack of PSL effect on EE and LN would have been concluded if the 90% CI of the geometric mean ratio between treatment with PSL + OC and OC Alone of the least squares (LS) means for the log-transformed Cmax was within the bioequivalence acceptance range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric LS Mean ratio|1.0404|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94156|1.1497||||||The analysis of variance model (ANOVA) included Treatment, Period, and Sequence as fixed effects and participant within Sequence as a random effect.||1.1497|0.94156|
90991766|NCT04131517|181867487|OTHER|A lack of PSL effect on EE and LN would have been concluded if the 90% CI of the geometric mean ratio between treatment with PSL + OC and OC Alone of the LS means for the log-transformed Cmax was within the bioequivalence acceptance range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric LS Mean ratio|0.89272|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.76892|1.0364||||||The ANOVA model included Treatment, Period, and Sequence as fixed effects and participant within Sequence as a random effect.||1.0364|0.76892|
90991767|NCT04131517|181867490|OTHER|A lack of PSL effect on EE and LN would have been concluded if the 90% CI of the geometric mean ratio between treatment with PSL + OC and OC Alone of the LS means for the log-transformed AUC0-inf was within the bioequivalence acceptance range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric LS Mean ratio|1.0276|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95544|1.1052||||||The ANOVA model included Treatment, Period, and Sequence as fixed effects and participant within Sequence as a random effect.||1.1052|0.95544|
90991768|NCT04131517|181867491|OTHER|A lack of PSL effect on EE and LN would have been concluded if the 90% CI of the geometric mean ratio between treatment with PSL+ OC and OC Alone of the LS means for the log-transformed AUC0-inf was within the bioequivalence acceptance range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric LS Mean ratio|0.88808|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.52185|1.5113||||||The ANOVA model included Treatment, Period, and Sequence as fixed effects and participant within Sequence as a random effect.||1.5113|0.52185|
90991769|NCT04131517|181867498|OTHER|A lack of PSL effect on EE and LN would have been concluded if the 90% CI of the geometric mean ratio between treatment with PSL + OC and OC Alone of the LS means for the log-transformed Cmax was within the bioequivalence acceptance range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric LS Mean ratio|0.96378|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85043|1.0922||||||The ANOVA model included Treatment, Period, and Sequence as fixed effects and participant within Sequence as a random effect.||1.0922|0.85043|
90991770|NCT04131517|181867500|OTHER|A lack of PSL effect on EE and LN would have been concluded if the 90% CI of the geometric mean ratio between treatment with PSL + OC and OC Alone of the LS means for the log-transformed AUC was within the bioequivalence acceptance range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric LS Mean ratio|0.96842|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91888|1.0206||||||The ANOVA model included Treatment, Period, and Sequence as fixed effects and participant within Sequence as a random effect.||1.0206|0.91888|
90991771|NCT05142332|181867506|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted absolute difference|11.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|19.3|||Regression, Logistic|||||19.3|4.5|<0.001
90991772|NCT05142332|181867507|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted absolute difference|7.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|14.1|||Regression, Logistic|||||14.1|1.7|<0.001
90991773|NCT01219959|181867566|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.9|||ANOVA|||Month 3||0.9|0.2|<0.001
90991774|NCT01219959|181867566|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.8|||ANOVA|||Month 6||0.8|0.1|0.006
90991775|NCT01219959|181867567|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.0||||0.312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|14.7|||ANOVA|||Insulin-Month 3||14.7|-4.7|0.312
90991776|NCT01219959|181867567|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.7||||0.342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|14.4|||ANOVA|||Insulin-Month 6||14.4|-5.0|0.342
91043021|NCT02367872|181971854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|139.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|74.91|259.15||||||M-I: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 3H) and the reference group (Cohort 1H) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||259.15|74.91|
91043022|NCT02367872|181971855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|51.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.45|74.49||||||TAK-272F: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 2R) and the reference group (Cohort 1R) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||74.49|35.45|
91043023|NCT02367872|181971855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|118.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|81.7|171.68||||||TAK-272F: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 3R) and the reference group (Cohort 1R) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||171.68|81.70|
91043024|NCT02367872|181971855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|272.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|188.21|395.5||||||TAK-272F: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 4R) and the reference group (Cohort 1R) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||395.50|188.21|
91043025|NCT02367872|181971855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|184.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|127.02|266.91||||||TAK-272F: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 5R-Part 2) and the reference group (Cohort 1R) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||266.91|127.02|
90991777|NCT01219959|181867569|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.9|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Cholesterol-Month 3||0.9|0.1|0.010
90991778|NCT01219959|181867569|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.7|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Cholesterol-Month 6||0.7|0|0.073
91043026|NCT02367872|181971855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|101.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|69.04|149.64||||||TAK-272F: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 2H) and the reference group (Cohort 1H) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||149.64|69.04|
91043027|NCT02367872|181971855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|136.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|92.78|201.09||||||TAK-272F: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 3H) and the reference group (Cohort 1H) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||201.09|92.78|
91043028|NCT02367872|181971855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|59.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.99|102.99||||||M-I: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 2R) and the reference group (Cohort 1R) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||102.99|33.99|
91043029|NCT02367872|181971855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|97.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.75|168.9||||||M-I: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 3R) and the reference group (Cohort 1R) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||168.90|55.75|
91043030|NCT02367872|181971855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|260.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|149.39|452.6||||||M-I: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 4R) and the reference group (Cohort 1R) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||452.60|149.39|
90991779|NCT01219959|181867569|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.5|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for LDLC-Month 3||0.5|-0.1|0.181
91043031|NCT02367872|181971855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|319.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|183.31|555.34||||||M-I: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 5R-Part 2) and the reference group (Cohort 1R) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||555.34|183.31|
91043032|NCT02367872|181971855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|130.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|81.66|207.18||||||M-I: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 2H) and the reference group (Cohort 1H) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||207.18|81.66|
91043033|NCT02367872|181971855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|192.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|120.94|306.83||||||M-I: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 3H) and the reference group (Cohort 1H) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||306.83|120.94|
91043034|NCT02367872|181971856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|60.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.05|90.56||||||TAK-272F: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 2R) and the reference group (Cohort 1R) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||90.56|40.05|
91043035|NCT02367872|181971856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|97.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.77|146.46||||||TAK-272F: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 3R) and the reference group (Cohort 1R) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||146.46|64.77|
91043036|NCT02367872|181971856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|111.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|74.21|167.82||||||TAK-272F: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 4R) and the reference group (Cohort 1R) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||167.82|74.21|
90991780|NCT01219959|181867569|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.4|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for LDLC-Month 6||0.4|-0.2|0.593
90991781|NCT01219959|181867569|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.0|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for HDLC-Month 3||0|-0.2|0.198
90991782|NCT01219959|181867569|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.0|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for HDLC-Month 6||0|-0.1|0.298
90991783|NCT01219959|181867569|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.6|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for VLDL-Month 3||0.6|0.2|<0.001
90991784|NCT01219959|181867569|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.5|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for VLDL-Month 6||0.5|0.1|0.003
90991785|NCT01219959|181867569|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.3|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Triglycerides-Month 3||1.3|0.4|<0.001
90991786|NCT01219959|181867569|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.1|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Triglycerides-Month 6||1.1|0.3|0.002
90991787|NCT01219959|181867570|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3||||0.485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|4.1|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Lp(a)-Month 3||4.1|-8.6|0.485
90991788|NCT01219959|181867570|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|4.4|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Lp(a)-Month 6||4.4|-8.2|0.556
90991789|NCT01219959|181867570|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.6||||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|12.2|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Apo A1-Month 3||12.2|-1.1|0.101
91043037|NCT02367872|181971856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|138.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|92.29|208.7||||||TAK-272F: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 5R-Part 2) and the reference group (Cohort 1R) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||208.70|92.29|
90991790|NCT01219959|181867570|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.0||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|11.5|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Apo A1-Month 6||11.5|-1.5|0.134
90991791|NCT01219959|181867570|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.4||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.6|19.2|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Apo B-Month 3||19.2|3.6|0.004
90991792|NCT01219959|181867570|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.4||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|15.9|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Apo B-Month 6||15.9|0.8|0.030
90991793|NCT01219959|181867571|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-56.5||||0.655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-304.6|191.7|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Insulin-Month 3||191.7|-304.6|0.655
90991794|NCT01219959|181867571|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.2||||0.811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-268.9|210.5|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Insulin-Month 6||210.5|-268.9|0.811
90991795|NCT01219959|181867571|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|441.3||||0.419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-630.4|1513.1|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for C-Peptide-Month 3||1513.1|-630.4|0.419
90991796|NCT01219959|181867571|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|121.8||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-927.9|1171.5|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for C-Peptide-Month 6||1171.5|-927.9|0.820
90991797|NCT01219959|181867572|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.2||||0.721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.5|19.0|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Pro-Insulin-Month 3||19|-27.5|0.721
90991798|NCT01219959|181867572|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.5||||0.247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|36.4|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Pro-Insulin-Month 6||36.4|-9.4|0.247
90991799|NCT01219959|181867573|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.89||||0.624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.43|||ANOVA|||Estimates of Ratio-Month 6||1.43|0.55|0.624
90991800|NCT01219959|181867574|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.8|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Albumin-Month 3||1.8|-0.6|0.338
90991801|NCT01219959|181867574|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.5|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Albumin-Month 6||2.5|0.1|0.029
90991802|NCT01219959|181867574|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.5|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Total Protein-Month 3||1.5|-1.9|0.817
90991803|NCT01219959|181867574|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|2.9|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Total Protein-Month 6||2.9|-0.2|0.091
90991804|NCT01219959|181867575|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.2||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.3|2.9|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for PNA-Month 3||2.9|-23.3|0.127
90991805|NCT01219959|181867575|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|-4.3|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for PNA-Month 6||-4.3|-16.4|<0.001
90991806|NCT01219959|181867575|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.1|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for nPNA-Month 3||-0.1|-0.4|0.012
90991807|NCT01219959|181867575|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.1|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for nPNA-Month 6||-0.1|-0.3|<0.001
90991808|NCT01219959|181867576|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.2||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|5.8|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Pre-Albumin-Month 3||5.8|0.5|0.019
90991809|NCT01219959|181867576|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|5.6|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Pre-Albumin-Month 6||5.6|0.5|0.019
90991810|NCT01219959|181867577|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|3.4|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Drained Fat-Month 3||3.4|-3.9|0.884
90991811|NCT01219959|181867577|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|4.3|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Drained Fat-Month 6||4.3|-3|0.716
91043038|NCT02367872|181971856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|135.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|87.91|207.87||||||TAK-272F: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 2H) and the reference group (Cohort 1H) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||207.87|87.91|
90991812|NCT01219959|181867578|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.1|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for BMI-Month 3||1.1|-1.2|0.961
90991813|NCT01219959|181867578|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.5|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for BMI-Month 6||1.5|-0.8|0.581
90991814|NCT01219959|181867579|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|3.1|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Waist Circumference-Month 6||3.1|-3.7|0.871
91043039|NCT02367872|181971856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|323.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|210.54|497.85||||||TAK-272F: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 3H) and the reference group (Cohort 1H) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||497.85|210.54|
90991815|NCT01219959|181867580|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.2||||0.608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|25.0|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Protein-Month 3||25|-14.7|0.608
90991816|NCT01219959|181867580|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|8.1|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Protein-Month 6||8.1|-11.5|0.731
90991817|NCT01219959|181867580|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|185.3||||0.377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-227.5|598.1|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Calories-Month 3||598.1|-227.5|0.377
90991818|NCT01219959|181867580|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.3||||0.854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-214.4|177.8|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Calories-Month 6||177.8|-214.4|0.854
90991819|NCT01219959|181867581|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.07|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for EQ 5D Questionnaire Index-Month 3||0.07|-0.03|0.412
90991820|NCT01219959|181867581|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.03|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for EQ 5D Questionnaire Index-Month 6||0.03|-0.07|0.485
90991821|NCT01219959|181867582|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.18||||0.525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.56|8.93|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for EQ 5D Quest Health Status-Month 3||8.93|-4.56|0.525
90991822|NCT01219959|181867582|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.79|6.83|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for EQ 5D Quest Health Status-Month 6||6.83|-6.79|0.995
90991823|NCT01219959|181867583|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.87||||0.526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.64|3.91|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Psychology Fatigue-Month 3||3.91|-7.64|0.526
90991824|NCT01219959|181867583|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.83||||0.779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.01|6.68|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Psychology Fatigue-Month 6||6.68|-5.01|0.779
90991825|NCT01219959|181867583|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.95||||0.246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.95|2.04|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Psychology Cognitive-Month 3||2.04|-7.95|0.246
90991826|NCT01219959|181867583|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.72||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.78|4.34|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Psychology Cognitive-Month 6||4.34|-5.78|0.780
90991827|NCT01219959|181867583|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41||||0.885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.22|6.04|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Neurology Pain-Month 3||6.04|-5.22|0.885
90991828|NCT01219959|181867583|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.41||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|10.1|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Neurology Pain-Month 6||10.10|-1.28|0.128
90991829|NCT01219959|181867583|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.07||||0.701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|6.54|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Neurology Sensory-Month 3||6.54|-4.40|0.701
90991830|NCT01219959|181867583|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.21||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|12.73|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Neurology Sensory-Month 6||12.73|1.70|0.010
90991831|NCT01219959|181867583|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.63|5.03|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Cardiology-Month 3||5.03|-4.63|0.934
90991832|NCT01219959|181867583|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.13||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|8.01|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Cardiology-Month 6||8.01|-1.75|0.209
90991833|NCT01219959|181867583|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.89||||0.585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|8.68|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Ophthalmology-Month 3||8.68|-4.90|0.585
90991834|NCT01219959|181867583|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.62||||0.641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.22|8.47|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Ophthalmology-Month 6||8.47|-5.22|0.641
90991835|NCT01219959|181867583|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.89|3.9|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Hypoglycemia-Month 3||3.90|-6.89|0.586
90991836|NCT01219959|181867583|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33||||0.906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.79|5.14|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Hypoglycemia-Month 6||5.14|-5.79|0.906
90991837|NCT01219959|181867583|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.93|4.75|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Hyperglycemia-Month 3||4.75|-4.93|0.970
91043040|NCT02367872|181971857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|67.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.17|108.39||||||TAK-272F: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 2R) and the reference group (Cohort 1R) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||108.39|42.17|
90991838|NCT01219959|181867583|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.38||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|7.28|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Hyperglycemia-Month 6||7.28|-2.52|0.340
90991839|NCT01219959|181867584|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.6||||0.495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.9|96.0|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Abdominal Subcutaneous Fat Volume-Month 6||96|-46.9|0.495
90991840|NCT01219959|181867584|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|55.4||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|117.8|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Abdominal Visceral Fat Volume-Month 6||117.8|-7|0.081
90991841|NCT01219959|181867585|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.3||||0.626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.3|31.9|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for LV End Diastolic Volume-Month 6||31.9|-19.3|0.626
90991842|NCT01219959|181867585|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.8||||0.486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|30.1|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for LV End Systolic Volume-Month 6||30.1|-14.5|0.486
90991843|NCT01219959|181867586|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3||||0.832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9|23.4|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for LV Mass with Pap Muscles-Month 6||23.4|-18.9|0.832
90991844|NCT01219959|181867586|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.3|23.1|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for LV Mass without Pap Muscles-Month 6||23.1|-18.3|0.820
90991845|NCT01219959|181867587|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|6.5|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for LV Ejection Fraction-Month 6||6.5|-6.9|0.955
90991846|NCT05906732|181867588|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-9.6||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0030
90991847|NCT05906732|181867589|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-6.5||||0.0266|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0266
90991848|NCT05906732|181867590|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-7.8||||0.0067|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0067
90991849|NCT05906732|181867591|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-3.9||||0.1106|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1106
90991850|NCT05906732|181867592|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-4.2||||0.0908|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0908
90991851|NCT05906732|181867593|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-1.2||||0.4038|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.4038
90991852|NCT05906732|181867594|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|1.5||||0.6255|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.6255
90991853|NCT05906732|181867595|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.2||||0.514|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.5140
90991854|NCT05906732|181867596|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.8||||0.5675|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.5675
90991855|NCT05906732|181867597|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|3.4||||0.764|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7640
90991856|NCT05906732|181867598|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-2.8||||0.2437|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.2437
90991857|NCT05906732|181867599|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.8||||0.4229|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.4229
90991858|NCT05906732|181867600|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.1||||0.4887|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.4887
90991859|NCT05906732|181867601|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-3.1||||0.2042|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2042
90991860|NCT05906732|181867602|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.2||||0.2644|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2644
90991861|NCT05906732|181867620|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.28||||0.3169|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3169
90991862|NCT05906732|181867621|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.78||||0.1066|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1066
90991863|NCT05906732|181867622|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.06||||0.0443|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0443
90991864|NCT05906732|181867623|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.06||||0.0815|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0815
90991865|NCT05906732|181867624|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.67||||0.0137|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0137
90991866|NCT05906732|181867625|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.0||||0.3539|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3539
90991867|NCT05906732|181867626|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|9.78||||0.1377|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1377
90991868|NCT05906732|181867627|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.69||||0.6184|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6184
90991869|NCT05906732|181867628|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.17||||0.6627|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6627
90991870|NCT05906732|181867629|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.78||||0.5276|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5276
90991871|NCT05906732|181867630|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|15.17||||0.0399|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0399
90991872|NCT05906732|181867631|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|13.56||||0.0747|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0747
90991873|NCT05906732|181867632|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9584|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9584
90991874|NCT05906732|181867633|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.72||||0.6531|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6531
90991875|NCT05906732|181867634|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|15.61||||0.0482|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0482
90991876|NCT05906732|181867635|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|17.22||||0.0667|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0667
90991877|NCT05906732|181867636|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-37.0||||0.0131|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0131
90991878|NCT05906732|181867637|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-32.36||||0.0141|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0141
90991879|NCT05906732|181867638|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-44.55||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0019
90991880|NCT05906732|181867639|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-31.69||||0.1108|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1108
90991881|NCT05906732|181867640|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|37.81||||0.184|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1840
90991882|NCT05906732|181867641|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|27.33||||0.2019|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2019
90991883|NCT05906732|181867642|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2808|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2808
90991884|NCT05906732|181867643|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|110.39||||0.1644|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1644
90991885|NCT05906732|181867644|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-44.29||||0.0282|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0282
90991886|NCT05906732|181867645|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-37.87||||0.0306|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0306
90991887|NCT05906732|181867646|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-53.42||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0016
90991888|NCT05906732|181867647|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-44.25||||0.1378|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1378
90991889|NCT01980706|181867677|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.16||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for significance is \<.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Overall, treatment effect F value testing under the null hypothesis the equality of the average outcome over the three groups.|||||0.018
91043041|NCT02367872|181971857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|63.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.73|102.12||||||TAK-272F: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 3R) and the reference group (Cohort 1R) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||102.12|39.73|
91043042|NCT02367872|181971857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|84.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.67|135.38||||||TAK-272F: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 4R) and the reference group (Cohort 1R) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||135.38|52.67|
90991890|NCT01980706|181867678|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.68||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for significance is \<.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Overall, treatment effect F value testing under the null hypothesis the equality of the average outcome over the three groups.|||||0.028
90991891|NCT01980706|181867679|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.65||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for significance is \<.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Overall, treatment effect F value testing under the null hypothesis the equality of the average outcome over the three groups.|||||0.52
90991892|NCT01980706|181867680|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.84||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for significance is \<.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Overall, treatment effect F value testing under the null hypothesis the equality of the average outcome over the three groups.|||||0.43
90991893|NCT01980706|181867681|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.52||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for significance is \<.05|ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline|Estimated parameter is the overall treatment main effect F statistic from the fitted ANCOVA model assessing the null hypothesis of equal values across the three groups|||||0.60
90991894|NCT01980706|181867682|SUPERIORITY||Table probability for Fisher's Exact|0.002||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for significance is \<.05|Fisher Exact|||||||0.07
90991895|NCT04026412|181867706|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.646|TWO_SIDED|96.0|0.77|1.19|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||1.19|0.77|0.6460
90991896|NCT04026412|181867707|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.41||||||||1.41|0.87|
90991897|NCT04026412|181867707|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.22||||||||1.22|0.75|
90991898|NCT04026412|181867707|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio, log|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.48||||||||1.48|0.91|
90991899|NCT04026412|181867708|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.05||||||||1.05|0.69|
90991900|NCT04026412|181867708|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.42||||||||1.42|0.93|
90991901|NCT04026412|181867709|SUPERIORITY||Difference in ORR|3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|10.6||||||||10.6|-4.1|
90991902|NCT04026412|181867709|SUPERIORITY||Difference in ORR|7.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|14.8||||||||14.8|0.7|
90991903|NCT04026412|181867709|SUPERIORITY||Difference in ORR|-4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|2.5||||||||2.5|-11.8|
90991904|NCT04026412|181867712|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.23||||||||1.23|0.82|
90991905|NCT04026412|181867712|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.05||||||||1.05|0.70|
90991906|NCT04026412|181867712|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.44||||||||1.44|0.95|
90991907|NCT04026412|181867713|SUPERIORITY||Difference in ORR|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|11.1||||||||11.1|-4.1|
90991908|NCT04026412|181867713|SUPERIORITY||Difference in ORR|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|12.9||||||||12.9|-2.0|
90991909|NCT04026412|181867713|SUPERIORITY||Difference in ORR|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|5.6||||||||5.6|-9.5|
90991910|NCT04026412|181867716|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.23||||||||1.23|0.76|
90991911|NCT04026412|181867716|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.06||||||||1.06|0.65|
90991912|NCT04026412|181867716|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.49||||||||1.49|0.91|
91043043|NCT02367872|181971857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|108.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.7|174.01||||||TAK-272F: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 5R-Part 2) and the reference group (Cohort 1R) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||174.01|67.70|
91043044|NCT02367872|181971857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|113.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|69.62|184.24||||||TAK-272F: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 2H) and the reference group (Cohort 1H) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||184.24|69.62|
91043045|NCT02367872|181971857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|312.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|192.34|509.0||||||TAK-272F: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 3H) and the reference group (Cohort 1H) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||509.00|192.34|
90991913|NCT00830037|181867719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.35||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|2.3||a = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Wald test||The analysis of the primary outcome was intention to treat, if the patient received at least one dose of the randomized drug (which was the case for each subject). A linear mixed model was used with GFR as the outcome variable. Fixed effects were indicator variables for time (treated as a continuous variable), treatment, and their interaction. Random effects were subject and time with unstructured covariance; statistical inference was made using the maximum likelihood estimator.||2.3|-2.9|0.79
90991914|NCT00830037|181867720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.035||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.294|0.365||a = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Wald test||The secondary analysis examined the mean change from baseline proteinuria (log protein to creatinine ratio) at 2 years. The between-groups difference in mean change from baseline is reported with a 95% confidence interval and the p-value from the Wald test.||0.365|-0.294|0.83
90991915|NCT04360187|181867733|SUPERIORITY||LS mean of difference|-17.13||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.98|-8.27|||Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures||Crisaborole = Test Vehicle = Reference|||-8.27|-25.98|0.0002
90991916|NCT04360187|181867737|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.9||||0.0124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|23.1|||normal approximation to response rates||Crisaborole = Test Vehicle = Reference|||23.1|2.8|0.0124
90991917|NCT04360187|181867738|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.7||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|20.3|||normal approximation to response rates||Crisaborole = Test Vehicle = Reference|||20.3|3.1|0.0078
90991918|NCT04360187|181867739|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.79||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|-0.33|||Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures||Crisaborole = Test Vehicle = Reference|||-0.33|-1.26|0.0009
90991919|NCT00952289|181867799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||The primary endpoint analyzed with a 2-sided alpha of 0.05.||||<0.0001
91043046|NCT02367872|181971858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|60.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.35|91.27||||||TAK-272F: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 2R) and the reference group (Cohort 1R) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||91.27|40.35|
90991920|NCT03259334|181867810|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.617|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by actual status of prior anti-TNF treatment and glucocorticoid at baseline.||||||0.617
90991921|NCT03259334|181867810|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by actual status of prior anti-TNF treatment and glucocorticoid at baseline.||||||0.018
90991922|NCT03259334|181867811|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.253|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by actual status of prior anti-TNF treatment and glucocorticoid at baseline.||||||0.253
90991923|NCT03259334|181867811|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by actual status of prior anti-TNF treatment and glucocorticoid at baseline.||||||0.002
90991924|NCT03259334|181867812|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.764|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by actual status of prior anti-TNF treatment and glucocorticoid at baseline||||||0.764
90991925|NCT03259334|181867812|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by actual status of prior anti-TNF treatment and glucocorticoid at baseline.||||||0.080
90991926|NCT03259334|181867813|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by actual status of prior anti-TNF treatment and glucocorticoid at baseline.||||||0.440
91043047|NCT02367872|181971858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|98.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.17|147.41||||||TAK-272F: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 3R) and the reference group (Cohort 1R) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||147.41|65.17|
90991927|NCT03259334|181867813|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by actual status of prior anti-TNF treatment and glucocorticoid at baseline||||||0.002
90991928|NCT03259334|181867814|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.286|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by actual status of prior anti-TNF treatment and glucocorticoid at baseline||||||0.286
90991929|NCT03259334|181867814|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by actual status of prior anti-TNF treatment and glucocorticoid at baseline.||||||0.005
90991930|NCT00777491|181867845|OTHER|There was no formal comparison of the two treatment arms.||||||||||||||||The confidence interval of the rate was calculated by Clopper-Pearson's exact binomial confidence intervals methods with one-sided type I error of 0.1. The study required 32 analyzable patients in each arm, which would warrant a 10% chance of observing a percentage of patients without distant metastasis by 3 years of less than 75% if the true rate was 86%. With the actual number of evaluable patients, the study instead warrants a 13-14% chance.|If the percentage of patients without distant metastasis by 3 years for either arm was greater than or equal to 75%, then it would be strongly considered as a potential arm in a subsequent phase III study, assuming treatment delivery and adverse events (AEs) were acceptable. If both arms met the criteria, then the treatment arm with less toxicity would be chosen.|||
90991931|NCT00777491|181867848|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.493||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.129|1.881||Two-sided significance level of 0.05|Regression, Logistic|Univariate analysis|Reference arm = 5-FU and Cisplatin + BID Irradiation|||1.881|0.129|0.30
90991932|NCT00777491|181867849|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.426|5.277||Two-sided significance level of 0.05|Regression, Logistic|Univariable analysis|Reference arm = 5-FU and Cisplatin + BID irradiation|||5.277|0.426|0.75
91043048|NCT02367872|181971858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|111.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|74.25|167.96||||||TAK-272F: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 4R) and the reference group (Cohort 1R) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||167.96|74.25|
91043049|NCT02367872|181971858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|139.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|92.88|210.11||||||TAK-272F: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 5R-Part 2) and the reference group (Cohort 1R) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||210.11|92.88|
90991933|NCT03453151|181867873|OTHER|||||||0.053|||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.053
90991934|NCT03453151|181867874|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
90991935|NCT03453151|181867875|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
90991936|NCT03453151|181867876|OTHER|||||||0.077|||||||Paired t-test|This analysis refers to the resting cardiac index.||||||0.077
90991937|NCT03453151|181867876|OTHER|||||||0.069|||||||Paired t-test|This analysis refers to the peak exercise cardiac index.||||||0.069
90991938|NCT03453151|181867878|OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Paired t-test|This analysis refers to creatinine level.||||||0.250
90991939|NCT03453151|181867878|OTHER|||||||0.014|||||||Paired t-test|This analysis refers to BUN level.||||||0.014
90991940|NCT02227329|181867887|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.17
90991941|NCT03229759|181867925|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.08||||||Test on abdomen Average treatment effect was calculated using a linear regression model for each body site was used for primary analysis. In the model, the response was the post-treatment log10 bacterial counts and predictors were the treatment effect as a fixed effect and the pre-treatment log10 bacterial counts as a covariate.||2.08|0.88|
91043050|NCT02367872|181971858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|135.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|87.75|207.92||||||TAK-272F: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 2H) and the reference group (Cohort 1H) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||207.92|87.75|
91043051|NCT02367872|181971858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|325.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|211.32|500.7||||||TAK-272F: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 3H) and the reference group (Cohort 1H) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||500.70|211.32|
90991942|NCT03229759|181867925|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.96||||||Tested on the abdomen Analysis was performed based on deferral letters from the FDA. Average treatment effect was calculated using a linear regression model for each body site was used for primary analysis. In the model, the response was the post-treatment log10 bacterial counts and predictors were the treatment effect as a fixed effect and the pre-treatment log10 bacterial counts as a covariate.||1.96|0.72|
90991943|NCT03229759|181867925|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|2.47||||||Groin||2.47|1.38|
90991944|NCT03229759|181867925|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.79||||||Groin||1.79|0.73|
90991945|NCT00078559|181867965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion with acute rejection|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.34|||95% Confidence Interval|Exact Binomial||||0.34|0.01|
90991946|NCT00078559|181867966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion with acute rejection|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.3|||95% Confidence Interval|Exact Binomial||||0.3|0.0|
90991947|NCT00078559|181867967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion with acute rejection|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.7|||95% Confidence Interval|Exact Binomial||||0.7|0.0|
90991948|NCT00078559|181867970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Exact Binomial|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.3|||95% Confidence Interval|Exact Binomial||||0.3|0.0|
90991949|NCT00078559|181867971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Exact Binomial|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.3|||95% Confidence Interval|Exact Binomial for all participants (n=10)||||0.3|0.0|
90991950|NCT00078559|181867972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Exact Binomial|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.4|||95% Confidence Interval|Exact Binomial for Not Withdrawn Group||||0.4|0.0|
90991951|NCT00078559|181867972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Exact Binomial|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.8|||95% Confidence Interval|Exact Binomial for Withdrawn Group||||0.8|0.0|
90991952|NCT00078559|181867973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Exact Binomial|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.4|||95% Confidence Interval|Exact Binomial for Not Withdrawn Group||||0.4|0.0|
90991953|NCT00078559|181867973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Exact Binomial|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.8|||95% Confidence Interval|Exact Binomial for Withdrawn Group||||0.8|0.0|
90991954|NCT01694420|181867982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Study data compared to data as cited in PubMed ID: 21487250|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90991955|NCT03621943|181867994|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.36|5.37|||hierarchical generalized linear mixed mo|hierarchical generalized linear mixed models||Total score on the Ages and Stages Questionnaire, 3rd ed.||5.37|-6.36|0.87
90991956|NCT00967226|181867996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.05||0.77|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||intention to treat analysis||||0.77
90991957|NCT01670656|181868016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.2|||cLDA|||||-0.2|-1.0|< 0.001
90991958|NCT01670656|181868016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.2|||cLDA|||||-0.2|-0.9|< 0.001
90991959|NCT01670656|181868016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.4|||cLDA|||||-0.4|-1.1|< 0.001
90991960|NCT01670656|181868016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.2|||cLDA|||||-0.2|-0.9|< 0.001
90991961|NCT01670656|181868017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.7|||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-0.4|||cLDA|||||-0.4|-3.0|= 0.002
90991962|NCT01670656|181868017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-0.6|||cLDA|||||-0.6|-3.1|< 0.001
90991963|NCT01670656|181868017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.6|||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-0.3|||cLDA|||||-0.3|-2.9|= 0.003
90991964|NCT01670656|181868017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.2|||=|0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.1|||cLDA|||||0.1|-2.5|= 0.024
90991965|NCT01670656|181868018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.6|||=|0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|0.2|||cLDA|||||0.2|-3.4|= 0.026
90991966|NCT01670656|181868018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.5|||=|0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|0.2|||cLDA|||||0.2|-3.3|= 0.036
90991967|NCT01670656|181868018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-2.3|||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|-0.5|||cLDA|||||-0.5|-4.1|= 0.002
90991968|NCT01670656|181868018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Diffference in Least Squares Means|-1.2|||=|0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|0.6|||cLDA|||||0.6|-3.0|= 0.1
90991969|NCT01670656|181868019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.1|||=|0.447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.3|||cLDA|||||0.3|-0.6|= 0.447
90991970|NCT01670656|181868019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.6|||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.1|||cLDA|||||-0.1|-1.0|= 0.003
90991971|NCT01670656|181868019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.6|||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.1|||cLDA|||||-0.1|-1.0|= 0.003
90991972|NCT01670656|181868019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.3|||=|0.156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.2|||cLDA|||||0.2|-0.7|= 0.156
90991973|NCT00165841|181868020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|The primary analysis was on the ITT population using all observed data collected from Day 1 of the maintenance phase until the endpoint.||Efficacy analyses were based on the intent-to-treat (ITT) population, which was comprised of all patients in the safety-evaluable population who had a baseline and ≥1 post-randomization primary efficacy endpoint evaluation and who had received ≥1 dose of study medication during the maintenance phase.||||<0.0001
90991974|NCT00487084|181868030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0|||||Log Rank|||A sample of 56 was estimated to have an 80% power to detect a 30% difference in the proportion of subjects with continuing analgesia in the MCS versus the SCM groups when 50% of the subjects in the SCM had requested supplemental analgesia. 28 subjects was added to compare the influence of time of morphine and 2-chloroprocaine administration to lidocaine-morphine analgesia. The primary outcome was compared using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and the log-rank test.||||0.006
90991975|NCT00487084|181868030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.83
90991976|NCT00487084|181868030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.009
90991977|NCT00487084|181868031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.05
90991978|NCT00487084|181868031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.05
90991979|NCT00487084|181868032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.01
90991980|NCT00487084|181868032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.01
90991981|NCT00487084|181868033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2||95.0|||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.20
90991982|NCT01151046|181868051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.26||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.63|||Log Rank|||||0.63|0.11|0.003
90991983|NCT01151046|181868051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.41||||0.349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|2.88|||Log Rank|||||2.88|0.69|0.349
90991984|NCT05439460|181868088|OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in phenylephrine group||||0.9
90991985|NCT05439460|181868088|OTHER|||||||0.3||||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change in arginine vasopressin group||||0.3
90991986|NCT05439460|181868088|OTHER|||||||1||||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change in epinephrine group||||1
90991987|NCT03446651|181868089|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.56
90991988|NCT03446651|181868091|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.039|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.039
90991989|NCT03446651|181868093|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90991990|NCT03446651|181868094|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90991991|NCT00960934|181868117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|0.56||||0.749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|2.16||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons for the areal BMD at lumbar spine endpoint were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||2.16|-1.04|0.749
90991992|NCT00960934|181868117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|1.12||||0.333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|2.83||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons for the areal BMD at lumbar spine endpoint were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||2.83|-0.60|0.333
90991993|NCT00960934|181868117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|0.35||||0.823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|1.84||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons for the areal BMD at lumbar spine endpoint were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||1.84|-1.14|0.823
90991994|NCT00960934|181868117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|0.93||||0.457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|2.61||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons for the areal BMD at lumbar spine endpoint were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||2.61|-0.75|0.457
90991995|NCT00960934|181868117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|0.16||||0.823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|1.5||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons for the areal BMD at lumbar spine endpoint were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||1.50|-1.17|0.823
91043052|NCT05718648|181971870|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|129.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.62|182.31|||||Ratio \[%\] = (adjusted geometric mean of severe renal impairment / adjusted geometric mean matching control)\*100. Intra-matched pair geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 37.5|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. The pharmacokinetic (PK) endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'degree of renal impairment' as fixed effect as well as 'matched pair' as random effect. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale.||182.31|91.62|
91043053|NCT05718648|181971870|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|137.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.06|212.12|||||Ratio \[%\] = (adjusted geometric mean of moderate renal impairment / adjusted geometric mean matching control)\*100. Intra-matched pair geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 52.4|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. The pharmacokinetic (PK) endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'degree of renal impairment' as fixed effect as well as 'matched pair' as random effect. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale.||212.12|89.06|
91043054|NCT05718648|181971871|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|131.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.32|186.22|||||Ratio \[%\] = (adjusted geometric mean of severe renal impairment / adjusted geometric mean matching control)\*100. Intra-matched pair geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 37.7|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. The pharmacokinetic (PK) endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'degree of renal impairment' as fixed effect as well as 'matched pair' as random effect. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale.||186.22|93.32|
91043055|NCT05718648|181971871|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|127.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.92|188.99|||||Ratio \[%\] = (adjusted geometric mean of moderate renal impairment / adjusted geometric mean matching control)\*100. Intra-matched pair geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 43.5|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. The pharmacokinetic (PK) endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'degree of renal impairment' as fixed effect as well as 'matched pair' as random effect. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale.||188.99|85.92|
91043056|NCT05718648|181971872|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|86.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|64.88|114.15|||||Ratio \[%\] = (adjusted geometric mean of severe renal impairment / adjusted geometric mean matching control)\*100. Intra-matched pair geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 30.5|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. The pharmacokinetic (PK) endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'degree of renal impairment' as fixed effect as well as 'matched pair' as random effect. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale.||114.15|64.88|
91043057|NCT05718648|181971872|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|96.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|56.8|164.16|||||Ratio \[%\] = (adjusted geometric mean of moderate renal impairment / adjusted geometric mean matching control)\*100. Intra-matched pair geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 66.2|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. The pharmacokinetic (PK) endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'degree of renal impairment' as fixed effect as well as 'matched pair' as random effect. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale.||164.16|56.80|
90991996|NCT00960934|181868118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|69.8|||<|0.001||95.0|56.5|80.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen Method|||The Miettinen and Nurminen Method was used to estimate the treatment differences between the active dose group and the placebo group by comparing the percentage of participants in the active dose group with the event vs. the percentage of participants in the placebo group with the event. An associated p-value and 95% confidence interval were calculated for this difference.||80.0|56.5|<0.001
90991997|NCT00960934|181868118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|53.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.6|65.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen Method|||The Miettinen and Nurminen Method was used to estimate the treatment differences between the active dose group and the placebo group by comparing the percentage of participants in the active dose group with the event vs. the percentage of participants in the placebo group with the event. An associated p-value and 95% confidence interval were calculated for this difference.||65.2|39.6|<0.001
90991998|NCT00960934|181868118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|29.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.6|42.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen Method|||The Miettinen and Nurminen Method was used to estimate the treatment differences between the active dose group and the placebo group by comparing the percentage of participants in the active dose group with the event vs. the percentage of participants in the placebo group with the event. An associated p-value and 95% confidence interval were calculated for this difference.||42.4|17.6|<0.001
90991999|NCT00960934|181868118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|29.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.0|42.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen Method|||The Miettinen and Nurminen Method was used to estimate the treatment differences between the active dose group and the placebo group by comparing the percentage of participants in the active dose group with the event vs. the percentage of participants in the placebo group with the event. An associated p-value and 95% confidence interval were calculated for this difference.||42.0|17.0|<0.001
91043058|NCT05718648|181971873|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|83.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.91|113.51|||||Ratio \[%\] = (adjusted geometric mean of severe renal impairment / adjusted geometric mean matching control)\*100. Intra-matched pair geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 33.8|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. The pharmacokinetic (PK) endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'degree of renal impairment' as fixed effect as well as 'matched pair' as random effect. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale.||113.51|60.91|
91043059|NCT05718648|181971873|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|90.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|52.4|156.26|||||Ratio \[%\] = (adjusted geometric mean of moderate renal impairment / adjusted geometric mean matching control)\*100. Intra-matched pair geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 68.5|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. The pharmacokinetic (PK) endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'degree of renal impairment' as fixed effect as well as 'matched pair' as random effect. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale.||156.26|52.40|
91043060|NCT05718648|181971874|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|128.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.42|189.02|||||Ratio \[%\] = (adjusted geometric mean of severe renal impairment / adjusted geometric mean matching control)\*100. Intra-matched pair geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 39.8|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. The pharmacokinetic (PK) endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'degree of renal impairment' as fixed effect as well as 'matched pair' as random effect. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale.||189.02|87.42|
91043061|NCT05718648|181971874|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|136.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.41|209.69|||||Ratio \[%\] = (adjusted geometric mean of moderate renal impairment / adjusted geometric mean matching control)\*100. Intra-matched pair geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 52.1|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. The pharmacokinetic (PK) endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'degree of renal impairment' as fixed effect as well as 'matched pair' as random effect. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale.||209.69|88.41|
90992000|NCT00960934|181868118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.6||||0.254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|14.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen Method|||The Miettinen and Nurminen Method was used to estimate the treatment differences between the active dose group and the placebo group by comparing the percentage of participants in the active dose group with the event vs. the percentage of participants in the placebo group with the event. An associated p-value and 95% confidence interval were calculated for this difference.||14.4|-4.1|0.254
90992001|NCT00960934|181868119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|47.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.9|60.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen Method|||The Miettinen and Nurminen Method was used to estimate the treatment differences between the active dose group and the placebo group by comparing the percentage of participants in the active dose group with the event vs. the percentage of participants in the placebo group with the event. An associated p-value and 95% confidence interval were calculated for this difference.||60.0|34.9|<0.001
90992002|NCT00960934|181868119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|35.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.1|48.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen Method|||The Miettinen and Nurminen Method was used to estimate the treatment differences between the active dose group and the placebo group by comparing the percentage of participants in the active dose group with the event vs. the percentage of participants in the placebo group with the event. An associated p-value and 95% confidence interval were calculated for this difference.||48.5|24.1|<0.001
90992003|NCT00960934|181868119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.2||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|28.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen Method|||The Miettinen and Nurminen Method was used to estimate the treatment differences between the active dose group and the placebo group by comparing the percentage of participants in the active dose group with the event vs. the percentage of participants in the placebo group with the event. An associated p-value and 95% confidence interval were calculated for this difference.||28.7|7.7|0.001
91043062|NCT05718648|181971875|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|125.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.27|183.4|||||Ratio \[%\] = (adjusted geometric mean of severe renal impairment / adjusted geometric mean matching control)\*100. Intra-matched pair geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 39.6|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. The pharmacokinetic (PK) endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'degree of renal impairment' as fixed effect as well as 'matched pair' as random effect. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale.||183.40|85.27|
90992004|NCT00960934|181868119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.1||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|18.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen Method|||The Miettinen and Nurminen Method was used to estimate the treatment differences between the active dose group and the placebo group by comparing the percentage of participants in the active dose group with the event vs. the percentage of participants in the placebo group with the event. An associated p-value and 95% confidence interval were calculated for this difference.||18.2|-0.0|0.050
90992005|NCT00960934|181868119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6||||0.313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|4.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen Method|||The Miettinen and Nurminen Method was used to estimate the treatment differences between the active dose group and the placebo group by comparing the percentage of participants in the active dose group with the event vs. the percentage of participants in the placebo group with the event. An associated p-value and 95% confidence interval were calculated for this difference.||4.2|-8.5|0.313
90992006|NCT00960934|181868120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|5.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen Method|||The Miettinen and Nurminen Method was used to estimate the treatment differences between the active dose group and the placebo group by comparing the percentage of participants in the active dose group with the event vs. the percentage of participants in the placebo group with the event. An associated p-value and 95% confidence interval were calculated for this difference.||5.8|-5.8|>0.999
90992007|NCT00960934|181868120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|5.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen Method|||The Miettinen and Nurminen Method was used to estimate the treatment differences between the active dose group and the placebo group by comparing the percentage of participants in the active dose group with the event vs. the percentage of participants in the placebo group with the event. An associated p-value and 95% confidence interval were calculated for this difference.||5.7|-5.8|>0.999
90992008|NCT00960934|181868120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|5.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen Method|||The Miettinen and Nurminen Method was used to estimate the treatment differences between the active dose group and the placebo group by comparing the percentage of participants in the active dose group with the event vs. the percentage of participants in the placebo group with the event. An associated p-value and 95% confidence interval were calculated for this difference.||5.7|-5.8|>0.999
90992009|NCT00960934|181868120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6||||0.313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|8.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen Method|||The Miettinen and Nurminen Method was used to estimate the treatment differences between the active dose group and the placebo group by comparing the percentage of participants in the active dose group with the event vs. the percentage of participants in the placebo group with the event. An associated p-value and 95% confidence interval were calculated for this difference.||8.6|-4.2|0.313
90992010|NCT00960934|181868120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6||||0.321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|8.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen Method|||The Miettinen and Nurminen Method was used to estimate the treatment differences between the active dose group and the placebo group by comparing the percentage of participants in the active dose group with the event vs. the percentage of participants in the placebo group with the event. An associated p-value and 95% confidence interval were calculated for this difference.||8.4|-4.3|0.321
90992011|NCT00960934|181868122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|0.24||||0.959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|1.51||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||1.51|-1.03|0.959
90992012|NCT00960934|181868122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|-0.02||||0.971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|1.04||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||1.04|-1.08|0.971
90992013|NCT00960934|181868122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|0.24||||0.959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|1.42||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||1.42|-0.95|0.959
90992014|NCT00960934|181868122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|-0.41||||0.915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|0.97||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||0.97|-1.78|0.915
90992015|NCT00960934|181868122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|-0.28||||0.959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.04||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||1.04|-1.60|0.959
90992016|NCT00960934|181868123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|0.58||||0.849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|2.37||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||2.37|-1.22|0.849
90992017|NCT00960934|181868123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|-0.16||||0.964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.79|1.47||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||1.47|-1.79|0.964
90992018|NCT00960934|181868123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|0.16||||0.964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|1.59||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||1.59|-1.27|0.964
90992019|NCT00960934|181868123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|-0.48||||0.855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|1.27||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||1.27|-2.23|0.855
91043063|NCT05718648|181971875|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|126.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.3|187.92|||||Ratio \[%\] = (adjusted geometric mean of moderate renal impairment / adjusted geometric mean matching control)\*100. Intra-matched pair geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 43.6|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. The pharmacokinetic (PK) endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'degree of renal impairment' as fixed effect as well as 'matched pair' as random effect. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale.||187.92|85.30|
90992020|NCT00960934|181868123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|1.27||||0.287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|3.12||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||3.12|-0.58|0.287
90992021|NCT00960934|181868124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|0.6||||0.933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|2.77||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||2.77|-1.56|0.933
90992022|NCT00960934|181868124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|-0.01||||0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|1.68||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||1.68|-1.69|0.999
90992023|NCT00960934|181868124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|0.05||||0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|1.93||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||1.93|-1.84|0.999
90992024|NCT00960934|181868124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|0.45||||0.959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|2.57||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||2.57|-1.67|0.959
90992025|NCT00960934|181868124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|-0.08||||0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.94||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||1.94|-2.10|0.999
90992026|NCT00960934|181868125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|-0.17||||0.976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|0.77||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||0.77|-1.12|0.976
90992027|NCT00960934|181868125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|-0.06||||0.982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.8||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||0.80|-0.93|0.982
90992028|NCT00960934|181868125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|0.53||||0.489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|1.49||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||1.49|-0.43|0.489
90992029|NCT00960934|181868125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|0.02||||0.982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.78||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||0.78|-0.75|0.982
90992030|NCT00960934|181868125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|0.16||||0.976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|1.08||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||1.08|-0.76|0.976
90992031|NCT00960934|181868126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|-0.35||||0.961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.31||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||1.31|-2.00|0.961
90992032|NCT00960934|181868126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|-0.28||||0.961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.34||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||1.34|-1.90|0.961
90992033|NCT00960934|181868126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|0.66||||0.778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|2.33||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||2.33|-1.01|0.778
90992034|NCT00960934|181868126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|-0.11||||0.961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|1.24||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||1.24|-1.45|0.961
90992035|NCT00960934|181868126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|-0.25||||0.961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|1.26||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||1.26|-1.77|0.961
90992036|NCT00960934|181868127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|-0.43||||0.901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.03|1.17||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||1.17|-2.03|0.901
90992037|NCT00960934|181868127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|-0.51||||0.901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|1.17||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||1.17|-2.18|0.901
90992038|NCT00960934|181868127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|-0.52||||0.901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.17|1.13||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||1.13|-2.17|0.901
90992039|NCT00960934|181868127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|0.03||||0.997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|1.35||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||1.35|-1.29|0.997
90992040|NCT00960934|181868127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|-0.04||||0.997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|1.43||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||1.43|-1.51|0.997
90992041|NCT00960934|181868128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|-0.37||||0.979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.73|1.99||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||1.99|-2.73|0.979
90992042|NCT00960934|181868128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|1.92||||0.363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|4.95||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||4.95|-1.10|0.363
90992043|NCT00960934|181868128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|0.4||||0.979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|2.98||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||2.98|-2.18|0.979
90992044|NCT00960934|181868128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|-0.49||||0.979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.27|2.3||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||2.30|-3.27|0.979
90992045|NCT00960934|181868128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|0.51||||0.979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|3.37||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||3.37|-2.34|0.979
90992046|NCT00960934|181868129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|19.77||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.26|37.46||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||37.46|2.26|0.020
90992047|NCT00960934|181868129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|10.08||||0.357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.16|26.41||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||26.41|-6.16|0.357
90992048|NCT00960934|181868129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|-2.83||||0.642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.81|9.14||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||9.14|-14.81|0.642
90992049|NCT00960934|181868129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|8.44||||0.434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.09|24.04||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||24.04|-7.09|0.434
90992050|NCT00960934|181868129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|5.72||||0.579||95.0|-8.62|20.1||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||20.10|-8.62|0.579
90992051|NCT00960934|181868130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|34.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.27|53.56||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||53.56|15.27|<0.001
90992052|NCT00960934|181868130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|20.57||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.28|38.02||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||38.02|3.28|0.014
91043064|NCT02344745|181971964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.08
90992053|NCT00960934|181868130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|9.97||||0.307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.69|25.7||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||25.70|-5.69|0.307
90992054|NCT00960934|181868130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|9.02||||0.307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.85|23.95||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||23.95|-5.85|0.307
91043065|NCT02344745|181971965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.70
90992055|NCT00960934|181868130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|-0.5||||0.937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.92|11.92||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||11.92|-12.92|0.937
90992056|NCT00960934|181868131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|19.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.42|31.02||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||31.02|7.42|<0.001
90992057|NCT00960934|181868131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|23.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.02|35.82||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||35.82|11.02|<0.001
90992058|NCT00960934|181868131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|10.45||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|21.3||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||21.30|-0.37|0.061
90992059|NCT00960934|181868131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|6.31||||0.283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.81|16.45||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||16.45|-3.81|0.283
90992060|NCT00960934|181868131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|5.46||||0.283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.39|14.31||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||14.31|-3.39|0.283
90992061|NCT00960934|181868132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|56.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.62|76.35||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||76.35|37.62|<.001
91043066|NCT02344745|181971966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
91043067|NCT02344745|181971967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.50
91043068|NCT02788513|181971968|OTHER|||||||0.9931||||||An alpha of 0.05 was used for one-sided test. The MCPMod procedure adjusts for multiplicity.|MCPMod Beta model fit.|Model assumption: 75% of max effect is achieved at 2 mg, 87.5% at 5 mg, 25% at 25 mg, max effect achieved at 10 mg of BI 425809, scalar parameter = 26||Multiple comparison procedures and modelling (MCPmod) techniques for mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) was used.||||0.9931
91043069|NCT02788513|181971968|OTHER|||||||0.9225||||||An alpha of 0.05 was used for one-sided test. The MCPMod procedure adjusts for multiplicity.|MCPMod Emax model fit.|Model assumption: 20% of the maximum effect is achieved at 2 mg||Multiple comparison procedures and modelling (MCPmod) techniques for mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) was used.||||0.9225
91043070|NCT02788513|181971968|OTHER|||||||0.9287||||||An alpha of 0.05 was used for one-sided test. The MCPMod procedure adjusts for multiplicity.|MCPMod Sigmoidal Emax model fit.|Model assumption: 25% of max effect achieved at 5 mg and 75% of max effect achieved at 10 mg of BI 425809.||Multiple comparison procedures and modelling (MCPmod) techniques for mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) was used.||||0.9287
90992062|NCT00960934|181868132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|39.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.44|57.17||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||57.17|22.44|<.001
90992063|NCT00960934|181868132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|20.68||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.72|35.78||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||35.78|5.72|0.003
90992064|NCT00960934|181868132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|8.59||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.81|22.05||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||22.05|-4.81|0.265
90992065|NCT00960934|181868132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|8.39||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|20.21||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||20.21|-3.40|0.265
90992066|NCT00960934|181868133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|53.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.83|68.53||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||68.53|37.83|<0.001
90992067|NCT00960934|181868133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|41.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.36|55.65||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||55.65|27.36|<0.001
90992068|NCT00960934|181868133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|24.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.39|37.33||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||37.33|12.39|<0.001
91043071|NCT02788513|181971968|OTHER|||||||0.7646||||||An alpha of 0.05 was used for one-sided test. The MCPMod procedure adjusts for multiplicity.|MCPMod linear model fit.|No assumption needed.||Multiple comparison procedures and modelling (MCPmod) techniques for mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) was used.||||0.7646
90992069|NCT00960934|181868133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|12.87||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.73|24.06||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||24.06|1.73|0.020
90992070|NCT00960934|181868133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|4.02||||0.397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.31|13.36||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||13.36|-5.31|0.397
90992071|NCT02338492|181868150|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.615||||||P-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons as the second co-primary endpoint will only be tested if the p-value for VAS improvement is \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) model employed, including the baseline VAS score. Missing values will be imputed.||Null hypothesis: Mean improvement in VAS over 90 days \<= 53.8 (i.e. 80% of reference based on historical control data). The study was powered to 80% with 68 evaluable subjects, a standard deviation of 13.3 at each visit, a true mean improvement from baseline VAS across post-baseline visits of 57 and a within-patient correlation of VAS of 0.4. The historical control data comes from 4 selected articles (Gregory et al. 2011, Kim et al. 2011, Deschamps et al. 2012, and Pretell et al. 2010).||||0.615
90992072|NCT02338492|181868152|OTHER||Percentage of Subjects|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.0|100.0||||||95% exact binomial confidence intervals provided for each of the parameters that make up the safety success endpoint and the safety success endpoint - Up to Day 7-14: Subjects who had no serious device related complications||100|96|
91043072|NCT02788513|181971968|OTHER|||||||0.9335||||||An alpha of 0.05 was used for one-sided test. The MCPMod procedure adjusts for multiplicity.|MCPMod linear in log model fit.|No assumption needed.||Multiple comparison procedures and modelling (MCPmod) techniques for mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) was used.||||0.9335
91043073|NCT02788513|181971968|OTHER|||||||0.8199||||||An alpha of 0.05 was used for one-sided test. The MCPMod procedure adjusts for multiplicity.|MCPMod logistic model fit.|Model assumption: 10% of max effect achieved at 5 mg and 50% of max effect achieved at 10 mg of BI 425809.||Multiple comparison procedures and modelling (MCPmod) techniques for mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) was used.||||0.8199
90992073|NCT02338492|181868152|OTHER||Percentage of Subjects|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.0|100.0||||||95% exact binomial confidence intervals provided for each of the parameters that make up the safety success endpoint and the safety success endpoint - Up to Day 7-14: No additional surgical interventions of revisions, supplements, fixations or removals||100|96|
90992074|NCT02338492|181868152|OTHER||Percentage of Subjects|98.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.0|100.0||||||95% exact binomial confidence intervals provided for each of the parameters that make up the safety success endpoint and the safety success endpoint - Up to Day 7-14: Subjects who had no device fracture, migration, mal-alignment or loss of reduction or fixation||100|93|
90992075|NCT02338492|181868152|OTHER||Percentage of Subjects|98.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.0|100.0||||||95% exact binomial confidence intervals provided for each of the parameters that make up the safety success endpoint and the safety success endpoint - Up to Day 7-14: Safety Success||100|93|
90992076|NCT02338492|181868152|OTHER||Percentage of Subjects|98.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.0|100.0||||||95% exact binomial confidence intervals provided for each of the parameters that make up the safety success endpoint and the safety success endpoint - Up to Day 7-14: Subjects who had no serious device related complications||100|93|
90992077|NCT02338492|181868152|OTHER||Percentage of Subjects|98.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.0|100.0||||||95% exact binomial confidence intervals provided for each of the parameters that make up the safety success endpoint and the safety success endpoint - Up to Day 30: No additional surgical interventions of revisions, supplements, fixations or removals||100|93|
90992078|NCT02338492|181868152|OTHER||Percentage of Subjects|96.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|90.0|99.0||||||95% exact binomial confidence intervals provided for each of the parameters that make up the safety success endpoint and the safety success endpoint - Up to Day 30: Subjects who had no device fracture, migration, mal-alignment or loss of reduction or fixation||99|90|
90992079|NCT02338492|181868152|OTHER||Percentage of Subjects|96.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|90.0|99.0||||||95% exact binomial confidence intervals provided for each of the parameters that make up the safety success endpoint and the safety success endpoint - Up to Day 30: Safety Success||99|90|
90992080|NCT02338492|181868152|OTHER||Percentage of Subjects|96.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|90.0|99.0||||||95% exact binomial confidence intervals provided for each of the parameters that make up the safety success endpoint and the safety success endpoint - Up to Day 90: Subjects who had no serious device related complications||99|90|
90992081|NCT02338492|181868152|OTHER||Percentage of Subjects|98.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.0|100.0||||||95% exact binomial confidence intervals provided for each of the parameters that make up the safety success endpoint and the safety success endpoint - Up to Day 90: No additional surgical interventions of revisions, supplements, fixations or removals||100|93|
90992082|NCT02338492|181868152|OTHER||Percentage of Subjects|93.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.0|98.0||||||95% exact binomial confidence intervals provided for each of the parameters that make up the safety success endpoint and the safety success endpoint - Up to Day 90: Subjects who had no device fracture, migration, mal-alignment or loss of reduction or fixation||98|86|
90992083|NCT02338492|181868152|OTHER||Percentage of Subjects|92.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|85.0|97.0||||||95% exact binomial confidence intervals provided for each of the parameters that make up the safety success endpoint and the safety success endpoint - Up to Day 90: Safety Success||97|85|
90992084|NCT02338492|181868152|OTHER||Percentage of Subjects|93.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.0|98.0||||||95% exact binomial confidence intervals provided for each of the parameters that make up the safety success endpoint and the safety success endpoint - Up to Day 180: Subjects who had no serious device related complications||98|86|
90992085|NCT02338492|181868152|OTHER||Percentage of Subjects|95.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|88.0|99.0||||||95% exact binomial confidence intervals provided for each of the parameters that make up the safety success endpoint and the safety success endpoint - Up to Day 180: No additional surgical interventions of revisions, supplements, fixations or removals||99|88|
90992086|NCT02338492|181868152|OTHER||Percentage of Subjects|86.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|77.0|93.0||||||95% exact binomial confidence intervals provided for each of the parameters that make up the safety success endpoint and the safety success endpoint - Up to Day 180: Subjects who had no device fracture, migration, mal-alignment or loss of reduction or fixation||93|77|
90992087|NCT02338492|181868152|OTHER||Percentage of Subjects|86.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|77.0|93.0||||||95% exact binomial confidence intervals provided for each of the parameters that make up the safety success endpoint and the safety success endpoint - Up to Day 180: Safety Success||93|77|
90992088|NCT02338492|181868152|OTHER||Percentage of Subjects|91.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|83.0|96.0||||||95% exact binomial confidence intervals provided for each of the parameters that make up the safety success endpoint and the safety success endpoint - Up to Day 360: Subjects who had no serious device related complications||96|83|
90992089|NCT02338492|181868152|OTHER||Percentage of Subjects|91.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|83.0|96.0||||||95% exact binomial confidence intervals provided for each of the parameters that make up the safety success endpoint and the safety success endpoint - Up to Day 360: No additional surgical interventions of revisions, supplements, fixations or removals||96|83|
90992090|NCT02338492|181868152|OTHER||Percentage of Subjects|82.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|73.0|90.0||||||95% exact binomial confidence intervals provided for each of the parameters that make up the safety success endpoint and the safety success endpoint - Up to Day 360: Subjects who had no device fracture, migration, mal-alignment or loss of reduction or fixation||90|73|
90992091|NCT02338492|181868152|OTHER||Percentage of Subjects|82.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|73.0|90.0||||||95% exact binomial confidence intervals provided for each of the parameters that make up the safety success endpoint and the safety success endpoint - Up to Day 360: Safety Success||90|73|
90992092|NCT01332019|181868166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||rate ratio|0.755||||0.0203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.595|0.957||q2w/q4w|negative binomial regression|||Based on negative binomial regression for each treatment group, with adjustment for EDSS (\<4 vs. \>=4), relapse rate (based on 1 year before 105MS301 and 105MS301), and age (\<40 vs. \>=40) at 105MS302 baseline.||0.957|0.595|0.0203
90992093|NCT01332019|181868167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.0201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.96||Based on Cox proportion hazards model, adjusted for EDSS (\<4 vs \>= 4), age (\<40 vs \>=40), relapse rate (based on one year before 105MS301 and 105MS301), and gadolinium (Gd) enhancing lesions (presence vs. absence) at 105MS302 baseline.|Cox proportion hazards model|||q2w/q4w||0.96|0.59|0.0201
90992094|NCT01332019|181868168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||lesion mean ratio|0.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.63||Lesion mean ratio (95% CI) and p-value for comparison between the every 2 weeks group and the every 4 weeks group, based on negative binomial regression, adjusted for 105MS302 baseline number of T2 lesions.|negative binomial regression|||Week 48||0.63|0.41|<0.0001
91043074|NCT02788513|181971968|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|1.18||p-values are nominal without multiplicity adjustment.|MMRM|MMRM information is described in the description section.||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)||1.18|-1.09|0.9340
91043075|NCT02788513|181971968|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.6041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|1.44||p-values are nominal without multiplicity adjustment.|MMRM|MMRM information is described in the description section.||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)||1.44|-0.84|0.6041
90992095|NCT01332019|181868168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||lesion mean ratio|0.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.62||Lesion mean ratio (95% CI) and p-value for comparison between the every 2 weeks group and the every 4 weeks group, based on negative binomial regression, adjusted for 302 baseline number of T2 lesions.|negative binomial regression|||Week 96||0.62|0.39|<0.0001
90992096|NCT01332019|181868169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||lesion mean ratio|0.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.68||Lesion mean ratio (95% CI) and p-value for comparison between the every 2 weeks group and the every 4 weeks group, based on negative binomial regression, adjusted for 105MS302 baseline number of Gd lesions.|negative binomial regression|||Week 48||0.68|0.43|<0.0001
90992097|NCT01332019|181868169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||lesion mean ratio|0.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.71||Lesion mean ratio (95% CI) and p-value for comparison between the every 2 weeks group and the every 4 weeks group, based on negative binomial regression, adjusted for 105MS302 baseline number of Gd lesions.|negative binomial regression|||Week 96||0.71|0.43|<0.0001
90992098|NCT01332019|181868170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||p-value for comparison between the every 2 weeks group and the every 4 weeks group, based on multiple logit regression, adjusted for 302 baseline number of T1 lesions.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 48||||<0.0001
90992099|NCT01332019|181868170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||p-value for comparison between the every 2 weeks group and the every 4 weeks group, based on multiple logit regression, adjusted for 302 baseline number of T1 lesions.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 96||||<0.0001
90992100|NCT01332019|181868171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0012||||||p-value for comparison between the every 2 weeks group and the every 4 weeks group, based on multiple logit regression, adjusted for 302 baseline number of Gd-enhancing lesion.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 48||||0.0012
91043076|NCT02788513|181971968|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.1926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|1.9||p-values are nominal without multiplicity adjustment.|MMRM|MMRM information is described in the description section.||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)||1.90|-0.38|0.1926
91043077|NCT02788513|181971968|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.9739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|1.12||p-values are nominal without multiplicity adjustment.|MMRM|MMRM information is described in the description section.||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)||1.12|-1.16|0.9739
91043078|NCT02788513|181971969|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|1.52||p-values are nominal without multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Analysis of Covariance model included baseline value for the secondary endpoint measure, MMSE stratification (\>=20, \<20) at baseline and treatment.||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA)||1.52|-1.48|0.979
91043079|NCT02788513|181971969|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|2.0||p-values are nominal without multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Analysis of Covariance model included baseline value for the secondary endpoint measure, MMSE stratification (\>=20, \<20) at baseline and treatment.||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA)||2.00|-1.01|0.521
91043080|NCT02788513|181971969|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.04|-0.02||p-values are nominal without multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Analysis of Covariance model included baseline value for the secondary endpoint measure, MMSE stratification (\>=20, \<20) at baseline and treatment.||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA)||-0.02|-3.04|0.047
91043081|NCT02788513|181971969|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.65|-0.67||p-values are nominal without multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Analysis of Covariance model included baseline value for the secondary endpoint measure, MMSE stratification (\>=20, \<20) at baseline and treatment.||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA)||-0.67|-3.65|0.005
90992101|NCT01332019|181868171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0026||||||p-value for comparison between the every 2 weeks group and the every 4 weeks group, based on multiple logit regression, adjusted for 302 baseline number of Gd-enhancing lesion.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 96||||0.0026
90992102|NCT01332019|181868177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.57||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.85||Based on Cox Proportional Hazards model, adjusted for 105MS302 baseline EDSS and age (\<40 vs \>=40).|Cox Proportional Hazards model||q2w/q4w|||0.85|0.38|0.0060
90992103|NCT00980785|181868200|OTHER|Mann-Whitney test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|78.7||0.836|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.836
90992104|NCT00980785|181868200|OTHER|Mann-Whitney Test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-31.71|STANDARD_DEVIATION|90.6||0.836|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.836
90992105|NCT00980785|181868201|OTHER|Mann-Whitney Test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.21||0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.009
91043082|NCT02788513|181971970|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.11||p-values are nominal without multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included MMSE stratification (\>=20, \<20) at baseline (BL) and treatment, CIBIS is included as BL adjustment term.||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA)||0.11|-0.32|0.343
90992106|NCT00980785|181868201|OTHER|Mann-Whitney Test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.63|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.32||0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.009
90992107|NCT00980785|181868202|OTHER|Mann-Whitney Test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.56||0.755|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.755
90992108|NCT00980785|181868202|OTHER|Mann-Whitney test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.23||0.755|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.755
90992109|NCT00980785|181868203|OTHER|Mann-Whitney test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.9||0.491|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.491
90992110|NCT00980785|181868203|OTHER|Mann-Whitney test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.2||0.491|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.491
91043083|NCT02788513|181971970|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.16||p-values are nominal without multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included MMSE stratification (\>=20, \<20) at baseline (BL) and treatment, CIBIS is included as BL adjustment term.||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA)||0.16|-0.26|0.645
91043084|NCT02788513|181971970|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.3||p-values are nominal without multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included MMSE stratification (\>=20, \<20) at baseline (BL) and treatment, CIBIS is included as BL adjustment term.||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA)||0.30|-0.13|0.448
91043085|NCT02788513|181971970|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.32||p-values are nominal without multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included MMSE stratification (\>=20, \<20) at baseline (BL) and treatment, CIBIS is included as BL adjustment term.||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA)||0.32|-0.11|0.340
90992111|NCT05209932|181868253|EQUIVALENCE|Testing the equivalence of the means using two-tailed test.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.02
90992112|NCT05209932|181868254|EQUIVALENCE|Testing the equivalence of the means using two-tailed test.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.05
90992113|NCT05209932|181868255|EQUIVALENCE|Testing the equivalence of the means using two-tailed test.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.07
90992114|NCT05209932|181868256|EQUIVALENCE|Testing the equivalence of the means using two-tailed test.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.17|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.17
90992115|NCT05209932|181868257|EQUIVALENCE|Testing the equivalence of the means using two-tailed test.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.002
90992116|NCT05209932|181868258|EQUIVALENCE|Testing the equivalence of the means using two-tailed test.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.03
90992117|NCT05209932|181868259|EQUIVALENCE|Testing the equivalence of the means using two-tailed test.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.01
91043086|NCT05707403|181971971|OTHER||Ratio (T/R) [%]|73.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|67.32|79.48|||||Ratio \[%\] is calculated as Test / Reference Intra-individual geometric Coefficient of Variation (gCV) = 8.8 %.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. That is, the PK endpoints were logtransformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model and then then back-transformed to the original scale to provide the point estimate and 90% confidence interval. The model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'subjects' and 'formulation'. The effect 'subjects' was considered as random, whereas the 'formulation' effect was considered as fixed.||79.48|67.32|
91043087|NCT05707403|181971972|OTHER||Ratio (T/R) [%]|33.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|29.4|38.36|||||Ratio \[%\] is calculated as Test / Reference Intra-individual geometric Coefficient of Variation (gCV) = 14.1 %|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. That is, the PK endpoints were logtransformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model and then then back-transformed to the original scale to provide the point estimate and 90% confidence interval. The model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'subjects' and 'formulation'. The effect 'subjects' was considered as random, whereas the 'formulation' effect was considered as fixed.||38.36|29.40|
90992118|NCT05209932|181868260|EQUIVALENCE|Testing the equivalence of the means using two-tailed test.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.04
90992119|NCT05209932|181868261|EQUIVALENCE|Testing the equivalence of the means using two-tailed test.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.02
90992120|NCT05209932|181868262|EQUIVALENCE|Testing the equivalence of the means using two-tailed test.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.002
91043088|NCT00979212|181972155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.96||||||One-sided test at significance level of 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis (H0) was that the experimental treatment was not effective vs the alternative hypothesis (HA) that it was. H0: OR ≤ 1 vs. HA: OR \> 1, where odds ratio (OR)= \[p2\*(1- p1)\]/ \[p1\*(1- p2)\], p1 denotes the mediastinal clearance rate (MCR) on Induction chemoradiation; p2 denotes the MCR on Induction chemoradiation + panitumumab. Fisher's exact test was used to compare the MCRs; the 95% confidence interval was calculated using Clopper-Pearson method. 97 patients were required.||||0.96
90992121|NCT05209932|181868263|EQUIVALENCE|Testing the equivalence of the means using two-tailed test.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.43|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.43
91043089|NCT00337428|181972174|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ratio of GMTs (concomitant group / nonconcomitant group) must be greater than 0.5.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA on natural log titer with fixed effects for region, vaccination group and their interaction.||||||<0.001
90992122|NCT05209932|181868264|EQUIVALENCE|Testing the equivalence of the means using two-tailed test.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.12
90992123|NCT05209932|181868265|EQUIVALENCE|Testing the equivalence of the means using two-tailed test.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.03
90992124|NCT05209932|181868266|EQUIVALENCE|Testing the equivalence of the means using two-tailed test.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.63|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.63
90992125|NCT05209932|181868267|EQUIVALENCE|Testing the equivalence of the means using two-tailed test.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.29|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.29
90992126|NCT05209932|181868268|EQUIVALENCE|Testing the equivalence of the means using two-tailed test.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12||0.33|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.33
90992127|NCT05209932|181868269|EQUIVALENCE|Testing the equivalence of the means using two-tailed test.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.005
90992128|NCT05209932|181868270|EQUIVALENCE|Testing the equivalence of the means using two-tailed test.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.42|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.42
90992129|NCT05209932|181868271|EQUIVALENCE|Testing the equivalence of the means using two-tailed test.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.97|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.97
90992130|NCT01757405|181868290|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Equivalence of treatment success proportions in all bleeding episodes for the two treatment groups was determined by comparing the 90% two-sided CI of the ratio of success proportions to the equivalence region defined as \[0.83, 1.20\].|Ratio of success proportion|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.15|1.28|||Ratio of success proportion|||Equivalence test of successfully treated bleeding episodes (BEs) between or within treatment arms. Denoting the success rates in the two treatment groups by p1 and p2 , the null hypotheses of H01 : p1/p2 \< 0.83 and H02 : p1/p2 \> 1.20 was implicitly tested against the one-sided alternatives Ha1: 0.83 ≤ p1/p2 and Ha2 : p1/p2 ≤ 1.20, by comparing the 90% two-sided confidence interval (CI) of the ratio of success proportions to the equivalence region defined as \[0.83, 1.20\].||1.28|1.15|
90992131|NCT02841787|181868346|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for significance was alpha=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||< .001
90992132|NCT02841787|181868346|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for significance was alpha=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
90992133|NCT02841787|181868346|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44||||||The threshold for significance was alpha=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.44
90992134|NCT02841787|181868346|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||The threshold for significance was alpha=0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.03
90992135|NCT02841787|181868346|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68||||||The threshold for significance was alpha=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.68
90992136|NCT02841787|181868346|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||The threshold for significance was alpha=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
90992137|NCT02841787|181868346|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||The threshold for significance was alpha=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
90992138|NCT02841787|181868349|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||The threshold for significance was alpha=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
90992139|NCT04973228|181868425|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.75|4.45|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled site and IGA strata with multiple imputation to handle missing data|Stratified by pooled site and IGA strata with multiple imputation to handle missing data|IGA Success at Week 8||4.45|1.75|<0.0001
90992140|NCT04973228|181868426|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.95||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.68|5.19|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled site and IGA strata with multiple imputation to handle missing data|Stratified by pooled site and IGA strata with multiple imputation to handle missing data|WI-NRS Success at Week 8||5.19|1.68|0.0001
90992141|NCT04973228|181868427|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.62||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|4.67|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled site and IGA strata with multiple imputation to handle missing data|Stratified by pooled site and IGA strata with multiple imputation to handle missing data|WI-NRS Success at Week 4||4.67|1.47|0.0007
90992142|NCT04973228|181868428|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.74||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|5.34|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled site and IGA strata with multiple imputation to handle missing data|Stratified by pooled site and IGA strata with multiple imputation to handle missing data|WI-NRS Success at Week 2||5.34|1.41|0.0016
90992143|NCT04973228|181868429|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.43||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|3.84|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Pooled by site and IGA strata with multiple imputation to handle missing data|Pooled by site and IGA strata with multiple imputation to handle missing data|IGA Success at Week 2||3.84|1.54|0.0002
91043090|NCT00337428|181972175|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ratio of GMTs (concomitant group / nonconcomitant group) must be greater than 0.5.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA on natural log titer with fixed effects for region, vaccination group and their interaction.||||||<0.001
91043091|NCT00337428|181972176|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ratio of GMTs (concomitant group / nonconcomitant group) must be greater than 0.5.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA on natural log titer with fixed effects for region, vaccination group and their interaction.||||||<0.001
90992144|NCT04973228|181868430|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.06|5.03|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Pooled by site and IGA strata with multiple imputation to handle missing data|Pooled by site and IGA strata with multiple imputation to handle missing data|IGA Success at Week 4||5.03|2.06|<0.0001
90992145|NCT04973228|181868431|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|3.73|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled site and IGA strata with multiple imputation to handle missing data|Stratified by pooled site and IGA strata with multiple imputation to handle missing data|Scaling Score of 0 at Week 8||3.73|1.56|<0.0001
90992146|NCT04973228|181868432|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.05|5.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled site and IGA strata with multiple imputation to handle missing data|Stratified by pooled site and IGA strata with multiple imputation to handle missing data|Erythema Score of 0 at Week 8||5.06|2.05|<0.0001
90992147|NCT00091390|181868438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||hazard rate|0.0014|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.003|||Z-test|One-sided.||The study is designed to test whether the 18-month late GU/GI toxicity following the protocol treatment is above 10% (hazard rate of 0.012/month). The sample size is determined so that the probability of rejecting the treatment because of excessive late toxicity is 90% if the true late toxicity rate is 20% (hazard rate of 0.025/month). Ninety-eight patients are required to with an additional 18 months of follow-up to have a statistical power of 90% with one-sided significance level of 0.05.||0.003|0|<0.0001
90992148|NCT03492463|181868446|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Regression, Linear|||Due to time and budget constraints a blinded decision was made and approved by the funding agency to limit further enrollment to the two conditions that provided nicotine patches. The primary (one-tailed) test compared Nicotine e-cigs + Nicotine patches to Non-nicotine e-cigs + Nicotine patches.||||0.01
90992149|NCT03492463|181868447|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.8
90992150|NCT03492463|181868448|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.5
90992151|NCT00406640|181868450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.67||||0.243||95.0|-0.46|1.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Models Repeated Measures (MMRM) with baseline score as a covariant and factors for center, week and treatment.|DVS SR adjusted mean change minus ESC adjusted mean change.|DVS SR compared with ESC||1.81|-0.46|0.243
90992152|NCT00406640|181868451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.608||||0.077||95.0|0.4|0.92|||Chi-squared|Logistic regression model with treatment and site as factors and baseline score as a covariant.|Estimated odds ratio of DVS SR to ESC. Odd ratio adjusted for baseline, treatment and site.|DVS SR compared with ESC.||0.92|0.40|0.077
90992153|NCT00406640|181868452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.571||||0.0054||95.0|0.39|0.85|||Chi-squared|Logistic regression model with treatment and site as factors and baseline score as a covariant.|Estimated odds ratio of DVS SR to ESC. Odds ratio adjusted for baseline, treatment and site.|DVS SR compared with ESC.||0.85|0.39|0.0054
90992154|NCT00406640|181868453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.26||95.0|-0.09|0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Models Repeated Measures (MMRM) with baseline score as a covariant and factors for center, week and treatment.|DVS SR minus ESC adjusted mean|DVS SR compared with ESC||0.33|-0.09|0.260
90992155|NCT00406640|181868454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.239||95.0|-0.09|0.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Models Repeated Measures (MMRM) with baseline score as a covariant and factors for center, week and treatment.|DVS SR minus ESC adjusted mean|||0.37|-0.09|0.239
90992156|NCT00406640|181868455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.37||||0.516||95.0|-0.75|1.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis adjusted mean score for baseline score, time and center.|DVS SR adjusted mean change minus ESC adjusted mean change.|DVS SR compared to ESC||1.49|-0.75|0.516
90992157|NCT00406640|181868456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.635||95.0|-0.03|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with treatment, time and site as factors and baseline as covariant.|DVS SR adjusted mean change minus ESC adjusted mean change|DVS SR compared to ESC||0.06|-0.03|0.635
90992158|NCT00406640|181868457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.702||95.0|0.63|2.0|||Chi-squared||Estimated odds ratio of DVS SR to ESC. Odd ratio adjusted for baseline, treatment and site.|DVS SR compared with ESC.||2.00|0.63|0.702
90992159|NCT00406640|181868458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.234||95.0|0.83|2.16|||Chi-squared||Estimated odds ratio of DVS SR to ESC. Odd ratio adjusted for baseline, treatment and site.|DVS SR compared with ESC.||2.16|0.83|0.234
90992160|NCT00406640|181868462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.927||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||DVS SR vs. ESC: end of therapy||||0.927
90992161|NCT00406640|181868462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.055||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||DVS SR vs. ESC: after 1 week of taper||||0.055
90992162|NCT00406640|181868462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.025||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||DVS SR vs. ESC: after 2 weeks of taper||||0.025
90992163|NCT00406640|181868462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.653||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||DVS SR vs. ESC: after \> 2 weeks of taper||||0.653
90992164|NCT01716533|181868494|SUPERIORITY||GMC ratio|1.53||||0.5746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|7.14||P-value = two-sided p-value for HO: GMC ratio = 1 (ANOVA model, T-test), groups considered as statistically significant different if the two-sided p-value is below 0.05.|ANOVA|ANOVA model -pooled variance.|GMC ratio = GMC Sustained response Group /GMC Recurrence Group.|ELISA anti-toxin B antibody concentrations at Day 14 were compared between the Sustained response Group and Recurrence Group by using a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the log-transformed concentration.||7.14|0.33|0.5746
90992165|NCT01716533|181868495|SUPERIORITY|ANOVA model -pooled variance.|GMC ratio|1.65||||0.7124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|26.41||P-value = two-sided p-value for HO: GMC ratio = 1, groups considered as statistically significant different if the two-sided p-value is below 0.05.|ANOVA||GMC ratio = GMC Sustained response Group /GMC Recurrence Group.|Serum F2 C-terminal anti-toxin B antibody concentrations at Day 14 were compared between the Sustained response Group and Recurrence Group by using a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the log-transformed concentration.||26.41|0.10|0.7124
90992166|NCT02320695|181868515|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"For the purpose of showing equivalent stinging of investigational product to saline, the hypothesis was set up as: Ho: μ1 - μ2 ≥ D vs HA: μ1 - μ2 \< D where D was the non-inferiority margin. Equivalent stinging of investigational product to saline was claimed if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval of (investigational product - saline) was less than 0.5."|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.05|||ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as factor, post tape-stripping score as covariate and subject as random effect to incorporate within-subject correlations.||||0.05|-0.33|0.187
90992167|NCT02320695|181868515|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"For the purpose of showing equivalent stinging of investigational product to saline, the hypothesis was set up as: Ho: μ1 - μ2 ≥ D vs HA: μ1 - μ2 \< D where D was the non-inferiority margin. Equivalent stinging of investigational product to saline was claimed if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval of (investigational product - saline) was less than 0.5."|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.04|||ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as factor, post tape-stripping score as covariate and subject as random effect to incorporate within-subject correlations.||||0.04|-0.42|0.101
90992168|NCT02320695|181868515|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"For the purpose of showing equivalent stinging of investigational product to saline, the hypothesis was set up as: Ho: μ1 - μ2 ≥ D vs HA: μ1 - μ2 \< D where D was the non-inferiority margin. Equivalent stinging of investigational product to saline was claimed if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval of (investigational product - saline) was less than 0.5."|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|-0.1|||ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as factor, post tape-stripping score as covariate and subject as random effect to incorporate within-subject correlations.||||-0.10|-0.49|0.002
90992169|NCT02320695|181868515|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"For the purpose of showing equivalent stinging of investigational product to saline, the hypothesis was set up as: Ho: μ1 - μ2 ≥ D vs HA: μ1 - μ2 \< D where D was the non-inferiority margin. Equivalent stinging of investigational product to saline was claimed if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval of (investigational product - saline) was less than 0.5."|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.12|||ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as factor, post tape-stripping score as covariate and subject as random effect to incorporate within-subject correlations.||||-0.12|-0.53|<0.001
91008008|NCT01005966|181900093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1842.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1568.73|2115.6||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA based on a mixed model with factors subject, treatment and period was used.|Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.|Null hypothesis considered population means for AmF toothpaste (1400ppmF) and placebo toothpaste (0ppmF) to be equal with respect to enamel fluoride uptake potential.||2115.60|1568.73|<0.0001
90992170|NCT02320695|181868516|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"For the purpose of showing equivalent stinging of investigational product to saline, the hypothesis was set up as: Ho: μ1 - μ2 ≥ D vs HA: μ1 - μ2 \< D where D was the non-inferiority margin. Equivalent stinging of investigational product to saline was claimed if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval of (investigational product - saline) was less than 0.5."|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.05|||ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as factor, post tape-stripping score as covariate and subject as random effect to incorporate within-subject correlations.||||-0.05|-0.54|0.023
90992171|NCT02320695|181868516|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"For the purpose of showing equivalent stinging of investigational product to saline, the hypothesis was set up as: Ho: μ1 - μ2 ≥ D vs HA: μ1 - μ2 \< D where D was the non-inferiority margin. Equivalent stinging of investigational product to saline was claimed if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval of (investigational product - saline) was less than 0.5."|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.2|||ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as factor, post tape-stripping score as covariate and subject as random effect to incorporate within-subject correlations.||||0.20|-0.32|0.522
90992172|NCT02320695|181868516|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"For the purpose of showing equivalent stinging of investigational product to saline, the hypothesis was set up as: Ho: μ1 - μ2 ≥ D vs HA: μ1 - μ2 \< D where D was the non-inferiority margin. Equivalent stinging of investigational product to saline was claimed if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval of (investigational product - saline) was less than 0.5."|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.16|||ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as factor, post tape-stripping score as covariate and subject as random effect to incorporate within-subject correlations.||||-0.16|-0.67|<0.001
90992173|NCT02320695|181868516|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"For the purpose of showing equivalent stinging of investigational product to saline, the hypothesis was set up as: Ho: μ1 - μ2 ≥ D vs HA: μ1 - μ2 \< D where D was the non-inferiority margin. Equivalent stinging of investigational product to saline was claimed if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval of (investigational product - saline) was less than 0.5."|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.07|||ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as factor, post tape-stripping score as covariate and subject as random effect to incorporate within-subject correlations.||||-0.07|-0.63|0.013
90992174|NCT02622724|181868536|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8219|||||||Van Elteren hypothesis test|||A non-parametric analysis has been used as the data distribution was skewed. This involved a generalised Wilcoxon rank sum-based stratification test which assigns ranks within strata and compares two treatments within strata (Van Elteren hypothesis test).||||0.8219
90992175|NCT02622724|181868543|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4678|||||||Van Elteren p-values|||Van Elteren hypothesis test was used as the distribution was non-normal and negatively skewed by patients who are assigned scores of zero in the event of death.||||0.4678
90992176|NCT02622724|181868548|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model using Type III sums of squares with Treatment, Severity, and Country fixed effect factors, Baseline as covariate||||||<0.05
90992177|NCT02622724|181868551|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|31.1|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.7|99.9|||ANOVA|||Treatment effect was analysed using ANOVA parameter estimates (Least Squares Means and 95% Confidence Intervals) for the overall treatment difference for maximum distance walked on Day 180.||99.9|-37.7|>0.05
90992178|NCT02622724|181868565|OTHER||LS Means difference|0.0|||>|0.05|ONE_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA estimates (LS means and a 95 % CI for the treatment difference) were presented for all numeric biomarker variables.||IL -1ra - changes in levels from baseline to Day 14||||>0.05
90992179|NCT02622724|181868565|OTHER||LS Means difference|0.0|||>|0.05|ONE_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA estimates (LS means and a 95 % CI for the treatment difference) were presented for all numeric biomarker variables.||IL- 6 - changes in levels from baseline to Day 14||||>0.05
90992180|NCT02622724|181868565|OTHER||LS Means difference|0.0|||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA estimates (LS means and a 95% CI for the treatment difference) were presented for all numeric biomarker variables.||FGF basic - changes in levels from baseline to Day 14||||<0.05
90992181|NCT02622724|181868565|OTHER||LS Means difference|0.0|||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA estimates (LS means and a 95 % CI for the treatment difference) were presented for all numeric biomarker variables.||IP-10 - changes in levels from baseline to Day 14.||||<0.05
90992182|NCT02622724|181868565|OTHER||LS Means difference|0.0|||>|0.05|ONE_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA estimates (LS means and a 95 % CI for the treatment difference) were presented for all numeric biomarker variables.||TNF-α - changes in levels from baseline to Day 14||||>0.05
90992183|NCT02622724|181868566|OTHER||||||<|0.007||||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Chi-squared|||||||<0.007
90992184|NCT02622724|181868569|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|28.0|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.0|110.1|||ANOVA|||Treatment effect was analysed using ANOVA parameter estimates (Least Squares Means and 95 % Confidence Intervals) for the overall treatment difference for maximun distance walked on Day 360.||110.1|-54|>0.05
90992185|NCT01575197|181868588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.014
90992186|NCT01575197|181868589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.16
90992187|NCT01575197|181868590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.038
90992188|NCT01575197|181868591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.30
90992189|NCT01000727|181868595|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.929|TWO_SIDED|95.02|0.91|1.09||Statistical significance of this p-value is based on the alpha-spending function of this study.|Cox Proportional Hazard Regression Model|||||1.09|0.91|0.929
90992190|NCT01000727|181868596|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.777|TWO_SIDED|95.02|0.9|1.09||Statistical significance of this p-value is based on the alpha-spending function of this study.|Cox Proportional Hazard Regression Model|||||1.09|0.90|0.777
90992191|NCT01000727|181868597|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.08||Statistical significance of this p-value is based on the alpha-spending function of this study.|Cox Proportional Hazard Regression Model|||||1.08|0.76|0.274
90992192|NCT01000727|181868598|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.09|||Cox Proportional Hazard Regression Model||A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with this treatment compared to Placebo|||1.09|0.86|0.631
90992193|NCT01000727|181868599|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.42|||Cox Proportional Hazard Regression Model||A hazard ratio \< 1 indicates a lower risk with this treatment compared to Placebo|||1.42|0.88|0.354
90992194|NCT01000727|181868600|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.05|||Cox Proportional Hazard Regression Model|||||1.05|0.73|0.161
90992195|NCT01000727|181868601|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.31|||Cox Proportional Hazard Regression Model|||||1.31|0.91|0.360
90992196|NCT01000727|181868602|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.03|||Cox Proportional Hazard Regression Model||A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with this treatment compared to Placebo|||1.03|0.88|0.202
90992197|NCT01000727|181868603|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.05|||Cox Proportional Hazard Regression Model|||||1.05|0.87|0.329
90992198|NCT01000727|181868604|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.08|||Cox Proportional Hazard Regression Model|||||1.08|0.90|0.797
90992199|NCT01000727|181868605|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.07|||Cox Proportional Hazard Regression Model||A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with this treatment compared to Placebo|||1.07|0.87|0.546
90992200|NCT01000727|181868606|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.08|||Cox Proportional Hazard Regression Model|||||1.08|0.81|0.362
90992201|NCT01290445|181868619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.47||||||Crude prevalence odds ratios were estimated along with 95% confidence intervals using logistic regression models.||1.47|0.46|
90992202|NCT01290445|181868619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.42||||||Adjusted prevalence odds ratios were estimated along with 95% confidence intervals using logistic regression models.||1.42|0.45|
90992203|NCT01290445|181868620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|4.34||||||Crude prevalence odds ratios were estimated along with 95% confidence intervals using logistic regression models.||4.34|0.09|
90992204|NCT01290445|181868620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|4.67||||||Adjusted prevalence odds ratios were estimated along with 95% confidence intervals using logistic regression models.||4.67|0.09|
90992205|NCT01290445|181868621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.96||||||Crude prevalence odds ratios were estimated along with 95% confidence intervals using logistic regression models.||0.96|0.50|
90992206|NCT01290445|181868621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.97||||||Adjusted prevalence odds ratios were estimated along with 95% confidence intervals using logistic regression models.||0.97|0.51|
90992207|NCT01290445|181868622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.42||||||Crude prevalence odds ratios were estimated along with 95% confidence intervals using logistic regression models.||1.42|0.63|
90992208|NCT01290445|181868622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.37||||||Adjusted prevalence odds ratios were estimated along with 95% confidence intervals using logistic regression models.||1.37|0.61|
90992209|NCT01290445|181868623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.16||||||Crude prevalence odds ratios were estimated along with 95% confidence intervals using logistic regression models.||1.16|0.37|
90992210|NCT01290445|181868623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.16||||||Adjusted prevalence odds ratios were estimated along with 95% confidence intervals using logistic regression models.||1.16|0.37|
90992211|NCT02059213|181868647|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||Fisher Exact|Mid P-value||With 20 patients treated with ADT and 40 treated with ADT + palbociclib there is a 64.2% power to detect a 20% difference in proportions with a one-sided type I error of 0.10 using the mid p-value method of the Fisher's exact test.||||0.87
90992212|NCT02059213|181868649|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.92
90992213|NCT02059213|181868650|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Fisher Exact|Mid p-value||||||0.50
90992214|NCT02059213|181868651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.72
90992215|NCT02059213|181868652|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.76
90992216|NCT03583372|181868656|OTHER|Estimation of within treatment group change from Baseline|Least squares mean|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-2.0||||||||-2.0|-2.9|
90992217|NCT03583372|181868656|OTHER|Estimation of within treatment group change from Baseline|Least squares mean|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-1.5||||||||-1.5|-2.5|
90992218|NCT03583372|181868657|OTHER|Estimation of within treatment group change from Baseline|Least squares mean|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-1.9||||||||-1.9|-2.5|
90992219|NCT03583372|181868657|OTHER|Estimation of within treatment group change from Baseline|Least squares mean|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-1.3||||||||-1.3|-2.0|
90992220|NCT03583372|181868658|OTHER|Estimation of within treatment group change from Baseline|Least squares mean|-3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-2.7||||||||-2.7|-4.0|
90992221|NCT03583372|181868658|OTHER|Estimation of within treatment group change from Baseline|Least squares mean|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-2.5||||||||-2.5|-4.0|
90992222|NCT03583372|181868659|OTHER|Estimation of within treatment group change from Baseline|Least squares mean|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-2.2||||||||-2.2|-2.8|
90992223|NCT03583372|181868659|OTHER|Estimation of within treatment group change from Baseline|Least squares mean|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-1.6||||||||-1.6|-2.3|
90992224|NCT00174785|181868685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.69|0.84||Cumulative incidence functions in each treatment group were calculated using non-parametric Kaplan-Meier estimates. Median time-to-event was not reached in any group. The primary comparison was performed at the 5% level using a 2-sided Log rank test.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio was estimated by a Cox's proportional hazard model with treatment arm factor. It represents the relative hazard of first hospitalization for cardiovascular reason or death for the dronedarone group compared with the placebo group.|||0.84|0.69|<0.0001
90992225|NCT00174785|181868686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.18||95.0|0.66|1.08||Cumulative incidences calculated in each group using non-parametric Kaplan-Meier estimates. Median time-to-event was not reached in any group. Hierarchical procedure applied to secondary efficacy endpoints testing to protect the global type I error.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio was estimated by a Cox's proportional hazard model with treatment arm factor. It represents the relative hazard of death from any cause for the dronedarone group compared with the placebo group.|||1.08|0.66|0.18
90992226|NCT00174785|181868687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.67|0.82||Cumulative incidences calculated in each group using non-parametric Kaplan-Meier estimates. Median time-to-event was not reached in any group. Hierarchical procedure applied to secondary efficacy endpoints testing to protect the global type I error.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio was estimated by a Cox's proportional hazard model with treatment arm factor. It represents the relative hazard of first hospitalization for cardiovascular reason for the dronedarone group compared with the placebo group.|||0.82|0.67|<0.0001
90992227|NCT00174785|181868688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.025||95.0|0.51|0.96||Cumulative incidences calculated in each group using non-parametric Kaplan-Meier estimates. Median time-to-event was not reached in any group. Hierarchical procedure applied to secondary efficacy endpoints testing to protect the global type I error.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio was estimated by a Cox's proportional hazard model with treatment arm factor. It represents the relative hazard of cardiovascular death for the dronedarone group compared with the placebo group.|||0.96|0.51|0.025
90992228|NCT00174785|181868689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.03||95.0|0.51|0.98||Cumulative incidences calculated in each group using non-parametric Kaplan-Meier estimates. Median time-to-event was not reached in any group. The comparison was performed at the 5% level using a 2-sided Log rank|Log Rank||The hazard ratio was estimated by a Cox's proportional hazard model with treatment arm factor. It represents the relative hazard of adjudicated cardiovascular death for the dronedarone group compared with the placebo group.|||0.98|0.51|0.03
90992229|NCT00120289|181868690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.21|||Regression, Cox|Adjusting for gender and history of diabetes (randomization stratification factors).||||1.21|0.87|0.80
90992230|NCT00120289|181868691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.34|||Regression, Cox|||||1.34|0.87|.49
90992231|NCT00120289|181868692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.42|||Regression, Cox|||||1.42|0.90|.30
90992232|NCT00120289|181868693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.8|||Regression, Cox|||||1.80|0.76|0.47
90992233|NCT00401622|181868695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.51||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.24|22.36|||t-test, 2 sided|||||22.36|-7.24|0.31
90992234|NCT00401622|181868696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.04|||ANCOVA|Visit 1 A1c measurement used as the covariate||Change in A1C from baseline to week 52 between the OneTouch® Ultra®2 and control BGMS||0.04|-0.38|0.45
90992235|NCT00782418|181868709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|1.6|||<|0.001||90.0|1.29|1.92||1-sided, alpha=0.05|ANOVA|||||1.92|1.29|<0.001
90992236|NCT00782418|181868709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|0.95|||<|0.001||90.0|0.66|1.24|||ANOVA|1-sided, alpha=0.05||||1.24|0.66|<0.001
90992237|NCT00782418|181868709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|2.32|||<|0.001||90.0|1.57|3.06|||ANOVA|1-sided, alpha=0.05||||3.06|1.57|<0.001
90992238|NCT00782418|181868709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|1.38|||<|0.001||90.0|0.64|2.12|||ANOVA|1-sided, alpha = 0.05||||2.12|0.64|<0.001
90992239|NCT00782418|181868710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|23.1|||<|0.001||90.0|19.2|27.0|||ANOVA|1-side, alpha = 0.05||||27.0|19.2|<0.001
90992240|NCT00782418|181868710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|16.4|||<|0.001||90.0|12.6|20.1|||ANOVA|1-side, alpha = 0.05||||20.1|12.6|<0.001
90992241|NCT00782418|181868711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|545.0|||<|0.001||90.0|451.4|638.7|||ANOVA|1-side, alpha = 0.05||||638.7|451.4|<0.001
90992242|NCT00782418|181868711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|246.6|||<|0.001||90.0|160.9|323.3|||ANOVA|1-side, alpha = 0.05||||323.3|160.9|<0.001
90992243|NCT01718509|181868712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|-1.28|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||||-1.28|-2.04|<0.001
90992244|NCT01718509|181868713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
90992245|NCT01718509|181868714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
90992246|NCT01718509|181868715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.39|-4.44|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||||-4.44|-6.39|<0.001
90992247|NCT01718509|181868716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.51|-6.36|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||||-6.36|-9.51|<0.001
90992248|NCT01718509|181868717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.196||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.321|-0.07|||ANCOVA|||||-0.070|-0.321|0.002
90992249|NCT01718509|181868718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.077||||0.234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.205|0.05|||ANCOVA|||||0.050|-0.205|0.234
90992250|NCT01718509|181868719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.03||||0.185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.08|||ANCOVA|||||0.08|-0.02|0.185
90992251|NCT01718509|181868720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||Multiplicity is not adjusted for this secondary efficacy endpoint in this study.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90992252|NCT01718509|181868721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.77|-1.69||Multiplicity is not adjusted for this secondary efficacy endpoint in this study.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||||-1.69|-2.77|<0.001
90992253|NCT01718509|181868722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.27||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|2.24||Multiplicity is not adjusted for this secondary efficacy endpoint in this study.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||Cognitive Restraint of Eating||2.24|0.29|0.011
90992254|NCT01718509|181868722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.44|-2.76||Multiplicity is not adjusted for this secondary efficacy endpoint in this study.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||Disinhibition of Eating||-2.76|-4.44|<0.001
90992255|NCT01718509|181868722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.09|-3.33||Multiplicity is not adjusted for this secondary efficacy endpoint in this study.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||Perceived Hunger||-3.33|-5.09|<0.001
90992256|NCT01718509|181868723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.44|-7.12||Multiplicity is not adjusted for this secondary efficacy endpoint in this study.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||||-7.12|-11.44|<0.001
90992257|NCT01718509|181868724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.96||||0.298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.77|0.85||Multiplicity is not adjusted for this secondary efficacy endpoint in this study.|ANCOVA|||||0.85|-2.77|0.298
90992258|NCT03664193|181868746|OTHER|Simple descriptive feasibility proportion and exact 95% confidence interval for radiation dose of 37.5 Gy.|Proportion (percent)|30.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.7|49.3||||||||49.3|14.7|
90992259|NCT03664193|181868746|OTHER|Simple descriptive feasibility proportion and exact 95% confidence interval for radiation dose of 40.0 Gy.|Proportion (percent)|46.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.3|65.7||||||||65.7|28.3|
90992260|NCT03664193|181868746|OTHER|Simple descriptive feasibility proportion and exact 95% confidence interval for radiation dose of 42.5 Gy.|Proportion (percent)|6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|22.1||||||||22.1|0.8|
90992261|NCT03664193|181868746|OTHER|Simple descriptive feasibility proportion and exact 95% confidence interval for radiation dose of 45.0 Gy.|Proportion (percent)|16.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.6|34.7||||||||34.7|5.6|
90992262|NCT03664193|181868747|OTHER|Simple proportion and exact 95% confidence interval.|Proportion (percent)|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|88.4|100.0||||||||100.0|88.4|
90992263|NCT04866303|181868751|OTHER|unadjusted logistic regression model|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.79||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.8|||Regression, Logistic|||Minimum testing kit completion rate of 70% in the passive study arm, and calculated that 400 total subjects would provide us with 90% power to detect an effect size associated with a rate ratio of 1.20, or an absolute difference of 14% (70% in passive, 84% in active). A futility boundary of 60% was identified by Community Advisory Board members as justification to prematurely halt trial enrollment if, after completing 25% of expected enrollment, successful test completion fell below that rate.||2.80|1.03|0.04
90992264|NCT04866303|181868752|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|2.26|||Regression, Logistic|||Minimum testing kit completion rate of 70% in the passive study arm, and calculated that 400 total subjects would provide us with 90% power to detect an effect size associated with a rate ratio of 1.20, or an absolute difference of 14% (70% in passive, 84% in active). A futility boundary of 60% was identified by Community Advisory Board members as justification to prematurely halt trial enrollment if, after completing 25% of expected enrollment, successful test completion fell below that rate||2.26|0.86|0.18
90992265|NCT04507867|181868754|OTHER|Kaplan-Meier method for overall survival.||||||0.027|||||||Log Rank|||The total number of patients who did or did not survive to day 40 of follow-up.||||0.027
90992266|NCT04507867|181868756|OTHER|Kaplan-Meier method||||||0.495|||||||Log Rank|||the total number of patients who were intubated and survived at the end of day 40 follow-up.||||0.495
90992267|NCT04507867|181868758|OTHER|Kaplan-Meier method||||||0.186|||||||Log Rank|||total number of patients included in the study who progressed to mechanical ventilation during the first 10 days of hospital stay.||||0.186
90992268|NCT04507867|181868759|SUPERIORITY|Fisher exact test||||||0.35|||||||Fisher Exact|||Intergroup analysis between the control group and the intervention group, measured at day 3 of hospital stay. It was categorized as follows: 1. normal bristol scale at day 3; 2. abnormal bristol scale at day 3.||||0.35
90992269|NCT04507867|181868760|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.043|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Intergroup analysis between the control group and the intervention group, measured at day 3 of hospital stay . Deceased patients were excluded.||||0.043
90992270|NCT04507867|181868761|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.241|||||||Fisher Exact|||Intergroup analysis between the control group and the intervention group for different parameters, measured at day 3 of hospital stay . Deceased patients were excluded.||||0.241
90992271|NCT04507867|181868762|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.187|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Intragroup analysis at the control group, the measurement was performed at baseline and at hospital discharge.||||0.187
91043092|NCT00337428|181972177|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ratio of GMTs (concomitant group / nonconcomitant group) must be greater than 0.5.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA on natural log titer with fixed effects for region, vaccination group and their interaction.||||||<0.001
91043093|NCT00337428|181972178|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The difference in seroconversion rates (concomitant group - nonconcomitant group) must be greater than -5%|||||<|0.001|||||||Miettinen and Nurminen|Miettinen and Nurminen method for difference in proportions; Stat Med 1985;4:213-26||||||<0.001
91043094|NCT00337428|181972179|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The difference in seroconversion rates (concomitant group - nonconcomitant group) must be greater than -5%|||||<|0.001|||||||Miettinen and Nurminen|Miettinen and Nurminen method for difference in proportions; Stat Med 1985;4:213-26||||||<0.001
91043095|NCT00337428|181972180|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The difference in seroconversion rates (concomitant group - nonconcomitant group) must be greater than -5%|||||<|0.001|||||||Miettinen and Nurminen|Miettinen and Nurminen method for difference in proportions; Stat Med 1985;4:213-26||||||<0.001
91043096|NCT00337428|181972181|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The difference in seroconversion rates (concomitant group - nonconcomitant group) must be greater than -5%|||||<|0.001|||||||Miettinen and Nurminen|Miettinen and Nurminen method for difference in proportions; Stat Med 1985;4:213-26||||||<0.001
91043097|NCT00337428|181972182|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The difference in seroconversion rates (concomitant group - nonconcomitant group) must be greater than -10%|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Miettinen and Nurminen|Miettinen and Nurminen method for difference in proportions; Stat Med 1985;4:213-26||||||<0.001
91043098|NCT00337428|181972183|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The difference in seroconversion rates (concomitant group - nonconcomitant group) must be greater than -10%|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Miettinen and Nurminen|Miettinen and Nurminen method for difference in proportions; Stat Med 1985;4:213-26||||||<0.001
91043099|NCT00337428|181972184|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The difference in seroconversion rates (concomitant group - nonconcomitant group) must be greater than -10%|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Miettinen and Nurminen|Miettinen and Nurminen method for difference in proportions; Stat Med 1985;4:213-26||||||<0.001
91043100|NCT00337428|181972185|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The difference in seroconversion rates (concomitant group - nonconcomitant group) must be greater than -10%|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Miettinen and Nurminen|Miettinen and Nurminen method for difference in proportions; Stat Med 1985;4:213-26||||||<0.001
91043101|NCT00337428|181972186|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The difference in seroconversion rates (concomitant group - nonconcomitant group) must be greater than -10%|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Miettinen and Nurminen|Miettinen and Nurminen method for difference in proportions; Stat Med 1985;4:213-26||||||<0.001
91043102|NCT00337428|181972187|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ratio of GMTs (concomitant group / nonconcomitant group) must be greater than 0.67.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA on natural log titer with fixed effects for region, vaccination group and their interaction.||||||<0.001
90992272|NCT04507867|181868762|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Intragroup analysis at the intervention group, the measurement was performed at baseline and at hospital discharge.||||0.003
90992273|NCT04507867|181868763|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.919|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Intragroup analysis of the control group in oxygen delivery, the difference between the baseline period and day 3 of hospital stay.||||0.919
90992274|NCT04507867|181868763|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Intragroup analysis of the control group in oxygen delivery, the difference between the baseline period and day 3 of hospital stay.||||0.014
90992275|NCT04507867|181868764|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.608|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Intragroup analysis of the control group, the difference in the qSOFA measurement at baseline and at day 3 will be analyzed.||||0.608
90992276|NCT04507867|181868764|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Intragroup analysis of the intervention group, the difference in the qSOFA measurement at baseline and at day 3 will be analyzed.||||0.04
90992277|NCT04507867|181868765|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Intergroup analysis between both groups to evaluate the number of defecations measured at day 3.||||0.014
90992278|NCT04507867|181868766|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||Fisher Exact|the shapiro wilk test was used to analyze the distribution of the data.||Intergroup analysis between the control group and the intervention group for different parameters, measured at day 3 of hospital stay. Deceased patients were excluded.||||0.008
91043103|NCT00337428|181972188|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ratio of GMTs (concomitant group / nonconcomitant group) must be greater than 0.67.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA on natural log titer with fixed effects for region, vaccination group and their interaction.||||||<0.001
91043104|NCT00337428|181972189|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ratio of GMTs (concomitant group / nonconcomitant group) must be greater than 0.67.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA on natural log titer with fixed effects for region, vaccination group and their interaction.||||||<0.001
91043105|NCT00337428|181972190|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ratio of GMTs (concomitant group / nonconcomitant group) must be greater than 0.67.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA on natural log titer with fixed effects for region, vaccination group and their interaction.||||||<0.001
90992279|NCT04507867|181868768|SUPERIORITY|Intergroup analysis between the control group and the intervention group for different parameters, measured at a complete follow-up of 40 days. Deceased patients were excluded.||||||0.078|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.078
90992280|NCT04507867|181868769|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.098|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Intergroup analysis between the control group and the intervention group for different parameters, measured at a complete follow-up of 40 days. Deceased patients were excluded||||0.098
90992281|NCT04507867|181868770|OTHER|||||||0.195|||||||Fisher Exact|||Intergroup analysis between the control group and the intervention group to analyze the presentation of post covid syndrome at the end of follow-up at day 40.||||0.195
90992282|NCT04507867|181868771|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.135|||||||Fisher Exact|||Intergroup analysis between the control group and the intervention group for different parameters, measured at a complete follow-up of 40 days. Deceased patients were excluded.||||0.135
90992283|NCT04507867|181868772|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.266|||||||Fisher Exact|||Intergroup analysis between the control group and the intervention group for different parameters, measured at a complete follow-up of 40 days. Deceased patients were excluded.||||0.266
90992284|NCT04507867|181868773|SUPERIORITY|Association between the presentation of certain laboratory parameters taken in the baseline period, with te overall mortality of discharge patients in comparison with deceased patients||||||0.002|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.002
91043106|NCT02618382|181972192|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The P values for differences among time point means were determined by ANOVA for continuous variables|ANOVA|||Nonparametric tests were used for statistical comparison, including the Kruskal-Wallis rank-sum test for multiple groups and the Mann-Whitney U test for 2 groups. P values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant. Data tabulation and analysis were performed using R statistical software version 3.4.2 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria).||||<0.05
91043107|NCT02618382|181972193|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||Paired comparison of hematoma thickness at defined time point means determined by ANOVA for continuous variables.|ANOVA|||Nonparametric tests were used for statistical comparison, including the Kruskal-Wallis rank-sum test for multiple groups and the Mann-Whitney U test for 2 groups. P values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant. Data tabulation and analysis were performed using R statistical software version 3.4.2 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria).||||<0.05
91043108|NCT02618382|181972194|OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||The P values for differences among time point means were determined by ANOVA for continuous variables and by chi-squared test for categorical values in grouped mRS scores.|ANOVA|||Nonparametric tests were used for statistical comparison, including the Kruskal-Wallis rank-sum test for multiple groups and the Mann-Whitney U test for 2 groups. P values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant. Data tabulation and analysis were performed using R statistical software version 3.4.2 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria).||||<0.05
91043109|NCT03223909|181972195|NON_INFERIORITY|"it was considered as not inferior when the treatments did not present differences greater than 20%~Statistical analysis of groups in the baseline visit versus final visit"||||||0.08|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.080
91043110|NCT03223909|181972195|NON_INFERIORITY|"it was considered as not inferior when the treatments did not present differences greater than 20%~Statistical analysis between groups in the final visit"||||||0.848|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.848
91043111|NCT03223909|181972196|NON_INFERIORITY|it was considered as not inferior when the treatments did not present differences greater than 20%||||||0.468|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.468
91043112|NCT03223909|181972197|NON_INFERIORITY|population analysis was per protocol||||||0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0001
91043113|NCT03223909|181972197|NON_INFERIORITY|population analysis was per protocol||||||0.65|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.650
91043114|NCT03223909|181972198|NON_INFERIORITY|"It was considered as not inferior when the treatments did not present differences greater than 20%~Statistical analysis of Humylub® Ofteno (PRO-087) versus Systane® Ultra PF at the final visit."||||||0.003|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.003
91043115|NCT03223909|181972198|NON_INFERIORITY|It was considered as not inferior when the treatments did not present differences greater than 20% Statistical analysis of Humylub® Ofteno (PRO-087) versus Systane® Ultra PF at the final visit.||||||0.003|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.003
91043116|NCT03223909|181972199|NON_INFERIORITY|"the statistical analysis was carried out by intention to treat~It was considered as not inferior when the treatments did not present differences greater than 20%"||||||0.93|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.930
91043117|NCT03223909|181972200|NON_INFERIORITY|it was considered as not inferior when the treatments did not present differences greater than 20%||||||0.548|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.548
91043118|NCT03223909|181972201|NON_INFERIORITY|it was considered as not inferior when the treatments did not present differences greater than 20%||||||0.17|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.170
91043119|NCT03223909|181972202|NON_INFERIORITY|it was considered as not inferior when the treatments did not present differences greater than 20%||||||0.085|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.085
91043120|NCT04269993|181972206|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.04
91043121|NCT01628549|181972208|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|1.53||||0.4344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.32|5.38|||ANCOVA|||||5.38|-2.32|0.4344
91043122|NCT01628549|181972208|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|4.46||||0.0266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|8.4|||ANCOVA|||||8.40|0.52|0.0266
91043123|NCT01628549|181972208|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|4.37||||0.0317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|8.36|||ANCOVA|||||8.36|0.39|0.0317
91043124|NCT01628549|181972209|SUPERIORITY||Difference vs placebo in success rate|3.4||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.82|14.38|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||14.38|-7.82|0.3300
91043125|NCT01628549|181972209|SUPERIORITY||Difference vs placebo in success rate|13.2||||0.0159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|25.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||25.60|0.54|0.0159
91043126|NCT01628549|181972209|SUPERIORITY||Difference vs placebo in success rate|4.1||||0.4834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.44|15.87|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||15.87|-7.44|0.4834
91043127|NCT03807440|181972237|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<.0001
91043128|NCT03807440|181972238|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<.0001
91043129|NCT03807440|181972239|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<.0001
91043130|NCT03807440|181972240|OTHER|||||||0.8071|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.8071
91043131|NCT03807440|181972240|OTHER|||||||0.764|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.7640
91043132|NCT03807440|181972241|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<.0001
91043133|NCT03807440|181972242|OTHER|||||||0.0042|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0042
91043134|NCT03807440|181972243|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<.0001
91043135|NCT03807440|181972244|OTHER|||||||0.399|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3990
91043136|NCT03807440|181972244|OTHER|||||||0.3842|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.3842
91043137|NCT03807440|181972245|OTHER|||||||0.0605|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0605
91043138|NCT03807440|181972246|OTHER|||||||0.6329|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.6329
91043139|NCT03807440|181972246|OTHER|||||||0.7181|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.7181
91043140|NCT03807440|181972247|OTHER|||||||0.5233|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.5233
91043141|NCT03807440|181972249|OTHER|||||||0.3662|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.3662
91043142|NCT03807440|181972250|OTHER|||||||0.511|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.5110
91043143|NCT03807440|181972251|OTHER|||||||0.0921|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0921
91043144|NCT03807440|181972252|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<.0001
91043145|NCT03807440|181972253|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<.0001
91043146|NCT03807440|181972254|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<.0001
90992285|NCT04507867|181868774|SUPERIORITY|Association between the presentation of certain laboratory parameters taken in the baseline period, with te overall mortality of discharge patients in comparison with deceased patients||||||0.003|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.003
90992286|NCT04507867|181868775|SUPERIORITY|Association between the presentation of certain laboratory parameters taken in the baseline period, with te overall mortality of discharge patients in comparison with deceased patients||||||0.004|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.004
90992287|NCT04507867|181868776|SUPERIORITY|Association between the presentation of certain laboratory parameters taken in the baseline period, with te overall mortality of discharge patients in comparison with deceased patients||||||0.011|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.011
90992288|NCT04507867|181868777|SUPERIORITY|Association between the presentation of certain laboratory parameters taken in the baseline period, with te overall mortality of discharge patients in comparison with deceased patients||||||0.031|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.031
90992289|NCT04507867|181868778|SUPERIORITY|Association between the presentation of certain laboratory parameters taken in the baseline period, with te overall mortality of discharge patients in comparison with deceased patients||||||0.04|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.040
90992290|NCT04507867|181868779|SUPERIORITY|Association between the presentation of certain laboratory parameters taken in the baseline period, with te overall mortality of discharge patients in comparison with deceased patients||||||0.047|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.047
90992291|NCT02175771|181868803|SUPERIORITY||geometric mean ratio|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.02|1.72|||||Fp MDPI / FLOVENT HFA|Mid-strength comparison||1.72|1.02|
90992292|NCT02175771|181868803|SUPERIORITY||geometric mean ratio|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.63|1.04|||||Fp MDPI / FLOVENT HFA|High-strength comparison||1.04|0.63|
90992293|NCT02175771|181868803|SUPERIORITY||geometric mean ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.75|1.24|||||FS MDPI / ADVAIR DISKUS|Mid-strength comparison||1.24|0.75|
90992294|NCT02175771|181868803|SUPERIORITY||geometric mean ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.67|1.06|||||FS MDPI / ADVAIR DISKUS|High-strength comparison||1.06|0.67|
90992295|NCT02175771|181868804|NON_INFERIORITY|The study had reasonable power for demonstrating non-inferiority of the study drug to the comparator drug within each cohort. The statistical analysis plan specified that non-inferiority would be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the treatment difference was greater than -125 mL.|LSM difference|0.009|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0476||0.8451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.084|0.103|||mixed model for repeated measures||Fp MDPI / FLOVENT HFA|Mid-strength comparison||0.103|-0.084|0.8451
90992296|NCT02175771|181868804|NON_INFERIORITY|The study had reasonable power for demonstrating non-inferiority of the study drug to the comparator drug within each cohort. The statistical analysis plan specified that non-inferiority would be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the treatment difference was greater than -125 mL.|LSM difference|-0.013|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0479||0.7877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.107|0.081|||mixed model for repeated measures||Fp MDPI / FLOVENT HFA|High-strength comparison||0.081|-0.107|0.7877
90992297|NCT02175771|181868804|NON_INFERIORITY|The study had reasonable power for demonstrating non-inferiority of the study drug to the comparator drug within each cohort. The statistical analysis plan specified that non-inferiority would be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the treatment difference was greater than -125 mL.|LSM difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0485||0.9966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.095|0.095|||mixed model for repeated measures||FS MDPI / ADVAIR DISKUS|Mid-strength comparison||0.095|-0.095|0.9966
90992298|NCT02175771|181868804|NON_INFERIORITY|The study had reasonable power for demonstrating non-inferiority of the study drug to the comparator drug within each cohort. The statistical analysis plan specified that non-inferiority would be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the treatment difference was greater than -125 mL.|LSM difference|0.059|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0464||0.2056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.032|0.15|||mixed model for repeated measures||FS MDPI / ADVAIR DISKUS|High-strength comparison||0.150|-0.032|0.2056
90992299|NCT00779324|181868810|OTHER||Difference in percents|-0.4||||0.9554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|13.9|||Chi-squared|||||13.9|-14.7|0.9554
90992300|NCT00779324|181868811|OTHER|||||||0.96|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.96
90992301|NCT00779324|181868812|OTHER||Difference in percents|10.8||||0.1662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|25.8|||Chi-squared|||||25.8|-4.2|0.1662
90992302|NCT00779324|181868813|OTHER|||||||0.3488|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3488
90992303|NCT00779324|181868815|OTHER||Difference in percents|6.4||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|20.0|||Chi-squared|||||20|-7.2|0.38
90992304|NCT00779324|181868816|OTHER||Difference in percents|11.7||||0.1373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|26.7|||Chi-squared|||||26.7|-3.3|0.1373
90992305|NCT00779324|181868817|OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.12
90992306|NCT00779324|181868818|OTHER|||||||0.0353|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0353
90992307|NCT00194025|181868831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||The 1 sided t-test was applied to the scores at baseline vs. the scores at 12 weeks.||||<0.001
90992308|NCT00194025|181868832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.585||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||The 1 sided t-test was applied to the scores at baseline vs. the scores at 12 weeks.||||0.585
90992309|NCT00194025|181868833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||The 1 sided t-test was applied to the scores at baseline vs. the scores at 12 weeks.||||<0.001
90992310|NCT00194025|181868834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||The 1 sided t-test was applied to the scores at baseline vs. the scores at 12 weeks.||||0.017
90992311|NCT00194025|181868835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||The 1 sided t-test was applied to the scores at baseline vs. the scores at 12 weeks.||||0.027
90992312|NCT00194025|181868836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.569||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||The 1 sided t-test was applied to the scores at baseline vs. the scores at 12 weeks.||||0.569
90992313|NCT00194025|181868837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||The 1 sided t-test was applied to the scores at baseline vs. the scores at 12 weeks.||||0.038
90992314|NCT00194025|181868838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.199||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||The 1 sided t-test was applied to the scores at baseline vs. the scores at 12 weeks.||||0.199
90992315|NCT00194025|181868839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The t-test was applied to the values at baseline vs. the values at 12 weeks.||||0.21
91043147|NCT03807440|181972255|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<.0001
91043148|NCT03807440|181972256|OTHER|||||||0.3201|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.3201
91043149|NCT03807440|181972257|OTHER|||||||0.3288|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3288
90992316|NCT02402218|181868885|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11||||||For the primary and secondary outcomes, the proportion of participants with the outcome in each group was compared using a chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||Sample size was based on an estimated HCV treatment initiation rate of 50% in the UC group (based on a 33% rate observed during the interferon era) and 80% in the intervention groups, a significance level of 0.05, a desired ratio of participants in the intervention group compared to UC group of 3 to 2, and power of 80% to detect this difference between groups. The study was not powered to detect differences between the peer and cash groups.||||.11
90992317|NCT02402218|181868886|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.22
90992318|NCT02402218|181868888|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||Chi-squared|||changes in the frequency of drug and alcohol use before and during treatment were compared using chi-square tests to evaluate the safety of cash incentives.||||0.33
90992319|NCT02402218|181868889|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3||||||changes in the frequency of drug and alcohol use before and during treatment were compared using chi-square tests to evaluate the safety of cash incentives.|Chi-squared|||||||0.30
90992320|NCT04436822|181868896|SUPERIORITY||Intercept from ANCOVA as agreement rate|88.9|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.1|90.7|||ANCOVA|A generalized estimating equation model was used, considering correlation structure of day of sensor wear (1-7).||||90.7|87.1|<0.05
90992321|NCT04436822|181868896|SUPERIORITY||Intercept from ANCOVA as agreement rate|87.5|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.4|89.7|||ANCOVA|A generalized estimating equation model was used, considering correlation structure of day of sensor wear (1-7).||||89.7|85.4|<0.05
90992322|NCT04436822|181868896|SUPERIORITY||Intercept from ANCOVA as agreement rate|87.9|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.8|89.9|||ANCOVA|A generalized estimating equation model was used, considering correlation structure of day of sensor wear (1-7).||||89.9|85.8|<0.05
90992323|NCT03807739|181868897|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin 80% - 125%|Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.2471|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1149|1.3951||||||||1.3951|1.1149|
90992324|NCT03807739|181868897|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin 80% - 125%|Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.9864|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8531|1.1405||||||||1.1405|0.8531|
90992325|NCT03807739|181868899|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin 80% - 125%|Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.2203|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1175|1.3327||||||||1.3327|1.1175|
90992326|NCT03807739|181868899|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin 80% - 125%|Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.9947|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8266|1.1968||||||||1.1968|0.8266|
90992327|NCT00430625|181868900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.429|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.324|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.717|3.141|||paired t-test|||Primary endpoint was based solely on the 60 U/kg treatment arm||3.141|1.717|<0.0001
90992328|NCT00125658|181868911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Primary Comparison (i.e., FTP vs. POWER) Data are reported as change scores, between the end of treatment block 1(10 weeks) and baseline; thus, this analysis directly compares FTP vs. Power. A negative value represents improvement (i.e., reduced trunk displacement) while a positive value represents an increase in compensatory trunk movement.||||<.001
90992329|NCT00125658|181868911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Order effect, testing OrderA (FTP before POWER) vs. OrderB (POWER before FTP). Change scores for trunk displacement at the end of both treatment blocks (20 weeks) relative to baseline (e.g., 20 weeks - baseline) were compared between OrderA and OrderB.||||.002
90992330|NCT00125658|181868912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Tests effect of FTP vs. Power. The change in shoulder flexion range of motion was compared between baseline and the end of treatment Block 1 (i.e., 10 weeks).||||0.13
90992331|NCT00125658|181868912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Test the effect of treatment order OrderA (FTP before POWER) vs. OrderB (POWER before FTP). The change in shoulder flexion range of motion was compared between the end of treatment (20 weeks) and baseline.||||0.048
90992332|NCT00125658|181868913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Compares FTP vs POWER by comparing the change in elbow extension range of motion between the end of treatment block 1 (10 weeks) and baseline.||||.004
90992333|NCT00125658|181868913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Tests for the effect of treatment order OrderA (FTP before POWER) vs. OrderB (POWER before FTP) by comparing the change in elbow extension range of motion between the end of overall treatment (20 weeks) and baseline.||||0.034
90992334|NCT00125658|181868914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.056|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Tests for differences between FTP vs. POWER by comparing the change in movement speed between the end of treatment block 1 (10 weeks) and baseline.||||0.056
90992335|NCT00125658|181868914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.168|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Tests for effect of treatment order (OrderA (FTP before POWER) vs. OrderB (POWER before FTP))by comparing the change in movement speed between the end of overall treatment (20 weeks) and baseline.||||.168
91043150|NCT03807440|181972257|OTHER|||||||0.171|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1710
91043151|NCT03807440|181972258|OTHER|||||||0.013|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0130
91043152|NCT03807440|181972259|OTHER|||||||0.0026|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0026
91043153|NCT03807440|181972260|OTHER|||||||0.3978|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.3978
91043154|NCT03807440|181972261|OTHER|||||||0.0055|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0055
91043155|NCT03807440|181972261|OTHER|||||||0.0041|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0041
91043156|NCT03807440|181972262|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<.0001
91043157|NCT03807440|181972263|OTHER|||||||0.0399|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0399
91043158|NCT03807440|181972263|OTHER|||||||0.0401|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0401
91043159|NCT03807440|181972281|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<.0001
91043160|NCT03807440|181972282|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<.0001
91043161|NCT03807440|181972283|OTHER|||||||0.0008|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0008
91043162|NCT03807440|181972285|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<.0001
91043163|NCT03807440|181972286|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0001
91043164|NCT03807440|181972287|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<.0001
91043165|NCT03807440|181972288|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<.0001
91043166|NCT03807440|181972289|OTHER|||||||0.9184|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.9184
91043167|NCT03807440|181972289|OTHER|||||||0.9911|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.9911
91043168|NCT03807440|181972290|OTHER|||||||0.6967|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.6967
91043169|NCT03807440|181972290|OTHER|||||||0.6439|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6439
91043170|NCT03807440|181972291|OTHER|||||||0.9414|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.9414
91043171|NCT03807440|181972291|OTHER|||||||0.8142|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.8142
91043172|NCT03807440|181972292|OTHER|||||||0.7837|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7837
91043173|NCT03807440|181972292|OTHER|||||||0.7538|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.7538
91043174|NCT03807440|181972293|OTHER|||||||0.0012|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0012
91043175|NCT03807440|181972294|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<.0001
91043176|NCT03807440|181972295|OTHER|||||||0.1906|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1906
91043177|NCT03807440|181972296|OTHER|||||||0.6198|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.6198
91043178|NCT03807440|181972296|OTHER|||||||0.7297|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.7297
91043179|NCT03807440|181972298|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<.0001
91043180|NCT03807440|181972299|OTHER|||||||0.0012|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0012
91043181|NCT03807440|181972299|OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0002
91043182|NCT03807440|181972300|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<.0001
91043183|NCT03807440|181972303|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0030
91043184|NCT01332968|181972345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.85|||Log Rank|Stratified by chemotherapy regimen and Follicular Lymphoma International Prognostic Index (FLIPI) risk group.||||0.85|0.51|0.0012
91043185|NCT01332968|181972346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.93|||Log Rank|Stratified by chemotherapy regimen and Follicular Lymphoma International Prognostic Index (FLIPI) risk group.||||0.93|0.64|0.0055
91043186|NCT01332968|181972347|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.91|||Log Rank|||||0.91|0.65|0.0028
91043187|NCT01332968|181972348|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.0118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.93|||Log Rank|||||0.93|0.56|0.0118
91043188|NCT01332968|181972349|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.0038||95.0|0.57|0.9|||Log Rank|||||0.90|0.57|0.0038
91043189|NCT01332968|181972350|SUPERIORITY||Absolute difference in %|1.8||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|5.68|||Log Rank|||Without PET||5.68|-2.02|0.30
91043190|NCT01332968|181972350|SUPERIORITY||Absolute difference in %|4.3||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|10.5|||Log Rank|||With PET||10.5|-1.8|0.17
91043191|NCT01332968|181972351|SUPERIORITY||Absolute difference in %|1.6||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|5.3|||Log Rank|||Without PET||5.3|-2.0|0.33
91043192|NCT01332968|181972351|SUPERIORITY||Absolute difference in %|3.5||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|9.4|||Log Rank|||With PET||9.4|-2.3|0.17
91043193|NCT01332968|181972352|SUPERIORITY||Absolute difference in %|-5.5||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|-0.78|||Log Rank|||Without PET||-0.78|-10.2|0.02
91043194|NCT01332968|181972352|SUPERIORITY||Absolute difference in %|5.2||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|13.3|||Log Rank|||With PET||13.3|-2.8|0.32
91043195|NCT01332968|181972353|SUPERIORITY||Absolute difference in %|-4.9||||0.02||95.0|-9.3|0.6|||Log Rank|||Without PET||0.6|-9.3|0.02
91043196|NCT01332968|181972353|SUPERIORITY||Absolute difference in %|4.1||||0.33||95.0|-3.6|11.8|||Log Rank|||With PET||11.8|-3.6|0.33
91043197|NCT01332968|181972354|SUPERIORITY||Absolute difference in %|3.3||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|6.85|||Log Rank|||Without PET||6.85|-0.19|0.052
91043198|NCT01332968|181972354|SUPERIORITY||Absolute difference in %|3.3||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|8.9|||Log Rank|||With PET||8.9|-2.3|0.30
91043199|NCT01332968|181972355|SUPERIORITY||Absolute difference in %|3.2||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|6.6|||Log Rank|||Without PET||6.6|-0.3|0.049
91043200|NCT01332968|181972355|SUPERIORITY||Absolute difference in %|3.9||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|9.5|||Log Rank|||With PET||9.5|-1.7|0.22
91043201|NCT01332968|181972356|SUPERIORITY||Absolute difference in %|1.7||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|6.8|||Log Rank|||Without PET||6.8|-3.5|0.58
91043202|NCT01332968|181972356|SUPERIORITY||Absolute difference in %|11.7||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|19.4|||Log Rank|||||19.4|3.9|0.006
91043203|NCT01332968|181972357|SUPERIORITY||Absolute difference in %|0.7||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|5.5|||Log Rank|||Without PET||5.5|-4.0|0.80
91043204|NCT01332968|181972357|SUPERIORITY||Absolute difference in %|10.1||||0.009||95.0|2.6|17.6|||Log Rank|||With PET||17.6|2.6|0.009
91043205|NCT01332968|181972358|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.3577||95.0|0.63|1.18|||Log Rank|||||1.18|0.63|0.3577
91043206|NCT01332968|181972359|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.25||95.0|0.58|1.16|||Log Rank|||||1.16|0.58|0.25
90992336|NCT00125658|181868915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.564|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Tests the effects of FTP vs. POWER on motor impairment (UE FMA) by comparing the change in FMA between the end of treatment block 1 (10 weeks) and baseline.||||0.564
90992337|NCT00125658|181868915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.948|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Tests for an effect of treatment order (OrderA (FTP before POWER) vs. OrderB (POWER before FTP)) by comparing the change in UE FMA between the end of treatment (20 weeks) and baseline.||||0.948
90992338|NCT00125658|181868916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.078|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Tests for differences in FTP vs. POWER by comparing the change in RPR between the end of treatment block 1 (10 weeks) and baseline.||||0.078
90992339|NCT00125658|181868916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Tests the effect of treatment order (Order A (FTP \> POWER) vs. Order B (POWER \> FTP)) by comparing the change in RPR between the end of overall treatment (20 weeks) and baseline.||||0.4
90992340|NCT00125658|181868917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.085|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Tests for the effect of treatment (FTP vs. POWER) by comparing the change in movement smoothness between the end of treatment block 1 (10 weeks) and baseline.||||0.085
90992341|NCT00125658|181868917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.635|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Tests for the effect of treatment order (OrderA (FTP before POWER) vs. OrderB (POWER before FTP)) by comparing the change in movement smoothness between the end of overall treatment (20 weeks) and baseline.||||0.635
90992342|NCT00369668|181868940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|30.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.65|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.5|37.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Greenhouse-Geisser degrees of freedom adjustment was not necessary.||Group by Test Session ANOVA with repeated measures on second factor.||37.4|22.5|<0.05
90992343|NCT03855137|181868951|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.547||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.48|-1.33||Adjusted p-value using graphical approach to control the overall type 1 error rate for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)||MMRM model=treatment group,visit,stratification by acute medication overuse,migraine prevention medication use and number of failures,region,and treatment group-by-visit as fixed factors and baseline and baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates.|||-1.33|-3.48|0.0001
90992344|NCT03855137|181868951|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.545||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.89|-0.75||Adjusted p-value using graphical approach to control the overall type 1 error rate for multiple comparisons.|MMRM||MMRM model=treatment group,visit,stratification by acute medication overuse,migraine prevention medication use and number of failures,region,and treatment group-by-visit as fixed factors and baseline and baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates.|||-0.75|-2.89|0.0009
90992345|NCT03855137|181868952|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.547||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.31|-1.16||Adjusted p-value using graphical approach to control the overall type 1 error rate for multiple comparisons.|MMRM||MMRM model=treatment group,visit,stratification by acute medication overuse,migraine prevention medication use and number of failures,region,and treatment group-by-visit as fixed factors and baseline and baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates.|||-1.16|-3.31|0.0001
90992346|NCT03855137|181868952|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.544||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.72|-0.59|||MMRM|Adjusted p-value using graphical approach to control the overall type 1 error rate for multiple comparisons.|MMRM model=treatment group,visit,stratification by acute medication overuse,migraine prevention medication use and number of failures,region,and treatment group-by-visit as fixed factors and baseline and baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates.|||-0.59|-2.72|0.0024
90992347|NCT03855137|181868953|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.541||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.38|-1.26||Adjusted p-value using graphical approach to control the overall type 1 error rate for multiple comparisons.|MMRM||MMRM model=treatment group,visit,stratification by acute medication overuse,migraine prevention medication use and number of failures,region,and treatment group-by-visit as fixed factors and baseline and baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates.|||-1.26|-3.38|0.0001
90992348|NCT03855137|181868953|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.538||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.93|-0.81||Adjusted p-value using graphical approach to control the overall type 1 error rate for multiple comparisons.|MMRM||MMRM model=treatment group,visit,stratification by acute medication overuse,migraine prevention medication use and number of failures,region,and treatment group-by-visit as fixed factors and baseline and baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates.|||-0.81|-2.93|0.0009
90992349|NCT03855137|181868954|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.539||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-1.09||Adjusted p-value using graphical approach to control the overall type 1 error rate for multiple comparisons.|MMRM||MMRM model=treatment group,visit,stratification by acute medication overuse,migraine prevention medication use and number of failures,region,and treatment group-by-visit as fixed factors and baseline and baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates.|||-1.09|-3.20|0.0002
90992350|NCT03855137|181868954|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.536||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|-0.67||Adjusted p-value using graphical approach to control the overall type 1 error rate for multiple comparisons.|MMRM||MMRM model=treatment group,visit,stratification by acute medication overuse,migraine prevention medication use and number of failures,region,and treatment group-by-visit as fixed factors and baseline and baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates.|||-0.67|-2.78|0.0024
90992351|NCT03855137|181868955|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.63|-1.63||Adjusted p-value using graphical approach to control the overall type 1 error rate for multiple comparisons.|MMRM||MMRM model=treatment group,visit,stratification by acute medication overuse,migraine prevention medication use and number of failures,region,and treatment group-by-visit as fixed factors and baseline and baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates.|||-1.63|-3.63|0.0001
90992352|NCT03855137|181868955|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.508||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.13|-1.13||Adjusted p-value using graphical approach to control the overall type 1 error rate for multiple comparisons.|MMRM||MMRM model=treatment group,visit,stratification by acute medication overuse,migraine prevention medication use and number of failures,region,and treatment group-by-visit as fixed factors and baseline and baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates.|||-1.13|-3.13|0.0009
91043207|NCT01332968|181972360|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.89|||Log Rank|||||0.89|0.62|0.0015
91043208|NCT01332968|181972361|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||0.0004||95.0|0.56|0.85|||Log Rank|||||0.85|0.56|0.0004
90992353|NCT03855137|181868956|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.507||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.52|-1.53||Adjusted p-value using graphical approach to control the overall type 1 error rate for multiple comparisons.|MMRM||MMRM model=treatment group,visit,stratification by acute medication overuse,migraine prevention medication use and number of failures,region,and treatment group-by-visit as fixed factors and baseline and baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates.|||-1.53|-3.52|0.0002
90992354|NCT03855137|181868956|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.505||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|-1.1|||MMRM|||||-1.10|-3.09|0.0024
90992355|NCT03855137|181868957|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.13||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|3.14||Adjusted p-value using graphical approach to control the overall type 1 error rate for multiple comparisons.|Logistic regression||Logistic regression for each atogepant group versus placebo with baseline monthly migraine days as covariate,stratification of region,acute medication overuse,migraine prevention medication and number of failures,treatment group as fixed factors.|||3.14|1.45|0.0003
90992356|NCT03855137|181868957|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.04||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|3.0||Adjusted p-value using graphical approach to control the overall type 1 error rate for multiple comparisons.|Logistic regression||Logistic regression for each atogepant group versus placebo with baseline monthly migraine days as covariate,stratification of region,acute medication overuse,migraine prevention medication and number of failures,treatment group as fixed factors.|||3.00|1.38|0.0009
90992357|NCT03855137|181868958|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.03||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|2.98||Adjusted p-value using graphical approach to control the overall type 1 error rate for multiple comparisons.|Logistic regression||Logistic regression for each atogepant group versus placebo with baseline monthly migraine days as covariate,stratification of region,acute medication overuse,migraine prevention medication and number of failures,treatment group as fixed factors.|||2.98|1.38|0.0006
90992358|NCT03855137|181868958|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|2.79||Adjusted p-value using graphical approach to control the overall type 1 error rate for multiple comparisons.|Logistic regression||Logistic regression for each atogepant group versus placebo with baseline monthly migraine days as covariate,stratification of region,acute medication overuse,migraine prevention medication and number of failures,treatment group as fixed factors.|||2.79|1.29|0.0009
90992359|NCT03855137|181868959|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|7.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.864||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.77|11.09||Adjusted p-value using graphical approach to control the overall type 1 error rate for multiple comparisons.|MMRM||MMRM model=treatment group,visit,stratification by acute medication overuse,migraine prevention medication use and number of failures,region,and treatment group-by-visit as fixed factors and baseline and baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates.|||11.09|3.77|0.0006
90992360|NCT03855137|181868959|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|5.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.848||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.15|9.41||Adjusted p-value using graphical approach to control the overall type 1 error rate for multiple comparisons.|MMRM||MMRM model=treatment group,visit,stratification by acute medication overuse,migraine prevention medication use and number of failures,region,and treatment group-by-visit as fixed factors and baseline and baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates.|||9.41|2.15|0.0024
91043209|NCT01332968|181972362|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.27|||Log Rank|||||1.27|0.71|
90992361|NCT03855137|181868960|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.968||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.75|-2.95||Adjusted p-value using graphical approach to control the overall type 1 error rate for multiple comparisons.|MMRM||MMRM model=treatment group,visit,stratification by acute medication overuse,migraine prevention medication use and number of failures,region,and treatment group-by-visit as fixed factors and baseline and baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates.|||-2.95|-6.75|0.0003
90992362|NCT03855137|181868960|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.963||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.27|-1.49||Adjusted p-value using graphical approach to control the overall type 1 error rate for multiple comparisons.|MMRM||MMRM model=treatment group,visit,stratification by acute medication overuse,migraine prevention medication use and number of failures,region,and treatment group-by-visit as fixed factors and baseline and baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates.|||-1.49|-5.27|0.0009
90992363|NCT03855137|181868961|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.897||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.95|-2.43||Adjusted p-value using graphical approach to control the overall type 1 error rate for multiple comparisons.|MMRM||MMRM model=treatment group,visit,stratification by acute medication overuse,migraine prevention medication use and number of failures,region,and treatment group-by-visit as fixed factors and baseline and baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates.|||-2.43|-5.95|0.0003
90992364|NCT03855137|181868961|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.893||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.47|-0.96||Adjusted p-value using graphical approach to control the overall type 1 error rate for multiple comparisons.|MMRM||MMRM model=treatment group,visit,stratification by acute medication overuse,migraine prevention medication use and number of failures,region,and treatment group-by-visit as fixed factors and baseline and baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates.|||-0.96|-4.47|0.0025
90992365|NCT03855137|181868962|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.697||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.67|-1.93|||MMRM||MMRM model=treatment group,visit,stratification by acute medication overuse,migraine prevention medication use and number of failures,region,and treatment group-by-visit as fixed factors and baseline and baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates.|||-1.93|-4.67|0.0006
90992366|NCT03855137|181868962|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.02|-1.3|||MMRM||MMRM model=treatment group,visit,stratification by acute medication overuse,migraine prevention medication use and number of failures,region,and treatment group-by-visit as fixed factors and baseline and baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates.|||-1.30|-4.02|0.0024
90992367|NCT02435277|181868965|OTHER|||||||0.0475||||||Total daily dose is twice the respective dose, Pairwise Comparison using Control as the Reference Group|ANCOVA|||Mixed Model Inferential Statistical Analysis of HbA1c change from day 1-day 84 Evaluable Population (n=43)||||0.0475
90992368|NCT02435277|181868965|OTHER|||||||0.0912|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0912
90992369|NCT02435277|181868965|OTHER|||||||0.0458|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0458
90992370|NCT02435277|181868966|OTHER|||||||0.26||||||Total daily dose is twice the respective dose Pairwise Comparison using Treatment D as the Reference Group|ANCOVA|||Mixed Model Inferential Statistical Analysis of Fssting Plasma Glucose change from day 1-day 84 in Evaluable Population (n=43)||||0.26
90992371|NCT02435277|181868966|OTHER|||||||0.0083|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0083
90992372|NCT02435277|181868966|OTHER|||||||0.0317|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0317
90992373|NCT01552928|181869001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.004
90992374|NCT01552928|181869001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90992375|NCT01552928|181869001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90992376|NCT01552928|181869002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90992377|NCT01552928|181869002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90992378|NCT01552928|181869002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.001
90992379|NCT01552928|181869003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.012|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.012
90992380|NCT01552928|181869003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.044|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.044
90992381|NCT01552928|181869003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90992382|NCT01552928|181869004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90992383|NCT01552928|181869004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90992384|NCT01552928|181869004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90992385|NCT01552928|181869005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.003|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.003
90992386|NCT01552928|181869005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90992387|NCT01552928|181869005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.043|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.043
90992388|NCT01552928|181869010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90992389|NCT01552928|181869010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90992390|NCT01552928|181869010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90992391|NCT01552928|181869011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90992392|NCT01552928|181869011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90992393|NCT01552928|181869011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.004
90992394|NCT01552928|181869012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.005|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.005
90992395|NCT01552928|181869012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90992396|NCT01552928|181869012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90992397|NCT01552928|181869013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.078|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.078
90992398|NCT01552928|181869013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90992399|NCT01552928|181869013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.156|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.156
90992400|NCT01552928|181869014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.439|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.439
90992401|NCT01552928|181869014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.274|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.274
90992402|NCT01552928|181869014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90992403|NCT00424528|181869039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Study baseline FEV1 as covariate and treatment group as fixed effect.||||||<0.001
90992404|NCT00424528|181869039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Study Baseline FEV1 as a covariate and treatment group as a fixed effect.||||||<0.001
90992405|NCT00424528|181869039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Primary analysis:Group 2 vs 3. Key secondary analysis: Group 1 vs 3. Multiple comparisons for the analysis of the primary endpoint were controlled at the 5% level.|ANCOVA|Study baseline FEV1 as a covariate and treatment group as fixed effect.||||||<0.001
90992406|NCT00424528|181869040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Study baseline FEV1 as a covariate and treatment group as a fixed effect.||||||<0.001
90992407|NCT00424528|181869040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Study baseline FEV1 as a covariate and treatment group as a fixed effect.||||||0.001
90992408|NCT00424528|181869041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Study baseline FEV1 as a covariate and treatment group as a fixed effect.||||||0.001
90992409|NCT00424528|181869041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Study baseline FEV1 as a covariate and treatment group as a fixed effect.||||||<0.001
90992410|NCT00424528|181869042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.073||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Study baseline FEV1 as a covariate and treatment group as a fixed effect.||||||0.073
90992411|NCT00424528|181869042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Study baseline FEV1 as a covariate and treatment group as a fixed effect.||||||0.050
90992412|NCT00424528|181869045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Week 0 comparisons: Study baseline FEV1 as a covariate and treatment group as a fixed effect.||Week 0 comparisons||||0.060
90992413|NCT00424528|181869045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Study baseline FEV1 as a covariate and treatment group as a fixed effect.||Week 0||||<0.001
90992414|NCT00424528|181869045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Week 2 comparisons: Study baseline FEV1 as a covariate and treatment group as a fixed effect.||Week 2 comparisons||||0.004
90992415|NCT00424528|181869045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Week 2 comparisons: Study baseline FEV1 as a covariate and treatment group as a fixed effect.||Week 2 comparisons||||0.002
90992416|NCT00424528|181869048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.206||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Study baseline Inspiratory Capacity as a covariate and treatment group as a fixed effect.||||||0.206
90992417|NCT00424528|181869048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Study baseline Inspiratory Capacity as a covariate and treatment group as a fixed effect.||||||0.025
90992418|NCT01313520|181869055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.1|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||-0.1|-0.4|<0.001
90992419|NCT01313520|181869056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.048
90992420|NCT01313520|181869057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.011
90992421|NCT01313520|181869058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||||<0.0001
90992422|NCT01313520|181869059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||van Elteren test|||||||0.001
90992423|NCT01313520|181869060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005||95.0|||||van Elteren test|||||||0.0005
90992424|NCT01313520|181869061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.87||||||||1.87|0.92|
90992425|NCT01313520|181869062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.64|1.55||||||||1.55|0.64|
90992426|NCT00797797|181869083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||The responder rates between 'No Treatment Added' and 'Milnacipran Added' groups were compared using a logistic regression model.||||<0.001
90992427|NCT00797797|181869084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-14.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.99|-9.71|||ANCOVA|||This parameter was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment group and study center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-9.71|-18.99|
90992428|NCT00442013|181869129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.086||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.3|||Regression, Linear|Linear mixed effects model is robust to data that are missing at random that has characteristics similar to multiple imputation techniques.||All participants included in the analysis. The model includes the data (ACQ scores) from all time points including baseline. The treatment effect (delta-delta) comparing the difference from baseline at 6 months is estimated from the model. Longitudinal models estimated the change from baseline to 6 months in a measurement using generalized estimating equations with an unstructured or exchangeable covariance matrix to adjust for repeated measures.||0.3|0.0|0.12
90992429|NCT00442013|181869130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2593||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.2|||Regression, Linear|||||0.2|-0.3|0.65
90992430|NCT00442013|181869131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0906||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||Regression, Linear|||||0.1|-0.1|0.99
90992431|NCT00442013|181869132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.2||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.7|||negative binomial|||||1.7|0.9|0.30
90992432|NCT00442013|181869133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.01|||Regression, Linear|Model includes the data from all time points. Treatment effect (delta-delta) comparing the difference from baseline at 24 weeks is from the model.||||0.01|-0.07|0.14
90992433|NCT00442013|181869134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.4|||Regression, Linear|||||0.4|-2.1|0.20
90992434|NCT02387372|181869140|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio (GMR)|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.21|1.56|||||Ratio of Last Dose/First Dose|Accumulation Ratio of Last Dose/First Dose||1.56|1.21|
90992435|NCT02387372|181869140|OTHER||GMR|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.03|1.29|||||Ratio of Last Dose/First Dose|Accumulation Ratio of Last Dose/First Dose||1.29|1.03|
90992436|NCT02387372|181869143|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio (GMR)|1.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.5|1.96|||||Ratio of Last Dose/First Dose|Accumulation Ratio of Last Dose/First Dose||1.96|1.50|
90992437|NCT02387372|181869143|OTHER||GMR|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.14|1.55|||||Ratio of Last Dose/First Dose|Accumulation Ratio of Last Dose/First Dose||1.55|1.14|
90992438|NCT02387372|181869145|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio (GMR)|1.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.44|1.81|||||Ratio of Last Dose/First Dose|Accumulation Ratio of Last Dose/First Dose||1.81|1.44|
90992439|NCT02387372|181869145|OTHER||GMR|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.11|1.39|||||Ratio of Last Dose/First Dose|Accumulation Ratio of Last Dose/First Dose||1.39|1.11|
90992440|NCT02387372|181869146|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio (GMR)|1.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.51|1.95|||||Ratio of Last Dose/First Dose|Accumulation Ratio of Last Dose/First Dose||1.95|1.51|
90992441|NCT02387372|181869146|OTHER||GMR|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.09|1.33|||||Ratio of Last Dose/First Dose|Accumulation Ratio of Last Dose/First Dose||1.33|1.09|
90992442|NCT01774344|181869181|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.624|||=|1.7e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.498|0.782|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio for OS and 95% confidence interval was calculated for stratified IVRS by using Cox model, stratified by the geographic region: Asia or Rest of the World (ROW), ECOG-PS: 0 versus 1, AFP level, presence versus absence of extrahepatic disease and presence versus absence of macrovascular invasion. Kaplan-Meier (KM) estimated for OS and KM survival curves were presented for each treatment arm.||0.782|0.498|= 0.000017
90992443|NCT01774344|181869181|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66|||=|0.000149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.527|0.828|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio for OS and 95% confidence interval was calculated for stratified RAVE (Sensitivity) by using Cox model, stratified by the geographic region: Asia or Rest of the World (ROW), ECOG-PS: 0 versus 1, AFP level, presence versus absence of extrahepatic disease and presence versus absence of macrovascular invasion. Kaplan-Meier (KM) estimated for OS and KM survival curves were presented for each treatment arm.||0.828|0.527|= 0.000149
90992444|NCT01774344|181869181|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.674|||=|0.000107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.546|0.831|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio for OS and 95% confidence interval was calculated for unstratified (sensitivity) by using Cox model, stratified by the geographic region: Asia or Rest of the World (ROW), ECOG-PS: 0 versus 1, AFP level, presence versus absence of extrahepatic disease and presence versus absence of macrovascular invasion. Kaplan-Meier (KM) estimated for OS and KM survival curves were presented for each treatment arm.||0.831|0.546|= 0.000107
90992445|NCT01774344|181869182|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.439|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.355|0.542|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and its 95% CI was based on stratified (IVRS) Cox Regression Model. One-sided p-value was calculated from log rank test and 95% CIs was computed by using Kaplan-Meier estimates.||0.542|0.355|< 0.000001
90992446|NCT01774344|181869182|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.471|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.388|0.572|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and its 95% CI was based on unstratified (IVRS) Cox Regression Model. One-sided p-value was calculated from log rank test and 95% CIs was computed by using Kaplan-Meier estimates.||0.572|0.388|< 0.000001
90992447|NCT01774344|181869182|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.412|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.334|0.509|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and its 95% CI was based on stratified (IVRS) Cox Regression Model. One-sided p-value was calculated from log rank test and 95% CIs was computed by using Kaplan-Meier estimates.||0.509|0.334|< 0.000001
90992448|NCT01774344|181869182|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.444|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.365|0.539|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and its 95% CI was based on unstratified (IVRS) Cox Regression Model. One-sided p-value was calculated from log rank test and 95% CIs was computed by using Kaplan-Meier estimates.||0.539|0.365|< 0.000001
90992449|NCT01774344|181869183|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.453|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.369|0.555|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and its 95% CI was based on stratified (IVRS) Cox Regression Model. One-sided p-value was calculated from log rank test and 95% CIs was computed by using Cox Regression Model.||0.555|0.369|< 0.000001
90992450|NCT01774344|181869183|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.48|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.397|0.58|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and its 95% CI was based on unstratified Cox Regression Model. One-sided p-value was calculated from log rank test and 95% CIs was computed by using Cox Regression Model.||0.580|0.397|< 0.000001
90992451|NCT01774344|181869183|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.425|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.347|0.522|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and its 95% CI was based on stratified (IVRS) Cox Regression Model. One-sided p-value was calculated from log rank test and 95% CIs was computed by using Cox Regression Model.||0.522|0.347|< 0.000001
90992452|NCT01774344|181869183|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.454|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.376|0.548|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and its 95% CI was based on unstratified Cox Regression Model. One-sided p-value was calculated from log rank test and 95% CIs was computed by using Cox Regression Model.||0.548|0.376|< 0.000001
90992453|NCT01774344|181869184|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-6.88|||=|0.00365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.13|-2.63|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of treatments were calculated.||-2.63|-11.13|= 0.003650
90992454|NCT01774344|181869184|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-4.15|||=|0.019991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.55|-0.75|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of treatments were calculated.||-0.75|-7.55|= 0.019991
90992455|NCT01774344|181869185|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-29.31|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.52|-21.11|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of treatments were calculated.||-21.11|-37.52|< 0.000001
91043210|NCT01332968|181972363|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.19||||||||1.19|0.50|
90992456|NCT01774344|181869185|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-31.39|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.57|-23.22|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of treatments were calculated.||-23.22|-39.57|< 0.000001
90992457|NCT03546413|181869187|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||This is the calculated p-value|Regression, Logistic|||Test for equivalence between the groups||||<0.001
90992458|NCT03546413|181869188|SUPERIORITY|A logistic regression model was used with a fixed effect comparing the Avoidance and Consumption cohorts and a random effect to account for siblings who are in the same family unit.||||||0.055|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Test for equivalence between the groups||||0.055
90992459|NCT03546413|181869189|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||This is the calculated p-value|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90992460|NCT03546413|181869189|SUPERIORITY|A linear regression model was used on the log of the peanut consumption with a fixed effect comparing the Avoidance and Consumption cohorts and a random effect to account for siblings who are in the same family unit.|||||<|0.001||||||This is the calculated p-value|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.001
90992461|NCT03546413|181869189|SUPERIORITY|A linear regression model was used on the log of the peanut consumption with a fixed effect comparing the Avoidance and Consumption cohorts and a random effect to account for siblings who are in the same family unit.||||||0.939|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.939
90992462|NCT03546413|181869189|SUPERIORITY|A linear regression model was used on the log of the peanut consumption with a fixed effect comparing the Avoidance and Consumption cohorts and a random effect to account for parents who are in the same family unit.||||||0.002|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.002
90992463|NCT03546413|181869190|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.131|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.131
90992464|NCT03546413|181869190|SUPERIORITY|A linear regression model was used on the log of peanut skin prick test with a fixed effect comparing the Avoidance and Consumption cohorts and a random effect to account for siblings who are in the same family unit.||||||0.208|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.208
90992465|NCT03546413|181869190|SUPERIORITY|A linear regression model was used on the log of peanut skin prick with a fixed effect comparing the Avoidance and Consumption cohorts and a random effect to account for siblings who are in the same family unit.||||||0.587|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.587
90992466|NCT03546413|181869190|SUPERIORITY|A linear regression model was used on the log of peanut skin prick with a fixed effect comparing the Avoidance and Consumption cohorts and a random effect to account for parents who are in the same family unit.||||||0.268|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.268
90992467|NCT03546413|181869191|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.985|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.985
90992468|NCT03546413|181869191|SUPERIORITY|A linear regression model was used on the log of peanut specific IgE with a fixed effect comparing the Avoidance and Consumption cohorts and a random effect to account for siblings who are in the same family unit.||||||0.371|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.371
90992469|NCT03546413|181869191|SUPERIORITY|A linear regression model was used on the log of peanut specific IgE with a fixed effect comparing the Avoidance and Consumption cohorts and a random effect to account for siblings who are in the same family unit.||||||0.483|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.483
90992470|NCT03546413|181869191|SUPERIORITY|A linear regression model was used on the log of peanut specific IgE with a fixed effect comparing the Avoidance and Consumption cohorts and a random effect to account for parents who are in the same family unit.||||||0.643|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.643
90992471|NCT03546413|181869192|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.225|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.225
90992472|NCT03546413|181869192|SUPERIORITY|A linear regression model was used on the log of SCORAD with a fixed effect comparing the Avoidance and Consumption cohorts and a random effect to account for siblings who are in the same family unit.||||||0.857|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.857
90992473|NCT03546413|181869192|SUPERIORITY|A linear regression model was used on the log of SCORAD with a fixed effect comparing the Avoidance and Consumption cohorts and a random effect to account for siblings who are in the same family unit.||||||0.87|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.870
90992474|NCT03546413|181869193|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.658|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.658
90992475|NCT03546413|181869193|SUPERIORITY|A logistic regression model was used with a fixed effect comparing the Avoidance and Consumption cohorts and a random effect to account for siblings who are in the same family unit.||||||0.1|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.100
90992476|NCT03546413|181869193|SUPERIORITY|A logistic regression model was used with a fixed effect comparing the Avoidance and Consumption cohorts and a random effect to account for siblings who are in the same family unit.||||||0.502|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.502
90992477|NCT03546413|181869193|SUPERIORITY|A logistic regression model was used with a fixed effect comparing the Avoidance and Consumption cohorts and a random effect to account for parents who are in the same family unit.||||||0.397|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.397
90992478|NCT03546413|181869194|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.659|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.659
90992479|NCT03546413|181869194|SUPERIORITY|A logistic regression model was used with a fixed effect comparing the Avoidance and Consumption cohorts and a random effect to account for siblings who are in the same family unit.||||||0.26|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.260
90992480|NCT03546413|181869194|SUPERIORITY|A logistic regression model was used with a fixed effect comparing the Avoidance and Consumption cohorts and a random effect to account for siblings who are in the same family unit.||||||0.075|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.075
90992481|NCT03546413|181869194|SUPERIORITY|A logistic regression model was used with a fixed effect comparing the Avoidance and Consumption cohorts and a random effect to account for parents who are in the same family unit.||||||0.192|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.192
90992482|NCT03546413|181869195|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.729|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.729
90992483|NCT03546413|181869195|SUPERIORITY|A logistic regression model was used with a fixed effect comparing the Avoidance and Consumption cohorts and a random effect to account for siblings who are in the same family unit.||||||0.75|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.750
90992484|NCT03546413|181869195|SUPERIORITY|A logistic regression model was used with a fixed effect comparing the Avoidance and Consumption cohorts and a random effect to account for siblings who are in the same family unit.||||||0.155|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.155
90992485|NCT03546413|181869195|SUPERIORITY|A logistic regression model was used with a fixed effect comparing the Avoidance and Consumption cohorts and a random effect to account for parents who are in the same family unit.||||||0.458|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.458
90992486|NCT03546413|181869196|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.330
90992487|NCT03546413|181869196|SUPERIORITY|A logistic regression model was used with a fixed effect comparing the Avoidance and Consumption cohorts and a random effect to account for siblings who are in the same family unit.||||||0.351|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.351
90992488|NCT03546413|181869196|SUPERIORITY|A logistic regression model was used with a fixed effect comparing the Avoidance and Consumption cohorts and a random effect to account for siblings who are in the same family unit.||||||0.502|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.502
90992489|NCT03546413|181869196|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.732||||||A logistic regression model was used with a fixed effect comparing the Avoidance and Consumption cohorts and a random effect to account for parents who are in the same family unit.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.732
90992490|NCT03546413|181869197|SUPERIORITY|A logistic regression model was used with a fixed effect comparing the Avoidance and Consumption cohorts and a random effect to account for siblings who are in the same family unit.||||||0.202|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.202
90992491|NCT03546413|181869197|OTHER||||||||||||||Regression, Logistic||||A logistic regression model was used with a fixed effect comparing the Avoidance and Consumption cohorts and a random effect to account for siblings who are in the same family unit. However, the logistic regression model was unable to converge due to the low percentage of allergic participants in older siblings.|||
90992492|NCT03546413|181869197|OTHER||||||||||||||Regression, Logistic||||A logistic regression model was used with a fixed effect comparing the Avoidance and Consumption cohorts and a random effect to account for parents who are in the same family unit. However, the logistic regression model was unable to converge due to the low percentage of allergic participants in parents.|||
90992493|NCT03546413|181869198|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.029
90992494|NCT03546413|181869198|SUPERIORITY|A logistic regression model was used with a fixed effect comparing the Avoidance and Consumption cohorts and a random effect to account for siblings who are in the same family unit.||||||0.489|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.489
90992495|NCT03546413|181869198|OTHER||||||||||||||Regression, Logistic||||A logistic regression model was used with a fixed effect comparing the Avoidance and Consumption cohorts and a random effect to account for siblings who are in the same family unit. However, the model was unable to converge due to the low percentage of peanut-related adverse events in older siblings.|||
90992496|NCT00543569|181869209|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The aim of this study was to assess the non-inferiority of each experimental arm (Arms 2-4) to a comparator regimen (Arm 1) over a non-inferiority margin of 10%. If the upper bound of the 90% confidence interval was less than the margin, i.e., 10%, then the test treatment was considered to be non-inferior to the comparator regimen.|Difference|13.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.2|23.9|||||A positive difference indicates a higher failure rate in the experimental arm as compared to the comparator arm (Arm 1).|||23.9|3.2|
90992497|NCT00543569|181869209|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The aim of this study was to assess the non-inferiority of each experimental arm (Arms 2-4) to a comparator regimen (Arm 1) over a non-inferiority margin of 10%. If the upper bound of the 90% confidence interval was less than the margin, i.e., 10%, then the test treatment was considered to be non-inferior to the comparator regimen.|Difference|6.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.6|15.8|||||A positive difference indicates a higher failure rate in the experimental arm as compared to the comparator arm (Arm 1).|||15.8|-3.6|
90992498|NCT00543569|181869209|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The aim of this study was to assess the non-inferiority of each experimental arm (Arms 2-4) to a comparator regimen (Arm 1) over a non-inferiority margin of 10%. If the upper bound of the 90% confidence interval was less than the margin, i.e., 10%, then the test treatment was considered to be non-inferior to the comparator regimen.|Difference|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.3|13.3|||||A positive difference indicated a higher failure rate in the experimental arm as compared to the comparator arm (Arm 1).|||13.3|-5.3|
90992499|NCT00543569|181869210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.9|4.1||||||Patient survival at 6 months||4.1|-6.9|
90992500|NCT00543569|181869210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.5|5.8||||||Patient survival at 6 months||5.8|-3.5|
90992501|NCT00543569|181869210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.4|3.2||||||Patient survival at 6 months||3.2|-8.4|
90992502|NCT00543569|181869210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.1|12.8||||||Patient survival at 12 months||12.8|-3.1|
90992503|NCT00543569|181869210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.3|9.2||||||Patient survival at 12 months||9.2|-8.3|
90992504|NCT00543569|181869210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.0|10.8||||||Patient survival at 12 months||10.8|-6.0|
90992505|NCT00543569|181869211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.5|3.1||||||Graft survival at 6 months||3.1|-8.5|
90992506|NCT00543569|181869211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.3|4.9||||||Graft survival at 6 months||4.9|-5.3|
90992507|NCT00543569|181869211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.0|2.2||||||Graft survival at 6 months||2.2|-10.0|
90992508|NCT00543569|181869211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.6|11.7||||||Graft survival at 12 months||11.7|-4.6|
90992509|NCT00543569|181869211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.9|8.1||||||Graft survival at 12 months||8.1|-9.9|
90992510|NCT00543569|181869211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.6|7.4||||||Graft survival at 12 months||7.4|-10.6|
90992511|NCT00543569|181869212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|13.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.8|24.6||||||||24.6|2.8|
90992512|NCT00543569|181869212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.4|15.0||||||||15.0|-5.4|
90992513|NCT00543569|181869212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.1|12.6||||||||12.6|-7.1|
90992514|NCT00543569|181869213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|10.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.8|19.5||||||BCAR at Month 6||19.5|1.8|
90992515|NCT00543569|181869213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.6|12.3||||||BCAR at Month 6||12.3|-3.6|
90992516|NCT00543569|181869213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|6.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.7|14.6||||||BCAR at Month 6||14.6|-1.7|
90992517|NCT00543569|181869213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.0|21.0||||||BCAR at Month 12||21.0|3.0|
90992518|NCT00543569|181869213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.6|12.3||||||BCAR at Month 12||12.3|-3.6|
90992519|NCT00543569|181869213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|7.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|16.2||||||BCAR at Month 12||16.2|-0.6|
90992520|NCT00543569|181869214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|12.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.0|22.5||||||T-cell Mediated BCAR at Month 6||22.5|2.0|
90992521|NCT00543569|181869214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|6.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.6|15.8||||||T-cell Mediated BCAR at Month 6||15.8|-3.6|
90992522|NCT00543569|181869214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.3|13.3||||||T-cell Mediated BCAR at Month 6||13.3|-5.3|
90992523|NCT00543569|181869214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|13.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.0|24.3||||||T-cell Mediated BCAR at Month 12||24.3|3.0|
90992524|NCT00543569|181869214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.1|14.6||||||T-cell Mediated BCAR at Month 12||14.6|-5.1|
90992525|NCT00543569|181869214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.6|13.8||||||T-cell Mediated BCAR at Month 12||13.8|-5.6|
90992526|NCT00543569|181869215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|9.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7|18.0||||||T-cell Mediated BCAR at Month 6||18.0|0.7|
90992527|NCT00543569|181869215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.6|12.3||||||T-cell Mediated BCAR at Month 6||12.3|-3.6|
90992528|NCT00543569|181869215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|6.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.7|14.6||||||T-cell Mediated BCAR at Month 6||14.6|-1.7|
90992529|NCT00543569|181869215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|10.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.8|19.5||||||T-cell Mediated BCAR at Month 12||19.5|1.8|
90992530|NCT00543569|181869215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.6|12.3||||||T-cell Mediated BCAR at Month 12||12.3|-3.6|
90992531|NCT00543569|181869215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|7.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|16.2||||||T-cell Mediated BCAR at Month 12||16.2|-0.6|
90992532|NCT00543569|181869219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|14.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.8|25.5||||||Efficacy Failure at Month 6||25.5|3.8|
90992533|NCT00543569|181869219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|7.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.9|17.8||||||Efficacy Failure at Month 6||17.8|-2.9|
90992534|NCT00543569|181869219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|7.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.4|18.2||||||Efficacy Failure at Month 6||18.2|-2.4|
90992535|NCT00543569|181869219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|8.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.5|20.4||||||Efficacy Failure at Month12||20.4|-3.5|
90992536|NCT00543569|181869219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.8|15.8||||||Efficacy Failure at Month 12||15.8|-7.8|
90992537|NCT00543569|181869219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.5|15.9||||||Efficacy Failure at Month12||15.9|-7.5|
90992538|NCT00543569|181869220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|10.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|20.4||||||Efficacy Failure at Month 6||20.4|0.9|
90992539|NCT00543569|181869220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.5|13.7||||||Efficacy Failure at Month 6||13.7|-4.5|
90992540|NCT00543569|181869220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|18.7||||||Efficacy Failure at Month 6||18.7|-0.4|
90992541|NCT00543569|181869220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.0|18.0||||||Efficacy Failure at Month 12||18.0|-4.0|
90992542|NCT00543569|181869220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.3|13.0||||||Efficacy Failure at Month 12||13.0|-8.3|
90992543|NCT00543569|181869220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.2|17.6||||||Efficacy Failure at Month 12||17.6|-4.2|
90992544|NCT00543569|181869230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|11.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.1|23.3||||||Treatment Failure at Month 6||23.3|-1.1|
90992545|NCT00543569|181869230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|11.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|24.2||||||Treatment Failure at Month 6||24.2|-0.7|
90992546|NCT00543569|181869230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.9|14.7||||||Treatment Failure at Month 6||14.7|-8.9|
90992547|NCT00543569|181869230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.9|22.8||||||Treatment Failure at Month 12||22.8|-2.9|
90992548|NCT00543569|181869230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|9.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.3|22.8||||||Treatment Failure at Month 12||22.8|-3.3|
90992549|NCT00543569|181869230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.3|11.7||||||Treatment Failure at Month 12||11.7|-13.3|
90992550|NCT00862849|181869237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|26.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|18.22|34.71||Treatment comparison for %AUC(0-30). Statistical testing was considered exploratory, with no adjustment for inflation of Type 1 error due to multiplicity of testing.|Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis performed using mixed model with fixed effect for treatment. A compound symmetry covariance matrix among repeated measurements was assumed.||||34.71|18.22|<0.0001
90992551|NCT00862849|181869237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|16.7||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.45|24.94||Treatment comparison for %AUC(0-30). Statistical testing was considered exploratory, with no adjustment for inflation of Type 1 error due to multiplicity of testing.|Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis performed using mixed model with fixed effect for treatment. A compound symmetry covariance matrix among repeated measurements was assumed||||24.94|8.45|0.0015
90992552|NCT02344407|181869245|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||Chi-squared|Bernards Exact Test Chi-square||Each active vaccine is compared to the placebo group||||0.68
90992553|NCT02344407|181869245|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||Chi-squared|Barnard Exact Test Chi-square||||||0.68
90992554|NCT02344407|181869246|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|Linear regression (analysis of covariance) adjusted for baseline antibody level||||||<0.001
90992555|NCT02344407|181869246|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance adjusting for baseline antibody level||||||<0.001
90992556|NCT04124536|181869247|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-21.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.9|-7.9|||||The risk difference was calculated by subtracting the proportion of women meeting the outcome in the intervention arm minus the proportion of women meeting the outcome in the control arm|||-7.9|-35.9|
90992557|NCT04124536|181869247|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-30.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.6|-20.8|||||The risk difference was calculated by subtracting the proportion of women meeting the outcome in the intervention arm minus the proportion of women meeting the outcome in the control arm|||-20.8|-40.6|
90992558|NCT04124536|181869248|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|2.8|||||The risk difference was calculated by subtracting the proportion of women meeting the outcome in the intervention arm minus the proportion of women meeting the outcome in the control arm|||2.8|-13.6|
90992559|NCT04124536|181869248|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||The calculation of risk differences between study arms was originally planned. However, the linear-binomial model did not converge because of zero events in the intervention arm.|||
90992560|NCT04124536|181869252|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|40.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.0|58.4|||||The risk difference was calculated by subtracting the proportion of women meeting the outcome in the intervention arm minus the proportion of women meeting the outcome in the control arm|||58.4|23.0|
90992561|NCT04124536|181869252|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|23.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.7|36.0|||||The risk difference was calculated by subtracting the proportion of women meeting the outcome in the intervention arm minus the proportion of women meeting the outcome in the control arm|||36.0|10.7|
90992562|NCT00677690|181869258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||"All data were expressed as the mean ± SD. The level of significance for all tests was set at p \< 0.05.~Inter- and intra-group comparisons were performed using both paired and unpaired t tests for continuous variables and Chi squared for categorical variables."||||< 0.05
90992563|NCT00677690|181869259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.05
90992564|NCT00677690|181869260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.05
90992565|NCT00677690|181869261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.05
90992566|NCT00677690|181869262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.05
90992567|NCT00511342|181869285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference of adjusted means|-0.078||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.198|0.041||No corrections for multiple comparisons were made for these safety parameters. The a-priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA included the Z-score values at baseline as adjusted factor.|NOMAC-E2 minus LNG-EE for lumbar spine (L2-L4)|||0.041|-0.198|0.19
90992568|NCT00511342|181869285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference of adjusted means|-0.03||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.136|0.075||No corrections for multiple comparisons were made for these safety parameters. The a-priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA included the Z-score values at baseline as adjusted factor.|NOMAC-E2 minus LNG-EE for femoral neck|||0.075|-0.136|0.57
90992569|NCT02196038|181869337|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.0|||joint model|Joint model of ANCOVA plus survival||||2.0|0.9|<0.0001
90992570|NCT02196038|181869338|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.93||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.19|||Joint Model|Joint model of Poisson regression and survival||||1.19|0.66|0.59
90992571|NCT01580592|181869363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.6||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA||for omalizumab 150mg|||||0.001
90992572|NCT01580592|181869363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.4||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.01
90992573|NCT01580592|181869363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.9|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90992574|NCT01580592|181869364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.988|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.988
90992575|NCT01842620|181869389|EQUIVALENCE|Geometric means ratio for AUC (0-t) of test drug (Oxemet) to be entirely fallen within range of 0.80 to 1.25 of that of reference drug (Glafornil).|(Ratio of AUC0-36)*100|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.62|107.98|||||Ratio of AUC0-36= (AUC0-36 of Test)/ AUC 0-36 Reference)|Overall period||107.98|92.62|
90992576|NCT01842620|181869390|EQUIVALENCE|Geometric means ratio for AUC(0-inf) of test drug (Oxemet) to be entirely fallen within range of 0.80 to 1.25 of that of reference drug (Glafornil).|(Ratio of AUC0-inf)*100|99.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.26|106.27|||||Ratio of AUC0-inf= (AUC0-inf of Test) / (AUC 0-inf of Reference)|For overall period||106.27|92.26|
90992577|NCT01842620|181869391|EQUIVALENCE|Geometric means ratio for Cmax of test drug (Oxemet) to be entirely fallen within range of 0.80 to 1.25 of that of reference drug (Glafornil).|(Ratio of Cmax)*100|98.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.54|109.22|||||Ratio of Cmax= (Cmax of Test) / (Cmax of Reference)|Overall period||109.22|88.54|
90992578|NCT02371759|181869395|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|In order to detect 20% difference in intraoral anesthesia duration between healthy and diabetic participants, with 80 % statistical power at a two-tailed significance level of 0.05 using Mann Whitney U test, it was calculated that at least 24 participants must be included in each group|||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||In order to detect 20% difference in intraoral anesthesia duration between healthy and diabetic participants, with 80 % statistical power at a two-tailed significance level of 0.05 using Mann Whitney U test, it was calculated that at least 24 participants must be included in each group||||<0.05
90992579|NCT02371759|181869396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
90992580|NCT02371759|181869412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
90992581|NCT02371759|181869413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
90992582|NCT02371759|181869414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
90992583|NCT02371759|181869415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
90992584|NCT02371759|181869416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
90992585|NCT02371759|181869417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
90992586|NCT02371759|181869418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
90992587|NCT02371759|181869419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
90992588|NCT02322320|181869420|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6||||||The primary analysis involved pairwise comparisons of PFS between the three treatment arms. To control the familywise type I error rate at 0.05, two-sided testing was performed at a Bonferroni-adjusted significance level of 0.0167 = 0.05 / 3.|Log Rank|The log rank test was stratified on risk status at BMT CTN 0702 enrollment (high risk vs. standard risk)||The null hypothesis is that the percentages of participants with PFS at 5 years post-randomization in BMT CTN 0702 are equal for those assigned to Tandem auto transplant and RVD consolidation therapy.||||0.60
91043211|NCT01332968|181972364|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.93|||Log Rank|||||0.93|0.63|
91043212|NCT01332968|181972365|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||||95.0|0.55|0.88||||||||0.88|0.55|
91043213|NCT01332968|181972366|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.87|||Log Rank|||||0.87|0.58|0.001
90992589|NCT02322320|181869420|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35||||||The primary analysis involved pairwise comparisons of PFS between the three treatment arms. To control the familywise type I error rate at 0.05, two-sided testing was performed at a Bonferroni-adjusted significance level of 0.0167 = 0.05 / 3.|Log Rank|The log rank test was stratified on risk status at BMT CTN 0702 enrollment (high risk vs. standard risk)||The null hypothesis is that the percentages of participants with PFS at 5 years post-randomization in BMT CTN 0702 are equal for those assigned to Tandem auto transplant and Lenalidomide maintenance therapy.||||0.35
90992590|NCT02322320|181869420|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68||||||The primary analysis involved pairwise comparisons of PFS between the three treatment arms. To control the familywise type I error rate at 0.05, two-sided testing was performed at a Bonferroni-adjusted significance level of 0.0167 = 0.05 / 3.|Log Rank|The log rank test was stratified on risk status at BMT CTN 0702 enrollment (high risk vs. standard risk)||The null hypothesis is that the percentages of participants with PFS at 5 years post-randomization in BMT CTN 0702 are equal for those assigned to RVD consolidation and Lenalidomide maintenance therapy.||||0.68
90992591|NCT02322320|181869421|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57||||||The analysis involved pairwise comparisons of OS between the three treatment arms. To control the familywise type I error rate at 0.05, two-sided testing was performed at a Bonferroni-adjusted significance level of 0.0167 = 0.05 / 3.|Log Rank|The log rank test was stratified on risk status at BMT CTN 0702 enrollment (high risk vs. standard risk)||The null hypothesis is that the percentages of participants with OS at 5 years post-randomization in BMT CTN 0702 are equal for those assigned to Tandem auto transplant and RVD consolidation therapy.||||0.57
90992592|NCT02322320|181869421|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38||||||The analysis involved pairwise comparisons of OS between the three treatment arms. To control the familywise type I error rate at 0.05, two-sided testing was performed at a Bonferroni-adjusted significance level of 0.0167 = 0.05 / 3.|Log Rank|The log rank test was stratified on risk status at BMT CTN 0702 enrollment (high risk vs. standard risk)||The null hypothesis is that the percentages of participants with OS at 5 years post-randomization in BMT CTN 0702 are equal for those assigned to Tandem auto transplant and Lenalidomide maintenance therapy.||||0.38
90992593|NCT02322320|181869421|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77||||||The analysis involved pairwise comparisons of OS between the three treatment arms. To control the familywise type I error rate at 0.05, two-sided testing was performed at a Bonferroni-adjusted significance level of 0.0167 = 0.05 / 3.|Log Rank|The log rank test was stratified on risk status at BMT CTN 0702 enrollment (high risk vs. standard risk)||The null hypothesis is that the percentages of participants with OS at 5 years post-randomization in BMT CTN 0702 are equal for those assigned to RVD consolidation and Lenalidomide maintenance therapy.||||0.77
90992594|NCT02322320|181869422|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67||||||The analysis involved pairwise comparisons of EFS between the three treatment arms. To control the familywise type I error rate at 0.05, two-sided testing was performed at a Bonferroni-adjusted significance level of 0.0167 = 0.05 / 3.|Log Rank|The log rank test was stratified on risk status at BMT CTN 0702 enrollment (high risk vs. standard risk)||The null hypothesis is that the percentages of participants with EFS at 5 years post-randomization in BMT CTN 0702 are equal for those assigned to Tandem auto transplant and RVD consolidation therapy.||||0.67
91043214|NCT01332968|181972367|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.004||95.0|0.54|0.89|||Log Rank|||||0.89|0.54|0.004
90992595|NCT02322320|181869422|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2||||||The analysis involved pairwise comparisons of EFS between the three treatment arms. To control the familywise type I error rate at 0.05, two-sided testing was performed at a Bonferroni-adjusted significance level of 0.0167 = 0.05 / 3.|Log Rank|The log rank test was stratified on risk status at BMT CTN 0702 enrollment (high risk vs. standard risk)||The null hypothesis is that the percentages of participants with EFS at 5 years post-randomization in BMT CTN 0702 are equal for those assigned to Tandem auto transplant and Lenalidomide maintenance therapy.||||0.20
90992596|NCT02322320|181869422|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4||||||The analysis involved pairwise comparisons of EFS between the three treatment arms. To control the familywise type I error rate at 0.05, two-sided testing was performed at a Bonferroni-adjusted significance level of 0.0167 = 0.05 / 3.|Log Rank|The log rank test was stratified on risk status at BMT CTN 0702 enrollment (high risk vs. standard risk)||The null hypothesis is that the percentages of participants with EFS at 5 years post-randomization in BMT CTN 0702 are equal for those assigned to RVD consolidation and Lenalidomide maintenance therapy.||||0.40
90992597|NCT02322320|181869423|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43||||||The analysis involved pairwise comparisons of SPM between the three treatment arms. To control the familywise type I error rate at 0.05, two-sided testing was performed at a Bonferroni-adjusted significance level of 0.0167 = 0.05 / 3.|Gray's test|Gray's test was stratified on risk status at BMT CTN 0702 enrollment (high risk vs. standard risk)||The null hypothesis is that the percentages of participants with SPM at 5 years post-randomization in BMT CTN 0702 are equal for those assigned to Tandem auto transplant and RVD consolidation therapy.||||0.43
90992598|NCT02322320|181869423|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7||||||The analysis involved pairwise comparisons of SPM between the three treatment arms. To control the familywise type I error rate at 0.05, two-sided testing was performed at a Bonferroni-adjusted significance level of 0.0167 = 0.05 / 3.|Gray's test|Gray's test was stratified on risk status at BMT CTN 0702 enrollment (high risk vs. standard risk)||The null hypothesis is that the percentages of participants with SPM at 5 years post-randomization in BMT CTN 0702 are equal for those assigned to Tandem auto transplant and Lenalidomide maintenance therapy.||||0.70
90992599|NCT02322320|181869423|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7||||||The analysis involved pairwise comparisons of SPM between the three treatment arms. To control the familywise type I error rate at 0.05, two-sided testing was performed at a Bonferroni-adjusted significance level of 0.0167 = 0.05 / 3.|Gray's test|Gray's test was stratified on risk status at BMT CTN 0702 enrollment (high risk vs. standard risk)||The null hypothesis is that the percentages of participants with SPM at 5 years post-randomization in BMT CTN 0702 are equal for those assigned to RVD consolidation and Lenalidomide maintenance therapy.||||0.70
90992600|NCT02876055|181869435|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.542|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.542
90992601|NCT02876055|181869435|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90992602|NCT02876055|181869435|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
90992603|NCT04019093|181869457|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||ANOVA|F(1,46) = .001||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (group: chronic pain vs. healthy control) mixed general linear model on pressure threshold. Here we report the results of the analysis of the beverage condition X group interaction.||||.99
90992604|NCT04019093|181869457|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|F(1,46)=12.55||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (group: chronic pain vs. healthy control) mixed general linear model on pressure threshold. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of beverage condition.||||<.0001
90992605|NCT04019093|181869457|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015|||||||ANOVA|F(1,46)=6.32||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (group: chronic pain vs. healthy control) mixed general linear model on pressure threshold. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of group.||||.015
90992606|NCT04019093|181869458|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||ANOVA|F(2,82)=.20||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (group: chronic pain vs. healthy control) x 2 (pressure level: 4 lbf vs. 5 lbf vs 6 lbf) mixed general linear model on pain intensity. Here we report the results of the analysis of the pressure level X group interaction.||||.76
90992607|NCT04019093|181869458|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||ANCOVA|F(2,82)=.66||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (group: chronic pain vs. healthy control) x 2 (pressure level: 4 lbf vs. 5 lbf vs 6 lbf) mixed general linear model on pain intensity. Here we report the results of the analysis of the pressure level X beverage condition interaction.||||.52
90992608|NCT04019093|181869458|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||ANOVA|F(1,41)=4.53, p=.04||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (group: chronic pain vs. healthy control) x 2 (pressure level: 4 lbf vs. 5 lbf vs 6 lbf) mixed general linear model on pain intensity. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of beverage condition.||||.04
90992609|NCT04019093|181869458|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017|||||||ANOVA|F(1,41)=6.24||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (group: chronic pain vs. healthy control) x 2 (pressure level: 4 lbf vs. 5 lbf vs 6 lbf) mixed general linear model on pain intensity. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of group.||||.017
90992610|NCT04019093|181869458|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|F(2,82)=48.41||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (group: chronic pain vs. healthy control) x 2 (pressure level: 4 lbf vs. 5 lbf vs 6 lbf) mixed general linear model on pain intensity. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of pressure level.||||<.0001
90992611|NCT04019093|181869459|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||ANOVA|F (2, 82) = 0.69||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (group: chronic pain vs. healthy control) x 2 (pressure level: 4 lbf vs. 5 lbf vs 6 lbf) mixed general linear model on pain relief. Here we report the results of the analysis of the beverage condition X pressure level X group interaction.||||.50
90992612|NCT04019093|181869459|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||ANOVA|F(2,82)=1.58||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (group: chronic pain vs. healthy control) x 2 (pressure level: 4 lbf vs. 5 lbf vs 6 lbf) mixed general linear model on pain relief. Here we report the results of the analysis of the beverage condition X pressure level interaction.||||.21
90992613|NCT04019093|181869459|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.053|||||||ANOVA|F(2,82)=3.06||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (group: chronic pain vs. healthy control) x 2 (pressure level: 4 lbf vs. 5 lbf vs 6 lbf) mixed general linear model on pain relief. Here we report the results of the analysis of the pressure level X group interaction.||||.053
90992614|NCT04019093|181869459|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||ANOVA|F(1,41)=.001||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (group: chronic pain vs. healthy control) x 2 (pressure level: 4 lbf vs. 5 lbf vs 6 lbf) mixed general linear model on pain relief. Here we report the results of the analysis of the beverage condition X group interaction.||||.98
90992615|NCT04019093|181869459|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||ANOVA|F(2,82)=.34||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (group: chronic pain vs. healthy control) x 2 (pressure level: 4 lbf vs. 5 lbf vs 6 lbf) mixed general linear model on pain relief. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of pressure level.||||.71
90992616|NCT04019093|181869459|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||ANOVA|F(1,41)=.14||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (group: chronic pain vs. healthy control) x 2 (pressure level: 4 lbf vs. 5 lbf vs 6 lbf) mixed general linear model on pain relief. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of group.||||.71
90992617|NCT04019093|181869459|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|F(1,41)=55.02||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (group: chronic pain vs. healthy control) x 2 (pressure level: 4 lbf vs. 5 lbf vs 6 lbf) mixed general linear model on pain relief. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of beverage condition.||||<.0001
90992618|NCT01067508|181869461|OTHER|||||||0.003||||||p\<0.05 was defined as significant|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison was made to 12 weeks minus baseline change in Fiji water group||||0.003
90992619|NCT01067508|181869461|OTHER|||||||0.68||||||p\<0.05 was defined as significant|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison was made to the 12 week minus baseline change in Aquafina (control) group||||0.68
90992620|NCT00958308|181869462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.02|||||||Fisher Exact|||The sample size calculation was based on the incidence of AAD. A total of 255 patients was enrolled in order to obtain at least the required 225 evaluable patients.With expected AAD rates of at most 15% - 25% in the treatment groups; and 25% - 35% in the placebo group, these numbers were sufficient to detect the difference in the incidence of AAD between either of the treatment groups vs. placebo with a minimum of 86% statistical power.||||=0.02
90992621|NCT04030104|181869467|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0268||||||Threshold for statistical significance \<0.05|Random Reader, Random Mass|Curve Fitting Method: Empirical||||||0.0268
90992622|NCT02065622|181869474|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|2.5||||0.269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|7.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab higher induction dose - adalimumab standard induction dose).|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for previous infliximab use and baseline corticosteroid use.||7.0|-2.0|0.269
90992623|NCT02065622|181869474|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.447|||||||Breslow-Day test|Breslow-Day test of homogeneity across strata.||||||0.447
90992624|NCT02065622|181869474|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|2.3||||0.301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|6.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab higher induction dose - adalimumab standard induction dose).|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for previous infliximab use and baseline corticosteroid use.||6.6|-2.0|0.301
90992625|NCT02065622|181869474|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.502|||||||Breslow-Day test|Breslow-Day test of homogeneity across strata.||||||0.502
90992626|NCT02065622|181869475|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|9.9||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|20.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = Adalimumab 40mg EW - Adalimumab 40mg EOW.|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for induction treatment regimen and week 8 remission status.||20.6|-0.8|0.069
90992627|NCT02065622|181869475|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.085|||||||Breslow-Day test|Breslow-Day test of homogeneity across strata.||||||0.085
90992628|NCT02065622|181869475|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|10.3||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|20.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = Adalimumab 40mg EW - Adalimumab 40mg EOW.|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for induction treatment regimen and week 8 remission status.||20.4|0.2|0.045
90992629|NCT02065622|181869475|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.106|||||||Breslow-Day test|Breslow-Day test of homogeneity across strata.||||||0.106
91043215|NCT00702507|181972402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|29.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.4|36.7|||||Percentage of participants with overall cure at the test-of-cure visit (Day 14) of the initial episode for participants in the MITT Population|||36.7|22.4|
90992630|NCT02065622|181869476|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|4.2||||0.181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|10.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab higher induction dose - adalimumab standard induction dose).|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for previous infliximab use and baseline corticosteroid use.||10.5|-2.0|0.181
90992631|NCT02065622|181869476|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|3.8||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|9.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab higher induction dose - adalimumab standard induction dose).|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for previous infliximab use and baseline corticosteroid use.||9.7|-2.0|0.200
90992632|NCT02065622|181869477|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|3.0||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|8.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab higher induction dose - adalimumab standard induction dose).|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for previous infliximab use and baseline corticosteroid use.||8.6|-2.6|0.300
90992633|NCT02065622|181869477|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|3.1||||0.254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|8.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab higher induction dose - adalimumab standard induction dose).|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for previous infliximab use and baseline corticosteroid use.||8.4|-2.2|0.254
90992634|NCT02065622|181869478|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|6.5||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|13.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab higher induction dose - adalimumab standard induction dose).|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for previous infliximab use and baseline corticosteroid use.||13.1|-0.0|0.050
90992635|NCT02065622|181869478|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|4.8||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|11.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab higher induction dose - adalimumab standard induction dose).|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for previous infliximab use and baseline corticosteroid use.||11.0|-1.4|0.131
90992636|NCT02065622|181869479|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|7.3||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|14.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab higher induction dose - adalimumab standard induction dose).|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for previous infliximab use and baseline corticosteroid use.||14.1|0.5|0.035
90992637|NCT02065622|181869479|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|8.7||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|15.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab higher induction dose - adalimumab standard induction dose).|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for previous infliximab use and baseline corticosteroid use.||15.1|2.3|0.008
90992638|NCT02065622|181869480|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|3.2||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|7.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab higher induction dose - adalimumab standard induction dose).|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for previous infliximab use and baseline corticosteroid use.||7.6|-1.3|0.160
90992639|NCT02065622|181869480|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|2.9||||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|7.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab higher induction dose - adalimumab standard induction dose).|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for previous infliximab use and baseline corticosteroid use.||7.1|-1.2|0.166
90992640|NCT02065622|181869481|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|8.3||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|14.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab higher induction dose - adalimumab standard induction dose).|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for previous infliximab use and baseline corticosteroid use.||14.7|1.9|0.011
90992641|NCT02065622|181869481|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|7.0||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|13.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab higher induction dose - adalimumab standard induction dose).|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for previous infliximab use and baseline corticosteroid use.||13.0|0.9|0.025
90992642|NCT02065622|181869482|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|4.2||||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|10.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab higher induction dose - adalimumab standard induction dose).|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for previous infliximab use and baseline corticosteroid use.||10.9|-2.5|0.218
90992643|NCT02065622|181869482|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|2.4||||0.456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|8.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab higher induction dose - adalimumab standard induction dose).|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for previous infliximab use and baseline corticosteroid use.||8.8|-4.0|0.456
90992644|NCT02065622|181869483|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|9.5||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|20.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = Adalimumab 40mg EW - Adalimumab 40mg EOW.|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for induction treatment regimen and week 8 remission status.||20.8|-1.7|0.098
90992645|NCT02065622|181869483|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|9.9||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|20.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = Adalimumab 40mg EW - Adalimumab 40mg EOW.|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for induction treatment regimen and week 8 remission status.||20.5|-0.7|0.066
90992646|NCT02065622|181869484|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|21.5||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.6|35.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Risk difference = Adalimumab 40mg EW - Adalimumab 40mg EOW.||Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for induction treatment regimen and week 8 remission status.||35.4|7.6|0.002
90992647|NCT02065622|181869484|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|19.7||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.6|32.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = Adalimumab 40mg EW - Adalimumab 40mg EOW.|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for induction treatment regimen and week 8 remission status.||32.7|6.6|0.003
90992648|NCT02065622|181869485|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|11.5||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|25.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = Adalimumab 40mg EW - Adalimumab 40mg EOW.|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for induction treatment regimen and week 8 remission status.||25.0|-1.9|0.093
90992649|NCT02065622|181869485|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|11.1||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|23.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = Adalimumab 40mg EW - Adalimumab 40mg EOW.|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for induction treatment regimen and week 8 remission status.||23.8|-1.7|0.088
90992650|NCT02065622|181869486|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|15.9||||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|38.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = Adalimumab 40mg EW - Adalimumab 40mg EOW.|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for induction treatment regimen and week 8 remission status.||38.2|-6.3|0.161
90992651|NCT02065622|181869486|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|10.4||||0.312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|30.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = Adalimumab 40mg EW - Adalimumab 40mg EOW.|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for induction treatment regimen and week 8 remission status.||30.6|-9.8|0.312
90992652|NCT02065622|181869487|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|12.3||||0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|34.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = Adalimumab 40mg EW - Adalimumab 40mg EOW.|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for induction treatment regimen and week 8 remission status.||34.4|-9.7|0.272
90992653|NCT02065622|181869487|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|5.3||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|25.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = Adalimumab 40mg EW - Adalimumab 40mg EOW.|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for induction treatment regimen and week 8 remission status.||25.2|-14.6|0.600
90992654|NCT02065622|181869488|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|23.8||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|49.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = Adalimumab 40mg EW - Adalimumab 40mg EOW.|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for induction treatment regimen and week 8 remission status.||49.9|-2.3|0.074
90992655|NCT02065622|181869488|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|15.0||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|38.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = Adalimumab 40mg EW - Adalimumab 40mg EOW.|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for induction treatment regimen and week 8 remission status.||38.4|-8.5|0.210
90992656|NCT02065622|181869489|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|20.0||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|47.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = Adalimumab 40mg EW - Adalimumab 40mg EOW.|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for induction treatment regimen and week 8 remission status.||47.3|-7.3|0.151
90992657|NCT02065622|181869489|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|12.8||||0.299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|36.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = Adalimumab 40mg EW - Adalimumab 40mg EOW.|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for induction treatment regimen and week 8 remission status.||36.8|-11.3|0.299
90992658|NCT02065622|181869490|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|4.5||||0.422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|15.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = Adalimumab 40mg EW - Adalimumab 40mg EOW.|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for induction treatment regimen and week 8 remission status.||15.3|-6.4|0.422
90992659|NCT02065622|181869490|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|3.4||||0.513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|13.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = Adalimumab 40mg EW - Adalimumab 40mg EOW.|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for induction treatment regimen and week 8 remission status.||13.6|-6.8|0.513
90992660|NCT02065622|181869491|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|3.7||||0.351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|11.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = Adalimumab 40mg EW - Adalimumab 40mg EOW.|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for induction treatment regimen and week 8 remission status.||11.4|-4.1|0.351
90992661|NCT02065622|181869491|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|3.9||||0.292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|11.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = Adalimumab 40mg EW - Adalimumab 40mg EOW.|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for induction treatment regimen and week 8 remission status.||11.1|-3.3|0.292
90992662|NCT02065622|181869492|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|5.4||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|12.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = Adalimumab 40mg EW - Adalimumab 40mg EOW.|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for induction treatment regimen and week 8 remission status.||12.1|-1.4|0.121
90992663|NCT02065622|181869492|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|6.5||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|12.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = Adalimumab 40mg EW - Adalimumab 40mg EOW.|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for induction treatment regimen and week 8 remission status.||12.8|0.1|0.046
90992664|NCT02065622|181869493|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|7.5||||0.159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|17.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = Adalimumab 40mg EW - Adalimumab 40mg EOW.|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for induction treatment regimen and week 8 remission status.||17.9|-2.9|0.159
90992665|NCT02065622|181869493|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|8.0||||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|17.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = Adalimumab 40mg EW - Adalimumab 40mg EOW.|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for induction treatment regimen and week 8 remission status.||17.9|-1.8|0.109
90992666|NCT02065622|181869494|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|1.4||||0.903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|23.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = Adalimumab 40mg EW - Adalimumab 40mg EOW.|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for induction treatment regimen and week 8 remission status.||23.8|-21.0|0.903
90992667|NCT02065622|181869494|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|1.3||||0.901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.8|21.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = Adalimumab 40mg EW - Adalimumab 40mg EOW.|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for induction treatment regimen and week 8 remission status.||21.3|-18.8|0.901
90992668|NCT02065622|181869495|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|7.7||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|18.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = Adalimumab 40mg EW - Adalimumab 40mg EOW.|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for induction treatment regimen and week 8 remission status.||18.4|-3.0|0.160
90992669|NCT02065622|181869495|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|9.1||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|19.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = Adalimumab 40mg EW - Adalimumab 40mg EOW.|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for induction treatment regimen and week 8 remission status.||19.1|-0.9|0.076
90992670|NCT02065622|181869496|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|7.3||||0.207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|18.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = Adalimumab 40mg EW - Adalimumab 40mg EOW.|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for induction treatment regimen and week 8 remission status.||18.6|-4.0|0.207
90992671|NCT02065622|181869496|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|4.2||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|14.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = Adalimumab 40mg EW - Adalimumab 40mg EOW.|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for induction treatment regimen and week 8 remission status.||14.8|-6.4|0.440
90992672|NCT06704178|181869514|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.488445|||||||Multiple t-tests|||||||0.488445
90992673|NCT06704178|181869515|SUPERIORITY|Between-group comparison.||||||0.98317||||||Between-group comparison.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.98317
90992674|NCT06704178|181869516|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98317|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.98317
90992675|NCT06704178|181869517|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.919209|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.919209
90992676|NCT06704178|181869518|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.919209|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.919209
90992677|NCT06704178|181869519|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.954882||||||Comparison at Month 2|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.954882
90992678|NCT06704178|181869519|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.246176||||||Comparison at Month 4|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.246176
90992679|NCT06704178|181869519|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.954882||||||Comparison at Month 6|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.954882
90992680|NCT06704178|181869520|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.483382||||||Comparison at Month 2|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.483382
90992681|NCT06704178|181869520|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.483382||||||Comparison at Month 4|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.483382
90992682|NCT06704178|181869520|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.726742||||||Comparison at Month 6|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.726742
90992683|NCT06704178|181869521|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999216||||||Comparison at Month 1|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999216
90992684|NCT06704178|181869521|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999779||||||Comparison at Month 2|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999779
90992685|NCT06704178|181869521|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.559556||||||Comparison at Month 3|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.559556
90992686|NCT06704178|181869521|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999984||||||Comparison at Month 4|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999984
90992687|NCT06704178|181869521|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.952545||||||Comparison at Month 5|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.952545
90992688|NCT06704178|181869521|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.998367||||||Comparison at Month 6|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.998367
90992689|NCT06704178|181869522|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999851||||||Comparison at Month 1|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999851
90992690|NCT06704178|181869522|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999779||||||Comparison at Month 2|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999779
90992691|NCT06704178|181869522|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999801|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999801
90992692|NCT06704178|181869522|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999984||||||Comparison at Month 4|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999984
90992693|NCT06704178|181869522|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.993223||||||Comparison at Month 5|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.993223
90992694|NCT06704178|181869522|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999567||||||Comparison at Month 6|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999567
90992695|NCT06704178|181869523|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999851||||||Comparison at Month 1|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999851
90992696|NCT06704178|181869523|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999838||||||Comparison at Month 2|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999838
90992697|NCT06704178|181869523|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.991697||||||Comparison at Month 3|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.991697
90992698|NCT06704178|181869523|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999984||||||Comparison at Month 4|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999984
90992699|NCT06704178|181869523|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.581904||||||Comparison at Month 5|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.581904
90992700|NCT06704178|181869523|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999866||||||Comparison at Month 6|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999866
90992701|NCT06704178|181869524|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999835||||||Comparison at Month 1|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999835
90992702|NCT06704178|181869524|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.962016||||||Comparison at Month 2|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.962016
90992703|NCT06704178|181869524|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.995044||||||Comparison at Month 3|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.995044
90992704|NCT06704178|181869524|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.998665||||||Comparison at Month 4|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.998665
90992705|NCT06704178|181869524|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999816||||||Comparison at Month 5|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999816
90992706|NCT06704178|181869524|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999567||||||Comparison at Month 6|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999567
90992707|NCT06704178|181869525|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999851||||||Comparison at Month 1|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999851
90992708|NCT06704178|181869525|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999524||||||Comparison at Month 2|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999524
90992709|NCT06704178|181869525|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.576782||||||Comparison at Month 3|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.576782
90992710|NCT06704178|181869525|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.772865||||||Comparison at Month 4|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.772865
90992711|NCT06704178|181869525|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91384||||||Comparison at Month 5|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.91384
90992712|NCT06704178|181869525|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.992841||||||Comparison at Month 6|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.992841
90992713|NCT06704178|181869526|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999732||||||Comparison at Month 1|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999732
90992714|NCT06704178|181869526|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999779||||||Comparison at Month 2|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999779
90992715|NCT06704178|181869526|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999801||||||Comparison at Month 3|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999801
90992716|NCT06704178|181869526|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999999||||||Comparison at Month 4|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.999999
90992717|NCT06704178|181869526|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999816||||||Comparison at Month 5|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999816
90992718|NCT06704178|181869526|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999999||||||Comparison at Month 6|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.999999
90992719|NCT06704178|181869527|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999851||||||Comparison at Month 1|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999851
90992720|NCT06704178|181869527|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999779||||||Comparison at Month 2|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999779
90992721|NCT06704178|181869527|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.998326||||||Comparison at Month 3|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.998326
90992722|NCT06704178|181869527|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.998665||||||Comparison at Month 4|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.998665
90992723|NCT06704178|181869527|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999816||||||Comparison at Month 5|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999816
90992724|NCT06704178|181869527|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.998846||||||Comparison at Month 6|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.998846
90992725|NCT06704178|181869528|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999387||||||Comparison at Month 1|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999387
90992726|NCT06704178|181869528|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999779||||||Comparison at Month 2|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999779
90992727|NCT06704178|181869528|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999999||||||Comparison at Month 3|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.999999
90992728|NCT06704178|181869528|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999984||||||Comparison at Month 4|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999984
90992729|NCT06704178|181869528|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999816||||||Comparison at Month 5|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999816
90992730|NCT06704178|181869528|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.998367||||||Comparison at Month 6|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.998367
90992731|NCT06704178|181869529|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999975||||||Comparison at Month 1|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999975
90992732|NCT06704178|181869529|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999779||||||Comparison at Month 2|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999779
90992733|NCT06704178|181869529|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999801||||||Comparison at Month 3|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999801
90992734|NCT06704178|181869529|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999984||||||Comparison at Month 4|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999984
90992735|NCT06704178|181869529|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.960874||||||Comparison at Month 5|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.960874
90992736|NCT06704178|181869529|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999567||||||Comparison at Month 6|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999567
90992737|NCT06704178|181869530|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.981906||||||Comparison at Month 1|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.981906
90992738|NCT06704178|181869530|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.945027||||||Comparison at Month 2|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.945027
90992739|NCT06704178|181869530|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.767795||||||Comparison at Month 3|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.767795
90992740|NCT06704178|181869530|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.996139||||||Comparison at Month 4|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.996139
90992741|NCT06704178|181869530|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.952378||||||Comparison at Month 5|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.952378
90992742|NCT06704178|181869530|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.998846||||||Comparison at Month 6|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.998846
90992743|NCT06704178|181869531|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55783||||||Comparison at Month 1|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.55783
90992744|NCT06704178|181869531|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.987949||||||Comparison at Month 2|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.987949
90992745|NCT06704178|181869531|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.576782||||||Comparison at Month 3|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.576782
90992746|NCT06704178|181869531|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.998665||||||Comparison at Month 4|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.998665
90992747|NCT06704178|181869531|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.989226||||||Comparison at Month 5|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.989226
90992748|NCT06704178|181869531|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999567||||||Comparison at Month 6|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999567
90992749|NCT06704178|181869532|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.795476||||||Comparison at Month 1|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.795476
90992750|NCT06704178|181869532|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.977286||||||Comparison at Month 2|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.977286
90992751|NCT06704178|181869532|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.559556||||||Comparison at Month 3|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.559556
90992752|NCT06704178|181869532|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.997753||||||Comparison at Month 4|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.997753
90992753|NCT06704178|181869532|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.952378||||||Comparison at Month 5|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.952378
90992754|NCT06704178|181869532|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.988108||||||Comparison at Month 6|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.988108
90992755|NCT06704178|181869533|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.995367||||||Comparison at Month 1|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.995367
90992756|NCT06704178|181869533|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999779||||||Comparison at Month 2|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999779
90992757|NCT06704178|181869533|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.974102||||||Comparison at Month 3|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.974102
90992758|NCT06704178|181869533|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.998665||||||Comparison at Month 4|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.998665
90992759|NCT06704178|181869533|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999816||||||Comparison at Month 5|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999816
90992760|NCT06704178|181869533|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999567||||||Comparison at Month 6|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999567
90992761|NCT06704178|181869534|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.882016||||||Comparison at Month 1|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.882016
90992762|NCT06704178|181869534|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.860406||||||Comparison at Month 2|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.860406
90992763|NCT06704178|181869534|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.958944||||||Comparison at Month 3|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.958944
90992764|NCT06704178|181869534|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.998816||||||Comparison at Month 4|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.998816
90992765|NCT06704178|181869534|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.989226||||||Comparison at Month 5|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.989226
90992766|NCT06704178|181869534|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999296||||||Comparison at Month 6|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999296
90992767|NCT06704178|181869535|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999975||||||Comparison at Month 1.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999975
90992768|NCT06704178|181869535|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.977286||||||Comparison at Month 2|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.977286
90992769|NCT06704178|181869535|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999||||||Comparison at Month 3.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999
90992770|NCT06704178|181869535|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999984||||||Comparison at Month 4.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999984
90992771|NCT06704178|181869535|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.986557||||||Comparison at Month 5.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.986557
90992772|NCT06704178|181869535|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.998367||||||Comparison at Month 6.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.998367
90992773|NCT06704178|181869536|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999851||||||Comparison at Month 1.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999851
90992774|NCT06704178|181869536|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999779||||||Comparison at Month 2.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999779
90992775|NCT06704178|181869536|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999801||||||Comparison at Month 3.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999801
90992776|NCT06704178|181869536|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.998467||||||Comparison at Month 4.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.998467
90992777|NCT06704178|181869536|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999816||||||Comparison at Month 5.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999816
90992778|NCT06704178|181869536|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.998846||||||Comparison at Month 6.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.998846
90992779|NCT06704178|181869537|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999999||||||Comparison at Month 1.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.999999
91043216|NCT00721955|181972422|SUPERIORITY|LS mean was used in the primary efficacy analysis|||||<|0.0001||||||p-values (adjusted) using Dunnett's t-test in main effects ANCOVA model|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91043217|NCT00721955|181972422|SUPERIORITY|p-values (adjusted) using Dunnett's t-test in main effects ANCOVA model|||||<|0.0001||||||p-values (adjusted) using Dunnett's t-test in main effects ANCOVA model|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91043218|NCT00721955|181972423|SUPERIORITY|LS mean was used in the primary efficacy analysis|||||<|0.0001||||||p-values (adjusted) using Dunnett's t-test in main effects ANCOVA model|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91043219|NCT00721955|181972423|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||-values (adjusted) using Dunnett's t-test in main effects ANCOVA model|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91043220|NCT03702816|181972425|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.6|||||||Regression, Linear|F=0.308||Linear Regression of Memory Composite Scores and Frontal GE180 SUVR in Control Subjects||||0.60
91043221|NCT03702816|181972425|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.56|||||||Regression, Linear|F=0.367||Linear Regression of Executive Function Composite Scores and Frontal GE180 SUVR in Control Subjects||||0.56
91043222|NCT03702816|181972425|OTHER|Linear regression||||||0.44|||||||Regression, Linear|||Linear Regression of Speed Composite Scores and Frontal GE180 SUVR in Control Subjects||||0.44
91043223|NCT03702816|181972425|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.15|||||||Regression, Linear|F=2.55||Linear Regression of Language Composite Scores and Frontal GE180 SUVR in Control Subjects||||0.15
91043224|NCT03702816|181972425|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.39|||||||Regression, Linear|F=0.947||Linear Regression of Memory Composite Scores and Frontal GE180 SUVR in MCI Subjects||||0.39
91043225|NCT03702816|181972425|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.95|||||||Regression, Linear|F=0.004||Linear Regression of Executive Function Composite Scores and Frontal GE180 SUVR in MCI Subjects||||0.95
91043226|NCT03702816|181972425|OTHER|Linear Regulation||||||0.53|||||||Regression, Linear|F=0.483||Linear Regression of Speed Composite Scores and Frontal GE180 SUVR in MCI Subjects||||0.53
91043227|NCT03702816|181972425|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.19|||||||Regression, Linear|F=2.543||Linear Regression of Language Composite Scores and Frontal GE180 SUVR in MCI Subjects||||0.19
91043228|NCT03702816|181972425|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.32|||||||Regression, Linear|F=3.430||Linear Regression of Memory Composite Scores and Frontal GE180 SUVR in AD Subjects||||0.32
91043229|NCT03702816|181972425|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.11|||||||Regression, Linear|F=32.844||Linear Regression of Executive Function Composite Scores and Frontal GE180 SUVR in AD Subjects||||0.11
91043230|NCT03702816|181972425|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.31|||||||Regression, Linear|F=3.559||Linear Regression of Speed Composite Scores and Frontal GE180 SUVR in AD Subjects||||0.31
91043231|NCT03702816|181972425|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.005|||||||Regression, Linear|F=14362.699||Linear Regression of Language Composite Scores and Frontal GE180 SUVR in AD Subjects||||0.005
91043232|NCT03702816|181972425|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.84|||||||Regression, Linear|F=0.056||Linear Regression of Memory Composite Scores and Frontal GE180 SUVR in PD Subjects||||0.84
91043233|NCT03702816|181972425|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.94|||||||Regression, Linear|F=0.008||Linear Regression of Executive Function Composite Scores and Frontal GE180 SUVR in PD Subjects||||0.94
91043234|NCT03702816|181972425|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.29|||||||Regression, Linear|F=2.01||Linear Regression of Speed Composite Scores and Frontal GE180 SUVR in PD Subjects||||0.29
91043235|NCT03702816|181972425|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.72|||||||Regression, Linear|F=0.173||Linear Regression of Language Composite Scores and Frontal GE180 SUVR in PD Subjects||||0.72
91043236|NCT03702816|181972426|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.54|||||||Regression, Linear|F=0.424||Linear Regression of Memory Composite Scores and Cingulate GE180 SUVR in Control Subjects||||0.54
91043237|NCT03702816|181972426|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.53|||||||Regression, Linear|F=0.447||Linear Regression of Executive Function Composite Scores and Cingulate GE180 SUVR in Control Subjects||||0.53
91043238|NCT03702816|181972426|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.23|||||||Regression, Linear|F=1.773||Linear Regression of Speed Composite Scores and Cingulate GE180 SUVR in Control Subjects||||0.23
91043239|NCT03702816|181972426|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.01|||||||Regression, Linear|F=3.615||Linear Regression of Language Composite Scores and Cingulate GE180 SUVR in Control Subjects||||0.01
91043240|NCT03702816|181972426|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.039|||||||Regression, Linear|F=9.204||Linear Regression of Memory Composite Scores and Cingulate GE180 SUVR in MCI Subjects||||0.039
91043241|NCT03702816|181972426|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.33|||||||Regression, Linear|F=1.209||Linear Regression of Executive Function Composite Scores and Cingulate GE180 SUVR in MCI Subjects||||0.33
91043242|NCT03702816|181972426|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.07|||||||Regression, Linear|F=5.801||Linear Regression of Speed Composite Scores and Cingulate GE180 SUVR in MCI Subjects||||0.07
91043243|NCT03702816|181972426|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.03|||||||Regression, Linear|F=10.374||Linear Regression of Language Composite Scores and Cingulate GE180 SUVR in MCI Subjects||||0.03
91043244|NCT03702816|181972426|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.27|||||||Regression, Linear|F=5.024||Linear Regression of Memory Composite Scores and Cingulate GE180 SUVR in AD Subjects||||0.27
91043245|NCT03702816|181972426|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.16|||||||Regression, Linear|F=15.568||Linear Regression of Executive Function Composite Scores and Cingulate GE180 SUVR in AD Subjects||||0.16
90992780|NCT06704178|181869537|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999779||||||Comparison at Month 2.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999779
90992781|NCT06704178|181869537|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999801||||||Comparison at Month 3.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999801
90992782|NCT06704178|181869537|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.963236||||||Comparison at Month 4.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.963236
90992783|NCT06704178|181869537|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999816||||||Comparison at Month 5.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999816
90992784|NCT06704178|181869537|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.737995||||||Comparison at Month 6.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.737995
90992785|NCT06704178|181869538|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003||||||Within-group analysis only.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0003
90992786|NCT06704178|181869539|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2698||||||Within-group analysis only.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2698
90992787|NCT06704178|181869540|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2698||||||Within-group analysis only.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2698
90992788|NCT06704178|181869541|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2137||||||Within-group analysis only.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2137
90992789|NCT06704178|181869542|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8639||||||Within-group analysis only.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.8639
90992790|NCT06704178|181869543|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.239||||||Within-group analysis only.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.239
90992791|NCT06704178|181869544|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6088||||||Within-group analysis only.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6088
90992792|NCT06704178|181869545|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5738||||||Within-group analysis only.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5738
90992793|NCT06704178|181869546|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6088||||||Within-group analysis only.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6088
90992794|NCT06704178|181869547|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4942||||||Within-group analysis only.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4942
90992795|NCT06704178|181869548|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7419||||||Month 2 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.7419
90992796|NCT06704178|181869548|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0033||||||Month 4 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.0033
90992797|NCT06704178|181869548|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0219||||||Month 6 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.0219
90992798|NCT06704178|181869549|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7708||||||Month 2 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.7708
90992799|NCT06704178|181869549|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.239||||||Month 4 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.239
90992800|NCT06704178|181869549|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006||||||Month 6 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.006
90992801|NCT06704178|181869550|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0219||||||Month 2 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.0219
90992802|NCT06704178|181869550|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001||||||Month 4 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.0001
90992803|NCT06704178|181869550|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Month 6 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||<0.0001
90992804|NCT06704178|181869551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0695||||||Month 2 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.0695
90992805|NCT06704178|181869551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0124||||||Month 4 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.0124
90992806|NCT06704178|181869551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0016||||||Month 6 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.0016
90992807|NCT06704178|181869552|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 1 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
90992808|NCT06704178|181869552|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 2 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
90992809|NCT06704178|181869552|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 3 versus Baseline|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
90992810|NCT06704178|181869552|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 4 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
90992811|NCT06704178|181869552|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 5 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
90992812|NCT06704178|181869552|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 6 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
90992813|NCT06704178|181869553|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 1 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
90992814|NCT06704178|181869553|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 2 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
90992815|NCT06704178|181869553|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 3 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
90992816|NCT06704178|181869553|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 4 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
90992817|NCT06704178|181869553|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 5 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
90992818|NCT06704178|181869553|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 6 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
90992819|NCT06704178|181869554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4598||||||Month 1 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.4598
90992820|NCT06704178|181869554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23||||||Month 2 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.23
90992821|NCT06704178|181869554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0806||||||Month 3 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.0806
90992822|NCT06704178|181869554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0969||||||Month 4 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.0969
90992823|NCT06704178|181869554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6098||||||Month 5 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.6098
90992824|NCT06704178|181869554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0369||||||Month 6 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.0369
90992825|NCT06704178|181869555|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0384||||||Month 1 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.0384
90992826|NCT06704178|181869555|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6328||||||Month 2 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.6328
90992827|NCT06704178|181869555|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0026||||||Month 3 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.0026
90992828|NCT06704178|181869555|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0012||||||Month 4 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.0012
90992829|NCT06704178|181869555|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0118||||||Month 5 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.0118
90992830|NCT06704178|181869555|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0221||||||Month 6 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.0221
90992831|NCT06704178|181869556|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 1 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
90992832|NCT06704178|181869556|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 2 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
91043246|NCT03702816|181972426|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.262|||||||Regression, Linear|F=5.238||Linear Regression of Speed Composite Scores and Cingulate GE180 SUVR in AD Subjects||||0.262
90992833|NCT06704178|181869556|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 3 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
91043247|NCT03702816|181972426|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.043|||||||Regression, Linear|F=221.308||Linear Regression of Language Composite Scores and Cingulate GE180 SUVR in AD Subjects||||0.043
91043248|NCT03702816|181972426|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.26|||||||Regression, Linear|F=2.430||Linear Regression of Memory Composite Scores and Cingulate GE180 SUVR in PD Subjects||||0.26
91043249|NCT03702816|181972426|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.38|||||||Regression, Linear|F=1.269||Linear Regression of Executive Function Composite Scores and Cingulate GE180 SUVR in PD Subjects||||0.38
91043250|NCT03702816|181972426|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.07|||||||Regression, Linear|F=13.164||Linear Regression of Speed Composite Scores and Cingulate GE180 SUVR in PD Subjects||||0.07
90992834|NCT06704178|181869556|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 4 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
90992835|NCT06704178|181869556|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 5 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
90992836|NCT06704178|181869556|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 6 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
90992837|NCT06704178|181869557|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 1 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
90992838|NCT06704178|181869557|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 2 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
90992839|NCT06704178|181869557|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 3 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
90992840|NCT06704178|181869557|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 4 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
90992841|NCT06704178|181869557|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 5 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
90992842|NCT06704178|181869557|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 6 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
90992843|NCT06704178|181869558|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 1 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
90992844|NCT06704178|181869558|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 2 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
90992845|NCT06704178|181869558|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 3 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
90992846|NCT06704178|181869558|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 4 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
90992847|NCT06704178|181869558|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 5 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
90992848|NCT06704178|181869558|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 6 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
90992849|NCT06704178|181869559|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 1 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
90992850|NCT06704178|181869559|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 2 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
91043251|NCT03702816|181972426|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.37|||||||Regression, Linear|F=1.312||Linear Regression of Language Composite Scores and Cingulate GE180 SUVR in PD Subjects||||0.37
91043252|NCT03702816|181972427|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.64|||||||Regression, Linear|F=0.233||Linear Regression of Memory Composite Scores and Parietal GE180 SUVR in Control Subjects||||0.64
91043253|NCT03702816|181972427|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.92|||||||Regression, Linear|F=0.011||Linear Regression of Executive Function Composite Scores and Parietal GE180 SUVR in Control Subjects||||0.92
91043254|NCT03702816|181972427|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.22|||||||Regression, Linear|F=1.790||Linear Regression of Speed Composite Scores and Parietal GE180 SUVR in Control Subjects||||0.22
91043255|NCT03702816|181972427|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.42|||||||Regression, Linear|F=0.720||Linear Regression of Language Composite Scores and Parietal GE180 SUVR in Control Subjects||||0.42
91043256|NCT03702816|181972427|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.61|||||||Regression, Linear|F=0.305||Linear Regression of Memory Composite Scores and Parietal GE180 SUVR in MCI Subjects||||0.61
91043257|NCT03702816|181972427|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.95|||||||Regression, Linear|F=0.005||Linear Regression of Executive Function Composite Scores and Parietal GE180 SUVR in MCI Subjects||||0.95
91043258|NCT03702816|181972427|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.55|||||||Regression, Linear|F=0.435||Linear Regression of Speed Composite Scores and Parietal GE180 SUVR in MCI Subjects||||0.55
91043259|NCT03702816|181972427|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.43|||||||Regression, Linear|F=0.787||Linear Regression of Language Composite Scores and Parietal GE180 SUVR in MCI Subjects||||0.43
91043260|NCT03702816|181972427|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.036|||||||Regression, Linear|F=316.379||Linear Regression of Memory Composite Scores and Parietal GE180 SUVR in AD Subjects||||0.036
90992851|NCT06704178|181869559|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 3 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
90992852|NCT06704178|181869559|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 4 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
90992853|NCT06704178|181869559|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 5 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
90992854|NCT06704178|181869559|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 6 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
90992855|NCT06704178|181869560|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 1 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
90992856|NCT06704178|181869560|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 2 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
90992857|NCT06704178|181869560|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 3 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
90992858|NCT06704178|181869560|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 4 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
90992859|NCT06704178|181869560|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 5 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
90992860|NCT06704178|181869560|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 6 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
90992861|NCT06704178|181869561|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 1 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
90992862|NCT06704178|181869561|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 2 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
90992863|NCT06704178|181869561|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 3 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
90992864|NCT06704178|181869561|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 4 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
90992865|NCT06704178|181869561|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 5 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
90992866|NCT06704178|181869561|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 6 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
90992867|NCT06704178|181869562|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 1 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
90992868|NCT06704178|181869562|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 2 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
90992869|NCT06704178|181869562|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 3 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
90992870|NCT06704178|181869562|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 4 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
90992871|NCT06704178|181869562|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 5 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
90992872|NCT06704178|181869562|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 6 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
90992873|NCT06704178|181869563|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 1 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
90992874|NCT06704178|181869563|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 2 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
90992875|NCT06704178|181869563|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 3 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
90992876|NCT06704178|181869563|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 4 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
90992877|NCT06704178|181869563|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 5 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
90992878|NCT06704178|181869563|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 6 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
90992879|NCT06704178|181869564|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 1 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
90992880|NCT06704178|181869564|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 2 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
90992881|NCT06704178|181869564|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3682||||||Month 3 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.3682
90992882|NCT06704178|181869564|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6098||||||Month 4 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.6098
90992883|NCT06704178|181869564|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 5 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
90992884|NCT06704178|181869564|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 6 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
90992885|NCT06704178|181869565|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 1 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
90992886|NCT06704178|181869565|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5691||||||Month 2 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.5691
90992887|NCT06704178|181869565|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 3 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
90992888|NCT06704178|181869565|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 4 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
90992889|NCT06704178|181869565|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6983||||||Month 5 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.6983
90992890|NCT06704178|181869565|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 6 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
90992891|NCT06704178|181869566|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.819||||||Month 1 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.819
90992892|NCT06704178|181869566|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 2 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
90992893|NCT06704178|181869566|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5749||||||Month 3 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.5749
90992894|NCT06704178|181869566|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4873||||||Month 4 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.4873
90992895|NCT06704178|181869566|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9998||||||Month 5 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.9998
90992896|NCT06704178|181869566|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.819||||||Month 6 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.819
90992897|NCT06704178|181869567|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 1 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
90992898|NCT06704178|181869567|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 2 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
90992899|NCT06704178|181869567|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8495||||||Month 3 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.8495
90992900|NCT06704178|181869567|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 4 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis.||||||>0.9999
90992901|NCT06704178|181869567|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1951||||||Month 5 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.1951
90992902|NCT06704178|181869567|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0806||||||Month 6 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis.||||||0.0806
90992903|NCT06704178|181869568|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 1 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
90992904|NCT06704178|181869568|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6983||||||Month 2 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.6983
90992905|NCT06704178|181869568|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1062||||||Month 3 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.1062
90992906|NCT06704178|181869568|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0333||||||Month 4 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.0333
90992907|NCT06704178|181869568|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0734||||||Month 5 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.0734
90992908|NCT06704178|181869568|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0219||||||Month 6 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.0219
90992909|NCT06704178|181869569|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 1 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
90992910|NCT06704178|181869569|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 2 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
90992911|NCT06704178|181869569|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 3 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
90992912|NCT06704178|181869569|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 4 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
90992913|NCT06704178|181869569|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 5 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
90992914|NCT06704178|181869569|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 6 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
90992915|NCT06704178|181869570|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 1 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
90992916|NCT06704178|181869570|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 2 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
90992917|NCT06704178|181869570|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 3 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
90992918|NCT06704178|181869570|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 4 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
90992919|NCT06704178|181869570|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 5 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
90992920|NCT06704178|181869570|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 6 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
90992921|NCT06704178|181869571|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 1 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
90992922|NCT06704178|181869571|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.982||||||Month 2 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.982
90992923|NCT06704178|181869571|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.091||||||Month 3 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.091
90992924|NCT06704178|181869571|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4449||||||Month 4 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.4449
90992925|NCT06704178|181869571|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0204||||||Month 5 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.0204
90992926|NCT06704178|181869571|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0256||||||Month 6 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.0256
90992927|NCT06704178|181869572|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9821||||||Month 1 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.9821
90992928|NCT06704178|181869572|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0403||||||Month 2 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.0403
90992929|NCT06704178|181869572|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0638||||||Month 3 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.0638
90992930|NCT06704178|181869572|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7195||||||Month 4 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.7195
90992931|NCT06704178|181869572|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1856||||||Month 5 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.1856
90992932|NCT06704178|181869572|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1222||||||Month 6 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.1222
90992933|NCT06704178|181869573|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 1 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
90992934|NCT06704178|181869573|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 2 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
90992935|NCT06704178|181869573|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 3 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
90992936|NCT06704178|181869573|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 4 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
90992937|NCT06704178|181869573|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 5 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
90992938|NCT06704178|181869573|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 6 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
90992939|NCT06704178|181869574|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 1 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
90992940|NCT06704178|181869574|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 2 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
90992941|NCT06704178|181869574|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 3 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
90992942|NCT06704178|181869574|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 4 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
90992943|NCT06704178|181869574|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 5 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
90992944|NCT06704178|181869574|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 6 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
90992945|NCT06704178|181869575|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 1 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
90992946|NCT06704178|181869575|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 2 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
90992947|NCT06704178|181869575|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 3 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
90992948|NCT06704178|181869575|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 4 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
90992949|NCT06704178|181869575|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 5 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
90992950|NCT06704178|181869575|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 6 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
90992951|NCT06704178|181869576|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 1 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
90992952|NCT06704178|181869576|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 2 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
90992953|NCT06704178|181869576|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 3 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
90992954|NCT06704178|181869576|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 4 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
90992955|NCT06704178|181869576|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 5 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
90992956|NCT06704178|181869576|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 6 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
90992957|NCT06704178|181869577|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 1 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
90992958|NCT06704178|181869577|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 2 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
90992959|NCT06704178|181869577|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 3 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
90992960|NCT06704178|181869577|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 4 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
90992961|NCT06704178|181869577|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 5 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
90992962|NCT06704178|181869577|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 6 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
90992963|NCT06704178|181869578|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 1 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
90992964|NCT06704178|181869578|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 2 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
90992965|NCT06704178|181869578|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 3 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
90992966|NCT06704178|181869578|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 4 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
90992967|NCT06704178|181869578|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 5 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
90992968|NCT06704178|181869578|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 6 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
90992969|NCT06704178|181869579|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 1 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
90992970|NCT06704178|181869579|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 2 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
90992971|NCT06704178|181869579|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 3 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
90992972|NCT06704178|181869579|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 4 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
90992973|NCT06704178|181869579|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 5 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
90992974|NCT06704178|181869579|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 6 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
90992975|NCT06704178|181869580|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 1 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
90992976|NCT06704178|181869580|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 2 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
90992977|NCT06704178|181869580|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 3 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
90992978|NCT06704178|181869580|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 4 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
90992979|NCT06704178|181869580|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 5 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
90992980|NCT06704178|181869580|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.982||||||Month 6 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.982
90992981|NCT06704178|181869581|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 1 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
90992982|NCT06704178|181869581|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 2 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
90992983|NCT06704178|181869581|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 3 vs Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
90992984|NCT06704178|181869581|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 4 vs Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
90992985|NCT06704178|181869581|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 5 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
90992986|NCT06704178|181869581|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 6 vs Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
90992987|NCT06704178|181869582|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 1 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
90992988|NCT06704178|181869582|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9951||||||Month 2 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.9951
90992989|NCT06704178|181869582|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999||||||Month 3 versus Baseline|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.999
90992990|NCT06704178|181869582|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9913||||||Month 4 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.9913
90992991|NCT06704178|181869582|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4517||||||Month 5 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.4517
90992992|NCT06704178|181869582|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8187||||||Month 6 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.8187
90992993|NCT06704178|181869583|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.998||||||Month 1 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.998
90992994|NCT06704178|181869583|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9591||||||Month 2 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.9591
90992995|NCT06704178|181869583|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9994||||||Month 3 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.9994
90992996|NCT06704178|181869583|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9936||||||Month 4 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.9936
90992997|NCT06704178|181869583|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8526||||||Month 5 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.8526
90992998|NCT06704178|181869583|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4375||||||Month 6 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.4375
90992999|NCT06704178|181869584|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 1 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
90993000|NCT06704178|181869584|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7477||||||Month 2 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis.||||||0.7477
90993001|NCT06704178|181869584|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.297||||||Month 3 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.297
90993002|NCT06704178|181869584|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3503||||||Month 4 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.3503
90993003|NCT06704178|181869584|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.297||||||Month 5 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.297
90993004|NCT06704178|181869584|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4449||||||Month 6 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.4449
90993005|NCT06704178|181869585|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 1 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
90993006|NCT06704178|181869585|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 2 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
90993007|NCT06704178|181869585|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9188||||||Month 3 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.9188
90993008|NCT06704178|181869585|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 4 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
90993009|NCT06704178|181869585|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3503||||||Month 5 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.3503
90993010|NCT06704178|181869585|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 6 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
90993011|NCT00488618|181869586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|-3.3|||ANCOVA||cariprazine - placebo|||-3.3|-8.9|<0.0001
90993012|NCT00488618|181869587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.64||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.32|||ANCOVA||cariprazine - placebo|||-0.32|-0.97|0.0001
90993013|NCT02198651|181869588|OTHER|||||||0.943|||||||Wald Chi|||||||0.943
90993014|NCT02198651|181869589|OTHER|||||||0.592|||||||Wald Chi|||||||0.592
90993015|NCT02198651|181869590|OTHER|||||||0.688|||||||Wald Chi|||||||0.688
90993016|NCT02922634|181869629|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.508|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.508
90993017|NCT02922634|181869630|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72||||||The chi-squared test for both males and females with and without delirium.|Chi-squared|||||||0.720
90993018|NCT02922634|181869631|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.025|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.025
90993019|NCT02922634|181869632|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.480
90993020|NCT02922634|181869633|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.028
90993021|NCT02922634|181869634|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.007
90993022|NCT02922634|181869635|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
90993023|NCT02922634|181869636|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.01
91043261|NCT03702816|181972427|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.39|||||||Regression, Linear|F=2.032||Linear Regression of Executive Function Composite Scores and Parietal GE180 SUVR in AD Subjects||||0.39
91043262|NCT03702816|181972427|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.031|||||||Regression, Linear|F=425.337||Linear Regression of Speed Composite Scores and Parietal GE180 SUVR in AD Subjects||||0.031
91043263|NCT03702816|181972427|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.274|||||||Regression, Linear|F=4.739||Linear Regression of Language Composite Scores and Parietal GE180 SUVR in AD Subjects||||0.274
91043264|NCT03702816|181972427|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.66|||||||Regression, Linear|F=0.263||Linear Regression of Memory Composite Scores and Parietal GE180 SUVR in PD Subjects||||0.66
91043265|NCT03702816|181972427|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.07|||||||Regression, Linear|F=12.244||Linear Regression of Executive Function Composite Scores and Parietal GE180 SUVR in PD Subjects||||0.07
90993024|NCT02922634|181869637|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.101|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.101
90993025|NCT02922634|181869638|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.192|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.192
90993026|NCT02922634|181869639|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.200
90993027|NCT02922634|181869640|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.333|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.333
90993028|NCT02922634|181869641|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||This is a chi-squared test between the FRAIL categories for participants with or without delirium.|Chi-squared|||||||0.001
90993029|NCT02922634|181869642|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||This is a chi-squared test of the categories for levels of invasiveness for participants with or without delirium.|Chi-squared|||||||0.002
90993030|NCT02625324|181869645|SUPERIORITY||Event Rate|0.023|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|97.5||0.081|||Exact binomial test|||"The primary study endpoint, major device effect at 30 days, is a dichotomous study outcome; hence, an exact method based on the binomial distribution was used for the hypothesis testing. The primary study endpoint was tested against a performance goal of 16%:~H0: p ≥ 16% vs. Ha: p \<16%, where p denotes the true event rate of primary study endpoint in the target population."||0.081||<0.0001
90993031|NCT03534063|181869661|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.047|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Comparisons for opioid consumption and composite pain intensity were performed by analysis of covariance, adjusting for baseline differences in groups||||||.047
90993032|NCT03534063|181869662|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.638|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.638
90993033|NCT02397694|181869663|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority of treatment with BIC + F/TAF relative to treatment with DTG + F/TAF. Noninferiority assessed using a conventional 95% confidence interval (CI) approach, with a noninferiority margin of 12%|Difference in percentages|2.9||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|14.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 copies/mL vs \> 100,000 copies/mL).||||14.2|-8.5|0.5
90993034|NCT02115113|181869679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.01||0.3013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.86|15.34|||ANOVA|||||15.34|-4.86|0.3013
90993035|NCT00789191|181869686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55||||0.001||95.0|-0.77|-0.33||No corrections to adjust for multiplicity were performed. Statistical significance threshold was p\<0.05.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used; baseline HbA1c was included as covariate and treatment, stratification and country was included as factors||Null hypothesis: Difference between mean HbA1c in the two treatment arms is equal to zero. Power calculation: Assuming a standard deviation of 1.0 for HbA1c, 100 subjects in each treatment arm would be required to obtain a power of 80% for detecting a HbA1c difference of 0.4%||-0.33|-0.77|0.0010
91043266|NCT03702816|181972427|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.48|||||||Regression, Linear|F=0.762||Linear Regression of Speed Composite Scores and Parietal GE180 SUVR in PD Subjects||||0.48
91043267|NCT03702816|181972427|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.12|||||||Regression, Linear|F=7.107||Linear Regression of Language Composite Scores and Parietal GE180 SUVR in PD Subjects||||0.12
91043268|NCT03702816|181972428|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.85|||||||Regression, Linear|F=0.038||Linear Regression of Memory Composite Scores and Temporal GE180 SUVR in Control Subjects||||0.85
91043269|NCT03702816|181972428|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.84|||||||Regression, Linear|F=0.042||Linear Regression of Executive Function Composite Scores and Temporal GE180 SUVR in Control Subjects||||0.84
91043270|NCT03702816|181972428|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.35|||||||Regression, Linear|F=1.021||Linear Regression of Speed Composite Scores and Temporal GE180 SUVR in Control Subjects||||0.35
91043271|NCT03702816|181972428|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.25|||||||Regression, Linear|F=1.610||Linear Regression of Language Composite Scores and Temporal GE180 SUVR in Control Subjects||||0.25
91043272|NCT03702816|181972428|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.25|||||||Regression, Linear|F=1.779||Linear Regression of Memory Composite Scores and Temporal GE180 SUVR in MCI Subjects||||0.25
91043273|NCT03702816|181972428|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.54|||||||Regression, Linear|F=0.455||Linear Regression of Executive Function Composite Scores and Temporal GE180 SUVR in MCI Subjects||||0.54
91043274|NCT03702816|181972428|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.47|||||||Regression, Linear|F=0.650||Linear Regression of Speed Composite Scores and Temporal GE180 SUVR in MCI Subjects||||0.47
91043275|NCT03702816|181972428|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.74|||||||Regression, Linear|F=0.131||Linear Regression of Language Composite Scores and Temporal GE180 SUVR in MCI Subjects||||0.74
91043276|NCT03702816|181972428|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.83|||||||Regression, Linear|F=0.075||Linear Regression of Memory Composite Scores and Temporal GE180 SUVR in AD Subjects||||0.83
91043277|NCT03702816|181972428|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.41|||||||Regression, Linear|F=1.831||Linear Regression of Executive Function Composite Scores and Temporal GE180 SUVR in AD Subjects||||0.41
91043278|NCT03702816|181972428|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.83|||||||Regression, Linear|F=0.079||Linear Regression of Speed Composite Scores and Temporal GE180 SUVR in AD Subjects||||0.83
91043279|NCT03702816|181972428|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.52|||||||Regression, Linear|F=0.879||Linear Regression of Language Composite Scores and Temporal GE180 SUVR in AD Subjects||||0.52
91043280|NCT03702816|181972428|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.98|||||||Regression, Linear|F=0.001||Linear Regression of Memory Composite Scores and Temporal GE180 SUVR in PD Subjects||||0.98
91043281|NCT03702816|181972428|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.95|||||||Regression, Linear|F=0.005||Linear Regression of Executive Function Composite Scores and Temporal GE180 SUVR in PD Subjects||||0.95
90993036|NCT00789191|181869687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.2||||0.001||95.0|1.65|6.19||No corrections to adjust for multiplicity were performed. Statistical significance threshold was p\<0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group comparison using logistic regression model incl.treatment,stratification factor, country as fixed effects, baseline HbA1c as covariate||Null hypothesis: Odds ratio is equal to one.||6.19|1.65|0.0010
90993037|NCT00789191|181869688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.47||||0.008||95.0|1.26|4.81||No corrections to adjust for multiplicity were performed. Statistical significance threshold was p\<0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group comparison using logistic regression model incl.treatment,stratification factor, country as fixed effects, baseline HbA1c as covariate||Null hypothesis: Odds ratio is equal to one.||4.81|1.26|0.0080
90993038|NCT00789191|181869689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.23||||0.063||95.0|0.96|5.2||No corrections to adjust for multiplicity were performed. Statistical significance threshold was p\<0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group comparison using logistic regression model incl.treatment,stratification factor, country as fixed effects, baseline HbA1c as covariate||Null hypothesis: Odds ratio is equal to one.||5.20|0.96|0.063
90993039|NCT00789191|181869690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.07||||0.135||95.0|0.8|5.37||No corrections to adjust for multiplicity were performed. Statistical significance threshold was p\<0.05.|Regression, Logistic||Treatment group comparison using logistic regression model incl.treatment,stratification factor, country as fixed effects, baseline HbA1c as covariate|Null hypothesis: Odds ratio is equal to one.||5.37|0.8|0.135
91043282|NCT03702816|181972428|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.32|||||||Regression, Linear|F=1.733||Linear Regression of Speed Composite Scores and Temporal GE180 SUVR in PD Subjects||||0.32
91043283|NCT03702816|181972428|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.67|||||||Regression, Linear|F=0.249||Linear Regression of Language Composite Scores and Temporal GE180 SUVR in PD Subjects||||0.67
91043284|NCT03702816|181972429|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.76|||||||Regression, Linear|F=0.098||Linear Regression of DRS Scores and Whole Brain GE180 SUVR in Control Subjects||||0.76
91043285|NCT03702816|181972429|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.49|||||||Regression, Linear|F=0.513||Linear Regression of MoCA Scores and Whole Brain GE180 SUVR in Control Subjects||||0.49
91043286|NCT03702816|181972429|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.93|||||||Regression, Linear|F=0.008||Linear Regression of DRS Scores and Whole Brain GE180 SUVR in MCI Subjects||||0.93
91043287|NCT03702816|181972429|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.54|||||||Regression, Linear|F=0.430||Linear Regression of MoCA Scores and Whole Brain GE180 SUVR in MCI Subjects||||0.54
91043288|NCT03702816|181972429|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.77|||||||Regression, Linear|F=0.142||Linear Regression of DRS Scores and Whole Brain GE180 SUVR in AD Subjects||||0.77
91043289|NCT03702816|181972429|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.61|||||||Regression, Linear|F=0.496||Linear Regression of MoCA Scores and Whole Brain GE180 SUVR in AD Subjects||||0.61
91043290|NCT03702816|181972429|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.11|||||||Regression, Linear|F=8.046||Linear Regression of DRS Scores and Whole Brain GE180 SUVR in PD Subjects||||0.11
91043291|NCT03702816|181972429|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.84|||||||Regression, Linear|F=0.051||Linear Regression of MoCA Scores and Whole Brain GE180 SUVR in PD Subjects||||0.84
91043292|NCT02522780|181972478|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.57|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|2.54||The p-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test by controlling pathway of randomization, at a 0.05 significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Proportions were compared between treatment groups at Month 6.||2.54|0.96|>0.05
91043293|NCT02522780|181972479|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.03||The p-value was based on Generalized estimating equations (GEE) approach with binary outcomes (clinical remission) and an unstructured working correlation matrix, at a 0.05 significance level.|Generalised estimating equation approach|||Proportions were compared between treatment groups over 6 months.||2.03|0.76|>0.05
90993040|NCT00789191|181869691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28||||0.121||95.0|-0.07|0.63||No corrections to adjust for multiplicity were performed. Statistical significance threshold was p\<0.05.|ANCOVA|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used; baseline was included as covariate and treatment, stratification and country was included as factors.||||0.63|-0.07|0.121
90993041|NCT00789191|181869692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.84||||0.109||95.0|-0.19|1.88||No corrections to adjust for multiplicity were performed. Statistical significance threshold was p\<0.05.|ANCOVA|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used; baseline was included as covariate and treatment, stratification and country was included as factors.||||1.88|-0.19|0.109
90993042|NCT00789191|181869693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.45||||0.001||95.0|-3.01|-1.88||No corrections to adjust for multiplicity were performed. Statistical significance threshold was p\<0.05.|ANCOVA|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used; baseline was included as covariate and treatment, stratification and country was included as factors.||||-1.88|-3.01|0.0010
90993043|NCT00789191|181869697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.01||||||95.0|-2.5|-1.51|||Linear Mixed-model|PG profile analysis:linear mixed effect model.Treatment,time,country,time-by-treatment interaction as explanatory variables.Subject as a random factor|COMB-SITA Difference. Before breakfast|||-1.51|-2.50|
90993044|NCT00789191|181869697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.64||||||95.0|-2.4|-0.89|||Linear Mixed-model|PG profile analysis:linear mixed effect model.Treatment,time,country,time-by-treatment interaction as explanatory variables.Subject as a random factor|COMB-SITA Difference. 120 minutes after start of breakfast|||-0.89|-2.40|
90993045|NCT00789191|181869697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.02||||||95.0|-1.69|-0.35|||Linear Mixed-model|PG profile analysis:linear mixed effect model.Treatment,time,country,time-by-treatment interaction as explanatory variables.Subject as a random factor|COMB-SITA Difference. Before lunch|||-0.35|-1.69|
90993046|NCT00789191|181869697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||||95.0|-2.05|-0.56|||Linear mixed-model|PG profile analysis:linear mixed effect model.Treatment,time,country,time-by-treatment interaction as explanatory variables.Subject as a random factor|COMB-SITA Difference. 120 minutes after start of lunch|||-0.56|-2.05|
90993047|NCT00789191|181869697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.77||||||95.0|-1.58|0.05|||Linear Mixed-model|PG profile analysis:linear mixed effect model.Treatment,time,country,time-by-treatment interaction as explanatory variables.Subject as a random factor|COMB-SITA Difference. Before dinner|||0.05|-1.58|
90993048|NCT00789191|181869697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.88||||||95.0|-1.75|-0.02|||Linear Mixed-model|PG profile analysis:linear mixed effect model.Treatment,time,country,time-by-treatment interaction as explanatory variables.Subject as a random factor|COMB-SITA Difference. 120 minutes after start of dinner|||-0.02|-1.75|
90993049|NCT00789191|181869697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.04||||||95.0|-1.88|-0.2|||Linear Mixed-model|PG profile analysis:linear mixed effect model.Treatment,time,country,time-by-treatment interaction as explanatory variables.Subject as a random factor|COMB-SITA Difference. Bedtime|||-0.20|-1.88|
91043294|NCT02522780|181972480|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.44||The p-value was based on log-rank test using pathway of randomization as the stratification factor, at a 0.05 significance level.|Log Rank|||Times to relapse were compared between treatment groups up to 6 months.||1.44|0.25|>0.05
91043295|NCT02522780|181972481|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.39|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.79||The p-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test by controlling pathway of randomization, at a 0.05 significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Proportions were compared between treatment groups at Month 6.||0.79|0.19|<0.05
90993050|NCT00789191|181869697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.17||||||95.0|-1.84|-0.49|||Linear Mixed Model|PG profile analysis:linear mixed effect model.Treatment,time,country,time-by-treatment interaction as explanatory variables.Subject as a random factor|COMB-SITA Difference. At 03:00 a.m.|||-0.49|-1.84|
90993051|NCT00789191|181869697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||||95.0|-2.26|-1.34|||Linear Mixed-model|PG profile analysis:linear mixed effect model.Treatment,time,country,time-by-treatment interaction as explanatory variables.Subject as a random factor|COMB-SITA Difference. Before breakfast the following day|||-1.34|-2.26|
90993052|NCT03736629|181869698|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.72||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.14|4.81|||t-test, 2 sided|||Study did not reach its accrual goal. Sample size is too small to draw any conclusions.||4.81|-6.14|0.72
90993053|NCT03736629|181869699|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.67||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.98|24.65|||t-test, 2 sided||Study did not reach its accrual goal. Sample size is too small to draw any conclusions.|||24.65|-35.98|0.59
90993054|NCT03736629|181869702|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Study did not reach its accrual goal. Sample size is too small to draw any conclusions.||||1.0
90993055|NCT02207478|181869728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.019
90993056|NCT02207478|181869729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.843|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Total procedure time||||0.843
90993057|NCT02207478|181869729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.233|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Total X-ray time||||0.233
90993058|NCT02207478|181869729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Duration time for finding lesions||||<0.001
90993059|NCT02207478|181869729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||X-ray time for finding lesions||||<0.001
90993060|NCT02568345|181869730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||isotonic regression functions through PA|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|||||The isotonic regression functions through PAVA algorithm were used (pooled adjacent violators algorithm), to determine the ED90, and bootstrapping to calculate the respective 95% confidence interval with the statistical program R||||||||
90993061|NCT03209440|181869742|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.02
90993062|NCT03209440|181869742|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.005
90993063|NCT03209440|181869743|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.21|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.21
90993064|NCT03209440|181869743|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.12
90993065|NCT03209440|181869744|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.21|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.21
90993066|NCT03209440|181869744|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.21|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.21
90993067|NCT03209440|181869745|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.11
90993068|NCT03209440|181869745|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.14|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.14
90993069|NCT03209440|181869746|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|"The outcome variable was scored as 1= prolong life; treat everything to 4 = provide comfort care only."||||||0.05
90993070|NCT03209440|181869746|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.46|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|"The outcome variable was scored as 1= prolong life; treat everything to 4 = provide comfort care only."||||||0.46
90993071|NCT00424294|181869829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.733|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.733
90993072|NCT00424294|181869830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.463|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Week 1: p-value was calculated by Chi-square test.||||0.463
90993073|NCT00424294|181869830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.549|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Week 2: p-value was calculated by Chi-square test.||||0.549
90993074|NCT00424294|181869830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.272|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Week 4: p-value was calculated by Chi-square test.||||0.272
91043296|NCT02522780|181972482|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference|-1.0|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|0.7||The p-value was based on a repeated-measures analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with an unstructured correlation matrix , at a 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|||Adjusted mean treatment difference in CRP levels over 6 months was reported.||0.7|-2.7|>0.05
91043297|NCT02522780|181972483|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference|-66.92|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-140.2|6.36||The p-value was based on a repeated-measures ANCOVA model with an unstructured correlation matrix, at a 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|||Adjusted mean treatment difference in fecal calprotectin levels over 6 months was reported.||6.36|-140.2|>0.05
90993075|NCT00424294|181869830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.265|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Week 8: p-value was calculated by Chi-square test.||||0.265
90993076|NCT00424294|181869831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.939|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 4: p-value was calculated by Fisher exact test.||||0.939
90993077|NCT00424294|181869831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.323|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 8: p-value was calculated by Fisher exact test.||||0.323
90993078|NCT00424294|181869831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.338|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 12: p-value was calculated by Fisher exact test.||||0.338
90993079|NCT00424294|181869832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.746|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 12: p-value was calculated by Fisher exact test.||||0.746
90993080|NCT00424294|181869833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.635|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.635
90993081|NCT00424294|181869833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.044|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.044
90993082|NCT00424294|181869833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.957|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.957
90993083|NCT00424294|181869833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.597|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.597
90993084|NCT00424294|181869833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.960
90993085|NCT00424294|181869834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.252|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 1: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.252
90993086|NCT00424294|181869834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.032|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.032
90993087|NCT00424294|181869834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.031
90993088|NCT00424294|181869834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.018
90993089|NCT00424294|181869834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.170
90993090|NCT00424294|181869835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.507|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 1: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.507
90993091|NCT00424294|181869835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.743|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.743
90993092|NCT00424294|181869835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.914|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.914
90993093|NCT00424294|181869835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.715|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.715
90993094|NCT00424294|181869835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.558|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.558
90993095|NCT00424294|181869836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.172|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 1: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.172
90993096|NCT00424294|181869836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.738|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.738
90993097|NCT00424294|181869836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.948|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.948
90993098|NCT00424294|181869836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.428|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.428
90993099|NCT00424294|181869836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.861|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.861
90993100|NCT00424294|181869837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.325|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 1: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.325
90993101|NCT00424294|181869837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.386|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.386
90993102|NCT00424294|181869837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.532|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.532
90993103|NCT00424294|181869837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.909|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.909
90993104|NCT00424294|181869837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.994|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.994
90993105|NCT00424294|181869838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.369|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 1: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.369
90993106|NCT00424294|181869838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.666|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.666
90993107|NCT00424294|181869838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.530
90993108|NCT00424294|181869838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.632|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.632
90993109|NCT00424294|181869838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.801|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.801
90993110|NCT00424294|181869839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.052|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 1: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.052
90993111|NCT00424294|181869839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.108|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.108
90993112|NCT00424294|181869839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.573|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.573
90993113|NCT00424294|181869839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.342|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.342
90993114|NCT00424294|181869839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.501|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.501
90993115|NCT00424294|181869840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.701|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 1: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.701
90993116|NCT00424294|181869840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.167|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.167
90993117|NCT00424294|181869840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.948|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.948
90993118|NCT00424294|181869840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.834|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.834
90993119|NCT00424294|181869840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.977|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.977
90993120|NCT00424294|181869841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.291|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 1: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.291
90993121|NCT00424294|181869841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.080
90993122|NCT00424294|181869841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.466|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.466
90993123|NCT00424294|181869841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.267|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.267
90993124|NCT00424294|181869841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.100
90993125|NCT01100307|181869851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.85||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.92|12.28||Significance level of test in the comparison between pegaptanib sodium 0.3 mg and sham was set to 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification factors (HbA1c and baseline visual acuity categories)||The null hypothesis was to assume that there was no difference between the pegaptanib sodium and sham injection groups. The alternative was to assume that there was difference between the pegaptanib sodium and sham injection groups.||12.28|1.92|0.0003
90993126|NCT01100307|181869852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.52||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|3.94||Significance level of test in the comparison between pegaptanib sodium 0.3 mg and sham was set to 0.05.|ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with treatment as a factor and stratification factors (HbA1c and baseline visual acuity categories) as covariates.||Comparison at Week 6: The null hypothesis was to assume that there was no difference between the pegaptanib sodium and sham injection groups. The alternative was to assume that there was difference between the pegaptanib sodium and sham injection groups.||3.94|1.10|0.0006
90993127|NCT01100307|181869852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.69||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.81|5.58||Significance level of test in the comparison between pegaptanib sodium 0.3 mg and sham was set to 0.05.|ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with treatment as a factor and stratification factors (HbA1c and baseline visual acuity categories) as covariates.||Comparison at Week 12: The null hypothesis was to assume that there was no difference between the pegaptanib sodium and sham injection groups. The alternative was to assume that there was difference between the pegaptanib sodium and sham injection groups.||5.58|1.81|0.0001
90993128|NCT01100307|181869852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.65||||0.0096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|4.65||Significance level of test in the comparison between pegaptanib sodium 0.3 mg and sham was set to 0.05.|ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with treatment as a factor and stratification factors (HbA1c and baseline visual acuity categories) as covariates.||Comparison at Week 18: The null hypothesis was to assume that there was no difference between the pegaptanib sodium and sham injection groups. The alternative was to assume that there was difference between the pegaptanib sodium and sham injection groups.||4.65|0.65|0.0096
90993129|NCT01100307|181869852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.19|6.32||Significance level of test in the comparison between pegaptanib sodium 0.3 mg and sham was set to 0.05.|ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with treatment as a factor and stratification factors (HbA1c and baseline visual acuity categories) as covariates.||Comparison at Week 24: The null hypothesis was to assume that there was no difference between the pegaptanib sodium and sham injection groups. The alternative was to assume that there was difference between the pegaptanib sodium and sham injection groups.||6.32|2.19|<0.0001
90993130|NCT01496430|181869869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||||||Sequential testing was used to control for multiple comparisons. Azilsartan medoxomil 80 mg was first compared to placebo and if p-value ≤0.05 then azilsartaon medoxomil 40 mg was compared to placebo.|ANCOVA|||||||0.007
90993131|NCT01496430|181869869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.067||||||Sequential testing was used to control for multiple comparisons. Azilsartan medoxomil 80 mg was first compared to placebo and if p-value ≤0.05 then azilsartaon medoxomil 40 mg was compared to placebo.|ANCOVA|||||||0.067
90993132|NCT01496430|181869870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86||||||Sequential testing was used to control for multiple comparisons. Azilsartan medoxomil 80 mg was first compared to placebo and if p-value ≤0.05 then azilsartaon medoxomil 40 mg was compared to placebo.|ANCOVA|||||||0.860
90993133|NCT01496430|181869870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21||||||Sequential testing was used to control for multiple comparisons. Azilsartan medoxomil 80 mg was first compared to placebo and if p-value ≤0.05 then azilsartaon medoxomil 40 mg was compared to placebo.|ANCOVA|||||||0.210
90993134|NCT01962714|181869920|NON_INFERIORITY|The primary outcome of non-inferiority of LKM relative to CPT-C was assessed using a non-inferiority margin of 5 points on the CAPS-5, which represents 0.5 SD of baseline PTSD symptoms based on data indicating the SD of baseline CAPS-5 scores is approximately 10 in a large sample (N=198) of treatment-seeking veterans.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.59|6.78|||||Non-inferiority of LKM to CPT-C was analyzed as the change rate from baseline to 6-month follow-up between groups (CPT-C minus LKM), with a positive value indicating a greater reduction in scores for LKM compared to CPT-C.|The non-inferiority of LKM with respect to CPT-C was analyzed using the 95% confidence interval for the group x time interaction term, with non-inferiority of LKM to CPT-C claimed if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval was greater than (i.e., did not extend beyond) negative delta.||6.78|-2.59|
91008009|NCT01005966|181900093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|160.3||||0.2448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-110.58|431.18||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA based on a mixed model with factors subject, treatment and period was used.|Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.|Null hypothesis considered population means for the Na MFP/NaF toothpaste (1450ppmF) and NaF toothpaste (675ppmF) to be equal with respect to enamel fluoride uptake potential.||431.18|-110.58|0.2448
90993135|NCT01962714|181869921|NON_INFERIORITY|For depression, the non-inferiority margin was 4 points on the PROMIS depression measure, which has been defined as the minimally important difference and corresponds to a Cohen's d effect size of approximately 0.50.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|5.2|||||Non-inferiority of LKM with respect to CPT-C was analyzed as the change rate from baseline to 6-month follow-up between groups (CPT-C minus LKM), with a positive value indicating a greater reduction in scores from baseline for LKM compared to CPT-C.|The non-inferiority of LKM with respect to CPT-C was analyzed using the 95% confidence interval for the group x time interaction term, with non-inferiority of LKM to CPT-C claimed if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval was greater than (i.e., did not extend beyond) negative delta.||5.20|-0.52|
90993136|NCT01151579|181869922|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A total of at least 400 treatemnts or 65 patients was required to achieve 94% power to determine a 1% change by treatment or a 5% change between groups to be significant at p-value of 0.01 and o.05, respectively.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null Hypothesis: No difference between groups in heart rate changes from baseline following treatment. Sample size calculation determined a need for at least 400 breathing treatments among 65 patients.||||0.01
90993137|NCT01151579|181869923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Analysis adjusted with Fischer exact chi-square for rare occurrences.|Chi-squared|||Null hypothesis: no difference in incidence of arrhythmias between groups within the total number of breathing treatments.||||0.05
90993138|NCT01151579|181869924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED||||||descriptive|Descriptive statistics (frequency) used to report the number of participants experiencing an event.||To report on the number of events.||||0
90993139|NCT00608530|181869925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Repeated measures analysis of variance compared differences between and within groups (CBT and Supportive Care) from baseline to end of treatment. Statistical testing was performed using 2-tailed tests and alpha level of .05 for declaring statistical significance. The trial was powered at the \>.80 level to detect differences between condition based on projected sample N = 130; given the N = 66 actually achieved our a priori power for detecting differences between groups was .63.||||.05
91043298|NCT02522780|181972484|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference|-0.32|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.41|3.77||The p-value was based on a repeated-measures ANCOVA model with an unstructured correlation matrix, at a 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|||Adjusted mean treatment difference in IBDQ total scores over 6 months was reported.||3.77|-4.41|>0.05
91043299|NCT00926367|181972490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Dunn's Multiple Comparisons Test|A two-tailed p≤ 0.05 was taken as the level of significance for all comparisons.||||||>0.05
91043300|NCT00926367|181972492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||A two-tailed p≤ 0.05 was taken as the level of significance for all comparisons.|Dunn's Multiple Comparisons Test|||||||>0.05
90993140|NCT00608530|181869926|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Primary analyses consisted of modified intent-to-treat analysis of all randomized participants who attended at least 1 treatment session, with multiple imputation to address missing data. The study was powered at 80% to detect large effect sizes (\>.50SD) and alpha of .05 with a recruitment goal N = 140; with the N = 61 actually obtained, our a priori power was .55 to detect between group differences.||||.05
90993141|NCT00608530|181869927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Repeated measures analysis of variance comparing groups at baseline and end of treatment.||||>0.05
90993142|NCT00608530|181869929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.05
90993143|NCT00077610|181869931|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The two RO0503821 dosing schedules were compared separately to epoetin reference using ANCOVA, with Hb at BL and region as the covariates. The test for non-inferiority was based on the lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% confidence interval for the difference between the two groups. When the lower limit was greater than or equal to -0.75 g/dL, the RO0503821 groups were regarded as non-inferior to the epoetin reference group. The confidence level of 97.5% was chosen to adjust for multiplicity.|Mean Difference between groups|0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0973|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.215|0.223|||ANCOVA, CI for difference between groups||Difference between groups based on the adjusted means derived from the ANCOVA model|The non-inferiority test for treatment differences in Hb change from baseline, based on analysis of co-variance (ANCOVA) analysis with a non-inferiority limit of -0.75 g/dL.||0.223|-0.215|<0.0001
91008010|NCT01005966|181900093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1346.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1076.46|1617.11||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA based on a mixed model with factors subject, treatment and period was used.|Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.|Null hypothesis considered population means for the Na MFP/NaF toothpaste (1450ppmF) and Placebo toothpaste (0ppmF) to be equal with respect to enamel fluoride uptake potential.||1617.11|1076.46|<0.0001
90993144|NCT00077610|181869931|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The two RO0503821 dosing schedules were compared separately to epoetin reference using ANCOVA, with Hb at BL and region as the covariates. The test for non-inferiority was based on the lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% confidence interval for the difference between the two groups. When the lower limit was greater than or equal to -0.3 g/dL, the RO0503821 groups were regarded as non-inferior to the epoetin reference group. The confidence level of 97.5% was chosen to adjust for multiplicity.|Mean Difference between groups|0.051|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0997|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.173|0.275|||ANCOVA, CI for difference between groups||Difference between groups based on the adjusted means derived from the ANCOVA model|The non-inferiority test for treatment differences in Hb change from baseline, based on ANCOVA analysis with a non-inferiority limit of -0.75 g/dL.||0.275|-0.173|<0.0001
90993145|NCT00305253|181869954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.38||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.85|||Regression, Logistic|Independent variables were selected on the basis of their significant association with EAO in bivariate analyses (t-tests and logistic regression).|Pre-Intervention group was compared to the Post-Intervention group. Each group contained different study participants.|"Relative risks and confidence intervals were computed for the primary outcome, Extreme Adverse Outcomes (EAO) - a combined measure of maternal mortality or severe mobidity.~To estimate the independent effect of the intervention net of the effects of other baseline characteristics, a multiple logistic regression model was used."||0.85|0.17|0.019
90993146|NCT00305253|181869955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided||Pre-Intervention group was compared to the Post-Intervention group. Each group contained different study participants.|Mean measured volume of blood loss in the drape was compared across phases with t-tests.||||<0.0001
90993147|NCT00305253|181869956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.41|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.8|||t-test, 2 sided||Pre-Intervention group was compared to the Post-Intervention group. Each group contained different study participants.|Relative risks and confidence intervals were computed for emergency hysterectomy.||0.80|0.21|<0.05
90993148|NCT01098461|181869957|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The p-value is from a two-sided t-test for the difference in means. Dunnett's method is used to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.89|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|-0.57|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.57|-1.22|<0.0001
90993149|NCT01098461|181869957|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The p-value is from a two-sided t-test for the difference in means. Dunnett's method is used to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|-1.23|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-1.23|-1.88|<0.0001
90993150|NCT01098461|181869957|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The p-value is from a two-sided t-test for the difference in means. Dunnett's method is used to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|-0.78|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.78|-1.43|<0.0001
91043301|NCT00462839|181972512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Post-hoc comparison of 500ml, 1000ml and 2000ml volumes were greater in the non-calibrated drape first group. Post-hoc comparisons made using Bonferroni correct t-test for 8 comparisons.|ANOVA|||Repeated measures ANOVA comparing all levels of blood estimation (P=0.0002). Post-hoc comparisons using Bonferroni corrects t-tests.||||<0.05
91043302|NCT00462839|181972513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76||95.0|||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.76
90993151|NCT03615469|181869966|OTHER|t-test||||||0.22|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.22
90993152|NCT02662985|181869967|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-3.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.52|-0.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)||GLOESS scores||-0.85|-5.52|0.0040
90993153|NCT02662985|181869968|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.38|8.89|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression using non-responder imputation||Proportion of patients with ACR 20 response at Week 12 (FAS)||8.89|2.38|<0.0001
90993154|NCT02662985|181869969|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.92|23.75|||Regression, Logistic|||Proportion of patients with ACR 50 response at Week 12 (FAS)||23.75|3.92|<0.0001
90993155|NCT02662985|181869970|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean of treatment difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.0327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.374|0.043|||Regression, Logistic|||SPARCC||0.043|-1.374|0.0327
90993156|NCT01153763|181869971|OTHER||percentage of participants|59.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.2|70.3|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with a confirmed CR or a confirmed PR.|||70.3|48.2|
90993157|NCT01153763|181869972|OTHER||percentage of participants|13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|28.7|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with a investigator assessed CR or PR.|||28.7|0.0|
90993158|NCT01153763|181869977|OTHER||percentage of participants|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.6|29.8|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with overall survival.|||29.8|11.6|
91043303|NCT00462839|181972514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72||95.0|||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.72
91043304|NCT00462839|181972515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89||95.0|||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.89
90993159|NCT01153763|181869978|OTHER||percentage of participants|13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|34.6|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with overall survival.|||34.6|2.2|
90993160|NCT05373706|181869985|SUPERIORITY|Generalized linear mixed model was estimated using a sample of N=99 with a Condition × 2-Week Follow-Up interaction. AOC was the reference category for Condition, and Baseline was the reference category for 2-Week Follow-Up.|Count/Rate Ratio|0.95||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.2|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models controlled for sex assigned at birth, age, and student status (4-year vs. not) and used a Poisson error distribution.||Changes from Baseline to 2-Week Follow-Up for PFI versus AOC reported in this section.||1.20|0.76|0.68
90993161|NCT05373706|181869985|SUPERIORITY|Generalized linear mixed model was estimated using a sample of N=99 with a Condition × 3-Month Follow-Up interaction. AOC was the reference category for Condition, and Baseline was the reference category for 3-Month Follow-Up.|Count/Rate Ratio|1.1||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.49|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models controlled for sex assigned at birth, age, and student status (4-year vs. not) and used a Poisson error distribution.||Changes from Baseline to 3-Month Follow-Up for PFI versus AOC reported in this section.||1.49|0.81|0.56
90993162|NCT05373706|181869986|SUPERIORITY|Generalized linear mixed model was estimated using a sample of N=99 with a Condition × 2-Week Follow-Up interaction. AOC was the reference category for Condition, and Baseline was the reference category for 2-Week Follow-Up.|Count/Rate Ratio|0.93||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.33|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models controlled for sex assigned at birth, age, and student status (4-year vs. not) and used a Poisson error distribution.||Changes from Baseline to 2-Week Follow-Up for PFI versus AOC reported in this section.||1.33|0.64|0.68
91043305|NCT01160640|181972522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.046||||||P-value for proportion of women who had clearance of anaerobic organisms from the endometrium at the 30-day visit|Fisher Exact|||||||0.046
91043306|NCT01160640|181972524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16||||||P-value for proportion of women who did not have M. genitalium detected in the cervix or endometrium at the 30-day visit|Fisher Exact|||||||0.16
91043307|NCT01160640|181972525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74||||||P-value for proportion of women who experienced resolution of clinical signs and symptoms of PID at the 3-day visit|Fisher Exact|||||||0.74
91043308|NCT01525628|181972527|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 17 vs. Day 9 (%)|251.37|STANDARD_DEVIATION|31.0||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|205.54|307.43|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of BI 201335 at Day 17 vs. Day 9 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 17 vs. Day 9||307.43|205.54|1.0000
91043309|NCT01525628|181972527|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 66 vs. Day 9 (%)|131.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|32.5||0.6514|TWO_SIDED|90.0|105.4|163.57|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of BI 201335 at Day 66 vs. Day 9 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 66 vs. Day 9||163.57|105.40|0.6514
91043310|NCT01525628|181972528|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 17 vs. Day 9 (%)|381.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|28.1||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|317.01|458.19|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of BI 201335 at Day 17 vs. Day 9 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 17 vs. Day 9||458.19|317.01|1.0000
91043311|NCT01525628|181972528|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 66 vs. Day 9 (%)|123.65|STANDARD_DEVIATION|40.0||0.4718|TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.66|161.51|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of BI 201335 at Day 66 vs. Day 9 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 66 vs. Day 9||161.51|94.66|0.4718
90993163|NCT05373706|181869986|SUPERIORITY|Generalized linear mixed model was estimated using a sample of N=99 with a Condition × 3-Month Follow-Up interaction. AOC was the reference category for Condition, and Baseline was the reference category for 3-Month Follow-Up.|Count/Rate Ratio|1.24||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.88|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models controlled for sex assigned at birth, age, and student status (4-year vs. not) and used a Poisson error distribution.||Changes from Baseline to 3-Month Follow-Up for PFI versus AOC reported in this section.||1.88|0.82|0.30
90993164|NCT05373706|181869987|SUPERIORITY|Generalized linear mixed model was estimated using a sample of N=99 with a Condition × 2-Week Follow-Up interaction. AOC was the reference category for Condition, and Baseline was the reference category for 2-Week Follow-Up.|Count/Rate Ratio|0.89||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.15|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models controlled for sex assigned at birth, age, and student status (4-year vs. not) and used a Poisson error distribution.||Changes from Baseline to 2-Week Follow-Up for PFI versus AOC reported in this section.||1.15|0.69|0.36
90993165|NCT05373706|181869987|SUPERIORITY|Generalized linear mixed model was estimated using a sample of N=99 with a Condition × 3-Month Follow-Up interaction. AOC was the reference category for Condition, and Baseline was the reference category for 3-Month Follow-Up.|Count/Rate Ratio|1.05||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.38|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models controlled for sex assigned at birth, age, and student status (4-year vs. not) and used a Poisson error distribution.||Changes from Baseline to 3-Month Follow-Up for PFI versus AOC reported in this section.||1.38|0.80|0.73
90993166|NCT05373706|181869988|SUPERIORITY|Generalized linear mixed model was estimated using a sample of N=99 with a Condition × 2-Week Follow-Up interaction. AOC was the reference category for Condition, and Baseline was the reference category for 2-Week Follow-Up.|Count/Rate Ratio|0.83||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.04|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models controlled for sex assigned at birth, age, and student status (4-year vs. not) and used a Poisson error distribution.||Changes from Baseline to 2-Week Follow-Up for PFI versus AOC reported in this section.||1.04|0.66|0.11
90993167|NCT05373706|181869988|SUPERIORITY|Generalized linear mixed model was estimated using a sample of N=99 with a Condition × 3-Month Follow-Up interaction. AOC was the reference category for Condition, and Baseline was the reference category for 3-Month Follow-Up.|Count/Rate Ratio|0.88||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.17|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models controlled for sex assigned at birth, age, and student status (4-year vs. not) and used a Poisson error distribution.||Changes from Baseline to 3-Month Follow-Up for PFI versus AOC reported in this section.||1.17|0.66|0.38
90993168|NCT01486784|181869990|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Based on the dose limiting toxicities occurring in each dosing cohort, a maximum tolerated dose (MTD) may be determined by assessing the highest dosing level presenting no dose limiting toxicities. An MTD of 17mg/m2 twice weekly was established.|||
90993169|NCT03491553|181869991|OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
90993170|NCT03491553|181869991|OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
90993171|NCT03491553|181869991|OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
90993172|NCT03491553|181869991|OTHER||Percentage Difference|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.2|47.1|||||The 2-sided 95% CI for the percentage difference by HBeAg status was constructed based on the standardized statistic and inverting two 1-sided tests.|||47.1|-47.2|
90993173|NCT03491553|181869992|OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
90993174|NCT03491553|181869992|OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
90993175|NCT03491553|181869992|OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
90993176|NCT03491553|181869992|OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
90993177|NCT03491553|181869993|OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
90993178|NCT03491553|181869993|OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
90993179|NCT03491553|181869993|OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
90993180|NCT03491553|181869993|OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
90993181|NCT03491553|181869994|OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
90993182|NCT03491553|181869994|OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
90993183|NCT03491553|181869994|OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
90993184|NCT03491553|181869994|OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
90993185|NCT03491553|181869995|OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
90993186|NCT03491553|181869995|OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
90993187|NCT03491553|181869995|OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
90993188|NCT03491553|181869995|OTHER||Percentage Difference|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.2|47.1|||||The 2-sided 95% CI for the percentage difference by HBeAg status was constructed based on the standardized statistic and inverting two 1-sided tests.|||47.1|-47.2|
90993189|NCT01606761|181870203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|15.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.5|23.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||23.2|8.5|< 0.001
90993190|NCT01606761|181870203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|21.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.6|28.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||28.5|13.6|< 0.001
90993191|NCT01606761|181870204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|-0.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.251|-0.088|||ANCOVA|||||-0.088|-0.251|< 0.001
90993192|NCT01606761|181870204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.194|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.275|-0.112|||ANCOVA|||||-0.112|-0.275|< 0.001
90993193|NCT01606761|181870205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|12.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.4|17.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||17.7|6.4|< 0.001
90993194|NCT01606761|181870205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|12.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|18.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||18.4|7.0|< 0.001
90993195|NCT01606761|181870206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|11.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.5|16.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||16.5|5.5|< 0.001
90993196|NCT01606761|181870206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|13.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.8|19.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||19.1|7.8|< 0.001
90993197|NCT04237207|181870207|NON_INFERIORITY|The primary efficacy objective is to demonstrate non-inferiority of AutoSense on the M90 processor compared to AutoSound on the Q90 processor for the AzBio sentence test in quiet mode based on a paired t-test. The primary efficacy analyses will test the null hypothesis (inferiority) that the mean of the paired differences in AzBio sentence scores in quiet mode (AutoSense on M90 - AutoSound on Q90) are less than or equal to -10 percentage points.||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0010
90993198|NCT04237207|181870208|NON_INFERIORITY|The 1st secondary endpoint was to demonstrate that speech recognition in noise with AutoSense on a 301-M062 processor was no worse than speech recognition in noise with currently approved software on a Q90 processor.||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0010
90993199|NCT04237207|181870209|NON_INFERIORITY|"The 2nd secondary endpoint was to demonstrate increased speech recognition in noise with the 301-M062 sound processor when comparing Omnidirectional program to AutoSense."|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90993200|NCT00333619|181870238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.10
90993201|NCT00333619|181870239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.12
90993202|NCT03006471|181870251|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.755||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in placebo group||||0.755
90993203|NCT03006471|181870251|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in dapagliflozin group||||0.046
90993204|NCT03006471|181870252|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.752||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in placebo group||||0.752
90993205|NCT03006471|181870252|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.582||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in dapagliflozin group||||0.582
90993206|NCT03006471|181870253|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.814||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in placebo group||||0.814
90993207|NCT03006471|181870253|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in dapagliflozin group||||0.220
90993208|NCT03006471|181870254|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.624||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in placebo group||||0.624
90993209|NCT03006471|181870254|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in dapagliflozin group||||1.000
90993210|NCT03006471|181870255|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.906||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in placebo group||||0.906
90993211|NCT03006471|181870255|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in dapagliflozin group||||0.017
90993212|NCT03006471|181870256|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.454||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in placebo group||||0.454
90993213|NCT03006471|181870256|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.115||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in dapagliflozin group||||0.115
90993214|NCT03006471|181870257|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.422||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in placebo group||||0.422
90993215|NCT03006471|181870257|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.917||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in dapagliflozin group||||0.917
90993216|NCT03006471|181870258|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in placebo group||||0.650
90993217|NCT03006471|181870258|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.108||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in dapagliflozin group||||0.108
90993218|NCT03006471|181870259|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.875||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in placebo group||||0.875
90993219|NCT03006471|181870259|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.196||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of waist circumference in dapagliflozin group||||0.196
90993220|NCT03006471|181870260|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.552||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in placebo group||||0.552
90993221|NCT03006471|181870260|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.087||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in dapagliflozin group||||0.087
90993222|NCT03006471|181870261|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.814||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in placebo group||||0.814
90993223|NCT03006471|181870261|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.463||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in dapagliflozin group||||0.463
90993224|NCT03006471|181870262|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in placebo group||||0.530
90993225|NCT03006471|181870262|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.507||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in dapagliflozin group||||0.507
90993226|NCT03006471|181870263|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.152||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in placebo group||||0.152
90993227|NCT03006471|181870263|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.972||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in dapagliflozin group||||0.972
90993228|NCT03006471|181870264|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.152||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in placebo group||||0.152
90993229|NCT03006471|181870264|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.158||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in dapagliflozin group||||0.158
90993230|NCT03006471|181870265|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.944||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in placebo group||||0.944
90993231|NCT03006471|181870265|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in dapagliflozin group||||0.650
90993232|NCT03006471|181870266|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.087||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in placebo group||||0.087
90993233|NCT03006471|181870266|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.345||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in dapagliflozin group||||0.345
90993234|NCT03006471|181870267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.115||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Chi-squared|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between change of intervention group||||0.115
90993235|NCT03006471|181870268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.047||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Chi-squared|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between change of intervention groups||||0.047
90993236|NCT03006471|181870269|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.539||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Chi-squared|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between change of intervention groups||||0.539
90993237|NCT03006471|181870270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.844||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in placebo group||||0.844
90993238|NCT03006471|181870270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in dapagliflozin group||||0.010
90993239|NCT03006471|181870271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.814||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in placebo group||||0.814
90993240|NCT03006471|181870271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in dapagliflozin group||||0.011
91043312|NCT01525628|181972529|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 17 vs. Day 9 (%)|306.45|STANDARD_DEVIATION|30.7||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|250.93|374.26|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of BI 201335 at Day 17 vs. Day 9 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 17 vs. Day 9||374.26|250.93|1.0000
90993241|NCT03006471|181870272|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.221||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in placebo group||||0.221
90993242|NCT03006471|181870272|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in dapagliflozin group||||0.001
90993243|NCT03006471|181870273|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.461||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in placebo group||||0.461
90993244|NCT03006471|181870273|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in dapagliflozin group||||0.011
90993245|NCT03006471|181870274|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.285||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in placebo group||||0.285
90993246|NCT03006471|181870274|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in dapagliflozin group||||0.002
90993247|NCT03006471|181870275|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.701||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in placebo group||||0.701
90993248|NCT03006471|181870275|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.081||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in dapagliflozin group||||0.081
90993249|NCT03006471|181870276|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.581||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in placebo group||||0.581
90993250|NCT03006471|181870276|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of HDL-cholesterol on dapagliflozin group||||0.004
90993251|NCT03006471|181870277|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.727||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in placebo group||||0.727
90993252|NCT03006471|181870277|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.451||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in dapagliflozin group||||0.451
90993253|NCT03006471|181870278|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.463||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in placebo group||||0.463
90993254|NCT03006471|181870278|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.043||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in dapagliflozin group||||0.043
90993255|NCT03006471|181870279|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.807||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in placebo group||||0.807
90993256|NCT03006471|181870279|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.754||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in dapagliflozin group||||0.754
90993257|NCT03006471|181870280|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.507||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in placebo group||||0.507
90993258|NCT03006471|181870280|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in dapagliflozin group||||0.015
90993259|NCT03006471|181870281|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.039||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Fisher Exact|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between intervention groups||||0.039
90993260|NCT03006471|181870282|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||Fisher Exact|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between intervention groups||||0.011
90993261|NCT03006471|181870283|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.096||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Fisher Exact|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between intervention groups||||0.096
90993262|NCT03162055|181870322|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority p-value is calculated corresponding to the non-inferiority margin -50 mL.|Least Square Mean Difference|-87.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.3||0.9974|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-117.0|-57.4|||Repeated measures analysis|Change from baseline = Treatment + baseline FEV1 + BR a/s MDI + stratification factor (prior treatment) + region + visit + treatment by visit.|Estimate of the mean change from baseline over 24 weeks in the GFF treatment group is compared to the UV treatment group using a repeated measures analysis.|||-57.4|-117.0|0.9974
90993263|NCT03162055|181870323|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority p-value is calculated corresponding to the non-inferiority margin -50 mL.|Least Square Mean Difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.1||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-32.8|25.9|||Repeated measures analysis|Change from baseline = Treatment + baseline FEV1 + BR a/s MDI + stratification factor (prior treatment) + region + visit + treatment by visit.|Estimate of the mean peak change from baseline over 24 weeks in the GFF treatment group is compared to the UV treatment group using a repeated measures analysis.|||25.9|-32.8|0.0002
90993264|NCT03162055|181870324|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.79|2.95|||Regression, Logistic|ln (1/(1-p))=Treatment+baseline FEV1+BR a/s MDI+stratification factor (prior treatment)+region.p=percentage of participants with increase of \>=100 mL.|Estimate of the log odds of being a responder in the GFF treatment group compared to the UV treatment group using a logistic regression.|||2.95|1.79|<0.0001
90993265|NCT03162055|181870325|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority p-value is calculated corresponding to the non-inferiority margin -50 mL.|Least Square Mean Difference|-15.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.4||0.0371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.4|22.9|||Repeated measures analysis|Change from baseline = Treatment + baseline IC + BR a/s MDI + stratification factor (prior treatment) + region + visit + treatment by visit.|Estimate of the mean peak change from baseline over 24 weeks in the GFF treatment group is compared to the UV treatment group using a repeated measures analysis.|||22.9|-53.4|0.0371
90993266|NCT03162055|181870326|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority p-value is calculated corresponding to the non-inferiority margin -1.0 unit.|Least Square Mean Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.14|||Repeated measures analysis|TDI focal score = Treatment + Baseline Dyspnea Index + BR a/s MDI + stratification factor (prior treatment) + region + visit + treatment by visit.|Estimate of the mean TDI focal score over 24 weeks in the GFF treatment group is compared to the UV treatment group using a repeated measures analysis.|||-0.14|-0.59|<0.0001
91043313|NCT01525628|181972529|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 66 vs. Day 9 (%)|129.85|STANDARD_DEVIATION|32.5||0.6185|TWO_SIDED|90.0|104.26|161.71|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of BI 201335 at Day 66 vs. Day 9 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 66 vs. Day 9||161.71|104.26|0.6185
90993267|NCT03162055|181870327|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority p-value is calculated corresponding to the non-inferiority margin 0.1 unit.|Least Square Mean Difference|0.034|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.011|0.078|||Repeated measures analysis|Change from baseline = Treatment + baseline EMSCI score + BR a/s MDI + stratification factor (prior treatment) + region + TI + treatment by TI.|Estimate of the mean change from baseline over 24 weeks in the GFF treatment group is compared to the UV treatment group using a repeated measures analysis.|||0.078|-0.011|0.0017
90993268|NCT03162055|181870328|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority p-value is calculated corresponding to the non-inferiority margin 0.1 unit.|Least Square Mean Difference|0.042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||0.0088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|0.09|||Repeated measures analysis|Change from baseline = Treatment + baseline NiSCI score + BR a/s MDI + stratification factor (prior treatment) + region + TI + treatment by TI.|Estimate of the mean change from baseline over 24 weeks in the GFF treatment group is compared to the UV treatment group using a repeated measures analysis.|||0.090|-0.005|0.0088
90993269|NCT03162055|181870329|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.9995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.04|||Repeated measures analysis|Change from baseline =Treatment + baseline rescue a/s MDI use + BR a/s MDI + stratification factor (prior treatment) + region + TI + treatment by TI.|Estimate of the mean change from baseline over 24 weeks in the GFF treatment group is compared to the UV treatment group using a repeated measures analysis.|||1.04|0.26|0.9995
90993270|NCT03162055|181870330|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority p-value is calculated corresponding to the non-inferiority margin 2.0 unit.|Least Square Mean Difference|0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.11|||Repeated measures analysis|Change from baseline = Treatment + baseline CAT score + BR a/s MDI + stratification factor (prior treatment) + region + visit + treatment by visit.|Estimate of the mean change from baseline over 24 weeks in the GFF treatment group is compared to the UV treatment group using a repeated measures analysis.|||1.11|0.07|<0.0001
90993271|NCT03162055|181870331|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.8||0.5516|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-30.3|27.0|||Repeated measures analysis|Change from baseline = Treatment + baseline FEV1 + BR a/s MDI + stratification factor (prior treatment) + region + visit + treatment by visit.|Estimate of the mean peak change from baseline over 24 weeks in the GFF treatment group is compared to the UV treatment group using a repeated measures analysis.|||27.0|-30.3|0.5516
90993272|NCT02581865|181870337|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.4326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|2.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.1|-4.9|0.4326
90993273|NCT02581865|181870337|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.1835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.2|-6.2|0.1835
90993274|NCT02581865|181870338|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.3812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.3|||ANOVA|||||0.3|-0.7|0.3812
90993275|NCT02581865|181870338|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.0146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.1|||ANOVA|||||-0.1|-1.2|0.0146
90993276|NCT02581865|181870339|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.3065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.2|-0.6|0.3065
90993277|NCT02581865|181870339|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.2052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.2|-0.7|0.2052
90993278|NCT02581865|181870340|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.2215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|0.6|||ANCOVA|||||0.6|-2.7|0.2215
90993279|NCT02581865|181870340|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.0566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.0|-3.3|0.0566
90993280|NCT02581865|181870341|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8||0.5689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|5.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.4|-9.8|0.5689
90993281|NCT02581865|181870341|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0||0.232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|3.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.1|-12.8|0.2320
90993282|NCT02581865|181870342|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.4515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.3|-3.0|0.4515
90993283|NCT02581865|181870342|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.6289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.7|-2.8|0.6289
90993284|NCT02370498|181870373|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.27||||0.98358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.57||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by geographic region (Europe/Israel/North America/Australia vs. Asia vs. Rest of World) and TTP on first-line therapy (\< 6 months vs. \>= 6 months).|Regression, Cox|P-value rounded to 5 decimal places.||Treatment difference in PFS was assessed by the Stratified Log-rank test, and a stratified Cox proportional hazard model with Efron's method of tie handling was used to assess the magnitude of the treatment difference (Hazard Ratio \[HR\]) between the treatment arms.||1.57|1.03|0.98358
90993285|NCT02370498|181870374|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.04205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.03||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by geographic region (Europe/Israel/North America/Australia vs. Asia vs. Rest of World) and TTP on first-line therapy (\< 6 months vs. \>= 6 months).|Regression, Cox|P-value rounded to 5 decimal places.||Treatment difference in OS was assessed by the Stratified Log-rank test, and a stratified Cox proportional hazard model with Efron's method of tie handling was used to assess the magnitude of the treatment difference (HR) between the treatment arms.||1.03|0.66|0.04205
91043314|NCT01525628|181972530|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 17 vs. Day 9 (%)|286.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|39.4||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|228.51|357.97|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of BI 207127 at Day 17 vs. Day 9 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 17 vs. Day 9||357.97|228.51|1.0000
91043315|NCT01525628|181972530|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 66 vs. Day 9 (%)|150.45|STANDARD_DEVIATION|55.1||0.821|TWO_SIDED|90.0|106.81|211.91|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of BI 207127 at Day 66 vs. Day 9 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 66 vs. Day 9||211.91|106.81|0.8210
90993286|NCT02370498|181870375|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.49||||0.99999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|1.77||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by geographic region (Europe/Israel/North America/Australia vs. Asia vs. Rest of World), TTP on first-line therapy (\< 6 months vs. \>= 6 months), and PD-L1 status (positive vs. negative).|Regression, Cox|P-value rounded to 5 decimal places.||Treatment difference in PFS was assessed by the Stratified Log-rank test, and a stratified Cox proportional hazard model with Efron's method of tie handling was used to assess the magnitude of the treatment difference (Hazard Ratio \[HR\]) between the treatment arms.||1.77|1.25|0.99999
90993287|NCT02370498|181870376|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.24463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.12||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by geographic region (Europe/Israel/North America/Australia vs. Asia vs. Rest of World), TTP on first-line therapy (\<6 months vs. ≥6 months), and PD-L1 status (positive vs. negative).|Regression, Cox|P-value rounded to 5 decimal places.||Treatment difference in OS was assessed by the Stratified Log-rank test, and a stratified Cox proportional hazard model with Efron's method of tie handling was used to assess the magnitude of the treatment difference (Hazard Ratio \[HR\]) between the treatment arms.||1.12|0.79|0.24463
90993288|NCT02370498|181870377|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.41331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.21||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by geographic region (Europe/Israel/North America/Australia vs. Asia vs. Rest of World) and TTP on first-line therapy (\<6 months vs. ≥6 months).|Regression, Cox|P-value rounded to 5 decimal places.||Treatment difference in PFS was assessed by the Stratified Log-rank test, and a stratified Cox proportional hazard model with Efron's method of tie handling was used to assess the magnitude of the treatment difference (HR) between the treatment arms.||1.21|0.79|0.41331
90993289|NCT02370498|181870378|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19||||0.97481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.42||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by geographic region (Europe/Israel/North America/Australia vs. Asia vs. Rest of World), TTP on first-line therapy (\<6 months vs. ≥6 months), and PD-L1 status (positive vs. negative).|Regression, Cox|P-value rounded to 5 decimal places.||Treatment difference in PFS was assessed by the Stratified Log-rank test, and a stratified Cox proportional hazard model with Efron's method of tie handling was used to assess the magnitude of the treatment difference (HR) between the treatment arms.||1.42|1.00|0.97481
90993290|NCT02370498|181870379|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.80696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.38||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by geographic region (Europe/Israel/North America/Australia vs. Asia vs. Rest of World) and TTP on first-line therapy (\<6 months vs. ≥6 months).|Regression, Cox|P-value rounded to 5 decimal places.||Treatment difference in PFS was assessed by the Stratified Log-rank test, and a stratified Cox proportional hazard model with Efron's method of tie handling was used to assess the magnitude of the treatment difference (HR) between the treatment arms.||1.38|0.89|0.80696
90993291|NCT02370498|181870380|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.34||||0.99932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.6||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by geographic region (Europe/Israel/North America/Australia vs. Asia vs. Rest of World), TTP on first-line therapy (\< 6 months vs. \>= 6 months), and PD-L1 status (positive vs. negative).|Regression, Cox|P-value rounded to 5 decimal places.||Treatment difference in PFS was assessed by the Stratified Log-rank test, and a stratified Cox proportional hazard model with Efron's method of tie handling was used to assess the magnitude of the treatment difference (HR) between the treatment arms.||1.60|1.12|0.99932
91043316|NCT01525628|181972531|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 17 vs. Day 9 (%)|349.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|46.4||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|269.12|454.93|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of BI 207127 at Day 17 vs. Day 9 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 17 vs. Day 9||454.93|269.12|1.0000
90993292|NCT02370498|181870381|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.45||||0.99661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|1.89||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by geographic region (Europe/Israel/North America/Australia vs. Asia vs. Rest of World) and TTP on first-line therapy (\<6 months vs. ≥6 months).|Regression, Cox|P-value rounded to 5 decimal places.||Treatment difference in TTP was assessed by the Stratified Log-rank test, and a stratified Cox proportional hazard model with Efron's method of tie handling was used to assess the magnitude of the treatment difference (HR) between the treatment arms.||1.89|1.11|0.99661
90993293|NCT02370498|181870382|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.77||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|2.2||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by geographic region (Europe/Israel/North America/Australia vs. Asia vs. Rest of World), TTP on first-line therapy (\< 6 months vs. \>= 6 months), and PD-L1 status (positive vs. negative).|Regression, Cox|P-value rounded to 5 decimal places.||Treatment difference in TTP was assessed by the Stratified Log-rank test, and a stratified Cox proportional hazard model with Efron's method of tie handling was used to assess the magnitude of the treatment difference (HR) between the treatment arms.||2.20|1.42|1.00000
90993294|NCT02370498|181870383|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.3928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.23||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by geographic region (Europe/Israel/North America/Australia vs. Asia vs. Rest of World) and TTP on first-line therapy (\<6 months vs. ≥6 months).|Regression, Cox|P-value rounded to 5 decimal places.||Treatment difference in TTP was assessed by the Stratified Log-rank test, and a stratified Cox proportional hazard model with Efron's method of tie handling was used to assess the magnitude of the treatment difference (HR) between the treatment arms.||1.23|0.77|0.39280
90993295|NCT02370498|181870384|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.21||||0.97033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.47||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by geographic region (Europe/Israel/North America/Australia vs. Asia vs. Rest of World), TTP on first-line therapy (\< 6 months vs. \>= 6 months), and PD-L1 status (positive vs. negative).|Regression, Cox|P-value rounded to 5 decimal places.||Treatment difference in TTP was assessed by the Stratified Log-rank test, and a stratified Cox proportional hazard model with Efron's method of tie handling was used to assess the magnitude of the treatment difference (HR) between the treatment arms.||1.47|1.00|0.97033
90993296|NCT02370498|181870385|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|2.0||||0.28967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|9.1||Stratification factors for MN method included geographic region (Europe/Israel/North America/Australia vs. Asia vs. Rest of World) and TTP on first-line therapy (\<6 months vs. ≥6 months) weighting by sample size.|Miettinen and Nurminen method|P-value rounded to 5 decimal places.||Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen's (MN) method was used for comparison of the ORR between the treatment arms. A 95% CI for the difference in response rates between the pembrolizumab arm and paclitaxel arm was provided.||9.1|-5.0|0.28967
90993297|NCT02370498|181870386|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-1.3||||0.6901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|4.0||Stratification factors for MN method included geographic region (Europe/Israel/North America/Australia vs. Asia vs. Rest of World), TTP on first-line therapy (\<6 months vs. ≥6 months), and PD-L1 status (positive vs. negative) weighting by sample size|Miettinen and Nurminen method|P-value rounded to 5 decimal places.||Stratified MN method was used for comparison of the ORR between the treatment arms. A 95% CI for the difference in response rates between the pembrolizumab arm and paclitaxel arm was provided.||4.0|-6.5|0.69010
90993298|NCT02370498|181870387|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|1.6||||0.3322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|9.1||Stratification factors for MN method included geographic region (Europe/Israel/North America/Australia vs. Asia vs. Rest of World) and TTP on first-line therapy (\<6 months vs. ≥6 months), weighting by sample size.|Miettinen and Nurminen method|P-value rounded to 5 decimal places.||Stratified MN method was used for comparison of the ORR between the treatment arms. A 95% CI for the difference in response rates between the pembrolizumab arm and paclitaxel arm was provided.||9.1|-5.8|0.33220
90993299|NCT02370498|181870388|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-3.0||||0.85922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|2.6||Stratification factors included geographic region (Europe/Israel/North America/Australia vs. Asia vs. Rest of World), TTP on first-line therapy (\<6 months vs. ≥6 months), and PD-L1 status (positive vs. negative) weighting by sample size.|Miettinen and Nurminen method|P-value rounded to 5 decimal places.||Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen's method was used for comparison of the ORR between the treatment arms. A 95% CI for the difference in response rates between the pembrolizumab arm and paclitaxel arm is provided.||2.6|-8.5|0.85922
90993300|NCT02370498|181870394|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|0.2||||||Between-treatment differences (Pembrolizumab vs. Paclitaxel) in the percentage of participants with events and accompanying 95% confidence intervals were based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method. Negative values correspond to a greater percentage of events for Paclitaxel.||0.2|-6.9|
90993301|NCT00848250|181870410|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.03
90993302|NCT00848250|181870411|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures||||||0.13
90993303|NCT00848250|181870412|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures||||||0.02
90993304|NCT00848250|181870413|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures||||||0.67
90993305|NCT00848250|181870415|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-value is for comparison of chest tube output at 24 hours||||0.47
90993306|NCT00848250|181870416|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.41
90993307|NCT01122030|181870418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0767||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values are from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of SBMs as a covariate.||||||0.0767
90993308|NCT01122030|181870418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8727||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values are from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of SBMs as a covariate.||||||0.8727
90993309|NCT01122030|181870418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6373||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values are from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of SBMs as a covariate.||||||0.6373
90993310|NCT01122030|181870418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values are from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of SBMs as a covariate.||||||<0.0001
90993311|NCT01122030|181870418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values are from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of SBMs as a covariate.||||||<0.0001
90993312|NCT01122030|181870418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values are from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of SBMs as a covariate.||||||<0.0001
90993313|NCT01122030|181870419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8982||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values are from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of SBMs as a covariate.||||||0.8982
90993314|NCT01122030|181870419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4946||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values are from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of SBMs as a covariate.||||||0.4946
90993315|NCT01122030|181870419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9301||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values are from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of SBMs as a covariate.||||||0.9301
90993316|NCT01122030|181870419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0047||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values are from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of SBMs as a covariate.||||||0.0047
90993317|NCT01122030|181870419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values are from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of SBMs as a covariate.||||||<0.0001
90993318|NCT01122030|181870419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values are from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of SBMs as a covariate.||||||<0.0001
90993319|NCT01122030|181870420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1334||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-value is from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of BMs as a covariate.||||||0.1334
90993320|NCT01122030|181870420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.332||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-value is from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of BMs as a covariate.||||||0.3320
90993321|NCT01122030|181870420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9371||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-value is from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of BMs as a covariate.||||||0.9371
90993322|NCT01122030|181870420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-value is from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of BMs as a covariate.||||||0.0002
90993323|NCT01122030|181870420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-value is from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of BMs as a covariate.||||||<0.0001
90993324|NCT01122030|181870420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-value is from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of BMs as a covariate.||||||<0.0001
90993325|NCT01122030|181870421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7978||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values are from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of BMs as a covariate.||||||0.7978
90993326|NCT01122030|181870421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7143||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values are from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of BMs as a covariate.||||||0.7143
90993327|NCT01122030|181870421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7531||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values are from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of BMs as a covariate.||||||0.7531
90993328|NCT01122030|181870421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0283||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values are from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of BMs as a covariate.||||||0.0283
90993329|NCT01122030|181870421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values are from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of BMs as a covariate.||||||<0.0001
90993330|NCT01122030|181870421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values are from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of BMs as a covariate.||||||<0.0001
90993331|NCT01122030|181870422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6269||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values are from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of CSBMs as a covariate.||||||0.6269
90993332|NCT01122030|181870422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7456||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values are from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of CSBMs as a covariate.||||||0.7456
90993333|NCT01122030|181870422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1968||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values are from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of CSBMs as a covariate.||||||0.1968
90993334|NCT01122030|181870422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8708||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values are from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of CSBMs as a covariate.||||||0.8708
90993335|NCT01122030|181870422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values are from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of CSBMs as a covariate.||||||<0.0001
90993336|NCT01122030|181870422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values are from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of CSBMs as a covariate.||||||0.0002
90993337|NCT01122030|181870423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6131||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values are from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of CSBMs as a covariate.||||||0.6131
90993338|NCT01122030|181870423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9293||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values are from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of CSBMs as a covariate.||||||0.9293
90993339|NCT01122030|181870423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.799||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values are from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of CSBMs as a covariate.||||||0.7990
90993340|NCT01122030|181870423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7674||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values are from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of CSBMs as a covariate.||||||0.7674
90993341|NCT01122030|181870423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values are from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of CSBMs as a covariate.||||||<0.0001
90993342|NCT01122030|181870423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0018||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values are from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of CSBMs as a covariate.||||||0.0018
90993343|NCT01122030|181870424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.29||||0.7434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|3.92|||Log Rank|P-values were obtained from the log-rank test stratified by Gender.||||3.92|0.42|0.7434
90993344|NCT01122030|181870424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.54||||0.4449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|4.42|||Log Rank|P-values were obtained from the log-rank test stratified by Gender.||||4.42|0.54|0.4449
90993345|NCT01122030|181870424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.8129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|2.72|||Log Rank|P-values were obtained from the log-rank test stratified by Gender.||||2.72|0.27|0.8129
90993346|NCT01122030|181870424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|7.52||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.29|24.72|||Log Rank|P-values were obtained from the log-rank test stratified by Gender.||||24.72|2.29|0.0005
90993347|NCT01122030|181870424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|9.93|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.09|31.89|||Log Rank|P-values were obtained from the log-rank test stratified by Gender.||||31.89|3.09|<0.0001
90993348|NCT01122030|181870424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|202272814.0|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Log Rank|P-values were obtained from the log-rank test stratified by Gender.|Hazard Ratio is infinite due to small range of observed times in 3 mg group that has no overlap with the Placebo group.|||||<0.0001
90993349|NCT01122030|181870425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.51||||0.4923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|4.28|||Log Rank|P-values are from the log rank test stratified by gender.||||4.28|0.53|0.4923
90993350|NCT01122030|181870425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.45||||0.5479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|4.06|||Log Rank|P-values are from the log rank test stratified by gender.||||4.06|0.52|0.5479
90993351|NCT01122030|181870425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.44||||0.506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|3.67|||Log Rank|P-values are from the log rank test stratified by gender.||||3.67|0.56|0.5060
90993352|NCT01122030|181870425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|7.36||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.27|23.9|||Log Rank|P-values are from the log rank test stratified by gender.||||23.90|2.27|0.0005
90993353|NCT01122030|181870425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|9.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|30.35|||Log Rank|P-values are from the log rank test stratified by gender.||||30.35|3.00|<0.0001
90993354|NCT01122030|181870425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|192233779.0|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Log Rank|P-values are from the log rank test stratified by gender.|Hazard Ratio is infinite due to small range of observed times in 3 mg group that has no overlap with the Placebo group.|||||<0.0001
90993355|NCT01122030|181870426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.45||||0.1523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|19.35|||Log Rank|P-values are from the log rank test stratified by gender.||||19.35|0.62|0.1523
90993356|NCT01122030|181870426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.55||||0.0856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|27.07|||Log Rank|P-values are from the log rank test stratified by gender.||||27.07|0.76|0.0856
90993357|NCT01122030|181870426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.81||||0.5284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|10.98|||Log Rank|P-values are from the log rank test stratified by gender.||||10.98|0.30|0.5284
90993358|NCT01122030|181870426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.8594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|8.66|||Log Rank|P-values are from the log rank test stratified by gender.||||8.66|0.09|0.8594
90993359|NCT01122030|181870426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|59.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.55|537.38|||Log Rank|P-values are from the log rank test stratified by gender.||||537.38|6.55|<0.0001
90993360|NCT01122030|181870426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|10.99||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|52.57|||Log Rank|P-values are from the log rank test stratified by gender.||||52.57|2.30|0.0007
90993361|NCT01122030|181870428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5054||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values were obtained from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of CBMs as a covariate.||||||0.5054
90993362|NCT01122030|181870428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9688||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values were obtained from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of CBMs as a covariate.||||||0.9688
90993363|NCT01122030|181870428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6963||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values were obtained from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of CBMs as a covariate.||||||0.6963
90993364|NCT01122030|181870428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9599||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values were obtained from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of CBMs as a covariate.||||||0.9599
90993365|NCT01122030|181870428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values were obtained from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of CBMs as a covariate.||||||0.0001
90993366|NCT01122030|181870428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values were obtained from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of CBMs as a covariate.||||||0.0006
90993367|NCT01122030|181870429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3441||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values were obtained from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of CBMs as a covariate.||||||0.3441
90993368|NCT01122030|181870429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7159||95.0||||P-values were obtained from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of CBMs as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.7159
90993369|NCT01122030|181870429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7342||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values were obtained from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of CBMs as a covariate.||||||0.7342
90993370|NCT01122030|181870429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8714||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values were obtained from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of CBMs as a covariate.||||||0.8714
90993371|NCT01122030|181870429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values were obtained from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of CBMs as a covariate.||||||<0.0001
90993372|NCT01122030|181870429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values were obtained from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of CBMs as a covariate.||||||0.0006
90993373|NCT02883049|181870443|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.022||||0.893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.413|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio = hazard rate for Arm B/hazard rate for Arm A|To compare the DFS of the randomized patients on HR B-ALL Arm A vs Arm B. With a total of 1800 patients accrued over 5 years with minimum follow up of 2 years, randomized 1:1 to the 2 arms, we will be able to detect an improvement in 5-year DFS from 90% to 94 (HR=0.5873) between IT MTX and ITT based regimens (2-sided log rank test, alpha=5%), with 84.2% power.||1.413|0.74|0.893
90993374|NCT02883049|181870444|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.019||||0.556|ONE_SIDED|97.5||1.335|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio = hazard rate for Experimental Arm 1 /hazard rate for Control Arm|To compare the DFS of the randomized patients on Control Arm vs. Experimental Arm 1. This study design will have 86.8% power (1-sided log rank test, adjusted alpha=0.025 for multiple comparisons) to detect an improvement in 4-year DFS from 70% to 79% (HR=0.661) between the control arm and the experimental arm.||1.335||0.556
90993375|NCT03575884|181870460|SUPERIORITY||Study_arm timepoint interactions|-27.32|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.49|-2.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.14|-52.49|<0.05
90993376|NCT03888391|181870489|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F = 1.72, df = 1/34||Outcomes fitted via a mixed model with time as a predictor.||||.20
90993377|NCT03888391|181870491|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F = 44.47, df = 1/33||Outcomes fitted via a mixed model with time as a predictor.||||<.0001
90993378|NCT03888391|181870492|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F = 15.74, df = 1/34||Outcomes fitted via a mixed model with time as a predictor.||||.0004
90993379|NCT03888391|181870493|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F = .28, df = 1/34||Outcomes fitted via a mixed model with time as a predictor.||||.60
90993380|NCT03888391|181870494|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F = 1.04, df = 1/34||Outcomes fitted via a mixed model with time as a predictor.||||.32
90993381|NCT03888391|181870495|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F = 1.27, df = 1/34||Outcomes fitted via a mixed model with time as a predictor.||||.27
90993382|NCT02504268|181870508|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2359|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.2359
90993383|NCT02504268|181870509|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0112|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.0112
90993384|NCT02504268|181870510|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0021|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.0021
90993385|NCT02504268|181870511|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||rank-based ANCOVA|||||||< 0.0001
90993386|NCT02504268|181870512|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0006|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.0006
90993387|NCT05086289|181870551|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.13|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.13|-0.89|
90993388|NCT05086289|181870552|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.3|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.30|-0.85|
90993389|NCT05086289|181870553|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|0.68|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.68|-1.91|
90993390|NCT05086289|181870554|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|0.18|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.18|-2.54|
90993391|NCT05086289|181870555|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.19|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.19|-0.44|
90993392|NCT05086289|181870556|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.14|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.14|-0.67|
90993393|NCT05086289|181870557|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|0.09|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.09|-1.05|
90993394|NCT05086289|181870558|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|0.16|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.16|-1.17|
90993395|NCT05086289|181870559|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-4.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.07|1.27|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||1.27|-11.07|
90993396|NCT05086289|181870560|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-4.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.73|2.15|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||2.15|-11.73|
90993397|NCT05086289|181870561|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.21|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.21|-0.46|
90993398|NCT05086289|181870562|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|1.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|9.2|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||9.20|-6.20|
90993399|NCT05086289|181870563|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.07|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.07|-0.06|
90993400|NCT05086289|181870564|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.1|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.10|-0.05|
90993401|NCT05086289|181870565|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|41.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-95.92|179.76|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||179.76|-95.92|
90993402|NCT05086289|181870566|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|9.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-151.11|170.52|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||170.52|-151.11|
90993403|NCT03150108|181870567|EQUIVALENCE|Welch's t-test with Satterthwaite's approximation to the degrees of freedom was used to compare the log transformed Cmax values of both ethnic groups at 100 mcg dose and the results were back-transformed to get the estimates for the geometric means and for the ratio of geometric means (Japanese/Caucasian), and 90% confidence interval (CI).|Geometric mean ratio|1.119|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.875|1.43||||||||1.430|0.875|
90993404|NCT03150108|181870567|OTHER|Dose proportionality|Increase in Cmax per Dose Doubling|1.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.52|2.03|||||Linear model of log transformed PK parameters at all doses in Japanese descent, including log transformed dose, period, sequence as fixed effects, and intercept as a random effect accounting for each participant within sequence as their own control.|Dose proportionality was assessed for baseline-adjusted Cmax using the power model. The power model assumes a linear relationship between the natural log transformed parameter and the natural log transformed dose. The fold increase in PK parameters with doubling the dose and the 90% CIs were calculated.||2.03|1.52|
90993405|NCT03150108|181870569|EQUIVALENCE|Welch's t-test with Satterthwaite's approximation to the degrees of freedom was used to compare the log transformed AUClast values of both ethnic groups at 100 mcg dose and the results were back-transformed to get the estimates for the geometric means and for the ratio of geometric means (Japanese/Caucasian), and 90% CI.|Geometric mean ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|1.23||||||||1.23|0.80|
91043317|NCT01525628|181972531|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 66 vs. Day 9 (%)|176.56|STANDARD_DEVIATION|50.1||0.9533|TWO_SIDED|90.0|125.95|247.5|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of BI 207127 at Day 66 vs. Day 9 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 66 vs. Day 9||247.50|125.95|0.9533
91043318|NCT01525628|181972532|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 17 vs. Day 9 (%)|322.68|STANDARD_DEVIATION|40.4||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|256.24|406.34|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of BI 207127 at Day 17 vs. Day 9 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 17 vs. Day 9||406.34|256.24|1.0000
91043319|NCT01525628|181972532|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 66 vs. Day 9 (%)|145.93|STANDARD_DEVIATION|66.2||0.7461|TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.83|217.69|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of BI 207127 at Day 66 vs. Day 9 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 66 vs. Day 9||217.69|97.83|0.7461
91043320|NCT01525628|181972533|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 17 vs. Day 9 (%)|355.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|29.9||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|298.13|422.83|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of BI 208833 at Day 17 vs. Day 9 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 17 vs. Day 9||422.83|298.13|1.0000
91043321|NCT01525628|181972533|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 66 vs. Day 9 (%)|120.67|STANDARD_DEVIATION|58.3||0.4337|TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.68|174.01|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of BI 208833 at Day 66 vs. Day 9 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 66 vs. Day 9||174.01|83.68|0.4337
91043322|NCT01525628|181972534|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 17 vs. Day 9 (%)|397.73|STANDARD_DEVIATION|31.6||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|330.79|478.22|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of BI 208833 at Day 17 vs. Day 9 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 17 vs. Day 9||478.22|330.79|1.0000
91043323|NCT01525628|181972534|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 66 vs. Day 9 (%)|142.27|STANDARD_DEVIATION|53.1||0.7346|TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.49|203.44|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of BI 208833 at Day 66 vs. Day 9 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 66 vs. Day 9||203.44|99.49|0.7346
90993406|NCT03150108|181870569|OTHER|Dose proportionality|Increase in AUClast per Dose Doubling|2.35||||||90.0|2.06|2.7|||||Linear model of log transformed PK parameters at all doses in Japanese descent, including log transformed dose, period, sequence as fixed effects, and intercept as a random effect accounting for each participant within sequence as their own control.|Dose proportionality was assessed for baseline-adjusted AUClast using the power model. The power model assumes a linear relationship between the natural log transformed parameter and the natural log transformed dose. The fold increase in PK parameters with doubling the dose and the 90% CIs were calculated.||2.70|2.06|
90993407|NCT03150108|181870570|EQUIVALENCE|Welch's t-test with Satterthwaite's approximation to the degrees of freedom was used to compare the log transformed AUC0-8 values of both ethnic groups at 100 mcg dose and the results were back-transformed to get the estimates for the geometric means and for the ratio of geometric means (Japanese/Caucasian), and 90% CI.|Geometric mean ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|1.35||||||||1.35|0.87|
90993408|NCT03150108|181870570|OTHER|Dose proportionality|Increase in AUC0-8 per Dose Doubling|2.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.98|2.51|||||Linear model of log transformed PK parameters at all doses in Japanese descent, including log transformed dose, period, sequence as fixed effects, and intercept as a random effect accounting for each participant within sequence as their own control.|Dose proportionality was assessed for baseline-adjusted AUC0-8 using the power model. The power model assumes a linear relationship between the natural log transformed parameter and the natural log transformed dose. The fold increase in PK parameters with doubling the dose and the 90% CIs were calculated.||2.51|1.98|
90993409|NCT03150108|181870571|EQUIVALENCE|Welch's t-test with Satterthwaite's approximation to the degrees of freedom was used to compare the log transformed AUC0-inf values of both ethnic groups at 100 mcg dose and the results were back-transformed to get the estimates for the geometric means and for the ratio of geometric means (Japanese/Caucasian), and 90% CI.|Geometric mean ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.77|1.33||||||||1.33|0.77|
90993410|NCT03150108|181870571|OTHER|Dose proportionality|Increase in AUC0-inf per Dose Doubling|2.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.96|2.71|||||Linear model of log transformed PK parameters at all doses in Japanese descent, including log transformed dose, period, sequence as fixed effects, and intercept as a random effect accounting for each participant within sequence as their own control.|Dose proportionality was assessed for baseline-adjusted AUC0-inf using the power model. The power model assumes a linear relationship between the natural log transformed parameter and the natural log transformed dose. The fold increase in PK parameters with doubling the dose and the 90% CIs were calculated.||2.71|1.96|
90993411|NCT03150108|181870577|EQUIVALENCE|Welch's t-test with Satterthwaite's approximation to the degrees of freedom was used to compare the log transformed Cmax values of both ethnic groups at 100 mcg dose and the results were back-transformed to get the estimates for the geometric means and for the ratio of geometric means (Japanese/Caucasian), and 90% CI.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.4||||||||1.40|0.90|
90993412|NCT03150108|181870579|EQUIVALENCE|Welch's t-test with Satterthwaite's approximation to the degrees of freedom was used to compare the log transformed Cmax values of both ethnic groups at 100 mcg dose and the results were back-transformed to get the estimates for the geometric means and for the ratio of geometric means (Japanese/Caucasian), and 90% CI.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|1.25||||||||1.25|0.93|
90993413|NCT03238235|181870608|SUPERIORITY||Log Difference of the least square means|0.04||||0.8282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.38||ANCOVA model was performed considering the difference between log of total fibrosis and log baseline values as dependent variable; log baseline value was included as covariate, treatment and concomitant steroid use as independent class variables.|ANCOVA|||total fibrosis at visit 11||0.38|-0.30|0.8282
90993414|NCT03238235|181870608|SUPERIORITY|Mixed model was performed considering the difference between log Visit 11 and log baseline values as dependent variable; log baseline as covariate, treatment was included as independent class variable and treatment by sequence interaction. The sequence of biopsy site (R-L, L-R) was included as a fixed effect and subject as a random effect. If the treatment by sequence interaction was p\>0.10, then the model without the interaction term is presented.|Log Difference of Least Square Means|-0.11||||0.6465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A Mixed Model was fitted to the data in order to evaluate the difference in total fibrosis between biopsy sites||0.37|-0.59|0.6465
90993415|NCT03238235|181870609|SUPERIORITY||Log Difference of Least Square Means|-0.05||||0.1991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.03||ANCOVA model was performed considering baseline fat fraction of vastus lateralis or fat fraction in the soleus value as covariate and treatment and concomitant steroid use at baseline as independent class variables.|ANCOVA|||Vastus lateralis||0.03|-0.12|0.1991
90993416|NCT03238235|181870609|SUPERIORITY||difference of the least square means|-0.27||||0.7849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|1.69||ANCOVA model was performed considering baseline fat fraction of vastus lateralis or fat fraction in the soleus value as covariate and treatment and concomitant steroid use at baseline as independent class variables.|ANCOVA|||Soleus||1.69|-2.22|0.7849
90993417|NCT03238235|181870610|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|-1.35||||0.0149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.43|-0.28||ANCOVA model was performed considering baseline Fat Fraction of lower limb muscles value as covariate and treatment and concomitant steroid use at baseline as independent class variables.|ANCOVA|||Whole thigh at visit 11||-0.28|-2.43|0.0149
90993418|NCT03238235|181870610|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|-1.96||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.18|-0.75||ANCOVA model was performed considering baseline Fat Fraction of lower limb muscles value as covariate and treatment and concomitant steroid use at baseline as independent class variables|ANCOVA|||Quadriceps at visit 11||-0.75|-3.18|0.0022
90993419|NCT03238235|181870610|SUPERIORITY||Difference of least square means|-0.58||||0.4869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.24|1.08||ANCOVA model was performed considering baseline Fat Fraction of lower limb muscles value as covariate and treatment and concomitant steroid use at baseline as independent class variables.|ANCOVA|||Hamstrings at visit 11||1.08|-2.24|0.4869
90993420|NCT03238235|181870610|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|-1.59||||0.0939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.47|0.29||ANCOVA model was performed considering baseline Fat Fraction of lower limb muscles value as covariate and treatment and concomitant steroid use at baseline as independent class variables.|ANCOVA|||Triceps Surae at Visit 11||0.29|-3.47|0.0939
90993421|NCT03238235|181870610|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|-0.89||||0.1579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|0.36||ANCOVA model was performed considering baseline Fat Fraction of lower limb muscles value as covariate and treatment and concomitant steroid use at baseline as independent class variables.|ANCOVA|||Pelvis girdle at visit 11||0.36|-2.13|0.1579
90993422|NCT03238235|181870611|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|0.4||||0.777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.45|3.26||ANCOVA model was performed considering baseline CSA as covariate, treatment and concomitant steroid use at baseline as independent class variables.|ANCOVA|||Whole Thigh at visit 11||3.26|-2.45|0.7770
90993423|NCT03238235|181870611|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|-0.09||||0.8926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|1.18||ANCOVA model was performed considering baseline CSA as covariate, treatment and concomitant steroid use at baseline as independent class variables|ANCOVA|||Quadriceps at Visit 11||1.18|-1.35|0.8926
90993424|NCT03238235|181870611|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|0.35||||0.572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|1.58||ANCOVA model was performed considering baseline CSA as covariate, treatment and concomitant steroid use at baseline as independent class variables.|ANCOVA|||Medial Thigh at Visit 11||1.58|-0.88|0.5720
90993425|NCT03238235|181870611|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|0.11||||0.8386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|1.18||ANCOVA model was performed considering baseline CSA as covariate, treatment and concomitant steroid use at baseline as independent class variables.|ANCOVA|||Hamstrings at Visit 11||1.18|-0.97|0.8386
90993426|NCT03238235|181870611|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|-0.22||||0.8591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.68|2.25||ANCOVA model was performed considering baseline CSA as covariate, treatment and concomitant steroid use at baseline as independent class variables|ANCOVA|||Triceps Surae at Visit 11||2.25|-2.68|0.8591
90993427|NCT03238235|181870611|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|0.32||||0.7392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.24|||ANCOVA|||Pelvis Girdle at Visit 11||2.24|-1.60|0.7392
90993428|NCT03238235|181870612|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|1.37||||0.0375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|2.65||ANCOVA model was performed considering baseline Contractile Area value as covariate, treatment and concomitant steroid use at baseline as independent class variables.|ANCOVA|||Whole Thigh at Visit 11||2.65|0.08|0.0375
90993429|NCT03238235|181870612|SUPERIORITY||difference of least square means|0.63||||0.0528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|1.27||ANCOVA model was performed considering baseline Contractile Area value as covariate, treatment and concomitant steroid use at baseline as independent class variables.|ANCOVA|||Quadriceps at Visit 11||1.27|-0.01|0.0528
90993430|NCT03238235|181870612|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|0.36||||0.2012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.91||ANCOVA model was performed considering baseline Contractile Area value as covariate, treatment and concomitant steroid use at baseline as independent class variables|ANCOVA|||Medial Thigh at Visit 11||0.91|-0.20|0.2012
90993431|NCT03238235|181870612|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|0.75||||0.4676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|2.83||ANCOVA model was performed considering baseline Contractile Area value as covariate, treatment and concomitant steroid use at baseline as independent class variables.|ANCOVA|||Triceps Surae at Visit 11||2.83|-1.33|0.4676
90993432|NCT03238235|181870612|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|0.54||||0.1549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|1.3||ANCOVA model was performed considering baseline Contractile Area value as covariate, treatment and concomitant steroid use at baseline as independent class variables.|ANCOVA|||Pelvis Girdle at Visit 11||1.30|-0.21|0.1549
90993433|NCT03238235|181870613|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|-619.2||||0.324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1872.37|633.98||ANCOVA model was performed considering baseline biopsy histological parameters (Slide III) value as covariate, treatment and concomitant steroid use at baseline as independent class variables|ANCOVA|||CSA Type II at Visit 11||633.98|-1872.37|0.3240
90993434|NCT03238235|181870613|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|-572.54||||0.307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1690.73|545.64||ANCOVA model was performed considering baseline biopsy histological parameters (Slide III) value as covariate, treatment and concomitant steroid use at baseline as independent class variables|ANCOVA|||Total CSA at Visit 11||545.64|-1690.73|0.3070
90993435|NCT03238235|181870614|SUPERIORITY||Log Difference of Least Square Means|-0.27||||0.1055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.06||ANCOVA model was performed considering baseline Biopsy histological parameters (Slide I) value as covariate, treatment and concomitant steroid use at baseline as independent class variables.|ANCOVA|||Fibers with nuclear centralizations (%) at Visit 11||0.06|-0.59|0.1055
90993436|NCT03238235|181870614|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|-2.23||||0.8846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.05|28.59||ANCOVA model was performed considering baseline biopsy histological parameters (Slide II) value as covariate, treatment and concomitant steroid use at baseline as independent class variables.|ANCOVA|||Total number of fibers at Visit 11 (slide II)||28.59|-33.05|0.8846
90993437|NCT03238235|181870614|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|4.72||||0.4054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.62|16.06||ANCOVA model was performed considering baseline biopsy histological parameters (Slide III) value as covariate, treatment and concomitant steroid use at baseline as independent class variables|ANCOVA|||Total number of fibers (Slide III)||16.06|-6.62|0.4054
90993438|NCT03238235|181870615|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|2.45||||0.634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.87|12.77||ANCOVA model was performed considering baseline Biopsy histological parameters (Slide I) value as covariate, treatment and concomitant steroid use at baseline as independent class variables|ANCOVA|||||12.77|-7.87|0.6340
90993439|NCT03238235|181870616|SUPERIORITY||Log Difference of Least Square Means|-0.14||||0.4893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.26|||ANCOVA|||||0.26|-0.54|0.4893
90993440|NCT03238235|181870617|SUPERIORITY||Log Difference of Least Square Means|-0.34||||0.1498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.13||This model was performed considering baseline biopsy histological parameters (Slide I) value as covariate, treatment and concomitant steroid use at baseline as independent class variables.|ANCOVA|||||0.13|-0.81|0.1498
91043324|NCT01525628|181972535|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 17 vs. Day 9 (%)|403.86|STANDARD_DEVIATION|33.6||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|332.19|490.99|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of BI 208833 at Day 17 vs. Day 9 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 17 vs. Day 9||490.99|332.19|1.0000
90993441|NCT03238235|181870618|SUPERIORITY||Log Difference of Least Square Means|0.06||||0.0602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.13||Least squares mean is obtained from the mixed effects model for repeated measures with treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction and concomitant steroid use at baseline as fixed effect; baseline value is included as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Standing and transfers (D1) at Visit 11||0.13|-0.00|0.0602
90993442|NCT03238235|181870618|SUPERIORITY||Log Difference of Least Square Means|0.0||||0.5906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.01||Least squares mean is obtained from the mixed effects model for repeated measures with treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction and concomitant steroid use at baseline as fixed effect; baseline value is included as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Axial and proximal motor function (D2) at Visit 11||0.01|-0.01|0.5906
91043325|NCT01525628|181972535|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 66 vs. Day 9 (%)|116.96|STANDARD_DEVIATION|73.1||0.3968|TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.38|181.47|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of BI 208833 at Day 66 vs. Day 9 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 66 vs. Day 9||181.47|75.38|0.3968
90993443|NCT03238235|181870618|SUPERIORITY||Log Difference of Least Square Means|0.0||||0.7799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.01||Least squares mean is obtained from the mixed effects model for repeated measures with treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction and concomitant steroid use at baseline as fixed effect; baseline value is included as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Distal motor function (D3) at Visit 11||0.01|-0.01|0.7799
90993444|NCT03238235|181870618|SUPERIORITY||Log Difference of Least Square Means|0.01||||0.1116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.03||Least squares mean is obtained from the mixed effects model for repeated measures with treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction and concomitant steroid use at baseline as fixed effect; baseline value is included as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Total Score at Visit 11||0.03|-0.00|0.1116
90993445|NCT03238235|181870619|SUPERIORITY||Log Difference of Least Square Means|-0.07||||0.4346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.1||Least squares mean is obtained from the mixed effects model for repeated measures with treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction and concomitant steroid use at baseline as fixed effect; baseline value is included as a covariate|Mixed Models Analysis|||Time to Walk/Run 10 meters at Visit 11||0.10|-0.23|0.4346
90993446|NCT03238235|181870620|SUPERIORITY||Log Difference of Least Square Means|-0.02||||0.8914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Time to climb 4 standard steps (sec) at visit 11||0.28|-0.32|0.8914
90993447|NCT03238235|181870621|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|0.62||||0.7629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.51|4.75||Least squares mean is obtained from the mixed effects model for repeated measures with treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction and concomitant steroid use at baseline as fixed effect; baseline value is included as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Time to rise from floor at Visit 11||4.75|-3.51|0.7629
90993448|NCT03238235|181870622|SUPERIORITY||Log Difference of Least Square Means|-0.01||||0.8106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.08||Least squares mean is obtained from the mixed effects model for repeated measures with treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction and concomitant steroid use at baseline as fixed effect; baseline value is included as a covariate|Mixed Models Analysis|||Maximum distance walked after 6 minutes at Visit 11||0.08|-0.11|0.8106
90993449|NCT03238235|181870623|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1626||||||P-value is obtained from the two-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-squared test, stratified for concomitant steroid use at baseline|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||\<10% worsening at visit 11||||0.1626
90993450|NCT03238235|181870626|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|3.57||||0.5099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.27|14.41||Least squares mean is obtained from the mixed effects model for repeated measures with treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction and concomitant steroid use at baseline as fixed effect; baseline value is included as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Left Knee Extension (N) at Visit 11||14.41|-7.27|0.5099
90993451|NCT03238235|181870626|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|1.16||||0.7355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.73|8.06||Least squares mean is obtained from the mixed effects model for repeated measures with treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction and concomitant steroid use at baseline as fixed effect; baseline value is included as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Right Knee Extension (N) at Visit 11||8.06|-5.73|0.7355
90993452|NCT03238235|181870626|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|3.92||||0.6037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.22|19.06||Least squares mean is obtained from the mixed effects model for repeated measures with treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction and concomitant steroid use at baseline as fixed effect; baseline value is included as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Left Elbow Flexion (N) at Visit 11||19.06|-11.22|0.6037
90993453|NCT03238235|181870626|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|4.1||||0.6178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.35|20.55||Least squares mean is obtained from the mixed effects model for repeated measures with treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction and concomitant steroid use at baseline as fixed effect; baseline value is included as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Right Elbow Flexion (N) at Visit 11||20.55|-12.35|0.6178
90993454|NCT03238235|181870629|SUPERIORITY||log difference of Least Square Means|-0.03||||0.1165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.01||ANCOVA model was performed considering baseline fat fraction of lower limb muscles value as covariate and treatment and concomitant steroids use at baseline as independent class variables|ANCOVA|||Medial Thigh at visit 11||0.01|-0.06|0.1165
90993455|NCT03238235|181870630|SUPERIORITY||Log difference of Least Square Means|0.05||||0.1939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.12||ANCOVA model was performed considering baseline CSA as covariate and treatment and concomitant steroids use at baseline as independent class variables|ANCOVA|||Hamstrings at Visit 11||0.12|-0.02|0.1939
90993456|NCT03238235|181870631|SUPERIORITY||Log difference of Least Square Means|0.01||||0.9493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.3||ANCOVA model was performed considering baseline biopsy histological parameters (slide III) value as covariate, treatment and concomitant steroids use at baseline as independent class variables|ANCOVA|||CSA Type I||0.30|-0.29|0.9493
90993457|NCT03238235|181870632|SUPERIORITY||Log difference of Least Square Means|0.05||||0.6265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.26||ANCOVA model was performed considering baseline biopsy histological parameters (slide I) value as covariate, treatment and concomitant steroids use at baseline as independent class variables|ANCOVA|||Total number of Fibers at Visit 11 (slide I)||0.26|-0.16|0.6265
90993458|NCT03238235|181870632|SUPERIORITY||Log difference of Least Square Means|-0.44||||0.1562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|0.17||ANCOVA model was performed considering baseline biopsy histological parameters (slide II) value as covariate, treatment and concomitant steroids use at baseline as independent class variables|ANCOVA|||Regenerative Fibers (%) at Visit 11||0.17|-1.05|0.1562
90993459|NCT01975935|181870636|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||This is the calculated p value and not the threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
90993460|NCT01975935|181870637|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.38
90993461|NCT01975935|181870638|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.51
90993462|NCT00243230|181870643|SUPERIORITY||VCV 30 mg vs. Placebo|-0.98||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|-0.37|||ANOVA|ANOVA model adjusted for treatment and stratification factors - the use of T20 in current OBT and the baseline HIV-1 RNA ≤100,000 copies/mL.||||-0.37|-1.58|0.0017
90993463|NCT00243230|181870643|SUPERIORITY||VCV 20 mg vs. Placebo|-0.93||||0.0026||95.0|-1.54|-0.33|||ANOVA|ANOVA model adjusted for treatment and stratification factors - the use of T20 in current OBT and the baseline HIV-1 RNA ≤100,000 copies/mL.||||-0.33|-1.54|0.0026
90993464|NCT00243230|181870644|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0052|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel Haenszel Test adjusted for stratification factors of T20 use in current OBT and baseline HIV-1 RNA.||||||0.0052
90993465|NCT00243230|181870644|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel Haenszel Test adjusted for stratification factors of T20 use in current OBT and baseline HIV-1 RNA.||||||0.0190
90993466|NCT00243230|181870645|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0007|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel Haenszel Test adjusted for stratification factors of T20 use in current OBT and baseline HIV-1 RNA.||||||0.0007
90993467|NCT00243230|181870645|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0028|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel Haenszel Test adjusted for stratification factors of T20 use in current OBT and baseline HIV-1 RNA.||||||0.0028
90993468|NCT00243230|181870647|SUPERIORITY||Vicriviroc 30mg - Placebo|-1.0||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|-0.48|||ANOVA|ANOVA model adjusted for treatment and stratification factors - the use of T20 in current OBT and the baseline HIV-1 RNA ≤100,000 copies/mL.||||-0.48|-1.53|0.0002
90993469|NCT00243230|181870647|SUPERIORITY||Vicriviroc 20 mg - Placebo|-0.84||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|-0.31|||ANOVA|ANOVA model adjusted for treatment and stratification factors - the use of T20 in current OBT and the baseline HIV-1 RNA ≤100,000 copies/mL.||||-0.31|-1.36|0.0020
90993470|NCT00243230|181870648|SUPERIORITY||Vicriviroc 30 mg - Placebo|-1.1||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|-0.51|||ANOVA|ANOVA model adjusted for treatment and stratification factors - the use of T20 in current OBT and the baseline HIV-1 RNA \<=100,000 copies/mL.||||-0.51|-1.69|0.0003
90993471|NCT00243230|181870648|SUPERIORITY||Vicriviroc 20 mg - Placebo|-1.07||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|-0.49|||ANOVA|ANOVA model adjusted for treatment and stratification factors - the use of T20 in current OBT and the baseline HIV-1 RNA \<=100,000 copies/mL.||||-0.49|-1.66|0.0004
90993472|NCT00243230|181870649|SUPERIORITY||VCV 30 mg - Placebo|57.76||||0.0264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|108.61|||ANOVA|ANOVA model adjusted for treatment and stratification factors - the use of T20 in current OBT and the baseline HIV-1 RNA ≤100,000 copies/mL.||||108.61|6.90|0.0264
90993473|NCT00243230|181870649|SUPERIORITY||VCV 20 mg - Placebo|42.36||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.55|93.28|||ANOVA|ANOVA model adjusted for treatment and stratification factors - the use of T20 in current OBT and the baseline HIV-1 RNA ≤100,000 copies/mL.||||93.28|-8.55|0.1020
90993474|NCT00243230|181870650|SUPERIORITY||VCV 30 mg - Placebo|38.12||||0.1525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.32|90.56|||ANOVA|ANOVA model adjusted for treatment and stratification factors - the use of T20 in current OBT and the baseline HIV-1 RNA ≤100,000 copies/mL.||||90.56|-14.32|0.1525
90993475|NCT00243230|181870650|SUPERIORITY||VCV 20 mg - Placebo|44.12||||0.0987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.38|96.61|||ANOVA|ANOVA model adjusted for treatment and stratification factors - the use of T20 in current OBT and the baseline HIV-1 RNA ≤100,000 copies/mL.||||96.61|-8.38|0.0987
90993476|NCT00243230|181870651|SUPERIORITY||VCV 30 mg - Placebo|37.32||||0.2603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.05|102.68|||ANOVA|ANOVA model adjusted for treatment and stratification factors - the use of T20 in current OBT and the baseline HIV-1 RNA ≤100,000 copies/mL.||||102.68|-28.05|0.2603
90993477|NCT00243230|181870651|SUPERIORITY||VCV 20 mg - Placebo|69.08||||0.0387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.64|134.52|||ANOVA|ANOVA model adjusted for treatment and stratification factors - the use of T20 in current OBT and the baseline HIV-1 RNA ≤100,000 copies/mL.||||134.52|3.64|0.0387
90993478|NCT00243230|181870653|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0031|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel Haenszel Test adjusted for stratification factors of T20 use in current OBT and baseline HIV-1 RNA.||||||0.0031
90993479|NCT00243230|181870653|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.048|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel Haenszel Test adjusted for stratification factors of T20 use in current OBT and baseline HIV-1 RNA.||||||0.0480
90993480|NCT00243230|181870654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0009|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel Haenszel Test adjusted for stratification factors of T20 use in current OBT and baseline HIV-1 RNA.||||||0.0009
90993481|NCT00243230|181870654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0009|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel Haenszel Test adjusted for stratification factors of T20 use in current OBT and baseline HIV-1 RNA.||||||0.0009
90993482|NCT00243230|181870656|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0225|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel Haenszel Test adjusted for stratification factors of T20 use in current OBT and baseline HIV-1 RNA.||||||0.0225
90993483|NCT00243230|181870656|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0582|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel Haenszel Test adjusted for stratification factors of T20 use in current OBT and baseline HIV-1 RNA.||||||0.0582
90993484|NCT00243230|181870657|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0009|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel Haenszel Test adjusted for stratification factors of T20 use in current OBT and baseline HIV-1 RNA.||||||0.0009
90993485|NCT00243230|181870657|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0038|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel Haenszel Test adjusted for stratification factors of T20 use in current OBT and baseline HIV-1 RNA.||||||0.0038
90993486|NCT00243230|181870658|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel Haenszel Test adjusted for stratification factors of T20 use in current OBT and baseline HIV-1 RNA.||||||0.0002
90993487|NCT00243230|181870658|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel Haenszel Test adjusted for stratification factors of T20 use in current OBT and baseline HIV-1 RNA.||||||0.0004
90993488|NCT00471445|181870681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.174|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.548|0.201|||ANCOVA|||Tested at the two-sided 0.05 significance level.||0.201|-0.548|0.363
90993489|NCT00961662|181870820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The HbA1c percent change at each study visit was calculated and then categorized as a binary response (i.e., responders and non-responders) for each subject based on the breakpoint to be used in the endpoint. Inferential statistics were prepared to compare the differences across the three treatments a using logistic regression model with the dose group and the HbA1c stratum included in the mode||||<0.05
90993490|NCT01042613|181870826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of the Binomial Proportions|0.02||||0.851||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||.851
90993491|NCT01042613|181870827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22||||0.105||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.105
90993492|NCT01042613|181870828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.8||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.8
90993493|NCT02064205|181870843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1000.0||0.2918|ONE_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed model was applied to analyze the Energy Intakes (ad libitum lunch and daily) were done one-sided to evaluate the appetite suppressive effect after the pre-load snack (condition C versus D)||||0.2918
90993494|NCT02064205|181870844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0109|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUC of hunger scores before preload intake for condition C versus D.||||0.0109
90993495|NCT02064205|181870845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0216||||||GLP-1|Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed model was applied to statistically analyze satiety hormones having Conditions and Time as a fixed factor and having Subject, Cohort, and Treatment Day as random factors.||||0.0216
90993496|NCT00831441|181870862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.5094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.11|||Cox proportional hazard models|||A test of superiority at the one-sided α = 0.025 significance level for the primary efficacy outcome was performed.||1.11|0.80|0.5094
90993497|NCT00831441|181870863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.6702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.26|||Cox proportional hazard models|||||1.26|0.70|0.6702
90993498|NCT00831441|181870864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.6311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.4|||Cox proportional hazard models|||||1.40|0.57|0.6311
90993499|NCT00831441|181870865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.5086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.14|||Cox proportional hazard models|||||1.14|0.76|0.5086
90993500|NCT00831441|181870866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.1502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.12|||Cox proportional hazard models|||||1.12|0.47|0.1502
90993501|NCT00831441|181870867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.4317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.09|||Cox proportional hazard models|||||1.09|0.82|0.4317
90993502|NCT00831441|181870868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.8015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.15|||Cox proportional hazard models|||||1.15|0.83|0.8015
90993503|NCT00831441|181870869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.8948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.15|||Cox proportional hazard models|||||1.15|0.85|0.8948
90993504|NCT00831441|181870870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.59||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|4.46|||Cox Proportional Hazard model|||A point estimate and two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for relative risk, as measured by the hazard ratio and a p-value for the test of equality of rates (HR = 1) was calculated.||4.46|1.50|0.0006
90993505|NCT00831441|181870871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.48|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|3.58|||Cox Proportional Hazard model|||||3.58|1.72|<0.0001
90993506|NCT00831441|181870872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.87|3.72|||Cox Proportional Hazard model|||||3.72|1.87|<0.0001
90993507|NCT00831441|181870873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.36|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.06|2.7|||Cox Proportional Hazard model|||||2.70|2.06|<0.0001
90993508|NCT01640925|181870879|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The number of patients needed to achieve 80% power was estimated at 171 using Cox proportional hazards regression (hazard ratio reduction of 0.66; 0.15 probability of infection with control) using a two-sided 5% significance.|Cox Proportional Hazard|0.555||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.309|0.998|||Regression, Cox||Hypothesis: Compared to soap and water daily bathing, 2% chlorhexidine gluconate bathing on ICU admission and every 48 hours during surgical ICU care will decrease the risk of acquiring four hospital-acquired infections in surgical ICU patients.|||0.998|0.309|0.049
90993509|NCT00485589|181870908|NON_INFERIORITY|Pre-specified analysis||||||0.001|||||||Van Elteren's test|||||||0.001
90993510|NCT00485589|181870908|NON_INFERIORITY|Pre-specified analysis||||||0.0033|||||||Van Elteren's test|||||||0.0033
90993511|NCT02924688|181870918|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.096|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0222|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.052|0.139||p-value was calculated using MMRM with covariates of treatment, age, sex, region, Baseline value, pre-study inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) dosage at screening, and visit, interaction terms for Baseline value by visit and treatment by visit.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||0.139|0.052|<0.001
91043326|NCT01525628|181972536|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 17 vs. Day 9 (%)|408.66|STANDARD_DEVIATION|45.9||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|315.15|529.9|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of BI CD 6168 at Day 17 vs. Day 9 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 17 vs. Day 9||529.90|315.15|1.0000
91043327|NCT01525628|181972536|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 66 vs. Day 9 (%)|301.19|STANDARD_DEVIATION|62.1||0.9993|TWO_SIDED|90.0|204.61|443.35|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of BI CD 6168 at Day 66 vs. Day 9 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 66 vs. Day 9||443.35|204.61|0.9993
90993512|NCT02924688|181870918|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0221|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.066|0.153||p-value was calculated using MMRM with covariates of treatment, age, sex, region, Baseline value, pre-study ICS dosage at screening, and visit, interaction terms for Baseline value by visit and treatment by visit.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||0.153|0.066|<0.001
90993513|NCT02924688|181870918|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.082|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0221|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.039|0.125||p-value was calculated using MMRM with covariates of treatment, age, sex, region, Baseline value, pre-study ICS dosage at screening, and visit, interaction terms for Baseline value by visit and treatment by visit.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||0.125|0.039|<0.001
90993514|NCT02924688|181870918|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.092|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.049|0.135||p-value was calculated using MMRM with covariates of treatment, age, sex, region, Baseline value, pre-study ICS dosage at screening, and visit, interaction terms for Baseline value by visit and treatment by visit.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||0.135|0.049|<0.001
90993515|NCT02924688|181870919|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.97||||0.778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.17||p-value was calculated using Generalized linear model with covariates for age, sex, region, treatment group, stratification by pre-study ICS dosage at screening, and severe asthma exacerbations in the previous year (0, 1, \>=2).|Negative Binomial Model||Treatment policy estimand was assessed, including all on- and post-treatment data.|||1.17|0.81|0.778
90993516|NCT02924688|181870919|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.87||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.05||p-value was calculated using Generalized linear model with covariates for age, sex, region, treatment group, stratification by pre-study ICS dosage at screening, and severe asthma exacerbations in the previous year (0, 1, \>=2).|Negative Binomial Model||Treatment policy estimand was assessed, including all on- and post-treatment data.|||1.05|0.72|0.151
90993517|NCT02924688|181870920|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.088|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0226|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.044|0.132||p-value was calculated using Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) with covariates of treatment, age, sex, region, Baseline value, and pre-study ICS dosage at screening.|ANCOVA|||||0.132|0.044|<0.001
90993518|NCT02924688|181870920|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.111|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0225|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.067|0.155||p-value was calculated using ANCOVA with covariates of treatment, age, sex, region, Baseline value, and pre-study ICS dosage at screening.|ANCOVA|||||0.155|0.067|<0.001
90993519|NCT02924688|181870920|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.088|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0225|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.044|0.132||p-value was calculated using ANCOVA with covariates of treatment, age, sex, region, Baseline value, and pre-study ICS dosage at screening.|ANCOVA|||||0.132|0.044|<0.001
90993520|NCT02924688|181870920|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0224|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.074|0.162||p-value was calculated using ANCOVA with covariates of treatment, age, sex, region, Baseline value, and pre-study ICS dosage at screening.|ANCOVA|||||0.162|0.074|<0.001
90993521|NCT02924688|181870921|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.057|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.124|0.01||p-value was calculated using MMRM with covariates of treatment, age, sex, region, Baseline value, pre-study ICS dosage at screening, and visit, interaction terms for Baseline value by visit and treatment by visit.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||0.010|-0.124|0.094
90993522|NCT02924688|181870921|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.089|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0338||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.156|-0.023||p-value was calculated using MMRM with covariates of treatment, age, sex, region, Baseline value, pre-study ICS dosage at screening, and visit, interaction terms for Baseline value by visit and treatment by visit.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||-0.023|-0.156|0.008
90993523|NCT02924688|181870922|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.697||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|2.47||p-value was calculated using MMRM with covariates of treatment, age, sex, region, Baseline value, pre-study ICS dosage at screening, and visit, interaction terms for Baseline value by visit and treatment by visit.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||2.47|-0.27|0.115
90993524|NCT02924688|181870922|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.692||0.662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|1.05||p-value was calculated using MMRM with covariates of treatment, age, sex, region, Baseline value, pre-study ICS dosage at screening, and visit, interaction terms for Baseline value by visit and treatment by visit.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||1.05|-1.66|0.662
90993525|NCT02924688|181870923|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.185||0.479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.23||p-value was calculated using MMRM with covariates of treatment, age, sex, region, Baseline value, pre-study ICS dosage at screening, and 4-weekly period, interaction terms for Baseline value by 4-weekly period and treatment by 4-weekly period.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||0.23|-0.49|0.479
90993526|NCT02924688|181870923|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.184||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.06||p-value was calculated using MMRM with covariates of treatment, age, sex, region, Baseline value, pre-study ICS dosage at screening, and 4-weekly period, interaction terms for Baseline value by 4-weekly period and treatment by 4-weekly period.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||-0.06|-0.78|0.023
90993527|NCT02924688|181870926|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.4||p-value was calculated using MMRM with covariates of treatment, age, sex, region, Baseline value, pre-study ICS dosage at screening, and visit, interaction terms for Baseline value by visit and treatment by visit.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Comparison for SBP|||0.4|-2.5|0.172
90993528|NCT02924688|181870926|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.9||p-value was calculated using MMRM with covariates of treatment, age, sex, region, Baseline value, pre-study ICS dosage at screening, and visit, interaction terms for Baseline value by visit and treatment by visit.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Comparison for SBP|||0.9|-2.0|0.436
90993529|NCT02924688|181870926|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|2.1||p-value was calculated using MMRM with covariates of treatment, age, sex, region, Baseline value, pre-study ICS dosage at screening, and visit, interaction terms for Baseline value by visit and treatment by visit.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Comparison for SBP|||2.1|-0.9|0.426
90993530|NCT02924688|181870926|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|2.2||p-value was calculated using MMRM with covariates of treatment, age, sex, region, Baseline value, pre-study ICS dosage at screening, and visit, interaction terms for Baseline value by visit and treatment by visit.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Comparison for SBP|||2.2|-0.8|0.349
90993531|NCT02924688|181870926|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.7||p-value was calculated using MMRM with covariates of treatment, age, sex, region, Baseline value, pre-study ICS dosage at screening, and visit, interaction terms for Baseline value by visit and treatment by visit.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Comparison for DBP|||0.7|-1.5|0.482
90993532|NCT02924688|181870926|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.9||p-value was calculated using MMRM with covariates of treatment, age, sex, region, Baseline value, pre-study ICS dosage at screening, and visit, interaction terms for Baseline value by visit and treatment by visit.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Comparison for DBP|||1.9|-0.3|0.142
90993533|NCT02924688|181870926|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.0||p-value was calculated using MMRM with covariates of treatment, age, sex, region, Baseline value, pre-study ICS dosage at screening, and visit, interaction terms for Baseline value by visit and treatment by visit.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Comparison for DBP|||1.0|-1.2|0.806
90993534|NCT02924688|181870926|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.5||p-value was calculated using MMRM with covariates of treatment, age, sex, region, Baseline value, pre-study ICS dosage at screening, and visit, interaction terms for Baseline value by visit and treatment by visit.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Comparison for DBP|||1.5|-0.7|0.447
90993535|NCT02924688|181870927|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.5||p-value was calculated using MMRM with covariates of treatment, age, sex, region, Baseline value, pre-study ICS dosage at screening, and visit, interaction terms for Baseline value by visit and treatment by visit.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||2.5|0.1|0.034
90993536|NCT02924688|181870927|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.3||p-value was calculated using MMRM with covariates of treatment, age, sex, region, Baseline value, pre-study ICS dosage at screening, and visit, interaction terms for Baseline value by visit and treatment by visit.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||1.3|-1.1|0.839
91043328|NCT01525628|181972537|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 17 vs. Day 9 (%)|450.51|STANDARD_DEVIATION|48.0||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|343.67|590.57|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of BI CD 6168 at Day 17 vs. Day 9 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 17 vs. Day 9||590.57|343.67|1.0000
90993537|NCT02924688|181870927|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.6||p-value was calculated using MMRM with covariates of treatment, age, sex, region, Baseline value, pre-study ICS dosage at screening, and visit, interaction terms for Baseline value by visit and treatment by visit.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||0.6|-1.8|0.349
91043329|NCT01525628|181972537|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 66 vs. Day 9 (%)|341.96|STANDARD_DEVIATION|61.1||0.9996|TWO_SIDED|90.0|229.22|510.13|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of BI CD 6168 at Day 66 vs. Day 9 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 66 vs. Day 9||510.13|229.22|0.9996
90993538|NCT02924688|181870927|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.4||p-value was calculated using MMRM with covariates of treatment, age, sex, region, Baseline value, pre-study ICS dosage at screening, and visit, interaction terms for Baseline value by visit and treatment by visit.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||1.4|-1.0|0.768
90993539|NCT03072719|181870932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square (LS) mean difference|-0.19||||0.1774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.09||From ANCOVA model: Treatment as fixed factor, baseline Schiff Sensitivity score as covariate.|ANCOVA||Difference is 0.454% stannous fluoride minus 0.76% sodium monofluorophosphate such that a negative difference favours first named treatment.|"H0 : The difference in Schiff Sensitivity Score at Day 14 between the experimental dentifrice and reference dentifrice is zero.~H1 : The difference in Schiff Sensitivity Score at Day 14 between the experimental dentifrice and reference dentifrice is not zero."||0.09|-0.46|0.1774
90993540|NCT01205451|181870945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||t-distribution|-1.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|-1.04||The P-value for change from Baseline indicates the comparision of the Week 6 value against the Baseline value.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Confidence intervals for means were based on the t-distribution.|||-1.04|-1.38|<0.0001
90993541|NCT01205451|181870945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||t-distribution|-1.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|-1.12||The P-value for change from Baseline indicates the comparision of the Week 6 value against the Baseline value.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Confidence intervals for means were based on the t-distribution.|||-1.12|-1.54|<0.0001
90993542|NCT01205451|181870945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||t-distribution|-0.88|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|-0.72||The P-value for change from Baseline indicates the comparision of the Week 12 value against the Baseline value.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Confidence intervals for means were based on the t-distribution.|||-0.72|-1.04|<0.0001
90993543|NCT01205451|181870945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||t-distribution|-1.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.91||The P-value for change from Baseline indicates the comparision of the Week 12 value against the Baseline value.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Confidence intervals for means were based on the t-distribution.|||-0.91|-1.33|<0.0001
90993544|NCT03607838|181871028|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.35||0.0263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|-0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.9|-14.1|0.0263
90993545|NCT03607838|181871029|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4||0.0558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|0.2||To control family-wise error rate for multiple tests of the primary and key secondary endpoints, serial gatekeeping testing algorithm was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.2|-13.2|0.0558
90993546|NCT03607838|181871030|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.24||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.7|4.2||To control family-wise error rate for multiple tests of the primary and key secondary endpoints, serial gatekeeping testing algorithm was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.2|-55.7|0.0920
90993547|NCT03607838|181871031|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.95||0.0336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|-0.3||To control family-wise error rate for multiple tests of the primary and key secondary endpoints, serial gatekeeping testing algorithm was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.3|-8.0|0.0336
90993548|NCT00798694|181871042|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Null Hypothesis: There is no significant difference in tear break-up time between the group New to Meds and the group Currently on Xalatan at two months."||||0.005
90993549|NCT03709810|181871048|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.3|||ANOVA|Log10 peanuts mass as response variable, study product and period as fixed explanatory effects, and participant as a random effect.|GMR=(Experimental denture adhesive/ No Adhesive)|||0.30|0.12|<0.0001
90993550|NCT02665364|181871140|SUPERIORITY||arithmetic mean|-30.2802|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.2588|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.6653|-19.8951|||ANCOVA|||The percent of change from baseline to last available value between W24 and W36 of treatment in the expression of IFN-induced genes was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model.||-19.8951|-40.6653|< 0.0001
90993551|NCT02665364|181871141|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.716|2.657|||Regression, Logistic|||Descriptive statistics for the response to treatment according to BICLA at week 36 were presented by treatment group. The response to treatment according to BICLA was analyzed using a logistic regression with the response rate as dependent variable and treatment as independent variable, while adjusting for the minimization factors used for randomization.||2.657|0.716|0.34
90993552|NCT02665364|181871142|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.6243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.602|2.329|||Regression, Logistic|||The SRI-4 response was analyzed using a logistic regression using the response rate as dependent variable and treatment as independent variable, while adjusting for the minimization factors used for randomization.||2.329|0.602|0.6243
90993553|NCT02665364|181871143|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0022|||||||Pearson's Chi-squared|||||||0.0022
90993554|NCT02665364|181871144|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7946|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline to last available value between W24 and W36||||0.7946
90993555|NCT02665364|181871145|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9224|||||||student - pooled|||||||0.9224
90993556|NCT02665364|181871146|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3258|||||||student - pooled|||||||0.3258
90993557|NCT02665364|181871147|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6169|||||||Student - Satterthwaite|||||||0.6169
90993558|NCT02665364|181871148|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.81||||0.0796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.932|3.524|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.524|0.932|0.0796
90993559|NCT02665364|181871149|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.83||||0.0762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.938|3.574|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.574|0.938|0.0762
90993560|NCT02665364|181871152|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0097|||||||Student - Satterthwaite|||||||0.0097
90993561|NCT02665364|181871153|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0425|||||||Pearson's Chi-squared|||||||0.0425
90993562|NCT02665364|181871154|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0396|||||||Pearson's Chi-squared|||||||0.0396
90993563|NCT03025217|181871161|OTHER||Cohen's d|0.33||||0.095|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.095
90993564|NCT03025217|181871162|OTHER||Cohen's d|0.75||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.001
90993565|NCT01088438|181871170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|1 degree of freedom||Null hypothesis: proportion of encounters with contextual red flag in which appropriate treatment is planned is the same in the two groups.||||<0.001
90993566|NCT01088438|181871171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|1 degree of freedom||Null hypothesis is equal proportion of contextual red flags probed in control and intervention groups.||||<.001
90993567|NCT01088438|181871172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85||95.0|||||Chi-squared|1 df||Null hypothesis is equal proportion of encounters probed in control and intervention groups.||||0.85
90993568|NCT02724774|181871177|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.026||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p \< .05|Regression, Linear|||All analyses were conducted as intention-to-treat, analyzing all 252 cases as randomly assigned to the PFR and control group (CG). Multiple linear regression was used to examine the treatment effect of PFR (0 = CG, 1 = PFR). Covariates included preferred language (0 = English, 1 = Spanish) and the baseline measure.||||.026
90993569|NCT02724774|181871178|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.154||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p \< .05|Regression, Linear|||||||.154
90993570|NCT02724774|181871179|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.516||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p \< .05|Regression, Linear|||||||.516
90993571|NCT02724774|181871180|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p \< .05|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.001
90993572|NCT02724774|181871181|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.094||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p \< .05|Regression, Linear|||||||0.094
90993573|NCT02724774|181871182|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.029
90993574|NCT02724774|181871183|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.389||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p \< .05|Regression, Linear|||||||.389
90993575|NCT02724774|181871184|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.747||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p \< .05|Regression, Linear|||||||.747
90993576|NCT00441103|181871206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Non-parametric analysis of variance (ANOVA) with effects for treatment and the absence/presence of Gd-enhancing lesions at baseline as factors|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90993577|NCT00441103|181871207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.67|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.33|<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Mean difference was calculated by subtracting 'Day 1 up to Week 16' from 'Week 17 up to Week 40' and analyzed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||||<0.001
90993578|NCT05836818|181871219|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference|25.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.0|33.2|||Regression, Logistic|Mixed effects logistic regression with a random center effect for within-center characteristics, and terms for calendar time and intervention||Adjusted difference 25.1 percentage points||33.2|17|<0.0001
90993579|NCT01627067|181871246|NON_INFERIORITY|The study terminated early due to lack of efficacy and funds only 22 patients were enrolled in the study. With 40 patients accrued at a rate of 2 patients per month, a one-sided alpha of 5%, and a post- accrual follow up of 3 months, we would have 80% power to detect a median PFS of 12 months as being statistically significantly higher than a historical control median PFS of 7 months.|Cox Proportional Hazard|0.25||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.76|||Regression, Cox|||Data for PFS were censored at the time of a patient's removal from study. With 40 patients accrued at a rate of 2 patients per month, a one-sided alpha of 5%, and a post- accrual follow up of 3 months, we would have 80% power to detect a median PFS of 12 months as being statistically significantly higher than a historical control median PFS of 7 months. The study terminated early due to lack of efficacy and funds only 22 patients were enrolled in the study.||0.76|0.08|0.015
90993580|NCT01627067|181871249|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.62|||Regression, Cox|||||1.62|0.22|0.31
90993581|NCT00926796|181871250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion of cured participants|100.0|||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0|98.53||||Exact binomial confidence limit|If the one-sided lower 95% confidence limit is greater than 95%, the null hypothesis of the microbiological efficacy estimate is \<95% is rejected.|When the lower 95% confidence limit is \>=95%, the alternative hypothesis is accepted (i.e., the microbiological cure estimate is significantly \>=95%).|The null hypothesis is that the microbiological efficacy estimate (proportion of participants who are cured) is \<95%.|||98.53|<0.05
91043330|NCT01525628|181972538|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 17 vs. Day 9 (%)|466.92|STANDARD_DEVIATION|47.6||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|357.02|610.66|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of BI CD 6168 at Day 17 vs. Day 9 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 17 vs. Day 9||610.66|357.02|1.0000
90993582|NCT00926796|181871257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion of cured participants|99.5|||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0|97.64||||Exact bionomial confidence limit|If the one-sided lower 95% confidence limit is greater than 95%, the null hypothesis of the microbiological efficacy estimate is \<95% is rejected.|When the lower 95% confidence interval is above 95%, the alternative hypothesis is accepted (i.e., the microbiological cure estimate is significantly \>=95%).|The null hypothesis is that the microbiological efficacy estimate (proportion of participants who are cured) is \<95%.|||97.64|<0.05
90993583|NCT01683071|181871267|SUPERIORITY||LSMD|2.9||||0.9494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-88.0|94.0|||ANCOVA|||||94|-88|0.9494
90993584|NCT01683071|181871267|SUPERIORITY||LSMD|-103.3||||0.0237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-192.0|-14.0|||ANCOVA|||||-14|-192|0.0237
90993585|NCT01683071|181871267|SUPERIORITY||LSMD|-94.3||||0.0386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-184.0|-5.0|||ANCOVA|||||-5|-184|0.0386
90993586|NCT01683071|181871267|SUPERIORITY||LSMD|-96.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-144.0|-49.0|||ANCOVA|||||-49|-144|<0.0001
90993587|NCT01683071|181871268|SUPERIORITY||Geometric LSM ratio|0.9||||0.6182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.3|||ANOVA|||||1.3|0.6|0.6182
90993588|NCT01683071|181871268|SUPERIORITY||Geometric LSM ratio|0.73||||0.1097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.1|||ANOVA|||||1.1|0.5|0.1097
90993589|NCT01683071|181871268|SUPERIORITY||Geometric LSM ratio|0.85||||0.4046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.3|||ANOVA|||||1.3|0.6|0.4046
90993590|NCT01683071|181871268|SUPERIORITY||Geometric LSM ratio|0.74||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.9|||ANOVA|||||0.9|0.6|0.0016
90993591|NCT01708941|181871273|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||Log Rank|||The primary comparison was ipilimumab + HDI versus ipilimumab alone, across ipilimumab dose (Arms A \& C versus Arms B \& D)||||0.490
90993592|NCT01708941|181871274|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.144|||||||Log Rank|||PFS comparison of higher dose ipilimumab versus lower dose ipilimumab (Arms A \& B versus Arms C \& D)||||0.144
90993593|NCT01708941|181871275|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.691|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.691
90993594|NCT01708941|181871276|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.868|||||||Log Rank|||Comparison of higher dose ipilimumab versus lower dose ipilimumab across HDI status (Arms A \& B versus Arms C \& D)||||0.868
90993595|NCT00423735|181871296|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|2-sided test||||||0.99
90993596|NCT01735617|181871301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric means|563.38|STANDARD_DEVIATION|162.51|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||The pharmacokinetic profile was characterised by an overnight rise in cortisol levels reaching a maximal concentration approximately 8 hours post dosing.||||
91043331|NCT01525628|181972538|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 66 vs. Day 9 (%)|298.57|STANDARD_DEVIATION|79.2||0.9972|TWO_SIDED|90.0|187.22|476.15|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of BI CD 6168 at Day 66 vs. Day 9 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 66 vs. Day 9||476.15|187.22|0.9972
91043332|NCT01525628|181972539|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 17 vs. Day 9 (%)|528.95|STANDARD_DEVIATION|42.0||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|415.88|672.75|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of BI CD 6168-ag at Day 17 vs. Day 9 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 17 vs. Day 9||672.75|415.88|1.0000
91043333|NCT01525628|181972539|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 66 vs. Day 9 (%)|384.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|69.2||0.9998|TWO_SIDED|90.0|251.56|586.16|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of BI CD 6168-ag at Day 66 vs. Day 9 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 66 vs. Day 9||586.16|251.56|0.9998
91043334|NCT01525628|181972540|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 17 vs. Day 9 (%)|569.81|STANDARD_DEVIATION|42.2||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|447.49|725.57|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of BI CD 6168-ag at Day 17 vs. Day 9 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 17 vs. Day 9||725.57|447.49|1.0000
91043335|NCT01525628|181972540|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 66 vs. Day 9 (%)|441.89|STANDARD_DEVIATION|66.9||0.9999|TWO_SIDED|90.0|286.81|680.82|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of BI CD 6168-ag at Day 66 vs. Day 9 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 66 vs. Day 9||680.82|286.81|0.9999
91043336|NCT01525628|181972541|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 17 vs. Day 9 (%)|606.29|STANDARD_DEVIATION|44.2||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|471.42|779.74|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of BI CD 6168-ag at Day 17 vs. Day 9 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 17 vs. Day 9||779.74|471.42|1.0000
91043337|NCT01525628|181972541|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 66 vs. Day 9 (%)|377.98|STANDARD_DEVIATION|82.0||0.9994|TWO_SIDED|90.0|233.48|611.91|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of BI CD 6168-ag at Day 66 vs. Day 9 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 66 vs. Day 9||611.91|233.48|0.9994
90993597|NCT04570332|181871335|SUPERIORITY||rate %|25.0|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.69|41.2|||one-sided test for binomial endpoint|||The null hypothesis was H0: ORR=10% (p0) and was tested against H1: ORR\>10% at one-sided 5% significance level. Assuming an effect size of ORR=25% (pA), 40 participants provided a power of at least 80%. The minimal statistically significant ORR was 20%.||41.20|12.69|<0.01
90993598|NCT03943953|181871357|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.86||||0.018|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||This is a comparison between Time 1 and Time 2||||.018
90993599|NCT03943953|181871359|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.88||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||This is a comparison between Time 1 and Time 2||||.001
90993600|NCT03943953|181871361|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.88||||0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||This is a comparison between Time 1 and Time 2||||.006
90993601|NCT03943953|181871363|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.28||||0.035|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||This is a comparison between Time 1 and Time 2||||.035
90993602|NCT03943953|181871365|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.39|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||This is a comparison between Time 1 and Time 2||||.39
90993603|NCT01102218|181871368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
90993604|NCT01940510|181871397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|26.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|23.8|30.1|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameters, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratios (Period 3/Period 1) and confidence intervals.||30.1|23.8|
90993605|NCT01940510|181871398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|48.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|43.5|54.3|||||ANOVA was applied to the log-transformed PK parameters, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratios (Period 3/Period 1) and confidence intervals. The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|||54.3|43.5|
90993606|NCT01940510|181871399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|179.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|158.0|202.0|||||ANOVA was applied to the log-transformed PK parameters, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratios (Period 3/Period 1) and confidence intervals. The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|||202|158|
90993607|NCT01940510|181871400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|220.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|190.0|255.0|||||ANOVA was applied to the log-transformed PK parameters, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratios (Period 3/Period 1) and confidence intervals. The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|||255|190|
90993608|NCT03471767|181871423|SUPERIORITY|Multilevel modeling (MLM) was used to model daily reports of cigarettes smoked as a function of week, treatment (AXS-05 vs. bupropion), and the interaction between week and treatment. The contrast between the two treatment groups in change in smoking intensity from baseline to week 3 was estimated within the context of the model.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.75|-0.65||This was not adjusted for multiple comparisons, because the primary hypothesis was established a-priori.|t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.65|-2.75|0.05
90993609|NCT03471767|181871429|OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.15
90993610|NCT00678587|181871430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Absolute difference in proportions|52.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.2|62.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||62.4|43.2|<0.0001
90993611|NCT00678587|181871431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.1|3.3||||||||3.3|-15.1|
90993612|NCT00678587|181871432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
90993613|NCT01019486|181871462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Independent Student t test between arms with two tailed analysis||||<0.05
90993614|NCT01019486|181871462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Independent Student t test between arms with two tailed analysis.||||<0.05
90993615|NCT01019486|181871462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Independent Student t test between groups with two-tailed analysis||||<0.05
90993616|NCT01019486|181871463|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If sufficient subjects were enrolled then it would be expected that the MRI measurement of myocardial blood flow MBF would similar or equivalent to the invasively measured CFR in response to intravenous regadenoson administration.|None insufficient data|2.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||No analysis was performed due to limited data.||||0.05
90993617|NCT01019486|181871464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between groups using a two-tailed Student t test||||<.05
90993618|NCT02951988|181871477|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5305|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.5305
90993619|NCT02951988|181871477|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4628|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.4628
90993620|NCT02951988|181871478|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6153|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.6153
90993621|NCT02951988|181871478|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4123|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.4123
90993622|NCT00516269|181871487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mean difference in treat versus control|0.42|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.3||0.54||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||As a crossover study, the potential carryover effect was examined first. The pooled data (the 2-week treatment for each intervention i.e. period 1 \& period 2) was used to assess the treatment effect (A versus B).||||0.54
90993623|NCT04570657|181871492|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.036||||0.267|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.038|0.111||One-sided p-value|MMRM||Tozorakimab Dose A - Placebo|||0.111|-0.038|0.267
90993624|NCT04570657|181871492|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.004||||0.473|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.071|0.079||One-sided p-value|MMRM||Tozorakimab Dose B - Placebo|||0.079|-0.071|0.473
90993625|NCT04570657|181871493|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.012||||0.437|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.11|0.086||One-sided p-value|MMRM||Week 8: Tozorakimab Dose A - Placebo|||0.086|-0.110|0.437
90993626|NCT04570657|181871493|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.059||||0.221|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.039|0.157||One-sided p-value|MMRM||Week 8: Tozorakimab Dose B - Placebo|||0.157|-0.039|0.221
90993627|NCT04570657|181871493|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.038||||0.308|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.136|0.06||One-sided p-value|MMRM||Week 16: Tozorakimab Dose A - Placebo|||0.060|-0.136|0.308
90993628|NCT04570657|181871493|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.025||||0.372|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.122|0.072||One-sided p-value|MMRM||Week 16: Tozorakimab Dose B - Placebo|||0.072|-0.122|0.372
90993629|NCT04570657|181871496|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.03||||0.416|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.215|0.154||One-sided p-value|MMRM||Tozorakimab Dose A - Placebo|||0.154|-0.215|0.416
90993630|NCT04570657|181871496|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.047||||0.371|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.231|0.137||One-sided p-value|MMRM||Tozorakimab Dose B - Placebo|||0.137|-0.231|0.371
90993631|NCT04570657|181871497|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.612|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.76|1.9|||Chi-squared|||||1.90|0.76|0.612
90993632|NCT04570657|181871497|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.348|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.88|2.25|||Chi-squared|||||2.25|0.88|0.348
90993633|NCT04570657|181871498|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.575|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.5|1.31|||Chi-squared|||||1.31|0.50|0.575
90993634|NCT04570657|181871498|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.679|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.53|1.38|||Chi-squared|||||1.38|0.53|0.679
90993635|NCT04570657|181871499|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.002||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.825|3.828||One-sided p-value|MMRM||SGRQ Activity Total Score: Tozorakimab Dose A - Placebo|||3.828|-3.825|0.500
90993636|NCT04570657|181871499|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.364||||0.324|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.198|2.47||One-sided p-value|MMRM||SGRQ Activity Total Score: Tozorakimab Dose B - Placebo|||2.470|-5.198|0.324
90993637|NCT04570657|181871499|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.421||||0.248|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.103|1.26||One-sided p-value|MMRM||SGRQ Impacts Total Score: Tozorakimab Dose A - Placebo|||1.260|-4.103|0.248
90993638|NCT04570657|181871499|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.694||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.383|0.996||One-sided p-value|MMRM||SGRQ Impacts Total Score: Tozorakimab Dose B - Placebo|||0.996|-4.383|0.210
90993639|NCT04570657|181871499|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.691||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.715|5.096||One-sided p-value|MMRM||SGRQ Symptoms Total Score: Tozorakimab Dose A - Placebo|||5.096|-3.715|0.420
90993640|NCT04570657|181871499|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.15||||0.181|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-7.579|1.28||One-sided p-value|MMRM||SGRQ Symptoms Total Score: Tozorakimab Dose B - Placebo|||1.280|-7.579|0.181
90993641|NCT04570657|181871499|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.663||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.454|2.129||One-sided p-value|MMRM||SGRQ Total Score: Tozorakimab Dose A - Placebo|||2.129|-3.454|0.380
90993642|NCT04570657|181871499|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.896||||0.192|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.694|0.903||One-sided p-value|MMRM||SGRQ Total Score: Tozorakimab Dose B - Placebo|||0.903|-4.694|0.192
90993643|NCT04570657|181871500|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.828|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.59|1.46|||Chi-squared|||||1.46|0.59|0.828
90993644|NCT04570657|181871500|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.68|1.7|||Chi-squared|||||1.70|0.68|0.840
90993645|NCT04570657|181871501|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3||||0.239|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.8|2.0||One-sided p-value|Regression, Cox|Cox regression model with treatment group, background medication, geographic region, and ICS total daily dose as covariates.||||2.0|0.8|0.239
90993646|NCT04570657|181871501|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.461|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.6|1.7||One-sided p-value|Regression, Cox|Cox regression model with treatment group, background medication, geographic region, and ICS total daily dose as covariates.||||1.7|0.6|0.461
90993647|NCT04570657|181871502|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.87||||0.346|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.56|1.36||One-sided p-value|Negative binomial regression|||||1.36|0.56|0.346
90993648|NCT04570657|181871502|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.7||||0.166|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.43|1.12||One-sided p-value|Negative binomial regression|||||1.12|0.43|0.166
90993649|NCT04570657|181871503|SUPERIORITY||Geometric LS mean ratio|0.869||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.791|0.956||One-sided p-value|MMRM|||||0.956|0.791|0.029
90993650|NCT04570657|181871503|SUPERIORITY||Geometric LS mean ratio|0.879||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.8|0.966||One-sided p-value|MMRM|||||0.966|0.800|0.040
90993651|NCT04570657|181871504|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.023||||0.385|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.078|0.124||One-sided p-value; alpha = 0.1|MMRM||Tozorakimab Dose A - Placebo|1 Exacerbation in Last 12 Months||0.124|-0.078|0.385
90993652|NCT04570657|181871504|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.123||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.224|-0.022||One-sided p-value; alpha = 0.1|MMRM||Tozorakimab Dose B - Placebo|1 Exacerbation in Last 12 Months||-0.022|-0.224|0.060
90993653|NCT04570657|181871504|SUPERIORITY||LS mean Difference|0.077||||0.186|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.034|0.187||One-sided p-value; alpha = 0.1|MMRM||Tozorakimab Dose A - Placebo|≥ 2 Exacerbation in Last 12 Months||0.187|-0.034|0.186
90993654|NCT04570657|181871504|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.212||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.102|0.322||One-sided p-value; alpha = 0.1|MMRM||Tozorakimab Dose B - Placebo|≥ 2 Exacerbation in Last 12 Months||0.322|0.102|0.007
90993655|NCT04570657|181871505|SUPERIORITY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.559|0.71||One-sided p-value|MMRM|||Analysis at Week 16 based on MMRM which included fixed effects for baseline, background medication, geographic region, baseline ICS total daily dose, visit, treatment and the baseline by visit and treatment by visit interactions.||0.710|0.559|< 0.001
90993656|NCT04570657|181871505|SUPERIORITY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.675|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.599|0.76||One-sided p-value|MMRM|||Analysis at Week 16 based on MMRM which included fixed effects for baseline, background medication, geographic region, baseline ICS total daily dose, visit, treatment and the baseline by visit and treatment by visit interactions.||0.760|0.599|< 0.001
90993657|NCT01079962|181871506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.701||||0.5943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|3.29||No adjustment of p-value was done and priori threshold was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change in APP at Week 12: p-value was calculated by 2 sided t-test.||3.29|-1.89|0.5943
90993658|NCT01079962|181871507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8589||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in SBP at Week 4: p-value was calculated by 2 sided t-test.||||0.8589
90993659|NCT01079962|181871507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2223||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in SBP at Week 12: p-value was calculated by 2 sided t-test.||||0.2223
90993660|NCT01079962|181871507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2443||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in DBP at Week 4: p-value was calculated by 2 sided t-test.||||0.2443
90993661|NCT01079962|181871507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1481||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in DBP at Week 12: p-value was calculated by 2 sided t-test.||||0.1481
90993662|NCT01079962|181871507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4188||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in mean BP at Week 4: p-value was calculated by 2 sided t-test.||||0.4188
90993663|NCT01079962|181871507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1586||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in mean BP at Week 12: p-value was calculated by 2 sided t-test.||||0.1586
90993664|NCT01079962|181871508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2987||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in AIx at Week 4: p-value was calculated by 2 sided t-test.||||0.2987
90993665|NCT01079962|181871508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6584||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in AIx at Week 12: p-value was calculated by 2 sided t-test.||||0.6584
91043338|NCT01525628|181972542|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 9 vs. Day 1 (%)|97.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|30.8||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.0|117.69|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of caffeine at Day 9 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 9 vs. Day 1||117.69|80.00|0.0500
91043339|NCT01525628|181972542|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 17 vs. Day 1 (%)|97.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|31.2||0.0564|TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.37|118.79|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of caffeine at Day 17 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 17 vs. Day 1||118.79|79.37|0.0564
90993666|NCT01079962|181871509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2511||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in cfPWV at Week 4: p-value was calculated by 2 sided t-test.||||0.2511
90993667|NCT01079962|181871509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5007||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in cfPWV at Week 12: p-value was calculated by 2 sided t-test.||||0.5007
90993668|NCT01079962|181871510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9943||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in heart rate at Week 4: p-value was calculated by 2 sided t-test.||||0.9943
90993669|NCT01079962|181871510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.523||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in heart rate at Week 12: p-value was calculated by 2 sided t-test.||||0.5230
90993670|NCT01079962|181871511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4447||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4447
90993671|NCT01079962|181871512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.396||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in Total cholesterol at Week 12: p-value was calculated by 2 sided t-test.||||0.3960
91043340|NCT01525628|181972542|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 66 vs. Day 1 (%)|114.38|STANDARD_DEVIATION|31.9||0.2375|TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.36|141.66|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of caffeine at Day 66 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 66 vs. Day 1||141.66|92.36|0.2375
90993672|NCT01079962|181871512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1919||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in LDL-cholesterol at Week 12: p-value was calculated by 2 sided t-test.||||0.1919
90993673|NCT01079962|181871512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1896||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in HDL-cholesterol at Week 12: p-value was calculated by 2 sided t-test.||||0.1896
90993674|NCT01079962|181871513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9244||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9244
90993675|NCT01079962|181871514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9692||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in SBP at Week 4: p-value was calculated by 2 sided t-test.||||0.9692
90993676|NCT01079962|181871514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4731||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in SBP at Week 12: p-value was calculated by 2 sided t-test.||||0.4731
90993677|NCT01079962|181871514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2876||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in DBP at Week 4: p-value was calculated by 2 sided t-test.||||0.2876
90993678|NCT01079962|181871514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.042||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in DBP at Week 12: p-value was calculated by 2 sided t-test.||||0.0420
90993679|NCT01079962|181871514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in mean BP at Week 4: p-value was calculated by 2 sided t-test.||||0.5100
90993680|NCT01079962|181871514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1207||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in mean BP at Week 12: p-value was calculated by 2 sided t-test.||||0.1207
90993681|NCT01079962|181871516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.442||||0.7561||95.0|-2.36|3.24||No adjustment of p-value was done and priori threshold was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||3.24|-2.36|0.7561
90993682|NCT01072539|181871546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical significant level: 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Comparison among subgroups of Infection Sites: cSSSI, cIAI, CAP, cIAI + cSSSI, and cIAI + CAP.||||<0.0001
90993683|NCT01072539|181871547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0067||||||Statistical significant level: 0.05|Chi-squared|||Geriatrc: \<65 Years Versus (VS) Geriatrc: \>=65 Years||||0.0067
90993684|NCT01072539|181871547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0412||||||Statistical significant level: 0.05|Chi-squared|||Comparison among Age categories: \<30 Years, 30 to 39 Years, 40 to 49 Years, 50 to 64 Years, and \>=65 Years.||||0.0412
90993685|NCT01072539|181871547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4792||||||Statistical significant level: 0.05|Chi-squared|||Sex: Male VS Sex: Female||||0.4792
90993686|NCT01072539|181871547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9669||||||Statistical significant level: 0.05|Chi-squared|||Comparson among Duration of Disease categories: \<3 Months, \>=3 Months and \<6 Months, and \>=6 Months||||0.9669
90993687|NCT01072539|181871547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0064||||||Statistical significant level: 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Comparison among subgroups of infection site: cSSSI, cIAI, CAP, cIAI + cSSSI, and cIAI + CAP.||||0.0064
90993688|NCT01072539|181871547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Satistical significant level: 0.05|Chi-squared|||Comparison among severity of infection subgroups: Mild, Moderate, and Severe.||||<0.0001
90993689|NCT01072539|181871547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical significant level: 0.05|Chi-squared|||General Medical History: Yes VS General Medical History: No||||<0.0001
90993690|NCT01072539|181871547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical significant level: 0.05|Chi-squared|||General Medical History (Present): Yes VS General Medical History (Present): No||||<0.0001
91043341|NCT01525628|181972542|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 9 vs. Day 1 (%)|139.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.8||0.9082|TWO_SIDED|90.0|121.63|159.0|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of caffeine at Day 9 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 9 vs. Day 1||159.00|121.63|0.9082
90993691|NCT01072539|181871547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0006||||||Statistical significant level: 0.05|Chi-squared|||General Medical History (Past): Yes VS General Medical History (Past): No||||0.0006
90993692|NCT01072539|181871547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||Kidney Disorder: Yes VS Kidney Disorder: No||||<0.0001
90993693|NCT01072539|181871547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical significant level: 0.05|Chi-squared|||Liver Disorder: Yes VS Liver Disorder: No||||<0.0001
90993694|NCT01072539|181871547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0153||||||Statistical significant level: 0.05|Chi-squared|||Comparison among subgroups of Total Treatment Period of Tygacil: \<7 Days, 7 to 14 Days, and \>14 Days||||0.0153
90993695|NCT01072539|181871547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical significant level 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Comparison among subgroups of Mean Daily Dose of Tygacil: \<50 mg, 50 to \<100 mg, 100 to \<200 mg, and \>=200 mg.||||<0.0001
90993696|NCT01072539|181871547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0376||||||Statistical significant level: 0.05|Chi-squared|||Past Medication and Therapy: Yes VS Past Medication and Therapy: No||||0.0376
90993697|NCT01072539|181871547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical significant level: 0.05|Chi-squared|||Concomitant Medications: Yes VS Concomitant Medications: No||||<0.0001
90993698|NCT00621855|181871563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Armitage test for linear trend|||"The proportion of patients who reach this endpoint were analysed by a logistic model for linear trend (dose response).~The null hypothesis is that the relationship between dose level (0mg, 50mg, 75mg, 110mg and 150mg) and the proportions of patients with major and clinically relevant minor bleeding is not linear (slope parameter = 0)"||||<0.001
90993699|NCT00621855|181871566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Armitage test for linear trend|||"The proportion of patients who reach this endpoint were analysed by a logistic model for linear trend (dose response).~The null hypothesis is that the relationship between dose level (0mg, 50mg, 75mg, 110mg and 150mg) and the proportions of patients with major and clinically relevant minor bleeding is not linear (slope parameter = 0)"||||<0.001
91043342|NCT01525628|181972542|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 17 vs. Day 1 (%)|122.37|STANDARD_DEVIATION|29.3||0.4111|TWO_SIDED|90.0|104.11|143.84|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of caffeine at Day 17 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 17 vs. Day 1||143.84|104.11|0.4111
91043343|NCT01525628|181972542|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 66 vs. Day 1 (%)|121.43|STANDARD_DEVIATION|24.7||0.3719|TWO_SIDED|90.0|104.24|141.45|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of caffeine at Day 66 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 66 vs. Day 1||141.45|104.24|0.3719
91043344|NCT01525628|181972543|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 9 vs. Day 1 (%)|88.37|STANDARD_DEVIATION|20.8||0.1037|TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.39|100.89|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of caffeine at Day 9 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 9 vs. Day 1||100.89|77.39|0.1037
90993700|NCT03731364|181871570|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.276|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.276
90993701|NCT03731364|181871570|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.651|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.651
90993702|NCT03731364|181871570|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.556|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.556
90993703|NCT03731364|181871571|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.136|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.136
90993704|NCT03731364|181871571|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.649|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.649
90993705|NCT03731364|181871571|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.608|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.608
90993706|NCT03731364|181871572|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||0|TWO_SIDED|||||Not estimable|Regression, Logistic|Not estimable|Not estimable|Not estimable||||0
90993707|NCT03731364|181871572|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||0|TWO_SIDED|||||Not estimable|Regression, Logistic|Not estimable|Not estimable|Not estimable||||0
90993708|NCT03731364|181871572|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||0|TWO_SIDED|||||Not estimable|Regression, Logistic||Not estimable|Not estimable||||0
90993709|NCT03731364|181871573|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.306|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.306
90993710|NCT03731364|181871573|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.595|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.595
90993711|NCT03731364|181871573|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.242|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.242
90993712|NCT03655717|181871592|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.038|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.113||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.259|0.184||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Benjamini-Hochberg method across the two primary outcome measures and six contrasts. Effects were deemed significant for p\<0.05.|Regression, Linear|Estimates for p-values were obtained via a non-parametric resampling approach randomly shuffling condition and refitting the data 10,000 times.|Estimate is the mean difference in average HbO level between pre-dose scans and post-dose scans for dronabinol conditions (positive values denote higher HbO levels for post-dronabinol scans).|The mean difference in average HbO levels (converted to z-scores) between the pre and post-dose scans for conditions where a participant was dosed with dronabinol (i.e., a main effect for dronabinol dose), estimated via a linear model with with a subject-varying intercept and covariates for (a) overall differences between pre and post-dose scans and (b) visit order.||0.184|-0.259|0.94
90993713|NCT03655717|181871592|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.018|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.206||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.421|0.386||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Benjamini-Hochberg method across the two primary outcome measures and six contrasts. Effects were deemed significant for p\<0.05.|Regression, Linear|Estimates for p-values were obtained via a non-parametric resampling approach randomly shuffling condition and refitting the data 10,000 times.|Estimate is the mean difference in average HbO level between pre-dose scans and post-dose scans for ethanol conditions (positive values denote higher HbO levels for post-ethanol scans).|The mean difference in average HbO levels (converted to z-scores) between the pre and post-dose scans for conditions where a participant was dosed with ethanol (i.e., a main effect for ethanol dose), estimated via a linear model with with a subject-varying intercept and covariates for (a) overall differences between pre and post-dose scans and (b) visit order.||0.386|-0.421|0.94
91008011|NCT01005966|181900093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1186.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|915.38|1457.6||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA based on a mixed model with factors subject, treatment and period was used.|Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.|Null hypothesis considered population means for the NaF toothpaste (675ppmF) and Placebo toothpaste (0ppmF) to be equal with respect to enamel fluoride uptake potential.||1457.60|915.38|<0.0001
91043345|NCT01525628|181972543|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 17 vs. Day 1 (%)|159.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|57.8||0.8723|TWO_SIDED|90.0|111.06|227.93|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of caffeine at Day 17 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 17 vs. Day 1||227.93|111.06|0.8723
91043346|NCT01525628|181972543|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 66 vs. Day 1 (%)|259.57|STANDARD_DEVIATION|92.5||0.983|TWO_SIDED|90.0|150.65|447.21|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of caffeine at Day 66 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 66 vs. Day 1||447.21|150.65|0.9830
91043347|NCT01525628|181972543|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 9 vs. Day 1 (%)|163.95|STANDARD_DEVIATION|38.1||0.9689|TWO_SIDED|90.0|129.52|207.52|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of caffeine at Day 9 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 9 vs. Day 1||207.52|129.52|0.9689
91043348|NCT01525628|181972543|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 17 vs. Day 1 (%)|219.88|STANDARD_DEVIATION|70.4||0.9933|TWO_SIDED|90.0|153.84|314.26|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of caffeine at Day 17 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 17 vs. Day 1||314.26|153.84|0.9933
91043349|NCT01525628|181972543|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 66 vs. Day 1 (%)|214.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|66.8||0.9865|TWO_SIDED|90.0|145.88|315.09|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of caffeine at Day 66 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 66 vs. Day 1||315.09|145.88|0.9865
91043350|NCT01525628|181972544|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 9 vs. Day 1 (%)|96.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.2||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.77|105.13|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of tolbutamide at Day 9 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 9 vs. Day 1||105.13|87.77|0.0015
91043351|NCT01525628|181972544|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 17 vs. Day 1 (%)|85.41|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.2||0.1617|TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.32|95.57|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of tolbutamide at Day 17 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 17 vs. Day 1||95.57|76.32|0.1617
90993714|NCT03655717|181871592|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.281||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.535|0.568||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Benjamini-Hochberg method across the two primary outcome measures and six contrasts. Effects were deemed significant for p\<0.05.|Regression, Linear|Estimates for p-values were obtained via a non-parametric resampling approach randomly shuffling condition and refitting the data 10,000 times.|Estimate is the mean difference in average HbO level between pre-dose scans and post-dose scans for the dronabinol + ethanol condition (positive values denote higher HbO levels for post-dronabinol+ethanol scans).|The mean difference in average HbO levels (converted to z-scores) between the pre and post-dose scans for conditions where a participant was dosed with both dronabinol and ethanol (i.e., the interaction between dronabinol and ethanol doses), estimated via a linear model with with a subject-varying intercept and covariates for (a) overall differences between pre and post-dose scans and (b) visit order.||0.568|-0.535|0.94
90993715|NCT03655717|181871593|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.163|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.113||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.384|0.057||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Benjamini-Hochberg method across the two primary outcome measures and six contrasts. Effects were deemed significant for p\<0.05.|Regression, Linear|Estimates for p-values were obtained via a non-parametric resampling approach randomly shuffling condition and refitting the data 10,000 times.|Estimate is the mean difference in average HbO level between pre-dose scans and post-dose scans for dronabinol conditions (positive values denote higher HbO levels for post-dronabinol scans).|The mean difference in average HbO levels (converted to z-scores) between the pre and post-dose scans for conditions where a participant was dosed with dronabinol (i.e., a main effect for dronabinol dose), estimated via a linear model with with a subject-varying intercept and covariates for (a) overall differences between pre and post-dose scans and (b) visit order.||0.057|-0.384|0.94
90993716|NCT03655717|181871593|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.176|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.588|0.237||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Benjamini-Hochberg method across the two primary outcome measures and six contrasts. Effects were deemed significant for p\<0.05.|Regression, Linear|Estimates for p-values were obtained via a non-parametric resampling approach randomly shuffling condition and refitting the data 10,000 times.|Estimate is the mean difference in average HbO level between pre-dose scans and post-dose scans for ethanol conditions (positive values denote higher HbO levels for post-ethanol scans).|The mean difference in average HbO levels (converted to z-scores) between the pre and post-dose scans for conditions where a participant was dosed with ethanol (i.e., a main effect for ethanol dose), estimated via a linear model with with a subject-varying intercept and covariates for (a) overall differences between pre and post-dose scans and (b) visit order.||0.237|-0.588|0.94
91043352|NCT01525628|181972544|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 66 vs. Day 1 (%)|73.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.5||0.893|TWO_SIDED|90.0|65.03|82.54|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of tolbutamide at Day 66 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 66 vs. Day 1||82.54|65.03|0.8930
90993717|NCT03655717|181871593|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.187|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.276||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.354|0.728||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Benjamini-Hochberg method across the two primary outcome measures and six contrasts. Effects were deemed significant for p\<0.05.|Regression, Linear|Estimates for p-values were obtained via a non-parametric resampling approach randomly shuffling condition and refitting the data 10,000 times.|Estimate is the mean difference in average HbO level between pre-dose scans and post-dose scans for the dronabinol + ethanol condition (positive values denote higher HbO levels for post-dronabinol+ethanol scans).|The mean difference in average HbO levels (converted to z-scores) between the pre and post-dose scans for conditions where a participant was dosed with both dronabinol and ethanol (i.e., the interaction between dronabinol and ethanol doses), estimated via a linear model with with a subject-varying intercept and covariates for (a) overall differences between pre and post-dose scans and (b) visit order.||0.728|-0.354|0.94
90993718|NCT01185249|181871594|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis-no difference in morning and evening weights on three consecutive days.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.62|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51306|1.73806|||t-test, 1 sided|||Analysis of within subjects design morning and evening weights. Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between morning and evening weights.||1.73806|-0.51306|<.001
90993719|NCT01185249|181871594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.01
90993720|NCT02193815|181871598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Ratio|93.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.075||0.3465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|80.43|107.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||107.99|80.43|0.3465
90993721|NCT02193815|181871599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|165.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.075|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|143.12|192.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||192.25|143.12|<0.0001
90993722|NCT02193815|181871600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|65.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.075|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.46|75.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||75.81|56.46|<0.0001
90993723|NCT02193815|181871601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|93.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.075||0.3349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|80.3|107.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||107.81|80.30|0.3349
90993724|NCT02193815|181871601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|149.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.075|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|129.04|173.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||173.34|129.04|<0.0001
90993725|NCT02193815|181871601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|106.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.075||0.3991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.92|123.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||123.41|91.92|0.3991
90993726|NCT02193815|181871601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|71.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.075|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.08|83.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||83.36|62.08|<0.0001
90993727|NCT02193815|181871602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|96.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.127||0.7529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|74.0|124.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||124.64|74.00|0.7529
90993728|NCT02193815|181871602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|125.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.147||0.1318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|92.96|169.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||169.75|92.96|0.1318
90993729|NCT02193815|181871602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|103.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129||0.8009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|79.3|134.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||134.68|79.30|0.8009
90993730|NCT02193815|181871602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|81.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.124||0.1012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.94|104.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||104.47|62.94|0.1012
90993731|NCT00064350|181871607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.005||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Compare the proportion of patients maintaining stable disease or objective response at 2 months after randomization between the two arms.||||0.005
90993732|NCT00064350|181871608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.014||95.0|||||Log Rank|||Compare PFS between the Sorafenib arm and the placebo arm||||0.014
90993733|NCT00064350|181871609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.12||95.0|||||Log Rank|||Compare OS between the Sorafenib arm and the placebo arm||||0.12
90993734|NCT00115765|181871611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.27||||0.011||95.0|1.06|1.52|||Regression, Cox|Model covariates were ECOG status, prior chemotherapy, metastatic organs, disease site, oxaliplatin dose \< 85 mg/m2, and oxaliplatin dose \> 100 mg/m2||||1.52|1.06|0.011
90993735|NCT00115765|181871612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.43||||0.005||95.0|1.11|1.83|||Regression, Cox|Model covariates were ECOG status, prior chemotherapy, metastatic organs, disease site, oxaliplatin dose \< 85 mg/m2, and oxaliplatin dose \> 100 mg/m2||||1.83|1.11|0.005
90993736|NCT00115765|181871616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.738||95.0|0.6|2.05|||Regression, Logistic|Model covariates were ECOG status, prior adjuvant chemotherapy, number of metastatic organs, and primary disease site||||2.05|0.60|0.738
90993737|NCT00115765|181871617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.42||||0.257||95.0|0.77|2.62|||Regression, Cox|Model covariates were ECOG status, prior adjuvant chemotherapy, number of metastatic organs, and primary disease site||||2.62|0.77|0.257
90993738|NCT00115765|181871619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.36||||||95.0|1.04|1.77||||||||1.77|1.04|
90993739|NCT00115765|181871620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.25||||||95.0|0.91|1.71||||||||1.71|0.91|
90993740|NCT00115765|181871621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.89||||||95.0|1.3|2.75||||||||2.75|1.30|
90993741|NCT00115765|181871622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||||95.0|0.67|1.54||||||||1.54|0.67|
90993742|NCT00115765|181871623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28||||||95.0|0.61|2.66||||||||2.66|0.61|
90993743|NCT00115765|181871624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.68||||||95.0|0.28|1.67||||||||1.67|0.28|
90993744|NCT01968187|181871656|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.7||||0.029|ONE_SIDED|90.0||-2.2|||ANCOVA|Treatment groups were compared using ANCOVA model with treatment and site as fixed effect and HPWSQ-R total score at baseline as covariate.||||-2.2||0.0290
90993745|NCT01968187|181871657|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.8||||0.0233|ONE_SIDED|90.0||-0.3|||ANCOVA|Treatment groups were compared using ANCOVA model with treatment and site as fixed effects and CGI-S score as a covariate.||||-0.3||0.0233
90993746|NCT01968187|181871658|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.0||||0.1172|ONE_SIDED|90.0||0.2|||ANCOVA|Treatment groups were compared using ANCOVA model with treatment and site as fixed effects and HPWSQ-R domain score at baseline as a covariate.||HPWSQ-R Domain score: Behavior||0.2||0.1172
90993747|NCT01968187|181871658|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.6||||0.1436|ONE_SIDED|90.0||0.3|||ANCOVA|Treatment groups were compared using ANCOVA model with treatment and site as fixed effects and HPWSQ-R domain score -at baseline as a covariate.||HPWSQ-R Domain score: Drive||0.3||0.1436
90993748|NCT01968187|181871658|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.5||||0.0248|ONE_SIDED|90.0||-0.5|||ANCOVA|Treatment groups were compared using ANCOVA model with treatment and site as fixed effects and HPWSQ-R domain score -at baseline as a covariate.||HPWSQ-R Domain score: Severity||-0.5||0.0248
90993749|NCT01968187|181871659|OTHER||LS mean difference|-6.2||||0.0047|ONE_SIDED|90.0||-3.3|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model with treatment and site as fixed effects and CY-BOCS total score at baseline as a covariate.||||-3.3||0.0047
90993750|NCT01968187|181871660|OTHER||LS mean difference|-4.4||||0.0132|ONE_SIDED|90.0||-1.9|||ANCOVA|Compared using ANCOVA model with treatment and site as fixed effects and Food Domain Score of Reiss Profile at baseline as a covariate.||||-1.9||0.0132
90993751|NCT03675737|181871712|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.87||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by geographic region, Programmed Cell Death Ligand 1 (PD-L1) status (Combined Positive Score \[CPS\] \<1 versus CPS ≥1), and chemotherapy regimen with small strata collapsed.|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region, PD-L1 status (CPS \<1 versus CPS ≥1), and chemotherapy regimen with small strata collapsed.|||0.87|0.70|<0.0001
90993752|NCT03675737|181871713|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.84||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by geographic region and chemotherapy regimen with small strata collapsed.|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region and chemotherapy regimen with small strata collapsed.|||0.84|0.65|<0.0001
90993753|NCT03675737|181871714|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.79||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by geographic region and chemotherapy regimen with small strata collapsed.|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region and chemotherapy regimen with small strata collapsed.|||0.79|0.53|<0.0001
90993754|NCT03675737|181871715|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.85||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by geographic region, Programmed Cell Death Ligand 1 (PD-L1) status (Combined Positive Score \[CPS\] \<1 versus CPS ≥1), and chemotherapy regimen with small strata collapsed.|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region, PD-L1 status (CPS \<1 versus CPS ≥1), and chemotherapy regimen with small strata collapsed.|||0.85|0.67|<0.0001
90993755|NCT03675737|181871716|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.82||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by geographic region and chemotherapy regimen with small strata collapsed.|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region and chemotherapy regimen with small strata collapsed.|||0.82|0.63|<0.0001
90993756|NCT03675737|181871717|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.76||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by geographic region and chemotherapy regimen with small strata collapsed.|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region and chemotherapy regimen with small strata collapsed.|||0.76|0.51|<0.0001
90993757|NCT03675737|181871718|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|9.3||||9e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|14.1||One-sided p-value based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by geographic region, Programmed Cell Death Ligand 1 (PD-L1) status (Combined Positive Score \[CPS\] \<1 versus CPS ≥1), and chemotherapy regimen with small strata collapsed.|Miettinen & Nurminen method||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by geographic region, PD-L1 status (CPS \<1 versus CPS ≥1), and chemotherapy regimen with small strata collapsed.|||14.1|4.4|0.00009
90993758|NCT03675737|181871719|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|9.5||||0.00041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|15.0||One-sided p-value based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by geographic region and chemotherapy regimen with small strata collapsed.|Miettinen & Nurminen method||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by geographic region and chemotherapy regimen with small strata collapsed.|||15.0|3.9|0.00041
90993759|NCT03675737|181871720|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|17.5||||2e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.3|25.5||One-sided p-value based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by geographic region and chemotherapy regimen with small strata collapsed.|Miettinen & Nurminen method||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by geographic region and chemotherapy regimen with small strata collapsed.|||25.5|9.3|0.00002
90993760|NCT01274338|181871734|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.065||||||This design provides at least 80% power at a one sided type I error rate of 0.003.|Log Rank|Stratified logrank test||This study has a two-step hierarchical approach. In the first step, the low-dose Ipi (LIP) will be compared with HDI. If the low-dose Ipi is significantly better than HDI, then the high-dose Ipi will be compared with HDI as a second step. When comparing the two investigational treatment groups, the primary comparison will be an intent to treat analysis of recurrence free survival (RFS; First Co-primary Endpoint) and overall survival (OS; Second Co-primary Endpoint).||||0.065
90993761|NCT01274338|181871735|SUPERIORITY|This design will provide 80% power to detect the difference between the two arms at a one-sided type I error rate of 0.022.||||||0.044|||||||Log Rank|Stratified logrank test||This study has a two-step hierarchical approach. In the first step, the low-dose Ipi (LIP) will be compared with HDI. If the low-dose Ipi is significantly better than HDI, then the high-dose Ipi will be compared with HDI as a second step. When comparing the two investigational treatment groups, the primary comparison will be an intent to treat analysis of recurrence free survival (RFS; First Co-primary Endpoint) and overall survival (OS; Second Co-primary Endpoint).||||0.044
90993762|NCT01274338|181871737|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.289||||||If low dose Ipi (LIP) vs. HDI is significant for OS at the 2.2% level, then we will compare high dose Ipi (HIP) vs. HDI at the 2.2% level.|Log Rank|Stratified logrank test||This study has a two-step hierarchical approach. In the first step, the low-dose Ipi (LIP) will be compared with HDI. If the low-dose Ipi is significantly better than HDI, then the high-dose Ipi will be compared with HDI as a second step. When comparing the two investigational treatment groups, the primary comparison will be an intent to treat analysis of recurrence free survival (RFS; First Co-primary Endpoint) and overall survival (OS; Second Co-primary Endpoint).||||0.289
90993763|NCT03004469|181871741|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|13.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.94|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.8|21.3|||Mixed linear model|||||21.3|5.8|<.001
90993764|NCT03004469|181871742|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|12.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|19.1|||Mixed linear model|||||19.1|6.5|<.001
90993765|NCT03004469|181871743|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4057||0.322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.202|0.3971|||Mixed linear model|||Statistical Analysis details presented here is for Week 12||0.3971|-1.2020|0.322
90993766|NCT03004469|181871743|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.7237|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47799||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2184|1.6657|||Mixed linear model|||Statistical Analysis details presented here is for Week 24||1.6657|-0.2184|0.131
90993767|NCT03004469|181871744|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.2|||Mixed linear model|||Statistical Analysis details presented here is for Week 12||0.2|-0.3|0.569
90993768|NCT03004469|181871744|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1|||Mixed linear model|||Statistical Analysis details presented here is for Week 24||0.1|-0.4|0.129
90993769|NCT03004469|181871745|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.3|||Mixed linear model|||Statistical Analysis details presented here is for Week 12||0.3|-0.2|0.708
90993770|NCT03004469|181871745|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.7|||Mixed linear model|||Statistical Analysis details presented here is for Week 24||0.7|0.2|<.001
90993771|NCT03004469|181871746|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1|||Mixed linear model|||Statistical Analysis details presented here is for Week 12||0.1|-0.3|0.179
90993772|NCT03004469|181871746|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.4|||Mixed linear model|||Statistical Analysis details presented here is for Week 24||0.4|-0.1|0.262
90993773|NCT03004469|181871747|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|0.3|||Mixed linear model|||Statistical Analysis details presented here is for Erectile Function Score, Week 4||0.3|-3.7|0.103
90993774|NCT03004469|181871747|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|1.5|||Mixed linear model|||Statistical Analysis details presented here is for Erectile Function Score, Week 8||1.5|-2.8|0.545
90993775|NCT03004469|181871747|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.8|||Mixed linear model|||Statistical Analysis details presented here is for Erectile Function Score, Week 12||1.8|-2.2|0.842
90993776|NCT03004469|181871747|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02||0.449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|1.2|||Mixed linear model|||Statistical Analysis details presented here is for Erectile Function Score, Week 24||1.2|-2.8|0.449
90993777|NCT03004469|181871747|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.9|||Mixed linear model|||Statistical Analysis details presented here is for Orgasmic Function Score, Week 4||0.9|-0.2|0.272
90993778|NCT03004469|181871747|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.8|||Mixed linear model|||Statistical Analysis details presented here is for Orgasmic Function Score, Week 8||0.8|-0.7|0.918
90993779|NCT03004469|181871747|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.078||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.1|||Mixed linear model|||Statistical Analysis details presented here is for Orgasmic Function Score, Week 12||1.1|-0.1|0.078
90993780|NCT03004469|181871747|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.5|||Mixed linear model|||Statistical Analysis details presented here is for Orgasmic Function Score, Week 24||0.5|-0.9|0.593
90993781|NCT03004469|181871747|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.2|||Mixed linear model|||Statistical Analysis details presented here is for Sexual Desire Score, Week 4||0.2|-0.7|0.295
90993782|NCT03004469|181871747|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.4|||Mixed linear model|||Statistical Analysis details presented here is for Sexual Desire Score, Week 8||0.4|-0.5|0.926
90993783|NCT03004469|181871747|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.1|||Mixed linear model|||Statistical Analysis details presented here is for Sexual Desire Score, Week 12||0.1|-0.7|0.183
90993784|NCT03004469|181871747|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.5|||Mixed linear model|||Statistical Analysis details presented here is for Sexual Desire Score, Week 24||0.5|-0.4|0.981
90993785|NCT03004469|181871747|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.1|||Mixed linear model|||Statistical Analysis details presented here is for Intercourse Satisfaction Score, Week 4||-0.1|-2.7|0.041
90993786|NCT03004469|181871747|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67||0.562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.9|||Mixed linear model|||Statistical Analysis details presented here is for Intercourse Satisfaction Score, Week 8||0.9|-1.7|0.562
90993787|NCT03004469|181871747|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.0|||Mixed linear model|||Statistical Analysis details presented here is for Intercourse Satisfaction Score, Week 12||1.0|-1.6|0.642
90993788|NCT03004469|181871747|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.4|||Mixed linear model|||Statistical Analysis details presented here is for Intercourse Satisfaction Score, Week 24||0.4|-2.2|0.156
90993789|NCT03004469|181871747|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.5|||Mixed linear model|||Statistical Analysis details presented here is for Overall Satisfaction Score, Week 4||0.5|-0.6|0.824
90993790|NCT03004469|181871747|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.7|||Mixed linear model|||Statistical Analysis details presented here is for Overall Satisfaction Score, Week 8||0.7|-0.5|0.713
90993791|NCT03004469|181871747|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.6|||Mixed linear model|||Statistical Analysis details presented here is for Overall Satisfaction Score, Week 12||0.6|-0.6|0.993
90993792|NCT03004469|181871747|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.4|||Mixed linear model|||Statistical Analysis details presented here is for Overall Satisfaction Score, Week 24||0.4|-0.8|0.550
90993793|NCT01722487|181871751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.28|||Log Rank|||||0.28|0.09|<0.0001
90993794|NCT01722487|181871752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.16||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.56|||Log Rank|||||0.56|0.05|0.0010
90993795|NCT01722487|181871753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
90993796|NCT01722487|181871754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
90993797|NCT01722487|181871755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
90993798|NCT01722487|181871756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0009|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.0009
90993799|NCT01722487|181871757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0054|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.0054
90993800|NCT02108600|181871788|OTHER|||||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.033
90993801|NCT01295580|181871793|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|"This is a non-inferiority test. The non-inferiority margin of +1.6 units corresponds to an 8% margin on the pain subscale (range 0-20)~Alpha inflation was controlled using pre-planned stepwise hypotheses testing (1) WOMAC Pain over 18 weeks then (2) over 26 weeks, (3) WOMAC Physical Function over 18 weeks then (4) over 26 weeks, (5) Subject Global Assessment over 18 weeks then (6) over 26 weeks, (7) WOMAC Knee Stiffness over 18 weeks then (8) over 26 weeks."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.39||Alpha inflation due to multiple testing was controlled using preplanned ordered stepwise hypothesis testing first over 18 weeks then over 26 weeks. This section reports the first step WOMAC pain over 18 week pain subscale primary analyses.||The second step is to test Durolane WOMAC pain non-inferior to Artz WOMAC pain over 26 weeks.||"Primary Hypothesis:~Ho: μDUR\[18\] - μArtz\[18\] ≥ +1.6 units Ha: μDUR\[18\] - μArtz\[18\] \< +1.6 units~Power Calculations:~Assume the over 18 weeks difference is 0mm, SD 20mm (5 on the Likert scale), 90% power, 2-sided test alpha 5%, and a 8mm non-inferiority margin (1.6 on the Likert scale), the sample size required is 132 subjects per group adjusted to 175 to hold power constant due to loss to follow-up and dropout."||0.39|-0.58|
90993802|NCT01295580|181871794|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|This is a non-inferiority test. The non-inferiority margin of +1.6 units corresponds to an 8% margin on the pain subscale (range 0-20)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.37||Alpha inflation due to multiple testing was controlled using preplanned ordered stepwise hypothesis testing first pain over 18 weeks then pain over 26 weeks. This section reports the over 26 week pain subscale results.||The third ordered test is Durolane WOMAC physical function subscale non-inferior to Artz WOMAC physical function subscale over 18 weeks.||Ho: μDUR\[26\] - μArtz\[26\] ≥ +1.6 units Ha: μDUR\[26\] - μArtz\[26\] \< +1.6 units||0.37|-0.56|
90993803|NCT01295580|181871795|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|This is a non-inferiority test. The non-inferiority margin of +5.44 units corresponds to an 8% margin on the physical function subscale (range 0-68).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|0.51||Alpha inflation due to multiple testing was controlled using preplanned ordered stepwise hypothesis testing first over 18 weeks then over 26 weeks. This section reports the over 18 week physical function results.||The fourth step is to test Durolane WOMAC physical function non-inferior to Artz physical function over 26 weeks.||Ho: μDUR\[18\] - μArtz\[18\] ≥ +5.44 units Ha: μDUR\[18\] - μArtz\[18\] \< +5.44 units||0.51|-1.81|
91043353|NCT01525628|181972544|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 9 vs. Day 1 (%)|92.23|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.5||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.67|98.13|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of tolbutamide at Day 9 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 9 vs. Day 1||98.13|86.67|0.0005
91043354|NCT01525628|181972544|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 17 vs. Day 1 (%)|73.93|STANDARD_DEVIATION|21.6||0.8646|TWO_SIDED|90.0|65.55|83.39|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of tolbutamide at Day 17 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 17 vs. Day 1||83.39|65.55|0.8646
91043355|NCT01525628|181972544|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 66 vs. Day 1 (%)|75.42|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.4||0.8378|TWO_SIDED|90.0|68.15|83.45|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of tolbutamide at Day 66 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 66 vs. Day 1||83.45|68.15|0.8378
91043356|NCT01525628|181972545|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 9 vs. Day 1 (%)|98.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.3||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.15|106.91|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of tolbutamide at Day 9 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 9 vs. Day 1||106.91|90.15|0.0005
91043357|NCT01525628|181972545|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 17 vs. Day 1 (%)|81.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.7||0.3638|TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.19|87.82|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of tolbutamide at Day 17 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 17 vs. Day 1||87.82|75.19|0.3638
91043358|NCT01525628|181972545|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 66 vs. Day 1 (%)|70.93|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.6||0.8975|TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.44|83.22|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of tolbutamide at Day 66 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 66 vs. Day 1||83.22|60.44|0.8975
91043359|NCT01525628|181972545|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 9 vs. Day 1 (%)|86.37|STANDARD_DEVIATION|18.1||0.1144|TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.62|96.11|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of tolbutamide at Day 9 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 9 vs. Day 1||96.11|77.62|0.1144
91043360|NCT01525628|181972545|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 17 vs. Day 1 (%)|64.66|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.8||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.42|69.2|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of tolbutamide at Day 17 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 17 vs. Day 1||69.20|60.42|1.0000
91043361|NCT01525628|181972545|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 66 vs. Day 1 (%)|63.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.3||0.9988|TWO_SIDED|90.0|57.19|71.07|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of tolbutamide at Day 66 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 66 vs. Day 1||71.07|57.19|0.9988
91043362|NCT01525628|181972546|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 9 vs. Day 1 (%)|144.78|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.0||0.9749|TWO_SIDED|90.0|128.3|163.36|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of Midazolam at Day 9 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 9 vs. Day 1||163.36|128.30|0.9749
91043363|NCT01525628|181972546|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 17 vs. Day 1 (%)|152.94|STANDARD_DEVIATION|26.8||0.9703|TWO_SIDED|90.0|128.6|181.89|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of Midazolam at Day 17 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 17 vs. Day 1||181.89|128.60|0.9703
90993804|NCT01295580|181871796|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|This is a non-inferiority test. The non-inferiority margin of +5.44 units corresponds to an 8% margin on the physical function subscale (range 0-68).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|0.53||Alpha inflation due to multiple testing was controlled using preplanned ordered stepwise hypothesis testing first over 18 weeks then over 26 weeks. This section reports the over 26 week physical function subscale results.||The fifth step is to test Durolane subject global assessment non-inferior to Artz global assessment over 18 weeks.||Ho: μDUR\[26\] - μArtz\[26\] ≥ +5.44 units Ha: μDUR\[26\] - μArtz\[26\] \< +5.44 units||0.53|-1.69|
90993805|NCT01295580|181871797|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|This is a non-inferiority test. The non-inferiority margin of -0.8 units corresponds to an 8% margin on the subject global assessment (range 0-10). Note that because the assessment interpretation is reversed as compared to the WOMAC assessments the lower bound of the 95%CI is compared to the -0.8 non-inferiority margin.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.45||Alpha inflation due to multiple testing was controlled using preplanned ordered stepwise hypothesis testing first over 18 weeks then over 26 weeks. This section reports the over 18 week subject global assessment results.||The sixth step is to test Durolane subject global assessment non-inferior to Artz subject global assessment over 26 weeks.||Ho: μDUR\[18\] - μArtz\[18\] ≤ -0.8 units Ha: μDUR\[18\] - μArtz\[18\] \> -0.8 units||0.45|-0.15|
90993806|NCT01295580|181871798|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|This is a non-inferiority test. The non-inferiority margin of -0.8 units corresponds to an 8% margin on the subject global assessment (range 0-10). Note that because the assessment interpretation is reversed as compared to the WOMAC assessments the lower bound of the 95%CI is compared to the -0.8 non-inferiority margin.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.43||Alpha inflation due to multiple testing was controlled using preplanned ordered stepwise hypothesis testing first over 18 weeks then over 26 weeks. This section reports the over 26 week subject global assessment results.||The seventh step is to test Durolane WOMAC knee stiffness non-inferior to Artz WOMAC knee stiffness over 18 weeks.||Ho: μDUR\[18\] - μArtz\[18\] ≤ -0.8 units Ha: μDUR\[18\] - μArtz\[18\] \> -0.8 units||0.43|-0.16|
90993807|NCT01295580|181871799|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|This is a non-inferiority test. The non-inferiority margin of +0.64 units corresponds to an 8% margin on the knee stiffness subscale (range 0-8).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.05||Alpha inflation due to multiple testing was controlled using preplanned ordered stepwise hypothesis testing first over 18 weeks then over 26 weeks. This section reports the over 18 week knee stiffness subscale results.||The eight and last step is to test Durolane WOMAC knee stiffness non-inferior to Artz WOMAC knee stiffness over 26 weeks.||Ho: μDUR\[18\] - μArtz\[18\] ≥ +0.64 units Ha: μDUR\[18\] - μArtz\[18\] \< +0.64 units||0.05|-0.33|
90993808|NCT01295580|181871800|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|This is a non-inferiority test. The non-inferiority margin of 0.64 units corresponds to an 8% margin on the knee stiffness subscale (range 0-8).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.03||Alpha inflation due to multiple testing was controlled using preplanned ordered stepwise hypothesis testing first over 18 weeks then over 26 weeks. This section reports the over 26 week knee stiffness subscale results.||This is the eighth and last pre-planned hypothesis test.||Ho: μDUR\[26\] - μArtz\[26\] ≥ +0.64 units Ha: μDUR\[26\] - μArtz\[26\] \< +0.64 units||0.03|-0.33|
90993809|NCT05025787|181871808|SUPERIORITY||model treatment coefficient|-1.774|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.639||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.033|-0.514||A 95% confidence interval for the treatment coefficient in the linear mixed-effect model was (-3.033, -0.514), where the reference level was the active treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in mean WOMAC-A pain between CNTX-6970 and Placebo. Linear mixed-effect models were used with block, period, sex, age, and KL-grade as covariates and treatment group as factor, with random effects for sites and subjects nested within sites. The test was performed with significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).~Power was computed for effect sizes ranging from 0.25 to 0.50 using Monte Carlo simulation, and exceeded 80%."||-0.514|-3.033|.006
90993810|NCT05600309|181871821|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.3914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.5||One-sided nominal p-value based on log-rank test.|Log Rank||HR and 95% CI were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|||1.50|0.59|0.3914
90993811|NCT05600309|181871822|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.23||||0.8091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.92||One-sided nominal p-value based on log-rank test.|Log Rank||HR and 95% CI were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|||1.92|0.78|0.8091
90993812|NCT05600309|181871823|OTHER||Difference in percentage|6.0||||0.0502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|16.3||One-sided nominal p-value for testing.|Miettinen & Nurminen Method||Difference in percentage and 95% CI were based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||16.3|-2.3|0.0502
90993813|NCT05822830|181871827|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|-4.9||||||||-4.9|-8.1|
90993814|NCT05822830|181871832|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|-3.6||||||||-3.6|-7.1|
90993815|NCT05822830|181871834|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-1.9||||||||-1.9|-3.2|
90993816|NCT05822830|181871835|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|-4.7||||||||-4.7|-8.0|
90993817|NCT00807846|181871836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.274|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.56|2.76|||ANCOVA|||The primary analysis was based on 90% confidence interval (CI) for the difference across treatment groups (celecoxib - naproxen) in mean change from baseline in SBP. Change from Baseline in BP was analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with model terms for treatment with baseline height, baseline weight, baseline age, and baseline SBP as covariates. No formal hypothesis testing was applied to the primary analysis.||2.76|-0.56|0.274
90993818|NCT00807846|181871837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.088||||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|2.57|||ANCOVA|||For secondary analyses, 95% CIs for the differences across treatment groups (celecoxib - naproxen) in the mean change from baseline were generated. The change from baseline in BP was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, baseline height, weight, age and baseline BP as covariates. Secondary analyses were conducted using a two-sided test with α=0.05.||2.57|-0.39|0.148
90993819|NCT00807846|181871838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.837||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|3.46|||ANCOVA|||"For secondary analyses, 95% CIs for the differences across treatment groups (celecoxib - naproxen) in the mean change from baseline were generated. The change from baseline in blood pressure was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, baseline height, weight, age and baseline BP as covariates.~Secondary analyses were conducted using a two-sided test with α=0.05."||3.46|0.21|0.027
90993820|NCT00807846|181871839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.207||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.67|0.26|||ANCOVA|||For secondary analyses, 95% CIs for the differences across treatment groups (celecoxib - naproxen) in the mean change from baseline were generated. The change from baseline in BP was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, baseline height, weight, age and baseline BP as covariates. Secondary analyses were conducted using a two-sided test with α=0.05.||0.26|-2.67|0.106
90993821|NCT00807846|181871840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22||||0.776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.74|||ANCOVA|||For secondary analyses, 95% CIs for the differences across treatment groups (celecoxib - naproxen) in the mean change from baseline were generated. The change from baseline in BP was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, baseline height, weight, age and baseline BP as covariates. Secondary analyses were conducted using a two-sided test with α=0.05.||1.74|-1.30|0.776
90993822|NCT00807846|181871841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.179||||0.815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|1.33|||ANCOVA|||For secondary analyses, 95% CIs for the differences across treatment groups (celecoxib - naproxen) in the mean change from baseline were generated. The change from baseline in BP was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, baseline height, weight, age and baseline blood pressure as covariates. Secondary analyses were conducted using a two-sided test with α=0.05.||1.33|-1.69|0.815
90993823|NCT00807846|181871842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.033||||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.76|8.82|||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 6 was analyzed using ANCOVA model as well with treatment and Baseline value as a covariate. The LS mean change from Baseline was compared between treatment groups and an appropriate p-value and 95% CI for the difference between the two treatment groups was generated. This analysis was conducted using a two-sided test with α=0.05.||8.82|-2.76|0.303
90993824|NCT00807846|181871843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.061||||0.392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.202|0.079|||Chi-squared||Mean Difference (Final Values) indicates difference in incidence (proportion) between treatments.|The number of subjects with at least a 30% improvement in Parent/Guardian's Global Assessment of Overall Well-Being was compared between the two treatment groups using a chi-square test. A 95% CI for the difference in incidence between groups was also computed.||0.079|-0.202|0.392
90993825|NCT00807846|181871844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.402||||0.897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|5.69|||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 6 was analyzed using ANCOVA model as well with treatment and Baseline value as a covariate. The LS mean change from Baseline was compared between treatment groups and an appropriate p-value and 95% CI for the difference between the two treatment groups was generated. This analysis was conducted using a two-sided test with α=0.05.||5.69|-6.50|0.897
90993826|NCT00807846|181871845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.102||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.257|0.053|||Chi-squared||Mean Difference (Final Values) indicates difference in incidence (proportion) between treatments.|The number of participants with at least a 30% improvement in participant's Global Assessment of Overall Well-Being was compared between the two treatment groups using a chi-square test. A 95% CI for the difference in incidence between groups was also computed.||0.053|-0.257|0.200
91043364|NCT01525628|181972546|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 66 vs. Day 1 (%)|102.99|STANDARD_DEVIATION|29.3||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.85|124.99|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of Midazolam at Day 66 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 66 vs. Day 1||124.99|84.85|0.0500
90993827|NCT02491073|181871873|OTHER||geometric mean ratio|1.05||||1.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|1.09|||geometric mean ration||The parameter dispersion type:Geometric coefficient of variation Dispersion Value: FT4: 0.220|There is no hypothesis testing in this study. The sample size was determined outside of statistical considerations; it was required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the New Drug Application 022416 Approval Letter issued on 08 November 2013 for PMR 2099-9.|In each geometric mean ratio estimate, free thyroid hormone levels as measured by the automated kit assay represent the numerator; free thyroid hormone levels as measured by the optimized equilibrium dialysis method represent the denominator.|1.09|0.98|1.05
90993828|NCT02491073|181871873|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.09|1.22|||Geometric Mean Ratio||parameter dispersion type: Geometric Coefficient of Variation Dispersion Value : FT3: 0.178|There is no hypothesis testing in this study. The sample size was determined outside of statistical considerations; it was required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the New Drug Application 022416 Approval Letter issued on 08 November 2013 for PMR 2099-9.|In each geometric mean ratio estimate, free thyroid hormone levels as measured by the automated kit assay represent the numerator; free thyroid hormone levels as measured by the optimized equilibrium dialysis method represent the denominator.|1.22|1.09|
90993829|NCT02491073|181871874|OTHER|There is no hypothesis testing in this study. The sample size was determined outside of statistical considerations; it was required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the New Drug Application 022416 Approval Letter issued on 08 November 2013 for PMR 2099-9.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.01|1.03|||||Parameter dispersion type: geometric coefficient of variation dispersion value 0.024|FT4|In each geometric mean ratio estimate, free thyroid hormone levels in the spiked serum samples (LS or MS or HS) represent the numerator; free thyroid hormone levels in non-spiked serum samples (NS) represent the denominator|1.03|1.01|
90993830|NCT02491073|181871874|OTHER|There is no hypothesis testing in this study. The sample size was determined outside of statistical considerations; it was required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the New Drug Application 022416 Approval Letter issued on 08 November 2013 for PMR 2099-9.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.03|1.04|||||parameter dispersion value - geometric coefficient of variation dispersion value - 0.020|FT4|In each geometric mean ratio estimate, free thyroid hormone levels in the spiked serum samples (LS or MS or HS) represent the numerator; free thyroid hormone levels in non-spiked serum samples (NS) represent the denominator|1.04|1.03|
90993831|NCT02491073|181871874|OTHER|There is no hypothesis testing in this study. The sample size was determined outside of statistical considerations; it was required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the New Drug Application 022416 Approval Letter issued on 08 November 2013 for PMR 2099-9.|geometric mean ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.05|1.06|||||parameter dispersion type - geometric coefficient variation dispersion value - 0.021|FT4|In each geometric mean ratio estimate, free thyroid hormone levels in the spiked serum samples (LS or MS or HS) represent the numerator; free thyroid hormone levels in non-spiked serum samples (NS) represent the denominator|1.06|1.05|
90993832|NCT02491073|181871874|OTHER|There is no hypothesis testing in this study. The sample size was determined outside of statistical considerations; it was required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the New Drug Application 022416 Approval Letter issued on 08 November 2013 for PMR 2099-9.|geometric mean ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.99|1.02|||||parameter dispersion type -geometric coefficient of variation dispersion value - 0.040|FT3|In each geometric mean ratio estimate, free thyroid hormone levels in the spiked serum samples (LS or MS or HS) represent the numerator; free thyroid hormone levels in non-spiked serum samples (NS) represent the denominator|1.02|0.99|
90993833|NCT02491073|181871874|OTHER|There is no hypothesis testing in this study. The sample size was determined outside of statistical considerations; it was required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the New Drug Application 022416 Approval Letter issued on 08 November 2013 for PMR 2099-9.|geotmetric mean ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.03|||||parameter dispersion type - geometric coefficient of variation dispersion value - 0.041|FT3|In each geometric mean ratio estimate, free thyroid hormone levels in the spiked serum samples (LS or MS or HS) represent the numerator; free thyroid hormone levels in non-spiked serum samples (NS) represent the denominator|1.03|1.00|
90993834|NCT02491073|181871874|OTHER|There is no hypothesis testing in this study. The sample size was determined outside of statistical considerations; it was required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the New Drug Application 022416 Approval Letter issued on 08 November 2013 for PMR 2099-9.|geometric mean ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.02|1.04|||||parameter dispersion type - geometric coefficient of variation dispersion value - 0.041|FT3|In each geometric mean ratio estimate, free thyroid hormone levels in the spiked serum samples (LS or MS or HS) represent the numerator; free thyroid hormone levels in non-spiked serum samples (NS) represent the denominator|1.04|1.02|
90993835|NCT02491073|181871875|OTHER|There is no hypothesis testing in this study. The sample size was determined outside of statistical considerations; it was required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the New Drug Application 022416 Approval Letter issued on 08 November 2013 for PMR 2099-9.|geometric mean ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.01|||||parameter dispersion type - geometric coefficient of variation dispersion value -0.018|TSH|In each geometric mean ratio estimate, thyroid hormone levels in the spiked serum samples (LS or MS or HS) represent the numerator; thyroid hormone levels in non-spiked serum samples (NS) represent the denominator|1.01|1.00|
90993836|NCT02491073|181871875|OTHER|There is no hypothesis testing in this study. The sample size was determined outside of statistical considerations; it was required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the New Drug Application 022416 Approval Letter issued on 08 November 2013 for PMR 2099-9.|geometric mean ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.01|||||parameter dispersion type - geometric coefficient of variation dispersion value - 0.018|TSH|In each geometric mean ratio estimate, thyroid hormone levels in the spiked serum samples (LS or MS or HS) represent the numerator; thyroid hormone levels in non-spiked serum samples (NS) represent the denominator|1.01|1.00|
90993837|NCT02491073|181871875|OTHER|There is no hypothesis testing in this study. The sample size was determined outside of statistical considerations; it was required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the New Drug Application 022416 Approval Letter issued on 08 November 2013 for PMR 2099-9.|geometric mean ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.01|||||parameter dispersion type - geometric coefficient of variation dispersion value - 0.018|TSH||1.01|1.00|
90993838|NCT02491073|181871875|OTHER|There is no hypothesis testing in this study. The sample size was determined outside of statistical considerations; it was required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the New Drug Application 022416 Approval Letter issued on 08 November 2013 for PMR 2099-9.|Geometric mean ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.99|1.02|||||parameter dispersion type - geometric coefficient of variation dispersion value - 0.041|TT4|In each geometric mean ratio estimate, thyroid hormone levels in the spiked serum samples (LS or MS or HS) represent the numerator; thyroid hormone levels in non-spiked serum samples (NS) represent the denominator.|1.02|0.99|
90993839|NCT02491073|181871875|OTHER|There is no hypothesis testing in this study. The sample size was determined outside of statistical considerations; it was required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the New Drug Application 022416 Approval Letter issued on 08 November 2013 for PMR 2099-9.|Slope|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.02|||||parameter dispersion type - geometric coefficient of variation dispersion value - 0.033|TT4|In each geometric mean ratio estimate, thyroid hormone levels in the spiked serum samples (LS or MS or HS) represent the numerator; thyroid hormone levels in non-spiked serum samples (NS) represent the denominator|1.02|1.00|
90993840|NCT02491073|181871875|OTHER|There is no hypothesis testing in this study. The sample size was determined outside of statistical considerations; it was required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the New Drug Application 022416 Approval Letter issued on 08 November 2013 for PMR 2099-9.|geometric mean ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.99|1.01|||||parameter dispersion type - geometric coefficient of variation dispersion value - 0.036|TT4|In each geometric mean ratio estimate, thyroid hormone levels in the spiked serum samples (LS or MS or HS) represent the numerator; thyroid hormone levels in non-spiked serum samples (NS) represent the denominator|1.01|0.99|
90993841|NCT02491073|181871875|OTHER|There is no hypothesis testing in this study. The sample size was determined outside of statistical considerations; it was required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the New Drug Application 022416 Approval Letter issued on 08 November 2013 for PMR 2099-9.|geometric mean ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|1.01|||||parameter dispersion type - geometric coefficient of variation dispersion value - 0.047|TT3|In each geometric mean ratio estimate, thyroid hormone levels in the spiked serum samples (LS or MS or HS) represent the numerator; thyroid hormone levels in non-spiked serum samples (NS) represent the denominator|1.01|0.98|
90993842|NCT02491073|181871875|OTHER|There is no hypothesis testing in this study. The sample size was determined outside of statistical considerations; it was required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the New Drug Application 022416 Approval Letter issued on 08 November 2013 for PMR 2099-9.|geometric mean ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|1.01|||||parameter dispersion type - geometric coefficient of variation dispersion value - 0.043|TT3|In each geometric mean ratio estimate, thyroid hormone levels in the spiked serum samples (LS or MS or HS) represent the numerator; thyroid hormone levels in non-spiked serum samples (NS) represent the denominator|1.01|0.98|
90993843|NCT02491073|181871875|OTHER|There is no hypothesis testing in this study. The sample size was determined outside of statistical considerations; it was required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the New Drug Application 022416 Approval Letter issued on 08 November 2013 for PMR 2099-9.|geometric mean ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.0|||||parameter dispersion type - geometric coefficient of variation dispersion value - 0.048|TT3|In each geometric mean ratio estimate, thyroid hormone levels in the spiked serum samples (LS or MS or HS) represent the numerator; thyroid hormone levels in non-spiked serum samples (NS) represent the denominator|1.00|0.97|
90993844|NCT02491073|181871876|OTHER|There is no hypothesis testing in this study. The sample size was determined outside of statistical considerations; it was required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the New Drug Application 022416 Approval Letter issued on 08 November 2013 for PMR 2099-9.|geometric mean ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.06|1.16|||||parameter dispersion type - geometric coefficient of variation dispersion value - 0.148|FT4|In each geometric mean ratio estimate, free thyroid hormone levels as measured by the automated kit assay represent the numerator; free thyroid hormone levels as measured by the optimized equilibrium dialysis method represent the denominator|1.16|1.06|
91043365|NCT01525628|181972546|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 9 vs. Day 1 (%)|124.22|STANDARD_DEVIATION|24.1||0.4697|TWO_SIDED|90.0|107.91|142.99|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of Midazolam at Day 9 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 9 vs. Day 1||142.99|107.91|0.4697
91043366|NCT01525628|181972546|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 17 vs. Day 1 (%)|120.74|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.2||0.2906|TWO_SIDED|90.0|108.47|134.38|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of Midazolam at Day 17 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 17 vs. Day 1||134.38|108.47|0.2906
91043367|NCT01525628|181972546|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 66 vs. Day 1 (%)|93.95|STANDARD_DEVIATION|25.2||0.046|TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.33|109.86|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of Midazolam at Day 66 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 66 vs. Day 1||109.86|80.33|0.0460
91043368|NCT01525628|181972547|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 9 vs. Day 1 (%)|151.66|STANDARD_DEVIATION|18.5||0.9941|TWO_SIDED|90.0|134.79|170.64|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of Midazolam at Day 9 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 9 vs. Day 1||170.64|134.79|0.9941
91043369|NCT01525628|181972547|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 17 vs. Day 1 (%)|163.42|STANDARD_DEVIATION|26.0||0.9926|TWO_SIDED|90.0|137.91|193.64|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of Midazolam at Day 17 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 17 vs. Day 1||193.64|137.91|0.9926
91043370|NCT01525628|181972547|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 66 vs. Day 1 (%)|98.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|28.1||0.0392|TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.2|118.63|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of Midazolam at Day 66 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 66 vs. Day 1||118.63|81.20|0.0392
91043371|NCT01525628|181972547|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 9 vs. Day 1 (%)|122.58|STANDARD_DEVIATION|37.2||0.4374|TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.15|151.55|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of Midazolam at Day 9 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 9 vs. Day 1||151.55|99.15|0.4374
91043372|NCT01525628|181972547|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 17 vs. Day 1 (%)|130.44|STANDARD_DEVIATION|35.3||0.647|TWO_SIDED|90.0|107.57|158.18|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of Midazolam at Day 17 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 17 vs. Day 1||158.18|107.57|0.6470
91043373|NCT01525628|181972547|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 66 vs. Day 1 (%)|87.77|STANDARD_DEVIATION|36.9||0.2372|TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.32|109.54|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of Midazolam at Day 66 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 66 vs. Day 1||109.54|70.32|0.2372
90993845|NCT02491073|181871876|OTHER|There is no hypothesis testing in this study. The sample size was determined outside of statistical considerations; it was required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the New Drug Application 022416 Approval Letter issued on 08 November 2013 for PMR 2099-9.|geometric mean ratio|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.07|1.2|||||parameter dispersion type - geometric coefficient of variation dispersion value - 0.202|FT4|In each geometric mean ratio estimate, free thyroid hormone levels as measured by the automated kit assay represent the numerator; free thyroid hormone levels as measured by the optimized equilibrium dialysis method represent the denominator|1.20|1.07|
91043374|NCT01525628|181972548|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 9 vs. Day 1 (%)|117.67|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.6||0.1519|TWO_SIDED|90.0|106.49|130.0|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of 1-OH-Midazolam at Day 9 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 9 vs. Day 1||130.00|106.49|0.1519
91043375|NCT01525628|181972548|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 17 vs. Day 1 (%)|117.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|30.9||0.2827|TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.06|142.52|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of 1-OH-Midazolam at Day 17 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day17 vs. Day 1||142.52|96.06|0.2827
90993846|NCT02491073|181871876|OTHER|There is no hypothesis testing in this study. The sample size was determined outside of statistical considerations; it was required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the New Drug Application 022416 Approval Letter issued on 08 November 2013 for PMR 2099-9.|geometric mean ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.04|1.18|||||parameter dispersion type - geometric coefficient of variation dispersion value - 0.203|FT4|In each geometric mean ratio estimate, free thyroid hormone levels as measured by the automated kit assay represent the numerator; free thyroid hormone levels as measured by the optimized equilibrium dialysis method represent the denominator.|1.18|1.04|
90993847|NCT02491073|181871876|OTHER|There is no hypothesis testing in this study. The sample size was determined outside of statistical considerations; it was required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the New Drug Application 022416 Approval Letter issued on 08 November 2013 for PMR 2099-9.|geometric mean ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.99|1.1|||||parameter dispersion type - geometric coefficient of variation dispersion value - 0.179|FT4|In each geometric mean ratio estimate, free thyroid hormone levels as measured by the automated kit assay represent the numerator; free thyroid hormone levels as measured by the optimized equilibrium dialysis method represent the denominator.|1.10|0.99|
90993848|NCT02491073|181871876|OTHER|There is no hypothesis testing in this study. The sample size was determined outside of statistical considerations; it was required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the New Drug Application 022416 Approval Letter issued on 08 November 2013 for PMR 2099-9.|geometric mean ratio|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.15|1.52|||||parameter dispersion type - geometric coefficient of variation dispersion value - 0.178|FT3|In each geometric mean ratio estimate, free thyroid hormone levels as measured by the automated kit assay represent the numerator; free thyroid hormone levels as measured by the optimized equilibrium dialysis method represent the denominator|1.52|1.15|
90993849|NCT02491073|181871876|OTHER|There is no hypothesis testing in this study. The sample size was determined outside of statistical considerations; it was required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the New Drug Application 022416 Approval Letter issued on 08 November 2013 for PMR 2099-9.|geometric mean ratio|1.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.33|1.52|||||parameter dispersion type - geometric coefficient of variation dispersion value - 0.224|FT3|In each geometric mean ratio estimate, free thyroid hormone levels as measured by the automated kit assay represent the numerator; free thyroid hormone levels as measured by the optimized equilibrium dialysis method represent the denominator|1.52|1.33|
90993850|NCT02491073|181871876|OTHER|There is no hypothesis testing in this study. The sample size was determined outside of statistical considerations; it was required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the New Drug Application 022416 Approval Letter issued on 08 November 2013 for PMR 2099-9.|geometric mean ratio|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.12|1.27|||||parameter dispersion type - geometric coefficient of variation dispersion value - 0.203|FT3|In each geometric mean ratio estimate, free thyroid hormone levels as measured by the automated kit assay represent the numerator; free thyroid hormone levels as measured by the optimized equilibrium dialysis method represent the denominator|1.27|1.12|
90993851|NCT02491073|181871876|OTHER|There is no hypothesis testing in this study. The sample size was determined outside of statistical considerations; it was required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the New Drug Application 022416 Approval Letter issued on 08 November 2013 for PMR 2099-9.|geometric mean ratio|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.11|1.27|||||parameter dispersion type - geometric coefficient of variation dispersion value - 0.215|FT3|In each geometric mean ratio estimate, free thyroid hormone levels as measured by the automated kit assay represent the numerator; free thyroid hormone levels as measured by the optimized equilibrium dialysis method represent the denominator|1.27|1.11|
90993852|NCT02491073|181871877|OTHER|There is no hypothesis testing in this study. The sample size was determined outside of statistical considerations; it was required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the New Drug Application 022416 Approval Letter issued on 08 November 2013 for PMR 2099-9.|geometric mean ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.01|||||parameter dispersion type - geometric coefficient of variation dispersion value -0.018|TSH|In each geometric mean ratio estimate, thyroid hormone levels in the spiked serum samples (LS or MS or HS) represent the numerator; thyroid hormone levels in non-spiked serum samples (NS) represent the denominator|1.01|1.00|
90993853|NCT02491073|181871877|OTHER|There is no hypothesis testing in this study. The sample size was determined outside of statistical considerations; it was required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the New Drug Application 022416 Approval Letter issued on 08 November 2013 for PMR 2099-9.|geometric mean ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.01|||||parameter dispersion type - geometric coefficient of variation dispersion value - 0.018|TSH|In each geometric mean ratio estimate, thyroid hormone levels in the spiked serum samples (LS or MS or HS) represent the numerator; thyroid hormone levels in non-spiked serum samples (NS) represent the denominator|1.01|1.00|
90993854|NCT02491073|181871877|OTHER|There is no hypothesis testing in this study. The sample size was determined outside of statistical considerations; it was required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the New Drug Application 022416 Approval Letter issued on 08 November 2013 for PMR 2099-9.|geometric mean ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.01|||||parameter dispersion type - geometric coefficient of variation dispersion value - 0.018|TSH||1.01|1.00|
91043376|NCT01525628|181972548|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 66 vs. Day 1 (%)|92.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|32.6||0.1326|TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.38|114.07|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of 1-OH-Midazolam at Day 66 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 66 vs. Day 1||114.07|74.38|0.1326
91043377|NCT01525628|181972548|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 9 vs. Day 1 (%)|95.55|STANDARD_DEVIATION|29.2||0.0432|TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.63|113.24|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of 1-OH-Midazolam at Day 9 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 9 vs. Day 1||113.24|80.63|0.0432
91043378|NCT01525628|181972548|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 17 vs. Day 1 (%)|75.19|STANDARD_DEVIATION|30.3||0.7367|TWO_SIDED|90.0|63.64|88.82|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of 1-OH-Midazolam at Day 17 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 17 vs. Day 1||88.82|63.64|0.7367
91043379|NCT01525628|181972548|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 66 vs. Day 1 (%)|70.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|34.3||0.8547|TWO_SIDED|90.0|56.84|86.56|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of 1-OH-Midazolam at Day 66 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 66 vs. Day 1||86.56|56.84|0.8547
90993855|NCT01419665|181871878|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin of + or - 12% was determined considering the variability of the point estimate of the add-on effect by taking a value lower than the lower boundary of the 95% CI for Rituximab+chemotherapy versus chemotherapy obtained from historical data.|difference in overall response rate|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.94|5.14|||Binomial approximation|||||5.14|-5.94|
90993856|NCT01419665|181871881|OTHER|descriptive purposes, not powered for hypothesis testing|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.76|||Regression, Cox|||||1.76|0.97|
90993857|NCT01419665|181871882|OTHER|descriptive purposes, not powered for hypothesis testing|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.52|||Regression, Cox|||||1.52|0.55|
90993858|NCT03977727|181871888|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.35||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.88|48.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model was fit with therapy (Fiasp vs. NovoLog), period (Period 1 vs Period 2), and sequence (Fiasp/NovoLog vs NovoLog/Fiasp) as fixed effects. Subjects included as random effects.||48.4|7.88|.008
90993859|NCT03977727|181871889|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.22||||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.42|39.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model was fit with therapy (Fiasp vs. NovoLog), period (Period 1 vs Period 2), and sequence (Fiasp/NovoLog vs NovoLog/Fiasp) as fixed effects. Subjects included as random effects.||39.46|-5.42|.136
90993860|NCT03977727|181871890|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model was fit with therapy (Fiasp vs. NovoLog), period (Period 1 vs Period 2), and sequence (Fiasp/NovoLog vs NovoLog/Fiasp) as fixed effects. Subjects included as random effects.||.73|.05|.029
90993861|NCT03977727|181871891|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.81||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.84|-0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model was fit with therapy (Fiasp vs. NovoLog), period (Period 1 vs Period 2), and sequence (Fiasp/NovoLog vs NovoLog/Fiasp) as fixed effects. Subjects included as random effects.||-0.31|-2.84|.016
90993862|NCT03977727|181871892|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.38||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|2.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model was fit with therapy (Fiasp vs. NovoLog), period (Period 1 vs Period 2), and sequence (Fiasp/NovoLog vs NovoLog/Fiasp) as fixed effects. Subjects included as random effects.||2.32|.04|.045
90993863|NCT03977727|181871895|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model was fit with therapy (Fiasp vs. NovoLog), period (Period 1 vs Period 2), and sequence (Fiasp/NovoLog vs NovoLog/Fiasp) as fixed effects. Subjects included as random effects.||.16|-.59|.303
90993864|NCT03977727|181871896|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.18||||0.968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.32|9.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model was fit with therapy (Fiasp vs. NovoLog), period (Period 1 vs Period 2), and sequence (Fiasp/NovoLog vs NovoLog/Fiasp) as fixed effects. Subjects included as random effects.||9.99|-10.32|.968
90993865|NCT03977727|181871897|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model was fit with therapy (Fiasp vs. NovoLog), period (Period 1 vs Period 2), and sequence (Fiasp/NovoLog vs NovoLog/Fiasp) as fixed effects. Subjects included as random effects.||0|-.13|.059
90993866|NCT00711269|181871924|SUPERIORITY|One-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)|LS Mean difference|-3.5||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|1.3|||ANOVA||\[Not specified\]|||1.3|-8.4|0.149
90993867|NCT00711269|181871924|SUPERIORITY|One-way Analysis of variance (ANOVA)|LS Mean difference|-1.8||||0.462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|3.0|||ANOVA|||||3.0|-6.6|0.462
90993868|NCT00711269|181871924|SUPERIORITY|One-way Analysis of variance (ANOVA)|LS Mean difference|-4.6||||0.122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|1.2|||ANOVA|||||1.2|-10.5|0.122
90993869|NCT00711269|181871924|SUPERIORITY|Maximum Contrast Method||||||0.235||||||Contrast Factors (Placebo, SM-13496 40-mg, SM-13496 80-mg): (-1, 0, 1) Adjusted P Value: 0.298|Maximum Contrast Method|Contrast (Placebo, SM-13496 40-mg, SM-13496 80-mg):(-2, 1, 1) Raw P Value: 0.108 Adjusted P Value: 0.145||||||0.235
90993870|NCT00711269|181871925|SUPERIORITY|One-way Analysis of variance (ANOVA)|LS Mean difference|-1.4||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|0.1|||ANOVA|||||0.1|-2.9|0.069
90993871|NCT00711269|181871925|SUPERIORITY|One-way Analysis of variance (ANOVA)|LS Mean difference|-0.8||||0.287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.7|||ANOVA|||||0.7|-2.3|0.287
90993872|NCT00711269|181871925|SUPERIORITY|One-way Analysis of variance (ANOVA)|LS Mean difference|-2.3||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|-0.4|||ANOVA|||||-0.4|-4.1|0.016
90993873|NCT00711269|181871926|SUPERIORITY|One-way Analysis of variance (ANOVA)|LS Mean difference|-0.7||||0.289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.6|||ANOVA|||||0.6|-2.0|0.289
90993874|NCT00711269|181871926|SUPERIORITY|One-way Analysis of variance (ANOVA)|LS Mean difference|-0.7||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.5|||ANOVA|||||0.5|-2.0|0.256
90993875|NCT00711269|181871926|SUPERIORITY|One-way Analysis of variance (ANOVA)|LS Mean difference|-0.7||||0.352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.8|||ANOVA|||||0.8|-2.3|0.352
90993876|NCT00711269|181871927|SUPERIORITY|One-way Analysis of variance (ANOVA)|LS Mean difference|-1.4||||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|1.0|||ANOVA|||||1.0|-3.9|0.251
90993877|NCT00711269|181871927|SUPERIORITY|One-way Analysis of variance (ANOVA)|LS Mean difference|-0.2||||0.847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|2.2|||ANOVA|||||2.2|-2.7|0.847
90993878|NCT00711269|181871927|SUPERIORITY|One-way Analysis of variance (ANOVA)|LS Mean difference|-1.6||||0.292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|1.4|||ANOVA|||||1.4|-4.6|0.292
90993879|NCT01628016|181871977|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.98||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.05
90993880|NCT03483506|181871979|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|8.34|STANDARD_DEVIATION|50.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.88|11.82|||ANOVA||"Standard deviation is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation. BI 1467335 tab arm is the numerator, while BI 1467335 (C-14) iv arm is the denominator."|The statistical model used for the analysis of the primary PK endpoints was an ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithmic scale. The model included effects accounting for 'subject' and 'formulation' as sources of variation; 'subject' was considered as a random effect, whereas 'formulation' was considered as a fixed effect.||11.82|5.88|
91043380|NCT01525628|181972549|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 9 vs. Day 1 (%)|102.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|45.9||0.1159|TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.89|135.39|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of 1-OH-Midazolam at Day 9 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 9 vs. Day 1||135.39|77.89|0.1159
90993881|NCT03483506|181871981|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|62.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|24.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|52.08|74.14|||ANOVA||"Standard deviation is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation. BI 1467335 tab arm is the numerator, while BI 1467335 (C-14) iv arm is the denominator."|The statistical model used for the analysis of the primary PK endpoints was an ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithmic scale. The model included effects accounting for 'subject' and 'formulation' as sources of variation; 'subject' was considered as a random effect, whereas 'formulation' was considered as a fixed effect.||74.14|52.08|
90993882|NCT01008995|181871993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The study was designed to maintain a Type I error of 0.05 or less for the primary analysis.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline weight \[≤ 65kg vs \> 65 kg)\].||Null Hypothesis: No difference between ustekinumab 45 mg and placebo for the primary endpoint at a significance level of 0.05. Power calculations were based on two sample size assumptions: 220 (1:1 ratio) and 320 participants (1:1 ratio). Simulation studies evaluated the power to detect a treatment difference between ustekinumab 45 mg group and placebo using a CMH test stratified by baseline weight \[\<=65 kg vs \> 65 kg). The power was \>99% for both sample size assumptions.||||<0.001
90993883|NCT01008995|181871994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||No multiplicity adjustment was made and nominal p-value was reported.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline weight \[≤ 65kg vs \> 65 kg)\].||Null Hypothesis: No difference between ustekinumab 45 mg and placebo at a significance level of 0.05.||||<0.001
90993884|NCT01008995|181871995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||No multiplicity adjustment was made and nominal p-value was reported.|ANOVA|Analysis of variance on van der Waerden normal scores (Conover, 1980) with treatment and baseline weight (≤ 65kg vs \> 65 kg) as factors in the model.||Null Hypothesis: No difference between ustekinumab 45 mg and placebo at a significance level of 0.05.||||<0.001
90993885|NCT00403559|181872012|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority determined as the F-IGA, IGA, erythema, scaling, and pruritis scores when compared between groups. The Wilcoxon rank sum test stratified baseline seborrheic dermatitis (SD) severity.||||||0.009|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.009
90993886|NCT00547378|181872014|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The two-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, stratified for center, was used to test the difference in responder rates between the 2 groups||||||0.016
90993887|NCT01029886|181872029|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Superiority of exenatide once weekly with respect to change in HbA1c was concluded if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the treatment difference (exenatide once weekly minus liraglutide) was less than zero. Non-inferiority was concluded if the upper limit of the CI was \<0.25%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A sample of 408 subjects in each treatment arm would provide approximately 90% power to detect a true difference between treatments of 0.25% in change in HbA1c from baseline with a 2 sided t-test at a significance level of 0.05, assuming a common standard deviation of 1.1%. MMRM model includes treatment, baseline HbA1c, HbA1c stratum, country, background OAD, week of visit, and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and subject and error as random effects.||0.33|0.08|0.002
90993888|NCT01029886|181872030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage of patients achieving HbA1c \<7.0% at Week 26 were compared between treatments using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, in which HbA1c stratum, country, and background OAD served as stratification factors.||||0.011
90993889|NCT01029886|181872031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM model includes treatment, baseline fasting serum glucose, HbA1c stratum, country, background OAD, week of visit, and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and subject and error as random effects.||0.66|0.05|0.021
90993890|NCT01029886|181872032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM model includes treatment, baseline body weight, HbA1c stratum, country, background OAD, week of visit, and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and subject and error as random effects.||1.40|0.39|<.001
90993891|NCT01029886|181872033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM model includes treatment, baseline total cholesterol, HbA1c stratum, country, background OAD, week of visit, and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and subject and error as random effects.||0.19|-0.01|0.079
90993892|NCT01029886|181872034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM model includes treatment, baseline HDL-C, HbA1c stratum, country, background OAD, week of visit, and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and subject and error as random effects.||0.02|-0.02|0.832
90993893|NCT01029886|181872035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Fasting triglycerides were logarithm-transformed and the change at Week 26 to baseline, expressed as the ratio, was analyzed using a MMRM model with treatment, baseline fasting triglycerides, HbA1c stratum, country, background OAD, week of visit, and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and subject and error as random effects.||1.15|1.04|<.001
90993894|NCT01029886|181872036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|2.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM model includes treatment, baseline SBP, HbA1c stratum, country, background OAD, week of visit, and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and subject and error as random effects.||2.47|-0.53|0.205
90993895|NCT01029886|181872037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM model includes treatment, baseline DBP, HbA1c stratum, country, background OAD, week of visit, and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and subject and error as random effects.||0.98|-0.96|0.981
90993896|NCT00242385|181872040|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|To establish bioequivalence in AUC 0-35d divided by the dose administered with a type I error of 5% the calculated two-sided 90% confidence interval were to be contained completely in the margins of equivalence defined as 80% to 125%.|Ratio of Geometric Means|0.928|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.858|1.002||||||||1.002|0.858|
90993897|NCT00242385|181872041|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|To establish bioequivalence in AUC 0-infinity divided by the dose administered with a type I error of 5% the calculated two-sided 90% confidence interval were to be contained completely in the margins of equivalence defined as 80% to 125%.|Ratio of Geometric Means|0.934|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.855|1.021||||||||1.021|0.855|
90993898|NCT02720016|181872051|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-3.216|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.016|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed-effects regression|Models included random intercepts||Analyses were pooled across 50 imputed data sets. We used piecewise/spline mixed-effects regression models: one slope estimated from baseline to post (treatment impacts), with a separate slope estimated from post to 6-months (maintenance).||||.016
90993899|NCT02720016|181872051|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-4.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.308||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed-effects regression|Models included random intercepts||Analyses were pooled across 50 imputed data sets. We used piecewise/spline mixed-effects regression models: one slope estimated from baseline to post (treatment impacts), with a separate slope estimated from post to 6-months (maintenance).||||.002
90993900|NCT02720016|181872051|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.894|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.296||0.492|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed-effects regression|Models included random intercepts||Analyses were pooled across 50 imputed data sets. We used piecewise/spline mixed-effects regression models: one slope estimated from baseline to post (treatment impacts), with a separate slope estimated from post to 6-months (maintenance).||||.492
90993901|NCT02720016|181872056|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.352|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.172||0.872|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed-effects regression|Models included random intercepts and included partners nested within couples||Analyses were pooled across 50 imputed data sets. We used piecewise/spline mixed-effects regression models: one slope estimated from baseline to post (treatment impacts), with a separate slope estimated from post to 6-months (maintenance).||||.872
90993902|NCT02720016|181872056|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.931|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.296||0.686|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed-effects regression|Models included random intercepts and included partners nested within couples||Analyses were pooled across 50 imputed data sets. We used piecewise/spline mixed-effects regression models: one slope estimated from baseline to post (treatment impacts), with a separate slope estimated from post to 6-months (maintenance).||||.686
90993903|NCT02720016|181872056|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.579|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.256||0.798|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed-effects regression|Models included random intercepts and included partners nested within couples||Analyses were pooled across 50 imputed data sets. We used piecewise/spline mixed-effects regression models: one slope estimated from baseline to post (treatment impacts), with a separate slope estimated from post to 6-months (maintenance).||||.798
90993904|NCT02720016|181872061|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.213|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.518||0.631|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed-effects regression|Models included random intercepts||Analyses were pooled across 50 imputed data sets. We used piecewise/spline mixed-effects regression models: one slope estimated from baseline to post (treatment impacts), with a separate slope estimated from post to 6-months (maintenance).||||.631
90993905|NCT02720016|181872061|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.461|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.495||0.56|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed-effects regression|Models included random intercepts||Analyses were pooled across 50 imputed data sets. We used piecewise/spline mixed-effects regression models: one slope estimated from baseline to post (treatment impacts), with a separate slope estimated from post to 6-months (maintenance).||||.560
90993906|NCT02720016|181872061|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.248|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.536||0.922|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed-effects regression|Models included random intercepts||Analyses were pooled across 50 imputed data sets. We used piecewise/spline mixed-effects regression models: one slope estimated from baseline to post (treatment impacts), with a separate slope estimated from post to 6-months (maintenance).||||.922
90993907|NCT04501679|181872087|SUPERIORITY||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|37.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.3|48.5||A 2-sided p-value was derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test using the randomized stratification variables (analysis center and body weight at randomization \[\< 90 kg, \>= 90 kg\]). Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test using the randomized stratification variables (analysis center and body weight at randomization \[\<90 kg,\>=90 kg\]).|Strata adjusted percentage difference was obtained using weighted average of stratum-specific percentage using CMH.|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05.||48.5|26.3|<0.0001
90993908|NCT04501679|181872088|SUPERIORITY||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|28.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.8|38.2||A 2-sided p-value was derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test using the randomized stratification variables (analysis center and body weight at randomization \[\< 90 kg, \>= 90 kg\]). Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Strata adjusted percentage difference was obtained using weighted average of stratum-specific percentage using CMH.|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05.||38.2|18.8|<0.0001
90993909|NCT04501679|181872089|SUPERIORITY||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|33.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.3|42.4||A 2-sided p-value was derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test using the randomized stratification variables (analysis center and body weight at randomization \[\< 90 kg, \>= 90 kg\]). Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Strata adjusted percentage difference was obtained using weighted average of stratum-specific percentage using CMH.|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05.||42.4|24.3|<0.0001
90993910|NCT04501679|181872090|SUPERIORITY||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|30.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.3|38.6||A 2-sided p-value was derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test using the randomized stratification variables (analysis center and body weight at randomization \[\< 90 kg, \>= 90 kg\]). Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test using the randomized stratification variables (analysis center and body weight at randomization \[\<90 kg,\>=90 kg\]).|Strata adjusted percentage difference was obtained using weighted average of stratum-specific percentage using CMH.|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05.||38.6|21.3|<0.0001
90993911|NCT04501679|181872091|SUPERIORITY||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|31.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.7|43.2||A 2-sided p-value was derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test using the randomized stratification variables (analysis center and body weight at randomization \[\< 90 kg, \>= 90 kg\]). Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test using the randomized stratification variables (analysis center and body weight at randomization \[\<90 kg,\>=90 kg\]).|Strata adjusted percentage difference was obtained using weighted average of stratum-specific percentage using CMH.|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05.||43.2|20.7|<0.0001
91008012|NCT01451203|181900094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann point estimate of shift|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||The ANCOVA on the ranks with treatment as factors and Baseline rank as covariate was used.|ANCOVA|||The mTSS was analyzed using LINEAR for the imputation of missing data at Week 52.The primary Week 52 analysis assessed whether treatment up to Week 52 with the CZP group was superior to the placebo group in mTSS at Week 52. The 2-sided null and alternative hypotheses were: H0: πC = πM Ha: πC ≠ πM where πC represented subjects in the CZP group at Week 52 and πM represented subjects in the placebo group at Week 52.||0.00|0.00|<0.001
90993912|NCT04501679|181872092|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05.|Strata-adjusted percentage difference|27.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.4|37.5||A 2-sided p-value was derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test using the randomized stratification variables (analysis center and body weight at randomization \[\< 90 kg, \>= 90 kg\]). Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Strata adjusted percentage difference was obtained using weighted average of stratum-specific percentage using CMH.|||37.5|18.4|<0.0001
90993913|NCT04501679|181872093|SUPERIORITY||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|18.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|25.7||A 2-sided p-value was derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test using the randomized stratification variables (analysis center and body weight at randomization \[\< 90 kg, \>= 90 kg\]). Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Strata adjusted percentage difference was obtained using weighted average of stratum-specific percentage using CMH.|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05.||25.7|12.0|<0.0001
90993914|NCT02121756|181872102|OTHER|The sCD14 is measured in pg/ml and the median change is shown in pg/ml. the linear regression for the between arm comparison of baseline to week 12 change was performed using log10 transformed plasma sCD14||||||0.822|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.8220
90993915|NCT02121756|181872103|OTHER|The sCD163 is measured in ng/ml and the median change is shown in ng/ml. the linear regression for the between arm comparison of baseline to week 12 change was performed using log10 transformed plasma sCD163.||||||0.0869|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.0869
90993916|NCT02121756|181872104|OTHER|The IL-6 is measured in pg/ml and the median change is shown in pg/ml. the linear regression for the between arm comparison of baseline to week 12 change was performed using log10 transformed plasma IL-6.||||||0.5027|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.5027
90993917|NCT02121756|181872105|OTHER|||||||0.4548|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.4548
90993918|NCT02121756|181872107|OTHER|||||||0.7556|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7556
90993919|NCT02121756|181872108|OTHER|||||||0.2075|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2075
90993920|NCT02121756|181872109|OTHER|||||||0.0315|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0315
91043381|NCT01525628|181972549|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 17 vs. Day 1 (%)|99.99|STANDARD_DEVIATION|38.7||0.0651|TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.33|127.64|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of 1-OH-Midazolam at Day 17 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 17 vs. Day 1||127.64|78.33|0.0651
91043382|NCT01525628|181972549|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 66 vs. Day 1 (%)|78.29|STANDARD_DEVIATION|34.3||0.5658|TWO_SIDED|90.0|62.5|98.07|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of 1-OH-Midazolam at Day 66 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 66 vs. Day 1||98.07|62.50|0.5658
90993921|NCT02121756|181872110|OTHER|||||||0.7376|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7376
90993922|NCT02121756|181872111|OTHER|||||||0.2343|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2343
90993923|NCT02121756|181872112|OTHER|||||||0.7598|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7598
90993924|NCT02121756|181872113|OTHER|||||||0.983|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.9830
90993925|NCT02121756|181872114|OTHER|||||||0.3317|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.3317
90993926|NCT02121756|181872115|OTHER|||||||0.6121|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.6121
90993927|NCT02121756|181872116|OTHER|||||||0.562|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.5620
90993928|NCT00751114|181872130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.42||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was performed, with the HbA1c change from baseline to last on-treatment measurement as dependent variable, treatment as fixed effect and the corresponding baseline HbA1c value as covariate|ANCOVA||Difference (Insulin glargine - Sitagliptin)|"H0: no difference between insulin glargine mean HbA1c change and sitagliptin mean HbA1c change~H1: difference between insulin glargine mean HbA1c change and sitagliptin mean HbA1c change~Assuming:~* Estimated standard deviation of the change in HbA1c of 1.3%~* Expected mean difference to be detected of 0.4%~* Alpha risk of 5% (two-sided)~* Power of 90%~* Equal sample size in each treatment group (1:1 randomization)~A total number of 446 evaluable patients (223 in each group) was required"||-0.42|-0.77|<0.0001
90993929|NCT03095521|181872140|NON_INFERIORITY|two-sided 95% CIs estimation used to confirm non-inferior efficacy in primary endpoint. A non-inferiority conclusion was made relating to the primary parameter only.||||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Arm Angal, Arm Antiangin||||0.028
90993930|NCT03095521|181872143|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.482|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.482
90993931|NCT03095521|181872145|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.072|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||change from baseline, 2 groups||||0.072
90993932|NCT05027516|181872146|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|1.05||||0.1026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.83|||Permutation testing|||||1.83|0.55|0.1026
90993933|NCT05027516|181872147|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|1.12||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|2.19|||Permutation testing|||For aminoglycosides||2.19|0.47|1
90993934|NCT05027516|181872147|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|1.01||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.44|||Permutation testing|||For betalactams||1.44|0.69|1
90993935|NCT05027516|181872147|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|3.79||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|20.15|||Permutation testing|||For bacitracin||20.15|0.05|1
90993936|NCT05027516|181872147|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.83||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.91|||Permutation testing|||For glycopeptides||1.91|0|1
90993937|NCT05027516|181872147|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|1.19||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|3.15|||Permutation testing|||For trimethoprim||3.15|0.32|1
91043383|NCT01525628|181972549|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 9 vs. Day 1 (%)|108.25|STANDARD_DEVIATION|37.2||0.1286|TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.46|133.99|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of 1-OH-Midazolam at Day 9 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 9 vs. Day 1||133.99|87.46|0.1286
91043384|NCT01525628|181972549|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 17 vs. Day 1 (%)|87.59|STANDARD_DEVIATION|31.8||0.1898|TWO_SIDED|90.0|73.56|104.3|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of 1-OH-Midazolam at Day 17 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 17 vs. Day 1||104.30|73.56|0.1898
91043385|NCT01525628|181972549|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 66 vs. Day 1 (%)|78.42|STANDARD_DEVIATION|36.3||0.5575|TWO_SIDED|90.0|61.81|99.51|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of 1-OH-Midazolam at Day 66 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 66 vs. Day 1||99.51|61.81|0.5575
91043386|NCT01475487|181972581|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A sample size of 21 participants per group was required to detect a 40% absolute difference in the complication rate between DP and US guided techniques assuming a 45% complication rate in the DP (control) group and using the Fisher's exact test for the comparison of independent proportions. A total of 23 and 24 participants were recruited in the DP and US group, respectively.|||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.01
91043387|NCT01475487|181972582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.88||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|5.94|||Fisher Exact||Risk of injury ( none-mild vs moderate -severe) for all participants|||5.94|1.39|0.001
91043388|NCT01475487|181972582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Grade 3-4 comparison of None-mild and moderate-severe||||<0.001
91043389|NCT01475487|181972583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.91||||0.701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|2.72|||Fisher Exact||This is the risk ratio for 1 vs 2 attempts|||2.72|0.12|0.701
91043390|NCT01475487|181972584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|5.6||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|39.48|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison for Grade 3-4||39.48|0.79|0.043
91043391|NCT00243152|181972593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Visual analog scale (VAS) ratings in the scanner. Measures of pain ratings to evoked stimuli during scanning for heat applied to the affected side.||||<0.05
91043392|NCT00243152|181972593|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||VAS rating in the scanner. Measures of pain rating to evoke stimuli during scanning for heat applied to the unaffected side.||||>0.05
90993938|NCT05027516|181872147|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|2.82||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|14.64|||Permutation testing|||For cationic antimicrobial peptides||14.64|0.07|1
90993939|NCT05027516|181872147|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|1.49||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|5.34|||Permutation testing|||For mupirocin||5.34|0|1
90993940|NCT05027516|181872147|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|1.2||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.22|||Permutation testing|||For metronidazole||3.22|0|1
90993941|NCT05027516|181872147|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|6.44||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|46.02|||Permutation testing|||For fluoroquinolones||46.02|0.02|1
90993942|NCT05027516|181872147|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|10.6||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|148.86|||Permutation testing|||For sulfonamides||148.86|0.01|1
90993943|NCT05027516|181872147|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|1.01||||0.5621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.27|||Permutation testing|||For tetracyclines||1.27|0.79|0.5621
90993944|NCT05027516|181872148|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.196|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For streptococci||||0.196
90993945|NCT05027516|181872148|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.568|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For streptococci||||0.568
90993946|NCT05027516|181872148|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.978|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For Neisseria||||0.978
90993947|NCT05027516|181872148|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.184|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For Neisseria||||0.184
91043393|NCT00243152|181972593|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||VAS rating in the scanner. Measures of pain rating to evoke stimuli during scanning for cold applied to the affected side.||||>0.05
91043394|NCT00243152|181972593|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||VAS rating in the scanner. Measures of pain rating to evoke stimuli during scanning for cold applied to the unaffected side.||||>0.05
91043395|NCT00243152|181972593|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||VAS rating in the scanner. Measures of pain rating to evoke stimuli during scanning for brush applied to the affected side.||||>0.05
91043396|NCT00243152|181972593|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||VAS rating in the scanner. Measures of pain rating to evoke stimuli during scanning for brush applied to the unaffected side.||||>0.05
90993948|NCT01536119|181872149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.12||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.38|||Chi-squared|||"Power analysis was conducted to a 15 % increase in exclusive breastfeeding rates (from 52% to 67%) with 80% power and an alpha of 0.05. A 25% attrition rate waas added. 107 couples were needed per group. Intention to treat analysis conducted.~Exclusive breastfeeding at 12 weeks"||1.38|0.91|0.27
90993949|NCT01536119|181872150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.19||||0.09||95.0|0.98|1.44|||Chi-squared|||||1.44|0.98|0.09
90993950|NCT01536119|181872151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.06||||0.06||95.0|1.0|1.13|||Fisher Exact|||||1.13|1.00|0.06
90993951|NCT01536119|181872152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1||||0.02||95.0|1.01|1.19|||Chi-squared|||||1.19|1.01|0.02
90993952|NCT01536119|181872153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Brief scale used||||0.25
90993953|NCT01536119|181872154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.29
90993954|NCT01536119|181872155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.12
91043397|NCT00401245|181972594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024||||||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Chi-squared|||Overall comparison was made between each titration regimen and the control regimen (100 mg).||||0.024
90993955|NCT01536119|181872156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.21
90993956|NCT01536119|181872157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.06
90993957|NCT01536119|181872158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.43
90993958|NCT02365584|181872175|SUPERIORITY|"The assumptions required for the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) were to be tested as follows:~* The equality of variances was to verified using the Levene's test. If it was significant AUC values were to be properly transformed.~* The linear relationship of AUC with the basal total score within treatment group was to be tested by a regression analysis.~* The parallelism of the regression lines between groups and the slope non zero value with the appropriate F tests."|Adjusted LS Mean Difference|-11.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.7|=|0.5396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.0|25.0|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), where the AUC was the dependent and the independent was the baseline ESAS total score.||25|-47|=0.5396
90993959|NCT00838916|181872193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.27|||ANCOVA|||||0.27|-0.04|
90993960|NCT00838916|181872193|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To test whether the difference of least square means (albiglutide - insulin glargine) is equal to the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 0.3%||||||0.0086||||||p-value is for non-inferiority testing of albiglutide versus insulin glargine|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0086
90993961|NCT00838916|181872193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1463||||||p-value is for superiority testing of albiglutide versus insulin glargine|t-test, 2 sided|The p-value is from a two-sided t-test to test whether the difference of least square means (albiglutide - insulin glargine) is equal to zero.||||||0.1463
90993962|NCT01927419|181872204|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|49.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.4|61.8|||Fisher Exact||Difference of ORR||Exact 95% CI for difference in ORR uses Newcombe's method|61.8|31.4|
90993963|NCT01927419|181872204|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.79|52.55|||Fisher Exact|||||52.55|3.79|
90993964|NCT01927419|181872205|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.59|||Unstratified Cox proportional hazard||Nivolumab + Ipilimumab over Ipilimumab|||0.59|0.21|
90993965|NCT01927419|181872206|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|44.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.2|64.8|||Fisher Exact||Difference of ORR||Exact 95% CI for difference in ORR uses Newcombe's method|64.8|8.2|
90993966|NCT01927419|181872206|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|511.89|||Fisher Exact|||||511.89|1.07|
90993967|NCT01927419|181872207|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.97|||Unstratified Cox proportional hazard||Nivolumab + Ipilimumab over Ipilimumab|||0.97|0.14|
90993968|NCT03260205|181872263|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Mean|-5.9||||0.0242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.01|-0.78|||MMRM|||This outcome measure was analyzed using the linear mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM). From a MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in ADHD-RS-IV preschool version total score as the outcome, treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, baseline ADHD-RS-IV and baseline ADHD-RS-IV score-by-visit interaction as covariates.||-0.78|-11.01|0.0242
90993969|NCT03260205|181872264|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Mean Square|-0.6||||0.0074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.16|||MMRM|||This outcome measure was analyzed using the linear mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM). From a MMRM analysis over all post-baseline Visits, with the CGI-I score as the outcome, treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, baseline CGI-S as covariate.||-0.16|-1.03|0.0074
90993970|NCT01511107|181872289|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A noninferiority margin of 10% was used. Non-inferiority can be established by placing a confidence interval on the difference in the proportion of TFs in subjects randomized to the 10 day regimen and the proportion of TFs in subjects randomized to the 5 day regimen, and determining whether the lower 95% confidence bound is greater than -10%.|Difference between proportions|-0.172|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.039|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.253|-0.091||||||The null hypothesis that amoxicillin-clavulanate 5 days, placebo 5 days (reduced duration) is inferior to amoxicillin-clavulanate 10 days (standard duration) is tested against the alternative that reduced duration treatment is noninferior. Assuming failure rates of 15% and 25% in the standard and reduced duration groups, respectively, a 2-sided significance level of .05 and 10% attrition, it was calculated that 300 participants per group, would provide power of 95% for finding inferiority.||-.091|-.253|
90993971|NCT01511107|181872290|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A noninferiority margin of 10% was used. Non-inferiority can be established by placing a confidence interval on the difference in the proportion of TFs in subjects randomized to the 10 day regimen and the proportion of TFs in subjects randomized to the 5 day regimen, and determining whether the lower 95% confidence bound is greater than -10%.|Difference between proportions|-0.096|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.053|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.209|0.016||||||||.016|-.209|
90993972|NCT01511107|181872291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups in the proportion of children whose NP isolates at enrollment are negative for AOM pathogens for whom the NP culture at day 12-14 yields a nonsusceptible pathogen.||||0.45
90993973|NCT01511107|181872292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|||||||Generalized estimating equations|||Null hypothesis: For AOM recurrences with a NP culture at onset that is negative for AOM pathogens, there is no difference between the two groups regarding the proportion of NP cultures at Day 12-14 that yield a nonsusceptible pathogen.||||0.95
90993974|NCT01511107|181872293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups in the proportion of children whose NP isolates at enrollment are positive only for one or more susceptible pathogens for whom the NP culture at day 12-14 yields a nonsusceptible pathogen.||||0.59
90993975|NCT01511107|181872294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99|||||||Generalized estimating equations|||Null hypothesis: For AOM recurrences with a NP culture at onset that is positive only for one or more susceptible pathogens, there is no difference between the two groups regarding the proportion of NP cultures at Day 12-14 that yield a nonsusceptible pathogen.||||>0.99
90993976|NCT01511107|181872295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups in the proportion of children whose NP isolates at enrollment are positive for one or more nonsusceptible pathogens for whom the NP culture at day 12-14 yields a nonsusceptible pathogen.||||0.47
90993977|NCT01511107|181872296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Generalized estimating equations|||Null hypothesis: For AOM recurrences with a NP culture at onset that is positive for one or more nonsusceptible pathogens, there is no difference between the two groups regarding the proportion of NP cultures at Day 12-14 that yield a nonsusceptible pathogen.||||0.05
90993978|NCT01511107|181872297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58|||||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is adjusted for the culture result at enrollment.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference in the proportion of subjects whose NP isolates at enrollment are pathogen-negative or positive only for at least one susceptible pathogen who become colonized with penicillin non-susceptible pathogens at any time over the course of follow-up||||0.58
91043398|NCT00401245|181972595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||For DVS 50 mg QOD, analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare the DESS score between each tapering regimen and the control regimen (no tapering) for the titration population, where treatment was kept as the factor.||||< 0.001
90993979|NCT01511107|181872298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74|||||||Generalized estimating equations|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference in the proportion of 6 week follow-up, non-illness visits at which a penicillin-nonsusceptible pathogen is recovered.||||0.74
90993980|NCT01511107|181872299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72|||||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is adjusted for S pn susceptibility at the index episode.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups regarding the proportion of NP cultures at Day 12-14 that yield a nonsusceptible S pn isolate.||||0.72
90993981|NCT01511107|181872300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Generalized estimating equations|The p-value is adjusted for S pn susceptibility at onset of the AOM recurrence.||||||0.05
90993982|NCT01511107|181872301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47|||||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is adjusted for H flu susceptibility at onset of the index episode.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups regarding the proportion of NP cultures at Day 12-14 that yield a nonsusceptible H flu isolate.||||0.47
90993983|NCT01511107|181872302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69|||||||Generalized estimating equations|The p-value is adjusted for H flu susceptibility at onset of the AOM recurrence.||||||0.69
90993984|NCT01511107|181872303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is adjusted for site \& the stratification variables, namely age group \& exposure or nonexposure to ≥3 children for ≥10 hours per week.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups in the proportion of children followed greater than 60 days having at least one AOM relapse or recurrence within 60 days of enrollment.||||0.16
90993985|NCT01511107|181872304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32|||||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is adjusted for site \& the stratification variables, namely age group \& exposure or nonexposure to ≥3 children for ≥10 hours per week.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups in the proportion of children completing the study having at least one AOM relapse or recurrence within the entire respiratory season.||||0.32
90993986|NCT01511107|181872305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||Regression, Poisson|The p-value is adjusted for site \& the stratification variables, namely age group \& exposure or nonexposure to ≥3 children for ≥10 hours per week.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups in the rate of recurrences/relapses within 60 days of enrollment.||||0.23
91043399|NCT00401245|181972595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||For DVS 50/25 mg, ANOVA was used to compare the DESS score between each tapering regimen and the control regimen (no tapering) for the titration population, where treatment was kept as the factor.||||<0.001
90993987|NCT01511107|181872306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||Regression, Poisson|The p-value is adjusted for site \& the stratification variables, namely age group \& exposure or nonexposure to ≥3 children for ≥10 hours per week.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups in the rate of recurrences/relapses within the entire respiratory season.||||0.22
90993988|NCT01511107|181872307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|The p-value is adjusted for site \& the stratification variables and for length of follow-up.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups in the mean number of days a systemic antibiotic was received during the respiratory season.||||<.001
90993989|NCT01511107|181872308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||Generalized estimating equations|The p-value is adjusted for site \& the stratification variables, episode, day of the diary and AOM-SOS score at the episode.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups regarding the symptom burden as measured by the respective mean scores over time.||||0.07
90993990|NCT01511107|181872309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is adjusted for site \& the stratification variables, namely age group \& exposure or nonexposure to ≥3 children for ≥10 hours per week.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups in the proportion of children for whom PDD was reported.||||0.70
90993991|NCT01511107|181872310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86|||||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is adjusted for site \& the stratification variables, namely age group \& exposure or nonexposure to ≥3 children for ≥10 hours per week.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups in the proportion of children for whom diaper dermatitis was reported.||||0.86
90993992|NCT00975195|181872320|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Upper limit of 95% confidence interval (CI) \<1.2 indicates non-inferiority of Fluticasone withdrawal compared with Fluticasone maintenance|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.058||||0.3497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.941|1.189||Two-sided p-value to test superiority of fluticasone maintenance over fluticasone withdrawal if non-inferiority shown.|Chi-squared|Wald's chi-square test|Ratio calculated as fluticasone withdrawal divided by fluticasone maintenance|||1.189|0.941|0.3497
90993993|NCT00975195|181872321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.4441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.18|||Regression, Negative Binomial|Adjusted for log time at risk using log link function|Ratio calculated as fluticasone withdrawal divided by fluticasone maintenance|||1.18|0.93|0.4441
90993994|NCT00975195|181872322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2269|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2269
90993995|NCT00975195|181872323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.202||||0.0849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.975|1.481|||Chi-squared|Wald's chi-square test|Ratio calculated as fluticasone withdrawal divided by fluticasone maintenance|||1.481|0.975|0.0849
90993996|NCT00975195|181872324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.2291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.45|||Regression, Negative Binomial|Adjusted for log time at risk using log link function|Ratio calculated as fluticasone withdrawal divided by fluticasone maintenance|||1.45|0.92|0.2291
90993997|NCT00975195|181872325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2083|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2083
90993998|NCT00975195|181872326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.035||||0.5562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.923|1.16|||Chi-squared|||||1.160|0.923|0.5562
90993999|NCT00975195|181872327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.4342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.18|||Regression, Negative binomial|Adjusted for log time at risk using log link function|Ratio calculated as fluticasone withdrawal divided by fluticasone maintenance|||1.18|0.93|0.4342
90994000|NCT00975195|181872328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3155|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.3155
90994001|NCT00975195|181872330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.043|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0134||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.069|-0.017|||Restricted maximum likelihood|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood|Difference calculated as fluticasone withdrawal minus fluticasone maintenance|Week 52 visit||-0.017|-0.069|0.0014
90994002|NCT00975195|181872331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.064|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034||0.0632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.131|||Restricted maximum likelihood|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood|Difference calculated as fluticasone withdrawal minus fluticasone maintenance|Week 52 visit||0.131|-0.004|0.0632
90994003|NCT00975195|181872332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.013|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055||0.8137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.122|0.096|||Restricted maximum likelihood|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood|Difference calculated as fluticasone withdrawal minus fluticasone maintenance|Week 52 visit||0.096|-0.122|0.8137
90994004|NCT00975195|181872333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.17||0.2663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.74|2.69|||Restricted maximum likelihood|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood|Difference calculated as fluticasone withdrawal minus fluticasone maintenance|Week 52 visit||2.69|-9.74|0.2663
90994005|NCT00975195|181872334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.27|||Restricted maximum likelihood|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood|Difference calculated as fluticasone withdrawal minus fluticasone maintenance|Week 52 visit||0.27|0.05|0.0033
90994006|NCT00975195|181872335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.499||0.4914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.98|1.91|||Restricted maximum likelihood|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood|Difference calculated as fluticasone withdrawal minus fluticasone maintenance|Week 52 visit||1.91|-3.98|0.4914
90994007|NCT00975195|181872336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.669||0.349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.84|1.71|||Restricted maximum likelihood|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood|Difference calculated as fluticasone withdrawal minus fluticasone maintenance|Week 52 visit||1.71|-4.84|0.3490
90994008|NCT00975195|181872337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.48||0.9262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.77|3.04|||Restricted maximum likelihood|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood|Difference calculated as fluticasone withdrawal minus fluticasone maintenance|Week 52 visit||3.04|-2.77|0.9262
90994009|NCT00975195|181872338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.716||0.1241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|6.01|||Restricted maximum likelihood|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood|Difference calculated as fluticasone withdrawal minus fluticasone maintenance|Week 52 visit||6.01|-0.73|0.1241
90994010|NCT00975195|181872339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0123|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.073|-0.024|||Restricted maximum likelihood|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood|Difference calculated as fluticasone withdrawal minus fluticasone maintenance|Week 52 visit||-0.024|-0.073|<0.0001
90994011|NCT00975195|181872340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.044|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0255||0.0855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.094|0.006|||Restricted maximum likelihood|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood|Difference calculated as fluticasone withdrawal minus fluticasone maintenance|Week 52 visit||0.006|-0.094|0.0855
90994012|NCT00975195|181872341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.161|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.249|-0.073|||Restricted maximum likelihood|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood|Difference calculated as fluticasone withdrawal minus fluticasone maintenance|Week 52 visit||-0.073|-0.249|0.0004
90994013|NCT00975195|181872342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.728||0.1838|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|2.4|||Restricted maximum likelihood|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood|Difference calculated as fluticasone withdrawal minus fluticasone maintenance|Week 52 visit||2.40|-0.46|0.1838
90994014|NCT00975195|181872343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.702||0.0551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|2.72|||Restricted maximum likelihood|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood|Difference calculated as fluticasone withdrawal minus fluticasone maintenance|Week 52 visit||2.72|-0.03|0.0551
90994015|NCT00975195|181872344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.845||0.4804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|2.25|||Restricted maximum likelihood|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood|Difference calculated as fluticasone withdrawal minus fluticasone maintenance|Week 52 visit||2.25|-1.06|0.4804
90994016|NCT00975195|181872345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.614||0.0467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|2.43|||Restricted maximum likelihood|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood|Difference calculated as fluticasone withdrawal minus fluticasone maintenance|Week 52 visit||2.43|0.02|0.0467
90994017|NCT00975195|181872346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.0223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|-0.02|||Restricted maximum likelihood|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood|Difference calculated as fluticasone withdrawal minus fluticasone maintenance|Week 52 visit||-0.02|-0.21|0.0223
90994018|NCT05195359|181872355|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA (Group × Time; app vs control; baseline vs week 12)||||||<0.0001
90994019|NCT05195359|181872356|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA (Group × Time; app vs control; baseline vs week 12)||||||0.0003
90994020|NCT05195359|181872357|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA (Group × Time; frequent app users vs control; baseline vs week 6)||||||0.0002
90994021|NCT05195359|181872358|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0606|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA (Group × Time; frequent app users vs control; baseline vs week 6)||||||0.0606
90994022|NCT05195359|181872359|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2056|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA (Group × Time; frequent app users vs control; baseline vs week 6)||SF-12 Physical Wellbeing||||0.2056
90994023|NCT05195359|181872359|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4186|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA (Group × Time; frequent app users vs control; baseline vs week 6||SF-12 Mental Wellbeing||||0.4186
90994024|NCT05195359|181872360|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0754|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA (Group × Time; frequent app users vs control; baseline vs week 6)||||||0.0754
90994025|NCT05195359|181872361|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0137|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA (Group × Time; frequent app vs control; baseline vs week 12)||||||0.0137
90994026|NCT05195359|181872362|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0152|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA (Group × Time; frequent app vs control; baseline vs week 12)||||||0.0152
90994027|NCT05195359|181872363|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8148|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA (Group × Time; frequent app vs control; baseline vs week 12)||SF-12 Physical Wellbeing||||0.8148
91043400|NCT00401245|181972595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||For DVS 50 mg/Placebo, ANOVA was used to compare the DESS score between each tapering regimen and the control regimen (no tapering) for the titration population, where treatment was kept as the factor.||||<0.001
90994028|NCT05195359|181872363|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0523|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA (Group × Time; frequent app vs control; baseline vs week 12)||SF-12 Mental Wellbeing||||0.0523
90994029|NCT05195359|181872364|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0729|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA (Group × Time; frequent app vs control; baseline vs week 12)||||||0.0729
90994030|NCT01146951|181872365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann|-26.65||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-40.3|-11.8|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||-11.80|-40.30|0.003
90994031|NCT01146951|181872366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.074|||||||Fisher's exact test|||||||0.074
90994032|NCT01146951|181872367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann method|-33.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-47.1|-17.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||-17.00|-47.10|<0.001
90994033|NCT01146951|181872368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann method|-57.15||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-104.5|-17.3|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis for Partial Seizure Frequency||-17.30|-104.50|0.025
90994034|NCT01146951|181872368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann method|-28.65||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-72.0|0.9|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of atypical absence seizure frequency||0.90|-72.00|0.128
90994035|NCT01146951|181872368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann method|-54.35||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-126.6|-15.4|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis for myoclonic seizure frequency||-15.40|-126.60|0.021
90994036|NCT01146951|181872368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann method|-23.2||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-40.7|-5.6|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of tonic seizure frequency||-5.60|-40.70|0.031
90994037|NCT01146951|181872368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann method|-71.4||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-464.7|30.5|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis for Tonic-clonic seizure frequency||30.50|-464.70|0.107
90994038|NCT01146951|181872368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann method|-52.1||||0.221|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-89.1|10.8|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of Atonic seizure frequency||10.80|-89.10|0.221
90994039|NCT01146951|181872369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.041|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of Week 12 of the Treatment Period||||0.041
90994040|NCT01146951|181872369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of final assessment (LOCF)||||0.007
90994041|NCT01089582|181872381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||The effect of possible prognostic factors response on response rate: primary diagnosis severity. Participants were classified as responders if they were very much improved or much improved from baseline.||||0.0023
90994042|NCT01089582|181872382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0382|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||The effect of possible prognostic factors on response: significant medical history. Participants were classified as responders if they were much improved or improved from baseline.||||0.0382
90994043|NCT01089582|181872383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1805|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The effect of possible prognostic factors on response: primary diagnosis severity.||||0.1805
90994044|NCT01089582|181872383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The effect of possible prognostic factors on response: baseline QoL-AD score as assessed by participant.||||<0.0001
90994045|NCT01089582|181872383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The effect of possible prognostic factors on response: center number.||||<0.0001
90994046|NCT01089582|181872384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0137|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The effect of possible prognostic factors on response: primary diagnosis severity.||||0.0137
90994047|NCT01089582|181872384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The effect of possible prognostic factors on response: baseline QoL-AD score as assessed by caregiver.||||<0.0001
90994048|NCT01089582|181872384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The effect of possible prognostic factors on response: center number.||||<0.0001
90994049|NCT04069156|181872388|NON_INFERIORITY|The primary end point assessing non-inferiority of placebo was considered met if the lower boundary of the one-sided 97.5% confidence limit of the difference in the composite success rate between treatment arms (placebo minus aspirin) was greater than the non-inferiority margin (-10%) by the Farrington-Manning test at 12-months in the principal analysis population.|Risk Difference (RD)|6.0|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-1.6||||Farrington-Manning risk difference||||||-1.6|<0.0001
90994050|NCT04124042|181872417|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.655|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.347|1.237||||||||1.237|0.347|
90994051|NCT04124042|181872417|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.714|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.381|1.336||||||||1.336|0.381|
90994052|NCT04124042|181872418|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.539||0.413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.50|-0.62|0.413
90994053|NCT04124042|181872418|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.535||0.629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|1.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.31|-0.79|0.629
90994054|NCT04124042|181872423|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.1374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|1.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.16|-0.16|0.1374
90994055|NCT04124042|181872423|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.35||||0.2807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.00|-0.29|0.2807
90994056|NCT04124042|181872424|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.142||0.346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.41|-0.14|0.346
90994057|NCT04124042|181872424|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.28|-0.27|0.968
90994058|NCT04124042|181872426|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.83||||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.91|-0.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Outcome measure #10 is an analysis of 2 tx groups (two doses of 0.45 mg/ml vs. a single dose of 0.45 mg/ml), whereas outcome measure #12 is all 6 tx groups. A MMRM model was used. LS Means in an MMRM model are influenced by the overall mean structure and covariance estimation. When fewer treatment groups are included, the model adjusts based on a different subset of data, leading to potential shifts in estimated LS Means due to changes in the reference population/covariance structure.||-0.75|-4.91|0.0081
90994059|NCT04124042|181872427|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.6||||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.85|-2.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Outcome measure #11 is an analysis of 2 tx groups (two doses of 0.45 mg/ml vs. a single dose of 0.45 mg/ml), whereas outcome measure #13 is all 6 tx groups. A MMRM model was used. LS Means in an MMRM model are influenced by the overall mean structure and covariance estimation. When fewer treatment groups are included, the model adjusts based on a different subset of data, leading to potential shifts in estimated LS Means due to changes in the reference population/covariance structure.||-2.34|-16.85|0.0101
91043401|NCT00401245|181972596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.092||||||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||For DVS 50 mg QOD, ANOVA was used to compare the DESS score between each tapering regimen and the control regimen (no tapering) for the titration population, where treatment was kept as the factor||||0.092
90994060|NCT05441592|181872447|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.486|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.486
90994061|NCT05441592|181872449|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.234|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.234
90994062|NCT01021852|181872450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|8.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.59|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|11.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"MK-6096 2.5 mg vs. Placebo at Night 1~A mixed effects model with terms for baseline value, geographic region (Japan vs. ex-Japan), gender, treatment, sequence, period, time, and treatment-by-time interaction and period-by-time interaction was used to estimate LS mean differences between MK-6096 and placebo at Night 1. 95% confidence interval estimate and p-value (based upon a normal approximation) were also computed from the LS mean differences and variability estimates from the model."||11.5|5.3|<0.001
90994063|NCT01021852|181872450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|9.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.59|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|13.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"MK-6096 5 mg vs. Placebo at Night 1~A mixed effects model with terms for baseline value, geographic region (Japan vs. ex-Japan), gender, treatment, sequence, period, time, and treatment-by-time interaction and period-by-time interaction was used to estimate LS mean differences between MK-6096 and placebo at Night 1. 95% confidence interval estimate and p-value (based upon a normal approximation) were also computed from the LS mean differences and variability estimates from the model."||13.1|6.8|<0.001
90994064|NCT01021852|181872450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|10.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.57|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|13.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"MK-6096 10 mg vs. Placebo at Night 1~A mixed effects model with terms for baseline value, geographic region (Japan vs. ex-Japan), gender, treatment, sequence, period, time, and treatment-by-time interaction and period-by-time interaction was used to estimate LS mean differences between MK-6096 and placebo at Night 1. 95% confidence interval estimate and p-value (based upon a normal approximation) were also computed from the LS mean differences and variability estimates from the model."||13.8|7.7|<0.001
90994065|NCT01021852|181872450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|13.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.57|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.3|16.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"MK-6096 20 mg vs. Placebo at Night 1~A mixed effects model with terms for baseline value, geographic region (Japan vs. ex-Japan), gender, treatment, sequence, period, time, and treatment-by-time interaction and period-by-time interaction was used to estimate LS mean differences between MK-6096 and placebo at Night 1. 95% confidence interval estimate and p-value (based upon a normal approximation) were also computed from the LS mean differences and variability estimates from the model."||16.5|10.3|<0.001
90994066|NCT01021852|181872450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.42||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|7.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"MK-6096 2.5 mg vs. Placebo at Week 4~A mixed effects model with terms for baseline value, geographic region (Japan vs. ex-Japan), gender, treatment, sequence, period, time, and treatment-by-time interaction and period-by-time interaction was used to estimate LS mean differences between MK-6096 and placebo at Week 4. 95% confidence interval estimate and p-value (based upon a normal approximation) were also computed from the LS mean differences and variability estimates from the model."||7.4|1.8|0.001
90994067|NCT01021852|181872450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.42||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|6.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"MK-6096 5 mg vs. Placebo at Week 4~A mixed effects model with terms for baseline value, geographic region (Japan vs. ex-Japan), gender, treatment, sequence, period, time, and treatment-by-time interaction and period-by-time interaction was used to estimate LS mean differences between MK-6096 and placebo at Week 4. 95% confidence interval estimate and p-value (based upon a normal approximation) were also computed from the LS mean differences and variability estimates from the model."||6.9|1.3|0.004
90994068|NCT01021852|181872450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|9.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.43|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|12.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"MK-6096 10 mg vs. Placebo at Week 4~A mixed effects model with terms for baseline value, geographic region (Japan vs. ex-Japan), gender, treatment, sequence, period, time, and treatment-by-time interaction and period-by-time interaction was used to estimate LS mean differences between MK-6096 and placebo at Week 4. 95% confidence interval estimate and p-value (based upon a normal approximation) were also computed from the LS mean differences and variability estimates from the model."||12.5|6.9|<0.001
90994069|NCT01021852|181872450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|8.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.43|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.9|11.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"MK-6096 20 mg vs. Placebo at Week 4~A mixed effects model with terms for baseline value, geographic region (Japan vs. ex-Japan), gender, treatment, sequence, period, time, and treatment-by-time interaction and period-by-time interaction was used to estimate LS mean differences between MK-6096 and placebo at Week 4. 95% confidence interval estimate and p-value (based upon a normal approximation) were also computed from the LS mean differences and variability estimates from the model."||11.5|5.9|<0.001
90994070|NCT01021852|181872451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-30.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.2|-18.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"MK-6096 2.5 mg vs. Placebo at Night 1~A mixed effects model with terms for baseline value, geographic region (Japan vs. ex-Japan), gender, treatment, sequence, period, time, and treatment-by-time interaction and period-by-time interaction was used to estimate LS mean differences between MK-6096 and placebo at Night 1. 95% confidence interval estimate and p-value (based upon a normal approximation) were also computed from the LS mean differences and variability estimates from the model."||-18.4|-43.2|<0.001
90994071|NCT01021852|181872451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-32.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.31|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.9|-20.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"MK-6096 5 mg vs. Placebo at Night 1~A mixed effects model with terms for baseline value, geographic region (Japan vs. ex-Japan), gender, treatment, sequence, period, time, and treatment-by-time interaction and period-by-time interaction was used to estimate LS mean differences between MK-6096 and placebo at Night 1. 95% confidence interval estimate and p-value (based upon a normal approximation) were also computed from the LS mean differences and variability estimates from the model."||-20.1|-44.9|<0.001
90994072|NCT01021852|181872451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-30.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.21|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.2|-18.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"MK-6096 10 mg vs. Placebo at Night 1~A mixed effects model with terms for baseline value, geographic region (Japan vs. ex-Japan), gender, treatment, sequence, period, time, and treatment-by-time interaction and period-by-time interaction was used to estimate LS mean differences between MK-6096 and placebo at Night 1. 95% confidence interval estimate and p-value (based upon a normal approximation) were also computed from the LS mean differences and variability estimates from the model."||-18.7|-43.2|<0.001
90994073|NCT01021852|181872451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-45.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.22|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.0|-33.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"MK-6096 20 mg vs. Placebo at Night 1~A mixed effects model with terms for baseline value, geographic region (Japan vs. ex-Japan), gender, treatment, sequence, period, time, and treatment-by-time interaction and period-by-time interaction was used to estimate LS mean differences between MK-6096 and placebo at Night 1. 95% confidence interval estimate and p-value (based upon a normal approximation) were also computed from the LS mean differences and variability estimates from the model."||-33.5|-58.0|<0.001
90994074|NCT01021852|181872451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-15.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.65||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.7|-4.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"MK-6096 2.5 mg vs. Placebo at Week 4~A mixed effects model with terms for baseline value, geographic region (Japan vs. ex-Japan), gender, treatment, sequence, period, time, and treatment-by-time interaction and period-by-time interaction was used to estimate LS mean differences between MK-6096 and placebo at Week 4. 95% confidence interval estimate and p-value (based upon a normal approximation) were also computed from the LS mean differences and variability estimates from the model."||-4.4|-26.7|0.006
90994075|NCT01021852|181872451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-13.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.66||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.4|-2.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"MK-6096 5 mg vs. Placebo at Week 4~A mixed effects model with terms for baseline value, geographic region (Japan vs. ex-Japan), gender, treatment, sequence, period, time, and treatment-by-time interaction and period-by-time interaction was used to estimate LS mean differences between MK-6096 and placebo at Week 4. 95% confidence interval estimate and p-value (based upon a normal approximation) were also computed from the LS mean differences and variability estimates from the model."||-2.1|-24.4|0.020
90994076|NCT01021852|181872451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-25.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.67|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.8|-14.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"MK-6096 10 mg vs. Placebo at Week 4~A mixed effects model with terms for baseline value, geographic region (Japan vs. ex-Japan), gender, treatment, sequence, period, time, and treatment-by-time interaction and period-by-time interaction was used to estimate LS mean differences between MK-6096 and placebo at Week 4. 95% confidence interval estimate and p-value (based upon a normal approximation) were also computed from the LS mean differences and variability estimates from the model."||-14.5|-36.8|<0.001
90994077|NCT01021852|181872451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-30.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.69|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.2|-18.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"MK-6096 20 mg vs. Placebo at Week 4~A mixed effects model with terms for baseline value, geographic region (Japan vs. ex-Japan), gender, treatment, sequence, period, time, and treatment-by-time interaction and period-by-time interaction was used to estimate LS mean differences between MK-6096 and placebo at Week 4. 95% confidence interval estimate and p-value (based upon a normal approximation) were also computed from the LS mean differences and variability estimates from the model."||-18.8|-41.2|<0.001
90994078|NCT01021852|181872452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-10.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.43||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9|-1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"MK-6096 2.5 mg vs. Placebo at Night 1~A mixed effects model with terms for baseline value, geographic region (Japan vs. ex-Japan), gender, treatment, sequence, period, time, and treatment-by-time interaction and period-by-time interaction was used to estimate LS mean differences between MK-6096 and placebo at Night 1. 95% confidence interval estimate and p-value (based upon a normal approximation) were also computed from the LS mean differences and variability estimates from the model."||-1.5|-18.9|0.022
90994079|NCT01021852|181872452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-15.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.44|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.5|-7.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"MK-6096 5 mg vs. Placebo at Night 1~A mixed effects model with terms for baseline value, geographic region (Japan vs. ex-Japan), gender, treatment, sequence, period, time, and treatment-by-time interaction and period-by-time interaction was used to estimate LS mean differences between MK-6096 and placebo at Night 1. 95% confidence interval estimate and p-value (based upon a normal approximation) were also computed from the LS mean differences and variability estimates from the model."||-7.0|-24.5|<0.001
90994080|NCT01021852|181872452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-23.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.38|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.1|-14.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"MK-6096 10 mg vs. Placebo at Night 1~A mixed effects model with terms for baseline value, geographic region (Japan vs. ex-Japan), gender, treatment, sequence, period, time, and treatment-by-time interaction and period-by-time interaction was used to estimate LS mean differences between MK-6096 and placebo at Night 1. 95% confidence interval estimate and p-value (based upon a normal approximation) were also computed from the LS mean differences and variability estimates from the model."||-14.9|-32.1|<0.001
90994081|NCT01021852|181872452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-20.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.38|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.0|-11.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"MK-6096 20 mg vs. Placebo at Night 1~A mixed effects model with terms for baseline value, geographic region (Japan vs. ex-Japan), gender, treatment, sequence, period, time, and treatment-by-time interaction and period-by-time interaction was used to estimate LS mean differences between MK-6096 and placebo at Night 1. 95% confidence interval estimate and p-value (based upon a normal approximation) were also computed from the LS mean differences and variability estimates from the model."||-11.7|-29.0|<0.001
90994082|NCT01021852|181872452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-8.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.61||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"MK-6096 2.5 mg vs. Placebo at Week 4~A mixed effects model with terms for baseline value, geographic region (Japan vs. ex-Japan), gender, treatment, sequence, period, time, and treatment-by-time interaction and period-by-time interaction was used to estimate LS mean differences between MK-6096 and placebo at Week 4. 95% confidence interval estimate and p-value (based upon a normal approximation) were also computed from the LS mean differences and variability estimates from the model."||0.2|-18.0|0.055
90994083|NCT01021852|181872452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-8.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.61||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"MK-6096 5 mg vs. Placebo at Week 4~A mixed effects model with terms for baseline value, geographic region (Japan vs. ex-Japan), gender, treatment, sequence, period, time, and treatment-by-time interaction and period-by-time interaction was used to estimate LS mean differences between MK-6096 and placebo at Week 4. 95% confidence interval estimate and p-value (based upon a normal approximation) were also computed from the LS mean differences and variability estimates from the model."||0.4|-17.8|0.060
90994084|NCT01021852|181872452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-19.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.62|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.6|-10.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"MK-6096 10 mg vs. Placebo at Week 4~A mixed effects model with terms for baseline value, geographic region (Japan vs. ex-Japan), gender, treatment, sequence, period, time, and treatment-by-time interaction and period-by-time interaction was used to estimate LS mean differences between MK-6096 and placebo at Week 4. 95% confidence interval estimate and p-value (based upon a normal approximation) were also computed from the LS mean differences and variability estimates from the model."||-10.4|-28.6|<0.001
90994085|NCT01021852|181872452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-11.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.63||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.5|-2.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"MK-6096 20 mg vs. Placebo at Week 4~A mixed effects model with terms for baseline value, geographic region (Japan vs. ex-Japan), gender, treatment, sequence, period, time, and treatment-by-time interaction and period-by-time interaction was used to estimate LS mean differences between MK-6096 and placebo at Week 4. 95% confidence interval estimate and p-value (based upon a normal approximation) were also computed from the LS mean differences and variability estimates from the model."||-2.2|-20.5|0.015
90994086|NCT01021852|181872453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|12.2||||||Miettinen and Nurminen's method was used to calculate confidence intervals for between-treatment differences in the percentage of participants with events versus placebo.||12.2|-9.5|
90994087|NCT01021852|181872453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|11.2||||||Miettinen and Nurminen's method was used to calculate confidence intervals for between-treatment differences in the percentage of participants with events versus placebo.||11.2|-10.3|
90994088|NCT01021852|181872453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|18.3||||||Miettinen and Nurminen's method was used to calculate confidence intervals for between-treatment differences in the percentage of participants with events versus placebo.||18.3|-4.2|
90994089|NCT01021852|181872453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|20.4||||||Miettinen and Nurminen's method was used to calculate confidence intervals for between-treatment differences in the percentage of participants with events versus placebo.||20.4|-2.3|
90994090|NCT01021852|181872454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|10.2||||||Miettinen and Nurminen's method was used to calculate confidence intervals for between-treatment differences in the percentage of participants with events versus placebo.||10.2|-1.0|
90994091|NCT01021852|181872454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|4.8||||||Miettinen and Nurminen's method was used to calculate confidence intervals for between-treatment differences in the percentage of participants with events versus placebo.||4.8|-3.6|
90994092|NCT01021852|181872454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|6.6||||||Miettinen and Nurminen's method was used to calculate confidence intervals for between-treatment differences in the percentage of participants with events versus placebo.||6.6|-2.7|
90994093|NCT01021852|181872454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|2.3||||||Miettinen and Nurminen's method was used to calculate confidence intervals for between-treatment differences in the percentage of participants with events versus placebo.||2.3|-4.5|
90994094|NCT02130258|181872493|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.04
90994095|NCT02130258|181872494|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.04
90994096|NCT02130258|181872495|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.04
90994097|NCT02856269|181872522|OTHER|Wilcoxon rank sum tests, X2 tests, Fisher exact tests, Kolmogorov-Smirnov|Cohen's D value|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||The Cohen's d is calculated after Box-Cox transformation. Small effect \<= 0.2, Medium effect \[0.3, 0.8\]; Large effect \>0.8|||||
90994098|NCT00127062|181872524|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
90994099|NCT00127062|181872524|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
90994100|NCT01934192|181872525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|22.9||||||||22.9|-5.1|
90994101|NCT01934192|181872526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.35|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|10.9||||||||10.9|-6.5|
90994102|NCT01934192|181872527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|22.9||||||||22.9|-5.1|
90994103|NCT01934192|181872528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.74|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|19.9||||||||19.9|-6.9|
90994104|NCT04105244|181872567|SUPERIORITY||Wald tests|0.05|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Intent-to-treat principle using linear mixed-effects models with random intercepts to examine longitudinal change scores for the outcome.||||||<0.05
90994105|NCT04105244|181872568|SUPERIORITY||Wald tests|0.05|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Intent-to-treat principle using linear mixed-effects models with random intercepts to examine longitudinal change scores for the outcome.||||||<0.05
90994106|NCT04105244|181872569|SUPERIORITY||Wald test|0.05|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Intent-to-treat principle using linear mixed-effects models with random intercepts to examine longitudinal change scores for the outcome.||||||<0.05
90994107|NCT04105244|181872572|SUPERIORITY||Wald test|0.05|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Intent-to-treat principle using linear mixed-effects models with random intercepts to examine longitudinal change scores for the outcome.||||||<0.05
90994108|NCT04105244|181872573|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
90994109|NCT02768194|181872579|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11||||0.5512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.25||From the MMRM model with change from pre-dose as response, participant as a random effect; and treatment, period, day, location of sample in mouth (left or right) and treatment×day interaction as fixed effects; pre-dose mean SEM score as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is the first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|||0.25|-0.46|0.5512
90994110|NCT02768194|181872579|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.9671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.35||From the MMRM model with change from pre-dose as response, subject as a random effect; and treatment, period, day, location of sample in mouth (left or right) and treatment×day interaction as fixed effects; pre-dose mean SEM score as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is the first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|||0.35|-0.36|0.9671
90994111|NCT02768194|181872579|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.26||From the MMRM model with change from pre-dose as response, subject as a random effect; and treatment, period, day, location of sample in mouth (left or right) and treatment×day interaction as fixed effects; pre-dose mean SEM score as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is the first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|||0.26|-0.46|0.5830
90994112|NCT04633473|181872599|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.922|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Within subjects paired t-tests.||||||0.922
90994113|NCT04633473|181872600|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.521|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Within subjects paired t-tests.||||||0.521
90994114|NCT04633473|181872601|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.678|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Within subjects paired t-tests.||||||0.678
90994115|NCT04633473|181872602|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.326|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Within subjects paired t-tests.||||||0.326
90994116|NCT04633473|181872603|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Within subjects paired t-tests.||||||0.09
90994117|NCT04633473|181872604|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0.154|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Within subjects paired t-tests.||||||0.154
90994118|NCT04633473|181872605|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16||||0.309|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Within subjects paired t-tests.||||||0.309
90994119|NCT04633473|181872607|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26||||0.181|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Within subjects paired t-tests.||||||0.181
90994120|NCT04633473|181872608|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.91||||0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Within subjects paired t-tests.||||||0.008
90994121|NCT05291949|181872619|OTHER|Bland-Altman|Bias|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Bland-Altman||||Lower 95% Limit of agreement (LoA) value = -0.34 Upper 95% LoA = 0.94|||
90994122|NCT03259490|181872645|OTHER||Adjusted gmean ratio T/R (%)|103.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|100.36|105.83|||ANOVA|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|The standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric co-efficient of variation (gCV)|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon two-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (test/reference) for the endpoints using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.||105.83|100.36|
90994123|NCT03259490|181872646|OTHER||Adjusted gmean ratio T/R (%)|100.35|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.11|104.77|||ANOVA|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|The standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric co-efficient of variation (gCV)|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon two-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (test/reference) for the endpoints using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.||104.77|96.11|
90994124|NCT03259490|181872647|OTHER||Adjusted gmean ratio T/R (%)|100.31|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.65|104.1|||ANOVA|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|The standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric co-efficient of variation (gCV)|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon two-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (test/reference) for the endpoints using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.||104.10|96.65|
90994125|NCT03259490|181872648|OTHER||Adjusted gmean ratio T/R (%)|99.95|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.52|105.7|||ANOVA|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|The standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric co-efficient of variation (gCV)|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon two-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (test/reference) for the endpoints using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.||105.70|94.52|
90994126|NCT03259490|181872649|OTHER||Adjusted gmean ratio T/R (%)|107.78|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|102.52|113.31|||ANOVA|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|The standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric co-efficient of variation (gCV)|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon two-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (test/reference) for the endpoints using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.||113.31|102.52|
90994127|NCT03259490|181872650|OTHER||Adjusted gmean ratio T/R (%)|97.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|92.63|101.93|||ANOVA|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|The standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric co-efficient of variation (gCV)|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon two-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (test/reference) for the endpoints using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.||101.93|92.63|
90994128|NCT03259490|181872651|OTHER||Adjusted gmean ratio T/R (%)|103.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|100.38|105.92|||ANOVA|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|The standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric co-efficient of variation (gCV)|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon two-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (test/reference) for the endpoints using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.||105.92|100.38|
90994129|NCT03259490|181872652|OTHER||Adjusted gmean ratio T/R (%)|100.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|95.68|104.86|||ANOVA|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|The standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric co-efficient of variation (gCV)|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon two-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (test/reference) for the endpoints using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.||104.86|95.68|
90994130|NCT03259490|181872653|OTHER||Adjusted gmean ratio T/R (%)|97.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.65|103.29|||ANOVA|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|The standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric co-efficient of variation (gCV)|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon two-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (test/reference) for the endpoints using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.||103.29|91.65|
90994131|NCT00723073|181872654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.0||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.1|||Fisher Exact|||||1.10|0.89|0.96
91043402|NCT00401245|181972596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.997||||||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||For DVS 50/25 mg, ANOVA was used to compare the DESS score between each tapering regimen and the control regimen (no tapering) for the titration population, where treatment was kept as the factor||||0.997
90994132|NCT00723073|181872655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.0|>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|2.7|||Fisher Exact|||||2.70|0.38|>0.99
90994133|NCT00723073|181872656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.93|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.0|>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.97|||Fisher Exact|||||1.97|0.44|>0.99
90994134|NCT00723073|181872657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.0||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|2.07|||Fisher Exact|||||2.07|0.61|0.48
90994135|NCT00723073|181872658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.57|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.0||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|3.37|||Fisher Exact|||||3.37|0.10|0.57
90994136|NCT00723073|181872659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.66
90994137|NCT00723073|181872662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.22
90994138|NCT00723073|181872663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.11
90994139|NCT04095286|181872710|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.11|||||Treatment comparison between AMB dispersed in water and reference AMB tablet using ratio of adjusted geometric mean and its corresponding 90% confidence interval has been presented|||1.11|0.96|
90994140|NCT04095286|181872710|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|0.98|||||Treatment comparison between AMB oral tablet and reference AMB tablet using ratio of adjusted geometric mean and its corresponding 90% confidence interval has been presented|||0.98|0.85|
90994141|NCT04095286|181872713|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.02|1.09|||||Treatment comparison between AMB dispersed in water and reference AMB tablet using ratio of adjusted geometric mean and its corresponding 90% confidence interval has been presented|||1.09|1.02|
90994142|NCT04095286|181872713|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.08|||||Treatment comparison between AMB oral tablet and reference AMB tablet using ratio of adjusted geometric mean and its corresponding 90% confidence interval has been presented|||1.08|1.00|
90994143|NCT04095286|181872714|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.02|1.08|||||Treatment comparison between AMB dispersed in water and reference AMB tablet using ratio of adjusted geometric mean and its corresponding 90% confidence interval has been presented|||1.08|1.02|
90994144|NCT04095286|181872714|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.01|1.07|||||Treatment comparison between AMB oral tablet and reference AMB tablet using ratio of adjusted geometric mean and its corresponding 90% confidence interval has been presented|||1.07|1.01|
90994145|NCT03003403|181872722|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.2|||bootstrap resampling|||||1.20|0.82|0.97
90994146|NCT03003403|181872723|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.00|-1.24|0.83
90994147|NCT03003403|181872724|SUPERIORITY|Difference in systolic blood pressure change post-baseline comparing intervention to usual care arm at 24 months.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.3|-3.6|0.34
90994148|NCT03003403|181872724|SUPERIORITY|Difference in diastolic blood pressure change post-baseline comparing intervention to usual care arm at 24 months.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.8|-2.4|0.323
90994149|NCT03003403|181872725|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.005||||0.991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.8|-0.8|0.991
90994150|NCT03342937|181872729|SUPERIORITY|1-sided test of single exponential mean with historical null hypothesis of 5.5 months median PFS||||||0.02||||||Sample size of 35 patients was chosen based on detecting the difference between a historical median PFS of 5.5 months and experimental median of 7.3 months, a hazard ratio of 0.75, with 80% power (1-sided test of single exponential mean, α=0.2).|1-sided exponential test|||||||0.02
90994151|NCT01617655|181872732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-39.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.1|-27.1||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs Placebo|Alirocumab group was compared to placebo group using an appropriate contrast statement.||-27.1|-51.1|<0.0001
90994152|NCT01617655|181872733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-38.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.0|-26.9||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs Placebo|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||-26.9|-51|<0.0001
90994153|NCT01617655|181872734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-40.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.4|-29.3||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-29.3|-51.4|<0.0001
91043403|NCT00401245|181972596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||||||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||For DVS 50 mg/Placebo, ANOVA was used to compare the DESS score between each tapering regimen and the control regimen (no tapering) for the titration population, where treatment was kept as the factor||||0.009
90994154|NCT01617655|181872735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-40.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.4|-29.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-29.2|-51.4|<0.0001
90994155|NCT01617655|181872736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-30.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.7|-20.9||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-20.9|-39.7|<0.0001
90994156|NCT01617655|181872737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-30.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.7|-20.7||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-20.7|-39.7|<0.0001
90994157|NCT01617655|181872738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-35.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.3|-25.3||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-25.3|-46.3|<0.0001
90994158|NCT01617655|181872739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-35.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.2|-24.9||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-24.9|-46.2|<0.0001
90994159|NCT01617655|181872740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-28.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.3|-19.6||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-19.6|-37.3|<0.0001
90994160|NCT01617655|181872741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-30.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.2|-21.1||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-21.1|-39.2|<0.0001
90994161|NCT01617655|181872742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-34.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.8|-24.1||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-24.1|-44.8|<0.0001
90994162|NCT01617655|181872743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-27.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.2|-19.4||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-19.4|-36.2|<0.0001
90994163|NCT01617655|181872744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-39.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.6|-24.6||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-24.6|-53.6|<0.0001
90994164|NCT01617655|181872745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.7||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|53.5||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model.|Alirocumab vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||53.5|2.5|0.0016
90994165|NCT01617655|181872746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.9||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|54.9||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model.|Alirocumab vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||54.9|2.6|0.0014
90994166|NCT01617655|181872747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-14.8||||0.0164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.9|-2.7||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Robust|Multiple imputation approach followed by robust regression model.|Alirocumab vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-2.7|-26.9|0.0164
90994167|NCT01617655|181872748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|3.7||||0.2745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|10.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||10.2|-2.9|0.2745
90994168|NCT03224585|181872760|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0121|||||||Paired samples Wilcoxon test|||This analysis compared the change in pain scores between baseline and 6 hours||||0.0121
90994169|NCT03224585|181872761|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0025|||||||Paired samples Wilcoxon test|||||||0.0025
90994170|NCT01175213|181872762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Poisson|0.02|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|99.0||0.045||Testing the null hypothesis of 1 VASBI/year against a one-sided alternative at the 0.01 level of statistical significance.|Poisson|||||0.045||<0.0001
90994171|NCT01921634|181872786|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.7|||McNemar||The odds ratio was generated from a logistic regression model using generalized estimating equations with a logit link and represents a comparison of modified (numerator) vs standard (denominator).|||1.7|1.1|0.01
90994172|NCT00751179|181872787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Significance level was set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||Treatment comparison was between the change from baseline in potassium level post-rocuronium dose versus post-succinylcholine dose, using a one way ANOVA model, with treatment as the term in the model.||||<0.0001
90994173|NCT00751179|181872788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Significance level was set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||Treatment comparison was between the change from baseline in potassium level post-rocuronium dose versus post-succinylcholine dose, using a one way ANOVA model, with treatment as the term in the model.||||<0.0001
90994174|NCT00751179|181872790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Significance level was set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||Treatment comparison was between the change from baseline in potassium level post-rocuronium dose versus post-succinylcholine dose, using a one way ANOVA model, with treatment as the term in the model.||||<0.0001
90994175|NCT00751179|181872792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Significance level was set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||Treatment comparison was between the change from baseline in potassium level post-rocuronium dose versus post-succinylcholine dose, using a one way ANOVA model, with treatment as the term in the model.||||<0.0001
90994176|NCT01517412|181872800|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A step-down procedure was used to control the type I error: non-inferiority of lixisenatide prior to the main meal of the day versus lixisenatide prior to breakfast was tested first. If non-inferiority was established, then a test of superiority of lixisenatide prior to the main meal of the day over lixisenatide prior to breakfast was to be performed. The non-inferiority was assessed using upper bound of 2-sided 95% CI at a level of ≤0.4%.|Least square (LS) mean difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.079|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.067|0.242|||||Lixisenatide Main Meal vs Lixisenatide Breakfast|Analysis was performed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment groups, randomization strata of screening HbA1c (\<8.0%, ≥8.0%), randomization strata of main meal of the day and country as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c value as a covariate.||0.242|-0.067|
90994177|NCT01517412|181872800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.079||0.2664|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA||Lixisenatide Main Meal vs Lixisenatide Breakfast|Analysis was performed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment groups, randomization strata of screening HbA1c (\<8.0%, ≥8.0%), randomization strata of main meal of the day and country as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c value as a covariate. A step-down procedure was used to control the type I error. The superiority was assessed by comparing the p-value at significance level = 0.05.||||0.2664
90994178|NCT01253187|181872810|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A sample size of 6 volunteers per sequence was considered sufficient to establish bioequivalence, id est the 90%-confidence interval for the mean ratio is located completely within the equivalence interval limits of 80% and 125%.|mean ratio|106.03||||||90.0|98.86|113.72||The equivalence test was done using a 90% confidence interval, no p-value was to be calculated.|ANOVA||Point estimate for the ratio \[(EE20/DRSP/L-5-MTHF Ca) / YAZ\]. Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval fall within the equivalence interval limits of 80-125%|38 volunteers qualified for statistical analysis of BE whereas all 39 volunteers with valid concentration time profiles were included in the pharmacokinetic (PK) analysis||113.72|98.86|
90994179|NCT01253187|181872811|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A sample size of 6 volunteers per sequence was considered sufficient to establish bioequivalence, id est the 90%-confidence interval for the mean ratio is located completely within the equivalence interval limits of 80% and 125%.|mean ratio|103.47||||||90.0|99.16|107.98||The equivalence test was done using a 90% confidence interval, no p-value was to be calculated.|ANOVA||Point estimate for the ratio \[(EE20/DRSP/L-5-MTHF Ca) / YAZ\]. Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval fall within the equivalence interval limits of 80-125%|38 volunteers qualified for statistical analysis of BE whereas all 39 volunteers with valid concentration time profiles were included in the pharmacokinetic (PK) analysis||107.98|99.16|
90994180|NCT01253187|181872812|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A sample size of 6 volunteers per sequence was considered sufficient to establish bioequivalence, id est the 90%-confidence interval for the mean ratio is located completely within the equivalence interval limits of 80% and 125%.|mean ratio|105.24||||||90.0|97.3|113.83||The equivalence test was done using a 90% confidence interval, no p-value was to be calculated.|ANOVA||Point estimate for the ratio \[(EE20/DRSP/L-5-MTHF Ca) / YAZ\]. Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval fall within the equivalence interval limits of 80-125%|33 volunteers qualified for statistical analysis of BE whereas all 35 (YAZ) and 36 (EE20/DRSP/L-5-MTHF Ca) volunteers with valid concentration time profiles were included in the pharmacokinetic (PK) analysis||113.83|97.30|
90994181|NCT01253187|181872813|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A sample size of 6 volunteers per sequence was considered sufficient to establish bioequivalence, id est the 90%-confidence interval for the mean ratio is located completely within the equivalence interval limits of 80% and 125%.|mean ratio|100.48||||||90.0|97.28|103.79||The equivalence test was done using a 90% confidence interval, no p-value was to be calculated.|ANOVA||Point estimate for the ratio \[(EE20/DRSP/L-5-MTHF Ca) / YAZ\]. Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval fall within the equivalence interval limits of 80-125%|33 volunteers qualified for statistical analysis of BE whereas all 35 (YAZ) and 36 (EE20/DRSP/L-5-MTHF Ca) volunteers with valid concentration time profiles were included in the pharmacokinetic (PK) analysis||103.79|97.28|
90994182|NCT01253187|181872814|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A sample size of 6 volunteers per sequence was considered sufficient to establish bioequivalence, id est the 90%-confidence interval for the mean ratio is located completely within the equivalence interval limits of 80% and 125%.|mean ratio|99.88||||||90.0|91.24|109.34||The equivalence test was done using a 90% confidence interval, no p-value was to be calculated.|ANOVA||Point estimate for the ratio \[(EE20/DRSP/L-5-MTHF Ca) / Metafolin\]. Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval fall within the equivalence interval limits of 80-125%|39 volunteers qualified for statistical analysis of BE whereas all 39 (EE20/DRSP/L-5-MTHF Ca) and 40 (Metafolin) volunteers with valid concentration time profiles were included in the pharmacokinetic (PK) analysis||109.34|91.24|
90994183|NCT01253187|181872815|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A sample size of 6 volunteers per sequence was considered sufficient to establish bioequivalence, id est the 90%-confidence interval for the mean ratio is located completely within the equivalence interval limits of 80% and 125%.|mean ratio|98.16||||||90.0|93.95|102.57||The equivalence test was done using a 90% confidence interval, no p-value was to be calculated.|ANOVA||Point estimate for the ratio \[(EE20/DRSP/L-5-MTHF Ca) / Metafolin\]. Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval fall within the equivalence interval limits of 80-125%|39 volunteers qualified for statistical analysis of BE whereas all 39 (EE20/DRSP/L-5-MTHF Ca) and 40 (Metafolin) volunteers with valid concentration time profiles were included in the pharmacokinetic (PK) analysis||102.57|93.95|
90994184|NCT01253187|181872816|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A sample size of 6 volunteers per sequence was considered sufficient to establish bioequivalence, id est the 90%-confidence interval for the mean ratio is located completely within the equivalence interval limits of 80% and 125%.|mean ratio|100.28||||||90.0|93.15|107.95||The equivalence test was done using a 90% confidence interval, no p-value was to be calculated.|ANOVA||Point estimate for the ratio \[(EE20/DRSP/L-5-MTHF Ca) / Metafolin\]. Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval fall within the equivalence interval limits of 80-125%|40 volunteers qualified for statistical analysis of BE and all 40 volunteers with valid concentration time profiles were included in the pharmacokinetic (PK) analysis||107.95|93.15|
90994185|NCT01253187|181872817|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A sample size of 6 volunteers per sequence was considered sufficient to establish bioequivalence, id est the 90%-confidence interval for the mean ratio is located completely within the equivalence interval limits of 80% and 125%.|mean ratio|99.88||||||90.0|95.38|104.58||The equivalence test was done using a 90% confidence interval, no p-value was to be calculated.|ANOVA||Point estimate for the ratio \[(EE20/DRSP/L-5-MTHF Ca) / Metafolin\]. Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval fall within the equivalence interval limits of 80-125%|40 volunteers qualified for statistical analysis of BE and all 40 volunteers with valid concentration time profiles were included in the pharmacokinetic (PK) analysis||104.58|95.38|
91008013|NCT01451203|181900095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehman point estimate of shift|0.0||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA on the ranks with treatment as factors and Baseline rank as covariate was used.||The mTSS was analyzed using LINEAR for the imputation of missing data at Week 24.||0.00|0.00|0.003
91008014|NCT01451203|181900096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91008015|NCT01451203|181900097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91008016|NCT01451203|181900098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.002
91008017|NCT01347931|181900104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|10.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||A sample size of 26 patient pairs was determined based on the assumption of a true treatment difference in mean ADL endurance time of 4 ± 7 minutes using a two-tailed, paired t test (α=0.05, power=0.80).||10|2|<0.05
91008018|NCT01347931|181900105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|7.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Two-tailed t test||7|1|<0.05
90994186|NCT01253187|181872819|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A sample size of 6 volunteers per sequence was considered sufficient to establish bioequivalence, id est the 90%-confidence interval for the mean ratio is located completely within the equivalence interval limits of 80% and 125%.|mean ratio|100.3||||||90.0|97.65|103.02||The equivalence test was done using a 90% confidence interval, no p-value was to be calculated.|ANOVA||Point estimate for the ratio \[(EE20/DRSP/L-5-MTHF Ca) / YAZ\]. Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval fall within the equivalence interval limits of 80-125%|32 volunteers qualified for statistical analysis of BE whereas all 34 (YAZ) and 36 (EE20/DRSP/L-5-MTHF Ca) volunteers with valid concentration time profiles were included in the pharmacokinetic (PK) analysis||103.02|97.65|
90994187|NCT04124692|181872831|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
90994188|NCT04124692|181872832|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0043|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||= 0.0043
90994189|NCT04124692|181872832|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
90994190|NCT05136170|181872888|SUPERIORITY|The following null hypothesis was defined on this endpoint: the proportion of patients reaching a value of Schirmer I test (without anaesthesia) \>10mm/5min at week 4 in cenegermin (rhNGF) was lower or equal than control. The null hypothesis was rejected if the associated primary analysis p-value was lower than 0.025.|Odds Ratio (OR)|8.498||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.165|33.356||P-value of treatment variable from logistic regression model on proportion of patients reaching a value of Schirmer I test (without anesthesia) \>10mm/5min|Regression, Logistic|||Analysis was based on logistic regression model with multiple imputation (MI) under a missing not at random (MNAR) mechanism using retrieve dropouts with proportion of patients reaching a value of Schirmer I test \> 10 mm/5 min at Week 4 as dependent variable, treatment, gender, age class and baseline Schirmer I test value as qualitative independent variables. Site was considered as random effects that vary randomly among patients.||33.356|2.165|0.002
90994191|NCT05136170|181872889|SUPERIORITY|The following null hypothesis is defined on this endpoint: the change from baseline (reduction) in the global SANDE score at week 12 in cenegermin is lower or equal than control. The null hypothesis is rejected if the associated primary analysis p-value is lower than 0.025.|Adjusted means difference|0.59||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.801|8.981||P-value of adjusted means difference between treatments from the ANCOVA model on change from baseline in the global SANDE score.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with multiple imputation (MI) under a missing not at random (MNAR) mechanism using retrieve dropouts with change from baseline in the global SANDE score at Week 12 as dependent variable, treatment, gender, age class and baseline global SANDE score as qualitative independent variables. Site was considered as random effects that vary randomly among patients.||8.981|-7.801|0.890
91043404|NCT00401245|181972597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|||||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||For DVS 50 mg QOD, ANOVA was used to compare the DESS score between each tapering regimen and the control regimen (no tapering) for the titration population, where treatment was kept as the factor.||||0.078
90994192|NCT05136170|181872890|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was based on logistic regression model with multiple imputation (MI) under missing not at random (MNAR) using retrieve dropouts with proportion of patients reaching a value of Schirmer I test \>10 mm/5 min at Week 8 as dependent variable, treatment, gender, age class and baseline Schirmer I test value as qualitative independent variables. Site was considered as random effects that vary randomly among patients.|Odds Ratio (OR)|6.648||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.307|33.808|||Regression, Logistic|||This key secondary endpoint was analyzed by means of a logistic regression model with proportion of patients reaching a value of Schirmer I test \>10mm/5min at Week 8 as dependent variable, treatment, gender, age class and baseline Schirmer I test value as fixed effects and site as random effect.||33.808|1.307|0.022
90994193|NCT05136170|181872891|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted means difference|0.221||||0.962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.934|9.377||P-value of adjusted means difference between treatments from the ANCOVA model on change from baseline in SANDE score for severity at Week 12.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with multiple imputation (MI) under missing not at random (MNAR) using retrieve dropouts with change from baseline in the severity SANDE score at Week 12 as dependent variable, treatment, gender, age class and baseline severity SANDE score as qualitative independent variables.Site was considered as random effects that vary randomly among patients.||9.377|-8.934|0.962
90994194|NCT05136170|181872892|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted means difference|0.164||||0.973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.221|9.549||P-value of adjusted means difference between treatments from the ANCOVA model on change from baseline in SANDE score for frequency at Week 12.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with multiple imputation (MI) under missing not at random (MNAR) using retrieve dropouts with change from baseline in the frequency SANDE score at Week 12 as dependent variable, treatment, gender, age class and baseline frequency SANDE score as qualitative independent variables. Site was considered as random effects that vary randomly among patients.||9.549|-9.221|0.973
90994195|NCT05136170|181872893|SUPERIORITY|"Changes from baseline in each IDEEL modules scale score was analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) adjusting by gender, age class, IDEEL module baseline value, treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Subject was considered as a random effect. The covariance matrix used was unstructured. Comparisons vs vehicle TID were provided using least square means at each visit and overall."|LS means difference|2.378||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.869|9.625||P-value of LS means difference between treatments from the MMRM on change from baseline in IDEEL Quality of Life Module (Daily Activities) at Week 4|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||QoL (Daily Activities) - Week 4||9.625|-4.869|0.52
91043405|NCT00401245|181972597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||For DVS 50/25 mg, ANOVA was used to compare the DESS score between each tapering regimen and the control regimen (no tapering) for the titration population, where treatment was kept as the factor.||||0.005
90994196|NCT05136170|181872893|SUPERIORITY|"Changes from baseline in each IDEEL modules scale score was analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) adjusting by gender, age class, IDEEL module baseline value, treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Subject was considered as a random effect. The covariance matrix used was unstructured. Comparisons vs vehicle TID were provided using least square means at each visit and overall."|LS means difference|7.11||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.653|14.873||P-value of LS means difference between treatments from the MMRM on change from baseline in IDEEL Quality of Life Module (Daily Activities) at Week 12.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||QoL (Daily Activities) - Week 12||14.873|-0.653|0.073
90994197|NCT05136170|181872893|SUPERIORITY|"Changes from baseline in each IDEEL modules scale score was analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) adjusting by gender, age class, IDEEL module baseline value, treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Subject was considered as a random effect. The covariance matrix used was unstructured. Comparisons vs vehicle TID were provided using least square means at each visit and overall."|LS means difference|-4.166||||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.322|3.989||P-value of LS means difference between treatments from the MMRM on change from baseline in IDEEL Quality of Life Module (Feelings) at Week 4.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||QoL (Feelings) - Week 4||3.989|-12.322|0.317
90994198|NCT05136170|181872893|SUPERIORITY|"Changes from baseline in each IDEEL modules scale score was analyzed using a mixedmodel for repeated measures (MMRM) adjusting by gender, age class, IDEEL module baseline value, treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Subject was considered as a random effect. The covariance matrix used was unstructured. Comparisons vs vehicle TID were provided using least square means at each visit and overall"|LS means difference|1.058||||0.792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.786|8.901||P-value of LS means difference between treatments from the MMRM on change from baseline in IDEEL Quality of Life Module (Feelings) at Week 12.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||QoL (Feelings) - Week 12||8.901|-6.786|0.792
90994199|NCT05136170|181872893|SUPERIORITY|"Changes from baseline in each IDEEL modules scale score was analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM). Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Subject was considered as a random effect. The covariance matrix used was unstructured. Comparisons vs vehicle TID were provided using least square means at each visit and overall. Missing data will be imputed according to the questionnaire manuals"|LS means difference|-3.907||||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.948|7.135||P-value of LS means difference between treatments from the MMRM on change from baseline in IDEEL Quality of Life Module (Work) at Week 4.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||QoL (Work) - Week 4||7.135|-14.948|0.488
90994200|NCT05136170|181872893|SUPERIORITY|"Changes from baseline in each IDEEL modules scale score was analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) adjusting by gender, age class, IDEEL module baseline value, treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Subject was considered as a random effect. The covariance matrix used was unstructured. Comparisons vs vehicle TID were provided using least square means at each visit and overall."|LS means difference|-0.284||||0.954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.998|9.431||P-value of LS means difference between treatments from the MMRM on change from baseline in IDEEL Quality of Life Module (Work) at Week 12.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||QoL (Work) - Week 12||9.431|-9.998|0.954
90994201|NCT05136170|181872893|SUPERIORITY|"Changes from baseline in each IDEEL modules scale score was analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) adjusting by gender, age class, IDEEl module baseline value, treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Subject was considered as a random effect. The covariance matrix used was unstructured. Comparisons vs vehicle TID were provided using least square means at each visit and overall."|LS means difference|-0.049||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.658|7.559||P-value of LS means difference between treatments from the MMRM on change from baseline in IDEEL DE Treatment Satisfaction \& Bother module (Satisfaction with Treatment Effectiveness) at Week 4.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||TS (Treatment - in general) - Week 4||7.559|-7.658|0.99
90994202|NCT05136170|181872893|SUPERIORITY|"Changes from baseline in each IDEEL modules scale score was analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)adjusting by gender, age class, IDEEL module baseline value, treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Subject was considered as a random effect. The covariance matrix used was unstructured. Comparisons vs vehicle TID were provided using least square means at each visit and overall."|LS means difference|1.976||||0.582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.065|9.017||P-value of LS means difference between treatments from the MMRM on change from baseline in IDEEL DE Treatment Satisfaction \& Bother module (Satisfaction with Treatment Effectiveness) at Week 12.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||TS (Treatment - in general) - Week 12||9.017|-5.065|0.582
90994203|NCT05136170|181872893|SUPERIORITY|"Changes from baseline in each IDEEL modules scale score was analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) adjusting by gender, age class, IDEEL module baseline value, treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Subject was considered as a random effect. The covariance matrix used was unstructured. Comparisons vs vehicle TID were provided using least square means at each visit and overall."|LS means difference|5.232||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.457|11.922||P-value of LS means difference between treatments from the MMRM on change from baseline in IDEEL DE Symptom Bother Module at Week 4.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Symptom - Bother - Week 4||11.922|-1.457|0.125
90994204|NCT05136170|181872893|SUPERIORITY|"Changes from baseline in each IDEEL modules scale score was analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) adjusting by gender, age class, IDEEL module baseline value, treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Subject was considered as a random effect. The covariance matrix used was unstructured. Comparisons vs vehicle TID were provided using least square means at each visit and overall."|LS means difference|-0.156||||0.964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.912|6.6||P-value of LS means difference between treatments from the MMRM on change from baseline in IDEEL DE Symptom Bother Module at Week 12.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Symptom - Bother - Week 12||6.6|-6.912|0.964
90994205|NCT05136170|181872894|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.795||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.157|1.748||P-value of LS means difference between treatments from the MMRM on change from baseline at Week 4.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||"Analysis was based on MMRM with Multiple Imputation under missing not at random using retrieve dropouts with change from baseline in TFBUT at each timepoint adjusting by gender, age class, TFBUT scale baseline value, treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction. Patient was considered as a random effect and the covariance matrix used was unstructured.~Herein analysis for Week 4 was reported."||1.748|-0.157|0.102
91043406|NCT00401245|181972597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.929||95.0||||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||For DVS 50mg/Placebo, ANOVA was used to compare the DESS score between each tapering regimen and the control regimen (no tapering) for the titration population, where treatment was kept as the factor.||||0.929
91043407|NCT00401245|181972599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017||||||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Chi-squared|||Overall comparison was made between each titration regimen and the control regimen (100 mg).||||0.017
90994206|NCT05136170|181872894|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|-0.051||||0.923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.094|0.991||P-value of LS means difference between treatments from the MMRM on change from baseline at Week 8.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||"Analysis was based on MMRM with Multiple Imputation under missing not at random using retrieve dropouts with change from baseline in TFBUT at each timepoint adjusting by gender, age class, TFBUT scale baseline value, treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction. Patient was considered as a random effect and the covariance matrix used was unstructured.~Herein analysis for Week 8 was reported."||0.991|-1.094|0.923
91043408|NCT00401245|181972606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison was made between the difference in the means from the baseline value and post-baseline (Week 4) value with 0.||||<0.001
90994207|NCT05136170|181872894|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.136||||0.787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.849|1.12||P-value of LS means difference between treatments from the MMRM on change from baseline at Week 12|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||"Analysis was based on MMRM with Multiple Imputation under missing not at random using retrieve dropouts with change from baseline in TFBUT at each timepoint adjusting by gender, age class, TFBUT scale baseline value, treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction. Patient was considered as a random effect and the covariance matrix used was unstructured.~Herein analysis for Week 12 was reported."||1.12|-0.849|0.787
90994208|NCT05136170|181872895|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein analysis for Week 4 (Visit 3) was reported.||||<0.001
90994209|NCT05136170|181872895|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein analysis for Week 8 (Visit 4) was reported.||||<0.001
90994210|NCT05136170|181872895|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein analysis for Week 12 (Visit 5) was reported.||||0.014
90994211|NCT05136170|181872895|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.095||||||Not statistically significant result. p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein analysis for Week 16 (Visit 6) was reported.||||0.095
90994212|NCT05136170|181872896|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein analysis for Week 4 (Visit 3) was reported.||||0.02
90994213|NCT05136170|181872896|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.328||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein analysis for Week 8 (Visit 4) was reported.||||0.328
90994214|NCT05136170|181872896|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.287||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein analysis for Week 12 (Visit 5) was reported.||||0.287
90994215|NCT05136170|181872896|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.777||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein analysis for Week 16 (Visit 6) was reported.||||0.777
90994216|NCT05136170|181872897|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.126||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and and Vehicle in all patients.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein analysis for Week 4 (Visit 3) was reported.||||0.126
90994217|NCT05136170|181872897|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.968||||||p-value corresponds to a two sample (independent group) t-test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|t-test, 2 sided|||Herein analysis for Week 8 (Visit 4) was reported.||||0.968
90994218|NCT05136170|181872897|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.613||||||p-value corresponds to a two sample (independent group) t-test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|t-test, 2 sided|||Herein analysis for Week 12 (Visit 5) was reported.||||0.613
90994219|NCT05136170|181872897|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.805||||||p-value corresponds to a two sample (independent group) t-test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|t-test, 2 sided|||Herein analysis for Week 16 (Visit 6) was reported.||||0.805
90994220|NCT05136170|181872898|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.543||||||p-value corresponds to two sample (independent group) t-test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|t-test, 2 sided|||Herein analysis for Global score - Week 8 (Visit 4) was reported.||||0.543
90994221|NCT05136170|181872898|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.677||||||p-value corresponds to two sample (independent group) t-test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|t-test, 2 sided|||Herein analysis for Global score - Week 12 (Visit 5) was reported.||||0.677
90994222|NCT05136170|181872898|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.914||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein analysis for Global score - Week 16 (Visit 6) was reported.||||0.914
90994223|NCT05136170|181872898|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.874||||||p-value corresponds to two sample (independent group) t-test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|t-test, 2 sided|||Herein analysis for Severity - Week 8 (Visit 4) was reported.||||0.874
90994224|NCT05136170|181872898|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.945||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein analysis for Severity - Week 12 (Visit 5) was reported.||||0.945
90994225|NCT05136170|181872898|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.727||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein analysis for Severity - Week 16 (Visit 6) was reported.||||0.727
90994226|NCT05136170|181872898|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.342||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein analysis for Frequency - Week 8 (Visit 4) was reported.||||0.342
90994227|NCT05136170|181872898|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.821||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein analysis for Frequency - Week 12 (Visit 5) was reported.||||0.821
90994228|NCT05136170|181872898|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.926||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein analysis for Frequency - Week 16 (Visit 6) was reported.||||0.926
90994229|NCT05136170|181872899|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0344||||||p-value corresponds to Chi-square test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Chi-squared|||Herein analysis for Worsening in symptom scores (SANDE global score) - Week 4 (Visit 3) was reported.||||0.0344
90994230|NCT05136170|181872899|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||p-value corresponds to a Fisher's exact test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Fisher Exact|||Herein analysis for NEI score \>= 50% - Week 4 (Visit 3) was reported.||||1
90994231|NCT05136170|181872899|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0235||||||p-value corresponds to Chi-square test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Chi-squared|||Herein analysis for Worsening in symptom scores and/or NEI score \>= 50 - Week 4 (Visit 3) was reported.||||0.0235
90994232|NCT05136170|181872900|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.888||||||p-value corresponds to a two sample (independent group) t-test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|t-test, 2 sided|||Herein analysis for QoL (Impact on Daily Activities) - Week 4 (Visit 3) was reported.||||0.888
90994233|NCT05136170|181872900|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.651||||||p-value corresponds to a two sample (independent group) t-test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|t-test, 2 sided|||Herein analysis for QoL (Impact on Daily Activities) - Week 8 (Visit 4) was reported.||||0.651
90994234|NCT05136170|181872900|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.267||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein analysis for QoL (Impact on Daily Activities) - Week 12 (Visit 5) was reported.||||0.267
90994235|NCT05136170|181872900|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.459||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein analysis for QoL (Impact on Daily Activities) - Week 16 (Visit 6) was reported.||||0.459
90994236|NCT05136170|181872900|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.192||||||p-value corresponds to a two sample (independent group) t-test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|t-test, 2 sided|||Herein analysis for QoL (Emotional Impact due to Dry Eye) - Week 4 was reported.||||0.192
90994237|NCT05136170|181872900|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.568||||||p-value corresponds to a two sample (independent group) t-test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|t-test, 2 sided|||Herein analysis for QoL (Emotional Impact due to Dry Eye) - Week 8 was reported.||||0.568
90994238|NCT05136170|181872900|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.871||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein analysis for QoL (Emotional Impact due to Dry Eye) - Week 12 was reported.||||0.871
90994239|NCT05136170|181872900|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85||||||p-value corresponds to a two sample (independent group) t-test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|t-test, 2 sided|||Herein analysis for QoL (Emotional Impact due to Dry Eye) - Week 16 was reported.||||0.85
90994240|NCT05136170|181872900|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.364||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein analysis for QoL (Impact on Work due to Dry Eye) - Week 4 was reported.||||0.364
90994241|NCT05136170|181872900|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.646||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein analysis for QoL (Impact on Work due to Dry Eye) - Week 8 was reported.||||0.646
90994242|NCT05136170|181872900|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.739||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein analysis for QoL (Impact on Work due to Dry Eye) - Week 12 was reported.||||0.739
90994243|NCT05136170|181872900|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.664||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein analysis for QoL (Impact on Work due to Dry Eye) - Week 16 was reported.||||0.664
90994244|NCT05136170|181872900|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.846||||||p-value corresponds to a two sample (independent group) t-test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|t-test, 2 sided|||Herein analysis for TS (Satisfaction with Effectiveness) - Week 4 was reported.||||0.846
90994245|NCT05136170|181872900|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.248||||||p-value corresponds to a two sample (independent group) t-test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|t-test, 2 sided|||Herein analysis for TS (Satisfaction with Effectiveness) - Week 8 was reported.||||0.248
90994246|NCT05136170|181872900|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.341||||||p-value corresponds to a two sample (independent group) t-test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|t-test, 2 sided|||Herein analysis for TS (Satisfaction with Effectiveness) - Week 12 was reported.||||0.341
90994247|NCT05136170|181872900|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.413||||||p-value corresponds to a two sample (independent group) t-test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients|t-test, 2 sided|||Herein analysis for TS (Satisfaction with Effectiveness) - Week 16 was reported.||||0.413
90994248|NCT05136170|181872900|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.927||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein analysis for TS (Treatment Bother/Inconvenience) - Week 4 was reported.||||0.927
90994249|NCT05136170|181872900|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.914||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein analysis for TS (Treatment Bother/Inconvenience) - Week 8 was reported.||||0.914
90994250|NCT05136170|181872900|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.564||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein analysis for TS (Treatment Bother/Inconvenience) - Week 12 was reported.||||0.564
91043409|NCT00401245|181972606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison was made between the difference in the means from the baseline value and post-baseline (Week 8) value with 0.||||< 0.001
90994251|NCT05136170|181872900|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.489||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein analysis for TS (Treatment Bother/Inconvenience) - Week 16 was reported.||||0.489
90994252|NCT05136170|181872900|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.082||||||p-value corresponds to a two sample (independent group) t-test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|t-test, 2 sided|||Herein analysis for Symptom-Bother - Week 4||||0.082
90994253|NCT05136170|181872900|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.848||||||p-value corresponds to a two sample (independent group) t-test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|t-test, 2 sided|||Herein analysis for Symptom-Bother - Week 8 was reported.||||0.848
90994254|NCT05136170|181872900|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.805||||||p-value corresponds to a two sample (independent group) t-test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|t-test, 2 sided|||Herein analysis for Symptom-Bother - Week 12 was reported.||||0.805
90994255|NCT05136170|181872900|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.833||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein analysis for Symptom-Bother - Week 16 was reported.||||0.833
90994256|NCT05136170|181872903|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90994257|NCT05136170|181872904|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.046
90994258|NCT05136170|181872905|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.34
90994259|NCT05136170|181872906|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein analysis for Global Score - Week 2 was reported||||0.017
90994260|NCT05136170|181872906|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.339||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein analysis for Global Score - Week 4 was reported||||0.339
90994261|NCT05136170|181872906|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||p-value corresponds to a two sample (independent group) t-test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|t-test, 2 sided|||Herein analysis for Severity - Week 2 was reported.||||0.004
90994262|NCT05136170|181872906|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.292||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein analysis for Severity - Week 4 was reported.||||0.292
90994263|NCT05136170|181872906|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein analysis for Frequency - Week 2 was reported.||||0.09
90994264|NCT05136170|181872906|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein analysis for Frequency - Week 4 was reported.||||0.54
90994265|NCT05136170|181872907|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0064||||||p-value corresponds to Chi-square test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Chi-squared|||Herein analysis for Worsening in symptom scores (SANDE global score) was reported.||||0.0064
90994266|NCT05136170|181872907|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||p-value corresponds to a Fisher's exact test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Fisher Exact|||Herein analysis for NEI score \>= 50% was reported.||||1
90994267|NCT05136170|181872907|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0034||||||p-value corresponds to Chi-square test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Chi-squared|||Herein analysis for Worsening in symptom scores and/or NEI score \>= 50 was reported.||||0.0034
90994268|NCT05136170|181872908|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all participants.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90994269|NCT05168813|181872921|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.77|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for variables expected to affect risk of future COVID-19 and evidence of prior SARS-CoV-2 exposure.||||0.77|0.44|< .001
91043410|NCT00401245|181972606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison was made between the difference in the means from the base value and post-baseline (Week 12) value with 0.||||<0.001
91043411|NCT00401245|181972606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison was made between the difference in the means from the baseline value and post-baseline (Week 16) value with 0.||||<0.001
91043412|NCT00951093|181972645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P value adjusted for multiple comparisons|Friedman´s test|followed by nonparametric pairwise multiple comparisons||||||<0.001
91043413|NCT00951093|181972646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Friedman´s test|followed by nonparametric pairwise multiple comparisons||||||0.002
90994270|NCT05168813|181872922|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.48||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.78|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for variables expected to affect risk of future COVID-19 and evidence of prior SARS-CoV-2 exposure.||||0.78|0.29|0.003
90994271|NCT05168813|181872923|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.27||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.04|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for variables expected to affect risk of future COVID-19 and evidence of prior SARS-CoV-2 exposure.||||1.04|0.07|0.056
90994272|NCT05168813|181872924|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.15|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for variables expected to affect risk of future COVID-19 and evidence of prior SARS-CoV-2 exposure.||||1.15|0.73|0.449
90994273|NCT05168813|181872925|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.29||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|8.87|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for variables expected to affect risk of future COVID-19 and evidence of prior SARS-CoV-2 exposure.||||8.87|0.59|0.23
90994274|NCT05168813|181872935|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.73|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for variables expected to affect risk of future COVID-19 and evidence of prior SARS-CoV-2 exposure.||||0.73|0.43|< .001
90994275|NCT05168813|181872936|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.68|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for variables expected to affect risk of future COVID-19 and evidence of prior SARS-CoV-2 exposure.||||0.68|0.27|< .001
90994276|NCT05168813|181872937|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.27||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.82|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for variables expected to affect risk of future COVID-19 and evidence of prior SARS-CoV-2 exposure.||||0.82|0.09|0.02
90994277|NCT05168813|181872938|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.09|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for variables expected to affect risk of future COVID-19 and evidence of prior SARS-CoV-2 exposure.||||1.09|0.67|0.218
90994278|NCT05168813|181872939|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.78||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|3.77|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for variables expected to affect risk of future COVID-19 and evidence of prior SARS-CoV-2 exposure.||||3.77|0.84|0.135
91043414|NCT00951093|181972647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Friedman´s test|||||||< 0.001
91043415|NCT00951093|181972648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.02||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|followed by nonparametric pairwise multiple comparisons||||||< 0.020
91043416|NCT00951093|181972649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|followed by nonparametric pairwise multiple comparisons||||||< 0.001
91043417|NCT00951093|181972650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|followed by nonparametric pairwise multiple comparisons||||||0.001
91043418|NCT00951093|181972651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Friedman´s test|followed by nonparametric pairwise multiple comparisons||||||< 0.001
90994279|NCT05388656|181872947|OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.09
90994280|NCT05388656|181872948|OTHER|||||||0.0018|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0018
90994281|NCT05388656|181872949|OTHER|||||||0.0108|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0108
90994282|NCT03201965|181872950|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.22|8.16|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||8.16|3.22|<0.0001
91043419|NCT04412057|181972688|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.86||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.04|7.88|||Regression, Logistic|||The sample size provided greater than 80% power to detect a difference of 0.25 in the proportion of subjects alive and free of respiratory failure using a Chi-square exact test at a one-sided significance level of 0.05. This calculation assumed that the proportion alive and free of respiratory failure will be 0.60 in the placebo group and 0.85 in the CERC-002 group.||7.88|1.04|0.0440
91043420|NCT04412057|181972689|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.1762|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.59|6.82|||Regression, Logistic|||The proportion of subjects alive at Day 28/ET in the CERC-002 group was compared to that in the placebo group using logistic regression methods. The logistic regression model included terms for treatment group. Model based point estimate (i.e., odds ratio \[OR\]), 90% confidence interval \[CI\], and one-sided p-value were reported.||6.82|0.59|0.1762
91043421|NCT02051595|181972702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||estimate (beta) from mixed model|-0.068|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.098|-0.039||A priori threshold was set to p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses modeled change in vancomycin concentrations (independent variable defined by time). Analyses were adjusted for covariates.|Negative beta value indicates that vancomycin concentration decreased following cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB).|||-0.039|-0.098|<0.0001
91043422|NCT01729026|181972734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Effect size (Cohen's d)|-0.75||||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|0.35||Between baseline and 3-month follow-up, subjects in the Adoption group had a mean improvement of 15.20 points on the PCL-5 compared to 7.77 points in the Wait-list group.|Mixed effects regression models|||The analyses were mixed effect regression models with repeated measures at randomization (baseline) and at the 3-month post-randomization follow-up using a 2 x 2 design. Treatment (Adoption group vs Wait-list group), time (baseline and 3-month follow-up) and their interaction were the fixed design effects. The treatment by time interaction tests the significance of the difference between baseline and 3-month follow-up between the Adoption and Wait-list groups.||0.35|-1.85|0.141
91043423|NCT01729026|181972735|SUPERIORITY||effect size (Cohen's d)|0.0||||0.982|TWO_SIDED||||||effect size (Cohen's d)|||||||0.982
91043424|NCT01729026|181972736|SUPERIORITY||effect size (Cohen's d)|-0.5||||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||effect size (Cohen's d)|||||||0.160
91043425|NCT01729026|181972737|SUPERIORITY||effect size (Cohen's d)|-1.36||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.49|-0.23|||effect size (Cohen's d)|||||-0.23|-2.49|0.015
91043426|NCT01729026|181972738|SUPERIORITY||effect size (Cohen's d)|0.2||||0.59|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.59
90994283|NCT03589326|181872967|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.18|||=|0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.29||P-value is based on CMH chi-square test, with stratification according to randomization strata (age): 18 through \<45 years, ≥45 through \<60 years, and ≥60 years.|Chi-squared||Risk difference and 95% CI: adjusted percent ponatinib - adjusted percent imatinib and its 95% CI.|||0.29|0.06|=0.0021
90994284|NCT01341652|181873006|OTHER|||||||0.97|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.97
90994285|NCT01341652|181873007|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|||||||.08
90994286|NCT01341652|181873009|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.6||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.8|||Regression, Cox|||||2.8|0.9|0.14
90994287|NCT00906074|181873011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.881|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared Pearson||Neoplasm||||0.881
90994288|NCT00906074|181873011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.517|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared Pearson||Tobacco use||||0.517
90994289|NCT00906074|181873011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.053|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared Pearson||BMI(kg/mˆ2)\>30||||0.053
90994290|NCT00906074|181873011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.289|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared Pearson||Diabetes mellitus||||0.289
90994291|NCT00906074|181873011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared Pearson||Immunosuppression/Corticosteroids||||1.000
90994292|NCT00906074|181873011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.169|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared Pearson||Anemia (Hb\<9gr/dL)||||0.169
90994293|NCT00906074|181873011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.637|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared Pearson||Malnutrition (hypoalbuminemia)||||0.637
90994294|NCT00906074|181873012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared Pearson||||||1.000
90994295|NCT00906074|181873013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.873|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared Pearson||||||0.873
90994296|NCT00906074|181873018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.156|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared Pearson||||||0.156
90994297|NCT00906074|181873019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.444|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.444
90994298|NCT04593940|181873049|SUPERIORITY||Recovery Rate Ratio|1.122||||0.0793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.987|1.275|||Fine-Gray Proportional Hazards Model|||||1.275|0.987|0.0793
90994299|NCT04593940|181873049|SUPERIORITY||Recovery Rate Ratio|1.12||||0.0864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.984|1.275|||Fine-Gray Proportional Hazards Model|||||1.275|.984|0.0864
90994300|NCT04593940|181873049|SUPERIORITY||Recovery Rate Ratio|1.006||||0.9354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.862|1.176|||Fine-Gray Proportional Hazards Model|||||1.176|0.862|0.9354
90994301|NCT04593940|181873050|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.309||||0.0213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.041|1.647|||Regression, Logistic|Ordinal logistic regression|Ordinal logistic regression|||1.647|1.041|0.0213
90994302|NCT04593940|181873050|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.174||||0.1732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.932|1.48|||Regression, Logistic|Ordinal logistic regression|Ordinal logistic regression|||1.480|0.932|0.1732
90994303|NCT04593940|181873050|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.944||||0.6823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.717|1.243|||Regression, Logistic|Ordinal logistic regression|Ordinal logistic regression|||1.243|0.717|0.6823
90994304|NCT04593940|181873051|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.614||||0.0229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.403|0.935|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.935|0.403|0.0229
90994305|NCT04593940|181873051|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.629||||0.0281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.416|0.951|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.951|0.416|0.0281
90994306|NCT04593940|181873051|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.167||||0.541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.711|1.917|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.917|0.711|0.541
90994307|NCT04593940|181873052|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.435||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.129|1.825|||Regression, Logistic|Ordinal logistic regression|Ordinal logistic regression|||1.825|1.129|0.0032
90994308|NCT04593940|181873052|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.338||||0.0228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.041|1.718|||Regression, Logistic|Ordinal logistic regression|Ordinal logistic regression|||1.718|1.041|0.0228
90994309|NCT04593940|181873052|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.904||||0.4994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.675|1.211|||Regression, Logistic|Ordinal logistic regression|Ordinal logistic regression|||1.211|0.675|0.4994
90994310|NCT04593940|181873053|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.632||||0.0988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.367|1.09|||Regression, Logistic|Ordinal logistic regression|Ordinal logistic regression|||1.090|0.367|0.0988
90994311|NCT04593940|181873053|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.552||||0.0354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.317|0.96|||Regression, Logistic|Ordinal logistic regression|Ordinal logistic regression|||0.960|0.317|0.0354
90994312|NCT04593940|181873053|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.287||||0.4132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.703|2.355|||Regression, Logistic|Ordinal logistic regression|Ordinal logistic regression|||2.355|0.703|0.4132
90994313|NCT04593940|181873054|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.1601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.28|||Fine-Gray Proportional Hazards Model|||||1.28|1.00|0.1601
90994314|NCT04593940|181873054|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.24|||Fine-Gray Proportional Hazards Model|||||1.24|0.97|0.3550
90994315|NCT04593940|181873054|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.2386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.07|||Fine-Gray Proportional Hazards Model|||||1.07|0.80|0.2386
90994316|NCT04593940|181873055|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.1519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.26|||Fine-Gray Proportional Hazards Model|||||1.26|0.98|0.1519
90994317|NCT04593940|181873055|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.2605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.26|||Fine-Gray Proportional Hazards Model|||||1.26|0.98|0.2605
90994318|NCT04593940|181873055|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.4359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.13|||Fine-Gray Proportional Hazards Model|||||1.13|0.83|0.4359
90994319|NCT04593940|181873056|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06||||0.321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.06|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.06|-0.18|0.3210
90994320|NCT04593940|181873056|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04||||0.5275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.17|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.17|-0.09|0.5275
90994321|NCT04593940|181873056|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.9993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.15|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.15|-0.15|0.9993
90994322|NCT04593940|181873057|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07||||0.4982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.26|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.26|-0.13|0.4982
90994323|NCT04593940|181873057|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.09||||0.3491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.29|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.29|-0.10|0.3491
90994324|NCT04593940|181873057|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.22|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.22|-0.25|0.9020
90994325|NCT04593940|181873058|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.24||||0.0842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.52|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.52|-0.03|0.0842
90994326|NCT04593940|181873058|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.09||||0.5328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.37|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.37|-0.19|0.5328
91043427|NCT01729026|181972739|SUPERIORITY||mixed effects regression models|-1.41||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-0.31|||effect size (Cohen's d)|||||-0.31|-2.50|0.010
91043428|NCT01729026|181972740|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.13
91043429|NCT01729026|181972741|SUPERIORITY||effect size (Cohen's d)|0.9||||0.188|TWO_SIDED||||||effect size (Cohen's d)|||||||0.188
90994327|NCT04593940|181873058|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12||||0.4727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.21|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.21|-0.46|0.4727
90994328|NCT04593940|181873059|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.31||||0.0399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.61|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.61|0.01|0.0399
90994329|NCT04593940|181873059|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.11||||0.4515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.41|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.41|-0.18|0.4515
90994330|NCT04593940|181873059|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07||||0.696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.29|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.29|-0.43|0.6960
90994331|NCT04593940|181873060|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.26||||0.0903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.57|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.57|-0.04|0.0903
90994332|NCT04593940|181873060|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.15||||0.348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.45|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.45|-0.16|0.3480
90994333|NCT04593940|181873060|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07||||0.6984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.29|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.29|-0.44|0.6984
90994334|NCT04593940|181873061|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.32||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.62|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.62|0.01|0.0450
90994335|NCT04593940|181873061|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.19||||0.2462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.50|-0.13|0.2462
90994336|NCT04593940|181873061|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.23||||0.2304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.15|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.15|-0.61|0.2304
91043430|NCT01729026|181972743|SUPERIORITY||effect size (Cohen's d)|1.2||||0.031|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effects regression models|||||||0.031
91043431|NCT01729026|181972744|SUPERIORITY||effect size (Cohen's d)|0.3||||0.541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.4|||effect size (Cohen's d)|||||1.40|-0.80|0.541
91043432|NCT01729026|181972745|SUPERIORITY||effect size (Cohen's d)|0.6||||0.139|TWO_SIDED||||||effect size (Cohen's d)|||Please note that a minus number indicates an increase in pain ratings.||||0.139
90994337|NCT04593940|181873062|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.35||||0.0313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.66|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.66|0.03|0.0313
90994338|NCT04593940|181873062|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.31||||0.0555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.63|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.63|-0.01|0.0555
90994339|NCT04593940|181873062|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.22||||0.271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.17|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.17|-0.60|0.2710
90994340|NCT04593940|181873063|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.0||||||||2.0|-0.0|
90994341|NCT04593940|181873063|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.6||||||||1.6|-0.5|
90994342|NCT04593940|181873063|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.7||||||||0.7|-1.8|
91043433|NCT02744755|181972755|EQUIVALENCE|A 0.6 change in DAS28-CRP score is considered as no clinically meaningful difference by EULAR criteria and is therefore used as the equivalence margin limits \[0.6,-0.6\].|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.27||||||Therapeutic equivalence in terms of change from baseline in DAS28-CRP at week 12 will be concluded if the 95% confidence interval for the LS mean difference between GP2017 and Humira is contained within the interval \[-0.6; 0.6\]. A mixed-model repeated measures analysis was performed for DAS28-CRP change from baseline including treatment, stratification factors, time, the interaction between time (visits) and treatment all as categorical variables, and baseline DAS28-CRP as a continuous variable.||0.27|-0.24|
91043434|NCT02744755|181972755|EQUIVALENCE|A 0.6 change in DAS28-CRP score is considered as no clinically meaningful difference by EULAR criteria and is therefore used as the equivalence margin limits \[0.6,-0.6\].|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.19|0.23||||||Therapeutic equivalence in terms of change from baseline in DAS28-CRP at week 12 will be concluded if the 90% confidence interval for the LS mean difference between GP2017 and Humira is contained within the interval \[-0.6; 0.6\]. A mixed-model repeated measures analysis was performed for DAS28-CRP change from baseline including treatment, stratification factors, time, the interaction between time (visits) and treatment all as categorical variables, and baseline DAS28-CRP as a continuous variable.||0.23|-0.19|
90994343|NCT04593940|181873064|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|29.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|53.7||||||||53.7|-0.4|
90994344|NCT04593940|181873064|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|14.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|40.0||||||||40.0|-14.8|
90994345|NCT04593940|181873064|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|-5.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.7|26.6||||||||26.6|-38.7|
90994346|NCT04593940|181873065|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.3||||||||2.3|0.2|
90994347|NCT04593940|181873065|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|2.0||||||||2.0|-0.1|
90994348|NCT04593940|181873065|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.6||||||||0.6|-2.0|
90994349|NCT04593940|181873066|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|-7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|0.0||||||||0.0|-14.0|
90994350|NCT04593940|181873066|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|-3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|3.4||||||||3.4|-11.1|
90994351|NCT04593940|181873066|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|8.1||||||||8.1|-10.1|
90994352|NCT04593940|181873067|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.8||||||||1.8|-0.1|
90994353|NCT04593940|181873067|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.7||||||||1.7|-0.3|
90994354|NCT04593940|181873067|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.4||||||||0.4|-2.0|
91043435|NCT02744755|181972756|EQUIVALENCE|A 0.6 change in DAS28-CRP score is considered as no clinically meaningful difference by EULAR criteria and is therefore used as the equivalence margin limits \[0.6,-0.6\].|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.096|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.27|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model included treatment, body weight as per CRF, prior therapy as per CRF, region as per CRF as fixed effects and baseline DAS28-CRP values as covariate.||0.27|-0.11|
90994355|NCT04593940|181873068|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|3.5||||||||3.5|-5.7|
90994356|NCT04593940|181873068|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|3.3||||||||3.3|-6.0|
90994357|NCT04593940|181873068|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|8.0||||||||8.0|-3.7|
91043436|NCT02744755|181972756|EQUIVALENCE|A 0.6 change in DAS28-CRP score is considered as no clinically meaningful difference by EULAR criteria and is therefore used as the equivalence margin limits \[0.6,-0.6\].|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.096|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.08|0.24|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model included treatment, body weight as per CRF, prior therapy as per CRF, region as per CRF as fixed effects and baseline DAS28-CRP values as covariate.||0.24|-0.08|
91043437|NCT00974350|181972787|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.353||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|-0.44|||ANOVA|LS Mean difference from SABER-Placebo||Pain Intensity on Movement AUCs1-72 hours Including Pain Assessed Upon Taking Opioid Rescue - ITT||-0.44|-1.84|0.0031
91043438|NCT00974350|181972788|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0909|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study sites||Proportion of Patients Not Taking Any Supplemental Opioid Analgesic Medication||||0.0909
90994358|NCT04593940|181873069|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.0||||||||2.0|-0.0|
90994359|NCT04593940|181873069|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.4||||||||1.4|-0.7|
90994360|NCT04593940|181873069|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.1||||||||1.1|-1.3|
90994361|NCT04593940|181873070|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.878||||0.3169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.133|||Log Rank|||||1.133|0.680|0.3169
90994362|NCT04593940|181873070|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.863||||0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.672|1.108|||Log Rank|||||1.108|0.672|0.2480
90994363|NCT04593940|181873070|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.191||||0.249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.885|1.604|||Log Rank|||||1.604|0.885|0.2490
90994364|NCT04593940|181873071|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.083||||0.5175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.38|||Log Rank|||||1.380|0.850|0.5175
90994365|NCT04593940|181873071|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.923||||0.5216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.722|1.179|||Log Rank|||||1.179|0.722|0.5216
90994366|NCT04593940|181873071|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.075||||0.6135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.812|1.424|||Log Rank|||||1.424|0.812|0.6135
90994367|NCT04593940|181873072|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.565||||0.3628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.165|1.931|||Log Rank|||||1.931|0.165|0.3628
90994368|NCT04593940|181873072|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57||||0.3701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.167|1.948|||Log Rank|||||1.948|0.167|0.3701
90994369|NCT04593940|181873072|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.988||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.211|11.251|||Log Rank|||||11.251|2.211|0.0001
90994370|NCT04146467|181873101|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
90994371|NCT04146467|181873103|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0004|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0004
90994372|NCT04146467|181873111|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
90994373|NCT02128763|181873132|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||P value refers to difference between group on change in overall OSDI score (Row 1).|Regression, Linear|||||||0.40
90994374|NCT02128763|181873133|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.09
90994375|NCT02128763|181873134|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|Pos hoc application of the Benjamini-Hochberg adjustment||||||0.77
91043439|NCT01344018|181972793|SUPERIORITY|"Time assessment biases were taken into account for the primary endpoint:~* Surgery alone arm: abdominal recurrence occurring prior to week 14 assessment was counted as occurring at week 14; progression occurring after the week 14 was counted as occurring at week 24.~* Preoperative RT arm: abdominal recurrence occurring was counted as occurring at week 14; and any abdominal recurrence occurring after and prior to or during the week 24 will be counted as occurring at week 24."|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.44||A 5% significance level was considered as a threshold for statistical significance.|Regression, Cox|The time assessment biases correction described before was not applied to patients for whom death was the first event.|The arm having surgery alone was the reference arm.|Sample size was determined to provide 90% power for detecting a Hazard Ratio (HR)=0.52 (which corresponds to a 20% difference in ARFS rate at 5 years, from 50% in the surgery arm to 70% in the experimental arm) at a global 2-sided 5% significance level assuming ARFS followed an exponential distribution in both arms. This test required 102 events at the time of the statistical analysis.||1.44|0.71|0.955
91043440|NCT01344018|181972798|SUPERIORITY|ARFI was described using cumulative incidence curves. ARFI was compared between the two treatment arms using a Fine and Gray model.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.6||A 5% significance level was considered as a threshold for statistical significance.|Fine and Gray model|||||1.60|0.74|0.658
90994376|NCT02128763|181873135|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.95
91043441|NCT01344018|181972799|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.36||A 5% significance level was considered as a threshold for statistical significance.|Regression, Cox|||||1.36|0.58|0.595
90994377|NCT02128763|181873136|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.051
90994378|NCT02128763|181873137|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.001
90994379|NCT02128763|181873138|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.001
90994380|NCT02128763|181873139|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.40
90994381|NCT02128763|181873140|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.77
90994382|NCT02128763|181873141|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.95
90994383|NCT02128763|181873142|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.25
90994384|NCT02128763|181873143|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.61
90994385|NCT02128763|181873144|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.42
90994386|NCT02128763|181873145|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.60
90994387|NCT02128763|181873146|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.17
90994388|NCT02128763|181873147|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.02
90994389|NCT02128763|181873148|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.71
90994390|NCT02128763|181873149|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.66
90994391|NCT02128763|181873150|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.02
90994392|NCT00099359|181873194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.046||||||Overall comparison of 3 KM curves using an extension of the M-H test was performed. Results indicated a significant difference therefore a 2nd stage analysis was done to compare each pair of transmission rates, using 2-sample Mantel-Haenzel tests.|multiple comparison|Hochberg's modified Bonferroni method was used to adjust the significance level for comparisons between arms.||||||.046
90994393|NCT00099359|181873195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.0001
90994394|NCT00099359|181873196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2432|||||||multiple comparison|||||||.2432
90994395|NCT00099359|181873197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.49
90994396|NCT00099359|181873200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|1.01|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted Odds ratio for treatment arm C (ZDV+3TC/NFV) association with Intrapartum Infection Status with Treatment Arm A (ZDV only) as reference group||||1.01|0.24|0.05
90994397|NCT00099359|181873200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.39||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.82||Adjusted odds ratio for association of treatment arm B (ZDV+NVP) with intrapartum infection status with Treatment Arm A (ZDV only) as reference.|Regression, Logistic|||||0.82|0.19|0.01
90994398|NCT00099359|181873200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.51||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|5.86|||Regression, Logistic|"Adjusted odds ratio for association of illegal substance use during pregnancy and intrapartum HIV infection status with NO being reference group."||||5.86|1.08|0.03
90994399|NCT00099359|181873200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|3.35||Adjusted odds ratio for the association of continuous log10 viral load with intrapartum infection status|Regression, Logistic|||||3.35|1.56|<0.0001
90994400|NCT02104804|181873215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.45|||ANCOVA|||||-0.45|-0.72|<0.001
90994401|NCT02104804|181873216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-6133.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|781.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7668.5|-4597.9|||ANCOVA|||||-4597.9|-7668.5|<0.001
90994402|NCT02104804|181873217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least squares mean|-39.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.41|-28.82|||ANCOVA|||||-28.82|-49.41|<0.001
90994403|NCT02104804|181873218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.8||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|12.6|||Difference in proportions|||||12.6|3.1|0.002
90994404|NCT02104804|181873219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-15.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.88|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.53|-10.22|||ANCOVA|||||-10.22|-21.53|<0.001
90994405|NCT02104804|181873220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least squares mean|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.19|||ANCOVA|||||0.19|-0.44|0.430
90994406|NCT00406783|181873222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90994407|NCT00406783|181873223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91043442|NCT01344018|181972800|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||0.615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|2.05|||Regression, Cox|||||2.05|0.65|0.615
91043443|NCT04010227|181972801|SUPERIORITY||partial correlation|0.08||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.4||P-value for study group x time interaction. Two-tailed p-values \<.05 were considered statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|degrees of freedom = 76. multiply imputed data were used in analyses.||||0.40|-0.23|0.60
90994408|NCT01179347|181873329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||0.092||95.0|-0.27|3.55||Two-sided p-value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based MMRM. Adjusted for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, age group, baseline and baseline-by-visit.|Tio R5 qd minus Placebo.|Hierarchical testing procedure was applied for both co-primary endpoints to maintain the overall alpha level. If and only if statistical superiority of the Tio R5 qd compared to Placebo in FEV1 AUC0-4h was demonstrated at the 1 sided alpha level of 0.025, confirmatory comparison in the second co-primary endpoint, at the same alpha level of 0.025 could be done .||3.55|-0.27|0.092
90994409|NCT01179347|181873330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||0.15||95.0|-0.5|3.3||Two-sided p-value.|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based MMRM. Adjusted for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, age group, baseline and baseline-by-visit.|Tio R5 qd minus Placebo.|Hierarchical testing for co-primary endpoints, confirmatory only if previous hypotheses had been successful,||3.30|-0.50|0.15
90994410|NCT01179347|181873331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.23||95.0|-0.68|2.86||Two-sided p-value.|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based MMRM. Adjusted for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, age group, baseline and baseline-by-visit.|Tio R5 qd minus Placebo.|||2.86|-0.68|0.23
90994411|NCT01179347|181873332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93||0.19||95.0|-0.62|3.02||Two-sided p-value.|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based MMRM. Adjusted for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, age group, baseline and baseline-by-visit.|Tio R5 qd minus Placebo.|||3.02|-0.62|0.19
91043444|NCT04010227|181972802|SUPERIORITY||partial correlation|0.02||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.34||P-value for study group x time interaction. Two-tailed p-values \<.05 were considered statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|degrees of freedom = 76. Multiply imputed data were used.||||0.34|-0.29|0.96
90994412|NCT01179347|181873333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.76||0.62||95.0|-2.59|4.32||Two-sided p-value.|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based MMRM. Adjusted for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, age group, baseline and baseline-by-visit.|Tio R5 qd minus Placebo.|||4.32|-2.59|0.62
90994413|NCT01179347|181873334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.092||||0.84||95.0|0.453|2.633||Two-sided p-value.|Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for treatment, age group, baseline weight and baseline FEV1 percent predicted.|Tio R5 qd versus Placebo.|||2.633|0.453|0.84
90994414|NCT01299610|181873349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.538||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|0.7|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||||0.70|-1.46|0.480
90994415|NCT01299610|181873349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mixed model for repeated measures|-0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.557||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.23|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||||0.23|-2.00|0.118
90994416|NCT01299610|181873349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|-1.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.572||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.65|-0.36|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||||-0.36|-2.65|0.011
90994417|NCT01299610|181873350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.42|||Mixed model repeated measures|||GW870086, 0.2% cream Vs Placebo: Day 2||0.42|-0.24|0.581
90994418|NCT01299610|181873350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.169||0.655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.27|||Mixed model repeated measures|||GW870086, 2.0% cream Vs Placebo: Day 2||0.27|-0.42|0.655
90994419|NCT01299610|181873350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.174||0.336||95.0|-0.52|0.18|||Mixed model repeated measures|||FP, 0.05% cream Vs Placebo: Day 2||0.18|-0.52|0.336
91043445|NCT04010227|181972803|SUPERIORITY||partial correlation|0.06||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.38||P-value for study group x time interaction. Two-tailed p-values \<.05 were considered statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|degrees of freedom = 76. Multiply imputed data were used.||||0.38|-0.25|0.75
91043446|NCT04010227|181972804|SUPERIORITY||partial correlation|0.09||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.4||P-value for study group x time interaction. Two-tailed p-values \<.05 were considered statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|degrees of freedom = 144. Multiply imputed data were used.||||0.40|-0.23|0.33
91043447|NCT04010227|181972805|SUPERIORITY||partial correlation|0.03||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.34||P-value for study group x time interaction. Two-tailed p-values \<.05 were considered statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|degrees of freedom = 144. Multiply imputed data were used.||||0.34|-0.29|0.91
90994420|NCT01299610|181873350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.302||0.923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.63|||Mixed model repeated measures|||GW870086 0.2% cream Vs Placebo: Day 3||0.63|-0.58|0.923
90994421|NCT01299610|181873350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.314||0.657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.77|||Mixed model repeated measures|||GW870086, 2.0% cream, Placebo: Day 3||0.77|-0.49|0.657
90994422|NCT01299610|181873350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.323||0.386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.36|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Placebo, FP, 0.05% cream: Day 3||0.36|-0.93|0.386
90994423|NCT01299610|181873350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.456||0.601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|0.67|||Mixed model repeated measures|||GW870086, 0.2% cream, Placebo: Day 7||0.67|-1.15|0.601
90994424|NCT01299610|181873350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.472||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|0.35|||Mixed model repeated measures|||GW870086, 2.0% cream, Placebo: Day 7||0.35|-1.54|0.212
90994425|NCT01299610|181873350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|-1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.485||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|-0.32|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Placebo, FP, 0.05% cream: Day 7||-0.32|-2.26|0.010
90994426|NCT01299610|181873350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.462||0.602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|0.68|||Mixed model repeated measures|||GW870086, 0.2% cream, Placebo: Day 14||0.68|-1.17|0.602
90994427|NCT01299610|181873350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.479||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|0.31|||Mixed model repeated measures|||GW870086, 2.0% cream, Placebo: Day 14||0.31|-1.61|0.180
90994428|NCT01299610|181873350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|-1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.492||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.37|-0.4|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Placebo, FP, 0.05% cream: Day 14||-0.40|-2.37|0.006
90994429|NCT01337167|181873360|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 95% CI of the response rate difference is \>= -10%|Response Rate Difference (V419 - Ctrl)|9.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.83|14.83|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Response rate, response rate difference and p-value were stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||Non-inferiority for titer \>=1.0 μg/mL||14.83|4.83|<0.001
90994430|NCT01337167|181873360|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 95% CI of the response rate difference is \>= -5%|Response Rate Difference (V419 - Ctrl)|4.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.23|8.14|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Response rate, response rate difference and p-value were stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||Non-inferiority for titer \>=0.15 μg/mL||8.14|2.23|<0.001
90994431|NCT01337167|181873360|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 95% CI of the response rate difference is \>= -10%|Response Rate Difference (V419-Ctrl)|4.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.23|8.14|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Response rate, response rate difference and p-value were stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||Secondary Analysis: Non-inferiority for titer \>=0.15 μg/mL||8.14|2.23|<0.001
91043448|NCT04010227|181972806|SUPERIORITY||partial correlation|0.06||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.38||P-value for study group x time interaction for patient physical quality of life. Two-tailed p-values \<.05 were considered statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|degrees of freedom = 76. Multiply imputed data were used.||||0.38|-0.25|0.74
90994432|NCT01337167|181873361|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 95% CI of the response rate difference is \>= -10%|Response Rate Difference (V419 - Ctrl)|0.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|2.74|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Response rate, response rate difference and p-value were stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||2.74|-0.35|<0.001
90994433|NCT01337167|181873362|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 95% CI of the response rate difference is \>= -10%|Response Rate Difference (V419 - Ctrl)|-3.84||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.02|0.66|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Response rate, response rate difference and p-value were stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||0.66|-8.02|0.002
90994434|NCT01337167|181873363|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 95% CI of the response rate difference is \>= -5%|Response Rate Difference (V419 - Ctrl)|0.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|1.74|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Response rate, response rate difference and p-value were stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||1.74|-0.28|<0.001
90994435|NCT01337167|181873364|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 95% CI of the response rate difference is \>= -10%|Response Rate Difference (V419 - Ctrl)|-0.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Response rate, response rate difference and p-value were stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||1.60|-1.80|<0.001
90994436|NCT01337167|181873365|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 95% CI of the response rate difference is \>= -10%|Response Rate Difference (V419 - Ctrl)|-4.7||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.14|-0.97|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Response rate, response rate difference and p-value were stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||-0.97|-8.14|0.001
90994437|NCT01337167|181873366|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 95% CI of the response rate difference is \>= -10%|Response Rate Difference (V419 - Ctrl)|-2.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.27|2.23|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Response rate, response rate difference and p-value were stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||2.23|-7.27|<0.001
90994438|NCT01337167|181873367|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 95% CI of the response rate difference is \>= -10%|Response Rate Difference (V419 - Ctrl)|4.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|8.28|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Response rate, response rate difference and p-value were stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||8.28|0.23|<0.001
90994439|NCT01337167|181873368|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 95% CI of the response rate difference is \>= -5%|Response Rate Difference (V419 - Ctrl)|1.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|3.59|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Response rate, response rate difference and p-value were stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||3.59|0.85|<0.001
90994440|NCT01337167|181873368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response Rate|100.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.54|100.0|||Clopper and Pearson|Acceptability requires that the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the response rate is \>=90||||100.00|99.54|<0.001
90994441|NCT01337167|181873369|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 95% CI of the response rate difference is \>= -5%|Response Rate Difference (V419 - Ctrl)|0.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|1.42|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Response rate, response rate difference and p-value were stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||1.42|-0.22|<0.001
90994442|NCT01337167|181873369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response Rate|100.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.54|100.0|||Clopper and Pearson|Acceptability requires that the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the response rate is \>=90||||100.00|99.54|<0.001
90994443|NCT01337167|181873370|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 95% CI of the response rate difference is \>= -5%|Response Rate Difference (V419 - Ctrl)|0.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|1.41|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Response rate, response rate difference and p-value were stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||1.41|-0.24|<0.001
90994444|NCT01337167|181873370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response Rate|100.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.53|100.0|||Clopper and Pearson|Acceptability requires that the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the response rate is \>=90||||100.00|99.53|<0.001
90994445|NCT01337167|181873371|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the Geometric Mean Concentration (GMC) ratio is \>=0.67|GMC Ratio (V419/Control)|1.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|1.38|||ANCOVA|GMC, GMC ratio, and p-value were adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||1.38|1.20|<0.001
90994446|NCT01337167|181873372|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio is \>=0.67|GMC Ratio (V419/Control)|0.64||||0.786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.7|||ANCOVA|GMC, GMC ratio, and p-value were adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||0.70|0.59|0.786
90994447|NCT01337167|181873373|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio is \>=0.67|GMC Ratio (V419/Control)|0.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.95|||ANCOVA|GMC, GMC ratio, and p-value were adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||0.95|0.73|<0.001
90994448|NCT01337167|181873374|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio is \>=0.67|GMC Ratio (V419/Control)|1.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|1.42|||ANCOVA|GMC, GMC ratio, and p-value were adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||1.42|1.15|<0.001
90994449|NCT01337167|181873375|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 95% CI of the response rate difference is \>= -10%|Response Rate Difference (V419 - Ctrl)|1.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|4.18|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Response rate, response rate difference and p-value were stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||4.18|0.39|<0.001
90994450|NCT01337167|181873376|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 95% CI of the response rate difference is \>= -10%|Response Rate Difference (V419 - Ctrl)|1.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|4.78|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Response rate, response rate difference and p-value were stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||4.78|-1.67|<0.001
90994451|NCT01337167|181873377|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 95% CI of the response rate difference is \>= -10%|Response Rate Difference (V419 - Ctrl)|-0.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.46|3.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Response rate, response rate difference and p-value were stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||3.10|-3.46|<0.001
90994452|NCT01337167|181873378|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 95% CI of the response rate difference is \>= -10%|Response Rate Difference (V419 - Ctrl)|6.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.26|9.78|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Response rate, response rate difference and p-value were stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||9.78|3.26|<0.001
90994453|NCT01337167|181873379|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio is \>=0.67|GMC Ratio (V419/Control)|1.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|1.52|||ANCOVA|GMC, GMC ratio, and p-value were adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||1.52|1.28|<0.001
90994454|NCT01337167|181873380|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio is \>=0.67|GMC Ratio (V419/Control)|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.1|||ANCOVA|GMC, GMC ratio, and p-value were adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||1.10|0.91|<0.001
90994455|NCT01337167|181873381|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio is \>=0.67|GMC Ratio (V419/Control)|0.78||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.89|||ANCOVA|GMC, GMC ratio, and p-value were adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||0.89|0.68|0.014
90994456|NCT01337167|181873382|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio is \>=0.67|GMC Ratio (V419/Control)|1.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|1.78|||ANCOVA|GMC, GMC ratio, and p-value were adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||1.78|1.41|<0.001
90994457|NCT01337167|181873383|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio is \>=0.67|GMC Ratio (V419/Control)|1.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|1.98|||ANCOVA|GMC, GMC ratio, and p-value were adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||1.98|1.32|<0.001
90994458|NCT01337167|181873384|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio is \>=0.67|GMC Ratio (V419/Control)|1.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.24|||ANCOVA|GMC, GMC ratio, and p-value were adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||1.24|0.83|<0.001
90994459|NCT01337167|181873388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.4|-7.7|||||Mean Difference is V419 - Control. The 95% confidence intervals were based on the unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Estimated difference, all routes \<38°C||-7.7|-18.4|
90994460|NCT01337167|181873388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|9.5|||||Mean Difference is V419 - Control. The 95% confidence intervals were based on the unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Estimated difference, all routes \>=38°C and \<38.5°C||9.5|0.5|
90994461|NCT01337167|181873388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|11.2|||||Mean Difference is V419 - Control. The 95% confidence intervals were based on the unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Estimated difference, all routes \>=38.5°C and \<39.5°C||11.2|2.8|
90994462|NCT01337167|181873388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|2.2|||||Mean Difference is V419 - Control. The 95% confidence intervals were based on the unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Estimated difference, all routes \>=39.5°C||2.2|-0.6|
90994463|NCT01337167|181873388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.6|-7.7|||||Mean Difference is V419 - Control. The 95% confidence intervals were based on the unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Estimated difference, rectal \<38°C||-7.7|-18.6|
90994464|NCT01337167|181873388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|10.8|||||Mean Difference is V419 - Control. The 95% confidence intervals were based on the unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Estimated difference, rectal \>=38°C and \<38.5°C||10.8|1.9|
90994465|NCT01337167|181873388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|10.7|||||Mean Difference is V419 - Control. The 95% confidence intervals were based on the unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Estimated difference, rectal \>=38.5°C and \<39.5°C||10.7|2.4|
90994466|NCT01337167|181873388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|2.4|||||Mean Difference is V419 - Control. The 95% confidence intervals were based on the unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Estimated difference, rectal \>=39.5°C||2.4|-0.3|
90994467|NCT04172701|181873403|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Individual log-linked Poisson model|||||||<0.0001
90994468|NCT04172701|181873404|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Individual t-test or Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.001
90994469|NCT04172701|181873405|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
90994470|NCT04172701|181873406|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.475|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.308|1.663|||Regression, Cox|||The Cox proportional hazards regression took into account the fact that individual matching (1:1) was performed by considering the exposed patient and his/her matched control as one stratum and including this as a stratum in the Cox proportional hazards model.The presented Hazard Ratio (HR) was estimated using the LAMA as a reference group.||1.663|1.308|<0.0001
90994471|NCT04172701|181873407|OTHER|||||||0.0003|||||||Individual log-linked Poisson model|||||||0.0003
90994472|NCT04172701|181873408|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Individual t-test or Wilcoxon test|||||||0.001
90994473|NCT04172701|181873409|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.145||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.059|1.237|||Regression, Cox|||The Cox proportional hazards regression took into account the fact that individual matching (1:1) was performed by considering the exposed patient and his/her matched control as one stratum and including this as a stratum in the Cox proportional hazards model. The presented Hazard Ratio (HR) was estimated using the LAMA as a reference group.||1.237|1.059|0.0006
90994474|NCT04172701|181873410|OTHER|||||||0.00074|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.00074
90994475|NCT04172701|181873411|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Individual log-linked Poisson model|||||||<0.0001
90994476|NCT04172701|181873412|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.601|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.404|1.826|||Regression, Cox|||The Cox proportional hazards regression took into account the fact that individual matching (1:1) was performed by considering the exposed patient and his/her matched control as one stratum and including this as a stratum in the Cox proportional hazards model. The presented Hazard Ratio (HR) was estimated using the LAMA as a reference group.||1.826|1.404|<0.0001
90994477|NCT04172701|181873413|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
90994478|NCT04172701|181873414|OTHER|||||||0.2875|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2875
90994479|NCT04172701|181873415|OTHER|||||||0.4602|||||||Individual t-test or Wilcoxon test|||||||0.4602
90994480|NCT04172701|181873416|OTHER|||||||0.0062|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0062
91043449|NCT04010227|181972806|SUPERIORITY||partial correlation|0.14||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.45||P-value for study group x time interaction for patient psychological quality of life. Two-tailed p-values \<.05 were considered statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|degrees of freedom = 76. Multiply imputed data were used.||||0.45|-0.18|0.24
91043450|NCT04010227|181972806|SUPERIORITY||partial correlation|0.06||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.37||P-value for study group x time interaction for patient existential quality of life. Two-tailed p-values \<.05 were considered statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|degrees of freedom = 76. Multiply imputed data were used.||||0.37|-0.26|0.78
91043451|NCT04010227|181972806|SUPERIORITY||partial correlation|0.13||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.44||P-value for study group x time interaction for patient social quality of life. Two-tailed p-values \<.05 were considered statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|degrees of freedom = 76. Multiply imputed data were used.||||0.44|-0.19|0.29
90994481|NCT04172701|181873417|OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||Individual t-test or Wilcoxon test|||||||0.0002
90994482|NCT04172701|181873418|OTHER|||||||0.4907|||||||Individual t-test or Wilcoxon test|||||||0.4907
91043452|NCT04010227|181972807|SUPERIORITY||partial correlation|0.03||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.35||P-value for study group x time interaction for caregiver physical quality of life. Two-tailed p-values \<.05 were considered statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|degrees of freedom = 76. Multiply imputed data were used.||||0.35|-0.28|0.92
90994483|NCT04172701|181873419|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Individual t-test or Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.001
90994484|NCT04172701|181873420|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90994485|NCT04172701|181873421|OTHER|||||||0.543|||||||Individual t-test or Wilcoxon test|||||||0.543
90994486|NCT04172701|181873422|OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.080
90994487|NCT04172701|181873423|OTHER|||||||0.363|||||||Individual t-test or Wilcoxon test|||||||0.363
90994488|NCT04172701|181873424|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Individual t-test or Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.0001
90994489|NCT04172701|181873425|OTHER|||||||0.0494|||||||Individual t-test or Wilcoxon test|||||||0.0494
90994490|NCT04172701|181873426|OTHER|||||||0.0091|||||||Individual t-test or Wilcoxon test|||||||0.0091
90994491|NCT04172701|181873427|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Individual t-test or Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.0001
90994492|NCT04172701|181873428|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Individual t-test or Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.0001
90994493|NCT04172701|181873429|OTHER|||||||0.7298|||||||Individual t-test or Wilcoxon test|||||||0.7298
90994494|NCT04172701|181873430|OTHER|||||||0.0093|||||||Individual t-test or Wilcoxon test|||||||0.0093
90994495|NCT04172701|181873431|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Individual t-test or Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.0001
90994496|NCT04172701|181873432|OTHER||Cost ratio|1.177|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.104|1.255|||Individual t-test or Wilcoxon test||cost ratio = cost of ICS/LABA divided by cost of LAMA|||1.255|1.104|<0.0001
90994497|NCT04172701|181873433|OTHER||Cost ratio|1.194||||0.0103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.043|1.367|||Individual t-test or Wilcoxon test||cost ratio = cost of ICS/LABA divided by cost of LAMA|||1.367|1.043|0.0103
90994498|NCT04172701|181873434|OTHER||Cost ratio|1.104||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.034|1.178|||Individual t-test or Wilcoxon test||cost ratio = cost of ICS/LABA divided by cost of LAMA|||1.178|1.034|0.0030
90994499|NCT04172701|181873435|OTHER||Cost ratio|1.175|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|1.221|||Individual t-test or Wilcoxon test||cost ratio = cost of ICS/LABA divided by cost of LAMA|||1.221|1.130|<0.0001
90994500|NCT04172701|181873436|OTHER||Cost ratio|1.236|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.134|1.346|||Individual t-test or Wilcoxon test||cost ratio = cost of ICS/LABA divided by cost of LAMA|||1.346|1.134|<0.0001
90994501|NCT04172701|181873437|OTHER||Cost ratio|1.214||||0.0212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.029|1.431|||Individual t-test or Wilcoxon test||cost ratio = cost of ICS/LABA divided by cost of LAMA|||1.431|1.029|0.0212
90994502|NCT04172701|181873438|OTHER||Cost ratio|1.026||||0.5024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.952|1.105|||Individual t-test or Wilcoxon test||cost ratio = cost of ICS/LABA divided by cost of LAMA|||1.105|0.952|0.5024
90994503|NCT04172701|181873439|OTHER||Cost ratio|1.304|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.243|1.369|||Individual t-test or Wilcoxon test||cost ratio = cost of ICS/LABA divided by cost of LAMA|||1.369|1.243|<0.0001
90994504|NCT04172701|181873440|OTHER|||||||0.7198|||||||Individual log-linked Poisson model|||||||0.7198
90994505|NCT04172701|181873441|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.072||||0.7341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.719|1.598|||Regression, Cox|||The Cox proportional hazards regression took into account the fact that individual matching (1:1) was performed by considering the exposed patient and his/her matched control as one stratum and including this as a stratum in the Cox proportional hazards model. The presented Hazard Ratio (HR) was estimated using the LAMA as a reference group.||1.598|0.719|0.7341
90994506|NCT04172701|181873442|OTHER|||||||0.74|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.74
90994507|NCT04172701|181873443|OTHER|||||||0.9985|||||||Individual log-linked Poisson model|||||||0.9985
90994508|NCT04172701|181873444|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.879||||0.5097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.289|||Regression, Cox|||The Cox proportional hazards regression took into account the fact that individual matching (1:1) was performed by considering the exposed patient and his/her matched control as one stratum and including this as a stratum in the Cox proportional hazards model. The presented Hazard Ratio (HR) was estimated using the LAMA as a reference group.||1.289|0.600|0.5097
90994509|NCT04172701|181873445|OTHER|||||||0.51|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.51
90994510|NCT04172701|181873446|OTHER|||||||0.6069|||||||Individual log-linked Poisson model|||||||0.6069
90994511|NCT04172701|181873447|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.025||||0.896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.705|1.49|||Regression, Cox|||The Cox proportional hazards regression took into account the fact that individual matching (1:1) was performed by considering the exposed patient and his/her matched control as one stratum and including this as a stratum in the Cox proportional hazards model. The presented Hazard Ratio (HR) was estimated using the LAMA as a reference group.||1.490|0.705|0.8960
90994512|NCT04172701|181873448|OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.9
90994513|NCT04172701|181873449|OTHER|||||||0.1354|||||||Individual log-linked Poisson model|||||||0.1354
90994514|NCT04172701|181873450|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59||||0.1158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.305|1.139|||Regression, Cox|||The Cox proportional hazards regression took into account the fact that individual matching (1:1) was performed by considering the exposed patient and his/her matched control as one stratum and including this as a stratum in the Cox proportional hazards model. The presented Hazard Ratio (HR) was estimated using the LAMA as a reference group.||1.139|0.305|0.1158
90994515|NCT04172701|181873451|OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.11
90994516|NCT02126670|181873452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.799|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.799
90994517|NCT02757092|181873454|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
90994518|NCT02757092|181873455|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||null hypothesis||||<0.05
90994519|NCT02757092|181873456|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
90994520|NCT02757092|181873457|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
90994521|NCT02757092|181873458|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
90994522|NCT02757092|181873459|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||null hypothesis||||<0.05
90994523|NCT02757092|181873460|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||null hypothesis||||<0.05
90994524|NCT02757092|181873461|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
90994525|NCT02757092|181873462|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
90994526|NCT02757092|181873463|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
90994527|NCT02757092|181873464|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
90994528|NCT02757092|181873465|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Descriptive statistics were expressed as mean ± standard deviation or median and interquartile range depending on the nature and distribution of the variables||||0.05
90994529|NCT02757092|181873466|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||null hypothesis||||<0.05
90994530|NCT02757092|181873467|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
90994531|NCT02757092|181873468|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
90994532|NCT02757092|181873469|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||null hypothesis||||<0.05
90994533|NCT02757092|181873471|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
90994534|NCT02757092|181873472|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
90994535|NCT02757092|181873473|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
90994536|NCT02757092|181873474|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||null hypothesis||||<0.05
90994537|NCT02757092|181873475|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||null hypothesis||||<0.05
90994538|NCT02757092|181873476|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||null hypothesis||||<0.05
90994539|NCT02757092|181873477|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
90994540|NCT02757092|181873478|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||null hypothesis||||<0.05
90994541|NCT02757092|181873480|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
90994542|NCT02757092|181873481|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
90994543|NCT02757092|181873482|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
90994544|NCT01975246|181873486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|-2.4|||ANCOVA|Model includes baseline DBP as a linear covariate, and treatment and center as fixed effects.||The last observation carried forward (LOCF) method was applied for missing data, where the value from the measurements at the closest preceding visit replaced the missing value.||-2.4|-5.3|<0.0001
90994545|NCT01975246|181873487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|-3.1|||ANCOVA|Model includes baseline SBP as a linear covariate, and treatment and center as fixed effects.||The last observation carried forward (LOCF) method was applied for missing data, where the value from the measurements at the closest preceding visit replaced the missing value.||-3.1|-7.6|<0.0001
90994546|NCT01975246|181873488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1|||<|0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|3.4|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes treatment and center as fixed effects.||"The Non-completers considered failure (NCF) method was applied for missing data, where missing data due to early discontinuation will be replaced as failure up to the planned final visit to be reached by all patients."||3.4|1.2|<0.0051
90994547|NCT01646398|181873489|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.75||||||Serotype 1: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS).||1.75|0.99|
90994548|NCT01646398|181873489|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.89||||||Serotype 3: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS).||0.89|0.59|
90994549|NCT01646398|181873489|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.96|3.44||||||Serotype 4: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS).||3.44|1.96|
90994550|NCT01646398|181873489|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.22|3.86||||||Serotype 5: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS).||3.86|2.22|
90994551|NCT01646398|181873489|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.75||||||Serotype 6B: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS).||1.75|1.10|
90994552|NCT01646398|181873489|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.74||||||Serotype 7F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS).||1.74|1.12|
90994553|NCT01646398|181873489|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|3.24||||||Serotype 9V: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS).||3.24|1.59|
90994554|NCT01646398|181873489|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.23||||||Serotype 14: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS).||1.23|0.77|
90994555|NCT01646398|181873489|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.61|2.86||||||Serotype 18C: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS).||2.86|1.61|
90994556|NCT01646398|181873489|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.81|2.92||||||Serotype 19A: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS).||2.92|1.81|
90994557|NCT01646398|181873489|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|2.79||||||Serotype 19F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS).||2.79|1.42|
90994558|NCT01646398|181873489|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.84|3.49||||||Serotype 23F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS).||3.49|1.84|
90994559|NCT01646398|181873490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|26.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.3|34.0||||||Difference in proportions (13vPnC - 23vPS) expressed as a percentage presented along with exact, 2-sided 95%CI. Statistical significance was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.||34.0|19.3|
90994560|NCT01646398|181873491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.75||||||Serotype 1: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS). Statistical significance was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 1.0.||1.75|0.99|
90994561|NCT01646398|181873491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.89||||||Serotype 3: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS). Statistical significance was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 1.0.||0.89|0.59|
90994562|NCT01646398|181873491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.96|3.44||||||Serotype 4: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS). Statistical significance was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 1.0.||3.44|1.96|
90994563|NCT01646398|181873491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.22|3.86||||||Serotype 5: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS). Statistical significance was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 1.0.||3.86|2.22|
90994564|NCT01646398|181873491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.75||||||Serotype 6B: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS). Statistical significance was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 1.0.||1.75|1.10|
90994565|NCT01646398|181873491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.74||||||Serotype 7F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS). Statistical significance was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 1.0.||1.74|1.12|
91043453|NCT04010227|181972807|SUPERIORITY||partial correlation|0.06||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.37||P-value for study group x time interaction for caregiver psychological quality of life. Two-tailed p-values \<.05 were considered statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|degrees of freedom = 76. Multiply imputed data were used.||||0.37|-0.26|0.79
91043454|NCT04010227|181972808|SUPERIORITY||partial correlation|0.02||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.34||P-value for study group x time interaction. Two-tailed p-values \<.05 were considered statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|degrees of freedom = 144. Multiply imputed data were used.||||0.34|-0.30|0.94
90994566|NCT01646398|181873491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|3.24||||||Serotype 9V: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS). Statistical significance was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 1.0.||3.24|1.59|
90994567|NCT01646398|181873491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.23||||||Serotype 14: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS). Statistical significance was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 1.0.||1.23|0.77|
91043455|NCT00781079|181972828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|||||Models included site, age, race, ethnicity.|Regression, Linear|||comparisons between the PS and Usual Care groups were completed with a regression testing the interaction of group (PS vs Usual Care) and time (baseline vs follow-up) for the outcome measure. The measure was analyzed with mixed effect hierarchical regressions which accounted for the nesting of site under treatment, subjects within sites, and subjects over time.||||.5
90994568|NCT01646398|181873491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.61|2.86||||||Serotype 18C: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS). Statistical significance was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 1.0.||2.86|1.61|
91043456|NCT00781079|181972829|SUPERIORITY||Z tests if Reg coeff are diff from 0|-0.58||||0.56|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.56
90994569|NCT01646398|181873491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.81|2.92||||||Serotype 19A: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS). Statistical significance was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 1.0.||2.92|1.81|
90994570|NCT01646398|181873491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|2.79||||||Serotype 19F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS). Statistical significance was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 1.0.||2.79|1.42|
90994571|NCT01646398|181873491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.84|3.49||||||Serotype 23F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS). Statistical significance was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 1.0.||3.49|1.84|
90994572|NCT01646398|181873491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.38|4.14||||||Serotype 6A: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS). Statistical significance was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 2.0.||4.14|2.38|
90994573|NCT01263093|181873495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.72|0.83|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical inference was made using the test treatment of LY2216684 + clopidogrel and the reference treatment of clopidogrel alone.|||0.83|0.72|
90994574|NCT01263093|181873496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.53|0.67|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical inference was made using the test treatment of LY2216684 + clopidogrel and the reference treatment of clopidogrel alone.|||0.67|0.53|
90994575|NCT01263093|181873498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median of Paired Differences|0.0||||0.3303|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.25|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.25|0.00|0.3303
90994576|NCT04857593|181873502|OTHER||Mean change in EPDS score|5.4||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.001
90994577|NCT00880763|181873576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted difference in percent|65.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.0|82.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Computed using Miettinen and Nurminen method adjusting the strata (participation of Intensive-pharmacokinetic cohort vs. not).|||82.8|37.0|<0.001
90994578|NCT00880763|181873576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted difference in percent|74.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.6|89.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Computed using Miettinen and Nurminen method adjusting the strata (participation of Intensive-pharmacokinetic cohort vs. not).|||89.0|47.6|<0.001
90994579|NCT00880763|181873576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted difference in percent|55.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.9|76.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Computed using Miettinen and Nurminen method adjusting the strata (participation of Intensive-pharmacokinetic cohort vs. not).|||76.0|24.9|<0.001
90994580|NCT00880763|181873577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted difference in percent|4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|24.2|||||Computed using Miettinen and Nurminen method adjusting the strata (participation of Intensive-pharmacokinetic cohort vs. not)|||24.2|-11.3|
90994581|NCT00880763|181873577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted difference in percent|4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|24.2|||||Computed using Miettinen and Nurminen method adjusting the strata (participation of Intensive-pharmacokinetic cohort vs. not)|||24.2|-12.4|
90994582|NCT00880763|181873577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted difference in percent|4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|24.2|||||Computed using Miettinen and Nurminen method adjusting the strata (participation of Intensive-pharmacokinetic cohort vs. not)|||24.2|-12.0|
90994583|NCT00880763|181873578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted difference in percent|14.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|36.2|||||Computed using Miettinen and Nurminen method adjusting the strata (participation of Intensive-pharmacokinetic cohort vs. not)|||36.2|-2.5|
90994584|NCT00880763|181873578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted difference in percent|14.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|36.3|||||Computed using Miettinen and Nurminen method adjusting the strata (participation of Intensive-pharmacokinetic cohort vs. not)|||36.3|-3.4|
90994585|NCT00880763|181873578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted difference in percent|14.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|36.1|||||Computed using Miettinen and Nurminen method adjusting the strata (participation of Intensive-pharmacokinetic cohort vs. not)|||36.1|-3.3|
90994586|NCT00880763|181873579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-1.2|||||Computed using a longitudinal data analysis model including treatment, time and the interaction of time by treatment, with a restriction of the same baseline mean across treatment groups.|||-1.2|-2.3|
90994587|NCT00880763|181873579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-1.3|||||Computed using a longitudinal data analysis model including treatment, time and the interaction of time by treatment, with a restriction of the same baseline mean across treatment groups.|||-1.3|-2.4|
90994588|NCT00880763|181873579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-1.1|||||Computed using a longitudinal data analysis model including treatment, time and the interaction of time by treatment, with a restriction of the same baseline mean across treatment groups.|||-1.1|-2.2|
90994589|NCT03353753|181873597|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio, log|0.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.25||Two-sided P-value|Log Rank|Strata: prior lines of therapy (3 versus ≥4); ECOG (0 versus 1 or 2)|Ripretinib: Placebo; based on stratified Cox Proportional Hazards Regression Model using randomization stratification factors \[prior lines of therapy (3 versus ≥4); ECOG (0 versus 1 or 2)\]|||0.25|0.09|<0.0001
90994590|NCT03353753|181873598|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0504||||||Two-sided P-value|Fisher Exact|||||||0.0504
90994591|NCT03353753|181873600|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.36||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.62||Not evaluated for statistical significance as a result of the sequential testing procedure for the secondary endpoints of ORR and OS.|Log Rank|Strata: prior lines of therapy (3 versus ≥4); ECOG (0 versus 1 or 2)|Ripretinib: Placebo; based on stratified Cox Proportional Hazards Regression Model using randomization stratification factors \[prior lines of therapy (3 versus ≥4); ECOG (0 versus 1 or 2)\]|||0.62|0.21|0.0004
90994592|NCT03353753|181873601|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||Not evaluated for statistical significance as a result of the sequential testing procedure for the secondary endpoints of ORR, OS, and QOL.|ANCOVA|Factors: prior lines of therapy (3 versus ≥4); ECOG (0 versus 1 or 2)||||||0.001
90994593|NCT03353753|181873602|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||Not evaluated for statistical significance as a result of the sequential testing procedure for the secondary endpoints of ORR, OS, and QOL.|ANCOVA|Factors: prior lines of therapy (3 versus ≥4); ECOG (0 versus 1 or 2)||||||0.004
90994594|NCT03353753|181873603|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004
90994595|NCT00205699|181873605|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p value refers to the time by treatment condition interaction. The a priori threshold for statistical significance in this planned primary test was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Primary analysis for change in DEXA % fat used a likelihood-based mixed-effects model using time (0, 6 and 12 weeks) and medication group as independent variables, with Toeplitz covariance structure specified, based on Bayesian information criteria (BIC). The null hypotheses were that there was no difference in the outcome over time (main effect of time) and that there were no differences between groups in the change over time (time by treatment condition).||||<0.0001
90994596|NCT00205699|181873606|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.07
90994597|NCT00205699|181873607|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.27
90994598|NCT00205699|181873608|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.17
90994599|NCT00205699|181873609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.29
90994600|NCT00205699|181873610|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.003|||||||ANCOVA|||Repeated measures ANCOVA was used to test for the main effect of time on the outcome, and to test for a time by treatment condition interaction that would indicate differences between groups in change over time in the primary outcome. The null hypotheses were that there was no difference in the outcome over time (main effect of time) and that there were no differences between groups in the change over time (time by treatment condition).||||<0.003
90994601|NCT00205699|181873610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was applied (p\<0.05/4 = 0.0125).|Contrast|Contrasts based on the ANCOVA-derived time by treatment condition interaction.||||||0.003
90994602|NCT00205699|181873610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was applied (p\<0.05/4 = 0.0125).|ANCOVA|Contrasts based on the ANCOVA-derived time by treatment condition interaction.||||||0.002
90994603|NCT04397718|181873797|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|3.06|||Chi-squared||Logistic regression adjusted for age, hypertension, and COPD|||3.06|0.46|0.667
90994604|NCT04397718|181873798|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.49|||Log Rank||Cox regression model adjusted for age, hypertension, and COPD.|||1.49|0.58|0.876
90994605|NCT04397718|181873799|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|2.92|||Chi-squared||Logistic regression adjusted for age, hypertension, and COPD.|||2.92|0.31|0.991
90994606|NCT04397718|181873800|SUPERIORITY||Quantile Regression|0.0||||0.841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.03|4.11|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Adjusted for age, hypertension, and COPD|||4.11|-2.03|0.841
90994607|NCT04397718|181873801|SUPERIORITY||Quantile Regression|0.0||||0.746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Adjusted for age, hypertension, and COPD|||0|0|0.746
90994608|NCT04397718|181873802|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.3||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|7.39|||Log Rank||Cox regression model adjusted for age, hypertension, and COPD|||7.39|0.72|0.1
90994609|NCT04397718|181873803|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|2.0|||Fisher Exact||||Logistical regression adjusted for age, hypertension, COPD, and baseline severity score.|2|0.33|0.425
90994610|NCT04397718|181873804|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|3.42|||Chi-squared||Logistic regression adjusted for age, hypertension, and COPD.|||3.42|0.44|0.688
90994611|NCT01778127|181873810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.90
90994612|NCT01778127|181873810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.18
90994613|NCT01778127|181873810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.14
90994614|NCT01778127|181873811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.49
90994615|NCT01778127|181873811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.84
90994616|NCT01778127|181873811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.37
90994617|NCT01778127|181873812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
90994618|NCT01778127|181873812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.63
90994619|NCT01778127|181873812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.09
91043457|NCT00781079|181972830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Models included site, age, race, ethnicity. This is the calculated p value.|Regression, Linear|||comparisons between the PS and Usual Care groups were completed with a regression testing the interaction of group (PS vs Usual Care) and time (baseline vs follow-up) for the outcome measure. The measure was analyzed with mixed effect hierarchical regressions which accounted for the nesting of site under treatment, subjects within sites, and subjects over time.||||.05
91043458|NCT00781079|181972831|SUPERIORITY||Z test if reg coeff is diff from 0|0.56||||0.58|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.58
91043459|NCT00781079|181972832|SUPERIORITY||Z test if reg coeff is diff than 0|-0.16||||0.87|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.87
90994620|NCT01778127|181873813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.49
90994621|NCT01778127|181873813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.43
90994622|NCT01778127|181873813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.89
90994623|NCT01778127|181873814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.61
90994624|NCT01778127|181873814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.64
90994625|NCT01778127|181873814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.99
90994626|NCT01778127|181873815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.69
90994627|NCT01778127|181873815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.89
90994628|NCT01778127|181873815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.59
90994629|NCT01778127|181873816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.78
90994630|NCT01778127|181873816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.95
90994631|NCT01778127|181873816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.83
90994632|NCT01778127|181873817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.83
90994633|NCT01778127|181873817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.83
90994634|NCT01778127|181873817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.99
90994635|NCT01778127|181873818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.44
90994636|NCT01778127|181873818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.19
90994637|NCT01778127|181873818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.54
90994638|NCT01778127|181873819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.17
90994639|NCT01778127|181873819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.13
91043460|NCT00781079|181972833|SUPERIORITY||Z test if ref coeff is diff than 0|0.03||||0.98|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.98
91043461|NCT04254809|181972834|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.25||Threshold for statistical significance was p = .05|Regression, Linear||REST coded as 0, HSL coded as 1; negative slope reflects greater standardized reductions in outcome among REST compared to HSL|Intention to treat analyses carried last observation forward for all participants enrolled at baseline. Standardized residual change score calculated by regressing scores at one-week follow-up onto scores at baseline.||-0.25|-1.02|.001
91043462|NCT04254809|181972835|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.23||Threshold for significance was p = .05|Regression, Linear||REST coded as 0, HSL coded as 1; negative slope reflects greater standardized reductions in outcome among REST compared to HSL|Intention to treat analyses carried last observation forward for all participants enrolled at baseline. Standardized residual change score calculated by regression scores at one-month follow-up onto scores at baseline.||-0.23|-0.99|.002
91043463|NCT04254809|181972836|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|-0.05||Threshold for statistical significance was p = .05|Regression, Linear||REST coded as -, HSL coded as 1; negative slope reflects greater standardized reductions in outcome among REST compared to HSL.|Intention to treat analyses carried last observation forward for all participants enrolled at baseline. Standardized residual change score calculated by regression scores at one-week follow-up onto scores at baseline.||-.05|-0.86|.03
91043464|NCT01881737|181972897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.848|||||||Paired t test|||Effect Size Cohen's d = -0.05||||0.848
91043465|NCT01881737|181972898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||Paired t test|Effect Size Cohen's d = 0.53||||||0.009
91043466|NCT01881737|181972899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||paired t test|Effect size Cohen's d = 0.38||||||0.38
91043467|NCT01881737|181972901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0001
91043468|NCT00345033|181972902|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A priori power calculation determined the power to detect a change in total cholesterol is over 99%.||||||0.125||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.125
91043469|NCT00345033|181972903|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A priori power calculation determined the power to detect a change in weight will be over 99%.||||||0.109||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.109
91043470|NCT00345033|181972904|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A priori power calculation determined the power to detect a change in Body Mass Index (BMI) will be over 99%.||||||0.229||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.229
91043471|NCT00345033|181972905|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A priori power calculation determined the power to detect a change in glucose metabolism to be 90%.||||||0.01||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.010
91043472|NCT00345033|181972906|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A priori power calculation determined the power to detect a change in triglycerides will be 81%.||||||0.982||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.982
91043473|NCT00345033|181972907|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A priori power calculation determined the power to detect a change in Insulin Resistance will be 90%.||||||0.082||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.082
91043474|NCT03496298|181972908|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of efpeglenatide 4 mg+6 mg versus placebo was to be claimed if the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the hazard ratio for the incidence of both 1.8 and less and 1.3 or less.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.732|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.583|0.918||One-sided p-value based on log rank test of hazard ratio for the incidence of both 1.8 and less and 1.3 or less.|Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% Confidence Interval (CI) were obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model with region (North America, Latin America, Europe, other), randomization stratum of SGLT2 inhibitor use (current use, potential future use, neither current nor potential future use) and treatment (efpeglenatide 4 mg, efpeglenatide 6 mg, placebo) as fixed effect factor.||0.918|0.583|<.0001
91043475|NCT03496298|181972909|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was claimed when the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of hazard ratio was less than 1.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.732||||0.0069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.583|0.918||Two-sided p-values based on log rank test of hazard ratio.|Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model with region (North America, Latin America, Europe, other), randomization stratum of SGLT2 inhibitor use (current use, potential future use, neither current nor potential future use) and treatment (efpeglenatide 4 mg, efpeglenatide 6 mg, placebo) as fixed effect factor.||0.918|0.583|0.0069
91043476|NCT03496298|181972910|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was claimed when the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of hazard ratio was less than 1.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.96||Two-sided p-values based on log rank test of hazard ratio.|Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model with region (North America, Latin America, Europe, other), randomization stratum of SGLT2 inhibitor use (current use, potential future use, neither current nor potential future use) and treatment (efpeglenatide 4 mg, efpeglenatide 6 mg, placebo) as fixed effect factor.||0.96|0.65|0.02
91043477|NCT03496298|181972911|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was claimed when the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of hazard ratio was less than 1.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.675|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.574|0.794||Two-sided p-values based on log rank test of hazard ratio.|Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model with region (North America, Latin America, Europe, other), randomization stratum of SGLT2 inhibitor use (current use, potential future use, neither current nor potential future use) and treatment (efpeglenatide 4 mg, efpeglenatide 6 mg, placebo) as fixed effect factor.||0.794|0.574|<.0001
91043478|NCT01658995|181972912|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-9.9||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.4|11.6|||Chi-squared|||||11.6|-31.4|0.37
91043479|NCT01658995|181972913|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.46
91043480|NCT02058160|181972927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square (LS) mean difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.633|-0.397||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Insulin Glargine/Lixisenatide FRC vs Insulin Glargine|Analysis was performed using Mixed-effect model with repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment groups, randomization strata of Week -1 HbA1c (\<8.0, ≥8.0%), randomization strata of metformin use at screening, visits, treatment-by-visit interaction and country as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c value-by-visit interaction as covariates. A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple endpoint analyses.||-0.397|-0.633|<0.0001
90994640|NCT01778127|181873819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.81
90994641|NCT01778127|181873820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.08
90994642|NCT01778127|181873820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.15
90994643|NCT01778127|181873820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.83
90994644|NCT01778127|181873821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
90994645|NCT01778127|181873821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.11
90994646|NCT01778127|181873821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.81
90994647|NCT01348425|181873822|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin is +/- 10%, type I error is assumed to be 0.05, with a power of 0.8.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.1|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|3.5||Schuirman's TOST equivalence test on change in stent length upon deployment between longer and shorter stents.|t-test, 2 sided|To test the hypothesis whether the percent change in stent length is contained within \[-10%, 10%\].||The alternative hypothesis is equivalence in mean change in stent length upon deployment between longer and shorter stents, i.e., the difference in mean change between the longer and shorter stents is close to 0. Thus, a small p-value indicates a 95% confidence interval covers 0.||3.5|-2.0|<0.01
90994648|NCT01968954|181873840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-57.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.0|-53.1|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals and p values from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||-53.1|-61.0|<0.001
90994649|NCT01968954|181873841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-36.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.33|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.8|-33.6|||MMRM|||Week 12: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals and p values from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||-33.6|-38.8|<0.001
90994650|NCT01968954|181873841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-34.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.7|-31.7||||||Week 24: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||-31.7|-37.7|
90994651|NCT01968954|181873841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-29.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.69|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.3|-25.7||||||Week 52: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||-25.7|-32.3|
90994652|NCT01968954|181873842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-51.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.2|-48.1|||MMRM|||Week 12: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals and p values from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||-48.1|-55.2|<0.001
90994653|NCT01968954|181873842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean Difference|-50.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.15|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.9|-46.4||||||Week 24: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||-46.4|-54.9|
90994654|NCT01968954|181873842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-41.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.38|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.8|-36.5||||||Week 52:LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||-36.5|-45.8|
91043481|NCT02058160|181972928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|25.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.94|32.1||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||HbA1c \<7.0%: Insulin Glargine/Lixisenatide FRC vs Insulin Glargine|"HbA1c \<7.0%: Insulin Glargine/Lixisenatide FRC vs Insulin Glargine.~Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method stratified on randomization strata of Week -1 HbA1c (\<8.0%, ≥8.0%) and randomization strata of metformin use at screening. This analysis was out of testing order."||32.10|18.94|<0.0001
90994655|NCT01968954|181873843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-51.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.84|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.1|-47.9|||MMRM|||Week 12: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals and p values from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||-47.9|-55.1|<0.001
90994656|NCT01968954|181873843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-50.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.05|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.6|-46.6||||||Week 24: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||-46.6|-54.6|
90994657|NCT01968954|181873843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-40.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.2|-36.3||||||Week 52: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||-36.3|-45.2|
90994658|NCT01968954|181873844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.55||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.4|29.5|||MMRM|||Week 12: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals and p values from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||29.5|-35.4|0.860
90994659|NCT01968954|181873844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|25.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.2|51.4||||||Week 24: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||51.4|-47.2|
90994660|NCT01968954|181873844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|12.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|29.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.5|70.4||||||Week 52: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||70.4|-44.5|
90994661|NCT01968954|181873845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|7.0|||MMRM|||Week 12: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals and p values from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||7.0|2.4|<0.001
90994662|NCT01968954|181873845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|9.1||||||Week 24: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||9.1|4.5|
90994663|NCT01968954|181873845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|5.8||||||Week 52: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||5.8|0.9|
90994664|NCT01968954|181873846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-59.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.4|-54.8|||MMRM|||LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals and p values from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||-54.8|-63.4|<0.001
90994665|NCT01968954|181873847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-48.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.72|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.0|-39.3|||MMRM|||LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals and p values from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||-39.3|-58.0|<0.001
91043482|NCT02058160|181972928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|19.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.9|25.62|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||HbA1c ≤6.5%: Insulin Glargine/Lixisenatide FRC vs Insulin Glargine|"HbA1c ≤6.5%: Insulin Glargine/Lixisenatide FRC vs Insulin Glargine.~Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method stratified on randomization strata of Week -1 HbA1c (\<8.0%, ≥8.0%) and randomization strata of metformin use at screening. This analysis was out of testing order."||25.62|13.90|<0.0001
91043483|NCT02058160|181972929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.251|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.925|-2.939||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA||Insulin Glargine/Lixisenatide FRC vs Insulin Glargine|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (continued only if previous endpoints were statistically significant). Analysis was performed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment groups, randomization strata of Week -1 HbA1c (\<8.0, ≥8.0%), randomization strata of metformin use at screening and country as fixed effects and baseline 2-hour plasma glucose excursion value as a covariate.||-2.939|-3.925|<0.0001
90994666|NCT01968954|181873848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-56.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.45|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.8|-51.2||||||Week 24: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||-51.2|-60.8|
90994667|NCT01968954|181873848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-46.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.77|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.8|-41.0||||||Week 52: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||-41.0|-51.8|
90994668|NCT01968954|181873849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-57.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.82|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.1|-52.0||||||TG \<200 mg/dL (Week 24): LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region.||-52.0|-63.1|
90994669|NCT01968954|181873849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-47.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.9|-41.5||||||TG \<200 mg/dL (Week 52): LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region.||-41.5|-53.9|
90994670|NCT01968954|181873849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-49.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.83|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.9|-39.8||||||TG \>=200 mg/dL (Week 24): LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region.||-39.8|-58.9|
90994671|NCT01968954|181873849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-41.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.2|-30.1||||||TG \>=200 mg/dL (Week 52): LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region.||-30.1|-52.2|
90994672|NCT01968954|181873850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-14.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.88|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.9|-8.5||||||Week 12: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||-8.5|-19.9|
90994673|NCT01968954|181873850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-19.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.65|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.1|-14.7||||||Week 24: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||-14.7|-25.1|
90994674|NCT01968954|181873850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-9.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.31|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.7|-2.8||||||Week 52: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||-2.8|-15.7|
90994675|NCT01968954|181873851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|5.7||||||Week 12: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||5.7|1.8|
90994676|NCT01968954|181873851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|6.7||||||Week 24: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||6.7|3.1|
90994677|NCT01968954|181873851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|4.6||||||Week 52: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||4.6|0.7|
90994678|NCT01968954|181873852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.7||||||Week 12: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||1.7|-1.9|
90994679|NCT01968954|181873852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|3.9||||||Week 24: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||3.9|-0.1|
90994680|NCT01968954|181873852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|3.1||||||Week 52: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||3.1|-1.0|
90994681|NCT01968954|181873853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS-Mean Difference|-14.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.88|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.9|-8.5||||||Week 12: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||-8.5|-19.9|
90994682|NCT01968954|181873853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-19.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.65|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.1|-14.7||||||Week 24: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||-14.7|-25.1|
90994683|NCT01968954|181873853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-9.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.31|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.7|-2.8||||||Week 52: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||-2.8|-15.7|
90994684|NCT01968954|181873854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-64.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.51|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.1|-59.2||||||TG \<200 mg/dL (Week 12): LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region.||-59.2|-69.1|
90994685|NCT01968954|181873854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-59.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.99|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.4|-47.7||||||TG \>=200 mg/dL (Week 12): LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region.||-47.7|-71.4|
90994686|NCT01968954|181873855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-63.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.35|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.0|-58.8||||||Week 12: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||-58.8|-68.0|
90994687|NCT01968954|181873856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-67.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.59|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.2|-62.1||||||Week 12: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||-62.1|-72.2|
90994688|NCT01968954|181873857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-69.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.57|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.7|-64.6||||||Week 12: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||-64.6|-74.7|
90994689|NCT01968954|181873858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-47.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.74|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.7|-43.8||||||Week 12: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||-43.8|-50.7|
90994690|NCT01968954|181873859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-10.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|-8.3||||||Week 12: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||-8.3|-12.9|
91043484|NCT02058160|181972930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.224|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.808|-0.93||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Insulin Glargine/Lixisenatide FRC vs Insulin Glargine|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (continued only if previous endpoints were statistically significant). Analysis was performed using MMRM model with treatment groups, randomization strata of Week -1 HbA1c (\<8.0, ≥8.0%), randomization strata of metformin use at screening, scheduled visits, treatment-by-visit interaction and country as fixed effects and baseline body weight value-by-visit interaction as covariates.||-0.93|-1.808|<0.0001
90994691|NCT01968954|181873860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|3.5||||||Week 12: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||3.5|1.4|
90994692|NCT01968954|181873861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-1.4||||||Week 12: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||-1.4|-1.7|
90994693|NCT01968954|181873861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-1.4||||||Week 24: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||-1.4|-1.7|
91043485|NCT02058160|181972931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.131|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.154|-0.64||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Insulin Glargine/Lixisenatide FRC vs Insulin Glargine|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (continued only if previous endpoints were statistically significant). Analysis was performed using MMRM model with treatment groups, randomization strata of Week -1 HbA1c (\<8.0, ≥8.0%), randomization strata of metformin use at screening, scheduled visits, treatment-by-visit interaction and country as fixed effects and baseline average SMPG value-by-visit interaction as covariates.||-0.64|-1.154|<0.0001
91043486|NCT02058160|181972932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in percentage|20.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.98|26.66||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Insulin Glargine/Lixisenatide FRC vs Insulin Glargine|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (continued only if previous endpoints were statistically significant). Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method stratified on randomization strata of Week -1 HbA1c (\<8.0%, ≥8.0%) and randomization strata of metformin use at screening.||26.66|14.98|<0.0001
91043487|NCT02058160|181972933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.766||0.7362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.762|1.246||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Insulin Glargine/Lixisenatide FRC vs Insulin Glargine|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (continued only if previous endpoints were statistically significant). Analysis was performed using MMRM model with treatment groups, randomization strata of Week -1 HbA1c (\<8.0, ≥8.0%), randomization strata of metformin use at screening, scheduled visits, treatment-by-visit interaction and country as fixed effects and baseline daily insulin glargine dose-by-visit interaction as a covariate.||1.246|-1.762|0.7362
91043488|NCT03604549|181973025|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.44||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.25|||Chi-squared||Lipiodol UF is the numerator and Saline is the denominator for RR|||1.25|0.16|0.10
91043489|NCT03604549|181973026|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|1.68|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference reported as Lipiodol UF - Saline|||1.68|-1.59|0.96
91043490|NCT02725411|181973075|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.35||||||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.35|-0.38|
91043491|NCT02725411|181973075|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|LS Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.13||||||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.13|-0.60|
91043492|NCT02725411|181973075|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.15||||||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.15|-0.70|
91043493|NCT02725411|181973075|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|-0.07||||||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.07|-0.93|
91043494|NCT02725411|181973075|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.33||||||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.33|-0.69|
91043495|NCT02725411|181973075|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|LS Mean Difference|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|-0.06||||||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.06|-1.09|
91043496|NCT02725411|181973075|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|LS Mean Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.27||||||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.27|-0.94|
91043497|NCT02725411|181973075|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|0.0||||||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.00|-1.21|
91043498|NCT02725411|181973075|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|LS Mean Difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|-0.03||||||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.03|-1.24|
91043499|NCT02725411|181973075|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|LS Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.38||||||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.38|-0.84|
91043500|NCT02725411|181973075|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|LS Mean Difference|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|0.01||||||Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.01|-1.53|
91043501|NCT02725411|181973075|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|0.47||||||Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.47|-1.07|
91043502|NCT02725411|181973075|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|LS Mean Difference|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|-0.08||||||Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.08|-1.65|
91043503|NCT02725411|181973075|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|LS Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|0.55||||||Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.55|-1.06|
91043504|NCT02725411|181973075|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|LS Mean Difference|-0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|-0.15||||||Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.15|-1.72|
91043505|NCT02725411|181973075|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|LS Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|0.54||||||Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.54|-1.05|
91043506|NCT02725411|181973075|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|LS Mean Difference|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.15||||||Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.15|-1.80|
91043507|NCT02725411|181973075|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|0.61||||||Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.61|-1.04|
91043508|NCT02725411|181973075|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|LS Mean Difference|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|-0.05||||||Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.05|-1.65|
91043509|NCT02725411|181973075|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|LS Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.71||||||Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.71|-0.88|
91043510|NCT02725411|181973077|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|LS Mean Difference|-0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|0.04||||||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.04|-1.77|
91043511|NCT02725411|181973077|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|LS Mean Difference|-1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|-0.14||||||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.14|-1.96|
91043512|NCT02725411|181973077|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|LS Mean Difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|0.43||||||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.43|-1.48|
91043513|NCT02725411|181973077|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|LS Mean Difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|0.51||||||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.51|-1.43|
91043514|NCT02725411|181973077|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|LS Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|0.91||||||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.91|-1.04|
91043515|NCT02725411|181973077|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|LS Mean Difference|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|0.44||||||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.44|-1.53|
91043516|NCT02725411|181973077|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|1.05||||||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||1.05|-1.06|
91043517|NCT02725411|181973077|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|LS Mean Difference|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.53||||||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.53|-1.60|
91043518|NCT02725411|181973077|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|LS Mean Difference|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|0.88||||||Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.88|-1.71|
91043519|NCT02725411|181973077|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|1.14||||||Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||1.14|-1.47|
91043520|NCT02725411|181973077|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.71||||||Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.71|-1.90|
91043521|NCT02725411|181973077|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|LS Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|1.25||||||Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||1.25|-1.44|
91043522|NCT02725411|181973077|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|LS Mean Difference|-1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.43|0.28||||||Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.28|-2.43|
91043523|NCT02725411|181973077|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|1.32||||||Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||1.32|-1.41|
91043524|NCT02725411|181973077|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|LS Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.17|0.57||||||Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.57|-2.17|
91043525|NCT02725411|181973077|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|LS Mean Difference|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|1.64||||||Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||1.64|-1.16|
91043526|NCT02725411|181973077|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|LS Mean Difference|-1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.37|0.35||||||Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.35|-2.37|
91043527|NCT02725411|181973077|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|LS Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|1.42||||||Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||1.42|-1.35|
91043528|NCT02725411|181973081|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|26.3||||||Week 16: \>=30%||26.3|-0.8|
91043529|NCT02725411|181973081|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.8|12.4||||||Week 16: \>=30%||12.4|-15.8|
91043530|NCT02725411|181973081|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|18.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|32.0||||||Week 16: \>=50%||32.0|4.2|
91043531|NCT02725411|181973081|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|16.3||||||Week 16: \>=50%||16.3|-10.7|
91043532|NCT02725411|181973081|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|10.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|20.7||||||Week 16: \>=70%||20.7|0.6|
91043533|NCT02725411|181973081|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|8.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|18.1||||||Week 16: \>=70%||18.1|-1.4|
91043534|NCT02725411|181973081|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|6.5||||||Week 16: \>=90%||6.5|-4.3|
91043535|NCT02725411|181973081|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|7.8||||||Week 16: \>=90%||7.8|-3.7|
91043536|NCT02725411|181973081|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|25.7||||||Week 24: \>=30%||25.7|-2.3|
91043537|NCT02725411|181973081|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.9|12.6||||||Week 24: \>=30%||12.6|-15.9|
90994694|NCT01968954|181873861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-1.0||||||Week 52: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||-1.0|-1.4|
90994695|NCT01968954|181873862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.3||||||Week 12: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||-0.3|-0.4|
90994696|NCT01968954|181873862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.3||||||Week 24: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||-0.3|-0.4|
90994697|NCT01968954|181873862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.2||||||Week 52: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||-0.2|-0.3|
90994698|NCT01968954|181873863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|24.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.86|41.64||||||Week 12||41.64|13.86|
90994699|NCT01968954|181873863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.32|23.56||||||Week 24||23.56|9.32|
90994700|NCT01968954|181873863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.36|15.24||||||Week 52||15.24|6.36|
90994701|NCT01968954|181873864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|95.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.09|173.91||||||Week 12||173.91|52.09|
90994702|NCT01968954|181873864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|112.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.81|225.52||||||Week 24||225.52|55.81|
90994703|NCT01968954|181873864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|29.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.13|49.49||||||Week 52||49.49|17.13|
90994704|NCT00547638|181873873|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence is demonstrated if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (when subtracting the percentage of DERMABOND PROTAPE successful subjects from the percentage of DERMABOND HVD successful subjects) does not exceed 8%.|Difference in Proportion of Successes|-7.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|1.0|||Gart-Nam||The value for the Estimated Parameter is expressed as a percentage and is defined as the difference in the proportion of sucesses between study groups.|||1.0|-17.7|
90994705|NCT00547638|181873874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.457||||||The total mHCS scores are summarized as proportion of subjects with good outcome (total scores of zero) and a comparison of treatment groups by Fisher Exact Test was performed to confirm differences in groups.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.457
90994706|NCT00547638|181873875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||Differences between treatment groups in the incidence rate of infection at Day 14 and Day 30 were compared using the Fisher's Exact Test.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
90994707|NCT00547638|181873875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||Differences between treatment groups in the incidence rate of infection at Day 30 were compared using the Fisher's Exact Test.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
90994708|NCT00547638|181873876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.188||95.0||||Intent to treat population was analyzed.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.188
91043538|NCT02725411|181973081|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|25.8||||||Week 24: \>=50%||25.8|-2.4|
91043539|NCT02725411|181973081|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|18.9||||||Week 24: \>=50%||18.9|-9.1|
91043540|NCT02725411|181973081|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|14.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|24.8||||||Week 24: \>=70%||24.8|2.9|
91043541|NCT02725411|181973081|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|10.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|21.0||||||Week 24: \>=70%||21.0|-0.2|
91043542|NCT02725411|181973081|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|11.4||||||Week 24: \>=90%||11.4|-0.7|
91043543|NCT02725411|181973081|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|8.5||||||Week 24: \>=90%||8.5|-2.2|
91043544|NCT02725411|181973081|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|17.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|30.9||||||Week 40: \>=30%||30.9|3.1|
91043545|NCT02725411|181973081|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|13.7||||||Week 40: \>=30%||13.7|-14.8|
91043546|NCT02725411|181973081|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|17.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|31.0||||||Week 40: \>=50%||31.0|3.0|
91043547|NCT02725411|181973081|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|18.7||||||Week 40: \>=50%||18.7|-9.0|
91043548|NCT02725411|181973081|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|17.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.6|29.4||||||Week 40: \>=70%||29.4|4.6|
91043549|NCT02725411|181973081|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|7.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|18.9||||||Week 40: \>=70%||18.9|-4.5|
91043550|NCT02725411|181973081|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|7.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|13.5||||||Week 40: \>=90%||13.5|1.4|
91043551|NCT02725411|181973081|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|10.6||||||Week 40: \>=90%||10.6|-0.1|
91043552|NCT02725411|181973081|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|25.8||||||Week 56: \>=30%||25.8|-2.4|
91043553|NCT02725411|181973081|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|-3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.9|10.5||||||Week 56: \>=30%||10.5|-17.9|
91043554|NCT02725411|181973081|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|25.9||||||Week 56: \>=50%||25.9|-2.5|
91043555|NCT02725411|181973081|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|11.4||||||Week 56: \>=50%||11.4|-16.5|
91043556|NCT02725411|181973081|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|18.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.6|30.5||||||Week 56: \>=70%||30.5|5.6|
91043557|NCT02725411|181973081|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|8.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|20.0||||||Week 56: \>=70%||20.0|-3.6|
91043558|NCT02725411|181973081|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|8.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|15.4||||||Week 56: \>=90%||15.4|1.6|
91043559|NCT02725411|181973081|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|8.5||||||Week 56: \>=90%||8.5|-2.2|
91043560|NCT02725411|181973097|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|Difference in proportion|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|4.1||||||95% CI of proportion is the Agresti-Coull confidence limit.||4.1|-4.1|
91043561|NCT02725411|181973097|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|Difference in proportion|3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|8.5||||||95% CI of proportion is the Agresti-Coull confidence limit.||8.5|-2.2|
91043562|NCT02418754|181973147|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was performed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline measurements as covariate and treatment group, baseline angiographic choroidal neovascularization (CNV) subtype (predominantly or minimally classic versus occult versus occult with no classic lesions) as fixed factors.|Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-1.58||||0.2052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.37|1.22||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA|||To control for the family-wise type I error rate of 5%, for each of the 2 REGN2176-3 groups the 2-sided hypothesis comparing REGN2176-3 (1 mg: 2 mg) vs. Intravitreal Aflibercept Injection (IAI) 2 mg was tested at a significance level of α = 2.5%.||1.22|-4.37|0.2052
91043563|NCT02418754|181973147|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline measurements as covariate and treatment group, baseline angiographic choroidal neovascularization (CNV) subtype (predominantly or minimally classic versus occult versus occult with no classic lesions) as fixed factors.|Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-1.7||||0.0982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|0.61||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA|||To control for the family-wise type I error rate of 5%, for each of the 2 REGN2176-3 groups the 2-sided hypothesis comparing REGN2176-3 (1 mg: 2 mg) vs. Intravitreal Aflibercept Injection (IAI) 2 mg was tested at a significance level of α = 2.5%.||0.61|-4.00|0.0982
91043564|NCT04784637|181973156|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.064|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.064
91043565|NCT04784637|181973156|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.97
91043566|NCT04784637|181973157|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91043567|NCT04784637|181973157|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.93
91043568|NCT05103657|181973176|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.06||||0.9726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.31|3.43|||Mixed Models for repeated measures||"Least Squares mean of BI 1358894 125 mg - Least Square mean of Placebo."|Least Squares (LS) means differences and confidence intervals were estimated by REML-based MMRM including the fixed categorical covariates of treatment, and the stratification indicator of presence of significant childhood trauma (yes vs. no), the continuous fixed covariate of baseline CAPS-5 total severity score, time since index event (in years) and the treatment-by-visit interaction. Patient is considered as random. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.||3.43|-3.31|0.9726
90994709|NCT00547638|181873876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.883||95.0||||Intent to treat population was analyzed.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.883
90994710|NCT00547638|181873877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
90994711|NCT01963208|181873885|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-7.06||||0.1788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.44|3.52||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the distributions of the two treatment groups with respect to percent change in seizure frequency.|Rank ANCOVA|||||3.52|-17.44|0.1788
90994712|NCT00438399|181873901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0003||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The purpose of the study was to demonstrate the superiority of Clobetasol propionate shampoo over one of three other comparators, in terms of Subject's overall preference. It was to be analyzed using a non parametric two-sided Wilcoxon rank Signed test on ITT population.||||0.0003
90994713|NCT00438399|181873901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.007||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The purpose of the study was to demonstrate the superiority of Clobetasol propionate shampoo over one of three other comparators, in terms of Subject's overall preference. It was to be analyzed using a non parametric two-sided Wilcoxon rank Signed test on ITT population.||||0.007
90994714|NCT00438399|181873901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The purpose of the study was to demonstrate the superiority of Clobetasol propionate shampoo over one of three other comparators, in terms of Subject's overall preference. It was to be analyzed using a non parametric two-sided Wilcoxon rank Signed test on ITT population.||||<0.0001
90994715|NCT03334396|181873905|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.61||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|5.84|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.84|1.17|0.020
90994716|NCT03334396|181873905|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.93|8.7|||Regression, Logistic|||||8.70|1.93|<0.001
90994717|NCT03334396|181873906|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.72||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|6.01|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.01|1.23|0.014
90994718|NCT03334396|181873907|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.03||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|3.88|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.88|1.06|0.032
90994719|NCT03334396|181873907|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.46||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|4.67|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.67|1.29|0.006
90994720|NCT03334396|181873907|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.01|6.89|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.89|2.01|<0.001
90994721|NCT03334396|181873908|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|4.05|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.05|0.74|0.210
90994722|NCT03334396|181873908|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.5||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|5.7|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.70|1.10|0.029
91043569|NCT05103657|181973177|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.002||||0.9945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.608|1.65|||Regression, Logistic||BI 1358894 125 mg vs. Placebo|Logistic regression was adjusted for fixed factors of treatment and presence of significant childhood trauma (yes vs. no).||1.650|0.608|0.9945
91043570|NCT05103657|181973178|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.912||||0.7167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.552|1.504|||Regression, Logistic||BI 1358894 125 mg vs. Placebo|Logistic regression was adjusted for fixed factors of treatment and presence of significant childhood trauma (yes vs. no).||1.504|0.552|0.7167
91043571|NCT05103657|181973179|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.66||||0.723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|4.32|||Mixed Models for Repeated Measures||"Least Square mean of BI 1358894 125 mg - Least Square mean of Placebo."|Least Square (LS) means differences and confidence intervals were estimated by REML-based MMRM including the fixed categorical covariates of treatment, and the stratification indicator of presence of significant childhood trauma (yes vs. no), the continuous fixed covariate of baseline CAPS-5 total severity score, time since index event (in years) and the treatment-by-visit interaction. Patient is considered as random. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.||4.32|-3.00|0.7230
91043572|NCT02020967|181973184|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.34||||0.0196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|39.11|||Regression, Logistic|||Predictor variable: Lips enlargement||39.11|1.38|0.0196
91043573|NCT00810602|181973208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Cumulative Incidence of GVHD|22.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.0|36.0||||||Hypothesis: The addition of vorinostat will reduce the incidence of grade 2-4 acute graft versus host disease (GVHD) to 25% or lower by day 100.||36|13|
91043574|NCT00810602|181973210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Cumulative Incidence of GVHD|16.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|30.0||||||||30|8|
91043575|NCT00996437|181973219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference in Cumulative Prob|4.0||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|13.0|||Log Rank|After adjusting for potential confounding factors, time to vitrectomy remained similar between treatment groups.||The cumulative probabilities of vitrectomy by 16 weeks in each group were computed using the life-table method. Treatment group comparisons were performed using the log-rank test. The treatment difference in cumulative probabilities and 95% confidence interval were reported.||13|-4|0.37
91043576|NCT00996437|181973220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0||||P-value corresponds with recurrent vitreous hemorrhage evaluated on clinical exam between the two treatment arms.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.01
90994723|NCT03334396|181873908|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.91|8.91|||Regression, Logistic|||||8.91|1.91|<0.001
91043577|NCT00996437|181973221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.54||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.3|||Log Rank|||||2.30|1.03|0.05
91043578|NCT00996437|181973222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87||95.0||||P-value corresponds to the 12 week visit treatment comparison.|GLM with GEE method|Number of subjects with baseline OCT ss=0 and OCT ss\>0 and no vitrectomy at follow up. A generalized GLM with GEE was used for treatment comparisons.||Signal strength was analyzed as a composite outcome defined as OCT signal strength \> = and no vitrectomy vs. OCT signal strength = 0.||||0.87
91043579|NCT00996437|181973223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0||||P-value corresponds to the 12 week visit treatment comparison.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment comparisons were performed using a longitudinal mixed model adjusting for baseline visual acuity.||||||.04
91043580|NCT00996437|181973225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023||95.0||||P-value corresponds with the 12 week visit treatment comparison|Fisher Exact|At the each time point, treatment comparison analysis was performed using a Fisher Exact test.||||||.023
91043581|NCT00996437|181973226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|At each time point, treatment comparison analysis was performed using a Fisher Exact Test.||||||0.27
91043582|NCT02156154|181973271|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.11||significance criterion of P \< .044.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Difference = IV Acetaminophen - Placebo group|A total of 28 patients (5%) were missing monitoring data (14 patients in each group). Values for these patients were obtained using multivariable imputation with 5 imputation data sets. The imputation regression model included all of the baseline, intraoperative, surgical, and postanesthesia care unit variables and all of the secondary outcomes||0.11|-0.18|0.29
91043583|NCT02156154|181973272|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|99.4|-0.71|0.15||Confidence intervals were adjusted for 8 comparisons using Bonferroni correction (.05/8 = .006), for a significance criterion of P \< .006.|t-test, 2 sided||Confidence intervals were adjusted for 8 comparisons using Bonferroni correction (.05/8 = .006), for a significance criterion of P \< .006.|||0.15|-0.71|0.07
91043584|NCT02156154|181973273|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|99.4|-0.51|0.29||Confidence intervals were adjusted for 8 comparisons using Bonferroni correction (.05/8 = .006), for a significance criterion of P \< .006.|t-test, 2 sided||Confidence intervals were adjusted for 8 comparisons using Bonferroni correction (.05/8 = .006), for a significance criterion of P \< .006.|||0.29|-0.51|0.46
90994724|NCT03334396|181873909|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.78||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.77|-2.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.03|-24.77|0.021
90994725|NCT03334396|181873909|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.57||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.05|-6.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-6.10|-28.05|0.002
90994726|NCT03334396|181873909|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.23|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.84|-14.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-14.24|-34.84|<0.001
90994727|NCT03334396|181873910|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.28||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|15.24|||Regression, Logistic|||||15.24|1.20|0.025
90994728|NCT03334396|181873910|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.14||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.79|20.99|||Regression, Logistic|||||20.99|1.79|0.004
90994729|NCT03334396|181873910|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.68|28.58|||Regression, Logistic|||||28.58|2.68|<0.001
90994730|NCT03334396|181873911|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6||||0.246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|3.56|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.56|0.72|0.246
90994731|NCT03334396|181873911|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73||||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|3.77|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.77|0.79|0.169
90994732|NCT03334396|181873911|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.82|7.18|||Regression, Logistic|||||7.18|1.82|<0.001
90994733|NCT03334396|181873912|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.08|-0.82|0.103
91043585|NCT02156154|181973274|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|99.4|-0.49|0.76||Confidence intervals were adjusted for 8 comparisons using Bonferroni correction (.05/8 = .006), for a significance criterion of P \< .006.|t-test, 2 sided||Treatment effect data are reported as differences in means between the study groups, assessed using a 2-sample t test.|||0.76|-0.49|0.56
90994734|NCT03334396|181873912|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21||||0.352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.23|-0.65|0.352
90994735|NCT03334396|181873912|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.58||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.17|-1.00|0.006
90994736|NCT03334396|181873913|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.08||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|-0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.32|-1.84|0.005
90994737|NCT03334396|181873913|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.74||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.00|-1.48|0.051
90994738|NCT03334396|181873913|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.09||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.79|-0.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.39|-1.79|0.002
90994739|NCT03334396|181873914|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|3.25|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.25|1.11|0.019
90994740|NCT03334396|181873914|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|4.14|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.14|1.44|<0.001
90994741|NCT03334396|181873914|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.51|6.96|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.96|2.51|<0.001
90994742|NCT03334396|181873915|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.98||||0.424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|10.63|||Regression, Logistic|||||10.63|0.37|0.424
90994743|NCT03334396|181873915|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.89||||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|13.75|||Regression, Logistic|||||13.75|0.61|0.182
90994744|NCT03334396|181873915|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.94||||0.441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|10.41|||Regression, Logistic|||||10.41|0.36|0.441
90994745|NCT03334396|181873916|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.17||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.57|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.90|-11.57|0.093
90994746|NCT03334396|181873916|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.07||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.01|-1.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.92|-14.01|0.010
90994747|NCT03334396|181873916|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.88|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.46|-9.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-9.13|-20.46|<0.001
90994748|NCT03334396|181873917|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|7.77|||Regression, Logistic|||||7.77|0.17|0.874
90994749|NCT03334396|181873917|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.88||||0.176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|13.36|||Regression, Logistic|||||13.36|0.62|0.176
90994750|NCT03334396|181873917|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.72||||0.201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|12.65|||Regression, Logistic|||||12.65|0.59|0.201
90994751|NCT03334396|181873918|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.88||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.67|-0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.31|-11.67|0.039
90994752|NCT03334396|181873918|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.86|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.18|-10.86|0.058
90994753|NCT03334396|181873918|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.63|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.33|-5.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.98|-16.33|<0.001
90994754|NCT03334396|181873919|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.067|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.067
90994755|NCT03334396|181873919|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.799|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.799
90994756|NCT03334396|181873919|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.782|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.782
90994757|NCT03334396|181873920|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.33||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.69|-4.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.81|-33.69|0.009
90994758|NCT03334396|181873920|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.13||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.43|-3.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.35|-31.43|0.015
90994759|NCT03334396|181873920|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.71|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.71|-11.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-11.30|-37.71|<0.001
90994760|NCT03334396|181873921|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.19||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.98|-0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.29|-4.98|0.028
90994761|NCT03334396|181873921|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.89|-1.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.27|-5.89|0.003
90994762|NCT03334396|181873921|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.33|-2.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.99|-7.33|<0.001
90994763|NCT03334396|181873922|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.02|-0.56|0.069
90994764|NCT03334396|181873922|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.02|-0.56|0.066
90994765|NCT03334396|181873922|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.19|-0.73|<0.001
91043586|NCT02156154|181973275|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|99.4|-0.29|0.13||Confidence intervals were adjusted for 8 comparisons using Bonferroni correction (.05/8 = .006), for a significance criterion of P \< .006.|t-test, 2 sided||Treatment effect data are reported as differences in means between the study groups, assessed using a 2-sample t test.|||0.13|-0.29|0.30
91043587|NCT02156154|181973276|SUPERIORITY||Ratios of geometric means|0.94||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|99.4|0.63|1.39||Confidence intervals were adjusted for 8 comparisons using Bonferroni correction (.05/8 = .006), for a significance criterion of P \< .006.|t-test, 2 sided||Treatment effect data are reported as ratios of geometric means, assessed using a 2-sample t test after logarithmic transformation of outcomes.|||1.39|0.63|0.65
90994766|NCT03334396|181873923|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||HADS Anxiety||0.41|-1.30|0.305
90994767|NCT03334396|181873923|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||HADS Anxiety||-0.10|-1.77|0.029
90994768|NCT03334396|181873923|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|-0.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||HADS Anxiety||-0.36|-1.93|0.004
90994769|NCT03334396|181873923|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||HADS Depression||0.16|-1.51|0.113
91043588|NCT02156154|181973277|SUPERIORITY||Ratios of geometric means|0.86||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|99.4|0.61|1.21|||t-test, 2 sided||Treatment effect data are reported as ratios of geometric means, assessed using a 2-sample t test after logarithmic transformation of outcomes.|||1.21|0.61|0.22
90994770|NCT03334396|181873923|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|-0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||HADS Depression||-0.22|-1.85|0.014
90994771|NCT03334396|181873923|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|-0.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||HADS Depression||-0.37|-1.91|0.004
90994772|NCT03334396|181873924|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.92|-0.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.42|-3.92|0.015
90994773|NCT03334396|181873924|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.56|-0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.12|-3.56|0.036
90994774|NCT03334396|181873924|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.91|-2.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.69|-5.91|<0.001
90994775|NCT03334396|181873925|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.39|1.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Percentage of Absenteeism Change from Baseline||1.29|-9.39|0.136
90994776|NCT03334396|181873925|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.76||0.898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.81|5.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Percentage of Absenteeism Change from Baseline||5.10|-5.81|0.898
90994777|NCT03334396|181873925|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.49||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.32|1.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Percentage of Absenteeism Change from Baseline||1.52|-8.32|0.174
91043589|NCT02156154|181973278|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.13||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|99.4|0.88|1.45||Confidence intervals were adjusted for 8 comparisons using Bonferroni correction (.05/8 = .006), for a significance criterion of P \< .006.|Chi-squared||Risk ratio = Treatment/Placebo|||1.45|0.88|0.18
91043590|NCT02156154|181973279|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|99.4|0.57|1.43||Confidence intervals were adjusted for 8 comparisons using Bonferroni correction (.05/8 = .006), for a significance criterion of P \< .006.|Chi-squared||RR = Treatment/Placebo|||1.43|0.57|0.53
91043591|NCT02156154|181973280|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|99.4|-0.39|0.36||Adjusted for 8 comparisons using Bonferroni correction (.05/8 = .006), for a significance criterion of P \< .006.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Treatment effect is reported as median difference, estimated using the Hodges-Lehmann estimator of location shift.|||0.36|-0.39|0.99
90994778|NCT03334396|181873925|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.19||0.104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.13|1.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Percentage of Presenteeism (Reduced Productivity While at Work) Change from Baseline||1.41|-15.13|0.104
90994779|NCT03334396|181873925|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.28||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.09|-0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Percentage of Presenteeism (Reduced Productivity While at Work) Change from Baseline||-0.19|-17.09|0.045
90994780|NCT03334396|181873925|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.97|-4.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Percentage of Presenteeism (Reduced Productivity While at Work) Change from Baseline||-4.59|-19.97|0.002
90994781|NCT03334396|181873925|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.67||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.89|0.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Work Productivity Loss (Percentage Overall Work Impairment/Absenteeism Plus Presenteeism) Change from Baseline||0.57|-17.89|0.066
90994782|NCT03334396|181873925|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.76||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.89|2.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Work Productivity Loss (Percentage Overall Work Impairment/Absenteeism Plus Presenteeism) Change from Baseline||2.91|-15.89|0.175
90994783|NCT03334396|181873925|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.34||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.84|-2.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Work Productivity Loss (Percentage Overall Work Impairment/Absenteeism Plus Presenteeism) Change from Baseline||-2.72|-19.84|0.010
90994784|NCT03334396|181873925|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.36||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.93|-0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Percentage of Activity Impairment Change from Baseline||-0.70|-13.93|0.030
90994785|NCT03334396|181873925|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.31||0.122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.65|1.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Percentage of Activity Impairment Change from Baseline||1.39|-11.65|0.122
90994786|NCT03334396|181873925|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.11|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.64|-10.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Percentage of Activity Impairment Change from Baseline||-10.41|-22.64|<0.001
90994787|NCT03334396|181873926|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Health State Index Score (US algorithm)||0.08|-0.00|0.061
90994788|NCT03334396|181873926|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Health State Index Score (US algorithm)||0.08|-0.00|0.060
90994789|NCT03334396|181873926|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Health State Index Score (US algorithm)||0.12|0.04|<0.001
90994790|NCT03334396|181873926|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Health State Index Score (UK Algorithm)||0.11|0.00|0.046
90994791|NCT03334396|181873926|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Health State Index Score (UK Algorithm)||0.11|-0.00|0.059
90994792|NCT03334396|181873926|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Health State Index Score (UK algorithm)||0.16|0.06|<0.001
90994793|NCT03334396|181873927|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.21||0.356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.36|9.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EQ-5D-5L VAS Score||9.30|-3.36|0.356
90994794|NCT03334396|181873927|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.13||0.668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.81|7.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EQ-5D-5L VAS Score||7.50|-4.81|0.668
90994795|NCT03334396|181873927|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.95||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|12.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EQ-5D-5L VAS Score||12.86|1.25|0.017
90994796|NCT03334396|181873928|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|4.71|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.71|0.41|0.603
90994797|NCT03334396|181873928|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.08||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|11.12|||Regression, Logistic|||||11.12|1.50|0.006
90994798|NCT03334396|181873928|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.72||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|12.55|||Regression, Logistic|||||12.55|1.78|0.002
90994799|NCT00592553|181873961|OTHER||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-30.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|42.68||0.4756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-114.8|53.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was performed using mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) method including rank transformed 6MWD as the dependent variable; and rank transformed baseline 6MWD, treatment, visit, age (less than \[\<\] 9 years versus \[vs.\] greater than or equal to \[\>=\] 9 years) and corticosteroid use (yes vs. no) stratification factors, and interaction between treatment and visit as independent variables.||53.75|-114.8|0.4756
90994800|NCT00592553|181873961|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|62.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|43.21||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.66|147.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was performed using MMRM method including rank transformed 6MWD as the dependent variable; and rank transformed baseline 6MWD, treatment, visit, age (\< 9 years vs. \>= 9 years) and corticosteroid use (yes vs. no) stratification factors, and interaction between treatment and visit as independent variables.||147.96|-22.66|0.1490
90994801|NCT03829332|181873984|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.00624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.95|||Stratified Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG, region and baseline PD-L1 status.||Hazards ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 versus 1), geographic region of the enrolling site (East Asia versus non-East Asia), and baseline PD-L1 Status (1% to 49% versus \>=50%).||0.95|0.64|0.00624
90994802|NCT03829332|181873985|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.79744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.39|||Stratified Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG, region, and baseline PD-L1 status.||HR and 95% CI were calculated using Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 versus 1), geographic region of the enrolling site (East Asia versus non-East Asia), and baseline PD-L1 Status (1% to 49% versus \>=50%).||1.39|0.87|0.79744
90994803|NCT03829332|181873986|OTHER||Percent Difference|12.8||||0.00037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.4|20.1|||Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen|One-sided p-value for testing. H0: difference in percent = 0 versus H1: difference in percent \> 0.||Percent difference and 95% CI were calculated using Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by ECOG performance status (0 versus 1), geographic region of the enrolling site (East Asia versus non-East Asia), and baseline PD-L1 Status (1% to 49% versus \>=50%).||20.1|5.4|0.00037
91043592|NCT00407745|181973306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.198||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.2||Significance was declared if the 2-tailed test for the difference between treatment groups was significant at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||"Null hypothesis - the mean DAAC for the pregabalin group is equal to the mean DAAC for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean DAAC for the placebo group differs from the mean DAAC for the pregabalin group.~ANCOVA model included baseline severity of pain and Baseline Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS) Total Score as covariates and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors."||-0.20|-0.98|0.0032
91043593|NCT00407745|181973307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.255||0.0066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.2||Serial gate-keeping multiple testing procedure was used. If primary comparison for DAAC was significant, then variables were assessed in a hierarchical manner. Significance was declared if unadjusted p-value was significant at 0.05 level (\<=0.05).|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included baseline severity (pain) and baseline PCS as covariates and effects for treatment and pooled center as fixed (class) cofactors.||Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group.||-0.20|-1.20|0.0066
91043594|NCT00407745|181973308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.85||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.032|3.328||Serial gate-keeping multiple testing was used. If primary comparison for DAAC was significant, then variables were assessed in hierarchical manner. Significance was declared if unadjusted p-value at 0.05 level and preceding tests were significant.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model used terms for baseline pain score and baseline PCS total score as covariate, and pooled center and treatment as cofactor.||Null hypothesis - The rate of responder for the pregabain group was equal to the rate of responder for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - The rate of responder for the pregabain group was not equal to the rate of responder for the placebo group||3.328|1.032|0.0390
90994804|NCT03829332|181873989|OTHER|Difference in LS means and 95% CI were calculated using the Constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction \& stratified by ECOG performance status (0 versus 1), geographic region of the enrolling site (East Asia versus non-East Asia), and baseline PD-L1 Status (1% to 49% versus \>=50%).|Difference in Least Square (LS) Means|-3.9||||0.0262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.34|-0.47|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction; stratified by ECOG, region \& baseline PDL-1.||||-0.47|-7.34|0.0262
90994805|NCT03829332|181873990|OTHER|Difference in LS means and 95% CI were calculated using the cLDA model with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction \& stratified by ECOG performance status (0 versus 1), geographic region of the enrolling site (East Asia versus non-East Asia), and baseline PD-L1 Status (1% to 49% versus \>=50%).|Difference in LS means|-4.5||||0.0461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.91|-0.08||Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction; stratified by ECOG, region \& baseline PDL-1.|cLDA model|||||-0.08|-8.91|0.0461
90994806|NCT03829332|181873991|OTHER|Difference in LS means and 95% CI were calculated using the cLDA model with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction \& stratified by ECOG performance status (0 versus 1), geographic region of the enrolling site (East Asia versus non-East Asia), and baseline PD-L1 Status (1% to 49% versus \>=50%).|Difference in LS means|-1.1||||0.5596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.78|2.59|||cLDA model|Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction; stratified by ECOG, region \& baseline PDL-1.||||2.59|-4.78|0.5596
90994807|NCT03829332|181873992|OTHER|Difference in LS means and 95% CI were calculated using the cLDA model with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction \& stratified by ECOG performance status (0 versus 1), geographic region of the enrolling site (East Asia versus non-East Asia), and baseline PD-L1 Status (1% to 49% versus \>=50%).|Difference in LS means|-0.88||||0.7088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.49|3.74|||cLDA model|Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction; stratified by ECOG, region \& baseline PDL-1.||||3.74|-5.49|0.7088
90994808|NCT03829332|181873993|OTHER|Difference in LS means and 95% CI were calculated using the cLDA model with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction \& stratified by ECOG performance status (0 versus 1), geographic region of the enrolling site (East Asia versus non-East Asia), and baseline PD-L1 Status (1% to 49% versus \>=50%).|Difference in LS means|-3.01||||0.1116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.71|0.7|||cLDA model|Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction; stratified by ECOG, region \& baseline PDL-1.||||0.70|-6.71|0.1116
90994809|NCT03829332|181873994|OTHER|HR and 95% CI were calculated using Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 versus 1), geographic region of the enrolling site (East Asia versus non-East Asia), and baseline PD-L1 Status (1% to 49% versus \>=50%).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.9601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.33|||Stratified Log Rank|Two-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG, region and baseline PD-L1 status.||||1.33|0.75|0.9601
91043595|NCT00407745|181973309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0006||95.0||||Serial gate-keeping multiple testing was used. If primary comparison for DAAC was significant, then variables were assessed in hierarchical manner. Significance was declared if unadjusted p-value at 0.05 level and preceding tests were significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Modified ridit transformation with the Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test was used with adjusting for pooled center.||Null hypothesis - The raw mean score for the pregabain group was equal to the raw mean score for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - The raw mean score for the pregabain group was not equal to the raw mean score for the placebo group.||||0.0006
90994810|NCT03829332|181873995|OTHER|HR and 95% CI were calculated using Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 versus 1), geographic region of the enrolling site (East Asia versus non-East Asia), and baseline PD-L1 Status (1% to 49% versus \>=50%).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61||||0.0079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.88|||Stratified Log Rank|Two-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG, region and baseline PD-L1 status.||||0.88|0.42|0.0079
90994811|NCT03829332|181873996|OTHER|HR and 95% CI were calculated using Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 versus 1), geographic region of the enrolling site (East Asia versus non-East Asia), and baseline PD-L1 Status (1% to 49% versus \>=50%).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.7457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.56|||Stratified Log Rank|Two-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG, region and baseline PD-L1 status.||||1.56|0.73|0.7457
90994812|NCT03829332|181873997|OTHER|HR and 95% CI were calculated using Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 versus 1), geographic region of the enrolling site (East Asia versus non-East Asia), and baseline PD-L1 Status (1% to 49% versus \>=50%).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.8122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.44|||Stratified Log Rank|Two-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG, region and baseline PD-L1 status.||||1.44|0.75|0.8122
90994813|NCT03829332|181873998|OTHER|HR and 95% CI were calculated using Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 versus 1), geographic region of the enrolling site (East Asia versus non-East Asia), and baseline PD-L1 Status (1% to 49% versus \>=50%).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.24||||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.67|||Stratified Log Rank|Two-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG, region and baseline PD-L1 status.||||1.67|0.92|0.1480
90994814|NCT03829332|181873999|OTHER|HR and 95% CI were calculated using Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 versus 1), geographic region of the enrolling site (East Asia versus non-East Asia), and baseline PD-L1 Status (1% to 49% versus \>=50%).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.31||||0.4068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.46|||Stratified Log Rank|Two-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG, region and baseline PD-L1 status.||||2.46|0.70|0.4068
90994815|NCT01283997|181874000|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.24|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference in the measurements for touch by the fingertip||0.24|-0.13|0.54
90994816|NCT01283997|181874000|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.23|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference in the measurements for touch by the palm||0.23|-0.13|0.60
90994817|NCT01283997|181874000|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.15|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference in the measurements for touch by the forearm||0.15|-0.40|0.37
90994818|NCT01283997|181874001|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.73||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|0.59|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference in Numbness severity at baseline and week 10.||0.59|-2.06|0.56
90994819|NCT00884221|181874028|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis (H0) was tested against the alternative by constructing a two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in ongoing pregnancy rates. If the lower-limit of the 95% confidence interval was greater than the non-inferiority limit (-10.0%), the null hypothesis was rejected and it would be claimed that highly purified menotrophin was non-inferior to recombinant FSH with respect to ongoing pregnancy rate in a single fresh treatment cycle following a GnRH antagonist protocol.|Difference in pregnancy rates, ITT|2.2||||0.499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|8.6||Since there was only one primary endpoint, no adjustment for multiplicity was needed for the primary analysis.|Sign test|A two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in ongoing pregnancy rates was made. The CI was based on a normal approximation.|Difference tested: highly purified menotrophin-recombinant FSH, ITT analysis set|"The non-inferiority hypothesis to be tested for the primary endpoint was:~H0: π MENOPUR - π recombinant FSH ≤ -10.0% against the alternative H1: π MENOPUR - π recombinant FSH \> -10.0%,~where π MENOPUR and π recombinant FSH denote the ongoing pregnancy rate after treatment with MENOPUR and recombinant FSH, respectively, in a single fresh treatment cycle following a GnRH antagonist protocol."||8.6|-4.2|0.499
90994820|NCT00884221|181874029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|Tests for treatment differences were based on log-transformed values and adjusted for baseline values||Estradiol||||<0.001
90994821|NCT00884221|181874030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|Tests for treatment differences were based on log-transformed values and adjusted for baseline values||FSH||||<0.001
90994822|NCT00884221|181874031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|Tests for treatment differences were based on log-transformed values and adjusted for baseline values||Free Androgen Index||||<0.001
91043596|NCT00407745|181973310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.265|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.56||Serial gate-keeping multiple testing was used. If primary comparison for DAAC was significant, then variables were assessed in hierarchical manner. Significance was declared if unadjusted p-value at 0.05 level and preceding tests were significant.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included baseline sleep interference score as a covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.||Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group.||-0.56|-1.60|<0.0001
90994823|NCT00884221|181874032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|Tests for treatment differences were based on log-transformed values and adjusted for baseline values||Luteinizing hormone||||<0.001
90994824|NCT00884221|181874033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|Tests for treatment differences were based on log-transformed values and adjusted for baseline values||Progesterone||||0.630
91006884|NCT02545049|181898374|SUPERIORITY|If the treatment effect of the 40% renal composite endpoint was not significant, all other endpoints (i.e. all-cause hospitalization, all-cause mortality, change in UACR from baseline to Month 4, and 57% renal composite endpoint) would be tested in an exploratory manner.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.0689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.01||A hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary efficacy endpoints with each variable being tested at the adjusted two-sided significance level of 0.04967388.|Log Rank|Stratified log rank test|A stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model was used to provide a point estimate of the hazard ratio and a corresponding two-sided 95% confidence interval.|||1.01|0.76|0.0689
90994825|NCT00884221|181874034|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis (H0) was tested against the alternative by constructing a two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in ongoing pregnancy rates. If the lower-limit of the 95% confidence interval was greater than the non-inferiority limit (-10.0%), the null hypothesis was rejected and it would be claimed that highly purified menotrophin was non-inferior to recombinant FSH with respect to ongoing pregnancy rate in a single fresh treatment cycle following a GnRH antagonist protocol.|Difference in pregnancy rates, PP|3.0||||0.387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|9.8||Since there was only one primary endpoint, no adjustment for multiplicity was needed for the primary analysis.|Sign test|A two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in ongoing pregnancy rates was made. The CI was based on a normal approximation.|Difference tested: highly purified menotrophin - recombinant FSH, PP|"The non-inferiority hypothesis to be tested for the primary endpoint was:~H0: π MENOPUR - π recombinant FSH ≤ -10.0% against the alternative H1: π MENOPUR - π recombinant FSH \> -10.0%,~where π MENOPUR and π recombinant FSH denote the ongoing pregnancy rate after treatment with MENOPUR and recombinant FSH, respectively, in a single fresh treatment cycle following a GnRH antagonist protocol."||9.8|-3.8|0.387
90994826|NCT00884221|181874035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|Tests for treatment differences were based on log-transformed values and adjusted for baseline values||Prolactin||||0.047
90994827|NCT00884221|181874036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|Tests for treatment differences were based on log-transformed values and adjusted for baseline values||Sex hormone binding globulin||||0.009
90994828|NCT00884221|181874037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|Tests for treatment differences were based on log-transformed values and adjusted for baseline values||Testosterone||||<0.001
90994829|NCT00884221|181874038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between treatment groups of the average number of follicles \>= 12 mm on the last stimulation day||||0.025
90994830|NCT00884221|181874038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between treatment groups of the average number of follicles 12-14 mm on the last stimulation day||||0.024
90994831|NCT00884221|181874038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.728||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between treatment groups of the average number of follicles 15-16 mm on the last stimulation day||||0.728
90994832|NCT00884221|181874038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.285||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between treatment groups of the average number of follicles \>=17 mm on the last stimulation day||||0.285
90994833|NCT00884221|181874039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Only participants who underwent the oocyte retrieval procedure were included in the analysis||Treatments were compared using the Wilcoxon test for the average number of oocytes retrieved.||||<0.001
90994834|NCT00884221|181874040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.969||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Only participants who had oocytes retrieved were included in the analysis.||||||0.969
90994835|NCT00884221|181874041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.406||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between treatments groups of percentage of blastocysts with expansion and hatching status 1 / 2pn||||0.406
90994836|NCT00884221|181874041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.232||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between treatments groups of percentage of blastocysts with expansion and hatching status 2 / 2pn||||0.232
90994837|NCT00884221|181874041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.412||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between treatments groups of percentage of blastocysts with expansion and hatching status 3 / 2pn||||0.412
90994838|NCT00884221|181874041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.438||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between treatments groups of percentage of blastocysts with expansion and hatching status 4 / 2pn||||0.438
90994839|NCT00884221|181874041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between treatments groups of percentage of blastocysts with expansion and hatching status 5 / 2pn||||0.390
90994840|NCT00884221|181874041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.958||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between treatments groups of percentage of blastocysts with expansion and hatching status, inner cell mass grading and trophectoderm grading 4AA / 2pn||||0.958
90994841|NCT00884221|181874041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.954||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between treatments groups of percentage of blastocysts with expansion and hatching status, inner cell mass grading and trophectoderm grading 5AA / 2pn||||0.954
90994842|NCT00884221|181874042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Comparison of distributions|0.398||||0.398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|9.1|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in live birth rates was made. The CI was based on a normal approximation.|Estimated value is difference between highly purified menotrophin and recombinant FSH, ITT analysis set|||9.1|-3.6|0.398
90994843|NCT00884221|181874043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Comparison of distributions|1.8||||0.686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|9.2|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in cumulative live birth rates was made. The CI was based on a normal approximation.|Estimated value is difference between highly purified menotrophin and recombinant FSH, ITT analysis set|||9.2|-5.6|0.686
90994844|NCT05458011|181874109|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.66|-0.95|||ANCOVA|||||-0.95|-2.66|<0.0001
90994845|NCT03292952|181874139|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90994846|NCT04656418|181874147|OTHER|Test for differences|||||<|0.001||||||Compared the time-normalized number of HAE attacks in the active and placebo arms by using a two-sided Wilcoxon test (Hierarchical Testing H01) at alpha = 5%.|Two-sided Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.001
90994847|NCT04656418|181874148|OTHER|Test for differences|||||<|0.001||||||Compared the time-normalized number of HAE attacks in the active and placebo arms by using a two-sided Wilcoxon test.|Two-sided Wilcoxon test|||6 Months of treatment||||<0.001
90994848|NCT04656418|181874149|OTHER|Test for differences|||||<|0.001||||||Tested the differences between the active and placebo arms using a two-sided Wilcoxon test at alpha = 5%.|Two-sided Wilcoxon test|||6 Months of treatment||||<0.001
90994849|NCT04656418|181874149|OTHER|Test for differences|||||<|0.001||||||Tested the differences between the active and placebo arms using a two-sided Wilcoxon test at alpha = 5%.|Two-sided Wilcoxon test|||First 3-months of treatment||||<0.001
90994850|NCT04656418|181874149|OTHER|Test for differences|||||<|0.001||||||Tested the differences between the active and placebo arms using a two-sided Wilcoxon test at alpha = 5%.|Two-sided Wilcoxon test|||Second 3-months of treatment||||<0.001
90994851|NCT04656418|181874150|OTHER|Test for differences|||||<|0.001||||||Tested the differences between the active and placebo arms using a two-sided Wilcoxon test at alpha = 5%.|Two-sided Wilcoxon test|||6 Months of treatment||||<0.001
90994852|NCT04656418|181874150|OTHER|Test for differences|||||<|0.001||||||Tested the differences between the active and placebo arms using a two-sided Wilcoxon test at alpha = 5%.|Two-sided Wilcoxon test|||First 3-months of treatment||||<0.001
90994853|NCT04656418|181874150|OTHER|Test for differences|||||<|0.001||||||Tested the differences between the active and placebo arms using a two-sided Wilcoxon test at alpha = 5%.|Two-sided Wilcoxon test|||Second 3-months of treatment||||<0.001
90994854|NCT04656418|181874151|OTHER|Test for differences|||||<|0.001||||||Tested the differences between the active and placebo arms using a two-sided Wilcoxon test at alpha = 5%.|Two-sided Wilcoxon test|||First 3-months of treatment||||<0.001
90994855|NCT04656418|181874151|OTHER|Test for differences|||||<|0.001||||||Tested the differences between the active and placebo arms using a two-sided Wilcoxon test at alpha = 5%.|Two-sided Wilcoxon test|||Second 3-months of treatment||||<0.001
90994856|NCT04656418|181874152|OTHER|Test for differences|||||<|0.001||||||Compared the time-normalized number of HAE attacks in the active and placebo arms by using a two-sided Wilcoxon test (Hierarchical testing H02) at alpha = 5%.|Two-sided Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.001
90994857|NCT02667457|181874222|OTHER|||||||0.0095||||||p-value is based on t-test with unequal variances (Satterthwaite) if p-value of F-test for Equality of variances is significant (p\<0.05) otherwise p-value is based on t-test with equal variances.|t-test, 1 sided|||Timepoint = 60 minutes||||0.0095
90994858|NCT02667457|181874222|OTHER|||||||0.0029||||||p-value is based on t-test with unequal variances (Satterthwaite) if p-value of F-test for Equality of variances is significant (p\<0.05) otherwise p-value is based on t-test with equal variances.|t-test, 1 sided|||Timepoint = 120 minutes||||0.0029
90994859|NCT02667457|181874223|OTHER|||||||0.0066||||||p-value is based on t-test with unequal variances (Satterthwaite) if p-value of F-test for Equality of variances is significant (p\<0.05) otherwise p-value is based on t-test with equal variances.|t-test, 1 sided|||Timepoint = 60 minutes||||0.0066
90994860|NCT02667457|181874223|OTHER|||||||0.0334||||||p-value is based on t-test with unequal variances (Satterthwaite) if p-value of F-test for Equality of variances is significant (p\<0.05) otherwise p-value is based on t-test with equal variances.|t-test, 1 sided|||Timepoint = 120 minutes||||0.0334
90994861|NCT02667457|181874224|OTHER|||||||0.0066||||||p-value is based on t-test with unequal variances (Satterthwaite) if p-value of F-test for Equality of variances is significant (p\<0.05) otherwise p-value is based on t-test with equal variances.|t-test, 1 sided|||Timepoint = 60 minutes||||0.0066
90994862|NCT02667457|181874224|OTHER|||||||0.0301||||||p-value is based on t-test with unequal variances (Satterthwaite) if p-value of F-test for Equality of variances is significant (p\<0.05) otherwise p-value is based on t-test with equal variances.|t-test, 1 sided|||Timepoint = 120 minutes||||0.0301
90994863|NCT02667457|181874225|OTHER|||||||0.0066||||||p-value is based on t-test with unequal variances (Satterthwaite) if p-value of F-test for Equality of variances is significant (p\<0.05) otherwise p-value is based on t-test with equal variances.|t-test, 1 sided|||Timepoint = 60 minutes||||0.0066
90994864|NCT02667457|181874225|OTHER|||||||0.0387||||||p-value is based on t-test with unequal variances (Satterthwaite) if p-value of F-test for Equality of variances is significant (p\<0.05) otherwise p-value is based on t-test with equal variances.|t-test, 1 sided|||Timepoint = 120 minutes||||0.0387
90994865|NCT02667457|181874226|OTHER|||||||0.0359||||||p-value is based on t-test with unequal variances (Satterthwaite) if p-value of F-test for Equality of variances is significant (p\<0.05) otherwise p-value is based on t-test with equal variances.|t-test, 1 sided|||Timepoint = 60 minutes||||0.0359
90994866|NCT02667457|181874226|OTHER|||||||0.0022||||||p-value is based on t-test with unequal variances (Satterthwaite) if p-value of F-test for Equality of variances is significant (p\<0.05) otherwise p-value is based on t-test with equal variances.|t-test, 1 sided|||Timepoint = 120 minutes||||0.0022
90994867|NCT02475850|181874231|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.06||p\<0.05 threshold (primary outcome)|Regression, Cox|multistate model accounting for death as a semi-competing risk||||1.06|0.80|0.245
91043597|NCT00407745|181973311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.05||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 1~A longitudinal analysis of weekly mean changes using repeated measures mixed models which compared treatments at each week and the last scheduled study week based on this model (to assess durability of treatment effect) was used.~Effects for treatment, study center, time (week), baseline pain score, baseline PCS total score, and treatment by time interaction were included as covariates. The covariance structure was compound-symmetric."||-0.05|-0.94|0.0295
90994868|NCT02475850|181874232|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.83|0.99||p\< 0.01 threshold (secondary outcome)|Regression, Cox|||||0.99|0.83|0.004
91043598|NCT00407745|181973311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.22||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 2~A longitudinal analysis of weekly mean changes using repeated measures mixed models which compared treatments at each week and the last scheduled study week based on this model (to assess durability of treatment effect) was used.~Effects for treatment, study center, time (week), baseline pain score, baseline PCS total score, and treatment by time interaction were included as covariates. The covariance structure was compound-symmetric."||-0.22|-1.11|0.0033
90994869|NCT02475850|181874234|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least-squared means across|0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.309|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-1.1|2.54||p \< 0.01 threshold (secondary outcome)|Mixed Models Analysis|random: patients nested within practices; fixed: baseline score, randomization constraint vars, predictors of missingness||||2.54|-1.10|0.309
90994870|NCT02475850|181874235|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|0.59||||0.528|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-1.8|0.93||p \< 0.01 threshold (secondary outcome)|Mixed Models Analysis|random: patients nested within practices; fixed: baseline score, randomization constraint vars, predictors of missingness||||0.93|-1.80|0.528
90994871|NCT02475850|181874236|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.037|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-2.0|0.2||p \< 0.01 threshold (secondary outcome)|Mixed Models Analysis|random: patients nested within practices; fixed: baseline score, randomization constraint vars, predictors of missingness|Difference in least-squared means across all follow-up (repeated measures: 12 months/24 months)|||0.20|-2.00|0.037
90994872|NCT02475850|181874237|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|-1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.009|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-2.36|-0.02||p\<0.01 threshold (secondary outcome)|Mixed Models Analysis|random: patients nested within practices; fixed: baseline score, randomization constraint vars, predictors of missingness||||-0.02|-2.36|0.009
90994873|NCT02475850|181874238|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.897|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-1.38|1.25||p \<0.01 threshold (secondary outcome)|Mixed Models Analysis|random: patients nested within practices; fixed: baseline score, randomization constraint vars, predictors of missingness|Difference in least-squared means across all follow-up (repeated measures: 12 months, 24 months)|||1.25|-1.38|0.897
90994874|NCT03097614|181874242|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0001
90994875|NCT01746940|181874271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1088||||||One-sided p-value|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that the proportions of treatment group successes are equal.||||0.1088
90994876|NCT01746940|181874271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005||||||One-sided p-value|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that the proportions of treatment group successes are equal.||||0.0005
90994877|NCT03057951|181874272|SUPERIORITY|H0: There is no difference between the effect of placebo and the effect of empagliflozin.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.03|0.69|0.9|||Regression, Cox||Comparison vs. Placebo \[T/P\]|"Cox regression, with terms for treatment, region, baseline status of diabetes, age, sex, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and glomerular filtration rate estimated by the chronic kidney disease epidemiology collaboration formula with serum creatinine measurement (eGFR (CKD-EPI)cr) at baseline.~alpha=0.0497 (resulting from interim analysis)."||0.90|0.69|0.0003
90994878|NCT03057951|181874273|SUPERIORITY|H0: There is no difference between the effect of placebo and the effect of empagliflozin.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.03|0.61|0.88|||Joint frailty model||Comparison vs. Placebo \[T/P\]|Joint frailty model that accounts for dependence between recurrent HHF and cardiovascular death, with terms for age, baseline eGFR (CKD-EPK)cr, baseline LVEF, region, baseline diabetes status, sex, and treatment. eGFR (CKP-EPI)cr: Glomerular filtration rate estimated by the chronic kidney disease epidemiology collaboration formula with serum creatinine measurement LVEF: Left ventricular ejection fraction. alpha=0.0497 (resulting from interim analysis).||0.88|0.61|0.0009
90994879|NCT03057951|181874274|SUPERIORITY|H0: There is no difference between the effect of placebo and the effect of empagliflozin.|Treatment by time interaction|1.363|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.9|0.861|1.865|||Random intercept random coeff. model||Empa 10 mg vs. Placebo slope \[/year\]|"Random coefficient model allowing for random intercept and random slope per patient, with factors age, baseline eGFR (CKD-EPI), baseline LVEF as linear covariate(s) and region, baseline diabetes status, sex, baseline-by-time interaction, treatment-by-time interaction and treatment as fixed effects.~Only 'on-treatment' data from treated patients were used. alpha=0.001. covariance structure: Unstructured."||1.865|0.861|<0.0001
90994880|NCT03057951|181874275|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.7243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.24|||Regression, Cox||Comparison vs Placebo \[T/P\]|Cox regression model included terms age, baseline glomerular filtration rate estimated by the chronic kidney disease epidemiology collaboration formula with serum creatinine measurement (eGFR (CKD-EPI)cr), region, baseline diabetes status, sex, baseline Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and treatment.||1.24|0.73|0.7243
90994881|NCT03057951|181874276|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.83|||Regression, Cox||Comparison vs. Placebo \[T/P\]|Cox regression model included terms age, baseline glomerular filtration rate estimated by the chronic kidney disease epidemiology collaboration formula with serum creatinine measurement (eGFR (CKD-EPI)cr), region, baseline diabetes status, sex, baseline Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and treatment.||0.83|0.60|<0.0001
90994882|NCT03057951|181874277|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.2951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.09|||Regression, Cox||Comparison vs. Placebo \[T/P\]|Cox regression model included terms age, baseline glomerular filtration rate estimated by the chronic kidney disease epidemiology collaboration formula with serum creatinine measurement (eGFR (CKD-EPI)cr), region, baseline diabetes status, sex, baseline Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and treatment.||1.09|0.76|0.2951
90994883|NCT03057951|181874278|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.9893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.15|||Regression, Cox||Comparison vs. Placebo \[T/P\]|Cox regression model included terms age, baseline glomerular filtration rate estimated by the chronic kidney disease epidemiology collaboration formula with serum creatinine measurement (eGFR (CKD-EPI)cr), region, baseline diabetes status, sex, baseline Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and treatment.||1.15|0.87|0.9893
90994884|NCT03057951|181874279|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.1539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.07|||Regression, Cox||Comparison vs. Placebo \[T/P\]|Cox regression model included terms age, baseline glomerular filtration rate estimated by the chronic kidney disease epidemiology collaboration formula with serum creatinine measurement (eGFR (CKD-EPI)cr), region, baseline diabetes status, sex, baseline Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and treatment.||1.07|0.65|0.1539
90994885|NCT03057951|181874280|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|1.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.19|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Comparison vs Placebo \[T-P\]|"Model includes age, baseline glomerular filtration rate estimated by the chronic kidney disease epidemiology collaboration formula (eGFR (CKD-EPI)), baseline Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) as linear covariate(s) and region, baseline diabetes status, sex, week reachable, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline KCCQ-Clinical-Summary-Score-by-visit interaction as fixed effect(s).~Unstructured covariance structure."||2.19|0.45|0.0028
90994886|NCT03057951|181874281|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.1012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.01|||Joint frailty model||Comparison vs. Placebo \[T/P\]|Joint frailty model that accounts for the dependence between recurrent all-cause hospitalisation and all-cause mortality was used. Joint frailty model with terms for age, baseline glomerular filtration rate estimated by the chronic kidney disease epidemiology collaboration formula (eGFR (CKD-EPI)), baseline Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), treatment, region, baseline diabetes status and sex.||1.01|0.85|0.1012
90994887|NCT02700919|181874282|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||Log Rank|||Change from Baseline on Day 7||||0.012
90994888|NCT02700919|181874282|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||Change from Baseline on Day 7||||<0.001
90994889|NCT02700919|181874282|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.102|||||||Log Rank|||Change from Baseline on Day 7||||0.102
90994890|NCT02700919|181874282|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.027||||0.507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.053|0.107|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7||0.107|-0.053|0.507
90994891|NCT02700919|181874282|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.058||||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.021|0.136|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7||0.136|-0.021|0.148
90994892|NCT02700919|181874282|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.031||||0.443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.109|0.048|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7||0.048|-0.109|0.443
90994893|NCT02700919|181874286|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.399|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.399
90994894|NCT02700919|181874286|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.091|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.091
90994895|NCT02700919|181874286|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.437|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.437
90994896|NCT02700919|181874290|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.720
90994897|NCT02700919|181874290|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.298|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.298
90994898|NCT02700919|181874290|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.470
90994899|NCT00696436|181874308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.54|-12.01||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons was controlled using stepwise testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||-12.01|-16.54|<0.001
90994900|NCT00696436|181874308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.41|-10.91||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons was controlled using stepwise testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||-10.91|-15.41|<0.001
90994901|NCT00696436|181874308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.54||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.44|-0.64||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons was controlled using stepwise testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||-0.64|-4.44|0.009
90994902|NCT00696436|181874308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.25|-2.37||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons was controlled using stepwise testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||-2.37|-6.25|<0.001
90994903|NCT00696436|181874308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.43||||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.31|0.45||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons was controlled using stepwise testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||0.45|-3.31|0.136
90994904|NCT00696436|181874308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.2||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.12|-1.27||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons was controlled using stepwise testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||-1.27|-5.12|0.001
90994905|NCT00696436|181874309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.07|-11.76||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons was controlled using stepwise testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||-11.76|-18.07|<0.001
90994906|NCT00696436|181874309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.71|-11.4||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons was controlled using stepwise testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||-11.40|-17.71|<0.001
90994907|NCT00696436|181874309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.54||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.17|-0.92||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons was controlled using stepwise testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||-0.92|-6.17|0.008
90994908|NCT00696436|181874309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.09|-2.78||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons was controlled using stepwise testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||-2.78|-8.09|<0.001
90994909|NCT00696436|181874309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.18||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.81|-0.55||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons was controlled using stepwise testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||-0.55|-5.81|0.018
90994910|NCT00696436|181874309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.73|-2.42||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons was controlled using stepwise testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||-2.42|-7.73|<0.001
90994911|NCT00696436|181874310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.91|-7.81||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-7.81|-10.91|<0.001
90994912|NCT00696436|181874310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.12|-7.04||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-7.04|-10.12|<0.001
90994913|NCT00696436|181874310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.99|-0.4||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.40|-2.99|0.011
90994914|NCT00696436|181874310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.67|-1.02||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.02|-3.67|<0.001
90994915|NCT00696436|181874310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.91||||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.19|0.38||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||0.38|-2.19|0.166
90994916|NCT00696436|181874310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.56||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.88|-0.24||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.24|-2.88|0.020
90994917|NCT00696436|181874311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.33|-5.69||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-5.69|-9.33|<0.001
90994918|NCT00696436|181874311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.03|-4.39||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-4.39|-8.03|<0.001
90994919|NCT00696436|181874311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.18||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.69|-0.67||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.67|-3.69|0.005
90994920|NCT00696436|181874311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.69|-1.64||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.64|-4.69|<0.001
90994921|NCT00696436|181874311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.87||||0.257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.39|0.64||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||0.64|-2.39|0.257
90994922|NCT00696436|181874311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.86||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.39|-0.33||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.33|-3.39|0.017
90994923|NCT00696436|181874312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|-12.54||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-12.54|-17.30|<0.001
90994924|NCT00696436|181874312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.99|-11.27||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-11.27|-15.99|<0.001
90994925|NCT00696436|181874312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.86||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.85|-0.87||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.87|-4.85|0.005
90994926|NCT00696436|181874312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|-2.73||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-2.73|-6.80|<0.001
90994927|NCT00696436|181874312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.57||||0.119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.55|0.4||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||0.40|-3.55|0.119
90994928|NCT00696436|181874312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.49|-1.45||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.45|-5.49|<0.001
90994929|NCT00696436|181874313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.48|-8.13||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-8.13|-11.48|<0.001
90994930|NCT00696436|181874313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.63|-7.3||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-7.30|-10.63|<0.001
90994931|NCT00696436|181874313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.99||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.39|-0.58||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.58|-3.39|0.006
90994932|NCT00696436|181874313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-1.14||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.14|-4.00|<0.001
90994933|NCT00696436|181874313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.14||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.53|0.25||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||0.25|-2.53|0.107
90994934|NCT00696436|181874313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.73||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.15|-0.3||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.30|-3.15|0.017
90994935|NCT00696436|181874314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.56|-10.45||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-10.45|-15.56|<0.001
90994936|NCT00696436|181874314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.51|-9.43||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-9.43|-14.51|<0.001
90994937|NCT00696436|181874314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.42||||0.194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.56|0.72||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||0.72|-3.56|0.194
90994938|NCT00696436|181874314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.65||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.84|-1.46||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.46|-5.84|0.001
90994939|NCT00696436|181874314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|1.73||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.73|-2.51|0.720
90994940|NCT00696436|181874314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.62||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.79|-0.45||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.45|-4.79|0.018
90994941|NCT00696436|181874315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.42|-6.87||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-6.87|-10.42|<0.001
90994942|NCT00696436|181874315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.52|-5.99||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-5.99|-9.52|<0.001
90994943|NCT00696436|181874315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.72||||0.341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|0.77||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||0.77|-2.21|0.341
90994944|NCT00696436|181874315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.28||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|-0.76||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.76|-3.80|0.003
90994945|NCT00696436|181874315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17||||0.821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.64||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.64|-1.30|0.821
90994946|NCT00696436|181874315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.39||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.89|0.12||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||0.12|-2.89|0.071
90994947|NCT00696436|181874316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.96|-12.94||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-12.94|-17.96|<0.001
90994948|NCT00696436|181874316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.42|-11.43||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-11.43|-16.42|<0.001
90994949|NCT00696436|181874316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.32||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.42|-1.22||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.22|-5.42|0.002
90994950|NCT00696436|181874316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.26|-2.97||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-2.97|-7.26|<0.001
90994951|NCT00696436|181874316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.88|0.29||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||0.29|-3.88|0.091
90994952|NCT00696436|181874316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.72|-1.46||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.46|-5.72|<0.001
90994953|NCT00696436|181874317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.92|-8.36||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-8.36|-11.92|<0.001
90994954|NCT00696436|181874317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.94|-7.4||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-7.40|-10.94|<0.001
90994955|NCT00696436|181874317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.31||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.81|-0.82||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.82|-3.81|0.002
90994956|NCT00696436|181874317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.24|-1.19||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.19|-4.24|<0.001
90994957|NCT00696436|181874317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.34||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.82|0.14||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||0.14|-2.82|0.076
90994958|NCT00696436|181874317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.74||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.25|-0.22||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.22|-3.25|0.024
90994959|NCT00696436|181874318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.66|-10.02||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-10.02|-15.66|<0.001
90994960|NCT00696436|181874318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.72|-9.11||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-9.11|-14.72|<0.001
90994961|NCT00696436|181874318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.74||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|0.62||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||0.62|-4.10|0.149
90994962|NCT00696436|181874318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.65|-1.83||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.83|-6.65|<0.001
90994963|NCT00696436|181874318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.82||||0.494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.16|1.53||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.53|-3.16|0.494
90994964|NCT00696436|181874318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.32||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.72|-0.93||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.93|-5.72|0.007
90994965|NCT00696436|181874319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.03|-5.79||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-5.79|-10.03|<0.001
90994966|NCT00696436|181874319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|-5.88||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-5.88|-10.10|<0.001
90994967|NCT00696436|181874319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36||||0.691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.14|1.42||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.42|-2.14|0.691
90994968|NCT00696436|181874319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.39||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|-0.57||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.57|-4.20|0.010
90994969|NCT00696436|181874319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44||||0.625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.32||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.32|-2.20|0.625
90994970|NCT00696436|181874319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.46||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.27|-0.66||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.66|-4.27|0.008
90994971|NCT00696436|181874320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.15|7.88||P-value for response criteria for systolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value was presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||7.88|3.15|<0.001
90994972|NCT00696436|181874320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.94|7.37||P-value for response criteria for systolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value was presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||7.37|2.94|<0.001
90994973|NCT00696436|181874320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.03||P-value for response criteria for systolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value was presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.03|1.03|0.032
90994974|NCT00696436|181874320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|2.06||P-value for response criteria for systolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value was presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.06|1.04|0.029
90994975|NCT00696436|181874320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.89||P-value for response criteria for systolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value was presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.89|0.96|0.080
90994976|NCT00696436|181874320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.92||P-value for response criteria for systolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value was presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.92|0.97|0.071
90994977|NCT00696436|181874321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|5.15||P-value for response criteria for diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic diastolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value was presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||5.15|2.10|<0.001
90994978|NCT00696436|181874321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.86|4.54||P-value for response criteria for diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic diastolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value was presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||4.54|1.86|<0.001
90994979|NCT00696436|181874321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.8||P-value for response criteria for diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic diastolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value was presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.80|0.83|0.306
90994980|NCT00696436|181874321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.97||P-value for response criteria for diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic diastolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value was presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.97|0.92|0.132
90994981|NCT00696436|181874321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.58||P-value for response criteria for diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic diastolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value was presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.58|0.74|0.695
90994982|NCT00696436|181874321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.74||P-value for response criteria for diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic diastolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value was presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.74|0.81|0.381
90994983|NCT00696436|181874322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|8.41||P-value for joint response criteria for systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value was presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||8.41|3.20|<0.001
90994984|NCT00696436|181874322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.73|7.19||P-value for joint response criteria for systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value was presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||7.19|2.73|<0.001
90994985|NCT00696436|181874322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.94||P-value for joint response criteria for systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value was presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.94|0.99|0.056
90994986|NCT00696436|181874322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|2.02||P-value for joint response criteria for systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value was presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.02|1.02|0.036
90994987|NCT00696436|181874322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.66||P-value for joint response criteria for systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value was presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.66|0.85|0.317
90994988|NCT00696436|181874322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.73||P-value for joint response criteria for systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value was presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.73|0.87|0.234
90994989|NCT01293006|181874335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.12|0.91|||Difference of Least Squares Means|||Difference (Suvorexant - Placebo) of Least Squares Means||0.91|-0.12|
90994990|NCT01293006|181874338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.3|3.36|||Difference of the Least Means Squares|||Day 1, SaO2 \<90%, Difference (Suvorexant - Placebo) of Least Squares Means||3.36|-1.30|
90994991|NCT01293006|181874338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.08|0.5|||Difference of the Least Squares Means|||Day 1, SaO2 \<85%, Difference (Suvorexant - Placebo) of Least Squares Means||0.50|-0.08|
90994992|NCT01293006|181874338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.77|7.41|||Difference of the Least Squares Means|||Day 4, SaO2 \<90%, Difference (Suvorexant - Placebo) of Least Squares Means||7.41|-5.77|
90994993|NCT01293006|181874338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.63|||Difference of the Least Squares Means|||Day 4, SaO2 \<85%, Difference (Suvorexant - Placebo) of Least Squares Means||0.63|0.00|
90994994|NCT01293006|181874339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|2.04|||Difference of the Least Squares Means|||Day 1, Difference (Suvorexant - Placebo) of Least Squares Means||2.04|-0.60|
90994995|NCT01293006|181874339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.33|3.77|||Difference of the Least Squares Means|||Day 4, Difference (Suvorexant - Placebo) of Least Squares Means||3.77|0.33|
90994996|NCT01293006|181874340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.41|0.47|||Difference in the Least Squares Means|||Day 1, REM, Difference (Suvorexant - Placebo) of Least Squares Means||0.47|-0.41|
90994997|NCT01293006|181874340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.53|0.27|||Difference of the Least Squares Means|||Day 1, Non-REM, Difference (Suvorexant - Placebo) of Least Squares Means||0.27|-0.53|
90994998|NCT01293006|181874340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.61|0.18|||Difference of the Least Squares Means|||Day 1, Wake, Difference (Suvorexant - Placebo) of Least Squares Means||0.18|-0.61|
90994999|NCT01293006|181874340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.32|0.98|||Difference of the Least Squares Means|||Day 4, REM, Difference (Suvorexant - Placebo) of Least Squares Means||0.98|-0.32|
90995000|NCT01293006|181874340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.26|0.78|||Difference of the Least Squares Means|||Day 4, Non-REM, Difference (Suvorexant - Placebo) of Least Squares Means||0.78|-0.26|
90995001|NCT01293006|181874340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.1|0.8|||Difference of the Least Squares Means|||Day 4, Wake, Difference (Suvorexant - Placebo) of Least Squares Means||0.80|0.10|
90995002|NCT01293006|181874341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|0.31|||Difference in the Least Squares Means|||Difference (Suvorexant - Placebo) of Least Squares Means||0.31|-0.50|
90995003|NCT01494987|181874342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in least squares mean (LSM)|-0.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.32||P-value is from a mixed-effect model including terms for baseline HbA1c value, prior antihyperglycemia therapy, treatment group, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Mixed Effects Model Analysis||The estimation (LSM) is of the placebo-corrected change from baseline.|Assuming a common standard deviation of 1.2%, an effective sample size of 400 would provide at least 90% power to detect a statistically significant treatment difference of -0.5% (ranolazine vs. placebo) for the reduction of HbA1c from baseline at Week 24 based on a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 and 1:1 randomization.||-0.32|-0.71|<0.001
90995004|NCT00600028|181874349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis||The values represents three months on each intervention|||||0.001
90995005|NCT00600028|181874350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.0||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis||The values represents three months on each intervention|||||.0001
90995006|NCT01586156|181874360|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.04
90995007|NCT01586156|181874361|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.04
90995008|NCT01586156|181874362|OTHER|Pearson's correlation test of association of alprenolol binding changes to dose carvedilol.||||||0.02||||||Correlation of the change in alprenolol binding relative to dose carvedilol.|Pearson|||||||0.02
90995009|NCT01586156|181874363|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.05
90995010|NCT01586156|181874365|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
90995011|NCT01586156|181874366|NON_INFERIORITY|Carvedilol did not lead to worse cardiac output as compared to placebo.||||||0.8|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.8
90995012|NCT04465396|181874367|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between pen injector and syringe injection was to be considered established if the 90% confidence interval (CI) of the corresponding geometric mean ratio was within the acceptance interval of 80.00% to 125.00%.|Geometric Mean Ratio|109.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|104.83|113.8|||||The analysis was performed using Proc Mixed in statistical software suite (SAS), with treatment, sequence, period, and participant within sequence as fixed effects.|||113.80|104.83|
90995013|NCT04465396|181874367|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between pen injector and syringe injection was to be considered established if the 90% CI of the corresponding geometric mean ratio was within the acceptance interval of 80.00% to 125.00%.|Geometric Mean Ratio|113.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|108.32|119.95|||||The analysis was performed using Proc Mixed in SAS, with treatment, sequence, period, and participant within sequence as fixed effects.|||119.95|108.32|
90995014|NCT04465396|181874368|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between pen injector and syringe injection was to be considered established if the 90% CI of the corresponding geometric mean ratio was within the acceptance interval of 80.00% to 125.00%.|Geometric Mean Ratio|98.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.5|109.11|||||The analysis was performed using Proc Mixed in SAS, with treatment, sequence, period, and participant within sequence as fixed effects.|||109.11|88.50|
90995015|NCT04465396|181874368|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between pen injector and syringe injection was to be considered established if the 90% CI of the corresponding geometric mean ratio was within the acceptance interval of 80.00% to 125.00%.|Geometric Mean Ratio|92.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.8|102.05|||||The analysis was performed using Proc Mixed in SAS, with treatment, sequence, period, and participant within sequence as fixed effects.|||102.05|83.80|
90995016|NCT04465396|181874369|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between pen injector and syringe injection was to be considered established if the 90% CI of the corresponding geometric mean ratio was within the acceptance interval of 80.00% to 125.00%.|Geometric Mean Ratio|109.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|105.51|113.51|||||The analysis was performed using Proc Mixed in SAS, with treatment, sequence, period, and participant within sequence as fixed effects.|||113.51|105.51|
90995017|NCT04465396|181874369|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between pen injector and syringe injection was to be considered established if the 90% CI of the corresponding geometric mean ratio was within the acceptance interval of 80.00% to 125.00%.|Geometric Mean Ratio|118.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|112.31|124.83|||||The analysis was performed using Proc Mixed in SAS, with treatment, sequence, period, and participant within sequence as fixed effects.|||124.83|112.31|
90995018|NCT03011450|181874487|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<0.0001
90995019|NCT03011450|181874488|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<0.0001
90995020|NCT03011450|181874489|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<0.0001
90995021|NCT03011450|181874490|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0156|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.0156
90995022|NCT03011450|181874491|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<0.0001
90995023|NCT03011450|181874492|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<0.0001
90995024|NCT03011450|181874493|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<0.0001
90995025|NCT03011450|181874494|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.0001
90995026|NCT03011450|181874495|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<0.0001
90995027|NCT03011450|181874496|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.538|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.5380
90995028|NCT03011450|181874497|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<0.0001
90995029|NCT03011450|181874498|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1165|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.1165
90995030|NCT03011450|181874499|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0142|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.0142
90995031|NCT03011450|181874500|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<0.0001
90995032|NCT03011450|181874501|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<0.0001
90995033|NCT03011450|181874502|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<0.0001
90995034|NCT03011450|181874503|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4589|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.4589
90995035|NCT03011450|181874504|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<.0001
90995036|NCT03011450|181874505|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<.0001
90995037|NCT03011450|181874506|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<.0001
90995038|NCT03011450|181874507|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2486|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.2486
90995039|NCT03011450|181874508|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<.0001
90995040|NCT03011450|181874509|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<.0001
90995041|NCT03011450|181874510|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<.0001
90995042|NCT03011450|181874511|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<.0001
90995043|NCT03011450|181874512|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.0001
90995044|NCT03011450|181874513|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2763|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.2763
90995045|NCT03011450|181874514|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<.0001
90995046|NCT03011450|181874515|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<.0001
90995047|NCT03011450|181874516|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<.0001
90995048|NCT03011450|181874517|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<.0001
90995049|NCT03011450|181874518|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1651|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.1651
90995050|NCT03011450|181874519|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<.0001
90995051|NCT03011450|181874520|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<.0001
90995052|NCT03011450|181874521|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<.0001
90995053|NCT03011450|181874522|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<.0001
90995054|NCT03011450|181874523|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5107|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.5107
90995055|NCT03011450|181874524|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||0.0018|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.0018
90995056|NCT03011450|181874525|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0742|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.0742
90995057|NCT03011450|181874526|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<.0001
90995058|NCT03011450|181874527|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2707|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.2707
90995059|NCT03011450|181874528|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0009|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.0009
90995060|NCT03011450|181874529|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2879|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.2879
90995061|NCT03011450|181874530|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9786|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.9786
90995062|NCT03011450|181874531|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0075|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.0075
90995063|NCT03011450|181874532|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0241|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.0241
90995064|NCT03011450|181874533|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<.0001
90995065|NCT03011450|181874534|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0502|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.0502
90995066|NCT03011450|181874535|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<.0001
90995067|NCT03011450|181874536|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<.0001
90995068|NCT03011450|181874537|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0209|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.0209
90995069|NCT03011450|181874538|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<0.0001
90995070|NCT03011450|181874539|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<0.0001
90995071|NCT03011450|181874540|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<0.0001
90995072|NCT03011450|181874541|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||non-parametric Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<0.0001
90995073|NCT03011450|181874542|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.0001
90995074|NCT03011450|181874543|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<0.0001
90995075|NCT03519516|181874601|NON_INFERIORITY|it is considered as noninferiority if there is no difference greater than twenty percent between both medications||||||0.749|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.749
90995076|NCT03519516|181874602|NON_INFERIORITY|it is considered as noninferiority if there is no difference greater than twenty percent between both medications||||||0.041|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.041
90995077|NCT03519516|181874603|NON_INFERIORITY|it is considered as noninferiority if there is no difference greater than twenty percent between both medications||||||0.694|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.694
90995078|NCT03519516|181874604|NON_INFERIORITY|it is considered as noninferiority if there is no difference greater than twenty percent between both medications||||||0.495|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.495
90995079|NCT03519516|181874605|NON_INFERIORITY|it is considered as noninferiority if there is no difference greater than twenty percent between both medications||||||0.492||||||statistical analysis between groups for final visit with green lissamine|Chi-squared|||||||0.492
90995080|NCT03519516|181874605|NON_INFERIORITY|it is considered as noninferiority if there is no difference greater than twenty percent between both medications||||||0.238||||||statistical analysis between groups for final visit with fluorescein|Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.238
90995081|NCT03519516|181874606|NON_INFERIORITY|it is considered as noninferiority if there is no difference greater than twenty percent between both medications||||||0.213|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.213
90995082|NCT03519516|181874608|NON_INFERIORITY|it is considered as noninferiority if there is no difference greater than twenty percent between both medications||||||0.741|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.741
90995083|NCT03519516|181874610|NON_INFERIORITY|The study drug is considered non-inferior with respect to the comparator if there are no differences above twenty percent||||||0.11|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.110
90995084|NCT01244191|181874617|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.981||||0.8086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.841|1.149|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio and the 95% confidence interval from stratified Cox-regression model (adjusting for number of prior therapies, gender, and smoking history).|||1.149|0.841|0.8086
91006885|NCT02545049|181898375|SUPERIORITY|If the treatment effect of the 40% renal composite endpoint was not significant, all other endpoints (i.e. all-cause hospitalization, all-cause mortality, change in UACR from baseline to Month 4, and 57% renal composite endpoint) would be tested in an exploratory manner.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.3558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.04||A hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary efficacy endpoints with each variable being tested at the adjusted two-sided significance level of 0.04967388.|Log Rank|Stratified log rank test|A stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model was used to provide a point estimate of the hazard ratio and a corresponding two-sided 95% confidence interval.|||1.04|0.90|0.3558
91043599|NCT00407745|181973311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.09||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 3~A longitudinal analysis of weekly mean changes using repeated measures mixed models which compared treatments at each week and the last scheduled study week based on this model (to assess durability of treatment effect) was used.~Effects for treatment, study center, time (week), baseline pain score, baseline PCS total score, and treatment by time interaction were included as covariates. The covariance structure was compound-symmetric."||-0.09|-0.98|0.0185
90995085|NCT01752842|181874625|SUPERIORITY|Power calculation is based on assumption that treatment with Fenofibrate will lead to 11% decrease in plasma TG and ceramide biomarkers. We also assume that there will be no significant change in ceramides without intervention. Based on these assumptions, 86 subjects are required to have 90% chance of detecting a decrease in the primary outcome measure from 1.29 in the placebo group to 1.15 in the Fenofibrate group.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.75||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|0.04||This P-value is based on ANCOVA.|ANCOVA||ANCOVA was used to compare mean change of cardiac diastolic function adjusting for body fat percent, baseline values of BMI, diastolic/systolic blood pressure, HbA1c, fasting glucose, triglycerides, ethnicity, gender and race.|Null hypothesis is no difference of mean change of cardiac diastolic function as measured by E' (cm/s) between placebo and Fenofibrate.|Two-sample t-test was used to compare baseline mean values of biomarkers. All statistical tests are two-sided at significance level 0.05.|0.04|-1.56|0.07
90995086|NCT01752842|181874626|SUPERIORITY|Power calculation is based on assumption that treatment with Fenofibrate will lead to 11% decrease in plasma TG and ceramide biomarkers. We also assume that there will be no significant change in ceramides without intervention. Based on these assumptions, 86 subjects are required to have 90% chance of detecting a decrease in the primary outcome measure from 1.29 in the placebo group to 1.15 in the Fenofibrate group.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0058||||0.8128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0418|0.0543||This P-value is based on ANCOVA.|ANCOVA||ANCOVA was used to compare mean change of outcome adjusting for body fat percent, demographic variables and baseline biomarkers.|Null hypothesis is no difference of mean change of fractional shortening percent between placebo and Fenofibrate.|Two-sample t-test was used to compare baseline mean values of biomarkers. All statistical tests are two-sided at significance level 0.05.|0.0543|-0.0418|0.8128
90995087|NCT01752842|181874627|SUPERIORITY|Power calculation is based on assumption that treatment with Fenofibrate will lead to 11% decrease in plasma TG and ceramide biomarkers. We also assume that there will be no significant change in ceramides without intervention. Based on these assumptions, 86 subjects are required to have 90% chance of detecting a decrease in the primary outcome measure from 1.29 in the placebo group to 1.15 in the Fenofibrate group.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.79||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.93|-0.65||This P-value is based on ANCOVA.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA was used to compare mean change of outcome adjusting for body fat percent, demographic variables and baseline biomarkers.||Null hypothesis is no difference of mean change of C24:0/C16:0 ceramide ratio between placebo and Fenofibrate.|Two-sample t-test was used to compare baseline mean values of biomarkers. All statistical tests are two-sided at significance level 0.05.|-0.65|-2.93|0.0034
90995088|NCT02164513|181874628|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.81||The adjusted p-values should be compared against a reference level of 0.05 in order to infer statistical significance for either of the comparisons.|Negative binomial model||Covariates of treatment group, sex, exacerbation history (\<=1, \>=2 moderate/severe), smoking status (Screening), geographical region and post-bronchodilator percent predicted Forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) (Screening) were used.|||0.81|0.70|<0.001
90995089|NCT02164513|181874628|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.9||The adjusted p-values should be compared against a reference level of 0.05 in order to infer statistical significance for either of the comparisons|Negative binomial model||Covariates of treatment group, sex, exacerbation history (\<=1, \>=2 moderate/severe), smoking status (Screening), geographical region and post-bronchodilator percent predicted Forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) (Screening) were used.|||0.90|0.80|<0.001
90995090|NCT02164513|181874629|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.097|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0061|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.085|0.109||The adjusted p-value at Week 52 should be compared against a reference level of 0.05 in order to infer statistical significance for the comparison of FF/UMEC/VI versus (vs) FF/VI at Week 52.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||||0.109|0.085|<0.001
90995091|NCT02164513|181874630|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-1.1||The adjusted p-value at Week 52 should be compared against a reference level of 0.05 in order to infer statistical significance for the comparison of FF/UMEC/VI vs FF/VI at Week 52.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||||-1.1|-2.4|<0.001
90995092|NCT02164513|181874631|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.91||The adjusted p-values should be compared against a reference level of 0.05 in order to infer statistical significance for either of the comparisons.|Cox proportional hazard model|||||0.91|0.80|<0.001
90995093|NCT02164513|181874631|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|0.91|||Cox proportional hazard model|||||0.91|0.78|<0.001
90995094|NCT02164513|181874632|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.75|||Negative binomial Model|||||0.75|0.62|<0.001
90995095|NCT02164513|181874633|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.85|||Cox proportional hazard model|||||0.85|0.70|<0.001
90995096|NCT02164513|181874634|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.87||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.01|||Negative binomial model|||||1.01|0.76|0.064
91043600|NCT00407745|181973311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.21||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 4~A longitudinal analysis of weekly mean changes using repeated measures mixed models which compared treatments at each week and the last scheduled study week based on this model (to assess durability of treatment effect) was used.~Effects for treatment, study center, time (week), baseline pain score, baseline PCS total score, and treatment by time interaction were included as covariates. The covariance structure was compound-symmetric."||-0.21|-1.10|0.0040
90995097|NCT02164513|181874634|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.78|||Negative binomial model|||||0.78|0.56|<0.001
90995098|NCT05301322|181874641|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (Coadministration Group to Sequential-Administration Group) was greater than 0.667 for both RSV A and RSV B NTs.|GMR|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.785|0.951|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the titers (Coadministration minus Sequential-Administration) and the corresponding CIs (based on Student's t distribution).|RSV A||0.951|0.785|
90995099|NCT05301322|181874641|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (Coadministration Group to Sequential-Administration Group) was greater than 0.667 for both RSV A and RSV B NTs.|GMR|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.766|0.943|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the titers (Coadministration minus Sequential-Administration) and the corresponding CIs (based on Student's t distribution).|RSV B||0.943|0.766|
90995100|NCT05301322|181874642|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (Coadministration Group to Sequential-Administration Group) was greater than 0.667 for each of the 4 influenza strains.|GMR|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.769|0.963|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the titers (Coadministration minus Sequential-Administration) and the corresponding CIs (based on Student's t distribution).|HAI: H1N1 A/Victoria||0.963|0.769|
90995101|NCT05301322|181874642|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (Coadministration Group to Sequential-Administration Group) was greater than 0.667 for each of the 4 influenza strains.|GMR|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.866|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the titers (Coadministration minus Sequential-Administration) and the corresponding CIs (based on Student's t distribution).|HAI: H3N2 A/Darwin||0.866|0.680|
90995102|NCT05301322|181874642|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (Coadministration Group to Sequential-Administration Group) was greater than 0.667 for each of the 4 influenza strains.|GMR|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.789|1.019|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the titers (Coadministration minus Sequential-Administration) and the corresponding CIs (based on Student's t distribution).|HAI: B/Austria||1.019|0.789|
90995103|NCT05301322|181874642|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (Coadministration Group to Sequential-Administration Group) was greater than 0.667 for each of the 4 influenza strains.|GMR|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.779|0.964|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the titers (Coadministration minus Sequential-Administration) and the corresponding CIs (based on Student's t distribution).|HAI: B/Phuket||0.964|0.779|
90995104|NCT04971785|181874647|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|5.7||||0.2289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|14.9|||Stratified Mantel-Haenszel test||Percentage difference and 95% confidence interval (CI) between each pair of treatment groups were from stratified Mantel-Haenszel test with baseline diabetes status and baseline enhanced liver fibrosis (ELF) category as stratification factors.|||14.9|-3.6|0.2289
90995105|NCT04971785|181874648|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|-1.8||||0.6959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|7.4|||Stratified Mantel-Haenszel test||Percentage difference and 95% CI between each pair of treatment groups presented were from stratified Mantel-Haenszel test with baseline diabetes status and baseline ELF category as stratification factors.|||7.4|-11.1|0.6959
90995106|NCT04971785|181874649|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|35.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.8|52.6|||Stratified Mantel-Haenszel test||Percentage difference and 95% CI between each pair of treatment groups presented are from stratified Mantel-Haenszel test with baseline diabetes status and baseline ELF category as stratification factors.|||52.6|18.8|<0.0001
90995107|NCT04971785|181874650|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|26.1||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.3|40.9|||Stratified Mantel-Haenszel test||Percentage difference and 95% CI between each pair of treatment groups presented were from stratified Mantel-Haenszel test with baseline diabetes status and baseline ELF category as stratification factors.|||40.9|11.3|0.0006
90995108|NCT00781963|181874651|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.7|-3.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||The parameter estimate is the improvement in sleep onset latency from baseline to 6-month follow-up for CBT-I group versus the same improvement in the control group.|||-3.0|-28.7|<.001
90995109|NCT00781963|181874652|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.2||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.3|5.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||The parameter estimate is the improvement in wake after sleep onset from baseline to 6-month follow-up for CBT-I group versus the same improvement in the control group.|||5.9|-26.3|0.21
90995110|NCT00781963|181874653|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-37.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.9||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.2|-11.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||The parameter estimate is the improvement in total wake time from baseline to 6-month follow-up for CBT-I group versus the same improvement in the control group.|||-11.7|-62.2|0.004
90995111|NCT00781963|181874654|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.36||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|11.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||The parameter estimate is the improvement in sleep efficiency from baseline to 6-month follow-up for CBT-I group versus the same improvement in the control group.|||11.3|2.0|.005
90995112|NCT00781963|181874655|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||The parameter estimate is the improvement in sleep efficiency (from wrist actigraphy) from baseline to 6-month follow-up for CBT-I group versus the same improvement in the control group.|||0.5|-3.3|0.15
90995113|NCT00781963|181874656|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||The parameter estimate is the improvement in PSQI score from baseline to 6-month follow-up for CBT-I group versus the same improvement in the control group.|||-1.3|-3.5|<.001
90995114|NCT00680953|181874671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.343||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.194|0.606|||Log Rank|||||0.606|0.194|0.0001
90995115|NCT00680953|181874672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9951|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.9951
90995116|NCT00680953|181874673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1568|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.1568
90995117|NCT00915538|181874689|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The expected results for non-inferiority would be +/- 5% of difference between the two groups in the primary efficacy parameter.|AUC|0.0||||0.76|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The cross-over means there were 16 determinants for each time for each treatment. The AUC of FEV-1 was measured in each subject for each treatment arm and the mean of this data was compared.||||0.76
90995118|NCT00915538|181874689|OTHER|Two sample T test|Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.0|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>.05
90995119|NCT00915538|181874690|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Power calculation was not done for secondary parameter. The comparison was for the FEV-1/FVC expressed as fraction at each time point||||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The cross over means there were 16 determinants for each time for each treatment||||0.76
90995120|NCT03864536|181874707|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The statistical significance level was set using alpha of 0.05 without multiplicity correction. This pilot study was not powered for all the outcomes so the magnitude and estimates of intervention efficacy was of primary interest.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
90995121|NCT03864536|181874708|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The statistical significance level was set using alpha of 0.05 without multiplicity correction. This pilot study was not powered for all the outcomes so the magnitude and estimates of intervention efficacy was of primary interest.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
90995122|NCT04058158|181874714|EQUIVALENCE|Pre-defined equivalence margin was \[-337.2 to 337.2\].|Least squares mean difference|34.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.66|116.62||||||||116.62|-47.66|
90995123|NCT04058158|181874715|EQUIVALENCE|Pre-defined equivalence margin was \[0.77 to 1.29\].|Ratio of geometric least squares mean|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|1.23||||||||1.23|0.95|
90995124|NCT02215616|181874716|OTHER||Least square (LS) mean difference|0.78||||0.4853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|2.98||Threshold for significance at 0.045 level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was performed using Mixed Model Repeated Measures model (MMRM) with treatment group (3 levels: placebo, laquinimod 0.5 mg and laquinimod 1 mg), categorical week (4 levels: Weeks 4, 13, 26, and 52), treatment by week interaction, country, TMS baseline value and TMS baseline by week interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured variance-covariance structure was used in the initial model.||2.98|-1.42|0.4853
90995125|NCT01634113|181874718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.117||0.4963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.312|0.152||All treatment comparisons were exploratory, no formal hypothesis testing was performed.|ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||0.152|-0.312|0.4963
90995126|NCT01634113|181874718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.123||0.6936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.292|0.195||All treatment comparisons were exploratory, no formal hypothesis testing was performed.|ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||0.195|-0.292|0.6936
90995127|NCT01634113|181874720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.083|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.157||0.5995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.229|0.394||All treatment comparisons were exploratory, no formal hypothesis testing was performed.|ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||0.394|-0.229|0.5995
90995128|NCT01634113|181874720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.9251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.303|0.333||All treatment comparisons were exploratory, no formal hypothesis testing was performed.|ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||0.333|-0.303|0.9251
90995129|NCT01634113|181874721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.324||0.8279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.243|22.743||All treatment comparisons were exploratory, no formal hypothesis testing was performed.|ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||22.743|-18.243|0.8279
90995130|NCT01634113|181874721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.497|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.826||0.8181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.987|18.994||All treatment comparisons were exploratory, no formal hypothesis testing was performed.|ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||18.994|-23.987|0.8181
90995131|NCT01634113|181874723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.061|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.112||0.5869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.161|0.283||All treatment comparisons were exploratory, no formal hypothesis testing was performed.|ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||0.283|-0.161|0.5869
90995132|NCT01634113|181874723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.075|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116||0.523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.305|0.156||All treatment comparisons were exploratory, no formal hypothesis testing was performed.|ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||0.156|-0.305|0.5230
90995133|NCT02062463|181874793|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.05|6.95||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Chi-squared|||Analysis was performed using a conditional logistic regression model.||6.95|2.05|<0.001
91043601|NCT00407745|181973311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|-0.36||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 5~A longitudinal analysis of weekly mean changes using repeated measures mixed models which compared treatments at each week and the last scheduled study week based on this model (to assess durability of treatment effect) was used.~Effects for treatment, study center, time (week), baseline pain score, baseline PCS total score, and treatment by time interaction were included as covariates. The covariance structure was compound-symmetric."||-0.36|-1.26|0.0004
90995134|NCT02062463|181874794|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.98||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Chi-squared|||Analysis was performed using a conditional logistic regression model.||1.98|0.80|0.316
90995135|NCT01956240|181874824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.51|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.9|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|A 1-way repeated measures ANOVA was used to assess for possible differences among evaluations in each group separately for pectoralis minor length.||||||<0.05
90995136|NCT01956240|181874825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|5.0|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|Separate 2-way repeated measures ANOVAs were used to test for interactions of angle x evaluation (1,2,3) and for main effects of evaluation.||||||>0.05
90995137|NCT03172481|181874837|OTHER|The primary efficacy analysis used a mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis on the full day laboratory classroom SKAMP-C scores from each time point as the dependent variable. The repeated measures model adjusted means (LS-means) for PRC-063 and placebo were compared statistically using a t-test with an overall 5% significance level to evaluate efficacy. The LS-means estimate an overall treatment effect across the entire 13-hour classroom evaluation.|||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
90995138|NCT02928380|181874898|OTHER||Least square (LS) mean difference|-0.02||||0.0987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.0|||ANOVA|ANOVA Model with weight of the peanut particle (food occlusion) as response variable, treatment and period as fixed effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment is such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|H0: The mean mass of food particles retrieved from using a marketed denture adhesive with a flat ribbon nozzle is no different from using no adhesive H01: The mean mass of food particles retrieved from using a marketed denture adhesive with a flat ribbon nozzle is different from using no adhesive.||0.00|-0.05|0.0987
90995139|NCT01061736|181874911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.99||||0.1155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|4.64||Threshold for significance = 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis was performed using two-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test. Pairwise comparisons of the response rates between each dose of sarilumab and placebo were derived. The multiplicity issues were addressed by using the Hommel-procedure.||4.64|0.85|0.1155
90995140|NCT01061736|181874911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.84||||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|9.63||Threshold for significance = 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||9.63|1.53|0.0041
90995141|NCT01061736|181874911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.7119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|2.61||Threshold for significance = 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.61|0.52|0.7119
90995142|NCT01061736|181874911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.38||||0.0363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|5.35||Threshold for significance = 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.35|1.06|0.0363
90995143|NCT01061736|181874911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.34||||0.0426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|5.29||Threshold for significance = 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.29|1.03|0.0426
90995144|NCT01061736|181874912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.773|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.077|3.703||Threshold for significance = 0.025.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis was performed using two-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test. Pairwise comparisons of the response rates between each dose of sarilumab and placebo was derived. The multiplicity issues for part B were addressed by using a Bonferroni correction for each dose together with a hierarchical testing procedure across the 3 co-primary and the main secondary endpoints. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.025 level.||3.703|2.077|<0.0001
90995145|NCT01061736|181874912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.975|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.957|5.344||Threshold for significance = 0.025.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.344|2.957|<0.0001
90995146|NCT01061736|181874913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.235|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.312|-0.157||Threshold for significance = 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was performed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM). Differences in least square (LS) mean between each dose of sarilumab and placebo were derived. Testing was performed according to the hierarchical testing procedure (performed only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-0.157|-0.312|<0.0001
91043602|NCT00407745|181973311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|-0.27||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~A longitudinal analysis of weekly mean changes using repeated measures mixed models which compared treatments at each week and the last scheduled study week based on this model (to assess durability of treatment effect) was used.~Effects for treatment, study center, time (week), baseline pain score, baseline PCS total score, and treatment by time interaction were included as covariates. The covariance structure was compound-symmetric."||-0.27|-1.17|0.0018
91043603|NCT00407745|181973311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|-0.24||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 7~A longitudinal analysis of weekly mean changes using repeated measures mixed models which compared treatments at each week and the last scheduled study week based on this model (to assess durability of treatment effect) was used.~Effects for treatment, study center, time (week), baseline pain score, baseline PCS total score, and treatment by time interaction were included as covariates. The covariance structure was compound-symmetric."||-0.24|-1.14|0.0027
91043604|NCT00407745|181973311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.21||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 8~A longitudinal analysis of weekly mean changes using repeated measures mixed models which compared treatments at each week and the last scheduled study week based on this model (to assess durability of treatment effect) was used.~Effects for treatment, study center, time (week), baseline pain score, baseline PCS total score, and treatment by time interaction were included as covariates. The covariance structure was compound-symmetric."||-0.21|-1.11|0.0041
91043605|NCT00407745|181973311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|-0.18||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 9~A longitudinal analysis of weekly mean changes using repeated measures mixed models which compared treatments at each week and the last scheduled study week based on this model (to assess durability of treatment effect) was used.~Effects for treatment, study center, time (week), baseline pain score, baseline PCS total score, and treatment by time interaction were included as covariates. The covariance structure was compound-symmetric."||-0.18|-1.09|0.0058
91043606|NCT00407745|181973311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|-0.23||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 10~A longitudinal analysis of weekly mean changes using repeated measures mixed models which compared treatments at each week and the last scheduled study week based on this model (to assess durability of treatment effect) was used.~Effects for treatment, study center, time (week), baseline pain score, baseline PCS total score, and treatment by time interaction were included as covariates. The covariance structure was compound-symmetric."||-0.23|-1.14|0.0031
91043607|NCT00407745|181973311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.17||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 11~A longitudinal analysis of weekly mean changes using repeated measures mixed models which compared treatments at each week and the last scheduled study week based on this model (to assess durability of treatment effect) was used.~Effects for treatment, study center, time (week), baseline pain score, baseline PCS total score, and treatment by time interaction were included as covariates. The covariance structure was compound-symmetric."||-0.17|-1.08|0.0076
91043608|NCT00407745|181973311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.04||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 12~A longitudinal analysis of weekly mean changes using repeated measures mixed models which compared treatments at each week and the last scheduled study week based on this model (to assess durability of treatment effect) was used.~Effects for treatment, study center, time (week), baseline pain score, baseline PCS total score, and treatment by time interaction were included as covariates. The covariance structure was compound-symmetric."||-0.04|-0.95|0.0328
91043609|NCT00407745|181973311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.11||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 13~A longitudinal analysis of weekly mean changes using repeated measures mixed models which compared treatments at each week and the last scheduled study week based on this model (to assess durability of treatment effect) was used.~Effects for treatment, study center, time (week), baseline pain score, baseline PCS total score, and treatment by time interaction were included as covariates. The covariance structure was compound-symmetric."||-0.11|-1.02|0.0150
91043610|NCT00407745|181973311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.2||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 14~A longitudinal analysis of weekly mean changes using repeated measures mixed models which compared treatments at each week and the last scheduled study week based on this model (to assess durability of treatment effect) was used.~Effects for treatment, study center, time (week), baseline pain score, baseline PCS total score, and treatment by time interaction were included as covariates. The covariance structure was compound-symmetric."||-0.20|-1.11|0.0048
91043611|NCT00407745|181973311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|-0.24||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 15~A longitudinal analysis of weekly mean changes using repeated measures mixed models which compared treatments at each week and the last scheduled study week based on this model (to assess durability of treatment effect) was used.~Effects for treatment, study center, time (week), baseline pain score, baseline PCS total score, and treatment by time interaction were included as covariates. The covariance structure was compound-symmetric."||-0.24|-1.15|0.0030
90995147|NCT01061736|181874913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.258|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.336|-0.181||Threshold for significance = 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.181|-0.336|<0.0001
90995148|NCT01061736|181874914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Threshold for significance = 0.025.|Rank ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using two-sided rank-based ANCOVA model. Testing was performed according to the hierarchical testing procedure (performed only when the previous endpoints were statistically significant).||||<0.0001
90995149|NCT01061736|181874914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Threshold for significance = 0.025.|Rank ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
90995150|NCT01061736|181874915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.661|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.451|8.863||Threshold for significance = 0.025.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis was performed using two-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test. Pairwise comparisons of the response rates between each dose of sarilumab and placebo were derived. Testing was performed according to the hierarchical testing procedure (performed only when the previous endpoints were statistically significant).||8.863|2.451|<0.0001
90995151|NCT01061736|181874915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.565|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.946|10.515||Threshold for significance = 0.025.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.515|2.946|<0.0001
90995152|NCT02093234|181874926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
90995153|NCT02093234|181874927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
90995154|NCT02093234|181874928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
91043612|NCT00407745|181973311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|-0.3||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 16~A longitudinal analysis of weekly mean changes using repeated measures mixed models which compared treatments at each week and the last scheduled study week based on this model (to assess durability of treatment effect) was used.~Effects for treatment, study center, time (week), baseline pain score, baseline PCS total score, and treatment by time interaction were included as covariates. The covariance structure was compound-symmetric."||-0.30|-1.22|0.0011
90995155|NCT02093234|181874929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank|||||||0.02
90995156|NCT00421603|181875001|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|All analyses were conducted on the intent-to-treat sample of all randomized patients. All statistical tests were 2-tailed and employed at a significance level of 5%, unless otherwise stated. The original sample size of 120 patients was chosen to ensure sufficient power (at least 80%) of a two-sided test with level of significance α=0.05 for detecting difference between the two experimental treatments with respect to the percentage of subjects who achieve continuous 3-weeks abstinence.|||||=|0.05|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||The dichotomous primary outcome was analyzed using logistic regression with independent predictors: treatment (MAS-ER and topiramate vs. placebo) and adjusted for baseline severity of cocaine use (total number of cocaine use days in the 28 days prior to randomization).||||=.05
91043613|NCT00407745|181973312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.24||||0.0256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.103|4.546||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression used terms for treatment, baseline pain score as covariate, baseline PCS total score, and pooled center as cofactor.||Null hypothesis - The rate of responder for the pregabain group was equal to the rate of responder for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - The rate of responder for the pregabain group was not equal to the rate of responder for the placebo group.||4.546|1.103|0.0256
91043614|NCT00407745|181973313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|-0.35||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 1.~A longitudinal analysis of weekly mean changes using repeated measures mixed models which compared treatments at each week and the last scheduled study week based on this model (to assess durability of treatment effect) was used.~Effects for treatment, pooled center, time (week), baseline score, and treatment by time interaction were included as covariates. The covariance structure was compound-symmetric."||-0.35|-1.23|0.0004
91043615|NCT00407745|181973313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|-0.43||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week2~A longitudinal analysis of weekly mean changes using repeated measures mixed models which compared treatments at each week and the last scheduled study week based on this model (to assess durability of treatment effect) was used.~Effects for treatment, pooled center, time (week), baseline score, and treatment by time interaction were included as covariates. The covariance structure was compound-symmetric."||-0.43|-1.31|<0.0001
91043616|NCT00407745|181973313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|-0.36||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 3.~A longitudinal analysis of weekly mean changes using repeated measures mixed models which compared treatments at each week and the last scheduled study week based on this model (to assess durability of treatment effect) was used.~Effects for treatment, pooled center, time (week), baseline score, and treatment by time interaction were included as covariates. The covariance structure was compound-symmetric."||-0.36|-1.24|0.0004
91043617|NCT00407745|181973313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.32||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 4.~A longitudinal analysis of weekly mean changes using repeated measures mixed models which compared treatments at each week and the last scheduled study week based on this model (to assess durability of treatment effect) was used.~Effects for treatment, pooled center, time (week), baseline score, and treatment by time interaction were included as covariates. The covariance structure was compound-symmetric."||-0.32|-1.20|0.0008
91043618|NCT00407745|181973313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|-0.49||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 5.~A longitudinal analysis of weekly mean changes using repeated measures mixed models which compared treatments at each week and the last scheduled study week based on this model (to assess durability of treatment effect) was used.~Effects for treatment, pooled center, time (week), baseline score, and treatment by time interaction were included as covariates. The covariance structure was compound-symmetric."||-0.49|-1.38|<0.0001
90995157|NCT01170702|181875016|NON_INFERIORITY|The non inferiority margin is clinically important reduction in 24 hour hydromorphone consumption of 25%, 37.5% and 50% absolute reduction, compared with control.|Median Difference (Final Values)|1.25|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.05||0.05|TWO_SIDED|0.975|1.25|1.25|||Kruskal-Wallis|||||1.25|1.25|.05
90995158|NCT01677507|181875024|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|3.3|||t-test, 2 sided|Actually these are 2 sided paired t-tests.||Right Eye treated vs. untreated||3.3|2.4|0.0001
90995159|NCT01677507|181875024|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|3.2|||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test, 2 sided||Left Eye treated vs. untreated||3.2|2.5|0.0001
90995160|NCT01677507|181875024|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|3.4|||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test, 2 sided||Right Eye treated vs. untreated||3.4|2.5|0.0001
90995161|NCT01677507|181875024|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.9||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|3.3|||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test, 2 sided||Left Eye, treated vs. untreated||3.3|2.5|0.0001
90995162|NCT01677507|181875025|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.3|||t-test, 2 sided|paired t test, 2 sided||Right Eye treated to untreated||1.3|0.9|0.0001
91043619|NCT00407745|181973313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|-0.48||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6.~A longitudinal analysis of weekly mean changes using repeated measures mixed models which compared treatments at each week and the last scheduled study week based on this model (to assess durability of treatment effect) was used.~Effects for treatment, pooled center, time (week), baseline score, and treatment by time interaction were included as covariates. The covariance structure was compound-symmetric."||-0.48|-1.37|<0.0001
90995163|NCT01677507|181875025|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.1|||t-test, 2 sided|paired t test, 2 sided||Left Eye, treated vs. untreated||1.1|0.7|0.0001
90995164|NCT01677507|181875025|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2|||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||Right Eye, treated vs. untreated||0.2|-0.2|0.94
90995165|NCT01677507|181875025|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2|||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test, 2 sided||Left Eye, treated vs. untreated||0.2|-0.1|0.54
90995166|NCT01677507|181875026|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.7|||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test, 2 sided||Right Eye, treated vs. untreated||0.7|0.01|0.04
90995167|NCT01677507|181875026|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.6|||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test, 2 sided||Left eye, treated vs. untreated||0.6|-0.1|0.15
90995168|NCT01677507|181875026|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.6|||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test, 2 sided||Right Eye, treated vs. untreated||0.6|-0.3|0.52
90995169|NCT01677507|181875026|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4|||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test, 2 sided||Left Eye, treated vs. untreated||0.4|-0.4|0.88
90995170|NCT00961441|181875029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate for ratio|1.0271|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8817|1.1964|||ANOVA|Point estimates for the geometric means ratios children/adults for Cmax normalized by dose and body weight and 90% CIs have been calculated.||An ANOVA for log-transformed values has been used as the basis for calculation of point estimates and Confidence Intervals (CIs).||1.1964|0.8817|
90995171|NCT00961441|181875030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate for ratio|0.9914|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.811|1.2118|||ANOVA|Point estimates for the geometric means ratios children/adults for AUCtau normalized by dose and body weight and 90% CIs have been calculated.||An ANOVA for log-transformed values has been used as the basis for calculation of point estimates and Confidence Intervals (CIs).||1.2118|0.8110|
90995172|NCT06964165|181875063|OTHER||Difference in pre-IDS ORR|-39.0|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-56.8|-17.7||||||||-17.7|-56.8|
90995173|NCT01551758|181875079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted treatment ratio|0.92|||=|0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|0.99|||Generalized Linear Model|||||0.99|0.85|=0.025
91043620|NCT00407745|181973313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|-0.47||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 7.~A longitudinal analysis of weekly mean changes using repeated measures mixed models which compared treatments at each week and the last scheduled study week based on this model (to assess durability of treatment effect) was used.~Effects for treatment, pooled center, time (week), baseline score, and treatment by time interaction were included as covariates. The covariance structure was compound-symmetric."||-0.47|-1.35|<0.0001
90995174|NCT01551758|181875080|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the incidence ratio is less than 2.|Incidence ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.5|||||Calculated as % of participants who had at least one SAE of pneumonia in the FF/VI group divided by the % of participants who had at least one SAE of pneumonia in the Usual Care group|||1.5|0.9|
90995175|NCT01551758|181875081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted treatment ratio|1.08||||0.632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.47|||Generalized linear model|||||1.47|0.79|0.632
90995176|NCT01551758|181875082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13|||=|0.439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.52|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||1.52|0.83|=0.439
90995177|NCT01551758|181875083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted treatment ratio|1.06||||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.27|||Generalized linear model|||||1.27|0.89|0.488
90995178|NCT01551758|181875084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted treatment ratio|0.98||||0.622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.05|||Generalized linear model|||||1.05|0.92|0.622
90995179|NCT01551758|181875085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted treatment ratio|1.05||||0.336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.15|||Generalized Linear Model|||||1.15|0.95|0.336
90995180|NCT01551758|181875086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted treatment ratio|1.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.2|||Generalized Linear Model|||||1.20|1.05|<0.001
90995181|NCT01551758|181875087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|2.23|||Cox proportional hazards model||A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with FF/VI compared with Usual Care.|||2.23|1.60|<0.001
90995182|NCT01551758|181875088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.66|||Cox proprotional hazards model||A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with FF/VI compared with Usual Care|||0.66|0.37|<0.001
90995183|NCT01551758|181875089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.02|||Cox porportional hazards model||A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with FF/VI compared with Usual Care|||1.02|0.85|0.111
90995184|NCT01551758|181875090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.01|||Cox porportional hazards model|||||1.01|0.84|0.081
90995185|NCT01551758|181875091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.27||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.66|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||1.66|0.98|0.075
90995186|NCT01093755|181875161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between the two treatment groups at 3 months||||0.30
90995187|NCT01093755|181875161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between the two treatment groups at 6 months||||0.52
90995188|NCT01093755|181875162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between the two treatment groups at 3 months||||0.70
90995189|NCT01093755|181875162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between the two treatment groups at 6 months||||0.64
90995190|NCT03115112|181875163|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin of 0.35% was determined based on a reference clinical trial that demonstrated the effectiveness of sitagliptin, 100 mg, compared to placebo on HbA1c reduction in subjects with type 2 DM. A margin of 0.35% was selected to be approximately half of sitagliptin effect and remained clinically meaningful.|Difference of LS Means|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.22|||||Mixed-effects repeated measures analysis includes region, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and the baseline HbA1c value as fixed effect covariates.|||0.22|-0.07|
90995191|NCT03115112|181875164|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.37||||0.0123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.05|||Mixed-effects repeated measures|Covariate includes region, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and the baseline FPG value as a fixed effect covariate.||||-0.05|-0.70|0.0123
90995192|NCT03115112|181875165|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-2.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.15|-1.92|||Mixed-effects repeated measures|Included region, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and the baseline body weight value as fixed effect covariate.||||-1.92|-3.15|<0.0001
90995193|NCT03115112|181875166|SUPERIORITY||mixed-effects repeated measures|-2.33||||0.0276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|0.05|||t-test, 1 sided|p value was presented based on one sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance|Included region, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and the baseline body weight value as fixed effect covariate.|||0.05|-4.70|0.0276
90995194|NCT00698035|181875194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Significant at p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of baseline estradiol between LC/MS and RIA||||>0.05
90995195|NCT00698035|181875194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||singificant at p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of week 4 estradiol between LC/MS and RIA||||>0.05
90995196|NCT00698035|181875197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021||||||Significant at p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Change in SI from BL to W12||||0.021
90995197|NCT00698035|181875197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Significant at p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Change in SD from BL to W12||||<0.001
90995198|NCT00698035|181875197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0228||||||Significant at p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Change in SI from BL to W12||||0.0228
90995199|NCT00698035|181875197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Significant at p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Change in SD from BL to W12||||<0.001
90995200|NCT00698035|181875198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||||||Significant at p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Change in SS from Baseline to Week 12||||0.004
90995201|NCT00698035|181875198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.139||||||Significant at p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Change in SS from Baseline to Week 12||||0.139
90995202|NCT00698035|181875199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Significant at p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in rugae, pallor, petechiae, mucosal thinning and dryness between baseline and week 12||||<0.001
90995203|NCT00698035|181875199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Significant at p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in rugae, pallor, mucosal thinning, and dryness from baseline to 12 weeks||||<0.001
90995204|NCT00698035|181875199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0061||||||Significant at p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in petechiae between baseline and week 12||||0.0061
90995205|NCT00654953|181875243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom for medication group = 2 (group)||The analysis tested the null hypothesis of no difference among groups in terms of the # of days to relapse (first two conseqcutively positive urines) using ANOVA.||||0.05
90995206|NCT01231607|181875244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-squares (LS) mean difference|22.0||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|98.33|-4.4|48.4|||General linear model||Estimates are based on the adjusted (least-squares) means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Cluster + Baseline Value. The estimation value represents the dutasteride 0.02 mg LS mean minus the placebo LS mean.|||48.4|-4.4|0.046
90995207|NCT01231607|181875244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|67.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|98.33|41.6|94.2|||General linear model||Estimates are based on the adjusted (least-squares) means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Cluster + Baseline Value. The estimation value represents the dutasteride 0.1 mg LS mean minus the placebo LS mean.|||94.2|41.6|<0.001
90995208|NCT01231607|181875244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|94.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|98.33|67.8|121.0|||General linear model|Each dose of dutasteride independently analyzed for comparison against placebo using a general linear model.|Estimates are based on the adjusted (least-squares) means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Cluster + Baseline Value. The estimation value represents the dutasteride 0.5 mg LS mean minus the placebo LS mean.|||121.0|67.8|<0.001
90995209|NCT01231607|181875244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|61.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|98.33|34.4|88.4|||General linear model||Estimates are based on the adjusted (least-squares) means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Cluster + Baseline Value. The estimation value represents the finasteride 1 mg LS mean minus the placebo LS mean.|||88.4|34.4|<0.001
90995210|NCT01231607|181875244|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Differences between dutasteride (DUT) and finasteride (FIN) were assessed using a general linear model (GLM) adjusted for treatment, cluster, and BL hair count (HC). The one-sided 99.165% confidence interval (CI) for DUT minus FIN was derived, and noninferiority (NI) demonstrated if the lower end of the CI was greater than -35 hairs. If NI was achieved with a dose of DUT, the primary endpoint was to be analyzed for superiority against FIN using a GLM adjusted for treatment, cluster, and BL HC.|Least squares mean difference|-39.4|||<|0.001||99.165|-66.1|-12.7|||General linear model||Estimates are based on the adjusted (least-squares) means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Cluster + Baseline Value. The estimation value represents the finasteride 1 mg LS mean minus the Dutasteride 0.02 mg LS mean.|||-12.7|-66.1|<0.001
90995211|NCT01231607|181875244|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Differences between dutasteride (DUT) and finasteride (FIN) were assessed using a general linear model (GLM) adjusted for treatment, cluster, and BL hair count (HC). The one-sided 99.165% confidence interval (CI) for DUT minus FIN was derived, and noninferiority (NI) demonstrated if the lower end of the CI was greater than -35 hairs. If NI was achieved with a dose of DUT, the primary endpoint was to be analyzed for superiority against FIN using a GLM adjusted for treatment, cluster, and BL HC.|Least squares mean difference|6.5||||0.28||99.165|-20.1|33.1|||General linear model||Estimates are based on the adjusted (least-squares) means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Cluster + Baseline Value. The estimation value represents the finasteride 1 mg LS mean minus the Dutasteride 0.1 mg LS mean.|||33.1|-20.1|0.28
90995212|NCT01231607|181875244|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Differences between dutasteride (DUT) and finasteride (FIN) were assessed using a general linear model (GLM) adjusted for treatment, cluster, and BL hair count (HC). The one-sided 99.165% confidence interval (CI) for DUT minus FIN was derived, and noninferiority (NI) demonstrated if the lower end of the CI was greater than -35 hairs. If NI was achieved with a dose of DUT, the primary endpoint was to be analyzed for superiority against FIN using a GLM adjusted for treatment, cluster, and BL HC.|Least squares mean difference|33.0||||0.002||99.165|6.1|60.0|||General linear model||Estimates are based on the adjusted (least-squares) means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Cluster + Baseline Value. The estimation value represents the finasteride 1 mg LS mean minus the Dutasteride 0.5 mg LS mean.|||60|6.1|0.002
90995213|NCT01231607|181875244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-39.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|98.33|-66.1|-12.7|||General linear model||Estimates are based on the adjusted (least-squares) means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Cluster + Baseline Value. The estimation value represents the finasteride 1 mg LS mean minus the Dutasteride 0.02 mg LS mean.|||-12.7|-66.1|<0.001
90995214|NCT01231607|181875244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|6.5||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|98.33|-20.1|33.1|||General linear model||Estimates are based on the adjusted (least-squares) means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Cluster + Baseline Value. The estimation value represents the finasteride 1 mg LS mean minus the Dutasteride 0.1 mg LS mean.|||33.1|-20.1|0.56
90995215|NCT01231607|181875244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|33.0||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|98.33|6.1|60.0|||General linear model||Estimates are based on the adjusted (least-squares) means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Cluster + Baseline Value. The estimation value represents the finasteride 1 mg LS mean minus the Dutasteride 0.5 mg LS mean.|||60|6.1|0.003
90995216|NCT01709786|181875264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Bland-Altman Analysis|1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|||||p-value is not reported since Bland-Altman is not a hypothesis testing framework.|Limits of agreement||Limits of agreement are -2.02 to 5.00. This is not a confidence interval because Bland-Altman is not a hypothesis testing framework.|||||
90995217|NCT01709786|181875265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Limits of agreement|-0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|||||p-value not reported since Bland-Altman is not a hypothesis testing framework.|Bland-Altman Analysis||Limits of agreement are -3.44 to 2.18. This is not a confidence interval because Bland-Altman is not a hypothesis testing framework.|||||
90995218|NCT03779334|181875266|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Exact Binomial Test|Performance Criterion = 5%||||||<0.0001
90995219|NCT06533475|181875294|OTHER||GLSM Ratio|1.018|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9624|1.076|||||The GLSM ratio was calculated: Minzasolmin tablet (Fasted)/ Minzasolmin Capsule (Fasted)|||1.076|0.9624|
90995220|NCT06533475|181875294|OTHER||GLSM Ratio|1.075|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.024|1.13|||||"The GLSM ratio was calculated as:~Minzasolmin Tablet (Fed)/Minzasolmin Tablet (Fasted)."|||1.130|1.024|
90995221|NCT06533475|181875295|OTHER||GLSM Ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9649|1.078|||||The GLSM ratio was calculated as: Minzasolmin tablet (Fasted)/ Minzasolmin Capsule (Fasted)|||1.078|0.9649|
90995222|NCT06533475|181875295|OTHER||GLSM Ratio|1.073|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.021|1.127|||||"The GLSM ratio was calculated as:~Minzasolmin Tablet (Fed)/Minzasolmin Tablet (Fasted)."|||1.127|1.021|
90995223|NCT06533475|181875296|OTHER||GLSM Ratio|0.9771||||||90.0|0.7966|1.199|||||The GLSM ratio was calculated as: Minzasolmin tablet (Fasted)/ Minzasolmin Capsule (Fasted)|||1.199|0.7966|
90995224|NCT06533475|181875296|OTHER||GLSM Ratio|1.016|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.794|1.299|||||The GLSM ratio was calculated as: Minzasolmin tablet (Fed)/ Minzasolmin tablet (Fasted)|||1.299|0.7940|
90995225|NCT01082367|181875329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|21.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.67|99.52|||Regression, Logistic|||||99.52|4.67|<0.001
90995226|NCT00664755|181875332|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.77||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|6.59|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.59|1.17|0.011
90995227|NCT02307838|181875340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.59||||0.0155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||||-0.11|-1.07|0.0155
90995228|NCT00865189|181875382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||Binomial test|||This proportion was described for each treatment arm with a 95% confidence interval (CI) and compared with the standard proportion of 10% (CI) for each treatment arm.||||0.015
90995229|NCT00865189|181875382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.906|||||||Binomial test|||This proportion was described for each treatment arm with a 95% CI and compared with the standard proportion of 10% (CI) using for each treatment arm.||||0.906
90995230|NCT01658579|181875394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.179||0.7304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.614|5.124|||Linear Mixed Model|||Analysis was performed using a linear mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects, and participant as random effect.||5.124|-3.614|0.7304
90995231|NCT00084929|181875406|OTHER||Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.853|0.933||||||Accuracy: ROC analysis Receiver-operating-characteristic (ROC) curves were estimated with the use of data pooled from the radiologists because of the small number of positive cases reviewed by each radiologist.||0.933|0.853|
90995232|NCT00084929|181875406|OTHER||"Sensitivity: P(T+|D+)"|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.838|0.96|||||Exact 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each radiologist, and large-sample 95% confidence intervals were calculated for overall estimates, with the use of standard errors that allowed for estimation of variation among radiologists.|"Sensitivity, for each radiologist, was calculated as the percentage of patients with lesions that were larger than or equal to the prespecified threshold and that were detected on both colonoscopy and CT colonography.~The per-patient sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were first estimated for each radiologist, and then the average values among the radiologists were calculated."||0.96|0.838|
90995233|NCT00084929|181875406|OTHER||"P(T-|D-)"|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.813|0.9|||||Exact 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each radiologist, and large-sample 95% confidence intervals were calculated for overall estimates, with the use of standard errors that allowed for estimation of variation among radiologists.|Specificity, for each radiologist, was calculated as the percentage of patients who did not have lesions larger than the prespecified threshold on colonoscopy as well as CT colonography The per-patient sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were first estimated for each radiologist, and then the average values among the radiologists were calculated.||0.9|0.813|
90995234|NCT00084929|181875406|OTHER||"P(D+|T+)"|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.194|0.273|||||Exact 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each radiologist, and large-sample 95% confidence intervals were calculated for overall estimates, with the use of standard errors that allowed for estimation of variation among radiologists.|Positive Predictive Value (PPV) the positive predictive value was calculated as the percentage of patients with CT colonographic findings that were also seen on colonoscopy||0.273|0.194|
90995235|NCT00084929|181875406|OTHER||"P(D-|T-)"|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|0.998|||||Exact 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each radiologist, and large-sample 95% confidence intervals were calculated for overall estimates, with the use of standard errors that allowed for estimation of variation among radiologists.|Negative Predictive Value (NPV) the negative predictive value was calculated as the percentage of patients with no CT colonographic findings larger than the prespecified threshold that were not detected on colonoscopy.||0.998|0.990|
90995236|NCT00084929|181875407|OTHER||Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.853|0.93||||||"Accuracy: ROC analysis CTC lesions needed to be within 2 segments and 50% size of the lesions removed via colonoscopy to be considered detected"||0.93|0.853|
90995237|NCT00084929|181875407|OTHER||"Sensitivity: P(T+|D+)"|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.832|0.96|||||Sensitivity indicates the percent of patients who had a lesions (of the specified size) detected by optical colonoscopy, which were detected by CTC|"Sensitivity CTC lesions needed to be within 2 segments and 50% size of the lesions removed via colonoscopy to be considered detected"||0.96|0.832|
90995238|NCT00084929|181875407|OTHER||"P(T-|D-)"|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.817|0.902|||||Specificity indicates the percent of patients who had not lesions detected on optical colonoscopy, who had no lesions detected on CTC.|"Specificity CTC lesions needed to be within 2 segments and 50% size of the lesions removed via colonoscopy to be considered detected"||0.902|0.817|
90995239|NCT00084929|181875407|OTHER||"P(D+|T+)"|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.209|0.292||||||"Positive Predictive Value (PPV) CTC lesions needed to be within 2 segments and 50% size of the lesions removed via colonoscopy to be considered detected"||0.292|0.209|
90995240|NCT00084929|181875407|OTHER||"P(D-|T-)"|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|0.998||||||"Negative Predictive Value (NPV) CTC lesions needed to be within 2 segments and 50% size of the lesions removed via colonoscopy to be considered detected"||0.998|0.990|
90995241|NCT00084929|181875408|OTHER||Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.842|0.913||||||Accuracy: ROC analysis||0.913|0.842|
90995242|NCT00084929|181875408|OTHER||"Sensitivity: P(T+|D+)"|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.803|0.929|||||Sensitivity indicates the percent of patients who had a lesions (of the specified size) detected by optical colonoscopy, which were detected by CTC|Sensitivity||0.929|0.803|
90995243|NCT00084929|181875408|OTHER||"P(T-|D-)"|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.825|0.909|||||Specificity indicates the percent of patients who had not lesions detected on optical colonoscopy, who had no lesions detected on CTC.|Specificity||0.909|0.825|
90995244|NCT00084929|181875408|OTHER||"P(D+|T+)"|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.256|0.355||||||Positive Predictive Value (PPV)||0.355|0.256|
90995245|NCT00084929|181875408|OTHER||"P(D-|T-)"|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.984|0.994||||||Negative Predictive Value (NPV)||0.994|0.984|
90995246|NCT00084929|181875409|OTHER||Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.833|0.902||||||Accuracy: ROC analysis||0.902|0.833|
90995247|NCT00084929|181875409|OTHER||"Sensitivity: P(T+|D+)"|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.776|0.912|||||Sensitivity indicates the percent of patients who had a lesions (of the specified size) detected by optical colonoscopy, which were detected by CTC|Sensitivity||0.912|0.776|
90995248|NCT00084929|181875409|OTHER||"P(T-|D-)"|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.831|0.914|||||Specificity indicates the percent of patients who had not lesions detected on optical colonoscopy, who had no lesions detected on CTC.|Specificity||0.914|0.831|
90995249|NCT00084929|181875409|OTHER||"P(D+|T+)"|0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.299|0.397||||||Positive Predictive Value (PPV)||0.397|0.299|
90995250|NCT00084929|181875409|OTHER||"P(D-|T-)"|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|0.992||||||Negative Predictive Value (NPV)||0.992|0.980|
90995251|NCT00084929|181875410|OTHER||Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|0.878||||||Accuracy: ROC analysis||0.878|0.810|
90995252|NCT00084929|181875410|OTHER||"Sensitivity: P(T+|D+)"|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.711|0.849|||||Sensitivity indicates the percent of patients who had a lesions (of the specified size) detected by optical colonoscopy, which were detected by CTC|Sensitivity||0.849|0.711|
90995253|NCT00084929|181875410|OTHER||"P(T-|D-)"|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|0.92|||||Specificity indicates the percent of patients who had not lesions detected on optical colonoscopy, who had no lesions detected on CTC.|Specificity||0.92|0.840|
90995254|NCT00084929|181875410|OTHER||"P(D+|T+)"|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.335|0.463||||||Positive Predictive Value (PPV)||0.463|0.335|
90995255|NCT00084929|181875410|OTHER||"P(D-|T-)"|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.971|0.984||||||Negative Predictive Value (NPV)||0.984|0.971|
90995256|NCT00084929|181875411|OTHER||Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.763|0.828||||||Accuracy: ROC analysis||0.828|0.763|
90995257|NCT00084929|181875411|OTHER||"Sensitivity: P(T+|D+)"|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.579|0.727|||||Sensitivity indicates the percent of patients who had a lesions (of the specified size) detected by optical colonoscopy, which were detected by CTC|Sensitivity||0.727|0.579|
90995258|NCT00084929|181875411|OTHER||"P(T-|D-)"|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.851|0.923|||||Specificity indicates the percent of patients who had not lesions detected on optical colonoscopy, who had no lesions detected on CTC.|Specificity||0.923|0.851|
90995259|NCT00084929|181875411|OTHER||"P(D+|T+)"|0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.389|0.513||||||Positive Predictive Value (PPV)||0.513|0.389|
90995260|NCT00084929|181875411|OTHER||"P(D-|T-)"|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.941|0.965||||||Negative Predictive Value (NPV)||0.965|0.941|
90995261|NCT00084929|181875412|OTHER||"Sensitivity: P(T+|D+)"|0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043|||||||||||Sensitivity indicates the percent of lesions in patients who had a lesions (of the specified size) detected by optical colonoscopy, which were detected by CTC|Sensitivity (per lesion (\>=10mm))||||
90995262|NCT00084929|181875413|OTHER||"Sensitivity: P(T+|D+)"|0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.042|||||||||||Sensitivity indicates the percent of lesions in patients who had a lesions (of the specified size) detected by optical colonoscopy, which were detected by CTC|Sensitivity (per lesion (\>=9mm))||||
90995263|NCT00084929|181875414|OTHER||"Sensitivity: P(T+|D+)"|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Sensitivity indicates the percent of lesions in patients who had a lesions (of the specified size) detected by optical colonoscopy, which were detected by CTC|Sensitivity (per lesion \>=8mm)||||
90995264|NCT00084929|181875415|OTHER||"Sensitivity: P(T+|D+)"|0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.042|||||||||||Sensitivity indicates the percent of lesions in patients who had a lesions (of the specified size) detected by optical colonoscopy, which were detected by CTC|Sensitivity (per lesion \>=7mm)||||
90995265|NCT00084929|181875416|OTHER||"Sensitivity: P(T+|D+)"|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.046|||||||||||Sensitivity indicates the percent of lesions in patients who had a lesions (of the specified size) detected by optical colonoscopy, which were detected by CTC|Sensitivity (per lesion \>=6mm)||||
90995266|NCT00084929|181875417|OTHER||"Sensitivity: P(T+|D+)"|0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045|||||||||||Sensitivity indicates the percent of lesions in patients who had a lesions (of the specified size) detected by optical colonoscopy, which were detected by CTC|Sensitivity (per lesion \>=5mm)||||
90995267|NCT03641547|181875424|OTHER||Post prob of tox at dose level 6|0.029|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.165||||||The primary analysis is performed using the Time-To-Event Continual Reassessment Method (TiTE-CRM). Giving posterior estimates for the probability of toxicity (DLT) at each dose level.||0.165|0|
90995268|NCT03641547|181875425|OTHER||Post prob of tox at dose level 4|0.185|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.042|0.397||||||The primary analysis is performed using the Time-To-Event Continual Reassessment Method (TiTE CRM). Giving posterior estimates for the probability of toxicity (DLT) at each dose level.||0.397|0.042|
90995269|NCT02767856|181875436|EQUIVALENCE|The study did not enroll enough samples. The stats here are only for reference.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.04||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.16|||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline and primary visit outcome||0.16|-0.08|0.48
90995270|NCT02767856|181875437|EQUIVALENCE|The study did not reach the target sample size. the stats are for reference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.99|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.99|-0.75|0.26
90995271|NCT02767856|181875438|EQUIVALENCE|The study did not reach the target sample size. The stats are for reference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|26.3||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.75|74.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||||74.20|-21.75|0.26
90995272|NCT02767856|181875439|EQUIVALENCE|The study did not reach the target sample size. The stats are for reference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.1||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.3|19.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||19.3|-41.3|0.44
90995273|NCT00091026|181875447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|14.0|||Chi-squared|||||14|-13|0.22
90995274|NCT00091026|181875448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.95
90995275|NCT00091026|181875449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.86
90995276|NCT00418379|181875452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.0001
91043621|NCT00407745|181973313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|-0.46||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 8.~A longitudinal analysis of weekly mean changes using repeated measures mixed models which compared treatments at each week and the last scheduled study week based on this model (to assess durability of treatment effect) was used.~Effects for treatment, pooled center, time (week), baseline score, and treatment by time interaction were included as covariates. The covariance structure was compound-symmetric."||-0.46|-1.35|<0.0001
90995277|NCT00418379|181875452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.0001
90995278|NCT01797965|181875471|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5937|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline Z-score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change to Week 12||||0.5937
90995279|NCT01797965|181875471|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6233|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline Z-score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change to Week 24||||0.6233
90995280|NCT01797965|181875471|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1884|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline Z-score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change to Week 48||||0.1884
90995281|NCT01797965|181875472|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0204|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline Z-score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change from Baseline 301 to Week 12 for 301||||0.0204
90995282|NCT01797965|181875472|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0805|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline Z-score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change from Baseline 301 to Week 24 for 301||||0.0805
90995283|NCT01797965|181875472|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2535|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline Z-score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change from Baseline 301 to Week 36 for 301||||0.2535
90995284|NCT01797965|181875472|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4738|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline Z-score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change from Baseline 301 to Week 48 for 301||||0.4738
90995285|NCT01797965|181875472|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2302|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline Z-score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change from Baseline 301 to Week 60 for 301||||0.2302
90995286|NCT01797965|181875472|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8522|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline Z-score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change from Baseline 301 to Week 72 for 301||||0.8522
90995287|NCT01797965|181875472|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0431|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline Z-score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change from Baseline 301 to Week 84 for 301||||0.0431
90995288|NCT01797965|181875472|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0339|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline Z-score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change from Baseline 301 to Week 96 for 301||||0.0339
90995289|NCT01797965|181875472|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3195|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline Z-score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change from Baseline 301 to Week 108 for 301||||0.3195
90995290|NCT01797965|181875472|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2119|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline Z-score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change from Baseline 301 to Week 120 for 301||||0.2119
90995291|NCT01797965|181875472|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3619|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline Z-score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change from Baseline 301 to Week 132 for 301||||0.3619
90995292|NCT01797965|181875472|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline Z-score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change from Baseline 301 to Week 144 for 301||||0.0170
90995293|NCT01797965|181875472|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline Z-score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change from Baseline 301 to Baseline 303||||0.0170
90995294|NCT01797965|181875472|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0849|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline Z-score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change from Baseline 301 to Week 12 for 303||||0.0849
90995295|NCT01797965|181875472|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0057|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline Z-score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change from Baseline 301 to Week 24 for 303||||0.0057
91043622|NCT00407745|181973313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|-0.5||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 9.~A longitudinal analysis of weekly mean changes using repeated measures mixed models which compared treatments at each week and the last scheduled study week based on this model (to assess durability of treatment effect) was used.~Effects for treatment, pooled center, time (week), baseline score, and treatment by time interaction were included as covariates. The covariance structure was compound-symmetric."||-0.50|-1.39|<0.0001
91043623|NCT00407745|181973313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|-0.63||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 10.~A longitudinal analysis of weekly mean changes using repeated measures mixed models which compared treatments at each week and the last scheduled study week based on this model (to assess durability of treatment effect) was used.~Effects for treatment, pooled center, time (week), baseline score, and treatment by time interaction were included as covariates. The covariance structure was compound-symmetric."||-0.63|-1.53|<0.0001
91043624|NCT00407745|181973313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|-0.49||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 11.~A longitudinal analysis of weekly mean changes using repeated measures mixed models which compared treatments at each week and the last scheduled study week based on this model (to assess durability of treatment effect) was used.~Effects for treatment, pooled center, time (week), baseline score, and treatment by time interaction were included as covariates. The covariance structure was compound-symmetric."||-0.49|-1.39|<0.0001
91043625|NCT00407745|181973313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|-0.47||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 12.~A longitudinal analysis of weekly mean changes using repeated measures mixed models which compared treatments at each week and the last scheduled study week based on this model (to assess durability of treatment effect) was used.~Effects for treatment, pooled center, time (week), baseline score, and treatment by time interaction were included as covariates. The covariance structure was compound-symmetric."||-0.47|-1.37|<0.0001
91043626|NCT00407745|181973313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|-0.47||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 13.~A longitudinal analysis of weekly mean changes using repeated measures mixed models which compared treatments at each week and the last scheduled study week based on this model (to assess durability of treatment effect) was used.~Effects for treatment, pooled center, time (week), baseline score, and treatment by time interaction were included as covariates. The covariance structure was compound-symmetric."||-0.47|-1.38|<0.0001
91043627|NCT00407745|181973313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|-0.51||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 14.~A longitudinal analysis of weekly mean changes using repeated measures mixed models which compared treatments at each week and the last scheduled study week based on this model (to assess durability of treatment effect) was used.~Effects for treatment, pooled center, time (week), baseline score, and treatment by time interaction were included as covariates. The covariance structure was compound-symmetric."||-0.51|-1.41|<0.0001
91043628|NCT00407745|181973313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|-0.63||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 15.~A longitudinal analysis of weekly mean changes using repeated measures mixed models which compared treatments at each week and the last scheduled study week based on this model (to assess durability of treatment effect) was used.~Effects for treatment, pooled center, time (week), baseline score, and treatment by time interaction were included as covariates. The covariance structure was compound-symmetric."||-0.63|-1.53|<0.0001
91043629|NCT00407745|181973313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|-0.61||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 16.~A longitudinal analysis of weekly mean changes using repeated measures mixed models which compared treatments at each week and the last scheduled study week based on this model (to assess durability of treatment effect) was used.~Effects for treatment, pooled center, time (week), baseline score, and treatment by time interaction were included as covariates. The covariance structure was compound-symmetric."||-0.61|-1.51|<0.0001
90995296|NCT01797965|181875472|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.396|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline Z-score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change from Baseline 301 to Week 48 for 303||||0.3960
90995297|NCT01797965|181875474|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.902||||0.8417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.329|2.473|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for the baseline relapse rate, history of prior IFN beta use (yes/no), baseline EDSS (\<=2.5 vs \>2.5) and baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35).||||2.473|0.329|0.8417
90995298|NCT01797965|181875496|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3813|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline raw score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change to Week 12||||0.3813
90995299|NCT01797965|181875496|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1679|||||||ANOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline raw score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change to Week 24||||0.1679
90995300|NCT01797965|181875496|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5634|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline raw score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change to Week 48||||0.5634
90995301|NCT01797965|181875496|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7003|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline raw score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change to Week 144||||0.7003
90995302|NCT01797965|181875496|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7812|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline raw score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change to Week 168||||0.7812
90995303|NCT01797965|181875496|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3246|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline raw score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change to Week 192||||0.3246
90995304|NCT01797965|181875496|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6423|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline raw score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change to Week 216||||0.6423
90995305|NCT01797965|181875496|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0288|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline raw score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change to Week 240||||0.0288
90995306|NCT01797965|181875497|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2567|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline raw score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change from Baseline 301 to Week 12 for 301||||0.2567
90995307|NCT01797965|181875497|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6152|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline raw score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change from Baseline 301 to Week 24 for 301||||0.6152
90995308|NCT01797965|181875497|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2024|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline raw score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change from Baseline 301 to Week 36 for 301||||0.2024
90995309|NCT01797965|181875497|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9988|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline raw score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change from Baseline 301 to Week 48 for 301||||0.9988
90995310|NCT01797965|181875497|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7962|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline raw score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change from Baseline 301 to Week 60 for 301||||0.7962
90995311|NCT01797965|181875497|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8486|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline raw score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change from Baseline 301 to Week 72 for 301||||0.8486
90995312|NCT01797965|181875497|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4478|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline raw score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change from Baseline 301 to Week 84 for 301||||0.4478
90995313|NCT01797965|181875497|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.325|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline raw score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change from Baseline 301 to Week 96 for 301||||0.3250
90995314|NCT01797965|181875497|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.129|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline raw score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change from Baseline 301 to Week 108 for 301||||0.1290
90995315|NCT01797965|181875497|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7295|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline raw score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change from Baseline 301 to Week 120 for 301||||0.7295
90995316|NCT01797965|181875497|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8647|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline raw score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change from Baseline 301 to Week 132 for 301||||0.8647
90995317|NCT01797965|181875497|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2183|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline raw score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change from Baseline 301 to Week 144 for 301||||0.2183
90995318|NCT01797965|181875497|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3945|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline raw score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change from Baseline 301 to Baseline 303||||0.3945
90995319|NCT01797965|181875497|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5068|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline raw score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change from Baseline 301 to Week 12 for 303||||0.5068
90995320|NCT01797965|181875497|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1669|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline raw score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change from Baseline 301 to Week 24 for 303||||0.1669
90995321|NCT01797965|181875497|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5038|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline raw score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change from Baseline 301 to Week 48 for 303||||0.5038
90995322|NCT01797965|181875497|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6001|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline raw score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change from Baseline 301 to Week 144 for 303||||0.6001
90995323|NCT01797965|181875497|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8617|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline raw score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change from Baseline 301 to Week 168 for 303||||0.8617
90995324|NCT01797965|181875497|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.259|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline raw score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change from Baseline 301 to Week 192 for 303||||0.2590
90995325|NCT01797965|181875497|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5159|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline raw score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change from Baseline 301 to Week 216 for 303||||0.5159
90995326|NCT01797965|181875497|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6123|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline raw score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change from Baseline 301 to Week 240 for 303||||0.6123
90995327|NCT01764256|181875498|EQUIVALENCE|Definition of equivalence: p\<0.05||||||0.44|||||||Fisher Exact|||Proportion of subjects with at least one unsolicited adverse event (related or unrelated)||||0.44
90995328|NCT01764256|181875498|EQUIVALENCE|Definition of equivalence: p\<0.05||||||0.7446|||||||Fisher Exact|||Proportion of subjects with at least one unsolicited adverse event: potentially related||||0.7446
90995329|NCT01764256|181875499|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was defined as p\<0.05.||||||0.5694|||||||Fisher Exact|||Proportion of subjects per Group with any Moderate or Higher Reaction (systemic or local reaction)||||0.5694
90995330|NCT01764256|181875499|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was defined as p\<0.05.||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Proportion of subjects per Group with any Moderate or Higher Reaction (systemic reaction)||||1.0000
90995331|NCT01764256|181875499|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was defined as p\<0.05.||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Proportion of subjects per Group with any Moderate or Higher Reaction (local reaction)||||1.0000
90995332|NCT01764256|181875500|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was defined as p\<0.05.||||||0.6004|||||||Fisher Exact|||Proportion of subjects per Group with any Moderate or Higher Reaction (systemic or local reaction)||||0.6004
90995333|NCT01764256|181875500|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was defined as p\<0.05.||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Proportion of subjects per Group with any Moderate or Higher Reaction (systemic reaction)||||1
90995334|NCT01764256|181875500|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was defined as p\<0.05.||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Proportion of subjects per Group with any Moderate or Higher Reaction (local reaction)||||1.00
90995335|NCT01764256|181875501|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was defined as p\<0.05.||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Proportion of subjects per Group with any Moderate or Higher Reaction (systemic or local reaction)||||1.0000
90995336|NCT01764256|181875501|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence defined as p\<0.05||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Proportion of subjects per Group with any Moderate or Higher Reaction (systemic)||||1.0000
90995337|NCT01764256|181875501|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was defined as p\<0.05||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Proportion of subjects per Group with any Moderate or Higher Reaction (local reaction)||||1.0000
90995338|NCT01764256|181875502|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was defined as p\<0.05||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Proportion of subjects per Group with any Moderate or Higher Reaction (systemic or local reaction)||||1.0000
90995339|NCT01764256|181875502|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was defined as p\<0.05||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Proportion of subjects per Group with any Moderate or Higher Reaction (systemic)||||1.0000
90995340|NCT01764256|181875502|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was defined as p\<0.05.||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Proportion of subjects per Group with any Moderate or Higher Reaction (local reaction)||||1.0000
90995341|NCT00304915|181875507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.5||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|4.56|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.56|1.37|0.003
90995342|NCT05127044|181875530|OTHER|An a priori power analysis was conducted to determine the number of subjects needed to detect a similar strong correlation between the DRS and BiliChek data (α = 0.05, power = 0.8, r0 = 0.7, r1 = 0,85; G\*Power3.1). For this study n = 44 subjects (from Study Protocol).|Multiple R|0.81438645|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Power calculation located in Study Protocol-Correlation Coefficient-R Value||||
90995343|NCT05127044|181875530|OTHER|An a priori power analysis was conducted to determine the number of subjects needed to detect a similar strong correlation between the DRS and BiliChek data (α = 0.05, power = 0.8, r0 = 0.7, r1 = 0,85; G\*Power3.1). For this study n = 44 subjects (from Study Protocol).|Multiple R|0.85442277|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Power calculation located in Study Protocol||||
90995344|NCT05127044|181875530|OTHER|An a priori power analysis was conducted to determine the number of subjects needed to detect a similar strong correlation between the DRS and BiliChek data (α = 0.05, power = 0.8, r0 = 0.7, r1 = 0,85; G\*Power3.1). For this study n = 44 subjects (from Study Protocol).|Multiple R|0.0758872|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Power calculation located in Study Protocol||||
90995345|NCT05127044|181875530|OTHER|An a priori power analysis was conducted to determine the number of subjects needed to detect a similar strong correlation between the DRS and BiliChek data (α = 0.05, power = 0.8, r0 = 0.7, r1 = 0,85; G\*Power3.1). For this study n = 44 subjects (from Study Protocol).|Multiple R|0.7929338|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Power calculation located in Study Protocol||||
90995346|NCT05127044|181875530|OTHER|An a priori power analysis was conducted to determine the number of subjects needed to detect a similar strong correlation between the DRS and BiliChek data (α = 0.05, power = 0.8, r0 = 0.7, r1 = 0,85; G\*Power3.1). For this study n = 44 subjects (from Study Protocol).|Multiple R|0.86294585|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Power calculation located in Study Protocol||||
90995347|NCT05127044|181875531|OTHER|Pearson's correlation coefficient was calculated to assess the relationship between hemoglobin concentration and weight.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|-0.2184||||0.1544|TWO_SIDED||||||Linear correlation|||||||0.1544
90995348|NCT05127044|181875531|OTHER|Pearson's correlation coefficient was calculated to assess the relationship between hemoglobin concentration and gestational age.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|0.3909||||0.0087|||||||Linear correlation|||||||0.0087
90995349|NCT05127044|181875531|OTHER|A simple linear regression model was fitted with hemoglobin concentration as the dependent variable and sex as the independent predictor. The strength of the relationship was evaluated using the coefficient of determination (R²).|Coefficient of determination|0.0252||||0.3038|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.3038
91043630|NCT00407745|181973314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.269||0.0438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.02||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms of baseline mBPI-10 Total Score as a covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.||Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group.||-0.02|-1.08|0.0438
91043631|NCT00407745|181973315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.448||0.7103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|0.72||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms of baseline QANeP - Static Mechanical Allodynia as a covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.||"At/above level: within 2 dermatomes above or below the neurological level of injury (NLI).~Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group."||0.72|-1.06|0.7103
91043632|NCT00407745|181973315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.0747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|0.06||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms of baseline QANeP - Static Mechanical Allodynia as a covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.||"Below level: more than 2 dermatomes below the NLI.~Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group."||0.06|-1.28|0.0747
91043633|NCT00407745|181973316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.379||0.5689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|0.54||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms of baseline QANeP - Dynamic Mechanical Allodynia as covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.||"At/Above level~Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group."||0.54|-0.97|0.5689
91043634|NCT00407745|181973316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.322||0.4764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.41||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms of baseline QANeP - Dynamic Mechanical Allodynia as covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.||"Below level~Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group."||0.41|-0.87|0.4764
91043635|NCT00407745|181973317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.474||0.3362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.48||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms of baseline QANeP - Punctate Hyperalgesia as a covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.||"At/Above level~Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group."||0.48|-1.40|0.3362
91043636|NCT00407745|181973317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.321||0.3113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.31||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms of baseline QANeP - Punctate Hyperalgesia as a covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.||"Below level~Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group."||0.31|-0.96|0.3113
91043637|NCT00407745|181973318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.539||0.2721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|0.48||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms of baseline QANeP - Temporal Summation to stimuli as covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.||"At/Above level~Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group."||0.48|-1.67|0.2721
90995350|NCT05127044|181875531|OTHER|A simple linear regression model was fitted with hemoglobin concentration as the dependent variable and ethnicity as the independent predictor. The strength of the relationship was evaluated using the coefficient of determination (R²).|Coefficient of determination|0.0213||||0.6434|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.6434
90995351|NCT05127044|181875531|OTHER|A simple linear regression model was fitted with hemoglobin concentration as the dependent variable and weight as the independent predictor. The strength of the relationship was evaluated using the coefficient of determination (R²).|Coefficient of determination|0.0477||||0.1544|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.1544
90995352|NCT05127044|181875531|OTHER|A simple linear regression model was fitted with hemoglobin concentration as the dependent variable and gestational age as the independent predictor. The strength of the relationship was evaluated using the coefficient of determination (R²).|Coefficient of determination|0.1528||||0.0087|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.0087
90995353|NCT05127044|181875532|OTHER|Pearson's correlation coefficient was calculated to assess the relationship between melanin concentration and weight.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|-0.1552||||0.3143|TWO_SIDED||||||Linear correlation|||||||0.3143
90995354|NCT05127044|181875532|OTHER|Pearson's correlation coefficient was calculated to assess the relationship between melanin concentration and gestational age.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|-0.0832||||0.5914|TWO_SIDED||||||Linear correlation|||||||0.5914
90995355|NCT05127044|181875532|OTHER|A simple linear regression model was fitted with melanin concentration as the dependent variable and sex as the independent predictor. The strength of the relationship was evaluated using the coefficient of determination (R²).|Coefficient of determination|0.000665||||0.868|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.868
90995356|NCT05127044|181875532|OTHER|A simple linear regression model was fitted with melanin concentration as the dependent variable and ethnicity as the independent predictor. The strength of the relationship was evaluated using the coefficient of determination (R²).|Coefficient of determination|0.574||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.0001
90995357|NCT05127044|181875532|OTHER|A simple linear regression model was fitted with melanin concentration as the dependent variable and weight as the independent predictor. The strength of the relationship was evaluated using the coefficient of determination (R²).|Coefficient of determination|0.0241||||0.3143|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.3143
90995358|NCT05127044|181875532|OTHER|A simple linear regression model was fitted with melanin concentration as the dependent variable and gestational age as the independent predictor. The strength of the relationship was evaluated using the coefficient of determination (R²).|Coefficient of determination|0.0069||||0.5914|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.5914
91043638|NCT00407745|181973318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.337||0.4906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.9||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms of baseline QANeP - Temporal Summation to stimuli as covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.||"Below level~Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group."||0.90|-0.43|0.4906
90995359|NCT05127044|181875533|OTHER|Pearson's correlation coefficient was calculated to assess the relationship between bilirubin concentration and weight.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|-0.0353||||0.8203|TWO_SIDED||||||Linear correlation|||||||0.8203
90995360|NCT05127044|181875533|OTHER|Pearson's correlation coefficient was calculated to assess the relationship between bilirubin concentration and gestational age.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|0.595||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Linear correlation|||||||0.0001
90995361|NCT05127044|181875533|OTHER|A simple linear regression model was fitted with melanin concentration as the dependent variable and sex as the independent predictor. The strength of the relationship was evaluated using the coefficient of determination (R²).|Coefficient of determination|0.0363||||0.2156|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.2156
90995362|NCT05127044|181875533|OTHER|A simple linear regression model was fitted with melanin concentration as the dependent variable and ethnicity as the independent predictor. The strength of the relationship was evaluated using the coefficient of determination (R²).|Coefficient of determination|0.2172||||0.0066|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.0066
90995363|NCT05127044|181875533|OTHER|A simple linear regression model was fitted with melanin concentration as the dependent variable and weight as the independent predictor. The strength of the relationship was evaluated using the coefficient of determination (R²).|Coefficient of determination|0.00124||||0.8203|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.8203
91043639|NCT00407745|181973319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.472||0.3123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|0.46||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms of baseline QANeP - Cold Allodynia as a covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.||"At/Above level~Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group."||0.46|-1.42|0.3123
91043640|NCT00407745|181973319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.368||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|0.18||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms of baseline QANeP - Cold Allodynia as a covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.||"Below level~Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group."||0.18|-1.28|0.1360
91043641|NCT00407745|181973320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.549||0.4257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|0.65||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms of baseline QANeP - Cold Hyperalgesia Subscales as a covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.||"At/Above level~Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group."||0.65|-1.53|0.4257
91043642|NCT00407745|181973320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.412||0.2005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|0.28||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms of baseline QANeP - Cold Hyperalgesia Subscales as a covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.||"Below level~Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group."||0.28|-1.34|0.2005
91043643|NCT00407745|181973321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.1377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.01||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms of baseline NPSI - 12 Items Total Intensity Score as covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.||Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group.||0.01|-0.09|0.1377
91043644|NCT00407745|181973322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038||0.3312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.04||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms of baseline NPSI - Burning Spontaneous Pain as covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.||Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group.||0.04|-0.11|0.3312
91043645|NCT00407745|181973323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.0||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms of baseline NPSI - Pressing Spontaneous Pain as covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.||Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group.||0.00|-0.13|0.0440
91043646|NCT00407745|181973324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.02||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms of baseline NPSI - Paroxysmal Pain as covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.||Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group.||0.02|-0.12|0.1370
90995364|NCT05127044|181875533|OTHER|A simple linear regression model was fitted with melanin concentration as the dependent variable and gestational age as the independent predictor. The strength of the relationship was evaluated using the coefficient of determination (R²).|Coefficient of determination|0.354||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.0001
90995365|NCT00363246|181875558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Health Status. No Wheelchair-related Fall Injuries vs. Wheelchair-related Fall Injuries.||||0.049
90995366|NCT00363246|181875558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Pain in last 4 weeks (interference with daily activities). No Wheelchair-related Fall Injuries vs. Wheelchair-related Fall Injuries.||||0.013
90995367|NCT00363246|181875558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Pain when transfer. No Wheelchair-related Fall Injuries vs. Wheelchair-related Fall Injuries.||||0.0001
90995368|NCT00363246|181875558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Energy level. No Wheelchair-related Fall Injuries vs. Wheelchair-related Fall Injuries.||||0.009
90995369|NCT00363246|181875559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|We used chi-squared test for categorical variable (most variables) and t-test (2-sided) for continuous variables (few variables).||Health Status. No Wheelchair-related Falls vs. Wheelchair-related Falls.||||0.033
90995370|NCT00363246|181875559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Pain in last 4 weeks (interference with daily activities). No Wheelchair-related Falls vs. Wheelchair-related Falls.||||0.013
90995371|NCT00363246|181875559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Pain when transfer. No Wheelchair-related Falls vs. Wheelchair-related Falls.||||<0.001
90995372|NCT00363246|181875559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Energy level. No Wheelchair-related Falls vs. Wheelchair-related Falls.||||0.007
90995373|NCT00383721|181875574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90995374|NCT00383721|181875574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90995375|NCT00383721|181875575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.062|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.062
90995376|NCT00383721|181875575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.583|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.583
90995377|NCT00383721|181875576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.02|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.020
90995378|NCT00383721|181875576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90995379|NCT00132314|181875635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.2|||Log Rank|||Time-to-event analysis; The primary outcome hypothesis is tested using a two-sided log-rank test to compare the hazard rate for the IM treatment group to that for the oral treatment group.||1.20|0.63|0.39
90995380|NCT00132314|181875636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.2||95% Confidence Interval: 0.63 to 1.20|Regression, Cox|||||1.20|0.63|
90995381|NCT05137730|181875728|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares means|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7109|0.8611|||||Least squares means (LSMs) were calculated by exponentiating the LSMs derived from the linear mixed effects model.|||0.8611|0.7109|
90995382|NCT05137730|181875729|OTHER||Dose effect|1.5395|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2929|1.7862||||||A linear regression model was used, including sequence and period as fixed effects, subject within sequence as a random effect, and ln(dose) as a covariate.||1.7862|1.2929|
90995383|NCT05137730|181875730|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares means|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7576|0.9375|||||LSMs were calculated by exponentiating the LSMs derived from the linear mixed effects model.|||0.9375|0.7576|
90995384|NCT05137730|181875731|OTHER||Dose effect|1.2823|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1072|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0431|1.5215||||||A linear regression model using was used, including sequence and period as fixed effects, subject within sequence as a random effect, and ln(dose) as a covariate.||1.5215|1.0431|
90995385|NCT05137730|181875732|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares means|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7462|0.8893|||||LSMs were calculated by exponentiating the LSMs derived from the linear mixed effects model.|||0.8893|0.7462|
90995386|NCT05137730|181875733|OTHER||Dose effect|1.0937|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0763|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.938|1.2493||||||A linear regression model was used, including sequence and period as fixed effects, subject within sequence as a random effect, and ln(dose) as a covariate.||1.2493|0.9380|
90995387|NCT01840228|181875738|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.91|||Chi-squared|||||1.91|0.63|0.74
90995388|NCT01840228|181875739|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.43||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|1.36|||Fisher Exact|||||1.36|0.14|0.13
90995389|NCT01840228|181875740|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.5||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|4.43|||Fisher Exact|||||4.43|0.51|0.71
90995390|NCT01840228|181875741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.73
90995391|NCT01413542|181875784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimate of Difference||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Effect of ACE inhibition on FBF response to bradykinin (p\<0.001). Other comparisons: Effect of DPP4 inhibition on FBF response to bradykinin (p=0.89); Effect of ACE (p=0.16), DPP4 (p=0.82), or combined inhibition (p=0.35) on FBF response to sub P.|Mixed Models Analysis|"Effect of DPP4 inhibition on vasodilator response to GLP-1 (p=0.14) or BNP (p=0.85).~p\<0.05 threshold for statistical significance."||"Group 1: The effect of treatment (placebo, ACE or DPP4 inhibitor, or the combination) on vasodilator response to peptide, measured as forearm blood flow was determined.~Group 2: The effect of treatment (placebo, DPP4 inhibitor) on vasodilator response to peptide, measured as percent change in forearm blood flow was determined."||||<0.001
90995392|NCT01413542|181875785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||Effect of DPP4 inhibition on tPA release during sub P in women (p=0.02 vs. placebo).Effect of ACE inhibition on tPA release during sub P in women (p\<0.001); effect of DPP4 inhibition on tPA release during sub P and (p=0.001 vs. ACE inhibition alone).|Mixed Models Analysis|p\<0.05 threshold for statistical significance||||||0.02
90995393|NCT01413542|181875786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|||||Effect of combined ACE and DPP4 inhibition on change in heart rate in response to max dose substance P (p=0.011 vs placebo; ).|Wilcoxon signed rank|p\<0.05 threshold for statistical significance.||||||0.011
90995394|NCT01413542|181875787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Effect of combined DPP4 and ACE inhibition on the change in the norepinephrine AV gradient during substance P as compared to treatment with placebo.|Wilcoxon signed rank|||||||0.05
90995395|NCT01413542|181875787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|||||Effect of combined DPP4 and ACE inhibition on the change in the norepinephrine AV gradient during substance P as compared to treatment with ACE inhibition alone (p=0.007).|Wilcoxon signed rank|||||||0.007
90995396|NCT01413542|181875788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||Effect of intra-arterial GLP-1 on venous GLP-1 concentrations during placebo (p=0.01).|wilxocon signed rank test|||||||0.01
90995397|NCT01413542|181875788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||Effect of intra-arterial GLP-1 on venous GLP-1 concentrations during sitagliptin (p=0.01).|Wilcoxon signed rank|||||||0.01
90995398|NCT01413542|181875788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||Effect of DPP4 inhibition on venous GLP-1 levels at high dose of intra-arterial GLP-1 (p=0.04 vs. placebo).|Wilcoxon signed rank|||||||0.04
90995399|NCT00065442|181875790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.775||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.614|0.979|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression model with treatment, PSA (ln), and LDH (ln) as the independent variables, stratified by randomization strata.|sipuleucel-T/placebo|||0.979|0.614|0.032
90995400|NCT00065442|181875790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.766||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.608|0.965|||Log Rank|Stratified by randomization strata.|Cox regression model with treatment as the independent variable, stratified by randomization strata (sipuleucel-T/placebo)|||0.965|0.608|0.023
90995401|NCT00065442|181875791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.951||||0.628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.773|1.169|||Log Rank|Stratified by randomization strata|Cox regression model with treatment as the independent variable, stratified by randomization strata|||1.169|0.773|0.628
90995402|NCT00973921|181875837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion|1.0|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.0|||Wilson|||The 95% confidence Interval (CI) of the primary outcome has been calculated using the Wilson method of estimating the CI of a single proportion||1.0|0.86|<0.01
90995403|NCT00973921|181875838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Correlation coefficient|0.74|||<|0.0001|||||||Bland Altman|||||||<0.0001
90995404|NCT00973921|181875840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Correlation coefficient|0.5||||0.0034|||||||Bland-Altman|||||||0.0034
90995405|NCT00400712|181875847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Examined whether there were differences between groups at 1 year with baseline measures serving as the covariate with a two-sided alpha of 0.05||||||0.44
90995406|NCT00400712|181875848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|||||Examined whether there were differences between groups at 1 year with baseline measures serving as the covariate with a two-sided alpha of 0.05|ANCOVA|||||||0.83
90995407|NCT00400712|181875849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA - comparing absolute measures and including baseline as co-variate||||0.45
90995408|NCT00400712|181875850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|adjusted for baseline values||||||0.72
90995409|NCT00400712|181875851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|controlled for baseline values||||||0.60
90995410|NCT00400712|181875852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|||||Examined whether there were differences between groups at 1 year with baseline measures serving as the covariate with a two-sided alpha of 0.05|ANCOVA|||||||0.66
90995411|NCT00400712|181875853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|||||Examined whether there were differences between groups at 1 year with baseline measures serving as the covariate with a two-sided alpha of 0.05|ANCOVA|||||||0.78
90995412|NCT02553317|181875873|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0099||||||The resulting p-value was compared with a significance level of 5%.|Log Rank|||Time to platelet count response in the caplacizumab arm and placebo arm was compared by conducting a two-sided stratified log-rank test based on a KM analysis, with severity of neurological involvement (according to the Glasgow coma scale \[GCS\] category, stratification factor used in randomization: ≤12 / 13-15) as stratification factor.||||= 0.0099
90995413|NCT02553317|181875873|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.095|2.195|||||The HR was estimated from a Cox proportional Hazards regression model.|Time to platelet count response was analyzed using a Cox proportional hazards regression model with time to platelet count response as dependent variable, and treatment group and GCS category as independent variables. The hazard (or platelet count normalization rate) ratio from the Cox model was reported along with 95% CI.||2.195|1.095|
91043647|NCT00407745|181973325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028||0.8911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.05||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms of baseline NPSI - Evoked pain as covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.||Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group.||0.05|-0.06|0.8911
90995414|NCT02553317|181875874|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The resulting p-value was compared with a significance level of 5%.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test was conducted with adjustment for GCS category (stratification factor used in randomization).||||< 0.0001
90995415|NCT02553317|181875875|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0004||||||The resulting p-value was compared with a significance level of 5%.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A CMH test was conducted with adjustment for GCS category (stratification factor used in randomization).||||= 0.0004
90995416|NCT02553317|181875876|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0572||||||The resulting p-value was compared with a significance level of 5%.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A CMH test was conducted with adjustment for GCS category (stratification factor used in randomization).||||= 0.0572
90995417|NCT01599754|181875891|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.3211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.147|||Log Rank|||||1.147|0.660|0.3211
90995418|NCT01599754|181875892|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.026||||0.9246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.756|||Log Rank|||||1.756|0.600|0.9246
90995419|NCT00414960|181876015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.04||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.64|5.83||P-value is for comparison of change from baseline between enzastaurin and placebo group.|2-sample pooled t-test||Using placebo as a reference group, the mean difference = enzastaurin minus placebo.|||5.83|-10.64|0.556
90995420|NCT00230100|181876061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Implemented a general mixed model analysis of variance (MMANOVA), which models the means per group over the respective time period and the covariance between the repeated measures over the assessments. The MMANOVA approach estimates a separate mean for each phase of treatment per group. The MMANOVA is called a mixed model because it includes both fixed (e.g., treatment, gender) and random (subject-specific) terms. MMANOVA allows for randomly missing observations (not included in analysis)."||||<0.05
90995421|NCT00230100|181876062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Implemented a general mixed model analysis of variance (MMANOVA), which models the means per group over the respective time period and the covariance between the repeated measures over the assessments. The MMANOVA approach estimates a separate mean for each phase of treatment per group. The MMANOVA is called a mixed model because it includes both fixed (e.g., treatment, gender) and random (subject-specific) terms. MMANOVA allows for randomly missing observations (not included in analysis)."||||<0.05
90995422|NCT00230100|181876063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Implemented a general mixed model analysis of variance (MMANOVA), which models the means per group over the respective time period and the covariance between the repeated measures over the assessments. The MMANOVA approach estimates a separate mean for each phase of treatment per group. The MMANOVA is called a mixed model because it includes both fixed (e.g., treatment, gender) and random (subject-specific) terms. MMANOVA allows for randomly missing observations (not included in analysis)."||||<0.05
90995423|NCT00230100|181876064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||It was hypothesized that the single-gender group composition and women-focused group content (WRG) would result in better substance abuse treatment outcomes (lower ASI alcohol composite scores) than standard mixed-gender group treatment (GDC).||||<0.05
90995424|NCT00230100|181876065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.009|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.009
90995425|NCT04348591|181876073|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.046|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.029||This p value corresponds to the main effect for experimental group; a-priori threshold was .012|Mixed Models Analysis|||A MMANOVA analysis using an unstructured covariance structure examined main effects of experimental group, instruction provided, headache, racial background, and type of neurostimulation administered. HF-HRV was transformed using an lg function for normality.||.029|-.12|.221
90995426|NCT04348591|181876073|SUPERIORITY|This is a within subject analysis that uses data across groups, controlling for the effect of neurostimulation alone, coil to cortex distance, and racial background|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.059|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.016|0.103|||Mixed Models Analysis|Comparison between sham neurostimulation and high frequency neurostimulation||A MMANOVA analysis using an unstructured covariance examined the main effect of type of neurostimulation provided||.103|.016|.008
90995427|NCT04348591|181876073|SUPERIORITY|The analysis controls for coil to cortex distance, racial background and effect of neurostimulation alone. It compares sham stimulation with low frequency neurostimulation|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.029|0.111|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A MMANOVA analysis using an unstructured covariance structure examined the main effect of type of neurostimulation provided.||.111|.029|.001
90995428|NCT04348591|181876074|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.223|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.232||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.243|0.689|||Mixed Models Analysis||This is the result for the main effect found of group (emotion dysregulation group versus misophonia)|A MMANOVA analysis using an unstructured covariance structure examined changes in SCL between groups, experimental types of neurostimulation, and their interaction, controlling for baseline, racial background, coil to cortex distance, and headache||.689|-.243|.34
90995429|NCT04348591|181876074|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.493|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.148||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.198|0.787|||Mixed Models Analysis|This is the main effect of neurostimulation condition. Specifically here we show the difference in estimated marginal means between sham and HF-rTMS||A MMANOVA analysis using an unstructured covariance structure examined changes in SCL between groups, experimental types of neurostimulation, and their interaction, controlling for baseline, racial background, coil to cortex distance, and headache||.787|.198|.001
90995430|NCT04348591|181876074|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.469|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.144||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.182|0.757|||Mixed Models Analysis|This is the main effect of neurostimulation administered, specifically comparing estimated marginal means for sham and LF-rTMS||A MMANOVA analysis using an unstructured covariance structure examined changes in SCL between groups, experimental types of neurostimulation, and their interaction, controlling for baseline, racial background, coil to cortex distance, and headache||.757|.182|.002
90995431|NCT04348591|181876074|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.73||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||mean difference between sham and HF-rTMS for misophonia participants only when downregulating misophonic sounds|The investigators tested the interaction between experimental neurostimulation (sham, active high frequency rTMS, active low frequency rTMS), instruction provided (listen to neutral sound; listen to aversive sound, listen to misophonic sound, downregulate aversive sound, downregulate misophonic sound), and group (misophonic, clinical control) as part of the same MMANOVA analysis described above (i.e., controlling for coil-to-cortex distance, racial background, baseline, \& presence of headache).||||.0005
90995432|NCT04348591|181876076|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0563|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09853||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14149|0.25411|||t-test, 2 sided|||An independent samples t-test was conducted to examine differences between groups in BOLD bilateral dlPFC signal during the regulation of misophonic versus aversive sounds. One outlier was removed from the misophonia group to avoid violating the normality assumption.||.25411|-.14149|.57
90995433|NCT04348591|181876077|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.037293|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.131419||0.778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22667|0.301257|||t-test, 2 sided|50 degrees of freedom||An independent samples t-test was conducted to examine differences between groups in vmPFC activation that was greater when downregulating misophonic versus non-misophonic distress. One participant from each group was excluded for being an outlier||0.301257|-0.226670|.778
90995434|NCT04348591|181876078|SUPERIORITY||z score|4.69|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effects whole-brain using cluster|||Mixed effects (FSL's FLAME 1; Oxford Univ., UK) whole brain analyses using cluster correction following a voxel-wise Z-score threshold of 2.3.||||<.05
90995435|NCT04348591|181876079|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.197|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.283||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.766|0.372|||Mixed Models Analysis|This is the main effect from the MMANOVA analysis for group difference.||The MMANOVA analysis of SUDS used a Toeplitz covariance structure. The outcome variable was the difference between SUDS after each sound presentation and baseline, controlling for racial background, headache, and coil to cortex difference. Two participants were excluded from this analysis, one in each condition, because they provided outlier data.||.372|-.766|.49
90995436|NCT04348591|181876079|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.909|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.147|<|1e-07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.97||This p-value corresponds to the difference between sham and HF-rTMS stimulation|Mixed Models Analysis|||The MMANOVA analysis of SUDS used a Toeplitz covariance structure. This analysis presents the main effect of neurostimulation experimental condition. The outcome variable was the difference between SUDS after each sound presentation and baseline, controlling for racial background, headache, and coil to cortex difference. Two participants were excluded from this analysis, one in each condition, because they provided outlier data.||1.97|.62|<.0000001
91043648|NCT00407745|181973326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034||0.3731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.04||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms of baseline NPSI - Paresthesia/Dysesthesia as covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.||Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group.||0.04|-0.10|0.3731
91043649|NCT00407745|181973327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.383||0.3312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|0.38||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms of baseline NPSI - Individual Item Score as covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.||"Item 1 - Burning pain~Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group."||0.38|-1.13|0.3312
90995437|NCT04348591|181876079|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.331|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.139||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.057|0.605||The test corresponds to the difference between sham and LF-rTMS|Mixed Models Analysis|||The MMANOVA analysis of SUDS used a Toeplitz covariance structure. This analysis presents the main effect of neurostimulation experimental condition. The outcome variable was the difference between SUDS after each sound presentation and baseline, controlling for racial background, headache, and coil to cortex difference. Two participants were excluded from this analysis, one in each condition, because they provided outlier data.||.605|.057|.018
90995438|NCT04348591|181876079|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.02|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||For participants with misophonia difference in distress produced by a misophonic sound when downregulating misophonic sounds while receiving sham vs.HF-rTMS|The MMANOVA analysis of SUDS used a Toeplitz covariance structure. This analysis presents the interaction effect of group by neurostimulation experimental condition. The outcome variable was the difference between SUDS after each sound presentation and baseline, controlling for racial background, headache, and coil to cortex difference. Two participants were excluded from this analysis, one in each condition, because they provided outlier data.||||<.000001
90995439|NCT04348591|181876080|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.92|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||This is the result corresponding to the main effect of time in the repeated measures ANCOVA|ANCOVA|||Repeated measures ANOVA (controlling for racial background)||||<.001
90995440|NCT04348591|181876080|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.012|||||||ANCOVA|This analysis corresponds to the main effect of group.||Repeated measures ANOVA (controlling for racial background)||||>.012
90995441|NCT04348591|181876081|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||An independent samples t-test was conducted to examine between group differences at the intake assessment on the PROMIS Anxiety subscale||||.78
90995442|NCT04348591|181876081|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||An independent samples t-test was conducted to examine between group differences at the intake assessment on the PROMIS Depression subscale||||.29
90995443|NCT04348591|181876081|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||An independent samples t-test was conducted to examine between group differences at the intake assessment on the PROMIS Fatigue subscale||||.64
90995444|NCT04348591|181876081|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||An independent samples t-test was conducted to examine between group differences at the intake assessment on the PROMIS Sleep disturbance subscale||||.16
90995445|NCT04348591|181876081|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||An independent samples t-test was conducted to examine between group differences at the intake assessment on the PROMIS Ability to partake in social roles subscale||||.56
90995446|NCT00186056|181876110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.26|||||||ANOVA|Interaction of HAMD \* medication group F(2,26)=1.38, eta sq = .05||||||<.26
90995447|NCT00302718|181876176|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<.0001
90995448|NCT00302718|181876178|OTHER|||||||0.2114|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2114
90995449|NCT00302718|181876180|OTHER|||||||0.6954|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.6954
90995450|NCT00302718|181876182|OTHER|||||||0.9895|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.9895
90995451|NCT00738374|181876183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Analysis compared responders and non-responders.||||0.0008
90995452|NCT00738374|181876184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0795|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0795
90995453|NCT00738374|181876200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2712|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.2712
90995454|NCT02300077|181876230|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0001
90995455|NCT02300077|181876231|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.01
90995456|NCT02300077|181876232|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.001
90995457|NCT02300077|181876233|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.02
90995458|NCT05757427|181876234|OTHER|"The sample size is calculated solely for the first primary endpoint, no minimal number of benign nor malignant lesions was set.~The sample size is calculated for this trial design, assuming a p1 = 75% and p0 = 60% for power (1-beta) of 80%, and an alpha level of 5%.~We will conclude that the Wavelia # 2 Microwave Breast Imaging system is effective in detecting breast lesions if more than 43 of the 62 subjects' lesions are detected."|Proportion of detected lesions|90.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|80.45|95.49||||||||95.49|80.45|
90995459|NCT05757427|181876236|OTHER|The percentage of malignant and benign breast lesions correctly detected by Wavelia MWBI on patients that did not have a biopsy clip marking the lesion position in the breast, will be presented with 95% confidence interval.|Proportion of detected lesions|88.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.66|96.71||||||||96.71|65.66|
90995460|NCT05757427|181876237|OTHER||Proportion of patients with AEs|5.48|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90995461|NCT02528253|181876290|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.1117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.07|-0.66|0.1117
90995462|NCT02528253|181876290|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.04|-0.76|0.0281
91043650|NCT00407745|181973327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.377||0.0976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|0.12||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms of baseline NPSI - Individual Item Score as covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.||"Item 2 - Squeezing pain~Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group."||0.12|-1.37|0.0976
91043651|NCT00407745|181973327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.393||0.0538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|0.01||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms of baseline NPSI - Individual Item Score as covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.||"Item 3 - Pain like pressure~Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group."||0.01|-1.54|0.0538
91043652|NCT00407745|181973327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.389||0.3239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|0.38||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms of baseline NPSI - Individual Item Score as covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.||"Item 5 - Electric shocks~Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group."||0.38|-1.15|0.3239
91043653|NCT00407745|181973327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.376||0.1912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|0.25||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms of baseline NPSI - Individual Item Score as covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.||"Item 6 - Stabbing pain~Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group."||0.25|-1.23|0.1912
90995463|NCT02528253|181876291|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|-0.43|||ANCOVA|||Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.43|-2.21|0.0035
90995464|NCT02528253|181876291|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.64|-0.83|||ANCOVA|||Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.83|-2.64|0.0002
90995465|NCT02528253|181876292|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.3118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.16|||ANCOVA|||Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.16|-0.50|0.3118
90995466|NCT02528253|181876292|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.05|-0.60|0.0958
90995467|NCT02528253|181876293|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.14|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.14|-0.60|0.0015
90995468|NCT02528253|181876293|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.19|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.19|-0.65|0.0004
90995469|NCT02528253|181876293|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.03|-0.39|0.0959
90995470|NCT02528253|181876293|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.01|-0.44|0.0370
90995471|NCT02528253|181876293|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.20|-0.76|0.0008
90995472|NCT02528253|181876293|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.39|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.39|-0.96|<.0001
90995473|NCT02528253|181876293|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.02|-0.50|0.0711
90995474|NCT02528253|181876293|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.02|-0.50|0.0661
90995475|NCT02528253|181876293|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.18|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.18|-0.70|0.0009
90995476|NCT02528253|181876293|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.22|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.22|-0.84|0.0008
90995477|NCT02528253|181876293|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.38|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.38|-1.00|<.0001
90995478|NCT02528253|181876293|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.04|-0.61|0.0274
90995479|NCT02528253|181876293|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.1495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.08|-0.50|0.1495
90995480|NCT02528253|181876293|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.08|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.08|-0.65|0.0123
90995481|NCT02528253|181876293|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.03|-0.71|0.0307
90995482|NCT02528253|181876293|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.24|-0.91|0.0009
90995483|NCT02528253|181876293|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.2103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.11|-0.51|0.2103
90995484|NCT02528253|181876293|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.2656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.13|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.13|-0.48|0.2656
90995485|NCT02528253|181876293|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.07|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.07|-0.68|0.0152
90995486|NCT02528253|181876293|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.5164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.25|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.25|-0.50|0.5164
90995487|NCT02528253|181876293|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.1488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.10|-0.66|0.1488
90995488|NCT02528253|181876293|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.2431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.15|||ANCOVA|||Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.15|-0.60|0.2431
91043654|NCT00407745|181973327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.353||0.672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.85||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms of baseline NPSI - Individual Item Score as covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.||"Item 8 - By light touching~Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group."||0.85|-0.55|0.6720
91043655|NCT00407745|181973327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.7821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.56||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms of baseline NPSI - Individual Item Score as covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.||"Item 9 - By pressure~Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group."||0.56|-0.74|0.7821
91043656|NCT00407745|181973327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.352||0.6851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.55||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms of baseline NPSI - Individual Item Score as covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.||"Item 10 - By something cold~Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group."||0.55|-0.84|0.6851
91043657|NCT00407745|181973327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.387||0.361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|0.41||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms of baseline NPSI - Individual Item Score as covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.||"Item 11 - Pins and needles~Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group."||0.41|-1.12|0.3610
90995489|NCT02528253|181876293|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.2428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.16|||ANCOVA|||Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.16|-0.62|0.2428
90995490|NCT02528253|181876293|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.4561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.24|||ANCOVA|||Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.24|-0.54|0.4561
90995491|NCT02528253|181876293|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.3523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.20|-0.56|0.3523
90995492|NCT02528253|181876293|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.4403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.23|||ANCOVA|||Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.23|-0.53|0.4403
90995493|NCT02528253|181876293|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.3205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.19|-0.58|0.3205
90995494|NCT02528253|181876293|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.5763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.28|||ANCOVA|||Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.28|-0.51|0.5763
90995495|NCT02528253|181876293|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.2887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.18|||ANCOVA|||Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.18|-0.61|0.2887
90995496|NCT02528253|181876295|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.0121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.18|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.18|-1.50|0.0121
90995497|NCT02528253|181876295|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|-0.71|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.71|-2.05|<.0001
90995498|NCT02528253|181876295|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.3697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.33|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.33|-0.89|0.3697
90995499|NCT02528253|181876295|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.0658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.04|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.04|-1.16|0.0658
91043658|NCT00407745|181973327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.402||0.4915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|0.52||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms of baseline NPSI - Individual Item Score as covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.||"Item 12 - Tingling~Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group."||0.52|-1.07|0.4915
90995500|NCT02528253|181876295|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.5|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.50|-1.70|0.0004
90995501|NCT02528253|181876295|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|-0.48|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.48|-1.96|0.0013
90995502|NCT02528253|181876295|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-1.21|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-1.21|-2.70|<.0001
90995503|NCT02528253|181876295|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.3906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.39|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.39|-0.99|0.3906
90995504|NCT02528253|181876295|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.0082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.24|-1.60|0.0082
90995505|NCT02528253|181876295|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|-0.97|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.97|-2.34|<.0001
90995506|NCT02528253|181876295|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|-0.58|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.58|-2.15|0.0006
90995507|NCT02528253|181876295|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.73|-1.16|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-1.16|-2.73|<.0001
90995508|NCT02528253|181876295|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.0385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.04|-1.47|0.0385
90995509|NCT02528253|181876295|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|-0.61|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.61|-2.06|0.0003
90995510|NCT02528253|181876295|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|-0.43|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.43|-2.21|0.0035
90995511|NCT02528253|181876295|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.64|-0.83|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.83|-2.64|0.0002
90995512|NCT02528253|181876295|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.5412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|0.57|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.57|-1.09|0.5412
90995513|NCT02528253|181876295|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.0107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|-0.25|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.25|-1.87|0.0107
90995514|NCT02528253|181876295|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|-0.66|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.66|-2.29|0.0004
90995515|NCT02528253|181876295|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.0464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.02|-1.94|0.0464
90995516|NCT02528253|181876295|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.0068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.37|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.37|-2.30|0.0068
90995517|NCT02528253|181876295|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.1485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.26|||ANCOVA|||Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.26|-1.70|0.1485
90995518|NCT02528253|181876295|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.0507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.00|-1.94|0.0507
90995519|NCT02528253|181876295|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.41|||ANCOVA|||Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.41|-1.60|0.2480
91043659|NCT00407745|181973328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0536||95.0||||p-values are adjusted for baseline score. Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis - The rate of subjects with improvement for the pregabain group was equal to the rate of subjects with improvement for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - The rate of subjects with improvement for the pregabain group was not equal to the rate of subjects with improvement for the placebo group.||||0.0536
90995520|NCT02528253|181876295|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.1605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|0.28|||ANCOVA|||Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.28|-1.71|0.1605
90995521|NCT02528253|181876295|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.3654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.55|||ANCOVA|||Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.55|-1.50|0.3654
90995522|NCT02528253|181876295|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.1782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|0.32|||ANCOVA|||Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.32|-1.71|0.1782
90995523|NCT02528253|181876295|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.3981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|0.58|||ANCOVA|||Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.58|-1.47|0.3981
90995524|NCT02528253|181876295|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.1089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|0.18|||ANCOVA|||Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.18|-1.84|0.1089
90995525|NCT02528253|181876297|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.1472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline PGA, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.03|-0.18|0.1472
90995526|NCT02528253|181876297|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.0135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline PGA, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.03|-0.24|0.0135
90995527|NCT02528253|181876297|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.0893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline PGA, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.01|-0.18|0.0893
90995528|NCT02528253|181876297|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline PGA, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.04|-0.23|0.0044
90995529|NCT02528253|181876297|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|-0.06|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline PGA, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.06|-0.28|0.0025
91043660|NCT00407745|181973329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3107||95.0||||p-values are adjusted for baseline score. Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis - The rate of subjects with improvement for the pregabain group was equal to the rate of subjects with improvement for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - The rate of subjects with improvement for the pregabain group was not equal to the rate of subjects with improvement for the placebo group.||||0.3107
91043661|NCT00407745|181973330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-4.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.182||0.0262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.19|-0.59||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms of baseline MOS 9-item Sleep Problems Index as a covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.||Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group.||-0.59|-9.19|0.0262
90995530|NCT02528253|181876297|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline PGA, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.10|-0.32|0.0002
90995531|NCT02528253|181876297|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.8348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.09|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline PGA, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.09|-0.11|0.8348
90995532|NCT02528253|181876297|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|-0.06|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline PGA, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.06|-0.26|0.0020
91043662|NCT00407745|181973331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-8.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.985||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.55|-2.78||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms of baseline MOS - Sleep disturbance as a covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.||Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group.||-2.78|-14.55|0.0041
90995533|NCT02528253|181876297|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline PGA, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.10|-0.30|0.0001
90995534|NCT02528253|181876297|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.0272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline PGA, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.01|-0.25|0.0272
90995535|NCT02528253|181876297|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|-0.08|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline PGA, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.08|-0.31|0.0009
90995536|NCT02528253|181876297|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline PGA, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.03|-0.18|0.1680
90995537|NCT02528253|181876297|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.2968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline PGA, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.05|-0.16|0.2968
90995538|NCT02528253|181876297|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.0219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline PGA, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.02|-0.23|0.0219
90995539|NCT02528253|181876297|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.0717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline PGA, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.01|-0.25|0.0717
90995540|NCT02528253|181876297|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.0207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline PGA, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.02|-0.29|0.0207
90995541|NCT02528253|181876297|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.8399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.13|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline PGA, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.13|-0.11|0.8399
90995542|NCT02528253|181876297|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.0299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline PGA, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.01|-0.25|0.0299
90995543|NCT02528253|181876297|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline PGA, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.05|-0.29|0.0060
90995544|NCT02528253|181876297|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.1974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline PGA, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.05|-0.24|0.1974
90995545|NCT02528253|181876297|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.06|-0.22|0.2780
90995546|NCT02528253|181876297|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.09|||ANCOVA|||Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline PGA, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.09|-0.21|0.4330
90995547|NCT02528253|181876297|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.4946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.09|||ANCOVA|||Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline PGA, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.09|-0.20|0.4946
91043663|NCT00407745|181973332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|5.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.492||0.0998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|12.66||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms of baseline MOS - Sleep Adequacy as a covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.||Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group.||12.66|-1.11|0.0998
91043664|NCT00407745|181973333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.501||0.1048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|12.61||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms of baseline MOS - Snoring as a covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.||Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group.||12.61|-1.20|0.1048
91043665|NCT00407745|181973334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-5.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.417||0.0347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.91|-0.37||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included baseline MOS - Awaken Short of Breath or with headache as covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.||Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group.||-0.37|-9.91|0.0347
90995548|NCT02528253|181876297|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.1884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline PGA, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.05|-0.25|0.1884
90995549|NCT02528253|181876297|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline PGA, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.10|-0.20|0.5210
91043666|NCT00407745|181973335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.189||0.0436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.76||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms of baseline MOS - Sleep Quantity as a covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.||Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group.||0.76|0.01|0.0436
91043667|NCT00407745|181973336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|3.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.77||0.2761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|8.49||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms of baseline MOS - Somnolence as a covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.||Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group.||8.49|-2.44|0.2761
91043668|NCT00407745|181973337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.81||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.443|5.491||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression Model included Pooled Center and Treatment as the categorical factors, and Optimal Sleep Score at Baseline as the covariate.||Null hypothesis - The rate of subjects with optimal sleep for the pregabain group was equal to the rate of subjects with optimal sleep for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - The rate of subjects with optimal sleep for the pregabain group was not equal to the rate of subjects with optimal sleep for the placebo group.||5.491|1.443|0.0024
91043669|NCT00407745|181973338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.433||0.1164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|0.17||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms of baseline HADS - Anxiety as a covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.||Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group.||0.17|-1.54|0.1164
91043670|NCT00407745|181973339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.447||0.0279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|-0.11||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms of baseline HADS - Depression as a covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.||Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group.||-0.11|-1.87|0.0279
91043671|NCT00955552|181973340|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority test of Ártico vs Cosamin DS® regarding the decrease of pain scale (VAS) in the PP population (N = 86).|||||<|0.05||||||For numeric variables Test -t student or ANOVA will be used. It will be considered statistically significant P-value less than 0,05.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.05
91043672|NCT02960438|181973346|SUPERIORITY||Difference of arms|2.2||||0.374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.96|24.46|||Regression, Logistic||Estimate was calculated based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||24.46|-19.96|0.374
91043673|NCT02960438|181973346|SUPERIORITY||Difference of arms|11.1||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.42|29.64|||Regression, Logistic||Estimate was calculated based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||29.64|-7.42|0.102
91043674|NCT02960438|181973346|SUPERIORITY||Difference of arms|9.3||||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.25|27.77|||Regression, Logistic||Estimate was calculated based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||27.77|-9.25|0.188
91043675|NCT00513617|181973405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1254|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0705||0.08||||||Alpha was set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Null is tested using the F-test from a random effects longitudinal mixed model, with treatment and baseline measurement as fixed effects.|Placebo was subtracted from the Low dose|Null hypothesis is no difference between high vs. placebo and low vs. placebo in change from baseline at Week 12 post-randomization. Separate models were fit for pediatric and adult populations, however the combined population is entered here.||||0.080
91043676|NCT00513617|181973405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.098|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0713||0.133||||||Alpha was set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Null is tested using the F-test from a random effects longitudinal mixed model, with treatment and baseline measurement as fixed effects.|Placebo was subtracted from High dose|Null hypothesis is no difference between high vs. placebo and low vs. placebo in change from baseline at Week 12 post-randomization. Separate models were fit for pediatric and adult populations, however the combined population is entered here.||||0.133
91043677|NCT00513617|181973407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1826|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0713||0.915||||||Alpha was set at 0.5|Mixed Models Analysis|Null is tested using the F-test from a random effects longitudinal mixed model, with treatment and baseline measurement as fixed effects.|Placebo subtracted from Low dose|Null hypothesis is no difference between high vs. placebo and low vs. placebo in change from baseline at Week 12 post-randomization. Separate models were fit for pediatric and adult populations, however the combined population is entered here.||||0.915
91043678|NCT00513617|181973407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3582|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1047||0.918||||||Alpha was set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Null is tested using the F-test from a random effects longitudinal mixed model, with treatment and baseline measurement as fixed effects.|Placebo subtracted from High dose|Null hypothesis is no difference between high vs. placebo and low vs. placebo in change from baseline at Week 12 post-randomization. Separate models were fit for pediatric and adult populations, however the combined population is entered here.||||0.918
91043679|NCT00513617|181973408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7867|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1101||0.015||||||Alpha was set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Null is tested using the F-test from a random effects longitudinal mixed model, with treatment and baseline measurement as fixed effects.|Placebo subtracted from Low dose|Null hypothesis is no difference between high vs. placebo and low vs. placebo in change from baseline at Week 12 post-randomization. Separate models were fit for pediatric and adult populations, however the combined population is entered here.||||0.015
91043680|NCT00513617|181973408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5213|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1553||0.557||||||Alpha was set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Null is tested using the F-test from a random effects longitudinal mixed model, with treatment and baseline measurement as fixed effects.|Placebo subtracted from High dose|Null hypothesis is no difference between high vs. placebo and low vs. placebo in change from baseline at Week 12 post-randomization. Separate models were fit for pediatric and adult populations, however the combined population is entered here.||||0.557
91043681|NCT03449199|181973412|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05||||0.7953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.34|||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline in log-transformed UACR was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with randomized treatment, and randomization strata of sUA and UACR as independent variables. The last observation carried forward imputation was used for missing data. In this study, multiplicity was not considered since the study objective is exploratory.||0.34|-0.44|0.7953
91043682|NCT03449199|181973412|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.43||||0.0311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline in log-transformed UACR was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with randomized treatment, and randomization strata of sUA and UACR as independent variables. The last observation carried forward imputation was used for missing data. In this study, multiplicity was not considered since the study objective is exploratory.||-0.04|-0.82|0.0311
91043683|NCT03449199|181973413|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.71||||0.4055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|5.78|||ANCOVA|||For Week 12 (visit of the primary outcome), ANCOVA model with treatment, randomization strata of sUA and UACR levels as independent variables, Baseline eGFR as covariate is fitted. The last observation carried forward imputation was used for missing data.||5.78|-2.35|0.4055
91043684|NCT03449199|181973413|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.42||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|7.46|||ANCOVA|||For Week 12 (visit of the primary outcome), an ANCOVA model with treatment, randomization strata of sUA and UACR levels as independent variables, Baseline eGFR as covariate is fitted. The last observation carried forward imputation was used for missing data.||7.46|-0.62|0.0960
91043685|NCT03449199|181973414|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.43|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.13|-1.74|||ANCOVA|||For Week 12 (visit of the primary outcome), an ANCOVA model with treatment, randomization strata of UACR levels as independent variables is fitted. The last observation carried forward imputation was used for missing data.||-1.74|-3.13|<0.0001
91043686|NCT03449199|181973414|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.91|-2.54|||ANCOVA|||For Week 12 (visit of the primary outcome), an ANCOVA model with treatment, randomization strata of UACR levels as independent variables is fitted. The last observation carried forward imputation was used for missing data.||-2.54|-3.91|<0.0001
91043687|NCT03449199|181973415|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-102.02||||0.3955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-338.81|134.78|||ANCOVA|||For Week 12 (visit of the primary outcome), an ANCOVA model with treatment, randomization strata of UACR levels as independent variables is fitted. The last observation carried forward imputation was used for missing data.||134.78|-338.81|0.3955
91043688|NCT03449199|181973415|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-197.49||||0.0991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-432.73|37.75|||ANCOVA|||For Week 12 (visit of the primary outcome), ANCOVA model with treatment, randomization strata of UACR levels as independent variables is fitted. The last observation carried forward imputation was used for missing data.||37.75|-432.73|0.0991
91043689|NCT03449199|181973416|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72||||0.2791|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic||Missing observations at Study Week 12 are imputed as nonresponse.|Odds ratio, 95% CLs, and p-values are obtained from logistic regression model adjusting for treatment group, randomization strata of Baseline sUA (\<6.0 vs ≥6.0 mg/dL) and Baseline UACR (200 to \<300 mg/g vs 300 to ≤3000 mg/g), Baseline UACR and Baseline sUA levels. Odds ratio for a baseline covariate is the ratio of odds over one unit increase of the covariate and it is assumed constant. P-value represents the statistical significance level of odds ratio differing from 1.||||0.2791
91043690|NCT03449199|181973416|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.57||||0.0507|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio, 95% CLs, and p-values are obtained from logistic regression model adjusting for treatment group, randomization strata of Baseline sUA (\<6.0 vs ≥6.0 mg/dL) and Baseline UACR (200 to \<300 mg/g vs 300 to ≤3000 mg/g), Baseline UACR and Baseline sUA levels. Odds ratio for a baseline covariate is the ratio of odds over one unit increase of the covariate and it is assumed constant. P-value represents the statistical significance level of odds ratio differing from 1.||||0.0507
91043691|NCT01652729|181973449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2167||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|-0.3|||mixed model for repeated measure|MMRM includes treatment, baseline HbA1c (\<9% or ≥9%), week of visit and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and subject random effect.||||-0.30|-1.15|0.0010
91043692|NCT01652729|181973449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1638||0.0209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.06|||mixed model for repeated measure|MMRM includes treatment, baseline HbA1c (\<9% or ≥9%), week of visit and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and subject random effect.||||-0.06|-0.70|0.0209
91043693|NCT01652729|181973449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2278||0.1347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.11|||mixed model for repeated measure|MMRM includes treatment, baseline HbA1c (\<9% or ≥9%), week of visit and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and subject random effect.||||0.11|-0.79|0.1347
91043694|NCT01652729|181973450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0489|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage of Subjects Achieving HbA1c \<7% at Week 28.||||0.0489
90995550|NCT02528253|181876297|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.3329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline PGA, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.08|-0.23|0.3329
90995551|NCT02528253|181876297|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.5173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline PGA, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.10|-0.21|0.5173
90995552|NCT02528253|181876297|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.2346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline PGA, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.06|-0.25|0.2346
90995553|NCT02528253|181876297|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.3634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.09|||ANCOVA|||Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline PGA, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.09|-0.23|0.3634
90995554|NCT02528253|181876300|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|2.39|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=30%: Odds ratio (OR) and 95% Confidence interval (CI) estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.39|1.26|0.0007
91043695|NCT01652729|181973450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0103|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage of Subjects Achieving HbA1c \<7% at Week 28.||||0.0103
91043696|NCT01652729|181973451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-10.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.96||0.0924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.8|1.7|||mixed model for repeated measure|MMRM includes treatment, baseline HbA1c (\<9% or ≥9%), week of visit and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and subject random effect.||||1.7|-21.8|0.0924
91043697|NCT01652729|181973451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-30.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.037||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.7|-15.1|||mixed model for repeated measure|MMRM includes treatment, baseline HbA1c (\<9% or ≥9%), week of visit and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and subject random effect.||||-15.1|-46.7|0.0001
90995555|NCT02528253|181876300|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|2.44|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.44|1.29|0.0004
90995556|NCT02528253|181876300|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.3456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.5|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.50|0.87|0.3456
91043698|NCT01652729|181973452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4058||0.8625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.87||Nominal p-value|mixed model for repeated measure|MMRM includes treatment, baseline HbA1c (\<9% or ≥9%), week of visit and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and subject random effect.||||0.87|-0.73|0.8625
90995557|NCT02528253|181876300|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.2771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.53|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.53|0.89|0.2771
90995558|NCT02528253|181876300|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.54||||0.0594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|2.41|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.41|0.98|0.0594
90995559|NCT02528253|181876300|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77||||0.0105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|2.75|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.75|1.14|0.0105
90995560|NCT02528253|181876300|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.98|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.98|0.85|0.2360
91043699|NCT01652729|181973452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5419||0.0198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|-0.2||Nominal p-value|mixed model for repeated measure|MMRM includes treatment, baseline HbA1c (\<9% or ≥9%), week of visit and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and subject random effect.||||-0.20|-2.34|0.0198
91043700|NCT01652729|181973453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-35.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.71||0.0248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.23|-4.68||Nominal p-value|general linear model|Includes treatment and baseline HbA1c (\< 9% or ≥ 9%) as fixed factors, and baseline 2-hour postprandial plasma glucose concentrations as a covariate.||||-4.68|-67.23|0.0248
90995561|NCT02528253|181876300|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.3746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.75|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.75|0.81|0.3746
90995562|NCT02528253|181876300|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.0974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.99|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.99|0.94|0.0974
90995563|NCT02528253|181876300|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.94||||0.0806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|4.08|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||4.08|0.92|0.0806
90995564|NCT02528253|181876300|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.15||||0.0407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|4.47|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||4.47|1.03|0.0407
90995565|NCT02528253|181876300|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.5966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.58|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.58|0.58|0.5966
90995566|NCT02528253|181876300|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.59||||0.1492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|2.96|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.96|0.85|0.1492
91043701|NCT01652729|181973453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-20.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.66||0.2914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.02|18.25||Nominal p-value|general linear model|Includes treatment and baseline HbA1c (\< 9% or ≥ 9%) as fixed factors, and baseline 2-hour postprandial plasma glucose concentrations as a covariate.||||18.25|-60.02|0.2914
90995567|NCT02528253|181876300|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|3.24|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||3.24|0.95|0.0720
90995568|NCT02528253|181876300|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.9926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|4.0|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||4.00|0.25|0.9926
90995569|NCT02528253|181876300|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.75||||0.3726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|6.04|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||6.04|0.51|0.3726
90995570|NCT02528253|181876300|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.7874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|3.12|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||3.12|0.22|0.7874
90995571|NCT02528253|181876300|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|4.46|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||4.46|0.32|0.7950
90995572|NCT02528253|181876300|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1||||0.2065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|6.68|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||6.68|0.66|0.2065
90995573|NCT02528253|181876300|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.64||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|2.17|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.17|1.23|0.0006
90995574|NCT02528253|181876300|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|2.72|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.72|1.55|<.0001
90995575|NCT02528253|181876300|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.0387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.71|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.71|1.01|0.0387
90995576|NCT02528253|181876300|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.0903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.6|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.60|0.97|0.0903
90995577|NCT02528253|181876300|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|2.01|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.01|1.21|0.0006
90995578|NCT02528253|181876300|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.0166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|2.09|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.09|1.08|0.0166
90995579|NCT02528253|181876300|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.89||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|2.62|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.62|1.36|0.0001
90995580|NCT02528253|181876300|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.1389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.73|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.73|0.93|0.1389
90995581|NCT02528253|181876300|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.2504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.59|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.59|0.89|0.2504
90995582|NCT02528253|181876300|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.98|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.98|1.12|0.0057
90995583|NCT02528253|181876300|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.83||||0.0126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|2.93|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.93|1.14|0.0126
90995584|NCT02528253|181876300|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.71|4.22|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||4.22|1.71|<.0001
90995585|NCT02528253|181876300|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.3485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.99|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.99|0.79|0.3485
90995586|NCT02528253|181876300|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46||||0.0642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|2.19|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.19|0.98|0.0642
90995587|NCT02528253|181876300|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|3.14|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||3.14|1.48|<.0001
90995588|NCT02528253|181876300|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.9819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|2.31|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.31|0.42|0.9819
90995589|NCT02528253|181876300|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.4333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|3.02|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||3.02|0.62|0.4333
90995590|NCT02528253|181876300|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|2.0|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.00|0.41|0.8140
90995591|NCT02528253|181876300|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.8331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|2.4|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.40|0.49|0.8331
90995592|NCT02528253|181876300|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.2682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|3.12|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||3.12|0.73|0.2682
91043702|NCT00483548|181973454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.37||0.7921||95.0|-3.07|2.34||Due to planned interim analysis of primary endpoint, to control type I error at 2-sided alpha=0.05, a nominal 2-sided p-value ≤0.0476 needed at final analysis to reject the null hypothesis of no treatment effect.|ANCOVA Mixed-effects repeated-measures|No other adjustment made for multiple comparisons since all comparisons, except for single primary comparison, are considered secondary.|Mixed-effects repeated-measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance model: fixed categorical effects of treatment, country, mood stabilizer type, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, fixed continuous effect of baseline value and subject as random effect.|N=141 per arm (282 total) needed for 85% power for 2-sided alpha=0.05 based on true mean difference=4.0 and standard deviation (SD)=11.0 for primary endpoint. Interim Analysis (IA) planned when 60% of subjects had completed study or discontinued prematurely to assess efficacy (nominal 2-sided p-value less than or equal to \[≤\] 0.0076) or futility (nominal 2-sided p-value greater than or equal to \[≥\] 0.5099).||2.34|-3.07|0.7921
91043703|NCT00483548|181973455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.7223||95.0|-0.25|0.36|||ANCOVA Mixed-effects repeated-measures|||Week 6; MMRM analysis of covariance model with fixed categorical effects of treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, fixed continuous effect of baseline value and subject as random effect.||0.36|-0.25|0.7223
91043704|NCT00483548|181973456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.846||||0.5029||95.0|0.52|1.38|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio measures the odds of achieving remission (MADRS total score ≤ 12) from ziprasidone treated subjects versus placebo; a value \> 1 favors ziprasidone.|Week 6; LOCF; Logistic regression model with treatment, country, and type of mood stabilizer.||1.38|0.52|0.5029
90995593|NCT02528253|181876300|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|2.29|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.29|1.31|0.0001
90995594|NCT02528253|181876300|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.97|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.49|2.61|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.61|1.49|<.0001
90995595|NCT02528253|181876300|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.0071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.83|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.83|1.10|0.0071
90995596|NCT02528253|181876300|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.1187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.57|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.57|0.95|0.1187
90995597|NCT02528253|181876300|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.79|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.79|1.08|0.0110
90995598|NCT02528253|181876300|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.39|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.39|1.30|0.0003
90995599|NCT02528253|181876300|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|2.87|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.87|1.57|<.0001
90995600|NCT02528253|181876300|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.0069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|1.97|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.97|1.11|0.0069
90995601|NCT02528253|181876300|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.2076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.55|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.55|0.91|0.2076
90995602|NCT02528253|181876300|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.0072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.86|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.86|1.10|0.0072
90995603|NCT02528253|181876300|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.0694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|2.22|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.22|0.97|0.0694
90995604|NCT02528253|181876300|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|3.36|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||3.36|1.53|<.0001
90995605|NCT02528253|181876300|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.0|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.00|0.92|0.1210
90995606|NCT02528253|181876300|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.6706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.54|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.54|0.76|0.6706
90995607|NCT02528253|181876300|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.32|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.32|1.20|0.0022
90995608|NCT02528253|181876300|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.7546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|2.22|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.22|0.56|0.7546
90995609|NCT02528253|181876300|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.7347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|2.24|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.24|0.57|0.7347
90995610|NCT02528253|181876300|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.9029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.84|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.84|0.50|0.9029
90995611|NCT02528253|181876300|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.6402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.18|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.18|0.62|0.6402
90995612|NCT02528253|181876300|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.6199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.2|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.20|0.62|0.6199
90995613|NCT02528253|181876300|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.0229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.83|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.83|1.05|0.0229
90995614|NCT02528253|181876300|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.3|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.30|1.30|0.0002
90995615|NCT02528253|181876300|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.47|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.47|0.88|0.3150
90995616|NCT02528253|181876300|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.57|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.57|0.94|0.1370
90995617|NCT02528253|181876300|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.52||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|1.97|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.97|1.17|0.0018
90995618|NCT02528253|181876300|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.0342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.81|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.81|1.02|0.0342
90995619|NCT02528253|181876300|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.69||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|2.24|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.24|1.27|0.0003
90995620|NCT02528253|181876300|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.2561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.51|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.51|0.90|0.2561
90995621|NCT02528253|181876300|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.2358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.51|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.51|0.90|0.2358
90995622|NCT02528253|181876300|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|1.87|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.87|1.13|0.0040
90995623|NCT02528253|181876300|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.0723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|2.02|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.02|0.97|0.0723
90995624|NCT02528253|181876300|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|2.92|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.92|1.45|<.0001
90995625|NCT02528253|181876300|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.0653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.94|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.94|0.98|0.0653
90995626|NCT02528253|181876300|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.9177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.4|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.40|0.74|0.9177
90995627|NCT02528253|181876300|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.0088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|2.01|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.01|1.11|0.0088
90995628|NCT02528253|181876300|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.58||||0.1197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|2.83|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.83|0.89|0.1197
91043705|NCT00483548|181973457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.949||||0.8266||95.0|0.59|1.52|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio measures the odds of achieving response (≥ 50 % reduction in MADRS total score) from ziprasidone treated subjects versus placebo; a value \> 1 favors ziprasidone.|Week 6; LOCF; Logistic regression model with treatment, country, and type of mood stabilizer.||1.52|0.59|0.8266
91043706|NCT00483548|181973458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.939||||0.7924||95.0|0.59|1.5||Logistic regression model with treatment, country, and type of mood stabilizer.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6; LOCF; Logistic regression model with treatment, country, and type of mood stabilizer.||1.50|0.59|0.7924
91043707|NCT00483548|181973459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|-1.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89||0.0594||95.0|-3.42|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Week 1; LOCF; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||0.07|-3.42|0.0594
91043708|NCT00483548|181973459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|-1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.223||95.0|-3.27|0.77|||ANCOVA|||Week 2; LOCF; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||0.77|-3.27|0.2230
90995629|NCT02528253|181876300|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.64||||0.0913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.92|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.92|0.92|0.0913
90995630|NCT02528253|181876300|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.4317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.19|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.19|0.72|0.4317
90995631|NCT02528253|181876300|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.3498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.08|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.08|0.77|0.3498
90995632|NCT02528253|181876300|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.2768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.15|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.15|0.80|0.2768
90995633|NCT02528253|181876300|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.92|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.92|1.09|0.0101
90995634|NCT02528253|181876300|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|1.99|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.99|1.13|0.0054
90995635|NCT02528253|181876300|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.5493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.39|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.39|0.84|0.5493
90995636|NCT02528253|181876300|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.0269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.74|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.74|1.03|0.0269
90995637|NCT02528253|181876300|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.0144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.8|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.80|1.07|0.0144
90995638|NCT02528253|181876300|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28||||0.0846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.7|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.70|0.97|0.0846
90995639|NCT02528253|181876300|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.91|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.91|1.09|0.0101
90995640|NCT02528253|181876300|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.0848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.62|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.62|0.97|0.0848
90995641|NCT02528253|181876300|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.8732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.32|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.32|0.79|0.8732
90995642|NCT02528253|181876300|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.2734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.48|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.48|0.89|0.2734
90995643|NCT02528253|181876300|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.2839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.7|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.70|0.86|0.2839
90995644|NCT02528253|181876300|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.0238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|2.07|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.07|1.05|0.0238
90995645|NCT02528253|181876300|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.5212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.53|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.53|0.81|0.5212
90995646|NCT02528253|181876300|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.5954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.48|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.48|0.80|0.5954
90995647|NCT02528253|181876300|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.0638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.79|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.79|0.98|0.0638
90995648|NCT02528253|181876300|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.2661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.44|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.44|0.78|0.2661
90995649|NCT02528253|181876300|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.4717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|2.21|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.21|0.69|0.4717
90995650|NCT02528253|181876300|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.5798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|2.0|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.00|0.68|0.5798
90995651|NCT02528253|181876300|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.5027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.95|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.95|0.72|0.5027
90995652|NCT02528253|181876300|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.8165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.77|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.77|0.64|0.8165
90995653|NCT02528253|181876300|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.1996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.52|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.52|0.92|0.1996
90995654|NCT02528253|181876300|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.0074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.83|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.83|1.10|0.0074
90995655|NCT02528253|181876300|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.3557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.45|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.45|0.87|0.3557
90995656|NCT02528253|181876300|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.75|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.75|1.06|0.0170
90995657|NCT02528253|181876300|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.8641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.38|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.38|0.76|0.8641
90995658|NCT02528253|181876300|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.1768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.62|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.62|0.91|0.1768
90995659|NCT02528253|181876300|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.7696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.55|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.55|0.55|0.7696
90995660|NCT02528253|181876300|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.7433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.78|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.78|0.66|0.7433
90995661|NCT02528253|181876300|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28||||0.0562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.65|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 32, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.65|0.99|0.0562
90995662|NCT02528253|181876300|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.0274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.71|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 32, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.71|1.03|0.0274
90995663|NCT02528253|181876300|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.1206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.58|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 32, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.58|0.95|0.1206
90995664|NCT02528253|181876300|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.0365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.69|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 32, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.69|1.02|0.0365
90995665|NCT02528253|181876300|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28||||0.0964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.71|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 32, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.71|0.96|0.0964
90995666|NCT02528253|181876300|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.2515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.59|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 32, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.59|0.89|0.2515
90995667|NCT02528253|181876300|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.8122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.71|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 32, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.71|0.66|0.8122
90995668|NCT02528253|181876300|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.1848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|2.13|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 32, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.13|0.86|0.1848
90995669|NCT02528253|181876300|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.2622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.49|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 40, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.49|0.90|0.2622
91043709|NCT00483548|181973459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09||0.6971||95.0|-2.57|1.72|||ANCOVA|||Week 3; LOCF; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||1.72|-2.57|0.6971
91043710|NCT00483548|181973459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12||0.5485||95.0|-2.89|1.54|||ANCOVA|||Week 4; LOCF; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||1.54|-2.89|0.5485
91043711|NCT00483548|181973459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.19||0.8322||95.0|-2.6|2.1|||ANCOVA|||Week 5; LOCF; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||2.10|-2.60|0.8322
91043712|NCT00483548|181973460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.1771||95.0|-0.29|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Week 1; LOCF; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||0.05|-0.29|0.1771
91043713|NCT00483548|181973460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.1765||95.0|-0.37|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Week 2; LOCF; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||0.07|-0.37|0.1765
91043714|NCT00483548|181973460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.6765||95.0|-0.27|0.18|||ANCOVA|||Week 3; LOCF; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||0.18|-0.27|0.6765
91043715|NCT00483548|181973460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.977||95.0|-0.24|0.25|||ANCOVA|||Week 4; LOCF; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||0.25|-0.24|0.9770
91043716|NCT00483548|181973460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.7907||95.0|-0.3|0.23|||ANCOVA|||Week 5; LOCF; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||0.23|-0.30|0.7907
91043717|NCT00483548|181973461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0392||95.0|-0.43|-0.01|||ANOVA|||Week 1; LOCF; Analysis of variance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects.||-0.01|-0.43|0.0392
91043718|NCT00483548|181973461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.2803||95.0|-0.38|0.11|||ANOVA|||Week 2; LOCF; Analysis of variance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects.||0.11|-0.38|0.2803
91043719|NCT00483548|181973461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.9835||95.0|-0.26|0.26|||ANOVA|||Week 3; LOCF; Analysis of variance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects.||0.26|-0.26|0.9835
91043720|NCT00483548|181973461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.7062||95.0|-0.34|0.23|||ANOVA|||Week 4; LOCF; Analysis of variance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects.||0.23|-0.34|0.7062
91043721|NCT00483548|181973461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.9518||95.0|-0.31|0.29|||ANOVA|||Week 5; LOCF; Analysis of variance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects.||0.29|-0.31|0.9518
91043722|NCT00483548|181973461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.4757||95.0|-0.2|0.42||Analysis of variance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects.|ANOVA|||Week 6; LOCF||0.42|-0.20|0.4757
91043723|NCT00483548|181973462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.6362||95.0|-1.12|1.82|||ANCOVA|||Week 2; LOCF; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||1.82|-1.12|0.6362
91043724|NCT00483548|181973462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.4565||95.0|-0.98|2.17|||ANCOVA|||Week 4; LOCF; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||2.17|-0.98|0.4565
91043725|NCT00483548|181973462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86||0.477||95.0|-1.08|2.3|||ANCOVA|||Week 6; LOCF; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||2.30|-1.08|0.4770
91043726|NCT00483548|181973463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.1277||95.0|-0.2|1.6|||ANCOVA|||Week 1; LOCF; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||1.60|-0.20|0.1277
91043727|NCT00483548|181973463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.2345||95.0|-0.41|1.68|||ANCOVA|||Week 2; LOCF; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||1.68|-0.41|0.2345
91043728|NCT00483548|181973463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.8337||95.0|-1.05|1.3|||ANCOVA|||Week 3; LOCF; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||1.30|-1.05|0.8337
90995670|NCT02528253|181876300|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.1579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.54|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 40, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.54|0.93|0.1579
90995671|NCT02528253|181876300|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.2773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.49|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 40, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.49|0.89|0.2773
90995672|NCT02528253|181876300|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.1032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.59|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 40, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.59|0.96|0.1032
90995673|NCT02528253|181876300|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.4418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.5|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 40, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.50|0.84|0.4418
90995674|NCT02528253|181876300|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.1608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.63|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 40, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.63|0.92|0.1608
90995675|NCT02528253|181876300|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.2628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|2.02|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 40, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.02|0.83|0.2628
90995676|NCT02528253|181876300|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.0447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|2.39|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 40, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.39|1.01|0.0447
90995677|NCT02528253|181876300|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.49|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.49|0.90|0.2560
90995678|NCT02528253|181876300|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.1741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.53|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.53|0.93|0.1741
90995679|NCT02528253|181876300|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.1647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.55|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.55|0.93|0.1647
90995680|NCT02528253|181876300|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28||||0.0619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.65|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.65|0.99|0.0619
90995681|NCT02528253|181876300|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.2025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.61|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.61|0.90|0.2025
90995682|NCT02528253|181876300|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.2601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.58|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.58|0.88|0.2601
90995683|NCT02528253|181876300|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.5635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.77|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.77|0.73|0.5635
90995684|NCT02528253|181876300|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.1338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|2.11|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.11|0.91|0.1338
90995685|NCT02528253|181876300|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.2137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.51|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 56, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.51|0.91|0.2137
90995686|NCT02528253|181876300|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.0256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.72|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 56, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.72|1.04|0.0256
90995687|NCT02528253|181876300|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.3531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.46|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 56, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.46|0.87|0.3531
90995688|NCT02528253|181876300|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.0358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.7|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 56, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.70|1.02|0.0358
90995689|NCT02528253|181876300|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.62|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 56, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.62|0.91|0.1840
90995690|NCT02528253|181876300|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.67|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 56, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.67|0.94|0.1250
90995691|NCT02528253|181876300|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.8266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.48|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 56, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.48|0.61|0.8266
90995692|NCT02528253|181876300|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.5673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.72|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 56, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.72|0.74|0.5673
90995693|NCT02528253|181876301|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53||||0.0076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|2.08|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.08|1.12|0.0076
90995694|NCT02528253|181876301|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|2.69|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.69|1.46|<.0001
90995695|NCT02528253|181876301|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.74|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.74|0.98|0.0700
90995696|NCT02528253|181876301|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.2655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.54|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.54|0.89|0.2655
90995697|NCT02528253|181876301|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.52||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|1.98|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.98|1.16|0.0022
90995698|NCT02528253|181876301|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.61||||0.0125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|2.35|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.35|1.11|0.0125
90995699|NCT02528253|181876301|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.75||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|2.54|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.54|1.21|0.0032
91043729|NCT00483548|181973463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.4646||95.0|-0.73|1.59|||ANCOVA|||Week 4; LOCF; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||1.59|-0.73|0.4646
90995700|NCT02528253|181876301|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.1528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.85|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.85|0.91|0.1528
90995701|NCT02528253|181876301|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.1863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.72|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.72|0.90|0.1863
90995702|NCT02528253|181876301|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.0667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.86|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.86|0.98|0.0667
90995703|NCT02528253|181876301|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|3.39|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||3.39|1.18|0.0101
90995704|NCT02528253|181876301|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.91||||0.0162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|3.25|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||3.25|1.13|0.0162
90995705|NCT02528253|181876301|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.5599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.99|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.99|0.69|0.5599
90995706|NCT02528253|181876301|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.0202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|2.68|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.68|1.09|0.0202
90995707|NCT02528253|181876301|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.64||||0.0335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|2.57|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.57|1.04|0.0335
90995708|NCT02528253|181876301|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.53||||0.0416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|6.17|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||6.17|1.04|0.0416
90995709|NCT02528253|181876301|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.24||||0.0075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|7.69|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||7.69|1.37|0.0075
90995710|NCT02528253|181876301|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.5374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|3.34|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||3.34|0.53|0.5374
90995711|NCT02528253|181876301|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.89||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|3.89|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||3.89|0.92|0.0820
90995712|NCT02528253|181876301|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.43||||0.0108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|4.81|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||4.81|1.23|0.0108
90995713|NCT02528253|181876301|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.65||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|2.2|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.20|1.24|0.0006
90995714|NCT02528253|181876301|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.95|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|2.59|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.59|1.47|<.0001
90995715|NCT02528253|181876301|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.0963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.63|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.63|0.96|0.0963
90995716|NCT02528253|181876301|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.0332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.71|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.71|1.02|0.0332
90995717|NCT02528253|181876301|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|2.01|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.01|1.21|0.0007
90995718|NCT02528253|181876301|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|2.64|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.64|1.37|0.0001
90995719|NCT02528253|181876301|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|3.05|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||3.05|1.60|<.0001
90995720|NCT02528253|181876301|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.0235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.95|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.95|1.05|0.0235
90995721|NCT02528253|181876301|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.0459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.76|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.76|1.01|0.0459
90995722|NCT02528253|181876301|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.54||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|2.04|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.04|1.17|0.0020
90995723|NCT02528253|181876301|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.93||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|2.91|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.91|1.27|0.0019
90995724|NCT02528253|181876301|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.62|3.62|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||3.62|1.62|<.0001
90995725|NCT02528253|181876301|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.6765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.65|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.65|0.72|0.6765
90995726|NCT02528253|181876301|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|2.54|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.54|1.23|0.0022
90995727|NCT02528253|181876301|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|3.15|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||3.15|1.56|<.0001
90995728|NCT02528253|181876301|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.98||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|3.63|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||3.63|1.08|0.0270
90995729|NCT02528253|181876301|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.43||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|4.38|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||4.38|1.35|0.0030
90995730|NCT02528253|181876301|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.44|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.44|0.38|0.3770
90995731|NCT02528253|181876301|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.68||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.49|4.79|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||4.79|1.49|0.0009
90995732|NCT02528253|181876301|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.87|5.78|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||5.78|1.87|<.0001
90995733|NCT02528253|181876301|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.59||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.1|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.10|1.20|0.0011
90995734|NCT02528253|181876301|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|2.47|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.47|1.41|<.0001
90995735|NCT02528253|181876301|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.0273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.72|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.72|1.03|0.0273
90995736|NCT02528253|181876301|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.1736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.54|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.54|0.93|0.1736
90995737|NCT02528253|181876301|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.0092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.81|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.81|1.09|0.0092
90995738|NCT02528253|181876301|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.2|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.20|1.20|0.0015
90995739|NCT02528253|181876301|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.95|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|2.63|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.63|1.45|<.0001
90995740|NCT02528253|181876301|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.0164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.86|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.86|1.06|0.0164
90995741|NCT02528253|181876301|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.2857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.51|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.51|0.89|0.2857
90995742|NCT02528253|181876301|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.0149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.8|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.80|1.07|0.0149
90995743|NCT02528253|181876301|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.08||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|3.02|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||3.02|1.43|0.0001
90995744|NCT02528253|181876301|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|3.28|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||3.28|1.57|<.0001
90995745|NCT02528253|181876301|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.92|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.92|0.93|0.1180
90995746|NCT02528253|181876301|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|2.14|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.14|1.13|0.0062
90995747|NCT02528253|181876301|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|2.32|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.32|1.24|0.0009
91043730|NCT00483548|181973463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.3993||95.0|-0.67|1.67|||ANCOVA|||Week 5; LOCF; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||1.67|-0.67|0.3993
91043731|NCT00483548|181973463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.7647||95.0|-1.08|1.46|||ANCOVA|||Week 6; LOCF; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||1.46|-1.08|0.7647
91043732|NCT00483548|181973464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|4.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.65||0.0108||95.0|0.99|7.5|||ANCOVA|||Week 6; Observed cases; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||7.50|0.99|0.0108
91043733|NCT00483548|181973465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|-4.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.35||0.001||95.0|-7.24|-1.87|||ANCOVA|||Total SDS: Week 6; Observed cases; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||-1.87|-7.24|0.0010
91043734|NCT00483548|181973466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.12|||ANCOVA|||Days Lost: Week 6; Observed cases; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||0.12|-1.00|0.1230
91043735|NCT00483548|181973466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.6232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Days Unproductive: Week 6; Observed cases; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||0.50|-0.84|0.6232
91043736|NCT00483548|181973467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.0096||95.0|0.04|0.31|||ANCOVA|||Week 2; Observed cases; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||0.31|0.04|0.0096
91043737|NCT00483548|181973467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.8134||95.0|-0.13|0.16|||ANCOVA|||Week 4; Observed cases; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||0.16|-0.13|0.8134
91043738|NCT00483548|181973467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.0226||95.0|0.02|0.29|||ANCOVA|||Week 6; Observed cases; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||0.29|0.02|0.0226
91043739|NCT00483548|181973468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.0193||95.0|0.02|0.23|||ANCOVA|||Week 2; Observed cases; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||0.23|0.02|0.0193
91043740|NCT00483548|181973468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.4745||0.16|-0.07|0.16|||ANCOVA|||Week 4; Observed cases; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||0.16|-0.07|0.4745
91043741|NCT00483548|181973468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.2613||95.0|-0.05|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Week 6; Observed cases; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||0.19|-0.05|0.2613
91043742|NCT00483548|181973469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.0271||95.0|0.01|0.21|||ANCOVA|||Total score: Week 2; Observed cases; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||0.21|0.01|0.0271
91043743|NCT00483548|181973469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.7462||95.0|-0.07|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Total score: Week 4; Observed cases; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||0.05|-0.07|0.7462
91043744|NCT00483548|181973469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.9574||95.0|-0.08|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Total score: Week 6; Observed cases; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||0.08|-0.08|0.9574
91043745|NCT00483548|181973469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0844||95.0|-0.01|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Global severity score: Week 2; Observed cases; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||0.10|-0.01|0.0844
91043746|NCT00483548|181973469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.5779||95.0|-0.04|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Global severity score: Week 4; Observed cases; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||0.06|-0.04|0.5779
91043747|NCT00483548|181973469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.7455||95.0|-0.05|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Global severity score: Week 6; Observed cases; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||0.06|-0.05|0.7455
90995748|NCT02528253|181876301|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.69||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|4.61|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||4.61|1.56|0.0003
90995749|NCT02528253|181876301|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.82|5.28|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||5.28|1.82|<.0001
90995750|NCT02528253|181876301|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.32|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.32|0.76|0.3120
90995751|NCT02528253|181876301|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.02||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|3.14|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||3.14|1.30|0.0019
90995752|NCT02528253|181876301|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.33||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|3.59|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||3.59|1.52|0.0001
90995753|NCT02528253|181876301|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.95|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.95|1.12|0.0064
90995754|NCT02528253|181876301|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|2.31|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.31|1.32|0.0001
90995755|NCT02528253|181876301|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.2757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.48|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.48|0.89|0.2757
90995756|NCT02528253|181876301|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28||||0.0575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.65|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.65|0.99|0.0575
90995757|NCT02528253|181876301|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.52||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|1.96|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.96|1.17|0.0015
90995758|NCT02528253|181876301|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|2.16|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.16|1.23|0.0007
90995759|NCT02528253|181876301|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|2.31|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.31|1.31|0.0001
90995760|NCT02528253|181876301|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.0124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.79|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.79|1.07|0.0124
90995761|NCT02528253|181876301|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|1.91|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.91|1.15|0.0025
90995762|NCT02528253|181876301|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.82||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|2.51|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.51|1.33|0.0002
90995763|NCT02528253|181876301|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|2.79|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.79|1.48|<.0001
90995764|NCT02528253|181876301|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.5701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.49|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.49|0.80|0.5701
90995765|NCT02528253|181876301|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|2.22|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.22|1.26|0.0004
90995766|NCT02528253|181876301|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|2.46|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.46|1.40|<.0001
90995767|NCT02528253|181876301|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.07||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|3.17|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||3.17|1.35|0.0008
90995768|NCT02528253|181876301|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.84||||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|2.83|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.83|1.19|0.0059
90995769|NCT02528253|181876301|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.7741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.46|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.46|0.60|0.7741
90995770|NCT02528253|181876301|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|3.25|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||3.25|1.50|<.0001
90995771|NCT02528253|181876301|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.96||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|2.9|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.90|1.32|0.0008
90995772|NCT02528253|181876301|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.6|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.60|0.97|0.0890
91043748|NCT00483548|181973469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.3278||95.0|-0.02|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Incapacitation score: Week 2; Observed cases; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||0.05|-0.02|0.3278
91043749|NCT00483548|181973469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.9097||95.0|-0.03|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Incapacitation score: Week 4; Observed cases; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||0.03|-0.03|0.9097
90995773|NCT02528253|181876301|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.83|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.83|1.10|0.0067
90995774|NCT02528253|181876301|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.0072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.85|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.85|1.10|0.0072
91043750|NCT00483548|181973469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.9864||95.0|-0.04|0.04|||ANCOVA|||Incapacitation score: Week 6; Observed cases; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||0.04|-0.04|0.9864
90995775|NCT02528253|181876301|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.59||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|2.06|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.06|1.23|0.0004
91043751|NCT00483548|181973470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|1.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.54||0.5519||95.0|-3.5|6.53|||ANCOVA|||Total Q-LES-Q: Week 6; Observed cases; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||6.53|-3.50|0.5519
91043752|NCT00483548|181973470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.5238||95.0|-0.35|0.18|||ANCOVA|||Medications: Week 6; Observed cases; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||0.18|-0.35|0.5238
91043753|NCT00483548|181973470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.536||95.0|-0.19|0.36|||ANCOVA|||Overall life satisfaction: Week 6; Observed cases; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||0.36|-0.19|0.5360
91043754|NCT00112294|181973490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.902||||0.2358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.761|1.069||Since only 1 primary comparison was conducted, no adjustment for multiple comparisons was needed.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio of C/T/C to T/C was estimated by means of a stratified Cox's proportional hazard model, with treatment as the single covariate.|Confidence intervals calculated using Brookmeyer and Crowley method. Primary analysis was comparison of PFS between arms performed by 2-sided alpha=0.05 level, log-rank test, stratified by ECOG PS (0/1) and intended on-study taxane (docetaxel or paclitaxel). Null hypothesis was that PFS was equal in both groups. Power calculations indicated that \>=510 events (IRRC progressions/deaths) would lead to \>=90% power at the 5% level for rejecting the null hypothesis, given a true hazard ratio of 0.75.||1.069|0.761|0.2358
91043755|NCT00112294|181973491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.675||||0.0066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.152|2.436|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The odds ratio is presented for C/T/C to T/C.|The 2 groups were compared by means of a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) (alpha = 0.05 level) test stratified by ECOG PS (0 or 1) and intended on-study taxane (paclitaxel, docetaxel), as recorded at the time of randomization.||2.436|1.152|0.0066
91043756|NCT00112294|181973492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.265||||0.1501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.918|1.741|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The odds ratio is presented for C/T/C to T/C.|The 2 groups were compared by means of a CMH (alpha = 0.05 level) test stratified by ECOG PS (0 or 1) and intended on-study taxane (paclitaxel, docetaxel), as recorded at the time of randomization.||1.741|0.918|0.1501
91043757|NCT00112294|181973495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.1685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.754|1.051||An interim analysis on survival was performed. Final p-value was adjusted using an alpha spending function. At the interim analysis (data not reported here) the type 1 error was 0.0001, and the rest is for the final look.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio of C/T/C to T/C was estimated by means of a stratified Cox's proportional hazard model with treatment as the single covariate.|Confidence intervals were calculated using Brookmeyer and Crowley method. Analysis was a comparison of survival between groups by means of a 2-sided, alpha=0.05 level, log-rank test, stratified by ECOG PS (0/1) and intended on-study taxane (docetaxel or paclitaxel). Null hypothesis was that survival was equal in both treatment arms. Power calculations indicated that \>= 558 events would lead to at \>=75% power at the 5% level for rejecting the null hypothesis, given a true hazard ratio of 0.8.||1.051|0.754|0.1685
91043758|NCT00112294|181973496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Improvement of symptoms was compared between groups by means of a CMH (alpha = 0.05 level) test stratified by ECOG PS (0 or 1) and intended on-study taxane (paclitaxel, docetaxel), as recorded at the time of randomization.||||0.26
91043759|NCT03440424|181973507|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|157.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|118.18|210.87|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|||210.87|118.18|
91043760|NCT03440424|181973507|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|122.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.49|163.24|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|||163.24|91.49|
90995776|NCT02528253|181876301|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.61||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.15|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.15|1.20|0.0013
90995777|NCT02528253|181876301|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|2.39|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.39|1.34|<.0001
90995778|NCT02528253|181876301|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|3.3|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||3.30|1.51|<.0001
91043761|NCT03440424|181973508|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|122.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.95|151.17|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|||151.17|98.95|
91043762|NCT03440424|181973508|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|103.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.53|127.61|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|||127.61|83.53|
91043763|NCT03440424|181973509|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|125.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.76|162.16|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|||162.16|96.76|
91043764|NCT03440424|181973509|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|115.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.98|149.13|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|||149.13|88.98|
91043765|NCT03440424|181973510|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|131.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.46|180.4|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|||180.40|96.46|
91043766|NCT03440424|181973510|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|149.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|109.34|204.47|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|||204.47|109.34|
91043767|NCT03440424|181973511|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|125.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.96|177.74|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|||177.74|87.96|
91043768|NCT03440424|181973511|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|153.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|106.39|221.66|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|||221.66|106.39|
91043769|NCT03440424|181973512|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|128.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.35|188.02|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|||188.02|88.35|
91043770|NCT03440424|181973512|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|166.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|112.31|246.99|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|||246.99|112.31|
91043771|NCT03440424|181973513|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|96.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.15|134.06|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|M4 metabolite||134.06|70.15|
91043772|NCT03440424|181973513|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|72.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|52.12|99.6|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|M4 metabolite||99.60|52.12|
90995779|NCT02528253|181876301|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|3.71|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||3.71|1.72|<.0001
90995780|NCT02528253|181876301|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.0732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.62|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 32, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.62|0.98|0.0732
90995781|NCT02528253|181876301|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.0399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.68|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 32, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.68|1.01|0.0399
91043773|NCT03440424|181973513|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|84.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.21|118.19|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|M9 metabolite||118.19|60.21|
91043774|NCT03440424|181973513|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|65.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|46.89|92.05|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|M9 metabolite||92.05|46.89|
91043775|NCT03440424|181973513|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|94.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|68.37|131.3|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|M10 metabolite||131.30|68.37|
91043776|NCT03440424|181973513|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|76.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|55.24|106.09|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|M10 metabolite||106.09|55.24|
91043777|NCT03440424|181973515|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|99.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.91|127.81|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|M4 metabolite||127.81|76.91|
91043778|NCT03440424|181973515|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|69.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|54.03|89.79|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|M4 metabolite||89.79|54.03|
91043779|NCT03440424|181973515|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|78.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|62.88|99.21|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|M9 metabolite||99.21|62.88|
91043780|NCT03440424|181973515|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|63.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|50.31|79.38|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|M9 metabolite||79.38|50.31|
91043781|NCT03440424|181973515|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|94.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|68.5|130.51|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|M10 metabolite||130.51|68.50|
90995782|NCT02528253|181876301|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.0536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.67|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 32, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.67|1.00|0.0536
90995783|NCT02528253|181876301|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.88|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 32, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.88|1.12|0.0043
90995784|NCT02528253|181876301|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.0143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.91|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 32, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.91|1.07|0.0143
90995785|NCT02528253|181876301|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|2.16|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 32, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.16|1.23|0.0007
90995786|NCT02528253|181876301|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|2.38|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 32, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.38|1.17|0.0050
90995787|NCT02528253|181876301|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|2.4|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 32, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.40|1.18|0.0043
90995788|NCT02528253|181876301|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.2777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.48|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 40, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.48|0.89|0.2777
90995789|NCT02528253|181876301|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.0326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.7|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 40, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.70|1.02|0.0326
90995790|NCT02528253|181876301|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.1823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.55|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 40, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.55|0.92|0.1823
90995791|NCT02528253|181876301|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.71|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 40, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.71|1.02|0.0350
90995792|NCT02528253|181876301|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.0164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.88|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 40, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.88|1.07|0.0164
90995793|NCT02528253|181876301|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.0257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.84|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 40, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.84|1.04|0.0257
90995794|NCT02528253|181876301|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.64||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|2.35|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 40, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.35|1.14|0.0070
90995795|NCT02528253|181876301|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.62||||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|2.32|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 40, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.32|1.13|0.0085
90995796|NCT02528253|181876301|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.4925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.41|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.41|0.85|0.4925
90995797|NCT02528253|181876301|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.1534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.55|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.55|0.93|0.1534
90995798|NCT02528253|181876301|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.1202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.6|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.60|0.95|0.1202
90995799|NCT02528253|181876301|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.1222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.6|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.60|0.95|0.1222
90995800|NCT02528253|181876301|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.0179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.9|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.90|1.06|0.0179
90995801|NCT02528253|181876301|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.0065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.99|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.99|1.12|0.0065
90995802|NCT02528253|181876301|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53||||0.0223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.2|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.20|1.06|0.0223
91043782|NCT03440424|181973515|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|71.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|52.03|99.12|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|M10 metabolite||99.12|52.03|
90995803|NCT02528253|181876301|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68||||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|2.4|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.40|1.17|0.0045
90995804|NCT02528253|181876301|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.9385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.28|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 56, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.28|0.77|0.9385
90995805|NCT02528253|181876301|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.1093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.59|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 56, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.59|0.95|0.1093
90995806|NCT02528253|181876301|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.1631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.57|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 56, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.57|0.93|0.1631
90995807|NCT02528253|181876301|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.0285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.74|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 56, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.74|1.03|0.0285
90995808|NCT02528253|181876301|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.0389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.81|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 56, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.81|1.02|0.0389
90995809|NCT02528253|181876301|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.86|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 56, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.86|1.04|0.0240
90995810|NCT02528253|181876301|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.64||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|2.34|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 56, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.34|1.15|0.0063
90995811|NCT02528253|181876301|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|2.47|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 56, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.47|1.22|0.0021
90995812|NCT02528253|181876303|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.22|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf worst pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.22|-0.75|0.0003
90995813|NCT02528253|181876303|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.33|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf worst pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.33|-0.85|<.0001
90995814|NCT02528253|181876303|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf worst pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.01|-0.47|0.0615
90995815|NCT02528253|181876303|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf worst pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.02|-0.50|0.0356
90995816|NCT02528253|181876303|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.12|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf worst pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.12|-0.60|0.0032
90995817|NCT02528253|181876303|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.27|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf worst pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.27|-0.88|0.0003
90995818|NCT02528253|181876303|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.46|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf worst pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.46|-1.08|<.0001
90995819|NCT02528253|181876303|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf worst pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.03|-0.54|0.0844
90995820|NCT02528253|181876303|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf worst pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.04|-0.60|0.0258
91043783|NCT03440424|181973516|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|106.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.95|135.62|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|M4 metabolite||135.62|83.95|
90995821|NCT02528253|181876303|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.23|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf worst pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.23|-0.80|0.0004
90995822|NCT02528253|181876303|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.12|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf worst pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.12|-0.78|0.0079
90995823|NCT02528253|181876303|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.41|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf worst pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.41|-1.08|<.0001
90995824|NCT02528253|181876303|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf worst pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.05|-0.57|0.0977
90995825|NCT02528253|181876303|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf worst pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.11|-0.50|0.2150
90995826|NCT02528253|181876303|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.18|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf worst pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.18|-0.79|0.0016
90995827|NCT02528253|181876303|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.15|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf worst pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.15|-0.88|0.0058
90995828|NCT02528253|181876303|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.18|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf worst pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.18|-0.91|0.0038
90995829|NCT02528253|181876303|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.1707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf worst pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.10|-0.58|0.1707
90995830|NCT02528253|181876303|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.1083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf worst pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.06|-0.62|0.1083
90995831|NCT02528253|181876303|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf worst pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.03|-0.64|0.0734
91043784|NCT03440424|181973516|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|85.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|67.41|108.9|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|M4 metabolite||108.90|67.41|
91043785|NCT03440424|181973516|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|75.41|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|62.28|91.31|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|M9 metabolite||91.31|62.28|
91043786|NCT03440424|181973516|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|76.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|62.76|92.02|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|M9 metabolite||92.02|62.76|
90995832|NCT02528253|181876303|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.4603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.25|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf worst pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.25|-0.56|0.4603
90995833|NCT02528253|181876303|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.04|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf worst pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.04|-0.74|0.0799
90995834|NCT02528253|181876303|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.2339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.16|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf worst pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.16|-0.66|0.2339
91043787|NCT03440424|181973516|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|95.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|71.92|126.94|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|M10 metabolite||126.94|71.92|
90995835|NCT02528253|181876303|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.1199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf worst pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.08|-0.73|0.1199
91043788|NCT03440424|181973516|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|74.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|56.06|98.94|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|M10 metabolite||98.94|56.06|
90995836|NCT02528253|181876303|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.23|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf worst pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.23|-0.60|0.3840
90995837|NCT02528253|181876303|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.14|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf worst pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.14|-0.68|0.2000
91043789|NCT03440424|181973517|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|113.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.16|150.05|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|M4 metabolite||150.05|85.16|
90995838|NCT02528253|181876303|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.2997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf worst pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.20|-0.65|0.2997
90995839|NCT02528253|181876303|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.1778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.13|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf worst pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.13|-0.71|0.1778
90995840|NCT02528253|181876303|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.3438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.23|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf worst pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.23|-0.65|0.3438
90995841|NCT02528253|181876303|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.1876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.14|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf worst pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.14|-0.71|0.1876
90995842|NCT02528253|181876305|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.22|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf average pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.22|-0.72|0.0002
90995843|NCT02528253|181876305|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.29|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf average pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.29|-0.79|<.0001
90995844|NCT02528253|181876305|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf average pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.04|-0.50|0.0193
90995845|NCT02528253|181876305|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf average pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.03|-0.42|0.0845
90995846|NCT02528253|181876305|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf average pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.04|-0.49|0.0212
90995847|NCT02528253|181876305|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf average pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.24|-0.81|0.0003
90995848|NCT02528253|181876305|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.41|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf average pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.41|-0.99|<.0001
90995849|NCT02528253|181876305|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf worst pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.03|-0.50|0.0790
90995850|NCT02528253|181876305|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf average pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.02|-0.55|0.0336
90995851|NCT02528253|181876305|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.19|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf average pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.19|-0.73|0.0008
90995852|NCT02528253|181876305|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.15|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf average pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.15|-0.77|0.0034
90995853|NCT02528253|181876305|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.39|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf average pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.39|-1.01|<.0001
91043790|NCT03440424|181973517|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|103.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.16|137.7|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|M4 metabolite||137.70|78.16|
90995854|NCT02528253|181876305|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf average pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.02|-0.59|0.0361
90995855|NCT02528253|181876305|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.2786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.13|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf average pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.13|-0.44|0.2786
90995856|NCT02528253|181876305|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf average pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.11|-0.68|0.0058
90995857|NCT02528253|181876305|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf average pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.02|-0.71|0.0365
90995858|NCT02528253|181876305|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf average pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.11|-0.80|0.0092
90995859|NCT02528253|181876305|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.2923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.15|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf average pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.15|-0.49|0.2923
90995860|NCT02528253|181876305|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.2231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.12|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf average pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.12|-0.51|0.2231
91043791|NCT03440424|181973517|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|78.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|62.57|98.78|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|M9 metabolite||98.78|62.57|
91043792|NCT03440424|181973517|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|101.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.38|126.9|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|M9 metabolite||126.90|80.38|
90995861|NCT02528253|181876305|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf average pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.03|-0.60|0.0724
90995862|NCT02528253|181876305|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.4776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.23|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf average pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.23|-0.50|0.4776
90995863|NCT02528253|181876305|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.1482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf average pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.10|-0.64|0.1482
91043793|NCT03440424|181973517|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|109.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.07|147.88|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|M10 metabolite||147.88|81.07|
91043794|NCT03440424|181973517|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|105.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.89|142.08|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|M10 metabolite||142.08|77.89|
90995864|NCT02528253|181876305|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.3249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.18|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf average pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.18|-0.56|0.3249
90995865|NCT02528253|181876305|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.1997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.13|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf average pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.13|-0.62|0.1997
90995866|NCT02528253|181876305|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.4823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.25|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf average pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.25|-0.53|0.4823
90995867|NCT02528253|181876305|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.2754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf average pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.17|-0.60|0.2754
90995868|NCT02528253|181876305|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.5861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.29|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf average pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.29|-0.50|0.5861
90995869|NCT02528253|181876305|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.4346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.23|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf average pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.23|-0.54|0.4346
90995870|NCT02528253|181876305|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.8752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.36|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf average pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.36|-0.42|0.8752
90995871|NCT02528253|181876305|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.2663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf average pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.17|-0.60|0.2663
90995872|NCT02528253|181876307|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.19|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference index, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.19|-0.77|0.0013
90995873|NCT02528253|181876307|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.28|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference index, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.28|-0.87|0.0001
90995874|NCT02528253|181876307|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.2272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference index, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.10|-0.43|0.2272
90995875|NCT02528253|181876307|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference index, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.05|-0.58|0.0209
90995876|NCT02528253|181876307|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.14|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference index, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.14|-0.67|0.0029
90995877|NCT02528253|181876307|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|-0.28|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference index, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.28|-0.92|0.0002
90995878|NCT02528253|181876307|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.46|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference index, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.46|-1.10|<.0001
90995879|NCT02528253|181876307|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.1198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference index, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.06|-0.53|0.1198
90995880|NCT02528253|181876307|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.07|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference index, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.07|-0.66|0.0160
90995881|NCT02528253|181876307|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.25|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference index, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.25|-0.85|0.0003
90995882|NCT02528253|181876307|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference index, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.11|-0.77|0.0091
91043795|NCT03440424|181973518|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|115.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.51|159.42|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|M4 metabolite||159.42|83.51|
90995883|NCT02528253|181876307|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference index, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.24|-0.90|0.0007
91043796|NCT03440424|181973518|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|116.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.66|161.62|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|M4 metabolite||161.62|84.66|
90995884|NCT02528253|181876307|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.2264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference index, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.11|-0.48|0.2264
90995885|NCT02528253|181876307|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference index, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.05|-0.56|0.0961
90995886|NCT02528253|181876307|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.08|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference index, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.08|-0.69|0.0121
90995887|NCT02528253|181876307|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference index, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.05|-0.77|0.0270
90995888|NCT02528253|181876307|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.21|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference index, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.21|-0.94|0.0019
90995889|NCT02528253|181876307|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.3906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference index, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.19|-0.48|0.3906
91043797|NCT03440424|181973518|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|78.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|61.06|100.81|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|M9 metabolite||100.81|61.06|
90995890|NCT02528253|181876307|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.1209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference index, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.07|-0.59|0.1209
90995891|NCT02528253|181876307|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference index, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.10|-0.76|0.0107
90995892|NCT02528253|181876307|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.2396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.15|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference index, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.15|-0.61|0.2396
90995893|NCT02528253|181876307|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.1088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference index, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.07|-0.69|0.1088
90995894|NCT02528253|181876307|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.1673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference index, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.11|-0.65|0.1673
90995895|NCT02528253|181876307|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.1751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.12|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference index, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.12|-0.66|0.1751
90995896|NCT02528253|181876307|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.3164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference index, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.19|-0.59|0.3164
90995897|NCT02528253|181876307|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.2253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.15|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference index, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.15|-0.62|0.2253
90995898|NCT02528253|181876307|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.3408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference index, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.20|-0.58|0.3408
90995899|NCT02528253|181876307|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.3391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference index, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.20|-0.58|0.3391
90995900|NCT02528253|181876307|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.5818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.28|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference index, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.28|-0.50|0.5818
90995901|NCT02528253|181876307|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.2562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.16|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference index, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.16|-0.62|0.2562
90995902|NCT02528253|181876309|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.08|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with general activity, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.08|-0.69|0.0137
90995903|NCT02528253|181876309|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.14|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with general activity, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.14|-0.76|0.0044
90995904|NCT02528253|181876309|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.6194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.21|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with general activity, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.21|-0.35|0.6194
90995905|NCT02528253|181876309|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with general activity, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.04|-0.59|0.0271
91043798|NCT03440424|181973518|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|116.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.95|151.56|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|M9 metabolite||151.56|89.95|
90995906|NCT02528253|181876309|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with general activity, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.10|-0.66|0.0085
90995907|NCT02528253|181876309|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.18|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with general activity, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.18|-0.87|0.0027
90995908|NCT02528253|181876309|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|-0.44|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with general activity, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.44|-1.13|<.0001
91043799|NCT03440424|181973518|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|94.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.31|128.28|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|M10 metabolite||128.28|70.31|
91043800|NCT03440424|181973518|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|103.59|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.43|142.28|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|M10 metabolite||142.28|75.43|
91043801|NCT05070754|181973527|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.534|||||||Chi-squared|||Outcome measures 1-3 were all tested together. Null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the degree of lesion resolution between the two treatment methods.||||0.534
91043802|NCT05070754|181973528|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.534|||||||Chi-squared|||Outcome measures 1-3 were all tested together. Null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the degree of lesion resolution between the two treatment methods.||||0.534
91043803|NCT05070754|181973529|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.534|||||||Chi-squared|||Outcome measures 1-3 were all tested together. Null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the degree of lesion resolution between the two treatment methods.||||0.534
91043804|NCT05070754|181973530|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91043805|NCT05070754|181973531|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.142|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Null hypothesis: there was no difference in median pain levels between SOC and NTAP treated lesions.||||0.142
91043806|NCT02958319|181973542|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|4.1||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|||||p \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant|GENERAL LINEAL MODEL|GENERAL LINEAL MODEL OF REPEATED MEASURES||||||0.82
91043807|NCT00372996|181973543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.912||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.744|1.118|||Log Rank|2-sided p-value from an unstratified log-rank text|Hazard ratio was based on Cox proportional hazards model.|||1.118|0.744|0.560
91043808|NCT00372996|181973544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.764||||0.331|TWO_SIDED|70.0|0.572|1.02||2-sided p-value from unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank||Hazard ratio was based on the Cox proportional hazards model.|||1.020|0.572|0.331
91043809|NCT00372996|181973545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.79||||0.463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|17.6|||Pearson chi-square test|||||17.6|-8.0|0.463
91043810|NCT01098539|181973554|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The p-value was from a 1-sided t test to test whether the difference of LS means (albiglutide - sitagliptin) was less than or equal to the prespecified noninferiority margin of 0.4%.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|-0.15|||t-test, 1 sided|||||-0.15|-0.49|<0.0001
91043811|NCT03173560|181973584|NON_INFERIORITY|Odd ratio for ORR24W was analyzed along with 90% CI for each treatment arm using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method, stratified by Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) prognostic group and prior programmed cell death protein 1/ programmed cell death protein ligand 1 (PD-1/PD-L1) treatment from IxRS data. Non-inferiority would be claimed if 1-sided P value is \<=0.045 at the final analysis for the non-inferiority test with the non-inferiority margin of the odd ratio =0.76.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.2676|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.59|1.32|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.32|0.59|0.2676
91043812|NCT03173560|181973585|SUPERIORITY|Percentage of participants with intolerable Grade 2 or any Grade \>=Grade 3 TEAEs within 24 weeks was tested using CMH method at 2-sided α=0.05, stratified by MSKCC prognostic group and prior PD-1/PD-L1 treatment from IxRS data. The treatment difference and 95% CI were also calculated based on asymptotic normal approximation.|Difference|3.2||||0.4763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|11.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||11.9|-5.5|0.4763
91043813|NCT03173560|181973586|OTHER|The hazard ratio and the corresponding 90% CIs were estimated using the Cox regression model with Efron's method for ties, stratified by MSKCC prognostic group and prior PD-1/PD-L1 treatment.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.08|1.86||||||||1.86|1.08|
91043814|NCT03173560|181973587|OTHER|Odd ratio for ORR was analyzed along with 90% CI for each treatment arm using CMH method stratified by MSKCC prognostic group and PD-1/PD-L1 treatment from IxRS data.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.52|1.14||||||||1.14|0.52|
91043815|NCT02174276|181973602|SUPERIORITY|Estimated differences in treatment effects between GS-4774 treatment groups and the TDF only group at Week 24 are presented with the 95% CIs and unadjusted P-values.|Least Square Mean Difference|-0.017||||0.805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.155|0.12|||Mixed-Effect Model for Repeated Measures|||The null hypotheses was that the mean change from baseline in serum HBsAg in each of the TDF + GS-4774 groups was equal to the mean change from baseline in serum HBsAg in the TDF only group. Each null hypothesis was tested against the 2-sided alternative hypothesis that the mean change from baseline in serum HBsAg was not equal between each of the respective GS-4774 dose groups and the TDF only group.||0.120|-0.155|0.805
90995909|NCT02528253|181876309|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.1859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with general activity, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.10|-0.54|0.1859
90995910|NCT02528253|181876309|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with general activity, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.01|-0.63|0.0573
90995911|NCT02528253|181876309|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.25|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with general activity, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.25|-0.88|0.0005
90995912|NCT02528253|181876309|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.04|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with general activity, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.04|-0.66|0.0841
90995913|NCT02528253|181876309|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.13|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with general activity, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.13|-0.85|0.0074
90995914|NCT02528253|181876309|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.16|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with general activity, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.16|-0.49|0.3160
90995915|NCT02528253|181876309|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.3763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.18|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with general activity, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.18|-0.47|0.3763
90995916|NCT02528253|181876309|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with general activity, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.00|-0.65|0.0505
90995917|NCT02528253|181876309|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with general activity, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.11|-0.88|0.0118
90995918|NCT02528253|181876309|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.25|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with general activity, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.25|-1.03|0.0012
90995919|NCT02528253|181876309|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.2966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with general activity, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.17|-0.54|0.2966
90995920|NCT02528253|181876309|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with general activity, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.05|-0.66|0.0956
90995921|NCT02528253|181876309|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with general activity, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.10|-0.81|0.0117
90995922|NCT02528253|181876309|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.3732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.21|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with general activity, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.21|-0.57|0.3732
90995923|NCT02528253|181876309|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.1922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.13|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with general activity, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.13|-0.66|0.1922
90995924|NCT02528253|181876309|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.2986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with general activity, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.19|-0.63|0.2986
90995925|NCT02528253|181876309|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.2584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with general activity, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.17|-0.65|0.2584
90995926|NCT02528253|181876309|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.5195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.29|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with general activity, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.29|-0.57|0.5195
90995927|NCT02528253|181876309|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.3752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.22|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with general activity, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.22|-0.60|0.3752
90995928|NCT02528253|181876309|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.5157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.28|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with general activity, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.28|-0.56|0.5157
90995929|NCT02528253|181876309|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.5065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.28|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with general activity, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.28|-0.56|0.5065
90995930|NCT02528253|181876309|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.8373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.38|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with general activity, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.38|-0.47|0.8373
90995931|NCT02528253|181876309|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.5146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.28|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with general activity, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.28|-0.56|0.5146
90995932|NCT02528253|181876311|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.13|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with walking ability, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.13|-0.76|0.0059
90995933|NCT02528253|181876311|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|-0.29|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with walking ability, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.29|-0.93|0.0002
90995934|NCT02528253|181876311|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with walking ability, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.03|-0.56|0.0756
90995935|NCT02528253|181876311|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.2197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with walking ability, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.11|-0.47|0.2197
90995936|NCT02528253|181876311|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with walking ability, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.05|-0.63|0.0208
90995937|NCT02528253|181876311|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.22|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with walking ability, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.22|-0.91|0.0013
90995938|NCT02528253|181876311|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.39|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with walking ability, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.39|-1.08|<.0001
90995939|NCT02528253|181876311|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.1873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with walking ability, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.10|-0.53|0.1873
90995940|NCT02528253|181876311|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with walking ability, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.03|-0.66|0.0305
90995941|NCT02528253|181876311|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with walking ability, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.20|-0.84|0.0013
91043816|NCT02174276|181973602|SUPERIORITY|Estimated differences in treatment effects between GS-4774 treatment groups and the TDF only group at Week 24 are presented with the 95% CIs and unadjusted P-values.|Least Square Mean Difference|0.063||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.075|0.202|||Mixed-Effect Model for Repeated Measures|||The null hypotheses was that the mean change from baseline in serum HBsAg in each of the TDF + GS-4774 groups was equal to the mean change from baseline in serum HBsAg in the TDF only group. Each null hypothesis was tested against the 2-sided alternative hypothesis that the mean change from baseline in serum HBsAg was not equal between each of the respective GS-4774 dose groups and the TDF only group.||0.202|-0.075|0.370
91043817|NCT02174276|181973602|SUPERIORITY|Estimated differences in treatment effects between GS-4774 treatment groups and the TDF only group at Week 24 are presented with the 95% CIs and unadjusted P-values.|Least Square Mean Difference|-0.056||||0.426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.194|0.082|||Mixed-Effect Model for Repeated Measures|||The null hypotheses was that the mean change from baseline in serum HBsAg in each of the TDF + GS-4774 groups was equal to the mean change from baseline in serum HBsAg in the TDF only group. Each null hypothesis was tested against the 2-sided alternative hypothesis that the mean change from baseline in serum HBsAg was not equal between each of the respective GS-4774 dose groups and the TDF only group.||0.082|-0.194|0.426
91043818|NCT01589601|181973642|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.8719||||0.1641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0289|11.7728|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline||||11.7728|-2.0289|0.1641
91043819|NCT01589601|181973642|SUPERIORITY|6 Months|Mean Difference (Net)|9.4938||||0.0299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9406|18.047|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||18.0470|0.9406|0.0299
91043820|NCT01589601|181973643|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.7157||||0.5531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3054|11.7368|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline||||11.7368|-6.3054|0.5531
90995942|NCT02528253|181876311|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.08|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with walking ability, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.08|-0.78|0.0158
90995943|NCT02528253|181876311|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.21|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with walking ability, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.21|-0.91|0.0015
90995944|NCT02528253|181876311|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.4173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with walking ability, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.19|-0.45|0.4173
91043821|NCT01589601|181973643|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|11.773||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8409|22.7052|||Mixed Models Analysis|6 Months||||22.7052|0.8409|0.0350
91043822|NCT01589601|181973644|SUPERIORITY|HADS Anxiety 2 weeks|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2436||||0.1592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9817|0.4945|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.4945|-2.9817|0.1592
91043823|NCT01589601|181973644|SUPERIORITY|HADS Anxiety 3 months|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7946||||0.3657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5285|0.9393|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.9393|-2.5285|0.3657
90995945|NCT02528253|181876311|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with walking ability, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.02|-0.62|0.0659
91043824|NCT01589601|181973644|SUPERIORITY|HADS Anxiety 6 months|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.8269||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6375|-0.0164|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.0164|-3.6375|0.0480
91043825|NCT01589601|181973644|SUPERIORITY|HADS Depression at 2 weeks|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9097||||0.2372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4253|0.6058|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.6058|-2.4253|0.2372
90995946|NCT02528253|181876311|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with walking ability, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.11|-0.74|0.0078
90995947|NCT02528253|181876311|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with walking ability, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.03|-0.72|0.0737
90995948|NCT02528253|181876311|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.22|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with walking ability, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.22|-0.97|0.0021
90995949|NCT02528253|181876311|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.4535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.21|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with walking ability, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.21|-0.48|0.4535
90995950|NCT02528253|181876311|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.2271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.13|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with walking ability, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.13|-0.56|0.2271
90995951|NCT02528253|181876311|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.12|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with walking ability, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.12|-0.81|0.0086
90995952|NCT02528253|181876311|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.2243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.15|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with walking ability, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.15|-0.63|0.2243
90995953|NCT02528253|181876311|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with walking ability, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.03|-0.81|0.0331
91043826|NCT01589601|181973644|SUPERIORITY|HADS Depression 3 months|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6592||||0.4237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2862|0.9678|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.9678|-2.2862|0.4237
91043827|NCT01589601|181973644|SUPERIORITY|HADS Depression at 6 months|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.9379||||0.0202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5672|-0.3085|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.3085|-3.5672|0.0202
91043828|NCT01589601|181973646|SUPERIORITY|FACIT-Sp at 2 weeks|Mean Difference (Net)|0.9413||||0.5857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4666|4.3493|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.3493|-2.4666|0.5857
91043829|NCT01589601|181973646|SUPERIORITY|FACIT-Sp at 3 months|Mean Difference (Net)|1.1174||||0.5655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7246|4.9594|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.9594|-2.7246|0.5655
90995954|NCT02528253|181876311|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.1838|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.13|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with walking ability, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.13|-0.66|0.1838
90995955|NCT02528253|181876311|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.04|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with walking ability, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.04|-0.75|0.0795
90995956|NCT02528253|181876311|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.2847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.18|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with walking ability, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.18|-0.63|0.2847
90995957|NCT02528253|181876311|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.04|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with walking ability, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.04|-0.76|0.0745
90995958|NCT02528253|181876311|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with walking ability, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.19|-0.59|0.3110
90995959|NCT02528253|181876311|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.1375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with walking ability, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.10|-0.70|0.1375
91043830|NCT01589601|181973646|SUPERIORITY|FACIT-Sp at 6 months|Mean Difference (Net)|3.9809||||0.0271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4581|7.5036|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.5036|0.4581|0.0271
91043831|NCT01589601|181973648|SUPERIORITY|All-cause readmissions, Poisson regression with log link and Pearson scale||||||0.56|||||||Poisson regression|||||||0.56
90995960|NCT02528253|181876311|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.4036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.23|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with walking ability, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.23|-0.58|0.4036
91043832|NCT01589601|181973648|SUPERIORITY|Cardiovascular readmissions, Poisson regression with log link and Pearson scale||||||0.8|||||||Poisson regression|||||||0.80
91043833|NCT01589601|181973648|SUPERIORITY|Heart failure readmissions, Poisson regression with log link and Pearson scale||||||0.92|||||||Poisson regression|||||||0.92
91043834|NCT01589601|181973648|SUPERIORITY|Non-cardiovascular readmissions, Poisson regression with log link and Pearson scale||||||0.12|||||||Poisson regression|||||||0.12
91043835|NCT00434837|181973649|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||ANOVA|||These results are from the 3-year analysis.||||.27
91043836|NCT00434837|181973650|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||ANOVA|||These results are from the 7-year analysis.||||.08
91043837|NCT00434837|181973651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||ANOVA|||These results are from the 15-year analysis.||||.22
91043838|NCT00434837|181973652|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0078|||||||ANOVA|||These results are from the 15-year analysis.||||.0078
91043839|NCT00434837|181973653|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0018|||||||ANOVA|||These results are from the 15-year analysis.||||.0018
91043840|NCT00434837|181973654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015|||||||ANOVA|||These results are from the 15-year analysis.||||.015
91043841|NCT00434837|181973655|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||ANOVA|||These results are from the 15-year analysis.||||.003
91043842|NCT00434837|181973656|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0006|||||||ANOVA|||These results are from the 15-year analysis.||||.0006
91043843|NCT00434837|181973657|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||ANOVA|||These results are from the 15-year analysis.||||.15
91043844|NCT00434837|181973658|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Chi-squared|||These results are from the 15-year analysis.||||.34
91043845|NCT00434837|181973659|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||ANOVA|||These results are from the 15-year analysis.||||.17
91043846|NCT00434837|181973660|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||ANOVA|||These results are from the 15-year analysis.||||.25
91043847|NCT00434837|181973661|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||ANOVA|||These results are from the 15-year analysis.||||.61
91043848|NCT00434837|181973662|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||ANOVA|||These results are from the 15-year analysis.||||.15
91043849|NCT00434837|181973663|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53|||||||ANOVA|||These results are from the 15-year analysis.||||.53
91043850|NCT00434837|181973664|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||ANOVA|||These results are from the 15-year analysis.||||.82
91043851|NCT00434837|181973665|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||ANOVA|||These results are from the 15-year analysis.||||.03
91043852|NCT00434837|181973666|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||ANOVA|||These results are from the 15-year analysis.||||.67
91043853|NCT00434837|181973668|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.051|||||||ANOVA|||These results are from the 15-year analysis.||||.051
91043854|NCT00434837|181973669|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||ANOVA|||These results were from the 15-year analysis.||||.14
91043855|NCT00434837|181973670|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.067|||||||ANOVA|||These results are from the 15-year analysis.||||.067
91043856|NCT00434837|181973671|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||ANOVA|||These results were from the 7-year analysis.||||.54
91043857|NCT00434837|181973672|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||ANOVA|||These results are from the 15-year analysis.||||.08
91043858|NCT01263561|181973737|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A sample size calculation determined that 52 eyes were required to detect a 2.0 mmHg IOP difference with a power of 80%.||||||0.85|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.85
91043859|NCT01263561|181973738|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation only for main outcome measure of IOP.||||||0.24|TWO_SIDED||||||Kaplan Meier|||||||.24
91043860|NCT01263561|181973739|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation only performed for main outcome measure of IOP.||||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|||||Above p is for number of subjects with any complication. P values above 0.05 are considered statistically insignificant in this study.|Chi-squared|||||||0.80
91043861|NCT04728620|181973751|SUPERIORITY|single group|mean|79.3||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||"One-sample t-test comparing the sample mean to the threshold value of 71 indicative of good usability. The null hypothesis: true mean is 71 or less."||||0.001
91043862|NCT04728620|181973753|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.57||||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.005
91043863|NCT04728620|181973754|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.85||||0.19|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.19
91043864|NCT04728620|181973755|OTHER|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||Analysis for pre-post change in knowledge of recommended A1c monitoring frequency||||1
91043865|NCT04728620|181973755|OTHER|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||Analysis for pre-post change in knowledge of recommended urine microalbumin screening frequency||||1
91043866|NCT04728620|181973755|OTHER|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||Analysis for pre-post change in knowledge of recommended pneumonia vaccination frequency||||1
91043867|NCT04728620|181973755|OTHER|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||Analysis for pre-post change in knowledge of recommended diabetes eye exam frequency||||1
91043868|NCT00749658|181973767|OTHER|Two tailed testing||||||0.07|||||||SAS|||||||0.07
91043869|NCT03298880|181973789|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|5.3|||mixed linear regression|||||5.3|2.1|<0.001
91043870|NCT03298880|181973789|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.3||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|3.8|||mixed linear regression|||||3.8|0.8|0.003
91043871|NCT01488448|181973797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.73
91043872|NCT01488448|181973798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.77
91043873|NCT01488448|181973799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.97
91043874|NCT01488448|181973800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.67
91043875|NCT01488448|181973801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.39
91043876|NCT01488448|181973802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.18
91043877|NCT01488448|181973805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.96
91043878|NCT01992094|181973807|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the ratio of GMTs (GMT TIV1c/GMT QIVc) for HI antibody does not exceed the non-inferiority margin of 1.5|Ratios of GMT|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.1|||ANCOVA|||Non-inferiority of immune responses of QIVc to TIV1c, assessed in terms of ratios of GMT against influenza strain H1N1||1.1|0.9|
91043879|NCT01992094|181973807|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the ratio of GMTs (GMT TIV1c/GMT QIVc) for HI antibody does not exceed the non-inferiority margin of 1.5|Ratios of GMT|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.1|||ANCOVA|||Non-inferiority of immune responses of QIVc to TIV1c, assessed in terms of ratios of GMT against influenza strain H3N2||1.1|0.9|
91043880|NCT01992094|181973807|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the ratio of GMTs (GMT TIV1c/GMT QIVc) for HI antibody does not exceed the non-inferiority margin of 1.5|Ratios of GMT|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.0|||ANCOVA|||Non-inferiority of immune responses of QIVc to TIV1c, assessed in terms of ratios of GMT against influenza strain B1||1.0|0.8|
91043881|NCT01992094|181973807|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the ratio of GMTs (GMT TIV2c/GMT QIVc) for HI antibody does not exceed the non-inferiority margin of 1.5|Ratios of GMT|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.0|||ANCOVA|||Non-inferiority of immune responses of QIVc to TIV2c, assessed in terms of ratios of GMT against influenza strain B2||1.0|0.9|
91043882|NCT01992094|181973808|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference between seroconversion rates (% seroconversion TIV1c - % seroconversion QIVc) for HI antibody does not exceed the margin of 10%|Difference between seroconversion rates|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|4.2|||ANCOVA|||Non-inferiority of immune responses of QIVc to TIV1c in terms of differences in seroconversion rates against influenza strain H1N1||4.2|-5.3|
91043883|NCT01992094|181973808|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference between seroconversion rates (% seroconversion TIV1c - % seroconversion QIVc) for HI antibody does not exceed the margin of 10%|Difference between seroconversion rates|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|1.9|||ANCOVA|||Non-inferiority of immune responses of QIVc to TIV1c in terms of differences in seroconversion rates against influenza strainH3N2||1.9|-7.2|
91043884|NCT01992094|181973808|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference between seroconversion rates (% seroconversion TIV1c - % seroconversion QIVc) for HI antibody does not exceed the margin of 10%|Difference between seroconversion rates|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|2.8|||ANCOVA|||Non-inferiority of immune responses of QIVc to TIV1c in terms of differences in seroconversion rates against influenza strain B1||2.8|-6.2|
91043885|NCT01992094|181973808|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference between seroconversion rates (% seroconversion TIV2c - % seroconversion QIVc) for HI antibody does not exceed the margin of 10%|Difference between seroconversion rates|-4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Non-inferiority of immune responses of QIVc to TIV2c in terms of differences in seroconversion rates against influenza strain B2||0.2|-8.9|
91043886|NCT01992094|181973814|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMTs (GMT TIV1c or TIV2c /GMT QIVc) for HI antibody should not exceed the superiority margin of 1.|Ratios of GMT|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.7||||||Superiority of immune responses of QIVc to TIV1c in terms of ratios of GMT against influenza strain B2||0.7|0.6|
91043887|NCT01992094|181973815|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between seroconversion rates (% seroconversion TIV1c or TIV2c - % seroconversion QIVc) for HI antibody should not exceed the margin of 0 points.|Difference between seroconversion rates|-19.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.2|-15.5||||||Superiority of immune responses of QIVc to TIV1c in terms of seroconversion rates against influenza strain B2||-15.5|-23.2|
91043888|NCT01992094|181973816|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMTs (GMT TIV1c or TIV2c /GMT QIVc) for HI antibody should not exceed the superiority margin of 1.|Ratios of GMT|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.5||||||Superiority of immune responses of QIVc to TIV2c in terms of ratios of GMT against influenza strain B1||0.5|0.5|
91043889|NCT01992094|181973817|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between seroconversion rates (% seroconversion TIV1c or TIV2c - %seroconversion QIVc) for HI antibody should not exceed the margin of 0 points.|Difference between seroconversion rates|-21.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.5|-17.7||||||Superiority of immune responses of QIVc to TIV2c in terms of seroconversion rates against influenza strain B1||-17.7|-25.5|
91043890|NCT01214239|181973828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.71|-0.28|||ANCOVA|||||-0.28|-0.71|<0.0001
91043891|NCT01214239|181973829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.383|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.074|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.527|-0.238|||ANCOVA|||||-0.238|-0.527|<0.0001
91043892|NCT01214239|181973830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.677|-0.323|||ANCOVA|||||-0.323|-0.677|<0.0001
91043893|NCT01214239|181973831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.512|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.098|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.705|-0.318|||ANCOVA|||||-0.318|-0.705|<0.0001
91043894|NCT01214239|181973832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0001||95.0|-0.69|-0.23|||ANCOVA|||||-0.23|-0.69|0.0001
91043895|NCT01214239|181973833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-11.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1||0.0003||95.0|-17.2|-5.2|||ANCOVA|||||-5.2|-17.2|0.0003
91043896|NCT01214239|181973834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-8.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3||0.0086||95.0|-15.4|-2.3|||ANCOVA|||||-2.3|-15.4|0.0086
91043897|NCT01214239|181973835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-9.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8||0.0135||95.0|-17.0|-2.0|||ANCOVA|||||-2.0|-17.0|0.0135
91043898|NCT01214239|181973836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-9.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8||0.0113||95.0|-17.1|-2.2|||ANCOVA|||||-2.2|-17.1|0.0113
91043899|NCT01214239|181973838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.552||||0.0021||95.0|1.407|4.629|||Regression, Logistic|The odds-ratio is based on a logistic regression model including baseline HbA1c and previous antidiabetic medication||Comparison by odds ratio for the patients with a baseline HbA1c \>= 7.0%||4.629|1.407|0.0021
91043900|NCT01214239|181973840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.583||||0.25||95.0|0.724|3.46|||Regression, Logistic|||Comparison by odds ratio for the patients with a baseline HbA1c \>= 6.5%||3.46|0.724|0.2500
91043901|NCT01214239|181973841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.527||||0.0005||95.0|1.494|4.276|||Regression, Logistic|The odds-ratio is based on a logistic regression model including baseline HbA1c and previous antidiabetic medication||||4.276|1.494|0.0005
91043902|NCT02625298|181973854|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.01
91043903|NCT04773600|181973887|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.962|5.183|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site and vIGA-AD randomization strata|Stratified by pooled study site and vIGA-AD randomization strata|vIGA Success at Week 4||5.183|1.962|<0.0001
91043904|NCT04773600|181973888|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.996|5.687|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site|Stratified by pooled study site|vIGA Success at Week 4 in Participants with Baseline vIGA = 'Moderate'||5.687|1.996|<0.0001
91043905|NCT04773600|181973889|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.281|8.658|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site and vIGA-AD randomization strata|Stratified by pooled study site and vIGA-AD randomization strata|vIGA-AD Success at Week 2||8.658|2.281|<0.0001
91043906|NCT04773600|181973890|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.99||||0.1156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.832|4.782|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site and vIGA-AD randomization strata|Stratified by pooled study site and vIGA-AD randomization strata|vIGA-AD Success at Week 1||4.782|0.832|0.1156
91043907|NCT04773600|181973891|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.71||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.448|5.066|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site and vIGA-AD randomization strata|Stratified by pooled study site and vIGA-AD randomization strata|≥4-Point Reduction in WI-NRS at Week 4||5.066|1.448|0.0014
91043908|NCT04773600|181973892|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.55||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.591|7.927|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site and vIGA-AD randomization strata|Stratified by pooled study site and vIGA-AD randomization strata|≥4-Point Reduction in WI-NRS at Week 2||7.927|1.591|0.0015
91043909|NCT04773600|181973893|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.84||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.717|35.764|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site and vIGA-AD randomization strata|Stratified by pooled study site and vIGA-AD randomization strata|≥4-Point Reduction in WI-NRS at Week 1||35.764|1.717|0.0020
91043910|NCT04773600|181973894|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.108|4.964|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site and vIGA-AD randomization strata|Stratified by pooled study site and vIGA-AD randomization strata|EASI-75 at Week 4||4.964|2.108|<0.0001
91043911|NCT04773600|181973895|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.191|5.24|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site and vIGA-AD randomization strata|Stratified by pooled study site and vIGA-AD randomization strata|vIGA-AD Score of 'Clear' or 'Almost Clear' at Week 4||5.240|2.191|<0.0001
90995961|NCT02528253|181876311|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with walking ability, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.02|-0.79|0.0641
90995962|NCT02528253|181876313|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.17|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with sleep, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.17|-0.85|0.0037
90995963|NCT02528253|181876313|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.22|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with sleep, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.22|-0.91|0.0013
90995964|NCT02528253|181876313|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.1712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.09|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with sleep, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.09|-0.53|0.1712
90995965|NCT02528253|181876313|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with sleep, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.02|-0.60|0.0686
90995966|NCT02528253|181876313|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with sleep, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.04|-0.66|0.0289
90995967|NCT02528253|181876313|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with sleep, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.30|-1.02|0.0003
90995968|NCT02528253|181876313|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|-0.49|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with sleep, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.49|-1.22|<.0001
90995969|NCT02528253|181876313|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.2056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.12|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with sleep, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.12|-0.55|0.2056
90995970|NCT02528253|181876313|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with sleep, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.11|-0.78|0.0084
90995971|NCT02528253|181876313|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.31|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with sleep, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.31|-0.98|0.0002
90995972|NCT02528253|181876313|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.15|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with sleep, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.15|-0.90|0.0063
90995973|NCT02528253|181876313|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|-0.34|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with sleep, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.34|-1.09|0.0002
90995974|NCT02528253|181876313|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.1155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with sleep, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.07|-0.63|0.1155
90995975|NCT02528253|181876313|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.1652|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with sleep, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.10|-0.59|0.1652
90995976|NCT02528253|181876313|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.09|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with sleep, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.09|-0.78|0.0129
90995977|NCT02528253|181876313|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.06|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with sleep, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.06|-0.87|0.0236
90995978|NCT02528253|181876313|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with sleep, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.11|-0.93|0.0136
90995979|NCT02528253|181876313|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.6624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with sleep, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.30|-0.47|0.6624
90995980|NCT02528253|181876313|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with sleep, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.01|-0.75|0.0468
90995981|NCT02528253|181876313|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with sleep, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.05|-0.81|0.0250
90995982|NCT02528253|181876313|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.1539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with sleep, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.11|-0.72|0.1539
90995983|NCT02528253|181876313|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.09|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with sleep, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.09|-0.91|0.0169
90995984|NCT02528253|181876313|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.1049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with sleep, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.07|-0.77|0.1049
90995985|NCT02528253|181876313|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with sleep, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.02|-0.82|0.0599
90995986|NCT02528253|181876313|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.3041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with sleep, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.20|-0.65|0.3041
90995987|NCT02528253|181876313|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.04|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with sleep, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.04|-0.83|0.0737
90995988|NCT02528253|181876313|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.2293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with sleep, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.17|-0.71|0.2293
90995989|NCT02528253|181876313|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with sleep, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.05|-0.82|0.0806
90995990|NCT02528253|181876313|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.23|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with sleep, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.23|-0.62|0.3680
90995991|NCT02528253|181876313|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with sleep, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.06|-0.79|0.0893
90995992|NCT02528253|181876315|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with normal work, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.24|-0.88|0.0007
90995993|NCT02528253|181876315|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.38|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with normal work, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.38|-1.03|<.0001
90995994|NCT02528253|181876315|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.1291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with normal work, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.07|-0.53|0.1291
90995995|NCT02528253|181876315|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with normal work, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.03|-0.63|0.0290
90995996|NCT02528253|181876315|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.18|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with normal work, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.18|-0.77|0.0015
90995997|NCT02528253|181876315|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.17|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with normal work, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.17|-0.87|0.0041
90995998|NCT02528253|181876315|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|-0.54|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with normal work, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.54|-1.25|<.0001
90995999|NCT02528253|181876315|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.1799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with normal work, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.10|-0.55|0.1799
90996000|NCT02528253|181876315|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with normal work, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.02|-0.62|0.0696
90996001|NCT02528253|181876315|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.35|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with normal work, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.35|-0.99|<.0001
90996002|NCT02528253|181876315|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with normal work, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.02|-0.74|0.0387
90996003|NCT02528253|181876315|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.28|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with normal work, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.28|-1.00|0.0005
90996004|NCT02528253|181876315|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.2768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.15|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with normal work, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.15|-0.51|0.2768
90996005|NCT02528253|181876315|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.2408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.13|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with normal work, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.13|-0.53|0.2408
90996006|NCT02528253|181876315|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.13|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with normal work, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.13|-0.78|0.0064
90996007|NCT02528253|181876315|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with normal work, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.11|-0.90|0.0115
90996008|NCT02528253|181876315|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.29|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with normal work, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.29|-1.08|0.0006
90996009|NCT02528253|181876315|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.2028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.13|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with normal work, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.13|-0.59|0.2028
90996010|NCT02528253|181876315|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.1351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.09|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with normal work, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.09|-0.64|0.1351
90996011|NCT02528253|181876315|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.09|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with normal work, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.09|-0.82|0.0133
90996012|NCT02528253|181876315|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.2157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.15|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with normal work, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.15|-0.65|0.2157
90996013|NCT02528253|181876315|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.04|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with normal work, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.04|-0.76|0.0781
90996014|NCT02528253|181876315|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.3527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.22|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with normal work, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.22|-0.62|0.3527
91043912|NCT04773600|181973896|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.097|5.854|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site and vIGA-AD randomization strata|Stratified by pooled study site and vIGA-AD randomization strata|vIGA-AD Score of 'Clear' or 'Almost Clear' at Week 2||5.854|2.097|<0.0001
91043913|NCT04773600|181973897|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.56||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.312|4.993|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site and vIGA-AD randomization strata|Stratified by pooled study site and vIGA-AD randomization strata|vIGA-AD Score of 'Clear' or 'Almost Clear' at Week 1||4.993|1.312|0.0050
91043914|NCT03429049|181973918|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.256||0.1904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The NRS least squares mean difference in change from baseline between treatment arms was analyzed with a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM). It included terms for treatment, pooled study center, baseline K L grade category for the index knee, baseline BMI category, sex, study week, treatment by visit study week interaction, and baseline average daily pain with walking NPRS (0-10) score as covariates, using an unstructured covariance structure.||0.17|-0.84|0.1904
91043915|NCT03429049|181973919|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.206||0.0257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.07|-0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The WOMAC A least squares mean difference in change from baseline between treatment arms was analyzed with a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM). It included terms for treatment, pooled study center, baseline K L grade category for the index knee, baseline BMI category, sex, study week, treatment by visit study week interaction, and baseline average daily pain with walking NPRS (0-10) score as covariates, using an unstructured covariance structure.||-0.33|-5.07|0.0257
91043916|NCT03429049|181973920|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.545||0.0855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.01|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The WOMAC B least squares mean difference in change from baseline between treatment arms was analyzed with a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM). It included terms for treatment, pooled study center, baseline K L grade category for the index knee, baseline BMI category, sex, study week, treatment by visit study week interaction, and baseline average daily pain with walking NPRS (0-10) score as covariates, using an unstructured covariance structure.||0.13|-2.01|0.0855
91043917|NCT03429049|181973921|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.096||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.86|0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The WOMAC C least squares mean difference in change from baseline between treatment arms was analyzed with a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM). It included terms for treatment, pooled study center, baseline K L grade category for the index knee, baseline BMI category, sex, study week, treatment by visit study week interaction, and baseline average daily pain with walking NPRS (0-10) score as covariates, using an unstructured covariance structure.||0.26|-15.86|0.0550
91043918|NCT02418455|181973937|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-61.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.409|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.56|-48.44||P-values are from generalized estimating equation (GEE) model including baseline value and visit as a categorical variable. The covariance structure within subjects is assumed to be exchangeable.|GEE model|||||-48.44|-73.56|< 0.0001
91043919|NCT02418455|181973945|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2655|||||||t-test|||||||0.2655
91043920|NCT02418455|181973946|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.396||0.0122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|-0.22||From generalized estimating equation model including baseline value and visit as a categorical variable. Change from baseline in Liver Ultrasound (cm) as a dependent variable. Covariance structure within subjects is assumed to be exchangeable.|generalized estimating equation|||Change at Week 12||-0.22|-1.77|0.0122
91043921|NCT02418455|181973946|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.461||0.0086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|-0.31||From generalized estimating equation model including baseline value and visit as a categorical variable. Change from baseline in Liver Ultrasound (cm) as a dependent variable. Covariance structure within subjects is assumed to be exchangeable.|generalized estimating equation|||Change at Week 24||-0.31|-2.12|0.0086
91043922|NCT02418455|181973946|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|-0.37||From generalized estimating equation model including baseline value and visit as a categorical variable. Change from baseline in Liver Ultrasound (cm) as a dependent variable. Covariance structure within subjects is assumed to be exchangeable.|generalized estimating equation|||Change at Week 48||-0.37|-1.58|0.0016
91043923|NCT02418455|181973946|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.428||0.1792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|0.26||From generalized estimating equation model including baseline value and visit as a categorical variable. Change from baseline in Liver Ultrasound (cm) as a dependent variable. Covariance structure within subjects is assumed to be exchangeable.|generalized estimating equation|||Change at Week 96||0.26|-1.41|0.1792
91043924|NCT02418455|181973946|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.255||0.1731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.15||From generalized estimating equation model including baseline value and visit as a categorical variable. Change from baseline in Liver Ultrasound (cm) as a dependent variable. Covariance structure within subjects is assumed to be exchangeable.|generalized estimating equation|||Change at Week 144||0.15|-0.85|0.1731
91043925|NCT02418455|181973947|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.213||0.0843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.05||From generalized estimating equation model including baseline value and visit as a categorical variable. Change from baseline in Liver Ultrasound (cm) as a dependent variable. Covariance structure within subjects is assumed to be exchangeable.|generalized estimating equation|||Change at Week 12||0.05|-0.78|0.0843
91043926|NCT02418455|181973947|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.513||0.9618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|0.98||From generalized estimating equation model including baseline value and visit as a categorical variable. Change from baseline in Liver Ultrasound (cm) as a dependent variable. Covariance structure within subjects is assumed to be exchangeable.|generalized estimating equation|||Change at Week 24||0.98|-1.03|0.9618
90996015|NCT02528253|181876315|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.2994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with normal work, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.20|-0.65|0.2994
90996016|NCT02528253|181876315|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.3326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.21|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with normal work, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.21|-0.63|0.3326
90996017|NCT02528253|181876315|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.2822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with normal work, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.19|-0.65|0.2822
90996018|NCT02528253|181876315|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.4932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.28|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with normal work, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.28|-0.57|0.4932
90996019|NCT02528253|181876315|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.4571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.26|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with normal work, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.26|-0.58|0.4571
90996020|NCT02528253|181876315|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.5586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with normal work, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.30|-0.56|0.5586
90996021|NCT02528253|181876315|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.2664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with normal work, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.19|-0.67|0.2664
90996022|NCT02528253|181876317|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.14||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|3.36|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included treatment as fixed effect and baseline average LBPI, baseline PGA, and baseline RMDQ as covariates.||3.36|1.36|0.0010
90996023|NCT02528253|181876317|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.73|4.16|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included treatment as fixed effect and baseline average LBPI, baseline PGA, and baseline RMDQ as covariates.||4.16|1.73|<.0001
90996024|NCT02528253|181876317|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.62||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|2.51|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included treatment as fixed effect and baseline average LBPI, baseline PGA, and baseline RMDQ as covariates.||2.51|1.05|0.0300
90996025|NCT02528253|181876317|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|2.86|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included treatment as fixed effect and baseline average LBPI, baseline PGA, and baseline RMDQ as covariates.||2.86|1.44|<.0001
90996026|NCT02528253|181876317|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.69|3.32|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included treatment as fixed effect and baseline average LBPI, baseline PGA, and baseline RMDQ as covariates.||3.32|1.69|<.0001
90996027|NCT02528253|181876317|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.99|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included treatment as fixed effect and baseline average LBPI, baseline PGA, and baseline RMDQ as covariates.||1.99|1.04|0.0290
90996028|NCT02528253|181876317|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|2.47|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included treatment as fixed effect and baseline average LBPI, baseline PGA, and baseline RMDQ as covariates.||2.47|1.31|0.0003
91043927|NCT02418455|181973947|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.391||0.6954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.61||From generalized estimating equation model including baseline value and visit as a categorical variable. Change from baseline in Liver Ultrasound (cm) as a dependent variable. Covariance structure within subjects is assumed to be exchangeable.|GEE model|||Change at Week 48||0.61|-0.92|0.6954
91043928|NCT02418455|181973947|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.364||0.5492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.93||From generalized estimating equation model including baseline value and visit as a categorical variable. Change from baseline in Liver Ultrasound (cm) as a dependent variable. Covariance structure within subjects is assumed to be exchangeable.|generalized estimating equation|||Change at Week 96||0.93|-0.50|0.5492
91043929|NCT02418455|181973947|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.503||0.2618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|0.42||From generalized estimating equation model including baseline value and visit as a categorical variable. Change from baseline in Liver Ultrasound (cm) as a dependent variable. Covariance structure within subjects is assumed to be exchangeable.|generalized estimating equation|||Change at Week 144||0.42|-1.55|0.2618
91043930|NCT02445287|181973948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92||||||Level of significance (alpha) = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.920
91043931|NCT02445287|181973949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0||||||Level of significance (alpha) = 0.05|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.000
91043932|NCT02445287|181973950|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence interval = (-0.25, 0.25)||||||0||||||level of significance (alpha) = 0.05|Equivalence test|||||||0.000
91043933|NCT02445287|181973951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||||||level of significance (alpha) = 0.05|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.012
91043934|NCT04205162|181973964|OTHER|||||||0.331|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of etafilcon A||||0.331
91043935|NCT04205162|181973964|OTHER|||||||0.122|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of verofilcon A||||0.122
91043936|NCT04205162|181973965|OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of etafilcon A||||0.130
91043937|NCT04205162|181973965|OTHER|||||||0.924|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of verofilcon A||||0.924
91043938|NCT01546519|181973969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|1.78||||||Cmax Mild HI vs. Normal: Based on pooled variance estimates||1.78|0.95|
91043939|NCT01546519|181973969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.83||||||Cmax Moderate HI vs. Normal: Based on pooled variance estimates||1.83|0.92|
91043940|NCT01546519|181973969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.55|1.37||||||Cmax Severe HI vs. Normal: Based on pooled variance estimates||1.37|0.55|
91043941|NCT01546519|181973969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.71||||||Css Mild HI vs. Normal: Based on pooled variance estimates||1.71|0.90|
91043942|NCT01546519|181973969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.89|1.8||||||Css Moderate HI vs. Normal: Based on pooled variance estimates||1.80|0.89|
91043943|NCT01546519|181973969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.55|1.41||||||Css Severe HI vs. Normal: Based on pooled variance estimates||1.41|0.55|
91043944|NCT01546519|181973970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.89|1.73||||||AUC0-24hr Mild HI vs. Normal: Based on pooled variance estimates||1.73|0.89|
91043945|NCT01546519|181973970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.89||||||AUC0-24hr Moderate HI vs. Normal: Based on pooled variance estimates||1.89|0.91|
91043946|NCT01546519|181973970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.53|1.39||||||AUC0-24hr Severe HI vs. Normal: Based on pooled variance estimates||1.39|0.53|
91043947|NCT00779402|181973978|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.997||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.693|1.433|||Log Rank|Log Rank Test (two sided) stratified by Gleason Score and Radiation Therapy||||1.433|0.693|0.65
91043948|NCT00693225|181973986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
91043949|NCT01077817|181974009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.5|||Logistic Regression Model|The case-cohort hazard ratio estimate for drug exposure was based on analysis of all cases of esophageal cancer and their comparison sample.||A hazard ratio estimate was calculated from the case-control matched set to measure the risk association between exposure to alendronate treatment and incidence of esophageal cancer.||1.5|0.7|
91043950|NCT01077817|181974009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.0|||Logistic Regression Model|The case-cohort hazard ratio estimate for drug exposure was based on analysis of all cases of esophageal cancer and their comparison sample.||A hazard ratio estimate was calculated from the case-control matched set to measure the risk association between exposure to etidronate treatment and incidence of esophageal cancer.||2.0|0.9|
91043951|NCT01077817|181974009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|16.7|||Logistic Regression Model|The case-cohort hazard ratio estimate for drug exposure was based on analysis of all cases of esophageal cancer and their comparison sample.||A hazard ratio estimate was calculated from the case-control matched set to measure the risk association between exposure to ibandronate treatment and incidence of esophageal cancer.||16.7|1.4|
91043952|NCT01077817|181974009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.5|||Logistic Regression Model|The case-cohort hazard ratio estimate for drug exposure was based on analysis of all cases of esophageal cancer and their comparison sample.||A hazard ratio estimate was calculated from the case-control matched set to measure the risk association between exposure to risedronate treatment and incidence of esophageal cancer.||2.5|1.0|
90996029|NCT02528253|181876317|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.62|3.03|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included treatment as fixed effect and baseline average LBPI, baseline PGA, and baseline RMDQ as covariates.||3.03|1.62|<.0001
90996030|NCT02528253|181876317|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|2.1|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included treatment as fixed effect and baseline average LBPI, baseline PGA, and baseline RMDQ as covariates.||2.10|1.16|0.0033
90996031|NCT02528253|181876317|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.0179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.88|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included treatment as fixed effect and baseline average LBPI, baseline PGA, and baseline RMDQ as covariates.||1.88|1.06|0.0179
90996032|NCT02528253|181876317|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|2.08|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included treatment as fixed effect and baseline average LBPI, baseline PGA, and baseline RMDQ as covariates.||2.08|1.18|0.0021
90996033|NCT02528253|181876317|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.6629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.38|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included treatment as fixed effect and baseline average LBPI, baseline PGA, and baseline RMDQ as covariates.||1.38|0.81|0.6629
90996034|NCT02528253|181876317|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.0251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.75|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included treatment as fixed effect and baseline average LBPI, baseline PGA, and baseline RMDQ as covariates.||1.75|1.04|0.0251
90996035|NCT02528253|181876317|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.1278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.59|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included treatment as fixed effect and baseline average LBPI, baseline PGA, and baseline RMDQ as covariates.||1.59|0.94|0.1278
90996036|NCT02528253|181876317|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.0749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.65|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 32: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included treatment as fixed effect and baseline average LBPI, baseline PGA, and baseline RMDQ as covariates.||1.65|0.98|0.0749
90996037|NCT02528253|181876317|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28||||0.0633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.66|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 32: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included treatment as fixed effect and baseline average LBPI, baseline PGA, and baseline RMDQ as covariates.||1.66|0.99|0.0633
90996038|NCT02528253|181876317|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28||||0.0626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.67|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 40: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included treatment as fixed effect and baseline average LBPI, baseline PGA, and baseline RMDQ as covariates.||1.67|0.99|0.0626
90996039|NCT02528253|181876317|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.2727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.51|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 40: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included treatment as fixed effect and baseline average LBPI, baseline PGA, and baseline RMDQ as covariates.||1.51|0.89|0.2727
90996040|NCT02528253|181876317|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.1749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.57|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included treatment as fixed effect and baseline average LBPI, baseline PGA, and baseline RMDQ as covariates.||1.57|0.92|0.1749
90996041|NCT02528253|181876317|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.5239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.42|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included treatment as fixed effect and baseline average LBPI, baseline PGA, and baseline RMDQ as covariates.||1.42|0.84|0.5239
91043953|NCT01077817|181974009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.2|||Logistic Regression Model|The case-cohort hazard ratio estimate for drug exposure was based on analysis of all cases of esophageal cancer and their comparison sample.||A hazard ratio estimate was calculated from the case-control matched set to measure the risk association between exposure to raloxifene treatment and incidence of esophageal cancer.||2.2|0.2|
90996042|NCT02528253|181876317|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.3336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.49|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 56: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included treatment as fixed effect and baseline average LBPI, baseline PGA, and baseline RMDQ as covariates.||1.49|0.87|0.3336
90996043|NCT02528253|181876317|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.2163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.54|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 56: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included treatment as fixed effect and baseline average LBPI, baseline PGA, and baseline RMDQ as covariates.||1.54|0.91|0.2163
90996044|NCT02528253|181876318|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28||||0.326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.08|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of low back pain, baseline average LBPI, and treatment.||2.08|0.78|0.3260
90996045|NCT02528253|181876318|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.61||||0.0445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|2.56|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of low back pain, baseline average LBPI, and treatment.||2.56|1.01|0.0445
90996046|NCT02528253|181876318|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.9263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.61|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of low back pain, baseline average LBPI, and treatment.||1.61|0.65|0.9263
90996047|NCT02528253|181876318|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.3194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.94|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of low back pain, baseline average LBPI, and treatment.||1.94|0.81|0.3194
90996048|NCT02528253|181876318|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.58||||0.0308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|2.38|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of low back pain, baseline average LBPI, and treatment.||2.38|1.04|0.0308
90996049|NCT02528253|181876318|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.79||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.69|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of low back pain, baseline average LBPI, and treatment.||2.69|1.20|0.0048
91043954|NCT01077817|181974010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.3|||Proportional Hazards Regression Model|Year of birth, calendar quarter of cohort entry, and exposure history were stratified in this model.||"A hazard ratio was calculated to estimate the risk of esophageal cancer among initiators of alendronate~compared to non-initiators of alendronate. For calculation of this hazard ratio, esophageal cancer cases occurring during the entire follow-up period were used."||1.3|0.7|
91043955|NCT01077817|181974010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.0|||Proportional Hazards Regression Model|Year of birth, calendar quarter of cohort entry, and exposure history were stratified in this model.||"A hazard ratio was calculated to estimate the risk of esophageal cancer among initiators of etidronate~compared to non-initiators of etidronate. For calculation of this hazard ratio, esophageal cancer cases occurring during the entire follow-up period were used."||2.0|0.8|
91043956|NCT01077817|181974010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.4|||Proportional Hazards Regression Model|Year of birth, calendar quarter of cohort entry, and exposure history were stratified in this model.||"A hazard ratio was calculated to estimate the risk of esophageal cancer among initiators of ibandronate~compared to non-initiators of ibandronate. For calculation of this hazard ratio, esophageal cancer cases occurring during the entire follow-up period were used."||3.4|0.5|
91043957|NCT01077817|181974010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.0|||Proportional Hazards Regression Model|Year of birth, calendar quarter of cohort entry, and exposure history were stratified in this model.||"A hazard ratio was calculated to estimate the risk of esophageal cancer among initiators of risendronate~compared to non-initiators of risendronate. For calculation of this hazard ratio, esophageal cancer cases occurring during the entire follow-up period were used."||2.0|0.9|
91043958|NCT01077817|181974010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.3|||Proportional Hazards Regression Model|Year of birth, calendar quarter of cohort entry, and exposure history were stratified in this model.||"A hazard ratio was calculated to estimate the risk of esophageal cancer among initiators of raloxifene~compared to non-initiators of raloxifene. For calculation of this hazard ratio, esophageal cancer cases occurring during the entire follow-up period were used."||2.3|0.3|
91043959|NCT01077817|181974010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.5|||Proportional Hazards Regression Model|||"A hazard ratio was calculated to estimate the risk of esophageal cancer among initiators of~alendronate compared to non-initiators of alendronate. For calculation of 721+ day hazard ratios, only esophageal cancer cases occurring at least 721 days from initiation of study drug (data not shown) were used."||1.5|0.7|
91043960|NCT01077817|181974010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.9|||Proportional Hazards Regression Model|||"A hazard ratio was calculated to estimate the risk of esophageal cancer among initiators of~etidronate compared to non-initiators of etidronate. For calculation of 721+ day hazard ratios, only~esophageal cancer cases occurring at least 721 days from initiation of study drug (data not shown) were used."||1.9|0.7|
91043961|NCT01077817|181974010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|11.1|||Proportional Hazards Regression Model|||"A hazard ratio was calculated to estimate the risk of esophageal cancer among initiators of~ibandronate compared to non-initiators of ibandronate. For calculation of 721+ day hazard ratios,~only esophageal cancer cases occurring at least 721 days from initiation of study drug (data not shown) were used."||11.1|0.8|
91043962|NCT01077817|181974010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|3.0|||Proportional Hazards Regression Model|||"A hazard ratio was calculated to estimate the risk of esophageal cancer among initiators of~risedronate compared to non-initiators of risedronate. For calculation of 721+ day hazard ratios,~only esophageal cancer cases occurring at least 721 days from initiation of study drug (data not shown) were used."||3.0|1.1|
91043963|NCT01077817|181974010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.7|||Proportional Hazards Regression Model|||"A hazard ratio was calculated to estimate the risk of esophageal cancer among initiators of~raloxifene compared to non-initiators of raloxifene. For calculation of 721+ day hazard ratios, only~esophageal cancer cases occurring at least 721 days from initiation of study drug (data not shown) were used."||2.7|0.1|
91043964|NCT01077817|181974010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.6|||Proportional Hazards Regression Model|Year of birth, calendar quarter of cohort entry, and exposure history were stratified in this model.||"A hazard ratio was calculated to estimate the risk of esophageal cancer among initiators of alendronate~compared to non-initiators of alendronate. For calculation of 1441+ day hazard ratios, only esophageal cancer cases occurring at least 1441 days from initiation of study drug (data not shown) were used."||1.6|0.5|
91043965|NCT01077817|181974010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.0||Year of birth, calendar quarter of cohort entry, and exposure history were stratified in this model.|Proportional hazards regression model|||"A hazard ratio was calculated to estimate the risk of esophageal cancer among initiators of etidronate~compared to non-initiators of etidronate. For calculation of 1441+ day hazard ratios, only esophageal cancer cases occurring at least 1441 days from initiation of study drug (data not shown) were used."||2.0|0.6|
91043966|NCT01077817|181974010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.5|||Proportional hazards regression model|Year of birth, calendar quarter of cohort entry, and exposure history were stratified in this model.||"A hazard ratio was calculated to estimate the risk of esophageal cancer among initiators of risedronate~compared to non-initiators of risedronate. For calculation of 1441+ day hazard ratios, only esophageal cancer cases occurring at least 1441 days from initiation of study drug (data not shown) were used."||2.5|0.4|
91043967|NCT01077817|181974010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|3.9|||Proportional hazards regression model|Year of birth, calendar quarter of cohort entry, and exposure history were stratified in this model.||"A hazard ratio was calculated to estimate the risk of esophageal cancer among initiators of raloxifene~compared to non-initiators of raloxifene. For calculation of 1441+ day hazard ratios, only esophageal cancer cases occurring at least 1441 days from initiation of study drug (data not shown) were used."||3.9|0.2|
91043968|NCT01186016|181974011|OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||A priori threshold for the P-Value was.05 or less.|ANOVA|||The scores on the Genetic Knowledge Test for both groups between baseline and the end of the educational sessions were analyzed with repeated measures ANOVA.||||<0.01
90996050|NCT02528253|181876318|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68||||0.0114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|2.51|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of low back pain, baseline average LBPI, and treatment.||2.51|1.12|0.0114
90996051|NCT02528253|181876318|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.7857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.56|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of low back pain, baseline average LBPI, and treatment.||1.56|0.71|0.7857
90996052|NCT02528253|181876318|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|2.44|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of low back pain, baseline average LBPI, and treatment.||2.44|1.18|0.0041
90996053|NCT02528253|181876318|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.59||||0.0109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|2.28|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of low back pain, baseline average LBPI, and treatment.||2.28|1.11|0.0109
90996054|NCT02528253|181876318|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53||||0.0363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.27|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of low back pain, baseline average LBPI, and treatment.||2.27|1.03|0.0363
90996055|NCT02528253|181876318|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.59|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of low back pain, baseline average LBPI, and treatment.||2.59|1.20|0.0040
90996056|NCT02528253|181876318|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.1992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.84|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of low back pain, baseline average LBPI, and treatment.||1.84|0.88|0.1992
90996057|NCT02528253|181876318|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.3084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.7|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of low back pain, baseline average LBPI, and treatment.||1.70|0.85|0.3084
90996058|NCT02528253|181876318|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.0586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.94|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of low back pain, baseline average LBPI, and treatment.||1.94|0.99|0.0586
90996059|NCT02528253|181876318|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.97|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of low back pain, baseline average LBPI, and treatment.||1.97|0.98|0.0630
90996060|NCT02528253|181876318|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.0347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.04|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of low back pain, baseline average LBPI, and treatment.||2.04|1.03|0.0347
90996061|NCT02528253|181876318|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.33|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of low back pain, baseline average LBPI, and treatment.||1.33|0.69|0.7900
90996062|NCT02528253|181876318|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.0207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.0|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of low back pain, baseline average LBPI, and treatment.||2.00|1.06|0.0207
90996063|NCT02528253|181876318|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.0093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|2.07|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of low back pain, baseline average LBPI, and treatment.||2.07|1.11|0.0093
90996064|NCT02528253|181876318|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.91|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of low back pain, baseline average LBPI, and treatment.||1.91|1.02|0.0400
90996065|NCT02528253|181876318|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.2478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.65|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of low back pain, baseline average LBPI, and treatment.||1.65|0.88|0.2478
90996066|NCT02528253|181876318|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.0304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.96|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 32: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of low back pain, baseline average LBPI, and treatment.||1.96|1.03|0.0304
90996067|NCT02528253|181876318|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.4763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.56|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 32: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of low back pain, baseline average LBPI, and treatment.||1.56|0.81|0.4763
90996068|NCT02528253|181876318|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.0178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|2.01|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 40: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of low back pain, baseline average LBPI, and treatment.||2.01|1.07|0.0178
90996069|NCT02528253|181876318|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.5223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.53|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 40: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of low back pain, baseline average LBPI, and treatment.||1.53|0.80|0.5223
90996070|NCT02528253|181876318|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.1708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.72|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of low back pain, baseline average LBPI, and treatment.||1.72|0.91|0.1708
90996071|NCT02528253|181876318|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.6022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.5|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of low back pain, baseline average LBPI, and treatment.||1.50|0.79|0.6022
90996072|NCT02528253|181876318|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.0846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.81|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 56: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of low back pain, baseline average LBPI, and treatment.||1.81|0.96|0.0846
90996073|NCT02528253|181876318|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.9626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.39|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 56: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of low back pain, baseline average LBPI, and treatment.||1.39|0.73|0.9626
90996074|NCT02528253|181876322|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.64||0.6508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.49|3.98|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Percent Work Time Missed: ANCOVA model included treatment as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||3.98|-2.49|0.6508
90996075|NCT02528253|181876322|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.66||0.9629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.33|3.18|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Percent Work Time Missed: ANCOVA model included treatment as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||3.18|-3.33|0.9629
90996076|NCT02528253|181876322|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.57||0.7007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|3.69|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Percent Work Time Missed: ANCOVA model included treatment as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||3.69|-2.48|0.7007
90996077|NCT02528253|181876322|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.58||0.8902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.32|2.88|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Percent Work Time Missed: ANCOVA model included treatment as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||2.88|-3.32|0.8902
90996078|NCT02528253|181876322|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.53||0.5698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.89|2.15|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 56: Percent Work Time Missed: ANCOVA model included treatment as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||2.15|-3.89|0.5698
90996079|NCT02528253|181876322|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.53||0.8464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.32|2.72|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 56: Percent Work Time Missed: ANCOVA model included treatment as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||2.72|-3.32|0.8464
90996080|NCT02528253|181876322|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.39||0.0919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.72|0.66|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Percent Impairment While Working: ANCOVA model included treatment as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.66|-8.72|0.0919
90996081|NCT02528253|181876322|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.0477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.47|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Percent Impairment While Working: ANCOVA model included treatment as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.05|-9.47|0.0477
90996082|NCT02528253|181876322|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3||0.4735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.17|2.87|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Percent Impairment While Working: ANCOVA model included treatment as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||2.87|-6.17|0.4735
90996083|NCT02528253|181876322|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26||0.2935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.82|2.06|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Percent Impairment While Working: ANCOVA model included treatment as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||2.06|-6.82|0.2935
90996084|NCT02528253|181876322|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.27||0.1714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.56|1.35|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Percent Impairment While Working: ANCOVA model included treatment as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||1.35|-7.56|0.1714
90996085|NCT02528253|181876322|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.75||0.7521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|4.56|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 56: Percent Impairment While Working: ANCOVA model included treatment as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||4.56|-6.30|0.7521
90996086|NCT02528253|181876322|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.75||0.3078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.24|2.61|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 56: Percent Impairment While Working: ANCOVA model included treatment as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||2.61|-8.24|0.3078
90996087|NCT02528253|181876322|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.46||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.78|0.88|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Percent Overall Work Impairment: ANCOVA model included treatment as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.88|-8.78|0.1090
90996088|NCT02528253|181876322|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.47||0.0289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.27|-0.56|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Percent Overall Work Impairment: ANCOVA model included treatment as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.56|-10.27|0.0289
90996089|NCT02528253|181876322|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.37||0.4613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.41|2.91|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Percent Overall Work Impairment: ANCOVA model included treatment as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||2.91|-6.41|0.4613
90996090|NCT02528253|181876322|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.33||0.346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.78|2.38|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Percent Overall Work Impairment: ANCOVA model included treatment as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||2.38|-6.78|0.3460
90996091|NCT02528253|181876322|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.34||0.1179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.26|0.93|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Percent Overall Work Impairment: ANCOVA model included treatment as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.93|-8.26|0.1179
91043969|NCT01186016|181974012|OTHER|||||||0.44||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was a P-Value of .05 or less.|ANOVA|||Data for Self-Efficacy for Quitting/Resisting Smoking were analyzed with repeated measures ANOVA using three time points: baseline, end of the educational sessions, and end of the smoking cessation sessions.||||0.44
90996092|NCT02528253|181876322|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.97||0.5151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.78|3.92|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 56: Percent Overall Work Impairment: ANCOVA model included treatment as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||3.92|-7.78|0.5151
90996093|NCT02528253|181876322|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.96||0.255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.22|2.46|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 56: Percent Overall Work Impairment: ANCOVA model included treatment as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||2.46|-9.22|0.2550
90996094|NCT02528253|181876322|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.73||0.0157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.57|-0.79|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Percent Activity Impairment: ANCOVA model included treatment as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.79|-7.57|0.0157
90996095|NCT02528253|181876322|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.73||0.0159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.57|-0.78|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Percent Activity Impairment: ANCOVA model included treatment as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.78|-7.57|0.0159
90996096|NCT02528253|181876322|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.62||0.0896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.94|0.43|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Percent Activity Impairment: ANCOVA model included treatment as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.43|-5.94|0.0896
90996097|NCT02528253|181876322|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.3749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.57|1.72|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Percent Activity Impairment: ANCOVA model included treatment as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||1.72|-4.57|0.3749
90996098|NCT02528253|181876322|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.59||0.3733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.55|1.71|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Percent Activity Impairment: ANCOVA model included treatment as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||1.71|-4.55|0.3733
90996099|NCT02528253|181876322|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.17||0.8056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|3.73|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 56: Percent Activity Impairment: ANCOVA model included treatment as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||3.73|-4.80|0.8056
90996100|NCT02528253|181876322|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.08||0.5764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.25|2.93|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 56: Percent Activity Impairment: ANCOVA model included treatment as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||2.93|-5.25|0.5764
90996101|NCT02528253|181876323|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.7366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.41|||Regression, Logistic|||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.41|0.62|0.7366
90996102|NCT02528253|181876323|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.58|||Regression, Logistic|||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.58|0.71|0.7710
90996103|NCT02528253|181876324|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4724|||||||Log Rank|||Missing data for the selected percentile(s) was due to the Kaplan-Meier estimate not reaching the level for discontinuation due to lack of efficacy.||||0.4724
90996104|NCT02528253|181876324|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7142|||||||Log Rank|||Missing data for the selected percentile(s) was due to the Kaplan-Meier estimate not reaching the level for discontinuation due to lack of efficacy.||||0.7142
90996105|NCT02528253|181876325|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.44|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline LBPI and treatment.||1.44|0.87|0.3960
90996106|NCT02528253|181876325|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.5932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.2|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline LBPI and treatment.||1.20|0.73|0.5932
90996107|NCT02528253|181876325|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.3326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.46|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline LBPI and treatment.||1.46|0.88|0.3326
90996108|NCT02528253|181876325|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.1765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.08|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline LBPI and treatment.||1.08|0.65|0.1765
90996109|NCT02528253|181876325|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.5619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.39|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline LBPI and treatment.||1.39|0.84|0.5619
90996110|NCT02528253|181876325|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.3909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.16|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline LBPI and treatment.||1.16|0.69|0.3909
91043970|NCT01186016|181974013|OTHER|Nominal data were analyzed with Chi Square.||||||0.88||||||The a priori threshold P-Value for statistical significance was .05 or less.|Chi-squared|||||||.88
90996111|NCT02528253|181876325|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.7562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.35|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline LBPI and treatment.||1.35|0.80|0.7562
90996112|NCT02528253|181876325|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.9476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.31|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline LBPI and treatment.||1.31|0.78|0.9476
90996113|NCT02528253|181876325|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.7746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.36|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline LBPI and treatment.||1.36|0.79|0.7746
90996114|NCT02528253|181876325|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.6377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.23|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline LBPI and treatment.||1.23|0.71|0.6377
90996115|NCT02528253|181876325|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.8532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.33|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline LBPI and treatment.||1.33|0.79|0.8532
90996116|NCT02528253|181876325|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.5644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.4|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline LBPI and treatment.||1.40|0.83|0.5644
90996117|NCT02528253|181876325|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.769|TWO_SIDED|0.769|0.8|1.35|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 32: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline LBPI and treatment.||1.35|0.80|0.7690
90996118|NCT02528253|181876325|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.4321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.44|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 32: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline LBPI and treatment.||1.44|0.85|0.4321
90996119|NCT02528253|181876325|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.7714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.35|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 40: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline LBPI and treatment.||1.35|0.80|0.7714
90996120|NCT02528253|181876325|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.8389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.34|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 40: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline LBPI and treatment.||1.34|0.79|0.8389
90996121|NCT02528253|181876325|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.9383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.29|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline LBPI and treatment.||1.29|0.76|0.9383
90996122|NCT02528253|181876325|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.33|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline LBPI and treatment.||1.33|0.78|0.8800
90996123|NCT02528253|181876325|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.7946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.26|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 56: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline LBPI and treatment.||1.26|0.74|0.7946
90996124|NCT02528253|181876325|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.7803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.25|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 56: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline LBPI and treatment.||1.25|0.74|0.7803
90996125|NCT02528253|181876327|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|1.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.1272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.41|||Negative binomial model|||Week 2: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.41|0.96|0.1272
90996126|NCT02528253|181876327|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.6322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.27|||Negative binomial model|||Week 2: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.27|0.86|0.6322
90996127|NCT02528253|181876327|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.3559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.36|||Negative binomial model|||Week 4: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.36|0.89|0.3559
90996128|NCT02528253|181876327|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.96||||0.6798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.18|||Negative binomial model|||Week 4: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.18|0.77|0.6798
90996129|NCT02528253|181876327|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|1.14||||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.44|||Negative binomial model|||Week 8: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.44|0.90|0.2670
90996130|NCT02528253|181876327|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.94||||0.5865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.19|||Negative binomial model|||Week 8: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.19|0.74|0.5865
90996131|NCT02528253|181876327|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|1.13||||0.3378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.47|||Negative binomial model|||Week 12: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.47|0.88|0.3378
90996132|NCT02528253|181876327|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.92||||0.551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.2|||Negative binomial model|||Week 12: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.20|0.71|0.5510
90996133|NCT02528253|181876327|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.2088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.6|||Negative binomial model|||Week 16: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.60|0.90|0.2088
90996134|NCT02528253|181876327|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.8692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.3|||Negative binomial model|||Week 16: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.30|0.73|0.8692
90996135|NCT02528253|181876327|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.8444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.35|||Negative binomial model|||Week 24: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.35|0.78|0.8444
90996136|NCT02528253|181876327|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.8936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.34|||Negative binomial model|||Week 24: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.34|0.78|0.8936
91043971|NCT03750695|181974016|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||Repeated measures linear regression||||<0.05
91043972|NCT01386125|181974017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.14||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|-0.06|||ANCOVA|||||-0.06|-0.22|0.0007
91043973|NCT01386125|181974018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference is LS Means|-0.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.15|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-0.15|-0.45|<0.0001
90996137|NCT02528253|181876327|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.8716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.28|||Negative binomial model|||Week 32: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.28|0.75|0.8716
90996138|NCT02528253|181876327|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.8827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.29|||Negative binomial model|||Week 32: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.29|0.75|0.8827
90996139|NCT02528253|181876327|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.8996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.34|||Negative binomial model|||Week 40: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.34|0.77|0.8996
90996140|NCT02528253|181876327|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.2|||Negative binomial model|||Week 40: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.20|0.69|0.4880
90996141|NCT02528253|181876327|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.7938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.27|||Negative binomial model|||Week 48: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.27|0.73|0.7938
90996142|NCT02528253|181876327|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.5092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.2|||Negative binomial model|||Week 48: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.20|0.69|0.5092
90996143|NCT02528253|181876327|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.6148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.22|||Negative binomial model|||Week 56: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.22|0.71|0.6148
90996144|NCT02528253|181876327|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.2844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.13|||Negative binomial model|||Week 56: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.13|0.66|0.2844
90996145|NCT02528253|181876329|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.6764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.73|||Negative binomial model|||Week 2: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.73|0.70|0.6764
90996146|NCT02528253|181876329|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.9351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.6|||Negative binomial model|||Week 2: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.60|0.65|0.9351
90996147|NCT02528253|181876329|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.8731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.46|||Negative binomial model|||Week 2: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.46|0.64|0.8731
90996148|NCT02528253|181876329|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.72|||Negative binomial model|||Week 2: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.72|0.75|0.5370
90996149|NCT02528253|181876329|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.8031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.59|||Negative binomial model|||Week 2: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.59|0.70|0.8031
90996150|NCT02528253|181876329|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.8192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.55|||Negative binomial model|||Week 4: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.55|0.57|0.8192
90996151|NCT02528253|181876329|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.6345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.46|||Negative binomial model|||Week 4: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.46|0.54|0.6345
90996152|NCT02528253|181876329|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.6103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.4|||Negative binomial model|||Week 4: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.40|0.56|0.6103
90996153|NCT02528253|181876329|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.7949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.67|||Negative binomial model|||Week 4: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.67|0.67|0.7949
91043974|NCT00216060|181974025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.08||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|8.4|||Regression, Cox|||||8.40|0.51|0.3
91043975|NCT00216060|181974026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||univariate analysis|||||||0.12
91043976|NCT00216060|181974028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
91043977|NCT00216060|181974030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
91043978|NCT00216060|181974031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.010
91043979|NCT00216060|181974032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
91043980|NCT04480307|181974075|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.031||||0.5084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.124|0.063|||ANCOVA|||||0.063|-0.124|0.5084
91043981|NCT04480307|181974075|SUPERIORITY||Difference of change from Baseline|-0.021|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.121|0.057|||Bayesian|Difference of change from baseline a posteriori||Bayesian analysis is done using a non-informative prior on the mean observed difference.||0.057|-0.121|
91043982|NCT04480307|181974076|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.002||||0.9472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.052|0.049|||ANCOVA|||||0.049|-0.052|0.9472
91043983|NCT04480307|181974076|SUPERIORITY||Difference of change from Baseline|0.012|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.036|0.059|||Bayesian|Difference of change from Baseline a posteriori.||Bayesian analysis is done using a non-informative prior on the mean observed difference.||0.059|-0.036|
91043984|NCT04480307|181974077|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.154||||0.4027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.216|0.524|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA analysis for T1 lesion volume parameter||0.524|-0.216|0.4027
91043985|NCT04480307|181974077|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.01||||0.7428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.051|0.071|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA analysis for T2 lesion volume parameter||0.071|-0.051|0.7428
91043986|NCT04480307|181974078|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.003||||0.7314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.013|0.018|||ANCOVA|||||0.018|-0.013|0.7314
91043987|NCT04480307|181974078|SUPERIORITY||Difference of change from Baseline|0.005|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.023|||Bayesian|Difference of change from Baseline a posteriori||Bayesian analysis is done using a non-informative prior on the mean observed difference.||0.023|-0.010|
90996154|NCT02528253|181876329|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.57|||Negative binomial model|||Week 4: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.57|0.63|0.9920
90996155|NCT02528253|181876329|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.8772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.67|||Negative binomial model|||Week 8: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.67|0.55|0.8772
90996156|NCT02528253|181876329|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.7614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.6|||Negative binomial model|||Week 8: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.60|0.53|0.7614
90996157|NCT02528253|181876329|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.5629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.43|||Negative binomial model|||Week 8: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.43|0.52|0.5629
91043988|NCT04480307|181974079|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.7662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0|0|0.7662
91043989|NCT02102932|181974114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of the geometric means|105.29|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.6||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.92|108.78||P-value for ratio outside interval 80-125|ANOVA||Ratio of the geometric means for treatments (Test (T1) versus Reference (R1)) i.e. T1/R1. The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|"The statistical model used was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation:~'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed."||108.78|101.92|0.0000
91043990|NCT02102932|181974114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of the geometric means|103.23|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.6||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.91|106.65||P-value for ratio outside interval 80-125|ANOVA||Ratio of the geometric means for treatments (Test (T2) versus Reference (R2)) i.e. T2/R2. The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|"The statistical model used was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation:~'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed."||106.65|99.91|0.0000
90996158|NCT02528253|181876329|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.6821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.85|||Negative binomial model|||Week 8: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.85|0.67|0.6821
91043991|NCT02102932|181974114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of the geometric means|103.56|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.6||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.73|107.54||P-value for ratio outside interval 80-125|ANOVA||Ratio of the geometric means for treatments (Test (T3) versus Reference (R3)) i.e. T3/R3. The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|"The statistical model used was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation:~'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed."||107.54|99.73|0.0000
91043992|NCT02102932|181974114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of the geometric means|102.81|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.9||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.36|106.37||P-value for ratio outside interval 80-125|ANOVA||Ratio of the geometric means for treatments (Test (T4) versus Reference (R4)) i.e. T4/R4. The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|"The statistical model used was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation:~'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed."||106.37|99.36|0.0000
91043993|NCT02102932|181974115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of the geometric means|104.56|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.0||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.56|112.07||P-value for ratio outside interval 80-125|ANOVA||Ratio of the geometric means for treatments (Test (T1) versus Reference (R1)) i.e. T1/R1. The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|"The statistical model used was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation:~'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed."||112.07|97.56|0.0001
90996159|NCT02528253|181876329|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.8049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.77|||Negative binomial model|||Week 8: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.77|0.64|0.8049
90996160|NCT02528253|181876329|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.6673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.62|||Negative binomial model|||Week 12: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.62|0.47|0.6673
90996161|NCT02528253|181876329|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.4475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.46|||Negative binomial model|||Week 12: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.46|0.43|0.4475
90996162|NCT02528253|181876329|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.5925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.5|||Negative binomial model|||Week 12: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.50|0.49|0.5925
90996163|NCT02528253|181876329|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.9486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.79|||Negative binomial model|||Week 12: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.79|0.58|0.9486
90996164|NCT02528253|181876329|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.7673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.61|||Negative binomial model|||Week 12: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.61|0.52|0.7673
90996165|NCT02528253|181876329|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.7635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|2.2|||Negative binomial model|||Week 16: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||2.20|0.56|0.7635
90996166|NCT02528253|181876329|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.9564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.94|||Negative binomial model|||Week 16: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.94|0.50|0.9564
90996167|NCT02528253|181876329|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.8359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.75|||Negative binomial model|||Week 16: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.75|0.50|0.8359
90996168|NCT02528253|181876329|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.5914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|2.21|||Negative binomial model|||Week 16: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||2.21|0.64|0.5914
90996169|NCT02528253|181876329|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.8826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.95|||Negative binomial model|||Week 16: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.95|0.56|0.8826
90996170|NCT02528253|181876338|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|7.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.01||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.07|10.97|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Effectiveness; Week 16: p-value was computed using ANCOVA with covariates of baseline average LBPI score, treatment, and study site as a random effect.||10.97|3.07|0.0005
90996171|NCT02528253|181876338|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|6.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.01||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.26|10.15|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Effectiveness; Week 16: p-value was computed using ANCOVA with covariates of baseline average LBPI score, treatment, and study site as a random effect.||10.15|2.26|0.0021
90996172|NCT02528253|181876338|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.89||0.0125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|8.42|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Effectiveness; Week 16: p-value was computed using ANCOVA with covariates of baseline average LBPI score, treatment, and study site as a random effect.||8.42|1.02|0.0125
90996173|NCT02528253|181876338|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.87||0.2176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|5.97|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Effectiveness; Week 16: p-value was computed using ANCOVA with covariates of baseline average LBPI score, treatment, and study site as a random effect.||5.97|-1.36|0.2176
90996174|NCT02528253|181876338|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86||0.4235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|5.14|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Effectiveness; Week 16: p-value was computed using ANCOVA with covariates of baseline average LBPI score, treatment, and study site as a random effect.||5.14|-2.16|0.4235
90996175|NCT02528253|181876338|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|12.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.96||0.0143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|22.11|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Side Effects; Week 16: p-value was computed using ANCOVA with covariates of baseline average LBPI score, treatment, and study site as a random effect.||22.11|2.50|0.0143
90996176|NCT02528253|181876338|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|12.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.96||0.0124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.76|22.35|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Side Effects; Week 16: p-value was computed using ANCOVA with covariates of baseline average LBPI score, treatment, and study site as a random effect.||22.35|2.76|0.0124
90996177|NCT02528253|181876338|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.29||0.3675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|12.36|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Side Effects; Week 16: p-value was computed using ANCOVA with covariates of baseline average LBPI score, treatment, and study site as a random effect.||12.36|-4.60|0.3675
90996178|NCT02528253|181876338|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|8.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.89||0.0319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|16.11|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Side Effects; Week 16: p-value was computed using ANCOVA with covariates of baseline average LBPI score, treatment, and study site as a random effect.||16.11|0.74|0.0319
90996179|NCT02528253|181876338|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|8.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9||0.0276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|16.38|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Side Effects; Week 16: p-value was computed using ANCOVA with covariates of baseline average LBPI score, treatment, and study site as a random effect.||16.38|0.97|0.0276
90996180|NCT02528253|181876338|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38||0.0627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|5.27|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Convenience; Week 16: p-value was computed using ANCOVA with covariates of baseline average LBPI score, treatment, and study site as a random effect.||5.27|-0.14|0.0627
90996181|NCT02528253|181876338|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38||0.0187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|5.97|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Convenience; Week 16: p-value was computed using ANCOVA with covariates of baseline average LBPI score, treatment, and study site as a random effect.||5.97|0.54|0.0187
90996182|NCT02528253|181876338|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.2419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|4.06|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Convenience; Week 16: p-value was computed using ANCOVA with covariates of baseline average LBPI score, treatment, and study site as a random effect.||4.06|-1.03|0.2419
90996183|NCT02528253|181876338|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.28||0.4124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|3.56|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Convenience; Week 16: p-value was computed using ANCOVA with covariates of baseline average LBPI score, treatment, and study site as a random effect.||3.56|-1.46|0.4124
90996184|NCT02528253|181876338|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.27||0.173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|4.24|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Convenience; Week 16: p-value was computed using ANCOVA with covariates of baseline average LBPI score, treatment, and study site as a random effect.||4.24|-0.76|0.1730
90996185|NCT02528253|181876338|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|9.08|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Global Satisfaction; Week 16: p-value was computed using ANCOVA with covariates of baseline average LBPI score, treatment, and study site as a random effect.||9.08|1.77|0.0037
90996186|NCT02528253|181876338|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86||0.0449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|7.39|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Global Satisfaction; Week 16: p-value was computed using ANCOVA with covariates of baseline average LBPI score, treatment, and study site as a random effect.||7.39|0.09|0.0449
90996187|NCT02528253|181876338|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.75||0.2038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|5.65|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Global Satisfaction; Week 16: p-value was computed using ANCOVA with covariates of baseline average LBPI score, treatment, and study site as a random effect.||5.65|-1.21|0.2038
90996188|NCT02528253|181876338|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.73||0.0644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|6.59|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Global Satisfaction; Week 16: p-value was computed using ANCOVA with covariates of baseline average LBPI score, treatment, and study site as a random effect.||6.59|-0.19|0.0644
90996189|NCT02528253|181876338|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.72||0.3775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|4.9|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Global Satisfaction; Week 16: p-value was computed using ANCOVA with covariates of baseline average LBPI score, treatment, and study site as a random effect.||4.90|-1.86|0.3775
90996190|NCT02528253|181876338|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.62||0.5806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|6.6|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Effectiveness; Week 56: p-value was computed using ANCOVA with covariates of baseline average LBPI score, treatment, and study site as a random effect.||6.60|-3.70|0.5806
90996191|NCT02528253|181876338|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.53||0.6084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.68|6.27|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Effectiveness; Week 56: p-value was computed using ANCOVA with covariates of baseline average LBPI score, treatment, and study site as a random effect.||6.27|-3.68|0.6084
90996192|NCT02528253|181876338|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.95||0.6991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.56|16.99|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Side Effects; Week 56: p-value was computed using ANCOVA with covariates of baseline average LBPI score, treatment, and study site as a random effect.||16.99|-11.56|0.6991
90996193|NCT02528253|181876338|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|13.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.6||0.0265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|24.68|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Side Effects; Week 56: p-value was computed using ANCOVA with covariates of baseline average LBPI score, treatment, and study site as a random effect.||24.68|1.66|0.0265
90996194|NCT02528253|181876338|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.99||0.8795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.61|4.21|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Convenience; Week 56: p-value was computed using ANCOVA with covariates of baseline average LBPI score, treatment, and study site as a random effect.||4.21|-3.61|0.8795
90996195|NCT02528253|181876338|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.92||0.2758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|5.87|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Convenience; Week 56: p-value was computed using ANCOVA with covariates of baseline average LBPI score, treatment, and study site as a random effect.||5.87|-1.68|0.2758
90996196|NCT02528253|181876338|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.27||0.1197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|8.0|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Global Satisfaction; Week 56: p-value was computed using ANCOVA with covariates of baseline average LBPI score, treatment, and study site as a random effect.||8.00|-0.92|0.1197
90996197|NCT02528253|181876338|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.19||0.0743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|8.24|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Global Satisfaction; Week 56: p-value was computed using ANCOVA with covariates of baseline average LBPI score, treatment, and study site as a random effect.||8.24|-0.39|0.0743
90996198|NCT01546285|181876359|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This study is to show a mean difference of less than 5mmHg and a standard deviation less than 8mmHg for the difference in systolic, diastolic, and mean BP readings taken by B40 and PRO1000 patient monitors.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.58|-0.22|||Compare the mean difference with 5mmHg|||A total of no less than 65 subjects are needed for this study. Assuming a mean of no more than 4 mmHg and a standard deviation of no more than 5 mmHg for the difference, this sample size ensures that the percent of subjects with equivalent NIBP is at least 80% with 90% confidence. The difference between the B40 and PRO1000 patient monitors in systolic, diastolic, and mean BP determinations will be compared. A difference of within 10 mmHg is considered equivalent in NIBP.||-0.22|-2.58|
90996199|NCT01546285|181876359|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This study is to show a mean difference of less than 5mmHg and a standard deviation less than 8mmHg for the difference in systolic, diastolic, and mean BP readings taken by B40 and PRO1000 patient monitors.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.95|-2.66||||||A total of no less than 65 subjects are needed for this study. Assuming a mean of no more than 4mmHg and a standard deviation of no more than 5mmHg for the difference, this sample size ensures that the percent of subjects with equivalent NIBP is a least 80% with 90% confidence. The difference between the B40 and PRO1000 patient monitors in the systolic, diastolic, and mean BP determinations will be compared. A difference of within 10mmHg is considered equivalent in NIBP.||-2.66|-3.95|
90996200|NCT01546285|181876359|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This study is to show a mean difference of less than 5mmHg and a standard deviation less than 8mmHg for the difference in systolic, diastolic, and mean BP readings taken by B40 and PRO1000 patient monitors.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.73|-2.67||||||A total of no less than 65 subjects are needed for this study. Assuming a mean of no more than 4mmHg and a standard deviation of no more than 5mmHg for the difference, this sample size ensures that the percent of subjects with equivalent NIBP is a least 80% with 90% confidence. The difference between the B40 and PRO1000 patient monitors in the systolic, diastolic, and mean BP determinations will be compared. A difference of within 10mmHg is considered equivalent in NIBP.||-2.67|-4.73|
90996201|NCT00225147|181876360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.001
90996202|NCT00225147|181876360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||<0.001
90996203|NCT00225147|181876361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.040
90996204|NCT00225147|181876361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||<0.001
90996205|NCT01114373|181876385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0269|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis was that there is no interaction between the order of randomization and the primary outcome measures.||||0.0269
90996206|NCT01114373|181876385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.84
90996207|NCT01114373|181876386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0492|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis was that there is no interaction between the order of randomization and the primary outcome measures.||||0.0492
90996208|NCT01114373|181876386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.95
90996209|NCT01114373|181876387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.91|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.91
90996210|NCT01114373|181876388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.88
90996211|NCT01114373|181876389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.16
90996212|NCT01114373|181876390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.12
90996213|NCT01114373|181876391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.12
90996214|NCT01114373|181876392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.21
90996215|NCT01114373|181876393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||Friedman|||||||0.06
90996216|NCT01114373|181876394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|TWO_SIDED||||||Friedman|||||||0.21
90996217|NCT01114373|181876395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|TWO_SIDED||||||Friedman|||||||0.41
90996218|NCT01114373|181876396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.13
90996219|NCT01114373|181876397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.58
90996220|NCT01114373|181876398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.39
90996221|NCT03444870|181876399|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted mean|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline was calculated based on ANCOVA analysis model which included the following covariates and stratification factors =Treatment + Baseline (BL) + Geographic Region + Disease Stage + AD Medication at BL + Apolipoprotein E, Allele e4 (APOE e4) + Baseline Alzheimer Disease Assessment Scale-Cognition Subscale 13 (ADAS-Cog13) Score + Baseline Alzheimer Disease Cooperative Study Group-Activities of Daily Living (ADCS-ADL).||0.05|-0.66|0.0954
90996222|NCT03444870|181876401|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted mean|-1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.0544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Change from BL was calculated based on ANCOVA analysis model which included the following covariates and stratification factors = Treatment + Baseline + Geographical Region + Disease Stage + AD Medication at BL + APOE e4.||0.02|-2.52|0.0544
90996223|NCT03444870|181876402|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted mean|1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.1729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|2.7|||ANCOVA|||Change from BL was calculated based on ANCOVA analysis model which included the following covariates and stratification factors = Treatment + Baseline + Region + Disease Stage + AD Medication at BL + APOE e4.||2.70|-0.48|0.1729
90996224|NCT03444870|181876403|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted mean|-0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.0425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||Change from BL was calculated based on ANCOVA analysis model which included the following covariates and stratification factors = Treatment + Baseline + Geographical Region + Disease Stage + AD Medication at BL + APOE e4.||-0.03|-1.68|0.0425
90996225|NCT03444870|181876404|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted mean|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.2904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.93|||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline was calculated based on ANCOVA analysis model which included the following covariates and stratification factors =Treatment + Baseline + Geographic Region + Disease Stage + AD Medication at BL + APOE e4.||0.93|-0.28|0.2904
90996226|NCT03444870|181876405|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted mean|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.1036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.14|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Change from BL was calculated based on ANCOVA analysis model which included the following covariates and stratification factors = Treatment + Baseline + Geographical Region + Disease Stage + AD Medication at BL + APOE e4.||0.20|-2.14|0.1036
90996227|NCT03444870|181876406|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted mean|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.8468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.65|||ANCOVA|||Change from BL was calculated based on ANCOVA analysis model which included the following covariates and stratification factors = Treatment + Baseline + Geographical Region + Disease Stage + AD Medication at BL + APOE e4.||0.65|-0.79|0.8468
90996228|NCT03444870|181876407|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted mean|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|1.74|||ANCOVA|||Change from BL was calculated based on ANCOVA analysis model which included the following covariates and stratification factors = Treatment + Baseline + Geographical Region + Disease Stage + AD Medication at BL + APOE e4.||1.74|-1.35|0.8030
90996229|NCT03444870|181876408|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted mean|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.1439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|2.34|||ANCOVA|||Change from BL was calculated based on ANCOVA analysis model which included the following covariates and stratification factors = Treatment + Baseline + Geographical Region + Disease Stage + AD Medication at BL + APOE e4.||2.34|-0.34|0.1439
90996230|NCT03444870|181876415|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted means|-66.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.171|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.71|-58.16|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from BL was calculated based on mixed-effect model of repeated measure which included the following covariates and stratification factors = Baseline + APOE e4 status + Type of Tracer + Analysis Visit + Treatment + Treatment\*Analysis Visit + Analysis Visit\*Baseline.||-58.16|-74.71|<.0001
90996231|NCT03444870|181876416|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted mean|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023||0.7816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.05|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Temporal Composite Region: Change from BL was calculated based on mixed-effect model of repeated measure which included the following covariates and stratification factors = Baseline + APOE e4 status + Study + Analysis Visit + Treatment + Treatment\*Analysis Visit + Analysis Visit\*Baseline.||0.05|-0.04|0.7816
90996232|NCT03444870|181876416|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted means|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018||0.6203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.05|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Medial Temporal Composite Region: Change from BL was calculated based on mixed-effect model of repeated measure which included the following covariates and stratification factors = Baseline + APOE e4 status + Study + Analysis Visit + Treatment + Treatment\*Analysis Visit + Analysis Visit\*Baseline.||0.05|-0.03|0.6203
90996233|NCT03444870|181876416|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted means|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015||0.7754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.03|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Frontal Lobe: Change from BL was calculated based on mixed-effect model of repeated measure which included the following covariates and stratification factors = Baseline + APOE e4 status + Study + Analysis Visit + Treatment + Treatment\*Analysis Visit + Analysis Visit\*Baseline.||0.03|-0.03|0.7754
90996234|NCT03444870|181876416|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted means|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.9022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.05|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Parietal Lobe: Change from BL was calculated based on mixed-effect model of repeated measure which included the following covariates and stratification factors = Baseline + APOE e4 status + Study + Analysis Visit + Treatment + Treatment\*Analysis Visit + Analysis Visit\*Baseline.||0.05|-0.05|0.9022
90996235|NCT03444870|181876417|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||Parietal Lobe: Change from BL was calculated based on mixed-effect model of repeated measure which included the following covariates and stratification factors = Baseline + APOE e4 status + Study + Analysis Visit + Treatment + Treatment\*Analysis Visit + Analysis Visit\*Baseline.||||<.001
90996236|NCT03444870|181876418|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<.001
90996237|NCT03444870|181876419|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.396|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.396
90996238|NCT03444870|181876420|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<.001
90996239|NCT02034552|181876437|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0109||||||\[80% CI\]: \[10.1%- 39.6%\]|Clopper and Pearson|Patient bone scan response rate at Week 24 will be estimated with exact binomial 80% CI using the method of Clopper and Pearson.||H0: Patient bone scan response rate at Week 24 ≤5%. The Type I error rate for the test in each treatment group, is one-sided 0.10. A one-sided p-value will be reported for this test.||||0.0109
90996240|NCT02034552|181876437|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||\[80% CI\]: \[40.8% - 73.7%\]|Clopper and Pearson|Patient bone scan response rate at Week 24 will be estimated with exact binomial 80% CI using the method of Clopper and Pearson.||H0: Patient bone scan response rate at Week 24 ≤5%. The Type I error rate for the test in each treatment group, is one-sided 0.10. A one-sided p-value will be reported for this test.||||<0.0001
90996241|NCT02034552|181876437|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||\[80% CI\]: \[31.8% - 68.2%\]|Clopper and Pearson|Patient bone scan response rate at Week 24 will be estimated with exact binomial 80% CI using the method of Clopper and Pearson.||H0: Patient bone scan response rate at Week 24 ≤5%. The Type I error rate for the test in each treatment group, is one-sided 0.10. A one-sided p-value will be reported for this test.||||<0.0001
90996242|NCT00074802|181876445|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.43||||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.05|4.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.19|-15.05|.267
90996243|NCT00074802|181876446|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018||||||Fisher's Exact Test used for analyses.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's Exact Test used for analyses of responder status.||||.018
90996244|NCT00074802|181876446|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.034||||||Fisher's Exact Test used for analyses.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's Exact Test used for analyses of remitter status.||||.034
90996245|NCT00074802|181876447|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.21||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.02|-1.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.39|-5.02|.0005
90996246|NCT00074802|181876448|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.61||||0.0775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.84|0.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.62|-11.84|.0775
90996247|NCT00074802|181876449|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.53||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|-2.35|||Mixed Models Analysis||Paroxetine+CBT \> Paroxetine alone in BFNE change.|||-2.35|-8.70|.0006
90996248|NCT00074802|181876450|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|2.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.55|-2.16|.871
90996249|NCT00074802|181876451|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.41||||0.949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.95|12.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||12.76|-11.95|.949
90996250|NCT02513771|181876490|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Stratified Wilcoxon rank-sum test stratified by screening CD4 count (\<= or \> 350 cells/mm\^3) and statin use.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in sCD14 from baseline to week 15/16.||||1.000
90996251|NCT04295356|181876506|EQUIVALENCE|The 90% confidence interval of the ratio of geometric least squares means of Cmax was estimated to assess the PK similarity between CT-P17 AI and CT-P17 PFS (bioequivalence margin of 80% to 125%).|Ratio of geometric least squares means|102.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.08|111.9|||ANCOVA|The stratification factors (gender \[male or female\], study center, and body weight as measured on Day -1) were included in ANCOVA model as covariates.||Equivalence test in Cmax between CT-P17 AI and CT-P17 PFS||111.90|94.08|
90996252|NCT04295356|181876507|EQUIVALENCE|The 90% confidence interval of the ratio of geometric least squares means of AUC0-inf was estimated to assess the PK similarity between CT-P17 AI and CT-P17 PFS (bioequivalence margin of 80% to 125%).|Ratio of geometric least squares means|103.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.98|114.29|||ANCOVA|The stratification factors (gender \[male or female\], study center, and body weight as measured on Day -1) were included in ANCOVA model as covariates.||Equivalence test in AUC0-inf between CT-P17 AI and CT-P17 PFS||114.29|93.98|
90996253|NCT04295356|181876508|EQUIVALENCE|The 90% confidence interval of the ratio of geometric least squares means of AUC0-last was estimated to assess the PK similarity between CT-P17 AI and CT-P17 PFS (bioequivalence margin of 80% to 125%).|Ratio of geometric least squares means|105.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.09|121.86|||ANCOVA|The stratification factors (gender \[male or female\], study center, and body weight as measured on Day -1) were included in ANCOVA model as covariates.||Equivalence test in AUC0-last between CT-P17 AI and CT-P17 PFS||121.86|91.09|
90996254|NCT01784588|181876525|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority (NI) was demonstrated if the entire confidence interval was above -15% at 36 months. The sample size was estimated under the assumption that the proportion of subjects with treatment success is 85% for each of Solyx and Obtryx. For a (one-sided) type I error rate of 0.05, 194 subjects (97 per arm) are needed to have 90% power to demonstrate non-inferiority of Solyx with a NI margin of 15%.|Adjusted Difference in Percentages|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.2|7.4||Non-inferiority was evaluated using a two-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) for the treatment difference (SIS minus TMUS). The CI was calculated based on the pooling of treatment differences across propensity score strata for a binary endpoint.||||Available Cases Only - Intent-to-Treat||7.4|-8.2|
90996255|NCT01784588|181876525|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority (NI) was demonstrated if the entire confidence interval was above -15% at 36 months. The sample size was estimated under the assumption that the proportion of subjects with treatment success is 85% for each of Solyx and Obtryx. For a (one-sided) type I error rate of 0.05, 194 subjects (97 per arm) are needed to have 90% power to demonstrate non-inferiority of Solyx with a NI margin of 15%.|Unadjusted Treatment Difference (%)|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.4|8.4||Non-inferiority was evaluated using a two-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) for the treatment difference (SIS minus TMUS). The CI was calculated based on the pooling of treatment differences across propensity score strata for a binary endpoint.||||Available Cases Only - Intent-to-Treat||8.4|-5.4|
90996256|NCT04268004|181876530|OTHER|Chi-squared test was used to determine if study arm is associated with FP uptake.|||||=|0.64|||||||Chi-squared|df=(1, 19)||Chi-square test was used to determine if study arm is associated with FP uptake.||||=.64
90996257|NCT01148563|181876538|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio, log|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.05|||bootstrapping||The hypothesis test was based on ln(relative risk), with the tele-monitoring group value as the relative risk numerator and the control group value as the denominator. The standard error was generated by bootstrapping the sample.|||0.05|-0.65|0.094
90996258|NCT01148563|181876539|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio, log|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.08|||bootstrapping|The standard error was generated by bootstrapping the sample.|The hypothesis test was based on ln(relative risk) with the tele-monitoring group value as the numerator and the control group as the denominator.|||1.08|0.45|0.105
90996259|NCT01879319|181876542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|6.1||||||||6.1|-11.2|
90996260|NCT01879319|181876543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|9.7||||||||9.7|-2.9|
90996261|NCT03372603|181876569|OTHER||Ratio|1.336|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.965|1.847|||||Treatment comparison ratio of GSK2798745 and placebo using posterior median ratio and 90% credible interval is presented.|||1.847|0.965|
90996262|NCT03084718|181876588|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.044||||0.567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.052|0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||0.140|-0.052|0.567
90996263|NCT03084718|181876588|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.113||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.018|0.209|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||0.209|0.018|0.015
91043994|NCT02102932|181974115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of the geometric means|105.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.8||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.32|112.7||P-value for ratio outside interval 80-125|ANOVA||Ratio of the geometric means for treatments (Test (T2) versus Reference (R2)) i.e. T2/R2. The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|"The statistical model used was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation:~'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed."||112.70|99.32|0.0001
90996264|NCT03084718|181876588|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.093||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.003|0.188|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||0.188|-0.003|0.059
90996265|NCT03084718|181876588|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.069||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.011|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||0.150|-0.011|0.090
90996266|NCT03084718|181876588|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.049||||0.231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.031|0.129|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||0.129|-0.031|0.231
90996267|NCT03084718|181876588|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.021||||0.612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.101|0.059|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD)"||0.059|-0.101|0.612
90996268|NCT03084718|181876588|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.102||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.023|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment E (QVAR\^®, 320 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||0.180|0.023|0.011
90996269|NCT03084718|181876589|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.018||||0.647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.097|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||0.097|-0.060|0.647
90996270|NCT03084718|181876589|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.118||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.039|0.196|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||0.196|0.039|0.004
90996271|NCT03084718|181876589|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.071||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.008|0.149|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||0.149|-0.008|0.076
90996272|NCT03084718|181876589|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.099||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.179|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||0.179|0.020|0.014
90996273|NCT03084718|181876589|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.052||||0.192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.026|0.131|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||0.131|-0.026|0.192
90996274|NCT03084718|181876589|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.047||||0.244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.126|0.032|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD)"||0.032|-0.126|0.244
90996275|NCT03084718|181876589|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.074||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.003|0.151|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment E (QVAR\^®, 320 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||0.151|-0.003|0.060
90996276|NCT03084718|181876590|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.012||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.074|0.098|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 4~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||0.098|-0.074|0.780
90996277|NCT03084718|181876590|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.076||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.011|0.162|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 4~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||0.162|-0.011|0.086
90996278|NCT03084718|181876590|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.043||||0.324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.043|0.129|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 4~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||0.129|-0.043|0.324
90996279|NCT03084718|181876590|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.063||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.024|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 4~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||0.150|-0.024|0.153
90996280|NCT03084718|181876590|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.031||||0.482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.055|0.117|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 4~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||0.117|-0.055|0.482
90996281|NCT03084718|181876590|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.032||||0.463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.119|0.054|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 4~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD)"||0.054|-0.119|0.463
90996282|NCT03084718|181876590|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.032||||0.453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.052|0.117|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 4~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment E (QVAR\^®, 320 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||0.117|-0.052|0.453
90996283|NCT03084718|181876590|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.064|0.123|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 8~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||0.123|-0.064|0.533
90996284|NCT03084718|181876590|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.105||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.011|0.199|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 8~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||0.199|0.011|0.029
90996285|NCT03084718|181876590|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.052||||0.274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.041|0.146|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 8~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||0.146|-0.041|0.274
90996286|NCT03084718|181876590|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.075||||0.119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.019|0.169|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 8~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||0.169|-0.019|0.119
90996287|NCT03084718|181876590|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.022||||0.638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.071|0.116|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 8~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||0.116|-0.071|0.638
91043995|NCT02102932|181974115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of the geometric means|103.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.2||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.18|109.63||P-value for ratio outside interval 80-125|ANOVA||Ratio of the geometric means for treatments (Test (T3) versus Reference (R3)) i.e. T3/R3. The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|"The statistical model used was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation:~'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed."||109.63|98.18|0.0000
90996288|NCT03084718|181876590|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.052||||0.274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.147|0.042|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 8~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD)"||0.042|-0.147|0.274
90996289|NCT03084718|181876590|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.079||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.013|0.171|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 8~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment E (QVAR\^®, 320 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||0.171|-0.013|0.092
90996290|NCT03084718|181876591|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 4~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||0.00|-0.31|0.053
90996291|NCT03084718|181876591|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 4~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||-0.11|-0.42|0.001
90996292|NCT03084718|181876591|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 4~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||-0.06|-0.37|0.006
90996293|NCT03084718|181876591|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11||||0.176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 4~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||0.05|-0.26|0.176
90996294|NCT03084718|181876591|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 4~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||0.09|-0.22|0.423
90996295|NCT03084718|181876591|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 4~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD)"||0.20|-0.11|0.574
90996296|NCT03084718|181876591|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 4~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment E (QVAR\^®, 320 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||-0.05|-0.35|0.011
91043996|NCT02102932|181974115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of the geometric means|95.77|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.8||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.88|102.03||P-value for ratio outside interval 80-125|ANOVA||Ratio of the geometric means for treatments (Test (T4) versus Reference (R4)) i.e. T4/R4. The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|"The statistical model used was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation:~'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed."||102.03|89.88|0.0000
90996297|NCT03084718|181876591|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 8~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo"||0.06|-0.27|0.215
90996298|NCT03084718|181876591|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 8~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||0.01|-0.32|0.070
90996299|NCT03084718|181876591|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 8~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||-0.07|-0.40|0.005
91043997|NCT02102932|181974116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of the geometric means|106.44|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.8||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.44|112.8||P-value for ratio outside interval 80-125|ANOVA||Ratio of the geometric means for treatments (Test (T1) versus Reference (R1)) i.e. T1/R1. The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|"The statistical model used was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation:~'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed."||112.80|100.44|0.0000
91043998|NCT02102932|181974116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of the geometric means|110.78|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.2||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.8|118.24||P-value for ratio outside interval 80-125|ANOVA||Ratio of the geometric means for treatments (Test (T2) versus Reference (R2)) i.e. T2/R2. The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|"The statistical model used was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation:~'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed."||118.24|103.80|0.0021
91043999|NCT02102932|181974116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of the geometric means|101.38|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.6||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.82|108.39||P-value for ratio outside interval 80-125|ANOVA||Ratio of the geometric means for treatments (Test (T3) versus Reference (R3)) i.e. T3/R3. The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|"The statistical model used was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation:~'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed."||108.39|94.82|0.0000
91044000|NCT02102932|181974116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of the geometric means|103.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.3||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.08|111.63||P-value for ratio outside interval 80-125|ANOVA||Ratio of the geometric means for treatments (Test (T4) versus Reference (R4)) i.e. T4/R4. The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|"The statistical model used was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation:~'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed."||111.63|95.08|0.0002
91044001|NCT02102932|181974117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of the geometric means|104.91|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.2||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.29|110.86||P-value for ratio outside interval 80-125|ANOVA||Ratio of the geometric means for treatments (Test (T1) versus Reference (R1)) i.e. T1/R1. The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|"The statistical model used was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation:~'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed."||110.86|99.29|0.0000
91044002|NCT02102932|181974117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of the geometric means|106.32|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.7||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.39|114.88||P-value for ratio outside interval 80-125|ANOVA||Ratio of the geometric means for treatments (Test (T2) versus Reference (R2)) i.e. T2/R2. The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|"The statistical model used was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation:~'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed."||114.88|98.39|0.0008
91044003|NCT02102932|181974117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of the geometric means|104.44|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.7||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.68|112.82||P-value for ratio outside interval 80-125|ANOVA||Ratio of the geometric means for treatments (Test (T3) versus Reference (R3)) i.e. T3/R3. The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|"The statistical model used was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation:~'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed."||112.82|96.68|0.0003
91044004|NCT02102932|181974117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of the geometric means|96.61|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.9||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.9|104.99||P-value for ratio outside interval 80-125|ANOVA||Ratio of the geometric means for treatments (Test (T4) versus Reference (R4)) i.e. T4/R4. The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|"The statistical model used was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation:~'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed."||104.99|88.90|0.0004
90996300|NCT03084718|181876591|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 8~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||0.12|-0.21|0.566
90996301|NCT03084718|181876591|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 8~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||0.04|-0.29|0.124
90996302|NCT03084718|181876591|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 8~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD)"||0.08|-0.25|0.336
91044005|NCT02102932|181974118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of the geometric means|105.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.2||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.97|108.45||P-value for ratio outside interval 80-125|ANOVA||Ratio of the geometric means for treatments (Test (T1) versus Reference (R1)) i.e. T1/R1. The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|"The statistical model used was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation:~'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed."||108.45|101.97|0.0000
91044006|NCT02102932|181974118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of the geometric means|103.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.6||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.75|106.5||P-value for ratio outside interval 80-125|ANOVA||Ratio of the geometric means for treatments (Test (T2) versus Reference (R2)) i.e. T2/R2. The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|"The statistical model used was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation:~'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed."||106.50|99.75|0.0000
91044007|NCT02102932|181974118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of the geometric means|103.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.5||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.37|107.04||P-value for ratio outside interval 80-125|ANOVA||Ratio of the geometric means for treatments (Test (T3) versus Reference (R3)) i.e. T3/R3. The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|"The statistical model used was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation:~'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed."||107.04|99.37|0.0000
91044008|NCT02102932|181974118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of the geometric means|102.61|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.0||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.1|106.25||P-value for ratio outside interval 80-125|ANOVA||Ratio of the geometric means for treatments (Test (T4) versus Reference (R4)) i.e. T4/R4. The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|"The statistical model used was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation:~'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed."||106.25|99.10|0.0000
91044009|NCT02102932|181974119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of the geometric means|105.33|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.9||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.34|111.68||P-value for ratio outside interval 80-125|ANOVA||Ratio of the geometric means for treatments (Test (T1) versus Reference (R1)) i.e. T1/R1. The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|"The statistical model used was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation:~'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed."||111.68|99.34|0.0000
91044010|NCT02102932|181974119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of the geometric means|105.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.2||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.09|112.85||P-value for ratio outside interval 80-125|ANOVA||Ratio of the geometric means for treatments (Test (T2) versus Reference (R2)) i.e. T2/R2. The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|"The statistical model used was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation:~'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed."||112.85|99.09|0.0001
91044011|NCT02102932|181974119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of the geometric means|102.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.7||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.11|109.03||P-value for ratio outside interval 80-125|ANOVA||Ratio of the geometric means for treatments (Test (T3) versus Reference (R3)) i.e. T3/R3. The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|"The statistical model used was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation:~'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed."||109.03|97.11|0.0000
91044012|NCT02102932|181974119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of the geometric means|93.84|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.6||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.74|100.36||P-value for ratio outside interval 80-125|ANOVA||Ratio of the geometric means for treatments (Test (T4) versus Reference (R4)) i.e. T4/R4. The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|"The statistical model used was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation:~'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed."||100.36|87.74|0.0002
91044013|NCT02795676|181974142|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be declared if the lower bound of the confidence interval for the treatment difference is above the non-inferiority margin, which was met. No p-value was calculated as this is not relevant for non-inferiority.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.359|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.444|1.726|||Regression, Linear|The primary efficacy analysis compared eGFR slope between the treatment arms using a 2-stage model with quantile regression.||||1.726|-2.444|
91044014|NCT00108550|181974161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0305|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038||0.4237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.044|0.105||There was no need for multiple comparisons adjustment for the primary outcome, since there was only one. However, secondary analyses were adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Effect of covariates (age, gender, etc) was evaluated (modeled as fixed effects) in secondary analyses.|The analysis was performed on transformed (rather than raw) Descriptor Differential Score Pain Intensity scores.|The null hypothesis was that Gabapentin is no better than placebo in reducing back pain. A mean-matching variance stabilizing transformation was applied to Descriptor Differential Scale Pain intensity (DDS) scores. Scores were modeled as a function of time (week) and group (gabapentin, placebo) in a mixed effects model. Random (subject-specific)intercept and slopes were fitted to the data. With alpha = .05 and N = 65 per group power is .8 to detect effect size =.4 standard deviations (SD).||0.105|-0.044|0.4237
91044015|NCT00108550|181974162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5343|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7174||0.458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|0.872||Primary analyses was multivariable linear regression with fixed and random effects. After the Bonferroni adjustment a p-value would have been considered significant at 0.05 level if \<0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||This is a secondary analysis; the null hypothesis is that Gabapentin performs no better than placebo in reducing the Roland and Morris score.||0.872|-1.940|0.458
91044016|NCT03222037|181974232|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was declared if the upper limit of the 97.5% confidence interval was below 0.05.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.09|-0.02|||Linear Mixed Model|Linear mixed model with Kenward and Roger method for degrees of freedom|Mean difference was calculated as Test- SCR. This comparison is for high lumniance low contrast|Comparison between the Test and the SCR treatments was carried out using 97.5% confidence intervals for the least-square mean differences.||-0.02|-0.09|
91044017|NCT03222037|181974232|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was declared if the upper limit of the 97.5% confidence interval was below 0.05|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.06|-0.01|||Linear Mixed Model|Linear mixed model with Kenward and Roger method for denominator degrees of freedom|Mean difference was calculated as Test- SCR. This comparison is for Low luminance high contrast|||-0.01|-0.06|
90996303|NCT03084718|181876591|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 8~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment E (QVAR\^®, 320 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||-0.05|-0.37|0.010
90996304|NCT03084718|181876592|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||0.01|-0.38|0.067
90996305|NCT03084718|181876592|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||-0.14|-0.53|< 0.001
90996306|NCT03084718|181876592|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||-0.01|-0.40|0.038
91044018|NCT03222037|181974233|EQUIVALENCE|Statistical significance is declared if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval is above 0 or if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval is below 0.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.0066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.08|||Linear Mixed Model|Linear Mixed Model with Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as Test - SCR.|Comparison between the Test and SCR treatments was carried out using least-square mean differences||0.08|0.01|0.0066
90996307|NCT03084718|181876592|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||0.05|-0.35|0.130
90996308|NCT03084718|181876592|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||0.17|-0.22|0.811
90996309|NCT03084718|181876592|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD)"||0.33|-0.07|0.202
90996310|NCT03084718|181876592|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|-0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment E (QVAR\^®, 320 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||-0.01|-0.39|0.044
91044019|NCT04511208|181974370|SUPERIORITY||Difference in means|-2.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-1.7|||Repeated measures linear model|||||-1.7|-2.7|<0.001
90996311|NCT03084718|181876592|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||0.11|-0.37|0.283
91044020|NCT04511208|181974371|SUPERIORITY||Difference in means|-0.26||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.08|||Repeated measures linear model|||||-0.08|-0.44|0.006
91044021|NCT04511208|181974372|SUPERIORITY||Difference in means|-0.23||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.005|||Repeated measures linear model|||||-0.005|-0.45|0.046
91044022|NCT04511208|181974373|SUPERIORITY||Difference in means|-0.07||||0.955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|2.38|||Repeated measures linear model|||C3B PST Score||2.38|-2.51|0.955
91044023|NCT04511208|181974373|SUPERIORITY||Difference in means|0.62||||0.686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|3.71|||Repeated measures linear model|||C3B VMT Score||3.71|-2.48|0.686
91044024|NCT04511208|181974374|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.5||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|4.68|||Generalized linear mixed effects model|||||4.68|1.28|0.007
91044025|NCT04511208|181974374|SUPERIORITY||Difference in means|-1.1||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|-0.28|||Repeated measures linear model|||Sensitivity analysis||-0.28|-1.82|0.009
91044026|NCT04511208|181974375|SUPERIORITY||Difference in means|-1.06||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|-0.38|||Repeated measures linear model|||||-0.38|-1.75|0.004
90996312|NCT03084718|181876592|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||-0.13|-0.60|0.003
90996313|NCT03084718|181876592|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||-0.03|-0.50|0.027
90996314|NCT03084718|181876592|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||0.00|-0.48|0.054
90996315|NCT03084718|181876592|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||0.10|-0.38|0.258
91044027|NCT04511208|181974376|SUPERIORITY||Difference in means|-2.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|-2.13|||Repeated measures linear model|||||-2.13|-3.80|<0.001
91044028|NCT00987831|181974381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|30.0||||0.2738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|95.0||Definition of Moderate Disease was \</= 3 BILAG B (moderate) organ scores, no A (severe) scores and SLEDAI \</=10. Severe disease was \> 3 BILAG B or \>/= BILAG A or SLEDAI \> 10 or meets definition for severe flare on the SELENA SLEDAI Flare Index|Log Rank|||||95|5|0.2738
91044029|NCT02413294|181974391|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37||||||This t-test analyzes the change in mean between the midpoint interview immediately prior to the start of the intervention and the follow-up interview at the conclusion of the intervention.|Paired T test, 2-sided|||The analysis, like the measures themselves, tracks the significance of the change from end of pre-intervention period to end of intervention period, so while only a single comparison group is listed, because it is all one population group, there are two sets of data for that group.||||0.37
91044030|NCT02413294|181974392|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||Paired T test, 2-sided|||The analysis, like the measures themselves, tracks the significance of the change from end of pre-intervention period to end of intervention period, so while only a single comparison group is listed, because it is all one population group, there are two sets of data for that group.||||0.42
91044031|NCT02413294|181974393|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||Paired T test, 2-sided|||The analysis, like the measures themselves, tracks the significance of the change from end of pre-intervention period to end of intervention period, so while only a single comparison group is listed, because it is all one population group, there are two sets of data for that group.||||0.65
91044032|NCT02413294|181974394|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||The analysis, like the measures themselves, tracks the significance of the change from end of pre-intervention period to end of intervention period, so while only a single comparison group is listed, because it is all one population group, there are two sets of data for that group.||||1.0
90996316|NCT03084718|181876592|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD)"||0.34|-0.14|0.423
90996317|NCT03084718|181876592|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment E (QVAR\^®, 320 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||0.04|-0.42|0.111
90996318|NCT03084718|181876592|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||0.05|-0.36|0.135
90996319|NCT03084718|181876592|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||-0.14|-0.56|< 0.001
90996320|NCT03084718|181876592|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||-0.03|-0.44|0.024
91044033|NCT02413294|181974395|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||Paired T test, 2-sided|||Pre-intervention period means are compared to intervention period means for all subjects.||||0.65
90996321|NCT03084718|181876592|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||0.01|-0.40|0.067
90996322|NCT03084718|181876592|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||0.13|-0.29|0.444
90996323|NCT03084718|181876592|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD)"||0.32|-0.09|0.285
90996324|NCT03084718|181876592|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment E (QVAR\^®, 320 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||0.01|-0.40|0.060
90996325|NCT03084718|181876593|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.4||||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|10.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||10.0|-1.1|0.115
90996326|NCT03084718|181876593|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.6||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|13.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||13.1|2.0|0.008
90996327|NCT03084718|181876593|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.7||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|10.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||10.2|-0.9|0.099
90996328|NCT03084718|181876593|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.1||||0.275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|8.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||8.8|-2.5|0.275
90996329|NCT03084718|181876593|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|5.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||5.8|-5.4|0.943
90996330|NCT03084718|181876593|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.9||||0.308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|2.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD)"||2.7|-8.6|0.308
90996331|NCT03084718|181876593|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.3||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|11.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment E (QVAR\^®, 320 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||11.7|0.8|0.024
90996332|NCT03084718|181876593|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.8||||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|11.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||11.0|-1.4|0.129
90996333|NCT03084718|181876593|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.0||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|15.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||15.2|2.8|0.004
90996334|NCT03084718|181876593|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.9||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|12.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||12.1|-0.3|0.061
90996335|NCT03084718|181876593|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.3||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|10.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||10.5|-2.0|0.180
90996336|NCT03084718|181876593|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|7.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||7.4|-5.1|0.721
90996337|NCT03084718|181876593|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.1||||0.328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|3.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD)"||3.1|-9.4|0.328
90996338|NCT03084718|181876593|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.1||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|13.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment E (QVAR\^®, 320 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||13.2|1.0|0.022
91044034|NCT02413294|181974396|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||Paired T test, 2-sided|||Pre-intervention period means are compared to intervention period means for all subjects.||||0.65
91044035|NCT02413294|181974397|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||Paired T test, 2-sided|||Pre-intervention period means are compared to intervention period means for all subjects.||||0.94
91044036|NCT02413294|181974398|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||Paired T test, 2-sided|||Pre-intervention period means are compared to intervention period means for all subjects.||||0.81
91044037|NCT02413294|181974399|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Paired T test, 2-sided|||Pre-intervention period means are compared to intervention period means for all subjects.||||0.40
91044038|NCT02413294|181974400|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||Paired T test, 2-sided|||Pre-intervention period means are compared to intervention period means for all subjects.||||0.46
91044039|NCT02413294|181974401|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Paired T test, 2-sided|||Pre-intervention period means are compared to intervention period means for all subjects.||||<0.01
91044040|NCT02413294|181974402|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Paired T test, 2-sided|||Pre-intervention period means are compared to intervention period means for all subjects.||||0.28
91044041|NCT02413294|181974403|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||Paired T test, 2-sided|||Pre-intervention period means are compared to intervention period means for all subjects.||||0.67
91044042|NCT02413294|181974404|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||Paired T test, 2-sided|||Pre-intervention period means are compared to intervention period means for all subjects.||||0.56
91044043|NCT02413294|181974405|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||Paired T test, 2-sided|||Pre-intervention period means are compared to intervention period means for all subjects.||||0.82
91044044|NCT02625974|181974406|OTHER|A direct comparison|Difference in cure rate|14.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|24.2||||||||24.2|3.7|
90996339|NCT03084718|181876593|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.6||||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|10.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||10.1|-0.9|0.101
90996340|NCT03084718|181876593|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.3||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|13.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||13.9|2.8|0.003
90996341|NCT03084718|181876593|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.3||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|10.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||10.8|-0.2|0.061
90996342|NCT03084718|181876593|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.7||||0.196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|9.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||9.3|-1.9|0.196
90996343|NCT03084718|181876593|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|6.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||6.3|-4.9|0.814
90996344|NCT03084718|181876593|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0||||0.291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|2.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD)"||2.6|-8.6|0.291
90996345|NCT03084718|181876593|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.7||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|12.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment E (QVAR\^®, 320 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||12.1|1.3|0.016
90996346|NCT03084718|181876594|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||-0.1|-0.2|< 0.001
90996347|NCT03084718|181876594|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||-0.1|-0.2|< 0.001
90996348|NCT03084718|181876594|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||-0.1|-0.2|< 0.001
90996349|NCT03084718|181876594|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||0.1|-0.1|0.913
90996350|NCT03084718|181876594|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||0.1|-0.1|0.871
90996351|NCT03084718|181876594|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD)"||0.1|-0.1|0.958
90996352|NCT03084718|181876594|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment E (QVAR\^®, 320 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||-0.1|-0.2|< 0.001
90996353|NCT03084718|181876594|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||-0.0|-0.2|0.010
90996354|NCT03084718|181876594|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||-0.0|-0.2|0.011
90996355|NCT03084718|181876594|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||-0.0|-0.2|0.002
90996356|NCT03084718|181876594|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||0.1|-0.1|0.996
90996357|NCT03084718|181876594|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||0.1|-0.1|0.632
90996358|NCT03084718|181876594|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD)"||0.1|-0.1|0.630
90996359|NCT03084718|181876594|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment E (QVAR\^®, 320 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||-0.1|-0.2|< 0.001
90996360|NCT03084718|181876594|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||-0.0|-0.2|0.002
90996361|NCT03084718|181876594|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||-0.0|-0.2|0.001
90996362|NCT03084718|181876594|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||-0.1|-0.2|< 0.001
90996363|NCT03084718|181876594|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||0.1|-0.1|0.960
90996364|NCT03084718|181876594|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||0.1|-0.1|0.725
90996365|NCT03084718|181876594|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD)"||0.1|-0.1|0.764
90996366|NCT03084718|181876594|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment E (QVAR\^®, 320 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||-0.1|-0.2|< 0.001
90996367|NCT03084718|181876595|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.9||||0.316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|8.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||8.7|-2.8|0.316
90996368|NCT03084718|181876595|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.9||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|10.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||10.7|-0.9|0.097
90996369|NCT03084718|181876595|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.4||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|10.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||10.2|-1.3|0.128
90996370|NCT03084718|181876595|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|7.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||7.8|-3.9|0.511
90996371|NCT03084718|181876595|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|7.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||7.3|-4.3|0.610
90996372|NCT03084718|181876595|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|5.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD)"||5.4|-6.3|0.882
90996373|NCT03084718|181876595|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.2||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|12.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment E (QVAR\^®, 320 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||12.9|1.5|0.013
90996374|NCT03084718|181876595|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.7||||0.219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|12.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||12.2|-2.8|0.219
90996375|NCT03084718|181876595|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.3||||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|12.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||12.8|-2.2|0.166
90996376|NCT03084718|181876595|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.5||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|12.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||12.9|-2.0|0.151
90996377|NCT03084718|181876595|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|8.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||8.2|-6.9|0.871
90996378|NCT03084718|181876595|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|8.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||8.3|-6.8|0.837
90996379|NCT03084718|181876595|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|7.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD)"||7.7|-7.4|0.966
90996380|NCT03084718|181876595|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.5||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|16.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment E (QVAR\^®, 320 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||16.9|2.1|0.012
90996381|NCT03084718|181876595|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.8||||0.233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|10.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||10.1|-2.5|0.233
90996382|NCT03084718|181876595|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.1||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|11.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||11.4|-1.2|0.113
90996383|NCT03084718|181876595|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.0||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|11.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||11.2|-1.3|0.120
90996384|NCT03084718|181876595|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|7.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||7.6|-5.1|0.691
90996385|NCT03084718|181876595|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2||||0.722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|7.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||7.5|-5.2|0.722
90996386|NCT03084718|181876595|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|6.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD)"||6.2|-6.5|0.966
90996387|NCT03084718|181876595|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.3||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|14.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment E (QVAR\^®, 320 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||14.5|2.2|0.008
90996388|NCT03084718|181876596|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3||||0.426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|7.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||7.9|-3.4|0.426
90996389|NCT03084718|181876596|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.6||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|11.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||11.2|-0.1|0.055
90996390|NCT03084718|181876596|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.4||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|11.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||11.1|-0.2|0.059
90996391|NCT03084718|181876596|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.3||||0.263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|9.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||9.0|-2.5|0.263
90996392|NCT03084718|181876596|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.1||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|8.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||8.8|-2.6|0.280
90996393|NCT03084718|181876596|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|5.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD)"||5.6|-5.9|0.965
90996394|NCT03084718|181876596|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.8||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|13.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Treatment E (QVAR\^®, 320 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||13.3|2.2|0.007
90996395|NCT03084718|181876596|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.8||||0.308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|11.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||11.2|-3.5|0.308
90996396|NCT03084718|181876596|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.8||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|13.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||13.2|-1.6|0.124
90996397|NCT03084718|181876596|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.0||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|14.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||14.3|-0.4|0.063
90996398|NCT03084718|181876596|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|9.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||9.4|-5.5|0.602
90996399|NCT03084718|181876596|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.2||||0.402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|10.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||10.6|-4.3|0.402
90996400|NCT03084718|181876596|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2||||0.753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|8.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD)"||8.6|-6.3|0.753
90996401|NCT03084718|181876596|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.2||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|17.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment E (QVAR\^®, 320 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||17.4|2.9|0.006
90996402|NCT03084718|181876596|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.1||||0.331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|9.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||9.2|-3.1|0.331
90996403|NCT03084718|181876596|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.7||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|11.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||11.9|-0.5|0.073
90996404|NCT03084718|181876596|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.2||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|12.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||12.4|0.1|0.048
90996405|NCT03084718|181876596|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.6||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|8.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||8.9|-3.6|0.410
90996406|NCT03084718|181876596|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.2||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|9.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||9.4|-3.1|0.320
90996407|NCT03084718|181876596|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|6.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD)"||6.8|-5.7|0.867
90996408|NCT03084718|181876596|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.0||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|15.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment E (QVAR\^®, 320 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||15.0|2.9|0.004
90996409|NCT03084718|181876597|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.0||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|11.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||11.9|-3.2|0.260
90996410|NCT03084718|181876597|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0||||0.387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|10.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||10.9|-4.2|0.387
90996411|NCT03084718|181876597|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|9.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||9.7|-5.4|0.574
90996412|NCT03084718|181876597|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|6.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||6.7|-8.6|0.799
90996413|NCT03084718|181876597|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|5.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||5.5|-9.8|0.577
90996414|NCT03084718|181876597|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|6.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD)"||6.5|-8.8|0.764
90996415|NCT03084718|181876597|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.0||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|13.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Treatment E (QVAR\^®, 320 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||13.8|-1.1|0.097
90996416|NCT03084718|181876597|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|8.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||8.8|-9.9|0.908
90996417|NCT03084718|181876597|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.0||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|16.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||16.5|-2.2|0.135
90996418|NCT03084718|181876597|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|8.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo"||8.1|-10.7|0.786
90996419|NCT03084718|181876597|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.0||||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|17.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||17.1|-1.7|0.109
90996420|NCT03084718|181876597|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|8.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||8.7|-10.1|0.876
90996421|NCT03084718|181876597|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.0||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.9|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD)"||1.0|-17.9|0.080
90996422|NCT03084718|181876597|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.0||||0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|15.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment E (QVAR\^®, 320 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||15.3|-3.2|0.202
90996423|NCT03084718|181876597|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|9.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||9.7|-5.9|0.635
90996424|NCT03084718|181876597|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.0||||0.191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|13.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||13.1|-2.6|0.191
90996425|NCT03084718|181876597|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|8.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||8.3|-7.4|0.914
90996426|NCT03084718|181876597|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0||||0.407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|11.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||11.3|-4.6|0.407
91044045|NCT02625974|181974407|OTHER|Incidence rate and 95% CI of seronegative conversion|Risk Ratio (RR)|2.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|3.45|||||Person-year = 754|||3.45|1.21|
91044046|NCT02625974|181974412|OTHER|Incidence rate and 95% CI of seronegative conversion|Risk Ratio (RR)|2.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|4.16|||||Person-year = 379|||4.16|0.91|
91044047|NCT01923311|181974454|EQUIVALENCE|A total of 12 test study participants compared to 334 HIV-infected reference study participants will provide at least 90% power to conclude exposure equivalence of EVG AUCtau in test study vs reference study, assuming the expected geometric mean ratio is 1, equivalency boundary is 70% to 143%, 2 one-sided tests are each performed at an alpha level of 0.05, and the standard deviation of EVG AUCtau is 0.36 ng•h/mL (natural log scale, estimated from EVG population PK modeling).|GLSM Ratio (%) (Test/Reference)|135.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|116.24|158.49||||||To determine whether the proposed EVG dose in children achieved similar systemic exposure to adults, statistical comparisons were performed with PK data from the current study (test) and adult data from population PK modeling in study GS-US-183-0145 (NCT00708162) (reference).||158.49|116.24|
90996427|NCT03084718|181876597|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|6.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||6.4|-9.4|0.718
90996428|NCT03084718|181876597|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.0||||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|3.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD)"||3.1|-12.7|0.235
90996429|NCT03084718|181876597|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.0||||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|13.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment E (QVAR\^®, 320 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||13.9|-1.6|0.118
90996430|NCT02806947|181876612|OTHER|No formal hypothesis test was planned or performed for comparing Day 28 CR/PR proportions between arms. Rather, the risk difference is estimated by a point estimate and 90% confidence interval.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.082|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.086|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.223|0.059|||||The risk difference estimate is the observed proportion of Day 28 CR/PR in the sirolimus arm minus the proportion in the prednisone arm. A Wald confidence interval for this difference is given.|The primary objective of this Phase II trial was to describe the proportion of patients with Day 28 CR/PR in each treatment arm and to estimate the risk difference of these rates using a point estimate and 90% confidence interval. These estimates are used to inform about the efficacy of sirolimus in contrast to prednisone for potential future research.||0.059|-0.223|
90996431|NCT02806947|181876612|OTHER|No formal hypothesis test was planned or performed for comparing Day 56 CR/PR proportions between arms. Rather, the risk difference is estimated by a point estimate and 95% confidence interval.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.152|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.083|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.315|0.011|||||The risk difference estimate is the observed proportion of Day 56 CR/PR in the sirolimus arm minus the proportion in the prednisone arm. A Wald confidence interval for this difference is given.|A secondary objective of this Phase II trial was to describe the proportion of patients with Day 56 CR/PR in each treatment arm and to estimate the risk difference of these rates using a point estimate and 95% confidence interval. These estimates are used to inform about the efficacy of sirolimus in contrast to prednisone for potential future research.||0.011|-0.315|
91044048|NCT01923311|181974455|EQUIVALENCE|A total of 12 test study participants compared to 334 HIV-infected reference study participants will provide at least 90% power to conclude exposure equivalence of EVG Cmax in test study vs reference study, assuming the expected geometric mean ratio is 1, equivalency boundary is 70% to 143%, 2 one-sided tests are each performed at an alpha level of 0.05, and the standard deviation of EVG Cmax is 0.28 ng•h/mL (natural log scale, estimated from EVG population PK modeling).|GLSM Ratio (%) (Test/Reference)|146.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|127.35|168.94||||||To determine whether the proposed EVG dose in children achieves similar systemic exposure to adults, statistical comparisons were performed with PK data from the current study (test) and adult data from population PK modeling in study GS-US-183-0145 (NCT00708162) (reference).||168.94|127.35|
91044049|NCT02304406|181974477|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.85||||0.1304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|4.77|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.77|0.80|0.1304
91044050|NCT02304406|181974478|OTHER|||||||0.6422|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.6422
91044051|NCT02304406|181974479|OTHER|||||||0.4524|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4524
91044052|NCT02304406|181974480|OTHER|||||||0.901|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.9010
91044053|NCT02304406|181974481|OTHER|||||||0.9067|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.9067
91044054|NCT02304406|181974482|OTHER|||||||0.8785|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.8785
91044055|NCT02304406|181974483|OTHER|||||||0.9231|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.9231
91044056|NCT02304406|181974484|OTHER|||||||0.978|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.9780
91044057|NCT02304406|181974485|OTHER|||||||0.1144|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1144
91044058|NCT02304406|181974486|OTHER|||||||0.0862|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0862
90996432|NCT02806947|181876613|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Z test comparing binomial proportions|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the proportions of participants with CR/PR and steroid dose of 0.25mg/kg/day or less at Day 28 post-randomization between the sirolimus and prednisone arms. These proportions were compared between treatment arms using a Z test of the difference of binomial proportions.||||< 0.001
90996433|NCT02806947|181876614|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in classification of acute GVHD response at Day 28 post-randomization between participants on the sirolimus and prednisone arms. These classifications were compared between treatment arms using Fisher's exact test, due to the presence of small numbers of participants in some categories.||||0.320
90996434|NCT02806947|181876614|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in classification of acute GVHD response at Day 56 post-randomization between participants on the sirolimus and prednisone arms. These classifications were compared between treatment arms using Fisher's exact test, due to the presence of small numbers of participants in some categories.||||0.014
90996435|NCT02806947|181876615|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.078||||||Statistical significance was determine using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Z test comparing binomial proportions|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the proportions of participants with treatment failure at Day 28 post-randomization between the sirolimus and prednisone arms. These proportions were compared between treatment arms using a Z test of the difference of binomial proportions.||||0.078
91044059|NCT02304406|181974487|OTHER|||||||0.0294|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0294
91044060|NCT02304406|181974488|OTHER|||||||0.6877|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.6877
91044061|NCT03941834|181974496|OTHER||Least square (LS) mean difference|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.2||||||Analysis were performed using a mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, period and sequence; baseline NPRS as a covariate; and participant as a random effect.||1.2|0.1|
91044062|NCT03941834|181974501|OTHER||LS mean difference|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|11.5||||||Analysis was performed using a mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, period and sequence; baseline Penn-FPS-R as a covariate; and participant as a random effect.||11.5|-6.8|
91044063|NCT03941834|181974502|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|6.9||||||Analysis was performed using a mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, period and sequence; baseline pain disability index as a covariate; and participant as a random effect.||6.9|-3.8|
91044064|NCT03941834|181974503|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.5||||||Analysis was performed using a mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, period and sequence; and participant as a random effect.||0.5|-0.7|
91044065|NCT03941834|181974504|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.4||||||Analysis was performed using a mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, period and sequence; baseline NPRS as a covariate; and participant as a random effect.||1.4|0.1|
91044066|NCT03941834|181974505|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|229.6||||||Analysis was performed using a logistic regression model, including fixed effects for treatment, sequence, period and baseline NPRS score as a covariate.||229.6|0.7|
91044067|NCT01560819|181974506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||A power calculation was not done for this pilot study. Changes in PUCAI post-treatment were compared with baseline using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. P value \<0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||0.03
91044068|NCT04403399|181974530|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.62||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.003
91044069|NCT04403399|181974531|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.73|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.73
91044070|NCT04403399|181974532|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.03
91044071|NCT00831233|181974540|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The trial was positive if the treatment contrast of degarelix versus goserelin plus bicalutamide in adjusted (for baseline total IPSS, age, and country) mean change from baseline in total IPSS was statistically significantly smaller (two-sided at α=0.05 level) than Δ=3 points in both the FAS and the PP analysis set.~If the Week 12 treatment assessment of IPSS was missing the LOCF approach was used, i.e., the IPSS closest to and before Week 12 was used."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.95||||0.1973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.51|1.61||FAS.|ANCOVA|The baseline score, age, and country were used as covariates and treatment was used as a factor in the analysis.||Estimates from analysis of variance with treatment and country as factors and age and baseline value as covariates.||1.61|-7.51|0.1973
91044072|NCT00831233|181974540|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The trial was positive if the treatment contrast of degarelix versus goserelin plus bicalutamide in adjusted (for baseline total IPSS, age, and country) mean change from baseline in total IPSS was statistically significantly smaller (two-sided at α=0.05 level) than Δ=3 points in both the FAS and the PP analysis set.~If the Week 12 treatment assessment of IPSS was missing the LOCF approach was used, i.e., the IPSS closest to and before Week 12 was used."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.88||||0.0398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|-0.291||PP analysis set.|ANCOVA|The baseline score, age, and country were used as covariates and treatment was used as a factor in the analysis.||Estimates from analysis of variance with treatment and country as factors and age and baseline value as covariates.||-0.291|-11.5|0.0398
91044073|NCT00831233|181974541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.47||||0.2298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.58|1.64|||ANCOVA|The baseline score, age, and country were used as covariates and treatment was used as a factor in the analysis for the FAS.||Week 4. Estimates from analysis of variance with treatment and country as factors and age and baseline value as covariates.||1.64|-6.58|0.2298
91044074|NCT00831233|181974541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.983||||0.6917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.98|4.02|||ANCOVA|The baseline score, age, and country were used as covariates and treatment was used as a factor in the analysis for the FAS.||Week 8. Estimates from analysis of variance with treatment and country as factors and age and baseline value as covariates.||4.02|-5.98|0.6917
91044075|NCT00831233|181974542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.553||||0.8151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.33|4.22|||ANCOVA|The baseline score, age, and country were used as covariates and treatment was used as a factor in the analysis for the FAS.||Week 4. Estimates from analysis of variance with treatment and country as factors and age and baseline value as covariates.||4.22|-5.33|0.8151
91044076|NCT00831233|181974542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.46||||0.455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.46|5.38|||ANCOVA|The baseline score, age, and country were used as covariates and treatment was used as a factor in the analysis for the FAS.||Week 8. Estimates from analysis of variance with treatment and country as factors and age and baseline value as covariates.||5.38|-2.46|0.455
91044077|NCT00831233|181974542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.02||||0.3186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|6.08|||ANCOVA|The baseline score, age, and country were used as covariates and treatment was used as a factor in the analysis for the FAS.||Week 12. Estimates from analysis of variance with treatment and country as factors and age and baseline value as covariates.||6.08|-2.04|0.3186
91044078|NCT00831233|181974543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.2||||0.5627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.8|68.2|||ANCOVA|The baseline score, age, and country were used as covariates and treatment was used as a factor in the analysis for the FAS.||Week 4. Estimates from analysis of variance with treatment and country as factors and age and baseline value as covariates.||68.2|-37.8|0.5627
91044079|NCT00831233|181974543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.91||||0.8284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.1|60.9|||ANCOVA|The baseline score, age, and country were used as covariates and treatment was used as a factor in the analysis for the FAS.||Week 8. Estimates from analysis of variance with treatment and country as factors and age and baseline value as covariates.||60.9|-49.1|0.8284
91044080|NCT00831233|181974543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.2||||0.5984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.4|58.8|||ANCOVA|The baseline score, age, and country were used as covariates and treatment was used as a factor in the analysis for the FAS.||Week 12. Estimates from analysis of variance with treatment and country as factors and age and baseline value as covariates.||58.8|-34.4|0.5984
91044081|NCT00831233|181974544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.83||||0.1018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|1.64|||ANCOVA|The baseline score, age, and country were used as covariates and treatment was used as a factor in the analysis for the FAS.||Estimates from analysis of variance with treatment and country as factors and age and baseline value as covariates.||1.64|-17.3|0.1018
91044082|NCT00991510|181974550|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was accepted if the calculated 90 % CIs were within 0.80-1.25.|adjusted least-squares mean ratio|0.923|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.865|0.984|||ANOVA|||A total of 100 subjects were planned to be enrolled, allowing for 10% drop-out rate. Based on previous single dose studies, the intra-subject coefficients of variation were 14% and 50% for AUC and Cmax, respectively. Based on the literature similar intra subject coefficients of variation were observed in steady-state patients. With these expected CV(%) and an expected ratio of Cmax within 0.95 and 1.05, the study should have a power of at least 80 % to show bioequivalence with 80 subjects.||0.984|0.865|
91044083|NCT00991510|181974551|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was accepted if the calculated 90 % CIs were within 0.80-1.25.|adjusted least-squares mean ratio|0.959|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.899|1.023|||ANOVA|||||1.023|0.899|
91044084|NCT00991510|181974552|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was accepted if the calculated 90 % CIs were within 0.80-1.25.|adjusted least-squares mean ratio|0.873|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.787|0.968|||ANOVA|||||0.968|0.787|
91044085|NCT00991510|181974553|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was accepted if the calculated 90 % CIs were within 0.80-1.25.|adjusted least-squares mean ratio|0.985|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.877|1.106|||ANOVA|||||1.106|0.877|
91044086|NCT01976728|181974575|SUPERIORITY|The hypotheses were tested using a stratified one-sided Fisher's exact test in the FAS including the randomization scheme as the stratification factor.||||||0.012||||||The SAS PROC FREQ with permutation-based Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with exact p-value derived from all possible permutations was employed for the calculation of p-value for the stratified Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|The success threshold at each analysis corresponded to a nominal p-value \<0.0130 to maintain an overall one-sided type I error rate of 0.025.||The primary efficacy analysis compared the pooled ovulation rate of the LutrePulse 15 μg and 20 μg group to placebo.||||0.0120
91044087|NCT01976728|181974576|SUPERIORITY|The hypotheses were tested using a stratified one-sided Fisher's exact test in the FAS including the randomization scheme as the stratification factor.||||||0.0553||||||The SAS PROC FREQ with permutation-based Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with exact p-value derived from all possible permutations was employed for the calculation of p-value for the stratified Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|The success threshold at each analysis corresponded to a nominal p-value \<0.0130 to maintain an overall one-sided type I error rate of 0.025.||P4 levels of the pooled LutrePulse 15 μg and 20 μg group were compared to placebo.||||0.0553
91044088|NCT01976728|181974577|SUPERIORITY|The hypotheses was tested using a stratified one-sided Fisher's exact test in the FAS including the randomization scheme as the stratification factor.||||||0.0383||||||The SAS PROC FREQ with permutation-based Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with exact p-value derived from all possible permutations was employed for the calculation of p-value for the stratified Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|The success threshold at each analysis corresponded to a nominal p-value \<0.0130 to maintain an overall one-sided type I error rate of 0.025.||Clinical pregnancy rates of the pooled LutrePulse 15 μg and 20 μg group were compared to placebo.||||0.0383
91044089|NCT01976728|181974578|SUPERIORITY|The hypotheses were tested using a stratified one-sided Fisher's exact test in the FAS including the randomization scheme as the stratification factor.||||||0.0246||||||The SAS PROC FREQ with permutation-based Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with exact p-value derived from all possible permutations was employed for the calculation of p-value for the stratified Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|The success threshold at each analysis corresponded to a nominal p-value \<0.0130 to maintain an overall one-sided type I error rate of 0.025.||Biochemical pregnancy rates of the pooled LutrePulse 15 μg and 20 μg group were compared to placebo.||||0.0246
91044090|NCT01976728|181974579|SUPERIORITY|The hypotheses were tested using a stratified one-sided Fisher's exact test in the FAS including the randomization scheme as the stratification factor.||||||0.0011||||||The SAS PROC FREQ with permutation-based Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with exact p-value derived from all possible permutations was employed for the calculation of p-value for the stratified Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|The success threshold at each analysis corresponded to a nominal p-value \<0.0130 to maintain an overall one-sided type I error rate of 0.025.||LH surge detection of the pooled LutrePulse 15 μg and 20 μg group were compared to placebo.||||0.0011
91044091|NCT01976728|181974580|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1344||||||The p-value was based on the stratified (by randomization scheme) Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|SAS PROC FREQ with modified ridit score (MODRIDIT option) was used for the stratified Wilcoxon rank sum test.||Day 10: Number of follicles with a mean diameter ≥14 mm in the LutrePulse 10 μg group was compared to placebo, using Wilcoxon's rank sum test.||||0.1344
91044092|NCT01976728|181974580|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2726||||||The p-value was based on the Wilcoxon rank sum test without stratification.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|SAS PROC FREQ with modified ridit score (MODRIDIT option) was used for the stratified Wilcoxon rank sum test.||Day 10: Number of follicles with a mean diameter ≥14 mm in the LutrePulse 15 μg group was compared to placebo, using Wilcoxon's rank sum test.||||0.2726
91044093|NCT01976728|181974580|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3173||||||The p-value was based on the stratified (by randomization scheme) Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|SAS PROC FREQ with modified ridit score (MODRIDIT option) was used for the stratified Wilcoxon rank sum test.||Day 10: Number of follicles with a mean diameter ≥14 mm in the LutrePulse 20 μg group was compared to placebo, using Wilcoxon's rank sum test.||||0.3173
91044094|NCT01976728|181974580|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1275||||||The p-value was based on the stratified (by randomization scheme) Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|SAS PROC FREQ with modified ridit score (MODRIDIT option) was used for the stratified Wilcoxon rank sum test.||Day 12: Number of follicles with a mean diameter ≥14 mm in the LutrePulse 10 μg group was compared to placebo, using Wilcoxon's rank sum test.||||0.1275
91044095|NCT01976728|181974580|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1088||||||The p-value was based on the Wilcoxon rank sum test without stratification.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|SAS PROC FREQ with modified ridit score (MODRIDIT option) was used for the stratified Wilcoxon rank sum test.||Day 12: Number of follicles with a mean diameter ≥14 mm in the LutrePulse 15 μg group was compared to placebo, using Wilcoxon's rank sum test.||||0.1088
91044096|NCT01976728|181974580|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2374||||||The p-value was based on the stratified (by randomization scheme) Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|SAS PROC FREQ with modified ridit score (MODRIDIT option) was used for the stratified Wilcoxon rank sum test.||Day 12: Number of follicles with a mean diameter ≥14 mm in the LutrePulse 20 μg group was compared to placebo, using Wilcoxon's rank sum test.||||0.2374
91044097|NCT01976728|181974580|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0796||||||The p-value was based on the stratified (by randomization scheme) Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|SAS PROC FREQ with modified ridit score (MODRIDIT option) was used for the stratified Wilcoxon rank sum test.||Day 15: Number of follicles with a mean diameter ≥14 mm in the LutrePulse 10 μg group was compared to placebo, using Wilcoxon's rank sum test||||0.0796
91044098|NCT01976728|181974580|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1757||||||The p-value was based on the Wilcoxon rank sum test without stratification.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|SAS PROC FREQ with modified ridit score (MODRIDIT option) was used for the stratified Wilcoxon rank sum test.||Day 15: Number of follicles with a mean diameter ≥14 mm in the LutrePulse 15 μg group was compared to placebo, using Wilcoxon's rank sum test||||0.1757
91044099|NCT01976728|181974580|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0584||||||The p-value was based on the stratified (by randomization scheme) Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|SAS PROC FREQ with modified ridit score (MODRIDIT option) was used for the stratified Wilcoxon rank sum test.||Day 15: Number of follicles with a mean diameter ≥14 mm in the LutrePulse 20 μg group was compared to placebo, using Wilcoxon's rank sum test.||||0.0584
91044100|NCT01976728|181974580|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3711||||||The p-value was based on the stratified (by randomization scheme) Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|SAS PROC FREQ with modified ridit score (MODRIDIT option) was used for the stratified Wilcoxon rank sum test.||Day 18: Number of follicles with a mean diameter ≥14 mm in the LutrePulse 10 μg group was compared to placebo, using Wilcoxon's rank sum test.||||0.3711
91044101|NCT01976728|181974580|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0143||||||The p-value was based on the Wilcoxon rank sum test without stratification.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|SAS PROC FREQ with modified ridit score (MODRIDIT option) was used for the stratified Wilcoxon rank sum test.||Day 18: Number of follicles with a mean diameter ≥14 mm in the LutrePulse 15 μg group was compared to placebo, using Wilcoxon's rank sum test.||||0.0143
90996436|NCT02806947|181876615|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.068||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Z test comparing binomial proportions|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the proportions of participants with treatment failure at Day 56 post-randomization between the sirolimus and prednisone arms. These proportions were compared between treatment arms using a Z test of the difference of binomial proportions.||||0.068
91044102|NCT01976728|181974580|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006||||||The p-value was based on the stratified (by randomization scheme) Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|SAS PROC FREQ with modified ridit score (MODRIDIT option) was used for the stratified Wilcoxon rank sum test.||Day 18: Number of follicles with a mean diameter ≥14 mm in the LutrePulse 20 μg group was compared to placebo, using Wilcoxon's rank sum test.||||0.0060
91044103|NCT01976728|181974580|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1573||||||The p-value was based on the stratified (by randomization scheme) Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|SAS PROC FREQ with modified ridit score (MODRIDIT option) was used for the stratified Wilcoxon rank sum test.||Day 21: Number of follicles with a mean diameter ≥14 mm in the LutrePulse 20 μg group was compared to placebo, using Wilcoxon's rank sum test.||||0.1573
91044104|NCT01976728|181974581|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4142||||||The p-value was based on the Wilcoxon rank sum test without stratification.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|SAS PROC FREQ with modified ridit score (MODRIDIT option) was used for the stratified Wilcoxon rank sum test.||Day 12: Number of follicles with a mean diameter ≥18 mm in the LutrePulse 15 μg group was compared to placebo, using Wilcoxon's rank sum test.||||0.4142
91044105|NCT01976728|181974581|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2374||||||The p-value was based on the stratified (by randomization scheme) Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|SAS PROC FREQ with modified ridit score (MODRIDIT option) was used for the stratified Wilcoxon rank sum test.||Number of follicles with a mean diameter ≥18 mm in the LutrePulse 20 μg group was compared to placebo, using Wilcoxon's rank sum test.||||0.2374
91044106|NCT01976728|181974581|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2636||||||The p-value was based on the stratified (by randomization scheme) Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|SAS PROC FREQ with modified ridit score (MODRIDIT option) was used for the stratified Wilcoxon rank sum test.||Day 15: Number of follicles with a mean diameter ≥18 mm in the LutrePulse 10 μg group was compared to placebo, using Wilcoxon's rank sum test.||||0.2636
91044107|NCT01976728|181974581|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4795||||||The p-value was based on the Wilcoxon rank sum test without stratification.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|SAS PROC FREQ with modified ridit score (MODRIDIT option) was used for the stratified Wilcoxon rank sum test.||Day 15: Number of follicles with a mean diameter ≥18 mm in the LutrePulse 15 μg group was compared to placebo, using Wilcoxon's rank sum test.||||0.4795
91044108|NCT01976728|181974581|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3173||||||The p-value was based on the stratified (by randomization scheme) Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|SAS PROC FREQ with modified ridit score (MODRIDIT option) was used for the stratified Wilcoxon rank sum test.||Day 15: Number of follicles with a mean diameter ≥18 mm in the LutrePulse 20 μg group was compared to placebo, using Wilcoxon's rank sum test.||||0.3173
90996437|NCT02806947|181876616|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.785||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the proportions of participants with overall survival between the sirolimus and prednisone arms during the 12 month period post-randomization. These proportions were compared between treatment arms using a log rank test.||||0.785
91044109|NCT01976728|181974581|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3711||||||The p-value was based on the stratified (by randomization scheme) Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|SAS PROC FREQ with modified ridit score (MODRIDIT option) was used for the stratified Wilcoxon rank sum test.||Day 18: Number of follicles with a mean diameter ≥18 mm in the LutrePulse 10 μg group was compared to placebo, using Wilcoxon's rank sum test.||||0.3711
91044110|NCT01976728|181974581|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4142||||||The p-value was based on the Wilcoxon rank sum test without stratification.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|SAS PROC FREQ with modified ridit score (MODRIDIT option) was used for the stratified Wilcoxon rank sum test.||Day 18: Number of follicles with a mean diameter ≥18 mm in the LutrePulse 15 μg group was compared to placebo, using Wilcoxon's rank sum test.||||0.4142
91044111|NCT01976728|181974581|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0838||||||The p-value was based on the stratified (by randomization scheme) Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|SAS PROC FREQ with modified ridit score (MODRIDIT option) was used for the stratified Wilcoxon rank sum test.||Day 18: Number of follicles with a mean diameter ≥18 mm in the LutrePulse 20 μg group was compared to placebo, using Wilcoxon's rank sum test.||||0.0838
91044112|NCT01976728|181974581|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3173||||||The p-value was based on the stratified (by randomization scheme) Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|SAS PROC FREQ with modified ridit score (MODRIDIT option) was used for the stratified Wilcoxon rank sum test.||Day 21: Number of follicles with a mean diameter ≥18 mm in the LutrePulse 10 μg group was compared to placebo, using Wilcoxon's rank sum test.||||0.3173
91044113|NCT01976728|181974581|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3778||||||The p-value was based on the Wilcoxon rank sum test without stratification.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|SAS PROC FREQ with modified ridit score (MODRIDIT option) was used for the stratified Wilcoxon rank sum test.||Day 21: Number of follicles with a mean diameter ≥18 mm in the LutrePulse 15 μg group was compared to placebo, using Wilcoxon's rank sum test.||||0.3778
91044114|NCT01976728|181974582|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean (LSM) difference|1.35||||0.6732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.16|7.87||p-value for the LutrePulse 10 µg group compared to placebo based on the fitted linear model were reported.|ANCOVA|PROC GLM was used for ANCOVA.|The LSM difference on the treatment groups and 95% confidence interval (CI) for the LutrePulse 10 µg group compared to placebo based on the fitted linear model were reported. Type III sum-of-squares for the LSMs were used for statistical comparisons.|Maximum P4 levels in the LutrePulse 10 µg group were compared to placebo using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including the randomization scheme and treatment group as factors and baseline value as covariate.||7.87|-5.16|0.6732
91044115|NCT01976728|181974582|SUPERIORITY||LSM|5.7||||0.0814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|12.15||p-value for the LutrePulse 15 µg group compared to placebo based on the fitted linear model were reported.|ANCOVA|PROC GLM was used for ANCOVA.|The LSM difference on the treatment groups and 95% CI for the LutrePulse 15 µg group compared to placebo based on the fitted linear model were reported. Type III sum-of-squares for the LSMs were used for statistical comparisons.|Maximum P4 levels in the LutrePulse 15 µg group were compared to placebo using an ANCOVA model including treatment group as factors and baseline value as covariate.||12.15|-0.76|0.0814
91044116|NCT01976728|181974582|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|7.55||||0.0223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|13.93||p-value for the LutrePulse 20 µg group compared to placebo based on the fitted linear model were reported.|ANCOVA|PROC GLM was used for ANCOVA.|The LSM difference on the treatment groups and 95% CI for the LutrePulse 20 µg group compared to placebo based on the fitted linear model were reported. Type III sum-of-squares for the LSMs were used for statistical comparisons.|Maximum P4 levels in the LutrePulse 20 µg group were compared to placebo using an ANCOVA model including the randomization scheme and treatment group as factors and baseline value as covariate.||13.93|1.16|0.0223
91044117|NCT01976728|181974583|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.679||||0.7355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.404|4.762||p-value for the LutrePulse 10 µg group compared to placebo based on the fitted linear model were reported.|ANCOVA|PROC GLM was used for ANCOVA.|The LSM difference on the treatment groups and 95% CI for the LutrePulse 10 µg group compared to placebo based on the fitted linear model were reported. Type III sum-of-squares for the LSMs were used for statistical comparisons.|Mean P4 levels in the LutrePulse 10 µg group were compared to placebo using an ANCOVA model including the randomization scheme and treatment group as factors and baseline value as covariate.||4.762|-3.404|0.7355
91044118|NCT01976728|181974583|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|2.602||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.444|6.648||p-value for the LutrePulse 15 µg group compared to placebo based on the fitted linear model were reported.|ANCOVA|PROC GLM was used for ANCOVA.|The LSM difference on the treatment groups and 95% CI for the LutrePulse 15 µg group compared to placebo based on the fitted linear model were reported. Type III sum-of-squares for the LSMs were used for statistical comparisons.|Mean P4 levels in the LutrePulse 15 µg group were compared to placebo using an ANCOVA model including treatment group as factors and baseline value as covariate.||6.648|-1.444|0.1980
91044119|NCT01976728|181974583|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|4.88||||0.0187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.878|8.882||p-value for the LutrePulse 10 µg group compared to placebo based on the fitted linear model were reported.|ANCOVA|PROC GLM was used for ANCOVA.|The LSM difference on the treatment groups and 95% CI for the LutrePulse 20 µg group compared to placebo based on the fitted linear model were reported. Type III sum-of-squares for the LSMs were used for statistical comparisons.|Mean P4 levels in the LutrePulse 20 µg group were compared to placebo using an ANCOVA model including the randomization scheme and treatment group as factors and baseline value as covariate.||8.882|0.878|0.0187
91044120|NCT01976728|181974584|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.03||||0.8772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.46||The p-value was derived from an ANCOVA model with randomization scheme and treatment as factors and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA||LSM difference and CIs were derived from an ANCOVA model with randomization scheme and treatment as factors and baseline value as covariate.|The mean change in FSH levels from Day 10 pre-treatment (prior to first dose) in the LutrePulse 10 μg/Pulse group was compared to placebo using an ANCOVA model with randomization scheme and treatment as factors and baseline value as covariate.||0.46|-0.39|0.8772
91044121|NCT01976728|181974584|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.07||||0.7805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.58||The p-value was derived from an ANCOVA model with randomization scheme and treatment as factors and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA||LSM difference and CIs were derived from an ANCOVA model with randomization scheme and treatment as factors and baseline value as covariate.|The mean change in FSH levels from Day 10 pre-treatment (prior to first dose) in the LutrePulse 15 μg/Pulse group was compared to placebo using an ANCOVA model with randomization scheme and treatment as factors and baseline value as covariate.||0.58|-0.44|0.7805
90996438|NCT02806947|181876617|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the proportions of participants with disease-free survival between the sirolimus and prednisone arms during the 12 month period post-randomization. These proportions were compared between treatment arms using a log rank test.||||0.340
90996439|NCT02806947|181876618|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.713||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the proportions of participants with event-free survival between the sirolimus and prednisone arms during the 12 month period post-randomization. These proportions were compared between treatment arms using a log rank test.||||0.713
90996440|NCT02806947|181876619|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.726||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Gray's test|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the proportions of participants with non-relapse mortality between the sirolimus and prednisone arms during the 12 month period post-randomization, with malignancy relapse treated as a competing risk for non-relapse mortality. These proportions were compared between treatment arms using Gray's test.||||0.726
90996441|NCT02806947|181876620|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.402||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Gray's test|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the proportions of participants with malignancy relapse between the sirolimus and prednisone arms during the 12 month period post-randomization, with death treated as a competing risk for malignancy relapse. These proportions were compared between treatment arms using Gray's test.||||0.402
91044122|NCT01976728|181974584|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.12||||0.6095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.58||The p-value was derived from an ANCOVA model with randomization scheme and treatment as factors and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA||LSM difference and CIs were derived from an ANCOVA model with randomization scheme and treatment as factors and baseline value as covariate.|The mean change in FSH levels from Day 10 pre-treatment (prior to first dose) in the LutrePulse 20 μg/Pulse group was compared to placebo using an ANCOVA model with randomization scheme and treatment as factors and baseline value as covariate.||0.58|-0.35|0.6095
91044123|NCT01976728|181974585|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.51||||0.152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.22||The p-value was derived from an ANCOVA model with randomization scheme and treatment as factors and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA||LSM difference and CIs were derived from an ANCOVA model with randomization scheme and treatment as factors and baseline value as covariate.|The mean change in LH levels from Day 10 pre-treatment (prior to first dose) in the LutrePulse 10 μg/Pulse group was compared to placebo using an ANCOVA model with randomization scheme and treatment as factors and baseline value as covariate.||1.22|-0.20|0.1520
91044124|NCT01976728|181974585|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.93||||0.0221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|1.72||The p-value was derived from an ANCOVA model with randomization scheme and treatment as factors and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA||LSM difference and CIs were derived from an ANCOVA model with randomization scheme and treatment as factors and baseline value as covariate.|The mean change in LH levels from Day 10 pre-treatment (prior to first dose) in the LutrePulse 15 μg/Pulse group was compared to placebo using an ANCOVA model with randomization scheme and treatment as factors and baseline value as covariate.||1.72|0.14|0.0221
91044125|NCT01976728|181974585|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.76||||0.0316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.44||The p-value was derived from an ANCOVA model with randomization scheme and treatment as factors and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA||LSM difference and CIs were derived from an ANCOVA model with randomization scheme and treatment as factors and baseline value as covariate.|The mean change in LH levels from Day 10 pre-treatment (prior to first dose) in the LutrePulse 20 μg/Pulse group was compared to placebo using an ANCOVA model with randomization scheme and treatment as factors and baseline value as covariate.||1.44|0.07|0.0316
91044126|NCT01976728|181974587|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|73.0||||0.3147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.66|218.65||The p-value was derived from an ANCOVA model with randomization scheme and treatment as factors and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA||LSM difference and CIs were derived from an ANCOVA model with randomization scheme and treatment as factors and baseline value as covariate.|The mean change in E2 levels from Day 10 pre-treatment (prior to first dose) in the LutrePulse 10 μg/Pulse group was compared to placebo using an ANCOVA model with randomization scheme and treatment as factors and baseline value as covariate.||218.65|-72.66|0.3147
91044127|NCT01976728|181974587|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|95.18||||0.229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.01|253.36||The p-value was derived from an ANCOVA model with randomization scheme and treatment as factors and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA||LSM difference and CIs were derived from an ANCOVA model with randomization scheme and treatment as factors and baseline value as covariate.|The mean change in E2 levels from Day 10 pre-treatment (prior to first dose) in the LutrePulse 15 μg/Pulse group was compared to placebo using an ANCOVA model with randomization scheme and treatment as factors and baseline value as covariate.||253.36|-63.01|0.2290
91044128|NCT01976728|181974587|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|46.99||||0.5066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-95.64|189.61||The p-value was derived from an ANCOVA model with randomization scheme and treatment as factors and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA||LSM difference and CIs were derived from an ANCOVA model with randomization scheme and treatment as factors and baseline value as covariate.|The mean change in E2 levels from Day 10 pre-treatment (prior to first dose) in the LutrePulse 20 μg/Pulse group was compared to placebo using an ANCOVA model with randomization scheme and treatment as factors and baseline value as covariate.||189.61|-95.64|0.5066
91044129|NCT01316419|181974653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Mean SBP change from baseline at the last visit will be analyzed by paired t-test|Paired t test|||||||<0.0001
91044130|NCT01316419|181974656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Mean DBP change from baseline at the last visit will be analyzed by paired t-test|Paired t test|||||||<0.0001
91044131|NCT01316419|181974658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1099|TWO_SIDED|||||The change of QOL data collected using the WHOQOL-BREF is analyzed by paired t-test|Paired t test|||||||0.1099
91044132|NCT01316419|181974659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0197|TWO_SIDED|||||The change of QOL data collected using the WHOQOL-BREF is analyzed by paired t-test|Paired t test|||||||0.0197
91044133|NCT01316419|181974660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4543|TWO_SIDED|||||The change of QOL data collected using the WHOQOL-BREF is analyzed by paired t-test|Paired t test|||||||0.4543
91044134|NCT01316419|181974661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0152|TWO_SIDED|||||The change of QOL data collected using the WHOQOL-BREF is analyzed by paired t-test|Paired t test|||||||0.0152
91044135|NCT01316419|181974662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|||||The change of QOL data collected using the WHOQOL-BREF is analyzed by paired t-test|Paired t test|||||||0.0013
91044136|NCT01316419|181974663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The change of QOL data collected using the EQ VAS is analyzed by paired t-test|Paired t test|||||||<0.0001
91044137|NCT01316419|181974665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|||||Mean LDL-C change from baseline at the last visit will be analyzed by paired t-test|Paired t test|||||||0.0006
91044138|NCT01316419|181974666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4248|TWO_SIDED|||||Mean HDL-C change from baseline at the last visit will be analyzed by paired t-test|Paired t test|||||||0.4248
91044139|NCT01316419|181974667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5579|TWO_SIDED|||||Mean Triglyceride change from baseline at the last visit will be analyzed by paired t-test|Paired t test|||||||0.5579
90996442|NCT02806947|181876621|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.296||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Gray's test|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the proportions of participants with chronic GVHD between the sirolimus and prednisone arms during the 12 month period post-randomization, with death and malignancy relapse treated as competing risks for chronic GVHD. These proportions were compared between treatment arms using Gray's test.||||0.296
91044140|NCT01316419|181974668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|||||Mean total cholesterol change from baseline at the last visit will be analyzed by paired t-test|Paired t-test|||||||0.0006
90996443|NCT02806947|181876622|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.936||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Z test comparing binomial proportions|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the proportions of participants with GVHD-free survival at 6 months post-randomization between the sirolimus and prednisone arms. These proportions were compared between treatment arms using a Z test of the difference of binomial proportions.||||0.936
90996444|NCT02806947|181876622|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.598||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Z test comparing binomial proportions|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the proportions of participants with GVHD-free survival at 6 months post-randomization between the sirolimus and prednisone arms. These proportions were compared between treatment arms using a Z test of the difference of binomial proportions.||||0.598
91044141|NCT00412737|181974679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk Reduction|0.283||||0.772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|4.1|||Fisher Exact||Relative Risk Reduction = (1.0 - Relative Risk).|The null hypothesis tested was that there was no difference between the proportions of participants who met the primary endpoint in the two treatment groups.||4.1|-2.3|0.772
91044142|NCT00412737|181974680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk Reduction|0.37||||0.534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|4.5|||Fisher Exact||Relative Risk Reduction = (1.0 - Relative Risk).|||4.5|-2.1|0.534
91044143|NCT00412737|181974681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk Reduction|0.431||||0.381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|4.6|||Fisher Exact||Relative Risk Reduction = (1.0 - Relative Risk).|||4.6|-1.7|0.381
91044144|NCT00412737|181974682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk Reduction|0.713|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|5.2|||||Relative Risk Reduction = (1.0 - Relative Risk).|||5.2|-0.6|
91044145|NCT00412737|181974683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.858|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|5.7|||||Relative Risk Reduction = (1.0 - Relative Risk).|||5.7|0.1|
91044146|NCT00412737|181974684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk Reduction|0.372|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|4.6|||||Relative Risk Reduction = (1.0 - Relative Risk).|||4.6|-1.9|
91044147|NCT00412737|181974685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk Reduction|0.502|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|5.1|||||Relative Risk Reduction = (1.0 - Relative Risk).|||5.1|-1.4|
91044148|NCT03180801|181974690|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher exact test is used to test if vaccine group has lower MMID rate than placebo.||||0.03
91044149|NCT03180801|181974690|OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher exact test is used to test if vaccine group has lower MMID rate than placebo.||||0.07
91044150|NCT03180801|181974691|OTHER|One sided Fisher's exact test is used to test if TEAE rates of vaccine group is higher than the placebo group.||||||0.647|||||||Fisher Exact|||One sided Fisher's exact test is used to test if the TEAE rates pre-inoculation recorded for the treatment group are higher than for placebo.||||0.647
91044151|NCT03180801|181974691|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test is used to test if TEAE rate of vaccine group recorded pre-inoculation is higher than placebo.||||1.00
91044152|NCT03180801|181974691|OTHER|||||||0.024|||||||Fisher Exact|||One sided Fisher's exact test is used to test if TEAE rate of vaccine group post-inoculation is higher than the placebo group.||||0.0240
91044153|NCT03180801|181974691|OTHER|||||||0.186|||||||Fisher Exact|||One sided Fisher's exact test is used to test if TEAE rate of vaccine group post-inoculation is higher than the placebo group.||||0.186
91044154|NCT03180801|181974693|OTHER|||||||0.465|||||||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher exact test is used to test if vaccine group has lower rate of subjects experiencing at least one symptom||||0.465
91044155|NCT03180801|181974693|OTHER|||||||0.074|||||||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher exact test is used to test if vaccine group has lower rate of subjects experiencing at least one symptom||||0.074
91044156|NCT03180801|181974693|OTHER|||||||0.024|||||||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher exact test is used to test if vaccine group has lower rate of subjects experiencing at least two symptoms||||0.024
91044157|NCT03180801|181974693|OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher exact test is used to test if vaccine group has lower rate of subjects experiencing at least two symptoms.||||0.230
91044158|NCT03180801|181974693|OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher exact test is used to test if vaccine group has lower rate of subjects with detectable virus shedding||||0.09
91044159|NCT03180801|181974693|OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher exact test is used to test if vaccine group has lower rate of subjects with detectable virus shedding||||0.22
91044160|NCT03180801|181974693|OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher exact test is used to test if vaccine group has lower rate of subjects asymptomatic with detectable virus shedding||||0.23
91044161|NCT03180801|181974693|OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher exact test is used to test if vaccine group has lower rate of subjects asymptomatic with detectable virus shedding||||0.12
91044162|NCT03180801|181974694|OTHER|||||||0.0501|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||One-sided Wilcoxon test is used to test if vaccine group has shorter shedding duration than placebo.||||0.0501
91044163|NCT03180801|181974694|OTHER|||||||0.3139|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||One-sided Wilcoxon test is used to test if vaccine group has shorter shedding duration than placebo.||||0.3139
91044164|NCT03180801|181974695|OTHER|||||||0.102|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||One-sided Wilcoxon test is used to test if vaccine group has smaller shedding AUC than placebo.||||0.102
91044165|NCT03180801|181974695|OTHER|||||||0.481|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||One-sided Wilcoxon test is used to test if vaccine group has a smaller shedding AUC than placebo.||||0.481
91044166|NCT03180801|181974696|OTHER|||||||0.128|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||One-sided Wilcoxon test is used to test if vaccine group has lower peak viral shedding than placebo.||||0.128
91044167|NCT03180801|181974696|OTHER|||||||0.601|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||One-sided Wilcoxon test is used to test if vaccine group has lower peak viral shedding than placebo.||||0.601
91044168|NCT03180801|181974697|OTHER|||||||0.142|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||One-sided Wilcoxon test is used to test if vaccine group has shorter duration of symptoms than placebo.||||0.142
91044169|NCT03180801|181974697|OTHER|||||||0.147|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||One-sided Wilcoxon test is used to test if vaccine group has shorter duration of symptoms than placebo.||||0.147
91044170|NCT03180801|181974698|OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||One-sided Wilcoxon test is used to test if vaccine group has fewer average number of symptoms than placebo.||||0.080
91044171|NCT03180801|181974698|OTHER|||||||0.271|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||One-sided Wilcoxon test is used to test if vaccine group has fewer average number of symptoms than placebo.||||0.271
91044172|NCT03180801|181974699|OTHER|||||||0.099|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||One-sided Wilcoxon test is used to test if vaccine group has fewer peak symptoms than placebo.||||0.099
91044173|NCT03180801|181974699|OTHER|||||||0.178|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||One-sided Wilcoxon test is used to test if vaccine group has fewer peak symptoms than placebo.||||0.178
91044174|NCT03180801|181974700|OTHER|||||||0.064|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||One-sided Wilcoxon test is used to test if vaccine group has lower FLU-PRO scores than placebo.||||0.064
90996445|NCT02806947|181876623|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.221||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Gray's test|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the proportions of participants with serious infections between the sirolimus and prednisone arms during the 12 month period post-randomization, with death treated as a competing risk for serious infection. These proportions were compared between treatment arms using Gray's test.||||0.221
91044175|NCT03180801|181974700|OTHER|||||||0.201|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||One-sided Wilcoxon test is used to test if vaccine group has lower FLU-PRO scores than placebo.||||0.201
90996446|NCT01978509|181876684|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.70
91044176|NCT03180801|181974701|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparison on day -2||||<0.001
91044177|NCT03180801|181974701|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparion on day -2||||<0.001
91044178|NCT03180801|181974701|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison on day 35||||<0.001
91044179|NCT03180801|181974701|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison on day 35||||<0.001
91044180|NCT03180801|181974701|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison on day 63||||<0.001
91044181|NCT03180801|181974701|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison on day 63||||<0.001
91044182|NCT01049412|181974702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.81|-0.29||The statistical significance level is 0.10.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.29|-0.81|<0.001
91044183|NCT01049412|181974703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.83|-0.29||The statistical significance level is 0.10.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.29|-0.83|<0.001
91044184|NCT01049412|181974704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.242|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.28|0.05||The statistical significance level is 0.10.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.05|-0.28|0.242
91044185|NCT01049412|181974705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.276||95.0||||"The statistical significance level is 0.10.~P-value is for HbA1c \<7.0%."|Fisher Exact|||||||0.276
91044186|NCT01049412|181974705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.119||95.0||||"The statistical significance level is 0.10.~P-value is for HbA1c ≤6.5%."|Fisher Exact|||||||0.119
91044187|NCT01049412|181974707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.392|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.28|0.88||"The statistical significance level is 0.10.~P-value is for 0300 hour BG."|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.88|-0.28|0.392
91044188|NCT01049412|181974707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.464|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.79|0.3||"The statistical significance level is 0.10.~P-value is for morning FBG."|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.30|-0.79|0.464
91044189|NCT01049412|181974707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.151|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.04|0.07||"The statistical significance level is 0.10.~P-value is for morning 2-hr postprandial BG."|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.07|-1.04|0.151
91044190|NCT01049412|181974707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.079|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.05|-0.03||"The statistical significance level is 0.10.~P-value is for midday pre-meal BG."|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.03|-1.05|0.079
91044191|NCT01049412|181974707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.07|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.99|-0.05||"The statistical significance level is 0.10.~P-value is for midday 2-hr postprandial BG."|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.05|-0.99|0.070
91044192|NCT01049412|181974707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.008|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.39|-0.34||"The statistical significance level is 0.10.~P-value is for evening pre-meal BG."|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.34|-1.39|0.008
91044193|NCT01049412|181974707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.38|-0.41||"The statistical significance level is 0.10.~P-value is for evening 2-hr postprandial BG."|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.41|-1.38|0.003
91044194|NCT01049412|181974707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.64|-0.55||"The statistical significance level is 0.10.~P-value is for bed time BG."|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.55|-1.64|0.001
91044195|NCT01049412|181974712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.037||95.0||||The statistical significance level is 0.10.|Negative Binomial Model|||||||0.037
91044196|NCT01049412|181974713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.69|-0.25||The statistical significance level is 0.10.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.25|-0.69|<0.001
91044197|NCT03173170|181974718|OTHER||Mean ratio|1.0622|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9569|1.1792||||||A paired t-test on the natural log-transformed parameters was performed. The means and difference of means for the log-transformed parameters were exponentiated to obtain the point estimates of the itraconazole effect and 90 percent (%) confidence intervals (CIs).||1.1792|0.9569|
91044198|NCT03173170|181974719|OTHER||Mean ratio|1.4892|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.3851|1.6012||||||A paired t-test on the natural log-transformed parameters was performed. The means and difference of means for the log-transformed parameters were exponentiated to obtain the point estimates of the itraconazole effect and 90% CIs.||1.6012|1.3851|
91044199|NCT00868296|181974721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.857||||||Analysis with treatment as factor; baseline as covariate|ANCOVA|||Between group comparison for change from baseline in length z-score.||||0.857
91044200|NCT00868296|181974721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.901||||||Analysis with treatment as factor; baseline as covariate|ANCOVA|||Between group comparison for change from baseline in weight z-score.||||0.901
91044201|NCT00868296|181974721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.807||||||Analysis with treatment as factor; baseline as covariate|ANCOVA|||Between group comparison for change from baseline in head circumference z-score.||||0.807
91044202|NCT00868296|181974721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.595|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired||Final evaluation compared to baseline within group comparison for length z-score.||||0.595
91044203|NCT00868296|181974721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired||Final evaluation compared to baseline within group comparison for length z-score.||||0.016
91044204|NCT00868296|181974721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.347|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired||Final evaluation compared to baseline within group comparison for weight z-score.||||0.347
91044205|NCT00868296|181974721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired||Final evaluation compared to baseline within group comparison for weight z-score.||||0.040
91044206|NCT00868296|181974721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.892|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired||Final evaluation compared to baseline within group comparison for head circumference z-score.||||0.892
91044207|NCT00868296|181974721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired||Final evaluation compared to baseline within group comparison for head circumference z-score.||||0.006
91044208|NCT00573170|181974722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.5||Compares odds ratio.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||||2.5|0.7|0.378
91050522|NCT02037165|181987277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|1.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0789|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|5.8|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 4:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||5.8|-2.4|
91044209|NCT05966090|181974745|NON_INFERIORITY|Non - Inferiority (NI) was to be demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2 sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the GMC ratio between the Control group (at Day 91) versus Co-administration group (at Day 91) for anti-gE Ab 1-month after the second HZ/su vaccine dose was \<=1.5.|Ratio|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.42|||||The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model, for logarithm-transformed concentration, included the treatment group and age category at vaccination as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as a covariate.|To demonstrate non-inferiority of the humoral immune response to 2 doses of HZ/su vaccine when the first dose of HZ/su vaccine was co-administered with RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine, compared to 2 doses of HZ/su vaccine administered alone.||1.42|1.08|
91044210|NCT05966090|181974746|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if upper limit of the 2 sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio between the Control group (at Day 61) versus Co-administration group (at Day 31) for RSV-A neutralizing titer 1-month after the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine dose was \<=1.5|ratio|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.35|||||The ANCOVA model, for logarithm-transformed titers, included the treatment group and age category at vaccination as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as a covariate.|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine when co-administered with the first dose of HZ/su vaccine, compared to RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine administered alone.||1.35|0.97|
91044211|NCT05966090|181974747|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2 sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio between the Control group (at Day 61) versus Co-administration group (at Day 31) for RSV-B neutralizing titer 1-month after the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine dose was \<=1.5.|ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.15|||||The ANCOVA model, for logarithm-transformed titers, included the treatment group and age category at vaccination as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as a covariate.|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine when co-administered with the first dose of HZ/su vaccine, compared to RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine administered alone.||1.15|0.84|
91044212|NCT01142908|181974765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|3.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for gender, diabetes, and smoking status stratification variables|Direction of the test of comparison is Pharmacist Intervention minus Control|Comparison at 6 months||3.1|-2.8|0.93
91044213|NCT01142908|181974766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.4||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|4.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for gender, diabetes, and smoking status stratification variables|Direction of the test of comparison is Pharmacist Intervention minus Control|Comparison at 12 months.||4.3|-1.5|0.34
91044214|NCT01142908|181974768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for gender, diabetes, and smoking status stratification variables|Direction of the test of comparison is Pharmacist Intervention minus Control|Comparison at 6 months||1.8|-2.0|0.91
91044215|NCT01142908|181974769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for gender, diabetes, and smoking status stratification variables|Direction of the test of comparison is Pharmacist Intervention minus Control|Comparison at 12 months.||2.2|-1.5|0.70
91044216|NCT01142908|181974770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.8||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||Direction of the test of comparison is Pharmacist Intervention minus Control|Comparison at 6 months||0.3|-3.9|0.1
91044217|NCT01142908|181974771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||Direction of the test of comparison is Pharmacist Intervention minus Control|Comparison at 12 months||1.7|-2.4|0.74
91044218|NCT01142908|181974773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||logit-difference (Net)|-0.03||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.3|||Gen. Est. Equation with a Logit Link|Method Used Expanded: Generalized Estimating Equation with a Logit Link. Adjusted for gender, diabetes, and smoking status stratification variables|Direction of the test of comparison is Pharmacist Intervention minus Control|Comparison at 6 months||0.3|-0.4|0.87
91044219|NCT01142908|181974774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||logit-difference (Net)|0.2||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.5|||Gen. Est. Equation with a Logit Link|Method Used Expanded: Generalized Estimating Equation with a Logit Link. Adjusted for gender, diabetes, and smoking status stratification variables|Direction of the test of comparison is Pharmacist Intervention minus Control|Comparison at 12 months.||0.5|-0.2|0.36
91044220|NCT01142908|181974776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.9||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for gender, diabetes, and smoking status stratification variables|Direction of the test of comparison is Pharmacist Intervention minus Control|Comparison at 6 months||0.6|-10.3|0.08
91044221|NCT01142908|181974777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|5.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for gender, diabetes, and smoking status stratification variables|Direction of the test of comparison is Pharmacist Intervention minus Control|Comparison at 12 months.||5.0|-6.6|0.79
91044222|NCT01142908|181974779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for gender, diabetes, and smoking status stratification variables|Direction of the test of comparison is Pharmacist Intervention minus Control|Comparison at 6 months||0.2|-0.2|0.83
91044223|NCT01142908|181974780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for gender, diabetes, and smoking status stratification variables|Direction of the test of comparison is Pharmacist Intervention minus Control|Comparison at 12 months.||0.2|-0.4|0.54
91044224|NCT01142908|181974782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for gender and smoking status stratification variables|Direction of the test of comparison is Pharmacist Intervention minus Control|Comparison at 6 months||0.2|-0.6|0.29
91044225|NCT01142908|181974783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for gender and smoking status stratification variables|Direction of the test of comparison is Pharmacist Intervention minus Control|Comparison at 12 months||0.4|-0.5|0.72
91044226|NCT03235479|181974787|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.9||||0.0298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|9.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||9.3|0.5|0.0298
91044227|NCT03235479|181974788|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.9||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|14.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||14.4|3.4|0.0016
91044228|NCT03235479|181974789|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.2||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|15.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||15.9|4.4|0.0005
91044229|NCT03235479|181974790|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.7||||0.0299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|14.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||14.6|0.8|0.0299
91044230|NCT03235479|181974791|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.3||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|16.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||16.2|4.4|0.0006
91044231|NCT03235479|181974792|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.2||||0.1815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|12.9||P-value ≥ 0.05; therefore, all secondary outcome measures listed after this outcome measure in the hierarchy were not tested.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||12.9|-2.4|0.1815
90996447|NCT00844649|181876688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.617|0.835||P-value was based on a stratified log-rank test stratified by randomization strata of geographic region (North America versus Others), Karnofsky performance score (70 to 80 versus 90 to 100), and presence of liver metastasis|Stratified Log-rank Test||Hazard ratio of Albumin bound paclitaxel + gemcitabine/gemcitabine alone. The associated hazard ratio and two-sided 95% confidence interval were estimated using a stratified Cox proportional hazard model.|||0.835|0.617|<0.0001
90996448|NCT00844649|181876689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.581|0.821||P-value was based on a stratified log-rank test by randomization strata of geographic region (North America versus Others), Karnofsky performance score (70 to 80 versus 90 to 100), and presence of liver metastasis (yes vs no)|Stratified Log-rank Test||Hazard ratio of Albumin bound paclitaxel + gemcitabine / gemcitabine alone. The associated hazard ratio and two-sided 95% confidence interval were estimated using a stratified Cox proportional hazard model.|||0.821|0.581|<0.0001
90996449|NCT00844649|181876690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Response Rate Ratio|3.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.178|4.662|||Chi-squared||Response rate ratio: albumin-bound paclitaxel + gemcitabine /gemcitabine alone|PA+G/PG = response rate ratio of albumin bound paclitaxel + gemcitabine / gemcitabine.||4.662|2.178|<0.0001
90996450|NCT01594333|181876695|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.01||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.25||2-sided unadjusted p-value|Log Rank|Stratified according to type of qualifying event, time of qualifying event and risk status(diabetes or metabolic syndrome alone)|Confidence intervals have not been adjusted for multiplicity, and therefore inferences drawn from these intervals may not be reproducible.|||1.25|0.82|0.91
90996451|NCT01594333|181876696|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.96||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.16||2-sided unadjusted p-value|Log Rank|Stratified according to type of qualifying event, time of qualifying event and risk status(metabolic syndrome alone or diabetes at enrollment).|Confidence intervals have not been adjusted for multiplicity, and therefore inferences drawn from these intervals may not be reproducible.|||1.16|0.79|0.67
90996452|NCT01594333|181876697|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.16||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.56||2-sided unadjusted p-value|Log Rank|Stratified according to type of qualifying event, time of qualifying event and risk status (metabolic syndrome alone or diabetes at enrollment).|Confidence intervals have not been adjusted for multiplicity, and therefore inferences drawn from these intervals may not be reproducible.|||1.56|0.87|0.32
90996453|NCT01594333|181876698|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.95||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.12||2-sided unadjusted p-value|Log Rank|Stratified according to type of qualifying event, time of qualifying event and risk status (metabolic syndrome alone or diabetes) at enrollment.|Confidence intervals have not been adjusted for multiplicity, and therefore inferences drawn from these intervals may not be reproducible.|||1.12|0.81|0.57
90996454|NCT01594333|181876699|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.89||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.31||2-sided unadjusted p-value|Log Rank|Stratified according to type of qualifying event, type of qualifying event and risk status (diabetes or metabolic syndrome alone) at enrollment|Confidence intervals have not been adjusted for multiplicity, and therefore inferences drawn from these intervals may not be reproducible.|||1.31|0.60|0.54
90996455|NCT01594333|181876700|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.98||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.14||2-sided unadjusted p-value|Log Rank|Stratified according to type of qualifying event, time since qualifying event and risk status (diabetes or metabolic syndrome alone) at enrollment.|Confidence intervals have not been adjusted for multiplicity, and therefore inferences drawn from these intervals may not be reproducible.|||1.14|0.84|0.80
90996456|NCT01594333|181876702|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.81||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.22||2-sided unadjusted p-value|Log Rank|Stratified according to type of qualifying event, time of qualifying event and risk status (diabetes or metabolic syndrome alone) at enrollment.|Confidence intervals have not been adjusted for multiplicity, and therefore inferences drawn from these intervals may not be reproducible.|||1.22|0.53|0.31
90996457|NCT01594333|181876703|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.92||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.12||2-sided unadjusted p-value|Log Rank|Stratified according to type of qualifying event, time of qualifying event and risk status (diabetes or metabolic syndrome alone) at enrollment|Confidence intervals have not been adjusted for multiplicity, and therefore inferences drawn from these intervals may not be reproducible.|||1.12|0.75|0.38
90996458|NCT03373110|181876708|OTHER|||||||0.973||||||A two-sided significance level of 0.05 was used for all analyses.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We used linear mixed effects models fit via maximum likelihood to examine the effect of the interventions on daily steps. The models include a random intercept and fixed effects for intervention, time, and an intervention by time interaction. We used separate models to assess the intervention effects across the 8-week intervention period as well as the complete 16-week follow-up period.|The models include a random intercept and fixed effects for intervention, time, and an intervention by time interaction.|||0.973
91006886|NCT02545049|181898376|SUPERIORITY|If the treatment effect of the 40% renal composite endpoint was not significant, all other endpoints (i.e. all-cause hospitalization, all-cause mortality, change in UACR from baseline to Month 4, and 57% renal composite endpoint) would be tested in an exploratory manner.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.1337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.04||A hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary efficacy endpoints with each variable being tested at the adjusted two-sided significance level of 0.04967388.|Log Rank|Stratified log rank test|A stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model was used to provide a point estimate of the hazard ratio and a corresponding two-sided 95% confidence interval.|||1.04|0.77|0.1337
91044232|NCT03110380|181974809|NON_INFERIORITY|A sample size of 260 participants per treatment group would provide at least 90% power to detect a non-inferiority margin of 4% in difference in percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA ≥ 50 copies/mL at Week 48 between the two treatment groups. This was based on the assumptions that both treatment groups have 2% of participants with HIV-1 RNA ≥ 50 copies/mL at Week 48 (based on Gilead Genvoya and Stribild studies) and that the significance level of the test is at a one-sided 0.025 level.|Difference in Percentages|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.001|-2.8|1.0|||||The differences in percentages of participants between treatment groups and their 95.001% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated based on an unconditional exact method using 2 inverted 1-sided tests.|The null hypothesis was that the B/F/TAF group is at least 4% higher than the DTG + F/TAF group with respect to the percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA ≥ 50 copies/mL as determined by the US FDA-defined snapshot algorithm at Week 48; the alternative hypothesis was that the B/F/TAF group is less than 4% higher than the DTG + F/TAF group with respect to the percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA ≥ 50 copies/mL at Week 48.||1.0|-2.8|
91044233|NCT03110380|181974809|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.37
91044234|NCT03110380|181974810|NON_INFERIORITY|It would be concluded that B/F/TAF is noninferior to DTG+F/TAF if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95.001% CI of the difference between treatment groups (B/F/TAF group -DTG+F/TAF group) in the percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL is greater than -10%.|Difference in Percentages|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.001|-2.3|6.8|||||The differences in percentages of participants between treatment groups and their 95.001% CI were calculated based on an unconditional exact method using 2 inverted 1-sided tests.|||6.8|-2.3|
91044235|NCT03110380|181974811|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-18.0||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.0|11.0|||ANOVA|P-value, difference in least squares means (LSM), and its 95% CI were from ANOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect in the model.||||11|-46|0.23
91044236|NCT00452543|181974813|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This was a test of non-inferiority between the effects of acamprosate vs. placebo. Power analysis was originally based on ITT analysis with 40 subjects, and assumed 30% difference in alcohol consumption (50% vs. 20% reduction in the acamprosate and placebo groups, respectively). With alpha of 0.05, we estimated 74% power to detect a difference between the two groups. Results would be used to estimate effect size to set the stage for an adequately powered larger study in the future.|||||<|0.05||95.0||||Threshold for significance was set a priori at p\<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Statistical analyses evaluated the null hypothesis that there would be no difference in the effect of acamprosate vs. placebo on total drinking days.Power analysis was originally based on ITT analysis with 40 subjects, and assumed 30% difference in alcohol consumption (50% vs. 20% reduction in the acamprosate and placebo groups, respectively). With alpha of 0.05, we estimated 74% power to detect a difference between the two groups.||||<0.05
91044237|NCT00452543|181974814|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This was a test of non-inferiority between the effects of acamprosate vs. placebo.|||||<|0.05||95.0||||This p \<0.05 was set a priori.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Statistical analyses evaluated the null hypothesis that there would be no difference in the effect of acamprosate vs. placebo on total drinks consumed per week.Power analysis was originally based on ITT analysis with 40 subjects, and assumed 30% difference in alcohol consumption (50% vs. 20% reduction in the acamprosate and placebo groups, respectively). With alpha of 0.05, we estimated 74% power to detect a difference between the two groups.||||<0.05
91044238|NCT00452543|181974815|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"This was a test of non-inferiority between the effects of acamprosate vs. placebo. Statistical analyses evaluated the null hypothesis that there would be no difference in the effect of acamprosate vs. placebo on total drinks consumed per drinking day.~Power analysis is discussed above."|||||<|0.05||95.0||||This p\<0.05 was set a priori.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Statistical analyses evaluated the null hypothesis that there would be no difference in the effect of acamprosate vs. placebo on total drinks consumed per drinking day.~Power analysis was originally based on ITT analysis with 40 subjects, and assumed 30% difference in alcohol consumption (50% vs. 20% reduction in the acamprosate and placebo groups, respectively). With alpha of 0.05, we estimated 74% power to detect a difference between the two groups."||||<0.05
91044239|NCT02690935|181974836|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.642||||||No adjustment of the p-value|t-test, 2 sided|||H0: The efficacy of 2LALERG and placebo are similar H1: The efficacy of 2LALERG and placebo are different||||0.642
91044240|NCT02690935|181974837|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.829||||||No adjustment for multiplicity|t-test, 2 sided|||H0: 2LALERG and placebo have the same effect on the quality of life H1: 2LALERG and placebo do not have the same effect on the quality of life||||0.829
91044241|NCT04974580|181974838|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.84||A priori threshold was 0.10|Regression, Logistic||Reported OR is NRT receipt vs. not, so values \>1 indicate higher odds of abstinence among those receiving NRT.|Comparison of NRT vs. no-NRT in model adjusted for receipt of digital component||1.84|0.91|0.14
90996459|NCT03373110|181876708|OTHER|||||||0.005||||||A two-sided significance level of 0.05 was used for all analyses.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We used linear mixed effects models to examine the effect of the interventions on average daily steps at 8 weeks into the study. These models account for the covariance of repeated measurements within subjects, and we used maximum likelihood estimation to adjust for missing daily step counts. The models include a random intercept and fixed effects for intervention, time, and an intervention by time interaction.|We used linear mixed effects models to examine the effect of the interventions on daily steps. These models account for the covariance of repeated measurements within subjects, and we used maximum likelihood estimation to account for missing daily step counts. The models include a random intercept and fixed effects for intervention, time, and an intervention by time interaction.|||.005
90996460|NCT03373110|181876708|OTHER|||||||0.004||||||A two-sided significance level of 0.05 was used for all analyses.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We used linear mixed effects models to examine the effect of the interventions on average daily steps at 8 weeks into the study. These models account for the covariance of repeated measurements within subjects, and we used maximum likelihood estimation to adjust for missing daily step counts. The models include a random intercept and fixed effects for intervention, time, and an intervention by time interaction.|We used linear mixed effects models to examine the effect of the interventions on daily steps. These models account for the covariance of repeated measurements within subjects, and we used maximum likelihood estimation to account for missing daily step counts. The models include a random intercept and fixed effects for intervention, time, and an intervention by time interaction.|||.004
90996461|NCT03373110|181876708|OTHER|||||||0.627||||||A two-sided significance level of 0.05 was used for all analyses.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We used linear mixed effects models to examine the effect of the interventions on average daily steps at 16 weeks into the study. These models account for the covariance of repeated measurements within subjects, and we used maximum likelihood estimation to adjust for missing daily step counts. The models include a random intercept and fixed effects for intervention, time, and an intervention by time interaction.|We used linear mixed effects models to examine the effect of the interventions on daily steps. These models account for the covariance of repeated measurements within subjects, and we used maximum likelihood estimation to account for missing daily step counts. The models include a random intercept and fixed effects for intervention, time, and an intervention by time interaction.|||0.627
90996462|NCT03373110|181876708|OTHER|||||||0.359||||||A two-sided significance level of 0.05 was used for all analyses.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We used linear mixed effects models to examine the effect of the interventions on average daily steps at 16 weeks into the study. These models account for the covariance of repeated measurements within subjects, and we used maximum likelihood estimation to adjust for missing daily step counts. The models include a random intercept and fixed effects for intervention, time, and an intervention by time interaction.|We used linear mixed effects models to examine the effect of the interventions on daily steps. These models account for the covariance of repeated measurements within subjects, and we used maximum likelihood estimation to account for missing daily step counts. The models include a random intercept and fixed effects for intervention, time, and an intervention by time interaction.|||0.359
90996463|NCT03373110|181876708|OTHER|||||||0.597||||||A two-sided significance level of 0.05 was used for all analyses.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We used linear mixed effects models to examine the effect of the interventions on average daily steps at 16 weeks into the study. These models account for the covariance of repeated measurements within subjects, and we used maximum likelihood estimation to adjust for missing daily step counts. The models include a random intercept and fixed effects for intervention, time, and an intervention by time interaction.|We used linear mixed effects models to examine the effect of the interventions on daily steps. These models account for the covariance of repeated measurements within subjects, and we used maximum likelihood estimation to account for missing daily step counts. The models include a random intercept and fixed effects for intervention, time, and an intervention by time interaction.|||0.597
90996464|NCT00753935|181876728|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum|||||||0.005
90996465|NCT03282357|181876737|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin, delta = 10 percent (%). The two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the differences between percentages was constructed using the Newcombe's recommended method.|Difference in Percentage|-6.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|-0.5||||||||-0.5|-13.1|
90996466|NCT03282357|181876738|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin, delta = 15%. The two-sided 95% CI for the differences between percentages was constructed using the Newcombe's recommended method.|Difference in Percentage|-4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|-0.3||||||||-0.3|-9.8|
90996467|NCT00594204|181876768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.78|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.97|7.68||p-values are obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment and country|Regression, Logistic||Odds Ratios obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment and country|||7.68|2.97|<0.0001
90996468|NCT00594204|181876769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.0|||<|0.0001||95.0|3.3|7.5||p-values obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment and country|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratios obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment and country|Week 12||7.5|3.3|<0.0001
90996469|NCT00594204|181876769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.3|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.8|6.5||p-values obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment and country|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratios obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment and country|Week 24||6.5|2.8|<0.0001
91044242|NCT04974580|181974838|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.47||A priori threshold was 0.10|Regression, Logistic||Reported OR is Digital receipt vs. not, so values \>1 indicate higher odds of abstinence among those receiving the Digital component.|Comparison of Digital vs. no Digital in model adjusted for receipt of NRT component||1.47|0.73|0.84
91044243|NCT03244475|181974885|SUPERIORITY|Statistical analysis was carried out for the difference scores to assess group differences between TES and Sham groups.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.2||The corrected p-value of 0.01 was chosen after the standard cluster analysis for correcting family-wise error across different voxels.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon test was chosen due to potential non-normal distribution for the difference scores.||The analysis was performed for the voxel-wise delta-band activity from the frontal pole and inferior frontal gyri. Spatial smoothing and logarithm transformation (e-based) were performed. Resting-state MEG activity differences between pre- and post-treatment measures were obtained as difference scores for TES and Sham separately. The null hypothesis was that there was no group difference in the pre- and post-treatment difference scores between TES and Sham groups||2.2|1.1|0.01
91044244|NCT03244475|181974886|SUPERIORITY|Statistical analysis was carried out for the difference scores to assess group differences between TES and Sham groups.||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon test was chosen due to potential non-normal distribution for the difference scores.||Differences between pre- and post-treatment measures were obtained as difference scores for TES and Sham separately. The null hypothesis was that there was no group difference in the pre- and post-treatment difference scores between TES and Sham groups||||0.05
91044245|NCT03244475|181974887|SUPERIORITY|Statistical analysis was carried out for the difference scores to assess group differences between TES and Sham groups.||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon test was chosen due to potential non-normal distribution for the difference scores.||Differences between pre- and post-treatment measures were obtained as difference scores for TES and Sham separately. The null hypothesis was that there was no group difference in the pre- and post-treatment difference scores between TES and Sham groups||||0.05
91044246|NCT03244475|181974888|SUPERIORITY|Statistical analysis was carried out for the difference scores to assess group differences between TES and Sham groups.||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon test was chosen due to potential non-normal distribution for the difference scores.||Differences between pre- and post-treatment measures were obtained as difference scores for TES and Sham separately. The null hypothesis was that there was no group difference in the pre- and post-treatment difference scores between TES and Sham groups||||0.05
91044247|NCT03244475|181974889|SUPERIORITY|Statistical analysis was carried out for the difference scores to assess group differences between TES and Sham groups.||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon test was chosen due to potential non-normal distribution for the difference scores.||Differences between pre- and post-treatment measures were obtained as difference scores for TES and Sham separately. The null hypothesis was that there was no group difference in the pre- and post-treatment difference scores between TES and Sham groups||||0.05
91044248|NCT03244475|181974890|SUPERIORITY|Statistical analysis was carried out for the DIFFERENCE scores to assess group differences between TES and Sham groups.||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon test was chosen due to potential non-normal distribution for the difference scores.||Differences between pre- and post-treatment measures were obtained as difference scores for TES and Sham separately. The null hypothesis was that there was no group difference in the pre- and post-treatment difference scores between TES and Sham groups||||0.05
91044249|NCT03244475|181974891|SUPERIORITY|Statistical analysis was carried out for the DIFFERENCE scores to assess group differences between TES and Sham groups.||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon test was chosen due to potential non-normal distribution for the difference scores.||Differences between pre- and post-treatment measures were obtained as difference scores for TES and Sham separately. The null hypothesis was that there was no group difference in the pre- and post-treatment difference scores between TES and Sham groups||||0.05
91044250|NCT03244475|181974892|SUPERIORITY|Statistical analysis was carried out for the difference scores to assess group differences between TES and Sham groups.||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon test was chosen due to potential non-normal distribution for the difference scores.||Differences between pre- and post-treatment measures were obtained as difference scores for TES and Sham separately. The null hypothesis was that there was no group difference in the pre- and post-treatment difference scores between TES and Sham groups||||0.05
90996470|NCT00594204|181876770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.76|||<|0.0001||95.0|3.74|8.88|||Regression, Logistic|p-value are obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment and country|Odds Ratios obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment and country|||8.88|3.74|<0.0001
90996471|NCT01369212|181876777|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||Wald test|Proportion with HBsAg loss at week 240 in each group is estimated by Kaplan-Meier and then equality of proportion is tested using Wald test.||||||0.72
90996472|NCT01369212|181876778|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09||||||The cumulative percentages with HBsAg loss at week 192 were estimated using Kaplan-Meier method and then the equality is tested using Wald test.|Wald Test|||||||0.09
90996473|NCT01369212|181876779|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.46
90996474|NCT01369212|181876780|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.12
90996475|NCT01369212|181876781|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.002
90996476|NCT01369212|181876782|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.039|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.039
90996477|NCT01369212|181876783|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.20
91044251|NCT03244475|181974893|SUPERIORITY|Statistical analysis was carried out for the difference scores to assess group differences between TES and Sham groups.||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon test was chosen due to potential non-normal distribution for the difference scores.||Differences between pre- and post-treatment measures were obtained as difference scores for TES and Sham separately. The null hypothesis was that there was no group difference in the pre- and post-treatment difference scores between TES and Sham groups||||0.05
90996478|NCT01369212|181876784|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.44
90996479|NCT01369212|181876785|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.06
90996480|NCT01369212|181876786|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.66
90996481|NCT01369212|181876787|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.02
90996482|NCT01369212|181876788|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.55
90996483|NCT01369212|181876789|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.99
90996484|NCT01369212|181876790|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.87
90996485|NCT01369212|181876791|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.02
90996486|NCT01369212|181876792|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.66
90996487|NCT01369212|181876794|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.66
90996488|NCT01369212|181876795|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.01
90996489|NCT03245723|181876819|OTHER|Descriptive statistics||||||0.38|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|||||||0.38
90996490|NCT03245723|181876820|OTHER|Descriptive statistics||||||0.12|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|||||||0.12
90996491|NCT00077376|181876821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Objective response rate|41.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.0|58.0||||||||58|26|
90996492|NCT00077376|181876822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Objective response rate|44.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.0|58.0||||||||58|31|
90996493|NCT01016678|181876865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|18.0||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of percentage of participants pain free at 2 hours post-dose (active) to percentage of participants pain free at 2 hours post-dose (placebo)||||0.0038
90996494|NCT01016678|181876866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in percentages|8.0||||0.1294|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1294
90996495|NCT03807245|181876910|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Adjusted geometric mean fold increase from Day 1 to Day 85: adjusted geometric mean ratio GBS-NN/NN2 25mcg/placebo||||<0.0001
90996496|NCT03807245|181876910|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Adjusted geometric mean fold increase from Day 1 to Day 85: adjusted geometric mean ratio GBS-NN/NN2 50mcg/placebo||||<0.0001
90996497|NCT04904614|181876913|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.02
90996498|NCT04904614|181876914|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.13
90996499|NCT04904614|181876915|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6
90996500|NCT04904614|181876917|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.97
90996501|NCT01668030|181876919|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0853|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.0853
90996502|NCT04724733|181876920|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||>0.05
90996503|NCT04724733|181876920|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||>0.05
90996504|NCT04724733|181876920|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0172|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0172
90996505|NCT04724733|181876921|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.032|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||.0320
90996506|NCT04724733|181876921|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||>0.05
90996507|NCT04724733|181876921|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0008|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0008
90996508|NCT03341923|181876922|NON_INFERIORITY|"Difference (DT1MF-AMMF) of percentage of subjects rated as Optimal was provided with two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI). If lower limit of CI was above -10% as non-inferiority criteria, non-inferiority was to be demonstrated."|Difference in proportion|6.1||||0.0455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|11.9|||McNemar|||||11.9|0.2|0.0455
90996509|NCT03341923|181876922|SUPERIORITY|After demonstrating noninferiority, if lower limit of CI was above 0% as superiority criteria, superiority was to be demonstrated.|Difference in proportion|6.1||||0.0455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|11.9|||McNemar|||||11.9|0.2|0.0455
90996510|NCT04511819|181876923|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.087||||0.8762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.347|0.174|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.174|-0.347|0.8762
90996511|NCT00168064|181876930|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The PG formulation was determined to be non-inferior to the AP formulation if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval around the ratio of the response rates (PG/AP) was \> = 0.75.|ratio of proportions|1.226|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.974|1.552|||ANCOVA||ratio is response rate of PG formulation divided by response rate of AP formulation|||1.552|0.974|
90996512|NCT00589979|181876936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.78||||0.1006||95.0|0.89|3.55||All statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of alpha=0.05.|Cox frailty model|Model included treatment, sequence, period, and first-order carryover as fixed effects and frailty; patient nested within sequence was frailty.|The Hazard Ratio (HR) provided is the ratio of Placebo to Lidoderm.|The two treatments were compared by time-varying relative hazards, associated P values, and 95% confidence intervals. Appropriate survival or hazard functions were calculated.||3.55|0.89|0.1006
90996513|NCT00589979|181876938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.86||||0.1272||95.0|0.86|4.02||The logistic regression model for repeated measures used for this analysis included treatment, sequence, period, and first-order carry-over as fixed effects and repeated measures taken on patients nested within sequence.|Regression, Logistic|The results presented are reported in terms of odds ratios, corresponding 95% confidence intervals, and P-values for each fixed effect in the model.|The Odds Ratio (OR) provided is the ratio of Lidoderm to Placebo.|The proportion of patients who exited from the current treatment period prior to the 4-week planned duration was analyzed using a logistic regression model for repeated measures.||4.02|0.86|0.1272
90996514|NCT00589979|181876939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.54||||0.0224||95.0|-1.01|-0.08||All statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of alpha=0.05.|Linear mixed effects model||The results are reported as least squares means and their differences along with associated P-values, and 95% confidence intervals for each fixed effect in the model.|The overall treatment difference for the lidocaine patch 5% and placebo patch was compared by combining data for patients receiving the respective treatment regardless of the randomized study sequence. The endpoint was analyzed by linear mixed effects models incorporating treatment, period, sequence, and first-order carryover as fixed effects, and patient nested within sequence as a random effect. P-value for the random effect (s2) is from the Wald Z-test for the covariance parameter estimates.||-0.08|-1.01|0.0224
90996515|NCT00589979|181876940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.39||||0.2747||95.0|-0.31|1.09||All statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of alpha=0.05.|Linear mixed effects regression||The results are reported as least squares means and their differences along with associated P-values, and 95% confidence intervals for each fixed effect in the model.|The overall treatment difference for the lidocaine patch 5% and placebo patch was compared by combining data for patients receiving the respective treatment regardless of the randomized study sequence. The endpoint was analyzed by linear mixed effects models incorporating treatment, period, sequence, and first-order carryover as fixed effects, and patient nested within sequence as a random effect. P-value for the random effect (s2) is from the Wald Z-test for the covariance parameter estimates.||1.09|-0.31|0.2747
90996516|NCT00589979|181876941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.22||||0.4498||95.0|-0.8|0.36||All statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of alpha=0.05.|Linear mixed effects model||The results are reported as least squares means and their differences along with associated P-values, and 95% confidence intervals for each fixed effect in the model.|Intense: the difference between Lidoderm and placebo was compared by combining data for patients receiving the respective treatment regardless of the randomized study sequence. The endpoint was analyzed by linear mixed effects models incorporating treatment, period, sequence, and first-order carryover as fixed effects, and patient nested within sequence as a random effect. P-value for the random effect (s2) is from the Wald Z-test for the covariance parameter estimates.||0.36|-0.80|0.4498
90996517|NCT00589979|181876941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.1065||95.0|-1.11|0.11||All statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of alpha=0.05.|Linear mixed effect models||The results are reported as least squares means and their differences along with associated P-values, and 95% confidence intervals for each fixed effect in the model.|Sharp: the difference between Lidoderm and placebo was compared by combining data for patients receiving the respective treatment regardless of the randomized study sequence. The endpoint was analyzed by linear mixed effects models incorporating treatment, period, sequence, and first-order carryover as fixed effects, and patient nested within sequence as a random effect. P-value for the random effect (s2) is from the Wald Z-test for the covariance parameter estimates.||0.11|-1.11|0.1065
91006887|NCT02545049|181898377|SUPERIORITY|If the treatment effect of the 40% renal composite endpoint was not significant, all other endpoints (i.e. all-cause hospitalization, all-cause mortality, change in UACR from baseline to Month 4, and 57% renal composite endpoint) would be tested in an exploratory manner.|Ratio of least squares means|0.676|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.704||P-value from F-test of equal means between the treatment groups. A hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary efficacy endpoints with each variable being tested at the adjusted two-sided significance level of 0.04967388.|ANCOVA|||||0.704|0.650|<0.0001
91006888|NCT02545049|181898378|SUPERIORITY|If the treatment effect of the 40% renal composite endpoint was not significant, all other endpoints (i.e. all-cause hospitalization, all-cause mortality, change in UACR from baseline to Month 4, and 57% renal composite endpoint) would be tested in an exploratory manner.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.0406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.99||A hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary efficacy endpoints with each variable being tested at the adjusted two-sided significance level of 0.04967388.|Log Rank|Stratified log rank test|A stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model was used to provide a point estimate of the hazard ratio and a corresponding two-sided 95% confidence interval.|||0.99|0.60|0.0406
90996518|NCT00589979|181876941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.47||||0.0484||95.0|-0.94|0.0||All statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of alpha=0.05.|Linear mixed effects models||The results are reported as least squares means and their differences along with associated P-values, and 95% confidence intervals for each fixed effect in the model.|Hot: the difference between Lidoderm and placebo was compared by combining data for patients receiving the respective treatment regardless of the randomized study sequence. The endpoint was analyzed by linear mixed effects models incorporating treatment, period, sequence, and first-order carryover as fixed effects, and patient nested within sequence as a random effect. P-value for the random effect (s2) is from the Wald Z-test for the covariance parameter estimates.||-0.00|-0.94|0.0484
90996519|NCT00589979|181876941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.24||||0.4973||95.0|-0.93|0.46||All statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of alpha=0.05.|Linear mixed effect models||The results are reported as least squares means and their differences along with associated P-values, and 95% confidence intervals for each fixed effect in the model.|Dull: the difference between Lidoderm and placebo was compared by combining data for patients receiving the respective treatment regardless of the randomized study sequence. The endpoint was analyzed by linear mixed effects models incorporating treatment, period, sequence, and first-order carryover as fixed effects, and patient nested within sequence as a random effect. P-value for the random effect (s2) is from the Wald Z-test for the covariance parameter estimates.||0.46|-0.93|0.4973
91006889|NCT01901809|181898436|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|11.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.7||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|20.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||||20.8|2.0|0.018
91006890|NCT01901809|181898437|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.8||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|4.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.9|-14.4|0.33
91006891|NCT02776904|181898438|OTHER|||||||0.0003||||||Adjustment with Tukey-Kramer|ANOVA|3 DF||Repeated measures ANOVA compared pre-season scores to post-season, end of the school year and pre-season year 2 for Visual Memory||||0.0003
91006892|NCT02776904|181898438|OTHER|||||||0.0281||||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons using Tukey-Kramer|ANOVA|DF 3||Repeated measures ANOVA compared pre-season scores to post-season, end of the school year and pre-season year 2 for Verbal memory||||0.0281
90996520|NCT00589979|181876941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12||||0.3966||95.0|-0.16|0.41||All statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of alpha=0.05.|Linear mixed effect models||The results are reported as least squares means and their differences along with associated P-values, and 95% confidence intervals for each fixed effect in the model.|Cold: the difference between Lidoderm and placebo was compared by combining data for patients receiving the respective treatment regardless of the randomized study sequence. The endpoint was analyzed by linear mixed effects models incorporating treatment, period, sequence, and first-order carryover as fixed effects, and patient nested within sequence as a random effect. P-value for the random effect (s2) is from the Wald Z-test for the covariance parameter estimates.||0.41|-0.16|0.3966
90996521|NCT00589979|181876941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09||||0.6941||95.0|-0.53|0.35||All statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of alpha=0.05.|Linear mixed effects model||The results are reported as least squares means and their differences along with associated P-values, and 95% confidence intervals for each fixed effect in the model.|Sensitive: the difference between Lidoderm and placebo was compared by combining data for patients receiving the respective treatment regardless of the randomized study sequence. The endpoint was analyzed by linear mixed effects models incorporating treatment, period, sequence, and first-order carryover as fixed effects, and patient nested within sequence as a random effect. P-value for the random effect (s2) is from the Wald Z-test for the covariance parameter estimates.||0.35|-0.53|0.6941
91006893|NCT02776904|181898438|OTHER|||||||0.0035||||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|DF 3||Repeated measures ANOVA compared pre-season scores to post-season, end of the school year and pre-season year 2 for Visual Motor composite||||0.0035
91006894|NCT02776904|181898439|OTHER|||||||0.2637||||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons using Tukey-Kramer|ANOVA|||Repeated measures ANOVA compared pre-season scores to post-season, end of the school year and pre-season year 2 for Reaction Time||||0.2637
91044252|NCT03244475|181974894|SUPERIORITY|Statistical analysis was carried out for the DIFFERENCE scores to assess group differences between TES and Sham groups.||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon test was chosen due to potential non-normal distribution for the difference scores.||Differences between pre- and post-treatment measures were obtained as difference scores for TES and Sham separately. The null hypothesis was that there was no group difference in the pre- and post-treatment difference scores between TES and Sham groups||||0.05
91044253|NCT03244475|181974895|SUPERIORITY|Statistical analysis was carried out for the DIFFERENCE scores to assess group differences between TES and Sham groups.||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon test was chosen due to potential non-normal distribution for the difference scores.||Differences between pre- and post-treatment measures were obtained as difference scores for TES and Sham separately. The null hypothesis was that there was no group difference in the pre- and post-treatment difference scores between TES and Sham groups||||0.05
91044254|NCT03244475|181974896|SUPERIORITY|Statistical analysis was carried out for the difference scores to assess group differences between TES and Sham groups.||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon test was chosen due to potential non-normal distribution for the difference scores.||Differences between pre- and post-treatment measures were obtained as difference scores for TES and Sham separately. The null hypothesis was that there was no group difference in the pre- and post-treatment difference scores between TES and Sham groups||||0.05
91044255|NCT01796964|181974900|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority at week 12 is concluded at one-sided alpha level of 0.10 if the lower limit of the corresponding two-sided 80% confidence interval for the treatment difference (ESBA 1008 - EYLEA) is greater than -5 letters.|Treatment difference (ESBA - Eylea)|-1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.19|1.93|||||Treatment differences were based on least squares estimates.|An analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with treatment and baseline BCVA categories (\< 55 and ≥ 55 letters) as class variables was used to estimate the treatment group differences (ESBA1008 - EYLEA) in the primary efficacy endpoint, BCVA Change from baseline to Week 12.||1.93|-4.19|
91044256|NCT01796964|181974901|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority at week 16 is concluded at one-sided alpha level of 0.10 if the lower limit of the corresponding two-sided 80% confidence interval for the treatment difference (ESBA 1008 - EYLEA) is greater than -5 letters.|Treatment difference (ESBA - Eylea)|-0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.72|2.56|||||Treatment differences were based on least squares estimates.|An analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with treatment and baseline BCVA categories (\< 55 and ≥ 55 letters) as class variables was used to estimate the treatment group differences (ESBA1008 - EYLEA) in the primary efficacy endpoint, BCVA Change from baseline to Week 16.||2.56|-3.72|
91044257|NCT02285634|181974922|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.42
91044258|NCT02285634|181974922|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.52
91044259|NCT02285634|181974922|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.93
91044260|NCT02285634|181974923|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.06
91044261|NCT02285634|181974923|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.61
91044262|NCT02285634|181974923|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.78
91044263|NCT02285634|181974924|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.27
91044264|NCT02285634|181974924|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.17
91044265|NCT02285634|181974924|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.56
91044266|NCT02285634|181974925|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.78
91044267|NCT02285634|181974925|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.10
91044268|NCT02285634|181974925|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.47
91044269|NCT01239472|181974938|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91044270|NCT01239472|181974939|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91044271|NCT03662308|181974940|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91044272|NCT02695719|181974947|SUPERIORITY||Median Values of CI|1.0||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.9||No adjustment was made as there was only one primary comparison.|Van Elteren Test|The Van Elteren test is a stratified version of the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test which provides approximate sample size for the van Elteren analysis.|CI was estimated by inverting the hypothesis test.|Assuming equal allocation, a power of 90%, an alpha level of 0.05 for a 2-sided test, a placebo mean of 4 (standard deviation of 2.7), and a treatment mean of 5.9 (standard deviation of 4) for SBM frequency at Week 1 and using Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test, a total sample size of 146 is required. Analysis was conducted using van Elteren test.||1.9|0.1|0.007
91044273|NCT02250651|181974995|NON_INFERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.3738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|0.44|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 12, Hour 0: The hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 15 μg was to be declared non-inferior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was ≤ 1.5 mmHg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Week 12).||0.44|-1.17|0.3738
91044274|NCT02250651|181974995|NON_INFERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.8514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.73|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 12, Hour 0: The hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 10 μg was to be declared non-inferior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was ≤ 1.5 mmHg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Week 12).||0.73|-0.88|0.8514
90996522|NCT00589979|181876941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.18||||0.5664||95.0|-0.45|0.82||All statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of alpha=0.05.|Linear mixed effects models||The results are reported as least squares means and their differences along with associated P-values, and 95% confidence intervals for each fixed effect in the model.|Tender: the difference between Lidoderm and placebo was compared by combining data for patients receiving the respective treatment regardless of the randomized study sequence. The endpoint was analyzed by linear mixed effects models incorporating treatment, period, sequence, and first-order carryover as fixed effects, and patient nested within sequence as a random effect. P-value for the random effect (s2) is from the Wald Z-test for the covariance parameter estimates.||0.82|-0.45|0.5664
90996523|NCT00589979|181876941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09||||0.6871||95.0|-0.55|0.37||All statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of alpha=0.05.|Linear mixed effects models||The results are reported as least squares means and their differences along with associated P-values, and 95% confidence intervals for each fixed effect in the model.|Itchy: the difference between Lidoderm and placebo was compared by combining data for patients receiving the respective treatment regardless of the randomized study sequence. The endpoint was analyzed by linear mixed effects models incorporating treatment, period, sequence, and first-order carryover as fixed effects, and patient nested within sequence as a random effect. P-value for the random effect (s2) is from the Wald Z-test for the covariance parameter estimates.||0.37|-0.55|0.6871
91044275|NCT02250651|181974995|NON_INFERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.0401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|-0.04|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 12, Hour 2: The hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 15 μg was to be declared non-inferior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was ≤ 1.5 mmHg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Week 12).||-0.04|-1.57|0.0401
91044276|NCT02250651|181974995|NON_INFERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.3621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|0.41|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 12, Hour 2: The hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 10 μg was to be declared non-inferior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was ≤ 1.5 mmHg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Week 12).||0.41|-1.12|0.3621
91044277|NCT02250651|181974996|NON_INFERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.0382||95.0|-1.48|-0.04|||MMRM|||Week 2, Hour 0: The hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 15 μg was to be declared non-inferior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was ≤ 1.5 mmHg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||-0.04|-1.48|0.0382
91044278|NCT02250651|181974996|NON_INFERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.1133||95.0|-1.29|0.14|||MMRM|||Week 2, Hour 0: The hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 10 μg was to be declared non-inferior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was ≤ 1.5 mmHg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||0.14|-1.29|0.1133
91044279|NCT02250651|181974997|NON_INFERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.0013||95.0|-1.76|-0.43|||MMRM|||Week 2, Hour 2: The hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 15 μg was to be declared non-inferior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was ≤ 1.5 mmHg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||-0.43|-1.76|0.0013
91044280|NCT02250651|181974997|NON_INFERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.0364||95.0|-1.38|-0.05|||MMRM|||Week 2, Hour 2: The hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 10 μg was to be declared non-inferior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was ≤ 1.5 mmHg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||-0.05|-1.38|0.0364
91044281|NCT02250651|181974998|NON_INFERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.2304||95.0|-1.22|0.29|||MMRM|||Week 6, Hour 0: The hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 15 μg was to be declared non-inferior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was ≤ 1.5 mmHg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||0.29|-1.22|0.2304
91044282|NCT02250651|181974998|NON_INFERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.1272||95.0|-1.34|0.17|||MMRM|||Week 6, Hour 0: The hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 10 μg was to be declared non-inferior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was ≤ 1.5 mmHg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||0.17|-1.34|0.1272
91044283|NCT02250651|181974999|NON_INFERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.0038||95.0|-1.76|-0.34|||MMRM|||Week 6, Hour 2: The hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 15 μg was to be declared non-inferior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was ≤ 1.5 mmHg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||-0.34|-1.76|0.0038
91044284|NCT02250651|181974999|NON_INFERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.0741||95.0|-1.36|0.06|||MMRM|||Week 6, Hour 2: The hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 10 μg was to be declared non-inferior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was ≤ 1.5 mmHg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||0.06|-1.36|0.0741
91044285|NCT02250651|181975000|NON_INFERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.3738||95.0|-1.17|0.44|||MMRM|||Week 12, Hour 0: The hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 15 μg was to be declared non-inferior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was ≤ 1.5 mmHg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||0.44|-1.17|0.3738
91078640|NCT01964716|182043068|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for a given antibody serotype was declared if lower bound of the 2-sided, 97.5% confidence interval for the geometric mean concentration ratio (GMC MDV /GMC SDS) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMC Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.85|1.19||||||Serotype 5: Ratio of GMCs, MDV to SDS, was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale; CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS).||1.19|0.85|
91078641|NCT01964716|182043068|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for a given antibody serotype was declared if lower bound of the 2-sided, 97.5% confidence interval for the geometric mean concentration ratio (GMC MDV /GMC SDS) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMC Ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.86|1.22||||||Serotype 6A: Ratio of GMCs, MDV to SDS, was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale; CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS).||1.22|0.86|
91078642|NCT01964716|182043068|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for a given antibody serotype was declared if lower bound of the 2-sided, 97.5% confidence interval for the geometric mean concentration ratio (GMC MDV /GMC SDS) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMC Ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.82|1.36||||||Serotype 6B: Ratio of GMCs, MDV to SDS, was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale; CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS).||1.36|0.82|
90996524|NCT00589979|181876941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.41||||0.2318||95.0|-1.08|0.27||All statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of alpha=0.05.|Linear mixed effects models||The results are reported as least squares means and their differences along with associated P-values, and 95% confidence intervals for each fixed effect in the model.|Shocking: the difference between Lidoderm and placebo was compared by combining data for patients receiving the respective treatment regardless of the randomized study sequence. The endpoint was analyzed by linear mixed effects models incorporating treatment, period, sequence, and first-order carryover as fixed effects, and patient nested within sequence as a random effect. P-value for the random effect (s2) is from the Wald Z-test for the covariance parameter estimates.||0.27|-1.08|0.2318
91044286|NCT02250651|181975000|NON_INFERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.8514||95.0|-0.88|0.73|||MMRM|||Week 12, Hour 0: The hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 10 μg was to be declared non-inferior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was ≤ 1.5 mmHg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||0.73|-0.88|0.8514
91044287|NCT02250651|181975001|NON_INFERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.0401||95.0|-1.57|-0.04|||MMRM|||Week 12, Hour 2: The hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 15 μg was to be declared non-inferior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was ≤ 1.5 mmHg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||-0.04|-1.57|0.0401
91044288|NCT02250651|181975001|NON_INFERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.3621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|0.41|||MMRM|||Week 12, Hour 2: The hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 10 μg was to be declared non-inferior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was ≤ 1.5 mmHg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||0.41|-1.12|0.3621
91044289|NCT02250651|181975002|SUPERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.0382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|-0.04|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 2, Hour 0: The hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 15 μg was to be declared superior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was \<0 mmHg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||-0.04|-1.48|0.0382
91044290|NCT02250651|181975002|SUPERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.1133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|0.14|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 2, Hour 0: The hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 10 μg was to be declared superior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was \<0 mmHg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||0.14|-1.29|0.1133
91044291|NCT02250651|181975002|SUPERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|-0.43|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 2, Hour 2: The hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 15 μg was to be declared superior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was \<0 mmHg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||-0.43|-1.76|0.0013
91044292|NCT02250651|181975002|SUPERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.0364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|-0.05|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 2, Hour 2: The hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 10 μg was to be declared superior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was \<0 mmHg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||-0.05|-1.38|0.0364
91044293|NCT02250651|181975002|SUPERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.2304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|0.29|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 6, Hour 0: The hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 15 μg was to be declared superior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was \<0 mmHg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||0.29|-1.22|0.2304
91044294|NCT02250651|181975002|SUPERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.1272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|0.17|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 6, Hour 0: The hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 10 μg was to be declared superior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was \<0 mmHg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||0.17|-1.34|0.1272
91044295|NCT02250651|181975002|SUPERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|-0.34|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 6, Hour 2: The hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 15 μg was to be declared superior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was \<0 mmHg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||-0.34|-1.76|0.0038
91044296|NCT02250651|181975002|SUPERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.0741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|0.06|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 6, Hour 2: The hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 10 μg was to be declared superior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was \<0 mmHg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||0.06|-1.36|0.0741
91044297|NCT01201486|181975004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Sensitivity|23.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Percentage Sensitivity|||||||
91044298|NCT01557920|181975013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||pathological swallows under anesthesia vs. wakefulness: 25.9% vs. 4.9%|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.001
91044299|NCT01557920|181975013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of pathological swallow-rate increase by carbon-dioxide during anesthesia and wakefulness||||<0.001
91044300|NCT01557920|181975018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The number of swallows per hour: 1.7±3.3 during anesthesia vs. 28.0±22.3 during wakefulness|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91044301|NCT00496262|181975033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.4|<|0.0001||90.0|||||2-sided, 1-sample t-test||The entire ITT population was used for a conservative analysis of the mean change in MCF. The mean change was set to 0 for any subject with missing MCF data.|This is an open-label study with statistical comparison between MCF pre-infusion and 1 hour post-infusion.||||<0.0001
91044302|NCT02010996|181975043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.05
91044303|NCT04381481|181975044|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||beverages with claim compared to control beverage||||<0.001
91044304|NCT04381481|181975045|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||snacks with warning compared to control snack||||<0.001
91044305|NCT04381481|181975046|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||beverages with claim compared to control beverage||||<0.001
91044306|NCT04381481|181975047|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||beverages with claim compared to control beverage||||<0.001
91044307|NCT04381481|181975048|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||Beverages with claim compared to control beverage||||<0.01
91044308|NCT04381481|181975049|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||beverages with claim compared to control beverage||||<0.001
91044309|NCT04381481|181975050|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||beverages with claim compared to control beverage||||<0.001
91044310|NCT04381481|181975051|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||beverages with claim compared to control beverage||||<0.001
91044311|NCT04381481|181975052|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||beverages with claim compared to control beverage||||<0.001
91044312|NCT04381481|181975053|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||beverages with claim compared to control beverage||||<0.01
91044313|NCT04381481|181975054|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||beverages with claim compared to control beverage||||<0.01
91006895|NCT02776904|181898440|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Used Tukey's Adjustment|ANOVA|||Descriptive analysis, including means and standard deviations was used to summarize all participant data. Velocity was normalized to leg length. Normality was tested and assumed for all measured gait parameters for healthy athletes. A two-way repeated measure analyses of variance (ANOVA) was used to explore the impact of walk status and sex on gait velocity for healthy athletes. Adjusted using Tukey's post hoc method for the pairwise comparisons (0.05 threshold for significance)||||<0.001
90996525|NCT00589979|181876941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.21||||0.3383||95.0|-0.64|0.22||All statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of alpha=0.05.|Linear mixed effects models||The results are reported as least squares means and their differences along with associated P-values, and 95% confidence intervals for each fixed effect in the model.|Numb: the difference between Lidoderm and placebo was compared by combining data for patients receiving the respective treatment regardless of the randomized study sequence. The endpoint was analyzed by linear mixed effects models incorporating treatment, period, sequence, and first-order carryover as fixed effects, and patient nested within sequence as a random effect. P-value for the random effect (s2) is from the Wald Z-test for the covariance parameter estimates.||0.22|-0.64|0.3383
90996526|NCT00589979|181876941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.874||95.0|-0.63|0.73||All statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of alpha=0.05.|Linear mixed effects models||The results are reported as least squares means and their differences along with associated P-values, and 95% confidence intervals for each fixed effect in the model.|Electrical: the difference between Lidoderm and placebo was compared by combining data for patients receiving the respective treatment regardless of the randomized study sequence. The endpoint was analyzed by linear mixed effects models incorporating treatment, period, sequence, and first-order carryover as fixed effects, and patient nested within sequence as a random effect. P-value for the random effect (s2) is from the Wald Z-test for the covariance parameter estimates.||0.73|-0.63|0.8740
90996527|NCT00589979|181876941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.999||95.0|-0.54|0.54||All statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of alpha=0.05.|Linear mixed effects models||The results are reported as least squares means and their differences along with associated P-values, and 95% confidence intervals for each fixed effect in the model.|Tingling: the difference between Lidoderm and placebo was compared by combining data for patients receiving the respective treatment regardless of the randomized study sequence. The endpoint was analyzed by linear mixed effects models incorporating treatment, period, sequence, and first-order carryover as fixed effects, and patient nested within sequence as a random effect. P-value for the random effect (s2) is from the Wald Z-test for the covariance parameter estimates.||0.54|-0.54|0.9990
90996528|NCT00589979|181876941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.25||||0.4183||95.0|-0.85|0.36||All statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of alpha=0.05.|Linear mixed effects models||The results are reported as least squares means and their differences along with associated P-values, and 95% confidence intervals for each fixed effect in the model.|Cramping: the difference between Lidoderm and placebo was compared by combining data for patients receiving the respective treatment regardless of the randomized study sequence. The endpoint was analyzed by linear mixed effects models incorporating treatment, period, sequence, and first-order carryover as fixed effects, and patient nested within sequence as a random effect. P-value for the random effect (s2) is from the Wald Z-test for the covariance parameter estimates.||0.36|-0.85|0.4183
90996529|NCT00589979|181876941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07||||0.8227||95.0|-0.71|0.57||All statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of alpha=0.05.|Linear mixed effects models||The results are reported as least squares means and their differences along with associated P-values, and 95% confidence intervals for each fixed effect in the model.|Radiating: the difference between Lidoderm and placebo was compared by combining data for patients receiving the respective treatment regardless of the randomized study sequence. The endpoint was analyzed by linear mixed effects models incorporating treatment, period, sequence, and first-order carryover as fixed effects, and patient nested within sequence as a random effect. P-value for the random effect (s2) is from the Wald Z-test for the covariance parameter estimates.||0.57|-0.71|0.8227
91006896|NCT02776904|181898441|OTHER|Normality was tested and assumed for all measured gait parameters. A two-way repeated measure analyses of variance (ANOVA) was used to explore the impact of walk status and sex on gait parameters of step length. Adjusted using Tukey's post hoc method for the pairwise comparisons (0.05 threshold for significance).|||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|Tukey's post hoc method for the pair wise comparisons between walk status and sex for step length.||||||< 0.0001
91044314|NCT04381481|181975055|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||beverages with claim compared to control beverage||||<0.001
91044315|NCT04381481|181975056|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||beverages with claim compared to control beverage||||<0.001
91006897|NCT02776904|181898442|OTHER|Normality was tested and assumed for all measured gait parameters. A two-way repeated measure analyses of variance (ANOVA) was used to explore the impact of walk status and sex on percent of gait cycle in DLS.|||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|Tukey's post hoc method for the pairwise comparisons with p\<.05.||||||< 0.0001
91006898|NCT02776904|181898443|OTHER|Normality was tested and assumed for all measured gait parameters. A two-way repeated measure analyses of variance (ANOVA) was used to explore the impact of walk status and sex on percent of gait cycle in SLS.|||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|Tukey's post hoc method for pairwise comparison between walk status and sex for %GC in SLS.||||||< 0.0001
91006899|NCT02776904|181898444|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
91006900|NCT02776904|181898445|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
91006901|NCT02776904|181898446|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
91006902|NCT04657003|181898448|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Mean Difference (Net)|-10.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|-8.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.8|-11.5|<0.001
91006903|NCT04657003|181898448|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Mean Difference (Net)|-12.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|-11.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-11.0|-13.7|<0.001
91006904|NCT04657003|181898449|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.3|15.84|||Regression, Logistic|||||15.84|7.30|<0.001
91006905|NCT04657003|181898449|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|15.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.08|23.14|||Regression, Logistic|||||23.14|10.08|<0.001
91006906|NCT04657003|181898450|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|20.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.06|33.58|||Regression, Logistic|||||33.58|13.06|<0.001
91006907|NCT04657003|181898450|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|27.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.04|44.39|||Regression, Logistic|||||44.39|17.04|<0.001
91006908|NCT04657003|181898451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|28.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.81|58.31|||Regression, Logistic|||||58.31|13.81|<0.001
91006909|NCT04657003|181898451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|43.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.2|89.67|||Regression, Logistic|||||89.67|21.20|<0.001
91044316|NCT04381481|181975057|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||beverages with claim compared to control beverage||||<0.001
91044317|NCT04381481|181975058|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||warning snacks compared to control snack||||<0.001
91044318|NCT04381481|181975059|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||warning snacks compared to control snack||||<0.001
91044319|NCT04381481|181975060|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||warning snacks compared to control snack||||<0.001
91044320|NCT04381481|181975061|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||warning snacks compared to control snack||||<0.001
91044321|NCT04381481|181975062|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||warning snacks compared to control snack||||<0.001
91044322|NCT04381481|181975063|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||warning snacks compared to control snack||||<0.001
91044323|NCT04381481|181975064|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||warning snacks compared to control snack||||<0.001
91044324|NCT04381481|181975065|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||warning snacks compared to control snack||||<0.001
91044325|NCT04381481|181975066|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||warning snacks compared to control snack||||<0.001
91044326|NCT04381481|181975067|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||warning snacks compared to control snack||||<0.001
91044327|NCT04381481|181975068|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||warning snacks compared to control snack||||<0.001
91044328|NCT04381481|181975069|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||warning snacks compared to control snack||||<0.001
91044329|NCT04381481|181975070|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||warning snacks compared to control snack||||<0.001
91044330|NCT04381481|181975071|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||warning snacks compared to control snack||||<0.001
91044331|NCT02630316|181975077|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann|21.0||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|37.0||p-value is obtained from nonparametric ANCOVA adjusted for Baseline 6MWD category.|ANCOVA|||||37.0|7.0|0.0043
91044332|NCT02630316|181975078|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91044333|NCT02630316|181975079|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.92||p-value is calculated with log-rank test stratified by baseline 6MWD category.|Log Rank||p-value was 0.0202 for the proportional hazard model. Hazard ratio, 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-values are calculated with proportional hazards model with treatment and Baseline 6MWD (continuous) as explanatory variables.|||0.92|0.40|0.0410
91044334|NCT02630316|181975080|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann|20.0||||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|34.0||p-value is obtained from nonparametric ANCOVA adjusted for Baseline 6MWD category|ANCOVA|||||34.0|7.0|0.0041
91044335|NCT02630316|181975081|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann|15.0||||0.0432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|29.0||p-value is obtained from nonparametric ANCOVA adjusted for Baseline 6MWD category.|ANCOVA|||||29.0|0.0|0.0432
91044336|NCT02508116|181975082|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|2.42|||Regression, Logistic|||The sample size calculation was based on two factors: 1) the rate of pre-study prasugrel/ticagrelor use (\~20%) and 2) anticipated increase in prasugrel/ticagrelor prescribing based on the frequency CYP2C19 LOF variants (\~30-35%). We estimated a 15% difference in the use of prasugrel/ticagrelor in the two groups (35% in the genotyped group and 20% in the control group). A sample size of 138 per group (a total of 276) would provide 80% power at an alpha level of 0.05 to detect this difference.||2.42|1.07|0.03
91044337|NCT02508116|181975084|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||Log Rank|||The incidence of first MACE between the groups were compared by use of Kaplan-Meier estimators; statistical tests were based on log-rank tests.||||0.27
91044338|NCT00476593|181975095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Hypothesis: the use of diclofenac/dexamethasone does not influence macular thickness in treated eyes compared with untreated eyes of same subject.|t-test, 2 sided|The possible effect of both anti-inflammatory medications was tested in relation to participants' age and gender||Subjects who received diclofenac or dexamethasone eye drops in one eye. Macular thickness in both were compared between same subjects' eyes after 3 day's treatment. Diclofenac and dexamethasone treated eyes were not compared with each other, but with the contralateral eye of same subject by a paired Student's t-test in each medication group||||0.018
91044339|NCT00476593|181975095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Patient's healthy eyes were compared with sex and age matched healthy controls with Two Sample Student't t-test. Null hypothesis was that quiet, currently unaffected eyes of patients had same macular thickness as age and sex matched controls.||||0.024
91044340|NCT00559364|181975127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model using treatment group and pooled site as fixed effects and wash-out phase CFA% value as covariate was used.||||<0.0001
91044341|NCT01235442|181975149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|2.87||Overall significance level for primary and secondary endpoints controlled based on a combination of sequential testing and Hommel procedures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The test is stratified by baseline BMI(=\<35 or \>35) and prior anti-TNF exposure(Yes or no).||||2.87|1.46|<0.001
91044342|NCT01235442|181975150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|2.75||Overall significance level for primary and secondary endpoints controlled based on a combination of sequential testing and Hommel procedures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The test is stratified by baseline BMI (=\<35 or \>35) and prior anti-TNF exposure (Yes or No).||||2.75|1.40|<0.001
91044343|NCT01235442|181975151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.78||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|2.64||Overall significance level for primary and secondary endpoints controlled based on a combination of sequential testing and Hommel procedures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The test is stratified by baseline BMI (=\<35 or \>35) and prior anti-TNF exposure (Yes or No).||||2.64|1.21|0.009
91044344|NCT01235442|181975152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||||||Overall significance level for primary and secondary endpoints controlled based on a combination of sequential testing and Hommel procedures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The test is stratified by baseline BMI (=\<35 or \>35) and prior anti-TNF exposure (Yes or No) with with modified ridit scores.||||||0.006
91044345|NCT01235442|181975153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Overall significance level for primary and secondary endpoints controlled based on a combination of sequential testing and Hommel procedures.|van Elteren test|The test is stratified by baseline BMI (=\<35 or \>35) and prior anti-TNF exposure (Yes or No).||||||<0.001
91044346|NCT01235442|181975154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.85||Overall significance level for primary and secondary endpoints controlled based on a combination of sequential testing and Hommel procedures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The test is adjusted for baseline BMI (=\<35 or \>35) and prior anti-TNF (Yes or No).||||1.85|0.92|0.135
91044347|NCT01235442|181975155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.87||Overall significance level for primary and secondary endpoints controlled based on a combination of sequential testing and Hommel procedures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The test is stratified by baseline BMI (=\<35 or \>35) and prior anti-TNF exposure (Yes or No).||||1.87|0.96|0.135
91044348|NCT02578745|181975160|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.67||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|6.67|||Chi-squared|||||6.67|.42|0.72
91044349|NCT02578745|181975161|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.67||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|6.67|||Chi-squared|||||6.67|.42|0.72
91044350|NCT02578745|181975162|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.02
91044351|NCT02578745|181975163|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.99
91044352|NCT02578745|181975164|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.99
91044353|NCT02578745|181975165|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.50
91044354|NCT00330460|181975166|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin = -1.22%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.7|1.2|||ANCOVA|||||1.2|0.7|<0.0001
91006910|NCT04657003|181898452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|28.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.73|83.73|||Regression, Logistic|||||83.73|9.73|<0.001
91006911|NCT04657003|181898452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|49.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.03|144.94|||Regression, Logistic|||||144.94|17.03|<0.001
91006912|NCT04657003|181898453|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Mean Difference (Net)|-10.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|-8.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.8|-11.7|<0.001
91006913|NCT04657003|181898453|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Mean Difference (Net)|-12.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|-11.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-11.0|-13.8|<0.001
91006914|NCT04657003|181898454|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Mean Difference (Net)|-3.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|-3.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.2|-4.2|<0.001
91006915|NCT04657003|181898454|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Mean Difference (Net)|-4.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|-4.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.0|-5.0|<0.001
91006916|NCT04657003|181898455|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Mean Difference (Net)|-1.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|-1.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.80|-2.15|<0.001
91006917|NCT04657003|181898455|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Mean Difference (Net)|-2.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.24|-1.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.88|-2.24|<0.001
91044355|NCT00330460|181975167|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin = -2.29%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.7|1.4||The reported p-value was the one-sided adjusted p-valued based on multiplicity adjustment of the secondary efficacy endpoints|ANCOVA|||||1.4|0.7|<0.0001
91044356|NCT00330460|181975168|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin = -1.65%|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.6|1.4||The reported p-value was the one-sided adjusted p-valued based on multiplicity adjustment of the secondary efficacy endpoints|ANCOVA|||||1.4|0.6|<0.0001
91044357|NCT00330460|181975169|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin = -1.04%|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.3|1.0||The reported p-value was the one-sided adjusted p-valued based on multiplicity adjustment of the secondary efficacy endpoints|ANCOVA|||||1|0.3|<0.0001
91044358|NCT00330460|181975170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.0001||95.0|0.3|0.9||The reported p-value was the one-sided adjusted p-valued based on multiplicity adjustment of the secondary efficacy endpoints|ANCOVA|||||0.9|0.3|0.0001
91044359|NCT02663882|181975199|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.503||||||the a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|ANOVA|||The non-smoking-related self control task was the comparison group in relation to the smoking-related self control task||||0.503
91044360|NCT02663882|181975200|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.765||||||the a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|ANOVA|||The non-smoking-related self control task was the comparison group in relation to the smoking-related self control task||||0.765
91044361|NCT02663882|181975201|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.717||||||the a priori threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|ANOVA|||The non-smoking-related self control task was the comparison group in relation to the smoking-related self control task||||0.717
91044362|NCT02663882|181975202|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.302||||||the a priori threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|ANOVA|||The non-smoking-related self control task was the comparison group in relation to the smoking-related self control task||||0.302
91044363|NCT04458467|181975203|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.033|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.033
91044364|NCT04458467|181975204|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91044365|NCT03712124|181975212|OTHER||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-6.44||||0.903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-116.18|103.31|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with change from baseline at Day 14 as the dependent variable and baseline maximum tolerated volume and treatment as covariates.||103.31|-116.18|0.9030
91044366|NCT03712124|181975213|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|98.45||||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.81|161.08|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with change from baseline at Day 28 as the dependent variable and baseline maximum tolerated volume and treatment as covariates.||161.08|35.81|0.0042
91044367|NCT00104247|181975345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91044368|NCT02030535|181975399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.219|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.187|0.252||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment and period; patient baseline and period baseline as covariates; patient as a random effect|Mixed models repeated measures analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom. Compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation|Tio+Olo 5/5μg minus Placebo.|||0.252|0.187|<0.0001
91044369|NCT02030535|181975399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.252|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.284||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment and period; patient baseline and period baseline as covariates; patient as a random effect|Mixed models repeated measures analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom. Compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation.|Tiotropium 5μg + Olodaterol 5μg minus Placebo.|||0.284|0.220|<0.0001
91044370|NCT02030535|181975399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.033|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.065|-0.001|||||Tio+Olo 5/5μg minus Tiotropium 5μg + Olodaterol 5μg.|Descriptive comparison. Statistical Analyses 1 \& 2 were included in the hierarchical testing sequence (alpha protected), and analysis 3 was not included in the hierarchical testing sequence (not alpha protected)||-0.001|-0.065|
91044371|NCT02248662|181975417|OTHER|The reported p-value was calculated, and is not attempting to indicate the threshold for statistical significance.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||A two-sided p value of less than 0.05 was considered to indicate statistical significance.|Regression, Logistic|Adjusted percentages for receipt of mastectomy were calculated by setting covariates to their observed mean values.|This group is the reference group.|Unadjusted associations between patient characteristics and the three-level cluster of treatment intensity for primary DCIS were evaluated using Chi-squared tests. We used multivariable modeling to adjust for potential confounders. We also conducted a sensitivity analysis using propensity score matching to balance regional treatment intensity for primary DCIS with respect to the covariates included in the multivariable models.||||<0.05
91044372|NCT02248662|181975417|OTHER|The reported p-value was calculated, and is not attempting to indicate the threshold for statistical significance.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.56||A two-sided p value of less than 0.05 was considered to indicate statistical significance.|Chi-squared|||Unadjusted associations between patient characteristics and the three-level cluster of treatment intensity for primary DCIS were evaluated using Chi-squared tests. We used multivariable modeling to adjust for potential confounders. We also conducted a sensitivity analysis using propensity score matching to balance regional treatment intensity for primary DCIS with respect to the covariates included in the multivariable models.||1.56|0.71|<0.05
91044373|NCT02248662|181975417|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|2.84|||Chi-squared|||||2.84|1.27|<0.05
91044374|NCT01835548|181975418|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-11.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4239|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|-8.2|||ANCOVA|||||-8.20|-13.9|<0.0001
91044375|NCT01634854|181975427|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.11
91044376|NCT03581188|181975461|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|14.0||||||Odds ratios report differences between groups at follow-up.||14|0.9|
91044377|NCT03581188|181975462|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|5.7||||||||5.7|0.8|
90996530|NCT00589979|181876941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.18||||0.587||95.0|-0.48|0.85||All statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of alpha=0.05.|Linear mixed effects models||The results are reported as least squares means and their differences along with associated P-values, and 95% confidence intervals for each fixed effect in the model.|Throbbing: the difference between Lidoderm and placebo was compared by combining data for patients receiving the respective treatment regardless of the randomized study sequence. The endpoint was analyzed by linear mixed effects models incorporating treatment, period, sequence, and first-order carryover as fixed effects, and patient nested within sequence as a random effect. P-value for the random effect (s2) is from the Wald Z-test for the covariance parameter estimates.||0.85|-0.48|0.5870
91006918|NCT04657003|181898456|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|28.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.21|45.59|||Regression, Logistic|||||45.59|17.21|<0.001
91044378|NCT03581188|181975464|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.1||||||||2.1|1.1|
91006919|NCT04657003|181898456|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|34.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.27|57.67|||Regression, Logistic|||||57.67|20.27|<0.001
91006920|NCT04657003|181898457|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|42.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.61|69.26|||Regression, Logistic|||||69.26|25.61|<0.001
91006921|NCT04657003|181898457|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|58.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.29|100.37|||Regression, Logistic|||||100.37|34.29|<0.001
91006922|NCT04657003|181898458|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|42.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.46|88.5|||Regression, Logistic|||||88.50|20.46|<0.001
91006923|NCT04657003|181898458|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|54.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.0|113.38|||Regression, Logistic|||||113.38|26.00|<0.001
91006924|NCT04657003|181898459|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Mean Difference (Net)|-46.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.67|-40.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-40.91|-52.67|<0.001
91006925|NCT04657003|181898459|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Mean Difference (Net)|-49.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.18|-43.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-43.33|-55.18|<0.001
91006926|NCT04657003|181898460|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Mean Difference (Net)|-7.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|-6.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-6.4|-9.2|<0.001
91006927|NCT04657003|181898460|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Mean Difference (Net)|-10.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|-8.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.9|-11.8|<0.001
91006928|NCT04657003|181898461|SUPERIORITY||Estimate Difference|-4.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.11|-2.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.03|-7.11|<0.001
91006929|NCT04657003|181898462|SUPERIORITY||Estimate Difference|-3.36||||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.36|0.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.81|-7.36|0.112
91006930|NCT04657003|181898463|SUPERIORITY||Estimate Difference|7.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|9.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.71|4.40|<0.001
91006931|NCT04657003|181898464|SUPERIORITY||Estimate Difference|-23.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.5|-18.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-18.9|-27.5|<0.001
91006932|NCT04657003|181898465|SUPERIORITY||Estimate Difference|-24.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.6|-19.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-19.6|-28.6|<0.001
91006933|NCT04657003|181898466|SUPERIORITY||Estimate Difference|-8.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.04|-5.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.32|-12.04|<0.001
91006934|NCT04657003|181898467|SUPERIORITY||Estimate Difference|-23.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.62|-18.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-18.24|-28.62|<0.001
91006935|NCT04657003|181898468|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Mean Difference (Net)|-6.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|-4.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.4|-8.0|<0.001
91006936|NCT04657003|181898469|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Mean Difference (Net)|-2.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.3|-3.5|<0.001
91006937|NCT04657003|181898470|SUPERIORITY||Estimate Difference|-17.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.5|-8.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.9|-25.5|<0.001
91006938|NCT04657003|181898470|SUPERIORITY||Estimate Difference|-30.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.0|-22.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-22.7|-37.0|<0.001
91006939|NCT04657003|181898471|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Mean Difference (Net)|1.8||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.9|||ANCOVA|||||2.9|0.7|0.001
91006940|NCT04657003|181898471|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Mean Difference (Net)|2.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|3.4|||ANCOVA|||||3.4|1.1|<0.001
91006941|NCT04657003|181898472|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference (Net)|6.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|9.7|||ANCOVA|||||9.7|4.1|<0.001
91006942|NCT04657003|181898472|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference (Net)|7.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|10.7|||ANCOVA|||||10.7|5.0|<0.001
91006943|NCT00935766|181898474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.21
91006944|NCT00935766|181898475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.08
91006945|NCT00935766|181898476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.36
91006946|NCT00958191|181898540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Sign test|||Change in HHS from pre-op to 1 year||||<0.0001
91006947|NCT00958191|181898540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Sign test|||Change in HHS from pre-op to 3 years||||<0.0001
91006948|NCT00958191|181898540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in HHS from pre-op to 5 years||||<0.0001
91006949|NCT00958191|181898541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Sign test|||Change in Harris Hip Pain Score from pre-op to 1 year||||<0.0001
91006950|NCT00958191|181898541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Sign test|||Change in Harris Hip Pain Score from pre-op to 3 years||||<0.0001
91006951|NCT00958191|181898541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Sign test|||Change in Harris Hip Pain Score from pre-op to 5 years||||<0.0001
91006952|NCT00958191|181898542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Sign test|||Change in Harris Hip ROM score from pre-op to 1 year||||<0.0001
91006953|NCT00958191|181898542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Sign test|||Change in Harris Hip ROM score from pre-op to 3 years||||<0.0001
91006954|NCT00958191|181898542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Sign test|||Change in Harris Hip ROM score from pre-op to 5 years||||<0.0001
91006955|NCT00958191|181898543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Sign test|||Change in SF-12 Phyiscal Component Score from preop to 1 year||||<0.0001
91006956|NCT00958191|181898543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in SF-12 Phyiscal Component Score from preop to 3 year||||<0.0001
91006957|NCT00958191|181898543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Sign test|||Change in SF-12 Phyiscal Component Score from preop to 5 year||||<0.0001
91044379|NCT03581188|181975465|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.0||||||||2|0.6|
91044380|NCT03581188|181975466|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|23.0||||||For new melanoma diagnoses, we calculated the difference in proportions and confidence intervals using the χ2 method without continuity correction. We included baseline measurement of the outcome in the models as a covariate to estimate between group difference in change from baseline.||23|-2|
91044381|NCT03581188|181975467|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|19.0||||||New melanoma diagnoses prompted at unscheduled visit||19|2|
91044382|NCT03581188|181975467|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|10.0||||||New melanoma diagnoses prompted at scheduled visit||10|-9|
91044383|NCT03581188|181975468|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|3.0||||||||3|-5.8|
91044384|NCT00109837|181975480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion in 1-year CCR|0.36|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.06|||ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.25|||||||The regimen would be of no further interest if the true 1-year continuous complete remission (CCR) rate was less than 45% (null). Sample size was chosen for an alternative of 65%, power of 92% and type-1 error of 4.6%.|||0.25|
91044385|NCT01989676|181975482|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis to be tested in this study was that the risk ratio of ORR of PF-05280014 versus that of trastuzumab-EU by Week 25 (+/-14 days) was within a pre-specified margin of 0.80 to 1.25.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.842|1.049||||||Risk Ratio and associated 95% confidence interval (CI) are unstratified and based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||1.049|0.842|
91044386|NCT01989676|181975483|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.0||||0.505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.26||1-sided log-rank test was used to compare the PFS distribution between the two treatment groups and was stratified by prior trastuzumab exposure (Yes/No) and estrogen receptor (ER) status (ER positive vs. ER negative).|Log Rank||The 95% CI for the hazard ratio was based on the Cox's proportional hazard model.|||1.26|0.80|0.505
91044387|NCT01989676|181975484|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.92||||0.304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.27||1-sided log-rank test was used to compare the DOR distribution between the two treatment groups and was stratified by prior trastuzumab exposure (Yes/No) and ER status (ER positive vs. ER negative).|Log Rank||The 95% CI for the hazard ratio was based on the Cox's proportional hazard model.|||1.27|0.67|0.304
91044388|NCT01989676|181975485|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.929||||0.339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.656|1.316||1-sided log-rank test was used to compare the OS distribution between the two treatment groups and was stratified by prior trastuzumab exposure (Yes/No) and ER status (ER positive vs. ER negative).|Log Rank||The 95% CI for the hazard ratio was based on the Cox's proportional hazard model.|||1.316|0.656|0.339
91044389|NCT02190279|181975528|OTHER|||||||0.0033|||||||ANOVA|||At 1 hour post injection.||||0.0033
91044390|NCT02190279|181975528|OTHER|||||||0.012|||||||ANOVA|||At 2 hour post injection.||||0.012
91044391|NCT02190279|181975529|EQUIVALENCE|One way analysis variance.|||||<|0.05|||||||variance|||||||<0.05
91006958|NCT00958191|181898543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0242|||||||Sign test|||Change in SF-12 Mental Component Score from preop to 1 year||||0.0242
91006959|NCT00958191|181898543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0247|||||||Sign test|||Change in SF-12 Mental Component Score from preop to 3 year||||0.0247
91006960|NCT00958191|181898543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1372|||||||Sign test|||Change in SF-12 Mental Component Score from preop to 5 year||||0.1372
91006961|NCT00958191|181898544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Sign test|||Change in LEAS Score from preop to 1 year||||<0.0001
91006962|NCT00958191|181898544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Sign test|||Change in LEAS Score from preop to 3 year||||<0.0001
91006963|NCT00958191|181898544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in LEAS Score from preop to 5 year||||<0.0001
91006964|NCT01642004|181898546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|96.85|0.43|0.81||Stratified by region (US/Canada, Rest Of World (ROW), Europe) and prior treatment regimen (Paclitaxel, Another agent) as entered in the Interactive Voice Response System (IVRS).|Log Rank||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model. HR = Nivolumab over Docetaxel|||0.81|0.43|0.0002
91006965|NCT00598806|181898566|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.1094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.06|0.55|0.1094
91006966|NCT00598806|181898567|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.1038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.04|||Log Rank|||||1.04|0.63|0.1038
91044392|NCT02688387|181975538|EQUIVALENCE|Part 3A of the study is designed to test the bioequivalence of a FDC of ambrisentan 10 mg + tadalafil 40 mg (test) relative to reference monotherapies of ambrisentan 10 mg \& tadalafil 40 mg taken concurrently (reference) in healthy participants in both the fed and fasted states.|Ratio|1.0667|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9657|1.1784|||||X1 Vs R1, ambrisentan|||1.1784|0.9657|
91044393|NCT02688387|181975538|EQUIVALENCE|Part 3A of the study is designed to test the bioequivalence of a FDC of ambrisentan 10 mg + tadalafil 40 mg (test) relative to reference monotherapies of ambrisentan 10 mg \& tadalafil 40 mg taken concurrently (reference) in healthy participants in both the fed and fasted states.|Ratio|1.0353|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9293|1.1534|||||X2 Vs R2, ambrisentan|||1.1534|0.9293|
91044394|NCT02688387|181975538|EQUIVALENCE|Part 3A of the study is designed to test the bioequivalence of a FDC of ambrisentan 10 mg + tadalafil 40 mg (test) relative to reference monotherapies of ambrisentan 10 mg \& tadalafil 40 mg taken concurrently (reference) in healthy participants in both the fed and fasted states.|Ratio|0.9839|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9288|1.0423|||||X1 Vs R1, tadalafil|||1.0423|0.9288|
91044395|NCT02688387|181975538|EQUIVALENCE|Part 3A of the study is designed to test the bioequivalence of a FDC of ambrisentan 10 mg + tadalafil 40 mg (test) relative to reference monotherapies of ambrisentan 10 mg \& tadalafil 40 mg taken concurrently (reference) in healthy participants in both the fed and fasted states.|Ratio|0.9656|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9151|1.0188|||||X2 Vs R2, tadalafil|||1.0188|0.9151|
91044396|NCT02688387|181975539|EQUIVALENCE|Part 3A of the study is designed to test the bioequivalence of a FDC of ambrisentan 10 mg + tadalafil 40 mg (test) relative to reference monotherapies of ambrisentan 10 mg \& tadalafil 40 mg taken concurrently (reference) in healthy participants in both the fed and fasted states.|Ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9965|1.0646|||||X1 Vs R1, ambrisentan|||1.0646|0.9965|
91044397|NCT02688387|181975539|EQUIVALENCE|Part 3A of the study is designed to test the bioequivalence of a FDC of ambrisentan 10 mg + tadalafil 40 mg (test) relative to reference monotherapies of ambrisentan 10 mg \& tadalafil 40 mg taken concurrently (reference) in healthy participants in both the fed and fasted states.|Ratio|1.0141|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.982|1.0473|||||X2 Vs R2, ambrisentan|||1.0473|0.9820|
91044398|NCT02688387|181975539|EQUIVALENCE|Part 3A of the study is designed to test the bioequivalence of a FDC of ambrisentan 10 mg + tadalafil 40 mg (test) relative to reference monotherapies of ambrisentan 10 mg \& tadalafil 40 mg taken concurrently (reference) in healthy participants in both the fed and fasted states.|Ratio|0.9693|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.931|1.0092|||||X1 Vs R1, tadalafil|||1.0092|0.9310|
91044399|NCT02688387|181975539|EQUIVALENCE|Part 3A of the study is designed to test the bioequivalence of a FDC of ambrisentan 10 mg + tadalafil 40 mg (test) relative to reference monotherapies of ambrisentan 10 mg \& tadalafil 40 mg taken concurrently (reference) in healthy participants in both the fed and fasted states.|Ratio|1.0157|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9553|1.0799|||||X2 Vs R2, tadalafil|||1.0799|0.9553|
91044400|NCT02688387|181975540|EQUIVALENCE|Part 3A of the study is designed to test the bioequivalence of a FDC of ambrisentan 10 mg + tadalafil 40 mg (test) relative to reference monotherapies of ambrisentan 10 mg \& tadalafil 40 mg taken concurrently (reference) in healthy participants in both the fed and fasted states.|Ratio|1.0278|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9943|1.0623|||||X1 Vs R1, ambrisentan|||1.0623|0.9943|
91044401|NCT02688387|181975540|EQUIVALENCE|Part 3A of the study is designed to test the bioequivalence of a FDC of ambrisentan 10 mg + tadalafil 40 mg (test) relative to reference monotherapies of ambrisentan 10 mg \& tadalafil 40 mg taken concurrently (reference) in healthy participants in both the fed and fasted states.|Ratio|1.0144|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9832|1.0466|||||X2 Vs R2, ambrisentan|||1.0466|0.9832|
91044402|NCT02688387|181975540|EQUIVALENCE|Part 3A of the study is designed to test the bioequivalence of a FDC of ambrisentan 10 mg + tadalafil 40 mg (test) relative to reference monotherapies of ambrisentan 10 mg \& tadalafil 40 mg taken concurrently (reference) in healthy participants in both the fed and fasted states.|Ratio|0.9612|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9265|0.9972|||||X1 Vs R1, tadalafil|||0.9972|0.9265|
91044403|NCT02688387|181975540|EQUIVALENCE|Part 3A of the study is designed to test the bioequivalence of a FDC of ambrisentan 10 mg + tadalafil 40 mg (test) relative to reference monotherapies of ambrisentan 10 mg \& tadalafil 40 mg taken concurrently (reference) in healthy participants in both the fed and fasted states.|Ratio|1.0122|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9562|1.0715|||||X2 Vs R2, tadalafil|||1.0715|0.9562|
91044404|NCT02688387|181975541|EQUIVALENCE|Part 3B of the study is set to establish bioequivalence between the Fixed Dose Combination of an additional two dose strengths (ambrisentan 5 mg + tadalafil 40 mg and ambrisentan 5 mg + tadalafil 20 mg).|Ratio|1.0153|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9348|1.1027|||||Y1 Vs R3, ambrisentan|||1.1027|0.9348|
91044405|NCT02688387|181975541|EQUIVALENCE|Part 3B of the study is set to establish bioequivalence between the Fixed Dose Combination of an additional two dose strengths (ambrisentan 5 mg + tadalafil 40 mg and ambrisentan 5 mg + tadalafil 20 mg).|Ratio|0.9758|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9044|1.0529|||||Y1 Vs R3, tadalafil|||1.0529|0.9044|
91044406|NCT02688387|181975542|EQUIVALENCE|Part 3B of the study is set to establish bioequivalence between the Fixed Dose Combination of an additional two dose strengths (ambrisentan 5 mg + tadalafil 40 mg and ambrisentan 5 mg + tadalafil 20 mg).|Ratio|1.039|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0168|1.0617|||||Y1 Vs R3, ambrisentan|||1.0617|1.0168|
91044407|NCT02688387|181975542|EQUIVALENCE|Part 3B of the study is set to establish bioequivalence between the Fixed Dose Combination of an additional two dose strengths (ambrisentan 5 mg + tadalafil 40 mg and ambrisentan 5 mg + tadalafil 20 mg).|Ratio|0.9806|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9106|1.056|||||Y1 Vs R3, tadalafil|||1.0560|0.9106|
90996531|NCT00589979|181876941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.44||||0.2181||95.0|-1.15|0.27||All statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of alpha=0.05.|Linear mixed effects models||The results are reported as least squares means and their differences along with associated P-values, and 95% confidence intervals for each fixed effect in the model.|Aching: the difference between Lidoderm and placebo was compared by combining data for patients receiving the respective treatment regardless of the randomized study sequence. The endpoint was analyzed by linear mixed effects models incorporating treatment, period, sequence, and first-order carryover as fixed effects, and patient nested within sequence as a random effect. P-value for the random effect (s2) is from the Wald Z-test for the covariance parameter estimates.||0.27|-1.15|0.2181
91044408|NCT02688387|181975543|EQUIVALENCE|Part 3B of the study is set to establish bioequivalence between the Fixed Dose Combination of an additional two dose strengths (ambrisentan 5 mg + tadalafil 40 mg and ambrisentan 5 mg + tadalafil 20 mg).|Ratio|1.0365|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0138|1.0596|||||Y1 Vs R3, ambrisentan|||1.0596|1.0138|
91044409|NCT02688387|181975543|EQUIVALENCE|Part 3B of the study is set to establish bioequivalence between the Fixed Dose Combination of an additional two dose strengths (ambrisentan 5 mg + tadalafil 40 mg and ambrisentan 5 mg + tadalafil 20 mg).|Ratio|0.9821|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9145|1.0547|||||Y1 Vs R3, tadalafil|||1.0547|0.9145|
91044410|NCT02688387|181975544|EQUIVALENCE|Part 3B of the study is set to establish bioequivalence between the Fixed Dose Combination of an additional two dose strengths (ambrisentan 5 mg + tadalafil 40 mg and ambrisentan 5 mg + tadalafil 20 mg).|Ratio|1.1176|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0166|1.2287|||||Y2 Vs R4, ambrisentan|||1.2287|1.0166|
91044411|NCT02688387|181975544|EQUIVALENCE|Part 3B of the study is set to establish bioequivalence between the Fixed Dose Combination of an additional two dose strengths (ambrisentan 5 mg + tadalafil 40 mg and ambrisentan 5 mg + tadalafil 20 mg).|Ratio|1.1196|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0429|1.2019|||||Y2 Vs R4, tadalafil|||1.2019|1.0429|
91044412|NCT02688387|181975545|EQUIVALENCE|Part 3B of the study is set to establish bioequivalence between the Fixed Dose Combination of an additional two dose strengths (ambrisentan 5 mg + tadalafil 40 mg and ambrisentan 5 mg + tadalafil 20 mg).|Ratio|1.0353|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0009|1.071|||||Y2 Vs R4, ambrisentan|||1.0710|1.0009|
91044413|NCT02688387|181975545|EQUIVALENCE|Part 3B of the study is set to establish bioequivalence between the Fixed Dose Combination of an additional two dose strengths (ambrisentan 5 mg + tadalafil 40 mg and ambrisentan 5 mg + tadalafil 20 mg).|Ratio|1.0362|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.991|1.0834|||||Y2 Vs R4, tadalafil|||1.0834|0.9910|
91044414|NCT02688387|181975546|EQUIVALENCE|Part 3B of the study is set to establish bioequivalence between the Fixed Dose Combination of an additional two dose strengths (ambrisentan 5 mg + tadalafil 40 mg and ambrisentan 5 mg + tadalafil 20 mg).|Ratio|1.0351|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0002|1.0713|||||Y2 Vs R4, ambrisentan|||1.0713|1.0002|
91044415|NCT02688387|181975546|EQUIVALENCE|Part 3B of the study is set to establish bioequivalence between the Fixed Dose Combination of an additional two dose strengths (ambrisentan 5 mg + tadalafil 40 mg and ambrisentan 5 mg + tadalafil 20 mg).|Ratio|1.0324|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9929|1.0734|||||Y2 Vs R4, tadalafil|||1.0734|0.9929|
91044416|NCT01115855|181975627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.36||||||Cox Proportional Hazard Model with baseline New York Heart Association (NYHA) cohort (II, III/IV) and baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) covariates.||1.36|0.53|
91044417|NCT01115855|181975628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.31||||||Cox Proportional Hazard Model with baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV) and baseline eGFR (30--\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>-=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) covariates.||1.31|0.56|
91044418|NCT01115855|181975629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|3.87||||||Cox Proportional Hazard Model with baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV) and baseline eGFR (30--\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>-=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) covariates.||3.87|0.81|
91044419|NCT01115855|181975630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|6.24||||||Cox Proportional Hazard Model with baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV) and baseline eGFR (30--\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>-=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) covariates.||6.24|0.92|
91044420|NCT01115855|181975631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.97||||||Cox Proportional Hazard Model with baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV) and baseline eGFR (30--\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>-=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) covariates.||0.97|0.44|
91044421|NCT01115855|181975632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.25||||||Cox Proportional Hazard Model with baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV) and baseline eGFR (30--\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>-=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) covariates.||1.25|0.45|
91044422|NCT01115855|181975633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.97||||||Cox Proportional Hazard Model with baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV) and baseline eGFR (30--\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>-=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) covariates.||0.97|0.45|
91044423|NCT01115855|181975634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.33||||||Cox Proportional Hazard Model with baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV) and baseline eGFR (30--\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=-50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) covariates.||1.33|0.49|
91044424|NCT01115855|181975635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.1||||||Cox Proportional Hazard Model with baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV) and baseline eGFR (30--\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>-=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) covariates.||1.10|0.45|
91044425|NCT01115855|181975636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.28||||||Cox Proportional Hazard Model with baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV) and baseline eGFR (30--\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>-=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) covariates.||1.28|0.53|
91044426|NCT01115855|181975637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|3.53||||||Cox Proportional Hazard Model with baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV) and baseline eGFR (30--\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>-=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) covariates.||3.53|0.18|
91044427|NCT01115855|181975638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|17.85||||||Cox Proportional Hazard Model with baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV) and baseline eGFR (30--\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>-=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) covariates.||17.85|0.07|
91044428|NCT01115855|181975639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|11.56||||||Cox Proportional Hazard Model with baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV) and baseline eGFR (30--\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>-=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) covariates.||11.56|0.39|
91044429|NCT01115855|181975640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|5.66||||||Cox Proportional Hazard Model with baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV) and baseline eGFR (30--\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>-=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) covariates.||5.66|0.05|
91044430|NCT01115855|181975641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|8.04||||||Cox Proportional Hazard Model with baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV) and baseline eGFR (30--\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>-=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) covariates.||8.04|0.16|
91044431|NCT01115855|181975643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-102.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|47.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-195.92|-9.94||||||Change from baseline at Month 5 : Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||-9.94|-195.92|
91044432|NCT01115855|181975643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-95.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|44.54|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-184.51|-7.04||||||Change from baseline at Month 9 :Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||-7.04|-184.51|
91044433|NCT01115855|181975643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-125.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|35.15|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-195.5|-54.68||||||Change from baseline at Month 13 : Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||-54.68|-195.50|
91044434|NCT01115855|181975643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-31.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|51.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-232.77|-31.11||||||Change from baseline at Month 17 :Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||-31.11|-232.77|
91044435|NCT01115855|181975643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-132.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|52.77|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-240.94|-23.84||||||Change from baseline at Month 21 : Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||-23.84|-240.94|
91044436|NCT01115855|181975643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-117.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|51.76|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-221.49|-12.87||||||Change from baseline at Month 25 :Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||-12.87|-221.49|
91044437|NCT01115855|181975643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-101.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|61.05|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-267.36|64.36||||||Change from baseline at Month 29 :Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||64.36|-267.36|
91044438|NCT01115855|181975643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-110.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|92.42|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-307.49|85.93||||||Change from baseline at Month 33 : Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||85.93|-307.49|
91044439|NCT01115855|181975643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-119.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|158.84|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2137.82|1898.59||||||Change from baseline at Month 37 : Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||1898.59|-2137.82|
91044440|NCT01115855|181975643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-144.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|200.56|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2692.95|2403.76||||||Change from baseline at Month 42 : Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||2403.76|-2692.95|
91044441|NCT01115855|181975643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-77.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|966.09|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2131.88|1977.37||||||Change from baseline at Month 48 :Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||1977.37|-2131.88|
91044442|NCT01115855|181975643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-102.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|35.67|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-172.61|-32.0||||||Change from baseline at Month 13 : ANCOVA with treatment effect and covariates of the NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||-32.00|-172.61|
91044443|NCT01115855|181975644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-364.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|763.83|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1863.06|1133.76||||||Change from baseline at Month 5 :Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||1133.76|-1863.06|
91044444|NCT01115855|181975644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-247.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|711.26|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1642.43|1148.14||||||Change from baseline at Month 9 : Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||1148.14|-1642.43|
91044445|NCT01115855|181975644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-370.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|699.58|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1742.51|1002.22||||||Change from baseline at Month 13 : Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||1002.22|-1742.51|
91044446|NCT01115855|181975644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-664.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11059.62|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-141189.93|139861.75||||||Change from baseline at Month 17 : Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||139861.75|-141189.93|
90996532|NCT00589979|181876941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13||||0.6276||95.0|-0.68|0.42||All statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of alpha=0.05.|Linear mixed effects models||The results are reported as least squares means and their differences along with associated P-values, and 95% confidence intervals for each fixed effect in the model.|Heavy: the difference between Lidoderm and placebo was compared by combining data for patients receiving the respective treatment regardless of the randomized study sequence. The endpoint was analyzed by linear mixed effects models incorporating treatment, period, sequence, and first-order carryover as fixed effects, and patient nested within sequence as a random effect. P-value for the random effect (s2) is from the Wald Z-test for the covariance parameter estimates.||0.42|-0.68|0.6276
90996533|NCT00589979|181876941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.57||||0.0917||95.0|-1.23|0.09||All statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of alpha=0.05.|Linear mixed effects models||The results are reported as least squares means and their differences along with associated P-values, and 95% confidence intervals for each fixed effect in the model.|Overall unpleasantness: the difference between Lidoderm and placebo was compared by combining data for patients receiving the respective treatment regardless of the randomized study sequence. The endpoint was analyzed by linear mixed effects models incorporating treatment, period, sequence, and first-order carryover as fixed effects, and patient nested within sequence as a random effect. P-value for the random effect (s2) is from the Wald Z-test for the covariance parameter estimates.||0.09|-1.23|0.0917
90996534|NCT00589979|181876941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.44||||0.2089||95.0|-1.13|0.25||All statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of alpha=0.05.|Linear mixed effects models||The results are reported as least squares means and their differences along with associated P-values, and 95% confidence intervals for each fixed effect in the model.|Intense deep pain: the difference between Lidoderm and placebo was compared by combining data for patients receiving the respective treatment regardless of the randomized study sequence. The endpoint was analyzed by linear mixed effects models incorporating treatment, period, sequence, and first-order carryover as fixed effects, and patient nested within sequence as a random effect. P-value for the random effect (s2) is from the Wald Z-test for the covariance parameter estimates.||0.25|-1.13|0.2089
90996535|NCT00589979|181876941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.22||||0.4188||95.0|-0.75|0.31||All statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of alpha=0.05.|Linear mixed effects models||The results are reported as least squares means and their differences along with associated P-values, and 95% confidence intervals for each fixed effect in the model.|Intense surface pain: the difference between Lidoderm and placebo was compared by combining data for patients receiving the respective treatment regardless of the randomized study sequence. The endpoint was analyzed by linear mixed effects models incorporating treatment, period, sequence, and first-order carryover as fixed effects, and patient nested within sequence as a random effect. P-value for the random effect (s2) is from the Wald Z-test for the covariance parameter estimates.||0.31|-0.75|0.4188
90996536|NCT00589979|181876941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05||||0.6959||95.0|-0.32|0.21||All statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of alpha=0.05.|Linear mixed effects models||The results are reported as least squares means and their differences along with associated P-values, and 95% confidence intervals for each fixed effect in the model.|Average surface pain: the difference between Lidoderm and placebo was compared by combining data for patients receiving the respective treatment regardless of the randomized study sequence. The endpoint was analyzed by linear mixed effects models incorporating treatment, period, sequence, and first-order carryover as fixed effects, and patient nested within sequence as a random effect. P-value for the random effect (s2) is from the Wald Z-test for the covariance parameter estimates.||0.21|-0.32|0.6959
91044447|NCT01115855|181975644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-414.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3071.77|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39445.52|38615.54||||||Change from baseline at Month 21 :Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||38615.54|-39445.52|
90996537|NCT00589979|181876941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17||||0.4806||95.0|-0.64|0.3||All statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of alpha=0.05.|Linear mixed effects models||The results are reported as least squares means and their differences along with associated P-values, and 95% confidence intervals for each fixed effect in the model.|Average deep pain: the difference between Lidoderm and placebo was compared by combining data for patients receiving the respective treatment regardless of the randomized study sequence. The endpoint was analyzed by linear mixed effects models incorporating treatment, period, sequence, and first-order carryover as fixed effects, and patient nested within sequence as a random effect. P-value for the random effect (s2) is from the Wald Z-test for the covariance parameter estimates.||0.30|-0.64|0.4806
90996538|NCT00589979|181876941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.28||||0.2291||95.0|-0.74|0.18||All statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of alpha=0.05.|Linear mixed effects models||The results are reported as least squares means and their differences along with associated P-values, and 95% confidence intervals for each fixed effect in the model.|Average paroxysmal pain: the difference between Lidoderm and placebo was compared by combining data for patients receiving the respective treatment regardless of the randomized study sequence. The endpoint was analyzed by linear mixed effects models incorporating treatment, period, sequence, and first-order carryover as fixed effects, and patient nested within sequence as a random effect. P-value for the random effect (s2) is from the Wald Z-test for the covariance parameter estimates.||0.18|-0.74|0.2291
91044448|NCT01115855|181975644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|23.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10794.85|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21649.89|21697.6||||||Change from baseline at Month 25 : Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||21697.60|-21649.89|
91044449|NCT01115855|181975644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-245.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6698.57|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-85358.69|84868.22||||||Change from baseline at Month 29 : Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||84868.22|-85358.69|
91044450|NCT01115855|181975644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|170.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10730.38|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21375.69|21716.66||||||Change from baseline at Month 33 : Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||21716.66|-21375.69|
91044451|NCT01115855|181975644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-58.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12765.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30160.25|30042.7||||||Change from baseline at Month 37 : Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||30042.70|-30160.25|
91044452|NCT01115855|181975644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-212.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11073.11|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22723.82|22299.33||||||Change from baseline at Month 42 : Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||22299.33|-22723.82|
90996539|NCT00589979|181876942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.3185||95.0|0.77|2.27||All statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of alpha=0.05.|Regression, Linear||The Odds Ratio (OR) provided is the ratio of Lidoderm to Placebo.|Global impression of change from baseline with the lidocaine patch 5% and placebo patch were compared by combining data for patients receiving the respective treatment regardless of the randomized study sequence. An ordinal multinomial regression model was performed with sequence, period, treatment, carry over effect as fixed effects, with repeated measures taken on patient within sequence.||2.27|0.77|0.3185
90996540|NCT00589979|181876943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.4748||95.0|0.72|2.06||All statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of alpha=0.05.|Regression, Linear||The odds ratio (OR) provided is the ratio of Lidoderm to Placebo.|Global impression of change from baseline with the lidocaine patch 5% and placebo patch were compared by combining data for patients receiving the respective treatment regardless of the randomized study sequence. An ordinal multinomial regression model was performed with sequence, period, treatment, carry over effect as fixed effects, with repeated measures taken on patient within sequence.||2.06|0.72|0.4748
91044453|NCT01115855|181975644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-80.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11486.21|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-146026.28|145865.96||||||Change from baseline at Month 48 : Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||145865.96|-146026.28|
90996541|NCT00589979|181876944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12||||0.7839||95.0|-0.74|0.98||All statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of alpha=0.05.|Linear mixed effects models||The results are reported as least squares means and their differences along with associated P-values, and 95% confidence intervals for each fixed effect in the model.|The overall treatment difference for the lidocaine patch 5% and placebo patch was compared by combining data for patients receiving the respective treatment regardless of randomized study sequence. The endpoint was analyzed by linear mixed effects models incorporating treatment, period, sequence, and first-order carryover as fixed effects, and patient nested within sequence as a random effect. P-value for the random effect (s2) is from the Wald Z-test for the covariance parameter estimates.||0.98|-0.74|0.7839
90996542|NCT00589979|181876946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.3773||95.0|-0.02|0.04||All statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of alpha=0.05.|Linear mixed effects model||The results are reported as least squares means and their differences along with associated P-values, and 95% confidence intervals for each fixed effect in the model.|The overall treatment difference for the lidocaine patch 5% and placebo patch was compared by combining data for patients receiving the respective treatment regardless of randomized study sequence. The endpoint was analyzed by linear mixed effects models incorporating treatment, period, sequence, and first-order carryover as fixed effects, and patient nested within sequence as a random effect. P-value for the random effect (s2) is from the Wald Z-test for the covariance parameter estimates.||0.04|-0.02|0.3773
90996543|NCT00589979|181876947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71||||0.2605||95.0|0.38|1.3||All statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of alpha=0.05.|Regression, Linear||The odds ratio (OR) provided is the ratio of Lidoderm to Placebo.|Treatment satisfaction with the lidocaine patch 5% and placebo patch were compared by combining data for patients receiving the respective treatment regardless of the randomized study sequence. An ordinal multinomial regression model was performed with sequence, period, treatment, carry over effect as fixed effects, with repeated measures taken on patient within sequence.||1.30|0.38|0.2605
90996544|NCT00589979|181876948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.3193||95.0|0.44|1.3||All statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of alpha=0.05.|Regression, Linear||The odds ratio (OR) provided is the ratio of Lidoderm to Placebo.|Treatment satisfaction with the lidocaine patch 5% and placebo patch were compared by combining data for patients receiving the respective treatment regardless of the randomized study sequence. An ordinal multinomial regression model was performed with sequence, period, treatment, carry over effect as fixed effects, with repeated measures taken on patient within sequence.||1.30|0.44|0.3193
90996545|NCT00589979|181876949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.74||||0.1378||95.0|-0.57|4.04||All statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of alpha=0.05.|Linear mixed effects model||The results are reported as least squares means and their differences along with associated P-values, and 95% confidence intervals for each fixed effect in the model.|The overall treatment difference for the lidocaine patch 5% and placebo patch was compared by combining data for patients receiving the respective treatment regardless of randomized study sequence. The endpoint was analyzed by linear mixed effects models incorporating treatment, period, sequence, and first-order carryover as fixed effects, and patient nested within sequence as a random effect. P-value for the random effect (s2) is from the Wald Z-test for the covariance parameter estimates||4.04|-0.57|0.1378
90996546|NCT00589979|181876950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.6833||95.0|0.47|1.65||All statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of alpha=0.05.|Regression, Logistic|An ordinal multinomial regression model was performed with sequence, period, treatment, carry over effect as fixed effects.|The Odds Ratio (OR) provided is the ratio of Lidoderm to Placebo.|||1.65|0.47|0.6833
90996547|NCT00589979|181876951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|22.16||||0.1143||95.0|-5.48|49.8||All statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of alpha=0.05.|Linear mixed effects models||The results are reported as least squares means and their differences along with associated P-values, and 95% confidence intervals for each fixed effect in the model.|Disturbance: the overall treatment difference for Lidoderm and placebo patch was compared by combining data for patients receiving the respective treatment regardless of randomized study sequence. The endpoint was analyzed by linear mixed effects models incorporating treatment, period, sequence, and first-order carryover as fixed effects, and patient nested within sequence as a random effect. P-value for the random effect (s2) is from the Wald Z-test for the covariance parameter estimates.||49.8|-5.48|0.1143
91044454|NCT01115855|181975644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-187.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|240.96|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-662.67|287.23||||||Change from baseline at Month 13 : ANCOVA with treatment effect and covariates of the NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||287.23|-662.67|
90996548|NCT00589979|181876951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.18||||0.9108||95.0|-19.8|22.2||All statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of alpha=0.05.|Linear mixed effects models||The results are reported as least squares means and their differences along with associated P-values, and 95% confidence intervals for each fixed effect in the model.|Effectiveness: the overall treatment difference for Lidoderm and placebo patch was compared by combining data for patients receiving the respective treatment regardless of randomized study sequence. The endpoint was analyzed by linear mixed effects models incorporating treatment, period, sequence, and first-order carryover as fixed effects, and patient nested within sequence as a random effect. P-value for the random effect (s2) is from the Wald Z-test for the covariance parameter estimates.||22.2|-19.8|0.9108
90996549|NCT00589979|181876951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.31||||0.3769||95.0|-10.3|27.0||All statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of alpha=0.05.|Linear mixed effects models||The results are reported as least squares means and their differences along with associated P-values, and 95% confidence intervals for each fixed effect in the model.|Supplementation: the overall treatment difference for Lidoderm and placebo patch was compared by combining data for patients receiving the respective treatment regardless of randomized study sequence. The endpoint was analyzed by linear mixed effects models incorporating treatment, period, sequence, and first-order carryover as fixed effects, and patient nested within sequence as a random effect. P-value for the random effect (s2) is from the Wald Z-test for the covariance parameter estimates.||27.0|-10.3|0.3769
90996550|NCT03428997|181876960|EQUIVALENCE|Mixed-effects model, where the test material/negative control is a fixed effect and the subject is a random effect|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.274|||||||2-sided t-test|||Testing hypothesis is that the mean score is equal between the compared treatments.||||0.274
90996551|NCT02802878|181877021|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67||||||Adjusted for two observations per subject.|Regression, Linear|Side treated as a repeated factor||||||.67
90996552|NCT03970395|181877049|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|7.66||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.46|23.84||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.5|Risk Ratio (RR)||Risk Difference 0.41 (IC 95; 0.25-0.53)|||23.84|2.46|0.01
90996553|NCT03970395|181877050|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|5.6||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.36|13.27|||Relative Risk (RR)||Risk Difference 0.47 (IC 95; 0.31-0.64)|||13.27|2.36|0.01
90996554|NCT03970395|181877051|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|7.49||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.42|23.18|||Risk Ratio (RR)||Risk Difference 0.44 (IC 95%; 0.27-0.60)|||23.18|2.42|0.01
90996555|NCT03970395|181877052|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|4.91||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.12|11.38|||Risk Ratio (RR)||Risk Difference 0.54 (IC 95; 0.36-0.72)|||11.38|2.12|0.01
90996556|NCT01906866|181877067|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.1|=|0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.38|62.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||62.26|2.38|=0.035
90996557|NCT01906866|181877068|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.787|=|0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.61|-5.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.8|-44.61|=0.011
90996558|NCT01906866|181877071|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.053|||||||MMRM|||Mixed Models for Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis||||0.053
90996559|NCT01906866|181877071|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.039|||||||MI analysis|||||||0.039
90996560|NCT01906866|181877073|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.077|||||||MMRM|||||||0.077
90996561|NCT01906866|181877074|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.04
90996562|NCT00094887|181877121|OTHER||||||=|0.8085|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||= 0.8085
90996563|NCT04093258|181877134|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit is above 0.67. Superiority will be concluded if the lower limit is above 1.0.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|6.85|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model Analysis|Finite-sample corrected Akaike's Information Criterion|Odds ratio was calculated as Test/Control|"The proportion of response (1) was analyzed using a generalized linear mixed model with a binary distribution and logit link function for all questions."||6.85|0.33|
90996564|NCT04093258|181877135|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit is above 0.67. Superiority will be concluded if the lower limit is above 1.0.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.19|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model Analysis|Finite-sample corrected Akaike's Information Criterion|Odds ratio was calculated as Test over Control|"The proportion of response (1) was analyzed using a generalized linear mixed model with a binary distribution and logit link function for all questions."||1.19|0.10|
90996565|NCT04093258|181877136|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority of the Test lens relative to the Control will be concluded if the lower confidence limit of LSM difference is above the non-inferiority margin -5.|Least square mean difference|-5.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.202|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.48|0.52|||Mixed Model Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as Test minus Control|||0.52|-12.48|
90996566|NCT01529385|181877138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||0.05 set as a priori threshold for statistical significance; Sidak correction for multiple comparisons used|ANOVA|||||||>0.05
90996567|NCT01529385|181877139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||0.05 set as a priori threshold for statistical significance; Sidak correction for multiple comparisons used|ANOVA|||||||<0.05
90996568|NCT01529385|181877140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||0.05 set as a priori threshold for statistical significance; Sidak correction for multiple comparisons used|ANOVA|||||||<.05
90996569|NCT01529385|181877141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||0.05 set as a priori threshold for statistical significance; Sidak correction for multiple comparisons used|ANOVA|||||||>0.05
90996570|NCT01529385|181877142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||0.05 set as a priori threshold for statistical significance; Sidak correction for multiple comparisons used|ANOVA|||||||>0.05
90996571|NCT01529385|181877143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||0.05 set as a priori threshold for statistical significance; Sidak correction for multiple comparisons used|ANOVA|||||||>0.05
90996572|NCT01529385|181877145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||0.05 set as a priori threshold for statistical significance; Sidak correction for multiple comparisons used|ANOVA|||||||>0.05
90996573|NCT01529385|181877146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||0.05 set as a priori threshold for statistical significance; Sidak correction for multiple comparisons used|ANOVA|||||||>0.05
90996574|NCT01529385|181877147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||0.05 set as a priori threshold for statistical significance; Sidak correction for multiple comparisons used|ANOVA|||||||>0.05
90996575|NCT01401465|181877154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|88.235|||<|0.0001||||||The significance level was set at 0.025 to adjust for the fact that two co-primary endpoints were being tested.|Two-sided Signed Rank Test||Hodges-Lehman estimate of the CI not available due to ties.|The null hypothesis is that the median of the standardized Total Preference Score = 50. Values \> 50 indicate preference for ciclesonide, while values \< 50 indicate preference for mometasone. For the primary endpoint of the Total Preference Score, assuming an SD of 40, a sample size of 155 will have 80% power to detect a difference of 0.25 SD units (10 raw score units) from the neutrality preference population value of 50, using a single group t-test with a 0.025 two-sided significance level.||||<0.0001
90996576|NCT01401465|181877155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.22|16.58||The significance level was set at 0.025 to adjust for the fact that two co-primary endpoints were being tested.|Linear Mixed Model|Linear Mixed Model with effects for Period, Treatment, Sex, Race, Study Center, and covariates of Age and Baseline.||The null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline (CfBL) for CIC is equal to the mean CfBL for MOM. In Study 060-301, a correlation between BL periods 1 and 2 of 0.7 and a change score SD of 15 was seen for the RACS. A sample size of 41 in each sequence group (82 total ) gives a 2 x 2 crossover design 80% power to detect the difference in the CfBL of 0.35 SD units (5.25 raw score units) using a two group t-test with a 0.025 two-sided significance level and a SD of 15 for the difference.||16.58|11.22|<0.0001
90996577|NCT01401465|181877155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.88|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|7.56||The significance level was set at 0.025 to adjust for the fact that two co-primary endpoints were being tested.|Linear Mixed Model|Linear Mixed Model with effects for Period, Treatment, Sex, Race, Study Center, and covariates of Age and Baseline||The null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline (CfBL) for CIC is equal to the mean CfBL for MOM. In Study 060-301, a correlation between BL periods 1 and 2 of 0.7 and a change score SD of 15 was seen for the RACS. A sample size of 41 in each sequence group (82 total ) gives a 2 x 2 crossover design 80% power to detect the difference in the CfBL of 0.35 SD units (5.25 raw score units) using a two group t-test with a 0.025 two-sided significance level and a SD of 15 for the difference.||7.56|2.20|<0.0001
90996578|NCT01401465|181877156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|88.889|||<|0.0001||||||If both primary endpoints are significant, the evaluation of this key secondary endpoint will be conducted at a significance level of 0.05.|Two-sided signed-rank test||Hodges-Lehman estimate of the CI not available due to ties.|The null hypothesis is that the median of the standardized Treatment Process Composite Preference Score = 50. Values \> 50 indicate preference for ciclesonide, while values \< 50 indicate preference for mometasone. Assuming an SD of 40, as observed in Study 060-301, a sample size of 128 will have 80% power to detect a difference of 0.25 SD units (10 raw score units) from the neutrality preference population value of 50, using a single group t-test with a 0.05 two-sided significant level||||<0.0001
91044455|NCT01115855|181975645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|1.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|3.96||||||Change from baseline at Month 5 : Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||3.96|-0.55|
91044456|NCT01115855|181975645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|2.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|5.42||||||Change from baseline at Month 9 : Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||5.42|0.07|
91044457|NCT01115855|181975645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|3.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.39|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|6.6||||||Change from baseline at Month 13 : Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||6.60|1.11|
91044458|NCT01115855|181975645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|4.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.54|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.81|7.9||||||Change from baseline at Month 17 : Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||7.90|1.81|
91044459|NCT01115855|181975645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|5.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.67|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.36|8.94||||||Change from baseline at Month 21 : Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||8.94|2.36|
91044460|NCT01115855|181975645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|3.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.68|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|6.75||||||Change from baseline at Month 25 :Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||6.75|0.12|
91044461|NCT01115855|181975645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.85|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|7.25||||||Change from baseline at Month 29 : Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||7.25|-0.06|
91044462|NCT01115855|181975645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|4.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.92|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|8.44||||||Change from baseline at Month 33 :Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||8.44|0.86|
91044463|NCT01115855|181975645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|3.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.94|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|7.68||||||Change from baseline at Month 37 : Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||7.68|0.02|
91044464|NCT01115855|181975645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|4.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.31|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.08|9.25||||||Change from baseline at Month 42 : Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||9.25|0.08|
91044465|NCT01115855|181975645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|4.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|10.07||||||Change from baseline at Month 48 : Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||10.07|-1.82|
91044466|NCT01115855|181975645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|3.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.33|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|5.8||||||Change from baseline at Month 13 : ANCOVA with treatment effect and covariates of the NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||5.80|0.56|
91044467|NCT01115855|181975646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-61.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|59.75|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-186.44|63.37||||||Change from baseline at Month 5: Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||63.37|-186.44|
91044468|NCT01115855|181975646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-24.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|54.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-131.27|81.39||||||Change from baseline at Month 9 : Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||81.39|-131.27|
91044469|NCT01115855|181975646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-12.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|43.18|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-97.28|72.13||||||Change from baseline at Month 13 :Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||72.13|-97.28|
91044470|NCT01115855|181975646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-78.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|72.78|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-221.25|64.31||||||Change from baseline at Month 17 :Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||64.31|-221.25|
90996579|NCT01401465|181877157|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 95% CI of the LS mean difference of ciclesonide nasal aerosol minus mometasone aqueous nasal spray was calculated from the ANCOVA model, and the upper bound of the CI was compared to the non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Non-inferiority was declared if the upper bound of the 95% CI of this difference was \< 0.5.|Difference in LS Means|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1||f both primary endpoints are significant, the evaluation of this key secondary endpoint will be conducted at a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Site, treatment, period, treatment sequence as fixed effects, subject nested within sequence as a random effect, and baseline rTNSS as a covariate.|Ciclesonide 74 mcg minus Mometasone 200 mcg|The null hypothesis is that the change from baseline in rTNSS for ciclesonide 74 mcg nasal aerosol minus the change from baseline in rTNSS for mometasone AQ 200 mcg is greater than 0.5.||0.1|-0.3|
90996580|NCT01115738|181877185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.24||||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.98|55.47||P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity. P-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Fixed effects were Treatment, Visit, Country, Treatment-by-Visit. Participants and Error were Random Effects. Covariance structure was Unstructured.||||55.47|-10.98|0.188
90996581|NCT01115738|181877185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.93||||0.809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.2|36.07||P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity. P-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Fixed effects were Treatment, Visit, Country, Treatment-by-Visit. Participants and Error were Random Effects. Covariance structure was Unstructured.||||36.07|-28.20|0.809
90996582|NCT01115738|181877186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.93||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.26|54.12||P-value is for Baseline. P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity. P-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Fixed effects were Treatment, Visit, Country, Treatment-by-Visit. Participants and Error were Random Effects. Covariance structure was Unstructured.||||54.12|-20.26|0.370
90996583|NCT01115738|181877186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|35.89||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|72.06||P-value is for Baseline. P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity. P-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Fixed effects were Treatment, Visit, Country, Treatment-by-Visit. Participants and Error were Random Effects. Covariance structure was Unstructured.||||72.06|-0.29|0.052
90996584|NCT01115738|181877186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.45||||0.703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.55|58.45||P-value is for 2 hours after prasugrel LD. P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity. P-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Fixed effects were Treatment, Visit, Country, Treatment-by-Visit. Participants and Error were Random Effects. Covariance structure was Unstructured.||||58.45|-39.55|0.703
90996585|NCT01115738|181877186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.45||||0.823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.53|53.44||P-value is for 2 hours after prasugrel LD. P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity. P-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Fixed effects were Treatment, Visit, Country, Treatment-by-Visit. Participants and Error were Random Effects. Covariance structure was Unstructured.||||53.44|-42.53|0.823
90996586|NCT01115738|181877186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.69||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|57.84||P-value is for 24 hours after prasugrel LD. P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity. P-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Fixed effects were Treatment, Visit, Country, Treatment-by-Visit. Participants and Error were Random Effects. Covariance structure was Unstructured.||||57.84|-0.47|0.054
90996587|NCT01115738|181877186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.3||||0.436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.29|39.9||P-value is for 24 hours after prasugrel LD. P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity. P-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Fixed effects were Treatment, Visit, Country, Treatment-by-Visit. Participants and Error were Random Effects. Covariance structure was Unstructured.||||39.90|-17.29|0.436
90996588|NCT01115738|181877186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.87||||0.463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.96|32.71||P-value is for 72 hours after prasugrel LD. P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity. P-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Fixed effects were Treatment, Visit, Country, Treatment-by-Visit. Participants and Error were Random Effects. Covariance structure was Unstructured.||||32.71|-14.96|0.463
90996589|NCT01115738|181877186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.34||||0.777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.62|19.94||P-value is for 72 hours after prasugrel LD. P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity. P-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Fixed effects were Treatment, Visit, Country, Treatment-by-Visit. Participants and Error were Random Effects. Covariance structure was Unstructured.||||19.94|-26.62|0.777
90996590|NCT01115738|181877189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.31||||0.505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|6.48||P-value is for Baseline. P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity. P-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Fixed effects were Treatment, Visit, Country, Treatment-by-Visit. Participants and Error were Random Effects. Covariance structure was Unstructured.||||6.48|-13.10|0.505
90996591|NCT01115738|181877189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.23||||0.278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.74|4.27||P-value is for Baseline. P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity. P-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Fixed effects were Treatment, Visit, Country, Treatment-by-Visit. Participants and Error were Random Effects. Covariance structure was Unstructured.||||4.27|-14.74|0.278
90996592|NCT01115738|181877189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.71||||0.749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.44|14.02||P-value is for 2 hours after prasugrel LD. P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity. P-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Fixed effects were Treatment, Visit, Country, Treatment-by-Visit. Participants and Error were Random Effects. Covariance structure was Unstructured.||||14.02|-19.44|0.749
91044471|NCT01115855|181975646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-79.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|67.42|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-211.88|52.63||||||Change from baseline at Month 21 : Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||52.63|-211.88|
91044472|NCT01115855|181975646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|19.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|88.95|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-230.01|268.71||||||Change from baseline at Month 25 : Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||268.71|-230.01|
91044473|NCT01115855|181975646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-21.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|88.27|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-194.21|152.11||||||Change from baseline at Month 29: Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||152.11|-194.21|
91044474|NCT01115855|181975646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-40.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|79.91|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-197.55|115.97||||||Change from baseline at Month 33: Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||115.97|-197.55|
91044475|NCT01115855|181975646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-44.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|103.29|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-247.11|158.15||||||Change from baseline at Month 37 : Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||158.15|-247.11|
91044476|NCT01115855|181975646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-27.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|107.06|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-238.31|182.93||||||Change from baseline at Month 42 : Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||182.93|-238.31|
91044477|NCT01115855|181975646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-31.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|96.48|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-221.17|158.24||||||Change from baseline at Month 48: Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||158.24|-221.17|
91044478|NCT01115855|181975646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|28.85|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.91|54.83||||||Change from baseline at Month 13 :ANCOVA with treatment effect and covariates of the NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||54.83|-58.91|
91044479|NCT01115855|181975648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.37||||||Change from baseline at Month 5 : Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||0.37|-0.21|
91044480|NCT01115855|181975648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.3||||||Change from baseline at Month 9 :Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||0.30|-0.34|
91044481|NCT01115855|181975648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.39||||||Change from baseline at Month 13: Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||0.39|-0.27|
91044482|NCT01115855|181975648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.45||||||Change from baseline at Month 17 : Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||0.45|-0.41|
91044483|NCT01115855|181975648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.24||||||Change from baseline at Month 21 : Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||0.24|-0.56|
91044484|NCT01115855|181975648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.25||||||Change from baseline at Month 25 : Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||0.25|-0.55|
91044485|NCT01115855|181975648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.31||||||Change from baseline at Month 29 : Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||0.31|-0.49|
91044486|NCT01115855|181975648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.44||||||Change from baseline at Month 33 : Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||0.44|-0.57|
91044487|NCT01115855|181975648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.54||||||Change from baseline at Month 37 :Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||0.54|-0.50|
91044488|NCT01115855|181975648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.44|0.83||||||Change from baseline at Month 42 :Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||0.83|-0.44|
91044489|NCT01115855|181975648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.89||||||Change from baseline at Month 48 : Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||0.89|-0.63|
91044490|NCT01115855|181975648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.11||||||Change from baseline at Week 4 : Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||0.11|-0.36|
91044491|NCT04100096|181975649|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-1.02||||0.243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.75|0.7||Comparison was carried out using MMRM, with study center (pooled), treatment group (TG), visit, ADT status, and TG by visit interaction (BVI), gender BVI, age BVI as factors and baseline BVI as covariate. An unstructured covariance was used.|MMRM|||||0.70|-2.75|0.2430
91044492|NCT04100096|181975650|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04||||0.7759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.27||Comparison was carried out using MMRM, with study center (pooled), TG, visit, ADT status, and TG BVI, gender BVI, age BVI as factors and baseline BVI as covariate. An unstructured covariance was used.|MMRM|||||0.27|-0.35|0.7759
91044493|NCT04100096|181975651|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.06||||0.6585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.2||Derived from an MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, (pooled) trial site, visit, ADT status (with/without background ADT), treatment BVI, gender BVI, covariates of baseline BVI and age BVI.|MMRM||Derived from an MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, (pooled) trial site, visit, ADT status (with/without background ADT), treatment BVI, gender BVI, covariates of baseline BVI and age BVI.|Week 2||0.20|-0.32|0.6585
91044494|NCT04100096|181975651|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.25||||0.1181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.06||Derived from an MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, (pooled) trial site, visit, ADT status (with/without background ADT), treatment BVI, gender BVI, covariates of baseline BVI and age BVI.|MMRM||Derived from an MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, (pooled) trial site, visit, ADT status (with/without background ADT), treatment BVI, gender BVI, covariates of baseline BVI and age BVI.|Week 4||0.06|-0.57|0.1181
91044495|NCT04100096|181975651|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.19||||0.2431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.13||Derived from an MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, (pooled) trial site, visit, ADT status (with/without background ADT), treatment BVI, gender BVI, covariates of baseline BVI and age BVI.|MMRM||Derived from an MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, (pooled) trial site, visit, ADT status (with/without background ADT), treatment BVI, gender BVI, covariates of baseline BVI and age BVI.|Week 6||0.13|-0.51|0.2431
91044496|NCT04100096|181975651|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.0638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.02||Derived from an MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, (pooled) trial site, visit, ADT status (with/without background ADT), treatment BVI, gender BVI, covariates of baseline BVI and age BVI.|MMRM||Derived from an MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, (pooled) trial site, visit, ADT status (with/without background ADT), treatment BVI, gender BVI, covariates of baseline BVI and age BVI.|Week 8||0.02|-0.61|0.0638
91044497|NCT04100096|181975651|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.11||||0.505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.22||Derived from an MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, (pooled) trial site, visit, ADT status (with/without background ADT), treatment BVI, gender BVI, covariates of baseline BVI and age BVI.|MMRM||Derived from an MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, (pooled) trial site, visit, ADT status (with/without background ADT), treatment BVI, gender BVI, covariates of baseline BVI and age BVI.|Week 10||0.22|-0.44|0.5050
91044498|NCT04100096|181975651|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14||||0.4277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.21||Derived from an MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, (pooled) trial site, visit, ADT status (with/without background ADT), treatment BVI, gender BVI, covariates of baseline BVI and age BVI.|MMRM||Derived from an MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, (pooled) trial site, visit, ADT status (with/without background ADT), treatment BVI, gender BVI, covariates of baseline BVI and age BVI.|Week 12||0.21|-0.48|0.4277
91044499|NCT04100096|181975652|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.6225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.3||Comparison between TGs was carried out using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) Row Mean Score Differ Test controlling for trial site.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Comparison between TGs was carried out using the CMH Row Mean Score Differ Test controlling for trial site.|Week 2||0.30|-0.18|0.6225
91044500|NCT04100096|181975652|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.9145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.31||Comparison between TGs was carried out using the CMH Row Mean Score Differ Test controlling for trial site.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Comparison between TGs was carried out using the CMH Row Mean Score Differ Test controlling for trial site.|Week 4||0.31|-0.35|0.9145
91044501|NCT04100096|181975652|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22||||0.1535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.08||Comparison between TGs was carried out using the CMH Row Mean Score Differ Test controlling for trial site.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Comparison between TGs was carried out using the CMH Row Mean Score Differ Test controlling for trial site.|Week 6||0.08|-0.52|0.1535
91044502|NCT04100096|181975652|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.1922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1||Comparison between TGs was carried out using the CMH Row Mean Score Differ Test controlling for trial site.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Comparison between TGs was carried out using the CMH Row Mean Score Differ Test controlling for trial site.|Week 8||0.10|-0.50|0.1922
91044503|NCT04100096|181975652|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.6488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.25||Comparison between TGs was carried out using the CMH Row Mean Score Differ Test controlling for trial site.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Comparison between TGs was carried out using the CMH Row Mean Score Differ Test controlling for trial site.|Week 10||0.25|-0.40|0.6488
91044504|NCT04100096|181975652|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.5992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.23||Comparison between TGs was carried out using the CMH Row Mean Score Differ Test controlling for trial site.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Comparison between TGs was carried out using the CMH Row Mean Score Differ Test controlling for trial site.|Week 12||0.23|-0.40|0.5992
91044505|NCT04100096|181975653|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.6579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.19||Comparison between TGs was carried out using the CMH Row Mean Score Differ Test controlling for trial site.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Comparison between TGs was carried out using the CMH Row Mean Score Differ Test controlling for trial site.|Week 2||0.19|-0.29|0.6579
91044506|NCT04100096|181975653|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.3728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.16||Comparison between TGs was carried out using the CMH Row Mean Score Differ Test controlling for trial site.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Comparison between TGs was carried out using the CMH Row Mean Score Differ Test controlling for trial site.|Week 4||0.16|-0.43|0.3728
91044507|NCT04100096|181975653|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21||||0.1684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.09||Comparison between TGs was carried out using the CMH Row Mean Score Differ Test controlling for trial site.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Comparison between TGs was carried out using the CMH Row Mean Score Differ Test controlling for trial site.|Week 6||0.09|-0.50|0.1684
91044508|NCT04100096|181975653|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.13||Comparison between TGs was carried out using the CMH Row Mean Score Differ Test controlling for trial site.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Comparison between TGs was carried out using the CMH Row Mean Score Differ Test controlling for trial site.|Week 8||-0.13|-0.74|0.0046
91044509|NCT04100096|181975653|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.2087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.11||Comparison between TGs was carried out using the CMH Row Mean Score Differ Test controlling for trial site.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Comparison between TGs was carried out using the CMH Row Mean Score Differ Test controlling for trial site.|Week 10||0.11|-0.51|0.2087
91044510|NCT04100096|181975653|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33||||0.0389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|-0.02||Comparison between TGs was carried out using the CMH Row Mean Score Differ Test controlling for trial site.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Comparison between TGs was carried out using the CMH Row Mean Score Differ Test controlling for trial site.|Week 12||-0.02|-0.64|0.0389
91044511|NCT04100096|181975658|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.5||ANCOVA model, with treatment as main effect and baseline value as covariate, is used for change from baseline of case comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||0.50|-0.14|0.2720
91044512|NCT04100096|181975658|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.09||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.56||ANCOVA model, with treatment as main effect and baseline value as covariate, is used for change from baseline of case comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||1.56|0.63|0
91044513|NCT04100096|181975658|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.18||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.73||ANCOVA model, with treatment as main effect and baseline value as covariate, is used for change from baseline of case comparisons|ANCOVA|||Week 6||1.73|0.63|0
91044514|NCT04100096|181975658|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.57||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.21||ANCOVA model, with treatment as main effect and baseline value as covariate, is used for change from baseline of case comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||2.21|0.92|0
91044515|NCT04100096|181975658|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.72||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|2.45||ANCOVA model, with treatment as main effect and baseline value as covariate, is used for change from baseline of case comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 10||2.45|0.99|0
91044516|NCT04100096|181975658|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.44||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|2.19||ANCOVA model, with treatment as main effect and baseline value as covariate, is used for change from baseline of case comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||2.19|0.68|0.0002
91044517|NCT04100096|181975659|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.31||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|2.68|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model, with treatment as main effect and baseline value as covariate, is used for change from baseline of case comparisons.||Week 12||2.68|-0.07|0.0620
91044518|NCT04100096|181975660|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.4613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.17|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model, with treatment as main effect and baseline value as covariate, is used for change from baseline of case comparisons.||Week 2||0.17|-0.08|0.4613
91044519|NCT04100096|181975660|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.55||ANCOVA model, with treatment as main effect and baseline value as covariate, is used for change from baseline of case comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||0.55|0.21|0
91044520|NCT04100096|181975660|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.61||ANCOVA model, with treatment as main effect and baseline value as covariate, is used for change from baseline of case comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||0.61|0.21|0.0001
91044521|NCT04100096|181975660|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.56||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.8||ANCOVA model, with treatment as main effect and baseline value as covariate, is used for change from baseline of case comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||0.80|0.33|0
91044522|NCT04100096|181975660|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.61||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.88||ANCOVA model, with treatment as main effect and baseline value as covariate, is used for change from baseline of case comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 10||0.88|0.34|0
91044523|NCT04100096|181975660|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.52||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.8||ANCOVA model, with treatment as main effect and baseline value as covariate, is used for change from baseline of case comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||0.80|0.23|0.0004
91044524|NCT04100096|181975662|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.1687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.25||ANCOVA model, with treatment as main effect and baseline value as covariate, is used for change from baseline of case comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||0.25|-0.04|0.1687
91044525|NCT04100096|181975662|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.1874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.29||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model, with treatment as main effect and baseline value as covariate, is used for change from baseline of case comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||0.29|-0.06|0.1874
91044526|NCT04100096|181975663|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.0974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.02||ANCOVA model, with treatment as main effect and baseline value as covariate, is used for change from baseline of case comparisons|ANCOVA|||Week 6||0.02|-0.25|0.0974
91044527|NCT04100096|181975663|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.08||ANCOVA model, with treatment as main effect and baseline value as covariate, is used for change from baseline of case comparisons|ANCOVA|||Week 12||0.08|-0.20|0.3910
91044528|NCT04100096|181975664|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|9.0|0.04|0.26||ANCOVA model, with treatment as main effect and baseline value as covariate, is used for change from baseline of case comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||0.26|0.04|0.0063
91044529|NCT04100096|181975664|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.19||ANCOVA model, with treatment as main effect and baseline value as covariate, is used for change from baseline of case comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||0.19|-0.01|0.0670
91044530|NCT00784134|181975718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.027||||0.554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.062|0.115|||Chi-squared|||||0.115|-0.062|0.554
91044531|NCT00784134|181975718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.87||Multivariable logit model adjusted for age, GCS, thalamus, stability ICH volume and stability IVH volume.|Multivariable Logit Model|||||1.87|0.75|0.465
91044532|NCT00784134|181975719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.25||Generalized ordered logit model adjusted for age, GCS, thalamus, stability ICH volume and stability IVH volume (categorical) compares odds ratio for mRS score \> K v. \<= K for K = 1 - 4; Alt v. Sal.|Generalized ordered Logit Model|||||1.25|0.63|0.484
91044533|NCT00784134|181975719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.71||The same generalized ordered logit model, adjusting for age, GCS, thalamus, stability ICH volume and stability IVH volume (categorical), compares odds ratio for mRS score greater than 5 versus mRS score equal or less than 5 (dead versus alive).|Generalized ordered Logit Model|||||0.71|0.28|<0.001
91044534|NCT00784134|181975720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.026||||0.552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.059|0.111|||Chi-squared|||||0.111|-0.059|0.552
91044535|NCT00784134|181975720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.9||Multivariable logit model adjusting for age, GCS, thalamus, stability ICH volume and stability IVH volume (categorical).|Multivariable Logit Model|||||1.90|0.80|0.350
91044536|NCT00784134|181975721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.8||Random effects model with site as random effect adjusted for age, GCS, thalamus, stability ICH volume and stability IVH volume (categorical).|Random Effects Model|||||1.80|0.78|0.428
91044537|NCT00784134|181975722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.1|||Generalized Estimating Equation Model|Generalized estimating equation model adjusting for age, GCS, thalamus, stability ICH volume and stability IVH volume (categorical).||Logit mRS scores 0-3 at 30 days||2.10|0.75|0.384
91044538|NCT00784134|181975722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.64|||Generalized Estimating Equation Model|Generalized estimating equation model adjusting for age, GCS, thalamus, stability ICH volume and stability IVH volume (categorical).||Logit mRS scores 0-3 at 180 days||1.64|0.62|0.964
91044539|NCT00784134|181975723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0056|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0056
91044540|NCT00784134|181975724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||AUC/ Logit Model|||||||<0.001
91044541|NCT00784134|181975725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.771|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.771
91044542|NCT00784134|181975726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.098|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.098
91044543|NCT00784134|181975727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45|||||||Generalized Linear Models|||||||0.450
91044544|NCT00784134|181975728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.501|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.501
91044545|NCT00784134|181975729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.795|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.795
91044546|NCT00784134|181975730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.784|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.784
91044547|NCT00784134|181975731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.592|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.592
91044548|NCT00784134|181975732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.105|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.105
91044549|NCT00784134|181975733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.152|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.152
91044550|NCT00784134|181975734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.055||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.111|0.008|||Fisher Exact|||||0.008|-0.111|0.055
91044551|NCT00784134|181975735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.035||||0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.084|0.014|||Fisher Exact|||||0.014|-0.084|0.202
91044552|NCT00784134|181975736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.004||||0.771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.022|0.03|||Fisher Exact|||||0.030|-0.022|0.771
91044553|NCT00784134|181975737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.004||||0.811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.028|0.036|||Fisher Exact|||||0.036|-0.028|0.811
91044554|NCT00784134|181975738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.144||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|-0.057|||Fisher Exact|||||-0.057|-0.230|0.0017
91044555|NCT00784134|181975739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.86|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Adjusted Cox Proportional Hazards Model adjusting for age, GCS, thalamus, stability ICH volume and stability IVH volume (categorical).||||0.86|0.41|0.006
91044556|NCT00784134|181975740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.064||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.088|0.217|||Chi-squared|||||0.217|-0.088|0.410
91044557|NCT00784134|181975741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.016||||0.781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.096|0.128|||Chi-squared|||||0.128|-0.096|0.781
91044558|NCT00784134|181975742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.02||||0.773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.113|0.152|||Chi-squared|||||0.152|-0.113|0.773
91044559|NCT00784134|181975743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.032||||0.587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.085|0.151|||Chi-squared|||||0.151|-0.085|0.587
91044560|NCT00784134|181975744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.015||||0.775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.121|||Chi-squared|||||0.121|-0.09|0.775
91044561|NCT00784134|181975745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.019||||0.808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.132|0.169|||Chi-squared|||||0.169|-0.132|0.808
91044562|NCT00784134|181975746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.033||||0.625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.165|0.099|||Chi-squared|||||0.099|-0.165|0.625
91044563|NCT00784134|181975747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.087||||0.191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.043|0.218|||Chi-squared|||||0.218|-0.043|0.191
91044564|NCT00784134|181975748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0066||||0.949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.197|0.211|||Chi-squared|||||0.211|-0.197|0.949
91044565|NCT00784134|181975749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.014||||0.812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.098|0.126|||Chi-squared|||||0.126|-0.098|0.812
91044566|NCT00784134|181975750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.059||||0.394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.076|0.194|||Chi-squared|||||0.194|-0.076|0.394
91044567|NCT00784134|181975751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.312|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.312
91044568|NCT00784134|181975752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.075||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.011|0.16||Analysis of dichotomous eGOS, comparing Upper Severe Disability scores to Lower Severe Disability scores|Chi-squared|||||0.160|-0.011|0.087
91044569|NCT00784134|181975752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.54||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|2.43||Adjusted Multivariable Logit Model comparing eGOS scores of Upper Severe Disability or greater versus Lower Severe Disability and worse; Alteplase versus Saline|Multivariable Logit Model|||||2.43|0.98|0.064
90996593|NCT01115738|181877189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.15||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.24|17.53||P-value is for 2 hours after prasugrel LD. P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity. P-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Fixed effects were Treatment, Visit, Country, Treatment-by-Visit. Participants and Error were Random Effects. Covariance structure was Unstructured.||||17.53|-15.24|0.890
90996594|NCT01115738|181877189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.89||||0.223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.02|4.24||P-value is for 6 hours after prasugrel LD. P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity. P-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Fixed effects were Treatment, Visit, Country, Treatment-by-Visit. Participants and Error were Random Effects. Covariance structure was Unstructured.||||4.24|-18.02|0.223
90996595|NCT01115738|181877189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.33||||0.808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.44|12.1||P-value is for 6 hours after prasugrel LD. P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity. P-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Fixed effects were Treatment, Visit, Country, Treatment-by-Visit. Participants and Error were Random Effects. Covariance structure was Unstructured.||||12.10|-9.44|0.808
90996596|NCT01115738|181877189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.07||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.11|-0.04||P-value is for 24 hours after prasugrel LD. P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity. P-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Fixed effects were Treatment, Visit, Country, Treatment-by-Visit. Participants and Error were Random Effects. Covariance structure was Unstructured.||||-0.04|-20.11|0.049
90996597|NCT01115738|181877189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.99||||0.842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.85|8.86||P-value is for 24 hours after prasugrel LD. P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity. P-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Fixed effects were Treatment, Visit, Country, Treatment-by-Visit. Participants and Error were Random Effects. Covariance structure was Unstructured.||||8.86|-10.85|0.842
90996598|NCT01115738|181877189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.03||||0.247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.58|3.52||P-value is for 72 hours after prasugrel LD. P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity. P-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Fixed effects were Treatment, Visit, Country, Treatment-by-Visit. Participants and Error were Random Effects. Covariance structure was Unstructured.||||3.52|-13.58|0.247
90996599|NCT01115738|181877189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31||||0.942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.09|8.71||P-value is for 72 hours after prasugrel LD. P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity. P-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Fixed effects were Treatment, Visit, Country, Treatment-by-Visit. Participants and Error were Random Effects. Covariance structure was Unstructured.||||8.71|-8.09|0.942
90996600|NCT01115738|181877192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.449||||0.8711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.81|45.71|||ANOVA|||A linear ANOVA model with PRU values at baseline for clopidogrel treated participants as response and CYP2C19 metabolizer status as covariate of main interest.||45.71|-38.81|0.8711
90996601|NCT01115738|181877193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.714||||0.7875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.78|55.36|||ANOVA|||A linear ANOVA model with PRU values of 6 hours post Prasugrel LD as response and treatment, CYP2C19 metabolizer status, interaction of treatment-by-CYP2C19 metabolizer status as fixed effects.||55.36|-72.78|0.7875
90996602|NCT01115738|181877193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.435||||0.8913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.23|46.37|||ANOVA|||A linear ANOVA model with PRU values of 6 hours Post-Prasugrel LD as response and treatment, CYP2C19 metabolizer status, interaction of treatment-by-CYP2C19 metabolizer status as fixed effects.||46.37|-53.23|0.8913
90996603|NCT01115738|181877193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.7||||0.6229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.43|58.83|||ANOVA|||A linear ANOVA model with PRU values of 6 hours Post-Prasugrel LD as response and treatment, CYP2C19 metabolizer status, interaction of treatment-by-CYP2C19 metabolizer status as fixed effects.||58.83|-35.43|0.6229
90996604|NCT04009213|181877199|NON_INFERIORITY|H0: δT - δC ≥ 0.9 Ha: δT - δC \< 0.9|||||<|0.025|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.025
90996605|NCT04009213|181877200|NON_INFERIORITY|H0: qT - qC ≥ 10% H1: qT - qC \< 10%|||||<|0.025|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||Farrington-Manning|||||||< 0.025
90996606|NCT04009213|181877201|NON_INFERIORITY|H0: pC - pT ≥ 10% H1: pC - pT \< 10%,|||||<|0.025|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||Farrington-Manning|||||||<0.025
90996607|NCT04009213|181877202|NON_INFERIORITY|H0: πC - πT ≥ 15% H1: πC - πT \< 15%,|||||<|0.025|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||Farrington-Manning|||||||< 0.025
90996608|NCT00643604|181877230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.69||0.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Changes between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values.||||0.69
90996609|NCT00643604|181877231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Changes between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values.||||1.00
90996610|NCT00643604|181877232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.13||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Changes between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values.||||0.13
90996611|NCT00643604|181877233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.03||95.0||||p value for Symptom Score|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Changes in mean CAMPHOR scores between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values.||||0.03
90996612|NCT00643604|181877233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1||95.0||||p value for Activity Score.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Activity Score N=5; Baseline component score could not be calculated for one subject. Changes between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values.||||1.00
90996613|NCT00643604|181877233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.31||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Quality of Life Score. Changes between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values.||||0.31
90996614|NCT00643604|181877233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.13||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||"Total Score N=5; Baseline Activity component score could not be calculated for one subject. Total Score could not be calculated for this subject.~Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to compare the values at Baseline to values at Week 8. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values."||||0.13
90996615|NCT00643604|181877234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.19||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Effectiveness Score Changes between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values.||||0.19
90996616|NCT00643604|181877234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.19||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Side-Effects Score. Changes between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values.||||0.19
90996617|NCT00643604|181877234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.03||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Convenience Score. Changes between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values.||||0.03
90996618|NCT00643604|181877234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.88||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Global Satisfaction Score. Changes between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values.||||0.88
90996619|NCT00643604|181877235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.25||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Gather/Set-up. Changes between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values.||||0.25
90996620|NCT00643604|181877235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.06||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Prepare Drug. Changes between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values.||||0.06
90996621|NCT00643604|181877235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.63||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Connect Drug. Changes between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values.||||0.63
90996622|NCT00643604|181877235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.88||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Change Dressing. Changes between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values.||||0.88
90996623|NCT00643604|181877235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.13||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Total Time. Changes between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values.||||0.13
90996624|NCT00643604|181877236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Changes between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values.||||0.5
90996625|NCT00643604|181877237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.25||95.0|||||Wilcoxon sign-rank test|||Changes between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values.||||0.25
90996626|NCT00643604|181877238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Changes between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values.||||1.00
90996627|NCT00643604|181877239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Changes between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values.||||0.50
90996628|NCT00643604|181877240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Changes between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values.||||1.00
90996629|NCT00643604|181877241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Changes between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values.||||1.00
90996630|NCT00643604|181877242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Changes between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values.||||1.00
90996631|NCT02702011|181877244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|65.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.81|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.29|86.9|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference was calculated as: (mean change from baseline in 24 hour UGE at Day 7 in Empagliflozin 2.5 mg group) - (mean change from baseline in 24 hour UGE at Day 7 in Placebo group)|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a linear covariate was fitted to the change from baseline of 24 hour UGE (g/24h) on Day 7, where baseline refers to the last observation prior to the first intake of any randomised trial medication.||86.90|43.29|<0.0001
90996632|NCT02702011|181877244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|81.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.8|103.58|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference was calculated as: (mean change from baseline in 24 hour UGE at Day 7 in Empagliflozin 10 mg group) - (mean change from baseline in 24 hour UGE at Day 7 in Placebo group)|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a linear covariate was fitted to the change from baseline of 24 hour UGE (g/24h) on Day 7, where baseline refers to the last observation prior to the first intake of any randomised trial medication.||103.58|58.80|<0.0001
90996633|NCT02702011|181877244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|98.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.01|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|75.91|120.31|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference was calculated as: (mean change from baseline in 24 hour UGE at Day 7 in Empagliflozin 25 mg group) - (mean change from baseline in 24 hour UGE at Day 7 in Placebo group)|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a linear covariate was fitted to the change from baseline of 24 hour UGE (g/24h) on Day 7, where baseline refers to the last observation prior to the first intake of any randomised trial medication.||120.31|75.91|<0.0001
90996634|NCT02921763|181877266|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0533|||||||Sign test|||"For the volume calculated from the major and minor axes of ovarian chocolate cyst, the values before treatment initiation and at last observation were compared, frequency of increase and decrease was summarized and the sign test was performed separately in the efficacy analysis set and study completers."||||=0.0533
90996635|NCT02921763|181877268|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.7328|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"For the volume calculated from the major and minor axes of ovarian chocolate cyst (a total volume if there were two or more cysts), the value, difference from the value before treatment and change rate were calculated using the summary statistics at each measurement point and last observation in each analysis set, namely efficacy analysis set and study completers, and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed for the difference and change rate."||||=0.7328
90996636|NCT02921763|181877268|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1193|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"For the volume calculated from the major and minor axes of ovarian chocolate cyst (a total volume if there were two or more cysts), the value, difference from the value before treatment and change rate were calculated using the summary statistics at each measurement point and last observation in each analysis set, namely efficacy analysis set and study completers, and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed for the difference and change rate."||||=0.1193
90996637|NCT02921763|181877269|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7221|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"For the volume calculated from the major and minor axes of ovarian chocolate cyst (a total volume if there were two or more cysts), the value, difference from the value before treatment and change rate were calculated using the summary statistics at each measurement point and last observation in each analysis set, namely efficacy analysis set and study completers, and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed for the difference and change rate."||||0.7221
90996638|NCT02921763|181877269|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0861|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"For the volume calculated from the major and minor axes of ovarian chocolate cyst (a total volume if there were two or more cysts), the value, difference from the value before treatment and change rate were calculated using the summary statistics at each measurement point and last observation in each analysis set, namely efficacy analysis set and study completers, and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed for the difference and change rate."||||0.0861
90996639|NCT02921763|181877273|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The score value and difference from the value before treatment were calculated at the same points using the summary statistics, and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed.||||=0.0020
90996640|NCT02921763|181877273|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The score value and difference from the value before treatment were calculated at the same points using the summary statistics, and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed.||||=0.0001
91044570|NCT00784134|181975752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.89||Adjusted generalized ordered logit model odds ratios for eGOS scores of Moderate Disability or worse versus Good Recovery; Alteplase versus Saline|Generalized Ordered Logit Model|||||2.89|0.70|0.336
91044571|NCT00784134|181975752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.52||Adjusted generalized ordered logit model odds ratios for eGOS scores of Upper Severe Disability or worse versus Moderate Disability + Good Recovery; Alteplase versus Saline|Generalized Ordered Logit Model|||||1.52|0.57|0.783
91044572|NCT00784134|181975753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.14
91044573|NCT00784134|181975754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.312|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.312
91044574|NCT00784134|181975755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.65
91044575|NCT00784134|181975756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.478|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.478
91044576|NCT00784134|181975757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.634|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.634
91044577|NCT00784134|181975758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.255|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.255
91044578|NCT00784134|181975759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.224|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.224
91044579|NCT00784134|181975760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.882|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.882
91044580|NCT00784134|181975761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.551|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.551
91044581|NCT00784134|181975762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.224|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.224
91044582|NCT00784134|181975763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.376|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.376
91044583|NCT00966381|181975782|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91044584|NCT00966381|181975783|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91044585|NCT00966381|181975784|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91044586|NCT03686150|181975791|OTHER|This was a population PK analysis of 25(OH)D after oral administration of Vitamin D.||||||||||||||||Part 1 of this study was to perform a population PK analysis of 25(OH)D after oral administration of Vitamin D in children who are overweight or obese and have asthma. Based on the interim analysis of the VDORA study, the PK of 25(OH)D after Vitamin D supplementation in children was well characterized by a 2-compartment population PK model with linear absorption and elimination kinetics. A loading dose of 50,000 IU followed by a daily dose of 8,000 IU was recommended.|Based on the interim analysis of the VDORA study, the PK of 25(OH)D after Vitamin D supplementation in children was well characterized by a 2-compartment population PK model with linear absorption and elimination kinetics. A loading dose of 50,000 IU followed by a daily dose of 8,000 IU was recommended.|||
91044587|NCT03686150|181975792|OTHER|This is one-sample test of proportion testing the null hypothesis that the proportion of participants with 25(OH)D level \>= 40 ng/mL is 50%.||||||0.0001|||||||z-test|||This is a one-sample test of proportion.||||0.0001
91044588|NCT02760264|181975804|OTHER|Treatment levels were not compared.|||||||||||||||||"Safety Population was used for this analysis. Safety Population includes all subjects who receive at least one dose of vamorolone study medication.~Treatment levels were not compared."|||
91044589|NCT02760264|181975806|OTHER|Treatment levels were not compared.|||||||||||||||||"Safety Population was used for this analysis. Safety Population includes all subjects who receive at least one dose of vamorolone study medication.~Treatment levels were not compared."|||
91044590|NCT02760264|181975808|OTHER|Treatment levels were not compared.|||||||||||||||||"Safety Population was used for this analysis. Safety Population includes all subjects who receive at least one dose of vamorolone study medication.~Treatment levels were not compared."|||
91044591|NCT02760264|181975809|OTHER|Treatment levels were not compared.|||||||||||||||||"Safety Population was used for this analysis. Safety Population includes all subjects who receive at least one dose of vamorolone study medication.~Treatment levels were not compared."|||
91044592|NCT02760264|181975811|OTHER|Treatment levels were not compared.|||||||||||||||||"Safety Population was used for this analysis. Safety Population includes all subjects who receive at least one dose of vamorolone study medication.~Treatment levels were not compared."|||
91044593|NCT02760264|181975813|OTHER|Treatment levels were not compared.|||||||||||||||||"Safety Population was used for this analysis. Safety Population includes all subjects who receive at least one dose of vamorolone study medication.~Treatment levels were not compared."|||
91044594|NCT03404401|181975844|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin was set at 10%.|||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91044595|NCT04025684|181975849|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Change|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|-0.08||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA Model with product group as a fixed effect and the baseline mean RPI overall value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis was performed with comparison in pre-treatment and post-treatment within the treatment group.||-0.08|-0.11|<.0001
91044596|NCT04025684|181975849|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Change|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|-0.1||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with product group as a fixed effect and the baseline mean RPI overall value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis was performed with comparison in pre-treatment and post-treatment within the treatment group.||-0.10|-0.14|<0.0001
91044597|NCT04025684|181975849|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Change|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|-0.08||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with product group as a fixed effect and the baseline mean RPI overall value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis was performed with comparison in pre-treatment and post-treatment within the treatment group.||-0.08|-0.12|<0.0001
91044598|NCT04025684|181975849|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Change|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|-0.08||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with product group as a fixed effect and the baseline mean RPI overall value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis was performed with comparison in pre-treatment and post-treatment within the treatment group.||-0.08|-0.12|<0.0001
91044599|NCT04025684|181975850|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Change|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.065|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.37||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with product group as a fixed effect, and the baseline mean TPI overall value and RPI stratification level as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis was performed with comparison in pre-treatment and post-treatment within the treatment group.||-0.37|-0.62|<0.0001
91044600|NCT04025684|181975850|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Change|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.49||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with product group as a fixed effect, and the baseline mean TPI overall value and RPI stratification level as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis was performed with comparison in pre-treatment and post-treatment within the treatment group.||-0.49|-0.75|<0.0001
91044601|NCT04025684|181975850|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Change|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.42||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with product group as a fixed effect, and the baseline mean TPI overall value and RPI stratification level as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis was performed with comparison in pre-treatment and post-treatment within the treatment group.||-0.42|-0.68|<0.0001
91044602|NCT04025684|181975850|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Change|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.44||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with product group as a fixed effect, and the baseline mean TPI overall value and RPI stratification level as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis was performed with comparison in pre-treatment and post-treatment within the treatment group.||-0.44|-0.70|<0.0001
91044603|NCT01844531|181975866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio FDC/single tablets|97.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.529|102.52||Model included effects:sequence;subjects within sequences;period and treatment with subjects within sequences as random effect.|ANOVA||\*Results reported as Standard Error of the mean are Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation \[%\].|Adjusted by-treatment geometric means and relative bioavailability comparison FDC Empa12.5 : Empa12.5 + Met500, PK set AUCinfpred \[nmol\*h/L\] for EMPAGLIFLOZIN (PLASMA EDTA). The statistical model used was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale.||102.520|93.529|0.0000
91044604|NCT01844531|181975866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio FDC/single tablets|98.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.57|102.65||Model included effects:sequence;subjects within sequences;period and treatment with all effects as fixed.|ANOVA||\*Results reported as Standard Error of the mean are Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation \[%\].|Adjusted by-treatment geometric means and relative bioavailability - analysis with fixed effects for all terms comparison FDC Empa12.5 : Empa12.5 + Met500, PK set AUCinfpred \[nmol\*h/L\] for EMPAGLIFLOZIN (PLASMA EDTA). The statistical model used was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale.||102.65|93.57|<.0001
91044605|NCT01844531|181975866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio FDC/single tablets|102.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.7||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.077|106.633||Model included effects:sequence;subjects within sequences;period and treatment with subjects within sequences as random effect.|ANOVA||\*Results reported as Standard Error of the mean are Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation \[%\].|Adjusted by-treatment geometric means and relative bioavailability comparison FDC Empa5 : Empa5 + Met500 , PK set AUCinfpred \[nmol\*h/L\] for EMPAGLIFLOZIN (PLASMA EDTA). The statistical model used was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale.||106.633|99.077|0.0000
91044606|NCT01844531|181975866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio FDC/single tablets|102.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.7|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.78|106.36|||ANOVA||\*Results reported as Standard Error of the mean are Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation \[%\].|Adjusted by-treatment geometric means and relative bioavailability - analysis with fixed effects for all terms comparison FDC Empa5 (T2) : Empa5 + Met500 (R2), PK set AUCinfpred \[nmol\*h/L\] for EMPAGLIFLOZIN (PLASMA EDTA)||106.36|98.78|<.0001
91044607|NCT01844531|181975867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio FDC/single tablets|96.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.4||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.542|104.628|||ANOVA||\*Results reported as Standard Error of the mean are Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation \[%\].|Adjusted by-treatment geometric means and relative bioavailability comparison FDC Empa12.5 : Empa12.5 + Met500, PK set AUCinfpred \[ng\*h/mL\] for METFORMIN (PLASMA EDTA)||104.628|88.542|0.0006
91044608|NCT01844531|181975867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio FDC/single tablets|97.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.1||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.41|105.68|||ANOVA||\*Results reported as Standard Error of the mean are Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation \[%\].|Adjusted by-treatment geometric means and relative bioavailability - analysis with fixed effects for all terms comparison FDC Empa12.5 (T1) : Empa12.5 + Met500 (R1), PK set AUCinfpred \[ng\*h/mL\] for METFORMIN (PLASMA EDTA)||105.68|89.41|0.0004
91044609|NCT01844531|181975867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio FDC/single tablets|96.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.8||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.772|102.093|||ANOVA||\*Results reported as Standard Error of the mean are Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation \[%\].|Adjusted by-treatment geometric means and relative bioavailability comparison FDC Empa5 : Empa5 + Met500, PK set AUCinfpred \[ng\*h/mL\] for METFORMIN (PLASMA EDTA)||102.093|91.772|0.0000
91044610|NCT01844531|181975867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio FDC/single tablets|96.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.8|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.79|102.32|||ANOVA||\*Results reported as Standard Error of the mean are Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation \[%\].|Adjusted by-treatment geometric means and relative bioavailability - analysis with fixed effects for all terms comparison FDC Empa5 : Empa5 + Met500, PK set AUCinfpred \[ng\*h/mL\] for METFORMIN (PLASMA EDTA)||102.32|91.79|<.0001
91044611|NCT01844531|181975868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio FDC/single tablets|98.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.5||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.53|102.686|||ANOVA||\*Results reported as Standard Error of the mean are Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation \[%\].|Adjusted by-treatment geometric means and relative bioavailability comparison FDC Empa12.5 : Empa12.5 + Met500, PK set AUClast \[nmol\*h/L\] for EMPAGLIFLOZIN (PLASMA EDTA)||102.686|93.530|0.0000
91044612|NCT01844531|181975868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio FDC/single tablets|98.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.55|102.81|||ANOVA||\*Results reported as Standard Error of the mean are Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation \[%\].|Adjusted by-treatment geometric means and relative bioavailability - analysis with fixed effects for all terms comparison FDC Empa12.5 : Empa12.5 + Met500, PK set AUClast \[nmol\*h/L\] for EMPAGLIFLOZIN (PLASMA EDTA)||102.81|93.55|<.0001
91044613|NCT01844531|181975868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio FDC/single tablets|102.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.5||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.146|106.522|||ANOVA||\*Results reported as Standard Error of the mean are Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation \[%\].|Adjusted by-treatment geometric means and relative bioavailability comparison FDC Empa5 : Empa5 + Met500, PK set AUClast \[nmol\*h/L\] for EMPAGLIFLOZIN (PLASMA EDTA)||106.522|99.146|0.0000
91044614|NCT01844531|181975868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio FDC/single tablets|102.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.85|106.25|||ANOVA||\*Results reported as Standard Error of the mean are Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation \[%\].|Adjusted by-treatment geometric means and relative bioavailability - analysis with fixed effects for all terms comparison FDC Empa5 : Empa5 + Met500, PK set AUClast \[nmol\*h/L\] for EMPAGLIFLOZIN (PLASMA EDTA)||106.25|98.85|<.0001
91044615|NCT01844531|181975869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio FDC/single tablets|104.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.882|109.555|||ANOVA||\*Results reported as Standard Error of the mean are Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation \[%\].|Adjusted by-treatment geometric means and relative bioavailability comparison FDC Empa12.5 : Empa12.5 + Met500, PK set Cmax \[nmol/L\] for EMPAGLIFLOZIN (PLASMA EDTA)||109.555|99.882|0.0000
91044616|NCT01844531|181975869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio FDC/single tablets|104.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.76|109.53|||ANOVA||\*Results reported as Standard Error of the mean are Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation \[%\].|Adjusted by-treatment geometric means and relative bioavailability - analysis with fixed effects for all terms comparison FDC Empa12.5 : Empa12.5 + Met500, PK set Cmax \[nmol/L\] for EMPAGLIFLOZIN (PLASMA EDTA)||109.53|99.76|<.0001
91044617|NCT01844531|181975869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio FDC/single tablets|102.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.2||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.917|108.258|||ANOVA||\*Results reported as Standard Error of the mean are Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation \[%\].|Adjusted by-treatment geometric means and relative bioavailability comparison FDC Empa5 : Empa5 + Met500, PK set Cmax \[nmol/L\] for EMPAGLIFLOZIN (PLASMA EDTA)||108.258|97.917|0.0000
91044618|NCT01844531|181975869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio FDC/single tablets|102.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.72|108.14|||ANOVA||\*Results reported as Standard Error of the mean are Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation \[%\].|Adjusted by-treatment geometric means and relative bioavailability - analysis with fixed effects for all terms comparison FDC Empa5 : Empa5 + Met500, PK set Cmax \[nmol/L\] for EMPAGLIFLOZIN (PLASMA EDTA)||108.14|97.72|<.0001
91044619|NCT01844531|181975870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio FDC/single tablets|94.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.4||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.056|100.819|||ANOVA||\*Results reported as Standard Error of the mean are Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation \[%\].|Adjusted by-treatment geometric means and relative bioavailability comparison FDC Empa12.5 : Empa12.5 + Met500, PK set Cmax \[ng/mL\] for METFORMIN (PLASMA EDTA)||100.819|89.056|0.0001
91044620|NCT01844531|181975870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio FDC/single tablets|94.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.4||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.64|100.54|||ANOVA||\*Results reported as Standard Error of the mean are Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation \[%\].|Adjusted by-treatment geometric means and relative bioavailability - analysis with fixed effects for all terms comparison FDC Empa12.5 : Empa12.5 + Met500, PK set Cmax \[ng/mL\] for METFORMIN (PLASMA EDTA)||100.54|88.64|0.0001
91044621|NCT01844531|181975870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio FDC/single tablets|93.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.9||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.006|100.034|||ANOVA||\*Results reported as Standard Error of the mean are Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation \[%\].|Adjusted by-treatment geometric means and relative bioavailability comparison FDC Empa5 : Empa5 + Met500, PK set Cmax \[ng/mL\] for METFORMIN (PLASMA EDTA)||100.034|88.006|0.0002
91044622|NCT01844531|181975870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio FDC/single tablets|93.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.0||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.94|100.43|||ANOVA||\*Results reported as Standard Error of the mean are Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation \[%\].|Adjusted by-treatment geometric means and relative bioavailability - analysis with fixed effects for all terms comparison FDC Empa5 : Empa5 + Met500, PK set Cmax \[ng/mL\] for METFORMIN (PLASMA EDTA)||100.43|87.94|0.0003
91044623|NCT01844531|181975871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio FDC/single tablets|95.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.7||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.0|104.256|||ANOVA||\*Results reported as Standard Error of the mean are Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation \[%\].|Adjusted by-treatment geometric means and relative bioavailability comparison FDC Empa12.5 : Empa12.5 + Met500, PK set AUClast \[ng\*h/mL\] for METFORMIN (PLASMA EDTA)||104.256|88.000|0.0008
91044624|NCT01844531|181975871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio FDC/single tablets|96.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.5||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.78|105.41|||ANOVA||\*Results reported as Standard Error of the mean are Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation \[%\].|Adjusted by-treatment geometric means and relative bioavailability - analysis with fixed effects for all terms comparison FDC Empa12.5 : Empa12.5 + Met500, PK set AUClast \[ng\*h/mL\] for METFORMIN (PLASMA EDTA)||105.41|88.78|0.0006
91044625|NCT01844531|181975871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio FDC/single tablets|95.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.3||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.199|100.934|||ANOVA||\*Results reported as Standard Error of the mean are Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation \[%\].|Adjusted by-treatment geometric means and relative bioavailability comparison FDC Empa5 : Empa5 + Met500, PK set AUClast \[ng\*h/mL\] for METFORMIN (PLASMA EDTA)||100.934|91.199|0.0000
90996641|NCT02921763|181877273|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The score value and difference from the value before treatment were calculated at the same points using the summary statistics, and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed.||||<0.0001
90996642|NCT02921763|181877273|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The score value and difference from the value before treatment were calculated at the same points using the summary statistics, and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed.||||<0.0001
90996643|NCT02921763|181877273|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The score value and difference from the value before treatment were calculated at the same points using the summary statistics, and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed.||||<0.0001
91044626|NCT01844531|181975871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio FDC/single tablets|96.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.28|101.19|||ANOVA||\*Results reported as Standard Error of the mean are Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation \[%\].|Adjusted by-treatment geometric means and relative bioavailability - analysis with fixed effects for all terms comparison FDC Empa5 : Empa5 + Met500, PK set AUClast \[ng\*h/mL\] for METFORMIN (PLASMA EDTA)||101.19|91.28|<.0001
91044627|NCT01546922|181975872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.861||||||A Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was applied, resulting in a significance level of 0.001.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Rivermead Behavioural Memory Test (RBMT) - Immediate memory||||0.861
91044628|NCT01546922|181975872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.668||||||A Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was applied, resulting in a significance level of 0.001.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||RBMT - Delayed memory||||0.668
91044629|NCT01546922|181975872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.713||||||A Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was applied, resulting in a significance level of 0.001.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||RBMT-Delayed corrected for immediate memory||||0.713
91044630|NCT01546922|181975872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028||||||A Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was applied, resulting in a significance level of 0.001.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||15 Words Test - Short-term memory||||0.028
91044631|NCT01546922|181975872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.227||||||A Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was applied, resulting in a significance level of 0.001.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||15 Words Test - Total immediate memory||||0.227
91044632|NCT01546922|181975872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13||||||A Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was applied, resulting in a significance level of 0.001.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||15 Words Test - Learning Score||||0.130
91044633|NCT01546922|181975872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.106||||||A Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was applied, resulting in a significance level of 0.001.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||15 Words Test- Delayed memory||||0.106
91044634|NCT01546922|181975872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35||||||A Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was applied, resulting in a significance level of 0.001.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||15 Words Test - Delayed corrected for total memory||||0.350
91044635|NCT01546922|181975872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.093||||||A Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was applied, resulting in a significance level of 0.001.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||15 Words Test - Recognition||||0.093
91044636|NCT01546922|181975872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.614||||||A Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was applied, resulting in a significance level of 0.001.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Digit Span forward - Short-term memory||||0.614
91044637|NCT01546922|181975872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.111||||||A Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was applied, resulting in a significance level of 0.001.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Rey Complex Figure - Immediate memory||||0.111
91044638|NCT01546922|181975872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.451||||||A Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was applied, resulting in a significance level of 0.001.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Rey Complex Figure - Delayed memory||||0.451
91044639|NCT01546922|181975872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.905||||||A Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was applied, resulting in a significance level of 0.001.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Divided attention-Reaction time auditory response||||0.905
91044640|NCT01546922|181975872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.502||||||A Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was applied, resulting in a significance level of 0.001.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Divided attention-Reaction time visual response||||0.502
91044641|NCT01546922|181975872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.531||||||A Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was applied, resulting in a significance level of 0.001.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Divided attention-Number of omission errors||||0.531
91044642|NCT01546922|181975872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.681||||||A Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was applied, resulting in a significance level of 0.001.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Divided attention-Number of commission errors||||0.681
91044643|NCT01546922|181975872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.713||||||A Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was applied, resulting in a significance level of 0.001.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Visual scanning - Reaction time for target stimuli||||0.713
91044644|NCT01546922|181975872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.229||||||A Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was applied, resulting in a significance level of 0.001.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Visual scanning - Number of omission errors||||0.229
91044645|NCT01546922|181975872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.329||||||A Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was applied, resulting in a significance level of 0.001.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Visual scanning - Number of commission errors||||0.329
91044646|NCT01546922|181975872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.192||||||A Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was applied, resulting in a significance level of 0.001.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Alertness - Reaction time tonic alertness||||0.192
91044647|NCT01546922|181975872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.164||||||A Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was applied, resulting in a significance level of 0.001.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Alertness - Reaction time phasic alertness||||0.164
91044648|NCT01546922|181975872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.536||||||A Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was applied, resulting in a significance level of 0.001.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Semantic fluency||||0.536
91044649|NCT01546922|181975872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.572||||||A Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was applied, resulting in a significance level of 0.001.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Phonemic fluency||||0.572
91044650|NCT01546922|181975872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.632||||||A Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was applied, resulting in a significance level of 0.001.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Digit span backward - Working memory||||0.632
91044651|NCT01546922|181975872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.512||||||A Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was applied, resulting in a significance level of 0.001.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Trail Making Test - Time condition A||||0.512
91044652|NCT01546922|181975872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.861||||||A Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was applied, resulting in a significance level of 0.001.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Trail Making Test - Time condition B||||0.861
91044653|NCT01546922|181975872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.958||||||A Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was applied, resulting in a significance level of 0.001.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Trail Making Test - Condition B/A||||0.958
91044654|NCT01546922|181975872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.819||||||A Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was applied, resulting in a significance level of 0.001.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Social cognition||||0.819
91044655|NCT04894084|181975878|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.49|||Poisson loglinear model|||||0.49|0.07|<0.001
91044656|NCT04894084|181975879|OTHER||Exact test in the binomial distribution|91.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|72.0|99.0||"Low degree + Very low degree / Not at all were tested against the rest of the answers in this analysis."|Exact test in the binomial distribution|||"For secondary endpoints where the possible answer is Yes or No, the proportion of subjects answering Yes was calculated. By use of an exact test in the binomial distribution a 95% confidence interval was estimated for the proportion. It was tested if the proportion was significantly different from 50% when using a 5% test level. For questions answered on a 5-point scale the answers was grouped in 2 (e.g. higher or much higher against the rest of the answers)."||99|72|<0.0001
91044657|NCT04894084|181975880|OTHER||Exact test in the binomial distribution|78.3||||0.0106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.0|93.0||"Some degree, High degree and Very high degree were tested against the rest of the answers in this analysis."|Exact test in the binomial distribution|||For secondary endpoints an exact test in the binomial distribution a 95% confidence interval was estimated for the proportion. It was tested if the proportion was significantly different from 50% when using a 5% test level. For reliability answered on a 5-point scale the answers some, high, or very high degree was considered acceptable and grouped against answers of 'low or very low' degree of reliability.||93|56|0.0106
91044658|NCT04894084|181975881|OTHER||Exact test in the binomial distribution|95.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.0|100.0||"Same, Better and Much better were tested against the rest of the answers in this analysis."|Exact test in the binomial distribution|||For secondary endpoints an exact test in the binomial distribution a 95% confidence interval was estimated for the proportion. For ability to move with test product it was tested if the proportion evaluating same or better was significantly different from 50% when using a 5% test level. The answers of 'same, better or much better' was grouped against the answers of 'worse or much worse' ability to move.||100|78|<0.0001
91044659|NCT04894084|181975882|OTHER|Users worry of leakage given on a 5-point scale was analyzed by a proportional odds ratio model taken the paired design into consideration to compare the results from V1 and V2.|||||<|0.001|||||||Proportional odds ratio model|||||||<0.001
91044660|NCT04894084|181975883|OTHER|"For secondary endpoints where the possible answer is Yes or No, the proportion of subjects answering Yes was calculated. By use of an exact test in the binomial distribution a 95% confidence interval was estimated for the proportion. It was tested if the proportion was significantly different from 50% when using a 5% test level."|Exact test in the binomial distribution|78.3||||0.0106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.0|93.0|||Exact test in the binomial distribution|||||93|56|0.0106
91044661|NCT04894084|181975884|OTHER|"For secondary endpoints where the possible answer is Yes or No, the proportion of subjects answering Yes was calculated. By use of an exact test in the binomial distribution a 95% confidence interval was estimated for the proportion. It was tested if the proportion was significantly different from 50% when using a 5% test level. For questions answered on a 5-point scale the answers was grouped in 2 (e.g. higher or much higher against the rest of the answers)."|Exact test in the binomial distribution|65.2||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.0|84.0||"Higher degree and Much higher degree were tested against the rest of the answers in this analysis."|Exact test in the binomial distribution|||||84|43|0.21
91044662|NCT04894084|181975885|OTHER|"For secondary endpoints where the possible answer is Yes or No, the proportion of subjects answering Yes was calculated. By use of an exact test in the binomial distribution a 95% confidence interval was estimated for the proportion. It was tested if the proportion was significantly different from 50% when using a 5% test level. For questions answered on a 5-point scale the answers was grouped in 2 (e.g. higher or much higher against the rest of the answers)."|Exact test in the binomial distribution|78.3||||0.0106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.0|93.0|||Exact test in the binomial distribution|||||93|56|0.0106
91044663|NCT04894084|181975886|OTHER|"For secondary endpoints where the possible answer is Yes or No, the proportion of subjects answering Yes was calculated. By use of an exact test in the binomial distribution a 95% confidence interval was estimated for the proportion. It was tested if the proportion was significantly different from 50% when using a 5% test level."|Exact test in the binomial distribution|69.6||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.0|87.0|||Exact test in the binomial distribution|||||87|47|0.093
91044664|NCT04894084|181975887|OTHER|By use of an exact test in the binomial distribution a 95% confidence interval was estimated for the proportion. It was tested if the proportion with a positive response was significantly different from 50% when using a 5% test level.|Exact test in the binomial distribution|95.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.0|100.0|||Exact test in the binomial distribution|||||100|78|<0.0001
90996644|NCT02921763|181877274|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0024|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The difference from the value before treatment and change rate were calculated using the summary statistics at each observation point and last observation, and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed for the difference and change rate.||||=0.0024
90996645|NCT02921763|181877274|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The difference from the value before treatment and change rate were calculated using the summary statistics at each observation point and last observation, and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed for the difference and change rate.||||<0.0001
90996646|NCT02921763|181877274|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The difference from the value before treatment and change rate were calculated using the summary statistics at each observation point and last observation, and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed for the difference and change rate.||||<0.0001
90996647|NCT02921763|181877274|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The difference from the value before treatment and change rate were calculated using the summary statistics at each observation point and last observation, and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed for the difference and change rate.||||<0.0001
91044665|NCT04894084|181975888|OTHER|By use of an exact test in the binomial distribution a 95% confidence interval was estimated for the proportion. It was tested if the proportion answering I felt more confident was significantly different from 50% when using a 5% test level.|Exact test in the binomial distribution|91.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|72.0|99.0|||Exact test in the binomial distribution|||||99|72|<0.0001
91044666|NCT04894084|181975889|OTHER|"For secondary endpoints where the possible answer is Yes or No, the proportion of subjects answering Yes was calculated. By use of an exact test in the binomial distribution a 95% confidence interval was estimated for the proportion. It was tested if the proportion was significantly different from 50% when using a 5% test level. For questions answered on a 5-point scale the answers was grouped in 2 (e.g. higher or much higher against the rest of the answers)."|Exact test in the binomial distribution|34.8||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.0|57.0||"Yes, to the better was tested against the rest of the answers in this analysis."|Exact test in the binomial distribution|||||57|16|0.21
91044667|NCT04894084|181975890|OTHER|"For secondary endpoints where the possible answer is Yes or No, the proportion of subjects answering Yes was calculated. By use of an exact test in the binomial distribution a 95% confidence interval was estimated for the proportion. It was tested if the proportion was significantly different from 50% when using a 5% test level. For questions answered on a 5-point scale the answers was grouped in 2 (e.g. higher or much higher against the rest of the answers)."|Exact test in the binomial distribution|47.8||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.0|69.0||"Higher degree and Much higher degree were tested against the rest of the answers in this analysis."|Exact test in the binomial distribution|||||69|27|1.00
91044668|NCT04894084|181975891|OTHER|"For secondary endpoints where the possible answer is Yes or No, the proportion of subjects answering Yes was calculated. By use of an exact test in the binomial distribution a 95% confidence interval was estimated for the proportion. It was tested if the proportion was significantly different from 50% when using a 5% test level."|Exact test in the binomial distribution|56.5||||0.678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.0|77.0|||Exact test in the binomial distribution|||||77|34|0.678
91044669|NCT04894084|181975893|OTHER|"For secondary endpoints where the possible answer is Yes or No, the proportion of subjects answering Yes was calculated. By use of an exact test in the binomial distribution a 95% confidence interval was estimated for the proportion. It was tested if the proportion was significantly different from 50% when using a 5% test level. For questions answered on a 5-point scale the answers was grouped in 2 (e.g. higher or much higher against the rest of the answers)."|Exact test in the binomial distribution|69.6||||0.0931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.0|87.0||"High degree and Very high degree were tested against the rest of the answers in this analysis."|Exact test in the binomial distribution|||||87|47|0.0931
91044670|NCT04894084|181975894|OTHER|"For secondary endpoints where the possible answer is Yes or No, the proportion of subjects answering Yes was calculated. By use of an exact test in the binomial distribution a 95% confidence interval was estimated for the proportion. It was tested if the proportion was significantly different from 50% when using a 5% test level."|Exact test in the binomial distribution|87.0||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|66.0|97.0|||Exact test in the binomial distribution|||||97|66|0.0005
91044671|NCT02551679|181975897|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|2.046||||0.258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.577|7.255|||ANCOVA|||The primary hypothesis of this study is that ACP-01 is superior to placebo in terms of the earlier time from treatment with Investigational Medicinal Product (IMP) to either de-novo gangrene, or doubling of wound size, or major amputation, or death.||7.255|0.577|0.258
91044672|NCT01573533|181975905|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline vs 12 months||||0.49
91044673|NCT01573533|181975906|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline vs 12 months||||0.41
91044674|NCT01573533|181975907|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline vs 12 months||||0.06
91044675|NCT00418522|181975924|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority test utilized a one-sided 2.5% level of significance.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.38|0.0|||ANCOVA||A confidence interval (CI) approach was presented with a two-sided 95% CI of the difference between treatment and control.|The null hypothesis was that the inhaled human insulin group was inferior to the insulin glargine group with respect to 26-week change from baseline in HbA1c, while the alternate hypothesis is that the inhaled human insulin group was not inferior to the insulin glargine group with respect to 26-week change from baseline in HbA1c, given the predetermined non-inferiority margin of 0.4%.||0|-0.38|<0.0001
91044676|NCT00418522|181975924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.0516||95.0|-0.38|0.0|||ANCOVA||The superiority test used a one-sided 2.5% level of significance.|With an established non-inferiority claim, an additional test for superiority was conducted (ie, the margin was 0.0%).||0|-0.38|0.0516
91044677|NCT00418522|181975925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.96||||0.0052||95.0|1.22|3.14|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.14|1.22|0.0052
91044678|NCT00418522|181975926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.01||||0.0022||95.0|1.29|3.15|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.15|1.29|0.0022
91044679|NCT00418522|181975927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71||||0.248||95.0|0.4|1.27|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.27|0.40|0.2480
91044680|NCT00418522|181975928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.57||||0.6091||95.0|-7.31|12.46|||ANCOVA|||||12.46|-7.31|0.6091
91044681|NCT00418522|181975929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.96|||<|0.0001||95.0|22.66|43.25|||ANCOVA|||Time 0 (fasting) at Week 26.||43.25|22.66|<0.0001
91044682|NCT00418522|181975929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.57|||<|0.0001||95.0|16.55|40.59|||ANCOVA|||Time 30 at Week 26.||40.59|16.55|<0.0001
91044683|NCT00418522|181975929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.96||||0.0044||95.0|5.96|31.96|||ANCOVA|||Time 60 at Week 26.||31.96|5.96|0.0044
91044684|NCT00418522|181975929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.69||||0.3168||95.0|-6.45|19.83|||ANCOVA|||Time 90 at Week 26.||19.83|-6.45|0.3168
91044685|NCT00418522|181975929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.63||||0.9222||95.0|-12.12|13.39|||ANCOVA|||Time 120 at Week 26.||13.39|-12.12|0.9222
91044686|NCT00418522|181975929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.41||||0.695||95.0|-14.51|9.69|||ANCOVA|||Time 180 at Week 26.||9.69|-14.51|0.6950
91044687|NCT00418522|181975930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.61||||0.1207||95.0|-21.76|2.54|||ANCOVA|||Post-Breakfast, Week 26.||2.54|-21.76|0.1207
91044688|NCT00418522|181975930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.11|||<|0.0001||95.0|-39.77|-18.44|||ANCOVA|||Post-Lunch, Week 26.||-18.44|-39.77|<0.0001
91044689|NCT00418522|181975930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-33.76|||<|0.0001||95.0|-44.17|-23.35|||ANCOVA|||Post-Dinner, Week 26.||-23.35|-44.17|<0.0001
91044690|NCT00418522|181975931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.21||||0.0735||95.0|-0.5|10.91|||ANCOVA|||Total Cholesterol at Week 26.||10.91|-0.50|0.0735
91044691|NCT00418522|181975931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.09||||0.0017||95.0|0.79|3.39|||ANCOVA|||HDL-c at Week 26.||3.39|0.79|0.0017
91044692|NCT00418522|181975931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.43||||0.1369||95.0|-1.1|7.96|||ANCOVA|||LDL-c at Week 26.||7.96|-1.10|0.1369
91044693|NCT00418522|181975931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.26||||0.5684||95.0|-10.4|18.92|||ANCOVA|||Triglycerides at Week 26.||18.92|-10.40|0.5684
91044694|NCT00418522|181975932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24||||0.5673||95.0|-0.58|1.06|||ANCOVA|||hs-CRP at Week 26.||1.06|-0.58|0.5673
91044695|NCT00418522|181975932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61||||0.6099||95.0|-2.97|1.75|||ANCOVA|||Leptin at Week 26.||1.75|-2.97|0.6099
91044696|NCT00418522|181975932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.28||||0.7684||95.0|-12.94|17.51|||ANCOVA|||Spot urine microalbumin at Week 26.||17.51|-12.94|0.7684
91044697|NCT00418522|181975933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.36||||0.5005||95.0|-0.69|1.42|||ANCOVA|||Adiponectin at Week 26.||1.42|-0.69|0.5005
91044698|NCT00418522|181975933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.685||95.0|-0.03|0.04|||ANCOVA|||ApoB at Week 26.||0.04|-0.03|0.6850
91044699|NCT00418522|181975934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|58.7||||0.1856||95.0|-43.37|160.77|||ANCOVA|||||160.77|-43.37|0.1856
91044700|NCT00418522|181975935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.72||||0.1862||95.0|-51.34|13.89|||ANCOVA|||||13.89|-51.34|0.1862
91044701|NCT00418522|181975941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2||||0.0055||95.0|0.35|2.04|||ANCOVA|||||2.04|0.35|0.0055
91044702|NCT00418522|181975942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.42||||0.0053||95.0|0.12|0.71|||ANCOVA|||||0.71|0.12|0.0053
91044703|NCT00418522|181975944|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority test utilized a one-sided 2.5% level of significance.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.47|-0.08|||ANCOVA||A CI approach was presented with a two-sided 95% CI of the difference between treatment and control.|The null hypothesis was that the inhaled human insulin group was inferior to the insulin glargine group with respect to 26-week change from baseline in HbA1c, while the alternate hypothesis is that the inhaled human insulin group was not inferior to the insulin glargine group with respect to 26-week change from baseline in HbA1c, given the predetermined non-inferiority margin of 0.4%.||-0.08|-0.47|<0.0001
91044704|NCT00418522|181975944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27||||0.0062||95.0|-0.47|-0.08|||ANCOVA||The superiority test used a one-sided 2.5% level of significance.|With an established non-inferiority claim, an additional test for superiority was conducted (ie, the margin was 0.0%).||-0.08|-0.47|0.0062
91044705|NCT01005329|181975945|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The rate of the acute specified AEs (adverse events) from previous (and prior to ClinicalTrials.gov requirements) Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) trial 9708 of RT + cisplatin was 44% and the hypothesis is that the addition of bevacizumab to IMRT + cisplatin will not increase this rate beyond 60%. This study was designed with a 1-sided, upper bound confidence interval to estimate this AE rate. Twenty-seven evaluable patients were required to have 95% confidence that the true grade 3+ non-hematologic treatment-related AE rate is not greater than 60%. Please note that this is a 95% ONE-SIDED confidence bound which is equivalent to the upper bound of a two-sided 90% confidence interval.|||
91044706|NCT02147587|181975952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMFR|1.213|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.033|1.424|||ANCOVA|Repeated-measures ANCOVA model for the log-transformed GMFRs are adjusted for baseline factors. GMFRs and 80% CIs are back-transformed from log scale.|Ratio of GMFRs (Tofacitinib/Placebo) at Week 4|Geometric Mean Fold Rise (GMFR) for Tofacitinib versus Placebo (Week 4)||1.424|1.033|
91044707|NCT02147587|181975953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMFR|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.877|1.209|||ANCOVA|Repeated-measures ANCOVA model for the log-transformed GMFRs are adjusted for baseline factors. GMFRs and 80% CIs are back-transformed from log scale.|Ratio of GMFRs (Tofacitinib/Placebo) at Day 1|GMFR for Tofacitinib versus Placebo (Day 1)||1.209|0.877|
91044708|NCT02147587|181975953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMFR|1.093|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.924|1.294|||ANCOVA|Repeated-measures ANCOVA model for the log-transformed GMFRs are adjusted for baseline factors. GMFRs and 80% CIs are back-transformed from log scale.|Ratio of GMFRs (Tofacitinib/Placebo) at Week 12|GMFR for Tofacitinib versus Placebo (Week 12)||1.294|0.924|
91044709|NCT02147587|181975954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.063|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.821|1.375|||ANCOVA|Repeated-measures ANCOVA model for the log-transformed GMTs are adjusted for baseline factors. GMTs and 80% CIs are back-transformed from log scale.|Ratio of GMTs (Tofacitinib/Placebo) at Day 1|Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) for Tofacitinib versus Placebo (Day 1)||1.375|0.821|
91044710|NCT02147587|181975954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.251|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.967|1.618|||ANCOVA|Repeated-measures ANCOVA model for the log-transformed GMTs are adjusted for baseline factors. GMTs and 80% CIs are back-transformed from log scale.|Ratio of GMTs (Tofacitinib/Placebo) at Week 4|GMT for Tofacitinib versus Placebo (Week 4)||1.618|0.967|
91044711|NCT02147587|181975954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.121|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.862|1.459|||ANCOVA|Repeated-measures ANCOVA model for the log-transformed GMTs are adjusted for baseline factors. GMTs and 80% CIs are back-transformed from log scale.|Ratio of GMTs (Tofacitinib/Placebo) at Week 12|GMT for Tofacitinib versus Placebo (Week 12)||1.459|0.862|
91044712|NCT02147587|181975955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|8.39|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.05|20.56|||80% CI based on Chan and Zhang method|||Tofacitinib versus Placebo (Day 1)||20.56|-4.05|
91044713|NCT02147587|181975955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|14.01|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.57|26.03|||80% CI based on Chan and Zhang method|||Tofacitinib versus Placebo (Week 4)||26.03|1.57|
91044714|NCT02147587|181975955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|2.65|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-10.66|15.83|||80% CI based on Chan and Zhang method|||Tofacitinib versus Placebo (Week 12)||15.83|-10.66|
91044715|NCT01315028|181975970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.05
91044716|NCT01315028|181975971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.996||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Parametric and non-parametric descriptive data were summarised and presented. All data analyses were based on the Intention to Treat (ITT) principle. For the main analysis, Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance was performed to identify signals suggesting treatment effects on the outcome measures. Effect sizes were also calculated in order to further examine suggestive trends in the data indicating appropriate outcomes for further research.||||0.996
91044717|NCT01315028|181975972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91044718|NCT01315028|181975973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91044719|NCT01493596|181975995|OTHER|Comparison of event rates across dose groups.|percentage|14.3|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||There were a total of 5 non-serious adverse events for an AE rate of 14.3%|Descriptive statistics for evaluation of AEs|Descriptive statistics of adverse events|||
91044720|NCT01175473|181975996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares (LS) Mean Difference|-154.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-180.3|-128.54||Linear fixed effects model with fixed terms for treatment, study site and GLU-AUC(0:30-4:30h) at baseline as covariate was used (using Statistical Analysis System \[SAS®\] PROC MIXED procedure).|Linear fixed effects model|No alpha adjustment was performed.||To detect a difference of 100 or 150 h\*mg/dL in change from baseline to Day 28 in GLU-AUC(0:30-4:30h) between lixisenatide and liraglutide, 60 patients per group would provide a power of 90% assuming common standard deviation of 170 or 250 h\*mg/dL, respectively, with a 2-sided test at 5% significance level.||-128.54|-180.30|<0.0001
91044721|NCT04234464|181976010|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.09|16.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Maximum percentage fall in post-dose pre-exercise FEV₁ up to 60 minutes post-exercise challenge is analyzed using a mixed effects model adjusted for treatment, treatment period, treatment sequence as categorical fixed effects, period-specific pre-dose baseline FEV₁ and average pre-dose baseline FEV₁ as continuous covariates, and a random subject within treatment sequence effect.||16.94|10.09|<0.001
91044722|NCT04234464|181976011|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.548|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.311|25.805|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A generalized linear mixed model with logit link adjusted for treatment, treatment period and treatment sequence as fixed effects, pre-dose baseline FEV₁ and average pre-dose baseline FEV₁ as continuous covariates, and a random subject within treatment sequence effect.||25.805|4.311|<0.001
91044723|NCT03635983|181976014|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of Odds Ratio (OR)|0.66||||0.0311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.96|||Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|two-sided|Strata adjusted odds ratio (NKTR-214 + Nivolumab over Nivolumab) using Mantel-Haenszel method.|Bempegaldesleukin+Nivolumab over Nivolumab||0.96|0.45|0.0311
91044724|NCT03635983|181976015|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.3988||95.0|0.89|1.33||Log-rank stratified 2-sided. Boundary for statistical significance p-value \< 0.03|Log Rank||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model. Hazard Ratio is NKTR-214 + Nivolumab over Nivolumab|||1.33|0.89|0.3988
91044725|NCT03635983|181976016|SUPERIORITY|Bempegaldesleukin+Nivolumab over Nivolumab|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.6361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.22|||Log Rank|2-sided p-value. Boundary for statistical significance p-value \< 0.00071|Stratified Cox proportional hazard model. Hazard Ratio is NKTR-214 + Nivolumab over Nivolumab.|||1.22|0.72|0.6361
91044726|NCT03635983|181976020|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.0626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.02|||Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|two-sided|Strata adjusted odds ratio (NKTR-214 + Nivolumab over Nivolumab) using Mantel-Haenszel method.|Bempegaldesleukin+Nivolumab over Nivolumab||1.02|0.48|0.0626
91044727|NCT03635983|181976021|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.3713||95.0|0.9|1.33||Log-rank stratified 2-sided. Boundary for statistical significance p-value \< 0.03|Log Rank||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model. Hazard Ratio is NKTR-214 + Nivolumab over Nivolumab|||1.33|0.90|0.3713
91044728|NCT03635983|181976025|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.63||||||95.0|0.32|1.24|||||Logistic regression model with treatment, PD-L1 Status and treatment by PD-L1 Status interaction. Responders includes CR+PR|Bempegaldesleukin+Nivolumab vs. Nivolumab (PD-L1 Negative: \<1%)||1.24|0.32|
91044729|NCT03635983|181976025|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.63||||0.9939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.02|||Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Interaction P-value|Logistic regression model with treatment, PD-L1 Status and treatment by PD-L1 Status interaction. Responders includes CR+PR|Bempegaldesleukin+Nivolumab vs. Nivolumab (PD-L1 Positive: \>=1%)||1.02|0.39|0.9939
91044730|NCT03635983|181976026|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.43|||||Unstratified Hazard Ratio|Bempegaldesleukin+Nivolumab vs. Nivo (PD-L1 negative: \<1%)||1.43|0.81|
91044731|NCT03635983|181976026|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||||95.0|0.83|1.51|||||Unstratified Hazard Ratio|Bempegaldesleukin+Nivolumab vs. Nivo (PD-L1 positive: \>=1%)||1.51|0.83|
91044732|NCT03635983|181976027|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.4|||||Unstratified Hazard Ratio|Bempegaldesleukin+Nivolumab vs. Nivo (PD-L1 negative: \<1%)||1.40|0.66|
91044733|NCT03635983|181976027|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||||95.0|0.58|1.33|||||Unstratified Hazard Ratio|Bempegaldesleukin+Nivolumab vs. Nivo (PD-L1 positive: \>=1%)||1.33|0.58|
91044734|NCT00739973|181976049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-9.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.81|-7.12|||ANCOVA|A two-way analysis of covariance model with treatment and region as two factors, and the baseline as a covariate.||||-7.12|-12.81|<0.001
91044735|NCT00739973|181976050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean Difference|-4.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.47||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|-1.94|||ANCOVA|A two-way analysis of covariance model with treatment and region as two factors, and the baseline as a covariate.||||-1.94|-7.70|0.001
91044736|NCT00739973|181976051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-13.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.44|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.68|-11.0|||ANCOVA|A two-way analysis of covariance model with treatment and region as two factors, and the baseline as a covariate.||||-11.0|-16.68|<0.001
91044737|NCT00739973|181976052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-13.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.04|-10.4|||ANCOVA|A two-way analysis of covariance model with treatment and region as two factors, and the baseline as a covariate.||||-10.4|-16.04|<0.001
91044738|NCT00739973|181976053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.77|-4.22|||ANCOVA|A two-way analysis of covariance model with treatment and region as two factors, and the baseline as a covariate.||||-4.22|-7.77|<0.001
91044739|NCT00739973|181976054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.77|-1.19|||ANCOVA|A two-way analysis of covariance model with treatment and region as two factors, and the baseline as a covariate.||||-1.19|-4.77|0.001
91044740|NCT00739973|181976055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-8.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.39|-6.87|||ANCOVA|A two-way analysis of covariance model with treatment and region as two factors, and the baseline as a covariate.||||-6.87|-10.39|<0.001
91044741|NCT00739973|181976056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-8.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.94|-6.4|||ANCOVA|A two-way analysis of covariance model with treatment and region as two factors, and the baseline as a covariate.||||-6.40|-9.94|<0.001
91044742|NCT00739973|181976057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Sqaure Mean Difference|-2.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.92||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.14|-0.53|||ANCOVA|A two-way analysis of covariance model with treatment and region as two factors, and the baseline as a covariate.||||-0.53|-4.14|0.011
91044743|NCT00739973|181976058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-10.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.57|-9.05|||ANCOVA|A two-way analysis of covariance model with treatment and region as two factors, and the baseline as a covariate.||||-9.05|-12.57|<0.001
91044744|NCT00739973|181976059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-4.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.56|-3.03|||ANCOVA|A two-way analysis of covariance model with treatment and region as two factors, and the baseline as a covariate.||||-3.03|-6.56|<0.001
91044745|NCT00739973|181976060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.92|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.78|-2.18|||ANCOVA|A two-way analysis of covariance model with treatment and region as two factors, and the baseline as a covariate.||||-2.18|-5.78|<0.001
91044746|NCT00739973|181976061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-9.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.41|-7.87|||ANCOVA|A two-way analysis of covariance model with treatment and region as two factors, and the baseline as a covariate.||||-7.87|-11.41|<0.001
91044747|NCT00739973|181976062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-6.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|-4.51|||ANCOVA|A two-way analysis of covariance model with treatment and region as two factors, and the baseline as a covariate.||||-4.51|-8.00|<0.001
91044748|NCT00739973|181976063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.92||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.42|-0.83|||ANCOVA|A two-way analysis of covariance model with treatment and region as two factors, and the baseline as a covariate.||||-0.83|-4.42|0.004
91044749|NCT00739973|181976064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-11.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.85|-9.35|||ANCOVA|A two-way analysis of covariance model with treatment and region as two factors, and the baseline as a covariate.||||-9.35|-12.85|<0.001
91044750|NCT00739973|181976065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.48||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.73|-0.07|||ANCOVA|A two-way analysis of covariance model with treatment and region as two factors, and the baseline as a covariate.||||-0.07|-5.73|0.056
91044751|NCT00739973|181976066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-17.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.44|<|0.001||95.0|-19.91|-14.3|||ANCOVA|A two-way analysis of covariance model with treatment and region as two factors, and the baseline as a covariate.||||-14.3|-19.91|<0.001
91044752|NCT00739973|181976067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-6.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.29|-3.62|||ANCOVA|A two-way analysis of covariance model with treatment and region as two factors, and the baseline as a covariate.||||-3.62|-9.29|<0.001
91044753|NCT00739973|181976068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.48|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|-3.11|||ANCOVA|A two-way analysis of covariance model with treatment and region asntwo factors, and the baseline as a covariate.||||-3.11|-8.90|<0.001
91044754|NCT00739973|181976069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-15.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.88|-12.2|||ANCOVA|||||-12.2|-17.88|<0.001
91044755|NCT00739973|181976070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-7.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.43|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.63|-5.02|||ANCOVA|A two-way analysis of covariance model with treatment and region as two factors, and the baseline as a covariate.||||-5.02|-10.63|<0.001
91044756|NCT00739973|181976071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.47||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.04|0.73|||ANCOVA|A two-way analysis of covariance model with treatment and region as two factors, and the baseline as a covariate.||||0.73|-5.04|0.143
91044757|NCT00739973|181976072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-16.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.43|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.21|-13.6|||ANCOVA|A two-way analysis of covariance model with treatment and region as two factors, and the baseline as a covariate.||||-13.6|-19.21|<0.001
91044758|NCT02875028|181976079|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.029
91044759|NCT05068284|181976091|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|20.6|||||Risk difference = (ABBV-154 - placebo)|||20.6|-6.3|
91044760|NCT05068284|181976091|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|33.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.7|60.0|||||Risk difference = (ABBV-154 - placebo)|||60.0|6.7|
91044761|NCT05068284|181976091|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|28.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|52.2|||||Risk difference = (ABBV-154 - placebo)|||52.2|4.9|
91044762|NCT05068284|181976091|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|27.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|53.6|||||Risk difference = (ABBV-154 - placebo)|||53.6|1.0|
91044763|NCT05068284|181976092|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.8|43.6|||||Risk difference = (ABBV-154 - placebo)|||43.6|-19.8|
91044764|NCT05068284|181976092|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|29.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|63.8|||||Risk difference = (ABBV-154 - placebo)|||63.8|-4.8|
91044765|NCT05068284|181976092|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|19.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|51.8|||||Risk difference = (ABBV-154 - placebo)|||51.8|-13.7|
91044766|NCT05068284|181976092|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|23.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|60.3|||||Risk difference = (ABBV-154 - placebo)|||60.3|-13.6|
91044767|NCT05068284|181976093|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.5|41.0|||||Risk difference = (ABBV-154 - placebo)|||41.0|-18.5|
91044768|NCT05068284|181976093|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|38.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|71.9|||||Risk difference = (ABBV-154 - placebo)|||71.9|5.0|
91044769|NCT05068284|181976093|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|24.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|56.2|||||Risk difference = (ABBV-154 - placebo)|||56.2|-7.0|
91044770|NCT05068284|181976093|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|39.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|74.5|||||Risk difference = (ABBV-154 - placebo)|||74.5|3.8|
91044771|NCT04039919|181976105|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean ratio|0.785|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6513|0.9461||||||The log-transformed PK parameters was analyzed by a mixed analysis of variance (ANOVA) with period and treatment as fixed effects and study participant as the random effect. The estimates and confidence intervals are back-transformed after the analysis.||0.9461|0.6513|
91044772|NCT04039919|181976106|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.8342|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6999|0.9942||||||The log-transformed PK parameters was analyzed by a mixed ANOVA with period and treatment as fixed effects and study participant as the random effect. The estimates and confidence intervals are back-transformed after the analysis.||0.9942|0.6999|
91044773|NCT05918822|181976129|OTHER|A mixed-effects model was applied to log (ln)-transformed plasma maribavir Cmax with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as random effect. Point estimates and their associated 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were constructed for differences between Treatment B (test) versus Treatment A (reference). Point estimate and their associated 90% CIs were then back transformed to provide point estimates and 90% CIs for ratios of Treatment B versus Treatment A.|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR) (%)|82.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.31|90.91|||||GMR (%) was calculated as 100\*(Test/Reference).|Comparison of Cmax of Maribavir: Part 1: Treatment B (Test) versus Treatment A (Reference)||90.91|74.31|
91044774|NCT05918822|181976129|OTHER|A mixed-effects model was applied to ln-transformed plasma maribavir Cmax with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a random effect. Point estimates and their associated 90 percent (%) CIs were constructed for differences between Treatment C (test) versus Treatment B (reference). Point estimates and their associated 90% CIs were then back transformed to provide point estimates and 90% CIs for ratios of Treatment C versus Treatment B.|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR) (%)|57.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|52.18|63.84|||||GMR (%) was calculated as 100\*(Test/Reference).|Comparison of Cmax of Maribavir: Part 1: Treatment C (Test) versus Treatment B (Reference)||63.84|52.18|
91044775|NCT05918822|181976129|OTHER|A mixed-effects model was applied to ln-transformed plasma maribavir Cmax with treatment as a fixed effect, and participant as a random effect. Point estimates and their associated 90% CIs were constructed for the differences between Treatment E (test) versus Treatment D (reference). The point estimates and their associated 90% CIs were then back transformed to provide point estimates and 90% CIs for the ratios of Treatment E versus Treatment D.|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR) (%)|49.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|40.07|60.0|||||GMR (%) was calculated as 100\*(Test/Reference).|Comparison of Cmax of Maribavir: Part 2: Treatment E (Test) versus Treatment D (Reference)||60.00|40.07|
91044776|NCT05918822|181976130|OTHER|A mixed-effects model was applied to ln-transformed plasma maribavir AUClast with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a random effect. Point estimates and their associated 90% CIs were constructed for differences between Treatment B (test) versus Treatment A (reference). Point estimates and their associated 90% CIs were then back transformed to provide point estimates and 90% CIs for ratios of Treatment B versus Treatment A.|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR) (%)|97.59|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.39|104.2|||||GMR (%) was calculated as 100\*(Test/Reference).|Comparison of AUClast of Maribavir: Part 1: Treatment B (Test) versus Treatment A (Reference)||104.20|91.39|
91044777|NCT05918822|181976130|OTHER|A mixed-effects model was applied to ln-transformed plasma maribavir AUClast with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a random effect. Point estimates and their associated 90% CIs were constructed for differences between Treatment C (test) versus Treatment B (reference). Point estimates and their associated 90% CIs were then back transformed to provide point estimates and 90% CIs for ratios of Treatment C versus Treatment B.|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR) (%)|82.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.84|87.61|||||GMR (%) was calculated as 100\*(Test/Reference).|Comparison of AUClast of Maribavir: Part 1: Treatment C (Test) versus Treatment B (Reference)||87.61|76.84|
91044778|NCT05918822|181976130|OTHER|A mixed-effects model was applied to ln-transformed plasma maribavir AUClast with treatment as a fixed effect, and participant as a random effect. Point estimates and their associated 90% CIs were constructed for the differences between Treatment E (test) versus Treatment D (reference). The point estimates and their associated 90% CIs were then back transformed to provide point estimates and 90% CIs for the ratios of Treatment E versus Treatment D.|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR) (%)|70.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.11|81.51|||||GMR (%) was calculated as 100\*(Test/Reference).|Comparison of AUClast of Maribavir: Part 2: Treatment E (Test) versus Treatment D (Reference)||81.51|60.11|
91044779|NCT05918822|181976131|OTHER|A mixed-effects model was applied to ln-transformed plasma maribavir AUC0-infinity with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a random effect. Point estimates and their associated 90% CIs were constructed for differences between Treatment B (test) versus Treatment A (reference). Point estimates and their associated 90% CIs were then back transformed to provide point estimates and 90% CIs for ratios of Treatment B versus Treatment A.|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR) (%)|99.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.12|106.11|||||GMR (%) was calculated as 100\*(Test/Reference).|Comparison of AUC0-infinity of Maribavir: Part 1: Treatment B (Test) versus Treatment A (Reference)||106.11|94.12|
91044780|NCT05918822|181976131|OTHER|A mixed-effects model was applied to ln-transformed plasma maribavir AUC0-infinity with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a random effect. Point estimates and their associated 90% CIs were constructed for differences between Treatment C (test) versus Treatment B (reference). Point estimates and their associated 90% CIs were then back transformed to provide point estimates and 90% CIs for ratios of Treatment C versus Treatment B.|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR) (%)|81.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.93|86.73||||||Comparison of AUC0-infinity of Maribavir: Part 1: Treatment C (Test) versus Treatment B (Reference)||86.73|76.93|
91044781|NCT05918822|181976131|OTHER|A mixed-effects model was applied to ln-transformed plasma maribavir AUC0-infinity with treatment as a fixed effect, and participant as a random effect. Point estimates and their associated 90% CIs were constructed for the differences between Treatment E (test) versus Treatment D (reference). The point estimates and their associated 90% CIs were then back transformed to provide point estimates and 90% CIs for the ratios of Treatment E versus Treatment D.|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR) (%)|88.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.94|102.78|||||GMR (%) was calculated as 100\*(Test/Reference).|Comparison of AUC0-infinity of Maribavir: Part 2: Treatment E (Test) versus Treatment D (Reference)||102.78|76.94|
91044782|NCT03346070|181976139|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.92||||0.0075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|3.1|||Log Rank||Cox regression model|||3.10|1.18|0.0075
91044783|NCT03346070|181976139|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|25.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.72|69.03|||Log Rank||Cox regression model|||69.03|9.72|<0.0001
91044784|NCT03346070|181976139|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|61.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.13|266.77|||Log Rank||Cox regression model|||266.77|14.13|<0.0001
91044785|NCT03346070|181976139|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.38||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|3.93|||Log Rank||Cox regression model|||3.93|1.44|0.0005
91044786|NCT03346070|181976139|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|3.01|||Log Rank||Cox regression model|||3.01|1.50|<0.0001
91044787|NCT03346070|181976140|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|2.3||||0.602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|15.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||15.0|-9.6|0.602
91044788|NCT03346070|181976140|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|0.2||||0.969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|13.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||13.5|-13.4|0.969
91044789|NCT03346070|181976140|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|2.6||||0.567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|15.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||15.0|-8.7|0.567
91044790|NCT03346070|181976140|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|2.6||||0.571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|15.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||15.0|-8.8|0.571
91044791|NCT03346070|181976140|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-0.2||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|10.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||10.9|-11.6|0.950
91044792|NCT03346070|181976140|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|2.9||||0.528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|15.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||15.9|-8.4|0.528
91044793|NCT03346070|181976140|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|1.3||||0.709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|9.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||9.6|-6.8|0.709
91044794|NCT03346070|181976141|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|2.2||||0.738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|17.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||17.4|-12.3|0.738
91044795|NCT03346070|181976141|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|11.1||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|26.3|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||26.3|-1.7|0.077
91044796|NCT03346070|181976141|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|2.4||||0.717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|16.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||16.4|-12.0|0.717
91044797|NCT03346070|181976141|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|5.0||||0.486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|19.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||19.7|-9.9|0.486
91044798|NCT03346070|181976141|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-1.2||||0.849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|12.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||12.4|-16.2|0.849
91044799|NCT03346070|181976141|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-4.9||||0.339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.2|6.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||6.7|-18.2|0.339
91044800|NCT03346070|181976141|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|6.6||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|16.8|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||16.8|-2.6|0.149
91044801|NCT03346070|181976142|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-2.7||||0.299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|6.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||6.7|-13.9|0.299
91044802|NCT03346070|181976142|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|0.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|9.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||9.4|-9.9|>0.999
91044803|NCT03346070|181976142|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-2.6||||0.326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|7.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||7.0|-13.7|0.326
91044804|NCT03346070|181976142|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-2.5||||0.335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|7.1|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||7.1|-13.6|0.335
91044805|NCT03346070|181976142|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|0.3||||0.935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|11.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||11.9|-11.1|0.935
91044806|NCT03346070|181976142|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-2.7||||0.326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|7.3|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||7.3|-13.8|0.326
91044807|NCT03346070|181976142|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-1.4||||0.299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|3.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||3.5|-7.5|0.299
91044808|NCT03346070|181976143|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|13.1|||||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||13.1|-12.7|
91044809|NCT03346070|181976143|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.6|12.2|||||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||12.2|-19.6|
91044810|NCT03346070|181976143|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|19.7|||||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||19.7|-8.1|
91044811|NCT03346070|181976143|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|13.1|||||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||13.1|-18.0|
91044812|NCT03346070|181976143|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|19.2|||||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||19.2|-9.6|
91044813|NCT03346070|181976143|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|17.0|||||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||17.0|-12.5|
91044814|NCT03346070|181976143|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|7.8|||||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||7.8|-11.4|
91044815|NCT03346070|181976144|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|9.1|||||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||9.1|-15.2|
91044816|NCT03346070|181976144|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-8.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.3|1.3|||||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||1.3|-22.3|
91044817|NCT03346070|181976144|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.8|6.8|||||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||6.8|-18.8|
91044818|NCT03346070|181976144|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.2|1.8|||||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||1.8|-21.2|
91044819|NCT03346070|181976144|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|10.5|||||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||10.5|-17.0|
91044820|NCT03346070|181976144|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|15.5|||||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||15.5|-14.0|
91044821|NCT03346070|181976144|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|1.2|||||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||1.2|-13.9|
91044822|NCT03346070|181976145|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|7.3|||||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||7.3|-13.4|
91044823|NCT03346070|181976145|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|10.8|||||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||10.8|-12.3|
91044824|NCT03346070|181976145|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|7.0|||||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||7.0|-13.7|
91044825|NCT03346070|181976145|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|11.7|||||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||11.7|-11.2|
91044826|NCT03346070|181976145|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|11.0|||||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||11.0|-11.5|
91044827|NCT03346070|181976145|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|12.0|||||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||12.0|-11.0|
91044828|NCT03346070|181976146|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|16.9|||||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||16.9|-10.8|
91044829|NCT03346070|181976146|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-76.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-87.2|-57.6|||||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||-57.6|-87.2|
91044830|NCT03346070|181976146|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-78.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-88.8|-61.1|||||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||-61.1|-88.8|
91044831|NCT03346070|181976146|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|14.2|||||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||14.2|-7.2|
91044832|NCT03346070|181976146|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|11.0|||||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||11.0|-4.8|
91044833|NCT03346070|181976147|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric means|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.86|||||Log transformation and t-distribution|||0.86|0.48|
91044834|NCT03346070|181976147|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric means|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.12|||||Log transformation and t-distribution|||0.12|0.06|
91044835|NCT03346070|181976147|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric means|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.19|||||Log transformation and t-distribution|||0.19|0.10|
91044836|NCT03346070|181976147|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric means|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.71|||||Log transformation and t-distribution|||0.71|0.40|
91044837|NCT03346070|181976147|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric means|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.72|||||Log transformation and t-distribution|||0.72|0.48|
91044838|NCT03346070|181976148|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric means|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.8|||||Log transformation and t-distribution|||0.80|0.50|
91044839|NCT03346070|181976148|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric means|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.13|||||Log transformation and t-distribution|||0.13|0.07|
91044840|NCT03346070|181976148|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric means|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.2|||||Log transformation and t-distribution|||0.20|0.11|
91044841|NCT03346070|181976148|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric means|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.72|||||Log transformation and t-distribution|||0.72|0.44|
91044842|NCT03346070|181976148|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric means|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.7|||||Log transformation and t-distribution|||0.70|0.51|
91044843|NCT03346070|181976149|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric means|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.81|||||Log transformation and t-distribution|||0.81|0.54|
91044844|NCT03346070|181976149|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric means|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.17|||||Log transformation and t-distribution|||0.17|0.09|
90996648|NCT02921763|181877274|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The difference from the value before treatment and change rate were calculated using the summary statistics at each observation point and last observation, and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed for the difference and change rate.||||<0.0001
91044845|NCT03346070|181976149|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric means|0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.27|||||Log transformation and t-distribution|||0.27|0.14|
91044846|NCT03346070|181976149|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric means|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.83|||||Log transformation and t-distribution|||0.83|0.52|
91044847|NCT03346070|181976149|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric means|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.77|||||Log transformation and t-distribution|||0.77|0.57|
91044848|NCT00988208|181976161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.53||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|2.0||p-value is based on unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||||2.00|1.17|0.0017
91044849|NCT00988208|181976162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.32||||0.0187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.66|||Log Rank|P-value is based on unstratified log-rank test||||1.66|1.05|0.0187
91044850|NCT00988208|181976163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.884||||0.3975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.665|1.176|||Chi-squared|||||1.176|0.665|0.3975
91044851|NCT03008837|181976168|OTHER|Using seed-based analysis with a right posterior insula seed, cluster size was set at 40 voxels, and p-value was thresholded at p\<0.05 to compare the differences between the two groups in terms of connectivity between the right posterior insula and areas of the DMN identified based on a priori hypotheses.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|40.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Standard therapy control (post-pre) was subtracted from PENFS (post-pre).|PENFS (post-pre) - Standard Therapy (post-pre)||||<0.05
91044852|NCT02000531|181976186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.26|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|2.62|||Log Rank|||||2.62|0.61|>0.05
91044853|NCT00317642|181976206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.9951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.28|||Log Rank|||Full Analysis Set (FAS) population||1.28|0.78|0.9951
91044854|NCT00317642|181976206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.4674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.57|||Log Rank|||Participants stratified by calculated strata remission after first pre-study induction regimen (CR1) \< 6 months||1.57|0.81|0.4674
91044855|NCT00317642|181976206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.3963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.24|||Log Rank|||Participants stratified by calculated strata CR1\>= 6 months||1.24|0.58|0.3963
91044856|NCT00317642|181976207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Full Analysis Set (FAS) population - overall remission (OR)||||<0.0001
91044857|NCT00317642|181976207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Full Analysis Set (FAS) population - Complete Remission (CR)||||0.0005
91044858|NCT00317642|181976207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0022||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Participants stratified by calculated strata - CR1 \<6 months \[Overall Remission (CR+CRi)\]||||0.0022
91044859|NCT00317642|181976207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0019||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Participants stratified by calculated strata - CR1 \>=6 months \[Overall Remission (CR+CRi)\]||||0.0019
90996649|NCT02921763|181877275|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0037|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The difference from the value before treatment and change rate were calculated using the summary statistics at each observation point and last observation, and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed for the difference and change rate.||||=0.0037
91044860|NCT00317642|181976207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0353||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Participants stratified by calculated strata - CR1 \<6 months \[Complete Remission (CR)\]||||0.0353
91044861|NCT00317642|181976207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0096||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Participants stratified by calculated strata - CR1 \>=6 months \[Complete Remission (CR)\]||||0.0096
91044862|NCT00317642|181976212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.8|||Log Rank|||Full Analysis Set (FAS) population.||0.80|0.49|0.0001
91044863|NCT00317642|181976212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.0131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.93|||Log Rank|Comparison P-value is from a log-rank test with no strata||Participants stratified by randomization strata CR1 \<6 months||0.93|0.49|0.0131
91044864|NCT00317642|181976212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57||||0.0022||95.0|0.4|0.83|||Log Rank|Comparison p-value is from a log-rank test with no strata.||Participants stratified by randomization strata CR1 \>=6 months||0.83|0.40|0.0022
91044865|NCT00317642|181976213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.8209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.23|||Log Rank|||Full Analysis Set (FAS) population||1.23|0.77|0.8209
91044866|NCT00317642|181976213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.5071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.53|||Log Rank|||||1.53|0.81|0.5071
91044867|NCT00317642|181976213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.2906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.17|||Log Rank|||||1.17|0.59|0.2906
91044868|NCT00317642|181976214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.79|||Log Rank|||Full Analysis Set (FAS) population.||0.79|0.49|<.0001
91044869|NCT00317642|181976214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.0486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.01|||Log Rank|||||1.01|0.53|0.0486
91044870|NCT00317642|181976214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.74|||Log Rank|||||0.74|0.37|0.0002
91044871|NCT00317642|181976215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Full Analysis Set (FAS) population||||<0.0001
90996650|NCT02921763|181877275|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The difference from the value before treatment and change rate were calculated using the summary statistics at each observation point and last observation, and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed for the difference and change rate.||||<0.0001
90996651|NCT02921763|181877275|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The difference from the value before treatment and change rate were calculated using the summary statistics at each observation point and last observation, and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed for the difference and change rate.||||<0.0001
90996652|NCT02921763|181877275|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The difference from the value before treatment and change rate were calculated using the summary statistics at each observation point and last observation, and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed for the difference and change rate.||||<0.0001
90996653|NCT02921763|181877275|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The difference from the value before treatment and change rate were calculated using the summary statistics at each observation point and last observation, and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed for the difference and change rate.||||=0.0003
91044872|NCT00317642|181976215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0088||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Participants stratified by randomization strata CR1 \<6 months.||||0.0088
91044873|NCT00317642|181976215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0017||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Participants stratified by randomization strata CR1 \>=6 months||||0.0017
90996654|NCT02921763|181877276|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.8035|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Separately in the efficacy analysis set and study completers, the values before treatment initiation and at last observation were compared, the value, difference from the value before treatment and change rate were calculated using the summary statistics, and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed for the difference and change rate."||||=0.8035
91044874|NCT00317642|181976216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
90996655|NCT02921763|181877277|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.8185|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Separately in the efficacy analysis set and study completers, the values before treatment initiation and at last observation were compared, the value, difference from the value before treatment and change rate were calculated using the summary statistics, and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed for the difference and change rate."||||=0.8185
90996656|NCT01709981|181877283|EQUIVALENCE|Mann-Whitney||||||0.31|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2-sided||||||0.31
91044875|NCT00317642|181976216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0506||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0506
91044876|NCT00317642|181976216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
91044877|NCT00255151|181976227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05||||||Hochberg's method was used to ensure that the overall 0.0025 level of significance was maintained for the pairwise comparisons between each dexlansoprazole MR dose and placebo.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.00001
91044878|NCT00255151|181976227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05||||||Hochberg's method was used to ensure that the overall 0.0025 level of significance was maintained for the pairwise comparisons between each dexlansoprazole MR dose and placebo.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.00001
91044879|NCT00255151|181976227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.80473||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.0025 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.80473
91044880|NCT00255151|181976228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05||95.0||||The 0.0025 level of significance for this secondary endpoint was controlled using Hochberg's method for comparisons of each dexlansoprazole MR dose to placebo.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.00001
91044881|NCT00255151|181976228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05||95.0||||The 0.0025 level of significance for this secondary endpoint was controlled using Hochberg's method for comparisons of each dexlansoprazole MR dose to placebo.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.00001
91044882|NCT00255151|181976228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76046||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.0025 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.76046
91044883|NCT00255151|181976230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05||95.0||||Hochberg's method was used to ensure that the overall 0.0025 level of significance was maintained for the pairwise comparisons between each dexlansoprazole MR dose and placebo.|Log Rank|||||||<0.00001
91044884|NCT00255151|181976230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05||95.0||||Hochberg's method was used to ensure that the overall 0.0025 level of significance was maintained for the pairwise comparisons between each dexlansoprazole MR dose and placebo.|Log Rank|||||||<0.00001
90996657|NCT04390568|181877289|OTHER|The basic model used for the investigation of dose proportionality was a power model (regression model applied to log-transformed data) that described the functional relationship between the dose and the area under the concentration-time curve of Spesolimap in plasma over the time interval from 0 extrapolated to infinity (AUC0-∞) of the intravenous dose groups.|Slope|1.123|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.085|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.979|1.268|||||Based on the estimate for slope parameter (β), a 2-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) for the slope was computed. Standard error of the mean is actually standard error of slope.|No statistical hypotheses tests were planned for this trial.||1.268|0.979|
91044885|NCT00255151|181976230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37161||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.0025 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|||||||0.37161
91044886|NCT00255151|181976231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05||95.0||||The 0.0025 level of significance for this secondary endpoint was controlled using Hochberg's method for comparisons of each dexlansoprazole MR dose to placebo.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.00001
91044887|NCT00255151|181976231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05||95.0||||The 0.0025 level of significance for this secondary endpoint was controlled using Hochberg's method for comparisons of each dexlansoprazole MR dose to placebo.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.00001
91044888|NCT00255151|181976231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.597||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.0025 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.59700
91044889|NCT00934596|181976245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|57.0|||<|0.01||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
91044890|NCT00934596|181976248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|72.0|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91044891|NCT00934596|181976253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|17.0|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As data for these small groups were non-parametric the median and quartiles were used for comparison of groups by the Wilcoxon Rank Sum test.||||<0.001
91044892|NCT00880087|181976258|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.6||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|9.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was used adjusting for age category at time of randomization (\<2 years, 2 to \<12 years, or \>=12 years)||||9.2|-14.5|0.63
91044893|NCT00880087|181976259|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.8||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|13.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was used adjusting for age category at time of randomization (\<2 years, 2 to \<12 years, or \>=12 years)||||13.7|-8.0|0.56
91044894|NCT00880087|181976260|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Stratified Mann-Whitney Test|Test stratified by age category (\<2 years, 2 to \<12 years, or \>=12 years), for continuous (NOT categorized as reported above) 1-year change in VABS-II|||As the (nonparametric) comparison treated 1-year deaths as worst possible outcomes and worst possible 1-year VABS-II as next worst possible outcomes, using change in VABS-II for other participants alive at 1 year, no relevant estimation of effect size is possible for this secondary outcome.|||0.70
91044895|NCT00880087|181976261|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|"Test used the continuous (NOT categorized as reported above) neuropsychological scores, with Lowest Possible Score treated as lowest possible value."||||||0.46
91044896|NCT01002794|181976265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Power calculation: The sample size calculation was based on the change in KOOS4 from baseline to two year follow-up. To detect a 10 point difference with a standard deviation of 15, with a level of power of 90%, level of significance of 0.05, and an estimated 15% dropout rate at two years, we determined that we would need 56 participants in each group. To allow for a 20% crossover rate, we randomised 140 participants.||||<0.05
91044897|NCT01280617|181976325|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Continuous variables analyzed using 2-tailed t test or Mann Whitney tes.. Categorical variables analyzed using Chi-Square or Fisher's Exact test||||||<0.05
91044898|NCT01280617|181976325|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91044899|NCT01311557|181976332|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"A two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was constructed around each of the ratios: Pertussis toxoid (PT) GMT Group 1 / GMT Group 2.~The GMT hypothesis was supported by the data if the lower bound of the calculated 95% CI was \> 0.67. This was the equivalent of testing the null hypothesis using a one-sided type I error rate of 0.025."|GMT Ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.843|1.05||||||||1.05|0.843|
91044900|NCT01311557|181976332|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"A two-sided 95% CI was constructed around each of the ratios: anti-Filamentous hemagglutinin (FHA) GMT Group 1 / GMT Group 2.~The GMT hypothesis was supported by the data if the lower bound of the calculated 95% CI was \> 0.67. This was the equivalent of testing the null hypothesis using a one-sided type I error rate of 0.025."|GMT Ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.944|1.13||||||||1.13|0.944|
91044901|NCT01311557|181976332|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"A two-sided 95% CI was constructed around each of the ratios: Anti-Pertactin (PRN) GMT Group 1 / GMT Group 2.~The GMT hypothesis was supported by the data if the lower bound of the calculated 95% CI was \> 0.67. This was the equivalent of testing the null hypothesis using a one-sided type I error rate of 0.025."|GMT Ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.928|1.18||||||||1.18|0.928|
91044902|NCT01311557|181976332|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI was constructed around each of the ratios: anti-Fimbriae types 2 and 3 (FIM) GMT Group 1 / GMT Group 2. The GMT hypothesis was supported by the data if the lower bound of the calculated 95% CI was \> 0.67. This was the equivalent of testing the null hypothesis using a one-sided type I error rate of 0.025.|GMT Ratio|0.882|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.731|1.06||||||||1.06|0.731|
91044903|NCT00572039|181976345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.079||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.29|||ANCOVA|||To test the efficacy of PST to improve TVF functional reserve measures at 3 months, we used an analysis of covariance in which group differences (PST vs ST) in 3-month average TVF scores were examined, adjusting for baseline TVF score and the vision severity stratification variable. To approximate an interval scale and compensate for ceiling and floor effects, we linearized TVF scores using a logit transform. 106 PST and 112 ST participants provided data at 3 months.||0.29|-0.14|.47
91044904|NCT00572039|181976346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|2.77|||ANCOVA|||To test the efficacy of PST to improve NE-VFQ scores at 3 months, we used an analysis of covariance in which group differences (PST vs ST) in 3-month average NEI-VFQ scores were examined, adjusting for baseline score and the vision severity stratification variable.||2.77|-1.96|.7
91044905|NCT03852524|181976349|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|11.0||||0.81|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||The sample size (41 patients per study group; 82 patients total) for this superiority trial was calculated with a power of 90% (alpha = 0.05) and based on the assumption that 50% of subjects in the placebo group would experience a bowel movement by postoperative day 3, as compared to 85% in the treatment group. Additionally, a 10% lost-to-follow up rate was assumed.||||0.81
91044906|NCT01098110|181976380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least square (LS) means difference|-11.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.42|-7.16||Statistical significant: p=\<0.05, two sided|ANCOVA|Change from baseline a response variable, baseline score a covariate, treatment groups and regions as explanatory variables.|Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|||-7.16|-15.42|<0.0001
91044907|NCT01098110|181976380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-13.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.33|-9.12||Statistical significant: p=\<0.05, two sided|ANCOVA|Change from baseline a response variable, baseline score a covariate, treatment groups and regions as explanatory variables.|Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|||-9.12|-17.33|<0.0001
91044908|NCT01098110|181976381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least square (LS) means difference|-3.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|-2.13|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline a response variable, baseline score a covariate.|Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|||-2.13|-4.80|<0.0001
91044909|NCT01098110|181976381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-3.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.11|-2.46|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline a response variable, baseline score a covariate.|Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|||-2.46|-5.11|<0.0001
91044910|NCT01098110|181976382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least square (LS) means difference|-2.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.53|-1.41|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline a response variable, baseline score a covariate, treatment groups and regions as explanatory variables.|Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|||-1.41|-3.53|<0.0001
91044911|NCT01098110|181976382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-3.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.08|-1.97|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline a response variable, baseline score a covariate, treatment groups and regions as explanatory variables.|Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|||-1.97|-4.08|<0.0001
91044912|NCT01098110|181976383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least square (LS) means difference|-5.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.56|-3.35|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline a response variable, baseline score a covariate, treatment groups and regions as explanatory variables.|Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|||-3.35|-7.56|<0.0001
91044913|NCT01098110|181976383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-6.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.62|-4.44||Statistical significant: p=\<0.05, two sided|ANCOVA|Change from baseline a response variable, baseline score a covariate, treatment groups and regions as explanatory variables.|Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|||-4.44|-8.62|<0.0001
91044914|NCT01098110|181976384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least square (LS) means difference|-3.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.72|-2.09|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline a response variable, baseline score a covariate, treatment groups and regions as explanatory variables.|Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|||-2.09|-4.72|<0.0001
91044915|NCT01098110|181976384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-3.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.97|-2.35|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline a response variable, baseline score a covariate, treatment groups and regions as explanatory variables.|Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|||-2.35|-4.97|<0.0001
91044916|NCT01098110|181976385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least square (LS) means difference|-2.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.47|-1.26|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline a response variable, baseline score a covariate.|Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|||-1.26|-3.47|<0.0001
91044917|NCT01098110|181976385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-2.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.03|-1.84|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline a response variable, baseline score a covariate.|Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|||-1.84|-4.03|<0.0001
91044918|NCT01098110|181976386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least square (LS) means difference|-2.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.73|-1.7|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline a response variable, baseline score a covariate, treatment groups and regions as explanatory variables.|Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|||-1.70|-3.73|<0.0001
91044919|NCT01098110|181976386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-3.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.09|-2.08|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline a response variable, baseline score a covariate, treatment groups and regions as explanatory variables.|Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|||-2.08|-4.09|<0.0001
91044920|NCT01098110|181976387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least square (LS) means difference|-1.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|-0.83|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline a response variable, baseline score a covariate, treatment groups and regions as explanatory variables.|Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|||-0.83|-2.41|<0.0001
91044921|NCT01098110|181976387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-2.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.04|-1.47|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline a response variable, baseline score a covariate, treatment groups and regions as explanatory variables.|Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|||-1.47|-3.04|<0.0001
91044922|NCT01098110|181976388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least square (LS) means difference|-1.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|-0.78|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline a response variable, baseline score a covariate, treatment groups and regions as explanatory variables.|Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|||-0.78|-2.04|<0.0001
91044923|NCT01098110|181976388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|-0.91|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline a response variable, baseline score a covariate, treatment groups and regions as explanatory variables.|Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|||-0.91|-2.16|<0.0001
91044924|NCT01098110|181976389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.6||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.2|28.1||Adjusted for region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|||28.1|9.2|0.0001
91044925|NCT01098110|181976389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.7|32.6||Adjusted for region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|||32.6|13.7|<0.0001
91044926|NCT01098110|181976390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least square (LS) means difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.28|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline a response variable, baseline score a covariate, treatment groups and regions as explanatory variables.|Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|||-0.28|-0.75|<0.0001
91044927|NCT01098110|181976390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.36|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline a response variable, baseline score a covariate, treatment groups and regions as explanatory variables.|Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|||-0.36|-0.82|<0.0001
91044928|NCT01098110|181976391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|32.4||Adjusted for region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|||32.4|12.0|<0.0001
91044929|NCT01098110|181976391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.9|38.8||Adjusted for region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|||38.8|18.9|<0.0001
91044930|NCT00436917|181976458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.01||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||A sample of 60 participants was estimated to provide percentage statistics accuracy to within 13% with 95% confidence.||||0.01
91044931|NCT02438540|181976491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91044932|NCT02438540|181976492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91044933|NCT02438540|181976493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91044934|NCT02438540|181976494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91044935|NCT02438540|181976495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|90.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.04
91044936|NCT02438540|181976496|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|multiple comparatives||||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|90.0||||CRP is known to be an independent parameter|ANOVA|||||||0.082
91044937|NCT02438540|181976496|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|from 0.60±0.03 mg/dl before treatment to 0.57±0.03 mg/dl after treatment, P=0.082||||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|90.0||||CRP is known to be an independent parameter|ANOVA|||||||0.082
91044938|NCT02438540|181976496|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|from 0.59±0.03 mg/dl before treatment to 0.57±0.03 mg/dl after treatment, P=0.082||||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|90.0||||CRP is known to be an independent parameter|ANOVA|||||||0.082
91044939|NCT02438540|181976497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91044940|NCT02438540|181976498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91044941|NCT02438540|181976499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91044942|NCT02438540|181976500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91044943|NCT02438540|181976501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91044944|NCT02438540|181976502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91044945|NCT02438540|181976503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91044946|NCT02438540|181976504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91044947|NCT02438540|181976505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91044948|NCT02438540|181976506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91044949|NCT02438540|181976507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91044950|NCT02438540|181976508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91044951|NCT00373425|181976509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.3235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.741|1.104||If the primary analysis of DFS was not statistically significant, the hierarchical testing procedure would stop and all key secondary efficacy analyses would be nonsignificant; any further analysis of these outcomes would be considered exploratory.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio: erlotinib to placebo|The null hypothesis that DFS distributions of the 2 arms were equivalent was tested using an unstratified 2-sided log-rank test at the 0.05 level. The primary analysis of DFS was performed when at least 410 events had accrued. If the result of the primary analysis of DFS was statistically significant favoring the erlotinib treatment arm, the null hypothesis of no treatment difference of key secondary efficacy variables was tested under a hierarchical testing procedure.||1.104|0.741|0.3235
91044952|NCT00373425|181976514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.144|||Log Rank|||The null hypothesis that DFS distributions of the 2 arms were equivalent was tested using an unstratified 2-sided log-rank test at the 0.05 level.||1.144|0.780|0.5620
91044953|NCT00551616|181976532|OTHER||% of observed pregnancies|1.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|2.98|||Chi-squared||Expected pregnancy rate = 5.58%|Comparison of % of observed pregnancies vs % of expected pregnancies based on Trussell 1998||2.98|1.04|<0.001
91044954|NCT00551616|181976532|OTHER||% of observed pregnancies|2.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.68|3.94|||Chi-squared||Expected pregnancy rate = 5.43%|Comparison of % of observed pregnancies vs % of expected pregnancies based on Trussell 1998||3.94|1.68|<0.001
91044955|NCT03297294|181976551|SUPERIORITY|at week 12|least squares mean|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-1.4|0.101
91044956|NCT03297294|181976552|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.2|||ANCOVA|||At week 12||0.2|-1.3|0.168
91044957|NCT03297294|181976556|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6||||0.255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|3.9|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||3.9|0.7|0.255
91044958|NCT03297294|181976557|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.8||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|9.6|||Regression, Logistic|||||9.6|0.8|0.100
91044959|NCT00127166|181976570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-3.25||||0.009||95.0|-5.66|-0.84|||ANOVA|Model terms: participant, treatment and period. The treatment test is adjusted for period||||-0.84|-5.66|0.009
91044960|NCT00127166|181976571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-52.71||||0.006||95.0|-89.76|-15.66|||ANOVA|Model terms: participant, treatment and period. The treatment test is adjusted for period.||||-15.66|-89.76|0.006
91044961|NCT00127166|181976572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|4.11|||<|0.001||95.0|2.58|5.64|||ANCOVA|Participant, treatment, period \& covariate for FEV1 %-predicted Treatment test is adjusted for period \& FEV1 %-predicted at pre-exercise baseline||||5.64|2.58|<0.001
91044962|NCT00127166|181976573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.26||||0.035||95.0|1.02|1.55|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Model terms: treatment and period|Dispersion not applicable to time to event data|||1.55|1.02|0.035
91044963|NCT00127166|181976574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|3.8|||<|0.001||95.0|2.28|5.32|||ANOVA|Model terms: participant, treatment and period. The treatment test is adjusted for period.||||5.32|2.28|<0.001
90996658|NCT04390568|181877290|OTHER|The basic model used for the investigation of dose proportionality was a power model (regression model applied to log-transformed data) that described the functional relationship between the dose and the maximum measured concentration of the Spesolimap in plasma (Cmax) of the intravenous dose groups.|Slope|1.072|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.065|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.961|1.183|||||Based on the estimate for slope parameter (β), a 2-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) for the slope was computed. Standard error of the mean is actually standard error of slope.|No statistical hypotheses tests were planned for this trial.||1.183|0.961|
90996659|NCT03784027|181877295|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|9.9|||Regression, Linear||The mean adjusted differences are based on a linear mixed model with adjustment for repeated participant measures, with period as a fixed effect and trial site as a random effect; the model also accounted for the baseline values.|||9.9|7.4|<0.001
90996660|NCT03784027|181877296|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|-7.1||The primary and key secondary end points were tested in hierarchy (Time in range, time \>180mg/dL, HbA1c, mean glucose, time \<70mg/dL) to control the type 1 error with the use of the fixed-sequence method.|Regression, Linear||The mean adjusted differences are based on a linear mixed model with adjustment for repeated participant measures, with period as a fixed effect and trial site as a random effect; the model also accounted for the baseline values.|||-7.1|-9.9|<0.001
90996661|NCT03784027|181877297|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.3||The primary and key secondary end points were tested in hierarchy (Time in range, time \>180mg/dL, HbA1c, mean glucose, time \<70mg/dL) to control the type 1 error with the use of the fixed-sequence method.|Regression, Linear||The mean adjusted differences are based on a linear mixed model with adjustment for repeated participant measures, with period as a fixed effect and trial site as a random effect; the model also accounted for the baseline values.|||-0.3|-0.5|<0.001
90996662|NCT03784027|181877298|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|-2.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.9|-4.9|<0.001
90996663|NCT03784027|181877299|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|-9.8||The primary and key secondary end points were tested in hierarchy (Time in range, time \>180mg/dL, HbA1c, mean glucose, time \<70mg/dL) to control the type 1 error with the use of the fixed-sequence method.|Regression, Linear||The mean adjusted differences are based on a linear mixed model with adjustment for repeated participant measures, with period as a fixed effect and trial site as a random effect; the model also accounted for the baseline values.|||-9.8|-14.8|<0.001
90996664|NCT03784027|181877300|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.5||The primary and key secondary end points were tested in hierarchy (Time in range, time \>180mg/dL, HbA1c, mean glucose, time \<70mg/dL) to control the type 1 error with the use of the fixed-sequence method.|Regression, Linear|||||0.5|-0.4|0.74
90996665|NCT03784027|181877301|SUPERIORITY|The mean adjusted differences are based on a linear mixed model with adjustment for repeated participant measures, with period as a fixed effect and trial site as a random effect; the model also accounted for the baseline values.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|-4.8|||||Confidence intervals for the secondary end points were adjusted for multiple comparisons with the use of the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure to control the false discovery rate.|||-4.8|-7.6|
90996666|NCT03784027|181877302|SUPERIORITY|The mean adjusted differences are based on a linear mixed model with adjustment for repeated participant measures, with period as a fixed effect and trial site as a random effect; the model also accounted for the baseline values. Differences in percents are shown in percentage points.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.05|||||Confidence intervals for the secondary end points were adjusted for multiple comparisons with the use of the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure to control the false discovery rate.|||0.05|-1.5|
90996667|NCT03784027|181877303|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1||The mean adjusted differences are based on a linear mixed model with adjustment for repeated participant measures, with period as a fixed effect and trial site as a random effect; the model also accounted for the baseline values.|||Confidence intervals for the secondary end points were adjusted for multiple comparisons with the use of the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure to control the false discovery rate.|||0.1|-0.1|
90996668|NCT03784027|181877304|SUPERIORITY|The mean adjusted differences are based on a linear mixed model with adjustment for repeated participant measures, with period as a fixed effect and trial site as a random effect; the model also accounted for the baseline values.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.6|||||Confidence intervals for the secondary end points were adjusted for multiple comparisons with the use of the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure to control the false discovery rate.|||-0.6|-1.6|
90996669|NCT03784027|181877305|NON_INFERIORITY|The mean adjusted differences are based on a linear mixed model with adjustment for repeated participant measures, with period as a fixed effect and trial site as a random effect; the model also accounted for the baseline values.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.002|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.006|0.009|||||Confidence intervals for the secondary end points were adjusted for multiple comparisons with the use of the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure to control the false discovery rate.|||0.009|-0.006|
90996670|NCT03784027|181877306|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.004||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.03|||Regression, Linear|Based on a longitudinal model adjusting for baseline value and period as fixed effects. The model accounts for correlated data from the same subject.||||0.03|-0.02|0.75
90996671|NCT03784027|181877307|SUPERIORITY|The mean adjusted differences are based on a linear mixed model with adjustment for repeated participant measures, with period as a fixed effect and trial site as a random effect; the model also accounted for the baseline values.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.8|||||(For total daily insulin use) Confidence intervals for the secondary end points were adjusted for multiple comparisons with the use of the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure to control the false discovery rate.|||0.8|-0.1|
90996672|NCT01512108|181877341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference, Mean|-0.27||||0.0026||95.0|-0.44|-0.09|||ANOVA|||||-0.09|-0.44|0.0026
90996673|NCT01512108|181877342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference, Mean|-0.3||||0.0458||95.0|-0.6|-0.01|||ANOVA|||||-0.01|-0.60|0.0458
90996674|NCT02373371|181877343|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.846|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Main analysis:~* nbDPKAdispM3 the number of KA disappeared at M3 after treatment with DPDT compared to the inclusion layer,~* nbCPKAdispM3 the number of KA disappeared at M3 after treatment with conventional blue light,~The primary endpoint is:~differenceM3 = nbDPKAdispM3 - nbCPKAdispM3 The main analysis will consist of a signed Wilcoxon rank test for matched data testing whether difference M3 is significantly different from 0"||||0.8460
90996675|NCT02373371|181877345|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0005
90996676|NCT02373371|181877346|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0001
91044964|NCT01396421|181976628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-8.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|-4.4||Primary analysis was performed by fitting a Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) which included fixed class effect terms for treatment, trial site, visit week, and an interaction term of treatment by visit week.|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Difference between average effect of brexpiprazole 2 and 4 mg/day and placebo was tested first at alpha level of 0.05. If statistically significant, then comparisons for each group (brexpiprazole 2 and 4 mg/day) versus placebo were performed.||-4.40|-12.0|<0.0001
91044965|NCT01396421|181976628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-7.64||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|-3.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Sample size was determined to achieve 90% power at alpha level of 0.025 (two-sided) to a detect treatment difference of -7.5 points in change from baseline in PANSS Total Score at Week 6 (last observation carried forward) between a brexpiprazole treatment of 4 mg/day (or 2 mg/day) and placebo using a two-sided z-test||-3.30|-12.0|0.0006
91044966|NCT01396421|181976628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Traetment difference|-8.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|-4.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Sample size was determined to achieve 90% power at alpha level of 0.025 (two-sided) to a detect treatment difference of -7.5 points in change from baseline in PANSS Total Score at Week 6 (last observation carried forward) between a brexpiprazole treatment of 4 mg/day (or 2 mg/day) and placebo using a two-sided z-test||-4.37|-13.1|<0.0001
91044967|NCT01396421|181976628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-2.89||||0.291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.27|2.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Sample size was determined to achieve 90% power at alpha level of 0.025 (two-sided) to a detect treatment difference of -7.5 points in change from baseline in PANSS Total Score at Week 6 (last observation carried forward) between a brexpiprazole treatment of 4 mg/day (or 2 mg/day) and placebo using a two-sided z-test||2.49|-8.27|0.2910
91044968|NCT01396421|181976629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.36||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Difference between the average effect of brexpiprazole 2 and 4 mg/day and placebo was tested first at alpha level of 0.05. If statistically significant, then comparisons for each group (brexpiprazole 2 and 4 mg/day) versus placebo were performed at a significance level of 0.05.||-0.15|-0.56|0.0006
91044969|NCT01396421|181976629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.38||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.||||-0.15|-0.61|0.0012
91044970|NCT01396421|181976629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.33||||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.||||-0.10|-0.56|0.0056
91044971|NCT01396421|181976629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.03||||0.8491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.||||0.26|-0.31|0.8491
91044972|NCT01396421|181976630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-1.5||||0.0644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|0.09||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Week 1||||0.09|-3.09|0.0644
91044973|NCT01396421|181976630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-1.99||||0.0139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.58|-0.41||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Week 1||||-0.41|-3.58|0.0139
90996677|NCT04847141|181877351|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|-3.6||||0.5167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|7.4||p-value was calculated using Chi-square test with 5% level of significance to test the null hypothesis of no difference in the percentage of participants meeting the primary efficacy endpoint between C19-IG 20% 1 g and placebo.|Chi-squared||95% CI for percentage difference between C19-IG 20% 1 g dose group and placebo was calculated using the exact unconditional method.|||7.4|-14.6|0.5167
91044974|NCT01396421|181976630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.35||||0.7231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|2.32||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Week 1||||2.32|-1.61|0.7231
91044975|NCT01396421|181976630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-5.14||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.36|-1.93||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Week 3||||-1.93|-8.36|0.0018
91044976|NCT01396421|181976630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-3.75||||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.33|-1.17||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates|Mixed Models Analysis|Week 2||||-1.17|-6.33|0.0045
90996678|NCT04847141|181877351|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|1.2||||0.8197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|12.0||p-value was calculated using Chi-square test with 5% level of significance to test the null hypothesis of no difference in the percentage of participants meeting the primary efficacy endpoint between C19-IG 20% 2 g and placebo.|Chi-squared||95% CI for percentage difference between C19-IG 20% 2 g dose group and placebo was calculated using the exact unconditional method.|||12.0|-9.6|0.8197
90996679|NCT04847141|181877352|SUPERIORITY||Least squares (LS) Mean Difference|0.1||||0.5756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.44|||ANCOVA||95% CI for the difference in LS Mean between 1 g C19-IG 20% dose group \& placebo was calculated using ANCOVA model, including CFB value as dependent variable; treatment group as fixed effect; \& baseline viral load value, age, \& gender as covariates.|Day 7||0.44|-0.24|0.5756
90996680|NCT04847141|181877352|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.17||||0.3289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.17|||ANCOVA||95% CI for the difference in LS Mean between 2 g C19-IG 20% dose group \& placebo was calculated using ANCOVA model, including CFB value as dependent variable; treatment group as fixed effect; \& baseline viral load value, age, \& gender as covariates.|Day 7||0.17|-0.52|0.3289
90996681|NCT04847141|181877352|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.11||||0.3418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.34|||ANCOVA||95% CI for the difference in LS Mean between 1 g C19-IG 20% dose group \& placebo was calculated using ANCOVA model, including CFB value as dependent variable; treatment group as fixed effect; \& baseline viral load value, age, \& gender as covariates.|Day 14||0.34|-0.12|0.3418
90996682|NCT04847141|181877352|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.11||||0.3688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.13|||ANCOVA||95% CI for the difference in LS Mean between 2 g C19-IG 20% dose group \& placebo was calculated using ANCOVA model, including CFB value as dependent variable; treatment group as fixed effect; \& baseline viral load value, age, \& gender as covariates.|Day 14||0.13|-0.34|0.3688
90996683|NCT04847141|181877353|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|-1.3||||0.1506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|1.2||p-value was calculated using Chi-square test with 5% level of significance to test the null hypothesis of no difference in the percentage of participants who remained in an outpatient setting \& maintained SpO2≥94% between C19-IG 20% 2 g \& placebo.|Chi-squared||95% CI for percentage difference between C19-IG 20% 2 g dose group and placebo was calculated using the exact unconditional method.|Day 3||1.2|-4.7|0.1506
90996684|NCT04847141|181877353|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|1.3||||0.1655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|4.6||p-value was calculated using Chi-square test with 5% level of significance to test the null hypothesis of no difference in the percentage of participants who remained in an outpatient setting \& maintained SpO2≥94% between C19-IG 20% 1 g \& placebo.|Chi-squared||95% CI for percentage difference between C19-IG 20% 1 g dose group and placebo was calculated using the exact unconditional method.|Day 7||4.6|-1.3|0.1655
90996685|NCT04847141|181877353|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|-2.0||||0.2337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|1.7||p-value was calculated using Chi-square test with 5% level of significance to test the null hypothesis of no difference in the percentage of participants who remained in an outpatient setting \& maintained SpO2≥94% between C19-IG 20% 2 g \& placebo.|Chi-squared||95% CI for percentage difference between C19-IG 20% 2 g dose group and placebo was calculated using the exact unconditional method.|Day 7||1.7|-6.5|0.2337
90996686|NCT04847141|181877353|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|-0.8||||0.7212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|4.2||p-value was calculated using Chi-square test with 5% level of significance to test the null hypothesis of no difference in the percentage of participants who remained in an outpatient setting \& maintained SpO2≥94% between C19-IG 20% 1 g \& placebo.|Chi-squared||95% CI for percentage difference between C19-IG 20% 1 g dose group and placebo was calculated using the exact unconditional method.|Day 14||4.2|-6.1|0.7212
90996687|NCT04847141|181877353|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|-2.1||||0.3897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|3.1||p-value was calculated using Chi-square test with 5% level of significance to test the null hypothesis of no difference in the percentage of participants who remained in an outpatient setting \& maintained SpO2≥94% between C19-IG 20% 2 g \& placebo.|Chi-squared||95% CI for percentage difference between C19-IG 20% 2 g dose group and placebo was calculated using the exact unconditional method.|Day 14||3.1|-7.8|0.3897
90996688|NCT04847141|181877354|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|3.1||||0.5489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|13.3||p-value was calculated using Chi-square test with 5% level of significance to test the null hypothesis of no difference in the percentage of participants who had a negative test result between C19-IG 20% 1 g dose group and placebo.|Chi-squared||95% CI for percentage difference between C19-IG 20% 1 g dose group and placebo was calculated using the exact unconditional method.|Day 3||13.3|-7.1|0.5489
90996689|NCT04847141|181877354|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|4.4||||0.392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|14.7||p-value was calculated using Chi-square test with 5% level of significance to test the null hypothesis of no difference in the percentage of participants who had a negative test result between C19-IG 20% 2 g dose group and placebo.|Chi-squared||95% CI for percentage difference between C19-IG 20% 2 g dose group and placebo was calculated using the exact unconditional method.|Day 3||14.7|-5.8|0.3920
90996690|NCT04847141|181877354|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|1.7||||0.7632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|12.9||p-value was calculated using Chi-square test with 5% level of significance to test the null hypothesis of no difference in the percentage of participants who had a negative test result between C19-IG 20% 1 g dose group and placebo.|Chi-squared||95% CI for percentage difference between C19-IG 20% 1 g dose group and placebo was calculated using the exact unconditional method.|Day 7||12.9|-9.5|0.7632
90996691|NCT04847141|181877354|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|7.9||||0.1702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|19.2||p-value was calculated using Chi-square test with 5% level of significance to test the null hypothesis of no difference in the percentage of participants who had a negative test result between C19-IG 20% 2 g dose group and placebo.|Chi-squared||95% CI for percentage difference between C19-IG 20% 2 g dose group and placebo was calculated using the exact unconditional method.|Day 7||19.2|-3.6|0.1702
91044977|NCT01396421|181976630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|1.84||||0.2568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|5.02||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Week 2||||5.02|-1.34|0.2568
91044978|NCT01396421|181976630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-4.4||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.97|-1.82||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Week 2||||-1.82|-6.97|0.0009
91044979|NCT01396421|181976630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-3.45||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.67|-0.23||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Week 3||||-0.23|-6.67|0.0360
91044980|NCT01396421|181976630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.04||||0.9876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.53|4.6||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Week 4||||4.60|-4.53|0.9876
91044981|NCT01396421|181976630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-7.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|-3.93||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Week 4||||-3.93|-11.3|<0.0001
91044982|NCT01396421|181976630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-5.16||||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.85|-1.47||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates|Mixed Models Analysis|Week 4||||-1.47|-8.85|0.0062
91044983|NCT01396421|181976630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|1.93||||0.3407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|5.9||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Week 3||||5.90|-2.05|0.3407
91044984|NCT01396421|181976630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-7.86||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|-3.86||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates|Mixed Models Analysis|Week 5||||-3.86|-11.9|0.0001
91044985|NCT01396421|181976630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-7.15||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|-3.14||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Week 5||||-3.14|-11.2|0.0005
91044986|NCT01396421|181976630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-1.12||||0.657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.07|3.83||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Week 5|Because only the comparison of brexpiprazole 4 mg/day versus placebo met the threshold in the primary analysis, the following analysis is not part for the formal statistical testing and is descriptive only.|||3.83|-6.07|0.6570
91044987|NCT01396421|181976631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.02||||0.6553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.08||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Week 1||||0.08|-0.13|0.6553
91044988|NCT01396421|181976631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.03||||0.617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.08||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Week 1||||0.08|-0.13|0.6170
91044989|NCT01396421|181976631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.03||||0.6446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.15||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates..|Mixed Models Analysis|Week 1||||0.15|-0.10|0.6446
91044990|NCT01396421|181976631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.15||||0.0347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|-0.01||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Week 2||||-0.01|-0.29|0.0347
91044991|NCT01396421|181976631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Leasr squares mean|-0.12||||0.0825|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.02||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.02|-0.27|0.0825
91044992|NCT01396421|181976631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.12||||0.1678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.3||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Week 2||||0.30|-0.05|0.1678
91044993|NCT01396421|181976631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.21||||0.0219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|-0.03||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Week 3||||-0.03|-0.39|0.0219
91044994|NCT01396421|181976631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|-0.09||||0.3275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.09||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Week 3||||0.09|-0.27|0.3275
91044995|NCT01396421|181976631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.18||||0.1173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.4||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Week 3||||0.40|-0.04|0.1173
91044996|NCT01396421|181976631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.21||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Week 4||||-0.21|-0.63|<0.0001
91044997|NCT01396421|181976631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|-0.19||||0.0662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.01||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Week 4||||0.01|-0.40|0.0662
91044998|NCT01396421|181976631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.04||||0.7587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.22||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Week 4||||0.22|-0.30|0.7587
91044999|NCT01396421|181976631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.39||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.17||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Week 5||||-0.17|-0.61|0.0006
91045000|NCT01396421|181976631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|-0.34||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.11||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Week 5||||-0.11|-0.56|0.0032
91045001|NCT01396421|181976631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.04||||0.7619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.23||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Week 5||||0.23|-0.32|0.7619
91045002|NCT01396421|181976632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|2.46||||0.0557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|4.98||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Week 6||||4.98|-0.06|0.0557
91045003|NCT01396421|181976632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|2.89||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|5.42||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Week 6||||5.42|0.37|0.0250
91045004|NCT01396421|181976632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|1.58||||0.3264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|4.74||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Week 6||||4.74|-1.58|0.3264
91045005|NCT01396421|181976633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-2.44||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.88|-0.99||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.99|-3.88|0.0010
91045006|NCT01396421|181976633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-2.22||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.67|-0.77||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.77|-3.67|0.0029
91045007|NCT01396421|181976633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-1.11||||0.2227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|0.68||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.68|-2.90|0.2227
91045008|NCT01396421|181976634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-1.41||||0.0069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|0.39||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.39|-2.44|0.0069
91045009|NCT01396421|181976634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|-1.78||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.81|-0.76||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.76|-2.81|0.0007
91045010|NCT01396421|181976634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatmetn difference|-1.07||||0.0996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|0.2||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.20|-2.33|0.0996
91045011|NCT01396421|181976635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.5||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.22||The Cochran-Mantel-Haenzel (CMH) row mean scores differ test controlling for trial center was applied to CGI-I score.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-0.22|-0.77|0.0004
91045012|NCT01396421|181976635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.54||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.26||The CMH row mean scores differ test controlling for trial center was applied to CGI-I score.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-0.26|-0.82|0.0002
91045013|NCT01396421|181976635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.14||||0.4505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.22||The CMH row mean scores differ test controlling for trial center was applied to CGI-I score.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.22|-0.50|0.4505
91045014|NCT01396421|181976636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative risk|1.48||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.91||CMH general association test controlling for trial was applied to the analysis of response rate.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.91|1.14|0.0032
91045015|NCT01396421|181976636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative risk|1.59||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|2.05||CMH general association test controlling for trial was applied to the analysis of response rate.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.05|1.23|0.0004
91045016|NCT01396421|181976636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative risk|1.27||||0.1576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.76||CMH general association test controlling for trial was applied to the analysis of response rate.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.76|0.92|0.1576
91045017|NCT01396421|181976637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-1.1||||0.0246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|-0.14||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.14|-2.06|0.0246
91045018|NCT01396421|181976637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-1.22||||0.0131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.19|-0.26||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.26|-2.19|0.0131
91045019|NCT01396421|181976637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.34||||0.5706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|0.85||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.85|-1.53|0.5706
91045020|NCT01396421|181976638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative risk|0.39||||0.0143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.85|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial center was applied to the analysis of discontinuation rate.||||0.85|0.18|0.0143
91045021|NCT01396421|181976638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative risk|0.87||||0.6606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.65||CMH general association test controlling for trial center was applied to the analysis of discontinuation rate.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.65|0.46|0.6606
90996692|NCT04847141|181877354|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|-2.0||||0.7316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|9.4||p-value was calculated using Chi-square test with 5% level of significance to test the null hypothesis of no difference in the percentage of participants who had a negative test result between C19-IG 20% 1 g dose group and placebo.|Chi-squared||95% CI for percentage difference between C19-IG 20% 1 g dose group and placebo was calculated using the exact unconditional method.|Day 14||9.4|-13.3|0.7316
90996693|NCT04847141|181877354|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|6.9||||0.2104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|18.0||p-value was calculated using Chi-square test with 5% level of significance to test the null hypothesis of no difference in the percentage of participants who had a negative test result between C19-IG 20% 2 g dose group and placebo.|Chi-squared||95% CI for percentage difference between C19-IG 20% 2 g dose group and placebo was calculated using the exact unconditional method.|Day 14||18.0|-4.2|0.2104
91045022|NCT01396421|181976638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative risk|0.77||||0.5115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.68||CMH general association test controlling for trial center was applied to the analysis of discontinuation rate.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.68|0.35|0.5115
90996694|NCT04847141|181877354|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|4.9||||0.2059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|13.2||p-value was calculated using Chi-square test with 5% level of significance to test the null hypothesis of no difference in the percentage of participants who had a negative test result between C19-IG 20% 1 g dose group and placebo.|Chi-squared||95% CI for percentage difference between C19-IG 20% 1 g dose group and placebo was calculated using the exact unconditional method.|Day 29||13.2|-2.9|0.2059
90996695|NCT04847141|181877354|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|1.9||||0.6463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|10.3||p-value was calculated using Chi-square test with 5% level of significance to test the null hypothesis of no difference in the percentage of participants who had a negative test result between C19-IG 20% 2 g dose group and placebo.|Chi-squared||95% CI for percentage difference between C19-IG 20% 2 g dose group and placebo was calculated using the exact unconditional method.|Day 29||10.3|-6.5|0.6463
90996696|NCT04847141|181877355|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9033|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.9033
90996697|NCT04847141|181877355|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5456|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.5456
90996698|NCT04847141|181877356|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|0.79||||0.6311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|4.6||p-value was calculated using Chi-square test with 5% level of significance to test the null hypothesis of no difference in the percentage of participants who required oxygen supplementation between C19-IG 20% 1 g dose group and placebo.|Chi-squared||95% CI for percentage difference between each of 1 g C19-IG 20% dose group and placebo was calculated using the exact unconditional method.|||4.6|-2.9|0.6311
90996699|NCT04847141|181877356|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|2.6||||0.1441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|7.3||p-value was calculated using Chi-square test with 5% level of significance to test the null hypothesis of no difference in the percentage of participants who required oxygen supplementation between C19-IG 20% 2 g dose group and placebo.|Chi-squared||95% CI for percentage difference between each of 2 g C19-IG 20% dose group and placebo was calculated using the exact unconditional method.|||7.3|-1.2|0.1441
90996700|NCT04847141|181877357|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean (LSM) Difference|0.02||||0.8555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.27|||ANCOVA||95% CI for difference in LSM between 1 g C19-IG 20% \& placebo was calculated using an ANCOVA model,with number of days on oxygen as dependent variable \& treatment group as fixed effect,adjusting for baseline characteristics(including age \& gender).|||0.27|-0.23|0.8555
90996701|NCT04847141|181877357|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.03||||0.8108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.28|||ANCOVA||95% CI for difference in LSM between 2 g C19-IG 20% \& placebo was calculated using an ANCOVA model,with number of days on oxygen as dependent variable \& treatment group as fixed effect,adjusting for baseline characteristics(including age \& gender).|||0.28|-0.22|0.8108
90996702|NCT04847141|181877359|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.03||||0.0692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.07||p-value was calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method.|Kenward-Roger||95% CI for difference in LS Mean between C19-IG 20% 1 g dose group and placebo was calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method for calculating the denominator degrees of freedom.|Day 7||0.07|-0.00|0.0692
90996703|NCT04847141|181877359|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.01||||0.4956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.05||p-value was calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method.|Kenward-Roger||95% CI for difference in LS Mean between C19-IG 20% 2 g dose group and placebo was calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method for calculating the denominator degrees of freedom.|Day 7||0.05|-0.02|0.4956
90996704|NCT04847141|181877359|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.03||p-value was calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method.|Kenward-Roger||95% CI for difference in LS Mean between C19-IG 20% 1 g dose group and placebo was calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method for calculating the denominator degrees of freedom.|Day 14||0.03|-0.13|0.2200
90996705|NCT04847141|181877359|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.07||||0.0906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.01||p-value was calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method.|Kenward-Roger||95% CI for difference in LS Mean between C19-IG 20% 2 g dose group and placebo was calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method for calculating the denominator degrees of freedom.|Day 14||0.01|-0.14|0.0906
90996706|NCT04847141|181877359|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04||||0.0439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.0||p-value was calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method.|Kenward-Roger||95% CI for difference in LS Mean between C19-IG 20% 1 g dose group and placebo was calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method for calculating the denominator degrees of freedom.|Day 29||-0.00|-0.07|0.0439
90996707|NCT04847141|181877359|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01||||0.4128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.02||p-value was calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method.|Kenward-Roger||95% CI for difference in LS Mean between C19-IG 20% 2 g dose group and placebo was calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method for calculating the denominator degrees of freedom.|Day 29||0.02|-0.05|0.4128
90996708|NCT04847141|181877361|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01||||0.9713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.27||p-value was calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method.|Kenward-Roger||95% CI for difference in LS Mean between C19-IG 20% 1 g dose group and placebo was calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method for calculating the denominator degrees of freedom.|Day 7||0.27|-0.28|0.9713
90996709|NCT04847141|181877361|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.07||||0.5985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.35||p-value was calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method.|Kenward-Roger||95% CI for difference in LS Mean between C19-IG 20% 2 g dose group and placebo was calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method for calculating the denominator degrees of freedom.|Day 7||0.35|-0.20|0.5985
90996710|NCT04847141|181877361|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.01||||0.9209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.28||p-value was calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method.|Kenward-Roger||95% CI for difference in LS Mean between C19-IG 20% 1 g dose group and placebo was calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method for calculating the denominator degrees of freedom.|Day 14||0.28|-0.25|0.9209
90996711|NCT04847141|181877361|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01||||0.9181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.25||p-value was calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method.|Kenward-Roger||95% CI for difference in LS Mean between C19-IG 20% 2 g dose group and placebo was calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method for calculating the denominator degrees of freedom.|Day 14||0.25|-0.28|0.9181
90996712|NCT04847141|181877361|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.15||||0.2443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.41||p-value was calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method.|Kenward-Roger||95% CI for difference in LS Mean between C19-IG 20% 1 g dose group and placebo was calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method for calculating the denominator degrees of freedom.|Day 29||0.41|-0.11|0.2443
90996713|NCT04847141|181877361|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.13||||0.3233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.39||p-value was calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method.|Kenward-Roger||95% CI for difference in LS Mean between C19-IG 20% 2 g dose group and placebo was calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method for calculating the denominator degrees of freedom.|Day 29||0.39|-0.13|0.3233
90996714|NCT04847141|181877362|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|3.0||||0.4676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|11.5||p-value was calculated using Chi-square test with 5% level of significance to test the null hypothesis of no difference in the percentage of participants who required at least 1 COVID-19 related MAV between C19-IG 20% 1 g dose group and placebo.|Chi-squared||95% CI for percentage difference between C19-IG 20% 1 g dose group and placebo was calculated using the exact unconditional method.|||11.5|-5.3|0.4676
90996715|NCT04847141|181877362|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|4.9||||0.2507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|13.4||p-value was calculated using Chi-square test with 5% level of significance to test the null hypothesis of no difference in the percentage of participants who required at least 1 COVID-19 related MAV between C19-IG 20% 2 g dose group and placebo.|Chi-squared||95% CI for percentage difference between C19-IG 20% 2 g dose group and placebo was calculated using the exact unconditional method.|||13.4|-3.6|0.2507
90996716|NCT04847141|181877363|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|0.1||||0.9744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|4.0||p-value was calculated using Chi-square test with 5% level of significance to test the null hypothesis of no difference in the percentage of participants who required hospital admission between C19-IG 20% 1 g dose group and placebo.|Chi-squared||95% CI for percentage difference between C19-IG 20% 1 g dose group and placebo was calculated using the exact unconditional method.|||4.0|-3.8|0.9744
91045023|NCT01396421|181976639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-2.34||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.77|-0.91||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.91|-3.77|0.0014
91045024|NCT01396421|181976639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-2.47||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.91|-1.04||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.04|-3.91|0.0008
91045025|NCT01396421|181976639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.89||||0.3263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.66|0.89||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.89|-2.66|0.3263
91045026|NCT01396421|181976640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-1.3||||0.0155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|-0.25||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.25|-2.35|0.0155
91045027|NCT01396421|181976640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-1.68||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.73|-0.62||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.62|-2.73|0.0019
91045028|NCT01396421|181976640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.86||||0.1956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.17|0.44||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.44|-2.17|0.1956
91045029|NCT01396421|181976641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-1.75||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.76|-0.75||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.75|-2.76|0.0007
91045030|NCT01396421|181976641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-1.98||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.98|-0.97||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.97|-2.98|0.0001
91045031|NCT01396421|181976641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.72||||0.2572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|0.52||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.52|-1.96|0.2572
91045032|NCT01396421|181976642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-1.07||||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|-0.28||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.28|-1.87|0.0085
91045033|NCT01396421|181976642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-1.08||||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|-0.28||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.28|-1.88|0.0081
91045034|NCT01396421|181976642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.33||||0.5172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|0.66||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.66|-1.31|0.5172
91045035|NCT01396421|181976643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.34||||0.3284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|0.35||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.35|-1.03|0.3284
91045036|NCT01396421|181976643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.65||||0.0655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|0.04||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.04|-1.34|0.0655
91045037|NCT01396421|181976643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.21||||0.6251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|0.64||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.64|-1.07|0.6251
91045038|NCT01610063|181976650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison for QIDS-C16||||<0.0001
91045039|NCT01610063|181976651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between groups for HAMD-17||||<0.0001
91045040|NCT01610063|181976652|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison for PHQ-9||||0.002
91045041|NCT03314662|181976658|NON_INFERIORITY|aQIV was considered non-inferior to aTIV-1 or aTIV-2 if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the ratios of GMTs (aTIV/aQIV) do not exceed 1.5|GMT ratio (aTIV/aQIV)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.27|||||GMT ratios (adjusted) obtained from a GLM fitted on log-transformed (base 10) post-vaccination HI titer as outcome variable and covariate terms: treatment, pre-vaccination HI titer (log10 transformed), age, sex, vaccination history, study site|Comparison Group Selection: aTIV/aQIV - for strain A/H1N1||1.27|1.05|
91045042|NCT03314662|181976658|NON_INFERIORITY|aQIV was considered non-inferior to aTIV-1 or aTIV-2 if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the ratios of GMTs (aTIV/aQIV) do not exceed 1.5|GMT ratio: (aTIV/aQIV|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.09|||||GMT ratios (adjusted) obtained from a GLM fitted on log-transformed (base 10) post-vaccination HI titer as outcome variable and covariate terms: treatment, pre-vaccination HI titer (log 10 transformed), age, sex, vaccination history, study site|Comparison Group Selection: aTIV/aQIV - performed for strain A/H3N2||1.09|0.90|
91045043|NCT03314662|181976658|NON_INFERIORITY|aQIV was considered non-inferior to aTIV-1 or aTIV-2 if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the ratios of GMTs (aTIV/aQIV) do not exceed 1.5.|GMT ratio: aTIV/aQIV|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.08|||||GMT ratios (adjusted) obtained from a GLM fitted on log-transformed (base 10) post-vaccination HI titer as outcome variable and covariate terms: treatment, pre-vaccination HI titer (log10 transformed), age, sex, vaccination history, study site|Comparison Group Selection: aQIV/aTIV - performed for strain B/Yamagata||1.08|0.90|
91045044|NCT03314662|181976658|NON_INFERIORITY|aQIV was considered non-inferior to aTIV-1 or aTIV-2 if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the ratios of GMTs (aTIV/aQIV) do not exceed 1.5.|GMT ratio: (aTIV/aQIV)]|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.08|||||GMT ratios (adjusted) obtained from a GLM fitted on log-transformed (base 10) post-vaccination HI titer as outcome variable and covariate terms: treatment, pre-vaccination HI titer (log10 transformed), age, sex, vaccination history, study site|Comparison Group Selection: aQIV/aTIV - performed for strain B/Victoria||1.08|0.89|
91045045|NCT03314662|181976659|NON_INFERIORITY|aQIV was considered non-inferior to aTIV-1 or aTIV-2 if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the differences between the SCRs (aTIV - aQIV) do not exceed 10% for each of the four strains|SCR difference (aTIV minus aQIV)|3.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|7.76||||||Comparison Group Selection: aTIV minus aQIV - for strain A/H1N1||7.76|-1.30|
91045046|NCT03314662|181976659|NON_INFERIORITY|aQIV was considered non-inferior to aTIV-1 or aTIV-2 if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the differences between the SCRs (aTIV - aQIV) do not exceed 10% for each of the four strains|SCR difference (aTIV minus aQIV)|0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.23|4.96||||||Comparison Group Selection: aTIV minus aQIV - for strain A/H3N2||4.96|-4.23|
91045047|NCT03314662|181976659|NON_INFERIORITY|aQIV was considered non-inferior to aTIV-1 or aTIV-2 if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the differences between the SCRs (aTIV - aQIV) do not exceed 10% for each of the four strains|SCR difference (aTIV minus aQIV)]|-0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.13|3.27||||||Comparison Group Selection: aTIV minus aQIV - for strain B-Yamagata||3.27|-5.13|
91045048|NCT03314662|181976659|NON_INFERIORITY|aQIV was considered non-inferior to aTIV-1 or aTIV-2 if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the differences between the SCRs (aTIV - aQIV) do not exceed 10% for each of the four strains|Other [SCR difference (aTIV minus aQIV)]|-1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.07|2.55||||||Comparison Group Selection: aTIV minus aQIV - for strain B-Victoria||2.55|-5.07|
91045049|NCT03314662|181976662|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of aQIV vs. aTIV-1 for the alternate B strain was assessed using the GMT ratio (GMTaTIV/GMTaQIV); Superiority was declared if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the GMT ratio (aTIV/aQIV) was \<1. The superiority comparison was based on the Full Analysis Set (FAS) Immunogenicity comprised all subjects who were randomized, received at least 1 study vaccination, and provided immunogenicity data at Day 1 and Day 22.|GMT ratio|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.7||||||B/Yamagata strain: GMT Ratio (aTIV/aQIV)||0.70|0.58|
91045050|NCT03314662|181976662|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of aQIV vs. aTIV-2 for the alternate B strain was assessed using the GMT ratio (GMTaTIV/GMTaQIV); Superiority was declared if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the GMT ratio (aTIV/aQIV) was \<1. The superiority comparison was based on the FAS Immunogenicity.|GMT ratio|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.78||||||B/Victoria Strain: GMT Ratio (aTIV/aQIV)||0.78|0.64|
91045051|NCT03314662|181976665|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of aQIV vs. aTIV-1 for the alternate B strain was assessed using the difference in SCR (SCRaTIV-SCRaQIV) at Day 22. Superiority was declared if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in SCRs (aTIV-aQIV) was \<0, for both B strains. The superiority comparison was based on the FAS Immunogenicity.|SCR difference|-11.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.12|-8.81||||||B/Yamagata Strain: SCR Difference (aTIV-1 - aQIV).||-8.81|-15.12|
91045052|NCT03314662|181976665|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of aQIV vs. aTIV-2 for the alternate B strain was assessed using the difference in SCR (SCRaTIV-SCRaQIV) at Day 22. Superiority was declared if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in SCRs (aTIV-aQIV) was \<0, for both B strains. The superiority comparison was based on the FAS Immunogenicity.|SCR difference|-10.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.54|-8.11||||||B/Victoria Strain: SCR Difference (aTIV-2 - aQIV)||-8.11|-13.54|
91045053|NCT01117766|181976671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.537||0.7319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|0.92|||ANCOVA|||Week 3 (Visits 3 and 6)||0.92|-1.29|0.7319
91045054|NCT01117766|181976671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.536||0.3404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|0.57|||ANCOVA|||Week 4 (Visits 4 and 7)||0.57|-1.61|0.3404
91045055|NCT01117766|181976672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|26.872||0.6539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.2|45.56|||ANCOVA|||Week 3 (Visits 3 and 6)||45.56|-70.20|0.6539
91045056|NCT01117766|181976672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-23.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|25.807||0.3678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.54|30.72|||ANCOVA|||Week 4 (Visits 4 and 7)||30.72|-78.54|0.3678
91045057|NCT01117766|181976673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.342||0.0071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|-0.35|||ANCOVA|Statistical analysis was based on the average pain score across all levels of stimuli.||Week 3 (Visits 3 and 6)||-0.35|-1.84|0.0071
91045058|NCT01117766|181976673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.1294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|0.19|||ANCOVA|Statistical analysis was based on the average pain score across all levels of stimuli.||Week 4 (Visits 4 and 7)||0.19|-1.36|0.1294
91045059|NCT01117766|181976674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-61.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|25.298||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-116.12|-6.96|||ANCOVA|||Week 3 (Visits 3 and 6)||-6.96|-116.12|0.0300
90996717|NCT04847141|181877363|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|2.7||||0.1878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|7.5||p-value was calculated using Chi-square test with 5% level of significance to test the null hypothesis of no difference in the percentage of participants who required hospital admission between C19-IG 20% 2 g dose group and placebo.|Chi-squared||95% CI for percentage difference between C19-IG 20% 2 g dose group and placebo was calculated using the exact unconditional method.|||7.5|-1.6|0.1878
91045060|NCT01117766|181976674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-49.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|26.501||0.0844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-105.67|7.55|||ANCOVA|||Week 4 (Visits 4 and 7)||7.55|-105.67|0.0844
91045061|NCT01117766|181976675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.478||0.7506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|1.14|||ANCOVA|Statistical analysis was based on the average pain score across all levels of stimuli.||Week 3 (Visits 3 and 6)||1.14|-0.83|0.7506
91045062|NCT01117766|181976675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.299||0.9673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.64|||ANCOVA|Statistical analysis was based on the average pain score across all levels of stimuli.||Week 4 (Visits 4 and 7)||0.64|-0.61|0.9673
90996718|NCT04847141|181877364|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.01||||0.9485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.4|||ANCOVA||95% CI for difference in LS Mean between C19-IG 20% 1 g dose group and placebo was calculated using ANCOVA model, including length of hospital stay as dependent variable \& treatment group as fixed effect, adjusting for baseline.|||0.40|-0.38|0.9485
91045063|NCT01117766|181976676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.642||0.5502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|1.78|||ANCOVA|Statistical analysis was based on the average pain score across all levels of stimuli.||Week 3 (Visits 3 and 6)||1.78|-0.99|0.5502
91045064|NCT01117766|181976676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.8536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|0.96|||ANCOVA|Statistical analysis was based on the average pain score across all levels of stimuli.||Week 4 (Visits 4 and 7)||0.96|-1.15|0.8536
91045065|NCT01117766|181976677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.586||0.0132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.73|-0.34|||ANCOVA||In statistical analyses, scores were further grouped to 1-3 'improved', 4 'no change' and 5-7 'worsened'.|Week 3 (Visits 3 and 6)||-0.34|-2.73|0.0132
90996719|NCT04847141|181877364|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.14||||0.4734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.54|||ANCOVA||95% CI for difference in LS Mean between C19-IG 20% 2 g dose group and placebo was calculated using ANCOVA model, including length of hospital stay as dependent variable \& treatment group as fixed effect, adjusting for baseline.|||0.54|-0.25|0.4734
91045066|NCT01117766|181976677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.467||0.0403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|-0.05|||ANCOVA||In statistical analyses, scores were further grouped to 1-3 'improved', 4 'no change' and 5-7 'worsened'.|Week 4 (Visits 4 and 7)||-0.05|-1.95|0.0403
91045067|NCT01117766|181976678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.433||0.6631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|0.74|||ANCOVA|||Week 3 (Visits 3 and 6)||0.74|-1.12|0.6631
91045068|NCT01117766|181976678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.465||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|-0.59|||ANCOVA|||Week 4 (Visits 4 and 7)||-0.59|-2.48|0.0022
91045069|NCT01117766|181976679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.722||0.1753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.53|||ANCOVA|||Week 3 (Visits 3 and 6)||0.53|-2.60|0.1753
91045070|NCT01117766|181976679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.588||0.0198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.75|-0.27|||ANCOVA|||Week 4 (Visits 4 and 7)||-0.27|-2.75|0.0198
91045071|NCT01117766|181976680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.292||0.4999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.13|8.54|||ANCOVA|||||8.54|-17.13|0.4999
91045072|NCT00438659|181976684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.18
90996720|NCT04847141|181877365|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|0.02||||0.9853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.05|3.12||p-value was calculated using Chi-square test with 5% level of significance to test the null hypothesis of no difference in the percentage of participants who required ICU admission between C19-IG 20% 1 g dose group and placebo.|Chi-squared||95% CI for percentage difference between C19-IG 20% 1 g dose group and placebo was calculated using the exact unconditional method.|||3.12|-3.05|0.9853
90996721|NCT04847141|181877365|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|0.01||||0.989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.99|3.07||p-value was calculated using Chi-square test with 5% level of significance to test the null hypothesis of no difference in the percentage of participants who required ICU admission between C19-IG 20% 2 g dose group and placebo.|Chi-squared||95% CI for percentage difference between C19-IG 20% 2 g dose group and placebo was calculated using the exact unconditional method.|||3.07|-2.99|0.9890
90996722|NCT04847141|181877366|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.03||||0.578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.12|||ANCOVA||95% CI for difference in LS Mean between C19-IG 20% 1 g dose group and placebo was calculated using ANCOVA model, including length of hospital stay as dependent variable \& treatment group as fixed effect, adjusting for baseline.|||0.12|-0.07|0.5780
90996723|NCT04847141|181877366|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.01||||0.9065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.1|||ANCOVA||95% CI for difference in LS Mean between C19-IG 20% 2 g dose group and placebo was calculated using ANCOVA model, including length of hospital stay as dependent variable \& treatment group as fixed effect, adjusting for baseline.|||0.10|-0.09|0.9065
90996724|NCT04847141|181877370|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|0.02||||0.9853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.05|3.12||p-value was calculated using Chi-square test with 5% level of significance to test the null hypothesis of no difference in the percentage of participants with critical COVID-19 illness between C19-IG 20% 1 g dose group and placebo.|Chi-squared||95% CI for percentage difference between C19-IG 20% 1 g dose group and placebo was calculated using the exact unconditional method.|||3.12|-3.05|0.9853
90996725|NCT04847141|181877370|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|0.01||||0.989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.99|3.07||p-value was calculated using Chi-square test with 5% level of significance to test the null hypothesis of no difference in the percentage of participants with critical COVID-19 illness between C19-IG 20% 2 g dose group and placebo.|Chi-squared||95% CI for percentage difference between C19-IG 20% 2 g dose group and placebo was calculated using the exact unconditional method.|||3.07|-2.99|0.9890
90996726|NCT01357980|181877387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Treatment Difference|-1.54||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.47|0.39||No multiplicity adjustment applied: each test conducted at a 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||Comparison of the average Daily IEF change from baseline to DAY 84 using ANCOVA with the baseline average daily IEF value as covariate.||0.39|-3.47|0.11
90996727|NCT01357980|181877387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Treatment Difference|-0.61||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|0.05||No multiplicity adjustment applied: each test conducted at a 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||Comparison of the average Daily IEF change from baseline to DAY 84 using ANCOVA with the baseline average daily IEF value as covariate.||0.05|-1.27|0.07
90996728|NCT01357980|181877388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Treatment Difference|219.5|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|69.6|369.5|||ANCOVA|||Comparison of the maximum Cystometric Capacity change from baseline to DAY 14 using ANCOVA with the baseline maximum Cystometric Capacity as covariate.||369.5|69.6|<0.01
90996729|NCT01357980|181877388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Treatment Difference|224.1|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|140.9|307.4|||ANCOVA|||Comparison of the maximum Cystometric Capacity change from baseline to DAY 14 using ANCOVA with the baseline maximum Cystometric Capacity as covariate.||307.4|140.9|<0.01
90996730|NCT01357980|181877388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Treatment Difference|117.0||||0.09||95.0|-20.0|254.0|||ANCOVA|||Comparison of the maximum Cystometric Capacity change from baseline to DAY 42 using ANCOVA with the baseline maximum Cystometric Capacity as covariate.||254.0|-20.0|0.09
90996731|NCT01357980|181877388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Treatment Difference|223.7|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.3|353.1|||ANCOVA|||Comparison of the maximum Cystometric Capacity change from baseline to DAY 42 using ANCOVA with the baseline maximum Cystometric Capacity as covariate.||353.1|94.3|<0.01
90996732|NCT01357980|181877388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Treatment Difference|138.5||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.7|242.2|||ANCOVA|||Comparison of the maximum Cystometric Capacity change from baseline to DAY 84 using ANCOVA with the baseline maximum Cystometric Capacity as covariate.||242.2|34.7|0.01
90996733|NCT01357980|181877388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Treatment Difference|186.3|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.2|319.4|||ANCOVA|||Comparison of the maximum Cystometric Capacity change from baseline to DAY 84 using ANCOVA with the baseline maximum Cystometric Capacity as covariate.||319.4|53.2|<0.01
90996734|NCT01357980|181877389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Treatment Difference|-23.8||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.6|18.9|||ANCOVA|||Comparison of the maximum Detrusor Pressure change from baseline to DAY 14 using ANCOVA with the baseline Maximum Detrusor Pressure as covariate.||18.9|-66.6|0.25
90996735|NCT01357980|181877389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Treatment Difference|-67.1|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-112.9|-21.2|||ANCOVA|||Comparison of the maximum Detrusor Pressure change from baseline to DAY 14 using ANCOVA with the baseline Maximum Detrusor Pressure as covariate.||-21.2|-112.9|<0.01
90996736|NCT01357980|181877389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Treatment Difference|-35.1||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.6|-4.6|||ANCOVA|||Comparison of the maximum Detrusor Pressure change from baseline to DAY 42 using ANCOVA with the baseline Maximum Detrusor Pressure as covariate.||-4.6|-65.6|0.03
90996737|NCT01357980|181877389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Treatment Difference|-51.0||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-89.5|-12.4|||ANCOVA|||Comparison of the maximum Detrusor Pressure change from baseline to DAY 42 using ANCOVA with the baseline Maximum Detrusor Pressure as covariate.||-12.4|-89.5|0.01
90996738|NCT01357980|181877389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Treatment Difference|-32.3|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.7|-11.0|||ANCOVA|||Comparison of the maximum Detrusor Pressure change from baseline to DAY 84 using ANCOVA with the baseline Maximum Detrusor Pressure as covariate.||-11.0|-53.7|<0.01
90996739|NCT01357980|181877389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Treatment Difference|-45.3|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.6|-14.1|||ANCOVA|||Comparison of the maximum Detrusor Pressure change from baseline to DAY 84 using ANCOVA with the baseline Maximum Detrusor Pressure as covariate.||-14.1|-76.6|<0.01
90996740|NCT01357980|181877390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Treatment Difference|1.7||||0.05||95.0|||||Satterthwaite-Welch's t-test|||Comparison of the Physician's Global Assessment score at DAY 14 using a two sided Satterthwaite-Welch's t-test for independent samples.||||0.05
90996741|NCT01357980|181877390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Treatment Difference|2.3|||<|0.01|||||||Satterthwaite-Welch's t-test|||Comparison of the Physician's Global Assessment score at DAY 14 using a two sided Satterthwaite-Welch's t-test for independent samples.||||<0.01
90996742|NCT01357980|181877391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Treatment Difference|2.3||||0.01|||||||Satterthwaite-Welch's t-test|||Comparison of the Physician's Global Assessment score at DAY 42 using a two sided Satterthwaite-Welch's t-test for independent samples.||||0.01
90996743|NCT01357980|181877391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Treatment Difference|1.8|||<|0.01|||||||Satterthwaite-Welch's t-test|||Comparison of the Physician's Global Assessment score at DAY 42 using a two sided Satterthwaite-Welch's t-test for independent samples.||||<0.01
90996744|NCT01357980|181877392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Treatment Difference|1.9||||0.05|||||||Satterthwaite-Welch's t-test|||Comparison of the Physician's Global Assessment score at DAY 84 using a two sided Satterthwaite-Welch's t-test for independent samples.||||0.05
90996745|NCT01357980|181877392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Treatment Difference|2.1|||<|0.01|||||||Satterthwaite-Welch's t-test|||Comparison of the Physician's Global Assessment score at DAY 84 using a two sided Satterthwaite-Welch's t-test for independent samples.||||<0.01
90996746|NCT01357980|181877393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Treatment Difference|-1.13|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|-0.35|||ANCOVA|||Comparison of the Quality of Life Total Summary score change from baseline to DAY 14 using ANCOVA with the baseline Quality of Life Total Summary score as covariate.||-0.35|-1.91|<0.01
90996747|NCT01357980|181877393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Treatment Difference|-0.18||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|0.9|||ANCOVA|||Comparison of the Quality of Life Total Summary score change from baseline to DAY 14 using ANCOVA with the baseline Quality of Life Total Summary score as covariate.||0.90|-1.26|0.7
90996748|NCT01357980|181877393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Treatment Difference|-0.52||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|0.52|||ANCOVA|||Comparison of the Quality of Life Total Summary score change from baseline to DAY 42 using ANCOVA with the baseline Quality of Life Total Summary score as covariate.||0.52|-1.56|0.3
90996749|NCT01357980|181877393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Treatment Difference|-0.48||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|0.52|||ANCOVA|||Comparison of the Quality of Life Total Summary score change from baseline to DAY 42 using ANCOVA with the baseline Quality of Life Total Summary score as covariate.||0.52|-1.47|0.3
90996750|NCT01357980|181877393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Treatment Difference|-1.38|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|-0.73|||ANCOVA|||Comparison of the Quality of Life Total Summary score change from baseline to DAY 84 using ANCOVA with the baseline Quality of Life Total Summary score as covariate.||-0.73|-2.02|<0.01
90996751|NCT01357980|181877393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Treatment Difference|-0.4||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|0.55|||ANCOVA|||Comparison of the Quality of Life Total Summary score change from baseline to DAY 84 using ANCOVA with the baseline Quality of Life Total Summary score as covariate.||0.55|-1.35|0.4
90996752|NCT03532776|181877419|EQUIVALENCE|BE limits: -20.0% to 20.0%|Equivalence ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.0|7.0||||||||7|-12|
90996753|NCT00868166|181877422|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||Stratified Log-Rank Test|||||||0.71
90996754|NCT00868166|181877423|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||Stratified Log-Rank Test|||||||0.83
90996755|NCT00868166|181877423|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||Non-stratified Log-Rank Test|||||||0.73
90996756|NCT00868166|181877425|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||Stratified Log-Rank Test|||||||0.21
90996757|NCT00868166|181877425|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Non-stratified Log-Rank Test|||||||0.20
90996758|NCT00868166|181877427|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||Stratified Log-Rank Test|||||||0.56
90996759|NCT01397448|181877484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.31|||Log Rank|||||0.31|0.04|<0.001
90996760|NCT01397448|181877484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.23|||Log Rank|||||0.23|0.01|<0.001
91045073|NCT05766787|181976693|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority in distance VA was declared if upper confidence limit was less than 0.05.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.003|||ONE_SIDED|95.0||-0.01||Since a noninferiority hypothesis is being tested, a p-value is not applicable. Confidence limit is being reported and compared to the noninferiority margin.|||LSM results based on mixed effects repeated measures model with both fixed (lens, period, sequence, visit, and lens by visit interaction) and random (subject) effects. Difference = LID022821 minus AOHG. Sign is retained with the rounded value.|||-0.01||
91045074|NCT01867606|181976696|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.29
91045075|NCT01867606|181976698|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.62
91045076|NCT01917968|181976715|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in percentages|6.5||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|13.2||Statistical significance is considered at 0.05 level.|Z statistics|P-value is calculated using a Z statistics from the propensity score adjusted estimates. Missing values are handled using multiple imputation.||||13.2|-0.2|0.056
91045077|NCT01917968|181976716|NON_INFERIORITY|With type I error of 0.05 and type II error of 0.20 (power 80%), 298 subjects (149 subjects per arm) are needed to detect non-inferiority with a margin of 10%.|Adjusted difference in percentages|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.7|1.9|||||The propensity score adjusted difference in SAE rate of Uphold LITE transvaginal mesh (TVM) vs. NTR was estimated.|||1.9|-2.7|
91045078|NCT01435928|181976729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.66||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.98|||Log Rank|||||0.98|0.45|0.039
91045079|NCT01435928|181976730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.03|||Log Rank|||||1.03|0.54|0.070
91045080|NCT01435928|181976731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029|||||||ANCOVA|LOCF||||||0.029
91045081|NCT01435928|181976732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||ANCOVA|LOCF||||||0.015
91045082|NCT01435928|181976733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.218|||||||ANCOVA|LOCF||||||0.218
91045083|NCT01435928|181976734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021|||||||ANCOVA|LOCF||||||0.021
91045084|NCT01435928|181976735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.056|||||||ANCOVA|LOCF||||||0.056
91045085|NCT03203642|181976792|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.0052|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0082||0.5265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0217|||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model included treatment group as a factor and the Baseline htTKV (log10 transformed) as a covariate for the analysis. The outcome measure was tested at 2-sided 0.05 level to control Type I error rate.||- 0.0112|-0.0217|0.5265
91045086|NCT03203642|181976793|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.0042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0111||0.7076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0264|||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model included treatment group as a factor and the Baseline htTKV (log10 transformed) as a covariate for the analysis. The outcome measure was tested at 2-sided 0.05 level to control Type I error rate.||- 0.0180|-0.0264|0.7076
91045087|NCT03203642|181976794|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.0122|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014||0.3895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0404|||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model included treatment group as a factor and the Baseline htTKV (log10 transformed) as a covariate for the analysis. The outcome measure was tested at 2-sided 0.05 level to control Type I error rate.||- 0.0160|-0.0404|0.3895
91045088|NCT03203642|181976795|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.0015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0131||0.9093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0248|||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model included treatment group as a factor and the Baseline htTKV (log10 transformed) as a covariate for the analysis. The outcome measure was tested at 2-sided 0.05 level to control Type I error rate.||- 0.0278|-0.0248|0.9093
91045089|NCT01546142|181976815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.983|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.311|3.849|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method stratified by pooled study center.|A risk ratio greater than 1 favors deoxycholic acid injection treatment, and between 0 and 1 favors placebo.|The primary analysis was satisfied if both null hypotheses (that there is no treatment difference in 1-grade or 2-grade response rate) were rejected in favor of the two-tailed alternative at the 0.05 level of significance for both primary efficacy endpoints, and the response rates were higher for the deoxycholic acid injection treatment group than the placebo group. Because both hypotheses must be rejected, the type I error was preserved when testing the primary endpoints.||3.849|2.311|<0.001
91045090|NCT01546142|181976816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|6.271|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.908|13.52|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH method stratified by pooled study center.|A risk ratio greater than 1 favors deoxycholic acid injection treatment, and between 0 and 1 favors placebo.|The primary analysis was satisfied if both null hypotheses (that there is no treatment difference in 1-grade or 2-grade response rate) were rejected in favor of the two-tailed alternative at the 0.05 level of significance for both primary efficacy endpoints, and the response rates were higher for the deoxycholic acid injection treatment group than the placebo group. Because both hypotheses must be rejected, the type I error was preserved when testing the primary endpoints.||13.520|2.908|<0.001
91045091|NCT01546142|181976817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|7.838|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.299|18.622|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH method stratified by pooled study center|A risk ratio greater than 1 favors deoxycholic acid injection treatment, and between 0 and 1 favors placebo.|If both primary endpoints were statistically significant, testing continued to the 2 secondary endpoints using the Bonferroni-Holm method. The smaller of the 2 p-values for the treatment difference was tested at the 0.025 level. If significant, testing proceeded for the remaining secondary endpoint at the 0.05 level. If the smaller p-value was \> 0.025, the null hypothesis for the associated variable would not be rejected, and testing of the second endpoint would not proceed.||18.622|3.299|<0.001
91045092|NCT01546142|181976818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model included treatment and Baseline PR-SMFIS total scale score.||If both primary endpoints were statistically significant, testing continued to the 2 secondary endpoints using the Bonferroni-Holm method. The smaller of the 2 p-values for the treatment difference was tested at the 0.025 level. If significant, testing proceeded for the remaining secondary endpoint at the 0.05 level. If the smaller p-value was \> 0.025, the null hypothesis for the associated variable would not be rejected, and testing of the second endpoint would not proceed.||||<0.001
91045093|NCT02973321|181976830|OTHER|The overall Type 1 error for multiple comparisons of the HbA1c and body weight was controlled by a Hierarchical testing procedure. Testing was performed in following sequence: 1. 1st trend test for HbA1c, 2. 1st trend test for body weight, 3. 2nd trend test for HbA1c, 4. 2nd trend test for body weight, 5. 3rd trend test for HbA1c, 6. 3rd trend test for body weight.|||||<|0.0001||||||Hierarchical testing procedure continued only, if the previous comparison was statistically significant. Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|1st trend test||Analysis was performed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment groups, randomization strata of screening HbA1c value (\<8, \>=8 %), randomization strata of Visit 4 (Day 1) BMI (\<35.0 kg/m\^2, \>=35.0 kg/m\^2), and country as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as a covariate. Overall 1st trend test based on a contrast with coefficients of +3, +1, -1, -3 and 0 for SAR425899 0.20 mg, 0.16 mg, 0.12 mg, placebo and liraglutide. Here it is test 1 of testing order.||||< 0.0001
91045094|NCT02973321|181976830|OTHER|Hierarchical testing procedure continued only, if the previous comparison was statistically significant.|LS Mean difference|-0.956|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.206|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.359|-0.552||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|2nd Trend test||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of screening HbA1c value (\<8, \>=8 %), randomization strata of Visit 4 (Day 1) BMI (\<35.0 kg/m\^2, \>=35.0 kg/m\^2), and country as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as a covariate. Second Trend test based on a contrast with coefficients of 0, +1, 0, -1 and 0 for SAR425899 0.20 mg, 0.16 mg, 0.12 mg, placebo and liraglutide, respectively. Here, it is test no. 3 of hierarchical testing sequence.||-0.552|-1.359|< 0.0001
91045095|NCT02973321|181976830|OTHER|Hierarchical testing procedure continued only, if the previous comparison was statistically significant.|LS Mean difference|-0.854|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.209|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.264|-0.444||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|3rd Trend test||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of screening HbA1c value (\<8, \>=8 %), randomization strata of Visit 4 (Day 1) BMI (\<35.0 kg/m\^2, \>=35.0 kg/m\^2), and country as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as a covariate. Third Trend test based on a contrast with coefficients of 0, 0, +1, -1 and 0 for SAR425899 0.20 mg, 0.16 mg, 0.12 mg, placebo and liraglutide, respectively. Here, it is test no. 5 of hierarchical testing sequence.||-0.444|-1.264|< 0.0001
91045096|NCT02973321|181976831|OTHER|Hierarchical testing procedure continued only, if the previous comparison was statistically significant.||||||0.0012||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|1st Trend test||Placebo, SAR425899 0.12,0.16,0.20 mg: Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of screening HbA1c value (\<8, \>=8 %), randomization strata of Day 1 BMI (\<35.0 kg/m\^2, \>=35.0 kg/m\^2), and country as fixed effects and baseline body weight as a covariate. Here, it is test no. 2 of hierarchical testing sequence.||||0.0012
90996761|NCT02466412|181877488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|63.9326|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.6045|82.3991|||ANOVA|The model included terms for sequence, subject nested within sequence, period, and product as fixed effect factors.|"Geometric LS mean ratio (CHTP 1.1 M:mCC).~Expressed as %"|The objective of this study was to determine the point estimate and precision of the CHTP 1.1 M:mCC ratio for Cmax. Therefore, there was no statistical hypothesis to be tested for this objective.||82.3991|49.6045|
90996762|NCT02466412|181877489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|60.0052|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.9517|80.0997|||ANOVA|The model included terms for sequence, subject nested within sequence, period, and product as fixed effect factors.|"Geometric LS mean ratio (CHTP 1.1 M:mCC).~Expressed as %"|The objective of this study was to determine the point estimate and precision of the CHTP 1.1 M:mCC ratio for AUC(0-last). Therefore, there was no statistical hypothesis to be tested for this objective.||80.0997|44.9517|
90996763|NCT02180217|181877495|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.73|53.44|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||53.44|3.73|<.001
90996764|NCT03483116|181877523|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of the lower titre vaccine was demonstrated if the upper bound of the CI was below 20%.|Response rate|0.1553|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.039|0.272||||||||0.272|0.039|
90996765|NCT03483116|181877523|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of the lower titre vaccine was demonstrated if the upper bound of the CI was below 20%|Response rate|0.001|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.115|0.117||||||||0.117|-0.115|
90996766|NCT03483116|181877523|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of the lower titre vaccine was demonstrated if the upper bound of the CI was below 20%|Difference Response rate|0.1543|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.038|0.27||||||Non-inferiority of the lower titre vaccine was demonstrated if the upper bound of the CI was below 20%||0.270|0.038|
90996767|NCT01181102|181877533|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"(non-inferiority) When analyzed using the Z test at a one-sided 0.025 significance level, with the addition of a non-inferiority margin of 5% to the incidence in the enoxaparin group.~(superiority) The incidence of thromboembolic events for the FAS was compared using the χ2 test (two-sided significance level: 0.05)"|Cox Proportional Hazard|-6.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|-1.6||non-inferiority:P \< 0.001 superiority:P = 0.010|non-inferiority:Z test. superiority:χ2 t|||The incidence proportion of thromboembolic events in the DU-176b group (P˅DU) = The incidence proportion of thromboembolic events in the enoxaparin group (P˅E) + Δ (5%). Alternative hypothesis H˅11: P˅DU \< P˅E + Δ (level of significance, 0.025; one-sided). If the null hypothesis H˅01 was rejected, the following analysis had to be sequentially performed using the χ2 test statistic. Null hypothesis H˅02: P˅DU = P˅E Alternative hypothesis H˅12: P˅DU ≠ P˅E (level of significance, 0.05; two-sided).||-1.6|-11.5|<0.001
90996768|NCT01181102|181877534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||χ2 test|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|5.9||||||||5.9|-0.8|
90996769|NCT01315002|181877535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of error percentage in the antisaccade task between nicotine and placebo. An ANOVA model was used with treatment (nicotine, placebo) as a within-subjects factor. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided). Results showed significantly better antisaccade performance (i.e. less antisaccade errors) in the nicotine condition.||||<0.05
90996770|NCT00239837|181877545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Wald χ2|7.14||||0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|Data analyzed using repeated logistic regression model (generalized estimating equations). Domain X EV Level X Group interaction tested.|We began the analyses with a full-factorial model regressing choice on domain (gain=1, loss=0), the EV of the risky choice relative to the safe option (EV; range = -.38 to +.38), and dummy-coded treatment groups (Control= -1, Intervention =1).|||||.008
90996771|NCT00929734|181877582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.292|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.292
90996772|NCT00929734|181877583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.462|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.462
90996773|NCT00929734|181877584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|||||ANCOVA with natural logarithm of hs-CRP (ln hs-CRP)|ANCOVA|||||||0.017
90996774|NCT00929734|181877585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|||||ANCOVA with natural logarithm of interleukin 6 (ln IL6)|ANCOVA|||||||0.028
90996775|NCT00980980|181877586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Proportional-hazards models|Proportional-hazards models with shared frailties accounted for clustering within hospitals.||||||0.01
90996776|NCT02475395|181877614|OTHER||Sensitivity|90.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|79.9|95.3|||||Sensitivity estimates the percent true positive results obtained by Trak. Positive results are less than 15 M/mL sperm concentration and are part of a sub fertile diagnostic assessment.|||95.3|79.9|
90996777|NCT02475395|181877614|OTHER||Specificity|93.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|88.7|96.1|||||Specificity is calculated by the percentage of true negative results obtained using Trak compared to reference method. Negative (for subfertility) results are greater than 15 M/mL.|||96.1|88.7|
90996778|NCT02475395|181877615|OTHER||Sensitivity|95.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.3|98.3||||||||98.3|86.3|
90996779|NCT02475395|181877615|OTHER||Specificity|94.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|90.6|97.3||||||||97.3|90.6|
90996780|NCT02475395|181877616|OTHER||Sensitivity|96.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|88.7|99.1||||||||99.1|88.7|
90996781|NCT02475395|181877616|OTHER||Specificity|93.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.2|96.5||||||||96.5|89.2|
90996782|NCT00764478|181877622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square (LS) means difference|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.41||0.0136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|-0.7||Adjusted p-value from graphical approach to control Type 1 error rate among primary and secondary hypotheses|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|||-0.7|-6.3|0.0136
90996783|NCT00764478|181877622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.43||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|-1.2||Adjusted p-value from graphical approach to control Type 1 error rate among primary and secondary hypotheses|MMRM||Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|||-1.2|-6.9|0.0100
90996784|NCT00764478|181877623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.2||Adjusted p-value from Hochberg's method for testing two secondary efficacy hypotheses|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|||-0.2|-0.8|0.0100
91045097|NCT02973321|181976831|OTHER|Hierarchical testing procedure continued only, if the previous comparison was statistically significant|LS Mean difference|-3.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.887|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.309|-1.832||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|2nd Trend test||SAR425899 0.16 mg vs Placebo: Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of screening HbA1c value (\<8, \>=8 %), randomization strata of Day 1 BMI (\<35.0 kg/m\^2, \>=35.0 kg/m\^2), and country as fixed effects and baseline body weight as a covariate. Here, it is test no. 4 of hierarchical testing sequence.||-1.832|-5.309|< 0.0001
91045098|NCT02973321|181976831|OTHER|Hierarchical testing procedure continued only, if the previous comparison was statistically significant.|LS Mean difference|-2.517|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.891||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.264|-0.77||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|3rd Trend test||3rd Trend Test: SAR425899 0.12 mg vs Placebo: Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of screening HbA1c value (\<8, \>=8 %), randomization strata of Day 1 BMI (\<35.0 kg/m\^2, \>=35.0 kg/m\^2), and country as fixed effects and baseline body weight as a covariate. Here, it is test no. 6 of hierarchical testing sequence.||-0.77|-4.264|0.0047
91045099|NCT03460158|181976843|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.023|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1524||0.8822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Two-sample t test with equal variances the null hypothesis is the relative change in volume and relative change in patient reported outcomes will be the same at 2 weeks post injection||||0.8822
91045100|NCT03460158|181976843|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1466||0.2223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Two-sample t test with equal variances the null hypothesis is the change in volume and change in patient reported outcomes will be the same at 4 weeks post injection||||0.2223
91045101|NCT03460158|181976843|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.369|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.113||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Two-sample t test with equal variances the null hypothesis is the change in volume and change in patient reported outcomes will be the same at 12 weeks post injection||||0.0015
91045102|NCT00263887|181976851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The main effect ANCOVA model includes the change from baseline to endpoint as the dependent variable, treatment and center as fixed factors, change in logarithm of total lung volume and baseline measurement as covariates.||||0.049
91045103|NCT01028911|181976887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Means Ratio|128.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.9|217.21||||||Day 30: Natural log transformed AUCtau of donepezil was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, day and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.The adjusted mean differences and 90% confidence intervals for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% confidence intervals for the ratios. Values were back-transformed from the log scale.||217.21|75.90|
91045104|NCT01028911|181976888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Means Ratio|119.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.9|189.16||||||Day 30: Natural log transformed AUCtau of donepezil was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, day and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.The adjusted mean differences and 90% confidence intervals for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% confidence intervals for the ratios. Values were back-transformed from the log scale.||189.16|75.90|
91045105|NCT05212883|181976896|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.3||||||Comparison of the likelihood to test before gathering for age \< 18 vs. age \>= 18.||1.3|0.8|
91045106|NCT02502734|181976908|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority would be demonstrated if the lower limit of the confidence interval (0.025, 1-sided significance test level) for the mean difference in lower-leg growth rate of FF 50 mcg OD versus Placebo was greater than -0.20mm/week.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.052|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1217|0.0176||Non-inferiority would be demonstrated if the lower limit of the confidence interval (0.025,1-sided significance test level) for the mean difference in lower-leg growth rate of FF 50 mcg OD versus Placebo was greater than -0.20mm/week.|ANCOVA|Analysis performed using ANCOVA with covariates period-level baseline and subject-level baseline lower-leg length, age, gender, treatment and period.||||0.0176|-0.1217|
91045107|NCT03476317|181976919|EQUIVALENCE|Median difference in calprotectin for controls from day 12 to baseline||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.0
91045108|NCT03095118|181976985|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Proteinuria baseline values compared to 6 month follow up values||||0.001
91045109|NCT03095118|181976986|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Proteinuria baseline values compared to 12 month follow up values||||0.004
91045110|NCT03095118|181976988|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Serum creatinine baseline values compared to 6 month follow up values||||0.15
91045111|NCT03095118|181976989|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Serum creatinine baseline values comparted to 12 month follow up values||||0.16
91045112|NCT00530348|181976992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.2173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.23||Hochberg method was used to adjust for the two co-primary outcomes.|Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|||Cox proportional hazards (PH) regression model with robust variance estimation using treatment group and geographic region as covariates was used.||1.23|0.40|0.2173
91045113|NCT00530348|181976993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.63||Hochberg method was used to adjust for the two co-primary outcomes.|Proportional means regression|||Proportional means regression model with robust variance estimation and covariate adjustment for geographic region was used.||0.63|0.32|<0.0001
90996785|NCT00764478|181877623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.2||Adjusted p-value from Hochberg's method for testing two secondary efficacy hypotheses|MMRM||Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|||-0.2|-0.9|0.0052
90996786|NCT00764478|181877624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5352||||||Overall adjusted p-value from Hochberg's method for testing two secondary efficacy hypotheses|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.5352
90996787|NCT00764478|181877624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4274||||||Overall adjusted p-value from Hochberg's method for testing two secondary efficacy hypotheses|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4274
90996788|NCT00764478|181877625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square (LS) means difference|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|-1.1|||MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 2||-1.1|-4.2|0.0007
90996789|NCT00764478|181877625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|-1.3|||MMRM||Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 2||-1.3|-4.4|0.0003
90996790|NCT00764478|181877625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|-1.8|||MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 4||-1.8|-5.4|<0.0001
90996791|NCT00764478|181877625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.92|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|-1.9|||MMRM||Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 4||-1.9|-5.5|<0.0001
90996792|NCT00764478|181877625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|-1.3|||MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||-1.3|-5.7|0.0021
90996793|NCT00764478|181877625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.13||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|-2.0|||MMRM||Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||-2.0|-6.4|0.0002
90996794|NCT00764478|181877625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.35||0.1907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|0.9|||MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||0.9|-4.4|0.1907
90996795|NCT00764478|181877625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.37||0.0238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|-0.4|||MMRM||Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||-0.4|-5.8|0.0238
90996796|NCT00764478|181877626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2922|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 2||||0.2922
90996797|NCT00764478|181877626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 2||||0.1001
90996798|NCT00764478|181877626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0011|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 4||||0.0011
90996799|NCT00764478|181877626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0011|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 4||||0.0011
90996800|NCT00764478|181877626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0194|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 7||||0.0194
90996801|NCT00764478|181877626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0841|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 7||||0.0841
90996802|NCT00764478|181877626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4858|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 14||||0.4858
90996803|NCT00764478|181877626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2496|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 14||||0.2496
90996804|NCT00764478|181877627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2912|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2912
90996805|NCT00764478|181877627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1151|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1151
90996806|NCT00764478|181877629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0019|||||||ANCOVA|||Day 7||||0.0019
90996807|NCT00764478|181877629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0045|||||||ANCOVA|||Day 7||||0.0045
90996808|NCT00764478|181877629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0112|||||||ANCOVA|||Day 21||||0.0112
90996809|NCT00764478|181877629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0021|||||||ANCOVA|||Day 21||||0.0021
90996810|NCT00764478|181877630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.1|||MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 2||-0.1|-0.4|<0.0001
90996811|NCT00764478|181877630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.0076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.1|||MMRM||Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 2||-0.1|-0.3|0.0076
90996812|NCT00764478|181877630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.2|||MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 4||-0.2|-0.6|0.0004
90996813|NCT00764478|181877630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.1|||MMRM||Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 4||-0.1|-0.5|0.0040
90996814|NCT00764478|181877630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.1|||MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||-0.1|-0.6|0.0061
91045114|NCT00530348|181976994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.61|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|||Cox PH regression model with robust variance estimation, covariate adjustment for geographic region, was used. Secondary endpoints were analyzed sequentially as: Proportion of participants relapse free at Year 2, Change from baseline in EDSS, Percent change from Baseline in magnetic resonance imaging-T2 hyperintense lesion volume at Year 2, Acquisition of disability measured by multiple sclerosis functional composite. Each endpoint could only be formally tested if prior endpoint was significant.||0.61|0.33|<0.0001
91045115|NCT00530348|181976995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4188|||||||Wei-Lachin|||The analysis was performed using Wei-Lachin method for non-parametric analysis of repeated measures. Secondary endpoints were analyzed sequentially as: Proportion of participants relapse free at Year 2, Change from baseline in EDSS, Percent change from Baseline in magnetic resonance imaging-T2 hyperintense lesion volume at Year 2, Acquisition of disability measured by multiple sclerosis functional composite. Each endpoint could only be formally tested if prior endpoint was significant.||||0.4188
91045116|NCT00530348|181976996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0115|||||||Wei-Lachin|||Change at Year 2: analysis was performed using Wei-Lachin method for non-parametric analysis of repeated measures. Secondary endpoints were analyzed sequentially as: Proportion of participants relapse free at Year 2, Change from baseline in EDSS, Percent change from Baseline in magnetic resonance imaging-T2 hyperintense lesion volume at Year 2, Acquisition of disability measured by MSFC. Each endpoint could only be formally tested if prior endpoint was significant.||||0.0115
91045117|NCT00530348|181976997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.308|TWO_SIDED||||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Ranked ANCOVA models with covariate adjustment for geographic region and baseline T2 lesion volume was used. Secondary endpoints were analyzed sequentially as: Proportion of participants relapse free at Year 2, Change from baseline in EDSS, Percent change from Baseline in magnetic resonance imaging-T2 hyperintense lesion volume at Year 2, Acquisition of disability measured by multiple sclerosis functional composite. Each endpoint could only be formally tested if prior endpoint was significant.||||0.3080
91045118|NCT04364763|181976998|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0352||||||p-value is for Day 7|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0352
91045119|NCT04364763|181976998|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.235||||||p-value is for Day 28|Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison made for Day 7 and Day 28||||0.2350
91045120|NCT03420768|181977031|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|17.7||||||||17.70|0.13|
91045121|NCT03420768|181977031|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|20.23||||||||20.23|0.26|
91045122|NCT02075606|181977038|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.17|||=|0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|1.65|||Regression, Logistic|||Clinical symptomatic response as dependent variable and CTC presence at baseline as explanatory variable was used to perform the logistic regression analysis.||1.65|0.02|=0.126
91045123|NCT00983476|181977045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|2.2||||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Reference group is Web-based MOVE SMI: In-person MOVE SMI visit x group Beta estimate is .27 (p=.08); Reference group is Web-based MOVE SMI: Usual care plus handouts visit x group Beta estimate is .29 (p=.06).|Difference in Body Mass Index (BMI) by study arm at 6 months after controlling for BMI 6 months prior to baseline using a repeated measures mixed model with arm, time, and the interaction of arm by time||||0.11
91045124|NCT00983476|181977046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|4.02||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Reference group is Web-based MOVE SMI: In-person MOVE SMI visit x group Beta estimate is .40 (p=.02); Reference group is Web-based MOVE SMI: Usual care plus handouts visit x group Beta estimate is .44 (p=.01).|In the obese sample, difference in Body Mass Index (BMI) by study arm at 6 months after controlling for BMI 6 months prior to baseline using a repeated measures mixed model with arm, time, and the interaction of arm by time||||0.02
91045125|NCT00983476|181977047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.14||||0.32|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA||No comparison between groups was conducted because overall model test was not statistically significant.|||||0.32
91045126|NCT00983476|181977048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.23||||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA||No comparison between groups was conducted because overall model test was NS.|||||0.11
90996815|NCT00764478|181877630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.1|||MMRM||Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||-0.1|-0.6|0.0031
91045127|NCT00983476|181977049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.75||||0.47|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA||No comparison between groups was conducted because overall model test was NS.|||||0.47
91045128|NCT00983476|181977050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.67||||0.51|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA||No comparison between groups was conducted because overall model test was NS.|||||0.51
91045129|NCT00983476|181977051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19||||0.83|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA||No comparison between groups was conducted because overall model test was NS.|||||0.83
91045130|NCT01439724|181977057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.158||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.498|||Chi-squared|||The primary end point of the study was the incidence of grade 3-4 oral mucositis (OM) according to the WHO scale. Assuming an α =0.05 and a β = 0.20, with the estimates of proportion being 0.40 for placebo (P0) and 0.15 for LLLT (P1) a total of 94 patients were evaluated. One-sided test error was the basis for the sample size determination and all the reported P-values were derived from two-sided statistical tests. P-values less than or equal to 0.05 were considered statistically significant.||0.498|0.050|0.05
91045131|NCT04019054|181977062|SUPERIORITY|Repeated-measure MANOVA was utilized to compare control and active group.||||||0.518|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.518
91045132|NCT04019054|181977063|SUPERIORITY|Repeated-measure MANOVA was utilized to compare control and active group. This allowed for examination between and within each group. Analysis described here is within-group differences.||||||0.008||||||a priori threshold for significance of p=0.05. Observed power η2=0.39.|ANOVA|||||||0.008
91045133|NCT04019054|181977063|SUPERIORITY|Repeated-measure MANOVA was utilized to compare control and active group. This allowed for examination between and within each group. Analysis described here is between-group differences.|||||>|0.05||||||a priori threshold for significance of p=0.05.|ANOVA|||||||>0.05
91045134|NCT04019054|181977064|SUPERIORITY|Repeated-measure MANOVA was utilized to compare control and active group. This allowed for examination between and within each group. Result described here is within-group difference over time.||||||0.004||||||a priori threshold for significance p=0.05. Result above describes within group testing over time. Observed power η2=0.43.|ANOVA|||||||0.004
91045135|NCT04019054|181977064|SUPERIORITY|Repeated-measure MANOVA was utilized to compare control and active group. This allowed for examination between and within each group. Result described here is the between-group comparison|||||>|0.05||||||a priori threshold for significance p=0.05|ANOVA|||||||>0.05
91045136|NCT04019054|181977065|OTHER|This was a goodness of fit test of a multi-level model, fit was tested using a wald chi-square test.|||||<|0.01||||||Threshold for significance was p=0.05.|Chi-squared|This was specifically a wald chi-square test, performed in Stata for the purpose of assessing goodness-of-fit of a mixed effects model||Goodness of fit test of a two-variable negative binomial multi-level model of skin conductance level (SCL) as a function of step and timepoint. This multi-level model was generated using the menbreg function in Stata 16||||<0.01
91045137|NCT04019054|181977065|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029||||||a priori threshold for significance of 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||The second statistical analysis involved testing of the step-by-timepoint interaction in the two-variable negative binomial model of skin conductance level (SCL) (as a function of step and timepoint).||||0.029
91045138|NCT04019054|181977066|OTHER|This was a goodness of fit test of a multi-level model, fit was tested using a wald chi-square test.|||||<|0.001||||||a priori threshold for significance was p=0.05.|Chi-squared|This was specifically a wald chi-square test, performed in Stata for the purpose of assessing goodness-of-fit of a mixed effects model||Goodness of fit test of a two-variable negative binomial multi-level model of anticipatory distress as a function of step and timepoint. This multi-level model was generated using the menbreg function in Stata 16||||<0.001
91045139|NCT04019054|181977066|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63||||||a priori threshold for significance of 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||This statistical analysis involved testing of the step-by-timepoint interaction in the two-variable negative binomial model of anticipatory distress as a function of step and timepoint.||||0.63
91045140|NCT04019054|181977066|OTHER|This was a goodness of fit test of a multi-level model, fit was tested using a wald chi-square test.|||||<|0.001||||||a priori threshold for significance of p=0.05|Chi-squared|This was specifically a wald chi-square test, performed in Stata for the purpose of assessing goodness-of-fit of a mixed effects model||Goodness of fit test of a two-variable negative binomial multi-level model of anticipatory distress as a function of treatment group and timepoint. This multi-level model was generated using the menbreg function in Stata 16||||<.001
91045141|NCT04019054|181977066|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||a priori threshold for significance of 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||This statistical analysis involved testing of the step-by-timepoint interaction in the two-variable negative binomial model of anticipatory distress as a function of group and timepoint.||||<0.001
91045142|NCT04019054|181977066|OTHER|This was a goodness of fit test of a multi-level model, fit was tested using a wald chi-square test.|||||<|0.001||||||a priori threshold for significance was p=0.05.|Chi-squared|This was specifically a wald chi-square test, performed in Stata for the purpose of assessing goodness-of-fit of a mixed effects model||Goodness of fit test of a two-variable negative binomial multi-level model of anticipatory distress as a function of step and group. This multi-level model was generated using the menbreg function in Stata 16||||<0.001
91045143|NCT04019054|181977066|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.047||||||a priori threshold for significance of 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||This statistical analysis involved testing of the step-by-timepoint interaction in the two-variable negative binomial model of anticipatory distress as a function of step and group.||||0.047
91045144|NCT04019054|181977067|SUPERIORITY||Mann Whitney U statistic|13.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.58||0.027|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold for significance of p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||2-sided Mann-Whitney U Test (nonparametric) utilized to compare the ability of the groups to tolerate treatment intensity.||||0.027
91045145|NCT04019054|181977069|OTHER|A pair of chi-square analyses were performed to validate blinding of the study (based on questionnaires completed by subjects and raters). Given the small sample size, Fisher's exact method was utilized. The number of correct and incorrect guesses for each group were examined once for the subject guesses and once for the rater's guesses.|||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|For the subjects, p=0.64 using Fisher's exact method. For the raters, p=1 using Fisher's exact method.||||||>.05
91045146|NCT04019054|181977070|OTHER|This was a goodness of fit test of a multi-level model, fit was tested using a wald chi-square test.|||||<|0.001||||||a priori threshold for significance was p=0.05.|Chi-squared|This was specifically a wald chi-square test, performed in Stata for the purpose of assessing goodness-of-fit of a mixed effects model||Goodness of fit test of a two-variable negative binomial multi-level model of maximum distress as a function of step and timepoint. This multi-level model was generated using the menbreg function in Stata 16||||<.001
91045147|NCT04019054|181977070|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||a priori threshold for significance of 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||This statistical analysis involved testing of the step-by-timepoint interaction in the two-variable negative binomial model of maximum distress as a function of step and timepoint.||||>.05
91045148|NCT04019054|181977070|OTHER|This was a goodness of fit test of a multi-level model, fit was tested using a wald chi-square test.|||||<|0.001||||||a priori threshold for significance of p=0.05|Chi-squared|This was specifically a wald chi-square test, performed in Stata for the purpose of assessing goodness-of-fit of a mixed effects model||Goodness of fit test of a two-variable negative binomial multi-level model of maximum distress as a function of treatment group and timepoint. This multi-level model was generated using the menbreg function in Stata 16||||<.001
91045149|NCT04019054|181977070|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||a priori threshold for significance of p=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||This statistical analysis involved testing of the step-by-timepoint interaction in the two-variable negative binomial model of maximum distress as a function of group and timepoint.||||<.001
90996816|NCT00764478|181877630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.1086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1|||MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||0.1|-0.5|0.1086
90996817|NCT00764478|181877630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.0|||MMRM||Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||-0.0|-0.6|0.0376
90996818|NCT00764478|181877631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0005|||||||ANCOVA|||Day 2||||0.0005
90996819|NCT00764478|181877631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0026|||||||ANCOVA|||Day 2||||0.0026
90996820|NCT00764478|181877631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0007|||||||ANCOVA|||Day 4||||0.0007
90996821|NCT00764478|181877631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0002|||||||ANCOVA|||Day 4||||0.0002
90996822|NCT00764478|181877631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0387|||||||ANCOVA|||Day 7||||0.0387
90996823|NCT00764478|181877631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0059|||||||ANCOVA|||Day 7||||0.0059
90996824|NCT00764478|181877631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.311|||||||ANCOVA|||Day 14||||0.3110
90996825|NCT00764478|181877631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0613|||||||ANCOVA|||Day 14||||0.0613
90996826|NCT00764478|181877631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.064|||||||ANCOVA|||Day 21||||0.0640
90996827|NCT00764478|181877631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0139|||||||ANCOVA|||Day 21||||0.0139
90996828|NCT00764478|181877632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9708|||||||ANCOVA|||Day 2||||0.9708
90996829|NCT00764478|181877632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7891|||||||ANCOVA|||Day 2||||0.7891
90996830|NCT00764478|181877632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5222|||||||ANCOVA|||Day 4||||0.5222
90996831|NCT00764478|181877632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8686|||||||ANCOVA|||Day 4||||0.8686
90996832|NCT00764478|181877632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0696|||||||ANCOVA|||Day 7||||0.0696
90996833|NCT00764478|181877632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0049|||||||ANCOVA|||Day 7||||0.0049
90996834|NCT00764478|181877632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0196|||||||ANCOVA|||Day 14||||0.0196
90996835|NCT00764478|181877632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0032|||||||ANCOVA|||Day 14||||0.0032
90996836|NCT00764478|181877632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0061|||||||ANCOVA|||Day 21||||0.0061
90996837|NCT00764478|181877632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0012|||||||ANCOVA|||Day 21||||0.0012
90996838|NCT00764478|181877633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0147|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 2||||0.0147
90996839|NCT00764478|181877633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.072|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 2||||0.0720
90996840|NCT00764478|181877633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1213|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 4||||0.1213
90996841|NCT00764478|181877633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0588|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 4||||0.0588
90996842|NCT00764478|181877633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.02|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 7||||0.0200
90996843|NCT00764478|181877633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0017|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 7||||0.0017
90996844|NCT00764478|181877633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2401|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 14||||0.2401
90996845|NCT00764478|181877633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0009|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 14||||0.0009
90996846|NCT00764478|181877633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0525|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 21||||0.0525
90996847|NCT00764478|181877633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0025|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 21||||0.0025
90996848|NCT00764478|181877634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0377|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 2||||0.0377
90996849|NCT00764478|181877634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0771|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 2||||0.0771
90996850|NCT00764478|181877634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1264|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 4||||0.1264
90996851|NCT00764478|181877634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.028|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 4||||0.0280
90996852|NCT00764478|181877634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0583|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 7||||0.0583
90996853|NCT00764478|181877634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0021|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 7||||0.0021
90996854|NCT00764478|181877634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0866|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 14||||0.0866
90996855|NCT00764478|181877634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0048|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 14||||0.0048
90996856|NCT00764478|181877634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0147|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 21||||0.0147
90996857|NCT00764478|181877634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.003|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 21||||0.0030
90996858|NCT00764478|181877635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0104|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 2||||0.0104
90996859|NCT00764478|181877635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0005|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 2||||0.0005
90996860|NCT00764478|181877635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0692|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 4||||0.0692
90996861|NCT00764478|181877635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0128|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 4||||0.0128
90996862|NCT00764478|181877635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0809|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 7||||0.0809
90996863|NCT00764478|181877635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.026|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 7||||0.0260
90996864|NCT00764478|181877635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2576|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 14||||0.2576
90996865|NCT00764478|181877635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0077|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 14||||0.0077
90996866|NCT00764478|181877635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.396|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 21||||0.3960
90996867|NCT00764478|181877635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0141|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 21||||0.0141
90996868|NCT00764478|181877636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square (LS) means difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|-0.9|||MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||-0.9|-5.1|0.0056
90996869|NCT00764478|181877636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08||0.0068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|-0.8|||MMRM||Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||-0.8|-5.0|0.0068
90996870|NCT00764478|181877636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.33||0.0743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|0.2|||MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||0.2|-5.0|0.0743
90996871|NCT00764478|181877636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.35||0.0177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|-0.6|||MMRM||Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||-0.6|-5.9|0.0177
90996872|NCT00764478|181877636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.41||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|-1.0|||MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||-1.0|-6.6|0.0081
90996873|NCT00764478|181877636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.43||0.0247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|-0.4|||MMRM||Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||-0.4|-6.1|0.0247
90996874|NCT00764478|181877637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square (LS) means difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.9808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.6|||MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||0.6|-0.6|0.9808
90996875|NCT00764478|181877637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.3|||MMRM||Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||0.3|-0.9|0.2830
90996876|NCT00764478|181877637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.9751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.6|||MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||0.6|-0.6|0.9751
90996877|NCT00764478|181877637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.7879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.7|||MMRM||Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||0.7|-0.6|0.7879
90996878|NCT00764478|181877637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.9654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.7|||MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||0.7|-0.8|0.9654
90996879|NCT00764478|181877637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.3917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.1|||MMRM||Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||1.1|-0.4|0.3917
90996880|NCT00764478|181877638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square (LS) means difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.2|||MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||-0.2|-1.8|0.0120
90996881|NCT00764478|181877638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.5|||MMRM||Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||-0.5|-2.2|0.0011
90996882|NCT00764478|181877638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.6885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.8|||MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||0.8|-1.2|0.6885
91045150|NCT04019054|181977070|OTHER|This was a goodness of fit test of a multi-level model, fit was tested using a wald chi-square test.|||||<|0.001||||||a priori threshold for significance was p=0.05.|Chi-squared|This was specifically a wald chi-square test, performed in Stata for the purpose of assessing goodness-of-fit of a mixed effects model||Goodness of fit test of a two-variable negative binomial multi-level model of maximum distress as a function of step and group. This multi-level model was generated using the menbreg function in Stata 16||||<0.001
91045151|NCT04019054|181977070|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024||||||a priori threshold for significance of p=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||This statistical analysis involved testing of the step-by-timepoint interaction in the two-variable negative binomial model of maximum distress as a function of step and group.||||0.024
90996883|NCT00764478|181877638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.0398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.1|||MMRM||Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||-0.1|-2.1|0.0398
90996884|NCT00764478|181877638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.0258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.1|||MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||-0.1|-2.1|0.0258
90996885|NCT00764478|181877638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-0.5|||MMRM||Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||-0.5|-2.5|0.0031
90996886|NCT00764478|181877639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square (LS) means difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-0.6|||MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||-0.6|-3.2|0.0033
90996887|NCT00764478|181877639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.0622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.1|||MMRM||Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||0.1|-2.5|0.0622
91045152|NCT01040793|181977071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio to placebo|1.118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0018||95.0|1.043|1.199|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline endurance time and period as fixed and patient as random effect. Means, CI back-transformed.|Olo 5 mcg divided by Placebo|||1.199|1.043|0.0018
90996888|NCT00764478|181877639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|-0.5|||MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||-0.5|-3.6|0.0083
90996889|NCT00764478|181877639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|-0.6|||MMRM||Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||-0.6|-3.8|0.0064
90996890|NCT00764478|181877639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|-0.9|||MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||-0.9|-4.3|0.0022
90996891|NCT00764478|181877639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.0196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|-0.3|||MMRM||Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||-0.3|-3.7|0.0196
90996892|NCT00764478|181877640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square (LS) means difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.1883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.3|||MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||0.3|-1.3|0.1883
90996893|NCT00764478|181877640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.1684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.2|||MMRM||Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||0.2|-1.3|0.1684
90996894|NCT00764478|181877640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.9522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.9|||MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||0.9|-0.9|0.9522
90996895|NCT00764478|181877640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.0514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.0|||MMRM||Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||0.0|-1.8|0.0514
90996896|NCT00764478|181877640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.0531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.0|||MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||0.0|-1.8|0.0531
90996897|NCT00764478|181877640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.3|||MMRM||Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||-0.3|-2.2|0.0078
90996898|NCT00764478|181877641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square (LS) means difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.7746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.5|||MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||0.5|-0.7|0.7746
90996899|NCT00764478|181877641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.2754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.3|||MMRM||Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||0.3|-1.0|0.2754
90996900|NCT00764478|181877641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.9109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.7|||MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||0.7|-0.6|0.9109
90996901|NCT00764478|181877641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.7295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.8|||MMRM||Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||0.8|-0.6|0.7295
90996902|NCT00764478|181877641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.8|||MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||0.8|-0.7|0.9800
90996903|NCT00764478|181877641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.5122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.0|||MMRM||Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||1.0|-0.5|0.5122
90996904|NCT00764478|181877642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square (LS) means difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.2191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.2|||MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||0.2|-0.9|0.2191
90996905|NCT00764478|181877642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.0589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.0|||MMRM||Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||0.0|-1.1|0.0589
90996906|NCT00764478|181877642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.3683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.4|||MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||0.4|-1.0|0.3683
90996907|NCT00764478|181877642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.0982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.1|||MMRM||Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||0.1|-1.3|0.0982
90996908|NCT00764478|181877642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.1969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.3|||MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||0.3|-1.3|0.1969
90996909|NCT00764478|181877642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.5615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.5|||MMRM||Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||0.5|-1.0|0.5615
90996910|NCT00764478|181877643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square (LS) means difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.2|||MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||-0.2|-1.5|0.0101
90996911|NCT00764478|181877643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.0146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.2|||MMRM||Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||-0.2|-1.5|0.0146
90996912|NCT00764478|181877643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.0861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.1|||MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||0.1|-1.4|0.0861
91045153|NCT01040793|181977071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio to placebo|1.105|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.0052||95.0|1.03|1.184|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline endurance time and period as fixed and patient as random effect. Means, CI back-transformed.|Olo 10 mcg divided by Placebo|||1.184|1.030|0.0052
91045154|NCT01040793|181977072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.084|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035||0.0155||95.0|0.016|0.152|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||0.152|0.016|0.0155
91045155|NCT01040793|181977072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.166|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034|<|0.0001||95.0|0.098|0.234|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||0.234|0.098|<0.0001
91045156|NCT01040793|181977073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.366|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.214||0.1176||95.0|-0.757|0.085|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||0.085|-0.757|0.1176
91045157|NCT01040793|181977073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.066|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.214||0.7591||95.0|-0.486|0.355|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||0.355|-0.486|0.7591
91045158|NCT01040793|181977074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.164|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036|<|0.0001||95.0|0.094|0.234|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||0.234|0.094|<0.0001
91045159|NCT01040793|181977074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.195|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036|<|0.0001||95.0|0.125|0.265|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||0.265|0.125|<0.0001
91045160|NCT01040793|181977075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.078|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034||0.0245||95.0|0.01|0.146|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||0.146|0.010|0.0245
91045161|NCT01040793|181977075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.172|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034|<|0.0001||95.0|0.105|0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||0.240|0.105|<0.0001
91045162|NCT01040793|181977076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.074|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.2897||95.0|-0.211|0.063|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||0.063|-0.211|0.2897
91045163|NCT01040793|181977076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.025|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.069||0.7199||95.0|-0.162|0.112|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||0.112|-0.162|0.7199
91045164|NCT01040793|181977077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.091|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.146||0.5313||95.0|-0.196|0.379|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||0.379|-0.196|0.5313
91045165|NCT01040793|181977077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.341|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.146||0.0198||95.0|0.055|0.628|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||0.628|0.055|0.0198
91045166|NCT01040793|181977078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.086|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053||0.1048||95.0|-0.19|0.018|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||0.018|-0.190|0.1048
91045167|NCT01040793|181977078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053||0.0246||95.0|-0.224|-0.015|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||-0.015|-0.224|0.0246
91045168|NCT01040793|181977079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.213|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.318|-0.108|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||-0.108|-0.318|<0.0001
91045169|NCT01040793|181977079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.187|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054||0.0005||95.0|-0.293|-0.082|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||-0.082|-0.293|0.0005
91045170|NCT01040793|181977080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0002||95.0|0.071|0.228|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||0.228|0.071|0.0002
91045171|NCT01040793|181977080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.154|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0001||95.0|0.076|0.233|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||0.233|0.076|0.0001
91045172|NCT01040793|181977081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.232|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036|<|0.0001||95.0|0.162|0.303|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||0.303|0.162|<0.0001
91045173|NCT01040793|181977081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.203|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036|<|0.0001||95.0|0.133|0.273|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||0.273|0.133|<0.0001
91045174|NCT01040793|181977082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.057|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056||0.3109||95.0|-0.053|0.166|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||0.166|-0.053|0.3109
91045175|NCT01040793|181977082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.029|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056||0.608||95.0|-0.081|0.138|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||0.138|-0.081|0.6080
91045176|NCT01040793|181977083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.023|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056||0.6809||95.0|-0.087|0.133|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||0.133|-0.087|0.6809
90996913|NCT00764478|181877643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.0342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.1|||MMRM||Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||-0.1|-1.6|0.0342
90996914|NCT00764478|181877643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.4|||MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||-0.4|-2.0|0.0037
90996915|NCT00764478|181877643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.0096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.3|||MMRM||Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||-0.3|-1.9|0.0096
90996916|NCT00764478|181877644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square (LS) means difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.4|||MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||-0.4|-1.7|0.0019
90996917|NCT00764478|181877644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.0791|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.1|||MMRM||Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||0.1|-1.2|0.0791
90996918|NCT00764478|181877644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.5|||MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||-0.5|-2.0|0.0006
90996919|NCT00764478|181877644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.0123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.2|||MMRM||Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||-0.2|-1.6|0.0123
90996920|NCT00764478|181877644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.3|||MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||-0.3|-2.0|0.0054
90996921|NCT00764478|181877644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.1|||MMRM||Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||-0.1|-1.7|0.0350
90996922|NCT00862121|181877653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.212||||0.231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.017|2.683|||Regression, Logistic|||The odds ratio (OR) for Baseline CDAI measures the effect of an increase of one unit on the outcome. The OR \[95% CI\] and p-value (likelihood-based) are for Pentasa versus placebo estimated in a logistic regression analysis including TREATMENT and CDAI at baseline as covariates. Power to demonstrate superiority of PENTASA Sachet 6 g/day over placebo in the primary efficacy analysis was 90% for a planned sample size of 255 participants per treatment arm (assuming 10% nonassessable participants).||2.683|0.017|0.231
90996923|NCT02007954|181877665|OTHER|||||||0.01||||||P-values \< 0.05 considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||Shapiro-Wilk test was run for normality. Baseline and follow-up AFP compared using two-tailed Student's t-test.||||.01
90996924|NCT02659605|181877672|EQUIVALENCE|The sample size was based on a previous study by Rabe et al. (Obstet Gynecol. 2011;117(2 Pt 1):205-11), who were also evaluating neonatal hematocrit after delayed cord clamping with the intention of detecting a 10% difference with a p-value of 0.05 and a power of 80% for a two-sided t-test. That study determined that 26 patients in each group were needed for a total of 52 subjects.||||||0.572|||||||Student's t-test|||||||0.572
90996925|NCT02659605|181877673|EQUIVALENCE|The sample size was based on a previous study by Rabe et al. (Obstet Gynecol. 2011;117(2 Pt 1):205-11), who were also evaluating neonatal hematocrit after delayed cord clamping with the intention of detecting a 10% difference with a p-value of 0.05 and a power of 80% for a two-sided t-test. That study determined that 26 patients in each group were needed for a total of 52 subjects.||||||0.849|||||||Student's t-test|||||||0.849
90996926|NCT02659605|181877674|EQUIVALENCE|The sample size was based on a previous study by Rabe et al. (Obstet Gynecol. 2011;117(2 Pt 1):205-11), who were also evaluating neonatal hematocrit after delayed cord clamping with the intention of detecting a 10% difference with a p-value of 0.05 and a power of 80% for a two-sided t-test. That study determined that 26 patients in each group were needed for a total of 52 subjects.||||||0.886|||||||Student's t-test|||||||0.886
90996927|NCT02659605|181877675|EQUIVALENCE|The sample size was based on a previous study by Rabe et al. (Obstet Gynecol. 2011;117(2 Pt 1):205-11), who were also evaluating neonatal hematocrit after delayed cord clamping with the intention of detecting a 10% difference with a p-value of 0.05 and a power of 80% for a two-sided t-test. That study determined that 26 patients in each group were needed for a total of 52 subjects.||||||0.612|||||||Student's t-test|||||||0.612
90996928|NCT02659605|181877676|EQUIVALENCE|The sample size was based on a previous study by Rabe et al. (Obstet Gynecol. 2011;117(2 Pt 1):205-11), who were also evaluating neonatal hematocrit after delayed cord clamping with the intention of detecting a 10% difference with a p-value of 0.05 and a power of 80% for a two-sided t-test. That study determined that 26 patients in each group were needed for a total of 52 subjects.||||||0.728|||||||Student's t-test|||||||0.728
90996929|NCT02659605|181877677|EQUIVALENCE|The sample size was based on a previous study by Rabe et al. (Obstet Gynecol. 2011;117(2 Pt 1):205-11), who were also evaluating neonatal hematocrit after delayed cord clamping with the intention of detecting a 10% difference with a p-value of 0.05 and a power of 80% for a two-sided t-test. That study determined that 26 patients in each group were needed for a total of 52 subjects.||||||0.584|||||||Student's t-test|||||||0.584
90996930|NCT00475540|181877702|SUPERIORITY|Statistical analysis was performed using SAS 9.1 software. One patient did not receive the assigned mesh treatment because the surgeon felt there was inadequate vaginal caliber, so non mesh repair was performed. This subject was analyzed in the non mesh group for the 3-month and 1-year outcomes rather than intent-to-treat approach. This subject was lost to follow-up after 12 months and not included in the 3-year analysis.|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t-tests, Wilcoxon signed rank, Wilcoxon rank-sum tests continuous variables; X2 for categorical variables. Combined cure outcomes Fisher's exact test||Sample size primary outcome 1 year: 45 participants per arm, 20% difference success (70% no mesh and 90% mesh), alpha of .05 and 80% power, 15% loss to follow-up.||||<0.05
90996931|NCT00804843|181877731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|0.27||||0.811|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.24|0.78|||ANOVA|||||0.78|-0.24|0.811
90996932|NCT00804843|181877732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|3.64||||0.898|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.09|8.36|||ANOVA|||||8.36|-1.09|0.898
90996933|NCT05263921|181877762|OTHER|The ratio and 90% CI were expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric means|107.35|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.66|115.64||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg commercial tablets; Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with water||115.64|99.66|
90996934|NCT05263921|181877762|OTHER|The ratio and 90% CI were expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|120.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|112.09|130.03||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg commercial tablets Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with applesauce||130.03|112.09|
90996935|NCT05263921|181877762|OTHER|The ratio and 90% CI were expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|125.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|116.08|134.69||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg commercial tablets Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with vanilla pudding||134.69|116.08|
90996936|NCT05263921|181877763|OTHER|The ratio and 90% CI were expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric means|108.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.06|117.14||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg commercial tablets; Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with water||117.14|101.06|
90996937|NCT05263921|181877763|OTHER|The ratio and 90% CI were expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|120.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|112.36|130.2||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg commercial tablets Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with applesauce||130.20|112.36|
90996938|NCT05263921|181877763|OTHER|The ratio and 90% CI were expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|127.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|118.32|137.15||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg commercial tablets Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with vanilla pudding||137.15|118.32|
90996939|NCT05263921|181877764|OTHER|The ratio and 90% CI were expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric means|115.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|104.03|127.34||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg commercial tablets; Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with water||127.34|104.03|
90996940|NCT05263921|181877764|OTHER|The ratio and 90% CI were expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|145.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|131.68|160.99||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg commercial tablets Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with applesauce||160.99|131.68|
90996941|NCT05263921|181877764|OTHER|The ratio and 90% CI were expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|161.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|145.95|178.66||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg commercial tablets Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with vanilla pudding||178.66|145.95|
90996942|NCT05263921|181877765|OTHER|The ratio and 90% CI were expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric means|110.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.38|128.82||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg commercial tablets; Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with water||128.82|95.38|
90996943|NCT05263921|181877765|OTHER|The ratio and 90% CI were expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|106.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.76|123.73||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg commercial tablets Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with applesauce||123.73|91.76|
90996944|NCT05263921|181877765|OTHER|The ratio and 90% CI were expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|107.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.7|125.21||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg commercial tablets Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with vanilla pudding||125.21|92.70|
90996945|NCT05263921|181877766|OTHER|The ratio and 90% CI were expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric means|110.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.51|128.47||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg commercial tablets; Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with water||128.47|94.51|
90996946|NCT05263921|181877766|OTHER|The ratio and 90% CI were expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|107.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.0|124.86||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg commercial tablets Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with applesauce||124.86|92.00|
90996947|NCT05263921|181877766|OTHER|The ratio and 90% CI were expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|107.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.48|125.72||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg commercial tablets Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with vanilla pudding||125.72|92.48|
90996948|NCT05263921|181877767|OTHER|The ratio and 90% CI were expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric means|108.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.32|132.32||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg commercial tablets; Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with water||132.32|89.32|
90996949|NCT05263921|181877767|OTHER|The ratio and 90% CI were expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|109.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.05|133.0||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg commercial tablets Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with applesauce||133.00|90.05|
90996950|NCT05263921|181877767|OTHER|The ratio and 90% CI were expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|117.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.37|142.77||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg commercial tablets Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with vanilla pudding||142.77|96.37|
90996951|NCT02678312|181877821|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.0655||||0.7958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6589|1.7232||The adjusted hazard ratio and the p-values are based on a Cox proportional hazard model, stratified by modified age group with treatment and NYHA/ROSS class group included as factor.|Cox Proportional Hazard|||||1.7232|0.6589|0.7958
90996952|NCT00640146|181877848|OTHER|||||||0.0213|||||||Fisher Exact|||Analysis was performed using Fisher exact test comparing the percentage of participants with a laxation response within 2 hours of the first dose of study drug, testing MNTX against placebo.||||0.0213
90996953|NCT00640146|181877849|OTHER|||||||0.0463|||||||Fisher Exact|||Analysis was performed using Fisher exact test comparing the percentage of participants with a laxation response within 4 hours of the first dose of study drug, testing MNTX against placebo.||||0.0463
90996954|NCT02455388|181877863|EQUIVALENCE|No equivalence margin set.|||||<|0.001|||||||Intraclass correlation coefficient|||||||<0.001
90996955|NCT02455388|181877864|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
90996956|NCT02455388|181877865|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.01
90996957|NCT04507776|181877869|OTHER|||||||0.75|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Year 1 Adherence: Baseline||||0.75
90996958|NCT04507776|181877869|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Year 1 Adherence: Year 1 (Month 12)||||<0.05
90996959|NCT04507776|181877869|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Year 7 Adherence: Baseline||||<0.05
90996960|NCT04507776|181877869|OTHER|||||||0.43|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Year 7 Adherence: Year 7||||0.43
90996961|NCT04507776|181877870|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Year 1 Adherence: Change at Year 1 (Month 12)||||0.0001
90996962|NCT04507776|181877870|OTHER|||||||0.247|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Year 7 Adherence: Change at Year 7||||0.247
90996963|NCT04507776|181877871|OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Year 1 Adherence: Baseline||||0.21
90996964|NCT04507776|181877871|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Year 1 Adherence: Year 1 (Month 12)||||<0.05
90996965|NCT04507776|181877871|OTHER|||||||0.62|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Year 7 Adherence: Baseline||||0.62
90996966|NCT04507776|181877871|OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Year 7 Adherence: Year 7||||0.18
90996967|NCT04507776|181877872|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Year 1 Adherence: Change at Year 1 (Month 12)||||0.0001
90996968|NCT04507776|181877872|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Year 7 Adherence: Change at Year 7||||0.003
90996969|NCT01779648|181877924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.785||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.785
90996970|NCT01779648|181877925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.195||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Mean of right and left leg values were compared between the two device groups.||||0.195
90996971|NCT01779648|181877926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.722||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Mean of right and left leg values were compared between the two device groups.||||0.722
90996972|NCT01779648|181877927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.158||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Mean of right and left leg values were compared between the two device groups.||||0.158
90996973|NCT01779648|181877928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.301||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Mean of right and left leg values were compared between the two device groups.||||0.301
90996974|NCT01779648|181877929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Age, sex, body mass index, and baseline TVF (total volume flow) are controlled as fixed-effects parameters.||||||<0.001
90996975|NCT01779648|181877930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Age, sex, body mass index, and baseline PVF (peak volume flow) are controlled as fixed-effects parameters.||||||<0.001
90996976|NCT01779648|181877931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.929||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Age, sex, body mass index, and baseline PV (peak velocity)are controlled as fixed-effects parameters.||||||0.929
90996977|NCT01779648|181877933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Age, sex, body mass index, and baseline peak volume flow are controlled as fixed-effects parameters.||||||0.008
91045177|NCT01040793|181977083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056||0.858||95.0|-0.1|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||0.120|-0.100|0.8580
91045178|NCT01040793|181977084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.073|0.148|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||0.148|0.073|<0.0001
91045179|NCT01040793|181977084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.073|0.148|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||0.148|0.073|<0.0001
91045180|NCT01040793|181977085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.192|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001||95.0|0.151|0.233|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||0.233|0.151|<0.0001
91045181|NCT01040793|181977085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.195|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001||95.0|0.153|0.236|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||0.236|0.153|<0.0001
91045182|NCT01040793|181977086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.119|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||0.0013||95.0|0.047|0.191|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||0.191|0.047|0.0013
91045183|NCT01040793|181977086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.119|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.0013||95.0|0.047|0.191|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||0.191|0.047|0.0013
90996978|NCT01779648|181877934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.132||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Age, sex, body mass index, and baseline total volume flow are controlled as fixed-effects parameters.||||||0.132
90996979|NCT01797445|181877936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages|3.1||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.002|-1.0|7.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA (≤ 100,000 or \> 100,000 copies/mL) and region (US vs ex-US).|The difference in percentages and its 95.002% confidence interval (CI) were calculated based on the Mantel-Haenszel (MH) proportions adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA and region stratum.|Null hypothesis: the E/C/F/TAF group was ≥ 12% worse than the E/C/F/TDF group with respect to the percentage of participants achieving HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL at Week 48; alternative hypothesis: the E/C/F/TAF group was \< 12% worse than the E/C/F/TDF group.||7.1|-1.0|0.13
91045184|NCT01040793|181977087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.265|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|<|0.0001||95.0|0.196|0.333|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||0.333|0.196|<0.0001
90996980|NCT02119026|181877956|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.967|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.967
91045185|NCT01040793|181977087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.281|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|<|0.0001||95.0|0.212|0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||0.350|0.212|<0.0001
91045186|NCT01040793|181977088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.281|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063|<|0.0001||95.0|0.156|0.405|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||0.405|0.156|<0.0001
91045187|NCT01040793|181977088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.291|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063|<|0.0001||95.0|0.166|0.416|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||0.416|0.166|<0.0001
91045188|NCT01040793|181977089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001||95.0|0.441|0.719|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||0.719|0.441|<0.0001
91045189|NCT01040793|181977089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.552|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.071|<|0.0001||95.0|0.412|0.691|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||0.691|0.412|<0.0001
91045190|NCT05070390|181977095|OTHER|GMR: Panel A-Moderate RI/Panel B-Healthy controls|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.62|2.44|||||GMR and 90% confidence interval (CI) were estimated using a linear mixed effects model and referencing a t-distribution.|||2.44|0.62|
91045191|NCT05070390|181977096|OTHER|GMR: Panel A-Moderate RI/Panel B-Healthy controls|GMR|1.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.55|4.83|||||GMR and 90% CI were estimated using a linear mixed effects model and referencing a t-distribution.|||4.83|0.55|
91045192|NCT05070390|181977097|OTHER|GMR: Panel A-Moderate RI/Panel B-Healthy controls|GMR|1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7|2.99|||||GMR and 90% CI were estimated using a linear mixed effects model and referencing a t-distribution.|||2.99|0.70|
91045193|NCT05070390|181977100|OTHER|GMR: Panel A-Moderate RI/Panel B-Healthy controls|GMR|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.41|1.62|||||GMR and 90% CI were estimated using a linear mixed effects model and referencing a t-distribution.|||1.62|0.41|
91045194|NCT05070390|181977101|OTHER|GMR: Panel A-Moderate RI/Panel B-Healthy controls|GMR|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6|1.42|||||GMR and 90% CI were estimated using a linear mixed effects model and referencing a t-distribution.|||1.42|0.60|
91045195|NCT05070390|181977104|OTHER|GMR: Panel A-Moderate RI/Panel B-Healthy controls|GMR|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.22|3.1|||||GMR and 90% CI were estimated using a linear mixed effects model and referencing a t-distribution.|||3.10|0.22|
91045196|NCT05070390|181977105|OTHER|GMR: Panel A-Moderate RI/Panel B-Healthy controls|GMR|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.22|3.1|||||GMR and 90% CI were estimated using a linear mixed effects model and referencing a t-distribution.|||3.10|0.22|
91045197|NCT05070390|181977106|OTHER|GMR: Panel A-Moderate RI/Panel B-Healthy controls|GMR|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.13|1.13|||||GMR and 90% CI were estimated using a linear mixed effects model and referencing a t-distribution.|||1.13|0.13|
90996981|NCT02119026|181877957|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.474|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.474
90996982|NCT02119026|181877958|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.464|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.464
91045198|NCT02412722|181977115|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.46|0.76||||||||0.76|0.46|
91045199|NCT02412722|181977116|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.59|1.36||||||||1.36|0.59|
91045200|NCT02412722|181977117|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.72|1.49||||||||1.49|0.72|
90996983|NCT02119026|181877959|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.854|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.854
90996984|NCT02119026|181877960|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.728|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.728
90996985|NCT02119026|181877961|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.668|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.668
90996986|NCT02119026|181877962|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.618|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.618
90996987|NCT02119026|181877963|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.792||||||The rate of overall response was measured as the response rate from randomization until the day of documented complete response (CR) or partial response (PR) (whichever status is recorded first). Analysis corresponds to numbers of CR and PR.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.792
90996988|NCT02119026|181877964|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.371||||||The rate of overall response was measured as the response rate from randomization until the day of documented complete response (CR) or partial response (PR) (whichever status is recorded first). Analysis corresponds to numbers of CR and PR.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.371
90996989|NCT04190186|181877967|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.49||||0.594|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.594
90996990|NCT02016898|181877978|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.93||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.29|||Chi-squared|||||1.29|0.67|0.7
90996991|NCT02016898|181877979|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.01||0.539|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.539
90996992|NCT02666508|181878009|OTHER|Test conducted was a test of difference between plaque identifying toothpaste and non-plaque identifying toothpaste for change in DPIA from pre to post.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.02||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.44|||Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||-0.44|-1.60|0.001
90996993|NCT02666508|181878010|OTHER|Test conducted was a test of the difference between plaque identifying toothpaste and non-plaque identifying toothpaste for change in hsCRP|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.18||||0.459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.32|||Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||0.32|-0.69|0.459
90996994|NCT00318565|181878018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Binomial distribution|93.3||||0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0|90.1||||Exact binomial distribution|||An acute success rate of 88% is anticipated and the one-sided 95% lower confidence bound will be compared to 80%. The statistical hypothesis for the primary efficacy endpoint is evaluated as a one-tailed hypothesis at a = 0.05.|||90.1|.05
90996995|NCT00318565|181878019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Binomial Distribution|1.5||||0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0||7.0|||Exact Binomial Distribution|||The anticipated rate of the CSAE is 2.7% and the one-sided 95% upper confidence bound will be compared to 7%||7||.05
90996996|NCT01804036|181878022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.84
90996997|NCT01804036|181878023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.11
90996998|NCT01804036|181878024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.95
90996999|NCT01804036|181878025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.08
90997000|NCT01804036|181878026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.20
90997001|NCT01804036|181878027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.13
90997002|NCT01804036|181878028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.52
90997003|NCT01804036|181878029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.54
90997004|NCT01804036|181878030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.94|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.94
90997005|NCT01804036|181878031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.95
90997006|NCT01804036|181878032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.49
90997007|NCT01804036|181878033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.01
90997008|NCT01804036|181878034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.01
90997009|NCT01804036|181878035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.13
90997010|NCT03859960|181878041|OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Pearson correlation test|||||||0.006
90997011|NCT03859960|181878041|OTHER|||||||0.23||||||p\<0.05 was considered statisticaly significant.|Pearson correlation test|||||||0.23
90997012|NCT03859960|181878042|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||p\<0.05 was considered statisticaly significant.|Pearson correlation test|||||||0.001
90997013|NCT03859960|181878042|OTHER|||||||0.731|||||||Pearson correlation test|||||||0.731
90997014|NCT03859960|181878043|OTHER|||||||0.214|||||||Pearson correlation test|||||||0.214
90997015|NCT03859960|181878043|OTHER|||||||0.993||||||p\<0.05 was considered statisticaly significant.|Pearson correlation test|||||||0.993
90997016|NCT03859960|181878044|OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||Pearson correlation test|||||||0.41
90997017|NCT03859960|181878044|OTHER|||||||0.676|||||||Pearson correlation test|||||||0.676
90997018|NCT03859960|181878045|OTHER|||||||0.511||||||p\<0.05 was considered statisticaly significant.|Pearson correlation test|||||||0.511
90997019|NCT03859960|181878045|OTHER|||||||0.248|||||||Pearson correlation test|||||||0.248
90997020|NCT03859960|181878046|OTHER|||||||0.654|||||||Pearson correlation test|||||||0.654
90997021|NCT03859960|181878046|OTHER|||||||0.025|||||||Pearson correlation test|||||||0.025
90997022|NCT00830960|181878057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference in PRU|-183.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-229.0|-137.0||"Linear mixed effects model: treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, country as fixed effects, baseline PRU as covariate, participant as random effect was used.~Difference in PRU = prasugrel - clopidogrel."|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom for fixed effects. Invalid measurements excluded.||||-137|-229|<0.0001
90997023|NCT00830960|181878057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in PRU|-139.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-177.0|-102.0||"Linear mixed effects model: treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, country as fixed effects, baseline PRU as covariate, participant as random effect was used.~Difference in PRU = prasugrel - clopidogrel."|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom for fixed effects. Invalid measurements excluded.||||-102|-177|<0.0001
90997024|NCT00830960|181878058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference in PRU|-57.0||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-97.0|-17.0||"P-value for 30 minutes post-LD~Linear mixed effects model: treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, country as fixed effects, baseline PRU as covariate, participant as random effect~Difference in PRU = prasugrel - clopidogrel."|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom for fixed effects. Invalid measurements were excluded.||||-17|-97|0.0058
91045201|NCT02412722|181977121|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.78|1.47||||||||1.47|0.78|
91045202|NCT02412722|181977122|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.75|1.68||||||||1.68|0.75|
91045203|NCT02412722|181977123|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.67|1.26||||||||1.26|0.67|
91045204|NCT00588731|181977134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.90
91045205|NCT00588731|181977135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.76
91045206|NCT00346164|181977140|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Cox|||The Cox proportional hazards model was used to evaluate prognostic impact of disease extent (non-metastatic; metastatic) after accounting for the effects of site of the primary tumor (body wall; extremity; head/neck; visceral), tumor size (\<=5cm; \>5cm), tumor depth (deep; superficial), tumor invasiveness (invasive; non-invasive), extent of resection of the primary tumor (less than total resection; margin -; margin +), and histologic (POG) grade.||||<0.0001
91045207|NCT00346164|181977141|OTHER|||||||0.0049|||||||Regression, Cox|||The Cox proportional hazards model was used to evaluate prognostic impact of histologic (POG) grade after accounting for the effects of disease extent (non-metastatic; metastatic), site of the primary tumor (body wall; extremity; head/neck; visceral), tumor size (\<=5cm; \>5cm), tumor depth (deep; superficial), tumor invasiveness (invasive; non-invasive), and extent of resection of the primary tumor (less than total resection; margin -; margin +) .||||0.0049
91045208|NCT00346164|181977142|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Cox|||The Cox proportional hazards model was used to evaluate prognostic impact of disease extent (non-metastatic; metastatic) after accounting for the effects of site of the primary tumor (body wall; extremity; head/neck; visceral), tumor size (\<=5cm; \>5cm), tumor depth (deep; superficial), tumor invasiveness (invasive; non-invasive), extent of resection of the primary tumor (less than total resection; margin -; margin +), and histologic (POG) grade.||||<0.0001
91045209|NCT00346164|181977143|OTHER|||||||0.0096|||||||Regression, Cox|||The Cox proportional hazards model was used to evaluate prognostic impact of the resection extent of the primary tumor (less than total resection; margin -; margin +) after accounting for the effects of site of the primary tumor (body wall; extremity; head/neck; visceral), disease extent (non-metastatic; metastatic), tumor size (\<=5cm; \>5cm), tumor depth (deep; superficial), tumor invasiveness (invasive; non-invasive), and histologic (POG) grade.||||0.0096
91045210|NCT00346164|181977144|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Logistic|Firth logistic regression is used to overcome the issue of quasi-complete separation of data points.||The logistic regression model was used to evaluate prognostic impact of disease extent (non-metastatic; metastatic) after accounting for the effects of site of the primary tumor (body wall; extremity; head/neck; visceral), tumor size (\<=5cm; \>5cm), tumor depth (deep; superficial), tumor invasiveness (invasive; non-invasive), extent of resection of the primary tumor (less than total resection; margin -; margin +), and histologic (POG) grade.||||<0.0001
91045211|NCT00346164|181977145|OTHER|||||||0.0228|||||||Regression, Logistic|Firth logistic regression is used to overcome the issue of quasi-complete separation of data points.||The logistic regression model was used to evaluate prognostic impact of histologic (POG) grade after accounting for the effects of disease extent (non-metastatic; metastatic), site of the primary tumor (body wall; extremity; head/neck; visceral), tumor size (\<=5cm; \>5cm), tumor depth (deep; superficial), tumor invasiveness (invasive; non-invasive), and extent of resection of the primary tumor (less than total resection; margin -; margin +) .||||0.0228
91045212|NCT00346164|181977147|OTHER||Kappa statistic|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.88||||||Kappa statistic and its 95% confidence interval are used to assess agreement beyond random.||0.88|0.76|
91045213|NCT00346164|181977148|OTHER||Kappa statistic|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.48||||||Kappa statistic and its 95% confidence interval are used to assess agreement beyond random.||0.48|0.36|
91045214|NCT01684878|181977150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (stratified)|0.88||||0.4983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.27|||2 sided log-rank|||The stratified time-to-event analysis included the treatment group variable plus the following stratification factors: selected chemotherapy cohort (gemcitabine versus topotecan vs paclitaxel), previous anti-angiogenic therapy (yes versus no), and progression-free interval (PFI) since platinum therapy (\< 3 months versus 3-6 months). A hazard ratio \< 1 favored the pertuzumab + chemotherapy treatment arm.||1.27|0.62|0.4983
91045215|NCT01684878|181977152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rate|6.06||||0.4102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|18.3|||Fisher Exact||Approximate 95% CI for difference of 2 rates using Hauck-Anderson method.|||18.3|6.0|0.4102
91045216|NCT01684878|181977157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard ratio (stratified)|0.9||||0.596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.32|||2 sided log-rank||A hazard ratio \< 1 favored the Pertuzumab + Chemotherapy treatment group|The stratified time-to-event analysis included the treatment group variable plus the following stratification factors: selected chemotherapy cohort (gemcitabine versus topotecan versus paclitaxel), previous angiogenic therapy (yes versus no) and PFI since platinum therapy (\<3 months versus 3-6 months).||1.32|0.61|0.5960
91045217|NCT00810888|181977158|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||not adjusted for multiple comparisons as a prior hypothesis critical value \<0.05|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test||||1.00
91045218|NCT00810888|181977159|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||Fisher Exact|||Only the randomized subjects will be compared||||0.66
91045219|NCT00810888|181977160|SUPERIORITY||Sensitivity|38.5||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.6|64.6|||Fisher Exact|||||64.6|17.6|0.004
91045220|NCT00810888|181977161|SUPERIORITY||Specificity|94.2||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|85.6|98.1|||Fisher Exact|||||98.1|85.6|0.004
91045221|NCT00810888|181977162|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.47
91045222|NCT00810888|181977163|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.58
91045223|NCT00810888|181977164|OTHER|A Kappa test of overall agreement was used|Kappa|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.93|||||A kappa of \>0.75 is considered excellent agreement|||0.93|0.61|
91045224|NCT00810888|181977165|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Groups 1 and 2 only the spot positive subjects randomized to interventional drug or placebo||||0.25
91045225|NCT01955044|181977215|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.23||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||DHA levels||||0.05
91045226|NCT00925301|181977224|SUPERIORITY||Difference|12.5||||0.2996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|37.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by sex|The difference between the percentage of successes between migalastat and placebo treatment groups|||37.3|-13.4|0.2996
91045227|NCT00925301|181977227|OTHER|Mixed effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) approach with fixed effects of treatment, time (Month 6 and Month 12), mutation type (amenable or non-amenable), time by treatment interaction, time by mutation type interaction, and the baseline value as a covariate. An unstructured covariance matrix to account for repeated measures within a participant was assumed.||||||0.014||||||Significant at the 0.050 level|MMRM|||||||0.014
91045228|NCT00925301|181977228|OTHER||Difference LSMeans|-0.3||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.1||Significant at the 0.010 level|ANCOVA|||The change from Baseline in the average number of kidney ICs was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with covariate adjustment for the baseline value and factors for treatment group and the treatment by baseline interaction.||-0.1|-0.6|0.0078
91045229|NCT00442546|181977238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.038|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.9185||95.0|-0.766|0.691||A step-down procedure was used for multiple comparisons adjustment. If the difference between the high dose and placebo groups was statistically significant (p\<0.05), then the next step conducted where the low dose group was compared to placebo.|ANOVA|Least squares means from the analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with main effects of treatment and center and Baseline mean worst pain score.|Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|||0.691|-0.766|0.9185
91045230|NCT00442546|181977238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.339|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.371||0.3619||95.0|-1.07|0.392||A step-down procedure was used for multiple comparisons adjustment. If the difference between the high dose and placebo groups was statistically significant (p\<0.05), then the next step conducted where the low dose group was compared to placebo.|ANOVA|Least squares means from the ANOVA model with main effects of treatment and center and Baseline mean worst pain score.|Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|||0.392|-1.070|0.3619
91045231|NCT00442546|181977239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.065|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.426||0.4091||95.0|-54.332|22.203|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|24 hours||22.203|-54.332|0.4091
90997025|NCT00830960|181878058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference in PRU|-35.0||||0.0365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.0|-2.0||"P-value for 30 minutes post-LD~Linear mixed effects model: treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, country as fixed effects, baseline PRU as covariate, participant as random effect~Difference in PRU = prasugrel - clopidogrel"|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom for fixed effects. Invalid measurements were excluded.||||-2|-68|0.0365
91045232|NCT00442546|181977239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.548|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.388||0.4234||95.0|-53.74|22.645|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|24 hours||22.645|-53.740|0.4234
91045233|NCT00442546|181977239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-36.428|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.517||0.0284||95.0|-68.972|-3.884|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|48 hours||-3.884|-68.972|0.0284
91045234|NCT00442546|181977239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-28.985|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.57||0.0816||95.0|-61.632|3.663|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|48 hours||3.663|-61.632|0.0816
91045235|NCT00442546|181977239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.759|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.752||0.8147||95.0|-20.446|25.964|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|72 hours||25.964|-20.446|0.8147
91045236|NCT00442546|181977239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.182|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.589||0.7187||95.0|-27.064|18.7|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|72 hours||18.700|-27.064|0.7187
91045237|NCT00442546|181977239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.356|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.148||0.7416||95.0|-23.516|16.804|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|96 hours||16.804|-23.516|0.7416
91045238|NCT00442546|181977239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.574|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.283||0.2577||95.0|-29.017|7.869|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|96 hours||7.869|-29.017|0.2577
91045239|NCT00442546|181977239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.039|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.387||0.9982||95.0|-36.431|36.352|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|120 hours||36.352|-36.431|0.9982
91045240|NCT00442546|181977239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.325|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.184||0.5552||95.0|-59.756|33.107|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|120 hours||33.107|-59.756|0.5552
91045241|NCT00442546|181977239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-40.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|24.655||0.2032||95.0|-118.463|38.463|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|144 hours||38.463|-118.463|0.2032
91045242|NCT00442546|181977239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-138.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|37.661||0.0348||95.0|-258.354|-18.646|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|144 hours||-18.646|-258.354|0.0348
91045243|NCT00442546|181977240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.136|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.499||0.3602||95.0|-4.79|13.062|||ANOVA||Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean Difference|Week 2||13.062|-4.790|0.3602
91045244|NCT00442546|181977240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.573|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.637||0.7352||95.0|-7.626|10.771|||ANOVA||Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean Difference|Week 2||10.771|-7.626|0.7352
91045245|NCT00442546|181977240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.156||0.6435||95.0|-9.392|15.111|||ANOVA||Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean Difference|Week 4||15.111|-9.392|0.6435
91045246|NCT00442546|181977240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.237|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.361||0.6123||95.0|-9.422|15.895|||ANOVA||Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean Difference|Week 4||15.895|-9.422|0.6123
91045247|NCT00442546|181977240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.663||0.6356||95.0|-11.683|18.984|||ANOVA||Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean Difference|Week 6/ET||18.984|-11.683|0.6356
91045248|NCT00442546|181977240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.909|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.747||0.907||95.0|-14.593|16.411|||ANOVA||Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean Difference|Week 6/ET||16.411|-14.593|0.9070
90997026|NCT00830960|181878058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference in PRU|-68.0||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-104.0|-32.0||"P-value for 30 minutes post-LD Linear mixed effects model: treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, country as fixed effects, baseline PRU as covariate, participant as random effect~Difference in PRU = prasugrel - clopidogrel."|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom for fixed effects. Invalid measurements were excluded.||||-32|-104|0.0004
90997027|NCT00830960|181878058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference in PRU|-160.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-211.0|-110.0||"P-value for 2 hours post-LD~Linear mixed effects model: treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, country as fixed effects, baseline PRU as covariate, participant as random effect~Difference in PRU = prasugrel - clopidogrel."|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom for fixed effects. Invalid measurements were excluded.||||-110|-211|<0.0001
90997028|NCT00830960|181878058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference in PRU|-115.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-156.0|-73.0||"P-value for 2 hours post-LD~Linear mixed effects model: treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, country as fixed effects, baseline PRU as covariate, participant as random effect~Difference in PRU = prasugrel - clopidogrel."|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom for fixed effects. Invalid measurements were excluded.||||-73|-156|<0.0001
90997029|NCT00830960|181878058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference in PRU|-171.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-216.0|-125.0||"P-value for 2 hours post-LD~Linear mixed effects model: treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, country as fixed effects, baseline PRU as covariate, participant as random effect~Difference in PRU = prasugrel - clopidogrel."|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom for fixed effects. Invalid measurements were excluded.||||-125|-216|<0.0001
90997030|NCT00830960|181878058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference in PRU|-212.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-259.0|-167.0||"P-value for 4 hours post-LD~Linear mixed effects model: treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, country as fixed effects, baseline PRU as covariate, participant as random effect~Difference in PRU = prasugrel - clopidogrel."|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom for fixed effects. Invalid measurements were excluded.||||-167|-259|<0.0001
90997031|NCT00830960|181878059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in PRU|-119.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-166.0|-73.0||"P-value for 30 days. A linear mixed effects model including treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, country as fixed effects, baseline PRU as covariate, participant as random effect~Difference in PRU was prasugrel - clopidogrel."|LS Mean Difference in PRU|Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom for fixed effects. Invalid measurements were excluded.||||-73|-166|<0.0001
90997032|NCT00830960|181878059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in PRU|-113.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-154.0|-73.0||"P-value for 90 days. A linear mixed effects model including treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, country as fixed effects, baseline PRU as covariate, participant as random effect~Difference in PRU was prasugrel - clopidogrel."|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom for fixed effects. Invalid measurements were excluded.||||-73|-154|<0.0001
90997033|NCT00830960|181878059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in PRU|-85.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-121.0|-48.0||"P-value for 90 days. A linear mixed effects model including treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, country as fixed effects, baseline PRU as covariate, participant as random effect~Difference in PRU was prasugrel - clopidogrel."|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom for fixed effects. Invalid measurements were excluded.||||-48|-121|<0.0001
90997034|NCT00830960|181878059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in PRU|-35.0||||0.0647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.0|2.0||"P-value for 90 days. A linear mixed effects model including treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, country as fixed effects, baseline PRU as covariate, participant as random effect~Difference in PRU was prasugrel - clopidogrel."|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom for fixed effects. Invalid measurements were excluded.||||2|-72|0.0647
90997035|NCT00830960|181878059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in PRU|-100.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-143.0|-57.0||"P-value for 90 days. A linear mixed effects model including treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, country as fixed effects, baseline PRU as covariate, participant as random effect~Difference in PRU was prasugrel - clopidogrel."|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom for fixed effects. Invalid measurements were excluded.||||-57|-143|<0.0001
90997036|NCT00830960|181878060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Percent Inhibition|15.0||||0.0072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|27.0||"P-value for 30 minutes post-LD~Linear mixed effects model: treatment, visit (0.5 hours to 4 hours), treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, country as fixed effects, participant as random effect~Difference in PRU = prasugrel - clopidogrel."|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom for fixed effects. Invalid measurements were excluded.||||27|4|0.0072
90997037|NCT00830960|181878060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Percent Inhibition|9.0||||0.0647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|18.0||"P-value for 30 minutes post-LD Linear mixed effects model: treatment, visit (0.5 hours to 4 hours), treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, country as fixed effects, participant as random effect~Difference in PRU = prasugrel - clopidogrel."|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom for fixed effects. Invalid measurements were excluded.||||18|-1|0.0647
91045249|NCT00442546|181977241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1190.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|123.062||0.0656||95.0|-2754.304|373.004|||ANOVA||Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean Difference|Acetylsalicylic Acid, 72 hours||373.004|-2754.304|0.0656
91045250|NCT00442546|181977241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|142.1||0.9277||95.0|-1789.352|1821.752|||ANOVA||Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean Difference|Acetylsalicylic Acid, 72 hours||1821.752|-1789.352|0.9277
90997038|NCT00830960|181878060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Percent Inhibition|11.0||||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|19.0||"P-value for 30 minutes post-LD~Linear mixed effects model: treatment, visit (0.5 hours to 4 hours), treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, country as fixed effects, participant as random effect~Difference in PRU = prasugrel - clopidogrel."|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom for fixed effects. Invalid measurements were excluded.||||19|3|0.0054
90997039|NCT00830960|181878060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Percent Inhibition|51.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.0|66.0||"P-value for 2 hours post-LD~Linear mixed effects model: treatment, visit (0.5 hours to 4 hours), treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, country as fixed effects, participant as random effect~Difference in PRU = prasugrel - clopidogrel."|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom for fixed effects. Invalid measurements were excluded.||||66|36|<0.0001
90997040|NCT00830960|181878060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Percent Inhibition|36.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.0|48.0||"P-value for 2 hours post-LD~Linear mixed effects model: treatment, visit (0.5 hours to 4 hours), treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, country as fixed effects, participant as random effect~Difference in PRU = prasugrel - clopidogrel."|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom for fixed effects. Invalid measurements were excluded.||||48|23|<0.0001
90997041|NCT00830960|181878060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Percent Inhibition|49.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.0|61.0||"P-value for 2 hours post-LD~Linear mixed effects model: treatment, visit (0.5 hours to 4 hours), treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, country as fixed effects, participant as random effect~Difference in PRU = prasugrel - clopidogrel."|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom for fixed effects. Invalid measurements were excluded.||||61|36|<0.0001
90997042|NCT00830960|181878060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Percent Inhibition|62.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.0|76.0||"P-value for 4 hours post-LD~Linear mixed effects model: treatment, visit (0.5 hours to 4 hours), treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, country as fixed effects, participant as random effect~Difference in PRU = prasugrel - clopidogrel."|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom for fixed effects. Invalid measurements were excluded.||||76|47|<0.0001
90997043|NCT00830960|181878060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Percent Inhibition|48.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.0|59.0||"P-value for 4 hours post-LD~Linear mixed effects model: treatment, visit (0.5 hours to 4 hours), treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, country as fixed effects, participant as random effect~Difference in PRU = prasugrel - clopidogrel."|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom for fixed effects. Invalid measurements were excluded.||||59|36|<0.0001
90997044|NCT00830960|181878060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Percent Inhibition|56.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.0|68.0||"P-value for 4 hours post-LD~Linear mixed effects model: treatment, visit (0.5 hours to 4 hours), treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, country as fixed effects, participant as random effect~Difference in PRU = prasugrel - clopidogrel."|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom for fixed effects. Invalid measurements were excluded.||||68|44|<0.0001
90997045|NCT00830960|181878061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Percent Inhibition|38.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.0|50.0||"P-value for 30 days post-LD~Linear mixed effects model: treatment, visit (30, 90 days during MD), treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, country as fixed effects, participant as random effect~Difference in PRU = prasugrel - clopidogrel."|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom for fixed effects. Invalid measurements were excluded.||||50|27|<0.0001
90997046|NCT00830960|181878061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Percent Inhibition|32.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.0|42.0||"P-value for 30 days post-LD~Linear mixed effects model: treatment, visit (30, 90 days during MD), treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, country as fixed effects, participant as random effect~Difference in PRU = prasugrel - clopidogrel."|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom for fixed effects. Invalid measurements were excluded.||||42|21|<0.0001
90997047|NCT00830960|181878061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Percent Inhibition|17.0||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|28.0||"P-value for 30 days post-LD~Linear mixed effects model: treatment, visit (30, 90 days during MD), treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, country as fixed effects, participant as random effect~Difference in PRU = prasugrel - clopidogrel."|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom for fixed effects. Invalid measurements were excluded.||||28|6|0.0026
90997048|NCT00830960|181878061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Percent Inhibition|37.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.0|50.0||"P-value for 30 days post-LD~Linear mixed effects model: treatment, visit (30, 90 days during MD), treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, country as fixed effects, participant as random effect~Difference in PRU = prasugrel - clopidogrel."|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom for fixed effects. Invalid measurements were excluded.||||50|24|<0.0001
90997049|NCT00830960|181878061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Percent Inhibition|35.0||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.0|52.0||"P-value for 90 days post-LD~Linear mixed effects model: treatment, visit (30, 90 days during MD), treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, country as fixed effects, participant as random effect~Difference in PRU = prasugrel - clopidogrel."|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom for fixed effects. Invalid measurements were excluded.||||52|18|0.0001
91045251|NCT00442546|181977241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.771|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|62.692||0.935||95.0|-263.972|275.515|||ANOVA||Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean Difference|Ketorolac, 24 hours||275.515|-263.972|0.9350
91045252|NCT00442546|181977241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|26.243|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|44.33||0.6139||95.0|-164.494|216.98|||ANOVA||Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean Difference|Ketorolac, 24 hours||216.980|-164.494|0.6139
91045253|NCT00442546|181977241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.96||0.776||95.0|-25.451|19.611|||ANOVA||Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean Difference|Ketorolac, 48 hours||19.611|-25.451|0.7760
91045254|NCT00442546|181977241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.833||0.819||95.0|-17.066|13.846|||ANOVA||Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean Difference|Ketorolac, 48 hours||13.846|-17.066|0.8190
91045255|NCT00442546|181977241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-69.235|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|390.483||0.8603||95.0|-861.171|722.7|||ANOVA||Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean Difference|Paracetamol, 24 hours||722.700|-861.171|0.8603
91045256|NCT00442546|181977241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.395|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|384.376||0.9642||95.0|-796.945|762.155|||ANOVA||Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean Difference|Paracetamol, 24 hours||762.155|-796.945|0.9642
91045257|NCT00442546|181977241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|93.693|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|484.957||0.8476||95.0|-880.865|1068.251|||ANOVA||Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean Difference|Paracetamol, 48 hours||1068.251|-880.865|0.8476
91045258|NCT00442546|181977241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|105.543|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|457.374||0.8185||95.0|-813.584|1024.67|||ANOVA||Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean Difference|Paracetamol, 48 hours||1024.670|-813.584|0.8185
91045259|NCT00442546|181977241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-682.304|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|495.241||0.1792||95.0|-1696.759|332.15|||ANOVA||Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean Difference|Paracetamol, 72 hours||332.150|-1696.759|0.1792
91045260|NCT00442546|181977241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-250.439|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|501.808||0.6216||95.0|-1278.347|777.469|||ANOVA||Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean Difference|Paracetamol, 72 hours||777.469|-1278.347|0.6216
91045261|NCT00442546|181977242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-494.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|301.253||0.1996||95.0|-1452.72|464.72|||ANOVA||Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean Difference|Acetylsalicylic Acid, Week 2.||464.720|-1452.720|0.1996
91045262|NCT00442546|181977242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-195.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|368.958||0.6335||95.0|-1369.338|979.038|||ANOVA||Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean Difference|Acetylsalicylic Acid, Week 2.||979.038|-1369.338|0.6335
91045263|NCT00442546|181977242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.291|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|302.355||0.929||95.0|-657.992|603.41|||ANOVA||Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean Difference|Paracetamol, Week 2||603.410|-657.992|0.9290
91045264|NCT00442546|181977242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|34.787|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|256.969||0.8937||95.0|-501.241|570.815|||ANOVA||Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean Difference|Paracetamol, Week 2||570.815|-501.241|0.8937
91045265|NCT00442546|181977242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|198.937|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|491.153||0.6912||95.0|-847.93|1245.804|||ANOVA||Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean Difference|Paracetamol, Week 4||1245.804|-847.930|0.6912
91045266|NCT00442546|181977242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|185.728|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|349.047||0.6024||95.0|-558.248|929.704|||ANOVA||Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean Difference|Paracetamol, Week 4||929.704|-558.248|0.6024
91045267|NCT00442546|181977242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-256.921|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|407.391||0.5372||95.0|-1120.551|606.709|||ANOVA||Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean Difference|Paracetamol, Week 6/ET||606.709|-1120.551|0.5372
91045268|NCT00442546|181977242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-287.032|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|328.227||0.3948||95.0|-982.843|408.778|||ANOVA||Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean Difference|Paracetamol, Week 6/ET||408.778|-982.843|0.3948
91045269|NCT00442546|181977243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-121.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1169.654||0.9341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14983.36|14740.362|||ANOVA||Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean Difference|||14740.362|-14983.36|0.9341
91045270|NCT00442546|181977245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|302.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|302.9|302.9|||ANOVA||Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean Difference|||302.900|302.900|<0.0001
91045271|NCT00442546|181977249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.121|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.087||0.1661||95.0|-0.293|0.051|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|24 hours||0.051|-0.293|0.1661
91045272|NCT00442546|181977249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.081|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.088||0.3604||95.0|-0.254|0.093|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|24 hours||0.093|-0.254|0.3604
91045273|NCT00442546|181977249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.126|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.083||0.1299||95.0|-0.29|0.037|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|48 hours||0.037|-0.290|0.1299
91045274|NCT00442546|181977249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.129|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.082||0.1167||95.0|-0.29|0.032|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|48 hours||0.032|-0.290|0.1167
91045275|NCT00442546|181977249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.057|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.5271||95.0|-0.234|0.12|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|72 hours||0.120|-0.234|0.5271
91045276|NCT00442546|181977249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.038|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.6731||95.0|-0.215|0.139|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|72 hours||0.139|-0.215|0.6731
91045277|NCT00442546|181977249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.053|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.098||0.5936||95.0|-0.247|0.142|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|96 hours||0.142|-0.247|0.5936
91045278|NCT00442546|181977249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094||0.8368||95.0|-0.206|0.167|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|96 hours||0.167|-0.206|0.8368
91045279|NCT00442546|181977249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.111||0.8659||95.0|-0.242|0.204|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|120 hours||0.204|-0.242|0.8659
90997050|NCT00830960|181878061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Percent Inhibition|28.0||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.0|44.0||"P-value for 90 days post-LD~Linear mixed effects model: treatment, visit (30, 90 days during MD), treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, country as fixed effects, participant as random effect~Difference in PRU = prasugrel - clopidogrel."|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom for fixed effects. Invalid measurements were excluded.||||44|13|0.0005
90997051|NCT00830960|181878061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Percent Inhibition|11.0||||0.1898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|27.0||"P-value for 90 days post-LD~Linear mixed effects model: treatment, visit (30, 90 days during MD), treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, country as fixed effects, participant as random effect~Difference in PRU = prasugrel - clopidogrel."|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom for fixed effects. Invalid measurements were excluded.||||27|-5|0.1898
90997052|NCT00830960|181878061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Percent Inhibition|32.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.0|45.0||"P-value for 90 days post-LD~Linear mixed effects model: treatment, visit (30, 90 days during MD), treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, country as fixed effects, participant as random effect~Difference in PRU = prasugrel - clopidogrel."|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom for fixed effects. Invalid measurements were excluded.||||45|18|<0.0001
90997053|NCT00830960|181878063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference in PRU|-110.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-143.0|-76.0||"Linear mixed effects model: treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, country as fixed effects, baseline PRU as covariate, participant as random effect was used.~Difference in PRU = prasugrel - clopidogrel."|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom for fixed effects. Invalid measurements were excluded.||||-76|-143|<0.0001
90997054|NCT00830960|181878063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference in PRU|-92.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-123.0|-60.0||"Linear mixed effects model: treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, country as fixed effects, baseline PRU as covariate, participant as random effect was used.~Difference in PRU = prasugrel - clopidogrel."|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom for fixed effects. Invalid measurements were excluded.||||-60|-123|<0.0001
90997055|NCT00830960|181878063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference in PRU|-51.0||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.0|-19.0||"Linear mixed effects model: treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, country as fixed effects, baseline PRU as covariate, participant as random effect was used.~Difference in PRU = prasugrel - clopidogrel."|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom for fixed effects. Invalid measurements were excluded.||||-19|-83|0.0020
90997056|NCT00830960|181878070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.255||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.255
90997057|NCT00830960|181878070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.427||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.427
90997058|NCT00830960|181878070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.683||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.683
90997059|NCT00830960|181878070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.034
90997060|NCT01309841|181878079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.38||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.062|1.795|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis via Cochran Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by response to laxatives at baseline (LIR, LAR, LUR).||1.795|1.062|0.015
90997061|NCT01309841|181878079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.509||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.168|1.949|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis via Cochran Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by response to laxatives at baseline (LIR, LAR, LUR).||1.949|1.168|0.001
90997062|NCT01309841|181878080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.479||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.038|2.107||Response rate over Weeks 1 to 12 in the LIR subgroup is a key secondary endpoint included in the multiple testing procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.107|1.038|0.028
90997063|NCT01309841|181878080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.691||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.205|2.373||Response rate over Weeks 1 to 12 in the LIR subgroup is a key secondary endpoint included in the multiple testing procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.373|1.205|0.002
90997064|NCT01309841|181878082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response, treatment and treatment time interaction. Study pooled center is included as a random effect.||0.86|0.24|<0.001
90997065|NCT01309841|181878082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ls mean difference|0.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via MMRM with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response, treatment and treatment time interaction. Study pooled center is included as a random effect.||1.13|0.51|<0.001
90997066|NCT01309841|181878083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.09||||0.176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via MMRM with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response (LIR, non-LIR), treatment and treatment time interaction. Study pooled center is included as a random effect.||0.04|-0.23|0.176
90997067|NCT01309841|181878083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.18||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|-0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via MMRM with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response (LIR, non-LIR), treatment and treatment time interaction. Study pooled center is included as a random effect.||-0.05|-0.32|0.008
90997068|NCT01309841|181878084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.05||||0.564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via MMRM with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response (LIR, non-LIR), treatment and treatment time interaction. Study pooled center is included as a random effect.||0.23|-0.12|0.564
90997069|NCT01309841|181878084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.18||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via MMRM with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response (LIR, non-LIR), treatment and treatment time interaction. Study pooled center is included as a random effect.||0.36|0.01|0.042
90997070|NCT01309841|181878085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|3.87||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|8.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via MMRM with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response (LIR, non-LIR), treatment and treatment time interaction. Study pooled center is included as a random effect.||8.39|-0.66|0.094
90997071|NCT01309841|181878085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|8.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.04|13.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via MMRM with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response (LIR, non-LIR), treatment and treatment time interaction. Study pooled center is included as a random effect.||13.14|4.04|<0.001
90997072|NCT01309841|181878086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.54||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via MMRM with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response (LIR, non-LIR), treatment and treatment time interaction. Study pooled center is included as a random effect.||0.96|0.12|0.011
90997073|NCT01309841|181878086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via MMRM with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response (LIR, non-LIR), treatment and treatment time interaction. Study pooled center is included as a random effect.||1.41|0.57|<0.001
90997074|NCT01309841|181878088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.08||||0.273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.06||Analysis for change in PAC-SYM total score from baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 12)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via MMRM with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response, treatment and treatment time interaction. Study pooled center is included as a random effect.||0.06|-0.21|0.273
90997075|NCT01309841|181878088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.12||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.02||Analysis for change in PAC-SYM total score from baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 12)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via MMRM with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response, treatment and treatment time interaction. Study pooled center is included as a random effect.||0.02|-0.26|0.089
90997076|NCT01309841|181878088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.02||||0.849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.17||Analysis for change in PAC-SYM abdominal symptoms subscore from baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 12)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via MMRM with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response, treatment and treatment time interaction. Study pooled center is included as a random effect.||0.17|-0.14|0.849
90997077|NCT01309841|181878088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.03||||0.749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.13||Analysis for change in PAC-SYM abdominal symptoms subscore from baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 12)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via MMRM with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response, treatment and treatment time interaction. Study pooled center is included as a random effect.||0.13|-0.18|0.749
90997078|NCT01309841|181878088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.13||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.01||Analysis for change in PAC-SYM rectal symptoms subscore from baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 12)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via MMRM with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response, treatment and treatment time interaction. Study pooled center is included as a random effect.||0.01|-0.26|0.062
90997079|NCT01309841|181878088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.21||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.07||Analysis for change in PAC-SYM rectal symptoms subscore from baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 12)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via MMRM with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response, treatment and treatment time interaction. Study pooled center is included as a random effect.||-0.07|-0.35|0.003
90997080|NCT01309841|181878088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.11||||0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.06||Analysis for change in PAC-SYM stool symptoms subscore from baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 12)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via MMRM with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response, treatment and treatment time interaction. Study pooled center is included as a random effect.||0.06|-0.29|0.202
90997081|NCT01309841|181878088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.16||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.01||Analysis for change in PAC-SYM stool symptoms subscore from baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 12)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via MMRM with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response, treatment and treatment time interaction. Study pooled center is included as a random effect.||0.01|-0.34|0.072
90997082|NCT01309841|181878089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.02||||0.831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via MMRM with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response, treatment and treatment time interaction. Due to convergence issues, study pooled center is also included as a fixed, rather than random effect.||0.20|-0.25|0.831
90997083|NCT01309841|181878089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.18||||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via MMRM with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response, treatment and treatment time interaction. Due to convergence issues, study pooled center is also included as a fixed, rather than random effect.||0.06|-0.41|0.141
90997084|NCT03103906|181878096|OTHER||Difference in proportion|2.56||||0.3334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.99|25.07|||Chi-squared|||||25.07|-19.99|0.3334
91045280|NCT00442546|181977249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.041|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.112||0.7151||95.0|-0.266|0.184|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|120 hours||0.184|-0.266|0.7151
91045281|NCT00442546|181977249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.097|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.077||0.2121||95.0|-0.249|0.056|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Discharge||0.056|-0.249|0.2121
91045282|NCT00442546|181977249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.077||0.5607||95.0|-0.197|0.107|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Discharge||0.107|-0.197|0.5607
91045283|NCT00442546|181977249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.077||0.7797||95.0|-0.13|0.173|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||0.173|-0.130|0.7797
91045284|NCT00442546|181977249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.079||0.8761||95.0|-0.143|0.167|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||0.167|-0.143|0.8761
91045285|NCT00442546|181977249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067||0.8619||95.0|-0.121|0.144|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||0.144|-0.121|0.8619
91045286|NCT00442546|181977249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068||0.7256||95.0|-0.111|0.159|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||0.159|-0.111|0.7256
91045287|NCT00442546|181977249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061||0.8659||95.0|-0.11|0.131|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||0.131|-0.110|0.8659
91045288|NCT00442546|181977249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.146|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063||0.0203||95.0|0.023|0.27|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||0.270|0.023|0.0203
91045289|NCT00442546|181977250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.041|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.074||0.5791||95.0|-0.187|0.105|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|24 hours||0.105|-0.187|0.5791
91045290|NCT00442546|181977250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.031|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.075||0.6829||95.0|-0.178|0.117|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|24 hours||0.117|-0.178|0.6829
91045291|NCT00442546|181977250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.053|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.4516||95.0|-0.19|0.085|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|48 hours||0.085|-0.190|0.4516
91045292|NCT00442546|181977250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.071|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.069||0.3014||95.0|-0.207|0.064|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|48 hours||0.064|-0.207|0.3014
91045293|NCT00442546|181977250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.023|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.075||0.7628||95.0|-0.171|0.125|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|72 hours||0.125|-0.171|0.7628
91045294|NCT00442546|181977250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.028|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.075||0.711||95.0|-0.176|0.12|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|72 hours||0.120|-0.176|0.7110
91045295|NCT00442546|181977250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.026|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.079||0.7382||95.0|-0.183|0.13|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|96 hours||0.130|-0.183|0.7382
91045296|NCT00442546|181977250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.034|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.076||0.6586||95.0|-0.183|0.116|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|96 hours||0.116|-0.183|0.6586
91045297|NCT00442546|181977250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.025|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.084||0.7691||95.0|-0.195|0.145|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|120 hours||0.145|-0.195|0.7691
91045298|NCT00442546|181977250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.057|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.085||0.507||95.0|-0.229|0.115|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|120 hours||0.115|-0.229|0.5070
91045299|NCT00442546|181977250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.036|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066||0.5802||95.0|-0.166|0.093|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Discharge||0.093|-0.166|0.5802
91045300|NCT00442546|181977250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.065||0.919||95.0|-0.122|0.136|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Discharge||0.136|-0.122|0.9190
91045301|NCT00442546|181977250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.026|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059||0.6559||95.0|-0.09|0.143|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||0.143|-0.090|0.6559
91045302|NCT00442546|181977250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.8552||95.0|-0.108|0.13|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||0.130|-0.108|0.8552
91045303|NCT00442546|181977250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.023|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.6364||95.0|-0.072|0.117|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||0.117|-0.072|0.6364
90997085|NCT01669811|181878117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|23.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.9|32.6||p-value is obtained using chi square method.|Chi-squared|95% CI is obtained using Newcombe-Wilson score method without continuity correction.||To evaluate the efficacy of D20 bid on healing of refractory RE in comparison with D20 qd||32.6|14.9|<0.0001
90997086|NCT01669811|181878118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|32.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.9|42.6||p-value is obtained using chi square method.|Chi-squared|95% CI is obtained using Newcombe-Wilson score method without continuity correction.||To evaluate the efficacy of D20 bid on healing of refractory RE in comparison with D20 qd||42.6|21.9|<0.0001
90997087|NCT01669811|181878119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.29||||0.1452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.83|||Log Rank|95% CI of the hazard ratio is obtained using Cox proportional hazards model including a factor of treatment group.||To evaluate the efficacy of D20 bid on gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) symptoms in comparison with D20 qd||1.83|0.91|0.1452
90997088|NCT01669811|181878120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.46||||0.0837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|2.18|||Log Rank|95% CI of the hazard ratio is obtained using Cox proportional hazards model including a factor of treatment group.||To evaluate the efficacy of D20 bid on gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) symptoms in comparison with D20 qd||2.18|0.97|0.0837
90997089|NCT01669811|181878121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.34||||0.2678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.26|||Log Rank|95% CI of the hazard ratio is obtained using Cox proportional hazards model including a factor of treatment group.||To evaluate the efficacy of D20 bid on gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) symptoms in comparison with D20 qd||2.26|0.80|0.2678
90997090|NCT01669811|181878122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||0.6389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.12|||Log Rank|95% CI of the hazard ratio is obtained using Cox proportional hazards model including a factor of treatment group.||To evaluate the efficacy of D20 bid on gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) symptoms in comparison with D20 qd||2.12|0.62|0.6389
90997091|NCT01669811|181878123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.38||||0.4485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.38|||Log Rank|95% CI of the hazard ratio is obtained using Cox proportional hazards model including a factor of treatment group.||To evaluate the efficacy of D20 bid on gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) symptoms in comparison with D20 qd||2.38|0.80|0.4485
90997092|NCT00092677|181878183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.591||95.0|0.826|1.115|||Regression, Cox|Model terms: treatment and baseline peak transaortic jet velocity (as continuous covariate)|Direction of the Comparison: Hazard Ratio of experiencing the endpoint on EZ/Simva 10/40 mg compared to Placebo|||1.115|0.826|0.591
90997093|NCT00092677|181878184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.973||||0.732||95.0|0.833|1.137|||Regression, Cox|Model terms: treatment and baseline peak transaortic jet velocity (as continuous covariate)|Direction of the Comparison: Hazard Ratio of experiencing the endpoint on EZ/Simva 10/40 mg compared to Placebo|||1.137|0.833|0.732
90997094|NCT00092677|181878185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.024||95.0|0.628|0.967|||Regression, Cox|Model terms: treatment and baseline peak transaortic jet velocity (as continuous covariate)|Direction of the Comparison: Hazard Ratio of experiencing the endpoint on EZ/Simva 10/40 mg compared to Placebo|||0.967|0.628|0.024
90997095|NCT00092677|181878186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.829||||0.344||95.0|0.563|1.222|||Regression, Cox|Model terms: treatment and baseline peak transaortic jet velocity (as continuous covariate)|Direction of the Comparison: Hazard Ratio of experiencing the endpoint on EZ/Simva 10/40 mg compared to Placebo|||1.222|0.563|0.344
90997096|NCT00092677|181878187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.997||||0.968||95.0|0.842|1.179|||Regression, Cox|Model terms: treatment and baseline peak transaortic jet velocity (as continuous covariate)|Direction of the Comparison: Hazard Ratio of experiencing the endpoint on EZ/Simva 10/40 mg compared to Placebo|||1.179|0.842|0.968
90997097|NCT00092677|181878188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.088||||0.771||95.0|0.617|1.917|||Regression, Cox|Model terms: treatment and baseline peak transaortic jet velocity (as continuous covariate)|Direction of the Comparison: Hazard Ratio of experiencing the endpoint on EZ/Simva 10/40 mg compared to Placebo|||1.917|0.617|0.771
90997098|NCT00092677|181878189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.636||||0.147||95.0|0.345|1.173|||Regression, Cox|Model terms: treatment and baseline peak transaortic jet velocity (as continuous covariate)|Direction of the Comparison: Hazard Ratio of experiencing the endpoint on EZ/Simva 10/40 mg compared to Placebo|||1.173|0.345|0.147
90997099|NCT00092677|181878190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.683||||0.015||95.0|0.503|0.929|||Regression, Cox|Model terms: treatment and baseline peak transaortic jet velocity (as continuous covariate)|Direction of the Comparison: Hazard Ratio of experiencing the endpoint on EZ/Simva 10/40 mg compared to Placebo|||0.929|0.503|0.015
90997100|NCT00092677|181878191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.456||||||95.0|0.197|1.057||The p-value was not provided as there were less than 40 patients who reported the specific endpoint.|Regression, Cox|Model terms: treatment and baseline peak transaortic jet velocity (as continuous covariate)|Direction of the Comparison: Hazard Ratio of experiencing the endpoint on EZ/Simva 10/40 mg compared to Placebo|||1.057|0.197|
90997101|NCT00092677|181878192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.608||||||95.0|0.199|1.86||The p-value was not provided as there were less than 40 patients who reported the specific endpoint.|Regression, Cox|Model terms: treatment and baseline peak transaortic jet velocity (as continuous covariate)|Direction of the Comparison: Hazard Ratio of experiencing the endpoint on EZ/Simva 10/40 mg compared to Placebo|||1.860|0.199|
91045304|NCT00442546|181977250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.061|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049||0.2127||95.0|-0.035|0.157|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||0.157|-0.035|0.2127
90997102|NCT00092677|181878193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.124||||0.647||95.0|0.682|1.85|||Regression, Cox|Model terms: treatment and baseline peak transaortic jet velocity (as continuous covariate)|Direction of the Comparison: Hazard Ratio of experiencing the endpoint on EZ/Simva 10/40 mg compared to Placebo|||1.850|0.682|0.647
90997103|NCT00092677|181878194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.036||||0.799||95.0|0.788|1.363|||Regression, Cox|Model terms: treatment and baseline peak transaortic jet velocity (as continuous covariate)|Direction of the Comparison: Hazard Ratio of experiencing the endpoint on EZ/Simva 10/40 mg compared to Placebo|||1.363|0.788|0.799
90997104|NCT00092677|181878195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.667||||0.052||95.0|0.996|2.791|||Regression, Cox|Model terms: treatment and baseline peak transaortic jet velocity (as continuous covariate)|Direction of the Comparison: Hazard Ratio of experiencing the endpoint on EZ/Simva 10/40 mg compared to Placebo|||2.791|0.996|0.052
90997105|NCT00092677|181878196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.504||||0.008||95.0|1.111|2.035|||Regression, Cox|Model terms: treatment and baseline peak transaortic jet velocity (as continuous covariate)|Direction of the Comparison: Hazard Ratio of experiencing the endpoint on EZ/Simva 10/40 mg compared to Placebo|||2.035|1.111|0.008
90997106|NCT00092677|181878197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029||0.829||95.0|-0.063|0.051|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment and baseline peak transaortic jet velocity|Direction of the Comparison: EZ/Simva 10/40 mg minus Placebo|||0.051|-0.063|0.829
90997107|NCT00092677|181878198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-32.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<=|0.001||95.0|-33.3|-31.0|||ANOVA|Model terms: treatment|Direction of the Comparison: EZ/Simva 10/40 mg minus Placebo|||-31.0|-33.3|<=0.001
90997108|NCT00092677|181878199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-50.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|<=|0.001||95.0|-51.8|-48.2|||ANOVA|Model terms: treatment|Direction of the Comparison: EZ/Simva 10/40 mg minus Placebo|||-48.2|-51.8|<=0.001
90997109|NCT00092677|181878200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|<=|0.001||95.0|2.4|5.5|||ANOVA|Model terms: treatment|Direction of the Comparison: EZ/Simva 10/40 mg minus Placebo|||5.5|2.4|<=0.001
90997110|NCT00092677|181878201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3|<=|0.001||95.0|-22.6|-17.3|||ANOVA|Model terms: treatment|Direction of the Comparison: EZ/Simva 10/40 mg minus Placebo|||-17.3|-22.6|<=0.001
90997111|NCT00873288|181878202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||> 0.05
90997112|NCT00873288|181878204|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.207|||||||Chi-squared|The Pearson Chi-squared value = 1.590||||||0.207
90997113|NCT00873288|181878205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.66|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.66
90997114|NCT00010803|181878216|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Previously provided|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.33|||Log Rank|Time to dementia in Ginkgo vs placebo groups. The Cox proportional hazards model was used to compute hazard ratios and log-rank tests.||The null hypothesis is that the instantaneous hazard rate for Ginkgo biloba and placebo are the same. Assumptions were based on 4%/yr dementia and 6%/yr mortality and dropout combined. A sample size of 3000 with an average follow up of 5 years resulted in 96% power to detecting a 30% reduction in the rate of dementia at a 2-sided significance level of 0.5.||1.33|0.94|0.21
90997115|NCT00010803|181878217|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Previously provided|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.27|||Log Rank|||Total Mortality||1.27|0.85|0.70
90997116|NCT00010803|181878217|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Previously provided|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.62|||Log Rank|||Atherosclerotic CHD mortality||1.62|0.70|0.78
90997117|NCT00010803|181878217|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Previously provided|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.58|||Log Rank|||Incident Myocardial Infarction||1.58|0.79|0.54
91045305|NCT00442546|181977250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047||0.8746||95.0|-0.086|0.101|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||0.101|-0.086|0.8746
90997118|NCT00010803|181878217|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Previously Provided|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.18|||Log Rank|||Incident Angina||1.18|0.61|0.32
91045306|NCT00442546|181977250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.107|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.0286||95.0|0.011|0.202|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||0.202|0.011|0.0286
91045307|NCT00442546|181977251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.165|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.102||0.1078||95.0|-0.367|0.036|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|24 hours||0.036|-0.367|0.1078
90997119|NCT00010803|181878217|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Previously provided|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.23|||Log Rank|||Incident CHD||1.23|0.72|0.66
91045308|NCT00442546|181977251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.103||0.6406||95.0|-0.252|0.155|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|24 hours||0.155|-0.252|0.6406
91045309|NCT00442546|181977251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.108|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.092||0.2404||95.0|-0.289|0.073|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|48 hours||0.073|-0.289|0.2404
90997120|NCT00010803|181878217|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Previously Provided|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.18|||Log Rank|||Incident CHF||1.18|0.71|0.48
90997121|NCT00010803|181878217|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Previously provided|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.45|||Log Rank|||Incident Stroke||1.45|0.52|0.25
90997122|NCT00010803|181878217|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Previously provided|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.45|||Log Rank|||Incident TIA||1.45|0.52|0.59
91045310|NCT00442546|181977251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.149|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.1005||95.0|-0.327|0.029|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|48 hours||0.029|-0.327|0.1005
91045311|NCT00442546|181977251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.136|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.108||0.2109||95.0|-0.349|0.078|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|72 hours||0.078|-0.349|0.2109
91045312|NCT00442546|181977251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.128|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.108||0.2399||95.0|-0.342|0.086|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|72 hours||0.086|-0.342|0.2399
91045313|NCT00442546|181977251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.131|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.108||0.2272||95.0|-0.346|0.083|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|96 hours||0.083|-0.346|0.2272
90997123|NCT00010803|181878217|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Previously provided|Cox Proportional Hazard|1.12||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.5|||Log Rank|||Incident CVD||1.50|0.84|0.42
90997124|NCT00010803|181878217|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Previously provided|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.25|||Log Rank|||Total CHD and CVD combined||1.25|0.80|0.98
90997125|NCT00010803|181878218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment X Time interaction|-0.002||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.009|0.005|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed models comparing rates of change in global cognition scores (z-scores) by treatment group||0.005|-0.009|.65
90997126|NCT04547998|181878252|SUPERIORITY|The difference in the proportion of responders (RECELL-Control) was tested for superiority of RECELL treatment (with a 10% superiority margin). For the null hypothesis to be rejected and super-superiority of RECELL to Control to be established, the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference in the proportion of responders (RECELL-Control) had to be greater than 10%.||||||0.012|||||||continuity-corrected method|Liu et al 2002||||||0.012
90997127|NCT04547998|181878253|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value based on Wilcoxon signed rank test at 2-sided 0.05 significance level. The Wilcoxon signed rank test was based on the following repigmentation categories: 0% to 25%, 26% to 50%, 51% to 79%, and 80% to 100%.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90997128|NCT04547998|181878254|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||2-sided (0.05 significance level), based on 19 participants with assessable color matching outcomes for both treatments|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.000
90997129|NCT01878097|181878255|SUPERIORITY||F-stat|7.12||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0003
90997130|NCT01878097|181878256|SUPERIORITY||F-stat|7.18||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0003
90997131|NCT01595438|181878259|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|-12.5%|Difference of symp resolution rates|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.39|10.42|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||H0: Difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of symptomatic resolution rates ≤ non-inferiority margin||10.42|-2.39|
90997132|NCT01595438|181878260|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|-12.5%|Diff of favorable combined resp rates|6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|13.12|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||H0: Difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of favorable combined response rates ≤ non-inferiority margin||13.12|0.30|
90997133|NCT01595438|181878261|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|-12.5%|Diff of favorable response rates|6.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|12.36|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||H0: Difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of favorable response rates ≤ non-inferiority margin||12.36|0.33|
90997134|NCT01595438|181878262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of favorable response rates|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|3.56|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of favorable response rates||3.56|-2.70|
90997135|NCT01595438|181878263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of favorable response rates|7.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|13.81|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of favorable response rates||13.81|0.68|
90997136|NCT01595438|181878264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of favorable response rates|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|1.72|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of favorable response rates||1.72|-1.21|
90997137|NCT01595438|181878265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of favorable response rates|8.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.27|15.24|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of favorable response rates||15.24|2.27|
90997138|NCT01595438|181878266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of favorable response rates|10.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.86|18.85|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of favorable response rates||18.85|2.86|
90997139|NCT01595438|181878267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of favorable response rates|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|1.68|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of favorable response rates||1.68|-1.17|
90997140|NCT01595438|181878268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of favorable response rates|7.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|13.74|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of favorable response rates||13.74|0.88|
90997141|NCT01595438|181878269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of favorable response rates|9.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|17.55|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of favorable response rates||17.55|1.72|
90997142|NCT01595438|181878270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of clinical cure rates|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.07|1.02|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of clinical cure rates||1.02|-4.07|
90997143|NCT01595438|181878271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of clinical cure rates|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.23|4.03|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of clinical cure rates||4.03|-4.23|
90997144|NCT01595438|181878272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of clinical cure rates|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.71|6.3|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of clinical cure rates||6.30|-3.71|
90997145|NCT01595438|181878273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of clinical cure rates|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.64|0.55|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of clinical cure rates||0.55|-3.64|
90997146|NCT01595438|181878274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of clinical cure rates|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.03|4.56|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of clinical cure rates||4.56|-2.03|
90997147|NCT01595438|181878275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of clinical cure rates|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|7.24|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of clinical cure rates||7.24|-2.90|
90997148|NCT01595438|181878276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of clinical cure rates|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|0.04|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of clinical cure rates||0.04|-4.30|
90997149|NCT01595438|181878277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of clinical cure rates|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|4.32|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of clinical cure rates||4.32|-2.07|
90997150|NCT01595438|181878278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of clinical cure rates|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.94|6.91|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of clinical cure rates||6.91|-2.94|
90997151|NCT01595438|181878279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of clinical cure rates|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|1.61|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of clinical cure rates||1.61|-1.99|
90997152|NCT01595438|181878280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of clinical cure rates|3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|7.16|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of clinical cure rates||7.16|0.41|
90997153|NCT01595438|181878281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of clinical cure rates|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|9.05|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of clinical cure rates||9.05|-1.00|
90997154|NCT01595438|181878282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of clin cure rates in All patients|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|10.1|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of clinical cure rates in All patients with a ceftazidime-resistant Gram-negative pathogen||10.1|-10.4|
90997155|NCT01595438|181878283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of clin cure rates in All patients|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|10.2|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of clinical cure rates in All patients with a ceftazidime-resistant Gram-negative pathogen||10.2|-7.8|
90997156|NCT01595438|181878284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of clin cure rates in All patients|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|9.2|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of clinical cure rates in All patients with a ceftazidime-resistant Gram-negative pathogen||9.2|-7.5|
90997157|NCT01595438|181878285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of favorable response rates|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.18|16.89|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of favorable response rates||16.89|-13.18|
90997158|NCT01595438|181878286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of favorable response rates|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.03|25.21|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of favorable response rates||25.21|-10.03|
90997159|NCT01595438|181878287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of favorable response rates|7.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.91|24.01|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of favorable response rates||24.01|-9.91|
90997160|NCT01595438|181878288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038|||||||Log Rank|||H0: No difference in time to first defervescence between treatment groups.||||0.038
90997161|NCT01595438|181878289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.129|||||||Log Rank|||H0: No difference in time to first defervescence between treatment groups.||||0.129
90997162|NCT01595438|181878290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Log Rank|||H0: No difference in time to first defervescence between treatment groups.||||0.080
90997163|NCT01595438|181878291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.155|||||||Log Rank|||H0: No difference in time to first defervescence between treatment groups.||||0.155
90997164|NCT00291499|181878357|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.7||||0.016|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.016
90997165|NCT00291499|181878358|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.14||||0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.008
90997166|NCT00291499|181878359|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.043||||||Threshold p \<0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.043
90997167|NCT00291499|181878360|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.132||||||Threshold p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.132
90997168|NCT00291499|181878361|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.031||||||Threshold p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.031
90997169|NCT00291499|181878362|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.363|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
90997170|NCT04426890|181878383|EQUIVALENCE|Therapeutic equivalence was declared if the two-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) for the treatment difference was entirely within an equivalence margin of \[-2.5, 2.0\].|Mean Difference (Net)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.22|1.63||||||The statistical analysis of mean change from baseline in ISS7 at Week 12 between CT-P39 300 mg treatment arm (Arm 1) and Xolair 300 mg treatment arm (Arm 2), using ANCOVA with multiple imputation based on the MAR assumption was performed for the mITT Set.||1.63|-0.22|
90997171|NCT03783442|181878408|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio|0.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.8|||Stratified Log-rank Test|One-sided p-value estimated from log rank test stratified by pooled geographic region, prior definitive therapy and Investigator chemotherapy choice|Stratified Hazard ratio was based on Cox regression model including treatment arm as a covariate and stratified by pooled geographic region (Asia vs. Rest of World), prior definitive therapy and Investigator choice of chemotherapy as strata.|||0.80|0.54|<0.0001
90997172|NCT03783442|181878409|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio|0.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.75|||Stratified Log-rank test|One-sided p-value estimated from log rank test stratified by pooled geographic region, prior definitive therapy and Investigator chemotherapy choice.|Stratified Hazard ratio was based on Cox regression model including treatment arm as a covariate and stratified by pooled geographic region (Asia vs. Rest of World), prior definitive therapy and Investigator choice of chemotherapy as strata.|||0.75|0.52|<0.0001
90997173|NCT03783442|181878410|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.73|3.27|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Two-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by pooled geographic region, prior definitive therapy, and Investigator choice of chemotherapy.|Odds ratio was calculated using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method, stratified by pooled geographic region, prior definitive therapy, and Investigator choice of chemotherapy.|||3.27|1.73|<0.0001
90997174|NCT03783442|181878411|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio|0.62||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.87|||Stratified Log-rank test|One-sided p-value estimated from log rank test stratified by pooled geographic region, prior definitive therapy and Investigator chemotherapy choice.|Stratified Hazard ratio was based on Cox regression model including treatment arm as a covariate and stratified by pooled geographic region (Asia vs. Rest of World), prior definitive therapy and Investigator choice of chemotherapy as strata.|||0.87|0.44|0.0029
90997175|NCT03783442|181878413|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|4.4||||0.1372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|10.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Two-sided p-value estimated from a mixed effect model|Based on a mixed effect model analysis with QLQ-OES18 scores until cycle 18 as the response variable, and treatment by study visit interaction, Baseline mean score, and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Analysis of Change from Baseline in EORTC QLQ-OES18 Dysphagia Score at Cycle 6||10.3|-1.4|0.1372
90997176|NCT03783442|181878413|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.6||||0.713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|3.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Two-sided p-value estimated from a mixed effect model|Based on a mixed effect model analysis with QLQ-OES18 scores until cycle 18 as the response variable, and treatment by study visit interaction, Baseline mean score, and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Analysis of Change from Baseline in EORTC QLQ-OES18 Eating Score at Cycle 6||3.7|-2.5|0.7130
90997177|NCT03783442|181878413|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.4||||0.3001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Two-sided p-value estimated from a mixed effect model|Based on a mixed effect model analysis with QLQ-OES18 scores until cycle 18 as the response variable, and treatment by study visit interaction, Baseline mean score, and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Analysis of Change from Baseline in EORTC QLQ-OES18 Reflux Score at Cycle 6||1.3|-4.1|0.3001
90997178|NCT03783442|181878413|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|0.2|||||Based on a mixed effect model analysis with QLQ-OES18 scores until cycle 18 as the response variable, and treatment by study visit interaction, Baseline mean score, and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Analysis of Change from Baseline in EORTC QLQ-OES18 Pain Score at Cycle 6||0.2|-3.9|
90997179|NCT03783442|181878413|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.4|||||Based on a mixed effect model analysis with QLQ-OES18 scores until cycle 18 as the response variable, and treatment by study visit interaction, Baseline mean score, and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Analysis of Change from Baseline in EORTC QLQ-OES18 Index Score at Cycle 6||1.4|-2.1|
90997180|NCT03783442|181878414|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|6.2|||||Based on a mixed effect model analysis, with QLQ-C30 scores until cycle 18 as the response variable, and treatment by study visit interaction, Baseline mean score, and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Analysis of Change from Baseline in Global Health Status/QoL at Cycle 6||6.2|0.4|
90997181|NCT03783442|181878414|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|5.1|||||Based on a mixed effect model analysis, with QLQ-C30 scores until cycle 18 as the response variable, and treatment by study visit interaction, Baseline mean score, and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Analysis of Change from Baseline in Physical Functioning at Cycle 6||5.1|0.0|
90997182|NCT03783442|181878415|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|1.9|||||Based on a mixed effect model analysis with QLQ-C30 scores until cycle 18 as the response variable, and treatment by study visit interaction, Baseline mean score, and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|||1.9|-4.7|
90997183|NCT01457924|181878418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.221|0.548|||Non-Linear Emax Model|||Note: There is a discrepancy in the number of par. in ITT populations at Wk 24 and Wk 48: 228 and 229 respectively. This resulted from a data issue: one par was incorrectly excluded from ITT pop. at Wk 24, but correctly included in Wk 48. This error affects all source tables, analyses relating to ITT and per protocol populations, primary endpoint and secondary MRI endpoints reported at Wk 24. This discrepancy affects all statistical analyses, but not summary statistics.||0.548|0.221|<0.001
90997184|NCT01457924|181878418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.221|0.548|||Non-Linear Emax Model|||||0.548|0.221|<0.001
90997185|NCT01457924|181878418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.221|0.548|||Non-Linear Emax Model|||||0.548|0.221|<0.001
90997186|NCT01457924|181878418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.221|0.548|||Non-Linear Emax Model|||||0.548|0.221|<0.001
90997187|NCT01457924|181878419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.38||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.72|||Generalized Linear Model|||||0.72|0.20|0.003
90997188|NCT01457924|181878419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.38||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.72|||Generalized Linear Model|||||0.72|0.20|0.003
90997189|NCT01457924|181878419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.35||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.65|||Generalized Linear Model|||||0.65|0.19|0.001
91045314|NCT00442546|181977251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.104||0.4417||95.0|-0.285|0.125|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|96 hours||0.125|-0.285|0.4417
91045315|NCT00442546|181977251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.009|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.144||0.9502||95.0|-0.299|0.281|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|120 hours||0.281|-0.299|0.9502
91045316|NCT00442546|181977251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.135|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.144||0.355||95.0|-0.426|0.156|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|120 hours||0.156|-0.426|0.3550
90997190|NCT01457924|181878419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.39|||Generalized Linear Model|||||0.39|0.13|<0.001
90997191|NCT01457924|181878422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.6|||Generalized Linear Model|||||0.60|0.16|<0.001
90997192|NCT01457924|181878422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.56||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.06|||Generalized Linear Model|||||1.06|0.29|0.075
90997193|NCT01457924|181878422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.51||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.95|||Generalized Linear Model|||||0.95|0.27|0.035
90997194|NCT01457924|181878422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.55|||Generalized Linear Model|||||0.55|0.19|<0.001
90997195|NCT01457924|181878423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.22||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.84|||Generalized Linear Model|||||0.84|0.06|0.026
90997196|NCT01457924|181878423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.49||||0.296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.86|||Generalized Linear Model|||||1.86|0.13|0.296
90997197|NCT01457924|181878423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.5||||0.285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|1.78|||Generalized Linear Model|||||1.78|0.14|0.285
90997198|NCT01457924|181878423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.25||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.71|||Non-Linear Emax Model|||||0.71|0.09|0.009
90997199|NCT01457924|181878424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.18||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.58|||Generalized Linear Model|||||0.58|0.05|0.004
90997200|NCT01457924|181878424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.5||||0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.63|||Generalized Linear Model|||||1.63|0.15|0.248
91045317|NCT00442546|181977251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.122|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.092||0.1888||95.0|-0.304|0.06|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Discharge||0.060|-0.304|0.1888
91045318|NCT00442546|181977251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.081|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.092||0.3774||95.0|-0.262|0.1|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Discharge||0.100|-0.262|0.3774
91045319|NCT00442546|181977251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.087||0.9452||95.0|-0.178|0.166|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||0.166|-0.178|0.9452
90997201|NCT01457924|181878424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.46||||0.181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.43|||Generalized Linear Model|||||1.43|0.15|0.181
90997202|NCT01457924|181878424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.24||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.62|||Generalized Linear Model|||||0.62|0.10|0.003
90997203|NCT01457924|181878425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.58|||Generalized Linear Model|||||0.58|0.15|<0.001
90997204|NCT01457924|181878425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.34||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.68|||Generalized Linear Model|||||0.68|0.17|0.002
90997205|NCT01457924|181878425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.4||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.77|||Generalized Linear Model|||||0.77|0.21|0.006
90997206|NCT01457924|181878425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.35|||Generalized Linear Model|||||0.35|0.11|<0.001
91045320|NCT00442546|181977251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.026|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.089||0.7663||95.0|-0.201|0.148|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||0.148|-0.201|0.7663
91045321|NCT00442546|181977251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.041|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.074||0.5777||95.0|-0.104|0.186|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||0.186|-0.104|0.5777
91045322|NCT00442546|181977251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.079|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.075||0.2916||95.0|-0.069|0.227|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||0.227|-0.069|0.2916
91045323|NCT00442546|181977251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.014|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.069||0.8389||95.0|-0.15|0.122|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||0.122|-0.150|0.8389
91045324|NCT00442546|181977251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.127|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.0734||95.0|-0.012|0.266|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||0.266|-0.012|0.0734
90997207|NCT02505542|181878431|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|18.822|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.605|38.864||A fixed sequence testing procedure was used whereby the second test (CZP 200 mg Q4W vs PBO) was interpreted as statistically significant only if the first test (CZP 200 mg Q2W vs PBO) was significant at the 0.05 level as well.|Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio (and corresponding p-value) resulted from a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, geographic region, and modified New York (mNY) classification for study participants who did not experience a flare. An odds ratio \> 1 indicates a study participant on CZP was more likely not to experience a flare than a study participant on placebo. Penalized maximum likelihood approach was used for logistic regression.||38.864|9.605|<0.001
90997208|NCT02505542|181878431|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.069|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.395|27.955||A fixed sequence testing procedure was used whereby the second test (CZP 200 mg Q4W vs PBO) was interpreted as statistically significant only if the first test (CZP 200 mg Q2W vs PBO) was significant at the 0.05 level as well.|Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio (and corresponding p-value) resulted from a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, geographic region, and modified New York (mNY) classification for study participants who did not experience a flare. An odds ratio \> 1 indicates a study participant on CZP was more likely not to experience a flare than a study participant on placebo. Penalized maximum likelihood approach was used for logistic regression.||27.955|7.395|<0.001
90997209|NCT02505542|181878435|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||P-values were from stratified log-rank test comparing the Certolizumab pegol 200 mg Q2W Double-Blind (RS) group with the Placebo Double-Blind (RS) group (Geographic region and modified New York (mNY) classification were used as stratification factors).||||<0.001
90997210|NCT02505542|181878435|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||P-values were from stratified log-rank test comparing the Certolizumab pegol 200 mg Q4W Double-Blind (RS) group with the Placebo Double-Blind (RS) group (Geographic region and modified New York (mNY) classification were used as stratification factors).||||<0.001
90997211|NCT02505542|181878437|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|17.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.95|35.961|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratios (and corresponding p-values) were from a logistic regression model with factors for treatment group, geographical region, and modified New York (mNY) classification.||35.961|8.950|<0.001
90997212|NCT02505542|181878437|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.385|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.952|21.778|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratios (and corresponding p-values) were from a logistic regression model with factors for treatment group, geographical region, and modified New York (mNY) classification.||21.778|5.952|<0.001
91045325|NCT00442546|181977252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.084||0.1949||95.0|-0.276|0.057|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|24 hours||0.057|-0.276|0.1949
90997213|NCT02505542|181878437|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|17.653|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.333|37.399|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratios (and corresponding p-values) were from a logistic regression model with factors for treatment group, geographical region, and modified New York (mNY) classification.||37.399|8.333|<0.001
90997214|NCT02505542|181878437|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.863|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.67|24.822|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratios (and corresponding p-values) were from a logistic regression model with factors for treatment group, geographical region, and modified New York (mNY) classification.||24.822|5.670|<0.001
90997215|NCT02505542|181878438|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|20.205|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.851|41.439|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratios (and corresponding p-values) were from a logistic regression model with factors for treatment group, geographical region, and mNY classification.||41.439|9.851|<0.001
90997216|NCT02505542|181878438|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.275|23.218|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratios (and corresponding p-values) were from a logistic regression model with factors for treatment group, geographical region, and mNY classification.||23.218|6.275|<0.001
90997217|NCT02505542|181878439|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|20.891|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.21|42.744|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratios (and corresponding p-values) were from a logistic regression model with factors for treatment group, geographical region, and mNY classification.||42.744|10.210|<0.001
90997218|NCT02505542|181878439|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.377|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.456|19.738|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratios (and corresponding p-values) were from a logistic regression model with factors for treatment group, geographical region, and mNY classification.||19.738|5.456|<0.001
90997219|NCT02505542|181878440|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.211|34.785|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratios (and corresponding p-values) were from a logistic regression model with factors for treatment group, geographical region, and mNY classification.||34.785|8.211|<0.001
91045326|NCT00442546|181977252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.052|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.085||0.5431||95.0|-0.22|0.116|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|24 hours||0.116|-0.220|0.5431
90997220|NCT02505542|181878440|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.072|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.954|24.476|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratios (and corresponding p-values) were from a logistic regression model with factors for treatment group, geographical region, and mNY classification.||24.476|5.954|<0.001
90997221|NCT02505542|181878441|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|17.082|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.561|34.085|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratios (and corresponding p-values) were from a logistic regression model with factors for treatment group, geographical region, and mNY classification.||34.085|8.561|<0.001
90997222|NCT02505542|181878441|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.503|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.939|22.278|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratios (and corresponding p-values) were from a logistic regression model with factors for treatment group, geographical region, and mNY classification.||22.278|5.939|<0.001
90997223|NCT02505542|181878442|OTHER||LS Mean Difference vs Placebo|-1.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.126|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|-1.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||An mixed model with repeated measures (MMRM) analysis on all observed post-baseline data with the following fixed-effect covariates was used: treatment, geographical region, mNY classification, Part B Baseline value, and visit as fixed-effect factors, as well as treatment group by visit interaction and Part B Baseline value by visit interaction.||-1.17|-1.66|<0.001
90997224|NCT02505542|181878442|OTHER||LS Mean Difference vs Placebo|-1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.126|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|-0.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|||An mixed model with repeated measures (MMRM) analysis on all observed post-baseline data with the following fixed-effect covariates was used: treatment, geographical region, mNY classification, Part B Baseline value, and visit as fixed-effect factors, as well as treatment group by visit interaction and Part B Baseline value by visit interaction.||-0.96|-1.45|<0.001
90997225|NCT02505542|181878443|OTHER||LS Mean Difference vs Placebo|-2.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.268|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.99|-1.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||An mixed model with repeated measures (MMRM) analysis on all observed post-baseline data with the following fixed-effect covariates was used: treatment, geographical region, mNY classification, Part B Baseline value, and visit as fixed-effect factors, as well as treatment group by visit interaction and Part B Baseline value by visit interaction.||-1.94|-2.99|<0.001
90997226|NCT02505542|181878443|OTHER||LS Mean Difference vs Placebo|-2.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.267|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.77|-1.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||An mixed model with repeated measures (MMRM) analysis on all observed post-baseline data with the following fixed-effect covariates was used: treatment, geographical region, mNY classification, Part B Baseline value, and visit as fixed-effect factors, as well as treatment group by visit interaction and Part B Baseline value by visit interaction.||-1.72|-2.77|<0.001
90997227|NCT02505542|181878444|OTHER||LS Mean Difference vs Placebo|-1.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.238|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|-1.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||An mixed model with repeated measures (MMRM) analysis on all observed post-baseline data with the following fixed-effect covariates was used: treatment, geographical region, mNY classification, Part B Baseline value, and visit as fixed-effect factors, as well as treatment group by visit interaction and Part B Baseline value by visit interaction.||-1.11|-2.04|<0.001
90997228|NCT02505542|181878444|OTHER||LS Mean Difference vs Placebo|-1.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.238|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|||An mixed model with repeated measures (MMRM) analysis on all observed post-baseline data with the following fixed-effect covariates was used: treatment, geographical region, mNY classification, Part B Baseline value, and visit as fixed-effect factors, as well as treatment group by visit interaction and Part B Baseline value by visit interaction.||-0.96|-1.90|<0.001
90997229|NCT02505542|181878445|OTHER||LS Mean Difference vs Placebo|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.112|=|0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||An mixed model with repeated measures (MMRM) analysis on all observed post-baseline data with the following fixed-effect covariates was used: treatment, geographical region, mNY classification, Part B Baseline value, and visit as fixed-effect factors, as well as treatment group by visit interaction and Part B Baseline value by visit interaction.||0.02|-0.42|=0.074
90997230|NCT02505542|181878445|OTHER||LS Mean Difference vs Placebo|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.113|=|0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||An mixed model with repeated measures (MMRM) analysis on all observed post-baseline data with the following fixed-effect covariates was used: treatment, geographical region, mNY classification, Part B Baseline value, and visit as fixed-effect factors, as well as treatment group by visit interaction and Part B Baseline value by visit interaction.||-0.02|-0.46|=0.036
90997231|NCT02505542|181878446|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|18.308|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.084|36.898|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratios (and corresponding p-values) were from a logistic regression model with factors for treatment group, geographical region, and mNY classification.||36.898|9.084|<0.001
90997232|NCT02505542|181878446|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.255|23.098|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratios (and corresponding p-values) were from a logistic regression model with factors for treatment group, geographical region, and mNY classification.||23.098|6.255|<0.001
90997233|NCT02505542|181878447|OTHER||LS Mean Difference vs Placebo|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76|=|0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.51|||ANCOVA|||"Only MRIs performed ± 2 weeks around the Week 96 or Early Withdrawal Visit were assigned to Week 96 or Early Withdrawal.~Only results of the double-read assessments of the central MRI review were included. The analysis used the average of the scores from the 2 independent reviewers. Whenever an adjudication was present, the average score across all 3 reviewers was used.~ANCOVA model with treatment, geographical region, mNY classification, and Part B Baseline as covariates."||0.51|-2.50|=0.195
91045327|NCT00442546|181977252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.095|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.077||0.2164||95.0|-0.247|0.056|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|48 hours||0.056|-0.247|0.2164
90997234|NCT02505542|181878447|OTHER||LS Mean Difference vs Placebo|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76|=|0.432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|0.91|||ANCOVA|||"Only MRIs performed ± 2 weeks around the Week 96 or Early Withdrawal Visit were assigned to Week 96 or Early Withdrawal.~Only results of the double-read assessments of the central MRI review were included. The analysis used the average of the scores from the 2 independent reviewers. Whenever an adjudication was present, the average score across all 3 reviewers was used.~ANCOVA model with treatment, geographical region, mNY classification, and Part B Baseline as covariates."||0.91|-2.11|=0.432
90997235|NCT02505542|181878448|OTHER||LS Mean Difference vs Placebo|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|=|0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||"Only MRIs performed ± 2 weeks around the Week 96 or Early Withdrawal Visit were assigned to Week 96 or Early Withdrawal.~Only results of the double-read assessments of the central MRI review were included. The analysis used the average of the scores from the 2 independent reviewers. Whenever an adjudication was present, the average score across all 3 reviewers was used.~ANCOVA model with treatment, geographical region, mNY classification, and Part B Baseline as covariates."||-0.02|-0.78|=0.040
90997236|NCT02505542|181878448|OTHER||LS Mean Difference vs Placebo|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|=|0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.03|||ANCOVA|||"Only MRIs performed ± 2 weeks around the Week 96 or Early Withdrawal Visit were assigned to Week 96 or Early Withdrawal.~Only results of the double-read assessments of the central MRI review were included. The analysis used the average of the scores from the 2 independent reviewers. Whenever an adjudication was present, the average score across all 3 reviewers was used.~ANCOVA model with treatment, geographical region, mNY classification, and Part B Baseline as covariates."||0.03|-0.73|=0.074
90997237|NCT00835003|181878485|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations estimated a sample size of 1272 women with an estimated proportion of 8% in the 39 weeks Group and 14% in the 38 weeks group|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.86||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.15|||Chi-squared|||||1.15|0.65|0.31
91045328|NCT00442546|181977252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.117|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.076||0.1251||95.0|-0.266|0.033|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|48 hours||0.033|-0.266|0.1251
90997238|NCT02855450|181878500|SUPERIORITY||Least square means difference|4.7||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|9.2|||ANCOVA|Analysis results are obtained from an ANCOVA with treatment as factor and baseline value as covariate.||These statistics refer to Day 7 and primary eye||9.2|0.2|0.040
90997239|NCT02855450|181878500|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|2.4||||0.457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|9.0||Analysis results are obtained from an ANCOVA with treatment as factor and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||These statistics refer to Day 28 and primary eye||9.0|-4.1|0.457
90997240|NCT02855450|181878500|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|4.0||||0.283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|11.5||Analysis results are obtained from an ANCOVA with treatment as factor and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||These statistics refer to Day 56 and primary eye||11.5|-3.5|0.283
90997241|NCT02855450|181878500|SUPERIORITY|Analysis results are obtained from an ANCOVA with treatment as factor and baseline value as covariate.|Least square means difference|3.5||||0.147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|8.3|||ANCOVA|||These statistics refer to Day 7 and secondary eye||8.3|-1.3|0.147
90997242|NCT02855450|181878500|SUPERIORITY|Analysis results are obtained from an ANCOVA with treatment as factor and baseline value as covariate.|least square mean difference|3.0||||0.421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|10.4|||ANCOVA|||These statistics refer to Day 28 and secondary eye||10.4|-4.4|0.421
90997243|NCT02855450|181878500|SUPERIORITY|Analysis results are obtained from an ANCOVA with treatment as factor and baseline value as covariate.|least square mean difference|4.3||||0.327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|13.0|||ANCOVA|||These statistics refer to Day 56 and secondary eye||13.0|-4.4|0.327
90997244|NCT02703987|181878506|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.67|-0.04|0.0801
90997245|NCT02703987|181878507|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.71|-0.03|0.0714
90997246|NCT02703987|181878508|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|9.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.85||0.0609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|19.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||19.6|-0.48|0.0609
91045329|NCT00442546|181977252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.073|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.088||0.4079||95.0|-0.247|0.101|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|72 hours||0.101|-0.247|0.4079
90997247|NCT05053126|181878526|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|36.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.132|<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|31.65||||Mixed Models Analysis|||"The sensitivity and integrity of the study was validated by comparing the mean responses of oxycodone HCl, the positive control (C), to the placebo (P):~H0: μC - μP ≤ δ1 versus Ha: μC - μP \> δ1 where δ1 =15"|||31.65|<0.0001
90997248|NCT05053126|181878526|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin = 0|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.49||0.2469|ONE_SIDED|95.0||3.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"The primary analysis evaluated whether pregabalin plus oxycodone HCl (T) produced mean responses that showed abuse potential that was no higher than oxycodone HCl (C). The margin for showing no significant difference was defined as 20% of the difference between oxycodone HCl (C) and Placebo (P):~H0: μT - μC ≥ 0.2(μC - μP) versus Ha: μT - μC \<0.2(μC - μP)."||3.4||0.2469
90997249|NCT05053126|181878526|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin = 0|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.48||0.1756|ONE_SIDED|95.0||2.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"The primary analysis evaluated whether pregabalin plus oxycodone HCl (T) produced mean responses that showed abuse potential that was no higher than oxycodone HCl (C). The margin for showing no significant difference was defined as 20% of the difference between oxycodone HCl (C) and Placebo (P):~H0: μT - μC ≥ 0.2(μC - μP) versus Ha: μT - μC \<0.2(μC - μP)."||2.5||0.1756
90997250|NCT05053126|181878526|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin = 10|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.84||0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||4.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"The null and alternative hypotheses for evaluating whether pregabalin (L) produced mean responses that show less abuse potential than oxycodone HCl (C) were:~H0: μC - μL ≤ 0.2 (μC - 50) versus Ha: μC - μL \> 0.2 (μC - 50)"||4.3||0.0001
90997251|NCT05053126|181878526|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin = 10|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.84||0.0099|ONE_SIDED|95.0||8.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"The null and alternative hypotheses for evaluating whether pregabalin (L) produced mean responses that show less abuse potential than oxycodone HCl (C) were:~H0: μC - μL ≤ 0.2 (μC - 50) versus Ha: μC - μL \> 0.2 (μC - 50)"||8.0||0.0099
90997252|NCT05053126|181878526|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin = 11|Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.13||0.9888|ONE_SIDED|95.0||23.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"The null and alternative hypotheses for evaluating whether pregabalin (L) produced mean responses that show abuse potential similar to placebo(P) were:~H0: μL - μp ≥ δ2 versus Ha: μL - μp \< δ2 where δ2 = 11"||23.4||0.9888
90997253|NCT05053126|181878526|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin = 11|Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.13||0.9997|ONE_SIDED|95.0||27.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"The null and alternative hypotheses for evaluating whether pregabalin (L) produced mean responses that show abuse potential similar to placebo(P) were:~H0: μL - μp ≥ δ2 versus Ha: μL - μp \< δ2 where δ2 = 11"||27.1||0.9997
90997254|NCT05053126|181878527|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|75.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.948|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|65.79|85.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||85.42|65.79|<0.0001
90997255|NCT05053126|181878527|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|44.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.942|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|35.03|54.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||54.65|35.03|<0.0001
90997256|NCT05053126|181878527|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|49.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.945|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|40.12|59.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||59.75|40.12|<0.0001
91045330|NCT00442546|181977252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.066|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.088||0.4562||95.0|-0.24|0.108|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|72 hours||0.108|-0.240|0.4562
90997257|NCT05053126|181878527|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|80.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.942|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.99|90.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||90.61|70.99|<0.0001
90997258|NCT05053126|181878527|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|81.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.948|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|72.09|91.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||91.73|72.09|<0.0001
90997259|NCT05053126|181878527|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-30.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.948|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-40.6|-20.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-20.9|-40.6|<0.0001
90997260|NCT05053126|181878527|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.942|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-35.5|-15.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-15.9|-35.5|<0.0001
90997261|NCT05053126|181878527|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.945||0.3829|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.62|15.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||15.01|-4.62|0.3829
90997262|NCT05053126|181878527|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.942||0.2896|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.5|16.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||16.11|-3.50|0.2896
90997263|NCT05053126|181878528|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.247|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|19.77|27.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||27.17|19.77|<0.0001
90997264|NCT05053126|181878528|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.239|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.71|14.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||14.09|6.71|<0.0001
90997265|NCT05053126|181878528|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.248|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.59|14.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||14.99|7.59|<0.0001
90997266|NCT05053126|181878528|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.251|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|20.62|28.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||28.03|20.62|<0.0001
90997267|NCT05053126|181878528|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.245|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|18.65|26.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||26.04|18.65|<0.0001
90997268|NCT05053126|181878528|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.245|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.8|-9.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-9.38|-16.8|<0.0001
90997269|NCT05053126|181878528|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.252|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.9|-8.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.47|-15.9|<0.0001
90997270|NCT05053126|181878528|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.258||0.7051|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.86|4.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.57|-2.86|0.7051
90997271|NCT05053126|181878528|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.246||0.616|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.82|2.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.57|-4.82|0.6160
90997272|NCT05053126|181878529|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.235|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|18.31|25.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||25.67|18.31|<0.0001
90997273|NCT05053126|181878529|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.227||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.73|10.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||10.07|2.73|0.0042
90997274|NCT05053126|181878529|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.236|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.12|13.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||13.48|6.12|<0.0001
90997275|NCT05053126|181878529|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.239|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|17.44|24.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||24.81|17.44|<0.0001
90997276|NCT05053126|181878529|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.233|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|17.59|24.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||24.95|17.59|<0.0001
90997277|NCT05053126|181878529|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.233|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-19.3|-11.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-11.9|-19.3|<0.0001
90997278|NCT05053126|181878529|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.24|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.9|-8.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.50|-15.9|<0.0001
90997279|NCT05053126|181878529|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.246||0.7001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.56|2.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.83|-4.56|0.7001
90997280|NCT05053126|181878529|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.233||0.7479|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.4|2.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.96|-4.40|0.7479
90997281|NCT05053126|181878530|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.439|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|25.45|30.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||30.19|25.45|<0.0001
90997282|NCT05053126|181878530|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.435|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|12.17|16.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||16.89|12.17|<0.0001
90997283|NCT05053126|181878530|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.437|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|15.49|20.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||20.22|15.49|<0.0001
90997284|NCT05053126|181878530|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|34.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.438|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|34.4|36.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||36.77|34.40|<0.0001
90997285|NCT05053126|181878530|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|38.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.44|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|36.47|41.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||41.21|36.47|<0.0001
90997286|NCT05053126|181878530|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.434|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.6|-10.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-10.9|-15.6|<0.0001
90997287|NCT05053126|181878530|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.435|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.3|-7.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-7.61|-12.3|<0.0001
90997288|NCT05053126|181878530|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.436|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.22|8.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.94|4.22|<0.0001
90997289|NCT05053126|181878530|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.436|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.65|13.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||13.38|8.65|<0.0001
90997290|NCT04024072|181878531|EQUIVALENCE|8AM Day 14|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.01||||||||0.01|-0.93|
90997291|NCT04024072|181878531|EQUIVALENCE|10AM Day 14|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.24||||||||0.24|-0.70|
90997292|NCT04024072|181878531|EQUIVALENCE|8AM Day 42|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.27||||||||0.27|-0.74|
90997293|NCT04024072|181878531|EQUIVALENCE|10AM Day 42|Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.51||||||||0.51|-0.51|
90997294|NCT01376245|181878551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.089|0.191|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM)||||0.191|0.089|<0.001
90997295|NCT01376245|181878551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.179|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.129|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM)||||0.230|0.129|<0.001
91045331|NCT00442546|181977252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.093||0.4526||95.0|-0.254|0.114|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|96 hours||0.114|-0.254|0.4526
91045332|NCT00442546|181977252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.089||0.6186||95.0|-0.221|0.132|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|96 hours||0.132|-0.221|0.6186
90997296|NCT01376245|181878551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.194|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.143|0.245|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM)||||0.245|0.143|<0.001
90997297|NCT01357889|181878569|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish BE, the 90% CI for the ratio of Process 3 (P3) to Process 2 (P2) geometric least squares means (LSMs) for AUC (0-inf) must have fallen within the BE limit of 0.8 and 1.25.|Ratio of Geometric LSMs (P3:P2)|0.937|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.842|1.042|||ANOVA|||||1.042|0.842|
90997298|NCT01357889|181878570|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish BE, the 90% CI for the ratio of Process 3:Process 2 geometric least squares means for Cmax must have fallen within the BE limit of 0.8 and 1.25.|Ratio of Geometric LSMs (P3:P2)|0.927|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.813|1.056|||ANOVA|||||1.056|0.813|
90997299|NCT01170221|181878583|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the observed difference in the primary outcome measure (early clinical response at the 48-72 Hour Visit) between the tedizolid group and the linezolid group was calculated using the ITT analysis set. Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 95% CI was greater than -10%.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.1||||||95.0|-6.1|6.2|||||Risk difference corresponds to tedizolid clinical response rate minus linezolid clinical response rate. The confidence interval was calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen with stratification for the presence or absence of fever at baseline.|The primary objective is to determine the noninferiority in the early clinical response rate of oral tedizolid phosphate compared with that of oral linezolid treatment at the 48-72 Hour Visit in the ITT Analysis Set in patients with ABSSSI.||6.2|-6.1|
90997300|NCT01170221|181878584|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI will be calculated for the observed differences in the clinical response rate based on the sustained response at EOT using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen with stratification for the presence or absence of fever at baseline. Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 95% CI was greater than -10% and the conditions of the hierarchical testing procedure were met.|Risk Difference (RD)|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|4.2||Hierarchical testing procedure of Westfall and Krishen used to control for inflation of the overall type I error rate. If NI is declared for the primary, NI will be tested for the secondary outcomes in this order: Secondary Outcomes Measures 2 to 5.|||Risk difference corresponds to the tedizolid clinical response rate minus the linezolid clinical response rate.|||4.2|-9.6|
90997301|NCT01170221|181878585|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI was calculated for the observed differences in the clinical response rate based on the sustained response at EOT using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen with stratification for the presence or absence of fever at baseline. Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 95% CI was greater than -10% and the conditions of the hierarchical testing procedure were met.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|5.4|||||Risk difference corresponds to the tedizolid clinical response rate minus the linezolid clinical response rate.|||5.4|-7.7|
90997302|NCT01170221|181878586|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI was calculated for the observed differences in the clinical success rate based on the Investigator's assessment of clinical response at the PTE visit using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen with stratification for the presence or absence of fever at baseline. Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 95% CI was greater than -10% and the conditions of the hierarchical testing procedure were met.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|4.9|||||Risk difference corresponds to the tedizolid clinical success rate minus the linezolid clinical success rate.|||4.9|-5.8|
90997303|NCT01170221|181878587|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI was calculated for the observed differences in the clinical success rate based on the Investigator's assessment of clinical response at the PTE visit using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen with stratification for the presence or absence of fever at baseline. Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 95% CI was greater than -10% and the conditions of the hierarchical testing procedure were met.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|3.0|||||Risk difference corresponds to the tedizolid clinical success rate minus the linezolid clinical success rate.|||3.0|-4.6|
90997304|NCT01170221|181878588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|8.5|||||Risk difference corresponds to the tedizolid clinical response rate minus the linezolid clinical response rate.|A two-sided 95% CI was calculated for the observed differences in the clinical response rate based on the Investigator's assessment of clinical response at the 48-72 Hour Visit using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen with stratification for the presence or absence of fever at baseline.||8.5|-1.4|
91045333|NCT00442546|181977252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.018|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.109||0.8712||95.0|-0.237|0.202|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|120 hours||0.202|-0.237|0.8712
91045334|NCT00442546|181977252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.078|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.4784||95.0|-0.3|0.143|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|120 hours||0.143|-0.300|0.4784
91045335|NCT00442546|181977252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.084|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.075||0.2635||95.0|-0.232|0.064|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Discharge||0.064|-0.232|0.2635
90997305|NCT01170221|181878589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|6.4|||||Risk difference corresponds to the tedizolid clinical response rate minus the linezolid clinical response rate.|A two-sided 95% CI was calculated for the observed differences in the clinical response rate based on the Investigator's assessment of clinical response at the Day 7 Visit using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen with stratification for the presence or absence of fever at baseline.||6.4|-2.8|
90997306|NCT02940626|181878634|OTHER|||||||0.547|||||||Wald Test on equality of proportions|||Subjects were analyzed for efficacy in the group to which they randomized. Sponsor defined outcomes were based on review of microbiology results from samples tested at the central lab. If sample was not sent to the central lab., determination was based on results from the local microbiology lab. In cases where both local \& central lab results were available, concordance was confirmed for S. aureus. Therefore, the analysis used local microbiology data in order to utilize a more complete dataset.||||.5470
90997307|NCT00138424|181878678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman Correlation|0.24||||0.57|||||||Spearman Correlation|||Spearman correlation co-efficient utilized to determine viral load changes in plasma vs the PK Cmax parameter||||0.57
90997308|NCT00138424|181878678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman Correlation|0.26||||0.53|||||||Spearman Correlation|||Spearman correlation co-efficient utilized to determine viral load changes in urine vs the PK Cmax parameter||||0.53
90997309|NCT00138424|181878678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman Correlation|-0.3||||0.62|||||||Spearman Correlation|||Spearman correlation co-efficient utilized to determine viral load changes in plasma vs the PK Cmax parameter||||0.62
90997310|NCT00138424|181878678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman Correlation|0.8||||0.1|||||||Spearman Correlation|||Spearman correlation co-efficient utilized to determine viral load changes in urine vs the PK Cmax parameter||||0.10
90997311|NCT00138424|181878679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman Correlation|0.07||||0.87|||||||Spearman Correlation|||Spearman correlation co-efficient utilized to determine viral load changes in plasma vs the PK AUC4 parameter||||0.87
90997312|NCT00138424|181878679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman Correlation|0.31||||0.46|||||||Spearman Correlation|||Spearman correlation co-efficient utilized to determine viral load changes in urine vs the PK AUC4 parameter||||0.46
90997313|NCT00138424|181878679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman Correlation|-0.41||||0.49|||||||Spearman Correlation|||Spearman correlation co-efficient utilized to determine viral load changes in plasma vs the PK AUC4 parameter||||0.49
90997314|NCT00138424|181878679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman Correlation|0.87||||0.05|||||||Spearman Correlation|||Spearman correlation co-efficient utilized to determine viral load changes in urine vs the PK AUC4 parameter||||0.05
90997315|NCT00138424|181878679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman Correlation|0.12||||0.78|||||||Spearman Correlation|||Spearman correlation co-efficient utilized to determine viral load changes in plasma vs the PK AUC12 parameter||||0.78
90997316|NCT00138424|181878679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman Correlation|0.52||||0.18|||||||Spearman Correlation|||Spearman correlation co-efficient utilized to determine viral load changes in urine vs the PK AUC12 parameter||||0.18
90997317|NCT00138424|181878679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman Correlation|0.2||||0.75|||||||Spearman Correlation|||Spearman correlation co-efficient utilized to determine viral load changes in plasma vs the PK AUC12 parameter||||0.75
90997318|NCT00138424|181878679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman Correlation|0.2||||0.75|||||||Spearman Correlation|||Spearman correlation co-efficient utilized to determine viral load changes in urine vs the PK AUC12 parameter||||0.75
90997319|NCT01802554|181878680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.039|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.039
90997320|NCT01802554|181878681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.701|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.701
90997321|NCT01802554|181878682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.04
90997322|NCT01802554|181878683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.268|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.268
90997323|NCT01802554|181878684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.021
90997324|NCT02431468|181878708|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.5|||<|0.1|TWO_SIDED|80.0||||LSM and two-sided 80% CI were provided for treatment group differences and estimated endpoint values. A true mean difference in change from baseline in the SIB (one-sided at α=0.10) of at least 6.5 points in favor of bryostatin groups was assumed.|t-test, 1 sided|||The primary statistical objective for efficacy was to estimate the effect of bryostatin on the mean change in the Severe Impairment Battery (SIB) after 12 weeks of treatment. A linear model was used for both estimation and significance testing. Primary analysis populations were defined as the Full Analysis Set (FAS) and the Completer Analysis Set (CAS)||||<0.1
90997325|NCT02431468|181878708|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.5|||<|0.1|TWO_SIDED|80.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||Change from baseline in SIB in the Completer Analysis Set (CAS)||||<0.1
90997326|NCT01056341|181878729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||"P-value not adjusted for multiplicity. An Independent Committee conducted this analysis to determine the most efficacious of all arms with a good safety profile.~P-value linked to the 3 mg/kg/day 6 months selected arm ."|One-sided Z-tests|One-sided Z-tests for proportions (contrasts tests on placebo) with pooled variance||The interim analysis was carried out after the first 188 patients have completed their W24 visit or been withdrawn prematurely from study therapy. For each propranolol arm, individual hypotheses H0,i: θi≤0||||< 0.0001
91045336|NCT00442546|181977252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.039|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.075||0.6009||95.0|-0.187|0.108|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Discharge||0.108|-0.187|0.6009
91045337|NCT00442546|181977252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.013|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.073||0.8559||95.0|-0.13|0.156|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||0.156|-0.130|0.8559
91045338|NCT00442546|181977252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.074||0.9841||95.0|-0.147|0.144|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||0.144|-0.147|0.9841
91045339|NCT00442546|181977252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.025|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061||0.6771||95.0|-0.095|0.146|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||0.146|-0.095|0.6771
91045340|NCT00442546|181977252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.056|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062||0.3717||95.0|-0.067|0.178|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||0.178|-0.067|0.3717
91045341|NCT00442546|181977252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.058||0.9863||95.0|-0.114|0.116|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||0.116|-0.114|0.9863
91045342|NCT00442546|181977252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.126|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059||0.0355||95.0|0.009|0.243|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||0.243|0.009|0.0355
91045343|NCT00442546|181977253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.049|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.202||0.8071||95.0|-0.35|0.449|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|24 hours||0.449|-0.350|0.8071
91045344|NCT00442546|181977253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.044|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.204||0.8282||95.0|-0.359|0.447|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|24 hours||0.447|-0.359|0.8282
91045345|NCT00442546|181977253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.025|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.192||0.8972||95.0|-0.353|0.403|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|48 hours||0.403|-0.353|0.8972
91045346|NCT00442546|181977253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.044|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.8159||95.0|-0.329|0.418|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|48 hours||0.418|-0.329|0.8159
91045347|NCT00442546|181977253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.034|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.188||0.8577||95.0|-0.337|0.405|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|72 hours||0.405|-0.337|0.8577
91045348|NCT00442546|181977253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.044|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.188||0.8158||95.0|-0.415|0.327|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|72 hours||0.327|-0.415|0.8158
91045349|NCT00442546|181977253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.156|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.195||0.4243||95.0|-0.229|0.541|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|96 hours||0.541|-0.229|0.4243
91045350|NCT00442546|181977253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.205|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.187||0.2742||95.0|-0.164|0.574|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|96 hours||0.574|-0.164|0.2742
91045351|NCT00442546|181977253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.069|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116||0.5569||95.0|-0.302|0.165|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|120 hours||0.165|-0.302|0.5569
91045352|NCT00442546|181977253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.103|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116||0.3762||95.0|-0.13|0.336|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|120 hours||0.336|-0.130|0.3762
91045353|NCT00442546|181977253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.077|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.155||0.6203||95.0|-0.229|0.383|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Discharge||0.383|-0.229|0.6203
91045354|NCT00442546|181977253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.155||0.3343||95.0|-0.155|0.455|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Discharge||0.455|-0.155|0.3343
91045355|NCT00442546|181977253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.157|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.128||0.2213||95.0|-0.096|0.41|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||0.410|-0.096|0.2213
91045356|NCT00442546|181977253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.131||0.2863||95.0|-0.118|0.399|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||0.399|-0.118|0.2863
91045357|NCT00442546|181977253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.084|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.082||0.305||95.0|-0.077|0.245|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||0.245|-0.077|0.3050
91045358|NCT00442546|181977253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.204|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.083||0.0155||95.0|0.039|0.368|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||0.368|0.039|0.0155
90997327|NCT01056341|181878730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The methodology used guaranteed that the familywise type I error rate was below the nominal one-sided significance level of 0.005.|combination tests|Superiority was tested using the closed testing procedure and combination tests for all intersection hypotheses using Simes' adjustment.||"The objective is to test the superiority of the selected arm using the approach of Posch et al.~The primary analysis was performed on the intent-to-treat population: all treated patients in Stage 1 and all treated patients in stage 2 randomized to placebo or the selected arm."||||< 0.0001
90997328|NCT01167582|181878741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 1 Post Randomization||||<0.001
90997329|NCT01167582|181878741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 2 Post Randomization||||<0.001
90997330|NCT01167582|181878741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 3 Post Randomization||||<0.001
90997331|NCT01167582|181878742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90997332|NCT01167582|181878743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|5.73|||||Restrictive Arm (numerator) compared to Liberal Arm (denominator)|||5.73|0.99|
90997333|NCT01167582|181878744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|9.7||||||95.0|-5.3|24.7|||||Restrictive Arm (numerator) compared to Liberal Arm (denominator)|||24.7|-5.3|
90997334|NCT01167582|181878745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|7.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|56.02|||||Restrictive Arm (numerator) compared to Liberal Arm (denominator)|Mortality||56.02|0.91|
90997335|NCT01167582|181878745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|4.22|||||Restrictive Arm (numerator) compared to Liberal Arm (denominator)|Myocardial Infarction||4.22|0.48|
90997336|NCT03956225|181878754|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority in change from baseline in MGS was declared if the lower confidence limit (LCL) was greater than -5.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.07|||ONE_SIDED|95.0|-2.2||||Mixed effects repeated measures||Standard Error of the Least Squares Mean is presented. Least squares mean difference (iLux minus LipiFlow). Lower Confidence Limit is presented.||||-2.2|
90997337|NCT02157506|181878757|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0059|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical significance was defined by a P-value \< 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiplicity.||||||=0.0059
90997338|NCT02157506|181878757|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical significance was defined by a P-value \< 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiplicity.||||||= 0.0001
90997339|NCT02157506|181878757|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0062|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical significance was defined by a P-value \< 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiplicity.||||||= 0.0062
90997340|NCT02157506|181878757|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0086|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical significance was defined by a P-value \< 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiplicity.||||||= 0.0086
90997341|NCT02157506|181878758|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0076|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical significance was defined by a P-value \< 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiplicity.||||||= 0.0076
90997342|NCT02157506|181878758|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0052|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical significance was defined by a P-value \< 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiplicity.||||||= 0.0052
90997343|NCT02157506|181878758|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1064|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical significance was defined by a P-value \< 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiplicity.||||||= 0.1064
90997344|NCT02157506|181878758|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1151|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical significance was defined by a P-value \< 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiplicity.||||||= 0.1151
90997345|NCT02157506|181878759|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.4241|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical significance was defined by a P-value \< 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiplicity.||||||= 0.4241
90997346|NCT02157506|181878759|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.4035|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical significance was defined by a P-value \< 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiplicity.||||||= 0.4035
90997347|NCT02157506|181878759|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.8308|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical significance was defined by a P-value \< 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiplicity.||||||= 0.8308
90997348|NCT02157506|181878759|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.118|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical significance was defined by a P-value \< 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiplicity.||||||= 0.1180
90997349|NCT02157506|181878760|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0048|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical significance was defined by a P-value \< 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiplicity.||||||= 0.0048
90997350|NCT02157506|181878760|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0022|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical significance was defined by a P-value \< 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiplicity.||||||= 0.0022
90997351|NCT02157506|181878760|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0045|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical significance was defined by a P-value \< 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiplicity.||||||= 0.0045
90997352|NCT02157506|181878760|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0294|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical significance was defined by a P-value \< 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiplicity.||||||= 0.0294
90997353|NCT02157506|181878761|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2022|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical significance was defined by a P-value \< 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiplicity.||||||= 0.2022
90997354|NCT02157506|181878761|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0658|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical significance was defined by a P-value \< 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiplicity.||||||= 0.0658
90997355|NCT02157506|181878761|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0741|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical significance was defined by a P-value \< 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiplicity.||||||= 0.0741
91045359|NCT00442546|181977253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.087||0.9243||95.0|-0.164|0.181|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||0.181|-0.164|0.9243
91045360|NCT00442546|181977253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.089||0.0201||95.0|0.033|0.386|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||0.386|0.033|0.0201
91045361|NCT00442546|181977254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.321||0.1537||95.0|-1.093|0.173|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Discharge||0.173|-1.093|0.1537
91045362|NCT00442546|181977254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.398|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.324||0.2208||95.0|-1.038|0.241|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Discharge||0.241|-1.038|0.2208
91045363|NCT00442546|181977254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.068|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.325||0.8355||95.0|-0.707|0.572|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||0.572|-0.707|0.8355
91045364|NCT00442546|181977254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.222|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.331||0.5024||95.0|-0.875|0.43|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||0.430|-0.875|0.5024
91045365|NCT00442546|181977254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.067|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.282||0.8116||95.0|-0.489|0.624|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||0.624|-0.489|0.8116
91045366|NCT00442546|181977254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.099|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.288||0.7325||95.0|-0.667|0.469|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||0.469|-0.667|0.7325
91045367|NCT00442546|181977254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.066|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.278||0.8133||95.0|-0.614|0.482|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||0.482|-0.614|0.8133
91045368|NCT00442546|181977254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.025|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.285||0.9307||95.0|-0.588|0.538|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||0.538|-0.588|0.9307
91045369|NCT00442546|181977254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.439||0.2682||95.0|-1.364|0.385|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Month 3||0.385|-1.364|0.2682
91045370|NCT00442546|181977254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.294|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.413||0.4784||95.0|-1.116|0.528|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Month 3||0.528|-1.116|0.4784
91045371|NCT00442546|181977254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.661|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.298||0.0255||95.0|0.084|1.239|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Month 6||1.239|0.084|0.0255
91045372|NCT00442546|181977254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.448|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.314||0.1591||95.0|-0.18|1.076|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Month 6||1.076|-0.180|0.1591
91045373|NCT00442546|181977255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.786|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.372||0.0359||95.0|-1.52|-0.052|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Discharge||-0.052|-1.520|0.0359
91045374|NCT00442546|181977255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.907|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.374||0.0161||95.0|-1.644|-0.17|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Discharge||-0.170|-1.644|0.0161
91045375|NCT00442546|181977255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.105|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.319||0.7416||95.0|-0.733|0.523|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||0.523|-0.733|0.7416
91045376|NCT00442546|181977255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.301|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.324||0.3527||95.0|-0.939|0.336|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||0.336|-0.939|0.3527
91045377|NCT00442546|181977255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.184|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.5419||95.0|-0.776|0.409|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||0.409|-0.776|0.5419
91045378|NCT00442546|181977255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.026|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.305||0.9333||95.0|-0.628|0.577|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||0.577|-0.628|0.9333
90997356|NCT02157506|181878761|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0497|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical significance was defined by a P-value \< 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiplicity.||||||= 0.0497
90997357|NCT02157506|181878762|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1842|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical significance was defined by a P-value \< 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiplicity.||||||= 0.1842
90997358|NCT02157506|181878762|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3328|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical significance was defined by a P-value \< 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiplicity.||||||= 0.3328
90997359|NCT02157506|181878762|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1465|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical significance was defined by a P-value \< 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiplicity.||||||= 0.1465
90997360|NCT02157506|181878762|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2799|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical significance was defined by a P-value \< 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiplicity.||||||= 0.2799
90997361|NCT02157506|181878763|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2499|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical significance was defined by a P-value \< 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiplicity.||||||= 0.2499
90997362|NCT02157506|181878763|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.8281|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical significance was defined by a P-value \< 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiplicity.||||||= 0.8281
90997363|NCT02157506|181878763|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.4121|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical significance was defined by a P-value \< 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiplicity.||||||= 0.4121
90997364|NCT02157506|181878763|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.8592|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical significance was defined by a P-value \< 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiplicity.||||||= 0.8592
90997365|NCT02157506|181878764|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1391|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical significance was defined by a P-value \< 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiplicity.||||||= 0.1391
90997366|NCT02157506|181878764|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1724|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical significance was defined by a P-value \< 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiplicity.||||||= 0.1724
90997367|NCT02157506|181878764|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1245|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical significance was defined by a P-value \< 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiplicity.||||||= 0.1245
90997368|NCT02157506|181878764|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.169|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical significance was defined by a P-value \< 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiplicity.||||||= 0.1690
90997369|NCT02157506|181878765|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.4936|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical significance was defined by a P-value \< 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiplicity.||||||= 0.4936
90997370|NCT02157506|181878765|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.992|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical significance was defined by a P-value \< 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiplicity.||||||= 0.9920
90997371|NCT02157506|181878765|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2789|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical significance was defined by a P-value \< 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiplicity.||||||= 0.2789
90997372|NCT02157506|181878765|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.91|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical significance was defined by a P-value \< 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiplicity.||||||= 0.9100
90997373|NCT01763866|181878766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-71.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.11|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.55|-65.29||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-65.29|-77.55|<0.001
90997374|NCT01763866|181878766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-59.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.44|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.94|-52.38||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-52.38|-65.94|<0.001
91045379|NCT00442546|181977255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.354|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.142||95.0|-0.827|0.12|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||0.120|-0.827|0.1420
90997375|NCT01763866|181878766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-39.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.81|-33.4||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||The null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and ezetimibe, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-33.40|-45.81|<0.001
90997376|NCT01763866|181878766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-41.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.41|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.83|-34.37||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||The null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and ezetimibe, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-34.37|-47.83|<0.001
90997377|NCT01763866|181878766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-76.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.36|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-86.87|-65.72||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-65.72|-86.87|<0.001
90997378|NCT01763866|181878766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-70.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.72|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-79.81|-61.2||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-61.20|-79.81|<0.001
90997379|NCT01763866|181878766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-47.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.54|-36.86||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||The null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and ezetimibe, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-36.86|-57.54|<0.001
90997380|NCT01763866|181878766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-38.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.73|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.21|-29.56||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||The null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and ezetimibe, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-29.56|-48.21|<0.001
90997381|NCT01763866|181878766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-68.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.72|-61.7||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-61.70|-74.72|<0.001
90997382|NCT01763866|181878766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-64.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.21|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.84|-58.14||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-58.14|-70.84|<0.001
90997383|NCT01763866|181878766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-68.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.42|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.04|-59.57||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-59.57|-77.04|<0.001
91045380|NCT00442546|181977255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.053|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.245||0.829||95.0|-0.535|0.429|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||0.429|-0.535|0.8290
91045381|NCT00442546|181977255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.111|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.441||0.0138||95.0|-1.989|-0.233|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Month 3||-0.233|-1.989|0.0138
91045382|NCT00442546|181977255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.503|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.416||0.23||95.0|-1.332|0.325|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Month 3||0.325|-1.332|0.2300
91045383|NCT00442546|181977255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.175|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.268||0.5151||95.0|-0.36|0.711|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Month 6||0.711|-0.360|0.5151
91045384|NCT00442546|181977255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.433|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.295||0.146||95.0|-0.155|1.022|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Month 6||1.022|-0.155|0.1460
91045385|NCT00442546|181977256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.258|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.463||0.5786||95.0|-1.17|0.655|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Discharge||0.655|-1.170|0.5786
91045386|NCT00442546|181977256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.025|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.467||0.957||95.0|-0.895|0.946|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Discharge||0.946|-0.895|0.9570
91045387|NCT00442546|181977256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.434||0.986||95.0|-0.862|0.847|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||0.847|-0.862|0.9860
91045388|NCT00442546|181977256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.151|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.442||0.7336||95.0|-1.021|0.72|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||0.720|-1.021|0.7336
91045389|NCT00442546|181977256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.384|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.365||0.2939||95.0|-0.336|1.104|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||1.104|-0.336|0.2939
91045390|NCT00442546|181977256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.274|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.372||0.4615||95.0|-0.459|1.008|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||1.008|-0.459|0.4615
91045391|NCT00442546|181977256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.161|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.347||0.6433||95.0|-0.845|0.523|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||0.523|-0.845|0.6433
91045392|NCT00442546|181977256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.356||0.9466||95.0|-0.678|0.726|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||0.726|-0.678|0.9466
91045393|NCT00442546|181977256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.424|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.621||0.4967||95.0|-1.66|0.812|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Month 3||0.812|-1.660|0.4967
91045394|NCT00442546|181977256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.099|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.582||0.8659||95.0|-1.06|1.257|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Month 3||1.257|-1.060|0.8659
91045395|NCT00442546|181977256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.994|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.451||0.0311||95.0|0.093|1.895|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Month 6||1.895|0.093|0.0311
91045396|NCT00442546|181977256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.995|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.485||0.0441||95.0|0.027|1.962|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Month 6||1.962|0.027|0.0441
91045397|NCT00442546|181977257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.969|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.439||0.0284||95.0|-1.835|-0.104|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Discharge||-0.104|-1.835|0.0284
91045398|NCT00442546|181977257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.265|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.444||0.5516||95.0|-1.141|0.611|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Discharge||0.611|-1.141|0.5516
91045399|NCT00442546|181977257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.479||95.0|-1.02|0.48|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||0.480|-1.020|0.4790
91045400|NCT00442546|181977257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.9947||95.0|-0.765|0.77|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||0.770|-0.765|0.9947
91045401|NCT00442546|181977257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.044|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.329||0.8943||95.0|-0.605|0.692|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||0.692|-0.605|0.8943
91045402|NCT00442546|181977257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.336||0.9767||95.0|-0.674|0.654|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||0.654|-0.674|0.9767
91045403|NCT00442546|181977257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.081|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.8117||95.0|-0.59|0.752|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||0.752|-0.590|0.8117
91045404|NCT00442546|181977257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.125|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.351||0.7216||95.0|-0.818|0.567|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||0.567|-0.818|0.7216
91045405|NCT00442546|181977257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.108|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.592||0.8558||95.0|-1.286|1.07|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Month 3||1.070|-1.286|0.8558
91045406|NCT00442546|181977257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.422|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.556||0.4501||95.0|-1.53|0.685|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Month 3||0.685|-1.530|0.4501
91045407|NCT00442546|181977257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.328|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.4682||95.0|-0.57|1.227|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Month 6||1.227|-0.570|0.4682
91045408|NCT00442546|181977257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.307|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.492||0.5347||95.0|-0.675|1.289|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Month 6||1.289|-0.675|0.5347
91045409|NCT00442546|181977258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.765|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.407||0.0613||95.0|-1.568|0.037|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Discharge||0.037|-1.568|0.0613
90997384|NCT01763866|181878766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-54.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.23|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.31|-44.65||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-44.65|-65.31|<0.001
90997385|NCT01763866|181878766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-70.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.72|-64.41||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-64.41|-76.72|<0.001
90997386|NCT01763866|181878766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-60.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.41|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.11|-51.72||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-51.72|-69.11|<0.001
90997387|NCT01763866|181878767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-69.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.76|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.38|-64.51||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the percent change from Baseline in the average value of LDL-C at Weeks 10 and 12 between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-64.51|-75.38|<0.001
90997388|NCT01763866|181878767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-62.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.06|-56.57||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the percent change from Baseline in the average value of LDL-C at Weeks 10 and 12 between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-56.57|-69.06|<0.001
90997389|NCT01763866|181878767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-37.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.79|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.03|-32.03||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the percent change from Baseline in the average value of LDL-C at Weeks 10 and 12 between evolocumab and ezetimibe, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-32.03|-43.03|<0.001
91045410|NCT00442546|181977258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.936|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.409||0.023||95.0|-1.741|-0.13|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Discharge||-0.130|-1.741|0.0230
90997390|NCT01763866|181878767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-43.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.7|-37.28||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the percent change from Baseline in the average value of LDL-C at Weeks 10 and 12 between evolocumab and ezetimibe, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-37.28|-49.70|<0.001
91045411|NCT00442546|181977258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.086|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.8306||95.0|-0.703|0.875|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||0.875|-0.703|0.8306
90997391|NCT01763866|181878767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-74.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.85|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.49|-65.35||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the percent change from Baseline in the average value of LDL-C at Weeks 10 and 12 between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-65.35|-84.49|<0.001
91045412|NCT00442546|181977258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.439|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.407||0.2814||95.0|-1.242|0.363|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||0.363|-1.242|0.2814
91045413|NCT00442546|181977258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.061|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.353||0.8637||95.0|-0.636|0.757|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||0.757|-0.636|0.8637
91045414|NCT00442546|181977258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.359||0.9585||95.0|-0.727|0.689|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||0.689|-0.727|0.9585
91045415|NCT00442546|181977258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.272|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.321||0.3975||95.0|-0.906|0.361|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||0.361|-0.906|0.3975
91045416|NCT00442546|181977258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.154|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.327||0.6386||95.0|-0.799|0.491|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||0.491|-0.799|0.6386
91045417|NCT00442546|181977258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.702|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.397||0.0813||95.0|-1.493|0.089|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Month 3||0.089|-1.493|0.0813
91045418|NCT00442546|181977258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.378|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.31||95.0|-1.114|0.358|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Month 3||0.358|-1.114|0.3100
91045419|NCT00442546|181977258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.831|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.357||0.0231||95.0|0.118|1.545|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Month 6||1.545|0.118|0.0231
91045420|NCT00442546|181977258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.463|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.388||0.2367||95.0|-0.311|1.237|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Month 6||1.237|-0.311|0.2367
91045421|NCT00442546|181977259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.064|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.448||0.8868||95.0|-0.947|0.82|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Discharge||0.820|-0.947|0.8868
91045422|NCT00442546|181977259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.254|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.5733||95.0|-1.142|0.634|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Discharge||0.634|-1.142|0.5733
91045423|NCT00442546|181977259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.128|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.384||0.7385||95.0|-0.884|0.628|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||0.628|-0.884|0.7385
91045424|NCT00442546|181977259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.081|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.8353||95.0|-0.849|0.687|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||0.687|-0.849|0.8353
91045425|NCT00442546|181977259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.204|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.362||0.5737||95.0|-0.51|0.918|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||0.918|-0.510|0.5737
91045426|NCT00442546|181977259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.335|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.368||0.364||95.0|-1.06|0.391|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||0.391|-1.060|0.3640
91045427|NCT00442546|181977259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.262|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.332||0.4315||95.0|-0.393|0.917|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||0.917|-0.393|0.4315
91045428|NCT00442546|181977259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.143|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.339||0.6727||95.0|-0.525|0.812|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||0.812|-0.525|0.6727
91045429|NCT00442546|181977259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.489|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.505||0.3361||95.0|-1.496|0.517|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Month 3||0.517|-1.496|0.3361
91045430|NCT00442546|181977259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.469||0.9634||95.0|-0.955|0.912|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Month 3||0.912|-0.955|0.9634
90997392|NCT01763866|181878767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-74.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.0|-66.62||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the percent change from Baseline in the average value of LDL-C at Weeks 10 and 12 between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-66.62|-83.00|<0.001
90997393|NCT01763866|181878767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-44.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.75|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.32|-35.57||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the percent change from Baseline in the average value of LDL-C at Weeks 10 and 12 between evolocumab and ezetimibe, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-35.57|-54.32|<0.001
91045431|NCT00442546|181977259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.446|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.352||0.2098||95.0|-0.257|1.15|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Month 6||1.150|-0.257|0.2098
91045432|NCT00442546|181977259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.265|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.382||0.49||95.0|-0.497|1.027|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Month 6||1.027|-0.497|0.4900
91045433|NCT00442546|181977260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.546||0.9912||95.0|-1.07|1.082|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Discharge||1.082|-1.070|0.9912
91045434|NCT00442546|181977260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.135|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.554||0.8076||95.0|-1.227|0.957|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Discharge||0.957|-1.227|0.8076
90997394|NCT01763866|181878767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-43.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.06|-35.55||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the percent change from Baseline in the average value of LDL-C at Weeks 10 and 12 between evolocumab and ezetimibe, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-35.55|-52.06|<0.001
90997395|NCT01763866|181878767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-66.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.93|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.67|-61.08||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the percent change from Baseline in the average value of LDL-C at Weeks 10 and 12 between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-61.08|-72.67|<0.001
90997396|NCT01763866|181878767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-66.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.05|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.6|-60.56||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the percent change from Baseline in the average value of LDL-C at Weeks 10 and 12 between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-60.56|-72.60|<0.001
91045435|NCT00442546|181977260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.179|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.6978||95.0|-0.727|1.085|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||1.085|-0.727|0.6978
91045436|NCT00442546|181977260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.293|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.5344||95.0|-1.219|0.634|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||0.634|-1.219|0.5344
91045437|NCT00442546|181977260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.062|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.384||0.8721||95.0|-0.819|0.695|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||0.695|-0.819|0.8721
91045438|NCT00442546|181977260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.395|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.394||0.3179||95.0|-1.173|0.383|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||0.383|-1.173|0.3179
91045439|NCT00442546|181977260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.094|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.376||0.8037||95.0|-0.648|0.835|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||0.835|-0.648|0.8037
91045440|NCT00442546|181977260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.113|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.7731||95.0|-0.656|0.881|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||0.881|-0.656|0.7731
91045441|NCT00442546|181977260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.468|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.611||0.4461||95.0|-1.684|0.748|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Month 3||0.748|-1.684|0.4461
91045442|NCT00442546|181977260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.533|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.575||0.3568||95.0|-1.679|0.612|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Month 3||0.612|-1.679|0.3568
91045443|NCT00442546|181977260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.598|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.315||0.0623||95.0|-0.032|1.227|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Month 6||1.227|-0.032|0.0623
91045444|NCT00442546|181977260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.343||0.3529||95.0|-0.364|1.005|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Month 6||1.005|-0.364|0.3529
91045445|NCT00442546|181977261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.611|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.417||0.1448||95.0|-1.434|0.212|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Discharge||0.212|-1.434|0.1448
91045446|NCT00442546|181977261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.665|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.1148||95.0|-1.494|0.163|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Discharge||0.163|-1.494|0.1148
91045447|NCT00442546|181977261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.448|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.458||0.3285||95.0|-1.35|0.454|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||0.454|-1.350|0.3285
91045448|NCT00442546|181977261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.572|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.466||0.2205||95.0|-1.49|0.346|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||0.346|-1.490|0.2205
91045449|NCT00442546|181977261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.389||0.6266||95.0|-0.958|0.578|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||0.578|-0.958|0.6266
91045450|NCT00442546|181977261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.502|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.397||0.2077||95.0|-1.284|0.281|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||0.281|-1.284|0.2077
91045451|NCT00442546|181977261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.223|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.385||0.5626||95.0|-0.982|0.536|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||0.536|-0.982|0.5626
91045452|NCT00442546|181977261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.368|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.394||0.3507||95.0|-1.145|0.408|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||0.408|-1.145|0.3507
91045453|NCT00442546|181977261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.224|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.7276||95.0|-1.498|1.05|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Month 3||1.050|-1.498|0.7276
91045454|NCT00442546|181977261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.558|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.598||0.353||95.0|-1.748|0.631|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Month 3||0.631|-1.748|0.3530
91045455|NCT00442546|181977261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.186|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.529||0.0283||95.0|0.13|2.242|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Month 6||2.242|0.130|0.0283
91045456|NCT00442546|181977261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.227|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.573||0.6934||95.0|-0.918|1.372|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Month 6||1.372|-0.918|0.6934
91045457|NCT00442546|181977262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.553|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.0476||95.0|-3.089|-0.017|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|12 hours||-0.017|-3.089|0.0476
91045458|NCT00442546|181977262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.768|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.764||0.0237||95.0|-3.293|-0.243|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|12 hours||-0.243|-3.293|0.0237
91045459|NCT00442546|181977262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.276|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.402||0.4925||95.0|-0.516|1.069|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|24 hours||1.069|-0.516|0.4925
91045460|NCT00442546|181977262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.089|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.414||0.8299||95.0|-0.727|0.905|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|24 hours||0.905|-0.727|0.8299
91045461|NCT00442546|181977262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.038|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.9185||95.0|-0.766|0.691|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|48 hours||0.691|-0.766|0.9185
91045462|NCT00442546|181977262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.339|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.371||0.3619||95.0|-1.07|0.392|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|48 hours||0.392|-1.070|0.3619
91045463|NCT00442546|181977262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.358|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.453||0.4309||95.0|-0.538|1.254|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|72 hours||1.254|-0.538|0.4309
91045464|NCT00442546|181977262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.013|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.459||0.9778||95.0|-0.895|0.921|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|72 hours||0.921|-0.895|0.9778
91045465|NCT00442546|181977262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.147|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.777||0.8503||95.0|-1.411|1.706|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|96 hours||1.706|-1.411|0.8503
91045466|NCT00442546|181977262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.845|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.757||0.0183||95.0|-3.364|-0.326|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|96 hours||-0.326|-3.364|0.0183
91045467|NCT00442546|181977262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.141|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.956||0.286||95.0|-3.598|1.316|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|120 hours||1.316|-3.598|0.2860
91045468|NCT00442546|181977262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.856||0.204||95.0|-7.479|2.06|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|120 hours||2.060|-7.479|0.2040
91045469|NCT00442546|181977262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.141|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.295||0.6332||95.0|-0.722|0.44|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||0.440|-0.722|0.6332
91045470|NCT00442546|181977262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.196|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.303||0.5183||95.0|-0.402|0.794|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||0.794|-0.402|0.5183
91045471|NCT00442546|181977262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.146|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.306||0.6341||95.0|-0.75|0.458|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||0.458|-0.750|0.6341
91045472|NCT00442546|181977262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.236|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.4607||95.0|-0.868|0.395|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||0.395|-0.868|0.4607
91045473|NCT00442546|181977262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.104|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.327||0.7499||95.0|-0.541|0.75|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||0.750|-0.541|0.7499
91045474|NCT00442546|181977262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.075|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.333||0.8231||95.0|-0.584|0.733|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||0.733|-0.584|0.8231
91045475|NCT00442546|181977263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.036|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.709||0.1486||95.0|-2.452|0.379|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|12 hours||0.379|-2.452|0.1486
91045476|NCT00442546|181977263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.903|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.706||0.0089||95.0|-3.311|-0.494|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|12 hours||-0.494|-3.311|0.0089
91045477|NCT00442546|181977263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.044|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.344||0.8995||95.0|-0.635|0.722|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|24 hours||0.722|-0.635|0.8995
91045478|NCT00442546|181977263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.303|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.354||0.3918||95.0|-1.0|0.394|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|24 hours||0.394|-1.000|0.3918
91045479|NCT00442546|181977263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.9942||95.0|-0.648|0.652|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|48 hours||0.652|-0.648|0.9942
91045480|NCT00442546|181977263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.206|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.332||0.5352||95.0|-0.859|0.448|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|48 hours||0.448|-0.859|0.5352
91045481|NCT00442546|181977263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.094|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.382||0.8055||95.0|-0.662|0.85|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|72 hours||0.850|-0.662|0.8055
91045482|NCT00442546|181977263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.446|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.391||0.256||95.0|-1.22|0.327|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|72 hours||0.327|-1.220|0.2560
91045483|NCT00442546|181977263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.102|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.641||0.8744||95.0|-1.184|1.387|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|96 hours||1.387|-1.184|0.8744
91045484|NCT00442546|181977263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.614|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.616||0.0115||95.0|-2.851|-0.378|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|96 hours||-0.378|-2.851|0.0115
91045485|NCT00442546|181977263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.077|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.155||0.9497||95.0|-3.047|2.893|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|120 hours||2.893|-3.047|0.9497
91045486|NCT00442546|181977263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.347|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.992||0.5288||95.0|-6.467|3.773|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|120 hours||3.773|-6.467|0.5288
91045487|NCT00442546|181977263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.296|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.262||0.2595||95.0|-0.813|0.22|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||0.220|-0.813|0.2595
91045488|NCT00442546|181977263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.013|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.9605||95.0|-0.546|0.519|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||0.519|-0.546|0.9605
91045489|NCT00442546|181977263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.207|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.251||0.4107||95.0|-0.702|0.288|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||0.288|-0.702|0.4107
91045490|NCT00442546|181977263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.318|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.263||0.2271||95.0|-0.836|0.2|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||0.200|-0.836|0.2271
91045491|NCT00442546|181977263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.263||0.9552||95.0|-0.535|0.506|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||0.506|-0.535|0.9552
91045492|NCT00442546|181977263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.268||0.9899||95.0|-0.533|0.526|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||0.526|-0.533|0.9899
91045493|NCT00442546|181977264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.578|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.471||0.2211||95.0|-0.35|1.506|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|4 hours||1.506|-0.350|0.2211
91045494|NCT00442546|181977264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.809|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.477||0.0916||95.0|-1.75|0.132|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|4 hours||0.132|-1.750|0.0916
91045495|NCT00442546|181977264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.036|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.9312||95.0|-0.863|0.791|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|8 hours||0.791|-0.863|0.9312
91045496|NCT00442546|181977264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.591|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.425||0.1658||95.0|-1.428|0.247|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|8 hours||0.247|-1.428|0.1658
91045497|NCT00442546|181977264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.483||0.9921||95.0|-0.958|0.948|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|12 hours||0.948|-0.958|0.9921
91045498|NCT00442546|181977264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.715|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.479||0.1367||95.0|-1.66|0.229|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|12 hours||0.229|-1.660|0.1367
91045499|NCT00442546|181977264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.336|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.364||0.3561||95.0|-1.053|0.38|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|24 hours||0.380|-1.053|0.3561
91045500|NCT00442546|181977264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.291|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.366||0.426||95.0|-1.012|0.429|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|24 hours||0.429|-1.012|0.4260
91045501|NCT00442546|181977264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.105|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.7975||95.0|-0.703|0.914|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|32 hours||0.914|-0.703|0.7975
91045502|NCT00442546|181977264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.162|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.412||0.6947||95.0|-0.65|0.974|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|32 hours||0.974|-0.650|0.6947
91045503|NCT00442546|181977264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.182|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.465||0.6954||95.0|-1.101|0.736|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|40 hours||0.736|-1.101|0.6954
91045504|NCT00442546|181977264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.081|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.481||0.8665||95.0|-1.032|0.87|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|40 hours||0.870|-1.032|0.8665
91045505|NCT00442546|181977264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.311|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.386||0.4216||95.0|-0.45|1.072|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|48 hours||1.072|-0.450|0.4216
91045506|NCT00442546|181977264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.285|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.391||0.4673||95.0|-0.487|1.056|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|48 hours||1.056|-0.487|0.4673
91045507|NCT00442546|181977264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.255|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.5624||95.0|-0.614|1.125|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|56 hours||1.125|-0.614|0.5624
91045508|NCT00442546|181977264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.402|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.448||0.3705||95.0|-1.286|0.482|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|56 hours||0.482|-1.286|0.3705
91045509|NCT00442546|181977264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.358|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.476||0.4539||95.0|-1.302|0.586|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|64 hours||0.586|-1.302|0.4539
91045510|NCT00442546|181977264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.086|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.515||0.0373||95.0|-2.107|-0.065|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|64 hours||-0.065|-2.107|0.0373
91045511|NCT00442546|181977264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.146|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.476||0.76||95.0|-0.796|1.087|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|72 hours||1.087|-0.796|0.7600
91045512|NCT00442546|181977264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.555|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.481||0.2506||95.0|-1.507|0.397|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|72 hours||0.397|-1.507|0.2506
91045513|NCT00442546|181977264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.027|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.895||0.2567||95.0|-0.77|2.823|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|80 hours||2.823|-0.770|0.2567
91045514|NCT00442546|181977264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.882|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.76||0.0167||95.0|-3.408|-0.356|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|80 hours||-0.356|-3.408|0.0167
91045515|NCT00442546|181977264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.352|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89||0.6953||95.0|-1.456|2.159|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|88 hours||2.159|-1.456|0.6953
91045516|NCT00442546|181977264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.147|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.894||0.208||95.0|-2.962|0.668|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|88 hours||0.668|-2.962|0.2080
91045517|NCT00442546|181977264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.867|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.975||0.3805||95.0|-1.116|2.849|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|96 hours||2.849|-1.116|0.3805
91045518|NCT00442546|181977264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.126|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.905||0.89||95.0|-1.965|1.713|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|96 hours||1.713|-1.965|0.8900
91045519|NCT00442546|181977264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.672|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08||0.1821||95.0|-1.103|4.448|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|104 hours||4.448|-1.103|0.1821
91045520|NCT00442546|181977264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.851|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.768||0.6505||95.0|-3.693|5.395|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|104 hours||5.395|-3.693|0.6505
91045521|NCT00442546|181977265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.029|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.495||0.0388||95.0|-2.004|-0.053|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|24 hours||-0.053|-2.004|0.0388
91045522|NCT00442546|181977265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.501||0.0004||95.0|-2.798|-0.822|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|24 hours||-0.822|-2.798|0.0004
91045523|NCT00442546|181977265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.197|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.405||0.6274||95.0|-0.995|0.601|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|48 hours||0.601|-0.995|0.6274
91045524|NCT00442546|181977265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.619|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.413||0.135||95.0|-1.432|0.194|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|48 hours||0.194|-1.432|0.1350
91045525|NCT00442546|181977265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.719|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.448||0.1106||95.0|-1.605|0.166|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|72 hours||0.166|-1.605|0.1106
91045526|NCT00442546|181977265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.036|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.457||0.0248||95.0|-1.939|-0.133|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|72 hours||-0.133|-1.939|0.0248
91045527|NCT00442546|181977265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.874|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.725||0.2335||95.0|-0.582|2.33|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|96 hours||2.330|-0.582|0.2335
91045528|NCT00442546|181977265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.568|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.682||0.0258||95.0|-2.939|-0.198|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|96 hours||-0.198|-2.939|0.0258
91045529|NCT00442546|181977265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.866|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.973||0.3878||95.0|-3.207|6.939|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|120 hours||6.939|-3.207|0.3878
91045530|NCT00442546|181977265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.909|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.754||0.1762||95.0|-3.74|15.559|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|120 hours||15.559|-3.740|0.1762
91045531|NCT00442546|181977265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.515|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.379||0.1754||95.0|-1.261|0.231|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Discharge||0.231|-1.261|0.1754
91045532|NCT00442546|181977265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.569|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.386||0.1413||95.0|-1.329|0.191|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Discharge||0.191|-1.329|0.1413
91045533|NCT00442546|181977265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.419|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.306||0.1731||95.0|-1.023|0.185|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||0.185|-1.023|0.1731
91045534|NCT00442546|181977265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.128|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.314||0.6829||95.0|-0.747|0.49|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||0.490|-0.747|0.6829
91045535|NCT00442546|181977265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.351|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.2436||95.0|-0.943|0.241|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||0.241|-0.943|0.2436
91045536|NCT00442546|181977265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.313||0.119||95.0|-1.108|0.127|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||0.127|-1.108|0.1190
91045537|NCT00442546|181977265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.264|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.321||0.4117||95.0|-0.897|0.369|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||0.369|-0.897|0.4117
91045538|NCT00442546|181977265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.156|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.323||0.6294||95.0|-0.794|0.482|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||0.482|-0.794|0.6294
91045539|NCT00442546|181977266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.859|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.315||0.7958||95.0|-7.391|5.673|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Day 1||5.673|-7.391|0.7958
91045540|NCT00442546|181977266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.111|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.322||0.9733||95.0|-6.436|6.659|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Day 1||6.659|-6.436|0.9733
91045541|NCT00442546|181977266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.889|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.946||0.822||95.0|-6.898|8.675|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|1 hour||8.675|-6.898|0.8220
91045542|NCT00442546|181977266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.813|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.917||0.4736||95.0|-10.542|4.917|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|1 hour||4.917|-10.542|0.4736
91045543|NCT00442546|181977266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.662|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.045||0.5113||95.0|-10.639|5.316|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|2 hours||5.316|-10.639|0.5113
91045544|NCT00442546|181977266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.365|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.95||0.9266||95.0|-7.425|8.154|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|2 hours||8.154|-7.425|0.9266
91045545|NCT00442546|181977266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.164|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.347||0.9699||95.0|-8.423|8.751|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|3 hours||8.751|-8.423|0.9699
91045546|NCT00442546|181977266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.275|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.232||0.9482||95.0|-8.085|8.635|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|3 hours||8.635|-8.085|0.9482
91045547|NCT00442546|181977266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.915|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.391||0.7969||95.0|-16.842|13.012|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|4 hours||13.012|-16.842|0.7969
91045548|NCT00442546|181977266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.023|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.68||0.1991||95.0|-25.533|5.487|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|4 hours||5.487|-25.533|0.1991
91045549|NCT00442546|181977266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|86.335|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.737||0.0321||95.0|13.976|158.693|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|5 hours||158.693|13.976|0.0321
91045550|NCT00442546|181977266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|44.964|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.295||0.0353||95.0|5.837|84.091|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|5 hours||84.091|5.837|0.0353
91045551|NCT00442546|181977267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.812|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.055||0.5736||95.0|-30.792|17.169|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|24 hours||17.169|-30.792|0.5736
91045552|NCT00442546|181977267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.991|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.786||0.8003||95.0|-26.438|20.455|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|24 hours||20.455|-26.438|0.8003
91045553|NCT00442546|181977267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.815|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.371||0.5125||95.0|-27.369|13.74|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|48 hours||13.740|-27.369|0.5125
91045554|NCT00442546|181977267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.294|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.227||0.4773||95.0|-27.563|12.976|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|48 hours||12.976|-27.563|0.4773
91045555|NCT00442546|181977267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.915|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.101||0.2142||95.0|-36.055|8.226|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|72 hours||8.226|-36.055|0.2142
91045556|NCT00442546|181977267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.769|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.245||0.2989||95.0|-34.197|10.659|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|72 hours||10.659|-34.197|0.2989
91045557|NCT00442546|181977267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|40.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|45.612||0.3829||95.0|-53.429|134.449|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|96 hours||134.449|-53.429|0.3829
91045558|NCT00442546|181977267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|45.322||0.5531||95.0|-120.59|66.092|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|96 hours||66.092|-120.59|0.5531
91045559|NCT00442546|181977267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.513|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.491||0.2738||95.0|-89.376|126.402|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|120 hours||126.402|-89.376|0.2738
91045560|NCT00442546|181977267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.644|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.519||0.7987||95.0|-4.343|5.63|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||5.630|-4.343|0.7987
91045561|NCT00442546|181977267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.346|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.441||0.8875||95.0|-5.177|4.485|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||4.485|-5.177|0.8875
91045562|NCT00442546|181977267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.537|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.949||0.4319||95.0|-2.324|5.398|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||5.398|-2.324|0.4319
91045563|NCT00442546|181977267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.935||0.407||95.0|-2.223|5.443|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||5.443|-2.223|0.4070
90997397|NCT01763866|181878767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-65.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.81|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.19|-58.12||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the percent change from Baseline in the average value of LDL-C at Weeks 10 and 12 between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-58.12|-73.19|<0.001
90997398|NCT01763866|181878767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-62.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.37|-54.46||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the percent change from Baseline in the average value of LDL-C at Weeks 10 and 12 between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-54.46|-71.37|<0.001
90997399|NCT01763866|181878767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-69.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.74|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.86|-64.01||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the percent change from Baseline in the average value of LDL-C at Weeks 10 and 12 between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-64.01|-74.86|<0.001
90997400|NCT01763866|181878767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-68.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.68|-60.22||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the percent change from Baseline in the average value of LDL-C at Weeks 10 and 12 between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-60.22|-76.68|<0.001
90997401|NCT01763866|181878768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-83.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-92.6|-74.6||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-74.6|-92.6|<0.001
90997402|NCT01763866|181878768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-79.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-90.2|-69.2||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-69.2|-90.2|<0.001
90997403|NCT01763866|181878768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-44.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.4|-35.3||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-35.3|-53.4|<0.001
90997404|NCT01763866|181878768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-55.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.4|-44.6||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-44.6|-65.4|<0.001
90997405|NCT01763866|181878768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-69.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-81.9|-57.8||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-57.8|-81.9|<0.001
90997406|NCT01763866|181878768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-65.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.5|-56.7||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-56.7|-74.5|<0.001
90997407|NCT01763866|181878768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-45.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.7|-33.9||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-33.9|-57.7|<0.001
90997408|NCT01763866|181878768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-38.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.8|-29.9||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-29.9|-47.8|<0.001
90997409|NCT01763866|181878768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-75.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.9|-67.0||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-67.0|-83.9|<0.001
91045564|NCT00442546|181977267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.119|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.641||0.4968||95.0|-4.371|2.133|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||2.133|-4.371|0.4968
91045565|NCT00442546|181977267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.327|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.665||0.427||95.0|-1.972|4.626|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||4.626|-1.972|0.4270
91045566|NCT00442546|181977268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.862|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.999||0.7742||95.0|-6.775|5.052|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|24 hours||5.052|-6.775|0.7742
91045567|NCT00442546|181977268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.025||0.0996||95.0|-0.96|10.971|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|24 hours||10.971|-0.960|0.0996
91045568|NCT00442546|181977268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.803|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.79||0.7738||95.0|-4.698|6.304|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|48 hours||6.304|-4.698|0.7738
91045569|NCT00442546|181977268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.192|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.778||0.1328||95.0|-1.284|9.669|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|48 hours||9.669|-1.284|0.1328
91045570|NCT00442546|181977268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.928|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.012||0.7585||95.0|-5.027|6.882|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|72 hours||6.882|-5.027|0.7585
91045571|NCT00442546|181977268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.946|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.997||0.19||95.0|-1.979|9.871|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|72 hours||9.871|-1.979|0.1900
91045572|NCT00442546|181977268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.693||0.2365||95.0|-3.004|11.865|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|96 hours||11.865|-3.004|0.2365
91045573|NCT00442546|181977268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.306|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.73||0.1616||95.0|-2.202|12.814|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|96 hours||12.814|-2.202|0.1616
91045574|NCT00442546|181977268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.071|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.911||0.8819||95.0|-17.98|15.838|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|120 hours||15.838|-17.98|0.8819
91045575|NCT00442546|181977268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.071|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.7||0.4676||95.0|-37.7|19.558|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|120 hours||19.558|-37.70|0.4676
91045576|NCT00442546|181977268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.925|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.195||0.3813||95.0|-2.403|6.254|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||6.254|-2.403|0.3813
91045577|NCT00442546|181977268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.341|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.236||0.2966||95.0|-2.07|6.751|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||6.751|-2.070|0.2966
91045578|NCT00442546|181977268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.962|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.576||0.4474||95.0|-3.122|7.046|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||7.046|-3.122|0.4474
91045579|NCT00442546|181977268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.316|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.59||0.0416||95.0|0.204|10.427|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||10.427|0.204|0.0416
91045580|NCT00442546|181977268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.372|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.566||0.5935||95.0|-3.694|6.438|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||6.438|-3.694|0.5935
91045581|NCT00442546|181977268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.272|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.674||0.3966||95.0|-3.006|7.551|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||7.551|-3.006|0.3966
91045582|NCT00442546|181977269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.729|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.631||0.5117||95.0|-3.457|6.916|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|24 hours||6.916|-3.457|0.5117
91045583|NCT00442546|181977269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.532|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.675||0.0154||95.0|1.258|11.805|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|24 hours||11.805|1.258|0.0154
91045584|NCT00442546|181977269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.901|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.353||0.7022||95.0|-3.738|5.54|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|48 hours||5.540|-3.738|0.7022
91045585|NCT00442546|181977269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.509|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.343||0.0557||95.0|-0.11|9.129|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|48 hours||9.129|-0.110|0.0557
90997410|NCT01763866|181878768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-77.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-88.0|-67.8||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-67.8|-88.0|<0.001
90997411|NCT01763866|181878768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-55.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.1|-48.4||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-48.4|-63.1|<0.001
91045586|NCT00442546|181977269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.171|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.552||0.2161||95.0|-1.874|8.215|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|72 hours||8.215|-1.874|0.2161
91045587|NCT00442546|181977269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.135|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.548||0.0058||95.0|2.098|12.172|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|72 hours||12.172|2.098|0.0058
91045588|NCT00442546|181977269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.185|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.993||0.1283||95.0|-1.853|14.223|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|96 hours||14.223|-1.853|0.1283
90997412|NCT01763866|181878768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-50.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.6|-40.6||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-40.6|-60.6|<0.001
90997413|NCT01763866|181878768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-78.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-86.2|-70.0||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-70.0|-86.2|<0.001
91045589|NCT00442546|181977269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.173|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.033||0.008||95.0|3.056|19.291|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|96 hours||19.291|3.056|0.0080
91045590|NCT00442546|181977269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.941|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.15||0.0018||95.0|7.414|18.468|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|120 hours||18.468|7.414|0.0018
91045591|NCT00442546|181977269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.941|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.533||0.0038||95.0|8.859|27.023|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|120 hours||27.023|8.859|0.0038
91045592|NCT00442546|181977269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.125|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.115||0.5953||95.0|-3.045|5.296|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||5.296|-3.045|0.5953
90997414|NCT01763866|181878768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-80.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-91.7|-68.6||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit||||-68.6|-91.7|<0.001
90997415|NCT01763866|181878769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-85.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-95.2|-75.9||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-75.9|-95.2|<0.001
90997416|NCT01763866|181878769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-75.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-86.8|-64.9||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-64.9|-86.8|<0.001
90997417|NCT01763866|181878769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-46.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.6|-37.1||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-37.1|-56.6|<0.001
90997418|NCT01763866|181878769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-51.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.6|-40.9||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-40.9|-62.6|<0.001
90997419|NCT01763866|181878769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-71.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.4|-59.0||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-59.0|-84.4|<0.001
90997420|NCT01763866|181878769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-61.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.6|-52.0||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-52.0|-71.6|<0.001
90997421|NCT01763866|181878769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-49.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.5|-36.6||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-36.6|-61.5|<0.001
90997422|NCT01763866|181878769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-35.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.2|-25.5||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-25.5|-45.2|<0.001
90997423|NCT01763866|181878769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-77.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-86.2|-67.9||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-67.9|-86.2|<0.001
90997424|NCT01763866|181878769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-75.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-86.3|-65.3||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-65.3|-86.3|<0.001
90997425|NCT01763866|181878769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-57.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.1|-49.4||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-49.4|-65.1|<0.001
90997426|NCT01763866|181878769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-44.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.9|-33.4||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-33.4|-55.9|<0.001
90997427|NCT01763866|181878769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-79.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-87.5|-70.4||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-70.4|-87.5|<0.001
90997428|NCT01763866|181878769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-71.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.8|-60.0||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit||||-60.0|-83.8|<0.001
90997429|NCT01763866|181878770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-60.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.54|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.29|-55.27||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-55.27|-65.29|<0.001
90997430|NCT01763866|181878770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-57.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.97|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.23|-51.51||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-51.51|-63.23|<0.001
91045593|NCT00442546|181977269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.331|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.172||0.1267||95.0|-0.952|7.613|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||7.613|-0.952|0.1267
90997431|NCT01763866|181878770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-32.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.57|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.84|-27.7||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-27.70|-37.84|<0.001
90997432|NCT01763866|181878770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-39.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.95|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.34|-33.71||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-33.71|-45.34|<0.001
90997433|NCT01763866|181878770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-65.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.37|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.78|-56.56||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-56.56|-73.78|<0.001
90997434|NCT01763866|181878770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-64.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.84|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.32|-57.19||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-57.19|-72.32|<0.001
90997435|NCT01763866|181878770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-38.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.68|-29.81||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-29.81|-46.68|<0.001
90997436|NCT01763866|181878770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-37.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.87|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.15|-29.9||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-29.90|-45.15|<0.001
90997437|NCT01763866|181878770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-59.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.73|-54.48||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-54.48|-64.73|<0.001
90997438|NCT01763866|181878770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-59.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.83|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.8|-53.6||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-53.60|-64.80|<0.001
90997439|NCT01763866|181878770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-58.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.6|-51.94||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-51.94|-64.60|<0.001
90997440|NCT01763866|181878770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-57.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.53|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.29|-50.32||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-50.32|-64.29|<0.001
90997441|NCT01763866|181878770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-60.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.59|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.18|-54.94||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-54.94|-65.18|<0.001
90997442|NCT01763866|181878770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-62.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.75|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.22|-55.42||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit||||-55.42|-70.22|<0.001
90997443|NCT01763866|181878771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-61.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.84|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.25|-56.03||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-56.03|-67.25|<0.001
90997444|NCT01763866|181878771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-54.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.4|-48.46||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-48.46|-61.40|<0.001
90997445|NCT01763866|181878771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-35.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.88|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.79|-29.44||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-29.44|-40.79|<0.001
90997446|NCT01763866|181878771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-37.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.15|-31.3||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-31.30|-44.15|<0.001
91045594|NCT00442546|181977269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.617|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.339||0.2647||95.0|-1.997|7.231|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||7.231|-1.997|0.2647
91045595|NCT00442546|181977269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.771|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.421||0.0181||95.0|0.995|10.548|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||10.548|0.995|0.0181
91045596|NCT00442546|181977269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.374|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.299||0.5507||95.0|-3.161|5.91|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||5.910|-3.161|0.5507
91045597|NCT00442546|181977269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.404|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.393||0.3164||95.0|-2.317|7.124|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||7.124|-2.317|0.3164
91045598|NCT00442546|181977270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4365||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.4365
91045599|NCT00442546|181977270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4023||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.4023
90997447|NCT01763866|181878771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-66.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.69|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.88|-57.39||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-57.39|-75.88|<0.001
90997448|NCT01763866|181878771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-60.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.49|-51.52||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-51.52|-68.49|<0.001
90997449|NCT01763866|181878771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-40.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.59|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.55|-31.47||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-31.47|-49.55|<0.001
90997450|NCT01763866|181878771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-32.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.32|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.3|-24.28||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-24.28|-41.30|<0.001
90997451|NCT01763866|181878771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-59.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.95|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.78|-54.13||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-54.13|-65.78|<0.001
90997452|NCT01763866|181878771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-57.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.96|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.27|-51.57||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-51.57|-63.27|<0.001
90997453|NCT01763866|181878771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-59.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.73|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.95|-52.21||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-52.21|-66.95|<0.001
90997454|NCT01763866|181878771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-49.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.26|-41.27||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-41.27|-58.26|<0.001
90997455|NCT01763866|181878771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-60.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.87|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.57|-55.24||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-55.24|-66.57|<0.001
90997456|NCT01763866|181878771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-56.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.63|-48.62||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit||||-48.62|-64.63|<0.001
90997457|NCT01763866|181878772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-58.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.34|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.1|-53.89||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-53.89|-63.10|<0.001
91045600|NCT00442546|181977271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4024||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.4024
91045601|NCT00442546|181977271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.191||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.1910
91045602|NCT00442546|181977272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.347|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.497||0.3483||95.0|-2.573|7.268|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Discharge||7.268|-2.573|0.3483
91045603|NCT00442546|181977272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.155|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.498||0.2078||95.0|-1.766|8.077|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Discharge||8.077|-1.766|0.2078
91045604|NCT00442546|181977272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.126|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.436||0.4299||95.0|-7.836|18.088|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||18.088|-7.836|0.4299
91045605|NCT00442546|181977272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.146|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.726||0.4482||95.0|-8.4|18.693|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||18.693|-8.400|0.4482
91045606|NCT00442546|181977272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.036|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.426||0.6472||95.0|-6.818|10.89|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||10.890|-6.818|0.6472
91045607|NCT00442546|181977272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.156|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.642||0.4992||95.0|-6.129|12.442|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||12.442|-6.129|0.4992
91045608|NCT00442546|181977272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.656|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.149||0.6072||95.0|-7.578|12.891|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||12.891|-7.578|0.6072
91045609|NCT00442546|181977272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.963|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.906||0.3146||95.0|-4.789|14.714|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||14.714|-4.789|0.3146
91045610|NCT00442546|181977273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.177|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.326||0.0739||95.0|-0.407|8.76|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Discharge||8.760|-0.407|0.0739
91045611|NCT00442546|181977273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.176|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.327||0.074||95.0|-0.409|8.761|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Discharge||8.761|-0.409|0.0740
91045612|NCT00442546|181977273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.298|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.418||0.2615||95.0|-5.628|20.224|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||20.224|-5.628|0.2615
91045613|NCT00442546|181977273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.286|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.707||0.6266||95.0|-10.22|16.795|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||16.795|-10.22|0.6266
90997458|NCT01763866|181878772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-52.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.66|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.49|-47.01||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-47.01|-57.49|<0.001
90997459|NCT01763866|181878772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-33.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.37|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.33|-28.98||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-28.98|-38.33|<0.001
90997460|NCT01763866|181878772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-40.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.67|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.27|-34.74||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-34.74|-45.27|<0.001
91045614|NCT00442546|181977273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.958||0.2963||95.0|-3.747|12.086|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||12.086|-3.747|0.2963
90997461|NCT01763866|181878772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-59.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.69|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.61|-52.07||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-52.07|-66.61|<0.001
90997462|NCT01763866|181878772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-58.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.46|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.56|-51.93||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-51.93|-65.56|<0.001
90997463|NCT01763866|181878772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-34.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.64|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.09|-27.75||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-27.75|-42.09|<0.001
90997464|NCT01763866|181878772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-39.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.52|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.57|-32.71||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-32.71|-46.57|<0.001
91045615|NCT00442546|181977273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.248|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.151||0.1375||95.0|-2.054|14.55|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||14.550|-2.054|0.1375
90997465|NCT01763866|181878772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-54.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.43|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.66|-50.05||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-50.05|-59.66|<0.001
90997466|NCT01763866|181878772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-56.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.66|-51.61||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-51.61|-60.66|<0.001
90997467|NCT01763866|181878772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-50.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.01|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.72|-44.83||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-44.83|-56.72|<0.001
90997468|NCT01763866|181878772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-54.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.11|-48.76||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-48.76|-61.11|<0.001
90997469|NCT01763866|181878772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-55.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.33|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.94|-50.74||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-50.74|-59.94|<0.001
90997470|NCT01763866|181878772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-56.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.27|-50.46||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit||||-50.46|-63.27|<0.001
90997471|NCT01763866|181878773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-58.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.66|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.03|-53.55||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-53.55|-64.03|<0.001
90997472|NCT01763866|181878773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-47.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.96|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.2|-41.52||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-41.52|-53.20|<0.001
90997473|NCT01763866|181878773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-34.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.69|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.23|-29.6||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-29.60|-40.23|<0.001
90997474|NCT01763866|181878773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-36.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.97|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.06|-30.35||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-30.35|-42.06|<0.001
90997475|NCT01763866|181878773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-61.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.99|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.27|-53.54||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-53.54|-69.27|<0.001
90997476|NCT01763866|181878773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-53.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.93|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.77|-45.25||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-45.25|-60.77|<0.001
90997477|NCT01763866|181878773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-37.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.91|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.17|-29.74||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-29.74|-45.17|<0.001
90997478|NCT01763866|181878773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-34.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.98|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.15|-26.47||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-26.47|-42.15|<0.001
90997479|NCT01763866|181878773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-56.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.58|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.6|-51.4||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-51.40|-61.60|<0.001
90997480|NCT01763866|181878773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-53.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.57|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.29|-48.13||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-48.13|-58.29|<0.001
91045616|NCT00442546|181977273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.431|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.895||0.2703||95.0|-4.298|15.161|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||15.161|-4.298|0.2703
91045617|NCT00442546|181977273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.663|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.664||0.104||95.0|-1.607|16.933|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||16.933|-1.607|0.1040
90997481|NCT01763866|181878773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-50.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.31|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.06|-43.99||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-43.99|-57.06|<0.001
90997482|NCT01763866|181878773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-46.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.78|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.43|-39.47||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-39.47|-54.43|<0.001
90997483|NCT01763866|181878773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-56.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.61|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.47|-51.14||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-51.14|-61.47|<0.001
90997484|NCT01763866|181878773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-52.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.38|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.4|-46.06||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit||||-46.06|-59.40|<0.001
90997485|NCT01763866|181878774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-46.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.16|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.66|-42.15||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-42.15|-50.66|<0.001
90997486|NCT01763866|181878774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-44.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.57|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.75|-39.63||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-39.63|-49.75|<0.001
90997487|NCT01763866|181878774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-26.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.36|-21.75||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-21.75|-30.36|<0.001
90997488|NCT01763866|181878774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-31.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.55|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.61|-26.57||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-26.57|-36.61|<0.001
90997489|NCT01763866|181878774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-44.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.69|-38.27||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-38.27|-50.69|<0.001
90997490|NCT01763866|181878774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-46.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.86|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.48|-41.21||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-41.21|-52.48|<0.001
90997491|NCT01763866|181878774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-28.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.39|-22.21||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-22.21|-34.39|<0.001
90997492|NCT01763866|181878774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-28.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.88|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.86|-22.5||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-22.50|-33.86|<0.001
90997493|NCT01763866|181878774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-44.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.41|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.5|-39.97||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-39.97|-49.50|<0.001
90997494|NCT01763866|181878774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-47.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.75|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.46|-41.57||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-41.57|-52.46|<0.001
90997495|NCT01763866|181878774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-40.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.43|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.38|-35.79||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-35.79|-45.38|<0.001
90997496|NCT01763866|181878774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-40.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.87|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.0|-34.66||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-34.66|-46.00|<0.001
91045618|NCT00442546|181977274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.579|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.154||0.8545||95.0|-5.635|6.793|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Discharge||6.793|-5.635|0.8545
90997497|NCT01763866|181878774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-47.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.38|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.76|-42.35||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-42.35|-51.76|<0.001
90997498|NCT01763866|181878774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-48.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.86|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.27|-42.98||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit||||-42.98|-54.27|<0.001
90997499|NCT01763866|181878775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-46.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.48|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.73|-41.94||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-41.94|-51.73|<0.001
90997500|NCT01763866|181878775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-42.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.82|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.43|-37.3||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-37.30|-48.43|<0.001
90997501|NCT01763866|181878775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-28.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.51|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.56|-23.65||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-23.65|-33.56|<0.001
90997502|NCT01763866|181878775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-30.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.74|-24.7||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-24.70|-35.74|<0.001
90997503|NCT01763866|181878775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-45.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.33|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.66|-38.54||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-38.54|-51.66|<0.001
90997504|NCT01763866|181878775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-42.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.34|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.01|-35.85||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-35.85|-49.01|<0.001
90997505|NCT01763866|181878775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-30.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.68|-23.84||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-23.84|-36.68|<0.001
90997506|NCT01763866|181878775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-25.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.35|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.79|-18.59||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-18.59|-31.79|<0.001
90997507|NCT01763866|181878775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-43.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.79|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.77|-37.74||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-37.74|-48.77|<0.001
90997508|NCT01763866|181878775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-45.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.89|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.04|-39.61||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-39.61|-51.04|<0.001
90997509|NCT01763866|181878775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-41.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.79|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.65|-35.61||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-35.61|-46.65|<0.001
90997510|NCT01763866|181878775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-34.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.41|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.72|-28.25||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-28.25|-41.72|<0.001
90997511|NCT01763866|181878775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-47.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.43|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.83|-42.25||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-42.25|-51.83|<0.001
90997512|NCT01763866|181878775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-44.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.67|-38.54||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit||||-38.54|-50.67|<0.001
90997513|NCT01763866|181878776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-59.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.51|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.91|-55.03||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-55.03|-64.91|<0.001
90997514|NCT01763866|181878776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-54.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.77|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.57|-48.64||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-48.64|-59.57|<0.001
90997515|NCT01763866|181878776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-37.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.54|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.8|-32.77||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-32.77|-42.80|<0.001
90997516|NCT01763866|181878776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-41.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.78|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.34|-36.67||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-36.67|-47.34|<0.001
90997517|NCT01763866|181878776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-56.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.71|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.22|-49.59||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-49.59|-64.22|<0.001
90997518|NCT01763866|181878776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-61.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.39|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.68|-55.29||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-55.29|-68.68|<0.001
90997519|NCT01763866|181878776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-37.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.66|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.48|-30.04||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-30.04|-44.48|<0.001
90997520|NCT01763866|181878776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-43.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.44|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.07|-36.51||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-36.51|-50.07|<0.001
91045619|NCT00442546|181977274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.128|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.155||0.5006||95.0|-4.088|8.344|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Discharge||8.344|-4.088|0.5006
91045620|NCT00442546|181977274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.956|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.248||0.7217||95.0|-13.66|19.569|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||19.569|-13.66|0.7217
90997521|NCT01763866|181878776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-55.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.78|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.79|-49.79||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-49.79|-60.79|<0.001
90997522|NCT01763866|181878776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-59.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.49|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.16|-54.32||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-54.32|-64.16|<0.001
90997523|NCT01763866|181878776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-50.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.13|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.82|-44.45||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-44.45|-56.82|<0.001
90997524|NCT01763866|181878776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-56.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.61|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.91|-49.64||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-49.64|-63.91|<0.001
90997525|NCT01763866|181878776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-57.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.41|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.51|-52.99||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-52.99|-62.51|<0.001
90997526|NCT01763866|181878776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-56.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.93|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.85|-50.27||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit||||-50.27|-61.85|<0.001
90997527|NCT01763866|181878777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-60.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.71|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.65|-54.94||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-54.94|-65.65|<0.001
90997528|NCT01763866|181878777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-48.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.94|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.23|-42.65||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-42.65|-54.23|<0.001
90997529|NCT01763866|181878777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-39.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.75|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.09|-34.23||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-34.23|-45.09|<0.001
90997530|NCT01763866|181878777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-37.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.94|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.12|-31.52||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-31.52|-43.12|<0.001
90997531|NCT01763866|181878777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-57.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.95|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.55|-49.99||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-49.99|-65.55|<0.001
90997532|NCT01763866|181878777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-57.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.88|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.91|-49.6||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-49.60|-64.91|<0.001
90997533|NCT01763866|181878777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-39.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.87|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.53|-32.26||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-32.26|-47.53|<0.001
90997534|NCT01763866|181878777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-38.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.26|-30.88||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-30.88|-46.26|<0.001
90997535|NCT01763866|181878777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-54.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.83|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.99|-48.82||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-48.82|-59.99|<0.001
90997536|NCT01763866|181878777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-56.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.76|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.58|-50.68||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-50.68|-61.58|<0.001
90997537|NCT01763866|181878777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-49.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.36|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.8|-42.53||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-42.53|-55.80|<0.001
90997538|NCT01763866|181878777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-48.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.25|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.21|-40.4||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-40.40|-57.21|<0.001
90997539|NCT01763866|181878777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-57.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.57|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.82|-52.65||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-52.65|-62.82|<0.001
90997540|NCT01763866|181878777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-52.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.1|-45.98||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit||||-45.98|-58.10|<0.001
90997541|NCT01763866|181878778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|82.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|70.2|88.5||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factors (entry statin therapy and simvastatin contraindicated therapy usage)||||88.5|70.2|<0.001
90997542|NCT01763866|181878778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|80.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.9|86.8||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factors (entry statin therapy and simvastatin contraindicated therapy usage).||||86.8|67.9|<0.001
90997543|NCT01763866|181878778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|68.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.1|78.1||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factors (entry statin therapy and simvastatin contraindicated therapy usage).||||78.1|53.1|<0.001
90997544|NCT01763866|181878778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|69.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.8|78.5||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factors (entry statin therapy and simvastatin contraindicated therapy usage)||||78.5|54.8|<0.001
90997545|NCT01763866|181878778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|80.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.3|88.3||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factors (entry statin therapy and simvastatin contraindicated therapy usage).||||88.3|67.3|<0.001
90997546|NCT01763866|181878778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|83.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|70.7|89.6||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factors (entry statin therapy and simvastatin contraindicated therapy usage)||||89.6|70.7|<0.001
90997547|NCT01763866|181878778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|43.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.5|56.7||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factors (entry statin therapy and simvastatin contraindicated therapy usage).||||56.7|29.5|<0.001
90997548|NCT01763866|181878778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|30.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.7|44.2||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factors (entry statin therapy and simvastatin contraindicated therapy usage).||||44.2|16.7|<0.001
90997549|NCT01763866|181878778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|81.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|69.5|88.0||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factors (entry statin therapy and simvastatin contraindicated therapy usage).||||88.0|69.5|<0.001
90997550|NCT01763866|181878778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|84.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|73.1|90.2||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factors (entry statin therapy and simvastatin contraindicated therapy usage).||||90.2|73.1|<0.001
90997551|NCT01763866|181878778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|54.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.8|66.9||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factors (entry statin therapy and simvastatin contraindicated therapy usage).||||66.9|39.8|<0.001
90997552|NCT01763866|181878778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|65.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.0|76.6||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factors (entry statin therapy and simvastatin contraindicated therapy usage).||||76.6|51.0|<0.001
90997553|NCT01763866|181878778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|91.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|81.6|95.3||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factors (entry statin therapy and simvastatin contraindicated therapy usage).||||95.3|81.6|<0.001
90997554|NCT01763866|181878778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|84.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|72.8|90.0||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factors (entry statin therapy and simvastatin contraindicated therapy usage).||||90.0|72.8|<0.001
90997555|NCT01763866|181878779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|83.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.9|89.2||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factors (entry statin therapy and simvastatin contraindicated therapy usage)||||89.2|71.9|<0.001
90997556|NCT01763866|181878779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|78.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.2|85.3||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factors (entry statin therapy and simvastatin contraindicated therapy usage).||||85.3|65.2|<0.001
90997557|NCT01763866|181878779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|63.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.3|73.9||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factors (entry statin therapy and simvastatin contraindicated therapy usage).||||73.9|47.3|<0.001
90997558|NCT01763866|181878779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|64.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.8|75.2||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factors (entry statin therapy and simvastatin contraindicated therapy usage)||||75.2|49.8|<0.001
90997559|NCT01763866|181878779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|80.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.8|87.9||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factors (entry statin therapy and simvastatin contraindicated therapy usage).||||87.9|65.8|<0.001
90997560|NCT01763866|181878779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|81.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.9|88.1||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factors (entry statin therapy and simvastatin contraindicated therapy usage)||||88.1|67.9|<0.001
90997561|NCT01763866|181878779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|41.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.4|55.1||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factors (entry statin therapy and simvastatin contraindicated therapy usage).||||55.1|26.4|<0.001
90997562|NCT01763866|181878779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|35.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.7|49.3||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factors (entry statin therapy and simvastatin contraindicated therapy usage).||||49.3|20.7|<0.001
90997563|NCT01763866|181878779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|77.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.9|84.7||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factors (entry statin therapy and simvastatin contraindicated therapy usage).||||84.7|63.9|<0.001
90997564|NCT01763866|181878779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|81.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.8|87.5||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factors (entry statin therapy and simvastatin contraindicated therapy usage).||||87.5|68.8|<0.001
90997565|NCT01763866|181878779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|52.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.6|65.3||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factors (entry statin therapy and simvastatin contraindicated therapy usage).||||65.3|37.6|<0.001
90997566|NCT01763866|181878779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|64.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.1|75.5||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factors (entry statin therapy and simvastatin contraindicated therapy usage).||||75.5|49.1|<0.001
90997567|NCT01763866|181878779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|92.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|82.3|95.9||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factors (entry statin therapy and simvastatin contraindicated therapy usage).||||95.9|82.3|<0.001
90997568|NCT01763866|181878779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|78.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.9|85.4||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factors (entry statin therapy and simvastatin contraindicated therapy usage).||||85.4|64.9|<0.001
90997569|NCT01763866|181878780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-32.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.54|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.06|-25.11||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-25.11|-39.06|<0.001
90997570|NCT01763866|181878780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-21.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.98|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.7|-14.03||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-14.03|-29.70|<0.001
90997571|NCT01763866|181878780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-27.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.59|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.53|-20.38||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-20.38|-34.53|<0.001
90997572|NCT01763866|181878780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-29.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.99|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.36|-21.62||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-21.62|-37.36|<0.001
90997573|NCT01763866|181878780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-20.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.65|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.71|-13.33||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-13.33|-27.71|<0.001
90997574|NCT01763866|181878780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-28.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.01|-20.92||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-20.92|-37.01|<0.001
90997575|NCT01763866|181878780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-32.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.11|-24.93||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-24.93|-39.11|<0.001
90997576|NCT01763866|181878780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-37.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.61|-29.23||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-29.23|-45.61|<0.001
90997577|NCT01763866|181878780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-35.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.69|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.94|-28.38||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-28.38|-42.94|<0.001
90997578|NCT01763866|181878780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-26.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.33|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.36|-18.27||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-18.27|-35.36|<0.001
90997579|NCT01763866|181878780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-33.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.64|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.74|-26.37||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-26.37|-40.74|<0.001
90997580|NCT01763866|181878780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-32.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.36|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.8|-23.58||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-23.58|-40.80|<0.001
90997581|NCT01763866|181878780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-28.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.46|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.91|-21.23||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-21.23|-34.91|<0.001
90997582|NCT01763866|181878780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-27.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.76|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.59|-19.73||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit||||-19.73|-34.59|<0.001
90997583|NCT01763866|181878781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-33.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.86|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.81|-25.6||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-25.60|-40.81|<0.001
90997584|NCT01763866|181878781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-19.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.11|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.92|-11.72||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-11.72|-27.92|<0.001
90997585|NCT01763866|181878781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-29.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.91|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.87|-21.44||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-21.44|-36.87|<0.001
90997586|NCT01763866|181878781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-27.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.56|-19.32||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-19.32|-35.56|<0.001
90997587|NCT01763866|181878781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-22.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.39|-14.36||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-14.36|-30.39|<0.001
90997588|NCT01763866|181878781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-28.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.32|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.62|-19.58||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-19.58|-36.62|<0.001
90997589|NCT01763866|181878781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-32.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.98|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.46|-24.78||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-24.78|-40.46|<0.001
90997590|NCT01763866|181878781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-34.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.38|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.52|-26.25||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-26.25|-43.52|<0.001
90997591|NCT01763866|181878781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-36.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.69|-28.3||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-28.30|-44.69|<0.001
90997592|NCT01763866|181878781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-25.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.48|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.19|-16.49||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-16.49|-34.19|<0.001
90997593|NCT01763866|181878781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-36.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.78|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.95|-29.02||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-29.02|-43.95|<0.001
90997594|NCT01763866|181878781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-32.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.61|-21.74||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-21.74|-42.61|<0.001
90997595|NCT01763866|181878781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-31.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.62|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.4|-24.1||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-24.10|-38.40|<0.001
90997596|NCT01763866|181878781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-28.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.36|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.79|-19.55||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit||||-19.55|-36.79|<0.001
90997597|NCT01763866|181878782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-12.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.83||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.63|-2.58||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-2.58|-21.63|0.20
90997598|NCT01763866|181878782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-22.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.36||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.13|-11.97||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-11.97|-33.13|0.003
90997599|NCT01763866|181878782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-2.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.89||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.09|7.19||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||7.19|-12.09|1.00
90997600|NCT01763866|181878782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-14.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.33||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.46|-4.44||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-4.44|-25.46|0.053
91045621|NCT00442546|181977274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.62||0.4203||95.0|-10.35|24.372|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||24.372|-10.35|0.4203
91045622|NCT00442546|181977274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.6||0.9859||95.0|-11.3|11.102|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||11.102|-11.30|0.9859
91045623|NCT00442546|181977274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.063|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.873||0.9915||95.0|-11.68|11.811|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||11.811|-11.68|0.9915
90997601|NCT01763866|181878782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-15.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.89||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.06|-5.79||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-5.79|-25.06|0.073
90997602|NCT01763866|181878782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-14.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.32||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.9|-3.92||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-3.92|-24.90|0.027
90997603|NCT01763866|181878782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.8||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.63|8.3||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||8.30|-10.63|1.00
90997604|NCT01763866|181878782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-1.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.38||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.12|9.11||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||9.11|-12.12|0.63
90997605|NCT01763866|181878782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-22.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.9|-12.54||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-12.54|-32.90|<0.001
90997606|NCT01763866|181878782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-19.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.69||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.76|-8.28||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-8.28|-30.76|0.007
90997607|NCT01763866|181878782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-17.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.62||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.71|-8.46||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-8.46|-26.71|0.002
90997608|NCT01763866|181878782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-26.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.85|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.76|-16.59||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-16.59|-35.76|<0.001
90997609|NCT01763866|181878782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-20.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.78|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.38|-9.55||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-9.55|-32.38|<0.001
90997610|NCT01763866|181878782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-29.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.64|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.84|-18.57||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit||||-18.57|-40.84|<0.001
90997611|NCT01763866|181878783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-12.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.41||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.69|0.57||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||0.57|-24.69|0.20
90997612|NCT01763866|181878783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-27.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.23||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.86|-13.35||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-13.35|-41.86|0.003
90997613|NCT01763866|181878783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-3.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.49||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.16|9.43||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||9.43|-16.16|1.00
90997614|NCT01763866|181878783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-18.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.18||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.28|-3.99||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-3.99|-32.28|0.053
90997615|NCT01763866|181878783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-16.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.39||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.34|-6.1||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-6.10|-27.34|0.073
90997616|NCT01763866|181878783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-9.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.39||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.92|3.29||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||3.29|-21.92|0.027
91045624|NCT00442546|181977274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.128|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.508||0.9843||95.0|-13.06|12.808|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||12.808|-13.06|0.9843
90997617|NCT01763866|181878783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-2.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.27||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.05|7.72||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||7.72|-13.05|1.00
90997618|NCT01763866|181878783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|2.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.43||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.66|14.69||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||14.69|-10.66|0.63
90997619|NCT01763866|181878783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-18.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.03|-4.04||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-4.04|-32.03|<0.001
90997620|NCT01763866|181878783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-19.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.52||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.71|-6.96||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-6.96|-32.71|0.007
90997621|NCT01763866|181878783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-16.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.71||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.84|-5.26||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-5.26|-27.84|0.002
90997622|NCT01763866|181878783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-20.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.33|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.04|-9.98||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-9.98|-31.04|<0.001
90997623|NCT01763866|181878783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-21.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.62|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.88|-10.68||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-10.68|-32.88|<0.001
90997624|NCT01763866|181878783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-31.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.45|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.1|-18.62||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit||||-18.62|-44.10|<0.001
90997625|NCT01763866|181878784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-13.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.38||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.99|-4.74||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-4.74|-21.99|0.088
90997626|NCT01763866|181878784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-21.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.41||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.98|-10.64||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-10.64|-31.98|0.005
90997627|NCT01763866|181878784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.45||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.27|7.27||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||7.27|-10.27|1.00
90997628|NCT01763866|181878784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-13.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.39||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.17|-2.91||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-2.91|-24.17|0.056
90997629|NCT01763866|181878784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-15.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.91||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.88|-5.54||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-5.54|-24.88|0.073
90997630|NCT01763866|181878784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-14.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.21||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.97|-4.42||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-4.42|-24.97|0.027
90997631|NCT01763866|181878784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.82||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.94|9.05||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||9.05|-9.94|1.00
91045625|NCT00442546|181977274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.351|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.201||0.7055||95.0|-9.974|14.677|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||14.677|-9.974|0.7055
91045626|NCT00442546|181977275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.315||0.9405||95.0|-0.614|0.661|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Discharge||0.661|-0.614|0.9405
91045627|NCT00442546|181977275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.167|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.287||0.5641||95.0|-0.749|0.415|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Discharge||0.415|-0.749|0.5641
90997632|NCT01763866|181878784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.28||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.66|10.16||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||10.16|-10.66|0.62
90997633|NCT01763866|181878784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-25.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.85|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.64|-15.5||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-15.50|-34.64|<0.001
90997634|NCT01763866|181878784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-19.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.58||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.81|-8.77||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-8.77|-30.81|0.007
90997635|NCT01763866|181878784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-16.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.61||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.27|-7.03||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-7.03|-25.27|0.005
90997636|NCT01763866|181878784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-23.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.52|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.11|-14.25||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-14.25|-32.11|<0.001
90997637|NCT01763866|181878784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-23.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.95|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.0|-13.43||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-13.43|-33.00|<0.001
90997638|NCT01763866|181878784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-32.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.43|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.6|-22.14||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit||||-22.14|-43.60|<0.001
90997639|NCT01763866|181878785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-14.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.92||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.16|-4.78||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-4.78|-24.16|0.088
90997640|NCT01763866|181878785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-26.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.22||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.71|-12.24||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-12.24|-40.71|0.005
90997641|NCT01763866|181878785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-1.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.41|8.32||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||8.32|-11.41|1.00
90997642|NCT01763866|181878785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-15.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.21||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.4|-0.97||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-0.97|-29.40|0.056
90997643|NCT01763866|181878785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-16.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.39||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.05|-5.8||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-5.80|-27.05|0.073
90997644|NCT01763866|181878785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-9.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.13||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.68|2.48||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||2.48|-21.68|0.027
90997645|NCT01763866|181878785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-1.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.27||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.16|8.61||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||8.61|-12.16|1.00
90997646|NCT01763866|181878785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|4.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.18||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.25|17.14||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||17.14|-7.25|0.62
90997647|NCT01763866|181878785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-21.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.24|-9.73||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-9.73|-34.24|<0.001
91045628|NCT00442546|181977275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.755||0.5226||95.0|-1.181|2.181|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||2.181|-1.181|0.5226
90997648|NCT01763866|181878785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-18.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.5||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.6|-5.9||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-5.90|-31.60|0.007
90997649|NCT01763866|181878785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-16.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.46|-4.92||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-4.92|-27.46|0.005
90997650|NCT01763866|181878785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-18.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.31|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.04|-8.05||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-8.05|-29.04|<0.001
90997651|NCT01763866|181878785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-22.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.39|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.09|-11.81||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-11.81|-33.09|<0.001
90997652|NCT01763866|181878785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-36.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.96|-24.7||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit||||-24.70|-48.96|<0.001
90997653|NCT01763866|181878786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|6.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.84||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.91|10.15||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||10.15|2.91|0.034
90997654|NCT01763866|181878786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|8.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.37||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.43|12.79||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||12.79|3.43|0.017
90997655|NCT01763866|181878786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|6.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|10.34||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||10.34|3.00|0.001
90997656|NCT01763866|181878786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|8.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.36||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.93|13.22||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||13.22|3.93|0.006
90997657|NCT01763866|181878786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|3.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|8.09||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||8.09|-0.19|0.85
90997658|NCT01763866|181878786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|9.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.68|13.58||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||13.58|4.68|<0.001
90997659|NCT01763866|181878786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|7.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.06||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.51|11.64||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||11.64|3.51|0.003
90997660|NCT01763866|181878786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|8.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.28||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.86|12.84||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||12.84|3.86|0.003
90997661|NCT01763866|181878786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|5.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.87|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.68|9.04||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||9.04|1.68|<0.001
91045629|NCT00442546|181977275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.167|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.893||0.8557||95.0|-2.156|1.823|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||1.823|-2.156|0.8557
90997662|NCT01763866|181878786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|8.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.11||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.51|14.8||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||14.80|2.51|0.010
90997663|NCT01763866|181878786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|5.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.69|9.23||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||9.23|1.69|0.013
91045630|NCT00442546|181977275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.328|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.882||0.1925||95.0|-3.596|0.94|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||0.940|-3.596|0.1925
90997664|NCT01763866|181878786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|6.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|11.1||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||11.10|2.40|0.002
90997665|NCT01763866|181878786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|10.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.58|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.13|15.32||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||15.32|5.13|<0.001
90997666|NCT01763866|181878786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|8.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.73|12.97||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit||||12.97|4.73|<0.001
90997667|NCT01763866|181878787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|6.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.11||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.66|10.99||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||10.99|2.66|0.034
90997668|NCT01763866|181878787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|7.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.46||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.01|12.73||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||12.73|3.01|0.017
90997669|NCT01763866|181878787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|8.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.14||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.58|13.03||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||13.03|4.58|0.001
90997670|NCT01763866|181878787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|8.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.45||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.46|13.11||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||13.11|3.46|0.006
90997671|NCT01763866|181878787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|4.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.28||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|8.57||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||8.57|-0.42|0.85
90997672|NCT01763866|181878787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|7.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.45|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.22|11.89||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||11.89|2.22|<0.001
90997673|NCT01763866|181878787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|8.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.23||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.07|12.87||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||12.87|4.07|0.003
90997674|NCT01763866|181878787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|7.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.46||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.29|11.99||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||11.99|2.29|0.003
90997675|NCT01763866|181878787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|7.73||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||7.73|-1.33|<0.001
90997676|NCT01763866|181878787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|7.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.23||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|13.72||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||13.72|0.97|0.010
90997677|NCT01763866|181878787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|5.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.29||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|9.56||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||9.56|0.52|0.013
90997678|NCT01763866|181878787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|4.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.41||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|9.6||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||9.60|0.07|0.002
90997679|NCT01763866|181878787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|9.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.05|15.51||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||15.51|4.05|<0.001
91045631|NCT00442546|181977275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.982||0.9654||95.0|-2.568|2.479|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||2.479|-2.568|0.9654
90997680|NCT01763866|181878787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|9.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.36|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|13.72||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit||||13.72|4.40|<0.001
90997681|NCT00093470|181878816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.538|1.072||one-sided p-value; threshold for statistical significance \<0.025|Log Rank|stratified log rank test|Hazard ratio of DFS for Arm A to Arm B|||1.072|0.538|0.026
90997682|NCT00093470|181878817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.809||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.567|1.155||one-sided p-value; threshold for statistical significance \< 0.025|Log Rank|stratified log rank test|Hazard ratio of OS for Arm A to Arm B|||1.155|0.567|0.056
90997683|NCT01019252|181878818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.24|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.28|7.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|A longitudinal general linear mixed effects model was used.||||7.21|3.28|<.0001
90997684|NCT01019252|181878819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|A longitudinal general linear mixed effects model was used.||||1.39|.94|<.0001
90997685|NCT01019252|181878820|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|10.93|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.93|12.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|A longitudinal general linear mixed effects model was used.||||12.93|8.93|<.0001
90997686|NCT02514772|181878821|OTHER||Difference (%)|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.6|16.9||||||||16.9|-20.6|
90997687|NCT02514772|181878822|OTHER||Difference (%)|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.6|16.9||||||||16.9|-20.6|
90997688|NCT02514772|181878823|OTHER||Difference (%)|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.2|17.6||||||||17.6|-21.2|
90997689|NCT02514772|181878824|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.2|13.3||||||Incidence difference of infusion-related reactions, occurred on day of or on day after first infusion (i.e. on study day 1 or on study day 2).||13.3|-24.2|
90997690|NCT02514772|181878824|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.5|13.6||||||Incidence difference of infusion-related reactions, occurred on day of or on day after second infusion (i.e. on study day 14 or on study day 15).||13.6|-24.5|
90997691|NCT02514772|181878824|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.0|11.4||||||Incidence difference of infusion-related reactions overall on day(s) of or day(s) after either infusion (i.e. on day 1 or 2 and on day 14 or day 15).||11.4|-26.0|
90997692|NCT00877006|181878835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005||||||P-value for the treatment comparison is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment group, region, preassigned standard treatment, and lymphoma type as factors and baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||The hypothesis of interest is superiority of BR over standard treatment.||||0.0005
90997693|NCT00877006|181878836|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.9677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.68|||Log Rank|Stratified log-rank test by preassigned standard treatment and lymphoma type.|BR/RCHOP-RCVP|||1.68|0.58|0.9677
90997694|NCT03657810|181878909|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Type III P-Value are from the likelihood ration test from the logistic regression model with factors of treatment, gender, and investigator.|Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
90997695|NCT03657810|181878910|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Type III P-Value are from the likelihood ration test from the logistic regression model with factors of treatment, gender, and investigator|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.052
90997696|NCT01632735|181878923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.99|||GEE|Generalized Estimating Equations regression examined primary relapse (measured by urinalysis) over time by condition, controlling for age and gender.||||0.99|0.57|<0.05
90997697|NCT01632735|181878924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Beta (timexcondition)|0.239|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.219|0.248|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses controlled for age and gender.||Mixed modeling using a repeated-measures random-effects model was conducted to test for the effects of treatment (dummy coded with 1 = mobile intervention, 0 = control) and time as well as the treatment x time interaction on the primary outcome measures of recovery behaviors mean days over time (baseline, discharge, 3, 6, and 9-month follow-ups).||0.248|0.219|<0.001
90997698|NCT01632735|181878925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Beta (time x condition)|0.115|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.106|0.123|||Mixed Models Analysis|A repeated-measures model tested for effects of treatment vs. control on recovery self-confidence over time controlling for age and gender.||Mixed modeling using a repeated-measures random-effects model was conducted to test for the effects of treatment (dummy coded with 1 = mobile intervention, 0 = control) and time as well as the treatment x time interaction on the outcome measure of recovery confidence mean score over time.||0.123|0.106|<0.001
90997699|NCT01632735|181878926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Beta effect (timexcondition)|0.217|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.233|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses controlled for age and gender.||Mixed modeling using a repeated-measures random-effects model was conducted to test for the effects of treatment (dummy coded with 1 = mobile intervention, 0 = control) and time as well as the treatment x time interaction on the outcome measure of self-help utilization (mean days in past month) over the study period (baseline, discharge, and 3-, 6-, and 9-month follow-ups).||0.233|0.2|<0.001
90997700|NCT04111107|181878966|OTHER|||||||0.966|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank (2 sided)|||H0: Progression-free ratio = 1||||0.966
90997701|NCT04111107|181878969|OTHER|Single proportion was estimated.|proportion|4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|21.1|||||exact binomial confidence interval|The proportion with a complete or partial response was estimated and an exact binomial confidence interval was calculated||21.1|0.1|
90997702|NCT03589885|181878992|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1014.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.83|14940.62|||Regression, Logistic|||PASI 75||14940.62|68.83|<0.0001
90997703|NCT03589885|181878992|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|96.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.22|537.78|||Regression, Logistic|||PASI 75||537.78|17.22|<0.0001
90997704|NCT03589885|181878993|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|51.46|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.95|221.64|||Regression, Logistic|||||221.64|11.95|<0.0001
90997705|NCT03589885|181878993|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|29.7|||<|0.0001||95.0|7.38|119.57|||Regression, Logistic|||||119.57|7.38|<0.0001
90997706|NCT03589885|181878994|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|88.46|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.15|484.52|||Regression, Logistic|||||484.52|16.15|<0.0001
90997707|NCT03589885|181878994|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|37.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.6|189.01|||Regression, Logistic|||||189.01|7.60|<0.0001
90997708|NCT00039741|181878999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.11|||Interval regression|Adjusted for baseline HIV-1 RNA, age (\<3 years vs 3 years), origin (PACTG vs PENTA sites), and perinatal ART exposure versus no exposure.||||0.11|-0.41|0.26
90997709|NCT00039741|181878999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.32|||Interval regression|Adjusted for baseline HIV-1 RNA, age (\<3 years vs 3 years), origin (PACTG vs PENTA sites), and perinatal ART exposure versus no exposure.||||0.32|-0.20|0.56
90997710|NCT00321269|181879027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression analysis- Treatment Arm X Time F (2, 116)=0.09, P\>F=0.90.||||0.90
90997711|NCT00321269|181879028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|F(2,110)=2.08; P=0.13||||||0.13
90997712|NCT01583452|181879038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.665|TWO_SIDED||||||Kaplan-Meier survival analysis|||With a confidence interval of 95%, an alpha risk of 5% and a desired power of 80%; expecting a 24hrs difference between the intervention and the control group, we estimated 20 patients for each one of them.||||0.665
90997713|NCT01583452|181879039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.094|TWO_SIDED||||||Kaplan-Meier survival analysis|||||||0.094
90997714|NCT01583452|181879040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.059|TWO_SIDED||||||Kaplan-Meier survival analysis|||||||0.059
90997715|NCT01583452|181879041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83|TWO_SIDED||||||Kaplan-Meier survival analysis|||||||0.830
90997716|NCT03571256|181879049|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.8||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|2.3||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.3|-3.9|0.600
90997717|NCT00868452|181879060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25||0.005|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.005
90997718|NCT00868452|181879061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.003|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.003
90997719|NCT00868452|181879062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.01||0.012|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.012
90997720|NCT01714817|181879067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.7264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7077|1.6421|||Stratified logistic regression||Abatacept IV:Placebo IV 95%CI for Odds Ratio|||1.6421|0.7077|0.7264
90997721|NCT01714817|181879068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4148|1.5956|||||Abatacept IV:Placebo IV|||1.5956|0.4148|
90997722|NCT01714817|181879069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.17||||0.571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.42|||Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted mean difference from placebo|||0.42|-0.76|0.571
90997723|NCT01714817|181879070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.09||||0.561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted mean difference from placebo|||0.22|-0.41|0.561
90997724|NCT01714817|181879073|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of Difference|1.651|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.595828|10.897784||||||CR - Day 365||10.897784|-7.595828|
90997725|NCT01714817|181879073|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of Difference|-0.8828|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.848056|7.082461||||||PR - Day 365||7.082461|-8.848056|
90997726|NCT01714817|181879073|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of Difference|-0.7682|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.446714|8.910353||||||NR - Day 365||8.910353|-10.446714|
90997727|NCT01714817|181879082|SUPERIORITY|Day 365|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3251|6.2849||||||||6.2849|0.3251|
90997728|NCT01714817|181879082|SUPERIORITY|Day 729|Estimate of Difference vs Drug|3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|15.1||||||||15.1|-8.4|
90997729|NCT01714817|181879102|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of Difference|-0.9682|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.760178|2.823876||||||Lupus treatment failure - Day 365||2.823876|-4.760178|
90997730|NCT01714817|181879102|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of Difference|-0.4707|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.588691|3.647365||||||Overall treatment failure - Day 365||3.647365|-4.588691|
90997731|NCT01714817|181879102|SUPERIORITY|Lupus treatment failure - Day 729|Estimate of Difference|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|6.1||||||||6.1|-4.5|
90997732|NCT01714817|181879102|SUPERIORITY|Overall treatment failure - Day 729|Estimate of Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|8.8||||||||8.8|-3.3|
90997733|NCT02555657|181879123|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.0574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.06|||Regression, Cox|||||1.06|0.57|0.0574
90997734|NCT02555657|181879124|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.0728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.06|||Regression, Cox|||||1.06|0.69|0.0728
90997735|NCT02555657|181879125|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.3802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.15|||Regression, Cox|||||1.15|0.82|0.3802
90997736|NCT02555657|181879126|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|8.3||||0.0457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|18.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||18.4|-1.4|0.0457
90997737|NCT02555657|181879127|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|2.9||||0.1752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|9.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||9.2|-3.3|0.1752
90997738|NCT02555657|181879128|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|-1.0||||0.6629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|3.8|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||3.8|-5.9|0.6629
90997739|NCT02555657|181879129|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.7936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.59|||Regression, Cox|||||1.59|0.82|0.7936
90997740|NCT02555657|181879130|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.35||||0.9964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.68|||Regression, Cox|||||1.68|1.08|0.9964
90997741|NCT02555657|181879131|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.6||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|1.92|||Regression, Cox|||||1.92|1.33|1.0000
90997742|NCT02555657|181879135|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|2.3||||0.3388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|13.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||13.5|-8.7|0.3388
90997743|NCT02555657|181879136|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|-1.6||||0.6701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|5.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||5.5|-8.6|0.6701
90997744|NCT02555657|181879137|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|-6.5||||0.9877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|-0.8|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||-0.8|-12.2|0.9877
90997745|NCT01948141|181879154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.59
90997746|NCT01948141|181879157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.36
90997747|NCT00476996|181879199|SUPERIORITY||Weighted Difference|20.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.8|27.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At Week 24, analysis was stratified by region and baseline DMARD therapy||27.9|12.8|< 0.0001
90997748|NCT00476996|181879199|SUPERIORITY||Weighted Difference|25.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.7|32.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At Week 24, analysis was stratified by region and baseline DMARD therapy||32.7|17.7|< 0.0001
90997749|NCT00476996|181879199|SUPERIORITY||Weighted Difference|29.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.6|36.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At Week 48, analysis was stratified by region and baseline DMARD therapy||36.6|21.6|< 0.0001
90997750|NCT00476996|181879199|SUPERIORITY||Weighted Difference|30.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.8|37.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At Week 48, analysis was stratified by region and baseline DMARD therapy||37.7|22.8|< 0.0001
90997751|NCT00476996|181879200|SUPERIORITY||Weighted Difference|2.1||||0.1885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|5.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis was stratified by region and baseline DMARD therapy||5.2|-1.0|0.1885
90997752|NCT00476996|181879200|SUPERIORITY||Weighted Difference|3.6||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|6.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis was stratified by region and baseline DMARD therapy||6.8|0.3|0.0330
90997753|NCT00476996|181879201|SUPERIORITY||Weighted Difference|4.2||||0.0175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|7.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At Week 24, analysis was stratified by region and baseline DMARD therapy||7.6|0.7|0.0175
90997754|NCT00476996|181879201|SUPERIORITY||Weighted Difference|4.3||||0.0134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|7.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At Week 24, analysis was stratified by region and baseline DMARD therapy||7.8|0.9|0.0134
90997755|NCT00476996|181879201|SUPERIORITY||Weighted Difference|10.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.2|14.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At Week 48, analysis was stratified by region and baseline DMARD therapy||14.8|6.2|< 0.0001
90997756|NCT00476996|181879201|SUPERIORITY||Weighted Difference|10.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.2|14.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At Week 48, analysis was stratified by region and baseline DMARD therapy||14.7|6.2|< 0.0001
90997757|NCT00476996|181879202|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.3|||Analysis of Variance|||Week 24 analysis using adjusted mean difference. Model contains region, baseline DMARD therapy, baseline DAS28 score and treatment||-0.3|-0.8|< 0.0001
90997758|NCT00476996|181879202|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.6|||Analysis of Variance|||Week 24 analysis using adjusted mean difference. Model contains region, baseline DMARD therapy, baseline DAS28 score and treatment||-0.6|-1.1|< 0.0001
90997759|NCT00476996|181879202|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.7|||Analysis of Variance|||Week 48 analysis using adjusted mean difference. Model contains region, baseline DMARD therapy, baseline DAS28 score and treatment||-0.7|-1.2|< 0.0001
90997760|NCT00476996|181879202|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.9|||Analysis of Variance|||Week 48 analysis using adjusted mean difference. Model contains region, baseline DMARD therapy, baseline DAS28 score and treatment||-0.9|-1.5|< 0.0001
90997761|NCT00476996|181879203|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.85|3.66|||Proportional Odds Analysis|||At Week 24, analysis was stratified by region and baseline DMARD therapy||3.66|1.85|< 0.0001
90997762|NCT00476996|181879203|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.49|4.91|||Proportional Odds Analysis|||At Week 24, analysis was stratified by region and baseline DMARD therapy||4.91|2.49|< 0.0001
90997763|NCT00476996|181879203|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.93|5.96|||Proportional Odds Analysis|||At Week 48, analysis was stratified by region and baseline DMARD therapy||5.96|2.93|< 0.0001
90997764|NCT00476996|181879203|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.54|7.18|||Proportional Odds Analysis|||At Week 48, analysis was stratified by region and baseline DMARD therapy||7.18|3.54|< 0.0001
90997765|NCT00476996|181879204|SUPERIORITY||Weighted Difference|13.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|19.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At Week 24, analysis was stratified by region and baseline DMARD therapy||19.1|7.4|< 0.0001
90997766|NCT00476996|181879204|SUPERIORITY||Weighted Difference|16.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.2|22.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At Week 24, analysis was stratified by region and baseline DMARD therapy||22.1|10.2|< 0.0001
90997767|NCT00476996|181879204|SUPERIORITY||Weighted Difference|19.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.9|25.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At Week 48, analysis was stratified by region and baseline DMARD therapy||25.6|12.9|< 0.0001
90997768|NCT00476996|181879204|SUPERIORITY||Weighted Difference|20.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.5|27.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At Week 48, analysis was stratified by region and baseline DMARD therapy||27.1|14.5|< 0.0001
90997769|NCT00476996|181879205|SUPERIORITY||Weighted Difference|4.6||||0.0203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|8.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At Week 24, analysis was stratified by region and baseline DMARD therapy||8.5|0.7|0.0203
90997770|NCT00476996|181879205|SUPERIORITY||Weighted Difference|6.7||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|10.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At Week 24, analysis was stratified by region and baseline DMARD therapy||10.8|2.6|0.0014
90997771|NCT00476996|181879205|SUPERIORITY||Weighted Difference|6.6||||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|11.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At Week 48, analysis was stratified by region and baseline DMARD therapy||11.2|2.1|0.0042
90997772|NCT00476996|181879205|SUPERIORITY||Weighted Difference|13.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.2|18.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At Week 48, analysis was stratified by region and baseline DMARD therapy||18.6|8.2|< 0.0001
90997773|NCT00476996|181879206|SUPERIORITY||Weighted Difference|19.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.3|27.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At Week 24, analysis was stratified by region and baseline DMARD therapy||27.5|11.3|< 0.0001
90997774|NCT00476996|181879206|SUPERIORITY||Weighted Difference|24.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.8|32.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At Week 24, analysis was stratified by region and baseline DMARD therapy||32.7|16.8|< 0.0001
90997775|NCT00476996|181879206|SUPERIORITY||Weighted Difference|27.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.5|34.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At Week 48, analysis was stratified by region and baseline DMARD therapy||34.9|19.5|< 0.0001
90997776|NCT00476996|181879206|SUPERIORITY||Weighted Difference|27.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.0|35.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At Week 48, analysis was stratified by region and baseline DMARD therapy||35.3|20.0|< 0.0001
90997777|NCT00676793|181879229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.078||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis is that there is no change, i.e. median change=0.0.||||=0.078
90997778|NCT00676793|181879230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.094||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis is that there is no change, i.e. median change=0.0.||||=0.094
90997779|NCT01617187|181879299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) means difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.46||0.6043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|3.6||Adjusted p-value from graphical approach to control Type 1 error rate among primary and secondary efficacy hypotheses|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|||3.6|-6.1|0.6043
90997780|NCT01617187|181879299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-5.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.32||0.0356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|-1.0||Adjusted p-value from graphical approach to control Type 1 error rate among primary and secondary efficacy hypotheses|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|||-1.0|-10.1|0.0356
90997781|NCT01617187|181879299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-5.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.86||0.0587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|0.2||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|||0.2|-11.1|0.0587
91045632|NCT00442546|181977275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.352|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.782||0.235||95.0|-6.712|2.008|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||2.008|-6.712|0.2350
90997782|NCT01617187|181879300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.9083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Confirmative testing of asenapine versus placebo for this measure was to be performed only if both asenapine doses were statistically superior to placebo in reduction from baseline in PANSS Total Score (Primary outcome measure)||0.3|-0.3|0.9083
90997783|NCT01617187|181879300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.0||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Confirmative testing of asenapine versus placebo for this measure was to be performed only if both asenapine doses were statistically superior to placebo in reduction from baseline in PANSS Total Score (Primary outcome measure)||0.0|-0.6|0.0601
90997784|NCT01617187|181879300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.3898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.2||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|||0.2|-0.5|0.3898
90997785|NCT01617187|181879301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.37||||||P-value from Cochran Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Confirmative testing of asenapine versus placebo for this measure was to be performed only if both asenapine doses were statistically superior to placebo in reduction from baseline in PANSS Total Score (Primary outcome measure)||||0.3700
90997786|NCT01617187|181879301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1708||||||P-value from Cochran Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Confirmative testing of asenapine versus placebo for this measure was to be performed only if both asenapine doses were statistically superior to placebo in reduction from baseline in PANSS Total Score (Primary outcome measure)||||0.1708
90997787|NCT01617187|181879301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.262||||||P-value from Cochran Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2620
90997788|NCT01617187|181879302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.0491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.0||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons using Hochberg's method|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Olanzapine 15 mg QD|||-0.0|-2.4|0.0491
90997789|NCT01617187|181879302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.0491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.0||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons using Hochberg's method|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Olanzapine 15 mg QD|||-0.0|-2.3|0.0491
90997790|NCT01617187|181879302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.0567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.0||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|||2.0|-0.0|0.0567
90997791|NCT01617187|181879302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.0391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.9||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|||1.9|0.0|0.0391
90997792|NCT01617187|181879302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|3.3||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|||3.3|1.0|0.0003
90997793|NCT01617187|181879303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09||0.4849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|2.9||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 4||2.9|-1.4|0.4849
90997794|NCT01617187|181879303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06||0.8902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.9||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 4||1.9|-2.2|0.8902
90997795|NCT01617187|181879303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36||0.5826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|1.9||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 4||1.9|-3.4|0.5826
90997796|NCT01617187|181879303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.61||0.9271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|3.0||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||3.0|-3.3|0.9271
90997797|NCT01617187|181879303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.56||0.1902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|1.0||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||1.0|-5.1|0.1902
90997798|NCT01617187|181879303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|1.7||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||1.7|-6.2|0.2710
90997799|NCT01617187|181879303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.79||0.6773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|4.3||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||4.3|-2.8|0.6773
90997800|NCT01617187|181879303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.72||0.2895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|1.6||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||1.6|-5.2|0.2895
90997801|NCT01617187|181879303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.18||0.4261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|2.6||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||2.6|-6.0|0.4261
90997802|NCT01617187|181879303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.13||0.5505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|5.5||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||5.5|-2.9|0.5505
90997803|NCT01617187|181879303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.03||0.4286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|2.4||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||2.4|-5.6|0.4286
90997804|NCT01617187|181879303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.56||0.4423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|3.1||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||3.1|-7.0|0.4423
90997805|NCT01617187|181879303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3||0.1691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|7.7||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 28||7.7|-1.4|0.1691
90997806|NCT01617187|181879303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.17||0.4682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|2.7||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 28||2.7|-5.8|0.4682
90997807|NCT01617187|181879303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.71||0.4961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|3.5||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 28||3.5|-7.2|0.4961
90997808|NCT01617187|181879303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26||0.4697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|2.8||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 35||2.8|-6.1|0.4697
90997809|NCT01617187|181879303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.14||0.0947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|0.6||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 35||0.6|-7.8|0.0947
90997810|NCT01617187|181879303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.68||0.0675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|0.4||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 35||0.4|-10.2|0.0675
90997811|NCT01617187|181879304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1736||||||P-value from Cochran Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 4||||0.1736
90997812|NCT01617187|181879304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1736||||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 4||||0.1736
90997813|NCT01617187|181879304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.285||||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 4||||0.2850
90997814|NCT01617187|181879304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.329||||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 7||||0.3290
90997815|NCT01617187|181879304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6938||||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 7||||0.6938
90997816|NCT01617187|181879304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1105||||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 7||||0.1105
90997817|NCT01617187|181879304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6804||||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 14||||0.6804
90997818|NCT01617187|181879304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9704||||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 14||||0.9704
90997819|NCT01617187|181879304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6604||||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 14||||0.6604
90997820|NCT01617187|181879304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2447||||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 21||||0.2447
90997821|NCT01617187|181879304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4834||||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 21||||0.4834
90997822|NCT01617187|181879304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9189||||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 21||||0.9189
90997823|NCT01617187|181879304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.437||||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 28||||0.4370
90997824|NCT01617187|181879304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2894||||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 28||||0.2894
90997825|NCT01617187|181879304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6953||||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 28||||0.6953
90997826|NCT01617187|181879304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4892||||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 35||||0.4892
90997827|NCT01617187|181879304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1954||||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 35||||0.1954
90997828|NCT01617187|181879304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.799||||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 35||||0.7990
90997829|NCT01617187|181879305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.4255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 4||0.2|-0.1|0.4255
90997830|NCT01617187|181879305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.9564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 4||0.1|-0.1|0.9564
90997831|NCT01617187|181879305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.6363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 4||0.1|-0.2|0.6363
90997832|NCT01617187|181879305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.8759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||0.2|-0.2|0.8759
90997833|NCT01617187|181879305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.9598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||0.2|-0.2|0.9598
90997834|NCT01617187|181879305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.9789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||0.2|-0.2|0.9789
90997835|NCT01617187|181879305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.4671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||0.1|-0.3|0.4671
90997836|NCT01617187|181879305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.6359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.2||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||0.2|-0.3|0.6359
90997837|NCT01617187|181879305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.5454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||0.2|-0.4|0.5454
90997838|NCT01617187|181879305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.4188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.4||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||0.4|-0.2|0.4188
90997839|NCT01617187|181879305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.5318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.2||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||0.2|-0.3|0.5318
90997840|NCT01617187|181879305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.5683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||0.2|-0.4|0.5683
90997841|NCT01617187|181879305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.2972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.4||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 28||0.4|-0.1|0.2972
90997842|NCT01617187|181879305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 28||0.2|-0.4|0.4820
90997843|NCT01617187|181879305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.9901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 28||0.3|-0.3|0.9901
90997844|NCT01617187|181879305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.6682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 35||0.2|-0.4|0.6682
90997845|NCT01617187|181879305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.1111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 35||0.1|-0.5|0.1111
90997846|NCT01617187|181879305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 35||0.1|-0.5|0.2400
90997847|NCT01617187|181879306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6205||||||P-value from Cochran Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 4||||0.6205
90997848|NCT01617187|181879306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4829||||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 4||||0.4829
90997849|NCT01617187|181879306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3945||||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 4||||0.3945
90997850|NCT01617187|181879306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4076||||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 7||||0.4076
90997851|NCT01617187|181879306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.969||||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 7||||0.9690
90997852|NCT01617187|181879306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.117||||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 7||||0.1170
90997853|NCT01617187|181879306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5088||||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 14||||0.5088
90997854|NCT01617187|181879306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3426||||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 14||||0.3426
90997855|NCT01617187|181879306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0762||||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 14||||0.0762
90997856|NCT01617187|181879306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5531||||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 21||||0.5531
90997857|NCT01617187|181879306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4875||||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 21||||0.4875
90997858|NCT01617187|181879306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0692||||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 21||||0.0692
90997859|NCT01617187|181879306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7482||||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 28||||0.7482
90997860|NCT01617187|181879306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8037||||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 28||||0.8037
90997861|NCT01617187|181879306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0859||||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 28||||0.0859
90997862|NCT01617187|181879306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.585||||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 35||||0.5850
90997863|NCT01617187|181879306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9698||||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 35||||0.9698
90997864|NCT01617187|181879306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0132||||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 35||||0.0132
90997865|NCT01617187|181879306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7129||||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 42||||0.7129
90997866|NCT01617187|181879306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5074||||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 42||||0.5074
90997867|NCT01617187|181879306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004||||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 42||||0.0040
90997868|NCT01617187|181879307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.8829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.8||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 4||0.8|-0.7|0.8829
90997869|NCT01617187|181879307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.5488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.0||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 4||1.0|-0.5|0.5488
90997870|NCT01617187|181879307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.8||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 4||0.8|-1.1|0.7830
90997871|NCT01617187|181879307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.8||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||0.8|-1.0|0.8070
90997872|NCT01617187|181879307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.6||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||0.6|-1.1|0.5280
90997873|NCT01617187|181879307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.4025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.6||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||0.6|-1.6|0.4025
90997874|NCT01617187|181879307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.6471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.2||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||1.2|-0.8|0.6471
90997875|NCT01617187|181879307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.2504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.4||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||0.4|-1.5|0.2504
90997876|NCT01617187|181879307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.9223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.3||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||1.3|-1.2|0.9223
90997877|NCT01617187|181879307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.8839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.2||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||1.2|-1.0|0.8839
90997878|NCT01617187|181879307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.8077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.9||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||0.9|-1.2|0.8077
90997879|NCT01617187|181879307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.6216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.7||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||1.7|-1.0|0.6216
90997880|NCT01617187|181879307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.4248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.7||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 28||1.7|-0.7|0.4248
90997881|NCT01617187|181879307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.7667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.0||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 28||1.0|-1.3|0.7667
90997882|NCT01617187|181879307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.6282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.8||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 28||1.8|-1.1|0.6282
90997883|NCT01617187|181879307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.6||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 35||0.6|-1.9|0.3150
90997884|NCT01617187|181879307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.1908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.4||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 35||0.4|-2.0|0.1908
90997885|NCT01617187|181879307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.3128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.7||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 35||0.7|-2.3|0.3128
90997886|NCT01617187|181879307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.8812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.3||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 42||1.3|-1.5|0.8812
90997887|NCT01617187|181879307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.1143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.3||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 42||0.3|-2.4|0.1143
90997888|NCT01617187|181879307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.4418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.0||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 42||1.0|-2.3|0.4418
90997889|NCT01617187|181879308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.3||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 4||1.3|-0.3|0.2160
90997890|NCT01617187|181879308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.9494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.8||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 4||0.8|-0.7|0.9494
90997891|NCT01617187|181879308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.1834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.3||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 4||0.3|-1.6|0.1834
90997892|NCT01617187|181879308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.6347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.3||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||1.3|-0.8|0.6347
90997893|NCT01617187|181879308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.6917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.8||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||0.8|-1.2|0.6917
90997894|NCT01617187|181879308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.1431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.3||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||0.3|-2.3|0.1431
90997895|NCT01617187|181879308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.6267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.5||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||1.5|-0.9|0.6267
90997896|NCT01617187|181879308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.9||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||0.9|-1.3|0.7260
90997897|NCT01617187|181879308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.3326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.7||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||0.7|-2.2|0.3326
90997898|NCT01617187|181879308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.4575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.9||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||1.9|-0.9|0.4575
90997899|NCT01617187|181879308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.9||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||0.9|-1.8|0.4930
90997900|NCT01617187|181879308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86||0.1886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|0.6||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||0.6|-2.8|0.1886
90997901|NCT01617187|181879308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.2643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|2.5||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 28||2.5|-0.7|0.2643
90997902|NCT01617187|181879308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.3516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.8||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 28||0.8|-2.2|0.3516
90997903|NCT01617187|181879308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94||0.2068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|0.7||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 28||0.7|-3.1|0.2068
90997904|NCT01617187|181879308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.7284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.9||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 35||1.9|-1.3|0.7284
90997905|NCT01617187|181879308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.2698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.7||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 35||0.7|-2.4|0.2698
90997906|NCT01617187|181879308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|0.5||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 35||0.5|-3.3|0.1510
90997907|NCT01617187|181879308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88||0.8039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.5||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 42||1.5|-2.0|0.8039
90997908|NCT01617187|181879308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.0306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-0.2||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 42||-0.2|-3.5|0.0306
90997909|NCT01617187|181879308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.0406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|-0.1||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 42||-0.1|-4.1|0.0406
90997910|NCT01617187|181879309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.7819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.5||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 4||1.5|-1.1|0.7819
90997911|NCT01617187|181879309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.0||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 4||1.0|-1.5|0.7030
90997912|NCT01617187|181879309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.6||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 4||1.6|-1.7|0.9520
90997913|NCT01617187|181879309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.7907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.6||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||1.6|-2.1|0.7907
90997914|NCT01617187|181879309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91||0.1391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|0.4||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||0.4|-3.1|0.1391
90997915|NCT01617187|181879309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18||0.4901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|1.5||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||1.5|-3.1|0.4901
90997916|NCT01617187|181879309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.8079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|2.2||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||2.2|-1.7|0.8079
90997917|NCT01617187|181879309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.3889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|1.1||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||1.1|-2.7|0.3889
90997918|NCT01617187|181879309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21||0.3907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|1.3||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||1.3|-3.4|0.3907
90997919|NCT01617187|181879309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15||0.5363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|3.0||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||3.0|-1.5|0.5363
90997920|NCT01617187|181879309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09||0.5075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|1.4||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||1.4|-2.9|0.5075
90997921|NCT01617187|181879309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38||0.4526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|1.7||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||1.7|-3.7|0.4526
90997922|NCT01617187|181879309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26||0.1548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|4.3||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 28||4.3|-0.7|0.1548
90997923|NCT01617187|181879309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.19||0.6589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|1.8||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 28||1.8|-2.9|0.6589
90997924|NCT01617187|181879309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.48||0.5171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|2.0||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 28||2.0|-3.9|0.5171
90997925|NCT01617187|181879309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.3133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|1.2||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 35||1.2|-3.6|0.3133
90997926|NCT01617187|181879309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.13||0.1723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|0.7||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 35||0.7|-3.8|0.1723
90997927|NCT01617187|181879309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.42||0.0663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|0.2||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 35||0.2|-5.4|0.0663
90997928|NCT01617187|181879309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32||0.5128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|1.7||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 42||1.7|-3.5|0.5128
90997929|NCT01617187|181879309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.24||0.0842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|0.3||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 42||0.3|-4.6|0.0842
90997930|NCT01617187|181879309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52||0.1217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|0.6||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 42||0.6|-5.4|0.1217
90997931|NCT01617187|181879310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.0584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.5||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 4||1.5|-0.0|0.0584
90997932|NCT01617187|181879310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.5197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.0||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 4||1.0|-0.5|0.5197
90997933|NCT01617187|181879310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.9693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.0||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 4||1.0|-0.9|0.9693
90997934|NCT01617187|181879310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.6161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.4||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||1.4|-0.8|0.6161
90997935|NCT01617187|181879310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.9||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||0.9|-1.2|0.7880
90997936|NCT01617187|181879310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.5526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.0||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||1.0|-1.8|0.5526
90997937|NCT01617187|181879310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67||0.7647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.5||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||1.5|-1.1|0.7647
90997938|NCT01617187|181879310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.3||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||1.3|-1.2|0.8900
90997939|NCT01617187|181879310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.7097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.3||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||1.3|-1.9|0.7097
90997940|NCT01617187|181879310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.4601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|2.1||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||2.1|-0.9|0.4601
90997941|NCT01617187|181879310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.6288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.1||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||1.1|-1.8|0.6288
90997942|NCT01617187|181879310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91||0.6099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.3||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||1.3|-2.3|0.6099
90997943|NCT01617187|181879310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|2.5||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 28||2.5|-0.7|0.2790
90997944|NCT01617187|181879310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.4253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.9||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 28||0.9|-2.1|0.4253
90997945|NCT01617187|181879310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96||0.3014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|0.9||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 28||0.9|-2.9|0.3014
90997946|NCT01617187|181879310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.7||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 35||1.7|-1.7|0.9720
90997947|NCT01617187|181879310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.4758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.0||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 35||1.0|-2.2|0.4758
90997948|NCT01617187|181879310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.4419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|1.2||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 35||1.2|-2.8|0.4419
90997949|NCT01617187|181879310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91||0.4762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.1||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 42||1.1|-2.4|0.4762
90997950|NCT01617187|181879310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86||0.1046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|0.3||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 42||0.3|-3.1|0.1046
90997951|NCT01617187|181879310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06||0.1411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|0.5||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 42||0.5|-3.7|0.1411
90997952|NCT01617187|181879311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.2754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.4||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 4||0.4|-1.2|0.2754
90997953|NCT01617187|181879311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.7||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 4||0.7|-0.8|0.8500
90997954|NCT01617187|181879311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.8439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.9||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 4||0.9|-1.1|0.8439
90997955|NCT01617187|181879311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.4741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.6||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||0.6|-1.4|0.4741
90997956|NCT01617187|181879311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.2158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.4||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||0.4|-1.6|0.2158
90997957|NCT01617187|181879311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.8||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||0.8|-1.7|0.5060
90997958|NCT01617187|181879311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.9956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.1||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||1.1|-1.1|0.9956
90997959|NCT01617187|181879311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.1624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.3||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||0.3|-1.8|0.1624
90997960|NCT01617187|181879311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.7662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.1||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||1.1|-1.5|0.7662
90997961|NCT01617187|181879311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.8363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.1||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||1.1|-1.3|0.8363
90997962|NCT01617187|181879311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.2388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.5||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||0.5|-1.8|0.2388
90997963|NCT01617187|181879311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.9435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.4||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||1.4|-1.5|0.9435
90997964|NCT01617187|181879311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.4267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.9||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 28||1.9|-0.8|0.4267
90997965|NCT01617187|181879311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.0||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 28||1.0|-1.6|0.6810
90997966|NCT01617187|181879311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.7673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.9||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 28||1.9|-1.4|0.7673
90997967|NCT01617187|181879311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.9||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 35||0.9|-1.9|0.4830
90997968|NCT01617187|181879311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.2128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.5||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 35||0.5|-2.1|0.2128
90997969|NCT01617187|181879311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.1756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|0.5||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 35||0.5|-2.8|0.1756
90997970|NCT01617187|181879311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.4246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|2.0||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 42||2.0|-0.8|0.4246
90997971|NCT01617187|181879311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.2873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.6||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 42||0.6|-2.1|0.2873
90997972|NCT01617187|181879311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.7308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.4||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 42||1.4|-1.9|0.7308
90997973|NCT01617187|181879312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.2116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.0||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 4||1.0|-0.2|0.2116
90997974|NCT01617187|181879312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.9039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.7||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 4||0.7|-0.6|0.9039
90997975|NCT01617187|181879312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.2959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.4||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 4||0.4|-1.2|0.2959
90997976|NCT01617187|181879312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.5909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.6||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||0.6|-1.1|0.5909
90997977|NCT01617187|181879312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.1489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.2||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||0.2|-1.4|0.1489
90997978|NCT01617187|181879312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.2||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||0.2|-2.0|0.1000
90997979|NCT01617187|181879312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.1||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||1.1|-0.8|0.7830
90997980|NCT01617187|181879312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.2679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.4||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||0.4|-1.4|0.2679
90997981|NCT01617187|181879312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.2321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.5||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||0.5|-1.9|0.2321
90997982|NCT01617187|181879312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.7368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.9||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||0.9|-1.3|0.7368
90997983|NCT01617187|181879312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.4606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.7||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||0.7|-1.4|0.4606
90997984|NCT01617187|181879312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.3241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.7||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||0.7|-2.0|0.3241
90997985|NCT01617187|181879312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.1||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 28||1.1|-1.1|0.9860
90997986|NCT01617187|181879312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.3||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 28||0.3|-1.8|0.1890
90997987|NCT01617187|181879312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.6||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 28||0.6|-2.0|0.3030
90997988|NCT01617187|181879312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.0||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 35||0.0|-2.3|0.0550
90997989|NCT01617187|181879312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.0415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.0||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 35||-0.0|-2.2|0.0415
90997990|NCT01617187|181879312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-0.6||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 35||-0.6|-3.3|0.0058
90997991|NCT01617187|181879312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.0691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.1||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 42||0.1|-2.3|0.0691
90997992|NCT01617187|181879312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.5||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 42||-0.5|-2.7|0.0063
90997993|NCT01617187|181879312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-0.6||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 42||-0.6|-3.4|0.0056
90997994|NCT01617187|181879313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.7847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.8||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 4||0.8|-0.6|0.7847
90997995|NCT01617187|181879313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.5859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.8||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 4||0.8|-0.5|0.5859
90997996|NCT01617187|181879313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.6413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.6||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 4||0.6|-1.0|0.6413
90997997|NCT01617187|181879313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.7307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.9||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||0.9|-0.6|0.7307
90997998|NCT01617187|181879313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.7176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.9||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||0.9|-0.6|0.7176
90997999|NCT01617187|181879313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.6||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||0.6|-1.3|0.4860
90998000|NCT01617187|181879313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.9321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.8||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||0.8|-0.8|0.9321
90998001|NCT01617187|181879313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.7691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.9||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||0.9|-0.7|0.7691
90998002|NCT01617187|181879313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.5694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.7||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||0.7|-1.3|0.5694
90998003|NCT01617187|181879313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.5583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.2||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||1.2|-0.6|0.5583
90998004|NCT01617187|181879313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.7307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.0||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||1.0|-0.7|0.7307
90998005|NCT01617187|181879313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.1715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.3||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||0.3|-1.8|0.1715
90998006|NCT01617187|181879313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.4219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.5||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 28||1.5|-0.6|0.4219
90998007|NCT01617187|181879313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.7437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.2||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 28||1.2|-0.9|0.7437
90998008|NCT01617187|181879313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.6||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 28||0.6|-1.9|0.3110
90998009|NCT01617187|181879313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.9805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.0||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 35||1.0|-1.0|0.9805
90998010|NCT01617187|181879313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.8741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.8||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 35||0.8|-1.0|0.8741
90998011|NCT01617187|181879313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.3288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.6||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 35||0.6|-1.7|0.3288
90998012|NCT01617187|181879313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.9336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.1||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 42||1.1|-1.0|0.9336
90998013|NCT01617187|181879313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.1722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.3||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 42||0.3|-1.7|0.1722
90998014|NCT01617187|181879313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.1909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.4||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 42||0.4|-2.1|0.1909
90998015|NCT01617187|181879314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.9851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.7||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 4||0.7|-0.7|0.9851
90998016|NCT01617187|181879314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.4912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.5||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 4||0.5|-0.9|0.4912
90998017|NCT01617187|181879314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.8559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.8||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 4||0.8|-1.0|0.8559
90998018|NCT01617187|181879314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.5635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.1||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||1.1|-0.6|0.5635
90998019|NCT01617187|181879314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.2321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.3||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||0.3|-1.3|0.2321
90998020|NCT01617187|181879314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.8867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.9||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||0.9|-1.1|0.8867
90998021|NCT01617187|181879314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.1499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.4||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||1.4|-0.2|0.1499
90998022|NCT01617187|181879314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.4||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||0.4|-1.2|0.2860
90998023|NCT01617187|181879314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.8978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.9||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||0.9|-1.1|0.8978
90998024|NCT01617187|181879314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.0283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.8||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||1.8|0.1|0.0283
90998025|NCT01617187|181879314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.8667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.9||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||0.9|-0.7|0.8667
90998026|NCT01617187|181879314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.5044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.4||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||1.4|-0.7|0.5044
90998027|NCT01617187|181879314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.4||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 28||2.4|0.5|0.0040
90998028|NCT01617187|181879314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.1||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 28||1.1|-0.7|0.6330
90998029|NCT01617187|181879314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.2981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.7||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 28||1.7|-0.5|0.2981
90998030|NCT01617187|181879314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.6556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.1||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 35||1.1|-0.7|0.6556
90998031|NCT01617187|181879314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.2889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.4||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 35||0.4|-1.3|0.2889
90998032|NCT01617187|181879314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.9399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.0||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 35||1.0|-1.1|0.9399
90998033|NCT01617187|181879314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.8955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.1||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 42||1.1|-1.0|0.8955
90998034|NCT01617187|181879314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.3681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.5||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 42||0.5|-1.5|0.3681
90998035|NCT01617187|181879314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.8215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.1||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 42||1.1|-1.4|0.8215
90998036|NCT03337139|181879318|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \<.05.|ANCOVA|||Comparing groups on 13 week weight loss, prior to randomization.||||.98
90998037|NCT03337139|181879318|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \<.05.|ANCOVA|Controlling for Phase I weight loss||Comparing groups on 26 week weight loss||||.75
90998038|NCT03337139|181879318|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<.05.|ANCOVA|Controlling for Phase I weight loss||Comparing groups on 52 week weight loss||||.02
90998039|NCT03337139|181879319|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \<.05.|ANCOVA|||Comparing groups on 13 week MVPA||||.12
90998040|NCT03337139|181879319|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<.05.|ANCOVA|Controlling for changes in Phase I MVPA||Comparing groups on 52 week MVPA||||.16
90998041|NCT03337139|181879320|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43||||||A priori threshold for statistical significant was p\<.05.|Fisher Exact|||Comparing groups on 26 week retention rates||||.43
90998042|NCT03337139|181879320|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<.05.|Fisher Exact|||Comparing groups on 52 week retention rates.||||.48
90998043|NCT03337139|181879321|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64||||||A priori threshold of statistical significance was p\<.05.|Permutation test|Permutation test (nonparametric test) was chosen due to the violation of t-test assumptions in the data set.||Comparing groups on phone calls completed in Phase II (52 weeks)||||.64
90998044|NCT03337139|181879321|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.499||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<.05.|Permutation test|Permutation test (nonparametric test) was chosen due to the violation of t-test assumptions in the data set.||Comparing groups on text messages completed in Phase II (52 weeks)||||.499
90998045|NCT03337139|181879322|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<.05.|Permutation test|Permutation test (nonparametric test) was chosen due to the violation of t-test assumptions in the data set.||Comparing groups on TAQ scores at 52 weeks||||.86
90998046|NCT03337139|181879323|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<.05.|ANCOVA|Controlling for Phase I engagement in self-monitoring||Comparing groups on percent days of self-monitoring of weight during Phase II||||.002
90998047|NCT03337139|181879323|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<.05.|ANCOVA|Controlling for Phase I engagement in self-monitoring||Comparing groups on percent days of self-monitoring of eating during Phase II||||.001
90998048|NCT03337139|181879323|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<.05.|ANCOVA|Controlling for Phase I engagement in self-monitoring||Comparing groups on percent days of self-monitoring of physical activity during Phase II||||.25
90998049|NCT03337139|181879324|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<.05.|ANCOVA|Controlling for Phase I perceived supportive accountability||Comparing groups on changes in perceived accountability during Phase II||||.005
90998050|NCT03127852|181879387|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Poststudy between-group comparison of SF-36 physical component summary score.||||.48
90998051|NCT03127852|181879387|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Poststudy between-group comparison of SF-36 mental component summary score.||||.73
90998052|NCT03127852|181879388|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Poststudy between-group comparison of self-reported number of hospital visits.||||.02
90998053|NCT03127852|181879388|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Poststudy between-group comparison of self-reported emergency department visits.||||.12
90998054|NCT03127852|181879388|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Poststudy between-group comparison of self-reported number of clinic visits.||||.39
90998055|NCT03127852|181879388|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Poststudy between-group comparison of self-reported number of family physician visits.||||.28
90998056|NCT03127852|181879389|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Poststudy between-group comparison of SCHFI maintenance sub-scale.||||.74
90998057|NCT03127852|181879389|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Poststudy between-group comparison of SCHFI management sub-scale.||||.67
90998058|NCT03127852|181879389|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Poststudy between-group comparison of SCHFI confidence sub-scale.||||.92
90998059|NCT03127852|181879390|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Poststudy between-group comparison of MLHFQ total score.||||.67
90998060|NCT03127852|181879390|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Poststudy between-group comparison of MLHFQ physical domain score.||||.43
90998061|NCT03127852|181879390|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Poststudy between-group comparison of MLHFQ emotional domain score.||||.64
90998062|NCT03127852|181879391|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Poststudy between-group comparison of HADS anxiety sub-scale.||||.06
90998063|NCT03127852|181879391|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Poststudy between-group comparison of HADS depression sub-scale.||||.77
90998064|NCT03127852|181879392|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Poststudy between-group comparison of SEMCD6.||||.13
90998065|NCT01432457|181879409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.57||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|2.69||A Hochberg step-up procedure was used to control for the multiplicity associated with multiple active dose arms.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and site as fixed effects, and the baseline HAM-D17 score as a covariate was used to compare DVS SR dose to placebo. The test of the null hypothesis was used study-wise with alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).||2.69|0.44|0.006
90998066|NCT01432457|181879409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|3.08||A Hochberg step-up procedure was used to control for the multiplicity associated with multiple active dose arms.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and site as fixed effects, and the baseline HAM-D17 score as a covariate was used to compare DVS SR dose to placebo. The test of the null hypothesis was used study-wise with alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).||3.08|0.84|< 0.001
90998067|NCT01432457|181879410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.36||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|2.45|||ANCOVA|||To assess the sensitivity of the results to the missing data assumptions, an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model based on the last observation carried forward (LOCF) was used. The test of the null hypothesis was used study-wise with alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).||2.45|0.28|0.014
90998068|NCT01432457|181879410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.67||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.74|||ANCOVA|||To assess the sensitivity of the results to the missing data assumptions, an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model based on the last observation carried forward (LOCF) was used. The test of the null hypothesis was used study-wise with alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).||2.74|0.59|0.002
90998069|NCT01432457|181879411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|||||"p-value was obtained from the separate pair-wise Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test versus placebo for the alternative hypothesis of Row Mean Scores Differences controlling for site."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CGI-I was analyzed with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row-mean-score-difference test using ridit scores. Each DVS SR arm was separately compared to placebo controlling for site. The test of the null hypothesis was used study-wise with alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).||||0.029
90998070|NCT01432457|181879411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||"p-value was obtained from the separate pair-wise Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test versus placebo for the alternative hypothesis of Row Mean Scores Differences controlling for site."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CGI-I was analyzed with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row-mean-score-difference test using ridit scores. Each DVS SR arm was separately compared to placebo controlling for site. The test of the null hypothesis was used study-wise with alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).||||< 0.001
90998071|NCT01432457|181879412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.2||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||CGI-S was analyzed using the mixed effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and site as fixed effects, and the baseline CGI-S score as a covariate. The test of the null hypothesis was used study-wise with alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).||0.34|0.05|0.009
90998072|NCT01432457|181879412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||CGI-S was analyzed using the mixed effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and site as fixed effects, and the baseline CGI-S score as a covariate. The test of the null hypothesis was used study-wise with alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).||0.43|0.13|< 0.001
90998073|NCT01432457|181879413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.17||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.34|||ANCOVA|||To assess the sensitivity of the results to the missing data assumptions, an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model based on the last observation carried forward (LOCF) was used. The test of the null hypothesis was used study-wise with alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).||0.34|-0.01|0.062
90998074|NCT01432457|181879413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.22||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.39|||ANCOVA|||To assess the sensitivity of the results to the missing data assumptions, an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model based on the last observation carried forward (LOCF) was used. The test of the null hypothesis was used study-wise with alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).||0.39|0.04|0.014
90998075|NCT01432457|181879414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.242||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.893|1.726|||Regression, Logistic|||Response in HAM-D17 was analyzed based on a logistic regression model with treatment and site as fixed factors and the baseline HAM-D17 total score as a covariate. The test of the null hypothesis was used study-wise with alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).||1.726|0.893|0.198
90998076|NCT01432457|181879414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.378||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.995|1.91|||Regression, Logistic|||Response in HAM-D17 was analyzed based on a logistic regression model with treatment and site as fixed factors and the baseline HAM-D17 total score as a covariate. The test of the null hypothesis was used study-wise with alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).||1.910|0.995|0.054
90998077|NCT01432457|181879415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.105||||0.615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.749|1.631|||Regression, Logistic|||Remission in HAM-D17 was analyzed based on a logistic regression model with treatment and site as fixed factors and the baseline HAM-D17 total score as a covariate. The test of the null hypothesis was used study-wise with alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).||1.631|0.749|0.615
90998078|NCT01432457|181879415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.412||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.969|2.057|||Regression, Logistic|||Remission in HAM-D17 was analyzed based on a logistic regression model with treatment and site as fixed factors and the baseline HAM-D17 total score as a covariate. The test of the null hypothesis was used study-wise with alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).||2.057|0.969|0.072
90998079|NCT01432457|181879416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.09||||0.837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.8||p-value was obtained from the ANCOVA model as change from baseline = Treatment + Site + Gender + Baseline|ANCOVA|||The treatment by gender interaction was first tested using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, site, gender, and treatment by gender as factors and the baseline total score as a covariate. The test of the null hypothesis was used study-wise with alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).||0.80|-0.98|0.837
90998080|NCT01432457|181879416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.32||||0.471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|0.55||p-value was obtained from the ANCOVA model as change from baseline = Treatment + Site + Gender + Baseline|ANCOVA|||The treatment by gender interaction was first tested using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, site, gender, and treatment by gender as factors and the baseline total score as a covariate. The test of the null hypothesis was used study-wise with alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).||0.55|-1.19|0.471
90998081|NCT01090102|181879425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63||||||Significant at p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.63
90998082|NCT01090102|181879426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77||||||significant at p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.77
90998083|NCT03518034|181879432|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority margin in terms of HR is 1.5.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.17|||||HR of AndroGel to placebo and 95% CI were estimated from Cox proportional-hazards regression model, with adjustment for pre-existing CVD.|The hazard ratio (HR) and 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a Cox proportional-hazards regression model, with adjustment for pre-existing cardiovascular disease (CVD) status. In this analysis, the time to event for a participant is defined as the time from randomization to the first component event of MACE. If a subject does not experience a MACE during the study, the time is right-censored at the time of participant's last available follow-up observation.||1.17|0.78|
90998084|NCT03518034|181879434|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.21|||||HR of AndroGel to placebo and 2-sided 95% CI were estimated from a Cox proportional-hazards regression model with adjustment of pre-existing CVD status.|The HR and 2-sided 95% CI were calculated using a Cox proportional-hazards regression model, with adjustment for pre-existing CVD status. In this analysis, the time to event for a participant is defined as the time from randomization to the first component event of CV safety endpoint. If a participant does not experience a CV safety endpoint during the study, the time is right-censored at the time of participant's last available follow-up observation.||1.21|0.86|
90998085|NCT03518034|181879435|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|6.77|||||Discrete-time proportional hazards model with event time intervals based on scheduled visits, and adjusting for prior cardiovascular disease (CVD).|The high grade prostate cancer endpoint was analyzed using a discrete time proportional hazard regression model with event time intervals based on scheduled visits, and adjusting for pre-existing CVD status. The HR of AndroGel to Placebo and its 2-sided 95% CI were provided.||6.77|0.39|
90998086|NCT03518034|181879436|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011||||||P-value is derived from the omnibus likelihood-ratio chi-square test of the current model versus the null (intercept) model using linear mixed regression model.|linear mixed regression model|Omnibus likelihood-ratio chi-square test from linear mixed regression model||A linear mixed regression model was used to analyze the change in PDQ-Q4 from baseline to months 6, 12, and 24, with the dependent variable being the change in PDQ-Q4 score. The model included fixed effects for treatment, visit, and the interaction between treatment and visit, while adjusting for baseline PDQ-Q4 score and pre-existing CVD status. An unstructured covariance matrix was used to account for correlations among repeated measures within-subject.||||0.011
91045633|NCT00442546|181977275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.296|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.859||0.742||95.0|-1.806|2.399|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||2.399|-1.806|0.7420
90998087|NCT03518034|181879436|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.79|||||LS mean difference (AndroGel - Placebo) at month 6 was derived from linear mixed regression model.|Month 6 (results were derived from a linear mixed regression model that had a dependent variable of the change in PDQ-Q4 from baseline to months 6, 12, and 24. The model included fixed effects for treatment, visit, and the interaction between treatment and visit, while adjusting for baseline PDQ-Q4 score and pre-existing CV disease status. Additionally, an unstructured covariance matrix was used to account for correlations among repeated measures within participants).||0.79|0.19|
90998088|NCT03518034|181879436|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.83|||||LS mean difference (AndroGel - Placebo) at month 12 was derived from linear mixed regression model.|Month 12 (results were derived from a linear mixed regression model that had a dependent variable of the change in PDQ-Q4 from baseline to months 6, 12, and 24. The model included fixed effects for treatment, visit, and the interaction between treatment and visit, while adjusting for baseline PDQ-Q4 score and pre-existing CV disease status. Additionally, an unstructured covariance matrix was used to account for correlations among repeated measures within participants).||0.83|0.11|
90998089|NCT03518034|181879436|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.96|||||LS mean difference (AndroGel - Placebo) at month 24 was derived from linear mixed regression model.|Month 24 (results were derived from a linear mixed regression model that had a dependent variable of the change in PDQ-Q4 from baseline to months 6, 12, and 24. The model included fixed effects for treatment, visit, and the interaction between treatment and visit, while adjusting for baseline PDQ-Q4 score and pre-existing CV disease status. Additionally, an unstructured covariance matrix was used to account for correlations among repeated measures within participants).||0.96|-0.01|
90998090|NCT03518034|181879437|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|3.86||||||Month 6 risk ratio of remission of LG-PDD in the AndroGel versus placebo group was estimated by a repeated measures generalized estimating equations (GEE) Poisson regression model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-visit interaction, pre- existing CVD, and an unstructured working correlation matrix to account for repeated measures at multiple visits.||3.86|0.96|
90998091|NCT03518034|181879437|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|3.63||||||Month 12 risk ratio of remission of LG-PDD in the AndroGel versus placebo group was estimated by a repeated measures generalized estimating equations (GEE) Poisson regression model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-visit interaction, pre- existing CVD, and an unstructured working correlation matrix to account for repeated measures at multiple visits.||3.63|0.64|
90998092|NCT03518034|181879437|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.94||||||Month 24 risk ratio of remission of LG-PDD in the AndroGel versus placebo group was estimated by a repeated measures generalized estimating equations (GEE) Poisson regression model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-visit interaction, pre- existing CVD, and an unstructured working correlation matrix to account for repeated measures at multiple visits.||1.94|0.42|
90998093|NCT03518034|181879437|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.197||||||The omnibus test p value is a test of the null hypothesis of no difference between AndroGel and placebo groups across all time points.|GEE Poisson regression model|||Risk ratio of remission of LG-PDD in the TRT versus placebo group was estimated by a repeated measures generalized estimating equations (GEE) Poisson regression model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-visit interaction, pre- existing CVD, and an unstructured working correlation matrix to account for repeated measures at multiple visits.||||0.197
90998094|NCT03518034|181879439|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.97|||||Cox proportional-hazards model.|The HR and 2-sided 95% CI were calculated using a Cox proportional-hazards regression model, with adjustment for pre-existing CVD status. In this analysis, the time to event for a subject is defined as the time from randomization to the first occurrence of a clinical fracture. If a subject does not experience a clinic fracture during the study, the follow-up time is right-censored at the time of subject's last available follow-up observation.||1.97|1.04|
90998095|NCT03518034|181879440|OTHER|||||||0.002||||||p-value is from an omnibus likelihood-ratio chi-square test of the current model versus the null (intercept) model using repeated measure log-binomial regression.|omnibus likelihood-ratio chi-square test|||Repeated measures log-binomial regression with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and adjusted for pre-existing CVD, and an unstructured covariance matrix to account for correlations among repeated measures within-subject.||||0.002
91045634|NCT00442546|181977276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.208|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.329||0.5299||95.0|-0.458|0.874|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Discharge||0.874|-0.458|0.5299
91045635|NCT00442546|181977276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.355|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.2442||95.0|-0.964|0.253|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Discharge||0.253|-0.964|0.2442
90998096|NCT03518034|181879441|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.494||||||P-value is from an omnibus likelihood-ratio chi-square test of the current model versus the null (intercept) model using repeated measure log-binomial regression.|Repeated measures log-binomial regr.|||The risk ratio of progression to diabetes in the AndroGel versus placebo group was estimated by a repeated measures log-binomial regression with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-visit interaction, and pre-existing CVD, and an unstructured covariance matrix to account for correlations among repeated measures within-subject.||||0.494
90998097|NCT03518034|181879442|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.23|||||Cox proportional-hazards model adjusting for prior CVD.|||1.23|0.78|
90998098|NCT03518034|181879443|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.62|||||Cox proportional-hazards model adjusting for prior CVD.|||1.62|0.76|
90998099|NCT03518034|181879444|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.32|||||Cox proportional-hazards model adjusting for prior CVD.|||2.32|0.92|
90998100|NCT03518034|181879445|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.51|||||Cox proportional-hazards model adjusting for prior CVD.|||1.51|0.56|
90998101|NCT03518034|181879446|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|2.31|||||Discrete-time proportional hazards model with event time intervals based on scheduled visits, and adjusting for prior CVD.|||2.31|0.55|
90998102|NCT03518034|181879447|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|2.42|||||Discrete-time proportional hazards model with event time intervals based on scheduled visits, and adjusting for prior CVD.|||2.42|0.47|
90998103|NCT03518034|181879448|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|2.41|||||Discrete-time proportional hazards model with event time intervals based on scheduled visits, and adjusting for prior CVD.|||2.41|0.65|
90998104|NCT03518034|181879449|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.54|||||Discrete-time proportional hazards model with event time intervals based on scheduled visits, and adjusting for prior CVD.|||1.54|0.87|
90998105|NCT03518034|181879450|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|3.84|||||Discrete-time proportional hazards model with event time intervals based on scheduled visits, and adjusting for prior CVD.|||3.84|0.95|
90998106|NCT02007252|181879493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.1037|||||||ANCOVA|||Month 3||||= 0.1037
90998107|NCT02007252|181879493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.4806|||||||ANCOVA|||Month 12||||= 0.4806
91045636|NCT00442546|181977276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.755||0.5226||95.0|-1.181|2.181|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||2.181|-1.181|0.5226
91045637|NCT00442546|181977276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.167|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.893||0.8557||95.0|-2.156|1.823|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||1.823|-2.156|0.8557
90998108|NCT03325556|181879496|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.353|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3676||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.172|0.727||1-sided p-value reported. The protocol-defined O'Brien Flemming stopping boundary for the planned IA was a 1-sided p-value equal to 0.0033|Regression, Cox||Model included covariates for Treatment group, dementia subtype, and region, and robust sandwich-type variance estimator.|||0.727|0.172|0.0023
90998109|NCT03325556|181879497|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.452|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2812||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.261|0.785||1-sided p-value|Regression, Cox||Model included covariates for Treatment group, dementia subtype, and region, and robust sandwich-type variance estimator.|||0.785|0.261|0.0024
90998110|NCT00762268|181879504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||1.0
90998111|NCT00762268|181879505|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Change from intake scores.||||0.05
90998112|NCT00762268|181879506|OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.05
90998113|NCT05034614|181879507|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.75
90998114|NCT03892707|181879513|SUPERIORITY|The between-group comparison on primary endpoint - change from baseline in pain intensity as measured on 0-10 points NRS scale at 10 days after the start of treatment was performed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). The difference between pain intensity at 10 days after the start of treatment and baseline (V3-V1) as response variable, treatment group as fixed factor and baseline pain intensity as a covariate was included into the model.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||"Since the superiority of one treatment over the other is investigated and taking into consideration that smaller negative values of the primary variable correspond to the greater reduction of pain, the statistical hypotheses are:~Null hypothesis (H0):~H0: μ2 - μ1 ≥ 0~Alternative hypothesis (HA):~HA: μ2 - μ1 \< 0, where μ1 и μ2 are the mean changes from baseline in pain intensity for (1) modern NSAIDs therapy and for (2) modern NSAIDs + Milgamma\\ Milgamma compositum therapy, correspondingly."||||<0.001
90998115|NCT03892707|181879514|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||Changes from baseline in pain intensity measured on 0-10 points NRS scale at 5, 24 and 38 days after were compared between groups using ANCOVA models similar to those used for the analysis of the primary variable.||||<0.001
90998116|NCT03892707|181879515|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90998117|NCT03892707|181879516|SUPERIORITY|Between-group comparison was carried out using logistic regression with treatment group as fixed factor and baseline pain intensity as a covariate. Treatment effect was tested using the corresponding p-value.|||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||For Visit 2 (5 days after the start of treatment) relief in pain intensity was defined as 100%\*(pain intensity at baseline - pain intensity at Visit 2)/ pain intensity at baseline. The denominator for the proportion of patients was the number of patients with available pain intensity measurements after imputation using Last observation carried forward (LOCF) method.||||<0.001
90998118|NCT03892707|181879516|SUPERIORITY|Between-group comparison was carried out using logistic regression with treatment group as fixed factor and baseline pain intensity as a covariate. Treatment effect was tested using the corresponding p-value.|||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||For Visit 3 (10 days after the start of treatment) relief in pain intensity was defined as 100%\*(pain intensity at baseline - pain intensity at Visit 3)/ pain intensity at baseline. The denominator for the proportion of patients was the number of patients with available pain intensity measurements after imputation using Last observation carried forward (LOCF) method.||||<0.001
90998119|NCT03892707|181879516|SUPERIORITY|Between-group comparison was carried out using logistic regression with treatment group as fixed factor and baseline pain intensity as a covariate. Treatment effect was tested using the corresponding p-value.||||||0.061|||||||Regression, Logistic|||For Visit 4 (24 days after the start of treatment) relief in pain intensity was defined as 100%\*(pain intensity at baseline - pain intensity at Visit 4)/ pain intensity at baseline. The denominator for the proportion of patients was the number of patients with available pain intensity measurements after imputation using Last observation carried forward (LOCF) method.||||0.061
90998120|NCT03892707|181879517|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline in pain-related disability as measured by Roland Morris disability questionnaire at 10 days after the start of treatment was compared between groups using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group as fixed factor and baseline value disability score as a covariate.||||<0.001
90998121|NCT03892707|181879518|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||Episode of pain flare-up was defined as presence of at least 1 day with pain following a period without pain lasting at least 4 weeks . The denominator for the proportion was the number of FAS patients who had at least one pain-free period with approximately 4 weeks duration registered during the study.||||<0.001
90998122|NCT03892707|181879519|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|28.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|60.7||||||Difference in proportion of patients with at least one pain flare-up resulting in consultancy with physician||60.7|-3.6|
90998123|NCT03892707|181879519|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-17.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.6|17.4||||||Difference in proportion of patients with at least one pain flare-up resulting in disruption of daily activity||17.4|-51.6|
90998124|NCT03892707|181879519|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|25.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|55.5||||||Difference in proportion of patients with at least one pain flare-up resulting in NSAIDs intake||55.5|-4.1|
90998125|NCT03892707|181879520|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.986|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||NSAIDs intake during the study was analyzed. In order to calculate the total number of treatment days with NSAIDs, first, intersecting or adjacent records were collapsed, irrespective of the specific drug used; the duration of each of the resulting intake periods was determined as (End date - Start date + 1) and, finally, all individual duration values were summed up. In case medication intake was ongoing at the end of study, end date was imputed by the date of study completion.||||0.986
90998126|NCT03892707|181879523|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.921|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of patient satisfaction with treatment between treatment groups after 5 days since the start of study treatment.||||0.921
90998127|NCT03892707|181879523|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.051|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of patient satisfaction with treatment between treatment groups after 10 days since the start of study treatment||||0.051
90998128|NCT03892707|181879523|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.651|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of patient satisfaction with treatment between treatment groups after 38 days since the start of study treatment||||0.651
90998129|NCT03892707|181879523|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.106|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of patient satisfaction with treatment between treatment groups after 3 months since the start of study treatment||||0.106
90998130|NCT01807949|181879544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|2.62||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|4.06|||MMRM|||Analysis was performed using mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) model including treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects with adjustments for sex (male versus female), age group at baseline (less than \[\<\] 18 versus greater than equal to \[\>=\]18 years old), and percent predicted FEV1 severity at Screening (\<70 versus \>=70).||4.06|1.18|0.0004
90998131|NCT01807949|181879544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|4.44|||MMRM|||Analysis was performed using MMRM model, as described in Statistical Analysis 1.||4.44|1.56|<0.0001
90998132|NCT01807949|181879545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.42||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.86|6.98|||MMRM|||Analysis was performed using MMRM model including treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects with adjustments for sex (male versus female), age group at baseline (\<18 versus \>=18 years old), and percent predicted FEV1 severity at Screening (\<70 versus \>=70).||6.98|1.86|0.0007
90998133|NCT01807949|181879545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.69|7.81|||MMRM|||Analysis was performed using MMRM model, as described in Statistical Analysis 1.||7.81|2.69|<0.0001
90998134|NCT01807949|181879546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.59|||MMRM|||Analysis was performed using MMRM model including treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects with adjustments for sex (male versus female), age group at baseline (\<18 versus \>=18 years old), percent predicted FEV1 severity at Screening (\<70 versus \>=70), and baseline BMI.||0.59|0.23|<0.0001
90998135|NCT01807949|181879546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.36||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.54|||MMRM|||Analysis was performed using MMRM model, as described in Statistical Analysis 1.||0.54|0.17|0.0001
90998136|NCT01807949|181879547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.21||||0.1651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|5.33|||MMRM|||Analysis was performed using MMRM model including treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects with adjustments for sex (male versus female), age group at baseline (\<18 versus \>=18 years old), percent predicted FEV1 severity at Screening (\<70 versus \>=70), and baseline CFQ-R respiratory domain score.||5.33|-0.91|0.1651
90998137|NCT01807949|181879547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.85||||0.0736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|5.98|||MMRM|||Analysis was performed using MMRM model, as described in Statistical Analysis 1.||5.98|-0.27|0.0736
90998138|NCT01807949|181879548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.9568|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8829|4.6431||This test is considered nominally significant because a hierarchical procedure was used and was broken prior to this test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds Ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (Cis) are Mantel-Haenszel estimates. P values are from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by sex (male versus female), age group at baseline (\<18 versus \>=18 years old), and percent predicted FEV1 severity at Screening (\<70 versus \>=70).||4.6431|1.8829|<0.0001
90998139|NCT01807949|181879548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3834||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5234|3.7286||This test is considered nominally significant because a hierarchical procedure was used and was broken prior to this test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis was performed as described in Statistical Analysis 1.||3.7286|1.5234|0.0001
90998140|NCT01807949|181879549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Event Rate Ratio|0.6912||||0.0116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5187|0.9209||This test is considered nominally significant because a hierarchical procedure was used and was broken prior to this test.|Negative Binomial Regression|||Analysis was performed using regression analysis for a negative binomial distribution with sex (male versus female), age group at baseline (\<18 versus \>=18 years old), and percent predicted FEV1 severity at Screening (\<70 versus \>=70) as covariates with the logarithm of time on study as the offset.||0.9209|0.5187|0.0116
90998141|NCT01807949|181879549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Event Rate Ratio|0.5659||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4191|0.7641||This test is considered nominally significant because a hierarchical procedure was used and was broken prior to this test.|Negative Binomial Regression|||Analysis was performed as described in Statistical Analysis 1.||0.7641|0.4191|0.0002
90998142|NCT01807949|181879550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.64|||MMRM|||Analysis was performed using MMRM model including treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects with adjustments for sex (male versus female), age group at baseline (\<18 versus \>=18 years old), percent predicted FEV1 severity at Screening (\<70 versus \>=70), and baseline weight.||1.64|0.62|<0.0001
90998143|NCT01807949|181879550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.95||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.46|||MMRM|||Analysis was performed as described in Statistical Analysis 1.||1.46|0.43|0.0003
90998144|NCT01807949|181879551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2313||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1037|0.3589|||MMRM|||Analysis was performed using MMRM model including treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects with adjustments for sex (male versus female), age group at baseline (\<18 versus \>=18 years old), percent predicted FEV1 severity at Screening (\<70 versus \>=70), and baseline BMI z-score.||0.3589|0.1037|0.0005
90998145|NCT01807949|181879551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2217||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0961|0.3473|||MMRM|||Analysis was performed as described in Statistical Analysis 1.||0.3473|0.0961|0.0006
90998146|NCT01807949|181879552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.716||||0.0384|TWO_SIDED||||||Cox Proportional Hazard Regression|||Analysis was performed using Cox proportional hazard regression, time is the time-to-first event or censoring, with adjustment for sex (male versus female), age group at baseline (\<18 versus \>=18 years old), and percent predicted FEV1 severity at Screening (\<70 versus \>=70).||||0.0384
90998147|NCT01807949|181879552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.533||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED||||||Cox Proportional Hazard Regression|||Analysis was performed as described in Statistical Analysis 1.||||0.0003
90998148|NCT01807949|181879553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6373||||0.0393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.416|0.9764|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||OR and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) are Mantel-Haenszel estimates. P values are from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by sex (male versus female), age group at baseline (\<18 versus \>=18 years old), and percent predicted FEV1 severity at Screening (\<70 versus \>=70).||0.9764|0.4160|0.0393
91045638|NCT00442546|181977276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.119|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.024||0.324||95.0|-3.751|1.512|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||1.512|-3.751|0.3240
90998149|NCT01807949|181879553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4429||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2863|0.6851|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis was performed as described in Statistical Analysis 1.||0.6851|0.2863|0.0002
90998150|NCT01807949|181879554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.0028||||0.7679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0211|0.0156|||MMRM|||Analysis was performed using MMRM model including treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects with adjustments for sex (male versus female), age group at baseline (\<18 versus \>=18 years old), percent predicted FEV1 severity at Screening (\<70 versus \>=70), and baseline EQ-5D-3L index score.||0.0156|-0.0211|0.7679
90998151|NCT01807949|181879554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.0009||||0.9214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0192|0.0174|||MMRM|||Analysis was performed as described in Statistical Analysis 1.||0.0174|-0.0192|0.9214
90998152|NCT01807949|181879555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.4||||0.1034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|5.3|||MMRM|||Analysis was performed using MMRM model including treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects with adjustments for sex (male versus female), age group at baseline (\<18 versus \>=18 years old), percent predicted FEV1 severity at Screening (\<70 versus \>=70), and baseline EQ-5D-3L VAS score.||5.3|-0.5|0.1034
90998153|NCT01807949|181879555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.3||||0.0262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|6.2|||MMRM|||Analysis was performed as described in Statistical Analysis 1.||6.2|0.4|0.0262
91045639|NCT00442546|181977276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.075|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.139||0.9503||95.0|-2.853|3.003|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||3.003|-2.853|0.9503
90998154|NCT01807949|181879556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|8.64||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.77|13.51|||MMRM|||Effectiveness: analysis was performed using MMRM model including treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects with adjustments for sex (male versus female), age group at baseline (\<18 versus \>=18 years old), percent predicted FEV1 severity at Screening (\<70 versus \>=70), and baseline TSQM effectiveness score.||13.51|3.77|0.0005
91045640|NCT00442546|181977276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.833|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.858||0.3618||95.0|-6.379|2.712|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||2.712|-6.379|0.3618
91045641|NCT00442546|181977276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.333|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.896||0.7226||95.0|-1.859|2.525|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||2.525|-1.859|0.7226
91045642|NCT00442546|181977277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2473||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Discharge||||0.2473
91045643|NCT00442546|181977277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0239||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Discharge||||0.0239
91045644|NCT00442546|181977277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6118||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||||0.6118
91045645|NCT00442546|181977277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.673||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||||0.6730
90998155|NCT01807949|181879556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|11.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.75|16.48|||MMRM|||Effectiveness: analysis was performed as described in Statistical Analysis 1.||16.48|6.75|<0.0001
90998156|NCT01807949|181879556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.18||||0.0403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.21|-0.14|||MMRM|||Side Effects: analysis was performed using MMRM model including treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects with adjustments for sex (male versus female), age group at baseline (\<18 versus \>=18 years old), percent predicted FEV1 severity at Screening (\<70 versus \>=70), and baseline TSQM side effects score.||-0.14|-6.21|0.0403
91045646|NCT00442546|181977277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5954||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||||0.5954
91045647|NCT00442546|181977277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7784||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||||0.7784
91045648|NCT00442546|181977277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7293||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6/ET||||0.7293
91045649|NCT00442546|181977277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5202||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6/ET||||0.5202
91045650|NCT00442546|181977278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1509||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Month 3||||0.1509
91045651|NCT00442546|181977278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3822||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Month 3||||0.3822
91045652|NCT00442546|181977278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2825||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Month 6||||0.2825
91045653|NCT00442546|181977278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7733||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Month 6||||0.7733
91045654|NCT01557582|181977287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||EDV percent difference|4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.24|7.56|||||Mean percent difference and 95% CI for EDV|||7.56|2.24|
90998157|NCT01807949|181879556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.29||||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.31|-1.28|||MMRM|||Side Effects: analysis was performed as described in Statistical Analysis 1.||-1.28|-7.31|0.0054
90998158|NCT01807949|181879556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.07|4.07|||MMRM|||Convenience: analysis was performed using MMRM model including treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects with adjustments for sex (male versus female), age group at baseline (\<18 versus \>=18 years old), percent predicted FEV1 severity at Screening (\<70 versus \>=70), and baseline TSQM convenience score.||4.07|-4.07|1.0000
90998159|NCT01807949|181879556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.32||||0.8777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.74|4.37|||MMRM|||Convenience: analysis was performed as described in Statistical Analysis 1.||4.37|-3.74|0.8777
90998160|NCT01807949|181879556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.64||||0.0668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|9.61|||MMRM|||Global Satisfaction: analysis was performed using MMRM model including treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects with adjustments for sex (male versus female), age group at baseline (\<18 versus \>=18 years old), percent predicted FEV1 severity at Screening (\<70 versus \>=70), and baseline TSQM global satisfaction score.||9.61|-0.32|0.0668
90998161|NCT01807949|181879556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.16||||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.23|12.08|||MMRM|||Global Satisfaction: analysis was performed as described in Statistical Analysis 1.||12.08|2.23|0.0045
90998162|NCT00881361|181879630|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
90998163|NCT02141217|181879634|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of non-inferiority was based on Farrington and Manning method. The upper limit of two-sided 95% confidence interval of less than 10 % provide enough evidence to show the non-inferiority between the treatment arms.|Treatment Difference (percentage)|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|8.0||||||||8.0|-4.9|
90998164|NCT02141217|181879635|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of non-inferiority was based on Farrington and Manning method. The upper limit of two-sided 95% confidence interval of less than 10 % provide enough evidence to show the non-inferiority between the treatment arms.|Treatment Difference (percentage)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|7.4||||||||7.4|-5.6|
90998165|NCT02141217|181879636|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of non-inferiority was based on Farrington and Manning method. The upper limit of two-sided 95% confidence interval of less than 10 % provide enough evidence to show the non-inferiority between the treatment arms.|Treatment Difference (percentage)|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|9.0||||||||9.0|-4.4|
90998166|NCT01899677|181879658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32|||||||Mann whitney U|||Mann Whitney U test was used to compare cytokine levels between groups.||||0.32
90998167|NCT01899677|181879659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73|||||||Mann whitney U|||||||0.73
90998168|NCT01899677|181879660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66|||||||Mann whitney U|||||||0.66
90998169|NCT01899677|181879661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76|||||||Mann whitney U|||||||0.76
91045655|NCT01557582|181977287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ESV percent difference|1.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|4.76|||||Mean percent difference and 95% CI for ESV|||4.76|-1.17|
91045656|NCT01557582|181977287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||EF percent difference|2.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|3.33|||||Mean percent difference and 95% CI for EF|||3.33|0.72|
91045657|NCT04947150|181977290|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.255||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full (Wave 1) sample.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA were used.||||||.255
91045658|NCT04947150|181977291|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full (Wave 1) sample.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||.560
91045659|NCT04947150|181977292|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.319||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full (Wave 1) sample.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||.319
91045660|NCT04947150|181977293|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.032||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full (Wave 1) sample.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||.032
91045661|NCT04947150|181977294|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.044||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full (Wave 1) sample.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||.044
91045662|NCT04947150|181977295|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full (Wave 1) sample.|ANOVA|Repeated Measures ANOVA||||||.010
91045663|NCT04947150|181977296|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.073||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full (Wave 1) sample.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||.073
91045664|NCT04947150|181977297|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.872||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full (Wave 1) sample.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||.872
91045665|NCT04947150|181977298|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.145||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full (Wave 2) sample.|ANOVA|Repeated Measures ANOVA||||||.145
91045666|NCT04947150|181977299|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.173||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full (Wave 2) sample.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||.173
91045667|NCT04947150|181977300|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full (Wave 2) sample.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||.012
91045668|NCT04947150|181977301|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full (Wave 2) sample.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||.008
91045669|NCT04947150|181977302|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full (Wave 2) sample.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||<.001
91045670|NCT04947150|181977303|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full (Wave 2) sample.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||<.001
91045671|NCT04947150|181977304|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full (Wave 2) sample.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||<.001
91045672|NCT04947150|181977305|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.382||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full (Wave 2) sample.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||.382
91045673|NCT04947150|181977306|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full sample.|ANOVA|Repeated Measures ANOVA||||||<.001
91045674|NCT04947150|181977307|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.178||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full sample.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||.178
91045675|NCT04947150|181977308|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.081||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full sample.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||.081
91045676|NCT04947150|181977309|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.343||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full sample.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||.343
91045677|NCT04947150|181977310|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.369||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full sample.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||.369
91045678|NCT04947150|181977311|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.055||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full sample.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||.055
91045679|NCT04947150|181977314|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full sample.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||.001
91045680|NCT04947150|181977315|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.079||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full sample.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||.079
91045681|NCT04947150|181977316|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.581||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full sample.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||.581
91045682|NCT04947150|181977317|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full sample.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||<.001
91045683|NCT04947150|181977318|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full sample.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||<.001
91045684|NCT04947150|181977319|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full sample.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||<.001
91045685|NCT04947150|181977320|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full sample.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||<.001
91045686|NCT04947150|181977324|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired Sample T-test||||||<.05
91045687|NCT04947150|181977326|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired samples t-test||||||.006
91045688|NCT04947150|181977327|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired samples t-test||||||<.001
91045689|NCT04947150|181977328|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired samples t-test||||||.220
91045690|NCT04947150|181977329|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.623|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired samples t-test||||||.623
91045691|NCT04947150|181977330|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.577||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full sample.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||.577
91045692|NCT04947150|181977331|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full sample.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||<.001
91045693|NCT04947150|181977332|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full sample.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||<.001
91045694|NCT04947150|181977333|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full sample.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||.008
91045695|NCT04947150|181977334|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.601||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full sample.|ANOVA|Repeated Measures ANOVA||||||.601
91045696|NCT04947150|181977335|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.088||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full sample.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||.088
91045697|NCT04947150|181977336|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full sample.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||.210
91045698|NCT04947150|181977337|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full sample.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||.060
91045699|NCT04947150|181977338|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full sample.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||.370
91045700|NCT04947150|181977339|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.556||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full sample.|ANOVA|Repeated Measures ANOVA||||||.556
91045701|NCT04947150|181977340|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.913||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full sample.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||.913
91045702|NCT04947150|181977341|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.241||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full sample.|ANOVA|Repeated Measures ANOVA||||||.241
91045703|NCT02449473|181977342|SUPERIORITY|The model included treatment group as fixed effect and baseline log-transformed airway submucosal eosinophils as a continuous covariate. No interaction terms were included in the model. The analysis was performed using log-transformed data. All group comparisons from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model were based on Type III sums of squares.|Least square (LS) geometric mean ratio|1.43||||0.3862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|3.27|||ANCOVA|||Comparison of change from baseline, expressed as a ratio, in airway submucosal eosinophils; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo. The null hypothesis was that the change in airway submucosal eosinophils at Week 12 on tralokinumab was equal to the corresponding change on placebo.||3.27|0.63|0.3862
91045704|NCT02449473|181977343|SUPERIORITY|The repeated measures analysis included treatment group, baseline log-transformed eosinophils and visit as fixed effects. Treatment-by-visit interaction was also included. The analysis was performed using log-transformed data. A restricted maximum likelihood (REML) approach was used. An unstructured variance-covariance matrix was used to model the within-subject errors.|LS geometric mean ratio|1.21||||0.0546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.48|||Repeated measures analysis|||Comparison of change from baseline, expressed as a ratio, in blood eosinophil count; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.||1.48|1.00|0.0546
91045705|NCT02449473|181977344|SUPERIORITY|The repeated measures analysis included treatment group, baseline log-transformed differential sputum eosinophils and visit as fixed effects. Treatment-by-visit interaction was also included. The analysis was performed using log-transformed data. A REML approach was used. An unstructured variance-covariance matrix was used to model the within-subject errors.|LS geometric mean ratio|0.57||||0.6334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|6.0|||Repeated measures analysis|||Comparison of change from baseline, expressed as a ratio, in differential sputum eosinophils; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.||6.00|0.06|0.6334
91045706|NCT02449473|181977345|SUPERIORITY|The repeated measures analysis included treatment group, baseline log-transformed blood free ECP and visit as fixed effects. Treatment-by-visit interaction was also included. The analysis was performed using log-transformed data. A REML approach was used. An unstructured variance-covariance matrix was used to model the within-subject errors.|LS geometric mean ratio|1.11||||0.3769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.4|||Repeated measures analysis|||Comparison of change from baseline, expressed as a ratio, in blood free ECP concentration; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.||1.40|0.88|0.3769
91045707|NCT02449473|181977346|SUPERIORITY|The repeated measures analysis included treatment group, baseline log-transformed sputum free ECP and visit as fixed effects. Treatment-by-visit interaction was also included. The analysis was performed using log-transformed data. A REML approach was used. An unstructured variance-covariance matrix was used to model the within-subject errors.|LS geometric mean ratio|0.49||||0.1126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.2|||Repeated measures analysis|||Comparison of change from baseline, expressed as a ratio, in sputum free ECP concentration; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.||1.20|0.20|0.1126
90998170|NCT02151682|181879672|NON_INFERIORITY|A logistic regression model was fitted to the response using baseline pain, age group, treatment, and underlying pain condition as explanatory variables, followed by a Farrington-Manning test for non-inferiority, based on Full Analysis Set.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.06||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.19|0.06||The p-value is based on Farrington-Manning variance estimator using a pre-specified non-inferiority margin of -0.2. A 1-sided alpha of 0.1 was used. A p-value \<0.1 represents non-inferiority.|Farrington-Manning test|Non-inferiority of tapentadol prolonged-release versus morphine prolonged-release has been demonstrated.|A confidence interval for the risk difference (RD) completely above the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of -0.2 represents non-inferiority of tapentadol prolonged-release versus morphine prolonged-release.|||0.06|-0.19|0.0790
90998171|NCT02988219|181879691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3861|||||||Chi-squared|||Bradycardia during surgery||||0.3861
90998172|NCT02988219|181879691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2591|||||||Chi-squared|||No bradycardia observed in the perioperative period||||0.2591
90998173|NCT02988219|181879692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.597|||||||Chi-squared|||Arrhythmia before surgery||||0.597
90998174|NCT02988219|181879692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||Chi-squared|||arrhythmia during surgery||||0.4
90998175|NCT02988219|181879692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6544|||||||Chi-squared|||arrhythmia after surgery||||0.6544
90998176|NCT02988219|181879692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.077|||||||Chi-squared|||long QTc \> 0.45s after surgery||||0.077
90998177|NCT02988219|181879692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0174|||||||Chi-squared|||long QTc \> 0.24 s in the perioperative time||||0.0174
90998178|NCT01522443|181879693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.773|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) was stratified by the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status and prior cabazitaxel use.||||||0.773
90998179|NCT01522443|181879694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) Test was stratified by baslined Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status and prior cabazitaxel use.||||||<0.001
90998180|NCT01522443|181879695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.1|||Log Rank|The Log-Rank Test was stratified by baseline Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status and prior cabazitaxel use.||||1.10|0.44|0.121
90998181|NCT00067470|181879743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|92.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|40.0||0.025||95.0|11.0|172.0|||Regression, Linear|||||172|11|0.025
90998182|NCT00067470|181879744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9||0.053||95.0|-0.1|11.5|||Regression, Linear|The raw data were adjusted for the observed differences in baseline between the groups and fitted to a longitudinal repeated measures linear model.||||11.5|-0.1|0.053
90998183|NCT01192204|181879858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical analyses reflect percent change intrapatient pre versus post histologic grade scores|Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test|We used a 2-tailed Mann Whitney U test to evaluate these data.||Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test (intrapatient pre versus post treatment scores)||||0.048
90998184|NCT01192204|181879858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical analyses reflect percent change pre versus post histologic grade scores|Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test|||Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test (pre versus post treatment scores)||||0.50
90998185|NCT01192204|181879859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test|specifically, we used the Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test.||||||<0.002
90998186|NCT01192204|181879859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test|||||||0.036
90998187|NCT01192204|181879860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||2-tailed unpaired t test|||||||0.002
90998188|NCT01192204|181879860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||two-tailed unpaired t test|||||||0.16
90998189|NCT02146248|181879861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4795||||||The two-tailed P value equals 0.4795|McNemar|||McNemar paired. Hypothesis is no change in tubal patency status. All subjects know to have bilateral patency in one of the exams during natural cycle||||0.4795
90998190|NCT00425100|181879866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.1|<|0.0001||95.0|-3.2|-2.7||All paired t-tests were performed with a two-sided test at significance level of 5%. Efficacy was claimed only when all 3 primary diary endpoints demonstrated statistical significance in change from baseline to Week 12.|2-sided paired t-test|paired t-test comparing baseline with post-baseline values||Open-label study with statistical comparison between baseline and Week 12. Null hypothesis: The mean change from baseline in number of micturition episodes per 24 hours at Week 12 is equal to 0. The sample size was based on a statistical power for each of the three individual diary endpoints of .95 which would yield an overall power of 85%.||-2.7|-3.2|<0.0001
90998191|NCT00425100|181879867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.4|<|0.0001||95.0|-2.0|-1.4||All paired t-tests were performed with a two-sided test at significance level of 5%. Efficacy was claimed only when all 3 primary diary endpoints demonstrated statistical significance in change from baseline to Week 12.|2-sided paired t-test|paired t-test comparing baseline with post-baseline values||Open-label study with statistical comparison between baseline and Week 12. Null hypothesis: The mean change from baseline in number of urgency urinary incontinence per 24 hours is equal to 0. The sample size was based on a statistical power for each of the three individual diary endpoints of .95 which would yield an overall power of 85%.||-1.4|-2.0|<0.0001
90998192|NCT00425100|181879868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.8|<|0.0001||95.0|-5.4|-4.5||All paired t-tests were performed with a two-sided test at significance level of 5%. Efficacy was claimed only when all 3 primary diary endpoints demonstrated statistical significance in change from baseline to Week 12.|2-sided paired t-test|paired t-test comparing baseline with post-baseline values||Open-label study with statistical comparison between baseline and Week 12. Null hypothesis: The mean change from baseline in number of urgency episodes per 24 hours is equal to 0. The sample size was based on a statistical power for each of the three individual diary endpoints of .95 which would yield an overall power of 85%.||-4.5|-5.4|<0.0001
90998193|NCT00425100|181879870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.2|<|0.0001||||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. All paired t-tests were performed with a two-sided test at significance level of 5%.|2 sided paired t-test|||This is an open-label study with statistical comparison between baseline and Week 12.||||<0.0001
90998194|NCT00425100|181879871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.1|<|0.0001||||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. All paired t-tests were performed with a two-sided test at significance level of 5%.|2-sided paired t-test|||This is an open-label study with statistical comparison between baseline and Week 12.||||<0.0001
90998195|NCT00425100|181879872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.7|<|0.0001||||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. All paired t-tests were performed with a two-sided test at significance level of 5%.|2-sided paired t-test|||This is an open-label study with statistical comparison between baseline and Week 12.||||<0.0001
90998196|NCT00425100|181879873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.3|<|0.0001||||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. All paired t-tests were performed with a two-sided test at significance level of 5%.|2-sided paired t-test|||This is an open-label study with statistical comparison between baseline and Week 12.||||<0.0001
90998197|NCT00425100|181879875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.7|<|0.0001||||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. All paired t-tests were performed with a two-sided test at significance level of 5%.|2-sided paired t-test|||This is an open-label study with statistical comparison between baseline and Week 12.||||<0.0001
90998198|NCT00425100|181879877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|28.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|26.4|<|0.0001||||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. All paired t-tests were performed with a two-sided test at significance level of 5%.|2-sided paired t-test|||This is an open-label study with statistical comparison between baseline and Week 12.||||<0.0001
90998199|NCT00425100|181879878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|30.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|26.6|<|0.0001||||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. All paired t-tests were performed with a two-sided test at significance level of 5%.|2-sided paired t-test|||This is an open-label study with statistical comparison between baseline and Week 12.||||<0.0001
90998200|NCT00425100|181879879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|24.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|27.3|<|0.0001||||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. All paired t-tests were performed with a two-sided test at significance level of 5%.|2-sided paired t-test|||This is an open-label study with statistical comparison between baseline and Week 12.||||<0.0001
90998201|NCT00425100|181879880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|16.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|21.1|<|0.0001||||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. All paired t-tests were performed with a two-sided test at significance level of 5%.|2-sided paired t-test|||This is an open-label study with statistical comparison between baseline and Week 12.||||<0.0001
90998202|NCT00425100|181879881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|26.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.8|<|0.0001||||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. All paired t-tests were performed with a two-sided test at significance level of 5%.|2-sided paired t-test|||This is an open-label study with statistical comparison between baseline and Week 12.||||<0.0001
90998203|NCT00425100|181879882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-28.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.7|<|0.0001||||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. All paired t-tests were performed with a two-sided test at significance level of 5%.|2-sided paired t-test|||This is an open-label study with statistical comparison between baseline and Week 12.||||<0.0001
90998204|NCT00425100|181879884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-15.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.2|<|0.0001||||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. All paired t-tests were performed with a two-sided test at significance level of 5%.|2-sided paired t-test|||This is an open-label study with statistical comparison between baseline and Week 12.||||<0.0001
90998205|NCT02219087|181879910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.137|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.137
90998206|NCT02219087|181879911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.343|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.343
90998207|NCT02219087|181879912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.208|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.208
90998208|NCT02219087|181879913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.385|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.385
90998209|NCT02219087|181879914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.843|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.843
90998210|NCT02219087|181879915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.438|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.438
90998211|NCT05127421|181879917|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.81||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|9.47|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|stratified by the stratification factor (face and/or neck Investigator's Global Assessment \[IGA\] score of 2 or 3 at screening).||||9.47|0.83|0.091
90998212|NCT05127421|181879917|SUPERIORITY||response rate difference|19.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.23|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|39.6|||||The 95% confidence interval was computed based on a large-sample normal approximation with continuity correction.|||39.6|-0.5|
90998213|NCT01861054|181879936|OTHER|||||||0.3149||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison on ALDH+ cells by ALDEFLUOR assay||||0.3149
90998214|NCT01861054|181879936|OTHER|||||||0.8148||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison on CD44+/CD24- by flow citometry||||0.8148
90998215|NCT01861054|181879937|OTHER||||||>|0.9999|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Phospho AKT Extent||||>0.9999
90998216|NCT01861054|181879937|OTHER||||||>|0.9999|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Phospho-AKT Intensity||||>0.9999
90998217|NCT01861054|181879937|OTHER|||||||0.2245|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||AKT Extent||||0.2245
90998218|NCT01861054|181879937|OTHER|||||||0.5785|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||AKT Intensity||||0.5785
91045708|NCT03535857|181977348|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.7||||0.546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Pairwise t- test|||||||0.546
90998219|NCT01861054|181879937|OTHER||||||>|0.9999|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Phospho-FAK Extent||||>0.9999
90998220|NCT01861054|181879937|OTHER|||||||0.3139|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Phospho-FAK Intensity||||0.3139
90998221|NCT01861054|181879937|OTHER|||||||0.212|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||FAK Extent||||0.2120
90998222|NCT01861054|181879937|OTHER||||||>|0.9999|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||FAK Intensity||||>0.9999
90998223|NCT01861054|181879937|OTHER||||||>|0.9999|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||C-PTEN Extent||||>0.9999
90998224|NCT01861054|181879937|OTHER|||||||0.8728|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||C-PTEN Intensity||||0.8728
90998225|NCT01861054|181879937|OTHER||||||>|0.9999|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||D-PTEN Extent||||>0.9999
90998226|NCT01861054|181879937|OTHER|||||||0.8728|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||D-PTEN Intensity||||0.8728
90998227|NCT01861054|181879937|OTHER|||||||0.2265|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||CXCR1 Extent||||0.2265
90998228|NCT01861054|181879937|OTHER|||||||0.2403|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||CXCR1 Intensity||||0.2403
90998229|NCT01861054|181879938|OTHER||||||>|0.9999||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Interleukin 1 Beta||||>0.9999
90998230|NCT01861054|181879938|OTHER|||||||0.6945||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Interleukin 6||||0.6945
90998231|NCT01861054|181879938|OTHER|||||||0.9448||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Interleukin 8||||0.9448
90998232|NCT01861054|181879938|OTHER|||||||0.6292||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Tumor Necrosis Factor - alpha||||0.6292
90998233|NCT01861054|181879938|OTHER|||||||0.2354||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Granulocyte Macrophage Colony Stm Factor||||0.2354
90998234|NCT01861054|181879938|OTHER||||||>|0.9999||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor||||>0.9999
90998235|NCT01861054|181879938|OTHER|||||||0.4719||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Basic Fibroblast Growth Factor||||0.4719
90998236|NCT01861054|181879939|OTHER|||||||0.0951|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||CD31 Extent||||0.0951
90998237|NCT01861054|181879939|OTHER|||||||0.1643|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||CD31 Intensity||||0.1643
90998238|NCT01861054|181879940|OTHER|||||||0.4183|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||P62 Extent||||0.4183
90998239|NCT01861054|181879940|OTHER|||||||0.3702|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||P62 Intensity||||0.3702
90998240|NCT01861054|181879945|OTHER|||||||0.6168||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Lymphocyte in WBC||||0.6168
90998241|NCT01861054|181879945|OTHER|||||||0.6168||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Total T cell in lymphocytes||||0.6168
90998242|NCT01861054|181879945|OTHER|||||||0.1453||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||B cell in lymphocytes||||0.1453
90998243|NCT01861054|181879945|OTHER|||||||0.1453||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||T-helper cell in lymphocytes||||0.1453
90998244|NCT01861054|181879945|OTHER|||||||0.1453||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||CTL in lymphocytes||||0.1453
90998245|NCT01861054|181879945|OTHER||||||>|0.9999||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||NKT cell in lymphocytes||||>0.9999
90998246|NCT01861054|181879945|OTHER|||||||0.7634||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||ADCC NK subsets in lymphocytes||||0.7634
90998247|NCT01861054|181879945|OTHER|||||||0.5487||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Regulatory NK subsets in lymphocytes||||0.5487
90998248|NCT01861054|181879945|OTHER||||||>|0.9999||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Exhausted NK subsets in lymphocytes||||>0.9999
90998249|NCT01861054|181879945|OTHER||||||>|0.9999||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||CD56-CD16+ NK subsets in lymphocytes||||>0.9999
90998250|NCT01861054|181879945|OTHER|||||||0.1451||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||CD11b in PMNs - IL-8||||0.1451
90998251|NCT01861054|181879945|OTHER|||||||0.2779||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||CD18 in PMNs - IL-8||||0.2779
90998252|NCT01861054|181879945|OTHER|||||||0.1444||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||MFI of CD11b - IL-8||||0.1444
90998253|NCT01861054|181879945|OTHER|||||||0.1453||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||MFI of CD66b - IL-8||||0.1453
91045709|NCT00546910|181977360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.87||P-value is for Time Active overall for morning, noon and evening. Primary tests were performed hierarchically to adjust for multiplicity. Time Active was tested at rank 8.|Mixed Models Analysis|Positive values for the mean difference are in favor of the atomoxetine arm.||||0.87|0.52|<0.001
91045710|NCT00546910|181977360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.57||P-value is for Distance overall for morning, noon and evening. Primary tests were performed hierarchically to adjust for multiplicity. Distance was tested at rank 5.|Mixed Models Analysis|Positive values for the mean difference are in favor of the atomoxetine arm.||||1.57|0.98|<0.001
90998254|NCT01861054|181879945|OTHER|||||||0.92||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||MFI of CD18 - IL-8||||0.9200
91045711|NCT00546910|181977360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.35||P-value is for Area overall for morning, noon and evening. Primary tests were performed hierarchically to adjust for multiplicity. Area was tested at rank 6.|Mixed Models Analysis|Positive values for the mean difference are in favor of the atomoxetine arm.||||1.35|0.81|<0.001
91045712|NCT00546910|181977360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.22||P-value is for Microevents overall for morning, noon and evening. Primary tests were performed hierarchically to adjust for multiplicity. Microevents was tested at rank 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|Positive values for the mean difference are in favor of the atomoxetine arm.||||1.22|0.78|<0.001
90998255|NCT01861054|181879945|OTHER|||||||0.2779||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||CD11b in PMNs - US||||0.2779
90998256|NCT01861054|181879945|OTHER|||||||0.6164||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||CD18 in PMNs - US||||0.6164
91045713|NCT00546910|181977360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.58||P-value is for Motion Simplicity overall for morning, noon and evening. Primary tests were performed hierarchically to adjust for multiplicity. Motion Simplicity was tested at rank 9.|Mixed Models Analysis|Positive values for the mean difference are in favor of the atomoxetine arm.||||0.58|0.18|<0.001
90998257|NCT01861054|181879945|OTHER||||||>|0.9999||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||MFI of CD11b - US||||>0.9999
90998258|NCT01861054|181879945|OTHER|||||||0.2032||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||MFI of CD66b - US||||0.2032
91045714|NCT00546910|181977361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.2|14.99||P-value for ADHD-RS Total Score|Mixed Models Analysis|Positive values for the mean difference are in favor of the atomoxetine arm.||Comparison of atomoxetine vs. placebo at Visit 7 (Week 8)||14.99|8.20|<0.001
91045715|NCT00546910|181977362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.46||P-value for CGI-S ADHD score|Mixed Models Analysis|Positive values for the mean difference are in favor of the atomoxetine arm.||Comparison of atomoxetine vs. placebo at Visit 7 (Week 8)||1.46|0.76|<0.001
91045716|NCT00546910|181977363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.55|7.92||P-value for Total Score|Mixed Models Analysis|Positive values for the mean difference are in favor of the atomoxetine arm.||||7.92|3.55|<0.001
91045717|NCT00546910|181977363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.96||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.49|5.44||P-value for Evening subscore|Mixed Models Analysis|Positive values for the mean difference are in favor of the atomoxetine arm.||||5.44|2.49|0.001
91045718|NCT00546910|181977363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.18|||<|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.93||P-value for Morning subscore|Mixed Models Analysis|Positive values for the mean difference are in favor of the atomoxetine arm.||||1.93|0.42|<0.002
91045719|NCT00546910|181977363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.93||P-value for Item 11 (difficulty falling asleep).|Mixed Models Analysis|Positive values for the mean difference are in favor of the atomoxetine arm.||||0.93|0.31|<0.001
91045720|NCT00546910|181977364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.35||P-value is for Reaction Time Variation overall for morning, noon and evening. Primary tests were performed hierarchically to adjust for multiplicity. Reaction time variation was tested at rank 1.|Mixed Models Analysis|Positive values for the mean difference are in favor of the atomoxetine arm.||||1.35|0.66|<0.001
91045721|NCT00546910|181977364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.93||P-value is for Omission Error overall for morning, noon and evening. Primary tests were performed hierarchically to adjust for multiplicity. Omission error was tested at rank 7.|Mixed Models Analysis|Positive values for the mean difference are in favor of the atomoxetine arm.||||0.93|0.46|<0.001
91045722|NCT00546910|181977364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.65||P-value is for Mean Reaction Time overall for morning, noon and evening. Primary tests were performed hierarchically to adjust for multiplicity. Mean reaction time was tested at rank 2.|Mixed Models Analysis|Positive values for the mean difference are in favor of the atomoxetine arm.||||0.65|0.17|<0.001
91045723|NCT00546910|181977364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.73||P-value is for Normalized Variation of Reaction Time overall for morning, noon and evening. Primary tests were performed hierarchically to adjust for multiplicity. Normalized Variation of Reaction Time was tested at rank 10.|Mixed Models Analysis|Positive values for the mean difference are in favor of the atomoxetine arm.||||0.73|0.26|<0.001
91045724|NCT00546910|181977365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.68||P-value is for Commission Error overall for morning, noon and evening. Primary tests were performed hierarchically to adjust for multiplicity. Commission Error was tested at rank 4.|Mixed Models Analysis|Positive values for the mean difference are in favor of the atomoxetine arm.||||0.68|0.31|<0.001
91045725|NCT00546910|181977365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.31||P-value is for Anticipatory Response overall for morning, noon and evening. Anticipatory Response was not tested in the primary analysis but is a secondary endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis|Positive values for the mean difference are in favor of the atomoxetine arm.||||0.31|0.02|0.022
91045726|NCT00546910|181977366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.18||P-value is for Error Rate overall for morning, noon and evening. Error Rate was not tested in the primary analysis but is a secondary endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis|Positive values for the mean difference are in favor of the atomoxetine arm.||||1.18|0.69|<0.001
91045727|NCT00546910|181977366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.28||P-value is for Multi Response overall for morning, noon and evening. Multi Response was not tested in the primary analysis but is a secondary endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis|Positive values for the mean difference are in favor of the atomoxetine arm.||||0.28|0.05|0.178
91045728|NCT03694808|181977383|NON_INFERIORITY|Ratio of GMT (Fluzone/Fluad), upper bound of two-sided 95% CI should not exceed 1.5 for non-inferiority|ratio of GMT (Fluzone/Fluad)|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.89|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical Analysis for Year 1 (2018-2019)||1.89|0.8|
91045729|NCT03694808|181977383|NON_INFERIORITY|Ratio of GMT (Fluzone/Fluad), upper bound of two-sided 95% CI should not exceed 1.5 for non-inferiority|Ratio of GMT (Fluzone/Fluad)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.38|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical Analysis for Year 2 (2019-2020)||1.38|0.66|
91045730|NCT03694808|181977384|NON_INFERIORITY|Ratio of GMT (Fluzone/Fluad), upper bound of two-sided 95% CI should not exceed 1.5 for non-inferiority|Ratio of GMT (Fluzone/Fluad)|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.15|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical Analysis for Year 1 (2018-2019)||2.15|0.88|
91045731|NCT03694808|181977384|NON_INFERIORITY|Ratio of GMT (Fluzone/Fluad), upper bound of two-sided 95% CI should not exceed 1.5 for non-inferiority|Ratio of GMT (Fluzone/Fluad)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical Analysis for Year 2 (2019-2020)||1.4|0.53|
91045732|NCT03694808|181977385|NON_INFERIORITY|Ratio of GMT (Fluzone/Fluad), upper bound of two-sided 95% CI should not exceed 1.5 for non-inferiority|Ratio of GMT (Fluzone/Fluad)|1.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|2.79|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical Analysis Year 1 (2018-2019)||2.79|1.23|
91045733|NCT03694808|181977385|NON_INFERIORITY|2-sided t-test performed on log-transformed titers; estimate and 95% confidence interval of log-scale difference exponentiated to generate GMT ratio and its 95% CI below.|Ratio of GMT (Fluzone/Fluad)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.26|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical Analysis Year 2 (2019-2020)||1.26|0.61|
91045734|NCT03694808|181977386|NON_INFERIORITY|Difference between seroconversion rates (Fluzone - Fluad), upper bound of two-sided 95% CI of difference should not exceed 10 percentage points for non-inferiority|Difference in proportions|0.154|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|0.308|||Test of proportions|2sided proportions test to estimate 95% CI difference in seroconversion rates; upper limit differences compared to 10%, per non-inferiority guidance||Statistical Analysis Year 1 (2018-2019)||0.308|-0.001|
91045735|NCT03694808|181977386|NON_INFERIORITY|Difference between seroconversion rates (Fluzone - Fluad), upper bound of two-sided 95% CI of difference should not exceed 10 percentage points for non-inferiority|Difference in proportions|-0.056|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.089|||Test of proportions|2sided proportions test to estimate 95% CI difference in seroconversion rates; upper limit differences compared to 10%, per non-inferiority guidance||Statistical Analysis Year 2 (2019-2020)||0.089|-0.2|
91045736|NCT03694808|181977387|NON_INFERIORITY|Difference between seroconversion rates (Fluzone - Fluad), upper bound of two-sided 95% CI of difference should not exceed 10 percentage points for non-inferiority|Difference in proportions|0.218|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.063|0.373|||Test of proportions|2sided proportions test to estimate 95% CI difference in seroconversion rates; upper limit differences compared to 10%, per non-inferiority guidance||Statistical Analysis Year 1 (2018-2019)||0.373|0.063|
91045737|NCT03694808|181977387|NON_INFERIORITY|Difference between seroconversion rates (Fluzone - Fluad), upper bound of two-sided 95% CI of difference should not exceed 10 percentage points for non-inferiority|Difference in proportions|-0.008|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.139|0.123|||Test of proportions|2sided proportions test to estimate 95% CI difference in seroconversion rates; upper limit differences compared to 10%, per non-inferiority guidance||Statistical Analysis Year 2 (2019-2020)||0.123|-0.139|
91045738|NCT03694808|181977388|NON_INFERIORITY|Difference between seroconversion rates (Fluzone - Fluad), upper bound of two-sided 95% CI of difference should not exceed 10 percentage points for non-inferiority|Difference in proportions|0.136|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.019|0.291|||Test of proportions|2sided proportions test to estimate 95% CI difference in seroconversion rates; upper limit differences compared to 10%, per non-inferiority guidance||Statistical Analysis Year 1 (2018-2019)||0.291|-0.019|
91045739|NCT03694808|181977388|NON_INFERIORITY|Difference between seroconversion rates (Fluzone - Fluad), upper bound of two-sided 95% CI of difference should not exceed 10 percentage points for non-inferiority|Difference in proportions|0.024|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.117|0.164|||Test of proportions|2sided proportions test to estimate 95% CI difference in seroconversion rates; upper limit differences compared to 10%, per non-inferiority guidance||Statistical Analysis Year 2 (2019-2020)||0.164|-0.117|
91045740|NCT03694808|181977389|NON_INFERIORITY|Ratio of GMT (Fluzone/Fluad), upper bound of two-sided 95% CI should not exceed 1.5 for non-inferiority|Ratio of GMT (Fluzone/Fluad)|0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.64|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical Analysis Year 1 (2018-2019)||0.64|0.29|
91045741|NCT03694808|181977389|NON_INFERIORITY|Ratio of GMT (Fluzone/Fluad), upper bound of two-sided 95% CI should not exceed 1.5 for non-inferiority|Ratio of GMT (Fluzone/Fluad)|0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.69|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical Analysis Year 2 (2019-2020)||0.69|0.29|
91045742|NCT03694808|181977390|NON_INFERIORITY|Ratio of GMT (Fluzone/Fluad), upper bound of two-sided 95% CI should not exceed 1.5 for non-inferiority|Ratio of GMT (Fluzone/Fluad)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.16|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical Analysis Year 1 (2018-2019)||1.16|0.71|
91045743|NCT03694808|181977390|NON_INFERIORITY|Ratio of GMT (Fluzone/Fluad), upper bound of two-sided 95% CI should not exceed 1.5 for non-inferiority|Ratio of GMT (Fluzone/Fluad)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.33|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical Analysis Year 2 (2019-2020)||1.33|0.69|
91045744|NCT03694808|181977391|NON_INFERIORITY|Difference between seroconversion rates (Fluzone - Fluad), upper bound of two-sided 95% CI of difference should not exceed 10 percentage points for non-inferiority|Difference in proportions|-0.544|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.674|-0.414|||Test of proportions|2sided proportions test to estimate 95% CI difference in seroconversion rates; upper limit differences compared to 10%, per non-inferiority guidance||Statistical Analysis Year 1 (2018-2019)||-0.414|-0.674|
91045745|NCT03694808|181977391|NON_INFERIORITY|Difference between seroconversion rates (Fluzone - Fluad), upper bound of two-sided 95% CI of difference should not exceed 10 percentage points for non-inferiority|Difference in proportions|-0.168|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.311|-0.025|||Test of proportions|2sided proportions test to estimate 95% CI difference in seroconversion rates; upper limit differences compared to 10%, per non-inferiority guidance||Statistical Analysis Year 2 (2019-2020)||-0.025|-0.311|
91045746|NCT03694808|181977392|NON_INFERIORITY|Difference between seroconversion rates (Fluzone - Fluad), upper bound of two-sided 95% CI of difference should not exceed 10 percentage points for non-inferiority|Difference in proportions|-0.104|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.221|0.013|||Test of proportions|2sided proportions test to estimate 95% CI difference in seroconversion rates; upper limit differences compared to 10%, per non-inferiority guidance||Statistical Analysis Year 1 (2018-2019)||0.013|-0.221|
91045747|NCT03694808|181977392|NON_INFERIORITY|Difference between seroconversion rates (Fluzone - Fluad), upper bound of two-sided 95% CI of difference should not exceed 10 percentage points for non-inferiority|Difference of proportions|-0.113|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.241|0.015|||Test of proportions|2sided proportions test to estimate 95% CI difference in seroconversion rates; upper limit differences compared to 10%, per non-inferiority guidance||Statistical Analysis Year 2 (2019-2020)||0.015|-0.241|
91045748|NCT00455962|181977399|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Using previously collected data from a group of 18 predominantly Caucasian women undergoing a similar infusion we determined that 22 women would be necessary to identify a 30% difference in peak LH levels, the primary outcome measure, between AAW and CW with 80% power at a significance level of 0.05.||||0.69
91045749|NCT01332578|181977411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-20.92||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.31|-15.81|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of median difference was determined.|Null hypothesis was no difference between test hot drink and standard paracetamol tablets.||-15.81|-27.31|0.0004
91045750|NCT01011556|181977421|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A noninferiority margin of 3.5% was used.|Difference in Least Square Means|-7.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.489|-5.851|||ANCOVA|Analyses were performed using ANCOVA model with the baseline value as a covariate and pooled site and treatment as fixed effects.||||-5.851|-8.489|<0.001
91045751|NCT01011556|181977421|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A noninferiority margin of 3.5% was used.|Difference in Least Square Means|-7.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.822|-6.144|||ANCOVA|Analyses were performed using ANCOVA model with the baseline value as a covariate and pooled site and treatment as fixed effects.||||-6.144|-8.822|<0.001
91045752|NCT01011556|181977421|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A noninferiority margin of 3.5% was used.|Difference in Least Square Means|-6.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.448|-4.891|||ANCOVA|Analyses were performed using ANCOVA model with the baseline value as a covariate and pooled site and treatment as fixed effects.||||-4.891|-7.448|<0.001
91045753|NCT01011556|181977422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|-4.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.716|-3.452|||ANCOVA|Analyses were performed using ANCOVA model with the baseline value as a covariate and pooled site and treatment as fixed effects.||||-3.452|-5.716|<0.001
91045754|NCT01011556|181977422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|-3.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.006|-2.727|||ANCOVA|Analyses were performed using ANCOVA model with the baseline value as a covariate and pooled site and treatment as fixed effects.||||-2.727|-5.006|<0.001
91045755|NCT01011556|181977422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|-3.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.652|-2.464|||ANCOVA|Analyses were performed using ANCOVA model with the baseline value as a covariate and pooled site and treatment as fixed effects.||||-2.464|-4.652|<0.001
91045756|NCT01011556|181977423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|-4.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.687|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.663|-3.392||p-value is for change in BMD at 6 months|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM Model: Percentage change in BMD = treatment+baseline+pooled site+visit+treatment\*visit interaction. Repeat measure occurred at each visit.||||-3.392|-5.663|<0.001
91045757|NCT01011556|181977423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|-3.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.692|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.086|-2.8||p-value is for change in BMD at 6 months|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM Model: Percentage change in BMD = treatment+baseline+pooled site+visit+treatment\*visit interaction. Repeat measure occurred at each visit.||||-2.800|-5.086|<0.001
91045758|NCT01011556|181977423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|-3.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.665|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.627|-2.43||p-value is for change in BMD at 6 months|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM Model: Percentage change in BMD = treatment+baseline+pooled site+visit+treatment\*visit interaction. Repeat measure occurred at each visit.||||-2.430|-4.627|<0.001
91045759|NCT01011556|181977423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|-7.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.818|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.856|-6.151||p-value is for change in BMD at 12 months|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM Model: Percentage change in BMD = treatment+baseline+pooled site+visit+treatment\*visit interaction. Repeat measure occurred at each visit.||||-6.151|-8.856|<0.001
91045760|NCT01011556|181977423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|-7.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.835|-6.091||p-value for change in BMD at 12 months|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM Model: Percentage change in BMD = treatment+baseline+pooled site+visit+treatment\*visit interaction. Repeat measure occurred at each visit.||||-6.091|-8.835|0.001
91045761|NCT01011556|181977423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|-6.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.802||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.51|-4.86||p-value is for change in BMD at 12 months|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM Model: Percentage change in BMD = treatment+baseline+pooled site+visit+treatment\*visit interaction. Repeat measure occurred at each visit.||||-4.860|-7.510|0.001
91045762|NCT01011556|181977424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|Pairwise comparison p-value at 1 month.||||||<0.001
91045763|NCT01011556|181977424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|Pairwise comparison p-value at 1 month.||||||<0.001
91045764|NCT01011556|181977424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|Pairwise comparison p-value at 1 month.||||||<0.001
91045765|NCT01011556|181977424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|Pairwise comparison p-value at 3 months.||||||<0.001
91045766|NCT01011556|181977424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|Pairwise comparison p-value at 3 months.||||||<0.001
91045767|NCT01011556|181977424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|Pairwise comparison p-value at 3 months.||||||0.003
91045768|NCT01011556|181977424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|Pairwise comparison p-value at 6 months.||||||<0.001
91045769|NCT01011556|181977424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|Pairwise comparison p-value at 6 months.||||||<0.001
91045770|NCT01011556|181977424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|Pairwise comparison p-value at 6 months.||||||0.029
91045771|NCT01011556|181977424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|Pairwise comparison p-value at 12 months.||||||<0.001
91045772|NCT01011556|181977424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|Pairwise comparison p-value at 12 months.||||||<0.001
91045773|NCT01011556|181977424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|Pairwise comparison p-value at 12 months.||||||0.047
91045774|NCT01011556|181977425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.822||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|Pairwise comparison p-value at 1 month.||||||0.822
91045775|NCT01011556|181977425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.406||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|Pairwise comparison p-value at 1 month.||||||0.406
91045776|NCT01011556|181977425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.312||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|Pairwise comparison p-value at 1 month.||||||0.312
91045777|NCT01011556|181977425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|Pairwise comparison p-value at 3 months.||||||<0.001
91045778|NCT01011556|181977425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|Pairwise comparison p-value at 3 months.||||||<0.001
91045779|NCT01011556|181977425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.952||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|Pairwise comparison p-value at 3 months.||||||0.952
91045780|NCT01011556|181977425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|Pairwise comparison p-value at 6 months.||||||<0.001
91045781|NCT01011556|181977425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|Pairwise comparison p-value at 6 months.||||||0.011
91045782|NCT01011556|181977425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.997||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|Pairwise comparison p-value at 6 months.||||||0.997
91045783|NCT01011556|181977425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|Pairwise comparison p-value at 12 months.||||||0.003
91045784|NCT01011556|181977425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.112||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|Pairwise comparison p-value at 12 months.||||||0.112
91045785|NCT01011556|181977425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.988||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|Pairwise comparison p-value at 12 months.||||||0.988
91045786|NCT01011556|181977426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|Pairwise comparison p-value at 1 month.||||||<0.001
91045787|NCT01011556|181977426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|Pairwise comparison p-value at 1 month.||||||<0.001
91045788|NCT01011556|181977426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|Pairwise comparison p-value at 1 month.||||||<0.001
91045789|NCT00707447|181977492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||There was only one primary outcome variable, thus no adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|t-test, 2 sided|||independent t-tests for between group comparisons, dependent t-tests for within group comparisons||||<.05
91045790|NCT00707447|181977493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||independent t-tests for between group comparisons, dependent t-tests for within group comparisons||||<.05
91045791|NCT00707447|181977494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.05
91045792|NCT00707447|181977495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.05
91045793|NCT00707447|181977496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.05
91045794|NCT00707447|181977497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.05
91045795|NCT00707447|181977498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.05
91045796|NCT00707447|181977499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.05
91045797|NCT00707447|181977500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.05
91045798|NCT00707447|181977501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.05
91045799|NCT00508027|181977508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.7|<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Ho: There is no change in plasma biomarker levels before and after simivastatin treatment. With 12 patients in each group and assuming a 5% risk of Type I error (two-tailed α = 0.05) and estimated SD for the change in NOx (or sVCAM-1) of 48%, power will be 80% to detect a 40% change from baseline for each group, and a 55% difference in the change in biomarker levels between dose groups. Matched paired t-tests were used to measure changes in biomarker levels from baseline.||||<0.05
91045800|NCT03877926|181977529|EQUIVALENCE|The 95% CIs for the Day 64 TNA NF50 GMT ratios between AV7909 Lot 1 and Lot 2 had to be within 0.5 to 2.0 equivalence margin.|Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.1||||||||1.10|0.93|
91045801|NCT03877926|181977529|EQUIVALENCE|The 95% CIs for the Day 64 TNA NF50 GMT ratios between AV7909 Lot 1 and Lot 3 had to be within 0.5 to 2.0 equivalence margin.|Ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.14||||||||1.14|0.96|
91045802|NCT03877926|181977529|EQUIVALENCE|The 95% CIs for the Day 64 TNA NF50 GMT ratios between AV7909 Lot 2 and Lot 3 had to be within 0.5 to 2.0 equivalence margin.|Ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.13||||||||1.13|0.95|
91045803|NCT03877926|181977531|OTHER||Percentage of participants|66.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.5|68.1||||||||68.1|64.5|
91045804|NCT03877926|181977532|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of -15% was used for the difference in percentage of AV7909 participants (pooled from three AV7909 study groups \[Lot 1, 2, and 3\]) vs. BioThrax participants who achieved TNA NF50 ≥0.29 at Day 64. The success criterion was defined as the lower bound of 95% confidence interval of the difference in the percentage of AV7909 vs. BioThrax participants being greater than -15%.|Difference in percentage|24.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.0|29.2||||||||29.2|20.0|
91045805|NCT03877926|181977533|OTHER|Relative risk of serious adverse events incidence between AV7909 (combined from all three AV7909 lots) and BioThrax.|Relative risk (AV7909/BioThrax)|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|6.5|||||The 95% CI of the relative risk was derived using the Farrington-Manning relative risk score statistic.|||6.5|0.9|
91045806|NCT03877926|181977534|OTHER|Success criteria was defined as the lower bound for the 95% CI for the proportion of participants pooled from all three AV7909 study groups with TNA NF50 ≥0.15 to be ≥67%.|Percentage of participants|97.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|97.2|98.3||||||||98.3|97.2|
91045807|NCT03877926|181977536|OTHER|Relative risk of adverse events of special interest (events of autoimmune etiology) incidence between AV7909 (combined from all three AV7909 lots) and BioThrax.|Relative risk (AV7909/BioThrax)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|5.0|||||The 95% CI of the relative risk was derived using the Farrington-Manning relative risk score statistic.|||5.0|0.3|
91045808|NCT04569786|181977576|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower limit of the 90% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V590/Placebo) being \>1.0 (one-sided p-value \<0.05).|GMT Ratio|0.92||||0.649|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.63|1.34||1-sided|Longitudinal data analysis (LDA) method|GMT ratios and 90% CIs, and p-values are estimated from an LDA model and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.||||1.34|0.63|0.649
91045809|NCT04569786|181977576|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower limit of the 90% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V590/Placebo) being \>1.0 (one-sided p-value \<0.05).|GMT Ratio|1.0||||0.495||90.0|0.68|1.48||1-sided|LDA model|GMT ratios and 90% CIs, and p-values are estimated from an LDA model and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.||||1.48|0.68|0.495
91045810|NCT04569786|181977576|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower limit of the 90% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V590/Placebo) being \>1.0 (one-sided p-value \<0.05).|GMT Ratio|1.1||||0.339|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.75|1.6||1-sided|LDA Model|GMT ratios and 90% CIs, and p-values are estimated from an LDA model and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.||||1.60|0.75|0.339
91045811|NCT04569786|181977576|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower limit of the 90% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V590/Placebo) being \>1.0 (one-sided p-value \<0.05).|GMT Ratio|2.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.56|3.28||1-sided|LDA Model|GMT ratios and 90% CIs, and p-values are estimated from an LDA model and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.||||3.28|1.56|<0.001
91045812|NCT02646917|181977602|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.008|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Goodman and Baron's qualitative acne scar severity scores. Calculated from Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Testing hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is equal to zero.||||<0.008
91045813|NCT02646917|181977603|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxen signed-rank test|||Null hypothesis 4 (no change).||||<.001
91045814|NCT02646917|181977604|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Calculated from Wilcoxon signed-rank test. The testing hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is equal to zero||||<0.01
91045815|NCT02646917|181977605|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Calculated from Wilcoxon signed-rank test. The testing hypothesis is that the mean score is equal to 0 (no change in the appearance of acne scars).||||<0.01
91045816|NCT02646917|181977606|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Calculated from Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Testing hypothesis is that the mean score is equal to 4 (no change).||||||<0.01
91045817|NCT01876368|181977620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.73|-1.65|||ANCOVA|||||-1.65|-4.73|<0.001
91045818|NCT02260258|181977633|EQUIVALENCE|Time variable log transformed and compared using linear regression controlling for shock stratification and site. Effect estimate represents geometric mean difference. Values above 1.0 favor longer duration in the NMB arm.|Geometric mean difference|1.0||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.4||A priori threshold for significance 0.05|Regression, Linear|||||1.4|0.7|0.82
91045819|NCT02260258|181977634|EQUIVALENCE|LOS truncated at 28 days and compared using negative binomial regression controlling for stratification and site. Effect estimates represent incidence rate ratios. The parameter estimate, p value and CI provided below are from the negative binomial regression carried out all patients (N = 37 in NMB and 43 in Usual Care)|Incidence rate ratio|1.4||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.9|||Negative binomial regression|||All patients analyzed (N = 37 in NMB and 43 in Usual Care)||1.9|1.0|0.09
91045820|NCT02260258|181977634|EQUIVALENCE|LOS truncated at 28 days and compared using negative binomial regression controlling for stratification and site. Effect estimates represent incidence rate ratios. The parameter estimate, p value and CI provided below are from the negative binomial regression carried out on ICU survivors alone (n = 14 in NMB and 14 in Control)|Incidence rate ratio|1.3||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.0|||Negative binomial regression|||ICU survivors alone analyzed (n = 14 in each arm)||2.0|0.8|0.35
91045821|NCT02260258|181977635|EQUIVALENCE|Duration log transformed and compared using linear regression controlling for shock stratification and site. Includes all patients (n=37 in NMB and n = 43 in control). Effect estimates represent geometric mean difference. Values above 1.0 favor longer duration in the NMB arm.|Geometric mean difference|1.3||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.9|||Regression, Linear|Duration log transformed and so parameter estimate represents geometric mean difference.||Anaysis for the full data (n= 37 in NMB and 43 in Control)||1.9|0.9|0.18
90998259|NCT01861054|181879945|OTHER||||||>|0.9999||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||MFI of CD18 - US||||>0.9999
90998260|NCT01861054|181879945|OTHER|||||||0.525||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Percent Monocytes expressing IL6 - IL-8||||0.5250
90998261|NCT01861054|181879945|OTHER|||||||0.6706||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Percent Monocytes expressing IL1b - IL-8||||0.6706
90998262|NCT01861054|181879945|OTHER|||||||0.8312||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Percent Monocytes expressing IL8 - IL-8||||0.8312
90998263|NCT01861054|181879945|OTHER|||||||0.3992||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Percent Monocytes expressing TNFa - IL-8||||0.3992
90998264|NCT01861054|181879945|OTHER|||||||0.2952||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Percent Neutrophils expressing IL6 - IL-8||||0.2952
90998265|NCT01861054|181879945|OTHER|||||||0.3992||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Percent Neutrophils expressing IL1b - IL-8||||0.3992
90998266|NCT01861054|181879945|OTHER|||||||0.2952||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Percent Neutrophils expressing IL8 - IL-8||||0.2952
90998267|NCT01861054|181879945|OTHER|||||||0.525||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Percent Neutrophils expressing TNFa - IL-8||||0.5250
90998268|NCT01861054|181879945|OTHER|||||||0.3992||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Percent Monocytes expressing IL6 - US||||0.3992
91045822|NCT02260258|181977635|EQUIVALENCE|Duration log transformed and compared using linear regression controlling for shock stratification and site. Includes patients surviving to discontinuation of mechanical ventilation (n=14 in each group). Two patients discharged from the hospital on mechanical ventilation have duration truncated at time of discharge and are considered survivors to extubation. Effect estimates represent geometric mean difference. Values above 1.0 favor longer duration in the NMB arm.|Geometric mean difference|1.4||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.9|||Regression, Linear|Duration log transformed and so parameter estimate represents geometric mean difference.||Anaysis for the patients surviving to extubation (n= 14 in both groups)||2.9|0.7|0.32
90998269|NCT01861054|181879945|OTHER|||||||0.2952||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Percent Monocytes expressing IL1b - US||||0.2952
90998270|NCT01861054|181879945|OTHER||||||>|0.9999||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Percent Monocytes expressing IL8 - US||||>0.9999
90998271|NCT01861054|181879945|OTHER|||||||0.3992||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Percent Monocytes expressing TNFa - US||||0.3992
90998272|NCT01861054|181879945|OTHER|||||||0.3992||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Percent Neutrophils expressing IL6 - US||||0.3992
90998273|NCT01861054|181879945|OTHER|||||||0.2952||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Percent Neutrophils expressing IL1b - US||||0.2952
90998274|NCT01861054|181879945|OTHER|||||||0.3992||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Percent Neutrophils expressing IL8 - US||||0.3992
90998275|NCT01861054|181879945|OTHER|||||||0.2952||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Percent Neutrophils expressing TNFa - US||||0.2952
90998276|NCT01861054|181879945|OTHER|||||||0.2238||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Percent Monocytes expressing IL6 - LPS||||0.2238
91045823|NCT02260258|181977636|EQUIVALENCE|Comparison made using logistic regression controlling for shock stratification and site. Effect estimates represent odds ratios|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.3|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.3|0.5|0.63
91045824|NCT02260258|181977637|EQUIVALENCE|Comparison made using logistic regression controlling for shock stratification and site. Effect estimates represent odds ratios|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|4.7|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.7|0.6|0.35
91045825|NCT01886937|181977666|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.26
91045826|NCT00605917|181977669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||not adjusted, p=0.050|Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was starting dose. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between three types of starting dose in the participants of responders."||||<0.001
90998277|NCT01861054|181879945|OTHER|||||||0.2238||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Percent Monocytes expressing IL1b - LPS||||0.2238
90998278|NCT01861054|181879945|OTHER|||||||0.1543||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Percent Monocytes expressing IL8 - LPS||||0.1543
90998279|NCT01861054|181879945|OTHER|||||||0.1547||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Percent Monocytes expressing TNFa - LPS||||0.1547
90998280|NCT01861054|181879945|OTHER|||||||0.1547||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Percent Neutrophils expressing IL6 - LPS||||0.1547
90998281|NCT01861054|181879945|OTHER|||||||0.1547||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Percent Neutrophils expressing IL1b - LPS||||0.1547
90998282|NCT01861054|181879945|OTHER|||||||0.4314||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Percent Neutrophils expressing IL8 - LPS||||0.4314
90998283|NCT01861054|181879945|OTHER|||||||0.3153||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Percent Neutrophils expressing TNFa - LPS||||0.3153
90998284|NCT01861054|181879945|OTHER|||||||0.47||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Percent Monocytes expressing IL6 - LPS+IL-8||||0.4700
91045827|NCT00605917|181977670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||not adjusted, p=0.050|Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was concomitant drug. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without concomitant drug in the participants of responders."||||0.002
90998285|NCT01861054|181879945|OTHER|||||||0.1605||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Percent Monocytes expressing IL1b - LPS+IL-8||||0.1605
90998286|NCT01861054|181879945|OTHER|||||||0.1605||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Percent Monocytes expressing IL8 - LPS+IL-8||||0.1605
90998287|NCT01861054|181879945|OTHER|||||||0.1605||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Percent Monocytes expressing TNFa - LPS+IL-8||||0.1605
90998288|NCT01861054|181879945|OTHER|||||||0.1547||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Percent Neutrophils expressing IL6 - LPS+IL-8||||0.1547
90998289|NCT01861054|181879945|OTHER|||||||0.1547||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Percent Neutrophils expressing IL1b - LPS+IL-8||||0.1547
90998290|NCT01861054|181879945|OTHER|||||||0.3153||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Percent Neutrophils expressing IL8 - LPS+IL-8||||0.3153
90998291|NCT01861054|181879945|OTHER|||||||0.1543||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Percent Neutrophils expressing TNFa - LPS+IL-8||||0.1543
90998292|NCT01861054|181879945|OTHER|||||||0.1601||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Percent FITC eColi Control||||0.1601
90998293|NCT01861054|181879945|OTHER|||||||0.2368||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Percent FITC eColi Test||||0.2368
91045828|NCT00605917|181977671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|||||not adjusted, p=0.050|Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was family history of psychiatric disorder. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without family history of psychiatric disorder in the participants of responders."||||0.032
90998294|NCT01861054|181879945|OTHER|||||||0.1605||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Percent PMNs unstimulated||||0.1605
90998295|NCT01861054|181879945|OTHER|||||||0.47||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Percent PMNs fMLP||||0.4700
90998296|NCT01861054|181879945|OTHER|||||||0.3392||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Percent L-selectin unstimulated||||0.3392
90998297|NCT01861054|181879945|OTHER|||||||0.808||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Percent L-selectin fMLP||||0.8080
90998298|NCT00599027|181879946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001||95.0||||Endpoint after 28 days of treatment|ANCOVA|Overall treatment effect tested using F-test(alpha=0.05;two-sided). Diff between least square means of the 2 groups calculated with two-sided 95% C.I||||||0.001
91045829|NCT00605917|181977672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||not adjusted, p=0.050|Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was smoking status. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between three types of smoking status in the participants of responders."||||<0.001
90998299|NCT00405821|181879950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.99||P-value was adjusted to include multiple looks at data including an interim efficacy review at 50% and 75% accrual of person-years on study|Regression, Cox|adjusted for baseline log10 viral load, baseline CD4 count, gender, and age||Intent-to-treat analysis used Cox proportional hazards (CPH) models, adjusting for baseline log10 viral load (VL), CD4 cell count, gender and age to assess the risk of disease progression||0.99|0.58|<0.05
90998300|NCT00405821|181879951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.31|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.48||we included multiple GUD events per subject in the estimate of GUD incidence|rate ratio with 95% CI|||Null hypothesis is no difference by treatment arm in rate of GUD.||0.48|0.19|<0.05
90998301|NCT00405821|181879952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.463||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.731|-0.194|||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis is no difference in annual rate of change in log10 viral load by arm.||-0.194|-0.731|0.05
90998302|NCT04962503|181879956|OTHER|||||||0.0313||||||Change from baseline to Day 3|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0313
90998303|NCT04962503|181879956|OTHER|||||||0.0625||||||Change from baseline to Day 9|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0625
91045830|NCT00605917|181977673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||not adjusted, p=0.050|Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was past medical history of other illness. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without past medical history of other illness in the participants of responders."||||<0.001
90998304|NCT02372097|181879959|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Two tablets of SYR-472 25 mg and 1 tablet of SYR-472 50 mg were considered bioequivalent if 90% CI of the mean differences of natural log-transformed AUC(0-168) of SYR-472Z was within the range of ln(0.80) to ln(1.25) or within the range of ln(0.9) to ln(1.11) and the results of dissolution test satisfied the requirement.|Least square (LS) mean difference|-0.017|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0344|0.0004||||||The 2-sided 90% confidence interval for the difference between the products (2 tablets of SYR-472 25 mg, 1 tablet of SYR-472 50 mg) was determined from the ANOVA model with the natural logarithms of the AUC(0-168) as a dependent variable, and product, group and period as fixed effects.||0.0004|-0.0344|
90998305|NCT02372097|181879960|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Two tablets of SYR-472 25 mg and 1 tablet of SYR-472 50 mg were considered bioequivalent if 90% CI of the mean differences of natural log-transformed Cmax of SYR-472Z was within the range of ln(0.80) to ln(1.25) or within the range of ln(0.9) to ln(1.11) and the results of dissolution test satisfied the requirement.|LS mean difference|-0.1292|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2177|-0.0406||||||The 2-sided 90% confidence interval for the difference between the products (2 tablets of SYR-472 25 mg, 1 tablet of SYR-472 50 mg) was determined from the ANOVA model with the natural logarithms of the Cmax as a dependent variable, and product, group and period as fixed effects.||-0.0406|-0.2177|
90998306|NCT02372097|181879961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.021||||||90.0|-0.0362|-0.0058||||||The 2-sided 90% confidence interval for the difference between the products (2 tablets of SYR-472 25 mg, 1 tablet of SYR-472 50 mg) was determined from the ANOVA model with the natural logarithms of the AUC(0-inf) as a dependent variable, and product, group and period as fixed effects.||-0.0058|-0.0362|
90998307|NCT02372097|181879962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.375|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1452|0.8952||||||The 2-sided 90% confidence interval for the difference between the products (2 tablets of SYR-472 25 mg, 1 tablet of SYR-472 50 mg) was determined from the ANOVA model with Tmax as a dependent variable, and product, group and period as fixed effects.||0.8952|-0.1452|
90998308|NCT02372097|181879963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.0168|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0504|0.0169||||||The 2-sided 90% confidence interval for the difference between the products (2 tablets of SYR-472 25 mg, 1 tablet of SYR-472 50 mg) was determined from the ANOVA model with the natural logarithms of the MRT as a dependent variable, and product, group and period as fixed effects.||0.0169|-0.0504|
90998309|NCT02372097|181879964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.1099|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0235|0.1963||||||The 2-sided 90% confidence interval for the difference between the products (2 tablets of SYR-472 25 mg, 1 tablet of SYR-472 50 mg) was determined from the ANOVA model with the natural logarithms of the λz as a dependent variable, and product, group and period as fixed effects.||0.1963|0.0235|
90998310|NCT02554253|181879981|SUPERIORITY|Pilot study||||||0.23|||||||Fisher Exact|||Raw scores converted to z-scores using published references. Percentage of patients experiencing a decline of \> 1 standard deviation was compared between groups using Fisher's exact test. The outcome of postoperative cognitive dysfunction (POCD) was defined a-priori as a decline of decline of \>1 standard deviation (i.e. z-score decline of \> 1) on at least 2 neurocognitive tests and was compared between groups using Fisher's exact test.||||0.23
90998311|NCT02554253|181879982|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.08
90998312|NCT02554253|181879983|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.31
90998313|NCT02559206|181879988|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Lin-Placebo)|-0.569||||0.0839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.214|0.076|||mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|||||0.076|-1.214|0.0839
90998314|NCT02559206|181879988|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Lin-Placebo)|-0.297||||0.3661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.942|0.348|||MMRM|||||0.348|-0.942|0.3661
90998315|NCT02559206|181879988|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Lin-Placebo)|-0.286||||0.3869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.936|0.363|||MMRM|||||0.363|-0.936|0.3869
90998316|NCT02559206|181879988|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Lin-Placebo)|-0.771||||0.0199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.419|-0.123|||MMRM|||||-0.123|-1.419|0.0199
91045831|NCT00605917|181977674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||not adjusted, p=0.050|Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was non-pharmaceutical therapies. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without non-pharmaceutical therapies in the participants of responders."||||0.001
91045832|NCT00605917|181977675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|||||not adjusted, p=0.050|Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was history of treatment prior to administration of Sertraline. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without history of treatment prior to administration of Sertraline in the participants of responders."||||0.028
91045833|NCT00605917|181977676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||not adjusted, p=0.050|Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was average daily dose. The null hypothesis is there is no difference of five types of average daily dose in the participants of responders."||||<0.001
91045834|NCT00605917|181977677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|||||"The risk factor tested was complications. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without complications in the participants of responders."|Chi-squared|not adjusted, p=0.050||"The risk factor tested was complications. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without complications in the participants of responders."||||0.030
91045835|NCT00605917|181977678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|||||not adjusted, p=0.050|Chi-squared|||"The factor tested was concomitant drug. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without concomitant drug in the participants of responders."||||0.013
91045836|NCT00605917|181977679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|||||not adjusted, p=0.050|Chi-squared|||"The factor tested was complications. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with or without complications in the participants of responders."||||0.004
91045837|NCT00605917|181977680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|||||not adjusted, p=0.050|Chi-squared|||"The factor tested was drinking status. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between five types of drinking status in the participants of responders."||||0.004
91045838|NCT01506908|181977681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares means difference|-15.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.6|-10.2|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparisons were made between 4 mg nicotine lozenge and placebo lozenge at 5% significance level.|Null hypothesis considered the population's change from post-cue baseline in craving score mean to be equal in both treatment groups at 5 minutes||-10.2|-21.6|<0.0001
91045839|NCT01506908|181977682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares means difference|-4.2||||0.0511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|0.0|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparisons were made between 4 mg nicotine lozenge and placebo lozenge at 5% significance level.|Null hypothesis considered the population's change from post-cue baseline in craving score mean to be equal in both treatment groups at 1 minute.||0.0|-8.4|0.0511
91045840|NCT01506908|181977683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares means difference|-11.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.7|-6.4|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparisons were made between 4 mg nicotine lozenge and placebo lozenge at 5% significance level.|Null hypothesis considered the population's change from post-cue baseline in craving score mean to be equal in both treatment groups at 3 minutes.||-6.4|-16.7|<0.0001
91045841|NCT01506908|181977684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares means difference|-17.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.8|-11.7|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparisons were made between 4 mg nicotine lozenge and placebo lozenge at 5% significance level.|Null hypothesis considered the population's change from post-cue baseline in craving score mean to be equal in both treatment groups at 7 minutes.||-11.7|-23.8|<0.0001
90998317|NCT02559206|181879988|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0276||||||Trend test performed using linear contrast statement for each DR formulation with placebo.|Trend Test|||||||0.0276
90998318|NCT02559206|181879989|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Lin-Placebo)|-0.569||||0.0839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.214|0.076|||MMRM|||||0.076|-1.214|0.0839
90998319|NCT02559206|181879989|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Lin-Placebo)|-0.455||||0.1669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.102|0.191|||MMRM|||||0.191|-1.102|0.1669
91045842|NCT01506908|181977685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-17.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.4|-11.4|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparisons were made between 4 mg nicotine lozenge and placebo lozenge at 5% significance level.|Null hypothesis considered the population's change from post-cue baseline in craving score mean to be equal in both treatment groups at 10 minutes.||-11.4|-24.4|<0.0001
91045843|NCT00292227|181977692|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A standard deviation of 12ms was assumed for sample size calculation. Sample size was calculated to have 90% power to show the non-inferiority of rotigotine against placebo with respect to the non-inferiority margin of 10ms (α=0.05, 1-sided).|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.75||||||90.0|-2.63|1.12|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included the factors site, treatment, gender, and time-matched baseline QTcI as covariate.|The direction of the estimate is Rotigotine - Placebo. Mean difference was estimated from the ANCOVA model.|The analysis was based on a non-inferiority comparison of rotigotine vs placebo using a 1-sided 95% confidence interval (or, equivalently, the upper limit of 2-sided 90% confidence interval) for the time-matched changes from Baseline in QTcI.||1.12|-2.63|
90998320|NCT02559206|181879989|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Lin-Placebo)|-0.299||||0.3637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.947|0.348|||MMRM|||||0.348|-0.947|0.3637
90998321|NCT02559206|181879989|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Lin-Placebo)|-0.258||||0.4333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.905|0.389|||MMRM|||||0.389|-0.905|0.4333
90998322|NCT02559206|181879989|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5528||||||Trend test performed using linear contrast statement for each DR formulation with placebo.|Trend Test|||||||0.5528
90998323|NCT02559206|181879990|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Lin-Placebo)|0.992||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.228|1.756|||MMRM|||||1.756|0.228|0.0110
90998324|NCT02559206|181879990|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Lin-Placebo)|0.048||||0.9013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.716|0.812|||MMRM|||||0.812|-0.716|0.9013
90998325|NCT02559206|181879990|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Lin-Placebo)|0.299||||0.4447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.469|1.067|||MMRM|||||1.067|-0.469|0.4447
90998326|NCT02559206|181879990|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Lin-Placebo)|0.662||||0.0904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.104|1.428|||MMRM|||||1.428|-0.104|0.0904
90998327|NCT02559206|181879990|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07||||||Trend test performed using linear contrast statement for each DR formulation with placebo.|Trend Test|||||||0.0700
90998328|NCT02559206|181879991|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Lin-Placebo)|0.992||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.228|1.756|||MMRM|||||1.756|0.228|0.0110
90998329|NCT02559206|181879991|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Lin-Placebo)|0.161||||0.6801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.604|0.925|||MMRM|||||0.925|-0.604|0.6801
90998330|NCT02559206|181879991|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Lin-Placebo)|-0.095||||0.8069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.861|0.67|||MMRM|||||0.670|-0.861|0.8069
90998331|NCT02559206|181879991|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Lin-Placebo)|-0.246||||0.5275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.011|0.519|||MMRM|||||0.519|-1.011|0.5275
90998332|NCT02559206|181879991|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4201||||||Trend test performed using linear contrast statement for each DR formulation with placebo.|Trend Test|||||||0.4201
90998333|NCT02559206|181879992|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.1663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|3.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.70|0.79|0.1663
90998334|NCT02559206|181879992|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.4399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|3.17|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.17|0.61|0.4399
90998335|NCT02559206|181879992|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|2.85|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.85|0.57|0.5540
90998336|NCT02559206|181879992|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.39||||0.0262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|5.19|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.19|1.10|0.0262
90998337|NCT02559206|181879992|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0249||||||For each DR formulation, the Correlation Test p-values are obtained from the correlation statistic controlling for geographic region.|Correlation test|||||||0.0249
90998338|NCT02559206|181879993|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.1663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|3.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.70|0.79|0.1663
90998339|NCT02559206|181879993|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|2.58|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.58|0.49|0.7710
90998340|NCT02559206|181879993|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.8021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|2.58|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.58|0.48|0.8021
90998341|NCT02559206|181879993|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.8011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|2.14|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.14|0.37|0.8011
90998342|NCT02559206|181879993|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8578||||||For each DR formulation, the Correlation Test p-values are obtained from the correlation statistic controlling for geographic region.|Correlation test|||||||0.8578
90998343|NCT00713284|181880005|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.05
90998344|NCT04134728|181880013|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.2868|TWO_SIDED|0.95|0.76|2.48|||Regression, Logistic|OR and corresponding 95%CI are generated from logistic regression model adjusted for Baseline, Treatment Group, Previously Failed Medical Category.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between 90 mg dose of GSK3196165 and placebo in the proportion of participants achieving ACR20 response at Week 12 versus the alternative hypothesis that the 90 mg dose of GSK3196165 differs from placebo in the proportion of participants with ACR20 response at Week 12||2.48|0.76|0.2868
91045844|NCT00292227|181977693|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A standard deviation of 12ms was assumed for sample size calculation. Sample size was calculated to have 90% power to show the non-inferiority of rotigotine against placebo with respect to the non-inferiority margin of 10ms (α=0.05, 1-sided).|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||||90.0|-2.21|2.19|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included the factors site, treatment, gender, and time-matched baseline QTcI as covariate.|The direction of the estimate is Rotigotine - Placebo. Mean difference was estimated from the ANCOVA model.|The analysis was based on a non-inferiority comparison of rotigotine vs placebo using a 1-sided 95% confidence interval (or, equivalently, the upper limit of 2-sided 90% confidence interval) for the time-matched changes from Baseline in QTcI.||2.19|-2.21|
91045845|NCT00292227|181977694|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A standard deviation of 12ms was assumed for sample size calculation. Sample size was calculated to have 90% power to show the non-inferiority of rotigotine against placebo with respect to the non-inferiority margin of 10ms (α=0.05, 1-sided).|Mean Difference (Net)|0.84||||||90.0|-1.12|2.8|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included the factors site, treatment, gender, and time-matched baseline QTcI as covariate.|The direction of the estimate is Rotigotine - Placebo Mean difference was estimated from the ANCOVA model.|The analysis was based on a non-inferiority comparison of rotigotine vs placebo using a 1-sided 95% confidence interval (or, equivalently, the upper limit of 2-sided 90% confidence interval) for the time-matched changes from Baseline in QTcI.||2.80|-1.12|
91045846|NCT00292227|181977695|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A standard deviation of 12ms was assumed for sample size calculation. Sample size was calculated to have 90% power to show the non-inferiority of rotigotine against placebo with respect to the non-inferiority margin of 10ms (α=0.05, 1-sided).|Mean Difference (Net)|0.26||||||90.0|-1.8|2.32|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included the factors site, treatment, gender, and time-matched baseline QTcI as covariate.|The direction of the estimate is Rotigotine - Placebo. Mean difference was estimated from the ANCOVA model.|The analysis was based on a non-inferiority comparison of rotigotine vs placebo using a 1-sided 95% confidence interval (or, equivalently, the upper limit of 2-sided 90% confidence interval) for the time-matched changes from Baseline in QTcI.||2.32|-1.80|
91045847|NCT00292227|181977696|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A standard deviation of 12ms was assumed for sample size calculation. Sample size was calculated to have 90% power to show the non-inferiority of rotigotine against placebo with respect to the non-inferiority margin of 10ms (α=0.05, 1-sided).|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11||||||90.0|-2.25|2.02|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included the factors site, treatment, gender, and time-matched baseline QTcI as covariate.|The direction of the estimate is Rotigotine - Placebo. Mean difference was estimated from the ANCOVA model.|The analysis was based on a non-inferiority comparison of rotigotine vs placebo using a 1-sided 95% confidence interval (or, equivalently, the upper limit of 2-sided 90% confidence interval) for the time-matched changes from Baseline in QTcI.||2.02|-2.25|
91045848|NCT00292227|181977697|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A standard deviation of 12ms was assumed for sample size calculation. Sample size was calculated to have 90% power to show the non-inferiority of rotigotine against placebo with respect to the non-inferiority margin of 10ms (α=0.05, 1-sided).|Mean Difference (Net)|0.07||||||90.0|-2.14|2.28|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included the factors site, treatment, gender, and time-matched baseline QTcI as covariate.|The direction of the estimate is Rotigotine - Placebo. Mean difference was estimated from the ANCOVA model.|The analysis was based on a non-inferiority comparison of rotigotine vs placebo using a 1-sided 95% confidence interval (or, equivalently, the upper limit of 2-sided 90% confidence interval) for the time-matched changes from Baseline in QTcI.||2.28|-2.14|
91045849|NCT00292227|181977698|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A standard deviation of 12ms was assumed for sample size calculation. Sample size was calculated to have 90% power to show the non-inferiority of rotigotine against placebo with respect to the non-inferiority margin of 10ms (α=0.05, 1-sided).|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.56||||||90.0|-2.84|1.72|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included the factors site, treatment, gender, and time-matched baseline QTcI as covariate.|The direction of the estimate is Rotigotine - Placebo. Mean difference was estimated from the ANCOVA model.|The analysis was based on a non-inferiority comparison of rotigotine vs placebo using a 1-sided 95% confidence interval (or, equivalently, the upper limit of 2-sided 90% confidence interval) for the time-matched changes from Baseline in QTcI.||1.72|-2.84|
91045850|NCT00292227|181977699|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A standard deviation of 12ms was assumed for sample size calculation. Sample size was calculated to have 90% power to show the non-inferiority of rotigotine against placebo with respect to the non-inferiority margin of 10ms (α=0.05, 1-sided).|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.26||||||90.0|-2.29|1.78|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included the factors site, treatment, gender, and time-matched baseline QTcI as covariate.|The direction of the estimate is Rotigotine - Placebo. Mean difference was estimated from the ANCOVA model.|The analysis was based on a non-inferiority comparison of rotigotine vs placebo using a 1-sided 95% confidence interval (or, equivalently, the upper limit of 2-sided 90% confidence interval) for the time-matched changes from Baseline in QTcI.||1.78|-2.29|
91045851|NCT00292227|181977700|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A standard deviation of 12ms was assumed for sample size calculation. Sample size was calculated to have 90% power to show the non-inferiority of rotigotine against placebo with respect to the non-inferiority margin of 10ms (α=0.05, 1-sided).|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.17||||||90.0|-3.25|0.91|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included the factors site, treatment, gender, and time-matched baseline QTcI as covariate.|The direction of the estimate is Rotigotine - Placebo. Mean difference was estimated from the ANCOVA model.|The analysis was based on a non-inferiority comparison of rotigotine vs placebo using a 1-sided 95% confidence interval (or, equivalently, the upper limit of 2-sided 90% confidence interval) for the time-matched changes from Baseline in QTcI.||0.91|-3.25|
90998345|NCT04134728|181880013|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.75||||0.0596|TWO_SIDED|0.95|0.98|3.15|||Regression, Logistic|OR and corresponding 95%CI are generated from logistic regression model adjusted for Baseline, Treatment Group, Previously Failed Medical Category.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between 150 mg dose of GSK3196165 and placebo in the percentage of participants achieving ACR20 response at Week 12 versus the alternative hypothesis that the 150 mg dose of GSK3196165 differs from placebo in the percentage of participants with ACR20 response at Week 12||3.15|0.98|0.0596
91045852|NCT00292227|181977701|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A standard deviation of 12ms was assumed for sample size calculation. Sample size was calculated to have 90% power to show the non-inferiority of rotigotine against placebo with respect to the non-inferiority margin of 10ms (α=0.05, 1-sided).|Mean Difference (Net)|1.69||||||90.0|-0.34|3.73|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included the factors site, treatment, gender, and time-matched baseline QTcI as covariate.|The direction of the estimate is Rotigotine - Placebo. Mean difference was estimated from the ANCOVA model.|The analysis was based on a non-inferiority comparison of rotigotine vs placebo using a 1-sided 95% confidence interval (or, equivalently, the upper limit of 2-sided 90% confidence interval) for the time-matched changes from Baseline in QTcI.||3.73|-0.34|
91045853|NCT00292227|181977702|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A standard deviation of 12ms was assumed for sample size calculation. Sample size was calculated to have 90% power to show the non-inferiority of rotigotine against placebo with respect to the non-inferiority margin of 10ms (α=0.05, 1-sided).|Mean Difference (Net)|0.31||||||90.0|-1.7|2.32|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included the factors site, treatment, gender, and time-matched baseline QTcI as covariate.|The direction of the estimate is Rotigotine - Placebo. Mean difference was estimated from the ANCOVA model.|The analysis was based on a non-inferiority comparison of rotigotine vs placebo using a 1-sided 95% confidence interval (or, equivalently, the upper limit of 2-sided 90% confidence interval) for the time-matched changes from Baseline in QTcI.||2.32|-1.70|
91045854|NCT00292227|181977703|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A standard deviation of 12ms was assumed for sample size calculation. Sample size was calculated to have 90% power to show the non-inferiority of rotigotine against placebo with respect to the non-inferiority margin of 10ms (α=0.05, 1-sided).|Mean Difference (Net)|1.65||||||90.0|-0.65|3.96|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included the factors site, treatment, gender, and time-matched baseline QTcI as covariate.|The direction of the estimate is Rotigotine - Placebo. Mean difference was estimated from the ANCOVA model.|The analysis was based on a non-inferiority comparison of rotigotine vs placebo using a 1-sided 95% confidence interval (or, equivalently, the upper limit of 2-sided 90% confidence interval) for the time-matched changes from Baseline in QTcI.||3.96|-0.65|
91045855|NCT00292227|181977704|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A standard deviation of 12ms was assumed for sample size calculation. Sample size was calculated to have 90% power to show the non-inferiority of rotigotine against placebo with respect to the non-inferiority margin of 10ms (α=0.05, 1-sided).|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.21||||||90.0|-1.78|1.36|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included the factors site, treatment, gender, and time-matched baseline QTcI as covariate.|The direction of the estimate is Rotigotine - Placebo. Mean difference was estimated from the ANCOVA model.|The analysis was based on a non-inferiority comparison of rotigotine vs placebo using a 1-sided 95% confidence interval (or, equivalently, the upper limit of 2-sided 90% confidence interval) for the time-matched changes from Baseline in QTcI.||1.36|-1.78|
91045856|NCT00292227|181977705|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A standard deviation of 12ms was assumed for sample size calculation. Sample size was calculated to have 90% power to show the non-inferiority of rotigotine against placebo with respect to the non-inferiority margin of 10ms (α=0.05, 1-sided).|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.53||||||90.0|-2.37|1.3|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included the factors site, treatment, gender, and time-matched baseline QTcI as covariate.|The direction of the estimate is Rotigotine - Placebo. Mean difference was estimated from the ANCOVA model.|The analysis was based on a non-inferiority comparison of rotigotine vs placebo using a 1-sided 95% confidence interval (or, equivalently, the upper limit of 2-sided 90% confidence interval) for the time-matched changes from Baseline in QTcI.||1.30|-2.37|
90998346|NCT04134728|181880013|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.34||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|0.95|1.29|4.23|||Regression, Logistic|OR and corresponding 95%CI are generated from logistic regression model adjusted for Baseline, Treatment Group, Previously Failed Medical Category.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between 200 mg dose of Sarilumab alternating with placebo every week and placebo in the proportion of participants achieving ACR20 response at Week 12 versus the alternative hypothesis that the 200 mg dose of Sarilumab alternating with placebo every week differs from placebo in the proportion of participants with ACR20 response at Week 12||4.23|1.29|0.0049
90998347|NCT04134728|181880013|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59||||0.0293|TWO_SIDED|0.95|0.36|0.95|||Regression, Logistic|OR and corresponding 95%CI are generated from logistic regression model adjusted for Baseline, Treatment Group, Previously Failed Medical Category.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between 90 mg dose of GSK3196165 and 200 mg dose of sarilumab alternating with placebo every week in the proportion of participants achieving ACR20 response at Week 12 versus the alternative hypothesis that the 90 mg dose of GSK3196165 differs from 200 mg dose of sarilumab alternating with placebo every week in the proportion of participants with ACR20 response at Week 12||0.95|0.36|0.0293
90998348|NCT04134728|181880013|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.2308|TWO_SIDED|0.95|0.47|1.2|||Regression, Logistic|OR and corresponding 95%CI are generated from logistic regression model adjusted for Baseline, Treatment Group, Previously Failed Medical Category.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between 150 mg dose of GSK3196165 and 200 mg dose of sarilumab alternating with placebo every week in the proportion of participants achieving ACR20 response at Week 12 versus the alternative hypothesis that the 150 mg dose of GSK3196165 differs from 200 mg dose of sarilumab alternating with placebo every week in the proportion of participants with ACR20 response at Week 12||1.20|0.47|0.2308
90998349|NCT03351478|181880136|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square (LS) Means|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.25|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 is analyzed using an ANCOVA model using multiple imputations to fill in missing data and is parameterized with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of metformin use at screening (Yes, No), randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, and the country as fixed effects, and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||-0.25|-0.62|< 0.0001
90998350|NCT03351478|181880136|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.28|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 is analyzed using an ANCOVA model using multiple imputations to fill in missing data and is parameterized with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of metformin use at screening (Yes, No), randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, and the country as fixed effects, and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||0.28|-0.04|0.145
90998351|NCT03351478|181880137|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-2.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.43||0.1529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.87|0.76|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 12 is analyzed using an ANCOVA model using multiple imputations to fill in missing data and is parameterized with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤ 8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of metformin use at screening (Yes, No) and the country as fixed effects, and baseline SBP as a covariate.||0.76|-4.87|0.1529
90998352|NCT03351478|181880137|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21||0.3377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|3.55|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 12 is analyzed using an ANCOVA model using multiple imputations to fill in missing data and is parameterized with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤ 8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of metformin use at screening (Yes, No) and the country as fixed effects, and baseline SBP as a covariate.||3.55|-1.21|0.3377
90998353|NCT03351478|181880138|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.5|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 is analyzed using an ANCOVA model using multiple imputations to fill in missing data and is parameterized with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of metformin use at screening (Yes, No), randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, and the country as fixed effects, and baseline 2-hour postprandial glucose as a covariate.||-0.5|-1.33|<0.0001
90998354|NCT03351478|181880138|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.8397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.3|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 is analyzed using an ANCOVA model using multiple imputations to fill in missing data and is parameterized with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of metformin use at screening (Yes, No), randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥ 130 mmHg) at screening, and the country as fixed effects, and baseline 2-hour postprandial glucose as a covariate.||0.3|-0.37|0.8397
90998355|NCT03351478|181880139|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|-0.35|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 is analyzed using an ANCOVA model using multiple imputations to fill in missing data and is parameterized with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of metformin use at screening (Yes, No), randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, and the country as fixed effects, and baseline fasting plasma glucose as a covariate.||-0.35|-1.25|0.0005
90998356|NCT03351478|181880139|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.1339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.7|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 is analyzed using an ANCOVA model using multiple imputations to fill in missing data and is parameterized with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of metformin use at screening (Yes, No), randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, and the country as fixed effects, and baseline fasting plasma glucose as a covariate.||0.7|-0.09|0.1339
90998357|NCT03351478|181880140|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-2.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.95|-1.54|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 is analyzed using an ANCOVA model using multiple imputations to fill in missing data and is parameterized with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of metformin use at screening (Yes, No), randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, and the country as fixed effects, and baseline weight as a covariate.||-1.54|-2.95|<0.0001
90998358|NCT03351478|181880140|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.1407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|1.19|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 is analyzed using an ANCOVA model using multiple imputations to fill in missing data and is parameterized with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of metformin use at screening (Yes, No), randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, and the country as fixed effects, and baseline weight as a covariate.||1.19|-0.17|0.1407
90998359|NCT03351478|181880141|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-2.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.0325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.89|-0.17|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 is analyzed using an ANCOVA model using multiple imputations to fill in missing data and is parameterized with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤ 8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of metformin use at screening (Yes, No) and the country as fixed effects, and baseline SBP as a covariate.||-0.17|-3.89|0.0325
90998360|NCT03351478|181880141|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.1565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|2.63|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 is analyzed using an ANCOVA model using multiple imputations to fill in missing data and is parameterized with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤ 8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of metformin use at screening (Yes, No) and the country as fixed effects, and baseline SBP as a covariate.||2.63|-0.42|0.1565
90998361|NCT03351478|181880142|SUPERIORITY||percentage difference|8.1||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.36|12.89|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The percentage difference between treatment groups using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by the randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of metformin use at screening (Yes, No), and the randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at the screening.||12.89|3.36|0.0048
90998362|NCT03351478|181880143|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|16.9||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.26|24.52|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The percentage difference between treatment groups using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by the randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of metformin use at screening (Yes, No), and the randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at the screening.||24.52|9.26|0.0001
90998363|NCT01106391|181880199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate of technical success (%)|90.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|79.5|96.2|||||The 95% confidence interval was based on the exact confidence interval (Collett, 1991)|Since this was a feasibility study without comparisons, sample size was not determined based on statistical consideration. No formal hypothesis testing was performed either.||96.2|79.5|
90998364|NCT01106391|181880200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate of achieved primary safety(%)|97.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|88.1|99.6|||||The 95% confidence interval was based on the exact confidence interval (Collett, 1991)|Since this was a feasibility study without comparisons, sample size was not determined based on statistical consideration. No formal hypothesis testing was performed either.||99.6|88.1|
91078041|NCT02542293|182041278|OTHER|The study was not designed or powered to show statistical significance for efficacy endpoints in the China cohort, so all statistical analyses for the China cohort were considered exploratory.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.193|0.761|||||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for PD-L1 status (\>= 25% Vs \< 25%) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"FAS:~China: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs China: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy to be associated with a longer DoR than SoC."||0.761|0.193|
91078042|NCT02542293|182041281|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.494|1.058|||||The HR and CI were calculated using an unstratified Cox proportional hazards model, with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"bTMB ≥20 mut/Mb analysis set: Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab to be associated with a longer time to second progression than SoC."||1.058|0.494|
91078043|NCT02542293|182041281|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.607|1.151|||||The HR and CI were calculated using an unstratified Cox proportional hazards model, with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"bTMB ≥16 mut/Mb analysis set: Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab to be associated with a longer time to second progression than SoC."||1.151|0.607|
91078044|NCT02542293|182041281|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.689|1.146|||||The HR and CI were calculated using an unstratified Cox proportional hazards model, with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"bTMB ≥12 mut/Mb analysis set: Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab to be associated with a longer time to second progression than SoC."||1.146|0.689|
90998365|NCT00150345|181880217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.493||||0.258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.129|1.755|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio computed from the logistic regression (logit model) including terms for treatment arm, concomitant fluconazole, and positive PCR before randomization. Event IFI=yes is modeled.|Hypothesis: H0: rv - rp = 0 vs H1: rv - rp does not equal 0, where ri is rate of IFI (i=v for voriconazole group, i=p for deferred voriconazole group). Logit model (including important covariates) used. The adjusted odds ratio and 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) for adjusted odds ratio calculated. If 95% CI around odds ratio does not contain a value of 1, then the null hypothesis of equal rates of IFI between immediate voriconazole and deferred voriconazole to be rejected.||1.755|0.129|0.258
90998366|NCT00150345|181880218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.822||||0.596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.398|1.696|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio computed from the logistic regression (logit model) including terms for treatment arm, concomitant fluconazole, and positive PCR before randomization. Event defervescence=yes is modeled.|||1.696|0.398|0.596
90998367|NCT00150345|181880219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.936||||0.864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.441|1.988|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio computed from the logistic regression (logit model) including terms for treatment arm, concomitant fluconazole, and positive PCR before randomization. Event defervescence=yes is modeled.|||1.988|0.441|0.864
90998368|NCT00150345|181880220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.955|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.955
90998369|NCT00150345|181880222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in % participants that died|5.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.08|16.78|||||Approximate 2-sided confidence interval (CI).|Difference in proportions expressed as a percent: immediate voriconazole versus (vs) deferred voriconazole treatment||16.78|-5.08|
90998370|NCT00150345|181880223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.190
90998371|NCT00150345|181880224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.031|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.888||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.004|-0.059||SAS PROC REG with SELECTION=STEPWISE option of SLENTRY=0.05 and SLSTAY=0.10 utilized. Stepwise option combined forward stepping (with a 0.05 level to enter) with elimination of variables already in model that do not stay significant at 0.10 level.|Regression, Linear|Variables: association with age, c-reactive protein, and time to continuous defervescence not significant at 0.05 level; not included in final model||Continuous defervescence achieved=Yes||-0.059|-44.004|0.049
90998372|NCT00150345|181880244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|2.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.96|19.97||||||Difference in proportions expressed as a percent: immediate voriconazole vs deferred voriconazole treatment||19.97|-14.96|
90998373|NCT01392742|181880253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Binary logistic regression for RVR at Week 4.||||0.000
90998374|NCT01392742|181880253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Binary logistic regression for gender at Week 4.||||0.018
90998375|NCT01392742|181880253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.062|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Binary logistic regression for liver fibrosis at Week 4.||||0.062
90998376|NCT01392742|181880253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Binary logistic regression for HCV genotype at Week 4.||||0.050
90998377|NCT01392742|181880253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Binary logistic regression for height at Week 4.||||0.001
90998378|NCT01392742|181880253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Binary logistic regression for treatment duration at Week 4.||||0.001
90998379|NCT01392742|181880253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.037|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Binary logistic regression for EVR at Week 12.||||0.037
90998380|NCT01392742|181880253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Binary logistic regression for gender at Week 12.||||0.018
90998381|NCT01392742|181880253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.092|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Binary logistic regression for liver fibrosis at Week 12.||||0.092
90998382|NCT01392742|181880253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Binary logistic regression for height at Week 12.||||0.001
90998383|NCT01392742|181880253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.042|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Binary logistic regression for treatment duration at Week 12.||||0.042
90998384|NCT01628393|181880304|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||To account for multiple comparisons, each of the 2 treatment comparisons was tested at the alpha = 0.04944 level of significance to keep the overall level of significance at 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test stratified by absence or presence of gadolinium-enhancing lesions at Baseline.||||||<0.0001
90998385|NCT01628393|181880304|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||To account for multiple comparisons, each of the 2 treatment comparisons was tested at the alpha = 0.04944 level of significance to keep the overall level of significance at 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test stratified by absence or presence of gadolinium-enhancing lesions at Baseline.||||||<0.0001
90998386|NCT01628393|181880305|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test stratified by absence or presence of gadolinium-enhancing lesions at Baseline.||||||<0.0001
90998387|NCT01628393|181880305|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test stratified by absence or presence of gadolinium-enhancing lesions at Baseline.||||||<0.0001
91045857|NCT00292227|181977706|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A standard deviation of 12ms was assumed for sample size calculation. Sample size was calculated to have 90% power to show the non-inferiority of rotigotine against placebo with respect to the non-inferiority margin of 10ms (α=0.05, 1-sided).|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.41||||||90.0|-2.3|1.49|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included the factors site, treatment, gender, and time-matched baseline QTcI as covariate.|The direction of the estimate is Rotigotine - Placebo. Mean difference was estimated from the ANCOVA model.|The analysis was based on a non-inferiority comparison of rotigotine vs placebo using a 1-sided 95% confidence interval (or, equivalently, the upper limit of 2-sided 90% confidence interval) for the time-matched changes from Baseline in QTcI.||1.49|-2.30|
91045858|NCT00292227|181977707|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A standard deviation of 12ms was assumed for sample size calculation. Sample size was calculated to have 90% power to show the non-inferiority of rotigotine against placebo with respect to the non-inferiority margin of 10ms (α=0.05, 1-sided).|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||||90.0|-2.34|1.35|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included the factors site, treatment, gender, and time-matched baseline QTcI as covariate.|The direction of the estimate is Rotigotine - Placebo. Mean difference was estimated from the ANCOVA model.|The analysis was based on a non-inferiority comparison of rotigotine vs placebo using a 1-sided 95% confidence interval (or, equivalently, the upper limit of 2-sided 90% confidence interval) for the time-matched changes from Baseline in QTcI.||1.35|-2.34|
91045859|NCT00292227|181977708|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A standard deviation of 12ms was assumed for sample size calculation. Sample size was calculated to have 90% power to show the non-inferiority of rotigotine against placebo with respect to the non-inferiority margin of 10ms (α=0.05, 1-sided).|Mean Difference (Net)|0.21||||||90.0|-1.76|2.17|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included the factors site, treatment, gender, and time-matched baseline QTcI as covariate.|The direction of the estimate is Rotigotine - Placebo. Mean difference was estimated from the ANCOVA model.|The analysis was based on a non-inferiority comparison of rotigotine vs placebo using a 1-sided 95% confidence interval (or, equivalently, the upper limit of 2-sided 90% confidence interval) for the time-matched changes from Baseline in QTcI.||2.17|-1.76|
91045860|NCT00292227|181977709|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A standard deviation of 12ms was assumed for sample size calculation. Sample size was calculated to have 90% power to show the non-inferiority of rotigotine against placebo with respect to the non-inferiority margin of 10ms (α=0.05, 1-sided).|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.23||||||90.0|-2.99|0.53|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included the factors site, treatment, gender, and time-matched baseline QTcI as covariate.|The direction of the estimate is Rotigotine - Placebo. Mean difference was estimated from the ANCOVA model.|The analysis was based on a non-inferiority comparison of rotigotine vs placebo using a 1-sided 95% confidence interval (or, equivalently, the upper limit of 2-sided 90% confidence interval) for the time-matched changes from Baseline in QTcI.||0.53|-2.99|
91045861|NCT00292227|181977710|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A standard deviation of 12ms was assumed for sample size calculation. Sample size was calculated to have 90% power to show the non-inferiority of rotigotine against placebo with respect to the non-inferiority margin of 10ms (α=0.05, 1-sided).|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.62||||||90.0|-3.87|0.63|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included the factors site, treatment, gender, and time-matched baseline QTcI as covariate.|The direction of the estimate is Rotigotine - Placebo. Mean difference was estimated from the ANCOVA model.|The analysis was based on a non-inferiority comparison of rotigotine vs placebo using a 1-sided 95% confidence interval (or, equivalently, the upper limit of 2-sided 90% confidence interval) for the time-matched changes from Baseline in QTcI.||0.63|-3.87|
90998388|NCT01628393|181880306|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test stratified by absence or presence of gadolinium-enhancing lesions at Baseline.||||||<0.0001
90998389|NCT01628393|181880306|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test stratified by absence or presence of gadolinium-enhancing lesions at Baseline.||||||<0.0001
91045862|NCT00292227|181977711|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A standard deviation of 12ms was assumed for sample size calculation. Sample size was calculated to have 90% power to show the non-inferiority of rotigotine against placebo with respect to the non-inferiority margin of 10ms (α=0.05, 1-sided).|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.81||||||90.0|-2.55|0.93|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included the factors site, treatment, gender, and time-matched baseline QTcI as covariate.|The direction of the estimate is Rotigotine - Placebo. Mean difference was estimated from the ANCOVA model.|The analysis was based on a non-inferiority comparison of rotigotine vs placebo using a 1-sided 95% confidence interval (or, equivalently, the upper limit of 2-sided 90% confidence interval) for the time-matched changes from Baseline in QTcI.||0.93|-2.55|
91045863|NCT00292227|181977712|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A standard deviation of 12ms was assumed for sample size calculation. Sample size was calculated to have 90% power to show the non-inferiority of rotigotine against placebo with respect to the non-inferiority margin of 10ms (α=0.05, 1-sided).|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.37||||||90.0|-2.13|1.39|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included the factors site, treatment, gender, and time-matched baseline QTcI as covariate.|The direction of the estimate is Rotigotine - Placebo. Mean difference was estimated from the ANCOVA model.|The analysis was based on a non-inferiority comparison of rotigotine vs placebo using a 1-sided 95% confidence interval (or, equivalently, the upper limit of 2-sided 90% confidence interval) for the time-matched changes from Baseline in QTcI.||1.39|-2.13|
91045864|NCT00292227|181977713|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A standard deviation of 12ms was assumed for sample size calculation. Sample size was calculated to have 90% power to show the non-inferiority of rotigotine against placebo with respect to the non-inferiority margin of 10ms (α=0.05, 1-sided).|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.68||||||90.0|-2.6|1.25|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included the factors site, treatment, gender, and time-matched baseline QTcI as covariate.|The direction of the estimate is Rotigotine - Placebo. Mean difference was estimated from the ANCOVA model.|The analysis was based on a non-inferiority comparison of rotigotine vs placebo using a 1-sided 95% confidence interval (or, equivalently, the upper limit of 2-sided 90% confidence interval) for the time-matched changes from Baseline in QTcI.||1.25|-2.60|
91045865|NCT00292227|181977714|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A standard deviation of 12ms was assumed for sample size calculation. Sample size was calculated to have 90% power to show the non-inferiority of rotigotine against placebo with respect to the non-inferiority margin of 10ms (α=0.05, 1-sided).|Mean Difference (Net)|1.17||||||90.0|-0.69|3.03|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included the factors site, treatment, gender, and time-matched baseline QTcI as covariate.|The direction of the estimate is Rotigotine - Placebo. Mean difference was estimated from the ANCOVA model.|The analysis was based on a non-inferiority comparison of rotigotine vs placebo using a 1-sided 95% confidence interval (or, equivalently, the upper limit of 2-sided 90% confidence interval) for the time-matched changes from Baseline in QTcI.||3.03|-0.69|
90998390|NCT01628393|181880307|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.47||||0.0531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.01|||Poisson regression model|Adjusted for region, the number of relapses within 24 months prior to the study, and the absence or presence of GdE lesions at Baseline.|Rate ratio = Ozanimod / Placebo|||1.01|0.22|0.0531
90998391|NCT01628393|181880307|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.69||||0.2714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.34|||Poisson regression model|Adjusted for region, the number of relapses within 24 months prior to the study, and the absence or presence of GdE lesions at Baseline.|Rate ratio = Ozanimod / Placebo|||1.34|0.36|0.2714
90998392|NCT01226706|181880319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A Bonferroni correction (0.05/n) was used for multiple comparisons||"A sample of 16 subjects per group was required to detect a mean difference of 50 mL in maximum capacity at cystoscopy between botulinum toxin and placebo at 90% power with a two-sided type I error of 5%.~Difference scores were computed for the primary outcome, which were then compared using the Wilcoxon- Mann-Whitney U test. This type of analysis was used to identify both between group differences and within group differences (over time) while using non-parametric statistics."||||.016
90998393|NCT01226706|181880320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.152|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A Bonferroni correction (0.05/n) was used for multiple comparisons||||||0.152
90998394|NCT01226706|181880321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.095|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A Bonferroni correction (0.05/n) was used for multiple comparisons||||||0.095
90998395|NCT01226706|181880322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.067|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A Bonferroni correction (0.05/n) was used for multiple comparisons||||||0.067
90998396|NCT01226706|181880326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A Bonferroni correction (0.05/n) was used for multiple comparisons||||||0.038
90998397|NCT01226706|181880327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.095|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A Bonferroni correction (0.05/n) was used for multiple comparisons||||||0.095
90998398|NCT01226706|181880328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A Bonferroni correction (0.05/n) was used for multiple comparisons||||||0.038
90998399|NCT01226706|181880332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.904|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A Bonferroni correction (0.05/n) was used for multiple comparisons||||||0.904
90998400|NCT01226706|181880333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A Bonferroni correction (0.05/n) was used for multiple comparisons||||||0.080
90998401|NCT01226706|181880334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A Bonferroni correction (0.05/n) was used for multiple comparisons||||||0.230
90998402|NCT01226706|181880338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.2|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A Bonferroni correction (0.05/n) was used for multiple comparisons||||-0.2|-2.1|0.021
90998403|NCT01226706|181880339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.5|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A Bonferroni correction (0.05/n) was used for multiple comparisons||||-0.5|-2.1|0.007
90998404|NCT01226706|181880340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.4|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A Bonferroni correction (0.05/n) was used for multiple comparisons||||-0.4|-2.0|0.013
90998405|NCT01226706|181880341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.173|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A Bonferroni correction (0.05/n) was used for multiple comparisons||||||0.173
90998406|NCT01226706|181880342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.051|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A Bonferroni correction (0.05/n) was used for multiple comparisons||||||0.051
90998407|NCT01226706|181880343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.051|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A Bonferroni correction (0.05/n) was used for multiple comparisons||||||0.051
90998408|NCT01226706|181880344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.557|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A Bonferroni correction (0.05/n) was used for multiple comparisons||||||0.557
90998409|NCT01226706|181880345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A Bonferroni correction (0.05/n) was used for multiple comparisons||||||0.029
90998410|NCT01226706|181880346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.132|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A Bonferroni correction (0.05/n) was used for multiple comparisons||||||0.132
90998411|NCT01226706|181880347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.085|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A Bonferroni correction (0.05/n) was used for multiple comparisons||||||0.085
90998412|NCT01226706|181880348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.099|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A Bonferroni correction (0.05/n) was used for multiple comparisons||||||0.099
90998413|NCT01226706|181880349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.132|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A Bonferroni correction (0.05/n) was used for multiple comparisons||||||0.132
90998414|NCT01226706|181880350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.072|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A Bonferroni correction (0.05/n) was used for multiple comparisons||||||0.072
90998415|NCT01226706|181880351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A Bonferroni correction (0.05/n) was used for multiple comparisons||||||0.230
90998416|NCT01226706|181880352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.314|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A Bonferroni correction (0.05/n) was used for multiple comparisons||||||0.314
90998417|NCT01226706|181880353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A Bonferroni correction (0.05/n) was used for multiple comparisons||||||0.013
90998418|NCT01226706|181880354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.888|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A Bonferroni correction (0.05/n) was used for multiple comparisons||||||0.888
90998419|NCT04015440|181880358|OTHER|Linear Regression|||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<.001
90998420|NCT04015440|181880359|OTHER|Regression||||||0.027|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.027
90998421|NCT04015440|181880360|OTHER|Logistic Regression||||||0.004|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||.004
90998422|NCT00618995|181880363|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Two treatments are comparable if the geometric mean ratio (GMR) is contained within the interval \[0.50-2.00\].|Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.97||||||90.0|0.8|1.18||||||The endpoint is the urine levels of 11-dTxB2 on Day 7 following a 7 day course of daily dosing in the overall 24 hour collection interval. The point estimate and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) \[Treatment A/B\] of the urine levels of 11-dTxB2 on Day 7.||1.18|0.8|
90998423|NCT00618995|181880363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.94||||||90.0|0.77|1.14||||||||1.14|0.77|
90998424|NCT00618995|181880363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.87||||||90.0|0.71|1.05||||||||1.05|0.71|
90998425|NCT00618995|181880363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.84||||||90.0|0.69|1.02||||||||1.02|0.69|
90998426|NCT00618995|181880363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.92||||||90.0|0.76|1.13||||||||1.13|0.76|
90998427|NCT00618995|181880363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.9||||||90.0|0.74|1.09||||||||1.09|0.74|
90998428|NCT00618995|181880364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.94||||||90.0|0.84|1.06||||||||1.06|0.84|
90998429|NCT00618995|181880364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.94||||||90.0|0.84|1.05||||||||1.05|0.84|
90998430|NCT00618995|181880364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.57||||||90.0|0.51|0.64||||||||0.64|0.51|
90998431|NCT00618995|181880364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.54||||||90.0|0.48|0.6||||||||0.60|0.48|
90998432|NCT00618995|181880364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.6||||||90.0|0.54|0.67||||||||0.67|0.54|
90998433|NCT00618995|181880364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.57||||||90.0|0.51|0.64||||||||0.64|0.51|
90998434|NCT01306032|181880366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.034
90998435|NCT01306032|181880366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.68
90998436|NCT01700985|181880408|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
90998437|NCT01700985|181880409|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||At Day 15.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
90998438|NCT01700985|181880410|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||At Day 15.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
90998439|NCT05067452|181880416|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.092|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.721||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|1.4|||ANCOVA|||||1.40|-1.59|0.900
90998440|NCT05067452|181880417|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.945||0.146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.478|3.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.23|-0.478|0.146
90998441|NCT05067452|181880418|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.235|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.212||0.281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.207|0.677|||ANCOVA|Linear regression used with the binary outcome (linear probability model)||||0.677|-0.207|0.281
90998442|NCT05067452|181880419|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.354|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.211||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.768|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear regression used with the binary outcome (linear probability model)||||0.768|-0.060|0.094
90998443|NCT05067452|181880420|SUPERIORITY||Slope|2.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.11||0.669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.83|12.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||12.2|-7.83|0.669
90998444|NCT05067452|181880421|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.367||0.949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.695|0.743|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.743|-0.695|0.949
90998445|NCT05067452|181880422|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|0.679|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.679|-1.58|0.308
90998446|NCT05067452|181880423|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91||0.593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.77|0.499|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.499|-4.77|0.593
90998447|NCT05067452|181880424|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.65||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.86|0.611|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.611|-5.86|0.112
90998448|NCT05067452|181880427|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.85||0.349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.25|2.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.92|-8.25|0.349
90998449|NCT01135017|181880428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|-59.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.275||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.322|-29.457||No adjustment for multiplicity was made. The priori threshold for statistical significance was ≤0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on log-transformed AF burden data with treatment arm as a fixed effect term and baseline log-transformed AF burden as a covariate|"Percent change in AF burden with dronedarone relative to placebo~LS Mean difference from the ANCOVA model on log-transformed AF burden data was exponentiated to convert back to percent change."|"The planned sample size of 286 participants was estimated to have 70% power to detect a reduction in mean AF burden of 30% relative to the placebo group.~Due to the smaller-than-planned sample size, the power to detect this difference was estimated to be only 44%, based on the original assumption. However, the power to detect larger treatment effects (\>40% reduction) remained high and the posthoc power to detect a 60% reduction in AF burden was 99%."||-29.457|-76.322|0.0015
90998450|NCT01148693|181880434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis: Adding gentamicin to contrast medium during ERCP has no relation with postERCP cholangitis Power calculation: 80%||||<0.05
90998451|NCT03970824|181880445|EQUIVALENCE|PK equivalence was concluded if 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for percent ratios of geometric least squares means in AUC0-inf, AUC0-last, and Cmax were within the equivalence margin of 80-125%.|Ratio of geometric least squares means|105.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.19|115.16||||||Statistical analysis of primary PK parameters was performed using an analysis of covariance model (ANCOVA) including covariates for gender, study center, and body weight.||115.16|97.19|
90998452|NCT03970824|181880445|EQUIVALENCE|PK equivalence was concluded if 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for percent ratios of geometric least squares means in AUC0-inf, AUC0-last, and Cmax were within the equivalence margin of 80-125%.|Ratio of geometric least squares means|92.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.29|100.61||||||Statistical analysis of primary PK parameters was performed using an analysis of covariance model (ANCOVA) including covariates for gender, study center, and body weight.||100.61|85.29|
90998453|NCT03970824|181880445|EQUIVALENCE|PK equivalence was concluded if 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for percent ratios of geometric least squares means in AUC0-inf, AUC0-last, and Cmax were within the equivalence margin of 80-125%.|Ratio of geometric least squares means|98.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.06|106.63||||||Statistical analysis of primary PK parameters was performed using an analysis of covariance model (ANCOVA) including covariates for gender, study center, and body weight.||106.63|90.06|
90998454|NCT03970824|181880446|EQUIVALENCE|PK equivalence was concluded if 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for percent ratios of geometric least squares means in AUC0-inf, AUC0-last, and Cmax were within the equivalence margin of 80-125%.|Ratio of geometric least squares means|107.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.29|117.13||||||Statistical analysis of primary PK parameters was performed using an analysis of covariance model (ANCOVA) including covariates for gender, study center, and body weight.||117.13|98.29|
90998455|NCT03970824|181880446|EQUIVALENCE|PK equivalence was concluded if 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for percent ratios of geometric least squares means in AUC0-inf, AUC0-last, and Cmax were within the equivalence margin of 80-125%.|Ratio of geometric least squares means|93.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.08|102.5||||||Statistical analysis of primary PK parameters was performed using an analysis of covariance model (ANCOVA) including covariates for gender, study center, and body weight.||102.50|86.08|
90998456|NCT03970824|181880446|EQUIVALENCE|PK equivalence was concluded if 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for percent ratios of geometric least squares means in AUC0-inf, AUC0-last, and Cmax were within the equivalence margin of 80-125%.|Ratio of geometric least squares means|100.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.42|109.92||||||Statistical analysis of primary PK parameters was performed using an analysis of covariance model (ANCOVA) including covariates for gender, study center, and body weight.||109.92|92.42|
90998457|NCT03970824|181880447|EQUIVALENCE|PK equivalence was concluded if 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for percent ratios of geometric least squares means in AUC0-inf, AUC0-last, and Cmax were within the equivalence margin of 80-125%.|Ratio of geometric least squares means|101.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.33|108.89||||||Statistical analysis of primary PK parameters was performed using an analysis of covariance model (ANCOVA) including covariates for gender, study center, and body weight.||108.89|95.33|
90998458|NCT03970824|181880447|EQUIVALENCE|PK equivalence was concluded if 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for percent ratios of geometric least squares means in AUC0-inf, AUC0-last, and Cmax were within the equivalence margin of 80-125%.|Ratio of geometric least squares means|98.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.91|104.92||||||Statistical analysis of primary PK parameters was performed using an analysis of covariance model (ANCOVA) including covariates for gender, study center, and body weight.||104.92|91.91|
90998459|NCT03970824|181880447|EQUIVALENCE|PK equivalence was concluded if 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for percent ratios of geometric least squares means in AUC0-inf, AUC0-last, and Cmax were within the equivalence margin of 80-125%.|Ratio of geometric least squares means|100.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.69|106.85||||||Statistical analysis of primary PK parameters was performed using an analysis of covariance model (ANCOVA) including covariates for gender, study center, and body weight.||106.85|93.69|
90998460|NCT00763243|181880452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.17||0.766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|1.89|||t-test, 2 sided|t(8)=0.31||Change during waiting period (no intervention); no change was hypothesized||1.89|-1.44|0.766
90998461|NCT00763243|181880452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.67|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.44|||t-test, 2 sided|t(8)=5.0||Change during the training period||2.44|0.90|<0.001
90998462|NCT00763243|181880452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.78|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.86||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|3.2|||t-test, 2 sided|t(8)=2.87||Change from pre-training through follow-up period||3.20|0.35|0.021
90998463|NCT00763243|181880452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.12||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|1.19|||t-test, 2 sided|t(8)=0.89||Change from pretraining to 6 month follow up||1.19|-0.53|0.40
90998464|NCT00763243|181880453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.33|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.24||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|3.05|||t-test, 2 sided|t(8)=1.79||Change during waiting period of no intervention||3.05|-0.39|0.11
90998465|NCT00763243|181880453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.44|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.81||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|3.84|||t-test, 2 sided|t(8)=4.05||Change during training period||3.84|1.05|0.004
90998466|NCT00763243|181880453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.06||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|4.46|||t-test, 2 sided|t(8)=2.07||1 Month Follow Up change from pre-training||4.46|-0.24|0.072
90998467|NCT00763243|181880453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.78|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.28||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|2.53|||t-test, 2 sided|t(8)=1.02||6 month follow up change from pre-training||2.53|-0.97|0.34
90998468|NCT00763243|181880454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.86||0.729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.65|||t-test, 2 sided|t(8)=0.36||Waiting period - no treatment||1.65|-1.20|0.729
90998469|NCT00763243|181880454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.78|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.17||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.44|-0.11|||t-test, 2 sided|t(8)=2.46||Training Period - Pretraining to Post-Training Visit||-0.11|-3.44|0.039
90998470|NCT00763243|181880454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.89|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.98||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.17|1.4|||t-test, 2 sided|t(8)=0.90||1 Month Follow Up Period from Pretraining||1.40|-3.17|0.40
90998471|NCT00763243|181880454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.67|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.5||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.59|1.26|||t-test, 2 sided|t(8)=0.89||6 Month Follow Up period from pretraining||1.26|-2.59|0.40
90998472|NCT00507416|181880455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.458||||||The global difference among arms was based on the Wald test.|Wald test|||||||0.458
90998473|NCT03418051|181880511|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.824||||||A priori alpha level was set to 0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.824
90998474|NCT03418051|181880511|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.426||||||A priori alpha level was set to 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.426
90998475|NCT03418051|181880512|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.722||||||A priori alpha level was set to 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.722
90998476|NCT03418051|181880512|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.843||||||A priori alpha level was set to 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.843
90998477|NCT03418051|181880513|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046||||||A priori alpha level was set to 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.046
90998478|NCT03418051|181880513|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.845||||||A priori alpha level was set to 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.845
91045866|NCT00292227|181977715|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A standard deviation of 12ms was assumed for sample size calculation. Sample size was calculated to have 90% power to show the non-inferiority of rotigotine against placebo with respect to the non-inferiority margin of 10ms (α=0.05, 1-sided).|Mean Difference (Net)|0.8||||||90.0|-1.14|2.73|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included the factors site, treatment, gender, and time-matched baseline QTcI as covariate.|The direction of the estimate is Rotigotine - Placebo. Mean difference was estimated from the ANCOVA model.|The analysis was based on a non-inferiority comparison of rotigotine vs placebo using a 1-sided 95% confidence interval (or, equivalently, the upper limit of 2-sided 90% confidence interval) for the time-matched changes from Baseline in QTcI.||2.73|-1.14|
91045867|NCT00292227|181977716|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A standard deviation of 12ms was assumed for sample size calculation. Sample size was calculated to have 90% power to show the non-inferiority of rotigotine against placebo with respect to the non-inferiority margin of 10ms (α=0.05, 1-sided).|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.42||||||90.0|-2.33|1.5|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included the factors site, treatment, gender, and time-matched baseline QTcI as covariate.|The direction of the estimate is Rotigotine - Placebo. Mean difference was estimated from the ANCOVA model.|The analysis was based on a non-inferiority comparison of rotigotine vs placebo using a 1-sided 95% confidence interval (or, equivalently, the upper limit of 2-sided 90% confidence interval) for the time-matched changes from Baseline in QTcI.||1.50|-2.33|
91045868|NCT00292227|181977717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.34||||||95.0|-1.04|1.71|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included the factors treatment, period, sequence, and subject(sequence).|The direction of the estimate is Moxifloxacin - Placebo. Mean difference was estimated from the ANOVA model.|For the analysis of the assay sensitivity, an ANOVA with the factors treatment, period, sequence, and subject(sequence) for comparison of moxifloxacin vs placebo (cross-over comparison) was performed. The point estimates for the difference between placebo and positive control (moxifloxacin) and the respective 95% confidence intervals were calculated.||1.71|-1.04|
90998479|NCT03418051|181880514|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.138||||||A priori alpha level was set to 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.138
90998480|NCT03418051|181880514|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.523||||||A priori alpha level was set to 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.523
90998481|NCT03418051|181880515|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.069||||||A priori alpha level was set to 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.069
90998482|NCT03418051|181880515|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.413||||||A priori alpha level was set to 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.413
90998483|NCT03418051|181880516|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.604||||||A priori alpha level was set to 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.604
90998484|NCT03418051|181880516|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.499||||||A priori alpha level was set to 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.499
90998485|NCT03418051|181880517|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||A priori threshold was set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.005
90998486|NCT03418051|181880517|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.853||||||A priori threshold set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.853
90998487|NCT03418051|181880518|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.142||||||A priori threshold set to 0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.142
90998488|NCT03418051|181880518|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.167||||||A priori threshold set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.167
90998489|NCT03418051|181880519|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.849||||||A priori alpha set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.849
90998490|NCT03418051|181880519|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.993||||||A priori threshold set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.993
90998491|NCT03418051|181880520|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.535||||||A priori alpha level was set to 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.535
90998492|NCT03418051|181880520|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.569||||||A priori alpha level was set to 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.569
90998493|NCT03418051|181880521|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.405||||||A priori threshold was 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.405
90998494|NCT03418051|181880521|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.229||||||A priori threshold set to 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.229
90998495|NCT03418051|181880522|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.609||||||A priori threshold set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.609
90998496|NCT03418051|181880522|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027||||||A priori threshold was set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.027
90998497|NCT03418051|181880523|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.613||||||A priori alpha set at 0.05.|Independent sample Mann-Whitney U|||||||0.613
90998498|NCT03418051|181880524|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.925||||||A priori threshold set at 0.05.|Independent sample Mann-Whitney U|||||||0.925
90998499|NCT03418051|181880525|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.641||||||A priori threshold set at 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.641
90998500|NCT03418051|181880525|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.897||||||A priori threshold set at 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.897
90998501|NCT03418051|181880526|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.561||||||A priori threshold set at 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.561
90998502|NCT03418051|181880526|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.925||||||A priori threshold set at 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.925
90998503|NCT03418051|181880527|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.233||||||A priori threshold set at 0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.233
90998504|NCT03418051|181880527|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.634||||||A priori threshold set at 0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.634
90998505|NCT03418051|181880528|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.233||||||A priori threshold set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.233
90998506|NCT03418051|181880528|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.634||||||A priori threshold set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.634
90998507|NCT03418051|181880529|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||A priori threshold set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.030
90998508|NCT03418051|181880529|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.618||||||A priori threshold set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.618
90998509|NCT03418051|181880530|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.456||||||A priori threshold set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.456
90998510|NCT03418051|181880530|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.568||||||A priori threshold set to 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.568
90998511|NCT03418051|181880531|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.919||||||A priori alpha level was set to 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.919
90998512|NCT03418051|181880531|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.558||||||A priori alpha level was set to 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.558
90998513|NCT03418051|181880532|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.796||||||A priori alpha level was set to 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.796
90998514|NCT03418051|181880532|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.558||||||A priori alpha level was set to 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.558
90998515|NCT03418051|181880533|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.701||||||A priori alpha level was set to 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.701
90998516|NCT03418051|181880533|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68||||||A priori alpha level was set to 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.68
91045869|NCT00292227|181977718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.48||||||95.0|-0.72|1.68|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included the factors treatment, period, sequence, and subject(sequence).|The direction of the estimate is Moxifloxacin - Placebo. Mean difference was estimated from the ANOVA model.|For the analysis of the assay sensitivity, an ANOVA with the factors treatment, period, sequence, and subject(sequence) for comparison of moxifloxacin vs placebo (cross-over comparison) was performed. The point estimates for the difference between placebo and positive control (moxifloxacin) and the respective 95% confidence intervals were calculated.||1.68|-0.72|
91045870|NCT00292227|181977719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.51||||||95.0|0.3|2.73|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included the factors treatment, period, sequence, and subject(sequence).|The direction of the estimate is Moxifloxacin - Placebo. Mean difference was estimated from the ANOVA model.|For the analysis of the assay sensitivity, an ANOVA with the factors treatment, period, sequence, and subject(sequence) for comparison of moxifloxacin vs placebo (cross-over comparison) was performed. The point estimates for the difference between placebo and positive control (moxifloxacin) and the respective 95% confidence intervals were calculated.||2.73|0.30|
91045871|NCT00292227|181977720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|13.5||||||95.0|11.78|15.22|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included the factors treatment, period, sequence, and subject(sequence).|The direction of the estimate is Moxifloxacin - Placebo. Mean difference was estimated from the ANOVA model.|For the analysis of the assay sensitivity, an ANOVA with the factors treatment, period, sequence, and subject(sequence) for comparison of moxifloxacin vs placebo (cross-over comparison) was performed. The point estimates for the difference between placebo and positive control (moxifloxacin) and the respective 95% confidence intervals were calculated.||15.22|11.78|
91045872|NCT00292227|181977721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|11.02||||||95.0|9.12|12.93|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included the factors treatment, period, sequence, and subject(sequence).|The direction of the estimate is Moxifloxacin - Placebo. Mean difference was estimated from the ANOVA model.|For the analysis of the assay sensitivity, an ANOVA with the factors treatment, period, sequence, and subject(sequence) for comparison of moxifloxacin vs placebo (cross-over comparison) was performed. The point estimates for the difference between placebo and positive control (moxifloxacin) and the respective 95% confidence intervals were calculated.||12.93|9.12|
91045873|NCT00292227|181977722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|11.3||||||95.0|9.94|12.67|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included the factors treatment, period, sequence, and subject(sequence).|The direction of the estimate is Moxifloxacin - Placebo. Mean difference was estimated from the ANOVA model.|For the analysis of the assay sensitivity, an ANOVA with the factors treatment, period, sequence, and subject(sequence) for comparison of moxifloxacin vs placebo (cross-over comparison) was performed. The point estimates for the difference between placebo and positive control (moxifloxacin) and the respective 95% confidence intervals were calculated.||12.67|9.94|
91045874|NCT00292227|181977723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.28||||||95.0|6.85|9.7|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included the factors treatment, period, sequence, and subject(sequence).|The direction of the estimate is Moxifloxacin - Placebo. Mean difference was estimated from the ANOVA model.|For the analysis of the assay sensitivity, an ANOVA with the factors treatment, period, sequence, and subject(sequence) for comparison of moxifloxacin vs placebo (cross-over comparison) was performed. The point estimates for the difference between placebo and positive control (moxifloxacin) and the respective 95% confidence intervals were calculated.||9.70|6.85|
91045875|NCT00292227|181977724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.3||||||95.0|7.57|11.02|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included the factors treatment, period, sequence, and subject(sequence).|The direction of the estimate is Moxifloxacin - Placebo. Mean difference was estimated from the ANOVA model.|For the analysis of the assay sensitivity, an ANOVA with the factors treatment, period, sequence, and subject(sequence) for comparison of moxifloxacin vs placebo (cross-over comparison) was performed. The point estimates for the difference between placebo and positive control (moxifloxacin) and the respective 95% confidence intervals were calculated.||11.02|7.57|
91045876|NCT00292227|181977725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.87||||||95.0|7.47|10.28|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included the factors treatment, period, sequence, and subject(sequence).|The direction of the estimate is Moxifloxacin - Placebo. Mean difference was estimated from the ANOVA model.|For the analysis of the assay sensitivity, an ANOVA with the factors treatment, period, sequence, and subject(sequence) for comparison of moxifloxacin vs placebo (cross-over comparison) was performed. The point estimates for the difference between placebo and positive control (moxifloxacin) and the respective 95% confidence intervals were calculated.||10.28|7.47|
91045877|NCT00292227|181977726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.6||||||95.0|7.25|9.96|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included the factors treatment, period, sequence, and subject(sequence).|The direction of the estimate is Moxifloxacin - Placebo. Mean difference was estimated from the ANOVA model.|For the analysis of the assay sensitivity, an ANOVA with the factors treatment, period, sequence, and subject(sequence) for comparison of moxifloxacin vs placebo (cross-over comparison) was performed. The point estimates for the difference between placebo and positive control (moxifloxacin) and the respective 95% confidence intervals were calculated.||9.96|7.25|
91045878|NCT00292227|181977727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.52||||||95.0|6.31|8.72|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included the factors treatment, period, sequence, and subject(sequence).|The direction of the estimate is Moxifloxacin - Placebo. Mean difference was estimated from the ANOVA model.|For the analysis of the assay sensitivity, an ANOVA with the factors treatment, period, sequence, and subject(sequence) for comparison of moxifloxacin vs placebo (cross-over comparison) was performed. The point estimates for the difference between placebo and positive control (moxifloxacin) and the respective 95% confidence intervals were calculated.||8.72|6.31|
90998517|NCT03418051|181880534|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.883||||||A priori threshold set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.883
90998518|NCT03418051|181880534|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.401||||||A priori threshold set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.401
90998519|NCT03418051|181880535|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.393||||||A priori threshold set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.393
90998520|NCT03418051|181880535|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.779||||||A priori threshold set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.779
90998521|NCT03418051|181880536|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.246||||||A priori threshold set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.246
90998522|NCT03418051|181880536|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.191||||||A priori threshold set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.191
90998523|NCT03418051|181880537|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.703||||||A priori threshold set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.703
90998524|NCT03418051|181880537|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.282||||||A priori threshold set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.282
90998525|NCT03418051|181880538|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.925||||||A priori alpha level was set to 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.925
90998526|NCT03418051|181880538|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.551||||||A priori alpha level was set to 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.551
90998527|NCT03418051|181880539|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.506||||||A priori threshold set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.506
90998528|NCT03418051|181880539|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.753||||||A priori threshold at 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.753
90998529|NCT03418051|181880540|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.777||||||A priori threshold set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.777
90998530|NCT03418051|181880540|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.475||||||A priori threshold set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.475
90998531|NCT03418051|181880541|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.738||||||A priori threshold set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.738
90998532|NCT03418051|181880541|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.042||||||A priori threshold set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.042
90998533|NCT03418051|181880542|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.738||||||A priori threshold set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.738
90998534|NCT03418051|181880542|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83||||||A priori threshold set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.830
90998535|NCT03418051|181880543|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7||||||A priori threshold set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.700
90998536|NCT03418051|181880543|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.492||||||A priori threshold set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.492
90998537|NCT03418051|181880544|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82||||||A priori threshold set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.820
90998538|NCT03418051|181880544|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.526||||||A priori threshold set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.526
90998539|NCT01769469|181880586|OTHER|||||||0.2085|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test of difference at Week 48 from baseline||||0.2085
90998540|NCT01769469|181880590|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2452|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.2452
90998541|NCT01769469|181880598|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0806|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||.0806
90998542|NCT01769469|181880609|OTHER|||||||0.6545|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.6545
90998543|NCT01769469|181880613|OTHER|||||||0.8739|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.8739
90998544|NCT01769469|181880621|OTHER|||||||0.5014|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.5014
90998545|NCT01769469|181880622|OTHER|||||||0.2431|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.2431
90998546|NCT01769469|181880623|OTHER|||||||0.7209|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.7209
90998547|NCT01769469|181880624|OTHER|||||||0.5379|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.5379
90998548|NCT01769469|181880625|OTHER|||||||0.7986|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.7986
90998549|NCT01769469|181880645|OTHER|||||||0.8507|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.8507
90998550|NCT01769469|181880646|OTHER|||||||0.3483|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.3483
90998551|NCT01769469|181880653|OTHER|||||||0.4043|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4043
91045879|NCT00292227|181977728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.58||||||95.0|6.21|8.95|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included the factors treatment, period, sequence, and subject(sequence).|The direction of the estimate is Moxifloxacin - Placebo. Mean difference was estimated from the ANOVA model.|For the analysis of the assay sensitivity, an ANOVA with the factors treatment, period, sequence, and subject(sequence) for comparison of moxifloxacin vs placebo (cross-over comparison) was performed. The point estimates for the difference between placebo and positive control (moxifloxacin) and the respective 95% confidence intervals were calculated.||8.95|6.21|
90998552|NCT01769469|181880654|OTHER|||||||0.2927|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2927
90998553|NCT01769469|181880655|OTHER|||||||0.1134|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1134
90998554|NCT01769469|181880656|OTHER|||||||0.5782|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5782
90998555|NCT01769469|181880657|OTHER|||||||0.8658|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8658
90998556|NCT01769469|181880658|OTHER|||||||0.5491|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5491
90998557|NCT01769469|181880659|OTHER|||||||0.0238|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0238
90998558|NCT01769469|181880660|OTHER|||||||0.1172|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1172
90998559|NCT01769469|181880661|OTHER|||||||0.122|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1220
90998560|NCT01769469|181880662|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.000
90998561|NCT01769469|181880664|OTHER|||||||0.7785|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7785
90998562|NCT01769469|181880665|OTHER|||||||0.4933|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4933
90998563|NCT01769469|181880666|OTHER|||||||0.5491|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5491
90998564|NCT01769469|181880667|OTHER|||||||0.5161|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5161
90998565|NCT01769469|181880668|OTHER|||||||0.599|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5990
90998566|NCT01769469|181880669|OTHER|||||||0.8579|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8579
90998567|NCT01769469|181880670|OTHER|||||||0.0719|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0719
90998568|NCT01769469|181880671|OTHER|||||||0.3148|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3148
90998569|NCT01769469|181880672|OTHER|||||||0.139|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1390
90998570|NCT01769469|181880673|OTHER|||||||0.2726|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2726
90998571|NCT01769469|181880674|OTHER|||||||0.537|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5370
90998572|NCT01769469|181880675|OTHER|||||||0.2926|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2926
90998573|NCT01769469|181880676|OTHER|||||||0.1906|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1906
90998574|NCT01769469|181880677|OTHER|||||||0.2255|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2255
90998575|NCT01769469|181880678|OTHER|||||||0.6285|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6285
90998576|NCT01769469|181880679|OTHER|||||||0.0148|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0148
90998577|NCT01769469|181880680|OTHER|||||||0.0166|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0166
90998578|NCT01769469|181880681|OTHER|||||||0.0277|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0277
90998579|NCT01769469|181880682|OTHER|||||||0.261|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2610
90998580|NCT01769469|181880683|OTHER|||||||0.4154|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4154
90998581|NCT01769469|181880684|OTHER|||||||0.7125|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7125
90998582|NCT02713789|181880736|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.827|||||||ANCOVA|||SEP2||||0.827
90998583|NCT02713789|181880736|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.594|||||||ANCOVA|||SEP2||||0.594
90998584|NCT02713789|181880736|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.274|||||||ANCOVA|||SEP3||||0.274
90998585|NCT02713789|181880736|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.766|||||||ANCOVA|||SEP3||||0.766
90998586|NCT02713789|181880737|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.384|||||||t-test, 1 sided|one-sided paired t-test at 5% significance level||||||0.384
90998587|NCT02713789|181880737|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.144|||||||t-test, 1 sided|one-sided paired t-test at 5% significance level||||||0.144
90998588|NCT02713789|181880737|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022|||||||t-test, 1 sided|one-sided paired t-test at 5% significance level||||||0.022
90998589|NCT02713789|181880737|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.137|||||||t-test, 1 sided|p-value (one-sided) corresponds to the two sample t-test analysis||||||0.137
90998590|NCT02713789|181880737|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.123|||||||t-test, 1 sided|p-value (one-sided) corresponds to the two sample t-test analysis||||||0.123
90998591|NCT02713789|181880738|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||t-test, 1 sided|one-sided paired t-test at 5% significance level||||||0.160
90998592|NCT02713789|181880738|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.208|||||||t-test, 1 sided|one-sided paired t-test at 5% significance level||||||0.208
90998593|NCT02713789|181880738|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.316|||||||t-test, 1 sided|one-sided paired t-test at 5% significance level||||||0.316
91045880|NCT00292227|181977729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.19||||||95.0|4.94|7.45|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included the factors treatment, period, sequence, and subject(sequence).|The direction of the estimate is Moxifloxacin - Placebo. Mean difference was estimated from the ANOVA model.|For the analysis of the assay sensitivity, an ANOVA with the factors treatment, period, sequence, and subject(sequence) for comparison of moxifloxacin vs placebo (cross-over comparison) was performed. The point estimates for the difference between placebo and positive control (moxifloxacin) and the respective 95% confidence intervals were calculated.||7.45|4.94|
91045881|NCT00948792|181977753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"The null hypothesis is that there would be no difference in post-transfusion platelet counts (30-minutes post-transfusion) between the two groups.~We opted to determine the number of transfusions that would be required to detect difference of 20,000 platelets/mm3 (with a standard deviation of 20,000). The number shown to demonstrate this was 44."||||0.8
91045882|NCT00948792|181977754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"The null hypothesis is that there would be no difference in post-transfusion platelet counts (6-hour post-transfusion) between the two groups.~We opted to determine the number of transfusions that would be required to detect difference of 20,000 platelets/mm3 (with a standard deviation of 20,000). The number shown to demonstrate this was 44."||||0.26
91045883|NCT00948792|181977755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"The null hypothesis is that there would be no difference in the change in post-transfusion platelet counts (30 minutes and 6 hours post-transfusion) between the two groups.~We opted to determine the number of transfusions that would be required to detect difference of 20,000 platelets/mm3 (with a standard deviation of 20,000). The number shown to demonstrate this was 44."||||0.09
91045884|NCT03234608|181977756|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.81||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||0.81|-0.44|0.56
91045885|NCT03234608|181977757|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|1.84||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||1.84|-1.28|0.73
91045886|NCT03234608|181977758|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.33||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||Statistical analysis for Individual Level Healthcare Self-Efficacy Sub-scale.||0.33|-0.35|0.94
91045887|NCT03234608|181977758|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.52|||Regression, Linear|||Statistical analysis for Relationship-Dependent Healthcare Self-Efficacy Sub-scale||0.52|-0.33|0.65
91045888|NCT03234608|181977759|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|0.79||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||0.79|-1.25|0.66
91045889|NCT03234608|181977760|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.69||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||1.69|-1.40|0.85
91045890|NCT02105701|181977764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||One-sided Exact Test|||The hypothesis was that at least 1 treatment arm would have a SVR12 rate \>58%.||||<0.001
91045891|NCT02105701|181977764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||One-sided Exact Test|||The hypothesis was that at least 1 treatment arm would have a SVR12 rate \>58%.||||<0.001
91045892|NCT02105701|181977764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||One-sided Exact Test|||The hypothesis was that at least 1 treatment arm would have a SVR12 rate \>58%.||||<0.001
91045893|NCT02105701|181977764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||One-sided Exact Test|||The hypothesis was that at least 1 treatment arm would have a SVR12 rate \>58%.||||<0.001
91045894|NCT02105701|181977767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||One-sided Exact Test|||The hypothesis was that at least 1 treatment arm would have a SVR24 rate \>58%.||||<0.001
91045895|NCT02105701|181977767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||One-sided Exact Test|||The hypothesis was that at least 1 treatment arm would have a SVR24 rate \>58%.||||<0.001
91045896|NCT02105701|181977767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||One-sided Exact Test|||The hypothesis was that at least 1 treatment arm would have a SVR24 rate \>58%.||||<0.001
91045897|NCT02105701|181977767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||One-sided Exact Test|||The hypothesis was that at least 1 treatment arm would have a SVR24 rate \>58%.||||<0.001
91045898|NCT01362296|181977781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.5197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.75||P-value from the stratified log-rank was adjusted for gender (male versus female).|Log Rank||HRs were estimated using a Pike estimator. The HR from the stratified log-rank test was adjusted for gender (male versus female).|||1.75|0.75|0.5197
91045899|NCT04230876|181977801|SUPERIORITY||partial eta squared|0.047|||=|0.269|TWO_SIDED|||||Within the 28 participants, changes in the COSI scores after four weeks using the Amptify were compared to the changes after four weeks watching 20 minutes of CC TV (F(1,26)=1.28).|ANOVA|||||||=0.269
91045900|NCT04230876|181977802|SUPERIORITY||partial eta squared|0.031|||=|0.401|TWO_SIDED|||||Changes in the IOI-HA scores measured after four weeks using the Amptify were compared to the changes seen after four weeks of CC TV every day (F(1,23)=.733).|ANOVA|||||||=0.401
91045901|NCT04230876|181977803|SUPERIORITY||partial eta squared|0.0|||=|0.968|TWO_SIDED|||||Changes in the APHAB benefit scores after four weeks using the Amptify were compared to the improvements seen after four weeks of CC TV every day (F(1,25)=.002).|ANOVA|||||||=0.968
91045902|NCT04230876|181977804|SUPERIORITY||partial eta squared|0.028|||=|0.392|TWO_SIDED|||||Changes in the SSQ-12 scores after four weeks using the Amptify were compared to the improvements seen after four weeks watching 20 minutes of CC TV (F(1,26)=.756).|ANOVA|||||||=0.392
91045903|NCT04230876|181977805|SUPERIORITY||partial eta squared|0.005|||=|0.72|TWO_SIDED|||||Among the 28 participants, changes in the hours per day of hearing aid usage seen after four weeks using the Amptify were compared to the changes seen after four weeks of CC TV every day (F(1,26)=.131).|ANOVA|||||||=0.720
91045904|NCT04230876|181977806|SUPERIORITY||partial eta squared|0.052|||=|0.242|TWO_SIDED|||||Changes in the NU-6 seen after four weeks using the Amptify were compared to the changes seen after four weeks watching 20 minutes of CC TV (F(1,26)=1.43).|ANOVA|||||||=0.242
91045905|NCT00545688|181977812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Response rates|16.82||||0.0094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|30.1||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by breast cancer type (operable, locally advanced, or inflammatory) and estrogen and or progesterone positivity (either positive versus both negative).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||30.1|3.5|0.0094
90998594|NCT02713789|181880738|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.221|||||||t-test, 1 sided|p-value (one-sided) corresponds to the two sample t-test analysis||||||0.221
90998595|NCT02713789|181880738|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.172|||||||t-test, 1 sided|p-value (one-sided) corresponds to the two sample t-test analysis||||||0.172
90998596|NCT02713789|181880739|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.199|||||||t-test, 1 sided|one-sided paired t-test at 5% significance level||||||0.199
90998597|NCT02713789|181880739|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.203|||||||t-test, 1 sided|one-sided paired t-test at 5% significance level||||||0.203
90998598|NCT02713789|181880739|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 1 sided|one-sided paired t-test at 5% significance level||||||0.500
90998599|NCT02713789|181880739|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.296|||||||t-test, 1 sided|p-value (one-sided) corresponds to the two sample t-test analysis||||||0.296
90998600|NCT02713789|181880739|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.286|||||||t-test, 1 sided|p-value (one-sided) corresponds to the two sample t-test analysis||||||0.286
90998601|NCT02713789|181880740|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.449|||||||t-test, 1 sided|one-sided paired t-test at 5% significance level||||||0.449
90998602|NCT02713789|181880740|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.381|||||||t-test, 1 sided|one-sided paired t-test at 5% significance level||||||0.381
91045906|NCT00545688|181977812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0141|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, with Simes multiplicity adjustment.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0141
90998603|NCT02713789|181880740|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||t-test, 1 sided|one-sided paired t-test at 5% significance level||||||0.011
90998604|NCT02713789|181880740|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|p-value (one-sided) corresponds to the two sample t-test analysis||||||0.05
90998605|NCT02713789|181880740|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 1 sided|p-value (one-sided) corresponds to the two sample t-test analysis||||||0.09
90998606|NCT02713789|181880741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.074|||||||t-test, 1 sided|one-sided paired t-test at 5% significance level||||||0.074
90998607|NCT02713789|181880741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.468|||||||t-test, 1 sided|one-sided paired t-test at 5% significance level||||||0.468
90998608|NCT02713789|181880741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.109|||||||t-test, 1 sided|one-sided paired t-test at 5% significance level||||||0.109
90998609|NCT02713789|181880741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.493|||||||t-test, 1 sided|p-value (one-sided) corresponds to the two sample t-test analysis||||||0.493
90998610|NCT02713789|181880741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.235|||||||t-test, 1 sided|p-value (one-sided) corresponds to the two sample t-test analysis||||||0.235
90998611|NCT02713789|181880742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.136|||||||ANCOVA|||SEP1||||0.136
90998612|NCT02713789|181880742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.498|||||||ANCOVA|||SEP1||||0.498
90998613|NCT02713789|181880742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.369|||||||ANCOVA|||SEP4||||0.369
90998614|NCT02713789|181880742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.337|||||||ANCOVA|||SEP4||||0.337
90998615|NCT02713789|181880742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||ANCOVA|||SEP5||||0.160
90998616|NCT01998269|181880762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||correlation coefficient|0.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Correlation||r= 0.60, p-value\<0.001. P values below 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|We examined correlations between patient scores on the Measure of Medication Self-Management (MeDS) and the 8-item Morisky Medication Adherence questionnaire.||||<.001
90998617|NCT01375647|181880775|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.9||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|3.9|||Chi-squared|2 sided, not adjusted||||3.9|-9.6|0.4
90998618|NCT01375647|181880776|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.4||||4e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|19.8||2-sided, no adjustment|Chi-squared|||||19.8|7.0|0.00004
90998619|NCT01375647|181880777|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Sabin type 1 shedding||||0.5
90998620|NCT01375647|181880777|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2||||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Sabin type 2 shedding||||0.2
90998621|NCT01375647|181880777|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Sabin type 3 shedding||||0.1
90998622|NCT01375647|181880779|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|4.5||||||Sabin type 1||4.5|-7.3|
90998623|NCT01375647|181880779|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|0.9||||||Sabin type 2||0.9|-7.2|
90998624|NCT01375647|181880779|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|6.1||||||||6.1|-3.2|
90998625|NCT01375647|181880780|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-33.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.7|-26.5||||||||-26.5|-40.7|
90998626|NCT01375647|181880780|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-24.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.1|-17.5||||||||-17.5|-31.1|
90998627|NCT01375647|181880780|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-45.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.6|-38.0||||||||-38.0|-52.6|
90998628|NCT01375647|181880781|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.981|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.981
90998629|NCT01375647|181880782|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
90998630|NCT03788967|181880787|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority hypothesis test was a 1-sided hypothesis test performed at the 2.5% level of significance. If the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference in overall response was greater than -12.5%, non-inferiority was declared.|Risk Difference|-3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|3.2||||||||3.2|-9.7|
90998631|NCT03788967|181880789|OTHER||Risk Difference|-4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|1.9||||||||1.9|-11.3|
90998632|NCT03788967|181880790|OTHER||Risk Difference|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|3.4||||||Statistical Analysis 1 (EOT)||3.4|-0.1|
90998633|NCT03788967|181880790|OTHER||Risk Difference|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|2.8||||||Statistical Analysis 2 (TOC)||2.8|-4|
90998634|NCT03788967|181880790|OTHER||Risk Difference|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|2.6||||||Statistical Analysis 3 (LFU)||2.6|-5.7|
90998635|NCT03788967|181880791|OTHER||Risk Difference|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|2.0||||||||2.0|-0.3|
90998636|NCT03788967|181880792|OTHER||Risk Difference|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|0.6||||||||0.6|-3.8|
90998637|NCT03788967|181880793|OTHER||Risk Difference|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|2.3||||||||2.3|-3.3|
90998638|NCT03788967|181880794|OTHER||Risk Difference|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|3.2||||||||3.2|-0.2|
90998639|NCT03788967|181880795|OTHER||Risk Difference|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|0.8||||||||0.8|-5.3|
90998640|NCT03788967|181880796|OTHER||Risk Difference|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|2.6||||||||2.6|-5.1|
90998641|NCT03788967|181880797|OTHER||Risk Difference|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|4.1||||||Statistical Analysis 1 (EOT)||4.1|-0.8|
90998642|NCT03788967|181880797|OTHER||Risk Difference|-4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|1.9||||||Statistical Analysis 2 (TOC)||1.9|-10.8|
91045907|NCT00545688|181977812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Response rates|-12.15||||0.0198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.8|-0.5||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by breast cancer type (operable, locally advanced, or inflammatory) and estrogen and or progesterone positivity (either positive versus both negative).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-0.5|-23.8|0.0198
90998643|NCT03788967|181880797|OTHER||Risk Difference|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|5.0||||||||5|-7.9|
90998644|NCT03788967|181880801|OTHER||Risk Difference|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.2||||||||1.2|-1.6|
90998645|NCT03788967|181880802|OTHER||Risk Difference|-5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|0.7||||||||0.7|-12.4|
90998646|NCT03788967|181880803|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|5.3||||||||5.3|-8.5|
90998647|NCT03788967|181880807|OTHER||Risk Difference|-4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|4.1||||||Overall response for participants with AP||4.1|-13.5|
90998648|NCT03788967|181880807|OTHER||Risk Difference|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|7.7||||||Overall response in participants with cUTI||7.7|-11.0|
90998649|NCT03788967|181880808|OTHER||Risk Difference|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|9.9||||||||9.9|-7.2|
90998650|NCT03788967|181880808|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.6|3.8||||||≥65 to \<75 years||3.8|-20.6|
90998651|NCT03788967|181880808|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.8|8.7||||||≥75 years||8.7|-23.8|
90998652|NCT03788967|181880809|OTHER||Risk Difference|-3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|3.5||||||Central and Eastern Europe||3.5|-9.6|
90998653|NCT03788967|181880810|OTHER|||||||0.044|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.044
90998654|NCT03788967|181880811|OTHER|||||||0.736|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.736
90998655|NCT04268303|181880819|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
90998656|NCT04268303|181880819|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
90998657|NCT04268303|181880820|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||180 Micrograms versus placebo; 90 minutes post-dose||||<0.0001
90998658|NCT04268303|181880820|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||120 Micrograms versus placebo; 90 minutes post-dose||||<0.0001
90998659|NCT04268303|181880820|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||180 Micrograms versus placebo; 60 minutes post-dose||||<0.0001
90998660|NCT04268303|181880820|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||120 Micrograms versus placebo; 60 minutes post-dose||||<0.0001
90998661|NCT04268303|181880820|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||180 Micrograms versus placebo; 45 minutes post-dose||||<0.0001
90998662|NCT04268303|181880820|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||120 Micrograms versus placebo; 45 minutes post-dose||||<0.0001
90998663|NCT04268303|181880820|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||180 Micrograms versus placebo; 30 minutes post-dose||||<0.0001
90998664|NCT04268303|181880820|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0075|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||120 Micrograms versus placebo; 30 minutes post-dose||||0.0075
90998665|NCT04268303|181880820|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0032|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||180 Micrograms versus placebo; 20 minutes post-dose||||0.0032
90998666|NCT04268303|181880820|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4097|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||120 Micrograms versus placebo; 20 minutes post-dose||||0.4097
90998667|NCT04268303|181880820|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0457|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||180 Micrograms versus placebo; 10 minutes post-dose||||0.0457
90998668|NCT04268303|181880820|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.972|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||120 Micrograms versus placebo; 10 minutes post-dose||||0.9720
90998669|NCT01316939|181880845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference of participants|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|4.8||||||Placebo Vs GSK1605786A 500 mg once daily at Week 28 and 52||4.8|-12.9|
90998670|NCT01316939|181880845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference of participants|-6.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|1.6||||||Placebo Vs GSK1605786A 500 mg BID at Week 28 and 52||1.6|-14.8|
90998671|NCT01316939|181880846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference of participants|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|4.2||||||Placebo Vs GSK1605786A 500 mg once daily at Week 28 and 52||4.2|-12.2|
90998672|NCT01316939|181880846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference of participants|-5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|2.6||||||||2.6|-13.1|
90998673|NCT03961295|181880878|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LSMs|1.2984|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0786|1.5486||||||Geometric least-squares means (LSMs) were calculated by exponentiating the LSMs derived from analysis of variance (ANCOVA) with weight as a covariate. Confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using treatment standard errors from the ANCOVA model and t-statistic for error degrees of freedom.||1.5486|1.0786|
90998674|NCT03961295|181880879|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LSMs|1.3274|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1147|1.5807||||||Geometric LSMs were calculated by exponentiating the LSMs derived from ANCOVA with weight as a covariate. CIs were calculated using treatment standard errors from the ANCOVA model and t-statistic for error degrees of freedom.||1.5807|1.1147|
90998675|NCT03961295|181880880|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LSMs|1.1978|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0394|1.3804||||||Geometric LSMs were calculated by exponentiating the LSMs derived from ANCOVA with weight as a covariate. CIs were calculated using treatment standard errors from the ANCOVA model and t-statistic for error degrees of freedom.||1.3804|1.0394|
90998676|NCT01281189|181880927|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.91||||0.8568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.751|34.576|||ANCOVA|Includes treatment as a fixed effect and adjusts for baseline ALSFRS-R total score, duration from sx onset, site of onset, and use of riluzole.||||34.576|-28.751|0.8568
90998677|NCT01281189|181880928|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.8375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.427|||Cox Proportional Hazards model|Adjusted for baseline ALSFRS-R total score, duration from symptom onset to the first dose of study treatment, site of onset, and use of riluzole.|||Hazard Ratio (HR) (Dex/PBO)|1.427|0.750|0.8375
90998678|NCT01281189|181880929|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Net)|0.076||||0.9019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.128|1.28|||mixed-effects repeated-measures model|Mixed-effects repeated-measures model with treatment, visit, treatment-by visit interaction, baseline ALSFRS-R score, baseline-by-visit interaction|The mixed-effects repeated-measures model also adjusted for the following covariates: duration from symptom onset, site of onset, and use of riluzole.|||1.280|-1.128|0.9019
90998679|NCT01281189|181880930|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.7715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.801|1.348|||Cox Proportional Hazards model|Adjusted for baseline ALSFRS-R total score, duration from symptom onset to the first dose of study treatment, site of onset, and use of riluzole||||1.348|0.801|0.7715
90998680|NCT01281189|181880931|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.9033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.745|1.298|||Cox Proportional Hazards model|adjusted for baseline ALSFRS-R total score, duration from symptom onset to the first dose of study treatment, site of onset, and use of riluzole||||1.298|0.745|0.9033
90998681|NCT01281189|181880932|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.789|1.192|||Cox Proportional Hazards model||Hazard ratio (Dex/PBO)|||1.192|0.789|0.7720
90998682|NCT00223652|181880933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||=.001
90998683|NCT00223652|181880933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.07
90998684|NCT00223652|181880933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.95
90998685|NCT00223652|181880934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.37|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>0.37
90998686|NCT00223652|181880935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.0001
90998687|NCT00223652|181880935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.61
90998688|NCT00223652|181880935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.20
90998689|NCT00223652|181880936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Generalized estimating equations models|||||||<0.0001
90998690|NCT00223652|181880936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||Generalized estimating equations models|||||||0.12
90998691|NCT00223652|181880936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86|TWO_SIDED||||||Generalized estimating equations models|||||||0.86
90998692|NCT00223652|181880937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.37|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>0.37
90998693|NCT00223652|181880938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.37|TWO_SIDED||||||Generalized estimating equations models|||||||>0.37
90998694|NCT00527072|181880943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion|0.654||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.586|0.718|||exact binomial distribution|||null hypothesis H0: proportion = 0.30||0.718|0.586|0.05
90998695|NCT00527072|181880944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||proportion|0.791||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.844|||exact binomial distribution|||||0.844|0.730|0.05
90998696|NCT00527072|181880945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||proportion|0.646||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.577|0.711|||exact binomial distribution|||||0.711|0.577|0.05
90998697|NCT02657434|181880946|OTHER|Unstratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio, log|0.562|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.471|0.671|||Log Rank|||||0.671|0.471|<0.0001
90998698|NCT02657434|181880947|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.866||||0.1559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.709|1.056|||Log Rank|||||1.056|0.709|0.1559
90998699|NCT02657434|181880947|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.864||||0.1546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.707|1.056|||Log Rank|||||1.056|0.707|0.1546
90998700|NCT02657434|181880948|SUPERIORITY||Difference in event free rate|4.68||||0.2606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.47|12.83|||z test|||||12.83|-3.47|0.2606
90998701|NCT02657434|181880949|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|5.12||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.87|13.11|||Z-test|||||13.11|-2.87|0.2090
90998702|NCT02657434|181880950|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rate|14.3||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.9|22.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||22.7|5.9|0.0005
90998703|NCT02657434|181880951|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.85|||Log Rank|||||0.85|0.45|0.0024
90998704|NCT00608881|181880961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||π hat|0.494|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.454|0.534|||||π hat is the estimate of the probability π that a randomly selected subject treated with CoQ has a better outcome than a randomly selected subject treated with placebo. Under the null hypothesis of no effect of CoQ, π = 0.50.|In this joint rank analysis, subjects are ranked from worst to best outcome with subjects who die being assigned the worst ranks (and ranked according to the time of death) and subjects who survive being ranked more favorably in the order of the change from baseline to Month 60 in TFC score.||0.534|0.454|
90998705|NCT00608881|181880962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.91||||||||0.91|-0.44|
90998706|NCT00608881|181880963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.58||||||||1.58|-1.40|
90998707|NCT00608881|181880964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.68|3.79||||||||3.79|-6.68|
90998708|NCT00608881|181880965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|2.16||||||||2.16|-4.40|
90998709|NCT00608881|181880966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|1.39||||||||1.39|-1.48|
90998710|NCT00608881|181880967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.78|3.23||||||||3.23|-4.78|
90998711|NCT00608881|181880968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|2.14||||||||2.14|-1.32|
90998712|NCT00608881|181880969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.71|1.51||||||||1.51|-2.71|
90998713|NCT00608881|181880970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28|2.87||||||||2.87|-2.28|
90998714|NCT00608881|181880971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|7.44||||||||7.44|0.31|
90998715|NCT00608881|181880972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|3.18||||||||3.18|-1.10|
90998716|NCT00608881|181880973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.2||||||||1.20|0.81|
90998717|NCT00608881|181880974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.15||||||||1.15|0.75|
90998718|NCT00510484|181880976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The parameter was analyzed using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) including treatment, sequence and period as fixed effect and subject within sequence as a random effect.||||<0.001
90998719|NCT00510484|181880977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The parameter was analyzed using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) including treatment, sequence and period as fixed effect and subject within sequence as a random effect.||||<0.001
90998720|NCT00510484|181880978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The parameter was analyzed using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) including treatment, sequence and period as fixed effect and subject within sequence as a random effect.||||<0.001
90998721|NCT00510484|181880979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The parameter was analyzed using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) including treatment, sequence and period as fixed effect and subject within sequence as a random effect.||||<0.001
90998722|NCT00510484|181880980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The parameter was analyzed using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) including treatment, sequence and period as fixed effect and subject within sequence as a random effect.||||<0.001
90998723|NCT00510484|181880981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The parameter was analyzed using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) including treatment, sequence and period as fixed effect and subject within sequence as a random effect.||||<0.001
90998724|NCT00510484|181880982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The parameter was analyzed using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) including treatment, sequence and period as fixed effect and subject within sequence as a random effect.||||0.013
90998725|NCT00510484|181880983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The parameter was analyzed using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) including treatment, sequence and period as fixed effect and subject within sequence as a random effect.||||<0.001
90998726|NCT03004976|181880988|OTHER||Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney Odds|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.248||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.55||Wilcoxon Two Sample Test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Primary efficacy analysis (mRS shift from baseline to 90 days)||1.55|0.53|0.71
90998727|NCT03004976|181880988|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.223||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.3|||Cumulative Logit Proportional Odds Model|||Additional analysis of the primary endpoint (mRS score at 90 days), adjusted for baseline mRS, baseline NIHSS, and institution.||2.3|0.4|0.87
90998728|NCT01181141|181881049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|-3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.8|6.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||6.0|-18.8|
90998729|NCT00118911|181881055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.631|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.337|<|0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|-0.963|||ANCOVA|We used multiple imputation.||Hypothesis was that CBT would be superior to RES||-0.963|-8.30|<.03
90998730|NCT00118911|181881056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.59|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis||Those who were assigned to CBT and made a partial or full response maintained their gains over follow-up|We examined whether those in the CBT condition maintained their gains over time. Analysis was restricted to those assigned to CBT who were responders or partial responders.||.18|-.41|>.05
90998731|NCT05014542|181881057|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-42.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (WOMAC total of group A in Week 15) - mean (WOMAC total of group C in Week 15)|WOMAC total analysis between groups at Week 15. The Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) was used for testing the normality of the data distribution. The comparability of groups regarding specified variables to accept or reject the null hypothesis of groups' similarity was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test, with 95% power and a significance level α = 0,05. Interquartile range (IQR) and standard deviation (SD) were calculated to present the statistical dispersion of sample data at specified assessments.||||<0.001
90998732|NCT05014542|181881058|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (WOMAC pain of group A at Week 15) - mean (WOMAC pain of group C at Week 15)|WOMAC pain analysis between groups at Week 15. The Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) was used for testing the normality of the data distribution. The comparability of groups regarding specified variables to accept or reject the null hypothesis of groups' similarity was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test, with 95% power and a significance level α = 0,05. Interquartile range (IQR) and standard deviation (SD) were calculated to present the statistical dispersion of sample data at assessments.||||<.001
90998733|NCT05014542|181881059|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (WOMAC stiffness of group A at Week 15) - mean (WOMAC stiffness of group C at Week 15)|WOMAC stiffness between groups at Week 15. The Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) was used to test the data distribution's normality. The comparability of groups regarding specified variables to accept or reject the null hypothesis of groups' similarity was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test, with 95% power and a significance level α = 0,05. Interquartile range (IQR) and standard deviation (SD) were calculated to present the statistical dispersion of sample data at specified assessments.||||<0.001
90998734|NCT05014542|181881060|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-30.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (WOMAC functional disability of group A in Week 15) - mean (WOMAC functional disability of group C in Week 15)|WOMAC functional disability between groups at Week 15. The Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) tests normality distribution. Furthermore, the comparability of groups regarding specified variables to accept or reject the null hypothesis of equality was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test, with a power of 95 % and a level of significance α = 0,05. Interquartile range (IQR) and SD were analysed to present the statistical dispersion of sample data at specified assessment (the mid-spread).||||<0.001
90998735|NCT05014542|181881061|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-48.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (VAS of group A in Week 15) - mean (VAS of group C in Week 15)|Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) was compared between groups at Week 15, when the acupuncture of group A ended. The Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) was used to test the data distribution's normality. The comparability of groups to accept or reject the null hypothesis of groups' similarity was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test, with 95% power and a significance level α = 0,05. Interquartile range (IQR) and standard deviation (SD) presented the statistical dispersion of sample data at specified assessments.||||<0.001
90998736|NCT05014542|181881062|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (KDSQ of group A in Week 15) - mean (KDSQ of group C in Week 15)|The Kidney Deficiency Syndrome Questionnaire (KDSQ) was compared between groups in Week 15. The Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) tests the normality of data distribution. The comparability of groups regarding the null hypothesis of similarity was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test, with 95% power and a significance level α = 0,05. Interquartile range (IQR) and SD were used to analyse the statistical dispersion of specified sample data at specified assessment.||||<0.001
90998737|NCT05014542|181881063|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-774.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (DRUG of A group in Week 15) - mean (DRUG of C group in Week 15)|In Week 15, DRUG was compared between groups. The Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) was used to test the data distribution's normality. The comparability of groups regarding specified variables to accept or reject the null hypothesis of groups' similarity was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test, with 95% power and a significance level α = 0,05. Interquartile range (IQR) and standard deviation (SD) were calculated to present the statistical dispersion of sample data at specified assessments.||||<0.001
91045908|NCT00545688|181977812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0198|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, with Simes multiplicity adjustment.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0198
91045909|NCT00545688|181977812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Response rates|-21.84||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.1|-8.5||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by breast cancer type (operable, locally advanced, or inflammatory) and estrogen and or progesterone positivity (either positive versus both negative).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-8.5|-35.1|0.0010
91045910|NCT00545688|181977812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, with Simes multiplicity adjustment.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0030
91045911|NCT00545688|181977827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||0.2983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||HR is based on Cox proportional hazard regression stratified by breast cancer type and hormone positivity.|PFS||1.40|0.34|0.2983
91045912|NCT00545688|181977827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.25||||0.4722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|2.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||HR is based on Cox proportional hazard regression stratified by breast cancer type and hormone positivity.|PFS||2.30|0.68|0.4722
91045913|NCT00545688|181977827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.05||||0.0268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|3.93|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||HR is based on Cox proportional hazard regression stratified by breast cancer type and hormone positivity.|PFS||3.93|1.07|0.0268
91045914|NCT00545688|181977827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.1805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.27|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||HR is based on Cox proportional hazard regression stratified by breast cancer type and hormone positivity.|DFS||1.27|0.28|0.1805
91045915|NCT00545688|181977827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.5901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.64|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||HR is based on Cox proportional hazard regression stratified by breast cancer type and hormone positivity.|DFS||1.64|0.42|0.5901
91045916|NCT00545688|181977827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.16||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|4.32|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||HR is based on Cox proportional hazard regression stratified by breast cancer type and hormone positivity.|DFS||4.32|1.08|0.0250
91045917|NCT02339090|181977828|NON_INFERIORITY|Threshold for significance: annualized height velocity between somavaratan and daily rhGH ≤ -2.0 cm/year|LS Mean Difference|-1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.32|-0.24||||||An ANCOVA model will be used to determine the adjusted (least squares) means and standard error (SE) to determine the confidence interval (CI) of the difference. ANCOVA model included treatment group, region, and gender as fixed effects; with baseline age and baseline IGF-I SDS as covariates.||-0.24|-2.32|
91045918|NCT04243096|181977837|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|6.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.64|2.60|<0.0001
91045919|NCT04243096|181977838|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.02|-0.06|<0.0001
91045920|NCT04243096|181977839|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|-0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.01|-0.03|<0.0001
91045921|NCT04243096|181977840|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.02|-0.04|<0.0001
91045922|NCT04243096|181977841|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.00|-0.01|<0.0001
91045923|NCT04243096|181977842|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|-0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.01|-0.02|0.0013
91045924|NCT04243096|181977843|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|-0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.01|-0.02|0.0003
91045925|NCT04243096|181977844|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.04|0.02|<0.0001
91045926|NCT04243096|181977845|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.13|0.06|<0.0001
91045927|NCT04243096|181977849|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.96|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.6|13.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||13.31|6.60|<0.0001
91045928|NCT04243096|181977850|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.65|16.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for age, sex, BMI, and presence of comorbidities.|Change from baseline to week 12|||16.48|9.65|<0.0001
91045929|NCT04243096|181977851|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-17.5||||0.1196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.7|4.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.61|-39.7|0.1196
91045930|NCT04243096|181977853|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.25|-0.04|<0.0001
91045931|NCT04243096|181977854|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.76|2.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.09|-5.76|<0.0001
91045932|NCT04243096|181977855|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.16|-0.46|<0.0001
91045933|NCT04243096|181977856|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|-0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.08|-2.22|<0.0001
91045934|NCT04243096|181977857|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.37|3.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.22|-3.37|<0.0001
91045935|NCT04243096|181977858|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.21||||0.0134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|11.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.11|1.31|0.0134
91045936|NCT04243096|181977859|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.75|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|2.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.34|1.16|<0.0001
91045937|NCT04243096|181977860|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.19||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.97|-0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.41|-1.97|0.0030
91045938|NCT04243096|181977861|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.67|0.23|<0.0001
91045939|NCT04243096|181977862|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|35.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.7|51.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||51.67|18.70|<0.0001
91045940|NCT04243096|181977863|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.57|-1.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.39|-2.57|<0.0001
91045941|NCT02792218|181977879|SUPERIORITY||rate ratio|0.495|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.375|0.655|||negative binomial regression model|||Obtained from fitting a negative binomial regression model with log-link to the number of relapses, adjusted for treatment and region as factors, number of relapses in previous year, baseline EDSS, baseline number of Gd-enhancing lesions and the patient's age at baseline as covariates. The natural log of the time-in-study was used as offset to annualize the relapse rate.||0.655|0.375|<0.001
91045942|NCT02792218|181977880|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.657||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.863|||Regression, Cox|||This study was not powered for the analysis of this endpoint individually. It was pre-specified in the study protocol to combine the data from this study with study COMB157G2302 to address this endpoint.||0.863|0.500|0.003
91045943|NCT02792218|181977881|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.652||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.445|0.956|||Regression, Cox|||This study was not powered for the analysis of this endpoint individually. It was pre-specified in the study protocol to combine the data from this study with study COMB157G2302 to address this endpoint.||0.956|0.445|0.029
91045944|NCT02792218|181977882|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.676||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.498|0.917|||Regression, Cox|||This study was not powered for the analysis of this endpoint individually. It was pre-specified in the study protocol to combine the data from this study with study COMB157G2302 to address this endpoint.||0.917|0.498|0.012
91045945|NCT02792218|181977883|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.607||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.396|0.93|||Regression, Cox|||This study was not powered for the analysis of this endpoint individually. It was pre-specified in the study protocol to combine the data from this study with study COMB157G2302 to address this endpoint.||0.930|0.396|0.022
91045946|NCT02792218|181977884|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.355||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.952|1.952|||Regression, Cox|||This study was not powered for the analysis of this endpoint individually. It was pre-specified in the study protocol to combine the data from this study with study COMB157G2302 to address this endpoint.||1.952|0.952|0.092
91045947|NCT02792218|181977885|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.186||||0.516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.709|1.983|||Regression, Cox|||This study was not powered for the analysis of this endpoint individually. It was pre-specified in the study protocol to combine the data from this study with study COMB157G2302 to address this endpoint.||1.983|0.709|0.516
91045948|NCT02792218|181977886|SUPERIORITY||rate ratio|0.025|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.013|0.049|||negative binomial regression model|||||0.049|0.013|<.001
90998738|NCT05014542|181881064|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.009||||0.8493|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (A group L knee in Week 15) - mean (C group L knee in Week 15)|Active extension of left (L) knees in Week 15 in the between-group analysis. The Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) was used to test the data distribution's normality. The comparability of groups to accept or reject the null hypothesis of groups' similarity was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test, with 95% power and a significance level α = 0,05. Interquartile range (IQR) and standard deviation (SD) were calculated to present the statistical dispersion of sample data at specified assessments.||||0.8493
90998739|NCT05014542|181881064|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.107||||0.69654|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (A group R knee in Week 15) - mean (C group R knee in Week 15)|Active extension of the right (R) knees in Week 15 in the between-group analysis. The Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) was used to test the data distribution's normality. The comparability of groups to accept or reject the null hypothesis of groups' similarity was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test, with 95% power and a significance level α = 0,05. Interquartile range (IQR) and standard deviation (SD) were calculated to present the statistical dispersion of sample data at specified assessments.||||0.69654
91045949|NCT02792218|181977887|SUPERIORITY||rate ratio|0.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.33|||negative binomial regression model|||Month 12||0.33|0.21|<.001
91045950|NCT02792218|181977887|SUPERIORITY||rate ratio|0.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.34|||negative binomial regression model|||Month 24||0.34|0.15|<.001
91045951|NCT02792218|181977887|SUPERIORITY||rate ratio|0.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.22|||negative binomial regression model|||End of Study||0.22|0.15|<.001
91045952|NCT02792218|181977888|SUPERIORITY||Geo-mean ratio|0.93||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|0.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Models for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Month 3||0.98|0.89|0.011
91045953|NCT02792218|181977888|SUPERIORITY||Geo-mean ratio|0.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Models for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Month 12||0.77|0.69|<.001
91045954|NCT02792218|181977888|SUPERIORITY||Geo-mean ratio|0.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Models for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Month 24||0.82|0.72|<.001
91045955|NCT02792218|181977889|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07||||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.15|||random coefficient model|||||0.15|-0.02|0.118
90998740|NCT05014542|181881065|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.9||||0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (active flexion L knee of group A at Week 15) - mean (active flexion L knee of group C at Week 15)|L knee flexion between groups at Week 15. The Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) was used to test the data distribution's normality. The comparability of groups to accept or reject the null hypothesis of groups' similarity was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test, with 95% power and a significance level α = 0,05. Interquartile range (IQR) and standard deviation (SD) were calculated to present the statistical dispersion of sample data at specified assessments.||||0.490
90998741|NCT05014542|181881065|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.7||||0.517|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (active flexion R knee of group A at Week 15) - mean (active flexion R knee of group C at Week 15)|Right (R) knee flexion between groups in Week 15. The Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) was used to test the data distribution's normality. The comparability of groups regarding specified variables to accept or reject the null hypothesis of groups' similarity was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test, with 95% power and a significance level α = 0,05. Interquartile range (IQR) and standard deviation (SD) were calculated to present the statistical dispersion of sample data at specified assessments.||||0.517
90998742|NCT05014542|181881066|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0||||0.083|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (circumference of L upper leg of group A at Week 15) - mean (circumference of L upper leg of group C at Week 15)|Circumference of the left (L) upper leg between groups analysis at Week 15. For group normality statistics, the Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) was used. Furthermore, the comparability of groups regarding specified variables to accept or reject the hypothesis of equality was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test, with 95% power and a significance level α = 0,05. Interquartile range (IQR) and SD were analysed to present the statistical dispersion of specified sample data at specified assessment.||||0.083
90998743|NCT05014542|181881066|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0||||0.084|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (circumference of R upper leg of group A at Week 15) - mean (circumference of R upper leg of group C at Week 15)|Circumference of the right (R) upper leg between groups analysis at Week 15. For group normality statistics, the Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) was used. Furthermore, the comparability of groups regarding specified variables to accept or reject the hypothesis of equality was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test, with 95% power and a significance level α = 0,05. Interquartile range (IQR) and SD were analysed to present the statistical dispersion of sample data at specified assessments.||||0.084
91045956|NCT02792218|181977892|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.641||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.486|0.847|||Regression, Cox|||||0.847|0.486|0.002
91045957|NCT02792218|181977893|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.657||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.481|0.898|||Regression, Cox|||||0.898|0.481|0.008
91045958|NCT00248170|181977909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.315|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.3150
91045959|NCT00749411|181977946|NON_INFERIORITY|GSK233705/GW642444 were declared non-inferior to placebo for heart rate if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval for the estimated treatment difference for weighted mean heart rate was less than +10bpm.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|3.5|||||Analysis performed using a Repeated Measures Model with covariates of baseline pulse rate, sex, age, smoking status, treatment and Day and Day by treatment and Day by baseline interactions.|||3.5|-5.5|
91045960|NCT04052698|181977951|NON_INFERIORITY|1-sided test where the mean ratio is less than 0.5 utilizing a negative binomial counting regression model. One-sided alpha level of 2.5%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1645|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.10194|0.26558|||Regression, Linear|||||0.26558|0.10194|<0.0001
91045961|NCT04052698|181977953|NON_INFERIORITY|1-sided test where the mean ratio is less than 0.5 utilizing a negative binomial counting regression model. One-sided alpha level of 2.5%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1389|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07664|0.25187|||Regression, Linear|||||0.25187|0.07664|<0.0001
91045962|NCT06442410|181977965|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
91045963|NCT06442410|181977966|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
91045964|NCT06442410|181977967|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
91045965|NCT06442410|181977968|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
91045966|NCT06442410|181977969|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
91045967|NCT06442410|181977970|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
91045968|NCT06442410|181977972|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 0.65 cm was selected based on a previous study of a similar therapy against traditional SCS.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
91045969|NCT06442410|181977973|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 0.65 cm was selected based on a previous study of a similar therapy against traditional SCS|||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
91045970|NCT06442410|181977974|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 0.65 cm was selected based on a previous study of a similar therapy against traditional SCS.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
91045971|NCT06442410|181977975|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 0.65 cm was selected based on a previous study of a similar therapy against traditional SCS|||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
91045972|NCT06442410|181977976|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 0.65 cm was selected based on a previous study of a similar therapy against traditional SCS|||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
91045973|NCT06442410|181977977|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 0.65 cm was selected based on a previous study of a similar therapy against traditional SCS|||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
91045974|NCT06442410|181977978|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 0.65 cm was selected based on a previous study of a similar therapy against traditional SCS|||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
91045975|NCT02953678|181977998|OTHER||Exact method for binomial distributions|54.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.7|66.8||||||||66.8|42.7|
91045976|NCT02070757|181978008|NON_INFERIORITY|Meropenem minus ceftolozane/tazobactam. For ceftolozane/tazobactam to be non-inferior to meropenem the lower bound of a 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference between treatment groups had to be ≥ -10%.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.13|7.39|||||The % difference between groups is the weighted proportion difference using MRc stratum weights for diagnosis and age categories. The 95% CI was stratified Wilson intervals for group percentages and a stratified Newcombe interval for the difference.|||7.39|-5.13|
91045977|NCT02070757|181978009|NON_INFERIORITY|Clinical Response difference is calculated as ceftolozane/tazobactam minus meropenem. For ceftolozane/tazobactam to be non-inferior to meropenem the lower bound of a 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference between treatment groups had to be ≥ -12.5%.|Difference in percentage of participants|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.17|8.29|||||The % difference between groups is the weighted proportion difference using MRc stratum weights for diagnosis and age categories. The 95% CI was stratified Wilson intervals for group percentages and a stratified Newcombe interval for the difference.|||8.29|-6.17|
91045978|NCT02070757|181978010|OTHER|The % difference is the weighted proportion difference using Mehrotra-Railkar continuity-corrected-minimum risk (MRc) stratum weights for strata of diagnosis (VABP, ventilated HABP) and age (\<65, \>=65) categories.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.83|11.75|||||The 95% confidence interval (CI) were stratified Wilson intervals for the treatment group percentages and a stratified Newcombe interval for the treatment difference, constructed using the MRc stratum weights.|Difference in Percentage of Participants||11.75|-2.83|
91045979|NCT02070757|181978011|OTHER|The % difference is the weighted proportion difference using Mehrotra-Railkar continuity-corrected-minimum risk (MRc) stratum weights for strata of diagnosis (VABP, ventilated HABP) and age (\<65, \>=65) categories.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.21|7.67|||||The 95% confidence interval (CI) were stratified Wilson intervals for the treatment group percentages and a stratified Newcombe interval for the treatment difference, constructed using the MRc stratum weights.|Difference in Percentage of Participants||7.67|-10.21|
91045980|NCT02070757|181978012|OTHER|The % difference is the weighted proportion difference using Mehrotra-Railkar continuity-corrected-minimum risk (MRc) stratum weights for strata of diagnosis (VABP, ventilated HABP) and age (\<65, \>=65) categories.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|7.0||||||95.0|-5.11|18.93|||||The 95% confidence interval (CI) were stratified Wilson intervals for the treatment group percentages and a stratified Newcombe interval for the treatment difference, constructed using the MRc stratum weights.|Difference in Percentage of Participants||18.93|-5.11|
91045981|NCT02070757|181978014|OTHER|The % difference is the weighted proportion difference using Mehrotra-Railkar continuity-corrected-minimum risk (MRc) stratum weights for strata of diagnosis (VABP, ventilated HABP) and age (\<65, \>=65) categories.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.41|3.57|||||The 95% confidence interval (CI) were stratified Wilson intervals for the treatment group percentages and a stratified Newcombe interval for the treatment difference, constructed using the MRc stratum weights.|Difference in Percentage of Participants||3.57|-6.41|
91045982|NCT02070757|181978015|OTHER|The % difference is the weighted proportion difference using Mehrotra-Railkar continuity-corrected-minimum risk (MRc) stratum weights for strata of diagnosis (VABP, ventilated HABP) and age (\<65, \>=65) categories.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.67|6.04|||||The 95% confidence interval (CI) were stratified Wilson intervals for the treatment group percentages and a stratified Newcombe interval for the treatment difference, constructed using the MRc stratum weights.|Difference in Percentage of Participants||6.04|-7.67|
91045983|NCT02070757|181978016|OTHER|The % difference is the weighted proportion difference using Mehrotra-Railkar continuity-corrected-minimum risk (MRc) stratum weights for strata of diagnosis (VABP, ventilated HABP) and age (\<65, \>=65) categories.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.91|12.02|||||The 95% confidence interval (CI) were stratified Wilson intervals for the treatment group percentages and a stratified Newcombe interval for the treatment difference, constructed using the MRc stratum weights.|Difference in Percentage of Participants||12.02|-8.91|
91045984|NCT02070757|181978017|OTHER|The % difference is the weighted proportion difference using Mehrotra-Railkar continuity-corrected-minimum risk (MRc) stratum weights for strata of diagnosis (VABP, ventilated HABP) and age (\<65, \>=65) categories.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.38|10.44|||||The 95% confidence interval (CI) were stratified Wilson intervals for the treatment group percentages and a stratified Newcombe interval for the treatment difference, constructed using the MRc stratum weights.|Difference in Percentage of Participants||10.44|-3.38|
91045985|NCT02597582|181978027|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"A previous study found that the mean operation time was 165 minutes for patients undergoing LigaSure vessel sealing system-assisted total laryngectomy plus neck dissection and 195 minutes for those receiving conventional hemostasis.~With a difference in operative duration of 30 minutes between the two groups,9 the estimated sample size needed to demonstrate a two-sided significance level of 0.05 with 80% power should be at least 18 participants in each treatment arm."||||||0.022|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.022
91045986|NCT02597582|181978028|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|As above||||||0.266|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.266
91045987|NCT02597582|181978029|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|as above||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.060
91045988|NCT02597582|181978031|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|as above||||||0.524|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.524
91045989|NCT02597582|181978032|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|as above||||||0.037|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.037
91045990|NCT01833533|181978054|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The noninferiority of the rate of sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment for the ABT-450/r/ABT-267 and ABT-333, plus placebo RBV treatment group as compared with the historical rate for telaprevir plus pegIFN-RBV was analyzed; the lower confidence bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (95% CI) for the percentage of participants with sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment must exceed 65% to achieve noninferiority.|Percentage of Participants|90.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.2|94.3|||||95% CI was calculated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Based on a 2-sided significance level of 0.05 and an underlying rate of ≥90% in the ABT-450/r/ABT-267 and ABT-333, plus RBV arm (100 participants) and ≥85% in the ABT-450/r/ABT-267 and ABT-333, plus Placebo RBV arm (200 participants) provides \>95% power to demonstrate noninferiority of each regimen to the historical rate for telaprevir plus pegIFN and RBV therapy (75%) (based on the normal approximation of a single binomial proportion in a one-sample test for superiority).||94.3|86.2|
91045991|NCT01833533|181978054|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The noninferiority of the rate of sustained virologic response at 12 weeks for the ABT-450/r/ABT-267 and ABT-333, plus RBV treatment group as compared with the historical rate for telaprevir plus pegIFN-RBV was analyzed; the lower confidence bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the percentage of participants with sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment must exceed 65% to achieve noninferiority.|Percentage of Participants|97.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.7|100.0|||||95% CI was calculated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Based on a 2-sided significance level of 0.05 and an underlying rate of ≥90% in the ABT-450/r/ABT-267 and ABT-333, plus RBV arm (100 participants) and ≥85% in the ABT-450/r/ABT-267 and ABT-333, plus Placebo RBV arm (200 participants) provides \>95% power to demonstrate noninferiority of each regimen to the historical rate for telaprevir plus pegIFN and RBV therapy (75%) (based on the normal approximation of a single binomial proportion in a one-sample test for superiority).||100.0|93.7|
91045992|NCT01833533|181978055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91045993|NCT01833533|181978056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of Participants|97.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.7|100.0|||||95% CI was calculated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution; the lower confidence bound for the percentage of participants with sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment must exceed 75% to achieve superiority.|Based on a 2-sided significance level of 0.05 and an underlying rate of ≥90% in the ABT-450/r/ABT-267 and ABT-333, plus RBV arm (100 participants) and ≥85% in the ABT-450/r/ABT-267 and ABT-333, plus Placebo RBV arm (200 participants) provides \>90% power to demonstrate superiority of each regimen to the historical rate for telaprevir plus pegIFN and RBV therapy (75%) (based on the normal approximation of a single binomial proportion in a one-sample test for superiority).||100.0|93.7|
91045994|NCT01833533|181978056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of Participants|90.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.2|94.3|||||95% CI was calculated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution; the lower confidence bound for the percentage of participants with sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment must exceed 75% to achieve superiority.|Based on a 2-sided significance level of 0.05 and an underlying rate of ≥90% in the ABT-450/r/ABT-267 and ABT-333, plus RBV arm (100 participants) and ≥85% in the ABT-450/r/ABT-267 and ABT-333, plus Placebo RBV arm (200 participants) provides \>90% power to demonstrate superiority of each regimen to the historical rate for telaprevir plus pegIFN and RBV therapy (75%) (based on the normal approximation of a single binomial proportion in a one-sample test for superiority).||94.3|86.2|
91045995|NCT01833533|181978056|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Noninferiority of the rate of sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment in the ABT-450/r/ABT-267 and ABT-333, plus placebo RBV treatment group as compared with the ABT-450/r/ABT-267 and ABT-333, plus RBV treatment group was analyzed using a noninferiority margin of -10.5%; the lower confidence bound of the 2-sided 95% CI (calculated using normal approximation to the binomial distribution)for the difference in percentage of participants must exceed -10.5% to achieve noninferiority.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|-6.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|-1.5|||||95% CI was calculated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Based on a 2-sided significance level of 0.05 and an underlying rate of ≥90% in the ABT-450/r/ABT-267 and ABT-333, plus RBV arm (100 participants) and ≥85% in the ABT-450/r/ABT-267 and ABT-333, plus Placebo RBV arm (200 participants) provides \>95% power to demonstrate noninferiority of the ABT-450/r/ABT-267 and ABT-333, plus RBV arm compared with the ABT-450/r/ABT-267 and ABT-333, plus Placebo RBV arm (normal approximation of a single binomial proportion in a one-sample test for superiority).||-1.5|-12.0|
91045996|NCT01483625|181978096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0569|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055||0.3025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0516|0.1654|||Mixed effect repeated measures (MMRM)|Fixed effects:treatment,visit,treatment by visit,baseline and baseline by visit. Random:Patient. A spatial power covariance structure was used.||Tiotropium 18 mcg minus Placebo||0.1654|-0.0516|0.3025
90998744|NCT05014542|181881067|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.341|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (circumference of L knee of group A at Week 15) - mean (circumference of L knee of group C at Week 15)|Circumference of the left (L) knee in Week 15 was analysed between groups. The Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) was used to test the data distribution's normality. The comparability of groups to accept or reject the null hypothesis of groups' similarity was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test, with 95% power and a significance level α = 0,05. Interquartile range (IQR) and standard deviation (SD) were calculated to present the statistical dispersion of sample data at specified assessments.||||0.341
91045997|NCT01483625|181978097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.7823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9053|1.078|||2sample t quantiles with pooled variance|||Comparison Tiotropium 18 mcg Vs Placebo||1.0780|0.9053|0.7823
91045998|NCT01483625|181978098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0099|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0806||0.9025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1489|0.1686||Comparison Tiotropium 18 mcg Vs Placebo at Week 12|Mixed effects repeated measures (MMRM)|Fixed effects:treatment,visit,treatment by visit,baseline and baseline by visit. Patient was random. A spatial power covariance structure was used.||||0.1686|-0.1489|0.9025
91045999|NCT01483625|181978101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.061|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0115||0.1797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0157|1.8938|||t-test, 2 sided|95% confidence interval is based on 2 sample t quantiles using pooled variance.||Comparison Tiotropium 18 mcg Vs Placebo Over 12 Weeks||1.8938|-10.0157|0.1797
91046000|NCT02013531|181978144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with model terms: Baseline, visit, and Baseline by visit interaction||The null hypothesis of zero in mean change from Baseline in the MADRS total score at Week 6 was tested at a significance level of 0.05. Because this was an exploratory trial, no methods to control type I error rate were performed.||||<0.0001
91046001|NCT02013531|181978145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measure (MMRM) with model terms: Baseline, visit, and Baseline by visit interaction||Statistical analysis at Week 6.||||<0.0001
90998745|NCT05014542|181881067|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.317|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (circumference of R knee of group A at Week 15) - mean (circumference of R knee of group C at Week 15)|Circumference of the right (R) knee in between groups at Week 15. The Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) was used to test the data distribution's normality. The comparability of groups to accept or reject the null hypothesis of groups' similarity was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test, with 95% power and a significance level α = 0,05. Interquartile range (IQR) and standard deviation (SD) were calculated to present the statistical dispersion of sample data at specified assessments.||||0.317
91046002|NCT02013531|181978151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measure (MMRM) with model terms: Baseline, visit, and Baseline by visit interaction||The null hypothesis of zero in Mean change from Baseline in HAM-A total score at Week 6 was tested at a significance level of 0.05. Because this was an exploratory trial, no methods to control type I error rate were performed.||||<0.0001
91046003|NCT02240186|181978166|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.01
91046004|NCT02240186|181978167|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.01
90998746|NCT05014542|181881068|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-33.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (WOMAC total of group A in Week 24) -mean (WOMAC total of group C in Week 24)|WOMAC total was analysed in Week 24 between groups, nine weeks after acupuncture ended. The Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) tested the normality of the distribution. The comparability of groups regarding specified variables to accept or reject the null hypothesis of equality was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test, with 95 % power and a level of significance α = 0,05. Interquartile range (IQR) and SD were analysed to present the statistical dispersion of specified sample data at specified assessments.||||<0.001
91046005|NCT02240186|181978168|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.01
91046006|NCT00860743|181978201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P values less than 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|ANOVA|||||||0.001
91046007|NCT00860743|181978202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.2
91046008|NCT02776553|181978208|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.49
91046009|NCT02776553|181978209|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.03
91046010|NCT02776553|181978210|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.37
91046011|NCT03827018|181978219|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.38||||0.0263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.92||Comparison of KPL-301 and placebo with respect to time to flare calculated by using a log-rank test stratified by randomization strata.|Log Rank||95% confidence interval was calculated based on a Cox proportional-hazards model with treatment as covariate and stratified by randomization strata.|||0.92|0.15|0.0263
90998747|NCT05014542|181881069|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (WOMAC pain of group A at Week 24) - mean (WOMAC pain of group C at Week 24)|WOMAC pain was analysed between groups 9 weeks after acupuncture ended in Week 24. The Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) tested the normality distribution. Furthermore, the comparability of groups regarding specified variables to accept or reject the hypothesis of equality was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test, with 95% power and a significance level α = 0,05. Interquartile range (IQR) and SD were analysed to present the statistical dispersion of specified sample data (the mid-spread).||||<.001
90998748|NCT05014542|181881070|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (WOMAC stiffness of group A in Week 24) - mean (WOMAC stiffness of group C in Week 24)|WOMAC stiffness between groups A and C in Week 24, 9 weeks after acupuncture ended. The Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) tests the normality of distribution. Group comparability was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test with 95 % power and a level of significance α=0,05. Interquartile range (IQR) and SD were analysed to present the statistical dispersion of specified sample data at specified assessments.||||<0.001
91046012|NCT03827018|181978220|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|33.3||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.7|55.8||Two-sided p-value and 95% CI for the difference in sustained remission between two arms using normal approximation. Placebo arm is the reference.|normal approximation|||Secondary endpoints were analyzed in hierarchical order.||55.8|10.7|0.0038
91046013|NCT03827018|181978221|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51||||0.0277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.95||Calculated by using a log-rank test stratified by randomization strata.|Log Rank||Calculated based on a Cox proportional-hazards model with treatment as covariate, and stratified by randomization strata.|Secondary endpoints were analyzed in hierarchical order.||0.95|0.27|0.0277
90998749|NCT05014542|181881071|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (WOMAC functional disability of group A in Week 24) - mean (WOMAC functional disability of group C in Week 24)|WOMAC functional disability at Week 24 was analysed between groups. The Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) tests the normality of data. The comparability of groups regarding specified variables (to accept or reject the null hypothesis of comparability) was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test with 95% power and a level of significance α = 0,05. Interquartile range (IQR) and SD were analysed to present the statistical dispersion of specified sample data at specified assessments.||||<0.001
90998750|NCT05014542|181881072|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-45.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (VAS in Week 24 of group A) - mean (VAS in Week 24 of group C)|VAS was compared between groups in Week 24. For group normality statistics, the Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) was used. The comparability of groups regarding specified variables to accept or reject the hypothesis of equality was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test, with 95% power and a significance level α = 0,05. Interquartile range (IQR) and SD were analysed to present the statistical dispersion of sample data.||||<0.001
90998751|NCT05014542|181881073|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (KDSQ in Week 24 of group A) - mean (KDSQ in Week 24 of group C)|KDSQ between groups in Week 24. For group normality statistics, the Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) was used. The comparability of groups regarding specified variables to accept or reject the hypothesis of equality was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test, with 95% power and a significance level α = 0,05. Interquartile range (IQR) and SD were analysed to present the statistical dispersion of sample data.||||<0.001
90998752|NCT05014542|181881074|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-581.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (DRUG in Week 24 of group A) - mean (DRUG in Week 24 of group C)|The DRUG between groups in Week 24. For group normality statistics, the Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) was used. Furthermore, the comparability of groups regarding specified variables to accept or reject the hypothesis of equality was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test, with 95% power and a significance level α = 0,05. Interquartile range (IQR) and SD were analysed to present the statistical dispersion of sample data.||||<0.001
90998753|NCT05014542|181881075|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||mean (Act ext L of A group in Week 24) - mean (Act ext L of C group in Week 24)|Left (L) knee analysis between groups A and C in Week 24. For group normality statistics, the Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) was used. Furthermore, the comparability of groups regarding specified variables to accept or reject the hypothesis of comparability was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test, with 95% statistical power and a significance level α = 0,05. Interquartile range (IQR) and SD were analysed to present the statistical dispersion of sample data at assessment.||||
90998754|NCT05014542|181881075|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||mean (Act ext R knee of A group in Week 24) - mean (Act ext R knee of C group in Week 24)|Right (R) knee analysis between groups at Week 24. For group normality statistics, the Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) was used. Furthermore, the comparability of groups regarding specified variables to accept or reject the hypothesis of comparability between groups was tested by the Mann-Whitney U test, with 95% power and a significance level α = 0,05. Interquartile range (IQR) and SD were analysed to present the statistical dispersion of sample data at specified assessment.||||
90998755|NCT05014542|181881076|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.953|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (L knee act flexion of group A in Week 24) - mean (L knee act flexion of group C in Week 24)|Left (L) knee flexion between groups at Week 24. The Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) tests the normality of the distribution. Furthermore, the comparability of groups regarding specified variables to accept or reject the null hypothesis of equality was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test, with 95% power and a level of significance α = 0,05. Standard deviation (SD) was calculated to present the statistical dispersion of specified sample data at a specified assessment (time-point).||||0.953
91046014|NCT03827018|181978222|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.43||||0.0378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.98||Calculated by using a log-rank test stratified by randomization strata.|Log Rank||Calculated based on a Cox proportional-hazards model with treatment as covariate, and stratified by randomization strata.|Secondary endpoints were analyzed in hierarchical order.||0.98|0.19|0.0378
91046015|NCT03827018|181978223|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.49||||0.0651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.06||Calculated by using a log-rank test stratified by randomization strata.|Log Rank||Calculated based on a Cox proportional-hazards model with treatment as covariate, and stratified by randomization strata.|Secondary endpoints were analyzed in hierarchical order.||1.06|0.22|0.0651
91046016|NCT03827018|181978224|OTHER|Descriptive statistic|Least Squares (LS) means difference|-326.45||||0.0667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-675.99|23.09||Calculated using ANCOVA with treatment arm and randomization strata as discrete variables, and corticosteroid starting dose as a continuous variable.|ANCOVA|||||23.09|-675.99|0.0667
91046017|NCT03827018|181978225|OTHER|Descriptive statistic|Difference in percentages|31.0||||0.0201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.1|50.8||95% CI and p-value are analyzed using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by randomization strata|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||50.8|11.1|0.0201
91046018|NCT03827018|181978226|OTHER|Descriptive statistic|Difference in percentages|9.5||||0.5533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|27.8||95% CI and p-value are analyzed using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by randomization strata|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||27.8|-8.7|0.5533
91046019|NCT03827018|181978227|OTHER|Descriptive statistics|Difference in percentages|39.3||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.2|61.3||95% CI and p-value are analyzed using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by randomization strata|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||61.3|17.2|0.0031
91046020|NCT03827018|181978228|OTHER|Descriptive statistics|Least Squares (LS) means difference|-380.82||||0.1629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-919.66|158.02||Calculated using ANCOVA with treatment arm and randomization strata as discrete variables, and corticosteroid starting dose as a continuous variable|ANCOVA|||||158.02|-919.66|0.1629
91046021|NCT01998243|181978236|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.2||||0.689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|2.6|||Chi-squared||risk ratio (RR)|||2.60|0.53|0.689
91046022|NCT01998243|181978237|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.59||||0.144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|3.01|||Chi-squared||all in all balloon and postsurgical morbidity in group A vs. group B.|||3.01|0.84|0.144
91046023|NCT01998243|181978238|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.937|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.937
91046024|NCT01998243|181978239|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
91046025|NCT01998243|181978240|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.673|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.673
91046026|NCT00680186|181978241|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority margin was set up to 2.75 for the HR analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.0002||95.0|0.69|1.85||Non-inferiority P-Value.Two co-primary analyses performed on primary endpoint. Both non inferiority for the risk difference (RD) (at day 180) and for the HR (up to end of ptp) analyses to be reached in order to conclude positively on primary endpoint|Regression, Cox|Patients without events are censored at the end of ptp.||Hazard ratio (HR) vs. Warfarin (events occurring between randomisation and end of ptp). The time to first occurrence of the primary endpoint was compared between treatment groups using the Cox proportional hazards (PH) model, including the factors treatment, active cancer at baseline, symptomatic PE at baseline, and the interaction between active cancer and symptomatic PE.||1.85|0.69|0.0002
91046027|NCT00680186|181978241|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority margin was set up to 3.6% for the RD based on KM estimates|Risk Difference (Percentage)|0.2|||<|0.0001||95.0|-1.0|1.3||Non-inferiority P-Value.Two co-primary analyses performed on primary endpoint. Both non inferiority for the RD (at day 180) and for the HR (events up to end of ptp) analyses to be reached in order to conclude positively on the primary endpoint.|Kaplan Meier weighted estimates|||RD vs. Warfarin for Proportion of patients with VTE or death related to VTE at 6 months. Point estimate and 95% CI for the overall RD obtained based on the Kaplan Meier (KM) estimates at 6 months (180 days) after adjusting for the stratification factors active cancer at baseline and symptomatic PE at baseline.||1.3|-1.0|<0.0001
91046028|NCT00680186|181978241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||||95.0|0.64|1.8|||Regression, Cox|Patients without events are censored at the earliest of last contact date or day 180.||HR vs. Warfarin (events occurring between randomisation and day 180). The time to first occurrence of the primary endpoint was compared between treatment groups using the Cox PH model, including the factors treatment, active cancer at baseline, symptomatic PE at baseline, and the interaction between active cancer and symptomatic PE. This analysis was performed as sensitivity analysis for statistical analysis 1.||1.8|0.64|
91046029|NCT00680186|181978242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (Percentage)|0.3||||0.6932||95.0|-1.1|1.6|||Kaplan Meier weighted estimates|||RD vs. Warfarin for Proportion of patients with VTE or death at 6 months. Point estimate and 95% CI for the overall RD obtained based on the KM estimates at 6 months (180 days) after adjusting for the stratification factors active cancer at baseline and symptomatic PE at baseline.||1.6|-1.1|0.6932
91046030|NCT00680186|181978242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.6383||95.0|0.75|1.6|||Regression, Cox|Patients without events are censored at the end of ptp.||HR vs. Warfarin (events occurring between randomisation and end of ptp). The time to first occurrence of the endpoint was compared between treatment groups using the Cox PH model, including the factors treatment, active cancer at baseline, symptomatic PE at baseline, and the interaction between active cancer and symptomatic PE.||1.60|0.75|0.6383
91046031|NCT00680186|181978243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (Percentage)|0.6||||0.1703||95.0|-0.3|1.5|||Kaplan Meier weighted estimates|||RD vs. Warfarin for Proportion of patients with symptomatic DVT at 6 months. Point estimate and 95% CI for the overall RD obtained based on the KM estimates at 6 months (180 days) after adjusting for the stratification factors active cancer at baseline and symptomatic PE at baseline.||1.5|-0.3|0.1703
91046032|NCT00680186|181978243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.65||||0.1054||95.0|0.9|3.01|||Regression, Cox|Patients without events are censored at the end of ptp.||HR vs. Warfarin (events occurring between randomisation and end of ptp). The time to first occurrence of the endpoint was compared between treatment groups using the Cox PH model, including the factors treatment, active cancer at baseline, symptomatic PE at baseline, and the interaction between active cancer and symptomatic PE.||3.01|0.90|0.1054
91046033|NCT00680186|181978244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (Percentage)|-0.4||||0.2283||95.0|-1.1|0.3|||Kaplan Meier weighted estimates|||RD vs. Warfarin for Proportion of patients with symptomatic non-fatal PE at 6 months. Point estimate and 95% CI for the overall RD obtained based on the KM estimates at 6 months (180 days) after adjusting for the stratification factors active cancer at baseline and symptomatic PE at baseline.||0.3|-1.1|0.2283
90998756|NCT05014542|181881076|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8||||0.491|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (R knee act flexion of group A in Week 24) - mean (R knee act flexion of group C in Week 24)|Right (R) knee flexion between groups at Week 24. The Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) tests the normality of the distribution. Furthermore, the comparability of groups regarding specified variables to accept or reject the null hypothesis of comparability was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test, with 95% power and a level of significance α = 0,05. Standard deviation (SD) was calculated to present the statistical dispersion of sample data at an assessment.||||0.491
90998757|NCT05014542|181881077|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6||||0.261|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (circumference of L upper leg of group A in Week 24) - mean (circumference of L upper leg of group C in Week 24)|Circumference of the left (L) upper leg between groups in Week 24. The Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) was used to test the normality of a distribution. The comparability of groups regarding specified variables to accept or reject the hypothesis of groups comparability was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test, with 95% power and a significance level α = 0,05. Interquartile range (IQR) and SD were analysed to present the statistical dispersion of sample data at assessments.||||0.261
90998758|NCT05014542|181881077|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1||||0.273|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (circumference of R upper leg of group A in Week 24) - mean (circumference of R upper leg of group C in Week 24)|Circumference of the R upper leg between groups at Week 24. The Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) was used to test the normality of distribution. The comparability of groups regarding specified variables (null hypothesis) was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test, with 95% power and a significance level α = 0,05. Interquartile range (IQR) and SD were analysed to present the statistical dispersion of sample data at assessments.||||0.273
90998759|NCT05014542|181881078|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2||||0.445|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (circumference of L knees in Week 24 of group A) - mean (circumference of L knees in Week 24 of group C)|Circumference of left (L) knees in Week 24, in between-groups. The Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) tests normality distribution. The comparability of groups regarding specified variables to accept or reject the null hypothesis of similarity was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test with 95% power and a level of significance α = 0,05. Standard deviation was calculated to present the statistical dispersion of sample data at an assessment.||||0.445
90998760|NCT05014542|181881078|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6||||0.26|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (circumference of R knees in Week 24 of group A) - mean (circumference of R knees in Week 24 of group C)|Circumference of right (R) knees at Week 24 was analysed between groups. The Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) tests normality distribution. The comparability of groups regarding specified variables to accept or reject the null hypothesis of similarity was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test with 95% power and a level of significance α = 0,05. Standard deviation was calculated to present the statistical dispersion of sample data at assessments.||||0.260
90998761|NCT05014542|181881079|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-34.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (WOMAC total of group A in Week 39) - mean (WOMAC total of group A in Week 0)|Western Ontario and McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) total of group A in Week 39 (24 weeks after acupunctures ended) was compared with the pre-experimental baseline assessment by within-group analysis. The Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) tests normality distribution. The null hypothesis at weeks 0 and 39 was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test with 95 % power and a level of significance α=0,05. Standard deviation (SD) was calculated to present the statistical dispersion of the sample.||||<0.001
90998762|NCT05014542|181881079|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-39.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (WOMAC total in Week 39 of group C) - mean (WOMAC total in Week 0 of group C).|WOMAC total of group C in Week 39 was tested for the significance level and mean difference by within-group analysis. The Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) tests normality distribution. WOMAC total at Week 0 (pre-experimental baseline assessment) and Week 39 were compared to test the null hypothesis of group comparability by the Mann-Whitney U test with 95 % power and a level of significance α=0,05. Standard deviation (SD) was calculated to present the statistical dispersion of a sample.||||< 0.001
91046034|NCT00680186|181978244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59||||0.2101||95.0|0.26|1.35|||Regression, Cox|||HR vs. Warfarin (events occurring between randomisation and end of ptp). The time to first occurrence of the endpoint was compared between treatment groups using the Cox PH model, including the factors treatment, active cancer at baseline, symptomatic PE at baseline, and the interaction between active cancer and symptomatic PE.||1.35|0.26|0.2101
90998763|NCT05014542|181881080|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (WOMAC pain in Week 39 of group A) - mean (WOMAC pain in Week 0 of group A)|The pain subscale of the WOMAC index of group A in Week 39 (24 weeks after acupunctures ended) was compared with baseline by within-group analysis. The Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) was used for testing the normality of the distribution. The null hypothesis of groups' similarity was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test, with 95% power and a significance level α = 0,05. Interquartile range and standard deviation were calculated to present the statistical dispersion of sample data at assessments.||||<0.001
90998764|NCT05014542|181881080|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (WOMAC pain in Week 39 of group C) - mean (WOMAC pain in Week 0 of group C)|The pain subscale of the WOMAC index of group C in Week 39 (end of acupuncture of group C) was compared with the pre-experimental baseline values by within-group analysis. The Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) was used for testing the normality of the distribution. The null hypothesis of groups' similarity was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test, with 95% power and a significance level α = 0,05. Interquartile range and standard deviation were calculated to present the statistical dispersion of data.||||<0.001
91046035|NCT00680186|181978245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (Percentage)|0.2||||0.083||95.0|0.0|0.5|||Kaplan Meier weighted estimates|||RD at 6 months vs. Warfarin for Proportion of patients who died due to VTE . Point estimate and 95% CI for the overall RD obtained based on the KM estimates at 6 months (180 days) after adjusting for the stratification factors active cancer at baseline and symptomatic PE at baseline.||0.5|0.0|0.0830
91046036|NCT00680186|181978246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (Percentage)|0.1||||0.7348||95.0|-0.7|1.0|||Kaplan Meier weighted estimates|||RD at 6 months vs. Warfarin for Proportion of patients who died from any cause. Point estimate and 95% CI for the overall RD obtained based on the KM estimates at 6 months (180 days) after adjusting for the stratification factors active cancer at baseline and symptomatic PE at baseline.||1.0|-0.7|0.7348
91046037|NCT00680186|181978246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.8939||95.0|0.61|1.77|||Regression, Cox|Patients without events are censored at the end of ptp.||HR vs. Warfarin (events occurring between randomisation and end of ptp). The time to first occurrence of the endpoint was compared between treatment groups using the Cox PH model, including the factors treatment, active cancer at baseline, symptomatic PE at baseline, and the interaction between active cancer and symptomatic PE.||1.77|0.61|0.8939
91046038|NCT00680186|181978247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (Percentage)|-0.3||||0.321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.3|||Kaplan Meier weighted estimates|||RD vs. Warfarin for Proportion of patients with symptomatic fatal and non-fatal PE at 6 months. Point estimate and 95% CI for the overall RD obtained based on the KM estimates at 6 months (180 days) after adjusting for the stratification factors active cancer at baseline and symptomatic PE at baseline.||0.3|-1.0|0.3210
91046039|NCT00680186|181978247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.3021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.46|||Regression, Cox|||HR vs. Warfarin (events occurring between randomisation and end of ptp). The time to first occurrence of the endpoint was compared between treatment groups using the Cox PH model, including the factors treatment, active cancer at baseline, symptomatic PE at baseline, and the interaction between active cancer and symptomatic PE.||1.46|0.29|0.3021
91046040|NCT00680186|181978248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||||95.0|0.36|1.32|||Regression, Cox||This is the analysis of the time to the first MBE.|HR vs. Warfarin (events occurring between 1st intake of study drug and last intake of study drug + 6 days). The time to first occurrence of MBE was compared between treatment groups using the Cox PH model, including the factors treatment, active cancer at baseline, symptomatic PE at baseline, and the interaction between active cancer and symptomatic PE.||1.32|0.36|
91046041|NCT00680186|181978248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.81|||Regression, Cox||This is the analysis of the time to the first occurrence of any bleeding event.|HR vs. Warfarin (events occurring between 1st intake of study drug and last intake of study drug + 6 days). The time to first occurrence of any bleeding was compared between treatment groups using the Cox PH model, including the factors treatment, active cancer at baseline, symptomatic PE at baseline, and the interaction between active cancer and symptomatic PE.||0.81|0.56|<0.0001
91046042|NCT00479388|181978290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.006||95.0|-7.7|-1.3|||Repeated measures analysis|Study times: 4, 8 and 12 weeks. Terms: treatment-by-time, gender-by-time, baseline LDL-C-by-time and concomitant statin group-by-time interaction.||||-1.3|-7.7|0.006
91046043|NCT00479388|181978291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<=|0.001||95.0|13.4|17.9|||Repeated measures analysis|Study times: 4, 8 and 12 weeks. Terms: treatment-by-time, gender-by-time, baseline HDL-C-by-time and concomitant statin group-by-time interaction.||||17.9|13.4|<=0.001
91046044|NCT00479388|181978292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.4|||<=|0.001||95.0|-19.2|-11.7|||Repeated measures analysis|ANCOVA model based on Tukey's normalized ranks with term for treatment, gender, concomitant statin group and Tukey's normal score of baseline.||||-11.7|-19.2|<=0.001
91046045|NCT00562120|181978358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.302|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on one-sided test. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||An analysis of variance (ANOVA) mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.302
91046046|NCT00562120|181978358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on a one-sided test. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.134
91046047|NCT00562120|181978358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.229|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on a one-sided test. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.229
91046048|NCT00562120|181978358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.544|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on two-sided test which was underpowered and presented for descriptive purposes only. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.544
91046049|NCT00562120|181978358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on two-sided test which was underpowered and presented for descriptive purposes only. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.710
91046050|NCT00562120|181978358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.816|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on two-sided test which was underpowered and presented for descriptive purposes only. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.816
91046051|NCT00562120|181978359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.269|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on a one-sided test. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||An analysis of variance (ANOVA) mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.269
91046052|NCT00562120|181978359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on a one-sided test. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.097
91046053|NCT00562120|181978359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.252|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on a one-sided test. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.252
91046054|NCT00562120|181978359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.479|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on two-sided test which was underpowered and presented for descriptive purposes only. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.479
91046055|NCT00562120|181978359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.521|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on two-sided test which was underpowered and presented for descriptive purposes only. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.521
91046056|NCT00562120|181978359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.952|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on two-sided test which was underpowered and presented for descriptive purposes only. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.952
91046057|NCT00562120|181978360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on a one-sided test. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||An analysis of variance (ANOVA) mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.130
91046058|NCT00562120|181978360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.663|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on a one-sided test. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.663
91046059|NCT00562120|181978360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.138|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on a one-sided test. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.138
91046060|NCT00562120|181978360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on two-sided test which was underpowered and presented for descriptive purposes only. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.124
91046061|NCT00562120|181978360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on two-sided test which was underpowered and presented for descriptive purposes only. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.134
91046062|NCT00562120|181978360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.978|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on two-sided test which was underpowered and presented for descriptive purposes only. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.978
91046063|NCT00562120|181978361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.357|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on a one-sided test. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||An analysis of variance (ANOVA) mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.357
91046064|NCT00562120|181978361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.952|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on a one-sided test. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.952
91046065|NCT00562120|181978361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on a one-sided test. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.480
91046066|NCT00562120|181978361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on two-sided test which was underpowered and presented for descriptive purposes only. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.043
91046067|NCT00562120|181978361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on two-sided test which was underpowered and presented for descriptive purposes only. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.087
91046068|NCT00562120|181978361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.753|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on two-sided test which was underpowered and presented for descriptive purposes only. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.753
91046069|NCT00562120|181978362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on a one-sided test. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||Nasal congestion: An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.011
91046070|NCT00562120|181978362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on a one-sided test. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||Nasal congestion: An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.127
91046071|NCT00562120|181978362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on a one-sided test. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||Nasal congestion: An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.103
91046072|NCT00562120|181978362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.218|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on two-sided test which was underpowered and presented for descriptive purposes only. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||Nasal congestion: An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.218
91046073|NCT00562120|181978362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.905|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on two-sided test which was underpowered and presented for descriptive purposes only. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||Nasal congestion: An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.905
91046074|NCT00562120|181978362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.273|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on two-sided test which was underpowered and presented for descriptive purposes only. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||Nasal congestion: An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.273
91046075|NCT00562120|181978362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on a one-sided test. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||Nasal Itching: An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.000
91046076|NCT00562120|181978362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on a one-sided test. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||Nasal Itching: An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.055
91046077|NCT00562120|181978362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on a one-sided test. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||Nasal Itching: An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.012
91046078|NCT00562120|181978362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on two-sided test which was underpowered and presented for descriptive purposes only. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||Nasal Itching: An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.048
91046079|NCT00562120|181978362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.496|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on two-sided test which was underpowered and presented for descriptive purposes only. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||Nasal Itching: An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.496
91046080|NCT00562120|181978362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on two-sided test which was underpowered and presented for descriptive purposes only. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||Nasal Itching: An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.190
91046081|NCT00562120|181978362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on a one-sided test. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||Rhinorrhea: An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.000
91046082|NCT00562120|181978362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on a one-sided test. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||Rhinorrhea: An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.019
91046083|NCT00562120|181978362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on a one-sided test. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||Rhinorrhea: An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.009
91046084|NCT00562120|181978362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on two-sided test which was underpowered and presented for descriptive purposes only. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||Rhinorrhea: An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.061
91046085|NCT00562120|181978362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.778|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on two-sided test which was underpowered and presented for descriptive purposes only. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||Rhinorrhea: An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.778
91046086|NCT00562120|181978362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on two-sided test which was underpowered and presented for descriptive purposes only. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||Rhinorrhea: An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.102
91046087|NCT00562120|181978363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on a one-sided test. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||An analysis of variance (ANOVA) mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.000
91046088|NCT00562120|181978363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on a one-sided test. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.000
91046089|NCT00562120|181978363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on a one-sided test. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.000
91046090|NCT00562120|181978363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.217|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on two-sided test which was underpowered and presented for descriptive purposes only. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.217
91046091|NCT00562120|181978363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.156|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on two-sided test which was underpowered and presented for descriptive purposes only. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.156
91046092|NCT00562120|181978363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.848|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on two-sided test which was underpowered and presented for descriptive purposes only. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.848
91046093|NCT02148445|181978365|SUPERIORITY|Based on prior studies using precessation NRT, we estimate a 2-fold increase in cessation outcomes in the GMT group compared to the SC group. Given our recruitment of patients at all levels of readiness to quit, we estimate a 12 month cessation rate of 10%. With 199 participants, in each arm, we will have an 80% power to detect a 2-fold difference or greater with a Type I error rate of 5%.||||||0.88|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.88
91046094|NCT02148445|181978366|SUPERIORITY|Based on prior studies using precessation NRT, we estimate a 2-fold increase in cessation outcomes in the GMT group compared to the SC group. Given our recruitment of patients at all levels of readiness to quit, we estimate a 12 month cessation rate of 10%. With 199 participants, in each arm, we will have an 80% power to detect a 2-fold difference or greater with a Type I error rate of 5%. This sample size will provide comparable power for looking at 6 month sustained cessation.||||||0.55|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.55
91046095|NCT02148445|181978367|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.40
91046096|NCT02148445|181978368|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.05
91046097|NCT02148445|181978369|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.05
91046098|NCT02148445|181978370|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.39
91046099|NCT02148445|181978371|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.42
91046100|NCT02148445|181978372|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.27
91046101|NCT02148445|181978373|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.06
91046102|NCT02148445|181978375|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Chi-squared|||Month 3 self-reported abstinence||||0.08
91046103|NCT02148445|181978375|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Chi-squared|||Month 3 biochemically verified abstinence||||0.06
91046104|NCT02148445|181978375|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||Chi-squared|||Month 6, self-reported abstinence||||0.22
91046105|NCT02148445|181978375|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Chi-squared|||Month 6, biochemically verified abstinence||||0.34
91046106|NCT02148445|181978375|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||Chi-squared|||Month 12, self-reported abstinence||||0.66
91046107|NCT02148445|181978376|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0149|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0149
91046108|NCT02148445|181978377|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.05
91046109|NCT02148445|181978378|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.08
91046110|NCT02148445|181978379|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.77
91046111|NCT02148445|181978380|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0918|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0918
91046112|NCT03450629|181978381|EQUIVALENCE|8 AM +/- 30 min||||||0.0006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0006
91046113|NCT03450629|181978381|EQUIVALENCE|10 AM +/- 30 min||||||0.0291|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0291
91046114|NCT03450629|181978381|EQUIVALENCE|4 PM +/- 30 min||||||0.0002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0002
91046115|NCT02093923|181978391|SUPERIORITY||Percent Change in Mean Rate|-100.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|-100.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The result was based on General Estimating Equation (GEE) analysis. Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) approach with Poisson distribution assumption was applied to the repeated-measures mixed model with independence working correlation structure. The treatment group was a fixed effect and the number of baseline HAE attacks per week was included as a covariate in the GEE.||-100.00|-100.00|<.0001
91046116|NCT02093923|181978391|SUPERIORITY||Percent Change in Mean Rate|-87.77||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-97.18|-46.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The result was based on General Estimating Equation (GEE) analysis. Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) approach with Poisson distribution assumption was applied to the repeated-measures mixed model with independence working correlation structure. The treatment group was a fixed effect and the number of baseline HAE attacks per week was included as a covariate in the GEE.||-46.90|-97.18|0.0050
91046117|NCT02093923|181978391|SUPERIORITY||Percent Change in Mean Rate|-91.08||||0.0012||95.0|-97.93|-61.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The result was based on General Estimating Equation (GEE) analysis. Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) approach with Poisson distribution assumption was applied to the repeated-measures mixed model with independence working correlation structure. The treatment group was a fixed effect and the number of baseline HAE attacks per week was included as a covariate in the GEE.||-61.57|-97.93|0.0012
91046118|NCT02093923|181978392|SUPERIORITY||Percent Change in Mean Rate|-100.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|-100.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The result was based on General Estimating Equation (GEE) analysis. Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) approach with Poisson distribution assumption was applied to the repeated-measures mixed model with independence working correlation structure. The treatment group was a fixed effect and the number of baseline HAE attacks per week was included as a covariate in the GEE.||-100.00|-100.00|<.0001
90998765|NCT05014542|181881081|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (WOMAC stiffness in Week 39 of group A) - mean (WOMAC stiffness in Week 0 of group A)|The stiffness subscale of the WOMAC index of group A in Week 39 (24 weeks after acupuncture of group A ended) was compared with the pre-experimental baseline values by within-group analysis. The Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) was used for testing the normality of the distribution. The null hypothesis of groups' similarity was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test, with 95% power and a significance level α=0,05. Interquartile range and SD were calculated to present the statistical dispersion of the data.||||<0.001
91046119|NCT02093923|181978392|SUPERIORITY||Percent Change in Mean Rate|-84.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-93.07|-63.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The result was based on General Estimating Equation (GEE) analysis. Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) approach with Poisson distribution assumption was applied to the repeated-measures mixed model with independence working correlation structure. The treatment group was a fixed effect and the number of baseline HAE attacks per week was included as a covariate in the GEE.||-63.46|-93.07|<.0001
91046120|NCT02093923|181978392|SUPERIORITY||Percent Change in Mean Rate|-87.84|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-94.81|-71.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The result was based on General Estimating Equation (GEE) analysis. Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) approach with Poisson distribution assumption was applied to the repeated-measures mixed model with independence working correlation structure. The treatment group was a fixed effect and the number of baseline HAE attacks per week was included as a covariate in the GEE.||-71.50|-94.81|<.0001
90998766|NCT05014542|181881081|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (WOMAC stiffness in Week 39 of group C) - mean (WOMAC stiffness in Week 0 of group C)|The stiffness subscale of the WOMAC index of group C in Week 39 (end of acupuncture of group C) was compared with the pre-experimental baseline values by within-group analysis. The Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) was used for testing the normality of the distribution. The null hypothesis of groups' similarity was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test, with 95% power and a significance level α = 0,05. Interquartile range and standard deviation were calculated to present the statistical dispersion of data.||||<0.001
90998767|NCT05014542|181881082|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (WOMAC functional disability in Week 39 of group A) - mean(WOMAC functional disability in Week 0 of group A)|The functional disability subscale of the WOMAC index of group A in Week 39 (24 weeks after acupuncture of group A ended) was compared with baseline values by within-group analysis. The Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) was used for testing the normality of the distribution. The null hypothesis of groups' similarity was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test, with 95% power and a significance level α=0,05. Interquartile range and SD were calculated to present the statistical dispersion of the data.||||<0.001
90998768|NCT05014542|181881082|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (WOMAC functional disability in Week 39 of group C) - mean (WOMAC functional disability in Week 0 of group C)|The functional disability subscale of the WOMAC index of group C in Week 39 (when acupuncture of group A ended) was compared with baseline values by within-group analysis. The Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) was used for testing the normality of the distribution. The null hypothesis of groups' similarity was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test, with 95% power and a significance level α=0,05. Interquartile range and SD were calculated to present the statistical dispersion of the data.||||<0.001
90998769|NCT05014542|181881083|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-41.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (VAS in Week 39 of group A) - mean (VAS in Week 0 of group A)|VAS of group A in Week 39 (24 weeks after acupuncture of group A ended) was compared with baseline values by within-group analysis. The Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) was used for testing the normality of the distribution. The null hypothesis of groups' similarity was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test, with 95% power and a significance level α=0,05. Interquartile range and SD were calculated to present the statistical dispersion of the data.||||<0.001
90998770|NCT05014542|181881083|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-31.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (VAS in Week 39 of group C) - mean (VAS in Week 0 of group C)|VAS of group C in Week 39 (when acupuncture of group C ended) was compared with baseline values by within-group analysis. The Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) was used for testing the normality of the distribution. The null hypothesis of groups' similarity was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test, with 95% power and a significance level α=0,05. Interquartile range and SD were calculated to present the statistical dispersion of the data.||||< 0.001
90998771|NCT05014542|181881084|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (KDSQ in Week 39 of group A) - mean (KDSQ in Week 0 of group A)|KDSQ of group A in Week 39 (24 weeks after acupuncture of group A ended) was compared with baseline values by within-group analysis. The Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) was used for testing the normality of the distribution. The null hypothesis of groups' similarity was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test, with 95% power and a significance level α=0,05. Interquartile range and SD were calculated to present the statistical dispersion of the data.||||<0.001
90998772|NCT05014542|181881084|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (KDSQ in Week 39 of group C) - mean (KDSQ in Week 0 of group C)|KDSQ of group C in Week 39 (when acupuncture of group C ended) was compared with baseline values by within-group analysis. The Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) was used for testing the normality of the distribution. The null hypothesis of groups' similarity was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test, with 95% power and a significance level α=0,05. Interquartile range and SD were calculated to present the statistical dispersion of the data.||||<0.001
90998773|NCT05014542|181881085|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-361.4||||0.204|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (DRUG in Week 39 of group A) - mean (DRUG in Week 0 of group A)|The DRUG of group A in Week 39 (24 weeks after acupuncture of group A ended) was compared with baseline values by within-group analysis. The Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) was used for testing the normality of the distribution. The null hypothesis of groups' similarity was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test, with 95% power and a significance level α=0,05. Interquartile range and SD were calculated to present the statistical dispersion of the data.||||0.204
90998774|NCT05014542|181881085|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-305.4||||0.134|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (DRUG in Week 39 of group C) - mean (DRUG in Week 0 of group C)|The DRUG of group C in Week 39 (when acupuncture of group C ended) was compared with baseline values by within-group analysis. The Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) was used for testing the normality of the distribution. The null hypothesis of groups' similarity was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test, with 95% power and a significance level α=0,05. Interquartile range and SD were calculated to present the statistical dispersion of the data.||||0.134
90998775|NCT05014542|181881086|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (Lequesne index in Week 24 of A group) - mean (Lequesne index in Week 24 of C group)|The Lequesne index in Week 24 compared two confirmed comparable groups (at baseline), 9 weeks after acupuncture treatment in group A ended, while the C group was still a control. The Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) tests normality distribution. The between-group comparability test at Week 24 was provided to accept or reject the null hypothesis by the Mann-Whitney U test, with 95 % power and a level of significance α = 0,05. Standard deviation (SD) was calculated to present the statistical dispersion.||||< 0.001
90998776|NCT04446299|181881154|NON_INFERIORITY|The predetermined non-inferiority margin was 10%.|Risk Difference (RD)|3.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|8.52|||Mantel Haenszel|||||8.52|-1.68|<0.001
90998777|NCT03819478|181881157|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.488|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for age, sex, race, and baseline bone measure||||||0.4880
90998778|NCT03819478|181881157|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1683|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for age, sex, race, and baseline bone measure||||||0.1683
90998779|NCT03819478|181881158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7636|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for age, sex, race, and baseline bone measure||||||0.7636
90998780|NCT03819478|181881159|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1584|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for age, sex, race, and baseline bone measure||||||0.1584
91046121|NCT02093923|181978393|SUPERIORITY||Percent Change in Mean Rate|-100.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|-100.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The result was based on General Estimating Equation (GEE) analysis. Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) approach with Poisson distribution assumption was applied to the repeated-measures mixed model with independence working correlation structure. The treatment group was a fixed effect and the number of baseline HAE attacks per week was included as a covariate in the GEE.||-100.00|-100.00|<.0001
90998781|NCT03819478|181881159|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1623|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for age, sex, race, and baseline bone measure||||||0.1623
90998782|NCT03819478|181881160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for age, sex, race, and baseline bone measure||||||0.0350
91046122|NCT02093923|181978393|SUPERIORITY||Percent Change in Mean Rate|-82.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-92.5|-58.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The result was based on General Estimating Equation (GEE) analysis. Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) approach with Poisson distribution assumption was applied to the repeated-measures mixed model with independence working correlation structure. The treatment group was a fixed effect and the number of baseline HAE attacks per week was included as a covariate in the GEE.||-58.64|-92.50|<.0001
91046123|NCT02093923|181978393|SUPERIORITY||Percent Change in Mean Rate|-87.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-94.55|-69.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The result was based on General Estimating Equation (GEE) analysis. Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) approach with Poisson distribution assumption was applied to the repeated-measures mixed model with independence working correlation structure. The treatment group was a fixed effect and the number of baseline HAE attacks per week was included as a covariate in the GEE.||-69.06|-94.55|<.0001
91046124|NCT02093923|181978394|SUPERIORITY||Percent Change in Mean Rate|-100.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|-100.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The result was based on General Estimating Equation (GEE) analysis. Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) approach with Poisson distribution assumption was applied to the repeated-measures mixed model with independence working correlation structure. The treatment group was a fixed effect and the number of baseline HAE attacks per week was included as a covariate in the GEE.||-100.00|-100.00|<.0001
90998783|NCT03819478|181881161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2422|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for age, sex, race, and baseline bone measure||||||0.2422
90998784|NCT03819478|181881161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5082|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for age, sex, race, and baseline bone measure||||||0.5082
90998785|NCT03819478|181881162|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5119|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for age, sex, race, and baseline bone measure||||||0.5119
90998786|NCT03819478|181881162|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4902|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for age, sex, race, and baseline bone measure||||||0.4902
90998787|NCT03819478|181881163|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for age, sex, race, and baseline bone measure||||||0.8500
90998788|NCT03819478|181881164|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3685|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for age, sex, race, and baseline bone measure||||||0.3685
91046125|NCT02093923|181978394|SUPERIORITY||Percent Change in Mean Rate|-85.24||||0.0141||95.0|-96.79|-32.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The result was based on General Estimating Equation (GEE) analysis. Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) approach with Poisson distribution assumption was applied to the repeated-measures mixed model with independence working correlation structure. The treatment group was a fixed effect and the number of baseline HAE attacks per week was included as a covariate in the GEE.||-32.03|-96.79|0.0141
91046126|NCT02093923|181978394|SUPERIORITY||Percent Change in Mean Rate|-89.35||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-97.68|-51.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The result was based on General Estimating Equation (GEE) analysis. Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) approach with Poisson distribution assumption was applied to the repeated-measures mixed model with independence working correlation structure. The treatment group was a fixed effect and the number of baseline HAE attacks per week was included as a covariate in the GEE.||-51.13|-97.68|0.0040
90998789|NCT03819478|181881164|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0894|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for age, sex, race, and baseline bone measure||||||0.0894
90998790|NCT03819478|181881165|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5334|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for age, sex, race, and baseline bone measure||||||0.5334
90998791|NCT03819478|181881166|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1573|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for age, sex, race, and baseline bone measure||||||0.1573
90998792|NCT00091962|181881172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.001||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||repeated measures mixed-effect model with treatment, time (4 time points), and sex; all 2- and 3-factor interaction terms with subject intercepts were treated as a random effect to account for individual differences at randomization.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.001
91046127|NCT01631682|181978416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||This study used a within-groups design. Each subject provides his/her own comparison data. It was predicted that that a conditioned stimulus that was reactivated (CS+R) after propranolol was administered would result in a smaller SCR than a conditioned stimulus that was not reactivated (CS+N).||||>.05
90998793|NCT01488409|181881175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.97
90998794|NCT01488409|181881176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.85
90998795|NCT01488409|181881177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.52
90998796|NCT01488409|181881178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.79
90998797|NCT01488409|181881179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.007
90998798|NCT03258632|181881201|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.90|0.73|<.05
90998799|NCT03162458|181881203|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.007
90998800|NCT03162458|181881204|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0004
90998801|NCT03162458|181881205|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.055|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.055
90998802|NCT03162458|181881206|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.051|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.051
90998803|NCT03162458|181881207|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||ANOVA|||Mean body temperatures, measured in the morning on Days 2-5 (based on patient diary data)||||0.19
90998804|NCT03162458|181881207|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||ANOVA|||Mean body temperatures, measured in the evening on Days 2-5 (based on patient diary data)||||0.44
90998805|NCT03162458|181881208|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.15
90998806|NCT03162458|181881209|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.004
90998807|NCT03162458|181881210|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
90998808|NCT03162458|181881211|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.63
90998809|NCT03162458|181881212|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
90998810|NCT01183312|181881215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77||95.0|||||wilcoxon signed rank (paired)|||||||0.77
90998811|NCT01183312|181881216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank (paired)|||||||0.51
90998812|NCT01183312|181881217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank (paired)|||||||0.32
90998813|NCT01183312|181881218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.56||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank (paired)|||||||0.56
90998814|NCT01183312|181881219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank (paired)|||||||0.14
90998815|NCT01183312|181881220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank (paired)|||||||0.89
90998816|NCT01183312|181881221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank (paired)|||||||0.13
90998817|NCT00605072|181881228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0||||p-value for between group comparison (group\*visit)|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline AGE and Mini-Mental-State-Examination||||||0.008
90998818|NCT00605072|181881229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for age||||||0.74
90998819|NCT00605072|181881230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for age at baseline||||||0.81
90998820|NCT00605072|181881231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.87
90998821|NCT00605072|181881232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.79
90998822|NCT00141037|181881233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Nonparametric Test|||The endpoint is assessed using a Wilcoxon nonparametric test and missing values are imputed using the last observation carried forward.||||0.79
90998823|NCT00141037|181881234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85|||||||Fisher Exact|||The difference was analyzed using a Fisher's exact test.||||0.85
90998824|NCT00861380|181881241|SUPERIORITY|VE (defined as 1 minus Relative Risk (RR)) was calculated by comparing numbers of culture-confirmed IPD. The number of subjects with IPD in each cluster was compared between groups (10PN3+1 vs Control). This comparison was done using a negative binomial log-linear model with correction for dispersion group- and cluster- related effect.|VE (1-RR)|100.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|82.8|100.0||P-value was calculated using a classical log linear Poisson regression with strata, without taking into account the multiplicity of the endpoints.|Regression, Linear|||Analysis aimed at providing an estimate of vaccine effectiveness (VE) at preventing culture-confirmed IPD by comparing PYARs between groups taking into account the following parameters: T, n, n+ (number of clusters with at least one event culture-confirmed ID), and n/T. VE of the 10Pn vaccine in preventing culture-confirmed IPD due to the 10 vaccine serotypes was demonstrated if the 2-sided p-value calculated for the null hypothesis H0 =(vaccine-type \[VT\] IPD VE = 0%) was lower than (\<) 5%.||100|82.8|<0.0001
91046128|NCT01631682|181978416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||This study used a within-groups design. Each subject provides his/her own comparison data. It was predicted that that a conditioned stimulus that was initially presented (CS+R) and then followed by a series of extinction trials after a 10-min delay would result in a smaller SCR than a conditioned stimulus (CS+N) that was not extinguished without a 10-min delay.||||>.05
90998825|NCT00861380|181881242|SUPERIORITY|VE (defined as 1 minus Relative Risk (RR)) was calculated by comparing numbers of culture-confirmed IPD. The number of subjects with IPD in each cluster was compared between groups (10PN2+1vsControl). This comparison was done using a negative binomial log-linear model with correction for dispersion group- and cluster- related effect.|VE (1-RR)|91.8|||=|0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.3|99.6||p-value was calculated using a classical log linear Poisson regression with strata, without taking into account the multiplicity of the endpoints.|Regression, Linear|||Analysis aimed at providing an estimate of vaccine effectiveness (VE) at preventing culture-confirmed IPD by comparing PYARs between groups taking into account the following parameters: T, n, n+ (number of clusters with at least one event culture-confirmed ID), and n/T. VE of the 10Pn vaccine in preventing culture-confirmed IPD due to the 10 vaccine serotypes was demonstrated if the 2-sided p-value calculated for the null hypothesis H0 = (vaccine-type \[VT\] IPD VE = 0%) was lower than (\<) 5%.||99.6|58.3|= 0.0009
90998826|NCT00861380|181881246|OTHER|In 5 to 99+ Years Old Population, in Year 2010, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with a culture confirmed IPD divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 100000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a classical log linear Poisson regression with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons = 2626735.|PYAR|14.657|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.229|16.197|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Culture-confirmed IPD (any serotype), number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any 10PN-PD-DIT vaccine - age stratum schedules).||16.197|13.229|
90998827|NCT00861380|181881246|OTHER|In 5 to 99+ Years Old Population, in Year 2010, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received control vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with a culture confirmed IPD divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 100000), as well as the 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a classical log linear Poisson regression with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons = 1354702.|PYAR|13.582|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.691|15.693|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Culture-confirmed IPD (any serotype), number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any control (HAV or HBV) vaccine - age stratum schedules).||15.693|11.691|
90998828|NCT00861380|181881246|OTHER|In 5 to 99+ Years Old Population, in Year 2010, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with a culture confirmed IPD divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 100000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a classical log linear Poisson regression with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons = 2626735.|PYAR|8.452|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.376|9.639|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Culture-confirmed IPD (vaccine serotype), number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any 10PN-PD-DIT vaccine - age stratum schedules).||9.639|7.376|
90998829|NCT00861380|181881246|OTHER|In 5 to 99+ Years Old Population, in Year 2010, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received control vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with a culture confirmed IPD divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 100000), as well as the 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a classical log linear Poisson regression with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons = 1354702.|PYAR|7.603|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.206|9.221|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Culture-confirmed IPD (vaccine serotype), number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any control (HAV or HBV) vaccine - age stratum schedules).||9.221|6.206|
90998830|NCT00861380|181881246|OTHER|In 5 to 99+ Years Old Population, in Year 2010, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with a culture confirmed IPD divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 100000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a classical log linear Poisson regression with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons = 2626735.|PYAR|1.637|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.185|2.205|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Culture-confirmed IPD (vaccine related), number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any 10PN-PD-DIT vaccine - age stratum schedules).||2.205|1.185|
90998831|NCT00861380|181881246|OTHER|In 5 to 99+ Years Old Population, in Year 2010, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received control vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with a culture confirmed IPD divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 100000), as well as the 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a classical log linear Poisson regression with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons = 1354702.|PYAR|1.845|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.194|2.724|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Culture-confirmed IPD (vaccine related), number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any control (HAV or HBV) vaccine - age stratum schedules).||2.724|1.194|
90998832|NCT00861380|181881246|OTHER|In 5 to 99+ Years Old Population, in Year 2010, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with a culture confirmed IPD divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 100000), as well as . 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons = 2626735.|PYAR|3.997|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.269|4.839|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Culture-confirmed IPD (non-vaccine \& non-vaccine related), number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any 10PN-PD-DIT vaccine - age stratum schedules).||4.839|3.269|
90998833|NCT00861380|181881246|OTHER|In 5 to 99+ Years Old Population, in Year 2010, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received control vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with a culture confirmed IPD divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 100000), as well as the 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons = 1354702.|PYAR|3.322|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.423|4.445|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Culture-confirmed IPD (non-vaccine \& non-vaccine related), number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any control (HAV or HBV) vaccine - age stratum schedules).||4.445|2.423|
90998834|NCT00861380|181881246|OTHER|In 5 to 99+ Years Old Population, in Year 2011, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with a culture confirmed IPD divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 100000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =2636783.|PYAR|14.487|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.071|16.015|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Culture-confirmed IPD (any serotype), number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any 10PN-PD-DIT vaccine - age stratum schedules).||16.015|13.071|
91046129|NCT01631682|181978416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||This study used a within-groups design. Each subject provides his/her own comparison data. It was predicted that that a conditioned stimulus that was reactivated (CS+R) after mifepristone was administered would result in a smaller SCR than a conditioned stimulus that was not reactivated (CS+N).||||<.05
91046130|NCT01631682|181978416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||This study used a within-groups design. Each subject provides his/her own comparison data. It was predicted that that a conditioned stimulus that was reactivated (CS+R) after intranasal oxytocin was administered would result in a smaller SCR than a conditioned stimulus that was not reactivated (CS+N).||||>.05
91078045|NCT02542293|182041282|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.748|1.388|||||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for smoking status (never smoker Vs ever smoker) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"PD-L1-negative analysis set:~Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab to be associated with a longer time to second progression than SoC."||1.388|0.748|
91078046|NCT02542293|182041282|OTHER|The study was not designed or powered to show statistical significance for efficacy endpoints in the China cohort, so all statistical analyses for the China cohort were considered exploratory.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.219|||||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"PD-L1-negative analysis set:~China: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs China: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab to be associated with a longer time to second progression than SoC."||1.219|0.360|
91046131|NCT02631837|181978461|NON_INFERIORITY|Our hypothesis was that women would accept a higher conversion rate of 15% for vNOTESbased on a telephone interview of 10 women treated by total vaginal NOTES hysterectomy. Women were asked to choose among ﬁve cut-off rates (5, 10, 15, 20 or 25%). Most women indicated 15%. We would conclude non-inferiority when the upper limit of the one-sided 95% conﬁdence interval for the difference in the proportions of women between both comparisons would be below 15%.||||||0.0221||||||The Farrington-Manning test for non-inferiority was performed with 5% significance level and yielded P = 0.0221 in a sensitivity analysis assuming one conversion in the vNOTES and 0 conversions in the laparoscopy group.|Farrington-Manning|||||||0.0221
91046132|NCT02631837|181978462|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.34||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.13|||Fisher Exact|||||-0.13|-0.56|0.007
91046133|NCT02631837|181978462|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.007
91046134|NCT02631837|181978464|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.9||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|-1.8|||Mann-Whitney U test|Two-sided test||||-1.8|-10|0.006
91046135|NCT02631837|181978465|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
91046136|NCT02631837|181978466|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||> 0.05
91046137|NCT02631837|181978467|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.29||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.1|||Fisher Exact|||||-0.10|-0.47|0.009
91046138|NCT02631837|181978468|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.106|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.106
91046139|NCT02631837|181978469|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-34.0|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.0|-22.0|||Mann-Whitney U test|||||-22|-46|< 0.01
91046140|NCT02631837|181978470|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7604||||||We tested a treatment arm by time interaction to study changes in differences for the outcomes during the follow-up period. In absence of such an interaction (p\>0.05 for the interaction term), the main effect of treatment was tested.|Arm by time interaction|||||||0.7604
91046141|NCT02631837|181978471|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3071||||||We tested a treatment arm by time interaction to study changes in differences for the outcomes during the follow-up period. In absence of such an interaction (p\>0.05 for the interaction term), the main effect of treatment was tested.|Arm by time interaction|||||||0.3071
91046142|NCT02631837|181978472|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4541||||||We tested a treatment arm by time interaction to study changes in differences for the outcomes during the follow-up period. In absence of such an interaction (p\>0.05 for the interaction term), the main effect of treatment was tested.|Arm by time interaction|||||||0.4541
91046143|NCT02631837|181978473|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4514||||||We tested a treatment arm by time interaction to study changes in differences for the outcomes during the follow-up period. In absence of such an interaction (p\>0.05 for the interaction term), the main effect of treatment was tested.|Arm by time interaction|||||||0.4514
91046144|NCT02631837|181978474|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3473||||||We tested a treatment arm by time interaction to study changes in differences for the outcomes during the follow-up period. In absence of such an interaction (p\>0.05 for the interaction term), the main effect of treatment was tested.|Arm by time interaction|||||||0.3473
91046145|NCT02631837|181978475|SUPERIORITY|We tested a treatment arm by time interaction to study changes in differences for the outcomes during the follow-up period. In absence of such an interaction (p\>0.05 for the interaction term), the main effect of treatment was tested.||||||0.3473||||||We tested a treatment arm by time interaction to study changes in differences for the outcomes during the follow-up period. In absence of such an interaction (p\>0.05 for the interaction term), the main effect of treatment was tested.|Arm by time interaction|||||||0.3473
91046146|NCT02631837|181978477|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-555.8||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0||36.0|||Mann-Whitney U test|||||36|-1,044|0.110
90998835|NCT00861380|181881246|OTHER|In 5 to 99+ Years Old Population, in Year 2011, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received control vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with a culture confirmed IPD divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 100000), as well as the 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =1360966.|PYAR|13.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.841|15.857|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Culture-confirmed IPD (any serotype), number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any control (HAV or HBV) vaccine - age stratum schedules).||15.857|11.841|
90998836|NCT00861380|181881246|OTHER|In 5 to 99+ Years Old Population, in Year 2011, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with a culture confirmed IPD divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 100000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =2636783.|PYAR|7.813|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.782|8.955|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Culture-confirmed IPD (vaccine serotype), number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any 10PN-PD-DIT vaccine - age stratum schedules).||8.955|6.782|
90998837|NCT00861380|181881246|OTHER|In 5 to 99+ Years Old Population, in Year 2011, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received control vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with a culture confirmed IPD divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 100000), as well as the 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =1360966.|PYAR|7.789|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.377|9.42|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Culture-confirmed IPD (vaccine serotype), number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any control (HAV or HBV) vaccine - age stratum schedules).||9.420|6.377|
90998838|NCT00861380|181881246|OTHER|In 5 to 99+ Years Old Population, in Year 2011, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with a culture confirmed IPD divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 100000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =2636783.|PYAR|2.313|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|2.972|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Culture-confirmed IPD (vaccine related), number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any 10PN-PD-DIT vaccine - age stratum schedules).||2.972|1.770|
91046147|NCT01197417|181978480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|TWO_SIDED||||||Van Elteren test|Randomization strata were defined by enrollment site, age group and hydroxyurea use within the last three months prior to enrollment||Null hypothesis of equal distributions of primary length of stay between treatment arms within all randomization strata||||0.24
91046148|NCT01197417|181978481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||Van Elteren test|Randomization strata were defined by enrollment site, age group and hydroxyurea use within the last three months prior to enrollment.||||||0.12
91046149|NCT01197417|181978482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39|TWO_SIDED||||||Mantel Haenszel|Randomization strata were defined by enrollment site, age group and hydroxyurea use within the last three months prior to enrollment.||||||0.39
90998839|NCT00861380|181881246|OTHER|In 5 to 99+ Years Old Population, in Year 2011, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received control vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with a culture confirmed IPD divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 100000), as well as the 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =1360966.|PYAR|1.984|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.307|2.886|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Culture-confirmed IPD (vaccine related), number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any control (HAV or HBV) vaccine - age stratum schedules).||2.886|1.307|
91046150|NCT01197417|181978483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mantel Haenszel|Randomization strata were defined by enrollment site, age group and hydroxyurea use within the last three months prior to enrollment.||||||<0.01
90998840|NCT00861380|181881246|OTHER|In 5 to 99+ Years Old Population, in Year 2011, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with a culture confirmed IPD divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 100000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model without strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =2636783.|PYAR|4.172|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.429|5.028|||Negative Binomial model without strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Culture-confirmed IPD (non-vaccine \& non-vaccine related), number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any 10PN-PD-DIT vaccine - age stratum schedules).||5.028|3.429|
91046151|NCT01197417|181978484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||Mantel Haenszel|Randomization strata were defined by enrollment site, age group and hydroxyurea use within the last three months prior to enrollment.||||||0.11
91046152|NCT01197417|181978485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78|TWO_SIDED||||||Van Elteren test|Randomization strata were defined by enrollment site, age group and hydroxyurea use within the last three months prior to enrollment.||||||0.78
91046153|NCT01197417|181978486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46|TWO_SIDED||||||Van Elteren test|Randomization strata were defined by enrollment site, age group and hydroxyurea use within the last three months prior to enrollment.||||||0.46
91046154|NCT03614494|181978505|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|31.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.2|36.4|||Chi-squared|||||36.4|26.2|<0.0001
91046155|NCT03614494|181978506|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.197||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.021|0.906|||Logistic regression, Firth's bias reduct|||||0.906|0.021|0.036
91046156|NCT02129647|181978507|OTHER||||||||||||||||||10 tissue matched historical controls were analyzed. The Median (Full Range) of the histoscore was 122 (60 to 265)|||
91046157|NCT02129647|181978508|OTHER||||||||||||||||||10 tissue matched historical controls were analyzed. The Median (Full Range) of the histoscore was 135 (100 to 240)|||
91046158|NCT02129647|181978509|OTHER||||||||||||||||||10 tissue matched historical controls were analyzed. The Median (Full Range) of the histoscore was 12 (0 to 100)|||
91046159|NCT03756883|181978516|EQUIVALENCE|The 90% Confidence Interval for the test-to-reference ratio was calculated using a procedure similar to Fieller's method.|Test-to-Reference Ratio|101.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.68|111.94||||||||111.94|92.68|
91046160|NCT03756883|181978517|EQUIVALENCE|The 90% confidence interval for the test-to-reference ratio was calculated using a procedure similar to Fieller's method.|Test-to-Reference Ratio|98.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.1|110.61||||||||110.61|87.10|
91046161|NCT03756883|181978518|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||Superiority of the test product over the placebo.||||<0.0001
91046162|NCT03756883|181978518|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||Superiority of Reference to placebo.||||<0.0001
91046163|NCT03756883|181978519|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||Superiority of test over placebo.||||<0.0001
91046164|NCT03756883|181978519|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||Superiority of reference to placebo.||||<0.0001
91046165|NCT01352182|181978538|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.0
91046166|NCT01352182|181978539|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||threshold for significance p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.0
91046167|NCT01352182|181978540|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.154||||||threshold for significance p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.154
91046168|NCT01352182|181978541|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.683||||||significance threshold p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.683
91046169|NCT01352182|181978542|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08||||||significance threshold p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.08
91046170|NCT01352182|181978543|OTHER|linear regression|Slope|-1.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3741||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.003
91046171|NCT02740179|181978562|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72||||||P value for Change in Coronary Flow Reserve on Cardiac PET|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.72
91046172|NCT02740179|181978563|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||P value for Change in Stress Myocardial Blood Flow on Cardiac MRI|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
91046173|NCT02740179|181978564|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.38
91046174|NCT02740179|181978565|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.09
91046175|NCT02740179|181978566|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Analyses performed on log transformation of data||||||0.03
91046176|NCT02740179|181978567|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09||||||P value for Change in Plasma IL-6|t-test, 2 sided|Analyses performed after log transformation of data||||||0.09
91046177|NCT02740179|181978568|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36||||||P value for Change in Plasma hsCRP|t-test, 2 sided|Analyses performed after log transformation of data||||||0.36
91046178|NCT02740179|181978569|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88||||||P value for Change in Plasma MCP-1|t-test, 2 sided|Analyses performed after log transformation of data||||||0.88
91046179|NCT02740179|181978570|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17||||||P value for Change in Plasma sCD163|t-test, 2 sided|Analyses performed after log transformation of data||||||0.17
91046180|NCT02740179|181978571|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Analyses performed after log transformation of data||||||0.28
91046181|NCT02740179|181978572|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.32
91046182|NCT02740179|181978573|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.003
91046183|NCT02740179|181978574|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.73
91046184|NCT02740179|181978575|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.56
91046185|NCT02740179|181978576|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.03
91046186|NCT02740179|181978577|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
91050523|NCT02037165|181987277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.079|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|3.9|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 5:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||3.9|-4.2|
91046187|NCT01043926|181978641|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"AUC(0-∞) GMR = AUC(0-∞) GM for Moderate Hepatic Insufficiency Participants ÷ AUC(0-∞) GM for Healthy Participants~A 90% CI for the AUC(0-∞) GMR was computed from the ANCOVA model. As prespecified by the analysis plan, if the upper limit bound of the 90% CI for the AUC(0-∞) GMR fell below 2.00, then the hypothesis would be met and the AUC(0-∞) of suvorexant would be similar in both groups of participants. That is, if the true ratio of the GM AUC(0-∞) is no more than 2.00."|AUC(0-∞) Geometric Mean Ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.74|1.43|||ANCOVA|||"The geometric mean (GM) for each participant group and the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated for AUC(0-∞) using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model.~The AUC(0-∞) geometric mean ratio (GMR) of the 2 participant groups was used to test the primary hypothesis, which was that the AUC(0-∞) of suvorexant following a single 20-mg oral dose would be similar between participants with moderate hepatic insufficiency and healthy matched control participants."||1.43|0.74|
91046188|NCT01043926|181978642|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Cmax GMR = Cmax GM for Moderate Hepatic Insufficiency Participants ÷ Cmax GM for Healthy Participants~A 90% CI for the Cmax GMR was computed from the ANCOVA model. As prespecified by the analysis plan, if the upper limit bound of the 90% CI for the Cmax GMR fell below 2.00, then the hypothesis would be met and the Cmax of suvorexant would be similar in both groups of participants. That is, if the true ratio of the geometric mean Cmax is no more than 2.00."|Cmax Geometric Mean Ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.68|1.29|||ANCOVA|||"The GM for each participant group and the corresponding 95% CI were calculated for Cmax using an ANCOVA model.~The Cmax GMR of the 2 participant groups was used to test the primary hypothesis, which was that the Cmax of suvorexant following a single 20-mg oral dose would be similar between participants with moderate hepatic insufficiency and healthy matched control participants."||1.29|0.68|
91046189|NCT04117945|181978686|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8874|||||||One-sided unstratified log-rank|||||||0.8874
91046190|NCT04117945|181978687|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9683|||||||One-sided unstratified log-rank|||||||0.9683
91046191|NCT04117945|181978688|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0448|||||||One-sided unstratified log-rank|||||||0.0448
91046192|NCT04117945|181978689|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9007|||||||One-sided unstratified log-rank|||||||0.9007
91046193|NCT01181531|181978701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.3||0.346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|5.4||Unadjusted. Model contains baseline stratification factor for type of Vitamin D administered at the site|Mixed Models Analysis||Cinacalcet - Vitamin D|Null hypothesis: no difference in % change from baseline in PTH comparing the two treatment arms.||5.4|-15.4|0.346
91046194|NCT01181531|181978702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.29||Stratified by type of Vitamin D at site|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||OR is Cinacalcet: Vitamin D|||2.29|0.92|0.110
91046195|NCT01181531|181978703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|2.39||stratified by type of Vitamin D at site|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||OR is Cinacalcet: Vitamin D|||2.39|0.74|0.346
91046196|NCT04034355|181978719|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.521||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0462|2.2113|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.2113|1.0462|0.0280
91050260|NCT04764630|181986658|OTHER|Treatment differences on the log-scale will be estimated for the PK parameters. Geometric mean ratio and 90% CIs will be obtained by exponentiation of the treatment effect and 90% CIs based on the log-transformed scale. Dose-proportionality will be concluded if the confidence interval includes 1. Dose-normalized comparisons were exploratory.|Geometric mean ratio|0.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|Dose-normalized comparisons were exploratory.|This compares results from the 4 naloxone dose arm (2 every 2.5 min) (numerator) with the 2 naloxone dose arm (1 every 2.5 min) (denominator).|Dose-adjusted values for AUC0-t will be calculated based on noncompartmental PK parameter results, normalized to per mg of naloxone administered. Using linear mixed-effects modeling, comparisons of log-transformed dose-adjusted PK parameters will be performed. Treatment will be a fixed effect. Participant will be included as a random effect on the intercept.||0.80|0.69|<0.001
91050261|NCT04764630|181986658|OTHER|Treatment differences on the log-scale will be estimated for the PK parameters. Geometric mean ratio and 90% CIs will be obtained by exponentiation of the treatment effect and 90% CIs based on the log-transformed scale. Dose-proportionality will be concluded if the confidence interval includes 1. Dose-normalized comparisons were exploratory.|Geometric mean ratio|0.91||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|0.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|Dose-normalized comparisons were exploratory.|This compares results from the 4 naloxone dose arm (2 every 2.5 min) (numerator) with the 4 naloxone dose arm (1 every 2.5 min) (denominator).|Dose-adjusted values for AUC0-t will be calculated based on noncompartmental PK parameter results, normalized to per mg of naloxone administered. Using linear mixed-effects modeling, comparisons of log-transformed dose-adjusted PK parameters will be performed. Treatment will be a fixed effect. Participant will be included as a random effect on the intercept.||0.96|0.85|0.014
91050262|NCT01144364|181986679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.254|||||||Log Rank|||Difference between treatment arms||||0.254
91050263|NCT01144364|181986681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.12||Overall DFS|Cox proportional-hazards|Adjusted for randomization stratum and the known prognostic factors.||||1.12|0.31|0.105
91050264|NCT01144364|181986682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.751|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.751
90998841|NCT00861380|181881246|OTHER|In 5 to 99+ Years Old Population, in Year 2011, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received control vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with a culture confirmed IPD divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 100000), as well as the 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model without strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =1360966.|PYAR|3.968|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.981|5.177|||Negative Binomial model without strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Culture-confirmed IPD (non-vaccine \& non-vaccine related), number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any control (HAV or HBV) vaccine - age stratum schedules).||5.177|2.981|
91050265|NCT01144364|181986683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.751|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.751
91050266|NCT01144364|181986685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.05|||Cox proportional-hazards|||Analysis of overall PFS with Cox proportional-hazards model adjusted for the randomization stratum and the known prognostic factors.||1.05|0.38|0.079
91050267|NCT01144364|181986688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.09||Univariate analysis|Regression, Cox|Cox model stratified for the stratification groups.||||1.09|0.40|0.103
91050268|NCT01144364|181986688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.04||Multivariate analysis|Regression, Cox|Adjusted for stratification group, age, sex, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status, FL International prognostic index (FLIPI) score.||||1.04|0.37|0.071
91050269|NCT01144364|181986689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.06||Univariate analysis|Fine and Gray model|Fine and Gray model stratified for the stratification groups.||||1.06|0.39|0.084
91050270|NCT01144364|181986689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.0|||Fine and Gray model|Fine and Gray model adjusted for stratification group, age, sex, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status, and FLIPI score||||1.00|0.38|0.052
91050271|NCT04932941|181986690|SUPERIORITY||Common risk difference|-0.276||||0.962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.634|11.081|||Mantel Haenszel||Strata-adjusted Mantel Haenszel (MH) method for difference in proportions controlling for stratification factors (COVID-19 severity: moderate, severe, and age group: less than or equal to 65 years, greater than 65 years).|||11.081|-11.634|0.962
91050272|NCT00375492|181986723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||||0.0030
91050273|NCT00375492|181986724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||||<0.0001
91050274|NCT00375492|181986726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1985||95.0|||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||||0.1985
91050275|NCT00375492|181986727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1827||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1827
91050276|NCT00375492|181986728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1584||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1584
91050277|NCT00375492|181986729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8279||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.8279
91050278|NCT00375492|181986730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8334||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.8334
91050279|NCT00375492|181986731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2881||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2881
91050280|NCT00375492|181986732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0654||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0654
91050281|NCT00375492|181986733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.728||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.728
91050282|NCT00375492|181986734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.127||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.127
90998842|NCT00861380|181881246|OTHER|In 5 to 99+ Years Old Population, in Year 2012, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with a culture confirmed IPD divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 100000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =2654010.|PYAR|14.017|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.628|15.516|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Culture-confirmed IPD (any serotype), number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any 10PN-PD-DIT vaccine - age stratum schedules).||15.516|12.628|
90998843|NCT00861380|181881246|OTHER|In 5 to 99+ Years Old Population, in Year 2012, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received control vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with a culture confirmed IPD divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 100000), as well as the 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =1367343.|PYAR|15.066|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.079|17.269|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Culture-confirmed IPD (any serotype), number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any control (HAV or HBV) vaccine - age stratum schedules).||17.269|13.079|
90998844|NCT00861380|181881246|OTHER|In 5 to 99+ Years Old Population, in Year 2012, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with a culture confirmed IPD divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 100000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =2654010.|PYAR|5.916|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.026|6.917|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Culture-confirmed IPD (vaccine serotype), number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any 10PN-PD-DIT vaccine - age stratum schedules).||6.917|5.026|
90998845|NCT00861380|181881246|OTHER|In 5 to 99+ Years Old Population, in Year 2012, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received control vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with a culture confirmed IPD divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 100000), as well as the 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =1367343.|PYAR|8.557|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.077|10.255|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Culture-confirmed IPD (vaccine serotype), number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any control (HAV or HBV) vaccine - age stratum schedules).||10.255|7.077|
90998846|NCT00861380|181881246|OTHER|In 5 to 99+ Years Old Population, in Year 2012, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with a culture confirmed IPD divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 100000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a classical log linear Poisson regression with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =2654010.|PYAR|2.977|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.357|3.71|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Culture-confirmed IPD (vaccine related), number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any 10PN-PD-DIT vaccine - age stratum schedules).||3.710|2.357|
91046197|NCT02723773|181978727|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|79.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|73.72|84.61|||Poisson regression method||VE=1 - the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of LTFU+Control \>=50YOA Group over Historical Control \>=50YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between LTFU+Control \>=50 YOA Group and Historical Control \>=50 YOA Group.||84.61|73.72|
91046198|NCT02723773|181978728|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|86.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|75.55|93.36|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of LTFU+Control 50-59 YOA Group over Historical Control 50-59 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between LTFU+Control 50-59 YOA Group and Historical Control 50-59 YOA Group.||93.36|75.55|
91050283|NCT01461226|181986745|OTHER|Mixed models analysis|mixed models|0.04|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
91050284|NCT01461226|181986745|OTHER||mixed models|0.24||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|||||Baseline difference between groups|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.64
91050285|NCT01461226|181986745|OTHER|Mixed models|Slope|0.27||||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.60
90998847|NCT00861380|181881246|OTHER|In 5 to 99+ Years Old Population, in Year 2012, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received control vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with a culture confirmed IPD divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 100000), as well as the 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a classical log linear Poisson regression with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =1367343.|PYAR|2.048|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.361|2.96|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Culture-confirmed IPD (vaccine related), number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any control (HAV or HBV) vaccine - age stratum schedules).||2.960|1.361|
91050286|NCT01461226|181986745|OTHER|mixed models|mixed models|4.2||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||change after 10 months between groups||||0.04
91050287|NCT02307266|181986748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3165|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3165
91050288|NCT02307266|181986748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0206|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0206
91046199|NCT02723773|181978728|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|87.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|74.17|94.35|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of LTFU+Control 60-69 YOA Group over Historical Control 60-69 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between LTFU+Control 60-69 YOA Group and Historical Control 60-69 YOA Group.||94.35|74.17|
91046200|NCT02723773|181978728|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|77.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|69.37|83.14|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of LTFU+Control \>=60 YOA Group over Historical Control \>=60 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between LTFU+Control \>=60 YOA Group and Historical Control \>=60 YOA Group.||83.14|69.37|
91046201|NCT02723773|181978728|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|73.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.94|80.92|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of LTFU+Control \>=70 YOA Group over Historical Control \>=70 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between LTFU+Control \>=70 YOA Group and Historical Control \>=70 YOA Group.||80.92|62.94|
91046202|NCT02723773|181978729|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|87.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|84.89|90.12|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su \>=50 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control \>=50 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su \>=50 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control 50 YOA Group.||90.12|84.89|
91046203|NCT02723773|181978729|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|91.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.25|95.37|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su 50-59 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control 50-59 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy in prevention of HZ between HZ/su 50-59 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control 50-59 YOA Group.||95.37|86.25|
90998848|NCT00861380|181881246|OTHER|In 5 to 99+ Years Old Population, in Year 2012, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with a culture confirmed IPD divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 100000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =2654010.|PYAR|5.011|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.196|5.939|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Culture-confirmed IPD (non-vaccine \& non-vaccine related), number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any 10PN-PD-DIT vaccine - age stratum schedules).||5.939|4.196|
90998849|NCT00861380|181881246|OTHER|In 5 to 99+ Years Old Population, in Year 2012, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received control vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with a culture confirmed IPD divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 100000), as well as the 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =1367343.|PYAR|4.315|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.285|5.566|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Culture-confirmed IPD (non-vaccine \& non-vaccine related), number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any control (HAV or HBV) vaccine - age stratum schedules).||5.566|3.285|
91046204|NCT02723773|181978729|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|92.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.66|96.24|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su 60-69 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control 60-69 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy in prevention of HZ between HZ/su 60-69 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control 60-69 YOA Group.||96.24|86.66|
91046205|NCT02723773|181978729|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|86.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|82.98|89.33|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su \>=60 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control \>=60 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy in prevention of HZ between HZ/su \>=60 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control \>=60 YOA Group.||89.33|82.98|
90998850|NCT00861380|181881254|OTHER|In 5 to 99+ Years Old Population, in Year 2010, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with a Hospital-diagnosed Pneumonia divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 1000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =2626735.|PYAR|9.218|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.103|9.335|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Hospital-diagnosed Pneumonia, number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any 10PN-PD-DIT vaccine - age stratum schedules).||9.335|9.103|
91046206|NCT02723773|181978729|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|84.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|79.91|87.93|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su \>=70 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control \>=70 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy in prevention of HZ between HZ/su \>=70 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control \>=70 YOA Group.||87.93|79.91|
90998851|NCT00861380|181881254|OTHER|In 5 to 99+ Years Old Population, in Year 2010, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received control vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with a Hospital-diagnosed Pneumonia divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 1000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =1354702.|PYAR|9.212|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.052|9.375|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Hospital-diagnosed Pneumonia, number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any control (HAV or HBV) vaccine - age stratum schedules).||9.375|9.052|
90998852|NCT00861380|181881254|OTHER|In 5 to 99+ Years Old Population, in Year 2011, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with a Hospital-diagnosed Pneumonia divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 1000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =2636783.|PYAR|10.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.378|10.624|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Hospital-diagnosed Pneumonia, number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any 10PN-PD-DIT vaccine - age stratum schedules).||10.624|10.378|
90998853|NCT00861380|181881254|OTHER|In 5 to 99+ Years Old Population, in Year 2011, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received control vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with a Hospital-diagnosed Pneumonia divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 1000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =1360966.|PYAR|10.429|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.259|10.601|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Hospital-diagnosed Pneumonia, number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any control (HAV or HBV) vaccine - age stratum schedules).||10.601|10.259|
90998854|NCT00861380|181881254|OTHER|In 5 to 99+ Years Old Population, in Year 2012, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with a Hospital-diagnosed Pneumonia divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 1000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =2654010.|PYAR|10.118|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.997|10.239|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Hospital-diagnosed Pneumonia, number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any 10PN-PD-DIT vaccine - age stratum schedules).||10.239|9.997|
90998855|NCT00861380|181881254|OTHER|In 5 to 99+ Years Old Population, in Year 2012, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received control vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with a Hospital-diagnosed Pneumonia divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 1000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =1367343.|PYAR|9.921|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.755|10.088|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Hospital-diagnosed Pneumonia, number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any control (HAV or HBV) vaccine - age stratum schedules).||10.088|9.755|
91046207|NCT02723773|181978730|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|97.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.07|99.53|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su \>=50 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control \>=50 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su \>=50 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control \>=50 YOA Group over Year 1.||99.53|93.07|
91050289|NCT01032018|181986758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of back-transformed means.|-3.5||||0.01||95.0|-6.1|-0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The trial was powered to detect a between-group difference in the 6-month change in depression symptoms. Assuming 5% attrition rate, we estimated that a sample of 150 patients would be needed to have 80% power to detect a clinically meaningful differential change in depression scores between groups of 0.46 SD.||-0.7|-6.1|0.01
91046208|NCT02723773|181978730|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|96.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|80.57|99.92|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su 50-59 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control 50-59 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su 50-59 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control 50-59 YOA Group over Year 1.||99.92|80.57|
91046209|NCT02723773|181978730|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|79.32|100.0|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su 60-69 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control 60-69 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su 60-69 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control 60-69 YOA Group over Year 1.||100.00|79.32|
91046210|NCT02723773|181978730|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|97.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|92.46|99.76|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su \>=60 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control \>=60 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su \>=60 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control \>=60 YOA Group over Year 1.||99.76|92.46|
91046211|NCT02723773|181978730|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|97.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|90.96|99.71|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su \>=70 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control \>=70 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su \>=70 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control \>=70 YOA Group over Year 1.||99.71|90.96|
91046212|NCT02723773|181978730|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|92.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.15|96.57|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su \>=50 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control \>=50 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su \>=50 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control \>=50 YOA Group over Year 2.||96.57|86.15|
91046213|NCT02723773|181978730|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|92.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|70.78|99.15|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su 50-59 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control 50-59 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su 50-59 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control 50-59 YOA Group over Year 2.||99.15|70.78|
91046214|NCT02723773|181978730|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|95.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|72.11|99.89|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su 60-69 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control 60-69 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su 60-69 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control 60-69 YOA Group over Year 2.||99.89|72.11|
91046215|NCT02723773|181978730|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|92.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|85.13|96.93|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su \>=60 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control \>=60 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su \>=60 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control \>=60 YOA Group over Year 2.||96.93|85.13|
91046216|NCT02723773|181978730|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|92.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|82.82|96.88|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su \>=70 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control \>=70 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su \>=70 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control \>=70 YOA Group over Year 2.||96.88|82.82|
91050290|NCT03537274|181986833|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.078|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.078
91050291|NCT03537274|181986833|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.005
91046217|NCT02723773|181978730|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|92.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|84.98|96.59|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su \>=50 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control \>=50 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su \>=50 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control \>=50 YOA Group over Year 3.||96.59|84.98|
90998856|NCT00861380|181881262|OTHER|In 0 to 7 Years Old Population, in Year 2009, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with Tympanostomy Tube Placement divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 1000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =229978.|PYAR|22.624|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.02|23.24|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Tympanostomy Tube Placements, number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any 10PN-PD-DIT vaccine - age stratum schedules).||23.240|22.020|
90998857|NCT00861380|181881262|OTHER|In 0 to 7 Years Old Population, in Year 2009, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received control vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with Tympanostomy Tube Placement divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 1000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =120190.|PYAR|22.747|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.912|23.606|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Tympanostomy Tube Placements, number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any control (HAV or HBV) vaccine - age stratum schedules).||23.606|21.912|
90998858|NCT00861380|181881262|OTHER|In 0 to 7 Years Old Population, in Year 2010, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with Tympanostomy Tube Placement divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 1000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =214181.|PYAR|24.503|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.852|25.166|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Tympanostomy Tube Placements, number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any 10PN-PD-DIT vaccine - age stratum schedules).||25.166|23.852|
90998859|NCT00861380|181881262|OTHER|In 0 to 7 Years Old Population, in Year 2010, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received control vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with Tympanostomy Tube Placement divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 1000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =112060.|PYAR|26.236|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.308|27.189|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Tympanostomy Tube Placements, number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any control (HAV or HBV) vaccine - age stratum schedules).||27.189|25.308|
90998860|NCT00861380|181881262|OTHER|In 0 to 7 Years Old Population, in Year 2011, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with Tympanostomy Tube Placement divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 1000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =211914.|PYAR|27.502|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.81|28.207|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Tympanostomy Tube Placements, number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any 10PN-PD-DIT vaccine - age stratum schedules).||28.207|26.810|
91050292|NCT03537274|181986833|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.004
91050293|NCT03537274|181986834|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.128|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.128
90998861|NCT00861380|181881262|OTHER|In 0 to 7 Years Old Population, in Year 2011, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received control vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with Tympanostomy Tube Placement divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 1000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =111071.|PYAR|26.1||||||95.0|25.171|27.055|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Tympanostomy Tube Placements, number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any control (HAV or HBV) vaccine - age stratum schedules).||27.055|25.171|
91050294|NCT03537274|181986834|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91050295|NCT03537274|181986834|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91050296|NCT00974974|181986836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<.0001
91050297|NCT00974974|181986837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<.0001
91046218|NCT02723773|181978730|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.2|100.0|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su 50-59 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control 50-59 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su 50-59 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control 50-59 YOA Group over Year 3.||100.00|89.20|
90998862|NCT00861380|181881262|OTHER|In 0 to 7 Years Old Population, in Year 2012, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with Tympanostomy Tube Placement divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 1000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =213913.|PYAR|28.661|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.958|29.377|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Tympanostomy Tube Placements, number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any 10PN-PD-DIT vaccine - age stratum schedules).||29.377|27.958|
91046219|NCT02723773|181978730|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.39|100.0|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su 60-69 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control 60-69 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su 60-69 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control 60-69 YOA Group over Year 3.||100.00|89.39|
90998863|NCT00861380|181881262|OTHER|In 0 to 7 Years Old Population, in Year 2012, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received control vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with Tympanostomy Tube Placement divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 1000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =111414.|PYAR|29.835|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.843|30.85|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Tympanostomy Tube Placements, number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any control (HAV or HBV) vaccine - age stratum schedules).||30.850|28.843|
90998864|NCT00861380|181881266|OTHER|In 0 to 7 Years Old Population, in Year 2009, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with Antimicrobial Prescriptions divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 1000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =229978.|PYAR|816.813|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|815.226|818.392|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Antimicrobial Prescriptions, number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any 10PN-PD-DIT vaccine - age stratum schedules).||818.392|815.226|
90998865|NCT00861380|181881266|OTHER|In 0 to 7 Years Old Population, in Year 2009, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received control vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with Antimicrobial Prescriptions divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 1000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =120190.|PYAR|841.176|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|839.098|843.239|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Antimicrobial Prescriptions, number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any control (HAV or HBV) vaccine - age stratum schedules).||843.239|839.098|
90998866|NCT00861380|181881266|OTHER|In 0 to 7 Years Old Population, in Year 2009, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with recommended Antimicrobial Prescriptions divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 1000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =229978.|PYAR|702.245|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|700.372|704.114|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Antimicrobial Prescriptions recommended for Acute Otitis Media (AOM)/Respiratory Tract Infections (RTI), number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any 10PN-PD-DIT vaccine - age stratum schedules).||704.114|700.372|
90998867|NCT00861380|181881266|OTHER|In 0 to 7 Years Old Population, in Year 2009, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received control vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with recommended Antimicrobial Prescriptions divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 1000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =120190.|PYAR|720.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|718.355|723.435|||negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Antimicrobial Prescriptions recommended for AOM/RTI, number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any control (HAV or HBV) vaccine - age stratum schedules).||723.435|718.355|
90998868|NCT00861380|181881266|OTHER|In 0 to 7 Years Old Population, in Year 2010, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with Antimicrobial Prescriptions divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 1000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =214181.|PYAR|929.844|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|928.755|930.923|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Antimicrobial Prescriptions, number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any 10PN-PD-DIT vaccine - age stratum schedules).||930.923|928.755|
91046220|NCT02723773|181978730|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|89.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|79.81|95.51|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su \>=60 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control \>=60 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su \>=60 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control \>=60 YOA Group over Year 3.||95.51|79.81|
91050298|NCT02836496|181986900|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline oral corticosteroid (OCS) (0-\<=20 mg per day and \>20mg perday prednisone or equivalent) and region|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.002
91050299|NCT02836496|181986900|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.28||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.64|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression analysis adjusted for Baseline OCS dose and region.|Treatment comparison between placebo and mepolizumab 300 mg using odds ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) has been presented. Odds ratio \<1 indicated lower odds of HES flare with Mepolizumab compared with placebo.|||0.64|0.12|0.003
90998869|NCT00861380|181881266|OTHER|In 0 to 7 Years Old Population, in Year 2010, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received control vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with Antimicrobial Prescriptions divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 1000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =112060.|PYAR|953.025|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|951.77|954.257|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Antimicrobial Prescriptions, number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any control (HAV or HBV) vaccine - age stratum schedules).||954.257|951.770|
90998870|NCT00861380|181881266|OTHER|In 0 to 7 Years Old Population, in Year 2010, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with recommended Antimicrobial Prescriptions divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 1000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =214181.|PYAR|804.703|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|803.017|806.38|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Antimicrobial Prescriptions recommended for AOM/RTI, number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any 10PN-PD-DIT vaccine - age stratum schedules).||806.380|803.017|
90998871|NCT00861380|181881266|OTHER|In 0 to 7 Years Old Population, in Year 2010, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received control vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with recommended Antimicrobial Prescriptions divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 1000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =112060.|PYAR|818.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|816.391|820.912|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Antimicrobial Prescriptions recommended for AOM/RTI, number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any control (HAV or HBV) vaccine - age stratum schedules).||820.912|816.391|
90998872|NCT00861380|181881266|OTHER|In 0 to 7 Years Old Population, in Year 2011, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with Antimicrobial Prescriptions divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 1000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =211914.|PYAR|916.079|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|914.891|917.256|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Antimicrobial Prescriptions, number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any 10PN-PD-DIT vaccine - age stratum schedules).||917.256|914.891|
90998873|NCT00861380|181881266|OTHER|In 0 to 7 Years Old Population, in Year 2011, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received control vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with Antimicrobial Prescriptions divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 1000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =111071.|PYAR|928.568|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|927.038|930.076|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Antimicrobial Prescriptions, number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any control (HAV or HBV) vaccine - age stratum schedules).||930.076|927.038|
90998874|NCT00861380|181881266|OTHER|In 0 to 7 Years Old Population, in Year 2011, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with recommended Antimicrobial Prescriptions divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 1000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =211914.|PYAR|796.894||||||95.0|795.175|798.605|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Antimicrobial Prescriptions recommended for AOM/RTI, number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any 10PN-PD-DIT vaccine - age stratum schedules).||798.605|795.175|
91046221|NCT02723773|181978730|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|84.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.99|93.35|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su \>=70 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control \>=70 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su \>=70 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control \>=70 YOA Group over Year 3.||93.35|68.99|
91046222|NCT02723773|181978730|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|89.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|80.31|95.24|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su \>=50 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control \>=50 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su \>=50 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control \>=50 YOA Group over Year 4.||95.24|80.31|
91046223|NCT02723773|181978730|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|93.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.62|99.85|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su 50-59 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control 50-59 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su 50-59 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control 50-59 YOA Group over Year 4.||99.85|60.62|
90998875|NCT00861380|181881266|OTHER|In 0 to 7 Years Old Population, in Year 2011, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received control vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with recommended Antimicrobial Prescriptions divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 1000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =111071.|PYAR|803.918|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|801.571|806.25|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Antimicrobial Prescriptions recommended for AOM/RTI, number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any control (HAV or HBV) vaccine - age stratum schedules).||806.250|801.571|
90998876|NCT00861380|181881266|OTHER|In 0 to 7 Years Old Population, in Year 2012, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with Antimicrobial Prescriptions divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 1000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =213913.|PYAR|865.679|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|864.227|867.121|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Antimicrobial Prescriptions, number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any 10PN-PD-DIT vaccine - age stratum schedules).||867.121|864.227|
90998877|NCT00861380|181881266|OTHER|In 0 to 7 Years Old Population, in Year 2012, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received control vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with Antimicrobial Prescriptions divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 1000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =111414.|PYAR|871.749|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|869.771|873.707|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Antimicrobial Prescriptions, number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any control (HAV or HBV) vaccine - age stratum schedules).||873.707|869.771|
90998878|NCT00861380|181881266|OTHER|In 0 to 7 Years Old Population, in Year 2012, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with recommended Antimicrobial Prescriptions divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 1000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =213913.|PYAR|753.423|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|751.591|755.249|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Antimicrobial Prescriptions recommended for AOM/RTI, number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any 10PN-PD-DIT vaccine - age stratum schedules).||755.249|751.591|
91046224|NCT02723773|181978730|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|91.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|66.1|99.04|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su 60-69 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control 60-69 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su 60-69 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control 60-69 YOA Group over Year 4.||99.04|66.10|
91046225|NCT02723773|181978730|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|88.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|77.96|95.13|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su \>=60 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control \>=60 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su \>=60 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control \>=60 YOA Group over Year 4.||95.13|77.96|
91046226|NCT02723773|181978730|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|87.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|73.3|95.33|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su \>=70 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control \>=70 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su \>=70 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control \>=70 YOA Group over Year 4.||95.33|73.30|
91046227|NCT02723773|181978730|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|83.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.31|92.63|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su \>=50 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control \>=50 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su \>=50 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control \>=50 YOA Group over Year 6.||92.63|68.31|
91046228|NCT02723773|181978730|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|87.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.83|98.61|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su 50-59 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control 50-59 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su 50-59 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control 50-59 YOA Group over Year 6.||98.61|46.83|
91046229|NCT02723773|181978730|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|92.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.79|99.82|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su 60-69 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control 60-69 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su 60-69 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control 60-69 YOA Group over Year 6.||99.82|48.79|
91046230|NCT02723773|181978730|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|82.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.64|93.05|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su \>=60 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control \>=60 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su \>=60 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control \>=60 YOA Group over Year 6.||93.05|63.64|
91046231|NCT02723773|181978730|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|80.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.3|92.5|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su \>=70 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control \>=70 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su \>=70 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control \>=70 YOA Group over Year 6.||92.50|54.30|
91046232|NCT02723773|181978730|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|83.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.76|92.51|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su \>=50 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control \>=50 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su \>=50 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control \>=50 YOA Group over Year 7.||92.51|67.76|
91046233|NCT02723773|181978730|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|93.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.67|99.84|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su 50-59 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control 50-59 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su 50-59 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control 50-59 YOA Group over Year 7.||99.84|56.67|
90998879|NCT00861380|181881266|OTHER|In 0 to 7 Years Old Population, in Year 2012, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received control vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with recommended Antimicrobial Prescriptions divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 1000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =111414.|PYAR|755.542|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|753.008|758.064|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Antimicrobial Prescriptions recommended for AOM/RTI, number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any control (HAV or HBV) vaccine - age stratum schedules).||758.064|753.008|
90998880|NCT00637377|181881274|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is set to 10. The power is 90 % according to the sample size estimation of the study protocol.|Risk Difference (RD)|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.86|2.46|||||The difference is calculated as Ranibizumab minus Aflibercept. A negative value favors the Aflibercept 2mg Q4 group. As adjustment of multiple comparisons a conditional sequence of statistical hypotheses is used with alpha = 0.05.|null hypothesis: pi ≤ pc-delta where pi is the probability that a participant maintained vision at week 52 under Aflibercept 2mg Q4, pc is the probability that a participant maintained vision at week 52 under Ranibizumab 0.5mg Q4 and delta is the non-inferiority margin. The null hypothesis is tested calculating a two-sided 95 % confidence using normal approximation of the difference of percentages of participants maintaining vision at week 52 (Ranibizumab 0.5mg Q4 minus Aflibercept 2mg Q4).||2.46|-4.86|
90998881|NCT00637377|181881274|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is set to 10. The power is 90 % according to the sample size estimation of the study protocol.|Risk Difference (RD)|-1.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|1.71|||||The difference is calculated as Ranibizumab minus Aflibercept. A negative value favors the Aflibercept 0.5mg Q4 group. As adjustment of multiple comparisons a conditional sequence of statistical hypotheses is used with alpha = 0.05.|null hypothesis: pi ≤ pc-delta where pi is the probability that a participant maintained vision at week 52 under Aflibercept 0.5mg Q4, pc is the probability that a participant maintained vision at week 52 under Ranibizumab 0.5mg Q4 and delta is the non-inferiority margin. The null hypothesis is tested calculating a two-sided 95 % confidence using normal approximation of the difference of percentages of participants maintaining vision at week 52 (Ranibizumab 0.5mg Q4 minus Aflibercept 0.5mg Q4).||1.71|-5.40|
90998882|NCT00637377|181881274|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is set to 10. The power is 90 % according to the sample size estimation of the study protocol.|Risk Difference (RD)|-1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.81|2.55|||||The difference is calculated as Ranibizumab minus Aflibercept. A negative value favors the Aflibercept 2mg Q8 group. As adjustment of multiple comparisons a conditional sequence of statistical hypotheses is used with alpha = 0.05.|null hypothesis: pi ≤ pc-delta where pi is the probability that a participant maintained vision at week 52 under Aflibercept 2mg Q8, pc is the probability that a participant maintained vision at week 52 under Ranibizumab 0.5mg Q4 and delta is the non-inferiority margin. The null hypothesis is tested calculating a two-sided 95 % confidence using normal approximation of the difference of percentages of participants maintaining vision at week 52 (Ranibizumab 0.5mg Q4 minus Aflibercept 2mg Q8).||2.55|-4.81|
90998883|NCT00637377|181881275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Differences in Least Squares means|-1.9484||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1009|0.204||as adjustment of multiple comparisons a conditional sequence of statistical hypotheses (a-priori ordered hypotheses) is used with alpha = 0.05.|ANCOVA||The difference is calculated as Aflibercept minus Ranibizumab. A positive value favors Aflibercept 2mg Q4.|The pairwise comparison is performed as contrast statement in the analysis of covariance model with treatment group as fixed factor (all 4 treatment groups) and the baseline ETDRS letter score as covariate. The null hypothesis is that both mean changes are equal.||0.2040|-4.1009|0.076
91046234|NCT02723773|181978730|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|84.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.04|98.31|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su 60-69 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control 60-69 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su 60-69 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control 60-69 YOA Group over Year 7.||98.31|32.04|
91046235|NCT02723773|181978730|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|80.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.54|91.58|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su \>=60 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control \>=60 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su \>=60 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control \>=60 YOA Group over Year 7.||91.58|59.54|
91046236|NCT02723773|181978730|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|78.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.24|92.08|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su \>=70 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control \>=70 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su \>=70 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control \>=70 YOA Group over Year 7.||92.08|51.24|
91050300|NCT02836496|181986901|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline OCS (0-\<=20 mg per day and \>20mg perday prednisone or equivalent) and region||||||0.020
90998884|NCT00637377|181881275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Differences in Least Squares means|-0.062||||0.9555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2398|2.1158||as adjustment of multiple comparisons a conditional sequence of statistical hypotheses (a-priori ordered hypotheses) is used with alpha = 0.05.|ANCOVA||The difference is calculated as Aflibercept minus Ranibizumab. A positive value favors Aflibercept 0.5mg Q4|The pairwise comparison is performed as contrast statement in the analysis of covariance model with treatment group as fixed factor (all 4 treatment groups) and the baseline ETDRS letter score as covariate. The null hypothesis is that both mean changes are equal.||2.1158|-2.2398|0.9555
90998885|NCT00637377|181881275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Differences in Least Squares means|-0.9014||||0.4131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0615|1.2587||as adjustment of multiple comparisons a conditional sequence of statistical hypotheses (a-priori ordered hypotheses) is used with alpha = 0.05.|ANCOVA||The difference is calculated as Aflibercept minus Ranibizumab. A positive value favors the Aflibercept 2mg Q8 group|The pairwise comparison is performed as contrast statement in the analysis of covariance model with treatment group as fixed factor (all 4 treatment groups) and the baseline ETDRS letter score as covariate. The null hypothesis is that both mean changes are equal.||1.2587|-3.0615|0.4131
90998886|NCT00637377|181881276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.57||||0.229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.02|2.88||as adjustment of multiple comparisons a conditional sequence of statistical hypotheses (a-priori ordered hypotheses) is used with alpha = 0.05.|Chi-squared||The difference is calculated as Aflibercept minus Ranibizumab. A positive value favors the Aflibercept 2mg Q4 group|The null hypothesis is that the two proportions are equal.||2.88|-12.02|0.229
90998887|NCT00637377|181881276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.78||||0.843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.91|8.46||as adjustment of multiple comparisons a conditional sequence of statistical hypotheses (a-priori ordered hypotheses) is used with alpha = 0.05.|Chi-squared||The difference is calculated as Aflibercept minus Ranibizumab. A positive value favors the Aflibercept 0.5mg Q4 group|The null hypothesis is that the two proportions are equal.||8.46|-6.91|0.843
90998888|NCT00637377|181881276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.65||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.18|4.88||as adjustment of multiple comparisons a conditional sequence of statistical hypotheses (a-priori ordered hypotheses) is used with alpha = 0.05.|Chi-squared||The difference is calculated as Aflibercept minus Ranibizumab. A positive value favors the Aflibercept 2mg Q8 group|The null hypothesis is that the two proportions are equal.||4.88|-10.18|0.490
90998889|NCT00637377|181881277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Differences in Least Squares means|-2.7885||||0.0097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9012|-0.6757||as adjustment of multiple comparisons a conditional sequence of statistical hypotheses (a-priori ordered hypotheses) is used with alpha = 0.05.|ANCOVA||The difference is calculated as Aflibercept minus Ranibizumab. A positive value favors Aflibercept 2mg Q4.|The pairwise comparison is performed as contrast statement in the analysis of covariance model with treatment group as fixed factor (all 4 treatment groups) and the baseline NEI VFQ-25 total score as covariate. The null hypothesis is that both mean changes are equal.||-0.6757|-4.9012|0.0097
90998890|NCT00637377|181881277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Differences in Least Squares means|-0.932||||0.3917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0658|1.2019||as adjustment of multiple comparisons a conditional sequence of statistical hypotheses (a-priori ordered hypotheses) is used with alpha = 0.05.|ANCOVA||The difference is calculated as Aflibercept minus Ranibizumab. A positive value favors Aflibercept 0.5mg Q4.|The pairwise comparison is performed as contrast statement in the analysis of covariance model with treatment group as fixed factor (all 4 treatment groups) and the baseline NEI VFQ-25 total score as covariate. The null hypothesis is that both mean changes are equal.||1.2019|-3.0658|0.3917
90998891|NCT00637377|181881277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Differences in Least Squares means|-1.947||||0.0717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0659|0.1718||as adjustment of multiple comparisons a conditional sequence of statistical hypotheses (a-priori ordered hypotheses) is used with alpha = 0.05.|ANCOVA||The difference is calculated as Aflibercept minus Ranibizumab. A positive value favors Aflibercept 2mg Q8.|The pairwise comparison is performed as contrast statement in the analysis of covariance model with treatment group as fixed factor (all 4 treatment groups) and the baseline NEI VFQ-25 total score as covariate. The null hypothesis is that both mean changes are equal.||0.1718|-4.0659|0.0717
90998892|NCT00637377|181881278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Differences in Least Squares means|-1.18||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.979|-0.382||as adjustment of multiple comparisons a conditional sequence of statistical hypotheses (a-priori ordered hypotheses) is used with alpha = 0.05.|ANCOVA||The difference is calculated as Aflibercept minus Ranibizumab. A negative value favors Aflibercept 2mg Q4.|The pairwise comparison is performed as contrast statement in the analysis of covariance model with treatment group as fixed factor (all 4 treatment groups) and the baseline CNV area as covariate. The null hypothesis is that both mean changes are equal.||-0.382|-1.979|0.0038
90998893|NCT00637377|181881278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Differences in Least Squares means|0.17||||0.6784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.632|0.972||as adjustment of multiple comparisons a conditional sequence of statistical hypotheses (a-priori ordered hypotheses) is used with alpha = 0.05.|ANCOVA||The difference is calculated as Aflibercept minus Ranibizumab. A negative value favors Aflibercept 0.5mg Q4.|The pairwise comparison is performed as contrast statement in the analysis of covariance model with treatment group as fixed factor (all 4 treatment groups) and the baseline CNV area as covariate. The null hypothesis is that both mean changes are equal.||0.972|-0.632|0.6784
90998894|NCT00637377|181881278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Differences in Least Squares means|-0.733||||0.0727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.534|0.068||as adjustment of multiple comparisons a conditional sequence of statistical hypotheses (a-priori ordered hypotheses) is used with alpha = 0.05.|ANCOVA||The difference is calculated as Aflibercept minus Ranibizumab. A negative value favors Aflibercept 2mg Q8.|The pairwise comparison is performed as contrast statement in the analysis of covariance model with treatment group as fixed factor (all 4 treatment groups) and the baseline CNV area as covariate. The null hypothesis is that both mean changes are equal.||0.068|-1.534|0.0727
90998895|NCT01293084|181881279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.2||||0.62|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.62
90998896|NCT01293084|181881280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.3||||0.32|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.32
91006967|NCT01756833|181898618|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.035||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.07||Two prespecified interim analyses for efficacy performed when 1/3 \& 2/3 of primary outcome available, significance level, 1-sided, alpha=.0005. Final analysis 1-sided, alpha=.024. Futility analysis performed when \~2/3 primary outcome was available.|ANCOVA on normal scores|||"Null hypothesis: normal score of MTD at follow-up adjusted for baseline and gender in doxycycline assigned patients - normal score of MTD at follow-up adjusted for baseline and gender in placebo assigned patients = 0.~Sample size: The criterion (alpha) set for statistical significance was 1-sided .025; use of this level means that the inference from the test result will be the same as the inference from 2-sided testing at the .05 significance level."|For the primary analysis, diameters at baseline were ranked from smallest to largest (ranks 1-254). At the 2-year follow-up, ranks 1 through 225 were assigned to the diameters of surviving patients with no aneurysm repair (with missing values estimated by multiple imputation), ranks 226 through 247 were assigned to surviving patients who underwent aneurysm repair (in order of longest to shortest time from randomization to repair), and ranks 248 through 254 were assigned to patients who died (in order of longest to shortest time from randomization to death). Each rank was converted to a normal score corresponding to the value on the standard normal curve (z score) of its percentile among all 254 ranks. The primary analysis was based on linear regression of the change in normal scores from baseline to 2 years. Independent variables were baseline normal score, sex, and a dichotomous variable for the randomly assigned treatment group (0 for placebo, 1 for doxycycline).|0.07|-0.07|0.71
91006968|NCT00808132|181898634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|1.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.822|2.201|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used with treatment and region as main effects and baseline BMD and years since menopause as covariates.||2.201|0.822|<0.001
91006969|NCT00808132|181898634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.209|2.533|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as main effects and baseline BMD and years since menopause as covariates.||2.533|1.209|<0.001
91006970|NCT00808132|181898635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.8||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.139|1.47|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as main effects and baseline BMD and years since menopause as covariates.||1.470|0.139|0.017
91006971|NCT00808132|181898635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.556|1.83|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as main effects and baseline BMD and years since menopause as covariates.||1.830|0.556|<0.001
91006972|NCT00808132|181898636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.901|1.742|||ANCOVA|||Month 6: ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as main effects and baseline BMD and years since menopause as covariates.||1.742|0.901|<0.001
91006973|NCT00808132|181898636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.756|1.671|||ANCOVA|||Month 12: ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as main effects and baseline BMD and years since menopause as covariates.||1.671|0.756|<0.001
91006974|NCT00808132|181898636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.152|1.962|||ANCOVA|||Month 6: ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as main effects and baseline BMD and years since menopause as covariates.||1.962|1.152|<0.001
91006975|NCT00808132|181898636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.164|2.044|||ANCOVA|||Month 12: ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as main effects and baseline BMD and years since menopause as covariates.||2.044|1.164|<0.001
91006976|NCT00808132|181898637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.138|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.138
91006977|NCT00808132|181898637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
91006978|NCT00808132|181898637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.765|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.765
91006979|NCT00808132|181898637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
91006980|NCT00808132|181898637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
91006981|NCT00808132|181898638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.06||||0.832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.632|0.509|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors and baseline as a covariate.||0.509|-0.632|0.832
90998897|NCT00107172|181881291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.01||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.98|||Log Rank|Competing risk P-value = 0.91.||The competing risk analysis accounting for death/regional and distant recurrence as competing events was performed.||1.98|0.51|0.98
90998898|NCT00107172|181881292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.07||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.61|||Log Rank|||||1.61|0.71|0.75
90998899|NCT00107172|181881297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.37|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Compare the grade 3+ adverse events incidence reported from day 0 to 30 between arms.||||0.37
90998900|NCT00107172|181881297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Compare the grade 3+ adverse events incidence reported from day 0 to 90 between arms.||||0.25
90998901|NCT00107172|181881298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.35|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Compare the grade 3+ respiratory adverse events incidence reported from day 0 to 30 between arms.||||0.35
90998902|NCT00107172|181881298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.31|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Compare the grade 3+ respiratory adverse events incidence reported from day 0 to 90 between arms.||||0.31
90998903|NCT00107172|181881301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank|||Compare the percentage change from baseline to 3-month value for SR arm.||||0.03
90998904|NCT00107172|181881301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.18|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank|||Compare the percentage change from baseline to 3-month value for SR + BX arm.||||0.18
90998905|NCT00107172|181881302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.38|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank|||Compare the percentage change from baseline to 3-month value for SR arm.||||0.38
90998906|NCT00107172|181881302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank|||Compare the percentage change from baseline to 3-month value for SR + BX arm.||||0.16
90998907|NCT03706040|181881306|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|13.0||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|27.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline disease severity (moderate \[vIGA-AD 3\] versus severe \[vIGA-AD 4\]).|Between Group Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||27.7|-1.7|0.084
90998908|NCT03706040|181881306|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|10.0||||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|24.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline disease severity (moderate \[vIGA-AD 3\] versus severe \[vIGA-AD 4\]).|Between Group Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||24.6|-4.6|0.179
90998909|NCT03706040|181881307|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|8.7||||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|20.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline disease severity (moderate \[vIGA-AD 3\] versus severe \[vIGA-AD 4\]).|Between Group Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||20.0|-2.5|0.129
90998910|NCT03706040|181881307|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.0||||0.994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|9.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline disease severity (moderate \[vIGA-AD 3\] versus severe \[vIGA-AD 4\]).|Between Group Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||9.4|-9.4|0.994
90998911|NCT03706040|181881308|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|13.7||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.4|22.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline disease severity (moderate \[vIGA-AD 3\] versus severe \[vIGA-AD 4\]).|Between Group Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||22.1|5.4|0.001
90998912|NCT03706040|181881308|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|15.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.6|24.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline disease severity (moderate \[vIGA-AD 3\] versus severe \[vIGA-AD 4\]).|Between Group Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||24.0|6.6|<0.001
90998913|NCT03706040|181881309|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-10.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.073||0.353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.25|11.61|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM analysis with treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, vIGA-AD categories (moderate vs severe) and Baseline value in the model.|Between Group Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||11.61|-32.25|0.353
90998914|NCT03706040|181881309|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-16.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.305||0.139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.24|5.53|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM analysis with treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, vIGA-AD categories (moderate vs severe) and Baseline value in the model.|Between Group Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||5.53|-39.24|0.139
90998915|NCT03706040|181881312|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|12.9||||0.171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|31.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline disease severity (moderate \[vIGA-AD 3\] versus severe \[vIGA-AD 4\]).|Between Group Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||31.4|-5.6|0.171
90998916|NCT03706040|181881312|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|5.7||||0.552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|24.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline disease severity (moderate \[vIGA-AD 3\] versus severe \[vIGA-AD 4\]).|Between Group Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||24.5|-13.1|0.552
90998917|NCT03706040|181881314|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|11.6||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|21.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline disease severity (moderate \[vIGA-AD 3\] versus severe \[vIGA-AD 4\]).|Between Group Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||21.6|1.7|0.022
90998918|NCT03706040|181881314|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|5.8||||0.192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|14.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline disease severity (moderate \[vIGA-AD 3\] versus severe \[vIGA-AD 4\]).|Between Group Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||14.4|-2.9|0.192
90998919|NCT03706040|181881317|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.506||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.15|2.68|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM analysis with treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, vIGA-AD categories (moderate vs severe) and Baseline value in the model.|Between Group Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||2.68|-15.15|0.169
90998920|NCT03706040|181881317|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.589||0.204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.94|3.22|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM analysis with treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, vIGA-AD categories (moderate vs severe) and Baseline value in the model.|Between Group Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||3.22|-14.94|0.204
90998921|NCT03706040|181881319|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|6.7||||0.422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|23.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline disease severity (moderate \[vIGA-AD 3\] versus severe \[vIGA-AD 4\]).|Between Group Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||23.1|-9.7|0.422
90998922|NCT03706040|181881319|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-5.2||||0.505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.3|10.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline disease severity (moderate \[vIGA-AD 3\] versus severe \[vIGA-AD 4\]).|Between Group Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||10.0|-20.3|0.505
90998923|NCT03706040|181881321|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|10.1||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|17.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline disease severity (moderate \[vIGA-AD 3\] versus severe \[vIGA-AD 4\]).|Between Group Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||17.3|3.0|0.005
90998924|NCT03706040|181881321|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|2.9||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|6.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline disease severity (moderate \[vIGA-AD 3\] versus severe \[vIGA-AD 4\]).|Between Group Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||6.8|-1.1|0.151
90998925|NCT03706040|181881323|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|5.9||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|11.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline disease severity (moderate \[vIGA-AD 3\] versus severe \[vIGA-AD 4\]).|Between Group Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||11.3|0.4|0.035
90998926|NCT03706040|181881323|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|1.5||||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|4.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline disease severity (moderate \[vIGA-AD 3\] versus severe \[vIGA-AD 4\]).|Between Group Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||4.4|-1.4|0.311
90998927|NCT03706040|181881325|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.3||||0.965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|11.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline disease severity (moderate \[vIGA-AD 3\] versus severe \[vIGA-AD 4\]).|Between Group Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||11.5|-12.0|0.965
90998928|NCT03706040|181881325|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-3.1||||0.583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|8.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline disease severity (moderate \[vIGA-AD 3\] versus severe \[vIGA-AD 4\]).|Between Group Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||8.1|-14.3|0.583
90998929|NCT03706040|181881329|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|5.9||||0.539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|24.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline disease severity (moderate \[vIGA-AD 3\] versus severe \[vIGA-AD 4\]).|Between Group Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||24.9|-13.0|0.539
90998930|NCT03706040|181881329|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|12.2||||0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|31.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline disease severity (moderate \[vIGA-AD 3\] versus severe \[vIGA-AD 4\]).|Between Group Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||31.5|-7.0|0.213
90998931|NCT03706040|181881331|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.82||0.988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|3.6|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM analysis with treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, vIGA-AD categories (moderate vs severe) and Baseline value in the model.|Between Group Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||3.6|-3.6|0.988
90998932|NCT03706040|181881331|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86||0.594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|2.7|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM analysis with treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, vIGA-AD categories (moderate vs severe) and Baseline value in the model.|Between Group Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||2.7|-4.7|0.594
90998933|NCT03706040|181881335|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.318|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6137||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.531|-0.105|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM analysis with treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, vIGA-AD categories (moderate vs severe) and Baseline value in the model.|Between Group Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||-0.105|-2.531|0.033
91006982|NCT00808132|181898638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.13||||0.651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.696|0.436|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors and baseline as a covariate.||0.436|-0.696|0.651
90998934|NCT03706040|181881335|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.648|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.626||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.885|-0.411|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM analysis with treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, vIGA-AD categories (moderate vs severe) and Baseline value in the model.|Between Group Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||-0.411|-2.885|0.009
90998935|NCT00439725|181881339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.185|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3858|<|0.0001||95.0|0.087|0.393||1st test in a hierarchy, a p-value of less than 0.05 would be considered significant.|Regression, Cox|Stratified by intended treatment duration, adjusted for pre-treatment||The rivaroxaban to comparator hazard ratio was computed with a 95% CI (confidence interval) (two-sided testing).||0.393|0.087|< 0.0001
90998936|NCT00439725|181881340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.385|<|0.0001||95.0|0.085|0.383||2nd test in a hierarchy, a p-value of less than 0.05 would be considered significant. If the 1st test in hierarchy was significant.|Regression, Cox|Stratified by intended treatment duration, adjusted for pre-treatment||The rivaroxaban to comparator hazard ratio was computed with a 95% CI (two-sided testing).||0.383|0.085|< 0.0001
90998937|NCT00439725|181881341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.198|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3659|<|0.0001||95.0|0.096|0.405||3rd test in a hierarchy, a p-value of less than 0.05 would be considered significant. If the previous tests in hierarchy were significant|Regression, Cox|Stratified by intended treatment duration, adjusted for pre-treatment||The rivaroxaban to comparator hazard ratio was computed with a 95% CI (two-sided testing).||0.405|0.096|< 0.0001
90998938|NCT00439725|181881342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.278|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3274|<|0.0001||95.0|0.146|0.528||4th test in a hierarchy, a p-value of less than 0.05 would be considered significant. If the previous tests in hierarchy were significant|Regression, Cox|Stratified by intended treatment duration, adjusted for pre-treatment||The rivaroxaban to comparator hazard ratio was computed with a 95% CI (two-sided testing).||0.528|0.146|< 0.0001
90998939|NCT00439725|181881345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1121||||||No adjustment for multiple comparison.|Log Rank|||The rivaroxaban to comparator hazard ratio was computed with a 95% CI (two-sided testing), comparison was done for the treatment emergent (within two days after end of treatment) bleeding events.||||0.1121
90998940|NCT00439725|181881346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|5.185|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4131|<|0.0001||95.0|2.307|11.652||No adjustment for multiple comparison, a p-value of less than 0.05 would be considered significant.|Regression, Cox|Stratified by intended treatment duration, adjusted for pre-treatment done for treatment-emergent (time window: 2 days)||The rivaroxaban to comparator hazard ratio was computed with a 95% CI (two-sided testing), comparison was done for the treatment emergent (within two days after end of treatment) bleeding events.||11.652|2.307|< 0.0001
90998941|NCT01673490|181881441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90998942|NCT01673490|181881442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||for Month 3|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90998943|NCT01673490|181881442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||for Month 6|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90998944|NCT00379236|181881444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Screening pain score was the covariate; study center was modeled as a random effect while all other variables were modeled as fixed effects.||||||0.008
90998945|NCT00379236|181881445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||P-value is purely nominal|ANCOVA|||||||0.001
90998946|NCT00379236|181881446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.202||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.202
90998947|NCT00379236|181881447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.047
90998948|NCT00379236|181881448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.618||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.618
90998949|NCT00379236|181881449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.028
90998950|NCT00379236|181881450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||ANCOVA|Baseline pain score was the covariate; study center was modeled as a random effect while all other variables were modeled as fixed effects.||||||0.002
90998951|NCT00379236|181881461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.006
90998952|NCT02940860|181881471|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority could be claimed if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) was above -0.5 g/dL.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.23|||||The Mixed Model for Repeated Measurement (MMRM) used for testing, included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, strata, and the continuous covariates of baseline Hb and baseline Hb-by-week interaction.|"Power:~With N=1000 subjects in the iron isomaltoside/ferric derisomaltose treatment group and with N=500 subjects in the iron sucrose treatment group, assuming no difference between the treatment groups and assuming a common standard deviation (SD) of 1.5 g/dL, the power was 100% for demonstrating non-inferiority of the change in Hb from baseline to week 8, using a non-inferiority margin of -0.5 g/dL.~The significance level was set to 5%."||0.23|-0.06|
90998953|NCT02940860|181881472|OTHER||95% two-sided CI (iron isomaltoside)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.86||||||"Power:~With N=1000 subjects in the iron isomaltoside/ferric derisomaltose, the power was 88% to demonstrate that the upper bound of the 95% CI of the incidence of treatment-emergent serious and/or severe non-serious hypersensitivity AEs was less than 3%.~The significance level was set to 5%."||0.86|0.06|
90998954|NCT02940860|181881472|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.77||||||Risk difference between iron isomaltoside/ferric derisomaltose and iron sucrose was assessed for the individual trial with 95% Newcombe CI adjusted for stratum using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method.||0.77|-0.19|
90998955|NCT02940860|181881472|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority can be claimed if the upper bound of the 95% CI is below 1.5 % point.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.48||||||Risk difference between iron isomaltoside/ferric derisomaltose and iron sucrose was assessed for the pooled FERWON-IDA and FERWON-NEPHRO trials (2008 subjects treated with iron isomaltoside/ferric derisomaltose and 1000 subjects treated with iron sucrose) with 95% Newcombe CI adjusted for stratum using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method.||0.48|-0.57|
90998956|NCT02940860|181881473|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0248|||||||Fisher Exact|||Adjudicated and confirmed treatment-emergent composite cardiovascular AEs. Any treatment emergent composite cardiovascular AEs were included in the statistical evaluation. The overall incidence of adjudicated and confirmed composite cardiovascular AEs was tabulated and compared between the treatment groups by a Fisher's exact test.||||0.0248
90998957|NCT02940860|181881474|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0185|||||||Log Rank|||The time to first adjudicated and confirmed composite cardiovascular AEs was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and the hypothesis of no treatment difference was assessed by a log-rank test.||||0.0185
90998958|NCT02940860|181881476|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.0478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.87|||Repeated measures logistic regressioin|||"Week 1~Hb increase of ≥1 g/dL from baseline to week 1.~Proportion of Hb responders to each week was analysed using a repeated measures logistic regression model with treatment, visit, strata, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate."||1.87|1.00|0.0478
90998959|NCT02940860|181881476|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|2.36|||Repeated measures logistic regressioin|||"Week 2~Hb increase of ≥1 g/dL from baseline to week 2.~Proportion of Hb responders to each week was analysed using a repeated measures logistic regression model with treatment, visit, strata, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate."||2.36|1.39|<0.0001
91006983|NCT00808132|181898639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Osteocalcin: Month 6, ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors, and baseline as covariate.||||<0.001
91006984|NCT00808132|181898639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0074|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Osteocalcin: Month 6, ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors, and baseline as covariate.||||0.0074
91006985|NCT00808132|181898639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Osteocalcin: Month 12, ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors, and baseline as covariate.||||<0.001
91006986|NCT00808132|181898639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Osteocalcin: Month 12, ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors, and baseline as covariate.||||<0.001
91006987|NCT00808132|181898639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Osteocalcin: Month 6, ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors, and baseline as covariate.||||<0.001
91006988|NCT00808132|181898639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Osteocalcin: Month 6, ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors, and baseline as covariate.||||<0.001
91006989|NCT00808132|181898639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Osteocalcin: Month 12, ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors, and baseline as covariate.||||<0.001
91006990|NCT00808132|181898639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Osteocalcin: Month 12, ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors, and baseline as covariate.||||<0.001
91006991|NCT00808132|181898639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Osteocalcin: Month 6, ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors, and baseline as covariate.||||<0.001
91006992|NCT00808132|181898639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Osteocalcin: Month 12, ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors, and baseline as covariate.||||0.0016
91006993|NCT00808132|181898639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Osteocalcin: Month 6, ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors, and baseline as covariate.||||<0.001
91006994|NCT00808132|181898639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Osteocalcin: Month 12, ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors, and baseline as covariate.||||<0.001
91006995|NCT00808132|181898639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||C-Telopeptide: Month 6, ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors, and baseline as covariate.||||<0.001
91006996|NCT00808132|181898639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1058|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||C-Telopeptide: Month 6, ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors, and baseline as covariate.||||0.1058
91006997|NCT00808132|181898639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||C-Telopeptide: Month 12, ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors, and baseline as covariate.||||<0.001
91006998|NCT00808132|181898639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||C-Telopeptide: Month 12, ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors, and baseline as covariate.||||0.0024
91006999|NCT00808132|181898639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||C-Telopeptide: Month 6, ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors, and baseline as covariate.||||<0.001
91007000|NCT00808132|181898639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||C-Telopeptide: Month 6, ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors, and baseline as covariate.||||<0.001
91007001|NCT00808132|181898639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||C-Telopeptide: Month 12, ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors, and baseline as covariate.||||<0.001
91007002|NCT00808132|181898639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||C-Telopeptide: Month 12, ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors, and baseline as covariate.||||<0.001
91007003|NCT00808132|181898639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||C-Telopeptide: Month 6, ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors, and baseline as covariate.||||<0.001
91007004|NCT00808132|181898639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||C-Telopeptide: Month 12, ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors, and baseline as covariate.||||0.0012
91050301|NCT02836496|181986901|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.33||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.85|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression analysis adjusted for Baseline OCS dose and region|Treatment comparison between placebo and mepolizumab 300 mg using odds ratio and 95% CI has been presented. Odds ratio \<1 indicated lower odds of HES flare with Mepolizumab compared with placebo.|||0.85|0.13|0.022
90998960|NCT02940860|181881476|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|1.79|||Repeated measures logistic regressioin|||"Week 4~Hb increase of ≥1 g/dL from baseline to week 4.~Proportion of Hb responders to each week was analysed using a repeated measures logistic regression model with treatment, visit, strata, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate."||1.79|1.11|0.0048
90998961|NCT02940860|181881476|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.27|||Repeated measures logistic regressioin|||"Week 8~Hb increase of ≥1 g/dL from baseline to week 8.~Proportion of Hb responders to each week was analysed using a repeated measures logistic regression model with treatment, visit, strata, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate."||1.27|0.80|0.9440
90998962|NCT02940860|181881477|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0174|||||||Log Rank|||Time to Hb response was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and the hypothesis of no treatment difference was assessed by a 2-sided log-rank test.||||0.0174
90998963|NCT02940860|181881478|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.5074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.45|||Regression, Logistic|||The proportion of subjects who achieved a Hb level of \>12 g/dL at any time from week 1 to week 8 was analysed using a logistic regression model with treatment and strata as fixed effects. The estimated treatment ratio of iron isomaltoside/ferric derisomaltose versus iron sucrose is presented with 95% CI and corresponding p-value.||1.45|0.83|0.5074
90998964|NCT02940860|181881479|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.1035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.6|||Regression, Logistic|||"The proportion of subjects who achieved an increase in Hb concentration ≥2 g/dL at any time from week 1 to week 8 was analysed using a logistic regression model with treatment and strata as fixed effects.~The estimated treatment ratio of iron isomaltoside/ferric derisomaltose versus iron sucrose was presented with 95% CI and corresponding p-value."||1.60|0.96|0.1035
90998965|NCT02940860|181881480|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|2.4|||Regression, Logistic|||"Proportion of subject who achieved a s-ferritin level of ≥100 ng/mL AND a TSAT of 20-50% at any time from week 1 to week 8 was analysed using a logistic regression model with treatment and strata as fixed effects.~The estimated treatment ratio of iron isomaltoside/ferric derisomaltose versus iron sucrose is presented with 95% CI and corresponding p-value."||2.40|1.38|<0.0001
90998966|NCT02940860|181881481|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.31|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Week 1~Change in Hb concentration from baseline to week 1 was analysed using a MMRM including treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and strata as factors and baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction as covariates."||0.31|0.12|<0.0001
90998967|NCT02940860|181881481|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.36|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Week 2~Change in Hb concentration from baseline to week 2 was analysed using a MMRM including treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and strata as factors and baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction as covariates."||0.36|0.14|<0.0001
90998968|NCT02940860|181881481|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.0208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.28|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Week 4~Change in Hb concentration from baseline to week 4 was analysed using a MMRM including treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and strata as factors and baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction as covariates."||0.28|0.02|0.0208
90998969|NCT02940860|181881482|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|309.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|280.7|337.8|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Week 1~Change in concentrations of s-ferritin from baseline to week 1 was analysed using a MMRM including treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and strata as factors and baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction as covariates.~The estimated treatment differences based on the least square means of the treatment by-week interaction effects are presented by week, include 95% CIs and corresponding p-value."||337.8|280.7|<0.0001
90998970|NCT02940860|181881482|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|95.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.9|123.7|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Week 2~Change in concentrations of s-ferritin from baseline to week 2 was analysed using MMRM including treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and strata as factors and baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction as covariates.~The estimated treatment differences based on the least square means of the treatment by-week interaction effects are presented by week, include 95% CIs and corresponding p-value."||123.7|67.9|<0.0001
90998971|NCT02940860|181881482|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.5||||0.7834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.2|28.1|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Week 4~Change in concentrations of s-ferritin from baseline to week 4 was analysed using MMRM including treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and strata as factors and baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction as covariates.~The estimated treatment differences based on the least square means of the treatment by-week interaction effects are presented by week, include 95% CIs and corresponding p-value."||28.1|-21.2|0.7834
90998972|NCT02940860|181881482|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.3||||0.7621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.1|24.7|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Week 8~Change in concentrations of s-ferritin from baseline to week 8 was analysed using MMRM including treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and strata as factors and baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction as covariates.~The estimated treatment differences based on the least square means of the treatment by-week interaction effects are presented by week, include 95% CIs and corresponding p-value."||24.7|-18.1|0.7621
90998973|NCT02940860|181881483|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|10.7|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Week 1~Change in TSAT from baseline to week 1 was analysed using MMRM including treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and strata as factors and baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction as covariates.~The estimated treatment differences based on the least square means of the treatment by-week interaction effects are presented by week, include 95% CIs and corresponding p-value."||10.7|6.9|<0.0001
90998974|NCT02940860|181881483|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.4|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Week 2~Change in TSAT from baseline to week 2 was analysed using MMRM including treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and strata as factors and baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction as covariates.~The estimated treatment differences based on the least square means of the treatment by-week interaction effects are presented by week, include 95% CIs and corresponding p-value."||2.4|0.3|0.0129
91046237|NCT02723773|181978730|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|82.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.98|92.14|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su \>=50 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control \>=50 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su \>=50 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control \>=50 YOA Group over Year 8.||92.14|65.98|
91046238|NCT02723773|181978730|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|86.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.67|98.52|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su 50-59 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control 50-59 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su 50-59 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control 50-59 YOA Group over Year 8.||98.52|42.67|
91046239|NCT02723773|181978730|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|84.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.04|98.31|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su 60-69 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control 60-69 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su 60-69 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control 60-69 YOA Group over Year 8.||98.31|32.04|
91046240|NCT02723773|181978730|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|81.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.97|92.45|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su \>=60 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control \>=60 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su \>=60 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control \>=60 YOA Group over Year 8.||92.45|59.97|
91046241|NCT02723773|181978730|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|80.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.91|93.4|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su \>=70 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control \>=70 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su \>=70 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control \>=70 YOA Group over Year 8.||93.40|52.91|
91046242|NCT02723773|181978730|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|73.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.89|86.16|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su \>=50 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control \>=50 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su \>=50 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control \>=50 YOA Group over Year 9.||86.16|52.89|
91046243|NCT02723773|181978730|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|66.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.52|90.52|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su 50-59 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control 50-59 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su 50-59 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control 50-59 YOA Group over Year 9.||90.52|3.52|
91046244|NCT02723773|181978730|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|72.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.24|95.11|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su 60-69 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control 60-69 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su 60-69 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control 60-69 YOA Group over Year 9.||95.11|-3.24|
90998975|NCT02940860|181881483|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.2403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.5|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Week 4~Change in TSAT from baseline to week 4 was analysed using MMRM including treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and strata as factors and baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction as covariates.~The estimated treatment differences based on the least square means of the treatment by-week interaction effects are presented by week, include 95% CIs and corresponding p-value."||1.5|-0.4|0.2403
90998976|NCT02940860|181881483|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.8094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.2|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Week 8~Change in TSAT from baseline to week 8 was analysed using MMRM including treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and strata as factors and baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction as covariates.~The estimated treatment differences based on the least square means of the treatment by-week interaction effects are presented by week, include 95% CIs and corresponding p-value."||1.2|-0.9|0.8094
90998977|NCT02940860|181881484|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|26.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.4|32.7|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Week 1~Change in s-iron from baseline to week 1 was analysed using a Mixed Model for Repeated Measurement (MMRM) including treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and strata as factors and baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction as covariates.~The estimated treatment differences based on the least square means of the treatment-by week interaction effects are presented by week, including 95% CIs and corresponding p-value."||32.7|20.4|<0.0001
90998978|NCT02940860|181881484|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9||||0.2229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|5.1|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Week 2~Change in s-iron from baseline to week 2 was analysed using a Mixed Model for Repeated Measurement (MMRM) including treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and strata as factors and baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction as covariates.~The estimated treatment differences based on the least square means of the treatment-by week interaction effects are presented by week, including 95% CIs and corresponding p-value."||5.1|-1.2|0.2229
90998979|NCT02940860|181881484|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.9046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|2.6|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Week 4~Change in s-iron from baseline to week 4 was analysed using a Mixed Model for Repeated Measurement (MMRM) including treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and strata as factors and baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction as covariates.~The estimated treatment differences based on the least square means of the treatment-by week interaction effects are presented by week, including 95% CIs and corresponding p-value."||2.6|-2.9|0.9046
90998980|NCT02940860|181881484|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5||||0.1307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|0.8|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Week 8~Change in s-iron from baseline to week 8 was analysed using a Mixed Model for Repeated Measurement (MMRM) including treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and strata as factors and baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction as covariates.~The estimated treatment differences based on the least square means of the treatment-by week interaction effects are presented by week, including 95% CIs and corresponding p-value."||0.8|-5.8|0.1307
90998981|NCT02940860|181881485|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.8196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.92|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Week 1~Change in fatigue symptoms score from baseline to week 1 was analysed using MMRM including treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and strata as factors and baseline score and baseline score-by-week interaction as covariates."||0.92|-0.73|0.8196
90998982|NCT02940860|181881485|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.7132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|0.73|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Week 2~Change in fatigue symptoms score from baseline to week 2 was analysed using MMRM including treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and strata as factors and baseline score and baseline score-by-week interaction as covariates."||0.73|-1.06|0.7132
90998983|NCT02940860|181881485|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27||||0.586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|1.25|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Week 8~Change in fatigue symptoms score from baseline to week 8 was analysed using MMRM including treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and strata as factors and baseline score and baseline score-by-week interaction as covariates."||1.25|-0.71|0.5860
90998984|NCT04914819|181881491|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.3||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|10.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in weight among participants who completed final assessment||10.8|0.04|0.048
90998985|NCT04914819|181881492|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3
90998986|NCT04914819|181881493|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.331|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.331
90998987|NCT04914819|181881494|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.734|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.734
90998988|NCT00962754|181881521|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|non-inferiority since our hypothesis was that there would be no difference in outcome between the intervention and the control group.|Adjusted ratio of geometric means|1.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.19||"log transformation of mean duration of hospitalization,difference between two groups expressed as ratio of geometric means for duration. 95% confidence intervals calculated using bootstrapping method.~correction by linear regression model"|t-test, 2 sided|||We calculated that 85 patients in each group would give a power in excess of 85% to detect a difference of two days or more in the geometric mean length of hospital stay with a two-sided significance level of 0.05.||1.19|0.81|<0.05
90998989|NCT00438464|181881543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90998990|NCT00438464|181881544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.003
90998991|NCT00438464|181881545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90998992|NCT00438464|181881546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.805|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.805
90998993|NCT00438464|181881547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.254|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.254
90998994|NCT00438464|181881548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||VEGF3, Within GG3||||0.70
90998995|NCT00438464|181881548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Estrogen receptor beta (ERβ), Within GG3||||0.38
90998996|NCT00438464|181881548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Androgen receptor (AR), Within GG3||||0.41
90998997|NCT00438464|181881548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Ki-67 protein, Within GG3||||0.75
90998998|NCT00438464|181881548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||3-oxo-5α-steroid 4-dehydrogenase 2 (SRD5A2), Within GG3||||0.57
90998999|NCT00438464|181881548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Ubiquitin-conjugating enzyme E2C (UBE2C), Within GG3||||0.12
90999000|NCT00438464|181881548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Cleaved Caspase 3 (Caspase), Within GG3||||0.03
90999001|NCT00438464|181881549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Vascular Epithelial Growth Factor (VEGF3), Within GG4||||0.45
90999002|NCT00438464|181881549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Estrogen receptor beta (ERβ), Within GG4||||0.83
90999003|NCT00438464|181881549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Androgen receptor (AR), Within GG4||||0.04
90999004|NCT00438464|181881549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Ki-67 protein, Within GG4||||0.80
90999005|NCT00438464|181881549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||3-oxo-5α-steroid 4-dehydrogenase 2 (SRD5A2), Within GG4||||0.61
90999006|NCT00438464|181881549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||UBE2C, Within GG4||||0.86
90999007|NCT00438464|181881549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Caspase, Within GG4||||0.02
90999008|NCT00438464|181881554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||VEGF3, Within Finasteride Arm||||0.84
90999009|NCT00438464|181881554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||ERβ, Within Finasteride Arm||||0.36
90999010|NCT00438464|181881554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||AR, Within Finasteride||||0.09
90999011|NCT00438464|181881554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Ki-67 protein, Within Finasteride Arm||||0.46
90999012|NCT00438464|181881554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||SRD5A2, Within Finasteride Arm||||0.88
90999013|NCT00438464|181881554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||UBE2C, Within Finasteride Arm||||0.18
90999014|NCT00438464|181881554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Caspase, Within Finasteride Arm||||<0.001
90999015|NCT00438464|181881555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||VEGF3, Within Placebo Arm||||0.32
90999016|NCT00438464|181881555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||ERβ, Within Placebo Arm||||0.83
90999017|NCT00438464|181881555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||AR, Within Placebo Arm||||0.77
90999018|NCT00438464|181881555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Ki-67 protein, Within Placebo Arm||||0.87
90999019|NCT00438464|181881555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.91|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||SRD5A2, Within Placebo Arm||||0.91
90999020|NCT00438464|181881555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||UBE2C, Within Placebo Arm||||0.90
90999021|NCT00438464|181881555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Caspase, Within Placebo Arm||||<0.001
90999022|NCT03943446|181881557|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Difference in ER Rate|-0.1|||=|0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.23|||Fisher Exact|||||0.23|-0.44|=0.590
90999023|NCT03943446|181881557|SUPERIORITY||Estimated difference in ERR|-0.01|||=|1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.31|||Fisher Exact|||||0.31|-0.34|=1.000
90999024|NCT05355818|181881615|SUPERIORITY||Diff. in proportion of responders in %|37.9|||||TWO_SIDED|||||There are no p-values when performing a Bayesian analysis. Instead, the probability that the difference in the posterior distributions is \> 0 is used.|Bayesian|Historical information from LP0133-1401 (NCT04871711)/LP0133-1402 (NCT04872101) as prior information is used.|There is no confidence interval when performing Bayesian analyses - instead a 95% credibility interval is used: 13.5% to 58.2%.|Based on the primary estimand 'composite'. Data considered non-response after initiation of rescue treatment or after permanent discontinuation of IMP. Missing data imputed as non-response.||||
90999025|NCT05355818|181881616|SUPERIORITY||Diff. in proportion of responders in %|36.4|||||TWO_SIDED|||||There are no p-values when performing a Bayesian analysis. Instead, the probability that the difference in the posterior distributions is \> 0 is used.|Bayesian||There is no confidence interval when performing Bayesian analyses - instead a 95% credibility interval is used: 12.3% to 59.9%.|Primary estimand: Composite. Data considered non-response after initiation of rescue treatment or after permanent discontinuation of IMP. Missing data imputed as non-response.||||
90999026|NCT05355818|181881617|SUPERIORITY||Diff. in proportion of responders in %|31.7|||||TWO_SIDED|||||There are no p-values when performing a Bayesian analysis. Instead, the probability that the difference in the posterior distributions is \> 0 is used.|Bayesian||There is no confidence interval when performing Bayesian analyses - instead a 95% credibility interval is used: 5.6% to 51.1%.|||||
90999027|NCT05355818|181881618|SUPERIORITY||Diff. in proportion of responders in %|31.2|||||TWO_SIDED|||||There are no p-values when performing a Bayesian analysis. Instead, the probability that the difference in the posterior distributions is \> 0 is used.|Bayesian||There is no confidence interval when performing Bayesian analyses - instead a 95% credibility interval is used: 8.7% to 49.4%|||||
90999028|NCT05355818|181881619|SUPERIORITY||Diff. in proportion of responders in %|25.1|||||TWO_SIDED|||||There are no p-values when performing a Bayesian analysis. Instead, the probability that the difference in the posterior distributions is \> 0 is used.|Bayesian||There is no confidence interval when performing Bayesian analyses - instead a 95% credibility interval is used: 3.9% to 42.3%.|Primary estimand: Composite. Data considered non-response after initiation of rescue treatment or after permanent discontinuation of IMP. Missing data imputed as non-response.||||
90999029|NCT05355818|181881620|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.47||||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.16|29.78|||Regression, Logistic||Risk difference estimated using logistic regression stratified by baseline IGA-CHE score.|The primary estimand using the composite strategy is used for the analysis. Data is considered non response after initiation of rescue treatment or after permanent discontinuation of IMP. Missing data is imputed as non-response.||29.78|5.16|0.0054
90999030|NCT05355818|181881621|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.21||||0.0248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.69|39.72|||Regression, Logistic||Risk difference estimated using logistic regression stratified by baseline IGA-CHE score.|The primary estimand using the composite strategy is used for the analysis. Data is considered non response after initiation of rescue treatment or after permanent discontinuation of IMP. Missing data is imputed as non-response.||39.72|2.69|0.0248
91046245|NCT02723773|181978730|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|76.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.78|89.35|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su \>=60 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control \>=60 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su \>=60 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control \>=60 YOA Group over Year 9.||89.35|51.78|
91046246|NCT02723773|181978730|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|75.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.69|91.07|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su \>=70 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control \>=70 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su \>=70 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control \>=70 YOA Group over Year 9.||91.07|43.69|
91046247|NCT02723773|181978730|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|71.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.03|85.18|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su \>=50 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control \>=50 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su \>=50 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control \>=50 YOA Group over Year 10.||85.18|49.03|
91046248|NCT02723773|181978730|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|77.89|100.0|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su 50-59 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control 50-59 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su 50-59 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control 50-59 YOA Group over Year 10.||100.00|77.89|
91046249|NCT02723773|181978730|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|90.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.71|99.77|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su 60-69 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control 60-69 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su 60-69 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control 60-69 YOA Group over Year 10.||99.77|29.71|
91046250|NCT02723773|181978730|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|60.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.55|79.83|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su \>=60 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control \>=60 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su \>=60 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control \>=60 YOA Group over Year 10.||79.83|26.55|
91046251|NCT02723773|181978730|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|48.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|74.87|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su \>=70 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control \>=70 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su \>=70 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control \>=70 YOA Group over Year 10.||74.87|-2.41|
90999031|NCT05355818|181881622|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.08||||0.332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|33.46|||Regression, Logistic||Risk difference estimated using logistic regression stratified by baseline IGA-CHE score.|The primary estimand using the composite strategy is used for the analysis. Data is considered non response after initiation of rescue treatment or after permanent discontinuation of IMP. Missing data is imputed as non-response.||33.46|-11.30|0.3320
91046252|NCT02723773|181978730|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|82.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.03|92.22|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su \>=50 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control \>=50 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su \>=50 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control \>=50 YOA Group over Year 11.||92.22|63.03|
91046253|NCT02723773|181978730|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|86.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.67|98.52|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su 50-59 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control 50-59 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su 50-59 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control 50-59 YOA Group over Year 11.||98.52|42.67|
91046254|NCT02723773|181978730|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.07|100.0|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su 60-69 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control 60-69 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su 60-69 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control 60-69 YOA Group over Year 11.||100.00|65.07|
91046255|NCT02723773|181978730|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|79.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.82|92.3|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su \>=60 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control \>=60 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su \>=60 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control \>=60 YOA Group over Year 11.||92.30|52.82|
91046256|NCT02723773|181978730|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|72.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.41|89.77|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su \>=70 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control \>=70 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su \>=70 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control \>=70 YOA Group over Year 11.||89.77|33.41|
91046257|NCT02723773|181978731|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|87.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.75|96.79|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of LTFU+Control \>=50 YOA Group over Historical Control \>=50 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against PHN in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of PHN between LTFU+Control \>=50 YOA Group and Historical Control\>=50 YOA Group.||96.79|64.75|
90999032|NCT05355818|181881623|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|33.02||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.51|53.52|||Regression, Logistic||Risk difference estimated using logistic regression stratified by baseline IGA-CHE score.|The primary estimand using the composite strategy is used for the analysis. Data is considered non response after initiation of rescue treatment or after permanent discontinuation of IMP. Missing data is imputed as non-response.||53.52|12.51|0.0016
90999033|NCT05355818|181881624|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.65||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.42|-0.88|||ANCOVA|||Primary estimand: Composite. Data considered non-response by using WOCF (including the baseline value) after initiation of rescue treatment or after permanent discontinuation of IMP. Missing data imputed using WOCF (including the baseline value).||-0.88|-4.42|0.0038
90999034|NCT02707601|181881626|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||The p-value is obtained from the 2-sided exact 1-sample binomial test for the superiority over the performance goal of 88%.|Binomial test|||||||0.002
90999035|NCT02707601|181881626|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.042||||||The p-value is obtained from the 2-sided exact 1-sample binomial test for the superiority over the performance goal of 88%.|Binomial test|||||||0.042
90999036|NCT02707601|181881627|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||The p-value is obtained from the 2-sided exact 1-sample binomial test for the superiority over the performance goal of 88%.|Binomial test|||||||0.002
90999037|NCT02707601|181881627|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||The p-value is obtained from the 2-sided exact 1-sample binomial test for the superiority over the performance goal of 88%.|Binomial test|||||||0.002
90999038|NCT02707601|181881628|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|6.1|||Fisher exact test||The differences in percentages of participants between treatment groups and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated based on an unconditional exact method using 2 inverted 1-sided tests.|||6.1|-6.1|1.00
90999039|NCT01601704|181881640|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|At the pre-planned 50% interim analysis, a non-inferiority analysis was conducted based on the estimated hazard ratio (NB32/Placebo) for the time to the first confirmed occurrence of MACE. The upper-bound of the 99.7% confidence interval for the hazard ratio was compared to 1.4, the non-inferiority margin.|Cox Proportional Hazard|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|99.7|0.57|1.34|||||Hazard ratio is based on CPH model with treatment as a factor.|||1.34|0.57|
90999040|NCT01601704|181881641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|99.7|0.66|1.33|||||Hazard ratio is based on CPH model with treatment as a factor.|||1.33|0.66|
90999041|NCT01601704|181881642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|99.7|0.21|1.19|||||Hazard ratio is based on CPH model with treatment as a factor.|||1.19|0.21|
90999042|NCT01601704|181881643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|99.7|0.55|1.67|||||Hazard ratio is based on CPH model with treatment as a factor.|||1.67|0.55|
90999043|NCT01601704|181881644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|99.7|0.43|2.55|||||Hazard ratio is based on CPH model with treatment as a factor.|||2.55|0.43|
90999044|NCT01021813|181881657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen Method.|||The method of Miettinen and Nurminen was used to construct the confidence interval for the difference in the percentage of participants with any sleep paralysis AEs between the Suvorexant group and Placebo group .||1.4|-1.1|
90999045|NCT01021813|181881658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.2||||0.482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.1|||Miettinen & Nurminen Method.|||The method of Miettinen and Nurminen was used to construct the confidence interval for the difference in the percentage of participants with any complex sleep-related behaviors AEs between the Suvorexant group and Placebo group.||1.1|-1.3|0.482
90999046|NCT01021813|181881659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-0.8||||0.508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|1.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen Method|||The method of Miettinen and Nurminen was used to calculate the p-value and construct the confidence interval for the difference in the percentage of participants with any falls AEs between the Suvorexant group and Placebo group.||1.5|-3.9|0.508
90999047|NCT01021813|181881660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage of AEs|0.8||||0.159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|2.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen Method|||The method of Miettinen and Nurminen was used to calculate the p-value and construct the confidence interval for the difference in the percentage of participants with any suicidal ideation/behavior AEs considered an ECI between the Suvorexant group and Placebo group.||2.0|-0.7|0.159
90999048|NCT01021813|181881661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.8||||0.159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|2.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen Method|||The method of Miettinen and Nurminen was used to calculate the p-value and construct the confidence interval for the difference in the percentage of participants with any Hypnagogic/hypnopompic hallucinations AEs between the Suvorexant group and Placebo group.||2.0|-0.7|0.159
90999049|NCT01021813|181881662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-0.4||||0.767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|2.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen Method|||The method of Miettinen and Nurminen was used to calculate the p-value and construct the confidence interval for the difference in the percentage of participants with any selected AEs associated with potential abuse between the Suvorexant group and Placebo group.||2.2|-3.8|0.767
90999050|NCT01021813|181881663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage: Night 1|-0.81||||0.567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|3.1|||Miettinen & Nurminen Method|||The method of Miettinen and Nurminen was used to calculate the p-value and compute the confidence interval for the point difference in a pairwise comparison of the percentage of participants with withdrawal symptoms during Night 1 in the Suvorexant (DB Treatment)/Suvorexant (DB Discontinuation) group vs. the Suvorexant (DB Treatment)/Placebo (DB Discontinuation) group.||3.1|-5.1|0.567
90999051|NCT01021813|181881663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage: Night 2|-2.4||||0.185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|1.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen Method|||The method of Miettinen and Nurminen was used to calculate the p-value and compute the confidence interval for the point difference in a pairwise comparison of the percentage of participants with withdrawal symptoms during Night 2 in the Suvorexant (DB Treatment)/Suvorexant (DB Discontinuation) group vs. the Suvorexant (DB Treatment)/Placebo (DB Discontinuation) group.||1.6|-7.3|0.185
91007005|NCT00808132|181898639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||C-Telopeptide: Month 6, ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors, and baseline as covariate.||||<0.001
91007006|NCT00808132|181898639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||C-Telopeptide: Month 12, ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors, and baseline as covariate.||||<0.001
91007007|NCT00808132|181898639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||P1NP: Month 6, ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors, and baseline as covariate.||||<0.001
91007008|NCT00808132|181898639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||P1NP: Month 6, ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors, and baseline as covariate.||||0.0029
91007009|NCT00808132|181898639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||P1NP: Month 12, ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors, and baseline as covariate.||||<0.001
90999052|NCT01021813|181881663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage: Night 3|-0.78||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|3.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen Method|||The method of Miettinen and Nurminen was used to calculate the p-value and compute the confidence interval for the point difference in a pairwise comparison of the percentage of participants with withdrawal symptoms during Night 3 in the Suvorexant (DB Treatment)/Suvorexant (DB Discontinuation) group vs. the Suvorexant (DB Treatment)/Placebo (DB Discontinuation) group.||3.9|-5.6|0.680
90999053|NCT01021813|181881663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage: Across Nights|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|6.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen Method|||The method of Miettinen and Nurminen was used to calculate the p-value and compute the confidence interval for the point difference in a pairwise comparison of the percentage of participants with withdrawal symptoms across Nights 1, 2, and 3 in the Suvorexant (DB Treatment)/Suvorexant (DB Discontinuation) group vs. the Suvorexant (DB Treatment)/Placebo (DB Discontinuation) group.||6.4|-6.4|1.000
90999054|NCT01021813|181881664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage: Night 1|5.03||||0.365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|15.8|||Miettinen & Nurminen Method|||The method of Miettinen and Nurminen was used to calculate the p-value and compute the confidence interval for the point difference in a pairwise comparison of the percentage of participants with sTST rebound effects during Night 1 in the Suvorexant (DB Treatment)/Suvorexant (DB Discontinuation) group vs. the Placebo (DB Treatment)/Placebo (DB Discontinuation) group.||15.8|-5.8|0.365
90999055|NCT01021813|181881664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage: Night 2|8.72||||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|19.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen Method|||The method of Miettinen and Nurminen was used to calculate the p-value and compute the confidence interval for the point difference in a pairwise comparison of the percentage of participants with sTST rebound effects during Night 2 in the Suvorexant (DB Treatment)/Suvorexant (DB Discontinuation) group vs. the Placebo (DB Treatment)/Placebo (DB Discontinuation) group.||19.2|-2.0|0.109
90999056|NCT01021813|181881664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage: Night 3|6.02||||0.287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|16.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen Method|||The method of Miettinen and Nurminen was used to calculate the p-value and compute the confidence interval for the point difference in a pairwise comparison of the percentage of participants with sTST rebound effects during Night 3 in the Suvorexant (DB Treatment)/Suvorexant (DB Discontinuation) group vs. the Placebo (DB Treatment)/Placebo (DB Discontinuation) group.||16.9|-5.1|0.287
91007010|NCT00808132|181898639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||P1NP: Month 12, ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors, and baseline as covariate.||||0.0046
91007011|NCT00808132|181898639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||P1NP: Month 6, ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors, and baseline as covariate.||||<0.001
91007012|NCT00808132|181898639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||P1NP: Month 6, ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors, and baseline as covariate.||||0.0043
91007013|NCT00808132|181898639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||P1NP: Month 12, ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors, and baseline as covariate.||||<0.001
91007014|NCT00808132|181898639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||P1NP: Month 12, ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors, and baseline as covariate.||||<0.001
91007015|NCT00808132|181898639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||P1NP: Month 6, ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors, and baseline as covariate.||||0.0016
91007016|NCT00808132|181898639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||P1NP: Month 12, ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors, and baseline as covariate.||||<0.001
91007017|NCT00808132|181898639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||P1NP: Month 6, ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors, and baseline as covariate.||||<0.001
91007018|NCT00808132|181898639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||P1NP: Month 12, ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors, and baseline as covariate.||||<0.001
91007019|NCT00808132|181898641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.546|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1-4: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline value.||||0.546
91007020|NCT00808132|181898641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.821|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 5-8: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline value.||||0.821
91007021|NCT00808132|181898641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.698|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 9-12: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline value.||||0.698
91007022|NCT00808132|181898641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.446|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 13-16: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline value.||||0.446
91007023|NCT00808132|181898641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.892|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 17-20: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline value.||||0.892
91007024|NCT00808132|181898641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 21-24: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline value.||||0.810
91007025|NCT00808132|181898641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.473|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 25-28: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline value.||||0.473
91007026|NCT00808132|181898641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 29-32: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline value.||||0.030
91007027|NCT00808132|181898641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.453|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 33-36: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline value.||||0.453
91007028|NCT00808132|181898641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.391|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 37-40: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline value.||||0.391
91007029|NCT00808132|181898641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.407|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 41-44: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline value.||||0.407
91007030|NCT00808132|181898641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.644|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 45-48: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline value.||||0.644
91007031|NCT00808132|181898641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.666|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 49-52: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline value.||||0.666
91007032|NCT00808132|181898641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.641|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1-4: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline value.||||0.641
91007033|NCT00808132|181898641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.361|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 5-8: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline value.||||0.361
90999057|NCT01021813|181881664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage:Night 1, 2 or 3|10.82||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|21.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen Method|||The method of Miettinen and Nurminen was used to calculate the p-value and compute the confidence interval for the point difference in a pairwise comparison of the percentage of participants with sTST rebound effects during Nights 1, 2, or 3 in the Suvorexant (DB Treatment)/Suvorexant (DB Discontinuation) group vs. the Placebo (DB Treatment)/Placebo (DB Discontinuation) group.||21.7|-0.3|0.057
90999058|NCT01021813|181881665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage: Night 1|4.46||||0.386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|14.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen Method|||The method of Miettinen and Nurminen was used to calculate the p-value and compute the confidence interval for the point difference in a pairwise comparison of the percentage of participants with sTSO rebound effects during Night 1 in the Suvorexant (DB Treatment)/Suvorexant (DB Discontinuation) group vs. the Placebo (DB Treatment)/Placebo (DB Discontinuation) group.||14.5|-5.7|0.386
90999059|NCT01021813|181881665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage: Night 2|5.31||||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|15.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen Method|||The method of Miettinen and Nurminen was used to calculate the p-value and compute the confidence interval for the point difference in a pairwise comparison of the percentage of participants with sTSO rebound effects during Night 2 in the Suvorexant (DB Treatment)/Suvorexant (DB Discontinuation) group vs. the Placebo (DB Treatment)/Placebo (DB Discontinuation) group.||15.5|-5.0|0.311
90999060|NCT01021813|181881665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage: Night 3|4.96||||0.351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|15.3|||Miettinen & Nurminen Method|||The method of Miettinen and Nurminen was used to calculate the p-value and compute the confidence interval for the point difference in a pairwise comparison of the percentage of participants with sTSO rebound effects during Night 3 in the Suvorexant (DB Treatment)/Suvorexant (DB Discontinuation) group vs. the Placebo (DB Treatment)/Placebo (DB Discontinuation) group.||15.3|-5.5|0.351
90999061|NCT01021813|181881665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage:Night 1, 2 or 3|4.58||||0.409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|15.3|||Miettinen & Nurminen Method|||The method of Miettinen and Nurminen was used to calculate the p-value and compute the confidence interval for the point difference in a pairwise comparison of the percentage of participants with sTSO rebound effects during Nights 1, 2, or 3 in the Suvorexant (DB Treatment)/Suvorexant (DB Discontinuation) group vs. the Placebo (DB Treatment)/Placebo (DB Discontinuation) group.||15.3|-6.3|0.409
90999062|NCT01021813|181881666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means: Month 1|22.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.4|29.0||To account for multiplicity, Hochberg's procedure was used to control the overall Type I error rate at the 5% level.|Longitudinal Data Analysis|||A Longitudinal Data Analysis Model was used to test the difference in LS mean change from baseline in sTSTm for Month 1 (Average of Weeks 1, 2, 3, 4) in the Suvorexant group vs. the Placebo group.||29.0|16.4|<0.0001
90999063|NCT01021813|181881667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means: Month 1|-9.5||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|-4.5||To account for multiplicity, Hochberg's procedure was used to control the overall Type I error rate at the 5% level.|Longitudinal Data Analysis|||A Longitudinal Data Analysis Model was used to test the difference in LS mean change from baseline in sTSOm for Month 1 (Average of Weeks 1, 2, 3, 4) in the Suvorexant group vs. the Placebo group.||-4.5|-14.6|0.0002
90999064|NCT00493974|181881670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3876||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.3876
90999065|NCT00493974|181881671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6413||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6413
90999066|NCT00493974|181881672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6433||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6433
90999067|NCT00493974|181881673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.63||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.63
90999068|NCT00493974|181881674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4957||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4957
90999069|NCT00493974|181881675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90999070|NCT00493974|181881676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.006||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.006
90999071|NCT04682353|181881688|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.976|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.748|1.274||||||||1.274|0.748|
90999072|NCT04682353|181881688|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.226|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|1.598||||||||1.598|0.940|
90999073|NCT04682353|181881688|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.817|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.38|2.392||||||||2.392|1.380|
90999074|NCT04682353|181881690|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.202|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.506||||||||1.506|0.960|
90999075|NCT04682353|181881690|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.393|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.07|1.815||||||||1.815|1.070|
90999076|NCT04682353|181881690|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|2.301|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.806|2.933||||||||2.933|1.806|
90999077|NCT04682353|181881691|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.699|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.921|3.135||||||||3.135|0.921|
90999078|NCT04682353|181881691|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|2.364|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.273|4.39||||||||4.390|1.273|
90999079|NCT04682353|181881691|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|3.748|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.033|6.908||||||||6.908|2.033|
90999080|NCT04682353|181881692|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.904|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.886|4.093||||||||4.093|0.886|
90999081|NCT04682353|181881692|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|3.317|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.585|6.942||||||||6.942|1.585|
90999082|NCT04682353|181881692|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|5.824|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.796|12.135||||||||12.135|2.796|
90999083|NCT04682353|181881693|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.095|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.302||||||||1.302|0.920|
90999084|NCT04682353|181881693|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.415|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.148|1.744||||||||1.744|1.148|
90999085|NCT04682353|181881693|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|2.017|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.692|2.405||||||||2.405|1.692|
90999086|NCT04682353|181881694|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.112|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.948|1.303||||||||1.303|0.948|
90999087|NCT04682353|181881694|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.439|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.174|1.762||||||||1.762|1.174|
90999088|NCT04682353|181881694|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|2.075|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.751|2.459||||||||2.459|1.751|
90999089|NCT04682353|181881695|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.115|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.993|1.252||||||||1.252|0.993|
90999090|NCT04682353|181881695|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.53|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.277|1.833||||||||1.833|1.277|
90999091|NCT04682353|181881695|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|2.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.888|2.425||||||||2.425|1.888|
91007034|NCT00808132|181898641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 9-12: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline value.||||0.100
91007035|NCT00808132|181898641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.142|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 13-16: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline value.||||0.142
90999092|NCT00862654|181881712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Each test was two-sided, at the 0.050 significance level.||The primary efficacy criterion was analyzed by using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) statistic, stratified by center (or analysis-center) after ridit transformation with the row mean difference statistics, testing the hypothesis of equality. The p-value had to be inferior to 0.05 at week 4, in the ITT/LOCF population. PP analysis was also performed to assess the robustness of the results obtained in the ITT/LOCF population.||||<0.01
91050302|NCT02836496|181986902|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.34||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.67||Cox proportional hazards regression analysis adjusted for Baseline OCS dose and region.|Regression, Cox||Treatment comparison between placebo and mepolizumab 300 mg using hazards ratio and its corresponding 95% CI has been presented. Hazard ratio \<1 indicated a lower risk of HES flare with Mepolizumab compared with Placebo.|||0.67|0.18|0.002
90999093|NCT00862654|181881712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.039||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Each test was two-sided, at the 0.050 significance level.||The primary efficacy criterion was analyzed by using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) statistic, stratified by center (or analysis-center) after ridit transformation with the row mean difference statistics, testing the hypothesis of equality. The p-value had to be inferior to 0.05 at week 4, in the ITT/LOCF population. PP analysis was also performed to assess the robustness of the results obtained in the ITT/LOCF population.||||0.039
90999094|NCT03219567|181881713|OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||OCT compared to MRI||||0.35
90999095|NCT01313208|181881714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.83||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|3.41|||Mantel Haenszel|P-value from Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by participant's baseline methotrexate use (yes or no).|Etanercept/Placebo|||3.41|0.99|0.055
90999096|NCT01412060|181881765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.45||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.73|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio (cariprazine 3-9 mg vs placebo) is based on Cox proportional hazards regression model, with treatment group as an explanatory variable.|||0.73|0.28|0.0010
90999097|NCT00004732|181881766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.51|||||HR (95% CI) adjusted for age, sex and symptomatic status|||1.51|0.81|
90999098|NCT00004732|181881767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|2.23|||||HR (95% CI) for WOMEN CAS vs CEA (adjusted for age and symptomatic status)|||2.23|0.82|
90999099|NCT01181778|181881779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentage: Daily Pill|-0.4||||0.705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|1.8|||Chi-squared|||Analysis of the difference in the percentage of participants who chose the Daily Pill before physician counseling and after physician counseling.||1.8|-2.6|0.705
90999100|NCT01181778|181881779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentage: Weekly Patch|3.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|5.0|||Chi-squared|||Analysis of the difference in the percentage of participants who chose the Weekly Patch before physician counseling and after physician counseling.||5.0|2.6|<0.0001
90999101|NCT01181778|181881779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentage: Monthy Ring|16.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.3|17.8|||Chi-squared|||Analysis of the difference in the percentage of participants who chose the Monthly Ring before physician counseling and after physician counseling.||17.8|14.3|<0.0001
90999102|NCT01181778|181881779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentage: Other Method|-3.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|-2.2|||Chi-squared|||Analysis of the difference in the percentage of participants who chose Other Method before physician counseling and after physician counseling.||-2.2|-5.0|<0.0001
90999103|NCT01181778|181881779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentage: Undecided|-15.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6|-14.1|||Chi-squared|||Analysis of the difference in the percentage of participants who chose Undecided before physician counseling and after physician counseling.||-14.1|-17.6|<0.0001
90999104|NCT04491240|181881793|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|73.29|STANDARD_DEVIATION|82.91404||0.020875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.97687|132.6031|||t-test, 2 sided|||The study results were statistically processed using STATA version 9.0, Statistica for Windows version 6.0. Changes from the beginning of inhalation and after were compared using the T-test for depended group criterion, data between the main group and the control group were compared using the non-parametric method, box-plot. The data in the table presented as a Mean with full range (min-max). The difference calculated as Mean difference with 95% confidence interval and Standard Deviation (SD)||132.6031|13.97687|0.020875
90999105|NCT04491240|181881793|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|69.56|STANDARD_DEVIATION|45.67648||0.000953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.88502|102.235|||t-test, 2 sided|||The study results were statistically processed using STATA version 9.0, Statistica for Windows version 6.0. Changes from the beginning of inhalation and after were compared using the T-test for depended group criterion, data between the main group and the control group were compared using the non-parametric method, box-plot. The data in the table presented as a Mean with full range (min-max). The difference calculated as Mean difference with 95% confidence interval and Standard Deviation (SD)||102.2350|36.88502|0.000953
90999106|NCT04491240|181881793|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|53.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|39.85531||0.002233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.69923|81.72077|||t-test, 2 sided|||The study results were statistically processed using STATA version 9.0, Statistica for Windows version 6.0. Changes from the beginning of inhalation and after were compared using the T-test for depended group criterion, data between the main group and the control group were compared using the non-parametric method, box-plot. The data in the table presented as a Mean with full range (min-max). The difference calculated as Mean difference with 95% confidence interval and Standard Deviation (SD)||81.72077|24.69923|0.002233
90999107|NCT04491240|181881794|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|331.52|STANDARD_DEVIATION|315.823||0.008948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|105.5938|557.4462|||t-test, 2 sided|||The study results were statistically processed using STATA version 9.0, Statistica for Windows version 6.0. Changes from the beginning of inhalation and after were compared using the T-test for depended group criterion, data between the main group and the control group were compared using the non-parametric method, box-plot. The data in the table presented as a Mean with full range (min-max). The difference calculated as Mean difference with 95% confidence interval and Standard Deviation (SD)||557.4462|105.5938|0.008948
90999108|NCT04491240|181881794|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|366.63|STANDARD_DEVIATION|414.9726||0.020921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|69.77651|663.4835|||t-test, 2 sided|||The study results were statistically processed using STATA version 9.0, Statistica for Windows version 6.0. Changes from the beginning of inhalation and after were compared using the T-test for depended group criterion, data between the main group and the control group were compared using the non-parametric method, box-plot. The data in the table presented as a Mean with full range (min-max). The difference calculated as Mean difference with 95% confidence interval and Standard Deviation (SD)||663.4835|69.77651|0.020921
91046258|NCT02723773|181978731|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.59|100.0|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of LTFU+Control 50-59 YOA Group over Historical Control 50-59 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against PHN in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of PHN between LTFU+Control 50-59 YOA Group and Historical Control 50-59 YOA Group.||100.00|46.59|
91046259|NCT02723773|181978731|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-860.45|99.15|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of LTFU+Control 60-69 YOA Group over Historical Control 60-69 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against PHN in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of PHN between LTFU+Control 60-69 YOA Group and Historical Control 60-69 YOA Group.||99.15|-860.45|
91046260|NCT02723773|181978731|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|84.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.66|95.95|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of LTFU+Control \>=60 YOA Group over Historical Control \>=60 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against PHN in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy in prevention of PHN between LTFU+Control \>=60 YOA Group and Historical Control \>=60 YOA Group.||95.95|53.66|
91046261|NCT02723773|181978731|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|86.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.83|97.49|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of LTFU+Control \>=70 YOA Group over Historical Control \>=70 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against PHN in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy in prevention of PHN between LTFU+Control \>=70 YOA Group and Historical Control \>=70 YOA Group.||97.49|56.83|
90999109|NCT04491240|181881794|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|239.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|204.0934||0.004873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.20037|385.1996|||t-test, 2 sided|||The study results were statistically processed using STATA version 9.0, Statistica for Windows version 6.0. Changes from the beginning of inhalation and after were compared using the T-test for depended group criterion, data between the main group and the control group were compared using the non-parametric method, box-plot. The data in the table presented as a Mean with full range (min-max). The difference calculated as Mean difference with 95% confidence interval and Standard Deviation (SD)||385.1996|93.20037|0.004873
90999110|NCT03549117|181881795|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) mean difference|0.15||||0.8142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|1.45||Between treatment p-values.|ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model, baseline used as a covariate and site as a factor in the model|Difference between treatments of LS mean change from baseline.|Treatment comparison of NRQLQ between active and placebo strip group for Sleep problems.||1.45|-1.14|0.8142
90999111|NCT03549117|181881795|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.7||||0.369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|0.84||Between treatment p-values.|ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model, baseline used as a covariate and site as a factor in the model.|Difference between treatments of LS mean change from baseline.|Treatment comparison of NRQLQ between active and placebo strip group for Sleep Time Problems.||0.84|-2.23|0.3690
90999112|NCT03549117|181881795|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.18||||0.7995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|1.25||Between treatment p-values.|ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model, baseline used as a covariate and site as a factor in the model|Difference between treatments of LS mean change from baseline; between treatment 95% CI.|Treatment comparison of NRQLQ between active and placebo strip group for Symptoms on Waking in the Morning.||1.25|-1.61|0.7995
90999113|NCT03549117|181881795|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.15||||0.7285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.98||Between treatment p-values.|ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model, baseline used as a covariate and site as a factor in the model|Difference between treatments of LS mean change from baseline.|Treatment comparison of NRQLQ between active and placebo strip group for Practical Problems.||0.98|-0.69|0.7285
90999114|NCT03549117|181881796|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.18||||0.7961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|1.17||Between treatment p-values.|ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model, baseline used as a covariate and site as a factor in the model|Difference between treatments of LS mean change from baseline.|Treatment comparison of NRQLQ between active and placebo strip group for Sleep problems.||1.17|-1.52|0.7961
90999115|NCT03549117|181881796|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.86||||0.271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|0.68||Between treatment p-values.|ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model, baseline used as a covariate and site as a factor in the model|Difference between treatments of LS mean change from baseline.|Treatment comparison of NRQLQ between active and placebo strip group for Sleep time problems.||0.68|-2.41|0.2710
90999116|NCT03549117|181881796|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.07||||0.9236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.45||Between treatment p-values.|ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model, baseline used as a covariate and site as a factor in the model|Difference between treatments of LS mean change from baseline.|Treatment comparison of NRQLQ between active and placebo strip group for symptoms on waking in the morning.||1.45|-1.60|0.9236
90999117|NCT03549117|181881796|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.05||||0.8756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.75||Between treatment p-values.|ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model, baseline used as a covariate and site as a factor in the model|Difference between treatments of LS mean change from baseline.|Treatment comparison of NRQLQ between active and placebo strip group for practical problems.||0.75|-0.87|0.8756
90999118|NCT03549117|181881797|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.02||||0.9314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.42||Between treatment p-values.|ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model, baseline used as a covariate and site as a factor in the model|Difference between treatments of LS mean change from baseline.|Treatment comparison of Symptoms on Waking in the Morning in NRQLQ between active and placebo strip group for feel tired and unrefreshed.||0.42|-0.38|0.9314
90999119|NCT03549117|181881797|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.05||||0.8005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.35||Between treatment p-values.|ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model, baseline used as a covariate and site as a factor in the model.|Difference between treatments of LS mean change from baseline.|Treatment comparison of Symptoms on Waking in the Morning in NRQLQ between active and placebo strip group for nasal congestion or stuffy nose.||0.35|-0.45|0.8005
90999120|NCT03549117|181881797|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.01||||0.9613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.4||Between treatment p-values.|ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model, baseline used as a covariate and site as a factor in the model.|Difference between treatments of LS mean change from baseline.|Treatment comparison of Symptoms on Waking in the Morning in NRQLQ between active and placebo strip group for congestion in sinuses.||0.40|-0.38|0.9613
90999121|NCT03549117|181881797|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.14||||0.4966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.26||Between treatment p-values.|ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model, baseline used as a covariate and site as a factor in the model|Difference between treatments of LS mean change from baseline.|Treatment comparison of Symptoms on Waking in the Morning in NRQLQ between active and placebo strip group for time to clear nighttime drainage after waking up.||0.26|-0.54|0.4966
90999122|NCT03549117|181881798|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.03||||0.8775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.45||Between treatment p-values.|ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model, baseline used as a covariate and site as a factor in the model.|Difference between treatments of LS mean change from baseline.|Treatment comparison of Symptoms on Waking in the Morning in NRQLQ between active and placebo strip group for feel tired and unrefreshed.||0.45|-0.39|0.8775
91007036|NCT00808132|181898641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.906|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 17-20: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline value.||||0.906
90999123|NCT03549117|181881798|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.06||||0.7747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.35||Between treatment p-values.|ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model, baseline used as a covariate and site as a factor in the model|Difference between treatments of LS mean change from baseline.|Treatment comparison of Symptoms on Waking in the Morning in NRQLQ between active and placebo strip group for nasal congestion or stuffy nose.||0.35|-0.47|0.7747
90999124|NCT03549117|181881798|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.04||||0.8535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.47||Between treatment p-values.|ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model, baseline used as a covariate and site as a factor in the model.|Difference between treatments of LS mean change from baseline.|Treatment comparison of Symptoms on Waking in the Morning in NRQLQ between active and placebo strip group for congestion in sinuses.||0.47|-0.39|0.8535
90999125|NCT03549117|181881798|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.06||||0.772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.35||Between treatment p-values.|ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model, baseline used as a covariate and site as a factor in the model.|Difference between treatments of LS mean change from baseline.|Treatment comparison of Symptoms on Waking in the Morning in NRQLQ between active and placebo strip group for time to clear nighttime drainage after waking up.||0.35|-0.47|0.7720
90999126|NCT03549117|181881799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9258|||||||Chi-squared|P-value are based on chi-square test||Treatment comparison of participants showing improvement based on NRQLQ on all of the items in sleep problems.||||0.9258
90999127|NCT03549117|181881799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2368|||||||Chi-squared|P-value are based on chi-square test.||Treatment comparison of participants showing improvement based on NRQLQ on any of the items in sleep problems.||||0.2368
90999128|NCT03549117|181881799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4432|||||||Chi-squared|P-value are based on chi-square test||Treatment comparison of participants showing improvement based on NRQLQ on all of the items in sleep time problems.||||0.4432
90999129|NCT03549117|181881799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9856|||||||Chi-squared|P-value are based on chi-square test||Treatment comparison of participants showing improvement based on NRQLQ on any of the items in sleep time problems.||||0.9856
90999130|NCT03549117|181881799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7854|||||||Chi-squared|P-value are based on chi-square test.||Treatment comparison of participants showing improvement based on NRQLQ on all of the items in symptoms on waking in AM.||||0.7854
90999131|NCT03549117|181881799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4141|||||||Chi-squared|P-value are based on chi-square test||Treatment comparison of participants showing improvement based on NRQLQ on any of the items in symptoms on waking in AM.||||0.4141
90999132|NCT03549117|181881799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3028|||||||Chi-squared|P-value are based on chi-square test||Treatment comparison of participants showing improvement based on NRQLQ on all of the items in practical problems.||||0.3028
90999133|NCT03549117|181881799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3955|||||||Chi-squared|P-value are based on chi-square test||Treatment comparison of participants showing improvement based on NRQLQ on any of the items in practical problems.||||0.3955
90999134|NCT03549117|181881800|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3826|||||||Chi-squared|P-value are based on chi-square test||Treatment comparison of participants showing improvement based on NRQLQ on all of the items in sleep problems.||||0.3826
90999135|NCT03549117|181881800|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6251|||||||Chi-squared|P-value are based on chi-square test||Treatment comparison of participants showing improvement based on NRQLQ on any of the items in sleep problems.||||0.6251
90999136|NCT03549117|181881800|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2381|||||||Chi-squared|P-value are based on chi-square test||Treatment comparison of participants showing improvement based on NRQLQ on all of the items in sleep time problems.||||0.2381
90999137|NCT03549117|181881800|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4245|||||||Chi-squared|P-value are based on chi-square test||Treatment comparison of participants showing improvement based on NRQLQ on any of the items in sleep time problems.||||0.4245
90999138|NCT03549117|181881800|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8213|||||||Chi-squared|P-value are based on chi-square test||Treatment comparison of participants showing improvement based on NRQLQ on all of the items in symptoms on waking in AM.||||0.8213
90999139|NCT03549117|181881800|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1823|||||||Chi-squared|P-value are based on chi-square test||Treatment comparison of participants showing improvement based on NRQLQ on any of the items in symptoms on waking in AM.||||0.1823
90999140|NCT03549117|181881800|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7744|||||||Chi-squared|P-value are based on chi-square test||Treatment comparison of participants showing improvement based on NRQLQ on all of the items in practical problems.||||0.7744
90999141|NCT03549117|181881800|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5811|||||||Chi-squared|P-value are based on chi-square test||Treatment comparison of participants showing improvement based on NRQLQ on any of the items in practical problems.||||0.5811
90999142|NCT02259127|181881911|NON_INFERIORITY|"\>=14kg cohort: Non-inferiority margin 10% in total population and 12% in ODYSSEY A/ODYSSEY B.~\<14kg cohort: power for efficacy was not prespecified for this cohort."|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.08|||=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|-0.03|||Bootstrap method||The probability of having virological or clinical treatment failure by 96 weeks (primary endpoint) was estimated using Kaplan-Meier curves adjusted for stratification factors.|"Statistical Analysis Title: Primary: Diff in adj. KM estimates (\>=14kg)~Number of subjects included in analysis: 707~Analysis specification: Pre-specified"||-0.03|-0.14|= 0.004
90999143|NCT02259127|181881911|NON_INFERIORITY|"\>=14kg cohort: Non-inferiority margin 10% in total population and 12% in ODYSSEY A/ODYSSEY B.~\<14kg cohort: power for efficacy was not prespecified for this cohort."|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.18|||=|0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.02|||Bootstrap method||The probability of having virological or clinical treatment failure by 96 weeks (primary endpoint) was estimated using Kaplan-Meier curves adjusted for trial cohort (ODYSSEY A or ODYSSEY B)|"Statistical Analysis Title: Diff in adj. KM estimates (Frequentist \<14kg)~Number of subjects included in analysis: 85~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||0.02|-0.36|=0.057
91007037|NCT00808132|181898641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.798|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 21-24: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline value.||||0.798
91007038|NCT00808132|181898641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.258|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 25-28: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline value.||||0.258
91007039|NCT00808132|181898641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.058|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 29-32: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline value.||||0.058
90999144|NCT02259127|181881911|NON_INFERIORITY|Bayesian estimation was used for the primary analysis of the difference in treatment failure by 96 weeks by arm in \<14kg cohort. An informative prior distribution was used based on the treatment effect observed in \>=14kg cohort, with relative weight defined by clinical opinion, solicited prior to the main trial results.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|-0.02|||Bootstrap method||The probability of having virological or clinical treatment failure by 96 weeks (primary endpoint) was estimated using Kaplan-Meier curves adjusted for trial cohort (ODYSSEY A or ODYSSEY B)|"Statistical Analysis Title: Primary: diff in adj. KM estimates (Bayesian \<14kg)~Number of subjects included in analysis: 85~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||-0.02|-0.19|0.02
90999145|NCT02259127|181881911|NON_INFERIORITY|"\>=14kg cohort: Non-inferiority margin 10% in total population and 12% in ODYSSEY A/ODYSSEY B.~\<14kg cohort: power for efficacy was not prespecified for this cohort."|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.12||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|-0.04|||Bootstrap method||The probability of having virological or clinical treatment failure by 96 weeks (primary endpoint) was estimated using Kaplan-Meier curves adjusted for stratification factors.|"Statistical Analysis Title: Diff in adj. KM estimates (ODYSSEY A\>=14kg)~Number of subjects included in analysis: 311~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||-0.04|-0.21|0.003
90999146|NCT02259127|181881911|NON_INFERIORITY|"\>=14kg cohort: Non-inferiority margin 10% in total population and 12% in ODYSSEY A/ODYSSEY B.~\<14kg cohort: power for efficacy was not prespecified for this cohort."|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.05||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.03|||Bootstrap method||The probability of having virological or clinical treatment failure by 96 weeks (primary endpoint) was estimated using Kaplan-Meier curves adjusted for stratification factors.|"Statistical Analysis Title: Diff in adj. KM estimates (ODYSSEY B \>=14kg)~Number of subjects included in analysis: 396~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||0.03|-0.12|0.22
90999147|NCT02259127|181881912|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.0|||=|0.1377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|11.0|||Regression, Logistic|||"Statistical Analysis Title: Adjusted Difference (\>=14kg)~Number of subjects included in analysis: 665~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||11|-1|= 0.1377
90999148|NCT02259127|181881912|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.0|||=|0.8895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|8.0|||Regression, Logistic|||"Statistical Analysis Title: Adjusted difference (ODYSSEY A \>=14kg)~Number of subjects included in analysis: 286~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||8|-10|= 0.8895
90999149|NCT02259127|181881912|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.0|||=|0.0435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|17.0|||Regression, Logistic|||"Statistical Analysis Title: Adjusted Difference (ODYSSEY B \>=14kg)~Number of subjects included in analysis: 381~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||17|0.4|=0.0435
90999150|NCT02259127|181881912|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|26.0||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|47.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||47|6|0.021
90999151|NCT02259127|181881913|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.0|||=|0.2256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|8.0|||Regression, Logistic|||"Statistical Analysis Title: Adjusted Difference (\>=14kg)~Number of subjects included in analysis: 670~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||8|-2|= 0.2256
90999152|NCT02259127|181881913|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||=|0.9536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|7.0|||Regression, Logistic|||"Statistical Analysis Title: Adjusted Difference (ODYSSEY A \>=14kg)~Number of subjects included in analysis: 286~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||7|-8|= 0.9536
90999153|NCT02259127|181881913|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.0|||=|0.1104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|12.0|||Regression, Logistic|||"Statistical Analysis Title: Adjusted Difference (ODYSSEY B \>=14kg)~Number of subjects included in analysis: 384~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||12|-1|= 0.1104
90999154|NCT02259127|181881913|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|19.0||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|37.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||37|2|0.038
90999155|NCT02259127|181881914|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|35.0|||=|0.144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|82.0|||Regression, Linear|||"Statistical Analysis Title: Adjusted Difference (\>=14kg)~Statistical analysis description: Linear regression of CD4 at week 96, adjusted for randomised arm, baseline CD4 and stratification factors. Presenting mean difference between arms.~Number of subjects included in analysis: 707~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||82|-12|= 0.144
90999156|NCT02259127|181881914|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|44.0||||0.185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|109.0|||Regression, Linear|||"Statistical Analysis Title: Adjusted Difference (ODYSSEY A \>=14kg)~Statistical analysis description: Linear regression of CD4 at week 96, adjusting for randomised arm, baseline CD4 and stratification factors. Presenting mean difference between arms.~Number of subjects included in analysis: 311~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||109|-21|0.185
90999157|NCT02259127|181881914|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.0|||=|0.427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.0|93.0|||Regression, Linear|||"Statistical Analysis Title: Adjusted Difference (ODYSSEY B \>=14kg)~Statistical analysis description: Linear regression of CD4 at week 96, adjusting for randomised arm, baseline CD4 and stratification factors. Presenting mean difference between arms.~Number of subjects included in analysis: 396~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||93|-39|= 0.427
91046262|NCT02723773|181978732|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|89.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.67|95.7|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su \>=50 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control \>=50 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against PHN in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of PHN between HZ/su \>=50 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control \>=50 YOA Group.||95.70|78.67|
91046263|NCT02723773|181978732|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|77.79|100.0|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su 50-59 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control 50-59 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against PHN in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of PHN between HZ/su 50-59 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control 50-59 YOA Group.||100.00|77.79|
91046264|NCT02723773|181978732|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|74.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-155.17|99.49|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su 60-69 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control 60-69 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against PHN in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of PHN between HZ/su 60-69 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control 60-69 YOA Group.||99.49|-155.17|
91046265|NCT02723773|181978732|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|87.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|73.29|94.72|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su \>=60 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control \>=60 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against PHN in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of PHN between HZ/su \>=60 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control \>=60 YOA Group.||94.72|73.29|
90999158|NCT02259127|181881914|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|30.0||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-308.0|368.0|||Regression, Linear|||||368|-308|0.86
90999159|NCT02259127|181881915|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|-11.1|||Regression, Linear|||"Statistical Analysis Title: Adjusted Difference (\>=14kg)~Statistical analysis description: Linear regression of total cholesterol at week 96, adjusting for randomised arm, baseline total cholesterol and stratification factors. Presenting mean difference between arms.~Number of subjects included in analysis: 707~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||-11.1|-19|< 0.001
90999160|NCT02259127|181881915|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.4|||=|0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.3|-8.5|||Regression, Linear|||"Statistical Analysis Title: Adjusted Difference (\<14kg)~Statistical analysis description: Linear regression of total cholesterol at week 96, adjusting for randomised arm, baseline total cholesterol and stratification factors. Presenting mean difference between arms.~Number of subjects included in analysis: 85~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||-8.5|-40.3|= 0.0032
90999161|NCT02259127|181881915|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.9|-11.1|||Regression, Linear|||"Statistical Analysis Title: Adjusted Difference (ODYSSEY A \>=14kg)~Statistical analysis description: Linear regression of total cholesterol at week 96, adjusting for randomised arm, baseline total cholesterol and stratification factors. Presenting mean difference between arms.~Number of subjects included in analysis: 311~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||-11.1|-23.9|< 0.001
90999162|NCT02259127|181881915|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.5|-8.4|||Regression, Linear|||"Statistical Analysis Title: Adjusted Difference (ODYSSEY B \>=14kg)~Statistical analysis description: Linear regression of total cholesterol at week 96, adjusting for randomised arm, baseline total cholesterol and stratification factors. Presenting mean difference between arms.~Number of subjects included in analysis: 396~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||-8.4|-18.5|< 0.001
90999163|NCT02259127|181881916|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87|||=|0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.36|||Regression, Cox|||"Statistical Analysis Title: Adjusted time to first event (\>=14kg)~Number of subjects included in analysis: 707~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||1.36|0.55|= 0.53
90999164|NCT02259127|181881916|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08|||=|0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|2.49|||Regression, Cox|||"Statistical Analysis Title: Adjusted time to first event (\<14kg)~Number of subjects included in analysis: 85~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||2.49|0.47|= 0.86
90999165|NCT02259127|181881916|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83|||=|0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.46|||Regression, Cox|||"Statistical Analysis Title: Adjusted time to first event (ODYSSEY A \>=14kg)~Number of subjects included in analysis: 311~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||1.46|0.48|= 0.52
90999166|NCT02259127|181881916|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93|||=|0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|2.04|||Regression, Cox|||"Statistical Analysis Title: Adjusted time to first event (ODYSSEY B \>=14kg)~Number of subjects included in analysis: 396~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||2.04|0.42|= 0.86
90999167|NCT02259127|181881917|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83|||=|0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.13|||Regression, Cox|||"Statistical Analysis Title: Adjusted time to first event (\>=14kg)~Number of subjects included in analysis: 707~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||1.13|0.61|= 0.24
90999168|NCT02259127|181881917|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93|||=|0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.74|||Regression, Cox|||"Statistical Analysis Title: Adjusted time to first event (\<14kg)~Number of subjects included in analysis: 85~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||1.74|0.5|= 0.83
90999169|NCT02259127|181881917|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13|||=|0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.7|||Regression, Cox|||"Statistical Analysis Title: Adjusted time to first event (ODYSSEY A \>=14kg)~Number of subjects included in analysis: 311~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||1.7|0.75|= 0.57
90999170|NCT02259127|181881917|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54|||=|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.88|||Regression, Cox|||"Statistical Analysis Title: Adjusted time to first event (ODYSSEY B \>=14kg)~Number of subjects included in analysis: 396~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||0.88|0.33|= 0.01
90999171|NCT02259127|181881918|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.29|||=|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.77|||Regression, Cox|||"Statistical Analysis Title: Adjusted time to first event (\>=14kg)~Number of subjects included in analysis: 707~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||0.77|0.11|= 0.01
90999172|NCT02259127|181881918|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.35|||=|0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.33|||Regression, Cox|||"Statistical Analysis Title: Adjusted time to first event (ODYSSEY A \>=14kg)~Number of subjects included in analysis: 311~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||1.33|0.09|= 0.13
90999173|NCT02259127|181881918|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.22||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|1.03|||Regression, Cox|||"Statistical Analysis Title: Adjusted time to first event (ODYSSEY B \>=14kg)~Number of subjects included in analysis: 396~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||1.03|0.05|0.055
90999174|NCT02259127|181881919|NON_INFERIORITY|"\>=14kg cohort: Non-inferiority margin 10% in total population and 12% in ODYSSEY A/ODYSSEY B.~\<14kg cohort: power for efficacy was not prespecified for this cohort."|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.06|||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|-0.02|||Bootstrap method||The probability of having virological or clinical treatment failure by 48 weeks was estimated using Kaplan-Meier curves adjusted for stratification factors.|"Statistical Analysis Title: Diff in adj. KM estimates (\>=14kg)~Statistical analysis description: Difference in adjusted (for stratification factors) Kaplan-Meier survival function estimates at 48 weeks after randomisation.~Number of subjects included in analysis: 707~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||-0.02|-0.1|= 0.003
90999175|NCT02259127|181881919|NON_INFERIORITY|"\>=14kg cohort: Non-inferiority margin 10% in total population and 12% in ODYSSEY A/ODYSSEY B.~\<14kg cohort: power for efficacy was not prespecified for this cohort."|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.07|||=|0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|-0.01|||Bootstrap method||The probability of having virological or clinical treatment failure by 48 weeks was estimated using Kaplan-Meier curves adjusted for stratification factors.|"Statistical Analysis Title: Diff in adj. KM estimates (ODYSSEY A \>=14kg)~Statistical analysis description: Difference in adjusted (for stratification factors) Kaplan-Meier survival function estimates at 48 weeks after randomisation.~Number of subjects included in analysis: 311~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||-0.01|-0.13|= 0.035
90999176|NCT02259127|181881919|NON_INFERIORITY|"\>=14kg cohort: Non-inferiority margin 10% in total population and 12% in ODYSSEY A/ODYSSEY B.~\<14kg cohort: power for efficacy was not prespecified for this cohort."|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.05|||=|0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|-0.004|||Bootstrap method||The probability of having virological or clinical treatment failure by 48 weeks was estimated using Kaplan-Meier curves adjusted for stratification factors.|"Statistical Analysis Title: Diff in adj. KM estimates (ODYSSEY B \>=14kg)~Statistical analysis description: Difference in adjusted (for stratification factors) Kaplan-Meier survival function estimates at 48 weeks after randomisation.~Number of subjects included in analysis: 396~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||-0.004|-0.11|= 0.039
90999177|NCT02259127|181881919|NON_INFERIORITY|"\>=14kg cohort: Non-inferiority margin 10% in total population and 12% in ODYSSEY A/ODYSSEY B.~\<14kg cohort: power for efficacy was not prespecified for this cohort."|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.18||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.02|||Other [Bootstrap method]|||||0.02|-0.36|0.057
90999178|NCT02259127|181881920|NON_INFERIORITY|"\>=14kg cohort: Non-inferiority margin 10% in total population and 12% in ODYSSEY A/ODYSSEY B.~\<14kg cohort: power for efficacy was not prespecified for this cohort."|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.09|||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|-0.04|||Bootstrap method||The probability of having virological or clinical treatment failure by 144 weeks was estimated using Kaplan-Meier curves adjusted for stratification factors.|"Statistical Analysis Title: Diff in adj. KM estimates (\>=14kg)~Statistical analysis description: Difference in adjusted (for stratification factors) Kaplan-Meier survival function estimates at 144 weeks after randomisation.~Number of subjects included in analysis: 707~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||-0.04|-0.16|= 0.003
90999179|NCT02259127|181881920|NON_INFERIORITY|"\>=14kg cohort: Non-inferiority margin 10% in total population and 12% in ODYSSEY A/ODYSSEY B.~\<14kg cohort: power for efficacy was not prespecified for this cohort."|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.12|||=|0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|-0.03|||Bootstrap method||The probability of having virological or clinical treatment failure by 144 weeks was estimated using Kaplan-Meier curves adjusted for stratification factors.|"Statistical Analysis Title: Diff in adj. KM estimates (ODYSSEY A \>=14kg)~Statistical analysis description: Difference in adjusted (for stratification factors) Kaplan-Meier survival function estimates at 144 weeks after randomisation.~Number of subjects included in analysis: 311~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||-0.03|-0.21|= 0.009
90999180|NCT02259127|181881920|NON_INFERIORITY|"\>=14kg cohort: Non-inferiority margin 10% in total population and 12% in ODYSSEY A/ODYSSEY B.~\<14kg cohort: power for efficacy was not prespecified for this cohort."|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.08|||=|0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.01|||Bootstrap method||The probability of having virological or clinical treatment failure by 144 weeks was estimated using Kaplan-Meier curves adjusted for stratification factors.|"Statistical Analysis Title: Diff in adj. KM estimates (ODYSSEY B \>=14kg)~Statistical analysis description: Difference in adjusted (for stratification factors) Kaplan-Meier survival function estimates at 144 weeks after randomisation.~Number of subjects included in analysis: 396~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||0.01|-0.16|= 0.079
90999181|NCT02259127|181881921|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||=|0.993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|2.68|||Regression, Cox|||"Statistical Analysis Title: Adjusted time to first event (\>=14kg)~Number of subjects included in analysis: 707~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||2.68|0.38|= 0.993
90999182|NCT02259127|181881921|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5|||=|0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|2.0|||Regression, Cox|||"Statistical Analysis Title: Adjusted time to first event (\<14kg)~Number of subjects included in analysis: 85~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||2|0.13|= 0.33
90999183|NCT02259127|181881921|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01|||=|0.991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|3.12|||Regression, Cox|||"Statistical Analysis Title: Adjusted time to first event (ODYSSEY A \>=14kg)~Number of subjects included in analysis: 311~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||3.12|0.32|= 0.991
90999184|NCT02259127|181881921|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||=|0.997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|7.13|||Regression, Cox|||"Statistical Analysis Title: Adjusted time to first event (ODYSSEY B \>=14kg)~Number of subjects included in analysis: 396~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||7.13|0.14|= 0.997
90999185|NCT02259127|181881922|NON_INFERIORITY|"\>=14kg cohort: Non-inferiority margin 10% in total population and 12% in ODYSSEY A/ODYSSEY B.~\<14kg cohort: power for efficacy was not prespecified for this cohort."|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.07|||=|0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|-0.01|||Bootstrap method||The probability of having virological or clinical treatment failure by 96 weeks (per protocol analysis) was estimated using Kaplan-Meier curves adjusted for stratification factors.|"Statistical Analysis Title: Diff in adj. KM estimates (\>=14kg)~Statistical analysis description: Difference in adjusted (for stratification factors) Kaplan-Meier survival function estimates at 96 weeks after randomisation.~Number of subjects included in analysis: 677~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||-0.01|-0.12|= 0.015
90999186|NCT02259127|181881922|NON_INFERIORITY|"\>=14kg cohort: Non-inferiority margin 10% in total population and 12% in ODYSSEY A/ODYSSEY B.~\<14kg cohort: power for efficacy was not prespecified for this cohort."|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.172|||=|0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.362|0.029|||Bootstrap method||The probability of having virological or clinical treatment failure by 96 weeks (per protocol analysis) was estimated using Kaplan-Meier curves adjusted for trial cohort (ODYSSEY A or ODYSSEY B)|"Statistical Analysis Title: Adjusted difference (frequentist \<14kg)~Statistical analysis description: Difference in adjusted (for stratification factors) Kaplan-Meier survival function estimates at 96 weeks after randomisation.~Number of subjects included in analysis: 85~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||0.029|-0.362|= 0.075
90999187|NCT02259127|181881922|NON_INFERIORITY|"\>=14kg cohort: Non-inferiority margin 10% in total population and 12% in ODYSSEY A/ODYSSEY B.~\<14kg cohort: power for efficacy was not prespecified for this cohort."|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.126|||=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|-0.036|||Bootstrap method||The probability of having virological or clinical treatment failure by 96 weeks (per protocol analysis) was estimated using Kaplan-Meier curves adjusted for stratification factors.|"Statistical Analysis Title: Adjusted Difference (ODYSSEY A \>=14kg)~Statistical analysis description: Difference in adjusted (for stratification factors) Kaplan-Meier survival function estimates at 96 weeks after randomisation.~Number of subjects included in analysis: 295~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||-0.036|-0.21|= 0.004
90999188|NCT02259127|181881922|NON_INFERIORITY|"\>=14kg cohort: Non-inferiority margin 10% in total population and 12% in ODYSSEY A/ODYSSEY B.~\<14kg cohort: power for efficacy was not prespecified for this cohort."|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.023|||=|0.547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.096|0.056|||Bootstrap method||The probability of having virological or clinical treatment failure by 96 weeks (per protocol analysis) was estimated using Kaplan-Meier curves adjusted for stratification factors.|"Statistical Analysis Title: Adjusted Difference (ODYSSEY B \>=14kg)~Statistical analysis description: Difference in adjusted (for stratification factors) Kaplan-Meier survival function estimates at 96 weeks after randomisation.~Number of subjects included in analysis: 382~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||0.056|-0.096|= 0.547
90999189|NCT02259127|181881937|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|||=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.7|||Regression, Linear|||"Statistical Analysis Title: Adjusted Difference (\>=14kg)~Number of subjects included in analysis: 707~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||1.7|0.3|= 0.004
91007040|NCT00808132|181898641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 33-36: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline value.||||0.230
91007041|NCT00808132|181898641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 37-40: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline value.||||0.360
91007042|NCT00808132|181898641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.892|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 41-44: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline value.||||0.892
91007043|NCT00808132|181898641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.912|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 45-48: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline value.||||0.912
91007044|NCT00808132|181898641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.791|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 49-52: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline value.||||0.791
91007045|NCT00808132|181898642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.93||||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.96|2.1|||ANCOVA|||Sleep disturbance: ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors and baseline as a covariate.||2.10|-7.96|0.253
91007046|NCT00808132|181898642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.84||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.78|1.1|||ANCOVA|||Sleep disturbance: ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors and baseline as a covariate.||1.10|-8.78|0.127
91007047|NCT00808132|181898642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.15||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.76|1.46|||ANCOVA|||Snoring: ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors and baseline as a covariate.||1.46|-7.76|0.180
91007048|NCT00808132|181898642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.67||||0.247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.19|1.85|||ANOVA|||Snoring: ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors and baseline as a covariate.||1.85|-7.19|0.247
91007049|NCT00808132|181898642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.63||||0.726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.15|2.9|||ANCOVA|||ASoB: ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors and baseline as a covariate.||2.90|-4.15|0.726
91007050|NCT00808132|181898642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.17||||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.63|1.29|||ANCOVA|||ASoB: ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors and baseline as a covariate.||1.29|-5.63|0.218
91007051|NCT00808132|181898642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.01||||0.996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.85|3.87|||ANCOVA|||Somnolence: ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors and baseline as a covariate.||3.87|-3.85|0.996
91007052|NCT00808132|181898642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean DIfference|0.83||||0.665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.94|4.6|||ANCOVA|||Somnolence: ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors and baseline as a covariate.||4.60|-2.94|0.665
91007053|NCT00808132|181898642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.76||||0.368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.26|8.78|||ANOVA|||Sleep adequacy: Month 3, ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors and baseline as a covariate.||8.78|-3.26|0.368
91007054|NCT00808132|181898642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.84||||0.345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.07|8.75|||ANCOVA|||Sleep adequacy: ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors and baseline as a covariate.||8.75|-3.07|0.345
91007055|NCT00808132|181898642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.35||||0.482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.12|2.42|||ANCOVA|||Sleep problem index I: ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors and baseline as a covariate.||2.42|-5.12|0.482
91007056|NCT00808132|181898642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean DIfference|-2.15||||0.254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.86|1.55|||ANCOVA|||Sleep problem index I: ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors and baseline as a covariate.||1.55|-5.86|0.254
90999190|NCT02259127|181881937|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4|||=|0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.5|||Regression, Linear|||"Statistical Analysis Title: Adjusted Difference (ODYSSEY A \>=14kg)~Statistical analysis description: Linear regression of weight at week 96, adjusting for randomised arm, baseline weight and stratification factors. Presenting mean difference between arms.~Number of subjects included in analysis: 311~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||2.5|0.2|= 0.024
90999191|NCT02259127|181881937|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|||=|0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.6|||Regression, Linear|||"Statistical Analysis Title: Adjusting Difference (ODYSSEY B \>=14kg)~Statistical analysis description: Linear regression of weight at week 96, adjusting for randomised arm, baseline weight and stratification factors. Presenting mean difference between arms.~Number of subjects included in analysis: 396~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||1.6|-0.1|= 0.075
90999192|NCT02259127|181881937|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.5|||Regression, Linear|||||0.5|-0.8|0.67
90999193|NCT02259127|181881938|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|||=|0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.25|||Regression, Linear|||"Statistical Analysis Title: Adjusted Difference (\>=14kg)~Statistical analysis description: Linear regression of BMI-for-age at week 96, adjusting for randomised arm, baseline BMI-for-age and stratification factors. Presenting mean difference between arms.~Number of subjects included in analysis: 707~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||0.25|0.01|= 0.036
90999194|NCT02259127|181881938|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|||=|0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.36|||Regression, Linear|||"Statistical Analysis Title: Adjusted Difference (ODYSSEY A \>=14kg)~Statistical analysis description: Linear regression of BMI-for-age at week 96, adjusting for randomised arm, baseline BMI-for-age and stratification factors. Presenting mean difference between arms.~Number of subjects included in analysis: 311~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||0.36|-0.03|=0.092
90999195|NCT02259127|181881938|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|||=|0.176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.25|||Regression, Linear|||"Statistical Analysis Title: Adjusted Difference (ODYSSEY B \>=14kg)~Statistical analysis description: Linear regression of BMI-for-age at week 96, adjusting for randomised arm, baseline BMI-for-age and stratification factors. Presenting mean difference between arms.~Number of subjects included in analysis: 396~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||0.25|-0.05|=0.176
90999196|NCT02259127|181881938|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.5|||Regression, Linear|||||0.5|-1.1|0.50
90999197|NCT00719862|181881939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.3782||0.005||95.0|-1.8|-0.31|||ANOVA|ANCOVA is being used due to a covariate being included in the model. The covariate is baseline TNSS score.||||-0.31|-1.80|0.005
90999198|NCT00719862|181881940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.2987|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.1881||0.112||95.0|-0.67|0.07|||ANOVA|ANCOVA is being used due to a covariate being included in the model. The covariate is baseline TNSS score.||||0.07|-0.67|0.112
90999199|NCT00719862|181881941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8617|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.3803||0.023||95.0|-1.61|-0.12|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA is being used due to a covariate being included in the model. The covariate is baseline TNSS score.||||-0.12|-1.61|0.023
90999200|NCT00719862|181881942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7395|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.3305||0.025||95.0|-1.39|-0.09|||ANOVA|ANCOVA is being used due to a covariate being included in the model. The covariate is baseline TNSS score.||Change in baseline||-0.09|-1.39|0.025
90999201|NCT00719862|181881943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.051|||||||ANOVA|||Change from baseline||||0.051
90999202|NCT00595868|181881991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.9|||Chi-squared|||||2.9|1.0|0.06
90999203|NCT00595868|181881992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|5.2|||Chi-squared|||||5.2|0.9|0.10
90999204|NCT02688153|181881993|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-4.5||||0.366|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3660
90999205|NCT02688153|181881994|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.8377|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8377
90999206|NCT01135394|181882030|OTHER|The genes with p-values below 10\^-6 were identified|Pearson correlation p-value|0.0000001|||<|1e-07|TWO_SIDED|||||The genes with p-values below 10\^-6 were identified|Genes with p-values below 10^-6|||After the change (end-of-treatment minus baseline) in HOMA-IR index had been calculated for each subject, the change (end-of-treatment minus baseline) in expression of each of approximately 45,000 transcripts contained in a human gene array was calculated. A Pearson correlation p-value was calculated for the correlation between change in gene expression and change in HOMA-IR index, with the purpose of identifying the genes whose expression changed in concert with changes in HOMA-IR index.|The genes with P-values below 10\^-6 were identified|||<0.0000001
90999207|NCT02061748|181882043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0111|||||||Chi-squared|||Study outcomes for the primary analysis were identified using either the admitting diagnoses or on any of the service lines associated with an inpatient hospitalization.||||0.0111
90999208|NCT02061748|181882044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0861|||||||Chi-squared|||The post-hoc analysis defined the principal diagnosis as the primary diagnosis on the first inpatient hospital claim with a room and board charge.||||0.0861
90999209|NCT02061748|181882045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0011|||||||Chi-squared|||Study outcomes for the primary analysis were identified using either the admitting diagnoses or on any of the service lines associated with an inpatient hospitalization.||||0.0011
90999210|NCT02061748|181882046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0019|||||||Chi-squared|||The post-hoc analysis defined the principal diagnosis as the primary diagnosis on the first inpatient hospital claim with a room and board charge.||||0.0019
90999211|NCT02061748|181882047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0808|||||||Chi-squared|||Study outcomes for the primary analysis were identified using either the admitting diagnoses or on any of the service lines associated with an inpatient hospitalization.||||0.0808
90999212|NCT02061748|181882048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3502|||||||Chi-squared|||The post-hoc analysis defined the principal diagnosis as the primary diagnosis on the first inpatient hospital claim with a room and board charge.||||0.3502
91046266|NCT02723773|181978732|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|88.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|73.87|95.41|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su \>=70 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control \>=70 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against PHN in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of PHN between HZ/su \>=70 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control \>=70 YOA Group.||95.41|73.87|
91046267|NCT02723773|181978733|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|91.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.68|99.81|||Poisson regression method||VE=1-RR. RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of LTFU+Control \>=50 YOA Group over Historical Control \>=50 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ related complications in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ related complications between LTFU+Control \>=50 YOA Group and Historical Control \>=50 YOA Group.||99.81|43.68|
91046268|NCT02723773|181978733|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-247.21|100.0|||Poisson regression method||VE=1-RR. RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of LTFU+Control 60-69YOA Group over Historical Control 60-69YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ related complications in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ related complications between LTFU+Control 60-69 YOA Group and Historical Control 60-69 YOA Group.||100.00|-247.21|
91046269|NCT02723773|181978733|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|90.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.45|99.79|||Poisson regression method||VE=1-RR. RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of LTFU+Control \>=60YOA Group over Historical Control \>=60YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ related complications in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy in prevention of HZ related complications between LTFU+Control \>=60 YOA Group and Historical Control \>=60 YOA Group.||99.79|37.45|
90999213|NCT02061748|181882049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0068|||||||Chi-squared|||Study outcomes for the primary analysis were identified using either the admitting diagnoses or on any of the service lines associated with an inpatient hospitalization.||||0.0068
90999214|NCT02061748|181882050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0271|||||||Chi-squared|||The post-hoc analysis defined the principal diagnosis as the primary diagnosis on the first inpatient hospital claim with a room and board charge.||||0.0271
90999215|NCT02061748|181882051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0749|||||||Chi-squared|||Study outcomes for the primary analysis were identified using either the admitting diagnoses or on any of the service lines associated with an inpatient hospitalization.||||0.0749
90999216|NCT02061748|181882052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0072|||||||Chi-squared|||The post-hoc analysis defined the principal diagnosis as the primary diagnosis on the first inpatient hospital claim with a room and board charge.||||0.0072
90999217|NCT02061748|181882053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0055|||||||Chi-squared|||Study outcomes for the primary analysis were identified using either the admitting diagnoses or on any of the service lines associated with an inpatient hospitalization.||||0.0055
90999218|NCT02061748|181882054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0284|||||||Chi-squared|||The post-hoc analysis defined the principal diagnosis as the primary diagnosis on the first inpatient hospital claim with a room and board charge.||||0.0284
90999219|NCT02061748|181882055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.907|||||||Chi-squared|||Study outcomes for the primary analysis were identified using either the admitting diagnoses or on any of the service lines associated with an inpatient hospitalization.||||0.907
91046270|NCT02723773|181978733|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|88.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.81|99.75|||Poisson regression method||VE=1-RR. RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of LTFU+Control \>=70YOA Group over Historical Control \>=70YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ related complications in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ related complications between LTFU+Control \>=70 YOA Group and Historical Control \>=70 YOA Group.||99.75|19.81|
91046271|NCT02723773|181978734|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|92.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.57|99.17|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su \>=50 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control \>=50 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ related complications in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ related complications between HZ/su \>=50 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control \>=50 YOA Group.||99.17|71.57|
91046272|NCT02723773|181978734|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1830.98|100.0|||Poisson regression method||VE=1-RR. RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su 50-59YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control 50-59YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ related complications in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ related complications between HZ/su 50-59 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control 50-59 YOA Group.||100.00|-1830.98|
91046273|NCT02723773|181978734|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.55|100.0|||Poisson regression method||VE=1-RR. RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su 60-69YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control 60-69YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ related complications in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ related complications between HZ/su 60-69 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control 60-69 YOA Group.||100.00|17.55|
91046274|NCT02723773|181978734|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|92.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|69.17|99.11|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su \>=60 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control \>=60 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ related complications in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ related complications between HZ/su \>=60 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control \>=60 YOA Group.||99.11|69.17|
91046275|NCT02723773|181978734|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|90.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.93|98.91|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su \>=70 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control \>=70 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ related complications in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ related complications between HZ/su \>=70 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control \>=70 YOA Group.||98.91|60.93|
91046276|NCT03064438|181978769|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Squares (LS) Mean|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.95||0.366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.162|5.727|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.727|-2.162|0.366
91046277|NCT03064438|181978770|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1099|||||||Van Elteren test|||Percent change from baseline at Week 2||||0.1099
91046278|NCT03064438|181978770|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1653|||||||Van Elteren test|||Percent change from baseline at Week 4||||0.1653
91046279|NCT03064438|181978770|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8437|||||||Van Elteren test|||Percent change from baseline at Week 8||||0.8437
91046280|NCT03064438|181978770|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4644|||||||Van Elteren test|||Percent change from baseline at Week 12||||0.4644
91046281|NCT03064438|181978771|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
91046282|NCT03064438|181978772|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91||0.495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.571|5.211|||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline at Week 2||5.211|-2.571|0.495
91046283|NCT03064438|181978772|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.74||0.399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.014|2.045|||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline at Week 4||2.045|-5.014|0.399
91046284|NCT03064438|181978772|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.07||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.965|6.407|||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline at Week 8||6.407|-1.965|0.290
91046285|NCT03064438|181978772|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.83||0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.953|5.469|||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline at Week 12||5.469|-1.953|0.343
91046286|NCT03064438|181978773|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.894|2.155|||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline at Week 2||2.155|-0.894|0.407
91046287|NCT03064438|181978773|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.342|1.109|||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline at Week 4||1.109|-0.342|0.291
91046288|NCT03064438|181978773|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.763|1.073|||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline at Week 8||1.073|-0.763|0.734
91046289|NCT03064438|181978773|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.128|1.197|||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in pustule lesions at Week 12||1.197|-1.128|0.952
91046290|NCT03064438|181978774|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.215|0.069|||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline at Week 2||0.069|-0.215|0.313
91046291|NCT03064438|181978774|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.141|0.152|||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline at Week 4||0.152|-0.141|0.942
91046292|NCT03064438|181978774|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.067|0.226|||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in nodule lesions at Week 8||0.226|-0.067|0.284
91046293|NCT03064438|181978774|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.198|0.105|||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline at Week 12||0.105|-0.198|0.542
91046294|NCT03064438|181978775|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04||0.333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.135|6.139|||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline at Week 2||6.139|-2.135|0.333
91046295|NCT03064438|181978775|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.882|2.822|||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline at Week 4||2.822|-4.882|0.591
91046296|NCT03064438|181978775|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.12||0.254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|6.758|||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline at Week 8||6.758|-1.840|0.254
91046297|NCT03064438|181978775|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.95||0.356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.131|5.779|||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline at Week 12||5.779|-2.131|0.356
91046298|NCT01730040|181978833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-39.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-55.9|-22.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.||Alirocumab group was compared to the corresponding active control group using an appropriate contrast statement.||-22.2|-55.9|< 0.0001
91046299|NCT01730040|181978833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-23.6|||=|0.0004|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-40.7|-6.5||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||As described in statistical analysis 1 of the endpoint.||-6.5|-40.7|= 0.0004
91046300|NCT01730040|181978833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-49.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-65.0|-33.5||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-33.5|-65|< 0.0001
91046301|NCT01730040|181978833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-32.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-48.4|-16.9||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-16.9|-48.4|< 0.0001
91046302|NCT01730040|181978833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-31.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-47.4|-15.4||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-15.4|-47.4|<0.0001
91046303|NCT01730040|181978834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-42.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-59.2|-25.7||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 1% level.||-25.7|-59.2|< 0.0001
91046304|NCT01730040|181978834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-24.9|||=|0.0002|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-41.9|-7.8||Threshold for significance≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-7.8|-41.9|= 0.0002
91046305|NCT01730040|181978834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-52.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-69.2|-36.5||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-36.5|-69.2|< 0.0001
91046306|NCT01730040|181978834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-35.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-51.3|-18.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-18.6|-51.3|< 0.0001
91046307|NCT01730040|181978834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-33.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-50.0|-16.8||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-16.8|-50.0|< 0.0001
90999220|NCT02061748|181882056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8208|||||||Chi-squared|||The post-hoc analysis defined the principal diagnosis as the primary diagnosis on the first inpatient hospital claim with a room and board charge.||||0.8208
90999221|NCT02061748|181882057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1534|||||||Chi-squared|||Study outcomes for the primary analysis were identified using either the admitting diagnoses or on any of the service lines associated with an inpatient hospitalization.||||0.1534
90999222|NCT02061748|181882058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3055|||||||Chi-squared|||The post-hoc analysis defined the principal diagnosis as the primary diagnosis on the first inpatient hospital claim with a room and board charge.||||0.3055
90999223|NCT02061748|181882059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9573|||||||Chi-squared|||Study outcomes for the primary analysis were identified using either the admitting diagnoses or on any of the service lines associated with an inpatient hospitalization.||||0.9573
90999224|NCT02061748|181882060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8465|||||||Chi-squared|||The post-hoc analysis defined the principal diagnosis as the primary diagnosis on the first inpatient hospital claim with a room and board charge.||||0.8465
90999225|NCT02061748|181882061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006|||||||Chi-squared|||Study outcomes for the primary analysis were identified using either the admitting diagnoses or on any of the service lines associated with an inpatient hospitalization.||||0.0006
90890001|NCT01571362|181644028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.243||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|-0.16|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Randomization Baseline to Week 4.||-0.16|-1.12|0.0090
90999226|NCT02061748|181882062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||The post-hoc analysis defined the principal diagnosis as the primary diagnosis on the first inpatient hospital claim with a room and board charge.||||<0.0001
90999227|NCT02061748|181882063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0185|||||||Chi-squared|||Study outcomes for the primary analysis were identified using either the admitting diagnoses or on any of the service lines associated with an inpatient hospitalization.||||0.0185
90999228|NCT02061748|181882064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0138|||||||Chi-squared|||The post-hoc analysis defined the principal diagnosis as the primary diagnosis on the first inpatient hospital claim with a room and board charge.||||0.0138
90999229|NCT02061748|181882065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.261|||||||Chi-squared|||Study outcomes for the primary analysis were identified using either the admitting diagnoses or on any of the service lines associated with an inpatient hospitalization.||||0.261
90999230|NCT02061748|181882066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4407|||||||Chi-squared|||The post-hoc analysis defined the principal diagnosis as the primary diagnosis on the first inpatient hospital claim with a room and board charge.||||0.4407
90999231|NCT02061748|181882067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2665|||||||Chi-squared|||Study outcomes for the primary analysis were identified using either the admitting diagnoses or on any of the service lines associated with an inpatient hospitalization.||||0.2665
90999232|NCT02061748|181882068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8017|||||||Chi-squared|||The post-hoc analysis defined the principal diagnosis as the primary diagnosis on the first inpatient hospital claim with a room and board charge.||||0.8017
90999233|NCT02061748|181882069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||Study outcomes for the primary analysis were identified using either the admitting diagnoses or on any of the service lines associated with an inpatient hospitalization.||||<0.0001
90999234|NCT02061748|181882070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2083|||||||Chi-squared|||The post-hoc analysis defined the principal diagnosis as the primary diagnosis on the first inpatient hospital claim with a room and board charge.||||0.2083
90999235|NCT02061748|181882071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0023|||||||Chi-squared|||Study outcomes for the primary analysis were identified using either the admitting diagnoses or on any of the service lines associated with an inpatient hospitalization.||||0.0023
90999236|NCT02061748|181882072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5331|||||||Chi-squared|||The post-hoc analysis defined the principal diagnosis as the primary diagnosis on the first inpatient hospital claim with a room and board charge.||||0.5331
90999237|NCT02061748|181882073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|||||||Chi-squared|||Study outcomes for the primary analysis were identified using either the admitting diagnoses or on any of the service lines associated with an inpatient hospitalization.||||0.0003
90999238|NCT02061748|181882074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2646|||||||Chi-squared|||The post-hoc analysis defined the principal diagnosis as the primary diagnosis on the first inpatient hospital claim with a room and board charge.||||0.2646
90999239|NCT02061748|181882075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004|||||||Chi-squared|||Study outcomes for the primary analysis were identified using either the admitting diagnoses or on any of the service lines associated with an inpatient hospitalization.||||0.0004
90999240|NCT02061748|181882076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004|||||||Chi-squared|||The post-hoc analysis defined the principal diagnosis as the primary diagnosis on the first inpatient hospital claim with a room and board charge.||||0.0004
90999241|NCT02088541|181882082|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18||||0.4221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.75|||Log Rank|||||1.75|0.79|0.4221
90999242|NCT02088541|181882083|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9464|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.9464
90999243|NCT02088541|181882084|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0986|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0986
90999244|NCT02088541|181882086|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0844|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0844
90999245|NCT05742841|181882094|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-16.5|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90999246|NCT01783470|181882103|EQUIVALENCE|All p values presented are two tailed. p values \< 0.05 were considered to indicate statistical significance for the primary outcome.||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon sign-ranks test|||Since the sample size of twelve subjects limited the ability to demonstrate that measurements were normally distributed, we used the non-parametric Wilcoxon sign-ranks test to assess the primary and secondary endpoints. All p values presented are two tailed. p values \< 0.05 were considered to indicate statistical significance for the primary outcome.||||0.001
90999247|NCT00247273|181882105|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|In order to establish noninferiority for the primary efficacy variable at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, a total of 1068 patients, 534 per treatment group, is required. This calculation is based on the following assumptions: the noninferiority margin (or delta) = 1.5%, the common SD (standard deviation) of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Month 12 = 4.5%, the 1 year dropout rate = 20%, and the true mean difference μD - μM = 0.5%.|Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-0.115|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.505|0.274|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center||||0.274|-0.505|
90999248|NCT00247273|181882106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.076|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.475|0.323|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||||0.323|-0.475|
90999249|NCT00247273|181882107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.0005|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0035|0.0024|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||||0.0024|-0.0035|
90999250|NCT00247273|181882108|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The estimates of the common SD, dropout rate at month 24 and true difference are also based on previous risedronate Phase III studies (RVN008993, RVE009093, ROE009394, HMR4003E/3001).|LS Mean Difference|-0.239|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.727|0.249|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled centers.||The sample size of 1068 patients will provide approximately 90% power to demonstrate the noninferiority of the monthly regimen at month 24, using a 2% noninferiority margin and assuming a common SD of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at month 24 of 5%, a 2-year dropout rate of 30%, and a true mean difference (uDaily-uMonthly) of 0.8%.||0.249|-0.727|
90999251|NCT00247273|181882109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.085|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.609|0.439|||ANOVA|Fixed Effects for treatment \& pooled center||||0.439|-0.609|
90999252|NCT00247273|181882110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0009|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0048|0.0029|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||||0.0029|-0.0048|
90999253|NCT00247273|181882111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.83|3.28|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||||3.28|-2.83|
90999254|NCT00247273|181882112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.47|1.33|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center||||1.33|-4.47|
90999255|NCT00247273|181882113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|4.53|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center||||4.53|-2.54|
90999256|NCT00247273|181882114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.45|0.8|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||||0.80|-6.45|
90999257|NCT00247273|181882115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.0|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center||||0.00|-0.05|
90999258|NCT00247273|181882116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.98|-0.36|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center||||-0.36|-7.98|
90999259|NCT00247273|181882117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.01|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center||||0.01|-0.06|
90999260|NCT00247273|181882118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.04|0.66|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center||||0.66|-12.04|
90999261|NCT00247273|181882119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.64|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center||||0.64|-0.29|
90999262|NCT00247273|181882120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|3.48|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center||||3.48|-0.85|
90999263|NCT00247273|181882121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.7|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center||||0.70|-0.45|
90999264|NCT00247273|181882122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.96|2.43|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center||||2.43|-3.96|
90999265|NCT00247273|181882123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.96||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|2.54|||Fisher Exact|||||2.54|0.36|1.0000
90999266|NCT00247273|181882124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|2.03|||Fisher Exact|||||2.03|0.47|1.0000
90999267|NCT00511108|181882167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-29.7||||0.002||95.0|-48.7|-10.6|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, prior diabetes pharmacotherapy (yes or no), and baseline value as a covariate||||-10.6|-48.7|0.002
90999268|NCT00511108|181882168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Difference|73.8|||<|0.001||95.0|44.2|104.4|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, prior diabetes pharmacotherapy (yes or no), and log-scaled baseline value as a covariate|The outcome was analyzed by ANCOVA on the log scale. Results have been back-transformed to the original scale.|||104.4|44.2|<0.001
90999269|NCT00511108|181882169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-407.8|||<|0.001||95.0|-513.4|-302.1|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, prior diabetes pharmacotherapy (yes or no), and baseline value as a covariate||||-302.1|-513.4|<0.001
90999270|NCT02911519|181882173|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.95||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.16|||Mixed Models Analysis||This is intention-to-treat analysis. The Brief Group Psychoeducation is the numerator and the group of Treatment as Usual Only is the denominator for relative risk.|||1.16|0.77|0.59
90999271|NCT02911519|181882174|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||The Brief Group Psychoeducation is the numerator and the group of Treatment as Usual Only is the denominator for relative risk. This is intention-to-treat analysis.|||1.10|0.87|0.73
90999272|NCT02911519|181882175|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.01||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.39|||Mixed Models Analysis||This is intention-to-treat analysis.|||0.39|-0.36|0.94
90999273|NCT02911519|181882175|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.19||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis||This is intention-to-treat analysis.|||0.18|-0.57|0.30
90999274|NCT02911519|181882177|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.03||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis||This is an intention to treat analysis.|||0.17|-0.10|0.61
90999275|NCT02911519|181882178|SUPERIORITY|This statistical Analysis applies to WHOQOL-BREF 1ST DOMAIN (physical health) in the first row.|Slope|0.04||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||This is an intention to treat analysis. This statistical Analysis applies to WHOQOL-BREF 1ST DOMAIN (physical health) in the first row.|||0.30|-0.38|0.81
90999276|NCT02911519|181882178|SUPERIORITY|This is an intention to treat analysis. This statistical Analysis applies to WHOQOL-BREF 2ND DOMAIN (psychological) in the second row.|Slope|-0.04||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis||This is an intention to treat analysis.This statistical Analysis applies to WHOQOL-BREF 2ND DOMAIN (psychological) in the second row.|||0.29|-0.38|0.81
90999277|NCT02911519|181882178|SUPERIORITY|This statistical Analysis applies to WHOQOL-BREF 3RD DOMAIN (social relationships) in the third row.|Slope|0.16||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.65|||Mixed Models Analysis||This is an intention to treat analysis. This statistical Analysis applies to WHOQOL-BREF 3RD DOMAIN (social relationships) in the third row.|||0.65|-0.33|0.52
90999278|NCT02911519|181882178|SUPERIORITY|This statistical Analysis applies to WHOQOL-BREF 4TH DOMAIN (environment) in the fourth row.|Slope|0.19||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.53|||Mixed Models Analysis||This is an intention to treat analysis. This statistical Analysis applies to WHOQOL-BREF 4TH DOMAIN (environment) in the fourth row.|||0.53|-0.15|0.27
91046308|NCT01730040|181978835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-39.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-54.0|-25.6||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant).||-25.6|-54|<0.0001
91046309|NCT01730040|181978835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-25.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-40.0|-11.6||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-11.6|-40.0|<0.0001
91046310|NCT01730040|181978835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-36.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-47.7|-24.3||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-24.3|-47.7|<0.0001
91046311|NCT01730040|181978835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-27.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-39.2|-15.4||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-15.4|-39.2|<0.0001
91046312|NCT01730040|181978835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-20.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-32.8|-8.9||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-8.9|-32.8|<0.0001
91046313|NCT01730040|181978836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-44.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-55.8|-33.1||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant).||-33.1|-55.8|<0.0001
91046314|NCT01730040|181978836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-26.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-38.0|-15.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-15.2|-38.0|<0.0001
91046315|NCT01730040|181978836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-36.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-48.1|-24.5||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-24.5|-48.1|<0.0001
91046316|NCT01730040|181978836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-27.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-39.6|-15.8||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-15.8|-39.6|<0.0001
91046317|NCT01730040|181978836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-20.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-32.2|-8.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-8.2|-32.2|<0.0001
91046318|NCT01730040|181978837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-29.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-42.0|-16.6||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant).||-16.6|-42.0|<0.0001
91046319|NCT01730040|181978837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-23.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-36.6|-10.7||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-10.7|-36.6|<0.0001
91046320|NCT01730040|181978837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-38.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-50.8|-26.0||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-26.0|-50.8|<0.0001
91046321|NCT01730040|181978837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-30.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-43.2|-18.6||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-18.6|-43.2|<0.0001
91046322|NCT01730040|181978837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-27.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-40.1|-15.1||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-15.1|-40.1|<0.0001
91046323|NCT01730040|181978838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-32.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-44.6|-20.6||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant).||-20.6|-44.6|<0.0001
91046324|NCT01730040|181978838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-25.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-37.3|-12.8||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-12.8|-37.3|<0.0001
91046325|NCT01730040|181978838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-38.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-51.2|-25.4||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-25.4|-51.2|<0.0001
91046326|NCT01730040|181978838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-29.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-42.6|-17.1||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-17.1|-42.6|<0.0001
91046327|NCT01730040|181978838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-26.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-39.4|-13.4||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-13.4|-39.4|<0.0001
91046328|NCT01730040|181978839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-30.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-44.7|-16.1||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant).||-16.1|-44.7|<0.0001
91046329|NCT01730040|181978839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-21.6|||=|0.0002|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-36.1|-7.1||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-7.1|-36.1|=0.0002
90999279|NCT02911519|181882179|SUPERIORITY|This analysis applies to SSFB objective domain in the first row.|Slope|-0.01||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis||This is an intention to treat analysis. This analysis applies to SSFB objective domain in the first row.|||0.01|-0.01|0.33
91046330|NCT01730040|181978839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-41.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-54.7|-27.5||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-27.5|-54.7|<0.0001
90999280|NCT02911519|181882179|SUPERIORITY|This is an intention to treat analysis. This analysis applies to SSFB subjective domain in the second row.|Slope|-0.01||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis||This is an intention to treat analysis. This analysis applies to SSFB subjective domain in the second row.|||0.01|-0.02|0.19
90999281|NCT02911519|181882180|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.01||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis||This is an intention to treat analysis.|||0.19|-0.19|0.97
90999282|NCT00810043|181882181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Anterior vertebral body height restoration as a percent (Post-procedure change from baseline)||||0.430
90999283|NCT00810043|181882181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.643|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Middle vertebral body height restoration as a percent (Post-procedure change from baseline)||||0.643
90999284|NCT00810043|181882181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.165|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Posterior vertebral body height restoration as a percent (Post-procedure change from baseline)||||0.165
90999285|NCT00810043|181882182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.402|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Anterior VBH restored||||0.402
90999286|NCT00810043|181882182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.578|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Middle VBH restored||||0.578
90999287|NCT00810043|181882182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.166|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Posterior VBH restored||||0.166
90999288|NCT00810043|181882184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Anterior VBH gained by postural reduction||||0.900
91046331|NCT01730040|181978839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-30.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-43.7|-16.6||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-16.6|-43.7|<0.0001
91046332|NCT01730040|181978839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-26.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-40.3|-12.8||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-12.8|-40.3|<0.0001
91046333|NCT01730040|181978840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-33.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-47.0|-19.0||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant).||-19.0|-47.0|<0.0001
91046334|NCT01730040|181978840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-22.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-36.6|-8.1||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-8.1|-36.6|<0.0001
90999289|NCT00810043|181882184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Middle VBH gained by postural reduction||||0.620
90999290|NCT00810043|181882184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.349|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Posterior VBH gained by postural reduction||||0.349
90999291|NCT00810043|181882185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.889|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.889
90999292|NCT00810043|181882186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.486|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.486
90999293|NCT00810043|181882187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.144|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.144
90999294|NCT00810043|181882188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.360
90999295|NCT02001688|181882189|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005||||||One-sided test was used for antigenic and functional AAT levels to maintain overall 2.5% level of significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0005
90999296|NCT02001688|181882189|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|One-sided test was used for antigenic and functional AAT levels to maintain overall 2.5% level of significance||||||0.020
90999297|NCT02001688|181882189|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0192|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|One-sided test was used for antigenic and functional AAT levels to maintain overall 2.5% level of significance||||||0.0192
90999298|NCT02001688|181882190|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005||||||One-sided test was used for antigenic and functional AAT levels to maintain overall 2.5% level of significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p-value of Stratified Wilcoxon test||||||0.0005
90999299|NCT02001688|181882190|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0193|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|One-sided test was used for antigenic and functional AAT levels to maintain overall 2.5% level of significance||||||0.0193
90999300|NCT02001688|181882190|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2485|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|One-sided test was used for antigenic and functional AAT levels to maintain overall 2.5% level of significance||||||0.2485
90999301|NCT02001688|181882191|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|p-value of Kruskal-Wallis test (3 groups: Kamada-AAT for Inhalation, 80mg,Kamada-AAT for Inhalation, 160mg and placebo)||||||<0.0001
90999302|NCT02001688|181882192|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|p-value of Kruskal-Wallis test (3 groups: Kamada-AAT for Inhalation, 80mg, Kamada-AAT for Inhalation, 160mg and placebo)||||||<0.0001
90999303|NCT02864706|181882214|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0043|||||||ANCOVA|Incidence of CAV at 5-7 yrs was compared between groups using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with stratification according to baseline distribution||||||0.0043
90999304|NCT02864706|181882215|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.037|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.037
90999305|NCT00270998|181882260|NON_INFERIORITY|Logistic regression was used to adjust for randomization stratification variables of incontinence type and incontinence severity. No parameter estimates were reported. No adjustments for multiple comparisons made.|||||<|0.0492||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance set at p = 0.0492 to account for interim analysis|Regression, Logistic|||A priori, the combination treatment was considered superior (75% success rate) to either single-modality therapy (60% success rate) at 80% power with 150 participants per group.||||<0.0492
90999306|NCT00270998|181882260|NON_INFERIORITY|Logistic regression was used to adjust for randomization stratification variables of incontinence type and incontinence severity. No parameter estimates were reported. No adjustments for multiple comparisons made.||||||0.02||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance set at p = 0.0492 to account for interim analysis|Regression, Logistic|||A priori, the combination treatment was considered superior (75% success rate) to either single-modality therapy (60% success rate) at 80% power with 150 participants per group.||||0.02
91007057|NCT00808132|181898642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.97||||0.308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.76|1.82|||ANCOVA|||Sleep problem index II: ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors and baseline as a covariate.||1.82|-5.76|0.308
91007058|NCT00808132|181898642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.48||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|1.23|||ANCOVA|||Sleep problem index II: ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors and baseline as a covariate.||1.23|-6.20|0.190
91046335|NCT01730040|181978840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-43.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-57.4|-29.7||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-29.7|-57.4|<0.0001
91046336|NCT01730040|181978840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-32.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-46.0|-18.3||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-18.3|-46.0|<0.0001
91046337|NCT01730040|181978840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-27.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-41.4|-13.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-13.2|-41.4|<0.0001
90999307|NCT00270998|181882260|NON_INFERIORITY|Logistic regression was used to adjust for randomization stratification variables of incontinence type and incontinence severity. No parameter estimates were reported. No adjustments for multiple comparisons made.||||||0.49||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance set at p = 0.0492 to account for interim analysis|Regression, Logistic|||A priori, the combination treatment was considered superior (75% success rate) to either single-modality therapy (60% success rate) at 80% power with 150 participants per group.||||0.49
90999308|NCT00270998|181882261|NON_INFERIORITY|Logistic regression was used to adjust for randomization stratification variables of incontinence type and incontinence severity. No parameter estimates were reported. No adjustments for multiple comparisons made.||||||0.006|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.006
90999309|NCT00270998|181882261|NON_INFERIORITY|Logistic regression was used to adjust for randomization stratification variables of incontinence type and incontinence severity. No parameter estimates were reported. No adjustments for multiple comparisons made.||||||0.048|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.048
90999310|NCT00270998|181882261|NON_INFERIORITY|Logistic regression was used to adjust for randomization stratification variables of incontinence type and incontinence severity. No parameter estimates were reported. No adjustments for multiple comparisons made.||||||0.42|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.42
90999311|NCT00270998|181882262|NON_INFERIORITY|Logistic regression was used to adjust for randomization stratification variables of incontinence type and incontinence severity. No parameter estimates were reported. No adjustments for multiple comparisons made.|||||<|0.0492|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.0492
90999312|NCT00270998|181882262|NON_INFERIORITY|Logistic regression was used to adjust for randomization stratification variables of incontinence type and incontinence severity. No parameter estimates were reported. No adjustments for multiple comparisons made.|||||<|0.0492|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.0492
90999313|NCT00270998|181882262|NON_INFERIORITY|Logistic regression was used to adjust for randomization stratification variables of incontinence type and incontinence severity. No parameter estimates were reported. No adjustments for multiple comparisons made.|||||<|0.0492|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.0492
90999314|NCT00270998|181882263|NON_INFERIORITY|Logistic regression was used to adjust for randomization stratification variables of incontinence type and incontinence severity. No parameter estimates were reported. No adjustments for multiple comparisons made.|||||<|0.0492|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.0492
90999315|NCT00270998|181882263|NON_INFERIORITY|Logistic regression was used to adjust for randomization stratification variables of incontinence type and incontinence severity. No parameter estimates were reported. No adjustments for multiple comparisons made.|||||<|0.0492|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.0492
90999316|NCT00270998|181882263|NON_INFERIORITY|Logistic regression was used to adjust for randomization stratification variables of incontinence type and incontinence severity. No parameter estimates were reported. No adjustments for multiple comparisons made.|||||<|0.0492|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.0492
90999317|NCT00270998|181882264|NON_INFERIORITY|Logistic regression was used to adjust for randomization stratification variables of incontinence type and incontinence severity. No parameter estimates were reported. No adjustments for multiple comparisons made.|||||<|0.0492|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.0492
90999318|NCT00270998|181882264|NON_INFERIORITY|Logistic regression was used to adjust for randomization stratification variables of incontinence type and incontinence severity. No parameter estimates were reported. No adjustments for multiple comparisons made.|||||<|0.0492|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.0492
90999319|NCT00270998|181882264|NON_INFERIORITY|Logistic regression was used to adjust for randomization stratification variables of incontinence type and incontinence severity. No parameter estimates were reported. No adjustments for multiple comparisons made.|||||<|0.0492|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.0492
90999320|NCT00270998|181882265|NON_INFERIORITY|Logistic regression was used to adjust for randomization stratification variables of incontinence type and incontinence severity. No parameter estimates were reported. No adjustments for multiple comparisons made.|||||<|0.0492|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.0492
90999321|NCT00270998|181882265|NON_INFERIORITY|Logistic regression was used to adjust for randomization stratification variables of incontinence type and incontinence severity. No parameter estimates were reported. No adjustments for multiple comparisons made.|||||<|0.0492|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.0492
90999322|NCT00270998|181882265|NON_INFERIORITY|Logistic regression was used to adjust for randomization stratification variables of incontinence type and incontinence severity. No parameter estimates were reported. No adjustments for multiple comparisons made.|||||<|0.0492|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.0492
90999323|NCT00270998|181882266|NON_INFERIORITY|Logistic regression was used to adjust for randomization stratification variables of incontinence type and incontinence severity. No parameter estimates were reported. No adjustments for multiple comparisons made.||||||0.03|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.03
90999324|NCT00270998|181882266|NON_INFERIORITY|Logistic regression was used to adjust for randomization stratification variables of incontinence type and incontinence severity. No parameter estimates were reported. No adjustments for multiple comparisons made.||||||0.048|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.048
90999325|NCT00270998|181882266|NON_INFERIORITY|Logistic regression was used to adjust for randomization stratification variables of incontinence type and incontinence severity. No parameter estimates were reported. No adjustments for multiple comparisons made.|||||<|0.0492|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.0492
90999326|NCT00270998|181882267|NON_INFERIORITY|Logistic regression was used to adjust for randomization stratification variables of incontinence type and incontinence severity. No parameter estimates were reported. No adjustments for multiple comparisons made.|||||<|0.0492|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.0492
91046338|NCT01730040|181978841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-23.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-32.9|-13.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant).||-13.2|-32.9|<0.0001
91046339|NCT01730040|181978841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-15.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-25.8|-5.8||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-5.8|-25.8|<0.0001
91046340|NCT01730040|181978841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-28.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-39.4|-18.4||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-18.4|-39.4|<0.0001
91046341|NCT01730040|181978841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-21.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-32.4|-11.4||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-11.4|-32.4|<0.0001
91046342|NCT01730040|181978841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-18.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-29.1|-7.7||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-7.7|-29.1|<0.0001
91046343|NCT01730040|181978842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-31.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-41.6|-21.3||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant).||-21.3|-41.6|<0.0001
90999327|NCT00270998|181882267|NON_INFERIORITY|Logistic regression was used to adjust for randomization stratification variables of incontinence type and incontinence severity. No parameter estimates were reported. No adjustments for multiple comparisons made.|||||<|0.0492|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.0492
90999328|NCT00270998|181882267|NON_INFERIORITY|Logistic regression was used to adjust for randomization stratification variables of incontinence type and incontinence severity. No parameter estimates were reported. No adjustments for multiple comparisons made.|||||<|0.0492|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.0492
91046344|NCT01730040|181978842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-25.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-35.4|-15.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-15.2|-35.4|<0.0001
90999329|NCT00047853|181882319|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||< 0.001
90999330|NCT00047853|181882320|OTHER|||||||9.3e-05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.000093
90999331|NCT02443805|181882322|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Source Model: Type III effects Covariates: Treatment group, Gender, Age Class, Sensitization Status, Asthma Status, Pooled Center, Baseline Average RTSS.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91007059|NCT00808132|181898642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.07||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Sleep quantity: ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors and baseline as a covariate.||0.17|-0.32|0.550
91007060|NCT00808132|181898642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.09||||0.477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.32|||ANCOVA|||Sleep quantity: ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors and baseline as a covariate.||0.32|-0.15|0.477
91046345|NCT01730040|181978842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-26.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-35.9|-17.5||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-17.5|-35.9|<0.0001
91046346|NCT01730040|181978842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-22.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-31.5|-12.9||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-12.9|-31.5|<0.0001
91046347|NCT01730040|181978842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-15.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-25.2|-6.6||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-6.6|-25.2|<0.0001
91046348|NCT01730040|181978843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-33.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-45.3|-21.6||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant).||-21.6|-45.3|<0.0001
91046349|NCT01730040|181978843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-23.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-35.2|-11.6||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-11.6|-35.2|<0.0001
91046350|NCT01730040|181978843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-29.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-39.0|-19.6||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-19.6|-39.0|<0.0001
91046351|NCT01730040|181978843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-22.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-32.3|-12.7||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-12.7|-32.3|<0.0001
91046352|NCT01730040|181978843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-14.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-24.7|-4.9||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-4.9|-24.7|<0.0001
91007061|NCT00808132|181898644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||Vasomotor function: ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors and baseline as a covariate.||||<0.001
91007062|NCT00808132|181898644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||Vasomotor function: ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors and baseline as a covariate.||||<0.001
90999332|NCT00968708|181882328|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If after accrual of 550 participants with MACE events, the upper bound of a 1-sided repeated CI for the hazard ratio (alogliptin to placebo) was \<1.0, superiority of alogliptin to placebo for the primary MACE composite would be concluded. If the upper bound of the 1-sided repeated CI for the hazard ratio of the primary MACE composite was \<1.3 but ≥1.0 then non-inferiority but not superiority of alogliptin to placebo was to be concluded.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.962||||0.315|ONE_SIDED|97.5||1.16|||Cox proportional hazards|||Statistical analyses of the primary MACE composite endpoint was based on sequences of 1-sided repeated confidence intervals (CIs) to assess non-inferiority or statistical superiority with respect to the null hypotheses. Each sequence of repeated CIs was constructed using critical values from a 1-sided stopping boundary for a group sequential design (GSD), to preserve an overall false-rejection rate of 2.5%. Each sequence of 1-sided repeated CIs had a simultaneous coverage probability of 97.5%.||1.160||0.315
90999333|NCT00968708|181882328|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If after accrual of 550 participants with MACE events, the upper bound of a 1-sided repeated CI for the hazard ratio (alogliptin to placebo) was \<1.0, superiority of alogliptin to placebo for the primary MACE composite would be concluded. If the upper bound of the 1-sided repeated CI for the hazard ratio of the primary MACE composite was \<1.3 but ≥1.0 then non-inferiority but not superiority of alogliptin to placebo was to be concluded.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.965||||0.332|ONE_SIDED|97.5||1.169||Stratified by endpoint renal function (defined as the last observed postbaseline renal function (normal renal function/mild renal impairment vs moderate/severe renal impairment including end-stage renal disease)) and geographic region.|Cox proportional hazards|||Stratified by endpoint renal function and geographic region||1.169||0.332
90999334|NCT00968708|181882329|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper bound of the confidence interval for the primary MACE composite was \<1.0, then statistical superiority of alogliptin to placebo for the secondary MACE composite would be demonstrated.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.952|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5||1.135||||||||1.135||
90999335|NCT00587834|181882366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Exact Bionomial Test|||Superiority relative to a pre-defined standard (50% success)||||<0.0001
90999336|NCT00587834|181882367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||McNemar|||Compare participants with (1) Gintuit equally red and Control not equally red to (2) Gintuit not equally red and Control equally red||||<0.0001
90999337|NCT00587834|181882368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||McNemar|||Compare participants with (1)Gintuit equally firm and Control not equally firm to (2) Gintuit not equally firm and Control equally firm||||<0.0001
90999338|NCT00587834|181882369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Exact binomial test|||Superiority relative to a pre-defined threshold (80%) success||||<0.0001
90999339|NCT00587834|181882370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Exact binomial test|||The proportion of Gintuit as the preferred procedure.||||<0.0001
90999340|NCT00587834|181882371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3173||95.0|||||McNemar|McNemar's paired comparison test||Compare participants with (1) Gintuit not sensitive and Control sensitive to (2) Gintuit sensitive and Control not sensitive.||||0.3173
90999341|NCT00305604|181882394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.81|<|0.001||95.0|-0.94|-0.47|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment; baseline; prior anti-hyperglycemic therapy (yes/no); age (\< 75/\>= 75 yr); baseline creatinine clearance (\< 50/\>= 50 mL/min)||||-0.47|-0.94|<0.001
91046353|NCT01730040|181978844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-22.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-31.4|-13.8||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant).||-13.8|-31.4|<0.0001
90999342|NCT00305604|181882395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-26.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|45.0|<|0.001||95.0|-40.0|-13.5|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment; baseline; prior anti-hyperglycemic therapy (yes/no); age (\< 75/\>= 75 yr); baseline creatinine clearance (\< 50/\>= 50 mL/min)||||-13.5|-40.0|<0.001
90999343|NCT00305604|181882396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-61.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|63.0|<|0.001||95.0|-82.1|-40.0|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment; baseline; prior anti-hyperglycemic therapy (yes/no); age (\< 75/\>= 75 yr); baseline creatinine clearance (\< 50/\>= 50 mL/min)||||-40.0|-82.1|<0.001
90999344|NCT00305604|181882397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-23.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|25.2|<|0.001||95.0|-32.6|-14.4|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment; baseline; prior anti-hyperglycemic therapy (yes/no); age (\< 75/\>= 75 yr); baseline creatinine clearance (\< 50/\>= 50 mL/min)||||-14.4|-32.6|<0.001
90999345|NCT01248364|181882401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.55|||ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for baseline FPG, diagnosis group, and baseline FPG by diagnosis group interaction.|Difference calculated as T2DM metformin minus T2DM Naive|No formal testing, exploratory analysis only.||0.55|-0.16|0.2790
90999346|NCT01248364|181882402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.2438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.62|||ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for baseline FPG, diagnosis group and baseline FPG by diagnosis group interaction.|Difference calculated as T2DM metformin minus T2DM Naive|No formal testing, exploratory analysis only.||0.62|-0.16|0.2438
90999347|NCT01248364|181882403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.6931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|1.79|||ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for baseline EPG fast, diagnosis group and baseline EPG fast by diagnosis group interaction.|Difference calculated as T2DM metformin minus T2DM Naive|No formal testing, exploratory analysis only.||1.79|-1.19|0.6931
90999348|NCT01248364|181882404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12||0.1028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|4.07|||ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for baseline EPG fast, diagnosis group and baseline EPG fast by diagnosis group interaction.|Difference calculated as T2DM metformin minus T2DM Naive|No formal testing, exploratory analysis only.||4.07|-0.38|0.1028
91046354|NCT01730040|181978844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-15.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-24.6|-7.0||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-7.0|-24.6|<0.0001
90999349|NCT01248364|181882405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.52||0.0326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|10.5|||ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for baseline EPG AUC 5h, diagnosis group and baseline EPG AUC 5h by diagnosis group interaction.|Difference calculated as T2DM metformin minus T2DM Naive|No formal testing, exploratory analysis only.||10.50|0.47|0.0326
91046355|NCT01730040|181978844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-19.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-26.9|-11.4||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-11.4|-26.9|<0.0001
91046356|NCT01730040|181978844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-15.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-23.3|-7.6||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-7.6|-23.3|<0.0001
91046357|NCT01730040|181978844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-9.8|||=|0.0015|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-17.7|-1.9||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-1.9|-17.7|=0.0015
90999350|NCT01248364|181882406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.0552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|0.04|||ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for baseline PPG iAUC 5h, diagnosis group and baseline PPG iAUC 5h by diagnosis group interaction.|Difference calculated as T2DM metformin minus T2DM Naive|No formal testing, exploratory analysis only.||0.04|-3.20|0.0552
90999351|NCT01248364|181882407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99||0.7561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|2.27|||ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for baseline PPG iAUC 5h, diagnosis group and baseline PPG iAUC 5h by diagnosis group interaction.|Difference calculated as T2DM metformin minus T2DM Naive|No formal testing, exploratory analysis only.||2.27|-1.66|0.7561
90999352|NCT01248364|181882408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.89||0.1024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|6.9|||ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for baseline EPG AUC 5h, diagnosis group and baseline EPG AUC 5h by diagnosis group interaction.|Difference calculated as T2DM metformin minus T2DM Naive|No formal testing, exploratory analysis only.||6.90|-0.64|0.1024
90999353|NCT01248364|181882409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.93||0.6576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.53|7.14|||ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for baseline EPG iAUC 5h, diagnosis group and baseline EPG iAUC 5h by diagnosis group interaction.|Difference calculated as T2DM metformin minus T2DM Naive|No formal testing, exploratory analysis only.||7.14|-4.53|0.6576
90999354|NCT01248364|181882410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.38||0.2795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.41|3.05|||ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for baseline EPG iAUC 5h, diagnosis group and baseline EPG iAUC 5h by diagnosis group interaction.|Difference calculated as T2DM metformin minus T2DM Naive|No formal testing, exploratory analysis only.||3.05|-10.41|0.2795
90999355|NCT03488914|181882411|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.09||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|0.56|||negative binomial regression|Model testing whether condition predicted illicit drug use days at 3-months||||.56|-2.78|.19
90999356|NCT03488914|181882411|SUPERIORITY||negative binomial regression|-1.66||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.78|0.48|||negative binomial regression|Model testing whether condition predicted illicit drug use days at 6-months||||.48|-3.78|.12
90999357|NCT03488914|181882411|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.01||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|2.07|||negative binomial regression|Model testing whether condition predicted illicit drug use days at 9-months||||2.07|-2.05|.99
90999358|NCT03488914|181882411|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.78||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.67|1.11|||negative binomial regression|Model testing whether condition predicted illicit drug use days at 12-months||||1.11|-2.67|.42
91046358|NCT01730040|181978845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|3.9|71.7||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Regression, Logistic|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant). Statistical analysis used a multiple imputation approach followed by a Logistic regression model.||71.7|3.9|<0.0001
91046359|NCT01730040|181978845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.4|||=|0.0284|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.8|14.6||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Regression, Logistic|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||14.6|0.8|=0.0284
91046360|NCT01730040|181978845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|83.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|11.6|596.8||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Regression, Logistic|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||596.8|11.6|<0.0001
90999359|NCT03488914|181882411|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.09||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.69|0.51|||negative binomial regression|Model testing whether condition predicted illicit drug use days at 15-months||||.51|-2.69|.18
90999360|NCT03488914|181882412|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.03||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.99|||negative binomial regression|Model testing whether condition predicted condomless anal sex acts at 3-months||||.99|-.86|.96
90999361|NCT03488914|181882412|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.19||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|-0.14|||negative binomial regression|Model testing whether condition predicted condomless anal sex acts at 6-months||||-.14|-2.25|.03
90999362|NCT03488914|181882412|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.13||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|1.1|||negative binomial regression|Model testing whether condition predicted condomless anal sex acts at 9-months||||1.10|-.83|.79
90999363|NCT03488914|181882412|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.06||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|1.11|||negative binomial regression|Model testing whether condition predicted condomless anal sex acts at 12-months||||1.11|-.99|.91
90999364|NCT03488914|181882412|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.42||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.65|||negative binomial regression|Model testing whether condition predicted condomless anal sex acts at 15-months||||.65|-1.50|.44
90999365|NCT03488914|181882413|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.26||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|0.58|||negative binomial regression|Model testing whether condition predicted marijuana use days at 3-months||||.58|-1.09|.54
90999366|NCT03488914|181882413|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.38||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.46|||negative binomial regression|Model testing whether condition predicted marijuana use days at 6-months||||1.46|-.70|.49
90999367|NCT03488914|181882413|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.26||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|0.66|||negative binomial regression|Model testing whether condition predicted marijuana use days at 9-months||||.66|-1.18|.59
90999368|NCT03488914|181882413|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.26||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|1.37|||negative binomial regression|Model testing whether condition predicted marijuana use days at 12-months||||1.37|-.86|.65
90999369|NCT03488914|181882413|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.36||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.67|||negative binomial regression|Model testing whether condition predicted marijuana use days at 15-months||||.67|-1.40|.49
90999370|NCT03488914|181882414|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.36||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|995.0|-1.07|0.34|||negative binomial regression|Model testing whether condition predicted alcohol use days at 3-months||||.34|-1.07|.31
90999371|NCT03488914|181882414|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.71||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|0.15|||negative binomial regression|Model testing whether condition predicted alcohol use days at 6-months||||.15|-1.57|.10
90999372|NCT03488914|181882414|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.53||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|0.28|||negative binomial regression|Model testing whether condition predicted alcohol use days at 9-months||||.28|-1.34|.20
90999373|NCT03488914|181882414|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.25||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|0.64|||negative binomial regression|Model testing whether condition predicted alcohol use days at 12-months||||.64|-1.14|.58
90999374|NCT03488914|181882414|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.45||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|0.47|||negative binomial regression|Model testing whether condition predicted alcohol use days at 15-months||||.47|-1.37|.34
90999375|NCT02781454|181882444|SUPERIORITY||linear contrast active vs placebo|-5.558||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|-0.315|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of active (300 and 600 mg) vs placebo for change from baseline to week 4||-0.315|-10.80|0.039
90999376|NCT02781454|181882445|SUPERIORITY||linear contrast active vs placebo|0.792||||0.332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.484|1.296||linear contrast active vs placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of active (300 and 600 mg) vs placebo ratio of week 4 to week 0||1.296|0.484|0.332
90999377|NCT02781454|181882446|SUPERIORITY||linear contrast active vs placebo|0.411||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.208|0.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of active (300 and 600 mg) vs placebo ratio of week 4 to week 0||0.810|0.208|0.013
90999378|NCT02781454|181882447|SUPERIORITY||linear contrast active vs placebo|0.343||||0.986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.36|42.042|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of active (300 and 600 mg) vs placebo for change from baseline to week 4||42.042|-41.36|0.986
90999379|NCT02781454|181882448|SUPERIORITY||linear contrast active vs placebo|0.994||||0.915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.876|1.126|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of active (300 and 600 mg) vs placebo ratio of week 4 to week 0||1.126|0.876|0.915
90999380|NCT02781454|181882449|SUPERIORITY||linear contrast active vs placebo|1.089||||0.694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.609|6.786|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of active (300 and 600 mg) vs placebo for change from baseline to week 4||6.786|-4.609|0.694
90999381|NCT02781454|181882450|SUPERIORITY||linear contrast active vs placebo|0.242||||0.969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.64|13.126|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of active (300 and 600 mg) vs placebo for change from baseline to week 4||13.126|-12.64|0.969
90999382|NCT02781454|181882451|SUPERIORITY||linear contrast active vs placebo|2.597||||0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.772|7.966|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of active (300 and 600 mg) vs placebo for change from baseline to week 4||7.966|-2.772|0.323
90999383|NCT02781454|181882452|SUPERIORITY||linear contrast active vs placebo|-2.017||||0.273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.767|1.733|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of active (300 and 600 mg) vs placebo for change from baseline to week 4||1.733|-5.767|0.273
90999384|NCT02781454|181882453|SUPERIORITY||linear contrast active vs placebo|0.708||||0.713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.111|4.535|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of active (300 and 600 mg) vs placebo||4.535|0.111|0.713
90999385|NCT02781454|181882455|SUPERIORITY||linear contrast active vs placebo|-0.399||||0.601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.966|1.169|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of active (300 and 600 mg) vs placebo for change from baseline to week 4||1.169|-1.966|0.601
90999386|NCT02781454|181882456|SUPERIORITY||linear contrast active vs placebo|-2.734||||0.285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.938|2.471|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of active (300 and 600 mg) vs placebo for change from baseline to week 4||2.471|-7.938|0.285
90999387|NCT03796182|181882462|EQUIVALENCE|The corresponding 90% confidence intervals equivalence criteria was (80%, 125%) acceptance range.|Ratio|98.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.09|118.2||||||||118.20|82.09|
90999388|NCT03796182|181882463|EQUIVALENCE|The corresponding 90% confidence intervals equivalence criteria was (80%, 125%) acceptance range.|Ratio|93.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.15|102.65||||||||102.65|85.15|
90999389|NCT03796182|181882464|EQUIVALENCE|The corresponding 90% confidence intervals equivalence criteria was (80%, 125%) acceptance range.|Ratio|88.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.99|95.76||||||||95.76|80.99|
90999390|NCT03796182|181882466|EQUIVALENCE|The corresponding 90% confidence intervals equivalence criteria was (80%, 125%) acceptance range.|Ratio|94.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.19|100.73||||||||100.73|88.19|
90999391|NCT02193828|181882496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||For surface area||||<.0001
90999392|NCT02193828|181882496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||For surface area||||<.0001
90999393|NCT02193828|181882496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||For surface area||||<.0001
90999394|NCT02193828|181882496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0713|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||For surface area||||.0713
90999395|NCT02193828|181882496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||For volume||||.0002
90999396|NCT02193828|181882496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||For volume||||.0001
90999397|NCT02193828|181882496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||For volume||||.0001
90999398|NCT02193828|181882496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0446|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||For volume||||.0446
90999399|NCT02193828|181882497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2431|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||For surface area||||.2431
90999400|NCT02193828|181882497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0625|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||For surface area||||.0625
90999401|NCT02193828|181882497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3409|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||For surface area||||.3409
90999402|NCT02193828|181882497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.704|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||For surface area||||.7040
90999403|NCT02193828|181882497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3556|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||For volume||||0.3556
90999404|NCT02193828|181882497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1275|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||For volume||||.1275
90999405|NCT02193828|181882497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7883|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||For volume||||.7883
90999406|NCT02193828|181882497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9123|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||For volume||||.9123
90999407|NCT02193828|181882498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.0002
90999408|NCT02193828|181882498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<.0001
90999409|NCT02193828|181882498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.0002
90999410|NCT02193828|181882498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0139|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.0139
90999411|NCT02193828|181882499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.0004
90999412|NCT02193828|181882499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0075|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.0075
90999413|NCT02193828|181882499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<.0001
90999414|NCT02193828|181882499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.0031
90999415|NCT02193828|181882500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3135|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.3135
90999416|NCT02193828|181882500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7249|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.7249
90999417|NCT02193828|181882500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1573|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.1573
90999418|NCT02193828|181882500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1234|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.1234
90999419|NCT02193828|181882501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.0006
90999420|NCT02193828|181882501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.0014
90999421|NCT02193828|181882501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.0012
90999422|NCT02193828|181882501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1298|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.1298
90999423|NCT02193828|181882502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.0048
90999424|NCT02193828|181882502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.0034
90999425|NCT02193828|181882502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0079|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.0079
90999426|NCT02193828|181882502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3216|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.3216
90999427|NCT02193828|181882503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0065|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.0065
90999428|NCT02193828|181882503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0349|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.0349
90999429|NCT02193828|181882503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.0033
90999430|NCT02193828|181882503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3423|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.3423
90999431|NCT01626989|181882513|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Friedman Test comparing all 3 nights||||||0.001|||||||nonparametric Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||.001
90999432|NCT02293902|181882530|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.185|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.583|26.594||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by prior biologic use (Yes, No) and weight at screening (\<55 kg, \>=55 kg).|Placebo vs. Sarilumab 150 mg|26.594|5.583|<0.0001
90999433|NCT02293902|181882530|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.227|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.446|15.158||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis was performed using CMH test stratified by prior biologic use (Yes, No) and weight at screening (\<55 kg, \>=55 kg).|Placebo vs. Sarilumab 200 mg|15.158|3.446|<0.0001
90999434|NCT03366844|181882539|OTHER||Proportion|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.465|0.724|||||95% confidence interval for one proportion were estimated using the Exact (Clopper-Pearson) method.|||0.724|0.465|
91007063|NCT00808132|181898644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||ANCOVA|||Psychosocial function: ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors and baseline as a covariate.||||0.680
91007064|NCT00808132|181898644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.493|||||||ANCOVA|||Psychosocial function: ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors and baseline as a covariate.||||0.493
91007065|NCT00808132|181898644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.698|||||||ANCOVA|||Physical function: ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors and baseline as a covariate.||||0.698
91007066|NCT00808132|181898644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.055|||||||ANCOVA|||Physical function: ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors and baseline as a covariate.||||0.055
90999435|NCT02971007|181882590|OTHER|Statistical analyses primarily descriptive with no formal statistical hypothesis testing. Summary statistics are presented by treatment group. For continuous variables, the number of observations, mean, standard deviation, median, minimum and maximum are provided as summary statistics.||||||||||||||||No formal sample size calculations were made. The sample size was determined empirically rather than with a specific statistical rationale and is considered sufficient to achieve the study objectives of this proof of concept study. Women with moderate to severe Vulvovaginal candidiasis were randomized in a 1:1:1 ratio to 1 of 3 treatment groups, stratified by signs and symptoms composite score of up to 12 (moderate) and greater than 13 (severe).|Statistical analyses primarily descriptive with no formal statistical hypothesis testing. Summary statistics are presented by treatment group. For continuous variables, the number of observations, mean, standard deviation, median, minimum and maximum are provided as summary statistics.|||
90999436|NCT00607919|181882594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
90999437|NCT02665468|181882627|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.01
90999438|NCT03037307|181882653|OTHER||Least square (LS) mean difference|2.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.89|3.63||Treatment Comparison for study validity.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA: factors for participant (random effect); period \& treatment, participant-level \& period-level pre-treatment baseline bite force as covariates.|Difference is first-named treatment minus second-named treatment such that a positive difference favours the first named treatment.|||3.63|1.89|<.0001
90999439|NCT03037307|181882654|OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|2.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|3.0|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA: factors for participant (random effect); period \& treatment, participant-level \& period-level pre-treatment baseline bite force as covariates|Difference is first-named treatment minus second-named treatment such that a positive difference favours the first named treatment.|||3.00|1.25|<.0001
90999440|NCT01484561|181882689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geo Mean-Fold Change|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.86|0.98|||ANCOVA||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with change in logarithmic mGFR from baseline as dependent variable, treatment and logarithmic baseline as covariate.|Ratio of adjusted geometric mean-fold Change (CP-690,550-placebo vs. placebo-placebo)||0.98|0.86|
90999441|NCT01484561|181882690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geo Mean-Fold Change|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.11|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with change in logarithmic mGFR from baseline as dependent variable, treatment and logarithmic baseline as covariate.|Ratio of adjusted geometric mean-fold change (CP-690,550-placebo vs. placebo-placebo)||1.11|0.97|
90999442|NCT01484561|181882691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geo Mean-Fold Change|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.02|1.16|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with change in logarithmic mGFR from Period 2 baseline/the end of Period 1 as dependent variable, treatment and logarithmic Period 2 baseline/the end of Period 1 as covariate.|Ratio of adjusted geometric mean-fold change (CP-690,550-placebo vs. placebo-placebo)||1.16|1.02|
90999443|NCT01484561|181882692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geo Mean-Fold Change|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|0.97|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with change in logarithmic eGFR (MDRD) from baseline as dependent variable, treatment and logarithmic baseline as covariate.|Ratio of adjusted geometric mean-fold change (CP-690,550-placebo vs. placebo-placebo)||0.97|0.91|
90999444|NCT01484561|181882693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geo Mean-Fold Change|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.02|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with change in logarithmic eGFR (MDRD) from baseline as dependent variable, treatment and logarithmic baseline as covariate.|Ratio of adjusted geometric mean-fold change (CP-690,550-placebo vs. placebo-placebo)||1.02|0.96|
90999445|NCT01484561|181882694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geo Mean-Fold Change|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.08|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with change in logarithmic eGFR (MDRD) from Period 2 baseline/end of Period 1 as dependent variable, treatment and logarithmic Period 2 baseline/end of Period 1 as covariate.|Ratio of adjusted geometric mean-fold change (CP-690,550-placebo vs. placebo-placebo)||1.08|1.00|
90999446|NCT01484561|181882695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geo Mean-Fold Change|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|0.98|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with change in logarithmic eGFR (Cockcroft-Gault) from baseline as dependent variable, treatment and logarithmic baseline as covariate.|Ratio of adjusted geometric mean-fold change (CP-690,550-placebo vs. placebo-placebo)||0.98|0.92|
90999447|NCT01484561|181882696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geo Mean-Fold Change|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.02|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with change in logarithmic eGFR (Cockcroft-Gault) from baseline as dependent variable, treatment and logarithmic baseline as covariate.|Ratio of adjusted geometric mean-fold change (CP-690,550-placebo vs. placebo-placebo)||1.02|0.97|
90999448|NCT01484561|181882697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geo Mean-Fold Change|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.01|1.07|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with change in logarithmic eGFR (Cockcroft-Gault) from Period 2 baseline/end of Period 1 as dependent variable, treatment and logarithmic Period 2 baseline/end of Period 1 as covariate.|Ratio of adjusted geometric mean-fold change (CP-690,550-placebo vs. placebo-placebo)||1.07|1.01|
90999449|NCT01484561|181882698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geo Mean-Fold Change|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.02|1.08|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with change in logarithmic creatinine from baseline as dependent variable, treatment and logarithmic baseline as covariate.|Ratio of adjusted geometric mean-fold change (CP-690,550-placebo vs. placebo-placebo)||1.08|1.02|
91007067|NCT00808132|181898644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.428|||||||ANCOVA|||Sexual function: ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors and baseline as a covariate.||||0.428
91046361|NCT01730040|181978845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.2|||=|0.0025|TWO_SIDED|99.0|1.3|38.3||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Regression, Logistic|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||38.3|1.3|=0.0025
91046362|NCT01730040|181978845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.1|||=|0.0011|TWO_SIDED|99.0|1.6|52.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Regression, Logistic|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||52.2|1.6|=0.0011
91046363|NCT01730040|181978846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|128.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|14.2|1157.0||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Regression, Logistic|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant) for atorvastatin 40 mg baseline stratification). Statistical analysis used a multiple imputation approach followed by a Logistic regression model.||1157|14.2|<0.0001
91046364|NCT01730040|181978846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.9|||=|0.0015|TWO_SIDED|99.0|1.6|75.4||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Regression, Logistic|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||75.4|1.6|=0.0015
91046365|NCT01730040|181978846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.7|||=|0.0008|TWO_SIDED|99.0|1.8|101.1||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Regression, Logistic|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||101.1|1.8|=0.0008
91046366|NCT01730040|181978847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|116.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|14.7|927.5||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Regression, Logistic|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant) for atorvastatin 40 mg baseline stratification). Statistical analysis used a multiple imputation approach followed by a Logistic regression model.||927.5|14.7|<0.0001
91046367|NCT01730040|181978847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|2.5|68.8||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Regression, Logistic|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||68.8|2.5|<0.0001
91046368|NCT01730040|181978847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.9|||=|0.0004|TWO_SIDED|99.0|1.9|51.9||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Regression, Logistic|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||51.9|1.9|=0.0004
91046369|NCT01730040|181978848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|162.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|17.3|1520.5||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Regression, Logistic|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant) for atorvastatin 40 mg baseline stratification). Statistical analysis used a multiple imputation approach followed by a Logistic regression model.||1520.5|17.3|<0.0001
91046370|NCT01730040|181978848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|19.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|3.1|126.3||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Regression, Logistic|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||126.3|3.1|<0.0001
91046371|NCT01730040|181978848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.9|||=|0.0002|TWO_SIDED|99.0|2.2|88.1||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Regression, Logistic|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||88.1|2.2|=0.0002
91046372|NCT01730040|181978849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-21.1|||=|0.0004|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-36.3|-5.9||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Regression, Robust|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant) for atorvastatin 40 mg baseline stratification). Statistical analysis used a multiple imputation approach followed by a robust regression model.||-5.9|-36.3|=0.0004
91046373|NCT01730040|181978849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-25.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-40.2|-11.6||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Regression, Robust|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-11.6|-40.2|<0.0001
91046374|NCT01730040|181978849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-31.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-45.6|-16.4||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Regression, Robust|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-16.4|-45.6|<0.0001
91046375|NCT01730040|181978850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.9|||=|0.4456|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-7.0|12.9||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant) for atorvastatin 40 mg baseline stratification).||12.9|-7.0|=0.4456
91046376|NCT03407612|181978857|EQUIVALENCE|p \< 0.05 required for groups to have non-equivalent results.||||||0.67|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This analysis considers the baseline HOS-ADL measures.||||0.67
91046377|NCT03407612|181978857|EQUIVALENCE|p \< 0.05 required for groups to have non-equivalent results.||||||0.73|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This analysis considers the 6 week postoperative HOS-ADL measures.||||0.73
91046378|NCT03407612|181978857|EQUIVALENCE|p \< 0.05 required for groups to have non-equivalent results.||||||0.87|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This analysis considers the 12 week postoperative HOS-ADL measures.||||0.87
91046379|NCT03407612|181978857|EQUIVALENCE|p \< 0.05 required for groups to have non-equivalent results.||||||0.78|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This analysis considers the 6 month postoperative HOS-ADL measures.||||0.78
91046380|NCT03407612|181978858|EQUIVALENCE|p \< 0.05 required for groups to have non-equivalent results.||||||0.25|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.25
91046381|NCT03407612|181978859|EQUIVALENCE|p \< 0.05 required for groups to have non-equivalent results.||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04
91046382|NCT01552369|181978863|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0396|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.0396
91046383|NCT01552369|181978863|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.22||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|7.3|||Competing risk regression|Death was considered a competing risk.|The risk of CMV disease is 2.2x higher in the prophylaxis group when compared to the preemptive group|||7.3|1.01|0.048
91046384|NCT01552369|181978864|SUPERIORITY|log-rank test for equality of survivor functions||||||0.19|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.19
91046385|NCT01552369|181978865|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.58|||Mantel Haenszel||The odds of rejection in prophylaxis group compared to preemptive group|||1.58|0.45|0.60
91046386|NCT01552369|181978866|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|6.92|||Mantel Haenszel||The odds of graft loss in prophylaxis group compared to preemptive group|||6.92|0.13|0.96
90999450|NCT01484561|181882699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geo Mean-Fold Change|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|1.04|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with change in logarithmic creatinine from baseline as dependent variable, treatment and logarithmic baseline as covariate.|Ratio of adjusted geometric mean-fold change (CP-690,550-placebo vs. placebo-placebo)||1.04|0.98|
91046387|NCT01552369|181978867|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.24||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|8.69|||Mantel Haenszel||Odds of late disease in prophylaxis group compared to preemptive|||8.69|1.21|0.014
90999451|NCT01484561|181882700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geo Mean-Fold Change|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|1.0|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with change in logarithmic creatinine from Period 2 baseline/the end of Period 1 as dependent variable, treatment and Period 2 baseline/the end of Period 1 as covariate.|Ratio of adjusted geometric mean-fold change (CP-690,550-placebo vs. placebo-placebo)||1.00|0.94|
91046388|NCT01552369|181978868|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|2.23|||Mantel Haenszel||Odds of bacterial infection in prophylaxis subjects compared to preemptive|||2.23|0.61|0.64
91046389|NCT01552369|181978869|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.25||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|7.62|||Mantel Haenszel||Odds of fungal disease in prophylaxis group compared to preemptive|||7.62|0.66|0.18
91046390|NCT01552369|181978870|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.24
91046391|NCT01552369|181978871|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.69
91046392|NCT01552369|181978872|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.57
91046393|NCT01552369|181978873|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.61
91046394|NCT02322788|181978883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated mean ratio|1.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|2.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A linear mixed effect model based on restricted maximum likelihood analysis is used to estimate the treatment effect. PC20 in natural log scale is the response variable, treatment and period are the fixed effects, and patient within sequence is a random effect.||2.29|1.52|<0.001
91046395|NCT02322788|181978883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated mean ratio|1.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|2.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A linear mixed effect model based on restricted maximum likelihood analysis is used to estimate the treatment effect. PC20 in natural log scale is the response variable, treatment and period are the fixed effects, and patient within sequence is a random effect.||2.20|1.46|<0.001
91046396|NCT02322788|181978883|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The details of the sample size calculation is document at Section 8.2 the study protocol.|Estimated mean ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A linear mixed effect model based on restricted maximum likelihood analysis is used to estimate the treatment effect. PC20 in natural log scale is the response variable, treatment and period are the fixed effects, and patient within sequence is a random effect.||1.13|0.75|
91046397|NCT02322788|181978883|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The details of the sample size calculation is document at Section 8.2 the study protocol.|Estimated mean ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A linear mixed effect model based on restricted maximum likelihood analysis is used to estimate the treatment effect. PC20 in natural log scale is the response variable, treatment and period are the fixed effects, and patient within sequence is a random effect.||1.08|0.72|
91046398|NCT01252719|181978897|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The non-inferiority hypothesis test was a one-sided hypothesis test performed at the 2.5% level of significance. If the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in response rates in the mITT population was greater than -10%, the NI of oritavancin to vancomycin was concluded.|Difference in Proportions|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|4.7||||||||4.7|-5.5|
91046399|NCT01252719|181978898|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The non-inferiority hypothesis test was a one-sided hypothesis test performed at the 2.5% level of significance. If the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in response rates in the mITT population was greater than -10% the non-inferiority (NI) of oritavancin to vancomycin was concluded.|Difference in Proportions|3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|8.4||||||||8.4|-1.6|
91046400|NCT01252719|181978899|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The non-inferiority hypothesis test was a one-sided hypothesis test performed at the 2.5% level of significance. If the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in response rates in the mITT population was greater than -10% the NI of oritavancin to vancomycin was concluded.|Difference in Proportions|4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|8.6||||||||8.6|-0.5|
91046401|NCT03135899|181978904|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.059|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.064|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.048|0.165|||Mixed Models Analysis||BI 443651 100 μg is compared to placebo.|The mixed effects model included 'treatment' and 'period' as fixed effects, 'patient' as a random effect, and 'period baseline' as well as 'patient baseline' as covariates. No hypothesis was tested. The patient baseline was obtained by calculating the mean of the period baselines for each patient. Covariance structure variance component (VC) was used for random subject effect.||0.165|-0.048|
91046402|NCT03135899|181978904|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.037|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.064|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.144|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis||BI 443651 400 μg is compared to placebo.|The mixed effects model included 'treatment' and 'period' as fixed effects, 'patient' as a random effect, and 'period baseline' as well as 'patient baseline' as covariates. No hypothesis was tested. The patient baseline was obtained by calculating the mean of the period baselines for each patient. Covariance structure variance component (VC) was used for random subject effect.||0.070|-0.144|
91046403|NCT03135899|181978904|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.157|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.266|-0.047|||Mixed Models Analysis||BI 443651 1200 μg is compared to placebo.|The mixed effects model included 'treatment' and 'period' as fixed effects, 'patient' as a random effect, and 'period baseline' as well as 'patient baseline' as covariates. No hypothesis was tested. The patient baseline was obtained by calculating the mean of the period baselines for each patient. Covariance structure variance component (VC) was used for random subject effect.||-0.047|-0.266|
91046404|NCT03135899|181978906|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.168|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.595|0.977|||Mixed Models Analysis||BI 443651 100 μg is compared to placebo. Standard error of the mean is actually geometric standard error.|The mixed effects model included 'treatment' and 'period' as fixed effects, 'patient' as a random effect, and 'period baseline' as well as 'patient baseline' as covariates. No hypothesis was tested. The patient baseline was obtained by calculating the mean of the period baselines for each patient. Covariance structure variance component (VC) was used for random subject effect.||0.977|0.595|
91046405|NCT03135899|181978906|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.926|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.168|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.715|1.199|||Mixed Models Analysis||BI 443651 400 μg is compared to placebo. Standard error of the mean is actually geometric standard error.|The mixed effects model included 'treatment' and 'period' as fixed effects, 'patient' as a random effect, and 'period baseline' as well as 'patient baseline' as covariates. No hypothesis was tested. The patient baseline was obtained by calculating the mean of the period baselines for each patient. Covariance structure variance component (VC) was used for random subject effect.||1.199|0.715|
91046406|NCT03135899|181978906|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.845|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.169|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.651|1.095|||Mixed Models Analysis||BI 443651 1200 μg is compared to placebo. Standard error of the mean is actually geometric standard error.|The mixed effects model included 'treatment' and 'period' as fixed effects, 'patient' as a random effect, and 'period baseline' as well as 'patient baseline' as covariates. No hypothesis was tested. The patient baseline was obtained by calculating the mean of the period baselines for each patient. Covariance structure variance component (VC) was used for random subject effect.||1.095|0.651|
91046407|NCT03135899|181978908|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|3.95|||Regression, Cox||BI 443651 100 μg is compared to placebo.|The cox proportional hazard model included treatment and period as fixed effect and patient baseline as covariate. No hypothesis was tested. The patient baseline was obtained by calculating the median of the period baselines for each patient. A hazard ratio greater than 1 gives that active treatment is not-inferior to placebo.||3.95|1.31|
91046408|NCT03135899|181978908|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|3.53|||Regression, Cox||BI 443651 400 μg is compared to placebo.|The cox proportional hazard model included treatment and period as fixed effect and patient baseline as covariate. No hypothesis was tested. The patient baseline was obtained by calculating the median of the period baselines for each patient. A hazard ratio greater than 1 gives that active treatment is not-inferior to placebo.||3.53|1.22|
91046409|NCT03135899|181978908|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|4.47|||Regression, Cox||BI 443651 1200 μg is compared to placebo.|The cox proportional hazard model included treatment and period as fixed effect and patient baseline as covariate. No hypothesis was tested. The patient baseline was obtained by calculating the median of the period baselines for each patient. A hazard ratio greater than 1 gives that active treatment is not-inferior to placebo.||4.47|1.50|
91046410|NCT02914236|181978919|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Hypothesis was that the mean improvement in NOSE score exceeded 15 points||||||<0.0001
91046411|NCT02914236|181978920|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||binomial test|Success threshold required at least 55% of subjects to be responders||||||<0.0001
91046412|NCT00441350|181978930|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91046413|NCT00441350|181978931|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.0001
91046414|NCT00441350|181978932|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.0001
91046415|NCT00441350|181978933|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0001
91046416|NCT01715896|181978944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-3.5||||0.666|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.8|9.8|||Logit response Model||P-value and 90% unconditional exact confidence interval (CI) was calculated using the model of logit (response) = strata + treatment.|||9.8|-16.8|0.666
91046417|NCT01715896|181978945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-8.6||||0.293|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.0|4.8|||Logit response Model||P-value and 90% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the model of logit (response) = strata + treatment.|||4.8|-22.0|0.293
91046418|NCT01715896|181978946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-9.8||||0.156|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.1|1.4|||Logit Response Model||P-value and 90% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the model of logit (response) = strata + treatment.|||1.4|-21.1|0.156
91046419|NCT01715896|181978947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-11.6||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.2|0.0|||Logit Response Model||P-value and 90% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the model of logit (response) = strata + treatment.|||0.0|-23.2|0.108
90999452|NCT01484561|181882701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|36.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.64|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|23.6|48.73||Two-sided test at 5% significance level.|Normal approximation for proportions|||Between-group difference in ACR20 Response at End of Period 1||48.73|23.60|<0.001
90999453|NCT01484561|181882701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.14||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.56|29.34||Two-sided test at 5% significance level.|Normal approximation for proportions|||Between-group difference in ACR20 Response at End of Period 2||29.34|2.56|0.050
90999454|NCT01484561|181882702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.94|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|11.24|30.8||Two-sided test at 5% significance level.|Normal approximation for proportions|||Between-group difference in ACR50 Response at End of Period 1||30.80|11.24|<0.001
91046420|NCT01715896|181978948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-10.3||||0.208|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.7|3.0|||Logit Response Model||P-value and 90% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the model of logit (response) = strata + treatment.|||3.0|-23.7|0.2080
91046421|NCT01715896|181978955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean difference|-7.42||||0.213|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.24|2.4|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 90% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term.|||2.40|-17.24|0.213
91046422|NCT01715896|181978957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.61||||0.129|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.36|1.04|||Proportional odds analysis||Odds ratio, 90% CI and p-value were was calculated using proportional odds analysis of response model including treatment as a factor.|||1.04|0.36|0.129
91046423|NCT01715896|181978958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-11.6||||0.108||90.0|-23.2|0.0|||Regression, Logistic||90% CI was calculated for the treatment difference in proportion of responders using logisitic regression with strata and treatment as factors.|DAS28 (CRP) remission: p-value estimated from fisher's exact test when number of golimumab or active responders was less than 5.||0.0|-23.2|0.108
91046424|NCT01715896|181978958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-11.7||||0.145|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-24.8|1.4|||Regression, Logistic||90% CI was calculated for the treatment difference in proportion of responders using logisitic regression with strata and treatment as factors.|The analysis reported DAS28 (CRP) low disease activity response.||1.4|-24.8|0.145
91046425|NCT01715896|181978959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.328|||||||Log Rank|P-value was calculated using the Log rank test.||||||0.328
91046426|NCT01715896|181978960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Weibull model|P-value was calculated using an Weibull model.||||||0.003
91046427|NCT01715896|181978961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-1.7||||0.795|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.4|9.0|||Regression, Logistic||90% CI was calculated for the treatment difference in proportion of responders using logisitic regression with strata and treatment as factors.|P-value estimated from fisher's exact test when number of golimumab or active responders was less than 5.||9.0|-12.4|0.795
91046428|NCT01715896|181978962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-11.7||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.0|-2.5|||Regression, Logistic||90% CI was calculated for the treatment difference in proportion of responders using logisitic regression with strata and treatment as factors.|||-2.5|-21.0|0.048
91046429|NCT01715896|181978963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-11.9||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.6|-3.1|||Regression, Logistic||90% CI was calculated for the treatment difference in proportion of responders using logisitic regression with strata and treatment as factors.|||-3.1|-20.6|0.035
91046430|NCT01715896|181978964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-7.5||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.6|-1.5|||Regression, Logistic||90% CI was calculated for the treatment difference in proportion of responders using logisitic regression with strata and treatment as factors.|||-1.5|-13.6|0.061
91046431|NCT01715896|181978965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.01||||0.993|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.33|1.32|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 90% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including terms for treatment group, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|Analysis reported for change from baseline in swollen joint count at Day 169.||1.32|-1.33|0.993
91046432|NCT01715896|181978965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|1.23||||0.424|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.31|3.77|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 90% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including terms for treatment group, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|Analysis reported for change from baseline in Tender joint count at Day 169.||3.77|-1.31|0.424
90890002|NCT01571362|181644028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.271||0.1684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.16|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Randomization Baseline to Week 8.||0.16|-0.91|0.1684
90999455|NCT01484561|181882702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.13||0.006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.92|27.08||Two-sided test at 5% significance level.|Normal approximation for proportions|||Between-group difference in ACR50 Response at End of Period 2||27.08|6.92|0.006
90999456|NCT01484561|181882703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.95|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|12.06|25.05||Two-sided test at 5% significance level.|Normal approximation for proportions|||Between-group difference in ACR70 Response at End of Period 1||25.05|12.06|<0.001
90999457|NCT01484561|181882703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.53||0.038|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.51|13.12||Two-sided test at 5% significance level.|Normal approximation for proportions|||Between-group difference in ACR70 Response at End of Period 2||13.12|1.51|0.038
91007068|NCT00808132|181898644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.071|||||||ANCOVA|||Sexual function: ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors and baseline as a covariate.||||0.071
91007069|NCT00808132|181898645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.624|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 1-4: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.624
90999458|NCT01484561|181882704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.53|-0.78||Two-sided test at 5% significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Linear mixed-effects model for longitudinal data was used with actual value as dependent variable, treatment group, visit (baseline, end of Period 1, end of Period 2), treatment group by visit interaction as fixed effect, participant as random effect|||-0.78|-1.53|<0.001
90999459|NCT01484561|181882705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.028|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.83|-0.12||Two-sided test at 5% significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Linear mixed-effects model for longitudinal data was used with actual value as dependent variable, treatment group, visit (baseline, end of Period 1, end of Period 2), treatment group by visit interaction as fixed effect, participant as random effect|||-0.12|-0.83|0.028
90999460|NCT01484561|181882706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.32|1.04||Two-sided test at 5% significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Linear mixed-effects model for longitudinal data was used with actual value as dependent variable, treatment group, visit (baseline, end of Period 1, end of Period 2), treatment group by visit interaction as fixed effect, participant as random effect|||1.04|0.32|0.002
90999461|NCT01484561|181882707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.67|-0.84||Two-sided test at 5% significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Linear mixed-effects model for longitudinal data was used with actual value as dependent variable, treatment group, visit (baseline, end of Period 1, end of Period 2), treatment group by visit interaction as fixed effect, participant as random effect|||-0.84|-1.67|<0.001
90999462|NCT01484561|181882708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.031|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.88|-0.12||Two-sided test at 5% significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Linear mixed-effects model for longitudinal data was used with actual value as dependent variable, treatment group, visit (baseline, end of Period 1, end of Period 2), treatment group by visit interaction as fixed effect, participant as random effect|||-0.12|-0.88|0.031
90999463|NCT01484561|181882709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.36|1.15||Two-sided test at 5% significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Linear mixed-effects model for longitudinal data was used with actual value as dependent variable, treatment group, visit (baseline, end of Period 1, end of Period 2), treatment group by visit interaction as fixed effect, participant as random effect|||1.15|0.36|0.002
90999464|NCT01484561|181882710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.02||0.045|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.44|-0.74||Two-sided test at 5% significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Linear mixed-effects model for longitudinal data was used with actual value as dependent variable, treatment group, visit (baseline, end of Period 1, end of Period 2), treatment group by visit interaction as fixed effect, participant as random effect|||-0.74|-7.44|0.045
90999465|NCT01484561|181882711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.76||0.936|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.78|3.06||Two-sided test at 5% significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Linear mixed-effects model for longitudinal data was used with actual value as dependent variable, treatment group, visit (baseline, end of Period 1, end of Period 2), treatment group by visit interaction as fixed effect, participant as random effect|||3.06|-2.78|0.936
90999466|NCT01484561|181882712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93||0.03|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.04|7.42||Two-sided test at 5% significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Linear mixed-effects model for longitudinal data was used with actual value as dependent variable, treatment group, visit (baseline, end of Period 1, end of Period 2), treatment group by visit interaction as fixed effect, participant as random effect|||7.42|1.04|0.030
90999467|NCT01484561|181882713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.03|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.96|-0.55||Two-sided test at 5% significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Linear mixed-effects model for longitudinal data was used with actual value as dependent variable, treatment group, visit (baseline, end of Period 1, end of Period 2), treatment group by visit interaction as fixed effect, participant as random effect|||-0.55|-3.96|0.030
90999468|NCT01484561|181882714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.472|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.64|1.04||Two-sided test at 5% significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Linear mixed-effects model for longitudinal data was used with actual value as dependent variable, treatment group, visit (baseline, end of Period 1, end of Period 2), treatment group by visit interaction as fixed effect, participant as random effect|||1.04|-2.64|0.472
90999469|NCT01484561|181882715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.158|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.24|3.15||Two-sided test at 5% significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Linear mixed-effects model for longitudinal data was used with actual value as dependent variable, treatment group, visit (baseline, end of Period 1, end of Period 2), treatment group by visit interaction as fixed effect, participant as random effect|||3.15|-0.24|0.158
90999470|NCT01484561|181882716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.71|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-19.87|-7.59||Two-sided test at 5% significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Linear mixed-effects model for longitudinal data was used with actual value as dependent variable, treatment group, visit (baseline, end of Period 1, end of Period 2), treatment group by visit interaction as fixed effect, participant as random effect|||-7.59|-19.87|<0.001
90999471|NCT01484561|181882717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.04||0.029|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.58|-2.21||Two-sided test at 5% significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Linear mixed-effects model for longitudinal data was used with actual value as dependent variable, treatment group, visit (baseline, end of Period 1, end of Period 2), treatment group by visit interaction as fixed effect, participant as random effect|||-2.21|-15.58|0.029
91007070|NCT00808132|181898645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.868|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 5-8: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.868
91007071|NCT00808132|181898645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.087|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 9-12: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.087
91007072|NCT00808132|181898645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.425|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 13-16: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.425
91007073|NCT00808132|181898645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.307|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 17-20: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.307
91046433|NCT01715896|181978966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|4.89||||0.272|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.46|12.24|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 90% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including terms for treatment group, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|||12.24|-2.46|0.272
91046434|NCT01715896|181978967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|4.46||||0.319|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.92|11.84|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 90% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including terms for treatment group, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|||11.84|-2.92|0.319
91046435|NCT01715896|181978968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.16||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.42|0.74|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 90% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including terms for treatment group, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|||0.74|-0.42|0.640
91046436|NCT01715896|181978969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.18||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.03|0.34|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 90% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including terms for treatment group, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|||0.34|0.03|0.055
91046437|NCT01715896|181978970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|1.06||||0.752|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.79|1.41|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 90% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model including terms for baseline as a continuous covariate and treatment as a factor was used for the analysis.|||1.41|0.79|0.752
91046438|NCT01715896|181978971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|1.05||||0.725|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|1.3|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 90% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model including terms for baseline as a continuous covariate and treatment as a factor was used for the analysis.|||1.30|0.84|0.725
91046439|NCT01045993|181978980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|Proportional hazards regression model|P-value calculated using proportional hazards model with treatment term only in the model.||||||0.046
91046440|NCT01045993|181978981|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The statistical alternative hypothesis tested is that the survival curves of time to first perceptible relief confirmed by meaningful relief are not identical between two treatment groups, or equivalently, the hazard ratio between two treatment groups is not equal to 1.||||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|Proportional hazards regression model|P-value calculated using proportional hazards model with treatment term only in the model.||||||0.046
91046441|NCT01045993|181978982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|ANOVA|P-value calculated using analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with treatment term only in the model.||||||<0.001
91046442|NCT01045993|181978983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|ANOVA|P-value calculated using ANOVA model with treatment term only in the model.||||||0.002
91046443|NCT01045993|181978985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||95.0||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|ANOVA|P-value from ANOVA model with treatment term only in the model.||60 minutes timepoint||||0.012
91046444|NCT01045993|181978985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016||95.0||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|ANOVA|P-value from ANOVA model with treatment term only in the model.||120 minutes timepoint||||0.016
91046445|NCT01045993|181978985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|ANOVA|P-value from ANOVA model with treatment term only in the model.||180 minutes timepoint||||<0.001
91046446|NCT01045993|181978985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|ANOVA|P-value from ANOVA model with treatment term only in the model.||240 minutes timepoint||||0.002
91046447|NCT01045993|181978985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|ANOVA|P-value from ANOVA model with treatment term only in the model.||300 minutes timepoint||||<0.001
91046448|NCT01045993|181978985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|ANOVA|P-value from ANOVA model with treatment term only in the model.||360 minutes timepoint||||<0.001
91046449|NCT01045993|181978985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|ANOVA|P-value from ANOVA model with treatment term only in the model.||420 minutes timepoint||||0.003
91046450|NCT01045993|181978985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|ANOVA|P-value from ANOVA model with treatment term only in the model.||480 minutes timepoint||||0.001
91046451|NCT01045993|181978986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||95.0||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|ANOVA|P-value from ANOVA model with treatment term only in the model.||60 minutes timepoint||||0.012
91046452|NCT01045993|181978986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|ANOVA|P-value from ANOVA model with treatment term only in the model.||120 minutes timepoint||||0.002
91046453|NCT01045993|181978986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033||95.0||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|ANOVA|P-value from ANOVA model with treatment term only in the model.||180 minutes timepoint||||0.033
90999472|NCT01484561|181882718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.98||0.107|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|9.77||Two-sided test at 5% significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Linear mixed-effects model for longitudinal data was used with actual value as dependent variable, treatment group, visit (baseline, end of Period 1, end of Period 2), treatment group by visit interaction as fixed effect, participant as random effect|||9.77|-0.10|0.107
90999473|NCT01484561|181882719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.87||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.96|-7.84||Two-sided test at 5% significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Linear mixed-effects model for longitudinal data was used with actual value as dependent variable, treatment group, visit (baseline, end of Period 1, end of Period 2), treatment group by visit interaction as fixed effect, participant as random effect|||-7.84|-23.96|0.001
90999474|NCT01484561|181882720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.95||0.251|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.9|2.5||Two-sided test at 5% significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Linear mixed-effects model for longitudinal data was used with actual value as dependent variable, treatment group, visit (baseline, end of Period 1, end of Period 2), treatment group by visit interaction as fixed effect, participant as random effect|||2.50|-13.90|0.251
90999475|NCT01484561|181882721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.42||0.023|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.87|17.52||Two-sided test at 5% significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Linear mixed-effects model for longitudinal data was used with actual value as dependent variable, treatment group, visit (baseline, end of Period 1, end of Period 2), treatment group by visit interaction as fixed effect, participant as random effect|||17.52|2.87|0.023
90999476|NCT01484561|181882722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.58|-8.67||Two-sided test at 5% significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Linear mixed-effects model for longitudinal data was used with actual value as dependent variable, treatment group, visit (baseline, end of Period 1, end of Period 2), treatment group by visit interaction as fixed effect, participant as random effect|||-8.67|-21.58|<0.001
90999477|NCT01484561|181882723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.77||0.616|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.3|5.5||Two-sided test at 5% significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Linear mixed-effects model for longitudinal data was used with actual value as dependent variable, treatment group, visit (baseline, end of Period 1, end of Period 2), treatment group by visit interaction as fixed effect, participant as random effect|||5.50|-10.30|0.616
90999478|NCT01484561|181882724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.17||0.003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.82|19.62||Two-sided test at 5% significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Linear mixed-effects model for longitudinal data was used with actual value as dependent variable, treatment group, visit (baseline, end of Period 1, end of Period 2), treatment group by visit interaction as fixed effect, participant as random effect|||19.62|5.82|0.003
90999479|NCT01484561|181882725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.52|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.78|-7.82||Two-sided test at 5% significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Linear mixed-effects model for longitudinal data was used with actual value as dependent variable, treatment group, visit (baseline, end of Period 1, end of Period 2), treatment group by visit interaction as fixed effect, participant as random effect|||-7.82|-22.78|<0.001
90999480|NCT01484561|181882726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.83||0.247|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.62|2.38||Two-sided test at 5% significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Linear mixed-effects model for longitudinal data was used with actual value as dependent variable, treatment group, visit (baseline, end of Period 1, end of Period 2), treatment group by visit interaction as fixed effect, participant as random effect|||2.38|-13.62|0.247
90999481|NCT01484561|181882727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.67||0.04|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.95|17.41||Two-sided test at 5% significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Linear mixed-effects model for longitudinal data was used with actual value as dependent variable, treatment group, visit (baseline, end of Period 1, end of Period 2), treatment group by visit interaction as fixed effect, participant as random effect|||17.41|1.95|0.040
90999482|NCT01484561|181882728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.56|-0.23||Two-sided test at 5% significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Linear mixed-effects model for longitudinal data was used with actual value as dependent variable, treatment group, visit (baseline, end of Period 1, end of Period 2), treatment group by visit interaction as fixed effect, participant as random effect|||-0.23|-0.56|<0.001
90999483|NCT01484561|181882729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.053|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.31|-0.03||Two-sided test at 5% significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Linear mixed-effects model for longitudinal data was used with actual value as dependent variable, treatment group, visit (baseline, end of Period 1, end of Period 2), treatment group by visit interaction as fixed effect, participant as random effect|||-0.03|-0.31|0.053
90999484|NCT01484561|181882730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.1|0.35||Two-sided test at 5% significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Linear mixed-effects model for longitudinal data was used with actual value as dependent variable, treatment group, visit (baseline, end of Period 1, end of Period 2), treatment group by visit interaction as fixed effect, participant as random effect|||0.35|0.10|0.003
90999485|NCT01112982|181882731|OTHER|||||||0.34|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Presence of synovial pannus and the serum urate level.||||0.34
90999486|NCT01112982|181882733|OTHER|Spearman Correlation Coefficient||||||0.73|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||The Severity of Synovial Pannus and the Serum Urate level.||||0.73
90999487|NCT01112982|181882734|OTHER|correlation between severity of synovial pannus and the serum urate level.||||||0.73|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.73
90999488|NCT01112982|181882735|OTHER|||||||0.32||||||"The presence of synovial pannus in the index joint."|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.32
90999489|NCT01112982|181882736|OTHER|Kappa Coefficient||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The absence of erosive changes.||||0.09
90999490|NCT01112982|181882736|OTHER|the absence of Intraosseous Tophi.||||||0.33|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.33
90999491|NCT01112982|181882736|OTHER|The absence of Soft Tissue Tophi||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.09
90999492|NCT01112982|181882736|OTHER|The absence of Joint Effusion.||||||0.31|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.31
90999493|NCT01112982|181882736|OTHER|The absence of Bone Marrow Edema.||||||0.25|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.25
90999494|NCT01112982|181882736|OTHER|The absence of Soft Tissue Edema.||||||0.14|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.14
90999495|NCT01112982|181882737|OTHER|||||||0.32||||||"The Presence of synovial Pannus in the index joint."|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.32
90999496|NCT01112982|181882737|OTHER|||||||0.99||||||"The Severity of Synovial Pannus in the index joint."|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.99
90999497|NCT03371251|181882739|SUPERIORITY||Observed Difference vs. Placebo|2.0||||0.8434|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.5|18.5|||Pearson's chi-square test|||Statistical Analysis: SRI-4 Response||18.5|-14.5|0.8434
91046454|NCT01045993|181978986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.096||95.0||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|ANOVA|P-value from ANOVA model with treatment term only in the model.||240 minutes timepoint||||0.096
90999498|NCT03371251|181882739|SUPERIORITY||Observed Difference vs. Placebo|2.0||||0.8434|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.5|18.5|||Pearson's chi-square test|||Statistical Analysis: \>= 4-Point Reduction from Baseline in SLEDAI-2K Global Score||18.5|-14.5|0.8434
90999499|NCT03371251|181882739|SUPERIORITY||Observed Difference vs. Placebo|17.7||||0.0141|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.5|30.9|||Pearson's chi-square test|||Statistical Analysis: No New BILAG A or More than One BILAG B Organ Score Compared with Baseline||30.9|4.5|0.0141
90999500|NCT03371251|181882739|SUPERIORITY||Observed Difference vs. Placebo|17.7||||0.0141|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.5|30.9|||Pearson's chi-square test|||Statistical Analysis: No Deterioration from Baseline in PGA by \>=30mm||30.9|4.5|0.0141
90999501|NCT03371251|181882755|SUPERIORITY||Observed Difference vs. Placebo|-2.6||||0.7985|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-19.8|14.5|||Pearson's chi-square test|||||14.5|-19.8|0.7985
90999502|NCT03371251|181882756|SUPERIORITY||Observed Difference vs. Placebo|-6.9||||0.3498|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.9|9.8|||Pearson's chi-square test|||Statistical Analysis for Overall||9.8|-22.9|0.3498
90999503|NCT03371251|181882757|SUPERIORITY||Observed Difference vs. Placebo|-21.8||||0.0072|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-36.2|-7.4|||Pearson's chi-square test|||Statistical analysis for Overall||-7.4|-36.2|0.0072
91046455|NCT01045993|181978986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|ANOVA|P-value from ANOVA model with treatment term only in the model.||300 minutes timepoint||||0.002
91046456|NCT01045993|181978986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|ANOVA|P-value from ANOVA model with treatment term only in the model.||360 minutes timepoint||||0.005
91046457|NCT01045993|181978986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|ANOVA|P-value from ANOVA model with treatment term only in the model.||420 minutes timepoint||||0.008
91046458|NCT01045993|181978986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|ANOVA|P-value from ANOVA model with treatment term only in the model.||480 minutes timepoint||||0.004
91046459|NCT01045993|181978987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.268||95.0||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|ANOVA|P-value from ANOVA model with treatment term only in the model.||At Maximum degrees||||0.268
91046460|NCT01045993|181978987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.419||95.0||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|ANOVA|P-value from ANOVA model with treatment term only in the model.||At Minus 5 degrees||||0.419
91046461|NCT01045993|181978987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.086||95.0||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|ANOVA|P-value from ANOVA model with treatment term only in the model.||At Plus 5 degrees (beyond maximum)||||0.086
91046462|NCT01045993|181978988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.067||95.0||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|ANOVA|P-value from ANOVA model with treatment term only in the model.||At Maximum degrees||||0.067
91046463|NCT01045993|181978988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.757||95.0||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|ANOVA|P-value from ANOVA model with treatment term only in the model.||At Minus 5 degrees||||0.757
91046464|NCT01045993|181978988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.219||95.0||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|ANOVA|P-value from ANOVA model with treatment term only in the model.||At Plus 5 degrees (beyond maximum)||||0.219
91046465|NCT01045993|181978989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.043||95.0||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|ANOVA|P-value from ANOVA model with treatment term only in the model.||At Maximum degrees||||0.043
91046466|NCT01045993|181978989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.388||95.0||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|ANOVA|P-value from ANOVA model with treatment term only in the model.||At Minus 5 degrees||||0.388
91046467|NCT01045993|181978989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.039||95.0||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|ANOVA|P-value from ANOVA model with treatment term only in the model.||At Plus 5 degrees (beyond maximum)||||0.039
90999504|NCT03371251|181882757|SUPERIORITY||Observed Difference vs. Placebo|-17.7||||0.0141|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-30.9|-4.5|||Pearson's chi-square test|||Statistical Analysis for Day 210||-4.5|-30.9|0.0141
90999505|NCT03371251|181882758|SUPERIORITY||Observed Difference vs. Placebo|4.9||||0.6107|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.7|20.5|||Pearson's chi-square test|||||20.5|-10.7|0.6107
90999506|NCT03371251|181882759|SUPERIORITY||Observed Difference vs. Placebo|15.4||||0.1237|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.9|31.8|||Pearson's chi-square test|||||31.8|-0.9|0.1237
90999507|NCT03371251|181882760|SUPERIORITY||Observed Difference vs. Placebo|-13.7||||0.0581|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-26.7|-0.7|||Pearson's chi-square test|||Statistical Analysis for Overall||-0.7|-26.7|0.0581
90999508|NCT03371251|181882760|SUPERIORITY||Observed Difference vs. Placebo|-14.3||||0.0471|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-31.2|3.2|||Pearson's chi-square test|||Statistical Analysis for Day 210||3.2|-31.2|0.0471
90999509|NCT03371251|181882761|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference (BOS161721-Placebo)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.6596|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.63|0.94|||ANCOVA||This is based on LS Means|Statistical Analysis for CLASI-A (Total Activity)||0.94|-1.63|0.6596
90999510|NCT03371251|181882761|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference (BOS161721-Placebo)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.4105|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.27|0.81|||ANCOVA||This is based on LS Means|Statistical Analysis for CLASI-B (Total Damage)||0.81|-0.27|0.4105
90999511|NCT03371251|181882762|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference (BOS161721-Placebo)|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.11||0.8546|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.07|7.58|||ANCOVA||This is based on LS Means|Statistical Analysis for Day 210||7.58|-6.07|0.8546
90999512|NCT03371251|181882763|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference (BOS161721-Placebo)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.4455|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.63|1.71|||ANCOVA||This is based on LS Means|Statistical Analysis for Sum of Swelling for Day 210||1.71|-0.63|0.4455
90999513|NCT03371251|181882763|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference (BOS161721-Placebo)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94||0.3367|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.65|2.47|||ANCOVA||This is based on LS Means|Statistical Analysis for Sum of Tenderness for Day 210||2.47|-0.65|0.3367
90999514|NCT03371251|181882763|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference (BOS161721-Placebo)|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.255|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.34|1.86|||ANCOVA||This is based on LS Means|Statistical Analysis for Sum of Active Joints for Day 210||1.86|-0.34|0.2550
90999515|NCT03371251|181882764|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference (BOS161721-Placebo)|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.2498|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.34|1.93|||ANCOVA||This is based on LS Means|||1.93|-0.34|0.2498
90999516|NCT03371251|181882765|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference (BOS161721-Placebo)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.2558|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.02|0.12|||ANCOVA||This is based on LS Means|Statistical Analysis for Day 180||0.12|-0.02|0.2558
90999517|NCT03371251|181882766|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.39||||0.0479|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.18|0.88|||Log Rank||Hazard rate of BOS161721 120 mg / Hazard rate of placebo|||0.88|0.18|0.0479
90999518|NCT03371251|181882768|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference (BOS161721-Placebo)|4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.4||0.7898|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.92|31.7|||ANOVA||This is based on LS Means|||31.70|-22.92|0.7898
90999519|NCT03371251|181882769|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.33||||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.16|0.68|||Log-Rank Test (2-Sided)||Hazard rate of BOS161721 120mg / Hazard rate of placebo|||0.68|0.16|0.0083
91007074|NCT00808132|181898645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.689|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 21-24: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.689
91046468|NCT01045993|181978990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.797||95.0||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|ANOVA|P-value from ANOVA model with treatment term only in the model.||||||0.797
91046469|NCT01045993|181978991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.371||95.0||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|ANOVA|P-value from ANOVA model with treatment term only in the model.||||||0.371
91046470|NCT01045993|181978992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.122||95.0||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|ANOVA|P-value from ANOVA model with treatment term only in the model.||||||0.122
91046471|NCT01045993|181978993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.355||95.0||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|ANOVA|P-value from ANOVA model with treatment term only in the model.||At Maximum degrees||||0.355
91046472|NCT01045993|181978993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.371||95.0||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|ANOVA|P-value from ANOVA model with treatment term only in the model.||At Minus 5 degrees||||0.371
91046473|NCT01045993|181978993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.216||95.0||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|ANOVA|P-values from ANOVA model with treatment treatment term only in the model.||At Plus 5 degrees (beyond maximum)||||0.216
91046474|NCT01045993|181978994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.054||95.0||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|ANOVA|P-value from ANOVA model with treatment term only in the model.||At Maximum degrees||||0.054
91046475|NCT01045993|181978994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6||95.0||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|ANOVA|P-value from ANOVA model with treatment term only in the model.||At Minus 5 degrees||||0.600
91046476|NCT01045993|181978994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.294||95.0||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|ANOVA|P-value from ANOVA model with treatment term only in the model.||At Plus 5 degrees (beyond maximum)||||0.294
91046477|NCT01045993|181978995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.088||95.0||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|ANOVA|P-value from ANOVA model with treatment term only in the model.||At Maximum degrees||||0.088
91046478|NCT01045993|181978995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.625||95.0||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|ANOVA|P-value from ANOVA model with treatment term only in the model.||At Minus 5 degrees||||0.625
91046479|NCT01045993|181978995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034||95.0||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|ANOVA|P-value from ANOVA model with treatment term only in the model.||At Plus 5 degrees (beyond maximum)||||0.034
91046480|NCT01045993|181978996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with modified ridit scores.||||||<0.001
91046481|NCT01659736|181978997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value is for the condition (active TMS versus Sham) by time (pre, post, 3-month follow-up) interaction|ANOVA|||||||0.006
91046482|NCT00474851|181979007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|||||p (within group for subjects receiving norethindrone + conjugated estrogens)=0.05 p (within group for subjects receiving norethindrone + placebo)=0.65 p (between the two groups)=0.10|RMANOVA|||"Analysis followed the intention-to-treat principle. The time course of each measurement from baseline to 3, 6, 9, and 12 months was compared between arms by repeated-measures analysis of variance (RM-ANOVA), with an autoregressive covariance model to account for visit-to-visit correlation within subjects.~The primary test of treatment efficacy was time × treatment interaction. Adjusted changes over time and differences between trial arms were constructed from parameters of the RMANOVA."||||0.10
91046483|NCT00474851|181979008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||p (within group for participants receiving norethindrone + estrogens)=0.0001 p (within group for participants receiving norethindrone + placebo)=0.31 p (between groups)=0.02|RMANOVA|||"The time course of each measurement from baseline to 3, 6, 9, and 12 months was compared between arms by repeated-measures analysis of variance (RM-ANOVA), with an autoregressive covariance model to account for visit-to-visit correlation within subjects.~The primary test of treatment efficacy was time × treatment interaction. Adjusted changes over time and differences between trial arms were constructed from parameters of the RMANOVA."||||0.02
91050303|NCT02836496|181986903|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.34||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.63|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|Wilcoxon test stratified by Baseline OCS (0-\<=20 mg/day, \>20 mg/day prednisone or equivalent) and region.|Treatment comparison between placebo and mepolizumab 300 mg using rate ratio and 95% CI has been presented. Rate ratio \<1 indicates a lower flare rate with Mepolizumab compared with Placebo.|||0.63|0.19|0.002
91007075|NCT00808132|181898645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.285|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 25-28: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.285
91007076|NCT00808132|181898645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 29-32: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||1.000
91007077|NCT00808132|181898645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.065|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 33-36: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.065
91007078|NCT00808132|181898645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 37-40: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.014
91007079|NCT00808132|181898645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 41-44: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||1.000
91007080|NCT00808132|181898645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.226|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 45-48: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.226
91007081|NCT00808132|181898645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 49-52: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||1.000
91007082|NCT00808132|181898645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 1-4: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||< 0.001
91007083|NCT00808132|181898645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 5-8: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||< 0.001
91007084|NCT00808132|181898645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 9-12: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||< 0.001
91007085|NCT00808132|181898645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 13-16: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||< 0.001
91007086|NCT00808132|181898645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 17-20: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||< 0.001
91007087|NCT00808132|181898645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 21-24: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||< 0.001
91007088|NCT00808132|181898645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 25-28: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||< 0.001
91007089|NCT00808132|181898645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 29-32: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||< 0.001
91007090|NCT00808132|181898645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 33-36: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||< 0.001
91007091|NCT00808132|181898645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 37-40: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||< 0.001
91007092|NCT00808132|181898645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 41-44: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||< 0.001
91007093|NCT00808132|181898645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 45-48: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||< 0.001
91007094|NCT00808132|181898645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 49-52: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||< 0.001
91007095|NCT00808132|181898645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.317|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 1-4: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.317
91007096|NCT00808132|181898645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.531|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 5-8: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.531
91007097|NCT00808132|181898645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 9-12: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.610
91007098|NCT00808132|181898645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.848|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 13-16: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.848
91007099|NCT00808132|181898645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.551|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 17-20: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.551
91007100|NCT00808132|181898645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 21-24: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.300
91007101|NCT00808132|181898645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.299|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 25-28: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.299
90999520|NCT00294684|181882779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.14||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.57|||Log binomial|||RR greater than one indicates benefit of steriods and a P value of treatment success from a log-binomial model with these covariates: Treatment group, age a HPE, BASM as fixed effects, and site as a random effect.||1.57|0.83|0.43
90890003|NCT01571362|181644028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.244|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|-0.5|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Randomization Baseline to Week 12/Early Termination.||-0.50|-1.46|<0.0001
90999521|NCT00294684|181882780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.8|||Regression, Cox|||||1.8|0.6|0.99
90999522|NCT00294684|181882781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.6||||0.0973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.49|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS Mean difference reported as steroid minus placebo (negative values mean larger average values of total bilirubin in placebo).||0.3|-3.49|0.0973
90999523|NCT00294684|181882782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.3||||0.0552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.65|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS Mean difference of steroid minus placebo (negative values indicate larger average values of bilirubin in placebo)||0.05|-4.65|0.0552
90999524|NCT00294684|181882783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.39||||0.6607||95.0|-2.16|1.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS Mean difference of steroid minus placebo (negative values indicate larger average bilirubin in placebo)||1.38|-2.16|0.6607
90999525|NCT00294684|181882784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1603|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1603
90999526|NCT00294684|181882785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2801|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2801
90999527|NCT00294684|181882786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.4||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|3.14|||Log Binomial|||||3.14|0.62|0.41
90999528|NCT00294684|181882787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.3||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|2.92|||Log Binomial|||||2.92|0.03|0.29
90999529|NCT01515488|181882796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.2|<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.1|42.6|||t-test, 2 sided|DF=331.2||||42.6|22.1|<0.0005
90999530|NCT00996593|181882807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|65.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.0|80.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with complete response.|||80|50|
90999531|NCT00996593|181882808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|23.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|35.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with complete response.|||35|10|
90999532|NCT00996593|181882809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|38.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.0|53.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with complete response.|||53|22|
90999533|NCT00996593|181882810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|28.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.0|41.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with complete response.|||41|14|
90999534|NCT00996593|181882815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of responders|75.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.0|96.0||With prior response|Fisher Exact||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with response.|||96|54|1.0
90999535|NCT00996593|181882815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of responders|70.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.0|88.0||Without prior response|Fisher Exact||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with response.|||88|51|1.0
90999536|NCT00996593|181882816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.8
90999537|NCT00996593|181882817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of responders|31.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.0|54.0||With prior response|Fisher Exact||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with response.|||54|9|1.0
90999538|NCT00996593|181882817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of responders|17.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|33.0||Without prior response|Fisher Exact||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with response.|||33|2|1.0
90999539|NCT00996593|181882818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2
90999540|NCT00996593|181882819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.9
90999541|NCT01033487|181882832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0507|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0339|||ONE_SIDED|90.0|0.0059||||Emax Model|||Emax model was used with sequence, period and baseline covariate as fixed effects. Lower (1-sided) 90 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) was reported.|||0.0059|
90999542|NCT01033487|181882832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0788|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027|||ONE_SIDED|90.0|0.0431||||Emax Model|||Emax model was used with sequence, period and baseline covariate as fixed effects. Lower (1-sided) 90% CI was reported.|||0.0431|
90999543|NCT01033487|181882832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0927|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0277|||ONE_SIDED|90.0|0.056||||Emax Model|||Emax model was used with sequence, period and baseline covariate as fixed effects. Lower (1-sided) 90% CI was reported.|||0.0560|
90999544|NCT01033487|181882832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0613|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||ONE_SIDED|90.0|0.0215||||Emax Model|||Emax model was used with sequence, period and baseline covariate as fixed effects. Lower (1-sided) 90% CI was reported.|||0.0215|
90999545|NCT01033487|181882832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0105|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0309|||ONE_SIDED|80.0|-0.0371||||Emax Model|||Emax model was used with sequence, period and baseline covariate as fixed effects. Lower (1-sided) 80% CI was reported.|||-0.0371|
90999546|NCT01033487|181882832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0175|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0246|||ONE_SIDED|80.0|-0.0037||||Emax Model|||Emax model was used with sequence, period and baseline covariate as fixed effects. Lower (1-sided) 80% CI was reported.|||-0.0037|
90999547|NCT01033487|181882832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0315|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0294|||ONE_SIDED|80.0|0.0062||||Emax Model|||Emax model was used with sequence, period and baseline covariate as fixed effects. Lower (1-sided) 80% CI was reported.|||0.0062|
90999548|NCT01033487|181882841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0989|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.242|||ONE_SIDED|90.0|0.0676||||ANOVA|||Mixed effects analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used with sequence, period and baseline covariate as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a random effect. Lower (1-sided) 90% CI was reported.|||0.0676|
90999549|NCT01033487|181882841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1748|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0245|||ONE_SIDED|90.0|0.1431||||ANOVA|||Mixed effects ANOVA was used with sequence, period and baseline covariate as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a random effect. Lower (1-sided) 90% CI was reported.|||0.1431|
90999550|NCT01033487|181882841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1909|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0243|||ONE_SIDED|90.0|0.1594||||ANOVA|||Mixed effects ANOVA was used with sequence, period and baseline covariate as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a random effect. Lower (1-sided) 90% CI was reported.|||0.1594|
90999551|NCT01033487|181882841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1528|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0237|||ONE_SIDED|90.0|0.1222||||ANOVA|||Mixed effects ANOVA was used with sequence, period and baseline covariate as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a random effect. Lower (1-sided) 90% CI was reported.|||0.1222|
90999552|NCT01033487|181882841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0539|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0239|||ONE_SIDED|90.0|-0.0849||||ANOVA|||Mixed effects ANOVA was used with sequence, period and baseline covariate as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a random effect. Lower (1-sided) 90% CI was reported.|||-0.0849|
90999553|NCT01033487|181882841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.022|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0238|||ONE_SIDED|90.0|-0.0088||||ANOVA|||Mixed effects ANOVA was used with sequence, period and baseline covariate as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a random effect. Lower (1-sided) 90% CI was reported.|||-0.0088|
90999554|NCT01033487|181882841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0381|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0242|||ONE_SIDED|90.0|0.0068||||ANOVA|||Mixed effects ANOVA was used with sequence, period and baseline covariate as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a random effect. Lower (1-sided) 90% CI was reported.|||0.0068|
90999555|NCT01033487|181882842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0852|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0214|||ONE_SIDED|90.0|0.0576||||ANOVA|||Mixed effects ANOVA was used with sequence, period and baseline covariate as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a random effect. Lower (1-sided) 90% CI was reported.|||0.0576|
90999556|NCT01033487|181882842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1418|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0219|||ONE_SIDED|90.0|0.1136||||ANOVA|||Mixed effects ANOVA was used with sequence, period and baseline covariate as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a random effect. Lower (1-sided) 90% CI was reported.|||0.1136|
90999557|NCT01033487|181882842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1692|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0216|||ONE_SIDED|90.0|0.1413||||ANOVA|||Mixed effects ANOVA was used with sequence, period and baseline covariate as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a random effect. Lower (1-sided) 90% CI was reported.|||0.1413|
90999558|NCT01033487|181882842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1526|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0212|||ONE_SIDED|90.0|0.1252||||ANOVA|||Mixed effects ANOVA was used with sequence, period and baseline covariate as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a random effect. Lower (1-sided) 90% CI was reported.|||0.1252|
90999559|NCT01033487|181882842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0674|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0211|||ONE_SIDED|90.0|-0.0946||||ANOVA|||Mixed effects ANOVA was used with sequence, period and baseline covariate as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a random effect. Lower (1-sided) 90% CI was reported.|||-0.0946|
90999560|NCT01033487|181882842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0108|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0213|||ONE_SIDED|90.0|-0.0383||||ANOVA|||Mixed effects ANOVA was used with sequence, period and baseline covariate as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a random effect. Lower (1-sided) 90% CI was reported.|||-0.0383|
90999561|NCT01033487|181882842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0166|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.213|||ONE_SIDED|90.0|-0.011||||ANOVA|||Mixed effects ANOVA was used with sequence, period and baseline covariate as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a random effect. Lower (1-sided) 90% CI was reported.|||-0.0110|
90999562|NCT00871572|181882898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.94||||0.0296|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.64|-0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.23|-1.64|0.0296
90999563|NCT00871572|181882898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.76||||0.0418|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.37|-0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.15|-1.37|0.0418
90999564|NCT00871572|181882898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.76||||0.0514|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.41|-0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.12|-1.41|0.0514
90999565|NCT00871572|181882899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.62||||0.2565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.46|1.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.21|-4.46|0.2565
90999566|NCT00871572|181882899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.86||||0.1245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.25|0.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.53|-4.25|0.1245
90999567|NCT00871572|181882899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.41||||0.0594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.92|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.10|-4.92|0.0594
90999568|NCT00871572|181882900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-124.56||||0.4978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-490.02|240.9|||ANCOVA|||||240.90|-490.02|0.4978
90999569|NCT00871572|181882900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-338.64||||0.0372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-656.55|-20.72|||ANCOVA|||||-20.72|-656.55|0.0372
90999570|NCT00871572|181882900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-466.83||||0.0068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-799.48|-134.18|||ANCOVA|||||-134.18|-799.48|0.0068
90999571|NCT00871572|181882901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.7|||ANCOVA|||||0.7|-0.5|0.814
90999572|NCT00871572|181882901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.7|||ANCOVA|||||0.7|-0.4|0.681
90999573|NCT00871572|181882901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.5|||ANCOVA|||||0.5|-0.7|0.715
90999574|NCT00871572|181882904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.56||||0.0248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.03|-3.09||P-value is for Pre-Morning Meal (fasting).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.09|-44.03|0.0248
90999575|NCT00871572|181882904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-35.28||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.08|-17.48||P-value is for Pre-Morning Meal (fasting).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-17.48|-53.08|0.0002
90999576|NCT00871572|181882904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-39.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.12|-20.53||P-value is for Pre-Morning Meal (fasting).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-20.53|-58.12|<0.0001
90999577|NCT00871572|181882904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.42||||0.6513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.66|21.82||P-value is for 2 Hours After Morning Meal.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||21.82|-34.66|0.6513
90999578|NCT00871572|181882904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.2||||0.5045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.61|16.21||P-value is for 2 Hours After Morning Meal.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||16.21|-32.61|0.5045
90999579|NCT00871572|181882904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.2||||0.5774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.9|18.49||P-value is for 2 Hours After Morning Meal.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||18.49|-32.90|0.5774
90999580|NCT00871572|181882904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-35.81||||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.1|-11.53||P-value is for Pre-Mid-Day Meal.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-11.53|-60.10|0.0045
90999581|NCT00871572|181882904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-33.15||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.1|-12.21||P-value is for Pre-Mid-Day Meal.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-12.21|-54.10|0.0024
90999582|NCT00871572|181882904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-37.87||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.98|-15.75||P-value is for Pre-Mid-Day Meal.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-15.75|-59.98|0.0011
90999583|NCT00871572|181882904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-28.48||||0.0389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.47|-1.49||P-value is for 2 Hours After Mid-Day Meal.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.49|-55.47|0.0389
90999584|NCT00871572|181882904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.65||||0.1896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.24|7.94||P-value is for 2 Hours After Mid-Day Meal.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.94|-39.24|0.1896
90999585|NCT00871572|181882904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.56||||0.0729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.28|2.16||P-value is for 2 Hours After Mid-Day Meal.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.16|-47.28|0.0729
90999586|NCT00871572|181882904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-44.78||||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.79|-14.77||P-value is for Pre Evening Meal.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-14.77|-74.79|0.0041
90999587|NCT00871572|181882904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-54.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.42|-28.48||P-value is for Pre Evening Meal.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-28.48|-80.42|<0.0001
90999588|NCT00871572|181882904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-46.19||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.57|-18.81||P-value is for Pre Evening Meal.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-18.81|-73.57|0.0013
90999589|NCT00871572|181882904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-39.82||||0.0118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.51|-9.13||P-value is for 2 Hours After Evening Meal.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-9.13|-70.51|0.0118
90999590|NCT00871572|181882904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-43.8||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.42|-17.18||P-value is for 2 Hours After Evening Meal.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-17.18|-70.42|0.0016
90999591|NCT00871572|181882904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-39.56||||0.0065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.63|-11.48||P-value is for 2 Hours After Evening Meal.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-11.48|-67.63|0.0065
90999592|NCT00871572|181882904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-36.88||||0.0154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.43|-7.33||P-value is for Bedtime.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-7.33|-66.43|0.0154
90999593|NCT00871572|181882904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-46.5||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.93|-21.07||P-value is for Bedtime.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-21.07|-71.93|0.0006
90999594|NCT00871572|181882904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-42.07||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.13|-15.01||P-value is for Bedtime.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-15.01|-69.13|0.0029
90999595|NCT00871572|181882905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.62||||0.3815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.44|83.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||83.68|-32.44|0.3815
90999596|NCT00871572|181882905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.4||||0.8315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.12|55.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||55.93|-45.12|0.8315
90999597|NCT00871572|181882905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.25||||0.3658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.93|77.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||77.44|-28.93|0.3658
90999598|NCT00871572|181882906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|55.06||||0.2131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.24|142.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||142.37|-32.24|0.2131
90999599|NCT00871572|181882906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|89.68||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.27|166.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||166.10|13.27|0.0220
90999600|NCT00871572|181882906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|107.26||||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.29|188.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||188.22|26.29|0.0101
91046484|NCT03478865|181979009|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.54||||0.259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.91|2.83||Result of statistical analyses were considered significant if the p-value from the two-sided test was \<0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|Student's paired t-test||The estimate was the difference in mean change in RIT between baseline and the treatment completion visit.|"Analysis: Student's paired t-test on study eyes alone at a two-sided Type I error rate of 5%.~Null hypothesis: the mean RIT at Baseline = the mean RIT at the treatment completion visit (Month 2 for Cohort 1)."||2.83|-7.91|0.259
91046485|NCT03478865|181979009|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27||||0.818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.66|4.12||Result of statistical analyses were considered significant if the p-value from the two-sided test was \<0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|Student's paired t-test||The estimate was the difference in mean change in RIT between baseline and the treatment completion visit.|"Analysis: Student's paired t-test on study eyes alone at a two-sided Type I error rate of 5%.~Null hypothesis: the mean RIT at Baseline = the mean RIT at the treatment completion visit (Month 1 for Cohort 2)."||4.12|-4.66|0.818
91046486|NCT03478865|181979010|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.56||||0.365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.24|6.12||Result of statistical analyses were considered significant if the p-value from the two-sided test was \<0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|Student's paired t-test||The estimate was the difference in mean change in RIT between baseline and the post-treatment follow-up visit.|"Analysis: Student's paired t-test on study eyes alone at a two-sided Type I error rate of 5%.~Null hypothesis: the mean RIT at Baseline = the mean RIT at the post-treatment follow-up visit (Month 3 for Cohort 1)."||6.12|-13.24|0.365
91046487|NCT03478865|181979010|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.23||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.94|19.41||Result of statistical analyses were considered significant if the p-value from the two-sided test was \<0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|Student's paired t-test||The estimate was the difference in mean change in RIT between baseline and the post-treatment follow-up visit.|"Analysis: Student's paired t-test on study eyes alone at a two-sided Type I error rate of 5%.~Null hypothesis: the mean RIT at Baseline = the mean RIT at the post-treatment follow-up visit (Month 2 for Cohort 2)."||19.41|-12.94|0.480
91046488|NCT03005067|181979032|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.137||||0.516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.279|0.553||P-value was based on the Wald statistic Chi-Square test, from an ANCOVA model with treatment, center, and Day 1 dosing time stratification as factors and baseline NSS (Day 1 prior to the first dose) as a covariate.|ANCOVA||Difference of LS mean is 1146A Formulation Nasal Spray - Placebo Nasal Spray. 95% CI is for difference of LS means.|||0.553|-0.279|0.516
91046489|NCT02296853|181979036|EQUIVALENCE|"Sample size calculations were done in Query Advisor 6.0 by using the Two-group t-test of equal means (equal n's) module with α (one-sided) = 0.05, upper equivalence limit = ln(2.0) = 0.691, and expected difference = 0."|GLSM ratio percentage|54.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|41.98|69.56|||||Here, GLSM is geometric least square mean.|TAF: Severe Hepatic Impairment Group vs. Matched Normal Hepatic Function Group||69.56|41.98|
91046490|NCT02296853|181979036|EQUIVALENCE|"Sample size calculations were done in Query Advisor 6.0 by using the Two-group t-test of equal means (equal n's) module with α (one-sided) = 0.05, upper equivalence limit = ln(2.0) = 0.691, and expected difference = 0."|GLSM ratio percentage|63.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|42.9|92.7||||||TFV: Severe Hepatic Impairment Group vs. Matched Normal Hepatic Function Group||92.70|42.90|
91046491|NCT02296853|181979036|EQUIVALENCE|"Sample size calculations were done in Query Advisor 6.0 by using the Two-group t-test of equal means (equal n's) module with α (one-sided) = 0.05, upper equivalence limit = ln(2.0) = 0.691, and expected difference = 0."|GLSM ratio percentage|94.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|72.48|122.99||||||Free (unbound) TAF: Severe Hepatic Impairment Group vs. Matched Normal Hepatic Function Group||122.99|72.48|
91046492|NCT02296853|181979037|EQUIVALENCE|"Sample size calculations were done in Query Advisor 6.0 by using the Two-group t-test of equal means (equal n's) module with α (one-sided) = 0.05, upper equivalence limit = ln(2.0) = 0.691, and expected difference = 0."|GLSM ratio percentage|45.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|31.66|64.25||||||TAF: Severe Hepatic Impairment Group vs. Matched Normal Hepatic Function Group||64.25|31.66|
91046493|NCT02296853|181979037|EQUIVALENCE|"Sample size calculations were done in Query Advisor 6.0 by using the Two-group t-test of equal means (equal n's) module with α (one-sided) = 0.05, upper equivalence limit = ln(2.0) = 0.691, and expected difference = 0."|GLSM ratio percentage|89.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|64.77|124.72||||||TFV: Severe Hepatic Impairment Group vs. Matched Normal Hepatic Function Group||124.72|64.77|
91046494|NCT02296853|181979037|EQUIVALENCE|"Sample size calculations were done in Query Advisor 6.0 by using the Two-group t-test of equal means (equal n's) module with α (one-sided) = 0.05, upper equivalence limit = ln(2.0) = 0.691, and expected difference = 0."|GLSM ratio percentage|82.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|56.58|119.31||"Sample size calculations were done in Query Advisor 6.0 by using the Two-group t-test of equal means (equal n's) module with α (one-sided) = 0.05, upper equivalence limit = ln(2.0) = 0.691, and expected difference = 0."||||Free (unbound) TAF: Severe Hepatic Impairment Group vs. Matched Normal Hepatic Function Group||119.31|56.58|
91046495|NCT02296853|181979038|EQUIVALENCE|"Sample size calculations were done in Query Advisor 6.0 by using the Two-group t-test of equal means (equal n's) module with α (one-sided) = 0.05, upper equivalence limit = ln(2.0) = 0.691, and expected difference = 0."|GLSM ratio percentage|51.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|40.11|65.36||||||TAF: Severe Hepatic Impairment Group vs. Matched Normal Hepatic Function Group||65.36|40.11|
91046496|NCT02296853|181979038|EQUIVALENCE|"Sample size calculations were done in Query Advisor 6.0 by using the Two-group t-test of equal means (equal n's) module with α (one-sided) = 0.05, upper equivalence limit = ln(2.0) = 0.691, and expected difference = 0."|GLSM ratio percentage|62.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|41.92|91.82||||||TFV: Severe Hepatic Impairment Group vs. Matched Normal Hepatic Function Group||91.82|41.92|
91046497|NCT02296853|181979038|EQUIVALENCE|"Sample size calculations were done in Query Advisor 6.0 by using the Two-group t-test of equal means (equal n's) module with α (one-sided) = 0.05, upper equivalence limit = ln(2.0) = 0.691, and expected difference = 0."|GLSM ratio percentage|93.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|72.62|119.8||||||Free (unbound) TAF: Severe Hepatic Impairment Group vs. Matched Normal Hepatic Function Group||119.8|72.62|
91046498|NCT02310763|181979132|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.293|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.022||0.2088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7343|3.32||The significance level is 0.05.|ANCOVA||Least square mean difference was calculated by placebo minus domagrozumab.|||3.3200|-0.7343|0.2088
90999601|NCT00871572|181882907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.87||||0.1596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|4.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.49|-0.75|0.1596
90999602|NCT00871572|181882907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.03||||0.0791|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|4.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.31|-0.24|0.0791
90999603|NCT00871572|181882907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.71||||0.1564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|4.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.10|-0.67|0.1564
90999604|NCT00871572|181882908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8018.51||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13104.14|29141.16|||ANCOVA|||||29141.16|-13104.14|0.4500
90999605|NCT00871572|181882908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5174.85||||0.5739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13158.65|23508.35|||ANCOVA|||||23508.35|-13158.65|0.5739
90999606|NCT00871572|181882908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18153.92||||0.0653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1188.23|37496.06|||ANCOVA|||||37496.06|-1188.23|0.0653
90999607|NCT00871572|181882909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18094.32||||0.6209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54734.08|90922.71|||ANCOVA|||||90922.71|-54734.08|0.6209
90999608|NCT00871572|181882909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5783.59||||0.8581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58650.71|70217.89|||ANCOVA|||||70217.89|-58650.71|0.8581
91046499|NCT02310763|181979136|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0845||||0.9191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7354|1.5663||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Week 17||1.5663|-1.7354|0.9191
90999609|NCT00871572|181882909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|36218.98||||0.285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30955.5|103393.46|||ANCOVA|||||103393.46|-30955.50|0.2850
90999610|NCT00871572|181882910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.4|||ANCOVA|||||0.4|-0.7|0.584
90999611|NCT00871572|181882910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.3|||ANCOVA|||||0.3|-0.7|0.426
90999612|NCT00871572|181882910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.4|||ANCOVA|||||0.4|-0.6|0.657
91046500|NCT02310763|181979136|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5837||||0.7642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2978|4.4652||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Week 33||4.4652|-3.2978|0.7642
90999613|NCT00871572|181882911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.4|||ANCOVA|||||0.4|-0.1|0.365
91046501|NCT02310763|181979136|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2712||||0.9423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3799|7.9223||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Week 49||7.9223|-7.3799|0.9423
91046502|NCT02310763|181979137|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.9993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0693|0.0693||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Week 17||0.0693|-0.0693|0.9993
91046503|NCT02310763|181979137|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0259||||0.5464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1107|0.0589||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Week 33||0.0589|-0.1107|0.5464
91046504|NCT02310763|181979137|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.042||||0.3041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1227|0.0386||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Week 49||0.0386|-0.1227|0.3041
91046505|NCT02310763|181979138|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8||||0.3522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|2.5||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Week 17||2.5|-0.9|0.3522
91046506|NCT02310763|181979138|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.5||||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|4.2||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Week 33||4.2|0.7|0.0061
91046507|NCT02310763|181979138|SUPERIORITY|Week 49|Mean Difference (Net)|1.6||||0.1268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|3.8||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|||3.8|-0.5|0.1268
91046508|NCT02310763|181979139|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.7337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|2.1||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Left ankle, Week 17||2.1|-2.9|0.7337
91046509|NCT02310763|181979139|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.8893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|2.7||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Left ankle, Week 33||2.7|-2.4|0.8893
91046510|NCT02310763|181979139|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.5||||0.2939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|1.3||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Left ankle, Week 49||1.3|-4.3|0.2939
91046511|NCT02310763|181979139|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8||||0.5995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|3.6||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Right ankle, Week 17||3.6|-2.1|0.5995
91046512|NCT02310763|181979139|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.9||||0.0385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|5.6||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Right ankle, Week 33||5.6|0.2|0.0385
91046513|NCT02310763|181979139|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.9927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|3.2||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Right ankle, Week 49||3.2|-3.3|0.9927
91046514|NCT02310763|181979140|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.6049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.0||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Week 17||1.0|-1.7|0.6049
91046515|NCT02310763|181979140|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.7||||0.2065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|4.4||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Week 33||4.4|-1.0|0.2065
91046516|NCT02310763|181979140|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.9391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.2||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Week 49||1.2|-1.3|0.9391
91046517|NCT02310763|181979141|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.8||||0.8499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.7|20.3||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Week 17||20.3|-16.7|0.8499
91046518|NCT02310763|181979141|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|8.9||||0.4008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|29.8||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Week 33||29.8|-12.0|0.4008
91046519|NCT02310763|181979141|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.5||||0.916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.0|27.0||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Week 49||27.0|-30.0|0.9160
91046520|NCT02310763|181979142|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.115||||0.5726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.287|0.517||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Left elbow extension, Week 17||0.517|-0.287|0.5726
91046521|NCT02310763|181979142|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.163||||0.4334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.574|0.248||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Left elbow extension, Week 33||0.248|-0.574|0.4334
91046522|NCT02310763|181979142|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.126||||0.5767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.573|0.321||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Left elbow extension, Week 49||0.321|-0.573|0.5767
90999614|NCT00871572|181882911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.4|||ANCOVA|||||0.4|-0.1|0.191
90999615|NCT00871572|181882911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.4|||ANCOVA|||||0.4|-0.1|0.297
90999616|NCT00871572|181882912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.4|||ANCOVA|||||0.4|-0.8|0.523
90999617|NCT00871572|181882912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.3|||ANCOVA|||||0.3|-0.7|0.476
90999618|NCT00871572|181882912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.4|||ANCOVA|||||0.4|-0.7|0.634
90999619|NCT00871572|181882913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.6|||ANCOVA|||||0.6|-0.6|0.919
90999620|NCT00871572|181882913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.6|||ANCOVA|||||0.6|-0.5|0.864
90999621|NCT00871572|181882913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.7|||ANCOVA|||||0.7|-0.5|0.726
90999622|NCT00735670|181882916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.445|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.445
90999623|NCT00735670|181882917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||REML|-0.31||||0.725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.15||Comparison of venlafaxine vs. placebo on change of PHQ-9 over time controlling for baseline PHQ-9 score.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A linear mixed model (LMM) analysis was used and included a random intercept effect based on lowest Akaike's Information Criterion values when we compared three random coefficient models (intercept, slope and intercept and slope). To examine whether allocation group influenced the effect of time and baseline PHQ-9 sore on the trajectory of PHQ-9 scores, we included two interaction terms (time by allocation group and baseline PHQ-9 score by allocation group).||-0.15|-0.48|0.725
90999624|NCT00187889|181882922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.7||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.8|3.6||The P-value applies to this comparison, without adjustment, to the completers of the trial.|Satterthwaite corrected t-test||An expanded definition of the outcome measure is the difference between the percentage change (week 16) and the percentage change week 0). This is a calculation based on 4 measurements.|The null hypothesis is that the treatments are equivalent with respect to the primary outcome. The Satterthwaite corrected t-tests adjusts for potentially unequal variance in the groups.||3.6|-22.8|0.15
90999625|NCT00187889|181882922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.72|||Satterthwaite corrected t-test||The Satterthwaite corrected t-tests adjusts for potentially unequal variance in the groups. This is a different outcome variable than the primary.|The null hypothesis is that treatments are equivalent on this outcome. The study was powered around the primary outcome. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was planned.||0.72|-0.79|0.92
90999626|NCT04046341|181882928|OTHER|||||||0.008||||||A priori statistical significance threshold = p\<.05|McNemar|||||||.008
90999627|NCT04046341|181882929|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014||||||A priori statistical significance threshold = p\<.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.014
90999628|NCT04046341|181882930|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013||||||A priori statistical significance threshold = p\<.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.013
90999629|NCT04046341|181882931|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||A priori statistical significance threshold = p\<.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.001
90999630|NCT04046341|181882932|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.209||||||A priori statistical significance threshold = p\<.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.209
90999631|NCT03954444|181882938|EQUIVALENCE|90% Confidence Interval, should be within -20% to +20%|Mean Difference (Net)|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.6|8.0||||||||8.0|-2.6|
90999632|NCT03954444|181882938|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.04
90999633|NCT03954444|181882938|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1126|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1126
90999634|NCT00435994|181882958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0020
90999635|NCT00435994|181882959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||ANOVA|||||||.0020
90999636|NCT03846219|181882984|SUPERIORITY||rate ratio|0.38||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.64||A one-sided alpha level of 0.1 was used.|generalized linear model|Estimates were adjusted for baseline volume of T2 lesions, MRI field strength (1.5 or 3.0 Tesla), and baseline number of Gd+ lesions (0, ≥1).|Rate ratio of 45 mg IMU-838 / placebo|H0: cumulative number of CUA MRI lesions up to Week 24 with 45 mg IMU-838 equal to or higher than that with placebo. A generalized linear model with a negative binomial distribution and logarithmic link function was used. Log transformation of time from 1st IMP dose to date of last MRI assessment was used as offset term. 51 patients per group were necessary to have 80% power to detect a difference of 3.5 in mean event rate with a significance level 0.1, 1-sided.||0.64|0.22|0.0002
90999637|NCT03846219|181882985|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.53||A hierarchical testing procedure with a one-sided alpha level of 0.1 was used.|Generalized linear model|Estimates were adjusted for baseline volume of T2 lesions, MRI field strength (1.5 or 3.0 Tesla), and baseline number of Gd+ lesions (0, ≥1).|Rate ratio of 30 mg IMU-838 / placebo|A generalized linear model with a negative binomial distribution and logarithmic link function was used. Log transformation of time from 1st IMP dose to date of last MRI assessment was used as offset term.||0.53|0.17|<.0001
90999638|NCT05109702|181883041|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094||0.764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.214|0.157|||MMRM|||The Least Square (LS) means, LS mean difference, Standard Errors (SEs), two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.157|-0.214|0.764
90999639|NCT05109702|181883042|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.969||0.144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.483|10.155|||MMRM|||The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||10.155|-1.483|0.144
91007102|NCT00808132|181898645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 29-32: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||1.000
91007103|NCT00808132|181898645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 33-36: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.660
91046523|NCT02310763|181979142|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.022||||0.9274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.489|0.446||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Right elbow extension, Week 17||0.446|-0.489|0.9274
91046524|NCT02310763|181979142|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.439||||0.0469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.872|-0.006||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Right elbow extension, Week 33||-0.006|-0.872|0.0469
91046525|NCT02310763|181979142|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.166||||0.4362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.587|0.255||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Right elbow extension, Week 49||0.255|-0.587|0.4362
91046526|NCT02310763|181979143|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.156||||0.5557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.679|0.367||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Left elbow flexion, Week 17||0.367|-0.679|0.5557
91046527|NCT02310763|181979143|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.303||||0.2669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.841|0.235||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Left elbow flexion, Week 33||0.235|-0.841|0.2669
91046528|NCT02310763|181979143|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.161||||0.4665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.598|0.276||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Left elbow flexion, Week 49||0.276|-0.598|0.4665
91046529|NCT02310763|181979143|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.083||||0.7335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.564|0.399||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Right elbow flexion, Week 17||0.399|-0.564|0.7335
91046530|NCT02310763|181979143|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.361||||0.1695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.877|0.156||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Right elbow flexion, Week 33||0.156|-0.877|0.1695
91046531|NCT02310763|181979143|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.189||||0.3783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.612|0.234||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Right elbow flexion, Week 49||0.234|-0.612|0.3783
91046532|NCT02310763|181979144|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.586||||0.1078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.303|0.13||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Left hip abduction, Week 17||0.130|-1.303|0.1078
91046533|NCT02310763|181979144|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.046||||0.8967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.654|0.746||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Left hip abduction, Week 33||0.746|-0.654|0.8967
91046534|NCT02310763|181979144|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.378||||0.3196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.128|0.371||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Left hip abduction, Week 49||0.371|-1.128|0.3196
91046535|NCT02310763|181979144|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.689||||0.0526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.386|0.008||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Right hip abduction, Week 17||0.008|-1.386|0.0526
91046536|NCT02310763|181979144|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.336||||0.3739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.082|0.41||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Right hip abduction, Week 33||0.410|-1.082|0.3739
91046537|NCT02310763|181979144|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.322||||0.4019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.079|0.436||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Right hip abduction, Week 49||0.436|-1.079|0.4019
91046538|NCT02310763|181979145|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.107||||0.7676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.825|0.61||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Left knee extension, Week 17||0.610|-0.825|0.7676
91046539|NCT02310763|181979145|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.322||||0.4127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.098|0.454||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Left knee extension, Week 33||0.454|-1.098|0.4127
91046540|NCT02310763|181979145|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.113||||0.7815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.693|0.919||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Left knee extension, Week 49||0.919|-0.693|0.7815
91046541|NCT02310763|181979145|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.236||||0.4975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.924|0.451||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Right knee extension, Week 17||0.451|-0.924|0.4975
91046542|NCT02310763|181979145|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.467||||0.2646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.294|0.359||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Right knee extension, Week 33||0.359|-1.294|0.2646
91046543|NCT02310763|181979145|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.149||||0.732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.008|0.71||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Right knee extension, Week 49||0.710|-1.008|0.7320
91046544|NCT02310763|181979146|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.044||||0.8569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.525|0.437||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Left shoulder abduction, Week 17||0.437|-0.525|0.8569
91046545|NCT02310763|181979146|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.154||||0.5495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.663|0.355||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Left shoulder abduction, Week 33||0.355|-0.663|0.5495
91046546|NCT02310763|181979146|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.023||||0.934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.566|0.521||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Left shoulder abduction, Week 49||0.521|-0.566|0.9340
91046547|NCT02310763|181979146|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.236||||0.3279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.711|0.239||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Right shoulder abduction, Week 17||0.239|-0.711|0.3279
91046548|NCT02310763|181979146|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.757||||0.0086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.318|-0.196||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Right shoulder abduction, Week 33||-0.196|-1.318|0.0086
91050304|NCT02836496|181986904|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|P-value was calculated using Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test||||||0.036
91007104|NCT00808132|181898645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.199|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 37-40: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.199
91007105|NCT00808132|181898645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 41-44: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.770
91007106|NCT00808132|181898645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 45-48: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||1.000
91007107|NCT00808132|181898645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.769|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 49-52: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.769
91007108|NCT00808132|181898645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 1-4: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||< 0.001
90999640|NCT05109702|181883043|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|0.363|||MMRM|||Week 1 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.363|-0.005|0.056
91046549|NCT02310763|181979146|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.439||||0.2328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.165|0.286||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Right shoulder abduction, Week 49||0.286|-1.165|0.2328
91046550|NCT02310763|181979147|EQUIVALENCE|The comparator was the natural history control group. The significance level is 0.05.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.211||||0.8908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8353|3.2573|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by Sequence 3 minus natural history control group.|||3.2573|-2.8353|0.8908
91046551|NCT02310763|181979148|SUPERIORITY|The comparator was the natural history control group. The significance level is 0.05.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.819||||0.4748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4514|3.0895|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by Sequence 1 minus natural history control group.|||3.0895|-1.4514|0.4748
91046552|NCT02310763|181979149|EQUIVALENCE|The comparator was the natural history control group. The significance level is 0.05.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.0097||||0.807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0692|0.0887|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by Sequence 3 minus natural history control group.|||0.0887|-0.0692|0.8070
91046553|NCT02310763|181979150|SUPERIORITY|The comparator was the natural history control group. The significance level is 0.05.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.0506||||0.3643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0594|0.1607|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by Sequence 1 minus natural history control group.|||0.1607|-0.0594|0.3643
91046554|NCT02310763|181979151|EQUIVALENCE|The comparator was the natural history control group. The significance level is 0.05.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.9||||0.0483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by Sequence 3 minus natural history control group.|||0|-5.7|0.0483
90999641|NCT05109702|181883043|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.359|||MMRM|||Week 2 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.359|-0.010|0.064
91046555|NCT02310763|181979152|SUPERIORITY|The comparator was the natural history control group. The significance level is 0.05.|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.9||||0.0146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|-0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by Sequence 1 minus natural history control group.|||-0.8|-7.0|0.0146
91046556|NCT02310763|181979153|EQUIVALENCE|The comparator was the natural history control group. The significance level is 0.05.|Mean Difference (Net)|-31.6||||0.1669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.9|13.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by Sequence 3 minus natural history control group.|||13.6|-76.9|0.1669
91046557|NCT02310763|181979154|SUPERIORITY|The comparator was the natural history control group. The significance level is 0.05.|Mean Difference (Net)|-66.3||||0.0267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-124.5|-8.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by Sequence 1 minus natural history control group.|||-8.1|-124.5|0.0267
91046558|NCT02310763|181979155|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0692||||0.7033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4345|0.2961||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\<3.5 seconds||0.2961|-0.4345|0.7033
91046559|NCT02310763|181979155|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2114||||0.6893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8472|1.27||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\>=3.5 and \<= 8 seconds||1.27|-0.8472|0.6893
91046560|NCT02310763|181979155|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.6439||||0.6469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4292|9.1414||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\>8 seconds||9.1414|-14.4292|0.6469
91046561|NCT02310763|181979156|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3289||||0.1353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7649|0.1072||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\<3.5 seconds||0.1072|-0.7649|0.1353
91046562|NCT02310763|181979156|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3457||||0.7648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9614|2.6528||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\>=3.5 and \<=8 seconds||2.6528|-1.9614|0.7648
91046563|NCT02310763|181979156|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|8.2893||||0.3562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6409|26.2194||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\>8 seconds||26.2194|-9.6409|0.3562
91046564|NCT02310763|181979157|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5582||||0.1163||95.0|-1.2615|0.1451||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\<3.5 seconds||0.1451|-1.2615|0.1163
91046565|NCT02310763|181979157|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0944||||0.9503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0798|3.2686||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\>=3.5 and \<=8 seconds||3.2686|-3.0798|0.9503
91046566|NCT02310763|181979157|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.2881||||0.2947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.8328|10.2566||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\>8 seconds||10.2566|-32.8328|0.2947
91046567|NCT02310763|181979158|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0159||||0.8229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.127|0.1588||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\<3.5 seconds||0.1588|-0.1270|0.8229
91046568|NCT02310763|181979158|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0132||||0.7709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1036|0.0772||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\>=3.5 and \<=8 seconds||0.0772|-0.1036|0.7709
91046569|NCT02310763|181979158|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0889||||0.3746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1219|0.2996||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\>8 seconds||0.2996|-0.1219|0.3746
91046570|NCT02310763|181979159|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0934||||0.2294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2481|0.0613||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\<3.5 seconds||0.0613|-0.2481|0.2294
91046571|NCT02310763|181979159|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0117||||0.8485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1339|0.1105||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\>=3.5 and \<= 8 seconds||0.1105|-0.1339|0.8485
91046572|NCT02310763|181979159|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0562||||0.6645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2187|0.3312||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\>8 seconds||0.3312|-0.2187|0.6645
91046573|NCT02310763|181979160|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1013||||0.2101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2622|0.0597||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\<3.5 seconds||0.0597|-0.2622|0.2101
91046574|NCT02310763|181979160|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0359||||0.4603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1326|0.0608||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\>=3.5 and \<= 8 seconds||0.0608|-0.1326|0.4603
91046575|NCT02310763|181979160|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1039||||0.3739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1386|0.3463||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\>8 seconds||0.3463|-0.1386|0.3739
91046576|NCT02310763|181979161|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.8925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|3.9||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\<3.5 seconds||3.9|-4.5|0.8925
91046577|NCT02310763|181979161|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.2||||0.2107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|3.2||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\>=3.5 and \<=8 seconds||3.2|-0.7|0.2107
91046578|NCT02310763|181979161|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.3||||0.2298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|3.5||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\>8 seconds||3.5|-0.9|0.2298
91046579|NCT02310763|181979162|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.5||||0.0554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|7.1||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\<3.5 seconds||7.1|-0.1|0.0554
91046580|NCT02310763|181979162|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.6||||0.2027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|4.0||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\>=3.5 and \<= 8 seconds||4.0|-0.9|0.2027
91046581|NCT02310763|181979162|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.9||||0.0926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|6.3||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\>8 seconds||6.3|-0.5|0.0926
91046582|NCT02310763|181979163|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.0||||0.3597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|6.3||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\<3.5 seconds||6.3|-2.4|0.3597
91046583|NCT02310763|181979163|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5||||0.7345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|3.3||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\>=3.5 and \<=8 seconds||3.3|-2.3|0.7345
91046584|NCT02310763|181979163|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.0||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|7.7||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\>8 seconds||7.7|0.4|0.0320
91046585|NCT02310763|181979164|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.2||||0.3345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|3.8||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\<3.5 seconds||3.8|-1.3|0.3345
91046586|NCT02310763|181979164|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|0.4||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\>=3.5 and \<= 8 seconds||0.4|-2.9|0.1400
91046587|NCT02310763|181979164|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9||||0.6764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|3.6||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\>8 seconds||3.6|-5.4|0.6764
91046588|NCT02310763|181979165|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.5||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|14.2||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\<3.5 seconds||14.2|-1.2|0.0970
91046589|NCT02310763|181979165|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.6919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.3||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\>=3.5 and \<=8 seconds||1.3|-1.9|0.6919
91046590|NCT02310763|181979165|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.6736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|3.9||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\>8 seconds||3.9|-5.8|0.6736
91046591|NCT02310763|181979166|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.9582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.5||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\<3.5 seconds||1.5|-1.5|0.9582
91046592|NCT02310763|181979166|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.8629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.5||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\>=3.5 and \<= 8 seconds||1.5|-1.8|0.8629
91046593|NCT02310763|181979166|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9||||0.6746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|3.7||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\>8 seconds||3.7|-5.5|0.6746
91046594|NCT02310763|181979167|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.8||||0.7483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.4|30.7||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\<3.5 seconds||30.7|-42.4|0.7483
91046595|NCT02310763|181979167|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3||||0.9053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.9|21.2||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\>=3.5 and \<=8 seconds||21.2|-23.9|0.9053
91046596|NCT02310763|181979167|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|13.1||||0.6896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.4|79.7||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\>8 seconds||79.7|-53.4|0.6896
91046597|NCT02310763|181979168|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.7||||0.8117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.8|27.5||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\<3.5 seconds||27.5|-34.8|0.8117
91046598|NCT02310763|181979168|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|7.3||||0.6018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.6|35.2||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\>=3.5 and \<=8 seconds||35.2|-20.6|0.6018
91046599|NCT02310763|181979168|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|16.3||||0.7152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.4|106.0||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\>8 seconds||106.0|-73.4|0.7152
91046600|NCT02310763|181979169|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|7.0||||0.719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.1|46.1||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\<3.5 seconds||46.1|-32.1|0.7190
91046601|NCT02310763|181979169|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-15.8||||0.4634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.9|27.3||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\>=3.5 and \<=8 seconds||27.3|-58.9|0.4634
91046602|NCT02310763|181979169|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.9||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.7|108.5||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\>8 seconds||108.5|-100.7|0.9400
91046603|NCT02310763|181979173|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.945||||0.0087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7597|5.1309||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Week 17||5.1309|0.7597|0.0087
91046604|NCT02310763|181979173|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.918||||0.0536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0461|5.8811||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Week 33||5.8811|-0.0461|0.0536
91046605|NCT02310763|181979173|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.087||||0.0298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4069|7.7677||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Week 49||7.7677|0.4069|0.0298
91046606|NCT02310763|181979174|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.575||||0.0684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1213|3.2715||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Week 17||3.2715|-0.1213|0.0684
91046607|NCT02310763|181979174|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.612||||0.0376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1521|5.0711||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Week 33||5.0711|0.1521|0.0376
91046608|NCT02310763|181979174|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.208||||0.0411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1318|6.2844||The significance level is 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Week 49||6.2844|0.1318|0.0411
91046609|NCT03396874|181979224|SUPERIORITY|Exact binomial proportion test, R statistical software package: R version 4.3.1 (2023-06-16)|PPV|87.3|||<|1e-07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|81.58|100.0||The exact p-value cannot be entered as it is equal to 2.2e-16.|Exact binomial proportion test|Exact binomial proportion test, R statistical software package: R version 4.3.1 (2023-06-16)||We determined the positive predictive value (PPV) (true positives / (true positives + false positives)) of 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET for presence or absence of prostate cancer confirmed by histopathology on a per-patient basis. On a per-patient basis, the PPV of conventional imaging ranges between 30-50%. The null hypothesis is that the PPV at 50% will be tested against the alternative hypothesis that the PPV is greater than 50%.||100.00|81.58|<0.0000001
91046610|NCT03396874|181979225|SUPERIORITY|Exact binomial proportion test, R statistical software package: R version 4.3.1 (2023-06-16)|PPV|92.3|||<|1e-07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|90.0|100.0||Per patient basis p-value = 2.2e-16|binomial proportion test|Exact binomial proportion test, R statistical software package: R version 4.3.1 (2023-06-16)||PPV, composite standard, per-patient basis: We determined the positive predictive value (PPV) of 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET for presence of prostate cancer confirmed by conventional imaging, clinical follow-up, and histopathology/biopsy where available. On a per-patient basis, the PPV of conventional imaging ranges between 30-50%. The null hypothesis is that the PPV at 50% will be tested against the alternative hypothesis that the PPV is greater than 50%.||100|90.0|<0.0000001
91046611|NCT03396874|181979225|OTHER|Exact binomial proportion test, R statistical software package: R version 4.3.1 (2023-06-16)|Sensitivity|95.29|||<|1e-07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.3|100.0||Per patient basis p-value = 2.2e-16|Sensitivity|||Sensitivity, composite standard, per-patient basis: We determined the sensitivity of 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET for presence of prostate cancer confirmed by conventional imaging, clinical follow-up, and histopathology/biopsy (composite standard of truth). On a per-patient basis, the sensitivity of conventional imaging ranges between 30-50%. The null hypothesis is that the sensitivity at 50% will be tested against the alternative hypothesis that the sensitivity is greater than 50%.||100.00|93.3|<0.0000001
91046612|NCT03396874|181979225|SUPERIORITY|Exact binomial proportion test, R statistical software package: R version 4.3.1 (2023-06-16)|Sensitivity|91.1|||<|1e-07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.2|100.0||p-value = 2.2e-16|Exact binomial proportion test|||PPV, composite standard, prostate or prostate bed: PPV of 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET for presence of prostate cancer confirmed by conventional imaging, clinical follow-up, and histopathology/biopsy where available (composite standard of truth). In the prostate or prostate bed, the PPV of conventional imaging ranges between 30-50%. The null hypothesis is that the PPV at 50% will be tested against the alternative hypothesis that the PPV is greater than 50%.||100.00|86.2|<0.0000001
91046613|NCT03396874|181979225|OTHER|Exact binomial proportion test, R statistical software package: R version 4.3.1 (2023-06-16)|Sensitivity|91.72|||<|1e-07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.74|100.0||p-value = 2.2e-16 Exact binomial proportion test, R statistical software package: R version 4.3.1 (2023-06-16)|Exact binomial proportion test|||Sensitivity, composite standard, prostate/prostate bed: We determined the sensitivity of 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET for presence of prostate cancer confirmed by conventional imaging, clinical follow-up, and histopathology/biopsy (composite standard of truth). In the prostate or prostate bed, the sensitivity of conventional imaging ranges between 30-50%. The null hypothesis is that the sensitivity at 50% will be tested against the alternative hypothesis that the sensitivity is greater than 50%.||100.00|86.74|<0.0000001
91046614|NCT03396874|181979225|OTHER|Exact binomial proportion test, R statistical software package: R version 4.3.1 (2023-06-16)|PPV|90.78|||<|1e-07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|85.74|100.0||p-value = 2.2e-16|Exact binomial proportion test|||PPV, composite standard, pelvic lymph nodes: PPV of 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET for presence of prostate cancer confirmed by conventional imaging, clinical follow-up, and histopathology/biopsy where available (composite standard of truth). In the prostate or prostate bed, the PPV of conventional imaging ranges between 30-50%. The null hypothesis is that the PPV at 50% will be tested against the alternative hypothesis that the PPV is greater than 50%.||100.00|85.74|<0.0000001
91046615|NCT03396874|181979225|SUPERIORITY|Exact binomial proportion test, R statistical software package: R version 4.3.1 (2023-06-16)|Sensitivity|96.97|||<|1e-07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.2|100.0||p-value = 2.2e-16|Exact binomial proportion test|||Sensitivity, composite standard, pelvic lymph nodes: We determined the sensitivity of 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET for presence of prostate cancer confirmed by conventional imaging, clinical follow-up, and histopathology/biopsy (composite standard of truth). In pelvic lymph nodes, the sensitivity of conventional imaging ranges between 30-50%. The null hypothesis is that the sensitivity at 50% will be tested against the alternative hypothesis that the sensitivity is greater than 50%.||100.00|93.20|<0.0000001
91046616|NCT03396874|181979225|SUPERIORITY|Exact binomial proportion test, R statistical software package: R version 4.3.1 (2023-06-16)|PPV|91.25|||<|1e-07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|84.19|100.0||p-value = 2.9e-15|Exact binomial proportion test|||PPV, composite standard, soft tissues: PPV of 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET for presence of prostate cancer confirmed by conventional imaging, clinical follow-up, and histopathology/biopsy where available (composite standard of truth). In soft tissues, the PPV of conventional imaging ranges between 30-50%. The null hypothesis is that the PPV at 50% will be tested against the alternative hypothesis that the PPV is greater than 50%.||100.00|84.19|<0.0000001
91046617|NCT03396874|181979225|SUPERIORITY|Exact binomial proportion test, R statistical software package: R version 4.3.1 (2023-06-16)|Sensitivity|93.59|||<|1e-07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.99|100.0||p-value = 2.2e-16|Exact binomial proportion test|||Sensitivity, composite standard, soft tissues: We determined the sensitivity of 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET for presence of prostate cancer confirmed by conventional imaging, clinical follow-up, and histopathology/biopsy (composite standard of truth). In soft tissues, the sensitivity of conventional imaging ranges between 30-50%. The null hypothesis is that the sensitivity at 50% will be tested against the alternative hypothesis that the sensitivity is greater than 50%.||100.00|86.99|<0.0000001
91046618|NCT03396874|181979225|SUPERIORITY|Exact binomial proportion test, R statistical software package: R version 4.3.1 (2023-06-16)|PPV|95.17|||<|1e-07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.12|100.0||p-value = 2.2e-16|Exact binomial proportion test|||PPV, composite standard, bone: PPV of 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET for presence of prostate cancer confirmed by conventional imaging, clinical follow-up, and histopathology/biopsy where available (composite standard of truth). In bone tissues, the PPV of conventional imaging ranges between 30-50%. The null hypothesis is that the PPV at 50% will be tested against the alternative hypothesis that the PPV is greater than 50%.||100.00|91.12|<0.0000001
91046619|NCT03396874|181979225|SUPERIORITY|Exact binomial proportion test, R statistical software package: R version 4.3.1 (2023-06-16)|Sensitivity|100.0|||<|1e-07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|97.85|100.0||p-value = 2.2e-16|Exact binomial proportion test|||Sensitivity, composite standard, bone: We determined the sensitivity of 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET for presence of prostate cancer confirmed by conventional imaging, clinical follow-up, and histopathology/biopsy (composite standard of truth). In bone, the sensitivity of conventional imaging ranges between 30-50%. The null hypothesis is that the sensitivity at 50% will be tested against the alternative hypothesis that the sensitivity is greater than 50%.||100.00|97.85|<0.0000001
91046620|NCT02563769|181979326|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.69
91046621|NCT02563769|181979326|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.46
91046622|NCT02598895|181979330|OTHER|||||||||||||||||The primary efficacy endpoint was percent patients achieving PSA decline of 50% or more from baseline (PSA50), assessed in the time prior to disease progression, unacceptable toxicity or 1 year after the last study medication. The historical comparison was PSA50 of 26%. The target response rate was 60%. The study followed an optimal two-stage Simon design (Simon, 1989) where the null hypothesis that the true PSA response rate PSA50 was 0.26 was tested against a one-sided alternative.|See above|||
91046623|NCT01192399|181979332|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Sign test|||||||<0.0001
91046624|NCT02377063|181979341|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.2||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.05 was defined as significant|ANOVA|||Comparison was made to day 4 minus day 0 (baseline) change of phylum Firmicutes after juice consumption||||0.014
91046625|NCT02377063|181979341|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.5||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.05 was defined as significant|ANOVA|||Comparison was made to day 4 minus day 0 (baseline) change of phylum Bacteroidetes after juice consumption||||0.026
91046626|NCT01221090|181979347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.771||95.0||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05|Likelihood Ratio Tests|||We used a multilevel statistical model including time (in days) as a continuous variable, where 0=baseline. The lowest level of the hierarchy was repeated measurements of HbA1c on each subject, with participants themselves constituting the 2nd level. Forward selection was utilized, in which powers of time were added one at a time to the base model including treatment group effects. Interaction terms between time \& treatment effects were added gradually and evaluated with likelihood ratio tests.||||0.771
91046627|NCT01221090|181979348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2176||95.0||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05|Regression, Linear|Robust variance estimates.||||||0.2176
91046628|NCT01221090|181979349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.572||95.0||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|Fisher Exact|||||||0.572
91046629|NCT01221090|181979350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26||95.0||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05|ANOVA|||"This analysis was to compare the average difference in days for the diabetes self-care activity, Test blood sugar."||||0.26
91046630|NCT01221090|181979350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21||95.0||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05|ANOVA|||"This analysis was to compare the average difference in days for the diabetes self-care activity, Test blood sugar the recommended times."||||0.21
91046631|NCT01221090|181979350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53||95.0||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05|ANOVA|||"This analysis was to compare the average difference in days for the diabetes self-care activity, Exercise at least 30 minutes."||||0.53
91046632|NCT01221090|181979350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24||95.0||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05|ANOVA|||"This analysis was to compare the average difference in days for the diabetes self-care activity, Participate in a specific exercise session."||||0.24
91046633|NCT01221090|181979350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||95.0||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05|ANOVA|||"This analysis was to compare the average difference in days for the diabetes self-care activity, Check feet."||||0.18
91046634|NCT01221090|181979350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19||95.0||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05|ANOVA|||"This analysis was to compare the average difference in days for the diabetes self-care activity, Wash feet."||||0.19
91046635|NCT01221090|181979350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87||95.0||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05|ANOVA|||"This analysis was to compare the average difference in days for the diabetes self-care activity, Soak feet."||||0.87
91046636|NCT01221090|181979350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53||95.0||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05|ANOVA|||"This analysis was to compare the average difference in days for the diabetes self-care activity, Dry between toes."||||0.53
91046637|NCT01221090|181979350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32||95.0||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05|ANOVA|||"This analysis was to compare the average difference in days for the diabetes self-care activity, Inspect inside of shoes."||||0.32
91046638|NCT01221090|181979350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37||95.0||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05|ANOVA|||"This analysis was to compare the average difference in days for the diabetes self-care activity, Follow healthful eating plan."||||0.37
91046639|NCT01221090|181979350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72||95.0||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05|ANOVA|||"This analysis was to compare the average difference in days for the diabetes self-care activity, Space carbohydrates."||||0.72
91046640|NCT01221090|181979350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59||95.0||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05|ANOVA|||"This analysis was to compare the average difference in days for the diabetes self-care activity, Eat 5+ servings of fruits and vegetables."||||0.59
91046641|NCT01221090|181979350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.004||95.0||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05|ANOVA|||"This analysis was to compare the average difference in days for the diabetes self-care activity, Eat high-fat foods."||||<0.004
91046642|NCT01221090|181979350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66||95.0||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05|ANOVA|||"This analysis was to compare the average difference in days for the diabetes self-care activity, Eat packaged foods (e.g., sweets and desserts)."||||0.66
91046643|NCT01221090|181979350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68||95.0||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05|ANOVA|||"This analysis was to compare the average difference in days for the diabetes self-care activity, Followed a healthful eating plan."||||0.68
91046644|NCT01221090|181979351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.685||95.0||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05|Regression, Linear|Robust Variance Estimation.||"This analysis was to compare the quality of life measure, Number of days physical health was not good in the past 30 days at the 12 month follow-up visit."||||0.685
91046645|NCT01221090|181979351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.997||95.0||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05|Regression, Linear|Robust variance estimation.||"This analysis was to compare the quality of life measure, Number of days mental health was not good in the past 30 days at the 12 month follow-up visit."||||0.997
91046646|NCT01221090|181979351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3067||95.0||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05|Regression, Linear|Robust variance estimation.||"This analysis was to compare the quality of life measure, Number of days poor physical/mental health prevented usual activity in the past 30 days at the 12 month follow-up visit."||||0.3067
91046647|NCT00440466|181979385|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assuming a difference in the mean change in hemoglobin from baseline to the average of the last 12 weeks of treatment of -0.3 g/dL between QW and Q2W groups, a pooled standard deviation of 1.5 g/dL, and a noninferiority margin of 1 g/dL, a sample size of approximately 200 subjects (100 per group) would provide 90% power to demonstrate that Q2W group would not inferior to QW group for an overall 2-sided 0.05 significance level.|Difference of Least Squares Means|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.092|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.208|0.153|||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was that the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in mean change in hemoglobin from baseline to the average of the last 12 weeks of treatment between the every-2-weeks (Q2W) and once-weekly (QW) groups would be lower than -1 g/dL.||0.153|-0.208|
91050305|NCT01340768|181986918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.52||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.94||P-value for association between treatment groups and proportions controlling for prior therapy (monotherapy or combination therapy).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.94|0.29|0.028
91050306|NCT01340768|181986919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.49||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.83||P-value for association between treatment groups and proportions controlling for prior therapy (monotherapy or combination therapy).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.83|0.29|0.006
91046648|NCT00440466|181979385|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Under the same assumptions in the sample size calculation for the QW and the Q2W, 100 subjects would be needed for the Q4W. However, because Study EPO-AKD-3001 and the current study both included QW and Q2W groups, the sample size would add up to 200 for each group if combined, the sample size in the Q4W group in the current study was increased to 200 subjects in order to enroll a comparable and sufficiently large number of subjects in each of the 3 extended dosing groups across the 2 studies.|Difference of Least Squares Means|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.079|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.249|0.063|||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was that the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in mean change in hemoglobin from baseline to the average of the last 12 weeks of treatment between the every-4-weeks (Q4W) and once-weekly (QW) groups would be lower than -1 g/dL.||0.063|-0.249|
91046649|NCT00440466|181979387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|10.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|21.7|||95% Confidence Interval|||||21.7|0.1|
91046650|NCT00440466|181979387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|11.2|||95% of Confidence Interval|||||11.2|-9.1|
91046651|NCT00440466|181979388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.113|0.372|||ANOVA|||||0.372|-0.113|
91046652|NCT00440466|181979388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.098|0.32|||ANOVA|||||0.320|-0.098|
91046653|NCT00440466|181979389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|8.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|18.3|||95% of Confidence Interval|||||18.3|-2.0|
91046654|NCT00440466|181979389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|10.3||||||95.0|1.5|19.2|||95% of Confidence Interval|||||19.2|1.5|
91046655|NCT00440466|181979390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|19.1|||95% of Confidence Interval|||||19.1|-7.7|
91046656|NCT00440466|181979390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|20.6|||95% of Confidence Interval|||||20.6|-2.5|
91046657|NCT00440466|181979391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.8|9.5|||95% of Confidence Interval|||||9.5|-15.8|
91046658|NCT00440466|181979391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|8.0|||95% of Confidence Interval|||||8.0|-13.9|
91046659|NCT00440466|181979392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.08||||||95.0|-0.367|0.208|||ANOVA|||||0.208|-0.367|
91046660|NCT00440466|181979392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.206|0.289|||ANOVA|||||0.289|-0.206|
91046661|NCT02065713|181979394|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.026|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||=0.026
91046662|NCT02997657|181979395|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.71
91046663|NCT02997657|181979396|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.81
91046664|NCT02997657|181979397|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.69
91046665|NCT02997657|181979398|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.96
91046666|NCT02997657|181979399|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.11
91046667|NCT02997657|181979400|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.90
91046668|NCT02997657|181979401|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.82
91046669|NCT04578886|181979416|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.7||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|4.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.4|2.3|0.22
91046670|NCT04578886|181979416|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.3307||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0571|1.6751||unadjusted for covariates|Regression, Linear|||"Null Hypothesis: The administration of guanfacine in critically ill patients in the intensive unit has no effect on the duration of delirium.~Continuous variables will be summarized using sample mean and sample variance whereas categorical variables will be summarized as proportions. Logistic regression models will examine whether age, gender, or comorbities associated with incidence of delirium when Guanfacine is administered."||1.6751|1.0571|0.0150
91046671|NCT00754442|181979417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||see above|t-test, 2 sided|95%||The null hypothesis is that there is no statistical difference between patients and controls at baseline||||0.1
91046672|NCT00754442|181979417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that there is no statistical difference between patients and controls at 4 hours||||0.002
91046673|NCT00754442|181979417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.003||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that there is no statistical difference between patients and controls at 8 hrs||||0.003
91046674|NCT00296491|181979457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|23.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.41|<|0.001||95.0|12.5|33.8|||t-test, 2 sided||Treatment Difference = FSC - MON|||33.8|12.5|<0.001
91046675|NCT00296491|181979458|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Given estimates, and assuming a significance level of a=0.05, a sample size of 133 subjects per treatment was determined to be sufficient to provide 80% power to show equivalance.|Mean Difference (Net)|-8.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.0|<|0.127||95.0|-24.6|6.9|||t-test, 2 sided||Treatment Difference=FSC+MON-FSC|||6.9|-24.6|<0.127
91046676|NCT03233958|181979467|OTHER|Due to the single group, pre-post design, the analysis simply investigated the effect of time.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91046677|NCT03233958|181979468|OTHER|Due to the single group, pre-post design, the analysis simply investigated the effect of time.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91046678|NCT03233958|181979469|OTHER|Due to the single group, pre-post design, the analysis simply investigated the effect of time.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.54||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.002
91046679|NCT03233958|181979470|OTHER|Due to the single group, pre-post design, the analysis simply investigated the effect of time.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.076|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.076
91046680|NCT03233958|181979471|OTHER|Due to the single group, pre-post design, the analysis simply investigated the effect of time.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51||||0.147|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.147
91050307|NCT02397408|181986951|OTHER||||||<|0.008|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<.008
90999642|NCT05109702|181883043|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.095||0.328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.093|0.279|||MMRM|||Week 4 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.279|-0.093|0.328
91007109|NCT00808132|181898645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 5-8: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||< 0.001
90999643|NCT05109702|181883043|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.096||0.837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.208|0.168|||MMRM|||Week 8 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.168|-0.208|0.837
91046681|NCT03233958|181979472|OTHER|Due to the single group, pre-post design, the analysis simply investigated the effect of time.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.07||||0.197|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.197
90999644|NCT05109702|181883044|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.079||0.686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.123|0.187|||MMRM|||Week 1 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.187|-0.123|0.686
90999645|NCT05109702|181883044|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.079||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.123|0.188|||MMRM|||Week 2 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.188|-0.123|0.680
90999646|NCT05109702|181883044|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.107|0.207|||MMRM|||Week 4 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.207|-0.107|0.529
91046682|NCT03233958|181979473|OTHER|Due to the single group, pre-post design, the analysis simply investigated the effect of time.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91046683|NCT00484419|181979484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0061||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||For a treatment group, assuming a within-subject standard deviation of at most 1.15, a 2-sided t-test of the null hypothesis that the change from baseline (CFB) is zero will have 67% to 85% power to detect a difference of 0.4 to 0.5 with a sample size of 50 randomized subjects.||||0.0061
91046684|NCT00484419|181979484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.109||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||For a treatment group, assuming a within-subject standard deviation of at most 1.15, a 2-sided t-test of the null hypothesis that the change from baseline (CFB) is zero will have 67% to 85% power to detect a difference of 0.4 to 0.5 with a sample size of 50 randomized subjects.||||0.1090
91046685|NCT00484419|181979484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||For a treatment group, assuming a within-subject standard deviation of at most 1.15, a 2-sided t-test of the null hypothesis that the change from baseline (CFB) is zero will have 67% to 85% power to detect a difference of 0.4 to 0.5 with a sample size of 50 randomized subjects.||||<0.0001
91046686|NCT00484419|181979485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0234||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||For a treatment group, assuming a within-subject standard deviation of at most 1.15, a 2-sided t-test of the null hypothesis that the change from baseline (CFB) is zero will have 67% to 85% power to detect a difference of 0.4 to 0.5 with a sample size of 50 randomized subjects.||||0.0234
91046687|NCT00484419|181979485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||For a treatment group, assuming a within-subject standard deviation of at most 1.15, a 2-sided t-test of the null hypothesis that the change from baseline (CFB) is zero will have 67% to 85% power to detect a difference of 0.4 to 0.5 with a sample size of 50 randomized subjects.||||<0.0001
90999647|NCT05109702|181883044|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.081||0.745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.132|0.185|||MMRM|||Week 8 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.185|-0.132|0.745
91046688|NCT00484419|181979485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0011||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||For a treatment group, assuming a within-subject standard deviation of at most 1.15, a 2-sided t-test of the null hypothesis that the change from baseline (CFB) is zero will have 67% to 85% power to detect a difference of 0.4 to 0.5 with a sample size of 50 randomized subjects.||||0.0011
91046689|NCT00484419|181979488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0077||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-value presents results from 1-sample t-test for within-treatment difference from baseline.||||0.0077
91046690|NCT00484419|181979488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-value presents results from 1-sample t-test for within-treatment difference from baseline.||||0.0004
91046691|NCT00484419|181979488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0483||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-value presents results from 1-sample t-test for within-treatment difference from baseline.||||0.0483
90999648|NCT05109702|181883045|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.085||0.765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.141|0.192|||MMRM|||Week 1 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.192|-0.141|0.765
91046692|NCT00484419|181979489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0133||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-value presents results from 1-sample t-test for within-treatment difference from baseline.||||0.0133
90999649|NCT05109702|181883045|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.085||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.002|0.331|||MMRM|||Week 2 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.331|-0.002|0.053
91046693|NCT00484419|181979489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-value presents results from 1-sample t-test for within-treatment difference from baseline.||||0.0004
91046694|NCT00484419|181979489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0125||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-value presents results from 1-sample t-test for within-treatment difference from baseline.||||0.0125
91046695|NCT00484419|181979492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8596||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-value presents results from 1-sample t-test for within-treatment difference from baseline.||||0.8596
91046696|NCT00484419|181979492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0257||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-value presents results from 1-sample t-test for within-treatment difference from baseline.||||0.0257
91046697|NCT00484419|181979492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1862||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-value presents results from 1-sample t-test for within-treatment difference from baseline.||||0.1862
91046698|NCT00484419|181979493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7094||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-value presents results from 1-sample t-test for within-treatment difference from baseline.||||0.7094
91007110|NCT00808132|181898645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 9-12: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||< 0.001
91007111|NCT00808132|181898645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 13-16: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||< 0.001
91007112|NCT00808132|181898645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 17-20: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||< 0.001
91007113|NCT00808132|181898645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 21-24: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||< 0.001
91007114|NCT00808132|181898645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 25-28: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||< 0.001
91007115|NCT00808132|181898645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 29-32: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||< 0.001
91007116|NCT00808132|181898645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 33-36: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||< 0.001
91007117|NCT00808132|181898645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 37-40: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||< 0.001
91007118|NCT00808132|181898645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 41-44: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||< 0.001
91007119|NCT00808132|181898645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 45-48: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||< 0.001
91007120|NCT00808132|181898645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 49-52: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||< 0.001
91007121|NCT01469637|181898653|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|If the 90% Confidence Intervals of the geometric mean ratio are wholly contained within the interval (0.80, 1.25), then the hypothesis of a drug interaction will be rejected.|Geometric Mean ratio|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.12|1.18|||ANOVA|||||1.18|1.12|
91007122|NCT01469637|181898654|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|If the 90% Confidence Intervals of the geometric mean ratio are wholly contained within the interval (0.80, 1.25), then the hypothesis of a drug interaction will be rejected.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.09|1.15|||ANOVA|||||1.15|1.09|
91007123|NCT04716010|181898679|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.002
91007124|NCT04716010|181898679|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.001
91007125|NCT04716010|181898679|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.001
91007126|NCT04716010|181898679|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.024
91007127|NCT04716010|181898679|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.001
91007128|NCT04716010|181898679|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.001
91007129|NCT04716010|181898680|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.001
91007130|NCT04716010|181898680|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.001
91007131|NCT04716010|181898680|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.001
91007132|NCT04716010|181898680|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.022
91007133|NCT04716010|181898680|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.001
91007134|NCT04716010|181898680|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.001
91007135|NCT04716010|181898681|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \>0.05|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
91007136|NCT04716010|181898681|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
91007137|NCT04716010|181898681|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
91007138|NCT04716010|181898681|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
91007139|NCT04716010|181898681|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
91007140|NCT04716010|181898681|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
90999650|NCT05109702|181883045|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.086||0.552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.117|0.219|||MMRM|||Week 4 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.219|-0.117|0.552
90999651|NCT05109702|181883045|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.087||0.593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.216|0.124|||MMRM|||Week 8 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.124|-0.216|0.593
90999652|NCT05109702|181883046|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.087||0.884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.183|0.158|||MMRM|||Week 1 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.158|-0.183|0.884
90999653|NCT05109702|181883046|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.087||0.474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.109|0.233|||MMRM|||Week 2 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.233|-0.109|0.474
90999654|NCT05109702|181883046|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.088||0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.285|||MMRM|||Week 4 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.285|-0.060|0.202
90999655|NCT05109702|181883046|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.089||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.047|0.396|||MMRM|||Week 8 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.396|0.047|0.013
90999656|NCT05109702|181883047|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.131|0.224|||MMRM|||Week 1 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.224|-0.131|0.604
90999657|NCT05109702|181883047|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.091||0.519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.119|0.236|||MMRM|||Week 2 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.236|-0.119|0.519
90999658|NCT05109702|181883047|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.092||0.299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.085|0.275|||MMRM|||Week 4 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.275|-0.085|0.299
90999659|NCT05109702|181883047|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.093||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.039|0.324|||MMRM|||Week 8 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.324|-0.039|0.124
90999660|NCT05109702|181883048|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.215||0.293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.196|0.647|||MMRM|||Week 1 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.647|-0.196|0.293
90999661|NCT05109702|181883048|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.215||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.062|0.783|||MMRM|||Week 2 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.783|-0.062|0.094
91007141|NCT04716010|181898682|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
91007142|NCT04716010|181898682|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
91007143|NCT04716010|181898682|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
91046699|NCT00484419|181979493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1394||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-value presents results from 1-sample t-test for within-treatment difference from baseline.||||0.1394
91046700|NCT00484419|181979493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4528||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-value presents results from 1-sample t-test for within-treatment difference from baseline.||||0.4528
91046701|NCT00484419|181979495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0374||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-value presents results from 1-sample t-test for within-treatment difference from baseline.||||0.0374
91046702|NCT00484419|181979495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-value presents results from 1-sample t-test for within-treatment difference from baseline.||||<0.0001
91046703|NCT00484419|181979495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-value presents results from 1-sample t-test for within-treatment difference from baseline.||||0.0001
91046704|NCT00484419|181979496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2701||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-value presents results from 1-sample t-test for within-treatment difference from baseline.||||0.2701
91046705|NCT00484419|181979496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6117||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-value presents results from 1-sample t-test for within-treatment difference from baseline.||||0.6117
91046706|NCT00484419|181979496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2007||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-value presents results from 1-sample t-test for within-treatment difference from baseline.||||0.2007
91046707|NCT00484419|181979498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-value presents results from 1-sample t-test for within-treatment difference from baseline.||||<0.0001
91046708|NCT00484419|181979498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1864||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-value presents results from 1-sample t-test for within-treatment difference from baseline.||||0.1864
91046709|NCT00484419|181979498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0999||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-value presents results from 1-sample t-test for within-treatment difference from baseline.||||0.0999
91046710|NCT00484419|181979499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-value presents results from 1-sample t-test for within-treatment difference from baseline.||||<0.0001
91046711|NCT00484419|181979499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0566||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-value presents results from 1-sample t-test for within-treatment difference from baseline.||||0.0566
91046712|NCT00484419|181979499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0217||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-value presents results from 1-sample t-test for within-treatment difference from baseline.||||0.0217
91046713|NCT02462486|181979543|NON_INFERIORITY|For hypothesis testing, if the lower limit of the 95.1% confidence interval for the difference between an abicipar group and ranibizumab is greater than or equal to -10%, non-inferiority of abicipar group is established.|Percentage Difference|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|2.4|||||The 95.1% CI for the weighted difference were calculated based on the Newcombe method using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights and baseline BCVA (≤55 vs \>55 letters) as stratification factor.|||2.4|-5.0|
91046714|NCT02462486|181979543|NON_INFERIORITY|For hypothesis testing, if the lower limit of the 95.1% confidence interval for the difference between an abicipar group and ranibizumab is greater than or equal to -10%, non-inferiority of abicipar group is established.|Percentage Difference|-4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|-0.5|||||The 95.1% CI for the weighted difference were calculated based on the Newcombe method using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights and baseline BCVA (≤55 vs \>55 letters) as stratification factor.|||-0.5|-9.0|
91046715|NCT02462486|181979544|NON_INFERIORITY|For hypothesis testing, non-inferiority of abicipar is established if the lower limit of the CI is \> - 5.0 letters.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.1|-2.4|2.0|||||MMRM included treatment, region, BL BCVA, BL CRT ≤400 or \>400, choroidal neovascularization lesion type, visit, visit-by-BL BCVA interaction, and treatment-by-visit interaction term as covariates using an unstructured covariance matrix.|||2.0|-2.4|
91046716|NCT02462486|181979544|NON_INFERIORITY|For hypothesis testing, non-inferiority of abicipar is established if the lower limit of the CI is \> - 5.0 letters.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.1|-3.8|0.6|||||MMRM included treatment, region, BL BCVA, BL CRT ≤400 or \>400, choroidal neovascularization lesion type, visit, visit-by-BL BCVA interaction, and treatment-by-visit interaction term as covariates using an unstructured covariance matrix.|||0.6|-3.8|
91046717|NCT02462486|181979545|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of abicipar was demonstrated if the lower limit of CI for the treatment difference was greater than zero.|Least Squares Mean Difference|3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.1|-7.1|14.0|||||MMRM included treatment, region, BL BCVA, BL CRT, choroidal neovascularization lesion type, visit, visit-by-baseline CRT interaction, and treatment-by-visit interaction term as covariates using an unstructured covariance matrix.|||14.0|-7.1|
91046718|NCT02462486|181979545|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of abicipar was demonstrated if the lower limit of CI for the treatment difference was greater than zero.|Least Squares Mean Difference|5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.1|-4.7|16.5|||||MMRM included treatment, region, BL BCVA, BL CRT, choroidal neovascularization lesion type, visit, visit-by-baseline CRT interaction, and treatment-by-visit interaction term as covariates using an unstructured covariance matrix.|||16.5|-4.7|
91046719|NCT02462486|181979546|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|8.4|||||The 95.1% CI for the weighted difference were calculated based on the Newcombe method using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights and baseline BCVA (≤55 vs \>55 letters) as the stratification factor.|||8.4|-5.5|
91046720|NCT02462486|181979546|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|4.5|||||The 95.1% CI for the weighted difference were calculated based on the Newcombe method using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights and baseline BCVA (≤55 vs \>55 letters) as the stratification factor.|||4.5|-9.1|
91046721|NCT02462486|181979547|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of abicipar was demonstrated if the lower limit of CI for the treatment difference was greater than zero.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.1|-3.5|0.3|||||MMRM included treatment group, region, baseline BCVA in the study eye, baseline VFQ score, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed covariates using an unstructured covariance matrix.|||0.3|-3.5|
91046722|NCT02462486|181979547|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of abicipar was demonstrated if the lower limit of CI for the treatment difference was greater than zero.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.1|-3.9|-0.1|||||MMRM included treatment group, region, baseline BCVA in the study eye, baseline VFQ score, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed covariates using an unstructured covariance matrix.|||-0.1|-3.9|
91046723|NCT04706507|181979548|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.098|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that there is no significant difference in the number of respiratory support free days between the active drug arm and the placebo drug arm based on the student's t-test.||||0.098
91046724|NCT04706507|181979549|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.040
91046725|NCT04706507|181979550|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that there is no significant difference in the number of respiratory support free days between the active drug arm and the placebo drug arm based on the student's t-test.||||0.130
91046726|NCT04706507|181979551|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.65||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|5.02|||Regression, Cox||The placebo arm is the comparison arm (denominator). The incidence rate uses the person-years at risk for each of the study arms.|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two arms. The placebo arm is the comparison group.||5.02|1.40|0.003
91046727|NCT04706507|181979552|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.21||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|3.68|||Regression, Cox||The placebo arm is the comparison arm (denominator). The incidence rate uses the person-years at risk for each of the study arms.|the null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two arms. The placebo group is the comparator group.||3.68|1.32|0.002
91046728|NCT04706507|181979553|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.83
91046729|NCT04706507|181979554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.457|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.457
91046730|NCT04706507|181979556|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.037|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that there is no significant difference in the number of ICU free days between the active drug arm and the placebo drug arm based on the student's t-test.||||0.037
91046731|NCT04706507|181979557|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||This analysis evaluated any level of CMV reactivation.|Fine-Gray competing risks regression|This analysis will include death as a competing risk if it occurs on the same day of the last negative CMV test date.||||||<0.001
91046732|NCT04706507|181979557|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3||||||This analysis evaluate CMV reactivation \> 1000 UI/mL.|Fine-Gray competing risks regression|This analysis will include death as a competing risk if it occurs on the same day of the last negative CMV test date.||||||0.3
91046733|NCT01103479|181979594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.65||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|4.38||Random effects model adjusting for clustering by clinic|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.38|0.62|0.32
91046734|NCT01103479|181979595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.8||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.2||Linear model adjusting for stratification by clinic and participant age|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.20|0.53|0.28
91046735|NCT01103479|181979596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.43||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.43||Random effects model adjusted for clustering by clinic|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.43|0.60|0.42
91046736|NCT01103479|181979597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.05||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.18||Linear model adjusting for stratification by clinic and participant age|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.18|0.94|0.38
91007144|NCT04716010|181898682|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
91007145|NCT04716010|181898682|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
91007146|NCT04716010|181898682|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
91007147|NCT04716010|181898683|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
91007148|NCT04716010|181898683|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
91007149|NCT04716010|181898683|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
91007150|NCT04716010|181898683|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
91007151|NCT04716010|181898683|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
90999662|NCT05109702|181883048|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.217||0.404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.245|0.608|||MMRM|||Week 4 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.608|-0.245|0.404
90999663|NCT05109702|181883048|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.485|0.377|||MMRM|||Week 8 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.377|-0.485|0.806
90999664|NCT05109702|181883049|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.157||0.824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.273|0.343|||MMRM|||Week 1 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.343|-0.273|0.824
90999665|NCT05109702|181883049|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.157||0.437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.186|0.431|||MMRM|||Week 2 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.431|-0.186|0.437
90999666|NCT05109702|181883049|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.159||0.193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.105|0.519|||MMRM|||Week 4 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.519|-0.105|0.193
90999667|NCT05109702|181883049|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.161||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.048|0.679|||MMRM|||Week 8 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.679|0.048|0.024
90999668|NCT05109702|181883050|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.329||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.386|0.907|||MMRM|||Week 1 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.907|-0.386|0.430
90999669|NCT05109702|181883050|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.164|1.132|||MMRM|||Week 2 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||1.132|-0.164|0.143
90999670|NCT05109702|181883050|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.333||0.245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.267|1.042|||MMRM|||Week 4 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||1.042|-0.267|0.245
90999671|NCT05109702|181883050|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.337||0.359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.352|0.97|||MMRM|||Week 8 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.970|-0.352|0.359
91007152|NCT04716010|181898683|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
91007153|NCT04716010|181898684|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
91007154|NCT04716010|181898684|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
90999672|NCT05109702|181883051|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.292|||MMRM|||Week 1 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.292|0.030|0.016
91046737|NCT01523587|181979598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.814||||0.0103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.693|0.956||P-value from log-rank stratified by Race (two-sided). Hazard ratio (Afatinib vs Erlotinib) from Cox proportional hazards model stratified by Race.|Log Rank|||A Cox proportional hazards model without the randomization stratification variable was used for each subgroup category, along with the corresponding log-rank test.||0.956|0.693|0.0103
91046738|NCT01523587|181979599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.841||||0.0193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.727|0.973||P-value from log-rank stratified by Race (two-sided). Hazard ratio (Afatinib vs Erlotinib) from Cox proportional hazards model stratified by Race.|Log Rank|||A Cox proportional-hazards model, stratified by race, was used to estimate the hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) between the two treatment groups.||0.973|0.727|0.0193
91046739|NCT01523587|181979600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.06||||0.0551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|4.32||Odds ratio (Afatinib vs Erlotinib), 95% CI and p-value (two-sided) from logistic regression stratified by race.|Regression, Logistic|||||4.32|0.98|0.0551
91046740|NCT01523587|181979601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|2.06|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio (Afatinib vs Erlotinib), 95% CI and p-value (two-sided) from logistic regression stratified by race.||||2.06|1.18|0.0020
91046741|NCT01523587|181979602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.77||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.67|2.28|||ANCOVA||Mean was adjusted for baseline sum of diameters and race.|The analysis will compare the treatments using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) for minimum sum of diameters, using baseline sum of diameters as a covariate. The randomization strata will be included as classification factors.||2.28|-4.67|0.500
90999673|NCT05109702|181883051|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.021|0.242|||MMRM|||Week 2 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.242|-0.021|0.099
90999674|NCT05109702|181883051|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068||0.493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.086|0.179|||MMRM|||Week 4 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.179|-0.086|0.493
90999675|NCT05109702|181883051|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068||0.987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.133|0.135|||MMRM|||Week 8 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.135|-0.133|0.987
91046742|NCT01523587|181979604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.2562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.09||p-value calculated using log rank test stratified by race.|Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio (Afatinib vs Erlotinib) from Cox proportional hazard model stratified by race.|The results shown relate to Time to Deterioration in Coughing.||1.09|0.72|0.2562
91046743|NCT01523587|181979604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.94||p-value calculated using log rank test stratified by race.|Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio (Afatinib vs Erlotinib) from Cox proportional hazard model stratified by race.|The results shown relate to Time to Deterioration in Dyspnoea||0.94|0.66|0.0078
90999676|NCT05109702|181883052|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.072||0.655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.109|0.173|||MMRM|||Week 1 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.173|-0.109|0.655
90999677|NCT05109702|181883052|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.072||0.826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.157|0.125|||MMRM|||Week 2 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.125|-0.157|0.826
90999678|NCT05109702|181883052|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.073||0.861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.155|0.13|||MMRM|||Week 4 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.130|-0.155|0.861
90999679|NCT05109702|181883052|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.073||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.101|0.187|||MMRM|||Week 8 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.187|-0.101|0.556
90999680|NCT05109702|181883053|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.087||0.527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.116|0.226|||MMRM|||Week 1 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.226|-0.116|0.527
90999681|NCT05109702|181883053|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.087||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.077|0.418|||MMRM|||Week 2 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.418|0.077|0.005
90999682|NCT05109702|181883053|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.088||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.164|0.181|||MMRM|||Wek 4 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors||0.181|-0.164|0.920
90999683|NCT05109702|181883053|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.089||0.286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.269|||MMRM|||Week 8 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.269|-0.080|0.286
90999684|NCT05109702|181883054|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.098||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.015|0.369|||MMRM|||Week 1 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.369|-0.015|0.071
90999685|NCT05109702|181883054|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.098||0.384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.107|0.278|||MMRM|||Week 2 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.278|-0.107|0.384
91007155|NCT04716010|181898684|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
91007156|NCT04716010|181898684|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
91007157|NCT04716010|181898684|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
91007158|NCT04716010|181898684|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
91007159|NCT04716010|181898685|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
91007160|NCT04716010|181898685|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
91007161|NCT04716010|181898685|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
91007162|NCT04716010|181898685|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
91007163|NCT04716010|181898685|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
91007164|NCT04716010|181898685|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
91007165|NCT04716010|181898686|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
91007166|NCT04716010|181898686|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
91007167|NCT04716010|181898686|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
91007168|NCT04716010|181898686|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
91007169|NCT04716010|181898686|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
91007170|NCT04716010|181898686|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
91007171|NCT04716010|181898687|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
91007172|NCT04716010|181898687|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
91007173|NCT04716010|181898687|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
91007174|NCT04716010|181898687|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
91007175|NCT04716010|181898687|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
91007176|NCT04716010|181898687|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
91007177|NCT04716010|181898688|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
91007178|NCT04716010|181898688|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
91007179|NCT04716010|181898688|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
91007180|NCT04716010|181898688|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
91007181|NCT04716010|181898688|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
91007182|NCT04716010|181898688|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
91007183|NCT04716010|181898689|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
91007184|NCT04716010|181898689|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
91007185|NCT04716010|181898689|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
91007186|NCT04716010|181898689|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
91007187|NCT04716010|181898689|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
91007188|NCT04716010|181898689|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
91007189|NCT04716010|181898690|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
91007190|NCT04716010|181898690|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
91007191|NCT04716010|181898690|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
91007192|NCT04716010|181898690|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
91007193|NCT04716010|181898690|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
91007194|NCT04716010|181898690|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
91007195|NCT04716010|181898691|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
91007196|NCT04716010|181898691|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
91007197|NCT04716010|181898691|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
91007198|NCT04716010|181898691|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
91007199|NCT04716010|181898691|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
91007200|NCT04716010|181898691|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
91007201|NCT04716010|181898692|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
91007202|NCT04716010|181898692|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
91007203|NCT04716010|181898692|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
91007204|NCT04716010|181898692|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
90999686|NCT05109702|181883054|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099||0.391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.109|0.28|||MMRM|||Week 4 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.280|-0.109|0.391
90999687|NCT05109702|181883054|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.171|0.222|||MMRM|||Week 8 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.222|-0.171|0.802
90999688|NCT05109702|181883055|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.098||0.884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.206|0.178|||MMRM|||Week 1 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.178|-0.206|0.884
90999689|NCT05109702|181883055|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.098||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.091|0.293|||MMRM|||Week 2 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.293|-0.091|0.303
90999690|NCT05109702|181883055|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099||0.554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.135|0.253|||MMRM|||Week 4 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.253|-0.135|0.554
90999691|NCT05109702|181883055|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|0.391|||MMRM|||Week 8 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.391|-0.001|0.051
90999692|NCT05109702|181883056|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.077|0.591|||MMRM|||Week 1 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.591|-0.077|0.131
90999693|NCT05109702|181883056|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.171||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.016|0.685|||MMRM|||Week 2 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.685|0.016|0.040
91007205|NCT04716010|181898692|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
91007206|NCT04716010|181898692|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
91007207|NCT04716010|181898693|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
91007208|NCT04716010|181898693|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
91007209|NCT04716010|181898693|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
91007210|NCT04716010|181898693|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
91007211|NCT04716010|181898693|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
91007212|NCT04716010|181898693|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
91007213|NCT04716010|181898694|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
91007214|NCT04716010|181898694|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
91007215|NCT04716010|181898694|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
91007216|NCT04716010|181898694|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
91007217|NCT04716010|181898694|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
91007218|NCT04716010|181898694|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
91007219|NCT04716010|181898695|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
91007220|NCT04716010|181898695|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
91007221|NCT04716010|181898695|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
91007222|NCT04716010|181898695|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
91007223|NCT04716010|181898695|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
91007224|NCT04716010|181898695|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
91007225|NCT04716010|181898696|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
91007226|NCT04716010|181898696|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
91007227|NCT04716010|181898696|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
91007228|NCT04716010|181898696|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
91007229|NCT04716010|181898696|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
91007230|NCT04716010|181898696|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
91007231|NCT04716010|181898697|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
91007232|NCT04716010|181898697|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
91007233|NCT04716010|181898697|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
91007234|NCT04716010|181898697|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
91007235|NCT04716010|181898697|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
91007236|NCT04716010|181898697|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
91007237|NCT04716010|181898698|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
91007238|NCT04716010|181898698|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
91007239|NCT04716010|181898698|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
91007240|NCT04716010|181898698|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
91007241|NCT04716010|181898698|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
91007242|NCT04716010|181898698|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
91007243|NCT00835276|181898701|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|87.96||||||90.0|80.15|96.53|||||To establish bioequivalence, the mean values for the test product differ by no more than 20% from the respective mean values for the reference listed product.|||96.53|80.15|
91046744|NCT01523587|181979604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.18||p-value calculated using log rank test stratified by race|Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio (Afatinib vs Erlotinib) from Cox proportional hazard model stratified by race.|The results shown relate to Time to Deterioration in Pain||1.18|0.82|0.8690
91046745|NCT01523587|181979605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.34||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.15|-0.88|||Regression, Cox|||The results shown relate to Change in scores over time for: Coughing.||-0.88|-6.15|0.0091
91046746|NCT01523587|181979605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.75|-1.25|||Regression, Cox|||The results shown relate to Change in scores over time for: Dyspnoea.||-1.25|-5.75|0.0024
91046747|NCT01523587|181979605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32||0.0384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.33|-0.15|||Regression, Cox|||The results shown relate to Change in scores over time for: Pain.||-0.15|-5.33|0.0384
91046748|NCT01298778|181979606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||acute pain scores with movement at 24 hours||||0.05
91046749|NCT02709486|181979614|SUPERIORITY|Step-down testing procedure within each of the primary outcome measures was applied to maintain Type I error. Tanezumab 5 mg versus placebo was tested first and if found significant, then the testing was continued for Tanezumab 2.5 mg versus placebo. Tanezumab treatment group was declared as superior to placebo if the corresponding treatment contrast was significant over all 3 primary outcome measures.|Least Square Mean Difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.12||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.12|-0.81|0.0088
91046750|NCT02709486|181979614|SUPERIORITY|A step-down testing procedure within each of the primary outcome measures was applied to maintain Type I error. Tanezumab 5 mg versus placebo was tested first and if found significant, then the testing was continued for Tanezumab 2.5 mg versus placebo. A tanezumab treatment group was declared as superior to placebo if the corresponding treatment contrast was significant over all 3 primary outcome measures.|Least Square Mean Difference|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.26||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.26|-0.97|0.0006
90999694|NCT05109702|181883056|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.172||0.767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.287|0.389|||MMRM|||Week 4 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.389|-0.287|0.767
90999695|NCT05109702|181883056|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.174||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.198|0.485|||MMRM|||Week 8 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.485|-0.198|0.410
91050308|NCT01524679|181986969|SUPERIORITY|The Fisher Test with asymptotic test statistic provided by the analysis software was used.|||||<|0.0001||||||This was the only a priori defined primary endpoint. There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|There was no adjustment for other variables intended for the primary analysis. Confounding variables were analysed in subsequent analyses.||Nullhypothesis was the equality of response rates of the treatment group and the control group. Treatments were compared by a two-sided Fisher test on a level of significance of 0.05. The study was appropriately powered (80%) for this analysis.||||<0.0001
90999696|NCT05109702|181883057|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.166|0.501|||MMRM|||Week 1 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.501|-0.166|0.324
90999697|NCT05109702|181883057|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.143|0.525|||MMRM|||Week 2 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.525|-0.143|0.262
91046751|NCT02709486|181979615|SUPERIORITY|Step-down testing procedure within each of the primary outcome measures was applied to maintain Type I error. Tanezumab 5 mg versus placebo was tested first and if found significant, then the testing was continued for Tanezumab 2.5 mg versus placebo. Tanezumab treatment group was declared as superior to placebo if the corresponding treatment contrast was significant over all 3 primary outcome measures.|Least Square Mean Difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|-0.24||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.24|-0.93|0.0008
91046752|NCT02709486|181979615|SUPERIORITY|Step-down testing procedure within each of the primary outcome measures was applied to maintain Type I error. Tanezumab 5 mg versus placebo was tested first and if found significant, then the testing was continued for Tanezumab 2.5 mg versus placebo. Tanezumab treatment group was declared as superior to placebo if the corresponding treatment contrast was significant over all 3 primary outcome measures.|Least Square Mean Difference|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.36||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.36|-1.05|<.0001
91046753|NCT02709486|181979616|SUPERIORITY|A step-down testing procedure within each of the primary outcome measures was applied to maintain Type I error. Tanezumab 5 mg versus placebo was tested first and if found significant, then the testing was continued for Tanezumab 2.5 mg versus placebo. A tanezumab treatment group was declared as superior to placebo if the corresponding treatment contrast was significant over all 3 primary outcome measures.|Least Square Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.1092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.02||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline PGA of osteoarthritis and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.02|-0.24|0.1092
91046754|NCT02709486|181979616|SUPERIORITY|A step-down testing procedure within each of the primary outcome measures was applied to maintain Type I error. Tanezumab 5 mg versus placebo was tested first and if found significant, then the testing was continued for Tanezumab 2.5 mg versus placebo. A tanezumab treatment group was declared as superior to placebo if the corresponding treatment contrast was significant over all 3 primary outcome measures.|Least Square Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|-0.06||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline PGA of osteoarthritis and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.06|-0.32|0.0051
91046755|NCT02709486|181979617|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscales and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.40|-0.94|<.0001
91046756|NCT02709486|181979617|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.07|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscales and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.07|-0.61|0.0149
91046757|NCT02709486|181979617|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.5|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscales and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.50|-1.08|<.0001
91046758|NCT02709486|181979617|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.5|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscales and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.50|-1.07|<.0001
91050309|NCT01524679|181986970|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7525||||0.0957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5382|1.0521|||ANCOVA|||||1.0521|0.5382|0.0957
91050310|NCT01524679|181986971|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4621||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4621|0.7106|||ANCOVA|||||0.7106|0.4621|0.0005
90999698|NCT05109702|181883057|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.172||0.391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.485|||MMRM|||Week 4 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.485|-0.190|0.391
90999699|NCT05109702|181883057|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.174||0.192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.114|0.568|||MMRM|||Week 8 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.568|-0.114|0.192
91007244|NCT00835276|181898702|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|91.47||||||90.0|85.15|98.26|||||To establish bioequivalence, the mean values for the test product differ by no more that 20% from the repective mean values for the reference listed product.|||98.26|85.15|
91007245|NCT00835276|181898703|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|91.47||||||90.0|85.32|98.07|||||To establish bioequivalence, the mean values for the test product differ by no more than 20% from the respective mean values for the reference listed product.|||98.07|85.32|
91007246|NCT00415623|181898735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.7|||<|0.001||95.0|-9.0|-4.4|||ANCOVA|||The hypothesis of no group differences (null hypothesis) was tested against that of the amlodipine 10 mg arm being superior to the amlodipine 5 mg arm (alternative hypothesis). ANCOVA models with the trough SBP at baseline, body weight, and age as covariates, and the treatment group and study site as factors was used. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).||-4.4|-9.0|<0.001
91007247|NCT00415623|181898736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.1|||<|0.001||95.0|-5.7|-2.5|||ANCOVA|||The hypothesis of no group differences (null hypothesis) was tested against that of the amlodipine 10 mg arm being superior to the amlodipine 5 mg arm (alternative hypothesis). ANCOVA models with the trough DBP at baseline, body weight, and age as covariates, and the treatment group and study site as factors was used. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).||-2.5|-5.7|<0.001
91007248|NCT00415623|181898737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.1|||<|0.001||95.0|-9.1|-5.1|||ANCOVA|||The hypothesis of no group differences (null hypothesis) was tested against that of the amlodipine 10 mg arm being superior to the amlodipine 5 mg arm (alternative hypothesis). ANCOVA models with the trough SBP at baseline, body weight, and age as covariates, and the treatment group and study site as factors was used. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).||-5.1|-9.1|<0.001
91007249|NCT00415623|181898738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0|||<|0.001||95.0|-5.4|-2.6|||ANCOVA|||The hypothesis of no group differences (null hypothesis) was tested against that of the amlodipine 10 mg arm being superior to the amlodipine 5 mg arm (alternative hypothesis). ANCOVA models with the trough DBP at baseline, body weight, and age as covariates, and the treatment group and study site as factors was used. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).||-2.6|-5.4|<0.001
91007250|NCT00415623|181898739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.33||||0.002||95.0|1.36|3.99|||Regression, Logistic|||Proportions of participants (responder rates) were used for the statistical analyses. The hypothesis of no group differences (null hypothesis) was tested against that of the amlodipine 10 mg arm being superior to the amlodipine 5 mg arm (alternative hypothesis). The test was conducted based on a logistic regression model with baseline SBP value and body weight as covariates, and treatment group and age (\<=64, \>=65) as a factor. The significance level was 0.05 (two-sided).||3.99|1.36|0.002
91007251|NCT00415623|181898740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.46|||<|0.001||95.0|2.28|8.74|||Regression, Logistic|||Proportions of participants (responder rates) were used for the statistical analyses. The hypothesis of no group differences (null hypothesis) was tested against that of the amlodipine 10 mg arm being superior to the amlodipine 5 mg arm (alternative hypothesis). The test was conducted based on a logistic regression model with baseline SBP value and body weight as covariates, and treatment group and age (\<=64, \>=65) as a factor. The significance level was 0.05 (two-sided).||8.74|2.28|<0.001
90999700|NCT05109702|181883058|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.141|0.999|||MMRM|||Week 1 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.999|-0.141|0.140
90999701|NCT05109702|181883058|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.291||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.025|1.117|||MMRM|||Week 2 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||1.117|-0.025|0.061
90999702|NCT05109702|181883058|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.294||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.374|0.78|||MMRM|||Week 4 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.780|-0.374|0.490
90999703|NCT05109702|181883058|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.297||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.212|0.953|||MMRM|||Week 8 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.953|-0.212|0.212
90999704|NCT05109702|181883059|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.134|0.101|||MMRM|||Week 1 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.101|-0.134|0.784
90999705|NCT05109702|181883059|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.058|0.176|||MMRM|||Week 2 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.176|-0.058|0.324
90999706|NCT05109702|181883059|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.027|0.21|||MMRM|||Week 4 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.210|-0.027|0.130
90999707|NCT05109702|181883059|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.35|||MMRM|||Week 8 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.350|0.110|0.000
90999708|NCT05109702|181883060|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.623||0.532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.834|1.613|||MMRM|||Week 2 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||1.613|-0.834|0.532
90999709|NCT05109702|181883060|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.515|1.959|||MMRM|||Week 4 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||1.959|-0.515|0.252
91046759|NCT02709486|181979617|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|-0.32|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscales and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.32|-0.92|<.0001
91046760|NCT02709486|181979617|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.47|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscales and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.47|-1.07|<.0001
90999710|NCT05109702|181883060|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.636||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.732|3.231|||MMRM|||Week 8 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||3.231|0.732|0.002
90999711|NCT05109702|181883061|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.167||0.723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.386|0.268|||MMRM|||Week 1 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.268|-0.386|0.723
91046761|NCT02709486|181979617|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.39|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscales and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.39|-1.05|<.0001
91046762|NCT02709486|181979617|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|-0.44|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscales and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.44|-1.09|<.0001
91046763|NCT02709486|181979617|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|-0.26|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscales and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.26|-0.93|0.0005
91046764|NCT02709486|181979617|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|-0.27|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscales and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.27|-0.93|0.0004
91046765|NCT02709486|181979619|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.42|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.42|-0.95|<.0001
91046766|NCT02709486|181979619|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.17|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.17|-0.70|0.0014
91046767|NCT02709486|181979619|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|-0.53|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.53|-1.09|<.0001
91046768|NCT02709486|181979619|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.51|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.51|-1.08|<.0001
91046769|NCT02709486|181979619|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|-0.33|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.33|-0.93|<.0001
91046770|NCT02709486|181979619|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.47|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.47|-1.06|<.0001
90999712|NCT05109702|181883061|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.167||0.254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.519|0.137|||MMRM|||Week 2 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.137|-0.519|0.254
90999713|NCT05109702|181883061|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.169||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.028|||MMRM|||Week 4 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||-0.028|-0.690|0.034
90999714|NCT05109702|181883061|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.171||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.255|0.414|||MMRM|||Week 8 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.414|-0.255|0.640
90999715|NCT05109702|181883062|SUPERIORITY|Week 1 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.|LS Mean Difference|1.45|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.893||0.615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.223|7.133|||MMRM|||||7.133|-4.223|0.615
90999716|NCT05109702|181883062|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.81|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.894||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.866|10.494|||MMRM|||Week 2 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||10.494|-0.866|0.097
90999717|NCT05109702|181883062|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.93||0.718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.69|6.81|||MMRM|||Week 4 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||6.810|-4.690|0.718
90999718|NCT05109702|181883062|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.963||0.298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.728|8.903|||MMRM|||Week 8 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||8.903|-2.728|0.298
90999719|NCT05109702|181883063|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.814||0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.854|8.191|||MMRM|||Week 1 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors||8.191|-2.854|0.343
90999720|NCT05109702|181883063|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.814||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.813|9.232|||MMRM|||Week 2 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||9.232|-1.813|0.188
90999721|NCT05109702|181883063|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.849||0.371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.04|8.143|||MMRM|||Week 4 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||8.143|-3.040|0.371
90999722|NCT05109702|181883063|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|6.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.883||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.259|12.573|||MMRM|||Week 8 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||12.573|1.259|0.017
90999723|NCT05109702|181883064|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7||0.754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.452|6.147|||MMRM|||Week 1 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||6.147|-4.452|0.754
91046771|NCT02709486|181979619|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.46|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.46|-1.11|<.0001
90999724|NCT05109702|181883064|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7||0.368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.865|7.731|||MMRM|||Week 2 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||7.731|-2.865|0.368
90999725|NCT05109702|181883064|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.734||0.621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.014|6.715|||MMRM|||Week 4 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||6.715|-4.014|0.621
90999726|NCT05109702|181883064|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.766||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.688|10.168|||MMRM|||Week 8 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||10.168|-0.688|0.087
90999727|NCT05109702|181883065|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.646||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.958|9.425|||MMRM|||Week 1 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors||9.425|-0.958|0.110
90999728|NCT05109702|181883065|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.647||0.315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.535|7.855|||MMRM|||Week 2 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors||7.855|-2.535|0.315
90999729|NCT05109702|181883065|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.67|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.678||0.318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.582|7.928|||MMRM|||Week 4 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors||7.928|-2.582|0.318
90999730|NCT05109702|181883065|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.71||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.525|8.111|||MMRM|||Week 8 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors||8.111|-2.525|0.303
90999731|NCT05109702|181883066|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.975||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.402|10.273|||MMRM|||Week 1 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors||10.273|-1.402|0.136
90999732|NCT05109702|181883066|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.972||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|9.966|||MMRM|||Week 2 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||9.966|-1.700|0.165
90999733|NCT05109702|181883066|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.008||0.665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|7.207|||MMRM|||Week 4 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||7.207|-4.600|0.665
90999734|NCT05109702|181883066|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.043||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|10.995|||MMRM|||Week 8 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||10.995|-0.950|0.099
90999735|NCT05109702|181883067|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.926||0.861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.232|6.254|||MMRM|||Week 1 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors||6.254|-5.232|0.861
91046772|NCT02709486|181979619|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|-0.5|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.50|-1.15|<.0001
90999736|NCT05109702|181883067|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.925||0.548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.983|7.497|||MMRM|||Week 2 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors||7.497|-3.983|0.548
90999737|NCT05109702|181883067|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.96||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.839|9.777|||MMRM|||Week 4 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors||9.777|-1.839|0.180
90999738|NCT05109702|181883067|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.993||0.189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.941|9.807|||MMRM|||Week 8 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors||9.807|-1.941|0.189
90999739|NCT05109702|181883068|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.608||0.613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.799|6.438|||MMRM|||Week 1 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors||6.438|-3.799|0.613
90999740|NCT05109702|181883068|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.609||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.586|9.653|||MMRM|||Week 2 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors||9.653|-0.586|0.083
90999741|NCT05109702|181883068|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.639||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.508|8.851|||MMRM|||Week 4 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors||8.851|-1.508|0.165
91046773|NCT02709486|181979619|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.34|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.34|-1.00|<.0001
91046774|NCT02709486|181979619|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.35|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.35|-1.00|<.0001
91046775|NCT02709486|181979621|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|-0.12|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline PGA of osteoarthritis and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.12|-0.33|<.0001
91046776|NCT02709486|181979621|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|-0.06|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline PGA of osteoarthritis and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.06|-0.27|0.0022
91046777|NCT02709486|181979621|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.14|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline PGA of osteoarthritis and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.14|-0.35|<.0001
90999742|NCT05109702|181883068|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.672||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.964|9.522|||MMRM|||Week 8 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors||9.522|-0.964|0.110
90999743|NCT05109702|181883069|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.743||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.154|6.994|||MMRM|||Week 1 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors||6.994|0.154|0.041
90999744|NCT05109702|181883069|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.743||0.122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.723|6.118|||MMRM|||Week 2 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors||6.118|-0.723|0.122
91046778|NCT02709486|181979621|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.22|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline PGA of osteoarthritis and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.22|-0.43|<.0001
91046779|NCT02709486|181979621|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|-0.06|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline PGA of osteoarthritis and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.06|-0.28|0.0029
91046780|NCT02709486|181979621|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.15|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline PGA of osteoarthritis and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.15|-0.37|<.0001
91046781|NCT02709486|181979621|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.17|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline PGA of osteoarthritis and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.17|-0.40|<.0001
91046782|NCT02709486|181979621|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline PGA of osteoarthritis and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.20|-0.43|<.0001
91046783|NCT02709486|181979621|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.0352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline PGA of osteoarthritis and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.01|-0.26|0.0352
91046784|NCT02709486|181979621|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.13|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline PGA of osteoarthritis and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.13|-0.37|<.0001
91046785|NCT02709486|181979623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|3.14|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2: Odds ratio and 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.14|1.59|<.0001
91046786|NCT02709486|181979623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|2.18|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.18|1.12|0.0085
91046787|NCT02709486|181979623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.89|3.88|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.88|1.89|<.0001
91046788|NCT02709486|181979623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.62|3.28|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.28|1.62|<.0001
91046789|NCT02709486|181979623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.91||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|2.75|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.75|1.33|0.0005
91046790|NCT02709486|181979623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|2.73|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.73|1.32|0.0005
91046791|NCT02709486|181979623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.94||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|2.86|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.86|1.31|0.0009
91046792|NCT02709486|181979623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.95||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|2.89|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.89|1.32|0.0008
91046793|NCT02709486|181979623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.06||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|3.01|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.01|1.41|0.0002
91046794|NCT02709486|181979623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.78||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|2.57|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment||2.57|1.23|0.0022
91046795|NCT02709486|181979623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.75||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|2.54|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment||2.54|1.21|0.0032
91046796|NCT02709486|181979623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.85||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|2.69|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment||2.69|1.27|0.0013
91046797|NCT02709486|181979625|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.83||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.59|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.59|1.30|0.0006
91046798|NCT02709486|181979625|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|2.16|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.16|1.08|0.0160
91046799|NCT02709486|181979625|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.03||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|3.07|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.07|1.34|0.0008
91046800|NCT02709486|181979625|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.5118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.8|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||1.80|0.75|0.5118
91046801|NCT02709486|181979625|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.45||||0.0093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|4.81|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||4.81|1.25|0.0093
91046802|NCT02709486|181979625|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46||||0.3017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|3.01|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.01|0.71|0.3017
91046803|NCT02709486|181979625|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.4||||0.216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|9.58|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||9.58|0.60|0.2160
91046804|NCT02709486|181979625|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.7174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|6.08|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||6.08|0.29|0.7174
90999745|NCT05109702|181883069|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.76||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.146|8.056|||MMRM|||Week 4 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors||8.056|1.146|0.009
90999746|NCT05109702|181883069|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.781||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.544|7.536|||MMRM|||Week 8 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors||7.536|0.544|0.024
90999747|NCT05109702|181883070|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.115|0.394|||MMRM|||Week 1 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors||0.394|-0.115|0.282
90999748|NCT05109702|181883070|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.134|0.375|||MMRM|||Week 2 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors||0.375|-0.134|0.353
90999749|NCT05109702|181883070|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.131||0.764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.297|0.218|||MMRM|||Week 4 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors||0.218|-0.297|0.764
91046805|NCT02709486|181979625|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|2.87|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.87|1.45|<.0001
90999750|NCT05109702|181883070|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.133||0.104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.044|0.476|||MMRM|||Week 8 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors||0.476|-0.044|0.104
90999751|NCT05109702|181883071|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.288|||MMRM|||Week 1 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors||0.288|-0.300|0.969
90999752|NCT05109702|181883071|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.194|0.394|||MMRM|||Week 2 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors||0.394|-0.194|0.504
90999753|NCT05109702|181883071|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.152||0.915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.281|0.314|||MMRM|||Week 4 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors||0.314|-0.281|0.915
90999754|NCT05109702|181883071|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.153||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.102|0.499|||MMRM|||Week 8 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors||0.499|-0.102|0.195
91046806|NCT02709486|181979625|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.81||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|2.54|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.54|1.29|0.0006
91046807|NCT02709486|181979625|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.81||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|2.65|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.65|1.23|0.0024
91046808|NCT02709486|181979625|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.49|3.16|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.16|1.49|<.0001
91046809|NCT02709486|181979625|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.0373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|3.14|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.14|1.04|0.0373
91046810|NCT02709486|181979625|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.17||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|3.72|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.72|1.27|0.0046
91046811|NCT02709486|181979625|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.95||||0.0683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|9.47|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||9.47|0.92|0.0683
91046812|NCT02709486|181979625|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.77||||0.0214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|11.66|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||11.66|1.22|0.0214
91046813|NCT02709486|181979625|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.83||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.58|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.58|1.30|0.0006
91046814|NCT02709486|181979625|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|2.28|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.28|1.16|0.0048
91046815|NCT02709486|181979625|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.84||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|2.65|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.65|1.27|0.0012
91046816|NCT02709486|181979625|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.68|3.47|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.47|1.68|<.0001
91046817|NCT02709486|181979625|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.65||||0.0537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|2.74|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.74|0.99|0.0537
91046818|NCT02709486|181979625|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.55||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|4.13|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||4.13|1.58|0.0001
91046819|NCT02709486|181979625|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.26||||0.1155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|6.27|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||6.27|0.82|0.1155
90999755|NCT05109702|181883072|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.148||0.287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.133|0.449|||MMRM|||Week 1 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors||0.449|-0.133|0.287
90999756|NCT05109702|181883072|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.148||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.124|0.458|||MMRM|||Week 2 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors||0.458|-0.124|0.260
90999757|NCT05109702|181883072|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.296|0.291|||MMRM|||Week 4 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors||0.291|-0.296|0.987
90999758|NCT05109702|181883072|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.151||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.075|0.519|||MMRM|||Week 8 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors||0.519|-0.075|0.143
90999759|NCT05109702|181883073|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.151||-0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.102|0.49|||MMRM|||Week 1 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.490|-0.102|-0.198
90999760|NCT05109702|181883073|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.151||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.028|0.564|||MMRM|||Week 2 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.564|-0.028|0.076
90999761|NCT05109702|181883073|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.152||0.656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.231|0.367|||MMRM|||Week 4 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.367|-0.231|0.656
91046820|NCT02709486|181979625|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.0||||0.0271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|7.96|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||7.96|1.13|0.0271
91046821|NCT02709486|181979625|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.85||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.63|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.63|1.30|0.0007
91046822|NCT02709486|181979625|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|2.56|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.56|1.26|0.0011
91046823|NCT02709486|181979625|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.79||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|2.52|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.52|1.27|0.0009
91046824|NCT02709486|181979625|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|2.91|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.91|1.47|<.0001
91046825|NCT02709486|181979625|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.81||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|2.78|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.78|1.18|0.0064
91046826|NCT02709486|181979625|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|2.58|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.58|1.09|0.0180
91046827|NCT02709486|181979625|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.61||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.09|15.08|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||15.08|2.09|0.0006
91046828|NCT02709486|181979625|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.46||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.64|12.13|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||12.13|1.64|0.0034
91046829|NCT02709486|181979625|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|2.44|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.44|1.22|0.0022
91046830|NCT02709486|181979625|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|2.5|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.50|1.25|0.0014
91046831|NCT02709486|181979625|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.87||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|2.64|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.64|1.33|0.0003
91046832|NCT02709486|181979625|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|2.36|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.36|1.19|0.0030
91046833|NCT02709486|181979625|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.0754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|2.24|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.24|0.96|0.0754
91046834|NCT02709486|181979625|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.61||||0.0253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.44|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.44|1.06|0.0253
91046835|NCT02709486|181979625|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.98||||0.0098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|6.83|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||6.83|1.30|0.0098
91046836|NCT02709486|181979625|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72||||0.223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|4.13|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||4.13|0.72|0.2230
91046837|NCT02709486|181979625|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.0201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|2.12|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.12|1.07|0.0201
91046838|NCT02709486|181979625|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|2.44|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.44|1.22|0.0021
91046839|NCT02709486|181979625|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|2.43|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.43|1.22|0.0022
91046840|NCT02709486|181979625|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.87||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|2.64|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.64|1.32|0.0004
91046841|NCT02709486|181979625|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.2031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|2.01|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.01|0.86|0.2031
91046842|NCT02709486|181979625|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.0867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.18|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.18|0.95|0.0867
91046843|NCT02709486|181979625|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.1746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|4.22|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||4.22|0.77|0.1746
91046844|NCT02709486|181979625|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.99||||0.1039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|4.57|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||4.57|0.87|0.1039
91046845|NCT02709486|181979626|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.89||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|2.68|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.68|1.33|0.0003
91046846|NCT02709486|181979626|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.0286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|2.1|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.10|1.04|0.0286
91046847|NCT02709486|181979626|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.1031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|2.27|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.27|0.93|0.1031
91046848|NCT02709486|181979626|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.2033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|2.1|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.10|0.85|0.2033
91046849|NCT02709486|181979626|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.8||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|5.86|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||5.86|1.34|0.0064
91046850|NCT02709486|181979626|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.3706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|3.23|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.23|0.65|0.3706
91046851|NCT02709486|181979626|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.39||||0.2121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|9.41|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||9.41|0.61|0.2121
91046852|NCT02709486|181979626|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67||||0.4859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|7.11|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||7.11|0.39|0.4859
90999762|NCT05109702|181883073|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.154||0.324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.454|||MMRM|||Week 8 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.454|-0.150|0.324
91046853|NCT02709486|181979626|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|3.17|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.17|1.60|<.0001
91046854|NCT02709486|181979626|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|2.96|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.96|1.50|<.0001
90999763|NCT05109702|181883074|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.146||0.477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.182|0.39|||MMRM|||Week 1 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors||0.390|-0.182|0.477
90999764|NCT05109702|181883074|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.146||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.026|0.598|||MMRM|||Week 2 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors||0.598|0.026|0.033
90999765|NCT05109702|181883074|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.147||0.374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.158|0.42|||MMRM|||Week 4 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors||0.420|-0.158|0.374
90999766|NCT05109702|181883074|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.149||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.056|0.529|||MMRM|||Week 8 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors||0.529|-0.056|0.114
90999767|NCT05109702|181883075|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.329||0.598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.822|0.475|||t-test, 2 sided|||Immediately Upon Instillation at Week 1||0.475|-0.822|0.598
90999768|NCT05109702|181883075|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.268||0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.783|0.273|||t-test, 2 sided|||1 Minute Post Instillation at Week 1||0.273|-0.783|0.343
90999769|NCT05109702|181883075|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.721|0.262|||t-test, 2 sided|||2 Minutes Post Instillation at Week 1||0.262|-0.721|0.359
90999770|NCT03812588|181883076|SUPERIORITY||Slope|7.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.261||0.292|TWO_SIDED|||||Linear regression model of condition in predicting change in HRSD-24. P-value and coefficient are Medication:Track. Medication (Escitalopram or Placebo) with Track (RFM or CFM) as co-variates. The threshold for statistical significance was p\>0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.292
90999771|NCT00180271|181883081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.84||The trial involved prespecified event monitoring at up to 20 successive periods by an independent DSMB to permit trial termination if the CRT-D was superior to, inferior to, or not different from ICD according to prespecified stopping rules.|Log Rank||A Hazard ratio \< 1.0 would indicate that the result favors CRT-D.|The trial utilized a Wang-Tsiatis (delta=0.1) group-sequential design with 95% power to detect a hazard ratio of 0.75 at a two-sided significance level of 0.05. Primary analysis based on statistical evaluation comparing the life-table event-free survival time graphs for CRT-D and ICD-only arms of the trial. Stratified Cox proportional-hazards regression was used to estimate a hazard ratio and statistical significance was evaluated with the log-rank test. Stratified by center and ischemic status.||0.84|0.52|< 0.001
90999772|NCT00180271|181883082|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.86|||Andersen-Gill|Andersen-Gill model performed, adjusted for a previous HF event in the study, stratified by ischemic status and using robust variance estimation.|Model adjusted for previously experienced heart failure event in the study. Hazard Ratio (95% CI) comparing patients with a previous heart failure event to those patients without a prior heart failure event equaled 8.84 (6084, 11.43), p\<0.001.|||0.86|0.53|0.001
90999773|NCT01392378|181883083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.81||||0.0856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.96||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 4: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||0.96|0.69|0.0856
91046855|NCT02709486|181979626|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.91||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|2.87|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.87|1.27|0.0020
91046856|NCT02709486|181979626|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|3.4|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.40|1.53|<.0001
91046857|NCT02709486|181979626|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.23||||0.0107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|4.14|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||4.14|1.21|0.0107
91046858|NCT02709486|181979626|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.18||||0.0126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|4.02|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||4.02|1.18|0.0126
91046859|NCT02709486|181979626|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.67||||0.1516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|10.26|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||10.26|0.70|0.1516
91046860|NCT02709486|181979626|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.49||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|16.05|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||16.05|1.25|0.0210
91046861|NCT02709486|181979626|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.65||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|2.31|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.31|1.18|0.0034
91046862|NCT02709486|181979626|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.75||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|2.45|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.45|1.26|0.0010
91046863|NCT02709486|181979626|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.86||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|2.71|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.71|1.27|0.0014
91046864|NCT02709486|181979626|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|3.1|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.10|1.46|<.0001
91046865|NCT02709486|181979626|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.61||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.49|4.55|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||4.55|1.49|0.0007
91046866|NCT02709486|181979626|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.43||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|4.24|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||4.24|1.39|0.0018
91046867|NCT02709486|181979626|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.1||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|12.79|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||12.79|1.31|0.0150
91046868|NCT02709486|181979626|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.79||||0.0211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|11.78|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||11.78|1.22|0.0211
91046869|NCT02709486|181979626|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|2.84|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.84|1.43|<.0001
90999774|NCT01392378|181883083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.99||||0.8546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.16||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 4: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.16|0.84|0.8546
90999775|NCT01392378|181883083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.73||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.86||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 4: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||0.86|0.62|0.0012
90999776|NCT01392378|181883083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.02||||0.8414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.2||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 4: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.20|0.87|0.8414
90999777|NCT01392378|181883083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.83||||0.2412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.08||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 6B: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.08|0.64|0.2412
90999778|NCT01392378|181883083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.13||||0.4548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.44||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 6B: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.44|0.88|0.4548
90999779|NCT01392378|181883083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.69||||0.0093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.88||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 6B: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||0.88|0.53|0.0093
90999780|NCT01392378|181883083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.1||||0.8414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.42||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 6B: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.42|0.86|0.8414
90999781|NCT01392378|181883083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.87||||0.1749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.0||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 9V: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.00|0.75|0.1749
90999782|NCT01392378|181883083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.11||||0.3121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.27||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 9V: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.27|0.96|0.3121
90999783|NCT01392378|181883083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.89||||0.1351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.03||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 9V: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.03|0.78|0.1351
91046870|NCT02709486|181979626|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|3.1|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.10|1.55|<.0001
91046871|NCT02709486|181979626|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|3.0|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.00|1.47|<.0001
91046872|NCT02709486|181979626|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|2.96|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.96|1.46|<.0001
91046873|NCT02709486|181979626|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.76|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.76|1.10|0.0180
91046874|NCT02709486|181979626|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.86||||0.0072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|2.94|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.94|1.18|0.0072
91046875|NCT02709486|181979626|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.84||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.49|47.22|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||47.22|2.49|0.0015
91046876|NCT02709486|181979626|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.62||||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.96|37.96|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||37.96|1.96|0.0044
91046877|NCT02709486|181979626|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|2.43|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.43|1.22|0.0018
91046878|NCT02709486|181979626|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|2.5|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.50|1.26|0.0011
91046879|NCT02709486|181979626|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|2.38|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.38|1.19|0.0035
91046880|NCT02709486|181979626|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|2.43|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.43|1.22|0.0022
91046881|NCT02709486|181979626|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74||||0.0155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|2.72|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.72|1.11|0.0155
91046882|NCT02709486|181979626|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.1549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.2|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.20|0.88|0.1549
91046883|NCT02709486|181979626|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.94||||0.0212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|7.37|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||7.37|1.18|0.0212
91046884|NCT02709486|181979626|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.64||||0.0373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|6.57|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||6.57|1.06|0.0373
91046885|NCT02709486|181979626|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.83||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|2.57|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.57|1.29|0.0006
91046886|NCT02709486|181979626|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|3.02|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.02|1.51|<.0001
91046887|NCT02709486|181979626|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.54||||0.0152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|2.18|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.18|1.09|0.0152
91046888|NCT02709486|181979626|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|2.45|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.45|1.23|0.0018
91046889|NCT02709486|181979626|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|2.31|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.31|0.93|0.0970
91046890|NCT02709486|181979626|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.3435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.98|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||1.98|0.79|0.3435
90999784|NCT01392378|181883083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.07||||0.8414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.24||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 9V: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.24|0.93|0.8414
90999785|NCT01392378|181883083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.83||||0.2158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.03||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 14: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.03|0.67|0.2158
90999786|NCT01392378|181883083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.88||||0.3279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.08||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 14: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.08|0.71|0.3279
90999787|NCT01392378|181883083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.88||||0.2472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.09||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 14: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.09|0.72|0.2472
90999788|NCT01392378|181883083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.98||||0.8414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.21||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 14: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.21|0.79|0.8414
90999789|NCT01392378|181883083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.95||||0.6193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.12||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 18C: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.12|0.81|0.6193
90999790|NCT01392378|181883083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.13||||0.3121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.32||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 18C: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.32|0.96|0.3121
90999791|NCT01392378|181883083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.82||||0.0191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.96||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 18C: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||0.96|0.70|0.0191
90999792|NCT01392378|181883083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.14||||0.8414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.33||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 18C: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.33|0.97|0.8414
90999793|NCT01392378|181883083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.9||||0.2412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.05||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 19F: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.05|0.76|0.2412
90999794|NCT01392378|181883083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.15||||0.3121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.35||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 19F: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.35|0.99|0.3121
90999795|NCT01392378|181883083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.8||||0.0135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.94||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 19F: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||0.94|0.68|0.0135
90999796|NCT01392378|181883083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.03||||0.8414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.21||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 19F: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.21|0.87|0.8414
90999797|NCT01392378|181883083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.81||||0.1749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.0||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 23F: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.00|0.66|0.1749
90999798|NCT01392378|181883083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.15||||0.3121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.41||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 23F: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.41|0.93|0.3121
91046891|NCT02709486|181979626|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.3||||0.0236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|9.27|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||9.27|1.17|0.0236
91046892|NCT02709486|181979626|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.14||||0.0296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|8.81|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||8.81|1.12|0.0296
91046893|NCT02709486|181979628|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.14||||0.0132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|3.9|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline patient global assessment of osteoarthritis scale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.90|1.17|0.0132
91046894|NCT02709486|181979628|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.62||||0.1274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|3.02|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline patient global assessment of osteoarthritis scale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.02|0.87|0.1274
91046895|NCT02709486|181979628|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.62||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|4.76|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline patient global assessment of osteoarthritis scale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||4.76|1.44|0.0016
91046896|NCT02709486|181979628|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.84|6.03|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline patient global assessment of osteoarthritis scale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||6.03|1.84|<.0001
91046897|NCT02709486|181979628|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.04||||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|3.49|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline patient global assessment of osteoarthritis scale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.49|1.20|0.0089
91046898|NCT02709486|181979628|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.41||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|4.1|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline patient global assessment of osteoarthritis scale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||4.10|1.42|0.0012
91046899|NCT02709486|181979628|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.4||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|3.98|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline patient global assessment of osteoarthritis scale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.98|1.45|0.0006
91046900|NCT02709486|181979628|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.92|5.21|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline patient global assessment of osteoarthritis scale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||5.21|1.92|<.0001
91046901|NCT02709486|181979628|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.83||||0.0203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|3.06|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline patient global assessment of osteoarthritis scale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.06|1.10|0.0203
91046902|NCT02709486|181979628|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.94|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|4.86|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline patient global assessment of osteoarthritis scale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||4.86|1.77|<.0001
91046903|NCT02709486|181979628|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.0775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.55|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline patient global assessment of osteoarthritis scale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.55|0.95|0.0775
91046904|NCT02709486|181979628|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.97||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|3.21|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline patient global assessment of osteoarthritis scale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.21|1.21|0.0064
91046905|NCT02709486|181979629|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.27|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.27|-0.70|<.0001
91046906|NCT02709486|181979629|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|-0.15|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.15|-0.58|0.0009
91046907|NCT02709486|181979629|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.48|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.48|-1.00|<.0001
91046908|NCT02709486|181979629|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.25|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.25|-0.77|0.0001
91046909|NCT02709486|181979629|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.5|||ANCOVA|||Week 3: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.50|-1.06|<.0001
91046910|NCT02709486|181979629|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.21|||ANCOVA|||Week 3: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.21|-0.77|0.0006
91046911|NCT02709486|181979629|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.62|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.62|-1.20|<.0001
91046912|NCT02709486|181979629|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.47|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.47|-1.06|<.0001
91046913|NCT02709486|181979629|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.59|||ANCOVA|||Week 6: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.59|-1.20|<.0001
90999799|NCT01392378|181883083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.7||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.86||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 23F: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||0.86|0.57|0.0038
90999800|NCT01392378|181883083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.03||||0.8414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.27||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 23F: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.27|0.84|0.8414
91046914|NCT02709486|181979629|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|-0.64|||ANCOVA|||Week 6: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.64|-1.25|<.0001
91046915|NCT02709486|181979629|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.30|-0.93|0.0001
91046916|NCT02709486|181979629|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|-0.5|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.50|-1.13|<.0001
91046917|NCT02709486|181979629|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.39|||ANCOVA|||Week 10: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.39|-1.05|<.0001
90999801|NCT01392378|181883083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.9||||0.2412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.06||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 1: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.06|0.76|0.2412
90999802|NCT01392378|181883083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.2||||0.2053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.41||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 1: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.41|1.02|0.2053
91046918|NCT02709486|181979629|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.44|||ANCOVA|||Week 10: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.44|-1.10|<.0001
91046919|NCT02709486|181979629|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.39|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.39|-1.06|<.0001
91046920|NCT02709486|181979629|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|-0.46|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.46|-1.13|<.0001
91046921|NCT02709486|181979629|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.16|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.16|-0.87|0.0040
91046922|NCT02709486|181979629|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.27|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.27|-0.98|0.0005
91046923|NCT02709486|181979629|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.33|||ANCOVA|||Week 20: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.33|-1.06|0.0002
90999803|NCT01392378|181883083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.82||||0.0241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.96||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 1: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||0.96|0.70|0.0241
90999804|NCT01392378|181883083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.04||||0.8414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.22||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 1: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.22|0.88|0.8414
90999805|NCT01392378|181883083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.81||||0.0732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.94||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 3: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||0.94|0.69|0.0732
90999806|NCT01392378|181883083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.95||||0.609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.1||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 3: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.10|0.82|0.6090
90999807|NCT01392378|181883083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.76||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 3: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||0.76|0.56|<0.0001
90999808|NCT01392378|181883083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.96||||0.8414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.11||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 3: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.11|0.82|0.8414
90999809|NCT01392378|181883083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.98||||0.7828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.16||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 5: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.16|0.82|0.7828
90999810|NCT01392378|181883083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.21||||0.2053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.43||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 5: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.43|1.02|0.2053
90999811|NCT01392378|181883083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.77||||0.0093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.92||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 5: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||0.92|0.65|0.0093
90999812|NCT01392378|181883083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.11||||0.8414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.31||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 5: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.31|0.93|0.8414
91046924|NCT02709486|181979629|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.32|||ANCOVA|||Week 20: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.32|-1.05|0.0002
91046925|NCT02709486|181979629|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.00|-0.78|0.0506
91046926|NCT02709486|181979629|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.13|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.13|-0.91|0.0086
91046927|NCT02709486|181979631|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.48|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC stiffness subscales and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.48|-1.07|<.0001
90999813|NCT01392378|181883083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.88||||0.2412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.07||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 6A: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.07|0.73|0.2412
90999814|NCT01392378|181883083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.14||||0.3121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.37||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 6A: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.37|0.95|0.3121
91046928|NCT02709486|181979631|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.35|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC stiffness subscales and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.35|-0.94|<.0001
91046929|NCT02709486|181979631|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.41|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC stiffness subscales and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.41|-1.03|<.0001
90999815|NCT01392378|181883083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.77||||0.0135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.93||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 6A: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||0.93|0.64|0.0135
90999816|NCT01392378|181883083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.11||||0.8414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.34||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 6A: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.34|0.92|0.8414
90999817|NCT01392378|181883083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.9||||0.2412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.03||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 7F: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.03|0.79|0.2412
90999818|NCT01392378|181883083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.03||||0.6652|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.18||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 7F: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.18|0.91|0.6652
90999819|NCT01392378|181883083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.85||||0.0275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|0.98||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 7F: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||0.98|0.75|0.0275
90999820|NCT01392378|181883083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.06||||0.8414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.21||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 7F: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.21|0.93|0.8414
90999821|NCT01392378|181883083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.9||||0.2412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.06||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 19A: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.06|0.76|0.2412
90999822|NCT01392378|181883083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.13||||0.3121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.32||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 19A: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.32|0.96|0.3121
90999823|NCT01392378|181883083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.84||||0.0387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.99||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 19A: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||0.99|0.72|0.0387
90999824|NCT01392378|181883083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.04||||0.8414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.22||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 19A: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.22|0.89|0.8414
90999825|NCT01392378|181883085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.99||||0.935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.19||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 4: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.19|0.82|0.9350
90999826|NCT01392378|181883085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.11||||0.7918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.32||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 4: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.32|0.93|0.7918
90999827|NCT01392378|181883085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.96||||0.6922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.14||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 4: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.14|0.80|0.6922
90999828|NCT01392378|181883085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.11||||0.9765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.32||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 4: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.32|0.93|0.9765
90999829|NCT01392378|181883085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.95||||0.6915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.15||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 6B: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.15|0.78|0.6915
91046930|NCT02709486|181979631|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|-0.53|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC stiffness subscales and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.53|-1.15|<.0001
91046931|NCT02709486|181979631|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.26|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC stiffness subscales and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.26|-0.91|0.0004
91046932|NCT02709486|181979631|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|-0.67|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC stiffness subscales and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.67|-1.31|<.0001
91046933|NCT02709486|181979631|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|-0.46|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC stiffness subscales and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.46|-1.14|<.0001
91046934|NCT02709486|181979631|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|-0.5|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC stiffness subscales and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.50|-1.18|<.0001
91046935|NCT02709486|181979631|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC stiffness subscales and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.30|-1.00|0.0002
91046936|NCT02709486|181979631|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|-0.43|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC stiffness subscales and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.43|-1.12|<.0001
91046937|NCT02709486|181979631|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.24|-0.99|0.0013
91046938|NCT02709486|181979631|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|-0.5|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC stiffness subscales and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.50|-1.25|<.0001
90999830|NCT01392378|181883085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.13||||0.7918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.36||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 6B: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.36|0.94|0.7918
90999831|NCT01392378|181883085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.9||||0.4389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.09||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 6B: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.09|0.75|0.4389
90999832|NCT01392378|181883085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.03||||0.9765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.24||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 6B: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.24|0.85|0.9765
90999833|NCT01392378|181883085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.99||||0.935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.14||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 9V: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.14|0.87|0.9350
90999834|NCT01392378|181883085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.03||||0.7918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.18||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 9V: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.18|0.90|0.7918
90999835|NCT01392378|181883085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.0||||0.943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.15||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 9V: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.15|0.88|0.9430
90999836|NCT01392378|181883085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.98||||0.9765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.12||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 9V: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.12|0.85|0.9765
90999837|NCT01392378|181883085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.89||||0.5167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.06||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 14: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.06|0.74|0.5167
90999838|NCT01392378|181883085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.92||||0.7918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.1||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 14: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.10|0.78|0.7918
90999839|NCT01392378|181883085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.87||||0.2514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.04||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 14: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.04|0.73|0.2514
90999840|NCT01392378|181883085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.0||||0.9872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.19||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 14: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.19|0.84|0.9872
90999841|NCT01392378|181883085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.85||||0.2582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.0||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 18C: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.00|0.73|0.2582
90999842|NCT01392378|181883085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.06||||0.7918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.23||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 18C: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.23|0.91|0.7918
90999843|NCT01392378|181883085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.86||||0.2514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.0||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 18C: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.00|0.74|0.2514
91046939|NCT02709486|181979633|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.45|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average scores and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.45|-0.96|<.0001
91046940|NCT02709486|181979633|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.21|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average scores and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.21|-0.73|0.0004
91046941|NCT02709486|181979633|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|-0.49|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average scores and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.49|-1.04|<.0001
91046942|NCT02709486|181979633|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.53|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average scores and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.53|-1.08|<.0001
91046943|NCT02709486|181979633|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.32|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average scores and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.32|-0.90|<.0001
91046944|NCT02709486|181979633|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|-0.56|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average scores and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.56|-1.13|<.0001
91046945|NCT02709486|181979633|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|-0.47|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average scores and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.47|-1.09|<.0001
91046946|NCT02709486|181979633|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|-0.5|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average scores and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.50|-1.12|<.0001
91046947|NCT02709486|181979633|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.35|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average scores and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.35|-0.95|0.0001
91046948|NCT02709486|181979633|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.35|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average scores and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.35|-0.99|<.0001
91046949|NCT02709486|181979633|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.21|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average scores and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.21|-0.89|0.0015
91046950|NCT02709486|181979633|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.39|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average scores and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.39|-1.07|<.0001
91046951|NCT02709486|181979635|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.38|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.38|-0.96|<.0001
90999844|NCT01392378|181883085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.03||||0.9765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.2||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 18C: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.20|0.88|0.9765
90999845|NCT01392378|181883085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.06||||0.6915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.3||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 19F: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.30|0.86|0.6915
90999846|NCT01392378|181883085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.13||||0.7918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.38||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 19F: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.38|0.93|0.7918
90999847|NCT01392378|181883085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.95||||0.6922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.15||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 19F: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.15|0.78|0.6922
90999848|NCT01392378|181883085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.01||||0.9872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.23||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 19F: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.23|0.83|0.9872
90999849|NCT01392378|181883085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.85||||0.3609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.04||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 23F: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.04|0.70|0.3609
90999850|NCT01392378|181883085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.08||||0.7918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.3||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 23F: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.30|0.89|0.7918
90999851|NCT01392378|181883085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.86||||0.2514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.05||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 23F: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.05|0.71|0.2514
90999852|NCT01392378|181883085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.04||||0.9765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.26||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 23F: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.26|0.86|0.9765
90999853|NCT01392378|181883085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.92||||0.6304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.08||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 1: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.08|0.79|0.6304
90999854|NCT01392378|181883085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.06||||0.7918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.24||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 1: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.24|0.91|0.7918
90999855|NCT01392378|181883085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.88||||0.2514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.03||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 1: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.03|0.75|0.2514
90999856|NCT01392378|181883085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.03||||0.9765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.2||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 1: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.20|0.88|0.9765
91046952|NCT02709486|181979635|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.08|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.08|-0.67|0.0139
91046953|NCT02709486|181979635|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|-0.51|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.51|-1.13|<.0001
91046954|NCT02709486|181979635|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|-0.55|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.55|-1.16|<.0001
91046955|NCT02709486|181979635|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.27|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.27|-0.91|0.0003
91046956|NCT02709486|181979635|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.40|-1.04|<.0001
91046957|NCT02709486|181979635|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.39|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.39|-1.08|<.0001
91050311|NCT00140426|181986985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.74|||Regression, Cox|Time to reaching ease of eating level 3 assessed using Cox regression as some patients did not reach it during the study.|The hazard ratio is for the placebo group versus the treatment group. A hazard ratio \<1 implies that the placebo group had a lower risk of achieving EOE level 3, although not statistically significant. Achieving EOE level 3 was the desired endpoint.|||1.74|0.41|0.55
90999857|NCT01392378|181883085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.84||||0.2582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.01||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 3: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.01|0.71|0.2582
90999858|NCT01392378|181883085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.99||||0.9279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.18||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 3: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.18|0.84|0.9279
90999859|NCT01392378|181883085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.85||||0.2514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.01||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 3: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.01|0.72|0.2514
90999860|NCT01392378|181883085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.9||||0.9765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.07||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 3: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.07|0.76|0.9765
90999861|NCT01392378|181883085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.82||||0.1424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.96||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 5: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||0.96|0.71|0.1424
90999862|NCT01392378|181883085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.97||||0.7918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.12||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 5: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.12|0.84|0.7918
91046958|NCT02709486|181979635|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|-0.44|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.44|-1.14|<.0001
90999863|NCT01392378|181883085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.85||||0.2514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.98||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 5: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||0.98|0.73|0.2514
90999864|NCT01392378|181883085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.92||||0.9765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.07||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 5: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.07|0.79|0.9765
90999865|NCT01392378|181883085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.93||||0.6304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.1||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 6A: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.10|0.78|0.6304
90999866|NCT01392378|181883085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.04||||0.7918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.22||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 6A: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.22|0.88|0.7918
90999867|NCT01392378|181883085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.95||||0.6922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.13||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 6A: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.13|0.81|0.6922
90999868|NCT01392378|181883085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.97||||0.9765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.15||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 6A: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.15|0.82|0.9765
90999869|NCT01392378|181883085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.95||||0.6572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.08||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 7F: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.08|0.84|0.6572
90999870|NCT01392378|181883085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.98||||0.7918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.11||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 7F: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.11|0.86|0.7918
90999871|NCT01392378|181883085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.89||||0.2514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.01||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 7F: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.01|0.79|0.2514
90999872|NCT01392378|181883085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.0||||0.9872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.13||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 7F: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.13|0.88|0.9872
90999873|NCT01392378|181883085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.92||||0.6304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.09||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 19A: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.09|0.78|0.6304
90999874|NCT01392378|181883085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.04||||0.7918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.22||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 19A: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.22|0.88|0.7918
90999875|NCT01392378|181883085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.95||||0.6922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.12||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 19A: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.12|0.80|0.6922
90999876|NCT01392378|181883085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.95||||0.9765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.13||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 19A: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.13|0.81|0.9765
90999877|NCT01392378|181883087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.2||||0.7148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.66||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 4: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.66|0.82|0.7148
91050312|NCT00140426|181986989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.38|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.74||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.10
91046959|NCT02709486|181979635|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.27|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.27|-0.98|0.0006
91046960|NCT02709486|181979635|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.25|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.25|-0.96|0.0009
91046961|NCT02709486|181979635|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.02|-0.78|0.0377
91046962|NCT02709486|181979635|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.22|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.22|-0.96|0.0019
91046963|NCT02709486|181979637|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.39|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.39|-0.99|<.0001
91046964|NCT02709486|181979637|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.27|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.27|-0.87|0.0002
91046965|NCT02709486|181979637|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|-0.65|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.65|-1.29|<.0001
91046966|NCT02709486|181979637|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|-0.65|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.65|-1.28|<.0001
91046967|NCT02709486|181979637|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.42|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.42|-1.11|<.0001
91046968|NCT02709486|181979637|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|-0.67|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.67|-1.35|<.0001
91046969|NCT02709486|181979637|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.39|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.39|-1.11|<.0001
91046970|NCT02709486|181979637|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|-0.51|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.51|-1.23|<.0001
91050313|NCT00140426|181986989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-43.45|STANDARD_DEVIATION|20.88|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
91050314|NCT00140426|181986991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.33|||t-test, 2 sided||The mean difference was for placebo - risperidone.|Null hypothesis: no difference in change from baseline to end of treatment for CAPT total score||0.33|-0.71|0.47
90999878|NCT01392378|181883087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.0||||0.7907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.45||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 4: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.45|0.75|0.7907
90999879|NCT01392378|181883087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.1||||0.4765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.6||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 4: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.60|0.81|0.4765
90999880|NCT01392378|181883087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.3||||0.5037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.76||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 4: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.76|0.89|0.5037
90999881|NCT01392378|181883087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.1||||0.9414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|2.17||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 6B: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||2.17|0.52|0.9414
90999882|NCT01392378|181883087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.9||||0.7907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.71||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 6B: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.71|0.45|0.7907
90999883|NCT01392378|181883087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.6||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.23||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 6B: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.23|0.32|0.2900
90999884|NCT01392378|181883087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.9||||0.8826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.77||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 6B: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.77|0.44|0.8826
90999885|NCT01392378|181883087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.5||||0.5823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.4||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 9V: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.40|0.18|0.5823
90999886|NCT01392378|181883087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.7||||0.7636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.8||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 9V: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.80|0.27|0.7636
90999887|NCT01392378|181883087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.4||||0.2407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|1.05||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 9V: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.05|0.14|0.2407
90999888|NCT01392378|181883087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.2||||0.8826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|3.22||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 9V: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||3.22|0.43|0.8826
90999889|NCT01392378|181883087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.5||||0.0961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.81||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 14: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||0.81|0.26|0.0961
90999890|NCT01392378|181883087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.7||||0.7636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.11||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 14: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.11|0.38|0.7636
91050315|NCT00140426|181986992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.57
91050316|NCT00140426|181986993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.50
91050317|NCT00140426|181986994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.43
90999891|NCT01392378|181883087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.7||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.19||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 14: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.19|0.39|0.2900
90999892|NCT01392378|181883087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.0||||0.8826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.82||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 14: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.82|0.60|0.8826
90999893|NCT01392378|181883087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.0||||0.9925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.54||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 18C: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.54|0.65|0.9925
90999894|NCT01392378|181883087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.8||||0.7636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.17||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 18C: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.17|0.52|0.7636
90999895|NCT01392378|181883087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.8||||0.3929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.22||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 18C: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.22|0.53|0.3929
90999896|NCT01392378|181883087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.9||||0.8826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.43||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 18C: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.43|0.62|0.8826
90999897|NCT01392378|181883087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.2||||0.7433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.2||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 19F: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||2.20|0.70|0.7433
90999898|NCT01392378|181883087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.8||||0.7636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.35||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 19F: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.35|0.46|0.7636
90999899|NCT01392378|181883087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.6||||0.2407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.03||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 19F: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.03|0.34|0.2407
90999900|NCT01392378|181883087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.1||||0.8826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.83||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 19F: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.83|0.61|0.8826
90999901|NCT01392378|181883087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.9||||0.9414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.71||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 23F: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.71|0.51|0.9414
90999902|NCT01392378|181883087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.2||||0.7636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|2.14||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 23F: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||2.14|0.68|0.7636
90999903|NCT01392378|181883087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.9||||0.738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.63||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 23F: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.63|0.50|0.7380
90999904|NCT01392378|181883087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.9||||0.8826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.58||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 23F: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.58|0.49|0.8826
91050318|NCT00140426|181986995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.12
90999905|NCT01392378|181883087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.1||||0.9414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.65||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 1: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.65|0.67|0.9414
90999906|NCT01392378|181883087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.9||||0.7907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.43||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 1: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.43|0.58|0.7907
90999907|NCT01392378|181883087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.7||||0.2407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.04||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 1: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.04|0.43|0.2407
90999908|NCT01392378|181883087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.7||||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.02||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 1: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.02|0.42|0.2670
90999909|NCT01392378|181883087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.8||||0.5823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.11||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 3: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.11|0.62|0.5823
90999910|NCT01392378|181883087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.9||||0.7636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.16||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 3: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.16|0.65|0.7636
90999911|NCT01392378|181883087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.6||||0.0422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.86||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 3: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||0.86|0.48|0.0422
90999912|NCT01392378|181883087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.7||||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.96||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 3: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||0.96|0.53|0.2670
90999913|NCT01392378|181883087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.1||||0.8454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.78||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 5: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.78|0.72|0.8454
90999914|NCT01392378|181883087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.3||||0.7636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.0||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 5: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||2.00|0.81|0.7636
90999915|NCT01392378|181883087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.7||||0.2824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.11||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 5: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.11|0.45|0.2824
90999916|NCT01392378|181883087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.3||||0.5155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|2.06||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 5: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||2.06|0.83|0.5155
90999917|NCT01392378|181883087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.7||||0.5823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.06||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 6A: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.06|0.50|0.5823
90999918|NCT01392378|181883087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.1||||0.7636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.7||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 6A: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.70|0.78|0.7636
90999919|NCT01392378|181883087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.8||||0.4644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.25||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 6A: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.25|0.56|0.4644
90999920|NCT01392378|181883087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.9||||0.8826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.31||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 6A: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.31|0.59|0.8826
90999921|NCT01392378|181883087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.8||||0.5823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.13||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 7F: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.13|0.61|0.5823
90999922|NCT01392378|181883087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.9||||0.7636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.23||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 7F: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.23|0.65|0.7636
90999923|NCT01392378|181883087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.8||||0.3299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.13||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 7F: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.13|0.60|0.3299
90999924|NCT01392378|181883087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.7||||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.03||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 7F: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.03|0.54|0.2670
90999925|NCT01392378|181883087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.8||||0.5823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.23||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 19A: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.23|0.48|0.5823
90999926|NCT01392378|181883087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.1||||0.7907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.69||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 19A: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.69|0.68|0.7907
90999927|NCT01392378|181883087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.7||||0.2742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.09||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 19A: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.09|0.43|0.2742
90999928|NCT01392378|181883087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.7||||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.05||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 19A: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.05|0.42|0.2670
90999929|NCT01392378|181883088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.93||||0.813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.22||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.22|0.71|0.813
90999930|NCT01392378|181883088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.03||||0.845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.34||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.34|0.79|0.845
90999931|NCT01392378|181883088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.85||||0.461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.11||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.11|0.65|0.461
90999932|NCT01392378|181883088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.89||||0.545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.16||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.16|0.68|0.545
90999933|NCT01392378|181883089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.91||||0.712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.06||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Pertussis PT: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.06|0.79|0.712
90999934|NCT01392378|181883089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.97||||0.837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.12||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Pertussis PT: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.12|0.84|0.837
91050319|NCT04168190|181986996|OTHER|Estimated difference and CI are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in Percentage|-10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.3|9.0|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL minus Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Injection site erythema||9.0|-29.3|
90999935|NCT01392378|181883089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.9||||0.357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.04||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Pertussis PT: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.04|0.78|0.357
90999936|NCT01392378|181883089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.88||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.01||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Pertussis PT: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.01|0.76|0.190
90999937|NCT01392378|181883089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.96||||0.813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.1||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Pertussis FHA: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.10|0.83|0.813
90999938|NCT01392378|181883089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.84||||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.96||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Pertussis FHA: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||0.96|0.73|0.136
90999939|NCT01392378|181883089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.85||||0.104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.98||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Pertussis FHA: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||0.98|0.74|0.104
90999940|NCT01392378|181883089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.85||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Pertussis FHA: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||0.85|0.64|<0.001
90999941|NCT01392378|181883089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.86||||0.712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.04||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Pertussis PRN: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.04|0.72|0.712
90999942|NCT01392378|181883089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.84||||0.206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.01||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Pertussis PRN: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.01|0.70|0.206
90999943|NCT01392378|181883089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.78||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.93||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Pertussis PRN: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||0.93|0.65|0.066
90999944|NCT01392378|181883089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.81||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.97||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Pertussis PRN: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||0.97|0.67|0.085
90999945|NCT01392378|181883090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.9||||0.712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.06||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Tetanus: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.06|0.77|0.712
90999946|NCT01392378|181883090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.86||||0.206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.0||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Tetanus: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.00|0.74|0.206
90999947|NCT01392378|181883090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.84||||0.104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.98||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Tetanus: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||0.98|0.72|0.104
90999948|NCT01392378|181883090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.74||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.87||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Tetanus: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||0.87|0.63|0.001
90999949|NCT01392378|181883090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.95||||0.813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.09||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Diphtheria: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.09|0.82|0.813
90999950|NCT01392378|181883090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.03||||0.837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.19||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Diphtheria: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.19|0.90|0.837
90999951|NCT01392378|181883090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.93||||0.534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.07||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Diphtheria: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.07|0.81|0.534
90999952|NCT01392378|181883090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.0||||0.961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.15||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Diphtheria: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.15|0.87|0.961
90999953|NCT01392378|181883091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.03||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.42||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.42|0.75|0.850
90999954|NCT01392378|181883091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.05||||0.837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.44||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.44|0.77|0.837
90999955|NCT01392378|181883091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.94||||0.695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.28||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.28|0.69|0.695
90999956|NCT01392378|181883091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.82||||0.408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.12||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.12|0.60|0.408
90999957|NCT01392378|181883092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.95||||0.813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.3||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Poliomyelitis Type 1: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.30|0.69|0.813
90999958|NCT01392378|181883092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.92||||0.837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.25||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Poliomyelitis Type 1: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.25|0.68|0.837
90999959|NCT01392378|181883092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.94||||0.695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.28||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Poliomyelitis Type 1: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.28|0.68|0.695
90999960|NCT01392378|181883092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.98||||0.961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.36||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Poliomyelitis Type 1: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.36|0.71|0.961
91046971|NCT02709486|181979637|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.29|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.29|-1.03|0.0005
91046972|NCT02709486|181979637|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.40|-1.13|<.0001
91046973|NCT02709486|181979637|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.06|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.06|-0.82|0.0246
91046974|NCT02709486|181979637|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.33|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.33|-1.10|0.0003
91046975|NCT02709486|181979640|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.57||0.6427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|6.29|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Percent Work Time Missed: WPAI parameters were analyzed using ANCOVA model which included covariates of the corresponding baseline score, baseline diary average pain, index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade (2, 3 or 4), and treatment, with study site as a random effect.||6.29|-3.90|0.6427
90999961|NCT01392378|181883092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.18||||0.808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.65||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Poliomyelitis Type 2: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.65|0.85|0.808
90999962|NCT01392378|181883092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.09||||0.837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.5||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Poliomyelitis Type 2: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.50|0.80|0.837
90999963|NCT01392378|181883092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.92||||0.695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.28||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Poliomyelitis Type 2: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.28|0.66|0.695
90999964|NCT01392378|181883092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.82||||0.408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.15||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Poliomyelitis Type 2: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.15|0.58|0.408
90999965|NCT01392378|181883092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.07||||0.813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.46||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Poliomyelitis Type 3: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.46|0.78|0.813
90999966|NCT01392378|181883092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.8||||0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.08||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Poliomyelitis Type 3: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.08|0.59|0.343
90999967|NCT01392378|181883092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.12||||0.695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.52||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Poliomyelitis Type 3: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.52|0.82|0.695
90999968|NCT01392378|181883092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.95||||0.925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.31||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Poliomyelitis Type 3: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.31|0.69|0.925
90999969|NCT01392378|181883093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.08||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.43||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.43|0.81|0.910
90999970|NCT01392378|181883093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.04||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.37||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.37|0.79|0.850
90999971|NCT01392378|181883093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.92||||0.868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.21||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.21|0.70|0.868
90999972|NCT01392378|181883093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.87||||0.914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.15||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.15|0.67|0.914
90999973|NCT01392378|181883094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.05||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.23||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Pertussis PT: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.23|0.89|0.910
90999974|NCT01392378|181883094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.04||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.22||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Pertussis PT: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.22|0.89|0.850
90999975|NCT01392378|181883094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.0||||0.961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.16||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Pertussis PT: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.16|0.85|0.961
90999976|NCT01392378|181883094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.99||||0.916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.16||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Pertussis PT: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.16|0.85|0.916
90999977|NCT01392378|181883094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.99||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.12||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Pertussis FHA: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.12|0.87|0.910
90999978|NCT01392378|181883094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.01||||0.909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.14||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Pertussis FHA: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.14|0.89|0.909
90999979|NCT01392378|181883094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.06||||0.868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.2||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Pertussis FHA: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.20|0.93|0.868
90999980|NCT01392378|181883094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.92||||0.914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.05||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Pertussis FHA: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.05|0.81|0.914
90999981|NCT01392378|181883094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.92||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.11||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Pertussis PRN: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.11|0.76|0.910
90999982|NCT01392378|181883094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.91||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.09||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Pertussis PRN: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.09|0.76|0.850
90999983|NCT01392378|181883094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.93||||0.868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.12||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Pertussis PRN: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.12|0.78|0.868
90999984|NCT01392378|181883094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.92||||0.914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.1||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Pertussis PRN: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.10|0.76|0.914
90999985|NCT01392378|181883095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.96||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.1||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Tetanus: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.10|0.83|0.910
90999986|NCT01392378|181883095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.94||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.07||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Tetanus: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.07|0.82|0.850
90999987|NCT01392378|181883095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.98||||0.939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.12||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Tetanus: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.12|0.86|0.939
90999988|NCT01392378|181883095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.86||||0.279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|0.98||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Tetanus: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||0.98|0.75|0.279
90999989|NCT01392378|181883095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.86||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.97||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Diphtheria: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||0.97|0.76|0.149
90999990|NCT01392378|181883095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.02||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.14||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Diphtheria: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.14|0.91|0.850
90999991|NCT01392378|181883095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.89||||0.394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.99||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Diphtheria: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||0.99|0.79|0.394
90999992|NCT01392378|181883095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.98||||0.916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.1||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Diphtheria: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.10|0.87|0.916
90999993|NCT01392378|181883096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.26||||0.869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.76||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.76|0.90|0.869
90999994|NCT01392378|181883096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.07||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.48||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.48|0.78|0.850
90999995|NCT01392378|181883096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.1||||0.868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.52||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.52|0.80|0.868
90999996|NCT01392378|181883096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.1||||0.916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.52||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.52|0.80|0.916
90999997|NCT01392378|181883097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.98||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.24||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Poliomyelitis Type 1: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.24|0.78|0.910
90999998|NCT01392378|181883097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.05||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.32||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Poliomyelitis Type 1: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.32|0.83|0.850
90999999|NCT01392378|181883097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.09||||0.868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.37||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Poliomyelitis Type 1: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.37|0.87|0.868
91000000|NCT01392378|181883097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.02||||0.916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.28||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Poliomyelitis Type 1: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.28|0.81|0.916
91000001|NCT01392378|181883097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.99||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.23||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Poliomyelitis Type 2: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.23|0.79|0.910
91000002|NCT01392378|181883097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.94||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.17||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Poliomyelitis Type 2: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.17|0.76|0.850
91000003|NCT01392378|181883097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.95||||0.868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.17||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Poliomyelitis Type 2: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.17|0.77|0.868
91000004|NCT01392378|181883097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.98||||0.916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.21||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Poliomyelitis Type 2: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.21|0.79|0.916
91000005|NCT01392378|181883097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.97||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.23||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Poliomyelitis Type 3: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.23|0.77|0.910
91000006|NCT01392378|181883097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.84||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.06||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Poliomyelitis Type 3: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.06|0.67|0.850
91000007|NCT01392378|181883097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.98||||0.939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.23||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Poliomyelitis Type 3: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.23|0.78|0.939
91000008|NCT01392378|181883097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.96||||0.916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.21||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Poliomyelitis Type 3: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.21|0.76|0.916
91000009|NCT00788697|181883115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Sensitivity (%)|11.3||||0.0754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|23.6|||McNemar|||||23.6|-1.0|0.0754
91000010|NCT00788697|181883115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Sensitivity (%)|19.4||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.3|30.5|||McNemar|||||30.5|8.3|0.0011
91000011|NCT00788697|181883115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Sensitivity (%)|-19.4||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.9|-7.8|||McNemar|||||-7.8|-30.9|0.0016
91000012|NCT00788697|181883116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Specificity (%)|47.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.4|57.4|||McNemar|||||57.4|37.4|<.0001
91000013|NCT00788697|181883116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Specificity (%)|60.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.5|70.2|||McNemar|||||70.2|50.5|<.0001
91000014|NCT00788697|181883116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Specificity (%)|29.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.7|38.9|||McNemar|||||38.9|19.7|<.0001
91000015|NCT00788697|181883117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Accuracy (%)|28.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.5|37.0|||McNemar|||||37.0|20.5|<.0001
91000016|NCT00788697|181883117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Accuracy (%)|39.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.3|47.1|||McNemar|||||47.1|31.3|<.0001
91000017|NCT00788697|181883117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Accuracy (%)|4.2||||0.3173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|12.3|||McNemar|||||12.3|-4.0|0.3173
91000018|NCT00788697|181883118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wald Test|||||||<.0001
91000019|NCT00788697|181883118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wald Test|||||||<.0001
91000020|NCT00788697|181883118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004|||||||Wald Test|||||||0.0004
91000021|NCT00788697|181883119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wald Test|||||||<.0001
91000022|NCT00788697|181883119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wald Test|||||||<.0001
91000023|NCT00788697|181883119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.761|||||||Wald Test|||||||0.7610
91046976|NCT02709486|181979640|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.59||0.4208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.22|3.04|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Percent Work Time Missed: WPAI parameters were analyzed using ANCOVA model which included covariates of the corresponding baseline score, baseline diary average pain, index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade (2, 3 or 4), and treatment, with study site as a random effect.||3.04|-7.22|0.4208
91046977|NCT02709486|181979640|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.73||0.8204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.03|4.79|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Percent Work Time Missed: WPAI parameters were analyzed using ANCOVA model which included covariates of the corresponding baseline score, baseline diary average pain, index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade (2, 3 or 4), and treatment, with study site as a random effect.||4.79|-6.03|0.8204
91046978|NCT02709486|181979640|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-4.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.85||0.1157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.16|1.13|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Percent Work Time Missed: WPAI parameters were analyzed using ANCOVA model which included covariates of the corresponding baseline score, baseline diary average pain, index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade (2, 3 or 4), and treatment, with study site as a random effect.||1.13|-10.16|0.1157
91046979|NCT02709486|181979640|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.41||0.5845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.12|3.47|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Percent Work Time Missed: WPAI parameters were analyzed using ANCOVA model which included covariates of the corresponding baseline score, baseline diary average pain, index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade (2, 3 or 4), and treatment, with study site as a random effect.||3.47|-6.12|0.5845
91046980|NCT02709486|181979640|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.54||0.2514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.97|2.11|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Percent Work Time Missed: WPAI parameters were analyzed using ANCOVA model which included covariates of the corresponding baseline score, baseline diary average pain, index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade (2, 3 or 4), and treatment, with study site as a random effect.||2.11|-7.97|0.2514
91046981|NCT02709486|181979640|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-6.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.67||0.0717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.97|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Percent Impairment While Working: WPAI parameters were analyzed using ANCOVA model which included covariates of the corresponding baseline score, baseline diary average pain, index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade (2, 3 or 4), and treatment, with study site as a random effect.||0.60|-13.97|0.0717
91046982|NCT02709486|181979640|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-12.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.74||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.11|-5.26|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Percent Impairment While Working: WPAI parameters were analyzed using ANCOVA model which included covariates of the corresponding baseline score, baseline diary average pain, index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade (2, 3 or 4), and treatment, with study site as a random effect.||-5.26|-20.11|0.0010
91046983|NCT02709486|181979640|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-10.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8||0.0079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.85|-2.77|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Percent Impairment While Working: WPAI parameters were analyzed using ANCOVA model which included covariates of the corresponding baseline score, baseline diary average pain, index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade (2, 3 or 4), and treatment, with study site as a random effect.||-2.77|-17.85|0.0079
91046984|NCT02709486|181979640|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-10.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0||0.0096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.49|-2.63|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Percent Impairment While Working: WPAI parameters were analyzed using ANCOVA model which included covariates of the corresponding baseline score, baseline diary average pain, index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade (2, 3 or 4), and treatment, with study site as a random effect.||-2.63|-18.49|0.0096
91046985|NCT02709486|181979640|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-4.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.37||0.3302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.97|4.41|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Percent Impairment While Working: WPAI parameters were analyzed using ANCOVA model which included covariates of the corresponding baseline score, baseline diary average pain, index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade (2, 3 or 4), and treatment, with study site as a random effect.||4.41|-12.97|0.3302
91046986|NCT02709486|181979640|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.54||0.5483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.78|6.3|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Percent Impairment While Working: WPAI parameters were analyzed using ANCOVA model which included covariates of the corresponding baseline score, baseline diary average pain, index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade (2, 3 or 4), and treatment, with study site as a random effect.||6.30|-11.78|0.5483
91050320|NCT04168190|181986996|OTHER|Estimated difference and CI are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in Percentage|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.1|24.6|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL minus Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Injection site erythema||24.6|-18.1|
91046987|NCT02709486|181979640|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-6.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.79||0.0774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.26|0.76|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Percent Overall Work Impairment: WPAI parameters were analyzed using ANCOVA model which included covariates of the corresponding baseline score, baseline diary average pain, index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade (2, 3 or 4), and treatment, with study site as a random effect.||0.76|-14.26|0.0774
91046988|NCT02709486|181979640|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-12.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.87||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.15|-4.81|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Percent Overall Work Impairment: WPAI parameters were analyzed using ANCOVA model which included covariates of the corresponding baseline score, baseline diary average pain, index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade (2, 3 or 4), and treatment, with study site as a random effect.||-4.81|-20.15|0.0017
91046989|NCT02709486|181979640|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-9.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.74||0.0135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.83|-1.99|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Percent Overall Work Impairment: WPAI parameters were analyzed using ANCOVA model which included covariates of the corresponding baseline score, baseline diary average pain, index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade (2, 3 or 4), and treatment, with study site as a random effect.||-1.99|-16.83|0.0135
91046990|NCT02709486|181979640|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-10.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.97||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.91|-2.17|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Percent Overall Work Impairment: WPAI parameters were analyzed using ANCOVA model which included covariates of the corresponding baseline score, baseline diary average pain, index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade (2, 3 or 4), and treatment, with study site as a random effect.||-2.17|-17.91|0.0129
91046991|NCT02709486|181979640|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.43||0.3869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.66|4.96|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Percent Overall Work Impairment: WPAI parameters were analyzed using ANCOVA model which included covariates of the corresponding baseline score, baseline diary average pain, index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade (2, 3 or 4), and treatment, with study site as a random effect.||4.96|-12.66|0.3869
91046992|NCT02709486|181979640|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.62||0.6485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.31|7.08|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Percent Overall Work Impairment: WPAI parameters were analyzed using ANCOVA model which included covariates of the corresponding baseline score, baseline diary average pain, index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade (2, 3 or 4), and treatment, with study site as a random effect.||7.08|-11.31|0.6485
91046993|NCT02709486|181979640|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-6.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.61||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.34|-3.03|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Percent Activity Impairment: WPAI parameters were analyzed using ANCOVA model which included covariates of the corresponding baseline score, baseline diary average pain, index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade (2, 3 or 4), and treatment, with study site as a random effect.||-3.03|-9.34|0.0001
91046994|NCT02709486|181979640|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-9.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.26|-6.0|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Percent Activity Impairment: WPAI parameters were analyzed using ANCOVA model which included covariates of the corresponding baseline score, baseline diary average pain, index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade (2, 3 or 4), and treatment, with study site as a random effect.||-6.00|-12.26|<.0001
91046995|NCT02709486|181979640|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.79||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.51|-2.5|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Percent Activity Impairment: WPAI parameters were analyzed using ANCOVA model which included covariates of the corresponding baseline score, baseline diary average pain, index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade (2, 3 or 4), and treatment, with study site as a random effect.||-2.50|-9.51|0.0008
91046996|NCT02709486|181979640|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-6.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.77|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.44|-3.51|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Percent Activity Impairment: WPAI parameters were analyzed using ANCOVA model which included covariates of the corresponding baseline score, baseline diary average pain, index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade (2, 3 or 4), and treatment, with study site as a random effect.||-3.51|-10.44|<.0001
91046997|NCT02709486|181979640|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.87||0.1004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.76|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Percent Activity Impairment: WPAI parameters were analyzed using ANCOVA model which included covariates of the corresponding baseline score, baseline diary average pain, index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade (2, 3 or 4), and treatment, with study site as a random effect.||0.60|-6.76|0.1004
91046998|NCT02709486|181979640|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-4.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86||0.0079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.59|-1.3|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Percent Activity Impairment: WPAI parameters were analyzed using ANCOVA model which included covariates of the corresponding baseline score, baseline diary average pain, index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade (2, 3 or 4), and treatment, with study site as a random effect||-1.30|-8.59|0.0079
91046999|NCT02709486|181979655|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.1||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.46|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression model included baseline diary average pain, baseline WOMAC pain score, classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment. Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.||0.46|0.02|0.0027
91047000|NCT02709486|181979655|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.16||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.54|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression model included baseline diary average pain, baseline WOMAC pain score, classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment. Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.||0.54|0.05|0.0033
91047001|NCT02709486|181979656|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002||||||P-value based on the log-rank test.|Log Rank|||Missing data for the selected percentile(s) was due to the Kaplan-Meier estimate not reaching the level for discontinuation due to lack of efficacy.||||0.0002
91047002|NCT02709486|181979656|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0007||||||P-value based on the log-rank test.|Log Rank|||Missing data for the selected percentile(s) was due to the Kaplan-Meier estimate not reaching the level for discontinuation due to lack of efficacy.||||0.0007
91047003|NCT02709486|181979657|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.59|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||0.59|0.29|<.0001
91050321|NCT04168190|181986996|OTHER|Estimated difference and CI are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in Percentage|16.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|39.3|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL minus Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Injection site pain||39.3|-7.7|
91000024|NCT01998880|181883126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.46|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.59||Type I error controlled through closed test procedure.|Log Rank, Stratified||Stratified by Binet stage at Baseline.|||0.59|0.36|<0.0001
91000025|NCT01998880|181883128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.5|||Log Rank, Stratified||Stratified by Binet stage at Baseline.|||0.50|0.31|<0.0001
91000026|NCT01998880|181883129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.2841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.16|||Log Rank, Stratified||Stratified by Binet stage at Baseline.|||1.16|0.61|0.2841
91000027|NCT01998880|181883130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|34.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.5|45.1|||Chi-squared|||||45.1|23.5|<0.0001
91000028|NCT01998880|181883132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.46|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.61|||Log-ranked, Stratified||Stratified by Binet stage at Baseline.|||0.61|0.35|<0.0001
91000029|NCT01998880|181883136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (stratified)|0.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.53|||Log Rank, Stratified||Stratified by Binet stage at Baseline.|||0.53|0.30|<0.0001
91000030|NCT01998880|181883137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (stratified)|0.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.65|||Log Rank, Stratified||Stratified by Binet stage at Baseline.|||0.65|0.31|<0.0001
91000031|NCT01998880|181883138|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|33.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.1|43.9|||Chi-squared|||Includes subjects with best overall response: CR, CRi, PR or nPR.||43.9|22.1|< 0.0001
91000032|NCT00014911|181883177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|44.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.0|61.0|||Fisher Exact|||||61|30|
91000033|NCT00014911|181883178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|28.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.0|44.0|||Fisher Exact|||||44|16|
91000034|NCT00014911|181883179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|58.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.0|63.0|||Fisher Exact|||||63|42|
91000035|NCT05064332|181883190|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|101.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.01|110.61||||||OC alone as the Reference and co-administration of PF-06650833 and OC as the Test. Natural log transformed AUClast was analyzed using a mixed effects model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were obtained from the model and were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||110.61|93.01|
91000036|NCT05064332|181883191|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|108.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.85|119.11||||||OC alone as the Reference and co-administration of PF-06650833 and OC as the Test. Natural log transformed AUClast was analyzed using a mixed effects model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% CIs were obtained from the model and were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||119.11|98.85|
91000037|NCT05064332|181883192|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|95.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.44|107.04||||||OC alone as the Reference and co-administration of PF-06650833 and OC as the Test. Natural log transformed Cmax was analyzed using a mixed effects model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were obtained from the model and were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||107.04|84.44|
91000038|NCT05064332|181883193|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|117.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.82|136.73||||||OC alone as the Reference and co-administration of PF-06650833 and OC as the Test. Natural log transformed Cmax was analyzed using a mixed effects model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% CIs were obtained from the model and were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||136.73|101.82|
91000039|NCT01269047|181883202|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.4||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|-0.2|||ANOVA|||||-0.2|-4.2|0.04
91000040|NCT01269047|181883202|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.7||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|-1.3|||ANOVA|||||-1.3|-5.8|0.008
91000041|NCT01269047|181883202|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.6||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|-2.0|||ANOVA|||||-2.0|-6.4|0.003
91000042|NCT01269047|181883202|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.0||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.98|||ANOVA|||||0.98|-2.3|0.37
91000043|NCT01269047|181883203|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.8||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.81|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.81|-0.21|0.2
91000044|NCT01269047|181883203|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.6||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.50|-0.25|0.48
91000045|NCT01269047|181883203|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.6||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.57|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.57|-0.12|0.18
91000046|NCT01269047|181883203|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.004|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.0||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.61|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.61|-0.62|1.0
91000047|NCT01569087|181883204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
91047004|NCT02709486|181979657|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.55||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.78|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||0.78|0.38|0.0010
91047005|NCT02709486|181979657|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.7|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||0.70|0.36|<.0001
91047006|NCT02709486|181979657|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.62||||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.88|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||0.88|0.44|0.0067
91047007|NCT02709486|181979657|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.64||||0.0087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.89|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||0.89|0.45|0.0087
91047008|NCT02709486|181979657|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.0787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.04|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||1.04|0.53|0.0787
91047009|NCT02709486|181979657|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65||||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.91|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||0.91|0.47|0.0129
91047010|NCT02709486|181979657|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65||||0.0124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.91|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||0.91|0.47|0.0124
91047011|NCT02709486|181979657|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.0399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.98|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||0.98|0.50|0.0399
91047012|NCT02709486|181979657|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.62||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.87|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||0.87|0.45|0.0060
91047013|NCT02709486|181979657|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.9449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.42|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||1.42|0.72|0.9449
91047014|NCT02709486|181979657|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.3238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.18|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||1.18|0.60|0.3238
91047015|NCT02709486|181979659|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.82|||Negative binomial model|||Week 2: Least square (LS) Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||0.82|0.54|0.0001
91047016|NCT02709486|181979659|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.92|||Negative binomial model|||Week 2: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||0.92|0.61|0.0067
91047017|NCT02709486|181979659|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.82|||Negative binomial model|||Week 4: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||0.82|0.51|0.0003
91047018|NCT02709486|181979659|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.93|||Negative binomial model|||Week 4: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||0.93|0.58|0.0112
91047019|NCT02709486|181979659|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.92|||Negative binomial model|||Week 8: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||0.92|0.56|0.0093
91047020|NCT02709486|181979659|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.96|||Negative binomial model|||Week 8: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||0.96|0.59|0.0237
91047021|NCT02709486|181979659|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.98|||Negative binomial model|||Week 12: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||0.98|0.56|0.0374
91047022|NCT02709486|181979659|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.0|||Negative binomial model|||Week 12: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||1.00|0.57|0.0468
91047023|NCT02709486|181979659|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.03|||Negative binomial model|||Week 16: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||1.03|0.59|0.0751
91047024|NCT02709486|181979659|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.1305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.06|||Negative binomial model|||Week 16: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||1.06|0.61|0.1305
91000048|NCT04532918|181883210|OTHER|Analysis of variance of log transformed PK parameter with treatment and participant as fixed effects|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|255.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|208.7|312.3|||||Pairwise comparisons of Test 1/ reference (verinurad+allopurinol+cyclosporine/ verinurad+allopurinol alone)|Statistical comparison of Cmax||312.3|208.7|
91047025|NCT02709486|181979659|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.3057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.16|||Negative binomial model|||Week 24: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||1.16|0.63|0.3057
91047026|NCT02709486|181979659|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.2056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.11|||Negative binomial model|||Week 24: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||1.11|0.61|0.2056
91000049|NCT04532918|181883210|OTHER|Analysis of variance of log transformed PK parameter with treatment and participant as fixed effects|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|189.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|154.0|233.1|||||Pairwise comparisons of Test 2/ reference (verinurad+allopurinol+rifampicin/ verinurad+allopurinol alone)|Statistical comparison of Cmax||233.1|154.0|
91000050|NCT04532918|181883211|OTHER|Analysis of variance of log transformed PK parameter with treatment and participant as fixed effects|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|238.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|207.6|273.8|||||Pairwise comparisons of Test 1/ reference (verinurad+allopurinol+cyclosporine/ verinurad+allopurinol alone)|Statistical comparison of AUCinf||273.8|207.6|
91047027|NCT02709486|181979661|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.99|||Negative binomial model|||Week 2: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||0.99|0.39|0.0441
91050322|NCT04168190|181986996|OTHER|Estimated difference and CI are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in Percentage|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|42.1|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL minus Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Injection site pain||42.1|-4.1|
91000051|NCT04532918|181883211|OTHER|Analysis of variance of log transformed PK parameter with treatment and participant as fixed effects|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|148.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|129.1|171.7|||||Pairwise comparisons of Test 2/ reference (verinurad+allopurinol+rifampicin/ verinurad+allopurinol alone)|Statistical comparison of AUCinf||171.7|129.1|
91000052|NCT04532918|181883212|OTHER|Analysis of variance of log transformed PK parameter with treatment and participant as fixed effects|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|261.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|229.8|298.1|||||Pairwise comparisons of Test 1/ reference (verinurad+allopurinol+cyclosporine/ verinurad+allopurinol alone)|Statistical comparison of AUClast||298.1|229.8|
91000053|NCT04532918|181883212|OTHER|Analysis of variance of log transformed PK parameter with treatment and participant as fixed effects|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|163.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|142.8|186.6|||||Pairwise comparisons of Test 2/ reference (verinurad+allopurinol+rifampicin/ verinurad+allopurinol alone)|Statistical comparison of AUClast||186.6|142.8|
91000054|NCT04532918|181883213|OTHER|Analysis of variance of log transformed PK parameter with treatment and participant as fixed effects|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|273.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|227.9|328.1|||||Pairwise comparisons of Test 1/ reference (verinurad+allopurinol+cyclosporine/ verinurad+allopurinol alone)|Statistical comparison of Cmax for metabolite: M1||328.1|227.9|
91000055|NCT04532918|181883213|OTHER|Analysis of variance of log transformed PK parameter with treatment and participant as fixed effects|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|275.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|228.7|332.7|||||Pairwise comparisons of Test 2/ reference (verinurad+allopurinol+rifampicin/ verinurad+allopurinol alone)|Statistical comparison of Cmax for metabolite: M1||332.7|228.7|
91000056|NCT04532918|181883213|OTHER|Analysis of variance of log transformed PK parameter with treatment and participant as fixed effects|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|24.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|19.15|31.72|||||Pairwise comparisons of Test 1/ reference (verinurad+allopurinol+cyclosporine/ verinurad+allopurinol alone)|Statistical comparison of Cmax for metabolite: M8||31.72|19.15|
91000057|NCT04532918|181883213|OTHER|Analysis of variance of log transformed PK parameter with treatment and participant as fixed effects|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|37.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|29.18|49.03|||||Pairwise comparisons of Test 2/ reference (verinurad+allopurinol+rifampicin/ verinurad+allopurinol alone)|Statistical comparison of Cmax for metabolite: M8||49.03|29.18|
91000058|NCT04532918|181883214|OTHER|Analysis of variance of log transformed PK parameter with treatment and participant as fixed effects|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|291.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|260.6|326.8|||||Pairwise comparisons of Test 1/ reference (verinurad+allopurinol+cyclosporine/ verinurad+allopurinol alone)|Statistical comparison of AUCinf for metabolite: M1||326.8|260.6|
91000059|NCT04532918|181883214|OTHER|Analysis of variance of log transformed PK parameter with treatment and participant as fixed effects|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|215.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|192.0|242.4|||||Pairwise comparisons of Test 2/ reference (verinurad+allopurinol+rifampicin/ verinurad+allopurinol alone)|Statistical comparison of Cmax for metabolite: M1||242.4|192.0|
91000060|NCT04532918|181883214|OTHER|Analysis of variance of log transformed PK parameter with treatment and participant as fixed effects|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|55.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|47.19|64.83|||||Pairwise comparisons of Test 1/ reference (verinurad+allopurinol+cyclosporine/ verinurad+allopurinol alone)|Statistical comparison of AUCinf for metabolite: M8||64.83|47.19|
91000061|NCT04532918|181883214|OTHER|Analysis of variance of log transformed PK parameter with treatment and participant as fixed effects|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|68.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|57.99|80.39|||||Pairwise comparisons of Test 2/ reference (verinurad+allopurinol+rifampicin/ verinurad+allopurinol alone)|Statistical comparison of AUCinf for metabolite: M8||80.39|57.99|
91000062|NCT04532918|181883215|OTHER|Analysis of variance of log transformed PK parameter with treatment and participant as fixed effects|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|306.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|273.3|343.6|||||Pairwise comparisons of Test 1/ reference (verinurad+allopurinol+cyclosporine/ verinurad+allopurinol alone)|Statistical comparison of AUClast for metabolite: M1||343.6|273.3|
91000063|NCT04532918|181883215|OTHER|Analysis of variance of log transformed PK parameter with treatment and participant as fixed effects|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|227.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|202.1|255.8|||||Pairwise comparisons of Test 2/ reference (verinurad+allopurinol+rifampicin/ verinurad+allopurinol alone)|Statistical comparison of AUClast for metabolite: M1||255.8|202.1|
91000064|NCT04532918|181883215|OTHER|Analysis of variance of log transformed PK parameter with treatment and participant as fixed effects|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|51.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|43.8|59.45|||||Pairwise comparisons of Test 1/ reference (verinurad+allopurinol+cyclosporine/ verinurad+allopurinol alone)|Statistical comparison of AUClast for metabolite: M8||59.45|43.80|
91000065|NCT04532918|181883215|OTHER|Analysis of variance of log transformed PK parameter with treatment and participant as fixed effects|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|70.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.21|82.44|||||Pairwise comparisons of Test 2/ reference (verinurad+allopurinol+rifampicin/ verinurad+allopurinol alone)|Statistical comparison of AUClast for metabolite: M8||82.44|60.21|
91000066|NCT04532918|181883216|OTHER|Analysis of variance of log transformed PK parameter with treatment and participant as fixed effects|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|74.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|59.42|94.26|||||Pairwise comparisons of Test 1/ reference (verinurad+allopurinol+cyclosporine/ verinurad+allopurinol alone)|Statistical comparison of Cmax for allopurinol||94.26|59.42|
91000067|NCT04532918|181883216|OTHER|Analysis of variance of log transformed PK parameter with treatment and participant as fixed effects|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|80.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|63.88|102.7|||||Pairwise comparisons of Test 2/ reference (verinurad+allopurinol+rifampicin/ verinurad+allopurinol alone)|Statistical comparison of Cmax for allopurinol||102.7|63.88|
91000068|NCT04532918|181883216|OTHER|Analysis of variance of log transformed PK parameter with treatment and participant as fixed effects|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|96.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.11|101.8|||||Pairwise comparisons of Test 1/ reference (verinurad+allopurinol+cyclosporine/ verinurad+allopurinol alone)|Statistical comparison of Cmax for oxypurinol||101.8|92.11|
91000069|NCT04532918|181883216|OTHER|Analysis of variance of log transformed PK parameter with treatment and participant as fixed effects|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|99.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.36|104.0|||||Pairwise comparisons of Test 2/ reference (verinurad+allopurinol+rifampicin/ verinurad+allopurinol alone)|Statistical comparison of Cmax for oxypurinol||104.0|94.36|
91000070|NCT04532918|181883217|OTHER|Analysis of variance of log transformed PK parameter with treatment and participant as fixed effects|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|98.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.26|105.9|||||Pairwise comparisons of Test 1/ reference (verinurad+allopurinol+cyclosporine/ verinurad+allopurinol alone)|Statistical comparison of AUCinf for allopurinol||105.9|91.26|
91000071|NCT04532918|181883217|OTHER|Analysis of variance of log transformed PK parameter with treatment and participant as fixed effects|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|101.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.72|109.2|||||Pairwise comparisons of Test 2/ reference (verinurad+allopurinol+rifampicin/ verinurad+allopurinol alone)|Statistical comparison of AUCinf for allopurinol||109.2|93.72|
91000072|NCT04532918|181883217|OTHER|Analysis of variance of log transformed PK parameter with treatment and participant as fixed effects|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|99.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.02|103.5|||||Pairwise comparisons of Test 1/ reference (verinurad+allopurinol+cyclosporine/ verinurad+allopurinol alone)|Statistical comparison of AUCinf for oxypurinol||103.5|95.02|
91000073|NCT04532918|181883217|OTHER|Analysis of variance of log transformed PK parameter with treatment and participant as fixed effects|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|96.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.15|100.1|||||Pairwise comparisons of Test 2/ reference (verinurad+allopurinol+rifampicin/ verinurad+allopurinol alone)|Statistical comparison of AUCinf for oxypurinol||100.1|92.15|
91000074|NCT04532918|181883218|OTHER|Analysis of variance of log transformed PK parameter with treatment and participant as fixed effects|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|98.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.1|106.0|||||Pairwise comparisons of Test 1/ reference (verinurad+allopurinol+cyclosporine/ verinurad+allopurinol alone)|Statistical comparison of AUClast for allopurinol||106.0|91.10|
91000075|NCT04532918|181883218|OTHER|Analysis of variance of log transformed PK parameter with treatment and participant as fixed effects|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|101.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.99|109.8|||||Pairwise comparisons of Test 2/ reference (verinurad+allopurinol+rifampicin/ verinurad+allopurinol alone)|Statistical comparison of AUClast for allopurinol||109.8|93.99|
91000076|NCT04532918|181883218|OTHER|Analysis of variance of log transformed PK parameter with treatment and participant as fixed effects|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|98.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.5|101.7|||||Pairwise comparisons of Test 1/ reference (verinurad+allopurinol+cyclosporine/ verinurad+allopurinol alone)|Statistical comparison of AUClast for oxypurinol||101.7|94.50|
91000077|NCT04532918|181883218|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|95.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.61|99.48|||||Pairwise comparisons of Test 2/ reference (verinurad+allopurinol+rifampicin/ verinurad+allopurinol alone)|Analysis of variance of log transformed PK parameter with treatment and participant as fixed effects||99.48|92.61|
91000078|NCT03788616|181883231|EQUIVALENCE|assuming 95% power of the study|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.478
91000079|NCT03404219|181883239|OTHER|Single group pre-post, follow-up|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.56||||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||General Linear Model (repeated measures)|||Single arm||||0.09
91000080|NCT03170258|181883246|OTHER|||||||0.0015|||||||t-test, 2 sided|One-sample 2-sided t-test against a mean of 0 used to evaluate the main effect of VTA activation during neurofeedback.||||||0.0015
91000081|NCT03170258|181883247|OTHER||||||>|0.1|||||||t-test, 1 sided|One-sample t-test against 0 for the ratio of Beta to Theta power.||||||>0.10
91000082|NCT01094808|181883378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mean value for 200 mg Pregabalin|33.391|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.106||0.14||95.0||||P-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons; alpha level of 0.05 used|ANCOVA||A confidence interval was not calculated|ANCOVA for overall treatment effects||||0.14
91000083|NCT01094808|181883379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mean value for 200 mg Pregabalin|35.301|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.295||0.12||95.0||||P-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons; alpha level of 0.05 used|ANCOVA||A confidence interval was not calculated|ANCOVA for overall treatment effects||||0.12
91000084|NCT00443846|181883421|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was concluded if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval of the difference (Group 1 - Group 2) in seroprotection rate was greater than -10%.|Difference (Group 1 - Group 2)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|3.7||||||Analysis of non-inferiority was based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method||3.7|-3.7|
91047028|NCT02709486|181979661|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.1895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.17|||Negative binomial model|||Week 2: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||1.17|0.46|0.1895
91047029|NCT02709486|181979661|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.01|||Negative binomial model|||Week 4: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||1.01|0.35|0.0567
91047030|NCT02709486|181979661|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.28|||Negative binomial model|||Week 4: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||1.28|0.44|0.2960
91047031|NCT02709486|181979661|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.1215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.12|||Negative binomial model|||Week 8: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||1.12|0.37|0.1215
91047032|NCT02709486|181979661|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.3569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.34|||Negative binomial model|||Week 8: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||1.34|0.44|0.3569
91047033|NCT02709486|181979661|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.2096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.25|||Negative binomial model|||Week 12: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||1.25|0.36|0.2096
91047034|NCT02709486|181979661|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.2387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.28|||Negative binomial model|||Week 12: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||1.28|0.37|0.2387
91047035|NCT02709486|181979661|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.2627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.29|||Negative binomial model|||Week 16: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||1.29|0.39|0.2627
91047036|NCT02709486|181979661|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.2863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.31|||Negative binomial model|||Week 16: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group||1.31|0.40|0.2863
91047037|NCT02709486|181979661|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.58|||Negative binomial model|||Week 24: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||1.58|0.43|0.5560
91047038|NCT02709486|181979661|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.5076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.53|||Negative binomial model|||Week 24: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||1.53|0.42|0.5076
91047039|NCT02691741|181979695|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the upper confidence limit of the two-sided 90% confidence interval on the treatment difference is less than 0.1 logMAR unit.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.061|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0193|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.093|-0.029||||||||-0.029|-0.093|
91047040|NCT02691741|181979696|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.061|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0193||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.093|-0.029|||Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||||-0.029|-0.093|0.002
91047041|NCT02691741|181979697|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the upper confidence limit of the two-sided 90% confidence interval on the treatment difference is less than 0.1 logMAR unit.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0157|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.019|0.043||||||||0.043|-0.019|
91047042|NCT02691741|181979697|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.455|||||||Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||||||0.455
91047043|NCT02691741|181979698|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the upper confidence limit of the two-sided 90% confidence interval on the treatment difference is less than 0.1 logMAR unit.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.051|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0168|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.078|-0.023||||||||-0.023|-0.078|
91047044|NCT02691741|181979698|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||||||0.003
91047045|NCT03465436|181979705|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|-3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.41|-1.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||30 minutes postdose||-1.59|-5.41|
91047046|NCT03465436|181979705|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|-3.54|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.18|-1.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1 hour postdose||-1.89|-5.18|
91047047|NCT03465436|181979705|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|-4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.77|-2.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1.5 hours postdose||-2.43|-5.77|
91047048|NCT03465436|181979705|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|-3.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.14|-1.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2 hours postdose||-1.28|-5.14|
91047049|NCT03465436|181979705|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|-2.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.41|-0.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2.5 hours postdose||-0.51|-4.41|
91047050|NCT03465436|181979705|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|-0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.84|1.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3 hours postdose||1.03|-2.84|
91047051|NCT03465436|181979705|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|-0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.53|1.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3.5 hours postdose||1.29|-2.53|
91047052|NCT03465436|181979705|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.84|1.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||4 hours postdose||1.99|-1.84|
91047053|NCT03465436|181979705|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|-1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.22|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||6 hours postdose||1.10|-3.22|
91047054|NCT03465436|181979705|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|-2.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.88|-0.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||8 hours postdose||-0.57|-4.88|
91047055|NCT03465436|181979705|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|-2.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.77|-0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||12 hours postdose||-0.32|-3.77|
91047056|NCT03465436|181979705|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.9|2.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||24 hours postdose||2.33|-1.90|
91047057|NCT03465436|181979705|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|-3.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.56|-2.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||30 minutes postdose||-2.11|-5.56|
91047058|NCT03465436|181979705|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|-0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.75|1.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1 hour postdose||1.25|-2.75|
91047059|NCT03465436|181979705|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.49|2.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1.5 hours postdose||2.38|-1.49|
91047060|NCT03465436|181979705|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|2.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.58|4.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2 hours postdose||4.58|0.58|
91047061|NCT03465436|181979705|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|2.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.73|4.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2.5 hours postdose||4.98|0.73|
91047062|NCT03465436|181979705|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|3.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.85|6.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3 hours postdose||6.03|1.85|
91047063|NCT03465436|181979705|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|5.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.61|6.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3.5 hours postdose||6.95|3.61|
91047064|NCT03465436|181979705|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|6.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.99|8.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|||4 hours postdose||8.89|4.99|
91047065|NCT03465436|181979705|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|3.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|5.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||6 hours postdose||5.34|0.93|
91047066|NCT03465436|181979705|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|2.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.23|4.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||8 hours postdose||4.40|-0.23|
91047067|NCT03465436|181979705|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|1.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.57|3.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||12 hours postdose||3.30|-0.57|
91047068|NCT03465436|181979705|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|-0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.21|1.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||24 hours postdose||1.63|-2.21|
91047069|NCT03465436|181979705|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|7.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.03|9.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||30 minutes postdose||9.60|5.03|
91047070|NCT03465436|181979705|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|12.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|10.47|14.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1 hour postdose||14.10|10.47|
91047071|NCT03465436|181979705|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|11.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.54|13.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1.5 hours postdose||13.00|9.54|
91000085|NCT03051217|181883434|SUPERIORITY||Estimated difference in responder rate|65.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.22|81.9|||Regression, Logistic|If there is a group without a responder, in this case the biological exposure will be excluded from the model, an exact logistic regression applied.|If there is a group without a responder, in this case the biological exposure will be excluded from the model, an exact logistic regression applied.|The primary and secondary efficacy endpoints were evaluated using a fixed-sequence testing procedure to account for multiplicity.||81.90|48.22|
91000086|NCT03051217|181883434|SUPERIORITY||Estimated difference in responder rate|79.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.1|93.17|||Regression, Logistic|If there is a group without a responder, in this case the biological exposure will be excluded from the model, an exact logistic regression applied.|If there is a group without a responder, in this case the biological exposure will be excluded from the model, an exact logistic regression applied.|The primary and secondary efficacy endpoints were evaluated using a fixed-sequence testing procedure to account for multiplicity.||93.17|65.10|
91000087|NCT03051217|181883434|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|31.695|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|5.129|195.877||The p-value for the primary analysis was evaluated at a 2-sided significance level of 0.025 for each CZP dose vs PBO.|Regression, Logistic|If there is a group without a responder, in this case the biological exposure will be excluded from the model, an exact logistic regression applied.||The primary and secondary efficacy endpoints were evaluated using a fixed-sequence testing procedure to account for multiplicity.||195.877|5.129|<0.0001
91000088|NCT03051217|181883434|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|79.112|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|11.739|533.168||The p-value for the primary analysis was evaluated at a 2-sided significance level of 0.025 for each CZP dose vs PBO.|Regression, Logistic|If there is a group without a responder, in this case the biological exposure will be excluded from the model, an exact logistic regression applied.||The primary and secondary efficacy endpoints were evaluated using a fixed-sequence testing procedure to account for multiplicity.||533.168|11.739|<0.0001
91000089|NCT03051217|181883435|SUPERIORITY||Estimated difference in responder rate|52.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.95|75.39|||Regression, Logistic|If there is a group without a responder, in this case the biological exposure will be excluded from the model, an exact logistic regression applied.|If there is a group without a responder, in this case the biological exposure will be excluded from the model, an exact logistic regression applied.|The primary and secondary efficacy endpoints were evaluated using a fixed-sequence testing procedure to account for multiplicity.||75.39|29.95|
91000090|NCT03051217|181883435|SUPERIORITY||Estimated difference in responder rate|66.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.34|90.15|||Regression, Logistic|If there is a group without a responder, in this case the biological exposure will be excluded from the model, an exact logistic regression applied.|If there is a group without a responder, in this case the biological exposure will be excluded from the model, an exact logistic regression applied.|The primary and secondary efficacy endpoints were evaluated using a fixed-sequence testing procedure to account for multiplicity.||90.15|43.34|
91000091|NCT03051217|181883435|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|38.193|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|6.113|238.619||The p-value for the primary analysis was evaluated at a 2-sided significance level of 0.025 for each CZP dose vs PBO.|Regression, Logistic|If there is a group without a responder, in this case the biological exposure will be excluded from the model, an exact logistic regression applied.||The primary and secondary efficacy endpoints were evaluated using a fixed-sequence testing procedure to account for multiplicity.||238.619|6.113|<0.0001
91000092|NCT03051217|181883435|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|69.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|11.138|434.659||The p-value for the primary analysis was evaluated at a 2-sided significance level of 0.025 for each CZP dose vs PBO.|Regression, Logistic|If there is a group without a responder, in this case the biological exposure will be excluded from the model, an exact logistic regression applied.||The primary and secondary efficacy endpoints were evaluated using a fixed-sequence testing procedure to account for multiplicity.||434.659|11.138|<0.0001
91000093|NCT03051217|181883436|SUPERIORITY||Estimated difference in responder rate|53.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.67|76.47|||Regression, Logistic|If there is a group without a responder, in this case the biological exposure will be excluded from the model, an exact logistic regression applied.|If there is a group without a responder, in this case the biological exposure will be excluded from the model, an exact logistic regression applied.|The primary and secondary efficacy endpoints were evaluated using a fixed-sequence testing procedure to account for multiplicity.||76.47|30.67|
91000094|NCT03051217|181883436|SUPERIORITY||Estimated difference in responder rate|75.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.95|99.04|||Regression, Logistic|If there is a group without a responder, in this case the biological exposure will be excluded from the model, an exact logistic regression applied.|If there is a group without a responder, in this case the biological exposure will be excluded from the model, an exact logistic regression applied.|The primary and secondary efficacy endpoints were evaluated using a fixed-sequence testing procedure to account for multiplicity.||99.04|51.95|
91047072|NCT03465436|181979705|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|11.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.97|13.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2 hours postdose||13.87|9.97|
91047073|NCT03465436|181979705|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|10.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.17|12.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2.5 hours postdose||12.79|9.17|
91047074|NCT03465436|181979705|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|11.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|10.1|13.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3 hours postdose||13.87|10.10|
91047075|NCT03465436|181979705|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|12.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|10.32|14.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3.5 hours postdose||14.05|10.32|
91047076|NCT03465436|181979705|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|11.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.83|13.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||4 hours postdose||13.52|9.83|
91047077|NCT03465436|181979705|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|8.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.1|10.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||6 hours postdose||10.39|6.10|
91000095|NCT03051217|181883436|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|38.696|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|6.047|247.634||The p-value for the primary analysis was evaluated at a 2-sided significance level of 0.025 for each CZP dose vs PBO.|Regression, Logistic|If there is a group without a responder, in this case the biological exposure will be excluded from the model, an exact logistic regression applied.||The primary and secondary efficacy endpoints were evaluated using a fixed-sequence testing procedure to account for multiplicity.||247.634|6.047|<0.0001
91047078|NCT03465436|181979705|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|7.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.66|10.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||8 hours postdose||10.07|5.66|
91047079|NCT03465436|181979705|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|6.35|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.32|8.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||12 hours postdose||8.38|4.32|
91047080|NCT03465436|181979705|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|6.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.88|8.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||24 hours postdose||8.38|3.88|
91047081|NCT03465436|181979706|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|-4.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.47|-2.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||30 minutes postdose||-2.52|-6.47|
91047082|NCT03465436|181979706|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|-5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.18|-3.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1 hour postdose||-3.42|-7.18|
91047083|NCT03465436|181979706|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|-5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.57|-3.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1.5 hours postdose||-3.82|-7.57|
91047084|NCT03465436|181979706|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|-4.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.64|-2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2 hours postdose||-2.30|-6.64|
91047085|NCT03465436|181979706|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|-4.53|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.87|-2.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2.5 hours postdose||-2.19|-6.87|
91047086|NCT03465436|181979706|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|-2.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.9|-0.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3 hours postdose||-0.59|-4.90|
91047087|NCT03465436|181979706|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|-1.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.86|0.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3.5 hours postdose||0.39|-3.86|
91047088|NCT03465436|181979706|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|-1.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.77|0.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||4 hours postdose||0.44|-3.77|
91047089|NCT03465436|181979706|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|-1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.17|0.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||6 hours postdose||0.94|-3.17|
91047090|NCT03465436|181979706|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|-2.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.58|-0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||8 hours postdose||-0.35|-4.58|
91047091|NCT03465436|181979706|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|-2.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.87|-0.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||12 hours postdose||-0.43|-3.87|
91047092|NCT03465436|181979706|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.14|2.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||24 hours postdose||2.72|-1.14|
91047093|NCT03465436|181979706|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|-4.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.57|-2.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||30 minutes postdose||-2.71|-6.57|
91047094|NCT03465436|181979706|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|-2.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.59|-0.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1 hour postdose||-0.39|-4.59|
91047095|NCT03465436|181979706|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|-0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.02|1.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1.5 hours postdose||1.09|-3.02|
91047096|NCT03465436|181979706|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|1.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.46|3.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2 hours postdose||3.73|-0.46|
91047097|NCT03465436|181979706|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|1.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.59|3.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2.5 hours postdose||3.81|-0.59|
91047098|NCT03465436|181979706|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|2.41|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.25|4.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3 hours postdose||4.57|0.25|
91047099|NCT03465436|181979706|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.48|6.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3.5 hours postdose||6.12|2.48|
91047100|NCT03465436|181979706|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|5.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.02|7.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||4 hours postdose||7.27|3.02|
91047101|NCT03465436|181979706|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|2.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.75|4.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||6 hours postdose||4.79|0.75|
91047102|NCT03465436|181979706|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|1.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.55|4.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||8 hours postdose||4.05|-0.55|
91047103|NCT03465436|181979706|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|1.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.19|3.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||12 hours postdose||3.69|-0.19|
91047104|NCT03465436|181979706|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|-0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.44|1.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||24 hours postdose||1.48|-2.44|
91000096|NCT03051217|181883436|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|100.459|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|15.54|649.437||The p-value for the primary analysis was evaluated at a 2-sided significance level of 0.025 for each CZP dose vs PBO.|Regression, Logistic|If there is a group without a responder, in this case the biological exposure will be excluded from the model, an exact logistic regression applied.||The primary and secondary efficacy endpoints were evaluated using a fixed-sequence testing procedure to account for multiplicity.||649.437|15.540|<0.0001
91000097|NCT03051217|181883437|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Treatment Difference|-6.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-9.1|-3.844||p-value obtained for each treatment group comparison tested at a significance level of 0.025 in the fixed sequence testing procedure.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model of change from Baseline DLQI score with treatment group and prior biologic exposure as factors and Baseline DLQI score as a covariate.||The primary and secondary efficacy endpoints were evaluated using a fixed-sequence testing procedure to account for multiplicity.||-3.844|-9.100|<0.0001
91000098|NCT03051217|181883437|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Treatment Difference|-6.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-9.099|-3.91||p-value obtained for each treatment group comparison tested at a significance level of 0.025 in the fixed sequence testing procedure.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model of change from Baseline DLQI score with treatment group and prior biologic exposure as factors and Baseline DLQI score as a covariate.||The primary and secondary efficacy endpoints were evaluated using a fixed-sequence testing procedure to account for multiplicity.||-3.910|-9.099|<0.0001
91000099|NCT03051217|181883438|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Treatment Difference|-3.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.265|-2.002||p-value obtained for each treatment group comparison tested at a significance level of 0.025 in the fixed sequence testing procedure.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model of change from Baseline Itch NRS with treatment group and prior biologic exposure as factors and Baseline Itch NRS as a covariate.||The primary and secondary efficacy endpoints were evaluated using a fixed-sequence testing procedure to account for multiplicity.||-2.002|-4.265|<0.0001
91000100|NCT03051217|181883438|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Treatment Difference|-4.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.295|-3.069||p-value obtained for each treatment group comparison tested at a significance level of 0.025 in the fixed sequence testing procedure.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model of change from Baseline Itch NRS with treatment group and prior biologic exposure as factors and Baseline Itch NRS as a covariate.||The primary and secondary efficacy endpoints were evaluated using a fixed-sequence testing procedure to account for multiplicity.||-3.069|-5.295|<0.0001
91000101|NCT00109772|181883445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.894||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|controlled for centers||||||.8940
91000102|NCT03437044|181883464|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||ANCOVA|the corresponding baseline value of platelet reactivity was used as covariate||||||0.001
91000103|NCT03437044|181883465|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|the corresponding baseline value of platelet reactivity was used as covariate||||||<0.001
91000104|NCT05441540|181883487|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91000105|NCT05441540|181883488|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91000106|NCT05441540|181883489|OTHER|||||||0.7613|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.7613
91000107|NCT05441540|181883490|OTHER|||||||0.764|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7640
91000108|NCT00813917|181883491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.126||95.0||||For this randomized phase II we used a one sided test with a false positive(type I error)rate of 0.20 to assess whether additional studies of the experimental arm are warranted.|Chi-squared|1 sided||Data were compared between treatment groups using Chi Square test.||||0.126
91000109|NCT01359046|181883492|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.30
91000110|NCT01359046|181883493|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.68
91000111|NCT03364491|181883500|SUPERIORITY|Model included treatment and preoperative hemoglobin level \<8 g/dL (yes/no) as covariates. We estimated that a total sample size of 11,000 participants (5,500 per group) would achieve 85% power to detect a 33% lower incidence of the primary outcome (1.67%) in the TXA group, at a type I error rate (two-sided) of 5%.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.89||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.26|0.74|1.07||Following two interim analyses, a two-tailed P value of less than 0.047 was considered to indicate statistical significance.|Other (Log-binomial regression model)|||||1.07|0.74|0.19
91000112|NCT04539262|181883531|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference by Day 7|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.1117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|0.16||Least square (LS) Mean, Standard Error (SE), 95% CI and p-value were from Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline viral load as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.16|-1.49|0.1117
91000113|NCT04539262|181883531|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference by Day 7|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.3793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.46||LS Mean (SE), 95% CI, and p-value were from ANCOVA with baseline viral load as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.46|-1.16|0.3793
91000114|NCT04539262|181883531|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference by Day 7|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.5248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.52||LS Mean (SE), 95% CI, and p-value were from ANCOVA with baseline viral load as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||0.52|-1.00|0.5248
91000115|NCT04539262|181883531|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference by Day 7|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.44|||ANCOVA|LS Mean (SE), 95% CI, and p-value were from ANCOVA with baseline viral load as a covariate||||0.44|-0.94|0.4610
91000116|NCT04539262|181883531|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference by Day 7|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.5006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.81||LS Mean (SE), 95% CI and p-value were from ANCOVA with baseline viral load as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.81|-0.40|0.5006
91000117|NCT04539262|181883532|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference by Day 7|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.3417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|1.02||LS Mean (SE), 95% CI, and p-value were from ANCOVA with baseline viral load as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||1.02|-0.37|0.3417
91000118|NCT04539262|181883532|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference by Day 7|0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.1803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|1.21||LS Mean (SE), 95% CI, and p-value were from ANCOVA with baseline viral load as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||1.21|-0.24|0.1803
91000119|NCT04539262|181883532|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference by Day 7|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.1233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|0.16||LS Mean (SE), 95% CI, and p-value were from ANCOVA with baseline viral load as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.16|-1.27|0.1233
91000120|NCT04539262|181883532|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference by Day 7|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.8203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.8||LS Mean (SE), 95% CI, and p-value were from ANCOVA with baseline viral load as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.80|-0.64|0.8203
91000121|NCT04539262|181883532|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference by Day 7|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.6458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.41||LS Mean (SE), 95% CI, and p-value were from ANCOVA with baseline viral load as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.41|-0.65|0.6458
91000122|NCT04539262|181883533|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference by Day 7|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.5951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|0.61||LS Mean (SE), 95% CI, and p-value were from ANCOVA with baseline viral load as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.61|-1.05|0.5951
91000123|NCT04539262|181883533|SUPERIORITY|LS Mean (SE), 95% CI, and p-value were from ANCOVA with baseline viral load as a covariate.|LS Mean Difference by Day 7|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.0872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|0.11|||ANCOVA|||||0.11|-1.54|0.0872
91000124|NCT04539262|181883533|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference by Day 7|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.6031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.56||LS Mean (SE), 95% CI, and p-value were from ANCOVA with baseline viral load as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.56|-0.94|0.6031
91000125|NCT04539262|181883533|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference by Day 7|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.7578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.87||LS Mean (SE), 95% CI, and p-value were from ANCOVA with baseline viral load as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.87|-0.64|0.7578
91000126|NCT04539262|181883533|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference by Day 7|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.8846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.56||LS Mean (SE), 95% CI, and p-value were from ANCOVA with baseline viral load as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.56|-0.48|0.8846
91000127|NCT02980692|181883566|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0001
91000128|NCT02980692|181883566|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0006|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0006
91000129|NCT02980692|181883566|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0088|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0088
91000130|NCT02980692|181883566|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0041|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0041
91000131|NCT02980692|181883567|SUPERIORITY||% response rate|92.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.21|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.24|98.83||||||||98.83|86.24|
91000132|NCT02980692|181883567|SUPERIORITY||% response rate|89.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|81.42|96.71||||||||96.71|81.42|
91000133|NCT02980692|181883567|SUPERIORITY||% response rate|86.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.39|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.07|95.27||||||||95.27|78.07|
91000134|NCT02980692|181883567|SUPERIORITY||% response rate|81.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|72.52|90.15||||||||90.15|72.52|
91000135|NCT02980692|181883567|SUPERIORITY||% response rate|81.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|72.52|90.15||||||||90.15|72.52|
91000136|NCT02980692|181883568|SUPERIORITY||% response rate|79.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.97|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|69.37|88.84||||||||88.84|69.37|
91000137|NCT02980692|181883568|SUPERIORITY||% response rate|75.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.41|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.39|85.61||||||||85.61|64.39|
91000138|NCT02980692|181883568|SUPERIORITY||% response rate|72.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.74|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.88|83.38||||||||83.38|60.88|
91000139|NCT02980692|181883568|SUPERIORITY||% response rate|68.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.39|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.44|78.56||||||||78.56|57.44|
91000140|NCT02980692|181883568|SUPERIORITY||% response rate|62.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.59|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.72|73.61||||||||73.61|51.72|
91000141|NCT02980692|181883569|SUPERIORITY||% response rate|58.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.4|70.02||||||||70.02|46.40|
91000142|NCT02980692|181883569|SUPERIORITY||% response rate|48.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.19|60.68||||||||60.68|36.19|
91000143|NCT02980692|181883569|SUPERIORITY||% response rate|39.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.09|51.6||||||||51.60|27.09|
91000144|NCT02980692|181883569|SUPERIORITY||% response rate|40.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.66|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.91|51.09||||||||51.09|28.91|
91000145|NCT02980692|181883569|SUPERIORITY||% response rate|37.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.59|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.39|48.28||||||||48.28|26.39|
91000146|NCT02980692|181883570|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.085|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0850
91000147|NCT02980692|181883570|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0234|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0234
91000148|NCT02980692|181883570|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0140
91000149|NCT02980692|181883570|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0731|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0731
91000150|NCT02980692|181883571|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.47|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91000151|NCT02980692|181883571|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.92|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91000152|NCT02980692|181883571|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.83|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91000153|NCT02980692|181883571|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.65|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91000154|NCT02980692|181883571|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.02|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91000155|NCT02980692|181883572|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0111|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0111
91000156|NCT02980692|181883572|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0774|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0774
91000157|NCT02980692|181883572|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0190
91000158|NCT02980692|181883572|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1282|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1282
91000159|NCT02980692|181883573|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.88|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91000160|NCT02980692|181883573|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.07|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91000161|NCT02980692|181883573|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.62|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91000162|NCT02980692|181883573|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.78|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91000163|NCT02980692|181883573|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.8|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91000164|NCT02980692|181883574|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<.0001
91000165|NCT02980692|181883574|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<.0001
91000166|NCT02980692|181883574|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<.0001
91000167|NCT02980692|181883574|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<.0001
91000168|NCT02980692|181883575|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-40.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.38|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91000169|NCT02980692|181883575|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-44.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.73|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91000170|NCT02980692|181883575|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-45.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.84|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91000171|NCT02980692|181883575|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-42.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.18|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91047105|NCT03465436|181979706|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|7.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.72|9.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||30 minutes postdose||9.41|4.72|
91047106|NCT03465436|181979706|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|11.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.94|13.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1 hour postdose||13.69|9.94|
91047107|NCT03465436|181979706|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|10.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.16|12.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1.5 hours postdose||12.74|9.16|
91047108|NCT03465436|181979706|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|11.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.5|13.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2 hours postdose||13.43|9.5|
91047109|NCT03465436|181979706|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|10.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.9|12.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2.5 hours postdose||12.71|8.9|
91047110|NCT03465436|181979706|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|12.35|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|10.42|14.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3 hours postdose||14.28|10.42|
91047111|NCT03465436|181979706|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|12.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|10.76|14.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3.5 hours postdose||14.54|10.76|
91047112|NCT03465436|181979706|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|11.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.23|13.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||4 hours postdose||13.10|9.23|
91047113|NCT03465436|181979706|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|8.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.02|10.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||6 hours postdose||10.22|6.02|
91047114|NCT03465436|181979706|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.01|10.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||8 hours postdose||10.19|6.01|
91047115|NCT03465436|181979706|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|6.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.23|8.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||12 hours postdose||8.28|4.23|
91047116|NCT03465436|181979706|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|5.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.47|8.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||24 hours postdose||8.01|3.47|
91047117|NCT03465436|181979707|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|32.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|11.5|54.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||30 minutes postdose||54.28|11.50|
91047118|NCT03465436|181979707|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|100.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.81|122.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1 hour postdose||122.50|77.81|
91047119|NCT03465436|181979707|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|107.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.31|130.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1.5 hours postdose||130.91|83.31|
91047120|NCT03465436|181979707|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|74.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|56.32|92.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2 hours postdose||92.63|56.32|
91047121|NCT03465436|181979707|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|89.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|68.77|109.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2.5 hours postdose||109.61|68.77|
91047122|NCT03465436|181979707|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|74.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|55.41|94.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3 hours postdose||94.55|55.41|
91047123|NCT03465436|181979707|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|52.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|36.03|69.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3.5 hours postdose||69.63|36.03|
91047124|NCT03465436|181979707|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|42.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|24.86|59.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||4 hours postdose||59.35|24.86|
91047125|NCT03465436|181979707|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|62.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|42.39|82.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|||6 hours postdose||82.83|42.39|
91047126|NCT03465436|181979707|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|56.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|32.49|79.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||8 hours postdose||79.61|32.49|
91047127|NCT03465436|181979707|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|35.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|11.79|59.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||12 hours postdose||59.63|11.79|
91047128|NCT03465436|181979707|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-4.59|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-24.66|15.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||24 hours postdose||15.47|-24.66|
91047129|NCT03465436|181979707|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|56.53|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|36.72|76.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||30 minutes postdose||76.35|36.72|
91047130|NCT03465436|181979707|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|103.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.88|122.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1 hour postdose||122.72|83.88|
91047131|NCT03465436|181979707|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|94.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.15|113.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1.5 hours postdose||113.26|75.15|
91000172|NCT02980692|181883575|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-42.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|20.41|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91000173|NCT02980692|181883576|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0003
91000174|NCT02980692|181883576|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0012|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0012
91000175|NCT02980692|181883576|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0011|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0011
91000176|NCT02980692|181883576|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0167|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0167
91000177|NCT02980692|181883577|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-42.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.74|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91000178|NCT02980692|181883577|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-43.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|24.01|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91000179|NCT02980692|181883577|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-38.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|27.9|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91000180|NCT02980692|181883577|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-37.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|24.65|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91000181|NCT02980692|181883577|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-40.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|28.13|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91000182|NCT02980692|181883578|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0003
91000183|NCT02980692|181883578|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0055|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0055
91000184|NCT02980692|181883578|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0039|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0039
91000185|NCT02980692|181883578|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0487|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0487
91000186|NCT02980692|181883579|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-40.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|21.59|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91000187|NCT02980692|181883579|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-42.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|25.67|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91000188|NCT02980692|181883579|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-38.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|29.26|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91000189|NCT02980692|181883579|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-37.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|26.63|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91000190|NCT02980692|181883579|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-41.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|29.83|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91000191|NCT02980692|181883580|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0987|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0987
91000192|NCT02980692|181883580|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0360
91000193|NCT02980692|181883580|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0346|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0346
91000194|NCT02980692|181883580|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4442|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4442
91000195|NCT02980692|181883581|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4869|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.52093|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91000196|NCT02980692|181883581|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.543|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.59145|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91000197|NCT02980692|181883581|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4857|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.56968|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91000198|NCT02980692|181883581|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4583|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.52285|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91000199|NCT02980692|181883581|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.47|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.54013|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91000200|NCT02980692|181883582|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0064|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0064
91000201|NCT02980692|181883582|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0516|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0516
91000202|NCT02980692|181883582|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0114|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0114
91000203|NCT02980692|181883582|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.082|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0820
91000204|NCT02980692|181883583|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.43|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.506|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91000205|NCT02980692|181883583|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.68|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.77|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91000206|NCT02980692|181883583|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.004|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91000207|NCT02980692|181883583|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.61|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.508|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91000208|NCT02980692|181883583|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.649|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91047132|NCT03465436|181979707|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|83.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|67.98|99.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2 hours postdose||99.00|67.98|
91047133|NCT03465436|181979707|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|103.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.28|120.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2.5 hours postdose||120.00|87.28|
91047134|NCT03465436|181979707|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|89.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|71.24|107.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3 hours postdose||107.29|71.24|
91047135|NCT03465436|181979707|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|65.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|48.28|82.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3.5 hours postdose||82.30|48.28|
91047136|NCT03465436|181979707|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|52.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|36.1|69.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||4 hours postdose||69.60|36.10|
91047137|NCT03465436|181979707|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|86.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|66.36|105.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||6 hours postdose||105.82|66.36|
91047138|NCT03465436|181979707|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|80.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|58.32|101.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||8 hours postdose||101.91|58.32|
91047139|NCT03465436|181979707|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|67.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|44.64|90.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||12 hours postdose||90.51|44.64|
91047140|NCT03465436|181979707|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|7.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.01|25.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||24 hours postdose||25.55|-10.01|
91047141|NCT03465436|181979707|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-22.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-38.44|-5.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||30 minutes postdose||-5.60|-38.44|
91047142|NCT03465436|181979707|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-38.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-57.15|-20.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1 hour postdose||-20.60|-57.15|
91047143|NCT03465436|181979707|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-22.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-39.35|-4.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1.5 hours postdose||-4.91|-39.35|
91047144|NCT03465436|181979707|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-17.35|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-32.15|-2.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2 hours postdose||-2.56|-32.15|
91047145|NCT03465436|181979707|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.17|16.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2.5 hours postdose||16.12|-18.17|
91047146|NCT03465436|181979707|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-4.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.81|12.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3 hours postdose||12.27|-21.81|
91047147|NCT03465436|181979707|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-16.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-33.36|0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3.5 hours postdose||0.24|-33.36|
91047148|NCT03465436|181979707|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-15.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-32.94|2.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||4 hours postdose||2.37|-32.94|
91047149|NCT03465436|181979707|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|6.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.86|23.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||6 hours postdose||23.11|-10.86|
91047150|NCT03465436|181979707|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|2.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.25|19.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||8 hours postdose||19.80|-15.25|
91047151|NCT03465436|181979707|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-11.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-33.46|9.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||12 hours postdose||9.56|-33.46|
91047152|NCT03465436|181979707|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.32|16.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||24 hours postdose||16.69|-17.32|
91047153|NCT03465436|181979708|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.37|0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||30 minutes postdose||0.41|-0.37|
91047154|NCT03465436|181979708|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.61|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1 hour postdose||0.15|-0.61|
91047155|NCT03465436|181979708|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.47|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1.5 hours postdose||0.23|-0.47|
91047156|NCT03465436|181979708|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.81|-0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2 hours postdose||-0.07|-0.81|
91047157|NCT03465436|181979708|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.95|-0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2.5 hours postdose||-0.15|-0.95|
91047158|NCT03465436|181979708|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.77|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3 hours postdose||0.00|-0.77|
91047159|NCT03465436|181979708|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.72|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3.5 hours postdose||-0.10|-0.72|
91047160|NCT03465436|181979708|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.66|-0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||4 hours postdose||-0.04|-0.66|
91047161|NCT03465436|181979708|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.98|-0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||6 hours postdose||-0.09|-0.98|
91047162|NCT03465436|181979708|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.58|0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||8 hours postdose||0.31|-0.58|
91047163|NCT03465436|181979708|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||12 hours postdose||0.12|-0.70|
91047164|NCT03465436|181979708|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.01|0.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||24 hours postdose||0.84|0.01|
91047165|NCT03465436|181979708|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.59|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||30 minutes postdose||0.21|-0.59|
91047166|NCT03465436|181979708|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.06|0.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1 hour postdose||0.89|0.06|
91047167|NCT03465436|181979708|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.19|0.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1.5 hours postdose||0.93|0.19|
91000209|NCT02980692|181883584|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0351|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0351
91047168|NCT03465436|181979708|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.02|0.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2 hours postdose||0.77|0.02|
91047169|NCT03465436|181979708|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.13|0.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2.5 hours postdose||0.88|0.13|
91047170|NCT03465436|181979708|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.05|0.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3 hours postdose||0.71|-0.05|
91047171|NCT03465436|181979708|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.02|0.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3.5 hours postdose||0.67|-0.02|
91047172|NCT03465436|181979708|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.16|0.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||4 hours postdose||0.84|0.16|
91047173|NCT03465436|181979708|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.56|0.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||6 hours postdose||0.36|-0.56|
91047174|NCT03465436|181979708|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.56|0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||8 hours postdose||0.33|-0.56|
91047175|NCT03465436|181979708|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.84|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||12 hours postdose||0.06|-0.84|
91047176|NCT03465436|181979708|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.37|0.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||24 hours postdose||0.45|-0.37|
91047177|NCT03465436|181979708|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.45|0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||30 minutes postdose||0.28|-0.45|
91000210|NCT02980692|181883584|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0876|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0876
91000211|NCT02980692|181883584|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0269|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0269
91000212|NCT02980692|181883584|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0185|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0185
91000213|NCT02980692|181883585|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.58|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91000214|NCT02980692|181883585|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.26|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91000215|NCT02980692|181883585|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-8.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|20.48|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91047178|NCT03465436|181979708|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.46|0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1 hour postdose||0.27|-0.46|
91047179|NCT03465436|181979708|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1.5 hours postdose||0.60|-0.10|
91047180|NCT03465436|181979708|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.38|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2 hours postdose||0.40|-0.38|
91047181|NCT03465436|181979708|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.34|0.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2.5 hours postdose||0.37|-0.34|
91047182|NCT03465436|181979708|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.44|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3 hours postdose||0.25|-0.44|
91047183|NCT03465436|181979708|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.76|-0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3.5 hours postdose||-0.03|-0.76|
91047184|NCT03465436|181979708|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.73|-0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||4 hours postdose||-0.03|-0.73|
91047185|NCT03465436|181979708|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.03|-0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||6 hours postdose||-0.17|-1.03|
91047186|NCT03465436|181979708|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.82|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||8 hours postdose||0.04|-0.82|
91047187|NCT03465436|181979708|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||12 hours postdose||0.09|-0.70|
91047188|NCT03465436|181979708|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.23|0.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||24 hours postdose||0.61|-0.23|
91047189|NCT03465436|181979709|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-1.53|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.9|-0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||30 minutes postdose||-0.16|-2.90|
91047190|NCT03465436|181979709|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-5.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.29|-3.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1 hour postdose||-3.88|-6.29|
91047191|NCT03465436|181979709|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-5.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.81|-4.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1.5 hours postdose||-4.32|-6.81|
91047192|NCT03465436|181979709|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-4.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.0|-3.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2 hours postdose||-3.01|-5.00|
91047193|NCT03465436|181979709|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-4.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.91|-3.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2.5 hours postdose||-3.65|-5.91|
91047194|NCT03465436|181979709|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-4.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.2|-3.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3 hours postdose||-3.08|-5.20|
91047195|NCT03465436|181979709|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-2.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.87|-2.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3.5 hours postdose||-2.01|-3.87|
91047196|NCT03465436|181979709|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-2.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.42|-1.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||4 hours postdose||-1.42|-3.42|
91047197|NCT03465436|181979709|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-4.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.17|-3.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||6 hours postdose||-3.06|-6.17|
91047198|NCT03465436|181979709|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-3.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.38|-2.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||8 hours postdose||-2.26|-5.38|
91047199|NCT03465436|181979709|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-2.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.33|-0.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||12 hours postdose||-0.97|-4.33|
91047200|NCT03465436|181979709|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.22|1.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||24 hours postdose||1.46|-1.22|
91047201|NCT03465436|181979709|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-3.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.16|-2.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||30 minutes postdose||-2.02|-4.16|
91047202|NCT03465436|181979709|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-5.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.65|-4.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1 hour postdose||-4.58|-6.65|
91047203|NCT03465436|181979709|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-5.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.42|-4.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1.5 hours postdose||-4.35|-6.42|
91047204|NCT03465436|181979709|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-4.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.55|-3.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2 hours postdose||-3.72|-5.55|
91047205|NCT03465436|181979709|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-5.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.77|-4.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2.5 hours postdose||-4.87|-6.77|
91047206|NCT03465436|181979709|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-4.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.03|-3.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3 hours postdose||-3.96|-6.03|
91047207|NCT03465436|181979709|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-3.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.68|-2.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3.5 hours postdose||-2.71|-4.68|
91047208|NCT03465436|181979709|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-3.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.21|-2.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||4 hours postdose||-2.17|-4.21|
91047209|NCT03465436|181979709|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-6.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.83|-4.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|||6 hours postdose||-4.95|-7.83|
91047210|NCT03465436|181979709|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-5.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.73|-4.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||8 hours postdose||-4.02|-6.73|
91047211|NCT03465436|181979709|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-4.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.25|-3.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||12 hours postdose||-3.17|-6.25|
91047212|NCT03465436|181979709|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.74|0.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||24 hours postdose||0.63|-1.74|
91047213|NCT03465436|181979709|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.32|2.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||30 minutes postdose||2.33|0.32|
91047214|NCT03465436|181979709|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|2.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.19|3.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1 hour postdose||3.40|1.19|
91047215|NCT03465436|181979709|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.31|2.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1.5 hours postdose||2.28|0.31|
91047216|NCT03465436|181979709|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.17|1.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2 hours postdose||1.97|0.17|
91047217|NCT03465436|181979709|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.81|1.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2.5 hours postdose||1.23|-0.81|
91047218|NCT03465436|181979709|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|1.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3 hours postdose||1.56|-0.50|
91047219|NCT03465436|181979709|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.29|2.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3.5 hours postdose||2.44|0.29|
91047220|NCT03465436|181979709|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.09|2.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||4 hours postdose||2.34|0.09|
91047221|NCT03465436|181979709|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.97|0.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||6 hours postdose||0.99|-1.97|
91047222|NCT03465436|181979709|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.54|0.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|||8 hours postdose||0.83|-1.54|
91047223|NCT03465436|181979709|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.87|2.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||12 hours postdose||2.34|-0.87|
91047224|NCT03465436|181979709|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.29|1.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||24 hours postdose||1.04|-1.29|
91047225|NCT02697773|181979714|SUPERIORITY|Step-down testing procedure within each of the primary endpoints was applied to maintain Type I error. Tanezumab 2.5/5 mg vs placebo was tested first and if found significant, then the testing was continued for Tanezumab 2.5 mg vs placebo. Tanezumab treatment group was declared as superior to placebo if the corresponding treatment contrast was significant over all 3 primary endpoints.|Least Square Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.13||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.13|-1.07|0.0129
91047226|NCT02697773|181979714|SUPERIORITY|Step-down testing procedure within each of the primary endpoints was applied to maintain Type I error. Tanezumab 2.5/5 mg vs placebo was tested first and if found significant, then the testing was continued for Tanezumab 2.5 mg vs placebo. Tanezumab treatment group was declared as superior to placebo if the corresponding treatment contrast was significant over all 3 primary endpoints.|Least Square Mean Difference|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.26||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.26|-1.20|0.0023
91050323|NCT04168190|181986996|OTHER|Estimated difference and CI are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in Percentage|6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|26.5|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL minus Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Injection site swelling||26.5|-13.2|
91047227|NCT02697773|181979715|SUPERIORITY|Step-down testing procedure within each of the primary endpoints was applied to maintain Type I error. Tanezumab 2.5/5 mg vs placebo was tested first and if found significant, then the testing was continued for Tanezumab 2.5 mg vs placebo. Tanezumab treatment group was declared as superior to placebo if the corresponding treatment contrast was significant over all 3 primary endpoints.|Least Square Mean Difference|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|-0.19||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed data sets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.19|-1.14|0.0065
91047228|NCT02697773|181979715|SUPERIORITY|Step-down testing procedure within each of the primary endpoints was applied to maintain Type I error. Tanezumab 2.5/5 mg vs placebo was tested first and if found significant, then the testing was continued for Tanezumab 2.5 mg vs placebo. Tanezumab treatment group was declared as superior to placebo if the corresponding treatment contrast was significant over all 3 primary endpoints.|Least Square Mean Difference|-0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|-0.42||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.42|-1.37|0.0002
91047229|NCT02697773|181979716|SUPERIORITY|Step-down testing procedure within each of the primary endpoints was applied to maintain Type I error. Tanezumab 2.5/5 mg vs placebo was tested first and if found significant, then the testing was continued for Tanezumab 2.5 mg vs placebo. Tanezumab treatment group was declared as superior to placebo if the corresponding treatment contrast was significant over all 3 primary endpoints.|Least Square Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|-0.05||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline PGA of osteoarthritis and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.05|-0.39|0.0109
91047230|NCT02697773|181979716|SUPERIORITY|Step-down testing procedure within each of the primary endpoints was applied to maintain Type I error. Tanezumab 2.5/5 mg vs placebo was tested first and if found significant, then the testing was continued for Tanezumab 2.5 mg vs placebo. Tanezumab treatment group was declared as superior to placebo if the corresponding treatment contrast was significant over all 3 primary endpoints.|Least Square Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.08||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline PGA of osteoarthritis and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.08|-0.41|0.0038
91047231|NCT02697773|181979717|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.24|-1.08|0.0020
91047232|NCT02697773|181979717|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.26|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.26|-1.10|0.0014
91047233|NCT02697773|181979717|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|-0.45|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.45|-1.31|<.0001
91047234|NCT02697773|181979717|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.44|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.44|-1.30|<.0001
91047235|NCT02697773|181979717|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.15|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.15|-1.03|0.0085
91047236|NCT02697773|181979717|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.03|-0.85|0.0657
91050324|NCT04168190|181986996|OTHER|Estimated difference and CI are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in Percentage|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|22.8|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL minus Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Injection site swelling||22.8|-16.0|
91000216|NCT02980692|181883585|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.02|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91000217|NCT02980692|181883585|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|20.47|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91000218|NCT02980692|181883586|SUPERIORITY||Proportion with Adjustment of Background|1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.73||||||||3.73|0.00|
91000219|NCT02980692|181883586|SUPERIORITY||Proportion with Adjustment of Background|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.83||||||||3.83|0.00|
91000220|NCT02980692|181883586|SUPERIORITY||Proportion with Adjustment of Background|2.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.79|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|6.07||||||||6.07|0.00|
91000221|NCT02980692|181883586|SUPERIORITY||Proportion with Adjustment of Background|1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.73||||||||3.73|0.00|
91000222|NCT02980692|181883587|SUPERIORITY||% response rate|85.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.35|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|76.54|93.61||||||||93.61|76.54|
91000223|NCT02980692|181883587|SUPERIORITY||% response rate|81.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.88|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.69|90.81||||||||90.81|71.69|
91000224|NCT02980692|181883587|SUPERIORITY||% response rate|76.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.54|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.42|87.13||||||||87.13|65.42|
91000225|NCT02980692|181883587|SUPERIORITY||% response rate|71.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.86|81.25||||||||81.25|60.86|
91000226|NCT02980692|181883587|SUPERIORITY||% response rate|65.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.56|76.1||||||||76.10|54.56|
91000227|NCT02980692|181883588|SUPERIORITY||% response rate|56.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.88|68.96||||||||68.96|44.88|
91000228|NCT02980692|181883588|SUPERIORITY||% response rate|64.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.23|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.19|76.62||||||||76.62|52.19|
91000229|NCT02980692|181883588|SUPERIORITY||% response rate|45.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.42|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.41|57.59||||||||57.59|32.41|
91000230|NCT02980692|181883588|SUPERIORITY||% response rate|47.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.05|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.2|58.92||||||||58.92|35.20|
91000231|NCT02980692|181883588|SUPERIORITY||% response rate|42.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.94|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.38|53.68||||||||53.68|30.38|
91000232|NCT02980692|181883589|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7081|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.7081
91000233|NCT02980692|181883589|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9244|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.9244
91000234|NCT02980692|181883589|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5365|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.5365
91000235|NCT02980692|181883589|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2925|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2925
91000236|NCT02980692|181883590|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.453|STANDARD_DEVIATION|31.9358|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91000237|NCT02980692|181883590|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-18.883|STANDARD_DEVIATION|57.1147|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91000238|NCT02980692|181883590|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-27.084|STANDARD_DEVIATION|76.2272|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91000239|NCT02980692|181883590|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-26.173|STANDARD_DEVIATION|87.5367|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91000240|NCT02980692|181883590|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-50.399|STANDARD_DEVIATION|141.677|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91000241|NCT02980692|181883591|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0203|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0203
91000242|NCT02980692|181883591|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5194|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.5194
91000243|NCT02980692|181883591|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0599|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0599
91000244|NCT02980692|181883591|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.122|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1220
91000245|NCT02980692|181883592|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.86|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91000246|NCT02980692|181883592|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.56|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91000247|NCT02980692|181883592|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.08|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91000248|NCT02980692|181883592|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.75|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91000249|NCT02980692|181883592|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.82|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91000250|NCT00792701|181883596|OTHER|Correlation|Correlation Coefficient|0.39||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
91000251|NCT00792701|181883599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Correlation Coefficient|0.39||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Comparing RRM1 levels and ERCC1 levels between all patients.||||.0003
91000252|NCT02052141|181883667|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.58||0.03|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.71|-0.1|||Paired t-test||The difference between treatment B over treatment A was estimated.|||-0.10|-0.71|0.03
91000253|NCT02052141|181883668|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.06||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.2|-0.11|||Paired t-test||The difference between treatment B over treatment A was estimated.|||-0.11|-1.20|0.05
91000254|NCT02052141|181883669|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference|-1.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.82||0.04|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.31|-0.38|||Paired t-test||The difference between treatment B over treatment A was estimated.|||-0.38|-3.31|0.04
91000255|NCT02052141|181883670|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.37||0.07|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.41|-0.03|||Paired t-test||The difference between treatment B over treatment A was estimated|||-0.03|-0.41|0.07
91000256|NCT03000686|181883688|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.021|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.1339|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.249|2.295|||||Posterior median difference (GSK2586881 0.8 mg/kg - Placebo) and 95% credible interval is presented for 15 minutes post-infusion|||2.295|-2.249|
91000257|NCT03000686|181883688|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-4.021|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.5923|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.168|1.146|||||Posterior median difference (GSK2586881 0.8 mg/kg - Placebo) and 95% credible interval is presented for 60 minutes post-chamber entry.|||1.146|-9.168|
91000258|NCT03000686|181883688|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-1.668|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.4927|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.576|7.231|||||Posterior median difference (GSK2586881 0.8 mg/kg - Placebo) and 95% credible interval is presented for immediately post-exercise|||7.231|-10.576|
91000259|NCT03000686|181883688|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.824|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.6695|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.142|2.506|||||Posterior median difference (GSK2586881 0.8 mg/kg - Placebo) and 95% credible interval is presented for 30 minutes post-chamber exit|||2.506|-4.142|
91000260|NCT03000686|181883689|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.662|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.1933|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.037|3.815|||||Posterior median difference (GSK2586881 0.8 mg/kg - Placebo) and 95% credible interval is presented for 15 minutes post-infusion|||3.815|-5.037|
91050325|NCT04168190|181986997|OTHER|Estimated difference and CI are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in Percentage|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|31.0|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL minus Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Fatigue||31.0|-11.4|
91000261|NCT03000686|181883689|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-2.796|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.4297|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.729|4.027|||||Posterior median difference (GSK2586881 0.8 mg/kg - Placebo) and 95% credible interval is presented for 60 minutes post-chamber entry.|||4.027|-9.729|
91000262|NCT03000686|181883689|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.018|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.145|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.475|8.086|||||Posterior median difference (GSK2586881 0.8 mg/kg - Placebo) and 95% credible interval is presented for 2 minutes post-exercise start|||8.086|-8.475|
91000263|NCT03000686|181883689|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.291|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.3277|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.96|4.386|||||Posterior median difference (GSK2586881 0.8 mg/kg - Placebo) and 95% credible interval is presented for 30 minutes post-chamber exit|||4.386|-4.960|
91000264|NCT03000686|181883696|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.148|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.5622|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.264|0.973|||||Posterior median difference (GSK2586881 0.8 mg/kg - Placebo) and 95% credible interval for oxygen saturation at 15 minutes post-infusion is presented.|||0.973|-1.264|
91000265|NCT03000686|181883696|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-1.172|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.072|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.271|2.942|||||Posterior median difference (GSK2586881 0.8 mg/kg - Placebo) and 95% credible interval for oxygen saturation at 60 minutes post-chamber entry is presented.|||2.942|-5.271|
91000266|NCT03000686|181883696|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.169|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.2351|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.624|4.258|||||Posterior median difference (GSK2586881 0.8 mg/kg - Placebo) and 95% credible interval for oxygen saturation immediately post-exercise is presented.|||4.258|-4.624|
91000267|NCT03000686|181883696|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.367|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.5649|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.498|0.753|||||Posterior median difference (GSK2586881 0.8 mg/kg - Placebo) and 95% credible interval for oxygen saturation at 30 minutes post-chamber exit is presented.|||0.753|-1.498|
91000268|NCT03000686|181883697|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.203|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.8872|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.578|1.968|||||Posterior median difference (GSK2586881 0.8 mg/kg - Placebo) and 95% credible interval for oxygen saturation at 15 minutes post-infusion is presented.|||1.968|-1.578|
91000269|NCT03000686|181883697|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|3.76|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.8799|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|7.495|||||Posterior median difference (GSK2586881 0.8 mg/kg - Placebo) and 95% credible interval for oxygen saturation at 60 minutes post-chamber entry is presented.|||7.495|-0.001|
91000270|NCT03000686|181883697|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-1.029|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.8146|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.673|4.578|||||Posterior median difference (GSK2586881 0.8 mg/kg - Placebo) and 95% credible interval for oxygen saturation at 2 minutes post-exercise start is presented.|||4.578|-6.673|
91000271|NCT03000686|181883697|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.873|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.762|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.38|0.669|||||Posterior median difference (GSK2586881 0.8 mg/kg - Placebo) and 95% credible interval for oxygen saturation at 30 minutes post-chamber exit is presented.|||0.669|-2.380|
91000272|NCT01525667|181883730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Means (LSM) Difference|25.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.94||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.61|43.86|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM difference =LSM Low dose - LSM Placebo|||43.86|7.61|0.0067
91047237|NCT02697773|181979717|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|-0.31|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.31|-1.25|0.0012
91047238|NCT02697773|181979717|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.38|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.38|-1.33|0.0004
91047239|NCT02697773|181979719|SUPERIORITY||Least Mean Square Difference|-0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|-0.34|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.34|-1.17|0.0004
91047240|NCT02697773|181979719|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.5|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.50|-1.33|<.0001
91050326|NCT04168190|181986997|OTHER|Estimated difference and CI are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in Percentage|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|31.0|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL minus Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Fatigue||31.0|-11.4|
91000273|NCT01525667|181883730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Means (LSM) difference|14.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.8||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.12|36.99|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM difference= LSM High Dose - LSM Placebo|||36.99|-7.12|0.18
91000274|NCT01525667|181883731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|18.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.97||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.03|30.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||30.02|6.03|0.004
91000275|NCT01525667|181883731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|9.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.91||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.72|23.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||23.17|-4.72|0.19
91000276|NCT01525667|181883732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|6.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.64||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|16.41|||ANCOVA|||||16.41|-3.50|0.19
91000277|NCT01525667|181883732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|5.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.56||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.29|15.26|||ANCOVA|||||15.26|-4.29|0.25
91000278|NCT01525667|181883733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.53|-0.21|0.4
91000279|NCT01525667|181883733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.96|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.96
91000280|NCT01525667|181883734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|16.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.37||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|33.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||33.47|0.16|0.05
91000281|NCT01525667|181883734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|10.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.01||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.26|28.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||28.65|-7.26|0.24
91000282|NCT00753623|181883739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91000283|NCT03332303|181883740|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% confidence interval (calculated using Yates' continuity correction) on the absolute difference between the proportion of patients identified as Responders in the Test and Reference groups (pT - pR) is contained within the range \[-20%, +20%\] then therapeutic equivalence of the Test product to the Reference product was considered to have been demonstrated.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.0|2.8||||||Therapeutic equivalence was evaluated for both primary and secondary endpoints in the per-protocol (PP) population.||2.8|-13.0|
91000284|NCT03332303|181883740|SUPERIORITY||% Difference|23.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p \< 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Superiority of the Test and Reference products against the Placebo product for the primary endpoint was evaluated in the modified Intent-to-Treat (mITT) population using last observation carried forward (LOCF).||||<0.0001
91000285|NCT03332303|181883740|SUPERIORITY||% Difference|28.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p \< 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Superiority of the Test and Reference products against the Placebo product for the primary endpoint was evaluated in the modified Intent-to-Treat (mITT) population using last observation carried forward (LOCF).||||<0.0001
91000286|NCT03332303|181883741|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% confidence interval (calculated using Yates' continuity correction) on the absolute difference between the proportion of patients identified as Treatment Successes in the Test and Reference groups (pT - pR) is contained within the range \[-20%, +20%\] then therapeutic equivalence of the Test product to the Reference product was considered to have been demonstrated.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.7|6.7||||||Therapeutic equivalence was evaluated for both primary and secondary endpoints in the per-protocol (PP) population.||6.7|-10.7|
91000287|NCT03332303|181883741|SUPERIORITY|To conclude superiority of the Test product over Placebo, the proportion of Treatment Successes in the Test product group must be numerically and statistically superior to that of the Placebo (p \< 0.05; using a two-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel \[CMH\] test).|% Difference|-0.8||||0.8068|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Superiority of the Test and Reference products against the Placebo product for the secondary endpoint was evaluated in the modified Intent-to-Treat (mITT) population using last observation carried forward (LOCF).||||0.8068
91050327|NCT04168190|181986997|OTHER|Estimated difference and CI are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in Percentage|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|28.3|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL minus Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Arthralgia||28.3|-7.4|
91047241|NCT02697773|181979719|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|-0.6|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.60|-1.45|<.0001
91047242|NCT02697773|181979719|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|-0.68|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.68|-1.53|<.0001
91047243|NCT02697773|181979719|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.18|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.18|-1.07|0.0057
91047244|NCT02697773|181979719|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.13|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.13|-1.02|0.0114
91047245|NCT02697773|181979719|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.38|||ANCOVA|||Week 12:Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.38|-1.33|0.0004
91047246|NCT02697773|181979719|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|-0.58|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.58|-1.52|<.0001
91047247|NCT02697773|181979721|SUPERIORITY||Least Mean Square Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.0236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline PGA of osteoarthritis and baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.02|-0.32|0.0236
91047248|NCT02697773|181979721|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.0958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline PGA of osteoarthritis subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.02|-0.27|0.0958
91047249|NCT02697773|181979721|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline PGA of osteoarthritis and baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.11|-0.40|0.0007
91047250|NCT02697773|181979721|SUPERIORITY||Least Mean Square Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.07|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline PGA of osteoarthritis and baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.07|-0.36|0.0040
91047251|NCT02697773|181979721|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.0498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline PGA of osteoarthritis and baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.00|-0.31|0.0498
91047252|NCT02697773|181979721|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline PGA of osteoarthritis and baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.06|-0.24|0.2380
91050328|NCT04168190|181986997|OTHER|Estimated difference and CI are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in Percentage|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|20.2|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL minus Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Arthralgia||20.2|-13.1|
91047253|NCT02697773|181979721|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline PGA of osteoarthritis and baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.01|-0.34|0.0426
91047254|NCT02697773|181979721|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline PGA of osteoarthritis and baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.11|-0.45|0.0014
91047255|NCT02697773|181979723|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.78||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|2.61|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2: Odds ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.61|1.22|0.0027
91050329|NCT04168190|181986997|OTHER|Estimated difference and CI are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in Percentage|13.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|33.8|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL minus Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Myalgia||33.8|-7.5|
91000288|NCT03332303|181883741|SUPERIORITY|To conclude superiority of the Reference product over Placebo, the proportion of Treatment Successes in the Reference product group must be numerically and statistically superior to that of the Placebo (p \< 0.05; using a two-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel \[CMH\] test).|% Difference|1.8||||0.8003|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Superiority of the Test and Reference products against the Placebo product for the secondary endpoint was evaluated in the modified Intent-to-Treat (mITT) population using last observation carried forward (LOCF).||||0.8003
91000289|NCT01938001|181883750|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.46|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.62|||Log Rank|Stratified by 3 factors: previous rituximab treatment, time since last antilymphoma therapy (≤ 2, \> 2 years), and disease histology (FL, MZL).|Hazard ratio and its confidence interval (CI) were estimated from Cox proportional hazard model adjusting for the stratification factors noted above.|||0.62|0.34|< 0.0001
91000290|NCT01938001|181883751|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0006|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by 3 factors: previous rituximab treatment, time since last antilymphoma therapy (≤ 2, \> 2 years), and disease histology (FL, MZL).||||||0.0006
91000291|NCT01938001|181883752|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.95||||||Stratified by 3 factors: previous rituximab treatment, time since last antilymphoma therapy (≤ 2, \> 2 years), and disease histology (FL, MZL).||0.95|0.37|
91000292|NCT01938001|181883753|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by 3 factors: previous rituximab treatment, time since last antilymphoma therapy (≤ 2, \> 2 years), and disease histology (FL, MZL).||||||< 0.0001
91000293|NCT01938001|181883754|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by 3 factors: previous rituximab treatment, time since last antilymphoma therapy (≤ 2, \> 2 years), and disease histology (FL, MZL).||||||= 0.0010
91000294|NCT01938001|181883755|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.79|||Log Rank|||||0.79|0.36|0.0015
91000295|NCT01938001|181883756|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.2993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.43|||Log Rank|||||1.43|0.32|0.2993
91000296|NCT01938001|181883757|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.67|||Stratified Log-Rank Test|Stratified by 3 factors: previous rituximab treatment, time since last antilymphoma therapy (≤ 2, \> 2 years), and disease histology (FL, MZL).|Hazard ratio and its CI were estimated from Cox proportional hazard model adjusting for the stratification factors noted above.|||0.67|0.38|< 0.0001
91000297|NCT01938001|181883758|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.71|||Stratified Log Rank Test|Stratified by 3 factors: previous rituximab treatment, time since last antilymphoma therapy (≤ 2, \> 2 years), and disease histology (FL, MZL).||||0.71|0.39|<0.0001
91000298|NCT03205982|181883762|EQUIVALENCE|If the difference (between treatment and control arm) is greater than the minimal clinically important difference (MCID), we consider the treatment arm is different from the control arm. MCID is calculated as 0.25-0.5\* standard deviation (SD). Conversely, the equivalence margin is the biggest difference (between 2 arms) to be considered no difference between 2 arms. Therefore, the equivalence margin should be smaller than MCID, i.e., it should be smaller than the smallest possible MCID.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9943|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0005|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.993|0.995|||Mixed Models Analysis|generalized linear mixed model with logit link (logistic model)||Compares difference in adherence changes between Intervention and Control arms||0.995|0.993|<0.0001
91000299|NCT00418717|181883769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||||95.0|-0.25|0.06||||||||0.06|-0.25|
91000300|NCT01468701|181883785|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.9|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio of dabigatran versus vitamin K antagonist (vitamin K antagonist as reference).|A multivariable Cox regression model was performed including variables of treatment, age, gender, prior bleed, previous stroke/transient ischaemic attack/systemic embolism, previous myocardial infarction, abnormal kidney function and concomitant antiplatelets use.||0.90|0.60|
91000301|NCT01468701|181883787|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.98|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio of dabigatran versus vitamin K antagonist (vitamin K antagonist as reference).|A multivariable Cox regression model was performed including variables of treatment, age, gender, prior bleed, previous stroke/transient ischaemic attack/systemic embolism, previous myocardial infarction, abnormal kidney function and concomitant antiplatelets use.||0.98|0.63|
91000302|NCT01468701|181883788|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.11|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio of dabigatran versus vitamin K antagonist (vitamin K antagonist as reference).|A multivariable Cox regression model was performed including variables of treatment, age, gender, prior bleed, previous stroke/transient ischaemic attack/systemic embolism, previous myocardial infarction, abnormal kidney function and concomitant antiplatelets use.||1.11|0.57|
91000303|NCT01468701|181883790|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.14|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio of dabigatran versus vitamin K antagonist (vitamin K antagonist as reference).|A multivariable Cox regression model was performed including variables of treatment, age, gender, prior bleed, previous stroke/transient ischaemic attack/systemic embolism, previous myocardial infarction, abnormal kidney function and concomitant antiplatelets use.||1.14|0.57|
91000304|NCT01468701|181883798|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.73|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio of dabigatran versus vitamin K antagonist (vitamin K antagonist as reference).|A multivariable Cox regression model was performed including variables of treatment, age, gender, prior bleed, previous myocardial infarction, abnormal kidney function, concomitant antiplatelets use and concomitant use of drugs related to bleeding.||0.73|0.38|
91000305|NCT01468701|181883802|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.57|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio of dabigatran versus vitamin K antagonist (vitamin K antagonist as reference).|A multivariable Cox regression model was performed including variables of treatment, age, gender, prior bleed, previous myocardial infarction, concomitant antiplatelets use, concomitant use of drugs related to bleeding, hypertension, and diabetes.||1.57|0.60|
91000306|NCT01468701|181883804|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.8|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio of dabigatran versus vitamin K antagonist (vitamin K antagonist as reference).|A multivariable Cox regression model was performed including variables of treatment, age, gender, prior bleed, previous stroke/transient ischaemic attack/systemic embolism, previous myocardial infarction, abnormal kidney function and concomitant antiplatelets use.||0.80|0.54|
91000307|NCT03906136|181883825|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||0.119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.1|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24||1.10|0.43|0.119
91000308|NCT03906136|181883826|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.95|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||0.95|0.37|0.029
91000309|NCT03906136|181883827|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71||||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.14|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||1.14|0.45|0.154
91000310|NCT03906136|181883827|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.39|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24||1.39|0.54|0.562
91000311|NCT03906136|181883828|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.55||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.94|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||0.94|0.32|0.029
91000312|NCT03906136|181883828|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.25|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24||1.25|0.44|0.264
91000313|NCT03906136|181883829|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.49||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.83|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||0.83|0.29|0.008
91000314|NCT03906136|181883829|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.47||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.8|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24||0.80|0.28|0.005
91000315|NCT03906136|181883830|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72||||0.263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.28|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||1.28|0.40|0.263
91000316|NCT03906136|181883830|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.61||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.1|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24||1.10|0.34|0.103
91000317|NCT03906136|181883831|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.64||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.01|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||1.01|0.40|0.055
91000318|NCT03906136|181883831|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.31|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24||1.31|0.52|0.409
91000319|NCT03906136|181883832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.34|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||1.34|0.53|0.477
91000320|NCT03906136|181883832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.61|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24||1.61|0.63|0.968
91000321|NCT03906136|181883833|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.3||||0.205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.75|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||0.75|-0.16|0.205
91000322|NCT03906136|181883833|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.37||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.82|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24||0.82|-0.08|0.108
91000323|NCT03906136|181883834|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.06||||0.525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12||0.23|-0.12|0.525
91000324|NCT03906136|181883834|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06||||0.577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24||0.14|-0.25|0.577
91000325|NCT03906136|181883835|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.89||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.32|0.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12||0.54|-2.32|0.220
91000326|NCT03906136|181883835|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.5|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24||0.50|-0.70|0.745
91000327|NCT03906136|181883836|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13||||0.768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|0.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12||0.74|-1.01|0.768
91047256|NCT02697773|181979723|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.98||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|2.89|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2: Odds ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.89|1.36|0.0004
91047257|NCT02697773|181979723|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.98||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|2.95|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4: Odds ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.95|1.33|0.0008
91047258|NCT02697773|181979723|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.04||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|3.04|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4: Odds ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.04|1.37|0.0004
91000328|NCT03906136|181883836|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.37||||0.451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24||0.60|-1.34|0.451
91000329|NCT03906136|181883837|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.26||||0.477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12||0.97|-0.46|0.477
91000330|NCT03906136|181883837|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24||0.58|-0.92|0.660
91000331|NCT03906136|181883838|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17||||0.586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12||0.79|-0.45|0.586
91000332|NCT03906136|181883838|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.21||||0.491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24||0.82|-0.39|0.491
91000333|NCT03906136|181883839|SUPERIORITY|Week 12|Mean Difference (Net)|4.49||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|9.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.56|-0.58|0.082
91000334|NCT03906136|181883839|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|2.73||||0.292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|7.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24||7.81|-2.35|0.292
91000335|NCT00878644|181883845|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.3||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|16.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was used adjusting for age category at time of randomization (\<2 years, 2 to \<12 years, or \>=12 years)||||16.1|-1.5|0.14
91000336|NCT00878644|181883846|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.1||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|19.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was used adjusting for age category at time of randomization (\<2 years, 2 to \<12 years, or \>=12 years)||||19.9|-1.8|0.13
91000337|NCT00878644|181883847|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Stratified Mann-Whitney Test|Test stratified by age category (\<2 years, 2 to \<12 years, or \>=12 years), for continuous (NOT categorized as reported above) 1-year change in VABS-II|||As the (nonparametric) comparison treated 1-year deaths as worst possible outcomes and worst possible 1-year VABS-II as next worst possible outcomes, using change in VABS-II for other participants alive at 1 year, no relevant estimation of effect size is possible for this secondary outcome.|||0.13
91000338|NCT00878644|181883848|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|"Test used the continuous (NOT categorized as reported above) neuropsychological scores, with Lowest Possible Score treated as lowest possible value."||||||0.81
91000339|NCT01696396|181883849|SUPERIORITY|The study was powered for formal statistical testing of the abrilumab 70 mg group. The primary and key secondary endpoints were tested under a sequential framework of statistical hypotheses, each with 2-sided significance level of 0.10 for the treatment effect of abrilumab 70 mg compared with placebo.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.54|2.44|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors.|An odds ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher remission rate for the abrilumab treatment group relative to placebo.|Comparisons between treatment groups were made using remission rates estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||2.44|0.54|0.76
91000340|NCT01696396|181883849|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Remission Rates|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.9|8.9||||||The difference in remission rates, estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||8.9|-7.9|
91050330|NCT04168190|181986997|OTHER|Estimated difference and CI are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in Percentage|16.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|37.3|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL minus Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Myalgia||37.3|-4.6|
91000341|NCT01696396|181883849|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was not part of the formal testing|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.91||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|4.57|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors.|An odds ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher remission rate for the abrilumab treatment group relative to placebo.|Comparisons between treatment groups were made using remission rates estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||4.57|0.80|0.22
91000342|NCT01696396|181883849|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was not part of the formal testing|Difference in Adjusted Remission Rates|9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.6|19.4||||||The difference in remission rates, estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||19.4|-4.6|
91000343|NCT01696396|181883849|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was not part of the formal testing|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.05||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.74|5.73|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline total CDAI score and stratification factors.|An odds ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher remission rate for the abrilumab treatment group relative to placebo.|Comparisons between treatment groups were made using remission rates estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||5.73|0.74|0.25
91000344|NCT01696396|181883849|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was not part of the formal testing|Difference in Adjusted Remission Rates|10.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.8|22.6||||||The difference in remission rates, estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||22.6|-6.8|
91000345|NCT01696396|181883850|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.78||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|3.53|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors.|An odds ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher remission rate for the abrilumab treatment group relative to placebo.|Comparisons between treatment groups were made using remission rates estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||3.53|0.90|0.16
91000346|NCT01696396|181883850|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Remission Rates|10.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.8|21.0||||||The difference in remission rates, estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||21.0|-1.8|
91000347|NCT01696396|181883850|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was not part of the formal testing|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.12||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|4.84|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors.|An odds ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher remission rate for the abrilumab treatment group relative to placebo.|Comparisons between treatment groups were made using remission rates estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||4.84|0.93|0.13
91000348|NCT01696396|181883850|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was not part of the formal testing|Difference in Adjusted Remission Rates|14.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.1|27.5||||||The difference in remission rates, estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||27.5|-2.1|
91000349|NCT01696396|181883850|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was not part of the formal testing|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.1||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.17|8.2|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline total CDAI score and stratification factors.|An odds ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher remission rate for the abrilumab treatment group relative to placebo.|Comparisons between treatment groups were made using remission rates estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||8.20|1.17|0.056
91000350|NCT01696396|181883850|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was not part of the formal testing|Difference in Adjusted Remission Rates|23.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.8|39.2||||||The difference in remission rates, estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||39.2|2.8|
91000351|NCT01696396|181883851|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.25||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.27|4.01|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors.|An odds ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher response rate for the abrilumab treatment group relative to placebo.|Comparisons between treatment groups were made using response rates estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||4.01|1.27|0.021
91000352|NCT01696396|181883851|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Response Rates|19.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.8|31.3||||||The difference in response rates, estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||31.3|5.8|
91000353|NCT01696396|181883851|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was not part of the formal testing|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|3.87|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors.|An odds ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher response rate for the abrilumab treatment group relative to placebo.|Comparisons between treatment groups were made using response rates estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||3.87|0.94|0.14
91050331|NCT04168190|181986997|OTHER|Estimated difference and CI are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in Percentage|13.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|34.5|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL minus Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Headache||34.5|-8.5|
91047259|NCT02697773|181979723|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.2283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.87|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8: Odds ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||1.87|0.86|0.2283
91047260|NCT02697773|181979723|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.1066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|2.03|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8: Odds ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.03|0.93|0.1066
91047261|NCT02697773|181979723|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68||||0.0154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.54|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12: Odds ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.54|1.10|0.0154
91047262|NCT02697773|181979723|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.13||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|3.27|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12: Odds ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.27|1.38|0.0006
91047263|NCT02697773|181979723|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.1139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.07|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16: Odds ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.07|0.92|0.1139
91047264|NCT02697773|181979723|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.99||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|3.04|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16: Odds ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.04|1.31|0.0014
91047265|NCT02697773|181979724|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.78|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.78|1.30|0.0009
91047266|NCT02697773|181979724|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.99||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|2.9|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.90|1.36|0.0004
91047267|NCT02697773|181979724|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.95||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|2.96|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.96|1.29|0.0015
91047268|NCT02697773|181979724|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.03||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|3.07|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.07|1.34|0.0008
91047269|NCT02697773|181979724|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72||||0.0251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|2.75|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.75|1.07|0.0251
91047270|NCT02697773|181979724|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.0276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.72|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.72|1.06|0.0276
91047271|NCT02697773|181979724|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.95||||0.0404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|3.71|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.71|1.03|0.0404
91047272|NCT02697773|181979724|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.3486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.72|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.72|0.70|0.3486
91047273|NCT02697773|181979724|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.07||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|3.02|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.02|1.42|0.0002
91047274|NCT02697773|181979724|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.92||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|2.79|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.79|1.32|0.0006
91047275|NCT02697773|181979724|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.07||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|3.05|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.05|1.41|0.0002
91047276|NCT02697773|181979724|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|3.15|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.15|1.46|<.0001
91000354|NCT01696396|181883851|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was not part of the formal testing|Difference in Adjusted Response Rates|15.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.3|29.7||||||The difference in response rates, estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||29.7|-2.3|
91047277|NCT02697773|181979724|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.02||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|3.18|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.18|1.28|0.0024
91047278|NCT02697773|181979724|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.13||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|3.34|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.34|1.35|0.0011
91047279|NCT02697773|181979724|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.06||||0.0172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|3.72|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.72|1.14|0.0172
91047280|NCT02697773|181979724|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.06||||0.0173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|3.72|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.72|1.14|0.0173
91000355|NCT01696396|181883851|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was not part of the formal testing|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.87||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.79|4.39|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline total CDAI score and stratification factors.|An odds ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher response rate for the abrilumab treatment group relative to placebo.|Comparisons between treatment groups were made using response rates estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||4.39|0.79|0.23
91000356|NCT01696396|181883851|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was not part of the formal testing|Difference in Adjusted Response Rates|15.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.4|31.3||||||The difference in response rates, estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||31.3|-6.4|
91000357|NCT01696396|181883852|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.98||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.13|3.47|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors.|An odds ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher response rate for the abrilumab treatment group relative to placebo.|Comparisons between treatment groups were made using response rates estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||3.47|1.13|0.047
91000358|NCT01696396|181883852|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Response Rates|16.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.4|27.1||||||The difference in response rates, estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||27.1|2.4|
91000359|NCT01696396|181883852|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was not part of the formal testing|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.52|2.29|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors.|An odds ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher response rate for the abrilumab treatment group relative to placebo.|Comparisons between treatment groups were made using response rates estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||2.29|0.52|0.84
91000360|NCT01696396|181883852|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was not part of the formal testing|Difference in Adjusted Response Rates|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.2|15.2||||||The difference in response rates, estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||15.2|-15.2|
91000361|NCT01696396|181883852|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was not part of the formal testing|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.49|2.72|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline total CDAI score and stratification factors.|An odds ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher response rate for the abrilumab treatment group relative to placebo.|Comparisons between treatment groups were made using response rates estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||2.72|0.49|0.78
91047281|NCT02697773|181979724|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.62||||0.0118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|2.35|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.35|1.11|0.0118
91000362|NCT01696396|181883852|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was not part of the formal testing|Difference in Adjusted Response Rates|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.4|18.3||||||The difference in response rates, estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||18.3|-17.4|
91000363|NCT01696396|181883853|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.65||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|3.91|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors.|An odds ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher sustained remission rate for the abrilumab treatment group relative to placebo.|Comparisons between treatment groups were made using sustained remission rates estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||3.91|0.69|0.34
91000364|NCT01696396|181883853|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Remission Rates|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.9|11.7||||||The difference in sustained remission rates, estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||11.7|-3.9|
91000365|NCT01696396|181883853|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was not part of the formal testing|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.82||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.07|7.41|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors.|An odds ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher sustained remission rate for the abrilumab treatment group relative to placebo.|Comparisons between treatment groups were made using sustained remission rates estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||7.41|1.07|0.078
91000366|NCT01696396|181883853|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was not part of the formal testing|Difference in Adjusted Remission Rates|12.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|22.6||||||The difference in sustained remission rates, estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||22.6|-0.6|
91000367|NCT01696396|181883853|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was not part of the formal testing|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.37||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.07|10.66|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline total CDAI score and stratification factors.|An odds ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher sustained remission rate for the abrilumab treatment group relative to placebo.|Comparisons between treatment groups were made using sustained remission rates estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||10.66|1.07|0.083
91000368|NCT01696396|181883853|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was not part of the formal testing|Difference in Adjusted Remission Rates|16.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.2|28.3||||||The difference in sustained remission rates, estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||28.3|-1.2|
91000369|NCT01696396|181883854|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.52||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.59|3.93|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors.|An odds ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher sustained remission rate for the abrilumab treatment group relative to placebo.|Comparisons between treatment groups were made using sustained remission rates estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||3.93|0.59|0.47
91000370|NCT01696396|181883854|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Remission Rates|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.7|8.1||||||The difference in sustained remission rates, estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||8.1|-4.7|
91000371|NCT01696396|181883854|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was not part of the formal testing|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.32||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.77|6.98|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors.|An odds ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher sustained remission rate for the abrilumab treatment group relative to placebo.|Comparisons between treatment groups were made using sustained remission rates estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||6.98|0.77|0.21
91000372|NCT01696396|181883854|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was not part of the formal testing|Difference in Adjusted Remission Rates|6.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.3|14.5||||||The difference in sustained remission rates, estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||14.5|-4.3|
91000373|NCT01696396|181883854|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was not part of the formal testing|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.66||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.75|9.45|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline total CDAI score and stratification factors.|An odds ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher sustained remission rate for the abrilumab treatment group relative to placebo.|Comparisons between treatment groups were made using sustained remission rates estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||9.45|0.75|0.21
91000374|NCT01696396|181883854|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was not part of the formal testing|Difference in Adjusted Remission Rates|8.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.0|17.9||||||The difference in sustained remission rates, estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||17.9|-6.0|
91000375|NCT01696396|181883855|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-42.09||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-67.3|-16.9|||IPW GEE Model|Adjusted for prior anti-TNF use, pre-versus post-protocol amendment 3 and baseline CDAI score.||Comparisons between treatment arms was conducted using an inverse probability weighting (IPW) generalized estimating equations (GEE) model adjusted for prior anti-TNF use, pre-versus post-protocol amendment 3 and baseline CDAI score.||-16.9|-67.3|0.006
91000376|NCT01696396|181883855|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was not part of the formal testing|LS Mean Treatment Difference|-40.79||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-81.5|-0.5|||IPW GEE Model|Adjusted for prior anti-TNF use, pre-versus post-protocol amendment 3 and baseline CDAI score.||Comparisons between treatment arms was conducted using an inverse probability weighting (IPW) generalized estimating equations (GEE) model adjusted for prior anti-TNF use, pre-versus post-protocol amendment 3 and baseline CDAI score.||-0.5|-81.5|0.095
91050332|NCT04168190|181986997|OTHER|Estimated difference and CI are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in Percentage|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.2|23.8|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL minus Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Headache||23.8|-17.2|
91047282|NCT02697773|181979724|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6||||0.0132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.32|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=30%:Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.32|1.10|0.0132
91047283|NCT02697773|181979724|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.99||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|2.92|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.92|1.35|0.0005
91050333|NCT04168190|181986998|OTHER|Estimated difference and CI are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|11.5|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL minus Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|||11.5|-11.5|
91000377|NCT01696396|181883855|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was not part of the formal testing|LS Mean Treatment Difference|-36.84||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-74.3|0.7|||IPW GEE Model|Adjusted for prior anti-TNF use, pre-versus post-protocol amendment 3 and baseline CDAI score.||Comparisons between treatment arms was conducted using an inverse probability weighting (IPW) generalized estimating equations (GEE) model adjusted for prior anti-TNF use, pre-versus post-protocol amendment 3 and baseline CDAI score.||0.7|-74.3|0.11
91000378|NCT01696396|181883856|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-27.47||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-50.0|-4.9|||IPW GEE Model|Adjusted for prior anti-TNF use, pre-versus post-protocol amendment 3 and baseline CDAI score.||Comparisons between treatment arms was conducted using an inverse probability weighting (IPW) generalized estimating equations (GEE) model adjusted for prior anti-TNF use, pre-versus post-protocol amendment 3 and baseline CDAI score.||-4.9|-50.0|0.045
91000379|NCT01696396|181883856|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was not part of the formal testing|LS Mean Treatment Difference|-23.59||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-58.7|11.5|||IPW GEE Model|Adjusted for prior anti-TNF use, pre-versus post-protocol amendment 3 and baseline CDAI score.||Comparisons between treatment arms was conducted using an inverse probability weighting (IPW) generalized estimating equations (GEE) model adjusted for prior anti-TNF use, pre-versus post-protocol amendment 3 and baseline CDAI score.||11.5|-58.7|0.27
91000380|NCT01696396|181883856|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was not part of the formal testing|LS Mean Treatment Difference|-16.37||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-51.8|19.1|||IPW GEE Model|Adjusted for prior anti-TNF use, pre-versus post-protocol amendment 3 and baseline CDAI score.||Comparisons between treatment arms was conducted using an inverse probability weighting (IPW) generalized estimating equations (GEE) model adjusted for prior anti-TNF use, pre-versus post-protocol amendment 3 and baseline CDAI score.||19.1|-51.8|0.45
91000381|NCT00394277|181883862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.075||||0.584||95.0|0.831|1.391||All secondary comparisons were tested at a two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value obtained from CMH test, stratified by country and ribavirin dose strata.||This reflects the primary protocol-specified comparison (standard Pegasys induction dosing arms versus pooled Pegasys induction dosing arms). The study was designed to have at least 86% power for testing the null hypothesis of no difference between these two pooled groups, with assumed response rates of 28%, 32%, 36%, and 43% in the four treatment arms.||1.391|0.831|0.584
91000382|NCT00394277|181883863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.039||||0.775||95.0|0.803|1.344||All secondary comparisons are tested at a two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value obtained from CMH test, stratified by country and ribavirin dose strata.||(PEG-IFN 180 µg + Ribavirin 1200 mg and PEG-IFN 180 µg + Ribavirin 1400/1600 mg) vs. (PEG-IFN 360/180 µg + Ribavirin 1200 mg and PEG-IFN 360/180 µg + Ribavirin 1400/1600 mg)||1.344|0.803|0.775
91000383|NCT00394277|181883864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.004||||0.973||95.0|0.777|1.299||All secondary comparisons are tested at a two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value obtained from CMH test, stratified by country and ribavirin dose strata.||(PEG-IFN 180 µg + Ribavirin 1200 mg and PEG-IFN 180 µg + Ribavirin 1400/1600 mg) vs. (PEG-IFN 360/180 µg + Ribavirin 1200 mg and PEG-IFN 360/180 µg + Ribavirin 1400/1600 mg)||1.299|0.777|0.973
91000384|NCT00394277|181883865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.008||||0.951||95.0|0.78|1.304||All secondary comparisons are tested at a two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value obtained from CMH test, stratified by country and ribavirin dose strata.||(PEG-IFN 180 µg + Ribavirin 1200 mg and PEG-IFN 180 µg + Ribavirin 1400/1600 mg) vs. (PEG-IFN 360/180 µg + Ribavirin 1200 mg and PEG-IFN 360/180 µg + Ribavirin 1400/1600 mg)||1.304|0.780|0.951
91000385|NCT02371980|181883866|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.517||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.323|0.828||Gate-keeping fixed-sequence testing procedure was used for multiple comparisons.|Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Cox proportional hazards model with a factor for treatment and baseline II MADRS total score as a covariate, using the exact method to handle ties.||Double-blind Vortioxetine 5mg Vs Double-blind Placebo||0.828|0.323|0.006
91047284|NCT02697773|181979724|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.66||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|2.45|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=50%:Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.45|1.13|0.0100
91047285|NCT02697773|181979724|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|3.12|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.12|1.28|0.0023
91047286|NCT02697773|181979724|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.64||||0.0322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|2.58|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.58|1.04|0.0322
91047287|NCT02697773|181979724|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.2005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.67|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.67|0.81|0.2005
91047288|NCT02697773|181979724|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.1923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|2.68|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.68|0.82|0.1923
91047289|NCT02697773|181979724|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.89||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|2.79|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.79|1.28|0.0013
91047290|NCT02697773|181979724|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.68|3.73|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.73|1.68|<.0001
91047291|NCT02697773|181979724|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|3.1|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.10|1.45|<.0001
91047292|NCT02697773|181979724|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.84||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|2.67|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.67|1.26|0.0014
91047293|NCT02697773|181979724|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|2.99|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.99|1.33|0.0008
91047294|NCT02697773|181979724|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.05||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|3.06|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.06|1.37|0.0005
91047295|NCT02697773|181979724|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.01||||0.0127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|3.49|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.49|1.16|0.0127
91047296|NCT02697773|181979724|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.11||||0.0075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|3.64|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.64|1.22|0.0075
91047297|NCT02697773|181979724|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72||||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|2.52|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16 \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.52|1.17|0.0061
91047298|NCT02697773|181979724|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.95||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|2.88|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16 \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.88|1.33|0.0007
91047299|NCT02697773|181979724|SUPERIORITY|The two comparisons for 'Participants with \>=50% reduction from baseline in WOMAC Pain at Week 16' (tanezumab 2.5 mg treatment group versus placebo and tanezumab 2.5/5 mg treatment group versus placebo) were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Hochberg procedure and an overall significance level of 0.05.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.89||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|2.76|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16 \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.76|1.29|0.0010
91047300|NCT02697773|181979724|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53||||0.0411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|2.31|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.31|1.02|0.0411
91047301|NCT02697773|181979724|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|2.57|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.57|1.14|0.0090
91047302|NCT02697773|181979724|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6||||0.1149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|2.86|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.86|0.89|0.1149
91047303|NCT02697773|181979724|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.1351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|2.79|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.79|0.87|0.1351
91047304|NCT02697773|181979724|SUPERIORITY|The two comparisons for 'Participants with ≥50% reduction from baseline in WOMAC Pain at Week 16' (tanezumab 2.5 mg treatment group versus placebo and tanezumab 2.5/5 mg treatment group versus placebo) were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Hochberg procedure and an overall significance level of 0.05.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|3.16|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16 \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.16|1.48|<.0001
91047305|NCT02697773|181979726|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.12||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|3.11|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.11|1.45|0.0001
91047306|NCT02697773|181979726|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|3.4|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.40|1.59|<.0001
91000386|NCT02371980|181883866|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.476||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.296|0.767||Gate-keeping fixed-sequence testing procedure was used for multiple comparisons.|Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Cox proportional hazards model with a factor for treatment and baseline II MADRS total score as a covariate, using the exact method to handle ties.||Double-blind Vortioxetine 10 mg Vs Double-blind Placebo||0.767|0.296|0.002
91050334|NCT04168190|181986998|OTHER|Estimated difference and CI are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|11.5|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL minus Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|||11.5|-11.5|
91000387|NCT02371980|181883866|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.483||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.298|0.782||Gate-keeping fixed-sequence testing procedure was used for multiple comparisons.|Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Cox proportional hazards model with a factor for treatment and baseline II MADRS total score as a covariate, using the exact method to handle ties.||Double-blind Vortioxetine 20 mg Vs Double-blind Placebo||0.782|0.298|0.003
91000388|NCT02371980|181883867|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean (LSM) Difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|0.68|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 2||0.68|-1.63|0.421
91000389|NCT02371980|181883867|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.589||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.39|-0.08|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 2||-0.08|-2.39|0.037
91000390|NCT02371980|181883867|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.592||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|0.75|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 2||0.75|-1.57|0.488
91000391|NCT02371980|181883867|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.765||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.93|-0.93|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 4||-0.93|-3.93|0.002
91000392|NCT02371980|181883867|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.761|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.49|-1.51|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 4||-1.51|-4.49|<0.001
91000393|NCT02371980|181883867|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.775||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.02|-0.98|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 4||-0.98|-4.02|0.001
91000394|NCT02371980|181883867|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.924||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.76|-1.13|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 8||-1.13|-4.76|0.001
91000395|NCT02371980|181883867|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.919|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.64|-2.03|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 8||-2.03|-5.64|<0.001
91000396|NCT02371980|181883867|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.939||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.84|-1.16|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 8||-1.16|-4.84|0.001
91000397|NCT02371980|181883867|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.938||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.76|-1.08|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 12||-1.08|-4.76|0.002
91000398|NCT02371980|181883867|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.934|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.34|-2.68|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 12||-2.68|-6.34|<0.001
91000399|NCT02371980|181883867|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.949|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|-1.78|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 12||-1.78|-5.50|<0.001
91000400|NCT02371980|181883867|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.957||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.92|-0.16|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 16||-0.16|-3.92|0.033
91000401|NCT02371980|181883867|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.952|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.55|-1.82|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 16||-1.82|-5.55|<0.001
91000402|NCT02371980|181883867|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.967||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.52|-0.73|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 16||-0.73|-4.52|0.007
91000403|NCT02371980|181883867|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.912||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|-0.82|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 20||-0.82|-4.40|0.004
91000404|NCT02371980|181883867|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.906|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.86|-2.31|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 20||-2.31|-5.86|<0.001
91000405|NCT02371980|181883867|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.921||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.57|-0.96|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 20||-0.96|-4.57|0.003
91000406|NCT02371980|181883867|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.008||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.89|0.06|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 24||0.06|-3.89|0.057
91000407|NCT02371980|181883867|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.997|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.46|-1.55|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 24||-1.55|-5.46|<0.001
91000408|NCT02371980|181883867|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.011||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.51|-0.55|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 24||-0.55|-4.51|0.012
91000409|NCT02371980|181883867|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.012||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.88|0.09|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 28||0.09|-3.88|0.061
91000410|NCT02371980|181883867|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.997||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.31|-0.4|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 28||-0.40|-4.31|0.018
91000411|NCT02371980|181883867|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.015||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.87|0.12|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 28||0.12|-3.87|0.065
91000412|NCT02371980|181883867|SUPERIORITY||MMRM Model|-3.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.136||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.31|-0.86|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 32||-0.86|-5.31|0.007
91000413|NCT02371980|181883867|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.122|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.16|-1.77|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 32||-1.77|-6.16|<0.001
91000414|NCT02371980|181883867|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.143||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.82|-1.34|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 32||-1.34|-5.82|0.002
91000415|NCT02371980|181883868|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.085||0.732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.14|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 2||0.14|-0.20|0.732
91000416|NCT02371980|181883868|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.085||0.273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.07|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 2||0.07|-0.26|0.273
91000417|NCT02371980|181883868|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.085||0.361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.09|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 2||0.09|-0.24|0.361
91000418|NCT02371980|181883868|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.09|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 4||-0.09|-0.48|0.004
91000419|NCT02371980|181883868|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.12|||Least Squares Mean Difference|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 4||-0.12|-0.50|0.002
91000420|NCT02371980|181883868|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.16|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 4||-0.16|-0.55|<0.001
91000421|NCT02371980|181883868|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.06|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 8||-0.06|-0.54|0.014
91000422|NCT02371980|181883868|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.16|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 8||-0.16|-0.63|0.001
91000423|NCT02371980|181883868|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.123||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.14|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 8||-0.14|-0.62|0.002
91000424|NCT02371980|181883868|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.122||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.03|||Least Squares Mean Difference|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 12||-0.03|-0.51|0.025
91000425|NCT02371980|181883868|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.122|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.26|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 12||-0.26|-0.74|<0.001
91000426|NCT02371980|181883868|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.124||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.15|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 12||-0.15|-0.63|0.002
91000427|NCT02371980|181883868|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.123||0.333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.12|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 16||0.12|-0.36|0.333
91000428|NCT02371980|181883868|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.122||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.13|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 16||-0.13|-0.61|0.002
91000429|NCT02371980|181883868|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.124||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.04|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 16||-0.04|-0.53|0.023
91000430|NCT02371980|181883868|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.03|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 20||0.03|-0.44|0.092
91000431|NCT02371980|181883868|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.2|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 20||-0.20|-0.67|<0.001
91000432|NCT02371980|181883868|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.122||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.09|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 20||-0.09|-0.57|0.008
91000433|NCT02371980|181883868|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.135||0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.11|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 24||0.11|-0.42|0.248
91000434|NCT02371980|181883868|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.133||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.1|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 24||-0.10|-0.63|0.006
91000435|NCT02371980|181883868|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.135||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.03|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 24||0.03|-0.50|0.087
91000436|NCT02371980|181883868|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.131||0.362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.14|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 28||0.14|-0.38|0.362
91000437|NCT02371980|181883868|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 28||0.10|-0.40|0.251
91000438|NCT02371980|181883868|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.131||0.391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.14|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 28||0.14|-0.37|0.391
91000439|NCT02371980|181883868|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.1|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 32||0.10|-0.45|0.209
91000440|NCT02371980|181883868|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.139||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.06|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 32||-0.06|-0.60|0.018
91000441|NCT02371980|181883868|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.09|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 32||-0.09|-0.65|0.009
91050335|NCT04168190|181986999|OTHER|Estimated difference and CI are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in Percentage|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|6.8|||||Phase 2: V116 minus Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Injection site erythema||6.8|-2.8|
91000442|NCT02371980|181883870|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.481||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.302|0.766||Gate-keeping fixed-sequence testing procedure was used for multiple comparisons.|Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Cox proportional hazards model with a factor for treatment and baseline II MADRS total score as a covariate, using the exact method to handle ties.||Double-blind Vortioxetine 5mg Vs Double-blind Placebo||0.766|0.302|0.002
91000443|NCT02371980|181883870|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.455|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.286|0.725||Gate-keeping fixed-sequence testing procedure was used for multiple comparisons.|Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Cox proportional hazards model with a factor for treatment and baseline II MADRS total score as a covariate, using the exact method to handle ties.||Double-blind Vortioxetine 10 mg Vs Double-blind Placebo||0.725|0.286|<0.001
91000444|NCT02371980|181883870|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.484||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.304|0.771||Gate-keeping fixed-sequence testing procedure was used for multiple comparisons.|Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Cox proportional hazards model with a factor for treatment and baseline II MADRS total score as a covariate, using the exact method to handle ties.||Double-blind Vortioxetine 20 mg Vs Double-blind Placebo||0.771|0.304|0.002
91000445|NCT01280812|181883872|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|1100.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3000.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Two-sided P values less than .05 were considered statistically significant.||Intent to treat analysis||||
91000446|NCT01060098|181883878|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||week 0 compared to week 12||||0.003
91000447|NCT01060098|181883878|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||week 0 compared to week 12||||0.04
91000448|NCT01060098|181883878|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||week 0 compared to week 12||||0.48
91007252|NCT00415623|181898741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.55||||0.001||95.0|1.5|4.36|||Regression, Logistic|||Proportions of participants (responder rates) were used for the statistical analyses. The hypothesis of no group differences (null hypothesis) was tested against that of the amlodipine 10 mg arm being superior to the amlodipine 5 mg arm (alternative hypothesis). The test was conducted based on a logistic regression model with baseline SBP value and body weight as covariates, and treatment group and age (\<=64, \>=65) as a factor. The significance level was 0.05 (two-sided).||4.36|1.50|0.001
91000449|NCT02853123|181883905|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.357|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.153||0.0217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.661|-0.053|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator was used for degrees of freedom.|Mean difference means the treatment difference vs. Tiotropium (i.e. Tiotropium/Olodaterol - Tiotropium).|The adjusted means (SE) are obtained from fitting an Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) model including treatment and period as fixed effects, patient as a random effect, and period baseline and patient baseline as covariates, compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation.||-0.053|-0.661|0.0217
91000450|NCT02853123|181883906|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.185|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.106|0.265|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator was used for degrees of freedom.|Mean difference means the treatment difference vs. Tiotropium (i.e. Tiotropium/Olodaterol - Tiotropium).|IC measured prior to exercise, the adjusted means (SE) are obtained from fitting an Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) model including treatment and period as fixed effects, patient as a random effect, and period baseline and patient baseline as covariates, compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation.||0.265|0.106|<.0001
91000451|NCT02853123|181883907|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.066|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038||0.0852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.009|0.141|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator was used for degrees of freedom.|Mean difference means the treatment difference vs. Tiotropium (i.e. Tiotropium/Olodaterol - Tiotropium).|IC measured end of exercise, the adjusted means (SE) are obtained from fitting an Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) model including treatment and period as fixed effects, patient as a random effect, and period baseline and patient baseline as covariates, compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation.||0.141|-0.009|0.0852
91000452|NCT02853123|181883908|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.155|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.117|0.194|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator was used for degrees of freedom.|Mean difference means the treatment difference vs. Tiotropium (i.e. Tiotropium/Olodaterol - Tiotropium).|The adjusted means (SE) are obtained from fitting an Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) model including treatment and period as fixed effects, patient as a random effect, and period baseline and patient baseline as covariates, compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation.||0.194|0.117|<.0001
91000453|NCT02853123|181883909|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.201|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.134|0.267|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator was used for degrees of freedom.|Mean difference means the treatment difference vs. Tiotropium (i.e. Tiotropium/Olodaterol - Tiotropium).|The adjusted means (SE) are obtained from fitting an Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) model including treatment and period as fixed effects, patient as a random effect, and period baseline and patient baseline as covariates, compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation.||0.267|0.134|<.0001
91000454|NCT02853123|181883910|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.108|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.096||0.2645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.083|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator was used for degrees of freedom.|Mean difference means the treatment difference vs. Tiotropium (i.e. Tiotropium/Olodaterol - Tiotropium).|1 min, the adjusted means (SE) are obtained from fitting an Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) model including treatment and period as fixed effects, patient as a random effect, and period baseline and patient baseline as covariates, compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation.||0.083|-0.300|0.2645
91000455|NCT02853123|181883910|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.107||0.0267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.452|-0.028|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator was used for degrees of freedom.|Mean difference means the treatment difference vs. Tiotropium (i.e. Tiotropium/Olodaterol - Tiotropium).|2 min, the adjusted means (SE) are obtained from fitting an Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) model including treatment and period as fixed effects, patient as a random effect, and period baseline and patient baseline as covariates, compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation.||-0.028|-0.452|0.0267
91000456|NCT02853123|181883910|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.318|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.596|-0.039|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator was used for degrees of freedom.|Mean difference means the treatment difference vs. Tiotropium (i.e. Tiotropium/Olodaterol - Tiotropium).|2.5 min, the adjusted means (SE) are obtained from fitting an Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) model including treatment and period as fixed effects, patient as a random effect, and period baseline and patient baseline as covariates, compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation.||-0.039|-0.596|0.0258
91000457|NCT02853123|181883911|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.8025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.268|0.208|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator was used for degrees of freedom.|Mean difference means the treatment difference vs. Tiotropium (i.e. Tiotropium/Olodaterol - Tiotropium).|The adjusted means (SE) are obtained from fitting an Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) model including treatment and period as fixed effects, patient as a random effect, and period baseline and patient baseline as covariates, compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation.||0.208|-0.268|0.8025
91000458|NCT02853123|181883912|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099||0.3634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.106|0.286|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator was used for degrees of freedom.|Mean difference means the treatment difference vs. Tiotropium (i.e. Tiotropium/Olodaterol - Tiotropium).|The adjusted means (SE) are obtained from fitting an Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) model including treatment and period as fixed effects, patient as a random effect, and period baseline and patient baseline as covariates, compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation.||0.286|-0.106|0.3634
91000459|NCT01391468|181883913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
91000460|NCT01391468|181883914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.744|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.744
91000461|NCT01391468|181883915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|||||Only the probiotics group arrived at the reported p-value after 6 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0042
91000462|NCT01391468|181883916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0099|TWO_SIDED|||||Only the probiotics group arrived at the reported p-value after 6 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0099
91047307|NCT02697773|181979726|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.58||||0.0312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|2.39|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.39|1.04|0.0312
91047308|NCT02697773|181979726|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.12||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|3.19|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.19|1.40|0.0003
91047309|NCT02697773|181979726|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.44||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|4.01|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||4.01|1.48|0.0005
91047310|NCT02697773|181979726|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.39||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|3.94|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.94|1.45|0.0006
91047311|NCT02697773|181979726|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1||||0.0436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|4.32|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||4.32|1.02|0.0436
91047312|NCT02697773|181979726|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76||||0.1348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|3.69|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.69|0.84|0.1348
91047313|NCT02697773|181979726|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|3.36|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.36|1.58|<.0001
91047314|NCT02697773|181979726|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|3.09|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.09|1.46|<.0001
91047315|NCT02697773|181979726|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.62|3.57|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.57|1.62|<.0001
91047316|NCT02697773|181979726|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.74|3.82|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.82|1.74|<.0001
91047317|NCT02697773|181979726|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.33||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|3.7|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.70|1.47|0.0003
91000463|NCT01510834|181883926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.824|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.148||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.578|-3.07|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-3.070|-10.578|.001
91047318|NCT02697773|181979726|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.45||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|3.89|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.89|1.55|0.0001
91000464|NCT01510834|181883927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.0872|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.731||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.91|11.26|||t-test, 2 sided|||||11.26|2.91|.001
91000465|NCT01510834|181883928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.78|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.78|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.84|-1.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-1.70|-5.84|<.001
91000466|NCT01510834|181883929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.269||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.751|-0.4244|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-.4244|-3.751|.015
91000467|NCT04839393|181883943|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|108.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.24|135.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||135.84|87.24|
91000468|NCT04839393|181883944|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|113.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.34|143.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||143.28|89.34|
91047319|NCT02697773|181979726|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.02||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|3.82|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.82|1.07|0.0310
91000469|NCT04839393|181883945|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|38.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|32.8|45.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The test treatment was PF-06865571 300 mg + PF-06882961 200 mg BID (Period 3 - Day 47), which was reported separately in comparison to the reference treatment of PF-06865571 300 mg (Period 1 - Day 1).||45.74|32.80|
91000470|NCT04839393|181883946|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|73.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|67.95|80.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||80.40|67.95|
91000471|NCT04839393|181883947|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|73.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|66.82|80.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||80.18|66.82|
91000472|NCT04839393|181883948|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|115.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.37|155.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||155.73|85.37|
91000473|NCT04839393|181883949|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|118.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.05|149.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||149.66|94.05|
91000474|NCT00671970|181883965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
91000475|NCT00671970|181883966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.613||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||.613
91000476|NCT00671970|181883967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
91000477|NCT00671970|181883968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
91000478|NCT00671970|181883969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
91000479|NCT00671970|181883970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.179||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.179
91000480|NCT00671970|181883971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.008
91000481|NCT00633893|181883972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.3283|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2225|0.4844||Hochberg adjusted p-value for superiority based on 2 hypotheses tests for apixaban 2.5mg group comparing with placebo group and for apixaban 5mg group comparing with placebo group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis is relative risk proportion of apixaban participants with VTE/all cause mortality to proportion of placebo participants with VTE/all cause mortality equal to 1.0. Participants with missing data were assumed to have experienced VTE/all cause mortality. Events occurring anytime during the intended treatment period (12 months) were included regardless of whether the participant was on treatment or not or whether the participant ever took drug, ie, Intent to treat (ITT) principle.||0.4844|0.2225|<0.0001
91000482|NCT00633893|181883972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.3615|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2475|0.5281||Hochberg adjusted p-value for superiority based on 2 hypotheses tests for apixaban 2.5mg group comparing with placebo group and for apixaban 5mg group comparing with placebo group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis is relative risk proportion of apixaban participants with VTE/all cause mortality to proportion of placebo participants with VTE/all cause mortality equal to 1.0. Participants with missing data were assumed to have experienced VTE/all cause mortality. Events occurring anytime during the intended treatment period (12 months) were included regardless of whether the participant was on treatment or not or whether the participant ever took drug, ie, Intent to treat principle.||0.5281|0.2475|<0.0001
91000483|NCT00633893|181883973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.2891|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1902|0.4395||Hochberg adjusted p-value for superiority based on 2 hypotheses tests for apixaban 2.5mg group comparing with placebo group and for apixaban 5mg group comparing with placebo group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis is relative risk proportion of apixaban participants with VTE/VTE-related death to proportion of placebo participants with VTE/ VTE-related death equal to 1.0. Participants with missing data were assumed to have experienced VTE/ VTE-related death. Events occurring anytime during the intended treatment period (12 months) were included regardless of whether the participant was on treatment or not or whether the participant ever took drug, ie, ITT principle.||0.4395|0.1902|<0.0001
91000484|NCT00633893|181883973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.3774|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2577|0.5525||Hochberg adjusted p-value for superiority based on 2 hypotheses tests for apixaban 2.5mg group comparing with placebo group and for apixaban 5mg group comparing with placebo group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis is relative risk proportion of apixaban participants with VTE/VTE-related death to proportion of placebo participants with VTE/ VTE-related death equal to 1.0. Participants with missing data were assumed to have experienced VTE/ VTE-related death. Events occurring anytime during the intended treatment period (12 months) were included regardless of whether the participant was on treatment or not or whether the participant ever took drug, ie, ITT principle.||0.5525|0.2577|<0.0001
91000485|NCT00633893|181883974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.2422|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1476|0.3975||Hochberg adjusted p-value for superiority based on 2 hypotheses tests for apixaban 2.5mg group comparing with placebo group and for apixaban 5mg group comparing with placebo group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis is relative risk proportion of apixaban participants with VTE/all cause mortality to proportion of placebo participants with VTE/all cause mortality equal to 1.0. Events occurring anytime during the intended treatment period (12 months) were included regardless of whether the participant was on treatment or not or whether the participant ever took drug, ie, Intent to treat (ITT) principle.||0.3975|0.1476|<0.0001
91007253|NCT00415623|181898742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.16|||<|0.001||95.0|2.12|8.19|||Regression, Logistic|||Proportions of participants (responder rates) were used for the statistical analyses. The hypothesis of no group differences (null hypothesis) was tested against that of the amlodipine 10 mg arm being superior to the amlodipine 5 mg arm (alternative hypothesis). The test was conducted based on a logistic regression model with baseline SBP value and body weight as covariates, and treatment group and age (\<=64, \>=65) as a factor. The significance level was 0.05 (two-sided).||8.19|2.12|<0.001
91047320|NCT02697773|181979726|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.31||||0.0088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|4.34|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||4.34|1.24|0.0088
91050336|NCT04168190|181986999|OTHER|Estimated difference and CI are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in Percentage|8.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|17.1|||||Phase 2: V116 minus Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Injection site pain||17.1|0.1|
91000486|NCT00633893|181883974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.1861|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1062|0.3261||Hochberg adjusted p-value for superiority based on 2 hypotheses tests for apixaban 2.5mg group comparing with placebo group and for apixaban 5mg group comparing with placebo group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis is relative risk proportion of apixaban participants with VTE/all cause mortality to proportion of placebo participants with VTE/all cause mortality equal to 1.0. Events occurring anytime during the intended treatment period (12 months) were included regardless of whether the participant was on treatment or not or whether the participant ever took drug, ie, Intent to treat (ITT) principle.||0.3261|0.1062|<0.0001
91000487|NCT00633893|181883975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.2799|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1844|0.4247||Hochberg adjusted p-value for superiority based on 2 hypotheses tests for apixaban 2.5mg group comparing with placebo group and for apixaban 5mg group comparing with placebo group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis is relative risk proportion of apixaban participants with VTE/CV-related death to proportion of placebo participants with VTE/CV-related death equal to 1.0. Participants with missing data were assumed to have experienced VTE/CV-related death. Events occurring anytime during the intended treatment period (12 months) were included regardless of whether the participant was on treatment or not or whether the participant ever took drug, ie, ITT principle.||0.4247|0.1844|<0.0001
91000488|NCT00633893|181883975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.3653|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.5338||Hochberg adjusted p-value for superiority based on 2 hypotheses tests for apixaban 2.5mg group comparing with placebo group and for apixaban 5mg group comparing with placebo group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis is relative risk proportion of apixaban participants with VTE/CV-related death to proportion of placebo participants with VTE/CV-related death equal to 1.0. Participants with missing data were assumed to have experienced VTE/CV-related death. Events occurring anytime during the intended treatment period (12 months) were included regardless of whether the participant was on treatment or not or whether the participant ever took drug, ie, ITT principle.||0.5338|0.2500|<0.0001
91000489|NCT00633893|181883976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.2615|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1593|0.4292||Hochberg adjusted p-value for superiority based on 2 hypotheses tests for apixaban 2.5mg group comparing with placebo group and for apixaban 5mg group comparing with placebo group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis is relative risk proportion of apixaban participants with nonfatal DVT to proportion of placebo participants with nonfatal DVT equal to 1.0. Participants with missing data were assumed to have experienced nonfatal DVT. Events occurring anytime during the intended treatment period (12 months) were included regardless of whether the participant was on treatment or not or whether the participant ever took drug, ie, Intent to treat (ITT) principle.||0.4292|0.1593|<0.0001
91000490|NCT00633893|181883976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.3972|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2595|0.6079||Hochberg adjusted p-value for superiority based on 2 hypotheses tests for apixaban 2.5mg group comparing with placebo group and for apixaban 5mg group comparing with placebo group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis is relative risk proportion of apixaban participants with nonfatal DVT to proportion of placebo participants with nonfatal DVT equal to 1.0. Participants with missing data were assumed to have experienced nonfatal DVT. Events occurring anytime during the intended treatment period (12 months) were included regardless of whether the participant was on treatment or not or whether the participant ever took drug, ie, ITT principle.||0.6079|0.2595|<0.0001
91000491|NCT00633893|181883977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.6087||||0.1084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3653|1.0145||Hochberg adjusted p-value for superiority based on 2 hypotheses tests for apixaban 2.5mg group comparing with placebo group and for apixaban 5mg group comparing with placebo group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis is relative risk proportion of apixaban participants with nonfatal PE to proportion of placebo participants with nonfatal PE equal to 1.0. Participants with missing data were assumed to have experienced nonfatal PE. Events occurring anytime during the intended treatment period (12 months) were included regardless of whether the participant was on treatment or not or whether the participant ever took drug, ie, ITT principle.||1.0145|0.3653|0.1084
91047321|NCT02697773|181979726|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.16|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.16|1.03|0.0360
91047322|NCT02697773|181979726|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|2.51|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.51|1.19|0.0039
91047323|NCT02697773|181979726|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.12||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|3.13|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.13|1.43|0.0002
91047324|NCT02697773|181979726|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.62|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.62|1.20|0.0040
91047325|NCT02697773|181979726|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74||||0.0175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.74|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.74|1.10|0.0175
91047326|NCT02697773|181979726|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.87||||0.0065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|2.94|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.94|1.19|0.0065
91047327|NCT02697773|181979726|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74||||0.0796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|3.23|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.23|0.94|0.0796
91047328|NCT02697773|181979726|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76||||0.0718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|3.27|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.27|0.95|0.0718
91047329|NCT02697773|181979726|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.01||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|2.96|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.96|1.36|0.0004
91047330|NCT02697773|181979726|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|3.93|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.93|1.78|<.0001
91047331|NCT02697773|181979726|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.11||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|3.09|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.09|1.44|0.0001
91047332|NCT02697773|181979726|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.08||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|3.04|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.04|1.42|0.0002
91047333|NCT02697773|181979726|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.13||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|3.23|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.23|1.41|0.0003
91047334|NCT02697773|181979726|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|3.46|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.46|1.52|<.0001
91050337|NCT04168190|181986999|OTHER|Estimated difference and CI are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in Percentage|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|8.4|||||Phase 2: V116 minus Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Injection site swelling||8.4|-2.0|
91047335|NCT02697773|181979726|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.09||||0.0113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|3.68|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.68|1.18|0.0113
91000492|NCT00633893|181883977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.6846||||0.1329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4164|1.1257||Hochberg adjusted p-value for superiority based on 2 hypotheses tests for apixaban 2.5mg group comparing with placebo group and for apixaban 5mg group comparing with placebo group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis is relative risk proportion of apixaban participants with nonfatal PE to proportion of placebo participants with nonfatal PE equal to 1.0. Participants with missing data were assumed to have experienced nonfatal PE. Events occurring anytime during the intended treatment period (12 months) were included regardless of whether the participant was on treatment or not or whether the participant ever took drug, ie, ITT principle.||1.1257|0.4164|0.1329
91000493|NCT00633893|181883978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.647||||0.3059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3543|1.1813||Hochberg adjusted p-value for superiority based on 2 hypotheses tests for apixaban 2.5mg group comparing with placebo group and for apixaban 5mg group comparing with placebo group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis is relative risk proportion of apixaban participants with VTE-related death to proportion of placebo participants with VTE-related death equal to 1.0. Participants with missing data were assumed to have experienced VTE-related death. Events occurring anytime during the intended treatment period (12 months) were included regardless of whether the participant was on treatment or not or whether the participant ever took drug, ie, ITT principle.||1.1813|0.3543|0.3059
91000494|NCT00633893|181883978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9416||||0.8288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5458|1.6245||Hochberg adjusted p-value for superiority based on 2 hypotheses tests for apixaban 2.5mg group comparing with placebo group and for apixaban 5mg group comparing with placebo group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis is relative risk proportion of apixaban participants with VTE-related death to proportion of placebo participants with VTE-related death equal to 1.0. Participants with missing data were assumed to have experienced VTE-related death. Events occurring anytime during the intended treatment period (12 months) were included regardless of whether the participant was on treatment or not or whether the participant ever took drug, ie, ITT principle.||1.6245|0.5458|0.8288
91000495|NCT00633893|181883979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.5794||||0.1316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3215|1.0443||Hochberg adjusted p-value for superiority based on 2 hypotheses tests for apixaban 2.5mg group comparing with placebo group and for apixaban 5mg group comparing with placebo group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis is relative risk proportion of apixaban participants with CV-related death to proportion of placebo participants with CV-related death equal to 1.0. Participants with missing data were assumed to have experienced CV-related death. Events occurring anytime during the intended treatment period (12 months) were included regardless of whether the participant was on treatment or not or whether the participant ever took drug, ie, ITT principle.||1.0443|0.3215|0.1316
91000496|NCT00633893|181883979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.8433||||0.5288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4959|1.4341||Hochberg adjusted p-value for superiority based on 2 hypotheses tests for apixaban 2.5mg group comparing with placebo group and for apixaban 5mg group comparing with placebo group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis is relative risk proportion of apixaban participants with CV-related death to proportion of placebo participants with CV-related death equal to 1.0. Participants with missing data were assumed to have experienced CV-related death. Events occurring anytime during the intended treatment period (12 months) were included regardless of whether the participant was on treatment or not or whether the participant ever took drug, ie, ITT principle.||1.4341|0.4959|0.5288
91000497|NCT00633893|181883980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.6577||||0.2361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3874|1.1169||Hochberg adjusted p-value for superiority based on 2 hypotheses tests for apixaban 2.5mg group comparing with placebo group and for apixaban 5mg group comparing with placebo group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis is relative risk proportion of apixaban participants with all cause mortality to proportion of placebo participants with all cause mortality equal to 1.0. Participants with missing data were assumed to have experienced all cause mortality. Events occurring anytime during the intended treatment period (12 months) were included regardless of whether the participant was on treatment or not or whether the participant ever took drug, ie, ITT principle.||1.1169|0.3874|0.2361
91000498|NCT00633893|181883980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.7708||||0.3155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4631|1.2832||Hochberg adjusted p-value for superiority based on 2 hypotheses tests for apixaban 2.5mg group comparing with placebo group and for apixaban 5mg group comparing with placebo group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis is relative risk proportion of apixaban participants with all cause mortality to proportion of placebo participants with all cause mortality equal to 1.0. Participants with missing data were assumed to have experienced all cause mortality. Events occurring anytime during the intended treatment period (12 months) were included regardless of whether the participant was on treatment or not or whether the participant ever took drug, ie, ITT principle.||1.2832|0.4631|0.3155
91000499|NCT00633893|181883982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.485||||0.3925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0891|2.6391||Hochberg adjusted p-value for superiority based on 2 hypotheses tests for apixaban 2.5mg group comparing with placebo group and for apixaban 5mg group comparing with placebo group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis is relative risk proportion of apixaban participants with major bleeding to proportion of placebo participants with major bleeding equal to 1.0. Treated participants with at least one dose of study drug were included.||2.6391|0.0891|0.3925
91000500|NCT00633893|181883982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.2457||||0.3551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0269|2.2437||Hochberg adjusted p-value for superiority based on 2 hypotheses tests for apixaban 2.5mg group comparing with placebo group and for apixaban 5mg group comparing with placebo group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis is relative risk proportion of apixaban participants with major bleeding to proportion of placebo participants with major bleeding equal to 1.0. Participants treated with at least one dose of study drug were included.||2.2437|0.0269|0.3551
91047336|NCT02697773|181979726|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.19||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|3.85|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.85|1.25|0.0064
91047337|NCT02697773|181979726|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.58||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|2.31|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16 \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.31|1.07|0.0200
91047338|NCT02697773|181979726|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.12||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|3.14|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16 \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.14|1.43|0.0002
91047339|NCT02697773|181979726|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.96||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|2.87|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16 \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.87|1.34|0.0005
91047340|NCT02697773|181979726|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.69||||0.0141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|2.56|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.56|1.11|0.0141
91047341|NCT02697773|181979726|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|2.87|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.87|1.26|0.0022
91047342|NCT02697773|181979726|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.2286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.5|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.50|0.80|0.2286
91047343|NCT02697773|181979726|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.1808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.57|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.57|0.84|0.1808
91047344|NCT02697773|181979726|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|3.36|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.36|1.57|<.0001
91000501|NCT00633893|181883983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.2027||||0.5148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6897|2.0975||Hochberg adjusted p-value for superiority based on 2 hypotheses tests for apixaban 2.5mg group comparing with placebo group and for apixaban 5mg group comparing with placebo group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis is relative risk proportion of apixaban participants with major/clinically relevant non-major bleeding to proportion of placebo participants with major/clinically relevant non-major bleeding equal to 1.0.||2.0975|0.6897|0.5148
91000502|NCT00633893|181883983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.616||||0.1412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9554|2.7336||Hochberg adjusted p-value for superiority based on 2 hypotheses tests for apixaban 2.5mg group comparing with placebo group and for apixaban 5mg group comparing with placebo group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis is relative risk proportion of apixaban participants with major/clinically relevant non-major bleeding to proportion of placebo participants with major/clinically relevant non-major bleeding equal to 1.0.||2.7336|0.9554|0.1412
91047345|NCT02697773|181979728|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.1463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.34|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of osteoarthritis, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.34|0.88|0.1463
91047346|NCT02697773|181979728|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.9644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.62|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of osteoarthritis, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||1.62|0.60|0.9644
91047347|NCT02697773|181979728|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.62||||0.0422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|2.59|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of osteoarthritis, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.59|1.02|0.0422
91047348|NCT02697773|181979728|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.1995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|2.16|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of osteoarthritis, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.16|0.85|0.1995
91047349|NCT02697773|181979728|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.4878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.84|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of osteoarthritis, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||1.84|0.75|0.4878
91050338|NCT04168190|181987000|OTHER|Estimated difference and CI are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in Percentage|7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|13.5|||||Phase 2: V116 minus Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Fatigue||13.5|0.8|
91000503|NCT00633893|181883984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.2928||||0.3932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7158|2.3348||Hochberg adjusted p-value for superiority based on 2 hypotheses tests for apixaban 2.5mg group comparing with placebo group and for apixaban 5mg group comparing with placebo group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis is relative risk proportion of apixaban participants with clinically relevant non-major bleeding to proportion of placebo participants with clinically relevant non-major bleeding equal to 1.0.||2.3348|0.7158|0.3932
91000504|NCT00633893|181883984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.8235||||0.0621||95.0|1.047|3.176||Hochberg adjusted p-value for superiority based on 2 hypotheses tests for apixaban 2.5mg group comparing with placebo group and for apixaban 5mg group comparing with placebo group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis is relative risk proportion of apixaban participants with clinically relevant non-major bleeding to proportion of placebo participants with clinically relevant non-major bleeding equal to 1.0.||3.1760|1.0470|0.0621
91000505|NCT00633893|181883985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.2579||||0.1691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9064|1.7457||Hochberg adjusted p-value for superiority based on 2 hypotheses tests for apixaban 2.5mg group comparing with placebo group and for apixaban 5mg group comparing with placebo group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis is relative risk proportion of apixaban participants with minor bleeding to proportion of placebo participants with minor bleeding equal to 1.0.||1.7457|0.9064|0.1691
91000506|NCT00633893|181883985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.6971||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2468|2.3102||Hochberg adjusted p-value for superiority based on 2 hypotheses tests for apixaban 2.5mg group comparing with placebo group and for apixaban 5mg group comparing with placebo group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis is relative risk proportion of apixaban participants with minor bleeding to proportion of placebo participants with minor bleeding equal to 1.0.||2.3102|1.2468|0.0013
91047350|NCT02697773|181979728|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.7856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.67|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of osteoarthritis, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||1.67|0.68|0.7856
91050339|NCT04168190|181987000|OTHER|Estimated difference and CI are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|3.8|||||Phase 2: V116 minus Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Arthralgia||3.8|-3.8|
91047351|NCT02697773|181979728|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.0476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.39|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of osteoarthritis, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.39|1.00|0.0476
91047352|NCT02697773|181979728|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72||||0.0124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|2.63|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of osteoarthritis, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.63|1.12|0.0124
91047353|NCT02697773|181979728|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.66||||0.0307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|2.62|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of osteoarthritis, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.62|1.05|0.0307
91047354|NCT02697773|181979728|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.0846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.35|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of osteoarthritis, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.35|0.95|0.0846
91047355|NCT02697773|181979729|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.03|-0.63|0.0319
91047356|NCT02697773|181979729|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.08|||ANCOVA|||Week 1:Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.08|-0.68|0.0139
91047357|NCT02697773|181979729|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.25|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.25|-1.03|0.0011
91047358|NCT02697773|181979729|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|-0.16|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.16|-0.93|0.0053
91047359|NCT02697773|181979729|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.26|||ANCOVA|||Week 3: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.26|-1.08|0.0014
91047360|NCT02697773|181979729|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|-0.36|||ANCOVA|||Week 3: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.36|-1.17|0.0002
91047361|NCT02697773|181979729|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.49|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.49|-1.33|<.0001
91047362|NCT02697773|181979729|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|-0.52|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.52|-1.36|<.0001
91000507|NCT00633893|181883986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.2374||||0.1466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9276|1.6507||Hochberg adjusted p-value for superiority based on 2 hypotheses tests for apixaban 2.5mg group comparing with placebo group and for apixaban 5mg group comparing with placebo group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis is relative risk proportion of apixaban participants with total bleeding to proportion of placebo participants with total bleeding equal to 1.0. Total bleeding was defined as any major, clinically relevant non-major, or minor bleeding.||1.6507|0.9276|0.1466
91000508|NCT00633893|181883986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.6468||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2552|2.1606||Hochberg adjusted p-value for superiority based on 2 hypotheses tests for apixaban 2.5mg group comparing with placebo group and for apixaban 5mg group comparing with placebo group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis is relative risk proportion of apixaban participants with total bleeding to proportion of placebo participants with total bleeding equal to 1.0. Total bleeding is any major, clinically relevant non-major, or minor bleeding.||2.1606|1.2552|0.0005
91050340|NCT04168190|181987000|OTHER|Estimated difference and CI are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in Percentage|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|7.0|||||Phase 2: V116 minus Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Myalgia||7.0|-3.8|
91047363|NCT02697773|181979729|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|-0.28|||ANCOVA|||Week 6: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.28|-1.16|0.0015
91047364|NCT02697773|181979729|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||Week 6: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.24|-1.12|0.0023
91047365|NCT02697773|181979729|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.00|-0.89|0.0512
91047366|NCT02697773|181979729|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.03|-0.85|0.0693
91047367|NCT02697773|181979729|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|-0.21|||ANCOVA|||Week 10: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.21|-1.14|0.0043
91047368|NCT02697773|181979729|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|-0.21|||ANCOVA|||Week 10: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.21|-1.13|0.0041
91047369|NCT02697773|181979729|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|-0.26|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.26|-1.19|0.0024
91047370|NCT02697773|181979729|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|-0.29|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.29|-1.22|0.0015
91047371|NCT02697773|181979729|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|-0.19|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.19|-1.16|0.0063
91047372|NCT02697773|181979729|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.34|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.34|-1.30|0.0008
91047373|NCT02697773|181979731|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|-0.61|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC stiffness subscales and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.61|-1.47|<.0001
91047374|NCT02697773|181979731|SUPERIORITY||Least Mean Square Difference|-1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|-0.62|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC stiffness subscales and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.62|-1.47|<.0001
91047375|NCT02697773|181979731|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|-0.81|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC stiffness subscales and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.81|-1.67|<.0001
91047376|NCT02697773|181979731|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|-0.8|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC stiffness subscales and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.80|-1.66|<.0001
91047377|NCT02697773|181979731|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|-0.33|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC stiffness subscales and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.33|-1.25|0.0007
91047378|NCT02697773|181979731|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.29|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC stiffness subscales and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.29|-1.20|0.0013
91047379|NCT02697773|181979731|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|-0.55|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC stiffness subscales and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.55|-1.51|<.0001
91047380|NCT02697773|181979731|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|-0.73|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC stiffness subscales and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.73|-1.67|<.0001
91050341|NCT04168190|181987000|OTHER|Estimated difference and CI are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in Percentage|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|9.9|||||Phase 2: V116 minus Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Headache||9.9|-2.7|
91047381|NCT02697773|181979731|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|-0.35|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC stiffness subscales and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.35|-1.32|0.0007
91047382|NCT02697773|181979731|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|-0.51|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC stiffness subscales and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.51|-1.48|<.0001
91047383|NCT02697773|181979733|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|-0.41|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.41|-1.22|<.0001
91047384|NCT02697773|181979733|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|-0.48|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.48|-1.29|<.0001
91047385|NCT02697773|181979733|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|-0.63|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.63|-1.46|<.0001
91047386|NCT02697773|181979733|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|-0.66|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.66|-1.49|<.0001
91047387|NCT02697773|181979733|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.24|-1.12|0.0024
91047388|NCT02697773|181979733|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.16|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.16|-1.03|0.0078
91047389|NCT02697773|181979733|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|-0.43|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.43|-1.35|0.0002
91047390|NCT02697773|181979733|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.57|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.57|-1.50|<.0001
91007254|NCT01708915|181898762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.362|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.171|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.699|-1.025||Model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, time, treatment-by-time interaction and the continuous covariate of baseline PI.|Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)|REML based on Repeated Measures Model, using all Available Longitudinal Pain Intensity Observations at each Post-baseline time up to 8 hours.||||-1.025|-1.699|<0.0001
91047391|NCT02697773|181979733|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|-0.23|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.23|-1.16|0.0034
91050342|NCT04168190|181987001|OTHER|Estimated difference and CI are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.5|||||Phase 2: V116 minus Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|||1.5|-1.5|
91047392|NCT02697773|181979733|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.40|-1.33|0.0003
91047393|NCT02697773|181979735|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.23|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects,baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.23|-1.10|0.0026
91047394|NCT02697773|181979735|SUPERIORITY||Least Mean Square Difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects,baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.24|-1.10|0.0023
91047395|NCT02697773|181979735|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects,baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.40|-1.29|0.0002
91047396|NCT02697773|181979735|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|-0.47|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects,baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.47|-1.35|<.0001
91047397|NCT02697773|181979735|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.18|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects,baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.18|-1.11|0.0066
91047398|NCT02697773|181979735|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.1506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.12|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects,baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.12|-0.79|0.1506
91007255|NCT01708915|181898762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.983|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.173|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.324|-0.642||Model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, time, treatment-by-time interaction and the continuous covariate of baseline PI.|Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)|REML based on Repeated Measures Model, using all Available Longitudinal Pain Intensity Observations at each Post-baseline time up to 8 hours.||||-0.642|-1.324|<0.0001
91047399|NCT02697773|181979735|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|-0.28|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects,baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.28|-1.25|0.0021
91047400|NCT02697773|181979735|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|-0.35|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects,baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.35|-1.32|0.0008
91047401|NCT02697773|181979735|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.0167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects,baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.11|-1.09|0.0167
91047402|NCT02697773|181979735|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.0073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|-0.18|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects,baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.18|-1.17|0.0073
91047403|NCT02697773|181979737|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|-0.18|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.18|-1.09|0.0058
91047404|NCT02697773|181979737|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|-0.41|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.41|-1.31|0.0002
91047405|NCT02697773|181979737|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|-0.51|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.51|-1.44|<.0001
91047406|NCT02697773|181979737|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|-0.64|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.64|-1.56|<.0001
91047407|NCT02697773|181979737|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.16|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.16|-1.11|0.0091
91047408|NCT02697773|181979737|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.03|-0.92|0.0668
91047409|NCT02697773|181979737|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|-0.34|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.34|-1.36|0.0011
91047410|NCT02697773|181979737|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|-0.46|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.46|-1.48|0.0002
91000509|NCT02741310|181883994|OTHER|The clinical hypothesis was that there would be no clinically meaningful difference between the blood pressure effects of sumatriptan alone and the effects of a single dose of erenumab IV and sumatriptan concomitant therapy. A clinically meaningful difference was defined as the upper bound of the 90% confidence interval (CI) of treatment difference between erenumab IV and sumatriptan compared to sumatriptan alone being ≥ 5 mmHg on the time-weighted scale resting MAP.|LS Mean Difference|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.16|2.08||||||A linear mixed effects regression analysis was performed to assess if the time-weighted average in MAP for erenumab with sumatriptan is similar to sumatriptan alone. A two-sided 90% confidence interval (equivalent to a one-sided upper 95% CI) for the mean treatment difference was calculated using a linear mixed-effects model with fixed effects for treatment and period and a random effect for subject.||2.08|-2.16|
91000510|NCT02741310|181883996|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|1.03||||||The mean for each treatment was compared using a linear mixed effects model with group A (sumatriptan alone) as the reference treatment group. The linear mixed effects model included treatment (erenumab with sumatriptan vs sumatriptan alone) and period as a fixed effect and subject as a random effect.||1.03|0.93|
91000511|NCT02741310|181883997|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.05||||||The mean for each treatment was compared using a linear mixed effects model with group A (sumatriptan alone) as the reference treatment group. The linear mixed effects model included treatment (erenumab with sumatriptan vs sumatriptan alone) and period as a fixed effect and subject as a random effect.||1.05|0.96|
91000512|NCT02741310|181883998|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.82|1.09||||||The mean for each treatment was compared using a linear mixed effects model with group A (sumatriptan alone) as the reference treatment group. The linear mixed effects model included treatment (erenumab with sumatriptan vs sumatriptan alone) and period as a fixed effect and subject as a random effect.||1.09|0.82|
91000513|NCT01989754|181884035|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.73|||Cox proportional hazard method|||||0.73|0.57|<.0001
91000514|NCT01989754|181884036|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72|||=|0.0148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.94|||Stratified Cox proportional hazard|||||0.94|0.55|=0.0148
91000515|NCT01989754|181884037|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86|||=|0.4067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.22|||Stratified Cox proportional hazard|||||1.22|0.61|=0.4067
91000516|NCT01057862|181884051|OTHER|We are including the mean and SD of each arm at the start and end of study only as a comparison and not a meaningful analysis. Since higher scores represent a more severe form of the disorder, a drop in scores is seen as an indicator that the treatment had an effect.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.35|||TWO_SIDED||||||||The active arm had a mean PG-YBOCS score of 16 (n=5) at study start with a SD of 7.35. At end of study the active arm had a mean PG-YBOCS score of 10 (n=5) with a SD of 9.35. The placebo arm is not included here as there were only two scores.|Enrollment was lower than expected and due to the low numbers of subjects completing the study (7 subjects (5 active and 2 placebo) completed all interventions) the numbers were not powerful enough to conduct a full analysis or provide any meaningful statistical analyses. We are including the mean and SD of each arm at the beginning and end of the study only as a comparison and not as a meaningful analysis.||||
91047411|NCT02697773|181979737|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.20|-1.20|0.0059
91047412|NCT02697773|181979737|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|-0.39|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.39|-1.39|0.0005
91047413|NCT02697773|181979740|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.56||0.6984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|3.7|||ANCOVA|||Percent Work Time Missed: WPAI parameters were analyzed using ANCOVA model which included covariates of the corresponding baseline score, baseline diary average pain, index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade (2, 3 or 4), and treatment, with study site as a random effect.||3.70|-2.48|0.6984
91047414|NCT02697773|181979740|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.2953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.84|1.48|||ANCOVA|||Percent Work Time Missed: WPAI parameters were analyzed using ANCOVA model which included covariates of the corresponding baseline score, baseline diary average pain, index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade (2, 3 or 4), and treatment, with study site as a random effect.||1.48|-4.84|0.2953
91047415|NCT02697773|181979740|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-5.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.14||0.1911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.59|2.74|||ANCOVA|||Percent Impairment While Working: WPAI parameters were analyzed using ANCOVA model which included covariates of the corresponding baseline score, baseline diary average pain, index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade (2, 3 or 4), and treatment, with study site as a random effect.||2.74|-13.59|0.1911
91047416|NCT02697773|181979740|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-5.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.2||0.1857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.89|2.71|||ANCOVA|||Percent Impairment While Working: WPAI parameters were analyzed using ANCOVA model which included covariates of the corresponding baseline score, baseline diary average pain, index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade (2, 3 or 4), and treatment, with study site as a random effect.||2.71|-13.89|0.1857
91047417|NCT02697773|181979740|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.21||0.1707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.12|2.52|||ANCOVA|||Percent Overall Work Impairment: WPAI parameters were analyzed using ANCOVA model which included covariates of the corresponding baseline score, baseline diary average pain, index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade (2, 3 or 4), and treatment, with study site as a random effect.||2.52|-14.12|0.1707
91047418|NCT02697773|181979740|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-6.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.29||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.85|2.07|||ANCOVA|||Percent Overall Work Impairment: WPAI parameters were analyzed using ANCOVA model which included covariates of the corresponding baseline score, baseline diary average pain, index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade (2, 3 or 4), and treatment, with study site as a random effect.||2.07|-14.85|0.1380
91047419|NCT02697773|181979740|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.42||0.1151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.58|0.94|||ANCOVA|||Percent Activity Impairment: WPAI parameters were analyzed using ANCOVA model which included covariates of the corresponding baseline score, baseline diary average pain, index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade (2, 3 or 4), and treatment, with study site as a random effect.||0.94|-8.58|0.1151
91047420|NCT02697773|181979740|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.41||0.1195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.51|0.98|||ANCOVA|||Percent Activity Impairment: WPAI parameters were analyzed using ANCOVA model which included covariates of the corresponding baseline score, baseline diary average pain, index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade (2, 3 or 4), and treatment, with study site as a random effect.||0.98|-8.51|0.1195
91047421|NCT02697773|181979751|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.48||||0.1444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.29|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||1.29|0.18|0.1444
91047422|NCT02697773|181979751|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.29||||0.0335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.91|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||0.91|0.09|0.0335
91047423|NCT02697773|181979752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0809||||||P-value was based on the log-rank test.|Log Rank|||Missing data for the selected percentile(s) was due to the Kaplan-Meier estimate not reaching the level for discontinuation due to lack of efficacy.||||0.0809
91047424|NCT02697773|181979752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0239||||||P-value was based on the log-rank test.|Log Rank|||Missing data for the selected percentile(s) was due to the Kaplan-Meier estimate not reaching the level for discontinuation due to lack of efficacy.||||0.0239
91000517|NCT01057862|181884052|OTHER|We are including the mean and SD of each arm at the start and end of study only as a comparison and not a meaningful analysis. Since higher scores represent a more severe form of the disorder, a drop in scores is seen as an indicator that the treatment had an effect.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.45|||TWO_SIDED||||||||The active treatment arm had a mean G-SAS score of 26.8 (n=5) at study start with a SD of 11.73. At end the active treatment arm had a mean G-SAS score of 12.6 (n=5) with a SD of 9.45. The placebo arm is not included as there were only 2 scores.|Enrollment was lower than expected and due to the low numbers of subjects completing the study (7 subjects (5 active and 2 placebo) completed all interventions) the numbers were not powerful enough to conduct a full analysis or provide any meaningful statistical analyses. We are including the mean and SD of each arm at the beginning and end of the study only as a comparison and not as a meaningful analysis.||||
91000518|NCT03363165|181884053|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.54||||0.7586|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-38.52||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline six-minute walk distance, age, race, former smoker.|||||-38.52|0.7586
91000519|NCT03363165|181884054|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.25||||0.0298|ONE_SIDED|90.0|0.78||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline maximal treadmill walking time, age, race, former smoker|||||0.78|0.0298
91000520|NCT03363165|181884055|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.69||||0.4019|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-3.1||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline perfusion, age, race, former smoker.|||||-3.10|0.4019
91000521|NCT03363165|181884056|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.28||||0.208|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-5.37||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline muscle measure, age, race, former smoker.|||||-5.37|0.2080
91000522|NCT03363165|181884057|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.02||||0.398|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-8.11||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline WIQ distance score, age, race, former smoker|||||-8.11|0.3980
91000523|NCT03363165|181884058|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.5||||0.7852|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-14.5||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline SF-36 physical functioning score, age, race, former smoker.|||||-14.50|0.7852
91000524|NCT03363165|181884059|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.14||||0.8414|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-11.76||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline SF-36 physical functioning score, age, race, former smoker.|||||-11.76|0.8414
91000525|NCT03363165|181884060|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.13||||0.5912|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-14.11||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline WIQ distance score, age, race, former smoker.|||||-14.11|0.5912
91000526|NCT03363165|181884061|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.5442|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-25.47||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline six-minute walk distance, age, race, former smoker.|||||-25.47|0.5442
91000527|NCT03363165|181884062|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.6603|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-2.11|||Adjusted for baseline pain-free treadmill walking time, age, race, former smoker.|ANCOVA||||||-2.11|0.6603
91000528|NCT03363165|181884063|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.78||||0.5647|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-24.99||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline six-minute walk distance, age, race, former smoker.|||||-24.99|0.5647
91000529|NCT01957787|181884131|OTHER|||||||0.41||||||Estimates of the log odds and Wald standard error from a random effects logistic regression model were combined across imputed datasets for reference.|Random effects logistic regression model|||The null hypothesis was tested comparing the lower bound of the Wald 97.5% 1-sided confidence interval for the estimated rate of local tumor control to the performance goal of 84.0%. If the lower bound was greater than 84.0%, the null hypothesis was rejected and the endpoint was considered met.||||0.410
91000530|NCT01686958|181884143|OTHER|This is a primarily descriptive study, no statistical analysis is planned; however, analyses were performed at the alpha=0.05 level of significance and exact analyses will be used wherever possible.|||||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||||Confidence intervals \[CI\] will be constructed for outcomes of interest at the alpha=0.05 level of significance, i.e. 95% CI.||||A total of 30 subjects will be accrued to this study and treated with the PAD-105. The sample size is based primarily on feasibility and logistical concerns, however, is sufficiently large to allow the safety objectives to be met. Specifically, with 30 total patients, if no treatment-related grade 4 or 5 adverse events are observed, then a one-sided, 95% confidence interval would have an upper bound of 0.095.|For continuous outcomes, standard summary statistics will include n, mean, standard deviation, median, minimum and maximum. For categorical data, tables will show n and % of patients.|||
91000531|NCT00631540|181884215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Patency Rate|91.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|84.2|95.9|||Z-test, 1-sided||GEE model estimate.|Alternative hypothesis is 9-month primary patency rate greater than 60%.||95.9|84.2|<0.0001
91000532|NCT02437487|181884226|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk|1.2217|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7919|1.8849||||||||1.8849|0.7919|
91000533|NCT02437487|181884228|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk|1.2624|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7668|2.0785||||||||2.0785|0.7668|
91000534|NCT02437487|181884229|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk|1.2217|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7919|1.8849||||||||1.8849|0.7919|
91000535|NCT02437487|181884230|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk|1.0878|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7383|1.6029||||||||1.6029|0.7383|
91000536|NCT01230749|181884274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|-27.4||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.792|-8.008|||ANCOVA|||||-8.008|-46.792|0.006
91000537|NCT01230749|181884274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|-20.47||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.801|-1.142|||ANCOVA|||||-1.142|-39.801|0.038
91000538|NCT01230749|181884274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|-13.24||||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.635|6.151|||ANCOVA|||||6.151|-32.635|0.178
91000539|NCT01230749|181884275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|-28.28||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.606|-8.957|||ANCOVA|||||-8.957|-47.606|0.005
91000540|NCT01230749|181884275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|-21.97||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.154|-2.786|||ANCOVA|||||-2.786|-41.154|0.025
91000541|NCT01230749|181884275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|-17.71||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.86|1.431|||ANCOVA|||||1.431|-36.860|0.069
91000542|NCT01230749|181884276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|2.76||||0.628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.542|14.054|||ANCOVA|||||14.054|-8.542|0.628
91000543|NCT01230749|181884276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|13.7||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.392|25.008|||ANCOVA|||||25.008|2.392|0.018
91000544|NCT01230749|181884276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|5.87||||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.417|17.148|||ANCOVA|||||17.148|-5.417|0.303
91000545|NCT01230749|181884277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|-1.86||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.634|-0.082|||ANCOVA|||||-0.082|-3.634|0.041
91047425|NCT02697773|181979753|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.0761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.04|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||1.04|0.48|0.0761
91047426|NCT02697773|181979753|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65||||0.0312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.96|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||0.96|0.44|0.0312
91047427|NCT02697773|181979753|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65||||0.0262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.95|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||0.95|0.45|0.0262
91047428|NCT02697773|181979753|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.54||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.79|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||0.79|0.37|0.0013
91047429|NCT02697773|181979753|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.6706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.33|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||1.33|0.64|0.6706
91000546|NCT01230749|181884277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|-0.26||||0.769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.033|1.509|||ANCOVA|||||1.509|-2.033|0.769
91000547|NCT01230749|181884277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|-0.69||||0.444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.463|1.091|||ANCOVA|||||1.091|-2.463|0.444
91000548|NCT01230749|181884278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR mulitplied by 100 percent|95.1||||0.774|TWO_SIDED|90.0|71.031|127.324|||ANCOVA|||||127.324|71.031|0.774
91000549|NCT01230749|181884278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR multiplied by 100 percent|89.9||||0.555|TWO_SIDED|90.0|66.567|121.403|||ANCOVA|||||121.403|66.567|0.555
91000550|NCT01230749|181884279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR multiplied by 100 percent|100.17||||0.968|TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.217|107.647|||ANCOVA|||||107.647|93.217|0.968
91000551|NCT01230749|181884279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR multiplied by 100 percent|101.18||||0.785|TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.179|108.7|||ANCOVA|||||108.700|94.179|0.785
91000552|NCT01230749|181884280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR multiplied by 100 percent|133.27||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.275|177.115|||ANCOVA|||||177.115|100.275|0.097
91000553|NCT01230749|181884280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR mulitplied by 100 percent|101.82||||0.917|TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.26|135.942|||ANCOVA|||||135.942|76.260|0.917
91000554|NCT01230749|181884281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|0.46||||0.295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.408|1.323|||ANCOVA|||||1.323|-0.408|0.295
91000555|NCT01230749|181884281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|0.03||||0.941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.838|0.904|||ANCOVA|||||0.904|-0.838|0.941
91000556|NCT01230749|181884281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|1.02||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.892|||ANCOVA|||||1.892|0.150|0.022
91000557|NCT00789724|181884282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.033
91000558|NCT00922974|181884317|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||Based on the one-sided exact binomial test with α=0.025 and a 2:1 randomization, 228 patients would be required to detect a 40% improvement in the response rate from 51% (external beam radiation therapy) to 70% (Radiosurgery/SBRT) with a statistical power of 0.80.||||0.99
91000559|NCT00922974|181884318|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.27|||Stratified log rank|One-sided significance level = 0.025.|Reference level = Radiosurgery/SBRT|||1.27|0.72|0.38
91000560|NCT00922974|181884319|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.73||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|12.8|||Stratified log rank|One-sided significance level = 0.025|Significance level = Radiosurgery/SBRT|||12.8|0.24|0.29
91000561|NCT00922974|181884320|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93||||||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Chi-squared|||Percentage of patients with treatment-related adverse events.||||0.93
91000562|NCT00922974|181884320|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09||||||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Chi-squared|||Percentage of patients with any adverse events.||||0.09
91000563|NCT00922974|181884321|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59||||||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Gray's test|||||||0.59
91047430|NCT02697773|181979753|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.43|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||1.43|0.69|0.9720
91047431|NCT02697773|181979753|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.5311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.29|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||1.29|0.61|0.5311
91047432|NCT02697773|181979753|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77||||0.1712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.12|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||1.12|0.53|0.1712
91047433|NCT02697773|181979753|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.7475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.54|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||1.54|0.73|0.7475
91047434|NCT02697773|181979753|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.6564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.33|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||1.33|0.63|0.6564
91047435|NCT02697773|181979755|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.4833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.16|||Negative binomial model|||Week 2: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||1.16|0.73|0.4833
91047436|NCT02697773|181979755|SUPERIORITY|Week 2: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.|LS Mean Ratio|0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.03|||Negative binomial model|||||1.03|0.65|0.0942
91047437|NCT02697773|181979755|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.3371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.15|||Negative binomial model|||Week 4: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||1.15|0.67|0.3371
91047438|NCT02697773|181979755|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.0|||Negative binomial model|||Week 4: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||1.00|0.58|0.0508
91000564|NCT00922974|181884322|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38||||||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Gray's test|||||||0.38
91000565|NCT00922974|181884323|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Assuming that the data are normally distributed, the two sample t-test assuming equal variances will be used to test the hypothesis at the one-sided 0.025 significance level. A mean difference of 7 points represents a clinically meaningful change (CMC). A difference of less than 7 points between the treatment arms will not be considered meaningful, even if it has statistical significance.||||0.28
91047439|NCT02697773|181979755|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.27|||Negative binomial model|||Week 8: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||1.27|0.71|0.7280
91047440|NCT02697773|181979755|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.3244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.15|||Negative binomial model|||Week 8: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||1.15|0.65|0.3244
91047441|NCT02697773|181979755|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.5681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.27|||Negative binomial model|||Week 12: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||1.27|0.65|0.5681
91047442|NCT02697773|181979755|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.1387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.09|||Negative binomial model|||Week 12: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||1.09|0.55|0.1387
91047443|NCT02697773|181979755|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.7275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.48|||Negative binomial model|||Week 16: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||1.48|0.76|0.7275
91047444|NCT02697773|181979755|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.31|||Negative binomial model|||Week 16: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||1.31|0.67|0.7090
91047445|NCT02697773|181979757|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.9164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.62|||Negative binomial model|||Week 2: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||1.62|0.58|0.9164
91047446|NCT02697773|181979757|SUPERIORITY|Week 2: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.|LS Mean Ratio|0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.3542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.31|||Negative binomial model|||||1.31|0.47|0.3542
91047447|NCT02697773|181979757|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.8065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.68|||Negative binomial model|||Week 4: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||1.68|0.51|0.8065
91047448|NCT02697773|181979757|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.1752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.2|||Negative binomial model|||Week 4: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||1.20|0.36|0.1752
91000566|NCT00922974|181884324|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4313|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A general linear mixed-effect model was run with BPI Worst Pain Score (baseline, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, gender, race, Zubrod performance status, pain medication, tumor type, time, and treatment arm were the covariates considered in each model. Treatment Arm (External Beam Radiation Therapy vs. Radiosurgery/SBRT) is reported here.||||0.4313
91000567|NCT00922974|181884324|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8707|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A general linear mixed-effect model was run with BPI Worst Pain Score (baseline, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, gender, race, Zubrod performance status, pain medication, tumor type, time, and treatment arm were the covariates considered in each model. Age (\< 63 years vs. ≥ 63 years) is reported here.||||0.8707
91000568|NCT00922974|181884324|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1549|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A general linear mixed-effect model was run with BPI Worst Pain Score (baseline, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, gender, race, Zubrod performance status, pain medication, tumor type, time, and treatment arm were the covariates considered in each model. Gender (female vs. male) is reported here.||||0.1549
91000569|NCT00922974|181884324|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0193|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A general linear mixed-effect model was run with BPI Worst Pain Score (baseline, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, gender, race, Zubrod performance status, pain medication, tumor type, time, and treatment arm were the covariates considered in each model. Race (Other vs. while) is reported here.||||0.0193
91000570|NCT00922974|181884324|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0016|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A general linear mixed-effect model was run with BPI Worst Pain Score (baseline, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, gender, race, Zubrod performance status, pain medication, tumor type, time, and treatment arm were the covariates considered in each model. Zubrod performance status (0 vs. 1,2) is reported here.||||0.0016
91000571|NCT00922974|181884324|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A general linear mixed-effect model was run with BPI Worst Pain Score (baseline, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, gender, race, Zubrod performance status, pain medication, tumor type, time, and treatment arm were the covariates considered in each model. Taking pain medication (No vs. Yes) is reported here.||||0.0003
91000572|NCT00922974|181884324|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6371|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A general linear mixed-effect model was run with BPI Worst Pain Score (baseline, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, gender, race, Zubrod performance status, pain medication, tumor type, time, and treatment arm were the covariates considered in each model. Tumor type (radioresistant vs. other) is reported here.||||0.6371
91000573|NCT00922974|181884325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0218|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A general linear mixed-effect model was run with EQ-5D Index Score (baseline, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, gender, race, Zubrod performance status, pain medication, tumor type, time, and treatment arm were the covariates considered in each model. Treatment Arm (External Beam Radiation Therapy vs. Radiosurgery/SBRT) is reported here.||||0.0218
91000574|NCT00922974|181884325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9437|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A general linear mixed-effect model was run with EQ-5D Index Score (baseline, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, gender, race, Zubrod performance status, pain medication, tumor type, time, and treatment arm were the covariates considered in each model. Age (\< 63 years vs. ≥ 63 years) is reported here.||||0.9437
91000575|NCT00922974|181884325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0696|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A general linear mixed-effect model was run with EQ-5D Index Score (baseline, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, gender, race, Zubrod performance status, pain medication, tumor type, time, and treatment arm were the covariates considered in each model. Gender (female vs. male) is reported here.||||0.0696
91000576|NCT00922974|181884325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.114|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A general linear mixed-effect model was run with EQ-5D Index Score (baseline, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, gender, race, Zubrod performance status, pain medication, tumor type, time, and treatment arm were the covariates considered in each model. Race (Other vs. while) is reported here.||||0.1140
91000577|NCT00922974|181884325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A general linear mixed-effect model was run with EQ-5D Index Score (baseline, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, gender, race, Zubrod performance status, pain medication, tumor type, time, and treatment arm were the covariates considered in each model. Zubrod performance status (0 vs. 1,2) is reported here.||||0.0003
91000578|NCT00922974|181884325|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A general linear mixed-effect model was run with EQ-5D Index Score (baseline, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, gender, race, Zubrod performance status, pain medication, tumor type, time, and treatment arm were the covariates considered in each model. Taking pain medication (No vs. Yes) is reported here.||||<0.0001
91000579|NCT00922974|181884325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7732|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A general linear mixed-effect model was run with EQ-5D Index Score (baseline, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, gender, race, Zubrod performance status, pain medication, tumor type, time, and treatment arm were the covariates considered in each model. Tumor type (radioresistant vs. other) is reported here.||||0.7732
91000580|NCT00922974|181884326|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5198|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A general linear mixed-effect model was run with FACT-G total score (baseline, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, gender, race, Zubrod performance status, pain medication, tumor type, time, and treatment arm were the covariates considered in each model. Treatment Arm (External Beam Radiation Therapy vs. Radiosurgery/SBRT) is reported here.||||0.5198
91000581|NCT00922974|181884326|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1197|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A general linear mixed-effect model was run with FACT-G total score (baseline, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, gender, race, Zubrod performance status, pain medication, tumor type, time, and treatment arm were the covariates considered in each model. Age (\< 63 years vs. ≥ 63 years) is reported here.||||0.1197
91000582|NCT00922974|181884326|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0306|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A general linear mixed-effect model was run with FACT-G total score (baseline, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, gender, race, Zubrod performance status, pain medication, tumor type, time, and treatment arm were the covariates considered in each model. Gender (female vs. male) is reported here.||||0.0306
91000583|NCT00922974|181884326|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7903|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A general linear mixed-effect model was run with FACT-G total score (baseline, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, gender, race, Zubrod performance status, pain medication, tumor type, time, and treatment arm were the covariates considered in each model. Race (Other vs. while) is reported here.||||0.7903
91000584|NCT00922974|181884326|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A general linear mixed-effect model was run with FACT-G total score (baseline, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, gender, race, Zubrod performance status, pain medication, tumor type, time, and treatment arm were the covariates considered in each model. Zubrod performance status (0 vs. 1,2) is reported here.||||<0.0001
91000585|NCT00922974|181884326|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0026|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A general linear mixed-effect model was run with FACT-G total score (baseline, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, gender, race, Zubrod performance status, pain medication, tumor type, time, and treatment arm were the covariates considered in each model. Taking pain medication (No vs. Yes) is reported here.||||0.0026
91000586|NCT00922974|181884326|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3282|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A general linear mixed-effect model was run with FACT-G total score (baseline, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, gender, race, Zubrod performance status, pain medication, tumor type, time, and treatment arm were the covariates considered in each model. Tumor type (radioresistant vs. other) is reported here.||||0.3282
91000587|NCT00191386|181884330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-Value for Total Score 6 Months|Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
91000588|NCT00191386|181884330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-Value for Total Score 12 Months|Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
91000589|NCT00191386|181884330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-Value for Total Score 2 Years.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
91000590|NCT00191386|181884330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-Value for Total Score 3 Years.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
91000591|NCT00191386|181884330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-Value for Total Score 4 Years.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
91000592|NCT00191386|181884331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-Value for 6 Months.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
91000593|NCT00191386|181884331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-Value for 12 Months.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
91000594|NCT00191386|181884331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-Value for 2 Years.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
91000595|NCT00191386|181884331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-Value for 3 Years.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
91000596|NCT00191386|181884331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-Value for 4 Years.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
91000597|NCT02574481|181884347|NON_INFERIORITY|A two-group Farrington-Manning test is used to test the one-sided hypothesis of non-inferiority in proportions.|||||<|0.0001||||||A two-group Farrington-Manning test is used to test the one-sided hypothesis of non-inferiority in proportions. If the P-value from the one-sided Farrington-Manning test is \<0.05, Eluvia is concluded to be non-inferior to Zilver PTX.|Farrington-Manning|||||||<0.0001
91000598|NCT02574481|181884348|NON_INFERIORITY|A two-group Farrington-Manning test is used to test the one-sided hypothesis of non-inferiority in proportions..|||||<|0.0001||||||A two-group Farrington-Manning test is used to test the one-sided hypothesis of non-inferiority in proportions. If the P-value from the one-sided Farrington-Manning test is \<0.05, Eluvia is concluded to be non-inferior to Zilver PTX.|Farrington-Manning|||||||<0.0001
91000599|NCT00446641|181884361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.654||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||We assumed that the prevalence of AR would be 12 % among ischemic stroke patients who were treated with aspirin 100 per day. The prevalence could be reduced to 4% with additional cilostazol therapy||||0.654
91000600|NCT05302804|181884383|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.742||||||p-value reflects main effect of treatment.|ANOVA|||"Null hypothesis was there was no difference between menthol gel and control gel~time x trial ANOVA statistical analysis"||||0.742
91047449|NCT02697773|181979757|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.7837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.73|||Negative binomial model|||Week 8: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||1.73|0.48|0.7837
91047450|NCT02697773|181979757|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.5062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.52|||Negative binomial model|||Week 8: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||1.52|0.43|0.5062
91047451|NCT02697773|181979757|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.6821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.82|||Negative binomial model|||Week 12: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||1.82|0.40|0.6821
91047452|NCT02697773|181979757|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.5032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.65|||Negative binomial model|||Week 12: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||1.65|0.36|0.5032
91000601|NCT05302804|181884384|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.742||||||p-value is main effect of menthol|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between menthol and control trials||||0.742
91000602|NCT05302804|181884385|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.048||||||p-value reflects main effect of menthol|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between menthol and control trials||||0.048
91000603|NCT05302804|181884386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.104|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between menthol and control trials||||.104
91000604|NCT05302804|181884387|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.051|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between menthol and control trials||||.051
91000605|NCT05302804|181884388|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Main effect of treatment|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between menthol and control trials||||< 0.001
91000606|NCT05302804|181884389|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.026|||||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between menthol and control trials||||.026
91000607|NCT05302804|181884390|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||p-value at time 30 min of exercise|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between menthol and control trials||||.001
91000608|NCT05302804|181884391|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91000609|NCT02038790|181884394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.5|TWO_SIDED|||||Two-tailed level of significance of 0.05 and no adjustments made for the number of tests conducted.|Chi-squared|||||||>0.5000
91000610|NCT02038790|181884395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0196|TWO_SIDED|||||Two-tailed level of significance of 0.05 and no adjustments made for the number of tests conducted.|Chi-squared|||||||0.0196
91000611|NCT02038790|181884396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|||||Two-tailed level of significance of 0.05 and no adjustments made for the number of tests conducted.|Chi-squared|||||||0.0006
91000612|NCT02038790|181884397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4422|TWO_SIDED|||||Two-tailed level of significance of 0.05 and no adjustments made for the number of tests conducted.|Chi-squared|||||||0.4422
91000613|NCT02038790|181884398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2377|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2377
91000614|NCT02038790|181884399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0603|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0603
91000615|NCT02038790|181884400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0010
91000616|NCT03180294|181884450|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Using a two sample t-test with a one-sided type I error of 0.05 (overall type I error of 0.1 after a Bonferroni correction) and an effect size of 0.45, 62 patients/arm were calculated to be needed to achieve 80% statistical power. Adjusting for 20% non-compliance resulted in a total sample size of 234 patients..||||0.46
91000617|NCT03180294|181884450|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Using a two sample t-test with a one-sided type I error of 0.05 (overall type I error of 0.1 after a Bonferroni correction) and an effect size of 0.45, 62 patients/arm were calculated to be needed to achieve 80% statistical power. Adjusting for 20% non-compliance resulted in a total sample size of 234 patients..||||0.54
91000618|NCT03180294|181884451|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95||||||One-sided significance level 0.05|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 5||||0.95
91000619|NCT03180294|181884451|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73||||||One-sided significance level 0.05|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 5||||0.73
91000620|NCT03180294|181884451|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46||||||One-sided significance level 0.05|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 9||||0.46
91000621|NCT03180294|181884451|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42||||||One-sided significance level 0.05|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 9||||0.42
91000622|NCT03180294|181884452|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24||||||One-side significance level 0.05|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.24
91000623|NCT03180294|181884452|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74||||||One-sided significance level 0.05|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.74
91000624|NCT03180294|181884453|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41||||||One-sided significance level 0.05|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 5||||0.41
91000625|NCT03180294|181884453|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6||||||One-sided significance level 0.05|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 5||||0.60
91000626|NCT03180294|181884453|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9||||||One-sided significance level 0.05|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 9||||0.90
91000627|NCT03180294|181884453|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79||||||One-sided significance level 0.05|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 9||||0.79
91000628|NCT03180294|181884454|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41||||||One-sided significance level 0.05|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 5||||0.41
91000629|NCT03180294|181884454|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35||||||One-sided significance level 0.05|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 5||||0.35
91000630|NCT03180294|181884454|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83||||||One-sided significance level 0.05|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 9||||0.83
91000631|NCT03180294|181884454|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79||||||One-sided significance level 0.05|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 9||||0.79
91000632|NCT03180294|181884455|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78||||||One-sided significance level 0.05|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 5||||0.78
91000633|NCT03180294|181884455|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51||||||One-sided significance level 0.05|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 5||||0.51
91000634|NCT03180294|181884455|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49||||||One-sided significance level 0.05|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 9||||0.49
91000635|NCT03180294|181884455|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5||||||One-sided significance level 0.05|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 9||||0.50
91000636|NCT03180294|181884456|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||Chi-squared|One-sided significance level 0.05||||||0.71
91000637|NCT03180294|181884456|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Chi-squared|One-sided significance level 0.05||||||0.34
91000638|NCT03180294|181884457|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23||||||One-sided significance level 0.05|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.23
91000639|NCT03180294|181884457|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25||||||One-sided significance level 0.05|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.25
91000640|NCT01951326|181884516|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0048|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified according to anti-TNF agent use (Y/N).||||||0.0048
91000641|NCT01951326|181884517|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0116|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified according to anti-TNF agent use (Y/N).||||||0.0116
91000642|NCT01951326|181884518|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0616|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified according to anti-TNF agent use (Y/N).||||||0.0616
91000643|NCT01951326|181884519|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0851|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified according to anti-TNF agent use (Y/N).||||||0.0851
91000644|NCT01951326|181884520|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0147|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified according to anti-TNF agent use (Y/N).||||||0.0147
91000645|NCT01951326|181884521|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.151|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified according to anti-TNF agent use (Y/N).||||||0.1510
91000646|NCT01951326|181884522|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2402|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.2402
91000647|NCT01951326|181884523|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0460
91047453|NCT02697773|181979757|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|1.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.5796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.61|||Negative binomial model|||Week 16: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||2.61|0.58|0.5796
91047454|NCT02697773|181979757|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.8725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|2.0|||Negative binomial model|||Week 16: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||2.00|0.44|0.8725
91047455|NCT00842530|181979772|SUPERIORITY|The vaccine efficacy of the CYD dengue vaccine against severe VCD cases was considered significant only if the lower bound of its 95% CI was greater than 0%.|Vaccine efficacy (%)|30.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|56.6||||||Vaccine efficacy of CYD dengue vaccine: The statistical methodology was based on the use of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the vaccine efficacy. The CI was calculated using the exact method conditional on the total number of cases in both groups.||56.6|-13.4|
91047456|NCT00842530|181979773|OTHER|The statistical methodology was based on the use of the two-sided 95% CI of the vaccine efficacy. The CI was calculated using the exact method conditional on the total number of cases in both groups. The vaccine efficacy of the CYD dengue vaccine against severe VCD cases was considered significant if the lower bound of its 95% CI was greater than 0%.|Vaccine efficacy (%)|75.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-377.0|99.6||||||Vaccine efficacy against severe VCD (IDMC)||99.6|-377|
91047457|NCT00842530|181979773|OTHER|The statistical methodology was based on the use of the two-sided 95% CI of the vaccine efficacy. The CI was calculated using the exact method conditional on the total number of cases in both groups. The vaccine efficacy of the CYD dengue vaccine against severe VCD cases was considered significant if the lower bound of its 95% CI was greater than 0%.|Vaccine efficacy (%)|50.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-585.0|96.4||||||Vaccine efficacy of against severe VCD (WHO 1999)||96.4|-585|
91047458|NCT00842530|181979774|SUPERIORITY|The statistical methodology was based on the use of the two-sided 95% CI of the vaccine efficacy. The CI was calculated using the exact method conditional on the total number of cases in both groups. The vaccine efficacy of the CYD dengue vaccine against severe VCD cases was considered significant only if the lower bound of its 95% CI was greater than 0%.|Vaccine efficacy (%)|41.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.4|74.9||||||Vaccine efficacy:- 28 days Post-Inj. 2 up to Inj. 3||74.9|-38.4|
91000648|NCT01951326|181884524|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0031|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0031
91000649|NCT01951326|181884525|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0100
91000650|NCT01951326|181884526|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0077|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified according to anti-TNF agent use (Y/N).||||||0.0077
91000651|NCT01951326|181884527|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0422|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified according to anti-TNF agent use (Y/N).||||||0.0422
91000652|NCT02009930|181884550|OTHER||Wilson Method used|16.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.4|22.9||||||||22.9|9.4|
91047459|NCT00842530|181979774|SUPERIORITY|The statistical methodology was based on the use of the two-sided 95% CI of the vaccine efficacy. The CI was calculated using the exact method conditional on the total number of cases in both groups. The vaccine efficacy of the CYD dengue vaccine against severe VCD cases was considered significant only if the lower bound of its 95% CI was greater than 0%.|Vaccine efficacy (%)|35.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|56.5||||||Vaccine efficacy: 28 days Post-Inj. 2 up to end of Active Phase||56.5|3.3|
91047460|NCT00842530|181979780|OTHER|The statistical methodology was based on the use of the two-sided 95% CI of the vaccine efficacy. The CI was calculated using the exact method conditional on the total number of cases in both groups. The vaccine efficacy of the CYD dengue vaccine against severe VCD cases was considered significant if the lower bound of its 95% CI was greater than 0%.|Vaccine efficacy (%)|33.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|53.5||||||Vaccine efficacy: 28 days Post-Inj. 1 up to end of Active Phase||53.5|4.1|
91047461|NCT00842530|181979780|OTHER|The statistical methodology was based on the use of the two-sided 95% CI of the vaccine efficacy. The CI was calculated using the exact method conditional on the total number of cases in both groups. The vaccine efficacy of the CYD dengue vaccine against severe VCD cases was considered significant if the lower bound of its 95% CI was greater than 0%.|Vaccine efficacy (%)|34.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.7|54.3||||||Vaccine efficacy: Day 0 up to end of Active Phase||54.3|6.7|
91000653|NCT02009930|181884551|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Only descriptive statistics were calculated (frequency, percent). Inferential statistics were not necessary, nor appropriate|||
91000654|NCT02009930|181884552|OTHER|||||||0.79||||||Correlation between FRS and CAC risk categories in participants with at least 1 additional risk factor expressed as a p-value|Spearman's Rank Correlation Coefficient|Correlation between FRS and CAC risk categories in participants with at least 1 additional risk factor. Spearman's rho = 0.04||Compare risk categories (FRS and CAC)||||0.79
91000655|NCT02009930|181884553|OTHER|||||||0.063||||||Relationship between FRS and metabolic syndrome. FRS risk category (low, mod, mod-high, high, very high risk) and metabolic syndrome (presence/absence of metabolic syndrome)|Fisher Exact|Relationship between 2 variables (FRS - each risk category, metabolic syndrome - presence/absence) expressed as a p-value||FRS risk category (low, mod, mod-high, high, very high risk)||||0.063
91000656|NCT02009930|181884553|OTHER|||||||0.21||||||Relationship between CAC and metabolic syndrome. CAC risk category (low, low-mod, mod-high, high, very high risk) and metabolic syndrome (presence/absence of metabolic syndrome)|Fisher Exact|Relationship between 2 variables (CAC - each risk category, metabolic syndrome - presence/absence) expressed as a p-value||CAC risk category (low, low-mod, mod-high, high, very high)||||0.21
91000657|NCT02009930|181884554|OTHER|||||||0.56||||||Relationship between FRS and living in the dorms. FRS risk category (low, mod, mod-high, high, very high risk) and living in the dorms (\< 5 years, \> 5 years)|Fisher Exact|Relationship between 2 variables (FRS - each risk category, living in the dorms - \<5 years/\> 5 years) expressed as a p-value||FRS risk categories (low, moderate, mod -high, high, and very high)||||0.56
91000658|NCT02009930|181884554|OTHER|||||||0.13||||||Relationship between CAC and living in the dorms. CAC risk category (low, low-mod, mod-high, high, very high risk) and living in the dorms (\< 5 years, \> 5 years)|Fisher Exact|Relationship between 2 variables (CAC - each risk category, living in the dorms - \<5 years/\> 5 years) expressed as a p-value||CAC risk category (low, low-mod, moderate - high, high, and very high)||||0.13
91000659|NCT02009930|181884555|OTHER|||||||0.44||||||Relationship between FRS and PT failures. FRS risk category (low, mod, mod-high, high, very high risk) and PT failures (with, without PT failure)|Fisher Exact|Relationship between 2 variables (FRS - each risk category, PT failure - with/without PT failure) expressed as a p-value||FRS risk categories (low, moderate, moderate-high, high, and very high)||||0.44
91000660|NCT02009930|181884555|OTHER|||||||0.49||||||Relationship between CAC and PT failures. CAC risk category (low, low-mod, mod-high, high, very high risk) and PT failures (with, without PT failure)|Fisher Exact|Relationship between 2 variables (CAC - each risk category, PT failure - with/without PT failure) expressed as a p-value||CAC risk categories (low, low-moderate, mod -high, high, and very high)||||0.49
91000661|NCT02009930|181884556|OTHER|||||||0.11||||||Relationship between FRS and overall years of service. FRS risk category (low, mod, mod-high, high, very high risk) and overall years of service (15-19, 20-24, 25+)|Fisher Exact|Relationship between 2 variables (FRS - each risk category, overall years of service) expressed as a p-value||FRS risk categories (low, moderate, moderate -high, high, and very high)||||0.11
91000662|NCT02009930|181884556|OTHER|||||||0.003||||||Relationship between CAC and overall years of service. CAC risk category (low, low-mod, mod-high, high, very high risk) and overall years of service (15-19, 20-24, 25+)|Fisher Exact|Relationship between 2 variables (CAC - each risk category, overall years of service) expressed as a p-value||CAC risk category (low, low-mod, mod-high, high, very high risk)||||0.003
91000663|NCT02009930|181884558|OTHER|||||||0.21||||||Relationship between CAC and metabolic syndrome. CAC risk category (low, low-mod, mod-high, high, very high risk) and metabolic syndrome (presence/absence of metabolic syndrome)|Fisher Exact|Relationship between 2 variables (CAC - each risk category, metabolic syndrome - presence/absence) expressed as a p-value||CAC risk category (low, low-mod, mod-high, high, very high)||||0.21
91000664|NCT02009930|181884559|OTHER|||||||0.13||||||Relationship between CAC and living in the dorms. CAC risk category (low, low-mod, mod-high, high, very high risk) and living in the dorms (\< 5 years, \> 5 years)|Fisher Exact|Relationship between 2 variables (CAC - each risk category, living in the dorms - \<5 years/\> 5 years) expressed as a p-value||CAC risk category (low, low-mod, moderate - high, high, and very high)||||0.13
91000665|NCT02009930|181884560|OTHER|||||||0.49||||||Relationship between CAC and PT failures. CAC risk category (low, low-mod, mod-high, high, very high risk) and PT failures (with, without PT failure)|Fisher Exact|Relationship between 2 variables (CAC - each risk category, PT failure - with/without PT failure) expressed as a p-value||CAC risk categories (low, low-moderate, mod -high, high, and very high)||||0.49
91000666|NCT02009930|181884561|OTHER|||||||0.003||||||Relationship between CAC and overall years of service. CAC risk category (low, low-mod, mod-high, high, very high risk) and overall years of service (15-19, 20-24, 25+)|Fisher Exact|Relationship between 2 variables (CAC - each risk category, overall years of service) expressed as a p-value||CAC risk category (low, low-mod, mod-high, high, very high risk)||||0.003
91047462|NCT02243293|181979787|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority of the rate of sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment as compared to historical control (in genotype 2 (GT2) DAA-naive participants in Part 4, arm S) was analyzed; the lower confidence bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (95% CI) for the percentage of participants with sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment must exceed 89% to achieve noninferiority.|Percentage of Participants|98.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.5|100.0|||||95% CI was calculated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||100.0|96.5|
91047463|NCT01769274|181979804|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Hierarchical rank test|||||||1.0000
91000667|NCT03300427|181884569|SUPERIORITY||difference in least square means|-900.0||||0.7594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6781.7|4981.8|||ANCOVA|||The study hypothesis is that short-term therapy with sacubitril/valsartan added on standard HF therapy improves cardiac efficiency in subjects with systolic HF.||4981.8|-6781.7|0.7594
91000668|NCT03300427|181884571|SUPERIORITY||difference in least square means|-575.5||||0.8422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6365.5|5214.5|||ANCOVA|||The study hypothesis is that short-term therapy with sacubitril/valsartan added on standard HF therapy improves cardiac efficiency in subjects with systolic HF.||5214.5|-6365.5|0.8422
91000669|NCT00879437|181884584|NON_INFERIORITY|if 19 evaluable patients enrolled for DIPG, study is powered at 80% to detect a 20% improvement in 1-year EFS compared to historical control if 21 evaluable patients enrolled for HGG, study is powered at 80% to detect a 20% improvement in 1-year EFS compared to historical control|||||<|0.05|||||||Log Rank|one sample log-rank||comparing 1-year EFS of DIPG on this trial versus historical control (1-year EFS of 17% from CCG-9941; PMID 12177103) comparing 1-year EFS of HGG on this trial versus historical control (1-year EFS of 36% from ACNS0126; PMID 21339192)||||< 0.05
91047464|NCT01769274|181979804|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Hierarchical rank test|||||||1.0000
91050343|NCT04168190|181987002|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>0.33 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.22|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 3. Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||1.22|0.82|<0.001
91000670|NCT00879437|181884624|OTHER|The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate the median EFS for each cohort with 95% confidence intervals. All analyses were performed in SAS version 9.4 statistical software (SAS Institute Inc) and R (https://cran.r-project.org/).|||||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||||The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate the median EFS for each cohort with 95% confidence intervals.|||
91000671|NCT00879437|181884625|OTHER|The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate the one-year EFS for each cohort with 95% confidence intervals. All analyses were performed in SAS version 9.4 statistical software (SAS Institute Inc) and R (https://cran.r-project.org/).|||||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||||The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate the one-year EFS for each cohort with 95% confidence intervals.|||
91000672|NCT00879437|181884626|OTHER|||||||||||||||||partial response defined as 51% to 99% reduction in tumor size,determined using WHO bi-dimensional criteria (product of the greatest tumor diameter and its perpendicular diameter)|Not applicable (8 partial responses in 16 patients = 50%)|||
91000673|NCT00291187|181884631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.1|-9.9|||ANCOVA|||||-9.9|-33.1|<0.001
91000674|NCT00291187|181884631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.8|-14.7|||ANCOVA|||||-14.7|-37.8|<0.001
91000675|NCT00291187|181884631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.2|-11.3|||ANCOVA|||||-11.3|-34.2|<0.001
91000676|NCT00291187|181884632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.2||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.1|-4.3|||ANCOVA|||||-4.3|-44.1|0.017
91000677|NCT00291187|181884632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-33.7||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.6|-13.9|||ANCOVA|||||-13.9|-53.6|0.001
91000678|NCT00291187|181884632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.4||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.0|2.1|||ANCOVA|||||2.1|-37.0|0.081
91000679|NCT00291187|181884633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.7||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.0|54.5|||ANCOVA|||||54.5|13.0|0.002
91000680|NCT00291187|181884633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|47.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.2|68.6|||ANCOVA|||||68.6|27.2|<0.001
91000681|NCT00291187|181884633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|29.6||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.1|50.0|||ANCOVA|||||50.0|9.1|0.005
91000682|NCT00291187|181884634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.1||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9|-3.3|||ANCOVA|||||-3.3|-18.9|0.006
91000683|NCT00291187|181884634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.1|-6.5|||ANCOVA|||||-6.5|-22.1|<0.001
91000684|NCT00291187|181884634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.3||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|-4.6|||ANCOVA|||||-4.6|-20.0|0.002
91000685|NCT01001234|181884645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.26||The statistical significance level for the primary endpoint was α=0.0477, and had been adjusted to account for the interim sample size adjustment.|Regression, Logistic|Testing of primary endpoint and secondary endpoints was conducted sequentially in a pre-specified order, thus strongly controlling Type I error.||The comparison of rizatriptan versus placebo with respect to the primary outcome was conducted using a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, Stage 2 baseline pain severity (moderate or severe) and region (United States \[US\] or ex-US). Model-derived odds ratio and a two-sided p-value were provided. An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the rizatriptan group.||2.26|1.06|0.025
91000686|NCT01001234|181884646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.9||Secondary endpoints were to be formally tested only if the test of the primary endpoint was statistically significant at the α=0.0477 level. The secondary endpoints were then tested sequentially in a pre-specified order, each at the α=0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|This first secondary hypothesis was not statistically significant, therefore the other two were not formally tested for statistical significance.||The comparison of rizatriptan versus placebo with respect to pain relief at 2 hours post Stage 2 dose for participants between 12 and 17 years of age was conducted using a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, Stage 2 baseline pain severity (moderate or severe) and region (US or ex-US). Model-derived odds ratio and a two-sided p-value were provided. An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the rizatriptan group.||1.90|0.96|0.080
91000687|NCT01001234|181884647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.52||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.1||This second secondary hypothesis was not formally tested since the first secondary was not statistically significant.|Regression, Logistic|||The comparison of rizatriptan versus placebo with respect to pain freedom at 2 hours post Stage 2 dose for participants between 6 and 17 years of age was conducted using a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, Stage 2 baseline pain severity (moderate or severe), age (6 to 11 years old or 12 to 17 years old), and region (US or ex-US). Model-derived odds ratio and a two-sided p-value were provided. An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the rizatriptan group.||2.10|1.10|0.010
91000688|NCT01001234|181884648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.63||This third secondary hypothesis was not formally tested since the first secondary was not statistically significant.|Regression, Logistic|||The comparison of rizatriptan versus placebo with respect to pain relief at 2 hours post Stage 2 dose for participants between 6 and 17 years of age was conducted using a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, Stage 2 baseline pain severity (moderate or severe), age (6 to 11 years old or 12 to 17 years old), and region (US or ex-US). Model-derived odds ratio and a two-sided p-value were provided. An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the rizatriptan group.||1.63|0.91|0.178
91000689|NCT01363258|181884658|OTHER|Generalized linear mixed models fitted with binomial (logit link) and gamma (log link) distributions, with additional dispersion parameters, were used to estimate and test intervention effects in terms of occurrence and intensity of CRBs, respectively. Inference was conducted in the link scale, but inverse-link estimates in the original scales (proportions and CRB scores, for the binomial and gamma models, respectively) were computed to facilitate interpretation.|Effect size|-0.16||||0.1433|TWO_SIDED||||||Time by group interaction test|||||||0.1433
90890004|NCT01571362|181644029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.193||0.0412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.02|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Randomization Baseline to Week 2||-0.02|-0.78|0.0412
91000690|NCT03238352|181884690|OTHER||Difference of Least Square mean|-1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.657|-0.782|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline Schiff score as covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|Test Product versus Negative Control at Week 8 is a primary endpoint comparison.||-0.782|-1.657|<0.0001
91000691|NCT03238352|181884690|OTHER||Difference of Least Square mean|-1.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.213|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.705|-0.858|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline Schiff score as covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|||-0.858|-1.705|<.0001
91000692|NCT03238352|181884690|OTHER||Difference of Least Square mean|-1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.176|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.901|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline Schiff score as covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|Test Product versus Combined Control (Placebo and Negative Control) group was obtained by using estimates statement in the ANCOVA model.||-0.901|-1.600|<0.0001
91000693|NCT03238352|181884691|OTHER||Diference of Least Square mean|37.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.306|<|0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.916|51.995||P-value from Van Elteren test|ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline Schiff stratification as factors and baseline tactile threshold as a covariate.|Difference is the first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|||51.995|22.916|<0.0004
91000694|NCT03238352|181884691|OTHER||Diference of Least Square mean|49.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.079|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.791|63.966||P-value from Van Elteren test|ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline Schiff stratification as factors and baseline tactile threshold as a covariate.|Difference is the first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|||63.966|35.791|<.0001
91000695|NCT03238352|181884691|OTHER||Diference of Least Square mean|43.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.862|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.001|55.334||P-value from Van Elteren test.|ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline Schiff stratification as factors and baseline tactile threshold as a covariate.|Difference is the first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Test Product versus Combined Control (Placebo and Negative Control) group is obtained by using estimates statement in the ANCOVA model||55.334|32.001|<.0001
91000696|NCT01963780|181884710|SUPERIORITY|Performance goal is 65%.|Proportion|0.544||||0.9663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.428|0.657|||one-sided exact binomial test|||||0.657|0.428|0.9663
91000697|NCT01963780|181884711|OTHER|No statistical hypothesis testing|Proportion|0.167|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.092|0.268||||||||0.268|0.092|
91000698|NCT01963780|181884712|OTHER|No statistical hypothesis testing|Proportion|0.064|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.021|0.143||||||||0.143|0.021|
91000699|NCT01963780|181884713|OTHER|No statistical hypothesis testing|Mean|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.4||||||||0.4|0.1|
91007256|NCT01708915|181898762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.158|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.195||0.4171||95.0|-0.541|0.225||Model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, time, treatment-by-time interaction and the continuous covariate of baseline PI.|Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)|REML based on Repeated Measures Model, using all Available Longitudinal Pain Intensity Observations at each Post-baseline time up to 8 hours.||||0.225|-0.541|0.4171
91050344|NCT04168190|181987002|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>0.33 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.56|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 7F. Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||1.56|0.95|<0.001
91047465|NCT02409329|181979823|SUPERIORITY|We performed an omnibus test of the treatment effect at 3 and 6 months using a robust variance-covariance based Wald statistic. We used ordinary least squares linear regression with Huber-White heteroscedasticity-consistent standard errors to obtain point estimates and 95% CIs for the intervention effect at each time.|Predicted mean difference|-0.313||||0.0493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.017||A priori threshold p\<.05.|GEE, Wald test|Adjusted for baseline values with cubic splines (3 knots).|6-month point estimate|Any REACH vs. Helpline and A1c results. We used generalized estimating equations (GEE) with a working-exchangeable correlation structure and identity link, adjusting for baseline and allowing a time-treatment interaction. For the HbA1c model, we allowed for a three-way interaction between time, treatment group, and baseline HbA1c because there was descriptive evidence that the effect was modified by baseline HbA1c values. Multiply imputed data (m=1,000) using chained equations.||-0.017|-0.610|.0493
91047466|NCT02409329|181979823|SUPERIORITY|We performed an omnibus test of the treatment effect at 3, 6, 12, and 15 months using a robust variance-covariance based Wald statistic. We used ordinary least squares linear regression with Huber-White heteroscedasticity-consistent standard errors to obtain point estimates and 95% CIs for the intervention effect at each time.|Predicted mean difference|-0.07||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.24||A priori threshold p\<.05.|GEE, Wald test|Adjusted for baseline values with cubic splines (3 knots).|15-month point estimate|Any REACH vs. Helpline and A1c results. We used generalized estimating equations (GEE) with a working-exchangeable correlation structure and identity link, adjusting for baseline and allowing a time-treatment interaction. For the HbA1c model, we allowed for a three-way interaction between time, treatment group, and baseline HbA1c because there was descriptive evidence that the effect was modified by baseline HbA1c values. Multiply imputed data (m=1,000) using chained equations.||0.240|-0.380|0.260
91047467|NCT02409329|181979824|SUPERIORITY|We performed an omnibus test of the treatment effect at 3 and 6 months using a robust variance-covariance based Wald statistic. We used ordinary least squares linear regression with Huber-White heteroscedasticity-consistent standard errors to obtain point estimates and 95% CIs for the intervention effect at each time.|Predicted mean difference|0.406|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.196|0.615||A priori threshold p\<.05.|Wald statistic|Adjusted for baseline values with cubic splines (3 knots).|6-month point estimate|Any REACH vs. Helpline and A1c results. We used generalized estimating equations with a working-exchangeable correlation structure and identity link, adjusting for baseline and allowing a time-treatment interaction. Multiply imputed data (m=1,000) using chained equations.||0.615|0.196|<.001
91047468|NCT02409329|181979824|SUPERIORITY|We performed an omnibus test of the treatment effect at 3, 6, 12, and 15 months using a robust variance-covariance based Wald statistic. We used ordinary least squares linear regression with Huber-White heteroscedasticity-consistent standard errors to obtain point estimates and 95% CIs for the intervention effect at each time.|Predicted mean difference|0.21||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.031|0.45||A priori threshold p\<.05.|GEE, Wald test|Adjusted for baseline values with cubic splines (3 knots).|15-month point estimate|Any REACH vs. Helpline and A1c results. We used generalized estimating equations (GEE) with a working-exchangeable correlation structure and identity link, adjusting for baseline and allowing a time-treatment interaction. For the HbA1c model, we allowed for a three-way interaction between time, treatment group, and baseline HbA1c because there was descriptive evidence that the effect was modified by baseline HbA1c values. Multiply imputed data (m=1,000) using chained equations.||0.450|-0.031|0.003
91047469|NCT02409329|181979825|SUPERIORITY|We performed an omnibus test of the treatment effect at 3 and 6 months using a robust variance-covariance based Wald statistic. We used ordinary least squares linear regression with Huber-White heteroscedasticity-consistent standard errors to obtain point estimates and 95% CIs for the intervention effect at each time.|Predicted mean difference|0.54||||0.376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.012|1.09||A priori threshold p\<.05.|GEE, Wald test|Adjusted for baseline values with cubic splines (3 knots).|6-month point estimate|Any REACH vs. Helpline and A1c results. We used generalized estimating equations (GEE) with a working-exchangeable correlation structure and identity link, adjusting for baseline and allowing a time-treatment interaction. Multiply imputed data (m=1,000) using chained equations.||1.090|-0.012|0.376
91047470|NCT02409329|181979825|SUPERIORITY|We performed an omnibus test of the treatment effect at 3, 6, 12, and 15 months using a robust variance-covariance based Wald statistic. We used ordinary least squares linear regression with Huber-White heteroscedasticity-consistent standard errors to obtain point estimates and 95% CIs for the intervention effect at each time.|Predicted mean difference|0.278||||0.434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.319|0.875||A priori threshold p\<.05.|GEE, Wald test|Adjusted for baseline values with cubic splines (3 knots).|15-month point estimate|Any REACH vs. Helpline and A1c results. We used generalized estimating equations (GEE) with a working-exchangeable correlation structure and identity link, adjusting for baseline and allowing a time-treatment interaction. Multiply imputed data (m=1,000) using chained equations.||0.875|-0.319|0.434
91007257|NCT01708915|181898763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.049|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.305|-0.793||Model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, time, treatment-by-time interaction and the continuous covariate of baseline PI.|Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)|REML based on Repeated Measures Model, using all Available Longitudinal Pain Intensity Observations at each Post-baseline time up to 8 hours.||||-0.793|-1.305|<0.0001
91047471|NCT02409329|181979826|SUPERIORITY|We performed an omnibus test of the treatment effect at 3 and 6 months using a robust variance-covariance based Wald statistic. We used ordinary least squares linear regression with Huber-White heteroscedasticity-consistent standard errors to obtain point estimates and 95% CIs for the intervention effect at each time.|Predicted mean difference|0.399||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.637||A priori threshold p\<.05.|GEE, Wald test|Adjusted for baseline values with cubic splines (3 knots).|6-month point estimate|Any REACH vs. Helpline and A1c results. We used generalized estimating equations (GEE) with a working-exchangeable correlation structure and identity link, adjusting for baseline and allowing a time-treatment interaction. Multiply imputed data (m=1,000) using chained equations||0.637|0.160|0.0012
91047472|NCT02409329|181979826|SUPERIORITY|We performed an omnibus test of the treatment effect at 3, 6, 12, and 15 months using a robust variance-covariance based Wald statistic. We used ordinary least squares linear regression with Huber-White heteroscedasticity-consistent standard errors to obtain point estimates and 95% CIs for the intervention effect at each time.|Predicted mean difference|0.152||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.121|0.426||A priori threshold p\<.05.|GEE, Wald test|Adjusted for baseline values with cubic splines (3 knots).|15-month point estimate|Any REACH vs. Helpline and A1c results. We used generalized estimating equations (GEE) with a working-exchangeable correlation structure and identity link, adjusting for baseline and allowing a time-treatment interaction. Multiply imputed data (m=1,000) using chained equations.||0.426|-0.121|0.003
91047473|NCT02409329|181979827|SUPERIORITY|We performed an omnibus test of the treatment effect at 3 and 6 months using a robust variance-covariance based Wald statistic. We used ordinary least squares linear regression with Huber-White heteroscedasticity-consistent standard errors to obtain point estimates and 95% CIs for the intervention effect at each time.|Predicted mean difference|-0.061||||0.632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.218|0.095||A priori threshold p\<.05.|GEE, Wald test|Adjusted for baseline values with cubic splines (3 knots).|6-month point estimate|Any REACH vs. Helpline and A1c results. We used generalized estimating equations (GEE) with a working-exchangeable correlation structure and identity link, adjusting for baseline and allowing a time-treatment interaction. Multiply imputed data (m=1,000) using chained equations.||0.095|-0.218|0.632
91047474|NCT02409329|181979827|SUPERIORITY|We performed an omnibus test of the treatment effect at 3, 6, 12, and 15 months using a robust variance-covariance based Wald statistic. We used ordinary least squares linear regression with Huber-White heteroscedasticity-consistent standard errors to obtain point estimates and 95% CIs for the intervention effect at each time.|Predicted mean difference|0.005||||0.572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.202|1.1||A priori threshold p\<.05.|GEE, Wald test|Adjusted for baseline values with cubic splines (3 knots).|15-month point estimate|Any REACH vs. Helpline and A1c results. We used generalized estimating equations (GEE) with a working-exchangeable correlation structure and identity link, adjusting for baseline and allowing a time-treatment interaction. Multiply imputed data (m=1,000) using chained equations.||1.100|-0.202|0.572
91047475|NCT02409329|181979828|SUPERIORITY|We performed an omnibus test of the treatment effect at 3 and 6 months using a robust variance-covariance based Wald statistic. We used ordinary least squares linear regression with Huber-White heteroscedasticity-consistent standard errors to obtain point estimates and 95% CIs for the intervention effect at each time.|Predicted mean difference|369.0||||0.703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-142.0|881.0||A priori threshold p\<.05.|GEE, Wald test|Adjusted for baseline values with cubic splines (3 knots).|6-month point estimate|Any REACH vs. Helpline and A1c results. We used generalized estimating equations (GEE) with a working-exchangeable correlation structure and identity link, adjusting for baseline and allowing a time-treatment interaction. Multiply imputed data (m=1,000) using chained equations.||881|-142|0.703
91047476|NCT02409329|181979828|SUPERIORITY|We performed an omnibus test of the treatment effect at 3, 6, 12, and 15 months using a robust variance-covariance based Wald statistic. We used ordinary least squares linear regression with Huber-White heteroscedasticity-consistent standard errors to obtain point estimates and 95% CIs for the intervention effect at each time.|Predicted mean difference|26.0||||0.465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-459.0|511.0||A priori threshold p\<.05.|GEE, Wald test|Adjusted for baseline values with cubic splines (3 knots).|15-month point estimate|Any REACH vs. Helpline and A1c results. We used generalized estimating equations (GEE) with a working-exchangeable correlation structure and identity link, adjusting for baseline and allowing a time-treatment interaction. Multiply imputed data (m=1,000) using chained equations.||511|-459|0.465
91047477|NCT02409329|181979829|SUPERIORITY|Testing superiority of REACH only relative to control. We used ordinary least squares linear regression with Huber-White heteroscedasticity-consistent standard errors to obtain point estimates and 95% CIs for the intervention effect at each time.|Predicted mean difference|-0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|-0.12|||||6-month point estimate|To evaluate if REACH only and REACH+FAMS had similar effects on HbA1c relative to control, we subsetted to participants with baseline HbA1c greater than or equal to 8.5% to maximize our power for these analyses. We used generalized estimating equations (GEE) with a working-exchangeable correlation structure and identity link, adjusting for baseline and allowing a time-treatment interaction. Multiply imputed data (m=1,000) using chained equations.||-0.12|-1.38|
91047478|NCT02409329|181979829|SUPERIORITY|Testing superiority of REACH only relative to control. We used ordinary least squares linear regression with Huber-White heteroscedasticity-consistent standard errors to obtain point estimates and 95% CIs for the intervention effect at each time.|Predicted mean difference|-0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.39|||||12-month point estimate|To evaluate if REACH only and REACH+FAMS had similar effects on HbA1c relative to control, we subsetted to participants with baseline HbA1c greater than or equal to 8.5% to maximize our power for these analyses. We used generalized estimating equations (GEE) with a working-exchangeable correlation structure and identity link, adjusting for baseline and allowing a time-treatment interaction. Multiply imputed data (m=1,000) using chained equations.||0.39|-1.00|
91047479|NCT02409329|181979829|SUPERIORITY|Testing superiority of REACH\_FAMS relative to control. We used ordinary least squares linear regression with Huber-White heteroscedasticity-consistent standard errors to obtain point estimates and 95% CIs for the intervention effect at each time.|Predicted mean difference|-0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|-0.05|||||6-month point estimate|To evaluate if REACH only and REACH+FAMS had similar effects on HbA1c relative to control, we subsetted to participants with baseline HbA1c greater than or equal to 8.5% to maximize our power for these analyses. We used generalized estimating equations (GEE) with a working-exchangeable correlation structure and identity link, adjusting for baseline and allowing a time-treatment interaction. Multiply imputed data (m=1,000) using chained equations.||-0.05|-1.26|
91047480|NCT02409329|181979829|SUPERIORITY|Testing superiority of REACH+FAMS relative to control. We used ordinary least squares linear regression with Huber-White heteroscedasticity-consistent standard errors to obtain point estimates and 95% CIs for the intervention effect at each time.|Predicted mean difference|-0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.51|||||12-month point estimate|To evaluate if REACH only and REACH+FAMS had similar effects on HbA1c relative to control, we subsetted to participants with baseline HbA1c greater than or equal to 8.5% to maximize our power for these analyses. We used generalized estimating equations (GEE) with a working-exchangeable correlation structure and identity link, adjusting for baseline and allowing a time-treatment interaction. Multiply imputed data (m=1,000) using chained equations.||0.51|-0.96|
91047481|NCT03200535|181979848|SUPERIORITY|Superiority analysis|||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91047482|NCT03200535|181979849|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91047483|NCT03291041|181979850|SUPERIORITY|LS mean and p-value are from ANCOVA with treatment and time-zone-shift as main effects and baseline value as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Net)|34.75||||0.0354|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0354
91047484|NCT03291041|181979851|SUPERIORITY|LS mean and p-value are from ANCOVA with treatment and time-zone-shift as main effects and baseline value as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.63||||0.0168|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0168
91047485|NCT03291041|181979852|SUPERIORITY|LS mean and p-value are from ANCOVA with treatment and time-zone-shift as main effects and baseline value as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Net)|90.56||||0.0785|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0785
91047486|NCT03291041|181979853|SUPERIORITY|LS mean and p-value are from ANCOVA with treatment and time-zone-shift as main effects and baseline value as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Net)|78.45||||0.0225|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0225
91047487|NCT03291041|181979854|SUPERIORITY|LS mean and p-value are from ANCOVA with treatment and time-zone-shift as main effects and baseline value as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.95||||0.0198|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0198
91047488|NCT03291041|181979855|SUPERIORITY|LS mean and p-value are from ANCOVA with treatment and time-zone-shift as main effects and baseline value as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Net)|-26.55||||0.0347|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0347
91047489|NCT03291041|181979856|SUPERIORITY|LS mean and p-value are from ANCOVA with treatment and time-zone-shift as main effects and baseline value as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Net)|-56.44||||0.084|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0840
91047490|NCT03291041|181979857|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.0765|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0765
91047491|NCT04184999|181979871|SUPERIORITY||F-Statistic|207.4|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<.01
91000700|NCT04153929|181884715|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM with fixed, categorical factors of treatment at each visit, and continuous factors of baseline at each visit, using visit (Week 5, 8, 12, 16 and 17) as repeated measures, subject as random effect, unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.|||||<|0.0001|||||||MCP-Mod linear model fit|Model assumption: The maximum effect is achieved at 3.6 mg dose.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 6 doses of BI 456906 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential, Emax 1, Emax 2 and Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.025). For the twice weekly dosing schemes the total dose per week was considered for the MCP-Mod analysis.||||<0.0001
91000701|NCT04153929|181884715|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM with fixed, categorical factors of treatment at each visit, and continuous factors of baseline at each visit, using visit (Week 5, 8, 12, 16 and 17) as repeated measures, subject as random effect, unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.|||||<|0.0001|||||||MCP-Mod Exponential model fit|Model assumption: 90% of the maximum effect is achieved at 3.6 mg dose.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 6 doses of BI 456906 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential, Emax 1, Emax 2 and Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.025). For the twice weekly dosing schemes the total dose per week was considered for the MCP-Mod analysis.||||<0.0001
91000702|NCT04153929|181884715|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM with fixed, categorical factors of treatment at each visit, and continuous factors of baseline at each visit, using visit (Week 5, 8, 12, 16 and 17) as repeated measures, subject as random effect, unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.|||||<|0.0001|||||||MCP-Mod Emax 1 model fit|Model assumption: 90% of the maximum effect is achieved at 3.6 mg dose.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 6 doses of BI 456906 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential, Emax 1, Emax 2 and Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.025). For the twice weekly dosing schemes the total dose per week was considered for the MCP-Mod analysis.||||<0.0001
91000703|NCT04153929|181884715|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM with fixed, categorical factors of treatment at each visit, and continuous factors of baseline at each visit, using visit (Week 5, 8, 12, 16 and 17) as repeated measures, subject as random effect, unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.|||||<|0.0001|||||||MCP-Mod Emax 2 model fit|Model assumption: 70% of the maximum effect is achieved at 3.6 mg dose.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 6 doses of BI 456906 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential, Emax 1, Emax 2 and Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.025). For the twice weekly dosing schemes the total dose per week was considered for the MCP-Mod analysis.||||<0.0001
91007258|NCT01708915|181898763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.731|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.138|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.003|-0.459||Model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, time, treatment-by-time interaction and the continuous covariate of baseline PI.|Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)|REML based on Repeated Measures Model, using all Available Longitudinal Pain Intensity Observations at each Post-baseline time up to 8 hours.||||-0.459|-1.003|<0.0001
91000704|NCT04153929|181884715|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM with fixed, categorical factors of treatment at each visit, and continuous factors of baseline at each visit, using visit (Week 5, 8, 12, 16 and 17) as repeated measures, subject as random effect, unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.|||||<|0.0001|||||||MCP-Mod Sigmoid Emax model fit|Model assumption: 50% of the maximum effect is achieved at 1.8 mg and 90% of the maximum effect is achieved at 3.6 mg dose.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 6 doses of BI 456906 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential, Emax 1, Emax 2 and Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.025). For the twice weekly dosing schemes the total dose per week was considered for the MCP-Mod analysis.||||<0.0001
91000705|NCT04153929|181884715|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Difference of adjusted means|-0.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.46||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as BI 456906 0.3 mg - Placebo at Week 17.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with fixed, categorical factors of treatment at each visit, and continuous factors of baseline at each visit, using visit (Week 5, 8, 12, 16 and 17) as repeated measures, subject as random effect, unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.||-0.46|-1.06|<0.0001
91000706|NCT04153929|181884715|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Difference of adjusted means|-1.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-1.01||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as BI 456906 0.9 mg - Placebo at Week 17.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with fixed, categorical factors of treatment at each visit, and continuous factors of baseline at each visit, using visit (Week 5, 8, 12, 16 and 17) as repeated measures, subject as random effect, unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.||-1.01|-1.60|<0.0001
91000707|NCT04153929|181884715|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Difference of adjusted means|-1.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|-1.26||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as BI 456906 1.8 mg - Placebo at Week 17.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with fixed, categorical factors of treatment at each visit, and continuous factors of baseline at each visit, using visit (Week 5, 8, 12, 16 and 17) as repeated measures, subject as random effect, unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.||-1.26|-1.87|<0.0001
91000708|NCT04153929|181884715|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Difference of adjusted means|-1.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|-1.1||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as BI 456906 2.7 mg - Placebo at Week 17.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with fixed, categorical factors of treatment at each visit, and continuous factors of baseline at each visit, using visit (Week 5, 8, 12, 16 and 17) as repeated measures, subject as random effect, unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.||-1.10|-1.72|<0.0001
91000709|NCT04153929|181884715|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Difference of adjusted means|-1.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|-1.19||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|"Difference was calculated as BI 456906 1.2 twice weekly (2.4) mg - Placebo at Week 17."|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with fixed, categorical factors of treatment at each visit, and continuous factors of baseline at each visit, using visit (Week 5, 8, 12, 16 and 17) as repeated measures, subject as random effect, unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.||-1.19|-1.78|<0.0001
91000710|NCT04153929|181884715|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Difference of adjusted means|-1.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|-1.22||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|"Difference was calculated as BI 456906 1.8 twice weekly (3.6) mg - Placebo at Week 17."|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with fixed, categorical factors of treatment at each visit, and continuous factors of baseline at each visit, using visit (Week 5, 8, 12, 16 and 17) as repeated measures, subject as random effect, unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.||-1.22|-1.84|<0.0001
91000711|NCT04153929|181884716|OTHER|"Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod.~MMRM with fixed, categorical factors of treatment at each visit, and continuous factors of baseline at each visit, using visit (Week 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 16 and 17 ) as repeated measures, subject as random effect, unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements."|||||<|0.0001|||||||MCP-Mod linear model fit|Model assumption: The maximum effect is achieved at 3.6 mg dose.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 6 doses of BI 456906 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential, Emax 1, Emax 2 and Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.025). For the twice weekly dosing schemes the total dose per week was considered for the MCP-Mod analysis.||||<0.0001
91007259|NCT01708915|181898763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.058|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.152||0.7037||95.0|-0.356|0.241||Model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, time, treatment-by-time interaction and the continuous covariate of baseline PI.|Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)|REML based on Repeated Measures Model, using all Available Longitudinal Pain Intensity Observations at each Post-baseline time up to 8 hours.||||0.241|-0.356|0.7037
91007260|NCT01708915|181898764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.655|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.208|<|0.0001||95.0|-2.064|-1.247|||ANCOVA|The statistical model included baseline PI, centre, and treatment.||||-1.247|-2.064|<0.0001
91000712|NCT04153929|181884716|OTHER|"Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod.~MMRM with fixed, categorical factors of treatment at each visit, and continuous factors of baseline at each visit, using visit (Week 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 16 and 17 ) as repeated measures, subject as random effect, unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements."|||||<|0.0001|||||||MCP-Mod exponential model fit|Model assumption: 90% of the maximum effect is achieved at 3.6 mg dose.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 6 doses of BI 456906 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential, Emax 1, Emax 2 and Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.025). For the twice weekly dosing schemes the total dose per week was considered for the MCP-Mod analysis.||||<0.0001
91000713|NCT04153929|181884716|OTHER|"Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod.~MMRM with fixed, categorical factors of treatment at each visit, and continuous factors of baseline at each visit, using visit (Week 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 16 and 17 ) as repeated measures, subject as random effect, unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements."|||||<|0.0001|||||||MCP-Mod Emax 1 model fit|Model assumption: 90% of the maximum effect is achieved at 3.6 mg dose.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 6 doses of BI 456906 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential, Emax 1, Emax 2 and Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.025). For the twice weekly dosing schemes the total dose per week was considered for the MCP-Mod analysis.||||<0.0001
91000714|NCT04153929|181884716|OTHER|"Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod.~MMRM with fixed, categorical factors of treatment at each visit, and continuous factors of baseline at each visit, using visit (Week 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 16 and 17 ) as repeated measures, subject as random effect, unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements."|||||<|0.0001|||||||MCP-Mod Emax 2 model fit|Model assumption: 70% of the maximum effect is achieved at 3.6 mg dose.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 6 doses of BI 456906 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential, Emax 1, Emax 2 and Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.025). For the twice weekly dosing schemes the total dose per week was considered for the MCP-Mod analysis.||||<0.0001
91000715|NCT04153929|181884716|OTHER|"Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod.~MMRM with fixed, categorical factors of treatment at each visit, and continuous factors of baseline at each visit, using visit (Week 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 16 and 17 ) as repeated measures, subject as random effect, unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements."|||||<|0.0001|||||||MCP-Mod Sigmoid Emax model fit|Model assumption: 50% of the maximum effect is achieved at 1.8 mg and 90% of the maximum effect is achieved at 3.6 mg dose.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 6 doses of BI 456906 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential, Emax 1, Emax 2 and Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.025). For the twice weekly dosing schemes the total dose per week was considered for the MCP-Mod analysis.||||<0.0001
91007261|NCT01708915|181898764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.169|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.209|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.578|-0.759|||ANCOVA|The statistical model included baseline PI, centre, and treatment.||||-0.759|-1.578|<0.0001
91007262|NCT01708915|181898764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.466|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.209||0.0259||95.0|-0.875|-0.056|||ANCOVA|The statistical model included baseline PI, centre, and treatment.||||-0.056|-0.875|0.0259
91000716|NCT04153929|181884716|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Difference of adjusted means|-1.11||||0.2228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|0.68||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|"Difference was calculated as BI 456906 0.3 mg - Placebo at Week 17."|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with fixed, categorical factors of treatment at each visit, and continuous factors of baseline at each visit, using visit (Week 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 16 and 17 ) as repeated measures, subject as random effect, unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.||0.68|-2.90|0.2228
91000717|NCT04153929|181884716|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Difference of adjusted means|-3.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.56|-2.01||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|"Difference was calculated as BI 456906 0.9 mg - Placebo at Week 17."|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with fixed, categorical factors of treatment at each visit, and continuous factors of baseline at each visit, using visit (Week 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 16 and 17 ) as repeated measures, subject as random effect, unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.||-2.01|-5.56|<0.0001
91000718|NCT04153929|181884716|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Difference of adjusted means|-5.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.41|-3.81||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|"Difference was calculated as BI 456906 1.8 mg - Placebo at Week 17."|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with fixed, categorical factors of treatment at each visit, and continuous factors of baseline at each visit, using visit (Week 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 16 and 17 ) as repeated measures, subject as random effect, unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.||-3.81|-7.41|<0.0001
91007263|NCT01708915|181898765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.385|||<|0.0001||95.0|4.943|11.032|||Regression, Logistic|The logistic regression model included baseline PI, centre, and treatment.|Odds Ratio was calculated by Nicoboxil/Nonivamide : Placebo. Odds ratios \> 1 favour Nicoboxil/Nonivamide.|||11.032|4.943|<0.0001
91007264|NCT01708915|181898765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.62|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.469|5.308|||Regression, Logistic|The logistic regression model included baseline PI, centre, and treatment.|Odds Ratio was calculated by Nicoboxil/Nonivamide : Nicoboxil. Odds ratios \> 1 favour Nicoboxil/Nonivamide.|||5.308|2.469|<0.0001
91007265|NCT01708915|181898765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.594||||0.0129||95.0|1.104|2.303|||Regression, Logistic|The logistic regression model included baseline PI, centre, and treatment.|Odds Ratio was calculated by Nicoboxil/Nonivamide : Nonivamide. Odds ratios \> 1 favour Nicoboxil/Nonivamide.|||2.303|1.104|0.0129
91007266|NCT01369069|181898781|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.97||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.08||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Logistic||Adjusted for baseline NIHSS strata (3-7, 8-14, 15-22) and thrombolysis use (Yes/No; includes both IV and IA therapies). Multiple imputation was used for missing data.|It was hypothesized that intensive blood glucose control would be efficacious and safe in acute ischemic stroke patients compared to standard glucose control.||1.08|0.87|0.55
91007267|NCT01369069|181898782|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|3.87|||Fisher Exact||The data of the estimation parameter and the confidence intervals were presented as percentages.|||3.87|1.29|<0.001
91007268|NCT01369069|181898783|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.07||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.33|6.2|||Chi-squared||The data of the estimation parameter and the confidence intervals were presented as percentages.|||6.20|-8.33|0.77
91007269|NCT01369069|181898784|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.48||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.79|6.75|||Chi-squared||The data of the estimation parameter and the confidence intervals were presented as percentages.|||6.75|-5.79|0.88
91007270|NCT01369069|181898785|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.25|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.25|-0.13|0.74
91007271|NCT01369069|181898786|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.82||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.15|||Chi-squared|||||1.15|0.58|0.24
91007272|NCT01045551|181898790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was P\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.98
91007273|NCT01045551|181898791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.9024|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91007274|NCT02313506|181898801|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-31.1||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.6|-5.7||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons because Type II error is a greater concern than Type I error in feasibility studies.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was performed to evaluate the effect of the group type on the outcome measures after adjusting for blocking and baseline (T0). We assessed 3 planned contrasts of changes in outcome measures over time. Contrast 1 compared T0-T1 between the 2 groups to determine if the intervention was superior to the control.||-5.7|-56.6|0.02
91007275|NCT02313506|181898801|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.6||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.6|28.9|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was performed to evaluate the effect of the group type on the outcome measures after adjusting for blocking and baseline (T0). We assessed 3 planned contrasts of changes in outcome measures over time. Contrast 2 compared T0-T1 in the immediate group against T1-T2 in the delayed group.||28.9|-19.6|0.71
91007276|NCT02313506|181898801|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.0||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.1|9.1|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was performed to evaluate the effect of the group type on the outcome measures after adjusting for blocking and baseline (T0). We assessed 3 planned contrasts of changes in outcome measures over time. Contrast 3 compared T0-T1 in the immediate group against T0-T2 in the delayed group.||9.1|-31.1|0.29
91007277|NCT03860181|181898835|EQUIVALENCE|The statistical significance's p-value was set at 0.05. For Surgeon 1's differences, they were calculated as patient POSAS score - surgeon POSAS score, with a negative difference signifying that the patients thought more highly of the scars than the physicians since lower POSAS scores are more favorable.||||||0.896|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Mann-Whitney U = 215||||||0.896
91000719|NCT04153929|181884716|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Difference of adjusted means|-6.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.12|-4.38||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|"Difference was calculated as BI 456906 2.7 mg - Placebo at Week 17."|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with fixed, categorical factors of treatment at each visit, and continuous factors of baseline at each visit, using visit (Week 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 16 and 17 ) as repeated measures, subject as random effect, unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.||-4.38|-8.12|<0.0001
91047492|NCT01172821|181979872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.211|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.159|0.264|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R2.5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.264|0.159|<0.0001
91047493|NCT01172821|181979872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.169|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.116|0.222|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.222|0.116|<0.0001
91047494|NCT01172821|181979873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.176|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.233|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R2.5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.233|0.120|<0.0001
91047495|NCT01172821|181979873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.133|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.076|0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.190|0.076|<0.0001
91047496|NCT01172821|181979874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.052|0.168|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R2.5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.168|0.052|0.0002
91047497|NCT01172821|181979874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.089|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.147|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.147|0.030|0.0031
91047498|NCT01172821|181979875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.087|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.025|0.149|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R2.5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, country, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.149|0.025|0.0061
91047499|NCT01172821|181979875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.083|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032||0.0093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.021|0.146|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, country, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.146|0.021|0.0093
91047500|NCT01172821|181979876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.201|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.252|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R2.5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.252|0.150|<0.0001
91000720|NCT04153929|181884716|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Difference of adjusted means|-6.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.02|-4.47||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|"Difference was calculated as BI 456906 1.2 twice weekly (2.4) mg - Placebo at Week 17."|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with fixed, categorical factors of treatment at each visit, and continuous factors of baseline at each visit, using visit (Week 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 16 and 17 ) as repeated measures, subject as random effect, unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.||-4.47|-8.02|<0.0001
91000721|NCT04153929|181884716|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Difference of adjusted means|-7.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.52|-5.83||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|"Difference was calculated as BI 456906 1.8 twice weekly (3.6) mg - Placebo at Week 17."|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with fixed, categorical factors of treatment at each visit, and continuous factors of baseline at each visit, using visit (Week 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 16 and 17 ) as repeated measures, subject as random effect, unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.||-5.83|-9.52|<0.0001
91050345|NCT04168190|181987002|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>0.33 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.41|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 19A. Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||1.41|0.90|<0.001
91047501|NCT01172821|181979876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.163|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.112|0.215|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.215|0.112|<0.0001
91047502|NCT01172821|181979877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.108|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.052|0.164|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R2.5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, country, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.164|0.052|0.0002
91047503|NCT01172821|181979877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.089|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.033|0.145|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, country, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.145|0.033|0.0019
91047504|NCT01172821|181979878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.759|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.963|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.025|38.494|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R2.5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||38.494|19.025|<0.0001
91047505|NCT01172821|181979878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.178|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.985|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.401|37.956|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||37.956|18.401|<0.0001
91047506|NCT01172821|181979879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.122|0.144|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R2.5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.144|-0.122|0.8700
91047507|NCT01172821|181979879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068||0.9612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.137|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.130|-0.137|0.9612
91047508|NCT01172821|181979880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.127|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059||0.0305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.241|-0.012|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R2.5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||-0.012|-0.241|0.0305
91047509|NCT01172821|181979880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.083|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059||0.1602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.198|0.033|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.033|-0.198|0.1602
91000722|NCT04153929|181884717|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Difference of adjusted means|-0.66||||0.4439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|1.03||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|"Difference was calculated as BI 456906 0.3 mg - Placebo at Week 17."|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with fixed, categorical factors of treatment at each visit, and continuous factors of baseline at each visit, using visit (Week 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 16 and 17 ) as repeated measures, subject as random effect, unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.||1.03|-2.34|0.4439
91000723|NCT04153929|181884717|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Difference of adjusted means|-3.28||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.95|-1.61||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|"Difference was calculated as BI 456906 0.9 mg - Placebo at Week 17."|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with fixed, categorical factors of treatment at each visit, and continuous factors of baseline at each visit, using visit (Week 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 16 and 17 ) as repeated measures, subject as random effect, unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.||-1.61|-4.95|0.0001
91000724|NCT04153929|181884717|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Difference of adjusted means|-4.93|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.62|-3.23||P-value is considered nominal|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|"Difference was calculated as BI 456906 1.8 mg - Placebo at Week 17."|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with fixed, categorical factors of treatment at each visit, and continuous factors of baseline at each visit, using visit (Week 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 16 and 17 ) as repeated measures, subject as random effect, unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.||-3.23|-6.62|<0.0001
91000725|NCT04153929|181884717|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Difference of adjusted means|-5.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.53|-4.0||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|"Difference was calculated as BI 456906 2.7 mg - Placebo at Week 17."|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with fixed, categorical factors of treatment at each visit, and continuous factors of baseline at each visit, using visit (Week 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 16 and 17 ) as repeated measures, subject as random effect, unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.||-4.00|-7.53|<0.0001
91000726|NCT04153929|181884717|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Difference of adjusted means|-5.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.11|-3.77||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|"Difference was calculated as BI 456906 1.2 twice weekly (2.4) mg - Placebo at Week 17."|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with fixed, categorical factors of treatment at each visit, and continuous factors of baseline at each visit, using visit (Week 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 16 and 17 ) as repeated measures, subject as random effect, unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.||-3.77|-7.11|<0.0001
91000727|NCT04153929|181884717|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Difference of adjusted means|-7.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.79|-5.31||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|"Difference was calculated as BI 456906 1.8 twice weekly (3.6) mg - Placebo at Week 17."|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with fixed, categorical factors of treatment at each visit, and continuous factors of baseline at each visit, using visit (Week 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 16 and 17 ) as repeated measures, subject as random effect, unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.||-5.31|-8.79|<0.0001
91000728|NCT04153929|181884717|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Difference of adjusted means|-3.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.52|-2.18||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|"Difference was calculated as Semaglutide - Placebo at Week 17."|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with fixed, categorical factors of treatment at each visit, and continuous factors of baseline at each visit, using visit (Week 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 16 and 17 ) as repeated measures, subject as random effect, unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.||-2.18|-5.52|<0.0001
91000729|NCT04153929|181884718|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Difference of adjusted means|-0.62||||0.7708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.82|3.57||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|"Difference was calculated as BI 456906 0.3 mg - Placebo at Week 17."|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with fixed, categorical factors of treatment at each visit, and continuous factors of baseline at each visit, using visit (Week 6 and 17 ) as repeated measures, subject as random effect, unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.||3.57|-4.82|0.7708
91000730|NCT04153929|181884718|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Difference of adjusted means|0.68||||0.7462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.44|4.79||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|"Difference was calculated as BI 456906 0.9 mg - Placebo at Week 17."|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with fixed, categorical factors of treatment at each visit, and continuous factors of baseline at each visit, using visit (Week 6 and 17 ) as repeated measures, subject as random effect, unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.||4.79|-3.44|0.7462
91000731|NCT04153929|181884718|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Difference of adjusted means|-3.32||||0.1302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.62|0.98||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|"Difference was calculated as BI 456906 1.8 mg - Placebo at Week 17."|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with fixed, categorical factors of treatment at each visit, and continuous factors of baseline at each visit, using visit (Week 6 and 17 ) as repeated measures, subject as random effect, unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.||0.98|-7.62|0.1302
91007278|NCT03860181|181898835|EQUIVALENCE|The statistical significance's p-value was set at 0.05. For Surgeon 2's differences, they were calculated as patient POSAS score - surgeon POSAS score, with a negative difference signifying that the patients thought more highly of the scars than the physicians since lower POSAS scores are more favorable.||||||0.612|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Mann-Whitney U = 210||||||0.612
91007279|NCT02253173|181898843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91007280|NCT02253173|181898843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91007281|NCT02253173|181898843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91000732|NCT04153929|181884718|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Difference of adjusted means|-4.61||||0.0414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.03|-0.18||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|"Difference was calculated as BI 456906 2.7 mg - Placebo at Week 17."|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with fixed, categorical factors of treatment at each visit, and continuous factors of baseline at each visit, using visit (Week 6 and 17 ) as repeated measures, subject as random effect, unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.||-0.18|-9.03|0.0414
91000733|NCT04153929|181884718|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Difference of adjusted means|-2.55||||0.2273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.71|1.6||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|"Difference was calculated as BI 456906 1.2 twice weekly (2.4) mg - Placebo at Week 17."|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with fixed, categorical factors of treatment at each visit, and continuous factors of baseline at each visit, using visit (Week 6 and 17 ) as repeated measures, subject as random effect, unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.||1.60|-6.71|0.2273
91000734|NCT04153929|181884718|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Difference of adjusted means|-8.4||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.81|-3.98||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|"Difference was calculated as BI 456906 1.8 twice weekly (3.6) mg - Placebo at Week 17."|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with fixed, categorical factors of treatment at each visit, and continuous factors of baseline at each visit, using visit (Week 6 and 17 ) as repeated measures, subject as random effect, unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.||-3.98|-12.81|0.0002
91000735|NCT04153929|181884718|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Difference of adjusted means|-2.72||||0.1967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.86|1.42||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|"Difference was calculated as Semaglutide - Placebo at Week 17."|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with fixed, categorical factors of treatment at each visit, and continuous factors of baseline at each visit, using visit (Week 6 and 17 ) as repeated measures, subject as random effect, unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.||1.42|-6.86|0.1967
91000736|NCT04153929|181884719|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|5.2|||||Odds Ratio was calculated as BI 456906 / Placebo.|Method: Logistic regression model for body weight loss with treatment as fixed effect.||5.20|0.28|
91000737|NCT04153929|181884719|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.43|25.74|||||Odds Ratio was calculated as BI 456906 / Placebo.|Method: Logistic regression model for body weight loss with treatment as fixed effect.||25.74|2.43|
91000738|NCT04153929|181884719|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|17.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.21|60.03|||||Odds Ratio was calculated as BI 456906 / Placebo.|Method: Logistic regression model for body weight loss with treatment as fixed effect.||60.03|5.21|
91000739|NCT04153929|181884719|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|25.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.31|91.55|||||Odds Ratio was calculated as BI 456906 / Placebo.|Method: Logistic regression model for body weight loss with treatment as fixed effect.||91.55|7.31|
91000740|NCT04153929|181884719|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|21.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.57|72.04|||||Odds Ratio was calculated as BI 456906 / Placebo.|Method: Logistic regression model for body weight loss with treatment as fixed effect.||72.04|6.57|
91000741|NCT04153929|181884719|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|35.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.84|124.47|||||Odds Ratio was calculated as BI 456906 / Placebo.|Method: Logistic regression model for body weight loss with treatment as fixed effect.||124.47|9.84|
91000742|NCT04153929|181884719|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.52|26.79|||||Odds Ratio was calculated as Semaglutide / Placebo.|Method: Logistic regression model for body weight loss with treatment as fixed effect.||26.79|2.52|
91000743|NCT04153929|181884720|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|95.73|||||Odds Ratio was calculated as BI 456906 / Placebo.|Method: Logistic regression model using Firth's bias-reducing penalized maximum likelihood estimation for body weight loss with treatment as fixed effect.||95.73|0.14|
91000744|NCT04153929|181884720|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|163.56|||||Odds Ratio was calculated as BI 456906 / Placebo.|Method: Logistic regression model using Firth's bias-reducing penalized maximum likelihood estimation for body weight loss with treatment as fixed effect.||163.56|0.39|
91000745|NCT04153929|181884720|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|25.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|471.09|||||Odds Ratio was calculated as BI 456906 / Placebo.|Method: Logistic regression model using Firth's bias-reducing penalized maximum likelihood estimation for body weight loss with treatment as fixed effect.||471.09|1.35|
91000746|NCT04153929|181884720|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|33.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|613.51||||||Method: Logistic regression model using Firth's bias-reducing penalized maximum likelihood estimation for body weight loss with treatment as fixed effect.||613.51|1.78|
91000747|NCT04153929|181884720|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|42.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.37|761.44|||||Odds Ratio was calculated as BI 456906 / Placebo.|Method: Logistic regression model using Firth's bias-reducing penalized maximum likelihood estimation for body weight loss with treatment as fixed effect.||761.44|2.37|
91000748|NCT04153929|181884720|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|84.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.71|999.0|||||Odds Ratio was calculated as BI 456906 / Placebo. The upper limit is bigger than 999.|Method: Logistic regression model using Firth's bias-reducing penalized maximum likelihood estimation for body weight loss with treatment as fixed effect.||999|4.71|
91000749|NCT04153929|181884720|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|22.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|413.33|||||Odds Ratio was calculated as Semaglutide / Placebo.|Method: Logistic regression model using Firth's bias-reducing penalized maximum likelihood estimation for body weight loss with treatment as fixed effect.||413.33|1.22|
91000750|NCT03803202|181884794|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.85|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 1, Day 1||1.85|0.70|
91000751|NCT03803202|181884794|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 1, Day 1||1.90|0.72|
91000752|NCT03803202|181884794|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.87|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 1, Day 1||1.87|0.74|
91000753|NCT03803202|181884794|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|3.63|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 3, Day 1||3.63|0.68|
91047510|NCT01172821|181979881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.4012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.74||Calculated as 2\*one-sided-p-value in the direction corresponding to testing the null hypothesis|Fisher Exact||Tio R2.5 / Placebo|||1.74|0.81|0.4012
91000754|NCT03803202|181884794|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|2.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|4.82|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 3, Day 1||4.82|0.86|
91000755|NCT03803202|181884794|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.46|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 3, Day 1||1.46|0.31|
91000756|NCT03803202|181884794|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|4.55|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 4, Day 1||4.55|0.27|
91000757|NCT03803202|181884794|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|2.61|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 4, Day 1||2.61|0.19|
91000758|NCT03803202|181884794|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|6.85|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 4, Day 1||6.85|0.49|
91000759|NCT03803202|181884794|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|4.73|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 5, Day 1||4.73|0.76|
91000760|NCT03803202|181884794|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 5, Day 1||2.40|0.62|
91000761|NCT03803202|181884794|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.65|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 5, Day 1||1.65|0.52|
91000762|NCT03803202|181884794|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|2.82|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6A, Day 1||2.82|0.25|
91000763|NCT03803202|181884794|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|2.23|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6A, Day 1||2.23|0.24|
91000764|NCT03803202|181884794|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|3.41|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6A, Day 1||3.41|0.31|
91000765|NCT03803202|181884794|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|4.46|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6B,Day 1||4.46|0.32|
91000766|NCT03803202|181884794|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|4.05|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6B, Day 1||4.05|0.42|
91000767|NCT03803202|181884794|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|2.14|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6B, Day 1||2.14|0.24|
91000768|NCT03803202|181884794|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|2.17|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 7F, Day 1||2.17|0.26|
91000769|NCT03803202|181884794|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.89|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 7F, Day 1||0.89|0.11|
91000770|NCT03803202|181884794|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.93|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 7F, Day 1||0.93|0.10|
91000771|NCT03803202|181884794|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|4.99|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 9V, Day 1||4.99|0.74|
91000772|NCT03803202|181884794|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.61|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 9V, Day 1||1.61|0.15|
91000773|NCT03803202|181884794|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 9V, Day 1||1.90|0.21|
91000774|NCT03803202|181884794|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|15.09|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 14, Day 1||15.09|1.17|
91000775|NCT03803202|181884794|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|7.07|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 14, Day 1||7.07|0.52|
91000776|NCT03803202|181884794|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|4.25|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 14, Day 1||4.25|0.23|
91000777|NCT03803202|181884794|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|2.62|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 18C, Day 1||2.62|0.21|
91000778|NCT03803202|181884794|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|3.77|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 18C, Day 1||3.77|0.37|
91000779|NCT03803202|181884794|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|3.94|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 18C, Day 1||3.94|0.38|
91000780|NCT03803202|181884794|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|2.45|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19A, Day 1||2.45|0.51|
91000781|NCT03803202|181884794|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.63|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19A, Day 1||1.63|0.31|
91000782|NCT03803202|181884794|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.53|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19A, Day 1||1.53|0.36|
91000783|NCT03803202|181884794|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|2.08|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19F, Day 1||2.08|0.24|
91000784|NCT03803202|181884794|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|3.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19F, Day 1||3.50|0.44|
91000785|NCT03803202|181884794|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|3.61|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19F, Day 1||3.61|0.58|
91000786|NCT03803202|181884794|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|2.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|10.69|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 23F, Day 1||10.69|0.46|
91000787|NCT03803202|181884794|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|5.99|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 23F, Day 1||5.99|0.31|
91000788|NCT03803202|181884794|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|3.01|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 23F, Day 1||3.01|0.15|
91000789|NCT03803202|181884794|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.74|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 1, Day 30||1.74|0.50|
91000790|NCT03803202|181884794|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.32|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 1, Day 30||1.32|0.39|
91000791|NCT03803202|181884794|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.39|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 1, Day 30||1.39|0.35|
91000792|NCT03803202|181884794|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 3, Day 30||1.80|0.66|
91000793|NCT03803202|181884794|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.29|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 3, Day 30||2.29|0.90|
91000794|NCT03803202|181884794|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.17|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 3, Day 30||2.17|0.76|
91000795|NCT03803202|181884794|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.35|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 4, Day 30||1.35|0.50|
91000796|NCT03803202|181884794|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|1.02|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 4, Day 30||1.02|0.24|
91000797|NCT03803202|181884794|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.89|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 4, Day 30||1.89|0.60|
91000798|NCT03803202|181884794|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.15|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 5, Day 30||1.15|0.41|
91000799|NCT03803202|181884794|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 5, Day 30||1.20|0.31|
91000800|NCT03803202|181884794|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.32|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 5, Day 30||1.32|0.48|
91000801|NCT03803202|181884794|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.98|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6A, Day 30||0.98|0.28|
91007282|NCT02253173|181898844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91000802|NCT03803202|181884794|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.68|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6A, Day 30||0.68|0.15|
91000803|NCT03803202|181884794|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.66|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6A, Day 30||0.66|0.21|
91000804|NCT03803202|181884794|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.18|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6B, Day 30||1.18|0.42|
91000805|NCT03803202|181884794|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.83|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6B, Day 30||0.83|0.25|
91000806|NCT03803202|181884794|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.76|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6B, Day 30||0.76|0.24|
91000807|NCT03803202|181884794|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.29|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 7F, Day 30||1.29|0.51|
91000808|NCT03803202|181884794|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.99|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 7F, Day 30||0.99|0.47|
91000809|NCT03803202|181884794|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.25|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 7F, Day 30||1.25|0.53|
91000810|NCT03803202|181884794|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.08|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 9V, Day 30||1.08|0.35|
91000811|NCT03803202|181884794|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.03|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 9V, Day 30||1.03|0.31|
91000812|NCT03803202|181884794|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.28|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 9V, Day 30||1.28|0.46|
91000813|NCT03803202|181884794|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.08|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 14, Day 30||1.08|0.27|
91000814|NCT03803202|181884794|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.77|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 14, Day 30||0.77|0.10|
91000815|NCT03803202|181884794|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|2.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 14, Day 30||2.30|0.56|
91000816|NCT03803202|181884794|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 18C, Day 30||1.50|0.53|
91000817|NCT03803202|181884794|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.23|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 18C, Day 30||1.23|0.39|
91000818|NCT03803202|181884794|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.28|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 18C, Day 30||1.28|0.50|
91000819|NCT03803202|181884794|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.79|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19A, Day 30||0.79|0.32|
91000820|NCT03803202|181884794|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.09|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19A, Day 30||1.09|0.45|
91000821|NCT03803202|181884794|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.96|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19A, Day 30||0.96|0.42|
91000822|NCT03803202|181884794|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.92|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19F, Day 30||0.92|0.34|
91000823|NCT03803202|181884794|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19F, Day 30||1.10|0.37|
91000824|NCT03803202|181884794|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.55|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19F, Day 30||1.55|0.56|
91000825|NCT03803202|181884794|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.46|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 23F, Day 30||0.46|0.08|
91000826|NCT03803202|181884794|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.47|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 23F, Day 30||0.47|0.08|
91000827|NCT03803202|181884794|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.57|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 23F, Day 30||0.57|0.09|
91000828|NCT03803202|181884795|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|2.23|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 1, Day 1||2.23|0.52|
91000829|NCT03803202|181884795|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.98|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 1, Day 1||1.98|0.51|
91000830|NCT03803202|181884795|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.83|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 1, Day 1||2.83|0.72|
91000831|NCT03803202|181884795|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.68|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 3, Day 1||2.68|0.59|
91000832|NCT03803202|181884795|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|3.05|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 3, Day 1||3.05|0.90|
91000833|NCT03803202|181884795|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|2.25|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 3, Day 1||2.25|0.68|
91000834|NCT03803202|181884795|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|2.15|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 4, Day 1||2.15|0.49|
91000835|NCT03803202|181884795|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.74|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 4, Day 1||1.74|0.39|
91000836|NCT03803202|181884795|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.59|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 4, Day 1||2.59|0.59|
91000837|NCT03803202|181884795|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|3.91|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 5, Day 1||3.91|0.75|
91000838|NCT03803202|181884795|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.46|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 5, Day 1||1.46|0.36|
91000839|NCT03803202|181884795|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.84|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 5, Day 1||1.84|0.47|
91000840|NCT03803202|181884795|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|2.52|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6A, Day 1||2.52|0.57|
91000841|NCT03803202|181884795|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|2.56|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6A, Day 1||2.56|0.64|
91000842|NCT03803202|181884795|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|2.28|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6A, Day 1||2.28|0.52|
91000843|NCT03803202|181884795|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|3.09|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6B, Day 1||3.09|0.49|
91000844|NCT03803202|181884795|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|2.14|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6B, Day 1||2.14|0.43|
91000845|NCT03803202|181884795|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.73|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6B, Day 1||1.73|0.37|
91000846|NCT03803202|181884795|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|3.01|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 7F, Day 1||3.01|0.76|
91000847|NCT03803202|181884795|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.94|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 7F, Day 1||1.94|0.69|
91000848|NCT03803202|181884795|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|2.91|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 7F, Day 1||2.91|0.98|
91000849|NCT03803202|181884795|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|2.22|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 9V, Day 1||2.22|0.54|
91000850|NCT03803202|181884795|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.36|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 9V, Day 1||1.36|0.41|
91000851|NCT03803202|181884795|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.55|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 9V, Day 1||1.55|0.47|
91047511|NCT01172821|181979881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||1.1727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.42||Calculated as 2\*one-sided-p-value in the direction corresponding to testing the null hypothesis|Fisher Exact||Tio R5 / Placebo|||1.42|0.67|1.1727
91047512|NCT01172821|181979882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.613|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.496|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.795|29.431|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R2.5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||29.431|11.795|<0.0001
91000852|NCT03803202|181884795|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|2.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|4.99|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 14, Day 1||4.99|0.84|
91000853|NCT03803202|181884795|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|5.98|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 14, Day 1||5.98|1.13|
91000854|NCT03803202|181884795|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|2.15|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 14, Day 1||2.15|0.37|
91047513|NCT01172821|181979882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.757|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.513|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.907|33.607|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||33.607|15.907|<0.0001
91047514|NCT01172821|181979883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.991|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.547||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.074|24.908|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R2.5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||24.908|7.074|0.0004
91000855|NCT03803202|181884795|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|3.06|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 18C, Day 1||3.06|0.61|
91047515|NCT01172821|181979883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.247|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.561|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.302|30.193|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||30.193|12.302|<0.0001
91047516|NCT01172821|181979884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.953|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.598||0.1114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.125|0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R2.5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, country, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.220|-2.125|0.1114
91047517|NCT01172821|181979884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.178|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.7665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.355|0.999|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, country, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.999|-1.355|0.7665
91047518|NCT01172821|181979885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.079|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.018|0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R2.5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.140|0.018|0.0111
91047519|NCT01172821|181979885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.064|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031||0.0395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.003|0.126|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.126|0.003|0.0395
91000856|NCT03803202|181884795|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|2.09|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 18C, Day 1||2.09|0.55|
91000857|NCT03803202|181884795|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.65|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 18C, Day 1||2.65|0.59|
91000858|NCT03803202|181884795|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|3.49|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19A, Day 1||3.49|0.74|
91000859|NCT03803202|181884795|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.65|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19A, Day 1||1.65|0.42|
91000860|NCT03803202|181884795|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|2.05|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19A, Day 1||2.05|0.49|
91000861|NCT03803202|181884795|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|3.39|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19F, Day 1||3.39|0.63|
91000862|NCT03803202|181884795|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|3.07|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19F, Day 1||3.07|0.64|
91000863|NCT03803202|181884795|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|2.34|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19F, Day 1||2.34|0.53|
91000864|NCT03803202|181884795|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|2.09|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 23F, Day 1||2.09|0.49|
91000865|NCT03803202|181884795|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.75|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 23F, Day 1||1.75|0.50|
91000866|NCT03803202|181884795|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|2.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 23F, Day 1||2.00|0.42|
91000867|NCT03803202|181884795|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.29|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 1, Day 30||1.29|0.38|
91000868|NCT03803202|181884795|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.73|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 1, Day 30||1.73|0.52|
91000869|NCT03803202|181884795|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.66|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 1, Day 30||2.66|0.84|
91000870|NCT03803202|181884795|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.28|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 3, Day 30||2.28|0.84|
91000871|NCT03803202|181884795|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|2.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.71|4.19|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 3, Day 30||4.19|1.71|
91000872|NCT03803202|181884795|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|3.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.47|6.06|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 3, Day 30||6.06|2.47|
91000873|NCT03803202|181884795|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 4, Day 30||2.30|0.70|
91000874|NCT03803202|181884795|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.81|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 4, Day 30||1.81|0.57|
91000875|NCT03803202|181884795|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|2.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|4.15|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 4, Day 30||4.15|1.21|
91000876|NCT03803202|181884795|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|3.57|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 5, Day 30||3.57|0.70|
91000877|NCT03803202|181884795|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|2.05|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 5, Day 30||2.05|0.35|
91000878|NCT03803202|181884795|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|3.39|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 5, Day 30||3.39|0.65|
91000879|NCT03803202|181884795|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.93|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6A, Day 30||1.93|0.41|
91000880|NCT03803202|181884795|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.79|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6A, Day 30||1.79|0.33|
91000881|NCT03803202|181884795|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.48|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6A, Day 30||1.48|0.32|
91000882|NCT03803202|181884795|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|2.83|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6B, Day 30||2.83|0.57|
91000883|NCT03803202|181884795|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.81|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6B, Day 30||1.81|0.31|
91000884|NCT03803202|181884795|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.97|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6B, Day 30||1.97|0.39|
91000885|NCT03803202|181884795|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|3.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 7F, Day 30||3.30|1.05|
91000886|NCT03803202|181884795|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|3.55|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 7F, Day 30||3.55|1.10|
91000887|NCT03803202|181884795|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|2.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.62|5.12|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 7F, Day 30||5.12|1.62|
91000888|NCT03803202|181884795|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.87|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 9V, Day 30||1.87|0.49|
91000889|NCT03803202|181884795|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|2.62|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 9V, Day 30||2.62|0.74|
91000890|NCT03803202|181884795|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|3.27|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 9V, Day 30||3.27|0.87|
91000891|NCT03803202|181884795|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|2.53|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 14, Day 30||2.53|0.41|
91000892|NCT03803202|181884795|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 14, Day 30||2.60|0.45|
91000893|NCT03803202|181884795|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|2.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|5.04|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 14, Day 30||5.04|0.86|
91000894|NCT03803202|181884795|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|2.07|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 18C, Day 30||2.07|0.57|
91000895|NCT03803202|181884795|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.89|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 18C, Day 30||1.89|0.53|
91000896|NCT03803202|181884795|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|2.07|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 18C, Day 30||2.07|0.56|
91000897|NCT03803202|181884795|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.14|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19A, Day 30||1.14|0.40|
91000898|NCT03803202|181884795|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.61|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19A, Day 30||1.61|0.46|
91000899|NCT03803202|181884795|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19A, Day 30||1.60|0.47|
91000900|NCT03803202|181884795|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|2.01|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19F, Day 30||2.01|0.49|
91000901|NCT03803202|181884795|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.53|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19F, Day 30||2.53|0.75|
91000902|NCT03803202|181884795|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|2.96|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19F, Day 30||2.96|0.68|
91000903|NCT03803202|181884795|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.07|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 23F, Day 30||1.07|0.20|
91000904|NCT03803202|181884795|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.11|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 23F, Day 30||1.11|0.22|
91000905|NCT03803202|181884795|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.44|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 23F, Day 30||1.44|0.29|
91000906|NCT03803202|181884799|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.14|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 1, Day 1||1.14|0.56|
91000907|NCT03803202|181884799|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|2.16|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 1, Day 1||2.16|0.89|
91000908|NCT03803202|181884799|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.06|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 1, Day 1||1.06|0.51|
91000909|NCT03803202|181884799|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|2.09|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 3, Day 1||2.09|0.85|
91000910|NCT03803202|181884799|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|2.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 3, Day 1||2.30|0.91|
91000911|NCT03803202|181884799|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.49|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 3, Day 1||1.49|0.60|
91000912|NCT03803202|181884799|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 4, Day 1||1.40|0.46|
91000913|NCT03803202|181884799|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.91|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 4, Day 1||1.91|0.62|
91000914|NCT03803202|181884799|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.23|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 4, Day 1||1.23|0.40|
91000915|NCT03803202|181884799|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.68|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 5, Day 1||1.68|0.58|
91000916|NCT03803202|181884799|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.29|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 5, Day 1||2.29|0.76|
91000917|NCT03803202|181884799|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.53|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 5, Day 1||1.53|0.51|
91000918|NCT03803202|181884799|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.72|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6A, Day 1||1.72|0.54|
91000919|NCT03803202|181884799|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|2.14|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6B, Day 1||2.14|0.57|
91000920|NCT03803202|181884799|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|3.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6A, Day 1||3.10|0.86|
91000921|NCT03803202|181884799|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|3.14|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6A, Day 1||3.14|0.83|
91000922|NCT03803202|181884799|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.24|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6B, Day 1||2.24|0.59|
91000923|NCT03803202|181884799|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.39|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6B, Day 1||2.39|0.58|
91000924|NCT03803202|181884799|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 7F, Day 1||1.80|0.40|
91000925|NCT03803202|181884799|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.87|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 7F, Day 1||2.87|0.63|
91000926|NCT03803202|181884799|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.37|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 7F, Day 1||2.37|0.45|
91000927|NCT03803202|181884799|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.65||||||95.0|0.32|1.32|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 9V, Day 1||1.32|0.32|
91000928|NCT03803202|181884799|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.64|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 9V, Day 1||1.64|0.37|
91000929|NCT03803202|181884799|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.49|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 9V, Day 1||1.49|0.30|
91000930|NCT03803202|181884799|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.18|||t-test, 1 sided|||Serotype 14, Day 1||1.18|0.31|
91000931|NCT03803202|181884799|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|2.18|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 14, Day 1||2.18|0.54|
91000932|NCT03803202|181884799|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.65|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 14, Day 1||2.65|0.66|
91000933|NCT03803202|181884799|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.95|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 18C, Day 1||0.95|0.30|
91000934|NCT03803202|181884799|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.57|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 18C, Day 1||2.57|0.73|
91000935|NCT03803202|181884799|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.04|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 18C, Day 1||1.04|0.32|
91000936|NCT03803202|181884799|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.32|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19A, Day 1||1.32|0.44|
91000937|NCT03803202|181884799|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.01|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19A, Day 1||2.01|0.66|
91000938|NCT03803202|181884799|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19A, Day 1||1.50|0.48|
91000939|NCT03803202|181884799|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.38|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19F, Day 1||1.38|0.45|
91000940|NCT03803202|181884799|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.52|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19F, Day 1||1.52|0.47|
91000941|NCT03803202|181884799|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.12|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19F, Day 1||1.12|0.34|
91000942|NCT03803202|181884799|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.94|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 23F, Day 1||1.94|0.64|
91000943|NCT03803202|181884799|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.42|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 23F, Day 1||2.42|0.77|
91000944|NCT03803202|181884799|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.14|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 23F, Day 1||2.14|0.66|
91000945|NCT03803202|181884799|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.47|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 1, Day 30||1.47|0.47|
91000946|NCT03803202|181884799|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.53|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 1, Day 30||1.53|0.50|
91000947|NCT03803202|181884799|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|2.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 1, Day 30||2.20|0.74|
91000948|NCT03803202|181884799|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|25.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.33|38.34|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 2, Day 30||38.34|16.33|
91000949|NCT03803202|181884799|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|21.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.31|33.77|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 2, Day 30||33.77|14.31|
91000950|NCT03803202|181884799|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|35.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.09|54.22|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 2, Day 30||54.22|23.09|
91000951|NCT03803202|181884799|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|2.62|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 3, Day 30||2.62|1.25|
91000952|NCT03803202|181884799|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|2.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.83|3.56|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 3, Day 30||3.56|1.83|
91000953|NCT03803202|181884799|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|3.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|4.48|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 3, Day 30||4.48|2.20|
91000954|NCT03803202|181884799|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.62|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 4, Day 30||1.62|0.59|
91000955|NCT03803202|181884799|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.51|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 4, Day 30||1.51|0.59|
91000956|NCT03803202|181884799|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.99|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 4, Day 30||1.99|0.76|
91000957|NCT03803202|181884799|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.21|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 5, Day 30||2.21|0.71|
91000958|NCT03803202|181884799|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|2.46|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 5, Day 30||2.46|0.85|
91000959|NCT03803202|181884799|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|2.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|3.72|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 5, Day 30||3.72|1.25|
91000960|NCT03803202|181884799|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.51|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6B, Day 30||1.51|0.59|
91000961|NCT03803202|181884799|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.29|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6B, Day 30||1.29|0.56|
91000962|NCT03803202|181884799|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6B, Day 30||1.30|0.54|
91000963|NCT03803202|181884799|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.18|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 7F, Day 30||1.18|0.61|
91000964|NCT03803202|181884799|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.21|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 7F, Day 30||1.21|0.65|
91000965|NCT03803202|181884799|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 7F, Day 30||1.50|0.73|
91000966|NCT03803202|181884799|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|19.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.26|30.87|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 8, Day 30||30.87|12.26|
91000967|NCT03803202|181884799|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|19.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.07|32.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 8, Day 30||32.00|12.07|
91000968|NCT03803202|181884799|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|41.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.2|66.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 8, Day 30||66.90|26.20|
91000969|NCT03803202|181884799|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|4.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.06|7.36|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 9N, Day 30||7.36|3.06|
91000970|NCT03803202|181884799|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|5.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.83|8.37|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 9N, Day 30||8.37|3.83|
91000971|NCT03803202|181884799|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|7.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.19|11.82|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 9N, Day 30||11.82|5.19|
91000972|NCT03803202|181884799|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.42|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 9V, Day 30||1.42|0.49|
91000973|NCT03803202|181884799|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.14|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 9V, Day 30||1.14|0.44|
91000974|NCT03803202|181884799|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.95|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 9V, Day 30||1.95|0.76|
91000975|NCT03803202|181884799|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.21|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6A, Day 30||1.21|0.39|
91000976|NCT03803202|181884799|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6A, Day 30||1.50|0.54|
91000977|NCT03803202|181884799|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.64|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6A, Day 30||1.64|0.53|
91000978|NCT03803202|181884799|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.11|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 14, Day 30||2.11|0.84|
91000979|NCT03803202|181884799|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.43|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 14, Day 30||1.43|0.55|
91000980|NCT03803202|181884799|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 14, Day 30||2.50|0.95|
91000981|NCT03803202|181884799|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.44|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 18C, Day 30||1.44|0.55|
91000982|NCT03803202|181884799|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.54|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 18C, Day 30||1.54|0.63|
91000983|NCT03803202|181884799|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|2.12|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 18C, Day 30||2.12|0.82|
91000984|NCT03803202|181884799|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.37|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19A, Day 30||1.37|0.70|
91000985|NCT03803202|181884799|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.37|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19A, Day 30||1.37|0.71|
91000986|NCT03803202|181884799|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.67|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19A, Day 30||1.67|0.78|
91000987|NCT03803202|181884799|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.52||||||95.0|0.99|2.32|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19F, Day 30||2.32|0.99|
91000988|NCT03803202|181884799|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.18|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19F, Day 30||2.18|1.00|
91000989|NCT03803202|181884799|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|2.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|3.22|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19F, Day 30||3.22|1.35|
91000990|NCT03803202|181884799|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.26|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 23F, Day 30||1.26|0.36|
91000991|NCT03803202|181884799|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.26|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 23F, Day 30||1.26|0.40|
91000992|NCT03803202|181884799|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.73|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 23F, Day 30||1.73|0.47|
91000993|NCT03803202|181884800|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.42|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 1, Day 1||1.42|0.57|
91000994|NCT03803202|181884800|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|3.08|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 1, Day 1||3.08|1.12|
91000995|NCT03803202|181884800|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.49|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 1, Day 1||1.49|0.53|
91000996|NCT03803202|181884800|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.87|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 3, Day 1||1.87|0.84|
91000997|NCT03803202|181884800|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|2.73|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 3, Day 1||2.73|1.18|
91000998|NCT03803202|181884800|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.69|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 3, Day 1||1.69|0.69|
91000999|NCT03803202|181884800|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.21|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 4, Day 1||1.21|0.54|
91001000|NCT03803202|181884800|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.81|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 4, Day 1||1.81|0.74|
91001001|NCT03803202|181884800|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 4, Day 1||1.00|0.44|
91001002|NCT03803202|181884800|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.78|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 5, Day 1||1.78|0.65|
91001003|NCT03803202|181884800|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|2.63|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 5, Day 1||2.63|0.96|
91001004|NCT03803202|181884800|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.72|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 5, Day 1||1.72|0.58|
91001005|NCT03803202|181884800|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.47|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6A, Day 1||1.47|0.53|
91001006|NCT03803202|181884800|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|2.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6A, Day 1||2.30|0.83|
91001007|NCT03803202|181884800|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.44|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6A, Day 1||2.44|0.80|
91001008|NCT03803202|181884800|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.99|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6B, Day 1||1.99|0.69|
91001009|NCT03803202|181884800|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|2.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|3.67|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6B, Day 1||3.67|1.19|
91001010|NCT03803202|181884800|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.88|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6B, Day 1||2.88|0.88|
91001011|NCT03803202|181884800|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.65|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 7F, Day 1||1.65|0.62|
91001012|NCT03803202|181884800|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|2.67|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 7F, Day 1||2.67|0.94|
91001013|NCT03803202|181884800|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.64|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 7F, Day 1||1.64|0.50|
91001014|NCT03803202|181884800|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.21|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 9V, Day 1||1.21|0.52|
91001015|NCT03803202|181884800|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|2.54|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 9V, Day 1||2.54|0.97|
91001016|NCT03803202|181884800|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 9V, Day 1||1.60|0.60|
91001017|NCT03803202|181884800|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.33|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 14, Day 1||1.33|0.40|
91001018|NCT03803202|181884800|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.44|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 14, Day 1||2.44|0.73|
91001019|NCT03803202|181884800|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.63|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 14, Day 1||1.63|0.46|
91001020|NCT03803202|181884800|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.12|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 18C, Day 1||1.12|0.42|
91001021|NCT03803202|181884800|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.55|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 18C, Day 1||2.55|0.92|
91001022|NCT03803202|181884800|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.37|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 18C, Day 1||1.37|0.44|
91001023|NCT03803202|181884800|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.25|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19A, Day 1||1.25|0.54|
91001024|NCT03803202|181884800|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.12|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19A, Day 1||2.12|0.84|
91001025|NCT03803202|181884800|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.66|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19A, Day 1||1.66|0.66|
91001026|NCT03803202|181884800|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.37|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19F, Day 1||1.37|0.51|
91001027|NCT03803202|181884800|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.11|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19F, Day 1||2.11|0.75|
91001028|NCT03803202|181884800|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.72|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19F, Day 1||1.72|0.57|
91001029|NCT03803202|181884800|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.86|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 23F, Day 1||1.86|0.63|
91001030|NCT03803202|181884800|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|2.08|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 23F, Day 1||2.08|0.69|
91001031|NCT03803202|181884800|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|2.14|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 23F, Day 1||2.14|0.67|
91001032|NCT03803202|181884800|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.29|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 1, Day 30||1.29|0.52|
91001033|NCT03803202|181884800|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.59|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 1, Day 30||1.59|0.68|
91001034|NCT03803202|181884800|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 1, Day 30||1.80|0.76|
91001035|NCT03803202|181884800|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|2.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|3.01|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 3, Day 30||3.01|1.42|
91001036|NCT03803202|181884800|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|3.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.37|4.58|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 3, Day 30||4.58|2.37|
91001037|NCT03803202|181884800|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|4.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.83|5.79|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 3, Day 30||5.79|2.83|
91001038|NCT03803202|181884800|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.27|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 4, Day 30||1.27|0.49|
91001039|NCT03803202|181884800|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.48|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 4, Day 30||1.48|0.63|
91001040|NCT03803202|181884800|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.65|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 4, Day 30||1.65|0.66|
91001041|NCT03803202|181884800|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.29|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 5, Day 30||2.29|0.75|
91001042|NCT03803202|181884800|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.19|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 5, Day 30||2.19|0.77|
91001043|NCT03803202|181884800|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|3.37|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 5, Day 30||3.37|1.08|
91001044|NCT03803202|181884800|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.49|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6A, Day 30||1.49|0.50|
91001045|NCT03803202|181884800|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.72|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6A, Day 30||1.72|0.65|
91001046|NCT03803202|181884800|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6A, Day 30||2.10|0.71|
91001047|NCT03803202|181884800|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.75|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6B, Day 30||1.75|0.56|
91001048|NCT03803202|181884800|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.47|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6B, Day 30||2.47|0.84|
91001049|NCT03803202|181884800|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|3.15|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6B, Day 30||3.15|1.00|
91001050|NCT03803202|181884800|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|2.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 7F, Day 30||2.30|1.02|
91001051|NCT03803202|181884800|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.26|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 7F, Day 30||2.26|1.06|
91001052|NCT03803202|181884800|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|2.53|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 7F, Day 30||2.53|1.09|
91001053|NCT03803202|181884800|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.07|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 9V, Day 30||2.07|0.81|
91047520|NCT01172821|181979886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.068|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032||0.0357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.005|0.131|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R2.5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.131|0.005|0.0357
91047521|NCT01172821|181979886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.066|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032||0.0422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.002|0.129|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.129|0.002|0.0422
91047522|NCT01172821|181979887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.171|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.131||0.1927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.427|0.086|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R2.5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.086|-0.427|0.1927
91047523|NCT01172821|181979887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.109|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.131||0.4053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.148|0.367|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.367|-0.148|0.4053
91047524|NCT01172821|181979888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.026|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.3501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.079|0.028|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R2.5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, country, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.028|-0.079|0.3501
91047525|NCT01172821|181979888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028||0.8045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.047|0.061|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, country, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.061|-0.047|0.8045
91047526|NCT01172821|181979889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.0308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.72||Calculated as 2\*one-sided-p-value in the direction corresponding to testing the null hypothesis|Fisher Exact||Tio R2.5 / Placebo|||1.72|1.03|0.0308
91047527|NCT01172821|181979889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.0348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.71||Calculated as 2\*one-sided-p-value in the direction corresponding to testing the null hypothesis|Fisher Exact||Tio R5 / Placebo|||1.71|1.02|0.0348
91047528|NCT02985879|181979892|SUPERIORITY|The primary efficacy analysis utilized a likelihood-based, mixed-effects model, repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of the change from baseline for each postbaseline value and compared each ABBV-8E12 dose group with the placebo group. The model, which used all observed data, included fixed, categorical effects for treatment, site, visit, baseline score-by-visit interaction and treatment-by-visit interaction, with continuous fixed covariates for the corresponding baseline score.|LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.34|=|0.998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.63|2.63|||Mixed-effects model, repeated measures||ABBV-8E12 2000 mg - Placebo|ABBV-8E12 2000 mg vs Placebo||2.63|-2.63|=0.998
91047529|NCT02985879|181979892|SUPERIORITY|The primary efficacy analysis utilized a likelihood-based, mixed-effects model, repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of the change from baseline for each postbaseline value and compared each ABBV-8E12 dose group with the placebo group. The model, which used all observed data, included fixed, categorical effects for treatment, site, visit, baseline score-by-visit interaction and treatment-by-visit interaction, with continuous fixed covariates for the corresponding baseline score.|LS Mean Difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32|=|0.464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|3.58|||Mixed-effects model, repeated measures||ABBV-8E12 4000 mg - Placebo|ABBV-8E12 4000 mg vs Placebo||3.58|-1.63|=0.464
91001054|NCT03803202|181884800|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|2.57|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 9V, Day 30||2.57|1.04|
91001055|NCT03803202|181884800|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|2.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|3.47|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 9V, Day 30||3.47|1.35|
91001056|NCT03803202|181884800|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.68|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 14, Day 30||1.68|0.58|
91001057|NCT03803202|181884800|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.05|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 14, Day 30||2.05|0.77|
91001058|NCT03803202|181884800|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|2.81|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 14, Day 30||2.81|0.99|
91001059|NCT03803202|181884800|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.95|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 18C, Day 30||0.95|0.39|
91001060|NCT03803202|181884800|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.54|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 18C, Day 30||1.54|0.70|
91001061|NCT03803202|181884800|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.57|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 18C, Day 30||1.57|0.67|
91001062|NCT03803202|181884800|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.25|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19A, Day 30||1.25|0.56|
91001063|NCT03803202|181884800|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.52|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19A, Day 30||1.52|0.75|
91001064|NCT03803202|181884800|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.86|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19A, Day 30||1.86|0.77|
91001065|NCT03803202|181884800|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19F, Day 30||1.90|0.76|
91001066|NCT03803202|181884800|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|2.58|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19F, Day 30||2.58|1.11|
91001067|NCT03803202|181884800|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|2.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|3.52|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19F, Day 30||3.52|1.41|
91001068|NCT03803202|181884800|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.47|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 23F, Day 30||1.47|0.50|
91001069|NCT03803202|181884800|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.35|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 23F, Day 30||1.35|0.51|
91001070|NCT03803202|181884800|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|2.02|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 23F, Day 30||2.02|0.69|
91001071|NCT03803202|181884803|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.1||||0.805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 1, Day 30||0.5|-0.4|0.805
91001072|NCT03803202|181884803|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.4||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.9|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 1, Day 30||0.9|-0.1|0.102
91001073|NCT03803202|181884803|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.4||||0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.9|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 1, Day 30||0.9|-0.1|0.158
91001074|NCT03803202|181884803|OTHER||Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 2, Day 30||0.2|-0.4|0.596
91001075|NCT03803202|181884803|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.3||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 2, Day 30||0.7|0.0|0.025
91001076|NCT03803202|181884803|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.4||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 2, Day 30||0.7|0.1|0.005
91001077|NCT03803202|181884803|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.3||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 3, Day 30||0.7|0.0|0.037
91001078|NCT03803202|181884803|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.6||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.9|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 3, Day 30||0.9|0.2|0.002
91001079|NCT03803202|181884803|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.2||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 3, Day 30||0.6|-0.1|0.230
91001080|NCT03803202|181884803|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.0||||0.984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 4, Day 30||0.4|-0.4|0.984
91001081|NCT03803202|181884803|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.2||||0.262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 4, Day 30||0.6|-0.2|0.262
91001082|NCT03803202|181884803|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.2||||0.264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 4, Day 30||0.6|-0.2|0.264
91001083|NCT03803202|181884803|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.1||||0.638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 5, Day 30||0.6|-0.4|0.638
91001084|NCT03803202|181884803|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.5||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.0|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 5, Day 30||1.0|0.0|0.036
91001085|NCT03803202|181884803|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.4||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.9|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 5, Day 30||0.9|-0.1|0.094
91001086|NCT03803202|181884803|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.3||||0.266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 6A, Day 30||0.8|-0.2|0.266
91001087|NCT03803202|181884803|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.3||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 6A, Day 30||0.8|-0.2|0.250
91001088|NCT03803202|181884803|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.0||||0.927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 6A, Day 30||0.5|-0.5|0.927
91001089|NCT03803202|181884803|OTHER||Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 6B, Day 30||0.3|-0.5|0.679
91001090|NCT03803202|181884803|OTHER||Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 6B, Day 30||0.3|-0.6|0.589
91001091|NCT03803202|181884803|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.0||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 6B, Day 30||0.4|-0.5|0.880
91001092|NCT03803202|181884803|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.1||||0.623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 7F, Day 30||0.4|-0.2|0.623
91001093|NCT03803202|181884803|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.2||||0.232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 7F, Day 30||0.6|-0.1|0.232
91001094|NCT03803202|181884803|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.1||||0.451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 7F, Day 30||0.5|-0.2|0.451
91001095|NCT03803202|181884803|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.0||||0.785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 8, Day 30||0.4|-0.3|0.785
91001096|NCT03803202|181884803|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.1|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 8, Day 30||1.1|0.4|<.001
91001097|NCT03803202|181884803|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.1|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 8, Day 30||1.1|0.4|<.001
91001098|NCT03803202|181884803|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.2||||0.146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 9N, Day 30||0.5|-0.1|0.146
91001099|NCT03803202|181884803|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.5||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 9N, Day 30||0.8|0.2|0.003
91001100|NCT03803202|181884803|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.3||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 9N, Day 30||0.6|-0.1|0.113
91001101|NCT03803202|181884803|OTHER||Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 9V, Day 30||0.3|-0.6|0.453
91001102|NCT03803202|181884803|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.4||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 9V, Day 30||0.8|-0.1|0.111
91001103|NCT03803202|181884803|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.5||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.0|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 9V, Day 30||1.0|0.1|0.020
91001104|NCT03803202|181884803|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.3||||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 10A, Day 30||0.8|-0.2|0.218
91001105|NCT03803202|181884803|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.4||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.9|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 10A, Day 30||0.9|-0.1|0.125
91001106|NCT03803202|181884803|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.1||||0.706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 10A, Day 30||0.6|-0.4|0.706
91001107|NCT03803202|181884803|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.2||||0.246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 11A, Day 30||0.6|-0.1|0.246
91001108|NCT03803202|181884803|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.1|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 11A, Day 30||1.1|0.3|<.001
91001109|NCT03803202|181884803|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.5||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.9|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 11A, Day 30||0.9|0.1|0.010
91001110|NCT03803202|181884803|OTHER||Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 12F, Day 30||0.2|-0.7|0.260
91001111|NCT03803202|181884803|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.2||||0.366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 12F, Day 30||0.7|-0.3|0.366
91001112|NCT03803202|181884803|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.5||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.0|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 12F, Day 30||1.0|0.0|0.046
91001113|NCT03803202|181884803|OTHER||Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 14, Day 30||0.1|-0.8|0.101
91001114|NCT03803202|181884803|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.2||||0.522||95.0|-0.3|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 14, Day 30||0.6|-0.3|0.522
91001115|NCT03803202|181884803|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.5||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.0|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 14, Day 30||1.0|0.1|0.026
91001116|NCT03803202|181884803|OTHER||Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 15B, Day 30||0.2|-0.6|0.236
91001117|NCT03803202|181884803|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.1||||0.528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 15B, Day 30||0.5|-0.3|0.528
91001118|NCT03803202|181884803|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.4||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 15B, Day 30||0.8|0.0|0.081
91001119|NCT03803202|181884803|OTHER||Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 17F, Day 30||0.2|-0.5|0.388
91001120|NCT03803202|181884803|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.3||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 17F, Day 30||0.6|-0.1|0.151
91001121|NCT03803202|181884803|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.4||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 17F, Day 30||0.7|0.1|0.024
91001122|NCT03803202|181884803|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.1||||0.476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 18C, Day 30||0.5|-0.3|0.476
91001123|NCT03803202|181884803|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.4||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 18C, Day 30||0.8|0.0|0.077
91001124|NCT03803202|181884803|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.2||||0.262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 18C, Day 30||0.6|-0.2|0.262
91001125|NCT03803202|181884803|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.0||||0.767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 19A, Day 30||0.4|-0.3|0.767
91001126|NCT03803202|181884803|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.2||||0.364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 19A, Day 30||0.5|-0.2|0.364
91001127|NCT03803202|181884803|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.1||||0.522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 19A, Day 30||0.5|-0.2|0.522
91001128|NCT03803202|181884803|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.0||||0.962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 19F, Day 30||0.4|-0.4|0.962
91001129|NCT03803202|181884803|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.3||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 19F, Day 30||0.7|-0.1|0.091
91001130|NCT03803202|181884803|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.3||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 19F, Day 30||0.7|-0.1|0.093
91001131|NCT03803202|181884803|OTHER||Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 20B, Day 30||0.3|-0.6|0.455
91001132|NCT03803202|181884803|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.4||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.9|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 20B, Day 30||0.9|-0.1|0.093
91001133|NCT03803202|181884803|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.6||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.1|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 20B, Day 30||1.1|0.1|0.017
91001134|NCT03803202|181884803|OTHER||Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 22F, Day 30||0.3|-0.5|0.561
91001135|NCT03803202|181884803|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.2||||0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 22F, Day 30||0.6|-0.2|0.343
91001136|NCT03803202|181884803|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.3||||0.132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 22F, Day 30||0.7|-0.1|0.132
91001137|NCT03803202|181884803|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.0||||0.898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 23F, Day 30||0.6|-0.5|0.898
91001138|NCT03803202|181884803|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.3||||0.313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.9|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 23F, Day 30||0.9|-0.3|0.313
91001139|NCT03803202|181884803|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.3||||0.366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 23F, Day 30||0.8|-0.3|0.366
91001140|NCT03803202|181884803|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.0||||0.961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 33F, Day 30||0.4|-0.4|0.961
91001141|NCT03803202|181884803|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.2||||0.269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 33F, Day 30||0.6|-0.2|0.269
91001142|NCT03803202|181884803|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.2||||0.245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 33F, Day 30||0.6|-0.2|0.245
91001143|NCT03803202|181884804|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.3||||0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 1, Day 30||0.7|-0.1|0.213
91001144|NCT03803202|181884804|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.4||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 1, Day 30||0.8|-0.1|0.097
91001145|NCT03803202|181884804|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.1||||0.631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 1, Day 30||0.5|-0.3|0.631
91001146|NCT03803202|181884804|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.1||||0.699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 2, Day 30||0.4|-0.3|0.699
91001147|NCT03803202|181884804|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.4||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 2, Day 30||0.7|0.0|0.042
91007283|NCT02253173|181898844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91047530|NCT02985879|181979894|SUPERIORITY|The analysis utilized a likelihood-based, mixed-effects model, repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of the change from baseline for each postbaseline value and compared each ABBV-8E12 dose group with the placebo group. The model, which used all observed data, included fixed, categorical effects for treatment, site, visit, baseline score-by-visit interaction and treatment-by-visit interaction, with continuous fixed covariates for the corresponding baseline score.|LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88|=|0.812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|1.93|||Mixed-effects model, repeated measures||ABBV-8E12 2000 mg - Placebo|ABBV-8E12 2000 mg vs Placebo||1.93|-1.52|=0.812
91001148|NCT03803202|181884804|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.3||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 2, Day 30||0.7|-0.1|0.092
91001149|NCT03803202|181884804|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.5||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 3, Day 30||0.8|0.1|0.007
91001150|NCT03803202|181884804|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.0|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 3, Day 30||1.0|0.3|<.001
91001151|NCT03803202|181884804|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.2||||0.237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 3, Day 30||0.6|-0.1|0.237
91001152|NCT03803202|181884804|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.2||||0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 4, Day 30||0.6|-0.2|0.248
91001153|NCT03803202|181884804|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.3||||0.193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 4, Day 30||0.7|-0.1|0.193
91001154|NCT03803202|181884804|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.0||||0.838|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 4, Day 30||0.5|-0.4|0.838
91001155|NCT03803202|181884804|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.0||||0.898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 5, Day 30||0.4|-0.5|0.898
91001156|NCT03803202|181884804|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.4||||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.9|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 5, Day 30||0.9|-0.1|0.143
91001157|NCT03803202|181884804|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.4||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.9|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 5, Day 30||0.9|-0.1|0.108
91001158|NCT03803202|181884804|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.2||||0.396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 6A, Day 30||0.7|-0.3|0.396
91001159|NCT03803202|181884804|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.3||||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.9|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 6A, Day 30||0.9|-0.2|0.182
91001160|NCT03803202|181884804|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.1||||0.593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 6A, Day 30||0.6|-0.4|0.593
91001161|NCT03803202|181884804|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.4||||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.9|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 6B, Day 30||0.9|-0.2|0.186
91001162|NCT03803202|181884804|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.6||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.1|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 6B, Day 30||1.1|0.0|0.038
91001163|NCT03803202|181884804|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.2||||0.408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 6B, Day 30||0.8|-0.3|0.408
91001164|NCT03803202|181884804|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.1||||0.805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 7F, Day 30||0.4|-0.3|0.805
91001165|NCT03803202|181884804|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.1||||0.711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 7F, Day 30||0.5|-0.3|0.711
91001166|NCT03803202|181884804|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.0||||0.891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 7F, Day 30||0.4|-0.4|0.891
91001167|NCT03803202|181884804|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.1||||0.649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 8, Day 30||0.4|-0.3|0.649
91001168|NCT03803202|181884804|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.0|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 8, Day 30||1.0|0.3|<.001
91001169|NCT03803202|181884804|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.9|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 8, Day 30||0.9|0.3|<.001
91001170|NCT03803202|181884804|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.2||||0.454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 9N, Day 30||0.5|-0.2|0.454
91001171|NCT03803202|181884804|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.6||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.0|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 9N, Day 30||1.0|0.2|0.003
91001172|NCT03803202|181884804|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.5||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.9|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 9N, Day 30||0.9|0.1|0.021
91001173|NCT03803202|181884804|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.3||||0.205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 9V, Day 30||0.6|-0.1|0.205
91001174|NCT03803202|181884804|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.5||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.9|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 9V, Day 30||0.9|0.1|0.015
91001175|NCT03803202|181884804|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.3||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 9V, Day 30||0.7|-0.1|0.209
91001176|NCT03803202|181884804|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.2||||0.502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 10A, Day 30||0.6|-0.3|0.502
91001177|NCT03803202|181884804|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.5||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.0|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 10A, Day 30||1.0|0.0|0.054
91001178|NCT03803202|181884804|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.3||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 10A, Day 30||0.8|-0.2|0.190
91001179|NCT03803202|181884804|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.1||||0.616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 11A, Day 30||0.4|-0.3|0.616
91001180|NCT03803202|181884804|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.4||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 11A, Day 30||0.8|0.1|0.018
91001181|NCT03803202|181884804|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.4||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 11A, Day 30||0.7|0.0|0.056
91001182|NCT03803202|181884804|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.2||||0.527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 12F, Day 30||0.7|-0.4|0.527
91001183|NCT03803202|181884804|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.2||||0.444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 12F, Day 30||0.8|-0.4|0.444
91001184|NCT03803202|181884804|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.0||||0.869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 12F, Day 30||0.6|-0.5|0.869
91001185|NCT03803202|181884804|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.3||||0.305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 14, Day 30||0.7|-0.2|0.305
91001186|NCT03803202|181884804|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.5||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.0|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 14, Day 30||1.0|0.0|0.046
91001187|NCT03803202|181884804|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.3||||0.299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 14, Day 30||0.8|-0.2|0.299
91001188|NCT03803202|181884804|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.3||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 15B, Day 30||0.7|-0.1|0.140
91001189|NCT03803202|181884804|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.3|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 15B, Day 30||1.3|0.4|<.001
91001190|NCT03803202|181884804|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.6||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.0|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 15B, Day 30||1.0|0.1|0.012
91001191|NCT03803202|181884804|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.2||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 17F, Day 30||0.6|-0.1|0.200
91001192|NCT03803202|181884804|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.4||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 17F, Day 30||0.8|0.0|0.037
91001193|NCT03803202|181884804|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.2||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 17F, Day 30||0.6|-0.2|0.380
91001194|NCT03803202|181884804|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.6||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.0|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 18C, Day 30||1.0|0.2|0.006
91001195|NCT03803202|181884804|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.5||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.0|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 18C, Day 30||1.0|0.1|0.018
91001196|NCT03803202|181884804|OTHER||Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 18C, Day 30||0.4|-0.5|0.810
91001197|NCT03803202|181884804|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.3||||0.173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 19A, Day 30||0.7|-0.1|0.173
91001198|NCT03803202|181884804|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.4||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 19A, Day 30||0.8|-0.1|0.096
91001199|NCT03803202|181884804|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.1||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 19A, Day 30||0.5|-0.3|0.710
91001200|NCT03803202|181884804|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.4||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 19F, Day 30||0.8|-0.1|0.100
91001201|NCT03803202|181884804|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.6||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.1|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 19F, Day 30||1.1|0.2|0.007
91001202|NCT03803202|181884804|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.3||||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 19F, Day 30||0.7|-0.2|0.251
91001203|NCT03803202|181884804|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.1||||0.618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 20B, Day 30||0.5|-0.3|0.618
91001204|NCT03803202|181884804|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.5||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.9|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 20B, Day 30||0.9|0.0|0.041
91001205|NCT03803202|181884804|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.3||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 20B, Day 30||0.8|-0.1|0.111
91001206|NCT03803202|181884804|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.1||||0.758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 22F, Day 30||0.4|-0.3|0.758
91001207|NCT03803202|181884804|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.5||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.9|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 22F, Day 30||0.9|0.1|0.012
91001208|NCT03803202|181884804|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.4||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 22F, Day 30||0.8|0.1|0.025
91001209|NCT03803202|181884804|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.0||||0.912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 23F, Day 30||0.4|-0.5|0.912
91001210|NCT03803202|181884804|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.3||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 23F, Day 30||0.8|-0.1|0.174
91001211|NCT03803202|181884804|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.3||||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 23F, Day 30||0.8|-0.1|0.138
91001212|NCT03803202|181884804|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.2||||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 33F, Day 30||0.7|-0.2|0.267
91001213|NCT03803202|181884804|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.2||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 33F, Day 30||0.7|-0.2|0.300
91001214|NCT03803202|181884804|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.0||||0.982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 33F, Day 30||0.4|-0.4|0.982
91001215|NCT03803202|181884805|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.08|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 2||2.08|1.06|
91001216|NCT03803202|181884805|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.37|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 8||1.37|0.68|
91001217|NCT03803202|181884805|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 9N||2.00|0.92|
91001218|NCT03803202|181884805|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|2.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|3.79|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 10A||3.79|1.25|
91001219|NCT03803202|181884805|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.77|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 11A||1.77|0.80|
91001220|NCT03803202|181884805|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 12F||2.00|0.73|
91001221|NCT03803202|181884805|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|2.29|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 15B||2.29|0.94|
91001222|NCT03803202|181884805|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|2.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.68|4.04|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 17F||4.04|1.68|
91001223|NCT03803202|181884805|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|9.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.65|14.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 20B||14.50|5.65|
91001224|NCT03803202|181884805|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|2.95|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 22F||2.95|1.09|
91001225|NCT03803202|181884805|OTHER|Serotype 33F|Ratio of GMT|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|2.11|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.11|0.86|
91001226|NCT03803202|181884805|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.83|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 2||1.83|0.93|
91001227|NCT03803202|181884805|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.43|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 8||1.43|0.67|
91001228|NCT03803202|181884805|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.62|2.26|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 9N||2.26|1.62|
91001229|NCT03803202|181884805|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|2.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.68|4.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 10A||4.90|1.68|
91001230|NCT03803202|181884805|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|2.06|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 11A||2.06|0.98|
91001231|NCT03803202|181884805|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.48|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 12F||1.48|0.54|
91001232|NCT03803202|181884805|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.64|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 15B||1.64|0.73|
91001233|NCT03803202|181884805|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|2.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|3.25|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 17F||3.25|1.40|
91001234|NCT03803202|181884805|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|7.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.61|11.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 20B||11.50|4.61|
91001235|NCT03803202|181884805|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|2.48|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 22F||2.48|0.96|
91001236|NCT03803202|181884805|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.84|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 33F||1.84|0.83|
91001237|NCT03803202|181884805|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|2.94|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 2||2.94|1.51|
91001238|NCT03803202|181884805|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|2.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|2.97|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 8||2.97|1.46|
91001239|NCT03803202|181884805|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|2.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|3.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 9N||3.20|1.56|
91001240|NCT03803202|181884805|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|3.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.79|5.89|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 10A||5.89|1.79|
91001241|NCT03803202|181884805|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|2.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.63|3.62|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 11A||3.62|1.63|
91001242|NCT03803202|181884805|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|2.55|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 12 F||2.55|0.89|
91001243|NCT03803202|181884805|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|2.57|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 15B||2.57|1.11|
91001244|NCT03803202|181884805|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|3.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.18|5.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 17F||5.20|2.18|
91001245|NCT03803202|181884805|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|13.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.26|22.72|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 20B||22.72|8.26|
91001246|NCT03803202|181884805|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|2.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|3.46|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 22F||3.46|1.36|
91001247|NCT03803202|181884805|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|2.57|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 33F||2.57|1.11|
91001248|NCT03803202|181884806|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.93|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 2||1.93|0.95|
91001249|NCT03803202|181884806|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|2.13|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 8||2.13|1.07|
91001250|NCT03803202|181884806|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|2.33|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 9N||2.33|1.09|
91001251|NCT03803202|181884806|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|2.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|3.47|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 10A||3.47|1.45|
91001252|NCT03803202|181884806|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|2.65|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 11A||2.65|1.27|
91001253|NCT03803202|181884806|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.23|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 12F||2.23|0.77|
91001254|NCT03803202|181884806|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.91|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 15B||1.91|0.80|
91001255|NCT03803202|181884806|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|2.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|4.07|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 17F||4.07|1.70|
91001256|NCT03803202|181884806|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|2.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.61|3.67|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 20B||3.67|1.61|
91001257|NCT03803202|181884806|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|2.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|3.65|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 22F||3.65|1.70|
91001258|NCT03803202|181884806|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.54|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 33F||2.54|1.10|
91001259|NCT03803202|181884806|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|2.07|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 2||2.07|0.98|
91001260|NCT03803202|181884806|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|2.26|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 8||2.26|1.11|
91001261|NCT03803202|181884806|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|2.72|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 9N||2.72|1.23|
91001262|NCT03803202|181884806|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|2.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|4.05||||||Serotype 10A||4.05|1.66|
91001263|NCT03803202|181884806|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|2.73|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 11A||2.73|1.32|
91001264|NCT03803202|181884806|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|2.71|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 12F||2.71|0.93|
91001265|NCT03803202|181884806|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|2.53|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 15B||2.53|1.11|
91001266|NCT03803202|181884806|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|3.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.17|4.93|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 17F||4.93|2.17|
91047531|NCT02985879|181979894|SUPERIORITY|The analysis utilized a likelihood-based, mixed-effects model, repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of the change from baseline for each postbaseline value and compared each ABBV-8E12 dose group with the placebo group. The model, which used all observed data, included fixed, categorical effects for treatment, site, visit, baseline score-by-visit interaction and treatment-by-visit interaction, with continuous fixed covariates for the corresponding baseline score.|LS Mean Difference|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88|=|0.104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|3.16|||Mixed-effects model, repeated measures||ABBV-8E12 4000 mg - Placebo|ABBV-8E12 4000 mg vs Placebo||3.16|-0.30|=0.104
91047532|NCT02985879|181979895|SUPERIORITY|The analysis utilized a likelihood-based, mixed-effects model, repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of the change from baseline for each postbaseline value and compared each ABBV-8E12 dose group with the placebo group. The model, which used all observed data, included fixed, categorical effects for treatment, site, visit, baseline score-by-visit interaction and treatment-by-visit interaction, with continuous fixed covariates for the corresponding baseline score.|LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|=|0.756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.26|||Mixed-effects model, repeated measures||ABBV-8E12 2000 mg - Placebo|ABBV-8E12 2000 mg vs Placebo||0.26|-0.36|=0.756
91047533|NCT02985879|181979895|SUPERIORITY|The analysis utilized a likelihood-based, mixed-effects model, repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of the change from baseline for each postbaseline value and compared each ABBV-8E12 dose group with the placebo group. The model, which used all observed data, included fixed, categorical effects for treatment, site, visit, baseline score-by-visit interaction and treatment-by-visit interaction, with continuous fixed covariates for the corresponding baseline score.|LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|=|0.409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.18|||Mixed-effects model, repeated measures||ABBV-8E12 4000 mg - Placebo|ABBV-8E12 4000 mg vs Placebo||0.18|-0.44|=0.409
91047534|NCT02985879|181979896|SUPERIORITY|The analysis utilized a likelihood-based, mixed-effects model, repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of the change from baseline for each postbaseline value and compared each ABBV-8E12 dose group with the placebo group. The model, which used all observed data, included fixed, categorical effects for treatment, site, visit, baseline score-by-visit interaction and treatment-by-visit interaction, with continuous fixed covariates for the corresponding baseline score.|LS Mean Difference|-7.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.54|=|0.597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.86|19.53|||Mixed-effects model, repeated measures||ABBV-8E12 2000 mg - Placebo|ABBV-8E12 2000 mg vs Placebo||19.53|-33.86|=0.597
91047535|NCT02985879|181979896|SUPERIORITY|The analysis utilized a likelihood-based, mixed-effects model, repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of the change from baseline for each postbaseline value and compared each ABBV-8E12 dose group with the placebo group. The model, which used all observed data, included fixed, categorical effects for treatment, site, visit, baseline score-by-visit interaction and treatment-by-visit interaction, with continuous fixed covariates for the corresponding baseline score.|LS Mean Difference|-6.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.56|=|0.642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.04|20.42|||Mixed-effects model, repeated measures||ABBV-8E12 4000 mg - Placebo|ABBV-8E12 4000 mg vs Placebo||20.42|-33.04|=0.642
91047536|NCT02985879|181979897|SUPERIORITY|The analysis utilized a likelihood-based, mixed-effects model, repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of the change from baseline for each postbaseline value and compared each ABBV-8E12 dose group with the placebo group. The model, which used all observed data, included fixed, categorical effects for treatment, site, visit, baseline score-by-visit interaction and treatment-by-visit interaction, with continuous fixed covariates for the corresponding baseline score.|LS Mean Difference|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.53|=|0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|7.51|||Mixed-effects model, repeated measures||ABBV-8E12 2000 mg - Placebo|ABBV-8E12 2000 mg vs Placebo||7.51|-2.48|=0.323
91047537|NCT02985879|181979897|SUPERIORITY|The analysis utilized a likelihood-based, mixed-effects model, repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of the change from baseline for each postbaseline value and compared each ABBV-8E12 dose group with the placebo group. The model, which used all observed data, included fixed, categorical effects for treatment, site, visit, baseline score-by-visit interaction and treatment-by-visit interaction, with continuous fixed covariates for the corresponding baseline score.|LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.51|=|0.974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.86|5.02|||Mixed-effects model, repeated measures||ABBV-8E12 4000 mg - Placebo|ABBV-8E12 4000 mg vs Placebo||5.02|-4.86|=0.974
91047538|NCT02985879|181979902|SUPERIORITY|The analysis utilized a likelihood-based, mixed-effects model, repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of the change from baseline for each postbaseline value and compared each ABBV-8E12 dose group with the placebo group. The model, which used all observed data, included fixed, categorical effects for treatment, site, visit, baseline score-by-visit interaction and treatment-by-visit interaction, with continuous fixed covariates for the corresponding baseline score.|LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|=|0.761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.23|||Mixed-effects model, repeated measures||ABBV-8E12 2000 mg - Placebo|ABBV-8E12 2000 mg vs Placebo||0.23|-0.31|=0.761
91001267|NCT03803202|181884806|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|2.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.85|4.22|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 20B||4.22|1.85|
91001268|NCT03803202|181884806|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|2.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.79|3.88|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 22F||3.88|1.79|
91001269|NCT03803202|181884806|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|2.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|3.01|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 33F||3.01|1.40|
91001270|NCT03803202|181884806|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|2.84|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 2||2.84|1.37|
91001271|NCT03803202|181884806|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|2.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.12|4.18|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 8||4.18|2.12|
91001272|NCT03803202|181884806|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|2.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|4.44|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 9N||4.44|2.02|
91001273|NCT03803202|181884806|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|3.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.25|5.86|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 10A||5.86|2.25|
91001274|NCT03803202|181884806|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|2.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.96|4.18|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 11A||4.18|1.96|
91001275|NCT03803202|181884806|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|2.96|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 12F||2.96|0.91|
91001276|NCT03803202|181884806|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|2.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.87|4.61|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 15B||4.61|1.87|
91001277|NCT03803202|181884806|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.55|6.26|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 17F||6.26|2.55|
91001278|NCT03803202|181884806|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|3.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.46|5.91|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 22F||5.91|2.46|
91001279|NCT03803202|181884806|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|4.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.74|5.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 22F||5.90|2.74|
91001280|NCT03803202|181884806|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|2.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|3.23|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 33F||3.23|1.38|
91001281|NCT00293241|181884807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.927||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.612|1.405|||Log Rank||"Hospitalization:hospital admission with overnight stay;ER/office visits with cardioversions;acute treatment of worsened cardiac condition~CV:new/worsening HF,angina,MI,arrhythmia,stroke, TIA,acute peripheral vascular emergencies,pulmonary embolism"|"Analysis:Time to first cardiovascular hospitalization (CV hosp)~H0:freedom from CV hosp MVP=freedom from CV hosp DDD (dual chamber conventional pacing)~Ha:freedom from CV hosp MVP≠freedom from CV hosp DDD~Power calculation:~The study is designed to detect a difference event-free survival after 2 years of 5.5 % absolute, going from 91.5% to 97%.~Test=two-sided alpha=0.05 power=80% 1:1 randomization n=600"||1.405|0.612|0.72
91001282|NCT00293241|181884808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.127||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.808|1.57|||Log Rank|||"Analysis:Time to first all cause death or cardiovascular hospitalization~H0:freedom from death or CV hospitalization=freedom from death or CV hospitalization~Ha:freedom from death or CV hospitalization≠freedom from death or CV hospitalization"||1.570|0.808|0.48
91001283|NCT00293241|181884809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.521||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.954|2.424|||Log Rank|||Analysis:Time to first persistent AT/AF H0:freedom from persistent AT/AF=freedom from persistent AT/AF Ha:freedom from persistent AT/AF≠freedom from persistent AT/AF||2.424|0.954|0.08
91001284|NCT00293241|181884810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.425||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.573|3.543|||Log Rank|||Analysis:Time to permanent AF H0:freedom from permanent AF=freedom from permanent AF Ha:freedom from permanent AF≠freedom from permanent AF||3.543|0.573|0.44
91001285|NCT00293241|181884811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Analysis:Wilcoxon Test for Comparison of Percentage of Ventricular Pacing (%VP) During Followup by Randomization Arm~H0:distribution %VP MVP=distribution %VP DDD~Ha:distribution %VP MVP≠distribution %VP DDD~Ha:"||||<0.0001
91001286|NCT00293241|181884812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.048
91001287|NCT00293241|181884814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Repeated measures logistic regression|||Analysis:Repeated measures logistic regression||||0.78
91001288|NCT00293241|181884815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Analysis:Repeated measures logistic regression H0:Change in Beta-blockers=Change in Beta-blockers Ha:Change in Beta-blockers≠Change in Beta-blockers||||0.34
91001289|NCT00293241|181884815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Analysis:Repeated measures logistic regression H0:Change in Digitalis/digoxin=Change in Digitalis/digoxin Ha:Change in Digitalis/digoxin≠Change in Digitalis/digoxin||||0.65
91001290|NCT00293241|181884815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Analysis:Repeated measures logistic regression H0:Change in Calcium antagonists=Change in Calcium antagonists Ha:Change in Calcium antagonists≠Change in Calcium antagonists||||0.55
91001291|NCT00293241|181884815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Analysis:Repeated measures logistic regression H0:Change in Antiarrhythmic drug=Change in Antiarrhythmic drug Ha:Change in Antiarrhythmic drug≠Change in Antiarrhythmic drug||||0.53
91001292|NCT00293241|181884817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.243||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.803|1.923|||Log Rank|||"Analysis:Time to all-cause death~H0:survival MVP ON=survival MVP OFF Ha:survival MVP ON≠survival MVP OFF"||1.923|0.803|0.33
91001293|NCT00293241|181884818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.492||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.148|1.637|||Log Rank|||||1.637|0.148|0.24
91001294|NCT00293241|181884819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Statistical test for Number of subjects with CV hospitalization||||0.83
91001295|NCT00293241|181884822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0:Change in P-R interval=Change in P-R interval Ha:Change in P-R interval≠Change in P-R interval||||0.34
91001296|NCT00293241|181884822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0:Change in QRS duration=Change in QRS duration Ha:Change in QRS duration≠Change in QRS duration||||0.19
91001297|NCT00293241|181884822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0:Change in P-wave duration=Change in P-wave duration Ha:Change in P-wave duration≠Change in P-wave duration||||0.29
91001298|NCT00293241|181884823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||No Symptoms (Baseline)||||0.24
91001299|NCT00293241|181884823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||No Symptoms (12 months)||||0.92
91001300|NCT00293241|181884823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||No Symptoms (24 Months)||||1.0
91001301|NCT00293241|181884824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
91001302|NCT01125293|181884829|OTHER|||||||0.69|||||||Two stage design, exact method|||In a two-stage Simon design, a VGPR or better rate of at least 18% is considered promising versus a 5% or less rate. In stage 1, if 1 or fewer of 23 evaluable participants achieve VGPR, the regimen is considered non-promising else continue with 24 more patients enrolled. If \</=4 of 47 evaluable patients have VGPR or better, the regimen is considered non-promising. If \>/=5, then the regimen is considered promising for further study. With this design, there is 90% power and 1-sided 10% alpha.|The study did not continue to stage 2 given 1 VGPR or better response was observed in 23 evaluable participants in stage 1.|||0.69
91001303|NCT01270958|181884836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0||||Comparison between Screening value and Visit 3 value|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91001304|NCT01270958|181884837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0||||Comparison between Screening value and Visit 3 value|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91001305|NCT01270958|181884838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0||||Comparison between Screening value and Visit 3 value|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91001306|NCT01270958|181884839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0||||Comparison between Screening value and Visit 3 value|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91001307|NCT01270958|181884840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0||||Comparison between Screening value and Visit 3 value|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91001308|NCT01270958|181884841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0||||Comparison between Screening value and Visit 3 value|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91001309|NCT01270958|181884842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0||||Comparison between Screening value and Visit 3 value|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91001310|NCT01270958|181884843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0||||Comparison between Screening value and Visit 3 value|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91001311|NCT01270958|181884844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0||||Comparison between Screening value and Visit 3 value|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
91001312|NCT01270958|181884845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0||||Comparison between Screening value and Visit 3 value|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91001313|NCT01270958|181884846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0||||Comparison between Screening value and Visit 3 value|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91001314|NCT01270958|181884847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0||||Comparison between Screening value and Visit 3 value|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91001315|NCT01270958|181884848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0||||Comparison between Screening value and Visit 3 value|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91001316|NCT01270958|181884849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0||||Comparison between Screening value and Visit 3 value|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91001317|NCT01270958|181884850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0||||Comparison between Screening value and Visit 3 value|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91001318|NCT01270958|181884851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0||||Comparison between Screening value and Visit 3 value|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91001319|NCT01270958|181884852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0||||Comparison between Screening value and Visit 3 value|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91001320|NCT01270958|181884853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0||||Comparison between Screening value and Visit 3 value|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91001321|NCT01270958|181884854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0||||Comparison between Screening value and Visit 3 value|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91001322|NCT01367860|181884862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.05|0.26|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.26|-4.05|0.05
91001323|NCT01367860|181884863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
91001324|NCT01367860|181884864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|1.43|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.43|-2.21|<0.05
91001325|NCT01367860|181884865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.01|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.76|1.33|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.33|-2.76|<0.05
91001326|NCT01367860|181884867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.13|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.58|2.01|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.01|-2.58|<0.05
91001327|NCT01367860|181884868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|3.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.3|-1.3|<0.05
91001328|NCT01367860|181884869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.77|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.36|8.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||||8.8|-2.36|<0.05
91001329|NCT01367860|181884870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|8.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||||8.9|-4.4|<0.05
91001330|NCT01367860|181884871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.15|7.55|||t-test, 2 sided|||||7.55|-7.15|<0.05
91001331|NCT01367860|181884872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.65|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.14|7.67|||t-test, 2 sided|||||7.67|-7.14|<0.05
91001332|NCT01367860|181884873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.18|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.16|4.76|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.76|-8.16|<0.05
91001333|NCT01367860|181884874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|3.46|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.46|-0.12|<0.05
91001334|NCT01367860|181884875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|2.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.4|-2|<0.05
91001335|NCT01367860|181884876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.55|1.85|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.85|-2.55|<0.05
91001336|NCT01367860|181884877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|2.23|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.23|-2.29|<0.05
91001337|NCT01367860|181884878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|3.08|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.08|-1.67|<0.05
91001338|NCT02481596|181884892|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.045||||||Beta=.083. Threshold p\<.05.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline values with cubic splines (3 knots).||3 months. Multiply imputed data (m=20) using chained equations.||||.045
91001339|NCT02481596|181884892|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006||||||Beta=.126. Threshold p\<.05.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline values with cubic splines (3 knots).||6 months. Multiply imputed data (m=20) using chained equations.||||.006
91001340|NCT02481596|181884893|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.518||||||Beta=.031. Threshold p\<.05.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline values with cubic splines (3 knots).||3 months. Multiply imputed data (m=20) using chained equations.||||.518
91001341|NCT02481596|181884893|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.092||||||Beta=.092. Threshold p\<.05.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline values with cubic splines (3 knots).||6 months. Multiply imputed data (m=20) using chained equations.||||.092
91001342|NCT02481596|181884894|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53||||||Beta=-.027. Threshold p\<.05|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline values with cubic splines (3 knots).||3 months. Multiply imputed data (m=20) using chained equations||||.53
91001343|NCT02481596|181884894|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41||||||Beta=-.037. Threshold p\<.05.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline values with cubic splines (3 knots).||6 months. Multiply imputed data (m=20) using chained equations.||||.41
91007284|NCT02253173|181898844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91007285|NCT02253173|181898845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91007286|NCT02253173|181898845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91007287|NCT02253173|181898845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91007288|NCT02253173|181898846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0149|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0149
91007289|NCT02253173|181898846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91007290|NCT02253173|181898846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91007291|NCT02253173|181898847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91007292|NCT02253173|181898847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91007293|NCT02253173|181898847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91007294|NCT02253173|181898848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91007295|NCT02253173|181898848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91007296|NCT02253173|181898848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91007297|NCT02253173|181898849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91007298|NCT02253173|181898849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91007299|NCT02253173|181898849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91007300|NCT02253173|181898850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91007301|NCT02253173|181898850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91007302|NCT02253173|181898850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91007303|NCT02253173|181898851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91007304|NCT02253173|181898851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91007305|NCT02253173|181898851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91007306|NCT02253173|181898852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91007307|NCT02253173|181898852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91007308|NCT02253173|181898852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91007309|NCT02253173|181898853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91007310|NCT02253173|181898853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91007311|NCT02253173|181898853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91007312|NCT02253173|181898854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91007313|NCT02253173|181898854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91007314|NCT02253173|181898854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91047539|NCT02985879|181979902|SUPERIORITY|The analysis utilized a likelihood-based, mixed-effects model, repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of the change from baseline for each postbaseline value and compared each ABBV-8E12 dose group with the placebo group. The model, which used all observed data, included fixed, categorical effects for treatment, site, visit, baseline score-by-visit interaction and treatment-by-visit interaction, with continuous fixed covariates for the corresponding baseline score.|LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|=|0.678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.21|||Mixed-effects model, repeated measures||ABBV-8E12 4000 mg - Placebo|ABBV-8E12 4000 mg vs Placebo||0.21|-0.32|=0.678
91047540|NCT02985879|181979903|SUPERIORITY|The analysis utilized a likelihood-based, mixed-effects model, repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of the change from baseline for each postbaseline value and compared each ABBV-8E12 dose group with the placebo group. The model, which used all observed data, included fixed, categorical effects for treatment, site, visit, baseline score-by-visit interaction and treatment-by-visit interaction, with continuous fixed covariates for the corresponding baseline score.|LS Mean Difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3|=|0.653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|5.57|||Mixed-effects model, repeated measures||ABBV-8E12 2000 mg - Placebo|ABBV-8E12 2000 mg vs Placebo||5.57|-3.50|=0.653
91047541|NCT02985879|181979903|SUPERIORITY|The primary efficacy analysis utilized a likelihood-based, mixed-effects model, repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of the change from baseline for each postbaseline value and compared each ABBV-8E12 dose group with the placebo group. The model, which used all observed data, included fixed, categorical effects for treatment, site, visit, baseline score-by-visit interaction and treatment-by-visit interaction, with continuous fixed covariates for the corresponding baseline score.|LS Mean Difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3|=|0.748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|5.57|||Mixed-effects model, repeated measures||ABBV-8E12 4000 mg - Placebo|ABBV-8E12 4000 mg vs Placebo||5.57|-3.50|=0.748
91047542|NCT02985879|181979904|SUPERIORITY|The analysis utilized a likelihood-based, mixed-effects model, repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of the change from baseline for each postbaseline value and compared each ABBV-8E12 dose group with the placebo group. The model, which used all observed data, included fixed, categorical effects for treatment, site, visit, baseline score-by-visit interaction and treatment-by-visit interaction, with continuous fixed covariates for the corresponding baseline score.|LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|=|0.828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.74|||Mixed-effects model, repeated measures||ABBV-8E12 2000 mg - Placebo|ABBV-8E12 2000 mg vs Placebo||0.74|-0.60|=0.828
91047543|NCT02985879|181979904|SUPERIORITY|The primary efficacy analysis utilized a likelihood-based, mixed-effects model, repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of the change from baseline for each postbaseline value and compared each ABBV-8E12 dose group with the placebo group. The model, which used all observed data, included fixed, categorical effects for treatment, site, visit, baseline score-by-visit interaction and treatment-by-visit interaction, with continuous fixed covariates for the corresponding baseline score.|LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|=|0.543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.87|||Mixed-effects model, repeated measures||ABBV-8E12 4000 mg - Placebo|ABBV-8E12 4000 mg vs Placebo||0.87|-0.46|=0.543
91047544|NCT02985879|181979905|SUPERIORITY|The analysis utilized a likelihood-based, mixed-effects model, repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of the change from baseline for each postbaseline value and compared each ABBV-8E12 dose group with the placebo group. The model, which used all observed data, included fixed, categorical effects for treatment, site, visit, baseline score-by-visit interaction and treatment-by-visit interaction, with continuous fixed covariates for the corresponding baseline score.|LS Mean Difference|-5.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|25.44|=|0.829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.66|44.63|||Mixed-effects model, repeated measures||ABBV-8E12 2000 mg - Placebo|ABBV-8E12 2000 mg vs Placebo||44.63|-55.66|=0.829
91047545|NCT02985879|181979905|SUPERIORITY|The analysis utilized a likelihood-based, mixed-effects model, repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of the change from baseline for each postbaseline value and compared each ABBV-8E12 dose group with the placebo group. The model, which used all observed data, included fixed, categorical effects for treatment, site, visit, baseline score-by-visit interaction and treatment-by-visit interaction, with continuous fixed covariates for the corresponding baseline score.|LS Mean Difference|-32.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|25.92|=|0.206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.94|18.23|||Mixed-effects model, repeated measures||ABBV-8E12 4000 mg - Placebo|ABBV-8E12 4000 mg vs Placebo||18.23|-83.94|=0.206
91007315|NCT02253173|181898855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91007316|NCT02253173|181898855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91007317|NCT02253173|181898855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91007318|NCT02253173|181898856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0260
91007319|NCT02253173|181898856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0019|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0019
91007320|NCT02253173|181898856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0105|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0105
91007321|NCT02253173|181898857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0069|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0069
91007322|NCT02253173|181898857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0009|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0009
91007323|NCT02253173|181898857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91007324|NCT02253173|181898858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0003
91007325|NCT02253173|181898858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91007326|NCT02253173|181898858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91007327|NCT02253173|181898859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1269|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1269
91007328|NCT02253173|181898859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0019|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0019
91007329|NCT02253173|181898859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0082|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0082
91007330|NCT02253173|181898860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0094|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0094
91007331|NCT02253173|181898860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0001
91007332|NCT02253173|181898860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0005
91007333|NCT02253173|181898861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0128|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0128
91007334|NCT02253173|181898861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91007335|NCT02253173|181898861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0008|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0008
91007336|NCT02253173|181898862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0014|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0014
91007337|NCT02253173|181898862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91007338|NCT02253173|181898862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91007339|NCT02253173|181898863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9616|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.9616
91007340|NCT02253173|181898863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2439|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2439
91007341|NCT02253173|181898863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6518|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.6518
91007342|NCT02253173|181898864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7829|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7829
91007343|NCT02253173|181898864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2328|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2328
91007344|NCT02253173|181898864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4118|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.4118
91007345|NCT02253173|181898865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0639|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0639
91007346|NCT02253173|181898865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0356|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0356
91007347|NCT02253173|181898865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0914|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0914
91007348|NCT02253173|181898866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0503|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0503
91007349|NCT02253173|181898866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0055|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0055
91007350|NCT02253173|181898866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0263|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0263
91007351|NCT02253173|181898867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91007352|NCT02253173|181898867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91007353|NCT02253173|181898867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91007354|NCT02253173|181898868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91007355|NCT02253173|181898868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91007356|NCT02253173|181898868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91007357|NCT02253173|181898869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91001344|NCT02481596|181884895|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024||||||Beta=.088. Threshold p\<.05.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline values with cubic splines (3 knots); also adjusted for harmful involvement subscale of FIAD due to suppression effect.||3 months. Multiply imputed data (m=20) using chained equations.||||.024
91001345|NCT02481596|181884895|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||Beta=.128. Threshold p\<.05|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline values with cubic splines (3 knots); also adjusted for harmful involvement subscale of FIAD due to suppression effect.||6 months. Multiply imputed data (m=20) using chained equations.||||.003
91001346|NCT02481596|181884896|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||Beta=-.133. Threshold p\<.05.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline values with cubic splines (3 knots); also adjusted for helpful involvement subscale of FIAD due to suppression effect.||3 months. Multiply imputed data (m=20) using chained equations.||||.001
91001347|NCT02481596|181884896|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012||||||Beta=-.115. Threshold p\<.05.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline values with cubic splines (3 knots); also adjusted for helpful involvement subscale of FIAD due to suppression effect.||6 months. Multiply imputed data (m=20) using chained equations.||||.012
91007358|NCT02253173|181898869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91007359|NCT02253173|181898869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91007360|NCT02253173|181898870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91007361|NCT02253173|181898870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91007362|NCT02253173|181898870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91007363|NCT02253173|181898871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91007364|NCT02253173|181898871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91007365|NCT02253173|181898871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91007366|NCT02253173|181898872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91007367|NCT02253173|181898872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91007368|NCT02253173|181898872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91007369|NCT02253173|181898873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91007370|NCT02253173|181898873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91007371|NCT02253173|181898873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91007372|NCT02253173|181898874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91007373|NCT02253173|181898874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91007374|NCT02253173|181898874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91007375|NCT02253173|181898875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91007376|NCT02253173|181898875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91007377|NCT02253173|181898875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91007378|NCT02253173|181898876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91007379|NCT02253173|181898876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91007380|NCT02253173|181898876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91007381|NCT02253173|181898877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91007382|NCT02253173|181898877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91007383|NCT02253173|181898877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91007384|NCT02253173|181898878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91007385|NCT02253173|181898878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91007386|NCT02253173|181898878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91007387|NCT02253173|181898879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0004
91007388|NCT02253173|181898879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91007389|NCT02253173|181898879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91007390|NCT02253173|181898880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0001
91007391|NCT02253173|181898880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91007392|NCT02253173|181898880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91007393|NCT02253173|181898881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91007394|NCT02253173|181898881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91007395|NCT02253173|181898881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91007396|NCT02253173|181898882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91007397|NCT02253173|181898882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91007398|NCT02253173|181898882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91007399|NCT02253173|181898883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9075|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.9075
91007400|NCT02253173|181898883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0492|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0492
91007401|NCT02253173|181898883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0019|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0019
91007402|NCT02253173|181898884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9719|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.9719
91007403|NCT02253173|181898884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0614|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0614
91007404|NCT02253173|181898884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0085|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0085
91007405|NCT02253173|181898885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9999|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.9999
91007406|NCT02253173|181898885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2855|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2855
91007407|NCT02253173|181898885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1189|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1189
91007408|NCT02253173|181898886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4162|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.4162
91001348|NCT02481596|181884897|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015||||||Beta=.114. Threshold p\<.05.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline values with cubic splines (3 knots).||3 months. Multiply imputed data (m=20) using chained equations.||||.015
91001349|NCT02481596|181884897|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.034||||||Beta=.101. Threshold p\<.05.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline values with cubic splines (3 knots).||6 months. Multiply imputed data (m=20) using chained equations.||||.034
91001350|NCT02228564|181884898|NON_INFERIORITY|"The sample size calculation assumes the following:~The LIFESTREAM™ Covered Stent composite event rate is estimated at 10.5% The Performance Goal is set at 19.5% The Type 1 error, α = 0.05 (one-sided). The Type 2 error, β = 0.10 (Power = 1 - β = 90%). The calculated sample size is 139 subjects to be followed through the 9-month follow-up visit (using nQuery 7.0). To accommodate 10% censoring, the sample size is increased to 154."|||||<|0.0325|||||||Exact binomial test|||"H0: The proportion of subjects in the LifeStream™ Covered Stent group (PBBX) with events in the primary endpoint is greater than or equal to that of the PG of 19.5%.~H1: The proportion of subjects in the LifeStream™ Covered Stent group (PBBX) with events in the primary endpoint is less than that of the PG of 19.5%."||||<0.0325
91001351|NCT03136367|181884983|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.045||||||Adjusted for repeated within-patient measurements.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects linear regression that accounted for clinician and site clustering and was adjusted for surgeon and patient characteristics.||||||0.045
91001352|NCT03136367|181884983|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2||||||Adjusted for repeated within-patient measurements.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects linear regression that accounted for clinician and site clustering and was adjusted for surgeon and patient characteristics.||||||0.20
91001353|NCT03136367|181884983|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82||||||Adjusted for repeated within-patient measurements.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects linear regression that accounted for clinician and site clustering and was adjusted for surgeon and patient characteristics.||||||0.82
91001354|NCT03136367|181884984|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.048||||||Adjusted for repeated within-patient measurements|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects linear regression that accounted for clinician and site clustering and was adjusted for surgeon and patient characteristics.||||||0.048
91001355|NCT03136367|181884984|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015||||||Adjusted for repeated within-patient measurements|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects linear regression that accounted for clinician and site clustering and was adjusted for surgeon and patient characteristics.||||||0.015
91001356|NCT03136367|181884984|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43||||||Adjusted for repeated within-patient measurements.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects linear regression that accounted for clinician and site clustering and was adjusted for surgeon and patient characteristics.||||||0.43
91001357|NCT03136367|181884985|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects linear regression that accounted clustering and was adjusted for surgeon and patient characteristics.||||||0.46
91001358|NCT03136367|181884985|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects linear regression that accounted clustering and was adjusted for surgeon and patient characteristics.||||||0.34
91001359|NCT03136367|181884985|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.165|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects linear regression that accounted clustering and was adjusted for surgeon and patient characteristics.||||||0.165
91001360|NCT03136367|181884987|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25||||||Adjusted for repeated within-patient measurements|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects linear regression that accounted for clinician and site clustering and was adjusted for surgeon and patient characteristics.||||||0.25
91001361|NCT03136367|181884987|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89||||||Adjusted for repeated within-patient measurements.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects linear regression that accounted for clinician and site clustering and was adjusted for surgeon and patient characteristics.||||||0.89
91001362|NCT03136367|181884987|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54||||||Adjusted for repeated within-patient measurements.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects linear regression that accounted for clinician and site clustering and was adjusted for surgeon and patient characteristics.||||||0.54
91001363|NCT03136367|181884988|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72||||||Adjusted for repeated within-patient measurements.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects linear regression that accounted for clinician and site clustering and was adjusted for surgeon and patient characteristics.||||||0.72
91001364|NCT03136367|181884988|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41||||||Adjusted for repeated within-patient measurements.|McNemar|Mixed effects linear regression that accounted for clinician and site clustering and was adjusted for surgeon and patient characteristics.||||||0.41
91001365|NCT03136367|181884988|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28||||||Adjusted for repeated within-patient measurements.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects linear regression that accounted for clinician and site clustering and was adjusted for surgeon and patient characteristics.||||||0.28
91001366|NCT03136367|181884989|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects linear regression that accounted for clinician and site clustering and was adjusted for surgeon and patient characteristics.||||||0.01
91001367|NCT03136367|181884989|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects linear regression that accounted for clinician and site clustering and was adjusted for surgeon and patient characteristics.||||||0.12
91001368|NCT03136367|181884989|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects linear regression that accounted for clinician and site clustering and was adjusted for surgeon and patient characteristics.||||||0.78
91001369|NCT03136367|181884990|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects linear regression that accounted for clinician and site clustering and was adjusted for surgeon and patient characteristics.||||||<0.01
91001370|NCT03136367|181884990|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects linear regression that accounted for clinician and site clustering and was adjusted for surgeon and patient characteristics.||||||<0.01
91001371|NCT03136367|181884991|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06||||||Adjusted for repeated within-patient measurements.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects linear regression that accounted for clinician and site clustering and was adjusted for surgeon and patient characteristics.||||||0.06
91001372|NCT03136367|181884991|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65||||||Adjusted for repeated within-patient measurements.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects linear regression that accounted for clinician and site clustering and was adjusted for surgeon and patient characteristics.||||||0.65
91001373|NCT03136367|181884991|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36||||||Adjusted for repeated within-patient measurements.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects linear regression that accounted for clinician and site clustering and was adjusted for surgeon and patient characteristics.||||||0.36
91007409|NCT02253173|181898886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0013|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0013
91001374|NCT03136367|181884992|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11||||||Adjusted for repeated within-patient measurements.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects linear regression that accounted for clinician and site clustering and was adjusted for surgeon and patient characteristics.||||||0.11
91001375|NCT03136367|181884992|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.037||||||Adjusted for repeated within-patient measurements.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects linear regression that accounted for clinician and site clustering and was adjusted for surgeon and patient characteristics.||||||0.037
91001376|NCT03136367|181884992|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28||||||Adjusted for repeated within-patient measurements.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects linear regression that accounted for clinician and site clustering and was adjusted for surgeon and patient characteristics.||||||0.28
91001377|NCT00523614|181884998|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Size of the study adapted to the use of DNG/EE in female fertile age. Market share of DNG/EE of 13% in Germany. Assuming that 30% of women in the fertile age range were current users of OCs, a prevalence of current use of DNG/EE of about 4% was estimated.~Based on these data the number of cases needed to exclude a twofold increased VTE risk was estimated at about 500-700 cases (based on four controls per case)."|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89|||<|0.05||95.0|0.57|1.39|||Regression, Logistic|||Null hypothesis: OR ≥ 2 (VTE of DNG/EE vs. other low-dose COC)||1.39|0.57|<0.05
91001378|NCT01594749|181884999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method with stratification of gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage difference in Fosaprepitant Regimen vs. Control Regimen||||<0.001
91001379|NCT01594749|181885000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage vs. Control|0.6||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.7||P-value based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||1.7|-0.2|0.085
91001380|NCT01594749|181885002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value based on CMH method with stratification of gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage difference in Fosaprepitant Regimen vs. Control Regimen||||<0.001
91001381|NCT01594749|181885003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.184||||||P-value based on CMH method with stratification of gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage difference in Fosaprepitant Regimen vs. Control Regimen||||0.184
91001382|NCT01594749|181885004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value based on CMH method with stratification of gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage difference in Fosaprepitant Regimen vs. Control Regimen||||<0.001
91001383|NCT04038385|181885029|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-42.87||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.25|-20.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-20.49|-65.25|0.001
91001384|NCT04038385|181885030|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|23.91||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.21|45.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||45.62|2.21|0.031
91001385|NCT04038385|181885031|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.06||||0.662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.21|-0.33|0.662
91001386|NCT04038385|181885032|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.28||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.55|0.00|0.047
91001387|NCT04038385|181885033|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|17.39|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.64|35.02|||Regression, Logistic|||||35.02|8.64|<0.01
91001388|NCT04038385|181885034|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.9||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|16.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||16.1|1.0|0.056
91001389|NCT04038385|181885035|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|16.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||16.3|1.0|0.050
91001390|NCT04038385|181885036|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.7||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.0|-2.5|0.001
91001391|NCT04038385|181885037|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.1|-1.4|0.082
91001392|NCT04038385|181885038|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.5||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.8|-2.2|0.001
91001393|NCT04038385|181885039|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.0|-1.4|0.039
91001394|NCT04038385|181885040|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.3|-0.3|0.962
91001395|NCT04038385|181885041|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.1|-0.4|.277
91001396|NCT04038385|181885042|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.2|-1.0|0.155
91001397|NCT04038385|181885043|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.7|-0.5|0.740
91001398|NCT04038385|181885044|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.1|-0.5|.122
91001399|NCT04038385|181885045|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.1|-0.5|.177
91001400|NCT04038385|181885046|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.5|-0.3|0.514
91001401|NCT04038385|181885047|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.6|-0.2|0.335
91001402|NCT04038385|181885048|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.6|-0.4|0.750
91001403|NCT04038385|181885049|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.3|-0.7|0.455
91001404|NCT04038385|181885050|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.8|-0.0|0.053
91001405|NCT04038385|181885051|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.9|-0.9|.986
91001406|NCT04038385|181885052|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.2|0.6|0.810
91001407|NCT04038385|181885053|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.7|0.4|0.591
91001408|NCT02279160|181885067|SUPERIORITY||Multiple imputation|0.742||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.575|0.958|||ANCOVA|||||0.958|0.575|0.0220
91001409|NCT02279160|181885068|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimate|0.0||||0.9002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.0|30.0|||Stratified Wilcoxon|||||30.0|-28.0|0.9002
91007410|NCT02253173|181898886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0003
91007411|NCT02253173|181898887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9929|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.9929
91007412|NCT02253173|181898887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9634|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.9634
91007413|NCT02253173|181898887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0898|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0898
91007414|NCT02253173|181898888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5146|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.5146
91007415|NCT02253173|181898888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0099|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0099
91047546|NCT02985879|181979906|SUPERIORITY|The analysis utilized a likelihood-based, mixed-effects model, repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of the change from baseline for each postbaseline value and compared each ABBV-8E12 dose group with the placebo group. The model, which used all observed data, included fixed, categorical effects for treatment, site, visit, baseline score-by-visit interaction and treatment-by-visit interaction, with continuous fixed covariates for the corresponding baseline score.|LS Mean Difference|4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.88|=|0.304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.65|11.65|||Mixed-effects model, repeated measures||ABBV-8E12 2000 mg - Placebo|ABBV-8E12 2000 mg vs Placebo||11.65|-3.65|=0.304
91047547|NCT02985879|181979906|SUPERIORITY|The analysis utilized a likelihood-based, mixed-effects model, repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of the change from baseline for each postbaseline value and compared each ABBV-8E12 dose group with the placebo group. The model, which used all observed data, included fixed, categorical effects for treatment, site, visit, baseline score-by-visit interaction and treatment-by-visit interaction, with continuous fixed covariates for the corresponding baseline score.|LS Mean Difference|4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.88|=|0.243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.11|12.19|||Mixed-effects model, repeated measures||ABBV-8E12 4000 mg - Placebo|ABBV-8E12 4000 mg vs Placebo||12.19|-3.11|=0.243
91047548|NCT02985879|181979907|SUPERIORITY|The analysis utilized a likelihood-based, mixed-effects model, repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of the change from baseline for each postbaseline value and compared each ABBV-8E12 dose group with the placebo group. The model, which used all observed data, included fixed, categorical effects for treatment, site, visit, baseline score-by-visit interaction and treatment-by-visit interaction, with continuous fixed covariates for the corresponding baseline score.|LS Mean Difference|-26.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|53.86||0.625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-132.76|79.94|||Mixed-effects model, repeated measures||ABBV-8E12 2000 mg - Placebo|ABBV-8E12 2000 mg vs Placebo||79.94|-132.76|0.625
91047549|NCT02985879|181979907|SUPERIORITY|The analysis utilized a likelihood-based, mixed-effects model, repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of the change from baseline for each postbaseline value and compared each ABBV-8E12 dose group with the placebo group. The model, which used all observed data, included fixed, categorical effects for treatment, site, visit, baseline score-by-visit interaction and treatment-by-visit interaction, with continuous fixed covariates for the corresponding baseline score.|LS Mean Difference|33.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|55.47|=|0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.34|142.71|||Mixed-effects model, repeated measures||ABBV-8E12 4000 mg - Placebo|ABBV-8E12 4000 mg vs Placebo||142.71|-76.34|=0.550
91047550|NCT02985879|181979908|SUPERIORITY|The analysis utilized a likelihood-based, mixed-effects model, repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of the change from baseline for each postbaseline value and compared each ABBV-8E12 dose group with the placebo group. The model, which used all observed data, included fixed, categorical effects for treatment, site, visit, baseline score-by-visit interaction and treatment-by-visit interaction, with continuous fixed covariates for the corresponding baseline score.|LS Mean Difference|1739.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2502.95|=|0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3201.75|6680.02|||Mixed-effects model, repeated measures||ABBV-8E12 2000 mg - Placebo|ABBV-8E12 2000 mg vs Placebo||6680.02|-3201.75|=0.488
91047551|NCT02985879|181979908|SUPERIORITY|The analysis utilized a likelihood-based, mixed-effects model, repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of the change from baseline for each postbaseline value and compared each ABBV-8E12 dose group with the placebo group. The model, which used all observed data, included fixed, categorical effects for treatment, site, visit, baseline score-by-visit interaction and treatment-by-visit interaction, with continuous fixed covariates for the corresponding baseline score.|LS Mean Difference|3684.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2487.32|=|0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1225.46|8595.29|||Mixed-effects model, repeated measures||ABBV-8E12 4000 mg - Placebo|ABBV-8E12 4000 mg vs Placebo||8595.29|-1225.46|=0.140
91047552|NCT02985879|181979909|SUPERIORITY|The analysis utilized a likelihood-based, mixed-effects model, repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of the change from baseline for each postbaseline value and compared each ABBV-8E12 dose group with the placebo group. The model, which used all observed data, included fixed, categorical effects for treatment, site, visit, baseline score-by-visit interaction and treatment-by-visit interaction, with continuous fixed covariates for the corresponding baseline score.|LS Mean Difference|207.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|592.68|=|0.726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-962.98|1378.88|||Mixed-effects model, repeated measures||ABBV-8E12 2000 mg - Placebo|ABBV-8E12 2000 mg vs Placebo||1378.88|-962.98|=0.726
91050346|NCT04168190|181987002|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>0.33 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|2.16|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 22F. Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||2.16|1.16|<0.001
91001410|NCT04362813|181885227|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.2874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.54|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio is based on a Logistic regression model adjusted by treatment, region (North America vs Europe), and baseline 9-point ordinal scale (\<=4, \>=5).||2.54|0.76|0.2874
91001411|NCT04362813|181885228|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67||||0.3303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.5|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio is based on a Logistic regression model adjusted by treatment, region (North America vs Europe), and baseline 9-point ordinal scale (\<=4, \>=5)||1.50|0.30|0.3303
91001412|NCT04445688|181885260|SUPERIORITY||difference in Least Squares Mean|-7.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|-4.4|||ANOVA|||||-4.4|-10.2|<0.0001
91001413|NCT04445688|181885261|SUPERIORITY||difference in Least Squares Mean|-21.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.5|-14.1|||ANOVA|||||-14.1|-29.5|<0.0001
91001414|NCT04445688|181885262|SUPERIORITY||difference in Least Squares Mean|-7.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|-4.2|||ANOVA|||||-4.2|-10.5|<0.0001
91001415|NCT00918346|181885274|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence limit was set to 1.5 mmHg. Equivalence was shown if the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference (unpreserved-preserved) lay entirely within the equivalence range (-1.5 mmHg, 1.5 mmHg). Target sample size was 34 evaluable patients (40 randomized), assuming a standard deviation of 3.0 mmHg change in IOP, a power of 80%, an intra-class correlation coefficient of 0.60 and a twosided type 1 error rate of 5%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.96||95.0|-0.46|0.49|||ANCOVA|Baseline IOP a covariate|Analysis model used IOP measurements at four timepoints (at 8, 12, 16 and 20 o'clock) on Baseline and Week 4.|H1 (the alternative hypothesis aimed to be proven): the unpreserved formulation is equivalent with the preserved formulation||0.49|-0.46|0.96
91007416|NCT02253173|181898888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0150
91007417|NCT02253173|181898889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9039|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.9039
91007418|NCT02253173|181898889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3751|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3751
91007419|NCT02253173|181898889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0073|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0073
91007420|NCT02422186|181898940|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square (LS) Means|-3.6|||=|0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|0.07|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.07|-7.20|=0.059
91007421|NCT02422186|181898941|OTHER||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-3.6|||=|0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.16|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||||-0.03|-7.16|=0.052
91007422|NCT05281094|181898948|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine Efficacy|12.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.51|50.35|||||. Vaccine efficacy is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95.0% CI is above 0%.|VE is defined 100% \[1- (λV/λC)\], where λV and λC denote the hazard rates for the HIL-214 and placebo arms respectively, obtained via a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, using Efron's method for handling ties. The model includes a term for vaccine group and was stratified by country, whereby the United States, Dominican Republic, and Puerto Rico were considered one country. The 95% confidence interval as calculated by subtracting the confidence limits of hazard ratio from 1.||50.35|-52.51|
91007423|NCT05281094|181898949|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine Efficacy|17.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.52|44.7|||||Vaccine efficacy is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95.0% CI is above 0%.|VE is defined 100% \[1- (λV/λC)\], where λV and λC denote the hazard rates for the HIL-214 and placebo arms respectively, obtained via a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, using Efron's method for handling ties. The model includes a term for vaccine group and was stratified by country, whereby the United States, Dominican Republic, and Puerto Rico were considered one country. The 95% confidence interval as calculated by subtracting the confidence limits of hazard ratio from 1||44.70|-24.52|
91047553|NCT02985879|181979909|SUPERIORITY|The analysis utilized a likelihood-based, mixed-effects model, repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of the change from baseline for each postbaseline value and compared each ABBV-8E12 dose group with the placebo group. The model, which used all observed data, included fixed, categorical effects for treatment, site, visit, baseline score-by-visit interaction and treatment-by-visit interaction, with continuous fixed covariates for the corresponding baseline score.|LS Mean Difference|133.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|611.91|=|0.828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1075.26|1342.4|||Mixed-effects model, repeated measures||ABBV-8E12 4000 mg - Placebo|ABBV-8E12 4000 mg vs Placebo||1342.40|-1075.26|=0.828
91047554|NCT04146363|181979982|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|29.7|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.6|37.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||37.8|21.6|<0.000001
91047555|NCT04146363|181979983|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|42.0|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.3|50.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||50.6|33.3|<0.000001
91047556|NCT04146363|181979984|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.7||||0.218644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|4.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.0|-0.6|0.218644
91047557|NCT04146363|181979985|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.6||||0.000498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|13.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||13.6|5.7|0.000498
91047558|NCT04146363|181979986|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|30.8|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.1|39.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||39.4|22.1|<0.000001
91047559|NCT04146363|181979987|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|28.8|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.3|36.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||36.3|21.3|<0.000001
91047560|NCT04146363|181979988|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-30.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.915|<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.1|-22.7|||ANCOVA|||||-22.7|-38.1|<0.000001
91047561|NCT04146363|181979989|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|32.9|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.6|41.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||41.3|24.6|<0.000001
91047562|NCT04146363|181979990|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|35.1|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.3|43.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||43.9|26.3|<0.000001
91047563|NCT04146363|181979991|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-38.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.151|<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.4|-30.2|||ANCOVA|||||-30.2|-46.4|<0.000001
91047564|NCT04146363|181979992|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0|<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.4|-14.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-14.5|-22.4|<0.000001
91047565|NCT04146363|181979993|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.7||||0.000412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.2|15.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||15.2|6.2|0.000412
91047566|NCT04146363|181979994|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68|<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|-4.5|||ANCOVA|||||-4.5|-7.1|<0.000001
91047567|NCT04146363|181979995|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|38.8|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.3|49.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||49.3|28.3|<0.000001
91047568|NCT04146363|181979996|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|41.8|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.2|52.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||52.3|31.2|<0.000001
91047569|NCT04146363|181979997|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-32.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.23|<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.6|-22.1|||ANCOVA|||||-22.1|-42.6|<0.000001
91047570|NCT04146363|181979998|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.098|<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.6|||ANCOVA|||||-0.6|-0.9|<0.000001
91047571|NCT04146363|181979999|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|34.6|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.2|43.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||43.0|26.2|<0.000001
91047572|NCT04146363|181980000|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.5||||0.275529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|3.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.9|-0.8|0.275529
91047573|NCT04146363|181980001|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.3||||0.016656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|8.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||8.6|1.9|0.016656
91047574|NCT04146363|181980002|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|19.3||||3e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.7|25.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||25.0|13.7|0.000003
91047575|NCT04146363|181980003|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.8||||0.244105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|4.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.3|-0.8|0.244105
91047576|NCT04146363|181980004|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.8||||0.01445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|9.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||9.4|2.2|0.014450
91047577|NCT04146363|181980005|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.9||||2e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.9|26.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||26.9|14.9|0.000002
91047578|NCT04146363|181980006|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-30.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.203|<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.59|-24.0|||ANCOVA|||||-24.00|-36.59|<0.000001
91047579|NCT04146363|181980008|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.9||||0.072375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|38.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||38.1|-2.3|0.072375
91047580|NCT04146363|181980008|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.5||||0.106653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|39.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||39.5|-4.5|0.106653
91047581|NCT04146363|181980009|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|28.0||||0.029857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|53.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||53.2|2.8|0.029857
91047582|NCT04146363|181980009|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|29.0||||0.019744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.6|53.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||53.3|4.6|0.019744
91047583|NCT04146363|181980010|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.8||||0.268265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|43.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||43.8|-12.2|0.268265
91047584|NCT04146363|181980010|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.6||||0.192776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|42.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||42.7|-9.4|0.192776
91047585|NCT04146363|181980011|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.6||||0.185361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|46.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||46.6|-9.3|0.185361
91047586|NCT04146363|181980011|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.6||||0.192776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|42.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||42.7|-9.4|0.192776
91047587|NCT04146363|181980012|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.756||0.714208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.15|7.66|||ANCOVA|||||7.66|-11.15|0.714208
91047588|NCT04146363|181980012|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.4748||0.237855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.01|3.76|||ANCOVA|||||3.76|-15.01|0.237855
91047589|NCT04146363|181980013|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.2|||ANCOVA|||UK||0.2|0.1|<0.000001
91047590|NCT04146363|181980013|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01|<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.1|||ANCOVA|||US||0.1|0.1|<0.000001
91047591|NCT04146363|181980014|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.66|<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|11.5|||ANCOVA|||||11.5|5.0|<0.000001
91047592|NCT04146363|181980015|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|-5.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.7|-8.9|<0.000001
91047593|NCT04146363|181980016|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.917||0.716224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.93|4.8|||ANCOVA|||||4.80|-6.93|0.716224
91047594|NCT04146363|181980017|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.599||0.089275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.73|0.72|||ANCOVA|||||0.72|-9.73|0.089275
91047595|NCT04146363|181980018|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.796||4e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.88|-1.75|||ANCOVA|||||-1.75|-4.88|0.000040
91047596|NCT04146363|181980019|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.697||0.000127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.07|-1.33|||ANCOVA|||||-1.33|-4.07|0.000127
91047597|NCT04146363|181980020|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121||0.455291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.15|||ANCOVA|||||0.15|-0.33|0.455291
91047598|NCT04146363|181980021|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52||6.9e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|-3.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.9|-10.1|0.000069
91047599|NCT03660241|181980023|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|138.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.74|204.61|||ANOVA|||Test: the moderate renal impairment group; Reference: the normal renal function group.||204.61|93.74|
91001416|NCT00918346|181885275|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence limit was set to 1.5 mmHg. Equivalence was shown if the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference (unpreserved-preserved) lay entirely within the equivalence range (-1.5 mmHg, 1.5 mmHg). Target sample size was 34 evaluable patients (40 randomized), assuming a standard deviation of 3.0 mmHg change in IOP, a power of 80%, an intra-class correlation coefficient of 0.60 and a twosided type I error rate of 5%.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.83||95.0|-0.52|0.42|||ANCOVA|Baseline IOP a covariate|Analysis model used IOP measurements at four timepoints (at 8, 12, 16 and 20 o'clock) on Baseline and Week 4|H1 (the alternative hypothesis aimed to be proven): the unpreserved formulation is equivalent with the preserved formulation||0.42|-0.52|0.83
91001417|NCT03549429|181885281|SUPERIORITY||Percent difference|8.0||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|14.4|||McNemar|||We compared the proportion of patients who had postoperative eyelid erythema with Tegaderm™ to those who had postop eyelid erythema with EyeGard®.||14.4|1.5|0.03
91001418|NCT03549429|181885282|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired||||||0.23
91001419|NCT02157168|181885284|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.624||||||This comparison reflects intent to treat and is the main comparison in the study.|Chi-squared|||CG and IG (IG1+IG2)||||0.624
91001420|NCT02157168|181885284|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||This comparison could be considered to be a per protocol analysis. Note, however, that the IG1 group was self-selected.|Chi-squared|||||||0.001
91001421|NCT02157168|181885285|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.278||||||This comparison reflects intent to treat and compares the two randomized groups CG and IG (IG1+IG2).|Chi-squared|||CG and IG (IG1+IG2)||||0.278
91001422|NCT02157168|181885285|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.056||||||This comparison could be considered to be a per protocol analysis. Note, however, that the IG1 group was self-selected.|Chi-squared|||||||0.056
91001423|NCT02157168|181885286|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.889||||||This comparison reflects intent to treat and compares the two randomized groups CG and IG (IG1+IG2).|Chi-squared|||CG and IG (IG1+IG2)||||0.889
91001424|NCT02157168|181885286|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.691||||||This comparison could be considered to be a per protocol analysis. Note, however, that the IG1 group was self-selected.|Chi-squared|||||||0.691
91001425|NCT02157168|181885287|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.741||||||This comparison reflects intent to treat and compares the two randomized groups CG and IG (IG1+IG2).|Chi-squared|||CG and IG (IG1+IG2)||||0.741
91001426|NCT02157168|181885287|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.966||||||This comparison could be considered to be a per protocol analysis. Note, however, that the IG1 group was self-selected.|Chi-squared|||||||0.966
91001427|NCT02157168|181885288|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.117||||||This comparison captures the change over the intervention period.|Chi-squared|||||||.117
91001428|NCT02157168|181885288|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.638||||||This comparison is an indication of whether the change seen between baseline and 6 months in the IG1 was due to the intervention or simply due to 6 months' enrollment.|Chi-squared|||||||.638
91001429|NCT02971293|181885289|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 100 µg vs placebo||||<0.001
91001430|NCT02971293|181885289|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 600 µg vs placebo||||<0.001
91001431|NCT02971293|181885289|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 600 µg vs AZD8871 100 µg||||0.020
91001432|NCT02971293|181885301|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 100 µg vs placebo||||0.002
91001433|NCT02971293|181885301|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 600 µg vs placebo||||<0.001
91001434|NCT02971293|181885301|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 600 µg vs AZD8871 100 µg||||0.011
91001435|NCT02971293|181885302|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 100 µg vs placebo||||<0.001
91001436|NCT02971293|181885302|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 600 µg vs placebo||||<0.001
91001437|NCT02971293|181885302|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.201|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 600 µg vs AZD8871 100 µg||||0.201
91001438|NCT02971293|181885303|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effect: treatment, sequence, period, treatment\*day. Repeat factor: day. Random effect: patient nested in sequence. Continuous covar: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 100 µg vs placebo||||<0.001
91001439|NCT02971293|181885303|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effect: treatment, sequence, period, treatment\*day. Repeat factor: day. Random effect: patient nested in sequence. Continuous covar: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 600 µg vs placebo||||<0.001
91001440|NCT02971293|181885303|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effect: treatment, sequence, period, treatment\*day. Repeat factor: day. Random effect: patient nested in sequence. Continuous covar: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 600 µg vs AZD8871 100 µg||||0.020
91001441|NCT02971293|181885304|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 100 µg vs placebo||||<0.001
91001442|NCT02971293|181885304|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 600 µg vs placebo||||<0.001
91001443|NCT02971293|181885304|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 600 µg vs AZD8871 100 µg||||<0.001
91047600|NCT03660241|181980023|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|99.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|57.3|171.43|||ANOVA|||Test: the severe renal impairment group; Reference: the normal renal function group||171.43|57.30|
91001444|NCT02971293|181885305|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 100 µg vs placebo||||<0.001
91001445|NCT02971293|181885305|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 600 µg vs placebo||||<0.001
91001446|NCT02971293|181885305|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.092|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 600 µg vs AZD8871 100 µg||||0.092
91001447|NCT02971293|181885306|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 100 µg vs placebo||||<0.001
91001448|NCT02971293|181885306|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 600 µg vs placebo||||<0.001
91001449|NCT02971293|181885306|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.279|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 600 µg vs AZD8871 100 µg||||0.279
91001450|NCT02971293|181885307|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effect: treatment, sequence, period, treatment\*day. Repeat factor: day. Random effect: patient nested in sequence. Continuous covar: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 100 µg vs placebo||||<0.001
91001451|NCT02971293|181885307|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effect: treatment, sequence, period, treatment\*day. Repeat factor: day. Random effect: patient nested in sequence. Continuous covar: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 600 µg vs placebo||||<0.001
91001452|NCT02971293|181885307|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effect: treatment, sequence, period, treatment\*day. Repeat factor: day. Random effect: patient nested in sequence. Continuous covar: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 600 µg vs AZD8871 100 µg||||<0.001
91001453|NCT02971293|181885308|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.205|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 100 µg vs placebo||||0.205
91047601|NCT03660241|181980024|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|182.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|117.09|285.71|||ANOVA|||Test: the moderate renal impairment group; Reference: the normal renal function group||285.71|117.09|
91047602|NCT03660241|181980024|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|121.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|68.32|215.41|||ANOVA|||Test: the severe renal impairment group; Reference: the normal renal function group||215.41|68.32|
91001454|NCT02971293|181885308|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 600 µg vs placebo||||0.002
91001455|NCT02971293|181885308|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 600 µg vs AZD8871 100 µg||||0.060
91001456|NCT02971293|181885309|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.111|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 100 µg vs placebo||||0.111
91001457|NCT02971293|181885309|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 600 µg vs placebo||||<0.001
91001458|NCT02971293|181885309|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 600 µg vs AZD8871 100 µg||||0.015
91001459|NCT02971293|181885310|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.621|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 100 µg vs placebo||||0.621
91047603|NCT03660241|181980025|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|99.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|59.8|165.57|||ANOVA|||Test: the moderate renal impairment group; Reference: the normal renal function group||165.57|59.80|
91047604|NCT03660241|181980025|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|167.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.2|289.64|||ANOVA|||Test: the severe renal impairment group; Reference: the normal renal function group||289.64|97.20|
91001460|NCT02971293|181885310|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.138|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 600 µg vs placebo||||0.138
91001461|NCT02971293|181885310|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.333|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 600 µg vs AZD8871 100 µg||||0.333
91001462|NCT02971293|181885311|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.748|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 100 µg vs placebo||||0.748
91001463|NCT02971293|181885311|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 600 µg vs placebo||||0.005
91001464|NCT02971293|181885311|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 600 µg vs AZD8871 100 µg||||0.013
91001465|NCT02971293|181885312|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.064|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 100 µg vs placebo||||0.064
91001466|NCT02971293|181885312|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 600 µg vs placebo||||<0.001
91001467|NCT02971293|181885312|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 600 µg vs AZD8871 100 µg||||0.030
91001468|NCT02971293|181885313|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 100 µg vs placebo||||0.018
91047605|NCT03660241|181980026|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|154.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|105.11|226.26|||ANOVA|||Test: the moderate renal impairment group; Reference: the normal renal function group||226.26|105.11|
91001469|NCT02971293|181885313|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 600 µg vs placebo||||<0.001
91001470|NCT02971293|181885313|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.047|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 600 µg vs AZD8871 100 µg||||0.047
91001471|NCT02971293|181885314|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.477|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 100 µg vs placebo||||0.477
91001472|NCT02971293|181885314|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 600 µg vs placebo||||0.014
91001473|NCT02971293|181885314|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.084|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 600 µg vs AZD8871 100 µg||||0.084
91001474|NCT02971293|181885315|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.213|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 100 µg vs placebo||||0.213
91001475|NCT02971293|181885315|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 600 µg vs placebo||||0.001
91001476|NCT02971293|181885315|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 600 µg vs AZD8871 100 µg||||0.046
91001477|NCT02754661|181885316|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin (δ) is pre-defined to be 5% in this study. Posterior Probability was based on Bayesian analysis.|Posterior Probability Bayesian analysis|0.9999|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Support the claim of statistical non-inferiority of CCE vs CTC|||||
91001478|NCT02754661|181885317|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin was set as 10%|Risk Difference (RD)|0.3732|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.203|0.5434|||Farrington-Manning test||Based on Farrington-Manning Method|||0.5434|0.2030|<0.0001
91001479|NCT02754661|181885318|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin was set as 10%|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.026||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0847|0.0327|||Farrington-Manning test||Based on Farrington-Manning Method|||0.0327|-0.0847|0.0190
91001480|NCT02754661|181885319|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin was set as 10%|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0023||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1249|0.1249|||Farrington-Manning test||Based on Farrington-Manning Method|||0.1249|-0.1249|0.0930
91001481|NCT02754661|181885320|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin was set as 10%|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0607||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0371|0.1585|||Farrington-Manning test||Based on Farrington-Manning Method|||0.1585|-0.0371|0.0034
91001482|NCT00729326|181885326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The p-values were not adjusted. The primary measure was change in 24-hour glucose without multiplicity adjustments for other analyses.|ANCOVA|Analyses for continuous variables adjusted for treatment, period, sequence, baseline of the continuous variable.Analysis method was Grizzle's model.||Null hypothesis: The 24-hour average glucose for exenatide was greater than or equal to that for sitagliptin after 4 weeks of treatment. The primary objective was to compare exenatide with sitagliptin on the time-averaged glucose during the 24-hour inpatient periods after 4 weeks of treatment.||||<.001
91001483|NCT00729326|181885327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<.001
91001484|NCT00729326|181885328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.766||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.766
91001485|NCT00729326|181885329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<.001
91001486|NCT00729326|181885330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<.001
91001487|NCT00729326|181885331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.117||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.117
91001488|NCT00729326|181885332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<.001
91001489|NCT00729326|181885333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<.001
91001490|NCT00729326|181885334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<.001
91001491|NCT00729326|181885335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<.001
91001492|NCT00729326|181885336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<.001
91001493|NCT00729326|181885337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<.001
91001494|NCT00729326|181885338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<.001
91001495|NCT01000025|181885348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.21||Stratified by stratification factors at randomization except study center, but included K-Ras mutation status.1-sied p-value.|Log Rank|Stratified by stratification factors at randomization except study center, but included K-Ras mutation status.||The trial was designed to detect a 25% deduction in risk of death with PF-804 with 90% power using a 1-sided 2.5% level significance test. The sample size was estimated as 720 patients.||1.21|0.83|0.506
91001496|NCT01000025|181885349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.03||1-sided p-value|Log Rank|Stratified by stratification factors at randomization except study center.||||1.03|0.61|0.043
91001497|NCT01000025|181885350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.44||1-sided pvalue|Log Rank|||||1.44|0.67|0.46
91001498|NCT01000025|181885351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.79|||Log Rank|Stratified by stratification factors at randomization except study center, but included K-Ras mutation status.||||0.79|0.55|< 0.0001
91001499|NCT01000025|181885352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.11||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.84|20.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||20.3|1.84|0.001
91001500|NCT04423757|181885354|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|3.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1||0.2796|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.81|8.56|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as BI - Placebo.|Mixed effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline, and baseline by visit interaction; patient as a random effect; unstructured covariance matrix for within-patient errors and Kenward-Roger approximation for denominator degrees of freedom.||8.56|-1.81|0.2796
91001501|NCT04423757|181885355|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.276||||0.0468|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.091|0.781|||Regression, Logistic||For the calculation of the odds ratio Placebo is taken as reference.|Logistic regression includes treatment as covariate.||0.781|0.091|0.0468
91001502|NCT04423757|181885356|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|1.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5||0.698|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.47|7.17|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as BI - Placebo.|S-Anxiety scale - Mixed effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline, and baseline by visit interaction; patient as a random effect; unstructured covariance matrix for within-patient errors and Kenward-Roger approximation for denominator degrees of freedom.||7.17|-4.47|0.6980
91001503|NCT04423757|181885356|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|3.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1||0.2589|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.67|8.76|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as BI - Placebo.|T-Anxiety scale - Mixed effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline, and baseline by visit interaction; patient as a random effect; unstructured covariance matrix for within-patient errors and Kenward-Roger approximation for denominator degrees of freedom.||8.76|-1.67|0.2589
91001504|NCT04423757|181885357|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.1863|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.13|1.15|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as BI - Placebo.|Mixed effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline, and baseline by visit interaction; patient as a random effect; unstructured covariance matrix for within-patient errors and Kenward-Roger approximation for denominator degrees of freedom.||1.15|-0.13|0.1863
91001505|NCT04423757|181885358|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1||0.8326|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.46|5.76|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as BI - Placebo.|Mixed effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline, and baseline by visit interaction; patient as a random effect; unstructured covariance matrix for within-patient errors and Kenward-Roger approximation for denominator degrees of freedom.||5.76|-4.46|0.8326
91001506|NCT04423757|181885359|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.5567|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.43|0.89|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as BI - Placebo.|Mixed effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline, and baseline by visit interaction; patient as a random effect; unstructured covariance matrix for within-patient errors and Kenward-Roger approximation for denominator degrees of freedom.||0.89|-0.43|0.5567
91001507|NCT01654523|181885380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change in the single arm trial|6.695|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.505|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.041|9.348|||Paired t-test|||||9.348|4.041|<0.05
91001508|NCT01575899|181885393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.629|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1526||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|5.42|||Chi-squared|||||5.42|1.28|0.008
91001509|NCT01575899|181885395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2589||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|10.02|||Chi-squared|||||10.02|1.5|0.004
91001510|NCT00753688|181885467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.48||Stratified two-sided log rank p-value|Log Rank||The HR was adjusted for World Health Organization (WHO) performance status scale (0 versus 1 at Baseline) and number of prior lines of systemic treatment for advanced disease (0/1 versus 2+).|||0.48|0.26|<0.001
91001511|NCT00753688|181885468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.12||Stratified two-sided log rank p-value|Log Rank||The HR was adjusted for World Health Organization (WHO) performance status scale (0 versus 1 at Baseline) and number of prior lines of systemic treatment for advanced disease (0/1 versus 2+).|||1.12|0.67|0.256
91001512|NCT00753688|181885472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.6||Stratified two-sided log rank p-value for leiomyosarcoma|Log Rank||The HR was adjusted for World Health Organization (WHO) performance status scale (0 versus 1 at Baseline) and number of prior lines of systemic treatment for advanced disease (0/1 versus 2+).|||0.60|0.23|<0.001
91001513|NCT00753688|181885472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.43||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.98||Stratified two-sided log rank p-value for synovial sarcoma|Log Rank||The HR was adjusted for World Health Organization (WHO) performance status scale (0 versus 1 at Baseline) and number of prior lines of systemic treatment for advanced disease (0/1 versus 2+).|||0.98|0.19|0.005
91001514|NCT00753688|181885472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.6||Stratified two-sided log rank p-value for other STS histologies|Log Rank||The HR was adjusted for World Health Organization (WHO) performance status scale (0 versus 1 at Baseline) and number of prior lines of systemic treatment for advanced disease (0/1 versus 2+).|||0.60|0.25|<0.001
91001515|NCT00108953|181885505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio, log|0.6||||0.016||95.0|0.33|0.95|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio: nexavar+doxorubicin over placebo+doxorubicin|The comparison between the 2 groups is done using the log rank test stratified by tumor burden. The null hypothesis is: TTP is the same in both treatment groups.||0.95|0.33|0.016
91001516|NCT00108953|181885506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52||||0.007||95.0|0.37|0.74|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio: nexavar+doxorubicin over placebo+doxorubicin|The comparison between the 2 groups is done using the log rank test stratified by tumor burden. The null hypothesis is: TTP is the same in both treatment groups||0.74|0.37|0.007
91047606|NCT03660241|181980026|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|287.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|196.72|418.89|||ANOVA|||Test: the severe renal impairment group; Reference: the normal renal function group||418.89|196.72|
91047607|NCT03660241|181980027|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|137.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|106.82|176.81|||ANOVA|||Test: the moderate renal impairment group; Reference: the normal renal function group||176.81|106.82|
91047608|NCT03660241|181980027|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|177.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|135.91|232.92|||ANOVA|||Test: the severe renal impairment group; Reference: the normal renal function group||232.92|135.91|
91047609|NCT03660241|181980028|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|269.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|196.61|370.18|||ANOVA|||Test: the moderate renal impairment group; Reference: the normal renal function group||370.18|196.61|
91047610|NCT03660241|181980028|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|571.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|447.27|730.05|||ANOVA|||Test: the severe renal impairment group; Reference: the normal renal function group||730.05|447.27|
91047611|NCT03660241|181980033|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|133.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.45|174.92|||ANOVA|||Test: the moderate renal impairment group; Reference: the normal renal function group||174.92|102.45|
91047612|NCT03660241|181980033|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|129.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.86|180.57|||ANOVA|||Test: the severe renal impairment group; Reference: the normal renal function group||180.57|92.86|
91001517|NCT00108953|181885507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61||||0.018||95.0|0.45|0.83|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio: nexavar+doxorubicin over placebo+doxorubicin|The comparison between the 2 groups is done using the log rank test stratified by tumor burden. The null hypothesis is: TTP is the same in both treatment groups||0.83|0.45|0.018
91001518|NCT00108953|181885509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||0.038||95.0|0.4|1.05|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio: nexavar+doxorubicin over placebo+doxorubicin|The comparison between the 2 groups is done using the log rank test stratified by tumor burden. The null hypothesis is: TTP is the same in both treatment groups||1.05|0.40|0.038
91001519|NCT01854593|181885513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.025
91047613|NCT03660241|181980034|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|210.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|154.6|285.8|||ANOVA|||Test: the moderate renal impairment group; Reference: the normal renal function group||285.80|154.60|
91047614|NCT03660241|181980034|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|290.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|217.39|388.69|||ANOVA|||Test: the severe renal impairment group; Reference: the normal renal function group||388.69|217.39|
91047615|NCT00380692|181980038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7|<|0.001||95.0|-10.0|-3.4||P-value for treatment group differences over time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.4|-10.0|<0.001
91047616|NCT00380692|181980039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.921||95.0|-0.5|0.4||P-value for treatment differences over time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.4|-0.5|0.921
91047617|NCT00380692|181980040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.369||95.0|-1.8|0.7||P-value for treatment differences in Oppositional Score at 8 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||0.7|-1.8|0.369
91047618|NCT00380692|181980040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.024||95.0|-3.7|-0.3||P-value for treatment differences in Hyperactivity score at 8 weeks|ANCOVA|||||-0.3|-3.7|0.024
91047619|NCT00380692|181980040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.179||95.0|-1.7|0.3||P-value for treatment differences in Cognititve/Attention score at 8 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||0.3|-1.7|0.179
91047620|NCT00380692|181980040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.48||0.077||95.0|-5.6|0.3||P-value for treatment differences in ADHD score at 8 weeks|ANCOVA|||||0.3|-5.6|0.077
91047621|NCT00380692|181980042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.028||95.0|-1.0|-0.1||P-value for treatment differences in Time to fall asleep score at 8 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||-0.1|-1.0|0.028
91001520|NCT01854593|181885514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.006
91001521|NCT01854593|181885515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.033
91047622|NCT00380692|181980042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.407||95.0|-0.3|0.9||P-value for treatment differences in Difficulty falling asleep score at 8 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||0.9|-0.3|0.407
91047623|NCT00380692|181980042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.652||95.0|-0.6|0.4||P-value for treatment differences in Total hours of sleep score at 8 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||0.4|-0.6|0.652
91047624|NCT00380692|181980042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.112||95.0|-1.7|0.2||P-value for treatment differences in Quality of sleep score at 8 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||0.2|-1.7|0.112
91047625|NCT00380692|181980042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.188||95.0|-2.9|0.6||P-value for treatment differences in Functional outcome during day score at 8 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||0.6|-2.9|0.188
91047626|NCT00380692|181980043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29||0.452||95.0|-3.5|1.6||P-value for treatment differences in Irritability score at 8 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||1.6|-3.5|0.452
91047627|NCT00380692|181980043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.85||95.0|-2.4|2.0||P-value for treatment differences in Lethargy score at 8 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||2.0|-2.4|0.850
91047628|NCT00380692|181980043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.014||95.0|-2.8|-0.3||P-value for treatment differences in Stereotypic score at 8 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||-0.3|-2.8|0.014
91047629|NCT00380692|181980043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.68||0.01||95.0|-7.8|-1.1||P-value for treatment differences in Hyperactivity score at 8 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||-1.1|-7.8|0.010
91047630|NCT00380692|181980043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.045||95.0|-1.7|0.0||P-value for treatment differences in Inappropriate speech score at 8 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||-0.0|-1.7|0.045
91001522|NCT01854593|181885516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91001523|NCT01854593|181885517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.667|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.667
91001524|NCT01854593|181885518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.593|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.593
91047631|NCT00380692|181980044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.13||0.069||95.0|-8.1|0.3||P-value for treatment differences in Total score at 8 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||0.3|-8.1|0.069
91047632|NCT00380692|181980045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.598||95.0|-1.6|0.9||P-value for treatment differences in Total score at 8 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||0.9|-1.6|0.598
91001525|NCT01854593|181885519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.298|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.298
91001526|NCT01854593|181885520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.929|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.929
91001527|NCT01854593|181885521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.445|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.445
91001528|NCT01854593|181885522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.131|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.131
91001529|NCT01854593|181885523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.149|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.149
91001530|NCT01854593|181885524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.670
91001531|NCT01854593|181885525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.378|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.378
91001532|NCT01216397|181885564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted gMean ratio|99.4||||||90.0|94.2|105.0|||ANOVA|||Standard batch vs. Side batch||105.0|94.2|
91001533|NCT01216397|181885565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted gMean ratio|100.1||||||90.0|96.1|104.2|||ANOVA|||Standard batch vs. Side batch||104.2|96.1|
91001534|NCT01216397|181885566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted gMean ratio|100.1||||||90.0|94.7|105.8|||ANOVA|||Standard batch vs. Side batch||105.8|94.7|
91001535|NCT01216397|181885574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted gMean ratio|97.9||||||90.0|92.5|103.7|||ANOVA|||Standard batch vs. Side batch||103.7|92.5|
91047633|NCT00380692|181980046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.12||0.318||95.0|-33.3|11.0||P-value for treatment differences in Total score at 8 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||11.0|-33.3|0.318
91047634|NCT00380692|181980047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7||0.948||95.0|-5.5|5.2||P-value for treatment differences in Error Rate over time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.2|-5.5|0.948
91047635|NCT00380692|181980047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5||0.399||95.0|-9.7|3.9||P-value for Treatment\*Condition Error Rate irrelevant targets over time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.9|-9.7|0.399
91047636|NCT00380692|181980047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.1||0.57||95.0|-4.3|7.8||P-value for Treatment\*Condition Error Rate relevant nontargets over time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.8|-4.3|0.570
91047637|NCT00380692|181980048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-61.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|66.0||0.352||95.0|-193.5|69.8||P-value for Treatment differences in Reaction time over time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||69.8|-193.5|0.352
91047638|NCT00380692|181980048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-37.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|62.3||0.553||95.0|-160.3|86.2||P-value for Treatment\*Condition Mean Reaction Time correct rejections irrelevant target over time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||86.2|-160.3|0.553
91047639|NCT00380692|181980048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|57.7||0.904||95.0|-107.1|121.1||P-value for Treatment\*Condition Mean Reaction Time correct rejections relevant nontarget over time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||121.1|-107.1|0.904
91047640|NCT00380692|181980049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-21.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|65.9||0.748||95.0|-152.8|110.3||P-value for Treatment differences in Standard Deviation of Reaction Time over time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||110.3|-152.8|0.748
91047641|NCT00380692|181980049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-80.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|77.5||0.299||95.0|-234.3|72.5||P-value for Treatment\*Condition Standard Deviation correct rejections irrelevant target over time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||72.5|-234.3|0.299
91047642|NCT00380692|181980049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|13.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|67.1||0.84||95.0|-119.3|146.5||P-value for Treatment\*Condition Standard Deviation correct rejections relevant nontarget over time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||146.5|-119.3|0.840
91047643|NCT00380692|181980050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8||0.126||95.0|-1.2|9.9||P-value for Treatment differences in Error Rate over time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.9|-1.2|0.126
91047644|NCT00380692|181980050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.297||95.0|-5.2|1.6||P-value for Treatment\*Error Rate absent over time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.6|-5.2|0.297
91047645|NCT00380692|181980050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.023||95.0|-9.4|-0.7||P-value for Treatment\*Targets Load 1 over time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.7|-9.4|0.023
91047646|NCT00380692|181980051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-87.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|71.7||0.228||95.0|-230.4|56.0||P-value for Treatment differences in Reaction Time over time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||56.0|-230.4|0.228
91047647|NCT00380692|181980051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|87.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|77.3||0.26||95.0|-65.6|240.8||P-value for Treatment\*Condition Mean Reaction Time correct rejections Load 1 over time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||240.8|-65.6|0.260
91047648|NCT00380692|181980051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|70.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|59.5||0.239||95.0|-47.3|188.2||P-value for Treatment\*Condition Mean Reaction Time correct rejections Load 2 over time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||188.2|-47.3|0.239
91047649|NCT00380692|181980051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|122.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|80.1||0.128||95.0|-35.9|281.4||P-value for Treatment\*Condition Mean Reaction Time hits Load 1 over time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||281.4|-35.9|0.128
91047650|NCT00380692|181980052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-175.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|88.0||0.051||95.0|-351.5|0.5||P-value for Treatment differences in Standard Deviation of Reaction Time over time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.5|-351.5|0.051
91047651|NCT00380692|181980052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|218.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|90.8||0.018||95.0|38.0|398.2||P-value for Treatment\*Condition Standard Deviation correct rejections Load 1 over time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||398.2|38.0|0.018
91047652|NCT00380692|181980052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|173.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|105.6||0.103||95.0|-35.7|383.0||P-value for Treatment\*Condition Standard Deviation correct rejections Load 2 over time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||383.0|-35.7|0.103
91047653|NCT00380692|181980052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|205.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|99.9||0.042||95.0|7.5|403.6||P-value for Treatment\*Condition Standard Deviation hits Load 1 over time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||403.6|7.5|0.042
91047654|NCT00380692|181980053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.6||0.128||95.0|-16.9|2.3||P-value for Treatment difference in Accuracy over time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.3|-16.9|0.128
91047655|NCT00380692|181980054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.022||95.0|-11.2|-1.0||P-value for Treatment difference in Stability of Movement over time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.0|-11.2|0.022
91047656|NCT00380692|181980055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.43||95.0|-2.4|5.7||P-value for Treatment difference in Error Rate over time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.7|-2.4|0.430
91047657|NCT00380692|181980055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.005||95.0|-11.8|-2.2||P-value for Treatment\*Condition Error Rate irrelevant targets over time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.2|-11.8|0.005
91047658|NCT00380692|181980056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9||0.221||95.0|-9.6|2.3||P-value for Treatment differences in Error Rates over time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.3|-9.6|0.221
91001536|NCT01216397|181885575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted gMean ratio|100.4||||||90.0|95.7|105.4|||ANOVA|||||105.4|95.7|
91001537|NCT01216397|181885576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted gMean ratio|100.3||||||90.0|95.7|105.2|||ANOVA|||Standard batch vs. Side batch||105.2|95.7|
91001538|NCT02925312|181885595|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||McNemar|||The study was powered to detect a difference of 0.5 in the change in HbA1c with SD=2 with 80% power at alpha=0.05 with a sample size of 128 in each group (paired t-test). Differences in patient characteristics and the unadjusted differences in the outcome measures between the intervention and control groups were tested using linear mixed models, McNemar tests and conditional logistic models due to matching.||||0.05
91001539|NCT00971633|181885626|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Study Secondary Hypothesis: A single dose of U.K. ZOFRAN (ondansetron) 8-mg table over-encapsulated is bioequivalent to a single dose of the U.K. ZOFRAN (ondansetron) 8-mg tablet. That is, the true geometric mean ratios (U.K. ZOFRAN tablet over-encapsulated/U.K. ZOFRAN tablet) of the area under the plasma concentration vs. time curve (AUC) from zero to infinity and maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) for ondansetron each lie within the interval 0.80 to 1.25.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.904|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.796|1.028|||||Geometric Mean Ratio (Treatment OE U.K. tablet / Treatment U.K. tablet)|Treatment OE U.K. tablet: an over-encapsulated single 8-mg tablet of United Kingdom (U.K.) ZOFRAN (ondansetron) taken orally Treatment U.K. tablet: a single 8-mg tablet of ZOFRAN (ondansetron) which is marketed in the United Kingdom (U.K.) taken orally||1.028|0.796|
91001540|NCT00971633|181885626|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Study Primary Hypothesis: A single dose of the U.K. ZOFRAN (ondansetron) 8-mg tablet over-encapsulated is bioequivalent to a single dose of the U.S. ZOFRAN (ondansetron) 8-mg tablet. That is, the true geometric mean rations (U.K. ZOFRAN tablet over-encapsulated/U.S. ZOFRAN tablet) of the area under the plasma concentration vs. time curve (AUC) from zero to infinity and maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) for ondansetron each lie within the interval 0.80 to 1.25.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.991|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.873|1.126|||||Geometric Mean Ratio (Treatment OE U.K. tablet / Treatment U.S. tablet)|Treatment OE U.K. tablet: an over-encapsulated single 8-mg tablet of United Kingdom (U.K.) ZOFRAN (ondansetron) taken orally Treatment U.S. tablet: a single 8-mg tablet of ZOFRAN (ondansetron) which is marketed in the United States (U.S.) taken orally||1.126|0.873|
91001541|NCT00971633|181885627|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Study Secondary Hypothesis: A single dose of U.K. ZOFRAN (ondansetron) 8-mg table over-encapsulated is bioequivalent to a single dose of the U.K. ZOFRAN (ondansetron) 8-mg tablet. That is, the true geometric mean ratios (U.K.) ZOFRAN tablet over-encapsulated/U.K. ZOFRAN tablet) of the area under the plasma concentration vs. time curve (AUC) from zero to infinity and maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) for ondansetron each lie within the interval 0.80 to 1.25.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.886|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.813|0.966|||||Geometric Mean Ratio (Treatment OE U.K. tablet / Treatment U.K. tablet)|Treatment OE U.K. tablet: an over-encapsulated single 8-mg tablet of United Kingdom (U.K.) ZOFRAN (ondansetron) taken orally Treatment U.K. tablet: a single 8-mg tablet of ZOFRAN (ondansetron) which is marketed in the United Kingdom (U.K.) taken orally||0.966|0.813|
91001542|NCT00971633|181885627|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|§ Study Primary Hypothesis: A single dose of the U.K. ZOFRAN (ondansetron) 8-mg tablet over-encapsulated is bioequivalent to a single dose of the U.S. ZOFRAN (ondansetron) 8-mg tablet. That is, the true geometric mean rations (U.K. ZOFRAN tablet over-encapsulated/U.S. ZOFRAN tablet) of the area under the plasma concentration vs. time curve (AUC) from zero to infinity and maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) for ondansetron each lie within the interval 0.80 to 1.25.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.951|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.872|1.037|||||Geometric Mean Ratio (Treatment OE U.K. tablet / Treatment U.S. tablet)|Treatment OE U.K. tablet: an over-encapsulated single 8-mg tablet of United Kingdom (U.K.) ZOFRAN (ondansetron) taken orally. Treatment U.S. tablet: a single 8-mg tablet of ZOFRAN (ondansetron) which is marketed in the United States (U.S.) taken orally||1.037|0.872|
91001543|NCT01455415|181885659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.3287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.73||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level, without multiple comparisons' adjustment.|Regression, Logistic|||Analysis was done using a logistic regression model which included baseline pain, sequence, period and treatment as covariate.||1.73|0.83|0.3287
91001544|NCT01455415|181885660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.57||||0.0625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|2.51||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level, without multiple comparisons' adjustment.|Regression, Logistic|||Analysis was done using a logistic regression model which included baseline pain, sequence, period and treatment as covariate.||2.51|0.98|0.0625
91001545|NCT01455415|181885661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.9448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.22||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level, without multiple comparisons' adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was done using a linear mixed effects model which included baseline pain severity, sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effect factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors. The treatment difference (pregabalin - placebo) has been tested using within-participant variability as error term.||0.22|-0.21|0.9448
91001546|NCT01455415|181885662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.4548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.14||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level, without multiple comparisons' adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was done using a linear mixed effects model which included baseline interference score, sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effect factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors. The treatment difference (pregabalin - placebo) has been tested using within-participant variability as error term.||0.14|-0.32|0.4548
91001547|NCT01455415|181885663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.03||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level, without multiple comparisons' adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was done using linear mixed effects model including baseline score, sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effect factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors.||-0.03|-0.44|0.0272
91047659|NCT00380692|181980056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.307||95.0|-2.1|6.3||P-value for Treatment\*Condition Error Rates compatible signals over time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.3|-2.1|0.307
91047660|NCT00380692|181980057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-22.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|68.9||0.752||95.0|-163.1|119.1||P-value for Treatment differences in Reaction Time over time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||119.1|-163.1|0.752
91047661|NCT00380692|181980057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|18.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|31.9||0.564||95.0|-47.0|84.3||P-value for Treatment\*Condition Mean Reaction Time correct rejections Load 2 over time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||84.3|-47.0|0.564
91047662|NCT00107042|181980059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2954|||||||Fisher Exact|||The study wasn't powered to compare the 2 arms but to detect a large difference. A quantitative antibody (a'body) response was measured, but for sample size and power considerations, the outcome was considered to be binary. The primary analysis involved straightforward computation of point estimates and exact confidence intervals of immunogenicity in each arm. The data for primary analysis used the Intent-to-Treat for subjects who were vaccinated at least once. Missing titers were not imputed.||||0.2954
91047663|NCT00107042|181980059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response Rate|87.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|74.26|95.17|||95% confidence interval|||"Two-sided confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for both the Recombivax and Twinrix arms. The CI for the Recombivax arm is presented here."||95.17|74.26|
91047664|NCT00107042|181980059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response Rate|94.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|84.88|98.86|||95% confidence interval|||"Two-sided confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for both the Recombivax and Twinrix arms. The CI for the 'Twinrix arm is presented here."||98.86|84.88|
91047665|NCT00107042|181980060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0608|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis included an assessment of quantitative titer values in each of the two arms using confidence intervals and examining the frequency distributions of the titers in each arm. Transformations were considered (log10) for the titers based on the distributional properties observed in the sample, with the goal of attaining approximate normality of the transformed data.||||0.0608
91047666|NCT00107042|181980060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean response|2.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.05|2.53|||95% confidence interval|||"Two-sided confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for both the Recombivax and Twinrix arms. The CI for the Recombivax arm is presented here."||2.53|2.05|
91047667|NCT00107042|181980060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response rate|2.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|2.76|||95% confidence interval|||"Two-sided confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for both the Recombivax and Twinrix arms. The CI for the Twinrix arm is presented here."||2.76|2.40|
91047668|NCT00107042|181980063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|0.2455|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1757||0.1667|||||||Regression, Linear|||This is a regression analysis for testing the effect of treatment arm (Recombivax vs. Twinrix) on vaccine response as measured in log10 titers. The null hypothesis is no difference between groups.||||0.1667
91047669|NCT00107042|181980063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficent|-0.0025|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1792||0.989||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||This is a regression analysis for testing the effect of site effect(Other sites vs. Baltimore) on vaccine response as measured in log10 titers. The null hypothesis is no difference between groups.||||0.9890
91047670|NCT00107042|181980063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coeffcient|0.2053|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1885||0.2796||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||This is a regression analysis for testing the effect of age(15 - 17 year old particpants vs. 12 - 14 year old participants) on vaccine response as measured in log10 titers. The null hypothesis is no difference between groups.||||0.2796
91047671|NCT00107042|181980063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regresssion coeffcient|-0.4726|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1734||0.008||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||This is a regression analysis for testing the effect of gender(Females vs. Males) on vaccine response as measured in log10 titers. The null hypothesis is no difference between groups.||||0.0080
91047672|NCT00107042|181980063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|0.2189|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1905||0.2543||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||This is a regression analysis for testing the effect of Hispanic ethnicity (Not Hispanic vs. Hispanic) on vaccine response as measured in log10 titers. The null hypothesis is no difference between groups.||||0.2543
91047673|NCT00107042|181980063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|0.2994|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3292||0.3661||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||This is a regression analysis for testing the effect of racial background(White vs. Other/Mixed vs. Black/African American) on vaccine response as measured in log10 titers. The null hypothesis is no difference between groups. In this statistical analysis, information for the comparison between White vs. Other/Mixed Race is presented.||||0.3661
91047674|NCT00107042|181980063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|0.0083|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3497||0.9812||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||This is a regression analysis for testing the effect of racial background(White vs. Other/Mixed vs. Black/African American) on vaccine response as measured in log10 titers. The null hypothesis is no difference between groups. In this statistical analysis, information for the comparison between White vs. Black/African American is presented.||||0.9812
91001548|NCT01455415|181885664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.7344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.3||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level, without multiple comparisons' adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was done using a linear mixed effects model which included baseline HADS-A score, sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effect factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors. The treatment difference (pregabalin - placebo) has been tested using within-participant variability as error term.||0.30|-0.42|0.7344
91047675|NCT00107042|181980063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|-0.0663|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2314||0.7766||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||This is a regression analysis for testing the effect of Tanner Stage for Females(Stage 5 vs. Stages 1 - 4) on vaccine response as measured in log10 titers. The null hypothesis is no difference between groups.||||0.7766
91047676|NCT00107042|181980063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|-0.2929|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2508||0.2492||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||This is a regression analysis for testing the effect of Tanner Stage for Males(Stage 5 vs. Stages 1 - 4) on vaccine response as measured in log10 titers. The null hypothesis is no difference between groups.||||0.2492
91047677|NCT00107042|181980063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coeffcient|-0.316|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1826||0.0877||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||This is a regression analysis for testing the effect of BMI at Baseline(Normal and Underweight (\<25.0) vs. Overweight and Obsese (\>= 25.0)) on vaccine response as measured in log10 titers. The null hypothesis is no difference between groups.||||0.0877
91047678|NCT00107042|181980063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|-0.0292|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0113||0.0117||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||This is a regression analysis for testing the effect of BMI at Baseline(continuous variable) on vaccine response as measured in log10 titers.||||0.0117
91047679|NCT00107042|181980063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|-0.0578|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2163||0.7899||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||This is a regression analysis for testing the effect of smokng cigarettes(Never Smoked vs. Has Smoked) on vaccine response as measured in log10 titers. The null hypothesis is no difference between groups.||||0.7899
91047680|NCT00107042|181980063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|-0.5339|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2803||0.0607||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||This is a regression analysis for testing the effect of sexual identity(Straight (heterosexual) vs. Gay (homosexual), Bi (bisexual), and Not Sure or Undecided) on vaccine response as measured in log10 titers. The null hypothesis is no difference between groups.||||0.0607
91047681|NCT00107042|181980063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|-0.3883|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2779||0.167||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||"This is a regression analysis for testing the effect of age at which the subject first had unforced sex (Never vs. \<= 14 year olds vs. 15-17 year olds) on vaccine response as measured in log10 titers. The null hypothesis is no difference between groups. In this statistical analysis, information for the comparison between never vs. \<= 14 year olds is presented."||||0.1670
91001549|NCT01455415|181885665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.6007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.24||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level, without multiple comparisons' adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was done using a linear mixed effects model which included baseline HADS-D score, sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effect factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors. The treatment difference (pregabalin - placebo) has been tested using within-participant variability as error term.||0.24|-0.42|0.6007
91047682|NCT00107042|181980063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|0.0344|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2065||0.8682||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||"This is a regression analysis for testing the effect of age at which subject had first unforced sex (Never vs. \<= 14 year olds vs. 15 - 17 year olds) on vaccine response as measured in log10 titers. The null hypothesis is no difference between groups. In this statistical analysis, information for the comparison between never vs. 15-17 year olds is presented."||||0.8682
91047683|NCT00107042|181980063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|0.1532|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1896||0.4219||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||This is a regression analysis for testing the effect of total number of lifetime sex partners (0 partners vs. 1-5 partners vs. \>= 6 partners) on vaccine response as measured in log10 titers. The null hypothesis is no difference between groups. In this statistical analysis, information for the comparison between 0 partners vs. 1-5 partners is presented.||||0.4219
91047684|NCT00107042|181980063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|-0.7752|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.242||0.002||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||This is a regression analysis for testing the effect of Total Number of Lifetime Sex Partners(0 partners vs. 1-5 partners vs. \>= 6 partners) on vaccine response as measured in log10 titers. The null hypothesis is no difference between groups. In this statistical analysis, information for the comparison between 0 partners vs. \>= 6 partners is presented.||||0.0020
91047685|NCT00107042|181980063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|0.2921|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2086||0.1659||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||This is a regression analysis for testing the effect of Total Number of Male Lifetime Sex Partners(0 partners vs. 1-5 partners vs. \>= 6 partners) on vaccine response as measured in log10 titers. The null hypothesis is no difference between groups. In this statistical analysis, information for the comparison between 0 partners vs. 1-5 partners is presented.||||0.1659
91047686|NCT00107042|181980063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|-1.6163|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2839||0||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||This is a regression analysis for testing the effect of Total Number of Male Lifetime Sex Partners(0 partners vs. 1-5 partners vs. \>= 6 partners) on vaccine response as measured in log10 titers. The null hypothesis is no difference between groups. In this statistical analysis, information for the comparison between 0 partners vs. \>= 6 partners is presented.||||0.0000
91047687|NCT00107042|181980063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|-0.1788|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2463||0.4701||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||This is a regression analysis for testing the effect of Total Number of Female Lifetime Sex Partners(0 partners vs. 1-5 partners vs. \>= 6 partners) on vaccine response as measured in log10 titers. The null hypothesis is no difference between groups. In this statistical analysis, information for the comparison between 0 partners vs. 1-5 partners is presented.||||0.4701
91047688|NCT00107042|181980063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|0.1083|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3488||0.7572||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||This is a regression analysis for testing the effect of Total Number of Female Lifetime Sex Partners(0 partners vs. 1-5 partners vs. \>= 6 partners) on vaccine response as measured in log10 titers. The null hypothesis is no difference between groups. In this statistical analysis, information for the comparison between 0 partners vs. \>= 6 partners is presented.||||0.7572
91047689|NCT00107042|181980063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|-0.0307|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1809||0.8657||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||This is a regression analysis for testing the effect of whether a subject ever drank alcohol (No vs. Yes) on vaccine response as measured in log10 titers. The null hypothesis is no difference between groups.||||0.8657
91047690|NCT00107042|181980063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|-0.3548|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2076||0.0917||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||This is a regression analysis for testing the effect of whether a subject ever smoked marijuana(No vs. Yes) on vaccine response as measured in log10 titers. The null hypothesis is no difference between groups.||||0.0917
91047691|NCT00107042|181980063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|-0.3474|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3924||0.3788||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||This is a regression analysis for testing the effect of whether a subject ever used drugs not prescribed(No vs. Yes) on vaccine response as measured in log10 titers. The null hypothesis is no difference between groups.||||0.3788
91001550|NCT01455415|181885666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.2987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.13|0.96||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level, without multiple comparisons' adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was done using a linear mixed effects model which included baseline total score, sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effect factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors. The treatment difference (pregabalin - placebo) has been tested using within-participant variability as error term.||0.96|-3.13|0.2987
91001551|NCT01455415|181885667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.1769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.16||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level, without multiple comparisons' adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was done using a linear mixed effects model which included baseline symptoms domain score, sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effect factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors. The treatment difference (pregabalin - placebo) has been tested using within-participant variability as error term.||0.16|-0.85|0.1769
91047692|NCT00107042|181980064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.54||||0.2068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|10.76|||Univariate regression, logistic||The reference group is the 'Recombivax' group.|||10.76|0.60|0.2068
91047693|NCT00107042|181980065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.52||||0.5524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|6.01|||Univariate regression, logistic||The reference group is the 'Other Sites' group.|||6.01|0.38|0.5524
91047694|NCT00107042|181980066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.84||||0.4646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|9.36|||Univariate regression, logistic||The reference group is the '15-17 year' age group|||9.36|0.36|0.4646
91047695|NCT00107042|181980067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.45||||0.339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|2.3|||Univariate regression, logistic||The reference group is the 'Female' group.|||2.30|0.09|0.3390
91047696|NCT00107042|181980068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.86||||0.0102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|29.78|||Univariate regression, logistic||The reference group is the 'Hispanic: NO' group.|||29.78|1.58|0.0102
91047697|NCT00107042|181980068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.38||||0.0118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|34.95||Since Hispanic (no, yes) was a factor with a p-value of \< 0.15 in the unadjusted univariate regression analysis, it was entered into the initial full multivariate model.|Multivariate regression, logistic||"The reference group is the Hispanic: NO group."|||34.95|1.56|0.0118
91047698|NCT00107042|181980069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4||||0.4241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|3.84|||Univariate regression, logistic||The reference group is the 'White' group.|||3.84|0.04|0.4241
91047699|NCT00107042|181980069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.12||||0.2685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|50.76|||Univariate regression, logistic||The reference group is the 'White' group.|||50.76|0.34|0.2685
91047700|NCT00107042|181980070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|15.44|||Univariate regression, logistic||The reference group is the 'Stage 5' group.|||15.44|0.05|0.9390
91047701|NCT00107042|181980071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.6181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|7.39|||Univariate regression, logistic||"The reference group is the Stage 5 group."|||7.39|0.30|0.6181
91047702|NCT00107042|181980072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4||||0.1943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.6|||Univariate regression, logistic||"The reference group is the Normal and Underweight (\<25.0) group."|||1.60|0.10|0.1943
91047703|NCT00107042|181980073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.42||||0.2542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.86|||Univariate regression, logistic||"The reference group is the Ever smoked cigarettes: NO group."|||1.86|0.10|0.2542
91047704|NCT00107042|181980074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.14||||0.0161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.69|||Univariate regression, logistic||"The reference group is the Straight (heterosexual) group."|||0.69|0.03|0.0161
91047705|NCT00107042|181980074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.12||||0.0222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.74||Since sexual identity was a factor with a p-value of \< 0.15 in the unadjusted univariate regression analysis, it was entered into the initial full multivariate model.|Multivariate regression, logistic||"The reference group is the Straight (heterosexual) group."|||0.74|0.02|0.0222
91047706|NCT00107042|181980075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.8945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|11.83|||Univariate regression, logistic||"The reference group is the Never (had sex)group."|||11.83|0.12|0.8945
91047707|NCT00107042|181980075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.12||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.7|||Univariate regression, logistic||"The reference group is the Never (had sex) group."|||0.70|0.02|0.0190
91047708|NCT00107042|181980076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.08||||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.48|||Univariate regression, logistic||"The reference group is the 0 partners group"|||0.48|0.01|0.0042
91047709|NCT00107042|181980076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.65||||0.6893||95.0|||||Univariate regression, Logistic||"The reference group is the 0 partners group.~Two sided 95% confidence interval: Lower Limit = 0.17; upper limit = infinity"|||||0.6893
91047710|NCT00107042|181980077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.015||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.19|||Univariate regression, logistic||"The reference group is hte 0 Partners group."|||0.19|0.00|0.0003
91047711|NCT00107042|181980077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|10.01|||Univariate regression, Logistic||"The reference group is the 0 Partners group"|||10.01|0.00|1.0000
91047712|NCT00107042|181980078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5||||0.5503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|4.86|||Univariate regression, logistic||"The reference group is the 0 Partners group"|||4.86|0.05|0.5503
91047713|NCT00107042|181980078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.8904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|10.46|||Univariate Regression, Logistic||"The reference group is the 0 Partners group."|||10.46|0.13|0.8904
91047714|NCT00107042|181980079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.48||||0.301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|1.92|||Univariate regression, logistic||"The reference group is the Ever drank alcohol: NO group."|||1.92|0.12|0.3010
91047715|NCT00107042|181980080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.24||||0.0501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|1.0|||Univariate regression, logistic||"The reference group is the Ever smoked marijuana: NO group."|||1.00|0.06|0.0501
91047716|NCT00107042|181980081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.36||||0.3846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|3.61|||Univariate regression, logistic||"The reference group is the Ever used drugs not prescribed: NO group."|||3.61|0.04|0.3846
91047717|NCT00107042|181980082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3827||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.3827
91047718|NCT00107042|181980082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Responding Rate|81.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.84|92.04|||||Response rate=Total number subjects responded/Total number subjects in arm|||92.04|68.84|
91047719|NCT00107042|181980082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Responding Rate|88.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|75.69|95.47|||||Response rate=Total number subjects responded/Total number subjects in arm|||95.47|75.69|
91047720|NCT00107042|181980083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Responding rate|98.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.74|99.95||A p-value has not been entered because there is only one study arm in this analysis.|Exact 95% CI|||||99.95|89.74|
91047721|NCT00107042|181980084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Responding Rate|91.49||||||95.0|79.62|97.63||A p-value has not been entered because there is only one study arm in this analysis.|Exact 95 % confidence interval|||||97.63|79.62|
91047722|NCT00107042|181980085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Responding Rate %|98.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.93|99.95||A p-value has not been entered because there is only one study arm in this analysis.|Exact 95% confidence interval||"For overall response, if a subject is reactive at either 1-month or 12-month, then the overall response is considered Positive. If a subject is non-reactive at both 1-month and 12-month, then the overall response for this subject is Negative."|||99.95|89.93|
91047723|NCT00107042|181980086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2938||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2938
91047724|NCT00107042|181980086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Responding Rate %|85.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|70.83|94.43|||95 % confidence interval|||||94.43|70.83|
91047725|NCT00107042|181980086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Responding Rate %|93.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|82.46|98.66|||95% confidence interval|||||98.66|82.46|
91047726|NCT02062801|181980135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.18
91047727|NCT02062801|181980136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.97
91047728|NCT02062801|181980137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.56|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||.56
91047729|NCT02790034|181980146|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.292|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.3184||0.6411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.741|17.157|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Primary inferential comparison between treatment groups used a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based, mixed-effects repeated measures model approach (MMRM) with 95% CI for the difference between treatment groups for % change from baseline in the number of apnea episodes. Model included % change from baseline as response, the fixed, categorical effects of treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit interaction, and the continuous terms age and baseline value as covariate.||17.157|-27.741|0.6411
91047730|NCT02790034|181980146|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.966|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.1869||0.2011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.119|9.186|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Primary inferential comparison between treatment groups used a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based, mixed-effects repeated measures model approach (MMRM) with 95% CI for the difference between treatment groups for % change from baseline in the number of apnea episodes. Model included % change from baseline as response, the fixed, categorical effects of treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit interaction, and the continuous terms age and baseline value as covariate.||9.186|-43.119|0.2011
91047731|NCT03923699|181980172|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.96||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.08||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Poisson|||||1.08|0.85|0.41
91047732|NCT03923699|181980173|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.1||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Poisson|||||1.10|0.92|0.92
91047733|NCT03923699|181980174|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.09||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Poisson|||||1.09|0.89|0.68
91047734|NCT03923699|181980175|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.05||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Poisson|||||1.05|0.92|0.42
91047735|NCT03923699|181980176|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.02||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Poisson|||||1.02|0.98|0.99
91047736|NCT03923699|181980177|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.05||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Poisson|||||1.05|0.95|0.95
91047737|NCT03923699|181980178|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||||0.00|-0.00|0.29
91001552|NCT01455415|181885668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.5119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.24||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level, without multiple comparisons' adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was done using a linear mixed effects model which included baseline activities of daily living domain score, sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effect factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors. The treatment difference (pregabalin - placebo) has been tested using within-participant variability as error term.||0.24|-0.48|0.5119
91001553|NCT01455415|181885669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.4335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|0.74||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level, without multiple comparisons' adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was done using a linear mixed effects model which included baseline physical functioning / large fiber domain score, sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effect factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors. The treatment difference (pregabalin - placebo) has been tested using within-participant variability as error term.||0.74|-1.72|0.4335
91047738|NCT03923699|181980179|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.0||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||||0.00|-0.01|0.37
91047739|NCT03923699|181980180|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.13||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Poisson|||||1.13|0.95|0.30
91047740|NCT03923699|181980181|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.02||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Poisson|||||1.02|0.98|0.85
91047741|NCT03923699|181980182|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.02||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, poisson|||||1.02|0.97|0.51
91047742|NCT01117337|181980184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2
91047743|NCT01117337|181980185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.56||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.56
91047744|NCT01746264|181980202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||P-value for change from baseline to 3 month follow-up.||||0.59
91047745|NCT01746264|181980203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 3 month follow up visit.||||<0.001
91047746|NCT01746264|181980204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 3 month follow-up.||||<0.01
91047747|NCT01746264|181980206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 3 month follow-up.||||0.32
91047748|NCT01746264|181980207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 3-month follow-up.||||0.21
91047749|NCT01746264|181980208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 3 month follow-up.||||0.02
91047750|NCT01746264|181980209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0123|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 3 month follow-up.||||0.0123
91047751|NCT01746264|181980210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 3 month follow-up.||||0.09
91047752|NCT01746264|181980211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 3 month follow-up.||||0.27
91047753|NCT01746264|181980212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 3 month follow-up.||||0.18
91047754|NCT01746264|181980213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 3 month follow-up.||||0.33
91047755|NCT01746264|181980214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 3 month follow-up.||||0.05
91047756|NCT01746264|181980215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 3 month follow-up.||||0.41
91047757|NCT01746264|181980216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 3 month follow-up.||||0.32
91047758|NCT01746264|181980217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 3 month follow-up.||||0.47
91001554|NCT01455415|181885670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.9653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.3||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level, without multiple comparisons' adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was done using a linear mixed effects model which included baseline small fiber domain score, sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effect factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors. The treatment difference (pregabalin - placebo) has been tested using within-participant variability as error term.||0.30|-0.31|0.9653
91001555|NCT01455415|181885671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.11||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level, without multiple comparisons' adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was done using a linear mixed effects model which included baseline autonomic domain score, sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effect factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors. The treatment difference (pregabalin - placebo) has been tested using within-participant variability as error term.||0.11|-0.38|0.2690
91001556|NCT01455415|181885672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.9951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.05||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level, without multiple comparisons' adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was done using a linear mixed effects model which included baseline mobility domain score, sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effect factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors. The treatment difference (pregabalin - placebo) has been tested using within-participant variability as error term.||0.05|-0.05|0.9951
91001557|NCT01455415|181885673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.9726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.05||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level, without multiple comparisons' adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was done using a linear mixed effects model which included baseline self-care domain score, sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effect factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors. The treatment difference (pregabalin - placebo) has been tested using within-participant variability as error term.||0.05|-0.05|0.9726
91050347|NCT04168190|181987002|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>0.33 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|0.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.24|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 33F. Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||1.24|0.71|<0.001
91047759|NCT02791893|181980218|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANCOVA|||A power analysis was conducted with G\*Power, specifying a standard Type I error (α = .05) and desired power of .80. Results indicated that a total sample of 26 would be sufficient. Below are the results of the intent-to-treat analysis. Patients that did not complete the assessment after the blinded phase had their baseline scores carried forward. Post-intervention pain severity was regressed on pre-intervention pain severity and condition, using an ANCOVA model.||||0.47
91047760|NCT02791893|181980218|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANCOVA|||Below are the results of the per protocol analysis. Patients that did not complete the assessment after the blinded phase are not included limiting the sample to 10 subjects in each condition (N=20). Post-intervention pain severity was regressed on pre-intervention pain severity and condition, using an ANCOVA model.||||0.58
91047761|NCT02791893|181980219|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|This was an independent t-test comparing the conditions on their perception of change since starting the intervention.||"A power analysis was conducted with G\*Power, specifying a standard Type I error (α = .05) and desired power of .80. Results indicated that a total sample of 26 would be sufficient. Below are the results of the intent-to-treat analysis. Patients that did not complete the assessment after the blinded phase were assigned a score of 1 indicating no change in their condition. Post-intervention PGIC scores were compared between conditions."||||0.23
91047762|NCT02791893|181980219|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|This was an independent t-test comparing the conditions on their perception of change since starting the intervention.|Condition difference = Active - Sham|Below are the results of the per protocol analysis. Post-intervention PGIC scores were compared between conditions.||||0.23
91047763|NCT02791893|181980220|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.88||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANCOVA||Condition difference = Active - Sham|A power analysis was conducted with G\*Power, specifying a standard Type I error (α = .05) and desired power of .80. Results indicated that a total sample of 26 would be sufficient. Below are the results of the intent-to-treat analysis. Patients that did not complete the assessment after the blinded phase had their baseline scores carried forward. Post-intervention physical function scores was regressed on pre-intervention physical function and condition, using an ANCOVA model.||||0.13
91047764|NCT02791893|181980220|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.5||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANCOVA|||Below are the results of the per protocol analysis. Patients that did not complete the assessment after the blinded phase had their baseline scores carried forward. Post-intervention physical function scores was regressed on pre-intervention physical function and condition, using an ANCOVA model.||||0.12
91047765|NCT02791893|181980221|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.71||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANCOVA||Condition difference = Active - Sham|A power analysis was conducted with G\*Power, specifying a standard Type I error (α = .05) and desired power of .80. Results indicated that a total sample of 26 would be sufficient. Below are the results of the intent-to-treat analysis. Patients that did not complete the assessment after the blinded phase had their baseline scores carried forward. Post-intervention headache days was regressed on pre-intervention headache days and condition, using an ANCOVA model.||||0.58
91047766|NCT02791893|181980221|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.8||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANCOVA||Condition difference = Active - Sham|Below are the results of the per protocol analysis. Patients that did not complete the assessment after the blinded phase had their baseline scores carried forward. Post-intervention headache days was regressed on pre-intervention headache days and condition, using an ANCOVA model.||||0.49
91047767|NCT02791893|181980222|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.42||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANCOVA||Condition difference = Active - Sham|A power analysis was conducted with G\*Power, specifying a standard Type I error (α = .05) and desired power of .80. Results indicated that a total sample of 26 would be sufficient. Below are the results of the intent-to-treat analysis. Patients that did not complete the assessment after the blinded phase had their baseline scores carried forward. Post-intervention depression scores were regressed on pre-intervention depression scores and condition, using an ANCOVA model.||||0.18
91047768|NCT02791893|181980222|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANCOVA||Condition difference = Active - Sham|Below are the results of the per protocol analysis. Patients that did not complete the assessment after the blinded phase had their baseline scores carried forward. Post-intervention depression scores were regressed on pre-intervention depression scores and condition, using an ANCOVA model.||||0.25
91047769|NCT02791893|181980223|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|This was a dependent t-test comparing pre-intervention scores to the scores collected at the end of the open label phase.||Regardless of original condition assignment, patients' 2.5-month pain scores at the end of the open label phase were compared to their baseline scores using a dependent samples t-test. Below are the results of the intent-to-treat analysis. Patients that did not complete the assessment after the open-label phase had their most recent score carried forward. All patients included in this comparison received at least 10 weeks of VNS therapy.||||0.004
91047770|NCT02791893|181980223|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||This was a dependent t-test comparing baseline scores to the scores collected at the end of the open label phase.|t-test, 2 sided|||Regardless of original condition assignment, patients' 2.5-month pain scores at the end of the open label phase were compared to their baseline scores using a dependent samples t-test. Below are the results of the per protocol analysis. Patients that did not complete the assessment after the open-label phase were excluded. All patients included in this comparison received at least 10 weeks of VNS therapy.||||0.005
91001558|NCT01455415|181885674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.5497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.08||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level, without multiple comparisons' adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was done using a linear mixed effects model which included baseline usual activities domain score, sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effect factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors. The treatment difference (pregabalin - placebo) has been tested using within-participant variability as error term.||0.08|-0.04|0.5497
91001559|NCT01455415|181885675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.1495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.11||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level, without multiple comparisons' adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was done using a linear mixed effects model which included baseline pain / discomfort domain score, sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effect factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors. The treatment difference (pregabalin - placebo) has been tested using within-participant variability as error term.||0.11|-0.02|0.1495
91001560|NCT01455415|181885676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.1297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.01||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level, without multiple comparisons' adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was done using a linear mixed effects model which included baseline anxiety / depression domain score, sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effect factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors. The treatment difference (pregabalin - placebo) has been tested using within-participant variability as error term.||0.01|-0.11|0.1297
91001561|NCT01455415|181885677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.4279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.02||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level, without multiple comparisons' adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was done using a linear mixed effects model which included baseline Dolan 1997 index summary score, sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effect factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors. The treatment difference (pregabalin - placebo) has been tested using within-participant variability as error term.||0.02|-0.04|0.4279
91001562|NCT01455415|181885678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.5505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.02||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level, without multiple comparisons' adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was done using a linear mixed effects model which included baseline Dolan 2001 index summary score, sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effect factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors. The treatment difference (pregabalin - placebo) has been tested using within-participant variability as error term.||0.02|-0.04|0.5505
91001563|NCT01455415|181885679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0604|TWO_SIDED|||||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level, without multiple comparisons' adjustment.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis was done using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with modified ridit transformation, under alternative hypothesis of raw mean scores differ.||||0.0604
91047771|NCT04060719|181980228|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio T/R [%]|10.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.74|11.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'subject' (random) and 'treatment' (fixed).|Confidence intervals were calculated based on the residual error from the mixed effects model. Ratio is calculated as Test/Reference. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 11.8.|Relative bioavailability||11.28|9.74|
91047772|NCT04060719|181980229|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio T/R [%]|30.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|25.76|35.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'subject' (random) and 'treatment' (fixed).|Confidence intervals were calculated based on the residual error from the mixed effects model. Ratio is calculated as Test/Reference. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 25.2.|Relative bioavailability||35.02|25.76|
91047773|NCT04060719|181980230|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio T/R [%]|10.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.66|11.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'subject' (random) and 'treatment' (fixed).|Confidence intervals were calculated based on the residual error from the mixed effects model. Ratio is calculated as Test/Reference. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 11.8.|Relative bioavailability||11.18|9.66|
91047774|NCT05575063|181980263|NON_INFERIORITY|All analyzed numbers are in percentage. The success criterion for the primary safety endpoint was met (Safety Population), as the investigational device (HEALON EndoCoat OVD) demonstrated non-inferiority to the control device (HEALON EndoCoat OVD) with respect to the difference in IOP spike rate, estimated to be 0.08% (with the 95% confidence interval of \[-5.07%; 5.23%\]).|Not Measured|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.63|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.07|5.23|||Mixed Models Analysis||All values in this section are in percentage.|||5.23|-5.07|
91047775|NCT05575063|181980264|NON_INFERIORITY|All analyzed numbers are in percentage. The success criterion for the primary effectiveness endpoint was met (modified ITT Population) as the investigational device (HEALON EndoCoat OVD) demonstrated non-inferiority to the control device (HEALON EndoCoat OVD) with respect to the difference in mean ECC percent change, estimated to be -0.50% (with the 95% confidence interval of \[-3.37%; 2.37%\]).|Difference in Percent Change|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.46|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.37|2.37|||Mixed Models Analysis||All values are in percentage.|||2.37|-3.37|
91047776|NCT03347838|181980265|SUPERIORITY||Observed response rate|0.526||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.0|||Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that the 6-month response rate is less than or equal to 0.3.||1|0.32|0.03
91001564|NCT01455415|181885680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.038|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.106||0.7174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.248|0.171||Primary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Repeated measure mixed effects model|The Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||A longitudinal analysis was done using a repeated measure linear mixed effects model including visit, treatment, an indicator variable for Week 6, and treatment by visit and by the indicator variable interaction as fixed effect factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error (estimated by using an unstructured covariance structure) as random factors. The treatment differences were tested using within-participant variability as the error term.||0.171|-0.248|0.7174
91001565|NCT01455415|181885681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1511|TWO_SIDED|||||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level, without multiple comparisons' adjustment.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis was done using a CMH test with modified ridit transformation, under alternative hypothesis of raw mean scores differ.||||0.1511
91001566|NCT02460978|181885693|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0579|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|-0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model is adjusted for baseline HbA1c, treatment, week, randomization stratum, week\*treatment, and week\*baseline HbA1c.||Difference vs. placebo in adjusted mean change from baseline||-0.26|-0.49|<0.0001
91047777|NCT04625062|181980283|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.49||||0.72|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, two-tailed|df = 6|Traditional treatment condition - biofeedback treatment condition|||||.72
91047778|NCT00285584|181980312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.5||||0.9|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.9
91047779|NCT00285584|181980313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.5||||0.3|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon rank test||||0.3
91047780|NCT00285584|181980314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|3.15||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|27.8|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of cumulative incidence proportions||27.8|0.4|0.3
91047781|NCT00285584|181980315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.5||||0.19|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.19
91047782|NCT00536484|181980317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0002||95.0|-1.1|-0.4||Significance level p \<0.05|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment, center and baseline as covariate and baseline by treatment interaction.|The LS mean difference \& 95% CI were calculated at mean baseline = 12.9 (centered baseline used in model)|Null hypothesis: the mean change from baseline in micturitions per 24 hours in the fesoterodine group is the same as in the placebo group at Week 12. A sample size of 350 in each arm had at least 85% power to detect a difference of 0.8 between flexible dose fesoterodine \& placebo assuming a standard deviation of 3.52 using a 2-sample t-test with a 0.05 2-sided significance level. Accounting for 10% of randomized subjects not having the primary endpoint data, 390 subjects were needed in each arm||-0.4|-1.1|0.0002
91047783|NCT00536484|181980318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0136||95.0|-0.8|-0.1||Significance level p \<0.05|ANCOVA|Terms for center, treatment, baseline covariate and baseline by treatment interaction|Since centered baseline was used in the model, the LS mean difference and its 95% CI were calculated at mean baseline|Week 2 minus Baseline||-0.1|-0.8|0.0136
91047784|NCT00536484|181980318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0002||95.0|-1.1|-0.3||Significance level p \<0.05|ANCOVA|Terms for center, treatment and baseline as covariate and baseline by treatment interaction|Since centered baseline was used in the model, the LS mean difference and its 95% CI were calculated at mean baseline|Week 6 minus Baseline||-0.3|-1.1|0.0002
91047785|NCT00536484|181980319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.1057||95.0|-0.9|0.1||Significance level p \<0.05|ANCOVA|Terms for center, treatment and baseline covariate||Week 2 minus Baseline||0.1|-0.9|0.1057
91047786|NCT00536484|181980319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.0338||95.0|-1.1|0.0||Significance level p \<0.05|ANCOVA|Terms for center, treatment and baseline covariate||Week 6 minus Baseline||-0.0|-1.1|0.0338
91047787|NCT00536484|181980319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.0003||95.0|-1.5|-0.5||Significance level p \<0.05|ANCOVA|Terms for center, treatment and baseline covariate||Week 12 minus Baseline||-0.5|-1.5|0.0003
91047788|NCT00536484|181980320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.1666||95.0|-0.6|0.1||Significance level p \<0.05|ANCOVA|Terms for center, treatment and baseline covariate||Week 2 minus Baseline||0.1|-0.6|0.1666
91047789|NCT00536484|181980320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0506||95.0|-0.8|0.0||Significance level p \<0.05|ANCOVA|Terms for center, treatment and baseline covariate||Week 6 minus Baseline||0.0|-0.8|0.0506
91047790|NCT00536484|181980320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0014||95.0|-1.0|-0.2||Significance level p \<0.05|ANCOVA|Terms for center, treatment and baseline covariate||Week 12 minus Baseline||-0.2|-1.0|0.0014
91047791|NCT00536484|181980321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.2054||95.0|-0.4|0.1||Significance level p \<0.05|ANCOVA|Terms for center, treatment and baseline as covariate and baseline by treatment interaction|Since centered baseline was used in the model, the LS mean difference and its 95% CI were calculated at mean baseline|Week 2 minus Baseline||0.1|-0.4|0.2054
91047792|NCT00536484|181980321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0225||95.0|-0.6|0.0||Significance level p \<0.05|ANCOVA|Terms for center, treatment and baseline as covariate and baseline by treatment interaction|Since centered baseline was used in the model, the LS mean difference and its 95% CI were calculated at mean baseline|Week 6 minus Baseline||-0.0|-0.6|0.0225
91047793|NCT00536484|181980321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0167||95.0|-0.6|-0.1||Significance level p \<0.05|ANCOVA|Terms for center, treatment and baseline as covariate and baseline by treatment interaction|Since centered baseline was used in the model, the LS mean difference and its 95% CI were calculated at mean baseline|Week 12 minus Baseline||-0.1|-0.6|0.0167
91047794|NCT00536484|181980322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.8019||95.0|-0.2|0.1||Significance level p \<0.05|ANOVA|||Week 2 minus Baseline||0.1|-0.2|0.8019
91047795|NCT00536484|181980322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.3881||95.0|-0.2|0.1||Significance level p \<0.05|ANOVA|||Week 6 minus Baseline||0.1|-0.2|0.3881
91047796|NCT00536484|181980322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.324||95.0|-0.2|0.1||Significance level p \<0.05|ANOVA|||Week 12 minus Baseline||0.1|-0.2|0.3240
91047797|NCT00536484|181980323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.8279||95.0|-0.2|0.1||Significance level p \<0.05|ANOVA|||Week 2 minus Baseline||0.1|-0.2|0.8279
91047798|NCT00536484|181980323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.5059||95.0|-0.2|0.1||Significance level p \<0.05|ANOVA|||Week 6 minus Baseline||0.1|-0.2|0.5059
91047799|NCT00536484|181980323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0806||95.0|-0.4|0.0||Significance level p \<0.05|ANOVA|||Week 12 minus Baseline||0.0|-0.4|0.0806
91047800|NCT00536484|181980324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.0203||95.0|-3.2|-0.3||Significance level p \<0.05|ANCOVA|Terms for center, treatment and baseline covariate||Week 2 minus Baseline||-0.3|-3.2|0.0203
91047801|NCT00536484|181980324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.0007||95.0|-4.2|-1.1||Significance level p \<0.05|ANCOVA|Terms for center, treatment and baseline covariate||Week 6 minus Baseline||-1.1|-4.2|0.0007
91047802|NCT00536484|181980324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|<|0.0001||95.0|-4.9|-1.7||Significance level p \<0.05|ANCOVA|Terms for center, treatment and baseline covariate||Week 12 minus Baseline||-1.7|-4.9|<0.0001
91047803|NCT00536484|181980325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5|<|0.0001||95.0|-10.7|-4.9||Significance level p \<0.05|ANCOVA|Terms for center, treatment and baseline as covariate and baseline by treatment interaction|Since centered baseline was used in the model, the LS mean difference and its 95% CI were calculated at mean baseline|Week 12 minus Baseline||-4.9|-10.7|<0.0001
91047804|NCT00536484|181980326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6|<|0.0001||95.0|5.3|11.5||Significance level p \<0.05|ANCOVA|Terms for center, treatment and baseline as covariate and baseline by treatment interaction|Since centered baseline was used in the model, the LS mean difference and its 95% CI were calculated at mean baseline|"Week 12 minus Baseline~Concern domain"||11.5|5.3|<0.0001
91047805|NCT00536484|181980326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6|<|0.0001||95.0|3.9|10.2||Significance level p \<0.05|ANCOVA|Terms for center, treatment and baseline as covariate and baseline by treatment interaction|Since centered baseline was used in the model, the LS mean difference and its 95% CI were calculated at mean baseline|"Week 12 minus Baseline~Coping domain"||10.2|3.9|<0.0001
91047806|NCT00536484|181980326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.0036||95.0|1.5|7.8||Significance level p \<0.05|ANCOVA|Terms for center, treatment and baseline as covariate||"Week 12 minus Baseline~Sleep domain"||7.8|1.5|0.0036
91047807|NCT00536484|181980326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.0007||95.0|1.6|5.8||Significance level p \<0.05|ANCOVA|Terms for center, treatment and baseline as covariate and baseline by treatment interaction|Since centered baseline was used in the model, the LS mean difference and its 95% CI were calculated at mean baseline|"Week 12 minus Baseline~Social interaction domain"||5.8|1.6|0.0007
91047808|NCT00536484|181980326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3|<|0.0001||95.0|3.6|8.9||Significance level p \<0.05|ANCOVA|Terms for center, treatment and baseline as covariate and baseline by treatment interaction|Since centered baseline was used in the model, the LS mean difference and its 95% CI were calculated at mean baseline|"Week 12 minus Baseline~HRQL scale score total"||8.9|3.6|<0.0001
91047809|NCT00536484|181980327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0087||95.0||||Significance level p \<0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH test used modified ridit scores which were based on the ranks of the observations rather than the observed values.||Treatment difference at Week 2||||0.0087
91047810|NCT00536484|181980327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0008||95.0||||Significance level p \<0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH test used modified ridit scores which were based on the ranks of the observations rather than the observed values.||Treatment difference at Week 6||||0.0008
91047811|NCT00536484|181980327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006||95.0||||Significance level p \<0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH test used modified ridit scores which were based on the ranks of the observations rather than the observed values.||Treatment difference at Week 12||||0.0006
91047812|NCT00536484|181980328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0129||95.0||||Significance level p \<0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH test used modified ridit scores which were based on the ranks of the observations rather than the observed values.||Treatment difference at Week 2||||0.0129
91047813|NCT00536484|181980328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0||||Significance level p \<0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH test used modified ridit scores which were based on the ranks of the observations rather than the observed values.||Treatment difference at Week 6||||0.0100
91047814|NCT00536484|181980328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0009||95.0||||Significance level p \<0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH test used modified ridit scores which were based on the ranks of the observations rather than the observed values.||Treatment difference at Week 12||||0.0009
91047815|NCT00536484|181980329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.9|-0.4||Significance level p \<0.05|ANCOVA|Terms for center, treatment and baseline covariate||Week 2 minus Baseline||-0.4|-0.9|<0.0001
91047816|NCT00536484|181980329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.1|-0.5||Significance level p \<0.05|ANCOVA|Terms for center, treatment and baseline covariate||Week 6 minus Baseline||-0.5|-1.1|<0.0001
91047817|NCT00536484|181980329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.3|-0.7||Significance level p \<0.05|ANCOVA|Terms for center, treatment and baseline covariate||Week 12 minus Baseline||-0.7|-1.3|<0.0001
91047818|NCT01770431|181980344|SUPERIORITY||chi-squared|14.7315||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0001
91047819|NCT01770431|181980345|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.81|||Regression, Cox|||||0.81|0.55|<0.0001
91047820|NCT02610816|181980373|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiplicity, since a single primary endpoint is analyzed|Mixed Models Analysis|No adjustment of degrees of freedom is needed.||The primary treatment comparison was to compare change in PEESS V2.0 scores of 1FED versus 4FED. The primary null hypothesis was 4FED would be no more effective than 1FED. This was designed as a superiority trial.||||0.04
91047821|NCT02610816|181980374|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||This is a calculated p-value. The threshold for statistical significance is p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
91047822|NCT02610816|181980374|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||This is a calculated p-value. The threshold for statistical significance is p \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
91047823|NCT02610816|181980375|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
91047824|NCT02610816|181980378|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.93
91047825|NCT02610816|181980379|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.74
91047826|NCT02610816|181980380|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.36
91047827|NCT02139124|181980382|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|2.6||The model includes terms for treatment and baseline Clinician ADHD-5-RS score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|Analyses utilize ANCOVA models with Dunnett's adjustments for multiple pairwise comparisons for each active dose group with placebo.||"The null hypothesis is the mean Clinician ADHD-5-RS total score at Visit 6 is not different between the active treatment and placebo."||2.6|-6.6|0.6750
91047828|NCT02139124|181980382|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.9||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|-2.2||The model includes terms for treatment and baseline Clinician ADHD-5-RS score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|Analyses utilize ANCOVA models with Dunnett's adjustments for multiple pairwise comparisons for each active dose group with placebo.||The null hypothesis is the mean Clinician ADHD-5-RS total score at Visit 6 is not different between the active treatment and placebo||-2.2|-11.5|0.0013
91047829|NCT02139124|181980382|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1||||0.672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|2.7||The model includes terms for treatment and baseline Clinician ADHD-5-RS score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|Analyses utilize ANCOVA models with Dunnett's adjustments for multiple pairwise comparisons for each active dose group with placebo.||"The null hypothesis is the mean Clinician ADHD-5-RS total score at Visit 6 is not different between the active treatment and placebo"||2.7|-6.8|0.6720
91047830|NCT02139124|181980382|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.1||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|-3.2||The model include terms for treatment and baseline Clinician ADHD-5-RS score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|Analyses utilize ANCOVA models with Dunnett's adjustments for multiple pairwise comparisons for each active dose group with placebo.||"The null hypothesis is the mean Clinician ADHD-5-RS total score at Visit 6 is not different between the active treatment and placebo"||-3.2|-12.9|0.0002
91047831|NCT02756637|181980387|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.11||||||The Hazard Ration is the ratio of survival rates between patients with high NLR and low NLR.||1.11|0.98|
91047832|NCT02756637|181980387|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.14||||||The Hazard Ration is the ratio of survival rates between patients with high NLR and low NLR.||1.14|0.90|
91047833|NCT03919448|181980433|EQUIVALENCE|The comparable bioavailability was achieved if 90 % confidence intervals (CIs) for the test-to-reference ratios of the geometric means of Cmax, Area Under the Serum Concentration-time Curve of Bevacizumab (ABC0-t) fell within the 80.00-125.00 % acceptance criteria.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|101.55||||0.9766|TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.19|114.34||Power of ANOVA: 0,93|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis (H0) of ANOVA is that there is no difference among group means. The alternate hypothesis (H1) is that at least one group differs significantly from the overall mean of the dependent variable.||114.34|90.19|0.9766
91047834|NCT03919448|181980433|EQUIVALENCE|The comparable bioavailability was achieved if 90 % confidence intervals (CIs) for the test-to-reference ratios of the geometric means of Cmax, Area Under the Serum Concentration-time Curve of Bevacizumab (ABC0-t) fell within the 80.00-125.00 % acceptance criteria.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|100.95||||0.9766|TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.75|113.55||Power of ANOVA: 0,93|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis (H0) of ANOVA is that there is no difference among group means. The alternate hypothesis (H1) is that at least one group differs significantly from the overall mean of the dependent variable.||113.55|89.75|0.9766
91047835|NCT03919448|181980433|EQUIVALENCE|As supplementary information, Test Product 1 vs. Test Product 2 shall also be compared. The comparable bioavailability was achieved if 90 % confidence intervals (CIs) for the test1-to-test2 ratios of the geometric means of Cmax, Area Under the Serum Concentration-time Curve of Bevacizumab (ABC0-t) fell within the 80.00-125.00 % acceptance criteria.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|100.59||||0.9766|TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.16|114.77|||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis (H0) of ANOVA is that there is no difference among group means. The alternate hypothesis (H1) is that at least one group differs significantly from the overall mean of the dependent variable.||114.77|88.16|0.9766
91047836|NCT03919448|181980434|EQUIVALENCE|The comparable bioavailability was achieved if 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the test to reference ratios of the geometric means of Cmax, Area under the serum concentration-time curve of bevacizumab (ABC0-t) fell within the 80.00-125.00% acceptance criteria.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|90.82||||0.3617|TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.21|101.57||Power of ANOVA: 0,95|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis (H0) of ANOVA is that there is no difference among group means. The alternate hypothesis (H1) is that at least one group differs significantly from the overall mean of the dependent variable.||101.57|81.21|0.3617
91001567|NCT02460978|181885693|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0578|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model is adjusted for baseline HbA1c, treatment, week, randomization stratum, week\*treatment, and week\*baseline HbA1c.||Difference vs. placebo in adjusted mean change from baseline||-0.30|-0.53|<0.0001
91047837|NCT03919448|181980434|EQUIVALENCE|The comparable bioavailability was achieved if 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the test to reference ratios of the geometric means of Cmax, Area under the serum concentration-time curve of bevacizumab (ABC0-t) fell within the 80.00-125.00% acceptance criteria.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|94.87||||0.3617|TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.91|105.99||Power of ANOVA: 0.95|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis (H0) of ANOVA is that there is no difference among group means. The alternate hypothesis (H1) is that at least one group differs significantly from the overall mean of the dependent variable.||105.99|84.91|0.3617
91047838|NCT03919448|181980434|EQUIVALENCE|As supplementary information, Test Product 1 vs. Test Product 2 shall also be compared. The comparable bioavailability was achieved if 90 % confidence intervals (CIs) for the test1-to-test2 ratios of the geometric means of Cmax, Area under the serum concentration-time curve of bevacizumab (ABC0-t) fell within the 80.00-125.00 % acceptance criteria.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|95.73||||0.3617|TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.82|108.05|||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis (H0) of ANOVA is that there is no difference among group means. The alternate hypothesis (H1) is that at least one group differs significantly from the overall mean of the dependent variable.||108.05|84.82|0.3617
91047839|NCT03919448|181980435|EQUIVALENCE|80.00-125.00% acceptance criteria.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|90.46||||0.3529|TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.64|101.47||Power of ANOVA: 0.94|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis (H0) of ANOVA is that there is no difference among group means. The alternate hypothesis (H1) is that at least one group differs significantly from the overall mean of the dependent variable.||101.47|80.64|0.3529
91047840|NCT03919448|181980435|EQUIVALENCE|80.00-125.00% acceptance criteria.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|95.02||||0.3529|TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.8|106.49||Power of ANOVA: 0.94|ANOVA|||||106.49|84.80|0.3529
91047841|NCT03919448|181980435|EQUIVALENCE|As supplementary information, Test Product 1 vs. Test Product 2 shall also be compared. The comparable bioavailability was achieved if 90 % confidence intervals (CIs) for the test1-to-test2 ratios of the geometric means of Cmax, Area under the serum concentration-time curve of bevacizumab (ABC0-t) fell within the 80.00-125.00 % acceptance criteria.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|95.19||||0.3529|TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.17|107.67|||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis (H0) of ANOVA is that there is no difference among group means. The alternate hypothesis (H1) is that at least one group differs significantly from the overall mean of the dependent variable.||107.67|84.17|0.3529
91047842|NCT01567826|181980474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.01
91047843|NCT01567826|181980475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.02
91047844|NCT01612884|181980482|OTHER|Student's T-test||||||0.85|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.85
91001568|NCT02460978|181885694|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5291|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.73|-7.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for ln(baseline), treatment, week, randomization stratum, week\*treatment, week\*ln(baseline).||Difference vs. placebo in adjusted mean percentage change from baseline||-7.72|-13.73|<0.0001
91047845|NCT01612884|181980483|OTHER|Chi-Square||||||0.93|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.93
91001569|NCT02460978|181885694|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5331|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.04|-8.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for ln(baseline), treatment, week, randomization stratum, week\*treatment, and week\*ln(baseline).||Difference vs. placebo in adjusted mean percentage change from baseline||-8.02|-14.04|<0.0001
91047846|NCT01612884|181980484|OTHER|Chi-Square|||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
91047847|NCT03265288|181980485|SUPERIORITY||Least square means difference|0.7716||||0.3449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8397|2.3828||alpha is set to 0.05|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures||A positive difference favours LAU-7b, a negative difference favours placebo.|Primary analysis of the treatment effect at the Week 24 visit on the intent to treat population (ITT) Null hypothesis is no treatment difference||2.3828|-0.8397|0.3449
91047848|NCT03265288|181980485|SUPERIORITY||Least square means difference|1.0053||||0.0667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|2.0807||alpha is set to 0.05|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures||A positive difference favours LAU-7b, a negative difference favours placebo.|Analysis of the overall treatment effect from baseline through Week 24 in the intent to treat population (ITT), Null hypothesis is no treatment difference||2.0807|-0.0700|0.0667
91001570|NCT02460978|181885695|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3829|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.96|-2.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for ln(baseline), treatment, week, randomization stratum, week\*treatment, and week\*ln(baseline).||Difference vs. placebo in adjusted mean percentage change from baseline||-2.45|-3.96|<0.0001
91047849|NCT03265288|181980485|SUPERIORITY||Least square means difference|1.2258||||0.0486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0078|2.4438||alpha is set to 0.05|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures||A positive difference favours LAU-7b, a negative difference favours placebo.|Secondary analysis of the overall treatment effect from baseline through Week 24 on the per protocol population (PP), null hypothesis is no treatment difference||2.4438|0.0078|0.0486
91047850|NCT03265288|181980485|SUPERIORITY||Least square means difference|2.6628||||0.0687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2069|5.5325||alpha is set to 0.05|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures||A positive difference favours LAU-7b, a negative difference favours placebo.|"Secondary analysis of treatment effect at the Week 24 visit for stratification factor ppFEV1 (\<70% or ≥70%) in intent to treat population (ITT), null hypothesis is no treatment difference.~Here presented is the analysis for subgroup ≥70%, n=29 (LAU-7b), n=27 (Placebo)"||5.5325|-0.2069|0.0687
91047851|NCT03265288|181980485|SUPERIORITY||Least square means difference|1.391||||0.236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.922|3.7041||alpha is set to 0.05|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures||A positive difference favours LAU-7b, a negative difference favours placebo.|"Secondary analysis of treatment effect at the Week 24 visit for stratification factor co-administration of CFTR modulator (yes/no) in intent to treat population (ITT), null hypothesis is no treatment difference.~Here presented is the analysis for subgroup receiving CFTR modulators, n=41 (LAU-7b), n=46 (Placebo)"||3.7041|-0.9220|0.236
91001571|NCT02460978|181885695|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3812|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.49|-2.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for ln(baseline), treatment, week, randomization stratum, week\*treatment, and week\*ln(baseline).||Difference vs. placebo in adjusted mean percentage change from baseline||-2.99|-4.49|<0.0001
91001572|NCT02460978|181885696|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3468|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.26|-11.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline, treatment, week, randomization stratum, week\*treatment, and week\*baseline.||Difference vs. placebo in adjusted mean change from baseline||-11.05|-20.26|<0.0001
91001573|NCT02460978|181885696|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3419|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.34|-15.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline, treatment, week, randomization stratum, week\*treatment, and week\*baseline.||Difference vs. placebo in adjusted mean change from baseline||-15.14|-24.34|<0.0001
91001574|NCT02460978|181885697|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4519|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.66|-5.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline, treatment, week, randomization stratum, week\*treatment, and week\*baseline.||Difference vs. placebo in adjusted mean change from baseline||-5.03|-14.66|<0.0001
91001575|NCT02460978|181885697|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4487||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.16|-4.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline, treatment, week, randomization stratum, week\*treatment, and week\*baseline.||Difference vs. placebo in adjusted mean change from baseline||-4.55|-14.16|0.0001
91001576|NCT02460978|181885698|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0415|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.97|11.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline, treatment, week, randomization stratum, week\*treatment, and week\*baseline.||Difference vs. placebo in adjusted mean change from baseline||11.06|6.97|<0.0001
91001577|NCT02460978|181885698|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0396|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.66|12.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline, treatment, week, randomization stratum, week\*treatment, and week\*baseline.||Difference vs. placebo in adjusted mean change from baseline||12.74|8.66|<0.0001
91001578|NCT02460978|181885699|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2058|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.81|4.06|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline HbA1c and randomization strata||Odds Ratio vs. Placebo||4.06|1.81|<0.0001
91001579|NCT02460978|181885699|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2054|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.05|4.6|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline HbA1c and randomization strata||Odds Ratio vs. Placebo||4.60|2.05|<0.0001
91001580|NCT01142193|181885701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|17.85|||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<.001
91001581|NCT01142193|181885701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|18.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.53|28.1|||Hodges-Lehmann|||||28.1|8.53|
91001582|NCT01142193|181885702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|14.7||||0.013|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.013
91001583|NCT01142193|181885703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|16.3||||0.007|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysis was stratified by Geographic Region.||||||0.007
91001584|NCT01142193|181885704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|25.36|||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91001585|NCT01142193|181885705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|17.85|||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91001586|NCT01142193|181885709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|23.61||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
91001587|NCT01142193|181885710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|13.4||||0.048|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysis was stratified by Geographic Region.||||||0.048
91001588|NCT01961089|181885725|EQUIVALENCE|The significance of a difference in a measured parameter between two devices was assessed using a paired t-test.||||||0.09|||||||Paired t-test|||P-value comparing AL between G6 and IOLM||||0.09
91001589|NCT01961089|181885725|EQUIVALENCE|The significance of a difference in a measured parameter between two devices was assessed using a paired t-test|||||<|0.001|||||||Paired t-test|||P-value comparing AL between G6 and LS||||<0.001
91001590|NCT01961089|181885725|EQUIVALENCE|The significance of a difference in a measured parameter between two devices was assessed using a paired t-test|||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||P-value comparing AL between IOLM and LS||||<0.0001
91001591|NCT01961089|181885725|EQUIVALENCE|The significance of a difference in a measured parameter between two devices was assessed using a paired t-test|||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||P-value comparing CCT between G6 and LS||||<0.0001
91001592|NCT01961089|181885725|EQUIVALENCE|The significance of a difference in a measured parameter between two devices was assessed using a paired t-test|||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||P-value comparing ACD between G6 and IOLM||||<0.0001
91001593|NCT01961089|181885725|EQUIVALENCE|The significance of a difference in a measured parameter between two devices was assessed using a paired t-test|||||<|0.01|||||||Paired t-test|||P-value comparing ACD between G6 and LS||||<0.01
91001594|NCT01961089|181885725|EQUIVALENCE|The significance of a difference in a measured parameter between two devices was assessed using a paired t-test||||||0.02|||||||Paired t-test|||P-value comparing ACD between IOLM and LS||||0.02
91001595|NCT01961089|181885725|EQUIVALENCE|The significance of a difference in a measured parameter between two devices was assessed using a paired t-test|||||<|0.01|||||||Paired t-test|||P-value comparing LT between G6 and LS||||<0.01
91001596|NCT01961089|181885725|EQUIVALENCE|The significance of a difference in a measured parameter between two devices was assessed using a paired t-test|||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||P-value comparing WtW between G6 and IOLM||||<0.0001
91001597|NCT01961089|181885725|EQUIVALENCE|The significance of a difference in a measured parameter between two devices was assessed using a paired t-test|||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||P-value comparing WtW between G6 and LS||||<0.0001
91001598|NCT01961089|181885725|EQUIVALENCE|The significance of a difference in a measured parameter between two devices was assessed using a paired t-test|||||<|0.001|||||||Paired t-test|||P-value comparing WtW between IOLM and LS||||<0.001
91001599|NCT01961089|181885726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Repeatability was determined with random effect ANOVAs (estimates of random effects). They were calculated as the square root of the sum of the (Device x EyeID) interaction component plus (EyeID) and (Device) variance components plus the residual variance component. A (Device x Operator) interaction component was not assessed because each device was consistently operated by the same operator such that there was no Device x Operator interaction component. CV = Coefficient of Variation = SD/mean.||||0.05
91001600|NCT01961089|181885727|EQUIVALENCE|The significance of a difference in a measured parameter between two devices was assessed using a paired t-test||||||0.13|||||||Paired t-test|||P-value comparing SimK between G6 and IOLM||||0.13
91001601|NCT01961089|181885727|EQUIVALENCE|The significance of a difference in a measured parameter between two devices was assessed using a paired t-test||||||0.25|||||||Paired t-test|||P-value comparing SimK between G6 and LS||||0.25
91001602|NCT01961089|181885727|EQUIVALENCE|The significance of a difference in a measured parameter between two devices was assessed using a paired t-test||||||0.21|||||||Paired t-test|||P-value comparing SimK between IOLM and LS||||0.21
91001603|NCT01062009|181885737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.24|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Chi square analysis comparing number of participants with new fever in each group||||0.24
91001604|NCT00323310|181885783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.46|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.5||H0: udiff = 0; Ha: udiff not = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test to compare change from pre to pre+postdose||1.5|1.1|<0.0001
91001605|NCT00323310|181885784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.45|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.4||H0: udiff = 0; Ha: udiff not = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test to compare change from pre to pre+postdose||1.4|0.9|<0.0001
91001606|NCT00323310|181885785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.42|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.9||H0: udiff = 0; Ha: udiff not = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test to compare change from pre to pre+postdose||0.9|0.4|<0.0001
91001607|NCT00323310|181885786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.56|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.6||H0: udiff = 0; Ha: udiff not = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test to compare change from pre to pre+postdose||1.6|1.1|<0.001
91001608|NCT00323310|181885787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.49|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.4||H0: udiff = 0; Ha: udiff not = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test to compare change from pre to pre+postdose||1.4|0.8|<0.001
91047852|NCT03265288|181980485|SUPERIORITY||Least square means difference|1.1302||||0.5323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4447|4.7052||alpha is set to 0.05|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures||A positive difference favours LAU-7b, a negative difference favours placebo.|"Secondary analysis of treatment effect at the Week 24 visit for à priori defined subgroup co-administration of ETI - elexacaftor/tezacaftor/ivacaftor (yes/no) in intent to treat population (ITT), null hypothesis is no treatment difference.~Here presented is the analysis for subgroup receiving ETI, n=18 (LAU-7b), n=23 (Placebo)"||4.7052|-2.4447|0.5323
91047853|NCT03265288|181980487|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5036||||0.1047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2199|1.1532||alpha is set to 0.05|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio \< 1 means lower odds of normalization with LAU-7b, odds ratio \> 1 means higher odds of normalization with LAU-7b|Highest normalization of Arachidonic Acid (AA) during treatment Intent to treat population (ITT), null hypothesis is no treatment effect||1.1532|0.2199|0.1047
91047854|NCT03265288|181980487|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8773||||0.7596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3793|2.0291||alpha is set to 0.05|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio \< 1 means lower odds of normalization with LAU-7b, odds ratio \> 1 means higher odds of normalization with LAU-7b|Highest normalization of Docosahexaenoic Acid (DHA) during treatment Intent to treat population (ITT, null hypothesis is no treatment effect||2.0291|0.3793|0.7596
91047855|NCT03265288|181980487|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0532||||0.8852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5209|2.1296||alpha is set to 0.05|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio \< 1 means lower odds of normalization with LAU-7b, odds ratio \> 1 means higher odds of normalization with LAU-7b|Highest normalization of AA/DHA ratio during treatment Intent to treat population (ITT), null hypothesis is no treatment effect||2.1296|0.5209|0.8852
91047856|NCT03265288|181980490|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3025|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.3025
91047857|NCT03265288|181980491|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.55||||0.3366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|3.8||alpha is set to 0.05|Regression, Cox||Odds ratio \< 1 means lower odds of a pulmonary exacerbation with LAU-7b, odds ratio close to 1 means similar odds of a pulmonary exacerbation for LAU-7b and placebo, odds ratio \> 1 means higher odds of a pulmonary exacerbation with LAU-7b|Protocol-Defined IV antibiotics-treated pulmonary exacerbation events. Intent to treat population (ITT), null hypothesis is no treatment effect||3.80|0.63|0.3366
91047858|NCT03265288|181980491|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.34||||0.3936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|2.64||alpha is set to 0.05|Regression, Cox||Odds ratio \< 1 means lower odds of a pulmonary exacerbation with LAU-7b, odds ratio close to 1 means similar odds of a pulmonary exacerbation for LAU-7b and placebo, odds ratio \> 1 means higher odds of a pulmonary exacerbation with LAU-7b|ALL IV antibiotics-treated pulmonary exacerbation events. Intent to treat population (ITT), null hypothesis is no treatment effect||2.64|0.68|0.3936
91001609|NCT00323310|181885788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.8||H0: udiff = 0; Ha: udiff not = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test to compare change from pre to pre+postdose||0.8|0.4|<0.0001
91001610|NCT00323310|181885789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.57|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.5||H0: udiff = 0; Ha: udiff not = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test to compare change from pre to pre+postdose||1.5|1.0|<0.0001
91001611|NCT00323310|181885790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.49|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.4||H0: udiff = 0; Ha: udiff not = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test to compare change from pre to pre+postdose||1.4|0.9|<0.0001
91001612|NCT00323310|181885791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.54|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.1||H0: udiff = 0; Ha: udiff not = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test to compare change from pre to pre+postdose||1.1|0.6|<0.0001
91001613|NCT00937326|181885824|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4816||||||No adjustments for covariates were made.|Fisher Exact|||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day in number of participants with any AE.||||0.4816
91001614|NCT00937326|181885824|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1147||||||No adjustments for covariates were made.|Fisher Exact|||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day in number of participants with any AE.||||0.1147
91001615|NCT00937326|181885824|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||No adjustments for covariates were made.|Fisher Exact|||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day in number of participants with any AE.||||1.0000
91001616|NCT00937326|181885824|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4816||||||No adjustments for covariates were made.|Fisher Exact|||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day in number of participants with any AE.||||0.4816
91001617|NCT00937326|181885848|OTHER|The analysis used an Estimation approach. No hypothesis testing was performed.|Ratio|168.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|123.87|228.94|||ANOVA|Results obtained from a mixed model ANOVA on log10-transformed data with fixed effect of study day and a random effect of participant.|The difference in least squares means and corresponding confidence interval (CI) were back-transformed to form ratio of geometric least squares means (Day 28/ Day 1) and CI.|Day 28 versus Day 1 for AUC 0-t of SRT2104 0.25 g/day.||228.94|123.87|
91047859|NCT03265288|181980491|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.16||||0.5011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.79||alpha is set to 0.05|Regression, Cox||Odds ratio \< 1 means lower odds of a pulmonary exacerbation with LAU-7b, odds ratio close to 1 means similar odds of a pulmonary exacerbation for LAU-7b and placebo, odds ratio \> 1 means higher odds of a pulmonary exacerbation with LAU-7b|Combined IV- or Oral antibiotics-treated pulmonary exacerbation events. Intent to treat population (ITT), null hypothesis is no treatment effect||1.79|0.75|0.5011
91047860|NCT03265288|181980492|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1955|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.1955
91047861|NCT03265288|181980493|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.35||||0.1909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|2.12||alpha is set to 0.05|Poisson regression||Odds ratio \< 1 means lower odds of an antibiotic treatment with LAU-7b, odds ratio \> 1 means higher odds of an antibiotic treatment with LAU-7b|Number per subject of intravenous antibiotic treatments required for a pulmonary exacerbation, excludes Cycle 1 pulmonary exacerbations Intent to treat population (ITT), null hypothesis is no treatment effect||2.12|0.86|0.1909
91001618|NCT00937326|181885848|OTHER|The analysis used an Estimation approach. No hypothesis testing was performed.|Ratio|110.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.18|139.43|||ANOVA|Results obtained from a mixed model ANOVA on log10-transformed data with fixed effect of study day and a random effect of participant.|The difference in least squares means and corresponding CI were back-transformed to form ratio of geometric least squares means (Day 28/ Day 1) and CI. AUC values included in the analysis were AUC 0-infinity on Day 1 and AUC 0-τ on Day 28.|Day 28 versus Day 1 for AUC 0-infinity of SRT2104 0.25 g/day.||139.43|88.18|
91001619|NCT00937326|181885848|OTHER|The analysis used an Estimation approach. No hypothesis testing was performed.|Ratio|133.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.55|176.21|||ANOVA|Results obtained from a mixed model ANOVA on log10-transformed data with fixed effect of study day and a random effect of participant.|The difference in least squares means and corresponding CI were back-transformed to form ratio of geometric least squares means (Day 28/ Day 1) and CI.|Day 28 versus Day 1 for AUC 0-t of SRT2104 0.5 g/day.||176.21|100.55|
91001620|NCT00937326|181885848|OTHER|The analysis used an Estimation approach. No hypothesis testing was performed.|Other|94.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.31|126.48|||ANOVA|Results obtained from a mixed model ANOVA on log10-transformed data with fixed effect of study day and a random effect of participant.|The difference in least squares means and corresponding CI were back-transformed to form ratio of geometric least squares means (Day 28/ Day 1) and CI. The AUC values included in the analysis were AUC 0-infinity on Day 1 and AUC 0-τ on Day 28.|Day 28 versus Day 1 for AUC 0-infinity of SRT2104 0.5 g/day.||126.48|70.31|
91001621|NCT00937326|181885848|OTHER|The analysis used an Estimation approach. No hypothesis testing was performed.|Ratio|141.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|111.2|180.39|||ANOVA|Results obtained from a mixed model ANOVA on log10-transformed data with fixed effect of study day and a random effect of participant.|The difference in least squares means and corresponding CI were back-transformed to form ratio of geometric least squares means (Day 28/ Day 1) and CI.|Day 28 versus Day 1 for AUC 0-t of SRT2104 1.0 g/day.||180.39|111.20|
91001622|NCT00937326|181885848|OTHER|The analysis used an Estimation approach. No hypothesis testing was performed.|Ratio|114.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.56|153.11|||ANOVA|Results obtained from a mixed model ANOVA on log10-transformed data with fixed effect of study day and a random effect of participant.|The difference in least squares means and corresponding CI were back-transformed to form ratio of geometric least squares means (Day 28/ Day 1) and CI. The AUC values included in the analysis were AUC 0-infinity on Day 1 and AUC 0-τ on Day 28.|Day 28 versus Day 1for AUC 0-infinity of SRT2104 1.0 g/day.||153.11|85.56|
91001623|NCT00937326|181885848|OTHER|The analysis used an Estimation approach. No hypothesis testing was performed.|Ratio|167.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|120.73|231.25|||ANOVA|Results obtained from a mixed model ANOVA on log10-transformed data with fixed effect of study day and a random effect of participant.|The difference in least squares means and corresponding CI were back-transformed to form ratio of geometric least squares means (Day 28/ Day 1) and CI.|Day 28 versus Day 1 for AUC 0-t of SRT2104 2.0 g/day.||231.25|120.73|
91001624|NCT00937326|181885848|OTHER|The analysis used an Estimation approach. No hypothesis testing was performed.|Ratio|117.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.14|162.79|||ANOVA|Results obtained from a mixed model ANOVA on log10-transformed data with fixed effect of study day and a random effect of participant.|The difference in least squares means and corresponding CI were back-transformed to form ratio of geometric least squares means (Day 28/ Day 1) and CI. The AUC values included in the analysis were AUC 0-infinity on Day 1 and AUC 0-τ on Day 28.|Day 28 versus Day 1 for AUC 0-infinity of SRT2104 2.0 g/day.||162.79|85.14|
91001625|NCT00937326|181885849|OTHER|The analysis used an Estimation approach. No hypothesis testing was performed.|Ratio|122.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.94|171.8|||ANOVA|Results obtained from a mixed model ANOVA on log10-transformed data with fixed effect of study day and a random effect of participant.|The difference in least squares means and corresponding CI were back-transformed to form ratio of geometric least squares means (Day 28/ Day 1) and CI.|Day 28 versus Day 1 for Cmax of SRT2104 0.25 g/day.||171.80|86.94|
91001626|NCT00937326|181885849|OTHER|The analysis used an Estimation approach. No hypothesis testing was performed.|Ratio|94.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|69.07|129.16|||ANOVA|Results obtained from a mixed model ANOVA on log10-transformed data with fixed effect of study day and a random effect of participant.|The difference in least squares means and corresponding CI were back-transformed to form ratio of geometric least squares means (Day 28/ Day 1) and CI.|Day 28 versus Day 1 for Cmax of SRT2104 0.5 g/day.||129.16|69.07|
91001627|NCT00937326|181885849|OTHER|The analysis used an Estimation approach. No hypothesis testing was performed.|Ratio|114.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.54|143.95|||ANOVA|Results obtained from a mixed model ANOVA on log10-transformed data with fixed effect of study day and a random effect of participant.|The difference in least squares means and corresponding CI were back-transformed to form ratio of geometric least squares means (Day 28/ Day 1) and CI.|Day 28 versus Day 1 for Cmax of SRT2104 1.0 g/day.||143.95|91.54|
91001628|NCT00937326|181885849|OTHER|The analysis used an Estimation approach. No hypothesis testing was performed.|Ratio|120.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.66|163.23|||ANOVA|Results obtained from a mixed model ANOVA on log10-transformed data with fixed effect of study day and a random effect of participant.|The difference in least squares means and corresponding CI were back-transformed to form ratio of geometric least squares means (Day 28/ Day 1) and CI.|Day 28 versus Day 1 for Cmax of SRT2104 2.0 g/day.||163.23|88.66|
91001629|NCT00937326|181885854|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.997||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day on Day 8 for FPG.||||0.997
91047862|NCT03265288|181980494|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.11||||0.7473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.04||alpha is set to 0.05|Poisson regression||Odds ratio \< 1 means lower odds in terms of days of antibiotics with LAU-7b, odds ratio close to 1 means similar odds in terms of days of antibiotics with LAU-7b or placebo, odds ratio \> 1 means higher odds in terms of days of antibiotics with LAU-7b|Number of days of intravenous antibiotics required for a pulmonary exacerbation, excludes Cycle 1 pulmonary exacerbations, Intent to treat population (ITT), null hypothesis is no treatment effect||2.04|0.60|0.7473
91047863|NCT03265288|181980495|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means difference|-2.89||||0.0822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.154|0.374||alpha is set to 0.05|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures||A negative difference favours LAU-7b, a positive difference favours placebo|C-Reactive Protein (CRP), Intent-to-Treat population (ITT), null hypothesis is no treatment effect||0.374|-6.154|0.0822
91047864|NCT03265288|181980495|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means difference|-576.0||||0.0603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1177.0|25.4||alpha is set to 0.05|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures||A negative difference favours LAU-7b, a positive difference favours placebo|Calprotectin, Intent-to-Treat population (ITT), null hypothesis is no treatment effect||25.4|-1177|0.0603
91047865|NCT03265288|181980495|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|-3.853||||0.0287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.297|-0.408||alpha is set to 0.05|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures||A negative difference favours LAU-7b, a positive difference favours placebo|C-Reactive Protein (CRP), Per-Protocol population (PP), null hypothesis is no treatment effect||-0.408|-7.297|0.0287
91047866|NCT03265288|181980495|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|-620.0||||0.0459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1228.0|12.0||alpha is set to 0.05|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures||A negative difference favours LAU-7b, a positive difference favours placebo|Calprotectin, Per-Protocol population (PP), null hypothesis is no treatment effect||12|-1228|0.0459
91001630|NCT00937326|181885854|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.581||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day on Day 8 for FPG.||||0.581
91001631|NCT00937326|181885854|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.987||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day on Day 8 for FPG.||||0.987
91001632|NCT00937326|181885854|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day on Day 8 for FPG.||||0.999
91047867|NCT03265288|181980496|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means difference|-0.39||||0.1006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.08||alpha is set to 0.05|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Body weight, Intent to treat population (ITT), null hypothesis is no treatment effect||0.08|-0.86|0.1006
91047868|NCT03265288|181980497|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means difference|-0.137||||0.1246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.312|0.038||alpha is set to 0.05|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Body mass index, intent to treat population (ITT), null hypothesis is no treatment effect||0.038|-0.312|0.1246
91047869|NCT03265288|181980498|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.764||||||alpha is set to 0.05|ANOVA|||Intent to treat population (ITT), null hypothesis is no treatment effect||||0.7640
91047870|NCT03265288|181980499|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means difference|-2.758||||0.2996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.998|2.482||alpha is set to 0.05|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||CFQ-R Respiratory subscore, intent to treat population (ITT), null hypothesis is no treatment effect||2.482|-7.998|0.2996
91047871|NCT04976621|181980526|OTHER|Because this was a feasibility study, we did not compute inferential statistics and did not include a power calculation.||||||||||||Because this was a feasibility study, inferential statistics were not computed.||||This feasibility study assessed preliminary evidence of treatment response. We have reported only descriptive statistics for quantitative findings. We have not reported inferential statistics, in keeping with the purpose of the VA SPiRE grant mechanism through which the study was funded. We assessed change in participant response by comparing the mean change in the outcome from baseline to follow-up in Group 1 (BA) and Group 2 (TAU). We inspected trends and directions of change in both groups.|Because this is a feasibility study, inferential statistics were not computed. We examined the trends and direction of change in the baseline mean score and follow-up mean score between the two groups.|||
91047872|NCT04976621|181980527|OTHER|||||||||||||||||This feasibility study assessed preliminary evidence of treatment response. We have reported only descriptive statistics for quantitative findings. We have not reported inferential statistics, in keeping with the purpose of the VA SPiRE grant mechanism through which the study was funded. We assessed change in participant response by comparing the mean change in the outcome from baseline to follow-up in Group 1 (BA) and Group 2 (TAU). We inspected trends and directions of change in both groups.|Because this is a feasibility study, inferential statistics were not computed. We examined the trends and direction of change in the baseline mean score and follow-up mean score between the two groups.|||
91047873|NCT04976621|181980528|OTHER|||||||||||||||||This feasibility study assessed preliminary evidence of treatment response. We have reported only descriptive statistics for quantitative findings. We have not reported inferential statistics, in keeping with the purpose of the VA SPiRE grant mechanism through which the study was funded. We assessed change in participant response by comparing the mean change in the outcome from baseline to follow-up in Group 1 (BA) and Group 2 (TAU). We inspected trends and directions of change in both groups.|Because this is a feasibility study, inferential statistics were not computed. We examined the trends and direction of change in the baseline mean score and follow-up mean score between the two groups.|||
91047874|NCT04976621|181980529|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Descriptive statistics are being used.|||
91047875|NCT04976621|181980530|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Descriptive statistics are used to describe acceptability/satisfaction for those who received the BA intervention. This tool is completed after the last intervention session when the qualitative interview is also conducted.|Descriptive statistics are used in this feasibility study. We are not using inferential statistics to test for statistical significance.|||
91047876|NCT04976621|181980531|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Descriptive statistics are used to describe recruitment.|||
91047877|NCT04976621|181980532|OTHER||||||||||||||||||One measure of retention was the percent in each group who completed the study, meaning completed the Time 2 follow-up interview (that occurred 3-4 months after the baseline interview). Another measure of retention was the percent in the treatment group that completed four or more treatment sessions.|||
91047878|NCT04976621|181980533|OTHER||||||||||||||||||For each of five participants who received the intervention, we reviewed a transcript of 1 intervention session for treatment fidelity. The criterion is that no more than 15% of sessions observed or audiotaped will have a mean less than 2.0.|||
91047879|NCT05611996|181980555|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.783|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.772||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.336|-0.23||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Score difference = Post-intervention - Baseline|Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the mean Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) scores from baseline to post-intervention for all study participants.||-0.230|-3.336|0.025
91047880|NCT05611996|181980555|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.814||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.057|-0.784||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Score difference = 3-month - Baseline|Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the mean Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) scores from baseline to 3-month for all study participants.||-0.784|-4.057|0.005
91047881|NCT05611996|181980555|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5468|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1744||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9039|-0.1897||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference of the PHQ-9 score by each unit increase of the time(each week increase)|Null hypothesis: There is no difference in the mean Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) scores over time for all study participants.||-0.1897|-0.9039|0.0040
91047882|NCT03053583|181980556|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Posthoc analysis of POGO scores were compared using the Kruskall Wallis test with Mann-WHitney test for pairwise comparisons||||<0.05
91047883|NCT04479475|181980568|OTHER|The Wilcoxon signed-rank test is a non-parametric statistical test. We used it to assess repeated measures of missed methadone doses.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.8||0.0094|TWO_SIDED|||||Exact p-value reported due to small sample size|Wilcoxon signed-rank test||We opted not to include the 95% confidence interval due to the non-parametric nature of the data.|||||0.0094
91047884|NCT05363683|181980570|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.293|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.293
91047885|NCT05363683|181980572|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.114|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.114
91047886|NCT05363683|181980573|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.017
91047887|NCT05363683|181980574|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.021|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.021
91047888|NCT05363683|181980575|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.936|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.936
91047889|NCT05363683|181980576|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.867|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.867
91047890|NCT05363683|181980577|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.370
91047891|NCT05363683|181980578|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.379|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.379
91047892|NCT00619359|181980579|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the CI for the difference in response rates (Fosaprepitant minus Aprepitant), calculated using the methodology of Miettinen and Nurminen, had a lower limit ≥7 percentage points, fosaprepitant was considered at least as effective as aprepitant for Complete Response in the overall phase. Study had 90% power to detect non-inferiority for this outcome measure.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7||||95.0|-4.1|3.3||||||||3.3|-4.1|
91047893|NCT00619359|181980580|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the CI for the difference in response rates, calculated using the methodology of Miettinen and Nurminen, had a lower limit ≥7.3 percentage points, fosaprepitant was considered at least as effective as aprepitant for Complete Response in the delayed phase.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6||||95.0|-3.5|3.7||||||||3.7|-3.5|
91047894|NCT00619359|181980581|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the CI for the difference in response rates, calculated using the methodology of Miettinen and Nurminen, had a lower limit ≥8.2 percentage points, fosaprepitant was considered at least as effective as aprepitant for No Vomiting in the overall phase.|Risk Difference (RD)|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6||||95.0|-5.3|2.0||||||||2.0|-5.3|
91047895|NCT03891329|181980589|OTHER|No comparison of two groups, just single arm design|SADE-free rate in the study group|0.98||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||"Serious Adverse Device Effects (SADE) possibly or securely related to the Cor Family devices until the 3- month follow-up are counted for this primary endpoint.~The following hypothesis has been defined:~Ho: SADE-free rate through 3 months post-implant ≤ 90.0% Ha: SADE-free rate through 3 months post-implant \> 90.0%"||1|0.9|0.05
91047896|NCT03891329|181980590|OTHER|Kaplan-Meier method|||||||||||||||||The Kaplan-Meier method will be applied to estimate the 3-month SADE-free rate at 92 days after implantation (sensitivity analysis of the primary endpoint) and the 12-month SADE-free rate at 365 days after implantation.|||
91047897|NCT03176784|181980593|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.3|||Regression, Logistic|Study site (Madison vs Milwaukee) was included as a covariate.||||1.3|0.6|.66
91047898|NCT03176784|181980593|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.4|||Regression, Logistic|Study site (Madison vs Milwaukee) was included as a covariate.||||1.4|0.7|.85
91047899|NCT03176784|181980593|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.4|||Regression, Logistic|Study site (Madison vs Milwaukee) was included as a covariate.||||1.4|0.7|1.00
91047900|NCT03176784|181980594|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.7||Study site (Madison vs Milwaukee) was included as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.7|0.8|.44
91047901|NCT03176784|181980594|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.6|||Regression, Logistic|Study site (Madison vs Milwaukee) was included as a covariate.||||1.6|0.8|.61
91047902|NCT03176784|181980594|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.0|||Regression, Logistic|Study site (Madison vs Milwaukee) was included as a covariate.||||2.0|0.9|.12
91047903|NCT03176784|181980595|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.3|||Regression, Logistic|Study site (Madison vs Milwaukee) was included as a covariate.||||1.3|0.5|.43
91047904|NCT03176784|181980595|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.3|||Regression, Logistic|Study site (Madison vs Milwaukee) was included as a covariate.||||1.3|0.5|.37
91047905|NCT03176784|181980595|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.6|||Regression, Logistic|Study site (Madison vs Milwaukee) was included as a covariate.||||1.6|0.7|.81
91047906|NCT03176784|181980596|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.3|||Regression, Logistic|Study site (Madison vs Milwaukee) was included as a covariate.||||1.3|0.6|.65
91047907|NCT03176784|181980596|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.3|||Regression, Logistic|Study site (Madison vs Milwaukee) was included as a covariate.||||1.3|0.6|.60
91047908|NCT03176784|181980596|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.5|||Regression, Logistic|Study site (Madison vs Milwaukee) was included as a covariate.||||1.5|0.7|.86
91047909|NCT02990806|181980597|EQUIVALENCE|A test for equivalence was carried out using an asymmetric margin (-12%, 15%) pre-specified in protocol and a two 1-sided test (TOST) analysis with α=0.05 for each 1-sided statistical test.|Percentage difference|3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|11.5||||||||11.5|-4.3|
91047910|NCT02654587|181980632|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.91||OS in patients with ICI secondary resistance|t-test, 2 sided||p=0.017|||0.91|0.38|<0.05
91047911|NCT02654587|181980632|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.19|||t-test, 2 sided|||OS in the ITT population with ICI resistance (primary and secondary resistance)||1.19|0.62|0.36
91047912|NCT02654587|181980633|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.46||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.79|||t-test, 2 sided|||Post-progression survival in patients with ICI secondary resistance||0.79|0.27|0.004
91047913|NCT02654587|181980633|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.83|||t-test, 2 sided|||Post-progression survival in ITT population with ICI resistance (primary and secondary)||0.83|0.39|0.0035
91047914|NCT02654587|181980634|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.43||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||Time to worsening ECOG PS \>1 in patients with ICI secondary resistance||0.80|0.23|0.006
91047915|NCT02654587|181980634|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.92|||t-test, 2 sided|||Time to worsening ECOG PS in the ITT population with ICI resistance (primary and secondary)||0.92|0.35|0.02
91001633|NCT00937326|181885854|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day on Day 15 for FPG.||||0.850
91001634|NCT00937326|181885854|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.843||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day on Day 15 for FPG.||||0.843
91047916|NCT02654587|181980635|SUPERIORITY||P Value|0.045|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ C30 Global Health Status in Patients with ICI secondary resistance||||<0.05
91047917|NCT02654587|181980635|SUPERIORITY||P Value|0.07||||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-C30 Physical functioning in patients with ICI secondary resistance||||0.07
91047918|NCT02654587|181980635|SUPERIORITY||P Value|0.03|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-C30 Role functioning in patients with ICI secondary resistance||||<0.05
91047919|NCT02654587|181980635|SUPERIORITY||P Value|0.36||||0.36|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-C30 Emotional functioning in patients with ICI secondary resistance||||0.36
91047920|NCT02654587|181980635|SUPERIORITY||P Value|0.24||||0.24|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-C30 Cognitive functioning in patients with ICI secondary resistance||||0.24
91047921|NCT02654587|181980635|SUPERIORITY|QLQ-C30 Social functioning|P Value|0.11||||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.11
91047922|NCT02654587|181980636|SUPERIORITY||P Value|0.06||||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-C30 Fatigue in ICI secondary resistance||||0.06
91047923|NCT02654587|181980636|SUPERIORITY||P Value|0.0003||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-C30 Constipation in ICI secondary resistance||||0.0003
91047924|NCT02654587|181980636|SUPERIORITY||P Value|0.8||||0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-C30 Dyspnea in ICI secondary resistance||||0.80
91047925|NCT02654587|181980636|SUPERIORITY||P Value|0.21||||0.21|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-C30 Nausea and Vomiting in ICI secondary resistance||||0.21
91047926|NCT02654587|181980636|SUPERIORITY||P Value|0.45||||0.45|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-C30 Pain in ICI secondary resistance||||0.45
91047927|NCT02654587|181980636|SUPERIORITY||P Value|0.87||||0.87|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-C30 Insomnia in ICI secondary resistance||||0.87
91047928|NCT02654587|181980636|SUPERIORITY||P Value|0.59||||0.59|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-C30 Appetite loss in ICI secondary resistance||||0.59
91047929|NCT02654587|181980636|SUPERIORITY||P Value|0.88||||0.88|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-C30 Diarrhea in ICI secondary resistance||||0.88
91001635|NCT00937326|181885854|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.961||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day on Day 15 for FPG.||||0.961
91047930|NCT02654587|181980636|SUPERIORITY||P Value|0.37||||0.37|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-C30 Financial difficulties in ICI secondary resistance||||0.37
91047931|NCT02654587|181980637|SUPERIORITY||P Value|0.0001|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-LC13 Alopecia in ICI secondary resistance||||<0.0001
91047932|NCT02654587|181980637|SUPERIORITY||P Value|0.03||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-LC 13 Peripheral neuropathy in ICI secondary resistance||||0.03
91001636|NCT00937326|181885854|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.939||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day on Day 15 for FPG.||||0.939
91001637|NCT00937326|181885854|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.966||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day on Day 22 for FPG.||||0.966
91001638|NCT00937326|181885854|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.075||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day on Day 22 for FPG.||||0.075
91001639|NCT00937326|181885854|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day on Day 22 for FPG.||||0.700
91001640|NCT00937326|181885854|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.732||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day on Day 22 for FPG.||||0.732
91001641|NCT00937326|181885854|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.552||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day on Day 28 for FPG.||||0.552
91001642|NCT00937326|181885854|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.196||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day on Day 28 for FPG.||||0.196
91001643|NCT00937326|181885854|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.393||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day on Day 28 for FPG.||||0.393
91047933|NCT02654587|181980637|SUPERIORITY||P Value|0.01||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-LC13 Sore mouth in ICI secondary resistance||||0.01
91047934|NCT02654587|181980637|SUPERIORITY||P Value|0.01||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-LC13 Dysphagia in ICI secondary resistance||||0.01
91047935|NCT02654587|181980637|SUPERIORITY||P Value|0.35||||0.35|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-LC13 Pain in arm and shoulder||||0.35
91047936|NCT02654587|181980637|SUPERIORITY||P Value|0.43||||0.43|TWO_SIDED||||||Mantel Haenszel|||QLQ-LC13 Pain in chest in ICI secondary resistance||||0.43
91047937|NCT02654587|181980637|SUPERIORITY||P Value|0.78||||0.78|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-LC13 Pain in other parts||||0.78
91047938|NCT02654587|181980637|SUPERIORITY||P Value|0.23||||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-LC 13 Hemoptysis in ICI secondary resistance||||0.23
91047939|NCT02654587|181980637|SUPERIORITY||P Value|0.54||||0.54|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-LC13 Coughing in ICI secondary resistance||||0.54
91047940|NCT02654587|181980638|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|2.75|||Mantel Haenszel|||DCR at 6 months in patients with ICI secondary resistance||2.75|0.43|0.87
91047941|NCT02654587|181980638|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.46|||Mantel Haenszel|||DCR at 6 months in ITT patients with ICI resistance (primary and secondary)||1.46|0.36|0.37
91047942|NCT02654587|181980639|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.28||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|2.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Median PFS in patients with ICI secondary resistance||2.0|0.82|0.29
91047943|NCT02654587|181980639|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.64|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|2.28|||t-test, 2 sided|||Median PFS in ITT patients with ICI resistance (primary and secondary)||2.28|1.18|<0.05
91047944|NCT02654587|181980640|SUPERIORITY|ORR in ICI secondary resistance|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.33||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.11|||Mantel Haenszel|||||1.11|0.10|0.07
91047945|NCT02654587|181980640|SUPERIORITY|ORR in ITT population with ICI resistance (primary and secondary)|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.22||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.59|||Mantel Haenszel|||||0.59|0.08|0.002
91047946|NCT02654587|181980641|SUPERIORITY|Duration of response at 6 months in ICI secondary resistance|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|5.3|||Regression, Cox|||||5.30|0.25|0.88
91047947|NCT02654587|181980641|SUPERIORITY|Duration of Response at 6 months in ITT population with ICI resistance (primary and secondary)|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.41||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|4.6|||Regression, Cox|||||4.60|0.43|0.57
91047948|NCT02654587|181980642|SUPERIORITY|Time to next lung cancer therapy in ICI secondary resistance|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.85||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|3.31|||Regression, Cox|||||3.31|1.03|0.04
91001644|NCT00937326|181885854|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.775||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day on Day 28 for FPG.||||0.775
91001645|NCT00937326|181885854|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day on Day 35 for FPG.||||1.000
91001646|NCT00937326|181885854|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.989||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day on Day 35 for FPG.||||0.989
91001647|NCT00937326|181885854|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.603||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day on Day 35 for FPG.||||0.603
91001648|NCT00937326|181885854|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.108||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day on Day 35 for FPG.||||0.108
91001649|NCT00937326|181885855|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.525||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day for change from Baseline in FPG on Day 8.||||0.525
91047949|NCT02654587|181980642|SUPERIORITY|Time to next lung cancer therapy in ITT population with ICI resistance (primary and secondary)|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.59||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|2.36|||Regression, Cox|||||2.36|1.07|0.02
91047950|NCT02654587|181980643|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.36|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.86|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.86|1.00|<0.05
91047951|NCT00904748|181980650|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Percent of reference to detect for 2-1 tests and power = 20.0%.|ratio between geometric means|98.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.03|105.82|||ANOVA||Estimated value = ratio (% reference).|Ratio between geometric means of Test 1 study treatment (chewable without water) and reference study treatment (coated with water).||105.82|92.03|
91047952|NCT00904748|181980650|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Percent of reference to detect for 2-1 tests and power = 20.0%.|ratio between geometric means|97.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.67|104.26|||ANOVA||Estimated value = ratio (% reference).|Ratio between geometric means of Test 2 study treatment (chewable with water) and reference study treatment (coated with water).||104.26|90.67|
91047953|NCT00904748|181980651|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Percent of reference to detect for 2-1 tests and power = 20%.|ratio between geometric means|80.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|72.38|90.26|||ANOVA||Estimated value = ratio (% reference).|Ratio between geometric means of Test 1 study treatment (chewable without water) and reference study treatment (coated with water).||90.26|72.38|
91047954|NCT00904748|181980651|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Percent of reference to detect for 2-1 tests and power = 20%.|ratio between geometric means|78.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.53|87.96|||ANOVA||Estimated value = ratio (% reference).|Ratio between geometric means of Test 2 study treatment (chewable with water) and reference study treatment (coated with water).||87.96|70.53|
91047955|NCT00904748|181980652|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Percent of reference to detect for 2-1 tests and power = 20.0%.|ratio between geometric means|99.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.76|105.93|||ANOVA||Estimated value = ratio (% reference).|Ratio between geometric means of Test 1 study treatment (chewable without water) and reference study treatment (coated with water).||105.93|92.76|
91047956|NCT00904748|181980652|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Percent of reference to detect for 2-1 tests and power = 20.0%.|ratio between geometric means|97.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.56|104.56|||ANOVA||Estimated value = ratio (% reference).|Ratio between geometric means of Test 2 study treatment (chewable with water) and reference study treatment (coated with water).||104.56|91.56|
91047957|NCT00904748|181980653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.14|0.5|||ANOVA|||Difference in Tmax between Test 1 study treatment (chewable without water) and reference study treatment (coated with water).||0.50|-0.14|
91001650|NCT00937326|181885855|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.818||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day for change from Baseline in FPG on Day 8.||||0.818
91047958|NCT00904748|181980653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.27|0.28|||ANOVA|||Difference in Tmax between Test 2 study treatment (chewable with water) and reference study treatment (coated with water).||0.28|-0.27|
91047959|NCT01682148|181980656|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Based on a responder rate (π) of 63% in the reference group, a clinically relevant delta (Δ) of 17%, α=2.5% (one sided) and power=80%, the sample size estimate yielded 122 valid subjects per group. Including a 10% addition for premature withdrawals, 136 subjects per group were necessary to be randomised in the study (i.e., a total of 272 subjects).|Treatment difference|-0.1673||||0.0986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.363|0.0284||Based on a generalised linear model including factors for treatment.|Generalised linear model||Difference of the two clinical success rates (NMJ Targeted minus Current Clinical Practice).|A responder was defined as a subject with at least one level decrease on the MAS scale.||0.0284|-0.3630|0.0986
91047960|NCT01682148|181980656|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Based on a π of 63% in the reference group, a clinically relevant Δ of 17%, α=2.5% (one sided) and power=80%, the sample size estimate yielded 122 valid subjects per group. Including a 10% addition for premature withdrawals, 136 subjects per group were necessary to be randomised in the study (i.e., a total of 272 subjects).|Treatment difference|-0.1673||||0.5682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.363|0.0284||Based on a generalised linear model including factors for spasticity pattern.|Generalised linear model||Difference of the two clinical success rates (NMJ Targeted minus Current Clinical Practice).|A responder was defined as a subject with at least one level decrease on the MAS scale.||0.0284|-0.3630|0.5682
91047961|NCT01682148|181980656|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Based on a π of 63% in the reference group, a clinically relevant Δ of 17%, α=2.5% (one sided) and power=80%, the sample size estimate yielded 122 valid subjects per group. Including a 10% addition for premature withdrawals, 136 subjects per group were necessary to be randomised in the study (i.e., a total of 272 subjects).|Treatment difference|-0.1673||||0.8543|TWO_SIDED|5.0|-0.363|0.0284||Based on a generalised linear model including factors for country.|Generalised linear model||Difference of the two clinical success rates (NMJ Targeted minus Current Clinical Practice).|A responder was defined as a subject with at least one level decrease on the MAS scale.||0.0284|-0.3630|0.8543
91001651|NCT00937326|181885855|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day for change from Baseline in FPG on Day 8.||||0.999
91047962|NCT01682148|181980656|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Based on a π of 63% in the reference group, a clinically relevant Δ of 17%, α=2.5% (one sided) and power=80%, the sample size estimate yielded 122 valid subjects per group. Including a 10% addition for premature withdrawals, 136 subjects per group were necessary to be randomised in the study (i.e., a total of 272 subjects).|Treatment difference|-0.1673||||0.9167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.363|0.0284||Based on a generalised linear model including factors for MAS at Baseline.|Generalised linear model||Difference of the two clinical success rates (NMJ Targeted minus Current Clinical Practice).|A responder was defined as a subject with at least one level decrease on the MAS scale.||0.0284|-0.3630|0.9167
91047963|NCT01682148|181980656|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Based on a π of 63% in the reference group, a clinically relevant Δ of 17%, α=2.5% (one sided) and power=80%, the sample size estimate yielded 122 valid subjects per group. Including a 10% addition for premature withdrawals, 136 subjects per group were necessary to be randomised in the study (i.e., a total of 272 subjects).|Treatment difference|0.0707||||0.6052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1948|0.3362||Based on a generalised linear model including factors for treatment.|Generalised linear model||Difference of the two clinical success rates (NMJ Targeted minus Current Clinical Practice).|A responder was defined as a subject with at least one level decrease on the MAS scale.||0.3362|-0.1948|0.6052
91047964|NCT01682148|181980656|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Based on a π of 63% in the reference group, a clinically relevant Δ of 17%, α=2.5% (one sided) and power=80%, the sample size estimate yielded 122 valid subjects per group. Including a 10% addition for premature withdrawals, 136 subjects per group were necessary to be randomised in the study (i.e., a total of 272 subjects).|Treatment difference|0.0707||||0.5369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1948|0.3362||Based on a generalised linear model including factors for spasticity pattern.|Generalised linear model||Difference of the two clinical success rates (NMJ Targeted minus Current Clinical Practice).|A responder was defined as a subject with at least one level decrease on the MAS scale.||0.3362|-0.1948|0.5369
91047965|NCT01682148|181980656|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Based on a π of 63% in the reference group, a clinically relevant Δ of 17%, α=2.5% (one sided) and power=80%, the sample size estimate yielded 122 valid subjects per group. Including a 10% addition for premature withdrawals, 136 subjects per group were necessary to be randomised in the study (i.e., a total of 272 subjects).|Treatment difference|0.0707||||0.7732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1948|0.3362||Based on a generalised linear model including factors for country.|Generalised linear model||Difference of the two clinical success rates (NMJ Targeted minus Current Clinical Practice).|A responder was defined as a subject with at least one level decrease on the MAS scale.||0.3362|-0.1948|0.7732
91047966|NCT01682148|181980656|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Based on a π of 63% in the reference group, a clinically relevant Δ of 17%, α=2.5% (one sided) and power=80%, the sample size estimate yielded 122 valid subjects per group. Including a 10% addition for premature withdrawals, 136 subjects per group were necessary to be randomised in the study (i.e., a total of 272 subjects).|Treatment difference|0.0707||||0.1758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1948|0.3362||Based on a generalised linear model including factors for MAS at Baseline.|Generalised linear model||Difference of the two clinical success rates (NMJ Targeted minus Current Clinical Practice).|A responder was defined as a subject with at least one level decrease on the MAS scale.||0.3362|-0.1948|0.1758
91047967|NCT01682148|181980658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment difference|-0.1324||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3531|0.0884||Based on a generalised linear model including factors for treatment, spasticity pattern, country and MAS baseline score.|Generalised linear model||Difference of the two clinical success rates (NMJ Targeted minus Current Clinical Practice).|A responder was defined as a subject with at least one level decrease on the MAS scale.||0.0884|-0.3531|0.2400
91001652|NCT00937326|181885855|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.809||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day for change from Baseline in FPG on Day 8.||||0.809
91001653|NCT00937326|181885855|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.993||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day for change from Baseline in FPG on Day 15.||||0.993
91001654|NCT00937326|181885855|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.954||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day for change from Baseline in FPG on Day 15.||||0.954
91047968|NCT01682148|181980659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) included factors for treatment, spasticity pattern and country, and Baseline VAS as a covariate.||Mean change in VAS from Baseline to Week 4.||||0.9448
91047969|NCT01682148|181980659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5458|||||||ANOVA|ANOVA included factors for treatment, spasticity pattern and country, and Baseline VAS as a covariate.||Mean change in VAS from Baseline to Week 12.||||0.5458
91001655|NCT00937326|181885855|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day for change from Baseline in FPG on Day 15.||||1.000
91001656|NCT00937326|181885855|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.344||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day for change from Baseline in FPG on Day 15.||||0.344
91001657|NCT00937326|181885855|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.968||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day for change from Baseline in FPG on Day 22.||||0.968
91001658|NCT00937326|181885855|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.316||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day for change from Baseline in FPG on Day 22.||||0.316
91001659|NCT00937326|181885855|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.984||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day for change from Baseline in FPG on Day 22.||||0.984
91001660|NCT00937326|181885855|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.235||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day for change from Baseline in FPG on Day 22.||||0.235
91001661|NCT00937326|181885855|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day for change from Baseline in FPG on Day 28.||||1.000
91001662|NCT00937326|181885855|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.656||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day for change from Baseline in FPG on Day 28.||||0.656
91001663|NCT00937326|181885855|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.994||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day for change from Baseline in FPG on Day 28.||||0.994
91001664|NCT00937326|181885855|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.285||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day for change from Baseline in FPG on Day 28.||||0.285
91047970|NCT01682148|181980660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4006|||||||ANOVA|ANOVA included factors for treatment, spasticity pattern and country.||||||0.4006
91047971|NCT01682148|181980661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5747|||||||Mann-Whitney U-test|||||||0.5747
91047972|NCT01682148|181980662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1802|||||||Mann-Whitney U-test|||||||0.1802
91047973|NCT00350402|181980699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.254|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.028|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.147|11.362|||t-test, 2 sided|df = 38; t = 3.576|Treatment effect size: Cohen's D =1.142|Hypothesis: Parkinson patients assigned to high intensity IMST will show greater improvement in facial movement (entropy) relative to those undergoing Sham IMST.||11.362|3.147|< 0.001
91047974|NCT00350402|181980700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.955|<|0.459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.41|3.68|||t-test, 2 sided|||Hypothesis: Scores on PDQ-39 would show bigger change for the IMST group than the Sham treatment group. The sample size was not powered for the PDQ-39 (but rather for the primary outcome variable).||3.68|-16.41|<0.459
91047975|NCT00350402|181980701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.426|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.221|<|0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.874|18.978|||t-test, 2 sided|t-value = 2.47, with 37 df||Hypothesis: Changes in MIP following treatment would be greater for participants in the IMST versus the Sham treatment group. This is a validity check on for the IMST intervention.||18.978|1.874|<0.018
91047976|NCT00350402|181980702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.129|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.492|<|0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0834|10.17||No adjustment necessary|t-test, 2 sided|38 df, t= 2.058 However, due to inequality of variance (Levine test), the adjusted p-value = \<0.049, and adjusted df = 27.3||Hypothesis: Facial entropy changes would be greater in IMST group than sham treatment group. Sample size was based on preliminary data suggesting total N of 40 would be adequate for detecting change in entropy (of approximately 50%).||10.17|.0834|<0.047
91047977|NCT04844021|181980704|OTHER|We used a multiple hypothesis testing framework to evaluate the effectiveness of Nudge+ vs. Nudge, considering: 1) Nudge+ is more effective than Nudge by over 10 percentage points (PP); 2) Nudge+ is as effective as Nudge, with a difference of no greater than 10 PP in either direction; and 3) Nudge+ is less effective than Nudge by over 10 PP. The 10 PP margin was selected based on discussions with health system leaders and previous studies to ensure the differences were clinically meaningful.|Marginal probability|0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.31||If the 95% confidence interval for the risk difference did not contain any values within a region (Nudge+ superior, equivalence, Nudge+ inferior), that region could be rejected.||||The primary analysis involved fitting generalized estimating equations (GEE) with a binomial distribution and logit link to estimate reach (primary endpoint) for Nudge and Nudge+ along with the risk difference between conditions.||0.31|0.13|
91047978|NCT04844021|181980704|OTHER|We used a multiple hypothesis testing framework to evaluate the effectiveness of Nudge+ vs. Nudge, considering: 1) Nudge+ is more effective than Nudge by over 10 percentage points (PP); 2) Nudge+ is as effective as Nudge, with a difference of no greater than 10 PP in either direction; and 3) Nudge+ is less effective than Nudge by over 10 PP. The 10 PP margin was selected based on discussions with health system leaders and previous studies to ensure the differences were clinically meaningful.|Marginal probability|0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.61||If the 95% confidence interval for the risk difference did not contain any values within a region (Nudge+ superior, equivalence, Nudge+ inferior), that region could be rejected.||||The primary analysis involved fitting generalized estimating equations (GEE) with a binomial distribution and logit link to estimate reach (primary endpoint) for Nudge and Nudge+ along with the risk difference between conditions.||0.61|0.37|
91047979|NCT00606502|181980717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.14||||||||1.14|0.61|
91047980|NCT02377921|181980728|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|0.74||||0.5387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|3.09||Generalized estimating equation (GEE) model includes change from Baseline (BL) as dependent variable, visit, treatment and visit by treatment as fixed factors, and BL values, sex, and region as covariates, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE model||Difference = Ace-ER - placebo|||3.09|-1.61|0.5387
91047981|NCT02377921|181980729|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.6938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.38|1.58||GEE model includes change from Baseline as dependent variable, visit, treatment and visit by treatment as fixed factors, and Baseline values, sex, and region as covariates, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE model||Difference = Ace-ER - placebo|||1.58|-2.38|0.6938
91047982|NCT02377921|181980730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.49||||0.5023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.83|2.86||GEE model includes change from Baseline as dependent variable, visit, treatment and visit by treatment as fixed factors, and Baseline values, sex, and region as covariates, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE model||Difference = Ace-ER - placebo|||2.86|-5.83|0.5023
91047983|NCT02377921|181980731|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.72||||0.2739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.01|0.57||GEE model includes change from Baseline as dependent variable, visit, treatment and visit by treatment as fixed factors, and Baseline values, sex, and region as covariates, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE model||Difference = Ace-ER - placebo|||0.57|-2.01|0.2739
91047984|NCT02377921|181980732|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.76||||0.1235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.27|0.75||GEE model includes change from Baseline as dependent variable, visit, treatment and visit by treatment as fixed factors, and Baseline values, sex, and region as covariates, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE model||Difference: Ace-ER 6 g/day - placebo|||0.75|-6.27|0.1235
91001665|NCT00937326|181885855|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.992||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day for change from Baseline in FPG on Day 35.||||0.992
91001666|NCT00937326|181885855|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.822||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day for change from Baseline in FPG on Day 35.||||0.822
91001667|NCT00937326|181885855|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.538||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day for change from Baseline in FPG on Day 35.||||0.538
91001668|NCT00937326|181885855|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.907||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day for change from Baseline in FPG on Day 35.||||0.907
91001669|NCT00937326|181885856|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day on Day 8 for FPI.||||0.999
91001670|NCT00937326|181885856|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.982||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day on Day 8 for FPI.||||0.982
91001671|NCT00937326|181885856|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.677||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day on Day 8 for FPI.||||0.677
91001672|NCT00937326|181885856|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.688||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day on Day 8 for FPI.||||0.688
91001673|NCT00937326|181885856|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.903||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day on Day 15 for FPI.||||0.903
91001674|NCT00937326|181885856|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.945||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day on Day 15 for FPI.||||0.945
91001675|NCT00937326|181885856|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.949||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day on Day 15 for FPI.||||0.949
91001676|NCT00937326|181885856|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.924||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day on Day 15 for FPI.||||0.924
91001677|NCT00937326|181885856|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.394||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day on Day 22 for FPI.||||0.394
91001678|NCT00937326|181885856|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.687||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day on Day 22 for FPI.||||0.687
91001679|NCT00937326|181885856|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.568||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day on Day 22 for FPI.||||0.568
91047985|NCT02377921|181980733|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.43||||0.3907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.55||GEE model includes change from Baseline as dependent variable, visit, treatment and visit by treatment as fixed factors, and Baseline values, sex, and region as covariates, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE model||Difference: Ace-ER 6 g/day - placebo|||0.55|-1.40|0.3907
91047986|NCT02377921|181980734|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-10.98||||0.1964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.64|5.68||GEE model includes change from Baseline as dependent variable, visit, treatment and visit by treatment as fixed factors, and Baseline values, sex, and region as covariates, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE model||Difference: Ace-ER 6 g/day - placebo|||5.68|-27.64|0.1964
91047987|NCT02377921|181980735|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.4||||0.2241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.66|0.86||GEE model includes change from Baseline as dependent variable, visit, treatment and visit by treatment as fixed factors, and Baseline values, sex, and region as covariates, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE model||Difference: Ace-ER - placebo|||0.86|-3.66|0.2241
91047988|NCT02377921|181980736|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.32||||0.5608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|0.75||GEE model includes change from Baseline as dependent variable, visit, treatment and visit by treatment as fixed factors, and Baseline values, sex, and region as covariates, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE model||Difference: Ace-ER 6 g/day - placebo|||0.75|-1.39|0.5608
91047989|NCT02443545|181980738|OTHER|One-sample t-test, to determine whether the change from baseline in LIC was significantly different from 0.||||||0|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline after 1 year of deferiprone therapy||||0.0000
91047990|NCT02443545|181980738|OTHER|One-sample t-test, to determine whether the change from baseline in LIC was significantly different from 0.||||||0|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline after 2 years of deferiprone therapy||||0.0000
91047991|NCT02443545|181980738|OTHER|One-sample t-test, to determine whether the change from baseline in LIC was significantly different from 0.||||||0|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline after 3 years of deferiprone therapy||||0.0000
91047992|NCT02443545|181980739|OTHER|One-sample t-test, to determine whether the change from baseline in MRI T2\* was significantly different from 0.||||||0.3146|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline after 1 year of deferiprone therapy||||0.3146
91047993|NCT02443545|181980739|OTHER|One-sample t-test, to determine whether the change from baseline in MRI T2\* was significantly different from 0.||||||0.9454|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline after 2 years of deferiprone therapy||||0.9454
91047994|NCT02443545|181980739|OTHER|One-sample t-test, to determine whether the change from baseline in MRI 2\* was significantly different from 0.||||||0.4336|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline after 3 years of deferiprone therapy||||0.4336
91047995|NCT02443545|181980740|OTHER|One-sample t-test, to determine whether the change from baseline in serum ferritin was significantly different from 0||||||0.9952|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline after 1 year of deferiprone therapy||||0.9952
91047996|NCT02443545|181980740|OTHER|One-sample t-test, to determine whether the change from baseline in serum ferritin was significantly different from 0||||||0.0008|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline after 2 years of deferiprone therapy||||0.0008
91047997|NCT02443545|181980740|OTHER|One-sample t-test, to determine whether the change from baseline in serum ferritin was significantly different from 0||||||0.042|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline after 3 years of deferiprone therapy||||0.0420
91047998|NCT04179019|181980773|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The intra-individual, paired, 24h urine aldosterone excretion rate following 2 weeks of amlodipine therapy was compared to the baseline pre-treatment 24h urine aldosterone excretion rate. The null hypothesis was that amlodipine therapy would result in no change in the 24h urine aldosterone excretion rate. Because only 2 participants completed the pilot study, the validity of the results is low.||||0.96
91047999|NCT04179019|181980774|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The intra-individual, paired, plasma aldosterone concentration following 2 weeks of amlodipine therapy was compared to the baseline pre-treatment aldosterone concentration. The null hypothesis was that amlodipine therapy would result in no change in the plasma aldosterone value. Because only 2 participants completed the pilot study, the validity of the results is low.||||0.29
91048000|NCT04179019|181980775|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The intra-individual, paired, change in plasma aldosterone concentration in response to an acute dose of amlodipine (6h post-dose) was compared to the baseline pre-treatment response to an acute dose of amlodipine. The null hypothesis was that an acute amlodipine dose would result in no acute change in the plasma aldosterone levels. Because only 2 participants completed the pilot study, the validity of the results is low.||||0.83
91048001|NCT00440115|181980778|SUPERIORITY|Power calculations demonstrated that 250 participants per group would have 95% power to compare combined high-intensity disease management and moderate-intensity disease management with pharmacotherapy management, on the basis of 10% (pharmacotherapy management), 15% (moderate-intensity disease management), and 25% (high-intensity disease management) self-reported quit rates.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.61|||Mixed Models Analysis||(High-intensity disease management and moderate-intensity disease management) vs pharmacotherapy management|||1.61|0.78|0.54
91048002|NCT00440115|181980778|SUPERIORITY|Power calculations indicated that 250 participants per group would have 80% power to compare high-intensity disease management and moderate-intensity disease management with pharmacotherapy management, on the basis of 10% (pharmacotherapy management), 15% (moderate-intensity disease management), and 25% (high-intensity disease management) self-reported quit rates.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.02|||Mixed Models Analysis||High-intensity disease management vs moderate-intensity disease management|||2.02|0.88|0.18
91048003|NCT03078478|181980781|SUPERIORITY||Treatment rate ratio|0.88||||0.1715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.06|||Regression, Cox|||The number of episodes is analysed using a negative binomial regression model (log link) with the logarithm of the time period in which a hypoglycaemic episode was considered treatment emergent as offset. The model includes treatment, number of OADs, region, sex and dosing time as fixed factors, and age as a covariate. Missing values are imputed through multiple imputation by treatment arm, based on a Poisson model.||1.06|0.73|0.1715
91048004|NCT03821272|181980822|SUPERIORITY||non-recurrence rate|0.45||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.77|||Fisher Exact|||||0.77|0.17|0.31
91048005|NCT03821272|181980823|SUPERIORITY||non-recurrence rate|0.8||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.99|||Fisher Exact|||||0.99|0.28|0.31
91048006|NCT03821272|181980824|SUPERIORITY||non-recurrence rate|0.56||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.86|||Fisher Exact|||||0.86|0.21|0.58
91048007|NCT03821272|181980825|SUPERIORITY||non-recurrence rate|0.8||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.99|||Fisher Exact|||||0.99|0.28|0.58
91048008|NCT05626803|181980838|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Computed by using ANCOVA model with log transformed data as response variable and treatment as a fixed factor and baseline value as covariate.||||||<.0001
91048009|NCT05626803|181980838|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Computed by using ANCOVA model with log transformed data as response variable and treatment as a fixed factor and baseline value as covariate.||||||<.0001
91048010|NCT05626803|181980838|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||ANCOVA|Computed by using ANCOVA model with log transformed data as response variable and treatment as a fixed factor and baseline value as covariate.||||||0.0003
91048011|NCT05626803|181980840|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Computed by using ANCOVA model with log transformed data as response variable and treatment as a fixed factor and baseline value as covariate.||||||<.0001
91048012|NCT05626803|181980840|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Computed by using ANCOVA model with log transformed data as response variable and treatment as a fixed factor and baseline value as covariate.||||||<.0001
91048013|NCT05626803|181980840|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Computed by using ANCOVA model with log transformed data as response variable and treatment as a fixed factor and baseline value as covariate.||||||<.0001
91048014|NCT05626803|181980842|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Computed by using ANCOVA model with log transformed data as response variable and treatment as a fixed factor and baseline value as covariate.||||||<.0001
91048015|NCT05626803|181980842|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Computed by using ANCOVA model with log transformed data as response variable and treatment as a fixed factor and baseline value as covariate.||||||<.0001
91048016|NCT05626803|181980842|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0017|||||||ANCOVA|Computed by using ANCOVA model with log transformed data as response variable and treatment as a fixed factor and baseline value as covariate.||||||0.0017
91048017|NCT05626803|181980844|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Computed by using ANCOVA model with log transformed data as response variable and treatment as a fixed factor and baseline value as covariate.||||||<.0001
91048018|NCT05626803|181980844|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Computed by using ANCOVA model with log transformed data as response variable and treatment as a fixed factor and baseline value as covariate.||||||<.0001
91048019|NCT05626803|181980844|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Computed by using ANCOVA model with log transformed data as response variable and treatment as a fixed factor and baseline value as covariate.||||||<.0001
91048020|NCT05626803|181980846|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0059|||||||ANCOVA|Computed by using ANCOVA model with log transformed data as response variable and treatment as a fixed factor and baseline value as covariate.||||||0.0059
91048021|NCT05626803|181980846|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||ANCOVA|Computed by using ANCOVA model with log transformed data as response variable and treatment as a fixed factor and baseline value as covariate.||||||0.0020
91048022|NCT05626803|181980846|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1899|||||||ANCOVA|Computed by using ANCOVA model with log transformed data as response variable and treatment as a fixed factor and baseline value as covariate.||||||0.1899
91048023|NCT05626803|181980848|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Computed by using ANCOVA model with log transformed data as response variable and treatment as a fixed factor and baseline value as covariate.||||||<.0001
91048024|NCT05626803|181980848|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Computed by using ANCOVA model with log transformed data as response variable and treatment as a fixed factor and baseline value as covariate.||||||<.0001
91048025|NCT05626803|181980848|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||ANCOVA|Computed by using ANCOVA model with log transformed data as response variable and treatment as a fixed factor and baseline value as covariate.||||||0.0020
91048026|NCT02516410|181980866|SUPERIORITY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|1.2|||=|0.1176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|2.6|||Mixed-effect repeated measure (MMRM)|||||2.6|-0.3|= 0.1176
91048027|NCT01286558|181980878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.46||||||95.0|-0.22|3.14|||ANCOVA|||||3.14|-0.22|
91048028|NCT01286558|181980879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.14||||||95.0|-0.36|4.64|||ANCOVA|||||4.64|-0.36|
91001680|NCT00937326|181885856|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.486||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day on Day 22 for FPI.||||0.486
91001681|NCT00937326|181885856|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.973||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day on Day 28 for FPI.||||0.973
91001682|NCT00937326|181885856|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.739||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day on Day 28 for FPI.||||0.739
91001683|NCT00937326|181885856|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.731||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day on Day 28 for FPI.||||0.731
91001684|NCT00937326|181885856|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.991||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day on Day 28 for FPI.||||0.991
91001685|NCT00937326|181885856|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.994||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day on Day 35 for FPI.||||0.994
91001686|NCT00937326|181885856|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.963||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day on Day 35 for FPI.||||0.963
91001687|NCT00937326|181885856|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.929||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day on Day 35 for FPI.||||0.929
91048029|NCT01286558|181980880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.21||||||95.0|-2.58|0.15|||ANCOVA|||||0.15|-2.58|
91001688|NCT00937326|181885856|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day on Day 35 for FPI.||||0.970
91001689|NCT00937326|181885857|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.989||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day for change from Baseline in FPI on Day 8.||||0.989
91001690|NCT00937326|181885857|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.989||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day for change from Baseline in FPI on Day 8.||||0.989
91001691|NCT00937326|181885857|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.982||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day for change from Baseline in FPI on Day 8.||||0.982
91001692|NCT00937326|181885857|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day for change from Baseline in FPI on Day 8.||||0.999
91048030|NCT01286558|181980881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||||95.0|-4.16|0.35|||ANCOVA|||||0.35|-4.16|
91048031|NCT01286558|181980882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.89||||||95.0|-2.57|0.79|||ANCOVA|||||0.79|-2.57|
91048032|NCT01286558|181980883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.64||||||95.0|-4.27|0.99|||ANCOVA|||||0.99|-4.27|
91001693|NCT00937326|181885857|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.685||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day for change from Baseline in FPI on Day 15.||||0.685
91001694|NCT00937326|181885857|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day for change from Baseline in FPI on Day 15.||||0.999
91001695|NCT00937326|181885857|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.971||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day for change from Baseline in FPI on Day 15.||||0.971
91001696|NCT00937326|181885857|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day for change from Baseline in FPI on Day 15.||||1.000
91001697|NCT00937326|181885857|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.405||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day for change from Baseline in FPI on Day 22.||||0.405
91001698|NCT00937326|181885857|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.975||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day for change from Baseline in FPI on Day 22.||||0.975
91001699|NCT00937326|181885857|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day for change from Baseline in FPI on Day 22.||||0.999
91001700|NCT00937326|181885857|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.629||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day for change from Baseline in FPI on Day 22.||||0.629
91001701|NCT00937326|181885857|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.982||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day for change from Baseline in FPI on Day 28.||||0.982
91001702|NCT00937326|181885857|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.982||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day for change from Baseline in FPI on Day 28.||||0.982
91001703|NCT00937326|181885857|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day for change from Baseline in FPI on Day 28.||||0.999
91001704|NCT00937326|181885857|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.874||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day for change from Baseline in FPI on Day 28.||||0.874
91001705|NCT00937326|181885857|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.986||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day for change from Baseline in FPI on Day 35.||||0.986
91001706|NCT00937326|181885857|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.997||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day for change from Baseline in FPI on Day 35.||||0.997
91001707|NCT00937326|181885857|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day for change from Baseline in FPI on Day 35.||||1.000
91048033|NCT01287039|181980924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||CAE rate ratio (reslizumab vs placebo)|0.501|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3726|0.6737||The treatment effect was tested using the likelihood based Chi-square test at the 0.05 significance level.|Chi-squared|||The frequency of CAEs was analyzed using the generalized linear model (GLM) for data from the negative binomial distributions that is commonly referred to as the negative binomial (NB) regression model. The primary NB model included the treatment group and randomization stratification factors as model factors and the logarithm of follow up time excluding the summed duration of exacerbations in the treatment period as an offset variable.||0.6737|0.3726|<0.0001
91048034|NCT01287039|181980925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.137|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0311|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.076|0.198|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||For each week and overall change, inferential statistics were from mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, region, oral glucocorticosteroids use at enrollment and sex as fixed factors, and covariates for height and baseline value and patient as a random effect. Unstructured covariance structure was assumed for the repeated measures.||0.198|0.076|<0.0001
91048035|NCT01287039|181980926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.238|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0967||0.0143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.048|0.428|||Mixed model repeated measures|||For each week and overall change, inferential statistics were from mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, region, oral glucocorticosteroids use at enrollment and sex as fixed factors, and covariates for height and baseline value and patient as a random effect. Unstructured covariance structure was assumed for the repeated measures.||0.428|0.048|0.0143
91048036|NCT01287039|181980927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.266|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0681||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.399|-0.132|||Mixed model repeated measures|||For each week and overall change, inferential statistics were from mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, region, oral glucocorticosteroids use at enrollment and sex as fixed factors, and covariates for height and baseline value and patient as a random effect. Unstructured covariance structure was assumed for the repeated measures.||-0.132|-0.399|0.0001
91001708|NCT00937326|181885857|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.697||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day for change from Baseline in FPI on Day 35.||||0.697
91001709|NCT00937326|181885858|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day at 30 minutes for PPG.||||1.000
91001710|NCT00937326|181885858|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.812||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day at 30 minutes for PPG.||||0.812
91001711|NCT00937326|181885858|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.996||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day at 30 minutes for PPG.||||0.996
91001712|NCT00937326|181885858|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.198||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day at 30 minutes for PPG.||||0.198
91001713|NCT00937326|181885858|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day at 60 minutes for PPG.||||1.000
91001714|NCT00937326|181885858|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.358||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day at 60 minutes for PPG.||||0.358
91048037|NCT01287039|181980928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.575|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.75|||Regression, Cox|Stratified by baseline usage of oral corticosteroid (yes or no) and geographical region (US or other).|Reslizumab vs placebo|Kaplan-Meier estimate of probability (5) of not experiencing a CAE by week 52. The first CAEs for each patient occurring after randomization and up to 2 weeks after the end of treatment period were analyzed. Patients without a CAE within this time frame were censored at two weeks after the treatment completion date or study discontinuation, whichever came first.||0.750|0.440|<0.0001
91001715|NCT00937326|181885858|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.852||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day at 60 minutes for PPG.||||0.852
91001716|NCT00937326|181885858|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.678||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day at 60 minutes for PPG.||||0.678
91001717|NCT00937326|181885858|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day at 2 hour for PPG.||||1.000
91001718|NCT00937326|181885858|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.191||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day at 2 hour for PPG.||||0.191
91001719|NCT00937326|181885858|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.805||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day at 2 hour for PPG.||||0.805
91001720|NCT00937326|181885858|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day at 2 hour for PPG.||||0.960
91001721|NCT00937326|181885858|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.985||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day at 30 minutes for PPI.||||0.985
91001722|NCT00937326|181885858|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.733||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day at 30 minutes for PPI.||||0.733
91001723|NCT00937326|181885858|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.365||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day at 30 minutes for PPI.||||0.365
91001724|NCT00937326|181885858|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.413||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day at 30 minutes for PPI.||||0.413
91001725|NCT00937326|181885858|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.765||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day at 60 minutes for PPI.||||0.765
91001726|NCT00937326|181885858|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.434||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day at 60 minutes for PPI.||||0.434
91001727|NCT00937326|181885858|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.184||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day at 60 minutes for PPI.||||0.184
91001728|NCT00937326|181885858|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.142||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day at 60 minutes for PPI.||||0.142
91001729|NCT00937326|181885858|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day at 2 hour for PPI.||||0.999
91001730|NCT00937326|181885858|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.876||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day at 2 hour for PPI.||||0.876
91001731|NCT00937326|181885858|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.756||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day at 2 hour for PPI.||||0.756
91001732|NCT00937326|181885858|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.983||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day at 2 hour for PPI.||||0.983
91001733|NCT00937326|181885859|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.809||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day for change from Baseline in PPG at 30 minutes.||||0.809
91001734|NCT00937326|181885859|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day for change from Baseline in PPG at 30 minutes.||||1.000
91001735|NCT00937326|181885859|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.989||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day for change from Baseline in PPG at 30 minutes.||||0.989
91001736|NCT00937326|181885859|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day for change from Baseline in PPG at 30 minutes.||||0.130
91001737|NCT00937326|181885859|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day for change from Baseline in PPG at 60 minutes.||||0.870
91001738|NCT00937326|181885859|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.864||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day for change from Baseline in PPG at 60 minutes.||||0.864
91001739|NCT00937326|181885859|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.997||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day for change from Baseline in PPG at 60 minutes.||||0.997
91001740|NCT00937326|181885859|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.682||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day for change from Baseline in PPG at 60 minutes.||||0.682
91001741|NCT00937326|181885859|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.798||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day for change from Baseline in PPG at 2 hour.||||0.798
91001742|NCT00937326|181885859|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day for change from Baseline in PPG at 2 hour.||||0.730
91001743|NCT00937326|181885859|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day for change from Baseline in PPG at 2 hour.||||1.000
91001744|NCT00937326|181885859|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day for change from Baseline in PPG at 2 hour.||||1.000
91001745|NCT00937326|181885859|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.464||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day for change from Baseline in PPI at 30 minutes.||||0.464
91001746|NCT00937326|181885859|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.634||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day for change from Baseline in PPI at 30 minutes.||||0.634
91001747|NCT00937326|181885859|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.254||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day for change from Baseline in PPI at 30 minutes.||||0.254
91001748|NCT00937326|181885859|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.034||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day for change from Baseline in PPI at 30 minutes.||||0.034
91001749|NCT00937326|181885859|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.765||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day for change from Baseline in PPI at 60 minutes.||||0.765
91001750|NCT00937326|181885859|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.434||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day for change from Baseline in PPI at 60 minutes.||||0.434
91001751|NCT00937326|181885859|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.184||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day for change from Baseline in PPI at 60 minutes.||||0.184
91001752|NCT00937326|181885859|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.142||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day for change from Baseline in PPI at 60 minutes.||||0.142
91001753|NCT00937326|181885859|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.955||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day for change from Baseline in PPI at 2 hour.||||0.955
91001754|NCT00937326|181885859|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.985||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day for change from Baseline in PPI at 2 hour.||||0.985
91001755|NCT00937326|181885859|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.923||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day for change from Baseline in PPI at 2 hour.||||0.923
91001756|NCT00937326|181885859|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.883||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day for change from Baseline in PPI at 2 hour.||||0.883
91001757|NCT00937326|181885860|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.118||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||||||0.118
91001758|NCT00937326|181885860|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.119||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||||||0.119
91048038|NCT01287039|181980929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.058|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0125|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.034|0.083|||Mixed model repeated measures|||For each week, inferential statistics were from mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, region, oral glucocorticosteroids use at enrollment as fixed factor, and covariate baseline value and patient as a random effect. Unstructured covariance structure was assumed for the repeated measures.||0.083|0.034|<0.0001
91048039|NCT01287039|181980930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.276|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1632||0.0919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.597|0.045|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Inferential statistics were from mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, region, OCS use at enrollment as fixed factors, and covariate for baseline value and patient as a random effect. Unstructured covariance structure was assumed for the repeated measures.||0.045|-0.597|0.0919
91048040|NCT01287039|181980931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.466|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0244|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.514|-0.418|||Mixed model repeated measures|||"Eosinophil Count Over 16 Weeks~Inferential statistics were from mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, region, oral glucocorticosteroids use at enrollment as fixed factor, and covariate baseline value and patient as a random effect. Unstructured covariance structure was assumed for the repeated measures."||-0.418|-0.514|<0.0001
91048041|NCT01287039|181980931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.455|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0182|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.491|-0.419|||Mixed model repeated measures|||"Eosinophil Count Over 52 Weeks~Inferential statistics were from mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, region, oral glucocorticosteroids use at enrollment as fixed factor, and covariate baseline value and patient as a random effect. Unstructured covariance structure was assumed for the repeated measures."||-0.419|-0.491|<0.0001
91001759|NCT00937326|181885860|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.293||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||||||0.293
91001760|NCT00937326|181885860|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.966||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||||||0.966
91048042|NCT01287039|181980933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||CAE rate ratio (reslizumab vs placebo)|0.4499|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3255|0.622||The treatment effect was tested using the likelihood based Chi-square test at the 0.05 significance level.|Chi-squared|||CAE Due to Requiring Systemic Corticosteroids The frequency of CAEs was analyzed using the generalized linear model (GLM) for data from the negative binomial distributions that is commonly referred to as the negative binomial (NB) regression model. The primary NB model included the treatment group and randomization stratification factors as model factors and the logarithm of follow up time excluding the summed duration of exacerbations in the treatment period as an offset variable.||0.6220|0.3255|<0.0001
91048043|NCT01287039|181980933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||CAE rate ratio (reslizumab vs placebo)|0.6595||||0.2572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.321|1.355||The treatment effect was tested using the likelihood based Chi-square test at the 0.05 significance level.|Chi-squared|||CAE Due to Hospitalization or ER visit The frequency of CAEs was analyzed using the generalized linear model (GLM) for data from the negative binomial distributions that is commonly referred to as the negative binomial (NB) regression model. The primary NB model included the treatment group and randomization stratification factors as model factors and the logarithm of follow up time excluding the summed duration of exacerbations in the treatment period as an offset variable.||1.3550|0.3210|0.2572
91001761|NCT00937326|181885861|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||||||0.940
91048044|NCT02678442|181980980|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
91048045|NCT02678442|181980982|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
91048046|NCT02678442|181980983|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
91048047|NCT02678442|181980984|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.001
91048048|NCT03575871|181980996|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|19.3||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.6|29.0||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The estimate and confidence interval (CI) for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||29.0|9.6|0.0008
91048049|NCT03575871|181980996|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|28.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.6|38.8||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||38.8|18.6|<0.0001
91048050|NCT03575871|181980997|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|33.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.3|44.4||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||44.4|23.3|<0.0001
91048051|NCT03575871|181980997|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|50.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.0|60.9||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||60.9|40.0|<0.0001
91048052|NCT03575871|181980998|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|19.2||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|27.4||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||27.4|11.0|0.0002
91048053|NCT03575871|181980998|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|31.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.3|40.2||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||40.2|22.3|<0.0001
91001762|NCT00937326|181885861|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.197||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||||||0.197
91048054|NCT03575871|181980998|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|27.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.9|36.2||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||36.2|18.9|<0.0001
91048055|NCT03575871|181980998|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|46.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.2|55.7||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||55.7|37.2|<0.0001
91048056|NCT03575871|181980998|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|27.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.8|38.0||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||38.0|16.8|<0.0001
91048057|NCT03575871|181980998|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|39.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.9|50.6||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||50.6|28.9|<0.0001
91048058|NCT03575871|181980998|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|29.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.9|39.6||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||39.6|18.9|<0.0001
91048059|NCT03575871|181980998|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|38.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.1|49.1||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||49.1|28.1|<0.0001
91048060|NCT03575871|181980999|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-1.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure (MMRM) contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category), baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.1|-2.3|<0.0001
91048061|NCT03575871|181980999|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-2.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure (MMRM) contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category), baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.6|-2.8|<0.0001
91001763|NCT00937326|181885861|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.097||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||||||0.097
91001764|NCT00937326|181885861|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.404||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||||||0.404
91001765|NCT00937326|181885862|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.206||||||No adjustments for covariates were made.|Wilcoxon test|||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day of AUC 0-1 at Day 1 for PPG.||||0.2060
91001766|NCT00937326|181885862|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.179||||||No adjustments for covariates were made.|Wilcoxon test|||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day of AUC 0-1 at Day 1 for PPG.||||0.1790
91001767|NCT00937326|181885862|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2741||||||No adjustments for covariates were made.|Wilcoxon test|||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day of AUC 0-1 at Day 1 for PPG.||||0.2741
91001768|NCT00937326|181885862|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6001||||||No adjustments for covariates were made.|Wilcoxon test|||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day of AUC 0-1 at Day 1 for PPG.||||0.6001
91001769|NCT00937326|181885862|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6711||||||No adjustments for covariates were made.|Wilcoxon test|||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day of AUC 0-1 at Day 28 for PPG.||||0.6711
91001770|NCT00937326|181885862|OTHER|||||||0.1361||||||No adjustments for covariates were made.|Wilcoxon test|||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day of AUC 0-1 at Day 28 for PPG.||||0.1361
91001771|NCT00937326|181885862|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3369||||||No adjustments for covariates were made.|Wilcoxon test|||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day of AUC 0-1 at Day 28 for PPG.||||0.3369
91001772|NCT00937326|181885862|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0975||||||No adjustments for covariates were made.|Wilcoxon test|||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day of AUC 0-1 at Day 28 for PPG.||||0.0975
91001773|NCT00937326|181885862|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2184||||||No adjustments for covariates were made.|Wilcoxon test|||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day of AUC 0-2 at Day 1 for PPG.||||0.2184
91001774|NCT00937326|181885862|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1013||||||No adjustments for covariates were made.|Wilcoxon test|||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day of AUC 0-2 at Day 1 for PPG.||||0.1013
91001775|NCT00937326|181885862|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3286||||||No adjustments for covariates were made.|Wilcoxon test|||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day of AUC 0-2 at Day 1 for PPG.||||0.3286
91001776|NCT00937326|181885862|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5193||||||No adjustments for covariates were made.|Wilcoxon test|||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day of AUC 0-2 at Day 1 for PPG.||||0.5193
91001777|NCT00937326|181885862|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9788||||||No adjustments for covariates were made.|Wilcoxon test|||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day of AUC 0-2 at Day 28 for PPG.||||0.9788
91001778|NCT00937326|181885862|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1214||||||No adjustments for covariates were made.|Wilcoxon test|||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day of AUC 0-2 at Day 28 for PPG.||||0.1214
91001779|NCT00937326|181885862|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5751||||||No adjustments for covariates were made.|Wilcoxon test|||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day of AUC 0-2 at Day 28 for PPG.||||0.5751
91001780|NCT00937326|181885862|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2409||||||No adjustments for covariates were made.|Wilcoxon test|||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day of AUC 0-2 at Day 28 for PPG.||||0.2409
91001781|NCT00937326|181885862|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4829||||||No adjustments for covariates were made.|Wilcoxon test|||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day of AUC 0-1 at Day 1 for PPI.||||0.4829
91001782|NCT00937326|181885862|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7563||||||No adjustments for covariates were made.|Wilcoxon test|||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day of AUC 0-1 at Day 1 for PPI.||||0.7563
91001783|NCT00937326|181885862|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2907||||||No adjustments for covariates were made.|Wilcoxon test|||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day of AUC 0-1 at Day 1 for PPI.||||0.2907
91001784|NCT00937326|181885862|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7663||||||No adjustments for covariates were made.|Wilcoxon test|||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day of AUC 0-1 at Day 1 for PPI.||||0.7663
91001785|NCT00937326|181885862|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5825||||||No adjustments for covariates were made.|Wilcoxon test|||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day of AUC 0-1 at Day 28 for PPI||||0.5825
91001786|NCT00937326|181885862|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.322||||||No adjustments for covariates were made.|Wilcoxon test|||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day of AUC 0-1 at Day 28 for PPI.||||0.3220
91001787|NCT00937326|181885862|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0564||||||No adjustments for covariates were made.|Wilcoxon test|||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day of AUC 0-1 at Day 28 for PPI.||||0.0564
91001788|NCT00937326|181885862|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.196||||||No adjustments for covariates were made.|Wilcoxon test|||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day of AUC 0-1 at Day 28 for PPI.||||0.1960
91001789|NCT00937326|181885862|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5997||||||No adjustments for covariates were made.|Wilcoxon test|||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day of AUC 0-2 at Day 1 for PPI.||||0.5997
91001790|NCT00937326|181885862|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9637||||||No adjustments for covariates were made.|Wilcoxon test|||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day of AUC 0-2 at Day 1 for PPI.||||0.9637
91001791|NCT00937326|181885862|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.324||||||No adjustments for covariates were made.|Wilcoxon test|||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day of AUC 0-2 at Day 1 for PPI.||||0.3240
91001792|NCT00937326|181885862|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.844||||||No adjustments for covariates were made.|Wilcoxon test|||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day of AUC 0-2 at Day 1 for PPI.||||0.8440
91001793|NCT00937326|181885862|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6483||||||No adjustments for covariates were made.|Wilcoxon test|||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day of AUC 0-2 at Day 28 for PPI.||||0.6483
91001794|NCT00937326|181885862|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6452||||||No adjustments for covariates were made.|Wilcoxon test|||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day of AUC 0-2 at Day 28 for PPI.||||0.6452
91001795|NCT00937326|181885862|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1253||||||No adjustments for covariates were made.|Wilcoxon test|||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day of AUC 0-2 at Day 28 for PPI.||||0.1253
91001796|NCT00937326|181885862|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2583||||||No adjustments for covariates were made.|Wilcoxon test|||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day of AUC 0-2 at Day 28 for PPI.||||0.2583
91048062|NCT03575871|181981001|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|8.8||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|14.9||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||14.9|2.8|0.0150
91001797|NCT00937326|181885863|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day at Day 1 for fructosamine.||||1.000
91048063|NCT03575871|181981001|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|22.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.0|30.3||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||30.3|15.0|<0.0001
91048064|NCT03575871|181981001|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|20.0||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.9|29.0||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||29.0|10.9|0.0004
91048065|NCT03575871|181981001|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|44.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.8|53.8||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||53.8|34.8|<0.0001
91048066|NCT03575871|181981001|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|30.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.7|41.2||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||41.2|19.7|<0.0001
91001798|NCT00937326|181885863|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day at Day 1 for fructosamine.||||1.000
91048067|NCT03575871|181981001|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|47.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.8|58.0||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||58.0|36.8|<0.0001
91048068|NCT03575871|181981002|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|5.1||||0.0459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|10.0||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||10.0|0.2|0.0459
91001799|NCT00937326|181885863|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.901||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day at Day 1 for fructosamine.||||0.901
91048069|NCT03575871|181981002|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|14.2||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.8|20.5||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||20.5|7.8|0.0005
91001800|NCT00937326|181885863|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.155||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day at Day 1 for fructosamine.||||0.155
91001801|NCT00937326|181885863|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.845||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day at Day 28 for fructosamine.||||0.845
91001802|NCT00937326|181885863|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.164||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day at Day 28 for fructosamine.||||0.164
91001803|NCT00937326|181885863|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.699||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day at Day 28 for fructosamine.||||0.699
91001804|NCT00937326|181885863|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.313||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day at Day 28 for fructosamine.||||0.313
91001805|NCT00937326|181885864|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.896||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||||||0.896
91001806|NCT00937326|181885864|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||||||0.080
91001807|NCT00937326|181885864|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.792||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||||||0.792
91001808|NCT00937326|181885864|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.645||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||||||0.645
91048070|NCT03575871|181981002|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|12.9||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|19.4||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||19.4|6.3|0.0019
91001809|NCT00937326|181885865|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.992||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day at Day 1 for HOMA-IR.||||0.992
91001810|NCT00937326|181885865|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day at Day 1 for HOMA-IR.||||0.999
91001811|NCT00937326|181885865|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.548||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day at Day 1 for HOMA-IR.||||0.548
91001812|NCT00937326|181885865|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.989||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day at Day 1 for HOMA-IR.||||0.989
91001813|NCT00937326|181885865|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.877||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day at Day 28 for HOMA-IR.||||0.877
91001814|NCT00937326|181885865|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.887||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day at Day 28 for HOMA-IR.||||0.887
91001815|NCT00937326|181885865|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.916||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day at Day 28 for HOMA-IR.||||0.916
91001816|NCT00937326|181885865|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day at Day 28 for HOMA-IR.||||0.860
91001817|NCT00937326|181885866|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.996||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||||||0.996
91001818|NCT00937326|181885866|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.989||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||||||0.989
91001819|NCT00937326|181885866|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||||||0.999
91001820|NCT00937326|181885866|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.763||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||||||0.763
91001821|NCT00937326|181885867|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day at Day 1 for HOMA-percentage of beta cell function.||||0.810
91001822|NCT00937326|181885867|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.753||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day at Day 1 for HOMA-percentage of beta cell function.||||0.753
91048071|NCT03575871|181981002|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|31.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.6|39.9||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||39.9|23.6|<0.0001
91048072|NCT03575871|181981002|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|11.9||||0.0246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|21.4||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||21.4|2.4|0.0246
91048073|NCT03575871|181981002|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|26.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.0|36.9||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||36.9|17.0|<0.0001
91048074|NCT03575871|181981003|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|3.7||P-value was not estimable since there were no events.||||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||3.7|-3.7|
91048075|NCT03575871|181981003|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|1.9||||0.2262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|6.1||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||6.1|-2.2|0.2262
91048076|NCT03575871|181981003|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|1.9||||0.2223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|6.1||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||6.1|-2.2|0.2223
91048077|NCT03575871|181981003|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|4.5||||0.0597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|9.2||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||9.2|-0.2|0.0597
91048078|NCT03575871|181981003|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|1.3||||0.3207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|5.2||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||5.2|-2.7|0.3207
91048079|NCT03575871|181981003|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|4.5||||0.0586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|9.2||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||9.2|-0.2|0.0586
91048080|NCT03575871|181981003|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|5.2||||0.0419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|10.1||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||10.1|0.3|0.0419
91048081|NCT03575871|181981003|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|6.3||||0.0244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|11.4||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||11.4|1.2|0.0244
91048082|NCT03575871|181981004|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|25.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.8|35.2||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||35.2|14.8|<0.0001
91048083|NCT03575871|181981004|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|44.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.9|54.6||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||54.6|33.9|<0.0001
91048084|NCT03575871|181981004|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|30.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.5|42.8||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||42.8|17.5|<0.0001
91048085|NCT03575871|181981004|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|49.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.8|61.7||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||61.7|37.8|<0.0001
91048086|NCT03575871|181981004|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|31.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.8|44.3||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||44.3|18.8|<0.0001
91048087|NCT03575871|181981004|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|47.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.7|59.6||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||59.6|35.7|<0.0001
91001823|NCT00937326|181885867|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.404||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day at Day 1 for HOMA-percentage of beta cell function.||||0.404
91001824|NCT00937326|181885867|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.671||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day at Day 1 for HOMA-percentage of beta cell function.||||0.671
91001825|NCT00937326|181885867|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day at Day 28 for HOMA-percentage of beta cell function.||||1.000
91001826|NCT00937326|181885867|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.622||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day at Day 28 for HOMA-percentage of beta cell function.||||0.622
91001827|NCT00937326|181885867|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.332||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day at Day 28 for HOMA-percentage of beta cell function.||||0.332
91001828|NCT00937326|181885867|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.998||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day at Day 28 for HOMA-percentage of beta cell function.||||0.998
91001829|NCT00937326|181885868|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.994||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||||||0.994
91001830|NCT00937326|181885868|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.979||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||||||0.979
91001831|NCT00937326|181885868|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.993||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||||||0.993
91001832|NCT00937326|181885868|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||||||0.999
91001833|NCT00106249|181885894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91001834|NCT00106249|181885895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91001835|NCT00927576|181885984|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power analysis of the results showed a 95% chance of finding a p\<0.05 difference in 166 subjects and a 99% chance of finding a p \<0.05 difference in 230 subjects in comparison of Group 1 controls and sTBI patients.|Difference in z-score, sTBI vs. controls|2.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|for repeated measures with effect sizes (omega squared).||The null hypotheses was that the severe TBI group would not differ from the control group in SRT latencies.||||< 0.001
91001836|NCT00927576|181885984|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power analysis of controls (i.e., with z-score = 0) showed a 95% chance of detecting a p \< 0.05 significance level for z-scores exceeding 0.54 in the mild TBI patient group..|z-score difference between groups|-0.3||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value reflects the likelihood of detection a difference of the magnitude observed.|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis was that the mild TBI group would not differ in age-corrected z-score from that of a control subjects in the large control group.||||.50
91001837|NCT00762528|181885992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||<0.05
91001838|NCT00762528|181885993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||<0.05
91001839|NCT00762528|181885994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||<0.05
91001840|NCT00762528|181885995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||<0.05
91001841|NCT00762528|181885996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||<0.05
91001842|NCT00762528|181885997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||<0.05
91001843|NCT00762528|181885998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||<0.05
91001844|NCT00762528|181885999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||<0.05
91001845|NCT03417505|181886000|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Paired t-test comparison||||||<0.01
91001846|NCT03417505|181886001|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||Calculated p value was \<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed rank comparisons, one-sided||||||<0.05
91048088|NCT03575871|181981004|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|48.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.2|60.1||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||60.1|37.2|<0.0001
91048089|NCT03575871|181981004|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|60.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.1|71.0||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||71.0|49.1|<0.0001
91048090|NCT03575871|181981005|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|2.5||||0.1623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|6.8||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||6.8|-1.7|0.1623
91048091|NCT03575871|181981005|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|9.1||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|14.7||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||14.7|3.4|0.0070
91048092|NCT03575871|181981005|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|9.7||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|15.4||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||15.4|4.0|0.0049
91048093|NCT03575871|181981005|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|22.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.5|30.2||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||30.2|15.5|<0.0001
91048094|NCT03575871|181981005|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|14.6||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.2|22.0||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||22.0|7.2|0.0013
91048095|NCT03575871|181981005|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|31.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.1|40.1||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||40.1|23.1|<0.0001
91001847|NCT03417505|181886002|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 1 sided|paired 1-sided t-test||||||<0.01
91001848|NCT03417505|181886003|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed rank comparison, one sided p value||||||<0.01
91001849|NCT03417505|181886004|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Calculated p value was \>0.05.|t-test, 1 sided|paired||||||>0.05
91048096|NCT03575871|181981005|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|20.1||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.9|28.3||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||28.3|11.9|0.0001
91048097|NCT03575871|181981005|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|33.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.6|42.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||42.5|24.6|<0.0001
91048098|NCT03575871|181981006|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|3.7||P-value could not be calculated since percentage of participants with events was 0.||||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||3.7|-3.7|
91048099|NCT03575871|181981006|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|1.3||||0.3261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|5.3||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||5.3|-2.8|0.3261
91001850|NCT03417505|181886005|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||Calculated p value was \<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|paired, 1-sided||||||<0.05
91001851|NCT03417505|181886006|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|paired, 1-sided||||||<0.01
91001852|NCT03417505|181886007|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||Calculated p value was \<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|paired, 1-sided||||||<0.05
91001853|NCT03417505|181886008|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Calculated p value was \>0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|paired, 1-sided||||||>0.05
91001854|NCT04211961|181886036|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3
91001855|NCT04211961|181886037|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.9
91001856|NCT04211961|181886038|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.3
91001857|NCT04211961|181886039|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5
91001858|NCT04211961|181886041|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6
91001859|NCT04211961|181886042|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2
91001860|NCT04211961|181886043|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2
91001861|NCT04211961|181886045|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.024
91001862|NCT04211961|181886046|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.9
91001863|NCT04211961|181886047|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.9
91001864|NCT04211961|181886048|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.9
91001865|NCT04211961|181886049|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.9
91001866|NCT01819506|181886079|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.912|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.912
91001867|NCT02420990|181886082|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.31|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Latent Growth Curve Modeling|||||||
91001868|NCT02420990|181886082|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.67|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Latent Growth Curve Modeling|||||||
91001869|NCT02420990|181886082|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.05||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Latent Growth Curve Modeling|||||||0.05
91001870|NCT02420990|181886082|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.56||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Latent Growth Curve Modeling|||||||0.05
91001871|NCT02420990|181886082|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.72||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Latent Growth Curve Modeling|||||||0.05
91001872|NCT02420990|181886083|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.78|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Linear Growth Curve Modeling|||||||
91001873|NCT02420990|181886083|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.64|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Latent Growth Curve Modeling|||||||
91001874|NCT02420990|181886083|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Linear Growth Curve Modeling|||||||
91001875|NCT02420990|181886083|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Latent Growth Curve Modeling|||||||
91001876|NCT02420990|181886083|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.44|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Latent Growth Curve Modeling|||||||
91001877|NCT02420990|181886084|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.6||||0.56|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.56
91001878|NCT01150760|181886094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.0007|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0007
91001879|NCT01150760|181886095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.9|||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||< 0.0001
91001880|NCT01150760|181886096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.6||||0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0001
91001881|NCT01150760|181886097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.1022|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1022
91001882|NCT01150760|181886098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.2|||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||< 0.0001
91001883|NCT01150760|181886099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1|||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||< 0.0001
91001884|NCT01150760|181886100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.3||||0.0012|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0012
91001885|NCT01150760|181886101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9||||0.003|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0030
91001886|NCT01150760|181886102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.7637|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7637
91001887|NCT01150760|181886103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3||||0.0402|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0402
91001888|NCT01150760|181886104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.0755|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0755
91001889|NCT01150760|181886105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.9||||0.0532|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0532
91001890|NCT01150760|181886106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||< 0.0001
91001891|NCT01150760|181886107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||< 0.0001
91001892|NCT01975675|181886117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Treatment-naive noncirrhotic participants in the LDV/SOF (treatment naive) group were compared to the adjusted historical SVR null rate of 63% using a two-sided exact one-sample binomial test.|Binomial test|||||||< 0.001
91001893|NCT01975675|181886117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Treatment-naive noncirrhotic participants in the LDV/SOF+RBV (treatment naive) group were compared to the adjusted historical SVR null rate of 63% using a two-sided exact one-sample binomial test.|Binomial test|||||||< 0.001
91001894|NCT01975675|181886118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|1.0|||||The 95% confidence interval (CI) on the difference in proportions is based on the exact method (standardized statistic and inverting two 1-sided tests).|||1.0|-10.2|
91001895|NCT01975675|181886118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|4.2|||||The 95% CI on the difference in proportions is based on the exact method (standardized statistic and inverting two 1-sided tests).|||4.2|-4.2|
91001896|NCT02738580|181886133|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.26|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The proportion of patients with elevated Progesterone on last day of stimulation(\>1.5 ng/mL) was compared between both groups using the Chi-square test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91001897|NCT02738580|181886134|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.49|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.49
91001898|NCT01015820|181886146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Statistical significance p ≤ 0.05||||0.001
91001899|NCT01015820|181886147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Statistical significance p ≤ 0.05||||0.03
91001900|NCT00583661|181886148|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size determination: A sample of 24 subjects followed for approximately 100 days provides greater than 80% power to conclude that, with a 1-sided alpha=0.025 test, the SAE rate of the EXCOR (assumed to be 0.21 per patient-day) is less than 0.25 per patient-day. This sample size was estimated using 10,000 simulations of this study. A total enrollment of 48 subjects (24 per cohort) were enrolled and implanted with the EXCOR® Pediatric.|Poisson confidence interval|0.25|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.25||A Poisson exact confidence interval was calculated and the critical-value method was used for the significance testing. Success was defined as the upper bound of the 95% Poisson exact confidence interval being less than 0.25.|Poisson confidence interval|||Ho: EXCOR® SAE Rate \>=0.25 Ha: EXCOR® SAE Rate \< 0.25 Where serious adverse event (SAE) rate is calculated as the total number of serious adverse events divided by the sum of days all patients are on the EXCOR® Pediatric device, and 0.25 serious adverse events per patient-day is the success criterion. Study success in terms of safety will be demonstrated by the upper bound of a two-sided 95% Poisson exact confidence interval being less than 0.25.||0.25|0|<0.05
91001901|NCT01324687|181886150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.8387||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7261|0.9689|||GEE / Poisson regression models|||Rate ratio of ED use rate of the intervention group as compared to the control group.||0.9689|0.7261|0.017
91001902|NCT01998399|181886152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Total enrollment only 25 patients and the study was terminated early due to low enrollment. No further statistical analysis was done.||||0.41
91001903|NCT01711658|181886173|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.3436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.46|||Log Rank|One-sided significance level = 0.1803|Reference level = IMRT + cisplatin + placebo|Hazard ratio (lapatinib/placebo) set at 0.65 (35% reduction), 1-sided alpha 0.20 (final test at 0.1803 accounting for 1 interim analysis), logrank test, 80% power, 69 events in 128 randomized (142 total enrolled) patients required. Final analysis at 67 (of 69) events drops power to 79%.||1.46|0.56|0.3436
91001904|NCT01711658|181886174|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.5836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.86|||Log Rank|One-sided significance level = 0.05|Reference level = IMRT + cisplatin + placebo|||1.86|0.61|0.5836
91001905|NCT01711658|181886175|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64||||0.1743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.65|||Log Rank|One-sided significance level = 0.05|Reference level = IMRT + cisplatin + placebo|||1.65|0.25|0.1743
91001906|NCT01711658|181886176|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7989|||||||Fisher Exact|Two-sided significance level = 0.05||||||0.7989
91001907|NCT01711658|181886177|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3728||||||IMRT|Fisher Exact|Two-sided significance level = 0.05||||||0.3728
91001908|NCT01711658|181886177|OTHER|||||||0.7781||||||Cisplatin|Fisher Exact|Two-sided significance level = 0.05||||||0.7781
91001909|NCT01711658|181886177|OTHER|||||||0.8||||||Pre-IMRT lapatinib/placebo|Fisher Exact|Two-sided significance level = 0.05||||||0.8000
91001910|NCT01711658|181886177|OTHER|||||||0.6459||||||Concurrent lapatinib/placebo|Fisher Exact|Two-sided significance level = 0.05||||||0.6459
91001911|NCT01711658|181886177|OTHER|||||||0.4792||||||Maintenance lapatinib/placebo|Fisher Exact|Two-sided significance level = 0.05||||||0.4792
91001912|NCT01711658|181886178|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||0.6735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.17|||Log Rank|One-sided significance level = 0.05|Reference level = IMRT + cisplatin + placebo|||2.17|0.62|0.6735
91001913|NCT01459068|181886208|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|We estimated 150 participants in each arm using the test for paired means, based on a moderate effect size (0.50), 80% power, two-tailed 5% significance level, design effect of 1.5, and up to a 50% expected drop-out rate (due to frequent cross-border movement).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.4||a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|longitudinal model|longitudinal to model within-person change in mean scores||||-0.40|-0.59|<0.001
91001914|NCT01459068|181886209|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|power calculations were not done for secondary outcomes|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.28|||longitudinal model|||||-0.28|-0.59|<0.001
91001915|NCT01459068|181886210|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|We estimated 150 participants in each arm using the test for paired means, based on a moderate effect size (0.50), 80% power, two-tailed 5% significance level, design effect of 1.5, and up to a 50% expected drop-out rate (due to frequent cross-border movement).|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.35||a priori threshold for significance set at 0.05|longitudinal model|longitudinal analysis modeling within-person change in mean scores||||-0.35|-0.51|<0.001
91001916|NCT01459068|181886211|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|no power calculations on secondary outcomes|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.34|||longitudinal model|||||-0.34|-0.61|<0.001
91001917|NCT01459068|181886212|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|no power calculations for secondary measures|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|-0.15|||longitudinal model|||||-0.15|-0.34|<0.001
91001918|NCT01459068|181886213|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|no power calculations for secondary measures|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.5|||longitudinal model|||||0.50|-0.44|0.896
91001919|NCT02023112|181886216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||percentage of participants with SVR12|91.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|80.1|96.6|||||Tested using the following hierarchical order: among non-cirrhotic treatment-naïve participants 1) superiority of 16-week treatment arm to a clinically relevant threshold; 2) superiority of 12-week treatment arm to a clinically relevant threshold.|"Among non-cirrhotic treatment-naïve participants, superiority of the 16-week treatment arm to a clinically relevant threshold.~Lower bound of 95% confidence interval (LCB) must have exceeded 67% to achieve superiority. Threshold indicates value the LCB had to exceed to demonstrate superiority for the treatment arm and was based on the SVR rates with pegylated-interferon (IFN) alfa-2a or 2b/RBV in treatment-naïve, noncirrhotic HCV genotype 2-infected participants."||96.6|80.1|
91001920|NCT02023112|181886216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||percentage of participants with SVR12|75.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.2|85.1|||||Tested using the following hierarchical order: among non-cirrhotic treatment-naïve participants 1) superiority of 16-week treatment arm to a clinically relevant threshold; 2) superiority of 12-week treatment arm to a clinically relevant threshold.|"Among non-cirrhotic treatment-naïve participants, superiority of the 12-week treatment arm to a clinically relevant threshold.~LCB must have exceeded 67% to achieve superiority. Threshold indicates value the LCB had to exceed to demonstrate superiority for the treatment arm and was based on the SVR rates with pegylated-IFN alfa-2a or 2b/RBV in treatment-naïve, noncirrhotic HCV genotype 2-infected participants."||85.1|61.2|
91001921|NCT00701441|181886252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0||||For comparing pre versus post, paired t tests were used. We considered tests in the hypothesized direction conclusive|t-test, 2 sided|For each comparison, we tested at the 0.05 level with double-sided P values. We used no correction for multiple testing when declaring significance.||Flow mediated dilation = \[(average maximum dilation post cuff deflation - average baseline diameter)/ average baseline diameter\]100||||0.02
91001922|NCT00701441|181886253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0||||We only consider tests in the hypothesized direction conclusive, so testing is conservative from that perspective. However, we used no correction for multiple testing when declaring significance|t-test, 2 sided|||For comparing pre- versus post-treatment, paired t tests were used. For each variable and comparison, we tested at the 0.05 level with double-sided P values.||||0.02
91001923|NCT02690168|181886257|OTHER|||||||0.0053|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0053
91001924|NCT02690168|181886258|OTHER|||||||0.477|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.477
91001925|NCT02690168|181886259|OTHER|||||||0.917|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.917
91001926|NCT02690168|181886261|OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.53
91007424|NCT05281094|181898950|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine Efficacy|13.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.7|44.98|||||Vaccine efficacy is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95.0% CI is above 0%.|VE is defined 100% \[1- (λV/λC)\], where λV and λC denote the hazard rates for the HIL-214 and placebo arms respectively, obtained via a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, using Efron's method for handling ties. The model includes a term for vaccine group and was stratified by country, whereby the United States, Dominican Republic, and Puerto Rico were considered one country. The 95% confidence interval as calculated by subtracting the confidence limits of hazard ratio from 1.||44.98|-34.70|
91001927|NCT01068717|181886292|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for Treatment B to Treatment A and Treatment D to Treatment C ratios of geometric means for Cmax, AUC(INF), and AUC(0-T) of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. Potency-corrected results were also provided. Bioequivalence will be concluded if the 90% CIs for the test-to-reference ratios of geometric means are entirely contained within 80% to 125% for both Cmax and AUC(INF). No adjustments were made for multiplicity.|Ratio geometric least squares (LS) mean|109.53|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.67|116.85||||||To demonstrate the bioequivalence of FDC tablet versus coadministration of saxagliptin and metformin tablets in the fasted and fed states, linear mixed model analyses were performed on log(Cmax), log\[AUC(INF)\], and log\[AUC(0-T)\] of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. The factors in the model were sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and measurements within each subject as repeated measurements allowing for different covariance structures for the fasted and fed states.||116.85|102.67|
91001928|NCT01068717|181886292|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for Treatment B to Treatment A and Treatment D to Treatment C ratios of geometric means for Cmax, AUC(INF), and AUC(0-T) of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. Potency-corrected results were also provided. Bioequivalence will be concluded if the 90% CIs for the test-to-reference ratios of geometric means are entirely contained within 80% to 125% for both Cmax and AUC(INF). No adjustments were made for multiplicity.|Ratio geometric LS mean|100.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.7|117.56||||||To demonstrate the bioequivalence of FDC tablet versus coadministration of saxagliptin and metformin tablets in the fasted and fed states, linear mixed model analyses were performed on log(Cmax), log\[AUC(INF)\], and log\[AUC(0-T)\] of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. The factors in the model were sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and measurements within each subject as repeated measurements allowing for different covariance structures for the fasted and fed states.||117.56|85.70|
91001929|NCT01068717|181886293|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for Treatment B to Treatment A and Treatment D to Treatment C ratios of geometric means for Cmax, AUC(INF), and AUC(0-T) of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. Potency-corrected results were also provided. Bioequivalence will be concluded if the 90% CIs for the test-to-reference ratios of geometric means are entirely contained within 80% to 125% for both Cmax and AUC(INF). No adjustments were made for multiplicity.|Ratio geometric LS mean|99.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.29|107.41||||||To demonstrate the bioequivalence of FDC tablet versus coadministration of saxagliptin and metformin tablets in the fasted and fed states, linear mixed model analyses were performed on log(Cmax), log\[AUC(INF)\], and log\[AUC(0-T)\] of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. The factors in the model were sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and measurements within each subject as repeated measurements allowing for different covariance structures for the fasted and fed states||107.41|91.29|
91001930|NCT01068717|181886293|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for Treatment B to Treatment A and Treatment D to Treatment C ratios of geometric means for Cmax, AUC(INF), and AUC(0-T) of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. Potency-corrected results were also provided. Bioequivalence will be concluded if the 90% CIs for the test-to-reference ratios of geometric means are entirely contained within 80% to 125% for both Cmax and AUC(INF). No adjustments were made for multiplicity.|Ratio geometric LS mean|100.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.86|103.67||||||To demonstrate the bioequivalence of FDC tablet versus coadministration of saxagliptin and metformin tablets in the fasted and fed states, linear mixed model analyses were performed on log(Cmax), log\[AUC(INF)\], and log\[AUC(0-T)\] of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. The factors in the model were sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and measurements within each subject as repeated measurements allowing for different covariance structures for the fasted and fed states.||103.67|96.86|
91001931|NCT01068717|181886295|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for Treatment B to Treatment A and Treatment D to Treatment C ratios of geometric means for Cmax, AUC(INF), and AUC(0-T) of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. Potency-corrected results were also provided. Bioequivalence will be concluded if the 90% CIs for the test-to-reference ratios of geometric means are entirely contained within 80% to 125% for both Cmax and AUC(INF). No adjustments were made for multiplicity.|Ratio geometric LS mean|102.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.96|106.91||||||To demonstrate the bioequivalence of FDC tablet versus coadministration of saxagliptin and metformin tablets in the fasted and fed states, linear mixed model analyses were performed on log(Cmax), log\[AUC(INF)\], and log\[AUC(0-T)\] of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. The factors in the model were sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and measurements within each subject as repeated measurements allowing for different covariance structures for the fasted and fed states.||106.91|97.96|
91007425|NCT05281094|181898951|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine Efficacy|-6.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.04|22.0|||||Vaccine efficacy is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95.0% CI is above 0%.|VE is defined 100% \[1- (λV/λC)\], where λV and λC denote the hazard rates for the HIL-214 and placebo arms respectively, obtained via a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, using Efron's method for handling ties. The model includes a term for vaccine group and was stratified by country, whereby the United States, Dominican Republic, and Puerto Rico were considered one country. The 95% confidence interval as calculated by subtracting the confidence limits of hazard ratio from 1.||22.00|-45.04|
91048100|NCT03575871|181981006|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|1.3||||0.3207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|5.3||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||5.3|-2.7|0.3207
91048101|NCT03575871|181981006|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|3.9||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|8.5||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||8.5|-0.8|0.0810
91048102|NCT03575871|181981006|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|1.3||||0.3207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|5.2||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||5.2|-2.7|0.3207
91001932|NCT01068717|181886295|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for Treatment B to Treatment A and Treatment D to Treatment C ratios of geometric means for Cmax, AUC(INF), and AUC(0-T) of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. Potency-corrected results were also provided. Bioequivalence will be concluded if the 90% CIs for the test-to-reference ratios of geometric means are entirely contained within 80% to 125% for both Cmax and AUC(INF). No adjustments were made for multiplicity.|Ratio geometric LS mean|99.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.61|103.05||||||To demonstrate the bioequivalence of FDC tablet versus coadministration of saxagliptin and metformin tablets in the fasted and fed states, linear mixed model analyses were performed on log(Cmax), log\[AUC(INF)\], and log\[AUC(0-T)\] of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. The factors in the model were sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and measurements within each subject as repeated measurements allowing for different covariance structures for the fasted and fed states.||103.05|96.61|
91001933|NCT01068717|181886300|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for Treatment B to Treatment A and Treatment D to Treatment C ratios of geometric means for Cmax, AUC(INF), and AUC(0-T) of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. Potency-corrected results were also provided. Bioequivalence will be concluded if the 90% CIs for the test-to-reference ratios of geometric means are entirely contained within 80% to 125% for both Cmax and AUC(INF). No adjustments were made for multiplicity.|Ratio geometric LS mean|102.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.96|106.91||||||To demonstrate the bioequivalence of FDC tablet versus coadministration of saxagliptin and metformin tablets in the fasted and fed states, linear mixed model analyses were performed on log(Cmax), log\[AUC(INF)\], and log\[AUC(0-T)\] of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. The factors in the model were sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and measurements within each subject as repeated measurements allowing for different covariance structures for the fasted and fed states.||106.91|97.96|
91007426|NCT04191096|181898957|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.9467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.49||A one-sided p-value was calculated using the log-rank test stratified by prior docetaxel for mHSPC (Yes/No) and presence of high-volume disease (Yes/No) with small strata.|Log Rank||HR and associated 95% Confidence Interval (CI) were calculated using Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by prior docetaxel for mHSPC (Yes/No) and presence of high-volume disease (Yes/No).|||1.49|0.96|0.9467
91048103|NCT03575871|181981006|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|3.8||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|8.4||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||8.4|-0.7|0.0810
91001934|NCT01068717|181886300|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for Treatment B to Treatment A and Treatment D to Treatment C ratios of geometric means for Cmax, AUC(INF), and AUC(0-T) of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. Potency-corrected results were also provided. Bioequivalence will be concluded if the 90% CIs for the test-to-reference ratios of geometric means are entirely contained within 80% to 125% for both Cmax and AUC(INF). No adjustments were made for multiplicity.|Ratio geometric LS mean|101.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.1|107.88||||||To demonstrate the bioequivalence of FDC tablet versus coadministration of saxagliptin and metformin tablets in the fasted and fed states, linear mixed model analyses were performed on log(Cmax), log\[AUC(INF)\], and log\[AUC(0-T)\] of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. The factors in the model were sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and measurements within each subject as repeated measurements allowing for different covariance structures for the fasted and fed states.||107.88|96.10|
91001935|NCT01068717|181886301|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for Treatment B to Treatment A and Treatment D to Treatment C ratios of geometric means for Cmax, AUC(INF), and AUC(0-T) of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. Potency-corrected results were also provided. Bioequivalence will be concluded if the 90% CIs for the test-to-reference ratios of geometric means are entirely contained within 80% to 125% for both Cmax and AUC(INF). No adjustments were made for multiplicity.|Ratio (%) of geometric LS mean|102.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.31|107.16||||||To demonstrate the bioequivalence of FDC tablet versus coadministration of saxagliptin and metformin tablets in the fasted and fed states, linear mixed model analyses were performed on log(Cmax), log\[AUC(INF)\], and log\[AUC(0-T)\] of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. The factors in the model were sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and measurements within each subject as repeated measurements allowing for different covariance structures for the fasted and fed states.||107.16|98.31|
91001936|NCT01068717|181886301|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for Treatment B to Treatment A and Treatment D to Treatment C ratios of geometric means for Cmax, AUC(INF), and AUC(0-T) of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. Potency-corrected results were also provided. Bioequivalence will be concluded if the 90% CIs for the test-to-reference ratios of geometric means are entirely contained within 80% to 125% for both Cmax and AUC(INF). No adjustments were made for multiplicity.|Ratio (%) of geometric LS mean|99.22||||||90.0|96.48|102.04||||||To demonstrate the bioequivalence of FDC tablet versus coadministration of saxagliptin and metformin tablets in the fasted and fed states, linear mixed model analyses were performed on log(Cmax), log\[AUC(INF)\], and log\[AUC(0-T)\] of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. The factors in the model were sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and measurements within each subject as repeated measurements allowing for different covariance structures for the fasted and fed states.||102.04|96.48|
91001937|NCT01068717|181886302|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for Treatment B to Treatment A and Treatment D to Treatment C ratios of geometric means for Cmax, AUC(INF), and AUC(0-T) of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. Potency-corrected results were also provided. Bioequivalence will be concluded if the 90% CIs for the test-to-reference ratios of geometric means are entirely contained within 80% to 125% for both Cmax and AUC(INF). No adjustments were made for multiplicity.|Ratio geometric LS mean|99.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|92.9|105.59||||||To demonstrate the bioequivalence of FDC tablet versus coadministration of saxagliptin and metformin tablets in the fasted and fed states, linear mixed model analyses were performed on log(Cmax), log\[AUC(INF)\], and log\[AUC(0-T)\] of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. The factors in the model were sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and measurements within each subject as repeated measurements allowing for different covariance structures for the fasted and fed states.||105.59|92.90|
91001938|NCT01068717|181886302|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for Treatment B to Treatment A and Treatment D to Treatment C ratios of geometric means for Cmax, AUC(INF), and AUC(0-T) of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. Potency-corrected results were also provided. Bioequivalence will be concluded if the 90% CIs for the test-to-reference ratios of geometric means are entirely contained within 80% to 125% for both Cmax and AUC(INF). No adjustments were made for multiplicity.|Ratio geometric LS mean|102.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.82|109.09||||||To demonstrate the bioequivalence of FDC tablet versus coadministration of saxagliptin and metformin tablets in the fasted and fed states, linear mixed model analyses were performed on log(Cmax), log\[AUC(INF)\], and log\[AUC(0-T)\] of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. The factors in the model were sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and measurements within each subject as repeated measurements allowing for different covariance structures for the fasted and fed states.||109.09|96.82|
91001939|NCT01449955|181886313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||ANOVA comparing the results of change over time (e.g., comparing baseline to 1 month posttreatment) as well as comparing differences between condition (e.g., placebo compared to rapamycin).||||>0.05
91001940|NCT01449955|181886314|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.5|||||||ANOVA|||||||> 0.5
91001941|NCT01449955|181886315|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||> .05
91001942|NCT01449955|181886316|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||> .05
91001943|NCT01449955|181886317|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||< .05
91001944|NCT01449955|181886318|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||> .05
91001945|NCT01176240|181886332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.978|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model that includes treatment as a factor and baseline OHQ composite score as a co-variate.||Study 306A was initially designed as a blinded interim analysis by an independent DMC to ensure that the overall study was adequately powered. Study 306A was not powered to provide statistical significance as a stand alone study. Thus, no additional efficacy end points were prospectively defined beyond the primary end point.||||0.978
91001946|NCT01176240|181886333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018||||||Statistical analysis plan involved a hierarchical assessment of secondary endpoints to prevent inflation of type I errors.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel statistic comparing treatment groups based on rank statistics adjusted for the covariate OHSA Item 1 value at baseline.||||||0.018
91001947|NCT01176240|181886335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6||||||Statistical analysis plan involved a hierarchical assessment of secondary endpoints to prevent inflation of type I errors. As the first secondary endpoint was not positive, statistical analysis was not performed on additional secondary endpoints.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Mantel-Haenszel statistic comparing treatment groups based on rank statistics adjusted for the covariate OHSA Item 1 value at baseline.||||||0.60
91001948|NCT01176240|181886341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.238|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model that includes treatment as a factor and baseline OHQ composite score as a co-variate.||||||0.238
91001949|NCT00771173|181886342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.745|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The independent samples t-test was used to test the null hypothesis that the mean VAS score for the active treatment cohort (i.e., those receiving pyridium) was no different than the mean VAS score for those receiving placebo.||||.745
91001950|NCT00807014|181886345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used with terms for baseline value, treatment, and center. Treatment-by-center interaction was not included.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91001951|NCT01731990|181886359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment effect for ratio to placebo|1.06||||0.284|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.15|0.97|0.284
91001952|NCT01183104|181886368|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The pre-defined non-inferiority margin was 0.3%.|LS mean difference|0.11||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.24|||ANCOVA|||||0.24|-0.02|0.087
91048104|NCT03575871|181981006|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|5.2||||0.0419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|10.1||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||10.1|0.3|0.0419
91001953|NCT01183104|181886369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.002
91001954|NCT01183104|181886370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
91001955|NCT01183104|181886371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.030
91001956|NCT01183104|181886372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91048105|NCT03575871|181981006|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|7.0||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|12.2||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||12.2|1.8|0.0180
91001957|NCT01183104|181886373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.043|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.043
91001958|NCT03250624|181886413|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-0.28||||0.632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|0.89|||ANCOVA|||||0.89|-1.46|0.632
91001959|NCT00948428|181886420|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% confidence interval around the difference between the Generic Imiquimod and Aldara Complete Clearance rates in the PP population were contained within the interval -0.20 to +0.20, and each of these rates was greater than, and statistically different (p\<0.05) from, the Vehicle rate in the ITT population, then Generic Imiquimod and Aldara were considered to be therapeutically equivalent|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.84|9.15||||||||9.15|-10.84|
91048106|NCT03575871|181981007|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-30.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.1|-22.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-22.3|-38.1|<0.0001
91048107|NCT03575871|181981007|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-42.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.3|-34.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-34.4|-50.3|<0.0001
91048108|NCT03575871|181981007|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-29.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.1|-21.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-21.7|-38.1|<0.0001
91048109|NCT03575871|181981007|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-44.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.8|-36.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-36.3|-52.8|<0.0001
91048110|NCT03575871|181981007|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-26.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.2|-16.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-16.7|-36.2|<0.0001
91001960|NCT00948428|181886420|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Based on Intent-to-Treat Population||||0.0001
91001961|NCT00948428|181886421|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% confidence interval around the difference between the Generic Imiquimod and Aldara Partial Clearance rates in the PP population were contained within the interval -0.20 to +0.20, then Generic Imiquimod and Aldara were considered to be therapeutically equivalent.|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.11|5.95||||||||5.95|-12.11|
91001962|NCT00948428|181886422|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% confidence interval around the difference between the Generic Imiquimod and Aldara Complete Clearance rates in the ITT population were contained within the interval -0.20 to +0.20, then Generic Imiquimod and Aldara were considered to be therapeutically equivalent.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.92|8.88||||||||8.88|-9.92|
91048111|NCT03575871|181981007|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-40.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.0|-30.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-30.4|-50.0|<0.0001
91048112|NCT03575871|181981007|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-31.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.1|-19.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-19.7|-43.1|<0.0001
91048113|NCT03575871|181981007|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-44.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.4|-33.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-33.0|-56.4|<0.0001
91048114|NCT03575871|181981008|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-26.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.5|-17.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-17.5|-35.5|<0.0001
91048115|NCT03575871|181981008|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-34.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.1|-25.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-25.1|-43.1|<0.0001
91048116|NCT03575871|181981008|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-29.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.0|-20.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-20.4|-39.0|<0.0001
91048117|NCT03575871|181981008|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-40.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.8|-31.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-31.1|-49.8|<0.0001
91048118|NCT03575871|181981008|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-32.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.6|-21.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-21.2|-44.6|<0.0001
91001963|NCT05516134|181886442|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||baseline vs. treatment, paired sample t-test||||<0.01
91001964|NCT05516134|181886443|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.01
91001965|NCT05516134|181886444|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.01
91001966|NCT05516134|181886445|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.03
91001967|NCT05516134|181886446|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.01
91001968|NCT05516134|181886447|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.11
91001969|NCT05516134|181886448|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.01
91001970|NCT05516134|181886449|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.09
91001971|NCT01224106|181886542|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size|-0.044||||0.6744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.248|0.161|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.161|-0.248|0.6744
91001972|NCT01224106|181886542|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size|-0.085||||0.4494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.304|0.135|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.135|-0.304|0.4494
91048119|NCT03575871|181981008|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-40.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.2|-28.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-28.9|-52.2|<0.0001
91048120|NCT03575871|181981008|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-39.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.8|-27.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-27.4|-51.8|<0.0001
91048121|NCT03575871|181981008|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-48.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.4|-36.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-36.0|-60.4|<0.0001
91048122|NCT03575871|181981009|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|1.9||||0.2353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|6.0||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||6.0|-2.2|0.2353
91048123|NCT03575871|181981009|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|5.8||||0.0332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|10.8||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||10.8|0.8|0.0332
91048124|NCT03575871|181981009|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|6.5||||0.0227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|11.6||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||11.6|1.4|0.0227
91048125|NCT03575871|181981009|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|16.8||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.1|23.5||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||23.5|10.1|0.0001
91001973|NCT01224106|181886544|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size|0.035||||0.7458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.179|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.250|-0.179|0.7458
91001974|NCT01224106|181886544|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size|0.042||||0.723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.191|0.275|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.275|-0.191|0.723
91001975|NCT01224106|181886548|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size|-0.191||||0.0825|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.407|0.025|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.025|-0.407|0.0825
91001976|NCT01224106|181886548|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size|0.043||||0.7171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.276|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.276|-0.19|0.7171
91001977|NCT01224106|181886551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9734|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Statistical analysis of the Abeta 1-42 CSF biomarker between Placebo (Parts 1 and 2) and Gantenerumab 105 mg (Parts 1 and 2) treatment arms at Week 104."||||0.9734
91001978|NCT01224106|181886551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0629|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Statistical analysis of the Abeta 1-42 CSF biomarker between Placebo (Parts 1 and 2) and Gantenerumab 225 mg (Parts 1 and 2) treatment arms at Week 104."||||0.0629
91001979|NCT01224106|181886551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0084|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Statistical analysis of the p-tau CSF biomarker between Placebo (Parts 1 and 2) and Gantenerumab 105 mg (Parts 1 and 2) treatment arms at Week 104."||||0.0084
91001980|NCT01224106|181886551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Statistical analysis of the p-tau CSF biomarker between Placebo (Parts 1 and 2) and Gantenerumab 225 mg (Parts 1 and 2) treatment arms at Week 104."||||0.0003
91001981|NCT01224106|181886551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0903|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Statistical analysis of the t-tau CSF biomarker between Placebo (Parts 1 and 2) and Gantenerumab 105 mg (Parts 1 and 2) treatment arms at Week 104."||||0.0903
91001982|NCT01224106|181886551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0434|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Statistical analysis of the t-tau CSF biomarker between Placebo (Parts 1 and 2) and Gantenerumab 225 mg (Parts 1 and 2) treatment arms at Week 104."||||0.0434
91001983|NCT00420342|181886574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1182||95.0||||0.5 mg DRSP / 1.0 mg E2 vs 1.5 mg MPA / 0.3 mg CEE.|ANCOVA|No adjustments made for multiple comparisons||Pairwise comparisons among all three treatment groups were performed; both DRSP / E2 group vs MPA /CEE, and the two active doses against each other. Null hypotheses were that there were no differences between groups for each of the three pairwise comparison. Analysis of variance model was used, with terms for treatment, center, and baseline BP values.||||0.1182
91001984|NCT00420342|181886574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2224||95.0||||2.0 mg DRSP / 1.0 mg E2 vs 1.5mg MPA / 0.3 mg CEE.|ANCOVA|No adjustments made for multiple comparisons||Pairwise comparisons among all three treatment groups were performed; both DRSP / E2 group vs MPA /CEE, and the two active doses against each other. Null hypotheses were that there were no differences between groups for each of the three pairwise comparison. Analysis of variance model was used, with terms for treatment, center, and baseline BP values.||||0.2224
91001985|NCT00420342|181886574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6929||95.0||||0.5 mg DRSP / 1.0 mg E2 vs 2.0 mg DRSP / 1.0 mg E2.|ANCOVA|No adjustments made for multiple comparisons||Pairwise comparisons among all three treatment groups were performed; both DRSP / E2 group vs MPA /CEE, and the two active doses against each other. Null hypotheses were that there were no differences between groups for each of the three pairwise comparison. Analysis of variance model was used, with terms for treatment, center, and baseline BP values.||||0.6929
91001986|NCT00420342|181886575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0702||95.0||||0.5 mg DRSP / 1.0 mg E2 vs 1.5 mg MPA / 0.3 mg CEE.|ANCOVA|No adjustments made for multiple comparisons||Pairwise comparisons among all three treatment groups were performed; both DRSP / E2 group vs MPA /CEE, and the two active doses against each other. Null hypotheses were that there were no differences between groups for each of the three pairwise comparison. Analysis of variance model was used, with terms for treatment, center, and baseline BP values.||||0.0702
91001987|NCT00420342|181886575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.198||95.0||||2.0 mg DRSP / 1.0 mg E2 vs 1.5mg MPA / 0.3 mg CEE.|ANCOVA|No adjustments made for multiple comparisons||Pairwise comparisons among all three treatment groups were performed; both DRSP / E2 group vs MPA /CEE, and the two active doses against each other. Null hypotheses were that there were no differences between groups for each of the three pairwise comparison. Analysis of variance model was used, with terms for treatment, center, and baseline BP values.||||0.1980
91001988|NCT00420342|181886575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5777||95.0||||0.5 mg DRSP / 1.0 mg E2 vs 2.0 mg DRSP / 1.0 mg E2.|ANCOVA|No adjustments made for multiple comparisons||Pairwise comparisons among all three treatment groups were performed; both DRSP / E2 group vs MPA /CEE, and the two active doses against each other. Null hypotheses were that there were no differences between groups for each of the three pairwise comparison. Analysis of variance model was used, with terms for treatment, center, and baseline BP values.||||0.5777
91001989|NCT03053401|181886586|OTHER|Test of difference was conducted.||||||0.026|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.026
91001990|NCT03053401|181886587|OTHER|||||||0.762||||||Alpha = 0.025 for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.762
91001991|NCT03053401|181886587|OTHER|||||||0.41||||||Alpha = 0.025 for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test with Exact Option|||||||0.410
91001992|NCT03053401|181886588|OTHER|Test of Difference conducted.||||||0.454|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.454
91048126|NCT03575871|181981009|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|14.5||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|21.3||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||21.3|7.7|0.0008
91001993|NCT01444898|181886637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.07
91001994|NCT01444898|181886638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.08
91001995|NCT01444898|181886639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.8
91001996|NCT01444898|181886640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.04
91001997|NCT01444898|181886641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.8
91001998|NCT01444898|181886642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.2
91001999|NCT01444898|181886643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.2
91002000|NCT01444898|181886644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.04
91002001|NCT01444898|181886645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.004
91002002|NCT02580591|181886646|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-0.46|-0.11|||Mixed effect Model Repeat Measurement||Mean Difference= Empagliflozin 2.5 milligram (mg) adjusted mean - Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted mean.|Model includes baseline HbA1c, baseline Estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) as linear covariates and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy, treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, baseline HbA1c by visit interaction as fixed effects. Patient is included as random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within-patient measurements.||-0.11|-0.46|<0.0001
91002003|NCT02580591|181886646|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.6|-0.3|||Mixed effect Model Repeat Measurement||Mean Difference= Empagliflozin 10 milligram (mg) adjusted mean - Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted mean.|Model includes baseline HbA1c, baseline eGFR as linear covariates and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy, treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, baseline HbA1c by visit interaction as fixed effects. Patient is included as random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within-patient measurements.||-0.30|-0.60|<0.0001
91002004|NCT02580591|181886646|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.68|-0.37|||Mixed effect Model Repeat Measurement||Mean Difference= Empagliflozin 25 milligram (mg) adjusted mean - Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted mean.|Model includes baseline HbA1c, baseline eGFR as linear covariates and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy, treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, baseline HbA1c by visit interaction as fixed effects. Patient is included as random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within-patient measurements.||-0.37|-0.68|<0.0001
91002005|NCT02580591|181886647|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.14|||Mixed effect Model Repeat Measurement||Mean Difference= Empagliflozin 2.5 milligram (mg) adjusted mean - Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted mean.|Model includes baseline HbA1c, baseline eGFR as linear covariates and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy, treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, baseline HbA1c by visit interaction as fixed effects. Patient is included as random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within-patient measurements.||-0.14|-0.40|
91002006|NCT02580591|181886647|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.59|-0.28|||Mixed effect Model Repeat Measurement||Mean Difference= Empagliflozin 2.5 milligram (mg) adjusted mean - Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted mean.|Model includes baseline HbA1c, baseline eGFR as linear covariates and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy, treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, baseline HbA1c by visit interaction as fixed effects. Patient is included as random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within-patient measurements.||-0.28|-0.59|<0.0001
91048127|NCT03575871|181981009|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|25.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.1|33.4||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||33.4|18.1|<0.0001
91048128|NCT03575871|181981009|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|18.5||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.5|26.5||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||26.5|10.5|0.0003
91048129|NCT03575871|181981009|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|30.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.4|39.0||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||39.0|21.4|<0.0001
91048130|NCT03575871|181981010|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|12.7||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|18.9||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||18.9|6.5|0.0011
91048131|NCT03575871|181981010|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|32.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.6|40.6||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||40.6|24.6|<0.0001
91048132|NCT03575871|181981010|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|28.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.5|38.2||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||38.2|18.5|<0.0001
91048133|NCT03575871|181981010|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|52.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.2|62.5||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||62.5|43.2|<0.0001
91048134|NCT03575871|181981010|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|28.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.0|39.0||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||39.0|17.0|<0.0001
91002007|NCT02580591|181886647|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.66|-0.35|||Mixed effect Model Repeat Measurement||Mean Difference= Empagliflozin 25 milligram (mg) adjusted mean - Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted mean.|Model includes baseline HbA1c, baseline eGFR as linear covariates and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy, treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, baseline HbA1c by visit interaction as fixed effects. Patient is included as random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within-patient measurements.||-0.35|-0.66|<0.0001
91002008|NCT02580591|181886648|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Rate Ratio (%)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.673|1.314|||Negative binomial model||Empagliflozin 2.5 milligram (mg) adjusted rate/Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted rate.|For Week 5 to 26, negative binomial model includes baseline rate of hypoglycemia, baseline HbA1c, and baseline Estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) as linear covariates and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy and treatment as fixed effects. Log (time at risk \[days\]) was used as offset.||1.314|0.673|
91002009|NCT02580591|181886648|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Rate Ratio (%)|1.202||||0.2752|TWO_SIDED|97.75|0.818|1.766|||Negative binomial model||Empagliflozin 10 milligram (mg) adjusted rate/Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted rate.|For Week 5 to 26, negative binomial model includes baseline rate of hypoglycemia, baseline HbA1c, and baseline Estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) as linear covariates and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy and treatment as fixed effects. Log (time at risk \[days\]) was used as offset.||1.766|0.818|0.2752
91002010|NCT02580591|181886648|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Rate Ratio (%)|1.02||||0.9077|TWO_SIDED|97.75|0.693|1.501|||Negative binomial model||Empagliflozin 25 milligram (mg) adjusted rate/Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted rate.|For Week 5 to 26, negative binomial model includes baseline rate of hypoglycemia, baseline HbA1c, and baseline Estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) as linear covariates and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy and treatment as fixed effects. Log (time at risk \[days\]) was used as offset.||1.501|0.693|0.9077
91048135|NCT03575871|181981010|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|46.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.2|57.1||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||57.1|35.2|<0.0001
91002011|NCT02580591|181886648|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Rate Ratio (%)|0.932|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.682|1.274|||Negative binomial model|||For Week 1 to 26, negative binomial model includes baseline rate of hypoglycemia, baseline HbA1c, and baseline Estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) as linear covariates and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy and treatment as fixed effects. Log (time at risk \[days\]) was used as offset.||1.274|0.682|
91002012|NCT02580591|181886648|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Rate Ratio (%)|1.258||||0.1438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.925|1.713||This is a nominal p-value.|Negative binomial model||Empagliflozin 10 milligram (mg) adjusted rate/Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted rate.|For Week 1 to 26, negative binomial model includes baseline rate of hypoglycemia, baseline HbA1c, and baseline Estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) as linear covariates and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy and treatment as fixed effects. Log (time at risk \[days\]) was used as offset.||1.713|0.925|0.1438
91048136|NCT03575871|181981010|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|36.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.4|47.1||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||47.1|25.4|<0.0001
91048137|NCT03575871|181981010|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|49.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.9|60.3||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||60.3|38.9|<0.0001
91048138|NCT03575871|181981011|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|1.9||||0.2261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|6.0||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||6.0|-2.2|0.2261
91048139|NCT03575871|181981011|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|5.2||||0.0451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|10.0||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||10.0|0.3|0.0451
91048140|NCT03575871|181981011|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|7.0||||0.0171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|12.3||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||12.3|1.8|0.0171
91048141|NCT03575871|181981011|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|17.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.9|24.5||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||24.5|10.9|<0.0001
91048142|NCT03575871|181981011|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|11.5||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.5|17.5||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||17.5|5.5|0.0018
91048143|NCT03575871|181981011|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|25.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.3|33.1||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||33.1|18.3|<0.0001
91002013|NCT02580591|181886648|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Rate Ratio (%)|1.051||||0.7543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.771|1.433||This is a nominal p-value.|Negative binomial model||Empagliflozin 25 milligram (mg) adjusted rate/Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted rate.|For Week 1 to 26, negative binomial model includes baseline rate of hypoglycemia, baseline HbA1c, and baseline Estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) as linear covariates and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy and treatment as fixed effects. Log (time at risk \[days\]) was used as offset.||1.433|0.771|0.7543
91002014|NCT02580591|181886649|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.32|-1.2|||Mixed effect Model Repeat Measurement||Mean Difference= Empagliflozin 2.5 milligram (mg) adjusted mean - Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted mean.|Model includes baseline weight, baseline Estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), baseline HbA1c as linear covariate and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy, treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, baseline weight by visit interaction as fixed effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within-patient measurements.||-1.20|-2.32|
91002015|NCT02580591|181886649|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.75|-3.91|-2.18|||Mixed effect Model Repeat Measurement||Mean Difference= Empagliflozin 10 milligram (mg) adjusted mean - Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted mean.|Model includes baseline weight, baseline Estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), baseline HbA1c as linear covariate and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy, treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, baseline weight by visit interaction as fixed effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within-patient measurements.||-2.18|-3.91|<0.0001
91002016|NCT02580591|181886649|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.43|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.75|-4.3|-2.57|||Mixed effect Model Repeat Measurement||Mean Difference= Empagliflozin 25 milligram (mg) adjusted mean - Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted mean.|Model includes baseline weight, baseline Estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), baseline HbA1c as linear covariate and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy, treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, baseline weight by visit interaction as fixed effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within-patient measurements.||-2.57|-4.30|<0.0001
91002017|NCT02580591|181886650|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.049|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.069|-0.03|||Mixed effect Model Repeat Measurement||Mean Difference= Empagliflozin 2.5 milligram (mg) adjusted mean - Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted mean.|Model includes baseline total daily insulin dose, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), baseline HbA1c as linear covariate and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy, treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, baseline total daily insulin dose by visit interaction as fixed effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within-patient measurements.||-0.030|-0.069|
91002018|NCT02580591|181886650|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.75|-0.101|-0.039|||Mixed effect Model Repeat Measurement||Mean Difference= Empagliflozin 10 milligram (mg) adjusted mean - Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted mean.|Model includes baseline total daily insulin dose, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), baseline HbA1c as linear covariate and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy, treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, baseline total daily insulin dose by visit interaction as fixed effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within-patient measurements.||-0.039|-0.101|<0.0001
91002019|NCT02580591|181886650|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.091|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.75|-0.122|-0.06|||Mixed effect Model Repeat Measurement||Mean Difference= Empagliflozin 25 milligram (mg) adjusted mean - Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted mean.|Model includes baseline total daily insulin dose, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), baseline HbA1c as linear covariate and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy, treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, baseline total daily insulin dose by visit interaction as fixed effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within-patient measurements.||-0.060|-0.122|<0.0001
91002020|NCT02580591|181886651|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|-0.2|||Mixed effect Model Repeat MeasurementMix||Mean Difference= Empagliflozin 2.5 milligram (mg) adjusted mean - Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted mean.|For SBP, the model includes baseline SBP seated, baseline Estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), baseline HbA1c as linear covariate and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline SBP seated by visit interaction as fixed effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within-patient measurements.||-0.2|-3.9|
91002021|NCT02580591|181886651|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.75|-6.8|-1.1|||Mixed effect Model Repeat Measurement||Mean Difference= Empagliflozin 10 milligram (mg) adjusted mean - Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted mean.|For SBP, the model includes baseline SBP seated, baseline Estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), baseline HbA1c as linear covariate and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy, treatment, visit, , treatment by visit interaction, baseline SBP seated by visit interaction as fixed effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within-patient measurements.||-1.1|-6.8|<0.0001
91002022|NCT02580591|181886651|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.75|-6.6|-0.9|||Mixed effect Model Repeat Measurement||Mean Difference= Empagliflozin 25 milligram (mg) adjusted mean - Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted mean.|For SBP, the model includes baseline SBP seated, baseline Estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), baseline HbA1c as linear covariate and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline SBP seated by visit interaction as fixed effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within-patient measurements.||-0.9|-6.6|<0.0001
91002023|NCT02580591|181886651|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.9|||Mixed effect Model Repeat Measurement||Mean Difference= Empagliflozin 2.5 milligram (mg) adjusted mean - Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted mean.|For DBP, the model includes baseline DBP seated, baseline Estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), baseline HbA1c as linear covariate and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline DBP seated by visit interaction as fixed effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within-patient measurements.||0.9|-1.5|
91002024|NCT02580591|181886651|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|99.75|-3.6|0.1|||Mixed effect Model Repeat Measurement||Mean Difference= Empagliflozin 2.5 milligram (mg) adjusted mean - Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted mean.|For DBP, the model includes baseline DBP seated, baseline Estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), baseline HbA1c as linear covariate and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy, treatment, visit, ß, treatment by visit interaction, baseline DBP seated by visit interaction as fixed effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within-patient measurements.||0.1|-3.6|0.0047
91002025|NCT02580591|181886651|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0.0202|TWO_SIDED|99.75|-3.3|0.4|||Mixed effect Model Repeat Measurement|||For DBP, the model includes baseline DBP seated, baseline Estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), baseline HbA1c as linear covariate and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy, treatment, visit, ß, treatment by visit interaction, baseline DBP seated by visit interaction as fixed effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within-patient measurements.||0.4|-3.3|0.0202
91002026|NCT01599806|181886654|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|-12.5%|Difference of symp resolution rates|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.39|10.42|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||H0: Difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of symptomatic resolution rates ≤ non-inferiority margin||10.42|-2.39|
91002027|NCT01599806|181886655|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|-12.5%|Diff of favorable combined resp rates|6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|13.12|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||H0: Difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of favorable combined response rates ≤ non-inferiority margin||13.12|0.30|
91002028|NCT01599806|181886656|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|-12.5%|Diff of favorable response rates|6.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|12.36|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||H0: Difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of favorable response rates ≤ non-inferiority margin||12.36|0.33|
91002029|NCT01599806|181886657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of favorable response rates|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|3.56|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of favorable response rates||3.56|-2.70|
91002030|NCT01599806|181886658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of favorable response rates|7.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|13.81|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of favorable response rates||13.81|0.68|
91002031|NCT01599806|181886659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of favorable response rates|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|1.72|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of favorable response rates||1.72|-1.21|
91002032|NCT01599806|181886660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of favorable response rates|8.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.27|15.24|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of favorable response rates||15.24|2.27|
91002033|NCT01599806|181886661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of favorable response rates|10.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.86|18.85|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of favorable response rates||18.85|2.86|
91002034|NCT01599806|181886662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of favorable response rates|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|1.68|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of favorable response rates||1.68|-1.17|
91002035|NCT01599806|181886663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of favorable response rates|7.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|13.74|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of favorable response rates||13.74|0.88|
91002036|NCT01599806|181886664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of favorable response rates|9.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|17.55|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of favorable response rates||17.55|1.72|
91002037|NCT01599806|181886665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of clinical cure rates|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.07|1.02|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of clinical cure rates||1.02|-4.07|
91002038|NCT01599806|181886666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of clinical cure rates|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.23|4.03|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of clinical cure rates||4.03|-4.23|
91002039|NCT01599806|181886667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of clinical cure rates|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.71|6.3|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of clinical cure rates||6.30|-3.71|
91002040|NCT01599806|181886668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of clinical cure rates|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.64|0.55|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of clinical cure rates||0.55|-3.64|
91002041|NCT01599806|181886669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of clinical cure rates|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.03|4.56|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of clinical cure rates||4.56|-2.03|
91002042|NCT01599806|181886670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of clinical cure rates|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|7.24|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of clinical cure rates||7.24|-2.90|
91002043|NCT01599806|181886671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of clinical cure rates|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|0.04|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of clinical cure rates||0.04|-4.30|
91002044|NCT01599806|181886672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of clinical cure rates|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|4.32|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of clinical cure rates||4.32|-2.07|
91002045|NCT01599806|181886673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of clinical cure rates|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.94|6.91|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of clinical cure rates||6.91|-2.94|
91002046|NCT01599806|181886674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of clinical cure rates|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|1.61|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of clinical cure rates||1.61|-1.99|
91002047|NCT01599806|181886675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of clinical cure rates|3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|7.16|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of clinical cure rates||7.16|0.41|
91002048|NCT01599806|181886676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of clinical cure rates|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|9.05|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of clinical cure rates||9.05|-1.00|
91002049|NCT01599806|181886677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of clin cure rates in All patients|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|10.1|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of clinical cure rates in All patients with a ceftazidime-resistant Gram-negative pathogen||10.1|-10.4|
91002050|NCT01599806|181886678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of clin cure rates in All patients|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|10.2|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of clinical cure rates in All patients with a ceftazidime-resistant Gram-negative pathogen||10.2|-7.8|
91002051|NCT01599806|181886679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of clin cure rates in All patients|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|9.2|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of clinical cure rates in All patients with a ceftazidime-resistant Gram-negative pathogen||9.2|-7.5|
91002052|NCT01599806|181886680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of favorable response rates|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.18|16.89|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of favorable response rates||16.89|-13.18|
91002053|NCT01599806|181886681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of favorable response rates|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.03|25.21|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of favorable response rates||25.21|-10.03|
91002054|NCT01599806|181886682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of favorable response rates|7.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.91|24.01|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of favorable response rates||24.01|-9.91|
91002055|NCT01599806|181886683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038|||||||Log Rank|||H0: No difference in time to first defervescence between treatment groups.||||0.038
91002056|NCT01599806|181886684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.129|||||||Log Rank|||H0: No difference in time to first defervescence between treatment groups.||||0.129
91002057|NCT01599806|181886685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Log Rank|||H0: No difference in time to first defervescence between treatment groups.||||0.080
91002058|NCT01599806|181886686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.155|||||||Log Rank|||H0: No difference in time to first defervescence between treatment groups.||||0.155
91002059|NCT04583969|181886717|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.02|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio above 1 favors Remdesivir plus Lenzilumab.|Odds ratio, CI, and p-value estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline dexamethasone use, baseline OS, age (continuous), and baseline CRP. Missing data imputed using the 3-stage multiple imputation procedure described in the statistical analysis plan.||2.02|0.63|0.691
91002060|NCT04583969|181886718|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.99|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio above 1 favors Remdesivir plus Lenzilumab.|Odds ratio, CI, and p-value estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline dexamethasone use, baseline OS, age (continuous), and baseline CRP. Missing data imputed using the 3-stage multiple imputation procedure described in the statistical analysis plan.||1.99|0.77|0.378
91002061|NCT04583969|181886719|SUPERIORITY|Hazard ratio, confidence intervals, and p-value estimated from a Cox model adjusted for baseline dexamethasone use, baseline ordinal score, age, and baseline CRP.|Hazard Ratio, log|0.96||||0.689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.2|||Regression, Cox||HR greater than 1 favors Remdesivir plus Lenzilumab.|||1.20|0.76|0.689
91002062|NCT04583969|181886720|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.18|||Regression, Cox||HR greater than 1 favors Remdesivir plus Lenzilumab.|Hazard ratio, confidence intervals, and p-value estimated from a Cox model adjusted for baseline dexamethasone use, baseline ordinal Score, age, and baseline CRP.||1.18|0.79|0.718
91002063|NCT04583969|181886721|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.39|||Proportional odds model||Odds ratio greater than 1 favors Remdesivir plus Lenzilumab.|Includes all ordinal score categories. Odds ratio of a better clinical status score, confidence interval and p-value estimated from a proportional odds model adjusted for baseline steroid use and baseline ordinal score. Missing data imputed using multiple imputation (MI) for participants lost to follow-up before Day 8 while hospitalized, in hospice, long term acute care, or transferred to other hospital while those participants lost to follow-up after discharge to home are assigned a score of 2.||1.39|0.75|0.907
91002064|NCT04583969|181886755|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.27|||Regression, Cox||HR greater than 1 favors Remdesivir plus Lenzilumab|||1.27|0.87|0.609
91002065|NCT04583969|181886756|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.26|||Regression, Cox||HR greater than 1 favors Remdesivir plus Lenzilumab|||1.26|0.85|0.708
91002066|NCT00563368|181886769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.831||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|4.39||Intersection-union method applied in a step-down testing approach|ANCOVA|||With 100 subjects in each of the seven arms in this trial, the trial has more than 90% power to detect a difference of at least 3.1% between combination and monotherapy or placebo treatment assuming a standard deviation of 5.3% and a significance level of 0.05.||4.39|1.13|0.0009
91002067|NCT00563368|181886769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.825||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|4.77||Intersection-union method applied in a step-down testing approach|ANCOVA|||With 100 subjects in each of the seven arms in this trial, the trial has more than 90% power to detect a difference of at least 3.1% between combination and monotherapy or placebo treatment assuming a standard deviation of 5.3% and a significance level of 0.05.||4.77|1.53|0.0001
91002068|NCT00563368|181886769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.86|9.12||Intersection-union method applied in a step-down testing approach|ANCOVA|||With 100 subjects in each of the seven arms in this trial, the trial has more than 90% power to detect a difference of at least 3.1% between combination and monotherapy or placebo treatment assuming a standard deviation of 5.3% and a significance level of 0.05.||9.12|5.86|<0.0001
91048144|NCT03575871|181981011|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|16.2||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.8|23.6||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||23.6|8.8|0.0005
91002069|NCT00563368|181886769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.832|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.69|4.96||Intersection-union method applied in a step-down testing approach|ANCOVA|||With 100 subjects in each of the seven arms in this trial, the trial has more than 90% power to detect a difference of at least 3.1% between combination and monotherapy or placebo treatment assuming a standard deviation of 5.3% and a significance level of 0.05.||4.96|1.69|<0.0001
91002070|NCT00563368|181886769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.828||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|4.63||Intersection-union method applied in a step-down testing approach|ANCOVA|||With 100 subjects in each of the seven arms in this trial, the trial has more than 90% power to detect a difference of at least 3.1% between combination and monotherapy or placebo treatment assuming a standard deviation of 5.3% and a significance level of 0.05.||4.63|1.38|0.0003
91002071|NCT00563368|181886769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.831|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.11|8.38||Intersection-union method applied in a step-down testing approach|ANCOVA|||With 100 subjects in each of the seven arms in this trial, the trial has more than 90% power to detect a difference of at least 3.1% between combination and monotherapy or placebo treatment assuming a standard deviation of 5.3% and a significance level of 0.05.||8.38|5.11|<0.0001
91002072|NCT00563368|181886770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.028|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5832||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.154|3.563||Intersection-union method applied in a step-down testing approach|Regression, Logistic|||With 100 subjects in each of the seven arms in this trial, the trial has more than 90% power to detect a difference of at least 3.1% between combination and monotherapy or placebo treatment assuming a standard deviation of 5.3% and a significance level of 0.05.||3.563|1.154|0.0140
91002073|NCT00563368|181886770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.246|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6418||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.283|3.932||Intersection-union method applied in a step-down testing approach|Regression, Logistic|||With 100 subjects in each of the seven arms in this trial, the trial has more than 90% power to detect a difference of at least 3.1% between combination and monotherapy or placebo treatment assuming a standard deviation of 5.3% and a significance level of 0.05.||3.932|1.283|0.0046
91002074|NCT00563368|181886770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.623|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.644|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.424|20.81||Intersection-union method applied in a step-down testing approach|Regression, Logistic|||With 100 subjects in each of the seven arms in this trial, the trial has more than 90% power to detect a difference of at least 3.1% between combination and monotherapy or placebo treatment assuming a standard deviation of 5.3% and a significance level of 0.05.||20.81|5.424|<0.0001
91002075|NCT00563368|181886770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.568|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7391||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|4.514||Intersection-union method applied in a step-down testing approach|Regression, Logistic|||With 100 subjects in each of the seven arms in this trial, the trial has more than 90% power to detect a difference of at least 3.1% between combination and monotherapy or placebo treatment assuming a standard deviation of 5.3% and a significance level of 0.05.||4.514|1.460|0.0011
91002076|NCT00563368|181886770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.166|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6158||0.0066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.241|3.781||Intersection-union method applied in a step-down testing approach|Regression, Logistic|||With 100 subjects in each of the seven arms in this trial, the trial has more than 90% power to detect a difference of at least 3.1% between combination and monotherapy or placebo treatment assuming a standard deviation of 5.3% and a significance level of 0.05.||3.781|1.241|0.0066
91002077|NCT00563368|181886770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.063|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0857|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.65|17.66||Intersection-union method applied in a step-down testing approach|Regression, Logistic|||With 100 subjects in each of the seven arms in this trial, the trial has more than 90% power to detect a difference of at least 3.1% between combination and monotherapy or placebo treatment assuming a standard deviation of 5.3% and a significance level of 0.05.||17.66|4.650|<0.0001
91002078|NCT03326583|181886771|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.05
91002079|NCT03326583|181886772|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.05
91002080|NCT03326583|181886773|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.05
91002081|NCT03326583|181886774|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.05
91002082|NCT01784614|181886785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS mean|0.96||||0.908|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.56|1.65|||Mixed Models Analysis||Ratio of Geometric LS mean is WASO of 0.1 mg LY2624803 / Placebo.|||1.65|0.56|0.908
91002083|NCT01784614|181886785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS mean|0.67||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.45|0.98|||Mixed Models Analysis||Ratio of Geometric LS mean is WASO of 1.0 mg LY2624803 / Placebo.|||0.98|0.45|0.083
91002084|NCT01784614|181886785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS mean|0.53||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.36|0.78|||Mixed Models Analysis||Ratio of Geometric LS mean is WASO of 3.0 mg LY2624803 / Placebo.|||0.78|0.36|0.010
91002085|NCT01784614|181886785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS mean|0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.18|0.51|||Mixed Models Analysis||Ratio of Geometric LS mean is WASO of 6.0 mg LY2624803 / Placebo.|||0.51|0.18|<0.001
91002086|NCT03168555|181886792|EQUIVALENCE|compares visit 1 with visit 2||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
91002087|NCT03168555|181886794|EQUIVALENCE|compares visit 1 with visit 2||||||0.63|||||||paired t-test|lognormalized values||compares visit 1 with visit 2||||0.63
91002088|NCT03168555|181886795|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.32
91002089|NCT03168555|181886796|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.73
91002090|NCT03168555|181886797|OTHER|Spearman correlation||||||0.41|||||||Spearman correlation|||||||0.41
91002091|NCT03168555|181886798|OTHER|Spearman correlation||||||0.35|||||||Spearman correlation|||||||0.35
91002092|NCT03168555|181886798|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Spearman correlation|||||||0.03
91002093|NCT03168555|181886799|EQUIVALENCE|comparing visit 1 with visit 2||||||0.36|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.36
91002094|NCT03168555|181886800|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.29
91002095|NCT03168555|181886801|OTHER|Spearman correlation||||||0.73|||||||Spearman correlation|||||||0.73
91002096|NCT03168555|181886801|OTHER|||||||0.77|||||||Spearman correlation|||||||0.77
91002097|NCT03168555|181886802|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.80
91002098|NCT01235507|181886820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change from Baseline to Week 8||||<0.0005
91002099|NCT01235507|181886820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change from Baseline to Week 16||||<0.0005
91002100|NCT01235507|181886820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change from Baseline to Week 24||||<0.0005
91002101|NCT01235507|181886822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change from Baseline to Week 8||||<0.0005
91002102|NCT01235507|181886822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change from Baseline to Week 16||||<0.0005
91002103|NCT01235507|181886822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change from Baseline to Week 24||||<0.0005
91002104|NCT01235507|181886823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change from Baseline to Week 8||||<0.0005
91002105|NCT01235507|181886823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change from Baseline to Week 16||||<0.0005
91002106|NCT01235507|181886823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change from Baseline to Week 24||||<0.0005
91002107|NCT01235507|181886824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change from Baseline to Week 8||||<0.0005
91002108|NCT01235507|181886824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change from Baseline to Week 16||||<0.0005
91002109|NCT01235507|181886824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change from Baseline to Week 24||||<0.0005
91002110|NCT01235507|181886825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change from Baseline to Week 8||||<0.0005
91002111|NCT01235507|181886825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change from Baseline to Week 16||||<0.0005
91002112|NCT01235507|181886825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change from Baseline to Week 24||||<0.0005
91002113|NCT01235507|181886826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change from Baseline to Week 8||||<0.0005
91002114|NCT01235507|181886826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change from Baseline to Week 16||||<0.0005
91002115|NCT01235507|181886826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change from Baseline to Week 24||||<0.0005
91002116|NCT01235507|181886827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change from Baseline to Week 8||||<0.0005
91002117|NCT01235507|181886827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change from Baseline to Week 16||||<0.0005
91002118|NCT01235507|181886827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change from Baseline to Week 24||||<0.0005
91002119|NCT02758119|181886847|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91002120|NCT04209400|181886850|NON_INFERIORITY|P \< 0.05 is considered a statistically significant difference in seroconversion between the two groups.||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||The null hypothesis is that the vaccines equally affect the achievement of seroconversion level.||||1
91002121|NCT01496274|181886858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P value is based on a Wilcoxon signed-rank test of H0: AsBR ratio (prophylaxis regimen/on-demand regimen) ≥ 0.50. The ratio was based on the original scale.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||A test of null hypothesis that the ratio of AsBR (prophylaxis regimen/on-demand regimen) was ≥ 0.50 was conducted at the 1-sided 0.025 level. Matched pairs design with 19 subjects and 2 observations per subject.||||<0.0001
91002122|NCT00892957|181886908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||Likelihood ratio chi-square test|||||||<0.0001
91002123|NCT00892957|181886909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Likelihood ratio chi-square test|||||||0.001
91002124|NCT00892957|181886910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Likelihood ratio chi-square test|||||||0.012
91002125|NCT00892957|181886911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Likelihood ratio chi-square test|||||||0.158
91002126|NCT00892957|181886913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Likelihood ratio chi-square test|||||||0.380
91002127|NCT00892957|181886914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Likelihood ratio chi-square test|||||||0.545
91002128|NCT03296787|181886979|SUPERIORITY|TAK-954 (Total): An analysis of variance (ANOVA) were performed on log transformed Cmax (total TAK-954) to compare moderate renal impairment group with the normal renal function group.||||||0.7265|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.7265
91002129|NCT03296787|181886979|SUPERIORITY|TAK-954 (Total): An ANOVA were performed on log transformed Cmax (total TAK-954) to compare severe renal impairment group with the normal renal function group.||||||0.9839|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.9839
91002130|NCT03296787|181886979|SUPERIORITY|TAK-954 (Free): An ANOVA were performed on natural logarithm of Cmax (free TAK-954) to compare moderate renal impairment group with the normal renal function group.||||||0.9393|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.9393
91002131|NCT03296787|181886979|SUPERIORITY|TAK-954 (Free): An ANOVA were performed on natural logarithm of Cmax (free TAK-954) to compare severe renal impairment group with the normal renal function group.||||||0.1321|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.1321
91002132|NCT03296787|181886980|SUPERIORITY|TAK-954 (Total): An ANOVA were performed on log transformed AUC(0-72) (total TAK-954) to compare moderate renal impairment group with the normal renal function group.||||||0.36|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.3600
91002133|NCT03296787|181886980|SUPERIORITY|TAK-954 (Total): An ANOVA were performed on log transformed AUC(0-72) (total TAK-954) to compare severe renal impairment group with the normal renal function group.||||||0.0816|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0816
91002134|NCT03296787|181886980|SUPERIORITY|TAK-954 (Free): An ANOVA were performed on natural logarithm of AUC(0-72) (free TAK-954) to compare moderate renal impairment group with the normal renal function group.||||||0.2686|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.2686
91002135|NCT03296787|181886980|SUPERIORITY|TAK-954 (Free): An ANOVA were performed on natural logarithm of AUC(0-72) (free TAK-954) to compare severe renal impairment group with the normal renal function group.||||||0.0059|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0059
91002136|NCT03296787|181886981|SUPERIORITY|TAK-954 (Total): An ANOVA were performed on log transformed AUClast (total TAK-954) to compare moderate renal impairment group with the normal renal function group.||||||0.0998|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0998
91002137|NCT03296787|181886981|SUPERIORITY|TAK-954 (Total): An ANOVA were performed on log transformed AUClast (total TAK-954) to compare severe renal impairment group with the normal renal function group.||||||0.0155|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0155
91002138|NCT03296787|181886981|SUPERIORITY|TAK-954 (Free): An ANOVA were performed on natural logarithm of AUClast (free TAK-954) to compare moderate renal impairment group with the normal renal function group.||||||0.0916|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0916
91002139|NCT03296787|181886981|SUPERIORITY|TAK-954 (Free): An ANOVA were performed on natural logarithm of AUClast (free TAK-954) to compare severe renal impairment group with the normal renal function group.||||||0.0014|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0014
91002140|NCT03296787|181886982|SUPERIORITY|TAK-954 (Total): An ANOVA were performed on log transformed AUC∞ (total TAK-954) to compare moderate renal impairment group with the normal renal function group.||||||0.0038|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0038
91002141|NCT03296787|181886982|SUPERIORITY|TAK-954 (Total): An ANOVA were performed on log transformed AUC∞ (total TAK-954) to compare severe renal impairment group with the normal renal function group.||||||0.0004|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0004
91002142|NCT03296787|181886982|SUPERIORITY|TAK-954 (Free): An ANOVA were performed on natural logarithm of AUC∞ (free TAK-954) to compare moderate renal impairment group with the normal renal function group.||||||0.0389|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0389
91002143|NCT03296787|181886982|SUPERIORITY|TAK-954 (Free): An ANOVA were performed on natural logarithm of AUC∞ (free TAK-954) to compare severe renal impairment group with the normal renal function group.||||||0.0011|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0011
91002144|NCT02564029|181887038|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.37|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.6|-3.86|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||A mixed effects model was applied with fixed effects for period, time, treatment, and the interaction between treatment and time. Baseline was included as 2 separate covariates. The interaction between each baseline covariate and time were included as fixed effects. Participant was fitted as a random effect and time was fitted as a repeated effect within each participant × period. An unstructured correlation matrix was used. The effect reported is an average across all post-dose measurements.||-3.86|-8.60|
91002145|NCT02564029|181887038|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.78|-3.06|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||A mixed effects model was applied with fixed effects for period, time, treatment, and the interaction between treatment and time. Baseline was included as 2 separate covariates. The interaction between each baseline covariate and time were included as fixed effects. Participant was fitted as a random effect and time was fitted as a repeated effect within each participant × period. An unstructured correlation matrix was used. The effect reported is an average across all post-dose measurements.||-3.06|-7.78|
91002146|NCT02564029|181887038|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.37|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.6|-2.84|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||A mixed effects model was applied with fixed effects for period, time, treatment, and the interaction between treatment and time. Baseline was included as 2 separate covariates. The interaction between each baseline covariate and time were included as fixed effects. Participant was fitted as a random effect and time was fitted as a repeated effect within each participant × period. An unstructured correlation matrix was used. The effect reported is an average across all post-dose measurements.||-2.84|-7.60|
91002147|NCT02564029|181887038|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.58|3.2|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||A mixed effects model was applied with fixed effects for period, time, treatment, and the interaction between treatment and time. Baseline was included as 2 separate covariates. The interaction between each baseline covariate and time were included as fixed effects. Participant was fitted as a random effect and time was fitted as a repeated effect within each participant × period. An unstructured correlation matrix was used. The effect reported is an average across all post-dose measurements.||3.20|-1.58|
91002148|NCT02564029|181887038|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.43|1.41|||Mixed Model Repreated Measure Analysis|||A mixed effects model was applied with fixed effects for period, time, treatment, and the interaction between treatment and time. Baseline was included as 2 separate covariates. The interaction between each baseline covariate and time were included as fixed effects. Participant was fitted as a random effect and time was fitted as a repeated effect within each participant × period. An unstructured correlation matrix was used. The effect reported is an average across all post-dose measurements.||1.41|-3.43|
91002149|NCT02564029|181887038|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.56|2.16|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||A mixed effects model was applied with fixed effects for period, time, treatment, and the interaction between treatment and time. Baseline was included as 2 separate covariates. The interaction between each baseline covariate and time were included as fixed effects. Participant was fitted as a random effect and time was fitted as a repeated effect within each participant × period. An unstructured correlation matrix was used. The effect reported is an average across all post-dose measurements.||2.16|-2.56|
91002150|NCT02564029|181887039|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.37|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.6|-3.86|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure Analysis|||In eye closure condition. The same mixed model repeated measures analysis as applied to the primary outcome measure was used.||-3.86|-8.60|
91002151|NCT02564029|181887039|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.78|-3.06|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||In eye closure condition. The same mixed model repeated measures analysis as applied to the primary outcome measure was used.||-3.06|-7.78|
91002152|NCT02564029|181887039|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.37|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.6|-2.84|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||In eye closure condition. The same mixed model repeated measures analysis as applied to the primary outcome measure was used.||-2.84|-7.60|
91002153|NCT02564029|181887039|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.58|3.2|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||In eye closure condition. The same mixed model repeated measures analysis as applied to the primary outcome measure was used.||3.20|-1.58|
91002154|NCT02564029|181887039|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.43|1.41|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||In eye closure condition. The same mixed model repeated measures analysis as applied to the primary outcome measure was used.||1.41|-3.43|
91002155|NCT02564029|181887039|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.56|2.16|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||In eye closure condition. The same mixed model repeated measures analysis as applied to the primary outcome measure was used.||2.16|-2.56|
91002156|NCT02564029|181887039|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.01|-5.01|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||In eyes closed condition. The same mixed model repeated measures analysis as applied to the primary outcome measure was used.||-5.01|-8.01|
91002157|NCT02564029|181887039|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.93|-4.95|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||In eyes closed condition. The same mixed model repeated measures analysis as applied to the primary outcome measure was used.||-4.95|-7.93|
91002158|NCT02564029|181887039|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.2|-4.28|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||In eyes closed condition. The same mixed model repeated measures analysis as applied to the primary outcome measure was used.||-4.28|-7.20|
91002159|NCT02564029|181887039|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.31|1.46|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||In eyes closed condition. The same mixed model repeated measures analysis as applied to the primary outcome measure was used.||1.46|-1.31|
91002160|NCT02564029|181887039|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.19|0.65|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||In eyes closed condition. The same mixed model repeated measures analysis as applied to the primary outcome measure was used.||0.65|-2.19|
91002161|NCT02564029|181887039|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.09|0.7|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||In eyes closed condition. The same mixed model repeated measures analysis as applied to the primary outcome measure was used.||0.70|-2.09|
91002162|NCT02564029|181887039|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.6|-3.25|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||In eyes open condition. The same mixed model repeated measures analysis as applied to the primary outcome measure was used.||-3.25|-5.60|
91002163|NCT02564029|181887039|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.57|-3.17|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||In eyes open condition. The same mixed model repeated measures analysis as applied to the primary outcome measure was used.||-3.17|-5.57|
91002164|NCT02564029|181887039|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.57|-3.19|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||In eyes open condition. The same mixed model repeated measures analysis as applied to the primary outcome measure was used.||-3.19|-5.57|
91002165|NCT02564029|181887039|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.08|1.19|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||In eyes open condition. The same mixed model repeated measures analysis as applied to the primary outcome measure was used.||1.19|-1.08|
91002166|NCT02564029|181887039|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.18|1.1|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||In eyes open condition. The same mixed model repeated measures analysis as applied to the primary outcome measure was used.||1.10|-1.18|
91048145|NCT03575871|181981011|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|27.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.3|35.8||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||35.8|19.3|<0.0001
91048146|NCT03575871|181981012|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-1.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category), baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.1|-2.3|<0.0001
91048147|NCT03575871|181981012|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-2.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category), baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-2.3|-3.5|<0.0001
91048148|NCT03575871|181981012|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-1.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category), baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.3|-2.6|<0.0001
91048149|NCT03575871|181981012|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-3.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|-2.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category), baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-2.5|-3.8|<0.0001
91048150|NCT03575871|181981012|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-1.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category), baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.9|-2.3|<0.0001
91048151|NCT03575871|181981012|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-2.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-1.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category), baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.9|-3.3|<0.0001
91048152|NCT03575871|181981012|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-1.4||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category), baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.6|-2.2|0.0006
91048153|NCT03575871|181981012|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-2.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category), baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.4|-3.0|<0.0001
91048154|NCT03575871|181981013|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-1.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category), baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.8|-2.0|<0.0001
91048155|NCT03575871|181981013|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-2.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-1.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category), baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.8|-3.0|<0.0001
91048156|NCT03575871|181981013|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-1.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category), baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.2|-2.4|<0.0001
91048157|NCT03575871|181981013|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-3.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|-2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category), baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-2.3|-3.6|<0.0001
91048158|NCT03575871|181981013|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-1.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category), baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.9|-2.3|<0.0001
91002167|NCT02564029|181887039|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.11|1.13|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||In eyes open condition. The same mixed model repeated measures analysis as applied to the primary outcome measure was used.||1.13|-1.11|
91002168|NCT02037204|181887085|NON_INFERIORITY|A repeated-measures analysis of variance was used to test for differences in clinical outcome between baseline and 3, and 18 months after surgery.|||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||A repeated-measures analysis of variance was used to test for differences in clinical outcome between baseline and 3, and 18 months after surgery.||||<0.05
91002169|NCT02579863|181887102|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.33475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.45|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on Stratified log-rank test.|Based on Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by Age (\<75 years vs \>= 75 years) and ISS stage (I or II vs. III).|||1.45|0.56|0.33475
91002170|NCT02579863|181887103|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.22||||0.83416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.84|||Stratified log-rank test||"Based on Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by Age (\<75 years vs \>= 75 years) and ISS stage (I or II vs. III)."|||1.84|0.81|0.83416
91002171|NCT02579863|181887104|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % vs SOC|5.8||||0.13102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|15.8|||One-sided p-value for testing|H0: difference in % =0 versus H1: difference in % \> 0.|||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by 'Age' (\<75 years vs \>= 75 years) and 'ISS stage' (I or II vs. III); If there were no participants in one of the treatment groups involved in a comparison for a particular stratum, then that stratum was excluded from the treatment comparison.|15.8|-4.3|0.13102
91048159|NCT03575871|181981013|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-2.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category), baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.7|-3.1|<0.0001
91048160|NCT03575871|181981013|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.9||||0.0164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category), baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.2|-1.7|0.0164
91048161|NCT03575871|181981013|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-1.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category), baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.0|-2.5|<0.0001
91048162|NCT03575871|181981014|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-20.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.6|-15.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-15.1|-26.6|<0.0001
91048163|NCT03575871|181981014|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-32.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.9|-26.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-26.4|-37.9|<0.0001
91048164|NCT03575871|181981014|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-21.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.1|-15.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-15.2|-28.1|<0.0001
91048165|NCT03575871|181981014|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-35.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.3|-29.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-29.4|-42.3|<0.0001
91048166|NCT03575871|181981014|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-19.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.8|-12.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-12.1|-26.8|<0.0001
91048167|NCT03575871|181981014|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-33.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.0|-26.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-26.3|-41.0|<0.0001
91048168|NCT03575871|181981014|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-23.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.3|-13.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-13.9|-32.3|<0.0001
91048169|NCT03575871|181981014|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-33.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.6|-24.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-24.3|-42.6|<0.0001
91048170|NCT00391079|181981016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment effect|-0.17||||0.468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.29|||ANCOVA|||The change in pain NRS score from baseline to the end of study was analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with the baseline value as a covariate and centre group and treatment as factors.||0.29|-0.62|0.468
91048171|NCT00391079|181981017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.309||||0.2338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.038|||Regression, Logistic|||The proportions of responders were compared between the treatment groups using logistic regression with region and treatment groups as factors. The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between each Sativex and placebo.||2.038|0.840|0.2338
91048172|NCT00391079|181981018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment effect|-1.83||||0.3103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.39|1.72|||ANOVA||A negative difference in estimated treatment effect indicates an improvement in pain in favour of Sativex.|The change in NPS score from baseline to the end of study was analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with the baseline value as a covariate and centre group and treatment as factors.||1.72|-5.39|0.3103
91048173|NCT00391079|181981019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference|-0.24||||0.1567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.09|||ANCOVA||A negative difference in estimated treatment difference indicates a reduction in breakthrough analgesic medication in favour of Sativex.|The change in average number of tablets taken daily from baseline to the end of study was analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with the baseline value as a covariate and centre group and treatment as factors.||0.09|-0.57|0.1567
91048174|NCT00391079|181981020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference|-0.12||||0.5643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.29|||ANCOVA||A negative difference in estimated means indicates an improvement in pain in favour of Sativex.|||0.29|-0.53|0.5643
91048175|NCT00391079|181981021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|1.47||||0.0552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.991|2.179|||Regression, Logistic||An odds ratio of greater than 1 indicates and improvement in favour of Sativex.|||2.179|0.991|0.0552
91048176|NCT00391079|181981022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||estimated treatment difference|0.05||||0.833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.48|||ANCOVA||A negative difference in estimated treatment difference indicates an improvement in sleep quality in favour of Sativex.|||0.48|-0.39|0.8330
91048177|NCT01173471|181981030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.352||0.822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|12.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is (AZD4017 200 mg OD - Placebo OD)|||12.6|-15.2|0.822
91048178|NCT01173471|181981030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.516||0.413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|4.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is (AZD4017 400 mg BID - Placebo BID)|||4.3|-10.1|0.413
91048179|NCT01173471|181981032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.57||0.758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|3.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is (AZD4017 200 mg OD - Placebo OD)|||3.7|-4.8|0.758
91002172|NCT00446797|181887127|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|To conclude non inferiority, the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the difference in change scores between the 2 treatment groups (nsNSAIDs - celecoxib) must be greater than -10 mm.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.11||||95.0|-0.76|7.55|||ANCOVA|Terms for treatment, country (fixed), and the baseline pain VAS score|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Least squares mean||7.55|-0.76|
91002173|NCT00446797|181887128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.02||||95.0|-0.89|7.08|||ANCOVA|Terms for treatment, country (fixed) and the baseline pain VAS score|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 2 Least squares mean||7.08|-0.89|
91002174|NCT00446797|181887128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04||||95.0|-0.55|7.48|||ANCOVA|Terms for treatment, country (fixed) and the baseline pain VAS score|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 3 Least squares mean||7.48|-0.55|
91002175|NCT00446797|181887128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86||||95.0|-0.91|6.42|||ANCOVA|Terms for treatment, country (fixed) and the baseline pain VAS score|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 7 Least squares mean||6.42|-0.91|
91002176|NCT00446797|181887129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1591||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance: p value is less than or equal to 0.05|Regression, Logistic|Terms for treatment and the baseline pain VAS score||Day 2||||0.1591
91002177|NCT00446797|181887129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3995||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance: p value is less than or equal to 0.05|Regression, Logistic|Terms for treatment and the baseline pain VAS score||Day 3||||0.3995
91002178|NCT00446797|181887129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6805||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance: p value is less than or equal to 0.05|Regression, Logistic|Terms for treatment and the baseline pain VAS score||Day 7||||0.6805
91002179|NCT00446797|181887130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2411||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance: p value is less than or equal to 0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlled for country Test of row mean score differences based on modified ridits (standardizing the mid-rank)||Day 2||||0.2411
91002180|NCT00446797|181887130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1163||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance: p value is less than or equal to 0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlled for country Test of row mean score differences based on modified ridits (standardizing the mid-rank)||Day 3||||0.1163
91002181|NCT00446797|181887130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.044||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance: p value is less than or equal to 0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlled for country Test of row mean score differences based on modified ridits (standardizing the mid-rank)||Day 7||||0.0440
91002182|NCT00446797|181887131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7223||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance: p value is less than or equal to 0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|"Controlled for country~Test of row mean score differences based on modified ridits (standardizing the mid-rank)"||Day 3||||0.7223
91002183|NCT00446797|181887131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0541||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance: p value is less than or equal to 0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|"Controlled for country~Test of row mean score differences based on modified ridits (standardizing the mid-rank)"||Day 7||||0.0541
91002184|NCT00446797|181887132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.29||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance: p value is less than or equal to 0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|"Controlled for country~Test of row mean score differences based on modified ridits (standardizing the mid-rank)"||Day 2||||0.2900
91048180|NCT01173471|181981032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.909||0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is (AZD4017 400 mg BID - Placebo BID)|||1.2|-2.5|0.467
91048181|NCT03028740|181981041|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|-3.2||||0.2067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|1.9||P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test comparing Cenicriviroc vs Placebo, controlling for factors (randomization strata: fibrosis stage \[2 vs 3\] and presence or absence of Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) at Baseline).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.9|-8.2|0.2067
91048182|NCT03028740|181981041|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8369|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6341|1.1044|||||Odds Ratio was based on Mantel-Haenszel estimates comparing Cenicriviroc vs Placebo, controlling for factors (randomization strata: fibrosis stage \[2 vs 3\] and presence or absence of T2DM at Baseline).|||1.1044|0.6341|
91002185|NCT00446797|181887132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0157||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance: p value is less than or equal to 0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|"Controlled for country~Test of row mean score differences based on modified ridits (standardizing the mid-rank)"||Day 3||||0.0157
91002186|NCT00446797|181887132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1206||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance: p value is less than or equal to 0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|"Controlled for country~Test of row mean score differences based on modified ridits (standardizing the mid-rank)"||Day 7||||0.1206
91002187|NCT00446797|181887133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0846||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance: p value is less than or equal to 0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlled for country Test of row mean score differences based on modified ridits (standardizing the mid-rank)||Day 2||||0.0846
91002188|NCT00446797|181887133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3041||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance: p value is less than or equal to 0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlled for country Test of row mean score differences based on modified ridits (standardizing the mid-rank)||Day 3||||0.3041
91002189|NCT00446797|181887133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1216||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance: p value is less than or equal to 0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlled for country Test of row mean score differences based on modified ridits (standardizing the mid-rank)||Day 7||||0.1216
91002190|NCT00446797|181887134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.395||95.0|-0.33|0.62||Overall p-value|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and country|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 2 Least squares mean||0.62|-0.33|0.395
91048183|NCT03028740|181981043|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|-1.7||||0.2827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|1.5||P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test comparing Cenicriviroc vs Placebo, controlling for factors (randomization strata: fibrosis stage \[2 vs 3\] and presence or absence of T2DM at Baseline).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.5|-4.8|0.2827
91048184|NCT03028740|181981043|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7844|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5032|1.2229|||||Odds Ratio was based on Mantel-Haenszel estimates comparing Cenicriviroc vs Placebo, controlling for factors (randomization strata: fibrosis stage \[2 vs 3\] and presence or absence of T2DM at Baseline).|||1.2229|0.5032|
91048185|NCT03028740|181981044|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|-2.7||||0.4054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|3.3||P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test comparing Cenicriviroc vs Placebo, controlling for factors (randomization strata: fibrosis stage \[2 vs 3\] and presence or absence of T2DM at Baseline).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.3|-8.7|0.4054
91048186|NCT03028740|181981044|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8877|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6709|1.1744|||||Odds Ratio was based on Mantel-Haenszel estimates comparing Cenicriviroc vs Placebo, controlling for factors (randomization strata: fibrosis stage \[2 vs 3\] and presence or absence of T2DM at Baseline).|||1.1744|0.6709|
91048187|NCT03208673|181981063|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric mean|0.5628||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4395|0.7204|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.7204|0.4395|.001
91048188|NCT03208673|181981064|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.025|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Nasal||||0.025
91048189|NCT03208673|181981064|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.312|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Temporal||||0.312
91048190|NCT03208673|181981065|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comfort||||<0.001
91048191|NCT03208673|181981065|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Dry||||<0.001
91048192|NCT03208673|181981065|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Gritty||||<0.001
91048193|NCT03208673|181981065|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Vision||||<0.001
91048194|NCT00645944|181981067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.8||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.2|-7.5|0.039
91002191|NCT00446797|181887134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.004||95.0|0.18|1.04||Overall p value|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and country|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 3 Least squares mean||1.04|0.18|0.004
91002192|NCT00446797|181887134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.122||95.0|-0.08|0.77||Overall p value|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and country|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 7 Least squares mean||0.77|-0.08|0.122
91048195|NCT00560937|181981105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test of change scores, pregnenolone vs. placebo post-treatment compared to baseline.||||.048
91048196|NCT00560937|181981106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.79
91048197|NCT00560937|181981107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.22
91048198|NCT00560937|181981108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test of change scores, pregnenolone compared to placebo post-treatment vs. pre-randomization.||||1.0
91048199|NCT00560937|181981109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.014
91048200|NCT03069417|181981111|SUPERIORITY|Conducted at post-treatment time point.||||||0.11|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.11
91048201|NCT03069417|181981111|SUPERIORITY|Conducted at 3-month follow-up time point.||||||0.56|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.56
91048202|NCT03069417|181981112|SUPERIORITY|Main effect for time calculated at 3-month follow-up time point.|Fixed effects coefficient (β)|-12.7|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.29|-3.15||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.15|-22.29|< 0.05
91048203|NCT03069417|181981113|SUPERIORITY|Interaction evaluated at post-treatment time point.|Fixed effects coefficient (β)|-11.1|||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.41|-3.83||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.83|-18.41|< 0.005
91002193|NCT00446797|181887135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.604||95.0|-0.32|0.49||Overall p value|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and country|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 2 Least squares mean||0.49|-0.32|0.604
91002194|NCT00446797|181887135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.18||0.124||95.0|-0.07|0.63||Overall p value|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and country|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 3 Least squares mean||0.63|-0.07|0.124
91002195|NCT00446797|181887135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.062||95.0|0.03|0.61||Overall p value|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and country|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 7 Least squares mean||0.61|0.03|0.062
91002196|NCT00446797|181887136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.705||95.0|-0.36|0.47||Overall p value|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and country|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 2 Least squares mean||0.47|-0.36|0.705
91002197|NCT00446797|181887136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.064||95.0|-0.01|0.73||Overall p value|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and country|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 3 Least squares mean||0.73|-0.01|0.064
91002198|NCT00446797|181887136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.074||95.0|-0.01|0.68||Overall p value|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and country|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 7 Least squares mean||0.68|-0.01|0.074
91002199|NCT00446797|181887137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.017||95.0|0.11|1.05||Overall p value|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and country|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 2 Least squares mean||1.05|0.11|0.017
91002200|NCT00446797|181887137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.108||95.0|-0.05|0.74||Overall p value|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and country|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 3 Least squares mean||0.74|-0.05|0.108
91002201|NCT00446797|181887137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.117||95.0|-0.01|0.66||Overall p value|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and country|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 7 Least squares mean||0.66|-0.01|0.117
91002202|NCT00446797|181887138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.229||95.0|-0.17|0.6||Overall p value|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and country|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 2 Least squares mean||0.60|-0.17|0.229
91002203|NCT00446797|181887138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.027||95.0|0.05|0.75||Overall p value|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and country|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 3 Least squares mean||0.75|0.05|0.027
91048204|NCT03069417|181981113|SUPERIORITY|Main effect for time at 3-month follow-up time point.|Fixed effects coefficient (β)|-13.8|||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.5|-5.17||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.17|-22.50|< 0.005
91048205|NCT03069417|181981115|SUPERIORITY|Main effect for condition.|Fixed effects coefficient (β)|-10.1|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.58|-0.67||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.67|-19.58|< 0.05
91048206|NCT03069417|181981115|SUPERIORITY|Main effect for time at post-treatment time point.|Fixed effects coefficient (β)|-12.8|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.14|-3.37||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.37|-22.14|< 0.01
91048207|NCT03069417|181981116|SUPERIORITY|Main effect for condition.|Fixed effects coefficient (β)|6.2|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|11.88||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.88|0.50|< 0.05
91048208|NCT03360539|181981125|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|3.1|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||3.1|-2.1|
91048209|NCT03360539|181981126|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|3.0|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||3.0|-2.3|
91048210|NCT03360539|181981127|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|0.8|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||0.8|-2.9|
91048211|NCT03360539|181981128|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.9|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||2.9|-1.5|
91048212|NCT03360539|181981129|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.4|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||0.4|-2.3|
91048213|NCT03360539|181981130|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.6|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||1.6|-2.4|
91048214|NCT03360539|181981131|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.3|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||0.3|-1.6|
91048215|NCT03360539|181981132|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|-7.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.7|28.0|||||Adjusted between-group difference, in grams|||28.0|-43.7|
91048216|NCT03360539|181981133|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.3|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||1.3|-2.4|
91048217|NCT03360539|181981134|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.5|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||0.5|-0.6|
91048218|NCT03360539|181981135|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.2|||||Adjusted between-group difference, in weeks|||0.2|0.0|
91048219|NCT03360539|181981136|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.8|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||0.8|-0.3|
91048220|NCT03360539|181981137|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.9|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||0.9|-2.5|
91048221|NCT03360539|181981138|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.4|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||2.4|-1.1|
91048222|NCT03360539|181981139|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|0.7|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||0.7|-4.7|
91048223|NCT03360539|181981140|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.9|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||0.9|-0.5|
91048224|NCT03360539|181981144|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|2.5|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||2.5|-3.2|
91048225|NCT03360539|181981145|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|-0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|1.7|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||1.7|-3.0|
91048226|NCT03360539|181981146|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.08|||||Adjusted between-group difference, in number of visits|||1.08|0.95|
91048227|NCT03360539|181981147|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|2.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|4.9|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||4.9|0.1|
91048228|NCT03360539|181981148|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|3.0|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||3.0|-2.1|
91048229|NCT03360539|181981150|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|-0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|2.9|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||2.9|-3.1|
91048230|NCT03360539|181981151|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|3.7|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||3.7|-2.4|
91048231|NCT03360539|181981152|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|-4.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|-0.4|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||-0.4|-8.0|
91048232|NCT03360539|181981160|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|2.8|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||2.8|-2.4|
91048233|NCT03360539|181981161|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.3|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||1.3|-1.1|
91048234|NCT03360539|181981162|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||||Adjusted between-group difference, in number of injuries|||0.1|-0.1|
91048235|NCT03360539|181981163|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|-0.1|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||-0.1|-5.3|
91048236|NCT03360539|181981164|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.1|||||Adjusted between-group difference, in number of visits|||0.1|-0.7|
91048237|NCT03360539|181981165|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.0|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||1.0|-0.4|
91048238|NCT03360539|181981166|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|5.0|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||5.0|-0.4|
91048239|NCT03360539|181981167|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|3.2|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||3.2|-2.3|
91048240|NCT03360539|181981168|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|2.0|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||2.0|-3.4|
91048241|NCT03360539|181981169|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|4.5|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||4.5|-1.0|
91048242|NCT03360539|181981170|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|3.1|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||3.1|-2.6|
91048243|NCT03360539|181981171|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.7|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||1.7|-2.4|
91048244|NCT03360539|181981172|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.6|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||0.6|-1.9|
91048245|NCT03360539|181981174|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|1.3|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||1.3|-4.3|
91048246|NCT03360539|181981175|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|2.0|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||2.0|-3.4|
91048247|NCT03360539|181981176|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.7|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||2.7|-1.0|
91048248|NCT03360539|181981177|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|2.2|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||2.2|-3.0|
91048249|NCT03360539|181981178|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|2.9|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||2.9|-2.6|
91048250|NCT03360539|181981179|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.6|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||2.6|-1.5|
91048251|NCT03360539|181981180|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.37|||||Adjusted between-group difference, in months|||0.37|-0.1|
91048252|NCT03360539|181981181|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.5|||||Adjusted between-group difference, in months|||0.5|-0.45|
91048253|NCT03360539|181981182|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|4.0|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||4.0|0.3|
91048254|NCT03360539|181981183|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.1|||||Adjusted between-group difference, in months|||1.1|0.1|
91048255|NCT03360539|181981184|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|3.0|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||3.0|-0.7|
91048256|NCT03545191|181981185|OTHER||LS mean difference to placebo|-12.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.435|-6.961||Mixed effects model for repeated measures: change from baseline in WASO = baseline WASO + age group (\< 65; ≥ 65 years) + treatment + visit + treatment × visit + baseline × visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in WASO (min) to Month 1 (Daridorexant 25 mg vs placebo).||-6.961|-17.435|<0.0001
91048257|NCT03545191|181981185|OTHER||LS mean difference to placebo|-22.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.996|-17.567||Mixed effects model for repeated measures: change from baseline in WASO = baseline WASO + age group (\< 65; ≥ 65 years) + treatment + visit + treatment × visit + baseline × visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in WASO (min) to Month 1 (Daridorexant 50 mg vs placebo).||-17.567|-27.996|<0.0001
91048258|NCT03545191|181981186|OTHER||LS mean difference to placebo|-11.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.494|-6.23||Mixed effects model for repeated measures: change from baseline in WASO = baseline WASO + age group (\< 65; ≥ 65 years) + treatment + visit + treatment × visit + baseline × visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in WASO (min) to Month 3 (Daridorexant 25 mg vs placebo).||-6.23|-17.494|<0.0001
91048259|NCT03545191|181981186|OTHER||LS mean difference to placebo|-18.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.945|-12.661||Mixed effects model for repeated measures: change from baseline in WASO = baseline WASO + age group (\< 65; ≥ 65 years) + treatment + visit + treatment × visit + baseline × visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in WASO (min) to Month 3 (Daridorexant 50 mg vs placebo).||-12.661|-23.945|<0.0001
91048260|NCT03545191|181981187|OTHER||LS mean difference to placebo|-8.32||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.014|-3.629||Mixed effects model for repeated measures: change from baseline in LPS = baseline LPS + age group (\< 65; ≥ 65 years) + treatment + visit + treatment × visit + baseline × visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in LPS (min) to Month 1 (Daridorexant 25 mg vs placebo).||-3.629|-13.014|0.0005
91048261|NCT03545191|181981187|OTHER||LS mean difference to placebo|-11.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.022|-6.687||Mixed effects model for repeated measures: change from baseline in LPS = baseline LPS + age group (\< 65; ≥ 65 years) + treatment + visit + treatment × visit + baseline × visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in LPS (min) to Month 1 (Daridorexant 50 mg vs placebo).||-6.687|-16.022|<0.0001
91048262|NCT03545191|181981188|OTHER||LS mean difference to placebo|-7.59||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.265|-2.923||Mixed effects model for repeated measures: change from baseline in LPS = baseline LPS + age group (\< 65; ≥ 65 years) + treatment + visit + treatment × visit + baseline × visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in LPS (min) to Month 3 (Daridorexant 25 mg vs placebo).||-2.923|-12.265|0.0015
91048263|NCT03545191|181981188|OTHER||LS mean difference to placebo|-11.67|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.348|-6.994||Mixed effects model for repeated measures: change from baseline in LPS = baseline LPS + age group (\< 65; ≥ 65 years) + treatment + visit + treatment × visit + baseline × visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in LPS (min) to Month 3 (Daridorexant 50 mg vs placebo).||-6.994|-16.348|<0.0001
91048264|NCT03545191|181981189|OTHER||LS mean difference to placebo|12.62|||=|0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.953|20.288||Mixed effects model for repeated measures: change from baseline in sTST = baseline sTST + age group (\< 65; ≥ 65 years) + treatment + visit + treatment × visit + baseline × visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in sTST (min) to Month 1 (Daridorexant 25 mg vs placebo).||20.288|4.953|= 0.0013
91048265|NCT03545191|181981189|OTHER||LS mean difference to placebo|22.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.405|29.708||Mixed effects model for repeated measures: change from baseline in sTST = baseline sTST + age group (\< 65; ≥ 65 years) + treatment + visit + treatment × visit + baseline × visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in sTST (min) to Month 1 (Daridorexant 25 mg vs placebo).||29.708|14.405|< 0.0001
91048266|NCT03545191|181981190|OTHER||LS mean difference to placebo|9.93|||=|0.0334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.782|19.082||Mixed effects model for repeated measures: change from baseline in sTST = baseline sTST + age group (\< 65; ≥ 65 years) + treatment + visit + treatment × visit + baseline × visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in sTST (min) to Month 3 (Daridorexant 25 mg vs placebo).||19.082|0.782|= 0.0334
91048267|NCT03545191|181981190|OTHER||LS mean difference to placebo|19.77|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.623|28.918||Mixed effects model for repeated measures: change from baseline in sTST = baseline sTST + age group (\< 65; ≥ 65 years) + treatment + visit + treatment × visit + baseline × visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in sTST (min) to Month 3 (Daridorexant 50 mg vs placebo).||28.918|10.623|< .00001
91048268|NCT03545191|181981191|OTHER||LS mean difference to placebo|-0.75|||=|0.0547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.515|0.015||Mixed effects model for repeated measures: change from baseline in IDSIQ sleepiness domain score = baseline IDSIQ sleepiness domain score + age group (\< 65; ≥ 65 years) + treatment + visit + treatment × visit + baseline × visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in IDSIQ sleepiness domain score to Month 1 (Daridorexant 25 mg vs placebo).||0.015|-1.515|= 0.0547
90890005|NCT01571362|181644029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.201|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|-0.48|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Randomization Baseline to Week 4||-0.48|-1.27|<0.0001
91002204|NCT00446797|181887138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.07||95.0|0.01|0.65||Overall p value|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and country|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 7 Least squares mean||0.65|0.01|0.070
91002205|NCT00446797|181887139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.954||95.0|-0.64|0.53||Overall p value|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and country|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 2 Least squares mean||0.53|-0.64|0.954
91002206|NCT00446797|181887139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.172||95.0|-0.19|1.02||Overall p value|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and country|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 3 Least squares mean||1.02|-0.19|0.172
91002207|NCT00446797|181887139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.541||95.0|-0.3|0.62||Overall p value|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and country|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 7 Least squares mean||0.62|-0.30|0.541
91002208|NCT00446797|181887140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.924||95.0|-0.75|0.58||Overall p value|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and country|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 2 Least squares mean||0.58|-0.75|0.924
91002209|NCT00446797|181887140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.898||95.0|-0.62|0.51||Overall p value|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and country|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 3 Least squares mean||0.51|-0.62|0.898
91048269|NCT03545191|181981191|OTHER||LS mean difference to placebo|-1.75|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.508|-0.983||Mixed effects model for repeated measures: change from baseline in IDSIQ sleepiness domain score = baseline IDSIQ sleepiness domain score + age group (\< 65; ≥ 65 years) + treatment + visit + treatment × visit + baseline × visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in IDSIQ sleepiness domain score to Month 1 (Daridorexant 50 mg vs placebo).||-0.983|-2.508|< .00001
91048270|NCT03545191|181981192|OTHER||LS mean difference to placebo|-0.99||||0.0534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|0.014||Mixed effects model for repeated measures: change from baseline in IDSIQ sleepiness domain score = baseline IDSIQ sleepiness domain score + age group (\< 65; ≥ 65 years) + treatment + visit + treatment × visit + baseline × visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in IDSIQ sleepiness domain score to Month 3 (Daridorexant 25 mg vs placebo).||0.014|-1.990|0.0534
91048271|NCT03545191|181981192|OTHER||LS mean difference to placebo|-1.9|||=|0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.905|-0.905|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in IDSIQ sleepiness domain score to Month 3 (Daridorexant 50 mg vs placebo).||-0.905|-2.905|= 0.0002
91048272|NCT03545191|181981193|OTHER||LSGM ratio to placebo|0.79||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.9||Mixed effects model for repeated measures: log(value/baseline) = log(baseline) + age group(\< 65; ≥ 65 years) + treatment + visit + treatment x visit + log(baseline) x visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in log transformed LPS (min) to Month 1 (Daridorexant 25 mg vs placebo).||0.90|0.70|0.0003
91048273|NCT03545191|181981193|OTHER||LSGM ratio to placebo|0.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.82||Mixed effects model for repeated measures: log(value/baseline) = log(baseline) + age group(\< 65; ≥ 65 years) + treatment + visit + treatment x visit + log(baseline) x visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in log transformed LPS (min) to Month 1 (Daridorexant 50 mg vs placebo).||0.82|0.65|<0.0001
91048274|NCT03545191|181981194|OTHER||LSGM ratio to placebo|0.78||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.89||Mixed effects model for repeated measures: log(value/baseline) = log(baseline) + age group(\< 65; ≥ 65 years) + treatment + visit + treatment x visit + log(baseline) x visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in log transformed LPS (min) to Month 3 (Daridorexant 25 mg vs placebo).||0.89|0.68|0.0002
91048275|NCT03545191|181981194|OTHER||LSGM ratio to placebo|0.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.83||Mixed effects model for repeated measures: log(value/baseline) = log(baseline) + age group(\< 65; ≥ 65 years) + treatment + visit + treatment x visit + log(baseline) x visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in log transformed LPS (min) to Month 3 (Daridorexant 50 mg vs placebo).||0.83|0.64|<0.0001
91048276|NCT01277718|181981198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Least Squares (LS) Means (in %)|111.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.02|124.99|||||LS mean was calculated from Analysis of variance (ANOVA). Data for AUCinf were natural log-transformed prior to analysis. Ratio of AUCinf LS means for log-transformed parameter (expressed as a percent).|||124.99|98.02|
91048277|NCT01277718|181981198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of LS Means (in %)|96.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.06|108.77|||||LS mean was calculated from ANOVA. Data for AUCinf were natural log-transformed prior to analysis. Ratio of AUCinf LS means for log-transformed parameter (expressed as a percent).|||108.77|85.06|
91048278|NCT01277718|181981198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of LS Means (in %)|106.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.53|119.91|||||LS mean was calculated from ANOVA. Data for AUCinf were natural log-transformed prior to analysis. Ratio of AUCinf LS means for log-transformed parameter (expressed as a percent).|||119.91|94.53|
91048279|NCT01277718|181981199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of LS Means (in %)|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.09|118.03|||||LS mean was calculated from ANOVA. Data for Cmax were natural log-transformed prior to analysis. Ratio of Cmax LS means for log-transformed parameter (expressed as a percent).|||118.03|85.09|
91048280|NCT01277718|181981199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of LS Means (in %)|85.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|72.51|101.33|||||LS mean was calculated from ANOVA. Data for Cmax were natural log-transformed prior to analysis. Ratio of Cmax LS means for log-transformed parameter (expressed as a percent).|||101.33|72.51|
91002210|NCT00446797|181887140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.655||95.0|-0.33|0.6||Overall p value|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and country|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 7 Least squares mean||0.60|-0.33|0.655
91002211|NCT00446797|181887141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.929||95.0|-0.59|0.62||Overall p value|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and country|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 2 Least squares mean||0.62|-0.59|0.929
91002212|NCT00446797|181887141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.712||95.0|-0.5|0.71||Overall p value|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and country|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 3 Least squares mean||0.71|-0.50|0.712
91002213|NCT00446797|181887141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.993||95.0|-0.44|0.51||Overall p value|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and country|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 7 Least squares mean||0.51|-0.44|0.993
91002214|NCT00446797|181887142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.32||0.779||95.0|-0.53|0.75||Overall p value|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and country|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 2 Least squares mean||0.75|-0.53|0.779
91048281|NCT01277718|181981199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of LS Means (in %)|85.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|72.94|101.17|||||LS mean was calculated from ANOVA. Data for Cmax were natural log-transformed prior to analysis. Ratio of Cmax LS means for log-transformed parameter (expressed as a percent).|||101.17|72.94|
91002215|NCT00446797|181887142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.972||95.0|-0.69|0.65||Overall p value|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and country|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 3 Least squares mean||0.65|-0.69|0.972
91002216|NCT00446797|181887142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.844||95.0|-0.47|0.61||Overall p value|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and country|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 7 Least squares mean||0.61|-0.47|0.844
91002217|NCT00446797|181887143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.944||95.0|-0.63|0.6||Overall p value|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and country|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 2 Least squares mean||0.60|-0.63|0.944
91002218|NCT00446797|181887143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.654||95.0|-0.62|0.38||Overall p value|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and country|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 3 Least squares mean||0.38|-0.62|0.654
91002219|NCT00446797|181887143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.952||95.0|-0.36|0.39||Overall p value|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and country|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 7 Least squares mean||0.39|-0.36|0.952
91002220|NCT00446797|181887144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.842||95.0|-0.65|0.59||Overall p value|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and country|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 2 Least squares mean||0.59|-0.65|0.842
91048282|NCT03919162|181981204|SUPERIORITY||Difference LS Mean|0.058|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.2261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.036|0.152||"Null hypothesis was that there was no difference in change of ABC score between the PQ912 and Placebo group after 24 weeks of treatment.~P-values \<0.05 were considered to be statistically significant."|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effect covariates: APOE status, initial diagnosis, site, baseline ABC score, time, treatment group, and time by treatment group interaction.|Treatment difference = PQ912 - Placebo|Initially after Phase 2A, a futility analysis was planned with a sample size of 90 participants per treatment group to test the 1-sided hypothesis that the rate of decrease of ABC score is greater for the PQ912 group than for the Placebo group. The test should be carried out at a 1-sided 40% significance level, using the mixed effects model. Due to early termination of the study and limited sample size, analysis of Phase 2A data was done in the same manner as final analysis of Phase 2B data.||0.152|-0.036|0.2261
91048283|NCT03919162|181981205|SUPERIORITY||Difference LS Mean|-0.00526|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00742||0.4814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02017|0.00964||"Null hypothesis was that there was no difference in change of EEG theta power between the PQ912 and Placebo groups after 24 weeks of treatment.~Tests were declared statistically significant if the calculated p-value was ≤ 0.05."|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effect covariates: APOE status, initial diagnosis, site, baseline qEEG data, time, treatment group, and time by treatment group interaction.|Treatment difference = PQ912 - Placebo|"Initially after Phase 2A, a futility analysis was planned with a sample size of 90 participants per treatment group to test the hypothesis that increase in EEG theta power is greater for Placebo than for PQ912 (1-sided, alpha = 0.05). Higher theta power is worse; hence this alternative hypothesis indicates benefit of the drug.~Due to early termination of the study and limited sample size, analysis of Phase 2A data was done in the same manner as final analysis of Phase 2B data."||0.00964|-0.02017|0.4814
91048284|NCT03919162|181981206|SUPERIORITY||Difference LS Mean|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.9135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|0.92||Tests were declared statistically significant if the calculated p-value is ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effect covariates: APOE status, initial diagnosis, site, baseline CDR-SB score, time, treatment group, and time by treatment group interaction.|Treatment difference = PQ912 - Placebo|Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in the change of CDR-SB scores between the PQ912 and the Placebo arms. The primary analysis used a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with within-participant change in CDR-SB score as the outcome. The study planned with 207 participants (including 25% drop-out) per group to have 80% power to detect an effect size of 0.7 points in CDR-SB score. Power calculation was based on a 2-sided t-test with significance level of 0.05.||0.92|-1.03|0.9135
91048285|NCT03919162|181981207|SUPERIORITY||Difference LS Mean|0.969|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.14||0.6528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.345|5.238||The secondary analysis used a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with the within-participant change compared between active arm and placebo in CFC2 as the outcome.|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effect covariates: APOE status, initial diagnosis, site, baseline CFC2, time, treatment group, time by treatment group interaction.|Treatment difference = PQ912 - Placebo|A hierarchical approach is taken: The key secondary CFC2 follows the primary endpoint (Clinical Dementia Rating - Sum of Boxes), if it is statistically significant, followed by the remaining secondary endpoints in the order defined per Statistical Analysis Plan. Hierarchical testing is stopped as soon as a non-significant result is encountered. If the primary hypothesis is met, then a test for a statistically significant difference will be conducted for the CFC2, however at 4% significance level||5.238|-3.345|0.6528
91048286|NCT03919162|181981208|SUPERIORITY||Difference LS Mean|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.101||0.3241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.103|0.303||The secondary analysis used a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with the within-participant change compared between active arm and placebo in ABC as the outcome.|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effect covariates: APOE status, initial diagnosis, site, baseline ABC score, time, treatment group, time by treatment group interaction|Treatment difference = PQ912 - Placebo|A hierarchical approach is taken: If the primary and key secondary endpoint are both statistically significant the remaining secondary endpoints will be tested in the hierarchical order defined per Statistical Analysis Plan until a non-significant result is encountered: Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) Battery Composite Score, Quantitative EEG, Functional Activities Questionnaire, Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale - Cognitive Subscale 13, Neuropsychiatric Inventory.||0.303|-0.103|0.3241
91048287|NCT03919162|181981209|SUPERIORITY||Difference LS Mean|-0.02857|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01846||0.1398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06746|0.01032||The secondary analysis used a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with the within-participant change compared between active arm and placebo in qEEG as the outcome.|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effect covariates: APOE status, initial diagnosis, site, baseline qECG data, time, treatment group, time by treatment group interaction|Treatment difference = PQ912 - Placebo|A hierarchical approach is taken: If the primary and key secondary endpoint are both statistically significant the remaining secondary endpoints will be tested in the hierarchical order defined per Statistical Analysis Plan until a non-significant result is encountered: Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) Battery Composite Score, Quantitative EEG, Functional Activities Questionnaire, Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale - Cognitive Subscale 13, Neuropsychiatric Inventory.||0.01032|-0.06746|0.1398
91050348|NCT04168190|181987002|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>0.33 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|0.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.21|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 8. Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||1.21|0.80|<0.001
91048288|NCT03919162|181981210|SUPERIORITY||Difference LS Mean|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.79||0.7377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.22|3.01||The analysis used a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with the within-participant change compared between active arm and placebo in FAQ as the outcome.|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effect covariates: APOE status, initial diagnosis, site, baseline FAQ score, time, treatment group, time by treatment group interaction.|Treatment difference = PQ912 - Placebo|A hierarchical approach is taken: If the primary and key secondary endpoint are both statistically significant the remaining secondary endpoints will be tested in the hierarchical order defined per Statistical Analysis Plan until a non-significant result is encountered: Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) Battery Composite Score, Quantitative EEG, Functional Activities Questionnaire, Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale - Cognitive Subscale 13, Neuropsychiatric Inventory.||3.01|-4.22|0.7377
91048289|NCT03919162|181981211|SUPERIORITY||Difference LS Mean|2.034|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.154||0.3496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.292|6.36||The secondary analysis used a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with the within-participant change compared between active arm and placebo in ADAS-Cog-13 as the outcome.|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effect covariates: APOE status, initial diagnosis, site, baseline ADAS-Cog-13 score, time, treatment group, time by treatment group interaction|Treatment difference = PQ912 - Placebo|A hierarchical approach is taken: If the primary and key secondary endpoint are both statistically significant the remaining secondary endpoints will be tested in the hierarchical order defined per Statistical Analysis Plan until a non-significant result is encountered: Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) Battery Composite Score, Quantitative EEG, Functional Activities Questionnaire, Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale - Cognitive Subscale 13, Neuropsychiatric Inventory.||6.360|-2.292|0.3496
91048290|NCT03919162|181981212|SUPERIORITY||Difference LS Mean|-3.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.34||0.1933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.81|1.62||The secondary analysis used a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with the within-participant change compared between active arm and placebo in NPI as the outcome.|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference = PQ912 - Placebo|A hierarchical approach is taken: If the primary and key secondary endpoint are both statistically significant the remaining secondary endpoints will be tested in the hierarchical order defined per Statistical Analysis Plan until a non-significant result is encountered: Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) Battery Composite Score, Quantitative EEG, Functional Activities Questionnaire, Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale - Cognitive Subscale 13, Neuropsychiatric Inventory.||1.62|-7.81|0.1933
91048291|NCT02508259|181981233|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was that before and after treatment ADOS scores were equivalent.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.55||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||In this analysis, each child was used as their own control to examine before and after suramin treatment effects in a paired t-test design. This study was a small pilot study of safety and activity of suramin. The small subject numbers of just 5 per group make it impossible to draw any strong conclusions about efficacy. Future studies are required.||-0.9|-2.3|0.0028
91048292|NCT02508259|181981234|EQUIVALENCE|The child-specific difference in EOWPVT scores were compared for equivalence before and 6-weeks after suramin treatment|Mean Difference (Net)|-4.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.3||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|6.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||In this analysis, each child was used as their own control to examine before and after suramin treatment effects in a paired t-test design. This study was a small pilot study of safety and activity of suramin. The small subject numbers of just 5 per group make it impossible to draw any strong conclusions about efficacy. Future studies are required.||6.1|-14.5|0.32
91048293|NCT02508259|181981235|EQUIVALENCE|In this analysis, the null hypothesis was tested that the child-specific ABC subscores for stereotypy were unchanged before and after suramin treatment.|Mean Difference (Net)|-4.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.3||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|-1.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||In this analysis, each child was used as their own control to examine before and after suramin treatment effects in a paired t-test design. This study was a small pilot study of safety and activity of suramin. The small subject numbers of just 5 per group make it impossible to draw any strong conclusions about efficacy. Future studies are required.||-1.1|-6.9|0.019
91002221|NCT00446797|181887144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.828||95.0|-0.57|0.49||Overall p value|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and country|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 3 Least squares mean||0.49|-0.57|0.828
91002222|NCT00446797|181887144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.542||95.0|-0.3|0.53||Overall p value|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and country|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 7 Least squares mean||0.53|-0.30|0.542
91002223|NCT00446797|181887145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.404||95.0|-0.92|0.42||Overall p value|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and country|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 2 Least squares mean||0.42|-0.92|0.404
91002224|NCT00446797|181887145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.816||95.0|-0.53|0.58||Overall p value|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and country|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 3 Least squares mean||0.58|-0.53|0.816
91002225|NCT00446797|181887145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.837||95.0|-0.37|0.52||Overall p value|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and country|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 7 Least squares mean||0.52|-0.37|0.837
91002226|NCT00446797|181887146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.887||95.0|-0.54|0.45||Overall p value|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and country|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 2 Least squares mean||0.45|-0.54|0.887
91002227|NCT00446797|181887146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.889||95.0|-0.43|0.51||Overall p value|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and country|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 3 Least squares mean||0.51|-0.43|0.889
91002228|NCT00446797|181887146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.738||95.0|-0.3|0.47||Overall p value|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and country|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 7 Least squares mean||0.47|-0.30|0.738
91048294|NCT02508259|181981236|EQUIVALENCE|In this analysis, we tested the equivalence of the child-specific ATEC subscore for language before and 6-weeks after treatment with suramin.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.4||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.49|||t-test, 2 sided|||In this analysis, each child was used as their own control to examine before and after suramin treatment effects in a paired t-test design. This study was a small pilot study of safety and activity of suramin. The small subject numbers of just 5 per group make it impossible to draw any strong conclusions about efficacy. Future studies are required.||-0.49|-2.7|0.034
91002229|NCT00364832|181887147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Conversion Factor 90% CI|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.73|0.9|||||To analyze dose conversion factors (CF), 2nd regression (R) analysis was performed on 3 different CF dose groups, using the R slope estimates of Hb change over 6 weeks. Equi-effective CF was interpolated using value that gives an Hb change of zero.|All cohorts with dosing frequency 1x/ week (0.4, 0.8 and 1.2 dose group)||0.90|0.73|
91002230|NCT00364832|181887147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Conversion Factor 90% CI|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.55|0.86|||||To analyze dose conversion factors (CF), 2nd regression (R) analysis was performed on 3 different CF dose groups, using the R slope estimates of Hb change over 6 weeks. Equi-effective CF was interpolated using value that gives an Hb change of zero.|All cohorts with dosing frequency 1x/ 3 weeks (0.4, 0.8 and 1.2 dose group)||0.86|0.55|
91002231|NCT00364832|181887147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Conversion Factor 90% CI|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|1.09|||||To analyze dose conversion factors (CF), 2nd regression (R) analysis was performed on 3 different CF dose groups, using the R slope estimates of Hb change over 6 weeks. Equi-effective CF was interpolated using value that gives an Hb change of zero.|All cohorts with dosing frequency 1x/ 4 weeks (0.4, 0.8 and 1.2 dose group)||1.09|0.81|
91002232|NCT00407550|181887155|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.015
91002233|NCT00407550|181887156|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.56
91002234|NCT00324272|181887196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.704||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.704
91002235|NCT00324272|181887196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.217||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.217
91002236|NCT00324272|181887198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.988||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.988
91002237|NCT00324272|181887198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.426||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.426
91002238|NCT00324272|181887199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.351||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.351
91002239|NCT00324272|181887199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.480
91002240|NCT00324272|181887200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
91002241|NCT00324272|181887200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.400
91002242|NCT00324272|181887201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Local recurrence in the groin cohort.||||1.00
91002243|NCT00324272|181887201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.301||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||In transit or regional recurrence in the groin cohort.||||0.301
91002244|NCT00324272|181887201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.474||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Distant metastasis in the groin cohort (with the patient being alive at the end of the study follow-up period on 1.6.10).||||0.474
91002245|NCT00324272|181887201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.606||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Local recurrence in the groin cohort.||||0.606
91002246|NCT00324272|181887201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||In transit or regional recurrence in the axillary cohort.||||1.000
91002247|NCT00324272|181887201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.486||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Distant metastasis in the axillary cohort (with the patient being alive at the end of the study follow-up period on 1.6.10).||||0.486
91002248|NCT00324272|181887202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.58|||Regression, Cox|||Death from metastatic disease in the groin cohort.||2.58|0.40|0.963
91002249|NCT00324272|181887202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.33||||0.338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|3.2|||Regression, Cox|||Death from an unrelated cause in the groin cohort.||3.20|0.03|0.338
91002250|NCT00324272|181887202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|2.47|||Regression, Cox|||Death from metastatic disease in the axillary cohort.||2.47|0.35|0.880
91002251|NCT00324272|181887202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.923||||0.923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|13.95|||Regression, Cox|||Death from an unrelated cause in the axillary cohort.||13.95|0.05|0.923
91002252|NCT04882072|181887203|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|8.47||||||||8.47|0.41|
91002253|NCT02918318|181887224|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Squares means|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.25||0.475|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.77|3.7||1-sided|Dunnett adjustment|||||3.70|-5.77|0.475
91002254|NCT02918318|181887224|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Squares means|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.33||0.504|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.32|5.47||1-sided|Dunnett adjustment|||||5.47|-4.32|0.504
91002255|NCT02918318|181887224|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Squares means|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26||0.482|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.66|3.83||1-sided|Dunnett adjustment|||||3.83|-5.66|0.482
91048295|NCT02508259|181981237|EQUIVALENCE|In this analysis, overall ASD symptom scores, measured by CGI were compared between suramin and placebo groups.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.04||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-0.15|||ANOVA|||In this analysis, each child was used as their own control to examine before and after suramin treatment effects in a paired t-test design. This study was a small pilot study of safety and activity of suramin. The small subject numbers of just 5 per group make it impossible to draw any strong conclusions about efficacy. Future studies are required.||-0.15|-3.4|0.05
91048296|NCT02508259|181981238|EQUIVALENCE|In this analysis, the child-specific RBQ score was tested for equivalence before and 6-weeks after suramin treatment.|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.8||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|4.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||In this analysis, each child was used as their own control to examine before and after suramin treatment effects in a paired t-test design. This study was a small pilot study of safety and activity of suramin. The small subject numbers of just 5 per group make it impossible to draw any strong conclusions about efficacy. Future studies are required.||4.0|-10.4|0.28
91048297|NCT06400745|181981247|NON_INFERIORITY|Study success will be concluded if the upper bound of the one-sided 95.1% confidence interval does not exceed the noninferiority margin of 0.1 logMAR.|Difference in Means|0.009|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0085|||ONE_SIDED|95.1||0.0232||The upper boundary of the confidence interval is reported instead of a p-value.|t-test, 1 sided|The upper bound of the one-sided 95.1% confidence limit will be compared to the margin, 0.10 logMAR.|Difference in Means = CPO Pro IOL minus CPO|||0.0232||
91048298|NCT00710749|181981248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.44||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.44
90890006|NCT01571362|181644029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.226||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.19|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Randomization Baseline to Week 8.||-0.19|-1.08|0.0055
91048299|NCT00710749|181981248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0001
91048300|NCT00710749|181981248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.0001
91048301|NCT05478252|181981249|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of insulin semaglutide J versus insulin semaglutide B was considered as confirmed if the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the mean treatment difference lied entirely below 2.5%. Non-inferiority was investigated on the FAS.|Treatment difference|-0.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.08|||ANCOVA|||||0.08|-0.30|<.0001
91048302|NCT04846881|181981258|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.722|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4753||0.1291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.211|1.656|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger method estimated denominator degrees of freedom and adjusted standard errors.|Adjusted mean difference in overall composite T-score of the MCCB at Week 26 between the iclepertin 10 mg and the Placebo group.|The model included fixed categorical effects of treatment at each visit and the stratification factor (screening MCCB overall composite T-score) and fixed effects for the continuous covariate of baseline at each visit. Visit was treated as a repeated measure with unstructured covariance structure for within-participant dependencies. The primary comparison was iclepertin 10 mg daily vs. placebo at Week 26.||1.656|-0.211|0.1291
91050349|NCT04168190|181987002|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>0.33 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.47|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 9N. Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||1.47|0.87|<0.001
91002256|NCT01548417|181887238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear Mixed Effects Modeling (MEM) with Restricted Maximum Likelihood estimation was used to measure differences in alcohol-cued craving..||||.003
91002257|NCT01548417|181887239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear Mixed Effect Modeling (MEM) with Restricted Maximum Likelihood estimation was used to measure differences in changes in drinking.||||.05
91002258|NCT01548417|181887239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Data represent the estimated marginal mean + or - SEM. \*P\<0.05, mifepristone vs. placebo (linear mixed effects modeling).||||<0.05
91002259|NCT00444080|181887243|OTHER|||||||0.013|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.013
91002260|NCT01641081|181887332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.2644|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0148|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2353|0.2934|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment and period as fixed effects, and baseline FEV1 values at each period as a covariate||||0.2934|0.2353|<0.0001
91002261|NCT01641081|181887332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.2524|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0156|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2218|0.283|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment and period as fixed effects, and baseline FEV1 values at each period as a covariate||||0.2830|0.2218|<0.0001
91002262|NCT01641081|181887332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.2242|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0153|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1941|0.2544|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment and period as fixed effects, and baseline FEV1 values at each period as a covariate||||0.2544|0.1941|<0.0001
91002263|NCT01641081|181887332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.2174|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0146|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1887|0.2461|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment and period as fixed effects, and baseline FEV1 values at each period as a covariate||||0.2461|0.1887|<0.0001
91048303|NCT04846881|181981259|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.714|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6042||0.2375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.472|1.901|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger method estimated denominator degrees of freedom and adjusted standard errors.|Adjusted mean difference in SCoRS at Week 26 between the iclepertin 10 mg and the Placebo group.|The model included the discrete fixed effects of treatment at each visit, fixed categorical covariate of the stratification factor using the screening MCCB overall composite T-score, and continuous fixed effects for the corresponding baseline endpoint value at each visit. Visit was treated as the repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure to model the within-subject measurements. Subjects were considered as a random effect.||1.901|-0.472|0.2375
91048304|NCT04846881|181981260|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.333|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.062||0.7541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.753|2.419|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger method estimated denominator degrees of freedom and adjusted standard errors.|Adjusted mean difference in VRFCAT at Week 26 between the iclepertin 10 mg and the Placebo group.|The model included the discrete fixed effects of treatment at each visit, fixed categorical covariate of the stratification factor using the screening MCCB overall composite T-score, and continuous fixed effects for the corresponding baseline endpoint value at each visit. Visit was treated as the repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure to model the within-subject measurements. Subjects were considered as a random effect.||2.419|-1.753|0.7541
91048305|NCT04846881|181981261|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044||0.7769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.074|0.099|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger method estimated denominator degrees of freedom and adjusted standard errors.|Adjusted mean difference in PRECIS at Week 24 between the iclepertin 10 mg and the Placebo group.|The model included the discrete fixed effects of treatment at each visit, fixed categorical covariate of the stratification factor using the screening MCCB overall composite T-score, and continuous fixed effects for the corresponding baseline endpoint value at each visit. Visit was treated as the repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure to model the within-subject measurements. Subjects were considered as a random effect.||0.099|-0.074|0.7769
91048306|NCT04846881|181981262|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.135|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.911||0.2133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.925|0.654|||ANCOVA||Adjusted mean difference in ToL at Week 26 between the iclepertin 10 mg and the Placebo group.|For change from baseline to Week 26 in the T-score of the number of correct responses on ToL, an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including treatment, stratification factor of screening MCCB overall composite T-score (\<30, ≥30), and baseline number of correct responses on ToL T-score were fitted to the data.||0.654|-2.925|0.2133
91048307|NCT04495283|181981305|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-114.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|26.65|<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|90.0||-80.01|||ANOVA|||||-80.01||<0.001
91048308|NCT04495283|181981306|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-70.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.549|<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|90.0||-42.32|||ANOVA|||||-42.32||<0.001
91048309|NCT04843566|181981335|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Fisher Exact|||Infection||||0.04
91048310|NCT04843566|181981335|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Fisher Exact|||Urinary retention||||0.30
91048311|NCT04843566|181981335|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||Fisher Exact|||Bleeding requiring intervention||||0.31
91048312|NCT04843566|181981336|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Immediately following biopsy - Pain||||0.002
91048313|NCT04843566|181981336|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Immediately following biopsy - Discomfort||||0.05
91048314|NCT04843566|181981336|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||7-day post biopsy - Pain||||<0.0001
91048315|NCT04843566|181981336|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||7-day post biopsy - Discomfort||||0.07
91048316|NCT04843566|181981337|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.23
91048317|NCT04843566|181981338|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||Chi-squared|||Gleason grade \>=2||||0.59
91048318|NCT04843566|181981339|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Fisher Exact|||Infection||||0.04
91048319|NCT04843566|181981339|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Fisher Exact|||Urinary retention||||0.30
91048320|NCT04843566|181981339|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||Fisher Exact|||Bleeding requiring intervention||||0.31
91048321|NCT03861481|181981376|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Rozimab - Placebo)|-0.052|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.892|0.788|||||MMRM analysis (fixed effect terms: treatment, baseline iRODS score, prior Ig therapy administration route, assessment week, treatment by week interaction; random effect term: study participant). LS Mean Difference \> 0 favours rozanolixizumab.|||0.788|-0.892|
91048322|NCT00773734|181981377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.6||||0.1846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|13.7|||Chi-squared|||||13.7|-2.6|0.1846
91048323|NCT00773734|181981377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|23.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.4|33.7|||Chi-squared|||||33.7|12.4|<0.0001
91048324|NCT00773734|181981377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|35.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.9|46.6|||Chi-squared|||||46.6|23.9|<0.0001
91048325|NCT00773734|181981379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.2||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|26.8|||Chi-squared|||||26.8|-0.4|0.0590
91002264|NCT01095666|181887338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0869|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.42||Primary endpoints were tested at alpha=0.027 applying Dunnett's adjustment.|ANCOVA|||||-0.42|-0.76|<0.0001
91002265|NCT01095666|181887338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0865|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.45||Primary endpoints were tested at alpha=0.027 applying Dunnett's adjustment.|ANCOVA|||||-0.45|-0.79|<0.0001
91048326|NCT00773734|181981379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|22.1||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.3|36.0|||Chi-squared|||||36.0|8.3|0.0023
91048327|NCT00773734|181981379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|35.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.6|48.9|||Chi-squared|||||48.9|21.6|<0.0001
91002266|NCT01095666|181887339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.299|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.6|-15.6||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05.|ANCOVA|||||-15.6|-28.6|<0.0001
91002267|NCT01095666|181887339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.271|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.5|-20.7||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05.|ANCOVA|||||-20.7|-33.5|<0.0001
91002268|NCT01095666|181887340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-42.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.8758|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.84|-30.73||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05.|ANCOVA|||||-30.73|-53.84|<0.0001
91002269|NCT01095666|181887340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-49.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7921|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.53|-37.74||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05.|ANCOVA|||||-37.74|-60.53|<0.0001
91002270|NCT01095666|181887341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2765|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|-0.56||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05.|ANCOVA|||||-0.56|-1.65|<0.0001
91002271|NCT01095666|181887341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2747|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.36|-1.28||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05.|ANCOVA|||||-1.28|-2.36|<0.0001
91002272|NCT01095666|181887342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|15.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.702||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.2|24.7||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05.|Modified logistic regression|Modified logistic regression model, adjusted for baseline HbA1c||||24.7|6.2|0.0010
91002273|NCT01095666|181887342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|15.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.594||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|24.5||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05.|Modified logistic regression|Modified logistic regression model, adjusted for baseline HbA1c||||24.5|6.5|0.0007
91002274|NCT00588380|181887343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Using the Kruskal-Wallis test (general allelic model), we assessed univariate associations of rs6923761 genotype with Phi Total in the presence of either glucose alone, glucose and 0.75 pmol/kg/min GLP-1 or glucose and 1.5 pmol/kg/min GLP-1 If the p-value for the overall univariate test of association was \<0.1, then the associations for specific genotype pairs (e.g.: 1,1 vs. 1,2 or 2,2 vs. 1,1) were also examined using a Mann-Whitney Rank Sum test.||||0.11
91002275|NCT00588380|181887344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||All data are presented as means ± SEM. Using the Kruskal-Wallis test (general allelic model), we assessed univariate associations of genotype with ΦTotal||||0.09
91002276|NCT02809846|181887357|OTHER|Bivariate associations between variables were assessed using statistical methods appropriate for the variable types. Baseline characteristics (demographics, other morbidities, baseline medication use, pain intensity and QOL) were compared between the two treatment groups to assess effectiveness of randomization and identify important covariates for multivariable analyses. Associations between demographic variables and primary and secondary endpoints were examined.|||||<|0.05||||||Sensitivity analyses comparing use of data from all participants with use of participants with complete data only was also performed. Agreement between different measures representing the same variable type was assessed using correlation analyses.|Mixed Models Analysis|Multivariable analysis with mixed effect regression models were used to assess the effect of treatment group on the primary and secondary outcomes.||Initially, a sample size of 20 participants per treatment group (active and sham) was selected to achieve 90% power to find a 20% difference in mean percent change in opioid consumption between the two groups with an estimated standard deviation of 22% and 80% power to detect the same difference with a standard deviation of 19% at a two-sided alpha = 0.05|Similar models were used to assess associations of treatment group with secondary endpoints. Model fit was assessed by Akaike's Information Criteria to determine optimal covariance structure.|||<0.05
91002277|NCT00166517|181887363|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was assessed versus a constant, 85%, based on historical data.||||||0.003||95.0||||p ≥.85, where p is the proportion of subjects who achieved ≥3-fold rise from baseline in the group that received RotaTeq®|Exact test of proportion|Exact test of proportion, based on binomial distribution||||||0.003
91002278|NCT04018612|181887426|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-21.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.091||0.0258|ONE_SIDED|90.0||-7.53|||ANCOVA||SPID24 was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline (BL) Pain Intensity-Numerical Pain Relief Scale (PI-NPRS) as a covariate. The lower limit of one-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) was -∞|||-7.53||0.0258
91002279|NCT04018612|181887426|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-25.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.154||0.0115|ONE_SIDED|90.0||-11.35|||ANCOVA||SPID24 was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline PI-NPRS as a covariate. The lower limit of one-sided 90% CI was -∞|||-11.35||0.0115
91048328|NCT00773734|181981381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.4||||0.1776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|8.2|||Chi-squared|||||8.2|-1.5|0.1776
91048329|NCT00773734|181981381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.1||||0.0158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|14.5|||Chi-squared|||||14.5|1.6|0.0158
91048330|NCT00773734|181981381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.2||||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|17.2|||Chi-squared|||||17.2|3.2|0.0051
91048331|NCT00773734|181981386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-13.7||||0.0156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.8|-2.6|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||-2.6|-24.8|0.0156
91048332|NCT00773734|181981386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-25.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.4|-13.9|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||-13.9|-36.4|<0.0001
91002280|NCT04018612|181887427|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|12.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.267||0.0087|ONE_SIDED|90.0|5.92||||ANCOVA||TOTPAR24 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline PI-NPRS as a covariate. The upper limit of one-sided 90% CI was +∞||||5.92|0.0087
91002281|NCT04018612|181887427|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|12.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.297||0.012|ONE_SIDED|90.0|5.31||||ANCOVA||TOTPAR24 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline PI-NPRS as a covariate. The upper limit of one-sided 90% CI was +∞||||5.31|0.0120
91002282|NCT02566109|181887493|OTHER|Estimation of Pearson correlation|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|-0.57472||||0.6102|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between baseline and 2 months.||||0.6102
91002283|NCT02566109|181887493|OTHER|Correlation|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|0.25733||||0.8343|TWO_SIDED||||||Peason Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between baseline and 6 months.||||0.8343
91048333|NCT00773734|181981386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-32.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.0|-21.7|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||-21.7|-44.0|<0.0001
91048334|NCT00773734|181981388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.2||||0.6541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|7.3|||Chi-squared|||||7.3|-11.7|0.6541
91048335|NCT00773734|181981388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.4||||0.0402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|24.1|||Chi-squared|||||24.1|0.6|0.0402
91048336|NCT00773734|181981388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.1||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.8|33.4|||Chi-squared|||||33.4|8.8|0.0011
91048337|NCT00773734|181981392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-20.2||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.0|-7.5|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate||||-7.5|-33.0|0.0020
91048338|NCT00773734|181981392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-29.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.9|-17.0|||ANCOVA|based on an analysis of covariance model with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate||||-17.0|-42.9|<0.0001
91048339|NCT00773734|181981392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-42.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.2|-29.5||Based on an analysis of covariance model with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||-29.5|-55.2|<0.0001
91048340|NCT00773734|181981394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-1.3||||0.1322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|0.4|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.4|-3.1|0.1322
91048341|NCT00773734|181981394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-4.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|-2.3|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||-2.3|-5.9|<0.0001
91048342|NCT00773734|181981394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-2.6||||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|-0.8|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||-0.8|-4.3|0.0047
91002284|NCT02566109|181887494|OTHER|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|-0.09487||||0.9395|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between baseline and 2 months.||||0.9395
91002285|NCT02566109|181887494|OTHER|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|0.97287||||0.1486|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between baseline and 6 months.||||0.1486
91002286|NCT02566109|181887495|OTHER|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|0.10327||||0.9341|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between baseline and 2 months.||||0.9341
91002287|NCT02566109|181887495|OTHER|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|0.99696||||0.0497|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between baseline and 6 months.||||0.0497
91002288|NCT02566109|181887496|OTHER|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|0.98432||||0.1129|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||||||0.1129
91002289|NCT01041404|181887514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.85|||Log Rank|||||0.85|0.59|0.0002
91002290|NCT01041404|181887516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.85|||Log Rank|||||0.85|0.58|0.0003
91002291|NCT01041404|181887517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Response Rates|12.8||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|20.9|||Chi-squared|||||20.9|4.7|0.0017
91002292|NCT01041404|181887519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.73|||Log Rank|||||0.73|0.40|<0.0001
91002293|NCT01041404|181887520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Clinical Benefit Rate|9.6||||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|16.9|||Chi-squared|||||16.9|2.4|0.0081
91002294|NCT01041404|181887520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|2.41||||||||2.41|1.14|
91002295|NCT01041404|181887521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.91|||Log Rank|||||0.91|0.60|0.0046
91002296|NCT02483078|181887537|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0032|||||||Fisher Exact|The Fisher's Exact test if the count in any cell was less than 5; otherwise Chi-Square test was to be used||||||.0032
91002297|NCT02483078|181887538|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0377|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.0377
91002298|NCT02483078|181887539|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1201|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.1201
91002299|NCT02483078|181887540|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0013|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.0013
91002300|NCT02483078|181887544|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7123|||||||ANCOVA|||The raw and change from baseline in CD4 cell count at the end of the 1-week double blind treatment period was to be summarized by treatment group for the first week during the double-blind treatment phase. For change from baseline summaries, subjects with an undefined change from baseline, because of missing data, were to be excluded.||||.7123
91002301|NCT02483078|181887546|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0993|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.0993
91002302|NCT01962688|181887557|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.002
91002303|NCT02823080|181887566|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91002304|NCT02823080|181887567|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91002305|NCT02823080|181887568|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91002306|NCT02823080|181887572|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91002307|NCT00676208|181887573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04
91002308|NCT00676208|181887574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04
91002309|NCT00669032|181887575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004|ONE_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.004
91002310|NCT00669032|181887576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.525|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.525
91002311|NCT00669032|181887577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.030
91002312|NCT00669032|181887578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.049|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.049
91002313|NCT00669032|181887579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.049|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.049
91002314|NCT00669032|181887580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.002
91002315|NCT00669032|181887581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.021|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.021
91002316|NCT00669032|181887582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.025|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.025
91002317|NCT00669032|181887583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.023|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.023
91002318|NCT00669032|181887584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.002
91002319|NCT00669032|181887585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9129|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.9129
91002320|NCT01379924|181887587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.25||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.92|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for group differences at baseline and variables associated with differential study retention.|Usual care arm is reference group|Multiple logistic regression modeling used to compute adjusted odds ratios for 12-month follow-up data.||.92|.07|.037
91002321|NCT01379924|181887588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.24||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.86|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for any variables that differed between groups at baseline, and variables associated with likelihood of study retention at follow-up.|Usual care arm is reference group.|||.86|.07|.029
91002322|NCT01379924|181887589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.2||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.75|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for any variables that differed between groups at baseline, and variables associated with likelihood of study retention at follow-up.|Usual care arm is the reference group|||.75|.06|.017
91002323|NCT01379924|181887590|SUPERIORITY||Group by time interaction term coefficie|4.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.84||0.217|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for any variables that differed between groups at baseline, and variables associated with likelihood of study retention at follow-up.||||||.217
91002324|NCT01379924|181887591|SUPERIORITY||Group by time interaction term coefficie|2.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.77||0.444|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for any variables that differed between groups at baseline, and variables associated with likelihood of study retention at follow-up.||||||.444
91002325|NCT01379924|181887592|SUPERIORITY||Group by time interaction term coefficie|9.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.82||0.011|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for any variables that differed between groups at baseline, and variables associated with likelihood of study retention at follow-up.||||||.011
91002326|NCT01379924|181887594|SUPERIORITY||Group by time interaction term coefficie|0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.758|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for any variables that differed between groups at baseline, and variables associated with likelihood of study retention at follow-up.||||||.758
91002327|NCT01379924|181887595|SUPERIORITY||Group by time interaction term coefficie|1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.024|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for any variables that differed between groups at baseline, and variables associated with likelihood of study retention at follow-up.||||||.024
91002328|NCT01379924|181887596|SUPERIORITY||Group by time interaction term coefficie|2.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.88||0.354|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for any variables that differed between groups at baseline, and variables associated with likelihood of study retention at follow-up||||||.354
91002329|NCT01379924|181887597|SUPERIORITY||Group by time interaction term coefficie|4.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.85||0.121|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for any variables that differed between groups at baseline, and variables associated with likelihood of study retention at follow-up.||||||.121
91002330|NCT01379924|181887598|SUPERIORITY||Group by time interaction term coefficie|3.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.89||0.205|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for any variables that differed between groups at baseline, and variables associated with likelihood of study retention at follow-up.||||||.205
91002331|NCT01379924|181887599|SUPERIORITY||Group by time interaction term coefficie|0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6||0.803|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for any variables that differed between groups at baseline, and variables associated with likelihood of study retention at follow-up.||||||.803
91002332|NCT01379924|181887600|SUPERIORITY||Group by time interaction term coefficie|2.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.56||0.347|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for any variables that differed between groups at baseline, and variables associated with likelihood of study retention at follow-up.||||||.347
91002333|NCT01379924|181887601|SUPERIORITY||Group by time interaction term coefficie|-1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.59||0.591|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for any variables that differed between groups at baseline, and variables associated with likelihood of study retention at follow-up.||||||.591
91002334|NCT00617656|181887623|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.67|||Log Rank|||This is a futility analysis. The initial hypothesis of the clinical trial was that the experimental group as a whole was superior to the control group.||1.67|0.76|0.56
91002335|NCT00617656|181887623|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.51|||Log Rank|||||1.51|0.73|0.79
91002336|NCT00617656|181887623|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.02||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|2.95|||Log Rank|||||2.95|1.38|0.0001
91002337|NCT00617656|181887624|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.55||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|2.12|||Log Rank|||||2.12|1.13|0.006
91002338|NCT02436915|181887675|EQUIVALENCE|We hypothesized that the real tDCS would improve the performance of TUG (i.e., greater percent decrease of time to complete TUG from baseline to follow ups) as compared to the sham tDCS.||||||0.24|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.24
91002339|NCT02436915|181887676|EQUIVALENCE|We hypothesized that the real tDCS would improve the MoCA score (i.e., greater percent increase decrease of MoCA score from baseline to follow ups) as compared to the sham tDCS.||||||0.03|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.03
91002340|NCT02436915|181887677|EQUIVALENCE|We hypothesized that the real tDCS would improve the dual task performance of walking (i.e., greater percent decrease of dual task cost to walking speed from baseline to follow ups) as compared to the sham tDCS.||||||0.37|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.37
91002341|NCT02436915|181887678|EQUIVALENCE|We hypothesized that the real tDCS would improve the performance of dual task standing (i.e., greater percent decrease of dual task cost to standing sway speed from baseline to follow ups) as compared to the sham tDCS.||||||0.004|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.004
91002342|NCT02436915|181887679|EQUIVALENCE|We hypothesized that the real tDCS would reduce the depression (i.e., greater percent decrease of GDS score from baseline to follow ups) as compared to the sham tDCS.||||||0.37|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.37
91002343|NCT02436915|181887680|EQUIVALENCE|We hypothesized that the real tDCS would improve the performance of TMT (i.e., greater percent decrease of time to complete TMT from baseline to follow ups) as compared to the sham tDCS.||||||0.54|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.54
91002344|NCT02436915|181887681|EQUIVALENCE|We hypothesized that the real tDCS would improve the performance of dual task standing (i.e., greater percent decrease of dual task cost to standing postural sway area from baseline to follow ups) as compared to the sham tDCS.||||||0.0007|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0007
91002345|NCT02436915|181887682|EQUIVALENCE|We hypothesized that the real tDCS would improve the performance of walking (i.e., greater percent decrease of dual task cost to stride time from baseline to follow ups) as compared to the sham tDCS.||||||0.04|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.04
91002346|NCT03805971|181887683|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||Fisher Exact|||"The objective of the test is to assess if the pCLE feature full chia seed sign is found statistically more frequently in the benign pleura group than in the malignant pleural infiltrations group."||||0.0003
91002347|NCT03805971|181887683|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||"The objective is to assess if the abnormal tissular architecture is significantly more frequently found in the malignant pleural infiltrations group than in the benign pleura group."||||<0.0001
91002348|NCT03805971|181887683|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0052|||||||Fisher Exact|||"The objective is to assess if the pCLE feature cellular shape homogeneity is found statistically more frequently in the benign pleura group than in the malignant pleural infiltrations group."||||0.0052
91002349|NCT03805971|181887683|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||"The objective is to assess if dysplastic vessels are more frequently found in the malignant pleural infiltrations group than in the benign pleura group."||||<0.0001
91002350|NCT01263314|181887712|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.25||||0.3551|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.01|4.5|||ANOVA|||||4.50|-7.01|0.3551
91002351|NCT01263314|181887712|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.32||||0.3474|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.08|4.48|||ANOVA|||||4.48|-7.08|0.3474
91002352|NCT01263314|181887712|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.67||||0.3105|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.42|4.09|||ANOVA|||||4.09|-7.42|0.3105
91002353|NCT01263314|181887712|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.25||||0.1346|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.8|3.27|||ANOVA|||||3.27|-15.8|0.1346
91002354|NCT01263314|181887712|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.1||||0.0416|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-19.6|-0.56|||ANOVA|||||-0.56|-19.6|0.0416
91002355|NCT01263314|181887712|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.2||||0.0762|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.7|1.32|||ANOVA|||||1.32|-17.7|0.0762
91002356|NCT01263314|181887713|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47||||0.418|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.47|4.41|||ANOVA|||||4.41|-3.47|0.418
91048343|NCT00773734|181981396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|3.3||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|5.8|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||5.8|0.9|0.0078
91048344|NCT00773734|181981396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|3.5||||0.0068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|6.0|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||6.0|1.0|0.0068
91002357|NCT01263314|181887713|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.12||||0.0434|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.18|8.05|||ANOVA|||||8.05|0.18|0.0434
91002358|NCT01263314|181887713|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.79||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.85|11.72|||ANOVA|||||11.72|3.85|0.0019
91002359|NCT01263314|181887713|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.15||||0.2223|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.42|3.71|||ANOVA|||||3.71|-1.42|0.2223
91048345|NCT00773734|181981396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|3.6||||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|6.1|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||6.1|1.1|0.0045
91048346|NCT00773734|181981397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.6||||0.6097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.8|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||2.8|-1.6|0.6097
91048347|NCT00773734|181981397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|1.3||||0.2424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|3.6|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||3.6|-0.9|0.2424
91048348|NCT00773734|181981397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.1||||0.9528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|2.3|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||2.3|-2.2|0.9528
91048349|NCT01744093|181981524|OTHER|Descriptive proportion|Proportion (percent)|18.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|45.6|||||Exact two-sided 95% Clopper-Pearson confidence interval.|||45.6|4.0|
91048350|NCT01744093|181981525|SUPERIORITY||Proportion (percent)|6.3||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|30.2|||Fisher Exact||Exact two-sided 95% Clopper-Pearson confidence interval.|Null hypothesis adverse event rate (grade 2 or higher toxicity) = 45.5%||30.2|0.16|0.002
91048351|NCT02006628|181981530|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference (GWP42003-placebo)|-2.8||||0.1332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|0.9|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline as the response variable, treatment as fixed effect, and individual baseline subscore and age as covariates.||||0.9|-6.5|0.1332
91048352|NCT02006628|181981531|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.62||||0.0896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|8.0|||Regression, Logistic|Responder (yes/no) is the dependent variable with treatment included as factor and age and baseline P, G, and N scores included as covariates.||||8.00|0.86|0.0896
91048353|NCT02006628|181981532|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference (GWP42003-placebo)|-1.4||||0.0188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||||-0.2|-2.5|0.0188
91048354|NCT02006628|181981533|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference (GWP42003-placebo)|0.0||||0.9647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.4|||ANCOVA|||||1.4|-1.3|0.9647
91048355|NCT02006628|181981534|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference (GWP42003-placebo)|-1.3||||0.1963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|0.7|||ANCOVA|||||0.7|-3.2|0.1963
91048356|NCT02006628|181981535|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference (GWP42003-placebo)|-3.5||||0.1167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|0.9|||ANCOVA|||||0.9|-7.9|0.1167
91048357|NCT02006628|181981536|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference (GWP42003-placebo)|-0.3||||0.0443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.0|-0.5|0.0443
91002360|NCT01263314|181887713|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.25||||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.69|6.82|||ANOVA|||||6.82|1.69|0.0056
91002361|NCT01263314|181887713|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.4||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.83|7.96|||ANOVA|||||7.96|2.83|0.0012
91002362|NCT01263314|181887715|OTHER||GMR (Elderly female/Elderly male)|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|1.76|||||GMR = geometric mean ratio|||1.76|0.85|
91002363|NCT01263314|181887716|OTHER||GMR (Elderly female/Elderly male)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.33||||||||1.33|0.88|
91048358|NCT02006628|181981537|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference (GWP42003-placebo)|-0.5||||0.0182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||||-0.1|-0.8|0.0182
91048359|NCT02006628|181981538|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference (GWP42003-placebo)|1.31||||0.0677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|2.72|||ANCOVA|||||2.72|-0.10|0.0677
91048360|NCT00834652|181981539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91048361|NCT03998436|181981561|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.126||||0.0276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|4.17|||Chi-squared|||||4.17|1.08|0.0276
91048362|NCT03998436|181981562|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.708||||0.0126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|5.99|||Chi-squared|||||5.99|1.22|0.0126
91002364|NCT01263314|181887716|OTHER||GMR (Elderly female/Elderly male)|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.02|1.55||||||||1.55|1.02|
91002365|NCT01263314|181887716|OTHER||GMR (Elderly female/Elderly male)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|1.48||||||||1.48|0.98|
91002366|NCT01263314|181887719|SUPERIORITY||MK-8266 0.3 mg vs. placebo|9.58||||0.0253|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.69|17.46|||ANOVA|||||17.46|1.69|0.0253
91002367|NCT01263314|181887719|SUPERIORITY||MK-8266 0.6 mg vs. placebo|-2.59||||0.2856|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.5|5.29|||ANOVA|||||5.29|-10.5|0.2856
91002368|NCT01263314|181887719|SUPERIORITY||MK-8266 0.7 mg/ 0.3 mg vs. placebo|-4.06||||0.1895|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.9|3.82|||ANOVA|||||3.82|-11.9|0.1895
91002369|NCT01263314|181887719|SUPERIORITY||MK-8266 0.3 mg vs. placebo|-4.16||||0.1157|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.0|1.7|||ANOVA|||||1.70|-10.0|0.1157
91002370|NCT01263314|181887719|SUPERIORITY||MK-8266 0.6 mg vs. placebo|-11.7||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.5|-5.79|||ANOVA|||||-5.79|-17.5|0.0018
91002371|NCT01263314|181887719|SUPERIORITY||MK-8266 0.7 mg/ 0.3 mg vs. placebo|-10.6||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.5|-4.77|||ANOVA|||||-4.77|-16.5|0.0034
91002372|NCT01366534|181887720|OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy Maentel-Haenzel Method|-17.6||||0.7675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-107.4|33.3|||2-sided Fisher Exact test||Pre-defined futility criteria for efficacy: point estimate of increase of VE in Ad35.CS.01 Group over GSK257049 Group less than 0%|Comparison of the efficacy (occurrence of P. falciparum parasitemia, assessed by blood slide) of an immunization regimen comprising of one dose of Ad35.CS.01 vaccine followed one month later by 2 doses of GSK257049 vaccine administered at one month intervals, with that of 3 doses of GSK257049 vaccine administered at one month intervals, in healthy malaria-naïve volunteers aged 18-50 years in the sporozoite challenge model.||33.3|-107.4|0.7675
91002373|NCT01366534|181887720|OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy: Maentel-Haenzel Method|44.0||||0.0066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.7|60.4|||2-sided Fisher Exact test|||Comparison of the efficacy (occurrence of P. falciparum parasitemia, assessed by blood slide) of an immunization regimen comprising of one dose of Ad35.CS.01 vaccine followed one month later by 2 doses of GSK257049 vaccine administered at 1 month intervals, with that of 3 doses of GSK257049 vaccine administered at one month intervals, in healthy malaria-naïve volunteers aged 18-50 years in the sporozoite challenge model.||60.4|20.7|0.0066
91002374|NCT01366534|181887720|OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy: Maentel-Haenzel Method|52.4||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.4|69.6|||2-sided Fisher Exact test|||Comparison of the efficacy (occurrence of P. falciparum parasitemia, assessed by blood slide) of an immunization regimen comprising of one dose of Ad35.CS.01 vaccine followed one month later by 2 doses of GSK257049 vaccine administered at 1 month intervals, with that of 3 doses of GSK257049 vaccine administered at one month intervals, in healthy malaria-naïve volunteers aged 18-50 years in the sporozoite challenge model.||69.6|25.4|0.0021
91002375|NCT04080752|181887810|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.897||0.2494|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.76|0.55|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||0.55|-1.76|0.2494
91002376|NCT01585168|181887826|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.4109||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|||||P value was adjusted for multiple comparisons using FWE (family wise error) correction.|t-test, 2 sided|A Paired t-test was performed to explore the difference between two groups.|FHN was found to have lower mean BOLD activation while given drug compared to placebo in amygdala.|||||0.032
91002377|NCT01585168|181887826|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|3.6615||||0.125|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.125
91002378|NCT01585168|181887829|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.7264||||0.356|TWO_SIDED|||||P value was adjusted for multiple comparisons using FWE (family wise error) correction.|t-test, 2 sided||FHP was found to have lower mean BOLD activation while given drug compared to placebo in anterior cingulate cortex.|||||0.356
91002379|NCT01585168|181887829|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|1.8348||||0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.009
91002380|NCT02057068|181887853|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|Intention to treat analysis with last observation carried forward|||Partial Eta Squared = .282|||<.001
91002381|NCT02057068|181887854|SUPERIORITY|Intention to treat analysis with last observation carried forward|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
91002382|NCT02057068|181887855|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<.05
91002383|NCT01704976|181887860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||< 0.05
91002384|NCT01704976|181887861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||< 0.05
91002385|NCT01704976|181887862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||< 0.05
91002386|NCT01704976|181887863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||< 0.05
91002387|NCT01704976|181887864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||< 0.05
91002388|NCT00329784|181887876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
91002389|NCT00329784|181887876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.004
91002390|NCT00329784|181887877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
91002391|NCT00329784|181887878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.369|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.369
91002392|NCT00329784|181887879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.642|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.642
91002393|NCT00329784|181887880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.417|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison for Seasonal Rhinoconjunctivitis||||0.417
91002394|NCT00329784|181887880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.926|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison for Perennial Rhinoconjunctivitis||||0.926
91002395|NCT00329784|181887881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison for Peanut Wheal||||<0.001
91002396|NCT00329784|181887881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.361|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison for Egg Wheal||||0.361
91002397|NCT00329784|181887881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison for Milk Wheal||||0.760
91002398|NCT00329784|181887881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.834|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison for Sesame Wheal||||0.834
91002399|NCT00329784|181887881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.882|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison for Brazil Nut Wheal||||0.882
91002400|NCT00329784|181887881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.226|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison for Hazel Nut Wheal||||0.226
91002401|NCT00329784|181887881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison for Cashew Wheal||||0.024
91002402|NCT00329784|181887881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.204|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison for Walnut Wheal||||0.204
91002403|NCT00329784|181887881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.194|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison for Almond Wheal||||0.194
91002404|NCT00329784|181887882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.859|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison for Peanut IgE||||0.859
91002405|NCT00329784|181887882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.885|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison for Egg IgE||||0.885
91002406|NCT00329784|181887882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.403|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison for Milk IgE||||0.403
91002407|NCT00329784|181887882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.106|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison for Sesame IgE||||0.106
91002408|NCT00329784|181887882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.202|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison for Brazil Nut IgE||||0.202
91002409|NCT00329784|181887882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.108|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison for Hazel Nut IgE||||0.108
91002410|NCT00329784|181887882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.157|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison for Cashew IgE||||0.157
91002411|NCT00329784|181887882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison for Walnut IgE||||0.040
91002412|NCT00329784|181887882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.262|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison for Almond IgE||||0.262
91002413|NCT03920865|181887883|OTHER|Descriptive statistics.|Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|0.802|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.627|1.03||||||||1.03|0.627|
91002414|NCT03920865|181887883|OTHER|Descriptive statistics.|Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|0.842|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.588|1.21||||||||1.21|0.588|
91002415|NCT03920865|181887885|OTHER|Descriptive statistics.|Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.695|1.3||||||||1.30|0.695|
91002416|NCT03920865|181887885|OTHER|Descriptive statistics.|Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|0.953|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.715|1.27||||||||1.27|0.715|
91002417|NCT03920865|181887886|OTHER|Descriptive statistics.|Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|1.39||||||||1.39|0.830|
91002418|NCT03920865|181887886|OTHER|Descriptive statistics.|Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|0.947|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.74|1.21||||||||1.21|0.740|
91002419|NCT03920865|181887888|OTHER|Descriptive statistics.|Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.962|1.49||||||||1.49|0.962|
91002420|NCT03920865|181887888|OTHER|Descriptive statistics.|Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|0.991|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|1.21||||||||1.21|0.810|
91002421|NCT05563714|181887922|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.41|11.33|||generalized linear mixed effects model||Adjusted OR (base model)|Adjusted OR (base model), 95% CI - Includes clinician proceduralist vs non-proceduralist status as a co-variate.||11.33|2.41|<0.001
91002422|NCT05563714|181887922|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.54|13.05|||generalized linear mixed effects model||Adjusted OR (expanded model)|Adjusted OR (expanded model), 95% CI - Adjusted for clinician proceduralist vs non-proceduralist status, patient age, sex, race, ethnicity, number of comorbidities, antiplatelet therapy used at baseline, and baseline use of H2 receptor antagonists.||13.05|2.54|<0.001
91002423|NCT05563714|181887923|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|29.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.07|141.49|||generalized linear mixed effects model||Adjusted OR (base model)|Adjusted OR (base model), 95% CI - Included clinician proceduralist vs non-proceduralist status as a co-variate.||141.49|6.07|<0.001
91048363|NCT01138826|181981576|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Natural log transformed AUC\[0- ∞\] of amlodipine was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.|Adjusted ratio of geometric means|105.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.09|113.61||||||A sample size of 12 completers provided 90% confidence intervals for the difference between treatment of +/-0.1036 on the natural log scale for AUCinf with 90% coverage probability. These calculations were based on estimates of within-participant standard deviations of 0.1234 for loge AUCinf.||113.61|98.09|
91002424|NCT05563714|181887923|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|43.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.56|289.88|||generalized linear mixed effects model||Adjusted OR (expanded model)|Adjusted OR (expanded model), 95% CI - Adjusted for clinician proceduralist vs non-proceduralist status, patient age, sex, race, ethnicity, number of comorbidities, antiplatelet therapy used at baseline, and baseline use of H2 receptor antagonists.||289.88|6.56|<0.001
91002425|NCT05563714|181887924|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted OR, 95% CI (base model) - Included clinician proceduralist vs non-proceduralist status as a co-variate.|Odds Ratio, log|19.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.63|29.09|||generalized linear mixed effects model|||We used generalized linear mixed effects modeling (logit link) to estimate the odds of medication optimization at week 7-10. This model included fixed effects for CNNF (vs. usual care), target provider specialty and size, and a random effect for clinician to account for the clustering of patients. We report the log odds ratios with corresponding confidence intervals for the main effect. The main effect was tested at a two-sided 5% significance level.||29.09|10.63|<0.001
91002426|NCT01262599|181887925|SUPERIORITY|Applies to primary and secondary outcomes: Data were analyzed using one-way analysis of variance, one-way repeated measures analysis of variance, t test, or Mann-Whitney rank sum test, as appropriate. (SigmaStat 3.5; Systat Software, Inc., San Jose, Calif.). Intention-to-treat using last value carried forward was used for missing data.|||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Before the start of this study, a sample size analysis, assuming a clinically meaningful 50± 40 percent (mean ± SD) decrease in pain scores from pulsed electromagnetic field treatment, suggested that a minimum of 11 patients per group were needed.||||<0.01
91002427|NCT02120352|181887931|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|12.2|||||Comparison between CAB LA 600 mg+RPV LA 900 mg IM-Q8W and CAB 30 mg+ABC/3TC QD|||12.2|-4.8|
91002428|NCT02120352|181887931|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|11.5|||||Comparison between CAB LA 400 mg+RPV LA 600 mg IM-Q4W and CAB 30 mg+ABC/3TC QD|||11.5|-5.8|
91002429|NCT02427100|181887996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.18
91002430|NCT02427100|181887997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.00036||||||The Linear Mixed Model (LMM) regression analysis (repeated measures) was adjusted for daily minutes of accelerometer wear time, gender, age, BMI, education, and meeting physical activity guidelines at baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|A fourth root transformation of daily accelerometer-measured minutes of MVPA was used to normalize the distribution and was included in the analyses.||||||.00036
91002431|NCT00444964|181888006|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
91002432|NCT00444964|181888007|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
91002433|NCT00444964|181888008|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
91002434|NCT02573233|181888021|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level|Rank ANCOVA|Rank ANCOVA model stratified by ICS dose level and region||Analysis was performed using a rank ANCOVA model stratified by ICS dose level and region.||||0.8400
91002435|NCT02573233|181888022|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-235.02||||0.0336|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-414.19|-55.84||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level|Linear fixed-effect model|||Analysis was performed using a linear fixed-effect model with treatment, region and ICS dose level as fixed effects, and the baseline value as continuous covariate.||-55.84|-414.19|0.0336
91002436|NCT02573233|181888023|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|13.89||||0.4795|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-19.0|46.78||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Linear fixed-effect model|||Analysis was performed using a linear fixed-effect model with treatment, region and ICS dose level as fixed effects, and the baseline value as continuous covariate.||46.78|-19.00|0.4795
91002437|NCT02573233|181888024|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-18.98||||0.4494|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-60.92|22.97||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Linear fixed-effect model|||Analysis was performed using a linear fixed-effect model with treatment, region and ICS dose level as fixed effects, and the baseline value as continuous covariate.||22.97|-60.92|0.4494
91002438|NCT02573233|181888025|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6865||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Rank ANCOVA|Rank ANCOVA model stratified by ICS dose level and region||Analysis was performed using a rank ANCOVA model stratified by ICS dose level and region.||||0.6865
91002439|NCT02573233|181888026|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7588||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level|Rank ANCOVA|Rank ANCOVA model stratified by ICS dose level and region||Analysis was performed using a rank ANCOVA model stratified by ICS dose level and region.||||0.7588
91002440|NCT02573233|181888027|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-22.4||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-32.9|-11.9||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level|MMRM|||Analysis was performed using a Mixed-effect Model with Repeated Measures (MRMM) with treatment, treatment-by-visit interaction, region, and ICS dose level as fixed effects, and baseline biomarker-by-visit interaction as fixed covariate, and assuming an unstructured covariance structure separately by treatment group.||-11.9|-32.9|0.0012
91002441|NCT02573233|181888028|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-22.0||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-31.3|-12.8||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level|MMRM|||Analysis was performed using a Mixed-effect model with Repeated Measures (MMRM) with treatment, treatment-by-visit interaction, region, and ICS dose level as fixed effects, and baseline biomarker-by-visit interaction as fixed covariate, and assuming an unstructured covariance structure separately by treatment group.||-12.8|-31.3|0.0005
91002442|NCT00249795|181888034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.992||||0.857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.907|1.085||The cumulative incidence function of this event was calculated for each treatment group using the non-parametric Kaplan-Meier method and the comparison was performed using a 2-sided Log Rank test at 4.5% level to account for multiplicity.|Log Rank|Logrank statistic was stratified on ACTIVE A/W strata.|HR was estimated using a Cox's proportional hazard model stratified on ACTIVE A/W strata with treatment group factor. It provides the relative hazard of any component of the composite event in Irbesartan group versus Placebo group.|||1.085|0.907|0.8570
91002443|NCT00249795|181888035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.869|1.016||The cumulative incidence function of this event was calculated for each treatment group using the non-parametric Kaplan-Meier method and the comparison was performed using a 2-sided Log Rank test at 1% level to account for multiplicity.|Log Rank|Logrank statistic was stratified on ACTIVE A/W strata.|HR was estimated using a Cox's proportional hazard model stratified on ACTIVE A/W strata with treatment group factor. It provides the relative hazard of any component of the composite event in Irbesartan group versus Placebo group.|||1.016|0.869|0.1200
91002444|NCT00249795|181888036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.916||||0.2162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.796|1.053||The cumulative incidence function of this event was calculated for each treatment group using the non-parametric Kaplan-Meier method and the comparison was performed using a 2-sided Log Rank test at 5% level.|Log Rank|Logrank statistic was stratified on ACTIVE A/W strata.|HR was estimated using a Cox's proportional hazard model stratified on ACTIVE A/W strata with treatment group factor. It provides the relative hazard of a stroke in Irbesartan group versus Placebo group.|||1.053|0.796|0.2162
91002445|NCT00249795|181888037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.014||||0.759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.927|1.11||The cumulative incidence function of this event was calculated for each treatment group using the non-parametric Kaplan-Meier method and the comparison was performed using a 2-sided Log Rank test at 5% level.|Log Rank|Logrank statistic was stratified on ACTIVE A/W strata.|HR was estimated using a Cox's proportional hazard model stratified on ACTIVE A/W strata with treatment group factor. It provides the relative hazard of death in Irbesartan group versus Placebo group.|||1.110|0.927|0.7590
91002446|NCT00249795|181888038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.897||||0.0369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.809|0.993||The cumulative incidence function of this event was calculated for each treatment group using the non-parametric Kaplan-Meier method and the comparison was performed using a 2-sided Log Rank test at 5% level.|Log Rank|Logrank statistic was stratified on ACTIVE A/W strata.|HR was estimated using a Cox's proportional hazard model stratified on ACTIVE A/W strata with treatment group factor. It provides the relative hazard of HF episodes in Irbesartan group versus Placebo group.|||0.993|0.809|0.0369
91002447|NCT00249795|181888039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.863||||0.0175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.763|0.975||The cumulative incidence function of this event was calculated for each treatment group using the non-parametric Kaplan-Meier method and the comparison was performed using a 2-sided Log Rank test at 5% level.|Log Rank|Logrank statistic was stratified on ACTIVE A/W strata.|HR was estimated using a Cox's proportional hazard model stratified on ACTIVE A/W strata with treatment group factor. It provides the relative hazard of hospitalization for Heart Failure in Irbesartan group versus Placebo group.|||0.975|0.763|0.0175
91002448|NCT00249795|181888040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.008||||0.8377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.093||The cumulative incidence function of this event was calculated for each treatment group using the non-parametric Kaplan-Meier method and the comparison was performed using a 2-sided Log Rank test at 5% level.|Log Rank|Logrank statistic was stratified on ACTIVE A/W strata.|HR was estimated using a Cox's proportional hazard model stratified on ACTIVE A/W strata with treatment group factor. It provides the relative hazard of hospitalization for other CV cause in Irbesartan group versus Placebo group.|||1.093|0.930|0.8377
91002449|NCT05103475|181888041|OTHER|Please note that all data analyses were exploratory because this was feasibility pilot.||||||1||||||The investigators used Fisher's exact due to small cell sizes.|Fisher Exact|The reported value represents the calculated p-value for the Fisher's Exact test.||||||1.0
91002450|NCT05103475|181888042|OTHER|Please note that all data analyses were exploratory because this was feasibility pilot.||||||0.35|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.35
91002451|NCT05103475|181888043|OTHER|Please note that all data analyses were exploratory because this was feasibility pilot.||||||0.15||||||The investigators used Fisher's Exact due to small cell sizes.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.15
91002452|NCT05103475|181888044|OTHER|Please note that all data analyses were exploratory because this was feasibility pilot.||||||0.43|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre/post comparison for control group scores.||||0.43
91002453|NCT05103475|181888044|OTHER|Please note that all data analyses were exploratory because this was feasibility pilot.||||||0.24|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre/post comparison for RAP group score.||||0.24
91002454|NCT05103475|181888044|OTHER|Please note that all data analyses were exploratory because this was feasibility pilot.||||||0.53||||||F = 0.41|ANOVA|||ANOVA results - group x time interaction.||||0.53
91002455|NCT05103475|181888045|OTHER|Please note that all data analyses were exploratory because this was feasibility pilot.||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre/post comparison for control group.||||0.70
91002456|NCT05103475|181888045|OTHER|Please note that all data analyses were exploratory because this was feasibility pilot.||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre/post comparison for RAP group.||||0.17
91002457|NCT05103475|181888045|OTHER|Please note that all data analyses were exploratory because this was feasibility pilot.||||||0.18||||||F = 1.95|ANOVA|||ANOVA results - group x time interaction.||||0.18
91002458|NCT05103475|181888046|OTHER|Please note that all data analyses were exploratory because this was feasibility pilot.||||||0.37|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre/post comparison - control group.||||0.37
91048364|NCT01138826|181981576|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Natural log transformed AUC\[0- ∞\] of amlodipine was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.|Adjusted ratio of geometric means|107.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.98|115.69||||||A sample size of 12 completers provided 90% confidence intervals for the difference between treatment of +/-0.1036 on the natural log scale for AUCinf with 90% coverage probability. These calculations were based on estimates of within-participant standard deviations of 0.1234 for loge AUCinf.||115.69|99.98|
91002459|NCT05103475|181888046|OTHER|Please note that all data analyses were exploratory because this was feasibility pilot.||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre/post comparison - RAP group.||||0.50
91002460|NCT05103475|181888046|OTHER|Please note that all data analyses were exploratory because this was feasibility pilot.||||||0.9||||||F = 0.01|ANOVA|||ANOVA results - group x time interaction.||||0.90
91048365|NCT01138826|181981576|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Natural log transformed AUC\[0- ∞\] of amlodipine was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.|Adjusted ratio of geometric means|101.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.7|109.6||||||A sample size of 12 completers provided 90% confidence intervals for the difference between treatment of +/-0.1036 on the natural log scale for AUCinf with 90% coverage probability. These calculations were based on estimates of within-participant standard deviations of 0.1234 for loge AUCinf.||109.60|94.70|
91048366|NCT01138826|181981577|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Natural log transformed AUClast of amlodipine was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.|Adjusted ratio of geometric means|103.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.27|110.94||||||||110.94|97.27|
91048367|NCT01138826|181981577|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Natural log transformed AUClast of amlodipine was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.|Adjusted ratio of geometric means|104.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.67|111.3||||||||111.30|97.67|
91048368|NCT01138826|181981577|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Natural log transformed AUClast of amlodipine was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.|Adjusted ratio of geometric means|100.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.02|107.15||||||||107.15|94.02|
91050350|NCT04168190|181987002|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>0.33 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.52|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 10A. Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||1.52|0.93|<0.001
91002461|NCT05103475|181888047|OTHER|Please note that all data analyses were exploratory because this was feasibility pilot.||||||0.56|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre/post comparison - control group.||||0.56
91002462|NCT05103475|181888047|OTHER|Please note that all data analyses were exploratory because this was feasibility pilot.||||||0.32|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre/post comparison - RAP group.||||0.32
91002463|NCT05103475|181888047|OTHER|Please note that all data analyses were exploratory because this was feasibility pilot.||||||0.41||||||F = 0.71|ANOVA|||ANOVA results - group x time interaction.||||0.41
91002464|NCT05103475|181888048|OTHER|Please note that all data analyses were exploratory because this was feasibility pilot.||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre/post comparison - control group.||||0.50
91002465|NCT05103475|181888048|OTHER|Please note that all data analyses were exploratory because this was feasibility pilot.||||||0.6|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre/post comparison - RAP group.||||0.60
91002466|NCT05103475|181888048|OTHER|Please note that all data analyses were exploratory because this was feasibility pilot.||||||0.98||||||F = 0.0|ANOVA|||ANOVA results - group x time interaction.||||0.98
91002467|NCT05103475|181888049|OTHER|Please note that all data analyses were exploratory because this was feasibility pilot.||||||0.54|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre/post comparison - control group.||||0.54
91002468|NCT05103475|181888049|OTHER|Please note that all data analyses were exploratory because this was feasibility pilot.||||||0.15|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre/post comparison - RAP group.||||0.15
91002469|NCT05103475|181888049|OTHER|Please note that all data analyses were exploratory because this was feasibility pilot.||||||0.04||||||F = 4.9|ANOVA|||ANOVA results - group x time interaction.||||0.04
91002470|NCT05103475|181888050|OTHER|Please note that all data analyses were exploratory because this was feasibility pilot.||||||0.11|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre/post comparison - control group.||||0.11
91002471|NCT05103475|181888050|OTHER|Please note that all data analyses were exploratory because this was feasibility pilot.||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre/post comparison - RAP group.||||0.09
91002472|NCT05103475|181888050|OTHER|Please note that all data analyses were exploratory because this was feasibility pilot.||||||0.75||||||F = 0.10|ANOVA|||ANOVA results - group x time interaction.||||0.75
91002473|NCT05103475|181888051|OTHER|Please note that all data analyses were exploratory because this was feasibility pilot.||||||0.41|||||||Fisher Exact|The investigators used Fisher's Exact due to small cell sizes.||Likelihood to participate in a program like it in the future||||0.41
91002474|NCT05103475|181888051|OTHER|Please note that all data analyses were exploratory because this was feasibility pilot.||||||0.003||||||The investigators used Fisher's Exact due to small cell sizes.|Fisher Exact|||Help to manage back pain.||||0.003
91002475|NCT05103475|181888051|OTHER|Please note that all data analyses were exploratory because this was feasibility pilot.||||||1||||||The investigators used Fisher's Exact due to small sample sizes.|Fisher Exact|The reported value represents the calculated p-value for the Fisher's Exact test.||Would recommend to another Veteran.||||1.00
91002476|NCT05103475|181888051|OTHER|Please note that all data analyses were exploratory because this was feasibility pilot.||||||0.07||||||The investigators used Fisher's Exact due to small cell sizes.|Fisher Exact|||Liked the program.||||0.07
91002477|NCT05103475|181888052|OTHER|Please note that all data analyses were exploratory because this was feasibility pilot.||||||0.91|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre/post comparison - control group.||||0.91
91002478|NCT05103475|181888052|OTHER|Please note that all data analyses were exploratory because this was feasibility pilot.||||||0.51|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre/post comparison - RAP group.||||0.51
91002479|NCT05103475|181888052|OTHER|Please note that all data analyses were exploratory because this was feasibility pilot.||||||0.42||||||F = 0.68|ANOVA|||ANOVA results - group x time interaction.||||0.42
91002480|NCT02228824|181888053|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|2.17|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA was performed on 25 sets of imputed data and then analyzed using SAS PROC MIANALYZE||||2.17|0.86|<0.001
91050351|NCT04168190|181987002|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>0.33 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|2.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|2.9|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 11A. Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||2.90|1.78|<0.001
91002481|NCT02228824|181888055|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-38.5||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.21|-1.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.78|-75.21|0.041
91002482|NCT02228824|181888056|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|-0.13|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA was performed on 25 sets of imputed data and then analyzed using SAS PROC MIANALYZE||||-0.13|-1.26|0.016
91002483|NCT02228824|181888057|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|-0.002|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.002|-0.04|0.03
91002484|NCT02917629|181888093|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0011|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.024||0.031|TWO_SIDED||||||Benjamini and Hochberg|||ENSG00000229822 baseline and post exposure||||0.031
91002485|NCT02917629|181888093|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0217|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0257||0.031|TWO_SIDED||||||Benjamini and Hochberg|||ENSG00000230585 baseline and post exposure||||0.031
91002486|NCT02917629|181888093|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0098|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.005|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Benjamini and Hochberg|||ENSG00000249245 baseline and post exposure||||<0.001
91002487|NCT02917629|181888093|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0007|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0063|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Benjamini and Hochberg|||ENSG00000261792 baseline and post exposure||||<0.001
91002488|NCT02917629|181888094|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.006|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.006||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Benjamini and Hochberg|||ENSG00000234806 baseline and post exposure||||0.002
91002489|NCT02917629|181888095|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0013|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0072||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Benjamini and Hochberg|||ENSG00000232479 baseline and post exposure||||0.002
91002490|NCT02917629|181888095|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0037|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0193||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Benjamini and Hochberg|||ENSG00000233163 baseline and post exposure||||0.020
91002491|NCT02917629|181888095|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0098|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.005||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Benjamini and Hochberg|||ENSG00000249245 baseline and post-exposure||||0.001
91002492|NCT01042938|181888109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7991|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.7606||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3693|-0.2289|||Standard pooled variances t-test|||Hypothesis: The mean RDS for curcumin group is significantly different (i.e., lower) than mean RDS of placebo group at end of radiation treatment.||-0.2289|-1.3693|0.0077
91002493|NCT01042938|181888110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0022||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Hypothesis: The presence of moist desquamation significantly differed between the curcumin group and the placebo group.||||0.0022
91002494|NCT01042938|181888111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.145||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Hypothesis: There is a significant difference in mean redness (i.e., mean a\* number value) between the curcumin and placebo groups.||||0.145
91002495|NCT01042938|181888112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.685||||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.059|4.428|||ANCOVA|||Hypothesis: There is a significant difference in mean MPQ pain scores between the curcumin and placebo groups.||4.428|-1.059|0.218
91002496|NCT01042938|181888112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5||||0.152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|3.6|||ANCOVA|||Hypothesis: There is a significant difference in mean sensory subscale pain scores between curcumin and placebo groups.||3.6|-0.6|0.152
91002497|NCT01042938|181888112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.1|||ANCOVA|||Hypohesis: There is a signifcant difference in affective subscale pain scores between curcumin and placebo groups.||1.1|-0.7|0.700
91002498|NCT01042938|181888112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Hypothesis: There is a significant difference in mean perceived pain scores between curcumin and placebo groups.||0.7|-0.4|0.559
91002499|NCT03136484|181888113|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority p-value was calculated as two times the one-sided p-value from a t-distributed test statistic comparing the treatment contrast with 0.3 rather than zero as in a superiority test.|Treatment difference|-0.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.33|||ANCOVA||Semaglutide + canagliflozin placebo vs Canagliflozin + semaglutide placebo|The responses were analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment, region and stratification factor as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate. Before analysis, missing data were multiple imputed using observed data from participants within the same group defined by randomised treatment, using a regression model including region and stratification factor as categorical effects and data from baseline and all previous visits as covariates.||-0.33|-0.65|<.0001
91002500|NCT03136484|181888113|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-0.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.33|||ANCOVA||Semaglutide + canagliflozin placebo vs Canagliflozin + semaglutide placebo|The responses were analysed using an ANCOVA with treatment, region and stratification factor as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate. Before analysis, missing data were multiple imputed using observed data from participants within the same group defined by randomised treatment, using a regression model including region and stratification factor as categorical effects and data from baseline and all previous visits as covariates.||-0.33|-0.65|<.0001
91002501|NCT00360685|181888174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||Fisher Exact|||Sample size was based on the difference in the proportion of patients in each arm who were predicted to develop severe mucositis defined as clinical grade 3 or 4 per the CTCAE. A sample-size of 42 evaluable subjects per study-arm allowed detection of an absolute difference of 30%, which corresponds to a reduction in the incidence of severe mucositis from 60% in the methotrexate arm to 30% in the MMF arm (alpha=0.05, power=0.80).||||0.06
91002502|NCT00360685|181888175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||K-sample tests for comparing the cumulat|||||||0.8
91002503|NCT00360685|181888176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.58
91002504|NCT01203787|181888190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0262|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.0262
91002505|NCT03061812|181888197|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.46||||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|1.82|||Log Rank|Two-sided p-value stratified by the randomization stratification factors.|Calculated using a Cox proportional hazards regression model, with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|||1.82|1.17|0.0051
91002506|NCT03061812|181888198|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|1.87|||Log Rank|Two-sided p-value stratified by the randomization stratification factors.|Calculated using a Cox proportional hazards regression model, with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|||1.87|1.22|< 0.0001
91002507|NCT03061812|181888199|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.62|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.66|4.65||||||||4.65|-5.66|
91002508|NCT03061812|181888200|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.68||||0.3352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.18|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by the randomization stratification factors.||||1.18|0.39|0.3352
91002509|NCT03061812|181888201|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73||||0.0358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.12|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by the randomization stratification factors.||||1.12|0.47|0.0358
91002510|NCT00431496|181888203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|42.3||||||95.0|30.8|53.7||||||||53.7|30.8|
91002511|NCT00431496|181888204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|52.1||||||95.0|40.5|63.7||||||||63.7|40.5|
91002512|NCT00431496|181888205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|78.9||||||95.0|69.4|88.4||||||||88.4|69.4|
91002513|NCT00431496|181888206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|54.9||||||95.0|43.4|66.5||||||||66.5|43.4|
91002514|NCT00431496|181888207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|53.5||||||95.0|41.9|65.1||||||||65.1|41.9|
91002515|NCT00431496|181888208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|46.5||||||95.0|34.9|58.1||||||||58.1|34.9|
91002516|NCT02999191|181888209|OTHER||Ratio|89.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|36.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|73.304|110.25|||ANOVA||The estimated parameter was the adjusted geometric mean ratios \[%\] of BI 1467335: Tablets, fasted (numerator) and Solution, fasted (denominator). The Standard Deviation \[SD\] is the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation \[%\].|The statistical model used for the analysis of the endpoint was an ANOVA \[Analysis of Variance\] model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects nested within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||110.25|73.304|
91002517|NCT02999191|181888209|OTHER||Ratio|170.78|STANDARD_DEVIATION|33.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|139.85|208.54|||ANOVA||The estimated parameter was the adjusted geometric mean ratios \[%\] of BI 1467335: Tablets, fed (numerator) and Tablets, fasted (denominator). The parameter dispersion type \[SD\] is the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation \[%\].|The statistical model used for the analysis of the endpoint was an ANOVA \[Analysis of Variance\] model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects nested within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||208.54|139.85|
91002518|NCT02999191|181888210|OTHER||Ratio|84.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|48.8|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|64.26|110.24|||ANOVA||The estimated parameter was the adjusted geometric mean ratios \[%\] of BI 1467335: Tablets, fasted (numerator) and Solution, fasted (denominator). The parameter dispersion type \[SD\] is the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation \[%\].|The statistical model used for the analysis of the endpoint was an ANOVA \[Analysis of Variance\] model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects nested within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||110.24|64.260|
91002519|NCT02999191|181888210|OTHER||Ratio|136.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|54.8|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.885|185.61|||ANOVA||The estimated parameter was the adjusted geometric mean ratios \[%\] of BI 1467335: Tablets, fed (numerator) and Tablets, fasted (denominator). The parameter dispersion type \[SD\] is the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation \[%\].|The statistical model used for the analysis of the endpoint was an ANOVA \[Analysis of Variance\] model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects nested within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||185.61|99.885|
91002520|NCT01602549|181888221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|0.965|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.831|1.12|||||Day 1: The adjusted means (AMs) and ratios were estimated using a mixed model (MM) fitting treatment, visit, treatment\*visit, Baseline L-dopa PK parameter and Baseline gastric emptying half time as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect.|GSK962040 50 mg : Placebo Day 1||1.120|0.831|
91002521|NCT01602549|181888221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|0.886|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.763|1.029|||||Day 8: The AMs and ratios were estimated using a mixed model fitting treatment, visit, treatment\*visit, Baseline L-dopa PK parameter and Baseline gastric emptying half time as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect.|GSK962040 50 mg : Placebo Day 8||1.029|0.763|
91002522|NCT01602549|181888221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|0.937|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.033|||||Day 8:Day 1: The AMs and ratios were estimated using a mixed model fitting treatment, visit, treatment\*visit, Baseline L-dopa PK parameter and Baseline gastric emptying half time as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect.|Day 8: Day 1||1.033|0.850|
91002523|NCT01602549|181888221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.17|||||Day 8:Day 1: The AMs and ratios were estimated using a mixed model fitting treatment, visit, treatment\*visit, Baseline L-dopa PK parameter and Baseline gastric emptying half time as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect.|Day 8:Day 1 Placebo||1.170|0.890|
91002524|NCT01602549|181888223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|0.864|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.702|1.064|||||Day 1: The AMs and ratios were estimated using a mixed model fitting treatment, visit, treatment\*visit, Baseline L-dopa PK parameter and Baseline gastric emptying half time as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect.|GSK962040 50 mg Vs Placebo Day 1||1.064|0.702|
91002525|NCT01602549|181888223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|1.018|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.824|1.257|||||Day 8: The AMs and ratios were estimated using a mixed model fitting treatment, visit, treatment\*visit, Baseline L-dopa PK parameter and Baseline gastric emptying half time as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect.|GSK962040 50 mg Vs Placebo Day 8||1.257|0.824|
91002526|NCT01602549|181888223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|1.018|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.889|1.166|||||Day 8:Day 1: The AMs and ratios were estimated using a mixed model fitting treatment, visit, treatment\*visit, Baseline L-dopa PK parameter and Baseline gastric emptying half time as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect.|Day 8 VS Day 1 GSK962040 50 mg||1.166|0.889|
91002527|NCT01602549|181888223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|0.865|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.709|1.055|||||Day 8:Day 1: The AMs and ratios were estimated using a mixed model fitting treatment, visit, treatment\*visit, Baseline L-dopa PK parameter and Baseline gastric emptying half time as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect.|Day 8 Vs Day 1 Placebo||1.055|0.709|
91002528|NCT01602549|181888224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.157||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Day 1||||0.157
91002529|NCT01602549|181888224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.186||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Day 8||||0.186
91002530|NCT01602549|181888226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in AMs of change from BL|-4.239|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.015|7.537|||||Day 1: The AMs and differences (GSK962040 minus Placebo) were estimated using a mixed model fitting treatment, visit, treatment\*visit, and Baseline gastric half emptying time as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect.|GSK962040 50 mg Vs Placebo Day 1||7.537|-16.015|
91002531|NCT01602549|181888226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in AMs of change from BL|-5.327|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.567|6.914|||||Day 8: The AMs and differences (GSK962040 minus Placebo) were estimated using a mixed model fitting treatment, visit, treatment\*visit, and Baseline gastric half emptying time as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect.|GSK962040 50 mg Vs Placebo Day 8||6.914|-17.567|
91002532|NCT01602549|181888227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in AMs of change from BL|-2.16||||||95.0|-3.9|-0.41|||||Day 1; Part I: The AMs and differences (GSK 962040 minus Placebo) were estimated using a mixed model fitting treatment, visit, treatment\*visit interaction, and Baseline MDS-UPDR score as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect.|Part I-GSK962040 50 mg Vs Placebo Day 1||-0.41|-3.90|
91002533|NCT01602549|181888227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in AMs of change from BL|-3.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.41|-1.85|||||Day 8; Part I: The AMs and differences (GSK 962040 minus Placebo) were estimated using a mixed model fitting treatment, visit, treatment\*visit interaction, and Baseline MDS-UPDR score as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect.|Part I-GSK962040 50 mg Vs Placebo Day 8||-1.85|-5.41|
91002534|NCT01602549|181888227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in AMs of change from BL|-2.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.65|0.07|||||Day 1; Part II: The AMs and differences (GSK 962040 minus Placebo) were estimated using a mixed model fitting treatment, visit, treatment\*visit interaction, and Baseline MDS-UPDR score as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect.|Part II- GSK962040 50 mg Vs Placebo Day 1||0.07|-4.65|
91002535|NCT01602549|181888227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in AMs of change from BL|-2.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.85|-0.07|||||Day 8; Part II: The AMs and differences (GSK 962040 minus Placebo) were estimated using a mixed model fitting treatment, visit, treatment\*visit interaction, and Baseline MDS-UPDR score as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect.|Part II- GSK962040 50 mg Vs Placebo Day 8||-0.07|-4.85|
91002536|NCT01602549|181888227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in AMs of change from BL|-5.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.28|-0.49|||||Day 8; Part III: The AMs and differences (GSK 962040 minus Placebo) were estimated using a mixed model fitting treatment, visit, treatment\*visit interaction, and Baseline MDS-UPDR score as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect.|Part III -GSK962040 50 mg Vs Placebo Day 8||-0.49|-10.28|
91002537|NCT01602549|181888227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in AMs of change from BL|-0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|0.54|||||Day 1; Part IV: The AMs and differences (GSK 962040 minus Placebo) were estimated using a mixed model fitting treatment, visit, treatment\*visit interaction, and Baseline MDS-UPDR score as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect.|Part IV-GSK962040 50 mg Vs Placebo Day 1||0.54|-1.65|
91002538|NCT01602549|181888227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in AMs of change from BL|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|0.22|||||Day 8; Part IV: The AMs and differences (GSK 962040 minus Placebo) were estimated using a mixed model fitting treatment, visit, treatment\*visit interaction, and Baseline MDS-UPDR score as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect.|Part IV-GSK962040 50 mg Vs Placebo Day 8||0.22|-2.02|
91002539|NCT01602549|181888227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in AMs of change from BL|-6.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.77|0.39|||||Day 1; Total: The AMs and differences (GSK 962040 minus Placebo) were estimated using a mixed model fitting treatment, visit, treatment\*visit interaction, and Baseline MDS-UPDR score as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect.|Total- GSK962040 50 mg Vs Placebo Day 1||0.39|-13.77|
91048369|NCT01138826|181981578|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Natural log transformed Cmax of amlodipine was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.|Adjusted ratio of geometric means|98.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.05|106.33||||||A sample size of 12 completers provided 90% confidence intervals for the difference between treatment of +/-0.1146 on the natural log scale for Cmax with 90% coverage probability. These calculations were based on estimates of within-participant standard deviations of 0.1366 for loge Cmax.||106.33|91.05|
91048370|NCT01138826|181981578|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Natural log transformed Cmax of amlodipine was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.|Adjusted ratio of geometric means|95.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.16|102.84||||||A sample size of 12 completers provided 90% confidence intervals for the difference between treatment of +/-0.1146 on the natural log scale for Cmax with 90% coverage probability. These calculations were based on estimates of within-participant standard deviations of 0.1366 for loge Cmax.||102.84|88.16|
91048371|NCT01138826|181981578|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Natural log transformed Cmax of amlodipine was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.|Adjusted ratio of geometric means|96.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.58|104.54||||||A sample size of 12 completers provided 90% confidence intervals for the difference between treatment of +/-0.1146 on the natural log scale for Cmax with 90% coverage probability. These calculations were based on estimates of within-participant standard deviations of 0.1366 for loge Cmax.||104.54|89.58|
91048372|NCT02566993|181981581|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.967||||0.9029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.815|1.148|||Log Rank|Stratified log-rank test||||1.148|0.815|0.9029
91048373|NCT02566993|181981582|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2826|||||||Normal test|||||||0.2826
91048374|NCT02566993|181981583|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6216|||||||Normal test|||||||0.6216
91048375|NCT02566993|181981584|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9708|||||||Normal test|||||||0.9708
91048376|NCT02566993|181981585|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.831||||0.3257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.693|0.996|||Log Rank|Stratified log-rank test||||0.996|0.693|0.3257
91048377|NCT02566993|181981586|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0851|||||||Normal test|||||||0.0851
91048378|NCT02566993|181981587|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0129|||||||Normal test|||||||0.0129
91048379|NCT02566993|181981589|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6616|||||||Binomial test|||||||0.6616
91048380|NCT02566993|181981590|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.581||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.416|0.812|||Log Rank|||||0.812|0.416|0.0012
91048381|NCT02566993|181981591|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.921|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.744|1.14||||||||1.140|0.744|
91048382|NCT02566993|181981592|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.688|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.549|0.863||||||||0.863|0.549|
91048383|NCT02566993|181981594|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.921|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.616|1.376||||||||1.376|0.616|
91048384|NCT02566993|181981595|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.504|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.346|0.736||||||||0.736|0.346|
91048385|NCT02566993|181981596|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.122|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.5||||||||1.500|0.840|
91048386|NCT02566993|181981597|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.306|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.955|1.786||||||||1.786|0.955|
91048387|NCT02566993|181981599|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.915|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.455|1.843||||||||1.843|0.455|
91048388|NCT02566993|181981600|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.092|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.506|2.36||||||||2.360|0.506|
91048389|NCT02566993|181981601|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.923|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.765|1.113||||||||1.113|0.765|
91048390|NCT02566993|181981602|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.788|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.645|0.961||||||||0.961|0.645|
91048391|NCT02566993|181981604|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.903|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.624|1.307||||||||1.307|0.624|
91002540|NCT01602549|181888227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in AMs of change from BL|-12.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.67|-5.29|||||Day 8; Total: The AMs and differences (GSK 962040 minus Placebo) were estimated using a mixed model fitting treatment, visit, treatment\*visit interaction, and Baseline MDS-UPDR score as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect.|Total- GSK962040 50 mg Vs Placebo Day 8||-5.29|-19.67|
91002541|NCT01602549|181888227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in AMs of change from BL|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.53|3.13|||||Day 1; Part III: The AMs and differences (GSK 962040 minus Placebo) were estimated using a mixed model fitting treatment, visit, treatment\*visit interaction, and Baseline MDS-UPDR score as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect.|Part III- GSK962040 50 mg Vs Placebo Day 1||3.13|-6.53|
91002542|NCT01602549|181888228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in AMs of change from BL|-3.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.07|2.78|||||Day 1; Pre-dose: The AMs and differences (GSK962040 minus Placebo) were estimated using a mixed model fitting treatment, visit, treatment\*visit\*time point interaction, and Baseline UPDRS-3 score as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect.|Pre dose: GSK962040 50 mg Vs Placebo Day 1||2.78|-9.07|
91048392|NCT02566993|181981605|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.392|0.799||||||||0.799|0.392|
91048393|NCT02566993|181981606|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.291|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.838|1.99||||||||1.990|0.838|
91048394|NCT02566993|181981607|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.824|2.019||||||||2.019|0.824|
91048395|NCT02566993|181981609|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.032|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.403|2.641||||||||2.641|0.403|
91048396|NCT02566993|181981610|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.013|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.373|2.75||||||||2.750|0.373|
91048397|NCT04323098|181981624|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0057||||||P-value was based on two-sided t-test against 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0057
91048398|NCT04572243|181981636|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-86.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-144.01|-28.14||||||||-28.14|-144.01|
91048399|NCT04572243|181981637|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|44.35||||||||44.35|0.81|
91048400|NCT02278718|181981663|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0008|||||||Generalized Wilcoxon-Gehan Test|||Wilcoxon test statistic was estimated using generalized Wilcoxon-Gehan test stratified by center group, age group, % TBSA group, proportion of FT area group and number of TWs group. A negative (positive) statistic is associated with longer (shorter) time to the event when treated with NexoBrid vs. Standard of Care. P-value was calculated using the re-randomization test.||||0.0008
91048401|NCT02278718|181981664|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.025|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.007|0.09|||Fisher Exact|||Incidence of Surgical Excision for Eschar Removal for NexoBrid vs SOC||0.090|0.007|<0.0001
91048402|NCT02278718|181981665|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1374|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1374
91048403|NCT02278718|181981666|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.9||||0.5045|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5045
91048404|NCT02278718|181981667|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.414||||0.0545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.163|1.054|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.054|0.163|0.0545
91048405|NCT04440449|181981668|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
91048406|NCT04440449|181981669|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.108|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.108
91048407|NCT03212794|181981677|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.87||||||Threshold for significance p\<0.05|Chi-squared|||||||=0.87
91048408|NCT03212794|181981678|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.82||||||Threshold for significance p\<0.05|Chi-squared|||||||=0.82
91002543|NCT01602549|181888228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in AMs of change from BL|-3.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.11|2.75|||||Day 1; 120 min PD: The AMs and differences (GSK962040 minus Placebo) were estimated using a mixed model fitting treatment, visit, treatment\*visit\*time point interaction, and Baseline UPDRS-3 score as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect.|120 min PD: GSK962040 50 mg Vs Placebo Day 1||2.75|-9.11|
91002544|NCT01602549|181888228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in AMs of change from BL|-3.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.59|2.27|||||Day 1; 180 min PD: The AMs and differences (GSK962040 minus Placebo) were estimated using a mixed model fitting treatment, visit, treatment\*visit\*time point interaction, and Baseline UPDRS-3 score as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect.|180 min PD: GSK962040 50 mg Vs Placebo Day 1:||2.27|-9.59|
91002545|NCT01602549|181888228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in AMs of change from BL|-4.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.07|1.76|||||Day 1; 240 min PD: The AMs and differences (GSK962040 minus Placebo) were estimated using a mixed model fitting treatment, visit, treatment\*visit\*time point interaction, and Baseline UPDRS-3 score as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect.|240 min PD: GSK962040 50 mg Vs Placebo Day 1||1.76|-10.07|
91002546|NCT01602549|181888228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in AMs of change from BL|-6.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.79|-0.81|||||Day 8; Pre-dose: The AMs and differences (GSK962040 minus Placebo) were estimated using a mixed model fitting treatment, visit, treatment\*visit\*time point interaction, and Baseline UPDRS-3 score as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect.|Pre dose: GSK962040 50 mg Vs Placebo Day 8||-0.81|-12.79|
91002547|NCT01602549|181888228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in AMs of change from BL|-3.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.96|2.03|||||Day 8; 120 min PD: The AMs and differences (GSK962040 minus Placebo) were estimated using a mixed model fitting treatment, visit, treatment\*visit\*time point interaction, and Baseline UPDRS-3 score as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect.|120 min PD: GSK962040 50 mg Vs Placebo Day 8||2.03|-9.96|
91002548|NCT01602549|181888228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in AMs of change from BL|-5.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.29|0.71|||||Day 8; 180 min PD: The AMs and differences (GSK962040 minus Placebo) were estimated using a mixed model fitting treatment, visit, treatment\*visit\*time point interaction, and Baseline UPDRS-3 score as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect.|180 min PD: GSK962040 50 mg Vs Placebo Day 8||0.71|-11.29|
91048409|NCT03212794|181981679|OTHER||||||=|0.92||||||Threshold for significance p\<0.05|Log Rank|If no event occurred, the data from those individuals were right censored.||||||=0.92
91048410|NCT03212794|181981680|OTHER||||||=|0.85||||||Threshold for significance p\<0.05|Log Rank|If no event occurred, the data from those individuals were right censored.||||||=0.85
91048411|NCT01763918|181981688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-59.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.98|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.11|-53.35||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||Within each dose frequency, the null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from baseline at week 12 or in the percent change from baseline at the mean of weeks 10 and 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-53.35|-65.11|<0.001
91048412|NCT01763918|181981688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-61.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.91|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.0|-53.55||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||Within each dose frequency, the null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from baseline at week 12 or in the percent change from baseline at the mean of weeks 10 and 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-53.55|-69.00|<0.001
91048413|NCT01763918|181981689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-60.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.88|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.83|-54.46||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||Within each dose frequency, the null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from baseline at week 12 or in the percent change from baseline at the mean of weeks 10 and 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-54.46|-65.83|<0.001
91050352|NCT04168190|181987002|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>0.33 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|2.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.86|3.55|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 12F. Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||3.55|1.86|<0.001
91048414|NCT01763918|181981689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-65.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.27|-59.83||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||Within each dose frequency, the null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from baseline at week 12 or in the percent change from baseline at the mean of weeks 10 and 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-59.83|-71.27|<0.001
91048415|NCT01763918|181981690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-95.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-105.1|-85.2||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-85.2|-105.1|<0.001
91048416|NCT01763918|181981690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-97.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-107.1|-87.7||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-87.7|-107.1|<0.001
91048417|NCT01763918|181981691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-92.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-102.9|-82.8||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-82.8|-102.9|<0.001
91048418|NCT01763918|181981691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-91.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-103.8|-78.9||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-78.9|-103.8|<0.001
91048419|NCT01763918|181981692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|65.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.8|73.4||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use.||||73.4|52.8|<0.001
91048420|NCT01763918|181981692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|78.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|66.9|85.1||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use.||||85.1|66.9|<0.001
91048421|NCT01763918|181981693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|66.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.7|74.6||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use||||74.6|53.7|<0.001
91048422|NCT01763918|181981693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|60.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.6|69.8||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use.||||69.8|47.6|<0.001
91048423|NCT01763918|181981694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-56.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.74|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.41|-50.59||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-50.59|-61.41|<0.001
91048424|NCT01763918|181981694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-60.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.65|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.24|-54.77||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-54.77|-65.24|<0.001
91048425|NCT01763918|181981695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-54.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.87|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.47|-49.12||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-49.12|-60.47|<0.001
91048426|NCT01763918|181981695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-54.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.54|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.95|-47.96||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-47.96|-61.95|<0.001
91048427|NCT01763918|181981696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-49.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.32|-44.46||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-44.46|-54.32|<0.001
91048428|NCT01763918|181981696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-54.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.33|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.58|-50.38||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-50.38|-59.58|<0.001
91048429|NCT01763918|181981697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-49.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.76|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.55|-43.63||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-43.63|-54.55|<0.001
91002549|NCT01602549|181888228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in AMs of change from BL|-8.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.88|-2.91|||||Day 8; 240 min PD: The AMs and differences (GSK962040 minus Placebo) were estimated using a mixed model fitting treatment, visit, treatment\*visit\*time point interaction, and Baseline UPDRS-3 score as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect.|240 min PD: GSK962040 50 mg Vs Placebo Day 8||-2.91|-14.88|
91002550|NCT01602549|181888229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in AMs of change from BL|-2.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.71|-0.9|||||OFF: Treatment Period: The AMs and differences (GSK962040 minus Placebo) were estimated using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model fitting treatment and Baseline amount of hours spent ON/OFF as main effects.|OFF: Treatment Period||-0.90|-3.71|
91002551|NCT01602549|181888229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in AMs of change from BL|1.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|3.48|||||ON: Treatment Period: The AMs and differences (GSK962040 minus Placebo) were estimated using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model fitting treatment and Baseline amount of hours spent ON/OFF as main effects.|ON: Treatment Period||3.48|0.28|
91002552|NCT01602549|181888230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in AMs of change from BL|-2.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.79|16.13|||||Day 1, pre-dose: The AMs/differences (GSK962040 minus Placebo) were estimated using a MM fitting treatment, visit, time point (TP), treatment\*visit\*TP interaction, and BL score as fixed effects, TP as a repeated effect, and par. as a random effect.|Pre-dose: Day GSK962040 50 mg Vs Placebo Day 1||16.13|-21.79|
91002553|NCT01602549|181888230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in AMs of change from BL|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.39|19.56|||||Day 1, 0 min PD: The AMs/differences (GSK962040 minus Placebo) were estimated using a MM fitting treatment, visit, time point (TP), treatment\*visit\*TP interaction, and BL score as fixed effects, TP as a repeated effect, and par. as a random effect.|0 min PD: GSK962040 50 mg Vs Placebo Day 1||19.56|-18.39|
91002554|NCT01602549|181888230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in AMs of change from BL|1.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.18|20.86|||||Day 1, 30 min PD: The AMs/differences (GSK962040 minus Placebo) were estimated using a MM fitting treatment, visit, time point (TP), treatment\*visit\*TP interaction, and BL score as fixed effects, TP as a repeated effect, and par. as a random effect.|Day 1, 30 min PD||20.86|-17.18|
91002555|NCT01602549|181888230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in AMs of change from BL|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.72|19.28|||||Day 1, 60 min PD: The AMs/differences (GSK962040 minus Placebo) were estimated using a MM fitting treatment, visit, time point (TP), treatment\*visit\*TP interaction, and BL score as fixed effects, TP as a repeated effect, and par. as a random effect.|60 min PD: GSK962040 50 mg Vs Placebo Day 1||19.28|-18.72|
91002556|NCT01602549|181888230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in AMs of change from BL|-3.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.35|15.58|||||Day 1, 90 min PD: The AMs/differences (GSK962040 minus Placebo) were estimated using a MM fitting treatment, visit, time point (TP), treatment\*visit\*TP interaction, and BL score as fixed effects, TP as a repeated effect, and par. as a random effect.|90 min PD: GSK962040 50 mg Vs Placebo Day 1||15.58|-22.35|
91002557|NCT01602549|181888230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in AMs of change from BL|-4.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.13|14.76|||||Day 1, 120 min PD: The AMs/differences (GSK962040 minus Placebo) were estimated using a MM fitting treatment, visit, time point (TP), treatment\*visit\*TP interaction, and BL score as fixed effects, TP as a repeated effect, and par. as a random effect.|120 min PD: GSK962040 50 mg Vs Placebo Day 1||14.76|-23.13|
91002558|NCT01602549|181888230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in AMs of change from BL|-6.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.36|12.58|||||Day 1, 180 min PD: The AMs/differences (GSK962040 minus Placebo) were estimated using a MM fitting treatment, visit, time point (TP), treatment\*visit\*TP interaction, and BL score as fixed effects, TP as a repeated effect, and par. as a random effect.|180 min PD: GSK962040 50 mg Vs Placebo Day 1||12.58|-25.36|
91002559|NCT01602549|181888230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in AMs of change from BL|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.2|19.75|||||Day 1, 240 min PD: The AMs/differences (GSK962040 minus Placebo) were estimated using a MM fitting treatment, visit, time point (TP), treatment\*visit\*TP interaction, and BL score as fixed effects, TP as a repeated effect, and par. as a random effect.|240 min PD: GSK962040 50 mg Vs Placebo Day 1||19.75|-18.20|
91002560|NCT01602549|181888230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in AMs of change from BL|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.51|19.52|||||Day 8, pre-dose: The AMs/differences (GSK962040 minus Placebo) were estimated using a MM fitting treatment, visit, time point (TP), treatment\*visit\*TP interaction, and BL score as fixed effects, TP as a repeated effect, and par. as a random effect.|Pre-dose: GSK962040 50 mg Vs Placebo Day 8||19.52|-18.51|
91002561|NCT01602549|181888230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in AMs of change from BL|3.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.7|22.33|||||Day 8, 0 min PD: The AMs/differences (GSK962040 minus Placebo) were estimated using a MM fitting treatment, visit, time point (TP), treatment\*visit\*TP interaction, and BL score as fixed effects, TP as a repeated effect, and par. as a random effect.|0 min PD: GSK962040 50 mg Vs Placebo Day 8||22.33|-15.70|
91002562|NCT01602549|181888230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in AMs of change from BL|-2.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.97|16.08|||||Day 8, 30 min PD: The AMs/differences (GSK962040 minus Placebo) were estimated using a MM fitting treatment, visit, time point (TP), treatment\*visit\*TP interaction, and BL score as fixed effects, TP as a repeated effect, and par. as a random effect.|30 min PD: GSK962040 50 mg Vs Placebo Day 8||16.08|-21.97|
91002563|NCT01602549|181888230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in AMs of change from BL|-3.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.13|15.88|||||Day 8, 60 min PD: The AMs/differences (GSK962040 minus Placebo) were estimated using a MM fitting treatment, visit, time point (TP), treatment\*visit\*TP interaction, and BL score as fixed effects, TP as a repeated effect, and par. as a random effect.|60 min PD: GSK962040 50 mg Vs Placebo Day 8||15.88|-22.13|
91002564|NCT01602549|181888230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in AMs of change from BL|-1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.4|17.63|||||Day 8, 90 min PD: The AMs/differences (GSK962040 minus Placebo) were estimated using a MM fitting treatment, visit, time point (TP), treatment\*visit\*TP interaction, and BL score as fixed effects, TP as a repeated effect, and par. as a random effect.|90 min PD: GSK962040 50 mg Vs Placebo Day 8||17.63|-20.40|
91002565|NCT01602549|181888230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in AMs of change from BL|-0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|18.28|||||Day 8, 120 min PD: The AMs/differences (GSK962040 minus Placebo) were estimated using a MM fitting treatment, visit, time point (TP), treatment\*visit\*TP interaction, and BL score as fixed effects, TP as a repeated effect, and par. as a random effect.|120 min PD: GSK962040 50 mg Vs Placebo Day 8||18.28|-19.70|
91002566|NCT01602549|181888230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in AMs of change from BL|3.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.98|22.02|||||Day 8, 180 min PD: The AMs/differences (GSK962040 minus Placebo) were estimated using a MM fitting treatment, visit, time point (TP), treatment\*visit\*TP interaction, and BL score as fixed effects, TP as a repeated effect, and par. as a random effect.|180 min PD: GSK962040 50 mg Vs Placebo Day 8||22.02|-15.98|
91002567|NCT01602549|181888230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in AMs of change from BL|4.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.91|23.07|||||Day 8, 240 min PD: The AMs/differences (GSK962040 minus Placebo) were estimated using a MM fitting treatment, visit, time point (TP), treatment\*visit\*TP interaction, and BL score as fixed effects, TP as a repeated effect, and par. as a random effect.|240 min PD: GSK962040 50 mg Vs Placebo Day 8||23.07|-14.91|
91002568|NCT03627494|181888302|OTHER||Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|1.03|||||"Analysis was performed using Mixed Effect Model with treatment and period as fixed effect and participant as random effect. Variance Components covariance structure was used."|||1.03|0.84|
91002569|NCT03627494|181888303|OTHER||Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|1.04|||||"Analysis was performed using Mixed Effect Model with treatment and period as fixed effect and participant as random effect. Variance Components covariance structure was used."|||1.04|0.84|
91002570|NCT03627494|181888304|OTHER||Ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.79|1.01|||||"Analysis was performed using Mixed Effect Model with treatment and period as fixed effect and participant as random effect. Variance Components covariance structure was used."|||1.01|0.79|
91002571|NCT02712008|181888323|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was performed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline measurement as a covariate and treatment group as fixed factors.|Least square mean difference|-2.09||||0.1368|TWO_SIDED|95.0||0.67||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||0.67|- 4.84|0.1368
91002572|NCT02712008|181888323|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.04||||0.9716|TWO_SIDED|95.0||2.18||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline measurement as a covariate and treatment group as fixed factors.||2.18|- 2.10|0.9716
91002573|NCT02712008|181888324|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|2.15||||0.1665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|5.2||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as a covariate, and treatment group and BCVA stratification variable as fixed factors.||5.20|-0.90|0.1665
91002574|NCT02712008|181888324|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|1.9||||0.2223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|4.95||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as a covariate, and treatment group and BCVA stratification variable as fixed factors.||4.95|-1.16|0.2223
91002575|NCT02712008|181888324|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.39||||0.7943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|3.32||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as a covariate, and treatment group and BCVA stratification variable as fixed factors.||3.32|-2.54|0.7943
91002576|NCT02712008|181888324|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.66||||0.6655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|3.67||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as a covariate, and treatment group and BCVA stratification variable as fixed factors.||3.67|-2.35|0.6655
91002577|NCT02712008|181888324|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|2.33||||0.1278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|5.33||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as a covariate, and treatment group and BCVA stratification variable as fixed factors.||5.33|-0.67|0.1278
91002578|NCT02712008|181888324|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-1.51||||0.3159|TWO_SIDED|-1.51|-4.47|1.45||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as a covariate, and treatment group and BCVA stratification variable as fixed factors.||1.45|-4.47|0.3159
91002579|NCT02712008|181888324|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.27||||0.8537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.18|2.63||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as a covariate, and treatment group and BCVA stratification variable as fixed factors.||2.63|-3.18|0.8537
91002580|NCT02712008|181888325|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-24.43||||0.1105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.46|5.61||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline measurement as a covariate and treatment group as fixed factors.||5.61|-54.46|0.1105
91002581|NCT02712008|181888325|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-27.79||||0.0183|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline measurement as a covariate and treatment group as fixed factors.||- 4.74|- 50.83|0.0183
91002582|NCT02712008|181888326|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-55.91||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as a covariate, and treatment group and BCVA stratification variable as fixed factors.||- 18.01|- 93.81|0.0040
91002583|NCT02712008|181888326|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-40.51||||0.0365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.46|-2.57||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as a covariate, and treatment group and BCVA stratification variable as fixed factors.||-2.57|-78.46|0.0365
91002584|NCT02712008|181888326|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-37.15||||0.0454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.53|-0.77||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as a covariate, and treatment group and BCVA stratification variable as fixed factors.||-0.77|-73.53|0.0454
91002585|NCT02712008|181888326|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|1.75||||0.9266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.54|39.03||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as a covariate, and treatment group and BCVA stratification variable as fixed factors.||39.03|-35.54|0.9266
91002586|NCT02712008|181888326|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-15.49||||0.4116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.58|21.59||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as a covariate, and treatment group and BCVA stratification variable as fixed factors.||21.59|-52.58|0.4116
91002587|NCT02712008|181888326|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|3.36||||0.8574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.42|40.14||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as a covariate, and treatment group and BCVA stratification variable as fixed factors.||40.14|-33.42|0.8574
91002588|NCT02712008|181888326|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-38.9||||0.0351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.06|-2.73||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as a covariate, and treatment group and BCVA stratification variable as fixed factors.||-2.73|-75.06|0.0351
91002589|NCT02712008|181888327|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|-1.8||||0.7617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|9.8||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis was performed using analysis of Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel model.||9.8|-13.5|0.7617
91002590|NCT02712008|181888327|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|6.1||||0.2268|TWO_SIDED|95.0||16.3||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis was performed using analysis of Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel model.||16.3|- 4.1|0.2268
91002591|NCT02712008|181888328|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|-1.3||||0.8896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.4|17.7||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Difference with Confidence Interval was calculated using Mantel-Haenszel weighting scheme adjusted by BCVA stratification variable.||17.7|-20.4|0.8896
91002592|NCT02712008|181888328|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|6.4||||0.5021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|25.5||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Difference with Confidence Interval was calculated using Mantel-Haenszel weighting scheme adjusted by BCVA stratification variable.||25.5|-12.6|0.5021
91002593|NCT02712008|181888328|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|6.0||||0.5273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|24.7||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Difference with Confidence Interval was calculated using Mantel-Haenszel weighting scheme adjusted by BCVA stratification variable.||24.7|-12.8|0.5273
91002594|NCT02712008|181888328|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|-1.5||||0.8683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|16.6||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Difference with Confidence Interval was calculated using Mantel-Haenszel weighting scheme adjusted by BCVA stratification variable.||16.6|-19.7|0.8683
91002595|NCT02712008|181888328|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|8.8||||0.3546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|27.4||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Difference with Confidence Interval was calculated using Mantel-Haenszel weighting scheme adjusted by BCVA stratification variable.||27.4|-9.8|0.3546
91002596|NCT02712008|181888328|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|0.2||||0.9801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|19.5||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Difference with Confidence Interval was calculated using Mantel-Haenszel weighting scheme adjusted by BCVA stratification variable.||19.5|-19.0|0.9801
91002597|NCT02712008|181888328|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|8.8||||0.3528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|27.4||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Difference with Confidence Interval was calculated using Mantel-Haenszel weighting scheme adjusted by BCVA stratification variable.||27.4|-9.9|0.3528
91002598|NCT02177786|181888358|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means Difference|0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21||0.755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|2.75||Data was calculated using a mixed-effect model repeated measures (MMRM) model including terms for treatment group, baseline eGFR, visit and treatment by visit interaction for comparison of change from baseline in eGFR between selonsertib and placebo.|MMRM|||||2.75|-2.00|0.755
91002599|NCT02177786|181888358|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means Difference|0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.22||0.492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|3.23||Data was calculated using a MMRM model including terms for treatment group, baseline eGFR, visit and treatment by visit interaction for comparison of change from baseline in eGFR between selonsertib and placebo.|MMRM|||||3.23|-1.55|0.492
91002600|NCT02177786|181888358|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means Difference|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.23||0.481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.29|1.56||Data was calculated using a MMRM model including terms for treatment group, baseline eGFR, visit and treatment by visit interaction for comparison of change from baseline in eGFR between selonsertib and placebo.|MMRM|||||1.56|-3.29|0.481
91002601|NCT02177786|181888359|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|-2.2||||0.798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.1|11.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was based on a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by stage of disease to compare the response rate between selonsertib and placebo.|The 95% confidence interval (CI) in the difference in percentages between selonsertib and placebo was based on Wald Asymptotic test.|||11.7|-16.1|0.798
91002602|NCT02177786|181888359|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|-9.2||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.3|4.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was based on a CMH test stratified by stage of disease to compare the response rate between selonsertib and placebo.|The 95% CI in the difference in percentages between selonsertib and placebo was based on Wald Asymptotic test.|||4.0|-22.3|0.175
91002603|NCT02177786|181888359|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|-2.9||||0.686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|10.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was based on a CMH test stratified by stage of disease to compare the response rate between selonsertib and placebo.|The 95% CI in the difference in percentages between selonsertib and placebo was based on Wald Asymptotic test.|||10.9|-16.6|0.686
91002604|NCT01957215|181888373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.72||||0.0201||95.0|0.1134|1.3199||P- value was obtained from ANCOVA model with treatment and site as fixed effects and NRS Baseline value as a covariate|ANCOVA||ADJ DIFF is the Treatment difference defined as the Adjusted Mean of 0.35% Indomethacin Patches minus Adjusted Mean of Placebo Patches|||1.3199|0.1134|0.0201
91002605|NCT05724069|181888401|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.239|||=|0.1279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.553|0.074|||paired T-test|||Subjects in this analysis are 15 and not 30 (this happens because arms are not mutually exclusive, as explained in previous sections). Each subject can contribute with 0, 1, 2 pairs. Only data that constitute pairs evaluable for primary endpoint are considered in the analysis; the pairs evaluable for primary endpoint were 23.||0.074|-0.553|=0.1279
91002606|NCT03552289|181888402|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8283|||||||One-sided Z-test|||||||0.8283
91002607|NCT02408484|181888465|OTHER|||||||0.0028||||||p-value for the change in MCF from baseline to 1 hour post infusion for the firstBLEED population|ANOVA|||||||0.0028
91002608|NCT02408484|181888465|OTHER|||||||0.0002||||||p-value for the change in MCF from baseline to 1 hour post infusion for the BLEED population|ANOVA|||||||0.0002
91002609|NCT01726504|181888475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||During the 8-week treatment period, the adjusted change from baseline in mean weekly CSBMs was 1.72 ± 0.12 (95% CI, 1.48 to 1.96) in the EA group and 0.82 ± 0.13 (95% CI, 0.58 to 1.07, P\<0.001) times more than that in the SA group.||||<0.001
91002610|NCT03012594|181888507|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.07
91002611|NCT00524043|181888509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.2||0.504||95.0|-5.47|11.09||Based on ANCOVA model with treatment (Placebo, Paliperidone ER 1.5 mg, and Paliperidone ER 6 mg) and country as factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Comparison with placebo was without multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|||Sample size estimation was based on the assumption that the difference between the paliperidone ER 1.5 mg dose group and the placebo group in the mean change in PANSS total score from baseline to end point was 11 points with a within-group standard deviation of 20 points. It was calculated that 65 patients were needed per treatment group to detect a statistically significant treatment difference between the paliperidone ER 1.5 mg dose group and the placebo group with a power of 87.5%.||11.09|-5.47|0.504
91002612|NCT00524043|181888509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.15||0.431||95.0|-11.46|4.9||Based on ANCOVA model with treatment (Placebo, Paliperidone ER 1.5 mg, and Paliperidone ER 6 mg) and country as factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Comparison with placebo was without multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Paliperidone ER 6 mg was used for assay sensitivity||||4.90|-11.46|0.431
91002613|NCT00524043|181888510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.626||95.0||||Based on ANCOVA model on ranks with treatment (Placebo, Paliperidone ER 1.5 mg, and Paliperidone ER 6 mg) and country as factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Comparison with placebo was without multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|||||||0.626
91002614|NCT00524043|181888511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.69||0.87||95.0|-4.86|5.74||Based on ANCOVA model with treatment (placebo, paliperidone ER 1.5 mg, and paliperidone ER 6 mg) and country as factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Comparison with placebo was without multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|||||5.74|-4.86|0.870
91002615|NCT00524043|181888512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.126||95.0||||Based on ANCOVA model with treatment (placebo, paliperidone ER 1.5 mg, and paliperidone ER 6 mg) and country as factors and baseline value as a covariate. Comparison with placebo was without multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|||||||0.126
91002616|NCT00524043|181888513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.691||95.0||||Based on ANCOVA model with treatment (placebo, paliperidone ER 1.5 mg, and paliperidone ER 6 mg) and country as factors and baseline value as a covariate. Comparison with placebo was without multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|||||||0.691
91002617|NCT03531762|181888543|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Mean|108.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.2|117.13||||||||117.13|101.20|
91002618|NCT03531762|181888544|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Mean|109.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.69|118.55||||||||118.55|101.69|
91002619|NCT03531762|181888545|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Mean|104.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.93|116.61||||||||116.61|92.93|
91002620|NCT02019758|181888557|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The mean post-treatment maximum eosinophil count will be compared between the OVB and MDI groups using a two-sample t-test.||||0.31
91002621|NCT02019758|181888558|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The mean DSQ scores will be compared between the OVB and MDI groups using a two-sample t-test.||||0.70
91002622|NCT02019758|181888563|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|2.08||||||||2.08|0.52|
91002623|NCT02019758|181888564|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91002624|NCT02019758|181888565|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91002625|NCT02019758|181888566|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91002626|NCT03236506|181888575|NON_INFERIORITY|Assuming a 95% SVR rate (based on published studies) in the DOT arm of the trial in this population and a non-inferiority limit of 14% (which would be likely to maintain cost-effectiveness) then at a 5% significance level and 90% power we would need a sample size of 42 in each group 126 in total. To allow for drop-outs we will aim to recruit 135 individuals, 45 per group.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.64||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|3.0|||Logistic|||||3.00|0.14|0.67
91002627|NCT03236506|181888575|NON_INFERIORITY|Described in Statistical Analysis 1.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.53||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|2.45|||logistic|||||2.45|0.11|0.41
91002628|NCT03236506|181888575|NON_INFERIORITY|Described in Statistical Analysis 1.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|6.61|||logistic|||||6.61|0.23|0.82
91002629|NCT00638274|181888580|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>.05
91002630|NCT00638274|181888580|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>.05
91002631|NCT00838383|181888592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-70.0||||0.5307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-291.3|151.4|||ANCOVA|||||151.4|-291.3|0.5307
91002632|NCT00838383|181888592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-73.2||||0.5121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-294.5|148.2|||ANCOVA|||||148.2|-294.5|0.5121
91002633|NCT00838383|181888593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-123.1||||0.2735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-345.5|99.3|||ANCOVA|||||99.3|-345.5|0.2735
91002634|NCT00838383|181888593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-174.5||||0.1223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-396.8|47.9|||ANCOVA|||||47.9|-396.8|0.1223
91002635|NCT00838383|181888594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-66.6||||0.5505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-288.0|154.8|||ANCOVA|||||154.8|-288.0|0.5505
91002636|NCT00838383|181888594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-110.3||||0.3237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-331.7|111.0|||ANCOVA|||||111.0|-331.7|0.3237
91002637|NCT00838383|181888595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-166.5||||0.1412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-389.6|56.6|||ANCOVA|||||56.6|-389.6|0.1412
91002638|NCT00838383|181888595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-199.8||||0.0813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-425.0|25.5|||ANCOVA|||||25.5|-425.0|0.0813
91002639|NCT02709109|181888621|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) mean difference|0.2||||0.8173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.8|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||1.8|-1.4|0.8173
91002640|NCT02709109|181888621|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.7||||0.5903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|1.9|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||1.9|-3.3|0.5903
91002641|NCT02709109|181888621|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.7||||0.5917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|1.9|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||1.9|-3.4|0.5917
91002642|NCT02709109|181888621|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.9||||0.5021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|1.8|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||1.8|-3.6|0.5021
91002643|NCT02709109|181888621|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.6||||0.1382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|0.5|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.5|-3.8|0.1382
91002644|NCT02709109|181888621|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.9||||0.4962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|3.5|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||3.5|-1.7|0.4962
91002645|NCT01000818|181888624|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The raltegravir AUC0-12 hr geometric mean ratio (raltegravir + omeprazole/raltegravir) is noniferior at less than 2.0.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.39||||||95.0|1.04|1.84||||||||1.84|1.04|
91002646|NCT01000818|181888624|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The raltegravir AUC0-12 hr geometric mean ratio (raltegravir + omeprazole/raltegravir) is noniferior at less than 2.0.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.45||||||95.0|1.09|1.93||||||||1.93|1.09|
91002647|NCT04010370|181888650|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Spearman correlation|||Correlation of McAuley index with PREDIM index at baseline.||||<0.001
91002648|NCT04010370|181888651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.319|||||||Spearman correlation|||Correlation of Belfiore index with PREDIM index at baseline.||||0.319
91002649|NCT04010370|181888652|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||Spearman correlation|||Correlation of Cederholm index with PREDIM index at baseline.||||0.27
91002650|NCT04010370|181888653|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.246|||||||Spearman correlation|||Correlation of Avignon index with PREDIM index at baseline.||||0.246
91002651|NCT04010370|181888654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.259|||||||Spearman correlation|||Correlation of Matsuda index with PREDIM index at baseline.||||0.259
91002652|NCT04010370|181888655|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Spearman correlation|||Correlation of Gutt index with PREDIM index at baseline.||||0.69
91002653|NCT04010370|181888656|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022|||||||Spearman correlation|||Correlation of Stumvoll index with PREDIM index at baseline.||||0.022
91002654|NCT04010370|181888657|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Spearman correlation|||Correlation of HOMA-IR index with PREDIM index at baseline.||||0.69
91002655|NCT04010370|181888658|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Spearman correlation|||Correlation of ISI index with PREDIM index at baseline.||||0.69
91002656|NCT04010370|181888659|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.541|||||||Spearman correlation|||Correlation of Raynaud index with PREDIM index at baseline.||||0.541
91002657|NCT04010370|181888660|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Spearman correlation|||Correlation of QUICKI index with PREDIM index at baseline.||||0.69
91002658|NCT04010370|181888661|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.531|||||||Spearman correlation|||Correlation of FIRI index with PREDIM index at baseline.||||0.531
91002659|NCT04010370|181888662|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.726|||||||Spearman correlation|||Correlation of Bennett index with PREDIM index at baseline.||||0.726
91002660|NCT04010370|181888663|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.787|||||||Spearman correlation|||Correlation of TyG index with PREDIM index at baseline.||||0.787
91002661|NCT01815580|181888675|OTHER||||||>|0.75|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.75
91002662|NCT01815580|181888676|OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.14
91002663|NCT01815580|181888677|OTHER||||||>|0.3|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.3
91002664|NCT01815580|181888678|OTHER||||||>|0.12|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.12
91002665|NCT01815580|181888679|OTHER||||||>|0.22|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.22
91002666|NCT00856986|181888716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Treatment Difference, LSMean|-0.52||||||95.0|-0.68|-0.36|||ANCOVA|||The estimated treatment difference between Detemir+Lira 1.8 and Lira 1.8 as well as 95% confidence interval and p-value were calculated by an ANCOVA model with treatment, country and previous OAD as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate. The p-value reflects a two-sided test for the null hypothesis of no difference between the two treatment groups with a significance level of 5% and with the power of 90%.||-0.36|-0.68|
91002667|NCT00856986|181888717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Treatment Difference, LSMean|-0.41||||||95.0|-0.6|-0.21|||ANCOVA||The analysis values for intensified Lira 1.8 mg subjects were kept in the treatment group and the last observation carried forward (LOCF) method was applied.|The estimated treatment difference between Detemir+Lira 1.8 and Lira 1.8 as well as 95% confidence interval and p-value were calculated by an ANCOVA model with treatment, country and previous OAD as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate. The p-value reflects a two-sided test for the null hypothesis of no difference between the two treatment groups with a significance level of 5%.||-0.21|-0.6|
91002668|NCT00856986|181888718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference, LS mean|-0.51||||||95.0|-0.7|-0.31|||ANCOVA||The mean change in HbA1c from randomisation to week 52 was analysed including the values before intensification as LOCF for intensified subjects|||-0.31|-0.7|
91002669|NCT01906476|181888756|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority trials of pharmaceuticals have used 30% to 50% of the difference between treatment and control conditions to define non-inferiority margins. (Jones, Jarvis, Lewis, \& Ebbutt, 1996; Nutt et al., 2008). A meta-analysis of CBT found an overall effect size of d=0.82.(Cuijpers, Smit, Bohlmeijer, Hollon, \& Andersson, 2010). Using the midpoint of 40% for the acceptable criterion, we set d=0.33 as the non-inferiority criterion.|||||||||||||||||"Cohen's d and upper limits of one-sided 95% Confidence intervals for each time are as follows:~Mid-treatment -0.19 (95% upper limit= 0.06) End of treatment 0.03 (0.24) 3 months post treatment -0.02 (0.19) 6 months post treatment -0.07 (0.14)"|||
91002670|NCT01906476|181888757|SUPERIORITY||ICER estimate|-152.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1143.09|1094.72||||||We calculated the ICER (Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio) estimate, computed using the difference in average cost between the two arms, divided by the difference in average Depression Free Days (DFD) as defined using QIDS (Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology), between the two arms, Stepped Care minus Telephone Cognitive Behavior Therapy. The confidence interval was created using bootstrapping.||1094.72|-1143.09|
91002671|NCT01248585|181888765|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.177||1-sided p-value.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||One-sided 0.05 level test with 90% power, 298 participants required.||0.177|0|0.05
91002672|NCT01248585|181888766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.009||||0.432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.10|-0.08|0.432
91002673|NCT01248585|181888768|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.09||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.01|0.18||Fisher exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||0.18|0.01|0.15
91002674|NCT01248585|181888769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.55||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.06|3.97|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||3.97|-5.06|0.07
91002675|NCT01685203|181888773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.381|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, baseline log(subscript)10(subscript) HCV RNA level and Interleukin-28B (IL28B) genotype (CC or non-CC) were used as predictors||||||0.381
91002676|NCT01685203|181888773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|||||Difference in rates after adjusting for Interleukin-28 (IL28) genotype (CC or Non-CC) using stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel proportions and continuity-corrected variances.|Stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.086
91002677|NCT02859558|181888814|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value based on two-sided test.|Fisher Exact|||Results from Integrase Assay. Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm 1 and Arm 2 in the proportion of participants with undetectable CA-DNA.||||0.48
91002678|NCT02859558|181888814|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value based on two-sided test.|Fisher Exact|||Results from Integrase Assay. Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm 1 and Arm 3 in the proportion of participants with undetectable CA-DNA.||||1
91002679|NCT02859558|181888814|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value based on two-sided test.|Fisher Exact|||Results from Integrase Assay. Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm 2 and Arm 3 in the proportion of participants with undetectable CA-DNA.||||0.50
91002680|NCT02859558|181888814|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value based on two-sided test.|Fisher Exact|||Results from Gag Assay. Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm 1 and Arm 2 in the proportion of participants with undetectable CA-DNA.||||1
91002681|NCT02859558|181888814|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value based on two-sided test.|Fisher Exact|||Results from Gag Assay. Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm 1 and Arm 3 in the proportion of participants with undetectable CA-DNA.||||0.44
91002682|NCT02859558|181888814|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value based on two-sided test.|Fisher Exact|||Results from Gag Assay. Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm 2 and Arm 3 in the proportion of participants with undetectable CA-DNA.||||1
91002683|NCT02859558|181888815|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value based on two-sided test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm 1 and Arm 2 in percentage of HIV-1-specific CD4+ T-cells expressing any cytokine (CD40L, CD107a, IFNg, MIP1B, TNFa) in response to Env protein stimulant.||||0.39
91048430|NCT01763918|181981697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-49.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.73|-43.1||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-43.10|-55.73|<0.001
91048431|NCT01763918|181981698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-46.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.45|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.43|-41.76||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-41.76|-51.43|<0.001
91048432|NCT01763918|181981698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-49.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.56|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.21|-44.11||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-44.11|-54.21|<0.001
91048433|NCT01763918|181981699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-46.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.63|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.27|-40.88||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-40.88|-51.27|<0.001
91048434|NCT01763918|181981699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-45.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.77|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.86|-37.98||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-37.98|-52.86|<0.001
91002684|NCT02859558|181888815|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value based on two-sided test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm 1 and Arm 3 in percentage of HIV-1-specific CD4+ T-cells expressing any cytokine (CD40L, CD107a, IFNg, MIP1B, TNFa) in response to Env protein stimulant.||||0.46
91002685|NCT02859558|181888815|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.056||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value based on two-sided test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm 2 and Arm 3 in percentage of HIV-1-specific CD4+ T-cells expressing any cytokine (CD40L, CD107a, IFNg, MIP1B, TNFa) in response to Env protein stimulant.||||0.056
91002686|NCT02859558|181888815|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.025||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value based on two-sided test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm 1 and Arm 2 in percentage of HIV-1-specific CD4+ T-cells expressing any cytokine (CD40L, CD107a, IFNg, MIP1B, TNFa) in response to Gag protein stimulant.||||0.025
91002687|NCT02859558|181888815|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.072||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value based on two-sided test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm 1 and Arm 3 in percentage of HIV-1-specific CD4+ T-cells expressing any cytokine (CD40L, CD107a, IFNg, MIP1B, TNFa) in response to Gag protein stimulant.||||0.072
91002688|NCT02859558|181888815|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value based on two-sided test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm 2 and Arm 3 in percentage of HIV-1-specific CD4+ T-cells expressing any cytokine (CD40L, CD107a, IFNg, MIP1B, TNFa) in response to Gag protein stimulant.||||0.47
91048435|NCT01763918|181981700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-53.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.62|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.35|-47.99||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-47.99|-58.35|<0.001
91048436|NCT01763918|181981700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-55.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.79|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.08|-50.05||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-50.05|-61.08|<0.001
91048437|NCT01763918|181981701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-54.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.97|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.16|-48.41||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-48.41|-60.16|<0.001
91048438|NCT01763918|181981701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-49.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.35|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.14|-40.96||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-40.96|-58.14|<0.001
91048439|NCT01763918|181981702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-31.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.52|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.33|-24.41||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-24.41|-38.33|<0.001
91048440|NCT01763918|181981702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-31.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.91|-24.09||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-24.09|-37.91|<0.001
91002689|NCT02859558|181888815|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.086||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value based on two-sided test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm 1 and Arm 2 in percentage of HIV-1-specific CD4+ T-cells expressing any cytokine (CD40L, CD107a, IFNg, MIP1B, TNFa) in response to Nef protein stimulant.||||0.086
91002690|NCT02859558|181888815|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value based on two-sided test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm 1 and Arm 3 in percentage of HIV-1-specific CD4+ T-cells expressing any cytokine (CD40L, CD107a, IFNg, MIP1B, TNFa) in response to Nef protein stimulant.||||0.18
91002691|NCT02859558|181888815|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value based on two-sided test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm 2 and Arm 3 in percentage of HIV-1-specific CD4+ T-cells expressing any cytokine (CD40L, CD107a, IFNg, MIP1B, TNFa) in response to Nef protein stimulant.||||0.88
91002692|NCT02859558|181888815|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.061||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value based on two-sided test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm 1 and Arm 2 in percentage of HIV-1-specific CD4+ T-cells expressing any cytokine (CD40L, CD107a, IFNg, MIP1B, TNFa) in response to Pol protein stimulant.||||0.061
91002693|NCT02859558|181888815|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.042||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value based on two-sided test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm 1 and Arm 3 in percentage of HIV-1-specific CD4+ T-cells expressing any cytokine (CD40L, CD107a, IFNg, MIP1B, TNFa) in response to Pol protein stimulant.||||0.042
91002694|NCT02859558|181888815|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value based on two-sided test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm 2 and Arm 3 in percentage of HIV-1-specific CD4+ T-cells expressing any cytokine (CD40L, CD107a, IFNg, MIP1B, TNFa) in response to Pol protein stimulant.||||0.54
91002695|NCT02859558|181888816|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value based on two-sided test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm 1 and Arm 2 in percentage of HIV-1-specific CD8+ T-cells expressing any cytokine (CD40L, CD107a, IFNg, MIP1B, TNFa) in response to Env protein stimulant.||||0.97
91002696|NCT02859558|181888816|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value based on two-sided test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm 1 and Arm 3 in percentage of HIV-1-specific CD8+ T-cells expressing any cytokine (CD40L, CD107a, IFNg, MIP1B, TNFa) in response to Env protein stimulant.||||0.21
91002697|NCT02859558|181888816|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value based on two-sided test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm 2 and Arm 3 in percentage of HIV-1-specific CD8+ T-cells expressing any cytokine (CD40L, CD107a, IFNg, MIP1B, TNFa) in response to Env protein stimulant.||||0.12
91002698|NCT02859558|181888816|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.055||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value based on two-sided test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm 1 and Arm 2 in percentage of HIV-1-specific CD8+ T-cells expressing any cytokine (CD40L, CD107a, IFNg, MIP1B, TNFa) in response to Gag protein stimulant.||||0.055
91002699|NCT02859558|181888816|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value based on two-sided test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm 1 and Arm 3 in percentage of HIV-1-specific CD8+ T-cells expressing any cytokine (CD40L, CD107a, IFNg, MIP1B, TNFa) in response to Gag protein stimulant.||||0.28
91002700|NCT02859558|181888816|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value based on two-sided test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm 2 and Arm 3 in percentage of HIV-1-specific CD8+ T-cells expressing any cytokine (CD40L, CD107a, IFNg, MIP1B, TNFa) in response to Gag protein stimulant.||||0.38
91002701|NCT02859558|181888816|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value based on two-sided test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm 1 and Arm 2 in percentage of HIV-1-specific CD8+ T-cells expressing any cytokine (CD40L, CD107a, IFNg, MIP1B, TNFa) in response to Nef protein stimulant.||||0.35
91002702|NCT02859558|181888816|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value based on two-sided test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm 1 and Arm 3 in percentage of HIV-1-specific CD8+ T-cells expressing any cytokine (CD40L, CD107a, IFNg, MIP1B, TNFa) in response to Nef protein stimulant.||||0.007
91002703|NCT02859558|181888816|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.045||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value based on two-sided test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm 2 and Arm 3 in percentage of HIV-1-specific CD8+ T-cells expressing any cytokine (CD40L, CD107a, IFNg, MIP1B, TNFa) in response to Nef protein stimulant.||||0.045
91002704|NCT02859558|181888816|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.085||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value based on two-sided test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm 1 and Arm 2 in percentage of HIV-1-specific CD8+ T-cells expressing any cytokine (CD40L, CD107a, IFNg, MIP1B, TNFa) in response to Pol protein stimulant.||||0.085
91002705|NCT02859558|181888816|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.044||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value based on two-sided test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm 1 and Arm 3 in percentage of HIV-1-specific CD8+ T-cells expressing any cytokine (CD40L, CD107a, IFNg, MIP1B, TNFa) in response to Pol protein stimulant.||||0.044
91002706|NCT02859558|181888816|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value based on two-sided test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm 2 and Arm 3 in percentage of HIV-1-specific CD8+ T-cells expressing any cytokine (CD40L, CD107a, IFNg, MIP1B, TNFa) in response to Pol protein stimulant.||||0.60
91002707|NCT02859558|181888817|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value based on two-sided test.|Fisher Exact|||Results from Joint Assay. Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm 1 and Arm 2 in the proportion of participants with undetectable CA-DNA.||||1
91002708|NCT02859558|181888817|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value based on two-sided test.|Fisher Exact|||Results from Joint Assay. Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm 2 and Arm 3 in the proportion of participants with undetectable CA-DNA.||||1
91002709|NCT02859558|181888817|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value based on two-sided test.|Fisher Exact|||Results from Integrase Assay. Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm 1 and Arm 2 in the proportion of participants with undetectable CA-DNA.||||0.64
91002710|NCT02859558|181888817|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value based on two-sided test.|Fisher Exact|||Results from Integrase Assay. Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm 1 and Arm 3 in the proportion of participants with undetectable CA-DNA.||||0.69
91002711|NCT02859558|181888817|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value based on two-sided test.|Fisher Exact|||Results from Integrase Assay. Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm 2 and Arm 3 in the proportion of participants with undetectable CA-DNA.||||0.40
91002712|NCT02859558|181888817|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value based on two-sided test.|Fisher Exact|||Results from Gag Assay. Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm 1 and Arm 2 in the proportion of participants with undetectable CA-DNA.||||1
91002713|NCT02859558|181888817|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value based on two-sided test.|Fisher Exact|||Results from Gag Assay. Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm 2 and Arm 3 in the proportion of participants with undetectable CA-DNA.||||1
91002714|NCT04507360|181888823|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Mean difference in Overall row"||||
91002715|NCT04507360|181888825|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference in total score at week 1||||
91002716|NCT04507360|181888825|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference in total score at week 2||||
91002717|NCT04507360|181888825|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference in total score at week 3||||
91002718|NCT04507360|181888825|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference in total score at week 4||||
91002719|NCT04507360|181888825|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference in total score at week 8||||
91002720|NCT04507360|181888825|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference in total score at week 1||||
91002721|NCT04507360|181888825|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.39|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference in total score at week 2||||
91002722|NCT04507360|181888825|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.16|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference in total score at week 3||||
91002723|NCT04507360|181888825|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.69|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference in total score at week 4||||
91002724|NCT04507360|181888825|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.75|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference in total score at week 8||||
91002725|NCT04507360|181888826|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference in total score at week 1||||
91002726|NCT04507360|181888826|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference in total score at week 2||||
91002727|NCT04507360|181888826|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference in total score at week 3||||
91002728|NCT04507360|181888826|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference in total score at week 4||||
91002729|NCT04507360|181888827|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference in total score at week 1||||
91002730|NCT04507360|181888827|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference in total score at week 2||||
91002731|NCT04507360|181888827|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference in total score at week 3||||
91002732|NCT04507360|181888827|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference in total score at week 4||||
91048441|NCT01763918|181981703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-31.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.28|-23.87||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-23.87|-39.28|<0.001
91002733|NCT04507360|181888828|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference in total score at week 1||||
91002734|NCT04507360|181888828|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference in total score at week 2||||
91002735|NCT04507360|181888828|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference in total score at week 3||||
91002736|NCT04507360|181888828|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference in total score at week 4||||
91002737|NCT04507360|181888828|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference in total score at week 8||||
91002738|NCT04507360|181888828|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.98|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference in total score at week 1||||
91002739|NCT04507360|181888828|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference in total score at week 2||||
91002740|NCT04507360|181888828|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.67|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference in total score at week 3||||
91002741|NCT04507360|181888828|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.22|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference in total score at week 4||||
91002742|NCT04507360|181888828|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.07|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference in total score at week 8||||
91002743|NCT04507360|181888831|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference at baseline||||
91002744|NCT04507360|181888831|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference at week 1||||
91002745|NCT04507360|181888831|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference at week 2||||
91002746|NCT04507360|181888831|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference at week 3||||
91002747|NCT04507360|181888831|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.68|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference at week 4||||
91002748|NCT04507360|181888831|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference at week 8||||
91002749|NCT04507360|181888831|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference at baseline||||
91002750|NCT04507360|181888831|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference at week 1||||
91002751|NCT04507360|181888831|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference at week 2||||
91002752|NCT04507360|181888831|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference at week 3||||
91002753|NCT04507360|181888831|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference at week 4||||
91002754|NCT04507360|181888831|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference at week 8||||
91002755|NCT04507360|181888832|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference at baseline||||
91002756|NCT04507360|181888832|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference at week 1||||
91002757|NCT04507360|181888832|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference at week 2||||
91002758|NCT04507360|181888832|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference at week 3||||
91002759|NCT04507360|181888832|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference at week 4||||
91002760|NCT04507360|181888832|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference at week 8||||
91002761|NCT04507360|181888832|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference at baseline||||
91002762|NCT04507360|181888832|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference at week 1||||
91002763|NCT04507360|181888832|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference at week 2||||
91002764|NCT04507360|181888832|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference at week 3||||
91002765|NCT04507360|181888832|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference at week 4||||
91002766|NCT04507360|181888832|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference at week 8||||
91002767|NCT00400946|181888833|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.60
91002768|NCT03950440|181888848|OTHER|Propensity scores were obtained from three separate multivariable logistic regression models contrasting each group versus the two other groups. The result from this multivariable model quantifies the degree of separation between both groups.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.44||The double robust approach refers to the weighted analysis with all variables involved in the construction of the propensity-based weights added as confounders in the model.|Poisson regression||TAVI-group compared to the SAVR-group|Frailty scores (Tilburg and essential) and Euroscore were specified in the protocol. Age was added during the meeting before start of the data-analysis|The double robust approach refers to the weighted analysis with all variables involved in the construction of the propensity-based weights added as confounders in the model.|0.44|0.16|<0.0001
91002769|NCT00439309|181888867|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sealing success rates for the investigational group and control groups were assumed to be 0.85 (85%) and 0.75 (75%), respectively, and the non-inferiority margin (10%) is 0.10. For safety reasons it was desired to have at least 100 Vascular Sealant treated subjects. It was determined that a sample size of at least 31 evaluable subjects is required for the control group. For blocking purposes, the number of evaluable control group subjects was set to 33, for a 3:1 randomization.||||||0.072|||||||Z-Test|one-sided Z-test based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution testing||The effectiveness analyses were performed on the ITT population.||||0.072
91002770|NCT00439309|181888868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|p-value for superiority of the Vascular Sealant System compared to the GELFOAM Treatment from two-sided test based on the GEE regression model.||||||0.006
91002771|NCT00439309|181888869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.654|||||||t-test, 2 sided|p-value for superiority of the Vascular Sealant System compared to the GELFOAMTreatment from two-sided test based on the GEE regression model||||||0.654
91002772|NCT00439309|181888870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.089|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.089
91002773|NCT00439309|181888871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.404|||||||Log Rank|Kaplan-Meier method was used to obtain estimated median times to wound closure and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals for each treatment group||||||0.404
91002774|NCT02043509|181888872|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted odds ratio|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|9.35|||||Odds ratios are model-based (adjusted by site and gestation at randomization). 95% profile confidence intervals are reported.|||9.35|0.93|
91048442|NCT01763918|181981703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-28.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.73|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.61|-20.88||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-20.88|-35.61|<0.001
91002775|NCT02043509|181888873|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted odds ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.75|||||Odds ratios are model-based (adjusted by site and gestation at randomization). 95% profile confidence intervals are reported.|||1.75|0.61|
91002776|NCT02043509|181888874|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted odds ratio|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.31|||||Odds ratios are model-based (adjusted by site and gestation at randomization). 95% profile confidence intervals are reported.|||2.31|0.79|
91002777|NCT02043509|181888875|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted odds ratio|1.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|4.03|||||Odds ratios are model-based (adjusted by site and gestation at randomization). 95% profile confidence intervals are reported.|||4.03|0.72|
91002778|NCT02043509|181888876|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted odds ratio|2.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|5.46|||||Odds ratios are model-based (adjusted by site and gestation at randomization). 95% profile confidence intervals are reported.|||5.46|0.89|
91002779|NCT02043509|181888877|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted odds ratio|3.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|10.69|||||Odds ratios are model-based (adjusted by site and gestation at randomization). 95% profile confidence intervals are reported.|||10.69|1.14|
91002780|NCT02043509|181888878|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted odds ratio|3.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|17.36|||||Odds ratios are model-based (adjusted by site and gestation at randomization). 95% profile confidence intervals are reported.|||17.36|0.90|
91002781|NCT02043509|181888879|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.118|||||||Mann-Whitney U-test|||||||0.118
91002782|NCT03189563|181888883|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3656||||||p-value is from ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline motor MDS-UPDRS total score. All statistical tests for efficacy are two-sided tests, with α=0.05.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline is based on subjects with paired values.||||0.3656
91002783|NCT03189563|181888883|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3119||||||p-value is from ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline motor MDS-UPDRS total score. All statistical tests for efficacy are two-sided tests, with α=0.05.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline is based on subjects with paired values.||||0.3119
91002784|NCT03189563|181888884|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.147||||||p-value is from ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline MDS-UPDRS total score. All statistical tests for efficacy are two-sided tests, with α=0.05.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline is based on subjects with paired values.||||0.1470
91048443|NCT01763918|181981704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-22.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.48|-15.24||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-15.24|-29.48|<0.001
91048444|NCT01763918|181981704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-16.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.89|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.43|-9.05||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-9.05|-24.43|<0.001
91048445|NCT01763918|181981705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-19.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.22|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.92|-11.26||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-11.26|-27.92|<0.001
91048446|NCT01763918|181981705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-11.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.97|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.38|-1.74||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-1.74|-21.38|<0.001
91048447|NCT01763918|181981706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|8.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.36|12.4||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||12.40|4.36|<0.001
91048448|NCT01763918|181981706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|9.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.21|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.1|13.85||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||13.85|5.10|<0.001
91048449|NCT01763918|181981707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|9.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.66|13.74||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||13.74|4.66|<0.001
91048450|NCT01763918|181981707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|9.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.83|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.48|1466.0||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||1466|3.48|<0.001
91048451|NCT01763918|181981708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-22.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.46|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.46|-15.81||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-15.81|-29.46|<0.001
91048452|NCT01763918|181981708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-15.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.25|-7.84||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-7.84|-23.25|<0.001
91048453|NCT01763918|181981709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-20.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.21|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.29|-12.66||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-12.66|-29.29|<0.001
91048454|NCT01763918|181981709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-9.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.98|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.01|0.68||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||0.68|-19.01|<0.001
91048455|NCT01553747|181981710|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Significance level of 0.025|Chi-square test statistic|||The family-wise error rate was controlled by Bonferroni adjustment for each active dose versus placebo.||||<0.001
91048456|NCT01553747|181981710|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Significance level of 0.025|Chi-square test statistic|||The family-wise error rate was controlled by Bonferroni adjustment for each active dose versus placebo.||||<0.001
91048457|NCT01553747|181981711|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||Significance level of 0.025|Chi-square test statistic|||The family-wise error rate was controlled by Bonferroni adjustment for each active dose versus placebo.||||0.001
91048458|NCT01553747|181981711|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Significance level of 0.025|Chi-square test statistic|||The family-wise error rate was controlled by Bonferroni adjustment for each active dose versus placebo.||||<0.001
91048459|NCT01490931|181981745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P value adjusted with Bonferroni corrections for multiple comparisons|t-test, 2 sided|||Changes in pain intensity on the VAS were statistically compared to baseline pain utilizing paired t tests with Bonferroni corrections for multiple comparisons. The median onsets of first perceptible and meaningful relief (with 95% confidence intervals) were calculated and then used to construct Kaplan-Meier Curves of the distribution of pain relief times.||||<0.0001
91048460|NCT01490931|181981749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Changes in pain intensity on the VAS were statistically compared to baseline pain utilizing paired t tests with Bonferroni corrections for multiple comparisons. The median onsets of first perceptible and meaningful relief (with 95% confidence intervals) were calculated and then used to construct Kaplan-Meier Curves of the distribution of pain relief times.||||<0.0001
91048461|NCT01490931|181981750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Changes in pain intensity on the VAS were statistically compared to baseline pain utilizing paired t tests with Bonferroni corrections for multiple comparisons. The median onsets of first perceptible and meaningful relief (with 95% confidence intervals) were calculated and then used to construct Kaplan-Meier Curves of the distribution of pain relief times.||||<0.0001
91048462|NCT01490931|181981751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Changes in pain intensity on the VAS were statistically compared to baseline pain utilizing paired t tests with Bonferroni corrections for multiple comparisons. The median onsets of first perceptible and meaningful relief (with 95% confidence intervals) were calculated and then used to construct Kaplan-Meier Curves of the distribution of pain relief times.||||<0.0001
91048463|NCT01490931|181981752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Changes in pain intensity on the VAS were statistically compared to baseline pain utilizing paired t tests with Bonferroni corrections for multiple comparisons. The median onsets of first perceptible and meaningful relief (with 95% confidence intervals) were calculated and then used to construct Kaplan-Meier Curves of the distribution of pain relief times.||||<0.0001
91048464|NCT01490931|181981753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Changes in pain intensity on the VAS were statistically compared to baseline pain utilizing paired t tests with Bonferroni corrections for multiple comparisons. The median onsets of first perceptible and meaningful relief (with 95% confidence intervals) were calculated and then used to construct Kaplan-Meier Curves of the distribution of pain relief times.||||<0001
91002785|NCT03189563|181888884|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.252||||||p-value is from ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline MDS-UPDRS total score. All statistical tests for efficacy are two-sided tests, with α=0.05.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline is based on subjects with paired values.||||0.2520
91002786|NCT03189563|181888885|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1528||||||"p-value is from ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline MDS-UPDRS part 1 subscale score.~All statistical tests for efficacy are two-sided tests, with α=0.05."|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline is based on subjects with paired values.||||0.1528
91002787|NCT03189563|181888885|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6146||||||"p-value is from ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline MDS-UPDRS part 1 subscale score.~All statistical tests for efficacy are two-sided tests, with α=0.05."|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline is based on subjects with paired values.||||0.6146
91002788|NCT03189563|181888886|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5691||||||p-value is from ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline S\&E scale total score. All statistical tests for efficacy are two-sided tests, with α=0.05.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline is based on subjects with paired values.||||0.5691
91002789|NCT03189563|181888886|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1309||||||p-value is from ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline S\&E scale total score. All statistical tests for efficacy are two-sided tests, with α=0.05.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline is based on subjects with paired values.||||0.1309
91002790|NCT03189563|181888887|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7913||||||p-value is from ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline PDQ-39 summary index. All statistical tests for efficacy are two-sided tests, with α=0.05.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline is based on subjects with paired values.||||0.7913
91002791|NCT03189563|181888887|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9399||||||p-value is from ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline PDQ-39 summary index. All statistical tests for efficacy are two-sided tests, with α=0.05.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline is based on subjects with paired values.||||0.9399
91002792|NCT03189563|181888888|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4978||||||p-value is from ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline H\&Y scale total score. All statistical tests for efficacy are two-sided tests, with α=0.05.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline is based on subjects with paired values.||||0.4978
91002793|NCT03189563|181888888|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.888||||||p-value is from ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline H\&Y scale total score. All statistical tests for efficacy are two-sided tests, with α=0.05.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline is based on subjects with paired values.||||0.8880
91002794|NCT03189563|181888889|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5755||||||"p-value is from ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline MDS-UPDRS part 2 subscale score.~All statistical tests for efficacy are two-sided tests, with α=0.05."|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline is based on subjects with paired values.||||0.5755
91002795|NCT03189563|181888889|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1517||||||"p-value is from ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline MDS-UPDRS part 2 subscale score.~All statistical tests for efficacy are two-sided tests, with α=0.05."|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline is based on subjects with paired values.||||0.1517
91002796|NCT03189563|181888890|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2095||||||"p-value is from ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline MDS-UPDRS part 3 subscale score.~All statistical tests for efficacy are two-sided tests, with α=0.05."|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline is based on subjects with paired values.||||0.2095
91002797|NCT03189563|181888890|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6094||||||"p-value is from ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline MDS-UPDRS part 3 subscale score.~All statistical tests for efficacy are two-sided tests, with α=0.05."|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline is based on subjects with paired values.||||0.6094
91002798|NCT03189563|181888891|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.226||||||"p-value is from ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline MDS-UPDRS part 4 subscale score.~All statistical tests for efficacy are two-sided tests, with α=0.05."|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline is based on subjects with paired values.||||0.2260
91002799|NCT03189563|181888891|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.226||||||p-value is from ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline MDS-UPDRS part 4 subscale score All statistical tests for efficacy are two-sided tests, with α=0.05.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline is based on subjects with paired values.||||0.2260
91002800|NCT03189563|181888892|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8274||||||p-value is from ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline CGI-S score. All statistical tests for efficacy are two-sided tests, with α=0.05.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline is based on subjects with paired values.||||0.8274
91048465|NCT01490931|181981754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Changes in pain intensity on the VAS were statistically compared to baseline pain utilizing paired t tests with Bonferroni corrections for multiple comparisons. The median onsets of first perceptible and meaningful relief (with 95% confidence intervals) were calculated and then used to construct Kaplan-Meier Curves of the distribution of pain relief times.||||<0.0001
91048466|NCT01490931|181981755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Changes in pain intensity on the VAS were statistically compared to baseline pain utilizing paired t tests with Bonferroni corrections for multiple comparisons. The median onsets of first perceptible and meaningful relief (with 95% confidence intervals) were calculated and then used to construct Kaplan-Meier Curves of the distribution of pain relief times.||||<0.0001
91048467|NCT01490931|181981756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Changes in pain intensity on the VAS were statistically compared to baseline pain utilizing paired t tests with Bonferroni corrections for multiple comparisons. The median onsets of first perceptible and meaningful relief (with 95% confidence intervals) were calculated and then used to construct Kaplan-Meier Curves of the distribution of pain relief times.||||<0.0001
91048468|NCT00754494|181981796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.762|TWO_SIDED||||||General Linear Model|||A log-transformation of pEGFR was utilized in primary analyses because of the highly skewed distribution observed in this outcome. The general linear model was used to estimate and compare the relative change in median pEGFR with adjustment for actin as a normalizing factor. The estimated relative change (post:pre) in the median, corresponding 95% confidence interval, and p-value for testing the null hypothesis of equal medians comparing pre- and post-measurements were reported.||||0.762
91048469|NCT00754494|181981796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.125|TWO_SIDED||||||General Linear Model|||A log-transformation of pEGFR was utilized in primary analyses because of the highly skewed distribution observed in this outcome. The general linear model was used to estimate and compare the relative change in median pEGFR with adjustment for actin as a normalizing factor. The estimated relative change (post:pre) in the median, corresponding 95% confidence interval, and p-value for testing the null hypothesis of equal medians comparing pre- and post-measurements were reported.||||0.125
91050353|NCT04168190|181987002|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>0.33 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|2.16|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 17F. Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||2.16|1.24|<0.001
91002801|NCT03189563|181888892|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3416||||||p-value is from ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline CGI-S score. All statistical tests for efficacy are two-sided tests, with α=0.05.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline is based on subjects with paired values.||||0.3416
91002802|NCT03189563|181888893|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4052||||||P-value is from ANCOVA model. All statistical tests for efficacy are two-sided tests, with α=0.05.|ANCOVA|||||||0.4052
91002803|NCT03189563|181888893|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2643||||||P-value is from ANCOVA model. All statistical tests for efficacy are two-sided tests, with α=0.05.|ANCOVA|||||||0.2643
91002804|NCT02443155|181888969|SUPERIORITY||Treatment ratio|1.48|||=|0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|1.89|||Mixed model repeated measurements||NNC0114-0006 + liraglutide / Placebo|Ratio of week 54 to baseline are analysed using mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM) with an unstructured covariance matrix. Treatment, stratum and sex as factors and log baseline value and age as covariates, including the interaction between visit and all variables.||1.89|1.16|=0.0017
91002805|NCT02443155|181888969|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Ratio|1.23|||=|0.0927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.57|||Mixed model repeated measurements|||Ratio of week 54 to baseline are analysed using MMRM with an unstructured covariance matrix. Treatment, stratum and sex as factors and log baseline value and age as covariates, including the interaction between visit and all variables.||1.57|0.97|=0.0927
91002806|NCT02443155|181888969|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Ratio|1.12|||=|0.378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.42|||Mixed model repeated measurements|||Ratio of week 54 to baseline are analysed using MMRM with an unstructured covariance matrix. Treatment, stratum and sex as factors and log baseline value and age as covariates, including the interaction between visit and all variables.||1.42|0.87|=0.3780
91002807|NCT02443155|181888969|SUPERIORITY||Treatment ratio|1.2|||=|0.1377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.53|||Mixed model repeated measurements|||Ratio of week 54 to baseline are analysed using MMRM with an unstructured covariance matrix. Treatment, stratum and sex as factors and log baseline value and age as covariates, including the interaction between visit and all variables.||1.53|0.94|=0.1377
91002808|NCT02443155|181888969|SUPERIORITY||Treatment ratio|1.33|||=|0.0214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.69|||Mixed model repeated measurements|||Ratio of week 54 to baseline are analysed using MMRM with an unstructured covariance matrix. Treatment, stratum and sex as factors and log baseline value and age as covariates, including the interaction between visit and all variables.||1.69|1.04|=0.0214
91002809|NCT02443155|181888969|SUPERIORITY||Treatmrnt ratio|1.1|||=|0.4187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.41|||Mixed model repeated measurements|||Ratio of week 54 to baseline are analysed using MMRM with an unstructured covariance matrix. Treatment, stratum and sex as factors and log baseline value and age as covariates, including the interaction between visit and all variables.||1.41|0.87|=0.4187
91002810|NCT01998906|181889110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.6||||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|30.2|||Chi-squared|||||30.2|5.0|0.0051
91002811|NCT01998906|181889111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.3||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.2|31.4|||Chi-squared|||||31.4|7.2|0.0014
91002812|NCT01998906|181889112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.4||||0.3077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|19.1|||Chi-squared|||||19.1|-6.4|0.3077
91002813|NCT01998906|181889114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||0.0275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.96|||Log Rank|||||0.96|0.44|0.0275
91002814|NCT01998906|181889116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59||||0.0555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.02|||Log Rank|||||1.02|0.35|0.0555
91002815|NCT05241470|181889137|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.9575|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.9575
91002816|NCT05241470|181889137|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.9741|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.9741
91002817|NCT05241470|181889138|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5696|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.5696
91002818|NCT05241470|181889139|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0266|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0266
91002819|NCT05241470|181889140|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0055|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0055
91002820|NCT05241470|181889141|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0097|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0097
91002821|NCT05241470|181889142|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0137|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0137
91002822|NCT05241470|181889143|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0332|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0332
91002823|NCT05241470|181889144|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0394|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0394
91002824|NCT05241470|181889145|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0121|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0121
91002825|NCT05241470|181889146|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0224|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0224
91002826|NCT06048809|181889151|OTHER|||||||2.36e-05|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Haemophilus parainfluenzae: Change From Baseline at Week 6||||0.0000236
91002827|NCT06048809|181889151|OTHER|||||||0.0033243|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Neisseria elongata: Change From Baseline at Week 6||||0.0033243
91002828|NCT06048809|181889151|OTHER|||||||0.00500088|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Aggregatibacter sp.\_HMT\_898: Change From Baseline at Week 6||||0.00500088
91002829|NCT06048809|181889151|OTHER|||||||0.0066975|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Parvimonas sp.\_HMT\_110: Change From Baseline at Week 6||||0.0066975
91002830|NCT06048809|181889151|OTHER|||||||0.00710228|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Aggregatibacter aphrophilus: Change From Baseline at Week 6||||0.00710228
91002831|NCT06048809|181889151|OTHER|||||||0.00744022|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Kingella oralis: Change From Baseline at Week 6||||0.00744022
91002832|NCT06048809|181889151|OTHER|||||||0.01434037|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Haemophilus sp.\_HMT\_036: Change From Baseline at Week 6||||0.01434037
91002833|NCT06048809|181889151|OTHER|||||||0.01955327|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Haemophilus haemolyticus: Change From Baseline at Week 6||||0.01955327
91002834|NCT06048809|181889151|OTHER|||||||0.01995277|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Neisseria mucosa: Change From Baseline at Week 6||||0.01995277
91002835|NCT06048809|181889151|OTHER|||||||0.02082528|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Parvimonas sp.\_HMT\_393\_nov\_97.053%: Change From Baseline at Week 6||||0.02082528
91002836|NCT06048809|181889151|OTHER|||||||0.02188156|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Ottowia sp.\_HMT\_894: Change from Baseline at Week 6||||0.02188156
91002837|NCT06048809|181889151|OTHER|||||||0.02321733|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Cryptobacterium curtum: Change From Baseline at Week 6||||0.02321733
91002838|NCT06048809|181889151|OTHER|||||||0.02397996|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Lautropia mirabilis: Change from Baseline at Week 6||||0.02397996
91002839|NCT06048809|181889151|OTHER|||||||0.02509094|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Haemophilus paraphrohaemolyticus: Change From Baseline at Week 6||||0.02509094
91002840|NCT06048809|181889151|OTHER|||||||0.02648847|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Capnocytophaga sp.\_HMT\_332: Change From Baseline at Week 6||||0.02648847
91002841|NCT06048809|181889151|OTHER|||||||0.02828764|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Neisseria flavescens: Change From Baseline at Week 6||||0.02828764
91002842|NCT06048809|181889151|OTHER|||||||0.03454372|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Capnocytophaga gingivalis\_nov\_96.429%: Change From Baseline at Week 6||||0.03454372
91002843|NCT06048809|181889151|OTHER|||||||0.03747507|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Capnocytophaga sputigena: Change From Baseline at Week 6||||0.03747507
91002844|NCT06048809|181889151|OTHER|||||||0.03776136|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Haemophilus sputorum: Change From Baseline at Week 6||||0.03776136
91002845|NCT06048809|181889151|OTHER|||||||0.03853215|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Capnocytophaga gingivalis\_nov\_90.546%: Change From Baseline at Week 6||||0.03853215
91002846|NCT06048809|181889151|OTHER|||||||0.04751303|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Prevotella denticola: Change From Baseline at Week 6||||0.04751303
91002847|NCT06048809|181889151|OTHER|||||||0.05190512|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Aggregatibacter sp.\_HMT\_513: Change From Baseline at Week 6||||0.05190512
91002848|NCT06048809|181889151|OTHER|||||||0.0550647|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Veillonella sp.\_HMT\_780: Change From Baseline at Week 6||||0.0550647
91002849|NCT06048809|181889151|OTHER|||||||0.05861488|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Neisseria perflava: Change From Baseline at Week 6||||0.05861488
91002850|NCT06048809|181889151|OTHER|||||||0.06727926|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Slackia exigua: Change From Baseline at Week 6||||0.06727926
91002851|NCT06048809|181889151|OTHER|||||||0.07051698|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Shuttleworthia satelles: Change from Baseline at Week 6||||0.07051698
91002852|NCT06048809|181889151|OTHER|||||||0.0740793|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Aggregatibacter sp.\_HMT\_458: Change From Baseline at Week 6||||0.0740793
91002853|NCT06048809|181889151|OTHER|||||||0.07426973|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Ruminococcaceae\_\[G-1\] bacterium\_HMT\_075: Change From Baseline at Week 6||||0.07426973
91002854|NCT06048809|181889151|OTHER|||||||0.07829888|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Campylobacter showae: Change From Baseline at Week 6||||0.07829888
91002855|NCT06048809|181889151|OTHER|||||||0.08462924|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Streptococcus sp.\_HMT\_056: Change From Baseline at Week 6||||0.08462924
91002856|NCT06048809|181889152|OTHER|||||||0.062378|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Abiotrophia defectiva: Change from Baseline at Week 6||||0.062378
91002857|NCT06048809|181889152|OTHER|||||||0.063437|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Saccharibacteria\_(TM7)\_\[G1\] bacterium\_HMT\_346: Change from Baseline at Week 6||||0.063437
91002858|NCT06048809|181889152|OTHER|||||||0.069908|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Olsenella sp.\_HMT\_807: Change from Baseline at Week 6||||0.069908
91002859|NCT06048809|181889152|OTHER|||||||0.079736|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Fusobacterium nucleatum\_nucleatum\_subsp.\_animalis: Change from Baseline at Week 6||||0.079736
91002860|NCT06048809|181889152|OTHER|||||||0.094642|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Bergeyella sp.\_HMT\_322: Change from Baseline at Week 6||||0.094642
91002861|NCT06048809|181889152|OTHER|||||||0.095848|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Peptostreptococcaceae\_\[XI\]\[G-1\] \[Eubacterium\]\_infirmum: Change from Baseline at Week 6||||0.095848
91002862|NCT06048809|181889152|OTHER|||||||0.107931|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Prevotella sp.\_HMT\_317: Change from Baseline at Week 6||||0.107931
91048470|NCT00754494|181981796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.855|TWO_SIDED||||||General Linear Model|||A log-transformation of pEGFR was utilized in primary analyses because of the highly skewed distribution observed in this outcome. The general linear model was used to estimate and compare the relative change in median pEGFR with adjustment for actin as a normalizing factor. The estimated relative change (post:pre) in the median, corresponding 95% confidence interval, and p-value for testing the null hypothesis of equal medians comparing pre- and post-measurements were reported.||||0.855
91048471|NCT00754494|181981797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.369|TWO_SIDED||||||General Linear Model|||A log-transformation of total EGFR was utilized in primary analyses because of the highly skewed distribution observed in this outcome. The general linear model was used to estimate and compare the relative change in median total EGFR with adjustment for actin as a normalizing factor. The estimated relative change (post:pre) in the median, corresponding 95% confidence interval, and p-value for testing the null hypothesis of equal medians comparing pre- and post-measurements were reported.||||0.369
91048472|NCT00754494|181981797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.085|TWO_SIDED||||||General Linear Model|||A log-transformation of total EGFR was utilized in primary analyses because of the highly skewed distribution observed in this outcome. The general linear model was used to estimate and compare the relative change in median total EGFR with adjustment for actin as a normalizing factor. The estimated relative change (post:pre) in the median, corresponding 95% confidence interval, and p-value for testing the null hypothesis of equal medians comparing pre- and post-measurements were reported.||||0.085
91048473|NCT00754494|181981797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.233|TWO_SIDED||||||General Linear Model|||A log-transformation of total EGFR was utilized in primary analyses because of the highly skewed distribution observed in this outcome. The general linear model was used to estimate and compare the relative change in median total EGFR with adjustment for actin as a normalizing factor. The estimated relative change (post:pre) in the median, corresponding 95% confidence interval, and p-value for testing the null hypothesis of equal medians comparing pre- and post-measurements were reported.||||0.233
91048474|NCT00754494|181981798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.651|TWO_SIDED||||||General Linear Model|||A log-transformation of pEGFR was utilized in primary analyses because of the highly skewed distribution observed in this outcome. The general linear model was used to estimate and compare the relative change in median pEGFR with adjustment for actin as a normalizing factor. The estimated relative change (post:pre) in the median, corresponding 95% confidence interval, and p-value for testing the null hypothesis of equal medians comparing pre- and post-measurements were reported.||||0.651
91048475|NCT00754494|181981798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||General Linear Model|||A log-transformation of pEGFR was utilized in primary analyses because of the highly skewed distribution observed in this outcome. The general linear model was used to estimate and compare the relative change in median pEGFR with adjustment for actin as a normalizing factor. The estimated relative change (post:pre) in the median, corresponding 95% confidence interval, and p-value for testing the null hypothesis of equal medians comparing pre- and post-measurements were reported.||||0.030
91048476|NCT00754494|181981798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.261|TWO_SIDED||||||General Linear Model|||A log-transformation of pEGFR was utilized in primary analyses because of the highly skewed distribution observed in this outcome. The general linear model was used to estimate and compare the relative change in median pEGFR with adjustment for actin as a normalizing factor. The estimated relative change (post:pre) in the median, corresponding 95% confidence interval, and p-value for testing the null hypothesis of equal medians comparing pre- and post-measurements were reported.||||0.261
91048477|NCT00754494|181981799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.654|TWO_SIDED||||||General Linear Model|||A log-transformation of total EGFR was utilized in primary analyses because of the highly skewed distribution observed in this outcome. The general linear model was used to estimate and compare the relative change in median total EGFR with adjustment for actin as a normalizing factor. The estimated relative change (post:pre) in the median, corresponding 95% confidence interval, and p-value for testing the null hypothesis of equal medians comparing pre- and post-measurements were reported.||||0.654
91048478|NCT00754494|181981799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||General Linear Model|||A log-transformation of total EGFR was utilized in primary analyses because of the highly skewed distribution observed in this outcome. The general linear model was used to estimate and compare the relative change in median total EGFR with adjustment for actin as a normalizing factor. The estimated relative change (post:pre) in the median, corresponding 95% confidence interval, and p-value for testing the null hypothesis of equal medians comparing pre- and post-measurements were reported.||||0.030
91048479|NCT00754494|181981799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.083|TWO_SIDED||||||General Linear Model|||A log-transformation of total EGFR was utilized in primary analyses because of the highly skewed distribution observed in this outcome. The general linear model was used to estimate and compare the relative change in median total EGFR with adjustment for actin as a normalizing factor. The estimated relative change (post:pre) in the median, corresponding 95% confidence interval, and p-value for testing the null hypothesis of equal medians comparing pre- and post-measurements were reported.||||0.083
91048480|NCT01949116|181981861|NON_INFERIORITY|The P-value for the risk difference is from an asymptotic non-inferiority analysis for the proportion (risk) difference with a 15% non-inferiority margin.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.072||||0.0367|ONE_SIDED|90.0||0.134|||Farrington-Manning score (exact)||LDMTX - Placebo|||0.134||0.0367
91048481|NCT01949116|181981862|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.85|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Stratified by Statin Use (study stratification factor)||||0.85|-0.67|0.55
91048482|NCT05486065|181981879|SUPERIORITY|The change in HbA1c from baseline was analysed using an ANCOVA (Analysis of Covariance) with randomised treatment and stratification factor, sex as fixed effect and baseline HbA1c as a covariate. Missing values were imputed using Jump to reference method.|Treatment difference|-0.82||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|-0.39|||ANCOVA|||||-0.39|-1.25|0.0002
91048483|NCT05486065|181981879|SUPERIORITY|The change in HbA1c from baseline was analysed using an ANCOVA (Analysis of Covariance) with randomised treatment and stratification factor, sex as fixed effect and baseline HbA1c as a covariate. Missing values were imputed using Jump to reference method.|Treatment difference|-0.77||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|-0.35|||ANCOVA|||||-0.35|-1.19|0.0003
91048484|NCT05486065|181981879|SUPERIORITY|The change in HbA1c from baseline was analysed using an ANCOVA (Analysis of Covariance) with randomised treatment and stratification factor, sex as fixed effect and baseline HbA1c as a covariate. Missing values were imputed using Jump to reference method.|Treatment difference|-1.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.64|||ANCOVA|||||-0.64|-1.50|<.0001
91002863|NCT06048809|181889152|OTHER|||||||0.109114|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Bacteroidales\_\[G-2\] bacterium\_HMT\_274: Change from Baseline at Week 6||||0.109114
91002864|NCT06048809|181889152|OTHER|||||||0.11083|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Actinomyces sp.\_HMT\_175\_nov 97.951%: Change from Baseline at Week 6||||0.11083
91002865|NCT06048809|181889152|OTHER|||||||0.120377|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Slackia exigua: Change from Baseline at Week 6||||0.120377
91002866|NCT06048809|181889152|OTHER|||||||0.123758|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Granulicatella adiacens: Change from Baseline at Week 6||||0.123758
91002867|NCT06048809|181889152|OTHER|||||||0.123992|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Prevotella oris: Change from Baseline at Week 6||||0.123992
91002868|NCT06048809|181889152|OTHER|||||||0.133385|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Streptococcus sp.\_HMT\_064: Change from Baseline at Week 6||||0.133385
91002869|NCT06048809|181889152|OTHER|||||||0.144598|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Schaalia odontolyticus: Change from Baseline at Week 6||||0.144598
91002870|NCT06048809|181889152|OTHER|||||||0.147278|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Mogibacterium diversum: Change from Baseline at Week 6||||0.147278
91002871|NCT06048809|181889152|OTHER|||||||0.148674|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Prevotella denticola: Change from Baseline at Week 6||||0.148674
91002872|NCT06048809|181889152|OTHER|||||||0.149722|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Absconditabacteria\_(SR1)\_\[G-1\] bacterium\_HMT\_875: Change from Baseline at Week 6||||0.149722
91002873|NCT06048809|181889152|OTHER|||||||0.154465|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Prevotella nigrescens: Change from Baseline at Week 6||||0.154465
91002874|NCT06048809|181889152|OTHER|||||||0.158139|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Streptococcus chosunense: Change from Baseline at Week 6||||0.158139
91002875|NCT01156363|181889157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9825|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Change from baseline to Month 1: analysis was performed using paired t-test.||||0.9825
91002876|NCT01156363|181889157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5737|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Change from baseline to Month 1: analysis was performed using paired t-test.||||0.5737
91002877|NCT01156363|181889157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5703|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Change from baseline to Month 1: analysis was performed using paired t-test.||||0.5703
91002878|NCT01156363|181889157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5684|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Change from baseline to Month 1: analysis was performed using paired t-test.||||0.5684
91002879|NCT01156363|181889157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8235|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Change from baseline to Month 2: analysis was performed using paired t-test.||||0.8235
91002880|NCT01156363|181889157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2384|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Change from baseline to Month 2: analysis was performed using paired t-test.||||0.2384
91002881|NCT01156363|181889157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1634|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Change from baseline to Month 2: analysis was performed using paired t-test.||||0.1634
91002882|NCT01156363|181889157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7816|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Change from baseline to Month 2: analysis was performed using paired t-test.||||0.7816
91002883|NCT01156363|181889157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3917|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Change from baseline to Month 3: analysis was performed using paired t-test.||||0.3917
91002884|NCT01156363|181889157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1749|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Change from baseline to Month 3: analysis was performed using paired t-test.||||0.1749
91002885|NCT01156363|181889157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Change from baseline to Month 3: analysis was performed using paired t-test.||||<0.001
91002886|NCT01156363|181889157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0905|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Change from baseline to Month 3: analysis was performed using paired t-test.||||0.0905
91002887|NCT01156363|181889157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3766|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Change from baseline to Month 4: analysis was performed using paired t-test.||||0.3766
91002888|NCT01156363|181889157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0253|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Change from baseline to Month 4: analysis was performed using paired t-test.||||0.0253
91002889|NCT01156363|181889157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0209|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Change from baseline to Month 4: analysis was performed using paired t-test.||||0.0209
91002890|NCT01156363|181889157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8206|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Change from baseline to Month 4: analysis was performed using paired t-test.||||0.8206
91002891|NCT01156363|181889157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0907|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Change from baseline to Month 5: analysis was performed using paired t-test.||||0.0907
91048485|NCT05486065|181981879|OTHER||Treatment difference|0.05||||0.8305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.47|||ANCOVA|||The change in HbA1c from baseline was analysed using an ANCOVA (Analysis of Covariance) with randomised treatment and stratification factor, sex as fixed effect and baseline HbA1c as a covariate. Missing values were imputed using Jump to reference method.||0.47|-0.38|0.8305
91048486|NCT05486065|181981879|OTHER|The change in HbA1c from baseline was analysed using an ANCOVA (Analysis of Covariance) with randomised treatment and stratification factor, sex as fixed effect and baseline HbA1c as a covariate. Missing values were imputed using Jump to reference method.|Treatment difference|-0.3||||0.1678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.13|||ANCOVA|||||0.13|-0.72|0.1678
91048487|NCT05486065|181981879|OTHER|The change in HbA1c from baseline was analysed using an ANCOVA (Analysis of Covariance) with randomised treatment and stratification factor, sex as fixed effect and baseline HbA1c as a covariate. Missing values were imputed using Jump to reference method.|Treatment difference|-0.25||||0.2445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.17|||ANCOVA|||||0.17|-0.67|0.2445
91048488|NCT00486018|181981883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares means|9.4|||<|0.0001||95.0|6.6|12.2||The Hochberg-Bonferroni multiple comparison procedure was used to adjust for comparisons of the two ranibizumab groups with the sham-injection group to maintain an overall type I error rate of 0.05.|ANOVA|Stratified by baseline visual acuity score (≤ 34, 35-54, ≥ 55 letters).||||12.2|6.6|<0.0001
91048489|NCT00486018|181981883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares means|10.6|||<|0.0001||95.0|7.6|13.6||The Hochberg-Bonferroni multiple comparison procedure was used to adjust for comparisons of the two ranibizumab groups with the sham-injection group to maintain an overall type I error rate of 0.05.|ANOVA|Stratified by baseline visual acuity score (≤ 34, 35-54, ≥ 55 letters).||||13.6|7.6|<0.0001
91048490|NCT00486018|181981884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|26.8|||<|0.0001||95.0|15.6|38.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel χ²|Stratified by baseline visual acuity score (≤ 34, 35-54, ≥ 55 letters).|Weighted estimates adjusted for baseline visual acuity score (≤ 34, 35-54, ≥ 55 letters) using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|||38.0|15.6|<0.0001
91048491|NCT00486018|181981884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|31.3|||<|0.0001||95.0|20.1|42.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel χ²|Stratified by baseline visual acuity score (≤ 34, 35-54, ≥ 55 letters).|Weighted estimates adjusted for baseline visual acuity score (≤ 34, 35-54, ≥ 55 letters) using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|||42.6|20.1|<0.0001
91048492|NCT00486018|181981885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|4.5||||0.0141||95.0|1.6|9.9|||Fisher Exact||Exact confidence interval based on inverting the exact two-sided score test.|||9.9|1.6|0.0141
91048493|NCT00486018|181981885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|3.0||||0.2815||95.0|-1.5|8.3|||Fisher Exact||Exact confidence interval based on inverting the exact two-sided score test.|||8.3|-1.5|0.2815
90890007|NCT01571362|181644029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|-0.44|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Randomization Baseline to Week 12/Early Termination.||-0.44|-1.27|<0.0001
91048494|NCT00486018|181981886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|45.5|||<|0.0001||95.0|36.0|55.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel χ²|Stratified by baseline visual acuity score (≤ 34, 35-54, ≥ 55 letters).|Weighted estimates adjusted for baseline visual acuity score (≤ 34, 35-54, ≥ 55 letters) using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|||55.0|36.0|<0.0001
91048495|NCT00486018|181981886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|40.1|||<|0.0001||95.0|29.9|50.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel χ²|Stratified by baseline visual acuity score (≤ 34, 35-54, ≥ 55 letters).|Weighted estimates adjusted for baseline visual acuity score (≤ 34, 35-54, ≥ 55 letters) using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|||50.2|29.9|<0.0001
91048496|NCT00486018|181981887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares means|-148.7|||<|0.0001||95.0|-183.6|-113.8|||ANCOVA|Pairwise ANCOVA models adjusted for baseline visual acuity score (≤ 34, 35-54, ≥ 55 letters) and baseline value of central foveal thickness.||||-113.8|-183.6|<0.0001
91048497|NCT00486018|181981887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares means|-134.8|||<|0.0001||95.0|-172.7|-96.8|||ANCOVA|Pairwise ANCOVA models adjusted for baseline visual acuity score (≤ 34, 35-54, ≥ 55 letters) and baseline value of central foveal thickness.||||-96.8|-172.7|<0.0001
91048498|NCT00486018|181981888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares means|4.1||||0.0214||95.0|0.6|7.6|||ANCOVA|Pairwise ANCOVA models adjusted for baseline visual acuity score (≤ 34, 35-54, ≥ 55 letters) and baseline Near Activities Subscale score.||||7.6|0.6|0.0214
91048499|NCT00486018|181981888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares means|6.4||||0.0002||95.0|3.0|9.8|||ANCOVA|Pairwise ANCOVA models adjusted for baseline visual acuity score (≤ 34, 35-54, ≥ 55 letters) and baseline Near Activities Subscale score.||||9.8|3.0|0.0002
91048500|NCT00486018|181981889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares means|3.8||||0.0248||95.0|0.5|7.0|||ANCOVA|Pairwise ANCOVA models adjusted for baseline visual acuity score (≤ 34, 35-54, ≥ 55 letters) and baseline Distance Activities Subscale score.||||7.0|0.5|0.0248
91048501|NCT00486018|181981889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares means|5.1||||0.0014||95.0|2.0|8.3|||ANCOVA|Pairwise ANCOVA models adjusted for baseline visual acuity score (≤ 34, 35-54, ≥ 55 letters) and baseline Distance Activities Subscale score.||||8.3|2.0|0.0014
91048502|NCT03179163|181981890|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|||=|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||A priori power analysis (power = 0.80,a= 0.05) confirmed a sample size of n= 10 was needed to determine a meaningful difference of 10% in the (flux/MAP)\*logAch(mol/L) . All data were analyzed with repeated-measures ANOVA . When appropriate, post hoc Tukey-Kramer corrections were applied to correct for multiple comparisons. Significance was set a priori at a\<0.05.||||=0.01
91048503|NCT02858726|181981893|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and covariates for prior anti-itch medication usage and baseline score.||||-0.8|-2.8|<0.001
91048504|NCT02858726|181981893|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and covariates for prior anti-itch medication usage and baseline score.||||0.2|-1.9|0.107
91002892|NCT01156363|181889157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0177|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Change from baseline to Month 5: analysis was performed using paired t-test.||||0.0177
91002893|NCT01156363|181889157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Change from baseline to Month 5: analysis was performed using paired t-test.||||0.0050
91002894|NCT01156363|181889157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3724|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Change from baseline to Month 5: analysis was performed using paired t-test.||||0.3724
91002895|NCT01156363|181889157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2796|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Change from baseline to Month 6: analysis was performed using paired t-test.||||0.2796
91002896|NCT01156363|181889157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0066|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Change from baseline to Month 6: analysis was performed using paired t-test.||||0.0066
91002897|NCT01156363|181889157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0081|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Change from baseline to Month 6: analysis was performed using paired t-test.||||0.0081
91002898|NCT01156363|181889157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7853|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Change from baseline to Month 6: analysis was performed using paired t-test.||||0.7853
91002899|NCT01156363|181889157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Change from baseline to Month 7: analysis was performed using paired t-test.||||0.0039
91002900|NCT01156363|181889157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3057|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Change from baseline to Month 7: analysis was performed using paired t-test.||||0.3057
91002901|NCT01156363|181889157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3374|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Change from baseline to Month 7: analysis was performed using paired t-test.||||0.3374
91002902|NCT01156363|181889157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.141|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Change from baseline to Month 7: analysis was performed using paired t-test.||||0.1410
91002903|NCT01156363|181889157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Change from baseline to Month 8: analysis was performed using paired t-test.||||0.0017
91002904|NCT01156363|181889157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0677|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Change from baseline to Month 8: analysis was performed using paired t-test.||||0.0677
91002905|NCT01156363|181889157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1608|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Change from baseline to Month 8: analysis was performed using paired t-test.||||0.1608
91002906|NCT01156363|181889157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0196|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Change from baseline to Month 8: analysis was performed using paired t-test.||||0.0196
91002907|NCT00617162|181889210|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6||||0.3989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|2.2|||Fisher Exact|||||2.2|-5.5|0.3989
91002908|NCT00735072|181889219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.014||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: there will be no difference in the week 24 change in %activated CD8+ T cells between arms. Assuming a standard deviation as high as 3.5% and a Type I error of 5%, with 21 subjects in each treatment arm we would have 80% statistical power to detect a mean 3 percentage-point difference in the percent of activated CD8+ T cells between the active drug and placebo groups.||||0.014
91002909|NCT00735072|181889220|OTHER|||||||0.97|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.97
91002910|NCT00735072|181889221|OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.33
91002911|NCT01291511|181889234|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|5.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|8.4|||Log Rank|||||8.4|3.2|<0.0001
91002912|NCT01291511|181889235|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value is based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and site as main effects and DBRP baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91002913|NCT01291511|181889237|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0062||||||P-value is based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and site as main effects and DBRP baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.0062
91002914|NCT00047008|181889258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.719|1.128|||Log Rank|||A sample size of 684 analyzable patients provides 80% power to detect a relative reduction of 25% in the rate of death in the accelerated-fractionation radiotherapy group as compared with the standard-fractionation radiotherapy group, assuming a 2-year rate of overall survival of 45% in the standard-fractionation radiotherapy group, with the use of a one-sided log-rank test at the 0.05 significance level.||1.128|0.719|0.180
91002915|NCT00047008|181889259|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.43||One-sided significance level = 0.05|Gray's test|||||1.43|0.83|0.76
91002916|NCT00047008|181889260|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.44||One-sided significance level = 0.05|Gray's test|||||1.44|0.85|0.80
91002917|NCT00047008|181889261|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.2||One-sided significance level = 0.05|Log Rank|||||1.20|0.81|0.42
91002918|NCT00047008|181889262|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.23||One-sided significance level = 0.05|Log Rank|||||1.23|0.81|0.50
91002919|NCT00047008|181889263|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21||||||Two-side significance level = 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Acute toxicity||||0.21
91002920|NCT00047008|181889263|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18||||||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Late toxicity||||0.18
91002921|NCT00047008|181889264|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92||||||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Two hundred and fifty-two patients (126/arm) provide at least 86% power to detect a difference of 7 (standard deviation 18) between arms with a two-sided significance level of 0.05.||||0.92
91002922|NCT00047008|181889265|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67||||||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Two hundred and fifty-two patients (126/arm) provide at least 86% power to detect a difference of 7 (standard deviation 18) between arms with a two-sided significance level of 0.05.||||0.67
91002923|NCT00047008|181889266|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43||||||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Two hundred and fifty-two patients (126/arm) provide at least 86% power to detect a difference of 7 (standard deviation 18) between arms with a two-sided significance level of 0.05.||||0.43
91002924|NCT00047008|181889267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39||||||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Two hundred and fifty-two patients (126/arm) provide at least 86% power to detect a difference of 7 (standard deviation 18) between arms with a two-sided significance level of 0.05.||||0.39
91002925|NCT02773368|181889275|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of IDegLira was considered confirmed if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for mean treatment difference (IDegLira minus IGlar) was strictly below 0.3%.|Treatment Contrast|-0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.2|||ANCOVA||IDegLira minus IGlar|Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, pre-trial OAD, region as factors and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Data obtained after premature treatment discontinuation are included in the analysis. Missing data was imputed using unconditional reference based multiple imputation including data obtained after premature treatment discontinuation. The non-inferiority margin of 0.3 % was added to the end-of-treatment value for prematurely discontinued and withdrawn from trial IDegLira subjects.||-0.20|-0.48|
91002926|NCT02773368|181889275|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of IDegLira was considered confirmed if the test procedure was not stopped (i.e. non-inferiority of IDegLira was confirmed for change from baseline in HbA1c; and superiority of IDegLira was confirmed for weight change and the number of treatment-emergent severe or BG confirmed symptomatic hypoglycaemic episodes) and if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the mean treatment difference (IDegLira minus IGlar) in change from baseline in HbA1c was strictly below 0%.|Treatment Contrast|-0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.21|||ANCOVA||IDegLira minus IGlar|This endpoint was analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment, pre-trial OAD and region as factors and corresponding baseline value as covariate. Data obtained after premature treatment discontinuation were included in the analysis. Missing data were imputed using unconditional reference based multiple imputation including data obtained after premature treatment discontinuation.||-0.21|-0.50|
91002927|NCT02773368|181889276|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of IDegLira was considered confirmed if the test procedure was not stopped (i.e. non-inferiority of IDegLira was confirmed for change from baseline in HbA1c) and if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the mean treatment difference (IDegLira minus IGlar) in change from baseline in body weight was strictly below 0 kg.|Treatment Contrast|-1.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.64|-1.19|||ANCOVA||IDegLira minus IGlar|This endpoint was analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment, pre-trial OAD and region as factors and corresponding baseline weight as covariate. Data obtained after premature treatment discontinuation were included in the analysis. Missing data were imputed using unconditional reference based multiple imputation including data obtained after premature treatment discontinuation.||-1.19|-2.64|
91002928|NCT02773368|181889277|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of IDegLira was considered confirmed if the test procedure was not stopped (i.e. non-inferiority of IDegLira was confirmed for change from baseline in HbA1c and superiority of IDegLira was confirmed for change from baseline in body weight) and if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the rate ratio (IDegLira over IGlar) of rate of treatment-emergent severe or BG confirmed symptomatic hypoglycaemic episodes was strictly below 1.|Treatment Ratio|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.75|||Negative binomial regression model||IDegLira over IGlar|This endpoint was analysed using a negative binomial regression model with a log link and the logarithm of the exposure time as offset. The model included treatment and pre-trial OAD as fixed factors. Missing data were imputed using multiple imputations (conditioning on expected event rate before premature treatment discontinuation or withdrawal from trial as if treated with IGlar).||0.75|0.23|
91002929|NCT02773368|181889278|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of IDegLira was considered confirmed if the test procedure was not stopped (i.e. non-inferiority of IDegLira was confirmed for change from baseline in HbA1c; and superiority of IDegLira was confirmed for weight change, number of treatment-emergent severe or BG confirmed symptomatic hypoglycaemic episodes and change in HbA1c) and if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the mean treatment difference (IDegLira minus IGlar) in insulin dose after 26 weeks was strictly below 0 U.|Treatment Contrast|-15.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.6|-11.13|||ANCOVA||IDegLira minus IGlar|The endpoint was analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment, pre-trial OAD and region as factors and corresponding baseline HbA1c as covariate. Missing data were imputed using unconditional reference based multiple imputation including data obtained after premature treatment discontinuation.||-11.13|-19.60|
91002930|NCT01665872|181889308|EQUIVALENCE|A Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test was used to test for equivalence. A p-value of 0.05 was used to determine if the difference falls out of the equivalence limits.||||||0.172|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.172
91002931|NCT01665872|181889309|EQUIVALENCE|A Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test was used to test for equivalence. A p-value of 0.05 was used to determine if the difference falls out of the equivalence limits.||||||0.5337|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Are CES-D scores at 12 months different between groups?||||0.5337
91002932|NCT01665872|181889310|EQUIVALENCE|A Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test was used to test for equivalence. A p-value of 0.05 was used to determine if the difference falls out of the equivalence limits.||||||0.092||||||This test looks at a difference in Parental Distress at the 12 month follow-up between groups.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0920
91002933|NCT01665872|181889310|EQUIVALENCE|A Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test was used to test for equivalence. A p-value of 0.05 was used to determine if the difference falls out of the equivalence limits.||||||0.3352||||||This test looks at a difference in Parent-Child Dysfunctional Interaction at the 12 month follow-up between groups.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3352
91048505|NCT02858726|181981893|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and covariates for prior anti-itch medication usage and baseline score.||||-0.2|-2.3|0.019
91048506|NCT02858726|181981894|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|-4.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and covariates for prior anti-itch medication usage and baseline score.||||-4.8|-16.0|<0.001
91048507|NCT02858726|181981894|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|-1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and covariates for prior anti-itch medication usage and baseline score.||||-1.4|-13.1|0.016
91048508|NCT02858726|181981894|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|-0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and covariates for prior anti-itch medication usage and baseline score.||||-0.8|-12.8|0.026
91002934|NCT01665872|181889310|EQUIVALENCE|A Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test was used to test for equivalence. A p-value of 0.05 was used to determine if the difference falls out of the equivalence limits.||||||0.0404||||||This test looks at a difference in Difficult Child at the 12 month follow-up between groups.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0404
91002935|NCT01665872|181889310|EQUIVALENCE|A Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test was used to test for equivalence. A p-value of 0.05 was used to determine if the difference falls out of the equivalence limits.||||||0.0915||||||This test looks at a difference in PSI total score (percentile) at the 12 month follow-up between groups.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0915
91002936|NCT01665872|181889311|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-square was used with a p-value of 0.05 to determine if the difference was statistically greater than 0.||||||0.2914|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2914
91002937|NCT01929018|181889314|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test null hypothesis that there is no difference between groups from baseline to 12-week test.||||0.87
91002938|NCT01929018|181889314|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test null hypothesis that there is no difference between groups from baseline to 24-week test.||||0.38
91002939|NCT01929018|181889315|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test null hypothesis that there is no difference between groups from baseline to 12-week test.||||0.75
91048509|NCT04560998|181981895|SUPERIORITY||The Hodges-Lehmann estimate|1.13||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.056|1.211|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.211|1.056|0.0004
91048510|NCT04560998|181981896|SUPERIORITY||The Hodges-Lehmann estimate|1.08||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.004|1.156|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.156|1.004|0.0380
91048511|NCT04560998|181981897|SUPERIORITY||The Hodges-Lehmann estimate|1.0||||0.0108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.478|1.518|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.518|0.478|0.0108
91048512|NCT04560998|181981898|SUPERIORITY||The Hodges-Lehmann Estimate|1.11||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.033|1.197|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.197|1.033|0.0046
91048513|NCT00595335|181981950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of the change between the two groups' CAS score at 6 months.||||0.73
91048514|NCT00595335|181981951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of the change between the two groups' failure rate at 6 months.||||0.75
91048515|NCT00595335|181981951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of the change between the two groups' failure rate at 12 months.||||0.85
91048516|NCT00595335|181981953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of the change between the two groups in proptosis in the right eye at 12 months.||||0.97
91048517|NCT00595335|181981953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of the change between the two groups in change in proptosis in left eye at 12 months.||||0.86
91048518|NCT00595335|181981954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of the change in lid fissure in the right eye between the two groups.||||0.98
91048519|NCT00595335|181981954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of the change in lid fissure in the left eye between the two groups.||||0.49
91048520|NCT00595335|181981955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of change between groups in extraocular motility at 6 months.||||0.21
91048521|NCT00595335|181981955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of change between groups in extraocular motility at 12 months.||||0.64
91048522|NCT00595335|181981956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of the arms for QoL SF-12 physical score at 6 months.||||0.36
91048523|NCT00595335|181981956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.91|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of the arms for QoL SF-12 mental score at 6 months.||||0.91
91048524|NCT00595335|181981956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of the arms for QoL SF-12 physical score at 12 months.||||0.29
91048525|NCT00595335|181981956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of the arms for QoL SF-12 mental score at 12 months.||||0.18
91048526|NCT00595335|181981957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of the change between the two groups' failure rate at 12 months.||||0.85
91002940|NCT01929018|181889315|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test null hypothesis that there is no difference between groups from baseline to 24-week test.||||0.11
91002941|NCT01929018|181889316|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test null hypothesis that there is no difference between groups from baseline to 12-week test.||||0.11
91002942|NCT01929018|181889316|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test null hypothesis that there is no difference between groups from baseline to 24-week test.||||0.23
91002943|NCT01929018|181889317|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test null hypothesis that there is no difference between groups from baseline to 12-week test.||||0.27
91002944|NCT01929018|181889317|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test null hypothesis that there is no difference between groups from baseline to 24-week test.||||0.58
91002945|NCT01929018|181889318|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test null hypothesis that there is no difference between groups from baseline to 12-week test.||||0.83
91002946|NCT01929018|181889318|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test null hypothesis that there is no difference between groups from baseline to 24-week test.||||0.13
91002947|NCT01929018|181889319|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Test null hypothesis that there is no difference between groups from baseline to 12-week test.||||0.03
91002948|NCT01929018|181889319|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Test null hypothesis that there is no difference between groups from baseline to 24-week test.||||0.02
91002949|NCT01929018|181889320|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test null hypothesis that there is no difference between groups from baseline to 12-week test.||||0.03
91002950|NCT01929018|181889320|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test null hypothesis that there is no difference between groups from baseline to 24-week test.||||0.06
91002951|NCT01929018|181889321|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test null hypothesis that there is no difference between groups from baseline to 12-week test.||||0.62
91002952|NCT01929018|181889321|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test null hypothesis that there is no difference between groups from baseline to 24-week test.||||0.40
91002953|NCT01929018|181889322|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test null hypothesis that there is no difference between groups from baseline to 12-week test.||||0.96
91002954|NCT01929018|181889322|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test null hypothesis that there is no difference between groups from baseline to 24-week test.||||0.35
91002955|NCT01047436|181889330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference between treatments|26.7||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|53.7|||Fisher Exact|||The sample size was not statistically determined in this initial trial with ArTimist. For the primary outcome analysis, the percentage of patients defined as having success were determined. The difference between ArTiMist and quinine, along with its 95% confidence interval (CI) were determined. The difference between treatments were compared using Fisher's Exact test||53.7|-0.3|0.17
91002956|NCT01047436|181889332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|3.01|||Log Rank|||The time for the parasite count to fall by 90% (PCT90) was determined for each patient as the time in minutes/seconds, when the parasite count fell by 90% The PCT90 was appropriately summarised for each treatment for the FAS . The times were presented graphically for each endpoint using a life-table curve (Kaplan-Meier method). For each endpoint the survival curves were compared by the log-rank test. The hazard ratio was calculated along with its 95% CI.||3.01|0.48|0.70
91002957|NCT01047436|181889334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.76||95.0|0.34|2.18||Difference between survival curves compared by Log Rank test|Log Rank|||The PCT50 was determined for each patient as the time in minutes/seconds, when the parasite count fell by 50% The PCT50 was appropriately summarised for each treatment for the FAS . The times were presented graphically for each endpoint using a life-table curve (Kaplan-Meier method). For each endpoint the survival curves were compared by the log-rank test. The hazard ratio was calculated along with its 95% CI.||2.18|0.34|0.76
91002958|NCT01789255|181889344|OTHER|||||||0.02642|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.02642
91002959|NCT01789255|181889345|OTHER|||||||0.028|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.028
91002960|NCT02635867|181889346|SUPERIORITY|Descriptive data and rates of success were calculated independently for indirect and direct therapies. Statistical analyses of proportions were done using Fisher's test and 95% confidence intervals (CI)|||||>|0.1|||||||Fisher Exact|||"The clinical outcome measures assessed were pain using visual analog pain scale, pulp vitality assessment at 12 months.~The success rate was based on 3 measures of pulp vitality that resulted in a diagnosis of vital or nonvital:~Vital: palpation = negative/ percussion = negative/ response to cold stimuli= positive response Non vital: palpation = positive / percussion = positive. / response to cold stimuli= positive or delayed response time in seconds and lingering."||||>0.1
91002961|NCT02128958|181889348|OTHER|||||||0.536|||||||Log Rank|||The between-treatment comparison (CF102 vs Placebo) of Overall Survival will be performed using the log rank test as the primary analysis.||||0.536
91002962|NCT02128958|181889349|OTHER|||||||0.371|||||||Log Rank|||The between-treatment comparison (CF102 vs Placebo) of Time to Progression will be performed using the log rank test as the primary analysis.||||.371
91002963|NCT02128958|181889350|OTHER|||||||0.521|||||||Log Rank|||The between-treatment comparison (CF102 vs Placebo) will be performed on Time to Progression Free Survival using the logrank test.||||0.521
91002964|NCT02128958|181889353|OTHER|||||||0.988|||||||ANCOVA|||Between-treatment comparisons of ALT will be performed at Cycle 11 Day 15 using ANCOVA with CFB as the dependent variable and the Baseline value of the variable as the covariate.||||0.988
91002965|NCT02128958|181889353|OTHER|||||||0.989|||||||ANCOVA|||Between-treatment comparisons of AST will be performed at Cycle 11 Day 15 using ANCOVA with CFB as the dependent variable and the Baseline value of the variable as the covariate.||||0.989
91002966|NCT02128958|181889353|OTHER|||||||0.717|||||||ANCOVA|||Between-treatment comparisons of Albumin will be performed at Cycle 11 Day 15 using ANCOVA with CFB as the dependent variable and the Baseline value of the variable as the covariate.||||0.717
91002967|NCT02128958|181889353|OTHER|||||||0.891|||||||ANCOVA|||Between-treatment comparisons of Bilirubin (direct) will be performed at Cycle 11 Day 15 using ANCOVA with CFB as the dependent variable and the Baseline value of the variable as the covariate.||||0.891
91002968|NCT02128958|181889353|OTHER|||||||0.275|||||||ANCOVA|||Between-treatment comparisons of Bilirubin (Total) will be performed at Cycle 11 Day 15 using ANCOVA with CFB as the dependent variable and the Baseline value of the variable as the covariate.||||0.275
91002969|NCT02128958|181889353|OTHER|||||||0.549|||||||ANCOVA|||Between-treatment comparisons of PT will be performed at Cycle 11 Day 15 using ANCOVA with CFB as the dependent variable and the Baseline value of the variable as the covariate.||||0.549
91002970|NCT02128958|181889353|OTHER|||||||0.479|||||||ANCOVA|||Between-treatment comparisons of INR will be performed at Cycle 11 Day 15 using ANCOVA with CFB as the dependent variable and the Baseline value of the variable as the covariate.||||0.479
91002971|NCT02565576|181889361|SUPERIORITY||estimate of contrast posterior median|-1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.41|1.14|||bayesian|||Primary analysis was performed on the PD analysis set. Changes from baseline in QMG scores at Week 25 were analyzed using a Bayesian model. The model investigated effects for treatment (CFZ533 or placebo) and baseline QMG score. A difference of 3 points on the mean change in QMG score between CFZ533 and placebo was deemed a clinical meaningful effect.||1.14|-3.41|
91002972|NCT00282568|181889372|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% Confidence Interval for the ratio of the natural log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters fell within an 80% to 125% range, then the exposure between the two formulations was considered to be equivalent.|Ratio of means|94.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.72|99.41|||||Tacrolimus/tacrolimus MR ratio of natural log transformed means expressed as a percent.|The method of analysis of variance with repeated measures was used for the comparisons of AUC0-24. Exposure at steady state was used for tacrolimus (steady state was defined as days 1 and 7) and for tacrolimus MR (steady state was defined as days 14 and 21). The natural log (ln) was used to transform AUC0-24 prior to analysis and the results were transformed back to the original scale for the presentation of results.||99.41|90.72|
91002973|NCT00282568|181889374|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CI for the ratio of the natural log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters fell within an 80% to 125% range, then the exposure between the two formulations was considered to be equivalent.|Ratio of means|88.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.69|93.96|||||Tacrolimus/tacrolimus MR ratio of natural log transformed means expressed as a percent.|The method of analysis of variance with repeated measures was used for the comparisons of Cmax. Exposure at steady state was used for tacrolimus (steady state was defined as days 1 and 7) and for tacrolimus MR (steady state was defined as days 14 and 21). The natural log (ln) was used to transform Cmax prior to analysis and the results were transformed back to the original scale for the presentation of results.||93.96|82.69|
91002974|NCT00282568|181889375|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CI for the ratio of the natural log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters fell within an 80% to 125% range, then the exposure between the two formulations was considered to be equivalent.|Ratio of means|87.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.72|91.93|||||Tacrolimus/tacrolimus MR ratio of natural log transformed means expressed as a percent.|The method of analysis of variance with repeated measures was used for the comparisons of Cmin. Exposure at steady state was used for tacrolimus (steady state was defined as days 1 and 7) and for tacrolimus MR (steady state was defined as days 14 and 21). The natural log (ln) was used to transform Cmin prior to analysis and the results were transformed back to the original scale for the presentation of results.||91.93|82.72|
91002975|NCT00796003|181889431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Overall Response Rate|26.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|14.6|41.6|||Binomial test|one-tailed 5% level at a significance level||Null Hypothesis: Overall Remission Rate = 5%||41.6|14.6|<0.0001
91002976|NCT03185819|181889442|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.74|=|0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.19|-0.35||Threshold for significance for p-value was 0.05.|ANCOVA|||A pooled (54 mg and 84 mg) sequential multiple testing procedure was implemented to control type I error by comparing pooled data against midazolam + placebo matched to esketamine nasal spray.||-0.35|-11.19|= 0.037
91002977|NCT03185819|181889442|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|-5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.65|=|0.123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.91|1.55||Threshold for significance for p-value was 0.05.|ANCOVA|||Individual esketamine dose (84 mg versus medazolam + esketamine matched placebo) independent testing was planned to be performed after pooled (56 mg + 84 mg) analysis.||1.55|-12.91|= 0.123
91002978|NCT03185819|181889442|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.23|=|0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.25|0.53||Threshold for significance for p-value was 0.05.|ANCOVA|||Individual esketamine dose (56 mg versus medazolam + esketamine matched placebo) independent testing was planned to be performed after pooled (56 mg + 84 mg) analysis.||0.53|-12.25|= 0.072
91002979|NCT03185819|181889442|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.35|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.08|4.19||||||||4.19|-9.08|
91002980|NCT02977507|181889451|OTHER|||||||0.041|||||||Paired t-test|||Testing hypothesis was that the mean change from baseline was zero.||||0.041
91002981|NCT02977507|181889451|OTHER|||||||0.0005|||||||Paired t-test|||Testing hypothesis was that the mean change from baseline was zero.||||0.0005
91002982|NCT02977507|181889452|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Paired t-test|||Testing hypothesis was that the mean change from baseline was zero.||||0.002
91002983|NCT02977507|181889452|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Testing hypothesis was that the mean change from baseline was zero.||||0.0001
91002984|NCT02977507|181889453|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Paired t-test|||Testing hypothesis was that the mean change from baseline was zero.||||0.004
91002985|NCT02977507|181889453|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Paired t-test|||Testing hypothesis was that the mean change from baseline was zero.||||0.001
91048527|NCT01013649|181981965|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.38||One-sided significance level = 0.15|Log Rank||Reference level = Arm I|A total of 200 deaths between the arms will provide 80% power to detect a signal for an increase in median overall survival from 22 to 28.8 months and 90% power to detect a signal for an increase in median overall survival from 22 to 30.6 months (HRs of 0.76 and 0.72, respectively, in favor of the erlotinib arm) with the addition of erlotinib and a 1-sided alpha of 0.15||1.38|0.79|0.62
91048528|NCT01013649|181981966|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.79|1.18||One-sided significance level = 0.05.|Log Rank||Reference level = Arm III|316 deaths from step 2 randomized patients provides 80% power, with 0.05 1-sided alpha, to detect an OS increase (HR=0.76 in favor of arm IV), corresponding to increasing median OS from 17 to 22.5 months with the addition of RT. For analysis triggered by patients having 5 years potential follow-up from step 2 randomization, it is projected that at least 265 events will be observed, providing at least 72% power. The trigger used for the primary analysis was 5-years of follow-up (270 deaths).||1.18|0.79|0.38
91048529|NCT01013649|181981967|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.31|||||Reference level = Arm I|||1.31|0.80|
91002986|NCT02977507|181889457|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Paired t-test|||Testing hypothesis was that the mean change from baseline was zero.||||0.003
91002987|NCT02977507|181889457|OTHER|||||||0.0007|||||||Paired t-test|||Testing hypothesis was that the mean change from baseline was zero.||||0.0007
91048530|NCT01013649|181981968|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.68|0.99|||||Reference level = Arm III|||0.99|0.68|
91048531|NCT01131299|181981996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The minimum sample size to detect an 8 mg/dl change in total plasma cholesterol between the placebo and alpha cyclodextrin periods is 62 subjects. The power is 80% by using the normal approximation to a one-sample (paired) two-tail t-test at an alpha of 0.05.||||0.82
91048532|NCT01131299|181981997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04
91048533|NCT01131299|181981998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
91048534|NCT01131299|181981999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04
91002988|NCT02977507|181889459|OTHER|||||||0.569|||||||Paired t-test|||Melanin index: Testing hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is zero.||||0.569
91002989|NCT02977507|181889459|OTHER|||||||9e-05|||||||Paired t-test|||Melanin index: Testing hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is zero.||||0.00009
91002990|NCT02977507|181889459|OTHER|||||||0.821|||||||Paired t-test|||Erythema: Testing hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is zero.||||0.821
91048535|NCT00118378|181982031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
91048536|NCT00118378|181982032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91048537|NCT00118378|181982033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||Week 4 CD4 cell count||||.150
91048538|NCT00118378|181982034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||.459
91048539|NCT02287909|181982035|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|-6.9|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|985.0|-38.0|24.0|||ANCOVA|||||24|-38|>0.05
91048540|NCT02130583|181982083|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.06||||0.034|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.034
91048541|NCT03702049|181982112|OTHER|Change in score at 3 months|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.603|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in score at 3 months||||0.603
91048542|NCT03702049|181982112|OTHER|Change at 6 months|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.805|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||6 month outcome||||0.805
91048543|NCT03702049|181982113|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.79|||Regression, Logistic|||3 month outcome||1.79|0.39|0.672
91048544|NCT03702049|181982113|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.49||||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.34|||Regression, Logistic|||6 month outcome||1.34|0.18|0.165
91048545|NCT03702049|181982114|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31||||0.719|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||3 month outcome||||0.719
91048546|NCT03702049|181982114|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.43||||0.626|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||6 month outcome||||0.626
91048547|NCT03702049|181982115|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.83||||0.1668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|2.03|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.03|-0.36|0.1668
91048548|NCT03702049|181982116|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5||||0.9198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.6|32.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||3 month outcome||32.7|-29.6|0.9198
91048549|NCT03702049|181982116|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.5||||0.5015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.6|50.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||6 month||50.7|-25.6|0.5015
91048550|NCT03438396|181982121|OTHER|The statistical hypotheses was tested to address ORR \<= 11% vs. ORR \> 11%.||||||0.0002|||||||one-sided exact test|||||||0.0002
91048551|NCT00262041|181982134|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of MenACWY Ad+ vaccine against the serogroup A was assessed to that of the MenACWY PS vaccine if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the difference in proportions was greater than -10%.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥ 1:4 who received MenACWY Ad+ vaccine group against serogroup A compared with that of MenACWY PS vaccine.||||<0.001
91048552|NCT00262041|181982134|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of MenACWY Ad- vaccine against the serogroup A was assessed to that of the MenACWY PS vaccine if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the difference in proportions was greater than -10%.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥ 1:4 who received MenACWY Ad- vaccine group against serogroup A compared with that of MenACWY PS vaccine.||||<0.001
91048553|NCT00262041|181982134|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of MenACWY Ad+ vaccine against the serogroup C was assessed to that of the MenACWY PS vaccine if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the difference in proportions was greater than -10%.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥ 1:4 who received MenACWY Ad+ vaccine group against serogroup C compared with that of MenACWY PS vaccine.||||<0.001
91048554|NCT00262041|181982134|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of MenACWY Ad- vaccine against the serogroup C was assessed to that of the MenACWY PS vaccine if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the difference in proportions was greater than -10%.||||||0.003||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥ 1:4 who received MenACWY Ad- vaccine group against serogroup C compared with that of MenACWY PS vaccine.||||0.003
91048555|NCT00262041|181982134|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of MenACWY Ad+ vaccine against the serogroup W was assessed to that of the MenACWY PS vaccine if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the difference in proportions was greater than -10%.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥ 1:4 who received MenACWY Ad+ vaccine group against serogroup W compared with that of MenACWY PS vaccine.||||<0.001
91048556|NCT00262041|181982134|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of MenACWY Ad- vaccine against the serogroup W was assessed to that of the MenACWY PS vaccine if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the difference in proportions was greater than -10%.||||||0.071||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥ 1:4 who received MenACWY Ad- vaccine group against serogroup W compared with that of MenACWY PS vaccine.||||0.071
91048557|NCT00262041|181982134|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of MenACWY Ad+ vaccine against the serogroup Y was assessed to that of the MenACWY PS vaccine if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the difference in proportions was greater than -10%.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥ 1:4 who received MenACWY Ad+ vaccine group against serogroup Y compared with that of MenACWY PS vaccine.||||<0.001
91048558|NCT00262041|181982134|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of MenACWY Ad- vaccine against the serogroup Y was assessed to that of the MenACWY PS vaccine if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the difference in proportions was greater than -10%.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥ 1:4 who received MenACWY Ad- vaccine group against serogroup Y compared with that of MenACWY PS vaccine.||||<0.001
91048559|NCT02384941|181982155|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for significance \< 0.05.|MMRM|||||||<0.001
91048560|NCT02384941|181982155|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Threshold for significance \< 0.05.|MMRM|||||||< 0.001
91048561|NCT02384941|181982156|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|11.8||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.28|19.36||Threshold for significance \< 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints were reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint of each treatment comparison was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||19.36|4.28|0.002
91048562|NCT02384941|181982156|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|21.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.1|29.64||Threshold for significance \< 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the relevant compared arms).||29.64|14.10|< 0.001
91048563|NCT02384941|181982157|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-2.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.256|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.85|-1.85||Threshold for significance \< 0.05.|MMRM|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the relevant compared arms).||-1.85|-2.85|< 0.001
91048564|NCT02384941|181982157|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-3.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.256|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.95|-2.94||Threshold for significance \< 0.05.|MMRM|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the relevant compared arms).||-2.94|-3.95|< 0.001
91048565|NCT02384941|181982158|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.917||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|0.3||Threshold for significance \< 0.05.|MMRM|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the relevant compared arms).||0.30|-3.30|0.10
91048566|NCT02384941|181982158|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.916|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.09|-1.5||Threshold for significance \< 0.05.|MMRM|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the relevant compared arms).||-1.50|-5.09|< 0.001
91048567|NCT02384941|181982159|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.48||Threshold for significance \< 0.05.|MMRM|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the relevant compared arms).||-0.48|-1.50|< 0.001
91048568|NCT02384941|181982160|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|3.3||Threshold for significance \< 0.05.|MMRM|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the relevant compared arms).||3.3|1.8|< 0.001
91048569|NCT02384941|181982161|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.5||Threshold for significance \< 0.05.|MMRM|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the relevant compared arms).||-0.5|-1.0|< 0.001
91048570|NCT02493777|181982163|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||<0.001
91048571|NCT02493777|181982164|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||<0.001
91048572|NCT00468728|181982165|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The point estimate of the difference and the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference between treatment groups were computed. If the lower limit of the CI was greater than -10%, the clinical non-inferiority of fidaxomicin was demonstrated. CIs for the difference of cure rates were calculated using the method recommended by Agresti and Caffo.|Risk Difference (RD)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|6.8||||||H0: C(OPT-80) - C(VAN) \<= -10% Power calculation is based on cure rate of 85% in both treatment groups, non-inferiority margin of 10%, 2.5% (1-sided) type I error rate with approximately 90% power gives a total of 530 subjects.||6.8|-4.8|
91048573|NCT00468728|181982166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-14.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.6|-7.0|||Chi-squared|||||-7.0|-21.6|<0.001
91048574|NCT00468728|181982167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|13.4||||0.001||95.0|5.4|21.1|||Chi-squared|||||21.1|5.4|0.001
91048575|NCT06005597|181982174|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-48.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.959|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.33|-38.89|||ANCOVA|||||-38.89|-58.33|<.0001
91048576|NCT06005597|181982175|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-27.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.893|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.53|-18.35|||ANCOVA|||||-18.35|-37.53|<.0001
91048577|NCT06005597|181982176|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-16.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.918||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.4|-7.12|||ANCOVA|||||-7.12|-26.40|0.0007
91048578|NCT06005597|181982177|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-31.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.993|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.64|-22.07|||ANCOVA|||||-22.07|-41.64|<.0001
91048579|NCT06005597|181982178|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-45.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.233|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.43|-36.84|||ANCOVA|||||-36.84|-53.43|<.0001
91048580|NCT06005597|181982179|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-29.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.467|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.99|-22.4|||ANCOVA|||||-22.40|-35.99|<.0001
91048581|NCT06005597|181982180|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-29.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.274|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.28|-21.53|||ANCOVA|||||-21.53|-38.28|<.0001
91048582|NCT06005597|181982181|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-19.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.549|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.73|-12.82|||ANCOVA|||||-12.82|-26.73|<.0001
91048583|NCT06005597|181982182|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-25.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.198|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.67|-17.22|||ANCOVA|||||-17.22|-33.67|<.0001
91048584|NCT06005597|181982183|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-14.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.495|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.06|-7.36|||ANCOVA|||||-7.36|-21.06|<.0001
91048585|NCT06005597|181982184|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-15.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.236||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.53|-6.93|||ANCOVA|||||-6.93|-23.53|0.0003
91048586|NCT06005597|181982185|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-9.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.493||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.26|-2.57|||ANCOVA|||||-2.57|-16.26|0.007
91048587|NCT01056640|181982297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2865||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.747|2.297|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test, 2-sample t-test and Chi-square analysis were all used.||All analyses were performed using an intent-to-treat method. Wilcoxon rank sum test, 2-sample t test, or Chi-Square analysis was used to compare baseline characteristics. The primary end points of combined and individual percentages of hospitalizations and ED visits were compared using Chi-Square test. Statistical adjustment was planned only if there were statistical differences in clinical variables between the groups. All tests for significance used a 2-sided P value of .05.||2.297|0.747|0.05
91048588|NCT02696031|181982312|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72||||0.0197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|2.7||unadjusted p-value|Regression, Logistic|||week 16||2.70|1.09|0.0197
91048589|NCT02696031|181982312|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76||||0.0146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|2.76||unadjusted p-value|Regression, Logistic|||week 16||2.76|1.12|0.0146
91048590|NCT02696031|181982313|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.21||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|3.63||unadjusted p-value|Regression, Logistic|||week 52||3.63|1.35|0.0017
91048591|NCT02696031|181982313|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.67|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.64|4.36||unadjusted p-value|Regression, Logistic|||week 52||4.36|1.64|<.0001
91048592|NCT02696031|181982314|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77||||0.0108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|2.74||unadjusted p-value|Regression, Logistic|||week 16|Odds ratio, 95% CI, and p-value were from a logistic regression model with treatment, stratification factor (CRP+/MRI+, CRP+/MRI-, CRP-/MRI+) and TNFi status as factors and baseline weight as a covariate.|2.74|1.14|0.0108
91048593|NCT02696031|181982314|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.0087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|2.78||unadjusted p-value|Regression, Logistic|||week 16|Odds ratio, 95% CI, and p-value were from a logistic regression model with treatment, stratification factor (CRP+/MRI+, CRP+/MRI-, CRP-/MRI+) and TNFi status as factors and baseline weight as a covariate.|2.78|1.16|0.0087
91048594|NCT02696031|181982314|SUPERIORITY|week 52|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.16||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|3.49||unadjusted p-value|Regression, Linear||||Odds ratio, 95% CI, and p-value were from a logistic regression model with treatment, stratification factor (CRP+/MRI+, CRP+/MRI-, CRP-/MRI+) and TNFi status as factors and baseline weight as a covariate.|3.49|1.34|0.0016
91048595|NCT02696031|181982314|SUPERIORITY|week 52|Median Difference (Net)|2.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.62|4.19||unadjusted p-value|Regression, Linear||||Odds ratio, 95% CI, and p-value were from a logistic regression model with treatment, stratification factor (CRP+/MRI+, CRP+/MRI-, CRP-/MRI+) and TNFi status as factors and baseline weight as a covariate.|4.19|1.62|<.0001
91048596|NCT02696031|181982315|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.43||unadjusted p-value|Regression, Logistic|||week 16|Odds ratio, 95% CI, and p-value were from a logistic regression model with treatment, stratification factor (CRP+/MRI+, CRP+/MRI-, CRP-/MRI+) and TNFi status as factors and baseline weight as a covariate.|2.43|1.06|0.0260
91048597|NCT02696031|181982315|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68||||0.0149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|2.54||unadjusted p-value|Regression, Logistic|||week 16|Odds ratio, 95% CI, and p-value were from a logistic regression model with treatment, stratification factor (CRP+/MRI+, CRP+/MRI-, CRP-/MRI+) and TNFi status as factors and baseline weight as a covariate.|2.54|1.11|0.0149
91048598|NCT02696031|181982316|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.26||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|3.58||unadjusted p-value|Regression, Logistic|||week 16|Odds ratio, 95% CI, and p-value were from a logistic regression model with treatment, stratification factor (CRP+/MRI+, CRP+/MRI-, CRP-/MRI+) and TNF-alpha status as factors and baseline weight as a covariate.|3.58|1.43|0.0005
91048599|NCT02696031|181982316|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.85||||0.0094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|2.94||unadjusted p-value|Regression, Logistic|||week 16|Odds ratio, 95% CI, and p-value were from a logistic regression model with treatment, stratification factor (CRP+/MRI+, CRP+/MRI-, CRP-/MRI+) and TNF-alpha status as factors and baseline weight as a covariate.|2.94|1.16|0.0094
91048600|NCT02696031|181982317|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.95|7.39||unadjusted p-value|Regression, Logistic|||week 16|Odds ratio, 95% CI, and p-value were from a logistic regression model with treatment, stratification factor (CRP+/MRI+, CRP+/MRI-, CRP-/MRI+) and TNF-alpha status as factors and baseline weight as a covariate.|7.39|1.95|<.0001
91048601|NCT02696031|181982317|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.64||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.87|7.1||unadjusted p-value|Regression, Logistic|||week 16|Odds ratio, 95% CI, and p-value were from a logistic regression model with treatment, stratification factor (CRP+/MRI+, CRP+/MRI-, CRP-/MRI+) and TNF-alpha status as factors and baseline weight as a covariate.|7.10|1.87|0.0001
91002991|NCT02977507|181889459|OTHER|||||||0.502|||||||Paired t-test|||Erythema: Testing hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is zero.||||0.502
91002992|NCT02977507|181889459|OTHER|||||||0.81|||||||Paired t-test|||Melanin index: Testing hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is zero.||||0.810
91002993|NCT02977507|181889459|OTHER|||||||0.435|||||||Paired t-test|||Erythema: Testing hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is zero.||||0.435
91048602|NCT02696031|181982318|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.259||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|-0.24||unadjusted p-value|MMRM|||week 16|LS Mean, 95% CI, and p-value were from a mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment group, analysis visit, stratification factor (CRP+/MRI+, CRP+/MRI-, CRP-/MRI+) and TNFi status as factors, weight and baseline score as covariates, treatment by analysis visit and baseline score by analysis visit as interaction terms, using an unstructured covariance structure.|-0.24|-1.26|0.0041
91002994|NCT00654420|181889461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.57|||Finkelstein Proportional Hazards Model|||Finkelstein proportional hazards model for interval-censored data was used to assess treatment effect on PFS in Phase II. The hazard ratio with 95% confidence interval for the Dalotuzumab (10 mg/kg) + Erlotinib treatment arm compared to the Erlotinib treatment arm was reported.||1.57|0.47|0.268
91002995|NCT00654420|181889462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.44||||0.879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.64|||Regression, Cox|||The treatment difference in survival between treatment groups was assessed by Cox regression. The estimated hazard ratio for treatment of the Dalotuzumab (10 mg/kg) + Erlotinib treatment arm compared to the Erlotinib treatment arm was reported from the Cox model.||2.64|0.78|0.879
91002996|NCT00654420|181889463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-2.8||||0.721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.9|9.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen Method|||Miettinen and Nurminen's method for stratified data was used for comparison of percentage of participants with objective response (ORR) between the two treatment groups. Response rate calculation was based on full follow-up.||9.4|-15.9|0.721
91002997|NCT03011775|181889482|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|The threshold for statistical significance was P value of .05||||||<0.05
91002998|NCT03011775|181889483|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
91002999|NCT03011775|181889485|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
91003000|NCT03011775|181889486|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91003001|NCT03011775|181889488|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91003002|NCT03011775|181889489|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
91003003|NCT03011775|181889490|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||=0.3
91003004|NCT01610206|181889502|EQUIVALENCE|To estimate the progression-free survival hazard ratio of the combination of weekly gemcitabine and pazopanib compared to weekly gemcitabine alone in patients with persistent or recurrent ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.07|||non-parametric weighted Tarone-Ware test|||||1.07|0.61|0.019
91003005|NCT00924729|181889504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91003006|NCT02448914|181889506|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was first to attempt to show non-inferiority. To show non-inferiority of TRIGEL over Duodopa, the lower limit of the two-sided CI for the treatment ratio had to be above the chosen non-inferiority margin of 0.9. If non-inferiority was shown, analysis continued with test of superiority. To show superiority of TRIGEL versus Duodopa, the lower confidence limit had to be above 1 (corresponding to a p-value less than 0.05).|back-transformed ratio|1.382|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.264|1.511|||ANCOVA|||Levodopa AUC 0-14h/dose, was derived using the trapezoidal method and divided by the total administered dose of levodopa during the corresponding time interval.The primary endpoint was log transformed and analysed using an ANCOVA, adjusting for treatment, period and patient. The back-transformed ratio of TRIGEL over Duodopa was calculated together with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and the associated (2 sided) p value.||1.511|1.264|<0.0001
91003007|NCT01576406|181889518|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|91.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|57.47|144.72||||||Confidence interval (CI): Geometric mean ratio and 90 percent (%) CI were derived from analysis of variance (ANOVA) model.||144.72|57.47|
91003008|NCT01576406|181889518|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|143.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.11|232.12||||||CI: Geometric mean ratio and 90% CI were derived from ANOVA model.||232.12|89.11|
91003009|NCT01576406|181889518|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|108.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.13|168.99||||||CI: Geometric mean ratio and 90% CI were derived from ANOVA model.||168.99|70.13|
91003010|NCT01576406|181889518|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|72.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|49.07|107.5||||||CI: Geometric mean ratio and 90% CI were derived from ANOVA model.||107.50|49.07|
91003011|NCT01576406|181889544|SUPERIORITY||Percentage of ratio of geometric mean|91.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|56.56|146.79||||||CI: Geometric mean ratio and 90% CI were derived from ANOVA model.||146.79|56.56|
91003012|NCT01576406|181889544|SUPERIORITY||Percentage of ratio of geometric mean|149.54|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.85|243.46||||||CI: Geometric mean ratio and 90% CI were derived from ANOVA model.||243.46|91.85|
91003013|NCT01576406|181889544|SUPERIORITY||Percentage of ratio of geometric mean|114.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|73.57|176.89||||||CI: Geometric mean ratio and 90% CI were derived from ANOVA model.||176.89|73.57|
91003014|NCT01576406|181889544|SUPERIORITY||Percentage of ratio of geometric mean|64.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|39.5|105.89||||||CI: Geometric mean ratio and 90% CI were derived from ANOVA model.||105.89|39.50|
91003015|NCT01576406|181889545|SUPERIORITY||Percentage of ratio of geometric mean|108.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|63.47|185.26||||||CI: Geometric mean ratio and 90% CI were derived from ANOVA model.||185.26|63.47|
91003016|NCT01576406|181889545|SUPERIORITY||Percentage of ratio of geometric mean|202.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|120.96|340.3||||||CI: Geometric mean ratio and 90% CI were derived from ANOVA model.||340.30|120.96|
91003017|NCT01576406|181889545|SUPERIORITY||Percentage of ratio of geometric mean|130.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.61|197.47||||||CI: Geometric mean ratio and 90% CI were derived from ANOVA model.||197.47|86.61|
91003018|NCT01576406|181889545|SUPERIORITY||Percentage of ratio of geometric mean|62.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|42.54|92.78||||||CI: Geometric mean ratio and 90% CI were derived from ANOVA model.||92.78|42.54|
91003019|NCT01627782|181889557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference of Least Square Means|-16.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|70.0|-20.0|-12.01|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measure|||||-12.01|-20.00|< 0.001
91003020|NCT01627782|181889557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference of Least Square Means|-16.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|70.0|-18.96|-13.84|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measure|||||-13.84|-18.96|< 0.001
91003021|NCT04315298|181889606|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean (log scale)|-1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.107|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.456|-1.035||P-value is based on the ANCOVA model for differences between treatment groups in terms of \[ln(CRP at day 4 ) - ln(baseline CRP)\].|ANCOVA|||||-1.035|-1.456|<0.0001
91003022|NCT04315298|181889606|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean (log scale)|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.107|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.511|-1.09||p-value is based on the ANCOVA model for differences between treatment groups in terms of \[ln(CRP at day 4 ) - ln(baseline CRP)\].|ANCOVA|||||-1.090|-1.511|<0.0001
91003023|NCT04315298|181889607|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.1||||0.3707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|21.7||P-value based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using the strata Use of Steroids at Baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.7|-8.4|0.3707
91003024|NCT04315298|181889607|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.5||||0.3261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|21.3||P-value based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using the strata Use of Steroids at Baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.3|-7.4|0.3261
91003025|NCT04315298|181889608|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.2||||0.7328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.2|36.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using the strata Use of Steroids at Baseline||||36.8|-26.2|0.7328
91003026|NCT04315298|181889609|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.5687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.66||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by disease severity (severe, critical) and use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||||1.66|0.76|0.5687
91003027|NCT04315298|181889609|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.7014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.62||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by disease severity (severe, critical) and use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||||1.62|0.74|0.7014
91003028|NCT04315298|181889610|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18||||0.3622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.7||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by disease severity (severe, critical) and use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||||1.70|0.83|0.3622
91003029|NCT04315298|181889610|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.5802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.63||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by disease severity (severe, critical) and use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||||1.63|0.79|0.5802
91003030|NCT04315298|181889611|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.29||||0.234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|2.02||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by disease severity (severe, critical and MSOD) and use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||||2.02|0.83|0.2340
91003031|NCT04315298|181889611|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||0.6949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.79||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by disease severity (severe, critical and MSOD) and use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||||1.79|0.74|0.6949
91003032|NCT04315298|181889612|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.27||||0.3151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.43||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: Severe||2.43|0.66|0.3151
91048603|NCT02696031|181982318|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.259||0.0143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|-0.13||unadjusted p-value|MMRM|||week 16|LS Mean, 95% CI, and p-value were from a mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment group, analysis visit, stratification factor (CRP+/MRI+, CRP+/MRI-, CRP-/MRI+) and TNFi status as factors, weight and baseline score as covariates, treatment by analysis visit and baseline score by analysis visit as interaction terms, using an unstructured covariance structure.|-0.13|-1.15|0.0143
91048604|NCT02696031|181982319|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.53||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|4.07||unadjusted p-value|Regression, Logistic|||week 16|"Odds ratio, 95% CI, and p-value were from a logistic regression model with treatment, stratification factor (CRP+/MRI+, CRP+/MRI-, CRP-/MRI+) and TNFi status as factors and baseline weight and baseline score as covariates.~Missing responses for any reason were imputed as non-responders."|4.07|1.58|0.0001
91003033|NCT04315298|181889612|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.1884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.41||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: Severe||1.41|0.39|0.1884
91003034|NCT04315298|181889612|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.61||||0.4356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|3.4||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: Critical||3.40|0.76|0.4356
91003035|NCT04315298|181889612|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.1||||0.0371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|4.4||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: Critical||4.40|1.01|0.0371
91048605|NCT02696031|181982319|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.43||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|3.89||unadjusted p-value|Regression, Logistic|||week 16|"Odds ratio, 95% CI, and p-value were from a logistic regression model with treatment, stratification factor (CRP+/MRI+, CRP+/MRI-, CRP-/MRI+) and TNFi status as factors and baseline weight and baseline score as covariates.~Missing responses for any reason were imputed as non-responders."|3.89|1.51|0.0002
91048606|NCT02696031|181982319|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.99||||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|3.24||unadjusted p-value|Regression, Logistic|||week 52|"Odds ratio, 95% CI, and p-value were from a logistic regression model with treatment, stratification factor (CRP+/MRI+, CRP+/MRI-, CRP-/MRI+) and TNFi status as factors and baseline weight and baseline score as covariates.~Missing responses for any reason were imputed as non-responders."|3.24|1.22|0.0056
91003036|NCT04315298|181889612|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.8923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|3.05||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: MSOD||3.05|0.32|0.8923
91003037|NCT04315298|181889612|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|2.71||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: MSOD||2.71|0.25|0.6940
91003038|NCT04315298|181889613|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.14||||0.0832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|5.65||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: Severe Baseline IL-6 \< 87.04 pg/mL (median)||5.65|0.81|0.0832
91003039|NCT04315298|181889613|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.93||||0.1369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|4.8||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: Severe Baseline IL-6 \< 87.04 pg/mL (median)||4.80|0.77|0.1369
91003040|NCT04315298|181889613|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.9636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.95||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: Severe Baseline IL-6 \>= 87.04 pg/mL (median)||1.95|0.28|0.9636
91003041|NCT04315298|181889613|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.24||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.74||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: Severe Baseline IL-6 \>= 87.04 pg/mL (median)||0.74|0.08|0.0038
91003042|NCT04315298|181889613|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.21||||0.738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|3.13||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: Critical Baseline IL-6 \< 166.68pg/mL (Median)||3.13|0.47|0.7380
91003043|NCT04315298|181889613|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.21||||0.7342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|3.05||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: Critical Baseline IL-6 \<166.68pg/mL (Median)||3.05|0.48|0.7342
91003044|NCT04315298|181889613|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.58||||0.1934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|16.17||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: Critical Baseline IL-6 \>= 166.68pg/mL (Median)||16.17|0.79|0.1934
91003045|NCT04315298|181889613|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|5.33||||0.0159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|23.94||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: Critical Baseline IL-6 \>= 166.68pg/mL (Median)||23.94|1.19|0.0159
91003046|NCT04315298|181889613|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.6281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|8.75||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: MSOD Baseline IL-6 \<254.95 pg/mL (Median)||8.75|0.13|0.6281
91003047|NCT04315298|181889613|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.4971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|6.13||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: MSOD Baseline IL-6 \<254.95 pg/mL (Median)||6.13|0.06|0.4971
91003048|NCT04315298|181889613|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.3||||0.299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|2.86||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: MSOD Baseline IL-6 \>= 254.95 pg/mL (Median)||2.86|0.03|0.2990
91003049|NCT04315298|181889613|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|4.41||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: MSOD Baseline IL-6 \>= 254.95 pg/mL (Median)||4.41|0.22|0.9360
91003050|NCT04315298|181889614|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.9032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.47||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: Severe||1.47|0.52|0.9032
91003051|NCT04315298|181889614|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5||||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.88||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: Severe||0.88|0.29|0.0052
91003052|NCT04315298|181889614|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.1168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.21||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: Critical||1.21|0.48|0.1168
91003053|NCT04315298|181889614|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.3753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.72||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: Critical||1.72|0.69|0.3753
91003054|NCT04315298|181889614|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.4956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.66||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: MSOD||1.66|0.40|0.4956
91003055|NCT04315298|181889614|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.01||||0.8439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.02||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: MSOD||2.02|0.50|0.8439
91003056|NCT04315298|181889615|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.21||||0.389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|2.79||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: Severe Baseline IL-6 \< 67.11 pg/mL (median)||2.79|0.52|0.3890
91003057|NCT04315298|181889615|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||0.7838||95.0|0.3|1.41||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: Severe Baseline IL-6 \>= 67.11pg/mL (median)||1.41|0.30|0.7838
91048607|NCT02696031|181982319|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.34||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|3.78||unadjusted p-value|Regression, Logistic|||week 52|"Odds ratio, 95% CI, and p-value were from a logistic regression model with treatment, stratification factor (CRP+/MRI+, CRP+/MRI-, CRP-/MRI+) and TNFi status as factors and baseline weight and baseline score as covariates.~Missing responses for any reason were imputed as non-responders."|3.78|1.45|0.0005
91003058|NCT04315298|181889615|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.65||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: Severe Baseline IL-6 \< 67.11 pg/mL (median)||1.65|0.28|0.2370
91003059|NCT04315298|181889615|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.25||||0.0004||95.0|0.1|0.59||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: Severe Baseline IL-6 \>= 67.11pg/mL (median)||0.59|0.10|0.0004
91003060|NCT04315298|181889615|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.32||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: Critical Baseline IL-6 \< 131.90 pg/mL (median)||1.32|0.37|0.1740
91003061|NCT04315298|181889615|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.3664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.66||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: Critical Baseline IL-6 \>= 131.90 pg/mL (median)||1.66|0.38|0.3664
91003062|NCT04315298|181889615|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.7318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.87||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: Critical Baseline IL-6 \< 131.90 pg/mL (median)||1.87|0.53|0.7318
91003063|NCT04315298|181889615|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18||||0.4155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.37||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: Critical Baseline IL-6 \>= 131.90 pg/mL (median)||2.37|0.59|0.4155
91048608|NCT02696031|181982320|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of treatment difference|-0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.256||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|-0.38||unadjusted p-value|mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|||week 16|LS Mean, 95% CI, and p-value were from a mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment group, analysis visit, stratification factor (CRP+/MRI+, CRP+/MRI-, CRP-/MRI+) and TNFi status as factors, weight and baseline score as covariates, treatment by analysis visit and baseline score by analysis visit as interaction terms, using an unstructured covariance structure.|-0.38|-1.39|0.0006
91048609|NCT02696031|181982320|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Treatment Difference|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.255||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|-0.47||unadjusted p-value|mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|||week 16|LS Mean, 95% CI, and p-value were from a mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment group, analysis visit, stratification factor (CRP+/MRI+, CRP+/MRI-, CRP-/MRI+) and TNFi status as factors, weight and baseline score as covariates, treatment by analysis visit and baseline score by analysis visit as interaction terms, using an unstructured covariance structure.|-0.47|-1.47|0.0002
91003064|NCT04315298|181889615|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.6262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|2.45||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: MSOD Baseline IL-6 \< 254.95 pg/mL (median)||2.45|0.23|0.6262
91003065|NCT04315298|181889615|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.553||95.0|0.21|2.3||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: MSOD Baseline IL-6 \>= 254.95 pg/mL (median)||2.30|0.21|0.5530
91003066|NCT04315298|181889615|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.8775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|2.85||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: MSOD Baseline IL-6 \< 254.95 pg/mL (median)||2.85|0.25|0.8775
91003067|NCT04315298|181889615|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.7485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|2.99||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: MSOD Baseline IL-6 \>= 254.95 pg/mL (median)||2.99|0.41|0.7485
91003068|NCT04315298|181889616|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.4556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.79||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: Severe||1.79|0.63|0.4556
91003069|NCT04315298|181889616|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.0248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.04||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: Severe||1.04|0.35|0.0248
91003070|NCT04315298|181889616|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.6842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.67||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: Critical||1.67|0.62|0.6842
91003071|NCT04315298|181889616|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.43||||0.0671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|2.32||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: Critical||2.32|0.89|0.0671
91003072|NCT04315298|181889616|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.6146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.74||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: MSOD||1.74|0.41|0.6146
91003073|NCT04315298|181889616|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.99||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: MSOD||1.99|0.48|0.9730
91003074|NCT04315298|181889618|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.6987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.59||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: Severe||1.59|0.59|0.6987
91003075|NCT04315298|181889618|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||0.0453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.09||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: Severe||1.09|0.39|0.0453
91003076|NCT04315298|181889618|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.23||||0.9734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.09||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: Critical||2.09|0.73|0.9734
91048610|NCT02696031|181982321|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.478||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|-0.67||unadjusted p-value|MMRM|||week 16|LS Mean, 95% CI, and p-value are from a mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment group, analysis visit, stratification factor (CRP+/MRI+, CRP+/MRI-, CRP-/MRI+) and TNFi status as factors, weight and baseline score as covariates, treatment by analysis visit and baseline score by analysis visit as interaction terms, using an unstructured covariance structure.|-0.67|-2.54|0.0008
91048611|NCT02696031|181982321|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-1.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.479||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.72|-0.84||unadjusted p-value|MMRM|||week 16|LS Mean, 95% CI, and p-value are from a mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment group, analysis visit, stratification factor (CRP+/MRI+, CRP+/MRI-, CRP-/MRI+) and TNFi status as factors, weight and baseline score as covariates, treatment by analysis visit and baseline score by analysis visit as interaction terms, using an unstructured covariance structure.|-0.84|-2.72|0.0002
91048612|NCT02696031|181982322|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0012||||||unadjusted p-value|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|The endpoint was analyzed by composite estimand strategy. Extreme unfavorable value is assigned for patients with treatment escape or missing data.||||||0.0012
91048613|NCT02696031|181982322|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||unadjusted p-value|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|The endpoint was analyzed by composite estimand strategy. Extreme unfavorable value is assigned for patients with treatment escape or missing data.||||||<.0001
91048614|NCT02696031|181982323|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.84||||0.0577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|3.45||unadjusted p-value|Regression, Logistic|||week 52|"Odds ratio, 95% CI, and p-value were from a logistic regression model with treatment, stratification factor (CRP+/MRI+, CRP+/MRI-, CRP-/MRI+) and TNFi status as factors and baseline weight and baseline score as covariates.~Missing responses for any reason were imputed as non-responders. Patients were considered as non-responders after treatment switch decision."|3.45|0.98|0.0577
91048615|NCT02696031|181982323|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.99||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|5.41||unadjusted p-value|Regression, Logistic|||week 52|"Odds ratio, 95% CI, and p-value were from a logistic regression model with treatment, stratification factor (CRP+/MRI+, CRP+/MRI-, CRP-/MRI+) and TNFi status as factors and baseline weight and baseline score as covariates.~Missing responses for any reason were imputed as non-responders. Patients were considered as non-responders after treatment switch decision."|5.41|1.65|0.0003
91003077|NCT04315298|181889618|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.91||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|3.2||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No)|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: Critical||3.20|1.14|0.0040
91003078|NCT04315298|181889618|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.9551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|2.17||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: MSOD||2.17|0.43|0.9551
91003079|NCT04315298|181889618|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.8722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|2.1||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: MSOD||2.10|0.42|0.8722
91003080|NCT04315298|181889621|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||Disease Severity: Severe||||1.0000
91048616|NCT02696031|181982324|SUPERIORITY||Relative Treatment Effect|0.7||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.84||unadjusted p-value|MMRM|||week 16|Analysis was done on the log(e) ratio of the treatment value vs. baseline value to normalize the distribution of the hsCRP at each visit. LS Mean, SE, 95% CI and p-value were from mixed-effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment, visit, stratification factor and TNFi status as factors, log(e) baseline and weight as covariates, treatment by visit and log(e) baseline by visit as interaction terms and an unstructured covariance|0.84|0.58|0.0002
91048617|NCT02696031|181982324|SUPERIORITY||Relative Treatment Effect|0.7||||0.0002||95.0|0.58|0.84||unadjusted p-value|MMRM|||week 16|Analysis was done on the log(e) ratio of the treatment value vs. baseline value to normalize the distribution of the hsCRP at each visit. LS Mean, SE, 95% CI and p-value were from mixed-effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment, visit, stratification factor and TNFi status as factors, log(e) baseline and weight as covariates, treatment by visit and log(e) baseline by visit as interaction terms and an unstructured covariance structure.|0.84|0.58|0.0002
91048618|NCT02696031|181982325|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Treatment Difference|2.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.799||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|4.34||unadjusted p-value|ANCOVA|||week 16|LS Mean, 95% CI, and p-value were from a mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment group, analysis visit, stratification factor (CRP+/MRI+, CRP+/MRI-, CRP-/MRI+) and TNFi status as factors, weight and baseline score as covariates, treatment by analysis visit and baseline score by analysis visit as interaction terms, using an unstructured covariance structure.|4.34|1.20|0.0006
91003081|NCT04315298|181889621|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0353|||||||Chi-squared|||Disease Severity: Severe||||0.0353
91003082|NCT04315298|181889621|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3187|||||||Chi-squared|||Disease Severity: Critical||||0.3187
91003083|NCT04315298|181889621|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0261|||||||Chi-squared|||Disease Severity: Critical||||0.0261
91003084|NCT04315298|181889621|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9117|||||||Chi-squared|||Disease Severity: MSOD||||0.9117
91003085|NCT04315298|181889621|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7584|||||||Chi-squared|||Disease Severity: MSOD||||0.7584
91003086|NCT04315298|181889625|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.32||||0.0385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.94||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: Severe||0.94|0.11|0.0385
91003087|NCT04315298|181889625|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.38||||0.0782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|1.05||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: Severe||1.05|0.14|0.0782
91048619|NCT02696031|181982325|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Treatment Difference|2.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.803||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|4.22||unadjusted p-value|ANCOVA|||week 16|LS Mean, 95% CI, and p-value were from a mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment group, analysis visit, stratification factor (CRP+/MRI+, CRP+/MRI-, CRP-/MRI+) and TNFi status as factors, weight and baseline score as covariates, treatment by analysis visit and baseline score by analysis visit as interaction terms, using an unstructured covariance structure.|4.22|1.06|0.0011
91003088|NCT04315298|181889625|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.22||||0.2436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.14||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: Critical||2.14|0.70|0.2436
91003089|NCT04315298|181889625|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.3223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.51||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: Critical||1.51|0.46|0.3223
91003090|NCT04315298|181889625|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.52||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: MSOD||1.52|0.36|0.4670
91003091|NCT04315298|181889625|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.3728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.47||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: MSOD||1.47|0.35|0.3728
91003092|NCT04315298|181889631|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.7||||0.5851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|12.4||P-value based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using the strata Use of Steroids at Baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||12.4|-7.0|0.5851
91003093|NCT04315298|181889631|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.6||||0.5767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|6.5||P-value based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using the strata Use of Steroids at Baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||6.5|-11.7|0.5767
91003094|NCT04315298|181889632|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.2||||0.4777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|18.6||P-value based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using the strata Use of Steroids at Baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||18.6|-9.4|0.4777
91003095|NCT04315298|181889632|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.7||||0.4202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|18.2||P-value based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using the strata Use of Steroids at Baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||18.2|-8.4|0.4202
91003096|NCT04315298|181889633|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.2||||0.9696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|9.9||P-value based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using the strata Use of Steroids at Baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||9.9|-9.5|0.9696
91003097|NCT04315298|181889633|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.7||||0.3152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|4.4||P-value based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using the strata Use of Steroids at Baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.4|-13.8|0.3152
91003098|NCT04315298|181889634|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.7||||0.3217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.8|7.2||P-value based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using the strata Use of Steroids at Baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Through Day 29||7.2|-22.8|0.3217
91003099|NCT04315298|181889634|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.5||||0.463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.2|8.7||P-value based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using the strata Use of Steroids at Baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Through Day 29||8.7|-20.2|0.4630
91003100|NCT04315298|181889634|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-13.3||||0.0971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.2|2.3||P-value based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using the strata Use of Steroids at Baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Through Day 60||2.3|-28.2|0.0971
91003101|NCT04315298|181889634|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-11.9||||0.1193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.4|2.9||P-value based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using the strata Use of Steroids at Baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Through Day 60||2.9|-26.4|0.1193
91003102|NCT04315298|181889635|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.6||||0.8844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|7.7||P-value based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using the strata Use of Steroids at Baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Through Day 29||7.7|-9.3|0.8844
91003103|NCT04315298|181889635|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.2||||0.2247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|13.0||P-value based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using the strata Use of Steroids at Baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Through Day 29||13.0|-3.3|0.2247
91003104|NCT04315298|181889635|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-13.3||||0.2102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.2|2.3||P-value based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using the strata Use of Steroids at Baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Through Day 60||2.3|-28.2|0.2102
91003105|NCT04315298|181889635|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-11.9||||0.8292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.4|2.9||P-value based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using the strata Use of Steroids at Baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Through Day 60||2.9|-26.4|0.8292
91003106|NCT04315298|181889636|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.8||||0.2203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|24.3||P-value based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using the strata Use of Steroids at Baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||24.3|-6.0|0.2203
91003107|NCT04315298|181889636|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.8||||0.2483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|22.6||P-value based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using the strata Use of Steroids at Baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||22.6|-6.1|0.2483
91003108|NCT04315298|181889637|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.1||||0.602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|18.5||P-value based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using the strata Use of Steroids at Baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||18.5|-11.2|0.6020
91003109|NCT04315298|181889637|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.9||||0.4342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|19.5||P-value based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using the strata Use of Steroids at Baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||19.5|-8.9|0.4342
91003110|NCT04315298|181889638|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.2||||0.2896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|14.7||P-value based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using the strata Use of Steroids at Baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||14.7|-4.3|0.2896
91003111|NCT04315298|181889638|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.9||||0.5355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|6.2||P-value based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using the strata Use of Steroids at Baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||6.2|-11.8|0.5355
91003112|NCT04315298|181889639|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.5||||0.921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|10.2||P-value based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using the strata Use of Steroids at Baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.2|-9.2|0.9210
91003113|NCT04315298|181889639|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.7||||0.3174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|4.5||P-value based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using the strata Use of Steroids at Baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.5|-13.8|0.3174
91003114|NCT04315298|181889640|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.62||||0.0705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|2.66||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||||2.66|0.98|0.0705
91003115|NCT04315298|181889640|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.5||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.43||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||||2.43|0.92|0.1800
91003116|NCT04315298|181889641|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18||||0.1831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.52||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||||1.52|0.91|0.1831
91003117|NCT04315298|181889641|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.34||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||||1.34|0.82|0.8770
91003118|NCT04315298|181889642|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.7103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|2.06||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||||2.06|0.35|0.7103
91003119|NCT04315298|181889643|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.47||||0.1512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|2.43||P-value from stratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||||2.43|0.89|0.1512
91003120|NCT04315298|181889643|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.38||||0.2952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|2.24||P-value from stratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||||2.24|0.85|0.2952
91003121|NCT04315298|181889644|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||0.2297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.5||P-value from stratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||||1.50|0.89|0.2297
91003122|NCT04315298|181889644|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.8651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.3||P-value from stratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||||1.30|0.79|0.8651
91003123|NCT04315298|181889645|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.0||||0.8864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|12.1||P-value based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using the strata Use of Steroids at Baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||12.1|-15.2|0.8864
91003124|NCT04315298|181889645|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.1||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.8|10.1||P-value based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using the strata Use of Steroids at Baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.1|-15.8|0.7500
91003125|NCT04315298|181889646|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.5||||0.6858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|5.6||P-value based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using the strata Use of Steroids at Baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.6|-9.1|0.6858
91003126|NCT04315298|181889646|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.4||||0.9173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|7.0||P-value based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using the strata Use of Steroids at Baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||7.0|-7.0|0.9173
91003127|NCT04315298|181889647|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.5||||0.5239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|17.3||P-value based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using the strata Use of Steroids at Baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||17.3|-9.7|0.5239
91003128|NCT04315298|181889647|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.7||||0.5809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|15.6||P-value based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using the strata Use of Steroids at Baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||15.6|-10.0|0.5809
91003129|NCT04315298|181889648|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.4||||0.9343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|10.1||P-value based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using the strata Use of Steroids at Baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.1|-9.3|0.9343
91003130|NCT04315298|181889648|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.0||||0.2822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|4.1||P-value based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using the strata Use of Steroids at Baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.1|-14.1|0.2822
91003131|NCT04315298|181889649|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.28||||0.4519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.18||P-value from stratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||||2.18|0.75|0.4519
91003132|NCT04315298|181889649|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.35||||0.2818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.24||P-value from stratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||||2.24|0.81|0.2818
91003133|NCT04315298|181889650|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.4674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.43||P-value from stratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||||1.43|0.84|0.4674
91003134|NCT04315298|181889650|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.8503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.28||P-value from stratified log-rank test.|Log Rank|||||1.28|0.77|0.8503
91003135|NCT04315298|181889651|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.6156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|2.02||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||||2.02|0.31|0.6156
91003136|NCT04315298|181889652|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||0.0843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.03||P-value from stratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||||1.03|0.41|0.0843
91003137|NCT04315298|181889652|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||0.1576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.07||P-value from stratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||||1.07|0.44|0.1576
91003138|NCT04315298|181889653|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.14||P-value from stratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||||1.14|0.57|0.1980
91003139|NCT04315298|181889653|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.7973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.36||P-value from stratified log-rank test.|Log Rank|||||1.36|0.73|0.7973
91003140|NCT04315298|181889654|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.5023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|2.75||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||||2.75|0.13|0.5023
91003141|NCT04315298|181889655|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.2804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.8||p-value using two-sample t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||Ventilator-free days up to Day 8||0.8|-0.2|0.2804
91003142|NCT04315298|181889655|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.5023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.3||p-value using two-sample t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||Ventilator-free days up to Day 8||0.3|-0.5|0.5023
91003143|NCT04315298|181889655|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.3821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.9||p-value using two-sample t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||Ventilator-free days up to Day 15||1.9|-0.7|0.3821
91003144|NCT04315298|181889655|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.9737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.1||p-value using two-sample t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||Ventilator-free days up to Day 15||1.1|-1.2|0.9737
91003145|NCT04315298|181889655|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15||0.3179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|3.4||p-value using two-sample t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||Ventilator-free days up to Day 22||3.4|-1.1|0.3179
91003146|NCT04315298|181889655|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.6302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.5||p-value using two-sample t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||Ventilator-free days up to Day 22||2.5|-1.5|0.6302
91003147|NCT04315298|181889655|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.64||0.2862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|5.0||p-value using two-sample t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||Ventilator-free days up to Day 29||5.0|-1.5|0.2862
91003148|NCT04315298|181889655|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.49||0.4509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|4.1||p-value using two-sample t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||Ventilator-free days up to Day 29||4.1|-1.8|0.4509
91003149|NCT04315298|181889656|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.5||p-value using two-sample t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||Ventilator-free days up to Day 8||0.5|-0.8|0.5640
91003150|NCT04315298|181889656|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.1602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.2||p-value using two-sample t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||Ventilator-free days up to Day 8||0.2|-1.0|0.1602
91003151|NCT04315298|181889656|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.9144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.2||p-value using two-sample t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||Ventilator-free days up to Day 15||1.2|-1.3|0.9144
91003152|NCT04315298|181889656|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.3||p-value using two-sample t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||Ventilator-free days up to Day 15||0.3|-2.1|0.1450
91003153|NCT04315298|181889656|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.8378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|2.1||p-value using two-sample t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||Ventilator-free days up to Day 22||2.1|-1.7|0.8378
91003154|NCT04315298|181889656|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89||0.1988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|0.6||p-value using two-sample t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||Ventilator-free days up to Day 22||0.6|-2.9|0.1988
91003155|NCT04315298|181889656|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26||0.8556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|2.7||p-value using two-sample t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||Ventilator-free days up to Day 29||2.7|-2.2|0.8556
91048620|NCT02696031|181982326|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||unadjusted p-value|ANCOVA|||week 16|"LS Mean, 95% CI, and p-value were from an ANCOVA model with treatment group and stratification factor (CRP+/MRI+, CRP+/MRI-, CRP-/MRI+) and TNFi status as factors, weight and baseline score as covariates.~Missing data were imputed using multiple imputation (MI, MAR assumption) prior to running ANCOVA."|||<0.0001
91003156|NCT04315298|181889656|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.19||0.263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|1.0||p-value using two-sample t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||Ventilator-free days up to Day 29||1.0|-3.7|0.2630
91003157|NCT04315298|181889657|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.3662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.5||p-value using two-sample t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||Hospitalized up to Day 8||0.5|-0.2|0.3662
91003158|NCT04315298|181889657|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.6||p-value using two-sample t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||Hospitalized up to Day 8||0.6|0.0|0.0820
91003159|NCT04315298|181889657|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.6984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.6||p-value using two-sample t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||Hospitalized up to Day 15||0.6|-0.9|0.6984
91003160|NCT04315298|181889657|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.9833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.6||p-value using two-sample t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||Hospitalized up to Day 15||0.6|-0.6|0.9833
91003161|NCT04315298|181889657|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.1436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|2.0||p-value using two-sample t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||Hospitalized up to Day 22||2.0|-0.3|0.1436
91003162|NCT04315298|181889657|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.4||p-value using two-sample t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||Hospitalized up to Day 22||1.4|-0.6|0.4190
91003163|NCT04315298|181889657|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.652|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.2||p-value using two-sample t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||Hospitalized up to Day 29||1.2|-0.7|0.6520
91003164|NCT04315298|181889657|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.9||p-value using two-sample t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||Hospitalized up to Day 29||0.9|-1.1|0.8010
91048621|NCT02696031|181982326|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||unadjusted p-value|ANCOVA|||week 16|"LS Mean, 95% CI, and p-value were from an ANCOVA model with treatment group and stratification factor (CRP+/MRI+, CRP+/MRI-, CRP-/MRI+) and TNFi status as factors, weight and baseline score as covariates.~Missing data were imputed using multiple imputation (MI, MAR assumption) prior to running ANCOVA."|||<0.0001
91048622|NCT02696031|181982327|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||unadjusted p-value|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|The endpoint was analyzed by composite estimand strategy. Extreme unfavorable value is assigned for patients with treatment escape or missing data.||||||<.0001
91048623|NCT02696031|181982327|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||unadjusted p-value|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|The endpoint was analyzed by composite estimand strategy. Extreme unfavorable value is assigned for patients with treatment escape or missing data.||||||<.0001
91048624|NCT00063882|181982333|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.82||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.12||One-sided significance level of 0.025|Greenwood's T||Reference level = Brachytherapy only|Target sample size was 586; 532 patients were needed to test hypothesis of better FFP in the EBRT + Brachytherapy arm over the Brachytherapy Only arm. The trial is designed to detect a 10% improvement in 5-year FFP with 90% power, 1-sided alpha of 0.025. The Z-test statistic for the difference between the 2 5-year FFP rates with the standard errors estimated by Greenwood's method will be used.||1.12|0.60|0.21
91048625|NCT00063882|181982334|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.54||One-sided significance level of 0.025|Log Rank||Reference level = Brachytherapy Only|||1.54|0.63|0.95
91048626|NCT00063882|181982335|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.58||One-sided significance level of 0.025|Log Rank||Reference level = Brachytherapy Only|||1.58|0.64|0.97
91048627|NCT00063882|181982336|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|3.9||One-sided significance level of 0.025|Log Rank||Reference level = Brachytherapy Only|||3.90|0.36|0.77
91048628|NCT00063882|181982337|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|3.13||One-sided significance level of 0.025|Log Rank||Reference level = Brachytherapy Only|||3.13|0.33|0.99
91048629|NCT00063882|181982338|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|2.76||One-sided significance level of 0.025|Log Rank||Reference level = Brachytherapy Only|||2.76|0.46|0.81
91048630|NCT00063882|181982339|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.17||One-sided significance level of 0.025|Log Rank||Reference level = Brachytherapy Only|||1.17|0.51|0.22
91048631|NCT00063882|181982340|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.67||One-sided significance level of 0.05|Chi-squared||Reference level = Brachytherapy Only|Grade 2+ GU/GI||1.67|0.76|0.53
91048632|NCT00063882|181982340|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.53||One-sided significance level of 0.05|Chi-squared||Reference level = Brachytherapy Only|Grade 2+ Overall||1.53|0.73|0.73
91048633|NCT00063882|181982340|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|2.19||One-sided significance level of 0.05|Chi-squared||Reference level = Brachytherapy Only|Grade 3+ GU/GI||2.19|0.54|0.81
91048634|NCT00063882|181982340|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.69||One-sided significance level of 0.05|Chi-squared||Reference level = Brachytherapy Only|Grade 3+ Overall||1.69|0.51|0.82
91048635|NCT00063882|181982341|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.37||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|4.68||One-sided significance level of 0.025|Log Rank||Reference level = Brachytherapy Only|Grade 3+ GU/GI||4.68|1.20|0.01
91048636|NCT00063882|181982341|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.81||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|3.1||One-sided significance level of 0.025|Log Rank||Reference level = Brachytherapy Only|Grade 3+ Overall||3.10|1.06|0.029
91048637|NCT00063882|181982342|SUPERIORITY||Effect size|0.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level of 0.01|t-test, 2 sided||Minimally important difference (MID) defined as an effect size of at least 0.5. Effect sizes are interpreted as negligible: \< 0.3; small: 0.3 to \< 0.5; moderate: 0.5 to \< 0.7; and large ≥ 0.7.|Urinary||||<0.0001
91003165|NCT04315298|181889658|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.3724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2||p-value using two-sample t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||Hospitalized up to Day 8||0.2|-0.4|0.3724
91003166|NCT04315298|181889658|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.7034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.3||p-value using two-sample t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||Hospitalized up to Day 8||0.3|-0.2|0.7034
91003167|NCT04315298|181889658|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.5841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.7||p-value using two-sample t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||Hospitalized up to Day 15||0.7|-0.4|0.5841
91003168|NCT04315298|181889658|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.6648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.6||p-value using two-sample t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||Hospitalized up to Day 15||0.6|-0.4|0.6648
91003169|NCT04315298|181889658|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.4624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.0||p-value using two-sample t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||Hospitalized up to Day 22||1.0|-0.4|0.4624
91003170|NCT04315298|181889658|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.2546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.0||p-value using two-sample t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||Hospitalized up to Day 22||1.0|-0.3|0.2546
91003171|NCT04315298|181889658|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.5312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.5||p-value using two-sample t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||Hospitalized up to Day 29||0.5|-1.0|0.5312
91048638|NCT00063882|181982342|SUPERIORITY||Effect size|0.09||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|||||significance level of 0.01|t-test, 2 sided||Minimally important difference (MID) defined as an effect size of at least 0.5. Effect sizes are interpreted as negligible: \< 0.3; small: 0.3 to \< 0.5; moderate: 0.5 to \< 0.7; and large ≥ 0.7.|Urinary- Incontinence||||0.33
91003172|NCT04315298|181889658|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.3039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.3||p-value using two-sample t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||Hospitalized up to Day 29||0.3|-1.1|0.3039
91048639|NCT00063882|181982342|SUPERIORITY||Effect size|0.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||significance level of 0.01|t-test, 2 sided||Minimally important difference (MID) defined as an effect size of at least 0.5. Effect sizes are interpreted as negligible: \< 0.3; small: 0.3 to \< 0.5; moderate: 0.5 to \< 0.7; and large ≥ 0.7.|Urinary-Irritative||||<0.0001
91003173|NCT03267511|181889687|OTHER||Difference of Least Mean Square|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.128||0.6499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.31|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline overall MLSI score as a covariate.|||"The reason for entering same analysis for primary and secondary is because statistical analysis was not done separately for primary outcome measure.~The decision was clinical decision at the time of protocol design.There was no comparisons for the primary objective as the main objective was to look at the rank order of the treatments in level of stain reduction after 8 weeks of treatment. This was achieved via the adjusted means and confidence intervals for the means along with plots of MLSI over time. The hypothesis was that the test products would reduce stain to a greater extent than the reference products. Two comparisons of interest were done under secondary and exploratory objectives."|0.31|-0.19|0.6499
91048640|NCT00063882|181982342|SUPERIORITY||Effect size|0.31||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||significance level of 0.01|t-test, 2 sided||Minimally important difference (MID) defined as an effect size of at least 0.5. Effect sizes are interpreted as negligible: \< 0.3; small: 0.3 to \< 0.5; moderate: 0.5 to \< 0.7; and large ≥ 0.7.|Bowel||||0.001
91048641|NCT00063882|181982342|SUPERIORITY||Effect size|0.12||||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Sexual|Minimally important difference (MID) defined as an effect size of at least 0.5. Effect sizes are interpreted as negligible: \< 0.3; small: 0.3 to \< 0.5; moderate: 0.5 to \< 0.7; and large ≥ 0.7.|||0.23
91048642|NCT00063882|181982343|SUPERIORITY||Effect size|0.38||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level of 0.01|t-test, 2 sided||Minimally important difference (MID) defined as an effect size of at least 0.5. Effect sizes are interpreted as negligible: \< 0.3; small: 0.3 to \< 0.5; moderate: 0.5 to \< 0.7; and large ≥ 0.7.|Urinary||||0.0002
91048643|NCT00063882|181982343|SUPERIORITY||Effect size|0.08||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level of 0.01|t-test, 2 sided||Minimally important difference (MID) defined as an effect size of at least 0.5. Effect sizes are interpreted as negligible: \< 0.3; small: 0.3 to \< 0.5; moderate: 0.5 to \< 0.7; and large ≥ 0.7.|Urinary-Incontinence||||0.42
91048644|NCT00063882|181982343|SUPERIORITY||Effect size|0.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level of 0.01|t-test, 2 sided||Minimally important difference (MID) defined as an effect size of at least 0.5. Effect sizes are interpreted as negligible: \< 0.3; small: 0.3 to \< 0.5; moderate: 0.5 to \< 0.7; and large ≥ 0.7.|Urinary-Irritative||||<0.0001
91048645|NCT00063882|181982343|SUPERIORITY||Effect size|0.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level of 0.01|t-test, 2 sided||Minimally important difference (MID) defined as an effect size of at least 0.5. Effect sizes are interpreted as negligible: \< 0.3; small: 0.3 to \< 0.5; moderate: 0.5 to \< 0.7; and large ≥ 0.7.|Bowel||||<0.0001
91048646|NCT00063882|181982343|SUPERIORITY||Effect size|0.27||||0.0072|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level of 0.01|t-test, 2 sided||Minimally important difference (MID) defined as an effect size of at least 0.5. Effect sizes are interpreted as negligible: \< 0.3; small: 0.3 to \< 0.5; moderate: 0.5 to \< 0.7; and large ≥ 0.7.|Sexual||||0.0072
91048647|NCT04070287|181982356|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
91048648|NCT04070287|181982357|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
91048649|NCT04070287|181982358|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
91048650|NCT04070287|181982359|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
91048651|NCT04070287|181982360|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
91048652|NCT04070287|181982361|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
91048653|NCT03399318|181982368|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||treatment group as the factor of interest, country and disease severity 207 (CM=yes, no) as stratification factors, and admission temperature as a covariate. A t-test for significance of the treatment effect, were derived from this model.|t-test, 2 sided|||The analysis of the primary outcome variable, Tmax, involved fitting an analysis of 206 covariance model with treatment group as the factor of interest, country and disease severity 207 (CM=yes, no) as stratification factors, and admission temperature as a covariate. The estimated 208 treatment effect and associated 95% confidence interval, as well as a t-test for significance of the treatment effect, were derived from this model.||||<0.0001
91048654|NCT03399318|181982369|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.09|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.27|||Regression, Logistic|||Seizure occurrence defined as a three-level ordinal variable was analyzed using a 223 multinomial logistic regression model because there was evidence that the proportional odds 224 assumption did not hold. This model included treatment group as the factor of interest and 225 country and disease severity as stratification factors. The adjusted treatment group odds ratio, 226 and its associated 95% confidence interval were derived from this model.||.27|.03|<0.05
91048655|NCT03399318|181982370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|6.3|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|17.7||The covariance matrix for the within-participant observations was 232 modeled using an unstructured pattern.|ANCOVA|Time to parasite clearance was 235 evaluated using a discrete-time proportional hazards model with a complementary log-log link.|The adjusted treatment group difference in mean area 233 under the log10(HRP2 level) × time curve was estimated using appropriate contrasts among the 234 treatment group means over time that quantify this comparison.|Parasite clearance measured by log10 (HRP2 level) was analyzed with a repeated 228 measures analysis of covariance model (mixed model repeated measures)35 with terms for 229 treatment group, country, disease severity, log10(HRP2 level) at admission, time (treated as a 230 categorical variable), and interaction terms for admission log10(HRP2 level) and time, and for 231 treatment group and time.|The model included terms for treatment group, country, and disease severity.|17.7|-5.1|<0.05
91048656|NCT03399318|181982371|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.32|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.52||An ordinal logistic regression model assuming 216 proportional odds with terms for treatment group, country, and disease severity as covariates was used to derive the estimated adjusted treatment group odds ratio and 95%CI|Regression, Logistic|Sensitivity analyses with best-case and worst-case imputation were 219 performed to accommodate missing data||A secondary efficacy measure included fever exposure as measured by the area under 214 the temperature × time curve for T≥38.5°C during the 72-hour follow-up period, categorized as 215 0, \> 0 and \< 2, and ≥ 2 degree-hours.||.52|.20|<0.05
91048657|NCT04632706|181982376|OTHER|||||||0.803||||||If the p-value is more than 0.05 then dose proportionality can not be confirmed.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Assessment of dose proportionality on D2 and D28||||0.803
91048658|NCT04632706|181982378|OTHER|||||||0.689||||||If the p-value is more than 0.05 then dose proportionality can not be confirmed.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Assessment of dose proportionality on D2 and D28||||0.689
91048659|NCT02994355|181982393|SUPERIORITY||Prevalence rate ratio|1.33|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|1.52|||Poisson Regression|||||1.52|1.16|<0.05
91048660|NCT02994355|181982394|SUPERIORITY||Prevalence rate ratio|1.27|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|1.3|||Poisson regression|||||1.30|1.15|<0.05
91048661|NCT02994355|181982395|SUPERIORITY||Prevalence rate ratio|3.23|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.29|4.55|||Poisson regression|||||4.55|2.29|<0.05
91048662|NCT03050918|181982396|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||we used the O'Brian-Fleming α-spending function, allowing for an α-level of significance of 0.005 and 0.048 for the interim and final analyses, respectively.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.05
91048663|NCT03050918|181982397|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||We used the O'Brian-Fleming α-spending function, allowing for an α-level of significance of 0.005 and 0.048 for the interim and final analyses, respectively.|Chi-squared|||||||0.05
91048664|NCT03050918|181982397|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||We used the O'Brian-Fleming α-spending function, allowing for an α-level of significance of 0.005 and 0.048 for the interim and final analyses, respectively.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.05
91048665|NCT03050918|181982398|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||We used the O'Brian-Fleming α-spending function, allowing for an α-level of significance of 0.005 and 0.048 for the interim and final analyses, respectively.|Chi-squared|||||||0.05
91048666|NCT03050918|181982398|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||We used the O'Brian-Fleming α-spending function, allowing for an α-level of significance of 0.005 and 0.048 for the interim and final analyses, respectively.|Chi-squared|||||||.05
91048667|NCT03050918|181982399|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||We used the O'Brian-Fleming α-spending function, allowing for an α-level of significance of 0.005 and 0.048 for the interim and final analyses, respectively.|Chi-squared|||||||.05
91003174|NCT03267511|181889687|OTHER||Difference of Least Square mean|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.128||0.568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.18|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline overall MLSI score as a covariate.|-0.33 to 0.18|||0.18|-0.33|0.5680
91003175|NCT03267511|181889688|OTHER||Difference of Least Square mean|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.128||0.6499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.31|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline overall MLSI score as a covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|||0.31|-0.19|0.6499
91003176|NCT03267511|181889689|OTHER||Difference of Least Square mean|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.128||0.568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.18|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline overall MLSI score as a covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|||0.18|-0.33|0.5680
91003177|NCT03050307|181889704|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the 95% CI is ≥-8%, noninferiority for TAK-438 relative to lansoprazole with regard to gastric ulcer healing was declared.|Exact (Clopper-Pearson)|-3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.966|3.339||||||||3.339|-10.966|
91048668|NCT03050918|181982400|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||We used the O'Brian-Fleming α-spending function, allowing for an α-level of significance of 0.005 and 0.048 for the interim and final analyses, respectively.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
91048669|NCT03050918|181982401|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||We used the O'Brian-Fleming α-spending function, allowing for an α-level of significance of 0.005 and 0.048 for the interim and final analyses, respectively.|Chi-squared|||||||0.05
91048670|NCT03050918|181982403|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||We used the O'Brian-Fleming α-spending function, allowing for an α-level of significance of 0.005 and 0.048 for the interim and final analyses, respectively.|Chi-squared|||||||0.05
91048671|NCT03832738|181982407|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|5.8||p-value was estimated based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by prior exposure to biologic therapy (Yes/No) and body weight (\<90 kg/≥90 kg).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.80|0.39|0.558
91048672|NCT03832738|181982407|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.74||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|13.1||p-value was estimated based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by prior exposure to biologic therapy (Yes/No) and body weight (\<90 kg/≥90 kg).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||13.10|1.07|0.035
91048673|NCT03832738|181982408|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.26||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|5.75||p-value was estimated based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by prior exposure to biologic therapy (Yes/No) and body weight (\<90 kg/≥90 kg).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.75|0.89|0.086
91003178|NCT03050307|181889705|NON_INFERIORITY|If the primary outcome measure was met, then the hypothesis for this outcome measure was that if the lower bound of the 95% CI of the difference was ≥-10%, noninferiority for TAK-438 relative to lansoprazole with regard to H pylori eradication was declared.|Exact (Clopper-Pearson)|7.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.469|18.825||||||||18.825|-4.469|
91003179|NCT03050307|181889706|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the 95% CI is ≥-8%, noninferiority for TAK-438 relative to lansoprazole with regard to gastric ulcer healing was declared.|Exact (Clopper-Pearson)|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.644|4.741||||||||4.741|-16.644|
91003180|NCT03050307|181889707|OTHER|If the lower bound of the 95% CI is ≥-8%, noninferiority for TAK-438 relative to lansoprazole with regard to gastric ulcer healing was declared.|Exact (Clopper-Pearson)|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.175|23.07||||||Epigastric Pain (Postprandial)||23.070|-25.175|
91003181|NCT03050307|181889707|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the 95% CI is ≥-8%, noninferiority for TAK-438 relative to lansoprazole with regard to gastric ulcer healing was declared.|Exact (Clopper-Pearson)|4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.907|20.931||||||Epigastric Pain (Fasting/Nocturnal)||20.931|-11.907|
91003182|NCT03050307|181889707|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the 95% CI is ≥-8%, noninferiority for TAK-438 relative to lansoprazole with regard to gastric ulcer healing was declared.|Exact (Clopper-Pearson)|16.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.255|43.321||||||Abdominal Bloating||43.321|-11.255|
91003183|NCT03050307|181889707|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the 95% CI is ≥-8%, noninferiority for TAK-438 relative to lansoprazole with regard to gastric ulcer healing was declared.|Exact (Clopper-Pearson)|10.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.109|25.348||||||Heartburn||25.348|-5.109|
91048674|NCT03832738|181982408|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.76||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|9.75||p-value was estimated based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by prior exposure to biologic therapy (Yes/No) and body weight (\<90 kg/≥90 kg).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||9.75|1.45|0.006
91048675|NCT03832738|181982409|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|17.25||p-value was estimated based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by prior exposure to biologic therapy (Yes/No) and body weight (\<90 kg/≥90 kg).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||17.25|0.06|>0.999
91048676|NCT03832738|181982409|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.86||||0.244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|41.2||p-value was estimated based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by prior exposure to biologic therapy (Yes/No) and body weight (\<90 kg/≥90 kg).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||41.20|0.36|0.244
91048677|NCT03832738|181982411|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.21||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|19.62||p-value was estimated based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by prior exposure to biologic therapy (Yes/No) and body weight (\<90 kg/≥90 kg).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||19.62|1.38|0.009
91048678|NCT03832738|181982411|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.35||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.86|29.08||p-value was estimated based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by prior exposure to biologic therapy (Yes/No) and body weight (\<90 kg/≥90 kg).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||29.08|1.86|0.002
91048679|NCT03852459|181982421|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4272|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.4272
91048680|NCT00703508|181982526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0234||||||Ovulation rate vs Testosterone post-treatment, threshold for statistical significance = p\<0.05|Regression, Linear|||||||0.0234
91048681|NCT00703508|181982526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.074||||||Ovulation rate vs Testosterone post-treatment, threshold for statistical significance = p\<0.05|Regression, Linear|||||||0.0740
91048682|NCT00703508|181982526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4698||||||Ovulation rate vs Testosterone post-treatment, threshold for statistical significance = p\<0.05|Regression, Linear|||||||0.4698
91048683|NCT00703508|181982526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.118||||||Ovulation rate vs Matsuda Index post-treatment, threshold for statistical significance = p \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.1180
91048684|NCT00703508|181982526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0311||||||Ovulation rate vs Matsuda Index post-treatment, threshold for statistical significance = p \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.0311
91048685|NCT00703508|181982526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1586||||||Ovulation rate vs Matsuda Index post-treatment, threshold for statistical significance = p \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.1586
91048686|NCT01064323|181982539|OTHER|Paired T-test to detect if there was a change from baseline to 5 minutes into intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC)||||||0.02|||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.02
91003184|NCT03050307|181889707|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the 95% CI is ≥-8%, noninferiority for TAK-438 relative to lansoprazole with regard to gastric ulcer healing was declared.|Exact (Clopper-Pearson)|-12.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.138|20.694||||||Lack of Appetite||20.694|-45.138|
91003185|NCT01250899|181889713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of 12-wk 25(OH)D ≥30ng/mL|70.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.0|80.0|||Exact binomial||The primary endpoint (mean change in 25(OH)D following 12 weeks of vitamin D repletion in vitamin D insufficient subjects) was dichotomized to success or failure to achieve a week twelve 25(OH)D level ≥30ng/mL.|We predicted that HIV-infected subjects would have a 70% twelve-week repletion success rate compared to 85% among historical controls.Eighty subjects provided 91% power to detect a 12-week repletion rate statistically different than 85% (95% confidence interval (CI) 60%, 80%).||80|60|<0.05
91003186|NCT02658149|181889720|OTHER|||||||0.036|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.036
91003187|NCT02658149|181889721|OTHER|||||||0.204|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.204
91003188|NCT02658149|181889722|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.0
91048687|NCT01064323|181982546|OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2
91048688|NCT01138111|181982557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The baseline neocortical SUVR in those subjects who progressed to AD over the 2 year follow-up was compared to the neocortical SUVR of those that did not progress by a Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test.||||0.0001
91003189|NCT02658149|181889723|OTHER|||||||0.741|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.741
91003190|NCT02658149|181889724|OTHER|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||1.0
91003191|NCT02473289|181889755|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square (LS) Means|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.67||0.31|TWO_SIDED|75.0|-2.77|1.1||1-sided|MMRM|Here 'MMRM' refers to Mixed-effect Model Using Repeated Measures.||||1.10|-2.77|0.310
91003192|NCT03285490|181889771|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value threshold for statistical significance was 0.5%|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical significance in the study for Day 57 complete clearance rate was analyzed using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel model controlling for treatment location (face or scalp) and treatment group (Placebo versus KX2-391 Ointment 1%).||||<0.0001
91048689|NCT01138111|181982557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0011|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The 12 month neocortical SUVR in those subjects who progressed to AD over the 2 year follow-up was compared to the neocortical SUVR of those that did not progress by a Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test.||||0.0011
91048690|NCT01138111|181982557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0008|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The 24 month neocortical SUVR in those subjects who progressed to AD over the 2 year follow-up was compared to the neocortical SUVR of those that did not progress by a Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test.||||0.0008
91048691|NCT02149121|181982572|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence of PK was to be concluded if the 90% CI for the ratio of geometric means in AUC0-last, AUC0-inf, and Cmax was entirely contained within the PK equivalence bounds of 80% and 125% for the following comparisons: CT-P10 versus Rituxan, CT-P10 versus MabThera, and Rituxan versus MabThera.|Ratio of geometric least squares means|97.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.08|106.99|||||Point estimates (geometric least squares means and ratios of geometric means) were calculated by back-transforming the least squares means.|Primary PK analysis were analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group as a fixed effect and gender, region, race, prior anti TNF alpha blocker status, and RF or anti-CCP status fitted as covariates.||106.99|88.08|
91048692|NCT02149121|181982572|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence of PK was to be concluded if the 90% CI for the ratio of geometric means in AUC0-last, AUC0-inf, and Cmax was entirely contained within the PK equivalence bounds of 80% and 125% for the following comparisons: CT-P10 versus Rituxan, CT-P10 versus MabThera, and Rituxan versus MabThera.|Ratio of geometric least squares means|94.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.4|103.86|||||Point estimates (geometric least squares means and ratios of geometric means) were calculated by back-transforming the least squares means.|Primary PK analysis were analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and gender, region, race, prior anti TNF alpha blocker status, and RF or anti-CCP status fitted as covariates.||103.86|85.40|
91048693|NCT02149121|181982572|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence of PK was to be concluded if the 90% CI for the ratio of geometric means in AUC0-last, AUC0-inf, and Cmax was entirely contained within the PK equivalence bounds of 80% and 125% for the following comparisons: CT-P10 versus Rituxan, CT-P10 versus MabThera, and Rituxan versus MabThera.|Ratio of geometric least squares means|103.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.32|113.85|||||Point estimates (geometric least squares means and ratios of geometric means) were calculated by back-transforming the least squares means.|Primary PK analysis were analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and gender, region, race, prior anti TNF alpha blocker status, and RF or anti-CCP status fitted as covariates.||113.85|93.32|
91050354|NCT04168190|181987002|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>0.33 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|2.36|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 20A. Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||2.36|1.43|<0.001
91048694|NCT02149121|181982573|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence of PK was to be concluded if the 90% CI for the ratio of geometric means in AUC0-last, AUC0-inf, and Cmax was entirely contained within the PK equivalence bounds of 80% and 125% for the following comparisons: CT-P10 versus Rituxan, CT-P10 versus MabThera, and Rituxan versus MabThera.|Ratio of geometric least squares means|95.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.39|105.04|||||Point estimates (geometric least squares means and ratios of geometric means) were calculated by back-transforming the least squares means.|Primary PK analysis were analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and gender, region, race, prior anti TNF alpha blocker status, and RF or anti-CCP status fitted as covariates.||105.04|87.39|
91048695|NCT02149121|181982573|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence of PK was to be concluded if the 90% CI for the ratio of geometric means in AUC0-last, AUC0-inf, and Cmax was entirely contained within the PK equivalence bounds of 80% and 125% for the following comparisons: CT-P10 versus Rituxan, CT-P10 versus MabThera, and Rituxan versus MabThera.|Ratio of geometric least squares means|89.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.85|98.72|||||Point estimates (geometric least squares means and ratios of geometric means) were calculated by back-transforming the least squares means.|Primary PK analysis were analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and gender, region, race, prior anti TNF alpha blocker status, and RF or anti-CCP status fitted as covariates.||98.72|81.85|
91048696|NCT02149121|181982573|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence of PK was to be concluded if the 90% CI for the ratio of geometric means in AUC0-last, AUC0-inf, and Cmax was entirely contained within the PK equivalence bounds of 80% and 125% for the following comparisons: CT-P10 versus Rituxan, CT-P10 versus MabThera, and Rituxan versus MabThera.|Ratio of geometric least squares means|106.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.03|117.08|||||Point estimates (geometric least squares means and ratios of geometric means) were calculated by back-transforming the least squares means.|Primary PK analysis were analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and gender, region, race, prior anti TNF alpha blocker status, and RF or anti-CCP status fitted as covariates.||117.08|97.03|
91003193|NCT03285490|181889772|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value threshold for statistical significance was 0.5%.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical significance in the study for Day 57 partial clearance rate was analyzed using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel model controlling for treatment location (face or scalp) and treatment group (Placebo versus KX2-391 Ointment 1%).||||<0.0001
91003194|NCT00068822|181889783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted treatment effect|0.7||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|2.8|||ANCOVA|||Between group comparisons, confidence intervals, and P values were calculated with the use of analysis-of-covariance models with adjustment for study group assignment, baseline value of the outcome measure, and study center. Negative treatment effects favor the control procedure, and positive treatment effects favor vertebroplasty.||2.8|-1.3|0.49
91003195|NCT00068822|181889784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Effect|1.0||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|3.7|||ANCOVA|||SF-36 Physical Component Summary treatment effect||3.7|-1.7|0.45
91003196|NCT00068822|181889784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Effect|1.0||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|4.6|||ANCOVA|||SF-36 Mental Component Summary treatment effect||4.6|-3.7|0.83
91003197|NCT00068822|181889784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Effect|0.2||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Pain Frequency Index treatment effect||0.6|-0.2|0.33
91048697|NCT02149121|181982574|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence of PK was to be concluded if the 90% CI for the ratio of geometric means in AUC0-last, AUC0-inf, and Cmax was entirely contained within the PK equivalence bounds of 80% and 125% for the following comparisons: CT-P10 versus Rituxan, CT-P10 versus MabThera, and Rituxan versus MabThera.|Ratio of geometric least squares means|94.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.61|100.55|||||Point estimates (geometric least squares means and ratios of geometric means) were calculated by back-transforming the least squares means.|Primary PK analysis were analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and gender, region, race, prior anti TNF alpha blocker status, and RF or anti-CCP status fitted as covariates.||100.55|89.61|
91003198|NCT00068822|181889784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Effect|0.33||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Pain Bothersome Index treatment effect||0.6|-0.2|0.33
91003199|NCT00068822|181889784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Effect|0.05||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.11|||ANCOVA|||EQ-5D Index treatment effect||0.11|-0.01|0.13
91003200|NCT00068822|181889784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Effect|0.4||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.6|||ANCOVA|||SOF-ADL treatment effect||1.6|-0.8|0.5
91003201|NCT00068822|181889785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted treatment effect|0.7||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.7|||ANCOVA|||Between group comparisons, confidence intervals, and P values were calculated with the use of analysis-of-covariance models with adjustment for study group assignment, baseline value of the outcome measure, and study center. Negative treatment effects favor the control procedure, and positive treatment effects favor vertebroplasty.||1.7|-0.3|0.19
91003202|NCT00424099|181889786|OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.16
91003203|NCT00424099|181889787|OTHER|||||||0.45|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.45
91048698|NCT02149121|181982574|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence of PK was to be concluded if the 90% CI for the ratio of geometric means in AUC0-last, AUC0-inf, and Cmax was entirely contained within the PK equivalence bounds of 80% and 125% for the following comparisons: CT-P10 versus Rituxan, CT-P10 versus MabThera, and Rituxan versus MabThera.|Ratio of geometric least squares means|89.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.01|94.28|||||Point estimates (geometric least squares means and ratios of geometric means) were calculated by back-transforming the least squares means.|Primary PK analysis were analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and gender, region, race, prior anti TNF alpha blocker status, and RF or anti-CCP status fitted as covariates.||94.28|84.01|
91048699|NCT02149121|181982574|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence of PK was to be concluded if the 90% CI for the ratio of geometric means in AUC0-last, AUC0-inf, and Cmax was entirely contained within the PK equivalence bounds of 80% and 125% for the following comparisons: CT-P10 versus Rituxan, CT-P10 versus MabThera, and Rituxan versus MabThera.|Ratio of geometric least squares means|106.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.56|113.13|||||Point estimates (geometric least squares means and ratios of geometric means) were calculated by back-transforming the least squares means.|Primary PK analysis were analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and gender, region, race, prior anti TNF alpha blocker status, and RF or anti-CCP status fitted as covariates.||113.13|100.56|
91048700|NCT02149121|181982575|EQUIVALENCE|Therapeutic equivalence was to be concluded if the 90% CI for the treatment difference in the change from baseline of DAS28 (CRP) at Week 24 was entirely within the equivalence margin of ±0.50.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.22|0.2|||||Adjusted least squares means and standard error, estimate of treatment difference \[CT-P10 - (Rituxan + MabThera)\] and 2-sided 90% confidence interval calculated from the ANCOVA model.|Primary efficacy analysis were analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and gender, region, race, study part, interaction of treatment group with study part, prior anti TNF alpha blocker status at baseline (intolerance case versus inadequate response), and RF or anti-CCP status fitted as covariates.||0.20|-0.22|
91048701|NCT02149121|181982580|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares means|102.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|92.46|113.33||||||Secondary PD analysis were analyzed using an ANCOVA model with results as the response, treatment group, as fixed effect and baseline values, gender, region, race, study part, interaction of treatment group with study part, prior anti-TNF alpha blocker status, and RF or anti-CCP status fitted as covariates.|Estimate of Geometric Least Square Mean and ratio of Geometric Least Square Means (CT-P10/reference products) were obtained from back transforming the least square means from the ANCOVA.|113.33|92.46|
91048702|NCT07106489|181982586|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04||||0.8705|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Beetroot effect|||||0.8705
91048703|NCT07106489|181982587|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.9161|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Beetroot effect|||||0.9161
91048704|NCT07106489|181982588|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15||||0.4166|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Beetroot effect|||||0.4166
91048705|NCT07106489|181982589|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.9995|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Beetroot effect|||||0.9995
91048706|NCT07106489|181982590|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09||||0.0422|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Beetroot effect|||||0.0422
91048707|NCT07106489|181982591|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.56||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Beetroot effect|||||0.0027
91048708|NCT07106489|181982592|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.2||||0.2598|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Beetroot effect|||||0.2598
91048709|NCT07106489|181982593|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.1725|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Beetroot effect|||||0.1725
91048710|NCT00603291|181982594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.05|4.8|||Regression, Logistic|Adjustment for baseline body weight, baseline HbA1c stratum, and prior antihyperglycemic medication stratum||||4.80|2.05|<0.0001
91048711|NCT00603291|181982595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.92|-2.2|||ANCOVA|||||-2.20|-3.92|<0.0001
91048712|NCT00836719|181982629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.0|||<|0.01||95.0|3.4|16.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Anisotropic power spatial covariance matrix with terms for time and the registered voxel. Kenward Rogers approx. for degrees of freedom.|Dependent variable: NAA. Main effect: visit. Covariates Cre, %GM, %WM, %CSF and %lesion in the voxel.|N-Acetylaspartate acid (NAA) levels were measured at baseline and exit (6 months). Voxels with less than 30% error in NAA and Creatine (Cre) were used.NAA, Cre and Proton Density were log transformed.||16.2|3.4|<0.01
91048713|NCT02119286|181982647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squared mean difference|0.122|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.091|0.152|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|Restricted maximum likelihood (REM) - based repeated measure approach (MMRM)||||0.152|0.091|<0.001
91048714|NCT02119286|181982647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squared mean difference|0.111|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.081|0.141|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|Restricted maximum likelihood (REM) - based repeated measure approach (MMRM)||||0.141|0.081|<0.001
91048715|NCT02119286|181982648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squared mean difference|0.147|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.114|0.179|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|Restricted maximum likelihood (REM) - based repeated measure approach (MMRM)||||0.179|0.114|<0.001
91048716|NCT02119286|181982648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squared mean difference|0.135|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.103|0.167|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|Restricted maximum likelihood (REM) - based repeated measure approach (MMRM)||||0.167|0.103|<0.001
91048717|NCT01272921|181982655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.54|||Z score|||||0.54|0.49|<0.001
91003204|NCT03689972|181889788|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Mean|4.24|||=|0.0755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|20.85|||Negative Binomial Regression|The model included treatment as classification variable \& baseline body weight, duration of natalizumab exposure at baseline, \& region as covariates.||||20.85|0.86|=0.0755
91003205|NCT03689972|181889789|SUPERIORITY||Percentage|87.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|80.68|93.01|||Exact Binomial method|Percentage of participants preferring natalizumab SC at end of crossover period of Part 2, and 95% CI was calculated using the exact binomial method.||||93.01|80.68|
91003206|NCT03689972|181889791|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of annualized relapse rate|1.32481|||=|0.6312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42016|4.17725|||Poisson Regression|Poisson regression model was adjusted for baseline body weight, duration of natalizumab exposure at baseline, and region.||||4.17725|0.42016|=0.6312
91003207|NCT03689972|181889797|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.47|||=|0.764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|3.54||Performed with factors:route of administration,period,sequence,body weight,duration of natalizumab exposure,stratification factor,baseline TSQM score.|Linear Mixed Effects Model|||||3.54|-2.61|=0.764
91003208|NCT03689972|181889804|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.08|||=|0.357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.25||Performed with factors:route of administration,period,sequence,body weight,duration of natalizumab exposure,stratification factor,baseline TSQM score.|Linear Mixed Effects Model|||||0.25|-0.09|=0.357
91003209|NCT02417064|181889816|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square (LS) Means|-3.2||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.88|0.45|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.45|-6.88|0.088
91003210|NCT02417064|181889816|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square (LS) Means|-4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.67|-0.49||||||||-0.49|-7.67|
91003211|NCT02417064|181889817|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square (LS) Means|-2.0|||=|0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.52|1.42|||ANCOVA|||||1.42|-5.52|= 0.250
91003212|NCT02417064|181889817|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square (LS) Means|-4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.53|-0.6||||||||-0.6|-7.53|
91003213|NCT02437162|181889833|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|2.586||||0.669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.138|14.31|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||14.310|-9.138|0.669
91003214|NCT02437162|181889833|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|-0.646||||0.913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.18|10.887|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.887|-12.180|0.913
91003215|NCT04338321|181889876|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.44|||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.19|15.68|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||15.68|3.19|=0.003
91003216|NCT03321526|181889901|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5355|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.5355
91003217|NCT03097133|181889939|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.39||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|-1.11|||ANCOVA|||||-1.11|-6.60|0.006
91048718|NCT01272921|181982655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.21|||Z score|||||0.21|0.18|<0.001
91050355|NCT04168190|181987003|SUPERIORITY|Superiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>1.0 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|6.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.23|8.62|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 6A. Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||8.62|4.23|<0.001
91048719|NCT01272921|181982656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|-6.0||Post hoc comparison were made against the 30-mL volume group and corrected for 6 comparisons using the Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The sample selected for this study,70 per drug group (or 10 in each of the 7 groups), achieves 88% power to detect a minimal difference of 4 hours in duration at a significance level (α) of 0.05 and a standard deviation of 3 hours using Williams test. We chose a difference of 4 hours as this was the interval used for assessment in the postoperative period at night. We sought to detect a difference that was equal to 1 observation period difference.||-6.00|-17.00|0.05
91003218|NCT00371540|181889962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65|||||||Fisher Exact|||Note: The differences between the number of individuals evaluable for this secondary outcome and the number of individuals evaluable for the primary outcome is related to specimen loss by the laboratory. As such of the Routine care group only 96 of 102 patients completing the study were evaluable for the viral load outcome and only 86 of 87 patients in the Home visit group.||||0.65
91003219|NCT00371540|181889963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
91003220|NCT00371540|181889964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
91050356|NCT04168190|181987003|SUPERIORITY|Superiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>1.0 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|6.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.37|8.62|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 15A. Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||8.62|5.37|<0.001
91003221|NCT01989572|181889965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.528|||||||Log Rank|stratifying on HLA-A2 status, site of metastases and number of metastatic lesions.||||||0.528
91003222|NCT01989572|181889966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.131|||||||Log Rank|stratifying on HLA-A2 status, site of metastases, and number of metastatic lesions||||||0.131
91003223|NCT01989572|181889967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6|||||||Log Rank|stratifying on GM-CSF, site of metastases and number of metastatic lesions||||||0.60
91003224|NCT01989572|181889968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.71||||||stratifying on GM-CSF, site of metastases and number of metastatic lesions|Log Rank|||||||0.71
91003225|NCT01989572|181889969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.88|||||||Log Rank|stratifying on site of metastases and number of metastatic lesions||Treatment arm comparison in patients with positive HLA-A2 status||||0.88
91003226|NCT01989572|181889969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.69|||||||Log Rank|stratifying on site of metastases and number of metastatic lesions||Treatment arm comparison in patients with negative HLA-A2 status||||0.69
91003227|NCT01989572|181889970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.91|||||||Log Rank|stratifying on site of metastases and number of metastatic lesions||Treatment arm comparison in patients with positive HLA-A2 status||||0.91
91003228|NCT01989572|181889970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.13|||||||Log Rank|stratifying on site of metastases and number of metastatic lesions||Treatment arm comparisons in patients with negative HLA-A2 status||||0.13
91003229|NCT00262639|181889971|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.03
91003230|NCT00262639|181889972|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0006||||||This p value is for the interaction of AW status by medication group.|ANOVA|||The analysis was an ANOVA interaction analysis with alcohol withdrawal (AW) group (Low vs. High) by medication group (active versus placebo medication) across the 6 weeks of the medication trial.||||0.0006
91003231|NCT02910089|181889982|SUPERIORITY|As per the SAP, no p-values were computed. Only point estimates with 95% confidence intervals were evaluated.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.32||As per the SAP, no p-values were computed. Only point estimates with 95% confidence intervals were evaluated.|GEE|Generalized Estimating Equations with an identity link function (as a continuous variable) and normally distributed errors|Model-based Mean Differences are reported that have been adjusted for imbalanced baseline characteristics|||0.32|-0.2|
91003232|NCT02910089|181889983|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.42|4.4||As per the SAP, no p-values were computed. Only point estimates with 95% confidence intervals were evaluated.|GEE|Generalized Estimating Equations with an identity link function and normally distributed errors|Model-based Mean Differences are reported that have been adjusted for imbalanced baseline characteristics|Average of the percentage (proportion x 100) of days covered across all subjects.||4.40|-2.42|
91003233|NCT02910089|181889984|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.28||As per the SAP, no p-values were computed. Only point estimates with 95% confidence intervals were evaluated.|GEE|Generalized Estimating Equations with a logit link and binary distributed errors||||1.28|0.83|
91003234|NCT02910089|181889985|OTHER|As per the SAP, no p-values were computed. Only point estimates with 95% confidence intervals were evaluated.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.17||As per the SAP, no p-values were computed. Only point estimates with 95% confidence intervals were evaluated.|See comments|Generalized Estimating Equations with a logit link and binary distributed errors||||1.17|0.71|
91003235|NCT03434041|181889989|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square (LS) Means|-2.0||||0.123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.64|0.55||2-sided|Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.55|-4.64|0.123
91003236|NCT03434041|181889990|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.33|-1.33||||||||-1.33|-5.33|
91003237|NCT03434041|181889991|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.96|0.97||||||||0.97|-2.96|
91003238|NCT04159701|181890001|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.94||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.73|9.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.60|-3.73|0.380
91003239|NCT04159701|181890002|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|4.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.50|-1.89|0.415
91003240|NCT04159701|181890003|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.72||||0.369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|5.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.53|-2.09|0.369
91003241|NCT04159701|181890004|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.61||||0.674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|2.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted by baseline UAS7 (\< 28 vs \>= 28) score.||||2.70|0.14|0.674
91048720|NCT01272921|181982656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|-6.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The sample selected for this study,70 per drug group (or 10 in each of the 7 groups), achieves 88% power to detect a minimal difference of 4 hours in duration at a significance level (α) of 0.05 and a standard deviation of 3 hours using Williams test. We chose a difference of 4 hours as this was the interval used for assessment in the postoperative period at night. We sought to detect a difference that was equal to 1 observation period difference.||-6.00|-15.00|0.05
91048721|NCT01272921|181982656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|-4.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The sample selected for this study,70 per drug group (or 10 in each of the 7 groups), achieves 88% power to detect a minimal difference of 4 hours in duration at a significance level (α) of 0.05 and a standard deviation of 3 hours using Williams test. We chose a difference of 4 hours as this was the interval used for assessment in the postoperative period at night. We sought to detect a difference that was equal to 1 observation period difference.||-4.00|-10.00|0.05
91048722|NCT01272921|181982656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|-2.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The sample selected for this study,70 per drug group (or 10 in each of the 7 groups), achieves 88% power to detect a minimal difference of 4 hours in duration at a significance level (α) of 0.05 and a standard deviation of 3 hours using Williams test. We chose a difference of 4 hours as this was the interval used for assessment in the postoperative period at night. We sought to detect a difference that was equal to 1 observation period difference.||-2.00|-7.00|0.05
91048723|NCT04271735|181982666|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
91048724|NCT02040779|181982676|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.116||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.048|0.185||ANCOVA model with effects due to baseline trough morning FEV1, sex, age, current protocol-allowed asthma therapy (ICS or non-corticosteroid therapy) at the time of screening visit and during the run-in period and treatment.|ANCOVA||BDP 160 mcg BAI - Placebo BAI|A fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure was used while controlling the family-wise error rate at 5%. If the 2-sided p-value resulting from the ANCOVA model for comparing beclomethasone dipropionate BAI 160 mcg/day versus placebo was less than 0.05, then the comparison of the 80 mcg/day versus placebo was to be interpreted inferentially.||0.185|0.048|0.0010
91048725|NCT02040779|181982676|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.124||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.054|0.193||ANCOVA model with effects due to baseline trough morning FEV1, sex, age, current protocol-allowed asthma therapy (ICS or non-corticosteroid therapy) at the time of screening visit and during the run-in period and treatment.|ANCOVA||BDP 80 mcg BAI - Placebo BAI|||0.193|0.054|0.0005
91048726|NCT02040779|181982677|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|7.911||||0.0443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.202|15.621||a priori threshold for significance of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures||BDP 160 mcg BAI - Placebo BAI|Treatment comparisons began with am PEF for BDP 160 mcg BAI vs placebo. If the p-value was ≤0.05, the next comparisons of interest were made 1) the next secondary outcome comparison for BDP 160 mcg BAI vs placebo and 2) the am PEF for BDP 80 mcg BAI vs placebo. This procedure allowed for control of the Type I error for comparisons at a particular BAI treatment over the 5 secondary endpoints, as well as comparisons within an endpoint. It did not control the overall Type I error.||15.621|0.202|0.0443
91048727|NCT02040779|181982677|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|13.645||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.843|21.446||a priori threshold for significance of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures||BDP 160 mcg BAI - Placebo BAI|Treatment comparisons began with am PEF for BDP 160 mcg BAI vs placebo. If the p-value was ≤0.05, the next comparisons of interest were made 1) the next secondary outcome comparison for BDP 160 mcg BAI vs placebo and 2) the am PEF for BDP 80 mcg BAI vs placebo. This procedure allowed for control of the Type I error for comparisons at a particular BAI treatment over the 5 secondary endpoints, as well as comparisons within an endpoint. It did not control the overall Type I error.||21.446|5.843|0.0007
91048728|NCT02040779|181982678|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|5.405||||0.2014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.905|13.715||a priori threshold for significance of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures||BDP 160 mcg BAI - Placebo BAI|Treatment comparisons began with am PEF for BDP 160 mcg BAI vs placebo. If the p-value was ≤0.05, the next comparisons of interest were made 1) the next secondary outcome comparison for BDP 160 mcg BAI vs placebo and 2) the am PEF for BDP 80 mcg BAI vs placebo. This procedure allowed for control of the Type I error for comparisons at a particular BAI treatment over the 5 secondary endpoints, as well as comparisons within an endpoint. It did not control the overall Type I error.||13.715|-2.905|0.2014
91048729|NCT02040779|181982678|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|10.902||||0.0112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|19.303||a priori threshold for significance of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures||BDP 160 mcg BAI - Placebo BAI|Treatment comparisons began with am PEF for BDP 160 mcg BAI vs placebo. If the p-value was ≤0.05, the next comparisons of interest were made 1) the next secondary outcome comparison for BDP 160 mcg BAI vs placebo and 2) the am PEF for BDP 80 mcg BAI vs placebo. This procedure allowed for control of the Type I error for comparisons at a particular BAI treatment over the 5 secondary endpoints, as well as comparisons within an endpoint. It did not control the overall Type I error.||19.303|2.500|0.0112
91048730|NCT02040779|181982679|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.388||||0.0175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.708|-0.068||a priori threshold for significance of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures||BDP 160 mcg BAI - Placebo BAI|Treatment comparisons began with am PEF for BDP 160 mcg BAI vs placebo. If the p-value was ≤0.05, the next comparisons of interest were made 1) the next secondary outcome comparison for BDP 160 mcg BAI vs placebo and 2) the am PEF for BDP 80 mcg BAI vs placebo. This procedure allowed for control of the Type I error for comparisons at a particular BAI treatment over the 5 secondary endpoints, as well as comparisons within an endpoint. It did not control the overall Type I error.||-0.068|-0.708|0.0175
91048731|NCT02040779|181982679|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.358||||0.0285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.678|-0.038||a priori threshold for significance of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures||BDP 80 mcg BAI - Placebo BAI|Treatment comparisons began with am PEF for BDP 160 mcg BAI vs placebo. If the p-value was ≤0.05, the next comparisons of interest were made 1) the next secondary outcome comparison for BDP 160 mcg BAI vs placebo and 2) the am PEF for BDP 80 mcg BAI vs placebo. This procedure allowed for control of the Type I error for comparisons at a particular BAI treatment over the 5 secondary endpoints, as well as comparisons within an endpoint. It did not control the overall Type I error.||-0.038|-0.678|0.0285
91048732|NCT02040779|181982680|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.137||||0.0335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.263|-0.011||a priori threshold for significance of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures||BDP 160 mcg BAI - Placebo BAI|Treatment comparisons began with am PEF for BDP 160 mcg BAI vs placebo. If the p-value was ≤0.05, the next comparisons of interest were made 1) the next secondary outcome comparison for BDP 160 mcg BAI vs placebo and 2) the am PEF for BDP 80 mcg BAI vs placebo. This procedure allowed for control of the Type I error for comparisons at a particular BAI treatment over the 5 secondary endpoints, as well as comparisons within an endpoint. It did not control the overall Type I error.||-0.011|-0.263|0.0335
91048733|NCT02040779|181982680|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.127||||0.0509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.255|0.001||a priori threshold for significance of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures||BDP 80 mcg BAI - Placebo BAI|Treatment comparisons began with am PEF for BDP 160 mcg BAI vs placebo. If the p-value was ≤0.05, the next comparisons of interest were made 1) the next secondary outcome comparison for BDP 160 mcg BAI vs placebo and 2) the am PEF for BDP 80 mcg BAI vs placebo. This procedure allowed for control of the Type I error for comparisons at a particular BAI treatment over the 5 secondary endpoints, as well as comparisons within an endpoint. It did not control the overall Type I error.||0.001|-0.255|0.0509
91048734|NCT02040779|181982682|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2384|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.2384
91048735|NCT02040779|181982682|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0208|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0208
91048736|NCT00922272|181982699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91048737|NCT00922272|181982701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3||||0.4182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|8.1|||ANCOVA|||||8.1|-3.4|0.4182
91048738|NCT00922272|181982702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6705||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6705
91048739|NCT00922272|181982703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Affective Flattening||||<0.0001
91048740|NCT00922272|181982703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Alogia||||<0.0001
91048741|NCT00922272|181982703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Avolition-Apathy||||<0.0001
91048742|NCT00922272|181982703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Anhedonia-Asociality||||<0.0001
91048743|NCT00922272|181982703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Attention||||<0.0001
91048744|NCT00922272|181982704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.8771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Affective Flattening||0.5|-0.4|0.8771
91048745|NCT00922272|181982704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.0584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.1|||ANCOVA|||Alogia||1.1|0.0|0.0584
91048746|NCT00922272|181982704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.5215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Avolition-Apathy||0.6|-0.3|0.5215
91048747|NCT00922272|181982704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.4835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Anhedonia-Asociality||0.7|-0.3|0.4835
91048748|NCT00922272|181982704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.5723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Attention||0.7|-0.4|0.5723
91003242|NCT04159701|181890005|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59||||0.674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|2.68|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted by baseline UAS7 (\< median vs \>= median) score.||||2.68|0.13|0.674
91048749|NCT00922272|181982705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Positive subscale||||<0.0001
91048750|NCT00922272|181982705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Negative subscale||||<0.0001
91003243|NCT03605836|181890008|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-4.01|||=|0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.55|-1.46|||MMRM||The comparison between the centanafadine and the placebo group was tested at a significance level of 0.05.|||-1.46|-6.55|=0.0021
91048751|NCT00922272|181982705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||General Psychopathology subscale||||<0.0001
91048752|NCT00922272|181982706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.1975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.5|||ANCOVA|||Positive subscale||1.5|-0.3|0.1975
91048753|NCT00922272|181982706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.1228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|2.3|||ANCOVA|||Negative subscale||2.3|-0.3|0.1228
91048754|NCT00922272|181982706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8||||0.1115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|3.9|||ANCOVA|||General Psychopathology subscale||3.9|-0.4|0.1115
91048755|NCT00922272|181982713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0307||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0307
91048756|NCT00922272|181982714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8||||0.1072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|6.2|||ANCOVA|||||6.2|-0.6|0.1072
91048757|NCT00922272|181982715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.366||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3660
91048758|NCT00922272|181982716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0.4347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|2.2|||ANCOVA|||||2.2|-5.0|0.4347
91048759|NCT00922272|181982717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4312||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4312
91048760|NCT00922272|181982718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5||||0.0874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|0.4|||ANCOVA|||||0.4|-5.4|0.0874
91048761|NCT00922272|181982719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Total Skills||||<0.0001
91048762|NCT00922272|181982719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0002||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Communication Skills||||0.0002
91048763|NCT00922272|181982719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0028||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Financial Skills||||0.0028
91048764|NCT00922272|181982720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0.4637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|2.4|||ANCOVA|||Total Skills||2.4|-5.3|0.4637
91048765|NCT00922272|181982720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.6137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|2.4|||ANCOVA|||Communication Skills||2.4|-4.1|0.6137
91048766|NCT00922272|181982720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.3482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|1.3|||ANCOVA|||Financial Skills||1.3|-3.5|0.3482
91048767|NCT00922272|181982721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0174||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Global Executive Composite||||0.0174
91048768|NCT00922272|181982721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0461||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Behavioral Recognition Index||||0.0461
91048769|NCT00922272|181982721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0146||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Metacognition Index||||0.0146
91003244|NCT03605836|181890008|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.42|||=|0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.02|-1.82|||MMRM||The comparison between the centanafadine and the placebo group was tested at a significance level of 0.05.|||-1.82|-7.02|=0.0009
91003245|NCT03605836|181890009|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.33|||=|0.0073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.09|||MMRM||The comparison between the centanafadine and the placebo group was tested at a significance level of 0.05.|||-0.09|-0.57|=0.0073
91003246|NCT03605836|181890009|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.28|||=|0.0245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.04|||MMRM||The comparison between the centanafadine and the placebo group was tested at a significance level of 0.05.|||-0.04|-0.53|=0.0245
91048770|NCT00922272|181982722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.7418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|2.7|||ANCOVA|||Global Executive Composite||2.7|-3.8|0.7418
91048771|NCT00922272|181982722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.6429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|4.1|||ANCOVA|||Behavioral Recognition Index||4.1|-2.6|0.6429
91048772|NCT00922272|181982722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0.4364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|2.1|||ANCOVA|||Metacognition Index||2.1|-4.8|0.4364
91048773|NCT03197558|181982733|SUPERIORITY|Upper confidence limit of mean VAS score hypothesized to be less than (superior) to a performance goal of 45 mm.|Bootstrap method|14.35|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5||14.35||||||Mean VAS score compared to performance goal using a bootstrap method test at 2.5% significance.||14.35||
91048774|NCT05528861|181982779|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference from Placebo|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.8174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|4.5|||ANCOVA|||||4.5|-3.6|0.8174
91048775|NCT05528861|181982780|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference from Placebo|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.5857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.8|-1.6|0.5857
91003247|NCT01933399|181890019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.4||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|16.6|||ANCOVA||"Difference in mean change in scores from baseline to follow-up by treatment group with no adjusment for baseline.~a priori threshold determined to be .05. no adjustments for multiple comparisons."|ANCOVA Adjusted for baseline score||16.6|2.2|.01
91003248|NCT01933399|181890019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.3||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|12.6||a priori threshold determined to be .05. no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Adjustment for baseline.||||12.6|-2.0|.16
91003249|NCT01933399|181890020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||Adjusted for baseline.||-0.4|-2.3|0.01
91003250|NCT01933399|181890020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Adjusted for baseline.||0|-2.1|.05
91003251|NCT00633360|181890030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.59
91003252|NCT00633360|181890031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.29
91048776|NCT05528861|181982781|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference from Placebo|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.9633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|2.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.1|-2.2|0.9633
91048777|NCT05528861|181982782|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.25||||0.1201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|23.78|||Fisher Exact|||||23.78|-11.40|0.1201
91003253|NCT03241589|181890032|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.931||||0.7428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.606|1.429|||Regression, Logistic||Referent group is Urban|We followed power calculations described in uploaded protocol document, using an incomplete design matrix with a 3-month transition period, a level of precision α=0.05 and a minimum power level of 0.80. We also assumed a total number of clusters I=36 as per the study design and the number of baseline measurements B=2. Due to insufficient sample size, we modified groups studied.||1.429|0.606|0.7428
91003254|NCT03241589|181890033|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.258||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.181|4.315|||Regression, Logistic|2 degrees of freedom, Wald Chi-Square 11.5759|Veterans with expired requests = referent.|||4.315|1.181|0.0031
91048778|NCT01602172|181982785|EQUIVALENCE|Results of the regression models were used to reject null hypotheses of equivalence with p-values of comparisons across groups in changes in alcohol related measures using p-values \< 0.05 as significant.||||||0.05||||||First, significance of the regression model was viewed. When the overall model was significant, tests of the co-efficients were viewed. Primary effects of interest were the treatment group X time interactions.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Measures were compared with linear mixed effects regression models to compare impact of BI compared to usual care conditions. Analyses reported here included only those that completed the 6 month interview (71/82 baseline participants).||||.05
91048779|NCT00518882|181982797|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority concluded if upper confidence interval of test is below 0.4%|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.33|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.47|-0.18||No multiplicity concerns|ANCOVA|||"ANCOVA with treatment, country and previous OAD treatment as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate.~2 hypotheses were tested: H01: µliraglutide ≥ µexenatide + Δ, HA1: µliraglutide \< µexenatide + Δ; Δ=0.4%. If non-inferiority was concluded, a test for superiority was established by a 1-sided test of the hypothesis H02: µliraglutide ≥ µexenatide against HA2: µliraglutide \< µexenatide. Superiority was concluded if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference was below 0%."||-0.18|-0.47|<.0001
91048780|NCT00518882|181982798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|0.25|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.803|<|0.0001||95.0|0.139|0.364|||Paired t-test|||A paired t test was made within the treatment group and 95% confidence intervals for the difference between Weeks 26 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78 - µ26 = 0 against HA: µ78 - µ26 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means (Week 26 and Week 78) was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||0.364|0.139|<0.0001
91048781|NCT00518882|181982798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.924||0.9872||95.0|-1.36|0.134|||Paired t-test|||A paired t test was made within the treatment group and 95% confidence intervals for the difference between Weeks 26 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78 - µ26 = 0 against HA: µ78 - µ26 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means (Week 26 and Week 78) was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||0.134|-1.36|0.9872
91048782|NCT00518882|181982799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|-0.98|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.119|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.137|-0.823|||Paired t-test|||The analysis was made with a paired t test within the treatment group and 95% confidence intervals for the difference between Weeks 0 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78 - µ0 = 0 against HA: µ78 - µ0 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means (Weeks 0 and 78) was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||-0.823|-1.137|<0.0001
91048783|NCT00518882|181982799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|-0.85|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.105|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.01|-0.687|||Paired t-test|||The analysis was made with a paired t test within the exenatide→liraglutide group and 95% confidence intervals for the difference between Weeks 0 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78 - µ0 = 0 against HA: µ78 - µ0 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means (Weeks 0 and 78) was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||-0.687|-1.010|<0.0001
91048784|NCT00518882|181982802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.38||||0.2235||95.0|-0.99|0.23||There were no multiplicity concerns.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model included treatment, country and previous treatment as fixed effects and baseline body weight as covariate. The objective was to demonstrate that treatment with liraglutide was different from treatment with exenatide. Thus the null hypothesis and its alternative were H0: µliraglutide = µexenatide against HA1:µliraglutide ≠ µexenatide where µliraglutide and µexenatide is the mean value of the body weight in the liraglutide arm and exenatide arm, respectively.||0.23|-0.99|0.2235
91048785|NCT00518882|181982803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|-0.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.24||0.0793||95.0|-0.86|0.05|||Paired t test|||The analysis was made with a paired t test within the treatment group and 95% CIs for the difference between Weeks 26 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78 - µ26=0 against HA: µ78 - µ26 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||0.05|-0.86|0.0793
91048786|NCT00518882|181982803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|-0.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.67||0.0075||95.0|-1.26|-0.2|||Paired t test|||A paired t test was made within the group and 95% confidence intervals for the difference between Weeks 26 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78 - µ26 = 0 against HA: µ78 - µ26 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means (Week 26 and Week 78) was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||-0.20|-1.26|0.0075
91048787|NCT00518882|181982804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|-3.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.63|<|0.0001||95.0|-3.9|-2.61|||Paired t test|||The analysis was made with a paired t test within the treatment group and 95% CIs for the difference between Weeks 0 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78- µ0=0 against HA: µ78 - µ0 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||-2.61|-3.90|<0.0001
91048788|NCT00518882|181982804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|-3.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.44|<|0.0001||95.0|-3.85|-2.55|||Paired t test|||The analysis was made with a paired t test within the treatment group and 95% CIs for the difference between Weeks 0 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78- µ0=0 against HA: µ78 - µ0 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||-2.55|-3.85|<0.0001
91048789|NCT00518882|181982805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-1.01|||<|0.0001||95.0|-1.37|-0.65||There were no multiplicity concerns.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model included treatment, country and previous treatment as fixed effects and baseline fasting plasma glucose as covariate. The objective was to demonstrate that treatment with liraglutide was different from treatment with exenatide. Thus the null hypothesis and its alternative were H0: µliraglutide = µexenatide against HA1:µliraglutide ≠ µexenatide where µliraglutide and µexenatide is the mean value of the fasting plasma glucose in the liraglutide and exenatide arm, respectively.||-0.65|-1.37|<0.0001
91048790|NCT00518882|181982806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|0.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.84|<|0.0001||95.0|0.48|1.0|||Paired t test|||The analysis was made with a paired t test within the treatment group and 95% CIs for the difference between Weeks 26 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78- µ26=0 against HA: µ78 - µ26 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||1.00|0.48|<0.0001
91048791|NCT00518882|181982806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|-0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.42||0.4864||95.0|-0.48|0.23|||Paired t test|||A paired t test was made within the group and 95% confidence intervals for the difference between Weeks 26 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78 - µ26 = 0 against HA: µ78 - µ26 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means (Week 26 and Week 78) was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||0.23|-0.48|0.4864
91003255|NCT01690988|181890060|OTHER|Test of independence|Difference in Percentages|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.301||0.912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.07|7.38|||Chi-squared||Difference in delirium incidence between placebo control and combined ketamine groups.|The primary analysis was a comparison between the placebo control group and the combined ketamine groups||7.38|-6.07|0.912
91003256|NCT01690988|181890061|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.964|||||||ANOVA|one-way||We compared the combined average pain level (pain level at rest, taking a deep breath, and/or when moving) over the entire day (AM and PM).||||0.964
91003257|NCT01690988|181890062|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.476|||||||ANOVA|||"All morphine equivalent drugs consumed by patients perioperatively~Opioid Drugs included:~\* Postoperatively while still in hospital, the list of pain medication used included Morphine, Hydromorphone, Meperidine, Nalbuphine, Oxycodone,Oxymorphone, Tramadol, bupivacaine, (Codeine, Fentanyl, Naloxone) Total Opiates (Morphine Equivalent) in milligrams The median(IQR) opioid consumption was compared across the three study groups Placebo vs. Lo-K (0.5 mg/kg) vs. Hi-K (1 mg/kg)"||||0.476
91007427|NCT04191096|181898958|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||0.85122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.53||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by prior docetaxel for mHSPC (Yes vs No) and presence of high-volume disease (Yes vs No) with small strata.|Log Rank||HR and associated 95% Confidence Interval (CI) were calculated using Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by prior docetaxel for mHSPC (Yes/No) and presence of high-volume disease (Yes/No)|||1.53|0.88|0.85122
91048792|NCT00518882|181982807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|-1.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.5|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.62|-0.92|||Paired t test|||The analysis was made with a paired t test within the treatment group and 95% CIs for the difference between Weeks 0 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78 - µ0=0 against HA: µ78 - µ0 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||-0.92|-1.62|<0.0001
91048793|NCT00518882|181982807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|-0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.76|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.23|-0.42|||Paired t test|||The analysis was made with a paired t test within the treatment group and 95% CIs for the difference between Weeks 0 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78 - µ0=0 against HA: µ78 - µ0 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||-0.42|-1.23|<0.0001
91048794|NCT00518882|181982808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|1.33|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.8|1.86||There were no multiplicity concerns.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model included treatment, country and previous treatment as fixed effects and baseline value of the endpoint as covariate. The objective was to demonstrate that treatment with liraglutide was different from treatment with exenatide. Thus the null hypothesis and its alternative were H0: µliraglutide = µexenatide against HA1:µliraglutide ≠ µexenatide where µliraglutide and µexenatide is the mean value of the endpoint in the liraglutide arm and exenatide arm, respectively.||1.86|0.80|<.0001
91048795|NCT00518882|181982809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|0.01||||0.9849||95.0|-0.52|0.53||There were no multiplicity concerns.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model included treatment, country and previous treatment as fixed effects and baseline value of the endpoint as covariate. The objective was to demonstrate that treatment with liraglutide was different from treatment with exenatide. Thus the null hypothesis and its alternative were H0: µliraglutide = µexenatide against HA1:µliraglutide ≠ µexenatide where µliraglutide and µexenatide is the mean value of the endpoint in the liraglutide arm and exenatide arm, respectively.||0.53|-0.52|0.9849
91048796|NCT00518882|181982810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean|1.01||||0.0005||95.0|0.44|1.57||There were no multiplicity concerns.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model included treatment, country and previous treatment as fixed effects and baseline value of the endpoint as covariate. The objective was to demonstrate that treatment with liraglutide was different from treatment with exenatide. Thus the null hypothesis and its alternative were H0: µliraglutide = µexenatide against HA1:µliraglutide ≠ µexenatide where µliraglutide and µexenatide is the mean value of the endpoint in the liraglutide arm and exenatide arm, respectively.||1.57|0.44|0.0005
91048797|NCT00518882|181982811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|-0.22|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.866||0.2972||95.0|-0.626|0.192|||Paired t test|||A paired t test was made within the group and 95% confidence intervals for the difference between Weeks 26 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78 - µ26 = 0 against HA: µ78 - µ26 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means (Week 26 and Week 78) was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||0.192|-0.626|0.2972
91048798|NCT00518882|181982811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|1.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.253|<|0.0001||95.0|0.66|1.637|||Paired t test|||A paired t test was made within the group and 95% confidence intervals for the difference between Weeks 26 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78 - µ26 = 0 against HA: µ78 - µ26 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means (Week 26 and Week 78) was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||1.637|0.660|<0.0001
91048799|NCT00518882|181982812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.307||0.8396||95.0|-0.424|0.521|||Paired t test|||A paired t test was made within the group and 95% confidence intervals for the difference between Weeks 26 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78 - µ26 = 0 against HA: µ78 - µ26 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means (Week 26 and Week 78) was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||0.521|-0.424|0.8396
91048800|NCT00518882|181982812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|-0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.419||0.7278||95.0|-0.604|0.423|||Paired t test|||A paired t test was made within the group and 95% confidence intervals for the difference between Weeks 26 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78 - µ26 = 0 against HA: µ78 - µ26 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means (Week 26 and Week 78) was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||0.423|-0.604|0.7278
91048801|NCT00518882|181982813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|0.22|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.053||0.3271||95.0|-0.219|0.654|||Paired t test|||A paired t test was made within the group and 95% confidence intervals for the difference between Weeks 26 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78 - µ26 = 0 against HA: µ78 - µ26 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means (Week 26 and Week 78) was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||0.654|-0.219|0.3271
91048802|NCT00518882|181982813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|1.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.775||0.0003||95.0|0.497|1.634|||Paired t test|||A paired t test was made within the group and 95% confidence intervals for the difference between Weeks 26 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78 - µ26 = 0 against HA: µ78 - µ26 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means (Week 26 and Week 78) was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||1.634|0.497|0.0003
91048803|NCT00518882|181982814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|-1.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.662|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.605|-0.562|||Paired t test|||The analysis was made with a paired t test within the treatment group and 95% CIs for the difference between Weeks 0 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78- µ0=0 against HA: µ78 - µ0 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||-0.562|-1.605|<0.0001
91003258|NCT01690988|181890063|SUPERIORITY||frequency-test|0.572||||0.572|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||"Assessed from patient-reported postoperative nausea and vomiting section of Behavioral Pain Scale or Behavioral Pain Scale (Non-Intubated) Patients where asked whether they currently have nausea/vomiting AM \& PM the response choices: None, Mild, Moderate, Severe Incidence of nausea\\vomiting accounted for any positive reporting(Mild, moderate, or sever) Daily incidence accounted for any positive incidence AM/PM in each POD Any POD nausea/vomiting reports the incidence across day 1-3"||||0.572
91003259|NCT01690988|181890065|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||Frequency of patients reporting hallucinations using the DSAQ instrument.||||0.01
91003260|NCT01690988|181890066|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||"Patients where asked whether Following their surgery they had bad dreams or nightmares the response choices: Yes/No question The incidence of hallucination and nightmares were assessed separately and compared across the three study group."|Chi-squared|||||||0.03
91003261|NCT01594411|181890114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||one-sided binomial with alpha level of 0|||"The proportion of patients whose final treatment plan changes from the preliminary will be estimated, and a one-sided binomial test with alpha level of .05 will be used to test whether it is greater than 10%.~This is the level at which it is assumed that patient management has been modified by a practically important amount."||||<0.001
91003262|NCT01332097|181890118|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|54.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.7|150.1||||||LS Mean difference: Treatment A vs. Treatment B, E, G \& I (placebo) Day 5||150.1|-41.7|
91048804|NCT00518882|181982814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|-0.99|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.467||0.0003||95.0|-1.517|-0.458|||Paired t test|||The analysis was made with a paired t test within the treatment group and 95% CIs for the difference between Weeks 0 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78- µ0=0 against HA: µ78 - µ0 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||-0.458|-1.517|0.0003
91048805|NCT00518882|181982815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|0.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.158||0.3859||95.0|-0.331|0.853|||Paired t test|||The analysis was made with a paired t test within the treatment group and 95% CIs for the difference between Weeks 0 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78- µ0=0 against HA: µ78 - µ0 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||0.853|-0.331|0.3859
91003263|NCT01332097|181890118|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-52.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-148.5|44.5||||||LS Mean difference: Treatment C vs. Treatment B, E, G \& I (placebo) Day 5||44.5|-148.5|
91003264|NCT01332097|181890118|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-96.0|106.9||||||LS Mean difference: Treatment D vs. Treatment B, E, G \& I (placebo) Day 5||106.9|-96.0|
91003265|NCT01332097|181890118|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|33.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.8|133.9||||||LS Mean difference: Treatment F vs. Treatment B, E, G \& I (placebo) Day 5||133.9|-66.8|
91003266|NCT01332097|181890118|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|99.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|202.0||||||LS Mean difference: Treatment H vs. Treatment B, E, G \& I (placebo) Day 5||202.0|-2.4|
91003267|NCT01332097|181890118|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|37.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-107.1|182.6||||||LS Mean difference: Treatment A vs. Treatment B, E, G \& I (placebo) Day 10||182.6|-107.1|
91003268|NCT01332097|181890118|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-72.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-215.7|71.8||||||LS Mean difference: Treatment C vs. Treatment B, E, G \& I (placebo) Day 10||71.8|-215.7|
91003269|NCT01332097|181890118|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-72.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-241.5|96.9||||||LS Mean difference: Treatment D vs. Treatment B, E, G \& I (placebo) Day 10||96.9|-241.5|
91003270|NCT01332097|181890118|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-17.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-154.9|119.2||||||LS Mean difference: Treatment F vs. Treatment B, E, G \& I (placebo) Day 10||119.2|-154.9|
91003271|NCT01332097|181890118|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|123.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.8|263.0||||||LS Mean difference: Treatment H vs. Treatment B, E, G \& I (placebo) Day 10||263.0|-15.8|
91003272|NCT02896192|181890123|OTHER||CI||||<|0.0001||||||One-sided p-value obtained from exact binomial test, testing that at least 5% of participants in the population of interest would achieve 10% weight loss.|Exact binomial test|||||||<0.0001
91003273|NCT02896192|181890124|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||One-sided p-value obtained from exact binomial test, testing that at least 5% of participants in the population of interest would achieve 10% weight loss.|Exact binomial test|||||||<0.0001
91003274|NCT02896192|181890125|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-25.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-28.49|-22.98|||Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance|||Model based summary statistics from longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effect for visit, baseline body weight and random effect for participant, one sided p-value from model.||-22.98|-28.49|<0.0001
91003275|NCT02896192|181890126|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-27.77||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-40.58|-14.96|||Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance|||Model based summary statistics from longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effect for week, baseline daily hunger score and random effect for participant, one sided p-value from model.||-14.96|-40.58|0.0005
91003276|NCT02896192|181890127|OTHER|||||||0.0004||||||One-sided p-value obtained from exact binomial test, testing that ≥ 5% of participants in the population of interest would achieve ≥ 25% improvement in daily hunger score.|Exact binomial test|||||||0.0004
91048806|NCT00518882|181982815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|-0.37|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.838||0.2119||95.0|-0.956|0.214|||Paired t test|||The analysis was made with a paired t test within the treatment group and 95% CIs for the difference between Weeks 0 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78- µ0=0 against HA: µ78 - µ0 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||0.214|-0.956|0.2119
91048807|NCT00518882|181982816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|-0.35|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.975||0.229||95.0|-0.917|0.2211|||Paired t test|||The analysis was made with a paired t test within the treatment group and 95% CIs for the difference between Weeks 0 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78- µ0=0 against HA: µ78 - µ0 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||0.2211|-0.917|0.2290
91003277|NCT02896192|181890128|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-18.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.27|-14.88|||Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance|||Model based summary statistics from longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effect for visit, baseline waist circumference and random effect for participant, one sided p-value from model.||-14.88|-21.27|<0.0001
91003278|NCT02896192|181890131|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-27.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-30.6|-24.29|||Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance|||Model based summary statistics from longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effect for week, baseline BMI and random effect for participant, one sided p-value from model.||-24.29|-30.60|<0.0001
91003279|NCT00655811|181890146|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||One-way anova was used to compare the mean COVAS values between groups.||||<0.05
91003280|NCT00655811|181890146|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.550
91003281|NCT00655811|181890146|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.005
91003282|NCT00655811|181890146|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.027
91003283|NCT00655811|181890147|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.012
91003284|NCT00655811|181890147|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.06
91003285|NCT00655811|181890147|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.002
91003286|NCT00655811|181890148|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.06
91003287|NCT03209362|181890167|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.9||||0.5453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|6.6|||ANCOVA|||||6.6|-12.4|0.5453
91003288|NCT03209362|181890168|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.5||||0.5386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|7.8|||Longitudinal model|||Week 12||7.8|-14.9|0.5386
91003289|NCT03209362|181890168|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.3||||0.5873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|8.6|||Longitudinal model|||Week 26||8.6|-15.2|0.5873
91003290|NCT03209362|181890169|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.9||||0.6347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|9.2|||Longitudinal model|||Week 12||9.2|-15.0|0.6347
91003291|NCT03209362|181890169|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.8||||0.7806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|10.8|||Longitudinal model|||Week 26||10.8|-14.3|0.7806
91003292|NCT03209362|181890170|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.9||||0.8819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|11.4|||Longitudinal model|||Week 12||11.4|-13.2|0.8819
91003293|NCT03209362|181890170|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.6||||0.3796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.3|7.1|||Longitudinal model|||Week 26||7.1|-18.3|0.3796
91048808|NCT00518882|181982816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|-0.95|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.23||0.0002||95.0|-1.449|-0.459|||Paired t test|||The analysis was made with a paired t test within the treatment group and 95% CIs for the difference between Weeks 0 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78- µ0=0 against HA: µ78 - µ0 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||-0.459|-1.449|0.0002
91048809|NCT00518882|181982817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|0.73||||0.0124||95.0|0.16|1.31||There were no multiplicity concerns.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model included treatment, country and previous treatment as fixed effects and baseline value of the endpoint as covariate. The objective was to demonstrate that treatment with liraglutide was different from treatment with exenatide. Thus the null hypothesis and its alternative were H0: µliraglutide = µexenatide against HA1:µliraglutide ≠ µexenatide where µliraglutide and µexenatide is the mean value of the endpoint in the liraglutide arm and exenatide arm, respectively.||1.31|0.16|0.0124
91048810|NCT00518882|181982818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.39||||0.143||95.0|-0.91|0.13||There were no multiplicity concerns.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model included treatment, country and previous treatment as fixed effects and baseline value of the endpoint as covariate. The objective was to demonstrate that treatment with liraglutide was different from treatment with exenatide. Thus the null hypothesis and its alternative were H0: µliraglutide = µexenatide against HA1:µliraglutide ≠ µexenatide where µliraglutide and µexenatide is the mean value of the endpoint in the liraglutide arm and exenatide arm, respectively.||0.13|-0.91|0.1430
91048811|NCT00518882|181982819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|0.54||||0.038||95.0|0.03|1.05||There were no multiplicity concerns.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model included treatment, country and previous treatment as fixed effects and baseline value of the endpoint as covariate. The objective was to demonstrate that treatment with liraglutide was different from treatment with exenatide. Thus the null hypothesis and its alternative were H0: µliraglutide = µexenatide against HA1:µliraglutide ≠ µexenatide where µliraglutide and µexenatide is the mean value of the endpoint in the liraglutide arm and exenatide arm, respectively.||1.05|0.03|0.0380
91048812|NCT00518882|181982820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.827||0.77||95.0|-0.344|0.463|||Paired t test|||A paired t test was made within the group and 95% confidence intervals for the difference between Weeks 26 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78 - µ26 = 0 against HA: µ78 - µ26 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means (Week 26 and Week 78) was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||0.463|-0.344|0.7700
91048813|NCT00518882|181982820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|0.72|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.27||0.0042||95.0|0.23|1.212|||Paired t test|||The analysis was made with a paired t test within the treatment group and 95% CIs for the difference between Weeks 0 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78- µ0=0 against HA: µ78 - µ0 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||1.212|0.230|0.0042
91048814|NCT00518882|181982821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|0.67|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.041||0.0026||95.0|0.238|1.106|||Paired t test|||A paired t test was made within the group and 95% confidence intervals for the difference between Weeks 26 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78 - µ26 = 0 against HA: µ78 - µ26 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means (Week 26 and Week 78) was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||1.106|0.238|0.0026
91048815|NCT00518882|181982821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|-0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.989||0.6845||95.0|-0.541|0.356|||Paired t test|||A paired t test was made within the treatment group and 95% confidence intervals for the difference between Weeks 26 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78 - µ26 = 0 against HA: µ78 - µ26 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means (Week 26 and Week 78) was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||0.356|-0.541|0.6845
91048816|NCT00518882|181982822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|0.32|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.705||0.1041||95.0|-0.066|0.706|||Paired t test|||A paired t test was made within the group and 95% confidence intervals for the difference between Weeks 26 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78 - µ26 = 0 against HA: µ78 - µ26 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means (Week 26 and Week 78) was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||0.706|-0.066|0.1041
91048817|NCT00518882|181982822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|0.58|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.114||0.0151||95.0|0.114|1.052|||Paired t test|||A paired t test was made within the treatment group and 95% confidence intervals for the difference between Weeks 26 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78 - µ26 = 0 against HA: µ78 - µ26 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means (Week 26 and Week 78) was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||1.052|0.114|0.0151
91048818|NCT00518882|181982823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|-3.31|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.857|<|0.0001||95.0|-3.861|-2.763|||Paired t test|||The analysis was made with a paired t test within the treatment group and 95% CIs for the difference between Weeks 0 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78- µ0=0 against HA: µ78 - µ0 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||-2.763|-3.861|<0.0001
91048819|NCT00518882|181982823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|-3.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.56|<|0.0001||95.0|-3.673|-2.589|||Paired t test|||The analysis was made with a paired t test within the treatment group and 95% CIs for the difference between Weeks 0 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78- µ0=0 against HA: µ78 - µ0 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||-2.589|-3.673|<0.0001
91048820|NCT00518882|181982824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|-1.93|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.703|<|0.0001||95.0|-2.457|-1.403|||Paired t test|||The analysis was made with a paired t test within the treatment group and 95% CIs for the difference between Weeks 0 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78- µ0=0 against HA: µ78 - µ0 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||-1.403|-2.457|<0.0001
91048821|NCT00518882|181982824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|-2.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.654|<|0.0001||95.0|-2.731|-1.618|||Paired t test|||The analysis was made with a paired t test within the treatment group and 95% CIs for the difference between Weeks 0 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78- µ0=0 against HA: µ78 - µ0 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||-1.618|-2.731|<0.0001
91048822|NCT00518882|181982825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|-2.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.752|<|0.0001||95.0|-2.747|-1.676|||Paired t test|||The analysis was made with a paired t test within the treatment group and 95% CIs for the difference between Weeks 0 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78- µ0=0 against HA: µ78 - µ0 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||-1.676|-2.747|<0.0001
91048823|NCT00518882|181982825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|-2.55|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.625|<|0.0001||95.0|-3.104|-1.997|||Paired t test|||The analysis was made with a paired t test within the treatment group and 95% CIs for the difference between Weeks 0 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78- µ0=0 against HA: µ78 - µ0 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||-1.997|-3.104|<0.0001
91048824|NCT00518882|181982826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|29.37|||<|0.0001||95.0|16.81|41.93||There were no multiplicity concerns.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model included treatment, country and previous treatment as fixed effects and baseline value of the endpoint as covariate. The objective was to demonstrate that treatment with liraglutide was different from treatment with exenatide. Thus the null hypothesis and its alternative were H0: µliraglutide = µexenatide against HA1:µliraglutide ≠ µexenatide where µliraglutide and µexenatide is the mean value of the endpoint in the liraglutide arm and exenatide arm, respectively.||41.93|16.81|<.0001
91048825|NCT00518882|181982827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|-18.18|STANDARD_DEVIATION|62.811|<|0.0001||95.0|-26.988|-9.382|||Paired t test|||A paired t test was made within the group and 95% confidence intervals for the difference between Weeks 26 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78 - µ26 = 0 against HA: µ78 - µ26 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means (Week 26 and Week 78) was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||-9.382|-26.988|<0.0001
91003294|NCT03209362|181890171|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.0||||0.6217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|9.0|||Longitudinal model|||Week 12||9.0|-14.9|0.6217
91003295|NCT03209362|181890171|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.5||||0.6901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|9.8|||Longitudinal model|||Week 26||9.8|-14.8|0.6901
91003296|NCT01628042|181890172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|1.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.36|2.46|||ANCOVA|||||2.46|1.36|
91003297|NCT01628042|181890172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|2.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.55|2.74|||ANCOVA|||||2.74|1.55|
91003298|NCT01628042|181890172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.11|2.0|||ANCOVA|||||2.00|1.11|
91003299|NCT01628042|181890173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|1.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.89|2.27|||ANCOVA|||||2.27|0.89|
91048826|NCT00518882|181982827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|2.49|STANDARD_DEVIATION|52.997||0.5304||95.0|-5.327|10.307|||Paired t test|||A paired t test was made within the treatment group and 95% confidence intervals for the difference between Weeks 26 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78 - µ26 = 0 against HA: µ78 - µ26 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means (Week 26 and Week 78) was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||10.307|-5.327|0.5304
91048827|NCT00518882|181982828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|24.86|STANDARD_DEVIATION|59.326|<|0.0001||95.0|16.348|33.374|||Paired t test|||The analysis was made with a paired t test within the treatment group and 95% CIs for the difference between Weeks 0 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78- µ0=0 against HA: µ78 - µ0 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||33.374|16.348|<0.0001
91048828|NCT00518882|181982828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|11.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|87.145||0.092||95.0|-1.835|24.093|||Paired t test|||The analysis was made with a paired t test within the treatment group and 95% CIs for the difference between Weeks 0 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78- µ0=0 against HA: µ78 - µ0 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||24.093|-1.835|0.0920
91048829|NCT00518882|181982829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.11||||0.0946||95.0|-0.23|0.02||There were no multiplicity concerns.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model included treatment, country and previous treatment as fixed effects and baseline value of the endpoint as covariate. The objective was to demonstrate that treatment with liraglutide was different from treatment with exenatide. Thus the null hypothesis and its alternative were H0: µliraglutide = µexenatide against HA1:µliraglutide ≠ µexenatide where µliraglutide and µexenatide is the mean value of the endpoint in the liraglutide arm and exenatide arm, respectively.||0.02|-0.23|0.0946
91048830|NCT00518882|181982830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.774||0.0513||95.0|-0.001|0.216|||Paired t test|||A paired t test was made within the group and 95% confidence intervals for the difference between Weeks 26 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78 - µ26 = 0 against HA: µ78 - µ26 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means (Week 26 and Week 78) was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||0.216|-0.001|0.0513
91003300|NCT01628042|181890173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ration|1.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.07|2.63|||ANCOVA|||||2.63|1.07|
91003301|NCT01628042|181890173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|1.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.23|3.13|||ANCOVA|||||3.13|1.23|
91003302|NCT01628042|181890174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.41|0.74|||ANCOVA|||||0.74|0.41|
91003303|NCT01628042|181890174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.36|0.65|||ANCOVA|||||0.65|0.36|
91003304|NCT01628042|181890174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|0.9|||ANCOVA|||||0.90|0.50|
91003305|NCT00142818|181890181|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.4
91003306|NCT04852666|181890183|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.751|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.751
91003307|NCT04852666|181890183|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.372|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.372
91003308|NCT04852666|181890184|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.778|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.778
91003309|NCT04852666|181890184|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.357|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.357
91003310|NCT04852666|181890185|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.012
91003311|NCT04852666|181890185|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.956|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.956
91003312|NCT04852666|181890186|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.103|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.103
91003313|NCT04852666|181890186|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.025|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.025
91003314|NCT04852666|181890187|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.785|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.785
91003315|NCT04852666|181890188|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.200
91003316|NCT04852666|181890189|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.887|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.887
91003317|NCT04852666|181890189|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.204|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.204
91003318|NCT05426460|181890190|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.438|||||||ANOVA|||2 x 2 ANOVA||||.438
91003319|NCT05426460|181890191|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.847|||||||ANOVA|||2 x 2 ANOVA||||.847
91003320|NCT05426460|181890192|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||ANOVA|||2 X 2 ANOVA||||.570
91003321|NCT05426460|181890193|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.657|||||||ANOVA|||2 x 2 ANOVA||||.657
91003322|NCT05426460|181890194|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.254|||||||ANOVA|||2 x 2 ANOVA||||.254
91003323|NCT05426460|181890195|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.852|||||||ANOVA|||2 x 2 ANOVA with Main effect p-values for tDCS and AAT reported in comments below||||.852
91003324|NCT05426460|181890196|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.732|||||||ANOVA|||2 x 2 ANOVA||||.732
91003325|NCT05426460|181890197|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038|||||||ANOVA|||2 x 2 ANOVA||||.038
91003326|NCT05426460|181890198|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029|||||||ANOVA|||2 x 2 ANOVA||||.029
91003327|NCT05426460|181890199|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.353|||||||ANOVA|||2 x 2 ANOVA||||.353
91003328|NCT01405027|181890209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4864|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.4864
91003329|NCT01193049|181890214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GM FR from Placebo: SP|0.25||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.14|0.46||1-sided p-value, α = 0.05|ANOVA|||GM Fold Reduction (FR) is the GM of individual FC(Prednisone)/FC (Placebo) from SP.||0.46|0.14|0.001
91003330|NCT01193049|181890214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GM FR from Placebo : NE|0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.13|0.3||1-sided p value, α = 0.05|ANOVA|||GM FR is the GM of individual FC(Prednisone)/FC(Placebo) from NE.||0.30|0.13|<0.001
91003331|NCT01193049|181890214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Correlation FC from BL: SP vs NE|0.2||||0.553||||||Unadjusted for Baseline and Period Effects|Pearson's correlation coefficient|||Correlation between SP and NE of FC from BL in IL-5 after placebo treatment.||||0.553
91003332|NCT01193049|181890214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Correlation FR from Placebo :SP vs NE|-0.02||||0.964||||||Unadjusted for Baseline and Period Effects|Pearson's correlation coefficient|||Correlation between SP and NE of FR from placebo in IL-5 after prednisone treatment.||||0.964
91003333|NCT01193049|181890215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GM FR from Placebo: SP|0.27||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.12|0.62||1-sided p-value, α = 0.05|ANOVA|||GM FR is the GM of individual FC(Prednisone)/FC (Placebo) from SP.||0.62|0.12|0.009
91003334|NCT01193049|181890215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GM FR from Placebo : NE|0.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.22|0.43||1-sided p-value, α = 0.05|ANOVA|||GM FR is the GM of individual FC Prednisone)/FC(Placebo) from NE.||0.43|0.22|<0.001
91003335|NCT01193049|181890215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Correlation FC from BL: SP vs NE|-0.02||||0.962||||||Unadjusted for Baseline and Period Effects|Pearson's correlation coefficient|||Correlation between SP and NE of FC from BL in IL-13 after placebo treatment.||||0.962
91003336|NCT01193049|181890215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Correlation FR from Placebo: SP vs NE|0.07||||0.83||||||Unadjusted for Baseline and Period Effects|Pearson's correlation coefficient|||Correlation between SP and NE of FR from placebo in IL-13 after prednisone treatment.||||0.83
91003337|NCT01193049|181890216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GM FR from Placebo: SP|0.8||||0.258|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.43|1.47||1-sided p-value, α = 0.05|ANOVA|||GM FR from Placebo is the GM of individual FC (Prednisone)/FC (Placebo) from SP.||1.47|0.43|0.258
91003338|NCT01193049|181890216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GM FR from Placebo: NE|1.08||||0.681|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|1.46||1-sided p-value, α = 0.05|ANOVA|||GM FR from Placebo is the GM of individual FC (Prednisone)/FC (Placebo) from NE.||1.46|0.80|0.681
91003339|NCT01193049|181890217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GM FR from Placebo:SP|0.61||||0.117|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.3|1.24||1-sided p-value, α = 0.05|ANOVA|||GM FR from Placebo is the GM of individual FC (Prednisone)/FC (Placebo) from SP.||1.24|0.30|0.117
91048831|NCT00518882|181982830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|0.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.804||0.0513||95.0|-0.001|0.233|||Paired t test|||A paired t test was made within the group and 95% confidence intervals for the difference between Weeks 26 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78 - µ26 = 0 against HA: µ78 - µ26 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means (Week 26 and Week 78) was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||0.233|-0.001|0.0513
91048832|NCT00518882|181982831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|-0.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.859||0.2764||95.0|-0.187|0.054|||Paired t test|||The analysis was made with a paired t test within the treatment group and 95% CIs for the difference between Weeks 0 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78- µ0=0 against HA: µ78 - µ0 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||0.054|-0.187|0.2764
91048833|NCT00518882|181982831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.89||0.1911||95.0|-0.043|0.216|||Paired t test|||The analysis was made with a paired t test within the treatment group and 95% CIs for the difference between Weeks 0 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78- µ0=0 against HA: µ78 - µ0 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||0.216|-0.043|0.1911
91048834|NCT00518882|181982832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.04||||0.4412||95.0|-0.15|0.06||There were no multiplicity concerns.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model included treatment, country and previous treatment as fixed effects and baseline value of the endpoint as covariate. The objective was to demonstrate that treatment with liraglutide was different from treatment with exenatide. Thus the null hypothesis and its alternative were H0: µliraglutide = µexenatide against HA1:µliraglutide ≠ µexenatide where µliraglutide and µexenatide is the mean value of the endpoint in the liraglutide arm and exenatide arm, respectively.||0.06|-0.15|0.4412
91048835|NCT00518882|181982833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.606||0.4746||95.0|-0.054|0.115|||Paired t test|||A paired t test was made within the group and 95% confidence intervals for the difference between Weeks 26 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78 - µ26 = 0 against HA: µ78 - µ26 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means (Week 26 and Week 78) was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||0.115|-0.054|0.4746
91048836|NCT00518882|181982833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.72||0.1281||95.0|-0.024|0.188|||Paired t test|||A paired t test was made within the treatment group and 95% confidence intervals for the difference between Weeks 26 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78 - µ26 = 0 against HA: µ78 - µ26 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means (Week 26 and Week 78) was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||0.188|-0.024|0.1281
91003340|NCT01193049|181890217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GM FR from Placebo: NE|0.64||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.47|0.86||1-sided p-value, α = 0.05|ANOVA|||GM FR from Placebo is the GM of individual FC (Prednisone)/FC (Placebo) from NE.||0.86|0.47|0.011
91003341|NCT01193049|181890219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GM FR from Placebo: IL-5|1.51||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.15|1.99||1-sided p-value, α = 0.05|ANOVA|||GM FR from Placebo is the GM of individual FC (Prednisone)/FC (Placebo) for IL-5.||1.99|1.15|0.010
91003342|NCT01193049|181890219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GM FR from Placebo: IL-13|1.35||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.07|1.71||1-sided p-value, α = 0.05|ANOVA|||GM FR from Placebo is the GM of individual FC(Prednisone)/FC (Placebo) for IL-13.||1.71|1.07|0.020
91003343|NCT01193049|181890220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GM FR from Placebo: SP|0.82||||0.119|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.62|1.09||1-sided p-value, α = 0.05|ANOVA|||GM FR from Placebo is the GM of individual FC (Prednisone)/FC (Placebo) in IL-17 from SP.||1.09|0.62|0.119
91003344|NCT01193049|181890220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GM FR from Placebo: NE|0.68||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.41|1.14||1-sided p-value, α = 0.05|ANOVA|||GM FR from Placebo is the GM of individual FC (Prednisone)/FC (Placebo) in IL-17 from NE.||1.14|0.41|0.103
91048837|NCT00518882|181982834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|-0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.604|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.39|-0.214|||Paired t test|||The analysis was made with a paired t test within the treatment group and 95% CIs for the difference between Weeks 0 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78- µ0=0 against HA: µ78 - µ0 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||-0.214|-0.390|<0.0001
91048838|NCT00518882|181982834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|-0.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.647|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.303|-0.11|||Paired t test|||The analysis was made with a paired t test within the treatment group and 95% CIs for the difference between Weeks 0 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78- µ0=0 against HA: µ78 - µ0 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||-0.110|-0.303|<0.0001
91048839|NCT00518882|181982835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.07||||0.0277||95.0|-0.13|-0.01||There were no multiplicity concerns.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model included treatment, country and previous treatment as fixed effects and baseline value of the endpoint as covariate. The objective was to demonstrate that treatment with liraglutide was different from treatment with exenatide. Thus the null hypothesis and its alternative were H0: µliraglutide = µexenatide against HA1:µliraglutide ≠ µexenatide where µliraglutide and µexenatide is the mean value of the endpoint in the liraglutide arm and exenatide arm, respectively.||-0.01|-0.13|0.0277
91048840|NCT00518882|181982836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.29||0.003||95.0|0.021|0.102|||Paired t test|||A paired t test was made within the group and 95% confidence intervals for the difference between Weeks 26 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78 - µ26 = 0 against HA: µ78 - µ26 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means (Week 26 and Week 78) was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||0.102|0.021|0.0030
91048841|NCT00518882|181982836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.307||0.1452||95.0|-0.012|0.079|||Paired t test|||A paired t test was made within the treatment group and 95% confidence intervals for the difference between Weeks 26 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78 - µ26 = 0 against HA: µ78 - µ26 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means (Week 26 and Week 78) was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||0.079|-0.012|0.1452
91048842|NCT00518882|181982837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|0.27|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.306|<|0.0001||95.0|0.223|0.315|||Paired t test|||The analysis was made with a paired t test within the treatment group and 95% CIs for the difference between Weeks 0 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78- µ0=0 against HA: µ78 - µ0 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||0.315|0.223|<0.0001
91048843|NCT00518882|181982837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|0.31|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.346|<|0.0001||95.0|0.259|0.364|||Paired t test|||The analysis was made with a paired t test within the treatment group and 95% CIs for the difference between Weeks 0 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78- µ0=0 against HA: µ78 - µ0 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||0.364|0.259|<0.0001
91050357|NCT04168190|181987003|SUPERIORITY|Superiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>1.0 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|3.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.31|3.9|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 15C. Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||3.90|2.31|<0.001
91003345|NCT01193049|181890221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GM FR from Placebo: SP|0.6||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.46|0.77||1-sided p-value, α = 0.05|ANOVA|||GM FR from Placebo is the GM of individual FC (Prednisone)/FC (Placebo) in IL-1β from SP.||0.77|0.46|0.003
91003346|NCT01193049|181890221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GM FR from Placebo: NE|0.49||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.26|0.93||1-sided p-value, α = 0.05|ANOVA|||GM FR from Placebo is the GM of individual FC(Prednisone)/FC (Placebo) in IL-1β from NE.||0.93|0.26|0.036
91003347|NCT01193049|181890222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GM FR from Placebo: SP|0.7||||0.143|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|1.24||1-sided p-value, α = 0.05|ANOVA|||GM FR from Placebo is the GM of individual FC(Prednisone)/FC (Placebo) in MIP-1β from SP.||1.24|0.40|0.143
91003348|NCT01193049|181890222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GM FR from Placebo: NE|0.61||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.37|1.02||1-sided p-value, α = 0.05|ANOVA|||GM FR from Placebo is the GM of individual FC (Prednisone)/FC (Placebo) in MIP-1β from NE.||1.02|0.37|0.056
91003349|NCT05085327|181890227|OTHER|The t value from the '2-sided' Student-t distribution table corresponding to the upper 5% point with n-1 degrees of freedom was obtained and the labeled SPF value was determined as the largest whole number less than the following calculation: Labeled SPF = Mean SPF - (t\*SE).|CLM Original: Labeled SPF|13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91003350|NCT05085327|181890227|OTHER|The t value from the '2-sided' Student-t distribution table corresponding to the upper 5% point with n-1 degrees of freedom was obtained and the labeled SPF value was determined as the largest whole number less than the following calculation: Labeled SPF = Mean SPF - (t\*SE).|CLM Mint: Labeled SPF|13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91003351|NCT05085327|181890227|OTHER|The t value from the '2-sided' Student-t distribution table corresponding to the upper 5% point with n-1 degrees of freedom was obtained and the labeled SPF value was determined as the largest whole number less than the following calculation: Labeled SPF = Mean SPF - (t\*SE).|CLM Black Cherry: Labeled SPF|13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91003352|NCT01536418|181890234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|19.3||||||||19.3|-3.0|
91003353|NCT01536418|181890235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|10.8||||||CDAI score (Clinical remission), GSK1605786A, 500 mg QD Vs GSK1605786A, 500 mg BID; at Week 8||10.8|-5.8|
91003354|NCT01536418|181890235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|5.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|14.3||||||CDAI score (Clinical remission), GSK1605786A, 500 mg QD Vs GSK1605786A, 500 mg BID; at Week 12||14.3|-3.0|
91003355|NCT01536418|181890235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|9.5||||||CDAI score (Clinical remission), GSK1605786A, 500 mg QD Vs GSK1605786A, 500 mg BID; at both Weeks 8 and 12||9.5|-4.6|
91003356|NCT01536418|181890236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|15.9||||||CDAI score (Clinical response), GSK1605786A, 500 mg QD Vs GSK1605786A, 500 mg BID at Week 8||15.9|-6.0|
91003357|NCT01536418|181890236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|18.7||||||CDAI score (Clinical response), GSK1605786A, 500 mg QD Vs GSK1605786A, 500 mg BID at both Week 8 and Week 12||18.7|-1.0|
91003358|NCT02234050|181890260|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.42||||0.204|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.997|2.028|||Regression, Cox|||||2.028|0.997|0.204
91003359|NCT02234050|181890263|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.71|||Regression, Cox|||||1.71|0.53|0.94
91003360|NCT00592176|181890265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.83
91003361|NCT02498392|181890267|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square (LS) Means|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04|=|0.416|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-1.1|0.66|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.66|-1.10|= 0.416
91003362|NCT02498392|181890268|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square (LS) Means|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88|=|0.647|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-0.41|1.07||1-sided|Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||1.07|-0.41|= 0.647
91003363|NCT00981292|181890319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0||||A Bonferroni adjustment was made for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||This data was analysed by two-way repeated measures ANOVA (task \[epoch\] x treatment). In the case of those analyses that showed a significant main effect of treatment or a task/epoch x treatment interaction, planned comparisons of data from each task or epoch were then made between placebo and each of the EGCG treatment groups using t tests calculated with the Mean Squares Error from the ANOVA.||||<0.05
91003364|NCT00981292|181890320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Task performance data were analysed by within subjects ANCOVA (treatment) with pre-treatment performance included as a co-variate for each individual task/measure.||||>0.05
91003365|NCT00981292|181890321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Mood data was analysed via student t-test.||||>0.05
91003366|NCT00435929|181890322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.656|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.268|1.603||||||Comparison between normal liver function and moderate hepatic impairment for SQV||1.603|0.268|
91048844|NCT00518882|181982838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|0.01||||0.5105||95.0|-0.02|0.04||There were no multiplicity concerns.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model included treatment, country and previous treatment as fixed effects and baseline value of the endpoint as covariate. The objective was to demonstrate that treatment with liraglutide was different from treatment with exenatide. Thus the null hypothesis and its alternative were H0: µliraglutide = µexenatide against HA1:µliraglutide ≠ µexenatide where µliraglutide and µexenatide is the mean value of the endpoint in the liraglutide arm and exenatide arm, respectively.||0.04|-0.02|0.5105
91048845|NCT00518882|181982839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|-0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.15||0.222||95.0|-0.034|0.008|||Paired t test|||A paired t test was made within the group and 95% confidence intervals for the difference between Weeks 26 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78 - µ26 = 0 against HA: µ78 - µ26 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means (Week 26 and Week 78) was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||0.008|-0.034|0.2220
91003367|NCT00435929|181890322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.764|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.505|1.156||||||Comparison between normal liver function and moderate hepatic impairment for RTV.||1.156|0.505|
91003368|NCT00435929|181890323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.716|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.311|1.644||||||Comparison between normal liver function and moderate hepatic impairment for SQV.||1.644|0.311|
91003369|NCT00435929|181890323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.844|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.551|1.292||||||Comparison between normal liver function and moderate hepatic impairment for RTV.||1.292|0.551|
91003370|NCT02280096|181890374|SUPERIORITY||t-boostrap|0.028||||0.028|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.028
91003371|NCT02280096|181890375|SUPERIORITY||t-boostrap|0.001||||0.001|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.001
91003372|NCT02280096|181890376|SUPERIORITY||t-boostrap|0.016||||0.016|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.016
91003373|NCT02280096|181890377|SUPERIORITY||t-boostrap|0.64||||0.64|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Reading speed||||0.64
91003374|NCT02280096|181890377|SUPERIORITY||t-boostrap|0.43||||0.43|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Count speed||||0.43
91003375|NCT02280096|181890377|SUPERIORITY||t-boostrap|0.9||||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Alternation||||0.9
91003376|NCT02280096|181890378|SUPERIORITY||t-boostrap|0.83||||0.83|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.83
91048846|NCT00518882|181982839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.141||0.7923||95.0|-0.018|0.024|||Paired t test|||A paired t test was made within the treatment group and 95% confidence intervals for the difference between Weeks 26 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78 - µ26 = 0 against HA: µ78 - µ26 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means (Week 26 and Week 78) was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||0.024|-0.018|0.7923
91048847|NCT00518882|181982840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|-0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.159||0.0254||95.0|-0.05|-0.003|||Paired t test|||The analysis was made with a paired t test within the treatment group and 95% CIs for the difference between Weeks 0 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78- µ0=0 against HA: µ78 - µ0 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||-0.003|-0.050|0.0254
91048848|NCT00518882|181982840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.165||0.2244||95.0|-0.04|0.009|||Paired t test|||The analysis was made with a paired t test within the treatment group and 95% CIs for the difference between Weeks 0 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78- µ0=0 against HA: µ78 - µ0 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||0.009|-0.040|0.2244
91048849|NCT00518882|181982841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.18||||0.0485||95.0|-0.37|0.0||There were no multiplicity concerns.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model included treatment, country and previous treatment as fixed effects and baseline value of the endpoint as covariate. The objective was to demonstrate that treatment with liraglutide was different from treatment with exenatide. Thus the null hypothesis and its alternative were H0: µliraglutide = µexenatide against HA1:µliraglutide ≠ µexenatide where µliraglutide and µexenatide is the mean value of the endpoint in the liraglutide arm and exenatide arm, respectively.||-0.00|-0.37|0.0485
91048850|NCT00518882|181982842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.82||0.1161||95.0|-0.02|0.21|||Paired t test|||A paired t test was made within the group and 95% confidence intervals for the difference between Weeks 26 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78 - µ26 = 0 against HA: µ78 - µ26 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means (Week 26 and Week 78) was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||0.21|-0.02|0.1161
91048851|NCT00518882|181982842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.96||0.7888||95.0|-0.16|0.12|||Paired t test|||A paired t test was made within the treatment group and 95% confidence intervals for the difference between Weeks 26 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78 - µ26 = 0 against HA: µ78 - µ26 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means (Week 26 and Week 78) was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||0.12|-0.16|0.7888
91048852|NCT00518882|181982843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|-0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.07||0.0003||95.0|-0.43|-0.13|||Paired t test|||The analysis was made with a paired t test within the treatment group and 95% CIs for the difference between Weeks 0 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78- µ0=0 against HA: µ78 - µ0 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||-0.13|-0.43|0.0003
91048853|NCT00518882|181982843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|-0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.47||0.2078||95.0|-0.35|0.08|||Paired t test|||The analysis was made with a paired t test within the treatment group and 95% CIs for the difference between Weeks 0 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78- µ0=0 against HA: µ78 - µ0 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||0.08|-0.35|0.2078
91048854|NCT00518882|181982844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.07||||0.0014||95.0|-0.11|-0.03||There were no multiplicity concerns.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model included treatment, country and previous treatment as fixed effects and baseline value of the endpoint as covariate. The objective was to demonstrate that treatment with liraglutide was different from treatment with exenatide. Thus the null hypothesis and its alternative were H0: µliraglutide = µexenatide against HA1:µliraglutide ≠ µexenatide where µliraglutide and µexenatide is the mean value of the endpoint in the liraglutide arm and exenatide arm, respectively.||-0.03|-0.11|0.0014
91048855|NCT00518882|181982845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.269||0.0018||95.0|0.023|0.098|||Paired t test|||A paired t test was made within the group and 95% confidence intervals for the difference between Weeks 26 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78 - µ26 = 0 against HA: µ78 - µ26 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means (Week 26 and Week 78) was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||0.098|0.023|0.0018
91048856|NCT00518882|181982845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.272||0.5499||95.0|-0.028|0.052|||Paired t test|||A paired t test was made within the treatment group and 95% confidence intervals for the difference between Weeks 26 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78 - µ26 = 0 against HA: µ78 - µ26 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means (Week 26 and Week 78) was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||0.052|-0.028|0.5499
91048857|NCT00518882|181982846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|-0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.273|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.14|-0.062|||Paired t test|||The analysis was made with a paired t test within the treatment group and 95% CIs for the difference between Weeks 0 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78- µ0=0 against HA: µ78 - µ0 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||-0.062|-0.140|<0.0001
91003377|NCT02280096|181890379|SUPERIORITY||t-boostrap|0.92||||0.92|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.92
91003378|NCT02280096|181890380|SUPERIORITY||t-boostrap|0.017||||0.017|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Total moves||||0.017
91048858|NCT00518882|181982846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|-0.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.302||0.0012||95.0|-0.118|-0.03|||Paired t test|||A paired t test was made within the treatment group and 95% confidence intervals for the difference between Weeks 26 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78 - µ26 = 0 against HA: µ78 - µ26 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means (Week 26 and Week 78) was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||-0.030|-0.118|0.0012
91003379|NCT02280096|181890380|SUPERIORITY||t-boostrap|0.01||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Correct moves||||0.010
91003380|NCT02280096|181890381|SUPERIORITY||t-boostrap|0.001||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Execution time||||0.001
91003381|NCT02280096|181890381|SUPERIORITY||t-boostrap|0.001||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Problem-solving time||||0.001
91003382|NCT03733132|181890388|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.854|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.854
91003383|NCT03733132|181890389|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.389|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.389
91003384|NCT03733132|181890390|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.609|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.609
91003385|NCT03733132|181890391|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.371|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.371
91003386|NCT03733132|181890392|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.686|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.686
91003387|NCT02219516|181890402|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|153.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|115.0|203.0|||Fixed Effects Model|Treatment as a fixed effect was used to analyze the natural log-transformed PK parameters and GLSMRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||203|115|
91003388|NCT02219516|181890402|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|173.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|131.0|230.0|||Fixed Effects Model|Treatment as a fixed effect was used to analyze the natural log-transformed PK parameters and GLSMRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||230|131|
91003389|NCT02219516|181890402|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|228.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|155.0|336.0|||Fixed Effects Model|Treatment as a fixed effect was used to analyze the natural log-transformed PK parameters and GLSMRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||336|155|
91003390|NCT02219516|181890404|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|131.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.6|174.0|||Fixed Effects Model|Treatment as a fixed effect was used to analyze the natural log-transformed PK parameters and GLSMRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||174|98.6|
91003391|NCT02219516|181890404|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|222.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|171.0|287.0|||Fixed Effects Model|Treatment as a fixed effect was used to analyze the natural log-transformed PK parameters and GLSMRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||287|171|
91003392|NCT02219516|181890404|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|211.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|139.0|319.0|||Fixed Effects Model|Treatment as a fixed effect was used to analyze the natural log-transformed PK parameters and GLSMRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||319|139|
91003393|NCT02219516|181890405|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|124.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.8|173.0|||Fixed Effects Model|Treatment as a fixed effect was used to analyze the natural log-transformed PK parameters and GLSMRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||173|88.8|
91003394|NCT02219516|181890405|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|248.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|168.0|366.0|||Fixed Effects Model|Treatment as a fixed effect was used to analyze the natural log-transformed PK parameters and GLSMRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||366|168|
91003395|NCT02219516|181890405|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|230.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|146.0|363.0|||Fixed Effects Model|Treatment as a fixed effect was used to analyze the natural log-transformed PK parameters and GLSMRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||363|146|
91003396|NCT02219516|181890407|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|76.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|57.1|101.0|||Fixed Effects Model|Treatment as a fixed effect was used to analyze the natural log-transformed PK parameters and GLSMRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||101|57.1|
91003397|NCT02219516|181890407|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|45.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|34.9|58.3|||Fixed Effects Model|Treatment as a fixed effect was used to analyze the natural log-transformed PK parameters and GLSMRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||58.3|34.9|
91003398|NCT02219516|181890407|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|47.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|31.5|72.5|||Fixed Effects Model|Treatment as a fixed effect was used to analyze the natural log-transformed PK parameters and GLSMRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||72.5|31.5|
91003399|NCT02219516|181890408|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|80.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|57.9|113.0|||Fixed Effects Model|Treatment as a fixed effect was used to analyze the natural log-transformed PK parameters and GLSMRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||113|57.9|
91003400|NCT02219516|181890408|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|40.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|27.3|59.5|||Fixed Effects Model|Treatment as a fixed effect was used to analyze the natural log-transformed PK parameters and GLSMRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||59.5|27.3|
91003401|NCT02219516|181890408|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|43.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|27.5|68.7|||Fixed Effects Model|Treatment as a fixed effect was used to analyze the natural log-transformed PK parameters and GLSMRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||68.7|27.5|
91003402|NCT02219516|181890409|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|95.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.6|150.0|||Fixed Effects Model|Treatment as a fixed effect was used to analyze the natural log-transformed PK parameters and GLSMRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||150|60.6|
91003403|NCT02219516|181890409|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|58.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|30.2|113.0|||Fixed Effects Model|Treatment as a fixed effect was used to analyze the natural log-transformed PK parameters and GLSMRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||113|30.2|
91003404|NCT02219516|181890409|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|21.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|13.6|32.8|||Fixed Effects Model|Treatment as a fixed effect was used to analyze the natural log-transformed PK parameters and GLSMRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||32.8|13.6|
91003405|NCT01872897|181890410|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.79||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.85|-4.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.74|-14.85|0.0003
91003406|NCT01872897|181890411|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.82|-8.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.71|-22.82|<0.0001
91003407|NCT01872897|181890412|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-19.4||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.6|-9.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-9.2|-29.6|0.0004
91003408|NCT01872897|181890413|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.3||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.2|-6.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-6.4|-26.2|0.0019
91003409|NCT01872897|181890414|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.1|-1.6|0.0290
91003410|NCT01872897|181890415|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.57|-8.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.23|-20.57|<0.0001
91003411|NCT01872897|181890416|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.55|-15.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-15.19|-31.55|<0.0001
91003412|NCT01872897|181890417|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|-4.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.6|-10.0|<0.0001
91003413|NCT01872897|181890418|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.4||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|-3.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.3|-9.4|0.0001
91003414|NCT01872897|181890419|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.3||||0.0075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|-1.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.8|-10.9|0.0075
91003415|NCT01872897|181890420|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.145||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.432|-10.858|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-10.858|-37.432|0.0007
91003416|NCT04254796|181890421|OTHER|Calculation of the effect size (Cohen's d)|Cohen's d|0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.68||||||The goal of the analysis was to measure the effect size of the change in the primary mechanistic outcome (Putamen structural node strength), with a Go/No-Go threshold of Cohen's d \> 0.20.||0.68|-0.13|
91003417|NCT02845440|181890423|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.4||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|4.79||A priori threshold for significance was p \< 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||Missing data at year 2 of intervention was imputed using MICE based on baseline characteristics and outcome values at year 1 of intervention. The statistical model was a mixed effects logistic regression with terms for TAU, AD, and AD+CHW (cohort 1) and a clinic-varying random intercept. Regression coefficients were pooled using Rubin's rule over 10 imputation runs.||4.79|1.20|0.013
91003418|NCT02845440|181890423|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.74||The a priori threshold for significance was a p-value \< 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||Missing data at year 2 of intervention was imputed using MICE based on baseline characteristics and outcome values at year 1 of intervention. The statistical model was a mixed effects logistic regression with terms for TAU, AD, and AD+CHW (cohort 1) and a clinic-varying random intercept. Regression coefficients were pooled using Rubin's rule over 10 imputation runs.||2.74|0.62|0.481
91003419|NCT02845440|181890423|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.84||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|3.24||The a priori threshold for significance was a p-value \< 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||Missing data at year 2 of intervention was imputed using MICE based on baseline characteristics and outcome values at year 1 of intervention. The statistical model was a mixed effects logistic regression with terms for TAU, AD, and AD+CHW (cohort 1) and a clinic-varying random intercept. Regression coefficients were pooled using Rubin's rule over 10 imputation runs.||3.24|1.04|0.036
91003420|NCT02845440|181890424|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.06||The a priori threshold for significance was a p-value \< 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||The statistical model was a mixed effects logistic regression with terms for TAU, AD, and AD+CHW (cohort 1) and a clinic-varying random intercept.||2.06|0.88|0.174
91003421|NCT02845440|181890424|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.06||The a priori threshold for significance was a p-value \< 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||The statistical model was a mixed effects logistic regression with terms for TAU, AD, and AD+CHW (cohort 1) and a clinic-varying random intercept.||1.06|0.45|0.092
91048859|NCT00518882|181982847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.02||||0.1119||95.0|-0.05|0.01||There were no multiplicity concerns.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model included treatment, country and previous treatment as fixed effects and baseline value of the endpoint as covariate. The objective was to demonstrate that treatment with liraglutide was different from treatment with exenatide. Thus the null hypothesis and its alternative were H0: µliraglutide = µexenatide against HA1:µliraglutide ≠ µexenatide where µliraglutide and µexenatide is the mean value of the endpoint in the liraglutide arm and exenatide arm, respectively.||0.01|-0.05|0.1119
91003422|NCT02845440|181890425|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.61|4.75||The a priori threshold for significance was a p-value \< 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||The statistical model was a mixed effects logistic regression with terms for TAU, AD, and AD+CHW (cohort 1) and a clinic-varying random intercept.||4.75|1.61|<0.001
91003423|NCT02845440|181890425|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.64||The a priori threshold for significance was a p-value \< 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||The statistical model was a mixed effects logistic regression with terms for TAU, AD, and AD+CHW (cohort 1) and a clinic-varying random intercept.||1.64|0.50|0.742
91003424|NCT02845440|181890426|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.57||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|2.51||The a priori threshold for significance was a p-value \< 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||Missing abstinence rates at year 2 of intervention were imputed using MICE based on baseline characteristics and abstinence rates at year 1 of intervention. The statistical model was a mixed effects logistic regression with terms for TAU, AD, and AD+CHW (cohort 1) as well as TUD medication use and a clinic-varying random intercept. Regression coefficients were pooled using Rubin's rule over 10 imputation runs.|A mediation analysis found that the estimated proportion of the effect of TUD medication use on abstinence rates attributable to the AD+CHW intervention was 2.8%.|2.51|0.99|0.056
91003425|NCT02845440|181890427|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.97||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|3.33||The a priori threshold for significance was a p-value \< 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||Missing abstinence rates at year 2 of intervention were imputed using MICE based on baseline characteristics and abstinence rates at year 1 of intervention. The statistical model was a mixed effects logistic regression with terms for TAU, AD, and AD+CHW (cohort 1) as well as varenicline use and a clinic-varying random intercept. Regression coefficients were pooled using Rubin's rule over 10 imputation runs.|A mediation analysis found that the estimated proportion of the effect of varenicline use on abstinence rates attributable to the AD+CHW intervention was 13.9%.|3.33|1.16|0.012
91003426|NCT02845440|181890428|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|2.79||The a priori threshold for significance was a p-value \< 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||Missing data at year 2 of intervention was imputed using MICE based on baseline characteristics and outcome values at year 1 of intervention. The statistical model was a mixed effects logistic regression with terms for the factorial design (TAU, AD, CHW, and cohort) and a clinic-varying random intercept. Regression coefficients were pooled using Rubin's rule over 10 imputation runs.||2.79|1.05|0.032
91003427|NCT02845440|181890428|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|2.75||The a priori threshold for significance was a p-value \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||Missing data at year 2 of intervention was imputed using MICE based on baseline characteristics and outcome values at year 1 of intervention. The statistical model was a mixed effects logistic regression with terms for the factorial design (TAU, AD, CHW, and cohort) and a clinic-varying random intercept. Regression coefficients were pooled using Rubin's rule over 10 imputation runs.||2.75|0.68|0.376
91003428|NCT02845440|181890428|OTHER|Test of the additive assumption required by a factorial design. If the AD x CHW interaction is significant at p \< 0.05, the additive assumption would have to be rejected.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|4.05|||Regression, Logistic|||Missing data at year 2 of intervention was imputed using MICE based on baseline characteristics and outcome values at year 1 of intervention. The statistical model was a mixed effects logistic regression with both additive terms and an interaction (TAU, AD, CHW, AD x CHW, and cohort) and a clinic-varying random intercept. Regression coefficients were pooled using Rubin's rule over 10 imputation runs.||4.05|0.42|0.645
91003429|NCT02845440|181890429|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|2.56||The a priori threshold for significance was a p-value \< 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|The CHW intervention increased odds of self-reported use of any TUD medication by 1.85.||The statistical model was a mixed effects logistic regression with terms for the factorial design (TAU, AD, CHW, and cohort) and a clinic-varying random intercept.||2.56|1.34|<0.001
91003430|NCT02845440|181890429|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.05|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical model was a mixed effects logistic regression with terms for the factorial design (TAU, AD, CHW, and cohort) and a clinic-varying random intercept.||1.05|0.46|0.084
91003431|NCT02845440|181890429|OTHER|Test of the additive assumption required by a factorial design. If the AD x CHW interaction is significant at p \< 0.05, the additive assumption would have to be rejected.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.55|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical model was a mixed effects logistic regression with both additive terms and an interaction (TAU, AD, CHW, AD x CHW, and cohort) and a clinic-varying random intercept.||2.55|0.59|0.589
91003432|NCT02845440|181890430|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.99|4.68||The a priori threshold for significance was a p-value \< 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||The statistical model was a mixed effects logistic regression with terms for the factorial design (TAU, AD, CHW, and cohort) and a clinic-varying random intercept.||4.68|1.99|<0.001
91003433|NCT02845440|181890430|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.57||The a priori threshold for significance was a p-value \< 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||The statistical model was a mixed effects logistic regression with terms for the factorial design (TAU, AD, CHW, and cohort) and a clinic-varying random intercept.||1.57|0.51|0.698
91003434|NCT02845440|181890430|OTHER|Test of the additive assumption required by a factorial design. If the AD x CHW interaction is significant at p \< 0.05, the additive assumption would have to be rejected.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|2.78|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical model was a mixed effects logistic regression with both additive terms and an interaction (TAU, AD, CHW, AD x CHW, and cohort) and a clinic-varying random intercept.||2.78|0.43|0.845
91003435|NCT02845440|181890431|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.2||The a priori threshold for significance was a p-value \< 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||Missing abstinence rates at year 2 of intervention were imputed using MICE based on baseline characteristics and abstinence rates at year 1 of intervention. The statistical model was a mixed effects logistic regression with terms for the factorial design (TAU, AD, CHW, and cohort) as well as TUD medication use and a clinic-varying random intercept. Regression coefficients were pooled using Rubin's rule over 10 imputation runs.|A mediation analysis found that the estimated proportion of the effect of TUD medication use on abstinence rates attributable to the CHW intervention was 55.6%.|2.20|0.92|0.158
91003436|NCT02845440|181890432|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.89||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|3.13||The a priori threshold for significance was a p-value \< 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||Missing abstinence rates at year 2 of intervention were imputed using MICE based on baseline characteristics and abstinence rates at year 1 of intervention. The statistical model was a mixed effects logistic regression with terms for the factorial design (TAU, AD, CHW, and cohort) as well as varenicline use and a clinic-varying random intercept. Regression coefficients and mediation analysis estimates were pooled using Rubin's rule over 10 imputation runs.|A mediation analysis found that the estimated proportion of the effect of varenicline use on abstinence rates attributable to the CHW intervention was 36.6%.|3.13|1.14|0.013
91003437|NCT02845440|181890433|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.33|||Regression, Linear|||The model had a clinic varying random intercept. This statistical model included cohort 1: TAU , AD, and AD+CHW||0.33|-0.16|0.505
91048860|NCT00518882|181982848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.168||0.1342||95.0|-0.041|0.006|||Paired t test|||A paired t test was made within the group and 95% confidence intervals for the difference between Weeks 26 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78 - µ26 = 0 against HA: µ78 - µ26 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means (Week 26 and Week 78) was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||0.006|-0.041|0.1342
91003438|NCT02845440|181890433|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.27||The a priori threshold for significance was a p-value \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||Missing data at year 2 of intervention was imputed using MICE based on baseline characteristics and outcome values at year 1 of intervention. The statistical model was a mixed effects linear regression with terms for TAU, AD, and AD+CHW (cohort 1) and a clinic-varying random intercept. Regression coefficients were pooled using Rubin's rule over 10 imputation runs.||0.27|-0.22|0.848
91003439|NCT02845440|181890433|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.25||The a priori threshold for significance was a p-value \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||Missing data at year 2 of intervention was imputed using MICE based on baseline characteristics and outcome values at year 1 of intervention. The statistical model was a mixed effects linear regression with terms for TAU, AD, and AD+CHW (cohort 1) and a clinic-varying random intercept. Regression coefficients were pooled using Rubin's rule over 10 imputation runs.||0.25|-0.13|0.529
91003440|NCT02845440|181890434|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.18|||Regression, Linear|||Missing data at year 2 of intervention was imputed using MICE based on baseline characteristics and outcome values at year 1 of intervention. The statistical model was a mixed effects linear regression with terms for the factorial design (TAU, AD, CHW, and cohort) and a clinic-varying random intercept. Regression coefficients were pooled using Rubin's rule over 10 imputation runs.||0.18|-0.16|0.937
91003441|NCT02845440|181890434|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.29|||Regression, Linear|||Missing data at year 2 of intervention was imputed using MICE based on baseline characteristics and outcome values at year 1 of intervention. The statistical model was a mixed effects linear regression with terms for the factorial design (TAU, AD, CHW, and cohort) and a clinic-varying random intercept. Regression coefficients were pooled using Rubin's rule over 10 imputation runs.||0.29|-0.19|0.683
91003442|NCT02845440|181890434|OTHER|Test of the additive assumption required by a factorial design. If the AD x CHW interaction is significant at p \< 0.05, the additive assumption would have to be rejected.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.74|||Regression, Linear|||Missing data at year 2 of intervention was imputed using MICE based on baseline characteristics and outcome values at year 1 of intervention. The statistical model was a mixed effects linear regression with both additive terms and an interaction (TAU, AD, CHW, AD x CHW, and cohort) and a clinic-varying random intercept. Regression coefficients were pooled using Rubin's rule over 10 imputation runs.||0.74|-0.15|0.190
91003443|NCT01849562|181890435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|82.7||||||Differences in proportions between Group 1 (sovaprevir 200 mg plus ACH-3102 150/50 mg plus RBV) and overall placebo (placebo from Group 1 and Group 2 combined) along with corresponding 95% confidence intervals for risk difference calculated using exact unconditional methods were obtained.||82.7|1.8|
91003444|NCT01849562|181890435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|70.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.2|93.6||||||Differences in proportions between Group 2 (sovaprevir 400 mg plus ACH-3102 150/50 mg plus RBV) and overall placebo (placebo from Group 1 and Group 2 combined) along with corresponding 95% confidence intervals for risk difference calculated using exact unconditional methods were obtained.||93.6|24.2|
91003445|NCT04599972|181890443|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.979|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.753|5.064|||Regression, Logistic|||All treatment comparisons for primary and secondary endpoints related to BDCVA were conducted with a logistic regression model including fixed effects of baseline BDCVA at 40 cm as a covariate and treatment.||5.064|1.753|<0.01
91003446|NCT04599972|181890444|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.807|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.655|4.762|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.762|1.655|<0.01
91003447|NCT04599972|181890445|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.002|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.431|10.499|||Regression, Logistic|||||10.499|3.431|<0.01
91003448|NCT04599972|181890446|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.161|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.404|7.204|||Regression, Logistic|||||7.204|2.404|<0.01
91003449|NCT02069704|181890447|EQUIVALENCE|Two treatments are judged not to be different from one another if the 90% CI of the ratio of a log-transformed exposure measure (AUC) falls completely within the range 80%-125%.|ratio BEVZ92 to Avastin|99.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.5|109.0|||||For the ratio: BEVZ92 represents the numerator and reference bevacizumab the denominator|Based on previously published PK data for reference bevacizumab in metastatic colorectal cancer, we assumed a conservative inter-participant coefficient of variation for AUC of around 35%. A sample size of 51 patients in each treatment arm could show bioequivalence with a nominal power of 90% and an α of 0·05, if the 90% CIs for the ratio of BEVZ92 to reference bevacizumab of the geometric means for AUC0-336h and AUCss were within the acceptance interval of 80%-125%.||109.0|90.5|
91003450|NCT02069704|181890448|EQUIVALENCE|Two treatments are judged not to be different from one another if the 90% CI of the ratio of a log-transformed exposure measure (AUC) falls completely within the range 80%-125%.|ratio BEVZ92 to Avastin|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.2|112.0||||||||112.0|90.2|
91003451|NCT00554853|181890461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.63
91003452|NCT02861118|181890462|OTHER|||||||0.024|||||||Regression, Logistic|||IBD||||0.024
91003453|NCT02861118|181890462|OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Corticosteroids||||0.006
91003454|NCT02861118|181890462|OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease||||0.006
91003455|NCT02861118|181890463|OTHER|||||||0.044|||||||Regression, Logistic|||IBD||||0.044
91003456|NCT02861118|181890463|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Corticosteroids||||0.003
91003457|NCT02861118|181890463|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Myocardial Infarction||||0.003
91003458|NCT02861118|181890464|OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Corticosteroids||||0.007
91003459|NCT02861118|181890465|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Corticosteroids||||0.002
91003460|NCT02861118|181890465|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Skin Disease||||0.003
91003461|NCT03748420|181890491|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09845||0.0103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.56|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.56|1.06|0.0103
91003462|NCT03748420|181890492|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1166||0.7967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.3|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.30|0.82|0.7967
91003463|NCT03748420|181890493|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08906||0.0589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.41|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.41|0.99|0.0589
91003464|NCT03748420|181890494|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0871||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|3.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.5|-0.8|0.21
91003465|NCT03748420|181890495|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1234||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.1|-0.4|0.20
91003466|NCT03748420|181890496|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|59.96||0.901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-124.99|110.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||110.04|-124.99|0.901
91003467|NCT01634100|181890506|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ratio calculated as empa and rifampicin divided by empa|Geometric Mean Ratio|135.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|129.58|141.06|||ANOVA|Based on an ANOVA including the random effect subjects within sequences and the fixed effects sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the intra-subject coefficient of variation.|||141.06|129.58|
91048861|NCT00518882|181982848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|-0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.189||0.0344||95.0|-0.057|-0.002|||Paired t test|||A paired t test was made within the treatment group and 95% confidence intervals for the difference between Weeks 26 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78 - µ26 = 0 against HA: µ78 - µ26 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means (Week 26 and Week 78) was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||-0.002|-0.057|0.0344
91048862|NCT00518882|181982849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|-0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.176|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.105|-0.056|||Paired t test|||The analysis was made with a paired t test within the treatment group and 95% CIs for the difference between Weeks 0 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78- µ0=0 against HA: µ78 - µ0 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||-0.056|-0.105|<0.0001
91048863|NCT00518882|181982849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|-0.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.192|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.094|-0.038|||Paired t test|||The analysis was made with a paired t test within the treatment group and 95% CIs for the difference between Weeks 0 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78- µ0=0 against HA: µ78 - µ0 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||-0.038|-0.094|<0.0001
91048864|NCT04740931|181982852|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of a two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in adjusted means of the two treatments (faricimab minus aflibercept) is greater than -4 letters (the non-inferiority margin), then faricimab is considered non-inferior to aflibercept.|Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.6|||||The treatment difference in adjusted means of change from baseline BCVA is the calculated difference of Arm A: Faricimab and Arm B: Aflibercept. MMRM adjustments are listed in the outcome measure description.|The null hypothesis, H0: μ(faricimab) - μ(aflibercept) ≤-4 letters; the alternative hypothesis, Ha: μ(faricimab) - μ(aflibercept) \>-4 letters. The final sample size provided \>90% power for the non-inferiority assessment (at a one-sided 0.02485 significance level).||1.6|-2.5|
91048865|NCT04740931|181982852|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.6715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.6||Tested at a two-sided p\<0.0497 significance level.|Mixed Model of Repeated Measures||The treatment difference in adjusted means of change from baseline BCVA is the calculated difference of Arm A: Faricimab and Arm B: Aflibercept. MMRM adjustments are listed in the outcome measure description.|The final sample size provided \>80% power for a 3.5-letter superiority assessment of faricimab over aflibercept (at a two-sided 0.0497 significance level).||1.6|-2.5|0.6715
91048866|NCT04740931|181982854|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|5.3||||||||5.3|-8.4|
91048867|NCT04740931|181982870|OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|0.3||||||||0.3|-2.7|
91048868|NCT01258101|181982908|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The statistical analysis was applied to Arms Peginterferon/Ribavirin 800 mg (16 weeks) and Peginterferon/Ribavirin 400 mg (16 weeks).|Risk Difference (RD)|32.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.5|53.5||||||||53.5|10.5|
91048869|NCT01258101|181982908|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The statistical analysis was applied to arms Peginterferon/Ribavirin 800 mg (24 weeks) and Peginterferon/Ribavirin 400 mg (24 weeks).|Risk Difference (RD)|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|7.6||||||||7.6|-14.0|
91048870|NCT01258101|181982908|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The statistical analysis was applied to arms Peginterferon/Ribavirin 800 mg (24 weeks) and Peginterferon/Ribavirin 800 mg (16 weeks).|Risk Difference (RD)|7.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|19.1||||||||19.1|-4.7|
91048871|NCT01258101|181982908|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The statistical analysis was applied to arms Peginterferon/Ribavirin 800 mg (24 weeks) and Peginterferon/Ribavirin 400 mg (16 weeks).|Risk Difference (RD)|-21.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.2|-0.1||||||||-0.1|-42.2|
91048872|NCT01258101|181982910|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The statistical analysis was applied to arms Peginterferon/Ribavirin 800 mg (16 weeks) and Peginterferon/Ribavirin 400 mg (16 weeks).|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.2||||||||0.2|-1.0|
91048873|NCT01258101|181982910|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The statistical analysis was applied to arms Peginterferon/Ribavirin 800 mg (24 weeks) and Peginterferon/Ribavirin 400 mg (24 weeks).|Risk Difference (RD)|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|1.3||||||||1.3|-6.4|
91048874|NCT01258101|181982910|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The statistical analysis was applied to arms Peginterferon/Ribavirin 800 mg (24 weeks) and Peginterferon/Ribavirin 800 mg (16 weeks).|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.4||||||||1.4|-1.4|
91048875|NCT01258101|181982910|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The statistical analysis was applied to arms Peginterferon/Ribavirin 800 mg (24 weeks) and Peginterferon/Ribavirin 400 mg (16 weeks).|Risk Difference (RD)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.7||||||||1.7|-0.5|
91048876|NCT01258101|181982918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.629||||0.2667|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.2667
91048877|NCT01258101|181982918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9999|||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.9999
91003468|NCT01634100|181890506|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ratio calculated as empa plus probenecid divided by empa|Geometric Mean Ratio|153.47|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|146.41|160.88|||ANOVA|Based on an ANOVA including the random effect subjects within sequences and the fixed effects sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the intra-subject coefficient of variation.|||160.88|146.41|
91003469|NCT01634100|181890507|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ratio calculated as empa and rifampicin divided by empa|Geometric Mean Ratio|175.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|160.14|191.56|||ANOVA|Based on an ANOVA including the random effect subjects within sequences and the fixed effects sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the intra-subject coefficient of variation.|||191.56|160.14|
91003470|NCT01634100|181890507|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ratio calculated as empa plus probenecid divided by empa|Geometric Mean Ratio|125.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|113.67|138.78|||ANOVA|Based on an ANOVA including the random effect subjects within sequences and the fixed effects sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the intra-subject coefficient of variation.|||138.78|113.67|
91003471|NCT01634100|181890508|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ratio calculated as empa and rifampicin divided by empa|Geometric Mean Ratio|136.42|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|130.61|142.48|||ANOVA|Based on an ANOVA including the random effect subjects within sequences and the fixed effects sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the intra-subject coefficient of variation.|||142.48|130.61|
91003472|NCT01634100|181890508|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ratio calculated as empa plus probenecid divided by empa|Geometric Mean Ratio|153.61|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|146.5|161.06|||ANOVA|Based on an ANOVA including the random effect subjects within sequences and the fixed effects sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the intra-subject coefficient of variation.|||161.06|146.50|
91003473|NCT01975376|181890537|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.930905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.22|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95 percent (%) Confidence Interval (CI) were from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) at pre-screening (less than \[\<\] 100 milligrams per deciliters \[mg/dL\], greater than and equal to \[\>=\] 100 mg/dL) with treatment as a co-variate.||1.22|0.80|0.930905
91003474|NCT01975376|181890538|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.784265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.3|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and LDL-C at pre-screening (\<100 mg/dL, \>=100 mg/dL) with treatment as a covariate.||1.30|0.82|0.784265
91003475|NCT01975376|181890539|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.892441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.2|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and LDL-C at pre-screening (\<100 mg/dL, \>=100 mg/dL) with treatment as a covariate.||1.20|0.81|0.892441
91003476|NCT01975376|181890540|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.845797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.26|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and LDL-C at pre-screening (\<100 mg/dL, \>=100 mg/dL) with treatment as a covariate.||1.26|0.83|0.845797
91003477|NCT01975376|181890541|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.431903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.36|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and LDL-C at pre-screening (\<100 mg/dL, \>=100 mg/dL) with treatment as a covariate.||1.36|0.49|0.431903
91003478|NCT01975376|181890542|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.883797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.21|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and LDL-C at pre-screening (\<100 mg/dL, \>=100 mg/dL) with treatment as a covariate.||1.21|0.80|0.883797
91003479|NCT01975376|181890543|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.45569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.95|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and LDL-C at pre-screening (\<100 mg/dL, \>=100 mg/dL) with treatment as a covariate.||1.95|0.74|0.455690
91003480|NCT01975376|181890544|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.469496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.48|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and LDL-C at pre-screening (\<100 mg/dL, \>=100 mg/dL) with treatment as a covariate.||1.48|0.84|0.469496
91003481|NCT01975376|181890545|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.54||||0.633022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|9.23|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and LDL-C at pre-screening (\<100 mg/dL, \>=100 mg/dL) with treatment as a covariate.||9.23|0.26|0.633022
91003482|NCT01975376|181890546|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.46765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.48|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and LDL-C at pre-screening (\<100 mg/dL, \>=100 mg/dL) with treatment as a covariate.||1.48|0.83|0.467650
91003483|NCT01975376|181890547|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53||||0.015462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.89|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and LDL-C at pre-screening (\<100 mg/dL, \>=100 mg/dL) with treatment as a covariate.||0.89|0.32|0.015462
91003484|NCT01975376|181890548|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54||||0.011863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.88|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and LDL-C at pre-screening (\<100 mg/dL, \>=100 mg/dL) with treatment as a covariate.||0.88|0.33|0.011863
91003485|NCT01975376|181890549|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5||||0.316066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|2.0|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and LDL-C at pre-screening (\<100 mg/dL, \>=100 mg/dL) with treatment as a covariate.||2.00|0.12|0.316066
91003486|NCT01975376|181890550|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52||||0.020328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.91|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and LDL-C at pre-screening (\<100 mg/dL, \>=100 mg/dL) with treatment as a covariate.||0.91|0.30|0.020328
91048878|NCT01258101|181982918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9891|||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.9891
91048879|NCT03438227|181982984|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.039|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.039
91048880|NCT03438227|181982985|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.019
91048881|NCT03438227|181982986|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.029
91003487|NCT01975376|181890551|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.367069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.27|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and LDL-C at pre-screening (\<100 mg/dL, \>=100 mg/dL) with treatment as a covariate.||1.27|0.53|0.367069
91003488|NCT01975376|181890552|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.443081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.29|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and LDL-C at pre-screening (\<100 mg/dL, \>=100 mg/dL) with treatment as a covariate.||1.29|0.56|0.443081
91003489|NCT01975376|181890553|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.343817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.12|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and LDL-C at pre-screening (\<100 mg/dL, \>=100 mg/dL) with treatment as a covariate.||1.12|0.71|0.343817
91003490|NCT01975376|181890554|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.889065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.85|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and LDL-C at pre-screening (\<100 mg/dL, \>=100 mg/dL) with treatment as a covariate.||1.85|0.59|0.889065
91048882|NCT03438227|181982987|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.029
91048883|NCT03438227|181982988|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.19
91048884|NCT03438227|181982989|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.194|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.194
91048885|NCT03438227|181982990|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.414|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.414
91048886|NCT03438227|181982991|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.15
91048887|NCT03438227|181982992|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.571|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.571
91048888|NCT03438227|181982993|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.12
91048889|NCT03438227|181982994|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.049|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.049
91048890|NCT03438227|181982995|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.933|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.933
91048891|NCT03438227|181982996|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.66
91048892|NCT03438227|181982997|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.633|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.633
91048893|NCT01244061|181983002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.34|11.55||The statistical significance was declared for each hypothesis firstly for CAR Weeks 9-12, and then secondly for CAR Weeks 9-52 until a p-value \> 0.05 was obtained, at which point the hypothesis would be declared to be not statistically significant.|Regression, Logistic|The analysis model included main effect of treatment and pooled center.||The study was conducted on a sample size to achieve at least 90% power for the treatment comparison in the primary efficacy endpoint assuming an odds ratio of 3.36 with a placebo abstinence rate of 12% and varenicline abstinence rate of 31%. The intent of the primary efficacy analysis was to evaluate the hypothesis that varenicline is superior to placebo for smoking cessation after 12 weeks of treatment.||11.55|4.34|<0.0001
91048894|NCT01244061|181983003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.97|20.41||Statistical significance was declared for each hypothesis in the order above until a p-value \>0.05 was obtained, at which point the hypothesis was declared to be not statistically significant.|Regression, Logistic|The analysis model included main effect of treatment and pooled center.||The sample size was sufficient to achieve 80% power for the treatment comparison in the key secondary end point for an odds ratio of 2.55 with a placebo abstinence rate of 6% and varenicline abstinence rate of 14%. The intent of the key secondary efficacy analysis was to evaluate the hypothesis that varenicline is superior to placebo for smoking cessation from Week 9 to the end of non-treatment follow up period at Week 52.||20.41|3.97|<0.0001
91048895|NCT01244061|181983004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.25|10.44||The statistical test was two-sided and at a 0.05 level of significance. No adjustment was made for the analysis of multiple secondary endpoints.|Regression, Logistic|The analysis model included main effect of treatment and pooled center.||||10.44|3.25|<0.0001
91048896|NCT01244061|181983005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.92|12.51||The statistical test was two-sided and at a 0.05 level of significance. No adjustment was made for the analysis of multiple secondary endpoints.|Regression, Logistic|The analysis model included main effect of treatment and pooled center.||Week 12 assessment||12.51|4.92|<0.0001
91003491|NCT01975376|181890555|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.308388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.13|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and LDL-C at pre-screening (\<100 mg/dL, \>=100 mg/dL) with treatment as a covariate.||1.13|0.69|0.308388
91003492|NCT01975376|181890556|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.874835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.42|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and LDL-C at pre-screening (\<100 mg/dL, \>=100 mg/dL) with treatment as a covariate.||1.42|0.74|0.874835
91003493|NCT01975376|181890557|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.526269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.6|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and LDL-C at pre-screening (\<100 mg/dL, \>=100 mg/dL) with treatment as a covariate.||1.60|0.79|0.526269
91003494|NCT01975376|181890558|SUPERIORITY||LS-mean difference|-60.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.43|-59.71|||Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||Lease Square (LS)- mean differences, associated 95% CI, and p-values were from a mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) model including observations through Week 70 with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographic region and LDL-C at pre-screening (\<100 mg/dL, \>=100 mg/dL).||-59.71|-61.43|<0.001
91003495|NCT01975376|181890559|SUPERIORITY||LS-mean difference|-54.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.48|-53.92|||Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||LS- mean differences and associated 95% CI, and p-values were from an MMRM model including observations through Week 70 with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographic region and LDL-C at pre-screening (\<100 mg/dL, \>=100 mg/dL).||-53.92|-55.48|<0.001
91003496|NCT01975376|181890560|SUPERIORITY||LS-mean difference|-46.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.68|-45.76|||ANCOVA|||LS- mean difference and associated 95% CI, and p-value were from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with fixed effects for treatment group, baseline value, geographic region and LDL-C at pre-screening (\<100 mg/dL, \>=100 mg/dL).||-45.76|-47.68|<0.001
91003497|NCT01975376|181890561|SUPERIORITY||LS-mean difference|-54.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.66|-54.09|||Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||Non-HDL-C: LS- mean differences, associated 95% CI, and p-values were from an MMRM model including observations through Week 70 with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographic region and LDL-C at pre-screening (\<100 mg/dL, \>=100 mg/dL).||-54.09|-55.66|<0.001
91003498|NCT01975376|181890561|SUPERIORITY||LS-mean difference|-36.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.07|-35.95|||Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||Total cholesterol: LS- mean differences, associated 95% CI, and p-values were from an MMRM model including observations through Week 70 with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographic region and LDL-C at pre-screening (\<100 mg/dL, \>=100 mg/dL).||-35.95|-37.07|<0.001
91003499|NCT01975376|181890561|SUPERIORITY||LS-mean difference|-20.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.42|-18.93|||Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||VLDL-C: LS- mean differences, associated 95% CI, and p-values were from an MMRM model including observations through Week 70 with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographic region and LDL-C at pre-screening (\<100 mg/dL, \>=100 mg/dL).||-18.93|-21.42|<0.001
91003500|NCT01975376|181890561|SUPERIORITY||LS-Mean Difference|-30.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.44|-28.07|||Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||RLP-C: LS- mean differences, associated 95% CI, and p-values were from an MMRM model including observations through Week 70 with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographic region and LDL-C at pre-screening (\<100 mg/dL, \>=100 mg/dL).||-28.07|-32.44|<0.001
91003501|NCT01975376|181890561|SUPERIORITY||LS-Mean Difference|-58.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.42|-57.69|||Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||Apo B: LS -mean differences, associated 95% CI, and p-values were from an MMRM model including observations through Week 52 with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographic region and LDL-C at pre-screening (\<100 mg/dL, \>=100 mg/dL).||-57.69|-59.42|<0.001
91003502|NCT01975376|181890561|SUPERIORITY||LS-Mean Difference|6.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.69|6.59|||Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||HDL-C: LS- mean differences, associated 95% CI, and p-values were from an MMRM model including observations through Week 70 with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographic region and LDL-C at pre-screening (\<100 mg/dL, \>=100 mg/dL).||6.59|5.69|<0.001
91003503|NCT01975376|181890561|SUPERIORITY||LS-Mean Difference|3.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.02|4.03|||Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||Apo A-I: LS- mean differences, associated 95% CI, and p-values were from an MMRM model including observations through Week 52 with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographic region and LDL-C at pre-screening (\<100 mg/dL, \>=100 mg/dL).||4.03|3.02|<0.001
91048897|NCT01244061|181983005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.94|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.86|4.64||The statistical test was two-sided and at a 0.05 level of significance. No adjustment was made for the analysis of multiple secondary endpoints.|Regression, Logistic|The analysis model included main effect of treatment and pooled center.||Week 24 assessment||4.64|1.86|<0.0001
91048898|NCT01244061|181983005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.88|4.97||The statistical test was two-sided and at a 0.05 level of significance. No adjustment was made for the analysis of multiple secondary endpoints.|Regression, Logistic|The analysis model included main effect of treatment and pooled center.||Week 52 assessment||4.97|1.88|<0.0001
91048899|NCT03166124|181983006|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric LSMeans|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.953|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Geometric LSMeans were controlled for injection site, study period, and sequence as fixed effects, and subject within sequence as a random effect.||1.10|0.953|
91048900|NCT03166124|181983006|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric LSMeans|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.974|1.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Geometric Least Squares Means (LSMeans) were controlled for injection site, study period, and sequence as fixed effects, and subject within sequence as a random effect.||1.09|0.974|
91048901|NCT03166124|181983007|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric LSMeans|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Geometric LSMeans were controlled for injection site, study period, and sequence as fixed effects, and subject within sequence as a random effect.||1.12|0.96|
91048902|NCT03166124|181983007|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric LSMeans|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Geometric LSMeans were controlled for injection site, study period, and sequence as fixed effects, and subject within sequence as a random effect.||1.10|0.94|
91048903|NCT00788593|181983008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|1.023||||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.656|2.701|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference and 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) was based on LS mean from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) which included participant as random effect, treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, and placebo baseline CFA value as covariate.||2.701|-0.656|0.228
91003504|NCT01975376|181890562|SUPERIORITY||LS-mean difference|0.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.68|||Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||Lp (a): LS- mean differences and associated 95% CI, and p-values were from an MMRM model on the difference of log-transformed observations through Week 52 with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, log-transformed baseline value, log-transformed baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and LDL-C at pre-screening (\<100 mg/dL, \>=100 mg/dL).||0.68|0.66|<0.001
91003505|NCT01975376|181890562|SUPERIORITY||LS-mean difference|0.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.81|||Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||Triglycerides: LS- mean differences and associated 95% CI, and p-values were from an MMRM model through Week 70 on the difference of log-transformed observations with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, log-transformed baseline value, log-transformed baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and LDL-C at pre-screening (\<100 mg/dL, \>=100 mg/dL).||0.81|0.80|<0.001
91003506|NCT01975376|181890563|SUPERIORITY||LS-mean difference|1.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.1|||Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||LS- mean differences and associated 95% CI, and p-values were from an MMRM model on the difference of log-transformed observations through Week 52 with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, log-transformed baseline value, log-transformed baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and LDL-C at pre-screening (\<100 mg/dL, \>=100 mg/dL).||1.10|1.03|<0.001
91003507|NCT00356057|181890564|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.437|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.437
91003508|NCT00356057|181890564|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.405|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.405
91003509|NCT00356057|181890565|EQUIVALENCE|Complication-free rate was evaluated in an equivalence (non-inferiority) format compared to a target of 85% minus delta (10%), where delta is the clinically significant difference for establishing equivalence.||||||0.0596|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0596
91003510|NCT00356057|181890566|EQUIVALENCE|Complication-free rate was evaluated in an equivalence (non-inferiority) format compared to a target of 85% minus delta (10%), where delta is the clinically significant difference for establishing equivalence.||||||0.0009|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0009
91003511|NCT00356057|181890569|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.030
91003512|NCT00356057|181890569|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.006
91003513|NCT00356057|181890573|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.005
91003514|NCT00356057|181890573|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.014
91003515|NCT00356057|181890574|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.020
91003516|NCT00356057|181890574|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.008
91003517|NCT00356057|181890575|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91003518|NCT00356057|181890575|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
91003519|NCT00356057|181890576|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.039|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.039
91003520|NCT00356057|181890576|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.047|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.047
91003521|NCT01451398|181890577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|Change in HbA1c = Baseline HbA1c + Region + Pooled OAD Strata + Visit + Treatment + (Treatment\*Visit), using AR(1) variance/covariance structure.||||-0.23|-0.57|<0.0001
91003522|NCT01451398|181890578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.726||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|4.8|||Regression, Logistic|Model: Treatment + Pooled OAD Stratum + Region + Baseline HbA1c||||4.80|1.55|0.0005
91003523|NCT01451398|181890579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.361||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|11.17|||Regression, Logistic|Model: Treatment + Pooled OAD Stratum + Region + Baseline HbA1c||||11.17|1.70|0.0021
91003524|NCT01451398|181890580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4||0.1698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.03|3.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|"Model: FPG = Baseline FPG + Region + Pooled OAD Stratum + Visit + Treatment + (Treatment \* Visit)~Variance/Covariance Matrix is Autoregression 1"||||3.18|-18.03|0.1698
91003525|NCT01451398|181890583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.018|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|-0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|FEV1 = Baseline FEV1 + Age + Gender + Race + Height + Visit + Treatment + (Treatment\*Visit)||||-0.05|-0.12|
91003526|NCT01451398|181890586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Negative binomial regression|Model: Treatment + Region + OAD Stratum + Exposure Time||||||<0.0001
91003527|NCT01451398|181890587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2024|||||||Negative Binomial Regression|Model: Treatment + Region + OAD Stratum + Exposure Time||||||0.2024
91003528|NCT01451398|181890590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.365|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.34|||ANCOVA||Model: Baseline Weight + Change in HbA1c at Week 24 + Region + OAD Stratum + Treatment|||2.34|0.90|<0.0001
91003529|NCT00565812|181890638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Slopes|0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018||0.50877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.023|0.046|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Slopes, 95 percent confidence interval (CI), P-values: Random coefficients mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) with random intercept and slope for each participant,fixed effects for treatment group,time (years),treatment group\*time interaction,(collapsed)Kellgren and Lawrence Grades (KLG), KLG\*time interaction,geographic region,gender,age,body mass index with unstructured covariance matrix for random effects. Statistical hypothesis used Hochberg procedure with 2-sided alpha =0.0499.||0.046|-0.023|0.508770
91003530|NCT00565812|181890638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Slopes|0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017||0.754074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.029|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Slopes, 95 percent CI, P-values: MMRM with random intercept and slope for each participant, fixed effects for treatment group, time (years), treatment group\*time interaction, (collapsed) KLG, KLG\*time interaction, geographic region, gender, age, body mass index with unstructured covariance matrix for random effects. Statistical hypothesis used Hochberg procedure with 2-sided alpha=0.0499.||0.040|-0.029|0.754074
91003531|NCT00565812|181890639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in slopes|0.023|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023||0.312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.022|0.067|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Slopes, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a random coefficients MMRM with random intercept and slope for each participant, and fixed effects for treatment group, time (years), a treatment group\*time (years) interaction, geographic region, gender, age, and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix for the random effects.||0.067|-0.022|0.312
91003532|NCT00565812|181890639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in slopes|0.022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023||0.327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.022|0.067|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Slopes, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a random coefficients MMRM with random intercept and slope for each participant, and fixed effects for treatment group, time (years), a treatment group\*time (years) interaction, geographic region, gender, age, and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix for the random effects.||0.067|-0.022|0.327
91003533|NCT00565812|181890640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in slopes|0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.046|0.054|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Slopes, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a random coefficients MMRM with random intercept and slope for each participant, and fixed effects for treatment group, time (years), a treatment group\*time (years) interaction, geographic region, gender, age, and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix for the random effects.||0.054|-0.046|0.881
91048904|NCT00788593|181983009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91003534|NCT00565812|181890640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in slopes|-0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.056|0.042|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Slopes, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a random coefficients MMRM with random intercept and slope for each participant, and fixed effects for treatment group, time (years), a treatment group\*time (years) interaction, geographic region, gender, age, and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix for the random effects.||0.042|-0.056|0.780
91003535|NCT00565812|181890641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|2.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value,geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.05|-1.26|0.639
91048905|NCT00788593|181983009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91048906|NCT00788593|181983010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91048907|NCT00788593|181983010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91048908|NCT01392326|181983013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.46|8.85|||Regression, Logistic|||||8.85|3.46|<0.0001
91003536|NCT00565812|181890641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.70|-1.61|0.957
91003537|NCT00565812|181890641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96||0.893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|2.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value,geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.01|-1.76|0.893
91003538|NCT00565812|181890641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96||0.365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|2.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value,geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.76|-1.01|0.365
91003539|NCT00565812|181890641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|2.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit,a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value,geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.51|-1.63|0.678
91003540|NCT00565812|181890641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|1.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit,a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value,geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.93|-2.18|0.902
91003541|NCT00565812|181890641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15||0.577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.89|1.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit,a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value,geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.61|-2.89|0.577
91003542|NCT00565812|181890641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|2.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit,a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value,geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.21|-2.26|0.980
91003543|NCT00565812|181890641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.37|2.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit,a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value,geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.23|-2.37|0.950
91003544|NCT00565812|181890641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17||0.292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.53|1.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit,a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value,geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.06|-3.53|0.292
91003545|NCT00565812|181890642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit,a treatment group\* visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value,geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.46|-0.30|0.683
91003546|NCT00565812|181890642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit,a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value,geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.35|-0.42|0.853
91003547|NCT00565812|181890642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit,a treatment group\* visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value,geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.44|-0.41|0.938
91003548|NCT00565812|181890642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit,a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value,geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.52|-0.32|0.648
91003549|NCT00565812|181890642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit,a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value,geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.44|-0.49|0.916
91048909|NCT01392326|181983013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.37|8.62|||Regression, Logistic|||||8.62|3.37|<0.0001
91048910|NCT01036490|181983039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04
90890008|NCT01571362|181644030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.27|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Randomization Baseline to Week 2.||-0.27|-1.02|0.0007
90890009|NCT01571362|181644030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.213||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|-0.32|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Randomization Baseline to Week 4.||-0.32|-1.16|0.0006
91003550|NCT00565812|181890642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit,a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value,geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.31|-0.60|0.528
91003551|NCT00565812|181890642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.27|-0.73|0.365
91048911|NCT01036490|181983040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.39
91003552|NCT00565812|181890642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit,a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value,geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.25|-0.74|0.328
91003553|NCT00565812|181890642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit,a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value,geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.35|-0.66|0.540
91003554|NCT00565812|181890642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit,a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value,geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.30|-0.71|0.423
91003555|NCT00565812|181890643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.20|-0.17|0.904
91003556|NCT00565812|181890643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.13|-0.24|0.582
91048912|NCT01036490|181983043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.15
91048913|NCT01036490|181983044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.58
91048914|NCT02177136|181983152|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0434|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group and randomization stratification factors as fixed effects and baseline as covariate.||||||0.0434
91048915|NCT02177136|181983152|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0665|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group and randomization stratification factors as fixed effects and baseline as covariate.||||||0.0665
91048916|NCT02054130|181983177|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.63|||Negative binomial regression|||||0.63|0.23|<0.001
91003557|NCT00565812|181890643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.18|-0.22|0.818
91003558|NCT00565812|181890643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit,a treatment group x visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG x visit interaction, baseline value,geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.20|-0.20|0.988
91003559|NCT00565812|181890643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value,geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.24|-0.20|0.857
91003560|NCT00565812|181890643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.27|-0.17|0.658
91003561|NCT00565812|181890643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.17|-0.28|0.612
91003562|NCT00565812|181890643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.13|-0.32|0.391
91048917|NCT02054130|181983177|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.51|||Negative binomial regression|||||0.51|0.16|<0.001
91048918|NCT02054130|181983177|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.58|||Negative bnomial regression|||||0.58|0.20|<0.001
91003563|NCT00565812|181890643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value,geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.24|-0.24|1.000
91003564|NCT00565812|181890643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.03|-0.45|0.086
91003565|NCT00565812|181890644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|1.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.55|-0.88|0.586
91003566|NCT00565812|181890644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|1.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.38|-1.05|0.789
91003567|NCT00565812|181890644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|1.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.52|-1.21|0.821
91003568|NCT00565812|181890644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|2.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.09|-0.63|0.294
91003569|NCT00565812|181890644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|1.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.97|-1.02|0.532
91003570|NCT00565812|181890644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|1.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.43|-1.55|0.938
91003571|NCT00565812|181890644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.97|1.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.29|-1.97|0.680
91003572|NCT00565812|181890644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|1.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.90|-1.33|0.730
91003573|NCT00565812|181890644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|1.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.76|-1.55|0.901
91048919|NCT01939496|181983241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of Least Square Means|-3.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.748||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.743|0.163|||ANCOVA|||||0.163|-6.743|0.062
91048920|NCT01939496|181983241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of Least Square Means|-4.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.75||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.382|-1.469|||ANCOVA|||||-1.469|-8.382|0.006
91048921|NCT02274844|181983256|SUPERIORITY|The outcomes were all continuous or ordinal measures, thus unadjusted hypothesis tests used t-tests or the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test, as appropriate, and statistical modeling used linear regression. ANCOVA was used to adjust for baseline covariates with imbalance across treatment arms (race) and baseline values of the measures.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.05||The main hypotheses tested were that intervention participants would have higher medication adherence and significantly greater improvement in A1c, BP, LDL-C, and measures of quality of life, and self-efficacy compared to control participants.|ANCOVA|||The study was powered to detect clinically meaningful differences in physiologic risk factors; it had four primary outcomes.Power estimates accounted for clustering of patients within towns, using a variance inflation factor, conservatively estimating power for ICC=0.01-0.05. Process measures were selected to understand which aspects of the intervention were particularly effective, assessing both program satisfaction and peer coach effectiveness.||0.05|-0.23|0.22
91048922|NCT01642914|181983277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0054|ONE_SIDED||||||Kolmogorov-Smirnov|Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for equality of distribution||||||0.0054
91048923|NCT01642914|181983277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0012|ONE_SIDED||||||Kolmogorov-Smirnov|Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for equality of distribution||||||0.0012
90890010|NCT01571362|181644030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.236||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.18|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Randomization Baseline to Week 8.||-0.18|-1.11|0.0070
91048924|NCT01642914|181983290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.193||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.086|0.3||p-Values were obtained from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel tests controlling for geographic region, comparing each linaclotide dose versus placebo in a pairwise manner.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||.300|.086|0.0006
91003574|NCT00565812|181890644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.45|0.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.83|-2.45|0.333
91003575|NCT00565812|181890645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|5.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||5.01|-0.33|0.086
91003576|NCT00565812|181890645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36||0.415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|3.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||3.78|-1.56|0.415
91003577|NCT00565812|181890645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.41||0.569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.97|3.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||3.57|-1.97|0.569
91003578|NCT00565812|181890645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.41||0.374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|4.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||4.02|-1.51|0.374
91003579|NCT00565812|181890645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.53||0.288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|4.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||4.64|-1.38|0.288
91003580|NCT00565812|181890645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|4.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||4.17|-1.81|0.440
91003581|NCT00565812|181890645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.58||0.896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|2.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.88|-3.30|0.896
91003582|NCT00565812|181890645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.56||0.464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.92|4.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||4.20|-1.92|0.464
91003583|NCT00565812|181890645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.57||0.901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.27|2.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.88|-3.27|0.901
91003584|NCT00565812|181890645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.56||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.45|2.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value,geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.66|-3.45|0.800
91003585|NCT00565812|181890646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.093|0.095|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.095|-0.093|0.984
91003586|NCT00565812|181890646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.046|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.047|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.047|-0.140|0.330
91003587|NCT00565812|181890646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049||0.308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.146|0.046|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.046|-0.146|0.308
91003588|NCT00565812|181890646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.083|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.013|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.013|-0.180|0.089
91003589|NCT00565812|181890646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.035|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.137|0.068|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.068|-0.137|0.508
91003590|NCT00565812|181890646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.036|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.137|0.066|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.066|-0.137|0.490
91003591|NCT00565812|181890646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057||0.739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.132|0.094|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.094|-0.132|0.739
91003592|NCT00565812|181890646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057||0.376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.162|0.061|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.061|-0.162|0.376
91048925|NCT01642914|181983290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.17||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.064|0.227||p-Values were obtained from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel tests controlling for geographic region, comparing each linaclotide dose versus placebo in a pairwise manner.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||.227|.064|0.0022
91048926|NCT01642914|181983291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.37||||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.72|||Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified by geographic region.||||1.72|1.09|.0054
91048927|NCT01642914|181983291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.24||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.55|||Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified by geographic region.||||1.55|0.99|0.0470
91048928|NCT01642914|181983297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.23||||0.0264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|4.56||p-values were obtained from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel tests controlling for geographic region, comparing each linaclotide dose versus placebo in a pairwise manner.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.56|1.09|0.0264
91003593|NCT00565812|181890646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057||0.883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.121|0.104|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.104|-0.121|0.883
91003594|NCT00565812|181890646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.023|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.135|0.089|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.089|-0.135|0.690
91003595|NCT00565812|181890647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044||0.849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.078|0.095|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.095|-0.078|0.849
91003596|NCT00565812|181890647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.009|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044||0.837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.096|0.078|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.078|-0.096|0.837
91003597|NCT00565812|181890647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.013|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047||0.776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.105|0.078|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.078|-0.105|0.776
91003598|NCT00565812|181890647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.191|-0.008|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.008|-0.191|0.033
91003599|NCT00565812|181890647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.064|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.163|0.034|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.034|-0.163|0.201
91003600|NCT00565812|181890647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.103|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.201|-0.006|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.006|-0.201|0.038
91003601|NCT00565812|181890647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053||0.848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.114|0.094|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.094|-0.114|0.848
91003602|NCT00565812|181890647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.122|0.084|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.084|-0.122|0.714
91003603|NCT00565812|181890647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.025|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054||0.652|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.082|0.131|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.131|-0.082|0.652
91003604|NCT00565812|181890647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.085|0.127|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.127|-0.085|0.700
91048929|NCT02712333|181983339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% increase per 10μg/m3 increase of PM2.5|7.53|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.65|10.41||the p-value has been adjusted for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|||we analyzed the serum cortisol levels (presented as relative intensities in high perfomance liquid chromatography-mass spectrum) by treatments (intervention group vs control group)||10.41|4.65|<0.05
91048930|NCT02712333|181983339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||fold change|1.33|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||fold change is calculated by measurments from the sham purification group/measurements from the real purification group|||||<0.01
91048931|NCT02712333|181983340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% increase per 10μg/m3 increase of PM2.5|3.69|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.85|5.54||the p-value has been adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||we analyzed the serum cortisone levels by treatment (intervention group vs control group)||5.54|1.85|<0.01
91048932|NCT02712333|181983340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||fold change|1.18|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||fold change is calculated by measurments from the sham purification group/measurements from the real purification group|||||<0.01
91048933|NCT02712333|181983341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% increase per 10μg/m3 increase of PM2.5|5.17|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.21|7.14||the p-value has been adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||we analyzed the serum epinephrine levels by treatment (intervention group vs control group)||7.14|3.21|<0.01
91048934|NCT02712333|181983341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||fold change|1.2|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||fold change is calculated by measurments from the sham purification group/measurements from the real purification group|||||<0.01
91048935|NCT02712333|181983342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% increase per 10μg/m3 increase of PM2.5|11.28|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.37|15.21||the p-value has been adjusted for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|||we analyzed the serum norepinephrine levels by treatment (intervention group vs control group)||15.21|7.37|<0.01
91048936|NCT02712333|181983342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||fold change|1.57|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||fold change is calculated by measurments from the sham purification group/measurements from the real purification group|||||<0.01
91048937|NCT02712333|181983343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% increase per 10μg/m3 increase of PM2.5|0.84|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||we analyzed the serum SBP levels by treatment (intervention group vs control group)||1.59|0.09|<0.01
91048938|NCT02712333|181983344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% increase per 10μg/m3 increase of PM2.5|0.31|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|0.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|||we analyzed the serum cortisol levels by treatment (intervention group vs control group)||0.96|-1.59|>0.05
91048939|NCT02712333|181983345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% increase per 10μg/m3 increase of PM2.5|1.24|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|3.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||we analyzed the serum cortisol levels by treatment (intervention group vs control group)||3.63|-1.14|>0.05
91048940|NCT03463993|181983346|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.549||||||The p-value above is the calculated P value based on hematocrit.|Chi-squared|||The null hypothesis was that intravenous Tranexamic Acid (TXA) 10mg/kg plus Oxytocin 5IU does not result in a lower incidence of primary postpartum haemorrhage compared to Oxytocin alone after elective caesarean section||||0.549
91048941|NCT03463993|181983346|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.138||||||This is the calculated p-value based on hemoglobin .|Chi-squared|||The null hypothesis was that intravenous Tranexamic Acid (TXA)10mg/kg plus Oxytocin 5IU does not result in a lower incidence of primary postpartum haemorrhage compared to Oxytocin alone after elective caesarean section||||0.138
91048942|NCT03463993|181983347|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.789||||||0.789 is the calculated p-value for visually estimated blood loss: Visually estimated blood loss (ml): Group A mean 483.73 (standard deviation182.56); Group B 479.61 (139.49); p-value 0.789|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.789
91048943|NCT03463993|181983347|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.968||||||0.968 is the calculated p-value based on hematocrit. Hematocrit-based calculation of estimated blood loss(ml): Group A mean 650.06 (standard deviation 631.50); Group B 653.05 (796.03); p-value 0.968|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.968
91048944|NCT03463993|181983347|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.447||||||Hemoglobin-based calculation of estimated blood loss(ml) mean(standard deviation): Group A 644.30 (692.27); Group B 707.68 (948.01); p-value 0.447|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.447
91048945|NCT03463993|181983348|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91048946|NCT03463993|181983349|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
91048947|NCT03360916|181983362|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.29|STANDARD_DEVIATION|125.59||0.953|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|This is within group 3 month change||||||0.9530
91048948|NCT03360916|181983362|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.24|STANDARD_DEVIATION|130.12||0.7908|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|This is within group 3 month change||||||0.7908
91048949|NCT03360916|181983362|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|44.88|STANDARD_DEVIATION|105.19||0.1344|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|This is within group 3 month change||||||0.1344
91048950|NCT03360916|181983363|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.22|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.18||0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|This is within group 3 month change||||||0.0005
91048951|NCT03360916|181983363|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.23|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.21||0.0021|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|This is within group 3 month change||||||0.0021
91048952|NCT03360916|181983363|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.23||0.0025|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|This is within group 3 month change||||||0.0025
91048953|NCT01231373|181983364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.63|-2.04|||ANCOVA|||Comparison of polidocanol treatment groups versus placebo (absolute change from baseline to week 8 in patient assessment of symptoms of varicose veins (VVSymQ) score.||-2.04|-4.63|<0.0001
91048954|NCT01231373|181983364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.26|-2.74|||ANCOVA|||||-2.74|-5.26|<0.0001
91003605|NCT00565812|181890648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.37||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|4.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||4.36|-1.00|0.220
91003606|NCT00565812|181890648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36||0.997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.67|2.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.68|-2.67|0.997
91003607|NCT00565812|181890648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.44||0.613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|3.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||3.55|-2.09|0.613
91003608|NCT00565812|181890648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.44||0.964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.75|2.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.88|-2.75|0.964
91003609|NCT00565812|181890648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.49||0.872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.69|3.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||3.17|-2.69|0.872
91003610|NCT00565812|181890648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.48||0.947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.81|3.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||3.01|-2.81|0.947
91003611|NCT00565812|181890648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.62||0.927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.03|3.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||3.33|-3.03|0.927
91003612|NCT00565812|181890648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.61||0.547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|4.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||4.12|-2.18|0.547
91003613|NCT00565812|181890648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.58||0.304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|4.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||4.71|-1.47|0.304
91003614|NCT00565812|181890648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.57||0.679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.73|2.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.43|-3.73|0.679
91003615|NCT00565812|181890649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|2.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.55|-1.80|0.738
91048955|NCT01231373|181983364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.33|-1.77|||ANCOVA|||||-1.77|-4.33|<0.0001
91003616|NCT00565812|181890649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|1.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.64|-2.70|0.632
91003617|NCT00565812|181890649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21||0.736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.77|1.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.96|-2.77|0.736
91003618|NCT00565812|181890649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21||0.811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.66|2.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.08|-2.66|0.811
91003619|NCT00565812|181890649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.27||0.335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.71|1.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.26|-3.71|0.335
91003620|NCT00565812|181890649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26||0.966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|2.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.41|-2.52|0.966
91003621|NCT00565812|181890649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38||0.299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.16|1.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.28|-4.16|0.299
91003622|NCT00565812|181890649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.37||0.925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.56|2.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.82|-2.56|0.925
91003623|NCT00565812|181890649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.39||0.676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.14|3.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||3.30|-2.14|0.676
91003624|NCT00565812|181890649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38||0.732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.18|2.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.23|-3.18|0.732
91003625|NCT00565812|181890650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|2.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.49|-2.22|0.911
91003626|NCT00565812|181890650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.16|1.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.54|-3.16|0.500
91003627|NCT00565812|181890650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26||0.596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|3.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||3.15|-1.81|0.596
91048956|NCT01231373|181983365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.081|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.45|||ANCOVA|||||-0.45|-0.88|<0.0001
91003628|NCT00565812|181890650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26||0.979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|2.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.44|-2.51|0.979
91003629|NCT00565812|181890650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.33||0.659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|2.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.03|-3.20|0.659
91003630|NCT00565812|181890650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32||0.823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.89|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.30|-2.89|0.823
91003631|NCT00565812|181890650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.43||0.387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.04|1.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.57|-4.04|0.387
91003632|NCT00565812|181890650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.42||0.737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.25|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.30|-3.25|0.737
91003633|NCT00565812|181890650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45||0.443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|3.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||3.97|-1.73|0.443
91003634|NCT00565812|181890650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.44||0.585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.62|2.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.04|-3.62|0.585
91003635|NCT00565812|181890651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16||0.613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|2.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.85|-1.68|0.613
91003636|NCT00565812|181890651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.76|1.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.78|-2.76|0.670
91003637|NCT00565812|181890651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.27||0.296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.82|1.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.16|-3.82|0.296
91003638|NCT00565812|181890651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.27||0.604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.15|1.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.83|-3.15|0.604
91003639|NCT00565812|181890651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.33||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.46|0.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.75|-4.46|0.163
91003640|NCT00565812|181890651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32||0.939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.69|2.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.48|-2.69|0.939
91003641|NCT00565812|181890651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.46||0.233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.61|1.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.12|-4.61|0.233
91003642|NCT00565812|181890651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.32|3.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||3.36|-2.32|0.720
91003643|NCT00565812|181890651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45||0.993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.82|2.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.85|-2.82|0.993
91003644|NCT00565812|181890651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.44||0.794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.19|2.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.44|-3.19|0.794
91003645|NCT00565812|181890652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|2.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.02|-0.07|0.069
91003646|NCT00565812|181890652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|1.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.57|-0.53|0.335
91003647|NCT00565812|181890652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|2.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.11|-0.33|0.153
91003648|NCT00565812|181890652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|1.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.47|-0.95|0.672
91003649|NCT00565812|181890652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|1.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.43|-1.05|0.765
91003650|NCT00565812|181890652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|1.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.49|-0.96|0.675
91003651|NCT00565812|181890652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.84|-1.00|0.560
91003652|NCT00565812|181890652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|1.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.97|-0.84|0.433
91003653|NCT00565812|181890652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|2.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.16|-0.70|0.318
91003654|NCT00565812|181890652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|2.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.18|-0.68|0.303
91003655|NCT00565812|181890653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|3.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLGU\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||3.26|0.08|0.039
91003656|NCT00565812|181890653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.30|-0.91|0.395
91003657|NCT00565812|181890653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|3.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||3.25|-0.54|0.160
91048957|NCT01231373|181983365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.078|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|-0.61|||ANCOVA|||||-0.61|-1.04|<0.0001
91048958|NCT01231373|181983365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.75|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.54|||ANCOVA|||||-0.54|-0.97|<0.0001
91048959|NCT01231373|181983366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.131|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|-0.87|||ANCOVA|||||-0.87|-1.59|<0.0001
91048960|NCT01231373|181983366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-1.18|||ANCOVA|||||-1.18|-1.90|<0.0001
91003658|NCT00565812|181890653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||0.638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|2.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.35|-1.44|0.638
91003659|NCT00565812|181890653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98||0.537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|2.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.54|-1.32|0.537
91003660|NCT00565812|181890653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98||0.988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*(visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.93|-1.90|0.988
91003661|NCT00565812|181890653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|2.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.22|-2.12|0.962
91003662|NCT00565812|181890653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.97|2.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.37|-1.97|0.856
91003663|NCT00565812|181890653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15||0.237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|3.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||3.63|-0.90|0.237
91003664|NCT00565812|181890653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15||0.475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|3.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||3.09|-1.44|0.475
91003665|NCT00565812|181890654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|1.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.16|-1.07|0.938
91003666|NCT00565812|181890654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|1.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.17|-1.04|0.906
91003667|NCT00565812|181890654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.04|-1.50|0.726
91003668|NCT00565812|181890654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.00|-1.52|0.681
91003669|NCT00565812|181890655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|1.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.21|-1.07|0.900
91048961|NCT01231373|181983366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|-1.11|||ANCOVA|||||-1.11|-1.83|<0.0001
91003670|NCT00565812|181890655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.50|-0.77|0.528
91003671|NCT00565812|181890655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|0.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.94|-1.51|0.647
91048962|NCT02312713|181983367|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.36||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.84|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Wait List Control at 4 months.||0.12|-6.84|0.06
91048963|NCT02312713|181983367|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.59||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.26|2.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Wait List Control at 12 months.||2.08|-5.26|0.39
91048964|NCT02312713|181983367|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.24|0.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Internet Based Exercise Training and Wait List Control at 4 months.||0.85|-6.24|0.14
91048965|NCT02312713|181983367|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.63||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.37|1.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Internet Based Exercise Training and Wait List Control at 12 months.||1.11|-6.37|0.17
91048966|NCT02312713|181983367|NON_INFERIORITY|The IBET intervention will be non-inferior to the standard PT intervention, indicated by a mean WOMAC score less than 5 points higher than standard PT.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.67||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|3.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Internet Based Exercise Training at 4 months.||3.56|-2.23|0.65
91048967|NCT02312713|181983367|NON_INFERIORITY|The IBET intervention will be non-inferior to the standard PT intervention, indicated by a mean WOMAC score less than 5 points higher than standard PT.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.04||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.13|2.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Internet-Based Exercise Training at 12 months.||2.05|-4.13|0.51
91048968|NCT02312713|181983368|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.56||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Wait List Control at 4 months.||0.98|0.15|0.01
91048969|NCT02312713|181983368|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Wait List Control at 12 months.||0.65|-0.19|0.28
91048970|NCT02312713|181983368|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Internet Based Exercise Training and Wait List Control at 4 months.||0.49|-0.35|0.75
91048971|NCT02312713|181983368|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Internet Based Exercise Training and Wait List Control at 12 months.||0.7|-0.16|0.22
91048972|NCT02312713|181983368|NON_INFERIORITY|Since there were not sufficient data in prior literature to specific an a priori non-inferiority margin, for this and other secondary outcomes we based conclusions and discussions on magnitude of differences between the group, descriptively. This strategy was specified in the protocol.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Internet Based Exercise Training at 4 months.||-0.16|-0.84|0.00
91048973|NCT02312713|181983368|NON_INFERIORITY|Since there were not sufficient data in prior literature to specific an a priori non-inferiority margin, for this and other secondary outcomes we based conclusions and discussions on magnitude of differences between the group, descriptively. This strategy was specified in the protocol.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Internet-Based Exercise Training at 12 months.||0.39|-0.31|0.83
91048974|NCT02312713|181983369|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.75||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|15.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Wait List Control at 4 months for the 2 Minute Step Test.||15.07|0.43|0.04
91048975|NCT02312713|181983369|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.12||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.59|8.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Wait List Control at 12 months for the 2 Minute Step Test.||8.82|-6.59|0.78
91048976|NCT02312713|181983369|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.88||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.56|12.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Internet Based Exercise Training and Wait List Control at 4 months for the 2 Minute Step Test.||12.33|-2.56|0.20
91048977|NCT02312713|181983369|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.13||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.74|8.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Internet Based Exercise Training and Wait List Control at 12 months for the 2 Minute Step Test.||8.99|-6.74|.78
91048978|NCT02312713|181983369|NON_INFERIORITY|Since there were not sufficient data in prior literature to specific an a priori non-inferiority margin, for this and other secondary outcomes we based conclusions and discussions on magnitude of differences between the group, descriptively. This strategy was specified in the protocol.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.86||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.94|3.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Internet Based Exercise Training at 4 months for the 2 Minute Step Test.||3.21|-8.94|0.35
91048979|NCT02312713|181983369|NON_INFERIORITY|Since there were not sufficient data in prior literature to specific an a priori non-inferiority margin, for this and other secondary outcomes we based conclusions and discussions on magnitude of differences between the group, descriptively. This strategy was specified in the protocol.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|6.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Internet Based Exercise Training at 12 months for the 2 Minute Step Test.||6.42|-6.40|1.00
91048980|NCT02312713|181983370|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.63||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Wait List Control at 4 months for Unilateral Stand Time.||0.30|-1.56|0.19
91048981|NCT02312713|181983370|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Wait List Control at 12 months for Unilateral Stand Time.||0.98|-0.89|0.93
91048982|NCT02312713|181983370|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|0.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Internet Based Exercise Training and Wait List Control at 4 months for Unilateral Stand Time.||0.93|-0.97|0.97
91048983|NCT02312713|181983370|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Internet Based Exercise Training and Wait List Control at 12 months for Unilateral Stand Time||1|-0.91|0.93
91003672|NCT00565812|181890655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|1.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.09|-1.34|0.841
91048984|NCT02312713|181983370|NON_INFERIORITY|Since there were not sufficient data in prior literature to specific an a priori non-inferiority margin, for this and other secondary outcomes we based conclusions and discussions on magnitude of differences between the group, descriptively. This strategy was specified in the protocol.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.61||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|1.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Internet Based Exercise Training at 4 months for Unilateral Stand Time.||1.38|-0.16|0.12
91048985|NCT02312713|181983370|NON_INFERIORITY|Since there were not sufficient data in prior literature to specific an a priori non-inferiority margin, for this and other secondary outcomes we based conclusions and discussions on magnitude of differences between the group, descriptively. This strategy was specified in the protocol.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Internet Based Exercise Training at 12 months for Unilateral Stand Time.||0.77|-0.78|1.00
91048986|NCT02312713|181983371|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|0.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Wait List Control at 4 months for 30 Second Chair Stand.||.94|-1.55|0.63
91048987|NCT02312713|181983371|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Wait List Control at 12 months for 30 Second Chair Stand.||0.6|-1.58|0.37
91048988|NCT02312713|181983371|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|1.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Internet Based Exercise Training and Wait List Control at 4 months for 30 Second Chair Stand.||1.59|-0.95|0.62
91003673|NCT00565812|181890656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|1.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.48|-0.84|0.587
91048989|NCT02312713|181983371|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|1.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Internet Based Exercise Training and Wait List Control at 12 months for 30 Second Chair Stand.||1.35|-0.87|0.67
91048990|NCT02312713|181983371|NON_INFERIORITY|Since there were not sufficient data in prior literature to specific an a priori non-inferiority margin, for this and other secondary outcomes we based conclusions and discussions on magnitude of differences between the group, descriptively. This strategy was specified in the protocol.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.63||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Internet Based Exercise Training at 4 months for 30 Second Chair Stand.||1.66|-0.40|0.23
91048991|NCT02312713|181983371|NON_INFERIORITY|Since there were not sufficient data in prior literature to specific an a priori non-inferiority margin, for this and other secondary outcomes we based conclusions and discussions on magnitude of differences between the group, descriptively. This strategy was specified in the protocol.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.74||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|1.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Internet Based Exercise Training at 12 months for 30 Second Chair Stand.||1.64|-0.17|0.11
91048992|NCT02312713|181983372|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Wait List Control at 4 months for Timed Up and Go.||0.8|-1.58|0.52
91048993|NCT02312713|181983372|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|0.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Wait List Control at 12 months for Timed Up and Go.||0.85|-1.86|0.46
91048994|NCT02312713|181983372|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.64||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|0.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Internet Based Exercise Training and Wait List Control at 4 months for Timed Up and Go.||0.58|-1.85|0.3
91048995|NCT02312713|181983372|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.22||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Internet Based Exercise Training and Wait List Control at 12 months for Timed Up and Go.||0.16|-2.61|0.08
91048996|NCT02312713|181983372|NON_INFERIORITY|Since there were not sufficient data in prior literature to specific an a priori non-inferiority margin, for this and other secondary outcomes we based conclusions and discussions on magnitude of differences between the group, descriptively. This strategy was specified in the protocol.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|0.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Internet Based Exercise Training at 4 months for Timed Up and Go.||0.74|-1.23|0.63
91048997|NCT02312713|181983372|NON_INFERIORITY|Since there were not sufficient data in prior literature to specific an a priori non-inferiority margin, for this and other secondary outcomes we based conclusions and discussions on magnitude of differences between the group, descriptively. This strategy was specified in the protocol.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.72||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Internet Based Exercise Training at 12 months for Timed Up and Go.||0.41|-1.85|0.21
91048998|NCT02312713|181983373|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.79||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Wait List Control at 4 months.||0.02|-1.59|0.05
91003674|NCT00565812|181890656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|1.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.38|-0.91|0.687
91048999|NCT02312713|181983373|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Wait List Control at 12 months.||0.02|-1.82|0.05
91049000|NCT02312713|181983373|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Internet Based Exercise Training and Wait List Control at 4 months.||0.27|-1.37|0.19
91049001|NCT02312713|181983373|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.89||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Internet Based Exercise Training and Wait List Control at 12 months.||0.05|-1.83|0.06
91049002|NCT02312713|181983373|NON_INFERIORITY|Since there were not sufficient data in prior literature to specific an a priori non-inferiority margin, for this and other secondary outcomes we based conclusions and discussions on magnitude of differences between the group, descriptively. This strategy was specified in the protocol.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Internet Based Exercise Training at 4 months.||0.89|-0.43|0.49
91049003|NCT02312713|181983373|NON_INFERIORITY|Since there were not sufficient data in prior literature to specific an a priori non-inferiority margin, for this and other secondary outcomes we based conclusions and discussions on magnitude of differences between the group, descriptively. This strategy was specified in the protocol.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Internet-Based Exercise Training at 12 months.||0.78|-0.77|0.99
91049004|NCT02312713|181983374|NON_INFERIORITY|Since there were not sufficient data in prior literature to specific an a priori non-inferiority margin, for this and other secondary outcomes we based conclusions and discussions on magnitude of differences between the group, descriptively. This strategy was specified in the protocol.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.57||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|4.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Internet Based Exercise Training at 4 months for KOOS Pain.||4.92|-1.77|0.36
91049005|NCT02312713|181983374|NON_INFERIORITY|Since there were not sufficient data in prior literature to specific an a priori non-inferiority margin, for this and other secondary outcomes we based conclusions and discussions on magnitude of differences between the group, descriptively. This strategy was specified in the protocol.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.51||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|6.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Internet-Based Exercise Training at 12 months for KOOS Pain.||6.14|-1.11|0.17
91049006|NCT02312713|181983374|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.94||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|8.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Internet Based Exercise Training and Wait List Control at 4 months for KOOS Pain.||8.06|-0.19|0.06
91049007|NCT02312713|181983374|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.36||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|7.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Internet Based Exercise Training and Wait List Control at 12 months for KOOS Pain.||7.79|-1.08|0.14
91049008|NCT02312713|181983374|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.37||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|6.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Standard Physical Therapy and Wait List Control at 4 months for KOOS Pain.||6.4|-1.67|0.25
91049009|NCT02312713|181983374|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.85||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.48|5.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Standard Physical Therapy and Wait List Control at 12 months for KOOS Pain.||5.18|-3.48|0.70
91049010|NCT02312713|181983374|NON_INFERIORITY|Since there were not sufficient data in prior literature to specific an a priori non-inferiority margin, for this and other secondary outcomes we based conclusions and discussions on magnitude of differences between the group, descriptively. This strategy was specified in the protocol.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.32||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.43|1.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Internet Based Exercise Training at 4 months for KOOS ADL.||1.79|-4.43|0.40
91049011|NCT02312713|181983374|NON_INFERIORITY|Since there were not sufficient data in prior literature to specific an a priori non-inferiority margin, for this and other secondary outcomes we based conclusions and discussions on magnitude of differences between the group, descriptively. This strategy was specified in the protocol.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.93|3.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Internet Based Exercise Training at 12 months for KOOS ADL.||3.59|-2.93|0.84
91049012|NCT02312713|181983374|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.11||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|5.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Internet Based Exercise Training and Wait List Control at 4 month for KOOS ADL.||5.94|-1.73|0.28
91049013|NCT02312713|181983374|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.79||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|6.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Internet Based Exercise Training and Wait List Control at 12 month for KOOS ADL.||6.77|-1.2|0.17
91049014|NCT02312713|181983374|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.43||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|7.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Wait List Control at 4 months for KOOS ADL.||7.18|-0.32|0.07
91049015|NCT02312713|181983374|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.45||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|6.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Wait List Control at 12 months for KOOS ADL.||6.34|-1.44|0.22
91049016|NCT02312713|181983374|NON_INFERIORITY|Since there were not sufficient data in prior literature to specific an a priori non-inferiority margin, for this and other secondary outcomes we based conclusions and discussions on magnitude of differences between the group, descriptively. This strategy was specified in the protocol.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.47|4.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Internet Based Exercise Training at 4 months for KOOS Sport/Rec.||4.06|-4.47|.92
91049017|NCT02312713|181983374|NON_INFERIORITY|Since there were not sufficient data in prior literature to specific an a priori non-inferiority margin, for this and other secondary outcomes we based conclusions and discussions on magnitude of differences between the group, descriptively. This strategy was specified in the protocol.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.55||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.15|5.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Internet Based Exercise Training at 12 months for KOOS Sport/Rec.||5.24|-4.15|.82
91049018|NCT02312713|181983374|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.71||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|9.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Internet Based Exercise Training and Wait List Control at 4 months for KOOS Sport/Rec.||9|-1.59|0.17
91049019|NCT02312713|181983374|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.01||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|11.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Internet Based Exercise Training and Wait List Control at 12 months for KOOS Sport/Rec.||11.74|0.29|0.04
91049020|NCT02312713|181983374|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.91||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|9.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Wait List Control at 4 months for KOOS Sport/Rec.||9.1|-1.28|0.14
91049021|NCT02312713|181983374|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.47||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|11.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Wait List Control at 12 months for KOOS Sport/Rec.||11.03|-0.1|0.05
91049022|NCT02312713|181983374|NON_INFERIORITY|Since there were not sufficient data in prior literature to specific an a priori non-inferiority margin, for this and other secondary outcomes we based conclusions and discussions on magnitude of differences between the group, descriptively. This strategy was specified in the protocol.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.29|3.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Internet Based Exercise Training at 4 months for KOOS QOL.||3.96|-3.29|.86
91049023|NCT02312713|181983374|NON_INFERIORITY|Since there were not sufficient data in prior literature to specific an a priori non-inferiority margin, for this and other secondary outcomes we based conclusions and discussions on magnitude of differences between the group, descriptively. This strategy was specified in the protocol.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.59||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|6.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Internet Based Exercise Training at 12 months for KOOS QOL.||6.13|-0.96|0.15
91049024|NCT02312713|181983374|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.63||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|8.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Internet Based Exercise Training and Wait List Control at 4 months for KOOS QOL.||8.11|-0.85|0.11
91049025|NCT02312713|181983374|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.74||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.39|12.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Internet Based Exercise Training and Wait List Control at 12 months for KOOS QOL.||12.08|3.39|0
91049026|NCT02312713|181983374|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.29||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|7.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Wait List Control at 4 months for KOOS QOL.||7.67|-1.08|0.14
91049027|NCT02312713|181983374|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.15||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|9.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Wait List Control at 12 months for KOOS QOL.||9.37|0.92|0.02
91049028|NCT02312713|181983375|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.58||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.67|-0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Wait List Control at 4 months.||-0.5|-4.67|0.02
91049029|NCT02312713|181983375|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.06||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.22|1.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Wait List Control at 12 months.||1.09|-3.22|0.33
91049030|NCT02312713|181983375|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|1.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Internet Based Exercise Training and Wait List Control at 4 months.||1.74|-2.52|0.72
91049031|NCT02312713|181983375|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.65||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|2.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Internet Based Exercise Training and Wait List Control at 12 months.||2.86|-1.56|0.56
91049032|NCT02312713|181983375|NON_INFERIORITY|Since there were not sufficient data in prior literature to specific an a priori non-inferiority margin, for this and other secondary outcomes we based conclusions and discussions on magnitude of differences between the group, descriptively. This strategy was specified in the protocol.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.19||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|3.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Internet Based Exercise Training at 4 months.||3.9|0.48|0.01
91049033|NCT02312713|181983375|NON_INFERIORITY|Since there were not sufficient data in prior literature to specific an a priori non-inferiority margin, for this and other secondary outcomes we based conclusions and discussions on magnitude of differences between the group, descriptively. This strategy was specified in the protocol.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.71||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|3.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Internet-Based Exercise Training at 12 months.||3.52|-0.1|0.06
91049034|NCT02312713|181983376|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.47||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.67|-0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Wait List Control at 4 months.||-0.26|-4.67|0.03
91003675|NCT00565812|181890656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|1.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.01|-1.56|0.677
91003676|NCT00565812|181890656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.74|-0.80|0.469
91003677|NCT00565812|181890657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|1.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.17|-0.71|0.632
91003678|NCT00565812|181890657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|1.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.42|-0.45|0.308
91003679|NCT00565812|181890657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|0.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.79|-1.33|0.615
91003680|NCT00565812|181890657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|0.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.62|-1.48|0.425
91003681|NCT00565812|181890658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|1.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.72|-0.39|0.214
91003682|NCT00565812|181890658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|1.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.03|-1.06|0.980
91003683|NCT00565812|181890658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|1.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.49|-0.83|0.575
91003684|NCT00565812|181890658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|1.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.14|-1.16|0.986
91003685|NCT00565812|181890659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|2.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.52|0.13|0.030
91003686|NCT00565812|181890659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|1.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.61|-0.76|0.480
91003687|NCT00565812|181890659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67||0.132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|2.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.32|-0.30|0.132
91003688|NCT00565812|181890659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|2.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.34|-0.26|0.117
91003689|NCT00565812|181890660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|2.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.44|-0.32|0.133
91003690|NCT00565812|181890660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|1.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.82|-0.93|0.524
91003691|NCT00565812|181890660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|1.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.78|-1.27|0.743
91003692|NCT00565812|181890660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.30|-0.73|0.310
91049035|NCT02312713|181983376|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.43||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.31|-0.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Wait List Control at 12 months.||-0.55|-4.31|0.01
91049036|NCT02312713|181983376|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.99||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.24|1.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Internet Based Exercise Training and Wait List Control at 4 months.||1.27|-3.24|0.39
91049037|NCT02312713|181983376|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.65||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.58|0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Internet Based Exercise Training and Wait List Control at 12 months.||0.29|-3.58|0.1
91003693|NCT00565812|181890661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|2.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.38|-0.04|0.058
91003694|NCT00565812|181890661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|1.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.96|-0.44|0.213
91003695|NCT00565812|181890661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.30|-0.33|0.143
91003696|NCT00565812|181890661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.81|-0.80|0.450
91003697|NCT00565812|181890662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.80|-1.19|0.701
91003698|NCT00565812|181890662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|1.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.14|-0.84|0.764
91003699|NCT00565812|181890662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.43|-1.80|0.228
91003700|NCT00565812|181890662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|0.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit,a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.74|-1.47|0.514
91003701|NCT00565812|181890663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|2.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.65|0.19|0.023
91003702|NCT00565812|181890663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|1.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.75|-0.68|0.391
91049038|NCT02312713|181983376|NON_INFERIORITY|Since there were not sufficient data in prior literature to specific an a priori non-inferiority margin, for this and other secondary outcomes we based conclusions and discussions on magnitude of differences between the group, descriptively. This strategy was specified in the protocol.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.48||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|3.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Internet Based Exercise Training at 4 months.||3.29|-0.33|0.11
91003703|NCT00565812|181890663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|2.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.37|-0.34|0.142
91003704|NCT00565812|181890663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|2.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.21|-0.47|0.204
91003705|NCT00565812|181890670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.952||||0.875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.516|1.756|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 12; Odds ratio (OR), 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a logistic regression model, with treatment group, (collapsed) KLG, geographic region, and gender as factors, age and body mass index as covariates.||1.756|0.516|0.875
91003706|NCT00565812|181890670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.273||||0.406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.721|2.247|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 12; Odds ratio, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a logistic regression model, with treatment group, (collapsed) KLG, geographic region, and gender as factors, age and body mass index as covariates.||2.247|0.721|0.406
91003707|NCT00565812|181890670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.787||||0.406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.448|1.384|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 24; Odds ratio, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a logistic regression model, with treatment group, (collapsed) KLG, geographic region, and gender as factors, age and body mass index as covariates.||1.384|0.448|0.406
91003708|NCT00565812|181890670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.154||||0.591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.685|1.942|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 24; Odds ratio, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a logistic regression model, with treatment group, (collapsed) KLG, geographic region, and gender as factors, age and body mass index as covariates.||1.942|0.685|0.591
91049039|NCT02312713|181983376|NON_INFERIORITY|Since there were not sufficient data in prior literature to specific an a priori non-inferiority margin, for this and other secondary outcomes we based conclusions and discussions on magnitude of differences between the group, descriptively. This strategy was specified in the protocol.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.79||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|2.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Internet-Based Exercise Training at 12 months.||2.37|-0.8|0.33
91003709|NCT00565812|181890671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.704||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.428|1.16|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 12; Odds ratio, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a logistic regression model, with treatment group, (collapsed) KLG, geographic region, and gender as factors, age and body mass index as covariates.||1.160|0.428|0.168
91049040|NCT02312713|181983377|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.79||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Wait List Control at 4 months.||0.04|-1.62|0.06
91049041|NCT02312713|181983377|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Wait List Control at 12 months.||0.77|-0.77|1.00
91049042|NCT02312713|181983377|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Internet Based Exercise Training and Wait List Control at 4 months.||0.41|-1.29|0.31
91003710|NCT00565812|181890671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.893||||0.634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.423|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 12; Odds ratio, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a logistic regression model, with treatment group, (collapsed) KLG, geographic region, and gender as factors, age and body mass index as covariates.||1.423|0.560|0.634
91003711|NCT00565812|181890671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.583||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.356|0.955|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 24; Odds ratio, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a logistic regression model, with treatment group, (collapsed) KLG, geographic region, and gender as factors, age and body mass index as covariates.||0.955|0.356|0.032
91003712|NCT00565812|181890671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.774||||0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.489|1.227|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 24; Odds ratio, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a logistic regression model, with treatment group, (collapsed) KLG, geographic region, and gender as factors, age and body mass index as covariates.||1.227|0.489|0.276
91003713|NCT00565812|181890672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.14|||ANCOVA|||LS Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model, with treatment group, (collapsed) KLG, geographic region, and gender as factors and age and body mass index as covariates.||0.14|-0.21|0.709
91003714|NCT00565812|181890672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.2|||ANCOVA|||LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from an ANCOVA model, with treatment group, (collapsed) KLG, geographic region, and gender as factors and age and body mass index as covariates.||0.20|-0.15|0.798
91003715|NCT00565812|181890673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.032||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.797|1.337|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a logistic regression model, with treatment group, (collapsed) KLG, geographic region, and gender as factors, baseline JSW, age and body mass index as covariates.||1.337|0.797|0.810
91049043|NCT02312713|181983377|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|0.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Internet Based Exercise Training and Wait List Control at 12 months.||0.57|-1.01|0.58
91003716|NCT00565812|181890673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.068||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.824|1.383|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a logistic regression model, with treatment group, (collapsed) KLG, geographic region, and gender as factors, baseline JSW, age and body mass index as covariates.||1.383|0.824|0.620
91003717|NCT00565812|181890674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.745||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.557|0.997|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a logistic regression model, with treatment group, (collapsed) KLG, geographic region, and gender as factors, age and body mass index as covariates.||0.997|0.557|0.047
91003718|NCT00565812|181890674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.864||||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.15|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a logistic regression model, with treatment group, (collapsed) KLG, geographic region, and gender as factors, age and body mass index as covariates.||1.150|0.650|0.317
91003719|NCT00565812|181890675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.043||||0.881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.602|1.806|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a logistic regression model, with treatment group, (collapsed) KLG, geographic region, and gender as factors, age and body mass index as covariates.||1.806|0.602|0.881
91003720|NCT00565812|181890675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.186||||0.525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.701|2.009|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a logistic regression model, with treatment group, (collapsed) KLG, geographic region, and gender as factors, age and body mass index as covariates.||2.009|0.701|0.525
91003721|NCT00565812|181890679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.96|-1.50|0.668
91049044|NCT02312713|181983377|NON_INFERIORITY|Since there were not sufficient data in prior literature to specific an a priori non-inferiority margin, for this and other secondary outcomes we based conclusions and discussions on magnitude of differences between the group, descriptively. This strategy was specified in the protocol.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.35||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|1.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Internet Based Exercise Training at 4 months.||1.03|-0.33|0.32
91049045|NCT02312713|181983377|NON_INFERIORITY|Since there were not sufficient data in prior literature to specific an a priori non-inferiority margin, for this and other secondary outcomes we based conclusions and discussions on magnitude of differences between the group, descriptively. This strategy was specified in the protocol.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Internet-Based Exercise Training at 12 months.||0.43|-0.86|0.51
91049046|NCT02312713|181983378|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.95||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.31|26.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Wait List Control at 4 months.||26.22|-12.31|0.48
91049047|NCT02312713|181983378|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.11||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.69|23.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Wait List Control at 12 months.||23.91|-9.69|0.41
91049048|NCT02312713|181983378|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.82||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.55|12.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Internet Based Exercise Training and Wait List Control at 4 months.||12.91|-26.55|0.50
91003722|NCT00565812|181890679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|1.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.85|-0.61|0.326
91049049|NCT02312713|181983378|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.02||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.31|24.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Internet Based Exercise Training and Wait List Control at 12 months.||24.35|-10.31|0.43
91049050|NCT02312713|181983378|NON_INFERIORITY|Since there were not sufficient data in prior literature to specific an a priori non-inferiority margin, for this and other secondary outcomes we based conclusions and discussions on magnitude of differences between the group, descriptively. This strategy was specified in the protocol.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.77||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.73|2.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Internet Based Exercise Training at 4 months.||2.19|-29.73|0.09
91050358|NCT04168190|181987003|SUPERIORITY|Superiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>1.0 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|18.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.98|25.57|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 16F. Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||25.57|12.98|<0.001
91003723|NCT00565812|181890679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|1.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.01|-1.56|0.679
91003724|NCT00565812|181890679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|3.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||3.14|0.57|0.005
91003725|NCT00565812|181890679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|2.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.01|-0.80|0.399
91003726|NCT00565812|181890679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|3.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||3.92|1.12|<0.001
91003727|NCT00565812|181890679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|1.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.68|-1.08|0.668
91003728|NCT00565812|181890679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|3.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||3.13|0.39|0.012
91049051|NCT02312713|181983378|NON_INFERIORITY|Since there were not sufficient data in prior literature to specific an a priori non-inferiority margin, for this and other secondary outcomes we based conclusions and discussions on magnitude of differences between the group, descriptively. This strategy was specified in the protocol.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.41|14.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Internet-Based Exercise Training at 12 months.||14.23|-14.41|0.99
91049052|NCT02312713|181983379|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.36||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|2.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Wait List Control at 4 months for Strengthening Exercises||2.66|0.05|0.04
91049053|NCT02312713|181983379|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.21||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|2.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Wait List Control at 12 months for Strengthening Exercises.||2.6|-0.18|0.09
91003729|NCT00565812|181890679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|2.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 36; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group x visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.67|-0.27|0.109
91049054|NCT02312713|181983379|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.85||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|2.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Internet Based Exercise Training and Wait List Control at 4 months for Strengthening Exercises.||2.19|-0.49|0.22
91049055|NCT02312713|181983379|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.35||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|2.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Internet Based Exercise Training and Wait List Control at 12 months for Strengthening Exercises.||2.78|-0.08|0.06
91049056|NCT02312713|181983379|NON_INFERIORITY|Since there were not sufficient data in prior literature to specific an a priori non-inferiority margin, for this and other secondary outcomes we based conclusions and discussions on magnitude of differences between the group, descriptively. This strategy was specified in the protocol.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Internet Based Exercise Training at 4 months for Strength.||0.58|-1.6|0.36
91049057|NCT02312713|181983379|NON_INFERIORITY|Since there were not sufficient data in prior literature to specific an a priori non-inferiority margin, for this and other secondary outcomes we based conclusions and discussions on magnitude of differences between the group, descriptively. This strategy was specified in the protocol.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|1.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Internet Based Exercise Training at 12 months for Strength.||1.31|-1.03|0.81
91003730|NCT00565812|181890679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|2.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 36; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.48|-0.42|0.163
91003731|NCT00565812|181890679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|0.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.85|-2.02|0.424
91003732|NCT00565812|181890679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|1.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.76|-1.07|0.635
91049058|NCT02312713|181983379|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.85||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|3.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Wait List Control at 4 months for Stretching.||3.03|0.67|0.00
91003733|NCT00565812|181890679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|1.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 60; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.61|-1.34|0.855
91003734|NCT00565812|181890679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|3.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 60; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||3.30|0.38|0.013
91003735|NCT00565812|181890679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|0.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 72; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.73|-2.44|0.292
91049059|NCT02312713|181983379|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.62||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|2.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Wait List Control at 12 months for Stretching.||2.68|0.55|0.00
91049060|NCT02312713|181983379|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.37||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|2.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Internet Based Exercise Training and Wait List Control at 4 months for Stretching.||2.57|0.16|0.03
90890011|NCT01571362|181644030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.221|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|-0.44|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Randomization Baseline to Week 12/Early Termination.||-0.44|-1.31|<0.0001
91049061|NCT02312713|181983379|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.07||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|3.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Internet Based Exercise Training and Wait List Control at 12 months for Stretching.||3.16|0.98|0.00
91049062|NCT02312713|181983379|NON_INFERIORITY|Since there were not sufficient data in prior literature to specific an a priori non-inferiority margin, for this and other secondary outcomes we based conclusions and discussions on magnitude of differences between the group, descriptively. This strategy was specified in the protocol.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Internet Based Exercise Training at 4 months for Stretching.||0.5|-1.46|0.33
91049063|NCT02312713|181983379|NON_INFERIORITY|Since there were not sufficient data in prior literature to specific an a priori non-inferiority margin, for this and other secondary outcomes we based conclusions and discussions on magnitude of differences between the group, descriptively. This strategy was specified in the protocol.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|1.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Internet Based Exercise Training at 12 months for Stretching.||1.34|-0.44|0.32
91049064|NCT02312713|181983379|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.09||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|2.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Wait List Control at 4 months for Aerobic Exercise.||2.8|-0.61|0.21
91049065|NCT02312713|181983379|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.07||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|4.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Wait List Control at 12 months for Aerobic Exercise.||4|0.13|0.04
91049066|NCT02312713|181983379|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.89||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|3.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Internet Based Exercise Training and Wait List Control at 4 months for Aerobic Exercise.||3.62|0.15|0.03
91049067|NCT02312713|181983379|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.99||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|3.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Internet Based Exercise Training and Wait List Control at 12 months for Aerobic Exercise.||3.97|0.01|0.05
91049068|NCT02312713|181983379|NON_INFERIORITY|Since there were not sufficient data in prior literature to specific an a priori non-inferiority margin, for this and other secondary outcomes we based conclusions and discussions on magnitude of differences between the group, descriptively. This strategy was specified in the protocol.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.79||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|2.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Internet Based Exercise Training at 4 months for Aerobic Exercise.||2.2|-0.62|0.27
91049069|NCT02312713|181983379|NON_INFERIORITY|Since there were not sufficient data in prior literature to specific an a priori non-inferiority margin, for this and other secondary outcomes we based conclusions and discussions on magnitude of differences between the group, descriptively. This strategy was specified in the protocol.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|1.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Internet Based Exercise Training at 12 months for Aerobic Exercise.||1.54|-1.69|0.93
91049070|NCT05444543|181983432|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.089||||0.57|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.57
91049071|NCT05444543|181983433|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.99
91049072|NCT00720226|181983461|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Participants demonstrating 5-35% emphysema on baseline CT scan||||0.06
91049073|NCT00720226|181983462|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Participants with 5-35% emphysema at baseline||||0.55
91049074|NCT00430950|181983552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.2648||95.0|-1.51|0.42|||ANCOVA|||"The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect and baseline mean trough sitting dBP as covariate.~Significance level alpha = 5%. Power = 80%.~The following statistical superiority hypothesis was tested:~Superiority of OM/HCTZ combination therapy 40/25 mg over OM/HCTZ 20/25 mg"||0.42|-1.51|0.2648
91049075|NCT00430950|181983553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.4246||95.0|-1.26|0.53|||ANCOVA|||||0.53|-1.26|0.4246
91049076|NCT00430950|181983554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.7019||95.0|-1.84|1.24|||ANCOVA||refers to 8 week change; from week 8 to week 16|||1.24|-1.84|0.7019
91003736|NCT00565812|181890679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|1.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 72; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.68|-1.47|0.897
91049077|NCT00430950|181983554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.7328||95.0|-1.71|1.21|||ANCOVA||refers to 4 week change; from week 8 to week 12|||1.21|-1.71|0.7328
91049078|NCT00430950|181983555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.6||||0.0016||95.0|-2.58|-0.6|||ANCOVA||24 hour Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring (ABPM) diastolic blood pressure (dBP)|||-0.60|-2.58|0.0016
91049079|NCT00430950|181983555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.6||||0.0031||95.0|-2.61|-0.53|||ANCOVA||daytime Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring (ABPM) diastolic blood pressure (dBP)|||-0.53|-2.61|0.0031
91003737|NCT00565812|181890679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.36|0.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 84; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.92|-2.36|0.390
91049080|NCT00430950|181983555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.5||||0.0073||95.0|-2.58|-0.4|||ANCOVA||night-time Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring (ABPM) diastolic blood pressure (dBP)|||-0.40|-2.58|0.0073
91049081|NCT00430950|181983555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.3||||0.0021||95.0|-3.71|-0.82|||ANCOVA||24 hour Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring (ABPM) systolic blood pressure (sBP)|||-0.82|-3.71|0.0021
91049082|NCT00430950|181983555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.3||||0.0031||95.0|-3.76|-0.76|||ANCOVA||daytime Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring (ABPM) systolic blood pressure (sBP)|||-0.76|-3.76|0.0031
91003738|NCT00565812|181890679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|1.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 84; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.99|-1.26|0.659
91003739|NCT00565812|181890679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|1.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 96; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.42|-1.73|0.847
91003740|NCT00565812|181890679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|2.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 96; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.34|-0.79|0.333
91003741|NCT00565812|181890680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.32|-1.31|0.238
91003742|NCT00565812|181890680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.91|-0.72|0.815
91003743|NCT00565812|181890680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.10|-0.54|0.508
91003744|NCT00565812|181890680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|2.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.02|0.38|0.004
91003745|NCT00565812|181890680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.70|-1.07|0.683
91003746|NCT00565812|181890680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|2.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.09|0.33|0.007
91049083|NCT00430950|181983555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.0||||0.0104||95.0|-3.61|-0.48|||ANCOVA||night-time Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring (ABPM) systolic blood pressure (sBP)|||-0.48|-3.61|0.0104
91003747|NCT00565812|181890680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|1.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.07|-0.71|0.687
91003748|NCT00565812|181890680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.78|-0.00|0.050
91049084|NCT00430950|181983556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||||95.0|0.85|1.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.40|0.85|
91003749|NCT00565812|181890680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|1.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 36; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.54|-0.35|0.215
91049085|NCT01564459|181983578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.587||||0.269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.637|0.464|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|terms for treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction||||0.464|-1.637|0.269
91049086|NCT01564459|181983579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.687||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.527|0.154|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|terms for treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction||||0.154|-1.527|0.108
91049087|NCT00775684|181983582|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Student t test||||=0.1
91049088|NCT00775684|181983582|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measure (baseline and 6 months)||||< 0.05
91049089|NCT00775684|181983583|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.1|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Within group changes over 6 months (delta= final - baseline) were compared.||||>0.1
91003750|NCT00565812|181890680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|1.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 36; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.89|0.03|0.042
91049090|NCT00775684|181983584|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.1|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||To determine if exenatide or sitagliptin induced significant changes from baseline, the change for each measure (Δ = final - baseline) for each group was compared with the change in the glimepiride group using independent Student t tests||||>0.1
91049091|NCT00775684|181983585|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.1|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||>0.1
91049092|NCT02728752|181983590|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|-4.6|||ANCOVA|With treatment, stratum and baseline as fixed effects, and site as random effect|Difference in LS Means of changes from baseline to week 16 (Octagam - Placebo)|LS Means difference between changes from baseline to week 16 for Total Activity Score||-4.6|-11.5|<0.0001
91003751|NCT00565812|181890680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|0.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.56|-1.41|0.401
91003752|NCT00565812|181890680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.99|-0.96|0.980
91049093|NCT02728752|181983596|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|8.6||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|12.8|||ANCOVA|With treatment, stratum and baseline as fixed effects, and site as random effect|Difference in LS Means of changes from baseline to week 16 (Octagam - Placebo)|LS Means difference between changes from baseline to week 16||12.8|4.4|0.0001
91049094|NCT02728752|181983597|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.2|||ANCOVA|With treatment, stratum and baseline as fixed effects, and site as random effect|Difference in LS Means of changes from baseline to week 16 (Octagam - Placebo)|LS Means difference between changes from baseline to week 16||-0.2|-0.5|0.0002
91049095|NCT02728752|181983603|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-1.2||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.5|||ANCOVA|With treatment, stratum and baseline as fixed effects, and site as random effect|Difference in LS Means of changes from baseline to week 16 (Octagam - Placebo)|LS Means difference between changes from baseline to week 16||-0.5|-1.9|0.0010
91049096|NCT00653991|181983608|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
91049097|NCT00518622|181983627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.01||||||95.0|-2.87|-1.14|||||Mean (Day 8 - baseline) HCV RNA for MK7009 25 mg bid minus mean (Day 8 - baseline) HCV RNA for placebo|||-1.14|-2.87|
91049098|NCT00518622|181983627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.64||||||95.0|-3.49|-1.8|||||Mean (Day 8 - baseline) HCV RNA for MK7009 75 mg bid minus mean (Day 8 - baseline) HCV RNA for placebo|||-1.80|-3.49|
91049099|NCT00518622|181983627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.9||||||95.0|-3.9|-1.9|||||Mean (Day 8 - baseline) HCV RNA for MK7009 250 mg bid minus mean (Day 8 - baseline) HCV RNA for placebo|||-1.90|-3.90|
91049100|NCT00518622|181983627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.38||||||95.0|-4.59|-2.17|||||Mean (Day 8 - baseline) HCV RNA for MK7009 500 mg bid minus mean (Day 8 - baseline) HCV RNA for placebo|||-2.17|-4.59|
91049101|NCT00518622|181983627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.73||||||95.0|-5.15|-4.31|||||Mean (Day 8 - baseline) HCV RNA for MK7009 700 mg bid minus mean (Day 8 - baseline) HCV RNA for placebo|||-4.31|-5.15|
91049102|NCT00518622|181983627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.93||||||95.0|-2.68|-1.18|||||Mean (Day 8 - baseline) HCV RNA for MK7009 125 mg qd minus mean (Day 8 - baseline) HCV RNA for placebo|||-1.18|-2.68|
91049103|NCT00518622|181983627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.46||||||95.0|-2.78|-2.13|||||Mean (Day 8 - baseline) HCV RNA for MK7009 600 mg qd minus mean (Day 8 - baseline) HCV RNA for placebo|||-2.13|-2.78|
91003753|NCT00565812|181890680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|0.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 60; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.76|-1.25|0.632
91003754|NCT00565812|181890680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|2.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 60; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.07|0.09|0.032
91003755|NCT00565812|181890680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|0.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 72; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.83|-1.29|0.668
91003756|NCT00565812|181890680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|2.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 72; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.16|0.06|0.038
91003757|NCT00565812|181890680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|0.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 84; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.95|-1.13|0.868
91003758|NCT00565812|181890680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|1.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 84; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.62|-0.43|0.257
91003759|NCT00565812|181890680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 96; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.15|-1.00|0.895
91049104|NCT02655016|181983647|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.502|0.755||p-value was calculated based on stratified log-rank test using randomization stratification factors: administration of neoadjuvant chemotherapy, best response to platinum therapy and homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) status.|Log Rank||If hazard ratio was found to be \<1 then niraparib can be considered as superior to placebo.|||0.755|0.502|<0.0001
91049105|NCT02655016|181983648|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.1238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.442|1.106||p-value was calculated based on stratified log-rank test using randomization stratification factors: administration of neoadjuvant chemotherapy, best response to platinum therapy and HRD status.|Log Rank||If hazard ratio was found to be \<1 then niraparib can be considered as superior to placebo.|||1.106|0.442|0.1238
91003760|NCT00565812|181890680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|1.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 96; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.67|-0.46|0.268
91003761|NCT00565812|181890681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.82|-0.92|0.908
91003762|NCT00565812|181890681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|-0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.31|-2.05|0.008
91003763|NCT00565812|181890681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|0.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.54|-1.25|0.440
91003764|NCT00565812|181890681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.22|-1.57|0.140
91003765|NCT00565812|181890681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|1.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.24|-0.58|0.474
91003766|NCT00565812|181890681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.50|-1.32|0.376
91003767|NCT00565812|181890681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|1.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.64|-0.32|0.186
91003768|NCT00565812|181890681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.32|-1.63|0.185
91003769|NCT00565812|181890681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|0.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 36; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.52|-1.53|0.334
91003770|NCT00565812|181890681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 36; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.02|-2.00|0.055
91003771|NCT00565812|181890681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|0.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.72|-1.38|0.539
91049106|NCT02655016|181983649|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.521|0.802||p-value was calculated based on stratified log-rank test using randomization stratification factors: administration of neoadjuvant chemotherapy, best response to platinum therapy and HRD status.|Log Rank||If hazard ratio was found to be \<1 then niraparib can be considered as superior to placebo.|||0.802|0.521|0.0001
91003772|NCT00565812|181890681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.22|-2.30|0.018
91003773|NCT00565812|181890681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|0.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 60; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.56|-1.52|0.365
91003774|NCT00565812|181890681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|0.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 60; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.59|-1.47|0.403
91003775|NCT00565812|181890681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.43|-0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 72; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.21|-2.43|0.020
91049107|NCT02655016|181983650|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.2242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.577|1.139||p-value was calculated based on stratified log-rank test using randomization stratification factors: administration of neoadjuvant chemotherapy, best response to platinum therapy and HRD status.|Log Rank||If hazard ratio was found to be \<1 then niraparib can be considered as superior to placebo.|||1.139|0.577|0.2242
91050359|NCT04168190|181987003|SUPERIORITY|Superiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>1.0 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|19.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.87|29.4|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 23A. Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||29.40|12.87|<0.001
91003776|NCT00565812|181890681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.98|-0.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 72; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.77|-2.98|<0.001
91003777|NCT00565812|181890681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|0.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 84; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.46|-1.66|0.269
91049108|NCT03959527|181983669|NON_INFERIORITY|A single oral 3 g dose of zoliflodacin would be considered as non-inferior to a combination of a single IM 500 mg dose of ceftriaxone and a single 1 g oral dose of azithromycin if the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the microbiological cure rate of the combination therapy minus zoliflodacin was less than 12% (prespecified non-inferiority \[NI\] margin for the primary endpoint).|Risk Difference (RD)|5.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|8.65|||||95% CI of the treatment difference of ceftriaxone+ azithromycin combination minus zoliflodacin|Point estimate for the treatment difference in proportion of ceftriaxone/azithromycin combination and zoliflodacin with microbiological cure and 2-sided 95% CI calculated by Newcombe score method.||8.65|1.38|
91049109|NCT02960893|181983706|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.9||Significance was evaluated at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05|Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|Fixed effects: treatment, baseline (BL) gait severity, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction; Covariate: BL Total SARA score; Random effect: subject||||0.9|-0.5|0.519
91049110|NCT03692312|181983712|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.875||0.0514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|3.51|||MMRM|||Analysis is a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) analysis with treatment, visit, age group and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline value as a covariate. An unstructured variance-covariance matrix has been used.||3.51|-0.01|0.0514
91049111|NCT03692312|181983713|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.268||0.2124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.88|||MMRM|||Analysis is a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) analysis with treatment, visit, age group and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline value as a covariate. An unstructured variance-covariance matrix has been used.||0.88|-0.20|0.2124
91049112|NCT03692312|181983714|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.104|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.51|6.96|||MMRM|||Analysis is a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) analysis with treatment, visit, age group and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline value as a covariate. An unstructured variance-covariance matrix has been used.||6.96|2.51|<0.0001
91049113|NCT03692312|181983715|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.099||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|5.39|||MMRM|||Analysis is a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) analysis with treatment, visit, age group and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline value as a covariate. An unstructured variance-covariance matrix has been used.||5.39|0.96|0.0059
91049114|NCT03692312|181983716|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.108||0.4634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.14|||MMRM|||Analysis is a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) analysis with treatment, visit, age group and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline value as a covariate. An unstructured variance-covariance matrix has been used.||0.14|-0.30|0.4634
91049115|NCT03692312|181983717|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.564||0.5385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|0.79|||MMRM|||Analysis is a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) analysis with treatment, visit, age group and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline value as a covariate. An unstructured variance-covariance matrix has been used.||0.79|-1.49|0.5385
91049116|NCT03692312|181983720|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.764||0.711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|1.83|||MMRM|||Analysis is a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) analysis with treatment, visit, age group and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline value as a covariate. An unstructured variance-covariance matrix has been used.||1.83|-1.26|0.7110
91049117|NCT03692312|181983721|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.326||0.7861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.75|||MMRM|||Analysis is a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) analysis with treatment, visit, age group and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline value as a covariate. An unstructured variance-covariance matrix has been used.||0.75|-0.57|0.7861
91049118|NCT03692312|181983722|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.123||0.6282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.31|||MMRM|||Analysis is a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) analysis with treatment, visit, age group and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry variance-covariance matrix has been used.||0.31|-0.19|0.6282
91049119|NCT03692312|181983723|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0428|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0428
91049120|NCT03692312|181983724|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094||0.0379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.98|||MMRM|||Analysis is a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) analysis with treatment, visit, age group and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline value as a covariate. An unstructured variance-covariance matrix has been used.||0.98|0.60|0.0379
91049121|NCT03692312|181983726|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.078|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Cmax upper quantiles group compared to the placebo group for mean change from baseline; two-tailed t-test assuming unequal variance.||||0.078
91049122|NCT03692312|181983728|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Cmax upper quantiles group compared to the placebo group for mean change from baseline; two-tailed t-test assuming unequal variance.||||0.29
91003778|NCT00565812|181890681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.92|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 84; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.18|-1.92|0.104
91003779|NCT00565812|181890681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 96; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.06|-2.30|0.038
91049123|NCT03692312|181983730|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.077|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Cmax upper quantiles group compared to the placebo group for mean change from baseline (absolute value); two-tailed t-test assuming unequal variance.||||0.077
91049124|NCT03692312|181983731|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.071|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Cmax upper quantiles group compared to placebo group for mean Raw Score; two-tailed t-test assuming unequal variance.||||0.071
91049125|NCT04285567|181983743|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Rates|26.6||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.33|40.87|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for difference in rates were constructed using Anderson-Hauck method.|P-value estimated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the IvRS randomization stratification factors.||40.87|12.33|0.0004
91049126|NCT04285567|181983745|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Rates|20.78||||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.66|34.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for difference in rates were constructed using Anderson-Hauck method.|P-value estimated using CMH test stratified by the IvRS randomization stratification factors.||34.90|6.66|0.0053
91003780|NCT00565812|181890681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28|-0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 96; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.05|-2.28|0.041
91003781|NCT04857892|181890705|OTHER||Ratio of geometric Least Square mean|1.025|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9335|1.126|||||An analysis of variance with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant nested within a sequence as a random effect was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter AUC(0-inf).|||1.126|0.9335|
91003782|NCT04857892|181890705|OTHER||Ratio of geometric Least Square mean|1.072|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9693|1.185|||||An analysis of variance with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant nested within a sequence as a random effect was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter AUC(0-inf).|||1.185|0.9693|
91003783|NCT04857892|181890706|OTHER||Ratio of geometric Least Square mean|1.126|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9918|1.278|||||An analysis of variance with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant nested within a sequence as a random effect was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter AUC(0-t).|||1.278|0.9918|
91003784|NCT04857892|181890706|OTHER||Ratio of geometric Least Square mean|1.055|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9278|1.201|||||An analysis of variance with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant nested within a sequence as a random effect was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter AUC(0-t).|||1.201|0.9278|
91003785|NCT04857892|181890707|OTHER||Ratio of geometric Least Square mean|1.036|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9209|1.166|||||An analysis of variance with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant nested within a sequence as a random effect was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter Cmax.|||1.166|0.9209|
91003786|NCT04857892|181890707|OTHER||Ratio of geometric Least Square mean|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9049|1.151|||||An analysis of variance with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant nested within a sequence as a random effect was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter Cmax.|||1.151|0.9049|
91003787|NCT04857892|181890708|OTHER||Ratio of geometric Least Square mean|1.129|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.067|1.195|||||An analysis of variance with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant nested within a sequence as a random effect was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter AUC(0-inf).|||1.195|1.067|
91003788|NCT04857892|181890708|OTHER||Ratio of geometric Least Square mean|1.112|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.05|1.178|||||An analysis of variance with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant nested within a sequence as a random effect was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter AUC(0-inf).|||1.178|1.050|
91003789|NCT04857892|181890709|OTHER||Ratio of geometric Least Square mean|1.164|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.07|1.267|||||An analysis of variance with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant nested within a sequence as a random effect was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter AUC(0-t).|||1.267|1.070|
91003790|NCT04857892|181890709|OTHER||Ratio of geometric Least Square mean|1.087|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9975|1.184|||||An analysis of variance with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant nested within a sequence as a random effect was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter AUC(0-t).|||1.184|0.9975|
91003791|NCT04857892|181890710|OTHER||Ratio of geometric Least Square mean|1.078|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.036|1.122|||||An analysis of variance with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant nested within a sequence as a random effect was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter Cmax|||1.122|1.036|
91003792|NCT04857892|181890710|OTHER||Ratio of geometric Least Square mean|1.032|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9914|1.075|||||An analysis of variance with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant nested within a sequence as a random effect was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter Cmax|||1.075|0.9914|
91049127|NCT04285567|181983746|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Rates|31.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.55|46.71|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for difference in rates were constructed using Anderson-Hauck method.|P-value estimated using CMH test stratified by the IvRS randomization stratification factors.||46.71|16.55|< .0001
91003793|NCT04857892|181890711|OTHER||Ratio of geometric Least Square mean|2.705|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.135|3.427|||||An analysis of variance with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant nested within a sequence as a random effect was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter AUC(0-inf)|||3.427|2.135|
91003794|NCT04857892|181890712|OTHER||Ratio of geometric Least Square mean|2.761|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.16|3.527|||||An analysis of variance with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant nested within a sequence as a random effect was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter AUC(0-t)|||3.527|2.160|
91003795|NCT04857892|181890713|OTHER||Ratio of geometric Least Square mean|2.498|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.821|3.425|||||An analysis of variance with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant nested within a sequence as a random effect was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter Cmax|||3.425|1.821|
91003796|NCT04857892|181890714|OTHER||Ratio of geometric Least Square mean|1.316|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.193|1.451|||||An analysis of variance with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant nested within a sequence as a random effect was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter AUC(0-inf)|||1.451|1.193|
91003797|NCT04857892|181890715|OTHER||Ratio of geometric Least Square mean|1.316|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.193|1.452|||||An analysis of variance with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant nested within a sequence as a random effect was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter AUC(0-t)|||1.452|1.193|
91003798|NCT04857892|181890716|OTHER||Ratio of geometric Least Square mean|1.232|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.138|1.333|||||An analysis of variance with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant nested within a sequence as a random effect was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter Cmax|||1.333|1.138|
91003799|NCT00901394|181890816|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||For baseline comparisons among the three groups, one-way ANOVA was used for normally distributed variables and χ2 goodness-of-fit for categorical variables. To model the effects of B-vitamin treatment on nitrous-oxide-induced total homocysteine increase at the three different timepoints within individual patients and between the three groups, a linear mixed model with was used and we included a group × time interaction in the model.||||<0.05
91003800|NCT04964557|181890817|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-62.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.0|-56.6|||ANCOVA|||||-56.6|-68|<0.001
91003801|NCT04964557|181890818|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-76.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-81.7|-71.7|||ANCOVA|||||-71.7|-81.7|<0.001
91003802|NCT05849441|181890837|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||This is for the subscale: Support-Seeking.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.04
91003803|NCT05849441|181890837|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||This is for subscale: Problem Solving|Regression, Linear|||||||0.02
91003804|NCT05849441|181890837|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55||||||This is for subscale: Distancing|Regression, Linear|||||||0.55
91003805|NCT05849441|181890837|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79||||||This is for subscale: Internalizing|Regression, Linear|||||||0.79
91003806|NCT05849441|181890837|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93||||||This is for subscale: Externalizing|Regression, Linear|||||||0.93
91003807|NCT05849441|181890837|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09||||||This is for subscale: Mindfulness|Regression, Linear|||||||0.09
91003808|NCT05849441|181890838|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32||||||This is for subscale: Reappraisal|Regression, Linear|||||||0.32
91003809|NCT05849441|181890838|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24||||||This is for subscale: Suppression|Regression, Linear|||||||0.24
91003810|NCT05849441|181890839|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53||||||This is for subscale: Manage own emotions|Regression, Linear|||||||0.53
91003811|NCT05849441|181890839|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16||||||This is for subscale: Identify and Understand Own Emotions|Regression, Linear|||||||0.16
91049128|NCT04285567|181983747|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|9.68||||0.1119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|21.41|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for difference in rates were constructed using Anderson-Hauck method.|P-value estimated using CMH test stratified by the IvRS randomization stratification factors.||21.41|-2.05|0.1119
91003812|NCT05849441|181890839|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27||||||This is for subscale: Deal with emotions of others|Regression, Linear|||||||0.27
91003813|NCT05849441|181890839|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59||||||This is for subscale: Perceive emotions through faces and bodies|Regression, Linear|||||||0.59
91003814|NCT05849441|181890840|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.16
91003815|NCT05849441|181890841|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65||||||This is for subscale: Fear of Negative Evaluation|Regression, Linear|||||||0.65
91003816|NCT05849441|181890841|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6||||||This is for subscale: Social avoidance and distress (new)|Regression, Linear|||||||0.60
91049129|NCT04285567|181983748|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|17.44||||0.0154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.96|32.93|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for difference in rates were constructed using Anderson-Hauck method.|P-value estimated using CMH test stratified by the IvRS randomization stratification factors.||32.93|1.96|0.0154
91003817|NCT05849441|181890841|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23||||||This is for subscale: social avoidance and distress (general)|Regression, Linear|||||||0.23
91003818|NCT05849441|181890842|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.55
91003819|NCT05849441|181890843|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11||||||This is for subscale: Negativity|Regression, Linear|||||||0.11
91003820|NCT05849441|181890843|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79||||||This is for subscale: Emotion regulation|Regression, Linear|||||||0.79
91003821|NCT05849441|181890844|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14||||||This is for subscale: Working Memory|Regression, Linear|||||||0.14
91003822|NCT05849441|181890844|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2||||||This is for subscale: Planning|Regression, Linear|||||||0.20
91003823|NCT05849441|181890844|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48||||||This is for subscale: Inhibit|Regression, Linear|||||||0.48
91003824|NCT05849441|181890844|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37||||||This is for subscale: Regulation|Regression, Linear|||||||0.37
91003825|NCT05849441|181890845|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.45
91003826|NCT05849441|181890846|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.88
91003827|NCT04984876|181890862|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|25.83||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.34|506.78|||Regression, Logistic||logistic regression model, including treatment, age subgroup (12 - 17 yrs, 18 - 55 yrs), region as fixed class effects, as well as and log-transformed baseline total IgE at screening and log-transformed MTD at screening DBPCFC as covariates.|||506.78|4.34|0.002
91003828|NCT04984876|181890862|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.1||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|100.98|||Regression, Logistic||logistic regression model, including treatment, age subgroup (12 - 17 yrs, 18 - 55 yrs), region as fixed class effects, as well as and log-transformed baseline total IgE at screening and log-transformed MTD at screening DBPCFC as covariates.|||100.98|0.80|0.073
91003829|NCT04984876|181890863|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.86||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.69|188.85|||Regression, Logistic||logistic regression model, including treatment, age subgroup (12 - 17 yrs, 18 - 55 yrs), region as fixed class effects, as well as and log-transformed baseline total IgE at screening and log-transformed MTD at screening DBPCFC as covariates.|||188.85|1.69|0.018
91003830|NCT04984876|181890863|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.02||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|59.93|||Regression, Logistic||logistic regression model, including treatment, age subgroup (12 - 17 yrs, 18 - 55 yrs), region as fixed class effects, as well as and log-transformed baseline total IgE at screening and log-transformed MTD at screening DBPCFC as covariates.|||59.93|0.45|0.164
91049130|NCT04285567|181983749|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Rates|18.93||||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|36.95|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for difference in rates were constructed using Anderson-Hauck method.|P-value estimated using CMH test stratified by the IvRS randomization stratification factors.||36.95|0.91|0.0054
91049131|NCT04285567|181983750|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Rates|26.79||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.86|49.72|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for difference in rates were constructed using Anderson-Hauck method.|P-value estimated using CMH test stratified by the IvRS randomization stratification factors.||49.72|3.86|0.0038
91003831|NCT04984876|181890864|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.47||||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|70.08|||Regression, Logistic||logistic regression model, including treatment, age subgroup (12 - 17 yrs, 18 - 55 yrs), region as fixed class effects, as well as and log-transformed baseline total IgE at screening and log-transformed MTD at screening DBPCFC as covariates.|||70.08|0.51|0.138
91003832|NCT04984876|181890864|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.21||||0.247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|45.56|||Regression, Logistic||logistic regression model, including treatment, age subgroup (12 - 17 yrs, 18 - 55 yrs), region as fixed class effects, as well as and log-transformed baseline total IgE at screening and log-transformed MTD at screening DBPCFC as covariates.|||45.56|0.30|0.247
91003833|NCT04984876|181890865|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.63|31.56|||proportional odds model||proportional odds model adjusting for treatment, age subgroup (12 - 17 yrs, 18 - 55 yrs), log transformed baseline total IgE at screening and region.|||31.56|3.63|<0.001
91003834|NCT04984876|181890865|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.05||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|14.36|||proportional odds model||proportional odds model adjusting for treatment, age subgroup (12 - 17 yrs, 18 - 55 yrs), log transformed baseline total IgE at screening and region.|||14.36|1.80|0.001
91049132|NCT04285567|181983752|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|3.05||||0.4199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.73|11.84|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for difference in rates were constructed using Anderson-Hauck method.|P-value estimated using CMH test stratified by the IvRS randomization stratification factors.||11.84|-5.73|0.4199
91003835|NCT04984876|181890866|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.73||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|93.16|||Regression, Logistic||logistic regression model, including treatment, age subgroup (12 - 17 yrs, 18 - 55 yrs), region as fixed class effects, as well as and log-transformed baseline total IgE at screening and log-transformed MTD at screening DBPCFC as covariates.|||93.16|0.74|0.082
91003836|NCT04984876|181890866|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.61||||0.632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|16.43|||Regression, Logistic||logistic regression model, including treatment, age subgroup (12 - 17 yrs, 18 - 55 yrs), region as fixed class effects, as well as and log-transformed baseline total IgE at screening and log-transformed MTD at screening DBPCFC as covariates.|||16.43|0.02|0.632
91003837|NCT04984876|181890871|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-3.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.15|-2.4|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA model with treatment group, age subgroup (12 - 17 years, 18 - 55 years), region, log-transformed baseline total IgE at screening and baseline SPT mean wheal diameter (average dilutions peanut protein) as covariates.|||-2.40|-5.15|<0.001
91003838|NCT04984876|181890871|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-4.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.77|-2.09|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA model with treatment group, age subgroup (12 - 17 years, 18 - 55 years), region, log-transformed baseline total IgE at screening and baseline SPT mean wheal diameter (average dilutions peanut protein) as covariates.|||-2.09|-7.77|<0.001
91049133|NCT02246439|181983777|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6081||||0.0406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0194|2.5368||"This P-Value is for the All ages group"|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by age.||The odds ratio and p-value were from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test. For the 'All ages' category, the odds ratio and p-value were stratified by age.||2.5368|1.0194|0.0406
91049134|NCT02246439|181983777|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.8||||0.0729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.847|27.2024||"This P-Value is for the \<18 years of age group."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||27.2024|0.8470|0.0729
91049135|NCT02246439|181983777|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4755||||0.1089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.917|2.3741||"This P-Value is for the 18 years of age and older group"|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.3741|0.9170|0.1089
91049136|NCT02246439|181983778|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3545||||0.1843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8647|2.1216|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by age.||||2.1216|0.8647|0.1843
91049137|NCT02246439|181983779|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.752||||0.0166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1058|2.776|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by age.||||2.7760|1.1058|0.0166
91049138|NCT02246439|181983780|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6677||||0.1049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4093|1.0892|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by age.||||1.0892|0.4093|0.1049
91049139|NCT02246439|181983781|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6566||||0.1235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3826|1.1268|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by age.||||1.1268|0.3826|0.1235
91049140|NCT02246439|181983783|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.589||||||This P-Value is for the BSS=7 group.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5890
91049141|NCT02246439|181983784|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9782||||0.8487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7803|1.2264||"This P-Value is for the All ages group."|Cox proportioanl hazards method|Stratified by age.||||1.2264|0.7803|0.8487
91049142|NCT02246439|181983784|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.4756||||0.3479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6549|3.325||"This P-Value is for the \<18 years of age group."|Cox proportional hazards method|||||3.3250|0.6549|0.3479
91049143|NCT02246439|181983784|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9445||||0.6332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7469|1.1943||"This P-Value is for the 18 years of age of older group."|Cox proportional hazards method|||||1.1943|0.7469|0.6332
91049144|NCT02246439|181983785|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0275||||0.8289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8036|1.3138||"This P-Value was for the All ages group."|Cox proportional hazards method|Stratified by age.||||1.3138|0.8036|0.8289
91049145|NCT02246439|181983785|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.5744||||0.3241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6388|3.8802||"This P-Value is for the \<18 years of age group."|Cox proportional hazards method|||||3.8802|0.6388|0.3241
91049146|NCT02246439|181983785|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.992||||0.9511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7688|1.2801||"This P-Value is for the 18 years of age or older group."|Cox proportional hazards method|||||1.2801|0.7688|0.9511
91049147|NCT02246439|181983786|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3012||||0.2005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6221|8.5129|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||8.5129|0.6221|0.2005
91049148|NCT02246439|181983787|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6674||||0.572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1638|2.7191|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.7191|0.1638|0.5720
91049149|NCT02246439|181983788|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1591||||0.3186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.477|9.7735||"This P-Value is for the No nausea or mild nausea group."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by age.||||9.7735|0.4770|0.3186
91049150|NCT02246439|181983788|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.575||||0.3473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6096|4.0696||"This P-Value is for the Moderate nausea group."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by age.||||4.0696|0.6096|0.3473
91049151|NCT02246439|181983788|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0971||||0.0633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9614|4.5747||"This P-Value is for the Severe nausea group."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by age.||||4.5747|0.9614|0.0633
91049152|NCT02246439|181983788|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6397||||0.2797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6649|4.0437||"This P-Value is for the Nausea as bad as it could have been group."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by age.||||4.0437|0.6649|0.2797
91049153|NCT02246439|181983789|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8673||||0.0103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1572|3.0131||"This P-Value is for the All ages group."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by age.||||3.0131|1.1572|0.0103
91049154|NCT02246439|181983789|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.4||||0.0934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7699|25.145||"This P-Value is for the \<18 years of age group."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||25.1450|0.7699|0.0934
91049155|NCT02246439|181983789|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7356||||0.0303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0527|2.8615||"This P-Value is for the 18 years of age or older group."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.8615|1.0527|0.0303
91049156|NCT02246439|181983790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.4||||0.0924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7699|25.145||"This P-Value is for the \<18 years of age group."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||25.1450|0.7699|0.0924
91049157|NCT02246439|181983790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7356||||0.0303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0527|2.8615||"This P-Value is for the 18 years of age or older group."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.8615|1.0527|0.0303
91049158|NCT02246439|181983791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7922||||0.0152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1188|2.871|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.8710|1.1188|0.0152
91049159|NCT02246439|181983792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0789||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2676|3.4095|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.4095|1.2676|0.0037
91049160|NCT03439852|181983794|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.83|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Multilevel modeling for repeated measures was conducted to compare 2 conditions over time. The model included group, time, and the interaction between group and time, adjusting for within-subject correlation. The response was transformed using squared root to satisfy the model assumption.||1.39|0.26|<0.05
91049161|NCT03439852|181983795|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|1.14||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|2.64||Calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|||Multilevel modeling conducted for repeated measures comparing minutes per week of light-to-moderate physical activity for participants in two conditions over time. In the multilevel models, participants were nested within Catholic Clubs, adjusting for within-club and within-subject correlations. The model includes group, time, and the interaction between group and time, adjusting for within-subject correlation. The response was transformed using squared root to satisfy the model assumption.||2.64|-0.37|0.05
91049162|NCT03439852|181983796|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.72||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.31|0.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Multilevel modeling for the repeated measures was conducted comparing the two conditions over time. In the multilevel models, participants were nested within Catholic Clubs, adjusting for within-club and within-subject correlations. The model includes group, time, and the interaction between group and time, adjusting for within-subject correlation. The response was transformed using squared root to satisfy the model assumption.||0.88|-2.31|0.05
91003839|NCT04984876|181890871|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-3.2||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.08|-0.32|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA model with treatment group, age subgroup (12 - 17 years, 18 - 55 years), region, log-transformed baseline total IgE at screening and baseline SPT mean wheal diameter (average dilutions peanut protein) as covariates.|||-0.32|-6.08|0.015
91003840|NCT04984876|181890871|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-1.68||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.62|1.25|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA model with treatment group, age subgroup (12 - 17 years, 18 - 55 years), region, log-transformed baseline total IgE at screening and baseline SPT mean wheal diameter (average dilutions peanut protein) as covariates.|||1.25|-4.62|0.130
91003841|NCT04984876|181890872|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.33||||0.173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|0.36|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with treatment group, baseline PRO scores (FAQLQ) and region as fixed effects and log-transformed total IgE at screening as a covariate|Week 12 Part 1 - Total Score||0.36|-1.03|0.173
91003842|NCT04984876|181890872|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.29||||0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.39|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with treatment group, baseline PRO scores (FAQLQ) and region as fixed effects and log-transformed total IgE at screening as a covariate|Week 12 Part 1 - Total Score||0.39|-0.96|0.202
91003843|NCT04984876|181890872|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.37||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|0.34|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with treatment group, baseline PRO scores (FAQLQ) and region as fixed effects and log-transformed total IgE at screening as a covariate|Week 12 Part 1 - Total Score||0.34|-1.09|0.151
91003844|NCT04984876|181890872|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.23||||0.264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.49|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with treatment group, baseline PRO scores (FAQLQ) and region as fixed effects and log-transformed total IgE at screening as a covariate|Week 12 Part 1 - Total Score||0.49|-0.94|0.264
91003845|NCT04984876|181890872|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.43||||0.123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.3|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with treatment group, baseline PRO scores (FAQLQ) and region as fixed effects and log-transformed total IgE at screening as a covariate|Week 12 Part 2 - Total Score||0.30|-1.16|0.123
91049163|NCT03439852|181983797|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.96|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.67|4.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Multilevel modeling for the repeated measures was conducted comparing the two conditions over time. In the multilevel models, participants were nested within Catholic Clubs, adjusting for within-club and within-subject correlations. The model includes group, time, and the interaction between group and time, adjusting for within-subject correlation.||4.60|-2.67|<0.05
91003846|NCT04984876|181890872|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.23||||0.258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.47|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with treatment group, baseline PRO scores (FAQLQ) and region as fixed effects and log-transformed total IgE at screening as a covariate|Week 12 Part 2 - Total Score||0.47|-0.94|0.258
91003847|NCT04984876|181890872|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.17||||0.324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.58|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with treatment group, baseline PRO scores (FAQLQ) and region as fixed effects and log-transformed total IgE at screening as a covariate|Week 12 Part 2 - Total Score||0.58|-0.92|0.324
91049164|NCT03439852|181983798|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.76|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.40|-1.11|<0.05
91049165|NCT03439852|181983799|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.62|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.10|-1.15|<0.05
91049166|NCT03439852|181983800|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.49|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures generalized linear model test effects of time/group, \& interaction rate met MVPA, adjusting for within subject correlation.||||1.11|-2.10|<0.05
91049167|NCT04551911|181983805|OTHER|||||||0.7856|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with treatment as the main effect, and baseline aggregate symptom score, baseline 25D level, and body weight as covariates||||||0.7856
91003848|NCT04984876|181890872|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.03||||0.473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.73|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with treatment group, baseline PRO scores (FAQLQ) and region as fixed effects and log-transformed total IgE at screening as a covariate|Week 12 Part 2 - Total Score||0.73|-0.78|0.473
91003849|NCT04984876|181890873|OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.06||||0.597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.57|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with treatment group, baseline PRO scores (FAQLQ) and region as fixed effects and log-transformed total IgE at screening as a covariate|Week 12 Part 1 - Total Score||0.57|-0.44|0.597
91003850|NCT04984876|181890873|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.39||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.11|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with treatment group, baseline PRO scores (FAQLQ) and region as fixed effects and log-transformed total IgE at screening as a covariate|Week 12 Part 1 - Total Score||0.11|-0.89|0.064
91003851|NCT04984876|181890873|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.22||||0.191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.28|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with treatment group, baseline PRO scores (FAQLQ) and region as fixed effects and log-transformed total IgE at screening as a covariate|Week 12 Part 1 - Total Score||0.28|-0.72|0.191
91049168|NCT01383421|181983813|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
91049169|NCT01383421|181983815|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.058||||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.058
91049170|NCT01383421|181983817|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.003
91049171|NCT01383421|181983819|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.203|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.092||0.027|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference and P value are from ANCOVA model adjusting for corresponding Baseline values.||Week 24||||0.027
91049172|NCT01383421|181983819|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094||0.006|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference and P value are from ANCOVA model adjusting for corresponding Baseline values.||Week 52||||0.006
91003852|NCT04984876|181890873|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.02||||0.472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.48|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with treatment group, baseline PRO scores (FAQLQ) and region as fixed effects and log-transformed total IgE at screening as a covariate|Week 12 Part 1 - Total Score||0.48|-0.51|0.472
91049173|NCT01383421|181983819|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.233|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.098||0.018|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference and P value are from ANCOVA model adjusting for corresponding Baseline values.||Week 78||||0.018
91049174|NCT01383421|181983820|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.686|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.893||0.059|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference and P value are from ANCOVA model adjusting for corresponding Baseline values.||Week 24||||0.059
91049175|NCT01383421|181983820|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.697|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.903||0.003|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference and P value are from ANCOVA model adjusting for corresponding Baseline values.||Week 52||||0.003
91049176|NCT01383421|181983820|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.447|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.945||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference and P value are from ANCOVA model adjusting for corresponding Baseline values.||Week 78||||0.010
91049177|NCT01383421|181983821|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.791|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.788||0.023|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference and P value are from ANCOVA model adjusting for corresponding Baseline values.||Week 24||||0.023
91049178|NCT01383421|181983821|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.549|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.818||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference and P value are from ANCOVA model adjusting for corresponding Baseline values.||Week 52||||0.002
91049179|NCT01383421|181983821|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.734|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.872||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference and P value are from ANCOVA model adjusting for corresponding Baseline values.||Week 78||||0.002
91049180|NCT01383421|181983825|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.333|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.725||0.625|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference and P value are from ANCOVA model adjusting for corresponding Baseline values.||WPAI absenteeism||||0.625
91049181|NCT01383421|181983825|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.824|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.441||0.736|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference and P value are from ANCOVA model adjusting for corresponding Baseline values.||WPAI presenteeism||||0.736
91049182|NCT01383421|181983825|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.207|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.126||0.7|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference and P value are from ANCOVA model adjusting for corresponding Baseline values.||WPAI overall work impairment||||0.700
91049183|NCT01383421|181983825|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.552|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.561||0.023|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference and P value are from ANCOVA model adjusting for corresponding Baseline values.||WPAI activity impairment||||0.023
91003853|NCT04984876|181890873|OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.03||||0.537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.62|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with treatment group, baseline PRO scores (FAQLQ) and region as fixed effects and log-transformed total IgE at screening as a covariate|Week 12 Part 2 - Total Score||0.62|-0.57|0.537
91003854|NCT04984876|181890873|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.32||||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.27|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with treatment group, baseline PRO scores (FAQLQ) and region as fixed effects and log-transformed total IgE at screening as a covariate|Week 12 Part 2 - Total Score||0.27|-0.91|0.141
91003855|NCT04984876|181890873|OTHER||LS Meand difference|-0.45||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|0.13|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with treatment group, baseline PRO scores (FAQLQ) and region as fixed effects and log-transformed total IgE at screening as a covariate|Week 12 Part 2 - Total Score||0.13|-1.04|0.063
91003856|NCT04984876|181890873|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.1||||0.368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.48|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with treatment group, baseline PRO scores (FAQLQ) and region as fixed effects and log-transformed total IgE at screening as a covariate|Week 12 Part 2 - Total Score||0.48|-0.68|0.368
91003857|NCT04984876|181890874|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.24||||0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.39|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with treatment group, baseline PRO scores (FAIM) and region as fixed effects and log-transformed total IgE at screening as a covariate.|Week 12 Part 1 - Total Score||0.39|-0.87|0.225
91049184|NCT01383421|181983826|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.736||0.89|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference and P value are from ANCOVA model adjusting for corresponding Baseline values.||WPAI absenteeism||||0.890
91049185|NCT01383421|181983826|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.527|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.523||0.835|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference and P value are from ANCOVA model adjusting for corresponding Baseline values.||WPAI presenteeism||||0.835
91003858|NCT04984876|181890874|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.32||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.3|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with treatment group, baseline PRO scores (FAIM) and region as fixed effects and log-transformed total IgE at screening as a covariate.|Week 12 Part 1 - Total Score||0.30|-0.93|0.153
91003859|NCT04984876|181890874|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.3||||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.34|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with treatment group, baseline PRO scores (FAIM) and region as fixed effects and log-transformed total IgE at screening as a covariate.|Week 12 Part 1 - Total Score||0.34|-0.95|0.179
91003860|NCT04984876|181890874|OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.11||||0.631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.77|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with treatment group, baseline PRO scores (FAIM) and region as fixed effects and log-transformed total IgE at screening as a covariate.|Week 12 Part 1 - Total Score||0.77|-0.55|0.631
91003861|NCT04984876|181890874|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.52||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|0.14|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with treatment group, baseline PRO scores (FAIM) and region as fixed effects and log-transformed total IgE at screening as a covariate.|Week 12 Part 2 - Total Score||0.14|-1.18|0.060
91003862|NCT04984876|181890874|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.08||||0.404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.56|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with treatment group, baseline PRO scores (FAIM) and region as fixed effects and log-transformed total IgE at screening as a covariate.|Week 12 Part 2 - Total Score||0.56|-0.72|0.404
91003863|NCT04984876|181890874|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.38||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|0.3|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with treatment group, baseline PRO scores (FAIM) and region as fixed effects and log-transformed total IgE at screening as a covariate.|Week 12 Part 2 - Total Score||0.30|-1.06|0.135
91003864|NCT04984876|181890874|OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.01||||0.514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.72|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with treatment group, baseline PRO scores (FAIM) and region as fixed effects and log-transformed total IgE at screening as a covariate.|Week 12 Part 2 - Total Score||0.72|-0.70|0.514
91003865|NCT04984876|181890875|OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.04||||0.574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.51|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with treatment group, baseline PRO scores (FAIM) and region as fixed effects and log-transformed total IgE at screening as a covariate.|Week 12 Part 1 - Total Score||0.51|-0.42|0.574
91003866|NCT04984876|181890875|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.37||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.09|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with treatment group, baseline PRO scores (FAIM) and region as fixed effects and log-transformed total IgE at screening as a covariate.|Week 12 Part 1 - Total Score||0.09|-0.83|0.056
91003867|NCT04984876|181890875|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.36||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.12|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with treatment group, baseline PRO scores (FAIM) and region as fixed effects and log-transformed total IgE at screening as a covariate.|Week 12 Part 1 - Total Score||0.12|-0.83|0.069
91003868|NCT04984876|181890875|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.19||||0.205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.27|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with treatment group, baseline PRO scores (FAIM) and region as fixed effects and log-transformed total IgE at screening as a covariate.|Week 12 Part 1 - Total Score||0.27|-0.65|0.205
91003869|NCT04984876|181890875|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.2||||0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.37|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with treatment group, baseline PRO scores (FAIM) and region as fixed effects and log-transformed total IgE at screening as a covariate.|Week 12 Part 2 - Total Score||0.37|-0.76|0.248
91003870|NCT04984876|181890875|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.42||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.14|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with treatment group, baseline PRO scores (FAIM) and region as fixed effects and log-transformed total IgE at screening as a covariate.|Week 12 Part 2 - Total Score||0.14|-0.98|0.071
91003871|NCT04984876|181890875|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.49||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|0.09|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with treatment group, baseline PRO scores (FAIM) and region as fixed effects and log-transformed total IgE at screening as a covariate.|Week 12 Part 2 - Total Score||0.09|-1.06|0.048
91049186|NCT01383421|181983826|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.471|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.205||0.883|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference and P value are from ANCOVA model adjusting for corresponding Baseline values.||WPAI overall work impairment||||0.883
91049187|NCT01383421|181983826|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.792|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.611||0.019|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference and P value are from ANCOVA model adjusting for corresponding Baseline values.||WPAI activity impairment||||0.019
91049188|NCT01383421|181983827|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.409|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.548||0.873|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference and P value are from ANCOVA model adjusting for corresponding Baseline values.||WPAI absenteeism||||0.873
91003872|NCT04984876|181890875|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.3||||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.25|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with treatment group, baseline PRO scores (FAIM) and region as fixed effects and log-transformed total IgE at screening as a covariate.|Week 12 Part 2 - Total Score||0.25|-0.85|0.142
91003873|NCT01077193|181890879|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|See above.|Mean Percent Excess Weight Loss|37.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|25.18||0.3227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.2|45.5||No multiple comparison adjustments are necessary as this is a single hypothesis on 1 parameter for a within group change comparison to 36.1%.|t-test, 1 sided|||A sample size of 32 achieves power\>90% to demonstrate non-inferiority using a one-sided t-test (alpha=0.025) when the margin of equivalence is a 5% difference in EWL. The true difference between %EWL for patients undergoing a greater curvature procedure and the target %EWL is hypothesized to be 0. The target %EWL at 3 years is 41.1%, based upon prior studies. This power analysis assumes data are drawn from a single population with a standard deviation of 8.20.||45.5|30.2|0.3227
91003874|NCT04960202|181890880|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|-6.137|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.057|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.208|-4.066|||Normal approximation|||The difference of the percentage in the 2 treatment groups and its 95% confidence interval, and p-value based on Normal approximation of the data are presented.||-4.066|-8.208|<0.0001
91003875|NCT04960202|181890883|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|-5.638|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.852|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.308|-3.967|||Normal approximation|||The difference of the percentage in the 2 treatment groups and its 95% confidence interval, and p-value based on Normal approximation of the data are presented.||-3.967|-7.308|<0.0001
91003876|NCT04960202|181890884|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.294||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.136|1.476|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model|||Analysis of treatment effect on time to sustained alleviation is based on Cox proportional hazard (PH) model with treatment and geographic region effects as independent variables, and baseline SARS-CoV-2 serology status and baseline viral load (\<4 logarithm to base 10 \[log10\] copies/milliliter \[mL\], \>=4 log10 copies/mL) as covariates.||1.476|1.136|0.0003
91003877|NCT04960202|181890885|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.266|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.134|1.412|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model|||Analysis of treatment effect on time to sustained alleviation is based on Cox PH model with treatment and geographic region effects as independent variables, and symptom onset duration (\<=3, \>3), baseline SARS-CoV-2 serology status and baseline viral load (\<4 log10 copies/mL, \>=4 log10 copies/mL) as covariates.||1.412|1.134|<0.0001
91003878|NCT04960202|181890886|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.258|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.131|1.4|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model|||Analysis of treatment effect on time to sustained alleviation is based on Cox PH model with treatment and geographic region effects as independent variables, and symptom onset duration (\<=3, \>3), COVID-19 mAb treatment (Yes/No), baseline SARS-CoV-2 serology status and baseline viral load (\<4 log10 copies/mL, \>=4 log10 copies/mL) as covariates.||1.400|1.131|<0.0001
91003879|NCT04960202|181890887|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.871||||0.3473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.652|1.162|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio, 95% CI and p-value were computed from a logistic regression model including main effects of treatment, geographic region, baseline SARS-CoV-2 serology status and baseline viral load (\< 4 log10 copies/mL, \>= 4 log10 copies/mL).||1.162|0.652|0.3473
91003880|NCT04960202|181890888|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.936||||0.5762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.182|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio, 95% CI and p-value were computed from a logistic regression model including main effects of treatment, geographic region, symptom onset duration (\<=3, \>3), baseline SARS-CoV-2 serology status and baseline viral load (\< 4 log10 copies/mL, \>= 4 log10 copies/mL).||1.182|0.740|0.5762
91003881|NCT04960202|181890889|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.969||||0.7807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.773|1.213|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio, 95% CI and p-value were computed from a logistic regression model including main effects of treatment, geographic region, symptom onset duration (\<=3, \>3), COVID-19 mAb treatment (Yes/No),baseline SARS-CoV-2 serology status and baseline viral load (\< 4 log10 copies/mL, \>= 4 log10 copies/mL).||1.213|0.773|0.7807
91003882|NCT04960202|181890890|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.219||||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.061|1.401|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model|||Analysis of treatment effect on time to sustained resolution is based on Cox PH model with treatment and geographic region effects as independent variables, and baseline SARS-CoV-2 serology status and baseline viral load (\<4 log10 copies/mL, \>=4 log10 copies/mL) as covariates.||1.401|1.061|0.0053
91003883|NCT04960202|181890891|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.068|1.348|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model|||Analysis of treatment effect on time to sustained resolution is based on Cox PH model with treatment and geographic region effects as independent variables, and symptom onset duration (\<=3, \>3), baseline SARS-CoV-2 serology status and baseline viral load (\<4 log10 copies/mL, \>=4 log10 copies/mL) as covariates.||1.348|1.068|0.0022
91003884|NCT04960202|181890892|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.194||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.066|1.337|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model|||Analysis of treatment effect on time to sustained resolution is based on Cox PH model with treatment and geographic region effects as independent variables, and symptom onset duration (\<=3, \>3), COVID-19 mAb treatment (Yes/No), baseline SARS-CoV-2 serology status and baseline viral load (\<4 log10 copies/mL, \>=4 log10 copies/mL) as covariates.||1.337|1.066|0.0021
91003885|NCT04960202|181890899|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.088||||0.5293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.836|1.416|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio, 95% CI and p-value were computed from a logistic regression model including main effects of treatment, geographic region, baseline SARS-CoV-2 serology status and baseline viral load (\< 4 log10 copies/mL, \>= 4 log10 copies/mL).||1.416|0.836|0.5293
91003886|NCT04960202|181890900|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.053||||0.6379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.303|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio, 95% CI and p-value were computed from a logistic regression model including main effects of treatment, geographic region, symptom onset duration (\<=3, \>3), baseline SARS-CoV-2 serology status and baseline viral load (\< 4 log10 copies/mL, \>= 4 log10 copies/mL).||1.303|0.850|0.6379
91003887|NCT04960202|181890901|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.046||||0.676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.848|1.29|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio, 95% CI and p-value were computed from a logistic regression model including main effects of treatment, geographic region, symptom onset duration (\<=3, \>3), COVID-19 mAb treatment (Yes/No), baseline SARS-CoV-2 serology status and baseline viral load (\< 4 log10 copies/mL, \>= 4 log10 copies/mL).||1.290|0.848|0.6760
91003888|NCT04960202|181890902|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|19.4||||0.1997||95.0|7.788|48.328|||Breslow-Day test||Odds ratio for Day 5 vs Day 1: PF-07321332 300 mg + Ritonavir 100 mg|||48.328|7.788|0.1997
91003889|NCT04960202|181890902|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.948|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.159|19.253|||Breslow-Day test||Odds ratio for Day 5 vs Day 1: Placebo|||19.253|4.159|
91003890|NCT04960202|181890903|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|20.875||||0.281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.097|43.156|||Breslow-Day test||Odds ratio for Day 5 vs Day 1: PF-07321332 300 mg + Ritonavir 100 mg|||43.156|10.097|0.2810
91003891|NCT04960202|181890903|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.452|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.823|22.725|||Breslow Day test||Odds ratio for Day 5 vs Day 1: Placebo|||22.725|6.823|
91003892|NCT04960202|181890904|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|21.119||||0.2226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.412|42.837|||Breslow-Day test||Odds ratio for Day 5 vs Day 1: PF-07321332 300 mg + Ritonavir 100 mg|||42.837|10.412|0.2226
91003893|NCT04960202|181890904|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.036||||0.2342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.808|21.28|||Breslow-Day test||Odds ratio for Day 5 vs Day 1: Placebo|||21.280|6.808|0.2342
91003894|NCT03687827|181890921|SUPERIORITY|Superiority is confirmed if non-inferiority is confirmed and the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval is entirely above zero.|Estimated treatment difference|1.43||||0.0321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|2.74|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.74|0.12|0.0321
91003895|NCT03687827|181890921|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of -0.83% has been applied, corresponding to 0.2 hours/24 hours|Estimated treatment difference|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|2.74||||||||2.74|0.12|
91003896|NCT03377452|181890929|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.02||0.2313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.71|19.22|||t-test, 2 sided|||||19.22|-4.71|0.2313
91003897|NCT03377452|181890930|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.91|-1.72|||Mixed Models Analysis||The parameter estimate is the change in the outcome from baseline to 3-months after the last intervention/control session for the intervention group versus the same change in the control group.|||-1.72|-4.91|<0.001
91003898|NCT03146403|181890949|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7474|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7474
91003899|NCT03146403|181890950|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.645|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6450
91003900|NCT03146403|181890951|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3157|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3157
91003901|NCT03146403|181890952|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3869|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.3869
91003902|NCT03146403|181890953|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2200
91003903|NCT02182999|181890956|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.596|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A sample size of 17 patients in each group was previously calculated on the basis of a significance level of .05, a power of 80%, an anticipated pooled standard Deviation (SD) of 1.0 of the mean verbal NRS pain level, and a minimal clinically important difference in the mean verbal NRS pain level of 1.0 points between the groups. Anticipating a loss to follow-up, we planned to recruit a total of 50 patients (25 patients each group).||||0.596
91003904|NCT02182999|181890957|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.353|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.353
91003905|NCT00926185|181890966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Effect|0.06||||0.9381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.39|||Dunnett's test||Analysis of covariance model with treatment, baseline, and site.|||0.39|-0.26|0.9381
91003906|NCT00926185|181890966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Effect|0.2||||0.3585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.53|||Dunnett's test||Analysis of covariance model with treatment, baseline, and site.|||0.53|-0.13|0.3585
91003907|NCT00926185|181890966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Effect|0.27||||0.1375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.6|||Dunnett's test||Analysis of covariance model with treatment, baseline, and site.|||0.60|-0.06|0.1375
91003908|NCT00638690|181890968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.646|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.543|0.768||Nominal P-value is 0.0142 at interim analysis based on group sequential design.|Log Rank|This was a stratified analysis.||||0.768|0.543|<0.0001
91003909|NCT00638690|181890969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.462|0.728||Nominal P-value = 0.05.|Log Rank|This was a stratified analysis.||||0.728|0.462|<0.0001
91003910|NCT00638690|181890970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|5.266|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.459|8.018||Nominal P-value = 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||8.018|3.459|<0.001
91003911|NCT00638690|181890971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.673|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.585|0.776||The nominal P-value = 0.05.|Log Rank|This was a stratified analysis.||||0.776|0.585|<0.0001
91003912|NCT02203916|181890975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-13.317|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4502|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.138|-8.497||"Overall type 1 error rate of 0.05 was controlled using principle of 'closed' testing: each pairwise comparison to placebo was conducted at 0.05 level with no p-value adjustment if hypothesis all treatment groups equal was first rejected at 0.05."|ANCOVA|Post-baseline p-values were from an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed factor and baseline values as a continuous covariate.||||-8.497|-18.138|<0.001
91003913|NCT02203916|181890975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-14.955|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.447|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.77|-10.141||"Overall type 1 error rate of 0.05 was controlled using principle of 'closed' testing: each pairwise comparison to placebo was conducted at 0.05 level with no p-value adjustment if hypothesis all treatment groups equal was first rejected at 0.05."|ANCOVA|Post-baseline p-values were from an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed factor and baseline values as a continuous covariate.||||-10.141|-19.770|<0.001
91003914|NCT03152110|181890997|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.203|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.203
91003915|NCT03152110|181890998|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.931|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.931
91003916|NCT01620593|181891043|SUPERIORITY|t-test|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91003917|NCT03536923|181891052|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0001
91003918|NCT03536923|181891053|OTHER|||||||0.0009|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0009
91003919|NCT03536923|181891055|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0001
91003920|NCT03054740|181891056|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||Levene's Test of Equality of Error Variances (Design: Intercept + Pain Previous IV + Intervention) F = .001, df1 = 1, df2=28, Sig. = .972|||
91003921|NCT03054740|181891057|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.390
91003922|NCT01378299|181891061|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis by intention to treat with last value carry forward.||||<0.05
91003923|NCT01378299|181891062|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis by intention to treat with the last value carry forward||||<0.05
91003924|NCT01378299|181891063|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis by intention to treat with the last value carry forward.||||<0.05
91003925|NCT01378299|181891064|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis by intention to treat with the last value carry forward.||||<0.05
91003926|NCT01378299|181891065|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis by intention to treat with the last value carry forward.||||<0.05
91003927|NCT01378299|181891066|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis by intention to treat with the last value carry forward.||||<0.05
91003928|NCT01378299|181891067|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis by intention to treat with the last value carry forward.||||<0.05
91003929|NCT01378299|181891069|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis was by intention to treat with the last value carry forward. Those who had at least one follow-up from baseline and with acceptable assay coefficient of variability were included in the analysis. The data of 79 subjects were analyzed; 15 in the GG, 43 in the GA and 21 in the AA genotype.||||<0.05
91003930|NCT01378299|181891070|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis by intention to treat with the last value carry forward.||||<0.05
91003931|NCT01378299|181891071|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis by intention to treat with the last value carry forward.||||<0.05
91003932|NCT01378299|181891072|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis by intention to treat with the last value carry forward.||||<0.05
91003933|NCT01448707|181891077|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of DRV/rtv monotherapy versus triple therapy was assessed with a maximum allowable difference of 12 percent (%), with a one-sided significance level of 2.5%.|Non-Linear mixed|-7.9||||0.2331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.64|-1.19||P-Value for non-inferiority of DRV/rtv MONO vs DRV/rtv + 2NRTIs (delta = 12%).|Mixed Models Analysis|Predicted response rate:confidence limits are obtained by means of logistic regression model with treatment group and Hepatitis C status as covariates||||-1.19|-14.64|0.2331
91003934|NCT01448707|181891078|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of DRV/rtv monotherapy versus triple therapy was assessed with a maximum allowable difference of 12 percent (%), with a one-sided significance level of 2.5% and 80% power.|Non-Linear mixed|-10.1||||0.6933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.5|-0.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.73|-19.50|0.6933
91003935|NCT01448707|181891079|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Week 48: Non-inferiority of DRV/rtv monotherapy versus triple therapy was assessed with a maximum allowable difference of 12 percent (%), with a one-sided significance level of 2.5% and 80% power.|Non-linear mixed model|-3.5||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.77|1.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.72|-8.77|0.0016
91003936|NCT01448707|181891079|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Week 96: Non-inferiority of DRV/rtv monotherapy versus triple therapy was assessed with a maximum allowable difference of 12 percent (%), with a one-sided significance level of 2.5% and 80% power.|non-linear mixed model|-0.7||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.89|6.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.58|-7.89|0.0022
91003937|NCT02667392|181891086|OTHER|||||||0.77||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance set at p \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.77
91003938|NCT02667392|181891087|OTHER|||||||0.61||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance set at p \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.61
91003939|NCT02667392|181891088|OTHER|||||||0.28||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance set at p \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.28
91003940|NCT02667392|181891089|OTHER|||||||0.002||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance set at p \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.002
91003941|NCT02667392|181891090|OTHER|||||||0.02||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance set at p \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
91003942|NCT02667392|181891091|OTHER|||||||0.03||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance set at p \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
91003943|NCT02667392|181891092|OTHER|||||||0.55||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance set at p \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.55
91003944|NCT02667392|181891093|OTHER|a priori threshold for statistical significance set at p \< 0.05||||||0.0089|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0089
91003945|NCT02667392|181891094|OTHER|a priori threshold for statistical significance set at p \< 0.05||||||0.73|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.73
91003946|NCT02667392|181891095|OTHER|a priori threshold for statistical significance set at p \< 0.05||||||0.81|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.81
91003947|NCT02667392|181891096|OTHER|||||||0.02||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance set at p \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
91003948|NCT00383708|181891097|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Exact test|One-sided p value||The percentage of subjects (denoted as pnor) was compared to the minimum clinically relevant (theoretical) percentage of 30%, using an exact test based on the binomial distribution. The test was an upper-tailed test of H0: pnor ≤ 0.3 versus H1: pnor \> 0.3.||||<0.0001
91003949|NCT00383708|181891098|OTHER|||||||0.1654||||||One-sided p value|Exact test|||The percentage of subjects in the subgroup previously treated with pegvisomant (denoted as pnor) was compared to the minimum clinically relevant (theoretical) percentage of 30%, using an exact test based on the binomial distribution. The test was an upper-tailed test of H0: pnor ≤ 0.3 versus H1: pnor \> 0.3.||||0.1654
91003950|NCT00383708|181891098|OTHER|||||||0.0115||||||One-sided p value|Exact test|||The percentage of subjects in the subgroup previously treated with lanreotide Autogel (denoted as pnor) was compared to the minimum clinically relevant (theoretical) percentage of 30%, using an exact test based on the binomial distribution. The test was an upper-tailed test of H0: pnor ≤ 0.3 versus H1: pnor \> 0.3.||||0.0115
91003951|NCT00383708|181891098|OTHER|||||||0.0003||||||One-sided p value|Exact test|||The percentage of subjects in the subgroup previously treated with octreotide LAR (denoted as pnor) was compared to the minimum clinically relevant (theoretical) percentage of 30%, using an exact test based on the binomial distribution. The test was an upper-tailed test of H0: pnor ≤ 0.3 versus H1: pnor \> 0.3.||||0.0003
91003952|NCT00383708|181891099|OTHER|||||||0.084||||||One-sided p value|Exact test|||The percentage of subjects in the subgroup diabetic subjects (denoted as pnor) was compared to the minimum clinically relevant (theoretical) percentage of 30%, using an exact test based on the binomial distribution. The test was an upper-tailed test of H0: pnor ≤ 0.3 versus H1: pnor \> 0.3.||||0.084
91003953|NCT00383708|181891099|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||One-sided p value|Exact test|||The percentage of subjects in the subgroup non diabetic subjects (denoted as pnor) was compared to the minimum clinically relevant (theoretical) percentage of 30%, using an exact test based on the binomial distribution. The test was an upper-tailed test of H0: pnor ≤ 0.3 versus H1: pnor \> 0.3.||||<0.0001
91003954|NCT00383708|181891100|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||One-sided p-value|Exact test|||The percentage of subjects in the subgroup 'while taking final dose during co-administration' (denoted as pnor) was compared to the minimum clinically relevant (theoretical) percentage of 30%, using an exact test based on the binomial distribution. The test was an upper-tailed test of H0: pnor ≤ 0.3 versus H1: pnor \> 0.3.||||<0.0001
91003955|NCT00383708|181891100|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||One-sided p-value|Exact test|||The percentage of subjects in the subgroup 'at any time during co-administration' (denoted as pnor) was compared to the minimum clinically relevant (theoretical) percentage of 30%, using an exact test based on the binomial distribution. The test was an upper-tailed test of H0: pnor ≤ 0.3 versus H1: pnor \> 0.3.||||<0.0001
91003956|NCT02033850|181891127|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.145|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on ADL (baseline vs 6 months)||||.145
91003957|NCT02033850|181891127|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.618|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on ADL (6 vs 12 months)||||.618
91003958|NCT02033850|181891127|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.262|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on ADL (baseline vs 12 months)||||.262
91003959|NCT02033850|181891127|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on IADL (baseline vs 6 months)||||.240
91003960|NCT02033850|181891127|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.134|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on IADL (6 vs 12 months)||||.134
91003961|NCT02033850|181891127|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.457|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on IADL (baseline vs 12 months)||||.457
91003962|NCT02033850|181891127|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.612|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on DAD (baseline vs 6 months)||||.612
91003963|NCT02033850|181891127|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.522|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on DAD (6 vs 12 months)||||.522
91003964|NCT02033850|181891127|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on DAD (baseline vs 12 months)||||.800
91003965|NCT02033850|181891128|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.204|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on AQ (baseline vs 6 months)||||.204
91003966|NCT02033850|181891128|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on AQ (6 vs 12 months)||||.810
91003967|NCT02033850|181891128|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.193|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on AQ (baseline vs 12 months)||||.193
91003968|NCT02033850|181891128|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.698|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on EQ index (baseline vs 6 months)||||.698
91003969|NCT02033850|181891128|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.283|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on EQ index (6 vs 12 months)||||.283
91003970|NCT02033850|181891128|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.647|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on EQ index (baseline vs 12 months)||||.647
91003971|NCT02033850|181891128|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.057|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on EQ visual (baseline vs 6 months)||||.057
91003972|NCT02033850|181891128|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.685|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on EQ visual (6 vs 12 months)||||.685
91003973|NCT02033850|181891128|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.056|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on EQ visual (baseline vs 12 months)||||.056
91003974|NCT02033850|181891128|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.393|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on GDS (baseline vs 6 months)||||.393
91003975|NCT02033850|181891128|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.958|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on GDS (6 vs 12 months)||||.958
91003976|NCT02033850|181891128|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.448|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on GDS (baseline vs 12 months)||||.448
91003977|NCT02033850|181891128|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.567|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on MCS (baseline vs 6 months)||||.567
91003978|NCT02033850|181891128|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.274|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on MCS (6 vs 12 months)||||.274
91003979|NCT02033850|181891128|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.668|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on MCS (baseline vs 12 months)||||.668
91003980|NCT02033850|181891128|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.709|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on PCS (baseline vs 6 months)||||.709
91003981|NCT02033850|181891128|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.567|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on PCS (6 vs 12 months)||||.567
91003982|NCT02033850|181891128|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.867|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on PCS (baseline vs 12 months)||||.867
91003983|NCT02033850|181891129|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.095|||||||Chi-squared|||MCS outcome (baseline vs 6 months)||||.095
91003984|NCT02033850|181891129|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.729|||||||Chi-squared|||MCS outcome (6 vs 12 months)||||.729
91003985|NCT02033850|181891129|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.115|||||||Chi-squared|||MCS outcome (baseline vs 12 months)||||.115
91003986|NCT02033850|181891129|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.576|||||||Chi-squared|||PCS outcome (baseline vs 6 months)||||.576
91003987|NCT02033850|181891129|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.191|||||||Chi-squared|||PCS outcome (6 vs 12 months)||||.191
91003988|NCT02033850|181891129|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||Chi-squared|||PCS outcome (baseline vs 12 months)||||.790
91003989|NCT02033850|181891130|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.936|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on MoCA (baseline vs 6 months)||||.936
91003990|NCT02033850|181891130|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.188|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on MoCA (6 vs 12 months)||||.188
91003991|NCT02033850|181891130|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.381|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on MoCA (baseline vs 12 months)||||.381
91003992|NCT02033850|181891130|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.458|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on MMSE (baseline vs 6 months)||||.458
91003993|NCT02033850|181891130|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.236|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on MMSE (6 vs 12 months)||||.236
91003994|NCT02033850|181891130|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.601|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on MMSE (baseline vs 12 months)||||.601
91049189|NCT01383421|181983827|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.817|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.598||0.753|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference and P value are from ANCOVA model adjusting for corresponding Baseline values.||WPAI presenteeism||||0.753
91049190|NCT01383421|181983827|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.334|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.159||0.461|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference and P value are from ANCOVA model adjusting for corresponding Baseline values.||WPAI overall work impairment||||0.461
91003995|NCT02033850|181891130|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.839|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on RAVL immediate (baseline vs 6 months)||||.839
91049191|NCT01383421|181983827|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.537|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.624|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference and P value are from ANCOVA model adjusting for corresponding Baseline values.||WPAI activity impairment||||<0.001
91003996|NCT02033850|181891130|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.021|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on RAVL immediate (6 vs 12 months)||||.021
91003997|NCT02033850|181891130|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.032|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on RAVL immediate (baseline vs 12 months)||||.032
91003998|NCT02033850|181891130|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.858|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on RAVL recall (baseline vs 6 months)||||.858
91003999|NCT02033850|181891130|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.212|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on RAVL recall (6 vs 12 months)||||.212
91004000|NCT02033850|181891130|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.268|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on RAVL recall (baseline vs 12 months)||||.268
91004001|NCT02033850|181891130|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.184|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on ROCF recall (baseline vs 6 months)||||.184
91004002|NCT02033850|181891130|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.358|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on ROCF recall (6 vs 12 months)||||.358
91004003|NCT02033850|181891130|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.768|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on ROCF recall (baseline vs 12 months)||||.768
91049192|NCT01383421|181983828|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.973|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.245||0.017|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference and P value are from ANCOVA model adjusting for corresponding Baseline values.||TSQM convenience||||0.017
91049193|NCT01383421|181983828|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.843|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.042||0.164|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference and P value are from ANCOVA model adjusting for corresponding Baseline values.||TSQM effectiveness||||0.164
91004004|NCT02033850|181891130|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.164|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on short story (baseline vs 6 months)||||.164
91004005|NCT02033850|181891130|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on short story (6 vs 12 months)||||.420
91004006|NCT02033850|181891130|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.527|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on short story (baseline vs 12 months)||||.527
91004007|NCT02033850|181891130|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.762|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on visual search (baseline vs 6 months)||||.762
91004008|NCT02033850|181891130|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.405|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on visual search (6 vs 12 months)||||.405
91004009|NCT02033850|181891130|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.674|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on visual search (baseline vs 12 months)||||.674
91004010|NCT02033850|181891130|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.328|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on SDMT (baseline vs 6 months)||||.328
91004011|NCT02033850|181891130|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.198|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on SDMT (6 vs 12 months)||||.198
91004012|NCT02033850|181891130|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.639|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on SDMT (baseline vs 12 months)||||.639
91004013|NCT02033850|181891130|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.098|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on ROCF copy (baseline vs 6 months)||||.098
91004014|NCT02033850|181891130|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.235|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on ROCF copy (6 vs 12 months)||||.235
91004015|NCT02033850|181891130|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.789|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on ROCF copy (baseline vs 12 months)||||.789
91004016|NCT02033850|181891131|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.743|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on Stroop test (baseline vs 6 months)||||.743
91004017|NCT02033850|181891131|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.428|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on Stroop test (6 vs 12 months)||||.428
91004018|NCT02033850|181891131|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.294|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on Stroop test (baseline vs 12 months)||||.294
91004019|NCT02033850|181891131|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.157|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on TMT-A (baseline vs 6 months)||||.157
91004020|NCT02033850|181891131|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.094|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on TMT-A (6 vs 12 months)||||.094
91004021|NCT02033850|181891131|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.476|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on TMT-A (baseline vs 12 months)||||.476
91004022|NCT02033850|181891131|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.142|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on TMT-B (baseline vs 6 months)||||.142
91004023|NCT02033850|181891131|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.651|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on TMT-B (6 vs 12 months)||||.651
91004024|NCT02033850|181891131|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.534|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on TMT-B (baseline vs 12 months)||||.534
91004025|NCT02033850|181891132|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.882|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on phonemic fluency (baseline vs 6 months)||||.882
91004026|NCT02033850|181891132|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.835|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on phonemic fluency (6 vs 12 months)||||.835
91004027|NCT02033850|181891132|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.951|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on phonemic fluency (baseline vs 12 months)||||.951
91004028|NCT02033850|181891132|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.392|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on semantic fluency (baseline vs 6 months)||||.392
91004029|NCT02033850|181891132|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.973|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on semantic fluency (6 vs 12 months)||||.973
91004030|NCT02033850|181891132|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.486|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on semantic fluency (baseline vs 12 months)||||.486
91004031|NCT02033850|181891133|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||Chi-squared|||MoCA variations (baseline vs 6 months)||||.920
91004032|NCT02033850|181891133|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Chi-squared|||MoCA variations (6 vs 12 months)||||.170
91004033|NCT02033850|181891133|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.716|||||||Chi-squared|||MoCA variations (baseline vs 12 months)||||.716
91004034|NCT02033850|181891133|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.973|||||||Chi-squared|||MMSE variations (baseline vs 6 months)||||.973
91004035|NCT02033850|181891133|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.973|||||||Chi-squared|||MMSE variations (6 vs 12 months)||||.973
91004036|NCT02033850|181891133|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Chi-squared|||MMSE variations (baseline vs 12 months)||||.300
91004037|NCT02033850|181891133|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.068|||||||Chi-squared|||RAVL immed. variations (baseline vs 6 months)||||.068
91004038|NCT02033850|181891133|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.089|||||||Chi-squared|||RAVL immed. variations (6 vs 12 months)||||.089
91004039|NCT02033850|181891133|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.241|||||||Chi-squared|||RAVL immed. variations (baseline vs 12 months)||||.241
91004040|NCT02033850|181891133|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.089|||||||Chi-squared|||RAVL recall variations (baseline vs 6 months)||||.089
91004041|NCT02033850|181891133|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Chi-squared|||RAVL recall variations (6 vs 12 months)||||.170
91004042|NCT02033850|181891133|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.413|||||||Chi-squared|||RAVL recall variations (baseline vs 12 months)||||.413
91004043|NCT02033850|181891133|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.777|||||||Chi-squared|||ROCF recall variations (baseline vs 6 months)||||.777
91004044|NCT02033850|181891133|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.134|||||||Chi-squared|||ROCF recall variations (6 vs 12 months)||||.134
91004045|NCT02033850|181891133|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.498|||||||Chi-squared|||ROCF recall variations (baseline vs 12 months)||||.498
91004046|NCT02033850|181891133|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.942|||||||Chi-squared|||Short story variations (baseline vs 6 months)||||.942
91004047|NCT02033850|181891133|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.578|||||||Chi-squared|||Short story variations (6 vs 12 months)||||.578
91004048|NCT02033850|181891133|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.413|||||||Chi-squared|||Short story variations (baseline vs 12 months)||||.413
91004049|NCT02033850|181891133|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||Visual search variations (baseline vs 6 months)||||1
91004050|NCT02033850|181891133|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038|||||||Chi-squared|||Visual search variations (6 vs 12 months)||||.038
91004051|NCT02033850|181891133|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.658|||||||Chi-squared|||Visual search variations (baseline vs 12 months)||||.658
91004052|NCT02033850|181891133|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.522|||||||Chi-squared|||SDMT variations (baseline vs 6 months)||||.522
91004053|NCT02033850|181891133|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.674|||||||Chi-squared|||SDMT variations (6 vs 12 months)||||.674
91004054|NCT02033850|181891133|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Chi-squared|||SDMT variations (baseline vs 12 months)||||.170
91004055|NCT02033850|181891133|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.961|||||||Chi-squared|||Stroop test variations (baseline vs 6 months)||||.961
91049194|NCT01383421|181983828|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.473|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.866||0.003|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference and P value are from ANCOVA model adjusting for corresponding Baseline values.||TSQM global satisfaction||||0.003
91004056|NCT02033850|181891133|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.413|||||||Chi-squared|||Stroop test variations (6 vs 12 months)||||.413
91004057|NCT02033850|181891133|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.477|||||||Chi-squared|||Stroop test variations (baseline vs 12 months)||||.477
91004058|NCT02033850|181891133|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||Chi-squared|||TMT-A variations (baseline vs 6 months)||||.420
91004059|NCT02033850|181891133|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.241|||||||Chi-squared|||TMT-A variations (6 vs 12 months)||||.241
91004060|NCT02033850|181891133|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.295|||||||Chi-squared|||TMT-A variations (baseline vs 12 months)||||.295
91004061|NCT02033850|181891133|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.453|||||||Chi-squared|||TMT-B variations (baseline vs 6 months)||||.453
91004062|NCT02033850|181891133|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.952|||||||Chi-squared|||TMT-B variations (6 vs 12 months)||||.952
91004063|NCT02033850|181891133|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.881|||||||Chi-squared|||TMT-B variations (baseline vs 12 months)||||.881
91004064|NCT02033850|181891133|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.413|||||||Chi-squared|||Phonemic fluency variations (baseline vs 6 months)||||.413
91004065|NCT02033850|181891133|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.961|||||||Chi-squared|||Phonemic fluency variations (6 vs 12 months)||||.961
91004066|NCT02033850|181891133|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.951|||||||Chi-squared|||Phonemic fluency variation (baseline vs 12 months)||||.951
91004067|NCT02033850|181891133|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.951|||||||Chi-squared|||Semantic fluency variations (baseline vs 6 months)||||.951
91004068|NCT02033850|181891133|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.674|||||||Chi-squared|||Semantic fluency variations (6 vs 12 months)||||.674
91004069|NCT02033850|181891133|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.951|||||||Chi-squared|||Semantic fluency variation (baseline vs 12 months)||||.951
91004070|NCT02033850|181891133|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||ROCF copy variations (baseline vs 6 months)||||1
91004071|NCT02033850|181891133|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027|||||||Chi-squared|||ROCF copy variations (6 vs 12 months)||||.027
91049195|NCT01383421|181983828|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.705|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.769||0.335|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference and P value are from ANCOVA model adjusting for corresponding Baseline values.||TSQM side effects||||0.335
91004072|NCT02033850|181891133|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.169|||||||Chi-squared|||ROCF copy variations (baseline vs 12 months)||||.169
91004073|NCT02033850|181891134|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.478|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.478
91004074|NCT02033850|181891135|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029||||||"Corrected for multiple comparisons using the 3D parameter settings with threshold-free cluster enhancement.~A priori threshold for statistical significance 0.05"|General linear model voxel-wise|||Z-transformed ReHo difference in vermis VIIIb||||0.029
91004075|NCT02033850|181891135|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||"Corrected for multiple comparisons using the 3D parameter settings with threshold-free cluster enhancement.~A priori threshold for statistical significance 0.05"|General linear model voxel-wise|||Z-transformed ReHo difference in right VIIb lobule||||0.04
91004076|NCT02033850|181891135|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.039||||||"Corrected for multiple comparisons using the 3D parameter settings with threshold-free cluster enhancement.~A priori threshold for statistical significance 0.05"|General linear model voxel-wise|||Z-transformed ReHo difference in left VIIb lobule||||0.039
91049196|NCT01383421|181983829|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.728|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.183||0.021|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference and P value are from ANCOVA model adjusting for corresponding Baseline values.||TSQM convenience||||0.021
91004077|NCT02820038|181891136|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.8408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|2.24|||Regression, Logistic|Regression model adjusted for whether participant met criteria for informed decision making at baseline.|Modeled probability of meeting criteria for informed decision making at the 6-month follow-up. Independent variable coded: 0=Other Consumer Medication Information (CMI) Only, Other CMI+SMART, DrugFactsBox® (DFB) Only; 1=DFB+SMART|The investigators hypothesized that participants would be more likely to meet the criteria for Informed Decision-Making at the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format combined with gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to individuals in the other three groups.||2.24|0.52|0.8408
91004078|NCT02820038|181891136|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.12|||Regression, Logistic|Regression model adjusted for whether participant met criteria for informed decision making at baseline.|Modeled probability of meeting criteria for informed decision making at the 6-month follow-up. Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only or Other CMI+SMART, 1=DFB or DFB + SMART|The investigators hypothesized that participants would be more likely to meet the criteria for Informed Decision-Making at the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive written medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format compared to the Other CMI format.||2.12|0.66|0.58
91004079|NCT02820038|181891136|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.1937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|2.68|||Regression, Logistic|Regression model adjusted for whether participant met criteria for informed decision making at baseline.|Modeled probability of meeting criteria for informed decision making at the 6-month follow-up. Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only or DFB Only, 1=Other CMI + SMART or DFB+SMART.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would be more likely to meet the criteria for Informed Decision-Making at the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to those who were not assigned to receive this training.||2.68|0.82|0.1937
91004080|NCT02820038|181891136|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.379||||0.0193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|4.92|||Regression, Logistic|Sample restricted to participants who did not meet the criteria for informed decision making at baseline.|Modeled probability of meeting criteria for informed decision making at the 6-month follow-up. Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only or DFB Only, 1=Other CMI + SMART or DFB+SMART.|In this analysis, participants were restricted to those who did not meet criteria for informed decision-making at baseline.||4.92|1.15|0.0193
91004081|NCT02820038|181891136|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.53||||0.2216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.48|||Regression, Logistic||Modeled probability of meeting criteria for informed decision making at the 6-month follow-up. Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only or DFB Only, 1=Other CMI + SMART or DFB+SMART.|In this analysis, participants were restricted to those who met the criteria for informed decision-making at baseline.||1.48|0.19|0.2216
91004082|NCT02820038|181891137|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|0.75|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, Other CMI+SMART, DFB Only; 1=DFB+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit a greater increase in knowledge between baseline and the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format combined with gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to individuals in the other three groups.||0.75|-1.83|0.1630
91049197|NCT01383421|181983829|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.124|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93||0.106|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference and P value are from ANCOVA model adjusting for corresponding Baseline values.||TSQM effectiveness||||0.106
91004083|NCT02820038|181891137|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.7892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|1.77|||Regression, Linear|||The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit a greater increase in knowledge between baseline and the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive written medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format compared to the Other CMI format.|Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, DFB Only; 1=DFB+SMART, Other CMI+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|1.77|-2.33|0.7892
91049198|NCT01383421|181983829|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.572|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.756||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference and P value are from ANCOVA model adjusting for corresponding Baseline values.||TSQM global satisfaction||||0.002
91004084|NCT02820038|181891137|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.0377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.25|-0.13|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, DFB Only; 1=DFB+SMART, Other CMI+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit a greater increase in knowledge between baseline and the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to those who were not assigned to receive this training.||-0.13|-4.25|0.0377
91004085|NCT02820038|181891138|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.9216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|1.08|||Regression, Linear|||The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit a greater increase in values favorable to aggressive therapy between baseline and the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format combined with gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to individuals in the other three groups.|Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, Other CMI+SMART, DFB Only; 1=DFB+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|1.08|-0.98|0.9216
91004086|NCT02820038|181891138|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.3843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|1.17|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, Other CMI+SMART; 1=DFB Only, DFB+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit a greater increase in values favoring aggressive therapy between baseline and the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive written medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format compared to the Other CMI format.||1.17|-0.45|0.3843
91004087|NCT02820038|181891138|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|1.09|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, DFB Only; 1=DFB+SMART, Other CMI+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit a greater increase in values favoring aggressive therapy between baseline and the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to those who were not assigned to receive this training.||1.09|-0.54|0.5090
91004088|NCT02820038|181891139|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.1486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.12|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, Other CMI+SMART, DFB Only; 1=DFB+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit greater increases in gist reasoning ability at the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format combined with gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to individuals in the other three groups.||0.12|-0.77|0.1486
91004089|NCT02820038|181891139|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.4888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.22|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, Other CMI+SMART; 1=DFB Only, DFB+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit a greater increase in gist reasoning ability between baseline and the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive written medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format compared to the Other CMI format.||0.22|-0.47|0.4888
91004090|NCT02820038|181891139|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.8637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.38|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, DFB Only; 1=DFB+SMART, Other CMI+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit a greater increase in gist reasoning ability between baseline and the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to those who were not assigned to receive this training.||0.38|-0.32|0.8637
91007428|NCT04191096|181898959|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.24||||0.97907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.54||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by prior docetaxel for mHSPC (Yes vs No) and presence of high-volume disease (Yes vs No) with small strata.|Log Rank||HR and associated 95% Confidence Interval (CI) were calculated using Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by prior docetaxel for mHSPC (Yes/No) and presence of high-volume disease (Yes/No)|||1.54|1.01|0.97907
91004091|NCT02820038|181891140|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.66|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, Other CMI+SMART, DFB Only; 1=DFB+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit greater gist reasoning ability at the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format combined with gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to individuals in the other three groups.||0.66|-0.33|0.5070
91004092|NCT02820038|181891140|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.4821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.52|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, Other CMI+SMART; 1=DFB Only, DFB+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit a greater increase in gist reasoning ability between baseline and the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive written medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format compared to the Other CMI format.||0.52|-0.25|0.4821
91004093|NCT02820038|181891140|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.7777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.44|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, DFB Only; 1=DFB+SMART, Other CMI+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit a greater increase in gist reasoning ability between baseline and the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to those who were not assigned to receive this training.||0.44|-0.33|0.7777
91004094|NCT02820038|181891141|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.6084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|1.58|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, Other CMI+SMART, DFB Only; 1=DFB+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit greater increases in satisfaction at the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format combined with gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to individuals in the other three groups.||1.58|-0.93|0.6084
91004095|NCT02820038|181891141|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|1.23|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, Other CMI+SMART; 1=DFB Only, DFB+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit a greater increase in satisfaction between baseline and the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive written medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format compared to the Other CMI format.||1.23|-0.71|0.5970
91004096|NCT02820038|181891141|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.5094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|1.31|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, DFB Only; 1=DFB+SMART, Other CMI+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit a greater increase in satisfaction between baseline and the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to those who were not assigned to receive this training.||1.31|-0.65|.5094
91004097|NCT02820038|181891142|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.74||0.5866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.85|3.89|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, Other CMI+SMART, DFB Only; 1=DFB+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit greater increases in satisfaction at the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format combined with gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to individuals in the other three groups.||3.89|-6.85|0.5866
91004098|NCT02820038|181891142|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.13||0.8689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.82|4.52|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, Other CMI+SMART; 1=DFB Only, DFB+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit a greater increase in satisfaction between baseline and the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive written medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format compared to the Other CMI format.||4.52|-3.82|0.8689
91007429|NCT04191096|181898960|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.27202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.3||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by prior docetaxel for mHSPC (Yes vs No) and presence of high-volume disease (Yes vs No) with small strata.|Log Rank||HR and associated 95% Confidence Interval (CI) were calculated using Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by prior docetaxel for mHSPC (Yes/No) and presence of high-volume disease (Yes/No)|||1.30|0.61|0.27202
91004099|NCT02820038|181891142|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.14||0.4356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.53|5.86|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, DFB Only; 1=DFB+SMART, Other CMI+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit a greater increase in satisfaction between baseline and the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to those who were not assigned to receive this training.||5.86|-2.53|.4356
91004100|NCT02820038|181891143|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|3.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.95||0.2366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|9.26|||Regression, Linear|||The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit greater increases in self-efficacy at the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format combined with gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to individuals in the other three groups.||9.26|-2.30|0.2366
91004101|NCT02820038|181891143|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.29||0.8841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.16|4.83|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, DFB Only; 1=DFB+SMART, Other CMI+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit a greater increase in self-efficacy between baseline and the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive written medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format compared to the Other CMI format.||4.83|-4.16|0.8841
91004102|NCT02820038|181891143|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3||0.5264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.05|5.95|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, DFB Only; 1=DFB+SMART, Other CMI+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit a greater increase in self-efficacy between baseline and the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to those who were not assigned to receive this training.||5.95|-3.05|0.5264
91004103|NCT02820038|181891144|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.19||0.9604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|4.18|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, Other CMI+SMART, DFB Only; 1=DFB+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit greater increases in medication adherence at the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format combined with gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to individuals in the other three groups.||4.18|-4.40|0.9604
91004104|NCT02820038|181891144|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.64||0.0279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.84|-0.4|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, Other CMI+SMART; 1=DFB Only, DFB+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit a greater increase in adherence between baseline and the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive written medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format compared to the Other CMI format.||-0.40|-6.84|0.0279
91004105|NCT02820038|181891144|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|3.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.66||0.0184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|7.18|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, DFB Only; 1=DFB+SMART, Other CMI+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit a greater increase in medication adherence between baseline and the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to those who were not assigned to receive this training.||7.18|0.67|0.0184
91004106|NCT02820038|181891145|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|2.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.73||0.3056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.56|8.14|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, Other CMI+SMART, DFB Only; 1=DFB+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit greater decreases in illness intrusiveness at the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format combined with gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to individuals in the other three groups.||8.14|-2.56|0.3056
91007430|NCT04191096|181898961|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.2972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.23||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by prior docetaxel for mHSPC (Yes vs No) and presence of high-volume disease (Yes vs No) with small strata.|Log Rank||HR and associated 95% Confidence Interval (CI) were calculated using Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by prior docetaxel for mHSPC (Yes/No) and presence of high-volume disease (Yes/No)|||1.23|0.69|0.2972
91007431|NCT04191096|181898962|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.6863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.41||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by prior docetaxel for mHSPC (Yes vs No) and presence of high-volume disease (Yes vs No) with small strata.|Log Rank||HR and associated 95% Confidence Interval (CI) were calculated using Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by prior docetaxel for mHSPC (Yes/No) and presence of high-volume disease (Yes/No)|||1.41|0.81|0.6863
91004107|NCT02820038|181891145|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|4.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.11||0.0466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|8.32|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, Other CMI+SMART; 1=DFB Only, DFB+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit a greater decrease in illness intrusiveness between baseline and the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive written medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format compared to the Other CMI format.||8.32|0.06|0.0466
91004108|NCT02820038|181891145|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.11||0.9106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.38|3.9|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, DFB Only; 1=DFB+SMART, Other CMI+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit a greater decrease in illness intrusiveness between baseline and the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to those who were not assigned to receive this training.||3.90|-4.38|0.9106
91049199|NCT01383421|181983829|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.885|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.704||0.269|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference and P value are from ANCOVA model adjusting for corresponding Baseline values.||TSQM side effects||||0.269
91049200|NCT01383421|181983830|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.324|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.177||0.049|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference and P value are from ANCOVA model adjusting for corresponding Baseline values.||TSQM convenience||||0.049
91049201|NCT01383421|181983830|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.929|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.929||0.011|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference and P value are from ANCOVA model adjusting for corresponding Baseline values.||TSQM effectiveness||||0.011
91004109|NCT02820038|181891146|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.1762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.1|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, Other CMI+SMART, DFB Only; 1=DFB+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group..|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit greater decreases in health distress at the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format combined with gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to individuals in the other three groups.||0.10|-0.57|0.1762
91049202|NCT01383421|181983830|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.997|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.775|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference and P value are from ANCOVA model adjusting for corresponding Baseline values.||TSQM global satisfaction||||<0.001
91049203|NCT01383421|181983830|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.823|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.657||0.272|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference and P value are from ANCOVA model adjusting for corresponding Baseline values.||TSQM side effects||||0.272
91049204|NCT01383421|181983831|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.817|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.572||0.154|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference and P value are from ANCOVA model adjusting for corresponding Baseline values.||Week 24||||0.154
91049205|NCT01383421|181983831|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.772|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.599||0.198|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference and P value are from ANCOVA model adjusting for corresponding Baseline values.||Week 52||||0.198
91049206|NCT01383421|181983831|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.884|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.585||0.131|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference and P value are from ANCOVA model adjusting for corresponding Baseline values.||Week 78||||0.131
91004110|NCT02820038|181891146|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.4186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.15|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, Other CMI+SMART; 1=DFB Only, DFB+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit a greater decrease in health distress between baseline and the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive written medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format compared to the Other CMI format.||0.15|-0.36|0.4186
91049207|NCT01383421|181983835|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Between Group Change|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0429||0.019|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|ANCOVA|P value is from an ANCOVA model adjusting for Baseline.||Necessity||||0.019
91004111|NCT02820038|181891146|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.8848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.24|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, DFB Only; 1=DFB+SMART, Other CMI+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit a greater decrease in health distress between baseline and the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to those who were not assigned to receive this training.||0.24|-0.28|0.8848
91004112|NCT02820038|181891147|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.6403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.25|||Regression, Linear|||The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit greater increases in health status at the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format combined with gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to individuals in the other three groups.||0.25|-0.15|0.6403
91004113|NCT02820038|181891147|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.8766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.16|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, Other CMI+SMART; 1=DFB Only, DFB+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit a greater increase in global health status between baseline and the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive written medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format compared to the Other CMI format.||0.16|-0.14|0.8766
91004114|NCT02820038|181891147|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.7603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.18|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, DFB Only; 1=DFB+SMART, Other CMI+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit a greater improvement in global health status between baseline and the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to those who were not assigned to receive this training.||0.18|-0.13|0.7603
91007432|NCT04191096|181898963|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||0.9235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.39||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by prior docetaxel for mHSPC (Yes vs No) and presence of high-volume disease (Yes vs No) with small strata.|Log Rank||HR and associated 95% Confidence Interval (CI) were calculated using Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by prior docetaxel for mHSPC (Yes/No) and presence of high-volume disease (Yes/No)|||1.39|0.95|0.9235
91004115|NCT02820038|181891148|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.7093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.63|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, Other CMI+SMART, DFB Only; 1=DFB+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit greater decreases in disease activity at the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format combined with gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to individuals in the other three groups.||0.63|-0.43|0.7093
91004116|NCT02820038|181891148|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.5941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.52|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, Other CMI+SMART; 1=DFB Only, DFB+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit a greater decrease in disease activity between baseline and the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive written medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format compared to the Other CMI format.||0.52|-0.30|0.5941
91004117|NCT02820038|181891148|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.9476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.4|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, DFB Only; 1=DFB+SMART, Other CMI+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit a greater decrease in disease activity between baseline and the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to those who were not assigned to receive this training.||0.40|-0.42|0.9476
91004118|NCT02820038|181891149|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.9128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|1.48|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, Other CMI+SMART, DFB Only; 1=DFB+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit greater decreases in depression at the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format combined with gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to individuals in the other three groups.||1.48|-1.65|0.9128
91004119|NCT02820038|181891149|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.6312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.91|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, Other CMI+SMART; 1=DFB Only, DFB+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit a greater decrease in depression between baseline and the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive written medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format compared to the Other CMI format.||0.91|-1.50|0.6312
91004120|NCT02820038|181891149|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.5766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|0.87|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, DFB Only; 1=DFB+SMART, Other CMI+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit a greater decrease in depression between baseline and the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to those who were not assigned to receive this training.||0.87|-1.57|0.5766
91004121|NCT02820038|181891150|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.2123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.34|0.75|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, Other CMI+SMART, DFB Only; 1=DFB+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit greater decreases in fatigue at the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format combined with gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to individuals in the other three groups.||0.75|-3.34|0.2123
91004122|NCT02820038|181891150|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.2691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|0.7|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, Other CMI+SMART; 1=DFB Only, DFB+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit a greater decrease in fatigue between baseline and the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive written medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format compared to the Other CMI format.||0.70|-2.48|0.2691
91004123|NCT02820038|181891150|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.5655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|1.13|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, DFB Only; 1=DFB+SMART, Other CMI+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit a greater decrease in fatigue between baseline and the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to those who were not assigned to receive this training.||1.13|-2.06|0.5655
91004124|NCT02820038|181891151|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|2.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1||0.5364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.51|10.55|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, Other CMI+SMART, DFB Only; 1=DFB+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit greater increases in health literacy at the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format combined with gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to individuals in the other three groups.||10.55|-5.51|0.5364
91049208|NCT01383421|181983835|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Between Group Change|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0526||0.56|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|ANCOVA|P value is from an ANCOVA model adjusting for Baseline.||Concern||||0.560
91004125|NCT02820038|181891151|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.24||0.605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.68|8.01|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, Other CMI+SMART; 1=DFB Only, DFB+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit a greater increase in health literacy between baseline and the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive written medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format compared to the Other CMI format.||8.01|-4.68|0.6050
91049209|NCT00364949|181983842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.049
91049210|NCT00364949|181983843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.042||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.042
91049211|NCT00364949|181983844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.156||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.156
91049212|NCT00364949|181983845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.770
91004126|NCT02820038|181891151|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.24||0.924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.66|6.05|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, DFB Only; 1=DFB+SMART, Other CMI+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit a greater increase in health literacy between baseline and the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to those who were not assigned to receive this training.||6.05|-6.66|0.9240
91004127|NCT02820038|181891152|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.7871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.89|||Regression, Logistic||Modeled probability of attending at least one class session. Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, Other CMI+SMART, DFB Only; 1=DFB+SMART|The investigators hypothesized that participants would be more likely to participate in the BetterChoices, BetterHealth program if they were assigned to receive medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format combined with gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to individuals in the other three groups.||1.89|0.43|0.7871
91004128|NCT02820038|181891152|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.189||||0.5815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.643|2.198|||Regression, Logistic||Modeled probability of attending at least one class. Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, Other CMI+SMART; 1=DFB Only, DFB+SMART.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would be more likely to participate in at least one session of the BetterChoices,BetterHealth program if they were assigned to receive written medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format compared to the Other CMI format.||2.198|0.643|0.5815
91004129|NCT02820038|181891152|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.679||||0.2211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.366|1.262|||Regression, Logistic||Modeled probability of attending at least one class. Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, DFB Only; 1=Other CMI+SMART, DFB+SMART.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would be more likely to participate in at least one session of the BetterChoices, BetterHealth program if they were assigned to receive gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to those who were not assigned to receive this training.||1.262|0.366|0.2211
91004130|NCT02820038|181891153|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.804||||0.574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.72|||Regression, Logistic||Modeled probability of viewing at least one page on website. Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, Other CMI+SMART, DFB Only; 1=DFB+SMART|The investigators hypothesized that participants would be more likely to use the RA Self-Management website if they were assigned to receive medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format combined with gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to individuals in the other three groups.||1.72|0.38|0.5740
91004131|NCT02820038|181891153|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.425||||0.1278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.766|2.649|||Regression, Logistic||Modeled probability of viewing at least one page on website. Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, Other CMI+SMART; 1=DFB Only, DFB+SMART.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would be more likely to visit the RA Self-Management Website if they were assigned to receive written medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format compared to the Other CMI format.||2.649|0.766|0.1278
91004132|NCT02820038|181891153|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.614||||0.1278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.328|1.15|||Regression, Logistic||Modeled probability of viewing at least one page on website. Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, DFB Only; 1=Other CMI+SMART, DFB+SMART.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would be more likely to visit the RA Self-Management Website if they were assigned to receive gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to those who were not assigned to receive this training.||1.15|0.328|0.1278
91004133|NCT02820038|181891154|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|11.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.7||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|28.9|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, Other CMI+SMART, DFB Only; 1=DFB+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit greater increases in visual selective learning between baseline and the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format combined with gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to individuals in the other three groups.||28.9|-5.2|0.17
91004134|NCT02820038|181891154|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable|Mean Difference (Net)|16.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.9||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|29.5|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, Other CMI+SMART; 1=DFB Only, DFB+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit a greater increase in visual selective learning between baseline and the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive written medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format compared to the Other CMI format.||29.5|2.5|0.02
91004135|NCT02820038|181891154|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline values of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.9||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|19.2|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, DFB Only; 1=Other CMI+SMART, DFB+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would experience a greater increase in visual selective learning between baseline and the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to those who were not assigned to receive this training.||19.2|-8.1|0.42
91007433|NCT04191096|181898964|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||0.8801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.5||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by prior docetaxel for mHSPC (Yes vs No) and presence of high-volume disease (Yes vs No) with small strata.|Log Rank||HR and associated 95% Confidence Interval (CI) were calculated using Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by prior docetaxel for mHSPC (Yes/No) and presence of high-volume disease (Yes/No).|||1.50|0.90|0.8801
91049213|NCT00364949|181983846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.325||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.325
91004136|NCT02820038|181891155|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|0.8|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, Other CMI+SMART, DFB Only; 1=DFB+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit greater medication self-management knowledge at the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format combined with gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to individuals in the other three groups.||0.8|-5.2|0.15
91007434|NCT04191096|181898965|OTHER||Percent Difference|-2.7||||0.9576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|0.4||One-sided p-value based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by prior docetaxel for mHSPC (Yes/No) and presence of high-volume disease (Yes/No) with small strata.|Miettinen & Nurminen method||Percent difference and associated 95% CI were calculated using Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by prior docetaxel for mHSPC (Yes/No) and presence of high-volume disease (Yes/No).|||0.4|-5.8|0.9576
91004137|NCT02820038|181891155|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|0.3|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, Other CMI+SMART; 1=DFB Only, DFB+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit greater medication self-management knowledge at the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive written medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format compared to the Other CMI format.||0.3|-4.4|0.07
91007435|NCT04191096|181898966|OTHER||Percent difference|-0.8||||0.6053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|4.8||One-sided p-value based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by prior docetaxel for mHSPC (Yes/No) and presence of high-volume disease (Yes/No) with small strata.|Miettinen & Nurminen||Percent difference and associated 95% CI were calculated using Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by prior docetaxel for mHSPC (Yes/No) and presence of high-volume disease (Yes/No)|||4.8|-6.3|0.6053
91049214|NCT00866658|181983854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.118|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.116|-0.65||Statistical testing: 2-sided at significance level=0.05. Analysis of co-variance(ANCOVA)included treatment arms, randomization strata of screening HbA1c (\<8.0, \>=8.0%),sulfonylurea use (yes, no), country as fixed effects, baseline HbA1c as covariate.|ANCOVA|||To detect a difference of 0.5% in change from baseline to Week 24 in HbA1c between lixisenatide and placebo, 145 patients in each arm would provide a power of 90% assuming common standard deviation of 1.3% with a 2-sided t test at 5% significance level.||-0.650|-1.116|<0.0001
91049215|NCT01421342|181983899|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.75||Co-primary hypothesis: After ordering results from largest p-value to smallest (Hochberg approach) the comparison of Augmenting Antidepressant+Bupropion with Switching to Bupropion-SR was performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Regression, Logistic|Stratified by participating medical center|Represents relative odds of remission for Augmentation Antidepressant + Bupropion-SR / Switching to Bupropion-SR|||1.75|0.97|0.076
91049216|NCT01421342|181983899|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.89||Co-primary hypothesis: Second ordered test after ordering largest p-value to smallest (Hochberg approach) the comparison of Augmentation Antidepressant + Aripiprazole with Switching to Bupropion-SR was performed at the 0.025 significance level.|Regression, Logistic|Stratified by participating medical center|Represents relative odds of remission for Augmentation Antidepressant + Aripiprazole / Switching to Bupropion-SR|Co-primary hypothesis: After ordering results form largest p-value to smallest (Hochberg approach) the comparison of Augmentation Antidepressant + Aripiprazole with Switching to Bupropion-SR was performed at the 0.025 significance level.||1.89|1.06|0.018
91049217|NCT01421342|181983899|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.48||Following the gate-keeping strategy of the analysis plan, complete the comparison of Augmentation Antidepressant + Aripiprazole vs. Augmentation Antidepressant + Bupropion-SR was evaluated at the 0.05 significance level.|Regression, Logistic||Represents relative odds of remission for Augmentation Antidepressant + Aripiprazole / Augmentation Antidepressant + Bupropion-SR|If either if the first two hypothesis tests for the co-primary hypotheses were significant, perform the test of Augmentation Antidepressant + Aripiprazole vs. Augmentation Antidepressant + Bupropion-SR at the 0.05 significance level.||1.48|0.84|0.46
91049218|NCT01421342|181983900|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.36||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.39|||Log Rank||Represents relative odds of relapse for Augmentation Antidepressant + Bupropion-SR / Switching to Bupropion-SR|||2.39|0.78|0.70
91049219|NCT01421342|181983900|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.94|||Log Rank||Represents relative odds of relapse for Augmentation Antidepressant + Aripiprazole / Switching to Bupropion-SR|||1.94|0.65|0.68
91049220|NCT01421342|181983900|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.59|||Log Rank||Represents relative odds of relapse for Augmentation Antidepressant + Aripiprazole / Augmentation Antidepressant + Bupropion-SR|||1.59|0.58|0.87
91004138|NCT02820038|181891155|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|0.6|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, DFB Only; 1=DFB+SMART, DFB+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would experience greater medication self-management knowledge at the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to those who were not assigned to receive this training.||0.6|-4.2|0.13
91004139|NCT02820038|181891156|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.29|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, Other CMI+SMART, DFB Only; 1=DFB+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit greater verbatim recall of information concerning medication benefits and risks at the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format combined with gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to individuals in the other three groups.||0.29|-0.19|0.68
91004140|NCT02820038|181891156|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.31|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, Other CMI+SMART; 1=DFB Only, DFB+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit greater verbatim recall of information concerning medication benefits and risks at the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive written medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format compared to the Other CMI format.||0.31|-0.06|0.20
91004141|NCT02820038|181891156|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.19|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, DFB Only; 1=Other CMI+SMART, DFB+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit greater verbatim recall of information concerning medication benefits and risks at the 6-week follow-up if they were assigned to receive gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to those who were not assigned to receive this training.||0.19|-0.19|0.99
91004142|NCT02820038|181891157|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.105||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.291|3.432|||Regression, Logistic|||The investigators hypothesized that participants would be more likely to view at least one webpage if they were assigned to receive written medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format compared to the Other CMI format.|Modeled probability of viewing at least one webpage. Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, Other CMI+SMART; 1=DFB Only, DFB+SMART.|3.432|1.291|0.0028
91004143|NCT02820038|181891158|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.0601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|0.04|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, Other CMI+SMART; 1=DFB Only, DFB+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would view more webpages if they were assigned to receive written medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format compared to the Other CMI format.||0.04|-1.71|0.0601
91004144|NCT02820038|181891159|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|3.81|||Regression, Logistic||Independent variable coded: 0=Other Consumer Medication Information (CMI) Only, Other CMI+SMART, DrugFactsBox® (DFB) Only; 1=DFB+SMART|The investigators hypothesized that participants would be more likely to be using at least one DMARD (Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drug) at the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format combined with gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to individuals in the other three groups.||3.81|0.22|0.90
91004145|NCT02820038|181891159|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|2.35|||Regression, Logistic||. Independent variable coded: 0=Other Consumer Medication Information (CMI) Only, Other CMI+SMART; 1=DFB Only, DFB+SMART|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit a greater increase in the percentage of participants using at least one DMARD (Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drug) between baseline and the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive written medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format compared to the Other CMI format.||2.35|0.24|0.63
91004146|NCT02820038|181891159|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|3.54|||Regression, Logistic||Independent variable coded: 0=Other Consumer Medication Information (CMI) Only, DrugFactsBox® (DFB) Only; 1=Other CMI+SMART, DFB+SMART|The investigators hypothesized that participants would experience a greater increase in the percentage of participants using at least one DMARD (Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drug) between baseline and the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to those who were not assigned to receive this training.||3.54|0.37|0.81
91004147|NCT00560794|181891175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis stated that the true MRD response probability (π) ≤ 5%.|1-sided exact binomial test|||||||0.0000
91004148|NCT02963766|181891233|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-1.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.7|-1.8|<0.001
91004149|NCT02963766|181891234|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.4|-1.7|0.002
91004150|NCT02963766|181891234|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-1.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.9|-2.2|<0.001
91004151|NCT02963766|181891235|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-1.44||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.65|-0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.22|-2.65|0.021
91004152|NCT02963766|181891235|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-2.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.72|-1.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.29|-3.72|<0.001
91004153|NCT02963766|181891235|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-1.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.03|-0.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.91|-3.03|<0.001
91004154|NCT02963766|181891236|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.038|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.491|34.902|||Regression, Logistic|||||34.902|3.491|<0.001
91004155|NCT02963766|181891236|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.666|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.653|37.253|||Regression, Logistic|||||37.253|3.653|<0.001
91004156|NCT02963766|181891236|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.348|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.163|30.932|||Regression, Logistic|||||30.932|4.163|<0.001
91004157|NCT02963766|181891237|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.5|-0.7|0.689
91004158|NCT02963766|181891237|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.5|-0.6|0.924
91004159|NCT02963766|181891237|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.4|-0.6|0.776
91004160|NCT00323427|181891302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.039|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0974||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.23||No multiple testing adjustment.|t-test, 2 sided|||H0: Mean(Arm 1) = Mean(Arm 2)||0.23|-0.15|0.69
91004161|NCT00323427|181891303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.38||No adjustment.|t-test, 2 sided|||H0: Mean(Arm 1) = Mean(Arm 2)||0.38|-0.16|0.42
91004162|NCT00323427|181891304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.29||No adjustment|t-test, 2 sided|||H0: mean(Arm 1) = Mean (Arm 2)||0.29|-0.30|0.97
91004163|NCT02493868|181891305|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.49|||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.84|||Weighted Log-rank|||||0.84|0.29|= 0.003
91004164|NCT02407236|181891323|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted treatment difference|10.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|14.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Treatment difference between ustekinumab group and placebo group was adjusted with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weight.|Statistical Analysis 1||14.9|5.7|< 0.001
91049221|NCT01421342|181983901|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.5|||Regression, Logistic|Stratified by participating medical center|Represents relative odds of response for Augmentation Antidepressant + Bupropion / Switching to Bupropion|After ordering results form largest p-value to smallest (Hochberg approach) the comparison of Augmentation Antidepressant + Bupropion with Switching to Bupropion was performed at the 0.05 significance level.||1.50|0.89|0.28
91004165|NCT02407236|181891323|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted treatment difference|10.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.6|14.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Treatment difference between ustekinumab group and placebo group was adjusted with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weight.|Statistical Analysis 2||14.8|5.6|< 0.001
91049222|NCT01421342|181983901|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|2.29|||Regression, Logistic|Stratified by participating medical center (site)|Represents relative odds of response for Augmentation Antidepressant + Aripiprazole / Switching to Bupropion-SR|After ordering results form largest p-value to smallest (Hochberg approach) the comparison of Augmentation Antidepressant + Aripiprazole with Switching to Bupropion-SR was performed at the 0.025 significance level.||2.29|1.33|<0.0001
91004166|NCT02407236|181891324|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted treatment difference|10.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|4.8|15.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Treatment difference between ustekinumab group and placebo group was adjusted with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weight.|Statistical Analysis 1||15.8|4.8|< 0.001
91004167|NCT02407236|181891324|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted treatment difference|12.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|7.0|18.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Treatment difference between ustekinumab group and placebo group was adjusted with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weight.|Statistical Analysis 2||18.4|7.0|< 0.001
91004168|NCT02407236|181891325|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted treatment difference|14.5||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.5|23.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Treatment difference between ustekinumab group and placebo group was adjusted with CMH weight.|Statistical Analysis 1||23.6|5.5|0.002
91004169|NCT02407236|181891325|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted treatment difference|19.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.3|29.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Treatment difference between ustekinumab group and placebo group was adjusted with CMH weight.|Statistical Analysis 2||29.0|10.3|< 0.001
91004170|NCT02407236|181891326|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted treatment difference|15.1||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|24.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Treatment difference between ustekinumab group and placebo group was adjusted with CMH weight.|Statistical Analysis 1||24.2|6.0|0.002
91004171|NCT02407236|181891326|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted treatment difference|17.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.6|27.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Treatment difference between ustekinumab group and placebo group was adjusted with CMH weight.|Statistical Analysis 2||27.2|8.6|< 0.001
91004172|NCT01431521|181891509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-44.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.67|-34.07|||Linear mixed effects model|Treatment as fixed factor and predose Day 1 value, as a fixed covariate||||-34.07|-54.67|<0.001
91004173|NCT01431521|181891509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-26.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.97|-16.37|||Linear mixed effects model|Treatment as fixed factor and predose Day 1 value, as a fixed covariate||||-16.37|-36.97|<0.001
91004174|NCT01431521|181891509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean difference|-17.69||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.97|-7.39|||Linear mixed effects model|Treatment as fixed factor and predose Day 1 value, as a fixed covariate||||-7.39|-36.97|0.007
91004175|NCT01431521|181891510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-6.35|||>|0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.69|6.0|||Linear mixed effect model|Containing fixed effects for treatment, and predose Day 1 (baseline) as a fixed covariate||||6.00|-18.69|>0.200
91004176|NCT01431521|181891510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-16.74||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.08|-4.4|||Linear mixed effects model|Containing fixed effects for treatment, and predose Day 1 (baseline) as a fixed covariate||||-4.40|-29.08|0.028
91004177|NCT01431521|181891511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-3.47|||>|0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.85|10.92|||Linear mixed effects model|Containing fixed effects for treatment, and predose Day 1 (baseline) as a fixed covariate||||10.92|-17.85|>0.200
91004178|NCT01431521|181891511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-10.67|||>|0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.06|3.71|||Linear mixed effects model|Containing fixed effects for treatment, and predose Day 1 (baseline) as a fixed covariate||||3.71|-25.06|>0.200
91004179|NCT02000622|181891533|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.8||A priori threshold for statistical significance (2-sided) is 0.05.|Log Rank|Stratified by received prior chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer (yes/no) and receptor status.|Hazard ratio \<1 favours olaparib.|Study is sized to provide 90% power to detect a true treatment effect of PFS hazard ratio 0.653.||0.80|0.43|0.0009
91004180|NCT02000622|181891534|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.83||PFS2 tested using a multiple testing procedure with a recycling strategy. With 157 PFS2 events, a priori threshold for statistical significance (2-sided) was 0.008.|Log Rank|Stratified by received prior chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer (yes/no) and receptor status.|Hazard ratio \<1 favours olaparib.|||0.83|0.40|0.0033
91004181|NCT02000622|181891535|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.5665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.29||OS tested using a multiple testing procedure with a recycling strategy. With 140 OS events, a priori threshold for statistical significance (2-sided) was 0.018.|Log Rank|Stratified by received prior chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer (yes/no) and receptor status.|Hazard ratio \<1 favours olaparib.|||1.29|0.63|0.5665
91004182|NCT02000622|181891537|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.5||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|12.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Variables for treatment, visit, treatment-visit interaction, adjusted for baseline global health status/QoL score, baseline score-visit interaction.|Mean difference \>0 favours olaparib.|||12.4|2.5|0.0035
91004183|NCT02000622|181891538|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.78|||Log Rank|Stratified by received prior chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer (yes/no) and receptor status.|Hazard ratio \<1 favours olaparib.|||0.78|0.41|0.0005
91004184|NCT02000622|181891539|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.47|||Log Rank|Stratified by received prior chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer (yes/no) and receptor status.|Hazard ratio \<1 favours olaparib.|Supportive analysis to PFS.||0.47|0.24|<0.0001
91004185|NCT02000622|181891540|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.74|||Log Rank|Stratified by received prior chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer (yes/no) and receptor status.|Hazard ratio \<1 favours olaparib.|Supportive analysis to PFS2.||0.74|0.38|0.0002
91004186|NCT02000622|181891541|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.5131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.23||OS tested using a multiple testing procedure with a recycling strategy. With 192 OS events, a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.045.|Log Rank|Stratified by received prior chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer (yes/no) and receptor status.|Hazard ratio \<1 favours olaparib.|||1.23|0.66|0.5131
91004187|NCT02000622|181891542|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.4167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.18|||Log Rank|Stratified by received prior chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer (yes/no) and receptor status.|Hazard ratio \<1 favours olaparib.|||1.18|0.67|0.4167
91004188|NCT02000622|181891543|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.36|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.5|||Log Rank|Stratified by received prior chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer (yes/no) and receptor status.|Hazard ratio \<1 favours olaparib.|Supportive analysis to PFS.||0.50|0.27|<0.0001
91004189|NCT02000622|181891544|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.72|||Log Rank|Stratified by received prior chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer (yes/no) and receptor status.|Hazard ratio \<1 favours olaparib.|Supportive analysis to PFS2.||0.72|0.40|<0.0001
91004190|NCT01462045|181891545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.6|-1.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-1.6|-25.6|<0.01
91004191|NCT01462045|181891546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|10.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||||10.8|0.83|<0.01
91004192|NCT04283773|181891554|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.001|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.5||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|8.0||The test of significance is Kruskal Wallis was used to examine the Difference in Median between groups. Post-hoc test with Bonferroni Correction was used for Pairwise comparisons . A p-value \< 0.05 was considered significant.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Assessment of statistical differences in P16 expression between 3 groups. The immunohistochemical evaluation is done using German- semiquantitative scoring system. The score ranges from ( 0, 1,2,3,4,6,8,9 and 12). The data will entered on SPSS,version 24 as numbers. The test of significance is Kruskal Wallis was used to examine the Difference in Median between groups. Post-hoc test with Bonferroni Correction was used for Pairwise comparisons . A p-value \< 0.05 was considered significant.||8|0|0.001
91004193|NCT04283773|181891555|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio, log|0.009||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|8.0||Data were analysed using IBM-SPSS version 24. Correlation analysis was used (Spearman' Ranked correlation, 2-tailed). A p-value \< 0.05 was considered significant.|Spearman's rank correlation coefficient(|||Correlation between Ki 67 expression using percentage of Ki67 positive nuclei and P16 cytoplasmic expression using German semi quantitative score among MOGCT group. Data were analysed using IBM-SPSS version 24. Correlation analysis was used (Spearman' Ranked correlation, 2-tailed). A p-value \< 0.05 was considered significant.||8|0|0.009
91004194|NCT04283773|181891556|SUPERIORITY|One-way ANOVA was used to examine the Difference in Mean between groups. Post-hoc test with Bonferroni Correction was used for Pairwise comparisons .Data was expressed as mean (SD). P value is significant if less than 0.05.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.5||0.699|TWO_SIDED|80.0|9.5|13.0||One-way ANOVA was used to examine the Difference in Mean between groups. Post-hoc test with Bonferroni Correction was used for Pairwise comparisons .Data was expressed as mean (SD). P value is significant if less than 0.05.|ANOVA|||Correlation between P16 cytoplasmic score using German semi-quantitative system and FIGO staging of MOGCTs was done via One-way ANOVA was used to examine the Difference in Mean between groups. Post-hoc test with Bonferroni Correction was used for Pairwise comparisons .Data was expressed as mean (SD).||13|9.5|0.699
91004195|NCT03558828|181891571|OTHER|A power analysis based on the study's primary aim (impact of augmented treatments on non-responders) was conducted. An estimated effect size of d=0.41 for the difference between the two augmented treatments was used. With a 2-tailed alpha of 0.05, a pre-post correlation of r=0.60, and a sample size of 188 non-responders, an estimated 80% power was obtained. Assuming 67% non-response to the initial treatments and 10% attrition, the final target sample size was N=312.|Effect size estimates|0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||All analyses employed an intent-to-treat approach using a two-tailed alpha of 0.05 with no adjustment for multiple tests.|GEEs||Effect size estimates (Cohen's d) for all analyses were created by using the relevant slope (i.e., change) effect as the numerator and the baseline standard deviation of the dependent variable as the denominator.||"The longitudinal trajectories using generalized estimating equations (GEEs) were estimated. Cases for responders are duplicated and weighted based on the inverse probability of being assigned to a particular adaptive intervention (i.e., responders have a ½ probability of assignment to a specific adaptive intervention, and non-responders have a ¼ probability).~Only the Phase 1 (baseline to 8 weeks) treatment condition x time interaction was included because it preceded the randomization to Phase 2 (weeks 9-34) treatment conditions. Planned contrasts were used to test specific hypotheses. Effect size estimates for all analyses were created by using the relevant slope effect as the numerator and the baseline standard deviation of the dependent variable as the denominator. All analyses employed an intent-to-treat approach using a two-tailed alpha of 0.05 with no adjustment for multiple tests."|||
91004196|NCT03558828|181891572|OTHER|A power analysis based on the study's primary aim (impact of augmented treatments on non-responders) was conducted. An estimated effect size of d=0.41 for the difference between the two augmented treatments was used. With a 2-tailed alpha of 0.05, a pre-post correlation of r=0.60, and a sample size of 188 non-responders, an estimated 80% power was obtained. Assuming 67% non-response to the initial treatments and 10% attrition, the final target sample size was N=312.|Effect size estimates|0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||All analyses employed an intent-to-treat approach using a two-tailed alpha of 0.05 with no adjustment for multiple tests.|GEEs||Effect size estimates for all analyses were created by using the relevant slope (i.e., change) effect as the numerator and the baseline standard deviation of the dependent variable as the denominator. An estimated effect size of d=0.41 was used.||There were time slope terms for Phase 1 (baseline to 8-week assessment), Phase 2 (9-weeks to 34-week assessment), and Phase 3 (maintenance from 35-weeks to 50-week assessment). Also, there were interactions of condition and time slopes. For Phase 1, only the Phase 1 treatment condition x time interaction was included because it preceded the randomization to Phase 2 treatment conditions. Supplementary analyses were conducted to compare the trajectories of responders versus non-responders to the Phase 1 treatment. Effect size estimates for all analyses were created by using the relevant slope (i.e., change) effect as the numerator and the baseline standard deviation of the dependent variable as the denominator. The resulting effect size is equivalent to a Cohen's d, representing mean change (or difference in change) in standard deviation units. All analyses employed an intent-to-treat approach using a two-tailed alpha of 0.05 with no adjustment for multiple tests.|||
91049223|NCT01421342|181983901|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|2.05||Following the gate-keeping strategy of the analysis plan, complete the comparison of Augmentation Antidepressant + Aripiprazole with Augmentation Antidepressant + Bupropion-SR at the 0.05 significance level.|Regression, Logistic|Stratified by participating medical center|Represents relative odds of response for Augmentation Antidepressant + Aripiprazole / Augmentation Antidepressant + Bupropion-SR|||2.05|1.17|0.002
91049224|NCT01421342|181983902|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.68||After ordering results form largest p-value to smallest (Hochberg approach) the comparison of Augmentation Antidepressant + Bupropion with Switching to Bupropion was performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Regression, Logistic|Stratified by participating medical center|Represents relative odds of response for Augmentation Antidepressant + Bupropion / Switching to Bupropion|||1.68|0.95|0.11
91049225|NCT01421342|181983902|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|2.29|||Regression, Logistic|Stratified by participating medical center|Represents relative odds of response for Augmentation Antidepressant + Aripiprazole / Switching to Bupropion-SR|After ordering results form largest p-value to smallest (Hochberg approach) the comparison of Augmentation Antidepressant + Aripiprazole with Switching to Bupropion-SR was performed at the 0.025 significance level.||2.29|1.26|<0.001
91049226|NCT01421342|181983902|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.86||Following the gate-keeping strategy of the analysis plan, complete the comparison of Augmentation Antidepressant + Aripiprazole with Augmentation Antidepressant + Bupropion-SR at the 0.05 significance level.|Regression, Logistic||Represents relative odds of response for Augmentation Antidepressant + Aripiprazole / Augmentation Antidepressant + Bupropion-SR|||1.86|1.01|0.043
91049227|NCT04295135|181983909|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||A multi-level linear probability model that included patient demographics, clinician random effects, and indicator variables for (a) site; (b) treatment and control clinicians; and (c) pre-/post-OneSheet access.|Regression, Linear|Model also included an interaction term for treatment and post-OneSheet access.|The coefficient estimates the causal effect of OneSheet on our outcomes. Unit of analysis was patient visit.|||||<0.05
91049228|NCT04295135|181983910|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||A multi-level linear probability model that included patient demographics, clinician random effects, and indicator variables for (a) site; (b) treatment and control clinicians; and (c) pre-/post-OneSheet access.|Regression, Linear|Model also included an interaction term for treatment and post-OneSheet access.|The coefficient estimates the causal effect of OneSheet on our outcomes. Unit of analysis was patient visit.|||||<0.01
91004197|NCT03671148|181891576|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|24.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.9|33.0||A fixed sequence testing procedure is used to control the overall type I error rate at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 for the primary endpoint and ranked secondary endpoints.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test adjusted for the stratification factors of current use of csDMARD, number of prior biologic therapies, and extent of psoriasis at Baseline.|Response Rate Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|The comparison between the risankizumab and placebo treatment groups for the primary efficacy endpoint (ACR20 at Week 24) was performed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusting for the stratification factors of current use of csDMARD (0 vs ≥ 1), number of prior biologic therapies (0 vs ≥ 1), and extent of psoriasis (≥ 3% BSA or \< 3% BSA) at Baseline.||33.0|15.9|<0.001
91004198|NCT03671148|181891577|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|-0.07||A fixed sequence testing procedure is used to control the overall type I error rate at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 for the primary endpoint and ranked secondary endpoints.|Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM analysis including treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and stratification factors as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||-0.07|-0.26|<0.001
91004199|NCT03671148|181891578|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|44.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.9|54.6||A fixed sequence testing procedure is used to control the overall type I error rate at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 for the primary endpoint and ranked secondary endpoints.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test adjusted for the stratification factors of current use of csDMARD, number of prior biologic therapies, and extent of psoriasis at Baseline.|Response Rate Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||54.6|33.9|<0.001
91004200|NCT03671148|181891579|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|22.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.9|31.2||A fixed sequence testing procedure is used to control the overall type I error rate at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 for the primary endpoint and ranked secondary endpoints.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test adjusted for the stratification factors of current use of csDMARD, number of prior biologic therapies, and extent of psoriasis at Baseline.|Response Rate Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||31.2|13.9|<0.001
91004201|NCT03671148|181891580|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|14.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|21.0||A fixed sequence testing procedure is used to control the overall type I error rate at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 for the primary endpoint and ranked secondary endpoints.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test adjusted for the stratification factors of current use of csDMARD, number of prior biologic therapies, and extent of psoriasis at Baseline.|Response Rate Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||21.0|7.0|<0.001
91004202|NCT03671148|181891581|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.41|5.31||A fixed sequence testing procedure is used to control the overall type I error rate at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 for the primary endpoint and ranked secondary endpoints.|Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM analysis including treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and stratification factors as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||5.31|2.41|<0.001
91004203|NCT03671148|181891582|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.2||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.9||A fixed sequence testing procedure is used to control the overall type I error rate at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 for the primary endpoint and ranked secondary endpoints.|Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM analysis including treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and stratification factors as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||3.9|0.6|0.009
91004204|NCT03671148|181891583|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|16.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.7|23.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test adjusted for the stratification factors of current use of csDMARD, number of prior biologic therapies, and extent of psoriasis at Baseline.|Response Rate Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||23.6|9.7|<0.001
91004205|NCT03671148|181891584|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|6.0||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|11.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test adjusted for the stratification factors of current use of csDMARD, number of prior biologic therapies, and extent of psoriasis at Baseline.|Response Rate Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||11.3|0.8|0.024
91004206|NCT03671148|181891585|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|13.8||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|24.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test adjusted for the stratification factors of current use of csDMARD, number of prior biologic therapies, and extent of psoriasis at Baseline.|Response Rate Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||24.2|3.5|0.009
91004207|NCT03671148|181891586|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|38.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.9|54.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test adjusted for the stratification factors of current use of csDMARD, number of prior biologic therapies, and extent of psoriasis at Baseline.|Response Rate Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||54.8|22.9|<0.001
91004208|NCT02527564|181891593|OTHER|||||||0.1||||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant.|Paired 2-sided t-test|||Within group change at week 1 - suvorexant (double-blind)||||0.10
91004209|NCT02527564|181891593|OTHER|||||||0.57||||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant.|Paired 2-sided t-test|||Within group change at week 1- placebo (double-blind) group||||0.57
91004210|NCT02527564|181891593|OTHER|||||||0.44||||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant.|Unpaired 2-sided t-test|||Between group change at week 1||||0.44
91004211|NCT02527564|181891594|OTHER|||||||0.035||||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered significantly significant.|Paired 2-sided t-test|||Within group change at week 1 - suvorexant (double-blind)||||0.035
91004212|NCT02527564|181891594|OTHER|||||||0.55|||||||Paired 2-sided t-test|A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant.||Within group change at week 1- placebo (double-blind) group||||0.55
91004213|NCT02527564|181891594|OTHER|||||||0.89||||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant.|Paired 2-sided t-test|||Between group change at week 1||||0.89
91004214|NCT02527564|181891595|OTHER|||||||0.97||||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered significantly significant.|Paired 2-sided t-test|||Within group change at month 3 - suvorexant (open-label)||||0.97
91004215|NCT02527564|181891596|OTHER|||||||0.28||||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered significantly significant.|Paired 2-sided t-test|||Within group change at month 3 - suvorexant (open-label)||||0.28
91004216|NCT01804842|181891597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Ratio of LS Means|71.7||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|90.0|61.14|84.01|||ANOVA|Included treatment, sequence, and period and as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||1000 mg Met DR qPM is the denominator for the % ratio of least squares (LS) means and the comparator for the p-values.||84.01|61.14|0.0018
91004217|NCT01804842|181891597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Ratio of LS Means|71.5||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.85|84.09|||ANOVA|Included treatment, sequence, and period and as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||500 mg Met DR BID is the denominator for the % ratio of LS means and the comparator for the p-values.||84.09|60.85|0.0020
91004218|NCT01804842|181891597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Ratio of LS Means|99.8||||0.9844|TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.91|117.33|||ANOVA|Included treatment, sequence, and period and as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||500 mg Met DR BID is the denominator for the % ratio of LS means and the comparator for the p-values.||117.33|84.91|0.9844
91004219|NCT01804842|181891598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Ratio of LS Means|83.8||||0.1595|TWO_SIDED|90.0|68.1|103.23|||ANOVA|Included treatment, sequence, and period and as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||1000 mg Met DR qPM is the denominator for the % ratio of LS means and the comparator for the p-values.||103.23|68.10|0.1595
91004220|NCT01804842|181891598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Ratio of LS Means|111.3||||0.3867|TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.37|136.99|||ANOVA|Included treatment, sequence, and period and as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||500 mg Met DR BID is the denominator for the % ratio of LS means and the comparator for the p-values.||136.99|90.37|0.3867
91004221|NCT01804842|181891598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Ratio of LS Means|132.7||||0.0294|TWO_SIDED|90.0|107.78|163.39|||ANOVA|Included treatment, sequence, and period and as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||500 mg Met DR BID is the denominator for the % ratio of LS means and the comparator for the p-values.||163.39|107.78|0.0294
91004222|NCT01804842|181891599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Ratio of LS Means|91.0||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|85.7|96.67|||ANOVA|Treatment, sequence, period, status (on-/pre-treatment) and treatment\*status as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||Pretreatment value is the denominator for the % ratio of LS means and the comparator for the p-values.||96.67|85.70|0.0028
91004223|NCT01804842|181891599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Ratio of LS Means|90.9||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|85.58|96.53|||ANOVA|Treatment, sequence, period, status (on-/pre-treatment) and treatment\*status as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||Pretreatment value is the denominator for the % ratio of LS means and the comparator for the p-values.||96.53|85.58|0.0024
91004224|NCT01804842|181891599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Ratio of LS Means|95.1||||0.0992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.54|100.99|||ANOVA|Treatment, sequence, period, status (on-/pre-treatment) and treatment\*status as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||Pretreatment value is the denominator for the % ratio of LS means and the comparator for the p-values.||100.99|89.54|0.0992
91004225|NCT01804842|181891600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Ratio of LS Means|90.4||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|85.55|95.56|||ANOVA|Treatment, sequence, period, status (on-/pre-treatment) and treatment\*status as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||Pretreatment value is the denominator for the % ratio of LS means and the comparator for the p-values.||95.56|85.55|0.0006
91004226|NCT01804842|181891600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Ratio of LS Means|90.5||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|85.65|95.67|||ANOVA|Treatment, sequence, period, status (on-/pre-treatment) and treatment\*status as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||Pretreatment value is the denominator for the % ratio of LS means and the comparator for the p-values.||95.67|85.65|0.0007
91004227|NCT01804842|181891600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Ratio of LS Means|94.3||||0.0389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.24|99.69|||ANOVA|Treatment, sequence, period, status (on-/pre-treatment) and treatment\*status as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||Pretreatment value is the denominator for the % ratio of LS means and the comparator for the p-values.||99.69|89.24|0.0389
91004228|NCT00628134|181891601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-ranks test was used for comparisons||||0.07
91004229|NCT00628134|181891602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-ranks test was used for comparisons||||0.29
91004230|NCT03774875|181891603|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference in Response Rates|31.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.78|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.6|45.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH (Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel) test adjusting for the stratification of the 5 difficult to treat manifestation types at randomization.|Adjusted difference (apremilast - placebo) in response rates calculated using the weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights.|||45.2|18.6|<0.0001
91004231|NCT03774875|181891604|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.15|-3.43|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment arm and stratification factor as independent variables and baseline value as a covariate.|Difference in LS Means = Apremilast - Placebo|||-3.43|-7.15|<0.0001
91004232|NCT03774875|181891605|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-38.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.12||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.58|-10.14|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment arm and stratification factor as independent variables and the baseline value as a covariate variable.|LS Mean Difference = Apremilast - Placebo|||-10.14|-66.58|0.0085
91004233|NCT03774875|181891606|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|-0.86|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment arm and stratification factor as independent variables and the baseline value as a covariate.|LS Mean Difference = Apremilast - Placebo|||-0.86|-2.34|<0.0001
91004234|NCT03774875|181891607|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-16.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.31||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.63|-7.6|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment arm and stratification factor as independent variables and the baseline value as a covariate.|LS Mean Difference = Apremilast - Placebo|||-7.60|-24.63|0.0003
91004235|NCT03774875|181891608|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference in Response Rates|13.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.3||0.0328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|25.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification of the 5 difficult to treat manifestation types at randomization.|The adjusted difference in response rates (Apremilast - Placebo) using the weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights.|||25.8|1.1|0.0328
91004236|NCT03774875|181891609|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference in Response Rates|37.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.58|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.1|49.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the stratification of the 5 difficult to treat manifestation types at randomization.|Adjusted difference (Apremilast - Placebo) in response rates using the weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights.|||49.9|24.1|<0.0001
91004237|NCT03774875|181891610|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|14.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.55||0.4216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.62|51.48|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment arm and stratification factor as independent variables and the baseline value as a covariate.|LS Mean Difference = Apremilast - Placebo|||51.48|-21.62|0.4216
91004238|NCT03774875|181891611|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-148.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|103.9525||0.1559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-352.8793|56.8304|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment arm and stratification factor as independent variables and the baseline value as a covariate.|LS Mean Difference = Apremilast - Placebo|||56.8304|-352.8793|0.1559
91004239|NCT03774875|181891612|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.82||0.2667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.43|8.73|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment arm and stratification factor as independent variables and the baseline value as a covariate.|LS Mean Difference = Apremilast - Placebo|||8.73|-2.43|0.2667
91004240|NCT03774875|181891613|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.23||0.562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.83|5.91|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment arm and stratification factor as independent variables and the baseline value as a covariate.|LS Mean Difference = Apremilast - Placebo|||5.91|-10.83|0.5620
91004241|NCT03774875|181891614|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.81||0.8927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.16|8.86|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment arm and stratification factor as independent variables and the baseline value as a covariate.|LS Mean Difference = Apremilast - Placebo|||8.86|-10.16|0.8927
91004242|NCT03774875|181891615|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.09||0.0572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.9|0.24|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment arm and stratification factor as independent variables and the baseline value as a covariate.|LS Mean Difference = Apremilast - Placebo|||0.24|-15.90|0.0572
91004243|NCT02352090|181891641|OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.27
91004244|NCT05179057|181891698|SUPERIORITY|A logistic regression model included treatment, level of viremia at baseline (≥10,000 copies/mL or \<10,000 copies/mL adenovirus DNA), age (≥12 years or \<12 years), and absolute lymphocyte counts at baseline. The null hypothesis is that the true percentage for posoleucel plus SoC is less than or equal to the true percentage for placebo plus SoC, and the alternative hypothesis is that it is greater.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|3.69|||||Posoleucel versus Placebo|||3.69|0.26|
91004245|NCT03375203|181891725|OTHER||Back-transformed Least Square Mean Ratio|0.88|||=|0.346|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7|1.1|||ANCOVA|||||1.10|0.70|= 0.346
91004246|NCT03375203|181891725|OTHER||Back-transformed Least Square Mean Ratio|0.64|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.51|0.81|||ANCOVA|||||0.81|0.51|= 0.001
91004247|NCT03375203|181891725|OTHER||Back-transformed Least Square Mean Ratio|0.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.41|0.64|||ANCOVA|||||0.64|0.41|< 0.001
91004248|NCT03375203|181891725|OTHER|||||||0|||||||MCP-mod|||||||0.000
91004249|NCT03107793|181891772|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0871|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||= 0.0871
91004250|NCT02808507|181891809|OTHER||Treatment initiation ratio|1.04||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.3|||See above comments|||The primary analysis was based on the facility-level rate ratio. We first calculated an unadjusted ratio of the treatment initiation rates between the two arms and the corresponding 95% CI. We first fit a Poisson regression to the facility-level counts and the district and historical volume covariates. The residuals ratios, calculated as the ratio of the observed over the expected counts, were then used in the second stage to estimate the between-arm rate ratio and the corresponding 95% CI.||1.3|0.80|0.73
91004251|NCT02808507|181891810|OTHER||Treatment initiation ratio|1.05||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.13|||Poisson regression||Adjusted for district, study phase and clinic random effect.|The primary outcome of the study was the comparative number of people with incident TB diagnosed and started on treatment at study clinics during the two study periods, excluding the six-month washout period. The number of people starting treatment for incident TB was calculated by performing a review of paper and electronic medical records at each clinic on a quarterly basis during the study.||1.13|0.97|0.68
91004252|NCT02808507|181891811|OTHER||Prevalence ratio|1.0||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.95||"The pre-specified secondary study outcome was the number of Xpert-based TB diagnoses made among enrolled contacts (secondary cases) by arm."|Poisson regression||Adjusted for study phase and district|||1.95|0.51|0.80
91004253|NCT02040857|181891829|OTHER|Exact binomial test||||||0.0011|||||||Exact binomial test|||Primary objective is treatment discontinuation rate at 2 yr for patients receiving Palbociclib therapy. If the true rate of discontinuation by two years is 48% or higher, treatment duration will be considered not feasible and not worthy of further study. If the rate of discontinuation is 33.3% or less, the 2 yr duration will be deemed feasible and worthy of further study. Using a one-sided alpha = 0.025, there is \> 90% power to reject the null hypothesis in favor of feasibility.||||0.0011
91004254|NCT00976963|181891835|NON_INFERIORITY|The equivalence margin for non-inferiority of Fosfomycin to TMP/SMX is 10%.|||||<|0.001|||||||Wald test for noninferiority|||The null hypothesis is that Fosfomycin is inferior to TMP/SMX.||||<0.001
91004255|NCT00608842|181891837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference to placebo|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.4|20.4||||||Complete Clearance||20.4|-18.4|
91004256|NCT00608842|181891837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference to placebo|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.4|20.4||||||Complete Clearance||20.4|-18.4|
91004257|NCT00608842|181891837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference to placebo|7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|31.5||||||Complete Clearance||31.5|-12.2|
91004258|NCT00608842|181891837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference to placebo|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.0|27.5||||||≥ 75% Cleared||27.5|-23.0|
91004259|NCT00608842|181891837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference to placebo|-5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.3|19.6||||||≥ 75% Cleared||19.6|-28.3|
91004260|NCT00608842|181891837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference to placebo|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.3|29.5||||||≥ 75% Cleared||29.5|-22.3|
91004261|NCT01024920|181891843|OTHER|||||||0.8531||||||P-value for comparison of Kaplan-Meier estimates at 9 months using normal approximation test (two-sided).|Normal approximation test|||||||0.8531
91004262|NCT01024920|181891845|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.6395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.697|1.8|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazards model stratified by Motzer risk score and previous surgery.|A stratified log-rank test (two-sided, 0.05 significance level) was used to test the effect of nintedanib on PFS compared with sunitinib. The test was stratified by Motzer risk score category (low/intermediate or high) and prior nephrectomy surgery for Renal Cell Cancer (yes or no).||1.800|0.697|0.6395
91004263|NCT01024920|181891846|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.484||||0.1213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.193|1.212|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio \> 1 favours nintedanib.|A logistic regression model stratified by Motzer risk score category and prior surgery for renal cell cancer (RCC) was used to compare the objective response rate between the two treatment arms. The corresponding odds ratio and 95% Confidence Intervals was also presented.||1.212|0.193|0.1213
91004264|NCT01024920|181891848|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.7593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.542|1.564||P-value from log-rank stratified by Motzer risk score and previous surgery.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazards model stratified by Motzer risk score and previous surgery. Hazard ratio \< 1 favours nintedanib.|||1.564|0.542|0.7593
91004265|NCT01024920|181891849|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.143||||0.5958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.697|1.873|||Log Rank|P-value from log-rank stratified by Motzer risk score and previous surgery.|Hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazards model stratified by Motzer risk score and previous surgery. Hazard ratio \< 1 favours nintedanib.|||1.873|0.697|0.5958
91004266|NCT01024920|181891850|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.142||||0.5712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.812|||Log Rank|P-value from log-rank stratified by Motzer risk score and previous surgery (two-sided).|Hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazards model stratified by Motzer risk score and previous surgery. Hazard ratio \< 1 favours nintedanib.|||1.812|0.720|0.5712
91004267|NCT01791465|181891892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.08
91004268|NCT01791465|181891893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34||||||Unadjusted - this was a Wilcoxon signed rank p-value (Baseline vs. week 16) comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|no adjustments||The null hypothesis was that there would be no difference between baseline and 16 week IL-6||||0.34
91004269|NCT01791465|181891894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.046|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.046
91004270|NCT01791465|181891895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.92
91004271|NCT01791465|181891896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.69
91004272|NCT01791465|181891897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.47
91004273|NCT01791465|181891898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.92
91004274|NCT01791465|181891899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
91004275|NCT01791465|181891900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.60
91004276|NCT01791465|181891901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.08
91004277|NCT01791465|181891902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.08
91004278|NCT01791465|181891903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.07
91004279|NCT01791465|181891904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.69
91004280|NCT01791465|181891905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.50
91004281|NCT01791465|181891906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.42
91004282|NCT01791465|181891907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.89
91004283|NCT01791465|181891908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.75
91004284|NCT01791465|181891909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.046|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.046
91004285|NCT01791465|181891910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.25
91004286|NCT01791465|181891911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.12
91004287|NCT01791465|181891912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.046|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.046
91004288|NCT02736929|181891920|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.8||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|22.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the analysis of between-group difference in change from baseline to 6-week follow-up||22.3|-2.7|0.12
91004289|NCT02736929|181891921|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the analysis of between-group difference in change from baseline to 6-week follow-up.||0.5|0.1|0.024
91004290|NCT02736929|181891922|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the analysis of between-group difference in change from baseline to 6-week follow-up.||0.6|0.0|0.027
91004291|NCT02736929|181891923|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.8||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|7.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the analysis of between-group difference in change from baseline to 6-week follow-up.||7.1|0.5|0.024
91004292|NCT02736929|181891924|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.9||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|2.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the analysis of between-group difference in change from baseline to 6-week follow-up.||2.0|-9.8|0.19
91004293|NCT02736929|181891925|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the analysis of between-group difference in change from baseline to 6-week follow-up.||0.4|-1.3|0.31
91004294|NCT02736929|181891926|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the analysis of between-group difference in change from baseline to 6-week follow-up.||1.5|-1.8|0.86
91004295|NCT02736929|181891927|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the analysis of between-group difference in change from baseline to 6-week follow-up.||1.2|-1.7|0.77
91004296|NCT02972593|181891931|OTHER|Data collapsed to participant level, creating an ever/never response for each participant for each infection outcome type. Analyses performed at the participant level to determine if proportion of outcome types were similar between transfusion groups using Fisher's Exact tests, due to small expected cell counts, using SAS v9.4 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC). Power analyses performed based on these proportions using bootstrapping methods in SAS and confirmed with nQuery v8.7.1.0.||||||0.0122|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.0122
91004297|NCT02972593|181891932|OTHER|||||||0.7742|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.7742
91004298|NCT02972593|181891933|OTHER|||||||0.1443|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||.1443
91007436|NCT04191096|181898967|OTHER||Percent difference|-5.6||||0.9105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|2.6||One-sided p-value based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified prior docataxel for mHSPC (Yes/No) and presence of high-volume disease (Yes/No) with small strata.|Miettinen & Nurminen||Percent difference and associated 95% CI were calculated using Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by prior docataxel for mHSPC (Yes/No) and presence of high-volume disease (Yes/No)|||2.6|-13.7|0.9105
91007437|NCT01265719|181899001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.1126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.74|||ANCOVA||Change from baseline to last available observation in BCVA was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with fixed effect for treatment group with baseline BCVA value as covariate.|\<5 years||0.74|-0.09|0.1126
91004299|NCT03934203|181891935|OTHER|The null hypothesis was 'The mean difference in the QTcF changes from baseline between 50 mg BI 409306 and placebo is greater than or equal to 10 milliseconds at least for one timepoint after dosing.' The one-sided tests were performed at the 5% level; due to the symmetry of the normal distribution 2-sided 90% confidence intervals for the differences of adjusted means per timepoint were used.|Difference of adjusted means|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.2|2.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood estimation and Kenward-Roger method to adjust standard errors and estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Maximum difference of adjusted means was calculated as BI 409306 - placebo at 20 minutes after drug intake.|MMRM was fitted to observations for 50 mg BI 409306 and the 2 placebo periods. MMRM with covariates 'period baseline', 'participant baseline' (=arithmetic mean of respective period baselines), fixed categorical effects 'treatment', 'period', and 'time', interaction terms 'period baseline-by-time', 'participant baseline-by-time', 'treatment-by-time', and 'period-by-time', 'participant' (random effect), and time within period as repeated measures per participant (covariance matrix=Unstructured).||2.4|0.2|
91004300|NCT03934203|181891936|OTHER|The null hypothesis was 'The mean difference in the QTcF changes from baseline between 250 mg BI 409306 and placebo is greater than or equal to 10 milliseconds at least for one timepoint after dosing.' The one-sided tests were performed at the 5% level; due to the symmetry of the normal distribution 2-sided 90% confidence intervals for the differences of adjusted means per timepoint were used.|Difference of adjusted means|5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.4|7.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood estimation and Kenward-Roger method to adjust standard errors and estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Maximum difference of adjusted means was calculated as BI 409306 - placebo at 40 minutes after drug intake.|MMRM was fitted to observations for 250 mg BI 409306 and the 2 placebo periods. MMRM with covariates 'period baseline', 'participant baseline' (=arithmetic mean of respective period baselines), fixed categorical effects 'treatment', 'period', and 'time', interaction terms 'period baseline-by-time', 'participant baseline-by-time', 'treatment-by-time', and 'period-by-time', 'participant' (random effect), and time within period as repeated measures per participant (covariance matrix=Unstructured).||7.1|4.4|
91004301|NCT03934203|181891937|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Difference of adjusted means|12.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|10.5|13.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood estimation and Kenward-Roger method to adjust standard errors and estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Maximum difference of adjusted means was calculated as moxifloxacin - placebo at 1 hour and 30 minutes after drug intake.|MMRM was fitted to the observations for moxifloxacin and the 2 placebo periods. MMRM with covariates 'period baseline', 'participant baseline' (=arithmetic mean of respective period baselines), fixed categorical effects 'treatment', 'period', and 'time', interaction terms 'period baseline-by-time', 'participant baseline-by-time', 'treatment-by-time', and 'period-by-time', 'participant' (random effect), and time within period as repeated measures per participant (covariance matrix=Unstructured).||13.6|10.5|
91007438|NCT01265719|181899001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.06|||ANCOVA||Change from baseline to last available observation in BCVA was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with fixed effect for treatment group with baseline BCVA value as covariate.|5 to \<18 years||0.06|-0.12|0.4840
91007439|NCT01265719|181899003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.56|||ANCOVA||Change from baseline to last available observation in HCD was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with fixed effect for treatment group with baseline HCD value as covariate.|\<5 years||0.56|-0.63|0.9020
91004302|NCT03934203|181891938|OTHER|T-Test based on the results of the MMRM (fitted to the data for all timepoints). The null hypothesis was 'The mean difference in the QTcF changes from baseline between moxifloxacin and placebo is less than or equal to 5 milliseconds at 2 hours after drug administration.'|Difference of adjusted means|11.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|10.4|13.4||The corresponding alpha-level according to Hochberg's adjustment for mulitplicity was 0.0167.|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood estimation and Kenward-Roger method to adjust standard errors and estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference of adjusted means was calculated as moxifloxacin - placebo.|MMRM was fitted to the observations for moxifloxacin and the 2 placebo periods. MMRM with covariates 'period baseline', 'participant baseline' (=arithmetic mean of respective period baselines), fixed categorical effects 'treatment', 'period', and 'time', interaction terms 'period baseline-by-time', 'participant baseline-by-time', 'treatment-by-time', and 'period-by-time', 'participant' (random effect), and time within period as repeated measures per participant (covariance matrix=Unstructured).||13.4|10.4|0.00000000
91007440|NCT01265719|181899003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.8826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.43|||ANCOVA||Change from baseline to last available observation in HCD was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with fixed effect for treatment group with baseline HCD value as covariate.|5 to \<18 years||0.43|-0.37|0.8826
91007441|NCT01265719|181899004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-1.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25||0.2003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.13|0.89|||ANCOVA||Change from baseline to last available observation in IOP was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with fixed effect for treatment group with baseline IOP value as covariate.|\<5 years||0.89|-4.13|0.2003
91004303|NCT03934203|181891939|OTHER|T-Test based on the results of the MMRM (fitted to the data for all timepoints). The null hypothesis was 'The mean difference in the QTcF changes from baseline between moxifloxacin and placebo is less than or equal to 5 milliseconds at 3 hours after drug administration.'|Difference of adjusted means|11.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||3e-08|TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.3|12.8||The corresponding alpha-level according to Hochberg's adjustment for mulitplicity was 0.0250.|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood estimation and Kenward-Roger method to adjust standard errors and estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference of adjusted means was calculated as moxifloxacin - placebo.|MMRM was fitted to the observations for moxifloxacin and the 2 placebo periods. MMRM with covariates 'period baseline', 'participant baseline' (=arithmetic mean of respective period baselines), fixed categorical effects 'treatment', 'period', and 'time', interaction terms 'period baseline-by-time', 'participant baseline-by-time', 'treatment-by-time', and 'period-by-time', 'participant' (random effect), and time within period as repeated measures per participant (covariance matrix=Unstructured).||12.8|9.3|0.00000003
91007442|NCT01265719|181899004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|1.39|||ANCOVA||Change from baseline to last available observation in IOP was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with fixed effect for treatment group with baseline IOP value as covariate.|5 to \<18 years (IOP \<21mmHg at Baseline)||1.39|-1.59|0.8940
91007443|NCT01265719|181899004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-6.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.41||0.0184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.95|-1.36|||ANCOVA|The results were interpreted with caution because of the very small sample size of non-PG treatment group (n=4).|Change from baseline to last available observation in IOP was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with fixed effect for treatment group with baseline IOP value as covariate.|5 to \<18 years (IOP ≥21mmHg at Baseline)||-1.36|-11.95|0.0184
91007444|NCT01265719|181899005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|1.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.97|15.9|||Fisher Exact|||||15.90|-13.97|>0.999
91004304|NCT03934203|181891940|OTHER|T-Test based on the results of the MMRM (fitted to the data for all timepoints). The null hypothesis was 'The mean difference in the QTcF changes from baseline between moxifloxacin and placebo is less than or equal to 5 milliseconds at 4 hours after drug administration.'|Difference of adjusted means|10.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||2e-07|TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.9|12.4||The corresponding alpha-level according to Hochberg's adjustment for mulitplicity was 0.050.|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood estimation and Kenward-Roger method to adjust standard errors and estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference of adjusted means was calculated as moxifloxacin - placebo.|MMRM was fitted to the observations for moxifloxacin and the 2 placebo periods. MMRM with covariates 'period baseline', 'participant baseline' (=arithmetic mean of respective period baselines), fixed categorical effects 'treatment', 'period', and 'time', interaction terms 'period baseline-by-time', 'participant baseline-by-time', 'treatment-by-time', and 'period-by-time', 'participant' (random effect), and time within period as repeated measures per participant (covariance matrix=Unstructured).||12.4|8.9|0.00000020
91004305|NCT03934203|181891941|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Difference of adjusted means|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.4|3.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood estimation and Kenward-Roger method to adjust standard errors and estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Maximum difference of adjusted means was calculated as BI 409306 - placebo at 20 minutes after drug intake.|MMRM was fitted to observations for 50 mg BI 409306 and the 2 placebo periods. MMRM with covariates 'period baseline', 'participant baseline' (=arithmetic mean of respective period baselines), fixed categorical effects 'treatment', 'period', and 'time', interaction terms 'period baseline-by-time', 'participant baseline-by-time', 'treatment-by-time', and 'period-by-time', 'participant' (random effect), and time within period as repeated measures per participant (covariance matrix=Unstructured).||3.3|1.4|
91004306|NCT03934203|181891942|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Difference of adjusted means|11.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|10.6|12.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood estimation and Kenward-Roger method to adjust standard errors and estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Maximum difference of adjusted means was calculated as BI 409306 - placebo at 40 minutes after drug intake.|MMRM was fitted to observations for 250 mg BI 409306 and the 2 placebo periods. MMRM with covariates 'period baseline', 'participant baseline' (=arithmetic mean of respective period baselines), fixed categorical effects 'treatment', 'period', and 'time', interaction terms 'period baseline-by-time', 'participant baseline-by-time', 'treatment-by-time', and 'period-by-time', 'participant' (random effect), and time within period as repeated measures per participant (covariance matrix=Unstructured).||12.8|10.6|
91004307|NCT03934203|181891943|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Difference of adjusted means|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.3|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood estimation and Kenward-Roger method to adjust standard errors and estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Minimum difference of adjusted means was calculated as BI 409306 - placebo at 24 hours after drug intake.|MMRM was fitted to observations for 50 mg BI 409306 and the 2 placebo periods. MMRM with covariates 'period baseline', 'participant baseline' (=arithmetic mean of respective period baselines), fixed categorical effects 'treatment', 'period', and 'time', interaction terms 'period baseline-by-time', 'participant baseline-by-time', 'treatment-by-time', and 'period-by-time', 'participant' (random effect), and time within period as repeated measures per participant (covariance matrix=Unstructured).||-0.1|-2.3|
91004308|NCT03934203|181891944|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Difference of adjusted means|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.3|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood estimation and Kenward-Roger method to adjust standard errors and estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Minimum difference of adjusted means was calculated as BI 409306 - placebo at 12 hours after drug intake.|MMRM was fitted to observations for 250 mg BI 409306 and the 2 placebo periods. MMRM with covariates 'period baseline', 'participant baseline' (=arithmetic mean of respective period baselines), fixed categorical effects 'treatment', 'period', and 'time', interaction terms 'period baseline-by-time', 'participant baseline-by-time', 'treatment-by-time', and 'period-by-time', 'participant' (random effect), and time within period as repeated measures per participant (covariance matrix=Unstructured).||1.3|-1.3|
91004309|NCT02512276|181891949|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|6.4||||||||6.4|3.0|
91004310|NCT02512276|181891950|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.22||||||||1.22|0.91|
91004311|NCT02512276|181891951|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.28||||||||1.28|0.94|
91004312|NCT02512276|181891952|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.85||||||||0.85|0.45|
91004313|NCT02512276|181891953|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.36||||||||1.36|0.91|
91004314|NCT02512276|181891954|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.34||||||||1.34|0.78|
91004315|NCT00118404|181891967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.079|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.34|||Log Rank|log-rank chi-square = 0.038, df = 1, p \<=.42|Hazard ratio for relapse in C-CT group compared to that in the fluoxetine group.|The sample size was based on a predicted 30% difference in relapse/recurrence rates between C-CT and fluoxetine (ie,30% vs 60%) across both the experimental phase and the first 12 months of follow-up. With these assumptions, 180 randomized patients (60 per cell) were required to detect a statistically significant difference using a log-rank test with 1-sided α = 0.05 and 80% power.||2.34|0.50|.42
91004316|NCT00118404|181891967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.481|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.01|||Log Rank|log-rank chi-square = 3.92, df = 1|Hazard Ratio for relapse in fluoxetine group compared to that in the pill placebo group.|||1.01|.23|.02
91004317|NCT00118404|181891967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.519|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.06|||Log Rank|log-rank chi-square = 3.391, df = 1|Hazard ratio for relapse in C-CT group compared to that in the placebo group.|||1.06|0.26|.03
91004318|NCT00118404|181891967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.501|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.93|||Log Rank|log-rank chi-square = 5.06, df = 1|Hazard ratio for relapse in active treatment group (fluoxetine or C-CT) compared to that in the placebo group.|||0.93|0.27|.01
91004319|NCT00118404|181891968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.988|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.76|||Log Rank|log-rank chi-square = 0.002, df = 1|Hazard ratio for relapse/recurrence in the C-CT group compared to that in the fluoxetine group.|||1.76|0.55|.48
91004320|NCT00118404|181891968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.717|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.31|||Log Rank|Chi-square = 1.19, df = 1|Hazard ratio of relapse/recurrence in the Fluoxetine arm over the 20 months of follow-up since randomization compared to the pill placebo arm.|||1.31|.39|.14
91004321|NCT00118404|181891968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.715|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.29|||Log Rank|chi-square = 1.262, df = 1|Hazard ratio of relapse/recurrence in the C-CT arm over the 20 months of follow-up since randomization compared to the pill placebo arm.|||1.29|.40|.13
91004322|NCT00118404|181891968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.717|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.2|||Log Rank|Chi-square = 1.595, df = 1|Hazard of relapse/recurrence in the active treatment (FLX or C-CT) arm compared to PBO (placebo)arm.|||1.20|.43|.10
91004323|NCT00118404|181891969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.075|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.84|||Log Rank|chi-square = .07, df = 1|Hazard of relapse/recurrence for C-CT arm compared to FLX arm was reported.|||1.84|.63|.40
91004324|NCT00118404|181891969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.649|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.13|||Log Rank|chi-square = 2.407, df = 1|Hazard of relapse/recurrence in the FLX arm compared tp C-CT arm was reported.|||1.13|.37|.61
91004325|NCT00118404|181891969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.701|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.19|||Log Rank|chi-square = 1.731, df = 1|Hazard of relapse/recurrence in the C-CT arm compared to PBO arm is reported.|||1.19|.41|.09
91004326|NCT00118404|181891969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio, log|0.676|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.08|||Log Rank|chi-square = 2.705, df = 1|Hazard of relapse/recurrence in the active treatment (FLX or C-CT) arm compared to PBO arm was reported.|||1.08|.42|.05
91004327|NCT00880607|181891973|OTHER|Wilcoxon rank-sum test because the outcome variable was found to have a skewed distribution.|Median Difference (Final Values)|7.7||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|21.2||Hodges-Lehmanne estimation method|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Hodges-Lehmanne estimation method|||21.2|-5.8|.27
91004328|NCT00880607|181891974|OTHER|Log-rank test in Kaplan-Meier used.||||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||.42
91004329|NCT00880607|181891976|OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.08
91049229|NCT04295135|181983911|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.008|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||A multi-level linear probability model that included patient demographics, clinician random effects, and indicator variables for (a) site; (b) treatment and control clinicians; and (c) pre-/post-OneSheet access.|Regression, Linear|Model also included an interaction term for treatment and post-OneSheet access.|The coefficient estimates the causal effect of OneSheet on our outcomes. Unit of analysis was patient visit.|||||<0.01
91049230|NCT04295135|181983912|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.006|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||A multi-level linear probability model that included patient demographics, clinician random effects, and indicator variables for (a) site; (b) treatment and control clinicians; and (c) pre-/post-OneSheet access.|Regression, Linear|Model also included an interaction term for treatment and post-OneSheet access.|The coefficient estimates the causal effect of OneSheet on our outcomes. Unit of analysis was patient visit.|||||>0.05
91004330|NCT00880607|181891977|OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.30
91004331|NCT00880607|181891978|OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.07
91004332|NCT00880607|181891979|OTHER|||||||0.31|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.31
91004333|NCT02092324|181891999|SUPERIORITY|1-proportion test for greater than 10% difference.||||||0.002||||||p-value for Protocol-defined objective response|binomial|||Proportion estimated using Clopper-Pearson method. P-value is one-sided proportion test for greater than 10% response rate (based on Simon's 2-stage).||||0.002
91004334|NCT02092324|181891999|SUPERIORITY|1-proportion test for greater than 10% difference||||||0.9||||||p-value is for IWG-defined objective response|binomial|||Proportion estimated using Clopper-Pearson method. P-value is one-sided proportion test for greater than 10% response rate (based on Simon's 2-stage).||||0.90
91004335|NCT02092324|181892002|SUPERIORITY|Proportion estimated using Clopper-Pearson method. P-value is one-sided proportion test for greater than 10% response rate.|||||<|0.0001||||||p-value for protocol-defined objective response. p-value for IWG-defined objective response is 0.70|Clopper-Pearson method|||||||<0.0001
91004336|NCT02092324|181892002|SUPERIORITY|Proportion estimated using Clopper-Pearson method. P-value is one-sided proportion test for greater than 10% response rate.||||||0.7||||||p-value for IWG-defined objective response|Clopper-Pearson method|||||||0.70
91004337|NCT02092324|181892012|EQUIVALENCE|2-sample test for equality of proportions with continuity correction (Pearson's chi-square test statistic)||||||0.003||||||p-value for protocol-defined objective response.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||2-sample test for equality of proportions with continuity correction (Pearson's chi-square test statistic) comparing Wildtype and Mutant CSF3R status for protocol-defined objective response||||0.003
91004338|NCT02092324|181892012|EQUIVALENCE|2-sample test for equality of proportions with continuity correction (Pearson's chi-square)||||||0.1||||||p-value for IWG-defined objective response = 0.1|Fisher Exact|||2-sample test for equality of proportions with continuity correction (Pearson's chi-square test statistic) comparing Wildtype and Mutant CSF3R status for IWG-defined objective response||||0.1
91007445|NCT01265719|181899006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-0.4|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.32|14.55|||Fisher Exact|||||14.55|-15.32|>0.999
91007446|NCT01265719|181899007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|1.2|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.78|16.09|||Fisher Exact|||||16.09|-13.78|>0.999
91004339|NCT00499460|181892026|SUPERIORITY|The primary hypothesis being tested is that garlic powder treatment increases metabolic clearance of oxycodone through enzyme induction and results in lower exposure to oxycodone.|||||>|0.05||||||Significance probability for the treatment variable in the Generalized Linear Model|Generalized Estimating Equations|Response variable is oxycodone oral clearance. Explanatory variables include treatment, period and gender, along with their interaction terms.||||||>0.05
91004340|NCT00499460|181892027|SUPERIORITY|The secondary hypothesis being tested is that powder garlic treatment lowers Cold Pressor Test tolerance (i.e., diminished analgesic response) after oxycodone administration due to a more rapid metabolic clearance and lower exposure to oxycodone.|||||>|0.05||||||Significance probability for the treatment variable in the Generalized Linear Model|Generalized Estimating Equations|Response variable is log Tolerance AUC. Explanatory variables include treatment, period and gender, along with their interaction terms.||||||>0.05
91004341|NCT00499460|181892028|SUPERIORITY|The secondary hypothesis being tested is that garlic powder treatment lowers opioid side effects after oxycodone administration due to a more rapid metabolic clearance and lower exposure to oxycodone.|||||>|0.05||||||Significance probability for the treatment variable in the Generalized Linear Model|Generalized Estimating Equations|Response variable is total SSE rating score. Explanatory variables include treatment, period, time and gender, along with their interaction terms.||||||>0.05
91004342|NCT00499460|181892029|SUPERIORITY|The secondary hypothesis being tested is that garlic powder treatment lowers opioid side effects after oxycodone administration due to a more rapid metabolic clearance and lower exposure to oxycodone.|||||>|0.05||||||Significance probability for the treatment variable in the Generalized Linear Model|Generalized Estimating Equations|Response variable is total CASE rating score. Explanatory variables include treatment, period, time and gender, along with their interaction terms.||||||>0.05
91004343|NCT00499460|181892030|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Garlic powder versus placebo||The secondary hypothesis being tested is that garlic powder induces CYP3A-mediated metabolism resulting in a lower oral midazolam AUC.||||>0.05
91004344|NCT00499460|181892031|SUPERIORITY|The secondary hypothesis being tested is that garlic powder treatment induces intestinal P-glycoprotein, reduces the bioavailability and hence AUC of orally administered digoxin.|||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Garlic powder versus placebo||||||>0.05
91004345|NCT01256918|181892033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||incidence|0.0|||>|0.05|||||||incidence|||"Any occurence of posterior capsular rupture in attempted vertical chop would have been an indicator of overzealous penetration as the vertical chop even though effective would not have been safe.~We hypothesised that use of callibrated phacotip after careful preoperative assessment for performing vertical chop during phacoemulsification is not associated with any posterior capsular rupture we noted any incidence of posterior capsular rupture."||||>0.05
91004346|NCT01256918|181892034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||pearson correlation coefficient|0.850958|||<|0.05|||||||pearson correlation coefficient|||null hypothesis : there is no correlation between nuclear colour and phacodepth required for a full thickness crack during a vertical chop||||<0.05
91004347|NCT01256918|181892035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||pearson correlation coefficient|0.842617|||<|0.05|||||||pearson correlation coefficient|||"Null hypothesis:~there is no correlation between nuclear opalescence and phacodepth required to achieve full thickness nuclear crack using a callibrated phacotip."||||<0.05
91004348|NCT01256918|181892036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||pearson correlation coefficient|0.111166|||>|0.05|||||||pearson correlation coefficient|||null hypothesis there is no correlation between lens thickness and penetration of phacotip (phacodepth)required to achieve full thickness crack in vertical chop during phacoemulsification||||>0.05
91004349|NCT03073200|181892041|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|63.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.0|76.4|||Fisher Exact|||||76.4|51.0|<0.001
91004350|NCT03073200|181892042|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|70.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.3|81.0|||Fisher Exact|||||81|59.3|<0.001
91004351|NCT03073200|181892043|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|72.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.3|82.5|||Fisher Exact|||||82.5|63.3|<0.001
91004352|NCT03073200|181892044|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|50.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.6|60.2|||Fisher Exact|||||60.2|40.6|<0.001
91004353|NCT03073200|181892045|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|47.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.0|57.6|||Fisher Exact|||||57.6|38.0|<0.001
91004354|NCT03073200|181892046|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|45.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.2|56.8|||Fisher Exact|||||56.8|33.2|<0.001
91004355|NCT03073200|181892047|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|40.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.3|52.0|||Fisher Exact|||||52.0|29.3|<0.001
91004356|NCT03073200|181892048|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|51.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.3|66.9|||Fisher Exact|||||66.9|35.3|<0.001
91004357|NCT03073200|181892049|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|41.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.0|55.2|||Fisher Exact|||||55.2|27.0|<0.001
91004358|NCT03073200|181892050|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.747||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.7|-5.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.38|-28.70|0.005
91004359|NCT03073200|181892051|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.682|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.69|-12.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-12.04|-18.69|<0.001
91004360|NCT03073200|181892052|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.853||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.11|-3.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.90|-20.11|0.006
91004361|NCT03073200|181892055|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.9||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|41.7|||Fisher Exact|||||41.7|0.1|0.089
91004362|NCT03073200|181892056|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.0||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|45.4|||Fisher Exact|||||45.4|0.6|0.070
91004363|NCT00887822|181892071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.8636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.41|||Log Rank|The difference in distribution of survival between the two treatment arms was tested with a two-sided unstratified log-rank test.|The hazard ratio between the two treatment arms was estimated with a univariate Cox's proportional hazards model.|||1.41|0.75|0.8636
91004364|NCT00887822|181892073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.4709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.21|||Log Rank|The difference in distribution of progression-free survival between the two treatment arms was tested with a two-sided unstratified log-rank test.|The hazard ratio between the two treatment arms was estimated with a univariate Cox's proportional hazards model.|||1.21|0.66|0.4709
91004365|NCT00887822|181892075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.3685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.22|||Log Rank|The difference in distribution of progression-free survival between the two treatment arms was tested with a two-sided unstratified log-rank test.|The hazard ratio between the two treatment arms was estimated with a univariate Cox's proportional hazards model.|||1.22|0.58|0.3685
91007447|NCT01265719|181899009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|1.6||||0.6414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.39|16.48|||Fisher Exact|||||16.48|-13.39|0.6414
91007448|NCT01265719|181899010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.2437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|1.65|||ANCOVA||Change from baseline to last available observation in longest lash length (LLL) was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with fixed effect for treatment group with baseline LLL value as covariate.|\<5 years||1.65|-0.43|0.2437
91004366|NCT00887822|181892077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.8589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.41|||Log Rank|The difference in distribution of disease progression between the two treatment arms was tested with a two-sided unstratified log-rank test.|The hazard ratio between the two treatment arms was estimated with a univariate Cox's proportional hazards model.|||1.41|0.67|0.8589
91004367|NCT00887822|181892078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Response Rates|7.02||||0.348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|22.4|||Chi-squared||Approximate 95% CI for difference of two rates using Hauck-Anderson method|||22.4|-8.3|0.3480
91004368|NCT00887822|181892079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53||||0.0462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.0|||Log Rank|The difference in distribution of response between the two treatment arms was tested with a two-sided unstratified log-rank test.|The hazard ratio between the two treatment arms was estimated with a univariate Cox's proportional hazards model.|||1.00|0.29|0.0462
91004369|NCT00887822|181892080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Disease Control Rates|0.45||||0.9426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|13.3|||Chi-squared||Approximate 95% CI for difference of two rates using Hauck-Anderson method|||13.3|-12.4|0.9426
91004370|NCT02045979|181892084|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|PK similarity of the two treatments was to be concluded if the 90% CI for the ratio of adjusted geometric means was within 80.00 - 125.00 percent (%).|ratio of the geometric means|108.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.5|119.79|||||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the logarithmic scale with fixed effects for treatment and trial site as well as age (as recorded at the time of informed consent) and body weight (as recorded at baseline) as continuous covariates.|||119.79|98.50|
91004371|NCT02045979|181892084|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|PK similarity of the two treatments was to be concluded if the 90% CI for the ratio of adjusted geometric means was within 80.00 - 125.00 %.|ratio of the geometric means|101.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.45|110.94|||||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the logarithmic scale with fixed effects for treatment and trial site as well as age (as recorded at the time of informed consent) and body weight (as recorded at baseline) as continuous covariates.|||110.94|92.45|
91004372|NCT02045979|181892084|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|PK similarity of the two treatments was to be concluded if the 90% CI for the ratio of adjusted geometric means was within 80.00 - 125.00 %.|ratio of the geometric means|94.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.01|102.78|||||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the logarithmic scale with fixed effects for treatment and trial site as well as age (as recorded at the time of informed consent) and body weight (as recorded at baseline) as continuous covariates.|||102.78|86.01|
91004373|NCT02045979|181892085|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|PK similarity of the two treatments was to be concluded if the 90% CI for the ratio of adjusted geometric means was within 80.00 - 125.00 %.|ratio of the geometric means|107.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.49|116.94|||||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the logarithmic scale with fixed effects for treatment and trial site as well as age (as recorded at the time of informed consent) and body weight (as recorded at baseline) as continuous covariates.|||116.94|98.49|
91004374|NCT02045979|181892085|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|PK similarity of the two treatments was to be concluded if the 90% CI for the ratio of adjusted geometric means was within 80.00 - 125.00 %.|ratio of the geometric means|99.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.15|108.37|||||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the logarithmic scale with fixed effects for treatment and trial site as well as age (as recorded at the time of informed consent) and body weight (as recorded at baseline) as continuous covariates.|||108.37|92.15|
91004375|NCT02045979|181892085|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|PK similarity of the two treatments was to be concluded if the 90% CI for the ratio of adjusted geometric means was within 80.00 - 125.00 %.|ratio of the geometric means|93.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.76|101.11|||||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the logarithmic scale with fixed effects for treatment and trial site as well as age (as recorded at the time of informed consent) and body weight (as recorded at baseline) as continuous covariates.|||101.11|86.76|
91004376|NCT02045979|181892086|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|PK similarity of the two treatments was to be concluded if the 90% CI for the ratio of adjusted geometric means was within 80.00 - 125.00 %.|ratio of the geometric means|100.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.15|106.88|||||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the logarithmic scale with fixed effects for treatment and trial site as well as age (as recorded at the time of informed consent) and body weight (as recorded at baseline) as continuous covariates.|||106.88|95.15|
91004377|NCT02045979|181892086|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|PK similarity of the two treatments was to be concluded if the 90% CI for the ratio of adjusted geometric means was within 80.00 - 125.00 %.|ratio of the geometric means|96.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.06|102.03|||||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the logarithmic scale with fixed effects for treatment and trial site as well as age (as recorded at the time of informed consent) and body weight (as recorded at baseline) as continuous covariates.|||102.03|91.06|
91004378|NCT02045979|181892086|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|PK similarity of the two treatments was to be concluded if the 90% CI for the ratio of adjusted geometric means was within 80.00 - 125.00 %.|ratio of the geometric means|95.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.83|101.33|||||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the logarithmic scale with fixed effects for treatment and trial site as well as age (as recorded at the time of informed consent) and body weight (as recorded at baseline) as continuous covariates.|||101.33|90.83|
91004379|NCT02045979|181892087|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing; two-sided 90% Confidence Interval (CI) for the ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated.|ratio of the geometric means|98.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.54|105.55|||||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the logarithmic scale with fixed effects for treatment and trial site as well as age (as recorded at the time of informed consent) and body weight (as recorded at baseline) as continuous covariates.|||105.55|91.54|
91004380|NCT02045979|181892087|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing; two-sided 90% CI for the ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated.|ratio of the geometric means|96.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.27|103.36|||||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the logarithmic scale with fixed effects for treatment and trial site as well as age (as recorded at the time of informed consent) and body weight (as recorded at baseline) as continuous covariates.|||103.36|89.27|
91004381|NCT02045979|181892087|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing; two-sided 90% CI for the ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated.|ratio of the geometric means|98.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.42|105.27|||||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the logarithmic scale with fixed effects for treatment and trial site as well as age (as recorded at the time of informed consent) and body weight (as recorded at baseline) as continuous covariates.|||105.27|91.42|
91004382|NCT02045979|181892088|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing; two-sided 90% CI for the ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated.|ratio of the geometric means|99.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.66|105.94|||||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the logarithmic scale with fixed effects for treatment and trial site as well as age (as recorded at the time of informed consent) and body weight (as recorded at baseline) as continuous covariates.|||105.94|93.66|
91004383|NCT02045979|181892088|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing; two-sided 90% CI for the ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated.|ratio of the geometric means|97.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.39|103.35|||||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the logarithmic scale with fixed effects for treatment and trial site as well as age (as recorded at the time of informed consent) and body weight (as recorded at baseline) as continuous covariates.|||103.35|91.39|
91004384|NCT02045979|181892088|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing; two-sided 90% CI for the ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated.|ratio of the geometric means|97.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.58|103.68|||||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the logarithmic scale with fixed effects for treatment and trial site as well as age (as recorded at the time of informed consent) and body weight (as recorded at baseline) as continuous covariates.|||103.68|92.58|
91004385|NCT02045979|181892089|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing; two-sided 90% CI for the ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated.|ratio of the geometric means|101.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.45|107.36|||||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the logarithmic scale with fixed effects for treatment and trial site as well as age (as recorded at the time of informed consent) and body weight (as recorded at baseline) as continuous covariates.|||107.36|95.45|
91004386|NCT02045979|181892089|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing; two-sided 90% CI for the ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated.|ratio of the geometric means|98.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.27|104.72|||||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the logarithmic scale with fixed effects for treatment and trial site as well as age (as recorded at the time of informed consent) and body weight (as recorded at baseline) as continuous covariates.|||104.72|93.27|
91004387|NCT02045979|181892089|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing; two-sided 90% CI for the ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated.|ratio of the geometric means|98.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.15|103.11|||||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the logarithmic scale with fixed effects for treatment and trial site as well as age (as recorded at the time of informed consent) and body weight (as recorded at baseline) as continuous covariates.|||103.11|93.15|
91004388|NCT02045979|181892090|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing; two-sided 90% CI for the ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated.|ratio of the geometric means|103.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.47|110.29|||||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the logarithmic scale with fixed effects for treatment and trial site as well as age (as recorded at the time of informed consent) and body weight (as recorded at baseline) as continuous covariates.|||110.29|97.47|
91004389|NCT02045979|181892090|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing; two-sided 90% CI for the ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated.|ratio of the geometric means|100.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.37|106.29|||||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the logarithmic scale with fixed effects for treatment and trial site as well as age (as recorded at the time of informed consent) and body weight (as recorded at baseline) as continuous covariates.|||106.29|94.37|
91004390|NCT02045979|181892090|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing; two-sided 90% CI for the ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated.|ratio of the geometric means|97.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.07|102.24|||||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the logarithmic scale with fixed effects for treatment and trial site as well as age (as recorded at the time of informed consent) and body weight (as recorded at baseline) as continuous covariates.|||102.24|92.07|
91004391|NCT02045979|181892091|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing; two-sided 90% CI for the ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated.|ratio of the geometric means|106.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.07|114.63|||||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the logarithmic scale with fixed effects for treatment and trial site as well as age (as recorded at the time of informed consent) and body weight (as recorded at baseline) as continuous covariates.|||114.63|99.07|
91004392|NCT02045979|181892091|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing; two-sided 90% CI for the ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated.|ratio of the geometric means|100.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.24|108.12|||||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the logarithmic scale with fixed effects for treatment and trial site as well as age (as recorded at the time of informed consent) and body weight (as recorded at baseline) as continuous covariates.|||108.12|94.24|
91004393|NCT02045979|181892091|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing; two-sided 90% CI for the ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated.|ratio of the geometric means|95.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.53|101.6|||||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the logarithmic scale with fixed effects for treatment and trial site as well as age (as recorded at the time of informed consent) and body weight (as recorded at baseline) as continuous covariates.|||101.60|89.53|
91007449|NCT01265719|181899010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.5199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.43|||ANCOVA||Change from baseline to last available observation in LLL was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with fixed effect for treatment group with baseline LLL value as covariate.|5 to \<18 years||0.43|-0.85|0.5199
91007450|NCT01265719|181899011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-2.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.54||0.8643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.3|28.94|||ANCOVA||Change from baseline to last available observation in corneal thickness was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with fixed effect for treatment group with baseline corneal thickness value as covariate.|\<5 years||28.94|-34.30|0.8643
91004394|NCT02045979|181892092|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing; two-sided 90% CI for the ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated.|ratio of the geometric means|108.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.54|119.9|||||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the logarithmic scale with fixed effects for treatment and trial site as well as age (as recorded at the time of informed consent) and body weight (as recorded at baseline) as continuous covariates.|||119.90|98.54|
91004395|NCT02045979|181892092|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing; two-sided 90% CI for the ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated.|ratio of the geometric means|101.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.51|111.05|||||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the logarithmic scale with fixed effects for treatment and trial site as well as age (as recorded at the time of informed consent) and body weight (as recorded at baseline) as continuous covariates.|||111.05|92.51|
91004396|NCT02045979|181892092|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing; two-sided 90% CI for the ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated.|ratio of the geometric means|94.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.01|102.82|||||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the logarithmic scale with fixed effects for treatment and trial site as well as age (as recorded at the time of informed consent) and body weight (as recorded at baseline) as continuous covariates.|||102.82|86.01|
91004397|NCT00425945|181892132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|14.9||||||||14.9|-0.1|
91004398|NCT00425945|181892133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|10.8||||||||10.8|-2.1|
91004399|NCT00425945|181892134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|2.5||||||||2.5|-1.7|
91004400|NCT00425945|181892135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|18.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|38.7||||||||38.7|-2.3|
91004401|NCT00425945|181892136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.3||||||||0.3|-0.1|
91004402|NCT00425945|181892137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.1||||||||0.1|-0.0|
91004403|NCT00425945|181892138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|0.5||||||||0.5|-6.8|
91004404|NCT00425945|181892139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.5||||||||0.5|-1.5|
91004405|NCT00425945|181892140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.4||||||||0.4|0.0|
91004406|NCT00425945|181892141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.4||||||||2.4|0.1|
91004407|NCT00425945|181892142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|2.3||||||||2.3|-4.4|
91004408|NCT00425945|181892143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|2.5||||||||2.5|-0.9|
91004409|NCT00425945|181892144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1||||||||0.1|-0.1|
91004410|NCT00425945|181892145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|9.3||||||||9.3|-1.6|
91004411|NCT00425945|181892146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|0.8||||||||0.8|-3.4|
91004412|NCT05618808|181892164|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Odds Ratio|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.47|1.32|||||REGN9933 vs Enoxaparin||"Bayesian Logistic Regression; Confidence Interval refers to Credible Interval"|1.32|0.47|
91004413|NCT05618808|181892167|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Odds Ratio|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.16|1.61|||||REGN9933 vs Enoxaparin||"Bayesian Logistic Regression; Confidence Interval refers to Credible Interval"|1.61|0.16|
91004414|NCT05618808|181892168|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Odds Ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.47|1.32|||||REGN9933 vs Enoxaparin||"Bayesian Logistic Regression; Confidence Interval refers to Credible Interval"|1.32|0.47|
91004415|NCT05618808|181892174|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Odds Ratio|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.32|0.95|||||Enoxaparin vs Apixaban||"Bayesian Logistic Regression; Confidence Interval refers to Credible Interval"|0.95|0.32|
91004416|NCT02365506|181892175|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-7.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.92||0.358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.0|10.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|p-value is from a mixed model with fixed effect for treatment, day, and treatment by day with baseline daytime QTcF as a covariate.|Least Square mean (LSM) and 95% confidence interval (CI) is from a mixed model with fixed effect for treatment, day, and treatment by day with baseline daytime QTcF as a covariate.|||10.5|-26.0|0.358
91004417|NCT02365506|181892175|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.96||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|16.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|p-value is from a mixed model with fixed effect for treatment, day, and treatment by day with baseline daytime QTcF as a covariate.|LSM and 95% CI are from a mixed model with fixed effect for treatment, day, and treatment by day with baseline daytime QTcF as a covariate.|||16.7|-20.0|0.840
91004418|NCT02365506|181892176|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.83||0.338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.8|7.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|p-value is from a mixed model with fixed effect for treatment, day, and treatment by day with baseline daytime QTcF as a covariate.|LSM and 95% CI are from a mixed model with fixed effect for treatment, day, and treatment by day with baseline daytime QTcF as a covariate.|||7.8|-19.8|0.338
91004419|NCT02365506|181892176|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.21||0.425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|19.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|p-value is from a mixed model with fixed effect for treatment, day, and treatment by day with baseline daytime QTcF as a covariate.|LSM and 95% CI are from a mixed model with fixed effect for treatment, day, and treatment by day with baseline daytime QTcF as a covariate.|||19.9|-9.4|0.425
91004420|NCT02365506|181892177|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-6.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.42||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|3.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|p-value is from a mixed model with fixed effect for treatment, day, and treatment by day with baseline daytime QTcF as a covariate.|LSM and 95% CI are from a mixed model with fixed effect for treatment, day, and treatment by day with baseline daytime QTcF as a covariate.|||3.5|-16.5|0.174
91004421|NCT02365506|181892177|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.28||0.448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|13.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|p-value is from a mixed model with fixed effect for treatment, day, and treatment by day with baseline daytime QTcF as a covariate.|LSM and 95% CI are from a mixed model with fixed effect for treatment, day, and treatment by day with baseline daytime QTcF as a covariate.|||13.1|-6.3|0.448
91004422|NCT02365506|181892178|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|8.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.5||0.339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|29.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|p-value is from a mixed model with fixed effect for treatment, day, and treatment by day with baseline daytime QTcF as a covariate.|LSM and 95% CI are from a mixed model with fixed effect for treatment, day, and treatment by day with baseline daytime QTcF as a covariate.|||29.6|-12.0|0.339
91004423|NCT02365506|181892178|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|12.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|33.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|p-value is from a mixed model with fixed effect for treatment, day, and treatment by day with baseline daytime QTcF as a covariate.|LSM and 95% CI are from a mixed model with fixed effect for treatment, day, and treatment by day with baseline daytime QTcF as a covariate.|||33.4|-7.7|0.178
91004424|NCT02365506|181892179|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.03||0.564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|23.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||23.9|-14.1|0.564
91004425|NCT02365506|181892179|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.38||0.721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|20.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|p-value is from a mixed model with fixed effect for treatment, day, and treatment by day with baseline daytime QTcF as a covariate.|LSM and 95% CI are from a mixed model with fixed effect for treatment, day, and treatment by day with baseline daytime QTcF as a covariate.|||20.2|-14.7|0.721
91004426|NCT01994109|181892225|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91049231|NCT04295135|181983913|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||A multi-level linear probability model that included patient demographics, clinician random effects, and indicator variables for (a) site; (b) treatment and control clinicians; and (c) pre-/post-OneSheet access.|Regression, Linear|Model also included an interaction term for treatment and post-OneSheet access.|The coefficient estimates the causal effect of OneSheet on our outcomes. Unit of analysis was patient visit.|||||<0.01
91004427|NCT01994109|181892225|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91004428|NCT01994109|181892226|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91004429|NCT01994109|181892226|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91004430|NCT02418585|181892255|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square (LS) Means|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.69|=|0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.31|-0.64|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||-0.64|-7.31|=0.020
91004431|NCT02418585|181892256|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square (LS) Means|-3.5|||=|0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.67|-0.26|||ANCOVA|||||-0.26|-6.67|=0.034
91004432|NCT01236768|181892315|EQUIVALENCE|Comparative analysis of AG200-15 and Levora for breakthrough bleeding and/or spotting.||||||0.089|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparative evaluation of AG200-15 and Levora||||0.089
91004433|NCT03949621|181892319|OTHER|Geometric least-squares means (LSMs) were calculated by exponentiating the LSMs derived from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with weight as a covariate. Confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using treatment standard errors from the ANCOVA model and t-statistic for error degrees of freedom.|Ratio of Geometric LSMs|0.9632|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7938|1.1688||||||||1.1688|0.7938|
91004434|NCT03949621|181892320|OTHER|Geometric LSMs were calculated by exponentiating the LSMs derived from ANCOVA with weight as a covariate. CIs were calculated using treatment standard errors from the ANCOVA model and t-statistic for error degrees of freedom.|Ratio of Geometric LSMs|0.9606|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.798|1.1562||||||||1.1562|0.798|
91049232|NCT04295135|181983914|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.003|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||A multi-level linear probability model that included patient demographics, clinician random effects, and indicator variables for (a) site; (b) treatment and control clinicians; and (c) pre-/post-OneSheet access.|Regression, Linear|Model also included an interaction term for treatment and post-OneSheet access.|The coefficient estimates the causal effect of OneSheet on our outcomes. Unit of analysis was patient visit.|||||>0.05
91004435|NCT03949621|181892321|OTHER|Geometric LSMs were calculated by exponentiating the LSMs derived from ANCOVA with weight as a covariate. CIs were calculated using treatment standard errors from the ANCOVA model and t-statistic for error degrees of freedom.|Ratio of Geometric LSMs|1.0162|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9001|1.1473||||||||1.1473|0.9001|
91004436|NCT00605358|181892323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.4||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|4.93|||Chi-squared|||Participants in the Open Door Intervention and the Services Referral condition were compared on rates of engagement in mental health services over the study follow-up period.||4.93|1.17|.018
91004437|NCT01957085|181892325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.04||||||Statistical significance was set at .05 to determine statistical significance.|Chi-squared|||||||=.04
91004438|NCT01957085|181892326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>.05
91004439|NCT01957085|181892327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>.05
91004440|NCT01957085|181892329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>.05
91004441|NCT02148952|181892333|SUPERIORITY|We hypothesized a 15% reduction in the composite outcome between the intervention and control arm.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.18|||Chi-squared, Corrected|In secondary analyses, a Rao-Scott test with 3 degrees of freedom resulted in a p value of 0.88.|Relative risks are for the intervention group as compared with the control group and are adjusted for clustering and matching. The denominators shift owing to missing data on outcomes.|||1.18|0.83|0.90
91004442|NCT02148952|181892334|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.2|||Chi-squared, Corrected||Relative risks are for the intervention group as compared with the control group and are adjusted for clustering and matching. The denominators shift owing to missing data on outcomes.|||1.20|0.89|0.67
91004443|NCT02148952|181892335|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.2|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||1.20|0.89|0.68
91004444|NCT02148952|181892336|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.94||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.16|||Chi-squared, Corrected||Relative risks are for the intervention group as compared with the control group and are adjusted for clustering and matching. The denominators shift owing to missing data on outcomes.|||1.16|0.76|0.56
91004445|NCT02148952|181892337|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.27|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||1.27|0.95|0.19
91004446|NCT02148952|181892338|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.11||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.53|||Chi-squared, Corrected||Relative risks are for the intervention group as compared with the control group and are adjusted for clustering and matching. The denominators shift owing to missing data on outcomes.|||1.53|0.74|0.73
91004447|NCT02148952|181892339|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.97||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.2|||Chi-squared, Corrected||Relative risks are for the intervention group as compared with the control group and are adjusted for clustering and matching. The denominators shift owing to missing data on outcomes.|Rate any severe maternal complication within 7 days||1.20|0.79|0.81
91004448|NCT02148952|181892339|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.89||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.52|||Chi-squared, Corrected||Relative risks are for the intervention group as compared with the control group and are adjusted for clustering and matching. The denominators shift owing to missing data on outcomes.|Rate of seizures||1.52|0.57|0.76
91004449|NCT02148952|181892339|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.41|||Chi-squared, Corrected||Relative risks are for the intervention group as compared with the control group and are adjusted for clustering and matching. The denominators shift owing to missing data on outcomes.|Rate of loss of consciousness for \> 1 hr||1.41|0.70|0.97
91004450|NCT02148952|181892339|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.02||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.38|||Chi-squared, Corrected||Relative risks are for the intervention group as compared with the control group and are adjusted for clustering and matching. The denominators shift owing to missing data on outcomes.|Rate of high fever with foul-smelling vaginal discharge||1.38|0.76|0.90
91004451|NCT02148952|181892339|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.95||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.17|||Chi-squared, Corrected||Relative risks are for the intervention group as compared with the control group and are adjusted for clustering and matching. The denominators shift owing to missing data on outcomes.|Rate of hemorrhage||1.17|0.77|0.61
91004452|NCT02148952|181892339|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.5||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.58|||Chi-squared, Corrected||Relative risks are for the intervention group as compared with the control group and are adjusted for clustering and matching. The denominators shift owing to missing data on outcomes.|Rate of stroke||1.58|0.34|0.41
91004453|NCT02148952|181892340|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.07||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.58|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||1.58|0.72|0.74
91004454|NCT02148952|181892341|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.09||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.47|||Chi-squared, Corrected||Relative risks are for the intervention group as compared with the control group and are adjusted for clustering and matching. The denominators shift owing to missing data on outcomes.|||1.47|0.81|0.57
91004455|NCT02148952|181892342|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.19||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.8|||Chi-squared, Corrected||Relative risks are for the intervention group as compared with the control group and are adjusted for clustering and matching. The denominators shift owing to missing data on outcomes.|||1.80|0.78|0.41
91004456|NCT02148952|181892343|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.13|||Chi-squared, Corrected||Relative risks are for the intervention group as compared with the control group and are adjusted for clustering and matching. The denominators shift owing to missing data on outcomes.|||2.13|0.45|0.95
91004457|NCT02148952|181892344|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.43|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||1.43|0.69|0.97
91004458|NCT02148952|181892345|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.91||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.1|||Chi-squared, Corrected||Relative risks are for the intervention group as compared with the control group and are adjusted for clustering and matching. The denominators shift owing to missing data on outcomes.|||1.10|0.76|0.32
91004459|NCT02148952|181892346|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.92||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.08|||Chi-squared, Corrected||Relative risks are for the intervention group as compared with the control group and are adjusted for clustering and matching. The denominators shift owing to missing data on outcomes.|||1.08|0.78|0.30
91004460|NCT02148952|181892347|SUPERIORITY||Other|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||<0.001
91004461|NCT02148952|181892348|SUPERIORITY||Other|0.0||||0.18|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected||The relative risk could not be calculated owing to 100% or 0% values in one group.|Birth Companion Present||||0.18
91004462|NCT02148952|181892348|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|9.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|28.3|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Maternal blood pressure taken||28.3|3.4|<0.001
91004463|NCT02148952|181892348|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|132.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.9|645.0|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Maternal temperature taken||645|26.9|<0.001
91004464|NCT02148952|181892348|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|7.3||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|35.6|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Partography started||35.6|1.5|0.01
91004465|NCT02148952|181892348|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|413.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.8|2589.0|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Checklist use||2589|65.8|<0.001
91004466|NCT02148952|181892349|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|53.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.1|217.0|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Hand hygiene||217|13.1|<0.001
91004467|NCT02148952|181892349|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.3||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|4.2|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||No oxytocin given before delivery||4.2|1.3|0.007
91004468|NCT02148952|181892349|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|5.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|12.1|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Clean towel available||12.1|2.7|<0.001
91004469|NCT02148952|181892349|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.7|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Clean scissors or blade available||1.7|0.7|0.72
91004470|NCT02148952|181892349|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.0|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Cord tie available||1.0|1.0|0.48
91004471|NCT02148952|181892349|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.1|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Mucus extractor available||1.1|0.9|0.73
91004472|NCT02148952|181892349|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.1|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Neonatal bag and mask available||1.1|0.9|0.56
91004473|NCT02148952|181892349|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.1||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|3.5|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Pads available||3.5|1.3|0.005
91004474|NCT02148952|181892349|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|185.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.7|1738.0|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Checklist use||1738|19.7|<0.001
91004475|NCT02148952|181892350|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|3.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|7.2|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Oxytocin administered||7.2|2.1|<0.001
91004476|NCT02148952|181892350|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.6||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.4|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Neonatal bag used||1.4|0.3|0.25
91004477|NCT02148952|181892350|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.0|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Birth attendant present||1.0|1.0|0.25
91004478|NCT02148952|181892351|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.4|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Newborn weight taken||1.4|0.9|0.25
91004479|NCT02148952|181892351|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|317.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.4|1989.0|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Newborn temperature taken||1989|50.4|<0.001
91004480|NCT02148952|181892351|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|7.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|22.0|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Skin-to-skin care initiated at birth||22.0|2.4|<0.001
91004481|NCT02148952|181892351|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|38.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|194.0|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Skin-to-skin care maintained for 1 hr||194|7.7|<0.001
91004482|NCT02148952|181892351|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|19.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.4|33.2|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Initiation of breast-feeding||33.2|11.4|<0.001
91004483|NCT02148952|181892351|SUPERIORITY||Other|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected||The relative risk could not be calculated owing to 100% or 0% values in one group.|Checklist use||||<0.001
91004484|NCT02148952|181892352|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|182.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.5|993.0|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Maternal temperature taken||993|33.5|<0.001
91004485|NCT02148952|181892352|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|9.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|25.8|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Maternal blood pressure taken||25.8|3.8|<0.001
91004486|NCT02148952|181892352|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.4||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.1|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Mother given magnesium sulfate||2.1|0.1|0.30
91004487|NCT02148952|181892353|SUPERIORITY||Other|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||<0.001
91004488|NCT02148952|181892354|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.0|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Birth companion present||1.0|1.0|1.00
91004489|NCT02148952|181892354|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|19.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.9|46.5|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Maternal blood pressure taken||46.5|7.9|<0.001
91004490|NCT02148952|181892354|SUPERIORITY||Other|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected||The relative risk could not be calculated due to 100% or 0% values in one group.|Maternal temperature taken||||<0.001
91004491|NCT02148952|181892354|SUPERIORITY||Other|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected||The relative risk could not be calculated owing to 100% or 0% values in one group.|Partography started||||<0.001
91004492|NCT02148952|181892354|SUPERIORITY||Other|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected||The relative risk could not be calculated owing to 100% or 0% values in one group.|Checklist use||||<0.001
91004493|NCT02148952|181892355|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|19.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.6|60.4|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Hand hygiene||60.4|6.6|<0.001
91004494|NCT02148952|181892355|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.1||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|4.1|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||No oxytocin given before delivery||4.1|1.0|0.04
91004495|NCT02148952|181892355|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.4||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|4.3|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Clean towel available||4.3|1.3|0.006
91004496|NCT02148952|181892355|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.1|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Clean scissors or blade available||1.1|1.0|0.34
91004497|NCT02148952|181892355|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.0|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Cord tie available||1.0|1.0|0.25
91004498|NCT02148952|181892355|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.1|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Mucus extractor available||1.1|1.0|0.50
91004499|NCT02148952|181892355|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.0|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Neonatal bag and mask available||1.0|1.0|0.32
91004500|NCT02148952|181892355|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.4||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.1|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Pads available||2.1|0.9|0.11
91004501|NCT02148952|181892355|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|37.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.3|196.0|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Checklist available||196|7.3|<0.001
91004502|NCT02148952|181892356|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|3.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|7.5|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Oxytocin administered||7.5|1.8|<0.001
91004503|NCT02148952|181892356|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.6||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.3|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Neonatal bag used||1.3|0.3|0.19
91004504|NCT02148952|181892356|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.0|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Birth companion present||1.0|1.0|0.50
91004505|NCT02148952|181892357|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.3|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Newborn weight taken||1.3|1.0|0.08
91004506|NCT02148952|181892357|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|91.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|758.0|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Newborn temperature taken||758|11.0|<0.001
91004507|NCT02148952|181892357|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|8.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|27.5|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Skin-to-skin care initiated at birth||27.5|2.5|<0.001
91004508|NCT02148952|181892357|SUPERIORITY||Other|0.0||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected||The relative risk could not be calculated owing to 100% or 0% values in one group.|Skin-to-skin care maintained for 1 hr||||0.01
91004509|NCT02148952|181892357|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|7.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|16.7|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Initiation of breast-feeding||16.7|3.7|<0.001
91004510|NCT02148952|181892357|SUPERIORITY||Other|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected||The relative risk could not be calculated owing to 100% or 0% values in one group.|Checklist use||||<0.001
91004511|NCT02148952|181892358|SUPERIORITY||Other|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected||The relative risk could not be calculated owing to 100% or 0% values in one group.|Maternal temperature taken||||<0.001
91004512|NCT02148952|181892358|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|12.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|34.3|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Maternal blood pressure taken||34.3|4.7|<0.001
91004513|NCT02148952|181892358|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|6.6|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Mother given magnesium sulfate||6.6|0.2|0.95
91004514|NCT01899768|181892393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1|1.44|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means = GSK2339345/Placebo.|||1.44|1.10|
91004515|NCT01899768|181892394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|1.19|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means = GSK2339345/Placebo.|||1.19|0.87|
91004516|NCT01899768|181892417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.86|1.75|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means = GSK2339345/Placebo. Estimated value and CI are presented for the mean cough count over 0-4 hr.|||1.75|0.86|
91004517|NCT01899768|181892417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.07|1.72|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means = GSK2339345/Placebo. Estimated value and CI are presented for the mean cough count over 4-8 hr.|||1.72|1.07|
91004518|NCT01899768|181892418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.67|1.4|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means = GSK2339345/Placebo. Estimated value and CI are presented for the mean cough count over 0-4 hr.|||1.40|0.67|
91004519|NCT01899768|181892418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means = GSK2|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.79|1.36|||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|||||1.36|0.79|
91004520|NCT00414973|181892446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76|<|0.0001||95.0|2.89|5.89||There were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Difference = Teriparatide minus Calcitonin|Null hypothesis=no difference between percentage changes from baseline in lumbar spine bone mineral density for female patients receiving teriparatide compared to female patients receiving calcitonin.||5.89|2.89|<0.0001
91004521|NCT00414973|181892447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.9062||95.0|-1.3|1.46|||ANCOVA||Difference = Teriparatide minus Calcitonin|||1.46|-1.30|0.9062
91049233|NCT01300052|181983918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|21.8||||||Difference in percentage was calculated as values of AN2728 Ointment, 2% group minus values of AN2728 Ointment, Vehicle group.||21.8|-14.3|
91004522|NCT00414973|181892448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||P-value for Week 12 Percentage Change.|Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||||||<0.0001
91004523|NCT00414973|181892448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||P-value for Week 24 Percentage Change.|Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||||||<0.0001
91004524|NCT00414973|181892449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2||0.2409||95.0|-1.87|7.13|||ANCOVA||Difference = Teriparatide minus Calcitonin|||7.13|-1.87|0.2409
91004525|NCT00414973|181892450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.6156||95.0|-4.85|2.92|||ANCOVA||Difference = Teriparatide minus Calcitonin|||2.92|-4.85|0.6156
91004526|NCT00414973|181892451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0026||95.0||||P-value for Week 12 Percentage Change.|Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||||||0.0026
91004527|NCT00414973|181892451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006||95.0||||P-value for 24 Week Percentage Change.|Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||||||0.0006
91004528|NCT01925014|181892490|NON_INFERIORITY|Detailed in Ahn S, LOCAT Group. Trials 2014:15:28.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.013|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.008|0.033|||||The non-inferiority was established.|Detailed in Ahn S, LOCAT Group. Trials 2014:15:28.||0.033|-0.008|
91004529|NCT01925014|181892491|NON_INFERIORITY|Detailed in Ahn S, LOCAT Group. Trials 2014:15:28.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.035|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.021|0.091|||||The non-inferiority was established.|Detailed in Ahn S, LOCAT Group. Trials 2014:15:28.||0.091|-0.021|
91004530|NCT04476108|181892543|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|0.32|||Bayesian Mixed Model Analysis||The Bayesian analyses include posterior probabilities instead of p-values, and 95% credible intervals instead of 95% confidence intervals.|||0.32|-1.17|
91004531|NCT04476108|181892544|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|0.35|||Bayesian Mixed Model Analysis||The Bayesian analyses include posterior probabilities instead of p-values, and 95% credible intervals instead of 95% confidence intervals.|||0.35|-1.09|
91004532|NCT04476108|181892545|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.15|||Bayesian Mixed Model Analysis||The Bayesian analyses include posterior probabilities instead of p-values, and 95% credible intervals instead of 95% confidence intervals.|||0.15|-0.69|
91004533|NCT04476108|181892546|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.31|||Bayesian Mixed Model Analysis||The Bayesian analyses include posterior probabilities instead of p-values, and 95% credible intervals instead of 95% confidence intervals.|||0.31|-1.20|
91004534|NCT04476108|181892547|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-2.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.71|6.06|||Bayesian Mixed Model Analysis||The Bayesian analyses include posterior probabilities instead of p-values, and 95% credible intervals instead of 95% confidence intervals.|||6.06|-11.71|
91049234|NCT00767520|181983931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.148|||||||Un-stratified log-rank test|||||||0.148
91049235|NCT02480582|181983975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||Where significant effects were obtained post hoc analyses, with a Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons were conducted.|ANOVA|Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in energy intake between almonds, cheese savouries and no food.||||||<0.01
91049236|NCT02480582|181983976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||Where significant effects were obtained post hoc analyses, with a Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons were conducted.|ANOVA|Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in wanting for high fat foods between almonds, cheese savouries and no food.||||||<0.05
91049237|NCT02480582|181983977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Where significant effects were obtained post hoc analyses, with a Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons were conducted.|ANOVA|Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in hunger AUC between almonds, cheese savouries and no food.||||||<0.001
91049238|NCT02480582|181983978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in energy intake between almonds, cheese savouries and no food.||"Energy intake measured by ad-libitum test meals (breakfast, lunch, dinner) during each intervention condition.~Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in total energy intake between almonds, cheese savouries and no food."||||<0.05
91049239|NCT01901874|181984004|OTHER|"Acceptable performance: favorably exclude PG=16.9% with 95.1% confidence.~Wa = expected weight (proportion) anatomic = 35% Pa = CEA expected anatomic MAE = 11% Wc = expected weight (proportion) comorbid = 65% Pc = CEA expected comorbid MAE = 14% D = noninferiority delta = 4%~PG = 0.35 x 11% + 0.65 x 14% + 4% = 16.9%"|Weighted binomial proportion|0.0448|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0241|<|1e-05|ONE_SIDED|95.1||0.0846||A priori 1-sided alpha = 0.049 (from simulation) to ensure overall type-1 error rate ≤ 0.05.|Binomial test (normal approximation)||Weighted by expected fractions of anatomic and comorbid high risk subjects (35% and 65%, respectively). Standard error based on H0.|"Test null hypothesis of equal or greater proportion with 1-year MAE compared to a performance goal (PG).~H0: P ≥ 16.9% vs H1: P \< 16.9%, where P is the true proportion of CAS subjects with 1-year MAE and 16.9% is the PG based on outcomes reported for patients treated with carotid endarterectomy (CEA).~N=280 subjects provide ≥90% power to exclude PG with 95.1% confidence if P=10.2% under H1."||0.0846||<0.00001
91049240|NCT01901874|181984012|OTHER||Cumulative probability|0.018|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.007|0.047|||||Kaplan-Meier product-limit method (Greenwood's formula for standard error)|||0.047|0.007|
91049241|NCT01901874|181984013|OTHER||Cumulative probability|0.022|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.009|0.052|||||Kaplan-Meier product-limit method (Greenwood's formula for standard error)|||0.052|0.009|
91049242|NCT02025751|181984092|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.597|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.597
91049243|NCT01568866|181984109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.533|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.437|0.651|||Stratified Log Rank|Log rank test stratified by the randomization stratification factors.|The hazard ratio (carfilzomib/bortezomib) was estimated using a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by prior proteasome inhibitor treatment, lines of prior treatment, ISS stage, and choice of route of bortezomib administration.|"The PFS interim analysis was to be performed using a group sequential monitoring plan.~The monitoring plan included an O'Brien-Fleming type of efficacy stopping boundary constructed using the Lan-DeMets alpha spending function to ensure a 1-sided Type I error rate ≤ 0.025."||0.651|0.437|< 0.0001
91049244|NCT01568866|181984110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.791||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.648|0.964||The multiplicity in testing secondary endpoints was adjusted per group using the sequential Holm procedure to preserve the family-wise error rate at 0.025.|Stratified Log Rank|Log rank test stratified by the randomization stratification factors.|The hazard ratio (carfilzomib/bortezomib) was estimated using a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by prior proteasome inhibitor treatment, lines of prior treatment, ISS stage, and choice of route of bortezomib administration.|The second interim analysis of overall survival was to be conducted after 394 events had been reached. A one-sided significance level was determined using the O'Brien-Fleming-type α spending function based on the actual number of events (α=0.0123).||0.964|0.648|0.0100
91049245|NCT01568866|181984111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.032|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.519|2.718||The multiplicity in testing secondary endpoints was adjusted per group using the sequential Holm procedure to preserve the family-wise error rate at 0.025.|Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by the randomization stratification factors.|The odds ratio (carfilzomib/bortezomib) was calculated using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method stratified by prior proteasome inhibitor treatment, lines of prior treatment, ISS stage, and choice of route of bortezomib administration.|||2.718|1.519|< 0.0001
91049246|NCT01568866|181984113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.137|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.089|0.21||The multiplicity in testing secondary endpoints was adjusted per group using the sequential Holm procedure to preserve the family-wise error rate at 0.025.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The odds ratio (carfilzomib/bortezomib) was estimated using the unconditional Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method.|||0.210|0.089|<0.0001
91049247|NCT01698775|181984117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.33||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||||-0.02|-0.63|0.035
91049248|NCT01698775|181984118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|-3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|8.8|||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by renal status stratum.|||8.8|-16.3|
91049249|NCT01698775|181984119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|7.2|||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by renal status stratum.|||7.2|-2.6|
91049250|NCT01698775|181984120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|10.3|||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by renal status stratum.|||10.3|-12.2|
91049251|NCT01698775|181984121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|9.8||||||||9.8|-3.6|
91049252|NCT01698775|181984122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-3.9||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|8.7|||ANCOVA|||||8.7|-16.5|0.540
91049253|NCT01698775|181984125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.4||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|1.9|||cLDA|||||1.9|-2.7|0.720
91049254|NCT03864042|181984127|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.978|1.4|||||Day 1 / Day -7|||1.40|0.978|
91049255|NCT03864042|181984127|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.258|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.215|0.308|||||Day 14 / Day -7|||0.308|0.215|
91004535|NCT04476108|181892548|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.78|||Bayesian Mixed Model Analysis||The Bayesian analyses include posterior probabilities instead of p-values, and 95% credible intervals instead of 95% confidence intervals.|||0.78|-0.09|
91004536|NCT04476108|181892549|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-188.46|187.97|||Bayesian Mixed Model Analysis||The Bayesian analyses include posterior probabilities instead of p-values, and 95% credible intervals instead of 95% confidence intervals.|||187.97|-188.46|
91004537|NCT04476108|181892550|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.1|||Bayesian Mixed Model Analysis||The Bayesian analyses include posterior probabilities instead of p-values, and 95% credible intervals instead of 95% confidence intervals.|||0.10|-0.01|
91004538|NCT00471276|181892551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Objective Response Rate (percent)|8.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|16.6|||Exact 2-sided confidence interval|||||16.6|3.5|
91004539|NCT00471276|181892552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Objective Response Rate (percent)|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.1|19.6|||Exact 2-sided confidence interval|||||19.6|5.1|
91004540|NCT01487863|181892572|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2141|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||||||0.2141
91004541|NCT03787095|181892597|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: There is no change from baseline to post-baseline among participants treated with Cemiplimab. Per the analysis plan, only participants in the Cemiplimab arm are evaluated.||||0.71
91004542|NCT03787095|181892598|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: There is no change from baseline to post-baseline among participants treated with Cemiplimab. Per the analysis plan, only participants in the Cemiplimab arm are evaluated.||||1.00
91004543|NCT03787095|181892599|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: There is no change from baseline to post-baseline among participants treated with Cemiplimab. Per the analysis plan, only participants in the Cemiplimab arm are evaluated.||||0.33
91004544|NCT00814307|181892670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|39.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.12|48.95||A step-down procedure was used to control for multiple comparisons. In order for the comparison to 5 mg to be statistically significant, the comparison to 10 mg had to be statistically significant.|Normal approximation|||Normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the superiority of each dose of CP-690,550 to placebo.||48.95|29.12|<0.0001
91004545|NCT00814307|181892670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|33.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.04|43.13||A step-down procedure was used to control for multiple comparisons. In order for the comparison to 5 mg to be statistically significant, the comparison to 10 mg had to be statistically significant.|Normal approximation|||Normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the superiority of each dose of CP-690,550 to placebo.||43.13|23.04|<0.0001
91004546|NCT00814307|181892671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.27||A step-down procedure was used to control for multiple comparisons. For comparison of 10 mg to placebo to be statistically significant in this measure, comparison of 10 mg to placebo in ACR20 had to be significant.|Linear mixed effect model|||p-value was calculated using linear mixed effect model. The fixed effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction were included, along with participant as random effect.||-0.27|-0.50|<.0001
91004547|NCT00814307|181892671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.2||A step-down procedure was used to control for multiple comparisons. For comparison of 5 mg to placebo to be statistically significant, comparison of 10 mg to placebo and comparison of 5 mg to placebo in ACR20 had to be statistically significant.|Linear mixed effect model|||p-value was calculated using linear mixed effect model. The fixed effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction were included, along with participant as random effect.||-0.20|-0.43|<0.0001
91049256|NCT03864042|181984128|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.998|1.25|||||Day 1 / Day -7|||1.25|0.998|
91004548|NCT00814307|181892672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|5.24||||0.0728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|10.96||A step-down procedure was used to control for multiple comparisons. For comparison of 10 mg to placebo to be statistically significant in this measure, comparison of 10 mg to placebo in HAQ-DI had to be significant.|Normal Approximation|||Normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the superiority of each dose of CP-690550 to placebo.||10.96|-0.49|0.0728
91004549|NCT00814307|181892672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|1.31||||0.6193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.85|6.46||A step-down procedure was used to control for multiple comparisons. For comparison of 5 mg to placebo to be statistically significant, comparison of 10 mg to placebo and comparison of 5 mg to placebo in HAQ-DI had to be statistically significant.|Normal Approximation|||Normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the superiority of each dose of CP-690550 to placebo.||6.46|-3.85|0.6193
91004550|NCT03039192|181892715|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.39||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.56|-1.09|||ANCOVA|||||-1.09|-6.56|0.006
91004551|NCT03277794|181892738|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89||0.354|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Full HOP-C Service (Treatment) vs. Transitional Case Management Only (Control)||||0.354
91004552|NCT03277794|181892738|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.465|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Full HOP-C Service (Treatment) vs. Transitional Case Management Only (Control)||||0.465
91049257|NCT03864042|181984128|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.12|1.4|||||Day 14 / Day -7|||1.40|1.12|
91004553|NCT03277794|181892739|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.159|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Full HOP-C Service (Treatment) vs. Transitional Case Management Only (Control)||||0.159
91004554|NCT03277794|181892739|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Full HOP-C Service (Treatment) vs. Transitional Case Management Only (Control)||||0.200
91004555|NCT03277794|181892740|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.121|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Full HOP-C Service (Treatment) vs. Transitional Case Management Only (Control)||||0.121
91004556|NCT03277794|181892740|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.134|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Full HOP-C Service (Treatment) vs. Transitional Case Management Only (Control)||||0.134
91004557|NCT03277794|181892741|OTHER|||||||0.899||||||Unadjusted.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.899
91004558|NCT03277794|181892741|OTHER|||||||0.128||||||Unadjusted|Regression, Linear|||||||0.128
91004559|NCT03277794|181892742|OTHER|||||||0.198||||||Unadjusted.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.198
91004560|NCT03277794|181892742|OTHER|||||||0.017||||||Unadjusted.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.017
91004561|NCT03277794|181892743|OTHER|||||||0.091||||||Unadjusted.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.091
91004562|NCT03277794|181892743|OTHER|||||||0.591||||||Unadjusted.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.591
91004563|NCT03277794|181892744|OTHER|||||||0.03||||||Unadjusted.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.030
91004564|NCT03277794|181892744|OTHER|||||||0.005||||||Unadjusted.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.005
91004565|NCT03277794|181892745|OTHER|||||||0.163||||||Unadjusted.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.163
91004566|NCT03277794|181892745|OTHER|||||||0.865||||||Unadjusted.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.865
91004567|NCT03277794|181892746|OTHER|||||||0.98||||||Unadjusted.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.980
91004568|NCT03277794|181892746|OTHER|||||||0.758||||||Unadjusted.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.758
91004569|NCT03277794|181892747|OTHER|||||||0.124||||||Unadjusted.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.124
91004570|NCT03277794|181892747|OTHER|||||||0.168||||||Unadjusted.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.168
91004571|NCT03277794|181892748|OTHER|||||||0.436||||||Unadjusted.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.436
91004572|NCT03277794|181892748|OTHER|||||||0.706||||||Unadjusted.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.706
91004573|NCT03277794|181892749|OTHER|||||||0.604||||||Unadjusted.|Regression, Linear|||Internalizing||||0.604
91004574|NCT03277794|181892749|OTHER|||||||0.177||||||Unadjusted.|Regression, Linear|||Internalizing||||0.177
91004575|NCT03277794|181892749|OTHER|||||||0.325||||||Unadjusted.|Regression, Linear|||Externalizing||||0.325
91004576|NCT03277794|181892749|OTHER|||||||0.227||||||Unadjusted.|Regression, Linear|||Externalizing||||0.227
91004577|NCT03277794|181892749|OTHER|||||||0.106||||||Unadjusted.|Regression, Linear|||Substance Use||||0.106
91004578|NCT03277794|181892749|OTHER|||||||0.058||||||Unadjusted.|Regression, Linear|||Substance Use||||0.058
91004579|NCT03277794|181892750|OTHER|||||||0.862||||||Unadjusted.|Regression, Linear|||Emotional Supports||||0.862
91004580|NCT03277794|181892750|OTHER|||||||0.382||||||Unadjusted.|Regression, Linear|||Emotional Supports||||0.382
91004581|NCT03277794|181892750|OTHER|||||||0.68||||||Unadjusted.|Regression, Linear|||Tangible Supports||||0.680
91049258|NCT03864042|181984129|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.12|1.62|||||Day 1 / Day -7|||1.62|1.12|
91049259|NCT03864042|181984129|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.622|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.517|0.748|||||Day 14 / Day -7|||0.748|0.517|
91004582|NCT03277794|181892750|OTHER|||||||0.988||||||Unadjusted.|Regression, Linear|||Tangible Supports||||0.988
91004583|NCT03277794|181892750|OTHER|||||||0.701||||||Unadjusted.|Regression, Linear|||Affectionate||||0.701
91004584|NCT03277794|181892750|OTHER|||||||0.154||||||Unadjusted.|Regression, Linear|||Affectionate||||0.154
91004585|NCT03277794|181892751|OTHER|||||||0.719||||||Unadjusted.|Regression, Linear|||Physical Health||||0.719
91004586|NCT03277794|181892751|OTHER|||||||0.15||||||Unadjusted.|Regression, Linear|||Physical Health||||0.150
91004587|NCT03277794|181892751|OTHER|||||||0.789||||||Unadjusted.|Regression, Linear|||Psychological||||0.789
91004588|NCT03277794|181892751|OTHER|||||||0.811||||||Unadjusted.|Regression, Linear|||Psychological||||0.811
91004589|NCT03277794|181892751|OTHER|||||||0.726||||||Unadjusted.|Regression, Linear|||Social||||0.726
91004590|NCT03277794|181892751|OTHER|||||||0.795||||||Unadjusted.|Regression, Linear|||Social||||0.795
91004591|NCT03277794|181892751|OTHER|||||||0.837||||||Unadjusted.|Regression, Linear|||Environment||||0.837
91004592|NCT03277794|181892751|OTHER|||||||0.048||||||Unadjusted.|Regression, Linear|||Environment||||0.048
91049260|NCT03864042|181984130|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.975|1.23|||||Day 1 / Day -7|||1.23|0.975|
91049261|NCT03864042|181984130|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.16|1.46|||||Day 14 / Day -7|||1.46|1.16|
91049262|NCT03864042|181984131|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.922|1.2|||||Day 1 / Day -7|||1.20|0.922|
91049263|NCT03864042|181984131|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.992|1.29|||||Day 14 / Day -7|||1.29|0.992|
91049264|NCT03864042|181984132|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.99|1.19|||||Day 1 / Day -7|||1.19|0.990|
91049265|NCT03864042|181984132|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.22|||||Day 14 / Day -7|||1.22|1.00|
91049266|NCT03864042|181984133|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.894|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.741|1.08|||||Day 1 / Day -7|||1.08|0.741|
91049267|NCT03864042|181984133|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.692|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.573|0.835|||||Day 14 / Day -7|||0.835|0.573|
91049268|NCT03864042|181984134|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.861|2.04|||||Day 1 / Day -7|||2.04|0.861|
91049269|NCT03864042|181984134|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.659|1.56|||||Day 14 / Day -7|||1.56|0.659|
91049270|NCT03864042|181984135|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.762|1.33|||||Day 1 / Day -7|||1.33|0.762|
91049271|NCT03864042|181984135|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.718|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.543|0.948|||||Day 14 / Day -7|||0.948|0.543|
91049272|NCT03864042|181984136|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|4.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.94|6.4|||||Day 1 / Day -7|||6.40|2.94|
91049273|NCT03864042|181984136|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|2.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.82|3.96|||||Day 14 / Day -7|||3.96|1.82|
91049274|NCT03864042|181984137|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.754|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.595|0.954|||||Day 1 / Day -7|||0.954|0.595|
91049275|NCT03864042|181984137|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.755|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.596|0.957|||||Day 14 / Day -7|||0.957|0.596|
91049276|NCT03864042|181984138|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.864|1.27|||||Day 1 / Day -7|||1.27|0.864|
91049277|NCT03864042|181984138|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.17|1.72|||||Day 14 / Day -7|||1.72|1.17|
91049278|NCT03864042|181984139|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.25|||||Day 1 / Day -7|||1.25|0.920|
91049279|NCT03864042|181984139|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.175|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.151|0.204|||||Day 14 / Day -7|||0.204|0.151|
91049280|NCT03864042|181984140|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.18|1.38|||||Day 1 / Day -7|||1.38|1.18|
91049281|NCT03864042|181984140|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.974|1.14|||||Day 14 / Day -7|||1.14|0.974|
91049282|NCT03864042|181984141|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.09|1.43|||||Day 1 / Day -7|||1.43|1.09|
91049283|NCT03864042|181984141|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.513|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.449|0.587|||||Day 14 / Day -7|||0.587|0.449|
91049284|NCT03864042|181984142|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.17|1.39|||||Day 1 / Day -7|||1.39|1.17|
91049285|NCT03864042|181984142|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.979|1.16|||||Day 14 / Day -7|||1.16|0.979|
91049286|NCT03864042|181984143|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.947|1.26|||||Day 1 / Day -7|||1.26|0.947|
91049287|NCT03864042|181984143|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1|1.46|||||Day 14 / Day -7|||1.46|1.10|
91049288|NCT03864042|181984144|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.02|1.23|||||Day 1 / Day -7|||1.23|1.02|
91049289|NCT03864042|181984144|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.14|1.38|||||Day 14 / Day -7|||1.38|1.14|
91049290|NCT03864042|181984145|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.721|1.12|||||Day 1 / Day -7|||1.12|0.721|
91049291|NCT03864042|181984145|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.679|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.544|0.848|||||Day 14 / Day -7|||0.848|0.544|
91049292|NCT03864042|181984146|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|1.98|||||Day 1 / Day -7|||1.98|0.800|
91049293|NCT03864042|181984146|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.827|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.526|1.3|||||Day 14 / Day -7|||1.30|0.526|
91049294|NCT03864042|181984147|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.688|1.39|||||Day 1 / Day -7|||1.39|0.688|
91049295|NCT03864042|181984147|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.633|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.445|0.9|||||Day 14 / Day -7|||0.900|0.445|
91049296|NCT03864042|181984148|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|2.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.08|3.74|||||Day 1 / Day -7|||3.74|2.08|
91049297|NCT03864042|181984148|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.17|2.11|||||Day 14 / Day -7|||2.11|1.17|
91049298|NCT03864042|181984149|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.769|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.637|0.928|||||Day 1 / Day -7|||0.928|0.637|
91049299|NCT03864042|181984149|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.736|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.61|0.889|||||Day 14 / Day -7|||0.889|0.610|
91049300|NCT03864042|181984150|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.993|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.803|1.23|||||Day 1 / Day -7|||1.23|0.803|
91049301|NCT03864042|181984150|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.2|1.83|||||Day 14 / Day -7|||1.83|1.20|
91049302|NCT03864042|181984151|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.902|2.32|||||Day 1 / Day -7|||2.32|0.902|
91049303|NCT03864042|181984151|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.72|1.93|||||Day 14 / Day -7|||1.93|0.720|
91049304|NCT03864042|181984152|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.915|2.36|||||Day 1 / Day -7|||2.36|0.915|
91049305|NCT03864042|181984152|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.851|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.519|1.39|||||Day 14 / Day -7|||1.39|0.519|
91049306|NCT03864042|181984153|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.775|1.87|||||Day 1 / Day -7|||1.87|0.775|
91049307|NCT03864042|181984153|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.593|1.49|||||Day 14 / Day -7|||1.49|0.593|
91049308|NCT03864042|181984154|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|1.67|||||Day 1 / Day -7|||1.67|0.830|
91049309|NCT03864042|181984154|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.979|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.68|1.41|||||Day 14 / Day -7|||1.41|0.680|
91004593|NCT00089999|181892797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.9|||Fisher Exact|||||1.9|0.3|0.691
91004594|NCT00089999|181892798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.6|||Fisher Exact||Overall Response (i.e. sum of Complete and Partial Responses) comparison|||1.6|0.3|0.443
91004595|NCT00616772|181892805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.006||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.016|0.004|||Repeated measures linear mixed model|Fixed effects for baseline cIMT, baseline atorvastatin dose, central imaging site, treatment group, time; interaction between treatment group and time||||0.004|-0.016|0.220
91004596|NCT00616772|181892806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.002||||0.813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.014|0.011|||Repeated measures linear mixed model|Fixed effects for baseline atorvastatin dose, imaging site, treatment, time; interaction between treatment group and time; baseline cIMT as covariate.||||0.011|-0.014|0.813
91049310|NCT03864042|181984155|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.798|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.585|1.09|||||Day 21 / Day 14|||1.09|0.585|
91049311|NCT03864042|181984156|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.935|1.11|||||Day 21 / Day 14|||1.11|0.935|
91049312|NCT03864042|181984157|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.762|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.613|0.945|||||Day 21 / Day 14|||0.945|0.613|
91049313|NCT03864042|181984158|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.929|1.22|||||Day 21 / Day 14|||1.22|0.929|
91049314|NCT03020719|181984291|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.081||||0.2521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.221|0.059|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for randomization strata: sex, baseline age (\< 6 years, ≥ 6 years), and baseline weight-for-age z-score category (\< -0.52, ≥ -0.52).|Model incorporates Week 12 weight-for-age z-score, assumes unstructured covariance for within-subject measurements, and includes a subject-level random intercept.|||0.059|-0.221|0.2521
91049315|NCT03020719|181984292|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for randomization strata: sex, baseline age (\<6 years, ≥6 years), and baseline weight-for-age z-score category (\< -0.52, ≥-0.52).|Model incorporates Week 12 measurements, assumes unstructured covariance for within-subject measurements, and includes a subject-level random intercept.|||0.01|-0.18|0.0890
91049316|NCT03020719|181984293|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted from randomization strata: sex, baseline age (\<6 years, ≥6 years), and baseline weight-for-age z-score category (\< -0.52, ≥-0.52).|Model incorporates Week 12 measurements, assumes unstructured covariance for within-subject measurements, and includes a subject-level random intercept.|||0.15|-0.28|0.5730
91004597|NCT00616772|181892807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.007||||0.249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.018|0.005|||Repeated measures linear mixed model|Fixed effects for baseline atorvastatin dose, imaging site, treatment, time; interaction between treatment group and time; baseline IMT as covariate||||0.005|-0.018|0.249
91049317|NCT03020719|181984294|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.4259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for randomization strata: sex, baseline age (\<6 years, ≥6 years), and baseline weight-for-age z-score category (\< -0.52, ≥-0.52).|Model incorporates Week 12 measurements, assumes unstructured covariance for within-subject measurements, and includes a subject-level random intercept.|||0.40|-0.17|0.4259
91049318|NCT03020719|181984295|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55||||0.4666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|0.96|||ANCOVA|Model adjusted for randomization strata: sex, baseline age (\<6 years, ≥6 years), and baseline weight-for-age z-score category (\< -0.52, ≥-0.52).||||0.96|-2.06|0.4666
91049319|NCT03020719|181984296|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % of Participants with AE|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|13.6|||Fisher Exact||95% CI calculated using the Newcombe-Wilson method without continuity correction.|||13.6|-13.6|1.0000
91049320|NCT03020719|181984296|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % of Participants with SAE|-13.3||||0.1945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.5|2.9|||Fisher Exact||95% CI calculated using the Newcombe-Wilson method without continuity correction.|||2.9|-30.5|0.1945
91049321|NCT03020719|181984297|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|1.21||||0.1087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.52|||Poisson Regression|||Rate Ratio for Adverse Events calculated using Poisson Regression with an offset for the log of follow-up time in months. The total number of follow-up months of all participants (not per participant) in the trial was as follows: in the GSH group was 179.22 and in the Placebo group was 177.19.||1.52|0.96|0.1087
91049322|NCT03020719|181984297|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.12||||0.0122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.67|||Poisson Regression|||Rate Ratio for Serious Adverse Events calculated using Poisson Regression with an offset for the log of follow-up time in months. The total number of follow-up months of all participants (not per participant) in the trial was as follows: in the GSH group was 179.22 and in the Placebo group was 177.19.||0.67|0.01|0.0122
91004598|NCT00616772|181892808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.005||||0.487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.01|||Repeated measures linear mixed model|Fixed effects for baseline atorvastatin dose, imaging site, treatment, time; interaction between treatment group and time; baseline IMT as covariate||||0.010|-0.020|0.487
91004599|NCT00616772|181892809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.016||||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.035|||Repeated measures linear mixed model|Fixed effects for baseline atorvastatin dose, imaging site, treatment, time; interaction between treatment group and time; baseline IMT as covariate||||0.035|-0.004|0.112
91004600|NCT00850135|181892830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Value for the correlation between AUC-110 and birth weight|correlation|||||||0.035
91004601|NCT01512693|181892871|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Similarity will be concluded if the GMR (moderate hepatic insufficiency / healthy) is contained within the interval \[0.40, 2.50\].|GMR|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.61|1.19||||||Natural log-transformed plasma values were analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with a categorical factor for population (moderate hepatic insufficiency participants, healthy matched control participants) and continuous covariates for age and body mass index (BMI). Data are back transformed to geometric least-squares mean ratio (GMR) (moderate hepatic insufficiency / healthy) and 90% confidence intervals.||1.19|0.61|
91004602|NCT01512693|181892872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.51|1.0||||||Natural log-transformed plasma values were analyzed using an ANCOVA model with a categorical factor for population (moderate hepatic insufficiency participants, healthy matched control participants) and continuous covariates for age and BMI. Data are back transformed to GMR (moderate hepatic insufficiency / healthy) and 90% confidence intervals.||1.00|0.51|
91004603|NCT02044367|181892882|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size determination was not based on a power calculation, but to assure a precise estimation of the relative bioavailability. For this 3-way crossover trial, a precision (defined by ratio of upper CI limit to adjusted GMR) of at most 1.17 had been considered necessary and sufficient by the project team.|gMean Ratio T1/R (%)|137.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|26.8|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|125.773|149.25|||||The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV).|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale was used including effects for 'sequence', 'period' and 'treatment' as fixed effects and 'subjects within sequences' as random effect. CIs were calculated based on the residual error from ANOVA.||149.250|125.773|
91004604|NCT02044367|181892882|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size determination was not based on a power calculation, but to assure a precise estimation of the relative bioavailability. For this 3-way crossover trial, a precision (defined by ratio of upper CI limit to adjusted GMR) of at most 1.17 had been considered necessary and sufficient by the project team.|gMean Ratio T2/R (%)|130.43|STANDARD_DEVIATION|27.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|119.628|142.2|||||The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV).|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale was used including effects for 'sequence', 'period' and 'treatment' as fixed effects and 'subjects within sequences' as random effect. CIs were calculated based on the residual error from ANOVA.||142.200|119.628|
91004605|NCT02044367|181892883|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size determination was not based on a power calculation, but to assure a precise estimation of the relative bioavailability. For this 3-way crossover trial, a precision (defined by ratio of upper CI limit to adjusted GMR) of at most 1.17 had been considered necessary and sufficient by the project team.|gMean Ratio T1/R (%)|146.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|31.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|132.217|161.576|||||The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV).|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale was used including effects for 'sequence', 'period' and 'treatment' as fixed effects and 'subjects within sequences' as random effect. CIs were calculated based on the residual error from ANOVA.||161.576|132.217|
91004606|NCT02044367|181892883|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size determination was not based on a power calculation, but to assure a precise estimation of the relative bioavailability. For this 3-way crossover trial, a precision (defined by ratio of upper CI limit to adjusted GMR) of at most 1.17 had been considered necessary and sufficient by the project team.|gMean Ratio T2/R (%)|141.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|31.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|127.644|155.876|||||The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV).|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale was used including effects for 'sequence', 'period' and 'treatment' as fixed effects and 'subjects within sequences' as random effect. CIs were calculated based on the residual error from ANOVA.||155.876|127.644|
91004607|NCT02044367|181892884|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size determination was not based on a power calculation, but to assure a precise estimation of the relative bioavailability. For this 3-way crossover trial, a precision (defined by ratio of upper CI limit to adjusted GMR) of at most 1.17 had been considered necessary and sufficient by the project team.|gMean Ratio T1/R (%)|137.61|STANDARD_DEVIATION|26.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|126.418|149.797|||||The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV).|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale was used including effects for 'sequence', 'period' and 'treatment' as fixed effects and 'subjects within sequences' as random effect. CIs were calculated based on the residual error from ANOVA.||149.797|126.418|
91004608|NCT02044367|181892884|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size determination was not based on a power calculation, but to assure a precise estimation of the relative bioavailability. For this 3-way crossover trial, a precision (defined by ratio of upper CI limit to adjusted GMR) of at most 1.17 had been considered necessary and sufficient by the project team.|gMean Ratio T2/R (%)|132.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|28.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|120.714|144.342|||||The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV).|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale was used including effects for 'sequence', 'period' and 'treatment' as fixed effects and 'subjects within sequences' as random effect. CIs were calculated based on the residual error from ANOVA.||144.342|120.714|
91004609|NCT02044367|181892885|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size determination was not based on a power calculation, but to assure a precise estimation of the relative bioavailability. For this 3-way crossover trial, a precision (defined by ratio of upper CI limit to adjusted GMR) of at most 1.17 had been considered necessary and sufficient by the project team.|gMean Ratio T1/R (%)|147.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|32.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|133.384|163.779|||||The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV).|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale was used including effects for 'sequence', 'period' and 'treatment' as fixed effects and 'subjects within sequences' as random effect. CIs were calculated based on the residual error from ANOVA.||163.779|133.384|
91004610|NCT02044367|181892885|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size determination was not based on a power calculation, but to assure a precise estimation of the relative bioavailability. For this 3-way crossover trial, a precision (defined by ratio of upper CI limit to adjusted GMR) of at most 1.17 had been considered necessary and sufficient by the project team.|gMean Ratio T2/R (%)|144.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|32.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|130.853|160.242|||||The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV).|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale was used including effects for 'sequence', 'period' and 'treatment' as fixed effects and 'subjects within sequences' as random effect. CIs were calculated based on the residual error from ANOVA.||160.242|130.853|
91004611|NCT04157751|181892927|OTHER||Stratified Win Ratio|1.36||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.68||p-value for WR\<=1.0 (one-sided), variance calculated using the asymptotic normal U statistics approach.|Asymptotic normal U statistics approach||WR estimate= \[((a)+(c)+(e)+(g)) / ((b)+(d)+(f)+(h))\]|"Stratified win ratio (WR) was used, calculated as total number of wins in the empa group across all strata divided by total number of losses. Weights were applied analogous to a Mantel-Haenszel approach.~1. death in pbo first;~2. death in empa first;~3. HFEs in pbo more frequently;~4. HFEs in empa more frequently;~5. HFEs in pbo first;~6. HFEs in empa first;~7. KCCQ-TSS change lower in pbo;~8. KCCQ-TSS change lower in empa"||1.68|1.09|0.0027
91004612|NCT04157751|181892928|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.522|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.386||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.927|2.501||p-value for OR=1.0 (two-sided).|Regression, Logistic|Wald Confidence interval.|Comparison vs. Placebo.|Logistic regression including terms for baseline KCCQ-TSS, treatment and heart failure status||2.501|0.927|0.0970
91004613|NCT04157751|181892929|OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean|4.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.0347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|8.59||p-value for difference = 0 (two-sided)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Restricted maximum likelihood estimation based on a mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) analysis to obtain adjusted means for the treatment effects. This model included discrete fixed effects for treatment group, and heart failure status at each visit and continuous fixed effects for baseline value at each visit. Missing data caused by patient withdrawal or other reasons were handled implicitly by the MMRM approach. Unstructured covariance structure was used.||8.59|0.32|0.0347
91004614|NCT04157751|181892930|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|0.9||||0.0176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|0.98|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a discrete fixed effect for heart failure status and a continuous fixed effect for baseline NT-proBNP level.|Comparison vs. Placebo|Area under the curve (AUC) of change from baseline in log-transformed NT-proBNP level over 30 days of treatment was analysed by an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). NT-proBNP level is regarded as log-normally distributed, therefore values were log-transformed prior to analysis. The linear trapezoidal rule was used to calculate the AUC after the log-transformation had been applied to each value.||0.98|0.82|0.0176
91004615|NCT04157751|181892933|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.1241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.1||p-value for HR=1.0 (two sided)|Regression, Cox|Cox proportional hazard model with terms for heart failure status and treatment.|Comparison vs. Placebo.|||1.10|0.46|0.1241
91004616|NCT01810380|181892954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|0.1||For all efficacy analyses the primary comparison is the difference between brexpiprazole 2 to 4 mg/day and placebo at Week 6.|Mixed Models Analysis|Pooled site, visit, treatment as fixed effects, baseline score as continuous covariate, treatment-by-visit and baseline score-by-visit as interactions||The overall significance level was 0.05. The primary and the key secondary endpoints were tested hierarchically. Only if the primary endpoint was statistically significant would confirmatory testing continue with the key secondary endpoint.||0.1|-8.2|0.0560
91004617|NCT01810380|181892954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|-3.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.9|-12.2|0.0002
91004618|NCT00441012|181893011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of Seroprotected Participants|100.0||||||95.0|98.7|100.0|||||Exact binomial confidence interval|The purpose of the primary analysis is to demonstrate that there is an adequate seroprotection rate (percentage of participants with anti-HBs \>=10mIU/mL) in each group at 1 month after the third dose. An adequate response requires the lower bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the seroprotection rate to exceed 90%.||100.0|98.7|
91004619|NCT00441012|181893011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of Seroprotected Participants|99.1||||||95.0|69.9|99.9|||||Exact binomial confidence interval|The purpose of the primary analysis is to demonstrate that there is an adequate seroprotection rate (percentage of participants with anti-HBs \>=10mIU/mL) in each group at 1 month after the third dose. An adequate response requires the lower bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the seroprotection rate to exceed 90%.||99.9|69.9|
91004620|NCT00441012|181893012|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The Modified Process Vaccine is non-inferior to COMVAX with respect to anti-HBs GMT. The non-inferiority criterion requires that the lower bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval on the ratio of the Month 11 GMTs \[GMT modified process vaccine/GMT COMVAX™\] is \>0.67.|Geometric Mean Titer Ratio|2.5||||||95.0|1.9|3.3||||||||3.3|1.9|
91004621|NCT00441012|181893014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of Seroprotected Participants|93.9||||||95.0|90.0|96.6|||||Exact binomial confidence interval|||96.6|90.0|
91049323|NCT00515034|181984299|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Percent of participants who are clinically cured including 95% confidence intervals are provided.|Risk Difference (RD)|-13.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.4|26.8|||normal approximation to the binomial||Treatment difference (doripenem minus imipenem/cilastatin) in percent of participants who are clinically cured.|There is no formal hypothesis test for this outcome. Only summary data are provided.||26.8|-54.4|
91004622|NCT00441012|181893014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of Seroprotected Participants|92.1||||||95.0|87.8|95.3|||||Exact binomial confidence interval|No hypothesis is being tested. The purpose of the secondary analysis is to estimate the seroprotection rate (percentage of participants with anti-PRP \> 1µg/mL) in each group at 1 month after the third dose.||95.3|87.8|
91004623|NCT04498468|181893029|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.19|||t-test, 2 sided|||Corneal staining analysis, day 28.||-0.19|-0.91|0.003
91004624|NCT04498468|181893029|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|0.28|||t-test, 2 sided|||Corneal staining sub-group analysis, day 28, 18-59 year old subgroup.||0.28|-1.28|0.19
91004625|NCT04498468|181893029|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.94||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|-0.02|||t-test, 2 sided|||Corneal staining sub-group analysis, day 28, 60+ year old subgroup.||-0.02|-1.86|0.047
91004626|NCT04498468|181893029|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|0.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||Corneal staining sub-group analysis, day 28, Sjogren's subgroup.||0.10|-1.49|0.08
91004627|NCT04498468|181893029|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.77||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|0.14|||t-test, 2 sided|||Corneal staining sub-group analysis, day 28, non-Sjogren's subgroup.||0.14|-1.67|0.09
91004628|NCT04498468|181893029|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||Conjunctival staining analysis, day 28||-0.30|-1.05|< 0.001
91004629|NCT04498468|181893029|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|0.61|||t-test, 2 sided|||Conjunctival staining sub-group analysis, day 28, 18-59 year old subgroup.||0.61|-1.04|0.58
91004630|NCT04498468|181893029|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.19||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.17|-0.21|||t-test, 2 sided|||Conjunctival staining sub-group analysis, day 28, 60+ year old subgroup.||-0.21|-2.17|0.021
91004631|NCT04498468|181893029|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.77||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|0.34|||t-test, 2 sided|||Conjunctival staining sub-group analysis, day 28, Sjogren's subgroup.||0.34|-1.88|0.16
91004632|NCT04498468|181893029|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|0.14|||t-test, 2 sided|||Conjunctival staining sub-group analysis, day 28, non-Sjogren's subgroup.||0.14|-1.55|0.097
91004633|NCT04498468|181893030|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.5||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|0.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||Eye dryness, day 28||0.4|-11.4|0.069
91004634|NCT04498468|181893030|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|6.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||VAS Eye discomfort, Day 28||6.3|-7.0|0.92
91004635|NCT04498468|181893030|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|3.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||VAS eye fatigue, day 28||3.1|-5.8|0.55
91004636|NCT04498468|181893031|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.26||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.0|||McNemar|||||2.0|0.8|0.42
91004637|NCT04498468|181893032|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.04||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.42|||McNemar|||||1.42|0.76|1.00
91007451|NCT01265719|181899011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.87||0.8591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.54|8.8|||ANCOVA||Change from baseline to last available observation in corneal thickness was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with fixed effect for treatment group with baseline corneal thickness value as covariate.|5 to \<18 years||8.80|-10.54|0.8591
91004638|NCT01387594|181893060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.13|1.56||A p-value was not computed; hypothesis was tested using confidence interval (CI) approach.|||The lower limit of 80% CI greater than 0.5 indicates the statistical significance at alpha=0.1 level.|The null hypothesis is the (median) percent decrease in total lymphocytes count is greater or equal to 50%, equivalently indicating that the geometric mean ratio (GMR: post-treatment/pretreatment) in total lymphocyte counts is less than or equal to 0.5.||1.56|1.13|
91004639|NCT00460525|181893070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy, VE=1-RR=1-exp(ß)|0.17||||0.175||95.0|-0.09|0.37||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Regression, Cox|No adjustments were made.|Vaccine efficacy (VE) was defined as one minus the relative risk (RR), which was estimated by exponentiating the treatment parameter (ß) from the Cox model fit.|Time to first clinical malaria episode with significant parasitemia (2500/mm\^3) and temperature of greater than or equal to 37.5 degrees C was analyzed by fitting a Cox Proportional Hazards model. The null hypothesis of no vaccine efficacy was tested by the stratified log-rank test (score test). The point and interval estimates for vaccine efficacy were obtained by transforming those for treatment effect in the model.||0.37|-0.09|0.175
91004640|NCT00460525|181893072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy, VE=1-RR=1-exp(ß)|0.2||||0.068||95.0|-0.02|0.37||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Poisson regression|No adjustments|Vaccine efficacy (VE) was defined as one minus the relative risk (RR), which was estimated by exponentiating the treatment parameter (ß) from the Poisson model fit.|Incidence density, defined as number of clinical malaria episodes per PYAR, was compared using Poisson regression. The null hypothesis of no vaccine efficacy was tested. The point and interval estimates for vaccine efficacy were obtained by transforming those for treatment effect in the model.||0.37|-0.02|0.068
91004641|NCT04757376|181893082|EQUIVALENCE|Statistical equivalence: the 90% confidence interval (CI) of the difference in the mean of the primary efficacy endpoint between treatment groups was entirely within an equivalence margin, \[- 1.45, + 1.45\].|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.76|0.38|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA included the treatment as a fixed effect and age, baseline LS-BMD T-score, and prior bisphosphonates therapy (Yes versus No) as covariates.||||0.38|-0.76|
91004642|NCT01307046|181893096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least square means|-5.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|-3.4|||constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-3.4|-6.8|<.001
91004643|NCT01307046|181893097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least square means|-9.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|-6.5|||constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-6.5|-11.9|<.001
91004644|NCT02550093|181893125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.47|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||HEAT||||.47
91004645|NCT02550093|181893125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||COLD||||0.70
91004646|NCT02550093|181893126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.84|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||HEAT||||0.84
91004647|NCT02550093|181893126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.95|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||COLD||||0.95
91004648|NCT02550093|181893127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.92|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||HEAT||||0.92
91004649|NCT02550093|181893127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.63|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||COLD||||0.63
91004650|NCT02550093|181893128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.60
91004651|NCT02550093|181893129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.68|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.68
91004652|NCT02550093|181893130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.62|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.62
91004653|NCT02550093|181893131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.97|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.97
91004654|NCT02550093|181893132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.97|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.97
91004655|NCT02550093|181893133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.61|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.61
91004656|NCT02550093|181893134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.71|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.71
91004657|NCT02550093|181893135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.74|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.74
91004658|NCT02550093|181893136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.75|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.75
91004659|NCT03227224|181893201|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|0.9||||0.724|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.12|4.82|||Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)|||||4.82|-3.12|0.724
91004660|NCT03227224|181893201|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|-3.1||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.13|-0.16|||MMRM|||||-0.16|-6.13|0.083
91004661|NCT03227224|181893201|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|-1.5||||0.424|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.7|1.63|||MMRM|||||1.63|-4.70|0.424
91007452|NCT01265719|181899012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|4.5||||0.2413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.49|19.36|||Fisher Exact|||||19.36|-10.49|0.2413
91007453|NCT02442765|181899015|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.0|||=|0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|-0.6||MMRMs include fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, BL, BL-by-visit, and in the Stage 1 model, BL NPI AA, risk assessment for falls, BL concomitant antipsychotic medication use. Unstructured variance-covariance was used.|mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|||||-0.6|-7.4|=0.021
91004662|NCT04195750|181893246|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.00031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.88|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by IMDC Risk Category and Number of prior VEGF/VEGF-Receptor Targeted Therapies for RCC.|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by IMDC Risk Category and Number of prior VEGF/VEGF-Receptor Targeted Therapies for RCC.|||0.88|0.63|0.00031
91004663|NCT04195750|181893247|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.17644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.1|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by IMDC Risk Category and Number of prior VEGF/VEGF-Receptor Targeted Therapies for RCC.|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by IMDC Risk Category and Number of prior VEGF/VEGF-Receptor Targeted Therapies for RCC.|||1.10|0.77|0.17644
91004664|NCT04195750|181893248|SUPERIORITY|P-value, difference in percentage and associated 95% CI were calculated using Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by IMDC Risk Category and Number of prior VEGF/VEGF-Receptor Targeted Therapies for RCC.|Difference in Percentage|18.4|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.0|23.2||One-sided p-value for testing. H0: difference in % = 0 versus H1: difference in % \> 0.|Miettinen & Nurminen||Belzutifan minus Everolimus|||23.2|14.0|<0.00001
91004665|NCT04195750|181893252|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.0185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.96|||Log Rank|Two-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by IMDC Risk Category and Number of prior VEGF/VEGF-Receptor Targeted Therapies for RCC.|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by IMDC Risk Category and Number of prior VEGF/VEGF-Receptor Targeted Therapies for RCC.|||0.96|0.58|0.0185
91004666|NCT04195750|181893253|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.5533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.2|||Log Rank|Two-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by IMDC Risk Category and Number of prior VEGF/VEGF-Receptor Targeted Therapies for RCC.|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by IMDC Risk Category and Number of prior VEGF/VEGF-Receptor Targeted Therapies for RCC.|||1.20|0.72|0.5533
91004667|NCT04195750|181893254|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.69|||Log Rank|Two-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by IMDC Risk Category and Number of prior VEGF/VEGF-Receptor Targeted Therapies for RCC.|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by IMDC Risk Category and Number of prior VEGF/VEGF-Receptor Targeted Therapies for RCC.|||0.69|0.41|<0.0001
91004668|NCT04195750|181893255|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares (LS) Means|6.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.21|9.55|||t-test, 2 sided||Based on a cLDA model with scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors (IMDC Risk Category, and Number of Prior VEGF/VEGF-Receptor Targeted Therapies for RCC) as covariates.|||9.55|3.21|<0.0001
91004669|NCT04195750|181893256|OTHER||Difference in LS Means|2.47||||0.1134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|5.54|||t-test, 2 sided||Based on a cLDA model with scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors (IMDC Risk Category, and Number of Prior VEGF/VEGF-Receptor Targeted Therapies for RCC) as covariates.|||5.54|-0.59|0.1134
91004670|NCT04195750|181893257|OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.45||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.19|||t-test, 2 sided||Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors (IMDC Risk Category, and Number of Prior VEGF/VEGF-Receptor Targeted Therapies for RCC) as covariates.|||2.19|0.70|0.0002
91004671|NCT04195750|181893258|OTHER||Difference in LS Means|3.72||||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|6.31|||t-test, 2 sided||Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors (IMDC Risk Category, and Number of Prior VEGF/VEGF-Receptor Targeted Therapies for RCC) as covariates.|||6.31|1.12|0.0051
91004672|NCT03782376|181893264|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|11.5||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|24.5||Threshold for significance was 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel Haenszel-chi-square test|||The fixed sequence testing method was used. CMH chi-square test (2-sided) stratified by baseline CDAI score (\<= 300 or \> 300), and prior biologic failure status at baseline (yes or no).||24.5|-1.5|0.089
91004673|NCT03782376|181893265|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|5.9||||0.338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|17.8|||CMH chi-square test (2-sided)|||The fixed sequence testing method was used. CMH chi-square test (2-sided) stratified by baseline CDAI score (\<= 300 or \> 300), and prior biologic failure status at baseline (yes or no).||17.8|-6.0|0.338
91004674|NCT03782376|181893266|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|7.1||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|20.2|||CMH chi-square test (2-sided)|||The fixed sequence testing method was used. CMH chi-square test (2-sided) stratified by baseline CDAI score (\<= 300 or \> 300), and prior biologic failure status at baseline (yes or no).||20.2|-6.0|0.300
91004675|NCT03782376|181893267|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|6.4||||0.314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|18.6|||CMH chi-square test (2-sided)|||The fixed sequence testing method was used. CMH chi-square test (2-sided) stratified by baseline CDAI score (\<= 300 or \> 300), and prior biologic failure status at baseline (yes or no).||18.6|-5.8|0.314
91004676|NCT03782376|181893268|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|18.5||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|30.2|||CMH chi-square test (2-sided)|||The fixed sequence testing method was used. CMH chi-square test (2-sided) stratified by baseline CDAI score (\<= 300 or \> 300), and prior biologic failure status at baseline (yes or no).||30.2|6.8|0.004
91004677|NCT04363944|181893309|EQUIVALENCE|A paired-t test comparing performance of vertical bowl transfer at the beginning of the 6 week in-home program to the end of the 6 week in-home program.|||||<|0.001||||||Comparing the change in performing a vertical bowl transfer, the calculated p-value for this activity was \<.001|t-test, 2 sided|||mRehab task vertical bowl transfer- moving the bowl vertically up and down||||<0.001
91004678|NCT04363944|181893309|EQUIVALENCE|A paired-t test comparing performance of moving the bowl horizontally at the beginning of the 6 week in-home program to the end of the 6 week in-home program.|||||=|0.001||||||Comparing the change in performing a horizontal bowl transfer, the calculated p-value for this activity was .001|t-test, 2 sided|||mRehab task horizontal bowl transfer- moving the bowl horizontally||||=.001
91004679|NCT04363944|181893309|EQUIVALENCE|A paired-t test comparing performance of the vertical mug transfer at the beginning of the 6 week in-home program to the end of the 6 week in-home program.|||||=|0.003||||||Comparing the change in performing a vertical mug transfer, the calculated p-value for this activity was .003|t-test, 2 sided|||mRehab task vertical mug transfer- moving the mug vertically up and down||||=.003
91004680|NCT04363944|181893309|EQUIVALENCE|A paired-t test comparing performance of the horizontal mug transfer at the beginning of the 6 week in-home program to the end of the 6 week in-home program.|||||=|0.009||||||Comparing the change in performing a horizontal mug transfer, the calculated p-value for this activity was .009|t-test, 2 sided|||mRehab task horizontal mug transfer- moving the mug horizontally||||=.009
91004681|NCT04363944|181893309|EQUIVALENCE|A paired-t test comparing performance of the simulated sip at the beginning of the 6 week in-home program to the end of the 6 week in-home program.|||||=|0.933|||||||t-test, 2 sided|A paired-t test comparing performance at the beginning of the 6 week in-home program to the end of the 6 week in-home program.||mRehab task simulate sip- bring mug within one inch of mouth as if taking a drink||||=.933
91004682|NCT04363944|181893309|EQUIVALENCE|A paired-t test comparing performance of entering a phone number at the beginning of the 6 week in-home program to the end of the 6 week in-home program.|||||=|0.136|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||mRehab task enter phone number||||=.136
91004683|NCT04363944|181893309|EQUIVALENCE|A paired-t test comparing performance of the quick tap at the beginning of the 6 week in-home program to the end of the 6 week in-home program.|||||=|0.005|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||mRehab task quick tap- tapping a moving object on the phone screen||||=.005
91049324|NCT00515034|181984300|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Percent of participants who are clinically cured including 95% confidence intervals are provided.|Risk Difference (RD)|18.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|50.6|||normal approximation to binomial||Treatment difference (doripenem minus imipenem) in percent of participants who are clinically cured.|There is no formal hypothesis test for this outcome. Only summary data are presented.||50.6|-13.2|
91049325|NCT02340221|181984304|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.89|||Log Rank|||||0.89|0.56|0.0037
91049326|NCT02340221|181984305|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.87|||Log Rank|||||0.87|0.58|0.0008
91049327|NCT02340221|181984306|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.0||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|5.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.4|1.6|0.0002
91049328|NCT02340221|181984307|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|5.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.4|1.7|<0.0001
91049329|NCT02340221|181984308|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.4151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.25|||Log Rank|||||1.25|0.58|0.4151
91049330|NCT02340221|181984309|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.9974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.33|||Log Rank|||||1.33|0.75|0.9974
91049331|NCT02340221|181984310|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.9||||||||2.9|1.2|
91049332|NCT02340221|181984311|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|3.0||||||||3.0|1.2|
91049333|NCT02340221|181984312|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.6708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|2.59|||Log Rank|||||2.59|0.23|0.6708
91049334|NCT02340221|181984313|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.8286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|2.35|||Log Rank|||||2.35|0.51|0.8286
91049335|NCT02340221|181984314|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.86|||Log Rank|||||0.86|0.51|0.0023
91049336|NCT02340221|181984315|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.92|||Log Rank|||||0.92|0.56|0.0095
91049337|NCT00605865|181984397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||not adjusted, p=0.050|Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was complications. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without complications in the participants of responders."||||<0.001
91049338|NCT00605865|181984398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|||||not adjusted, p=0.050|Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was concomitant drug. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without concomitant drug in the participants of responders."||||0.039
91004684|NCT04363944|181893310|EQUIVALENCE|Paired t-tests comparing performance at the first session of in-home training to the last session of in-home training were conducted.|||||=|0.228|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||mRehab task vertical bowl transfer- moving bowl vertically up and down||||=.228
91004685|NCT04363944|181893310|EQUIVALENCE|A paired-t test comparing performance at the beginning of the 6 week in-home program to the end of the 6 week in-home program.||||||0.196|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||mRehab task horizontal bowl- bowl moved horizontally||||.196
91004686|NCT04363944|181893310|EQUIVALENCE|A paired-t test comparing performance at the beginning of the 6 week in-home program to the end of the 6 week in-home program.|||||=|0.024|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||mRehab task Vertical Mug- Mug moved vertically and then placed on counter||||=.024
91004687|NCT04363944|181893310|EQUIVALENCE|A paired-t test comparing performance at the beginning of the 6 week in-home program to the end of the 6 week in-home program.|||||=|0.038|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||mRehab task horizontal mug transfer- moving the mug horizontally||||=.038
91004688|NCT04363944|181893310|EQUIVALENCE|A paired-t test comparing performance at the beginning of the 6 week in-home program to the end of the 6 week in-home program.|||||=|0.306||||||calculated p-value greater than .05|t-test, 2 sided|||mRehab task simulate sip||||=.306
91004689|NCT04363944|181893311|EQUIVALENCE|The average of the WMFT from testing sessions pre intervention (week 1 and approximately week 2) was compared to the WMFT immediately following mRehab home intervention (week 8) using a two tailed paired t-test.|||||=|0.017||||||calculated p-value .017|t-test, 2 sided|||||||=.017
91004690|NCT04363944|181893312|EQUIVALENCE|Test, the scores from the first and second in-laboratory visits were averaged to account for variability in the performance of individuals with stroke. This averaged preintervention score was compared with the third in-laboratory visit to assess the immediate change in performance following use of mRehab.|||||=|0.019|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Compared pre and post intervention data for participants using mRehab for a 6 week home program.||||=.019
91004691|NCT03559192|181893316|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25|=|0.0443|ONE_SIDED|80.0||-1.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.09||= 0.0443
91004692|NCT03559192|181893317|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.0017|ONE_SIDED|80.0||-2.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.21||0.0017
91004693|NCT03559192|181893319|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87|=|0.4188|ONE_SIDED|80.0||0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.41||= 0.4188
91004694|NCT03559192|181893320|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.2503|ONE_SIDED|80.0||0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.10||0.2503
91004695|NCT03517722|181893335|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.0|0.4|0.042
91004696|NCT03991468|181893352|NON_INFERIORITY|A Mixed Model Repeated Measures logistic regression was used to prove WSI major discordance (MD) rate non-inferior to Glass MD rate. A two-sided 95% CI for the difference in MD rate was constructed. If the upper bound of the 95% CI was less than the non-inferiority margin of 4%, then WSI would be considered non-inferior to Glass, assuming power = 0.9 and alpha = 0.05 a sample size of 2000 was calculated to be sufficient to prove non-inferiority.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Dependent var = major discordance status (yes/no); independent var = modality (WSI/Glass) as a fixed effect \& site, reader, \& case as random effects.||||1.0|-0.1|
91004697|NCT03573804|181893393|OTHER|A two-tailed paired T-test for equivalence was used to evaluate equivalence between the average raw tumor.|Mean Difference (Net)|224.675|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|67.89|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|90.26044|359.08956||Using an alpha value of 0.05, dof = 60, the null hypothesis of sample mean equivalence was rejected.|t-test, 2 sided|A paired two-tailed t-test was used on the paired prone-to-supine tumor intensity values.||Regions of interest (ROIs) for tumor were defined by the radiologist segmentation of tumor in supine and prone positions. ROIs for the surrounding tissue were selected such that tumor and normal regions had equal volumes. The alpha level was assumed to be of 0.05 (dof = 60), and the null hypothesis of equivalence (mu = 0).||359.08956|90.26044|<0.001
91004698|NCT03573804|181893394|OTHER|A two-tailed paired T-test was used to compare sample means in between the prone and supine mean benign tissue intensities.|Mean Difference (Net)|165.833|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|44.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.34708|253.31892||Using an alpha value of 0.05, dof = 60, the null hypothesis of sample mean equivalence was rejected.|t-test, 2 sided|A paired two-tailed t-test was used on the paired prone-to-supine normal tissue intensity values.||Regions of interest (ROIs) for surrounding tissues were selected as the surrounding benign tissue regions directly adjacent to the segmented tumor regions. Tumor and surrounding regions had equal volumes. The mean surrounding region intensities reported were all calculated from the prone and supine T1-weighted MR images segmented by the radiologist.||253.31892|78.34708|<0.001
91004699|NCT03573804|181893395|OTHER|A two-tailed paired T-test was used to compare sample means in between the prone and supine tumor-to-surrounding tissue ratios.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04209|0.28209||Using an alpha value of 0.05, dof = 60, the null hypothesis of sample mean equivalence was rejected.|t-test, 2 sided|A two-tailed paired T-test was used to compare sample means in between the prone and supine tumor-to-surrounding tissue ratios.||The ratios of tumor-to-surrounding tissue intensities, as calculated in Secondary Objective Part A, were compared between prone and supine T1-weighted MR image scans.||0.28209|-0.04209|0.0058
91004700|NCT03573804|181893397|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.00049664|||||||Students two-tailed paired t-test|||||||0.00049664
91004701|NCT03649815|181893398|OTHER|||||||0.067|||||||Paired Sample T-Test|||||||0.067
91004702|NCT03649815|181893398|OTHER|||||||0.071||||||Controlled for gender, age, and baseline symptomatology|Paired Sample T-Test|||||||0.071
91004703|NCT03649815|181893399|OTHER|||||||0.047|||||||Paired Sample T-Test|||||||0.047
91004704|NCT03649815|181893399|OTHER|||||||0.036||||||Controlled for gender, age and baseline symptomatology|Paired Sample T-Test|||||||0.036
91004705|NCT03649815|181893400|OTHER|||||||0.032|||||||Paired Sample T-Test|||||||0.032
91004706|NCT03649815|181893400|OTHER|||||||0.006||||||Controlled for gender, age and baseline symptomatology|Paired Sample T-Test|||||||0.006
91007454|NCT02442765|181899015|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.6|||=|0.731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|2.7||MMRMs include fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, BL, BL-by-visit, and in the Stage 1 model, BL NPI AA, risk assessment for falls, BL concomitant antipsychotic medication use. Unstructured variance-covariance was used.|MMRM|||||2.7|-3.9|=0.731
91004707|NCT01673373|181893417|OTHER|Due to the early termination of enrollment, all inferential analyses were interpreted as descriptive and carried out in an exploratory manner.|||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value was computed using a one-sided exact test of the difference between the observed rate and the Performance Goal (equal to 70%). The defined threshold for statistical significance is .025.|one-sided exact|||The original Performance Goal of 70% patency rate was derived from a thorough literature review of trials with renal bare metal stent placement. Other assumptions included a determination of samples size based upon a one-sided alpha of 0.025 and desired power of 87%, and assumption of 10% attrition. The null hypothesis was that the incidence of primary patency at 9 months is less than or equal to 70%.|"The cumulative incidence of primary patency was computed as the number of subject-lesions with primary patency at 9 months divided by the number of subject-lesions and was analyzed using the allowable window of 243 to 303 trial days.~An exact binomial one-sided 95% CI was constructed and the lower limit compared to the Performance Goal equal to 70%."|||<.0001
91004708|NCT01673373|181893418|OTHER|A one-sided 95% Confidence Interval for the mean difference between baseline and 9-month systolic blood pressure was constructed and the lower limit compared to the 10 mmHg performance goal. A p-value of the difference between the estimated systolic blood pressure change from the baseline and the performance goal was computed using a paired t-test.||||||0.0192||||||The defined threshold for statistical significance is .025.|t-test, 1 sided|||The primary endpoint of systolic blood pressure was analyzed according to the Performance Goal of a decrease in systolic blood pressure of 10 mmHg between procedure and 9 months.||||.0192
91004709|NCT01654224|181893445|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|An upper bound \>0.67 of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of postvaccination GMTHD to GMTSD indicated noninferiority. A lower bound of ≥1.0 of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTHD to GMTSD indicated superiority.||||||0.005||||||A/California/07/2009(H1N1)|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.005
91004710|NCT01654224|181893445|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|An upper bound \>0.67 of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of postvaccination GMTHD to GMTSD indicated noninferiority. A lower bound of ≥1.0 of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTHD to GMTSD indicated superiority.||||||0.001||||||A/Victoria/210/2009(H3N2)|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.001
91004711|NCT01654224|181893445|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|An upper bound \>0.67 of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of postvaccination GMTHD to GMTSD indicated noninferiority. A lower bound of ≥1.0 of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTHD to GMTSD indicated superiority.||||||0.004||||||B/Brisbane/60/2008|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.004
91004712|NCT01654224|181893445|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|An upper bound \>0.67 of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of postvaccination GMTHD to GMTSD indicated noninferiority. A lower bound of ≥1.0 of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTHD to GMTSD indicated superiority.||||||0.672||||||A/California/07/2009(H1N1)|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.672
91004713|NCT01654224|181893445|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|An upper bound \>0.67 of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of postvaccination GMTHD to GMTSD indicated noninferiority. A lower bound of ≥1.0 of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTHD to GMTSD indicated superiority.||||||0.011||||||A/Victoria/361/2011(H3N2)|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.011
91004714|NCT01654224|181893445|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|An upper bound \>0.67 of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of postvaccination GMTHD to GMTSD indicated noninferiority. A lower bound of ≥1.0 of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTHD to GMTSD indicated superiority.||||||0.01||||||B/Texas/6/2011|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.010
91004715|NCT01654224|181893446|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|An upper bound \>0.67 of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of postvaccination GMTHD to GMTSD indicated noninferiority. A lower bound of ≥1.0 of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTHD to GMTSD indicated superiority.||||||0.074||||||A/California/07/2009(H1N1)|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.074
91004716|NCT01654224|181893446|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|An upper bound \>0.67 of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of postvaccination GMTHD to GMTSD indicated noninferiority. A lower bound of ≥1.0 of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTHD to GMTSD indicated superiority.||||||0.006||||||A/Victoria/210/2009(H3N2)|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.006
91004717|NCT01654224|181893446|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|An upper bound \>0.67 of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of postvaccination GMTHD to GMTSD indicated noninferiority. A lower bound of ≥1.0 of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTHD to GMTSD indicated superiority.||||||0.069||||||B/Brisbane/60/2008|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.069
91004718|NCT01654224|181893446|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|An upper bound \>0.67 of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of postvaccination GMTHD to GMTSD indicated noninferiority. A lower bound of ≥1.0 of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTHD to GMTSD indicated superiority.||||||0.663||||||A/California/07/2009(H3N2)|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.663
91004719|NCT01654224|181893446|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|An upper bound \>0.67 of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of postvaccination GMTHD to GMTSD indicated noninferiority. A lower bound of ≥1.0 of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTHD to GMTSD indicated superiority.||||||0.003||||||A/Victoria/361/2011(H3N2)|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.003
91004720|NCT01654224|181893446|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|An upper bound \>0.67 of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of postvaccination GMTHD to GMTSD indicated noninferiority. A lower bound of ≥1.0 of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTHD to GMTSD indicated superiority.||||||0.063||||||B/Texas/6/2011|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.063
91004721|NCT01654224|181893447|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|An upper bound \>0.67 of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of postvaccination GMTHD to GMTSD indicated noninferiority. A lower bound of ≥1.0 of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTHD to GMTSD indicated superiority.||||||0.917||||||A/California/07/2009(H1N1)|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.917
91004722|NCT01654224|181893447|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|An upper bound \>0.67 of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of postvaccination GMTHD to GMTSD indicated noninferiority. A lower bound of ≥1.0 of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTHD to GMTSD indicated superiority.||||||0.36||||||A/Victoria/210/2009(H3N2)|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.360
91004723|NCT01654224|181893447|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|An upper bound \>0.67 of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of postvaccination GMTHD to GMTSD indicated noninferiority. A lower bound of ≥1.0 of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTHD to GMTSD indicated superiority.||||||0.248||||||B/Brisbane/60/2008|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.248
91004724|NCT01654224|181893447|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|An upper bound \>0.67 of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of postvaccination GMTHD to GMTSD indicated noninferiority. A lower bound of ≥1.0 of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTHD to GMTSD indicated superiority.||||||0.178||||||A/California/07/2009(H1N1)|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.178
91004725|NCT01654224|181893447|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|An upper bound \>0.67 of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of postvaccination GMTHD to GMTSD indicated noninferiority. A lower bound of ≥1.0 of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTHD to GMTSD indicated superiority.||||||0.152||||||A/Victoria/361/2011(H1N2)|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.152
91004726|NCT01654224|181893447|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|An upper bound \>0.67 of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of postvaccination GMTHD to GMTSD indicated noninferiority. A lower bound of ≥1.0 of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTHD to GMTSD indicated superiority.||||||0.285||||||B/Texas/6/2011|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.285
91004727|NCT00166504|181893453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.3|<|0.001||95.0|-14.3|-5.7|||ANOVA||Direction of the Comparison: Vytorin minus Atorvastatin.|||-5.7|-14.3|<0.001
91004728|NCT04423718|181893488|NON_INFERIORITY|One-sided test (alpha=0.025) for non-inferiority at a 4-letter margin|Difference in LS means|-0.97||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.87|0.92||Strictly hierarchical testing procedure: Since p-value below significance level 0.025, fixed sequence testing continued with next primary endpoint (HDq16-2q8) / within EMA/PMDA specific hierarchy with secondary endpoint (BCVA at W60, HDq12-2q8)|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline BCVA and randomization strata|Estimation mainly based on hypothetical strategy, i.e. observed data beyond intercurrent events (premature discontinuation of treatment, missing injection, prohibited medication) were censored. Missing/censored data was handled implicitly by MMRM|HDq12 - 2q8||0.92|-2.87|0.0009
91004729|NCT04423718|181893488|NON_INFERIORITY|One-sided test (alpha=0.025) for non-inferiority at a 4-letter margin|Difference in LS means|-1.14||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.97|0.69||Strictly hierarchical testing procedure: Since p-value below significance level 0.025, fixed sequence testing continued with secondary endpoint (no IRF no SRF at W16)/within EMA/PMDA specific hierarchy with secondary endpoint (BCVA at W60, HDq16-2q8)|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline BCVA and randomization strata|Estimation mainly based on hypothetical strategy, i.e. observed data beyond intercurrent events (premature discontinuation of treatment, missing injection, prohibited medication) were censored. Missing/censored data was handled implicitly by MMRM|HDq16 - 2q8||0.69|-2.97|0.0011
91004730|NCT04423718|181893489|NON_INFERIORITY|One-sided test (alpha=0.025) for non-inferiority at a 4-letter margin|Difference in LS means|-0.86||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.57|0.84||EMA/PMDA specific hierarchy: i.e. secondary endpoint was tested for EMA/PMDA after primary endpoint (HDq12-2q8). Since p-value below significance level 0.025, EMA/PMDA specific fixed sequence testing continued with next primary endpoint (HDq16-2q8)|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline BCVA and randomization strata|Estimation mainly based on hypothetical strategy, i.e. observed data beyond intercurrent events (premature discontinuation of treatment, missing injection, prohibited medication) were censored. Missing/censored data was handled implicitly by MMRM|HDq12 - 2q8||0.84|-2.57|0.0002
91049339|NCT00605865|181984399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|||||not adjusted, p=0.050|Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was renal dysfunction. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without renal dysfunction in the participants of responders."||||0.011
91049340|NCT00605865|181984400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||not adjusted, p=0.050|Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was past medical history of other illness. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without past medical history of other illness in the participants of responders."||||0.010
91049341|NCT00605865|181984401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||not adjusted, p=0.050|Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was average daily dose. The null hypothesis is there is no difference of five types of average daily dose in the participants of responders."||||<0.001
91049342|NCT00605865|181984402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|||||not adjusted, p=0.050|Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was suicidal ideation (including suicide attempt). The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without suicidal ideation(including suicide attempt) in the participants of responders."||||0.014
91049343|NCT00605865|181984403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|||||not adjusted, p=0.050|Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was 15 years and higher of age or not. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between 15 years and higher of age or not in the participants of responders."||||0.021
91049344|NCT00605865|181984404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||not adjusted, p=0.050|Chi-squared|||"The factor tested was target disease severity. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between three grade of target disease severity in the participants of responders."||||<0.001
91049345|NCT00605865|181984405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|||||not adjusted, p=0.050|Chi-squared|||"The factor tested was history of treatment prior to Sertralin. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without history of treatment prior to Sertralin in the participants of responders."||||0.003
91049346|NCT00605865|181984406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|||||not adjusted, p=0.050|Chi-squared|||"The factor tested was outpatient or inpatient. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between outpatient or inpatient in the participants of responders."||||0.012
91049347|NCT00605865|181984407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|||||not adjusted, p=0.050|Chi-squared|||"The factor tested was complications. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with or without complications in the participants of responders."||||0.019
91049348|NCT00605865|181984408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||not adjusted, p=0.050|Chi-squared|||"The factor tested was 15 years and higher of age or not. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between 15 years and higher of age or not in the participants of responders."||||0.010
91049349|NCT00605865|181984409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|||||not adjusted, p=0.050|Chi-squared|||"The factor tested was age. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between four groups of age in the participants of responders."||||0.015
91049350|NCT00605865|181984410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||not adjusted, p=0.050|Chi-squared|||"The factor tested was suicidal ideation (including suicide attempt). The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with or without suicidal ideation (including suicide attempt) in the participants of responders."||||<0.001
91049351|NCT02856880|181984438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square (LS) mean difference|40.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.37|47.99||Obtained from ANCOVA including period and treatment as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and participant-level pre-treatment values and period minus participant-level pre-treatment values as covariates in the model.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference indicates a greater inhibition of plaque Glycolysis for the first named treatment.|||47.99|32.37|<0.0001
91049352|NCT02856880|181984439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|26.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.94|33.88||Obtained from ANCOVA including period and treatment as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and participant-level pre-treatment values and period minus participant-level pre-treatment values as covariates in the model.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference indicates a greater inhibition of plaque glycolysis for the first named treatment.|||33.88|18.94|<0.0001
91049353|NCT02856880|181984439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.91||||0.4823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.18|5.37||Obtained from ANCOVA including period and treatment as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and participant-level pre-treatment values and period minus participant-level pre-treatment values as covariates in the model.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference indicates a greater inhibition of glycolysis for the first named treatment.|||5.37|-11.18|0.4823
91049354|NCT02856880|181984439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|10.86||||0.0072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.13|18.59||Obtained from ANCOVA including period and treatment as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and participant-level pre-treatment values and period minus participant-level pre-treatment values as covariates in the model.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference indicates a greater inhibition of plaque glycolysis for the first named treatment.|||18.59|3.13|0.0072
91049355|NCT02856880|181984439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|13.77||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.01|21.53||Obtained from ANCOVA including period and treatment as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and participant-level pre-treatment values and period minus participant-level pre-treatment values as covariates in the model.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference indicates a greater inhibition of plaque glycolysis for the first named treatment.|||21.53|6.01|0.0009
91007455|NCT02442765|181899015|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.5|||=|0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|1.4||MMRMs include fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, BL, BL-by-visit, and in the Stage 1 model, BL NPI AA, risk assessment for falls, BL concomitant antipsychotic medication use. Unstructured variance-covariance was used.|MMRM|||||1.4|-8.4|=0.157
91004731|NCT04423718|181893489|NON_INFERIORITY|One-sided test (alpha=0.025) for non-inferiority at a 4-letter margin|Difference in LS means|-0.92|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|0.66||EMA/PMDA specific hierarchy: i.e. secondary endpoint was tested after primary endpoint (HDq16-2q8). Since p-value below significance level 0.025, EMA/PMDA specific fixed sequence testing continued with secondary endpoint test (no IRF no SRF at W16)|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline BCVA and randomization strata|Estimation mainly based on hypothetical strategy, i.e. observed data beyond intercurrent events (premature discontinuation of treatment, missing injection, prohibited medication) were censored. Missing/censored data was handled implicitly by MMRM|HDq16 - 2q8||0.66|-2.51|<0.0001
91004732|NCT04423718|181893490|SUPERIORITY|One sided test (alpha = 0.025) for superiority|Difference|11.733||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.263|18.204||Strictly hierarchical testing procedure to adjust for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by baseline BCVA and randomization strata|Estimation mainly based on hypothetical strategy, i.e. observed data beyond intercurrent events (premature discontinuation of treatment, missing injection, prohibited medication) were censored. Missing/censored data was imputed by LOCF approach|All HD - 2q8||18.204|5.263|0.0002
91004733|NCT04423718|181893491|EQUIVALENCE|Two sided test (alpha = 0.05)|Difference|-1.748||||0.5704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.784|4.287||Nominal p-value, not adjusted for multiplicity|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by baseline BCVA and randomization strata|Estimation mainly based on hypothetical strategy, i.e. observed data beyond intercurrent events (premature discontinuation of treatment, missing injection, prohibited medication) were censored. Missing/censored data was imputed by LOCF approach|HDq12 - 2q8||4.287|-7.784|0.5704
91004734|NCT04423718|181893491|EQUIVALENCE|Two sided test (alpha = 0.05)|Difference|-0.939||||0.7611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.997|5.119||Nominal p-value, not adjusted for multiplicity|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by baseline BCVA and randomization strata|Estimation mainly based on hypothetical strategy, i.e. observed data beyond intercurrent events (premature discontinuation of treatment, missing injection, prohibited medication) were censored. Missing/censored data was imputed by LOCF approach|HDq16 - 2q8||5.119|-6.997|0.7611
91004735|NCT04423718|181893492|EQUIVALENCE|Two sided test (alpha = 0.05)|Difference|-0.182||||0.9554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.565|6.2||Nominal p-value, not adjusted for multiplicity|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by baseline BCVA and randomization strata|Estimation mainly based on hypothetical strategy, i.e. observed data beyond intercurrent events (premature discontinuation of treatment, missing injection, prohibited medication) were censored. Missing/censored data was imputed by LOCF approach|HDq12 - 2q8||6.200|-6.565|0.9554
91004736|NCT04423718|181893492|EQUIVALENCE|Two sided test (alpha = 0.05)|Difference|-2.221||||0.4834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.435|3.994||Nominal p-value, not adjusted for multiplicity|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by baseline BCVA and randomization strata|Estimation mainly based on hypothetical strategy, i.e. observed data beyond intercurrent events (premature discontinuation of treatment, missing injection, prohibited medication) were censored. Missing/censored data was imputed by LOCF approach|HDq16 - 2q8||3.994|-8.435|0.4834
91004737|NCT04423718|181893493|EQUIVALENCE|Two sided test (alpha = 0.05)|Difference in LS means|-1.22||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|-0.51||Nominal p-value, not adjusted for multiplicity|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline CNV size and randomization strata|Estimation mainly based on hypothetical strategy, i.e. observed data beyond intercurrent events (premature discontinuation of treatment, missing injection, prohibited medication) were censored. Missing/censored data was handled implicitly by MMRM|HDq12 - 2q8||-0.51|-1.94|0.0009
91004738|NCT04423718|181893493|EQUIVALENCE|Two sided test (alpha = 0.05)|Difference in LS means|-0.48||||0.2076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|0.27||Nominal p-value, not adjusted for multiplicity|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline CNV size and randomization strata|Estimation mainly based on hypothetical strategy, i.e. observed data beyond intercurrent events (premature discontinuation of treatment, missing injection, prohibited medication) were censored. Missing/censored data was handled implicitly by MMRM|HDq16 - 2q8||0.27|-1.22|0.2076
91004739|NCT04423718|181893494|EQUIVALENCE|Two sided test (alpha = 0.05)|Difference in LS means|-0.55||||0.0287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|-0.06||Nominal p-value, not adjusted for multiplicity|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline total lesion area and randomization strata|Estimation mainly based on hypothetical strategy, i.e. observed data beyond intercurrent events (premature discontinuation of treatment, missing injection, prohibited medication) were censored. Missing/censored data was handled implicitly by MMRM|HDq12 - 2q8||-0.06|-1.04|0.0287
91004740|NCT04423718|181893494|EQUIVALENCE|Two sided test (alpha = 0.05)|Difference in LS means|-0.44||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.06||Nominal p-value, not adjusted for multiplicity|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline total lesion area and randomization strata|Estimation mainly based on hypothetical strategy, i.e. observed data beyond intercurrent events (premature discontinuation of treatment, missing injection, prohibited medication) were censored. Missing/censored data was handled implicitly by MMRM|HDq16 - 2q8||0.06|-0.94|0.0870
91004741|NCT04423718|181893495|EQUIVALENCE|Two sided test (alpha = 0.05)|Difference|11.725||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.527|18.923||Nominal p-value, not adjusted for multiplicity|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by baseline BCVA and randomization strata|Estimation mainly based on hypothetical strategy, i.e. observed data beyond intercurrent events (premature discontinuation of treatment, missing injection, prohibited medication) were censored. Missing/censored data was imputed by LOCF approach|HDq12 - 2q8||18.923|4.527|0.0015
91004742|NCT04423718|181893495|EQUIVALENCE|Two sided test (alpha = 0.05)|Difference|7.451||||0.0458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.142|14.76||Nominal p-value, not adjusted for multiplicity|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by baseline BCVA and randomization strata|Estimation mainly based on hypothetical strategy, i.e. observed data beyond intercurrent events (premature discontinuation of treatment, missing injection, prohibited medication) were censored. Missing/censored data was imputed by LOCF approach|HDq16 - 2q8||14.760|0.142|0.0458
91004743|NCT04423718|181893496|EQUIVALENCE|Two sided test (alpha = 0.05)|Difference in LS means|-11.12||||0.0283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.06|-1.18||Nominal p-value, not adjusted for multiplicity|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline CST and randomization strata|Estimation mainly based on hypothetical strategy, i.e. observed data beyond intercurrent events (premature discontinuation of treatment, missing injection, prohibited medication) were censored. Missing/censored data was handled implicitly by MMRM|HDq12 - 2q8||-1.18|-21.06|0.0283
91004744|NCT04423718|181893496|EQUIVALENCE|Two sided test (alpha = 0.05)|Difference in LS means|-10.51||||0.0321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.12|-0.9||Nominal p-value, not adjusted for multiplicity|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline CST and randomization strata|Estimation mainly based on hypothetical strategy, i.e. observed data beyond intercurrent events (premature discontinuation of treatment, missing injection, prohibited medication) were censored. Missing/censored data was handled implicitly by MMRM|HDq16 - 2q8||-0.90|-20.12|0.0321
91004745|NCT04423718|181893497|EQUIVALENCE|Two sided test (alpha = 0.05)|Difference in LS means|-0.72||||0.3817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|0.9||Nominal p-value, not adjusted for multiplicity|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline NEI-VFQ-25 total score and randomization strata|Estimation mainly based on hypothetical strategy, i.e. observed data beyond intercurrent events (premature discontinuation of treatment, missing injection, prohibited medication) were censored. Missing/censored data was handled implicitly by MMRM|HDq12 - 2q8||0.90|-2.35|0.3817
91004746|NCT04423718|181893497|EQUIVALENCE|Two sided test (alpha = 0.05)|Difference in LS means|-0.87||||0.307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.55|0.8||Nominal p-value, not adjusted for multiplicity|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline NEI-VFQ-25 total score and randomization strata|Estimation mainly based on hypothetical strategy, i.e. observed data beyond intercurrent events (premature discontinuation of treatment, missing injection, prohibited medication) were censored. Missing/censored data was handled implicitly by MMRM|HDq16 - 2q8||0.80|-2.55|0.3070
91004747|NCT03887052|181893532|NON_INFERIORITY|The primary endpoint was performed as a one-sided test with a 0.025 significance level of the null hypothesis (H0) that the WCD false positive shock alarm rate per patient-day for the study device was equal to or greater than the comparator rate (0.29). A random-effects Poisson regression model was fit with the number of false-positive shock alarms for each patient as the outcome, the logarithm of days of wear as an offset, and random site effect.|||||<|0.001||||||"Hypotheses:~H0: p1 ≥ 0.29 H1: p1 \< 0.29~where p1 = A-WCD False Positive Alarm Rate"|One-sided non-inferiority|Poisson Regression Analysis||The analysis was based on the cohort of 130 patients with three false-positive shock alarms occurring over a total of 3501 patient-days (500 weeks), or 0.0060 false-positive shock alarms per patient-week. The Poisson distribution was used to model the results and calculate the false-positive shock alarm rate.||||<0.001
91004748|NCT01266876|181893611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for significance at ≤ 0.05.|ANCOVA|||"Each treatment group was compared to placebo using ANCOVA-derived contrasts.~A hierarchical testing procedure was applied to ensure strong control of overall Type-I error rate at 0.05 level. Order was following:~1. Alirocumab 150 mg Q2W versus placebo~2. Alirocumab 300 mg Q4W versus placebo~3. Alirocumab 200 mg Q4W versus placebo~4. Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W versus placebo~Testing continued only when high-order test was statistically significant at 5% level."||||0.0000
91004749|NCT01266876|181893611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for significance at ≤ 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||||0.0000
91004750|NCT01266876|181893611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for significance at ≤ 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||||0.0035
91004751|NCT01266876|181893611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0113|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for significance at ≤ 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||||0.0113
91004752|NCT01058395|181893630|SUPERIORITY|"Comparison between groups at 3 months (primary).~Comparison between the 2 tiers."||||||0.021||||||P-value|ANCOVA|Threshold for significance was P-value \< 0.05||DRS levels changes at from 4 weeks to 3 months comparing the different doses.||||0.021
91004753|NCT01058395|181893630|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.258|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between groups in the DRS scores at 3 months.||||0.258
91004754|NCT01058395|181893630|SUPERIORITY|t-test||||||0.541|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between groups in the DRS scores at 4 weeks.||||0.541
91004755|NCT01058395|181893632|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|176.0|||>|0.05|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91004756|NCT02213081|181893679|EQUIVALENCE|Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to determine if the mean difference in pain scores before compared to during ulipristal therapy were equivalent or non-equivalent.|Mean Difference (Net)|3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank|||||||<0.05
91049356|NCT02856880|181984439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|8.44||||0.0286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|15.95||Obtained from ANCOVA including period and treatment as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and participant-level pre-treatment values and period minus participant-level pre-treatment values as covariates in the model.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference indicates a greater inhibition of plaque glycolysis for the first named treatment.|||15.95|0.93|0.0286
91049357|NCT02856880|181984439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|5.32||||0.1573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|12.79||Obtained from ANCOVA including period and treatment as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and participant-level pre-treatment values and period minus participant-level pre-treatment values as covariates in the model.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference indicates a greater inhibition of plaque glycolysis for the first named treatment.|||12.79|-2.15|0.1573
91049358|NCT02856880|181984439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-29.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.2|-21.43||Obtained from ANCOVA including period and treatment as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and participant-level pre-treatment values and period minus participant-level pre-treatment values as covariates in the model.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference indicates a greater inhibition of plaque glycolysis for the first named treatment.|||-21.43|-37.20|<0.0001
91049359|NCT02856880|181984439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|31.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.18|39.3||Obtained from ANCOVA including period and treatment as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and participant-level pre-treatment values and period minus participant-level pre-treatment values as covariates in the model.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference indicates a greater inhibition of plaque glycolysis for the first named treatment.|||39.30|24.18|<0.0001
91049360|NCT02856880|181984439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.42||||0.5174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.08|9.92||Obtained from ANCOVA including period and treatment as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and participant-level pre-treatment values and period minus participant-level pre-treatment values as covariates in the model.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference indicates a greater inhibition of plaque glycolysis for the first named treatment.|||9.92|-5.08|0.5174
91049361|NCT02856880|181984440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-233.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-332.88|-133.55||Obtained from ANCOVA including period and treatment as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and participant-level pre-treatment values and period minus participant-level pre-treatment values as covariates in the model.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference indicates a greater inhibition of plaque regrowth for the first named treatment.|||-133.55|-332.88|<0.0001
91049362|NCT02856880|181984440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|35.53||||0.5018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.9|140.96||Obtained from ANCOVA including period and treatment as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and participant-level pre-treatment values and period minus participant-level pre-treatment values as covariates in the model.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference indicates a greater inhibition of plaque regrowth for the first named treatment.|||140.96|-69.90|0.5018
91049363|NCT02856880|181984440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-24.73||||0.6325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-128.07|78.61||Obtained from ANCOVA including period and treatment as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and participant-level pre-treatment values and period minus participant-level pre-treatment values as covariates in the model.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference indicates a greater inhibition of plaque regrowth for the first named treatment.|||78.61|-128.07|0.6325
91004757|NCT03676465|181893689|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Calculated p value was \>0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91004758|NCT03676465|181893690|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Calculated p value was \>0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91004759|NCT03676465|181893691|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Calculated p value was \>0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91004760|NCT03676465|181893692|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Calculated p value was \>0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91004761|NCT03676465|181893693|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
91004762|NCT03676465|181893694|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Calculated p value was \>0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91004763|NCT03676465|181893695|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
91004764|NCT03676465|181893696|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Calculated p value was \>0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91004765|NCT03676465|181893697|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Calculated p value was \>0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91004766|NCT03676465|181893698|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Calculated p value was \>0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
91004767|NCT03676465|181893699|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Calculated p value was \>0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91004768|NCT03676465|181893700|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Calculated p value was \>0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
91004769|NCT03676465|181893701|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Calculated p value was \>0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
91004770|NCT03676465|181893702|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91004771|NCT01836029|181893723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.266|ONE_SIDED|90.0||1.22||The 1-sided p-value based on a log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factors.|Log Rank|||||1.22||0.266
91004772|NCT01836029|181893725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.399|ONE_SIDED|90.0||1.22||The 1-sided p-value based on a log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factors.|Log Rank|||||1.22||0.399
91004773|NCT01836029|181893726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.536||||||p-values are from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel tests controlling for randomization stratification factors and comparing tumor response rates between the treatment groups.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.536
91004774|NCT01526928|181893742|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Since an MTD was never reached for any of the rociletinib FB or HBr formulations/doses, a 750 mg BID HBr starting dose was selected based on early efficacy data from Phase 1, and enrollment into Phase 2 was initiated at this dosage. As the Phase 1 efficacy data matured, the recommended dose was adjusted to 625 mg BID based on antitumor activity and safety evaluations.|||
91004775|NCT05559203|181893767|EQUIVALENCE|0.05 test of null hypothesis that there will be no significant change from baseline to post-intervention||||||0.752|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired sample||Feasibility study so no power calculation. N = 18 with baseline and follow-up data.||||.752
91004776|NCT05559203|181893768|EQUIVALENCE|0.05 test of null hypothesis that there will be no significant change from baseline to post-intervention||||||0.197|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Feasibility study so no power calculation. N = 18 with baseline and follow-up data.||||.197
91004777|NCT05559203|181893769|EQUIVALENCE|0.05 test of null hypothesis that there will be no significant change from baseline to post-intervention||||||0.562|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.562
91004778|NCT05559203|181893770|EQUIVALENCE|0.05 test of null hypothesis that there will be no significant change from baseline to post-intervention||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Anxiety subscale||||.020
91004779|NCT05559203|181893770|EQUIVALENCE|0.05 test of null hypothesis that there will be no significant change from baseline to post-intervention||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Depression subscale||||.002
91004780|NCT05559203|181893771|EQUIVALENCE|0.05 test of null hypothesis that there will be no significant change from baseline to post-intervention||||||0.036|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.036
91004781|NCT05559203|181893772|EQUIVALENCE|0.05 test of null hypothesis that there will be no significant change from baseline to post-intervention||||||0.042|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.042
91004782|NCT05559203|181893773|EQUIVALENCE|0.05 test of null hypothesis that there will be no significant change from baseline to post-intervention|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
91004783|NCT05559203|181893774|EQUIVALENCE|0.05 test of null hypothesis that there will be no significant change from baseline to post-intervention||||||0.781|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.781
91004784|NCT03489850|181893789|SUPERIORITY||Parameter Estimate|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|1.69|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||1.69|-1.01|.62
91004785|NCT03489850|181893790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.55|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.98|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||.98|.30|<0.05
91004786|NCT03489850|181893791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.48|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||1.48|0.47|<0.05
91004787|NCT03489850|181893792|SUPERIORITY||F|7.36|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
91004788|NCT01302691|181893812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.1||||0.205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|0.6|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model includes treatment group, time point, and the interaction of time by treatment with restriction of same baseline mean across treatment groups||||0.6|-2.7|0.205
91004789|NCT01302691|181893818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-3.2||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|-0.8|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model includes treatment group, time point, and the interaction of time by treatment with restriction of same baseline mean across treatment groups||||-0.8|-5.7|0.011
91004790|NCT02725268|181893874|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||=|0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.12||The p-value was obtained using stratified log-rank test with histological subtype, lines of prior chemotherapy and prior taxane therapy (original stratification values).|Stratified Log-rank Test||The hazard ratio was obtained using a stratified Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for histological subtype, lines of prior chemotherapy and prior taxane therapy. A hazard ratio of \<1 was considered statistically significant.|||1.12|0.58|=0.178
91004791|NCT02725268|181893874|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.85|||=|0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|2.86||The p-value was obtained using stratified log-rank test with histological subtype, lines of prior chemotherapy and prior taxane therapy (original stratification values).|Stratified Log-rank Test||The hazard ratio was obtained using a stratified Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for histological subtype, lines of prior chemotherapy and prior taxane therapy. A hazard ratio of \<1 was considered statistically significant.|||2.86|1.19|=0.092
91004792|NCT02725268|181893874|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.57|||=|0.147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|4.49||The p-value was obtained using stratified log-rank test with histological subtype, lines of prior chemotherapy and prior taxane therapy (original stratification values).|Stratified Log-rank Test||The hazard ratio was obtained using a stratified Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for histological subtype, lines of prior chemotherapy and prior taxane therapy. A hazard ratio of \<1 was considered statistically significant.|||4.49|1.47|=0.147
91004793|NCT02725268|181893876|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04|||=|0.968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.5||The p-value was obtained using stratified log-rank test with histological subtype, lines of prior chemotherapy and prior taxane therapy (original stratification values).|Stratified Log-rank Test||The hazard ratio was obtained using a stratified Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for histological subtype, lines of prior chemotherapy and prior taxane therapy. A hazard ratio of \<1 was considered statistically significant.|||1.50|0.72|=0.968
91004794|NCT02725268|181893876|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.5|||=|0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.37||The p-value was obtained using stratified log-rank test with histological subtype, lines of prior chemotherapy and prior taxane therapy (original stratification values).|Stratified Log-rank Test||The hazard ratio was obtained using a stratified Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for histological subtype, lines of prior chemotherapy and prior taxane therapy. A hazard ratio of \<1 was considered statistically significant.|||2.37|0.95|=0.145
91004795|NCT02725268|181893876|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.54|||=|0.243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|2.73||The p-value was obtained using stratified log-rank test with histological subtype, lines of prior chemotherapy and prior taxane therapy (original stratification values).|Stratified Log-rank Test||The hazard ratio was obtained using a stratified Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for histological subtype, lines of prior chemotherapy and prior taxane therapy. A hazard ratio of \<1 was considered statistically significant.|||2.73|0.87|=0.243
91004796|NCT02725268|181893877|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79|||=|0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.11||The p-value was obtained using stratified log-rank test with histological subtype, lines of prior chemotherapy and prior taxane therapy (original stratification values).|Stratified Log-rank Test||The hazard ratio was obtained using a stratified Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for histological subtype, lines of prior chemotherapy and prior taxane therapy. A hazard ratio of \<1 was considered statistically significant.|||1.11|0.57|=0.170
91004797|NCT02725268|181893877|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.67|||=|0.224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|2.68||The p-value was obtained using stratified log-rank test with histological subtype, lines of prior chemotherapy and prior taxane therapy (original stratification values).|Stratified Log-rank Test||The hazard ratio was obtained using a stratified Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for histological subtype, lines of prior chemotherapy and prior taxane therapy. A hazard ratio of \<1 was considered statistically significant.|||2.68|1.04|=0.224
91004798|NCT02725268|181893877|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.28|||=|0.244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|3.96||The p-value was obtained using stratified log-rank test with histological subtype, lines of prior chemotherapy and prior taxane therapy (original stratification values).|Stratified Log-rank Test||The hazard ratio was obtained using a stratified Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for histological subtype, lines of prior chemotherapy and prior taxane therapy. A hazard ratio of \<1 was considered statistically significant.|||3.96|1.32|=0.244
91049364|NCT02856880|181984440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-60.26||||0.2427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-162.72|42.21||Obtained from ANCOVA including period and treatment as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and participant-level pre-treatment values and period minus participant-level pre-treatment values as covariates in the model.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference indicates a greater inhibition of plaque regrowth for the first named treatment.|||42.21|-162.72|0.2427
91049365|NCT02856880|181984440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.05||||0.9834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.5|102.61||Obtained from ANCOVA including period and treatment as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and participant-level pre-treatment values and period minus participant-level pre-treatment values as covariates in the model.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference indicates a greater inhibition of plaque regrowth for the first named treatment.|||102.61|-100.50|0.9834
91049366|NCT02856880|181984440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-61.31||||0.2226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-161.14|38.52||Obtained from ANCOVA including period and treatment as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and participant-level pre-treatment values and period minus participant-level pre-treatment values as covariates in the model.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference indicates a greater inhibition of plaque regrowth for the first named treatment.|||38.52|-161.14|0.2226
91049367|NCT02856880|181984440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|268.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|165.98|371.51||Obtained from ANCOVA including period and treatment as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and participant-level pre-treatment values and period minus participant-level pre-treatment values as covariates in the model.|ANCOVA||Difference is second named treatment(non-SLS negative control) minus first named treatment (SLS negative control) such that a negative difference indicates a greater inhibition of plaque|||371.51|165.98|<0.0001
91049368|NCT02856880|181984440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-293.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-396.03|-190.91||Obtained from ANCOVA including period and treatment as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and participant-level pre-treatment values and period minus participant-level pre-treatment values as covariates in the model.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference indicates a greater inhibition of plaque regrowth for the first named treatment.|||-190.91|-396.03|<0.0001
91004799|NCT02725268|181893878|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.9|||||The odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals were obtained using a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model with histological subtype, lines of prior chemotherapy and prior taxane therapy (original stratification values).|||2.90|0.66|
91004800|NCT02725268|181893878|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|1.14|||||The odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals were obtained using a stratified CMH model with histological subtype, lines of prior chemotherapy and prior taxane therapy (original stratification values).|||1.14|0.04|
91004801|NCT02725268|181893878|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||||The odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals were obtained using a stratified CMH model with histological subtype, lines of prior chemotherapy and prior taxane therapy (original stratification values).|||0.00|0.00|
91004802|NCT02725268|181893879|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|5.96|||||The odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals were obtained using a stratified CMH model with histological subtype, lines of prior chemotherapy and prior taxane therapy (original stratification values).|||5.96|1.53|
91004803|NCT02725268|181893879|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.86|||||The odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals were obtained using a stratified CMH model with histological subtype, lines of prior chemotherapy and prior taxane therapy (original stratification values).|||0.86|0.18|
91004804|NCT02725268|181893879|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.21|||||The odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals were obtained using a stratified CMH model with histological subtype, lines of prior chemotherapy and prior taxane therapy (original stratification values).|||1.21|0.15|
91004805|NCT02725268|181893880|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|7.67|||||The odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals were obtained using a stratified CMH model with histological subtype, lines of prior chemotherapy and prior taxane therapy (original stratification values).|||7.67|0.89|
91004806|NCT02725268|181893880|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.51|||||The odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals were obtained using a stratified CMH model with histological subtype, lines of prior chemotherapy and prior taxane therapy (original stratification values).|||0.51|0.05|
91004807|NCT02725268|181893880|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.67|||||The odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals were obtained using a stratified CMH model with histological subtype, lines of prior chemotherapy and prior taxane therapy (original stratification values).|||0.67|0.01|
91004808|NCT01838304|181893883|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.21|14.81|||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test for odd's ratio of time below a saturation of 80% to total time||14.81|4.21|<0.0001
91004809|NCT03674541|181893885|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.043|||||||Welch's t-test|||||||0.043
91004810|NCT03674541|181893886|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008||||||P-value was not adjusted for multiplicity for secondary outcomes|Welch's t-test|||||||0.008
91004811|NCT03674541|181893887|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.263||||||Not adjusted for multiplicity|Welch's t-test|||||||0.263
91004812|NCT03674541|181893888|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.039||||||Not adjusted for multiplicity|Welch's t-test|||||||0.039
91004813|NCT03674541|181893889|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.068||||||Not adjusted for multiplicity|Welch's t-test|||||||0.068
91004814|NCT03674541|181893890|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.045||||||Not adjusted for multiplicity|Welch's t-test|||||||0.045
91004815|NCT03674541|181893891|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Not adjusted multiplicity|Welch's t-test|||||||1.000
91004816|NCT03674541|181893892|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.093||||||Not adjusted for multiplicity|Welch's t-test|||||||0.093
91004817|NCT03674541|181893893|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.427||||||Not adjusted for multiplicity|Welch's t-test|||||||0.427
91004818|NCT03674541|181893894|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.262||||||Not adjusted for multiplicity|Welch's t-test|||||||0.262
91004819|NCT03674541|181893895|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038||||||Not adjusted for multiplicity|Welch's t-test|||||||0.038
91004820|NCT03674541|181893896|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.147|||||||Welch's t-test|||||||0.147
91004821|NCT00117572|181893917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.41|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio is (Induction+CRT)/CRT|Comparison of overall survival curves||1.41|0.59|0.68
91004822|NCT00117572|181893918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.25|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio is (Induction+CRT)/CRT|||1.25|0.55|0.37
91004823|NCT00117572|181893919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.12|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio is (Induction+CRT)/CRT|||1.12|0.51|0.16
91004824|NCT00117572|181893920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.57
91004825|NCT00117572|181893921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.11
91004826|NCT00117572|181893922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Comparison of change scores between treatment groups||||||0.55
91004827|NCT00117572|181893923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.034
91004828|NCT00117572|181893924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.35
91004829|NCT00117572|181893925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.96
91004830|NCT00117572|181893926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.88
91049369|NCT02856880|181984440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-294.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-395.43|-193.62||Obtained from ANCOVA including period and treatment as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and participant-level pre-treatment values and period minus participant-level pre-treatment values as covariates in the model.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference indicates a greater inhibition of plaque regrowth for the first named treatment.|||-193.62|-395.43|<0.0001
91049370|NCT02856880|181984440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-25.78||||0.6086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-126.53|74.96||Obtained from ANCOVA including period and treatment as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and participant-level pre-treatment values and period minus participant-level pre-treatment values as covariates in the model.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference indicates a greater inhibition of plaque regrowth for the first named treatment.|||74.96|-126.53|0.6086
91049371|NCT02856880|181984441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-273.92||||0.6664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1550.45|1002.61||Obtained from ANCOVA including period and treatment as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and participant-level pre-treatment values and period minus participant-level pre-treatment values as covariates in the model.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference indicates a smaller live:dead stain ratio for the first named treatment.|||1002.61|-1550.45|0.6664
91049372|NCT02856880|181984441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|674.06||||0.3249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-692.21|2040.33||Obtained from ANCOVA including period and treatment as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and participant-level pre-treatment values and period minus participant-level pre-treatment values as covariates in the model.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference indicates a smaller live:dead stain ratio for the first named treatment.|||2040.33|-692.21|0.3249
91049373|NCT02856880|181984441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|677.09||||0.3544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-784.16|2138.35||Obtained from ANCOVA including period and treatment as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and participant-level pre-treatment values and period minus participant-level pre-treatment values as covariates in the model.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference indicates a smaller live:dead stain ratio for the first named treatment.|||2138.35|-784.16|0.3544
91049374|NCT02856880|181984441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|3.04||||0.9967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1469.45|1475.52||Obtained from ANCOVA including period and treatment as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and participant-level pre-treatment values and period minus participant-level pre-treatment values as covariates in the model.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference indicates a smaller live:dead stain ratio for the first named treatment.|||1475.52|-1469.45|0.9967
91049375|NCT02856880|181984441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|766.64||||0.2976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-703.26|2236.54||Obtained from ANCOVA including period and treatment as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and participant-level pre-treatment values and period minus participant-level pre-treatment values as covariates in the model.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference indicates a smaller live:dead stain ratio for the first named treatment.|||2236.54|-703.26|0.2976
91049376|NCT02856880|181984441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-763.6||||0.2702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2144.45|617.25||Obtained from ANCOVA including period and treatment as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and participant-level pre-treatment values and period minus participant-level pre-treatment values as covariates in the model.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference indicates a smaller live:dead stain ratio for the first named treatment.|||617.25|-2144.45|0.2702
91049377|NCT02856880|181984441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|947.97||||0.1511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-361.95|2257.9||Obtained from ANCOVA including period and treatment as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and participant-level pre-treatment values and period minus participant-level pre-treatment values as covariates in the model.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference indicates a smaller live:dead stain ratio for the first named treatment.|||2257.90|-361.95|0.1511
91049378|NCT02856880|181984441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-270.88||||0.6998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1680.58|1138.82||Obtained from ANCOVA including period and treatment as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and participant-level pre-treatment values and period minus participant-level pre-treatment values as covariates in the model.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference indicates a smaller live:dead stain ratio for the first named treatment.|||1138.82|-1680.58|0.6998
91004831|NCT00117572|181893927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.83
91049379|NCT02856880|181984441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1037.52||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2361.33|286.29||Obtained from ANCOVA including period and treatment as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and participant -level pre-treatment values and period minus participant -level pre-treatment values as covariates in the model.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference indicates a smaller live:dead stain ratio for the first named treatment.|||286.29|-2361.33|0.1210
91004832|NCT00117572|181893928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.49
91004833|NCT00117572|181893929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.090
91004834|NCT04973085|181893930|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
91004835|NCT00997555|181893937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.6
91004836|NCT00997555|181893938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7||95.0||||(bronchoscopy 5.1 days, 95% CI +/- 3.6 days versus control 6.7 days, 95% CI +/- 6.3 days, p = 0.7).|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7
91049380|NCT02856880|181984441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-89.54||||0.8935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1439.5|1260.41||Obtained from ANCOVA including period and treatment as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and participant-level pre-treatment values and period minus participant-level pre-treatment values as covariates in the model.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference indicates a smaller live:dead stain ratio for the first named treatment.|||1260.41|-1439.50|0.8935
91004837|NCT00997555|181893939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|(bronchoscopy 10 days, 95% CI +/- 10 days versus control 18 days, 95% CI +/- 12 days, p = 0.4).||||||0.4
91004838|NCT00997555|181893940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|(bronchoscopy 21 days, 95% CI +/- 12 days versus control 26 days, 95% CI +/- 12 days, p = 0.5).||||||0.5
91004839|NCT00804986|181893954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-0.47||||0.0109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.11||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 HbA1c for 0.5 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo with values \<0.05 considered to be statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline HbA1c, metformin use, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||-0.11|-0.83|0.0109
91004840|NCT00804986|181893954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-0.67||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.31||p-value represents change from baseline to week 12 HbA1c for 2.0 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo with values \<0.05 considered to be statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline HbA1c, metformin use, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||-0.31|-1.02|0.0003
91004841|NCT00804986|181893954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-1.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|-0.76||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 HbA1c for 6.2 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo with values \<0.05 considered to be statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline HbA1c, metformin use, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||-0.76|-1.46|<0.0001
91004842|NCT00804986|181893954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-1.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|-0.93||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 HbA1c for 12.0 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo with values \<0.05 considered to be statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline HbA1c, metformin use, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||-0.93|-1.64|<0.0001
91004843|NCT00804986|181893954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-1.24|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|-0.88||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 HbA1c for 17.6 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo with values \<0.05 considered to be statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline HbA1c, metformin use, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||-0.88|-1.59|<0.0001
91004844|NCT00804986|181893955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|1.93||||0.655||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for hunger, 0.5 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||0.655
91004845|NCT00804986|181893955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|3.36||||0.436||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for hunger, 2.0 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||0.436
91004846|NCT00804986|181893955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|0.45||||0.914||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for hunger, 6.2 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||0.914
91004847|NCT00804986|181893955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|3.3||||0.446||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for hunger, 12.0 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||0.446
91004848|NCT00804986|181893955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|2.84||||0.508||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for hunger, 17.6 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||0.508
91004849|NCT00804986|181893955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|2.89||||0.561||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for how full, 0.5 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||0.561
91004850|NCT00804986|181893955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-7.4||||0.135||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for how full, 2.0 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||0.135
91004851|NCT00804986|181893955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-4.45||||0.357||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for how full, 6.2 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||0.357
91004852|NCT00804986|181893955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-8.05||||0.105||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for how full, 12.0 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||0.105
91004853|NCT00804986|181893955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-6.02||||0.221||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for how full, 17.6 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||0.221
91004854|NCT00804986|181893958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-4.54||||0.4848||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for fasting glucose, 0.5 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||0.4848
91049381|NCT00094458|181984442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The P-Value is from a CMH test stratified by duration of Crohn's disease and corticosteroid treatment at Baseline||||||<0.001
91004855|NCT00804986|181893958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-19.48||||0.0029||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for fasting glucose, 2.0 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||0.0029
91004856|NCT00804986|181893958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-32.52|||<|0.0001||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for fasting glucose, 6.2 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||<0.0001
91004857|NCT00804986|181893958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-30.45|||<|0.0001||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for fasting glucose, 12.0 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||<0.0001
91004858|NCT00804986|181893958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-35.25|||<|0.0001||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for fasting glucose, 17.6 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||<0.0001
91004859|NCT00804986|181893958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-5.32||||0.6279||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for 2 hours post breakfast glucose, 0.5 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||0.6279
91004860|NCT00804986|181893958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-29.72||||0.0072||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for 2 hours post breakfast glucose, 2.0 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||0.0072
91004861|NCT00804986|181893958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-42.49|||<|0.0001||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for 2 hours post breakfast glucose, 6.2 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||<0.0001
91004862|NCT00804986|181893958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-43.05||||0.0001||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for 2 hours post breakfast glucose, 12.0 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||0.0001
91004863|NCT00804986|181893958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-51.38|||<|0.0001||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for 2 hours post breakfast glucose, 17.6 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||<0.0001
91004864|NCT00804986|181893958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-20.21||||0.0335||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for prior to lunch glucose, 0.5 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||0.0335
91004865|NCT00804986|181893958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-21.91||||0.0221||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for prior to lunch glucose, 2.0 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||0.0221
91004866|NCT00804986|181893958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-39.41|||<|0.0001||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for prior to lunch glucose, 6.2 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||<0.0001
91004867|NCT00804986|181893958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-36.07||||0.0002||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for prior to lunch glucose, 12.0 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||0.0002
91049382|NCT00094458|181984442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The P-Value is from a CMH test stratified by duration of Crohn's disease and corticosteroid treatment at Baseline||||||0.006
91004868|NCT00804986|181893958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-40.36|||<|0.0001||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for prior to lunch glucose, 17.6 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||<0.0001
91049383|NCT00094458|181984442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The P-Value is from a CMH test stratified by duration of Crohn's disease and corticosteroid treatment at Baseline||||||0.022
91049384|NCT00094458|181984443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The P-Value is from a CMH test stratified by duration of Crohn's disease and corticosteroid treatment at Baseline||||||<0.001
91049385|NCT00094458|181984443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The P-Value is from a CMH test stratified by duration of Crohn's disease and corticosteroid treatment at Baseline||||||0.023
91049386|NCT00094458|181984443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.055||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The P-Value is from a CMH test stratified by duration of Crohn's disease and corticosteroid treatment at Baseline||||||0.055
91049387|NCT03247517|181984451|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.98||0.0232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|-0.6|||Mixed Models for Repeated Measures|||||-0.6|-8.4|0.0232
91049388|NCT03247517|181984451|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|-1.3|||Mixed Models for Repeated Measures|||||-1.3|-8.9|0.0091
91049389|NCT03247517|181984452|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with baseline Clinical Global Impression-Severity of Illness (CGI-S) score and treatment as fixed independent variables.||||-0.2|-0.8|0.0042
91049390|NCT03247517|181984452|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.3|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with baseline Clinical Global Impression-Severity of Illness (CGI-S) score and treatment as fixed independent variables.||||-0.3|-0.9|0.0003
91004869|NCT00804986|181893958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-6.41||||0.503||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for 2 hours post lunch glucose, 0.5 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||0.5030
91004870|NCT00804986|181893958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-12.49||||0.1938||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for 2 hours post lunch glucose, 2.0 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||0.1938
91004871|NCT00804986|181893958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-33.13||||0.0003||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for 2 hours post lunch glucose, 6.2 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||0.0003
91004872|NCT00804986|181893958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-24.66||||0.0101||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for 2 hours post lunch glucose, 12.0 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||0.0101
91004873|NCT00804986|181893958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-43.47|||<|0.0001||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for 2 hours post lunch glucose, 17.6 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||<0.0001
91004874|NCT00804986|181893958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-24.69||||0.006||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for prior to dinner glucose, 0.5 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||0.0060
91004875|NCT00804986|181893958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-34.26||||0.0002||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for prior to dinner glucose, 2.0 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||0.0002
91004876|NCT00804986|181893958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-38.55|||<|0.0001||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for prior to dinner glucose, 6.2 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||<0.0001
91004877|NCT00804986|181893958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-40.34|||<|0.0001||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for prior to dinner glucose, 12.0 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||<0.0001
91004878|NCT00804986|181893958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-46.26|||<|0.0001||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for prior to dinner glucose, 17.6 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||<0.0001
91004879|NCT00804986|181893958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-11.84||||0.2468||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for 2 hours post dinner glucose, 0.5 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||0.2468
91004880|NCT00804986|181893958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-21.13||||0.0413||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for 2 hours post dinner glucose, 2.0 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects||||||0.0413
91004881|NCT00804986|181893958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-35.19||||0.0004||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for 2 hours post dinner glucose, 6.2 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||0.0004
91004882|NCT00804986|181893958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-29.59||||0.004||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for 2 hours post dinner glucose, 12.0 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||0.0040
91004883|NCT00804986|181893958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-49.9|||<|0.0001||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for 2 hours post dinner glucose, 17.6 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||<0.0001
91004884|NCT00804986|181893958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-24.02||||0.0199||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for prior to bed glucose, 0.5 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||0.0199
91004885|NCT00804986|181893958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-35.77||||0.0008||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for prior to bed glucose, 2.0 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||0.0008
91004886|NCT00804986|181893958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-38.17||||0.0001||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for prior to bed glucose, 6.2 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||0.0001
91004887|NCT00804986|181893958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-40.74||||0.0001||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for prior to bed glucose, 12.0 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||0.0001
91004888|NCT00804986|181893958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-53.16|||<|0.0001||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for prior to bed glucose, 17.6 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||<0.0001
91049391|NCT03247517|181984453|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.54||0.6854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|2.4|||ANCOVA|||||2.4|-3.6|0.6854
91004889|NCT00804986|181893959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-1131.85||||0.4193||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 total glucose AUC for 0.5 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||0.4193
91004890|NCT00804986|181893959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-1471.04||||0.3026||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 total glucose AUC for 2.0 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||0.3026
91004891|NCT00804986|181893959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-5547.95|||<|0.0001||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 total glucose AUC for 6.2 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||<0.0001
91004892|NCT00804986|181893959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-6116.19|||<|0.0001||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 total glucose AUC for 12.0 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||<0.0001
91004893|NCT00804986|181893959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-7786.69|||<|0.0001||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 total glucose AUC for 17.6 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||<0.0001
91004894|NCT00804986|181893962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|0.08||||0.693||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for fasting triglycerides, 0.5 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|ANCOVA|ANCOVA: baseline and treatment||||||0.693
91004895|NCT00804986|181893962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|0.31||||0.104||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for fasting triglycerides, 2.0 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|ANCOVA|ANCOVA: baseline and treatment||||||0.104
91004896|NCT00804986|181893962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-0.13||||0.506||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for fasting triglycerides, 6.2 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|ANCOVA|ANCOVA: baseline and treatment||||||0.506
91004897|NCT00804986|181893962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-0.09||||0.648||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for fasting triglycerides, 12.0 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|ANCOVA|ANCOVA: baseline and treatment||||||0.648
91004898|NCT00804986|181893962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-0.09||||0.647||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for fasting triglycerides, 17.6 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|ANCOVA|ANCOVA: baseline and treatment||||||0.647
91004899|NCT00804986|181893962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|0.01||||0.781||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for fasting HDL, 0.5 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|ANCOVA|ANCOVA: baseline and treatment||||||0.781
91004900|NCT00804986|181893962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-0.04||||0.401||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for fasting HDL, 2.0 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|ANCOVA|ANCOVA: baseline and treatment||||||0.401
91004901|NCT00804986|181893962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-0.03||||0.464||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for fasting HDL, 6.2 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|ANCOVA|ANCOVA: baseline and treatment||||||0.464
91004902|NCT00804986|181893962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-0.04||||0.42||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for fasting HDL, 12.0 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|ANCOVA|ANCOVA: baseline and treatment||||||0.420
91004903|NCT00804986|181893962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|0.01||||0.762||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for fasting HDL, 17.6 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|ANCOVA|ANCOVA: baseline and treatment||||||0.762
91004904|NCT00804986|181893962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-0.04||||0.738||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for fasting LDL, 0.5 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|ANCOVA|ANCOVA: baseline and treatment||||||0.738
91004905|NCT00804986|181893962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-0.14||||0.277||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for fasting LDL, 2.0 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|ANCOVA|ANCOVA: baseline and treatment||||||0.277
91004906|NCT00804986|181893962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-0.21||||0.094||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for fasting LDL, 6.2 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|ANCOVA|ANCOVA: baseline and treatment||||||0.094
91004907|NCT00804986|181893962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-0.04||||0.792||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for fasting LDL, 12.0 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|ANCOVA|ANCOVA: baseline and treatment||||||0.792
91004908|NCT00804986|181893962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-0.21||||0.105||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for fasting LDL, 17.6 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|ANCOVA|ANCOVA: baseline and treatment||||||0.105
91004909|NCT00804986|181893962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-0.12||||0.403||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for fasting total cholesterol, 0.5 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|ANCOVA|ANCOVA: baseline and treatment||||||0.403
91004910|NCT00804986|181893962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-0.04||||0.799||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for fasting total cholesterol, 2.0 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|ANCOVA|ANCOVA: baseline and treatment||||||0.799
91004911|NCT00804986|181893962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-0.32||||0.029||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for fasting total cholesterol, 6.2 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|ANCOVA|ANCOVA: baseline and treatment||||||0.029
91004912|NCT00804986|181893962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-0.12||||0.439||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for fasting total cholesterol, 12.0 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|ANCOVA|ANCOVA: baseline and treatment||||||0.439
91004913|NCT00804986|181893962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-0.27||||0.062||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for fasting total cholesterol, 17.6 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|ANCOVA|ANCOVA: baseline and treatment||||||0.062
91004914|NCT00804986|181893963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-0.16||||0.8003||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for fasting weight, 0.5 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||0.8003
91004915|NCT00804986|181893963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-0.26||||0.6736||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for fasting weight, 2.0 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||0.6736
91004916|NCT00804986|181893963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-1.53||||0.0123||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for fasting weight, 6.2 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||0.0123
91004917|NCT00804986|181893963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-0.44||||0.4771||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for fasting weight, 12.0 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||0.4771
91004918|NCT00804986|181893963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-2.01||||0.0013||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for fasting weight, 17.6 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||0.0013
91004919|NCT00815776|181893968|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The unadjusted reductions are straight arithmetic averages and are supplied for informational purposes only. The pooled variance is calculated from the unadjusted standard deviations, and the t statistic is calculated as described in Laster (2003) using an average sample size of 54 and 106 degrees of freedom.|||||<|0.0096|||||||student's t-test with 2n-2 DoF|||The LS means were used to calculate the test statistic for non-inferiority of the CID to the traditional splint device. The null hypothesis was that the reduction of CMI score for the CID is less than 80% of the reduction in the splint group. A significant p-value(\< 0.05) would reject this null hypothesis in favor of the alternative hypothesis that the CID demonstrated a reduction of at least 80% of that seen in the splint group.||||<0.0096
91004920|NCT00815776|181893969|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Safety analyses were performed on the ITT population.||||||0.688|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Safety analyses were performed on the ITT population. The safety of the CID was characterized by the proportion of subjects with all serious and non-serious study-related adverse events and Unanticipated Adverse Device Events (UADEs). In addition, summaries of the onset, duration, severity, treatment relatedness, and outcome of all adverse events were reported.||||0.688
91049392|NCT03247517|181984453|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.49||0.0518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.0|-5.8|0.0518
91049393|NCT03247517|181984454|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061||0.2062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.04|||ANCOVA|||||0.04|-0.20|0.2062
91004921|NCT00815776|181893970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2995||||||From the pilot study, 50 subjects (CID arm) and 25 (exercise arm) were required for at least 80% power to detect a difference in the mean reduction in CMI scores between arms if muPassive is less than approximately 70% of that in the CID arm.|t-test, 2 sided|||A significant p-value for the treatment group effect would indicate that the CID group and Exercise group were significantly different, based on results of a two-sided t test for difference in means, with alpha=0.5, and allowing for unequal sample sizes.||||.2995
91004922|NCT00796224|181893991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Means|157.98||||||90.0|98.87|252.44|||ANOVA|||Test (60 mg/kg Azithromycin ER)/ Reference (30 mg/kg Azithromycin IR)||252.44|98.87|
91004923|NCT00796224|181893993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Means|91.63||||||90.0|56.21|149.38|||ANOVA|||||149.38|56.21|
91004924|NCT00796224|181893995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric means (percent)|65.44||||||90.0|23.56|181.77|||ANOVA||Ratio (percent) = Test/Reference multiplied by 100|Serum Concentration 1 hour postdose||181.77|23.56|
91004925|NCT00796224|181893995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric means (percent)|50.57||||||90.0|25.24|101.3|||ANOVA||Ratio (percent) = Test/Reference multiplied by 100|Serum Concentration 2 hours postdose||101.30|25.24|
91004926|NCT00796224|181893995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric means (percent)|100.07||||||90.0|57.91|172.92|||ANOVA||Ratio (percent) = Test/Reference multiplied by 100|Serum Concentration 3 hours postdose||172.92|57.91|
91004927|NCT00796224|181893995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric means (percent)|164.93||||||90.0|103.78|262.12|||ANOVA||Ratio (percent) = Test/Reference multiplied by 100|Serum Concentration 4 hours postdose||262.12|103.78|
91004928|NCT00796224|181893995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric means (percent)|174.41||||||90.0|110.07|276.36|||ANOVA||Ratio (percent) = Test/Reference multiplied by 100|Serum Concentration 8 hours postdose||276.36|110.07|
91004929|NCT00796224|181893995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric means (percent)|173.01||||||90.0|111.45|268.55|||ANOVA||Ratio (percent) = Test/Reference multiplied by 100|Serum Concentration 24 hours postdose||268.55|111.45|
91004930|NCT00796224|181893995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric means (percent)|189.35||||||90.0|129.76|276.3|||ANOVA||Ratio (percent) = Test/Reference multiplied by 100|Serum Concentration 48 hours postdose||276.30|129.76|
91004931|NCT00796224|181893995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric means (percent)|183.14||||||90.0|124.61|269.14|||ANOVA||Ratio (percent) = Test/Reference multiplied by 100|Serum Concentration 72 hours postdose||269.14|124.61|
91004932|NCT02200510|181893999|EQUIVALENCE|Because this was a pilot study, the goal was to detect effects sizes for a larger R01 or R21.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33||||0.575|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.575
91004933|NCT02200510|181893999|EQUIVALENCE|Because this was a pilot study, the goal was to detect effects sizes for a larger R01 or R21.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.138||||0.721|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.721
91049394|NCT03247517|181984454|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059||0.0519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.00|-0.23|0.0519
91004934|NCT03057106|181894000|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.67|1.16||2-sided, adjusted for stratification factors at rtandomization.|Log Rank|||||1.16|0.67|0.46
91004935|NCT03057106|181894001|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.88||2-sided, adjusted for stratification factors at randomization.|Log Rank|Adjusted for stratification factors at randomization.||||0.88|0.52|0.0035
91004936|NCT03057106|181894002|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.69||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|2.76||2-sided, adjusted for stratification factors at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.76|1.04|0.033
91004937|NCT01874353|181894017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.41||Determined using a log-rank test stratified by response to previous platinum chemotherapy and time to disease progression in the penultimate platinum based chemotherapy prior to enrolment|Regression, Cox|Model includes factors for response to previous platinum chemotherapy and time to disease progression in the penultimate platinum based chemotherapy|A hazard ratio \< 1 favours olaparib|||0.41|0.22|<0.0001
91004938|NCT01874353|181894017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.19||Not applicable, due to small sample size. China cohort designed to provide descriptive analysis only.|Regression, Cox|Model includes a treatment factor only|A hazard ratio \< 1 favours olaparib|||1.19|0.17|
91004939|NCT01874353|181894018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.0537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.0||Determined using a log-rank test stratified by response to previous platinum chemotherapy and time to disease progression in the penultimate platinum based chemotherapy prior to enrolment|Regression, Cox|Model includes factors for response to previous platinum chemotherapy and time to disease progression in the penultimate platinum based chemotherapy|A hazard ratio \<1 favours olaparib|||1.00|0.54|0.0537
91004940|NCT01874353|181894018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|2.49||Not applicable, due to small sample size. China cohort designed to provide descriptive analysis only.|Regression, Cox|Model includes a treatment factor only|A hazard ratio \<1 favours olaparib|||2.49|0.38|
91004941|NCT01874353|181894019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.41||Determined using a log-rank test stratified by response to previous platinum chemotherapy and time to disease progression in the penultimate platinum based chemotherapy prior to enrolment|Regression, Cox|Model includes factors for response to previous platinum chemotherapy and time to disease progression in the penultimate platinum based chemotherapy|A hazard ratio \< 1 favours olaparib|||0.41|0.23|<0.0001
91004942|NCT01874353|181894019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.03||Not applicable, due to small sample size. China cohort designed to provide descriptive analysis only.|Regression, Cox|Model includes a treatment factor only|A hazard ratio \<1 favours olaparib|||1.03|0.18|
91049395|NCT03247517|181984455|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.8||||0.0068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.5|32.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||32.2|5.5|0.0068
91049396|NCT03247517|181984455|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.6||||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.6|30.5|||Regression, Logistic|||||30.5|4.6|0.0095
91049397|NCT03247517|181984456|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.51||0.7629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|12.5|||ANCOVA|||||12.5|-9.1|0.7629
91049398|NCT03247517|181984456|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.36||0.7648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|8.9|||ANCOVA|||||8.9|-12.1|0.7648
91004943|NCT01874353|181894020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.72||Determined using a log-rank test stratified by response to previous platinum chemotherapy and time to disease progression in the penultimate platinum based chemotherapy prior to enrolment|Regression, Cox|Model includes factors for response to previous platinum chemotherapy and time to disease progression in the penultimate platinum based chemotherapy|A hazard ratio \< 1 favours olaparib|||0.72|0.34|0.0002
91004944|NCT01874353|181894020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|3.97||Not applicable, due to small sample size. China cohort designed to provide descriptive analysis only.|Regression, Cox|Model includes treatment factor only|A hazard ratio \< 1 favours olaparib|||3.97|0.22|
91004945|NCT01874353|181894021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.9765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.191|2.126|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effects for treatment, visit and baseline TOI with the treatment by visit and baseline TOI by visit interaction. Random patient effect.||||2.126|-2.191|0.9765
91007456|NCT02442765|181899015|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.6|||=|0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|1.3||"MMRMs include fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, BL, BL-by-visit, and in the Stage 1 model, BL NPI AA, risk assessment for falls, BL concomitant antipsychotic medication use.~Unstructured variance-covariance was used."|MMRM|||||1.3|-8.4|=0.150
91007457|NCT02442765|181899015|SUPERIORITY||MMRM weighted z-statistic|-2.65|||=|0.008|TWO_SIDED|||||"MMRMs include fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, BL, BL-by-visit, and in the Stage 1 model, BL NPI AA, risk assessment for falls, BL concomitant antipsychotic medication use.~Unstructured variance-covariance was used."|MMRM|Sequential Parallel Comparison Design (SPCD) was used with weight = 0.6 for Stage 1 and 0.4 for Stage 2.||||||=0.008
91007458|NCT02442765|181899015|SUPERIORITY||MMRM weighted z-statistic|-1.26|||=|0.208|TWO_SIDED|||||MMRMs include fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, BL, BL-by-visit, and in the Stage 1 model, BL NPI AA, risk assessment for falls, BL concomitant antipsychotic medication use. Unstructured variance-covariance was used.|MMRM|SPCD was used with weight = 0.6 for Stage 1 and 0.4 for Stage 2.||||||=0.208
91007459|NCT02442765|181899016|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.4|0.331
91007460|NCT02442765|181899016|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2|||ANCOVA|||||0.2|-0.4|0.400
91007461|NCT02442765|181899016|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||||-0.1|-1.1|0.014
91007462|NCT02442765|181899016|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.9|0.145
91007463|NCT02442765|181899016|SUPERIORITY||SPCD OLS weighted z-statistic|-2.51||||0.012|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA||OLS = ordinary least squares|||||0.012
91007464|NCT02442765|181899016|SUPERIORITY||SPCD OLS weighted z-statistic|-1.66||||0.097|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.097
91007465|NCT02442765|181899017|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.5|||=|0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.2||MMRMs include fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, BL, BL-by-visit, and in the Stage 1 model, BL NPI AA, risk assessment for falls, BL concomitant antipsychotic medication use. Unstructured variance-covariance was used.|MMRM|SPCD was used with weight = 0.6 for Stage 1 and 0.4 for Stage 2.||||0.2|-1.3|=0.182
91007466|NCT02442765|181899017|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3|||=|0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.4||"MMRMs include fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, BL, BL-by-visit, and in the Stage 1 model, BL NPI AA, risk assessment for falls, BL concomitant antipsychotic medication use.~Unstructured variance-covariance was used."|MMRM|||||0.4|-1.1|=0.390
91007467|NCT02442765|181899017|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.5|||=|0.462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.7||"MMRMs include fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, BL, BL-by-visit, and in the Stage 1 model, BL NPI AA, risk assessment for falls, BL concomitant antipsychotic medication use.~Unstructured variance-covariance was used."|MMRM|||||1.7|-0.8|=0.462
91007468|NCT02442765|181899017|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.4|||=|0.528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.6||"MMRMs include fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, BL, BL-by-visit, and in the Stage 1 model, BL NPI AA, risk assessment for falls, BL concomitant antipsychotic medication use.~Unstructured variance-covariance was used."|MMRM|||||1.6|-0.8|=0.528
91007469|NCT02442765|181899017|SUPERIORITY||MMRM weighted z-statistic|-0.39|||=|0.695|TWO_SIDED|||||"MMRMs include fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, Baseline (BL), BL-by-visit, and in the Stage 1 model, BL NPI AA, risk assessment for falls, BL concomitant antipsychotic medication use.~Unstructured variance-covariance was used."|ANCOVA|||||||=0.695
91004946|NCT01874353|181894022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.48||Determined using a log-rank test stratified by response to previous platinum chemotherapy and time to disease progression in the penultimate platinum based chemotherapy prior to enrolment|Regression, Cox|Model includes factors for response to previous platinum chemotherapy and time to disease progression in the penultimate platinum based chemotherapy|A hazard ratio \< 1 favours olaparib|||0.48|0.28|<0.0001
91004947|NCT01874353|181894022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.08||Not applicable, due to small sample size. China cohort designed to provide descriptive analysis only.|Regression, Cox|Model includes a treatment factor only|A hazard ratio \< 1 favours olaparib|||1.08|0.21|
91004948|NCT01874353|181894023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.68||Determined using a log-rank test stratified by response to previous platinum chemotherapy and time to disease progression in the penultimate platinum based chemotherapy prior to enrolment|Regression, Cox|Model includes factors for response to previous platinum chemotherapy and time to disease progression in the penultimate platinum based chemotherapy|A hazard ratio \< 1 favours olaparib|||0.68|0.39|<0.0001
91004949|NCT01874353|181894023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.85||Not applicable, due to small sample size. China cohort designed to provide descriptive analysis only.|Regression, Cox|Model included treatment factor only|A hazard ratio \< 1 favours olaparib|||1.85|0.37|
91004950|NCT01874353|181894024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.49||Determined using a log-rank test stratified by response to previous platinum chemotherapy and time to disease progression in the penultimate platinum based chemotherapy prior to enrolment|Regression, Cox|Model includes factors for response to previous platinum chemotherapy and time to disease progression in the penultimate platinum based chemotherapy|A hazard ratio \< 1 favours olaparib|||0.49|0.28|<0.0001
91004951|NCT01874353|181894024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.04||Not applicable, due to small sample size. China cohort designed to provide descriptive analysis only.|Regression, Cox|Model includes a treatment factor only|A hazard ratio \< 1 favours the Olaparib arm|||1.04|0.20|
91004952|NCT01874353|181894025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.4||Determined using a log-rank test stratified by response to previous platinum chemotherapy and time to disease progression in the penultimate platinum based chemotherapy prior to enrolment|Regression, Cox|Model includes factors for response to previous platinum chemotherapy and time to disease progression in the penultimate platinum based chemotherapy|A hazard ratio \< 1 favours olaparib|||0.40|0.22|<0.0001
91007470|NCT02442765|181899017|SUPERIORITY||MMRM weighted z-statistic|-0.12|||=|0.904|TWO_SIDED|||||"MMRMs include fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, Baseline (BL), BL-by-visit, and in the Stage 1 model, BL NPI AA, risk assessment for falls, BL concomitant antipsychotic medication use.~Unstructured variance-covariance was used."|ANCOVA|||||||=0.904
91007471|NCT02442765|181899018|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.2|||=|0.247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|0.8||"MMRMs include fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, BL, BL-by-visit, and in the Stage 1 model, BL NPI AA, risk assessment for falls, BL concomitant antipsychotic medication use.~Unstructured variance-covariance was used."|MMRM|||||0.8|-3.2|=0.247
91007472|NCT02442765|181899018|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.4|||=|0.721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.6||"MMRMs include fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, BL, BL-by-visit, and in the Stage 1 model, BL NPI AA, risk assessment for falls, BL concomitant antipsychotic medication use.~Unstructured variance-covariance was used."|MMRM|||||1.6|-2.3|=0.721
91007473|NCT02442765|181899018|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.2|||=|0.419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|1.8||"MMRMs include fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, BL, BL-by-visit, and in the Stage 1 model, BL NPI AA, risk assessment for falls, BL concomitant antipsychotic medication use.~Unstructured variance-covariance was used."|MMRM|||||1.8|-4.3|=0.419
91007474|NCT02442765|181899018|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.9|||=|0.534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|3.9||"MMRMs include fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, BL, BL-by-visit, and in the Stage 1 model, BL NPI AA, risk assessment for falls, BL concomitant antipsychotic medication use.~Unstructured variance-covariance was used."|MMRM|||||3.9|-2.0|=0.534
91007475|NCT02442765|181899018|SUPERIORITY||MMRM weighted z-statistic|-1.4|||=|0.163|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.163
91007476|NCT02442765|181899018|SUPERIORITY||MMRM weighted z-statistic|0.19|||=|0.851|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.851
91007477|NCT02442765|181899019|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.6|||=|0.146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.2||"MMRMs include fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, BL, BL-by-visit, and in the Stage 1 model, BL NPI AA, risk assessment for falls, BL concomitant antipsychotic medication use.~Unstructured variance-covariance was used."|MMRM|||||0.2|-1.4|=0.146
91007478|NCT02442765|181899019|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.3|||=|0.399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.1||"MMRMs include fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, BL, BL-by-visit, and in the Stage 1 model, BL NPI AA, risk assessment for falls, BL concomitant antipsychotic medication use.~Unstructured variance-covariance was used."|MMRM|||||1.1|-0.4|=0.399
91007479|NCT02442765|181899019|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.7|||=|0.283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|2.0||"MMRMs include fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, BL, BL-by-visit, and in the Stage 1 model, BL NPI AA, risk assessment for falls, BL concomitant antipsychotic medication use.~Unstructured variance-covariance was used."|MMRM|||||2.0|-0.6|=0.283
91007480|NCT02442765|181899019|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.2|||=|0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|2.5||"MMRMs include fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, BL, BL-by-visit, and in the Stage 1 model, BL NPI AA, risk assessment for falls, BL concomitant antipsychotic medication use.~Unstructured variance-covariance was used."|MMRM|||||2.5|-0.1|=0.065
91007481|NCT02442765|181899019|SUPERIORITY||MMRM weighted z-statistic|-0.22|||=|0.829|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.829
91007482|NCT02442765|181899019|SUPERIORITY||MMRM weighted z-statistic|1.94|||=|0.052|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.052
91007483|NCT02442765|181899020|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.7|||=|0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|1.4|||ANCOVA|||||1.4|-2.7|=0.530
91007484|NCT02442765|181899020|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.0|||=|0.326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|1.0|||ANCOVA|||||1.0|-3.1|=0.326
91007485|NCT02442765|181899020|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.5|||=|0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|5.9|||ANCOVA|||||5.9|-0.8|=0.135
91004953|NCT03728881|181894028|NON_INFERIORITY|Let R=GMC1/GMC3 be the ratio of geometric mean concentrations of 1 dose to 3 doses. We reject the noninferiority hypothesis if at 36 months the lower limit of the two-sided 96% confidence interval on R ≥ 0.67 for HPV16. The overall Type 1 error rate for rejecting the null hypotheses for both HPV16 and HPV18 (i.e., declaring noninferiority of the 1D2V) at either time point was controlled at 0.025.|GMC Ratio|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|96.0|0.44|0.57|||||Generalized estimating equations were used to estimate R and construct confidence intervals.|This procedure controls the overall type one error at 0.05. We are conducting 4 one-sided tests and will spend alpha as follows: 0.005 of the alpha each for HPV16 and for HPV18 at 24 months and 0.02 of the alpha each for HPV16 and for HPV18 at 36 months. The experiment-wise significance level accounting for multiple comparisons is ≤ 0.05 because the null chance of rejection for either HPV16 or HPV18 is ≤0.01 at 24 months by the Bonferroni inequality and ≤0.04 at 36 months.||0.57|0.44|
91004954|NCT03728881|181894030|NON_INFERIORITY|Let R=GMC1/GMC3 be the ratio of geometric mean concentrations of 1 dose to 3 doses. We reject the noninferiority hypothesis if at 36 months the lower limit of the two-sided 96% confidence interval on R ≥ 0.67 for HPV18. The overall Type 1 error rate for rejecting the null hypotheses for both HPV16 and HPV18 (i.e., declaring noninferiority of the 1D2V) at either time point was controlled at 0.025.|Ratio of the GMCs|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|96.0|0.95|1.29|||||Generalized estimating equations were used to estimate R and construct confidence intervals.|This procedure controls the overall type one error at 0.05. We are conducting 4 one-sided tests and will spend alpha as follows: 0.005 of the alpha each for HPV16 and for HPV18 at 24 months and 0.02 of the alpha each for HPV16 and for HPV18 at 36 months. The experiment-wise significance level accounting for multiple comparisons is ≤ 0.05 because the null chance of rejection for either HPV16 or HPV18 is ≤0.01 at 24 months by the Bonferroni inequality and ≤0.04 at 36 months.||1.29|0.95|
91004955|NCT03728881|181894032|NON_INFERIORITY|Let R=GMC1/GMC3 be the ratio of geometric mean concentrations of 1 dose to 3 doses. We reject the noninferiority hypothesis if at 24 months the lower limit of the two-sided 99% confidence interval on R ≥ 0.67 for HPV16. The overall Type 1 error rate for rejecting the null hypotheses for both HPV16 and HPV18 (i.e., declaring noninferiority of the 1D2V) at either time point was controlled at 0.025.|GMC Ratio|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.36|0.5|||||Generalized estimating equations were used to estimate R and construct confidence intervals.|This procedure controls the overall type one error at 0.05. We are conducting 4 one-sided tests and will spend alpha as follows: 0.005 of the alpha each for HPV16 and for HPV18 at 24 months and 0.02 of the alpha each for HPV16 and for HPV18 at 36 months. The experiment-wise significance level accounting for multiple comparisons is ≤0.05 because the null chance of rejection for either HPV16 or HPV18 is ≤0.01 at 24 months by the Bonferroni inequality and ≤0.04 at 36 months.||0.50|0.36|
91004956|NCT03728881|181894034|NON_INFERIORITY|Let R=GMC1/GMC3 be the ratio of geometric mean concentrations of 1 dose to 3 doses. We reject the noninferiority hypothesis if at 24 months the lower limit of the two-sided 99% confidence interval on R ≥ 0.67 for HPV18. The overall Type 1 error rate for rejecting the null hypotheses for both HPV16 and HPV18 (i.e., declaring noninferiority of the 1D2V) at either time point was controlled at 0.025.|GMC Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.75|1.08|||||Generalized estimating equations were used to estimate R and construct confidence intervals.|This procedure controls the overall type one error at 0.05. We are conducting 4 one sided tests and will spend alpha as follows: 0.005 of the alpha each for HPV16 and for HPV18 at 24 months and 0.02 of the alpha each for HPV16 and for HPV18 at 36 months. The experiment-wise significance level accounting for multiple comparisons is ≤0.05 because the null chance of rejection for either HPV16 or HPV18 is ≤0.01 at 24 months by the Bonferroni inequality and ≤0.04 at 36 months.||1.08|0.75|
91004957|NCT03728881|181894035|EQUIVALENCE|We will use a Fisher Exact test to test for the difference of the seroconversion rate between one-dose and three-dose recipients. A p-value under 0.05 will be regarded as significant.|||||=|1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||=1.0
91004958|NCT03728881|181894036|EQUIVALENCE|We will use a Fisher Exact test to test for the difference of the seroconversion rate between one-dose and three-dose recipients. A p-value under 0.05 will be regarded as significant.|||||=|0.006|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||=0.006
91004959|NCT03728881|181894037|EQUIVALENCE|We will use a Fisher Exact test to test for the difference of the seroconversion rate between one-dose and three-dose recipients. A p-value under 0.05 will be regarded as significant.|||||=|1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||=1.0
91004960|NCT03728881|181894038|EQUIVALENCE|We will use a Fisher Exact test to test for the difference of the seroconversion rate between one-dose and three-dose recipients. A p-value under 0.05 will be regarded as significant.|||||=|0.48|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||=0.48
91049399|NCT03247517|181984457|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99||0.0069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|-0.7|||ANCOVA|||This analysis pertains to the Hyperactivity/Impulsivity subscale score||-0.7|-4.6|0.0069
91004961|NCT03728881|181894044|NON_INFERIORITY|Let R=GMC1/GMC3 be the ratio of geometric mean concentrations of 1 dose to 3 doses. We reject the noninferiority hypothesis if at 36 months the lower limit of the two-sided 96% confidence interval on R ≥ 0.67 for HPV16 and HPV18. The overall Type 1 error rate for rejecting the null hypotheses for both HPV16 and HPV18 (i.e., declaring noninferiority of the 1D2V) at either time point was controlled at 0.025.)|GMC Ratio|0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|96.0|0.42|0.56|||||Generalized estimating equations were used to estimate R and construct confidence intervals.|||0.56|0.42|
91049400|NCT03247517|181984457|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|-1.5|||ANCOVA|||This analysis pertains to the Hyperactivity/Impulsivity subscale score||-1.5|-5.2|0.0005
91049401|NCT03247517|181984457|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.0424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||This analysis pertains to the Inattention subscale score||-0.1|-4.2|0.0424
91049402|NCT03247517|181984457|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||This analysis pertains to the Inattention subscale score||-0.1|-4.1|0.0390
91049403|NCT03247517|181984458|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.3813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|1.3|||ANCOVA|||||1.3|-3.4|0.3813
91049404|NCT03247517|181984458|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17||0.9506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|2.2|||ANCOVA|||||2.2|-2.4|0.9506
91049405|NCT03247517|181984459|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0254|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 1||||0.0254
91049406|NCT03247517|181984459|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0899|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 2||||0.0899
91049407|NCT03247517|181984459|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 3||||0.0070
91004962|NCT03728881|181894045|EQUIVALENCE|We will use a Fisher Exact test to test for the difference of the seroconversion rate between one-dose and three-dose recipients. A p-value under 0.05 will be regarded as significant.||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
91004963|NCT03728881|181894047|NON_INFERIORITY|Let R=GMC1/GMC3 be the ratio of geometric mean concentrations of 1 dose to 3 doses. We reject the noninferiority hypothesis if at 36 months the lower limit of the two-sided 96% confidence interval on R ≥ 0.67 for HPV16 and HPV18. The overall Type 1 error rate for rejecting the null hypotheses for both HPV16 and HPV18 (i.e., declaring noninferiority of the 1D2V) at either time point was controlled at 0.025.)|GMC Ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|96.0|0.93|1.27||||||||1.27|0.93|
91049408|NCT03247517|181984459|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0031|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 4||||0.0031
91049409|NCT03247517|181984459|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0065|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 5||||0.0065
91049410|NCT03247517|181984459|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 6||||0.0070
91049411|NCT03247517|181984459|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0063|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 1||||0.0063
91004964|NCT03728881|181894048|EQUIVALENCE|We will use a Fisher Exact test to test for the difference of the seroconversion rate between one-dose and three-dose recipients. A p-value under 0.05 will be regarded as significant.|||||=|0.0006|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||=0.0006
91004965|NCT03728881|181894050|NON_INFERIORITY|Let R=GMC1/GMC3 be the ratio of geometric mean concentrations of 1 dose to 3 doses. We reject the noninferiority hypothesis if at 24 months the lower limit of the two-sided 99% confidence interval on R ≥ 0.67 for HPV16 and HPV18. The overall Type 1 error rate for rejecting the null hypotheses for both HPV16 and HPV18 (i.e., declaring noninferiority of the 1D2V) at either time point was controlled at 0.025.|GMC Ratio|0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.35|0.49|||||Generalized estimating equations were used to estimate R and construct confidence intervals.|||0.49|0.35|
91049412|NCT03247517|181984459|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0123|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 2||||0.0123
91049413|NCT03247517|181984459|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 3||||0.0003
91049414|NCT03247517|181984459|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 4||||0.0001
91049415|NCT03247517|181984459|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0025|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 5||||0.0025
91049416|NCT03247517|181984459|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0033|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 6||||0.0033
91049417|NCT03573505|181984473|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.01||||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|4.73|||Log Rank|||A cox proportional hazards model with terms for treatment (BG00011 vs. placebo) and randomization stratification factor is used. A stratified log-rank test is used to compare the 2 treatment groups using randomization stratus as the stratification factor. An HR (Hazard Ratio) \< 1 indicates lower risk of event for the BG00011 group where HR is based on Cox proportional hazard model with treatment (Placebo, BG00011) as the categorical covariate.||4.73|0.85|0.112
91049418|NCT00515541|181984493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||||||A P-value \<0.05 when compared to baseline is considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Group B baseline vs. Group B Week 12||||0.01
91049419|NCT00515541|181984494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The median of Groups A, B, and C grouped together was compared Baseline to Week 6.||||<0.001
91049420|NCT00515541|181984494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The median of Groups A, B, and C grouped together was compared Baseline to Week 12.||||<0.001
91049421|NCT03261960|181984541|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin was set at 10%.|||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91049422|NCT00706381|181984566|SUPERIORITY||Percent change from placebo|7.87|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.2||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The percent change from placebo was calculated for each participant and then a t-test was used to test the null hypothesis that this difference was equal to 0.||||0.0001
91049423|NCT00706381|181984566|SUPERIORITY||Percent change from placebo|9.25|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The percent change from placebo was calculated for each participant and then a t-test was used to test the null hypothesis that this difference was equal to 0.||||<0.0001
91049424|NCT00706381|181984566|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.2||0.89|TWO_SIDED||||||Percent change from placebo|||The percent change from placebo was calculated for each participant and then a t-test was used to test the null hypothesis that this difference was equal to 0.||||0.89
91049425|NCT00706381|181984566|SUPERIORITY||Percent change from placebo|-0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.2||0.41|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The percent change from placebo was calculated for each participant and then a t-test was used to test the null hypothesis that this difference was equal to 0.||||0.41
91049426|NCT00706381|181984567|SUPERIORITY||Percent change from placebo|40.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|72.8||0.096|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The percent change from placebo was calculated for each participant and then a t-test was used to test the null hypothesis that this difference was equal to 0.||||0.096
91049427|NCT00706381|181984567|SUPERIORITY||Percent change from placebo|260.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|191.7|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The percent change from placebo was calculated for each participant and then a t-test was used to test the null hypothesis that this difference was equal to 0.||||<0.0001
91049428|NCT00706381|181984567|SUPERIORITY||Percent change from placebo|16.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|56.3||0.83|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The percent change from placebo was calculated for each participant and then a t-test was used to test the null hypothesis that this difference was equal to 0.||||0.83
91004966|NCT03728881|181894051|EQUIVALENCE|We will use a Fisher Exact test to test for the difference of the seroconversion rate between one-dose and three-dose recipients. A p-value under 0.05 will be regarded as significant.|||||=|1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||=1.0
91004967|NCT03728881|181894053|NON_INFERIORITY|Let R=GMC1/GMC3 be the ratio of geometric mean concentrations of 1 dose to 3 doses. We reject the noninferiority hypothesis if at 24 months the lower limit of the two-sided 99% confidence interval on R ≥ 0.67 for HPV16 and HPV18. The overall Type 1 error rate for rejecting the null hypotheses for both HPV16 and HPV18 (i.e., declaring noninferiority of the 1D2V) at either time point was controlled at 0.025.|GMC Ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.71|1.04|||||Generalized estimating equations were used to estimate R and construct confidence intervals.|||1.04|0.71|
91004968|NCT03728881|181894054|EQUIVALENCE|We will use a Fisher Exact test to test for the difference of the seroconversion rate between one-dose and three-dose recipients. A p-value under 0.05 will be regarded as significant.|||||=|0.478|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||=0.478
91004969|NCT03728881|181894056|NON_INFERIORITY|We reject the noninferiority hypothesis if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval on R ≥ 0.67 for HPV16 and HPV18.|GMC Ratio|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.58|||||Generalized estimating equations were used to estimate R and construct confidence intervals.|||1.58|1.12|
91004970|NCT03728881|181894059|NON_INFERIORITY|We reject the noninferiority hypothesis if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval on R ≥ 0.67 for HPV16 and HPV18.|GMC Ratio|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.54|||||Generalized estimating equations were used to estimate R and construct confidence intervals.|||1.54|1.09|
91004971|NCT03728881|181894062|NON_INFERIORITY|We reject the noninferiority hypothesis if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval on R ≥ 0.67 for HPV16 and HPV18.|GMC Ratio|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|1.81|||||Generalized estimating equations were used to estimate R and construct confidence intervals.|||1.81|1.20|
91004972|NCT03728881|181894063|EQUIVALENCE|We will use a Fisher Exact test to test for the difference of the seroconversion rate between one-dose 9-10 year old girls and one-dose 11-14 year old girls. A p-value under 0.05 will be regarded as significant.|||||=|1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||=1.0
91004973|NCT03728881|181894065|NON_INFERIORITY|We reject the noninferiority hypothesis if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval on R ≥ 0.67 for HPV16 and HPV18.|GMC Ratio|1.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|1.75|||||Generalized estimating equations were used to estimate R and construct confidence intervals.|||1.75|1.15|
91004974|NCT03728881|181894066|EQUIVALENCE|We will use a Fisher Exact test to test for the difference of the seroconversion rate between one-dose 9-10 year old girls and one-dose 11-14 year old girls. A p-value under 0.05 will be regarded as significant.|||||=|0.368|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||=0.368
91004975|NCT03728881|181894068|NON_INFERIORITY|Let R=GMC1/GMC3 be the ratio of geometric mean concentrations of 1 dose to 3 doses. We reject the noninferiority hypothesis if at 36 months the lower limit of the two-sided 96% confidence interval on R ≥ 0.67 for HPV16 and HPV18. The overall Type 1 error rate for rejecting the null hypotheses for both HPV16 and HPV18 (i.e., declaring noninferiority of the 1D2V) at either time point was controlled at 0.025.)|GMC Ratio|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|96.0|0.38|0.56|||||Generalized estimating equations were used to estimate R and construct confidence intervals.|This procedure controls the overall type one error at 0.05. We are conducting 4 one-sided tests and will spend alpha as follows: 0.005 of the alpha each for HPV16 and for HPV18 at 24 months and 0.02 of the alpha each for HPV16 and for HPV18 at 36 months. The experiment-wise significance level accounting for multiple comparisons is ≤0.05 because the null chance of rejection for either HPV16or HPV18 is ≤0.01 at 24 months by the Bonferroni inequality and ≤0.04 at 36 months.||0.56|0.38|
91004976|NCT03728881|181894068|NON_INFERIORITY|Let R=GMC1/GMC3 be the ratio of geometric mean concentrations of 1 dose to 3 doses. We reject the noninferiority hypothesis if at 36 months the lower limit of the two-sided 96% confidence interval on R ≥ 0.67 for HPV16 and HPV18. The overall Type 1 error rate for rejecting the null hypotheses for both HPV16 and HPV18 (i.e., declaring noninferiority of the 1D2V) at either time point was controlled at 0.025.)|GMC Ratio|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|96.0|0.48|0.7|||||Generalized estimating equations were used to estimate R and construct confidence intervals.|||0.70|0.48|
91049429|NCT00706381|181984567|SUPERIORITY||Percent change from placebo|125.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|92.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The percent change from placebo was calculated for each participant and then a t-test was used to test the null hypothesis that this difference was equal to 0.||||<0.0001
91004977|NCT03728881|181894068|EQUIVALENCE|A p-value \<0.05 is interpreted as significantly different GMC ratios in different strata.|||||=|0.079||||||The p-values test for heterogeneity in the GMC ratios estimated from the stratified analyses.|p-values test for heterogeneity|||||||=0.079
91004978|NCT03728881|181894069|EQUIVALENCE|We will use a Fisher Exact test to test for the difference of the seroconversion rate between the older one-dose recipients and the older three-dose recipients. A p-value under 0.05 will be regarded as significant.|||||=|1|||||||Fisher Exact|||NOTE: Younger one-dose recipients (9-11 Year Old Girls) and three-dose recipients (18-21 Year Old Women) both had a 100% seroconversion proportion for HPV16 at 36 months, so a p-value for the difference of the seroconversion rate between them could not be calculated. Therefore, we only include the calculated p-value for the comparison of the seroconversion rate between older one-dose recipients (9-11 Year Old Girls) and three-dose recipients (22-25 Year Old Women).||||=1.0000
91007486|NCT02442765|181899020|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.2|||=|0.895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|3.5|||ANCOVA|||||3.5|-3.1|=0.895
91007487|NCT02442765|181899020|SUPERIORITY||SPCD OLS weighted Z-statistic|0.67|||=|0.502|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.502
91007488|NCT02442765|181899020|SUPERIORITY||SPCD OLS weighted Z-statistic|-0.58|||=|0.564|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.564
91049430|NCT03395639|181984592|OTHER|Difference in adjudicated major or CRNM bleeding rates were assessed.|Annualized rate difference|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.12||||||||0.12|-0.18|
91049431|NCT03395639|181984592|OTHER|Difference in adjudicated major bleeding rates were assessed.|Annualized rate difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||||||||0|0|
91049432|NCT03395639|181984592|OTHER|Difference in all adjudicated bleeding (major, CRNM, minor) rates were assessed.|Annualized rate difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.25||||||||0.25|-0.24|
91049433|NCT00942331|181984600|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.1707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.06|||Log Rank|Stratified log rank||||1.06|0.72|0.1707
91004979|NCT03728881|181894071|NON_INFERIORITY|Let R=GMC1/GMC3 be the ratio of geometric mean concentrations of 1 dose to 3 doses. We reject the noninferiority hypothesis if at 36 months the lower limit of the two-sided 96% confidence interval on R ≥ 0.67 for HPV16 and HPV18. The overall Type 1 error rate for rejecting the null hypotheses for both HPV16 and HPV18 (i.e., declaring noninferiority of the 1D2V) at either time point was controlled at 0.025.)|GMC Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|96.0|0.82|1.25||||||This procedure controls the overall type one error at 0.05. We are conducting 4 one-sided tests and will spend alpha as follows: 0.005 of the alpha each for HPV16 and for HPV18 at 24 months and 0.02 of the alpha each for HPV16 and for HPV18 at 36 months. The experiment-wise significance level accounting for multiple comparisons is ≤0.05 because the null chance of rejection for either HPV16or HPV18 is ≤0.01 at 24 months by the Bonferroni inequality and ≤0.04 at 36 months.||1.25|0.82|
91004980|NCT03728881|181894071|NON_INFERIORITY|Let R=GMC1/GMC3 be the ratio of geometric mean concentrations of 1 dose to 3 doses. We reject the noninferiority hypothesis if at 36 months the lower limit of the two-sided 96% confidence interval on R ≥ 0.67 for HPV16 and HPV18. The overall Type 1 error rate for rejecting the null hypotheses for both HPV16 and HPV18 (i.e., declaring noninferiority of the 1D2V) at either time point was controlled at 0.025.)|GMC Ratio|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|96.0|1.01|1.54||||||The cohort for the analysis of HPV16 at 36 months by enrollment age group includes participants who received the appropriate number of vaccine doses within the specified windows, were initially seronegative for HPV16, underwent blood collection at the 36-month mark, and reported no additional HPV vaccinations outside the study before the 36-month blood collection, as confirmed by self-report or serologic testing for HPV6/HPV11.||1.54|1.01|
91004981|NCT03728881|181894071|EQUIVALENCE|A p-value \<0.05 is interpreted as significantly different GMC ratios in different strata.|||||=|0.14||||||The p-values test for heterogeneity in the GMC ratios estimated from the stratified analyses.|p-values test for heterogeneity|||||||=0.14
91004982|NCT03728881|181894072|EQUIVALENCE|We will use a Fisher Exact test to test for the difference of the seroconversion rate between the younger one-dose recipients and the younger three-dose recipients.|||||=|0.001||||||A p-value under 0.05 will be regarded as significant.|Fisher Exact|||Calculated p-value for the comparison of the seroconversion rate for HPV18 at 36 months between younger one-dose recipients (9-11 Year Old Girls) and the younger three-dose recipients (18-21 Year Old Women).||||=0.001
91004983|NCT03728881|181894072|EQUIVALENCE|We will use a Fisher Exact test to test for the difference of the seroconversion rate between older one-dose and older three-dose recipients. A p-value under 0.05 will be regarded as significant.|||||=|0.737||||||A p-value under 0.05 will be regarded as significant.|Fisher Exact|||Calculated p-value for the comparison of the seroconversion rate for HPV18 at 36 months between older one-dose recipients (12-14 Year Old Girls) and the older three-dose recipients (22-25 Year Old Women).||||=0.737
91004984|NCT03728881|181894074|NON_INFERIORITY|Let R=GMC1/GMC3 be the ratio of geometric mean concentrations of 1 dose to 3 doses. We reject the noninferiority hypothesis if at 24 months the lower limit of the two-sided 99% confidence interval on R ≥ 0.67 for HPV16 and HPV18. The overall Type 1 error rate for rejecting the null hypotheses for both HPV16 and HPV18 (i.e., declaring noninferiority of the 1D2V) at either time point was controlled at 0.025.|GMC Ratio|0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.33|0.52||||||This procedure controls the overall type one error at 0.05. We are conducting 4 one-sided tests and will spend alpha as follows: 0.005 of the alpha each for HPV16 and for HPV18 at 24 months and 0.02 of the alpha each for HPV16 and for HPV18 at 36 months. The experiment-wise significance level accounting for multiple comparisons is ≤0.05 because the null chance of rejection for either HPV16or HPV18 is ≤0.01 at 24 months by the Bonferroni inequality and ≤0.04 at 36 months.||0.52|0.33|
91004985|NCT03728881|181894074|NON_INFERIORITY|Let R=GMC1/GMC3 be the ratio of geometric mean concentrations of 1 dose to 3 doses. We reject the noninferiority hypothesis if at 24 months the lower limit of the two-sided 99% confidence interval on R ≥ 0.67 for HPV16 and HPV18. The overall Type 1 error rate for rejecting the null hypotheses for both HPV16 and HPV18 (i.e., declaring noninferiority of the 1D2V) at either time point was controlled at 0.025.|GMC Ratio|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.37|0.6||||||This procedure controls the overall type one error at 0.05. We are conducting 4 one-sided tests and will spend alpha as follows: 0.005 of the alpha each for HPV16 and for HPV18 at 24 months and 0.02 of the alpha each for HPV16 and for HPV18 at 36 months. The experiment-wise significance level accounting for multiple comparisons is ≤0.05 because the null chance of rejection for either HPV16or HPV18 is ≤0.01 at 24 months by the Bonferroni inequality and ≤0.04 at 36 months.||0.60|0.37|
91049434|NCT00700817|181984628|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority concluded if upper confidence interval of test was below 0.4%. Superiority concluded if upper limit of confidence interval was below 0%.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.6||||0.0001||95.0|-0.77|-0.43||Multiple comparisons not applicable due to the hieracheal testing.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for treatment and country (fixed effects) and baseline HbA1c (covariate).||ANCOVA with treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Hieracheal testing of non-inferiority followed by superiority.||-0.43|-0.77|0.0001
91049435|NCT00700817|181984628|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority concluded if upper confidence interval of test was below 0.4%. Superiority concluded if upper limit of confidence interval was below 0%.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.34||||0.0001||95.0|-0.51|-0.16||Multiple comparisons not applicable due to the hieracheal testing.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for treatment and country (fixed effects) and baseline HbA1c (covariate).||ANCOVA with treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Hieracheal testing of non-inferiority followed by superiority. Liraglutide 1.2 mg versus sitagliptin only tested if liraglutide 1.8 mg was superior to sitagliptin.||-0.16|-0.51|0.0001
91004986|NCT03728881|181894074|EQUIVALENCE|The p-values test for heterogeneity in the GMC ratios estimated from the stratified analyses.|||||=|0.028||||||A p-value \<0.05 is interpreted as significantly different GMC ratios in different strata.|p-values test for heterogeneity|||||||=0.028
91004987|NCT03728881|181894075|EQUIVALENCE|We will use a Fisher Exact test to test for the difference of the seroconversion rate between the older one-dose recipients and the older three-dose recipients.|||||=|1||||||A p-value under 0.05 will be regarded as significant.|Fisher Exact|||NOTE: Younger one-dose recipients (9-11 Year Old Girls) and three-dose recipients (18-21 Year Old Women) both had a 100% seroconversion proportion for HPV16 at 24months, so a p-value for the difference of the seroconversion rate between them could not be calculated. Therefore, we only include the calculated p-value for the comparison of the seroconversion rate between older one-dose recipients (9-11 Year Old Girls) and three-dose recipients (22-25 Year Old Women).||||=1.000
91004988|NCT03728881|181894077|NON_INFERIORITY|Let R=GMC1/GMC3 be the ratio of geometric mean concentrations of 1 dose to 3 doses. We reject the noninferiority hypothesis if at 24 months the lower limit of the two-sided 99% confidence interval on R ≥ 0.67 for HPV16 and HPV18. The overall Type 1 error rate for rejecting the null hypotheses for both HPV16 and HPV18 (i.e., declaring noninferiority of the 1D2V) at either time point was controlled at 0.025.|GMC Ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.65|1.1||||||This procedure controls the overall type one error at 0.05. We are conducting 4 one-sided tests and will spend alpha as follows: 0.005 of the alpha each for HPV16 and for HPV18 at 24 months and 0.02 of the alpha each for HPV16 and for HPV18 at 36 months. The experiment-wise significance level accounting for multiple comparisons is ≤0.05 because the null chance of rejection for either HPV16or HPV18 is ≤0.01 at 24 months by the Bonferroni inequality and ≤0.04 at 36 months.||1.10|0.65|
91004989|NCT03728881|181894077|NON_INFERIORITY|Let R=GMC1/GMC3 be the ratio of geometric mean concentrations of 1 dose to 3 doses. We reject the noninferiority hypothesis if at 24 months the lower limit of the two-sided 99% confidence interval on R ≥ 0.67 for HPV16 and HPV18. The overall Type 1 error rate for rejecting the null hypotheses for both HPV16 and HPV18 (i.e., declaring noninferiority of the 1D2V) at either time point was controlled at 0.025.|GMC Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.77|1.29||||||This procedure controls the overall type one error at 0.05. We are conducting 4 one-sided tests and will spend alpha as follows: 0.005 of the alpha each for HPV16 and for HPV18 at 24 months and 0.02 of the alpha each for HPV16 and for HPV18 at 36 months. The experiment-wise significance level accounting for multiple comparisons is ≤0.05 because the null chance of rejection for either HPV16or HPV18 is ≤0.01 at 24 months by the Bonferroni inequality and ≤0.04 at 36 months.||1.29|0.77|
91004990|NCT03728881|181894077|EQUIVALENCE|The p-values test for heterogeneity in the GMC ratios estimated from the stratified analyses.|||||=|0.24||||||A p-value \<0.05 is interpreted as significantly different GMC ratios in different strata.|The p-values test for heterogeneity|||||||=0.24
91004991|NCT03728881|181894078|EQUIVALENCE|We will use a Fisher Exact test to test for the difference of the seroconversion rate between younger one-dose and younger three-dose recipients.|||||=|0.216||||||A p-value under 0.05 will be regarded as significant.|Fisher Exact|||The calculated p-value for the comparison of the seroconversion rate of HPV18 at 24 months between younger one-dose recipients (9-12 Year Old Girls) and younger three-dose recipients (18-21 Year Old Women).||||=0.216
91004992|NCT03728881|181894078|EQUIVALENCE|We will use a Fisher Exact test to test for the difference of the seroconversion rate between older one-dose and older three-dose recipients.|||||=|1||||||A p-value under 0.05 will be regarded as significant.|Fisher Exact|||The calculated p-value for the comparison of the seroconversion rate of HPV18 at 24 months between older one-dose recipients (12-14 Year Old Girls) and older three-dose recipients (22-25 Year Old Women).||||=1.000
91004993|NCT03728881|181894080|NON_INFERIORITY|Let R=GMC1/GMC3 be the ratio of geometric mean concentrations of 1 dose to 3 doses. We reject the noninferiority hypothesis if at 36 months the lower limit of the two-sided 96% confidence interval on R ≥ 0.67 for HPV16 and HPV18. The overall Type 1 error rate for rejecting the null hypotheses for both HPV16 and HPV18 (i.e., declaring noninferiority of the 1D2V) at either time point was controlled at 0.025.)|GMC Ratio|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|96.0|0.43|0.64||||||This procedure controls the overall type one error at 0.05. We are conducting 4 one-sided tests and will spend alpha as follows: 0.005 of the alpha each for HPV16 and for HPV18 at 24 months and 0.02 of the alpha each for HPV16 and for HPV18 at 36 months. The experiment-wise significance level accounting for multiple comparisons is ≤ 0.05 because the null chance of rejection for either HPV16 or HPV18 is ≤0.01 at 24 months by the Bonferroni inequality and ≤0.04 at 36 months.||0.64|0.43|
91007489|NCT02442765|181899021|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.8|||=|0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.0||"MMRMs include fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, BL, BL-by-visit, and in the Stage 1 model, BL NPI AA, risk assessment for falls, BL concomitant antipsychotic medication use.~Unstructured variance-covariance was used."|MMRM|||||0.0|-1.6|=0.061
91007490|NCT02442765|181899021|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3|||=|0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.5||"MMRMs include fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, BL, BL-by-visit, and in the Stage 1 model, BL NPI AA, risk assessment for falls, BL concomitant antipsychotic medication use.~Unstructured variance-covariance was used."|MMRM|||||0.5|-1.1|=0.400
91004994|NCT03728881|181894080|NON_INFERIORITY|Let R=GMC1/GMC3 be the ratio of geometric mean concentrations of 1 dose to 3 doses. We reject the noninferiority hypothesis if at 36 months the lower limit of the two-sided 96% confidence interval on R ≥ 0.67 for HPV16 and HPV18. The overall Type 1 error rate for rejecting the null hypotheses for both HPV16 and HPV18 (i.e., declaring noninferiority of the 1D2V) at either time point was controlled at 0.025.)|GMC Ratio|0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|96.0|0.41|0.58||||||This procedure controls the overall type one error at 0.05. We are conducting 4 one-sided tests and will spend alpha as follows: 0.005 of the alpha each for HPV16 and for HPV18 at 24 months and 0.02 of the alpha each for HPV16 and for HPV18 at 36 months. The experiment-wise significance level accounting for multiple comparisons is ≤ 0.05 because the null chance of rejection for either HPV16 or HPV18 is ≤0.01 at 24 months by the Bonferroni inequality and ≤0.04 at 36 months.||0.58|0.41|
91004995|NCT03728881|181894080|EQUIVALENCE|The p-values test for heterogeneity in the GMC ratios estimated from the stratified analyses.|||||=|0.73||||||A p-value \<0.05 is interpreted as significantly different GMC ratios in different strata.|The p-values test for heterogeneity|||||||=0.73
91007491|NCT02442765|181899021|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.1|||=|0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.3||"MMRMs include fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, BL, BL-by-visit, and in the Stage 1 model, BL NPI AA, risk assessment for falls, BL concomitant antipsychotic medication use.~Unstructured variance-covariance was used."|MMRM|||||0.3|-2.4|=0.115
91007492|NCT02442765|181899021|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.8|||=|0.264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.6||"MMRMs include fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, BL, BL-by-visit, and in the Stage 1 model, BL NPI AA, risk assessment for falls, BL concomitant antipsychotic medication use.~Unstructured variance-covariance was used."|MMRM|||||0.6|-2.1|=0.264
91007493|NCT02442765|181899021|SUPERIORITY||MMRM weighted z-statistic|-2.44|||=|0.015|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.015
91007494|NCT02442765|181899021|SUPERIORITY||MMRM weighted z-statistic|-1.4|||=|0.163|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.163
91007495|NCT02442765|181899022|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.9|||=|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|0.0||"MMRMs include fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, BL, BL-by-visit, and in the Stage 1 model, BL NPI AA, risk assessment for falls, BL concomitant antipsychotic medication use.~Unstructured variance-covariance was used."|MMRM|||||-0.0|-7.8|=0.050
91007496|NCT02442765|181899022|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.6|||=|0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|2.2||"MMRMs include fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, BL, BL-by-visit, and in the Stage 1 model, BL NPI AA, risk assessment for falls, BL concomitant antipsychotic medication use.~Unstructured variance-covariance was used."|MMRM|||||2.2|-5.4|=0.412
91007497|NCT02442765|181899022|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.0|||=|0.775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|5.8||"MMRMs include fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, BL, BL-by-visit, and in the Stage 1 model, BL NPI AA, risk assessment for falls, BL concomitant antipsychotic medication use.~Unstructured variance-covariance was used."|MMRM|||||5.8|-7.8|=0.775
91007498|NCT02442765|181899022|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.3|||=|0.333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|10.1||"MMRMs include fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, BL, BL-by-visit, and in the Stage 1 model, BL NPI AA, risk assessment for falls, BL concomitant antipsychotic medication use.~Unstructured variance-covariance was used."|MMRM|||||10.1|-3.5|=0.333
91007499|NCT02442765|181899022|SUPERIORITY||MMRM weighted z-statistic|-1.5|||=|0.133|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.133
91007500|NCT02442765|181899022|SUPERIORITY||MMRM weighted z-statistic|0.22|||=|0.829|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.829
91007501|NCT02442765|181899023|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2|||=|0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.0|-0.4|=0.118
91007502|NCT02442765|181899023|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|||=|0.191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.4|=0.191
91007503|NCT02442765|181899023|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2|||=|0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.5|=0.225
91007504|NCT02442765|181899023|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2|||=|0.227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.5|=0.227
91007505|NCT02442765|181899023|SUPERIORITY||SPCD OLS weighted z-statistic|-1.97|||=|0.049|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.049
91007506|NCT02442765|181899023|SUPERIORITY||SPCD OLS weighted z-statistic|-1.78|||=|0.075|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.075
91007507|NCT02442765|181899024|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|||=|0.364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.4|=0.364
91007508|NCT02442765|181899024|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|||=|0.427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2|||ANCOVA|||||0.2|-0.4|=0.427
91007509|NCT02442765|181899024|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.4|||=|0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.9|=0.098
91007510|NCT02442765|181899024|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3|||=|0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.8|=0.168
91007511|NCT02442765|181899024|SUPERIORITY||SPCD OLS weighted z-statistic|-1.86|||=|0.063|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.063
91007512|NCT02442765|181899024|SUPERIORITY||SPCD OLS weighted z-statistic|-1.57|||=|0.115|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.115
91007513|NCT02442765|181899025|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.4|||=|0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||||-0.1|-0.6|=0.014
91007514|NCT02442765|181899025|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2|||=|0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.5|=0.111
91007515|NCT02442765|181899025|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.5|||=|0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.0|-1.1|=0.062
91004996|NCT03728881|181894081|EQUIVALENCE|We will use a Fisher Exact test to test for the difference of the seroconversion rate one-dose and three-dose recipients who enrolled June - August.|||||=|1||||||A p-value under 0.05 will be regarded as significant.|Fisher Exact|||NOTE: One-dose recipients and three-dose recipients enrolled April - May both had a 100% seroconversion proportion for HPV16 at 36 months, so the p-value for the difference of the seroconversion rate between them could not be calculated. Therefore, we only include the calculated p-value for the comparison of the seroconversion rate between one-dose recipients and three-dose recipients enrolled June - August.||||=1.000
91004997|NCT03728881|181894083|NON_INFERIORITY|Let R=GMC1/GMC3 be the ratio of geometric mean concentrations of 1 dose to 3 doses. We reject the noninferiority hypothesis if at 36 months the lower limit of the two-sided 96% confidence interval on R ≥ 0.67 for HPV16 and HPV18. The overall Type 1 error rate for rejecting the null hypotheses for both HPV16 and HPV18 (i.e., declaring noninferiority of the 1D2V) at either time point was controlled at 0.025.)|GMC Ratio|1.26||||||96.0|1.0|1.58||||||This procedure controls the overall type one error at 0.05. We are conducting 4 one-sided tests and will spend alpha as follows: 0.005 of the alpha each for HPV16 and for HPV18 at 24 months and 0.02 of the alpha each for HPV16 and for HPV18 at 36 months. The experiment-wise significance level accounting for multiple comparisons is ≤ 0.05 because the null chance of rejection for either HPV16 or HPV18 is ≤0.01 at 24 months by the Bonferroni inequality and ≤0.04 at 36 months.||1.58|1.00|
91004998|NCT03728881|181894083|NON_INFERIORITY|Let R=GMC1/GMC3 be the ratio of geometric mean concentrations of 1 dose to 3 doses. We reject the noninferiority hypothesis if at 36 months the lower limit of the two-sided 96% confidence interval on R ≥ 0.67 for HPV16 and HPV18. The overall Type 1 error rate for rejecting the null hypotheses for both HPV16 and HPV18 (i.e., declaring noninferiority of the 1D2V) at either time point was controlled at 0.025.)|GMC Ratio|1.01||||||96.0|0.83|1.24||||||||1.24|0.83|
91004999|NCT03728881|181894083|EQUIVALENCE|The p-values test for heterogeneity in the GMC ratios estimated from the stratified analyses.|||||=|0.15||||||A p-value \<0.05 is interpreted as significantly different GMC ratios in different strata.|The p-values test for heterogeneity|||||||=0.15
91005000|NCT03728881|181894084|EQUIVALENCE|We will use a Fisher Exact test to test for the difference of the seroconversion rate between one-dose and three-dose recipients enrolled April - May.|||||=|0.253||||||A p-value under 0.05 will be regarded as significant.|Fisher Exact|||The calculated p-value for the comparison of the seroconversion rate of HPV18 at 36 months between one-dose recipients and three-dose recipients enrolled April - May.||||=0.253
91005001|NCT03728881|181894084|EQUIVALENCE|We will use a Fisher Exact test to test for the difference of the seroconversion rate between one-dose and three-dose recipients enrolled June - August.|||||=|0.015||||||A p-value under 0.05 will be regarded as significant|Fisher Exact|||The calculated p-value for the comparison of the seroconversion rate of HPV18 at 36 months between one-dose recipients and three-dose recipients enrolled June - August.||||=0.015
91005002|NCT03728881|181894086|NON_INFERIORITY|Let R=GMC1/GMC3 be the ratio of geometric mean concentrations of 1 dose to 3 doses. We reject the noninferiority hypothesis if at 24 months the lower limit of the two-sided 99% confidence interval on R ≥ 0.67 for HPV16 and HPV18. The overall Type 1 error rate for rejecting the null hypotheses for both HPV16 and HPV18 (i.e., declaring noninferiority of the 1D2V) at either time point was controlled at 0.025.|GMC Ratio|0.43||||||99.0|0.33|0.55||||||This procedure controls the overall type one error at 0.05. We are conducting 4 one-sided tests and will spend alpha as follows: 0.005 of the alpha each for HPV16 and for HPV18 at 24 months and 0.02 of the alpha each for HPV16 and for HPV18 at 36 months. The experiment-wise significance level accounting for multiple comparisons is ≤ 0.05 because the null chance of rejection for either HPV16 or HPV18 is ≤0.01 at 24 months by the Bonferroni inequality and ≤0.04 at 36 months.||0.55|0.33|
91005003|NCT03728881|181894086|NON_INFERIORITY|Let R=GMC1/GMC3 be the ratio of geometric mean concentrations of 1 dose to 3 doses. We reject the noninferiority hypothesis if at 24 months the lower limit of the two-sided 99% confidence interval on R ≥ 0.67 for HPV16 and HPV18. The overall Type 1 error rate for rejecting the null hypotheses for both HPV16 and HPV18 (i.e., declaring noninferiority of the 1D2V) at either time point was controlled at 0.025.|GMC Ratio|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.34|0.52||||||||0.52|0.34|
91005004|NCT03728881|181894086|EQUIVALENCE|The p-values test for heterogeneity in the GMC ratios estimated from the stratified analyses.|||||=|0.95||||||A p-value \<0.05 is interpreted as significantly different GMC ratios in different strata.|p-values test for heterogeneity|||||||=0.95
91005005|NCT03728881|181894087|EQUIVALENCE|We will use a Fisher Exact test to test for the difference of the seroconversion rate between one-dose and three-dose recipients enrolled June - August.|||||=|1||||||A p-value under 0.05 will be regarded as significant.|Fisher Exact|||NOTE: One-dose recipients and three-dose recipients enrolled April - May both had a 100% seroconversion proportion for HPV16 at 24 months, so the p-value for the difference of the seroconversion rate between them could not be calculated. Therefore, we only include the calculated p-value for the comparison of the seroconversion rate between one-dose recipients and three-dose recipients enrolled June - August.||||=1.000
91005006|NCT03728881|181894089|NON_INFERIORITY|Let R=GMC1/GMC3 be the ratio of geometric mean concentrations of 1 dose to 3 doses. We reject the noninferiority hypothesis if at 24 months the lower limit of the two-sided 99% confidence interval on R ≥ 0.67 for HPV16 and HPV18. The overall Type 1 error rate for rejecting the null hypotheses for both HPV16 and HPV18 (i.e., declaring noninferiority of the 1D2V) at either time point was controlled at 0.025.|GMC Ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.69|1.19||||||This procedure controls the overall type one error at 0.05. We are conducting 4 one-sided tests and will spend alpha as follows: 0.005 of the alpha each for HPV16 and for HPV18 at 24 months and 0.02 of the alpha each for HPV16 and for HPV18 at 36 months. The experiment-wise significance level accounting for multiple comparisons is ≤ 0.05 because the null chance of rejection for either HPV16 or HPV18 is ≤0.01 at 24 months by the Bonferroni inequality and ≤0.04 at 36 months.||1.19|0.69|
91005007|NCT03728881|181894089|NON_INFERIORITY|Let R=GMC1/GMC3 be the ratio of geometric mean concentrations of 1 dose to 3 doses. We reject the noninferiority hypothesis if at 24 months the lower limit of the two-sided 99% confidence interval on R ≥ 0.67 for HPV16 and HPV18. The overall Type 1 error rate for rejecting the null hypotheses for both HPV16 and HPV18 (i.e., declaring noninferiority of the 1D2V) at either time point was controlled at 0.025.|GMC Ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.69|1.14||||||||1.14|0.69|
91005008|NCT03728881|181894089|EQUIVALENCE|The p-values test for heterogeneity in the GMC ratios estimated from the stratified analyses.|||||=|0.88||||||A p-value \<0.05 is interpreted as significantly different GMC ratios in different strata.|p-values test for heterogeneity|||||||=0.88
91005009|NCT03728881|181894090|EQUIVALENCE|We will use a Fisher Exact test to test for the difference of the seroconversion rate between one-dose and three-dose recipients enrolled April - May.|||||=|0.629||||||A p-value under 0.05 will be regarded as significant.|Fisher Exact|||The calculated p-value for the comparison of the seroconversion rate of HPV18 at 24 months between one-dose recipients and three-dose recipients enrolled April - May.||||=0.629
91005010|NCT03728881|181894090|EQUIVALENCE|We will use a Fisher Exact test to test for the difference of the seroconversion rate between one-dose and three-dose recipients enrolled June - August.|||||=|0.175||||||A p-value under 0.05 will be regarded as significant.|Fisher Exact|||The calculated p-value for the comparison of the seroconversion rate of HPV18 at 24 months between one-dose recipients and three-dose recipients enrolled June - August.||||=0.175
91007516|NCT02442765|181899025|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3|||=|0.305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.3|||ANCOVA|||||0.3|-0.8|=0.305
91007517|NCT02442765|181899025|SUPERIORITY||SPCD OLS weighted z-statistic|-3.01|||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.003
91007518|NCT02442765|181899025|SUPERIORITY||SPCD OLS weighted z-statistic|-1.79|||=|0.073|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.073
91007519|NCT02442765|181899026|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.1|||=|0.909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|2.5|||ANCOVA|||||2.5|-2.2|=0.909
91007520|NCT02442765|181899026|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.4|||=|0.226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|3.8|||ANCOVA|||||3.8|-0.9|=0.226
91005011|NCT03728881|181894092|NON_INFERIORITY|Let R=GMC1/GMC3 be the ratio of geometric mean concentrations of 1 dose to 3 doses. We reject the noninferiority hypothesis if at 36 months the lower limit of the two-sided 96% confidence interval on R ≥ 0.67 for HPV16 and HPV18. The overall Type 1 error rate for rejecting the null hypotheses for both HPV16 and HPV18 (i.e., declaring noninferiority of the 1D2V) at either time point was controlled at 0.025.)|GMC Ratio|0.52||||||96.0|0.43|0.64||||||This procedure controls the overall type one error at 0.05. We are conducting 4 one-sided tests and will spend alpha as follows: 0.005 of the alpha each for HPV16 and for HPV18 at 24 months and 0.02 of the alpha each for HPV16 and for HPV18 at 36 months. The experiment-wise significance level accounting for multiple comparisons is ≤ 0.05 because the null chance of rejection for either HPV16 or HPV18 is ≤0.01 at 24 months by the Bonferroni inequality and ≤0.04 at 36 months.||0.64|0.43|
91005012|NCT03728881|181894092|NON_INFERIORITY|Let R=GMC1/GMC3 be the ratio of geometric mean concentrations of 1 dose to 3 doses. We reject the noninferiority hypothesis if at 36 months the lower limit of the two-sided 96% confidence interval on R ≥ 0.67 for HPV16 and HPV18. The overall Type 1 error rate for rejecting the null hypotheses for both HPV16 and HPV18 (i.e., declaring noninferiority of the 1D2V) at either time point was controlled at 0.025.)|GMC Ratio|0.48||||||96.0|0.4|0.58||||||||0.58|0.40|
91005013|NCT03728881|181894092|EQUIVALENCE|The p-values test for heterogeneity in the GMC ratios estimated from the stratified analyses.|||||=|0.46||||||A p-value \<0.05 is interpreted as significantly different GMC ratios in different strata.|p-values test for heterogeneity|||||||=0.46
91007521|NCT02442765|181899026|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.1|||=|0.405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|7.1|||ANCOVA|||||7.1|-2.9|=0.405
91007522|NCT02442765|181899026|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.9|||=|0.714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|4.0|||ANCOVA|||||4.0|-5.8|=0.714
91007523|NCT02442765|181899026|SUPERIORITY||SPCD OLS weighted z-statistic|0.75|||=|0.456|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.456
91007524|NCT02442765|181899026|SUPERIORITY||SPCD OLS weighted z-statistic|0.42|||=|0.678|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.678
91007525|NCT02442765|181899027|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.4|||=|0.278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.3|||ANCOVA|||||0.3|-1.1|=0.278
91007526|NCT02442765|181899027|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|||=|0.817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.6|||ANCOVA|||||0.6|-0.8|=0.817
91007527|NCT02442765|181899027|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.4|||=|0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.7|||ANCOVA|||||0.7|-1.4|=0.500
91007528|NCT02442765|181899027|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.1|||=|0.795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.2|||ANCOVA|||||1.2|-0.9|=0.795
91007529|NCT02442765|181899027|SUPERIORITY||SPCD OLS weighted z-statistic|-1.25|||=|0.213|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.213
91007530|NCT02442765|181899027|SUPERIORITY||SPCD OLS weighted z-statistic|0.02|||=|0.985|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.985
91007531|NCT02442765|181899029|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.6|||=|0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||||-0.3|-2.9|=0.018
91007532|NCT02442765|181899029|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|||=|0.956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.3|||ANCOVA|||||1.3|-1.3|=0.956
91007533|NCT02442765|181899029|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.1|||=|0.451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|4.0|||ANCOVA|||||4.0|-1.8|=0.451
91007534|NCT02442765|181899029|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.9|||=|0.519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|3.7|||ANCOVA|||||3.7|-1.9|=0.519
91007535|NCT02442765|181899029|SUPERIORITY||SPCD OLS weighted z-statistic|-0.72|||=|0.471|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.471
91007536|NCT02442765|181899029|SUPERIORITY||SPCD OLS weighted z-statistic|0.5|||=|0.618|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.618
91007537|NCT00003389|181899036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.32|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|Stratified log rank test was performed.||||||0.32
91007538|NCT00003389|181899037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.86|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|Stratified log rank test was performed.||||||0.86
91007539|NCT01693562|181899072|EQUIVALENCE|Other||||||0.016|||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.016
91007540|NCT01693562|181899073|EQUIVALENCE|Other||||||0.0046|||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.0046
91007541|NCT04607291|181899075|OTHER|A logistic regression model was used to identify factors associated with screening.|||||||||||||||||"A logistic regression model was used to identify factors associated with screening. A stepwise selection procedure (alpha entry and alpha exit = 0.15) was used to determine what factors were included in the model. Overall performance is assessed using the AUC.~Factors included in the model: sex, stool test recommended by physician, know where to get stool test, fear of colonoscopy index score, ABR - afraid score, and knowledge that colonoscopy can reduce worry.~AUC: 0.71"|||
91007542|NCT04607291|181899076|OTHER|A logistic regression model was used to identify characteristics associated with high intent of getting a Fit test.||||||||||||||||Evaluating factors associated with high intent of getting a Fit test.|"A logistic regression model was used to identify factors associated with high intent of getting a fit test. A stepwise selection procedure (alpha entry and alpha exit = 0.15) was used to determine what factors were included in the model. Overall performance is assessed using the AUC.~Factors included in the model: sex, race, stool test or colonoscopy recommended by physician, know where to get stool test, CBPR score, and barriers to screening score.~AUC: 0.80"|||
91007543|NCT05466240|181899077|EQUIVALENCE|For each post-baseline collection time point, treatment difference and p-value comparing the mean change in viral load from baseline between treatment arms from an analysis of covariance model with covariate baseline viral load.|||||<|0.95|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.95
91007544|NCT02759939|181899080|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Scheffe method|See below|Random effects logistic regression with a random intercept for clinic and adjustment for participant characteristics that differed across trial arms||||||0.80
91007545|NCT02759939|181899080|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Scheffe method|See below|Random effects logistic regression with a random intercept for clinic and adjustment for participant characteristics that differed across trial arms||||||0.32
91007546|NCT02759939|181899080|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Scheffe method|See below|Random effects logistic regression with a random intercept for clinic and adjustment for participant characteristics that differed across trial arms||||||0.99
91007547|NCT02759939|181899080|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Scheffe method|See below|Random effects logistic regression with a random intercept for clinic and adjustment for participant characteristics that differed across trial arms||||||0.72
91005014|NCT03728881|181894093|EQUIVALENCE|We will use a Fisher Exact test to test for the difference of the seroconversion rate between one-dose and three-dose recipients from coastal districts.|||||=|1||||||A p-value under 0.05 will be regarded as significant.|Fisher Exact|||NOTE: One-dose recipients and three-dose recipients enrolled from mountainous districts both had a 100% seroconversion proportion for HPV16 at 36 months, so the p-value for the difference of the seroconversion rate between them could not be calculated. Therefore, we only include the calculated p-value for the comparison of the seroconversion rate for HPV16 at 36 months between one-dose recipients and three-dose recipients enrolled from coastal districts.||||=1.000
91005015|NCT03728881|181894095|NON_INFERIORITY|Let R=GMC1/GMC3 be the ratio of geometric mean concentrations of 1 dose to 3 doses. We reject the noninferiority hypothesis if at 36 months the lower limit of the two-sided 96% confidence interval on R ≥ 0.67 for HPV16 and HPV18. The overall Type 1 error rate for rejecting the null hypotheses for both HPV16 and HPV18 (i.e., declaring noninferiority of the 1D2V) at either time point was controlled at 0.025.)|GMC Ratio|1.27||||||96.0|1.03|1.57||||||This procedure controls the overall type one error at 0.05. We are conducting 4 one-sided tests and will spend alpha as follows: 0.005 of the alpha each for HPV16 and for HPV18 at 24 months and 0.02 of the alpha each for HPV16 and for HPV18 at 36 months. The experiment-wise significance level accounting for multiple comparisons is ≤ 0.05 because the null chance of rejection for either HPV16 or HPV18 is ≤0.01 at 24 months by the Bonferroni inequality and ≤0.04 at 36 months.||1.57|1.03|
91049436|NCT00700817|181984629|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority concluded if upper confidence interval of test was below 0.4%. Superiority concluded if upper limit of confidence interval was below 0%.|Estimated Treatment Difference, LS Mean|-0.63||||0.0001||95.0|-0.81|-0.44||Multiple comparisons not applicable due to the hieracheal testing.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for treatment and country (fixed effects) and baseline HbA1c (covariate).|Lira 1.8 - Sita|ANCOVA with treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate.||-0.44|-0.81|0.0001
91049437|NCT00700817|181984629|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority concluded if upper confidence interval of test was below 0.4%. Superiority concluded if upper limit of confidence interval was below 0%.|Estimated Treatment Difference, LS Mean|-0.4||||0.0001||95.0|-0.59|-0.22||Multiple comparisons not applicable due to the hieracheal testing.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for treatment and country (fixed effects) and baseline HbA1c (covariate).|Lira 1.2 - Sita|ANCOVA with treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate.||-0.22|-0.59|0.0001
91049438|NCT00700817|181984631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Change within treatment group|-0.24|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.7||0.006||95.0|-0.41|-0.07||Multiple comparisons is not applicable.|paired t-test|The analysis is not a controlled comparison, and there are no adjustments||The t-test was performed to examine whether the change in HbA1c from week 52 to week 78 were different from 0 within each treatment group.||-0.07|-0.41|0.0060
91049439|NCT00700817|181984631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Change within treatment group|-0.45|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.9||0.0001||95.0|-0.67|-0.23||Multiple comparisons is not applicable.|paired t-test|The analysis is not a controlled comparison, and there are no adjustments||The t-test was performed to examine whether the change in HbA1c from week 52 to week 78 were different from 0 within each treatment group.||-0.23|-0.67|0.0001
91049440|NCT01194973|181984708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean change from baseline|117.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|92.77|142.59|||ANOVA|||||142.59|92.77|<0.0001
91049441|NCT01194973|181984714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean change from baseline|102.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.15|136.82|||ANOVA|||||136.82|68.15|<0.0001
91005016|NCT03728881|181894095|NON_INFERIORITY|Let R=GMC1/GMC3 be the ratio of geometric mean concentrations of 1 dose to 3 doses. We reject the noninferiority hypothesis if at 36 months the lower limit of the two-sided 96% confidence interval on R ≥ 0.67 for HPV16 and HPV18. The overall Type 1 error rate for rejecting the null hypotheses for both HPV16 and HPV18 (i.e., declaring noninferiority of the 1D2V) at either time point was controlled at 0.025.)|GMC Ratio|0.99||||||96.0|0.8|1.23||||||||1.23|0.80|
91005017|NCT03728881|181894095|EQUIVALENCE|The p-values test for heterogeneity in the GMC ratios estimated from the stratified analyses.|||||=|0.095||||||A p-value \<0.05 is interpreted as significantly different GMC ratios in different strata.|p-values test for heterogeneity|||||||=0.095
91049442|NCT01338987|181984717|OTHER|||||||0.0075|||||||Wilcoxon's rank sum test|||||||0.0075
91049443|NCT03856593|181984782|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|-0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis||This is the interaction coefficient for the difference-in-difference in average weekly MME pre-to-post letter between study arms. It was used to acquire the estimated average weekly MME post-letter in the Outcome Measure Data table.|Please note that 10% of means in the pre-intervention period were trimmed to remove outliers.||-0.07|-0.20|<0.05
91049444|NCT03856593|181984783|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis||This is the interaction coefficient for the difference-in-difference in average weekly MME pre-to-post letter between study arms. It was used to acquire the estimated average weekly VME post-letter in the Outcome Measure Data table.|||-0.02|-0.15|<0.05
91049445|NCT03407118|181984784|SUPERIORITY||ratio of least square means|0.967|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.803|1.17||||||||1.17|0.803|
91049446|NCT04017754|181984808|EQUIVALENCE|A p-value \<0.05 was considered significant for at difference in frequency of low p-MBL level(\<500 ug/l) between groups.|Prevalence proportion ratio|1.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|2.38|||Chi-squared||The numerator is the risk of low p-MBL in the study sample with RPL patients and the denominator is the risk of low p-MBL in control group 1 of female blood donors.|Comparing the risk of low p-MBL level between RPL patients and MBL reference group. We hypothesized that more RPL patients had a low p-MBL level; thus, the null hypothesis was that no difference existed.||2.38|1.34|<0.001
91005018|NCT03728881|181894096|EQUIVALENCE|We will use a Fisher Exact test to test for the difference of the seroconversion rate between one-dose and three-dose recipients enrolled from coastal districts.|||||=|0.327||||||A p-value under 0.05 will be regarded as significant.|Fisher Exact|||The calculated p-value for the comparison of the seroconversion rate for HPV18 at 36 months between one-dose recipients and three-dose recipients enrolled from coastal districts.||||=0.327
91049447|NCT03508687|181984832|OTHER|||||||0.517||||||paired t test; baseline vs. week 12 (n = 5)|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.517
91049448|NCT03508687|181984832|OTHER|||||||0.345|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test (n = 5)||||||0.345
91049449|NCT02944383|181984987|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-19.02||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.07|-4.25|||Ranked ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group \& randomized baseline statin (yes or no) are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as covariate.|Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|||-4.25|-33.07|0.0063
91049450|NCT02944383|181984987|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-7.63||||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.88|7.05|||Ranked ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group \& randomized baseline statin (yes or no) are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as covariate.|Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|||7.05|-25.88|0.2350
91049451|NCT02944383|181984988|OTHER|||||||0.1663||||||Ranked ANCOVA results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group and randomized baseline statin (yes or no) are included as factors, and outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 2||||0.1663
91049452|NCT02944383|181984988|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6195||||||Ranked ANCOVA results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group and randomized baseline statin (yes or no) are included as factors, and outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 2||||0.6195
91049453|NCT02944383|181984988|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0436||||||Ranked ANCOVA results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group and randomized baseline statin (yes or no) are included as factors, and outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 6||||0.0436
91049454|NCT02944383|181984988|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5||||||Ranked ANCOVA results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group and randomized baseline statin (yes or no) are included as factors, and outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 6||||0.5000
91049455|NCT02944383|181984988|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0007||||||Ranked ANCOVA results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group and randomized baseline statin (yes or no) are included as factors, and outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.0007
91049456|NCT02944383|181984988|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1161||||||Ranked ANCOVA results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group and randomized baseline statin (yes or no) are included as factors, and outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.1161
91005019|NCT03728881|181894096|EQUIVALENCE|We will use a Fisher Exact test to test for the difference of the seroconversion rate between one-dose and three-dose recipients enrolled from mountainous districts.|||||=|0.012||||||A p-value under 0.05 will be regarded as significant.|Fisher Exact|||The calculated p-value for the comparison of the seroconversion rate for HPV18 at 36 months between one-dose recipients and three-dose recipients enrolled from mountainous districts.||||=0.012
91005020|NCT03728881|181894098|NON_INFERIORITY|Let R=GMC1/GMC3 be the ratio of geometric mean concentrations of 1 dose to 3 doses. We reject the noninferiority hypothesis if at 24 months the lower limit of the two-sided 99% confidence interval on R ≥ 0.67 for HPV16 and HPV18. The overall Type 1 error rate for rejecting the null hypotheses for both HPV16 and HPV18 (i.e., declaring noninferiority of the 1D2V) at either time point was controlled at 0.025.|GMC Ratio|0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.36|0.58||||||||0.58|0.36|
91005021|NCT03728881|181894098|NON_INFERIORITY|Let R=GMC1/GMC3 be the ratio of geometric mean concentrations of 1 dose to 3 doses. We reject the noninferiority hypothesis if at 24 months the lower limit of the two-sided 99% confidence interval on R ≥ 0.67 for HPV16 and HPV18. The overall Type 1 error rate for rejecting the null hypotheses for both HPV16 and HPV18 (i.e., declaring noninferiority of the 1D2V) at either time point was controlled at 0.025.|GMC Ratio|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.32|0.5||||||||0.50|0.32|
91005022|NCT03728881|181894098|EQUIVALENCE|The p-values test for heterogeneity in the GMC ratios estimated from the stratified analyses.|||||=|0.3||||||A p-value \<0.05 is interpreted as significantly different GMC ratios in different strata.|p-values test for heterogeneity|||||||=0.30
91005023|NCT03728881|181894099|EQUIVALENCE|We will use a Fisher Exact test to test for the difference of the seroconversion rate between one-dose and three-dose recipients enrolled from coastal districts.|||||=|1||||||A p-value under 0.05 will be regarded as significant.|Fisher Exact|||NOTE: One-dose recipients and three-dose recipients enrolled from mountainous districts had a 100% seroconversion proportion for HPV16 at 24 months, so the p-value for the difference of the seroconversion rate between them could not be calculated. Therefore, we only include the calculated p-value for the comparison of the seroconversion rate for HPV16 at 24 months between one-dose recipients and three-dose recipients enrolled from coastal districts.||||=1.000
91005024|NCT03728881|181894101|NON_INFERIORITY|Let R=GMC1/GMC3 be the ratio of geometric mean concentrations of 1 dose to 3 doses. We reject the noninferiority hypothesis if at 24 months the lower limit of the two-sided 99% confidence interval on R ≥ 0.67 for HPV16 and HPV18. The overall Type 1 error rate for rejecting the null hypotheses for both HPV16 and HPV18 (i.e., declaring noninferiority of the 1D2V) at either time point was controlled at 0.025.|GMC Ratio|1.02||||||99.0|0.79|1.32||||||This procedure controls the overall type one error at 0.05. We are conducting 4 one-sided tests and will spend alpha as follows: 0.005 of the alpha each for HPV16 and for HPV18 at 24 months and 0.02 of the alpha each for HPV16 and for HPV18 at 36 months. The experiment-wise significance level accounting for multiple comparisons is ≤ 0.05 because the null chance of rejection for either HPV16 or HPV18 is ≤0.01 at 24 months by the Bonferroni inequality and ≤0.04 at 36 months.||1.32|0.79|
91005025|NCT03728881|181894101|NON_INFERIORITY|Let R=GMC1/GMC3 be the ratio of geometric mean concentrations of 1 dose to 3 doses. We reject the noninferiority hypothesis if at 24 months the lower limit of the two-sided 99% confidence interval on R ≥ 0.67 for HPV16 and HPV18. The overall Type 1 error rate for rejecting the null hypotheses for both HPV16 and HPV18 (i.e., declaring noninferiority of the 1D2V) at either time point was controlled at 0.025.|GMC Ratio|0.81||||||99.0|0.63|1.04||||||||1.04|0.63|
91005026|NCT03728881|181894101|EQUIVALENCE|The p-values test for heterogeneity in the GMC ratios estimated from the stratified analyses.|||||=|0.1||||||A p-value \<0.05 is interpreted as significantly different GMC ratios in different strata.|p-values test for heterogeneity|||||||=0.10
91005027|NCT03728881|181894102|EQUIVALENCE|We will use a Fisher Exact test to test for the difference of the seroconversion rate between one-dose and three-dose recipients enrolled from coastal districts.|||||=|1||||||A p-value under 0.05 will be regarded as significant.|Fisher Exact|||The calculated p-value for the comparison of the seroconversion rate for HPV18 at 24 months between one-dose recipients and three-dose recipients enrolled from coastal districts.||||=1.000
91049457|NCT02944383|181984988|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.183||||||Ranked ANCOVA results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group and randomized baseline statin (yes or no) are included as factors, and outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.1830
91049458|NCT02944383|181984988|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8762||||||Ranked ANCOVA results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group and randomized baseline statin (yes or no) are included as factors, and outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.8762
91049459|NCT02944383|181984989|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.178||||||Ranked ANCOVA results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group and randomized baseline statin (yes or no) are included as factors, and outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 2||||0.1780
91049460|NCT02944383|181984989|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7615||||||Ranked ANCOVA results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group and randomized baseline statin (yes or no) are included as factors, and outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 2||||0.7615
91049461|NCT02944383|181984989|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0162||||||Ranked ANCOVA results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group and randomized baseline statin (yes or no) are included as factors, and outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 6||||0.0162
91049462|NCT02944383|181984989|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.371||||||Ranked ANCOVA results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group and randomized baseline statin (yes or no) are included as factors, and outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 6||||0.3710
91049463|NCT02944383|181984989|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||Ranked ANCOVA results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group and randomized baseline statin (yes or no) are included as factors, and outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.0010
91049464|NCT02944383|181984989|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0988||||||Ranked ANCOVA results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group and randomized baseline statin (yes or no) are included as factors, and outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.0988
91049465|NCT02944383|181984989|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2594||||||Ranked ANCOVA results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group and randomized baseline statin (yes or no) are included as factors, and outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.2594
91005028|NCT03728881|181894102|EQUIVALENCE|We will use a Fisher Exact test to test for the difference of the seroconversion rate between one-dose and three-dose recipients enrolled from mountainous districts.|||||=|0.339||||||A p-value under 0.05 will be regarded as significant.|Fisher Exact|||The calculated p-value for the comparison of the seroconversion rate for HPV18 at 24 months between one-dose recipients and three-dose recipients enrolled from mountainous districts.||||=0.339
91005029|NCT05505734|181894113|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.535|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.392|0.73||The pre-specified alpha (type I error) at the IA was set at 0.003 for the primary and first secondary endpoint|Regression, Cox|||Hazard ratios, 95% confidence intervals for hazard ratios and p-values are estimated using a Cox regression model with treatment group, pre-study asthma therapy, and number of severe exacerbations in the last 12 months prior to randomization as factors. A hazard ratio less than 1 favors the BDA MDI treatment group.||0.730|0.392|<0.001
91005030|NCT05505734|181894114|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.539|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.397|0.733||The pre-specified alpha (type I error) at the IA was set at 0.003 for the primary and first secondary endpoint|Regression, Cox|||Hazard ratios, 95% confidence intervals for hazard ratios and p-values were estimated using a Cox regression model with treatment group, pre-study asthma therapy, and number of severe exacerbations in the last 12 months prior to randomization as factors. A hazard ratio less than 1 favors the BDA MDI treatment group.||0.733|0.397|<0.001
91049466|NCT02944383|181984989|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9099||||||Ranked ANCOVA results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group and randomized baseline statin (yes or no) are included as factors, and outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.9099
91049467|NCT02944383|181984989|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0219||||||Ranked ANCOVA results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group and randomized baseline statin (yes or no) are included as factors, and outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.0219
91049468|NCT02944383|181984989|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3494||||||Ranked ANCOVA results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group and randomized baseline statin (yes or no) are included as factors, and outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.3494
91049469|NCT02944383|181984990|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0391||||||Results are obtained using a model where outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 2||||0.0391
91049470|NCT02944383|181984990|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2455||||||Results are obtained using a model where outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 2||||0.2455
91049471|NCT02944383|181984990|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.026||||||Results are obtained using a model where outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 6||||0.0260
91049472|NCT02944383|181984990|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5704||||||Results are obtained using a model where outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 6||||0.5704
91049473|NCT02944383|181984990|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0009||||||Results are obtained using a model where outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.0009
91049474|NCT02944383|181984990|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0846||||||Results are obtained using a model where outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.0846
91049475|NCT02944383|181984990|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1763||||||Results are obtained using a model where outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.1763
91049476|NCT02944383|181984990|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5576||||||Results are obtained using a model where outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.5576
91049477|NCT02944383|181984990|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-14.66||||0.0086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.68|-4.39||Results are obtained using a model where outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||-4.39|-24.68|0.0086
91005031|NCT05505734|181894115|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.541|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.405|0.724||The pre-specified type I error for secondary endpoints tested at the final DCO was 0.05. A hierarchical testing strategy was employed to control the two-sided Type I error rate for the secondary endpoints, excluding the first secondary endpoint.|Regression, Cox|||Hazard ratios, 95% confidence intervals for hazard ratios and p-values were estimated using a Cox regression model with treatment group, pre-study asthma therapy, and number of severe exacerbations in the last 12 months prior to randomization as factors. A hazard ratio less than 1 favors the BDA MDI treatment group.||0.724|0.405|<0.001
91005032|NCT05505734|181894116|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.541|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.406|0.72||The pre-specified type I error for secondary endpoints tested at the final DCO was 0.05. A hierarchical testing strategy was employed to control the two-sided Type I error rate for the secondary endpoints, excluding the first secondary endpoint.|Regression, Cox|||Hazard ratios, 95% confidence intervals for hazard ratios and p-values were estimated using a Cox regression model with treatment group, pre-study asthma therapy, and number of severe exacerbations in the last 12 months prior to randomization as factors. A hazard ratio less than 1 favors the BDA MDI treatment group.||0.720|0.406|<0.001
91005033|NCT05505734|181894117|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.64||The pre-specified type I error for secondary endpoints tested at the final DCO was 0.05. A hierarchical testing strategy was employed to control the two-sided Type I error rate for the secondary endpoints, excluding the first secondary endpoint.|Negative binomial|||Rates, rate ratios and two-sided p-values were estimated from a negative binomial model with treatment, pre-study asthma therapy, and number of severe exacerbations in the last 12 months prior to randomization as factors. A rate ratio less than 1 favors BDA MDI treatment group.||0.64|0.34|<0.001
91005034|NCT05505734|181894118|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.63||The pre-specified type I error for secondary endpoints tested at the final DCO was 0.05. A hierarchical testing strategy was employed to control the two-sided Type I error rate for the secondary endpoints, excluding the first secondary endpoint.|Negative binomial|||Rates, rate ratios and two-sided p-values were estimated from a negative binomial model with treatment, pre-study asthma therapy, and number of severe exacerbations in the last 12 months prior to randomization as factors. A rate ratio less than 1 favors BDA MDI treatment group.||0.63|0.33|<0.001
91005035|NCT05505734|181894119|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The pre-specified type I error for secondary endpoints tested at the final DCO was 0.05. A hierarchical testing strategy was employed to control the two-sided Type I error rate for the secondary endpoints, excluding the first secondary endpoint.|Wilcoxon rank sum|||||||<0.001
91049478|NCT02944383|181984990|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.06||||0.1516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.02|3.64||Results are obtained using a model where outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||3.64|-15.02|0.1516
91049479|NCT02944383|181984991|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0386||||||Results are obtained using a model where outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 2||||0.0386
91049480|NCT02944383|181984991|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1206||||||Results are obtained using a model where outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 2||||0.1206
91049481|NCT02944383|181984991|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0364||||||Results are obtained using a model where outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 6||||0.0364
91049482|NCT02944383|181984991|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4312||||||Results are obtained using a model where outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 6||||0.4312
91049483|NCT02944383|181984991|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||Results are obtained using a model where outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.0010
91049484|NCT02944383|181984991|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0407||||||Results are obtained using a model where outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.0407
91049485|NCT02944383|181984991|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1433||||||Results are obtained using a model where outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.1433
91049486|NCT02944383|181984991|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2866||||||Results are obtained using a model where outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.2866
91005036|NCT05505734|181894120|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The pre-specified type I error for secondary endpoints tested at the final DCO was 0.05. A hierarchical testing strategy was employed to control the two-sided Type I error rate for the secondary endpoints, excluding the first secondary endpoint.|Wilcoxon rank sum|||||||<0.001
91005037|NCT00085644|181894195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|37.6|||<|0.001||95.0|27.4|47.8|||Chi-squared||Risk difference is measured as a percentage.|ASAS 20 response rates of the adalimumab group were compared with the placebo group using Pearson's Chi-square test. The counts and percentages were calculated for total sample and by therapy group. Statistical tests were 2-sided. For the statistical analysis, subjects with missing data before Week 12 were considered as nonresponders. The comparisons were performed at an alpha level = 0.05.||47.8|27.4|< 0.001
91005038|NCT00085644|181894196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.985||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.985
91005039|NCT00893763|181894276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1763|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effects linear model|||We compared groups in a single analytical model using a mixed effects linear model with CPIS as the response variable. For this model, group (CHX, control), day, group by day interaction, APACHE III score and hospital (VCU, USF) were modeled as fixed effects and subject was modeled as a random effect.||||0.1763
91005040|NCT00893763|181894276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8656|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||A logistic regression analysis was performed using the binary response variable of colonization or no colonization and dependent variables for group, length of intubation, and group-by-length-of-intubation interaction. The probability of a type 1 error ( a ) was set to 0.05.||||0.8656
91005041|NCT04107935|181894291|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.983||||||Propensity score matching was used to form pairs of intervention and control participants. Specifically, a greedy matching procedure with a matching caliper of 0.2 of the standard deviation of the logit of the propensity score was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|Since baseline characteristics achieved a good balance, those variables were not entered into the propensity score matched model.||||||0.9830
91005042|NCT04107935|181894292|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8365||||||Adjusted for age, race, body mass index, and time|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8365
91005043|NCT04107935|181894293|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5727||||||Adjusted for age, race, body mass index, and time|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.5727
91005044|NCT04107935|181894294|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9381||||||Adjusted for age, race, body mass index, and time|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.9381
91005045|NCT04107935|181894296|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.608||||||Adjusted for age, race, body mass index, and time|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.608
91049487|NCT02944383|181984991|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0056||||||Results are obtained using a model where outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.0056
91005046|NCT00376675|181894298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.317|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.317
91005047|NCT01332851|181894308|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|2.5|||=|0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|6.1||We used a threshold of p \< .05 as the criterion for statistical significance.|Regression, Cox||The hazard ratio of 2.5 indicates that children with parents in the control group were 2.5 times more likely to be removed from their home and placed into foster care compared to the intervention group.|Child welfare system removals were analyzed with a survival models that used condition assignment to predict hazard of being removed from the birth parent home.||6.10|1.03|=.043
91005048|NCT01332851|181894309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Parents in the PFR condition were 0.94 higher on sensitivity scores (on the unstandardized sensitivity measure) across the three post-intervention time points than parents in the R\&R condition. The standard error (SE) of this difference was .42.|Mixed models were estimated in which post-intervention scores were nested. The intercept (representing the average score across post-intervention time points) was modeled as having a random effect. The intercept in the mixed model was regressed on intervention condition (R\&R = 0, PFR = 1), baseline sensitivity score, months between baseline and end of intervention, and age of child at baseline.||||<.05
91049488|NCT02944383|181984991|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0789||||||Results are obtained using a model where outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.0789
91049489|NCT02944383|181984992|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0277||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 2||||0.0277
91049490|NCT02944383|181984992|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2502||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 2||||0.2502
91005049|NCT01332851|181894310|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||The PFR group had a higher mean compared to the R\&R group. (the absolute value of the standardized effect is d=.15).|Mixed models were estimated in which post-intervention scores were nested. The intercept (representing the average score across post-intervention time points) was modeled as having a random effect. The intercept in the mixed model was regressed on intervention condition (R\&R = 0, PFR = 1), baseline security score, months between baseline and end of intervention, and age of child at baseline||||>.05
91005050|NCT01332851|181894311|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||The adjusted mean across the two post-intervention time points was -.20 (SE=.50) lower in the PFR group than R\&R group. The standardized effect size was d=.04.|Mixed models were estimated in which post-intervention scores were nested. The intercept (representing the average score across post-intervention time points) was modeled as having a random effect. The intercept in the mixed model was regressed on intervention condition (R\&R = 0, PFR = 1), baseline problem behavior score, months between baseline and end of intervention, and age of child at baseline.||||>.05
91005051|NCT01332851|181894312|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||The adjusted mean across post-intervention time points was .41 (SE=.53) higher in the PFR group than the R\&R group. The standardized effect size was d=-.07|Mixed models were estimated in which post-intervention scores were nested. The intercept (representing the average score across post-intervention time points) was modeled as having a random effect. The intercept in the mixed model was regressed on intervention condition (R\&R = 0, PFR = 1), baseline competence stress score, months between baseline and end of intervention, and age of child at baseline||||>.05
91005052|NCT01332851|181894313|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||The PFR group had a higher mean level of social and emotional development compared to the R\&R group (the absolute value of the standardized effect is d=.10).|Mixed models were estimated in which post-intervention scores were nested. The intercept (representing the average score across post-intervention time points) was modeled as having a random effect. The intercept in the mixed model was regressed on intervention condition (R\&R = 0, PFR = 1), baseline social-emotional competence score, months between baseline and end of intervention, and age of child at baseline.||||>.05
91049491|NCT02944383|181984992|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0161||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 6||||0.0161
91049492|NCT02944383|181984992|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6567||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 6||||0.6567
91049493|NCT02944383|181984992|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.0010
91049494|NCT02944383|181984992|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1257||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.1257
91049495|NCT02944383|181984992|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.144||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.1440
91049496|NCT02944383|181984992|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7642||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.7642
91049497|NCT02944383|181984992|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-16.4||||0.0107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.31|-4.51||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||-4.51|-28.31|0.0107
91049498|NCT02944383|181984992|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-5.32||||0.2466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.73|5.52||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||5.52|-16.73|0.2466
91005053|NCT01332851|181894314|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||The PFR group had lower mean level of problem behavior compared to the R\&R group (the absolute value of standardized effect is d= .12).|Mixed models were estimated in which post-intervention scores were nested. The intercept (representing the average score across post-intervention time points) was modeled as having a random effect. The intercept in the mixed model was regressed on intervention condition (R\&R = 0, PFR = 1), baseline problem behavior score, months between baseline and end of intervention, and age of child at baseline||||>.05
91005054|NCT01332851|181894315|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Adjusted mean at 3-month post-intervention was -.07 (SE=.08) lower for PFR compared to R\&R group.|Tested mean differences by condition at 3-month follow-up controlling for baseline score, months between baseline and the end of the intervention, and age of child and using an ANVOVA/regression model. Null hypothesis was that post-intervention means were equal.||||>.05
91005055|NCT01332851|181894316|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Adjusted mean at 3-month post-intervention was -.06 (SE=.08) lower for PFR compared to R\&R group.|||||>.05
91005056|NCT01332851|181894317|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||The PFR group had lower atypical affective communication compared to the R\&R group (the absolute value of the standardized effect size was d=.19).|Mixed models were estimated in which post-intervention scores were nested. The intercept (representing the average score across post-intervention time points) was modeled as having a random effect. The intercept in the mixed model was regressed on intervention condition (R\&R = 0, PFR = 1), baseline score, months between baseline and end of intervention, and age of child at baseline||||<.05
91005057|NCT03446612|181894332|OTHER||FBF ratio difference|0.6953|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.12998|||||||||||The difference between daprodustat and darbepoetin alfa FBF ratio in response to acetylcholine (7.5 ug/min) is presented.|||||
91049499|NCT02944383|181984993|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0211||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 2||||0.0211
91049500|NCT02944383|181984993|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1304||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 2||||0.1304
91049501|NCT02944383|181984993|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0318||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 6||||0.0318
91049502|NCT02944383|181984993|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4607||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 6||||0.4607
91049503|NCT02944383|181984993|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0012||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.0012
91049504|NCT02944383|181984993|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0592||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.0592
91049505|NCT02944383|181984993|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.117||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.1170
91049506|NCT02944383|181984993|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3138||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.3138
91005058|NCT03446612|181894332|OTHER||FBF ratio difference|0.1683|||||||||||||The difference between daprodustat and darbepoetin alfa FBF ratio in response to acetylcholine (15 ug/min) is presented.|||||
91049507|NCT02944383|181984993|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.0090
91049508|NCT02944383|181984993|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1317||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.1317
91049509|NCT02944383|181984994|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2395||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 2||||0.2395
91005059|NCT03446612|181894332|OTHER||FBF ratio difference|0.3238|||||||||||||The difference between daprodustat and darbepoetin alfa FBF ratio in response to acetylcholine (30 ug/min) is presented.|||||
91049510|NCT02944383|181984994|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.638||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 2||||0.6380
91049511|NCT02944383|181984994|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7468||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 6||||0.7468
91049512|NCT02944383|181984994|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8483||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 6||||0.8483
91005060|NCT03446612|181894334|OTHER||FBF ratio difference|0.2968|||||||||||||The difference between daprodustat and darbepoetin alfa FBF ratio in response to sodium nitroprusside (3 ug/min) is presented.|||||
91005061|NCT03446612|181894334|OTHER||FBF ratio difference|1.4425|||||||||||||The difference between daprodustat and darbepoetin alfa FBF ratio in response to sodium nitroprusside (10 ug/min) is presented.|||||
91005062|NCT03446612|181894336|OTHER||FBF ratio difference|-0.1598|||||||||||||The difference between daprodustat and darbepoetin alfa FBF ratio in response to L-NMMA (2 umol/min) is presented.|||||
91005063|NCT03446612|181894336|OTHER||FBF ratio difference|-0.3715|||||||||||||The difference between daprodustat and darbepoetin alfa FBF ratio in response to L-NMMA (8 umol/min) is presented.|||||
91005064|NCT01678560|181894406|OTHER|Exact Fisher test was used on the collected information from the limited population|Fisher exact test statistic value|1.0|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||Hypothesis: Active continuous monitoring of PAP treatment in OSA will result in improved adherence at 90 days Exact Fisher test was used on the collected information from the limited population.|Fisher Exact|Exact Fisher test was used on the information from the limited population.||PAP devices delivery to the patients was outsourced by the institution eliminating the point of recruitment for the study at our department. The recruitment was halted and the study proceeded with the follow-up of already recruited patients. As a result of the limited recruitment, planned statistical data analysis was not performed on the primary outcomes due to the smaller then expected number of subjects (expected 110 subjects in the Usual arm and 110 subjects in the Wireless arm.|Exact Fisher test was used on the collected information from the limited population.|||<0.01
91005065|NCT01678560|181894407|OTHER|Exact Fisher test was used on the collected information from the limited population|Fisher exact test statistic value|1.0|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||"Hypothesis: Active continuous monitoring of PAP treatment in OSA (Wireless group) will result in improved adherence at 90 days compared to Usual Group.~Exact Fisher test was used on the collected information from the limited population."|Fisher Exact|Exact Fisher test was used on the information from the limited population||CPAP devices delivery to the patients was outsourced by the institution eliminating the point of recruitment for the study at our department The recruitment was halted and the study proceeded with the follow-up of already recruited patients. As a result of the limited recruitment, planned statistical data analysis was not performed on the primary outcomes due to the smaller then expected number of subjects (expected 110 subjects in the Usual arm and 110 subjects in the Wireless arm|Exact Fisher test was used on the collected information from the limited population|||<0.01
91049513|NCT02944383|181984994|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0008||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.0008
91049514|NCT02944383|181984994|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0938||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.0938
91049515|NCT02944383|181984994|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3201||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.3201
91049516|NCT02944383|181984994|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.901||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.9010
91049517|NCT02944383|181984994|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-19.31||||0.0156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.06|-1.49||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||-1.49|-39.06|0.0156
91049518|NCT02944383|181984994|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-5.98||||0.3456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.51|17.26||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||17.26|-28.51|0.3456
91049519|NCT02944383|181984995|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3714||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 2||||0.3714
91005066|NCT01678560|181894408|OTHER|Exact Fisher test was used on the collected information from the limited population|Estimation Parameter Other[Fisher exact|1.0|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||Hypothesis - Number of patients effectively treated with the PAP will be higher in the Wireless Group compared to the Usual Group Exact Fisher test was used on the collected information from the limited population.|Fisher Exact|||CPAP devices delivery to the patients was outsourced by the institution eliminating the point of recruitment for the study at our department The recruitment was halted and the study proceeded with the follow-up of already recruited patients. As a result of the limited recruitment, planned statistical data analysis was not performed on the primary outcomes due to the smaller then expected number of subjects (expected 110 subjects in the Usual arm and 110 subjects in the Wireless arm.||||<0.01
91005067|NCT01678560|181894409|OTHER|Exact Fisher test was used on the collected information from the limited population|Other[Fisher exact test statistic value]|0.0286|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||Hypothesis - PAP treatment Adherence in the first 3 months of treatment predicts the PAP treatment Adherence in the next 9 months of treatment Exact Fisher test was used on the collected information from the limited population|Fisher Exact||Exact Fisher test was used on the collected information from the limited population.|Exact Fisher test was used on the collected information from the limited population|Exact Fisher test was used on the collected information from the limited population.|||<0.01
91005068|NCT01678560|181894410|OTHER|Exact Fisher test was used on the collected information from the limited population|Exact Fisher test|0.0039|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||"Hypothesis: Patients with the higher AHI are more likely to become adherent to the PAP therapy.~Exact Fisher test was used on the collected information from the limited population"|Fisher Exact|Exact Fisher test was used on the collected information from the limited population||Exact Fisher test was used on the collected information from the limited population|Exact Fisher test was used on the collected information from the limited population|||<0.01
91005069|NCT00654368|181894432|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the lower bound of the one-sided 95% confidence interval (CI), defined below, exceeded the noninferiority margin of -0.6, then noninferiority was to be concluded.|Mean Difference|-0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.06|||||The 95% CI was calculated using the mean square error from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) fitted with effects for treatment and covariates of duration of disease, type of reimbursement, and 6 month DAS28.|||-0.06|-0.75|
91005070|NCT00959699|181894451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Strata-Adjusted Difference|33.7||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.1|53.3||The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel p-value is adjusted for randomization strata of HCV-RNA (\< or \>= 800,000 IU/mL) and Cirrhosis/Fibrosis (Yes or No)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The methodology for 95% Confidence Interval (CI) is based on a Modified Koch approach which adjusted for Randomization Strata of Cirrhosis/Fibrosis (Yes or No). The adjustment of randomization strata of HCV-RNA (\< or \>= 800,000 IU/mL) was not possible due to sparse data.||53.3|14.1|0.0008
91005071|NCT00959699|181894452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Observed Difference|34.2||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.5|53.9||The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel p-value is adjusted for randomization strata of HCV-RNA (\< or \>= 800,000 IU/mL) and Cirrhosis/Fibrosis (Yes or No)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The methodology for 95% CI is based on the asymptotic normal approximation to the binomial distribution||53.9|14.5|0.0007
91005072|NCT04228445|181894457|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.041|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.394|26.662|||Score statistics for Type 3 GEE analysis|||||26.662|7.394|<0.0001
91005073|NCT04228445|181894457|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.772|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.625|32.617|||Score statistics for Type 3 GEE analysis|||||32.617|8.625|<0.0001
91005074|NCT04228445|181894458|OTHER||Percentage of Responders|87.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.6|96.9|||||Missing data imputed as non-responder|||96.9|78.6|
91005075|NCT04228445|181894458|OTHER||Percentage of Responders|87.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|77.7|96.8|||||Missing data imputed as non-responder|||96.8|77.7|
91005076|NCT04228445|181894459|OTHER||percentage of satisfaction|89.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.2|95.6||||||||95.6|78.2|
91005077|NCT04228445|181894459|OTHER||percentage of satisfaction|80.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.5|89.6||||||||89.6|67.5|
91005078|NCT04228445|181894460|OTHER||median time to visualization (minutes)|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.25|7.0||||||||7.00|5.25|
91005079|NCT04228445|181894460|OTHER||median time to visualization (minutes)|5.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.12|7.0||||||||7.00|5.12|
91005080|NCT04228445|181894461|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|19.532|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.738|43.663|||Score statistics for Type 3 GEE analysis|||||43.663|8.738|<0.0001
91005081|NCT04228445|181894461|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|15.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.199|34.369|||Score statistics for Type 3 GEE analysis|||||34.369|7.199|<0.0001
91005082|NCT04228445|181894462|OTHER||Percentage of Agreement|91.1|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Left Ureter||||
91049520|NCT02944383|181984995|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4415||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 2||||0.4415
91049521|NCT02944383|181984995|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7902||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 6||||0.7902
91049522|NCT02944383|181984995|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6999||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 6||||0.6999
91049523|NCT02944383|181984995|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0015||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.0015
91005083|NCT04228445|181894462|OTHER||Percentage of Agreement|88.4|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Left Ureter||||
91005084|NCT04228445|181894462|OTHER||Percentage of Agreement|76.1|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Left Ureter||||
91005085|NCT04228445|181894462|OTHER||Percentage of Agreement|95.6|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Right Ureter||||
91005086|NCT04228445|181894462|OTHER||Percentage of Agreement|86.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Right Ureter||||
91005087|NCT04228445|181894462|OTHER||Percentage of Agreement|71.6|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Right Ureter||||
91005088|NCT04228445|181894463|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.771||||0.4595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.388|1.534|||Score statistics for Type 3 GEE analysis|||||1.534|.388|0.4595
91005089|NCT04228445|181894464|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.036||||0.922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.509|2.11|||Score statistics for Type 3 GEE analysis|||||2.110|.509|0.9220
91005090|NCT03028467|181894485|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.111|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7186|0.4965|||||Week 1. The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with Visit,Treatment group,Visit by Treatment interaction,Baseline DAS28(CRP),and Visit by Baseline DAS28(CRP) interaction as fixed effects.|||0.4965|-2.7186|
91005091|NCT03028467|181894485|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5177|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.904|0.8685|||||Week 1. The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with Visit,Treatment group,Visit by Treatment interaction,Baseline DAS28(CRP),and Visit by Baseline DAS28(CRP) interaction as fixed effects.|||0.8685|-1.9040|
91005092|NCT03028467|181894485|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5332|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.914|0.8475|||||Week 1. The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with Visit,Treatment group,Visit by Treatment interaction,Baseline DAS28(CRP),and Visit by Baseline DAS28(CRP) interaction as fixed effects.|||0.8475|-1.9140|
91005093|NCT03028467|181894485|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1387|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8848|0.6075|||||Week 2. The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with Visit,Treatment group,Visit by Treatment interaction,Baseline DAS28(CRP),and Visit by Baseline DAS28(CRP) interaction as fixed effects.|||0.6075|-2.8848|
91005094|NCT03028467|181894485|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8905|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3962|0.6153|||||Week 2. The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with Visit,Treatment group,Visit by Treatment interaction,Baseline DAS28(CRP),and Visit by Baseline DAS28(CRP) interaction as fixed effects.|||0.6153|-2.3962|
91005095|NCT03028467|181894485|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8047|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3045|0.6951|||||Week 2. The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with Visit,Treatment group,Visit by Treatment interaction,Baseline DAS28(CRP),and Visit by Baseline DAS28(CRP) interaction as fixed effects.|||0.6951|-2.3045|
91005096|NCT03028467|181894485|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.4575|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6013|0.6863|||||Week 4. The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with Visit,Treatment group,Visit by Treatment interaction,Baseline DAS28(CRP),and Visit by Baseline DAS28(CRP) interaction as fixed effects.|||0.6863|-3.6013|
91005097|NCT03028467|181894485|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8894|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7381|0.9593|||||Week 4. The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with Visit,Treatment group,Visit by Treatment interaction,Baseline DAS28(CRP),and Visit by Baseline DAS28(CRP) interaction as fixed effects.|||0.9593|-2.7381|
91005098|NCT03028467|181894485|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1615|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0028|0.6799|||||Week 4. The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with Visit,Treatment group,Visit by Treatment interaction,Baseline DAS28(CRP),and Visit by Baseline DAS28(CRP) interaction as fixed effects.|||0.6799|-3.0028|
91005099|NCT03028467|181894485|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3209|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3021|1.6603|||||Week 6. The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with Visit,Treatment group,Visit by Treatment interaction,Baseline DAS28(CRP),and Visit by Baseline DAS28(CRP) interaction as fixed effects.|||1.6603|-2.3021|
91005100|NCT03028467|181894485|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1876|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.896|1.5209|||||Week 6. The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with Visit,Treatment group,Visit by Treatment interaction,Baseline DAS28(CRP),and Visit by Baseline DAS28(CRP) interaction as fixed effects.|||1.5209|-1.8960|
91005101|NCT03028467|181894485|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4593|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.161|1.2424|||||Week 6. The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with Visit,Treatment group,Visit by Treatment interaction,Baseline DAS28(CRP),and Visit by Baseline DAS28(CRP) interaction as fixed effects.|||1.2424|-2.1610|
91005102|NCT03028467|181894485|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6521|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1342|1.83|||||Week 8. The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with Visit,Treatment group,Visit by Treatment interaction,Baseline DAS28(CRP),and Visit by Baseline DAS28(CRP) interaction as fixed effects.|||1.8300|-3.1342|
91005103|NCT03028467|181894485|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5499|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6903|1.5904|||||Week 8. The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with Visit,Treatment group,Visit by Treatment interaction,Baseline DAS28(CRP),and Visit by Baseline DAS28(CRP) interaction as fixed effects.|||1.5904|-2.6903|
91005104|NCT03028467|181894485|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9665|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0984|1.1654|||||Week 8. The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with Visit,Treatment group,Visit by Treatment interaction,Baseline DAS28(CRP),and Visit by Baseline DAS28(CRP) interaction as fixed effects.|||1.1654|-3.0984|
91049524|NCT02944383|181984995|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0796||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.0796
91005105|NCT03028467|181894485|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3576|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0892|2.374|||||Week 12. The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with Visit,Treatment group,Visit by Treatment interaction,Baseline DAS28(CRP),and Visit by Baseline DAS28(CRP) interaction as fixed effects.|||2.3740|-3.0892|
91005106|NCT03028467|181894485|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1851|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1704|2.5407|||||Week 12. The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with Visit,Treatment group,Visit by Treatment interaction,Baseline DAS28(CRP),and Visit by Baseline DAS28(CRP) interaction as fixed effects.|||2.5407|-2.1704|
91005107|NCT03028467|181894485|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1181|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4643|2.2281|||||Week 12. The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with Visit,Treatment group,Visit by Treatment interaction,Baseline DAS28(CRP),and Visit by Baseline DAS28(CRP) interaction as fixed effects.|||2.2281|-2.4643|
91005108|NCT03028467|181894485|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.4276|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6569|0.8018|||||Week 22 (Follow up). The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with Visit,Treatment group,Visit by Treatment interaction,Baseline DAS28(CRP),and Visit by Baseline DAS28(CRP) interaction as fixed effects.|||0.8018|-3.6569|
91005109|NCT03028467|181894485|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5415|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.381|2.4639|||||Week 22 (Follow up). The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with Visit,Treatment group,Visit by Treatment interaction,Baseline DAS28(CRP),and Visit by Baseline DAS28(CRP) interaction as fixed effects.|||2.4639|-1.3810|
91005110|NCT03028467|181894485|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7932|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.708|1.1217|||||Week 22 (Follow up). The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with Visit,Treatment group,Visit by Treatment interaction,Baseline DAS28(CRP),and Visit by Baseline DAS28(CRP) interaction as fixed effects.|||1.1217|-2.7080|
91005111|NCT02858713|181894486|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.99|||=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|6.28|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.28|1.42|=0.004
91005112|NCT02858713|181894487|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient|-0.415|||=|0.545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|0.939|||Regression, Linear|||DLQI: Change baseline to week 4||0.939|-1.770|=0.545
91005113|NCT02858713|181894487|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient|-0.415||||0.545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|0.939|||Regression, Linear|||DLQI: Change from baseline to week 4||0.939|-1.770|0.545
91005114|NCT02858713|181894487|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient|-0.581||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.099|0.938|||Regression, Linear|||DLQI: Change from baseline to week 8||0.938|-2.099|0.450
91005115|NCT02858713|181894487|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient|-0.77||||0.348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.389|0.848|||Regression, Linear|||DLQI: Change from baseline to week 26||0.848|-2.389|0.348
91049525|NCT02944383|181984995|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4225||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.4225
91005116|NCT02858713|181894488|SUPERIORITY||coefficient|0.4||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.005|0.795|||Regression, Linear|||LS-PGA: Change from baseline to week 4||0.795|0.005|0.047
91005117|NCT02858713|181894488|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient|0.091||||0.662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.321|0.504|||Regression, Linear|||LS-PGA: Change from baseline to week 8||0.504|-0.321|0.662
91005118|NCT02858713|181894488|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient|0.18||||0.424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.264|0.625|||Regression, Linear|||LS-PGA: Change from baseline to week 26||0.625|-0.264|0.424
91005119|NCT01388491|181894520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-11.8||||0.5892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.75|31.17||The p-value, least squares mean difference, and 95% CI for the treatment group comparison are based on a repeated measures ANCOVA with baseline, treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed factors, and subject as a random effect.|ANCOVA|Least Squares mean difference: Treatment I - Treatment II||||31.17|-54.75|0.5892
91005120|NCT01388491|181894521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.0||||0.839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.96|31.94||The p-value, least squares mean difference, and 95% CI for the treatment group comparison are based on a repeated measures ANCOVA with baseline, treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed factors, and subject as a random effect.|ANCOVA|Least Squares mean difference: Treatment I - Treatment II||||31.94|-25.96|0.839
91005121|NCT01388491|181894522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.8||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.87|-1.77||The p-value, least squares mean difference, and 95% CI for the treatment group comparison are based on a repeated measures ANCOVA with baseline, treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed factors, and subject as a random effect.|ANCOVA|Least Squares mean difference: Treatment I - Treatment II||||-1.77|-7.87|0.0021
91005122|NCT01388491|181894523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.2||||0.2312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.08|8.58||The p-value, least squares mean difference, and 95% CI for the treatment group comparison are based on a repeated measures ANCOVA with baseline, treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed factors, and subject as a random effect.|ANCOVA|Least Squares mean difference: Treatment I - Treatment II||||8.58|-2.08|0.2312
91005123|NCT01388491|181894524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.6||||0.344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|4.85||The p-value, least squares mean difference, and 95% CI for the treatment group comparison are based on a repeated measures ANCOVA with baseline, treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed factors, and subject as a random effect.|ANCOVA|Least Squares mean difference: Treatment I - Treatment II||||4.85|-1.70|0.3440
91049526|NCT02944383|181984995|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7687||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.7687
91005124|NCT01388491|181894525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.3||||0.2522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.92||The p-value, least squares mean difference, and 95% CI for the treatment group comparison are based on a repeated measures ANCOVA with baseline, treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed factors, and subject as a random effect.|ANCOVA|Least Squares mean difference: Treatment I - Treatment II||||0.92|-0.24|0.2522
91005125|NCT01388491|181894526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.9||||0.0143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|5.13||The p-value, least squares mean difference, and 95% CI for the treatment group comparison are based on a repeated measures ANCOVA with baseline, treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed factors, and subject as a random effect.|ANCOVA|Least Squares mean difference: Treatment I - Treatment II||||5.13|0.58|0.0143
91005126|NCT01388491|181894527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.5||||0.8507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.87|5.91||The p-value, least squares mean difference, and 95% CI for the treatment group comparison are based on a repeated measures ANCOVA with baseline, treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed factors, and subject as a random effect.|ANCOVA|Least Squares mean difference: Treatment I - Treatment II||||5.91|-4.87|0.8507
91005127|NCT01388491|181894528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.1||||0.0459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.14||The p-value, least squares mean difference, and 95% CI for the treatment group comparison are based on a repeated measures ANCOVA with baseline, treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed factors, and subject as a random effect.|ANCOVA|Least Squares mean difference: Treatment I - Treatment II||||0.14|0.00|0.0459
91005128|NCT01388491|181894529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.1||||0.0318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.26||The p-value, least squares mean difference, and 95% CI for the treatment group comparison are based on a repeated measures ANCOVA with baseline, treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed factors, and subject as a random effect.|ANCOVA|Least Squares mean difference: Treatment I - Treatment II||||0.26|0.01|0.0318
91005129|NCT01388491|181894530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|361.6||||0.1148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-88.45|811.61||The p-value, least squares mean difference, and 95% CI for the treatment group comparison are based on a repeated measures ANCOVA with baseline, treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed factors, and subject as a random effect.|ANCOVA|Least Squares mean difference: Treatment I - Treatment II||||811.61|-88.45|0.1148
91005130|NCT01388491|181894531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|8.2||||0.7136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.92|52.39||The p-value, least squares mean difference, and 95% CI for the treatment group comparison are based on a repeated measures ANCOVA with baseline, treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed factors, and subject as a random effect.|ANCOVA|Least Squares mean difference: Treatment I - Treatment II||||52.39|-35.92|0.7136
91005131|NCT01388491|181894532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.3903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.11||The p-value, least squares mean difference, and 95% CI for the treatment group comparison are based on a repeated measures ANCOVA with baseline, treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed factors, and subject as a random effect.|ANCOVA|Least Squares mean difference: Treatment I - Treatment II||||0.11|-0.29|0.3903
91005132|NCT01388491|181894533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|14.3||||0.1731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.29|34.8||The p-value, least squares mean difference, and 95% CI for the treatment group comparison are based on a repeated measures ANCOVA with baseline, treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed factors, and subject as a random effect.|ANCOVA|Least Squares mean difference: Treatment I - Treatment II||||34.80|-6.29|0.1731
91005133|NCT01425307|181894574|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|We hypothesized that the Alternative arm mean TCD velocity at 24 months will be less than the Standard arm mean TCD velocity plus 15cm/sec. We used Lan-DeMets boundaries to control overall Type I error rate at α = 0.05. For looks at exactly 1/3, 2/3, and 100 percent of the completed subjects, the cumulative α were estimated to be 0.0001, 0.001, and 0.05, respectively.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.54|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|8.98||P value for non inferiority was 8.82 X 10\^-16|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model||Participants were randomized at a central site, stratified by site with a block size of four, and an adaptive randomization scheme was used to balance the covariates of baseline age and TCD velocity. The treatment period lasted 24 months. The primary study endpoint was the 24 month TCD velocity calculated from a general linear mixed model, with the non-inferiority margin set at 15 cm/s. The primary analysis was done in the intention-to-treat population.||8.98|0.10|<0.05
91005134|NCT01425307|181894578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91005135|NCT01425307|181894588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0011|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0011
91005136|NCT03128307|181894589|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Assuming a priori threshold for statistical significant of p = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||< 0.0001
91005137|NCT03128307|181894590|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance of p = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||< 0.0001
91005138|NCT00121485|181894592|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|200 patients (137 HMII and 67 XVE) provides 80% power (alpha= 0.05 (one-sided)) using a Blackwelder like analysis and a non-inferiority margin of 10%. The protocol specifies that once non-inferiority is proven, the data will be analyzed for superiority using closed testing methods.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|35.7||||2.5e-07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.5|46.9||Two (2) interim analysis were pre-specified in the protocol. The type I error rate was preserved at 5% by use of the O'Brien-Fleming spending function.|Fisher Exact|||Primary endpoint is 2-yr survival free of stroke or re-operation to repair/replace the device. Patients are a success if composite endpoint achieved. Patients urgently transplanted due to device failure are failures. Patients electively transplanted after reversal of co-morbidity will be considered success if they achieve 2 years of survival from day of VAD implant and no stroke. HMII is a success if the proportion of HMII pts achieving the composite endpoint is equal to or better than HM XVE||46.9|24.5|0.00000025
91005139|NCT02145429|181894619|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.32||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.98|||Log Rank|||||0.98|0.10|0.04
91005140|NCT02145429|181894620|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.03|-0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.31|-2.03|<0.001
91049527|NCT02944383|181984995|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0437||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.0437
91049528|NCT02944383|181984995|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2735||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.2735
91049529|NCT02944383|181984996|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1042||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 2||||0.1042
91049530|NCT02944383|181984996|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6204||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 2||||0.6204
91049531|NCT02944383|181984996|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8659||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 6||||0.8659
91049532|NCT02944383|181984996|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9658||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 6||||0.9658
91005141|NCT02145429|181894621|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|1.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.62|-1.89|0.26
91049533|NCT02944383|181984996|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8238||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.8238
91049534|NCT02944383|181984996|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4874||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.4874
91049535|NCT02944383|181984996|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9467||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.9467
91049536|NCT02944383|181984996|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7467||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.7467
91049537|NCT02944383|181984996|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.41||||0.9081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.77|10.75||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||10.75|-10.77|0.9081
91049538|NCT02944383|181984996|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-2.38||||0.548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.82|6.86||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||6.86|-11.82|0.5480
91049539|NCT02944383|181984997|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1485||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 2||||0.1485
91049540|NCT02944383|181984997|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6008||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 2||||0.6008
91005142|NCT00732472|181894625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.777|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.39|7.91|||||Day 1, Max HR|||7.91|-3.39|
91005143|NCT00732472|181894625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.922|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.78|7.28|||||Day 7, Max HR|||7.28|-4.78|
91005144|NCT00732472|181894625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.772|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.37|8.91|||||Day 1, Max HR|||8.91|-2.37|
91005145|NCT00732472|181894625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.729|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.89|3.39|||||Day 7, Max HR|||3.39|-7.89|
91005146|NCT00732472|181894625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.899|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|13.39|||||Day 1, Max HR|||13.39|1.59|
91005147|NCT00732472|181894625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.079|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.34|15.05|||||Day 7, Max HR|||15.05|2.34|
91005148|NCT00732472|181894625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.243|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|4.34|||||Day 1, WM|||4.34|-4.80|
91005149|NCT00732472|181894625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.52|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.09|5.4|||||Day 7, WM|||5.40|-5.09|
91005150|NCT00732472|181894625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.182|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|6.77|||||Day 1, WM|||6.77|-2.12|
91005151|NCT00732472|181894625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.378|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.48|2.45|||||Day 7, WM|||2.45|-7.48|
91005152|NCT00732472|181894625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.282|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|10.81|||||Day 1, WM|||10.81|1.51|
91005153|NCT00732472|181894625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.642|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|12.54|||||Day 7, WM|||12.54|1.57|
91005154|NCT02623699|181894667|SUPERIORITY||least square (LS) mean difference|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.22|=|0.9689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.19|5.53||Joint rank p-value was calculated from ANCOVA model which included treatment as fixed effect, adjusts for covariates: Baseline disease duration since symptom onset, baseline ALSFRS-R total score, and use of riluzole or edaravone.|Joint rank||ANCOVA model included treatment as a fixed effect, adjusts for the covariates: Baseline disease duration since symptom onset, baseline ALSFRS-R total score, and use of riluzole or edaravone.|Joint rank test combining function and mortality were used for statistical inference and the estimates were from the Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) for change from baseline. Multiple imputation was used to handle missing data for withdrawals other than death in the joint rank analysis. Multiple imputation was used to handle all missing data in the ANCOVA for change from baseline.||5.53|-3.19|= 0.9689
91005155|NCT02623699|181894668|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS geometric mean ratio|0.67|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.84|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Difference in LS geometric mean ratio (BIIB067:Placebo) was calculated.||0.84|0.53|< 0.0001
91005156|NCT02623699|181894668|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS geometric mean ratio|0.75|||=|0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.95|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Difference in LS geometric mean ratio (BIIB067:Placebo) was calculated.||0.95|0.60|=0.0002
91005157|NCT02623699|181894668|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS geometric mean ratio|0.81|||=|0.0641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.02|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Difference in LS geometric mean ratio (BIIB067:Placebo) was calculated.||1.02|0.65|=0.0641
91005158|NCT02623699|181894668|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS geometric mean ratio|0.67|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.84|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Difference in LS geometric mean ratio (BIIB067:Placebo) was calculated.||0.84|0.53|<0.0001
91005159|NCT02623699|181894669|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS geometric mean ratio|0.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.78||The analysis was based on ANCOVA model with natural log transformed data. P-value for this secondary outcome measure (OM) is nominal as statistical significance was not met on the primary OM.|ANCOVA|||The ANCOVA model included covariates for the corresponding baseline value i.e. log value, baseline disease duration since symptom onset, and use of riluzole or edaravone. Multiple imputation was used to handle missing data for withdrawals. Difference in LS geometric mean ratio to baseline (BIIB067:Placebo) was calculated.||0.78|0.49|< 0.0001
91005160|NCT02623699|181894670|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS geometric mean ratio|0.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.45||The analysis was based on ANCOVA model with natural log transformed data. The model included covariates for the corresponding baseline value i.e. log value, baseline disease duration since symptom onset, and use of riluzole or edaravone.|ANCOVA|P-value for this secondary OM is nominal as statistical significance was not met on the primary OM.||Difference in LS geometric mean ratio (BIIB067:Placebo) was calculated.||0.45|0.25|< 0.0001
91005161|NCT02623699|181894671|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|7.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.829|=|0.3233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.528|19.322||Joint rank p-value was calculated from ANCOVA model which included treatment as fixed effect, adjusts for covariates: Baseline disease duration since symptom onset, baseline ALSFRS-R total score, baseline SVC, and use of riluzole or edaravone.|Joint rank|P-value for this secondary OM is nominal as statistical significance was not met on the primary OM.|ANCOVA model included treatment as a fixed effect, adjusts for the covariates: Baseline disease duration since symptom onset, baseline ALSFRS-R total score, baseline SVC, and use of riluzole or edaravone.|Joint rank test combining function and mortality were used for statistical inference and the estimates were from the ANCOVA for change from baseline. Multiple imputation was used to handle missing data for withdrawals other than death in the joint rank analysis. Multiple imputation was used to handle all missing data in the ANCOVA for change from baseline.||19.322|-3.528|= 0.3233
91005162|NCT02623699|181894672|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.118|=|0.839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.207|0.255||ANCOVA model included treatment as fixed effect and adjusts for following covariates: Baseline disease duration since symptom onset, baseline HHD overall megascore, and use of riluzole/edaravone. Missing data were handled using multiple imputation.|ANCOVA|P-value for this secondary OM is nominal as statistical significance was not met on the primary OM.||||0.255|-0.207|= 0.8390
91005163|NCT01426009|181894676|SUPERIORITY|Day 7 analysis|Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.0723|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0188||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0347|0.1099|||ANCOVA||Standard Error of the Mean Difference|An ANCOVA was used with change from baseline in trough FEV1 as the response,with factors for treatment, period, sequence, baseline as a covariate and a random effect for subject nested within sequence. A sample size of 30 subjects per comparison(133 total with dropouts)provides 90% power to detect a 0.12L difference in mean change trough FEV1 between active and placebo at an alpha of 0.05 using a 2-tailed t-test and assuming a within-subject standard deviation for change in trough FEV1 of 0.2.||0.1099|0.0347|0.0003
91005164|NCT01426009|181894676|SUPERIORITY|Day 7 analysis|Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.0676|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0184||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0307|0.1046|||ANCOVA||Standard Error of the Mean Difference|An ANCOVA was used with change from baseline in trough FEV1 as the response,with factors for treatment, period, sequence, baseline as a covariate and a random effect for subject nested within sequence.A sample size of 30 subjects per comparison(133 total with dropouts)provides 90% power to detect a 0.12L difference in mean change trough FEV1 between active and placebo at an alpha of 0.05 using a 2-tailed t-test and assuming a within-subject standard deviation for change in trough FEV1 of 0.2.||0.1046|0.0307|0.0006
91005165|NCT01426009|181894676|SUPERIORITY|Day 7 analysis|Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.1021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0188|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0644|0.1398|||ANCOVA||Standard Error of the Mean Difference|An ANCOVA was used with change from baseline in trough FEV1 as the response, with factors for treatment, period, sequence, baseline as a covariate and a random effect for subject nested within sequence.A sample size of 30 subjects per comparison(133 total with dropouts)provides 90% power to detect a 0.12L difference in mean change trough FEV1 between active and placebo at an alpha of 0.05 using a 2-tailed t-test and assuming a within-subject standard deviation for change in trough FEV1 of 0.2.||0.1398|0.0644|<0.0001
91005166|NCT01426009|181894676|SUPERIORITY|Day 7 analysis|Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.1299|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0918|0.1681|||ANCOVA||Standard Error of the Mean Difference|An ANCOVA was used with change from baseline in trough FEV1 as the response, with factors for treatment, period, sequence, baseline as a covariate and a random effect for subject nested within sequence.A sample size of 30 subjects per comparison(133 total with dropouts)provides 90% power to detect a 0.12L difference in mean change trough FEV1 between active and placebo at an alpha of 0.05 using a 2-tailed t-test and assuming a within-subject standard deviation for change in trough FEV1 of 0.2.||00.1681|0.0918|<0.0001
91005167|NCT01426009|181894676|SUPERIORITY|Day 7 analysis|Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.0446|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0186||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0073|0.082|||Mantel Haenszel||Standard Error of the Mean Difference|An ANCOVA was used with change from baseline in trough FEV1 as the response, with factors for treatment, period, sequence, baseline as a covariate and a random effect for subject nested within sequence.A sample size of 30 subjects per comparison(133 total with dropouts)provides 90% power to detect a 0.12L difference in mean change trough FEV1 between active and placebo at an alpha of 0.05 using a 2-tailed t-test and assuming a within-subject standard deviation for change in trough FEV1 of 0.2.||0.0820|0.0073|0.0200
91005168|NCT01426009|181894676|SUPERIORITY|Day 7 analysis|Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.0813|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0284||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0243|0.1382|||ANCOVA||Standard Error of the Mean Difference|An ANCOVA was used with change from baseline in trough FEV1 as the response, with factors for treatment, period, sequence, baseline as a covariate and a random effect for subject nested within sequence.A sample size of 30 subjects per comparison(133 total with dropouts)provides 90% power to detect a 0.12L difference in mean change trough FEV1 between active and placebo at an alpha of 0.05 using a 2-tailed t-test and assuming a within-subject standard deviation for change in trough FEV1 of 0.2.||0.1382|0.0243|0.0060
91005169|NCT01426009|181894676|SUPERIORITY|Day 1 analysis|Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.0385|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0183||0.0402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0018|0.0752|||ANCOVA||Standard Error of the Mean Difference|An ANCOVA was used with change from baseline in trough FEV1 as the response, with factors for treatment, period, sequence, baseline as a covariate and a random effect for subject nested within sequence.A sample size of 30 subjects per comparison(133 total with dropouts)provides 90% power to detect a 0.12L difference in mean change trough FEV1 between active and placebo at an alpha of 0.05 using a 2-tailed t-test and assuming a within-subject standard deviation for change in trough FEV1 of 0.2.||0.0752|0.0018|0.0402
91005170|NCT01426009|181894676|SUPERIORITY|Day 1 analysis|Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.0696|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0179||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0337|0.1055|||ANCOVA||Standard Error of the Mean Difference|An ANCOVA was used with change from baseline in trough FEV1 as the response, with factors for treatment, period, sequence, baseline as a covariate and a random effect for subject nested within sequence.A sample size of 30 subjects per comparison(133 total with dropouts)provides 90% power to detect a 0.12L difference in mean change trough FEV1 between active and placebo at an alpha of 0.05 using a 2-tailed t-test and assuming a within-subject standard deviation for change in trough FEV1 of 0.2.||0.1055|0.0337|0.0003
91005171|NCT01426009|181894676|SUPERIORITY|Day 1 analysis|Least Squares Mean|0.0501|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018||0.0074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.014|0.0861|||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA was used with change from baseline in trough FEV1 as the response, with factors for treatment, period, sequence, baseline as a covariate and a random effect for subject nested within sequence.A sample size of 30 subjects per comparison(133 total with dropouts)provides 90% power to detect a 0.12L difference in mean change trough FEV1 between active and placebo at an alpha of 0.05 using a 2-tailed t-test and assuming a within-subject standard deviation for change in trough FEV1 of 0.2.||0.0861|0.0140|0.0074
91005172|NCT01426009|181894677|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.0767|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0131|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0505|0.1028|||ANCOVA||standard error of the mean difference|ACU 0-24 on Day 1||0.1028|0.0505|<0.0001
91005173|NCT01426009|181894677|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.122|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0127|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0965|0.1475|||ANCOVA||standard error of the Mean difference|ACU 0-24 Day 1||0.1475|0.0965|<0.0001
91005174|NCT01426009|181894677|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.1222|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0128|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0965|0.1479|||ANCOVA||standard error of the Mean difference|AUC 0-24 Day 1||0.1479|0.0965|<0.0001
91005175|NCT01426009|181894677|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.1625|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0131|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1362|0.1888|||ANCOVA||standard error of the Mean difference|AUC 0-24 day 1||0.1888|0.1362|<0.0001
91005176|NCT01426009|181894677|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.169|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0128|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1434|0.1946|||ANCOVA||standard error of the Mean difference|AUC 0-24 day 1||0.1946|0.1434|<0.0001
91005177|NCT01426009|181894677|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.1095|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0189|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0716|0.1473|||ANCOVA||standard error of the Mean difference|AUC 0-24 day 1||0.1473|0.0716|<0.0001
91005178|NCT01426009|181894677|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.1095|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0141|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0812|0.1379|||ANCOVA||standard error of the Mean difference|AUC 0-24 on Day 7||0.1379|0.0812|<0.0001
91005179|NCT01426009|181894677|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.1271|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0139|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0993|0.1548|||ANCOVA||standard error of the Mean difference|AUC0-24 on Day 7||0.1548|0.0993|<0.0001
91005180|NCT01426009|181894677|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.145|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1169|0.173|||ANCOVA||standard error of the Mean difference|AUC 0-24 on day 7||0.1730|0.1169|<0.0001
91005181|NCT01426009|181894677|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.1688|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0142|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1403|0.1972|||ANCOVA||standard error of the Mean difference|AUC 0-24 on day 7||0.1972|0.1403|<0.0001
91005182|NCT01426009|181894677|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.1396|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0139|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1117|0.173|||ANCOVA||standard error of the Mean difference|AUC 0-24 on day 7||0.1730|0.1117|<0.0001
91005183|NCT01426009|181894677|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.1183|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0194|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0795|0.1972|||ANCOVA||standard error of the Mean difference|AUC 0-24 on day 7||0.1972|0.0795|<0.0001
91005184|NCT01426009|181894677|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.1038|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0131|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0776|0.1301|||ANCOVA||standard error of the Mean difference|AUC 0-12 on day 1||0.1301|0.0776|<0.0001
91005185|NCT01426009|181894677|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.1468|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0128|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1212|0.1724|||ANCOVA||standard error of the Mean difference|AUC 0-12 on day 1||0.1724|0.1212|<0.0001
91005186|NCT01426009|181894677|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.1579|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0128|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1322|0.1837|||ANCOVA||standard error of the Mean difference|AUC 0-12 on day 1||0.1837|0.1322|<0.0001
91005187|NCT01426009|181894677|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.1919|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0132|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1655|0.2184|||ANCOVA||standard error of the Mean difference|AUC 0-12 on day 1||0.2184|0.1655|<0.0001
91005188|NCT01426009|181894677|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.1994|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0128|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1738|0.2251|||ANCOVA||standard error of the Mean difference|AUC 0-12 on day 1||0.2251|0.1738|<0.0001
91049541|NCT02944383|181984997|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9409||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 6||||0.9409
91049542|NCT02944383|181984997|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9292||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 6||||0.9292
91049543|NCT02944383|181984997|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8455||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.8455
91049544|NCT02944383|181984997|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5256||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.5256
91049545|NCT02944383|181984997|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9217||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.9217
91049546|NCT02944383|181984997|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7401||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.7401
91005189|NCT01426009|181894677|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.1248|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0188|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0872|0.1625|||ANCOVA||standard error of the Mean difference|AUC 0-12 on day 1||0.1625|0.0872|<0.0001
91005190|NCT01426009|181894677|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.1279|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0154|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.097|0.1587|||ANCOVA|standard error of the Mean difference|standard error of the Mean difference|AUC 0-12 on day 7||0.1587|0.0970|<0.0001
91005191|NCT01426009|181894677|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.1454|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0151|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1151|0.1756|||ANCOVA||standard error of the Mean difference|AUC 0-12 on day 7||0.1756|0.1151|<0.0001
91005192|NCT01426009|181894677|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.1699|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0152|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1393|0.2004|||ANCOVA||standard error of the Mean difference|AUC 0-12 on day 7||0.2004|0.1393|<0.0001
91005193|NCT01426009|181894677|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.1814|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0155|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1503|0.2125|||ANCOVA||standard error of the Mean difference|AUC 0-12 on day 7||0.2125|0.1503|<0.0001
91005194|NCT01426009|181894677|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.1697|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0152|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1393|0.201|||ANCOVA||standard error of the Mean difference|AUC 0-12 on day 7||0.201|0.1393|<0.0001
91005195|NCT01426009|181894677|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.1384|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0216|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0951|0.1817|||ANCOVA||standard error of the Mean difference|AUC 0-12 on day 7||0.1817|0.0951|<0.0001
91005196|NCT01426009|181894677|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.0471|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0157|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0155|0.0786|||ANCOVA||standard error of the Mean difference|AUC 12-24 on day 1||0.0786|0.0155|<0.0001
91005197|NCT01426009|181894677|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.0918|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0154|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0611|0.1226|||ANCOVA||standard error of the Mean difference|AUC 12-24 on day 1||0.1226|0.0611|<0.0001
91005198|NCT01426009|181894677|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.0829|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0155|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0519|0.1139|||ANCOVA||standard error of the Mean difference|AUC 12-24 on day 1||0.1139|0.0519|<0.0001
91005199|NCT01426009|181894677|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.1299|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0158|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0982|0.1617|||ANCOVA||standard error of the Mean difference|AUC 12-24 o day 1||0.1617|0.0982|<0.0001
91005200|NCT01426009|181894677|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.1369|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0154|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1061|0.1678|||ANCOVA||standard error of the Mean difference|AUC 12-24 on day 1||0.1678|0.1061|<0.0001
91005201|NCT01426009|181894677|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.0934|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0221|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.049|0.1377|||ANCOVA||standard error of the Mean difference|AUC 12-24 on day 1||0.1377|0.0490|<0.0001
91005202|NCT01426009|181894677|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.0879|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0153|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0573|0.1186|||ANCOVA||standard error of the Mean difference|AUC 12-24 on day 7||0.1186|0.0573|<0.0001
91005203|NCT01426009|181894677|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.1088|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0788|0.1388|||ANCOVA||standard error of the Mean difference|AUC 12-24 on day 7||0.1388|0.0788|<0.0001
91005204|NCT01426009|181894677|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.1175|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0151|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0872|0.1478|||ANCOVA||standard error of the Mean difference|AUC 12-24 on day 7||0.1478|0.0872|<0.0001
91005205|NCT01426009|181894677|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.1532|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0153|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1226|0.1838|||ANCOVA||standard error of the Mean difference|||0.1838|0.1226|<0.0001
91005206|NCT01426009|181894677|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.1048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0747|0.135|||ANCOVA||standard error of the Mean difference|||0.1350|0.0747|<0.0001
91005207|NCT01426009|181894677|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.0993|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0202|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0589|0.1398|||ANCOVA||standard error of the Mean difference|AUC 12-24 on day 7||0.1398|0.0589|<0.0001
91005208|NCT00515099|181894770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for testing treatment effect using an analysis of covariance with baseline ln(AUC+1) as a covariate and change in ln(AUC+1) from baseline as the outcome variable.|ANCOVA|||Primary imputation method used for missing Month 12 AUC. Measuring range for C-peptide is 0.05-30 ng/mL||||0.60
91005209|NCT00515099|181894771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for testing treatment effect using an analysis of covariance with baseline In(AUC+1) as a covariate and change in In(AUC+1) from baseline as the outcome variable|ANCOVA|||Missing Month 12 AUC values were not imputed. Measuring range for C-peptide is 0.05-30 ng/mL||||0.40
91005210|NCT00515099|181894772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for testing treatment effect using an analysis of covariance with baseline level as a covariate and change in insulin use from baseline as the outcome variable|ANCOVA|||Comparison of groups for change from baseline (pre-treatment initiation) to Month 12||||0.59
91005211|NCT00515099|181894772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for testing treatment effect using an analysis of covariance with baseline level as a covariate and change in insulin use from baseline as the outcome variable|ANCOVA|||Comparison of groups for change from baseline (pre-treatment initiation) to Month 24||||0.14
91005212|NCT00515099|181894774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.099|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for testing treatment effect using an analysis of covariance with baseline level as a covariate and change in insulin use from baseline as the outcome variable|Fisher Exact|||Comparison of groups up to Month 12||||>0.099
91005213|NCT00515099|181894774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for testing treatment effect using an analysis of covariance with baseline level as a covariate and change in insulin use from baseline as the outcome variable|Fisher Exact|||Comparison of groups up to Month 24||||0.75
91005214|NCT00515099|181894775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for testing treatment effect using an analysis of covariance with baseline In(AUC+1) as a covariate and change in In(AUC+1) from baseline as the outcome variable|ANCOVA|||2-Hour AUC change from baseline (pre-initiation treatment) to Month 24. Primary imputation method used for missing Month 24 AUC. Measuring range for C-peptide is 0.05-30 ng/mL.||||0.38
91005215|NCT00515099|181894775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for testing treatment effect using an analysis of covariance with baseline In(AUC+1) as a covariate and change in In(AUC+1) from baseline as the outcome variable|ANCOVA|||4-Hour AUC change from baseline (pre-initiation treatment) to Month 24. Missing Month 24 AUC values were not imputed. Measuring range for C-peptide is 0.05-30 ng/mL.||||0.33
91005216|NCT00515099|181894776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for testing treatment effect using an analysis of covariance with baseline level as a covariate and change in HbA1c from baseline as the outcome variable|ANCOVA|||Comparison of groups for change from Baseline to Month 12||||0.07
91005217|NCT00515099|181894776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for testing treatment effect using an analysis of covariance with baseline level as a covariate and change in HbA1c from baseline as the outcome variable|ANCOVA|||Comparison of groups for change from Baseline to Month 24||||0.16
91005218|NCT03342404|181894777|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|77.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.4|87.0|||||The difference in proportions (luspatercept - placebo) and 95% CI were estimated from the exact unconditional test|||87.0|63.4|
91005219|NCT03342404|181894777|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|77.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.7|85.5|||||The common risk difference (luspatercept - placebo) and 95% CI were estimated from the CMH test stratified by baseline Hb category and baseline NTDT-PRO T/W domain score category|||85.5|68.7|
91005220|NCT03342404|181894778|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.48||||0.0924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|0.08|||ANCOVA|||||0.08|-1.03|0.0924
91005221|NCT03342404|181894779|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|1.67|||ANCOVA|||||1.67|1.16|< 0.0001
91005222|NCT03342404|181894780|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|68.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.3|80.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||80.4|54.3|< 0.0001
91005223|NCT03342404|181894781|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.39||||0.2641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|3.83|||ANCOVA|||||3.83|-1.06|0.2641
91005224|NCT03342404|181894782|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.49||||0.0721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|0.04|||ANCOVA|||||0.04|-1.02|0.0721
91005225|NCT03342404|181894783|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|1.79|||ANCOVA|||||1.79|1.20|< 0.0001
91049547|NCT02944383|181984997|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9386||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.9386
91005226|NCT03342404|181894784|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.19||||0.0959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|4.78|||ANCOVA|||||4.78|-0.39|0.0959
91005227|NCT03342404|181894785|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.79||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.00|-1.58|0.0510
91049548|NCT02944383|181984997|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6352||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.6352
91049549|NCT02944383|181984998|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0165||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.0165
91049550|NCT02944383|181984998|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3075||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.3075
91005228|NCT03342404|181894786|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.07||||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.33|||ANCOVA|||||-0.33|-1.80|0.0047
91005229|NCT03342404|181894787|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.1359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|4.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.0|0.8|0.1359
91005230|NCT03342404|181894788|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3||||0.0657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|5.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.4|0.9|0.0657
91005231|NCT03342404|181894789|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.39||||0.0847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|2.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mean change from baseline in SF-36 PCS to Week 24||2.96|-0.19|0.0847
91005232|NCT03342404|181894789|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.75||||0.0712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|3.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mean change from baseline in SF-36 PCS to Week 48||3.65|-0.15|0.0712
91005233|NCT03342404|181894789|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.54||||0.1633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|3.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mean change from baseline in SF-36 MCS to Week 24||3.72|-0.63|0.1633
91005234|NCT03342404|181894789|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.7||||0.0469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|5.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mean change from baseline in SF-36 MCS to Week 48||5.36|0.04|0.0469
91005235|NCT03342404|181894790|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.2||||0.4787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.4|13.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage of participants with improvement of iron overload (LIC/ICT responders) at Week 24||13.0|-21.4|0.4787
91049551|NCT02944383|181984998|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1069||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.1069
91049552|NCT02944383|181984998|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6101||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.6101
91049553|NCT02944383|181984998|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-12.04||||0.0351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.79|-1.08||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||-1.08|-23.79|0.0351
91049554|NCT02944383|181984998|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-3.15||||0.3746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.86|4.25||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||4.25|-9.86|0.3746
91049555|NCT02944383|181984999|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0133||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.0133
91049556|NCT02944383|181984999|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2044||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.2044
91005236|NCT03342404|181894790|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.6||||0.0827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.5|2.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage of participants with improvement of iron overload (LIC/ICT responders) at Week 48||2.4|-31.5|0.0827
91005237|NCT03342404|181894791|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|27.14||||0.5949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.77|101.06|||ANCOVA|||Mean change from baseline in serum ferritin at Week 24||101.06|-46.77|0.5949
91005238|NCT03342404|181894791|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|13.46||||0.3454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.01|87.93|||ANCOVA|||Mean change from baseline in serum ferritin at Week 48||87.93|-61.01|0.3454
91005239|NCT03342404|181894792|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09||||0.6628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Mean change from baseline in LIC at Week 24||0.30|-0.47|0.6628
91005240|NCT03342404|181894792|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.66||||0.0859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|1.42|||ANCOVA|||Mean change from baseline in LIC at Week 48||1.42|-0.09|0.0859
91005241|NCT03342404|181894793|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|22.2||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|38.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage of participants who were transfusion free over 24 weeks||38.6|5.0|0.0013
91005242|NCT03342404|181894794|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|37.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.9|53.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage of Participants Who are Transfusion-Free Over 48 Weeks||53.0|20.9|< 0.0001
91005243|NCT03342404|181894796|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|16.15||||0.1466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.73|38.04|||ANCOVA|||Mean change from baseline in 6MWT distance at Week 24||38.04|-5.73|0.1466
91049557|NCT02944383|181984999|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0855||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.0855
91049558|NCT02944383|181984999|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5114||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.5114
91049559|NCT02944383|181984999|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0289||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.0289
91005244|NCT03342404|181894796|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|12.44||||0.2011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.72|31.59|||ANCOVA|||Mean change from baseline in 6MWT distance at Week 48||31.59|-6.72|0.2011
91005245|NCT03342404|181894797|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|52.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.2|66.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage of Participants with an Increase From Baseline ≥1.5 g/dL in Mean Hemoglobin Values in the Absence of Transfusion||66.2|36.2|< 0.0001
91005246|NCT03342404|181894798|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.7||||0.1989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|3.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage of Participants With a Decrease From Baseline ≥ RD (= 1) in the Non-Transfusion Dependent β-thalassemia-Patient Reported Outcome (NTDT-PRO) Tiredness and Weakness (T/W) Domain Score Week 13 to Week 24||3.7|0.8|0.1989
91005247|NCT03342404|181894798|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.1||||0.0733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|5.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage of Participants With a Decrease From Baseline ≥ RD (= 1) in the Non-Transfusion Dependent β-thalassemia-Patient Reported Outcome (NTDT-PRO) Tiredness and Weakness (T/W) Domain Score Week 37 to Week 48||5.0|0.9|0.0733
91005248|NCT02268942|181894870|OTHER|||||||0.0003|||||||Exact Binomial|||"Success at six months is estimated to be 86% compared to a performance goal of 77.5%. Using an exact binomial test, with a one-sided alpha of 0.05, and 80% Power, a sample size of 145 implanted subjects was planned.~Success will be met if the lower bound of the upper one-sided exact 95% confidence interval is greater than 77.5%."||||0.0003
91005249|NCT02268942|181894871|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||"The secondary endpoint is an improvement in the mean length of initial hospital stay (initial recovery and step down unit), which is calculated by considering the number of days in acute care (ICU/CCU) plus the number of days in intermediate/step-down care, comprising the total number of days post-implant to discharge.~This secondary endpoint will be calculated using an upper tail one-sided t-test at 0.05 level of significance compared to 26.1 days for median sternotomy patients."||||<0.0001
91005250|NCT00995215|181894872|OTHER|Statistical analysis was performed using a repeated measures analysis of variance and paired t-test.||||||0.05||||||A P value \<0.05 was taken as indicative of statistical significance.|ANOVA|||The effects of electrical (spinal cord stimulation) SCS with disc electrode and wire leads on airway pressure generation were compared. Since SCS with the disc leads, when applied in clinical trials, resulted in airway pressure generation that approximated pressures generated with a normal maximum cough, airway pressure generation achieved during SCS with these leads served as our gold standard to which all comparisons were made.||||0.05
91005251|NCT04445051|181894878|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.9||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.3|57.5||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||57.5|8.3|0.010
91005252|NCT04445051|181894878|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|34.3||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.8|58.8||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||58.8|9.8|0.007
91005253|NCT04445051|181894878|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4||||0.908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.1|25.9||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||25.9|-23.1|0.908
91005254|NCT04445051|181894878|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|35.3||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.8|59.8||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||59.8|10.8|0.006
91005255|NCT04445051|181894878|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|36.8||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.9|61.8||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||61.8|11.9|0.005
91005256|NCT04445051|181894878|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5||||0.899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.3|26.5||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||26.5|-23.3|0.899
91005257|NCT04445051|181894879|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.8||||0.665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.9|49.6||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||49.6|-31.9|0.665
91005258|NCT04445051|181894879|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.1||||0.375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.7|22.4||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||22.4|-58.7|0.375
91005259|NCT04445051|181894879|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.0||||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.6|13.6||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||13.6|-67.6|0.188
91005260|NCT04445051|181894879|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.6||||0.361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.3|21.9||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||21.9|-59.3|0.361
91005261|NCT04445051|181894879|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.9||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.3|30.5||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||30.5|-52.3|0.600
91005262|NCT04445051|181894879|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.78||||0.707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.5|49.0||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||49.0|-33.5|0.707
91005263|NCT04445051|181894880|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22||||0.615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|0.65||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.65|-1.08|0.615
91005264|NCT04445051|181894880|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|0.56||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.56|-1.17|0.480
91005265|NCT04445051|181894880|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.77||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.77|-0.95|0.839
91005266|NCT04445051|181894880|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.8||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.80|-0.92|0.894
91005267|NCT04445051|181894880|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.58||||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|0.3||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.30|-1.46|0.195
91005268|NCT04445051|181894880|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52||||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.36||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.36|-1.40|0.242
91049560|NCT02944383|181984999|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.295||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.2950
91049561|NCT02944383|181985000|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1992||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.1992
91049562|NCT02944383|181985000|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9945||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.9945
91049563|NCT02944383|181985000|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5139||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.5139
91049564|NCT02944383|181985000|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8085||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.8085
91049565|NCT02944383|181985000|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.77||||0.7644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.31|4.85||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||4.85|-6.31|0.7644
91049566|NCT02944383|181985000|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.33||||0.9499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.34|6.66||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||6.66|-4.34|0.9499
91005269|NCT04445051|181894881|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0.639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.74||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.74|-1.20|0.639
91005270|NCT04445051|181894881|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33||||0.492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.63||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.63|-1.30|0.492
91005271|NCT04445051|181894881|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11||||0.828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|0.86||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.86|-1.07|0.828
91049567|NCT02944383|181985001|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1521||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.1521
91005272|NCT04445051|181894881|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16||||0.744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|1.13||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||1.13|-0.81|0.744
91005273|NCT04445051|181894881|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.63||||0.208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|0.36||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.36|-1.62|0.208
91049568|NCT02944383|181985001|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8982||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.8982
91049569|NCT02944383|181985001|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6228||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.6228
91049570|NCT02944383|181985001|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9622||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.9622
91049571|NCT02944383|181985001|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6643||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.6643
91049572|NCT02944383|181985001|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9071||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.9071
91049573|NCT02944383|181985002|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5647||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.5647
91049574|NCT02944383|181985002|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1073||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.1073
91049575|NCT02944383|181985002|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3858||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.3858
91005274|NCT04445051|181894881|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.79||||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|0.2||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.20|-1.77|0.116
91005275|NCT04445051|181894882|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.96||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.96|-0.75|0.798
91005276|NCT04445051|181894882|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.6||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.60|-1.10|0.556
91005277|NCT04445051|181894882|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36||||0.399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|0.49||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.49|-1.21|0.399
91005278|NCT04445051|181894882|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.55||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.41||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||1.41|-0.30|0.198
91005279|NCT04445051|181894882|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|0.48||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.48|-1.27|0.365
91005280|NCT04445051|181894882|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.95||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|-0.08||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||-0.08|-1.82|0.033
91005281|NCT04445051|181894883|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.96||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.96|-0.83|0.882
91005282|NCT04445051|181894883|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32||||0.478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|0.57||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.57|-1.21|0.478
91005283|NCT04445051|181894883|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38||||0.391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|0.51||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.51|-1.27|0.391
91005284|NCT04445051|181894883|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|1.09||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||1.09|-0.69|0.657
91005285|NCT04445051|181894883|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|0.2||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.20|-1.62|0.125
91049576|NCT02944383|181985002|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0916||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.0916
91005286|NCT04445051|181894883|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.91||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|0.0||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.00|-1.81|0.051
91005287|NCT04445051|181894884|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.97||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.97|-0.83|0.877
91005288|NCT04445051|181894884|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42||||0.351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|0.47||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.47|-1.31|0.351
91005289|NCT04445051|181894884|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49||||0.278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|0.4||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.40|-1.38|0.278
91005290|NCT04445051|181894884|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17||||0.711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|1.06||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||1.06|-0.73|0.711
91005291|NCT04445051|181894884|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.06||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.97|-0.15||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||-0.15|-1.97|0.024
91005292|NCT04445051|181894884|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.23||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.14|-0.31||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||-0.31|-2.14|0.009
91005293|NCT05083949|181894911|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was concluded, if the confidence interval (CI) for the comparison of geometric least squares means ratio was included in the pre-defined equivalence range of 80.00% to 125.00%.|Ratio of GLSM (%)|99.57|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.23||0.7792|TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.03|102.19|||ANOVA||"Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means (GLSM) was calculated as: Fixed dose combination (treatment B)/ free dose combination (treatment A).~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\])."|The statistical model used for the analysis was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale. That is, the PK endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||102.19|97.03|0.7792
91005294|NCT05083949|181894912|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was concluded, if the confidence interval (CI) for the comparison of geometric least squares means ratio was included in the pre-defined equivalence range of 80.00% to 125.00%.|Ratio of GLSM (%)|101.36|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.18||0.6493|TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.39|106.59|||ANOVA||"Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means (GLSM) was calculated as: Fixed dose combination (treatment B)/ free dose combination (treatment A).~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\])."|The statistical model used for the analysis was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale. That is, the PK endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||106.59|96.39|0.6493
91005295|NCT05083949|181894913|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was concluded, if the confidence interval (CI) for the comparison of geometric least squares means ratio was included in the pre-defined equivalence range of 80.00% to 125.00%.|Ratio of GLSM (%)|101.63|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.65||0.471|TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.85|105.55|||ANOVA||"Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means (GLSM) was calculated as: Fixed dose combination (treatment B)/ free dose combination (treatment A).~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\])."|The statistical model used for the analysis of the was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale. That is, the PK endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||105.55|97.85|0.4710
91049577|NCT02944383|181985002|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.9473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.56|5.26||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||5.26|-5.56|0.9473
91005296|NCT05083949|181894914|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was concluded, if the confidence interval (CI) for the comparison of geometric least squares means ratio was included in the pre-defined equivalence range of 80.00% to 125.00%.|Ratio of GLSM (%)|98.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.14||0.4251|TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.24|102.15|||ANOVA||"Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means (GLSM) was calculated as: Fixed dose combination (treatment B)/ free dose combination (treatment A).~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\])."|The statistical model used for the analysis was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale. That is, the PK endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||102.15|94.24|0.4251
91049578|NCT02944383|181985002|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|4.54||||0.0911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|9.95||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||9.95|-1.83|0.0911
91049579|NCT02944383|181985003|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4623||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.4623
91005297|NCT05083949|181894915|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was concluded, if the confidence interval (CI) for the comparison of geometric least squares means ratio was included in the pre-defined equivalence range of 80.00% to 125.00%.|Ratio of GLSM (%)|99.49|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.25||0.7379|TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.93|102.11|||ANOVA||"Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means (GLSM) was calculated as: Fixed dose combination (treatment B)/ free dose combination (treatment A).~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\])."|The statistical model used for the analysis was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale. That is, the PK endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||102.11|96.93|0.7379
91049580|NCT02944383|181985003|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1678||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.1678
91049581|NCT02944383|181985003|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.439||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.4390
91005298|NCT05083949|181894916|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was concluded, if the confidence interval (CI) for the comparison of geometric least squares means ratio was included in the pre-defined equivalence range of 80.00% to 125.00%.|Ratio of GLSM (%)|101.24|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.82||0.5895|TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.4|105.24|||ANOVA||"Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means (GLSM) was calculated as: Fixed dose combination (treatment B)/ free dose combination (treatment A).~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\])."|The statistical model used for the analysis was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale. That is, the PK endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||105.24|97.40|0.5895
91005299|NCT01316380|181894931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.128|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||0.0005||95.0|0.057|0.199||Step-wise testing for the two treatment groups for the primary endpoint, confirmatory only if previous hypotheses had been successful, significance level of alpha=0.025 (one-sided) for primary endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, pooled centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.199|0.057|0.0005
91005300|NCT01316380|181894931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.159|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036|<|0.0001||95.0|0.088|0.23||Step-wise testing for the two treatment groups for the primary endpoint, confirmatory only if previous hypotheses had been successful, significance level of alpha=0.025 (one-sided) for the primary endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R2.5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, pooled centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.230|0.088|<0.0001
91005301|NCT01316380|181894932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.122|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.001||95.0|0.049|0.194||p-values serve an exploratory function only|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, pooled centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.194|0.049|0.001
91005302|NCT01316380|181894932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.0028||95.0|0.038|0.182||p-values serve an exploratory function only|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R2.5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, pooled centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.182|0.038|0.0028
91005303|NCT01316380|181894933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.057|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.042||0.1714||95.0|-0.025|0.14||p-values serve an exploratory function only|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, pooled centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.140|-0.025|0.1714
91005304|NCT01316380|181894933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.106|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.042||0.0119||95.0|0.023|0.188||p-values serve an exploratory function only|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R2.5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, pooled centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.188|0.023|0.0119
91049582|NCT02944383|181985003|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.129||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.1290
91005305|NCT01316380|181894934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.125|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034||0.0003||95.0|0.058|0.192||p-values serve an exploratory function only|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, pooled centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.192|0.058|0.0003
91005306|NCT01316380|181894934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.149|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034|<|0.0001||95.0|0.082|0.216||p-values serve an exploratory function only|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R2.5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, pooled centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.216|0.082|<0.0001
91049583|NCT02944383|181985003|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9627||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.9627
91005307|NCT01316380|181894935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.061|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.1182||95.0|-0.016|0.138||p-values serve an exploratory function only|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, pooled centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.138|-0.016|0.1182
91049584|NCT02944383|181985003|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0911||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.0911
91049585|NCT02944383|181985004|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2882||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.2882
91049586|NCT02944383|181985004|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4474||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.4474
91049587|NCT02944383|181985004|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7875||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.7875
91049588|NCT02944383|181985004|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.0600
91049589|NCT02944383|181985004|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.9832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||0.00|0.00|0.9832
91049590|NCT02944383|181985004|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.1352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||0.00|0.00|0.1352
91049591|NCT02944383|181985005|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2857||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.2857
91049592|NCT02944383|181985005|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4486||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.4486
91049593|NCT02944383|181985005|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.764||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.7640
91049594|NCT02944383|181985005|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.056||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.0560
91005308|NCT01316380|181894935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.101|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.0102||95.0|0.024|0.178||p-values serve an exploratory function only|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R2.5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, pooled centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.178|0.024|0.0102
91005309|NCT01316380|181894937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.25||||0.2155||95.0|0.03|2.24||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided). P-values serve an exploratory function only.|Regression, Cox|Parameter estimates of Cox proportional hazard model regarding. Only treatment was fitted as an effect in the model.|If HR is below 1 then favours tiotropium.|Since the percent patients with event is less than 50% the median is not calculable, but Hazard Ratio is still estimable from the Cox model.||2.24|0.03|0.2155
91005310|NCT01316380|181894937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.53||||0.5071||95.0|0.43|5.44||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided). P-values serve an exploratory function only.|Regression, Cox|Parameter estimates of Cox proportional hazard model regarding. Only treatment was fitted as an effect in the model.|If HR is below 1 then favours tiotropium.|Since the percent patients with event is less than 50% the median is not calculable, but Hazard Ratio is still estimable from the Cox model.||5.44|0.43|0.5071
91049595|NCT02944383|181985005|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9954||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.9954
91049596|NCT02944383|181985005|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1298||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.1298
91049597|NCT02944383|181985006|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0161||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.0161
91005311|NCT01316380|181894938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58||||0.1217||95.0|0.29|1.16||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided). P-values serve an exploratory function only.|Regression, Cox|Parameter estimates of Cox proportional hazard model regarding. Only treatment was fitted as an effect in the model.|If HR is below 1 then favours tiotropium.|Since only 22 of the 155 patients in the placebo group, 21 of the 154 patients in the Tio R2.5 group and 13 of the 155 patients in the Tio R5 group had asthma exacerbations, the median times were not calculable (nc).||1.16|0.29|0.1217
91049598|NCT02944383|181985006|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1806||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.1806
91005312|NCT01316380|181894938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.8974||95.0|0.53|1.75||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided). P-values serve an exploratory function only.|Regression, Cox|Parameter estimates of Cox proportional hazard model regarding. Only treatment was fitted as an effect in the model.|If HR is below 1 then favours tiotropium.|Since only 22 of the 155 patients in the placebo group, 21 of the 154 patients in the Tio R2.5 group and 13 of the 155 patients in the Tio R5 group had asthma exacerbations, the median times were not calculable (nc). The Hazard Ratio is still estimable from the Cox model.||1.75|0.53|0.8974
91005313|NCT01316380|181894939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.222|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129||0.0872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.032|0.476||p-values serve an exploratory function only|Mixed Models Analysis||Tio R2.5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, week, baseline, treatment\*week and baseline\*week.|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)- based repeated measures model was used.||0.476|-0.032|0.0872
91005314|NCT01316380|181894939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.033|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129||0.7995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.287|0.221||p-values serve an exploratory function only|Mixed Models Analysis||Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, week, baseline, treatment\*week and baseline\*week.|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)- based repeated measures model was used.||0.221|-0.287|0.7995
91005315|NCT01316380|181894940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.097|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.076||0.2038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.053|0.247||p-values serve an exploratory function only|Mixed Models Analysis||Tio R2.5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, week, baseline, treatment\*week and baseline\*week.|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)- based repeated measures model was used. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, week, baseline, treatment\*week and baseline\*week.||0.247|-0.053|0.2038
91005316|NCT01316380|181894940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.009|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.076||0.9104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.158|0.141||p-values serve an exploratory function only|Mixed Models Analysis||Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, week, baseline, treatment\*week and baseline\*week.|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)- based repeated measures model was used.||0.141|-0.158|0.9104
91005317|NCT01316380|181894941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.131|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068||0.0559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.003|0.265||p-values serve an exploratory function only|Mixed Models Analysis||Tio R2.5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, week, baseline, treatment\*week and baseline\*week.|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)- based repeated measures model was used.||0.265|-0.003|0.0559
91005318|NCT01316380|181894941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068||0.8795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.144|0.123||p-values serve an exploratory function only|Mixed Models Analysis||Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, week, baseline, treatment\*week and baseline\*week.|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)- based repeated measures model was used.||0.123|-0.144|0.8795
91005319|NCT02574520|181894950|SUPERIORITY|Primary|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.1|||ANOVA|Mixed model with repeated measures (MMRM) for scheduled pain measurements was estimated with time as a repeating factor within subject.|Least squares mean from the MMRM described in the Statistical Test of Hypothesis.|Pain Intensity on Movement 0-48 hr||0.10|-0.84|0.124
91005320|NCT01365091|181894962|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Metformin, Arm 1: The corresponding power and coefficient of variation between test and reference drugs are 98% and 17.24%, respectively|Geometric mean ratio|95.204|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.618|103.446|||ANCOVA||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as B/A, where A=individual tablets (reference value) and B=FDC (test value)|||103.446|87.618|
91005321|NCT01365091|181894962|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Saxagliptin, Arm 1: The corresponding power and coefficient of variation are 80% and 22.62%, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|107.606|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.552|119.924|||ANCOVA||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as B/A, where A=individual tablets (reference value) and B=FDC (test value)|||119.924|96.552|
91005322|NCT01365091|181894962|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|5-OH Saxagliptin, Arm 1: The corresponding power and the coefficient of variation are 99% and 16.26%, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|104.373|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.504|112.883|||||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as B/A, where A=individual tablets (reference value) and B= FDC (test value)|||112.883|96.504|
91005323|NCT01365091|181894962|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Metformin, Arm 2: The corresponding power and the variation coefficient are 81% and 14.42%,respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|88.188|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.368|94.419|||ANCOVA||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as B/A, where A=individual tablets (reference value) and B=FDC (test value)|||94.419|82.368|
91005324|NCT01365091|181894962|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Saxagliptin, Arm 2: The corresponding power and the variation coefficient are 99% and 13.09%, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|98.168|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.263|104.451|||ANCOVA||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as B/A, where A=individual tablets (reference value) and B=FDC (test value)|||104.451|92.263|
91005325|NCT01365091|181894962|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|5-OH saxagliptin, Arm 2: The corresponding power and the variation coefficient are 99% and 8.02%, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|95.023|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.47|98.714|||ANCOVA||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as B/A, where A=individual tablets (reference value) and B=FDC (test value)|||98.714|91.470|
91005326|NCT01365091|181894962|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Metformin, Arm 3: The corresponding power and the variation coefficient are 99% and 15.55%, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|97.601|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|15.55|99.0|||ANCOVA||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as B/A, where A=individual tablets (reference value) and B=FDC (test value)|||99|15.55|
91005327|NCT01365091|181894962|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Saxagliptin, Arm 3: The corresponding power and the variation coefficient are 84% and 15.65%, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|110.656|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.416|119.559|||ANCOVA||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as B/A, where A=individual tablets (reference value) and B=FDC (test value)|||119.559|102.416|
91005328|NCT01365091|181894962|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|OH-Saxagliptin, Arm 3: The corresponding power and the variation coefficient are 99% and 12.61%, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|106.264|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.826|113.117|||ANCOVA||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as B/A, where A=individual tablets (reference value) and B=FDC (test value)|||113.117|99.826|
91005329|NCT01365091|181894962|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Metformin, Arm 4: The corresponding power and the variation coefficient are 99% and 10.30%, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|100.028|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.164|105.139|||ANCOVA||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as B/A, where A=individual tablets (reference value) and B=FDC (test value)|||105.139|95.164|
91049599|NCT02944383|181985006|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2657||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.2657
91005330|NCT01365091|181894962|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Saxagliptin, Arm 4: The corresponding power and the variation coefficient are 99% and 10.38%, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|93.644|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.055|98.47|||ANCOVA|Geometric mean ratio is calculated as B/A, where A=individual tablets (reference value) and B=FDC (test value)|Geometric mean ratio is calculated as B/A, where A=individual tablets (reference value) and B=FDC (test value)|||98.470|89.055|
91005331|NCT01365091|181894963|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Metformin, Arm 1: The corresponding power and coefficient of variation are 98% and 17.24%, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|91.508|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.596|101.38|||ANCOVA||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as B/A, where A=individual tablets (reference value) and B=FDC (test value)|||101.380|82.596|
91005332|NCT01365091|181894963|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Saxagliptin, Arm 1: The corresponding power and the coefficient of variation are 99% and 07.66%, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|97.437|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.889|101.119|||ANCOVA||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as B/A, where A=individual tablets (reference value) and B=FDC (test value)|||101.119|93.889|
91005333|NCT01365091|181894963|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|5-OH Saxagliptin, Arm 1: The corresponding power and the coefficient of variation are 99% and 07.43%, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|96.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.35|100.316|||ANCOVA||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as B/A, where A=individual tablets (reference value) and B=FDC (test value)|||100.316|93.350|
91005334|NCT01365091|181894963|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Metformin, Arm 2: The corresponding power and the variation coefficient are 96% and 14.37%, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|91.585|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.56|98.035|||ANCOVA||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as B/A, where A=individual tablets (reference value) and B=FDC (test value)|||98.035|85.56|
91005335|NCT01365091|181894963|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Saxagliptin, Arm 2: The corresponding power and the variation coefficient are 96.028% and 101.095%, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|98.529|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.028|101.095|||ANCOVA||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as B/A, where A=individual tablets (reference value) and B=FDC (test value)|||101.095|96.028|
91005336|NCT01365091|181894963|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|5-OH Saxagliptin, Arm 2: The corresponding power and the variation coefficient are 99% and 6.55%, respectively|Geometric mean ratio|96.239|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.286|99.286|||ANCOVA||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as B/A, where A=individual tablets (reference value) and B=FDC (test value)|||99.286|93.286|
91005337|NCT01365091|181894963|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Metformin, Arm 3: The corresponding power and the variation coefficient are 99% and 12.19%, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|102.994|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.956|109.407|||ANCOVA||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as B/A, where A=individual tablets (reference value) and B=FDC (test value)|||109.407|96.956|
91005338|NCT01365091|181894963|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Saxagliptin, Arm 3: The corresponding power and the variation coefficient are 99% and 7.07%, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|97.135|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.778|100.613|||ANCOVA||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as B/A, where A=individual tablets (reference value) and B=FDC (test value)|||100.613|93.778|
91005339|NCT01365091|181894963|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|5-OH Saxagliptin, Arm 3: The corresponding power and the variation coefficient are 99% and 7.18%, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|100.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.512|103.648|||ANCOVA||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as B/A, where A=individual tablets (reference value) and B=FDC (test value)|||103.648|96.512|
91005340|NCT01365091|181894963|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Metformin, Arm 1:The corresponding power and the variation coefficient are 93% and 17.35%, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|92.953|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.502|101.053|||ANCOVA||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as B/A, where A=individual tablets (reference value) and B=FDC (test value)|||101.053|85.502|
91005341|NCT01365091|181894963|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Saxagliptin, Arm 4: The corresponding power and the variation coefficient are 99% and 5.75%, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|101.281|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.494|104.147|||ANCOVA||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as B/A, where A=individual tablets (reference value) and B=FDC (test value)|||104.147|98.494|
91005342|NCT01365091|181894963|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|5-OH Saxagliptin, Arm 4: The corresponding power and the variation coefficient are 99% and 5.73%, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|100.111|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.367|102.932|||ANCOVA||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as B/A, where A=individual tablets (reference value) and B=FDC (test value)|||102.932|97.367|
91005343|NCT01365091|181894965|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For AUC(0-inf) metformin, Arm 1, the corresponding power and coefficient of variation are 80% and 21.06%, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|91.494|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.697|101.226|||ANCOVA||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as B/A, where A=individual tablets (reference value) and B=FDC (test value).|||101.226|82.697|
91005344|NCT01365091|181894965|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Saxagliptin, Arm 1: The corresponding power and the coefficient of variation are 99% and 07.60%, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|97.477|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.955|101.132|||ANCOVA||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as B/A, where A=individual tablets (reference value) and B=FDC (test value)|||101.132|93.955|
91005345|NCT01365091|181894965|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|5-OH Saxagliptin, Arm 1. The corresponding power and the coefficient of variation are 99% and 07.31%, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|96.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.393|100.247|||ANCOVA||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as B/A, where A=individual tablets (reference value) and B=FDC (test value).|||100.247|93.393|
91005346|NCT01365091|181894965|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Metformin, Arm 2: The corresponding power and the variation coefficient are 96% and 14.25%, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|91.548|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.573|97.939|||ANCOVA||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as B/A, where A=individual tablets (reference value) and B=FDC (test value)|||97.939|85.573|
91005347|NCT01365091|181894965|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Saxagliptin, Arm 2: The corresponding power and the variation coefficient are 99% and 5.38%,respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|98.535|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.044|101.09|||ANCOVA||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as B/A, where A=individual tablets (reference value) and B=FDC (test value)|||101.090|96.044|
91005348|NCT01365091|181894965|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|5-OH Saxagliptin, Arm 2: The corresponding power and the variation coefficient are 99% and 6.52%, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|96.258|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.319|99.29|||ANCOVA||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as B/A, where A=individual tablets (reference value) and B=FDC (test value)|||99.290|93.319|
91005349|NCT01365091|181894965|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Metformin, Arm 3: The corresponding power and the variation coefficient are 99% and 11.75%, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|102.383|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.589|108.525|||ANCOVA||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as B/A, where A=individual tablets (reference value) and B=FDC (test value)|||108.525|96.589|
91005350|NCT01365091|181894965|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Saxagliptin, Arm 5: The corresponding power and the variation coefficient are 99% and 7.07%, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|97.187|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.832|100.662|||ANCOVA||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as B/A, where A=individual tablets (reference value) and B=FDC (test value)|||100.662|93.832|
91005351|NCT01365091|181894965|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|5-OH Sarexagliptin, Arm 3: The corresponding power and the variation coefficient are 99% and 7.08%, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|100.015|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.56|103.594|||ANCOVA||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as B/A, where A=individual tablets (reference value) and B=FDC (test value)|||103.594|96.560|
91005352|NCT01365091|181894965|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Metformin, Arm 4: The corresponding power and the variation coefficient are 94% and 17.13%, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|93.219|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.835|101.238|||ANCOVA|||||101.238|85.835|
91005353|NCT01365091|181894965|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Saxagliptin, Arm 4: The corresponding power and the variation coefficient are 99% and 5.72%, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|101.346|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.574|104.196|||ANCOVA||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as B/A, where A=individual tablets (reference value) and B=FDC (test value)|||104.196|98.574|
91005354|NCT01365091|181894965|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|5-OH Saxagliptin, Arm 4: The corresponding power and the variation coefficient are 99% and 5.71%, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|100.056|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.324|102.864|||ANCOVA||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as B/A, where A=individual tablets (reference value) and B=FDC (test value)|||102.864|97.324|
91005355|NCT03398824|181894966|OTHER|Fanconi Anemia is a rare disease. Therefore, the primary end point of the study was to assess the proportion of subjects with a HR during 6 months of metformin treatment; sample size was calculated assuming that a HR rate \< 20% suggests preliminary efficacy of treatment that warranted additional investigation and, conversely, that the study should be deemed futile if the rate of HR was \<5%.|response rate|30.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|11.3|57.3|||||||Fanconi Anemia is a rare disease. Therefore, the primary end point of the study was to assess the proportion of subjects with a HR during 6 months of metformin treatment; sample size was calculated assuming that a HR rate \>20% suggests preliminary efficacy of treatment that warranted additional investigation and, conversely, that the study should be deemed futile if the rate of HR was \<5%.|57.3|11.3|
91049600|NCT02944383|181985006|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5996||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.5996
91049601|NCT02944383|181985006|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-11.39||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.81|2.08||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||2.08|-28.81|0.0270
91005356|NCT05307523|181894970|OTHER|Paired t-test for normally distributed data Wilcoxon Rank test for the not normally distributed data|||||<|0.05||||||Paired T-test for the normally distributed data and a Wilcoxon Rank test for the non-parametric data were used|Both Paired T-test and Wilcoxon Rank|The data included both normally and not normally distributed data for the baseline, mid-study, and final study assessment points.||||||<0.05
91005357|NCT02875366|181895001|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.2||||0.3021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|2.9|||Mixed effects model for repeated measure|||||2.9|-9.2|0.3021
91005358|NCT02875366|181895002|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.2||||0.1894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|1.6|||Mixed effects model for repeated measure|||||1.6|-8.0|0.1894
91005359|NCT02875366|181895003|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-15.3||||0.2328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.8|10.1|||Mixed effects model for repeated measure|||||10.1|-40.8|0.2328
91005360|NCT02875366|181895004|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.4||||0.1203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|0.4|||Mixed effects model for repeated measure|||||0.4|-3.1|0.1203
91005361|NCT02875366|181895005|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-149.6||||0.0439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-295.0|-4.2|||Mixed effects model for repeated measure|||||-4.2|-295.0|0.0439
91005362|NCT02875366|181895006|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.5||||0.2237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.8|4.7|||Mixed effects model for repeated measure|||||4.7|-19.8|0.2237
91005363|NCT02875366|181895007|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.0226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|-0.09|||Mixed effects model for repeated measure|||||-0.09|-1.12|0.0226
91005364|NCT02875366|181895008|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.32||||0.0613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.94|0.31|||Mixed effects model for repeated measure|||||0.31|-12.94|0.0613
91005365|NCT02875366|181895009|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.3||||0.6409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.5|||Mixed effects model for repeated measure|||||1.5|-0.9|0.6409
91049602|NCT02944383|181985006|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.92||||0.5263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.88|15.5||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||15.50|-16.88|0.5263
91049603|NCT02944383|181985007|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0345||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.0345
91005366|NCT02875366|181895010|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.0||||0.5889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|4.7|||Mixed effects model for repeated measure|||||4.7|-2.7|0.5889
91005367|NCT02875366|181895011|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.4||||0.146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|8.1|||Mixed effects model for repeated measure|||||8.1|-1.2|0.1460
91005368|NCT02875366|181895012|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.5||||0.3091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|10.4|||Mixed effects model for repeated measure|||||10.4|-3.4|0.3091
91005369|NCT02875366|181895013|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.2||||0.3961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.6|||Mixed effects model for repeated measure|||||0.6|-0.3|0.3961
91005370|NCT02875366|181895014|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.9||||0.3905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|3.1|||Mixed effects model for repeated measure|||||3.1|-1.2|0.3905
91005371|NCT02875366|181895015|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|6.2||||0.1257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|14.1|||Mixed effects model for repeated measure|||||14.1|-1.8|0.1257
91005372|NCT02735044|181895097|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of HOE901-U300 versus Lantus was demonstrated if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in the mean change in HbA1c from baseline to month 6 was \<0.3%.|LS Mean difference|0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.172|0.179||||||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA models which included the treatment group, the randomization stratum of age group at screening visit (\<12 years and \>=12 years), and the continuous fixed covariates of the baseline HbA1c value.||0.179|-0.172|
91005373|NCT02735044|181895097|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of HOE901-U300 versus Lantus was demonstrated if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference between treatment groups was \<0 (zero).||||||0.965||||||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA|||A step-wise closed testing approach was used to control the type I error. Analysis was performed using ANCOVA models which included the treatment group, the randomization stratum of age group at screening visit (\<12 years and \>=12 years), and the continuous fixed covariates of the baseline HbA1c value.||||0.965
91005374|NCT01682759|181895112|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Omarigliptin was considered non-inferior to glimepiride if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the between-treatment difference in least-squares (LS) means for change from baseline in A1C at Week 54 (omarigliptin vs. glimepiride) was lower than 0.35%.|Difference in the least squares means|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.3|||||Constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model including terms for treatment, time, and the interaction of time by treatment, with the constraint that the mean baseline is the same for all treatment groups.|||0.30|0.06|
91005375|NCT01682759|181895113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|-6.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|0.1|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method; the 95% CI was computed only for those endpoints with at least 4 participants having events in one or more treatment groups.|||0.1|-13.9|
91005376|NCT01682759|181895114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|3.8|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method; the 95% CI was computed only for those endpoints with at least 4 participants having events in one or more treatment groups.|||3.8|-1.6|
91005377|NCT01682759|181895115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|5.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|11.2|||||cLDA model including terms for treatment, time, and the interaction of time by treatment, with the constraint that the mean baseline is the same for all treatment groups|||11.2|0.1|
91005378|NCT01682759|181895116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Between-group Rate Difference (%)|-3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|3.3|||||Between-group CIs are calculated via Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|A1C \<6.5%||3.3|-10.6|
91005379|NCT01682759|181895117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|-21.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.5|-16.4|||Difference in percentages||Miettinen \& Nurminen method; the 95% CI was computed only for those endpoints with at least 4 participants having events in one or more treatment groups.|||-16.4|-26.5|<0.001
91049604|NCT02944383|181985007|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2709||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.2709
91049605|NCT02944383|181985007|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3255||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.3255
91005380|NCT01682759|181895118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-1.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-1.4|||Difference in the least squares means||cLDA model including terms for treatment, time, and the interaction of time by treatment with the constraint that the mean baseline is the same for all treatment groups.|||-1.4|-2.5|<0.001
91005381|NCT01682759|181895119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Between-group Rate Difference|-10.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|-2.8|||||Between-group CIs are calculated via Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|A1C \< 7.0%||-2.8|-17.8|
91005382|NCT00412113|181895120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|19.03|||<|0.001||95.0|9.14|39.63||There was only one primary endpoint and the p-value was not adjusted for comparison.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two treatment management strategies in the percentage of patients achieving both the BP(\< 140/90 mmHg) and LDL goal (\< 100mg/dL) at Week 6.~With \~120 in each treatment arm, planned power was at least 90% to detect a difference between treatments, assuming 35% in the Caduet and 15% in the Norvasc arm achieving BP \<140/90 mmHg and LDL \<100 mg/dL and using a chi-square test with 0.05 two-sided significance level."||39.63|9.14|<0.001
91005383|NCT00412113|181895121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|31.39|||<|0.001||95.0|12.61|78.09||No adjustment for p-value for secondary analysis|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two treatment management strategies in the percentage of patients achieving both the blood pressure (\< 140/90 mmHg) and LDL-goal (\<100 mg/dL) at Week 4.||78.09|12.61|<0.001
91005384|NCT00412113|181895122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.2|||<|0.001||95.0|2.93|9.24||No adjustment for p-value for secondary analyses|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two treatment management strategies in the percentage of patients achieving both the blood pressure (\< 140/90 mmHg) and LDL-goal (\<130mg/dL) at Week 4.||9.24|2.93|<0.001
91005385|NCT00412113|181895123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.14|||<|0.001||95.0|2.89|9.11||No adjustment for p-value for secondary analyses|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two treatment management strategies in the percentage of patients achieving both the blood pressure (\< 140/90 mmHg) and LDL-goal (\<130mg/dL) at Week 6.||9.11|2.89|<0.001
91005386|NCT00412113|181895124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|65.51|||<|0.001||95.0|27.1|158.34||No adjustment for p-value for secondary analyses|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two treatment management strategies in the percentage of patients achieving (\<100mg/DL) at Week 4.||158.34|27.10|<0.001
91005387|NCT00412113|181895125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|42.04|||<|0.001||95.0|19.42|90.99||No adjustment for p-value for secondary analyses|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two treatment management strategies in the percentage of patients achieving LDL-goal (\<100mg/DL) at Week 6.||90.99|19.42|<0.001
91005388|NCT00412113|181895126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.785||95.0|0.6|1.98||No adjustment for p-value for secondary analyses|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two treatment management strategies in the percentage of patients achieving blood pressure (\< 140/90 mmHg)at Week 4||1.98|0.60|0.785
91005389|NCT00412113|181895127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.171||95.0|0.83|2.88||No adjustment for p-value for secondary analyses|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two treatment management strategies in the percentage of patients achieving blood pressure (\< 140/90 mmHg) at Week 6.||2.88|0.83|0.171
91005390|NCT00412113|181895128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.76||||0.585||95.0|-1.97|3.48||No adjustment for p-value for secondary analyses|ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two treatment management strategies in the mean change from baseline in systolic blood pressure at Week 4.||3.48|-1.97|0.585
91005391|NCT00412113|181895129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.0|||>|0.999||95.0|-2.01|2.01||No adjustment for p-value for secondary analyses|ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two treatment management strategies in the mean change from baseline in diastolic blood pressure at Week 4.||2.01|-2.01|> 0.999
91005392|NCT00412113|181895130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.9||||0.363||95.0|-2.83|1.04|||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two treatment management strategies in the mean change from baseline in pulse rate at Week 4.||1.04|-2.83|0.363
91005393|NCT00412113|181895131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS means|-3.25||||0.02||95.0|-5.99|-0.51||No adjustment for p-value for secondary analyses|ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two treatment management strategies in the mean change from baseline in systolic blood pressure at Week 6.||-0.51|-5.99|0.020
91049606|NCT02944383|181985007|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7391||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.7391
91005394|NCT00412113|181895132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.87||||0.351||95.0|-2.71|0.97||No adjustment for p-value for secondary analyses|ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two treatment management strategies in the mean change from baseline in diastolic blood pressure at Week 6.||0.97|-2.71|0.351
91005395|NCT00412113|181895133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.1||||0.922||95.0|-1.91|2.11||No adjustment for p-value for secondary analyses|ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two treatment management strategies in mean change from baseline in pulse rate at Week 6.||2.11|-1.91|0.922
91005396|NCT00412113|181895134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-49.3|||<|0.001||95.0|-54.68|-43.91||No adjustment for p-value for secondary analyses|ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two treatment management strategies in the mean change from baseline in LDL at Week 4.||-43.91|-54.68|<0.001
91049607|NCT02944383|181985007|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0808||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.0808
91005397|NCT00412113|181895135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||difference in LS Means|-0.3||||0.739||95.0|-2.07|1.47||No adjustment for p-value for secondary analyses|ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two treatment management strategies in the mean change from baseline in HDL at Week 4.||1.47|-2.07|0.739
91005398|NCT00412113|181895136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-57.9|||<|0.001||95.0|-64.02|51.81||No adjustment for p-value for secondary analyses|ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two treatment management strategies in the mean change from baseline in TC at Week 4.||51.81|-64.02|<0.001
91005399|NCT00412113|181895137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-47.27|||<|0.001||95.0|-63.37|-31.16||No adjustment for p-value for secondary analyses|ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two treatment management strategies in the mean change from baseline in TG at Week 4.||-31.16|-63.37|<0.001
91005400|NCT00412113|181895138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-51.21|||<|0.001||95.0|-56.88|-45.55||No adjustment for p-value for secondary analyses|ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two treatment management strategies in the mean change from baseline in LDL at Week 6.||-45.55|-56.88|<0.001
91005401|NCT00412113|181895139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-1.02||||0.329||95.0|-3.07|1.03||No adjustment for p-value for secondary analyses|ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two treatment management strategies in the mean change from baseline in HDL at Week 6.||1.03|-3.07|0.329
91005402|NCT00412113|181895140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-62.07|||<|0.001||95.0|-68.49|-55.65||No adjustment for p-value for secondary analyses|ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two treatment management strategies in the mean change from baseline in TC at Week 6.||-55.65|-68.49|<0.001
91005403|NCT00412113|181895141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-53.95|||<|0.001||95.0|-77.61|-30.29||No adjustment for p-value for secondary analyses|ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two treatment management strategies in the mean change in TG from baseline in at Week 6.||-30.29|-77.61|<0.001
91005404|NCT00412113|181895142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-2.4|||<|0.001||95.0|-3.1|-1.7||No adjustment for p-value for secondary analyses|ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two treatment management strategies in mean change from baseline to Week 4 in Framingham predicted absolute 10-year risk.||-1.7|-3.1|<0.001
91005405|NCT00412113|181895143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-2.8|||<|0.001||95.0|-3.5|-2.1||No adjustment for p-value for secondary analyses|ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two treatment management strategies in the mean change from baseline to Week 6 in Framingham predicted absolute 10-year risk.||-2.1|-3.5|<0.001
91005406|NCT01201967|181895144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.68||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.14|9.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.22|2.14|0.002
91049608|NCT02944383|181985007|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6509||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.6509
91005407|NCT01201967|181895145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.05||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.06|-0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.05|-4.06|0.045
91049609|NCT02944383|181985008|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.0004
91049610|NCT02944383|181985008|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0412||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.0412
91005408|NCT01201967|181895146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|1.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.76|-0.93|0.55
91005409|NCT01201967|181895147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|11.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.2|24.9|||Chi-squared|||||24.9|5.20|<0.001
91005410|NCT01201967|181895148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.63||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|1.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.76|-0.51|0.28
91005411|NCT01201967|181895149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.96||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.46|||Chi-squared|||||1.46|0.63|0.83
91005412|NCT01201967|181895150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.012|0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.22|0.012|0.029
91049611|NCT02944383|181985008|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1937||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.1937
91049612|NCT02944383|181985008|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.474||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.4740
91049613|NCT02944383|181985008|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-14.32||||0.0116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.13|3.89||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||3.89|-34.13|0.0116
91049614|NCT02944383|181985008|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-3.66||||0.1109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.85|14.26||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||14.26|-23.85|0.1109
91049615|NCT02944383|181985009|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.0002
91049616|NCT02944383|181985009|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0161||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.0161
91005413|NCT01201967|181895151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.59||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.71|9.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.46|1.71|0.005
91005414|NCT01201967|181895152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|5.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.14|-0.54|0.11
91005415|NCT00740116|181895160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||Statistical significance threshold was p \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Mann-Whitney U-test, one-sided test||||||0.03
91005416|NCT00740116|181895161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07||||||Statistical significance threshold was p \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Mann-Whitney U-test, one-sided test||||||0.07
91005417|NCT00740116|181895162|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.44||||0.46|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.97||Statistical significance threshold was p \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Mann-Whitney U-test, one-sided test||||0.97||0.46
91005418|NCT00740116|181895163|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46||||||p\< 0.05 for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.46
91005419|NCT00740116|181895164|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.36||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|2.72||Statistical significance threshold p-value \< 0.05|Fisher Exact|||||2.72|0.05|0.22
91005420|NCT01111331|181895177|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability.|Geometric Mean ratio|100.89|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.86|105.1|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for subject and treatment|Standard deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV)|Ratio calculated as empa plus warfarin divided by empa||105.10|96.86|
91005421|NCT01111331|181895178|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability.|Geometric Mean Ratio|100.64|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.9||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.79|112.8||p-value for geometric mean ratio being outside interval 80% to 125%|ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for subject and treatment|Standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV|Ratio calculated as empa plus warfarin divided by empa||112.80|89.79|0.0021
91005422|NCT01111331|181895179|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability.|Geometric Mean Ratio|98.49|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.29|101.8|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV)|Ratio calculated as empa plus warfarin divided by warfarin||101.80|95.29|
91005423|NCT01111331|181895180|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability.|Geometric Mean Ratio|97.89|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.4||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.12|105.15|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV)|Ratio calculated as empa plus warfarin divided by warfarin||105.15|91.12|0.0001
91049617|NCT02944383|181985009|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3043||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.3043
91049618|NCT02944383|181985009|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4639||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.4639
91005424|NCT01111331|181895181|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability.|Geometric Mean Ratio|95.88|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.4|98.43|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment|Standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV|Ratio calculated as empa plus warfarin divided by warfarin||98.43|93.40|
91005425|NCT01111331|181895182|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability.|Geometric Mean Ratio|98.88|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.7||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.84|106.47||p-value for geometric mean ratio being outside interval 80% to 125%|ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment|Standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV|Ratio calculated as empa plus warfarin divided by warfarin||106.47|91.84|0.0001
91005426|NCT01111331|181895190|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability.|Geometric Mean Ratio|98.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.89|102.0|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV)|Ratio calculated as empa plus warfarin divided by warfarin||102.00|95.89|
91005427|NCT01111331|181895197|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability.|Geometric Mean Ratio|96.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.64|98.6|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment|Standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV|Ratio calculated as empa plus warfarin divided by warfarin||98.60|93.64|
91005428|NCT01111331|181895204|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability.|Geometric mean ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.04|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period, treatment and the baseline INR value||Difference calculated as empa plus warfarin minus warfarin||1.04|0.73|
91005429|NCT01111331|181895205|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability.|Geometric mean ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.98|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period, treatment and the baseline INR value||Difference calculated as empa plus warfarin minus warfarin||0.98|0.79|
91005430|NCT01111331|181895206|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability.|Geometric mean ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.48|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period, treatment and the baseline INR value||Difference calculated as empa plus warfarin minus warfarin||1.48|0.67|
91005431|NCT01111331|181895207|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability.|Geometric mean ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.02|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period, treatment and the baseline PT value||Difference calculated as empa plus warfarin minus warfarin||1.02|0.79|
91005432|NCT01111331|181895208|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability.|Geometric mean ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.95|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period, treatment and the baseline PT value||Difference calculated as empa plus warfarin minus warfarin||1.95|0.64|
91005433|NCT01111331|181895209|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability.|Geometric mean ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|0.98|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period, treatment and the baseline PT value||Difference calculated as empa plus warfarin minus warfarin||0.98|0.84|
91005434|NCT01111331|181895210|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability.|Geometric mean ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.4|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period, treatment and the baseline PT value||Difference calculated as empa plus warfarin minus warfarin||1.40|0.68|
91005435|NCT01111331|181895211|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability.|Geometric mean ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.51|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period, treatment and the baseline PT value||Difference calculated as empa plus warfarin minus warfarin||1.51|0.47|
91005436|NCT03650387|181895239|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Bonferroni-Holm was used for alpha correction.|Exact one-sample binomial test|The one-sample binomial test was used to test whether the probability of being a responder (p) is significantly above 60%.||||||< 0.0001
91005437|NCT03650387|181895240|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Bonferroni-Holm was used for alpha correction.|Exact one-sample binomial test|The one-sample binomial test was used to test whether the probability of being a responder (p) is significantly above 60%.||||||< 0.0001
91049619|NCT02944383|181985009|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.021||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.0210
91005438|NCT03650387|181895241|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Bonferroni-Holm was used for alpha correction.|Exact one-sample binomial test|The one-sample binomial test was used to test whether the probability of being a responder (p) is significantly above 60%.||||||< 0.0001
91005439|NCT02903966|181895271|OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|0.87|||||Analysis performed using a Mixed Models Repeated Measures (MMRM) model, adjusting for the following covariates: treatment, visit, Baseline value, and the treatment by visit and baseline value by visit interactions|||0.87|-1.23|
91005440|NCT02903966|181895272|OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|1.22|||||Analysis performed using a MMRM model, adjusting for the following covariates: treatment, visit, Baseline value, and the treatment by visit and baseline value by visit interactions|||1.22|-1.18|
91005441|NCT02903966|181895273|OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.11|4.02|||||Day 15. Analysis performed using a MMRM model, adjusting for the following covariates: treatment, visit, Baseline value, and the treatment by visit and Baseline value by visit interactions|||4.02|-4.11|
91005442|NCT02903966|181895273|OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.99|-0.35|||||Day 29. Analysis performed using a MMRM model, adjusting for the following covariates: treatment, visit, Baseline value, and the treatment by visit and Baseline value by visit interactions|||-0.35|-5.99|
91005443|NCT02903966|181895273|OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.26|2.88|||||Day 43. Analysis performed using a MMRM model, adjusting for the following covariates: treatment, visit, Baseline value, and the treatment by visit and Baseline value by visit interactions|||2.88|-6.26|
91005444|NCT02903966|181895274|OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.01|4.59|||||Day 57. Analysis performed using a MMRM model, adjusting for the following covariates: treatment, visit, Baseline value, and the treatment by visit and Baseline value by visit interactions|||4.59|-4.01|
91005445|NCT02903966|181895274|OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.64|3.85|||||Day 71. Analysis performed using a MMRM model, adjusting for the following covariates: treatment, visit, Baseline value, and the treatment by visit and Baseline value by visit interactions|||3.85|-3.64|
91005446|NCT02903966|181895274|OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.87|5.1|||||Day 85. Analysis performed using a MMRM model, adjusting for the following covariates: treatment, visit, Baseline value, and the treatment by visit and Baseline value by visit interactions|||5.10|-2.87|
91005447|NCT02903966|181895275|OTHER||Ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.8|||||Day 15. Analysis performed using a MMRM model, adjusting for the following covariates: treatment, visit, log-transformed Baseline value, and the treatment by visit and log-transformed baseline value by visit interactions.|||1.80|0.27|
91005448|NCT02903966|181895275|OTHER||Ratio|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.0|||||Day 29. Analysis performed using a MMRM model, adjusting for the following covariates: treatment, visit, log-transformed Baseline value, and the treatment by visit and log-transformed baseline value by visit interactions.|||1.00|0.20|
91005449|NCT02903966|181895275|OTHER||Ratio|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.62|||||Day 43. Analysis performed using a MMRM model, adjusting for the following covariates: treatment, visit, log-transformed Baseline value, and the treatment by visit and log-transformed baseline value by visit interactions.|||0.62|0.09|
91005450|NCT02903966|181895276|OTHER||Ratio|0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.97|||||Day 57. Analysis performed using a MMRM model, adjusting for the following covariates: treatment, visit, log-transformed Baseline value, and the treatment by visit and log-transformed baseline value by visit interactions.|||0.97|0.25|
91005451|NCT02903966|181895276|OTHER||Ratio|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.57|||||Day 71. Analysis performed using a MMRM model, adjusting for the following covariates: treatment, visit, log-transformed Baseline value, and the treatment by visit and log-transformed baseline value by visit interactions.|||1.57|0.20|
91005452|NCT02903966|181895276|OTHER||Ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|2.18|||||Day 85. Analysis performed using a MMRM model, adjusting for the following covariates: treatment, visit, log-transformed Baseline value, and the treatment by visit and log-transformed baseline value by visit interactions.|||2.18|0.31|
91005453|NCT02903966|181895277|OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|2.07|||||Analysis performed using a MMRM model, adjusting for the following covariates: treatment, visit, Baseline score, and the treatment by visit and Baseline score by visit interactions.|||2.07|-2.05|
91005454|NCT02903966|181895278|OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|2.27|||||Analysis performed using a MMRM model, adjusting for the following covariates: treatment, visit, Baseline score, and the treatment by visit and Baseline score by visit interactions.|||2.27|-2.11|
91005455|NCT02903966|181895279|OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.29|3.77|||||Analysis performed using a MMRM model, adjusting for the following covariates: treatment, visit, Baseline score, and the treatment by visit and Baseline score by visit interactions.|||3.77|-5.29|
91005456|NCT02903966|181895280|OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.68|4.08|||||Analysis performed using a MMRM model, adjusting for the following covariates: treatment, visit, Baseline score, and the treatment by visit and Baseline score by visit interactions.|||4.08|-5.68|
91005457|NCT02903966|181895285|OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|0.86|||||Day 15. Analysis performed using a MMRM model, adjusting for the following covariates: treatment, visit, Baseline score, and the treatment by visit and Baseline score by visit interactions.|||0.86|-1.58|
91005458|NCT02903966|181895285|OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|1.08|||||Day 29. Analysis performed using a MMRM model, adjusting for the following covariates: treatment, visit, Baseline score, and the treatment by visit and Baseline score by visit interactions.|||1.08|-1.29|
91005459|NCT02903966|181895285|OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|1.04|||||Day 43. Analysis performed using a MMRM model, adjusting for the following covariates: treatment, visit, Baseline score, and the treatment by visit and Baseline score by visit interactions.|||1.04|-1.72|
91005460|NCT02903966|181895286|OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|1.75|||||Analysis performed using a MMRM model, adjusting for the following covariates: treatment, visit, Baseline score, and the treatment by visit and Baseline score by visit interactions.|||1.75|-1.87|
91005461|NCT01320033|181895303|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.6||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|-1.1|||ANCOVA|||||-1.1|-6.1|0.006
91005462|NCT01320033|181895303|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.9||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||||-0.4|-5.4|0.024
91005463|NCT01320033|181895303|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|1.8|||ANCOVA|||||1.8|-3.2|0.595
91005464|NCT02425891|181895310|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.92|||Log Rank|||||0.92|0.69|0.0025
91005465|NCT02425891|181895311|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.78|||Log Rank|||||0.78|0.49|<.0001
91005466|NCT02425891|181895312|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.02|||Log Rank|||||1.02|0.75|0.0770
91005467|NCT02425891|181895313|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.86|||Log Rank|||||0.86|0.53|0.0016
91005468|NCT02425891|181895314|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Difference in Overall Response Rates|10.12||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|16.84|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||16.84|3.40|0.0021
91005469|NCT02425891|181895315|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Difference in Overall Response Rates|16.3||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.67|26.92|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||26.92|5.67|0.0016
91005470|NCT02425891|181895316|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.0285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.98|||Log Rank|||||0.98|0.63|0.0285
91005471|NCT02425891|181895317|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.86|||Log Rank|||||0.86|0.43|0.0047
91005472|NCT02425891|181895318|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.8078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.18|||Log Rank|||||1.18|0.81|0.8078
91005473|NCT02425891|181895319|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.8879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.31|||Log Rank|||||1.31|0.73|0.8879
91005474|NCT02943577|181895335|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.0||||0.2398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|0.68|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||0.68|-2.70|0.2398
91005475|NCT02943577|181895336|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.4||||0.5522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|1.77|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||1.77|-0.95|0.5522
91005476|NCT02943577|181895337|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0||||0.9901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.01|1.99|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||1.99|-2.01|0.9901
91005477|NCT02943577|181895338|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.5||||0.5563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|2.17|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||2.17|-1.17|0.5563
91005478|NCT01355224|181895339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, gender, BMI, baseline intention.||||||.0150
91005479|NCT01355224|181895340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0365|||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, gender, BMI, and baseline intent.||||||0.0365
91005480|NCT01355224|181895341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0622|||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, gender, BMI, and baseline intent.||||||0.0622
91005481|NCT05085275|181895367|NON_INFERIORITY|The study planned to enroll 400 patients (200 patients in each treatment arm) to achieve 90% power to detect a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.60 for the primary composite endpoint, with differences between treatment groups assessed using a 2-sided alpha of \<0.05|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.1602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.14|||Regression, Cox|||||1.14|0.46|.1602
91005482|NCT05085275|181895369|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2392||0.3|||||||Regression, Cox|||||||.30
91005483|NCT05085275|181895370|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8295||0.17|||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.17
91005484|NCT05706623|181895393|OTHER|Analysis of variance model|Geometric least squares (LS) mean ratio|0.8354|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5216|1.338||||||Moderate Hepatic Impairment Group (test) versus Normal Hepatic Function Group (reference). The analysis was performed on natural log (ln) transformed parameters using an analysis of variance model with the hepatic function group as a fixed effect.||1.338|0.5216|
91005485|NCT05706623|181895395|OTHER|Analysis of variance model|Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.9356|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5889|1.4864||||||Moderate Hepatic Impairment Group (test) versus Normal Hepatic Function Group (reference). The analysis was performed on ln transformed parameters using an analysis of variance model with the hepatic function group as a fixed effect.||1.4864|0.5889|
91005486|NCT01263470|181895427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.755|-0.386||||||||-0.386|-0.755|
91005487|NCT01263470|181895427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.762|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.925|-0.598||||||||-0.598|-0.925|
91005488|NCT01263470|181895427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.826|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.987|-0.665||||||||-0.665|-0.987|
91005489|NCT01263470|181895427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.887|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.035|-0.739||||||||-0.739|-1.035|
91005490|NCT01263470|181895427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.351|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.132||||||||-0.132|-0.570|
91005491|NCT01263470|181895427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.542|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.743|-0.342||||||||-0.342|-0.743|
91005492|NCT01263470|181895427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.607|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.808|-0.406||||||||-0.406|-0.808|
91005493|NCT01263470|181895427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.667|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.859|-0.475||||||||-0.475|-0.859|
91005494|NCT01263470|181895428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.158|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.213|-0.104||||||||-0.104|-0.213|
91005495|NCT01263470|181895428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.174|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.234|-0.114||||||||-0.114|-0.234|
91005496|NCT01263470|181895428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.219|-0.1||||||||-0.100|-0.219|
91005497|NCT01263470|181895428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.153|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.212|-0.095||||||||-0.095|-0.212|
91005498|NCT01263470|181895428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.059|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.116|-0.003||||||||-0.003|-0.116|
91005499|NCT01263470|181895428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.075|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.136|-0.014||||||||-0.014|-0.136|
91005500|NCT01263470|181895428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.061|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.121|0.0||||||||0.000|-0.121|
91005501|NCT01263470|181895428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.054|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.114|0.006||||||||0.006|-0.114|
91005502|NCT01263470|181895429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.326|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.419|-0.233||||||||-0.233|-0.419|
91005503|NCT01263470|181895429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.369|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.268||||||||-0.268|-0.470|
91005504|NCT01263470|181895429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.438|-0.241||||||||-0.241|-0.438|
91005505|NCT01263470|181895429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.387|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.485|-0.288||||||||-0.288|-0.485|
91005506|NCT01263470|181895429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.178|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|-0.076||||||||-0.076|-0.280|
91005507|NCT01263470|181895429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.221|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.329|-0.112||||||||-0.112|-0.329|
91005508|NCT01263470|181895429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.192|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.299|-0.085||||||||-0.085|-0.299|
91005509|NCT01263470|181895429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.239|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.346|-0.131||||||||-0.131|-0.346|
91005510|NCT01263470|181895430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.644|-0.356||||||||-0.356|-0.644|
91005511|NCT01263470|181895430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.614|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.763|-0.464||||||||-0.464|-0.763|
91005512|NCT01263470|181895430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.804|-0.516||||||||-0.516|-0.804|
91005513|NCT01263470|181895430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.695|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.832|-0.559||||||||-0.559|-0.832|
91005514|NCT01263470|181895430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.325|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.494|-0.156||||||||-0.156|-0.494|
91005515|NCT01263470|181895430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.438|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.267||||||||-0.267|-0.610|
91005516|NCT01263470|181895430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.485|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.654|-0.315||||||||-0.315|-0.654|
91005517|NCT01263470|181895430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.683|-0.357||||||||-0.357|-0.683|
91005518|NCT01263470|181895431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.27|-7.93||||||||-7.93|-23.27|
91005519|NCT01263470|181895431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.34|-10.05||||||||-10.05|-25.34|
91005520|NCT01263470|181895431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.14|-8.02||||||||-8.02|-24.14|
91005521|NCT01263470|181895431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.06|-14.89||||||||-14.89|-32.06|
91005522|NCT01263470|181895431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.66|1.02||||||||1.02|-12.66|
91005523|NCT01263470|181895431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.76|-1.08||||||||-1.08|-14.76|
91005524|NCT01263470|181895431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.53|0.93||||||||0.93|-13.53|
91005525|NCT01263470|181895431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.45|-5.94||||||||-5.94|-21.45|
91005526|NCT01263470|181895432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.27|-7.93||||||||-7.93|-23.27|
91005527|NCT01263470|181895432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.34|-10.05||||||||-10.05|-25.34|
91005528|NCT01263470|181895432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.14|-8.02||||||||-8.02|-24.14|
91005529|NCT01263470|181895432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.06|-14.89||||||||-14.89|-32.06|
91005530|NCT01263470|181895432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.66|1.02||||||||1.02|-12.66|
91005531|NCT01263470|181895432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.76|-1.08||||||||-1.08|-14.76|
91005532|NCT01263470|181895432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.53|0.93||||||||0.93|-13.53|
91005533|NCT01263470|181895432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.45|-5.94||||||||-5.94|-21.45|
91005534|NCT01263470|181895433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.52|-8.94||||||||-8.94|-26.52|
91005535|NCT01263470|181895433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.07|-16.37||||||||-16.37|-32.07|
91005536|NCT01263470|181895433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.03|-16.65||||||||-16.65|-32.03|
91005537|NCT01263470|181895433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-28.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.04|-19.52||||||||-19.52|-37.04|
91005538|NCT01263470|181895433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.28|0.18||||||||0.18|-17.28|
91005539|NCT01263470|181895433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.9|-7.18||||||||-7.18|-22.90|
91005540|NCT01263470|181895433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.9|-7.42||||||||-7.42|-22.90|
91005541|NCT01263470|181895433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.8|-10.4||||||||-10.40|-27.80|
91005542|NCT01263470|181895434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.19|-5.64||||||||-5.64|-24.19|
91005543|NCT01263470|181895434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.86|-12.48||||||||-12.48|-27.86|
91005544|NCT01263470|181895434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.41|-15.73||||||||-15.73|-30.41|
91005545|NCT01263470|181895434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-28.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.05|-20.29||||||||-20.29|-36.05|
91005546|NCT01263470|181895434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.6|3.06||||||||3.06|-15.60|
91005547|NCT01263470|181895434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.41|-3.64||||||||-3.64|-19.41|
91005548|NCT01263470|181895434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.04|-6.8||||||||-6.80|-22.04|
91005549|NCT01263470|181895434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.61|-11.43||||||||-11.43|-27.61|
91005550|NCT01263470|181895435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.145|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.384|0.094||||||||0.094|-0.384|
91005551|NCT01263470|181895435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.134|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.106|0.374||||||||0.374|-0.106|
91005552|NCT01263470|181895435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.144|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.103|0.39||||||||0.390|-0.103|
91005553|NCT01263470|181895435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.004|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.218|0.227||||||||0.227|-0.218|
91005554|NCT01263470|181895435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.002|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.241|0.245||||||||0.245|-0.241|
91005555|NCT01263470|181895435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.281|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.038|0.524||||||||0.524|0.038|
91005556|NCT01263470|181895435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.291|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.041|0.54||||||||0.540|0.041|
91005557|NCT01263470|181895435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.151|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.077|0.38||||||||0.380|-0.077|
91005558|NCT01263470|181895436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.045|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.245|0.156||||||||0.156|-0.245|
91005559|NCT01263470|181895436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.012|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.185|0.21||||||||0.210|-0.185|
91005560|NCT01263470|181895436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.158|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.053|0.369||||||||0.369|-0.053|
91005561|NCT01263470|181895436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.048|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.235||||||||0.235|-0.140|
91005562|NCT01263470|181895436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.122|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.097|0.341||||||||0.341|-0.097|
91005563|NCT01263470|181895436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.179|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.036|0.395||||||||0.395|-0.036|
91005564|NCT01263470|181895436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.325|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.097|0.553||||||||0.553|0.097|
91005565|NCT01263470|181895436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.215|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.006|0.423||||||||0.423|0.006|
91005566|NCT01263470|181895437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.117|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.444|0.209||||||||0.209|-0.444|
91005567|NCT01263470|181895437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.362|0.162||||||||0.162|-0.362|
91005568|NCT01263470|181895437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.079|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.166|0.324||||||||0.324|-0.166|
91005569|NCT01263470|181895437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.117|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.355|0.121||||||||0.121|-0.355|
91005570|NCT01263470|181895437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.102|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.203|0.408||||||||0.408|-0.203|
91005571|NCT01263470|181895437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.124|0.364||||||||0.364|-0.124|
91005572|NCT01263470|181895437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.299|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.071|0.526||||||||0.526|0.071|
91005573|NCT01263470|181895437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.102|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.118|0.322||||||||0.322|-0.118|
91005574|NCT01263470|181895438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.039|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.308||||||||0.308|-0.230|
91005575|NCT01263470|181895438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.175|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.029|0.379||||||||0.379|-0.029|
91005576|NCT01263470|181895438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.248|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.044|0.453||||||||0.453|0.044|
91005577|NCT01263470|181895438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.186|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.035|0.407||||||||0.407|-0.035|
91005578|NCT01263470|181895438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.052|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.236|0.34||||||||0.340|-0.236|
91005579|NCT01263470|181895438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.188|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.044|0.421||||||||0.421|-0.044|
91005580|NCT01263470|181895438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.261|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.026|0.496||||||||0.496|0.026|
91005581|NCT01263470|181895438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.199|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.049|0.448||||||||0.448|-0.049|
91005582|NCT01263470|181895439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.75|-8.94||||||||-8.94|-38.75|
91005583|NCT01263470|181895439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.14|-9.61||||||||-9.61|-37.14|
91005584|NCT01263470|181895439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-40.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.18|-28.02||||||||-28.02|-53.18|
91005585|NCT01263470|181895439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-42.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.93|-30.58||||||||-30.58|-54.93|
91005586|NCT01263470|181895439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|8.98||||||||8.98|-19.70|
91005587|NCT01263470|181895439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.13|8.35||||||||8.35|-18.13|
91005588|NCT01263470|181895439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.22|-10.01||||||||-10.01|-34.22|
91005589|NCT01263470|181895439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.98|-12.55||||||||-12.55|-35.98|
91005590|NCT01263470|181895440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-58.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.79|-35.83||||||||-35.83|-80.79|
91005591|NCT01263470|181895440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-60.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.84|-40.47||||||||-40.47|-80.84|
91005592|NCT01263470|181895440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-78.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-97.03|-60.4||||||||-60.40|-97.03|
91005593|NCT01263470|181895440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-87.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-106.26|-68.6||||||||-68.60|-106.26|
91005594|NCT01263470|181895440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.69|19.23||||||||19.23|-24.69|
91005595|NCT01263470|181895440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.85|14.7||||||||14.70|-24.85|
91005596|NCT01263470|181895440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.16|-5.11||||||||-5.11|-41.16|
91005597|NCT01263470|181895440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-31.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.36|-13.33||||||||-13.33|-50.36|
91005598|NCT01263470|181895441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.859|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.736|8.455||||||||8.455|-2.736|
91049620|NCT02944383|181985009|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0992||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.0992
91049621|NCT02944383|181985010|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1512||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.1512
91049622|NCT02944383|181985010|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.8400
91049623|NCT02944383|181985010|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0244||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.0244
91049624|NCT02944383|181985010|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1803||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.1803
91049625|NCT02944383|181985010|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-24.41||||0.0307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.73|-9.94||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||-9.94|-42.73|0.0307
91049626|NCT02944383|181985010|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-8.73||||0.5326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.33|7.68||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||7.68|-23.33|0.5326
91049627|NCT02944383|181985011|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1705||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.1705
91005599|NCT01263470|181895441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.456|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.748|10.165||||||||10.165|0.748|
91049628|NCT02944383|181985011|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9193||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.9193
91049629|NCT02944383|181985011|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0224||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.0224
91005600|NCT01263470|181895441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.715|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.181|12.248||||||||12.248|3.181|
91005601|NCT01263470|181895441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.557|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.763|8.877||||||||8.877|-3.763|
91049630|NCT02944383|181985011|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2387||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.2387
91049631|NCT02944383|181985011|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.0600
91049632|NCT02944383|181985011|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6878||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.6878
91005602|NCT01263470|181895441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.924|21.396||||||||21.396|7.924|
91005603|NCT01263470|181895441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.257|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.353|23.16||||||||23.160|11.353|
91005604|NCT01263470|181895441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.515|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.629|25.401||||||||25.401|13.629|
91005605|NCT01263470|181895441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.357|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.013|21.701||||||||21.701|7.013|
91049633|NCT02944383|181985012|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0298||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.0298
91049634|NCT02944383|181985012|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0196||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.0196
91049635|NCT02944383|181985012|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2219||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.2219
91005606|NCT01263470|181895442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.535|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.019|1.089||||||||1.089|-0.019|
91005607|NCT01263470|181895442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.764|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.214|1.315||||||||1.315|0.214|
91005608|NCT01263470|181895442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.999|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.418|1.58||||||||1.580|0.418|
91005609|NCT01263470|181895442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.959|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.489||||||||1.489|0.430|
91005610|NCT01263470|181895442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.934|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.315|1.552||||||||1.552|0.315|
91005611|NCT01263470|181895442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.163|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.551|1.774||||||||1.774|0.551|
91005612|NCT01263470|181895442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.398|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.759|2.036||||||||2.036|0.759|
91005613|NCT01263470|181895442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.358|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.956||||||||1.956|0.760|
91005614|NCT01263470|181895443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.87|16.38||||||||16.38|-7.87|
91005615|NCT01263470|181895443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|23.42||||||||23.42|-0.90|
91005616|NCT01263470|181895443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.56|16.95||||||||16.95|-10.56|
91005617|NCT01263470|181895443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.27|8.94||||||||8.94|-16.27|
91005618|NCT01263470|181895443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.79|19.29||||||||19.29|-9.79|
91005619|NCT01263470|181895443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.67|26.19||||||||26.19|-2.67|
91005620|NCT01263470|181895443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.02|19.4||||||||19.40|-12.02|
91005621|NCT01263470|181895443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.04|11.71||||||||11.71|-18.04|
91005622|NCT01327573|181895448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09||||||"This p-value was for the overall slope difference between groups (i.e. the interaction between group and time).~Significance level was set at 0.1 a priori."|Mixed effects model analysis|||Analysis used eGFR, group, time, and group-by-time variables.||||0.09
91005623|NCT00576147|181895452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Sensitivity|88.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|75.0|95.0||||||||95.0|75.0|
91005624|NCT00576147|181895452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Specificity|90.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.4|93.7||||||||93.7|86.4|
91005625|NCT03070119|181895456|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) geometric mean ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.08||||||Week 52 - The analysis was based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with natural log transformed data. The model included covariates for the corresponding baseline value i.e. log value, and use of riluzole or edaravone. Multiple imputation (MI) including treatment group, use of riluzole or edaravone, and the relevant baseline and postbaseline values for the endpoint was used for missing data.||1.08|0.69|
91005626|NCT03070119|181895456|SUPERIORITY||LS geometric mean ratio|0.91|||=|0.3711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.11|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model using MI.||Week 104 - The analysis was based on an ANCOVA model with natural log transformed data. The model included covariates for the corresponding baseline value i.e. log value, and use of riluzole or edaravone. Multiple imputation including treatment group, use of riluzole or edaravone, and the relevant baseline and postbaseline values for the endpoint was used for missing data.||1.11|0.75|=0.3711
91005627|NCT03070119|181895456|SUPERIORITY||LS geometric mean ratio|1.06|||=|0.6344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.34|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model using MI.||Week 148 - The analysis was based on an ANCOVA model with natural log transformed data. The model included covariates for the corresponding baseline value i.e. log value, and use of riluzole or edaravone. Multiple imputation including treatment group, use of riluzole or edaravone, and the relevant baseline and postbaseline values for the endpoint was used for missing data.||1.34|0.84|=0.6344
91005628|NCT03070119|181895457|SUPERIORITY||LS geometric mean ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.03||||||Week 52 - The analysis was based on an ANCOVA model with natural log transformed data. The model included covariates for the corresponding baseline value i.e. log value, and use of riluzole or edaravone. Multiple imputation including treatment group, use of riluzole or edaravone, and the relevant baseline and postbaseline values for the endpoint was used for missing data.||1.03|0.63|
91005629|NCT03070119|181895457|SUPERIORITY||LS geometric mean ratio|0.83|||=|0.2306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.13|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model using MI.||Week 104 - The analysis was based on an ANCOVA model with natural log transformed data. The model included covariates for the corresponding baseline value i.e. log value, and use of riluzole or edaravone. Multiple imputation including treatment group, use of riluzole or edaravone, and the relevant baseline and postbaseline values for the endpoint was used for missing data.||1.13|0.60|=0.2306
91005630|NCT03070119|181895457|SUPERIORITY||LS geometric mean ratio|0.92|||=|0.673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.38|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model using MI.||Week 148 - The analysis was based on an ANCOVA model with natural log transformed data. The model included covariates for the corresponding baseline value i.e. log value, and use of riluzole or edaravone. Multiple imputation including treatment group, use of riluzole or edaravone, and the relevant baseline and postbaseline values for the endpoint was used for missing data.||1.38|0.61|=0.6730
91049636|NCT02944383|181985012|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4078||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.4078
91049637|NCT02944383|181985012|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-15.34||||0.0605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.68|1.3||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||1.30|-31.68|0.0605
91049638|NCT02944383|181985012|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-4.08||||0.1768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.91|7.32||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||7.32|-19.91|0.1768
91049639|NCT02944383|181985013|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0084||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.0084
91049640|NCT02944383|181985013|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0047||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.0047
91049641|NCT02944383|181985013|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1574||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.1574
91049642|NCT02944383|181985013|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3235||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.3235
91049643|NCT02944383|181985013|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0367||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.0367
91005631|NCT03070119|181895458|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) mean difference|3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.58|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|6.7||||||Week 52 - The analysis was based on an ANCOVA model that included treatment as a fixed effect and adjusted for the following covariates: baseline plasma NfL, baseline ALSFRS-R total score, and use of riluzole or edaravone. Multiple imputation including treatment group, use of riluzole or edaravone, baseline NfL, and the relevant baseline and postbaseline values for the endpoint was used for missing data.||6.7|0.5|
91049644|NCT02944383|181985013|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0948||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.0948
91049645|NCT02944383|181985014|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0037||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.0037
91049646|NCT02944383|181985014|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1328||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.1328
91049647|NCT02944383|181985014|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4364||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.4364
91049648|NCT02944383|181985014|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8129||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.8129
91005632|NCT03070119|181895458|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.28|=|0.1054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|8.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model using MI.||Week 104 - The analysis was based on an ANCOVA model that included treatment as a fixed effect and adjusted for the following covariates: baseline plasma NfL, baseline ALSFRS-R total score, and use of riluzole or edaravone. Multiple imputation including treatment group, use of riluzole or edaravone, baseline NfL, and the relevant baseline and postbaseline values for the endpoint was used for missing data.||8.2|-0.8|=0.1054
91005633|NCT03070119|181895458|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.46|=|0.1432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|8.4|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model using MI.||Week 148 - The analysis was based on an ANCOVA model that included treatment as a fixed effect and adjusted for the following covariates: baseline plasma NfL, baseline ALSFRS-R total score, and use of riluzole or edaravone. Multiple imputation including treatment group, use of riluzole or edaravone, baseline NfL, and the relevant baseline and postbaseline values for the endpoint was used for missing data.||8.4|-1.2|=0.1432
91005634|NCT03070119|181895459|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|8.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.99|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|15.9||||||Week 52 - The analysis was based on an ANCOVA model that included treatment as a fixed effect and adjusted for the following covariates: baseline plasma NfL, baseline percent predicted SVC and use of riluzole or edaravone. Multiple imputation including treatment group, use of riluzole or edaravone, baseline NfL, and the relevant baseline and postbaseline values for the endpoint was used for missing data.||15.9|0.3|
91005635|NCT03070119|181895459|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|9.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.6|=|0.0963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|20.4|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model using MI.||Week 104 - The analysis was based on an ANCOVA model that included treatment as a fixed effect and adjusted for the following covariates: baseline plasma NfL, baseline percent predicted SVC and use of riluzole or edaravone. Multiple imputation including treatment group, use of riluzole or edaravone, baseline NfL, and the relevant baseline and postbaseline values for the endpoint was used for missing data.||20.4|-1.7|=0.0963
91005636|NCT03070119|181895459|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.56|=|0.4388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|15.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model using MI.||Week 148 - The analysis was based on an ANCOVA model that included treatment as a fixed effect and adjusted for the following covariates: baseline plasma NfL, baseline percent predicted SVC and use of riluzole or edaravone. Multiple imputation including treatment group, use of riluzole or edaravone, baseline NfL, and the relevant baseline and postbaseline values for the endpoint was used for missing data.||15.2|-6.6|= 0.4388
91005637|NCT03070119|181895460|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.109|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.051|0.477||||||Week 52 - The analysis was based on an ANCOVA model that included treatment as a fixed effect and adjusted for the following covariates: baseline plasma NfL, baseline HHD overall megascore and use of riluzole or edaravone. Multiple imputation including treatment group, use of riluzole or edaravone, baseline NfL, and the relevant baseline and postbaseline values for the endpoint was used for missing data.||0.477|0.051|
91005638|NCT03070119|181895460|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145|=|0.3207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.141|0.43|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model using MI.||Week 104 - The analysis was based on an ANCOVA model that included treatment as a fixed effect and adjusted for the following covariates: baseline plasma NfL, baseline HHD overall megascore and use of riluzole or edaravone. Multiple imputation including treatment group, use of riluzole or edaravone, baseline NfL, and the relevant baseline and postbaseline values for the endpoint was used for missing data.||0.430|-0.141|=0.3207
91005639|NCT03070119|181895460|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.091|=|0.5452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.124|0.234|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model using MI.||Week 148 - The analysis was based on an ANCOVA model that included treatment as a fixed effect and adjusted for the following covariates: baseline plasma NfL, baseline HHD overall megascore and use of riluzole or edaravone. Multiple imputation including treatment group, use of riluzole or edaravone, baseline NfL, and the relevant baseline and postbaseline values for the endpoint was used for missing data.||0.234|-0.124|=0.5452
91005640|NCT03070119|181895462|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64|||=|0.4202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.282|1.461|||Log Rank|The analysis was based on a log rank test stratified by median baseline plasma NfL.|The analysis was based on a Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for baseline plasma NfL, and riluzole or edaravone use.|||1.461|0.282|=0.4202
91005641|NCT03070119|181895463|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52|||=|0.3108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.199|1.357|||Log Rank|The analysis was based on a log rank test stratified by median baseline plasma NfL.|The analysis was based on a Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for baseline plasma NfL, and riluzole or edaravone use.|||1.357|0.199|=0.3108
91005642|NCT01996865|181895472|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.3296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.2|||Regression, Cox|||||1.2|0.6|0.3296
91005643|NCT01996865|181895473|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.1222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.1|||Regression, Cox|||||1.1|0.4|0.1222
91005644|NCT00557362|181895600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.098||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.083|||Regression, Linear|Multiple linear regression model adjusted for enrollment BSCVA and corneal de-epithelialization||||0.083|-0.28|0.29
91005645|NCT00557362|181895601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.23||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.02|||Regression, Cox|||||2.02|0.76|0.40
91005646|NCT00557362|181895602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.53|||Regression, Linear|||||0.53|-0.20|0.37
91005647|NCT00557362|181895603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.08||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.41|||Regression, Linear|||Best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (BSCVA) was examined in a linear regression model with enrollment BSCVA and treatment arm as covariates among a subgroup of ulcers caused by Fusarium spp.||0.41|-0.25|0.62
91005648|NCT00557362|181895603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.17|||Regression, Linear|||Best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (BSCVA) was evaluated in a linear regression model with enrollment BSCVA and treatment arm as covariates in a subgroup of ulcers caused by Aspergillus spp.||0.17|-0.57|0.26
91005649|NCT00557362|181895604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.14|||Regression, Linear|||||0.14|-0.26|0.53
91005650|NCT06408818|181895629|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes at posttest, we used linear regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.69
91005651|NCT06408818|181895630|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes at posttest, we used linear regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.33|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.33
91005652|NCT06408818|181895631|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes at posttest, we used linear regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.46|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.46
91005653|NCT06408818|181895632|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes at posttest, we used linear regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.46|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.46
91005654|NCT06408818|181895633|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes at posttest, we used linear regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.20
91005655|NCT06408818|181895634|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes at posttest, we used linear regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.22|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.22
91005656|NCT06408818|181895635|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes at posttest, we used linear regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.48|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.48
91005657|NCT06408818|181895636|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes at posttest, we used linear regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.69
91005658|NCT06408818|181895637|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes at posttest, we used logistic regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.22|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.22
91005659|NCT06408818|181895638|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes at posttest, we used logistic regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect.|Slope|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.57|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.57
91005660|NCT06408818|181895639|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes at posttest, we used linear regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.42|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.42
91005661|NCT06408818|181895640|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes at posttest, we used linear regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.45|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.45
91005662|NCT06408818|181895641|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes at posttest, we used linear regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.39|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.39
91005663|NCT00397631|181895661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.001||95.0|-1.13|-0.65|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, baseline HbA1c||||-0.65|-1.13|<0.001
91005664|NCT00397631|181895662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-22.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.87|<|0.001||95.0|-30.4|-15.2|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, baseline FPG||||-15.2|-30.4|<0.001
91005665|NCT00397631|181895663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-44.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.37|<|0.001||95.0|-57.2|32.2|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, baseline 2-hour PPG||||32.2|-57.2|<0.001
91005666|NCT02202161|181895664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with a fixed effect term for treatment was fitted with the post-Baseline pharmacodynamic parameter value minus Baseline (Day -1 parameter value) as the dependent variable and Baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.61|23.27|||||Comparison for fasting, Day 7|An estimation approach was used.||23.27|-25.61|
91005667|NCT02202161|181895664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with a fixed effect term for treatment was fitted with the post-Baseline pharmacodynamic parameter value minus Baseline (Day -1 parameter value) as the dependent variable and Baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Net)|13.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.84|36.27|||||Comparison for fasting, Day 7|An estimation approach was used.||36.27|-9.84|
91005668|NCT02202161|181895664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with a fixed effect term for treatment was fitted with the post-Baseline pharmacodynamic parameter value minus Baseline (Day -1 parameter value) as the dependent variable and Baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Net)|-21.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.43|-2.1|||||Comparison for fasting, Day 7|An estimation approach was used.||-2.10|-41.43|
91005669|NCT02202161|181895664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with a fixed effect term for treatment was fitted with the post-Baseline pharmacodynamic parameter value minus Baseline (Day -1 parameter value) as the dependent variable and Baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Net)|-23.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.63|-3.57|||||Comparison for fasting, Day 7|An estimation approach was used.||-3.57|-42.63|
91005670|NCT02202161|181895664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with a fixed effect term for treatment was fitted with the post-Baseline pharmacodynamic parameter value minus Baseline (Day -1 parameter value) as the dependent variable and Baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Net)|-11.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.85|7.28|||||Comparison for fasting, Day 7|An estimation approach was used.||7.28|-30.85|
91049649|NCT02944383|181985014|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-15.29||||0.0347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.54|2.35||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||2.35|-36.54|0.0347
91049650|NCT02944383|181985014|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-2.14||||0.3617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.78|23.62||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||23.62|-25.78|0.3617
91049651|NCT02944383|181985015|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0085||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.0085
91049652|NCT02944383|181985015|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2112||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.2112
91005671|NCT02202161|181895664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with a fixed effect term for treatment was fitted with the post-Baseline pharmacodynamic parameter value minus Baseline (Day -1 parameter value) as the dependent variable and Baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Net)|-10.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.66|7.57|||||Comparison for fasting, Day 7|An estimation approach was used.||7.57|-27.66|
91049653|NCT02944383|181985015|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7301||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.7301
91005672|NCT02202161|181895664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with a fixed effect term for treatment was fitted with the post-Baseline pharmacodynamic parameter value minus Baseline (Day -1 parameter value) as the dependent variable and Baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Net)|-15.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.72|7.43|||||Comparison for WM AUC(0-24 hour), Day 7|An estimation approach was used.||7.43|-37.72|
91049654|NCT02944383|181985015|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6283||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.6283
91049655|NCT02944383|181985015|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0919||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.0919
91049656|NCT02944383|181985015|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5497||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.5497
91005673|NCT02202161|181895664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with a fixed effect term for treatment was fitted with the post-Baseline pharmacodynamic parameter value minus Baseline (Day -1 parameter value) as the dependent variable and Baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.66|19.45|||||Comparison for WM AUC(0-24 hour), Day 7|An estimation approach was used.||19.45|-23.66|
91005674|NCT02202161|181895664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with a fixed effect term for treatment was fitted with the post-Baseline pharmacodynamic parameter value minus Baseline (Day -1 parameter value) as the dependent variable and Baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Net)|-20.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.75|-2.57|||||Comparison for WM AUC(0-24 hour), Day 7|An estimation approach was used.||-2.57|-38.75|
91049657|NCT02944383|181985016|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0009||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.0009
91049658|NCT02944383|181985016|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0351||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.0351
91049659|NCT02944383|181985016|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1561||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.1561
91049660|NCT02944383|181985016|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0268||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.0268
91049661|NCT02944383|181985016|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-22.3||||0.0516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.96|-1.67||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||-1.67|-42.96|0.0516
91049662|NCT02944383|181985016|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-13.06||||0.0125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.83|4.88||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||4.88|-32.83|0.0125
91049663|NCT02944383|181985017|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0023||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.0023
91049664|NCT02944383|181985017|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0356||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.0356
91005675|NCT02202161|181895664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with a fixed effect term for treatment was fitted with the post-Baseline pharmacodynamic parameter value minus Baseline (Day -1 parameter value) as the dependent variable and Baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Net)|-21.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.7|-3.71|||||Comparison for WM AUC(0-24 hour), Day 7|An estimation approach was used.||-3.71|-39.70|
91005676|NCT02202161|181895664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with a fixed effect term for treatment was fitted with the post-Baseline pharmacodynamic parameter value minus Baseline (Day -1 parameter value) as the dependent variable and Baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Net)|-10.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.62|7.38|||||Comparison for WM AUC(0-24 hour), Day 7|An estimation approach was used.||7.38|-28.62|
91005677|NCT02202161|181895664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with a fixed effect term for treatment was fitted with the post-Baseline pharmacodynamic parameter value minus Baseline (Day -1 parameter value) as the dependent variable and Baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Net)|-26.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.94|-10.12|||||Comparison for WM AUC(0-24 hour), Day 7|An estimation approach was used.||-10.12|-41.94|
91049665|NCT02944383|181985017|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2284||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.2284
91005678|NCT02202161|181895664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with a fixed effect term for treatment was fitted with the post-Baseline pharmacodynamic parameter value minus Baseline (Day -1 parameter value) as the dependent variable and Baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Net)|-12.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.56|9.36|||||Comparison for fasting, Day 14|An estimation approach was used.||9.36|-33.56|
91049666|NCT02944383|181985017|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0213||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.0213
91049667|NCT02944383|181985017|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.033||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.0330
91049668|NCT02944383|181985017|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0221||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.0221
91049669|NCT02944383|181985018|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-2.67||||0.2632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.17|5.67||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|VLDL||5.67|-10.17|0.2632
91005679|NCT02202161|181895664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with a fixed effect term for treatment was fitted with the post-Baseline pharmacodynamic parameter value minus Baseline (Day -1 parameter value) as the dependent variable and Baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Net)|4.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.91|24.57|||||Comparison for fasting, Day 14|An estimation approach was used.||24.57|-15.91|
91005680|NCT02202161|181895664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with a fixed effect term for treatment was fitted with the post-Baseline pharmacodynamic parameter value minus Baseline (Day -1 parameter value) as the dependent variable and Baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Net)|-25.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.56|-8.02|||||Comparison for fasting, Day 14|An estimation approach was used.||-8.02|-42.56|
91005681|NCT02202161|181895664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with a fixed effect term for treatment was fitted with the post-Baseline pharmacodynamic parameter value minus Baseline (Day -1 parameter value) as the dependent variable and Baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Net)|-19.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.12|-2.82|||||Comparison for fasting, Day 14|An estimation approach was used.||-2.82|-37.12|
91005682|NCT02202161|181895664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with a fixed effect term for treatment was fitted with the post-Baseline pharmacodynamic parameter value minus Baseline (Day -1 parameter value) as the dependent variable and Baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Net)|-21.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.56|-5.08|||||Comparison for fasting, Day 14|An estimation approach was used.||-5.08|-38.56|
91005683|NCT02202161|181895664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with a fixed effect term for treatment was fitted with the post-Baseline pharmacodynamic parameter value minus Baseline (Day -1 parameter value) as the dependent variable and Baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Net)|-18.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.48|-2.55|||||Comparison for fasting, Day 14|An estimation approach was used.||-2.55|-33.48|
91005684|NCT02202161|181895664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with a fixed effect term for treatment was fitted with the post-Baseline pharmacodynamic parameter value minus Baseline (Day -1 parameter value) as the dependent variable and Baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Net)|-11.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.21|10.81|||||Comparison for WM AUC(0-24 hour), Day 14|An estimation approach was used.||10.81|-33.21|
91005685|NCT02202161|181895664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with a fixed effect term for treatment was fitted with the post-Baseline pharmacodynamic parameter value minus Baseline (Day -1 parameter value) as the dependent variable and Baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Net)|4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.22|25.81|||||Comparison for WM AUC(0-24 hour), Day 14|An estimation approach was used.||25.81|-16.22|
91005686|NCT02202161|181895664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with a fixed effect term for treatment was fitted with the post-Baseline pharmacodynamic parameter value minus Baseline (Day -1 parameter value) as the dependent variable and Baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Net)|-15.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.86|2.41|||||Comparison for WM AUC(0-24 hour), Day 14|An estimation approach was used.||2.41|-32.86|
91005687|NCT02202161|181895664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with a fixed effect term for treatment was fitted with the post-Baseline pharmacodynamic parameter value minus Baseline (Day -1 parameter value) as the dependent variable and Baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Net)|-17.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.56|0.53|||||Comparison for WM AUC(0-24 hour), Day 14|An estimation approach was used.||0.53|-34.56|
91005688|NCT02202161|181895664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with a fixed effect term for treatment was fitted with the post-Baseline pharmacodynamic parameter value minus Baseline (Day -1 parameter value) as the dependent variable and Baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Net)|-23.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.49|-6.39|||||Comparison for WM AUC(0-24 hour), Day 14|An estimation approach was used.||-6.39|-41.49|
91005689|NCT02202161|181895664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with a fixed effect term for treatment was fitted with the post-Baseline pharmacodynamic parameter value minus Baseline (Day -1 parameter value) as the dependent variable and Baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Net)|-19.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.96|-3.93|||||Comparison for WM AUC(0-24 hour), Day 14|An estimation approach was used.||-3.93|-34.96|
91005690|NCT02202161|181895679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Each GSK2330672 dose level was compared to placebo using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model of log-transformed values.|Ratio|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.49|||||Mean and confidence interval (CI) for the difference in least squares means (Active-Placebo) are back-transformed to form the point estimate and associated CI for the ratio of geometric means.|||1.49|0.92|
91005691|NCT02202161|181895679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Each GSK2330672 dose level was compared to placebo using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model of log-transformed values.|Ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.89|1.38|||||Mean and CI for the difference in least squares means (Active-Placebo) are back-transformed to form the point estimate and associated CI for the ratio of geometric means.|||1.38|0.89|
91005692|NCT02202161|181895679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Each GSK2330672 dose level was compared to placebo using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model of log-transformed values.|Ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|1.27|||||Mean and CI for the difference in least squares means (Active-Placebo) are back-transformed to form the point estimate and associated CI for the ratio of geometric means.|||1.27|0.87|
91005693|NCT02202161|181895679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Each GSK2330672 dose level was compared to placebo using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model of log-transformed values.|Ratio|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.03|1.52|||||Mean and CI for the difference in least squares means (Active-Placebo) are back-transformed to form the point estimate and associated CI for the ratio of geometric means.|||1.52|1.03|
91005694|NCT02202161|181895679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Each GSK2330672 dose level was compared to placebo using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model of log-transformed values.|Ratio|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.04|1.5|||||Mean and CI for the difference in least squares means (Active-Placebo) are back-transformed to form the point estimate and associated CI for the ratio of geometric means.|||1.50|1.04|
91005695|NCT02202161|181895679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Each GSK2330672 dose level was compared to placebo using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model of log-transformed values.|Ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|1.31|||||Mean and CI for the difference in least squares means (Active-Placebo) are back-transformed to form the point estimate and associated CI for the ratio of geometric means.|||1.31|0.94|
91005696|NCT02202161|181895681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Each GSK2330672 dose level was compared to placebo using an ANOVA model following log-transformation.|Ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.68|1.13|||||Mean and CI for the difference in least squares means (Active-Placebo) are back-transformed to form the point estimate and associated CI for the ratio of geometric means.|||1.13|0.68|
91005697|NCT02202161|181895681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Each GSK2330672 dose level was compared to placebo using an ANOVA model following log-transformation.|Ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.82|1.31|||||Mean and CI for the difference in least squares means (Active-Placebo) are back-transformed to form the point estimate and associated CI for the ratio of geometric means.|||1.31|0.82|
91005698|NCT02202161|181895681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Each GSK2330672 dose level was compared to placebo using an ANOVA model following log-transformation.|Ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|1.26|||||Mean and CI for the difference in least squares means (Active-Placebo) are back-transformed to form the point estimate and associated CI for the ratio of geometric means.|||1.26|0.85|
91005699|NCT02202161|181895681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Each GSK2330672 dose level was compared to placebo using an ANOVA model following log-transformation.|Ratio|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.45|||||Mean and CI for the difference in least squares means (Active-Placebo) are back-transformed to form the point estimate and associated CI for the ratio of geometric means.|||1.45|0.97|
91005700|NCT02202161|181895681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Each GSK2330672 dose level was compared to placebo using an ANOVA model following log-transformation.|Ratio|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.01|1.49|||||Mean and CI for the difference in least squares means (Active-Placebo) are back-transformed to form the point estimate and associated CI for the ratio of geometric means.|||1.49|1.01|
91005701|NCT02202161|181895681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Each GSK2330672 dose level was compared to placebo using an ANOVA model following log-transformation.|Ratio|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.04|1.48|||||Mean and CI for the difference in least squares means (Active-Placebo) are back-transformed to form the point estimate and associated CI for the ratio of geometric means.|||1.48|1.04|
91005702|NCT02202161|181895682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.17|||||Comparison for Day 7, cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||1.17|0.91|
91005703|NCT02202161|181895682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|0.98|||||Comparison for Day 7, cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||0.98|0.78|
91005704|NCT02202161|181895682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|0.95|||||Comparison for Day 7, cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||0.95|0.78|
91049670|NCT02944383|181985018|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|2.02||||0.5382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.77|9.71||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|VLDL||9.71|-6.77|0.5382
91049671|NCT02944383|181985018|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.1727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|1.01||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|LDL||1.01|-0.51|0.1727
91049672|NCT02944383|181985018|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.4567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.51||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|LDL||0.51|-0.51|0.4567
91049673|NCT02944383|181985018|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.6142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|1.47||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|HDL||1.47|-1.21|0.6142
91049674|NCT02944383|181985018|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.2409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|1.29||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|HDL||1.29|-2.23|0.2409
91049675|NCT02944383|181985019|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2721||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||VLDL||||0.2721
91005705|NCT02202161|181895682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.83|||||Comparison for Day 7, cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||0.83|0.68|
91005706|NCT02202161|181895682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.92|||||Comparison for Day 7, cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||0.92|0.76|
91005707|NCT02202161|181895682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.1|||||Comparison for Day 7, cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||1.10|0.92|
91005708|NCT02202161|181895682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.19|||||Comparison for Day 7, HDL cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||1.19|0.95|
91005709|NCT02202161|181895682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.16|||||Comparison for Day 7, HDL cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||1.16|0.94|
91049676|NCT02944383|181985019|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5669||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||VLDL||||0.5669
91005710|NCT02202161|181895682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.05|||||Comparison for Day 7, HDL cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||1.05|0.88|
91005711|NCT02202161|181895682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.07|||||Comparison for Day 7, HDL cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||1.07|0.89|
91005712|NCT02202161|181895682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.17|||||Comparison for Day 7, HDL cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||1.17|0.98|
91049677|NCT02944383|181985019|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1686||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||LDL||||0.1686
91049678|NCT02944383|181985019|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4308||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||LDL||||0.4308
91049679|NCT02944383|181985019|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5495||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||HDL||||0.5495
91049680|NCT02944383|181985019|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2384||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||HDL||||0.2384
91005713|NCT02202161|181895682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.05|||||Comparison for Day 7, HDL cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||1.05|0.90|
91005714|NCT02202161|181895682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.13|||||Comparison for Day 7, LDL cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||1.13|0.80|
91005715|NCT02202161|181895682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.9|||||Comparison for Day 7, LDL cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||0.90|0.65|
91005716|NCT02202161|181895682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.85|||||Comparison for Day 7, LDL cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||0.85|0.64|
91005717|NCT02202161|181895682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.69|||||Comparison for Day 7, LDL cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||0.69|0.51|
91005718|NCT02202161|181895682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.81|||||Comparison for Day 7, LDL cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||0.81|0.62|
91005719|NCT02202161|181895682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.14|||||Comparison for Day 7, LDL cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||1.14|0.89|
91005720|NCT02202161|181895682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.21|||||Comparison for Day 7, non-HDL cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||1.21|0.88|
91005721|NCT02202161|181895682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.95|||||Comparison for Day 7, non-HDL cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||0.95|0.71|
91005722|NCT02202161|181895682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.95|||||Comparison for Day 7, non-HDL cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||0.95|0.74|
91005723|NCT02202161|181895682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.76|||||Comparison for Day 7, non-HDL cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||0.76|0.59|
91005724|NCT02202161|181895682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.87|||||Comparison for Day 7, non-HDL cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||0.87|0.68|
91005725|NCT02202161|181895682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.14|||||Comparison for Day 7, non-HDL cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||1.14|0.92|
91005726|NCT02202161|181895682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.66|||||Comparison for Day 7, triglycerides|An estimation approach was used.||1.66|0.97|
91005727|NCT02202161|181895682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.5|||||Comparison for Day 7, triglycerides|An estimation approach was used.||1.50|0.90|
91005728|NCT02202161|181895682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.61|||||Comparison for Day 7, triglycerides|An estimation approach was used.||1.61|1.06|
91005729|NCT02202161|181895682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.48|||||Comparison for Day 7, triglycerides|An estimation approach was used.||1.48|0.96|
91005730|NCT02202161|181895682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.42|||||Comparison for Day 7, triglycerides|An estimation approach was used.||1.42|0.93|
91005731|NCT02202161|181895682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.16|||||Comparison for Day 7, triglycerides|An estimation approach was used.||1.16|0.79|
91005732|NCT02202161|181895682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.17|||||Comparison for Day 14, cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||1.17|0.86|
91005733|NCT02202161|181895682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.96|||||Comparison for Day 14, cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||0.96|0.73|
91005734|NCT02202161|181895682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.91|||||Comparison for Day 14, cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||0.91|0.73|
91005735|NCT02202161|181895682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.82|||||Comparison for Day 14, cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||0.82|0.66|
91005736|NCT02202161|181895682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.86|||||Comparison for Day 14, cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||0.86|0.69|
91005737|NCT02202161|181895682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.03|||||Comparison for Day 14, cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||1.03|0.84|
91005738|NCT02202161|181895682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.21|||||Comparison for Day 14, HDL cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||1.21|0.99|
91005739|NCT02202161|181895682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.11|||||Comparison for Day 14, HDL cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||1.11|0.93|
91005740|NCT02202161|181895682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.04|||||Comparison for Day 14, HDL cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||1.04|0.90|
91005741|NCT02202161|181895682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.06|||||Comparison for Day 14, HDL cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||1.06|0.92|
91005742|NCT02202161|181895682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.08|||||Comparison for Day 14, HDL cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||1.08|0.94|
91005743|NCT02202161|181895682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.04|||||Comparison for Day 14, HDL cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||1.04|0.92|
91005744|NCT02202161|181895682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.04|||||Comparison for Day 14, LDL cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||1.04|0.69|
91005745|NCT02202161|181895682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.85|||||Comparison for Day 14, LDL cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||0.85|0.58|
91005746|NCT02202161|181895682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.86|||||Comparison for Day 14, LDL cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||0.86|0.62|
91005747|NCT02202161|181895682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.71|||||Comparison for Day 14, LDL cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||0.71|0.50|
91005748|NCT02202161|181895682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.8|||||Comparison for Day 14, LDL cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||0.80|0.59|
91005749|NCT02202161|181895682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.09|||||Comparison for Day 14, LDL cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||1.09|0.81|
91005750|NCT02202161|181895682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.22|||||Comparison for Day 14, non-HDL cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||1.22|0.80|
91005751|NCT02202161|181895682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.93|||||Comparison for Day 14, non-HDL cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||0.93|0.64|
91005752|NCT02202161|181895682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.9|||||Comparison for Day 14, non-HDL cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||0.90|0.67|
91005753|NCT02202161|181895682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.75|||||Comparison for Day 14, non-HDL cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||0.75|0.55|
91005754|NCT02202161|181895682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.81|||||Comparison for Day 14, non-HDL cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||0.81|0.60|
91005755|NCT02202161|181895682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.04|||||Comparison for Day 14, non-HDL cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||1.04|0.80|
91005756|NCT02202161|181895682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|2.0|||||Comparison for Day 14, triglycerides|An estimation approach was used.||2.00|1.01|
91005757|NCT02202161|181895682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.75|||||Comparison for Day 14, triglycerides|An estimation approach was used.||1.75|0.94|
91005758|NCT02202161|181895682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.58|||||Comparison for Day 14, triglycerides|An estimation approach was used.||1.58|0.98|
91005759|NCT02202161|181895682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.56|||||Comparison for Day 14, triglycerides|An estimation approach was used.||1.56|0.95|
91005760|NCT02202161|181895682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.57|||||Comparison for Day 14, triglycerides|An estimation approach was used.||1.57|0.96|
91005761|NCT02202161|181895682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.11|||||Comparison for Day 14, triglycerides|An estimation approach was used.||1.11|0.72|
91005762|NCT02202161|181895683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.11|||||Comparison for Day 7, apolipoprotein B|An estimation approach was used.||1.11|0.87|
91005763|NCT02202161|181895683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.89|||||Comparison for Day 7, apolipoprotein B|An estimation approach was used.||0.89|0.71|
91005764|NCT02202161|181895683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.9|||||Comparison for Day 7, apolipoprotein B|An estimation approach was used.||0.90|0.74|
91005765|NCT02202161|181895683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.77|||||Comparison for Day 7, apolipoprotein B|An estimation approach was used.||0.77|0.63|
91005766|NCT02202161|181895683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.85|||||Comparison for Day 7, apolipoprotein B|An estimation approach was used.||0.85|0.70|
91005767|NCT02202161|181895683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.06|||||Comparison for Day 7, apolipoprotein B|An estimation approach was used.||1.06|0.89|
91005768|NCT02202161|181895683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.07|||||Comparison for Day 14, apolipoprotein B|An estimation approach was used.||1.07|0.77|
91005769|NCT02202161|181895683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.95|||||Comparison for Day 14, apolipoprotein B|An estimation approach was used.||0.95|0.68|
91005770|NCT02202161|181895683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.91|||||Comparison for Day 14, apolipoprotein B|An estimation approach was used.||0.91|0.70|
91005771|NCT02202161|181895683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.77|||||Comparison for Day 14, apolipoprotein B|An estimation approach was used.||0.77|0.58|
91005772|NCT02202161|181895683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.83|||||Comparison for Day 14, apolipoprotein B|An estimation approach was used.||0.83|0.64|
91005773|NCT02202161|181895683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.02|||||Comparison for Day 14, apolipoprotein B|An estimation approach was used.||1.02|0.80|
91005774|NCT03685643|181895689|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91005775|NCT03685643|181895690|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.12
91005776|NCT03685643|181895691|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.19
91005777|NCT03797144|181895693|OTHER|"A paired t-test for normally distributed data was performed to test whether the mean improvement from baseline was significantly greater than 0.~The normality of the data distribution was assessed with the Shapiro-Wilk test."||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||"To verify that the improvement of ODI from Baseline to 3 Month was significantly greater than 0 for each indication subgroup the following statistical analyses were planned.~The null hypothesis was H0: μ\_ODI ≤ 0, and the alternative hypothesis was Ha: μ\_ODI \> 0 where μ\_ODI is the mean improvement of ODI score at 3 months from baseline."||||0.06
91005778|NCT03797144|181895693|OTHER|"A paired t-test for normally distributed data was performed to test whether the mean improvement from baseline was significantly greater than 0.~The normality of the data distribution was assessed with the Shapiro-Wilk test."||||||0.012|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||"To verify that the improvement of ODI from Baseline to 3 Month was significantly greater than 0 for each indication subgroup the following statistical analyses were planned.~The null hypothesis was H0: μ\_ODI ≤ 0, and the alternative hypothesis was Ha: μ\_ODI \> 0 where μ\_ODI is the mean improvement of ODI score at 3 months from baseline."||||0.012
91005779|NCT03797144|181895694|OTHER|"A paired t-test for normally distributed data was performed to test whether the mean improvement from baseline was significantly greater than 0.~The normality of the data distribution was assessed with the Shapiro-Wilk test."||||||0.002||||||Back Pain|t-test, 1 sided|||"To verify that the improvement of VAS from Baseline to 3 Month was significantly greater than 0 for each indication subgroup the following statistical analyses were planned.~The null hypothesis was H0: μ\_VAS ≤ 0, and the alternative hypothesis was Ha: μ\_VAS \> 0 where μ\_VAS is the mean improvement of VAS score at 3 months from baseline."||||0.002
91005780|NCT03797144|181895694|OTHER|"A paired t-test for normally distributed data was performed to test whether the mean improvement from baseline was significantly greater than 0.~The normality of the data distribution was assessed with the Shapiro-Wilk test."|||||<|0.001||||||Back Pain|t-test, 1 sided|||"To verify that the improvement of VAS from Baseline to 3 Month was significantly greater than 0 for each indication subgroup the following statistical analyses were planned.~The null hypothesis was H0: μ\_VAS ≤ 0, and the alternative hypothesis was Ha: μ\_VAS \> 0 where μ\_VAS is the mean improvement of VAS score at 3 months from baseline."||||<0.001
91005781|NCT03797144|181895694|OTHER|"A paired t-test for normally distributed data was performed to test whether the mean improvement from baseline was significantly greater than 0.~The normality of the data distribution was assessed with the Shapiro-Wilk test."|||||<|0.001||||||Leg Pain|t-test, 1 sided|||"To verify that the improvement of VAS from Baseline to 3 Month was significantly greater than 0 for each indication subgroup the following statistical analyses were planned.~The null hypothesis was H0: μ\_VAS ≤ 0, and the alternative hypothesis was Ha: μ\_VAS \> 0 where μ\_VAS is the mean improvement of VAS score at 3 months from baseline."||||<0.001
91005782|NCT03797144|181895694|OTHER|"A paired t-test for normally distributed data was performed to test whether the mean improvement from baseline was significantly greater than 0.~The normality of the data distribution was assessed with the Shapiro-Wilk test."|||||<|0.001||||||Leg Pain|t-test, 1 sided|||"To verify that the improvement of VAS from Baseline to 3 Month was significantly greater than 0 for each indication subgroup the following statistical analyses were planned.~The null hypothesis was H0: μ\_VAS ≤ 0, and the alternative hypothesis was Ha: μ\_VAS \> 0 where μ\_VAS is the mean improvement of VAS score at 3 months from baseline."||||<0.001
91005783|NCT03797144|181895695|OTHER|"A paired t-test for normally distributed data was performed to test whether the mean improvement from baseline was significantly greater than 0.~The normality of the data distribution was assessed with the Shapiro-Wilk test."||||||0.174||||||Health State Score|t-test, 1 sided|||"To verify that the improvement of EQ-5D 5L from Baseline to 3 Month was significantly greater than 0 for each indication subgroup the following statistical analyses were planned.~The null hypothesis was H0: μ\_EQ-5D 5L ≤ 0, and the alternative hypothesis was Ha: μ\_EQ-5D 5L \> 0 where μ\_EQ-5D 5L is the mean improvement of EQ-5D 5L score at 3 months from baseline."||||0.174
91049681|NCT02944383|181985020|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-13.99||||0.0781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.76|2.55||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|VLDL \& Chylomicron particles||2.55|-33.76|0.0781
91049682|NCT02944383|181985020|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-2.1||||0.9901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.36|19.01||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|VLDL \& Chylomicron particles||19.01|-19.36|0.9901
91049683|NCT02944383|181985020|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-25.23||||0.0717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.62|-5.1||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|LDL Particles||-5.10|-43.62|0.0717
91049684|NCT02944383|181985020|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-16.09||||0.1548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.78|3.76||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|LDL Particles||3.76|-36.78|0.1548
91049685|NCT02944383|181985020|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-47.16||||0.0428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-119.58|-5.78||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|IDL Particles||-5.78|-119.58|0.0428
91005784|NCT03797144|181895695|OTHER|"A paired t-test for normally distributed data was performed to test whether the mean improvement from baseline was significantly greater than 0.~The normality of the data distribution was assessed with the Shapiro-Wilk test."||||||0.002||||||Health State Score|t-test, 1 sided|||"To verify that the improvement of EQ-5D 5L from Baseline to 3 Month was significantly greater than 0 for each indication subgroup the following statistical analyses were planned.~The null hypothesis was H0: μ\_EQ-5D 5L ≤ 0, and the alternative hypothesis was Ha: μ\_EQ-5D 5L \> 0 where μ\_EQ-5D 5L is the mean improvement of EQ-5D 5L score at 3 months from baseline."||||0.002
91005785|NCT03797144|181895695|OTHER|"A paired t-test for normally distributed data was performed to test whether the mean improvement from baseline was significantly greater than 0.~The normality of the data distribution was assessed with the Shapiro-Wilk test."||||||0.003||||||Index score|t-test, 1 sided|||"To verify that the improvement of EQ-5D 5L from Baseline to 3 Month was significantly greater than 0 for each indication subgroup the following statistical analyses were planned.~The null hypothesis was H0: μ\_EQ-5D 5L ≤ 0, and the alternative hypothesis was Ha: μ\_EQ-5D 5L \> 0 where μ\_EQ-5D 5L is the mean improvement of EQ-5D 5L score at 3 months from baseline."||||0.003
91005786|NCT03797144|181895695|OTHER|"A paired t-test for normally distributed data was performed to test whether the mean improvement from baseline was significantly greater than 0.~The normality of the data distribution was assessed with the Shapiro-Wilk test."||||||0.012||||||Index score|t-test, 1 sided|||"To verify that the improvement of EQ-5D 5L from Baseline to 3 Month was significantly greater than 0 for each indication subgroup the following statistical analyses were planned.~The null hypothesis was H0: μ\_EQ-5D 5L ≤ 0, and the alternative hypothesis was Ha: μ\_EQ-5D 5L \> 0 where μ\_EQ-5D 5L is the mean improvement of EQ-5D 5L score at 3 months from baseline."||||0.012
91049686|NCT02944383|181985020|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-26.13||||0.1836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-121.44|19.48||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|IDL Particles||19.48|-121.44|0.1836
91049687|NCT02944383|181985021|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1251||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||VLDL \& Chylomicron Particles||||0.1251
91049688|NCT02944383|181985021|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9047||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||VLDL \& Chylomicron Particles||||0.9047
91005787|NCT03299166|181895718|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.2202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.59|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Model-based summary statistics are from a mixed model with repeated measures, including fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score, baseline score-by-visit interaction as covariates, and participant as random effect.||0.60|-2.59|0.2202
91049689|NCT02944383|181985021|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0788||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||LDL Particles||||0.0788
91005788|NCT03299166|181895725|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.4508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|0.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 4 Analysis.~Model-based summary statistics are from a mixed model with repeated measures, including fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score, baseline score-by-visit interaction as covariates, and participant as random effect."||0.75|-1.67|0.4508
91005789|NCT03299166|181895725|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.02|-0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 8 Analysis.~Model-based summary statistics are from a mixed model with repeated measures, including fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score, baseline score-by-visit interaction as covariates, and participant as random effect."||-0.06|-3.02|0.0410
91049690|NCT02944383|181985021|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1222||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||LDL Particles||||0.1222
91005790|NCT03296072|181895732|OTHER||Difference of Least Square mean|7.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.18|10.19|||ANOVA|From ANOVA with fixed factors for study period and treatment, and a random effect for participant.|Difference is first-named treatment minus second-named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|||10.19|5.18|<.0001
91049691|NCT02944383|181985021|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0734||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||IDL Particles||||0.0734
91049692|NCT02944383|181985021|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.421||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||IDL Particles||||0.4210
91049693|NCT02944383|181985022|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.43||||0.9672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.12|9.07||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|||9.07|-8.12|0.9672
91005791|NCT03296072|181895733|OTHER||Difference of Least Square mean|33.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.89|37.68|||ANOVA|From ANOVA with fixed factors for study period and treatment, and a random effect for participant.|Difference is first-named treatment minus second-named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|||37.68|28.89|<.0001
91005792|NCT03296072|181895734|OTHER||Difference of Least Square mean|1.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|2.04|||ANOVA|From ANOVA with fixed factors for study period and treatment, and a random effect for participant.|Difference is first-named treatment minus second-named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|||2.04|1.59|<.0001
91049694|NCT02944383|181985022|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|1.58||||0.7993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.31|8.69||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|||8.69|-5.31|0.7993
91049695|NCT02944383|181985023|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8602||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||||||0.8602
91049696|NCT02944383|181985023|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8555||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||||||0.8555
91049697|NCT02944383|181985024|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0583||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.0583
91005793|NCT03296072|181895735|OTHER||Difference of Least Square mean|7.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.07|11.07|||ANOVA|From ANOVA with fixed factors for study period and treatment, and a random effect for participant.|Difference is first-named treatment minus second-named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|||11.07|5.07|<.0001
91005794|NCT03296072|181895736|OTHER||Difference of Least Square mean|10.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.58|15.37|||ANOVA|From ANOVA with fixed factors for study period and treatment, and a random effect for participant.|Difference is first-named treatment minus second-named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|||15.37|6.58|<.0001
91005795|NCT03296072|181895737|OTHER||Difference of Least Square mean|0.97|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.2|||ANOVA|From ANOVA with fixed factors for study period and treatment, and a random effect for participant.|Difference is first-named treatment minus second-named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|||1.20|0.75|<.0001
91049698|NCT02944383|181985024|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2289||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.2289
91005796|NCT02583360|181895738|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.008
91005797|NCT02583360|181895739|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.907|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.907
91005798|NCT02583360|181895740|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.592|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.592
91005799|NCT00126425|181895744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.44|||=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.83||At 0.025 level of significance.|Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||"Analysis based on Reader A readings. Data analysis to assess the relative hazard of an adverse cardiac event was performed using a Cox proportional hazards model. Hazard (risk) of an event for a participant with low H/M at time t was expressed as Hl (t)/ Hh (t) = Ψ, where Hl (t) and Hh (t) denote the hazard of an event at time t for participants with low H/M and high H/M respectively."||0.83|0.23|=0.004
91005800|NCT00126425|181895744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.44|||=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.84||At 0.025 level of significance.|Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||"Analysis based on Reader B readings. Data analysis to assess the relative hazard of an adverse cardiac event was performed using a Cox proportional hazards model. Hazard (risk) of an event for a participant with low H/M at time t was expressed as Hl (t)/ Hh (t) = Ψ, where Hl (t) and Hh (t) denote the hazard of an event at time t for participants with low H/M and high H/M respectively."||0.84|0.23|=0.004
91049699|NCT02944383|181985024|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0416||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.0416
91049700|NCT02944383|181985024|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.0150
91005801|NCT00126425|181895744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.44|||=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.84||At 0.025 level of significance.|Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||"Analysis based on Reader C readings. Data analysis to assess the relative hazard of an adverse cardiac event was performed using a Cox proportional hazards model. Hazard (risk) of an event for a participant with low H/M at time t was expressed as Hl (t)/ Hh (t) = Ψ, where Hl (t) and Hh (t) denote the hazard of an event at time t for participants with low H/M and high H/M respectively."||0.84|0.23|=0.004
91005802|NCT01855919|181895751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.16|-0.77|0.0026
91005803|NCT01855919|181895752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.10|-0.48|0.0026
91005804|NCT01855919|181895753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.64||||0.0439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||||-0.02|-1.25|0.0439
91005805|NCT01855919|181895754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.06||p-value is for worst pain|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.06|-0.66|0.1010
91005806|NCT01855919|181895754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.21||p-value is for least pain|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.21|-0.79|0.0009
91049701|NCT02944383|181985024|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-26.21||||0.0718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.29|-1.26||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||-1.26|-54.29|0.0718
91005807|NCT01855919|181895754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.05||p-value is for Pain Right Now|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.05|-0.74|0.0230
91005808|NCT01855919|181895754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31||||0.0874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.05||p-value is for General Activity|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.05|-0.66|0.0874
91005809|NCT01855919|181895754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32||||0.0436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.01||p-value is for Mood|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.01|-0.63|0.0436
91005810|NCT01855919|181895754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.3902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.18||p-value is for Walking Ability|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.18|-0.45|0.3902
91005811|NCT01855919|181895754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.33||p-value is for Normal Work|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.33|-0.33|0.9910
91005812|NCT01855919|181895754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.7848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.23||p-value is for Relationship People|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.23|-0.30|0.7848
91005813|NCT01855919|181895754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.9424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.3||p-value is for Sleep|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.30|-0.32|0.9424
91005814|NCT01855919|181895754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.7932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.27||p-value is for Enjoyment of Life|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.27|-0.35|0.7932
91005815|NCT01855919|181895754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.3761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.15||p-value is for Average of 7 Items|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.15|-0.40|0.3761
91005816|NCT01855919|181895755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.13||p-value is for Average Pain|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.13|-0.71|0.0049
91005817|NCT01855919|181895755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35||||0.0442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.01||p-value is for Worst pain|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.01|-0.69|0.0442
91005818|NCT01855919|181895756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.31||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|1.53||p-value is for ≥30%|Mantel Haenszel|||||1.53|1.13|0.0003
91005819|NCT01855919|181895756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.43||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|1.75||p-value is for ≥50%|Mantel Haenszel|||||1.75|1.18|0.0003
91049702|NCT02944383|181985024|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-18.68||||0.1248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.0|7.31||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||7.31|-50.00|0.1248
91005820|NCT01855919|181895757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.33||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.58|||Mantel Haenszel|||||1.58|1.12|0.0012
91005821|NCT01855919|181895758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.10|-0.46|0.0019
91005822|NCT01855919|181895759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35||||0.3012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|0.32|||ANCOVA|||||0.32|-1.03|0.3012
91005823|NCT01855919|181895760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.27||||0.2581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|3.47||p-value for Physical Functioning|ANCOVA|||||3.47|-0.93|0.2581
91005824|NCT01855919|181895760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.58||||0.7208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.62|3.79||p-value for Role (Physical)|ANCOVA|||||3.79|-2.62|0.7208
91005825|NCT01855919|181895760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.55||||0.2487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|4.19||p-value for Bodily Pain|ANCOVA|||||4.19|-1.09|0.2487
91005826|NCT01855919|181895760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.94||||0.0151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|5.31||p-value for General Health|ANCOVA|||||5.31|0.57|0.0151
91005827|NCT01855919|181895760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.16||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|3.85||p-value for Vitality|ANCOVA|||||3.85|-1.54|0.4000
91005828|NCT01855919|181895760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.63||||0.2529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|4.43||p-value for Social Functioning|ANCOVA|||||4.43|-1.17|0.2529
91005829|NCT01855919|181895760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.8042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.55|2.75||p-value for Role(Emotional)|ANCOVA|||||2.75|-3.55|0.8042
91005830|NCT01855919|181895760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.21||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|5.48||p-value is for Mental Health|ANCOVA|||||5.48|0.94|0.0058
91005831|NCT01855919|181895761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.5237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.03|||ANCOVA|||||0.03|-0.02|0.5237
91005832|NCT01855919|181895762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.0||p-value for Work time missed|ANCOVA|||||0.00|-0.05|0.0460
91005833|NCT01855919|181895762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.0753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.0||p-value for Impairment at work|ANCOVA|||||0.00|-0.08|0.0753
91005834|NCT01855919|181895762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.0795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.0||p-value for Work productivity loss|ANCOVA|||||0.00|-0.08|0.0795
91005835|NCT01855919|181895762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.1466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.01||p-value for Work activity impairment|ANCOVA|||||0.01|-0.06|0.1466
91005836|NCT03455530|181895770|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.19|||Mixed Models Analysis||Ratio based on the mean difference from the log scale.|||1.19|0.45|
91005837|NCT03455530|181895770|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|3.24|||Mixed Models Analysis||Ratio based on the mean difference from the log scale.|||3.24|0.55|
91049703|NCT02944383|181985025|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2397||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.2397
91005838|NCT02043704|181895773|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the pain scores between the groups.||||||0.328||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|There were no adjustments.||The comparison was analyzed using the Mann-Whitney U test.||||0.328
91005839|NCT03958149|181895797|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Independent t-test|||||||<0.001
91005840|NCT03958149|181895798|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Factorial Mixed ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91005841|NCT03031327|181895820|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.9||||0.3474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|9.1|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance for repeated measures||Dryness - Study eye - Day 15±2 The model included fixed effect terms for time point, baseline covariate (i.e. the day 1 - pre-dose value) and treatment. Time point was specified as a repeated measurement.||9.1|-3.3|0.3474
91005842|NCT03031327|181895820|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||0.1327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|4.3|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Dryness - Study eye - Day 15±2||4.3|-8.2|0.1327
91005843|NCT03031327|181895820|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.8||||0.1327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|1.6|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Dryness - Study eye - Day 15±2||1.6|-11.2|0.1327
91005844|NCT03031327|181895820|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.8||||0.2237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|10.0|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Foreign body sensation - Study eye - Day 15±2||10.0|-2.5|0.2237
91005845|NCT03031327|181895820|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1||||0.4905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|4.1|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Foreign body sensation - Study eye - Day 15±2||4.1|-8.4|0.4905
91005846|NCT03031327|181895820|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.9||||0.0687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|0.5|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Foreign body sensation - Study eye - Day 15±2||0.5|-12.3|0.0687
91005847|NCT03031327|181895820|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.7609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|5.6|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Burning/Stinging - Study eye - Day 15±2||5.6|-4.2|0.7609
91005848|NCT03031327|181895820|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.6428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|3.8|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Burning/Stinging - Study eye - Day 15±2||3.8|-6.0|0.6428
91005849|NCT03031327|181895820|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.4599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|3.2|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Burning/Stinging - Study eye - Day 15±2||3.2|-6.9|0.4599
91005850|NCT03031327|181895820|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0||||0.4217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|10.5|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Itching - Study eye - Day 15±2||10.5|-4.6|0.4217
91005851|NCT03031327|181895820|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.503||||-2.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|5.0|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Itching - Study eye - Day 15±2||5.0|-10.0|-2.5
91005852|NCT03031327|181895820|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.4599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|3.2|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Itching - Study eye - Day 15±2||3.2|-6.9|0.4599
91005853|NCT03031327|181895820|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.6157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|4.4|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Pain - Study eye - Day 15±2||4.4|-2.6|0.6157
91005854|NCT03031327|181895820|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|3.3|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Pain - Study eye - Day 15±2||3.3|-3.7|0.9120
91005855|NCT03031327|181895820|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.5463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|2.5|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Pain - Study eye - Day 15±2||2.5|-4.6|0.5463
91005856|NCT03031327|181895820|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.9065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|5.3|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Sticky Feeling - Study eye - Day 15±2||5.3|-5.9|0.9065
91005857|NCT03031327|181895820|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.5065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|3.7|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Sticky Feeling - Study eye - Day 15±2||3.7|-7.3|0.5065
91005858|NCT03031327|181895820|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.5977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|4.2|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Sticky Feeling - Study eye - Day 15±2||4.2|-7.1|0.5977
91005859|NCT03031327|181895820|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2||||0.2785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|1.9|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Blurred Vision - Study eye - Day 15±2||1.9|-6.3|0.2785
91049704|NCT02944383|181985025|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5399||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.5399
91005860|NCT03031327|181895820|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.7454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|3.3|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Blurred vision - Study eye - Day 15±2||3.3|-4.6|0.7454
91005861|NCT03031327|181895820|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6||||0.4588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|5.9|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Blurred vision - Study eye - Day 15±2||5.9|-2.7|0.4588
91005862|NCT03031327|181895820|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.3||||0.2812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|12.3|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Photophobia - Study eye - Day 15±2||12.3|-3.7|0.2812
91005863|NCT03031327|181895820|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6||||0.6811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|9.8|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Photophobia - Study eye - Day 15±2||9.8|-6.5|0.6811
91005864|NCT03031327|181895820|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.6||||0.5169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|5.6|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Photophobia - Study eye - Day 15±2||5.6|-10.8|0.5169
91005865|NCT03031327|181895820|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.7874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|7.8|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Dryness - Non Study eye - Day 15±2||7.8|-5.9|0.7874
91005866|NCT03031327|181895820|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.8299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|6.1|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Dryness - Non Study eye - Day 15±2||6.1|-7.6|0.8299
91005867|NCT03031327|181895820|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6||||0.6386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|5.4|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Dryness - Non Study eye - Day 15±2||5.4|-8.7|0.6386
91005868|NCT03031327|181895820|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.7||||0.0132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|10.2|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Foreign body sensation - Non Study eye - Day 15±2||10.2|1.3|0.0132
91005869|NCT03031327|181895820|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.7177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|3.7|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Foreign body sensation - Non Study eye - Day 15±2||3.7|-5.3|0.7177
91005870|NCT03031327|181895820|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.5||||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|-1.9|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Foreign body sensation - Non Study eye - Day 15±2||-1.9|-11.2|0.0077
91005871|NCT03031327|181895820|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.3||||0.0301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|10.0|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Burning/Stinging - Non Study eye - Day 15±2||10.0|0.6|0.0301
91005872|NCT03031327|181895820|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.8657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|5.1|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Burning/Stinging - Non Study eye - Day 15±2||5.1|-4.3|0.8657
91005873|NCT03031327|181895820|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.9||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|-0.1|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Burning/Stinging - Non Study eye - Day 15±2||-0.1|-9.7|0.0440
91005874|NCT03031327|181895820|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.1||||0.1351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|9.6|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Itching - Non Study eye - Day 15±2||9.6|-1.4|0.1351
91005875|NCT03031327|181895820|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.8821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|5.2|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Itching - Non Study eye - Day 15±2||5.2|-6.0|0.8821
91005876|NCT03031327|181895820|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.5||||0.1208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|1.3|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Itching - Non Study eye - Day 15±2||1.3|-10.3|0.1208
91005877|NCT03031327|181895820|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|3.5|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Pain - Non Study eye - Day 15±2||3.5|-3.3|0.9440
91005878|NCT03031327|181895820|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.4903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|4.5|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Pain - Non Study eye - Day 15±2||4.5|-2.2|0.4903
91005879|NCT03031327|181895820|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.5364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|4.3|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Pain - Non Study eye - Day 15±2||4.3|-2.3|0.5364
91005880|NCT03031327|181895820|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|5.7|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Sticky feeling - Non Study eye - Day 15±2||5.7|-2.9|0.5100
91005881|NCT03031327|181895820|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.5||||0.1132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|7.8|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Sticky feeling - Non Study eye - Day 15±2||7.8|-0.9|0.1132
91005882|NCT03031327|181895820|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1||||0.3457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|6.5|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Sticky feeling - Non Study eye - Day 15±2||6.5|-2.4|0.3457
91005883|NCT03031327|181895820|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.3||||0.0185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|7.9|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Blurred vision - Non Study eye - Day 15±2||7.9|0.8|0.0185
91005884|NCT03031327|181895820|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.6||||0.0408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|7.1|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Blurred vision - Non Study eye - Day 15±2||7.1|0.2|0.0408
91005885|NCT03031327|181895820|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.6992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|3.0|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Blurred vision - Non Study eye - Day 15±2||3.0|-4.4|0.6992
91005886|NCT03031327|181895820|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.9||||0.0905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|12.8|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Photophobia - Non Study eye - Day 15±2||12.8|-1.0|0.0905
91005887|NCT03031327|181895820|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.5||||0.3054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|10.4|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Photophobia - Non Study eye - Day 15±2||10.4|-3.4|0.3054
91005888|NCT03031327|181895820|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5024||||0.5024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|4.8|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Photophobia - Non Study eye - Day 15±2||4.8|-9.6|0.5024
91005889|NCT03031327|181895822|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.1226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.8|||Student t-test pooled|Student t-test with pool method for estimating common variance on changes from baseline in ocular surface vital staining||Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||0.8|-0.1|0.1226
91005890|NCT03031327|181895822|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.2854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.7|||Student t-test pooled|Student t-test with pool method for estimating common variance on changes from baseline in ocular surface vital staining||Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||0.7|-0.2|0.2854
91005891|NCT03031327|181895822|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.6525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.4|||Student t-test pooled|Student t-test pooled method for estimating common variance on changes from baseline in ocular surface vital staining -||Student t-test on changes from baseline in ocular surface vital staining - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||0.4|-0.6|0.6525
91005892|NCT03031327|181895822|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.8843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.5|||Student t-test pooled|Student t-test pooled method for estimating common variance on changes from baseline in ocular surface vital staining -||Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||0.5|-0.4|0.8843
91005893|NCT03031327|181895822|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.0806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.0|||Student t-test pooled|Student t-test pooled method for estimating common variance on changes from baseline in ocular surface vital staining||Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||0.0|-0.6|0.0806
91005894|NCT03031327|181895822|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.0628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.0|||Student t-test pooled|Student t-test pooled method for estimating common variance on changes from baseline in ocular surface vital staining||Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||0.0|-0.7|0.0628
91005895|NCT03031327|181895823|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.2004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.9|||Student t-test pooled|Pooled method for estimating common variance was used||Student t-test on changes from baseline in Schirmer-I test - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||0.9|-0.2|0.2004
91005896|NCT03031327|181895823|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.5413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.6|||Student t-test pooled|Pooled method for estimating common variance was used||Student t-test on changes from baseline in Schirmer-I test - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||0.6|-0.3|0.5413
91005897|NCT03031327|181895823|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.4607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.4|||Student t-test pooled|Pooled method for estimating common variance was used||Student t-test on changes from baseline in Schirmer-I test - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||0.4|-0.8|0.4607
91005898|NCT03031327|181895823|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.1248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.4|||Student t-test pooled|Pooled method for estimating common variance was used||Student t-test on changes from baseline in Schirmer-I test - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||1.4|-0.2|0.1248
91005899|NCT03031327|181895823|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.0624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.1|||Student t-test pooled|Pooled method for estimating common variance was used||Student t-test on changes from baseline in Schirmer-I test - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||1.1|0.0|0.0624
91005900|NCT03031327|181895823|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.7927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.8|||Student t-test pooled|Pooled method for estimating common variance was used||Student t-test on changes from baseline in Schirmer-I test - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||0.8|-1.0|0.7927
91005901|NCT03031327|181895824|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.9717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.7|||Student t-test pooled|Pooled method for estimating common variance was used||Student t-test on changes from baseline in TFBUT - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||0.7|-0.6|0.9717
91005902|NCT03031327|181895824|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.7386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.9|||Student t-test pooled|Pooled method for estimating common variance was used||Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||0.9|-0.6|0.7386
91005903|NCT03031327|181895824|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.7498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.8|||Student t-test pooled|Pooled method for estimating common variance was used||Student t-test on changes from baseline in TFBUT - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||0.8|-0.6|0.7498
91005904|NCT03031327|181895824|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.3229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.4|||Student t-test pooled|Pooled method for estimating common variance was used||Student t-test on changes from baseline in TFBUT - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||0.4|-1.1|0.3229
91005905|NCT03031327|181895824|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.9|||Student t-test pooled|Pooled method for estimating common variance was used||Student t-test on changes from baseline in TFBUT - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||0.9|-0.5|0.5700
91005906|NCT03031327|181895824|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.1197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.3|||Student t-test pooled|Pooled method for estimating common variance was used||Student t-test on changes from baseline in TFBUT - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||1.3|-0.2|0.1197
91005907|NCT03031327|181895825|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.8787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.6|||Student t-test pooled|||Student t-test on changes from baseline in BCDVA - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||0.6|-0.6|0.8787
91005908|NCT03031327|181895825|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.8159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.7|||Student t-test pooled|||Student t-test on changes from baseline in BCDVA - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||0.7|-0.5|0.8159
91005909|NCT03031327|181895825|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.6525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.6|||Student t-test pooled|||Student t-test on changes from baseline in BCDVA - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||0.6|-0.4|0.6525
91005910|NCT03031327|181895825|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.4|||Student t-test pooled|||Student t-test on changes from baseline in BCDVA - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||0.4|-1.0|0.3340
91005911|NCT03031327|181895825|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.9749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.7|||Student t-test pooled|||Student t-test on changes from baseline in BCDVA - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||0.7|-0.7|0.9749
91005912|NCT03031327|181895825|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.1984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.9|||Student t-test pooled|||Student t-test on changes from baseline in BCDVA - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||0.9|-0.2|0.1984
91005913|NCT03031327|181895826|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0||||0.6497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|16.4|||Student t-test pooled|Pooled method for estimating common variance was used||Student t-test on changes from baseline in SANDE scores - Frequency of symptoms - Day 15±2 pre-dose||16.4|-10.5|0.6497
91005914|NCT03031327|181895826|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.9||||0.1443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|2.6|||Student t-test pooled|Pooled method for estimating common variance was used||Student t-test on changes from baseline in SANDE scores - Frequency of symptoms - Day 15±2 pre-dose||2.6|-16.5|0.1443
91005915|NCT03031327|181895826|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.9||||0.0751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.9|1.1|||Student t-test pooled|Pooled method for estimating common variance was used||Student t-test on changes from baseline in SANDE scores - Frequency of symptoms - Day 15±2 pre-dose||1.1|-20.9|0.0751
91005916|NCT03031327|181895826|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.8||||0.5015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|15.5|||Student t-test pooled|Pooled method for estimating common variance was used||Student t-test on changes from baseline in SANDE scores - Severity of symptoms - Day 15±2 pre-dose||15.5|-7.9|0.5015
91005917|NCT03031327|181895826|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.1||||0.3217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|4.4|||Student t-test pooled|Pooled method for estimating common variance was used||Student t-test on changes from baseline in SANDE scores - Severity of symptoms - Day 15±2 pre-dose||4.4|-12.5|0.3217
91049705|NCT02944383|181985025|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0409||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.0409
91049706|NCT02944383|181985025|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0073||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.0073
91005918|NCT03031327|181895826|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.9||||0.1026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|1.8|||Student t-test pooled|Pooled method for estimating common variance was used||Student t-test on changes from baseline in SANDE scores - Severity of symptoms - Day 15±2 pre-dose||1.8|-17.5|0.1026
91005919|NCT03031327|181895827|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Eyelid - Meibomian Glands - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
91005920|NCT03031327|181895827|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Eyelid - Meibomian Glands - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
91005921|NCT03031327|181895827|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Eyelid - Meibomian Glands - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
91005922|NCT03031327|181895827|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4101|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Eyelid - Meibomian Glands - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||0.4101
91005923|NCT03031327|181895827|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4101|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Eyelid - Meibomian Glands - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||0.4101
91005924|NCT03031327|181895827|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Eyelid - Meibomian Glands - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
91005925|NCT03031327|181895827|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4101|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Eyelid - Erythema - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||0.4101
91005926|NCT03031327|181895827|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4101|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Eyelid - Erythema - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||0.4101
91005927|NCT03031327|181895827|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Eyelid - Erythema - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
91005928|NCT03031327|181895827|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4101|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Eyelid - Erythema - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||0.4101
91005929|NCT03031327|181895827|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4101|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Eyelid - Erythema - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||0.4101
91005930|NCT03031327|181895827|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Eyelid - Erythema - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
91005931|NCT03031327|181895827|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Eyelid - Oedema - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
91005932|NCT03031327|181895827|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Eyelid - Oedema - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
91005933|NCT03031327|181895827|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Eyelid - Oedema - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
91005934|NCT03031327|181895827|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Eyelid - Oedema - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
91005935|NCT03031327|181895827|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Eyelid - Oedema - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
91005936|NCT03031327|181895827|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Eyelid - Oedema - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
91005937|NCT03031327|181895827|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Lashes - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
91005938|NCT03031327|181895827|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Lashes - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
91005939|NCT03031327|181895827|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Lashes - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
91005940|NCT03031327|181895827|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Lashes - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
91005941|NCT03031327|181895827|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Lashes - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
91005942|NCT03031327|181895827|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Lashes - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
91005943|NCT03031327|181895827|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5267|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Conjunctiva - Erythema - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||0.5267
91005944|NCT03031327|181895827|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2633|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Conjunctiva - Erythema - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||0.2633
91005945|NCT03031327|181895827|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6552|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Conjunctiva - Erythema - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||0.6552
91005946|NCT03031327|181895827|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1262|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Conjunctiva - Erythema - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||0.1262
91005947|NCT03031327|181895827|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2094|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Conjunctiva - Erythema - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||0.2094
91005948|NCT03031327|181895827|SUPERIORITY||Hodges Lehmann estimation|-1.0||||0.0377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Conjunctiva - Erythema - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||0.0|-1.0|0.0377
91005949|NCT03031327|181895827|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Conjunctiva - Oedema - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
91005950|NCT03031327|181895827|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Conjunctiva - Oedema - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
91005951|NCT03031327|181895827|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Conjunctiva - Oedema - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
91005952|NCT03031327|181895827|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Conjunctiva - Oedema - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
91005953|NCT03031327|181895827|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Conjunctiva - Oedema - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
91049707|NCT02944383|181985025|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0976||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.0976
91005954|NCT03031327|181895827|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Conjunctiva - Oedema - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
91005955|NCT03031327|181895827|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Lens - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
91005956|NCT03031327|181895827|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Lens - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
91005957|NCT03031327|181895827|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Lens - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
91049708|NCT02944383|181985025|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1899||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.1899
91005958|NCT03031327|181895827|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Lens - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
91005959|NCT03031327|181895827|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Lens - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
91005960|NCT03031327|181895827|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Lens - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
91005961|NCT03031327|181895827|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Iris - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
91005962|NCT03031327|181895827|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Iris - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
91005963|NCT03031327|181895827|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Iris - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
91005964|NCT03031327|181895827|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Iris - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
91005965|NCT03031327|181895827|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Iris - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
91005966|NCT03031327|181895827|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Iris - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
91005967|NCT03031327|181895827|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Anterior chamber inflammation - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
91005968|NCT03031327|181895827|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Anterior chamber inflammation - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
91005969|NCT03031327|181895827|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Anterior chamber inflammation - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
91005970|NCT03031327|181895827|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Anterior chamber inflammation - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
91005971|NCT03031327|181895827|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Anterior chamber inflammation - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
91005972|NCT03031327|181895827|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Anterior chamber inflammation - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
91005973|NCT03031327|181895827|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Cornea transparency - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
91049709|NCT02944383|181985026|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1747||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.1747
91005974|NCT03031327|181895827|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Cornea transparency - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
91005975|NCT03031327|181895827|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Cornea transparency - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
91005976|NCT03031327|181895827|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Cornea transparency - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
91005977|NCT03031327|181895827|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Cornea transparency - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
91005978|NCT03031327|181895827|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Cornea transparency - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
91005979|NCT03031327|181895827|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Cornea neovascularization - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
91049710|NCT02944383|181985026|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4576||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.4576
91005980|NCT03031327|181895827|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Cornea neovascularization - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
91005981|NCT03031327|181895827|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Cornea neovascularization - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
91005982|NCT03031327|181895827|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Cornea neovascularization - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
91005983|NCT03031327|181895827|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Cornea neovascularization - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
91005984|NCT03031327|181895827|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Cornea neovascularization - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
91049711|NCT02944383|181985026|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1549||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.1549
91049712|NCT02944383|181985026|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2427||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.2427
91049713|NCT02944383|181985026|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|1.51||||0.1379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.26|8.73||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||8.73|-6.26|0.1379
91049714|NCT02944383|181985026|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-6.02||||0.249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|0.51||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||0.51|-13.10|0.2490
91005985|NCT03031327|181895828|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.5842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.6|||Student t-test pooled|Pooled method for estimating common variance was used||Student t-test on changes from baseline in IOP - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||2.6|-1.5|0.5842
91005986|NCT03031327|181895828|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.4606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.0|||Student t-test pooled|Pooled method for estimating common variance was used||Student t-test on changes from baseline in IOP - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||1.0|-2.2|0.4606
91049715|NCT02944383|181985027|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.155||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.1550
91049716|NCT02944383|181985027|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6604||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.6604
91005987|NCT03031327|181895828|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.2319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|0.8|||Student t-test pooled|Pooled method for estimating common variance was used||Student t-test on changes from baseline in IOP - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||0.8|-3.0|0.2319
91005988|NCT03031327|181895828|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.6018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.4|||Student t-test pooled|Pooled method for estimating common variance was used||Student t-test on changes from baseline in IOP - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||1.4|-2.3|0.6018
91005989|NCT03031327|181895828|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.4857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.1|||Student t-test pooled|Pooled method for estimating common variance was used||Student t-test on changes from baseline in IOP - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||1.1|-2.2|0.4857
91005990|NCT03031327|181895828|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.9015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.8|||Student t-test pooled|Pooled method for estimating common variance was used||Student t-test on changes from baseline in IOP - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||1.8|-2.0|0.9015
91005991|NCT03031327|181895829|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.3574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.3|||Student t-test pooled|Pooled method for estimating common variance was used||Student t-test on changes from baseline in corneal sensitivity - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||0.3|-0.1|0.3574
91049717|NCT02944383|181985027|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0952||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.0952
91049718|NCT02944383|181985027|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3006||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.3006
91049719|NCT02944383|181985027|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0642||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.0642
91049720|NCT02944383|181985027|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3185||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.3185
91049721|NCT02944383|181985028|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0679||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.0679
91049722|NCT02944383|181985028|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4126||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.4126
91049723|NCT02944383|181985028|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0095||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.0095
91049724|NCT02944383|181985028|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0172||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.0172
91049725|NCT02944383|181985028|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-23.23||||0.0359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.54|-3.64||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||-3.64|-41.54|0.0359
91049726|NCT02944383|181985028|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-16.06||||0.0812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.62|5.61||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||5.61|-38.62|0.0812
91049727|NCT02944383|181985029|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1362||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.1362
91005992|NCT03031327|181895829|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.3574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.3|||Student t-test pooled|Pooled method for estimating common variance was used||Student t-test on changes from baseline in corneal sensitivity - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||0.3|-0.1|0.3574
91005993|NCT03031327|181895829|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||P-value is NA due to the measured values of corneal sensitivity equal to zero.|Student t-test pooled|Pooled method for estimating common variance was used||Student t-test on changes from baseline in corneal sensitivity - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||0.0|0.0|00
91049728|NCT02944383|181985029|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6458||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.6458
91049729|NCT02944383|181985029|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0209||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.0209
91049730|NCT02944383|181985029|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0822||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.0822
91049731|NCT02944383|181985029|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0504||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.0504
91049732|NCT02944383|181985029|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1315||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.1315
91005994|NCT03031327|181895829|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||P-value is NA due to the measured values of corneal sensitivity equal to zero.|Student t-test pooled|Pooled method for estimating common variance was used||Student t-test on changes from baseline in corneal sensitivity - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||0.0|0.0|00
91005995|NCT03031327|181895829|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.3|||Student t-test pooled|Pooled method for estimating common variance was used||Student t-test on changes from baseline in corneal sensitivity - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||0.3|-0.1|0.1
91005996|NCT03031327|181895829|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.3|||Student t-test pooled|Pooled method for estimating common variance was used||Student t-test on changes from baseline in corneal sensitivity - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||0.3|-0.1|0.1
91049733|NCT02944383|181985030|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0843||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.0843
91005997|NCT00087594|181895988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.8|41.3||||||95% CI for G1 participants||41.3|-27.8|
91005998|NCT00087594|181895988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|35.4||||||95% CI for G2/3 participants||35.4|-10.4|
91005999|NCT00087594|181895988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|44.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|76.9||||||95% CI for G1 participants with 2 log drop at W 12||76.9|12.0|
91006000|NCT00087594|181895988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||95% CI for G1 participants with non 2 log drop at W 12||||
91006001|NCT00087594|181895988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.2|50.5||||||95% CI for G1 participants with missing HCV-RNA at W 12||50.5|-77.2|
91049734|NCT02944383|181985030|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3587||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.3587
91049735|NCT02944383|181985030|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|12.99||||0.0843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|25.51||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||25.51|-0.54|0.0843
91006002|NCT01952041|181896009|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-square test statistic=0.06, degrees of freedom=2||||||0.80
91049736|NCT02944383|181985030|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|7.98||||0.3587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|21.39||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||21.39|-3.70|0.3587
91049737|NCT02944383|181985031|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0768||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.0768
91006003|NCT01952041|181896010|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.44|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio is intervention arm vs. TAU for time to first relapse from randomization. There is not a standard error (SE) that directly links to the hazard ratio. The confidence interval provided illustrates the dispersion for the hazard ratio.|||1.44|0.42|0.43
91006004|NCT01952041|181896011|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|1.02|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment by time interaction terms are given to test difference of slopes between arms.|||1.02|-0.58|0.58
91006005|NCT01952041|181896012|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment by time interaction terms are given to test difference of slopes between arms.|||0.26|-0.22|0.84
91006006|NCT01952041|181896013|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment by time interaction terms are given to test difference of slopes between arms.|||0.04|-5.40|0.06
91006007|NCT01736176|181896014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed-effect Repeated Measures (MMRM)|MMRM model included the fixed effects of study site and visit, with baseline score as a covariate, and the baseline-by-visit interaction.||The primary null hypothesis was no change in least-square (LS) mean, calculated using a mixed-effect repeated measures model (MMRM), for NMSS total score from baseline to Week 12. The statistical test was two-sided and the null hypothesis was rejected at the significance level of α = 0.050.||||< 0.001
91006008|NCT01736176|181896018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004|||||||Mixed-effect Repeated Measures (MMRM)|MMRM model included the fixed effects of study site and visit, with baseline score as a covariate, and the baseline-by-visit interaction.||||||0.004
91006009|NCT01569568|181896052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||This is an uncorrected p-value. A priori threshold is 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis predicts that the concentration of glutamine is the same for controls and OTCD patients in PCGM.||||0.001
91006010|NCT01569568|181896052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|||||This is an uncorrected p-value. A priori significance threshold is 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis predicts that the concentration of myoinositol is the same for controls and OTCD patients in PCGM.||||0.011
91006011|NCT01569568|181896052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|||||This is an uncorrected p-value. A priori threshold was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis predicts that the concentration of glutamine is the same for controls and OTCD patients in PWM.||||0.004
91006012|NCT01569568|181896052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|||||This is an uncorrected p-value. A priori threshold was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis predicts that the concentration of myoinositol is the same for controls and OTCD patients in PWM.||||0.046
91006013|NCT01569568|181896053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Our a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|We ran a 2 (Group) x 6 (ROI Pair) ANOVA to assess functional connectivity between the nodes of the DMN, using age as a covariate.||The null hypothesis states predicts no main effects of Group, ROI pair, or Age, suggesting that the connectivity between all DMN nodes is the same across groups.||||<0.001
91006014|NCT01569568|181896053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|||||This is an uncorrected p-value. A priori significance threshold was 0.05.|ANOVA|We ran a series of post-hoc one-way ANOVAs to localize the main effect found. Age was used as a covariate.||The null hypothesis predicts that functional connectivity between the ACC/mPFC node and the left IPL node does not differ between groups.||||0.024
91006015|NCT01569568|181896053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||This is an uncorrected p-value. A priori significance threshold is 0.05.|ANOVA|We ran a series of post-hoc one-way ANOVAs to localize the main effect found. Age was used as a covariate.||The null hypothesis predicts that functional connectivity between the ACC/mPFC node and the PCC node does not differ between groups.||||0.040
91006016|NCT01569568|181896053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|||||This is an uncorrected p-value. A priori significance threshold was 0.05|ANOVA|We ran a series of post-hoc one-way ANOVAs to localize the main effect found. Age was used as a covariate.||The null hypothesis predicts that functional connectivity between the ACC/mPFC node and the right IPL node does not differ between groups.||||0.008
91006017|NCT01569568|181896053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|||||This is an uncorrected p-value. A priori significance threshold was 0.05|ANOVA|We ran a series of post-hoc one-way ANOVAs to localize the main effect found. Age was used as a covariate.||The null hypothesis predicts that functional connectivity between the left IPL node and the right IPL node does not differ between groups.||||0.470
91006018|NCT01569568|181896053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.829|TWO_SIDED|||||This is an uncorrected p-value. A priori significance threshold was 0.05|ANOVA|We ran a series of post-hoc one-way ANOVAs to localize the main effect found. Age was used as a covariate.||The null hypothesis predicts that functional connectivity between the PCC node and the left IPL node does not differ between groups.||||0.829
91006019|NCT01569568|181896053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.801|TWO_SIDED|||||This is an uncorrected p-value. A priori significance threshold was 0.05|ANOVA|We ran a series of post-hoc one-way ANOVAs to localize the main effect found. Age was used as a covariate.||The null hypothesis predicts that functional connectivity between the PCC node and the right IPL node does not differ between groups.||||0.801
91006020|NCT01569568|181896053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Our a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|We ran a 2 (Group) x 6 (ROI Pair) ANOVA to assess functional connectivity between the nodes of the SMN, using age as a covariate.||The null hypothesis states predicts no main effects of Group, ROI pair, or Age, suggesting that the connectivity between all SMN nodes is the same across groups.||||<0.001
91006021|NCT01569568|181896053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|||||This is an uncorrected p-value. A priori significance threshold was 0.05.|ANOVA|We ran a series of post-hoc one-way ANOVAs to localize the main effect found. Age was used as a covariate.||The null hypothesis predicts that functional connectivity between the ACC node and the left aI/fO node does not differ between groups.||||0.550
91006022|NCT01569568|181896053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|||||This is an uncorrected p-value. A priori significance threshold was 0.05.|ANOVA|We ran a series of post-hoc one-way ANOVAs to localize the main effect found. Age was used as a covariate.||The null hypothesis predicts that functional connectivity between the ACC node and the left SFG node does not differ between groups.||||0.113
91006023|NCT01569568|181896053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|||||This is an uncorrected p-value. A priori significance threshold was 0.05.|ANOVA|We ran a series of post-hoc one-way ANOVAs to localize the main effect found. Age was used as a covariate.||The null hypothesis predicts that functional connectivity between the ACC node and the right aI/fO node does not differ between groups.||||0.039
91006024|NCT01569568|181896053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|||||This is an uncorrected p-value. A priori significance threshold was 0.05.|ANOVA|We ran a series of post-hoc one-way ANOVAs to localize the main effect found. Age was used as a covariate.||The null hypothesis predicts that functional connectivity between the ACC node and the right SFG node does not differ between groups.||||0.005
91049738|NCT02944383|181985031|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4346||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.4346
91006025|NCT01569568|181896053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.426|TWO_SIDED|||||This is an uncorrected p-value. A priori significance threshold was 0.05.|ANOVA|We ran a series of post-hoc one-way ANOVAs to localize the main effect found. Age was used as a covariate.||The null hypothesis predicts that functional connectivity between the left aI/fO and the left SFG node does not differ between groups.||||0.426
91006026|NCT01569568|181896053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|||||This is an uncorrected p-value. A priori significance threshold was 0.05.|ANOVA|We ran a series of post-hoc one-way ANOVAs to localize the main effect found. Age was used as a covariate.||The null hypothesis predicts that functional connectivity between the left aI/fO node and the right aI/fO node does not differ between groups.||||0.256
91006027|NCT01569568|181896053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.853|TWO_SIDED|||||This is an uncorrected p-value. A priori significance threshold was 0.05.|ANOVA|We ran a series of post-hoc one-way ANOVAs to localize the main effect found. Age was used as a covariate.||The null hypothesis predicts that functional connectivity between the left aI/fO and the right SFG node does not differ between groups.||||0.853
91006028|NCT01569568|181896053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|||||This is an uncorrected p-value. A priori significance threshold was 0.05.|ANOVA|We ran a series of post-hoc one-way ANOVAs to localize the main effect found. Age was used as a covariate.||The null hypothesis predicts that functional connectivity between the right aI/fO node and the left SFG node does not differ between groups.||||0.003
91006029|NCT01569568|181896053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|||||This is an uncorrected p-value. A priori significance threshold was 0.05.|ANOVA|We ran a series of post-hoc one-way ANOVAs to localize the main effect found. Age was used as a covariate.||The null hypothesis predicts that functional connectivity between the right aI/fO node and the right SFG node does not differ between groups.||||0.023
91006030|NCT01569568|181896055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.929|TWO_SIDED|||||Equal variance is not assumed. Two tailed t-test WASI verbal IQ between cases and controls|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.929
91006031|NCT01569568|181896055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||Equal variance not assumed. Comparison WASI performance IQ cases and controls|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.002
91006032|NCT01569568|181896055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|||||Equal variance not assumed. Comparison of WASI full IQ cases and controls|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.094
91006033|NCT01569568|181896055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.853|TWO_SIDED|||||Equal variance not assumed. Comparison of CTMT global composite score between cases and controls|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.853
91006034|NCT01569568|181896055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Equal variance not assumed. Comparison of BRIEF BRI cases and controls|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.001
91006035|NCT01569568|181896055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Equal variances not assumed. Comparison of BRIEF MI cases and controls|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
91006036|NCT01569568|181896055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Equal variances not assumed. Comparison of BRIEF GEC between cases and controls.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91006037|NCT00416572|181896064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||Comparison between education intervention and the control condition at 4 months post-intervention. The full regression model contained 2 dummy-coded variables (education intervention vs. control condition and nutrition education intervention vs. control condition), and the baseline measure of the outcome.||||> 0.05
91006038|NCT00416572|181896064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||Comparison between nutrition education intervention and the control condition at 4 months post-intervention. The full regression model contained 2 dummy-coded variables (education intervention vs. control condition and nutrition education intervention vs. control condition), and the baseline measure of the outcome.||||>0.05
91006039|NCT00416572|181896064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||standardized beta|-0.12|||=|0.08|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Comparison between education intervention and the control condition at final follow-up (13 months post-intervention). The full regression model contained 2 dummy-coded variables (education intervention vs. control condition and nutrition education intervention vs. control condition), and the baseline measure of the outcome.||||=0.08
91006040|NCT00416572|181896064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||standardized beta|-0.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Comparison between nutrition education intervention and the control condition at final follow-up (13 months post-intervention). The full regression model contained 2 dummy-coded variables (education intervention vs. control condition and nutrition education intervention vs. control condition), and the baseline measure of the outcome.||||<0.001
91006041|NCT00416572|181896065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.5|||||||Regression, Linear|||Comparison between education intervention and the control condition at 4 months post-intervention. The full regression model contained 2 dummy-coded variables (education intervention vs. control condition and nutrition education intervention vs. control condition), and the baseline measure of the outcome.||||>0.50
91006042|NCT00416572|181896065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized beta|0.14|||=|0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Comparison between nutrition education intervention and the control condition at 4 months post-intervention. The full regression model contained 2 dummy-coded variables (education intervention vs. control condition and nutrition education intervention vs. control condition), and the baseline measure of the outcome.||||=0.04
91006043|NCT00416572|181896065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized beta|0.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Comparison between the education intervention and the control condition at final follow-up (13 months post-intervention). The full regression model contained 2 dummy-coded variables (education intervention vs. control condition and nutrition education intervention vs. control condition), and the baseline measure of the outcome.||||<0.001
91006044|NCT00416572|181896065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized beta|0.15|||=|0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Comparison between nutrition education intervention and the control condition at final follow-up (13 months post-intervention). The full regression model contained 2 dummy-coded variables (education intervention vs. control condition and nutrition education intervention vs. control condition), and the baseline measure of the outcome.||||=0.02
91049739|NCT02944383|181985031|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0768||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.0768
91049740|NCT02944383|181985031|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4346||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.4346
91049741|NCT02944383|181985032|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5411||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.5411
91049742|NCT02944383|181985032|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2574||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.2574
91006045|NCT00416572|181896066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||Comparison between education intervention and the control condition at 4 months post-intervention. The full regression model contained 2 dummy-coded variables (education intervention vs. control condition and nutrition education intervention vs. control condition), and the baseline measure of the outcome||||>.05
91006046|NCT00416572|181896066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||Comparison between nutrition education intervention and the control condition at 4 months post-intervention. The full regression model contained 2 dummy-coded variables (education intervention vs. control condition and nutrition education intervention vs. control condition), and the baseline measure of the outcome.||||>0.05
91006047|NCT00416572|181896066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||Comparison between education intervention and the control condition at final follow-up (13 months post-intervention). The full regression model contained 2 dummy-coded variables (education intervention vs. control condition and nutrition education intervention vs. control condition), and the baseline measure of the outcome.||||>0.05
91049743|NCT02944383|181985032|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|3.11||||0.5411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.59|14.86||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||14.86|-9.59|0.5411
91049744|NCT02944383|181985032|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-7.31||||0.2574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.3|5.76||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||5.76|-19.30|0.2574
91049745|NCT02944383|181985033|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3998||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.3998
91006048|NCT00416572|181896066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||Comparison between nutrition education intervention and the control condition at final follow-up (13 months post-intervention). The full regression model contained 2 dummy-coded variables (education intervention vs. control condition and nutrition education intervention vs. control condition), and the baseline measure of the outcome.||||>0.05
91049746|NCT02944383|181985033|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3659||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.3659
91049747|NCT02944383|181985033|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3998||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.3998
91006049|NCT00290355|181896067|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.24||Two-sided p value from Cox regression model adjusted for covariate(s) node/squam/stage to test the null hypothesis was: the distribution of time to recurrences was the same in each group (H0 = \[HR=1\]).|Regression, Cox|The p value by log rank test was 0.1995. Criterion for evaluation of the objective: one sided p-value \< 10%||Hazard ratio of GSK 249553 study product.||1.24|0.44|0.256
91006050|NCT03345849|181896086|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints were strongly controlled using a fixed sequence multiple-testing procedure as well as a Holm procedure. The testing utilized the sequence of hypothesis testing for the co-primary endpoints using two-sided α of 0.05 followed by a set of ranked key secondary endpoints, defined separately for US/FDA and European Union/European Medicines Agency regulatory purposes.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|20.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.7|28.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factors.|Adjusted response rate difference (Upadacitinib - Placebo) calculated based on CMH test adjusted for stratification factors.|Comparison of the upadacitinib group and placebo group was performed using the Cochran Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusting for stratification factors (baseline steroid use \[Yes, No\], endoscopic disease severity \[SES-CD \< 15, ≥ 15\] and number of prior biologics with prior inadequate response or intolerance \[0, 1, \> 1\]).||28.8|12.7|<0.0001
91049748|NCT02944383|181985033|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3659||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.3659
91049749|NCT02944383|181985034|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8823||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.8823
91006051|NCT03345849|181896087|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints were strongly controlled using a fixed sequence multiple-testing procedure as well as a Holm procedure. The testing utilized the sequence of hypothesis testing for the co-primary endpoints using two-sided α of 0.05 followed by a set of ranked key secondary endpoints, defined separately for US/FDA and EU/EMA regulatory purposes.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|28.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.9|36.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factors.|Adjusted response rate difference (Upadacitinib - Placebo) calculated based on CMH test adjusted for stratification factors.|||36.4|20.9|<0.0001
91006052|NCT03345849|181896088|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints were strongly controlled using a fixed sequence multiple-testing procedure as well as a Holm procedure. The testing utilized the sequence of hypothesis testing for the co-primary endpoints using two-sided α of 0.05 followed by a set of ranked key secondary endpoints, defined separately for US/FDA and EU/EMA regulatory purposes.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|33.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.2|39.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factors.|Adjusted response rate difference (Upadacitinib - Placebo) calculated based on CMH test adjusted for stratification factors.|||39.9|26.2|<0.0001
91006053|NCT03345849|181896089|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints were strongly controlled using a fixed sequence multiple-testing procedure as well as a Holm procedure. The testing utilized the sequence of hypothesis testing for the co-primary endpoints using two-sided α of 0.05 followed by a set of ranked key secondary endpoints, defined separately for US/FDA and EU/EMA regulatory purposes.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|21.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.8|27.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factors.|Adjusted response rate difference (Upadacitinib - Placebo) calculated based on CMH test adjusted for stratification factors.|||27.8|15.8|<0.0001
91006054|NCT03345849|181896090|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints were strongly controlled using a fixed sequence multiple-testing procedure as well as a Holm procedure. The testing utilized the sequence of hypothesis testing for the co-primary endpoints using two-sided α of 0.05 followed by a set of ranked key secondary endpoints. This endpoint was a ranked key secondary endpoint for US/FDA regulatory purposes.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|27.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.7|39.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factors endoscopic disease severity and number of prior failed biologic therapies.|Adjusted response rate difference (Upadacitinib - Placebo) calculated based on CMH test adjusted for stratification factors endoscopic disease severity and number of prior biologic failed.|||39.8|15.7|<0.0001
91006055|NCT03345849|181896091|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints were strongly controlled using a fixed sequence multiple-testing procedure as well as a Holm procedure. The testing utilized the sequence of hypothesis testing for the co-primary endpoints using two-sided α of 0.05 followed by a set of ranked key secondary endpoints, defined separately for US/FDA and EU/EMA regulatory purposes.|Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|6.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|8.3|||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, stratification factors, and Baseline value as covariate.||||8.3|4.2|<0.0001
91006056|NCT03345849|181896092|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints were strongly controlled using a fixed sequence multiple-testing procedure as well as a Holm procedure. The testing utilized the sequence of hypothesis testing for the co-primary endpoints using two-sided α of 0.05 followed by a set of ranked key secondary endpoints, defined separately for US/FDA and EU/EMA regulatory purposes.|LS Mean Difference|21.842|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1933|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.566|28.118|||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, stratification factors, and Baseline value as covariate.||||28.118|15.566|<0.0001
91006057|NCT03345849|181896093|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints were strongly controlled using a fixed sequence multiple-testing procedure as well as a Holm procedure. The testing utilized the sequence of hypothesis testing for the co-primary endpoints using two-sided α of 0.05 followed by a set of ranked key secondary endpoints, defined separately for US/FDA and EU/EMA regulatory purposes.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|11.7||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|19.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factors.|Adjusted response rate difference (Upadacitinib - Placebo) calculated based on CMH test adjusted for stratification factors.|||19.2|4.2|0.0022
91006058|NCT03345849|181896094|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints were strongly controlled using a fixed sequence multiple-testing procedure as well as a Holm procedure. The testing utilized the sequence of hypothesis testing for the co-primary endpoints using two-sided α of 0.05 followed by a set of ranked key secondary endpoints, defined separately for US/FDA and EU/EMA regulatory purposes.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|19.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.3|28.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factors.|Adjusted response rate difference (Upadacitinib - Placebo) calculated based on CMH test adjusted for stratification factors.|||28.4|11.3|<0.0001
91006059|NCT03345849|181896095|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints were strongly controlled using a fixed sequence multiple-testing procedure as well as a Holm procedure. The testing utilized the sequence of hypothesis testing for the co-primary endpoints using two-sided α of 0.05 followed by a set of ranked key secondary endpoints. This endpoint was a ranked key secondary endpoint for US/FDA regulatory purposes.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|10.8||||0.0071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|18.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factors.|Adjusted response rate difference (Upadacitinib - Placebo) calculated based on CMH test adjusted for stratification factors.|||18.6|2.9|0.0071
91049750|NCT02944383|181985034|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3788||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.3788
91049751|NCT02944383|181985034|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1091||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.1091
91049752|NCT02944383|181985034|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6867||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.6867
91049753|NCT02944383|181985034|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|9.07||||0.3156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.22|36.34||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||36.34|-12.22|0.3156
91049754|NCT02944383|181985034|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.9734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.58|25.43||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||25.43|-24.58|0.9734
91049755|NCT02944383|181985035|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9772||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.9772
91049756|NCT02944383|181985035|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5213||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.5213
91049757|NCT02944383|181985035|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1582||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.1582
91049758|NCT02944383|181985035|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4588||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.4588
91049759|NCT02944383|181985035|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4264||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.4264
91049760|NCT02944383|181985035|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8107||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.8107
91049761|NCT02944383|181985036|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.38||||0.0093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|19.08||Logistic regression results are obtained using a model with randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), and baseline TG value as independent factors.|Regression, Logistic||The OR is an estimate of the odds of achieving a TG value \< 500 mg/dL associated with the corresponding Gemcabene group relative to the placebo group at a given visit.|Week 10||19.08|1.51|0.0093
91049762|NCT02944383|181985036|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.57||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|8.07||Logistic regression results are obtained using a model with randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), and baseline TG value as independent factors.|Regression, Logistic||The OR is an estimate of the odds of achieving a TG value \< 500 mg/dL associated with the corresponding Gemcabene group relative to the placebo group at a given visit.|Week 10||8.07|0.82|0.1070
91049763|NCT02944383|181985036|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.57||||0.0865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|7.53||Logistic regression results are obtained using a model with randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), and baseline TG value as independent factors.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||7.53|0.87|0.0865
91049764|NCT02944383|181985036|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.57||||0.399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|4.48||Logistic regression results are obtained using a model with randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), and baseline TG value as independent factors.|Regression, Logistic||The OR is an estimate of the odds of achieving a TG value \< 500 mg/dL associated with the corresponding Gemcabene group relative to the placebo group at a given visit.|Week 12||4.48|0.55|0.3990
91049765|NCT02944383|181985036|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.75||||0.0772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|8.42||Logistic regression results are obtained using a model with randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), and baseline TG value as independent factors.|Regression, Logistic||The OR is an estimate of the odds of achieving a TG value \< 500 mg/dL associated with the corresponding Gemcabene group relative to the placebo group at a given visit.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||8.42|0.90|0.0772
91049766|NCT02944383|181985036|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.54||||0.4315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|4.48||Logistic regression results are obtained using a model with randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), and baseline TG value as independent factors.|Regression, Logistic||The OR is an estimate of the odds of achieving a TG value \< 500 mg/dL associated with the corresponding Gemcabene group relative to the placebo group at a given visit.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||4.48|0.53|0.4315
91049767|NCT02588950|181985050|SUPERIORITY||Geometric LSMean Ratio|1.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.08|1.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.97|1.08|
91049768|NCT02588950|181985054|SUPERIORITY||Geometric LSMean Ratio|0.885|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.761|1.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.03|0.761|
91049769|NCT02588950|181985055|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.6|2.6||||||||2.60|-1.60|
91006060|NCT03345849|181896096|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints were strongly controlled using a fixed sequence multiple-testing procedure as well as a Holm procedure. The testing utilized the sequence of hypothesis testing for the co-primary endpoints using two-sided α of 0.05 followed by a set of ranked key secondary endpoints, defined separately for US/FDA and EU/EMA regulatory purposes.|Response Rate Difference|-1.4||||0.4494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|2.4|||Chi-squared||Response rate difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||2.4|-5.2|0.4494
91006061|NCT03345849|181896097|OTHER|The overall type I error rate of the co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints were strongly controlled using a fixed sequence multiple-testing procedure as well as a Holm procedure. The testing utilized the sequence of hypothesis testing for the co-primary endpoints using two-sided α of 0.05 followed by a set of ranked key secondary endpoints, defined separately for US/FDA and EU/EMA regulatory purposes.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|9.0||||0.1044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|19.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factors.|Adjusted response rate difference (Upadacitinib - Placebo) calculated based on CMH test adjusted for stratification factors.|||19.9|-1.9|0.1044
91006062|NCT03345849|181896098|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints were strongly controlled using a fixed sequence multiple-testing procedure as well as a Holm procedure. The testing utilized the sequence of hypothesis testing for the co-primary endpoints using two-sided α of 0.05 followed by a set of ranked key secondary endpoints. This endpoint was a ranked key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|21.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.3|28.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factors.|Adjusted response rate difference (Upadacitinib - Placebo) calculated based on CMH test adjusted for stratification factors.|||28.2|14.3|<0.0001
91049770|NCT01936519|181985061|EQUIVALENCE|Mann Whitney U Test was performed|Mean Difference (Net)|27.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.61||0.283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.17|70.8||Cockcroft-Gault Clearance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Statistical analysis was performed on the Cockcroft Gault Creatinine clearance 2 year data.||70.80|-16.17|0.283
91006063|NCT03345849|181896099|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints were strongly controlled using a fixed sequence multiple-testing procedure as well as a Holm procedure. The testing utilized the sequence of hypothesis testing for the co-primary endpoints using two-sided α of 0.05 followed by a set of ranked key secondary endpoints. This endpoint was a ranked key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|32.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.5|43.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factors.|Adjusted response rate difference (Upadacitinib - Placebo) calculated based on CMH test adjusted for stratification factors.|||43.7|21.5|<0.0001
91006064|NCT03991936|181896101|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.635|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical analysis was p = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis was that the change from baseline to 24 weeks in the Nail Psoriasis Severity Index (NAPSI) for the triamcinolone acetonide groups: 2.5 mg/mL, 5.0 mg/mL, 7.5 mg/mL, and 10 mg/mL would be no different than the change from baseline to 24 weeks for the placebo group.||||<0.001
91006065|NCT03502941|181896112|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||P value was calculated.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91006066|NCT03502941|181896113|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91006067|NCT00808028|181896120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.9999|||||||Binomial Distribution|||Strain A05: Response rate was compared with whether greater than (\>) 50% of participants had fold rise \>=4 using right one-sided exact test based on binomial distribution and the corresponding p-values were calculated. p-value \< 0.025 was considered significant.||||>0.9999
91006068|NCT00808028|181896120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0007|||||||Binomial Distribution|||Strain A05: Response rate was compared with whether greater than (\>) 50% of participants had fold rise \>=4 using right one-sided exact test based on binomial distribution and the corresponding p-values were calculated. p-value \< 0.025 was considered significant.||||0.0007
91006069|NCT00808028|181896120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Binomial Distribution|||Strain A05: Response rate was compared with whether greater than (\>) 50% of participants had fold rise \>=4 using right one-sided exact test based on binomial distribution and the corresponding p-values were calculated. p-value \< 0.025 was considered significant.||||<0.0001
91006070|NCT00808028|181896120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Binomial Distribution|||Strain A05: Response rate was compared with whether greater than (\>) 50% of participants had fold rise \>=4 using right one-sided exact test based on binomial distribution and the corresponding p-values were calculated. p-value \< 0.025 was considered significant.||||<0.0001
91006071|NCT00808028|181896120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.9999|||||||Binomial Distribution|||Strain B02: Response rate was compared with whether greater than (\>) 50% of participants had fold rise \>=4 using right one-sided exact test based on binomial distribution and the corresponding p-values were calculated. p-value \< 0.025 was considered significant.||||>0.9999
91006072|NCT00808028|181896120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0392|||||||Binomial Distribution|||Strain B02: Response rate was compared with whether greater than (\>) 50% of participants had fold rise \>=4 using right one-sided exact test based on binomial distribution and the corresponding p-values were calculated. p-value \< 0.025 was considered significant.||||0.0392
91006073|NCT00808028|181896120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0225|||||||Binomial Distribution|||Strain B02: Response rate was compared with whether greater than (\>) 50% of participants had fold rise \>=4 using right one-sided exact test based on binomial distribution and the corresponding p-values were calculated. p-value \< 0.025 was considered significant.||||0.0225
91006074|NCT00808028|181896120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0244|||||||Binomial Distribution|||Strain B02: Response rate was compared with whether greater than (\>) 50% of participants had fold rise \>=4 using right one-sided exact test based on binomial distribution and the corresponding p-values were calculated. p-value \< 0.025 was considered significant.||||0.0244
91006075|NCT00808028|181896121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.9999|||||||Binomial Distribution|||Strain A05: Response rate was compared with whether greater than (\>) 50% of participants had fold rise \>=4 using right one-sided exact test based on binomial distribution and the corresponding p-values were calculated. p-value \< 0.025 was considered significant.||||>0.9999
91006076|NCT00808028|181896121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004|||||||Binomial Distribution|||Strain A05: Response rate was compared with whether greater than (\>) 50% of participants had fold rise \>=4 using right one-sided exact test based on binomial distribution and the corresponding p-values were calculated. p-value \< 0.025 was considered significant.||||0.0004
91006077|NCT00808028|181896121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Binomial Distribution|||Strain A05: Response rate was compared with whether greater than (\>) 50% of participants had fold rise \>=4 using right one-sided exact test based on binomial distribution and the corresponding p-values were calculated. p-value \< 0.025 was considered significant.||||<0.0001
91006078|NCT00808028|181896121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Binomial Distribution|||Strain A05: Response rate was compared with whether greater than (\>) 50% of participants had fold rise \>=4 using right one-sided exact test based on binomial distribution and the corresponding p-values were calculated. p-value \< 0.025 was considered significant.||||<0.0001
91006079|NCT00808028|181896121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.9999|||||||Binomial Distribution|||Strain B02: Response rate was compared with whether greater than (\>) 50% of participants had fold rise \>=4 using right one-sided exact test based on binomial distribution and the corresponding p-values were calculated. p-value \< 0.025 was considered significant.||||>0.9999
91006080|NCT00808028|181896121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0036|||||||Binomial Distribution|||Strain B02: Response rate was compared with whether greater than (\>) 50% of participants had fold rise \>=4 using right one-sided exact test based on binomial distribution and the corresponding p-values were calculated. p-value \< 0.025 was considered significant.||||0.0036
91006081|NCT00808028|181896121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Binomial Distribution|||Strain B02: Response rate was compared with whether greater than (\>) 50% of participants had fold rise \>=4 using right one-sided exact test based on binomial distribution and the corresponding p-values were calculated. p-value \< 0.025 was considered significant.||||<0.0001
91006082|NCT00808028|181896121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Binomial Distribution|||Strain B02: Response rate was compared with whether greater than (\>) 50% of participants had fold rise \>=4 using right one-sided exact test based on binomial distribution and the corresponding p-values were calculated. p-value \< 0.025 was considered significant.||||<0.0001
91006083|NCT00723489|181896146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.2||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA||Mean (AD) - Mean (Non-AD)|||0.2|-0.3|0.86
91006084|NCT00723489|181896147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA||Mean (AD) - Mean (Non-AD)|||0.2|-0.2|0.86
91006085|NCT00723489|181896148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.05||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA||Mean (AD) - Mean (Non-AD)|||0.05|-0.5|0.10
91006086|NCT00723489|181896149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.3||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA||Mean (AD) - Mean (Non-AD)|||0.3|-0.2|0.66
91006087|NCT00723489|181896150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24||||||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.24
91006088|NCT00723489|181896151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43||||||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.43
91006089|NCT00723489|181896152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values) Day 30|0.1||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.3||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean (AD) - Mean (Non-AD)|This analysis excludes 1 SC-(AD) participant who did not seroconvert. Only participants who had peripheral blood T-cell samples collected from Day 0 to Day 30 as specified in the Outcome Measure Time Frame were included in analysis (1 SC -(Non-AD) participant was excluded). T-cell data from 3 SC-(Non-AD) and 1 SC-(AD) participant was excluded due to problems with sample processing||0.3|-0.1|0.48
91006090|NCT00723489|181896153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values) Day 30|-0.3||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.02||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean (AD) - Mean (Non-AD)|Participants who did not seroconvert were excluded from this analysis (2 TC-(AD) and 5 TC-(Non-AD)). T-cell data from 4 TC-(AD) and 3 TC-(Non-AD) subjects was excluded due to problems with sample processing||-0.02|-0.5|0.036
91006091|NCT00723489|181896154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values) Day 30|0.04||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.4||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean (AD) - Mean (Non-AD)|This analysis excludes 1 SC-(AD) participant who did not seroconvert. Only participants who had peripheral blood T-cell samples collected from Day 0 to Day 30 as specified in the Outcome Measure Time Frame were included in analysis (1 SC -(Non-AD) participant was excluded). T-cell data from 3 SC-(Non-AD) and 1 SC-(AD) participant was excluded due to problems with sample processing||0.4|-0.3|0.82
91006092|NCT00723489|181896155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values) Day 30|-0.4||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.01||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean (AD) - Mean (Non-AD)|Participants who did not seroconvert were excluded from this analysis (2 TC-(AD) and 5 TC-(Non-AD)). T-cell data from 4 TC-(AD) and 3 TC-(Non-AD) subjects was excluded due to problems with sample processing||-0.01|-0.7|0.045
91006093|NCT01599585|181896156|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|One tailed test at .05a = .05 margin was set at standardized difference of .50|Regression, Beta|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.12|0.68||||||||.68|.12|
91006094|NCT01599585|181896168|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|One tailed test at .05a = .05 margin was set at standardized difference of .50|Regression, Beta|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.16|0.78||||||||.78|.16|
91006095|NCT04437511|181896179|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean change difference (Final Values)|2.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.508|4.331|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.331|1.508|<0.001
91006096|NCT04437511|181896180|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean change difference (Final Values)|3.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.883|4.618|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.618|1.883|<0.001
91006097|NCT04437511|181896181|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean change difference (Final Values)|0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.104|0.841|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.841|0.104|0.012
91006098|NCT04437511|181896182|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean change difference (Final Values)|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.089|0.868|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.868|0.089|0.016
91006099|NCT04437511|181896183|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean change difference (Final Values)|-1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.086|-0.565|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.565|-2.086|0.0006
91006100|NCT04437511|181896184|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean change difference (Final Values)|-1.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|-0.794|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.794|-2.250|<0.001
91006101|NCT04437511|181896185|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean change difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.127|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.45|-0.95|<0.001
91006102|NCT04437511|181896186|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean change difference (Final Values)|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.40|-0.95|<0.001
91006103|NCT04437511|181896187|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean change difference (Final Values)|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.566|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.566|0.840|0.0001
91006104|NCT04437511|181896188|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean change difference (Final Values)|1.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.913|2.748|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.748|0.913|<0.001
91006105|NCT04437511|181896189|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean change difference (Final Values)|-86.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.275|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-88.87|-83.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-83.87|-88.87|<0.0001
91006106|NCT04437511|181896190|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean change difference (Final Values)|-0.0041||||0.4522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0148|0.0066|||ANCOVA|||||0.0066|-0.0148|0.4522
91006107|NCT04437511|181896191|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean change difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.007||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral Hippocampus||0.04|0.01|0.002
91006108|NCT04437511|181896191|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean change difference (Final Values)|-6.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.561|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.76|-5.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral Whole Brain||-5.56|-7.76|<0.001
91006109|NCT04437511|181896191|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean change difference (Final Values)|3.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.256|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.52|3.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral Ventricles||3.52|2.52|<0.001
91006110|NCT05032755|181896194|SUPERIORITY||beta estimate|1.902|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.398|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes random intercepts|Estimation parameter is beta estimate for group by visit interaction term|||||<.0001
91049771|NCT01936519|181985062|EQUIVALENCE|Wilcoxon Test|Median Difference (Final Values)|34.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.44||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.95|58.21|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Statistical analysis was performed on the MDRD Clearance 2 year data row data.||58.21|9.95|0.013
91049772|NCT01936519|181985063|EQUIVALENCE|Wilcoxon Test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.09||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.28|47.72|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Statistical analysis was performed on the Iothalamate Clearance 2 year data.||47.72|-3.28|0.099
91049773|NCT01936519|181985063|EQUIVALENCE|Non-parametric statistical tests were used for all analyses, including the Mann-Whitney U test for continuous outcomes and Pearson's chi-square test for binary outcomes. Univariate statistical tests were used for all comparisons. Cohen's d was utilized for all comparisons to provide information about effect size.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|29.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.29||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|57.1|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Power and sample size. The assumption was made that eGFR would improve from 34 mL/min/1.73 m2 to 43 mL/min/1.73 m2. It was determined that a sample size of 12 in each group would have 80% power to detect a difference in means of -9.0 (the difference between a group 1 mean of 34.0 and a group 2 mean of 43.0) assuming that the common standard deviation was 7.5 using a two group t-test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level.~Data from the 2 year time point was used for analysis."||57.1|1.04|.032
91049774|NCT01936519|181985063|EQUIVALENCE|Difference of zero hypothesized.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.263||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.003|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Statistical analysis was performed on 2 year data time point.||-0.003|-1.11|0.015
91049775|NCT02072824|181985074|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.153||0.4606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.42|||ANCOVA|||Linear model with log transformed baseline seizure rate as continuous covariate and treatment, age stratum, and geographical region as fixed factor effects.||0.42|-0.19|0.4606
91049776|NCT02072824|181985074|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.185||0.0223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.06|||ANCOVA|||Linear model with log transformed baseline seizure rate as continuous covariate and treatment, age stratum, and geographical region as fixed factor effects.||-0.06|-0.80|0.0223
91049777|NCT02072824|181985075|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.625||||0.2418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.284|1.373|||Regression, Logistic|||The dichotomized responder variable was analyzed using a logistic regression model via maximum likelihood estimation with treatment group, age stratum, and geographical region as a fixed effect covariates.||1.373|0.284|0.2418
91049778|NCT02072824|181985075|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.622||||0.305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.644|4.086|||Regression, Logistic|||The dichotomized responder variable was analyzed using a logistic regression model via maximum likelihood estimation with treatment group, age stratum, and geographical region as a fixed effect covariates.||4.086|0.644|0.3050
91049779|NCT00986180|181985172|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size was recalculated due to Amendment INT-1. The non-inferiority margin for SPID120 was set as 120. The common standard deviation for the SPID120 data was estimated to be 230. Seventy nine subjects in each arm would have 90% power to demonstrate the non-inferiority of NUCYNTA to oxycodone IR with a 1-sided significance level of 0.025. This would have required enrollment of total 158 mITT subjects for each stratum. The original sample size (292 mITT subjects) was derived for SPID72.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.02||0.9703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.1|30.9|||ANCOVA|||||30.9|-32.1|0.9703
91049780|NCT00986180|181985173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.08||0.7691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|13.7|||ANCOVA|||||13.7|-10.1|0.7691
91049781|NCT00986180|181985174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.24||0.9282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|19.0|||ANCOVA|||||19.0|-17.3|0.9282
91049782|NCT00986180|181985175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|29.75||0.9562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.1|56.8|||ANCOVA|||||56.8|-60.1|0.9562
91049783|NCT00986180|181985176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.08||0.7973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|10.4|||ANCOVA|||||10.4|-13.5|0.7973
91049784|NCT00986180|181985177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.3||0.7882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.8|15.8|||ANCOVA|||||15.8|-20.8|0.7882
91049785|NCT00986180|181985178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.82||0.7491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.1|26.0|||ANCOVA|||||26.0|-36.1|0.7491
91049786|NCT00986180|181985179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|29.03||0.6897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.6|45.4|||ANCOVA|||||45.4|-68.6|0.6897
91049787|NCT00986180|181985180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.02||0.8226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|15.4|||ANCOVA|||||15.4|-12.2|0.8226
91049788|NCT00986180|181985181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.888|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8880
91049789|NCT00986180|181985182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4115|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4115
91049790|NCT00986180|181985183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8495|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8495
91049791|NCT00986180|181985184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7846|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7846
91049792|NCT00986180|181985185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.479|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4790
91049793|NCT00986180|181985186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3147|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3147
91049794|NCT00986180|181985187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5411|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5411
91049795|NCT00986180|181985188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6137|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6137
91049796|NCT00986180|181985189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7246|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7246
91049797|NCT00986180|181985190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4882|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4882
91049798|NCT00986180|181985191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7201|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.7201
91049799|NCT00986180|181985193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5208|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.5208
91049800|NCT00986180|181985195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0401|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0401
91049801|NCT00986180|181985197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4679|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4679
91049802|NCT00986180|181985199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1454|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1454
91049803|NCT00986180|181985200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1541|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1541
91049804|NCT00986180|181985202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.06|0.92|
91049805|NCT00986180|181985203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|2.57|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.57|1.17|
91049806|NCT00986180|181985204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|8.11|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||8.11|1.45|
91006111|NCT05032755|181896195|SUPERIORITY||beta estimate|0.368|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Group is entered as a between-subjects factor and Visit is included as a repeated factor with 5 levels. Baseline pain and FTCD scores, assessed at screening, are included along with sex as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes random intercepts|Estimation parameter is beta estimate for group by visit interaction term.|||||<.0001
91006112|NCT05032755|181896196|SUPERIORITY||beta estimate|0.672|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.362||0.065|TWO_SIDED|||||Group is entered as a between-subjects factor and Visit is included as a repeated factor with 5 levels. Baseline pain and FTCD scores, assessed at screening, are included along with sex as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes random intercepts|Estimation parameter is beta estimate for group by visit interaction term.|||||0.065
91006113|NCT05032755|181896197|SUPERIORITY||beta estimate|0.364|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.133||0.007|TWO_SIDED|||||Group is entered as a between-subjects factor and Visit is included as a repeated factor with 5 levels. Baseline pain and FTCD scores, assessed at screening, are included along with sex as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes random intercepts|Estimation parameter is beta estimate for group by visit interaction term.|||||0.007
91006114|NCT05032755|181896198|SUPERIORITY||beta estimate|1.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.78||0.325|TWO_SIDED|||||Group is entered as a between-subjects factor and Visit is included as a repeated factor with 2 levels (pre- vs post-intervention). Baseline pain and FTCD scores, assessed at screening, are included along with sex as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes random intercepts|Estimation parameter is beta estimate for group by visit interaction term.|||||0.325
91006115|NCT05032755|181896200|SUPERIORITY||beta estimate|0.222|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.104||0.035|TWO_SIDED|||||Group is entered as a between-subjects factor and Visit is included as a repeated factor with 5 levels. Baseline pain and FTCD scores, assessed at screening, are included along with sex as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes random intercepts|Estimation parameter is beta estimate for group by visit interaction term.|||||0.035
91006116|NCT05032755|181896201|SUPERIORITY||beta estimate|0.201|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.181||0.27|TWO_SIDED|||||Group is entered as a between-subjects factor and Visit is included as a repeated factor with 5 levels. Baseline pain and FTCD scores, assessed at screening, are included along with sex as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes random intercepts|Estimation parameter is beta estimate for group by visit interaction term.|||||0.27
91006117|NCT05032755|181896202|SUPERIORITY||beta estimate|-1.229|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.037||0.24|TWO_SIDED|||||Group is entered as a between-subjects factor and Visit is included as a repeated factor with 5 levels. Baseline pain and FTCD scores, assessed at screening, are included along with sex as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes random intercepts|Estimation parameter is beta estimate for group by visit interaction term.|||||0.24
91006118|NCT05032755|181896207|SUPERIORITY||beta estimate|4.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.88||0.113|TWO_SIDED|||||Group is entered as a between-subjects factor and Visit is included as a repeated factor with 2 levels (pre- vs post-intervention). Baseline pain and FTCD scores, assessed at screening, are included along with sex as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes random intercepts|Estimation parameter is beta estimate for group by visit interaction term.|||||0.113
91006119|NCT05564039|181896234|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.69|-1.10|<0.0001
91006120|NCT05564039|181896235|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-7.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|-6.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-6.0|-8.7|<.0001
91006121|NCT05564039|181896236|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.82|13.32|||Regression, Logistic|||||13.32|3.82|<0.0001
91006122|NCT05564039|181896237|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.24|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.51|23.02|||Regression, Logistic|||||23.02|6.51|<0.0001
91006123|NCT05564039|181896238|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|15.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.58|51.36|||Regression, Logistic|||||51.36|4.58|<0.0001
91006124|NCT05564039|181896239|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.11|16.98|||Regression, Logistic|||||16.98|5.11|<0.0001
91006125|NCT05564039|181896240|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|19.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.07|41.3|||Regression, Logistic|||||41.30|9.07|<0.0001
91006126|NCT05564039|181896241|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|35.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.18|178.89|||Regression, Logistic|||||178.89|7.18|<0.0001
91006127|NCT05564039|181896242|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|20.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.4|49.77|||Regression, Logistic|||||49.77|8.40|<0.0001
91006128|NCT05564039|181896243|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|-0.49|||ANCOVA|||||-0.49|-1.32|<0.001
91006129|NCT05564039|181896244|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-5.1||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|-2.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.5|-7.8|0.0002
91006130|NCT05564039|181896245|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-2.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-2.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.1|-3.1|<0.0001
91006131|NCT05564039|181896246|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|4.1||||0.1181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|9.2|||ANCOVA|||||9.2|-1.0|0.1181
91006132|NCT03233308|181896248|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Mean Change from Baseline||||0.0010
91006133|NCT03233308|181896249|OTHER|||||||0.0003|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Mean change from baseline (percent difference from baseline)||||0.0003
91006134|NCT03233308|181896250|OTHER|||||||0.0687|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Mean change from baseline -EVP||||0.0687
91006135|NCT03233308|181896250|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Mean change from baseline -IOP||||<0.0001
91006136|NCT03233308|181896251|OTHER|||||||0.0087|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Mean change from baseline (percent difference from baseline) -EVP||||0.0087
91006137|NCT03233308|181896251|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Mean change from baseline (percent difference from baseline)- IOP||||<0.0001
91049807|NCT00986180|181985205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.67|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.67|0.54|
91049808|NCT00986180|181985206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5828|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.5828
91049809|NCT00986180|181985207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9084|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.9084
91049810|NCT02737332|181985208|EQUIVALENCE|The bioequivalence between the two products was concluded if the 90% CIs (based on log transformed data and anti-logged) for the ratio of the geometric means lie completely within the range 80%-125%.|Geometric mean ratio of treatments|1.019||||0.4879|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.964|1.077||One-way ANOVA model with treatment as the independent variable, and the least-square means and standard error of Testosterone levels under each treatment and the between-treatment difference in LS means was reported.|ANOVA||Geometric mean ratio of experimental and reference product was determined by exponentiating least-squares means of log-transformed value.|||1.077|0.964|0.4879
91049811|NCT02737332|181985209|OTHER|The bioequivalence between the two products was concluded if the 90% CIs (based on log transformed data and anti-logged) for the ratio of the geometric means lie completely within the range 80%-125%.|Geometric mean ratio|0.994||||0.3642|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0451|2.192||One-way ANOVA model with treatment as the independent variable, and the least-square means and standard error of Testosterone levels under each treatment and the between-treatment difference in LS means was reported.|ANOVA||Geometric mean ratio of experimental and reference product was determined by exponentiating least-squares means of log-transformed value.|||2.192|0.0451|0.3642
91049812|NCT02737332|181985209|EQUIVALENCE|The bioequivalence between the two products was concluded if the 90% CIs (based on log transformed data and anti-logged) for the ratio of the geometric means lie completely within the range 80%-125%.|Geometric mean ratio|0.81||||0.4069|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.338|1.939||One-way ANOVA model with treatment as the independent variable, and the least-square means and standard error of Testosterone levels under each treatment and the between-treatment difference in LS means was reported.|ANOVA||Geometric mean ratio of experimental and reference product was determined by exponentiating least-squares means of log-transformed value.|||1.939|0.338|0.4069
91006138|NCT00853112|181896303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Predicted Mean Difference|-115.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|98.36||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-371.5|-1.1|||Bayesian 4-parameter Emax model|||Change over 4 hours post-dose: The Bayesian 4-parameter Emax model was used for analysis. 95% credible intervals of the effect size and the posterior distribution were calculated. Posterior distribution was used to calculate a probability (presented as p value) that the dose gives a difference of \>=240 dyne\*s\*m\^2/cm\^5 from placebo. The predicted means and SD were the posterior means and standard deviation (SD) from the Bayesian analysis.||-1.1|-371.5|0.120
91049813|NCT02737332|181985209|EQUIVALENCE|One-way ANOVA model with treatment as the independent variable, and the least-square means and standard error of Testosterone levels under each treatment and the between-treatment difference in LS means was reported.|Geometric mean ratio|1.039||||0.7186|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.412|2.617||The bioequivalence between the two products was concluded if the 90% CIs (based on log transformed data and anti-logged) for the ratio of the geometric means lie completely within the range 80%-125%.|ANOVA||Geometric mean ratio of experimental and reference product was determined by exponentiating least-squares means of log-transformed value.|||2.617|0.412|0.7186
91049814|NCT02737332|181985210|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
91049815|NCT02737332|181985211|EQUIVALENCE|The bioequivalence between the two products was concluded if the 90% CIs (based on log transformed data and anti-logged) for the ratio of the geometric means lie completely within the range 80%-125%.|Geometric mean ratio|0.999||||0.9211|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|1.018||One-way ANOVA model with treatment as the independent variable, and the least-square means and standard error of Testosterone levels under each treatment and the between-treatment difference in LS means was reported.|ANOVA||Geometric mean ratio of experimental and reference product was determined by exponentiating least-squares means of log-transformed value.||ANOVA-model-based Least-Square Mean|1.018|0.980|0.9211
91049816|NCT02737332|181985211|EQUIVALENCE|The bioequivalence between the two products was concluded if the 90% CIs (based on log transformed data and anti-logged) for the ratio of the geometric means lie completely within the range 80%-125%.|Geometric mean ratio|1.168||||0.3037|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.515||One-way ANOVA model with treatment as the independent variable, and the least-square means and standard error of Testosterone levels under each treatment and the between-treatment difference in LS means was reported.|ANOVA||Geometric mean ratio of experimental and reference product was determined by exponentiating least-squares means of log-transformed value.|||1.515|0.900|0.3037
91006139|NCT00853112|181896303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Predicted Mean Difference|-170.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|107.84||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-409.2|-7.1|||Bayesian 4-parameter Emax model.|||Change over 4 hours post-dose: The Bayesian 4-parameter Emax model was used for analysis. 95% credible intervals of the effect size and the posterior distribution were calculated. Posterior distribution was used to calculate a probability (presented as p value) that the dose gives a difference of \>=240 dyne.s.m2/cm5 from placebo. The predicted means and SD were the posterior means and SD from the Bayesian analysis.||-7.1|-409.2|0.250
91006140|NCT00853112|181896303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Predicted Mean Difference|-240.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|109.28||0.485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-444.8|-33.8|||Bayesian 4-parameter Emax model.|||The Bayesian 4-parameter Emax model was used for analysis. 95% credible intervals of the effect size and the posterior distribution were calculated. Posterior distribution was used to calculate a probability (presented as p value) that the dose gives a difference of \>=240 dyne\*s\*m\^2/cm\^5 from placebo. The predicted means and SD were the posterior means and SD from the Bayesian analysis.||-33.8|-444.8|0.485
91049817|NCT02737332|181985211|EQUIVALENCE|The bioequivalence between the two products was concluded if the 90% CIs (based on log transformed data and anti-logged) for the ratio of the geometric means lie completely within the range 80%-125%.|Geometric mean ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.0||One-way ANOVA model with treatment as the independent variable, and the least-square means and standard error of Testosterone levels under each treatment and the between-treatment difference in LS means was reported.|ANOVA||Geometric mean ratio of experimental and reference product was determined by exponentiating least-squares means of log-transformed value.|||1.000|1.000|
91049818|NCT02737332|181985212|OTHER|||||||0.5495|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.5495
91049819|NCT02737332|181985212|OTHER|||||||0.2616|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.2616
91049820|NCT02737332|181985212|OTHER|||||||0.3632|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.3632
91049821|NCT02737332|181985212|OTHER|||||||0.3393|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.3393
91049822|NCT02737332|181985216|OTHER|||||||0.1917|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.1917
91049823|NCT03835325|181985219|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"The sample size calculation was based on the following hypothesis test:~H0: there is no improvement in memory capacity between the initial (VS) and final (VF) assessments, assessed by the self-efficacy factor of the MIAr questionnaire.~H1: there is an improvement in memory capacity between the initial (VS) and final (VF) assessments, assessed by the self-efficacy factor of the MIAr questionnaire.~or H0: AUTO-EF (VF) - AUTO-EF (VS) ≤ 0 H1: AUTO-EF (VF) - AUTO-EF (VS)\> 0"||||<0.001
91049824|NCT00472797|181985237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mean|2.73|||<|0.001||97.5|2.73|2.73||P-Value denotes percent change from baseline to week 12 for all combined subjects.|t-test, 1 sided|||A one-sided paired t-test across all subjects by combining the titrated and non-titrated new formulation groups was performed.||2.73|2.73|<0.001
91006141|NCT00853112|181896303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Predicted Mean Difference|-327.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|92.41||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-492.9|-148.0|||Bayesian 4-parameter Emax model.|||Change over 4 hours post-dose: The Bayesian 4-parameter Emax model was used for analysis. 95% credible intervals of the effect size and the posterior distribution were calculated. Posterior distribution was used to calculate a probability (presented as p value) that the dose gives a difference of \>=240 dyne\*s\*m\^2/cm\^5 from placebo. The predicted means and SD were the posterior means and SD from the Bayesian analysis.||-148.0|-492.9|0.810
91049825|NCT00472797|181985238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.466||||||P-value denotes difference between treatment groups|ANOVA|||||||0.466
91049826|NCT00472797|181985238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value denotes the mean percent change from baseline to week 12.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
91049827|NCT00472797|181985238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||P-value denotes the mean percent change from baseline to week 12.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.003
91049828|NCT00472797|181985239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value refers to change in total score from baseline to week 12 for all domains, except global side effect score, in the MSTCQ for all subjects combined.|t-test, 1 sided|Paired t-test for change from baseline to week 12||Change in total score from baseline to week 12 for all subjects combined. Lower scores indicate a more favorable response||||<0.001
91049829|NCT00472797|181985239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11||95.0||||P-value refers to differences between treatment groups in change in total score from baseline to week 12 for all domains, except global side effect score, in the MSTCQ.|ANOVA|||Analysis evaluated differences between treatment groups in change in total score from baseline to week 12 for all domains, except global side effect score, in the MSTCQ. Lower scores indicate a more favorable response.||||0.110
91049830|NCT00472797|181985240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.302||95.0||||P-value refers to differneces in total score from baseline to week 12 between treatment groups.|ANOVA|||Analysis evaluates total score from baseline to week 12 for differences between each treatment group.||||0.302
91049831|NCT00472797|181985242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.899||95.0||||P-value denotes differences between treatment groups in change in diameter of injection site redness from baseline to week 12.|ANOVA|||Analysis evaluates differences between treatment groups in change in diameter of injection site redness from baseline to week 12.||||0.899
91049832|NCT00472797|181985243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired||Physical Component - Change from Baseline to Week 12||||<0.001
91049833|NCT00472797|181985243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.234||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired||Physical Component - Change from Baseline to Week 36||||0.234
91049834|NCT00472797|181985243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired||Physical Component - Change from Baseline to Extension Visit 1||||0.001
91049835|NCT00472797|181985243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired||Physical Component - Change from Baseline to Extension Visit 3||||0.004
91049836|NCT00472797|181985243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired||Physical Component - Change from Baseline to Exisit Visit LOCF||||0.036
91049837|NCT00472797|181985243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired||Mental Component - Baseline to Week 12||||0.002
91049838|NCT00472797|181985243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.468||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired||Mental Component - Baseline to Week 36||||0.468
91049839|NCT00472797|181985243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.602||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired||Mental Component - Change from Baseline to Extension Visit 1||||0.602
91006142|NCT00853112|181896303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Predicted Mean Difference|-379.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|73.61||0.974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-520.6|-238.8|||Bayesian 4-parameter Emax model|||Change over 4 hours post-dose: The Bayesian 4-parameter Emax model was used for analysis. Posterior distribution was calculated and was used to calculate a probability (presented as p value) that the dose gives a difference of \>=240 dyne\*s\*m\^2/cm\^5 from placebo. The predicted means and SD were the posterior means and SD from the Bayesian analysis.||-238.8|-520.6|0.974
91049840|NCT00472797|181985243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.414||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired||Change from Baseline to Extension Visit 3||||0.414
91049841|NCT00472797|181985243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.991||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired||Change from Baseline to Exit Visit LOCF||||0.991
91049842|NCT02999477|181985255|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is no change in the amount of PD-L1 expression from baseline to after a two-week run in of nabpaclitaxel. The test was using one-sided alpha (type I error) of 0.05. The margin is zero.||||||1|||||||McNemar|||||||1.0
91049843|NCT02999477|181985255|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is no change in the amount of PD-L1 expression from baseline to after a two-week run in of nabpaclitaxel or pembrolizumab. The test was using one-sided alpha (type I error) of 0.05.||||||1|||||||McNemar|||||||1.0
91049844|NCT01635062|181985260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||The hypothesis was that calcitriol therapy would lower plasma renin activity (PRA), when sodium restricted, when compared to placebo.||||0.69
91006143|NCT00853112|181896304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-195.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|207.38||0.354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-618.8|228.3|||ANCOVA|||GR over 4 hours, PVRI: The analysis was performed using Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline fitted as a covariate.||228.3|-618.8|0.354
91006144|NCT00853112|181896304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-34.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|190.99||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-424.1|356.0|||ANCOVA|||GR over 4 hours, PVRI: The analysis was performed using ANCOVA with baseline fitted as a covariate.||356.0|-424.1|0.860
91006145|NCT00853112|181896304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-435.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|195.94||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-835.9|-35.6|||ANCOVA|||GR over 4 hours, PVRI: The analysis was performed using ANCOVA with baseline fitted as a covariate.||-35.6|-835.9|0.034
91006146|NCT00853112|181896304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-334.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|201.74||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-746.7|77.3|||ANCOVA|||GR over 4 hours, PVRI: The analysis was performed using ANCOVA with baseline fitted as a covariate.||77.3|-746.7|0.107
91006147|NCT00853112|181896304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-278.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|200.89||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-688.3|132.2|||ANCOVA|||GR over 4 hours, PVRI: The analysis was performed using ANCOVA with baseline fitted as a covariate.||132.2|-688.3|0.177
91049845|NCT01635062|181985261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.8||||0.89|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||The hypothesis was that calcitriol therapy would raise renal plasma flow, when sodium loaded, when compared to placebo.||||0.89
91049846|NCT01635062|181985262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.0||||0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||The hypothesis was that calcitriol therapy would lower urine protein, when sodium loaded, when compared to placebo.||||0.80
91049847|NCT01846273|181985263|NON_INFERIORITY|pre-defined non-inferiority margin of 5 letters|Least Squares Mean|3.2|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.38||||ANCOVA||||||0.38|<0.001
91006148|NCT00853112|181896304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|51.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|315.91||0.873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-594.1|696.3|||ANCOVA|||GR over 4 hours, SVRI: The analysis was performed using ANCOVA with baseline fitted as a covariate.||696.3|-594.1|0.873
91006149|NCT00853112|181896304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|75.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|303.08||0.806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-543.8|694.1|||ANCOVA|||GR over 4 hours, SVRI: The analysis was performed using ANCOVA with baseline fitted as a covariate.||694.1|-543.8|0.806
91006150|NCT00853112|181896304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-262.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|301.1||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-877.8|352.1|||ANCOVA|||GR over 4 hours, SVRI: The analysis was performed using ANCOVA with baseline fitted as a covariate.||352.1|-877.8|0.390
91006151|NCT00853112|181896304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-329.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|302.97||0.286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-948.1|289.4|||ANCOVA|||GR over 4 hours, SVRI: The analysis was performed using ANCOVA with baseline fitted as a covariate.||289.4|-948.1|0.286
91006152|NCT00853112|181896304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-62.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|314.15||0.843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-704.3|578.9|||ANCOVA|||GR over 4 hours, SVRI: The analysis was performed using ANCOVA with baseline fitted as a covariate.||578.9|-704.3|0.843
91006153|NCT00853112|181896305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|322.8||0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-659.7|658.8|||ANCOVA|||The analysis was performed using ANCOVA with baseline fitted as a covariate.||658.8|-659.7|0.999
91006154|NCT00853112|181896305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|72.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|309.69||0.817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-560.2|704.7|||ANCOVA|||The analysis was performed using ANCOVA with baseline fitted as a covariate.||704.7|-560.2|0.817
91006155|NCT00853112|181896305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-82.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|307.67||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-711.0|545.7|||ANCOVA|||The analysis was performed using ANCOVA with baseline fitted as a covariate.||545.7|-711.0|0.790
91006156|NCT00853112|181896305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-325.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|309.58||0.301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-957.8|306.7|||ANCOVA|||The analysis was performed using ANCOVA with baseline fitted as a covariate.||306.7|-957.8|0.301
91006157|NCT00853112|181896305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-61.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|321.0||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-716.8|594.4|||ANCOVA|||The analysis was performed using ANCOVA with baseline fitted as a covariate.||594.4|-716.8|0.850
91006158|NCT00853112|181896306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-269.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|252.93||0.295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-785.39|246.76|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 1: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||246.76|-785.39|0.295
91006159|NCT00853112|181896306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-97.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|234.55||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-577.02|381.72|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 1: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||381.72|-577.02|0.680
91006160|NCT00853112|181896306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-376.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|241.06||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-869.53|116.31|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 1: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||116.31|-869.53|0.129
91006161|NCT00853112|181896306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-342.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|247.07||0.176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-846.9|162.32|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 1: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||162.32|-846.90|0.176
91006162|NCT00853112|181896306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-316.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|261.58||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-850.9|217.17|||Longitudinal analysis|||Hour 1: Longitudinal analysis was used to analyze p-value and included baseline as a covariate.||217.17|-850.90|0.235
91006163|NCT00853112|181896306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-198.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|247.62||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-705.04|308.91|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 2: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||308.91|-705.04|0.430
91006164|NCT00853112|181896306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|37.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|229.23||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-432.23|508.04|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 2: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||508.04|-432.23|0.870
91006165|NCT00853112|181896306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-114.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|244.95||0.645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-614.57|386.45|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 2: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||386.45|-614.57|0.645
91049848|NCT01846273|181985264|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
91049849|NCT00359788|181985291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.106|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.055|0.157|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.157|0.055|<0.0001
91006166|NCT00853112|181896306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-299.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|241.63||0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-794.81|195.61|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 2: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||195.61|-794.81|0.225
91006167|NCT00853112|181896306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-332.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|255.93||0.205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-856.55|192.05|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 2: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||192.05|-856.55|0.205
91006168|NCT00853112|181896306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-86.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|263.63||0.745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-625.87|452.42|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 3: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||452.42|-625.87|0.745
91006169|NCT00853112|181896306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|18.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|245.25||0.942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-484.46|520.47|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 3: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||520.47|-484.46|0.942
91006170|NCT00853112|181896306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-265.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|259.53||0.314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-796.15|264.28|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 3: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||264.28|-796.15|0.314
91006171|NCT00853112|181896306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-275.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|258.01||0.295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-803.57|252.88|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 3: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||252.88|-803.57|0.295
91006172|NCT00853112|181896306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-326.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|272.96||0.241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-885.12|232.02|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 3: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||232.02|-885.12|0.241
91006173|NCT00853112|181896306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-145.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|218.5||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-592.24|300.83|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 4: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||300.83|-592.24|0.510
91006174|NCT00853112|181896306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|77.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|199.85||0.699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-330.7|486.63|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 4: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||486.63|-330.70|0.699
91006175|NCT00853112|181896306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-341.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|204.65||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-760.45|76.64|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 4: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||76.64|-760.45|0.106
91049850|NCT00359788|181985292|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin = 0.05 liters|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.0042||95.0|-0.032|0.072|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.072|-0.032|0.0042
91049851|NCT00359788|181985293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.145|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.098|0.193|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.193|0.098|<0.0001
91049852|NCT00359788|181985294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.114|-0.046|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.046|-0.114|<0.0001
91049853|NCT00359788|181985295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.054||||0.0447||95.0|0.001|0.106|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.106|0.001|0.0447
91049854|NCT00359788|181985296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.131|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.171|-0.092|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.092|-0.171|<0.0001
91049855|NCT00359788|181985297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.152|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.19|-0.113|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.113|-0.19|<0.0001
91049856|NCT00359788|181985298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.133|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.175|-0.091|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.091|-0.175|<0.0001
91049857|NCT00359788|181985299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.175||||0.0015||95.0|0.067|0.283|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.283|0.067|0.0015
91049858|NCT00359788|181985300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.011||||0.835||95.0|-0.092|0.114|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.114|-0.092|0.835
91049859|NCT00359788|181985301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.278|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.178|0.379|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.379|0.178|<0.0001
91049860|NCT00359788|181985302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.157|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.236|-0.078|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.078|-0.236|<0.0001
91049861|NCT00359788|181985303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.039||||0.4386||95.0|-0.059|0.137|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.137|-0.059|0.4386
91049862|NCT00359788|181985304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.282||||0.0001||95.0|-0.374|-0.191|||ANCOVA|||||-0.191|-0.374|0.0001
91049863|NCT00359788|181985305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.361|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.449|-0.274|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.274|-0.449|<0.0001
91049864|NCT00359788|181985306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.286|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.375|-0.196|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.196|-0.375|<0.0001
91049865|NCT00359788|181985307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.175|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.207|-0.142|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.142|-0.207|<0.0001
91049866|NCT00359788|181985308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.168|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.205|-0.131|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.131|-0.205|<0.0001
91049867|NCT00359788|181985309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.182|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.221|-0.143|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.143|-0.221|<0.0001
91049868|NCT00359788|181985310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.136|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.175|-0.097|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.097|-0.175|<0.0001
91049869|NCT00359788|181985311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.084|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.125|-0.044|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.044|-0.125|<0.0001
91049870|NCT00359788|181985312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.035||||0.0997||95.0|-0.076|0.007|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.007|-0.076|0.0997
91049871|NCT00359788|181985313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.037||||0.101||95.0|-0.007|0.08|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.08|-0.007|0.101
91049872|NCT00359788|181985314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.145|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.098|0.193|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.193|0.098|<0.0001
91049873|NCT00359788|181985315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.055||||0.0411||95.0|-0.108|-0.002|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.002|-0.108|0.0411
91049874|NCT00359788|181985316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.0354||95.0|-0.116|-0.004|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.004|-0.116|0.0354
91049875|NCT00359788|181985317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.062||||0.041||95.0|-0.121|-0.003|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.003|-0.121|0.041
91049876|NCT00359788|181985318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.018||||0.5387||95.0|-0.076|0.04|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.04|-0.076|0.5387
91049877|NCT00359788|181985319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.061||||0.0372||95.0|0.004|0.118|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.118|0.004|0.0372
91049878|NCT00359788|181985320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.121|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.066|0.177|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.177|0.066|<0.0001
91049879|NCT00359788|181985321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.162|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.108|0.216|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.216|0.108|<0.0001
91049880|NCT00359788|181985322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.106|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.055|0.157|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.157|0.055|<0.0001
91049881|NCT00359788|181985323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.083||||0.0023||95.0|-0.136|-0.03|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.03|-0.136|0.0023
91049882|NCT00359788|181985324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.087||||0.0019||95.0|-0.142|-0.033|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.033|-0.142|0.0019
91006176|NCT00853112|181896306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-289.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|211.69||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-722.17|143.35|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 4: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||143.35|-722.17|0.182
91049883|NCT00359788|181985325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.083||||0.0044||95.0|-0.139|-0.026|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.026|-0.139|0.0044
91049884|NCT00359788|181985326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.046||||0.1182||95.0|-0.103|0.012|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.012|-0.103|0.1182
91049885|NCT00359788|181985327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.4814||95.0|-0.037|0.078||ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.078|-0.037|0.4814
91006177|NCT00853112|181896306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-256.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|224.88||0.263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-716.26|203.06|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 4: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||203.06|-716.26|0.263
91006178|NCT00853112|181896307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-328.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|385.78||0.401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1114.11|457.92|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 1: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||457.92|-1114.11|0.401
91006179|NCT00853112|181896307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-164.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|370.54||0.659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-920.05|590.12|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 1: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||590.12|-920.05|0.659
91006180|NCT00853112|181896307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-287.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|372.6||0.447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1047.59|473.42|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 1: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||473.42|-1047.59|0.447
91006181|NCT00853112|181896307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-457.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|374.26||0.231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1220.86|306.53|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 1: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||306.53|-1220.86|0.231
91006182|NCT00853112|181896307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-75.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|384.2||0.846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-858.19|707.71|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 1: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||707.71|-858.19|0.846
91006183|NCT00853112|181896307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-115.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|357.2||0.748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-844.24|612.96|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 2: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||612.96|-844.24|0.748
91006184|NCT00853112|181896307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|342.91||0.993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-702.41|696.67|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 2: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||696.67|-702.41|0.993
91006185|NCT00853112|181896307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|174.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|342.93||0.615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-526.41|874.81|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 2: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||874.81|-526.41|0.615
91006186|NCT00853112|181896307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-494.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|344.72||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1199.04|209.21|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 2: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||209.21|-1199.04|0.161
91049886|NCT00359788|181985328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.074||||0.008||95.0|0.019|0.129|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.129|0.019|0.008
91049887|NCT00359788|181985329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.136|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.082|0.19|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.19|0.082|<0.0001
91049888|NCT00359788|181985330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.449|-0.29|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.29|-0.449|<0.0001
91049889|NCT00359788|181985331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.356|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.44|-0.272|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.272|-0.44|<0.0001
91049890|NCT00359788|181985332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.357|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.451|-0.264|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.264|-0.451|<0.0001
91006187|NCT00853112|181896307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-134.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|355.5||0.708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-859.74|590.77|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 2: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||590.77|-859.74|0.708
91006188|NCT00853112|181896307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|47.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|365.43||0.897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-697.56|792.79|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 3: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||792.79|-697.56|0.897
91006189|NCT00853112|181896307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|98.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|350.87||0.781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-617.15|813.99|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 3: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||813.99|-617.15|0.781
91006190|NCT00853112|181896307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-28.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|355.47||0.937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-753.46|696.83|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 3: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||696.83|-753.46|0.937
91006191|NCT00853112|181896307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-369.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|353.25||0.304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1090.86|351.72|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 3: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||351.72|-1090.86|0.304
91006192|NCT00853112|181896307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-185.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|363.77||0.613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-927.54|556.27|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 3: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||556.27|-927.54|0.613
91006193|NCT00853112|181896307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|265.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|324.88||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-397.45|928.48|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 4: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||928.48|-397.45|0.420
91006194|NCT00853112|181896307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|240.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|311.63||0.447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-395.81|876.14|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 4: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||876.14|-395.81|0.447
91006195|NCT00853112|181896307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-176.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|309.11||0.572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-808.1|454.63|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 4: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||454.63|-808.10|0.572
91006196|NCT00853112|181896307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-27.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|311.11||0.929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-663.31|607.38|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 4: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||607.38|-663.31|0.929
91006197|NCT00853112|181896307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|29.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|323.01||0.928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-629.62|688.79|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 4: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||688.79|-629.62|0.928
91006198|NCT00853112|181896308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.83|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 1: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||0.83|-0.35|0.412
91006199|NCT00853112|181896308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.58|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 1: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||0.58|-0.58|0.999
91006200|NCT00853112|181896308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.74|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 1: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||0.74|-0.39|0.535
91006201|NCT00853112|181896308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|1.01|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 1: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||1.01|-0.13|0.128
91049891|NCT00359788|181985333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.285|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.376|-0.194|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.194|-0.376|<0.0001
91006202|NCT00853112|181896308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.53|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 1: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||0.53|-0.67|0.823
91006203|NCT00853112|181896308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.99|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 2: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||0.99|-0.40|0.396
91006204|NCT00853112|181896308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.72|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 2: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||0.72|-0.63|0.899
91006205|NCT00853112|181896308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.64|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 2: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||0.64|-0.70|0.928
91006206|NCT00853112|181896308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|1.11|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 2: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||1.11|-0.25|0.203
91006207|NCT00853112|181896308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.8|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 2: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||0.80|-0.60|0.772
91006208|NCT00853112|181896308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.69|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 3: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||0.69|-0.52|0.771
91006209|NCT00853112|181896308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.42|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 3: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||0.42|-0.75|0.572
91006210|NCT00853112|181896308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.6|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 3: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||0.60|-0.58|0.966
91006211|NCT00853112|181896308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|1.0|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 3: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||1.00|-0.17|0.157
91006212|NCT00853112|181896308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.79|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 3: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||0.79|-0.43|0.546
91006213|NCT00853112|181896308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.64|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 4: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||0.64|-0.51|0.818
91006214|NCT00853112|181896308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.42|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 4: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||0.42|-0.71|0.603
91006215|NCT00853112|181896308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.74|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 4: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||0.74|-0.37|0.495
91006216|NCT00853112|181896308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.8|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 4: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||0.80|-0.31|0.375
91006217|NCT00853112|181896308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.84|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 4: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||0.84|-0.34|0.392
91006218|NCT00853112|181896309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.75||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.47|2.86|||Longitudinal analysis|||mPAP at Hour 1: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||2.86|-12.47|0.210
91006219|NCT00853112|181896309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-4.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.61||0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.84|2.9|||Longitudinal analysis|||mPAP at Hour 1: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||2.90|-11.84|0.225
91006220|NCT00853112|181896309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-3.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.73||0.332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.28|3.93|||Longitudinal analysis|||mPAP at Hour 1: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||3.93|-11.28|0.332
91006221|NCT00853112|181896309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.76||0.714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.06|6.28|||Longitudinal analysis|||mPAP at Hour 1: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||6.28|-9.06|0.714
91049892|NCT00359788|181985334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.0003||95.0|-0.261|-0.079|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.079|-0.261|0.0003
91049893|NCT00359788|181985335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.2992||95.0|-0.143|0.044|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.044|-0.143|0.2992
91006222|NCT00853112|181896309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-8.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.73||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.63|-0.39|||Longitudinal analysis|||mPAP at Hour 1: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||-0.39|-15.63|0.040
91006223|NCT00853112|181896309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-6.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.37||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.02|0.75|||Longitudinal analysis|||mPAP at Hour 2: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||0.75|-13.02|0.079
91006224|NCT00853112|181896309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.24||0.573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.46|4.77|||Longitudinal analysis|||mPAP at Hour 2: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||4.77|-8.46|0.573
91006225|NCT00853112|181896309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-3.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.34||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|3.15|||Longitudinal analysis|||mPAP at Hour 2: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||3.15|-10.50|0.280
91006226|NCT00853112|181896309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.38||0.684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.28|5.51|||Longitudinal analysis|||mPAP at Hour 2: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||5.51|-8.28|0.684
91006227|NCT00853112|181896309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.35||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.01|-1.34|||Longitudinal analysis|||mPAP at Hour 2: Longitudinal analysis was used to analyze p-value and included baseline as a covariate.||-1.34|-15.01|0.021
91006228|NCT00853112|181896309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7||0.727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.86|6.25|||Longitudinal analysis|||mPAP at Hour 3: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||6.25|-8.86|0.727
91006229|NCT00853112|181896309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-4.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.56||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.12|2.42|||Longitudinal analysis|||mPAP at Hour 3: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||2.42|-12.12|0.183
91006230|NCT00853112|181896309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-6.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.67||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.51|1.49|||Longitudinal analysis|||mPAP at Hour 3: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||1.49|-13.51|0.112
91006231|NCT00853112|181896309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.71||0.928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.91|7.23|||Longitudinal analysis|||mPAP at Hour 3: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||7.23|-7.91|0.928
91006232|NCT00853112|181896309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-9.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.68||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.52|-1.5|||Longitudinal analysis|||mPAP at Hour 3: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||-1.50|-16.52|0.020
91006233|NCT00853112|181896309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.79||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.55|1.94|||Longitudinal analysis|||mPAP at Hour 4: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||1.94|-13.55|0.136
91006234|NCT00853112|181896309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-3.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.65||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.27|3.63|||Longitudinal analysis|||mPAP at Hour 4: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||3.63|-11.27|0.303
91006235|NCT00853112|181896309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-5.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.77||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.87|2.52|||Longitudinal analysis|||mPAP at Hour 4: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||2.52|-12.87|0.180
91006236|NCT00853112|181896309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8||0.506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.31|5.2|||Longitudinal analysis|||mPAP at Hour 4: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||5.20|-10.31|0.506
91006237|NCT00853112|181896309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-8.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.77||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.54|-1.14|||Longitudinal analysis|||mPAP at Hour 4: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||-1.14|-16.54|0.026
91006238|NCT01553591|181896317|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014||||||Significance level of 0.025|Chi-square test statistic|||The family-wise error rate was controlled by Bonferroni adjustment for each active dose versus placebo.||||0.014
91006239|NCT01553591|181896317|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||Significance level of 0.025|Chi-square test statistic|||The family-wise error rate was controlled by Bonferroni adjustment for each active dose versus placebo.||||0.004
91006240|NCT01553591|181896318|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.112||||||Significance level of 0.025|Chi-square test statistic|||The family-wise error rate was controlled by Bonferroni adjustment for each active dose versus placebo.||||0.112
91006241|NCT01553591|181896318|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Significance level of 0.025|Chi-square test statistic|||The family-wise error rate was controlled by Bonferroni adjustment for each active dose versus placebo.||||<0.001
91006242|NCT02477800|181896332|SUPERIORITY||Difference from Placebo|0.11||||0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.469|0.403|||MMRM Model|||Adjusted mean for each treatment group (Placebo, BIIB037 Low Dose, BIIB037 High Dose), difference with Placebo, 95% confidence interval and p-value at each time point were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in CDR-SB as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, categorical visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline CDR-SB, baseline CDR-SB by visit interaction, baseline MMSE, AD symptomatic medication use at baseline, region, and laboratory ApoE status.||0.403|-0.469|0.2250
91006243|NCT02477800|181896332|SUPERIORITY||Difference from late start group|0.03||||0.833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.262|0.326|||MMRM Model|||Adjusted mean for each treatment group (Placebo, BIIB037 Low Dose, BIIB037 High Dose), difference with Placebo, 95% confidence interval and p-value at each time point were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in CDR-SB as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, categorical visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline CDR-SB, baseline CDR-SB by visit interaction, baseline MMSE, AD symptomatic medication use at baseline, region, and laboratory ApoE status.||0.326|-0.262|0.8330
91006244|NCT02477800|181896333|SUPERIORITY||Difference from Placebo|0.2||||0.4795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.74|||MMRM Model|||Adjusted mean for each treatment group (Placebo, BIIB037 Low Dose, BIIB037 High Dose), difference from Placebo, 95% confidence interval and p-value at each time point were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MMSE as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, categorical visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline MMSE, baseline MMSE by visit interaction, AD symptomatic medication use at baseline, region, and laboratory ApoE status.||0.74|-0.35|0.4795
91006245|NCT02477800|181896333|SUPERIORITY||Difference from Placebo|-0.1||||0.8106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.49|||MMRM Model|||Adjusted mean for each treatment group (Placebo, BIIB037 Low Dose, BIIB037 High Dose), difference from Placebo, 95% confidence interval and p-value at each time point were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MMSE as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, categorical visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline MMSE, baseline MMSE by visit interaction, AD symptomatic medication use at baseline, region, and laboratory ApoE status.||0.49|-0.62|0.8106
91006246|NCT02477800|181896334|SUPERIORITY||Difference from Placebo|-0.583||||0.2536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5835|0.4181|||MMRM Model|||Adjusted mean for each treatment group (Placebo,BIIB037 Low Dose,BIIB037 High Dose),difference with Placebo, 95% confidence interval and p-value at each time point were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in ADAS-Cog 13 as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group,categorical visit,treatment-by-visit interaction,baseline ADAS-Cog 13,baseline ADAS-Cog 13 by visit interaction,baseline MMSE,AD symptomatic medication use at baseline,region,and laboratory ApoE status.||0.4181|-1.5835|0.2536
91049894|NCT00359788|181985336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.081||||0.0984||95.0|-0.015|0.177|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.177|-0.015|0.0984
91049895|NCT00359788|181985337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.278|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.178|0.379|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.379|0.178|<0.0001
91006247|NCT02477800|181896334|SUPERIORITY||Difference from Placebo|-0.588||||0.2578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6067|0.4309|||MMRM Model|||Adjusted mean for each treatment group (Placebo,BIIB037 Low Dose,BIIB037 High Dose),difference with Placebo, 95% confidence interval and p-value at each time point were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in ADAS-Cog 13 as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group,categorical visit,treatment-by-visit interaction,baseline ADAS-Cog 13,baseline ADAS-Cog 13 by visit interaction,baseline MMSE,AD symptomatic medication use at baseline,region,and laboratory ApoE status.||0.4309|-1.6067|0.2578
91049896|NCT00359788|181985338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.189||||0.0004||95.0|-0.293|-0.086|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.086|-0.293|0.0004
91006248|NCT02477800|181896335|SUPERIORITY||Difference from Placebo|0.7||||0.1225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|1.64|||MMRM Model|||Adjusted mean for each group (Placebo, BIIB037 Low Dose, BIIB037 High Dose), difference with Placebo,95% confidence interval and p-value at each time point were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in ADCS-ADL-MCI as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group,categorical visit,treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline ADCS-ADL-MCI, baseline ADCS-ADL-MCI by visit interaction, baseline MMSE AD symptomatic medication use at baseline,region, and laboratory ApoE status.||1.64|-0.19|0.1225
91006249|NCT02477800|181896335|SUPERIORITY||Difference from late start group|0.7||||0.1506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|1.61|||MMRM Model|||Adjusted mean for each group (Placebo, BIIB037 Low Dose, BIIB037 High Dose), difference with Placebo,95% confidence interval and p-value at each time point were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in ADCS-ADL-MCI as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group,categorical visit,treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline ADCS-ADL-MCI, baseline ADCS-ADL-MCI by visit interaction, baseline MMSE AD symptomatic medication use at baseline,region, and laboratory ApoE status.||1.61|-0.25|0.1506
91049897|NCT00359788|181985339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.204||||0.0003||95.0|-0.314|-0.095|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.095|-0.314|0.0003
91049898|NCT00359788|181985340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1832||||0.012||95.0|-0.293|-0.072|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.072|-0.293|0.012
91006250|NCT00423592|181896337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|9.7|||Exact binomial test|A 1-sample test for a binomial proportion was performed.||Sample size: 30 participants; 80% power to rule out 50% recurrence rate of serum ALT/AST abnormalities following ambrisentan treatment (assumes 25% recurrence rate); 99% power to rule out 75% recurrence rate (assumes 37.5% recurrence rate). H\_0 = proportion of subjects experiencing primary endpoint at 12% vs 1-sided alternative of \< 12%. P-value from exact binomial test. Summary statistics included the estimated proportion, 95% confidence interval (CI), and the p-value of the hypothesis test.||9.7|0.0|0.01
91006251|NCT00423592|181896340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|49.6||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|40.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||Hypothesis testing and descriptive statistics were carried out on the last-observation-carried-forward (LOCF) 6-minute walk distance change from baseline.||40.4|6.3|0.009
91006252|NCT00423592|181896341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.51||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Hypothesis testing and descriptive statistics were carried out on the last-observation-carried-forward (LOCF) Borg dyspnea index change from baseline.||0.0|-1.0|0.046
91006253|NCT00423592|181896343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.44||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|7.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||Seven subjects were evaluated by the incorrect version of the SF-36 questionnaire at the baseline visit and were not included in the analysis; therefore n = 28 for mean baseline scores, and n = 28 for mean change from baseline at Week 12.||7.1|2.1|0.001
91006254|NCT00423592|181896344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.98||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|6.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||Seven subjects were evaluated by the incorrect version of the SF-36 questionnaire at the baseline visit and were not included in the analysis; therefore n = 28 for mean baseline scores, and n = 28 for mean change from baseline at Week 12.||6.8|-0.1|0.059
91006255|NCT00423592|181896345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.86||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|7.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Seven subjects were evaluated by the incorrect version of the SF-36 questionnaire at the baseline visit and were not included in the analysis; therefore n = 28 for mean baseline scores, and n = 28 for mean change from baseline at Week 12.||7.0|1.7|0.002
91006256|NCT00423592|181896346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.56||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|11.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||Seven subjects were evaluated by the incorrect version of the SF-36 questionnaire at the baseline visit and were not included in the analysis; therefore n = 28 for mean baseline scores, and n = 28 for mean change from baseline at Week 12.||11.3|3.1|0.001
91006257|NCT00423592|181896347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.4||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|5.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||Seven subjects were evaluated by the incorrect version of the SF-36 questionnaire at the baseline visit and were not included in the analysis; therefore n = 28 for mean baseline scores, and n = 28 for mean change from baseline at Week 12.||5.6|0.6|0.017
91006258|NCT00423592|181896348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.45||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|5.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||Seven subjects were evaluated by the incorrect version of the SF-36 questionnaire at the baseline visit and were not included in the analysis; therefore n = 28 for mean baseline scores, and n = 28 for mean change from baseline at Week 12.||5.8|0.1|0.046
91006259|NCT00423592|181896349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.23||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|7.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||Seven subjects were evaluated by the incorrect version of the SF-36 questionnaire at the baseline visit and were not included in the analysis; therefore n = 28 for mean baseline scores, and n = 28 for mean change from baseline at Week 12.||7.3|1.7|0.003
91006260|NCT00423592|181896350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.41||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|7.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||Seven subjects were evaluated by the incorrect version of the SF-36 questionnaire at the baseline visit and were not included in the analysis; therefore n = 28 for mean baseline scores, and n = 28 for mean change from baseline at Week 12.||7.2|-0.1|0.059
91006261|NCT00423592|181896351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.96||0.152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|9.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||Seven subjects were evaluated by the incorrect version of the SF-36 questionnaire at the baseline visit and were not included in the analysis; therefore n = 28 for mean baseline scores, and n = 28 for mean change from baseline at Week 12.||9.3|-1.5|0.152
91006262|NCT00423592|181896352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.78||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|6.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||Seven subjects were evaluated by the incorrect version of the SF-36 questionnaire at the baseline visit and were not included in the analysis; therefore n = 28 for mean baseline scores, and n = 28 for mean change from baseline at Week 12.||6.2|1.7|0.001
91006263|NCT00062647|181896353|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No margin was justified owing to the exploratory nature of the investigation.|Risk Difference (RD)|1.0||||||95.0|-35.5|31.9|||the difference in the 2 eradication rate|Statistical testing was limited to interval estimation (95% CI) of the difference in the 2 eradication rates using the method of Agresti and Caffo.||||31.9|-35.5|
91006264|NCT00255008|181896363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion of patients (%)|80.0||||||95.0|28.36|99.49||||||||99.49|28.36|
91006265|NCT00255008|181896363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion of patients (%)|76.47||||||95.0|50.1|93.19||||||||93.19|50.10|
91006266|NCT00255008|181896363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion of patients (%)|87.5||||||95.0|47.35|99.48||||||||99.48|47.35|
91006267|NCT00908895|181896422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|70.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|25.0|<|0.05||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||We assess that 15% is a significative strength difference. According to a 80% study power, a SD at 25% and a 20% lost to follow-up, we found 118 patients for the all study.||||<0.05
91006268|NCT00908895|181896423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|90.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.0|<|0.05||95.0|80.0|100.0|||Chi-squared|||||100|80|<0.05
91006269|NCT03793010|181896424|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.81||||||||1.81|-1.20|
91006270|NCT03793010|181896425|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|2.24||||||||2.24|-1.05|
91006271|NCT03793010|181896426|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.9||||||||0.9|-1.0|
91006272|NCT00908050|181896427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0394|||||||Chi-squared|||The averaged data calculated from three nights in each recording period for each subject will be submitted to statistical analysis. Descriptive and non-parametric statistics will be used for the secondary end-points.||||0.0394
91006273|NCT03350724|181896439|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.039||||||Unadjusted p-value|Z-Test for Two Population Proportions|Unadjusted p-value||||||0.039
91006274|NCT03350724|181896440|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.037||||||Unadjusted p-value|Z-Test for Two Population Proportions|Unadjusted p-value||||||0.037
91006275|NCT03350724|181896441|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.032|||||||Z-Test for Two Population Proportions|||||||0.032
91006276|NCT03350724|181896442|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.171||||||Unadjusted p-value|Z-Test for Two Population Proportions|Unadjusted p-value||||||0.171
91006277|NCT03350724|181896443|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.484||||||Unadjusted p-value|Z-Test for Two Population Proportions|Unadjusted p-value||||||0.484
91006278|NCT03350724|181896444|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.368||||||Unadjusted p-value|Z-Test for Two Population Proportions|Unadjusted p-value||||||0.368
91006279|NCT03350724|181896445|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.308||||||Unadjusted p-value|Z-Test for Two Population Proportions|Unadjusted p-value||||||0.308
91006280|NCT03350724|181896446|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999||||||Unadjusted p-value|Z-Test for Two Population Proportions|Unadjusted p-value||||||0.999
91006281|NCT03350724|181896447|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015||||||Unadjusted p-value|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Unadjusted p-value||||||0.015
91006282|NCT03350724|181896448|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.021||||||Unadjusted p-value|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Unadjusted p-value||||||0.021
91006283|NCT03350724|181896449|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035||||||Unadjusted p-value|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Unadjusted p-value||||||0.035
91006284|NCT03350724|181896450|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.444||||||Unadjusted p-value|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Unadjusted p-value||||||0.444
91006285|NCT03350724|181896451|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.765||||||Unadjusted p-value|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Unadjusted p-value||||||0.765
91006286|NCT03350724|181896452|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.941||||||Unadjusted p-value|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Unadjusted p-value||||||0.941
91006287|NCT03350724|181896453|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.421||||||Unadjusted p-value|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Unadjusted p-value||||||0.421
91006288|NCT03350724|181896454|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.357||||||Unadjusted p-value|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Unadjusted p-value||||||0.357
91006289|NCT03350724|181896455|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22||||||Unadjusted p-value|Paired t-Test|Unadjusted p-value||||||0.22
91006290|NCT03350724|181896456|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.882||||||Unadjusted p-value|Paired t-Test|Unadjusted p-value||||||0.882
91006291|NCT03350724|181896457|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64||||||Unadjusted p-value|Paired t-Test|Unadjusted p-value||||||0.64
91006292|NCT03350724|181896458|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.967||||||Unadjusted p-value|Paired t-Test|Unadjusted p-value||||||0.967
91006293|NCT03350724|181896459|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.375||||||Unadjusted p-value|Paired t-Test|Unadjusted p-value||||||0.375
91006294|NCT04806165|181896475|SUPERIORITY|To improve the quality of the imputations, gender, age, and race were included as auxiliary variables. We generated ten imputed datasets with the predictive mean matching method and pooled coefficients, degrees of freedom, and standard errors with Rubin's (1987) rules. As a sensitivity analysis, we also ran the same models using full information maximum likelihood to handle missing data. The model was estimated using a logit link and did not incorporate an intercept.|Regression (Beta) Coefficient|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.309|TWO_SIDED|||||We defined sufficiently large main effects as those with p values ≤ .05 or with 95% confidence intervals that do not include 0. We interpreted absolute ß values below 0.2 as small, between 0.2 and 0.5 as medium, and greater than 0.5 as large.|Discrete Time Survival Analysis|The model did not incorporate an intercept to allow for estimation of treatment receipt likelihood among participants yet to report treatment.||This analysis explores the effect of the motivational interviewing (MI) component on rates of treatment receipt over the entire study period. Results will help determine the proportional increase in odds of treatment seeking corresponding to receiving each chatbot component. Discrete time survival analysis was employed and models were fit with treatment seeking regressed on follow-up time (2-week, 6-week, or 14-week) and each chatbot component.||||.309
91007548|NCT01749930|181899101|NON_INFERIORITY|The 2 treatments were compared for each time point by visit. LS mean of each treatment group, the difference in the LS mean, and the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference were obtained. Noninferiority could be claimed if the upper limit of the CIs \<1.5 mmHg at all time points of each visit and \<1.00 mmHg for at least 5 out of the 9 time points. If noninferiority was determined, superiority at each time point could be claimed if the upper limit of the 95% CI\<0 mmHg at all time points of each visit.||||||0.216||||||The ANCOVA results for the comparison of LS means of mean IOP between treatment groups demonstrated noninferiority of BOL-303259-X to timolol. Superiority of BOL-303259-X to timolol was demonstrated at 8 of 9 time points (exception at 8 am Week 2).|ANCOVA|||||||0.216
91007549|NCT01749930|181899102|OTHER|||||||0.084|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.084
91007550|NCT01749930|181899103|OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.007
91007551|NCT01749930|181899104|OTHER||||||||||||||||||No statistical analysis was performed on these proportions|||
91007552|NCT04735432|181899105|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a phase 3, multicenter, randomized, open-label, parallel-group, 12-week study to evaluate the noninferiority of the pharmacodynamic effect of efgartigimod PH20 SC 1000 mg compared with efgartigimod IV 10 mg/kg in patients with generalized myasthenia gravis.|LS mean difference|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.782|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.73|-0.66|||ANCOVA|||The primary endpoint was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and total IgG levels at baseline as a covariate. The NI evaluation was based on a percent reduction from baseline in total IgG levels at day 29 (week 4) using an NI margin of 10%. Only the results for mITT analysis set are entered.||-0.66|-7.73|< 0.0001
91049899|NCT00359788|181985341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.097||||0.044||95.0|-0.219|0.003|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.003|-0.219|0.044
91049900|NCT00359788|181985342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.3634||95.0|-0.058|0.158|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.158|-0.058|0.3634
91049901|NCT00359788|181985343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.163||||0.0032||95.0|0.055|0.27|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.27|0.055|0.0032
91049902|NCT00359788|181985344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.275|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.173|0.378|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.378|0.173|<0.0001
91049903|NCT00359788|181985345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.175||||0.0015||95.0|0.067|0.283|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.283|0.067|0.0015
91049904|NCT00359788|181985346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.193||||0.0002||95.0|-0.296|-0.091|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.091|-0.296|0.0002
91006295|NCT04806165|181896475|SUPERIORITY|To improve the quality of the imputations, gender, age, and race were included as auxiliary variables. We generated ten imputed datasets with the predictive mean matching method and pooled coefficients, degrees of freedom, and standard errors with Rubin's (1987) rules. As a sensitivity analysis, we also ran the same models using full information maximum likelihood to handle missing data. The model was estimated using a logit link and did not incorporate an intercept.|Regression (Beta) Coefficient|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.19|TWO_SIDED|||||We defined sufficiently large main effects as those with p values ≤ .05 or with 95% confidence intervals that do not include 0. We interpreted absolute ß values below 0.2 as small, between 0.2 and 0.5 as medium, and greater than 0.5 as large.|Discrete Time Survival Analysis|The model did not incorporate an intercept to allow for estimation of treatment receipt likelihood among participants yet to report treatment.||This analysis explores the effect of the personalized recommendation (PR) component on rates of treatment receipt over the entire study period. Results will help determine the proportional increase in odds of treatment seeking corresponding to receiving each chatbot component. Discrete time survival analysis was employed and models were fit with treatment seeking regressed on follow-up time (2-week, 6-week, or 14-week) and each chatbot component.||||.190
91049905|NCT00359788|181985347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.215|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.323|-0.108|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.108|-0.323|<0.0001
91049906|NCT00359788|181985348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.198||||0.0006||95.0|-0.309|-0.086|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.086|-0.309|0.0006
91049907|NCT00359788|181985349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.097||||0.0896||95.0|-0.21|0.015|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.015|-0.21|0.0896
91049908|NCT00359788|181985350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.008||||0.8937||95.0|-0.103|0.118|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.118|-0.103|0.8937
91049909|NCT00359788|181985351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.125||||0.0269||95.0|0.014|0.236|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.236|0.014|0.0269
91049910|NCT00359788|181985352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.223||||0.0001||95.0|0.111|0.335|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.335|0.111|0.0001
91049911|NCT00359788|181985353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.042||||0.7196||95.0|-0.275|0.19|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.19|-0.275|0.7196
91049912|NCT00359788|181985354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.069||||0.6189||95.0|-0.343|0.205|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.205|-0.343|0.6189
91049913|NCT00359788|181985355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.073||||0.6197||95.0|-0.36|0.215|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.215|-0.36|0.6197
91049914|NCT00359788|181985356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.112||||0.4582||95.0|-0.408|0.184|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.184|-0.408|0.4582
91049915|NCT00359788|181985357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.6538||95.0|-0.376|0.236|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.236|-0.376|0.6538
91049916|NCT00359788|181985358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.145||||0.4145||95.0|-0.495|0.205|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.205|-0.495|0.4145
91049917|NCT00359788|181985359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.085||||0.6048||95.0|-0.408|0.238|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.238|-0.408|0.6048
91049918|NCT00359788|181985360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.3137||95.0|-0.503|0.162|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.162|-0.503|0.3137
91049919|NCT00359788|181985361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.061||||0.7195||95.0|-0.395|0.273|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.273|-0.395|0.7195
91049920|NCT00359788|181985362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.043||||0.7947||95.0|-0.367|0.282|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.282|-0.367|0.7947
91049921|NCT00359788|181985363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.093||||0.6049||95.0|-0.446|0.26|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.26|-0.446|0.6049
91049922|NCT00359788|181985364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.047||||0.8109||95.0|-0.437|0.342|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.342|-0.437|0.8109
91049923|NCT00359788|181985365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.527||||0.1471||95.0|-0.186|1.24|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||1.24|-0.186|0.1471
91049924|NCT00359788|181985366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.265||||0.3192||95.0|-0.258|0.788|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.788|-0.258|0.3192
91049925|NCT00359788|181985367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.351||||0.182||95.0|-0.165|0.867|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.867|-0.165|0.182
91049926|NCT00359788|181985368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.363||||0.1777||95.0|-0.166|0.893|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.893|-0.166|0.1777
91049927|NCT00359788|181985369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.363||||0.1805||95.0|-0.169|0.895|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.895|-0.169|0.1805
91049928|NCT00359788|181985370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.372||||0.1777||95.0|-0.17|0.913|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.913|-0.17|0.1777
91049929|NCT00359788|181985371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.159||||0.5725||95.0|-0.395|0.714|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.714|-0.395|0.5725
91049930|NCT00359788|181985372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.121||||0.6765||95.0|-0.449|0.69|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.69|-0.449|0.6765
91049931|NCT00359788|181985373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.247||||0.3943||95.0|-0.323|0.818|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.818|-0.323|0.3943
91049932|NCT00359788|181985374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.291||||0.3091||95.0|-0.271|0.852|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.852|-0.271|0.3091
91049933|NCT00359788|181985375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.317||||0.2911||95.0|-0.273|0.907|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.907|-0.273|0.2911
91007553|NCT00626327|181899119|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response of MenACWY-CRM+MMRV group was considered non-inferior to that of MMRV group if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the difference in the percentage of subjects with seroconversion for measles was greater than -5%, at 6 weeks after MMRV vaccination.|Difference % (MenACWY-CRM+MMRV-MMRV)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|0.5||||||Non-inferiority of immune response to measles following one dose of MMRV administered concomitantly with MenACWY-CRM as compared to MMRV given alone.||0.5|-3.4|
91049934|NCT00359788|181985376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.108||||0.7458||95.0|-0.549|0.766|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.766|-0.549|0.7458
91049935|NCT00359788|181985377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.698||||0.0004||95.0|4.836|16.56|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||16.56|4.836|0.0004
91049936|NCT00359788|181985378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.257||||0.0023||95.0|4.055|18.458|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||18.458|4.055|0.0023
91049937|NCT00359788|181985379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.772||||0.0015||95.0|4.942|20.602|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||20.602|4.942|0.0015
91049938|NCT00359788|181985380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.568||||0.0013||95.0|5.342|21.795|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||21.795|5.342|0.0013
91049939|NCT00359788|181985381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.052||||0.005||95.0|3.676|20.428|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||20.428|3.676|0.005
91049940|NCT00359788|181985382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.107||||0.0159||95.0|2.095|20.119|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||20.119|2.095|0.0159
91049941|NCT00359788|181985383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.057||||0.0219||95.0|1.613|20.501|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||20.501|1.613|0.0219
91049942|NCT00359788|181985384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.655||||0.0048||95.0|4.207|23.104|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||23.104|4.207|0.0048
91049943|NCT00359788|181985385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.231||||0.0058||95.0|4.153|24.31|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||24.31|4.153|0.0058
91049944|NCT00359788|181985386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.597||||0.0248||95.0|1.483|21.71|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||21.71|1.483|0.0248
91049945|NCT00359788|181985387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.001||||0.0325||95.0|0.924|21.079|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||21.079|0.924|0.0325
91049946|NCT00359788|181985388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.074||||0.0153||95.0|2.726|25.422|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||25.422|2.726|0.0153
91006296|NCT04806165|181896475|SUPERIORITY|To improve the quality of the imputations, gender, age, and race were included as auxiliary variables. We generated ten imputed datasets with the predictive mean matching method and pooled coefficients, degrees of freedom, and standard errors with Rubin's (1987) rules. As a sensitivity analysis, we also ran the same models using full information maximum likelihood to handle missing data. The model was estimated using a logit link and did not incorporate an intercept.|Regression (Beta) Coefficient|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.69|TWO_SIDED|||||We defined sufficiently large main effects as those with p values ≤ .05 or with 95% confidence intervals that do not include 0. We interpreted absolute ß values below 0.2 as small, between 0.2 and 0.5 as medium, and greater than 0.5 as large.|Discrete Time Survival Analysis|The model did not incorporate an intercept to allow for estimation of treatment receipt likelihood among participants yet to report treatment.||This analysis explores the effect of the psychoeducation (PE) component on rates of treatment receipt over the entire study period. Results will help determine the proportional increase in odds of treatment seeking corresponding to receiving each chatbot component. Discrete time survival analysis was employed and models were fit with treatment seeking regressed on follow-up time (2-week, 6-week, or 14-week) and each chatbot component.||||.690
91006297|NCT04806165|181896475|SUPERIORITY|To improve the quality of the imputations, gender, age, and race were included as auxiliary variables. We generated ten imputed datasets with the predictive mean matching method and pooled coefficients, degrees of freedom, and standard errors with Rubin's (1987) rules. As a sensitivity analysis, we also ran the same models using full information maximum likelihood to handle missing data. The model was estimated using a logit link and did not incorporate an intercept.|Regression (Beta) Coefficient|0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.038|TWO_SIDED|||||We defined sufficiently large main effects as those with p values ≤ .05 or with 95% confidence intervals that do not include 0. We interpreted absolute ß values below 0.2 as small, between 0.2 and 0.5 as medium, and greater than 0.5 as large.|Discrete Time Survival Analysis|The model did not incorporate an intercept to allow for estimation of treatment receipt likelihood among participants yet to report treatment.||This analysis explores the effect of the repeated administration (RA) component on rates of treatment receipt over the entire study period. Results will help determine the proportional increase in odds of treatment seeking corresponding to receiving each chatbot component. Discrete time survival analysis was employed and models were fit with treatment seeking regressed on follow-up time (2-week, 6-week, or 14-week) and each chatbot component.||||0.038
91006298|NCT04806165|181896475|SUPERIORITY|To improve the quality of the imputations, gender, age, and race were included as auxiliary variables. We generated ten imputed datasets with the predictive mean matching method and pooled coefficients, degrees of freedom, and standard errors with Rubin's (1987) rules. As a sensitivity analysis, we also ran the same models using full information maximum likelihood to handle missing data. The model was estimated using a logit link and did not incorporate an intercept.|Regression (Beta) Coefficient|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.735|TWO_SIDED|||||We defined sufficiently large main effects as those with p values ≤ .05 or with 95% confidence intervals that do not include 0. We interpreted absolute ß values below 0.2 as small, between 0.2 and 0.5 as medium, and greater than 0.5 as large.|Discrete Time Survival Analysis|The model did not incorporate an intercept to allow for estimation of treatment receipt likelihood among participants yet to report treatment.||This analysis provides results on the 2 week time point post Intervention and contributes to understanding of the effect of time since chatbot engagement on treatment receipt, regardless of the combination of the four chatbot components participants were assigned (ie., component turned off or on). Discrete time survival analysis was employed and models were fit with treatment seeking regressed on follow-up time (2-week, 6-week, or 14-week) and each chatbot component.||||.735
91006299|NCT04806165|181896475|SUPERIORITY|To improve the quality of the imputations, gender, age, and race were included as auxiliary variables. We generated ten imputed datasets with the predictive mean matching method and pooled coefficients, degrees of freedom, and standard errors with Rubin's (1987) rules. As a sensitivity analysis, we also ran the same models using full information maximum likelihood to handle missing data. The model was estimated using a logit link and did not incorporate an intercept.|Regression (Beta) Coefficient|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||We defined sufficiently large main effects as those with p values ≤ .05 or with 95% confidence intervals that do not include 0. We interpreted absolute ß values below 0.2 as small, between 0.2 and 0.5 as medium, and greater than 0.5 as large.|Discrete Time Survival Analysis|The model did not incorporate an intercept to allow for estimation of treatment receipt likelihood among participants yet to report treatment.||This analysis provides results on the 6 week time point post Intervention and contributes to understanding of the effect of time since chatbot engagement on treatment receipt, regardless of the combination of the four chatbot components participants were assigned (ie., component turned off or on). Discrete time survival analysis was employed and models were fit with treatment seeking regressed on follow-up time (2-week, 6-week, or 14-week) and each chatbot component.||||.001
91007554|NCT00626327|181899119|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response of MenACWY-CRM+MMRV group was considered non-inferior to that of MMRV group if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the difference in the percentage of subjects with seroconversion for mumps was greater than -5%, at 6 weeks after MMRV vaccination.|Difference % (MenACWY-CRM+MMRV - MMRV )|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|3.7||||||Non-inferiority of immune response to mumps following one dose of MMRV administered concomitantly with MenACWY-CRM as compared to MMRV administered alone.||3.7|-1|
91007555|NCT00626327|181899119|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response of MenACWY-CRM+MMRV group was considered non-inferior to that of MMRV group if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the difference in the percentage of subjects with seroconversion for rubella was greater than -5%, at 6 weeks after MMRV vaccination.|Difference% (MenACWY-CRM+MMRV-MMRV)|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|0.8||||||Non-inferiority of immune response to rubella following one dose of MMRV administered concomitantly with MenACWY-CRM as compared to MMRV administered alone.||0.8|-4.5|
91006300|NCT04806165|181896475|SUPERIORITY|To improve the quality of the imputations, gender, age, and race were included as auxiliary variables. We generated ten imputed datasets with the predictive mean matching method and pooled coefficients, degrees of freedom, and standard errors with Rubin's (1987) rules. As a sensitivity analysis, we also ran the same models using full information maximum likelihood to handle missing data. The model was estimated using a logit link and did not incorporate an intercept.|Regression (Beta) Coefficient|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.014|TWO_SIDED|||||We defined sufficiently large main effects as those with p values ≤ .05 or with 95% confidence intervals that do not include 0. We interpreted absolute ß values below 0.2 as small, between 0.2 and 0.5 as medium, and greater than 0.5 as large.|Discrete Time Survival Analysis|The model did not incorporate an intercept to allow for estimation of treatment receipt likelihood among participants yet to report treatment.||This analysis provides results on the 14 week time point post Intervention and contributes to understanding of the effect of time since chatbot engagement on treatment receipt, regardless of the combination of the four chatbot components participants were assigned (ie., component turned off or on). Discrete time survival analysis was employed and models were fit with treatment seeking regressed on follow-up time (2-week, 6-week, or 14-week) and each chatbot component.||||.014
91007556|NCT00626327|181899119|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response of MenACWY-CRM+MMRV group was considered non-inferior to that of MMRV group if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the difference in the percentage of subjects with seroprotection for varicella was greater than -10%, at 6 weeks after MMRV vaccination.|Difference% (MenACWY-CRM+MMRV-MMRV)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|1.2||||||Non-inferiority of immune response to varicella following one dose of MMRV administered concomitantly with MenACWY-CRM as compared to MMRV administered alone.||1.2|-3.9|
91049947|NCT00359788|181985389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.755||||0.6105||95.0|-8.532|5.022|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||5.022|-8.532|0.6105
91049948|NCT00359788|181985390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.842||||0.8249||95.0|-6.642|8.326|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||8.326|-6.642|0.8249
91006301|NCT04806165|181896476|SUPERIORITY|Gender, age, and race were included as auxiliary variables to improve imputation quality. We generated ten imputed datasets with the predictive mean matching method and pooled coefficients, degrees of freedom, and standard errors with Rubin's (1987) rules. For sensitivity analysis, models were run again using full information maximum likelihood to handle missing data.|Regression (Beta) Coefficient|0.53||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|||||"We interpreted absolute ß values below 0.2 as small, between 0.2 and 0.5 as medium, and greater than 0.5 as large.~We defined sufficiently large main effects as those with p values ≤ .05 or with 95% confidence intervals that do not include 0."|Linear Mixed Effects Model|||Analyses were conducted to determine the effects of each of the four chatbot components on secondary outcomes. This analysis in particular explores the effects of the motivational interviewing component (MI) on participant willingness to seek psychotherapy for concerns their disordered weight and shape behaviors and thoughts since engagement with the intervention. Linear mixed effects models incorporated a random intercept to accommodate the correlation of repeated measures within participants.||||0.25
91049949|NCT00359788|181985391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.71||||0.4896||95.0|-5.001|10.421|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||10.421|-5.001|0.4896
91007557|NCT00626327|181899120|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response of MenACWY-CRM + MMRV group was considered non-inferior to that of MenACWY-CRM group if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the difference of the percentage of subjects with hSBA ≥1:8 at 6 weeks after the second dose of MenACWY-CRM given to 12 month old toddlers was greater than -10% for each serogroup.|Difference% (MenACWY-CRM+MMRV-MenACWY)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|4.5||||||Non-inferiority of immune response of MenACWY-CRM against serogroup A when concomitantly administered with MMRV vaccine as compared to MenACWY-CRM vaccine given alone.||4.5|-4.7|
91007558|NCT00626327|181899120|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response of MenACWY-CRM + MMRV group was considered non-inferior to that of MenACWY-CRM group if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the difference of the percentage of subjects with hSBA ≥1:8 at 6 weeks after the second dose of MenACWY-CRM given to 12 month old toddlers was greater than -10% for each serogroup.|Difference% (MenACWY-CRM+MMRV-MenACWY)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.9||||||Non-inferiority of immune response of MenACWY-CRM against serogroup C when concomitantly administered with MMRV vaccine as compared to MenACWY-CRM vaccine given alone.||1.9|-1.8|
91049950|NCT00359788|181985392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.898||||0.0935||95.0|-1.172|14.968|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||14.968|-1.172|0.0935
91049951|NCT00359788|181985393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.419||||0.4339||95.0|-5.17|12.007|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||12.007|-5.17|0.4339
91049952|NCT00359788|181985394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.971||||0.845||95.0|-10.74|8.799|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||8.799|-10.74|0.845
91049953|NCT00359788|181985395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.194||||0.9696||95.0|-9.811|10.199|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||10.199|-9.811|0.9696
91049954|NCT00359788|181985396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.129||||0.3252||95.0|-5.117|15.376|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||15.376|-5.117|0.3252
91049955|NCT00359788|181985397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.062||||0.452||95.0|-6.558|14.683|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||14.683|-6.558|0.452
91049956|NCT00359788|181985398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.14||||0.4388||95.0|-6.372|14.651|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||14.651|-6.372|0.4388
91049957|NCT00359788|181985399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.185||||0.8288||95.0|-9.595|11.964|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||11.964|-9.595|0.8288
91049958|NCT00359788|181985400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.204||||0.4929||95.0|-7.857|16.264|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||16.264|-7.857|0.4929
91049959|NCT00359788|181985401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.204||||0.0754||95.0|-0.021|0.429|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.429|-0.021|0.0754
91049960|NCT00359788|181985402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.251||||0.0765||95.0|-0.027|0.528|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.528|-0.027|0.0765
91049961|NCT00359788|181985403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.151||||0.163||95.0|-0.061|0.363|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.363|-0.061|0.163
91049962|NCT00359788|181985404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.285||||0.0085||95.0|0.073|0.496|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.496|0.073|0.0085
91049963|NCT02220725|181985417|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehman estimate of shift|-70.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-85.43|-65.91|||2-sided test exact Wilcoxon rank-sum tes|||||-65.91|-85.43|<0.0001
91049964|NCT02220725|181985417|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehman estimate of shift|-51.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.95|-47.03|||2-sided test exact Wilcoxon rank-sum tes|||||-47.03|-57.95|<0.0001
91049965|NCT02220725|181985418|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehman estimate of shift|-74.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.92|-64.45|||2-sided test exact Wilcoxon rank-sum tes|||||-64.45|-78.92|<0.0001
91049966|NCT02220725|181985420|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Estimate of Shift|-18.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.05|-12.73|||2-sided test exact Wilcoxon rank-sum tes|||||-12.73|-23.05|<0.0001
91049967|NCT02220725|181985421|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehman estimate of shift|1142.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1006.1|1281.4|||2-sided test exact Wilcoxon rank-sum tes|||||1281.40|1006.10|<0.0001
91049968|NCT02220725|181985421|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehman estimate of shift|1205.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1034.17|1400.79|||2-sided test exact Wilcoxon rank-sum tes|||||1400.79|1034.17|<0.0001
91049969|NCT00103402|181985444|SUPERIORITY|The primary analysis compared rates for the primary outcome between study groups, using the exact conditional test version of the Mantel-Haenszel test to control for clustering by clinical center.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.1||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|11.0|||Mantel Haenszel|The exact conditional test version of the Mantel-Haenszel test was used to control for clustering by clinical center.||Sample-size calculations were based on a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 with 80% power to detect a difference of 20 between response rates (40% placebo and 60% alfuzosin) for the Fisher's exact test. We calculated that a total sample of 270 participants would be required (135 per study group). This proposed sample size included a 20% increase to adjust for clustering within clinical sites and a 5% increase for interim monitoring.||11.0|-11.2|0.99
91049970|NCT00103402|181985445|SUPERIORITY|The primary analysis compared rates for the primary outcome between study groups, using the exact conditional test version of the Mantel-Haenszel test to control for clustering by clinical center.|Risk Difference (RD)|1.8||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|2.5|||Mantel Haenszel|||Marked or moderate improvement at 12 weeks Absolute Difference in Rates % (95% CI)||2.5|-9.0|0.90
91049971|NCT00103402|181985446|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|1.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||Total score (0-43) change from baseline||1.5|-2.7|0.70
91049972|NCT00103402|181985446|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||Pain score (0-21) change from baseline||0.8|-1.4|0.64
91049973|NCT00103402|181985446|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||Urinary score (0-10) change from baseline||0.4|-0.8|0.62
91049974|NCT00103402|181985446|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||Quality of life score (0-12) change from baseline||0.4|-0.4|.99
91049975|NCT00103402|181985447|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||McGill Total Score||1.2|-1.8|0.45
91049976|NCT00103402|181985447|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||McGill Sensory Score||1.0|-1.4|0.47
91049977|NCT00103402|181985447|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||McGill Affective Score||0.4|-0.6|0.89
91049978|NCT00103402|181985448|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||Physical component summary (0-100) change in scores||1.3|-2.3|0.60
91049979|NCT00103402|181985448|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.1||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|4.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||Mental component summary (0-100) Absolute Difference between Groups (95% CI)||4.6|-0.4|0.16
91049980|NCT00103402|181985449|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.2|-2.4|0.08
91049981|NCT00103402|181985450|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.7||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|4.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.0|-2.6|0.94
91049982|NCT00103402|181985451|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.1||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|2.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.5|-0.3|0.06
91049983|NCT01673698|181985452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0041|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0041
91049984|NCT01673698|181985453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
91049985|NCT01673698|181985454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.561|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5610
91049986|NCT01583218|181985479|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk Reduction (RRR)|0.209||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.013|0.366|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.366|0.013|0.038
91049987|NCT01583218|181985480|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk Reduction (RRR)|0.216||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.041|0.359|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.359|0.041|0.018
91006302|NCT04806165|181896476|SUPERIORITY|To improve the quality of the imputations, gender, age, and race were included as auxiliary variables. We generated ten imputed datasets with the predictive mean matching method and pooled coefficients, degrees of freedom, and standard errors with Rubin's (1987) rules. As a sensitivity analysis, we also ran the same models using full information maximum likelihood to handle missing data.|Regression (Beta) Coefficient|-0.36||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|||||"We interpreted absolute ß values below 0.2 as small, between 0.2 and 0.5 as medium, and greater than 0.5 as large.~We defined sufficiently large main effects as those with p values ≤ .05 or with 95% confidence intervals that do not include 0."|Linear Mixed Effects Model|The linear mixed effects models incorporated a random intercept to accommodate the correlation of repeated measures within participants.||Analyses were conducted to determine the effects of each of the four chatbot components on willingness to seek psychotherapy. This analysis in particular explores the effects of the psychoeducation component (PE) on participant willingness to seek psychotherapy for concerns related to their eating, weight, and/or shape concerns since engagement with the intervention.||||0.44
91006303|NCT04806165|181896476|SUPERIORITY|To improve the quality of the imputations, gender, age, and race were included as auxiliary variables. We generated ten imputed datasets with the predictive mean matching method and pooled coefficients, degrees of freedom, and standard errors with Rubin's (1987) rules. As a sensitivity analysis, we also ran the same models using full information maximum likelihood to handle missing data.|Regression (Beta) Coefficient|-0.25||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|||||"We interpreted absolute ß values below 0.2 as small, between 0.2 and 0.5 as medium, and greater than 0.5 as large.~We defined sufficiently large main effects as those with p values ≤ .05 or with 95% confidence intervals that do not include 0."|Linear Mixed Effects Model|The linear mixed effects models incorporated a random intercept to accommodate the correlation of repeated measures within participants.||Analyses were conducted to determine the effects of each of the four chatbot components on willingness to seek psychotherapy. This analysis in particular explores the effects of the personalized recommendation component (PR) on participant willingness to seek psychotherapy for concerns related to their eating, weight, and/or shape concerns since engagement with the intervention.||||0.44
91006304|NCT04806165|181896476|SUPERIORITY|To improve the quality of the imputations, gender, age, and race were included as auxiliary variables. We generated ten imputed datasets with the predictive mean matching method and pooled coefficients, degrees of freedom, and standard errors with Rubin's (1987) rules. As a sensitivity analysis, we also ran the same models using full information maximum likelihood to handle missing data.|Regression (Beta) Coefficient|0.29||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|||||"We interpreted absolute ß values below 0.2 as small, between 0.2 and 0.5 as medium, and greater than 0.5 as large.~We defined sufficiently large main effects as those with p values ≤ .05 or with 95% confidence intervals that do not include 0."|Linear Mixed Effects Model|The linear mixed effects models incorporated a random intercept to accommodate the correlation of repeated measures within participants.||Analyses were conducted to determine the effects of each of the four chatbot components on willingness to seek psychotherapy. This analysis in particular explores the effects of the repeated administration component (RA) on participant willingness to seek psychotherapy for concerns related to their eating, weight, and/or shape concerns since engagement with the intervention.||||0.53
91007559|NCT00626327|181899120|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response of MenACWY-CRM + MMRV group was considered non-inferior to that of MenACWY-CRM group if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the difference of the percentage of subjects with hSBA ≥1:8 at 6 weeks after the second dose of MenACWY-CRM given to 12 month old toddlers was greater than -10% for each serogroup.|Difference% (MenACWY-CRM+MMRV-MenACWY)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|3.9||||||Non-inferiority of immune response of MenACWY-CRM against serogroup W-135 when concomitantly administered with MMRV vaccine as compared to MenACWY vaccine given alone.||3.9|-1.3|
91006305|NCT04806165|181896476|SUPERIORITY|To improve the quality of the imputations, gender, age, and race were included as auxiliary variables. We generated ten imputed datasets with the predictive mean matching method and pooled coefficients, degrees of freedom, and standard errors with Rubin's (1987) rules. As a sensitivity analysis, we also ran the same models using full information maximum likelihood to handle missing data.|Regression (Beta) Coefficient|-0.53||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|||||"We interpreted absolute ß values below 0.2 as small, between 0.2 and 0.5 as medium, and greater than 0.5 as large.~We defined sufficiently large main effects as those with p values ≤ .05 or with 95% confidence intervals that do not include 0."|Linear Mixed Effects Model|The linear mixed effects models incorporated a random intercept to accommodate the correlation of repeated measures within participants.||This analysis provides results on the 2 week time point post Intervention and contributes to understanding of the effect of time since chatbot engagement on willingness to seek psychotherapy, regardless of the combination of the four chatbot components participants were assigned (ie., component turned off or on).||||0.07
91006306|NCT04806165|181896476|SUPERIORITY|To improve the quality of the imputations, gender, age, and race were included as auxiliary variables. We generated ten imputed datasets with the predictive mean matching method and pooled coefficients, degrees of freedom, and standard errors with Rubin's (1987) rules. As a sensitivity analysis, we also ran the same models using full information maximum likelihood to handle missing data.|Regression (Beta) Coefficient|-1.06||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||"We interpreted absolute ß values below 0.2 as small, between 0.2 and 0.5 as medium, and greater than 0.5 as large.~We defined sufficiently large main effects as those with p values ≤ .05 or with 95% confidence intervals that do not include 0."|Linear Mixed Effects Model|The linear mixed effects models incorporated a random intercept to accommodate the correlation of repeated measures within participants.||This analysis provides results on the 6 week time point post Intervention and contributes to understanding of the effect of time since chatbot engagement on willingness to seek psychotherapy, regardless of the combination of the four chatbot components participants were assigned (ie., component turned off or on).||||0.01
91049988|NCT01583218|181985481|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk Reduction (RRR)|0.254||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.092|0.387|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.387|0.092|0.003
91049989|NCT01583218|181985482|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.554|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.554
91006307|NCT04806165|181896476|SUPERIORITY|To improve the quality of the imputations, gender, age, and race were included as auxiliary variables. We generated ten imputed datasets with the predictive mean matching method and pooled coefficients, degrees of freedom, and standard errors with Rubin's (1987) rules. As a sensitivity analysis, we also ran the same models using full information maximum likelihood to handle missing data.|Regression (Beta) Coefficient|-0.85||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|||||"We interpreted absolute ß values below 0.2 as small, between 0.2 and 0.5 as medium, and greater than 0.5 as large.~We defined sufficiently large main effects as those with p values ≤ .05 or with 95% confidence intervals that do not include 0."|Linear Mixed Effects Model|The linear mixed effects models incorporated a random intercept to accommodate the correlation of repeated measures within participants.||This analysis provides results on the 14 week time point post Intervention and contributes to understanding of the effect of time since chatbot engagement on willingness to seek psychotherapy, regardless of the combination of the four chatbot components participants were assigned (ie., component turned off or on).||||0.042
91006308|NCT04806165|181896476|SUPERIORITY|To improve the quality of the imputations, gender, age, and race were included as auxiliary variables. We generated ten imputed datasets with the predictive mean matching method and pooled coefficients, degrees of freedom, and standard errors with Rubin's (1987) rules. As a sensitivity analysis, we also ran the same models using full information maximum likelihood to handle missing data.|Regression (Beta) Coefficient|-0.08||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|||||"We interpreted absolute ß values below 0.2 as small, between 0.2 and 0.5 as medium, and greater than 0.5 as large.~We defined sufficiently large main effects as those with p values ≤ .05 or with 95% confidence intervals that do not include 0."|Linear Mixed Effects Model|The linear mixed effects models incorporated a random intercept to accommodate the correlation of repeated measures within participants.||This analysis explores the interaction effects of 2-week time since engagement with the intervention and the motivational interviewing (MI) component on participant willingness to seek psychotherapy for concerns related to their eating, weight, and/or shape concerns. since engagement with the intervention.||||0.89
91006309|NCT04806165|181896476|SUPERIORITY|To improve the quality of the imputations, gender, age, and race were included as auxiliary variables. We generated ten imputed datasets with the predictive mean matching method and pooled coefficients, degrees of freedom, and standard errors with Rubin's (1987) rules. As a sensitivity analysis, we also ran the same models using full information maximum likelihood to handle missing data.|Regression (Beta) Coefficient|0.34||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|||||"We interpreted absolute ß values below 0.2 as small, between 0.2 and 0.5 as medium, and greater than 0.5 as large.~We defined sufficiently large main effects as those with p values ≤ .05 or with 95% confidence intervals that do not include 0."|Linear Mixed Effects Model|The linear mixed effects models incorporated a random intercept to accommodate the correlation of repeated measures within participants.||This analysis explores the interaction effects of 6-week time since engagement with the intervention and the motivational interviewing (MI) component on participant willingness to seek psychotherapy for concerns related to their eating, weight, and/or shape concerns. since engagement with the intervention.||||0.69
91006310|NCT04806165|181896476|SUPERIORITY|To improve the quality of the imputations, gender, age, and race were included as auxiliary variables. We generated ten imputed datasets with the predictive mean matching method and pooled coefficients, degrees of freedom, and standard errors with Rubin's (1987) rules. As a sensitivity analysis, we also ran the same models using full information maximum likelihood to handle missing data.|Regression (Beta) Coefficient|-0.69||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|||||"We interpreted absolute ß values below 0.2 as small, between 0.2 and 0.5 as medium, and greater than 0.5 as large.~We defined sufficiently large main effects as those with p values ≤ .05 or with 95% confidence intervals that do not include 0."|Linear Mixed Effects Model|The linear mixed effects models incorporated a random intercept to accommodate the correlation of repeated measures within participants.||This analysis explores the interaction effects of 14-week time since engagement with the intervention and the motivational interviewing (MI) component on participant willingness to seek psychotherapy for concerns related to their eating, weight, and/or shape concerns. since engagement with the intervention.||||0.40
91006311|NCT04806165|181896476|SUPERIORITY|To improve the quality of the imputations, gender, age, and race were included as auxiliary variables. We generated ten imputed datasets with the predictive mean matching method and pooled coefficients, degrees of freedom, and standard errors with Rubin's (1987) rules. As a sensitivity analysis, we also ran the same models using full information maximum likelihood to handle missing data.|Regression (Beta) Coefficient|0.35||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|||||"We interpreted absolute ß values below 0.2 as small, between 0.2 and 0.5 as medium, and greater than 0.5 as large.~We defined sufficiently large main effects as those with p values ≤ .05 or with 95% confidence intervals that do not include 0."|Linear Mixed Effects Model|The linear mixed effects models incorporated a random intercept to accommodate the correlation of repeated measures within participants.||This analysis explores the interaction effects of 2-week time since engagement with the intervention and the psychoeducation (PE) component on participant willingness to seek psychotherapy for concerns related to their eating, weight, and/or shape concerns. since engagement with the intervention.||||0.55
91006312|NCT04806165|181896476|SUPERIORITY|To improve the quality of the imputations, gender, age, and race were included as auxiliary variables. We generated ten imputed datasets with the predictive mean matching method and pooled coefficients, degrees of freedom, and standard errors with Rubin's (1987) rules. As a sensitivity analysis, we also ran the same models using full information maximum likelihood to handle missing data.|Regression (Beta) Coefficient|0.88||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|||||"We interpreted absolute ß values below 0.2 as small, between 0.2 and 0.5 as medium, and greater than 0.5 as large.~We defined sufficiently large main effects as those with p values ≤ .05 or with 95% confidence intervals that do not include 0."|Linear Mixed Effects Model|The linear mixed effects models incorporated a random intercept to accommodate the correlation of repeated measures within participants.||This analysis explores the interaction effects of 6-week time since engagement with the intervention and the psychoeducation (PE) component on participant willingness to seek psychotherapy for concerns related to their eating, weight, and/or shape concerns. since engagement with the intervention.||||0.32
91049990|NCT01583218|181985483|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk Reduction (RRR)|0.326||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.069|0.576|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.576|-0.069|0.092
91049991|NCT01583218|181985484|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk Reduction (RRR)|0.295||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.085|0.542|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.542|-0.085|0.11
91049992|NCT01583218|181985485|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk Reduction (RRR)|0.358||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.58|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.580|0.020|0.039
91049993|NCT03182582|181985590|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Paired t test|||A sample size of 22 patients was required to achieve 80% power, using a two-tailed test with α = 0.05.||||0.003
91006313|NCT04806165|181896476|SUPERIORITY|To improve the quality of the imputations, gender, age, and race were included as auxiliary variables. We generated ten imputed datasets with the predictive mean matching method and pooled coefficients, degrees of freedom, and standard errors with Rubin's (1987) rules. As a sensitivity analysis, we also ran the same models using full information maximum likelihood to handle missing data.|Regression (Beta) Coefficient|-0.37||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|||||"We interpreted absolute ß values below 0.2 as small, between 0.2 and 0.5 as medium, and greater than 0.5 as large.~We defined sufficiently large main effects as those with p values ≤ .05 or with 95% confidence intervals that do not include 0."|Linear Mixed Effects Model|The linear mixed effects models incorporated a random intercept to accommodate the correlation of repeated measures within participants.||This analysis explores the interaction effects of 14-week time since engagement with the intervention and the psychoeducation (PE) component on participant willingness to seek psychotherapy for concerns related to their eating, weight, and/or shape concerns. since engagement with the intervention.||||0.63
91006314|NCT04806165|181896476|SUPERIORITY|To improve the quality of the imputations, gender, age, and race were included as auxiliary variables. We generated ten imputed datasets with the predictive mean matching method and pooled coefficients, degrees of freedom, and standard errors with Rubin's (1987) rules. As a sensitivity analysis, we also ran the same models using full information maximum likelihood to handle missing data.|Regression (Beta) Coefficient|0.08||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|||||"We interpreted absolute ß values below 0.2 as small, between 0.2 and 0.5 as medium, and greater than 0.5 as large.~We defined sufficiently large main effects as those with p values ≤ .05 or with 95% confidence intervals that do not include 0."|Linear Mixed Effects Model|The linear mixed effects models incorporated a random intercept to accommodate the correlation of repeated measures within participants.||This analysis explores the interaction effects of 2-week time since engagement with the intervention and the personalized recommendation (PR) component on participant willingness to seek psychotherapy for concerns related to their eating, weight, and/or shape concerns. since engagement with the intervention.||||0.90
91006315|NCT04806165|181896476|SUPERIORITY|To improve the quality of the imputations, gender, age, and race were included as auxiliary variables. We generated ten imputed datasets with the predictive mean matching method and pooled coefficients, degrees of freedom, and standard errors with Rubin's (1987) rules. As a sensitivity analysis, we also ran the same models using full information maximum likelihood to handle missing data.|Regression (Beta) Coefficient|-0.95||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|||||"We interpreted absolute ß values below 0.2 as small, between 0.2 and 0.5 as medium, and greater than 0.5 as large.~We defined sufficiently large main effects as those with p values ≤ .05 or with 95% confidence intervals that do not include 0."|Linear Mixed Effects Model|The linear mixed effects models incorporated a random intercept to accommodate the correlation of repeated measures within participants.||This analysis explores the interaction effects of 6-week time since engagement with the intervention and the personalized recommendation (PR) component on participant willingness to seek psychotherapy for concerns related to their eating, weight, and/or shape concerns. since engagement with the intervention.||||0.27
91006316|NCT04806165|181896476|SUPERIORITY|To improve the quality of the imputations, gender, age, and race were included as auxiliary variables. We generated ten imputed datasets with the predictive mean matching method and pooled coefficients, degrees of freedom, and standard errors with Rubin's (1987) rules. As a sensitivity analysis, we also ran the same models using full information maximum likelihood to handle missing data.|Regression (Beta) Coefficient|-0.67||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|||||"We interpreted absolute ß values below 0.2 as small, between 0.2 and 0.5 as medium, and greater than 0.5 as large.~We defined sufficiently large main effects as those with p values ≤ .05 or with 95% confidence intervals that do not include 0."|Linear Mixed Effects Model|The linear mixed effects models incorporated a random intercept to accommodate the correlation of repeated measures within participants.||This analysis explores the interaction effects of 14-week time since engagement with the intervention and the personalized recommendation (PR) component on participant willingness to seek psychotherapy for concerns related to their eating, weight, and/or shape concerns. since engagement with the intervention.||||0.42
91007560|NCT00626327|181899120|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response of MenACWY-CRM + MMRV group was considered non-inferior to that of MenACWY-CRM group if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the difference of the percentage of subjects with hSBA ≥1:8 at 6 weeks after the second dose of MenACWY-CRM given to 12 month old toddlers was greater than -10% for each serogroup.|Difference% (MenACWY-CRM+MMRV-MenACWY)|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|5.3||||||Non-inferiority of immune response of MenACWY-CRM against serogroup Y when concomitantly administered with MMRV vaccine as compared to MenACWY-CRM vaccine given alone.||5.3|-1.9|
91049994|NCT03334721|181985596|SUPERIORITY|"Given the crossover design through which the data were collected, the statistical model also included a Visit (1 vs. 2) factor and a Visit by Treatment Condition interaction term. Analysis used Linear Mixed Modeling with Fixed Factors."|Test III Tests of Fixed Effects (F)|0.141||||0.711|TWO_SIDED|||||Treatment Condition Factor (0 = Placebo, 1 = Gabapentin)|Mixed Models Analysis|df = 1, 20.183|||"Given the crossover design through which the data were collected, the statistical model also included a Visit (1 vs. 2) factor and a Visit by Treatment Condition interaction term."|||0.711
91049995|NCT01663727|181985601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.51|0.91|||Log Rank||Hazards ratio was estimated by Cox regression.|Stratified analysis: Stratification factors were plasma VEGF-A level (low/high), prior adjuvant chemotherapy (yes/no) and estrogen receptor / progesterone receptor status (positive, negative).||0.91|0.51|0.0007
91049996|NCT01663727|181985601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.55|0.97|||Log Rank|||Unstratified Analysis.||0.97|0.55|0.0046
91049997|NCT01663727|181985601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4619|TWO_SIDED||||||Wald Test|||A stratified multivariate Cox regression model, including treatment, VEGF-A level, and interaction between treatment and VEGF-A level (low, high) as factors was used to estimate the interaction p-value of the treatment with VEGF-A level for PFS. Analysis for the interaction of treatment effect with the plasma VEGF-A levels was a secondary objective.||||0.4619
91049998|NCT01663727|181985603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.5877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.18|||Log Rank||Hazards ratio was estimated by Cox regression.|Stratified analysis: Stratified analysis: Stratification factors were plasma VEGF-A level (low/high), prior adjuvant chemotherapy (yes/no) and estrogen receptor / progesterone receptor status (positive, negative).||1.18|0.75|0.5877
91049999|NCT01663727|181985603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.8004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.21|||Log Rank||Hazards ratio was estimated by Cox regression.|Unstratified analysis.||1.21|0.78|0.8004
91050000|NCT01663727|181985605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.2745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.14|||Log Rank||Hazards ratio was estimated by Cox regression.|Stratified analysis: Stratification factors were prior adjuvant chemotherapy (yes/no) and estrogen receptor / progesterone receptor status (positive, negative).||1.14|0.63|0.2745
91050001|NCT01663727|181985605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.3616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.17|||Log Rank||Hazards ratio was estimated by Cox regression.|Unstratified analysis.||1.17|0.65|0.3616
91050002|NCT01663727|181985606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Response Rates|20.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.45|30.11|||Fisher|||||30.11|11.45|<0.0001
91050003|NCT01663727|181985608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|96.0|0.47|0.88|||Log Rank||Hazards ratio was estimated by Cox regression.|Stratified analysis: Stratification factors were prior adjuvant chemotherapy (yes/no) and estrogen receptor / progesterone receptor status (positive, negative).||0.88|0.47|0.0038
91050004|NCT01663727|181985608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|96.0|0.5|0.93|||Log Rank|||Unstratified analysis.||0.93|0.50|0.0101
91050005|NCT01663727|181985609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Response Rates|21.53||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.73|34.32|||Fisher|||||34.32|8.73|0.0017
91050006|NCT01663727|181985610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.2737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.19|||Log Rank||Hazards ratio was estimated by Cox regression.|Stratified analysis: Stratification factors were plasma VEGF-A level (low/high), prior adjuvant chemotherapy (yes/no) and estrogen receptor / progesterone receptor status (positive, negative).||1.19|0.54|0.2737
91050007|NCT01663727|181985610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.2959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.19|||Log Rank||Hazards ratio was estimated by Cox regression.|Unstratified analysis.||1.19|0.56|0.2959
91050008|NCT01663727|181985611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.1783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.18|||Log Rank||Hazards ratio was estimated by Cox regression.|Stratified analysis: Stratification factors were prior adjuvant chemotherapy (yes/no) and estrogen receptor / progesterone receptor status (positive, negative).||1.18|0.41|0.1783
91050009|NCT01663727|181985611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.2429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.22|||Log Rank||Hazards ratio was estimated by Cox regression.|Unstratified analysis.||1.22|0.45|0.2429
91050010|NCT01232491|181985618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|0.49||||0.132||95.0|-0.15|1.13||If the p-value for the two-sided test was less than 5%, and D (the estimated treatment difference \[dietary intervention versus no dietary intervention\]) was less than 0 then superiority for dietary intervention was considered confirmed.|Regression, Linear|||Normal linear regression model with treatment, strata, use of insulin secretagogue at screening, sex and region as factors and age and weight at baseline as covariates. Superiority was considered confirmed if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the estimated treatment difference (dietary intervention versus no dietary intervention), which was calculated using the FAS, was below 0 kg.||1.13|-0.15|0.132
91050011|NCT01232491|181985619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|0.17||||0.137||95.0|-0.05|0.39|||Regression, Linear|||Normal linear regression model with treatment, use of insulin secretagogue at screening, sex and region as factors, and age and BMI at baseline as covariates.||0.39|-0.05|0.137
91050012|NCT01232491|181985620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|0.13||||0.053||95.0|0.0|0.26|||Regression, Linear|||Normal linear regression model with treatment, strata, use of insulin secretagogue at screening and region as factors and HbA1c at baseline as covariate.||0.26|-0.00|0.053
91006317|NCT04806165|181896476|SUPERIORITY|To improve the quality of the imputations, gender, age, and race were included as auxiliary variables. We generated ten imputed datasets with the predictive mean matching method and pooled coefficients, degrees of freedom, and standard errors with Rubin's (1987) rules. As a sensitivity analysis, we also ran the same models using full information maximum likelihood to handle missing data.|Regression (Beta) Coefficient|1.23||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||"We interpreted absolute ß values below 0.2 as small, between 0.2 and 0.5 as medium, and greater than 0.5 as large.~We defined sufficiently large main effects as those with p values ≤ .05 or with 95% confidence intervals that do not include 0."|Linear Mixed Effects Model|The linear mixed effects models incorporated a random intercept to accommodate the correlation of repeated measures within participants.||This analysis explores the interaction effects of 2-week time since engagement with the intervention and the repeated administration (RA) component on participant willingness to seek psychotherapy for concerns related to their eating, weight, and/or shape concerns. since engagement with the intervention.||||0.04
91007561|NCT00626327|181899125|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response of MMRV+MenACWY group was considered non-inferior to that of MMRV group if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the difference in the percentages of subjects with seroconversion for varicella was greater than -10%.|Difference% (MenACWY-CRM+MMRV- MMRV)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.8||||||Non-inferiority of anti-varicella response following one dose of MMRV when administered concomitantly with MenACWY vaccine as compared to MMRV administered alone.||0.8|-2.4|
91006318|NCT04806165|181896476|SUPERIORITY|To improve the quality of the imputations, gender, age, and race were included as auxiliary variables. We generated ten imputed datasets with the predictive mean matching method and pooled coefficients, degrees of freedom, and standard errors with Rubin's (1987) rules. As a sensitivity analysis, we also ran the same models using full information maximum likelihood to handle missing data.|Regression (Beta) Coefficient|1.22||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|||||"We interpreted absolute ß values below 0.2 as small, between 0.2 and 0.5 as medium, and greater than 0.5 as large.~We defined sufficiently large main effects as those with p values ≤ .05 or with 95% confidence intervals that do not include 0."|Multilevel Models|The linear mixed effects models incorporated a random intercept to accommodate the correlation of repeated measures within participants.||This analysis explores the interaction effects of 6-week time since engagement with the intervention and the repeated administration (RA) component on participant willingness to seek psychotherapy for concerns related to their eating, weight, and/or shape concerns. since engagement with the intervention.||||0.16
91006319|NCT04806165|181896476|SUPERIORITY|To improve the quality of the imputations, gender, age, and race were included as auxiliary variables. We generated ten imputed datasets with the predictive mean matching method and pooled coefficients, degrees of freedom, and standard errors with Rubin's (1987) rules. As a sensitivity analysis, we also ran the same models using full information maximum likelihood to handle missing data.|Regression (Beta) Coefficient|0.01||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|||||"We interpreted absolute ß values below 0.2 as small, between 0.2 and 0.5 as medium, and greater than 0.5 as large.~We defined sufficiently large main effects as those with p values ≤ .05 or with 95% confidence intervals that do not include 0."|Linear Mixed Effects Model|The linear mixed effects models incorporated a random intercept to accommodate the correlation of repeated measures within participants.||This analysis explores the interaction effects of 14-week time since engagement with the intervention and the repeated administration (RA) component on participant willingness to seek psychotherapy for concerns related to their eating, weight, and/or shape concerns. since engagement with the intervention.||||0.99
91050013|NCT01232491|181985621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|0.07||||0.674||95.0|-0.25|0.39|||Regression, Linear|||Normal linear regression model with treatment, strata, use of insulin secretagogue at screening and region as factors and FPG at baseline as covariate.||0.39|-0.25|0.674
91050014|NCT00856973|181985688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|7.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.91|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-5.17|19.83|||ANCOVA|Bonferroni adjustment was use for multiple comparisons|Difference calculated as Eszopiclone minus placebo|This endpoint was analyzed using ANCOVA with treatment group (pooled low dose eszopiclone, pooled high dose eszopiclone, and placebo) as a fixed effect and the baseline value as a covariate. Contrast statements were used to perform pairwise comparisons of the eszopiclone treatment groups to placebo. A Bonferroni adjustment was used for the 2 pairwise comparisons. Least squares means and the standard errors were presented for each treatment grou||19.83|-5.17|>0.05
91050015|NCT00856973|181985688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|2.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.91|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-10.23|14.65|||ANCOVA|||This endpoint was analyzed using ANCOVA with treatment group (pooled low dose eszopiclone, pooled high dose eszopiclone, and placebo) as a fixed effect and the baseline value as a covariate. Contrast statements were used to perform pairwise comparisons of the eszopiclone treatment groups to placebo. A Bonferroni adjustment was used for the 2 pairwise comparisons. Least squares means and the standard errors were presented for each treatment group.||14.65|-10.23|>0.05
91050016|NCT01030341|181985735|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Type I error: 0.05; power: 0.9|||||<|0.0001||||||Threshold for statistical significance: p \< 0.05|Regression, Logistic|Generalized estimating equations (GEE) with independent working correlation to account for correlated data comparing screening and treatment phases||Null hypothesis: Difference of 0% in the frequencies of hypoglycemic excursions (\<50 mg/dL) during the screening phase and treatment phase respectively.||||<0.0001
91050017|NCT01030341|181985735|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Type I error: 0.05; power: 0.9|||||<|0.0001||||||Threshold for statistical significance: p \< 0.05|Regression, Logistic|Generalized estimating equations (GEE) with independent working correlation to account for correlated data comparing screening and treatment phases||Null hypothesis: Difference of 0% in the frequencies of hypoglycemic excursions (\<70 mg/dL) during the screening phase and treatment phase respectively.||||<0.0001
91007562|NCT00945945|181899130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.34||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.75||P-value for Change from Baseline to Endpoint (BOCF).|ANCOVA|Main Effect Model: Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Baseline (Type III sums of squares).|Least Squares Mean Difference = DLX30-PLA minus PLA-DLX60.|||0.75|-0.07|0.105
91050018|NCT01030341|181985735|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Type I error: 0.05; power: 0.9||||||0.005||||||Threshold for statistical significance: p \< 0.05|Regression, Logistic|Generalized estimating equations (GEE) with independent working correlation to account for correlated data comparing screening and treatment phases||Null hypothesis: Difference of 0% in the frequencies of euglycemic excursions (70-180 mg/dL) during the screening phase and treatment phase respectively.||||0.005
91050019|NCT01030341|181985735|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Type I error: 0.05; power: 0.9||||||0.04||||||Threshold for statistical significance: p \< 0.05|Regression, Logistic|Generalized estimating equations (GEE) with independent working correlation to account for correlated data comparing screening and treatment phases||Null hypothesis: Difference of 0% in the frequencies of hyperglycemic excursions (\>180 mg/dL) during the screening phase and treatment phase respectively.||||0.04
91050020|NCT01030341|181985735|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Type I error: 0.05; power: 0.9|||||<|0.0001||||||Threshold for statistical significance: p \< 0.05|Regression, Logistic|Generalized estimating equations (GEE) with independent working correlation to account for correlated data comparing screening and treatment phases||Null hypothesis: Difference of 0% in the frequencies of hyperglycemic excursions (\>300 mg/dL) during the screening phase and treatment phase respectively.||||<0.0001
91007563|NCT03347279|181899145|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.53|||Negative Binomial|||||0.53|0.37|<0.001
91050021|NCT01030341|181985736|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Mean change = 0|||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||Null hypothesis: No difference in total GCSI score from screening to 12 weeks of treatment.||||<0.0001
91050022|NCT01030341|181985736|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Mean change = 0|||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||Null hypothesis: No difference in total GCSI score from screening to 24 weeks of treatment.||||<0.0001
91050023|NCT01030341|181985736|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Mean change = 0|||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||Null hypothesis: No difference in GCSI composite score from screening to 12 weeks of treatment.||||<0.0001
91007564|NCT03347279|181899146|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.75|||Negative Binomial|||||0.75|0.46|<0.001
91007565|NCT03347279|181899147|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|0.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.18|0.08|<0.001
91007566|NCT03347279|181899148|SUPERIORITY||LS Means Difference|0.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.47|0.2|<0.001
91007567|NCT03347279|181899149|SUPERIORITY||LS Means Difference|-0.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.2|-0.46|<0.001
91050024|NCT01030341|181985736|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Mean change = 0|||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||Null hypothesis: No difference in GCSI composite score from screening to 24 weeks of treatment.||||<0.0001
91050025|NCT01030341|181985736|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Mean change = 0|||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||Null hypothesis: No difference in PAGI-QOL score from screening to 12 weeks of treatment.||||<0.0001
91050026|NCT01030341|181985736|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Mean change = 0|||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||Null hypothesis: No difference in PAGI-QOL score from screening to 24 weeks of treatment.||||<0.0001
91050027|NCT03623386|181985798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.981|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.981
91050028|NCT03623386|181985799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.481|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.481
91050029|NCT03623386|181985800|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Testing for main effects (group), time effect and the interaction of group and time.||||>0.05
91050030|NCT03623386|181985801|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.026||||||p value reflects the effect of time.|ANOVA|||Testing for main effects (group), time effect and the interaction of group and time.||||0.026
91050031|NCT05855616|181985814|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.533||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.048|5.892|||t-test, 1 sided|||||5.892|0.048|1.00
91050032|NCT05855616|181985815|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.176||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.039|0.79|||t-test, 1 sided|||||0.790|0.039|0.013
91050033|NCT05855616|181985817|OTHER|||||||0.137|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.137
91050034|NCT05855616|181985818|OTHER|||||||0.764|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.764
91050035|NCT05855616|181985819|OTHER|||||||0.055|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.055
91050036|NCT01388166|181985820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91050037|NCT01388166|181985821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0002
91050038|NCT01388166|181985822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91050039|NCT01196078|181985835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|13.88||||0.0388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|26.19||Between-treatment difference computed using logistic regression with treatment and multiple factors (gender, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group \[ECOG\] status, histology status, and smoking status) as explanatory variables.|Regression, Logistic||95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in tumor response rate determined using Hauck-Anderson approach.|||26.19|-0.22|0.0388
91050040|NCT01196078|181985836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|14.79||||0.1061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.54|31.33||Between-treatment difference computed using logistic regression with treatment and multiple factors (gender, ECOG status, histology status, and smoking status) as explanatory variables.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for the difference in the disease control rate determined using Hauck-Anderson approach.|||31.33|-3.54|0.1061
91050041|NCT01196078|181985837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9505|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.9505
91050042|NCT01196078|181985839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2314|||||||Log Rank|Data were stratified by gender, ECOG status, histology status, and smoking status.||||||0.2314
91050043|NCT01196078|181985841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9894|||||||Log Rank|Data were stratified by gender, ECOG status, histology status, and smoking status.||||||0.9894
91050044|NCT01196078|181985843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||ANOVA|||PWB, Baseline versus Endpoint||||0.0060
91050045|NCT01196078|181985843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6871|||||||ANOVA|||SWB, Baseline versus Endpoint||||0.6871
91050046|NCT01196078|181985843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5104|||||||ANOVA|||EWB Baseline versus Endpoint||||0.5104
91050047|NCT01196078|181985843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9927|||||||ANOVA|||FWB, Baseline versus Endpoint||||0.9927
91050048|NCT01196078|181985843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3581|||||||ANOVA|||LCS, Baseline versus Endpoint||||0.3581
91050049|NCT01429051|181985856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.1||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.179|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed effects model with episode baseline PI as a covariate, treatment as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect.||||1.179|0.41|0.002
91050050|NCT02011113|181985918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0027||||||Based on one sample binomial test for dichotomized response proportion against the null hypothesis(H0: p = 0.1)|Binomial test for dichotomized response|||||||0.0027
91050051|NCT01338649|181985929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0211|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test on two groups of differences||||||0.0211
91007568|NCT03347279|181899150|SUPERIORITY||LS Means Difference|-0.11||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|-0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.04|-0.19|0.004
91007569|NCT04880642|181899185|SUPERIORITY|"The null hypothesis was that the there was no difference in survival up to Day 60 between the two groups and was to be rejected in favour of the alternative hypothesis i.e. a difference in survival up to Day 60 between the two groups excisted.~The overall 2-sided significance level of 5% was applied to the primary endpoint."|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.36|||Log Rank|||||2.36|0.40|0.949
91007570|NCT04880642|181899186|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18||||0.301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.52|||Log Rank|||||1.52|0.91|0.301
91007571|NCT04880642|181899187|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1|-1|0.425
91007572|NCT04880642|181899188|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.91||0.671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|6.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.0|-9.3|0.671
91007573|NCT04880642|181899189|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.62||0.948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|10.6|||Regression, Logistic|||||10.6|-11.4|0.948
91007574|NCT02987205|181899246|NON_INFERIORITY|If the upper bound of this 95% CI was less than the prespecified non-inferiority limit of 0.50, the Test product would be claimed to be non-inferior to the Comparator product.||||||0.013||||||Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0130
91007575|NCT05306964|181899279|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||GLMM|||||||0.5
91007576|NCT05306964|181899280|OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||GLMM|||||||0.4
91007577|NCT05306964|181899281|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||GLMM|||||||0.5
91007578|NCT05306964|181899282|OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||GLMM|||||||0.3
91007579|NCT05306964|181899283|OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||GLMM|||||||0.4
91007580|NCT05306964|181899284|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||GLMM|||||||0.5
91007581|NCT05306964|181899285|OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||GLMM|||||||0.3
91007582|NCT05306964|181899286|OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||GLMM|||||||0.3
91007583|NCT05306964|181899287|OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||GLMM|||||||0.7
91007584|NCT05306964|181899288|OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||GLMM|||||||0.2
91007585|NCT05306964|181899289|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||GLMM|||||||0.02
91007586|NCT05306964|181899290|OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||GLMM|||||||0.2
91007587|NCT05306964|181899291|OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||GLMM|||||||0.7
91007588|NCT05306964|181899292|OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||GLMM|||||||0.1
91007589|NCT05306964|181899293|OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||GLMM|||||||0.2
91007590|NCT05306964|181899294|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GLMM|||||||<0.001
91007591|NCT05306964|181899295|OTHER|||||||0|||||||GLMM|||||||0
91007592|NCT05306964|181899296|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||GLMM|||||||0.5
91007593|NCT05306964|181899297|OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||GLMM|||||||0.9
91007594|NCT05306964|181899298|OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||GLMM|||||||0.8
91007595|NCT05306964|181899299|OTHER|||||||0|||||||GLMM|||||||0
91007596|NCT05306964|181899300|OTHER|||||||0|||||||GLMM|||||||0
91007597|NCT05306964|181899301|OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||GLMM|||||||0.2
91007598|NCT05306964|181899302|OTHER|||||||0|||||||GLMM|||||||0
91007599|NCT05306964|181899303|OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||GLMM|||||||0.9
91007600|NCT05306964|181899304|OTHER|||||||0|||||||GLMM|||||||0
91007601|NCT05306964|181899305|OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||GLMM|||||||0.9
91007602|NCT05306964|181899306|OTHER|||||||0|||||||GLMM|||||||0
91007603|NCT05306964|181899307|OTHER|||||||0|||||||GLMM|||||||0
91007604|NCT05306964|181899308|OTHER|||||||0|||||||GLMM|||||||0
91007605|NCT05306964|181899309|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||GLMM|||||||0.5
91007606|NCT05306964|181899310|OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||GLMM|||||||0.2
91050052|NCT04688931|181985930|OTHER|The analysis is descriptive in nature.|Cox Proportional Hazard|0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.68|||||The hazard ratio represents the relative risk of having an event in the treatment arm (numerator) versus the control arm (denominator).|||0.68|0.29|
91050053|NCT04688931|181985931|OTHER|The analysis is descriptive in nature.|Cox Proportional Hazard|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.7|||||The hazard ratio represents the relative risk of having an event in the treatment arm (numerator) versus the control arm (denominator).|||0.70|0.30|
91007607|NCT05306964|181899311|OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||GLMM|||||||0.3
91007608|NCT03018340|181899312|SUPERIORITY||Difference in weighted MMRM LSMs|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the primary statistical comparison for Stage 1 and Stage 2 combined.||-0.1|-3.4|0.0390
91007609|NCT03018340|181899312|SUPERIORITY||Difference in MMRM LSMs|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|-1.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.9|-6.1|0.0003
91007610|NCT03018340|181899312|SUPERIORITY||Difference in MMRM LSMs|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|3.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.1|-2.1|0.6940
91007611|NCT04652102|181899323|SUPERIORITY||Proportion|0.364|||||TWO_SIDED|95.826|0.299|0.433|||||Derived from an exact 2-sided 95.826% Pearson-Clopper confidence interval (CI) on proportion of cases coming from the CVnCoV group among all cases.|Proportion of cases coming from the CVnCoV group among all cases.||0.433|0.299|
91050054|NCT04688931|181985933|OTHER|The analysis is descriptive in nature.|Cox Proportional Hazard|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.86|||||The hazard ratio represents the relative risk of having an event in the treatment arm (numerator) versus the control arm (denominator).|||0.86|0.24|
91050055|NCT00361335|181985942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.051||95.0|||||2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Hypothesis: Null hypothesis: No difference in ACR 50 response at Wk 14 comparing Groups V vs VI at 0.05 level of significance. Sample size: The sample size of 125 patients in each of the 5 randomized groups will provide at least 90 percentage power to detect a difference in the ACR 50 response rates between groups assuming 13 percentage response in Group V and \~29-31 percentage response in the Group VI at α = 0.05.||||0.051
91050056|NCT00361335|181985942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.073||95.0|||||2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Hypothesis: Null hypothesis: No difference in ACR 50 response at Wk 14 comparing Groups I vs V at 0.05 level of significance. Sample size: The sample size of 125 patients in each of the 5 randomized groups will provide at least 90 percentage power to detect a difference in the ACR 50 response rates between groups assuming 13 percentage response in Group V and \~29-31% response in the Group I at α = 0.05.||||0.073
91050057|NCT00361335|181985942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.093||95.0|||||2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Hypothesis: Null hypothesis: No difference in ACR 50 response at Wk 14 comparing Groups III vs V at 0.05 level of significance. Sample size: The sample size of 125 patients in each of the 5 randomized groups will provide at least 90 percentage power to detect a difference in the ACR 50 response rates between groups assuming 13 percentage response in Group V and \~29-31 percentage response in the Group III at α = 0.05.||||0.093
91050058|NCT00361335|181985942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.465||95.0|||||2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Hypothesis: Null hypothesis: No difference in ACR 50 response at Wk 14 comparing Groups VII vs V at 0.05 level of significance. Sample size: The sample size of 125 patients in each of the 5 randomized groups will provide at least 90 percentage power to detect a difference in the ACR 50 response rates between groups assuming 13 percentage response in Group V and \~29-31 percentage response in the Group VII at α = 0.05.||||0.465
91050059|NCT00361335|181985942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.872||95.0|||||2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Hypothesis: Null hypothesis: No difference in ACR 50 response at Wk 14 comparing Groups II vs V at 0.05 level of significance. Sample size: The sample size of 125 patients in each of the 5 randomized groups will provide at least 90 percentage power to detect a difference in the ACR 50 response rates between groups assuming 13 percentage response in Group V and \~29-31 percentage response in the Group II at α = 0.05.||||0.872
91050060|NCT00361335|181985942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.175||95.0|||||2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Hypothesis: Null hypothesis: No difference in ACR 50 response at Wk 14 comparing Groups V vs I, V vs III, V vs II, and V vs IV at 0.05 level of significance. Sample size: The sample size of 125 patients in each of the 5 randomized groups will provide at least 90 percentage power to detect a difference in the ACR 50 response rates between groups assuming 13 percentage response in Group V and \~29-31 percentage response in the combined group (I and III) at α = 0.05.||||0.175
91050061|NCT00361335|181985943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis: No difference in ACR 50 response at Week 24 comparing Groups V vs VI at 0.05 level of significance.||||0.002
91050062|NCT00361335|181985943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.032||95.0|||||2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis: No difference in ACR 50 response at Week 24 comparing Groups I vs V at 0.05 level of significance.||||0.032
91050063|NCT00361335|181985943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis: No difference in ACR 50 response at Week 24 comparing Groups III vs V at 0.05 level of significance.||||<0.001
91050064|NCT00361335|181985943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.795||95.0|||||2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis: No difference in ACR 50 response at Week 24 comparing Groups V vs VII at 0.05 level of significance.||||0.795
91050065|NCT00361335|181985943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.844||95.0|||||2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis: No difference in ACR 50 response at Week 24 comparing Groups II vs V at 0.05 level of significance.||||0.844
91050066|NCT00361335|181985943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54||95.0|||||2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis: No difference in ACR 50 response at Week 24 comparing Groups V vs I, V vs III, V vs II, and V vs IV at 0.05 level of significance.||||0.540
91050067|NCT00361335|181985944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis: No difference in ACR 20 response at Wk 14 comparing Groups V vs VI at 0.05 level of significance.||||<0.001
91050068|NCT00361335|181985944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis: No difference in ACR 20 response at Wk 14 comparing Groups I vs V at 0.05 level of significance.||||<0.001
91050069|NCT00361335|181985944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis: No difference in ACR 20 response at Wk 14 comparing Groups III vs V at 0.05 level of significance.||||<0.001
91050070|NCT00361335|181985944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis: No difference in ACR 20 response at Wk 14 comparing Groups V vs VII at 0.05 level of significance.||||0.002
91050071|NCT00361335|181985944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.043||95.0|||||2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis: No difference in ACR 20 response at Wk 14 comparing Groups II vs V at 0.05 level of significance.||||0.043
91050072|NCT00361335|181985944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis: No difference in ACR 20 response at Wk 14 comparing Groups V vs I, V vs III, V vs II, and V vs IV at 0.05 level of significance.||||<0.001
91050073|NCT00361335|181985945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Hypothesis: Null hypothesis: No difference in DAS28 response using CRP at Wk 14 comparing Groups V vs VI at 0.05 level of significance.||||<0.001
91050074|NCT00361335|181985945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Hypothesis: Null hypothesis: No difference in DAS28 response using CRP at Wk 14 comparing Groups I vs V at 0.05 level of significance.||||<0.001
91050075|NCT00361335|181985945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Hypothesis: Null hypothesis: No difference in DAS28 response using CRP at Wk 14 comparing Groups III vs V at 0.05 level of significance.||||<0.001
91050076|NCT00361335|181985945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Hypothesis: Null hypothesis: No difference in DAS28 response using CRP at Wk 14 comparing Groups V vs VII at 0.05 level of significance.||||<0.001
91050077|NCT00361335|181985945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Hypothesis: Null hypothesis: No difference in DAS28 response using CRP at Wk 14 comparing Groups II vs V at 0.05 level of significance.||||0.003
91050078|NCT00361335|181985945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|No adjustments were made to control for multiplicity||Hypothesis: Null hypothesis: No difference in DAS28 response using CRP at Wk 14 comparing Groups V vs I, V vs III, V vs II, and V vs IV at 0.05 level of significance.||||0.001
91050079|NCT00361335|181985946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0|||||2-sided ANOVA on van der Waerden|||Hypothesis: Null hypothesis: No difference in change from baseline in PCS score of SF-36 at Wk 14 comparing Groups V vs VI at 0.05 level of significance.||||0.005
91050080|NCT00361335|181985946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014||95.0|||||2-sided ANOVA on van der Waerden|||Hypothesis: Null hypothesis: No difference in change from baseline in PCS score of SF-36 at Wk 14 comparing Groups I vs V at 0.05 level of significance.||||0.014
91050081|NCT00361335|181985946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014||95.0|||||2-sided ANOVA on van der Waerden|||Hypothesis: Null hypothesis: No difference in change from baseline in PCS score of SF-36 at Wk 14 comparing Groups III vs V at 0.05 level of significance.||||0.014
91050082|NCT00361335|181985946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.996||95.0|||||2-sided ANOVA on van der Waerden|||Hypothesis: Null hypothesis: No difference in change from baseline in PCS score of SF-36 at Wk 14 comparing Groups I and VII at 0.05 level of significance.||||0.996
91050083|NCT00361335|181985946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.738||95.0|||||2-sided ANOVA on van der Waerden|||Hypothesis: Null hypothesis: No difference in change from baseline in PCS score of SF-36 at Wk 14 comparing Groups II vs V at 0.05 level of significance.||||0.738
91050084|NCT00361335|181985946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.788||95.0||||No adjustments were made to control for multiplicity|2-sided ANOVA on van der Waerden|||Hypothesis: Null hypothesis: No difference in change from baseline in PCS score of SF-36 at Wk 14 comparing Groups V vs I, V vs III, V vs II, and V vs IV at 0.05 level of significance.||||0.788
91050085|NCT01765582|181985957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.62||||0.132|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|2.71|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Stratified by extent of metastatic disease (liver-limited disease versus non liver-limited disease) and tumor location (right versus left) after correction post-randomization.||2.71|0.96|0.132
91050086|NCT01765582|181985958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.53|0.88|||Log Rank|||Stratified by extent of metastatic disease (liver-limited disease vs. non-liver-limited disease) and tumor location (right vs. left) after correction post-randomization.||0.88|0.53|0.005
91050087|NCT00714493|181985993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||change from baseline||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.001
91050088|NCT00714493|181985994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.001
91050089|NCT00354341|181986002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8811|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was calculated by ANCOVA with last observation carry forward (LOCF) method.|ANCOVA with LOCF|||||||0.8811
91050090|NCT00354341|181986003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8864|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA with LOCF|||||||0.8864
91050091|NCT00354341|181986004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5681|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA with LOCF|||||||0.5681
91050092|NCT00354341|181986005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1578|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA with LOCF|||||||0.1578
91050093|NCT00354341|181986006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2913|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA with LOCF|||||||0.2913
91050094|NCT00354341|181986007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||<0.001
91050095|NCT00251719|181986008|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -10%, noninferiority was concluded. Superiority of primary efficacy endpoint was assessed by comparing the crude healing rate of dexlansoprazole MR 60 mg dose to that of lansoprazole 30 mg using a Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test with baseline LA EE Grade as strata.|Difference in percentage|2.34||||0.234||95.0|-1.45|6.14||Unadjusted p-value is presented. The overall 0.05 level of significance for the multiple comparisons of each dexlansoprazole dose to lansoprazole was controlled using Hochberg's method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||6.14|-1.45|0.234
91050096|NCT00251719|181986008|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -10%, noninferiority was concluded. Superiority of primary efficacy endpoint was assessed by comparing the crude healing rate of dexlansoprazole MR 90 mg dose to that of lansoprazole 30 mg using a Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test with baseline LA EE Grade as strata.|Difference in percentage|4.85||||0.019||95.0|1.2|8.5||Unadjusted p-value is presented. The overall 0.05 level of significance for the multiple comparisons of each dexlansoprazole dose to lansoprazole was controlled using Hochberg's method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||8.50|1.20|0.019
91050097|NCT00251719|181986008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.220
91050098|NCT00251719|181986009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.768||95.0||||Unadjusted p-value is presented. Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level by Hommel-Simes method within treatment and Hochberg method for comparisons of each dexlansoprazole dose to lansoprazole.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.768
91050099|NCT00251719|181986009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.064||95.0||||Unadjusted p-value is presented. Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level by Hommel-Simes method within treatment and Hochberg method for comparisons of each dexlansoprazole dose to lansoprazole.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.064
91050100|NCT00251719|181986009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.034
91050101|NCT00251719|181986010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.727||95.0||||Unadjusted p-value is presented. Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level by Hommel-Simes method within treatment and Hochberg method for comparisons of each dexlansoprazole dose to lansoprazole.|Log Rank|||||||0.727
91050102|NCT00251719|181986010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.064||95.0||||Unadjusted p-value is presented. Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level by Hommel-Simes method within treatment and Hochberg method for comparisons of each dexlansoprazole dose to lansoprazole.|Log Rank|||||||0.064
91050103|NCT00251719|181986010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.174||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|||||||0.174
91050104|NCT00251719|181986011|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was supported if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference with lansoprazole 30 mg of the estimated 8-week healing rate was greater than -10%. Superiority was assessed based on log-rank tests comparing treatments for the endpoints.|Difference in percentage|1.65||||0.167||95.0|-1.65|4.96||Unadjusted p-value is presented. The overall 0.05 level of significance for the multiple comparisons of each dexlansoprazole dose to lansoprazole was controlled using Hochberg's method.|Log Rank|||||4.96|-1.65|0.167
91050105|NCT00251719|181986011|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was supported if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference with lansoprazole 30 mg of the estimated 8-week healing rate was greater than -10%. Superiority was assessed based on log-rank tests comparing treatments for the endpoints.|Difference in percentage|3.39||||0.03||95.0|0.27|6.5||Unadjusted p-value is presented. The overall 0.05 level of significance for the multiple comparisons of each dexlansoprazole dose to lansoprazole was controlled using Hochberg's method.|Log Rank|||||6.50|0.27|0.030
91050106|NCT00251719|181986011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.413||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|||||||0.413
91050107|NCT00251719|181986012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1||95.0||||Unadjusted p-value is presented. Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level by Hommel-Simes method within treatment and Hochberg method for comparisons of each dexlansoprazole dose to lansoprazole.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.100
91050108|NCT00251719|181986012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.125||95.0||||Unadjusted p-value is presented. Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level by Hommel-Simes method within treatment and Hochberg method for comparisons of each dexlansoprazole dose to lansoprazole.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.125
91050109|NCT00251719|181986012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.993||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.993
91050110|NCT00251719|181986013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.117||95.0||||Unadjusted p-value is presented. Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level by Hommel-Simes method within treatment and Hochberg method for comparisons of each dexlansoprazole dose to lansoprazole.|Log Rank|||||||0.117
91050111|NCT00251719|181986013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.124||95.0||||Unadjusted p-value is presented. Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level by Hommel-Simes method within treatment and Hochberg method for comparisons of each dexlansoprazole dose to lansoprazole.|Log Rank|||||||0.124
91050112|NCT00251719|181986013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.949||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|||||||0.949
91050113|NCT02792959|181986069|NON_INFERIORITY|alpha=5%|Mean Difference (Net)|0.273||||0.602|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.602
91050114|NCT02792959|181986070|SUPERIORITY|alpha=5%|Mean Difference (Net)|3.361||||0.067|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.067
91050115|NCT02792959|181986071|SUPERIORITY|alpha=5%|Mean Difference (Net)|4.0||||0.036|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.036
91050116|NCT02792959|181986072|SUPERIORITY|alpha=5%|Mean Difference (Net)|1.091||||0.296|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.296
91050117|NCT02792959|181986073|SUPERIORITY|alpha=5%|Mean Difference (Net)|0.068||||0.794|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.794
91050118|NCT02792959|181986074|SUPERIORITY|alpha=5%|Mean Difference (Net)|3.361||||0.067|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.067
91050119|NCT02792959|181986075|SUPERIORITY|alpha=5%|Mean Difference (Net)|1.0||||0.296|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.296
91006320|NCT04806165|181896477|SUPERIORITY|To improve the quality of the imputations, gender, age, and race were included as auxiliary variables. We generated ten imputed datasets with the predictive mean matching method and pooled coefficients, degrees of freedom, and standard errors with Rubin's (1987) rules. As a sensitivity analysis, we also ran the same models using full information maximum likelihood to handle missing data.|Regression (Beta) Coefficient|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||We computed both unstandardized (B) and standardized (ß) coefficients to indicate effect sizes. As suggested by Fey et al. (2023), we interpreted absolute ß values below 0.2 as small, between 0.2 and 0.5 as medium, and greater than 0.5 as large.|Linear Mixed Effects Model|The linear mixed effects models incorporated a random intercept to accommodate the correlation of repeated measures within participants.||This analysis explores the time effect of attitudinal changes over the 14 week course of the study, regardless of the combination of components participants were assigned (ie., component turned off or on). Results will help determine whether mean participant attitudes toward change for concerns related to their eating, weight, and/or shape concerns varied based on the time elapsed since engagement with the intervention (ie., do attitudinal changes post-inntervention endure over time?).||||<.001
91050120|NCT02792959|181986076|SUPERIORITY|alpha=5%|Mean Difference (Net)|4.39||||0.036|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.036
91050121|NCT02792959|181986077|SUPERIORITY|alpha=5%|Mean Difference (Net)|0.068||||0.794|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.794
91050122|NCT02792959|181986078|SUPERIORITY|alpha=5%|Mean Difference (Net)|4.39||||0.036|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.036
91050123|NCT02792959|181986079|SUPERIORITY|alpha=5%|Mean Difference (Net)|0.273||||0.602|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.602
91050124|NCT02792959|181986080|SUPERIORITY|alpha=5%|Mean Difference (Net)|1.705||||0.192|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.192
91050125|NCT02408068|181986089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LSmean ratio|77.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.89|84.86|||ANOVA|||Results obtained using a mixed effects ANOVA with fixed effects for study period, sequence, treatment and subject (sequence) (excl. tmax).||84.86|70.89|
91050126|NCT02408068|181986090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LSmean ratio|108.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.3|114.72|||ANOVA|||||114.72|102.30|
91050127|NCT02408068|181986091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.25||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|3.75|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||3.75|1.25|0.0005
91050128|NCT02408068|181986092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LSmean ratio|83.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.58|91.74||||||||91.74|75.58|
91050129|NCT02408068|181986093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LSmean ratio|118.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|111.58|126.54||||||||126.54|111.58|
91050130|NCT02408068|181986094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|3.5||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.25|4.38|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||4.38|2.25|0.0014
91050131|NCT00886288|181986126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
91007612|NCT04652102|181899323|OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|48.2||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.826|31.0|61.4||1-sided p-value from the exact binomial test on proportion of cases coming from the CVnCoV group among all cases (equivalent to a test on VE with H0: VE ≤30%). Statistically significant if lower than 0.02087.|Exact Binomial Test||2-sided 95.826% CI on VE, derived from the exact 2-sided 95.826% Pearson-Clopper CI on proportion of cases coming from the CVnCoV group among all cases.|Vaccine efficacy (VE) calculated as VE = 1 - p/(1-p) \*1/r where p represents the proportion of cases coming from the CVnCoV group among all cases and r represents the ratio of total follow-up time of subjects in the CVnCoV group over the total follow-up time of subjects in the placebo group.||61.4|31.0|0.01600
91050132|NCT04319718|181986137|OTHER|||||||0.025|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.025
91050133|NCT04319718|181986138|OTHER|||||||0.47|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.47
91050134|NCT04319718|181986142|OTHER|||||||0.67|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.67
91050135|NCT04319718|181986143|OTHER|||||||0.51|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.51
91050136|NCT04319718|181986144|OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.09
91050137|NCT04319718|181986145|OTHER|||||||0.65|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.65
91050138|NCT04319718|181986145|OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.24
91050139|NCT04319718|181986145|OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.27
91050140|NCT00609518|181986177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.28|||Linear probability model|||||0.28|-0.10|
91050141|NCT00609518|181986178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4902||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4902
91050142|NCT00609518|181986179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6791||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.6791
91050143|NCT00609518|181986179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.49|||Regression, Cox|Treatment was the covariate included in this model.||||1.49|0.54|
91050144|NCT00609518|181986180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.587||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.5870
91050145|NCT00609518|181986180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.38|||Regression, Cox|Treatment was the covariate included in this model.||||1.38|0.57|
91050146|NCT01796912|181986210|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
91050147|NCT01796912|181986211|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
91050148|NCT01796912|181986212|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.14
91050149|NCT01796912|181986213|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.016
91050150|NCT01796912|181986214|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
91050151|NCT01796912|181986215|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
91050152|NCT01796912|181986216|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.005
91050153|NCT00841906|181986232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||< 0.001
91050360|NCT04168190|181987003|SUPERIORITY|Superiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>1.0 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|29.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.72|43.09|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 23B. Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||43.09|20.72|<0.001
91006321|NCT04806165|181896477|SUPERIORITY|To improve the quality of the imputations, gender, age, and race were included as auxiliary variables. We generated ten imputed datasets with the predictive mean matching method and pooled coefficients, degrees of freedom, and standard errors with Rubin's (1987) rules. As a sensitivity analysis, we also ran the same models using full information maximum likelihood to handle missing data.|Regression (Beta) Coefficient|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.026|TWO_SIDED|||||We computed both unstandardized (B) and standardized (ß) coefficients to indicate effect sizes. As suggested by Fey et al. (2023), we interpreted absolute ß values below 0.2 as small, between 0.2 and 0.5 as medium, and greater than 0.5 as large.|Linear Mixed Effects Model|The linear mixed effects models incorporated a random intercept to accommodate the correlation of repeated measures within participants.||Analyses were conducted to determine the interaction effects of time since intervention and each of the four chatbot components. This analysis explores the interaction effects of time and the motivational interviewing (MI) component on participant attitudes toward change for concerns related to their eating, weight, and/or shape concerns since engagement with the intervention.||||.026
91006322|NCT04806165|181896477|SUPERIORITY|To improve the quality of the imputations, gender, age, and race were included as auxiliary variables. We generated ten imputed datasets with the predictive mean matching method and pooled coefficients, degrees of freedom, and standard errors with Rubin's (1987) rules. As a sensitivity analysis, we also ran the same models using full information maximum likelihood to handle missing data.|Regression (Beta) Coefficient|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.465|TWO_SIDED|||||We computed both unstandardized (B) and standardized (ß) coefficients to indicate effect sizes. As suggested by Fey et al. (2023), we interpreted absolute ß values below 0.2 as small, between 0.2 and 0.5 as medium, and greater than 0.5 as large.|Linear Mixed Effects Model|The linear mixed effects models incorporated a random intercept to accommodate the correlation of repeated measures within participants.||Analyses were conducted to determine the interaction effects of time since intervention and each of the four chatbot components. This analysis explores the interaction effects of time and the personalized recommendation (PR) component on participant attitudes toward change for concerns related to their eating, weight, and/or shape concerns since engagement with the intervention.||||.465
91006323|NCT04806165|181896477|SUPERIORITY|To improve the quality of the imputations, gender, age, and race were included as auxiliary variables. We generated ten imputed datasets with the predictive mean matching method and pooled coefficients, degrees of freedom, and standard errors with Rubin's (1987) rules. As a sensitivity analysis, we also ran the same models using full information maximum likelihood to handle missing data.|Regression (Beta) Coefficient|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.536|TWO_SIDED|||||We computed both unstandardized (B) and standardized (ß) coefficients to indicate effect sizes. As suggested by Fey et al. (2023), we interpreted absolute ß values below 0.2 as small, between 0.2 and 0.5 as medium, and greater than 0.5 as large.|Linear Mixed Effects Model|The linear mixed effects models incorporated a random intercept to accommodate the correlation of repeated measures within participants.||Analyses were conducted to determine the interaction effects of time since intervention and each of the four chatbot components. This analysis explores the interaction effects of time and the psychoeducation (PE) component on participant attitudes toward change for concerns related to their eating, weight, and/or shape concerns since engagement with the intervention.||||.536
91007613|NCT04652102|181899335|SUPERIORITY||Proportion|0.245|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.133|0.389|||||Derived from an exact 2-sided 95% Pearson-Clopper CI on proportion of cases coming from the CVnCoV group among all cases.|Proportion of cases coming from the CVnCoV group among all cases.||0.389|0.133|
91007614|NCT04652102|181899335|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine Efficacy|70.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.5|86.1|||||2-sided 95% CI on VE, derived from the exact 2-sided 95% Pearson-Clopper CI on proportion of cases coming from the CVnCoV group among all cases.|VE calculated as VE = 1 - p/(1-p) \*1/r where p represents the proportion of cases coming from the CVnCoV group among all cases and r represents the ratio of total follow-up time of subjects in the CVnCoV group over the total follow-up time of subjects in the placebo group.||86.1|42.5|
91007615|NCT04652102|181899336|SUPERIORITY||Proportion|0.286|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.084|0.581|||||Derived from an exact 2-sided 95% Pearson-Clopper CI on proportion of cases coming from the CVnCoV group among all cases.|Proportion of cases coming from the CVnCoV group among all cases.||0.581|0.084|
91007616|NCT04652102|181899336|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine Efficacy|63.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.5|91.7|||||2-sided 95% CI on VE, derived from the exact 2-sided 95% Pearson-Clopper CI on proportion of cases coming from the CVnCoV group among all cases.|VE calculated as VE = 1 - p/(1-p) \*1/r where p represents the proportion of cases coming from the CVnCoV group among all cases and r represents the ratio of total follow-up time of subjects in the CVnCoV group over the total follow-up time of subjects in the placebo group.||91.7|-25.5|
91007617|NCT04652102|181899337|SUPERIORITY||Proportion|0.341|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.242|0.452|||||Derived from an exact 2-sided 95% Pearson-Clopper CI on proportion of cases coming from the CVnCoV group among all cases.|Proportion of cases coming from the CVnCoV group among all cases.||0.452|0.242|
91050154|NCT00903448|181986236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The least squares treatment means, i.e. adjusted treatment means, and standard errors were computed from the analysis of variance models.|Mixed Models Analysis|||This study enrolled 40 subjects in order to complete a target of at least 30 evaluable subjects. For the purpose of determination of sample size, it was assumed that at least 30 subjects would have complete data for all 3 treatment periods. Assuming the true mean difference in % time that gastric pH \> 4.0 between Prilosec OTC and Prevacid was at least 6.5, it was estimated that there would be at least 80% power to detect a treatment difference in 2-sided testing at the 5% significance level.||||< 0.0001
91050155|NCT03687658|181986259|OTHER|Generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) with a binomial distribution using a logit link function||||||0.066|||||||Generalized linear mixed model|||||||0.066
91050156|NCT03687658|181986260|OTHER|Generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) with a binomial distribution using a logit link function||||||0.273|||||||Generalized linear mixed model|||||||0.273
91050157|NCT03687658|181986261|OTHER|Generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) with a Poisson distribution using a log link function||||||0.403|||||||Generalized linear mixed model|||||||0.403
91050158|NCT04397445|181986262|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54||||||A 1-sided lower P value \<.05 was considered significant for ranitidine vs. placebo as the aim was to evaluate if ranitidine increased NDMA exposure. Comparisons were performed separately with each diet without adjustment for multiplicity.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used for analyses, per the statistical analysis plan, as NDMA urine data were not normally distributed|The median of the paired differences (interquartile range) between ranitidine and placebo is 0 (-6.9 to 0) ng. The median of the paired differences is calculated by first determining the difference between the two treatments for each individual participant and then determining the median of those values. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test that was used for NDMA analyses is also based on first determining the difference between the treatment groups for each individual participant.|||0.54
91050159|NCT04397445|181986262|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71||||||A 1-sided lower P value \<.05 was considered significant for ranitidine vs. placebo as the aim was to evaluate if ranitidine increased NDMA exposure. Comparisons were performed separately with each diet without adjustment for multiplicity.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used for analyses, per the statistical analysis plan, as NDMA urine data were not normally distributed|The median of the paired differences (interquartile range) between ranitidine and placebo is -1.1 (-9.1 to 11.5) ng. The median of the paired differences is calculated by first determining the difference between the two treatments for each individual participant and then determining the median of those values. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test that was used for NDMA analyses is also based on first determining the difference between the treatment groups for each individual participant.|||0.71
91050160|NCT04397445|181986263|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||Exploratory analyses on the effect of diet used a 1-sided lower P value \<.05 for NDMA as the cured-meats diet was designed to have higher NDMA.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used for analyses, per the statistical analysis plan, as NDMA urine data were not normally distributed|The median of the paired differences (interquartile range) between the cured-meats diet and noncured-meats diet is 9.3 (3.8 to 25.0) ng. The median of the paired differences is calculated by first determining the difference between the two treatments for each individual participant and then determining the median of those values. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test that was used for NDMA analyses is also based on first determining the difference between the treatment groups for each individual participant.|||0.005
91050161|NCT04397445|181986263|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007||||||Exploratory analyses on the effect of diet used a 1-sided lower P value \<.05 for NDMA as the cured-meats diet was designed to have higher NDMA|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used for analyses, per the statistical analysis plan, as NDMA urine data were not normally distributed|The median of the paired differences (interquartile range) between the cured-meats diet and noncured-meats diet is 6.4 (0 to 23.4) ng. The median of the paired differences is calculated by first determining the difference between the two treatments for each individual participant and then determining the median of those values. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test that was used for NDMA analyses is also based on first determining the difference between the treatment groups for each individual participant.|||0.007
91050162|NCT04397445|181986264|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.94||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|1.01||A 1-sided lower P value \<.05 was considered significant for the exploratory analyses of ranitidine vs. placebo because the study aim was to evaluate if ranitidine increased DMA exposure.|Mixed Models Analysis||This compares the results from ranitidine (numerator) with placebo (denominator).|As DMA data were log-normally distributed, analyses were based on a mixed-effect analysis of geometric means with terms for treatment, period, and sequence||1.01|0.87|0.92
91007618|NCT04652102|181899337|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine Efficacy|53.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.4|71.2|||||2-sided 95% CI on VE, derived from the exact 2-sided 95% Pearson-Clopper CI on proportion of cases coming from the CVnCoV group among all cases.|VE calculated as VE = 1 - p/(1-p) \*1/r where p represents the proportion of cases coming from the CVnCoV group among all cases and r represents the ratio of total follow-up time of subjects in the CVnCoV group over the total follow-up time of subjects in the placebo group.||71.2|25.4|
91050163|NCT04397445|181986264|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.95||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|1.1||A 1-sided lower P value \<.05 was considered significant for the exploratory analyses of ranitidine vs. placebo because the study aim was to evaluate if ranitidine increased DMA exposure.|Mixed Models Analysis||This compares the results from ranitidine (numerator) with placebo (denominator).|As DMA data were log-normally distributed, analyses were based on a mixed-effect analysis of geometric means with terms for treatment, period, and sequence||1.10|0.81|0.74
91050164|NCT04397445|181986264|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.05||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.23||A 2-sided P value \<.05 was used for DMA as the diet was not expected to affect these outcomes|Mixed Models Analysis||This compares the results from the cured-meats diet (numerator) with the noncured-meats diet (denominator)|As DMA data were log-normally distributed, analyses were based on a mixed-effect analysis of geometric means with terms for treatment, period, and sequence.||1.23|0.90|0.52
91050165|NCT04397445|181986264|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.05||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.19||A 2-sided P value \<.05 was used for DMA as the diet was not expected to affect these outcomes|Mixed Models Analysis||This compares the results from the cured-meats diet (numerator) with the noncured-meats diet (denominator)|As DMA data were log-normally distributed, analyses were based on a mixed-effect analysis of geometric means with terms for treatment, period, and sequence.||1.19|0.93|0.42
91007619|NCT04652102|181899338|SUPERIORITY||Proportion|0.571|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.782|||||Derived from an exact 2-sided 95% Pearson-Clopper CI on proportion of cases coming from the CVnCoV group among all cases.|Proportion of cases coming from the CVnCoV group among all cases.||0.782|0.340|
91050166|NCT04397445|181986265|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.81||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.91||Exploratory analyses on the effect of diet used a 2-sided P value \<.05 for ranitidine as the diet was not expected to affect these outcomes|Mixed Models Analysis|||As ranitidine data were log-normally distributed, analyses were based on a mixed-effect analysis of geometric means with terms for treatment, period, and sequence|This compares the results from the cured-meats diet (numerator) with the noncured-meats diet (denominator)|0.91|0.72|0.001
91050167|NCT04397445|181986267|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.0||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.11||A 1-sided lower P value \<.05 was considered significant for the exploratory analyses of ranitidine vs. placebo because the study aim was to evaluate if ranitidine increased DMA exposure.|Mixed Models Analysis||This compares the results from ranitidine (numerator) with placebo (denominator)|As DMA data were log-normally distributed, analyses were based on a mixed-effect analysis of geometric means with terms for treatment, period, and sequence||1.11|0.91|0.46
91050168|NCT04397445|181986267|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.0||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|1.25||A 1-sided lower P value \<.05 was considered significant for the exploratory analyses of ranitidine vs. placebo because the study aim was to evaluate if ranitidine increased DMA exposure.|Mixed Models Analysis|||As DMA data were log-normally distributed, analyses were based on a mixed-effect analysis of geometric means with terms for treatment, period, and sequence|This compares the results from ranitidine (numerator) with placebo (denominator)|1.25|0.80|0.49
91050169|NCT04397445|181986267|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.8||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.95||A 2-sided P value \<.05 was used for DMA as the diet was not expected to affect these outcomes|Mixed Models Analysis||This compares the results from the cured-meats diet (numerator) with the noncured-meats diet (denominator)|As DMA data were log-normally distributed, analyses were based on a mixed-effect analysis of geometric means with terms for treatment, period, and sequence.||0.95|0.67|0.02
91050170|NCT04397445|181986267|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.8||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.98||A 2-sided P value \<.05 was used for DMA as the diet was not expected to affect these outcomes|Mixed Models Analysis|||As DMA data were log-normally distributed, analyses were based on a mixed-effect analysis of geometric means with terms for treatment, period, and sequence|This compares the results from the cured-meats diet (numerator) with the noncured-meats diet (denominator)|0.98|0.65|0.03
91050171|NCT04397445|181986268|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.77||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.89||Exploratory analyses on the effect of diet used a 2-sided P value \<.05 for ranitidine as the diet was not expected to affect these outcomes|Mixed Models Analysis||This compares the results from the cured-meats diet (numerator) with the noncured-meats diet (denominator).|As ranitidine data were log-normally distributed, analyses were based on a mixed-effect analysis of geometric means with terms for treatment, period, and sequence||0.89|0.66|0.002
91050172|NCT03728634|181986303|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Analysis of Variance(ANOVA)|||Change From Baseline in Plasma TTR Levels Following Multiple-Dose Administration of ION-TTR-LRx at Day 29: 45 mg||||<0.001
91050173|NCT03728634|181986303|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Change From Baseline in Plasma TTR Levels Following Multiple-Dose Administration of ION-TTR-LRx at Day 29: 60 mg||||<0.001
91050174|NCT03728634|181986303|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Change From Baseline in Plasma TTR Levels Following Multiple-Dose Administration of ION-TTR-LRx at Day 29: 90 mg||||<0.001
91050175|NCT03728634|181986303|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Change From Baseline in Plasma TTR Levels Following Multiple-Dose Administration of ION-TTR-LRx at Day 99: 45 mg||||<0.001
91050176|NCT03728634|181986303|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Change From Baseline in Plasma TTR Levels Following Multiple-Dose Administration of ION-TTR-LRx at Day 99: 60 mg||||<0.001
91050177|NCT03728634|181986303|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Change From Baseline in Plasma TTR Levels Following Multiple-Dose Administration of ION-TTR-LRx at Day 99: 90 mg||||<0.001
91050178|NCT03728634|181986303|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036|||||||ANOVA|||Change From Baseline in Plasma TTR Levels Following Single-Dose Administration of ION-TTR-LRx at Day 29: 120 mg||||0.036
91050179|NCT03728634|181986304|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Change From Baseline in Plasma RBP4 Levels Following Multiple-Dose Administration of ION-TTR-LRx at Day 29: 45 mg||||<0.001
91050180|NCT03728634|181986304|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Change From Baseline in Plasma RBP4 Levels Following Multiple-Dose Administration of ION-TTR-LRx at Day 29: 60 mg||||<0.001
91050181|NCT03728634|181986304|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Change From Baseline in Plasma RBP4 Levels Following Multiple-Dose Administration of ION-TTR-LRx at Day 29: 90 mg||||<0.001
91050182|NCT03728634|181986304|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Change From Baseline in Plasma RBP4 Levels Following Multiple-Dose Administration of ION-TTR-LRx at Day 99: 45 mg||||<0.001
91050183|NCT03728634|181986304|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Change From Baseline in Plasma RBP4 Levels Following Multiple-Dose Administration of ION-TTR-LRx at Day 99: 60 mg||||<0.001
91050184|NCT03728634|181986304|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Change From Baseline in Plasma RBP4 Levels Following Multiple-Dose Administration of ION-TTR-LRx at Day 99: 90 mg||||<0.001
91050185|NCT03728634|181986304|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Exact Test (2-sided)|||Change From Baseline in Plasma RBP4 Levels Following Single-Dose Administration of ION-TTR-LRx at Day 29: 120 mg||||0.036
91050361|NCT04168190|181987003|SUPERIORITY|Superiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>1.0 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|32.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.83|44.89|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 24F. Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||44.89|22.83|<0.001
91006324|NCT04806165|181896477|SUPERIORITY|To improve the quality of the imputations, gender, age, and race were included as auxiliary variables. We generated ten imputed datasets with the predictive mean matching method and pooled coefficients, degrees of freedom, and standard errors with Rubin's (1987) rules. As a sensitivity analysis, we also ran the same models using full information maximum likelihood to handle missing data.|Regression (Beta) Coefficient|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.049|TWO_SIDED|||||We computed both unstandardized (B) and standardized (ß) coefficients to indicate effect sizes. As suggested by Fey et al. (2023), we interpreted absolute ß values below 0.2 as small, between 0.2 and 0.5 as medium, and greater than 0.5 as large|Linear Mixed Effects Model|The linear mixed effects models incorporated a random intercept to accommodate the correlation of repeated measures within participants.||Analyses were conducted to determine the interaction effects of time since intervention and each of the four chatbot components. This analysis explores the interaction effects of time and the repeated administration (RA) component on participant attitudes toward change for concerns related to their eating, weight, and/or shape concerns since engagement with the intervention.||||.049
91050362|NCT04168190|181987003|SUPERIORITY|Superiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>1.0 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|34.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.25|50.23|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 31. Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||50.23|24.25|<0.001
91006325|NCT02059174|181896483|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A frailty model was used with effects for treatment, period and sequence and a random effect for participant. A value of 1.00 for the hazard ratio corresponds to no difference between treatments.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.59|||||ratio (MK-1293 / EU-Approved Lantus)|Because numerous participants did not achieve End of Action within the 30-hour clamp timeframe, the pre-specified hypothesis of similarity with regard to mean DOA could not be tested and a survival analysis approach was undertaken. The hazard rate is a measure of the instantaneous risk of reaching End of Action at time t given End of Action has not been met up until time t, with the hazard ratio being an estimate of the relative difference in hazard rates between treatments.||1.59|0.72|
91006326|NCT02059174|181896484|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Similarity criteria calculated via Fieller's Theorem was 95% confidence interval for arithmetic mean ratio (MK-1293/EU-Lantus™) falls between 0.80-1.25|Ratio of Arithmetic Means|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.01|||||Ratio (MK-1293 / EU-Approved Lantus)|||1.01|0.88|
91006327|NCT02059174|181896485|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Similarity criteria calculated via Fieller's Theorem was 95% confidence interval for arithmetic mean ratio (MK-1293/EU-Lantus™) falls between 0.80-1.25|Ratio of Arithmetic Means|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|0.99|||||Ratio (MK-1293 / EU-Approved Lantus)|||0.99|0.81|
91006328|NCT02059174|181896486|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Similarity criteria calculated via Fieller's Theorem was 95% confidence interval for arithmetic mean ratio (MK-1293/EU-Lantus™) falls between 0.80-1.25|Ratio of Arithmetic Means|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.06|||||Ratio (MK-1293 / EU-Approved Lantus)|||1.06|0.92|
91006329|NCT02059174|181896487|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Similarity criteria calculated via Fieller's Theorem was 95% confidence interval for arithmetic mean ratio (MK-1293/EU-Lantus™) falls between 0.80-1.25|Ratio of Arithmetic Means|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.02|||||Ratio (MK-1293 / EU-Approved Lantus)|||1.02|0.91|
91006330|NCT02059174|181896488|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Similarity criteria was 90% confidence interval for geometric mean ratio (MK-1293/EU-Lantus™) falls between 0.80-1.25|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.02|||||Ratio (MK-1293 / EU-Approved Lantus)|||1.02|0.91|
91006331|NCT02059174|181896489|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Similarity criteria was 90% confidence interval for geometric mean ratio (MK-1293/EU-Lantus™) falls between 0.80-1.25|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|1.03|||||Ratio (MK-1293 / EU-Approved Lantus)|||1.03|0.93|
91006332|NCT02059174|181896490|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Similarity criteria was 90% confidence interval for geometric mean ratio (MK-1293/EU-Lantus™) falls between 0.80-1.25|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.86|0.97|||||Ratio (MK-1293 / EU-Approved Lantus)|||0.97|0.86|
91006333|NCT02059174|181896491|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Similarity criteria was 90% confidence interval for geometric mean ratio (MK-1293/EU-Lantus™) falls between 0.80-1.25|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|1.04|||||Ratio (MK-1293 / EU-Approved Lantus)|||1.04|0.95|
91006334|NCT01196936|181896493|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||The calculated p-value is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.05
91006335|NCT01196936|181896494|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0266|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0266
91006336|NCT01196936|181896495|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.12
91006337|NCT01196936|181896496|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>0.05
91006338|NCT01196936|181896497|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.78
91006339|NCT01196936|181896498|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||> 0.05
91006340|NCT01196936|181896499|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.071|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.071
91006341|NCT01196936|181896500|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.739|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.739
91006342|NCT01196936|181896501|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8315|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8315
91006343|NCT03229538|181896502|OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.86||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.05|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.05|0.71|0.14
91006344|NCT03229538|181896502|OTHER||Percent Difference|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.9|||||Difference = Methylprednisolone - Placebo|Rank = 97||0.9|-2.6|
91006345|NCT03229538|181896502|OTHER||Percent Difference|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|0.5|||||Difference = Methylprednisolone - Placebo|Rank \> or = 96||0.5|-3.5|
91006346|NCT03229538|181896502|OTHER||Percent Difference|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|0.1|||||Difference = Methylprednisolone - Placebo|Rank \> or = 95||0.1|-4.4|
91006347|NCT03229538|181896502|OTHER||Percent Difference|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|2.7|||||Difference = Methylprednisolone - Placebo|Rank \> or = 94||2.7|-4.3|
91006348|NCT03229538|181896502|OTHER||Percent Difference|-3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|0.2|||||Difference = Methylprednisolone - Placebo|Rank \> or = 93||0.2|-7.8|
91006349|NCT03229538|181896502|OTHER||Percent Difference|-3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|0.9|||||Difference = Methylprednisolone - Placebo|Rank \> or = 92||0.9|-7.8|
91006350|NCT03229538|181896502|OTHER||Percent Difference|-3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|1.3|||||Difference = Methylprednisolone - Placebo|Rank \> or = 91||1.3|-7.5|
91006351|NCT03229538|181896503|SUPERIORITY|It was estimated that 1200 patients (600 per trial group) would provide the trial with more than 90% power to detect superiority of methylprednisolone.|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.74||||0.428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.57|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.57|0.34|0.428
91006352|NCT03229538|181896504|SUPERIORITY|It was estimated that 1200 patients (600 per trial group) would provide the trial with more than 90% power to detect superiority of methylprednisolone.|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.83||||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.13|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.13|0.61|0.228
91006353|NCT03229538|181896505|SUPERIORITY|It was estimated that 1200 patients (600 per trial group) would provide the trial with more than 90% power to detect superiority of methylprednisolone over placebo.|Percent Difference|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|0.4||||||||0.4|-4.0|
91006354|NCT03229538|181896506|SUPERIORITY|It was estimated that 1200 patients (600 per trial group) would provide the trial with more than 90% power to detect superiority of methylprednisolone over placebo.|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.79||||0.309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.25|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.25|0.50|0.309
91006355|NCT03229538|181896507|SUPERIORITY|It was estimated that 1200 patients (600 per trial group) would provide the trial with more than 90% power to detect superiority of methylprednisolone over placebo.|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.91||||0.723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.57|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.57|0.52|0.723
91006356|NCT03229538|181896509|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.86||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.11|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.11|0.67|0.256
91006357|NCT02511106|181896515|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.3|||Log Rank|Determined using a log rank test stratified by stage, race and mutation type.|A hazard ratio \<1 favours AZD9291.|||0.30|0.18|<0.0001
91006358|NCT02511106|181896516|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.34|||Log Rank|Determined using a log rank test stratified by stage, race and mutation type.|A hazard ratio \<1 favours AZD9291.|||0.34|0.21|<0.0001
91006359|NCT02511106|181896519|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.4913||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.03|0.3307|0.7299|||Log Rank|Determined using a log rank test stratified by stage, race and mutation type.|A hazard ratio \<1 favours AZD9291.|||0.7299|0.3307|0.0004
91006360|NCT02511106|181896520|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.4912|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.03|0.3439|0.7017|||Log Rank|Determined using a log rank test stratified by stage, race and mutation type.|A hazard ratio \<1 favours AZD9291.|||0.7017|0.3439|<0.0001
91006361|NCT02274311|181896548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Measures of central tendency (mean) and variability (range and/or SD) were used to describe numeric variables. Paired Student's t test was used to verify the mean differences between dependent normally distributed variables. Wilcoxon sign test was performed to non-normally distributed dependent variables.~Asignificance level of 5%was adopted for all statistical tests (P \<.05)."||||< 0.05
91006362|NCT04916314|181896574|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|3.6||Omnibus likelihood ratio test for significant change in co-primary outcomes at 3 or 12 months|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.6|-5|0.8
91006363|NCT04916314|181896575|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.5||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|2.8||omnibus likelihood ratio test for significant change in co-primary outcomes at 3 or 12 months|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.8|-5.7|0.8
91006364|NCT01828567|181896619|OTHER|A logistic regression model was used. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in improvement prevention program enrollment between the usual care and intervention arms by month 6.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|3.89|||Regression, Logistic|||The first primary outcome is the cumulative enrollment in prevention programs over the six months of follow up. This will be assessed via self-report at months 1 and 6. As defined by the eligibility criteria, all patients will have a value of 0 at baseline.||3.89|1.66|<.0001
91006365|NCT01828567|181896621|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5||||0.204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|3.7||A general linear model with an unstructured covariance matrix to take into account the within-patient correlation between repeated measures over time.|Repeated Measures|This model assumes the groups have equal baseline means.|We estimate the parameters in the model using the SAS procedure MIXED (SAS Version 9.4, Cary, NC). The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in improvement in PAM scores between the usual care and intervention arms at 1 month.|For the primary hypothesis we will be examining the effect during the 1-month long intervention delivery period.||3.7|-0.8|0.204
91007620|NCT04652102|181899338|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine Efficacy|-11.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-200.5|56.7|||||2-sided 95% CI on VE, derived from the exact 2-sided 95% Pearson-Clopper CI on proportion of cases coming from the CVnCoV group among all cases.|VE calculated as VE = 1 - p/(1-p) \*1/r where p represents the proportion of cases coming from the CVnCoV group among all cases and r represents the ratio of total follow-up time of subjects in the CVnCoV group over the total follow-up time of subjects in the placebo group.||56.7|-200.5|
91006366|NCT01828567|181896622|EQUIVALENCE|This model assumes the groups have equal baseline means, which is appropriate for a randomized controlled trial and is equivalent in efficiency to an ANCOVA model.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|4.7||A general Linear model with an unstructured covariance matrix to take into account the within-patient correlation between repeated measures over time. For the primary hypothesis we will be assessing sustainability at 6 months.|Repeated Measures|This model assumes the groups have equal baseline means.|We estimate the parameters in the model using the SAS procedure MIXED (SAS Version 9.4, Cary, NC). The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in improvement in PAM scores between the usual care and intervention arms at 6 month.|||4.7|0.2|0.030
91006367|NCT01828567|181896624|EQUIVALENCE|This model assumes the groups have equal baseline means|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|2.2|||Repeated Measures|A general linear model with an unstructured covariance matrix to take into account the within-patient correlation between repeated measures over time.|We estimate the parameters in the model using the SAS procedure MIXED (SAS Version 9.4, Cary, NC). The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in improvement in FRS scores between the usual care and intervention arms at 6 month.|Our secondary outcome of interest is the Framingham Risk Score, measured at baseline and month 6.||2.2|-0.7|0.330
91006368|NCT01099761|181896632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.023|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.023
91006369|NCT01099761|181896632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.012|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.012
91006370|NCT01099761|181896632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.435|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.435
91006371|NCT01099761|181896633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.039|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.039
91006372|NCT03325010|181896640|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.1768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|1.0||Nominal p-value is considered statistically significant if less than 0.05. To control for multiplicity, comparisons were tested sequentially.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.0|-5.2|0.1768
91006373|NCT03325010|181896641|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.1095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.1||To control for multiplicity, comparisons were tested sequentially. Nominal p-value for this outcome measure would only be evaluated for statistical significance if the primary outcome measure was statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.1|-0.6|0.1095
91006374|NCT03325010|181896642|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.0||||0.819|TWO_SIDED|||||To control for multiplicity, comparisons were tested sequentially. Nominal p-value for this outcome measure would only be evaluated for statistical significance if the primary and preceding secondary outcome measures were statistically significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline weight group (\<50 kg, ≥50 kg).||||||0.8190
91006375|NCT03325010|181896643|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|33.6||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|||||To control for multiplicity, comparisons were tested sequentially. Nominal p-value for this outcome measure would only be evaluated for statistical significance if the primary and preceding secondary outcome measures were statistically significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline weight group (\<50 kg, ≥50 kg)||||||0.0008
91006376|NCT02614261|181896644|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.92|-1.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.26|-2.92|<.001
91006377|NCT02614261|181896644|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.71|-1.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.05|-2.71|<.001
91050186|NCT00076804|181986335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42||||||Logistic regression analysis \& Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were performed to compare outcomes after adjusting for the relevant covariates,including study arm, age, sex, baseline CD4 cell counts and viral load and pill count adherence|Chi-squared|one degree of freedom||Unadjusted endpoint analyses were conducted on an intention-to-treat basis using all patients enrolled to compare outcomes in the DOT vs. Self-ART arm. For viral load analyses, missing values were considered detectable (missing¼failure analysis). As-treated analyses were also conducted using patients remaining in the study with available data.Crosssectional comparisons between study groups were conducted using two sample t-test,Wilcoxon rank-sum test,chi-squared orFisher's exact and Kaplan-Meier||||0.42
91050187|NCT00076804|181986336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89||||||Logistic regression analysis \& Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were performed to compare outcomes after adjusting for the relevant covariates,including study arm, age, sex, baseline CD4 cell counts and viral load and pill count adherence|Chi-squared|one degree of freedom||Unadjusted endpoint analyses were conducted on an intention-to-treat basis using all patients enrolled to compare outcomes in the DOT vs. Self-ART arm. For viral load analyses, missing values were considered detectable (missing¼failure analysis). As-treated analyses were also conducted using patients remaining in the study with available data.Crosssectional comparisons between study groups were conducted using two sample t-test,Wilcoxon rank-sum test,chi-squared orFisher's exact and Kaplan-Meier||||0.89
91050188|NCT00076804|181986337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14||||||Logistic regression analysis \& Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were performed to compare outcomes after adjusting for the relevant covariates,including study arm, age, sex, baseline CD4 cell counts and viral load and pill count adherence|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Unadjusted endpoint analyses were conducted on an intention-to-treat basis using all patients enrolled to compare outcomes in the DOT vs. Self-ART arm. For viral load analyses, missing values were considered detectable (missing¼failure analysis). As-treated analyses were also conducted using patients remaining in the study with available data.Crosssectional comparisons between study groups were conducted using two sample t-test,Wilcoxon rank-sum test,chi-squared orFisher's exact and Kaplan-Meier||||0.14
91050189|NCT00076804|181986338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61||||||Logistic regression analysis \& Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were performed to compare outcomes after adjusting for the relevant covariates,including study arm, age, sex, baseline CD4 cell counts and viral load and pill count adherence|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Unadjusted endpoint analyses were conducted on an intention-to-treat basis using all patients enrolled to compare outcomes in the DOT vs. Self-ART arm. For viral load analyses, missing values were considered detectable (missing¼failure analysis). As-treated analyses were also conducted using patients remaining in the study with available data.Crosssectional comparisons between study groups were conducted using two sample t-test,Wilcoxon rank-sum test,chi-squared orFisher's exact and Kaplan-Meier||||0.61
91050190|NCT03709823|181986339|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference vs. Placebo|-20.48||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.141|-9.821||Based on analysis of variance models with percent of expected cigarettes smoked as the dependent variable, treatment and body mass index class as main fixed effects, with covariate of baseline cigarettes.|ANOVA|||||-9.821|-31.141|0.0002
91050191|NCT03709823|181986339|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference vs. Placebo|-22.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.791|-11.342||Based on analysis of variance models with percent of expected cigarettes smoked as the dependent variable, treatment and body mass index class as main fixed effects, with covariate of baseline cigarettes.|ANOVA|||||-11.342|-32.791|< 0.0001
91050192|NCT03709823|181986339|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference vs. Placebo|-5.9||||0.2708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.463|4.66||Based on analysis of variance models with percent of expected cigarettes smoked as the dependent variable, treatment and body mass index class as main fixed effects, with covariate of baseline cigarettes.|ANOVA|||||4.660|-16.463|0.2708
91006378|NCT02614261|181896645|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.623||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.167|2.256|||CPRMM|Categorical pseudo likelihood-based repeated measures model (CPRMM)||Reduction from Baseline ≥50%,||2.256|1.167|.004
91006379|NCT02614261|181896645|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.788|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.291|2.474|||CPRMM|Categorical pseudo likelihood-based repeated measures model (CPRMM)||Reduction from Baseline ≥50%||2.474|1.291|<.001
91050193|NCT03709823|181986339|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference vs. Placebo|-2.81||||0.6018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.438|7.82||Based on analysis of variance models with percent of expected cigarettes smoked as the dependent variable, treatment and body mass index class as main fixed effects, with covariate of baseline cigarettes.|ANOVA|||||7.820|-13.438|0.6018
91050194|NCT03709823|181986339|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference vs. Commercial Sched.|-12.17||||0.1025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.869|2.535||Based on analysis of variance models with percent of expected cigarettes smoked as the dependent variable, treatment and body mass index class as main fixed effects, with covariate of baseline cigarettes.|ANOVA|||||2.535|-26.869|0.1025
91050195|NCT03709823|181986340|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference vs. Placebo|-14.61||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.216|-6.009||Based on analysis of variance models with percent of expected cigarettes smoked as the dependent variable, treatment and body mass index class as main fixed effects, with covariate of baseline cigarettes.|ANOVA|||||-6.009|-23.216|0.0010
91050196|NCT03709823|181986340|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference vs. Placebo|-16.2||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.862|-7.548||Based on analysis of variance models with percent of expected cigarettes smoked as the dependent variable, treatment and body mass index class as main fixed effects, with covariate of baseline cigarettes.|ANOVA|||||-7.548|-24.862|0.0003
91006380|NCT02614261|181896645|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.498||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.923|2.43|||CPRMM|Categorical pseudo likelihood-based repeated measures model (CPRMM)||Reduction from Baseline ≥75%||2.430|0.923|.102
91006381|NCT02614261|181896645|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.819||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.146|2.888|||CPRMM|Categorical pseudo likelihood-based repeated measures model (CPRMM)||Reduction from Baseline ≥75%||2.888|1.146|.011
91006382|NCT02614261|181896645|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.761||||0.729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.163|3.563|||CPRMM|Categorical pseudo likelihood-based repeated measures model (CPRMM)||Reduction from Baseline ≥100%||3.563|0.163|0.729
91006383|NCT02614261|181896645|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.897||||0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|5.998|||CPRMM|Categorical pseudo likelihood-based repeated measures model (CPRMM)||Reduction from Baseline ≥100%||5.998|0.600|.276
91006384|NCT02614261|181896646|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|5.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.12|7.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.99|2.12|<.001
91006385|NCT02614261|181896646|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|6.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.66|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.03|9.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.55|3.03|<.001
91006386|NCT02614261|181896647|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.27|-1.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.76|-3.27|<.001
91006387|NCT02614261|181896647|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.77|-1.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.26|-2.77|<.001
91006388|NCT02614261|181896648|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.06|-0.34|.181
91006389|NCT02614261|181896648|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.08|-0.48|.006
91006390|NCT02614261|181896649|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-22.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.74|-13.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-13.69|-31.74|<.001
91006391|NCT02614261|181896649|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-18.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.58|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.09|-9.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-9.09|-27.09|<.001
91006392|NCT02614261|181896650|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-8.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.39|-1.08|||ANCOVA|||||-1.08|-16.39|.025
91050197|NCT03709823|181986341|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference vs. Placebo|-12.41||||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.695|-3.135||Based on analysis of variance models with percent of expected cigarettes smoked as the dependent variable, treatment and body mass index class as main fixed effects, with covariate of baseline cigarettes.|ANOVA|||||-3.135|-21.695|0.0091
91050198|NCT03709823|181986341|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference vs. Placebo|-9.3||||0.0518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.667|0.075||Based on analysis of variance models with percent of expected cigarettes smoked as the dependent variable, treatment and body mass index class as main fixed effects, with covariate of baseline cigarettes.|ANOVA|||||0.075|-18.667|0.0518
91050199|NCT00688376|181986342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.8||||0.694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.22|4.8|||ANCOVA|||P-values, least squares (LS) mean, and 95% confidence interval (CI) were obtained from Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group as a factor and Baseline value as covariate.||4.8|-3.22|0.694
91050200|NCT00688376|181986343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.1||||0.9458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.38|4.09|||ANCOVA|||P-values, LS mean, and 95% confidence intervals were obtained from ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline value as covariate.||4.09|-4.38|0.9458
91050201|NCT00688376|181986344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.4||||0.743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.56|6.85|||ANCOVA|||RTVSS Change from Baseline to Week 6 (LOCF). P-values, LS mean, and 95% confidence intervals were obtained from ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline value as covariate.||6.85|-9.56|0.743
91050202|NCT00688376|181986344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.2||||0.9561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.42|7.84|||ANCOVA|||RTVSS Change from Baseline to Week 12 (LOCF). P-values, LS mean, and 95% confidence intervals were obtained from ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline value as covariate.||7.84|-7.42|0.9561
91050203|NCT00688376|181986344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.5||||0.4385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.97|9.04|||ANCOVA|||RTSS Change from Baseline to Week 6 (LOCF). P-values, LS mean, and 95% confidence intervals were obtained from ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline value as covariate.||9.04|-3.97|0.4385
91050204|NCT00688376|181986344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.4||||0.9088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.74|6.0|||ANCOVA|||RTSS Change from Baseline to Week 12 (LOCF). P-values, LS mean, and 95% confidence intervals were obtained from ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline value as covariate.||6|-6.74|0.9088
91006393|NCT02614261|181896650|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-5.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.88||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|2.12|||ANCOVA|||||2.12|-13.10|.157
91006394|NCT02614261|181896651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.263|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||.263
91006395|NCT02614261|181896651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||.290
91006396|NCT00113555|181896677|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.05|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.325|-1.003|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon's matched pairs signed ranks test was used to determine the significance of differences between scores at follow-up compared to pre-implant.||-1.003|-1.325|<0.001
91006397|NCT04474366|181896686|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.72
91006398|NCT01700140|181896687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
91006399|NCT01700140|181896687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2284|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2284
91006400|NCT01700140|181896687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2549|||||||Cochran-Armitage test|||||||0.2549
91006401|NCT01700140|181896688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
91006402|NCT01700140|181896688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1527|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1527
91006403|NCT01700140|181896688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1864|||||||Cochran-Armitage test|||||||0.1864
91006404|NCT01700140|181896689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.918||||0.8361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.266|3.172|||Generalized Wilcoxon test|||||3.172|0.266|0.8361
91006405|NCT01700140|181896689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.423||||0.0724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.144|1.237|||Generalized Wilcoxon test|||||1.237|0.144|0.0724
91006406|NCT01700140|181896690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.213||||0.6466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.616|2.388|||Generalized Wilcoxon test|||||2.388|0.616|0.6466
91006407|NCT01700140|181896690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.828||||0.2701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.566|1.21|||Generalized Wilcoxon test|||||1.210|0.566|0.2701
91006408|NCT01700140|181896691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for complete control rate after the first irradiation||||1.0000
91006409|NCT01700140|181896691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1051|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for complete control rate after the first irradiation||||0.1051
91006410|NCT01700140|181896691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4856|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for complete control rate after the second irradiation||||0.4856
91006411|NCT01700140|181896691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1047|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for complete control rate after the second irradiation||||0.1047
91006412|NCT01700140|181896691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1617|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for complete control rate after the third irradiation||||0.1617
91006413|NCT01700140|181896691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3099|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for complete control rate after the third irradiation||||0.3099
91006414|NCT01700140|181896692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for complete response rate after the first irradiation||||1.0000
91006415|NCT01700140|181896692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1051|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for complete response rate after the first irradiation||||0.1051
91006416|NCT01700140|181896692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6761|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for complete response rate after the second irradiation||||0.6761
91006417|NCT01700140|181896692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3513|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for complete response rate after the second irradiation||||0.3513
91006418|NCT01700140|181896692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.206|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for complete response rate after the third irradiation||||0.2060
91006419|NCT01700140|181896692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0511|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for complete response rate after the third irradiation||||0.0511
91006420|NCT00864123|181896847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.3|<|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Data were analyzed with separate 2 (site: Florida, MGH) by 2 (condition: CBT+DCS, CBT+Placebo) by 3 (time: pre-treatment, mid-treatment, post-treatment; Dependent variables: CY-BOCS Total Score) fixed-effects linear regression with time as the repeated measure. Cohen's d was used to examine the magnitude of treatment effects.||||<0.05
91006421|NCT00864123|181896848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.1|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||Data were analyzed with separate 2 (site: Florida, MGH) by 2 (condition: CBT+DCS, CBT+Placebo) by 3 (time: pre-treatment, mid-treatment, post-treatment; Dependent variables: CGI-Severity) fixed-effects linear regression with time as the repeated measure. Cohen's d was used to examine the magnitude of treatment effects.||||<0.05
91006422|NCT04221945|181896872|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.87||One sided p-value|Log Rank|Stratified by planned type of external beam radiation therapy (EBRT), stage at screening, and planned total radiotherapy dose.|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate|||0.87|0.59|0.0004
91050205|NCT00688376|181986345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.7||||0.2886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|4.96|||ANCOVA|||Global Executive Composite Score Analysis. P-values, LS mean, and 95% confidence intervals were obtained from ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline value as covariate.||4.96|-1.5|0.2886
91050206|NCT00688376|181986345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.1||||0.2555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|5.69|||ANCOVA|||Behavioral Regulation Index Analysis. P-values, LS mean, and 95% confidence intervals were obtained from ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline value as covariate.||5.69|-1.54|0.2555
91050207|NCT00688376|181986345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.7||||0.3155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|4.99|||ANCOVA|||Metacognition Index Analysis. P-values, LS mean, and 95% confidence intervals were obtained from ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline value as covariate.||4.99|-1.63|0.3155
91050208|NCT00688376|181986345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.2||||0.9075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.55|3.16|||ANCOVA|||Working Memory Scale Analysis. P-values, LS mean, and 95% confidence intervals were obtained from ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline value as covariate.||3.16|-3.55|0.9075
91050363|NCT04168190|181987003|SUPERIORITY|Superiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>1.0 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|9.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.19|11.26|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 35B. Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||11.26|7.19|<0.001
91006423|NCT04221945|181896873|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.0076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.94||One sided p-value|Log Rank|Stratified by planned type of external beam radiation therapy (EBRT), stage at screening, and planned total radiotherapy dose.|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate|||0.94|0.57|0.0076
91006424|NCT04221945|181896874|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.89||One-sided p-value|Log Rank|Stratified by planned type of EBRT, stage at screening, and planned total radiotherapy dose.|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling|||0.89|0.58|0.0011
91006425|NCT04221945|181896875|OTHER||Difference in Survival Rate|10.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.1|16.7|||||Pembrolizumab minus Placebo|||16.7|5.1|
91006426|NCT04221945|181896876|OTHER||Difference in Survival Rate|7.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|13.5|||||Pembrolizumab minus Placebo|||13.5|2.3|
91006427|NCT04221945|181896877|OTHER||Difference in Survival Rate|7.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|12.5|||||Pembrolizumab minus Placebo|||12.5|2.3|
91006428|NCT04221945|181896878|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|3.3||||0.1307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|9.1|||One-sided p-value for testing||Pembrolizumab minus Placebo||Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by planned type of EBRT, Stage at screening and planned total radiotherapy dose.|9.1|-2.5|0.1307
91050364|NCT04168190|181987004|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.42|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 3||1.42|0.58|
91006429|NCT04221945|181896879|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.7||||0.4082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|6.7|||One-sided p-value for testing||Pembrolizumab minus Placebo||Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by planned type of EBRT, Stage at screening and planned total radiotherapy dose.|6.7|-5.2|0.4082
91006430|NCT04221945|181896880|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|3.6||||0.0496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|7.9|||One-sided p-value for testing.||Pembrolizumab minus Placebo||Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by planned type of EBRT, Stage at screening and planned total radiotherapy dose.|7.9|-0.7|0.0496
91006431|NCT04221945|181896881|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|2.2||||0.1244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|5.9|||One-sided p-value for testing.||Pembrolizumab minus Placebo||Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by planned type of EBRT, Stage at screening and planned total radiotherapy dose.|5.9|-1.5|0.1244
91006432|NCT04221945|181896882|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.89||One-sided p-value|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|||0.89|0.59|0.0010
91006433|NCT04221945|181896883|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.9||One-sided p-value|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|||0.90|0.58|0.0016
91006434|NCT04221945|181896884|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.95||One-sided p-value|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|||0.95|0.56|0.0083
91006435|NCT04221945|181896885|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.88||One-sided p-value|Log Rank|Stratified by planned type of external beam radiation therapy (EBRT), stage at screening, and planned total radiotherapy dose.|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate|||0.88|0.54|0.0015
91006436|NCT04221945|181896886|OTHER||Difference LS Means|0.07||||0.9593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.66|2.8|||cLDA model||Pembrolizumab minus placebo||Based on a cLDA model with the patient-reported outcome (PRO) scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratified by planned type of EBRT.|2.80|-2.66|0.9593
91050365|NCT04168190|181987004|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.76|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 3||1.76|0.71|
91006437|NCT04221945|181896887|OTHER||Difference LS Means|0.68||||0.5145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|2.71|||cLDA model||Pembrolizumab minus placebo||Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratified by planned type of EBRT.|2.71|-1.36|0.5145
91006438|NCT04221945|181896888|OTHER||Difference LS Means|0.75||||0.2953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|2.15|||cLDA model||Pembrolizumab minus placebo||Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratified by planned type of EBRT.|2.15|-0.65|0.2953
91006439|NCT05740566|181896950|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.599|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.468|0.768||P-value is calculated using a stratified log-rank test.|Stratified log-rank test||Hazard ratios and 95% CIs are estimated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model; a hazard ratio \<1.0 indicates a better survival of tarlatamab arm.|||0.768|0.468|<0.001
91006440|NCT06210035|181896994|SUPERIORITY||F test|6.21||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.003
91006441|NCT06210035|181896995|SUPERIORITY||F test|0.78||||0.46|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.460
91006442|NCT06210035|181896996|SUPERIORITY||F test|2.13||||0.127|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.127
91006443|NCT06210035|181896997|SUPERIORITY||F test|0.004||||0.952|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.952
91050209|NCT00557076|181986346|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Because 50% of the planned sample size was randomized, achieved power for the DOCS is 0.51.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.0||0.465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|21.9|||t-test, 1 sided|DOCS scores were transformed to interval level measures using a many-faceted Rasch model anchored to values from a larger validation data set|The mean difference between the baseline and endpoint DOCS test was compared between the FAST and Sham groups.|The planned sample of 15 per group provided 80% power for a one-sided t-test to detect be-tween group endpoint differences in DOCS averages equivalent to an effect size of .91 (9 units). Clinically, this assumes that the FAST protocol would facilitate progression from one clinical state to another (e.g., vegetative (VS) to minimally conscious (MCS) states). The hypothesized effect was based on average DOCS change for a severe TBI sample receiving three weeks of acute rehabilitation.||21.9|-11.1|.465
91050210|NCT00557076|181986347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.346||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|-0.00493|||t-test, 1 sided|CNC scores were transformed to interval level measures using Rasch partial credit and Facets models. We then re-scaled these logits to 0-100 scales.|The mean difference was calculated for each group using the eighth CNC measure minus the Baseline CNC measure.|Power was not calculated for the CNC because the effect size was not published.||-.00493|-1.51|0.049
91050211|NCT00557076|181986347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|||||To confirm that CNC results were not an anomaly at the final measurement and that the overall CNC response pattern was consistent, mixed-effect longitudinal models were conducted.|t-test, 1 sided||The Baseline CNC measure and seven post-Baseline CNC measures (for a total of eight CNC measures) were used to calculate the slope.|||||.0022
91050212|NCT01517659|181986353|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.61|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.29|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.23|3.27||||||||3.27|2.23|
91050213|NCT00894738|181986357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value listed is for DEXA total percent fat and is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The alpha level was set to 5%.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis is that mean DEXA total percent fat is similar between the two groups of interest. The primary statistical model consisted of treatment group as a 2-level factor (AP-Treated Vs Non-AP Treated) and DEXA total percent fat as a covariate. Carotid intima-media thickness (CIMT) was the dependent variable.||||0.49
91050214|NCT00894738|181986358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value listed is for DEXA total percent fat and is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The alpha level was set to 5%.|ANCOVA|||The statistical analysis consisted of treatment group as a 2-level factor variable and DEXA total percent fat as a covariate. An interaction term between treatment group and DEXA total percent fat was also generated. Hepatic triglyceride content was the dependent variable. DEXA total percent fat was found to be significant while treatment group and the interaction between treatment group and DEXA total percent fat were not significant.||||<0.0001
91050215|NCT05070546|181986433|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of Cohort 3 (Group 5) versus Cohorts 1 (Group 1) and 2 (Group 3) in terms of RSV A2 Strain neutralizing antibody titers against 14 days after vaccination, using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67 for the GMT ratio (Cohort 3 \[Group 5\]/Cohort 1\[Group1\] and 2 \[Group 3\])|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|1.6|||Geometric Mean Ratio|||||1.60|1.25|
91050216|NCT05070546|181986433|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of Cohort 3 (Group 5) versus Cohort 2 (Group 3 in terms of RSV A2 Strain neutralizing antibody titers against 14 days after vaccination, using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67 for the GMT ratio (Cohort 3 \[Group 5\]/Cohort 2 \[Group 3\])|Geometric mean ratio|1.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|1.78|||Geometric Mean Ratio|||||1.78|1.34|
91050217|NCT05070546|181986434|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of Cohort 3 (Group 5) versus Cohorts 1 (Group 1) and 2 (Group 3) in terms of RSV A2 Strain neutralizing antibody titers against 14 days after vaccination, using a non-inferiority margin of -10% for the GMT ratio (Cohort 3 \[Group 5\]/Cohort 1\[Group1\] and 2 \[Group 3\]).|Difference in Seroresponse rate|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|10.9|||Difference in Seroresponse rate|||||10.9|0.3|
91050218|NCT05070546|181986434|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of Cohort 3 (Group 5) versus Cohorts 1 (Group 1) and 2 (Group 3) in terms of RSV A2 Strain neutralizing antibody titers against 14 days after vaccination, using a non-inferiority margin of -10% for the GMT ratio (Cohort 3 \[Group 5\]/Cohort 2 \[Group 3\]).|Difference in Seroresponse rate|4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|10.5|||Difference in Seroresponse rate|||||10.5|-1.6|
91006444|NCT01029691|181896999|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||unadjusted systolic blood pressure at baseline between groups||||0.45
91006445|NCT01029691|181896999|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted diastolic blood pressure at baseline between groups||||0.66
91006446|NCT01029691|181896999|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted systolic blood pressure at week 1||||0.61
91006447|NCT01029691|181896999|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted diastolic blood pressure at week 1||||0.75
91006448|NCT01029691|181897000|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.085|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.085
91006449|NCT01029691|181897001|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012||||||Unadjusted|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.012
91006450|NCT01029691|181897005|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4
91006451|NCT05492877|181897031|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.071||||0.599|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.869|1.32|||Regression, Cox||||The p-value was based on a 2-sided log rank test stratified by region|1.320|0.869|0.599
91006452|NCT05492877|181897034|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.234|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.882|1.726|||Regression, Cox|||||1.726|0.882|
91006453|NCT01603628|181897164|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.26||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.453|-0.063||MMRM including baseline MAS-B ankle score (knee extended) as a covariate and factors of age, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, study center and previous botulinum toxin exposure where age is represented by stratification categories.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||-0.063|-0.453|0.010
91006454|NCT01603628|181897164|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.21||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.405|-0.018||MMRM including baseline MAS-B ankle score (knee extended) as a covariate and factors of age, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, study center and previous botulinum toxin exposure where age is represented by stratification categories.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||-0.018|-0.405|0.033
91006455|NCT01603628|181897165|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.29||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.532||MMRM including baseline MAS-B ankle score (knee extended) as a covariate and factors of age, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, study center and previous botulinum toxin exposure where age is represented by stratification categories.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||0.532|0.040|0.023
91007621|NCT01846208|181899356|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|32.4||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.9|55.8|||Barnard's Exact Test|||% participants passed Year 2 SU OFC: Baked vs. Egg OIT-Randomized||55.8|8.9|0.009
91006456|NCT01603628|181897165|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.13||||0.299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.115|0.374||MMRM including baseline MAS-B ankle score (knee extended) as a covariate and factors of age, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, study center and previous botulinum toxin exposure where age is represented by stratification categories.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||0.374|-0.115|0.299
91007622|NCT01846208|181899356|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|25.5||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|49.1|||Barnard's Exact Test|||% participants passed Year 2 SU OFC: Egg OIT-Randomized vs. Egg OIT-Assigned||49.1|2.0|0.031
91006457|NCT01603628|181897166|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.41||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.126|0.704||ANCOVA model including baseline MAS-B ankle score with knee extended as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center and previous botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Week 8, Active Goal||0.704|0.126|0.005
91006458|NCT01603628|181897166|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.29||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|0.573||ANCOVA model including baseline MAS-B ankle score with knee extended as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center and previous botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Week 8, Active Goal||0.573|0.004|0.047
91006459|NCT01603628|181897166|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.45||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.145|0.756||ANCOVA model including baseline MAS-B ankle score with knee extended as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center and previous botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Week 8, Passive Goal||0.756|0.145|0.004
91006460|NCT01603628|181897166|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.44||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.141|0.74||ANCOVA model including baseline MAS-B ankle score with knee extended as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center and previous botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Week 8, Passive Goal||0.740|0.141|0.004
91006461|NCT01603628|181897166|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.49||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.191|0.797||ANCOVA model including baseline MAS-B ankle score with knee extended as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center and previous botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Week 12, Active Goal||0.797|0.191|0.001
91006462|NCT01603628|181897166|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.22||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.081|0.541||ANCOVA model including baseline MAS-B ankle score with knee extended as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center and previous botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Week 12, Active Goal||0.541|-0.081|0.153
91006463|NCT01603628|181897166|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.41||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.711||ANCOVA model including baseline MAS-B ankle score with knee extended as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center and previous botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Week 12, Passive Goal||0.711|0.100|0.010
91006464|NCT01603628|181897166|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.27||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.031|0.571||ANCOVA model including baseline MAS-B ankle score with knee extended as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center and previous botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Week 12, Passive Goal||0.571|-0.031|0.078
91006465|NCT01603628|181897167|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.99||||0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.768|0.779||ANCOVA model including baseline MTS ankle score with knee extended as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center, and previous botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 2||0.779|-4.768|0.158
91006466|NCT01603628|181897167|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.25||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.974|-0.524||ANCOVA model including baseline MTS ankle score with knee extended as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center, and previous botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 2||-0.524|-5.974|0.020
91006467|NCT01603628|181897167|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.42||||0.363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.489|1.648||ANCOVA model including baseline MTS ankle score with knee extended as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center, and previous botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 4||1.648|-4.489|0.363
91006468|NCT01603628|181897167|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.11||||0.171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.127|0.914||ANCOVA model including baseline MTS ankle score with knee extended as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center, and previous botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 4||0.914|-5.127|0.171
91006469|NCT01603628|181897167|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.33||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.143|-0.525||ANCOVA model including baseline MTS ankle score with knee extended as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center, and previous botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 6||-0.525|-6.143|0.020
91006470|NCT01603628|181897167|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.92||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.688|-1.148||ANCOVA model including baseline MTS ankle score with knee extended as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center, and previous botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 6||-1.148|-6.688|0.006
91006471|NCT01603628|181897167|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.07||||0.254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.621|1.491||ANCOVA model including baseline MTS ankle score with knee extended as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center, and previous botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 8||1.491|-5.621|0.254
91006472|NCT01603628|181897167|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.46||||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.935|1.014||ANCOVA model including baseline MTS ankle score with knee extended as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center, and previous botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 8||1.014|-5.935|0.165
91006473|NCT01603628|181897167|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.61||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.517|0.296||ANCOVA model including baseline MTS ankle score with knee extended as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center, and previous botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 12||0.296|-5.517|0.078
91006474|NCT01603628|181897167|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.09||||0.451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.944|1.758||ANCOVA model including baseline MTS ankle score with knee extended as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center, and previous botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 12||1.758|-3.944|0.451
91006475|NCT01955005|181897181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||This was a 2x2 comparison using Fisher's exact due to low expected cell count. Fisher's exact p\<0.001||||<0.001
91006476|NCT01955005|181897182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Z score|568.5||||0.73|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.73
91006477|NCT01955005|181897183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Table Probability|0.0142||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher's Exact|||||||0.02
91006478|NCT01200758|181897191|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferior Ctrough in SC formulation was demonstrated, if the lower bound of 90% confidence interval (CI) was above 0.8.|Geometric mean ratio|1.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.36|1.94|||||Geometric mean ratio adjusted for tumor load at baseline.|||1.94|1.36|
91006479|NCT01200758|181897192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rates|-4.82||||0.2835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|4.4|||Chi-squared||The 95% CI for the difference in response rates was estimated using the Hauck-Anderson method.|||4.4|-14.0|0.2835
91006480|NCT01200758|181897192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.33||||||||1.33|0.38|
91006481|NCT01200758|181897193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rates|7.66||||0.2047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|20.3|||Chi-squared||The 95% CI for the difference in response rates was estimated using the Hauck-Anderson method.|||20.3|-5.0|0.2047
91006482|NCT01200758|181897193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|5.71||||||||5.71|0.68|
91006483|NCT01200758|181897194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rates|-0.49||||0.8911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|6.8|||Chi-squared||The 95% CI for the difference in response rates was estimated using the Hauck-Anderson.|||6.8|-7.7|0.8911
91006484|NCT01200758|181897194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.65||||||||1.65|0.56|
91006485|NCT01200758|181897195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in CRR|17.86||||0.0335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|35.0|||Chi-squared||The 95% CI for the difference in response rates was estimated using the Hauck-Anderson method.|||35.0|0.8|0.0335
91006486|NCT01200758|181897195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|4.78||||||||4.78|1.06|
91006487|NCT01200758|181897196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rates|-6.58||||0.2331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|4.6|||Chi-squared||The 95% CI for the difference in response rates was estimated using the Hauck-Anderson method.|||4.6|-17.8|0.2331
91006488|NCT01200758|181897196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.22||||||||1.22|0.44|
91006489|NCT01200758|181897197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rates|0.49||||0.9157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|9.8|||Chi-squared||The 95% CI for the difference in response rates was estimated using the Hauck-Anderson method.|||9.8|-8.8|0.9157
91006490|NCT01200758|181897197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.51||||||||1.51|0.66|
91006491|NCT01200758|181897198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rates|-7.28||||0.1715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|3.5|||Chi-squared||The 95% CI for the difference in response rates was estimated using the Hauck-Anderson method.|||3.5|-18.0|0.1715
91006492|NCT01200758|181897198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.22||||||||1.22|0.52|
91006493|NCT01200758|181897199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rates|-0.18||||0.9671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|8.8|||Chi-squared||The 95% CI for the difference in response rates was estimated using the Hauck-Anderson method.|||8.8|-9.2|0.9671
91006494|NCT01200758|181897199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.64||||||||1.64|0.60|
91006495|NCT01200758|181897201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.5526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.26|||Wald test|||||1.26|0.64|0.5526
91006496|NCT01200758|181897203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.9115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.36|||Wald test|||||1.36|0.71|0.9115
91006497|NCT01200758|181897206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.24|1.53||||||The ratio of observed rituximab serum was determined as AUC SC/AUC IV during Cycle 7 of induction treatment.||1.53|1.24|
91006498|NCT01200758|181897207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.941|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.872|1.015||||||||1.015|0.872|
91006499|NCT01930487|181897217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.037|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011||0.0016|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.0016
91006500|NCT01930487|181897218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.025|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011||0.0249|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.0249
91006501|NCT01930487|181897219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.9147|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.9147
91006502|NCT01930487|181897220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.0070
91006503|NCT01930487|181897221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sidede||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||<0.0001
91006504|NCT01930487|181897222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0476|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.0476
91006505|NCT01930487|181897223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0352|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.0352
91006506|NCT01930487|181897224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0208|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.0208
91006507|NCT01930487|181897225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||<0.0001
91006508|NCT01930487|181897226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.0024|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.0024
91006509|NCT01930487|181897227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.0081|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.0081
91006510|NCT01930487|181897228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.008||0.8191|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.8191
91006511|NCT01930487|181897229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.018|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.009||0.0482|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.0482
91006512|NCT01930487|181897230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023||0.023|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.0230
91006513|NCT01930487|181897231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.013|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.008||0.1202|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.1202
91006514|NCT01930487|181897232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.0063|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.0063
91006515|NCT01930487|181897233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.3347|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.3347
91006516|NCT01930487|181897234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.0094|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.0094
91006517|NCT01930487|181897235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0009|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.0009
91006518|NCT01930487|181897236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.0067|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.0067
91006519|NCT01930487|181897237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.6938|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.6938
91006520|NCT01930487|181897238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.0805|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.0805
91006521|NCT01930487|181897239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.2451|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.2451
91006522|NCT01930487|181897240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.0323|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.0323
91006523|NCT01930487|181897241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.344|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.3440
91006524|NCT01930487|181897242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0119|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.0119
91006525|NCT01930487|181897243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||<0.0001
91006526|NCT01930487|181897244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0137|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.0137
91006527|NCT01930487|181897245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0866|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.0866
91006528|NCT01930487|181897246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0656|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.0656
91006529|NCT01930487|181897247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0626|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.0626
91006530|NCT01930487|181897248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.81|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.8100
91006531|NCT01930487|181897249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.9556|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.9556
91006532|NCT01930487|181897250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015||0.3414|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.3414
91006533|NCT01930487|181897251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.009||0.033|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.0330
91006534|NCT01930487|181897252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.3326|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.3326
91006535|NCT01930487|181897253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.027|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.0348|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.0348
91006536|NCT01930487|181897254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.2089|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.2089
91006537|NCT01930487|181897255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.3738|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.3738
91006538|NCT01930487|181897256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.447|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.4470
91006539|NCT01930487|181897257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.6382|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.6382
91050219|NCT04988152|181986460|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric least squares means|1.0724|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8519|1.35|||||The ratio of geometric LS means and 90% confidence intervals were obtained from ANCOVA model, with Cmax as the dependent variable, and ethnicity and body weight were covariates.|||1.3500|0.8519|
91006540|NCT01930487|181897258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.043|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.0026|TWO_SIDED||||||paird t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.0026
91006541|NCT01930487|181897259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018||0.1045|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.1045
91006542|NCT01930487|181897260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.6941|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.6941
91050220|NCT04988152|181986461|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares means|1.0513|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9281|1.1908|||||The ratio of geometric LS means and 90% confidence intervals were obtained from ANCOVA model, with AUC(D1-29) as the dependent variable, and ethnicity and body weight were covariates.|||1.1908|0.9281|
91006543|NCT01930487|181897261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.046|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017||0.0138|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.0138
91006544|NCT02711553|181897262|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.123||||0.4821|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.904|1.395||p-value is 2-sided.|Log Rank|Stratified by geographical region, pathological diagnosis, metastatic disease.|Stratified by geographical region, pathological diagnosis, metastatic disease.|||1.395|0.904|0.4821
91050221|NCT04988152|181986464|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares means|1.6999|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.15|2.5129|||||The ratio of geometric LS means and 90% confidence intervals were obtained from ANCOVA model, with Cmax as the dependent variable, and ethnicity and body weight were covariates.|||2.5129|1.1500|
91050222|NCT04988152|181986465|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares means|1.5869|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1236|2.2413|||||The ratio of geometric LS means and 90% confidence intervals were obtained from ANCOVA model, with AUC(D1-29) as the dependent variable, and ethnicity and body weight were covariates.|||2.2413|1.1236|
91050223|NCT04988152|181986480|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares means|1.0724|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8519|1.35|||||The ratio of geometric LS means and 90% confidence intervals were obtained from ANCOVA model, with Cmax as the dependent variable, and ethnicity and body weight were covariates.|||1.3500|0.8519|
91050224|NCT04988152|181986482|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares means|1.0673|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9286|1.2268|||||The ratio of geometric LS means and 90% confidence intervals were obtained from ANCOVA model, with AUClast as the dependent variable, and ethnicity and body weight were covariates.|||1.2268|0.9286|
91050225|NCT04988152|181986486|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares means|1.6999|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.15|2.5129|||||The ratio of geometric LS means and 90% confidence intervals were obtained from ANCOVA model, with Cmax as the dependent variable, and ethnicity and body weight were covariates.|||2.5129|1.1500|
91050226|NCT04988152|181986488|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares means|1.5766|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1777|2.1106|||||The ratio of geometric LS means and 90% confidence intervals were obtained from ANCOVA model, with AUClast as the dependent variable, and ethnicity and body weight were covariates|||2.1106|1.1777|
91050227|NCT01610453|181986513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||A sample size calculation with alpha 0.05, power 0.8, and cut-off level of HPD at 40 mm. 146 women should be included. The calculation was based from a previous study, in which 93% with HPD ≤40 mm and 57% of with HPD \> 40 mm delivered vaginally.|Chi-squared|||Women were categorized in accordance to fetal descent measured by ultrasound. Head-perineum distance ≤40 mm was used as cut-off level. Vaginal delivery was the primary outcome measure.||||<0.01
91050228|NCT01610453|181986514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.01
91050229|NCT00988065|181986521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in event rates|0.7||||||95.0|-1.8|3.7|||||95% confidence interval for the difference in event rates (treatment group minus placebo) according to Miettinen and Nurminen (Statistics in Medicine 1985; 4:213-226).|||3.7|-1.8|
91050230|NCT00988065|181986521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in event rates|4.7||||||95.0|2.1|9.3|||||95% confidence interval for the difference in event rates (treatment group minus placebo) according to Miettinen and Nurminen (Statistics in Medicine 1985; 4:213-226).|||9.3|2.1|
91050231|NCT00988065|181986522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in event rates|0.7||||||95.0|-1.8|3.7|||||95% confidence interval for the difference in event rates (treatment group minus placebo) according to Miettinen and Nurminen (Statistics in Medicine 1985; 4:213-226).|||3.7|-1.8|
91050232|NCT00988065|181986522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in event rates|0.0||||||95.0|-2.5|2.5|||||95% confidence interval for the difference in event rates (treatment group minus placebo) according to Miettinen and Nurminen (Statistics in Medicine 1985; 4:213-226).|||2.5|-2.5|
91050233|NCT00988065|181986523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in event rates|2.0||||||95.0|-0.5|5.7|||||95% confidence interval for the difference in event rates (treatment group minus placebo) according to Miettinen and Nurminen (Statistics in Medicine 1985; 4:213-226).|Comparison of participants who had Level 1 or Level 2 diagnostic certainty.||5.7|-0.5|
91050234|NCT00988065|181986523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in event rates|0.0||||||95.0|-2.5|2.5|||||95% confidence interval for the difference in event rates (treatment group minus placebo) according to Miettinen and Nurminen (Statistics in Medicine 1985; 4:213-226).|Comparison of participants who had Level 1 or Level 2 diagnostic certainty.||2.5|-2.5|
91050366|NCT04168190|181987004|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.99|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 7F||1.99|0.63|
91006545|NCT02711553|181897262|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.6417|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.734|1.153||p-value is 2-sided.|Log Rank|Stratified by geographical region, pathological diagnosis, metastatic disease.|Stratified by geographical region, pathological diagnosis, metastatic disease.|||1.153|0.734|0.6417
91006546|NCT02711553|181897263|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.336||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.959|1.862|||Log Rank|Stratified by geographical region, pathological diagnosis, metastatic disease.|Stratified by geographical region, pathological diagnosis, metastatic disease.|||1.862|0.959|0.0870
91006547|NCT02711553|181897263|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.948||||0.7599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.669|1.342|||Log Rank|Stratified by geographical region, pathological diagnosis, metastatic disease.|Stratified by geographical region, pathological diagnosis, metastatic disease.|||1.342|0.669|0.7599
91050235|NCT00279955|181986539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|2.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.292||0.0119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|3.67|||Regression, Cox||The estimated parameter in a Cox regression model was adjusted by age, gender, New York Heart Association (NYHA) class at 6 month visit, Angiotensin Converting Enzyme (ACE)/Angiotensin Receptor Blocker (ARB) at 6 months, and Diuretics at 6 month.|||3.67|1.17|0.0119
90890012|NCT01571362|181644031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.207||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.23|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Randomization Baseline to Week 2.||-0.23|-1.05|0.0022
90890013|NCT01571362|181644031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.214||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|-0.37|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Randomization Baseline to Week 4.||-0.37|-1.21|0.0003
90890014|NCT01571362|181644031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.264||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|-0.19|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Randomization Baseline to Week 8.||-0.19|-1.23|0.0078
90890015|NCT01571362|181644031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.231|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|-0.62|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Randomization Baseline to Week 12/Early Termination.||-0.62|-1.52|<0.0001
90890016|NCT01571362|181644032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.189||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.21|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Randomization Baseline to Week 2.||-0.21|-0.95|0.0022
91006548|NCT02711553|181897264|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.9|||Exact Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by randomization strata Geographical Region, Pathological Diagnosis, Metastatic Disease.|Stratified by randomization strata Geographical Region, Pathological Diagnosis, Metastatic Disease.|||1.9|0.6|0.878
91006549|NCT02711553|181897264|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.9|||Exact Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by randomization strata Geographical Region, Pathological Diagnosis, Metastatic Disease.|Stratified by randomization strata Geographical Region, Pathological Diagnosis, Metastatic Disease.|||0.9|0.2|0.023
91006550|NCT02711553|181897265|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.4|||Exact Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by randomization strata Geographical Region, Pathological Diagnosis, Metastatic Disease.|Stratified by randomization strata Geographical Region, Pathological Diagnosis, Metastatic Disease.|||2.4|0.6|0.680
91006551|NCT02711553|181897265|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.6|||Exact Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by randomization strata Geographical Region, Pathological Diagnosis, Metastatic Disease.|Stratified by randomization strata Geographical Region, Pathological Diagnosis, Metastatic Disease.|||2.6|0.6|0.499
91006552|NCT02711553|181897269|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28|0.09||p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) Model.|MMRM Model|Least Squares (LS) Mean value was adjusted for treatment, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.||PWB||0.09|-2.28|0.069
91006553|NCT02711553|181897269|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.42|-0.04||p-values are from type 3 sums of squares MMRM model.|MMRM Model|LS Mean value was adjusted for treatment, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.||PWB||-0.04|-2.42|0.042
91007623|NCT01846208|181899357|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|64.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.9|85.6|||Barnard's Exact Test|||% participants desensitized to \>=4444 mg at Year 2 OFC: Baked vs. Egg OIT-Randomized||85.6|43.9|<0.0001
91007624|NCT01846208|181899357|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.7||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|37.7|||Barnard's Exact Test|||% participants desensitized to \>=4444 mg at Year 2 OFC: Egg OIT-Randomized vs. Egg OIT-Assigned||37.7|-2.3|0.151
91007625|NCT01846208|181899357|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|44.3||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.4|69.2|||Barnard's Exact Test|||% participants desensitized to \>=4444 mg at Year 1 OFC: Baked vs. Egg OIT-Randomized||69.2|19.4|0.002
91006554|NCT02711553|181897269|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|0.19||p-values are from type 3 sums of squares MMRM model.|MMRM Model|LS Mean value was adjusted for treatment, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.||SWB||0.19|-1.83|0.112
91006555|NCT02711553|181897269|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|0.67||p-values are from type 3 sums of squares MMRM model.|MMRM Model|LS Mean value was adjusted for treatment, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.||SWB||0.67|-1.35|0.505
91006556|NCT02711553|181897269|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|0.17||p-values are from type 3 sums of squares MMRM model.|MMRM Model|LS Mean value was adjusted for treatment, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.||EWB||0.17|-1.56|0.116
91006557|NCT02711553|181897269|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.59||p-values are from type 3 sums of squares MMRM model.|MMRM Model|LS Mean value was adjusted for treatment, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.||EWB||0.59|-1.16|0.521
91006558|NCT02711553|181897269|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.87|-0.44||p-values are from type 3 sums of squares MMRM model.|MMRM Model|LS Mean value was adjusted for treatment, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.||FWB||-0.44|-2.87|0.008
91006559|NCT02711553|181897269|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|0.62||p-values are from type 3 sums of squares MMRM model.|MMRM Model|LS Mean value was adjusted for treatment, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.||FWB||0.62|-1.82|0.335
91050236|NCT00279955|181986540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.277||0.0185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|3.27|||Regression, Cox||The estimated parameter in a Cox regression model was adjusted by age, gender, NYHA class at 6 month visit, ACE/ARB at 6 months, and and at least one day where CRT pacing \<90% in last 21 days of DREP.|||3.27|1.11|0.0185
91006560|NCT02711553|181897269|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.69|-1.18||p-values are from type 3 sums of squares MMRM model.|MMRM Model|LS Mean value was adjusted for treatment, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.||HCS||-1.18|-4.69|0.001
91006561|NCT02711553|181897269|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|0.12||p-values are from type 3 sums of squares MMRM model.|MMRM Model|LS Mean value was adjusted for treatment, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.||HCS||0.12|-3.40|0.068
91006562|NCT02711553|181897269|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|0.0||p-values are from type 3 sums of squares MMRM model.|MMRM Model|LS Mean value was adjusted for treatment, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.||FACT-Hep||0.00|-2.04|0.051
91006563|NCT02711553|181897269|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|0.38||p-values are from type 3 sums of squares MMRM model.|MMRM Model|LS Mean value was adjusted for treatment, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.||FACT-Hep||0.38|-1.68|0.212
91006564|NCT02711553|181897269|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.84||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|-2.04||p-values are from type 3 sums of squares MMRM model.|MMRM Model|LS Mean value was adjusted for treatment, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.||TOI||-2.04|-9.30|0.002
91006565|NCT02711553|181897269|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.85||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.07|0.22||p-values are from type 3 sums of squares MMRM model.|MMRM Model|LS Mean value was adjusted for treatment, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.||TOI||0.22|-7.07|0.066
91006566|NCT03399786|181897310|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-49.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.0|-33.1|||Mixed-effect Model Repeat Measure (MMRM)|||Confidence interval (CI) with p-value was based on-treatment group difference of least squares (LS) means using mixed-effect model repeat measurement (MMRM), randomization strata, treatment/strata/baseline value-by-time point interaction and continuous fixed covariates of baseline calculated LDL-C value.||-33.1|-65.0|< 0.0001
91006567|NCT03399786|181897311|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-36.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.9|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.6|-25.2|||Mixed-effect Model Repeat Measure (MMRM)|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order to control type I error. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level. CI with p-value was based on-treatment group difference of LS means using MMRM, randomization strata, treatment/strata/baseline value-by-time point interaction and continuous fixed covariates of baseline calculated Apo B value.||-25.2|-48.6|< 0.0001
91006568|NCT03399786|181897312|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-51.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.8|-38.5|||Mixed-effect Model Repeat Measure (MMRM)|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order to control type I error. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level. CI with p-value was based on-treatment group difference of LS means using MMRM, randomization strata, treatment/strata/baseline value-by-time point interaction and continuous fixed covariates of baseline calculated non-HDL-C value.||-38.5|-64.8|< 0.0001
91006569|NCT03399786|181897313|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-48.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.7|-38.1|||Mixed-effect Model Repeat Measure (MMRM)|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order to control type I error. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level. CI with p-value was based on-treatment group difference of LS means using MMRM, randomization strata, treatment/strata/baseline value-by-time point interaction and continuous fixed covariates of baseline calculated TC value.||-38.1|-58.7|< 0.0001
91007626|NCT01846208|181899357|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.5||||0.181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|41.3|||Barnard's Exact Test|||% participants desensitized to \>=4444 mg at Year 1 OFC: Egg OIT-Randomized vs. Egg OIT-Assigned||41.3|-6.3|0.181
91007627|NCT01846208|181899359|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-50.2||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.4|-21.9|||Barnard's Exact Test|||% participants with unrestricted consumption of unbaked (concentrated) egg 3 years after randomization: Baked vs. Egg OIT-Randomized||-21.9|-78.4|0.003
91007628|NCT01846208|181899359|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|33.7||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.2|60.1|||Barnard's Exact Test|||% participants with unrestricted consumption of unbaked (concentrated) egg 3 years after randomization: Egg OIT-Randomized vs. Egg OIT-Assigned||60.1|7.2|0.023
91007629|NCT01424306|181899366|OTHER|||||||0.403||||||P value for the time x diet interaction reflects overall comparison of 3 dietary phases by RM-ANOVA|RM-ANOVA|||RM-ANOVA||||0.403
91007630|NCT01424306|181899367|OTHER|RM-ANOVA||||||0.933||||||P-diet: reflects an overall comparison of the 3 dietary phases by RM-ANOVA|RM-ANOVA|||||||0.933
91007631|NCT01424306|181899368|OTHER|RM-ANOVA||||||0.196||||||P-diet: reflects an overall comparison of the 3 dietary phases by RM-ANOVA|RM-ANOVA|||||||0.196
91007632|NCT01424306|181899369|OTHER|RM-ANOVA||||||0.88||||||Reflects an overall comparison of the 3 dietary phases by RM-ANOVA|RM-ANOVA|||||||0.880
91007633|NCT01424306|181899370|OTHER|RM-ANOVA|||||<|0.001||||||P-value reflects an overall comparison of the 3 dietary phases by RM-ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91007634|NCT01424306|181899371|OTHER|RM-ANOVA||||||0.366||||||P-value reflects an overall comparison of the 3 dietary phases by RM-ANOVA|RM-ANOVA|||||||0.366
91007635|NCT01424306|181899372|OTHER|RM-ANOVA||||||0.387||||||P-value reflects overall comparison of the 3 dietary phases by RM-ANOVA|RM-ANOVA|||||||0.387
91007636|NCT01424306|181899373|OTHER|RM-ANOVA||||||0.476||||||P-value reflects overall comparison of the 3 dietary phases by RM-ANOVA|RM-ANOVA|||||||0.476
91006570|NCT03399786|181897314|SUPERIORITY|A 2-step multiple imputation method addressed missing values (seeds = 1629 \& 9261 with number of imputations = 100 in first and number of imputation=1 in second step).|Odds Ratio (OR)|25.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|110.5|||Logistic Regression Models Analyses|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for secondary endpoints in pre-specified order to control type I error.Testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05.Multiple imputation addressed missing data at week 24.Combined estimate for odds ratio obtained by Rubin's formulae.Logistic regression models stratified by randomized strata include fixed categorical effect of treatment group \& continuous fixed covariate of baseline calculated LDL-C.||110.5|5.7|< 0.0001
91007637|NCT01424306|181899374|OTHER|RM-ANOVA||||||0.596||||||P-value reflects overall comparison of the 3 dietary phases by RM-ANOVA|RM-ANOVA|||||||0.596
91007638|NCT01424306|181899375|OTHER|RM-ANOVA||||||0.492||||||P-value reflects overall comparison of the 3 dietary phases by RM-ANOVA|RM-ANOVA|||||||0.492
91007639|NCT01424306|181899376|OTHER|RM-ANOVA||||||0.149||||||P-value reflects overall comparison of the 3 dietary phases by RM-ANOVA|RM-ANOVA|||||||0.149
91006571|NCT03399786|181897315|SUPERIORITY|A 2-step multiple imputation method addressed missing values (seeds = 1629 \& 9261 with number of imputations = 100 in first and number of imputation=1 in second step).|Odds Ratio (OR)|24.2|||=|0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|195.6|||Logistic Regression Models Analyses|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for secondary endpoints in pre-specified order to control type I error.Testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05.Multiple imputation addressed missing data at week 24.Combined estimate for odds ratio obtained by Rubin's formulae.Logistic regression models stratified by randomized strata include fixed categorical effect of treatment group \& continuous fixed covariate of baseline calculated LDL-C.||195.6|3.0|= 0.0028
91050237|NCT00279955|181986541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.311||0.0578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|3.31|||Regression, Cox||A Cox regression model has been used here, and the estimated parameter has been adjusted by including covariates age, gender, and NYHA class at 6 months.|||3.31|0.98|0.0578
91006572|NCT03399786|181897316|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-132.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-175.3|-88.9|||Mixed-effect Model Repeat Measure (MMRM)|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order to control type I error. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level. CI with p-value was based on-treatment group difference of LS means using MMRM, randomization strata, treatment/strata/baseline value-by-time point interaction and continuous fixed covariates of baseline calculated LDL-C value.||-88.9|-175.3|< 0.0001
91006573|NCT03399786|181897317|SUPERIORITY|A 2-step multiple imputation method addressed missing values (seeds = 1629 \& 9261 with number of imputations = 100 in first and number of imputation=1 in second step).|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.1|||=|0.0845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.3|||Logistic Regression Models Analyses|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order to control type I error. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level. Combined estimate for odds ratio was obtained by using Rubin's formulae. Logistic regression models stratified the fixed categorical effect of treatment group and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline calculated LDL-C value.||1.3|0|= 0.0845
91050238|NCT04700280|181986592|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.69||0.617|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.2|3.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.4|-6.2|0.617
91006574|NCT03399786|181897318|SUPERIORITY|A 2-step multiple imputation method addressed missing values (seeds = 1629 \& 9261 with number of imputations = 100 in first and number of imputation=1 in second step).|Odds Ratio (OR)|5.7|||=|0.0203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|24.9||The p-value is nominal for descriptive purpose only due to statistical hypothesis testing terminated previously.|Logistic Regression Models Analyses|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order to control type I error. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level. Combined estimate for odds ratio was obtained by using Rubin's formulae. Logistic regression models stratified the fixed categorical effect of treatment group and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline calculated LDL-C value.||24.9|1.3|= 0.0203
91007640|NCT01424306|181899377|OTHER|RM-ANOVA||||||0.056||||||P-value reflects overall comparison of the 3 dietary phases by RM-ANOVA|RM-ANOVA|||||||0.056
91007641|NCT01424306|181899378|OTHER|RM-ANOVA||||||0.52||||||P-value reflects overall comparison of the 3 dietary phases by RM-ANOVA|RM-ANOVA|||||||0.520
91007642|NCT00369928|181899379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|0.88||||0.982|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.56|1.38|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.38|0.56|0.982
91007643|NCT00369928|181899379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|0.79||||0.666|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.5|1.25|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.25|0.50|0.666
91007644|NCT01601873|181899382|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.884|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.884
91007645|NCT01601873|181899383|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.946|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.946
91007646|NCT01601873|181899384|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.294|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.294
91007647|NCT01601873|181899385|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.538|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.538
91007648|NCT01601873|181899386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.786|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.786
91007649|NCT01601873|181899387|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.185|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.185
91050239|NCT04700280|181986594|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.3089|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.7|0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4||0.41|-1.70|0.3089
91050240|NCT04700280|181986594|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.2834|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.97|0.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8||0.43|-1.97|0.2834
91050241|NCT04700280|181986594|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.7109|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.02|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12||1.30|-2.02|0.7109
91050242|NCT04700280|181986595|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.81||0.859|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.6|2.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4||2.9|-3.6|0.859
91050243|NCT04700280|181986595|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.46||0.837|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.8|4.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8||4.8|-3.8|0.837
91050244|NCT01189500|181986613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted means|100.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.7|104.85|||||Values have been back-transformed from the log scale.|DVS SR 100 mg + Tamoxifen 40 mg (test) versus Tamoxifen 40 mg (reference)||104.85|96.70|
91050245|NCT01189500|181986615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted means|99.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.02|105.17|||||Values have been back-transformed from the log scale.|DVS SR 100 mg + Tamoxifen 40 mg (test) versus Tamoxifen 40 mg (reference)||105.17|94.02|
91050246|NCT01189500|181986620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted means|92.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.71|100.0|||||Values have been back-transformed from the log scale.|DVS SR 100 mg + Tamoxifen 40 mg (test) versus Tamoxifen 40 mg (reference)||100.00|84.71|
91050247|NCT01189500|181986626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted means|112.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|107.44|116.9|||||Values have been back-transformed from the log scale.|DVS SR 100 mg + Tamoxifen 40 mg (test) versus Tamoxifen 40 mg (reference)||116.90|107.44|
91050248|NCT01189500|181986631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted means|105.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.74|111.81|||||Values have been back-transformed from the log scale.|DVS SR 100 mg + Tamoxifen 40 mg (test) versus Tamoxifen 40 mg (reference)||111.81|99.74|
91050249|NCT01189500|181986632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted means|108.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.51|113.67|||||Values have been back-transformed from the log scale.|DVS SR 100 mg + Tamoxifen 40 mg (test) versus Tamoxifen 40 mg (reference)||113.67|103.51|
91050250|NCT04764630|181986653|SUPERIORITY|To demonstrate an increase in naloxone concentration, the lower bound of the one-sided 97.79% interval for the geometric mean ratio must exclude 1. The results will be transformed back to the original scale by exponentiation to provide treatment geometric means.|Geometric mean ratio|1.95||||0.002|ONE_SIDED|95.6|1.28|||Testing will be conducted sequentially (i.e., start at the initial time and progress forward, stopping if success is achieved) at a 1-sided 0.0221 significance level since an increase in naloxone exposure is expected.|t-test, 1 sided||Data is shown for 10-minute timepoint (first time point tested where an increased was observed). This compares results from the 4 naloxone dose arm (1 every 2.5 min) (numerator) with the 2 naloxone dose arm (1 every 2.5 min) (denominator).|Up to three different time points have been pre-specified for the comparison (10, 12.5, and 15 min). Time points will be evaluated from earliest to latest time. Testing will proceed until either one passes or all pre-specified time points fail. Subject-level naloxone concentrations will be log-transformed. Naloxone concentrations below the lower limit of quantification will result in that time point from that subject being removed for comparisons involving that treatment arm.|This was the first timepoint in the comparison that showed an increase in the 4 naloxone dose arm (1 every 2.5 min) compared to the 2 naloxone dose arm (1 every 2.5 min) and is the reported outcome for this endpoint.||1.28|0.002
91050251|NCT04764630|181986654|SUPERIORITY|To demonstrate an increase in naloxone concentration, the lower bound of the one-sided 97.79% interval for the geometric mean ratio must exclude 1. The results will be transformed back to the original scale by exponentiation to provide treatment geometric means.|Geometric mean ratio|1.98||||0.018|ONE_SIDED|95.6|1.03|||Testing will be conducted sequentially (i.e., start at the initial time and progress forward, stopping if success is achieved) at a 1-sided 0.0221 significance level since an increase in naloxone exposure is expected.|t-test, 1 sided||Data is shown for 4.5-minute timepoint (first time point tested where an increased was observed). This compares results from the 4 naloxone dose arm (2 doses every 2.5 min) (numerator) with the 2 naloxone dose arm (1 every 2.5 min) (denominator).|Up to three different time points have been pre-specified for the comparison (4.5, 7, and 10 minutes). Time points will be evaluated from earliest to latest time. Testing will proceed until either one passes or all pre-specified time points fail. Subject-level naloxone concentrations will be log-transformed. Naloxone concentrations below the lower limit of quantification will result in that time point from that subject being removed for comparisons involving that treatment arm.|This was the first timepoint in the comparison that showed an increase in the 4 naloxone dose arm (2 doses every 2.5 min) compared to the 2 naloxone dose arm (1 every 2.5 min) and is the reported outcome for this endpoint.||1.03|0.018
91050252|NCT04764630|181986655|SUPERIORITY|To demonstrate an increase in naloxone concentration, the lower bound of the one-sided 97.79% interval for the geometric mean ratio must exclude 1. The results will be transformed back to the original scale by exponentiation to provide treatment geometric means.|Geometric mean ratio|1.69||||0.013|ONE_SIDED|95.6|1.06|||Testing will be conducted sequentially (i.e., start at the initial time and progress forward, stopping if success is achieved) at a 1-sided 0.0221 significance level since an increase in naloxone exposure is expected.|t-test, 1 sided||Data is shown for 4.5-minute timepoint (first time point tested where an increased was observed). This compares results from the 4 naloxone dose arm (2 doses every 2.5 min) (numerator) with the 4 naloxone dose arm (1 every 2.5 min) (denominator).|Up to three different time points have been pre-specified for the comparison (4.5, 7, and 10 minutes). Time points will be evaluated from earliest to latest time. Testing will proceed until either one passes or all pre-specified time points fail. Subject-level naloxone concentrations will be log-transformed. Naloxone concentrations below the lower limit of quantification will result in that time point from that subject being removed for comparisons involving that treatment arm.|This was the first timepoint in the comparison that showed an increase in the 4 naloxone dose arm (2 doses every 2.5 min) compared to the 4 naloxone dose arm (1 every 2.5 min) and is the reported outcome for this endpoint.||1.06|0.013
91006575|NCT03399786|181897319|SUPERIORITY|A 2-step multiple imputation method addressed missing values (seeds = 1629 \& 9261 with number of imputations = 100 in first and number of imputation=1 in second step).|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.1|||=|0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.3||The p-value is nominal for descriptive purpose only due to statistical hypothesis testing terminated previously.|Logistic Regression Models Analysis|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order to control type I error. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level. Combined estimate for odds ratio was obtained by using Rubin's formulae. Logistic regression models stratified the fixed categorical effect of treatment group and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline calculated LDL-C value.||0.3|0.0|= 0.0004
91006576|NCT00805194|181897366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.92|||Regression, Cox||Hazard Ratio (HR) below 1 favors nintedanib|HR, Confidence Interval (CI) and p-value obtained from the proportional hazards model stratified by baseline ECOG PS (0 vs 1), tumour histology (squamous vs non-squamous), brain metastases at baseline (yes vs no) and prior treatment with bevacizumab (yes vs no)||0.92|0.68|0.0019
91050253|NCT04764630|181986656|OTHER|Treatment differences on the log-scale will be estimated for the PK parameters. Geometric mean ratio and 90% CIs will be obtained by exponentiation of the treatment effect and 90% CIs based on the log-transformed scale. Dose-proportionality will be concluded if the confidence interval includes 1. Dose-normalized comparisons were exploratory.|Geometric mean ratio|0.89||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.78|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Dose-normalized comparisons were exploratory.|This compares results from the 4 naloxone dose arm (1 every 2.5 min) (numerator) with the 2 naloxone dose arm (1 every 2.5 min) (denominator).|Dose-adjusted values for Cmax will be calculated based on noncompartmental PK parameter results, normalized to per mg of naloxone administered. Using linear mixed-effects modeling, comparisons of log-transformed dose-adjusted PK parameters will be performed. Treatment will be a fixed effect. Participant will be included as a random effect on the intercept.||1.00|0.78|0.10
91050254|NCT04764630|181986656|OTHER|Treatment differences on the log-scale will be estimated for the PK parameters. Geometric mean ratio and 90% CIs will be obtained by exponentiation of the treatment effect and 90% CIs based on the log-transformed scale. Dose-proportionality will be concluded if the confidence interval includes 1. Dose-normalized comparisons were exploratory.|Geometric mean ratio|0.77||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.65|0.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|Dose-normalized comparisons were exploratory.|This compares results from the 4 naloxone dose arm (2 every 2.5 min) (numerator) with the 2 naloxone dose arm (1 every 2.5 min) (denominator).|Dose-adjusted values for Cmax will be calculated based on noncompartmental PK parameter results, normalized to per mg of naloxone administered. Using linear mixed-effects modeling, comparisons of log-transformed dose-adjusted PK parameters will be performed. Treatment will be a fixed effect. Participant will be included as a random effect on the intercept.||0.92|0.65|0.018
91006577|NCT00805194|181897367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.0073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.92||HR, CI and p-value obtained from the prop. hazards model stratified by baseline ECOG PS (0 vs 1 - one pat. had 2), brain metastases at baseline (yes vs no) and prior treatment with bevacizumab (yes vs no)|Regression, Cox||"The overall alpha level followed a Lan-DeMets spending function with O'Brien-Fleming shape parameter to preserve an overall 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.~HR below 1 favors nintedanib"|"Hierarchical testing was tested in a fixed sequence of statistical hypotheses in (1) patients with adenocarcinoma and \<9 months since start of first-line therapy, (2) patients with adenocarcinoma, and (3) all patients. Each hypothesis could be only tested at the pre-specified alpha level if the previous null hypothesis in the testing sequence had been rejected.~Overall survival for patients with adenocarcinoma and \<9 months since start of first line therapy."||0.92|0.60|0.0073
91007650|NCT00281528|181899398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4476||95.0||||Group comparison was performed between group 260 mg/m\^2 ABI-007 every 3 weeks and group 130 mg/m\^2 ABI-007 weekly, as based on amended protocol, no type I error adjustment for multiplicity; a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study site||||||0.4476
91007651|NCT02871570|181899416|OTHER||ratio|0.7789|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6514|0.9313|||||Moderate hepatic impairment group represents the numerator, and normal hepatic function group represents the denominator.|||0.9313|0.6514|
91007652|NCT02871570|181899417|OTHER||ratio|0.7776|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6493|0.9311|||||Moderate hepatic impairment group represents the numerator, and normal hepatic function group represents the denominator.|||0.9311|0.6493|
91006578|NCT00805194|181897367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.0359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.99||HR, CI and p-value obtained from the prop. hazards model stratified by baseline ECOG PS (0 vs 1 - one pat. had 2), brain metastases at baseline (yes vs no) and prior treatment with bevacizumab (yes vs no)|Regression, Cox||"The overall alpha level followed a Lan-DeMets spending function with O'Brien-Fleming shape parameter to preserve an overall 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.~HR below 1 favors nintedanib"|"Hierarchical testing was tested in a fixed sequence of statistical hypotheses in (1) patients with adenocarcinoma and \<9 months since start of first-line therapy, (2) patients with adenocarcinoma, and (3) all patients. Each hypothesis could be only tested at the pre-specified alpha level if the previous null hypothesis in the testing sequence had been rejected.~Overall survival for patients with adenocarcinoma."||0.99|0.70|0.0359
91007653|NCT02871570|181899418|OTHER||ratio|1.2844|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0732|1.5372|||||Moderate hepatic impairment group represents the numerator, and normal hepatic function group represents the denominator.|||1.5372|1.0732|
91007654|NCT02871570|181899419|OTHER||ratio|0.7945|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5955|1.0599|||||Moderate hepatic impairment group represents the numerator, and normal hepatic function group represents the denominator.|||1.0599|0.5955|
91007655|NCT01225211|181899432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-2.679||||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.484|2.125|||ANCOVA|||||2.125|-7.484|0.267
91006579|NCT00805194|181897367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.05||HR, CI and p-value obtained from the prop. hazards model stratified by baseline ECOG PS (0 vs 1 - one pat. had 2), tumour histology (squamous vs non-squamous), brain metastases at baseline (yes vs no) and prior treatment with bevacizumab (yes vs no)|Regression, Cox||The overall alpha level followed a Lan-DeMets spending function with O'Brien-Fleming shape parameter to preserve an overall 2-sided alpha level of 0.05. HR below 1 favors nintedanib|"Hierarchical testing was tested in a fixed sequence of statistical hypotheses in (1) patients with adenocarcinoma and \<9 months since start of first-line therapy, (2) patients with adenocarcinoma, and (3) all patients. Each hypothesis could be only tested at the pre-specified alpha level if the previous null hypothesis in the testing sequence had been rejected.~Overall survival for all patients."||1.05|0.83|0.2720
91006580|NCT00805194|181897368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|0.96||HR, CI and p-value obtained from the proportional hazards model stratified by baseline ECOG PS (0 vs 1), tumour histology (squamous vs non-squamous), brain metastases at baseline (yes vs no) and prior treatment with bevacizumab (yes vs no)|Regression, Cox||HR below 1 favors nintedanib|||0.96|0.75|0.0070
91006581|NCT00805194|181897369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.93||HR, CI and p-value obtained from the proportional hazards model stratified by baseline ECOG PS (0 vs 1), tumour histology (squamous vs non-squamous), brain metastases at baseline (yes vs no) and prior treatment with bevacizumab (yes vs no)|Regression, Cox||HR below 1 favors nintedanib|||0.93|0.73|0.0012
91007656|NCT01225211|181899432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-9.676|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.801|-4.551|||ANCOVA|||||-4.551|-14.801|<0.001
91007657|NCT01225211|181899433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-1.306||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.565|4.953|||ANCOVA|||||4.953|-7.565|0.680
91007658|NCT01225211|181899433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-2.67||||0.409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.053|3.712|||ANCOVA|||||3.712|-9.053|0.409
91007659|NCT01225211|181899433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-4.526||||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.888|1.835|||ANCOVA|||||1.835|-10.888|0.161
91007660|NCT01225211|181899433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-2.867||||0.396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.543|3.81|||ANCOVA|||||3.810|-9.543|0.396
91007661|NCT01225211|181899433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-3.78||||0.365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.028|4.467|||ANCOVA|||||4.467|-12.028|0.365
91007662|NCT01225211|181899434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.6||||0.5978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|2.86|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure (MMRM)|||||2.86|-1.66|0.5978
91007663|NCT00537810|181899500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6|||||||Chi-squared|df=3||Post-treatment||||0.60
91007664|NCT00537810|181899500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.13|||||||Chi-squared|df=3||6 month follow up||||0.13
91007665|NCT00537810|181899500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.29|||||||Chi-squared|df=3||12 month follow up||||0.29
91007666|NCT00410514|181899504|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was -3 mL/sec for Qmax. Mirabegron was considered non-inferior to placebo for Qmax if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference from placebo was greater than -3 mL/sec.|LS Mean Difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|1.42|||ANCOVA||Treatment groups were compared using ANCOVA with pooled center and treatment as factors and the baseline value as a covariate. Centers with less than 12 patients were pooled before the analysis.|The study was designed to show non-inferiority of mirabegron compared to placebo for both primary outcome measures. The comparison between mirabegron 50 mg and placebo was conducted first. If non-inferiority was demonstrated in this comparison, mirabegron 100 mg was compared to placebo. However, if the first comparison did not demonstrate non-inferiority, no further comparison was made. This procedure maintained the overall type I error of one-sided 2.5%.||1.42|-0.63|
91007667|NCT00410514|181899504|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was -3 mL/sec for Qmax. Mirabegron was considered non-inferior to placebo for Qmax if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference from placebo was greater than -3 mL/sec.|LS Mean Difference|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|1.68|||ANCOVA||Treatment groups were compared using ANCOVA with pooled center and treatment as factors and the baseline value as a covariate. Centers with less than 12 patients were pooled before the analysis.|The study was designed to show non-inferiority of mirabegron compared to placebo for both primary outcome measures. The comparison between mirabegron 50 mg and placebo was conducted first. If non-inferiority was demonstrated in this comparison, mirabegron 100 mg was compared to placebo. However, if the first comparison did not demonstrate non-inferiority, no further comparison was made. This procedure maintained the overall type I error of one-sided 2.5%.||1.68|-0.43|
91007668|NCT00410514|181899506|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was 15 cmH2O for PdetQmax. Mirabegron was considered non-inferior to placebo for PdetQmax if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference from placebo was less than 15 cmH2O.|LS Mean Difference|-5.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.98|2.09|||ANCOVA||Treatment groups were compared using ANCOVA with pooled center and treatment as factors and the baseline value as a covariate. Centers with less than 12 patients were pooled before the analysis.|The study was designed to show non-inferiority of mirabegron compared to placebo for both primary outcome measures. The comparison between mirabegron 50 mg and placebo was conducted first. If non-inferiority was demonstrated in this comparison, mirabegron 100 mg was compared to placebo. However, if the first comparison did not demonstrate non-inferiority, no further comparison was made. This procedure maintained the overall type I error of one-sided 2.5%.||2.09|-13.98|
91007669|NCT00410514|181899506|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was 15 cmH2O for PdetQmax. Mirabegron was considered non-inferior to placebo for PdetQmax if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference from placebo was less than 15 cmH2O.|LS Mean Difference|-1.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.73|6.96|||ANCOVA||Treatment groups were compared using ANCOVA with pooled center and treatment as factors and the baseline value as a covariate. Centers with less than 12 patients were pooled before the analysis.|The study was designed to show non-inferiority of mirabegron compared to placebo for both primary outcome measures. The comparison between mirabegron 50 mg and placebo was conducted first. If non-inferiority was demonstrated in this comparison, mirabegron 100 mg was compared to placebo. However, if the first comparison did not demonstrate non-inferiority, no further comparison was made. This procedure maintained the overall type I error of one-sided 2.5%.||6.96|-9.73|
91007670|NCT02449915|181899524|OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.52
91007671|NCT01436357|181899525|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.529||||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.661|3.535|||Regression, Cox|||||3.535|0.661|0.317
91006582|NCT00805194|181897370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.3067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.39||Odds ratio and p-value are obtained from logistic regression model adjusted for baseline ECOG PS (0 vs 1)|Regression, Logistic||An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit to nintedanib|Analysis based on the central independent review||2.39|0.76|0.3067
91006583|NCT00805194|181897370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.0761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|2.08||Odds ratio and p-value are obtained from logistic regression model adjusted for baseline ECOG PS (0 vs 1)|Regression, Logistic||An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit to nintedanib|Analysis based on the investigator's assessment||2.08|0.96|0.0761
91006584|NCT00805194|181897373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|2.09||Odds ratio and p-value are obtained from logistic regression model adjusted for baseline ECOG PS (0 vs 1)|Regression, Logistic||An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit to nintedanib|Analysis based on the central independent review||2.09|1.35|<0.0001
91006585|NCT00805194|181897373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|2.05||Odds ratio and p-value are obtained from logistic regression model adjusted for baseline ECOG PS (0 vs 1)|Regression, Logistic||An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit to nintedanib|Analysis based on investigator's assessment||2.05|1.31|<0.0001
91006586|NCT00805194|181897375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value generated from ANOVA model adjusted for baseline ECOG PS (0 vs. 1), tumour histology (squamous vs non-squamous), brain metastases at baseline (yes vs no) and prior treatment with bevacizumab (yes vs no)|ANOVA|||Analysis based on the central independent review||||<0.0001
91006587|NCT00805194|181897375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value generated from ANOVA model adjusted for baseline ECOG PS (0 vs. 1), tumour histology (squamous vs non-squamous), brain metastases at baseline (yes vs no) and prior treatment with bevacizumab (yes vs no)|ANOVA|||Analysis based on the investigator's assessment||||<0.0001
91006588|NCT00805194|181897376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.7282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.21||HR, CI and p-value obtained from the prop. hazards model stratified by baseline ECOG PS (0 vs 1 - one pat.had 2), tumour histology (squamous vs non-squamous), brain metastases at baseline (yes vs no) and prior treatment with bevacizumab (yes vs no)|Regression, Cox||HR below 1 favors nintedanib|||1.21|0.87|0.7282
91007672|NCT01436357|181899526|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.08||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.16|||Fisher Exact|||||0.16|-0.01|0.029
91007673|NCT01436357|181899527|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.1||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.2|||Fisher Exact|||||0.20|0.01|0.015
90890017|NCT01571362|181644032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.198||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|-0.37|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Randomization Baseline to Week 4.||-0.37|-1.15|0.0002
90890018|NCT01571362|181644032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.228||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.16|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Randomization Baseline to Week 8.||-0.16|-1.06|0.0078
90890019|NCT01571362|181644032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.207|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|-0.54|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Randomization Baseline to Week 12/Early Termination.||-0.54|-1.35|<0.0001
91007674|NCT01436357|181899528|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||0|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.00
90890020|NCT01571362|181644033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.188||0.0285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.04|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Randomization Baseline to Week 2.||-0.04|-0.78|0.0285
90890021|NCT01571362|181644033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.188||0.0106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.11|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Randomization Baseline to Week 4.||-0.11|-0.85|0.0106
90890022|NCT01571362|181644033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.222||0.4529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.27|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Randomization Baseline to Week 8.||0.27|-0.60|0.4529
90890023|NCT01571362|181644033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.207||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.25|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Randomization Baseline to Week 12/Early Termination.||-0.25|-1.06|0.0018
90890024|NCT01571362|181644034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.258||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|-0.2|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariate.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Screening to Week 2.||-0.20|-1.22|0.0061
90890025|NCT01571362|181644034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.277||0.0087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|-0.19|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariate.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Screening to Week 4.||-0.19|-1.28|0.0087
90890026|NCT01571362|181644034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.315||0.0769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|0.06|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariate.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Screening to Week 8.||0.06|-1.18|0.0769
91006589|NCT00805194|181897377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.1858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.05||HR, CI and p-value obtained from the prop. hazards model stratified by baseline ECOG PS (0 vs \>=1), tumour histology (squamous vs non-squamous), brain metastases at baseline (yes vs no) and prior treatment with bevacizumab (yes vs no)|Regression, Cox||HR below 1 favors nintedanib|Analysis evaluating the time to deterioration of cough||1.05|0.77|0.1858
91006590|NCT00805194|181897377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.5203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.2||HR, CI and p-value obtained from the prop. hazards model stratified by baseline ECOG PS (0 vs \>=1), tumour histology (squamous vs non-squamous), brain metastases at baseline (yes vs no) and prior treatment with bevacizumab (yes vs no)|Regression, Cox||HR below 1 favors nintedanib|Analysis evaluating the time to deterioration of dyspnoea||1.20|0.91|0.5203
91006591|NCT00805194|181897377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.4373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.09||HR, CI and p-value obtained from the prop. hazards model stratified by baseline ECOG PS (0 vs \>= 1), tumour histology (squamous vs non-squamous), brain metastases at baseline (yes vs no) and prior treatment with bevacizumab (yes vs no)|Regression, Cox||HR below 1 favors nintedanib|Analysis evaluating the time to deterioration of pain||1.09|0.82|0.4373
91006592|NCT04167514|181897418|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.92||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.954|3.866|||One-sided Wald|One-sided Wald test of superior odds of overall response under AAT treatment compared to placebo.Threshold of significance at \<0.025.|Wald CIs|||3.866|0.954|0.034
91007675|NCT01436357|181899530|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.01||||0.499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.1|||Fisher Exact|||||0.10|-0.08|0.499
91050367|NCT04168190|181987004|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|2.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|3.84|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 7F||3.84|1.19|
91006593|NCT01948518|181897527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Assuming 15% change in absolute value of DLCO representing a significant clinical difference and a standard deviation of 17.4% in normal nonsmoking individuals \[Miller A, Thornton JC, Warshaw R, et al. Am Rev Respir Dis. 1983;127 (suppl 3):270-277.\], 13 subjects needed to be studied to reject the null hypothesis when there is no significant difference between DLCO measurements before and after sildenafil, with power 0.8 and type I error probability 0.05 (SAS 9.2, SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC)||||=0.30
91006594|NCT01948518|181897528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.63|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The average 6 minute walk distance at baseline was 1195±407 feet. After oral administration of sildenafil, 6 minute walk distance was 1214±383 feet (p=0.63).||||=0.63
91006595|NCT03737318|181897529|SUPERIORITY||Treatment × Time interaction (β)|106.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.06|149.76||Two-sided test of the treatment × time interaction. Alpha = 0.05.|Regression, Linear||Sign convention: A more positive β indicates a more positive Session 1→3 slope in the traditional treatment group relative to the biofeedback group (reference level).|Following our preregistered statistical analysis plan, the visual-acoustic and ultrasound biofeedback groups were pooled for comparison of biofeedback versus traditional treatment.||149.76|63.06|< .0001
91006596|NCT03737318|181897530|SUPERIORITY||Treatment × Time (linear) interaction (β|-3.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.85|-1.4||Two-sided test of the treatment × time interaction. Alpha = 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Test of treatment × time (Pre, Post) interaction.|Sign convention: Negative β indicates a smaller linear time slope in the traditional treatment group relative to the biofeedback group (reference level)|Following our preregistered statistical analysis plan, the visual-acoustic and ultrasound biofeedback groups were pooled for comparison of biofeedback versus traditional treatment.||-1.40|-4.85|< .001
91050368|NCT04168190|181987004|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|2.21|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 19A||2.21|0.74|
91006597|NCT03737318|181897531|SUPERIORITY||Treatment × Time linear interaction (β)|0.0147|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0594||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.13||Two-sided test of the treatment × time interaction. Alpha = 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Test of treatment (Traditional vs biofeedback) × linear time.|Sign convention: positive β indicates a larger linear time slope in the traditional group relative to the biofeedback group (reference level)|Following our preregistered statistical analysis plan, the visual-acoustic and ultrasound biofeedback groups were pooled for comparison of biofeedback versus traditional treatment.||0.13|-0.10|.80
91006598|NCT01766401|181897534|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.5||||0.0438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.96|-0.04|||MMRM|||||-0.04|-2.96|0.0438
91006599|NCT01766401|181897535|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.41||||0.0868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.02|0.2|||MMRM|||||0.20|-3.02|0.0868
91006600|NCT00886587|181897536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Mean Difference|0.04||||0.9416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|1.17||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Repeated measures ANCOVA|Treatment, visit number, and treatment-visit number interaction term as factors, with baseline score and age as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.17|-1.09|0.9416
91006601|NCT00886587|181897537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Mean Difference|0.35||||0.5431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|1.48||The significance level threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Repeated measures ANCOVA|Treatment, visit number, and treatment-visit number interaction term as factors, with baseline score and age as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.48|-0.78|0.5431
91006602|NCT00886587|181897538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Mean Difference|-0.06||||0.788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.36||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment as a factor, baseline score as covariate.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.36|-0.47|0.788
91006603|NCT00886587|181897539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Mean Difference|0.03||||0.9508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.96||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Repeated measures ANCOVA|Treatment, visit number, and treatment-visit number interaction term as factors, with baseline score and age as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.96|-0.90|0.9508
91006604|NCT01523613|181897540|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.262|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.262
91006605|NCT01523613|181897541|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.523|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.523
91006606|NCT01523613|181897542|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.100
91006607|NCT01108068|181897543|EQUIVALENCE|Continuous variables were expressed as means ± SD or median (range). Group differences in pQCT Z-scores according to genotype T-test was used to compare differences at baseline between affecteds and unaffecteds||||||0.0003|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Differences in the two groups were assessed using Student's t-test or the rank-sum test if skewed.||Cortical area Z-score||||0.0003
91006608|NCT01108068|181897543|EQUIVALENCE|Continuous variables were expressed as means ± SD or median (range). Group differences in pQCT Z-scores according to genotype||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Differences in the two groups were assessed using Student's t-test or the rank-sum test if skewed.||Periosteal circumference Z-score||||0.001
91006609|NCT01021553|181897554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Fold Difference|1.16||||0.4959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.79|||ANCOVA||Estimated value is Geometric LS Mean Fold Difference from Placebo.|||1.79|0.75|0.4959
91006610|NCT01021553|181897554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Fold Difference|1.11||||0.6161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.65|||ANCOVA||Estimated value is Geometric LS Mean Fold Difference from Placebo.|||1.65|0.74|0.6161
91006611|NCT01021553|181897554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Fold Difference|1.13||||0.4971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.61|||ANCOVA||Estimated value is Geometric LS Mean Fold Difference from Placebo.|||1.61|0.79|0.4971
91006612|NCT01021553|181897555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Fold Difference|1.03||||0.9037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.58|||ANCOVA||Estimated value is Geometric LS Mean Fold Difference from Placebo.|For Week 0 to 4||1.58|0.67|0.9037
91006613|NCT01021553|181897555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Fold Difference|1.0||||0.9939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.48|||ANCOVA||Estimated value is Geometric LS Mean Fold Difference from Placebo.|For Week 0 to 4||1.48|0.67|0.9939
91006614|NCT01021553|181897555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Fold Difference|1.01||||0.9541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.43|||ANCOVA||Estimated value is Geometric LS Mean Fold Difference from Placebo.|For Weeks 0-4||1.43|0.71|0.9541
91006615|NCT01021553|181897555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Fold Difference|1.33||||0.2798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.24|||ANCOVA||Estimated value is Geometric LS Mean Fold Difference from Placebo.|For Weeks 4-8||2.24|0.79|0.2798
91006616|NCT01021553|181897555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Fold Difference|1.09||||0.7255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.75|||ANCOVA||Estimated value is Geometric LS Mean Fold Difference from Placebo.|For Weeks 4-8||1.75|0.68|0.7255
91006617|NCT01021553|181897555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Fold Difference|1.18||||0.4347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.8|||ANCOVA||Estimated value is Geometric LS Mean Fold Difference from Placebo.|For Weeks 4-8||1.80|0.77|0.4347
91006618|NCT01021553|181897556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Fold Difference|1.14||||0.6583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.05|||ANCOVA||Estimated value is Geometric LS Mean Fold Difference from Placebo.|||2.05|0.63|0.6583
91006619|NCT01021553|181897556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Fold Difference|0.96||||0.879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.65|||ANCOVA||Estimated value is Geometric LS Mean Fold Difference from Placebo.|||1.65|0.56|0.8790
91006620|NCT01021553|181897556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Fold Difference|1.03||||0.8971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.67|||ANCOVA||Estimated value is Geometric LS Mean Fold Difference from Placebo.|||1.67|0.64|0.8971
91006621|NCT01021553|181897559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of treatments|2.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.43|3.48|||||For AUC (0-inf)|||3.48|2.43|
91006622|NCT01021553|181897559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of treatments|2.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.51|3.54||||||||3.54|2.51|
91006623|NCT01021553|181897560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of treatments|3.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.95|4.47||||||||4.47|2.95|
91006624|NCT00696774|181897569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|-0.2|||Adjusted Repeated Measures Analysis|Model terms: baseline score \& CGI, age, sex, country, prev treatment, prev treatment discontinuation reason, response group, visit \& response-by-visit|Least Squares Mean Difference = Responders - Non-Responders.|||-0.20|-1.12|0.005
91006625|NCT00696774|181897571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.34|-4.36|||Adjusted Repeated Measures Analysis|Model terms: baseline score \& CGI, age, sex, country, prev treatment, prev treatment discontinuation reason, response group, visit \& response-by-visit|Least Squares Mean Difference = Responders - Non-Responders.|||-4.36|-7.34|
91006626|NCT00696774|181897572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.13|-1.81|||Adjusted Repeated Measures Analysis|Model terms: baseline score \& CGI, age, sex, country, prev treatment, prev treatment discontinuation reason, response group, visit \& response-by-visit|Least Squares Mean Difference = Responders - Non-Responders.|||-1.81|-3.13|
91006627|NCT00696774|181897573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|-2.48|||Adjusted Repeated Measures Analysis|Model terms: baseline score \& CGI, age, sex, country, prev treatment, prev treatment discontinuation reason, response group, visit \& response-by-visit|Least Squares Mean Difference = Responders - Non-Responders.|||-2.48|-4.10|
91006628|NCT00696774|181897574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.89|-1.54|||Adjusted Repeated Measures Analysis|Model terms: baseline score \& CGI, age, sex, country, prev treatment, prev treatment discontinuation reason, response group, visit \& response-by-visit|Least Squares Mean Difference = Responders - Non-Responders.|||-1.54|-2.89|
91006629|NCT00696774|181897575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.45|-1.3|||Adjusted Repeated Measures Analysis|Model terms: baseline score \& CGI, age, sex, country, prev treatment, prev treatment discontinuation reason, response group, visit \& response-by-visit|Least Squares Mean Difference = Responders - Non-Responders.|||-1.30|-2.45|
91006630|NCT00696774|181897576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|-0.63|||Adjusted Repeated Measures Analysis|Model terms: baseline score \& CGI, age, sex, country, prev treatment, prev treatment discontinuation reason, response group, visit \& response-by-visit|Least Squares Mean Difference = Responders - Non-Responders.|||-0.63|-1.31|
91050369|NCT04168190|181987004|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|2.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|3.63|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 19A||3.63|1.19|
91006631|NCT00696774|181897577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.04|-2.8|||Adjusted Repeated Measures Analysis|Model terms: baseline score \& CGI, age, sex, country, prev treatment, prev treatment discontinuation reason, response group, visit \& response-by-visit|Least Squares Mean Difference = Responders - Non-Responders.|||-2.80|-6.04|
91006632|NCT00696774|181897578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|-0.84|||Adjusted Repeated Measures Analysis|Model terms: baseline score \& CGI, age, sex, country, prev treatment, prev treatment discontinuation reason, response group, visit \& response-by-visit|Least Squares Mean Difference = Responders - Non-Responders.|||-0.84|-1.42|
91050255|NCT04764630|181986656|OTHER|Treatment differences on the log-scale will be estimated for the PK parameters. Geometric mean ratio and 90% CIs will be obtained by exponentiation of the treatment effect and 90% CIs based on the log-transformed scale. Dose-proportionality will be concluded if the confidence interval includes 1. Dose-normalized comparisons were exploratory.|Geometric mean ratio|0.87||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.75|1.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|Dose-normalized comparisons were exploratory.|This compares results from the 4 naloxone dose arm (2 every 2.5 min) (numerator) with the 4 naloxone dose arm (1 every 2.5 min) (denominator).|Dose-adjusted values for Cmax will be calculated based on noncompartmental PK parameter results, normalized to per mg of naloxone administered. Using linear mixed-effects modeling, comparisons of log-transformed dose-adjusted PK parameters will be performed. Treatment will be a fixed effect. Participant will be included as a random effect on the intercept.||1.01|0.75|0.12
91006633|NCT00696774|181897579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.24|||Adjusted Repeated Measures Analysis|Model terms: baseline score \& CGI, age, sex, country, prev treatment, prev treatment discontinuation reason, response group, visit \& response-by-visit|Least Squares Mean Difference = Responders - Non-Responders.|||-0.24|-1.08|
91006634|NCT00696774|181897580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.18|||Adjusted Repeated Measures Analysis|Model terms: baseline score \& CGI, age, sex, country, prev treatment, prev treatment discontinuation reason, response group, visit \& response-by-visit|Least Squares Mean Difference = Responders - Non-Responders.|||-0.18|-0.81|
91050370|NCT04168190|181987004|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.46|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 22F||1.46|0.37|
91006635|NCT00696774|181897581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|2.6|||Adjusted Repeated Measures Analysis|Model terms: baseline score \& CGI, age, sex, country, prev treatment, prev treatment discontinuation reason, response group, visit \& response-by-visit|Least Squares Mean Difference = Responders - Non-Responders.|Week 4||2.60|-0.99|
91050371|NCT04168190|181987004|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.0|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 22F||2.00|0.50|
91050256|NCT04764630|181986657|OTHER|Treatment differences on the log-scale will be estimated for the PK parameters. Geometric mean ratio and 90% CIs will be obtained by exponentiation of the treatment effect and 90% CIs based on the log-transformed scale. Dose-proportionality will be concluded if the confidence interval includes 1. Dose-normalized comparisons were exploratory.|Geometric mean ratio|0.83||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.76|0.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|Dose-normalized comparisons were exploratory.|This compares results from the 4 naloxone dose arm (1 every 2.5 min) (numerator) with the 2 naloxone dose arm (1 every 2.5 min) (denominator).|Dose-adjusted values for AUC0-inf will be calculated based on noncompartmental PK parameter results, normalized to per mg of naloxone administered. Using linear mixed-effects modeling, comparisons of log-transformed dose-adjusted PK parameters will be performed. Treatment will be a fixed effect. Participant will be included as a random effect on the intercept.||0.91|0.76|0.002
91050257|NCT04764630|181986657|OTHER|Treatment differences on the log-scale will be estimated for the PK parameters. Geometric mean ratio and 90% CIs will be obtained by exponentiation of the treatment effect and 90% CIs based on the log-transformed scale. Dose-proportionality will be concluded if the confidence interval includes 1. Dose-normalized comparisons were exploratory.|Geometric mean ratio|0.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7|0.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|Dose-normalized comparisons were exploratory.|This compares results from the 4 naloxone dose arm (2 every 2.5 min) (numerator) with the 2 naloxone dose arm (1 every 2.5 min) (denominator).|Dose-adjusted values for AUC0-inf will be calculated based on noncompartmental PK parameter results, normalized to per mg of naloxone administered. Using linear mixed-effects modeling, comparisons of log-transformed dose-adjusted PK parameters will be performed. Treatment will be a fixed effect. Participant will be included as a random effect on the intercept.||0.81|0.70|<0.001
91006636|NCT00696774|181897581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|3.42|||Adjusted Repeated Measures Analysis|Model terms: baseline score \& CGI, age, sex, country, prev treatment, prev treatment discontinuation reason, response group, visit \& response-by-visit|Least Squares Mean Difference = Responders - Non-Responders.|Week 8||3.42|-0.69|
91006637|NCT00696774|181897582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.63|19.47|||Adjusted Repeated Measures Analysis|Model terms: baseline score \& CGI, age, sex, country, prev treatment, prev treatment discontinuation reason, response group, visit \& response-by-visit|Least Squares Mean Difference = Responders - Non-Responders.|Week 4||19.47|10.63|
91006638|NCT00696774|181897582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.72|16.24|||Adjusted Repeated Measures Analysis|Model terms: baseline score \& CGI, age, sex, country, prev treatment, prev treatment discontinuation reason, response group, visit \& response-by-visit|Least Squares Mean Difference = Responders - Non-Responders.|Week 8||16.24|4.72|
91006639|NCT00696774|181897583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.75|-4.02|||Adjusted Repeated Measures Analysis|Model terms: baseline score \& CGI, age, sex, country, prev treatment, prev treatment discontinuation reason, response group, visit \& response-by-visit|Least Squares Mean Difference = Responders - Non-Responders.|Week 4||-4.02|-7.75|
91006640|NCT00696774|181897583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.65|-2.54|||Adjusted Repeated Measures Analysis|Model terms: baseline score \& CGI, age, sex, country, prev treatment, prev treatment discontinuation reason, response group, visit \& response-by-visit|Least Squares Mean Difference = Responders - Non-Responders.|Week 8||-2.54|-6.65|
91050372|NCT04168190|181987004|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.41|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 33F||1.41|0.40|
91050373|NCT04168190|181987004|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.48|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 33F||2.48|0.70|
91050374|NCT04168190|181987004|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.08|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 8||1.08|0.37|
91050258|NCT04764630|181986657|OTHER|Treatment differences on the log-scale will be estimated for the PK parameters. Geometric mean ratio and 90% CIs will be obtained by exponentiation of the treatment effect and 90% CIs based on the log-transformed scale. Dose-proportionality will be concluded if the confidence interval includes 1. Dose-normalized comparisons were exploratory.|Geometric mean ratio|0.91||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|0.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|Dose-normalized comparisons were exploratory.|This compares results from the 4 naloxone dose arm (2 every 2.5 min) (numerator) with the 4 naloxone dose arm (1 every 2.5 min) (denominator).|Dose-adjusted values for AUC0-inf will be calculated based on noncompartmental PK parameter results, normalized to per mg of naloxone administered. Using linear mixed-effects modeling, comparisons of log-transformed dose-adjusted PK parameters will be performed. Treatment will be a fixed effect. Participant will be included as a random effect on the intercept.||0.97|0.85|0.014
91050375|NCT04168190|181987004|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.69|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 8||1.69|0.58|
91006641|NCT00033293|181897633|OTHER||Chi-squared test statistic|8.125||||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Chi-squared|A two-way test with a null hypothesis of no association, using SAS 9.4.||"The 5 categories of OMA ratings are: stance, gait, arm \& hand function, opsoclonus, \& mood/behavior. For each category, a patient's response will be based on a comparison of the baseline evaluation to the best of 3 time points: 2 months, 6 months \& 1 year. If a patient crosses over to the IVIG arm or switches to ACTH at any time, the patient will be considered a non-responder. The proportion of responders from the 2 treatment arms were compared using a chi-squared test."||||0.0044
91006642|NCT00033293|181897634|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|60.1979||||0.0919|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||The two samples from the respective treatment arms were compared using a one-sided t-test with a significance level of .05.||||0.0919
91006643|NCT00033293|181897635|OTHER|The two samples from the respective treatment arms were compared using a one-sided t-test with a significance level of .05.|Mean Difference (Net)|16.75||||0.2364|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.2364
91006644|NCT00935701|181897641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mean change in score from pre to post on Restless-Impulsive subscale||||0.01
91006645|NCT00935701|181897641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mean change in score from pre to post on Emotional Lability subscale||||0.09
91006646|NCT00935701|181897641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mean change in score from pre to post on Global Index Total||||0.02
91006647|NCT00935701|181897641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mean change in score from pre to post on DSM-IV Inattentive subscale||||0.01
91006648|NCT00935701|181897641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mean change in score from pre to post on DSM-IV Hyperactive-Impulsive subscale||||0.03
91006649|NCT00935701|181897641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mean change in score from pre to post on DSM-IV Total||||0.01
91050259|NCT04764630|181986658|OTHER|Treatment differences on the log-scale will be estimated for the PK parameters. Geometric mean ratio and 90% CIs will be obtained by exponentiation of the treatment effect and 90% CIs based on the log-transformed scale. Dose-proportionality will be concluded if the confidence interval includes 1. Dose-normalized comparisons were exploratory.|Geometric mean ratio|0.82||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.75|0.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|Dose-normalized comparisons were exploratory.|This compares results from the 4 naloxone dose arm (1 every 2.5 min) (numerator) with the 2 naloxone dose arm (1 every 2.5 min) (denominator).|Dose-adjusted values for AUC0-t will be calculated based on noncompartmental PK parameter results, normalized to per mg of naloxone administered. Using linear mixed-effects modeling, comparisons of log-transformed dose-adjusted PK parameters will be performed. Treatment will be a fixed effect. Participant will be included as a random effect on the intercept.||0.89|0.75|0.001
91050524|NCT02037165|181987277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-3.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0792|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|0.9|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 6:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||0.9|-7.2|
91050525|NCT02037165|181987277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0796|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|2.8|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 22:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||2.8|-5.4|
91008019|NCT01716585|181900112|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Based on historical SVR rates for noncirrhotic HCV treatment-naive subjects administered telaprevir plus peginterferon (pegIFN)/RBV, the lower confidence bound (LCB) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) must have exceeded 70% to achieve noninferiority of the ABT-450/r/ABT-267 and ABT-333, plus RBV treatment group as compared with the historical rate for telaprevir plus pegIFN and RBV, and the LCB of the 95% CI must have exceeded 80% to achieve superiority.|Percentage of Participants with SVR12|96.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.7|98.1|||||In order to control the Type I error rate at 0.05, a fixed-sequence testing procedure was used to proceed through the primary and first 3 secondary efficacy endpoints in the order numbered below.|With a sample size of 450 subjects and assuming that 92% of the subjects in Arm A will achieve SVR12, this study has greater than 90% power to demonstrate non-inferiority with a 2-sided 95% lower confidence bound greater than 70% and greater than 90% power to demonstrate superiority with a 2-sided 95% lower confidence bound greater than 80% (based on the normal approximation of a single binomial proportion). 95% CI calculated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.||98.1|94.7|
91008020|NCT01716585|181900113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||In order to control the Type I error rate at 0.05, a fixed-sequence testing procedure will be used to proceed through the primary and first 3 secondary efficacy endpoints in the order numbered below.|Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
91008021|NCT01716585|181900114|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Based on historical SVR rates for noncirrhotic HCV treatment-naive subjects of the appropriate HCV genotype 1 subtype administered telaprevir plus pegIFN/RBV, the lower confidence bound (LCB) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) must have exceeded 75% to achieve superiority of the ABT-450/r/ABT-267 and ABT-333, plus RBV treatment group as compared with the historical rate for telaprevir plus pegIFN and RBV.|Percentage of Participants with SVR12|95.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.4|97.9||In order to control the Type I error rate at 0.05, a fixed-sequence testing procedure will be used to proceed through the primary and first 3 secondary efficacy endpoints in the order numbered below.|||95% CI calculated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||97.9|93.4|
91008022|NCT01716585|181900115|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Based on historical SVR rates for noncirrhotic HCV treatment-naive subjects of the appropriate HCV genotype 1 subtype administered telaprevir plus pegIFN/RBV, the lower confidence bound (LCB) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) must have exceeded 84% to achieve superiority of the ABT-450/r/ABT-267 and ABT-333, plus RBV treatment group as compared with the historical rate for telaprevir plus pegIFN and RBV.|Percentage of Participants with SVR12|98.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|95.8|100.0|||||95% CI calculated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||100.0|95.8|
91008023|NCT00125138|181900123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Mean|0.1||||0.5177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|6.6||One-sided pairwise p-value comparing each active treatment to placebo.|ANCOVA|One-way ANCOVA: Treatment, country, and baseline anti-psychotic medication status (recent or distant) as factors; baseline measurement as a covariate||The null hypothesis for each endpoint is that each melperone dose has the same mean as placebo; the alternative hypothesis is that at least one dose is more efficacious than placebo. Only subjects with both a baseline and Day 43 (end of Maintenance Phase) value are included.||6.6|-6.3|0.5177
91008024|NCT00125138|181900123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS mean|-2.9||||0.1519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|2.7||One-sided pairwise p-value comparing each active treatment to placebo.|ANCOVA|One-way ANCOVA: Treatment, country, and baseline anti-psychotic medication status (recent or distant) as factors; baseline measurement as a covariate.||The null hypothesis for each endpoint is that each melperone dose has the same mean as placebo; the alternative hypothesis hypothesis is that at least one dose is more efficacious than placebo. Only subjects with both a baseline and Day 43 (end of Maintenance Phase) value are included.||2.7|-8.5|0.1519
91008025|NCT00125138|181900123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS mean|0.3||||0.5406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|5.8||One-sided pairwise p-value comparing each active treatment to placebo.|ANCOVA|One-way ANCOVA: Treatment, country, and baseline anti-psychotic medication status (recent or distant) as factors; baseline measurement as a covariate.||The null hypothesis for each endpoint is that each melperone dose has the same mean as placebo; the alternative hypothesis is that at least one dose is more efficacious than placebo. Only subjects with both a baseline and Day 43 (end of Maintenance Phase) value are included.||5.8|-5.2|0.5406
91008026|NCT00125138|181900124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9212||95.0||||Overall p-value using a one-way ANCOVA.|ANCOVA|One-way ANCOVA: Treatment, country, and baseline anti-psychotic medication status (recent or distant) as factors; baseline measurement as a covariate.||Only subjects with both a baseline and a post-baseline value are included.||||0.9212
91050526|NCT02037165|181987277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0801|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|3.9|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 24:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||3.9|-4.2|
91008027|NCT00286156|181900125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||Pairwise comparisons adjusted for multiple testing (Tukey)|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: no difference between groups in iGFR||||<0.01
91008028|NCT03798366|181900179|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29||0.6757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|2.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||A negative difference indicates a greater improvement in the GLPG1690 treatment group.|Results were estimated using a mixed-effect model repeated measure using treatment and visit as fixed effects, baseline mRSS score and country as covariates, treatment-visit as interaction terms, and participant as a random effect. The variance-covariance matrix used in the model was compound symmetric.||2.0|-3.1|0.6757
91008029|NCT03798366|181900180|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.31||0.6079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|1.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||A negative difference indicates a greater improvement in the GLPG1690 treatment group.|Results were estimated using a mixed-effect model repeated measure using treatment and visit as fixed effects, baseline mRSS score and country as covariates, treatment-visit as interaction terms, and participant as a random effect. The variance-covariance matrix used in the model was compound symmetric.||1.9|-3.3|0.6079
91008030|NCT03798366|181900181|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.35||0.1298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||A negative difference indicates a greater improvement in the GLPG1690 treatment group.|Results were estimated using a mixed-effect model repeated measure using treatment and visit as fixed effects, baseline mRSS score and country as covariates, treatment-visit as interaction terms, and participant as a random effect. The variance-covariance matrix used in the model was compound symmetric.||0.6|-4.8|0.1298
91008031|NCT03798366|181900182|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36||0.0411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||A negative difference indicates a greater improvement in the GLPG1690 treatment group.|Results were estimated using a mixed-effect model repeated measure using treatment and visit as fixed effects, baseline mRSS score and country as covariates, treatment-visit as interaction terms, and participant as a random effect. The variance-covariance matrix used in the model was compound symmetric.||-0.1|-5.6|0.0411
91008032|NCT01412333|181900184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate Ratio|0.532|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.397|0.714|||Negative Binomial Model||Rate ratio was calculated as Ocrelizumab ARR/Interferon beta-1a 44 mcg SC ARR.|Adjusted by Geographical Region (US vs. Rest of World) and baseline EDSS (\<4.0 vs. \>=4.0).||0.714|0.397|< 0.0001
91008033|NCT01412333|181900185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63|||=|0.0169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.92|||Log Rank|||Time to onset of CDP at week 12||0.92|0.42|= 0.0169
91008034|NCT01412333|181900186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted rate ratio|0.051|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.029|0.089|||Negative Binomial Model||Adjusted by baseline T1 Gd lesion (present or not), baseline EDSS (\<4.0 vs. \>=4.0) and geographical region (US vs. rest-of-world). Adjusted rate ratio was calculated as Ocrelizumab adjusted rate/Interferon beta-1a 44 mcg SC adjusted rate.|||0.089|0.029|< 0.0001
91008035|NCT01412333|181900187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted rate ratio|0.171|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.13|0.225|||Negative Binomial Model||Adjusted by baseline T2 lesion count, baseline EDSS (\<4.0 vs. \>=4.0) and geographical region (US vs. rest-of-world). Adjusted rate ratio was calculated as Ocrelizumab adjusted rate/Interferon beta-1a 44 mcg SC adjusted rate.|||0.225|0.130|< 0.0001
91008036|NCT01412333|181900188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Relative risk (stratified)|1.14|||=|0.4019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.56|||CMH Chi-Squared test (stratified)|Stratified by Geographical Region (US vs. Rest of World) and baseline EDSS (\<4.0 vs. \>=4.0).||||1.56|0.84|= 0.4019
91008037|NCT01412333|181900189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63|||=|0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.98|||Log Rank|||Time to onset of CDP at week 24||0.98|0.40|= 0.037
91008038|NCT01412333|181900190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted rate ratio|0.357|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.272|0.47|||Negative Binomial Model||Adjusted by baseline T1-hypointense lesion count, baseline EDSS (\<4.0 vs. \>=4.0) and geographical region (US vs. rest-of-world). Adjusted rate ratio was calculated as Ocrelizumab adjusted rate/Interferon beta-1a 44 mcg SC adjusted rate.|||0.47|0.272|< 0.0001
91008039|NCT01412333|181900191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.107|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.034|0.18|||mixed-effect model of repeated measures|Estimates are from analysis based on mixed-effect model of repeated measures (MMRM) using unstructured covariance matrix.|Difference in adjusted means was calculated as Ocrelizumab adjusted mean at Week 96/ Interferon beta-1a 44 mcg SC adjusted mean at Week 96.|||0.180|0.034|= 0.004
91008040|NCT01412333|181900192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.112|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066|=|0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.018|0.241|||mixed-effect model of repeated measures|Estimates are from analysis based on mixed-effect model of repeated measures (MMRM) using unstructured covariance matrix.|Difference in the rate of brain volume loss: 14.9%. Difference in adjusted means was calculated as Ocrelizumab adjusted mean at Week 96/ Interferon beta-1a 44 mcg SC adjusted mean at Week 96.|||0.241|-0.018|= 0.09
91077670|NCT00006305|182040860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.013||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.049|0.022||A separate test with alpha=0.05 was conducted for each treatment comparison of the main effects in the 2x2 factorial design.|Log Rank||Risk difference of Death/MI/Stroke for Revascularization compared with Medical Therapy|||0.022|-0.049|0.70
91008041|NCT01412333|181900193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Adjusted Means|1.159|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.564|=|0.0404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.051|2.268|||mixed-effect model of repeated measures|Estimates are from analysis based on mixed-effect model of repeated measures using unstructured covariance matrix.|Difference in adjusted means was calculated as Ocrelizumab adjusted mean at Week 96/ Interferon beta-1a 44 mcg SC adjusted mean at Week 96.|||2.268|0.051|= 0.0404
91008042|NCT01412333|181900194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Relative risk (stratified)|1.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|2.32|||CMH Chi-Squared test (stratified)|Analyzed using CMH test, stratified by Geographical Region (US vs. rest-of-world) and baseline EDSS (\<4.0 vs. \>=4.0).||||2.32|1.41|< 0.0001
91008043|NCT01117428|181900199|EQUIVALENCE|Differences between Parts E and F in terms of Best Overall Response evaluated from screening until disease progression.||||||0.6645||||||No adjustment, 5% significance level|Fisher Exact|||||||0.6645
91008044|NCT04542525|181900210|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Exact Test of Binomial Proportion||||P-value is provided from exact test of binomial proportion (one-sided alpha = 2.5%) comparing PanOptix Toric Trifocal IOL Model TFNT20 with historical threshold 29.2 % (rate calculated for a non-toric IOL in Japanese study patients that would qualify for a T2 lens using the same toric calculator).|||<0.0001
91008045|NCT00242710|181900234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|2.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|3.18|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used with treatment and center as main effects and baseline BMD and years since menopause as covariates.||3.18|1.56|<0.001
91008046|NCT00242710|181900234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|3.17|||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model was used with treatment and center as main effects and baseline BMD and years since menopause as covariates.||3.17|1.56|<0.001
91008047|NCT00242710|181900234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.81|4.76|||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model was used with treatment and center as main effects and baseline BMD and years since menopause as covariates.||4.76|2.81|<0.001
91008048|NCT00242710|181900236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|2.24|||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model was used with treatment and center as main effects and baseline BMD and years since menopause as covariates.||2.24|0.97|<0.001
91008049|NCT00242710|181900236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|2.46|||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model was used with treatment and center as main effects and baseline BMD and years since menopause as covariates.||2.46|1.19|<0.001
91008050|NCT00242710|181900236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.69|3.23|||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model was used with treatment and center as main effects and baseline BMD and years since menopause as covariates.||3.23|1.69|<0.001
91008051|NCT00242710|181900237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.66||||0.373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|2.12|||ANCOVA|||Week 1-4: An ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as factors, and baseline as the covariate.||2.12|-0.80|0.373
91008052|NCT00242710|181900237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.35||||0.738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|2.4|||ANCOVA|||Week 5-8: An ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as factors, and baseline as the covariate.||2.40|-1.70|0.738
91008053|NCT00242710|181900237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.65||||0.539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|2.71|||ANCOVA|||Week 9-12: An ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as factors, and baseline as the covariate.||2.71|-1.41|0.539
91008054|NCT00242710|181900237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.09||||0.233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|2.9|||ANCOVA|||Week 13-16: An ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as factors, and baseline as the covariate.||2.90|-0.71|0.233
91008055|NCT00242710|181900237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.5||||0.605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|2.39|||ANCOVA|||Week 17-20: An ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as factors, and baseline as the covariate.||2.39|-1.39|0.605
91008056|NCT00242710|181900237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.23||||0.305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|3.57|||ANCOVA|||Week 21-24: An ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as factors, and baseline as the covariate.||3.57|-1.12|0.305
91008057|NCT00242710|181900237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.22||||0.299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|3.52|||ANCOVA|||Week 25-28: An ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as factors, and baseline as the covariate.||3.52|-1.08|0.299
91008058|NCT00242710|181900237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.62||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|3.51|||ANCOVA|||Week 29-32: An ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as factors, and baseline as the covariate.||3.51|-0.27|0.092
91077671|NCT00006305|182040860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.024||||0.13||95.0|-0.06|0.012||A separate test with alpha=0.05 was conducted for each treatment comparison of the main effects in the 2x2 factorial design.|Log Rank||Risk difference of Death/MI/Stroke for Insulin Sensitizing glycemic control strategy compared with Insulin Providing glycemic control strategy|||0.012|-0.060|0.13
91008059|NCT00242710|181900237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.55||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|3.29|||ANCOVA|||Week 33-36: An ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as factors, and baseline as the covariate.||3.29|-0.18|0.080
91008060|NCT00242710|181900237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.04||||0.279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|2.92|||ANCOVA|||Week 37-40: An ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as factors, and baseline as the covariate.||2.92|-0.85|0.279
91008061|NCT00242710|181900237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.13||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|3.11|||ANCOVA|||Week 41-44: An ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as factors, and baseline as the covariate.||3.11|-0.84|0.260
91008062|NCT00242710|181900237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.51||||0.618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.52|||ANCOVA|||Week 45-48: An ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as factors, and baseline as the covariate.||2.52|-1.50|0.618
91008063|NCT00242710|181900237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.41||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.78|2.96|||ANCOVA|||Week 49-52: An ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as factors, and baseline as the covariate.||2.96|-3.78|0.810
91008064|NCT00242710|181900237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.34||||0.654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|1.81|||ANCOVA|||Week 1-4: An ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as factors, and baseline as the covariate.||1.81|-1.14|0.654
91008065|NCT00242710|181900237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.22||||0.834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|2.28|||ANCOVA|||Week 5-8: An ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as factors, and baseline as the covariate.||2.28|-1.84|0.834
91008066|NCT00242710|181900237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.34||||0.744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|1.72|||ANCOVA|||Week 9-12: An ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as factors, and baseline as the covariate.||1.72|-2.41|0.744
91008067|NCT00242710|181900237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.91|||ANCOVA|||Week 13-16: An ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as factors, and baseline as the covariate.||1.91|-1.70|0.909
91008068|NCT00242710|181900237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.04||||0.963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|1.85|||ANCOVA|||Week 17-20: An ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as factors, and baseline as the covariate.||1.85|-1.94|0.963
91008069|NCT00242710|181900237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.59||||0.625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|2.94|||ANCOVA|||Week 21-24: An ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as factors, and baseline as the covariate.||2.94|-1.77|0.625
91008070|NCT00242710|181900237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.08||||0.947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.39|2.23|||ANCOVA|||Week 25-28: An ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as factors, and baseline as the covariate.||2.23|-2.39|0.947
91008071|NCT00242710|181900237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.64||||0.505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|2.53|||ANCOVA|||Week 29-32: An ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as factors, and baseline as the covariate.||2.53|-1.25|0.505
91008072|NCT00242710|181900237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.51||||0.564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|2.25|||ANCOVA|||Week 33-36: An ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as factors, and baseline as the covariate.||2.25|-1.23|0.564
91008073|NCT00242710|181900237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.32||||0.739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|1.57|||ANCOVA|||Week 37-40: An ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as factors, and baseline as the covariate.||1.57|-2.21|0.739
91008074|NCT00242710|181900237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.27|1.67|||ANCOVA|||Week 41-44: An ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as factors, and baseline as the covariate.||1.67|-2.27|0.766
91008075|NCT00242710|181900237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.09||||0.931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.92|2.1|||ANCOVA|||Week 45-48: An ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as factors, and baseline as the covariate.||2.10|-1.92|0.931
91077889|NCT02913105|182041136|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.86||||0.0179|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.77|0.95|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Triglycerides: Day 7||0.95|0.77|0.0179
91008076|NCT00242710|181900237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.19||||0.911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.17|3.56|||ANCOVA|||Week 49-52: An ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as factors, and baseline as the covariate.||3.56|-3.17|0.911
91008077|NCT00242710|181900237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.61||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|4.3|||ANCOVA|||Week 1-4: An ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as factors, and baseline as the covariate.||4.30|0.92|0.003
91008078|NCT00242710|181900237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.79|6.58|||ANCOVA|||Week 5-8: An ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as factors, and baseline as the covariate.||6.58|1.79|<0.001
91008079|NCT00242710|181900237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.45||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|5.86|||ANCOVA|||Week 9-12: An ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as factors, and baseline as the covariate.||5.86|1.03|0.005
91008080|NCT00242710|181900237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.15||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|5.3|||ANCOVA|||Week 13-16: An ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as factors, and baseline as the covariate.||5.30|1.01|0.004
91008081|NCT00242710|181900237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.61||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|4.87|||ANCOVA|||Week 17-20: An ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as factors, and baseline as the covariate.||4.87|0.36|0.023
91008082|NCT00242710|181900237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.75||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|6.54|||ANCOVA|||Week 21-24: An ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as factors, and baseline as the covariate.||6.54|0.96|0.008
91008083|NCT00242710|181900237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.52||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|6.26|||ANCOVA|||Week 25-28: An ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as factors, and baseline as the covariate.||6.26|0.78|0.012
91008084|NCT00242710|181900237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|6.07|||ANCOVA|||Week 29-32: An ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as factors, and baseline as the covariate.||6.07|1.55|<0.001
91008085|NCT00242710|181900237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.68|5.83|||ANCOVA|||Week 33-36: An ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as factors, and baseline as the covariate.||5.83|1.68|<0.001
91008086|NCT00242710|181900237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.3||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|5.54|||ANCOVA|||Week 37-40: An ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as factors, and baseline as the covariate.||5.54|1.05|0.004
91008087|NCT00242710|181900237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.63||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|3.99|||ANCOVA|||Week 41-44: An ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as factors, and baseline as the covariate.||3.99|-0.73|0.175
91008088|NCT00242710|181900237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.35||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|3.75|||ANCOVA|||Week 45-48: An ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as factors, and baseline as the covariate.||3.75|-1.05|0.270
91008089|NCT00242710|181900237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.78||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|7.97|||ANCOVA|||Week 49-52: An ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as factors, and baseline as the covariate.||7.97|-0.41|0.077
91008090|NCT00242710|181900238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.826|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 1-4: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.826
91008091|NCT00242710|181900238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.534|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 5-8: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.534
91008092|NCT00242710|181900238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 9-12: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||1.000
91008093|NCT00242710|181900238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.516|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 13-16: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.516
91008094|NCT00242710|181900238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.446|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 17-20: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.446
91008095|NCT00242710|181900238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.218|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 21-24: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.218
91008096|NCT00242710|181900238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 25-28: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||1.000
91008097|NCT00242710|181900238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 29-32: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||1.000
91008098|NCT00242710|181900238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.733|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 33-36: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.733
91008099|NCT00242710|181900238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.736|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 37-40: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.736
91008100|NCT00242710|181900238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.449|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 41-44: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.449
91008101|NCT00242710|181900238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.489|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 45-48: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.489
91008102|NCT00242710|181900238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.163|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 49-52: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.163
91050527|NCT02037165|181987277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0282|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|1.3|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 0:30h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||1.3|-6.7|
91008103|NCT00242710|181900238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.813|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 1-4: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.813
91008104|NCT00242710|181900238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.777|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 5-8: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.777
91008105|NCT00242710|181900238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.448|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 9-12: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.448
91008106|NCT00242710|181900238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.507|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 13-16: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.507
91008107|NCT00242710|181900238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.669|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 17-20: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.669
91008108|NCT00242710|181900238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.281|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 21-24: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.281
91008109|NCT00242710|181900238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.689|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 25-28: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.689
91008110|NCT00242710|181900238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.437|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 29-32: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.437
91008111|NCT00242710|181900238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 33-36: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||1.000
91008112|NCT00242710|181900238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 37-40: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||1.000
91008113|NCT00242710|181900238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.227|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 41-44: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.227
91008114|NCT00242710|181900238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.758|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 45-48: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.758
91008115|NCT00242710|181900238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.554|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 49-52: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.554
91008116|NCT00242710|181900238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 1-4: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||<0.001
91008117|NCT00242710|181900238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 5-8: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||<0.001
91008118|NCT00242710|181900238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 9-12: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||<0.001
91077672|NCT02470403|182040869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.52|-4.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"This analysis included all subjects. The following criteria were assessed:~1. upper confidence limit of the 80% CI for treatment difference (LIK066 - placebo) was less than 0, and~2. estimated mean treatment difference was less than or equal to -5%. The first criterion addressed whether, with high certainty, there was superior weight loss in LIK066 treated group compared to placebo. The second criterion addressed whether observed mean reduction in body weight over placebo was at least 5%."||-4.87|-6.52|<0.001
91008119|NCT00242710|181900238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 13-16: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||<0.001
91008120|NCT00242710|181900238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 17-20: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||<0.001
91008121|NCT00242710|181900238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 21-24: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||<0.001
91008122|NCT00242710|181900238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 25-28: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.008
91008123|NCT00242710|181900238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 29-32: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||<0.001
91008124|NCT00242710|181900238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 33-36: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.005
91008125|NCT00242710|181900238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 37-40: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.008
91008126|NCT00242710|181900238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.062|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 41-44: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.062
91008127|NCT00242710|181900238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 45-48: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.007
91008128|NCT00242710|181900238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 49-52: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.029
91008129|NCT00242710|181900240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.92|4.58|||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model was used with treatment and center as main effects and baseline BMD and years since menopause as covariates.||4.58|1.92|<0.001
91008130|NCT00242710|181900240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.83|4.46|||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model was used with treatment and center as main effects and baseline BMD and years since menopause as covariates.||4.46|1.83|<0.001
91008131|NCT00242710|181900240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.13|6.23|||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model was used with treatment and center as main effects and baseline BMD and years since menopause as covariates.||6.23|3.13|<0.001
91008132|NCT00242710|181900241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.87|||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model was used with treatment and center as main effects and baseline BMD and years since menopause as covariates.||2.87|0.80|<0.001
91008133|NCT00242710|181900241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.97|||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model was used with treatment and center as main effects and baseline BMD and years since menopause as covariates.||2.97|0.92|<0.001
91050528|NCT02037165|181987277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|1.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0279|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|5.6|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 1:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||5.6|-2.4|
91008134|NCT00242710|181900241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|3.59|||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model was used with treatment and center as main effects and baseline BMD and years since menopause as covariates.||3.59|1.17|<0.001
91008135|NCT00203294|181900252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0||||Separate models were fit to the change scores for headache pain, nausea and vomiting, photophobia, phonophobia, and neck pain.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to compare nominal variables between groups. The Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to compare interval and ordinal variables between groups.||||<0.01
91008136|NCT00203294|181900252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to compare interval and ordinal variables between groups.||Fisher's exact test was used to compare nominal variables between groups.||||<0.01
91008137|NCT02177942|181900257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03||||0.6931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.13|||ANCOVA||Difference is test treatment minus control treatment such that a positive difference favours the test treatment.|||0.13|-0.20|0.6931
91008138|NCT03062605|181900266|OTHER|Inequality test||||||0.35||||||Significant at p \< 0.05|McNemar|||Strep Mutans, Baseline-12 Weeks||||0.35
91008139|NCT03062605|181900266|OTHER|Inequality test||||||0.29||||||Significant at p\<0.05|McNemar|||Strep Mutans, Baseline-12 Weeks||||0.29
91008140|NCT03062605|181900266|OTHER|Inequality test||||||0.09||||||Significant at p \< 0.05|McNemar|||Lactobacillus, Baseline-12 Weeks||||0.09
91008141|NCT03062605|181900266|OTHER|Inequality test||||||0.13||||||Significant at p \< 0.05|McNemar|||Lactobacillus, Baseline-12 Weeks||||0.13
91008142|NCT01948791|181900269|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval of the mean difference between the baseline score and post-baseline score falls on the left of MeanP-MeanB+1.40, the post-baseline noninferiority to baseline can be concluded. If the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval of the mean difference between the baseline score and post-baseline score falls on the left of 0, superiority can be concluded.|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||The hypothesis to test the non-inferiority of post-baseline change in ADAS-Cog from baseline was: H0: μP - μB ≥ 1.40, Ha: μP - μB \< 1.40 where μP and μB are the ADAS-Cog score (actual) at 16 weeks of Rivastigmine treatment and the baseline ADAS-Cog score (actual), respectively.||||<0.001
91008143|NCT00702949|181900307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparing the median numerical change from baseline on hot flash score for Pregabalin 150 Mg with the Placebo.||||0.007
91008144|NCT00702949|181900310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparing the median numerical change from baseline on hot flash score for Pregabalin 75 Mg with the Placebo.||||0.002
91008145|NCT00702949|181900311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparing the median percent change from baseline on hot flash score for Pregabalin 75 Mg with the Placebo.||||0.009
91008146|NCT00702949|181900313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparing the median percent change from baseline on hot flash score for Pregabalin 150 Mg with the Placebo.||||0.007
91008147|NCT00598585|181900315|SUPERIORITY|unpaired test, the threshold for statistical significance was p= 0.05|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||< 0.05
91008148|NCT01040728|181900316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.197|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001||95.0|0.163|0.231|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.231|0.163|<0.0001
91008149|NCT01040728|181900316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.221|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|0.186|0.255|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.255|0.186|<0.0001
91008150|NCT01040728|181900316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.221|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001||95.0|0.187|0.255|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Tio 18 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.255|0.187|<0.0001
91008151|NCT01040728|181900317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.153|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|0.117|0.188|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.188|0.117|<0.0001
91008152|NCT01040728|181900317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|0.134|0.205|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.205|0.134|<0.0001
91008153|NCT01040728|181900317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.164|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|0.128|0.199|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Tio 18 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.199|0.128|<0.0001
91008154|NCT01040728|181900318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.175|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001||95.0|0.141|0.208|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.208|0.141|<0.0001
91008155|NCT01040728|181900318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.191|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001||95.0|0.157|0.225|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.225|0.157|<0.0001
91008156|NCT01040728|181900318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.192|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001||95.0|0.159|0.226|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Tio 18 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.226|0.159|<0.0001
91008157|NCT01040728|181900319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.214|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001||95.0|0.181|0.248|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.248|0.181|<0.0001
91008158|NCT01040728|181900319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.238|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001||95.0|0.205|0.272|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.272|0.205|<0.0001
91008159|NCT01040728|181900319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.152|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001||95.0|0.119|0.185|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Tio 18 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.185|0.119|<0.0001
91008160|NCT01040728|181900320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.214|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.178|0.251|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.251|0.178|<0.0001
91008161|NCT01040728|181900320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.245|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.208|0.282|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.282|0.208|<0.0001
91008162|NCT01040728|181900320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.235|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.199|0.271|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Tio 18 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.271|0.199|<0.0001
91008163|NCT01040728|181900321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.237|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|0.201|0.273|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.273|0.201|<0.0001
91008164|NCT01040728|181900321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.266|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|0.23|0.302|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.302|0.230|<0.0001
91008165|NCT01040728|181900321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.175|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|0.138|0.211|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Tio 18 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.211|0.138|<0.0001
91008166|NCT01040728|181900322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.208|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.169|0.246|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.246|0.169|<0.0001
91008167|NCT01040728|181900322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.243|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.205|0.282|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.282|0.205|<0.0001
91008168|NCT01040728|181900322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.244|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.205|0.282|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Tio 18 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.282|0.205|<0.0001
91008169|NCT01040728|181900323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.134|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.097|0.171|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.171|0.097|<0.0001
91008170|NCT01040728|181900323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.143|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.105|0.181|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.181|0.105|<0.0001
91008171|NCT01040728|181900323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.158|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.12|0.195|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Tio 18 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.195|0.120|<0.0001
91008172|NCT01040728|181900324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.0001||95.0|0.276|0.384|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.384|0.276|<0.0001
91008173|NCT01040728|181900324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.326|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.0001||95.0|0.272|0.381|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.381|0.272|<0.0001
91008174|NCT01040728|181900324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027|<|0.0001||95.0|0.316|0.424|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Tio 18 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.424|0.316|<0.0001
91008175|NCT01040728|181900325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.278|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033|<|0.0001||95.0|0.214|0.342|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.342|0.214|<0.0001
91050529|NCT02037165|181987277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|2.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0278|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|6.6|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 2:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||6.6|-1.4|
91008176|NCT01040728|181900325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.264|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033|<|0.0001||95.0|0.2|0.329|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.329|0.200|<0.0001
91008177|NCT01040728|181900325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.302|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033|<|0.0001||95.0|0.238|0.366|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Tio 18 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.366|0.238|<0.0001
91008178|NCT01040728|181900326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.304|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001||95.0|0.244|0.363|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.363|0.244|<0.0001
91008179|NCT01040728|181900326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.283|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031|<|0.0001||95.0|0.222|0.343|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.343|0.222|<0.0001
91008180|NCT01040728|181900326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.335|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001||95.0|0.275|0.395|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Tio 18 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.395|0.275|<0.0001
91008181|NCT01040728|181900327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031|<|0.0001||95.0|0.309|0.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.430|0.309|<0.0001
91008182|NCT01040728|181900327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.366|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001||95.0|0.306|0.426|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.426|0.306|<0.0001
91008183|NCT01040728|181900327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.262|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001||95.0|0.202|0.322|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Tio 18 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.322|0.202|<0.0001
91008184|NCT01040728|181900328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.344|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029|<|0.0001||95.0|0.287|0.401|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.401|0.287|<0.0001
91008185|NCT01040728|181900328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.353|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029|<|0.0001||95.0|0.296|0.411|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.411|0.296|<0.0001
91008186|NCT01040728|181900328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029|<|0.0001||95.0|0.314|0.427|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Tio 18 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.427|0.314|<0.0001
91008187|NCT01040728|181900329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.334|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031|<|0.0001||95.0|0.272|0.396|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.396|0.272|<0.0001
91008188|NCT01040728|181900329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.346|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|<|0.0001||95.0|0.283|0.408|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.408|0.283|<0.0001
91008189|NCT01040728|181900329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.378|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031|<|0.0001||95.0|0.316|0.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Tio 18 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.440|0.316|<0.0001
91008190|NCT01040728|181900330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.244|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033|<|0.0001||95.0|0.179|0.309|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.309|0.179|<0.0001
91008191|NCT01040728|181900330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.216|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033|<|0.0001||95.0|0.15|0.282|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.282|0.150|<0.0001
91008192|NCT01040728|181900330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.256|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033|<|0.0001||95.0|0.191|0.321|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Tio 18 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.321|0.191|<0.0001
91078666|NCT01964716|182043078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.22||||||Serotype 5: Ratio of GMTs, MDV to SDS, was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS).||1.22|0.80|
91050530|NCT02037165|181987277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0277|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|3.8|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 3:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||3.8|-4.2|
91008193|NCT01401101|181900335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Jointly modeled outcomes at the 3 waves by time, condition, and timeXcondition, to allow for different effects at 6 and 12 mos; controlled for interview mode (phone vs. in-person); used random effects to account for correlations wi/in site \& patient.|Regression, Linear|||Intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis using the linear mixed-method model to estimate the difference between the PCM and TAU conditions||||0.97
91008194|NCT01401101|181900336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis using the linear mixed-method model to estimate the difference between the PCM and TAU conditions||||0.54
91008195|NCT01401101|181900337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33||||||Jointly modeled outcomes at the 3 waves by time, condition, and timeXcondition, to allow for different effects at 6 and 12 mos; controlled for interview mode (phone vs. in-person); using random effects to control for correlations w/in site \& patient.|Regression, Linear|||Intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis using the linear mixed-method model to estimate the difference between the PCM and TAU conditions||||0.33
91008196|NCT01610414|181900338|SUPERIORITY|Criterion: The lower limit (LL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for overall HZ vaccine efficacy was above 0%.|Vaccine efficacy|68.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.56|77.53|||Poisson method|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) was evaluated in the prevention of Herpes Zoster (HZ) in autologous haematopoietic stem cell transplant (HCT) recipients 18 years of agee and older.||77.53|55.56|<0.0001
91008197|NCT00472043|181900359|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91008198|NCT04957745|181900371|OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||"Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in Percentage of Total Viewing Time that Peripheral Target is Perceived across visual confusion conditions."|ANOVA|||"Effect of visual confusion conditions (binocular, unilateral monocular, and bilateral monocular visual confusions) on Percentage of Total Viewing Time Peripheral Target is Perceived is analyzed by repeated measure (within-subject) ANOVA. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05."||||<0.01
91008199|NCT02608892|181900396|SUPERIORITY|Use of pain management during newborn screening was described using frequency and proportion and expressed as an absolute difference in proportions with 95% confidence interval.|Absolute difference in proportions|-7.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.2|11.5||||||||11.5|-26.2|
91008200|NCT00957723|181900404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Sign test|||Change from pre-op to 1 year, 2 year and 5 year||||<0.0001
91008201|NCT00957723|181900405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Sign test|||Change from pre-op to 1, 2, and 5 year||||<0.0001
91008202|NCT00957723|181900407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Sign test|||SF36 Physical Component Score change from preop to 1 year||||<0.0001
91008203|NCT00957723|181900407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||Sign test|||SF36 Mental Component Score change from preop to 1 year||||0.0002
91008204|NCT00957723|181900407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||SF36 Physical Component Score change from preop to 2 years||||<0.0001
91008205|NCT00957723|181900407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0177|||||||Sign test|||SF36 Mental Component Score change from preop to 2 years||||0.0177
91008206|NCT00957723|181900407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||SF36 Physical Component Score change from preop to 3 year||||<0.0001
91008207|NCT00957723|181900407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0393|||||||Sign test|||SF36 Mental Component Score change from preop to 3 year||||0.0393
91008208|NCT00957723|181900407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||SF36 Physical Component Score change from preop to 4 year||||<0.0001
91008209|NCT00957723|181900407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4905|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||SF36 Mental Component Score change from preop to 4 year||||0.4905
91008210|NCT00957723|181900407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||SF36 Physical Component Score change from preop to 5 year||||<0.0001
91008211|NCT00957723|181900407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0037|||||||Sign test|||SF36 Mental Component Score change from preop to 5 year||||0.0037
91008212|NCT00957723|181900409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Sign test|||LEAS score change from preop to 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 years||||<0.0001
91008213|NCT00877890|181900422|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The choice of a 0.4% noninferiority margin was resulted from the considerations of expected clinical benefit of BYETTA in this study based on clinical data evaluating exenatide once weekly and BYETTA, regulatory guidance, published literature, and statistical considerations.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.138|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.39|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model includes treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9% or \>=9%), and concomitant SU use at screening as factors.||Superiority of exenatide once weekly to BYETTA if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for treatment difference (exenatide once weekly minus BYETTA) is \<0; noninferiority if this upper limit is \<0.4%. Power: Assuming 15% dropout rate with 206 subjects will complete the study. This sample size would provide 90% power for non-inferiority test with assumption of greater reduction (0.1%) in exenatide once weekly and a common standard deviation of 1.1%.||-0.39|-0.94|<.0001
91008214|NCT00877890|181900423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Multiplicity adjustment using Hochberg procedure for the 3 key secondary endpoints (i.e., percent to achieving HbA1c goal of \<7%, change in fasting glucose, and percent of achieving fasting plasma glucose goal of \<=126 mg/dL) was performed.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis: Percentages of subjects achieving HbA1c target value of \<7% at Week 24 were compared between treatments using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, in which baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9% or \>=9%) and concomitant SU use at screening served as the stratification factors. Null hypothesis: no difference between treatments in percentage of subjects achieving HbA1c target. Power: based on the primary measurement.||||<.0001
91008215|NCT00877890|181900424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis: Percentages of subjects achieving HbA1c target values of \<=6.5% at Week 24 were compared between treatments using a CMH test, in which baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9% or \>=9%) and concomitant SU use at screening served as the stratification factors. Null hypothesis: no difference between treatments in percentage of subjects achieving HbA1c target. Power: based on the primary measurement.||||<.0001
91008216|NCT00877890|181900425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-20.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.57||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.4|-9.5||Multiplicity adjustment using Hochberg procedure for the 3 key secondary endpoints (i.e., percent to achieving HbA1c goal of \<7%, change in fasting glucose, and percent of achieving fasting plasma glucose goal of \<=126 mg/dL) was performed.|ANCOVA|||Analysis: Change in fasting plasma glucose from baseline (Day 1) to Week 24 was analyzed by an ANCOVA model including treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9% or \>=9%), and concomitant SU use at screening as factors, and baseline value of the fasting plasma glucose as a covariate. Null hypothesis: no difference between treatments in change from baseline fasting plasma glucose. Power: based on the primary measurement.||-9.5|-31.4|0.0006
91008217|NCT00877890|181900426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|||||Multiplicity adjustment using Hochberg procedure for the 3 key secondary endpoints (i.e., percent to achieving HbA1c goal of \<7%, change in fasting glucose, and percent of achieving fasting plasma glucose goal of \<=126 mg/dL) was performed.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis: Percentages of subjects achieving fasting plasma glucose target of \<=126 mg/dL at Week 24 were compared between treatments using a CMH test, in which baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9% or \>=9%) and concomitant SU use at screening served as the stratification factors. Null hypothesis: no difference between treatments in percentage of subjects achieving fasting plasma glucose target. Power: based on the primary measurement.||||0.0008
91008218|NCT00877890|181900427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.487||0.0514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Analysis: Change in body weight from baseline (Day 1) to Week 24 was analyzed by an ANCOVA model including treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9% or \>=9%), and concomitant SU use at screening as factors, and baseline value of the body weight as a covariate. Null hypothesis: no difference between treatments in change from baseline body weight. Power: based on the primary measurement.||0.01|-1.91|0.0514
91008219|NCT00877890|181900428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.2367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|1.2|||ANCOVA|||Analysis: Change in systolic blood pressure from baseline (Day 1) to Week 24 was analyzed by an ANCOVA model including treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9% or \>=9%), and concomitant SU use at screening as factors, and baseline value of the systolic blood pressure as a covariate. Null hypothesis: no difference between treatments in change from baseline systolic blood pressure. Power: based on the primary measurement.||1.2|-4.7|0.2367
91008220|NCT00877890|181900429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98||0.7717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|2.2|||ANCOVA|||Analysis: Change in diastolic blood pressure from baseline (Day 1) to Week 24 was analyzed by an ANCOVA model including treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9% or \>=9%), and concomitant SU use at screening as factors, and baseline value of the diastolic blood pressure as a covariate. Null hypothesis: no difference between treatments in change from baseline diastolic blood pressure. Power: based on the primary measurement.||2.2|-1.7|0.7717
91008221|NCT00877890|181900430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-16.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.9|-9.1|||ANCOVA|||Analysis: Change in total cholesterol from baseline (Day 1) to Week 24 was analyzed by an ANCOVA model including treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9% or \>=9%), and concomitant SU use at screening as factors, and baseline value of the total cholesterol as a covariate. Null hypothesis: no difference between treatments in change from baseline total cholesterol. Power: based on the primary measurement.||-9.1|-22.9|<.0001
91008222|NCT00877890|181900431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.1251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Analysis: Change in HDL from baseline (Day 1) to Week 24 was analyzed by an ANCOVA model including treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9% or \>=9%), and concomitant SU use at screening as factors, and baseline value of the HDL as a covariate. Null hypothesis: no difference between treatments in change from baseline HDL. Power: based on the primary measurement.||0.3|-2.8|0.1251
91008223|NCT00877890|181900432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.2558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.04|||ANCOVA|||Analysis: Triglycerides data were logarithm-transformed and the change at Week 30 to baseline (Day 1) , expressed as the ratio, was analyzed by an ANCOVA model including treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9% or \>=9%), and concomitant SU use at screening as factors, and baseline value of the triglycerides as a covariate. Null hypothesis: no difference between treatments in change from baseline triglycerides. Power: based on the primary measurement.||1.04|0.87|0.2558
91008224|NCT04396106|181900456|OTHER|||||||0.721|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.721
91008225|NCT01628718|181900465|NON_INFERIORITY|The NI margin for CAPS-IV scores was established a priori, based on a calculation of a reliable difference from baseline to posttreatment CAPS-IV scores from a previous trial (10 points). If the 95% confidence interval (CI) around the estimate does not contain the NI margin, we can reject the null hypothesis and accept the alternative hypothesis. .|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|9.44||one-tailed|Regression, Linear||Mean difference is the difference in mean CAPS-IV change scores (pre-post) between AD and CPT-C.|Null hypothesis: AD is inferior to CPT Alternative hypothesis: AD is non-inferior to CPT-C||9.44|-10.10|.05
91008226|NCT02698176|181900470|OTHER||Estimation of DLT Rate|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.121|0.418|||||Point estimate and 2-sided 80% Bayesian credible interval for DLT rate estimated for the total number of participants from all 3 cohorts (CRPC+NMC+TNBC) that were evaluable for DLT analysis based on a non-informative prior distribution of Beta (1,1).|||0.418|0.121|
91050531|NCT02037165|181987277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0276|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|5.2|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 4:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||5.2|-2.8|
91008227|NCT02985684|181900489|OTHER|Acceptable performance: favorably exclude PG=0.88 with 95% confidence. Expected 6-month closure success proportion = 0.98. Acceptable performance margin = 0.10. PG = 0.98 - 0.10 = 0.88.|Binomial proportion|1.0|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.974|||A priori 1-sided alpha = 0.05. If test rejects H0, then test primary outcome 2 (clinical success) at 1-sided alpha = 0.05; otherwise testing stops with failure to reject both primary outcome null hypotheses.|Binomial test (exact)||Exact 1-sided confidence interval lower bound from Clopper-Pearson method.|"Test null hypothesis of equal or lesser proportion with 6-month closure success compared to a performance goal (PG).~H0: P ≤ 0.88 vs H1: P \> 0.88, where P is the true proportion of subjects with 6-month closure success and 0.88 is the PG derived from clinical study outcomes for devices indicated for ASD closure.~N=103 subjects provide ≥95% power to exclude PG with 95% confidence if P=0.98 under H1."|||0.974|<0.0001
91008228|NCT02985684|181900490|OTHER|Acceptable performance: favorably exclude PG=0.76 with 95% confidence. Expected 6-month clinical success proportion = 0.88. Acceptable performance margin = 0.12. PG = 0.88 - 0.12 = 0.76.|Binomial proportion|0.9|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.843|||A priori 1-sided alpha = 0.05. If test of primary outcome 1 rejects H0, then test at 1-sided alpha = 0.05; otherwise no testing of this primary outcome and failure to reject null hypothesis.|Binomial test (exact)||Exact 1-sided confidence interval lower bound from Clopper-Pearson method.|"Test null hypothesis of equal or lesser proportion with 6-month clinical success compared to a performance goal (PG).~H0: P ≤ 0.76 vs H1: P \> 0.76, where P is the true proportion of subjects with 6-month clinical success and 0.76 is the PG derived from clinical study outcomes for devices indicated for ASD closure.~N=112 subjects provide 95% power to exclude PG with 95% confidence if P=0.88 under H1."|||0.843|<0.0001
91050532|NCT02037165|181987277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0277|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|3.4|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 5:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||3.4|-4.6|
91050533|NCT02037165|181987277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-2.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0278|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|1.1|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 6:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||1.1|-6.9|
91008229|NCT01084096|181900507|SUPERIORITY|Trial powered to detect a 30% reduction in 28-d NM among \<5th %tile for birth weight infants. We used an intention-to-treat approach, with a model-based adaptation of the permutation test. We fitted an individual-level linear model with 28-d NM by site and randomization strata, nested within site, and computed the residual for each individual and mean cluster-level residuals. Next, we used an ANOVA model to test for trt differences between mean residuals for intervention and control clusters.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.96||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.06|||t-test, 2 sided|Cluster-level with 62 degrees of freedom \[101 clusters-37 strata-2 treatment groups\].|Calculated from generalized linear models accounting for the cluster-level variance and adjusted for randomization strata. Each stratum corresponds to 2-4 clusters within the site with equal distribution to treatment and control arms.|||1.06|0.87|0.65
91008230|NCT01084096|181900508|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.3546|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3299|0.3792|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test controlling for randomization strata.|Risk difference represents risk in the intervention clusters minus the risk in the control clusters.|The trial was powered to detect a 30% reduction in 28-day neonatal mortality among infants born at less than the 5th percentile of birth weight, based on previous research and an expected increase from 10% to 50% in the use of antenatal corticosteroids among women at risk of preterm birth in the intervention group.||0.3792|0.3299|<0.0001
91008231|NCT01084096|181900509|OTHER|Descriptive analysis.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|1.58||P-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test controlling for randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.58|1.33|<0.0001
91008232|NCT01084096|181900511|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.12||||0.0127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.22||P-value calculated from a generalized linear model with generalized estimating equations to estimate parameters while controlling for cluster correlations. Model-generated p value was adjusted for randomization strata.|Generalized linear model with GEE||Relative risk calculated from a generalized linear model with generalized estimating equations to estimate parameters while controlling for cluster correlations. Model-generated measure of risk was adjusted for randomization strata.|||1.22|1.02|0.0127
91008233|NCT01084096|181900512|OTHER|Descriptive analysis.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.11||||0.0181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.22||P-value calculated from a generalized linear model with generalized estimating equations to estimate parameters while controlling for cluster correlations. Model-generated p value was adjusted for randomization strata.|Generalized linear model with GEE||Relative risk calculated from a generalized linear model with generalized estimating equations to estimate parameters while controlling for cluster correlations. Model-generated measure of risk was adjusted for randomization strata.|||1.22|1.02|0.0181
91008234|NCT01249404|181900528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-0.1|||=|0.2859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1|||ANCOVA||LS Means for each treatment group and treatment comparisons as well as the p-values are obtained from an ANCOVA on the change from baseline with treatment, baseline MAS score, BTX treatment status at baseline and centre as covariates.|The least squares mean change from baseline to Week 4 for MAS in the Dysport® 1000 U and Placebo groups were compared using 2 contrast analyses within a single mixed effect analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model, controlling for the baseline values, the randomisation stratification factor (BTX treatment status at baseline) and the centre, all as fixed effects.||0.1|-0.3|=0.2859
91008235|NCT01249404|181900528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.3|||=|0.0091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.1|||ANCOVA||LS Means for each treatment group and treatment comparisons as well as the p-values are obtained from an ANCOVA on the change from baseline with treatment, baseline MAS score, BTX treatment status at baseline and centre as covariates.|The least squares mean change from baseline to Week 4 for MAS in the Dysport® 1500 U and Placebo groups were compared using 2 contrast analyses within a single mixed effect ANCOVA model, controlling for the baseline values, the randomisation stratification factor (BTX treatment status at baseline) and the centre, all as fixed effects.||-0.1|-0.5|=0.0091
91008236|NCT01249404|181900529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.3|||=|0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.5|||ANCOVA||LS means for each treatment group and treatment comparisons as well as the p-values are obtained from an ANCOVA on visit results with treatment, BTX treatment status at baseline and centre as covariates.|The mean PGA at Week 4 in the Dysport® 1000 U and Placebo groups were compared using 2 contrast analyses within a single mixed effect ANCOVA model, controlling for the baseline values, the randomisation stratification factor (BTX treatment status at baseline) and the centre, all as fixed effects.||0.5|-0.0|=0.0640
91008237|NCT01249404|181900529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.3|||=|0.0665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.5|||ANCOVA||LS means for each treatment group and treatment comparisons as well as the p-values are obtained from an ANCOVA on visit results with treatment, BTX treatment status at baseline and centre as covariates.|The mean PGA at Week 4 in the Dysport® 1500 U and Placebo groups were compared using 2 contrast analyses within a single mixed effect ANCOVA model, controlling for the baseline values, the randomisation stratification factor (BTX treatment status at baseline) and the centre, all as fixed effects.||0.5|-0.0|=0.0665
91008238|NCT01249404|181900529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.2||||0.0466|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA on rank PGA scores||LS means for each treatment group and treatment comparisons and the p-values are obtained from an analysis of variance on visit results based on ranked values with treatment, BTX treatment status at baseline and centre as explanatory variables.|The LS mean rank values were back transformed to the original scale to give ranked PGA scores in an attempt to better normalise the data and restore power.||||0.0466
91008239|NCT01249404|181900529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.2||||0.0406|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA on rank PGA scores||LS means for each treatment group and treatment comparisons and the p-values are obtained from an analysis of variance on visit results based on ranked values with treatment, BTX treatment status at baseline and centre as explanatory variables.|The LS mean rank values were back transformed to the original scale to give ranked PGA scores in an attempt to better normalise the data and restore power.||||0.0406
91008240|NCT01249404|181900530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.01|||=|0.7247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.03|||ANCOVA||LS Means for each treatment group and treatment comparisons as well as the p-values are obtained from an ANCOVA on the change from baseline with treatment, baseline MAS score, BTX treatment status at baseline and centre as covariates.|The least squares mean change from baseline to Week 4 for barefoot comfortable walking speed in the Dysport® 1000 U and Placebo groups were compared using 2 contrast analyses within a single mixed effect analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model, controlling for the baseline values, the randomisation stratification factor (BTX treatment status at baseline) and the centre, all as fixed effects.||0.03|-0.02|=0.7247
91008241|NCT01249404|181900530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.01|||=|0.7266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.02|||ANCOVA||LS Means for each treatment group and treatment comparisons as well as the p-values are obtained from an ANCOVA on the change from baseline with treatment, baseline MAS score, BTX treatment status at baseline and centre as covariates.|The least squares mean change from baseline to Week 4 for barefoot comfortable walking speed in the Dysport® 1500 U and Placebo groups were compared using 2 contrast analyses within a single mixed effect ANCOVA model, controlling for the baseline values, the randomisation stratification factor (BTX treatment status at baseline) and the centre, all as fixed effects.||0.02|-0.03|=0.7266
91008242|NCT04495166|181900576|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.757||||||Statistical tests were 2-sided and p values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant|t-test, 2 sided|To include participants that were not assessed in post-baseline assessments we used multiple imputation by chained equations with 100 imputations.||The sample size was calculated based on an effect size of 0.65 on depression, which is based on a previous meta-analysis (Sockol et al., 2011). Sample size calculation considered a difference in means between two independent groups, probability of type I error of 5%, statistical power of 80%, a two-tailed test, and a dropout rate of 15%.||||0.757
91008243|NCT04495166|181900577|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91||||||Statistical tests were 2-sided and p values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant|t-test, 2 sided|To include participants that were not assessed in post-baseline assessments we used multiple imputation by chained equations with 100 imputations.||||||0.910
91008244|NCT04495166|181900579|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.442||||||Statistical tests were 2-sided and p values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant|t-test, 2 sided|To include participants that were not assessed in post-baseline assessments we used multiple imputation by chained equations with 100 imputations.||||||0.442
91008245|NCT04495166|181900580|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.223||||||Statistical tests were 2-sided and p values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant|t-test, 2 sided|To include participants that were not assessed in post-baseline assessments we used multiple imputation by chained equations with 100 imputations.||||||0.223
91077673|NCT02470403|182040869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-7.96|-5.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"This analysis included dysglycemic subjects. The following criteria were assessed:~1. upper confidence limit of 80% CI for treatment difference was less than 0, and~2. estimated mean treatment difference was less than or equal to -5%. The first criterion addressed whether, with high certainty, there was superior weight loss in LIK066 treated group compared to placebo. The second criterion addressed whether observed mean reduction in body weight over placebo was at least 5%."||-5.73|-7.96|<0.001
91008246|NCT04495166|181900581|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54||||||Statistical tests were 2-sided and p values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant|t-test, 2 sided|To include participants that were not assessed in post-baseline assessments we used multiple imputation by chained equations with 100 imputations.||||||0.540
91008247|NCT04495166|181900582|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.901||||||Statistical tests were 2-sided and p values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant|t-test, 2 sided|To include participants that were not assessed in post-baseline assessments we used multiple imputation by chained equations with 100 imputations.||||||0.901
91050534|NCT02037165|181987277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0279|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|4.4|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 22:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||4.4|-3.6|
91008248|NCT04495166|181900583|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.748||||||Statistical tests were 2-sided and p values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant|t-test, 2 sided|To include participants that were not assessed in post-baseline assessments we used multiple imputation by chained equations with 100 imputations.||||||0.748
91008249|NCT00041119|181900593|SUPERIORITY|If the 5-year DFS for 4 cycles is 84.7% then a decrease of 23% in hazard rate for 6 cycles corresponds to an increase in 5-year DFS to 88%. Assuming a 2-sided significance level of 0.05, there is 90.9% power to detect such an increase at the final analysis conducted 6.4 years after study activation.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.28||||||The null hypothesis is that the hazards of both 6 and 4 cycle regimens are equal. The alternative hypothesis is a hazard ratio of 0.77, corresponding to a decrease of 23% in hazard due to longer duration of chemotherapy.||1.28|0.84|
91008250|NCT00041119|181900594|EQUIVALENCE|For T to be considered equivalent to the standard CA, a confidence interval of the hazard ratio of T to CA should be wholly to the left of 1.3, corresponding to a 30% increase in hazard rate. If the 5-year DFS for CA is 88% then an increase of 30% in hazard rate for T corresponds to 5-year DFS of 84.7%. The null hypothesis is that the hazard ratio of T to CA exceeds 1.3. The alternative hypothesis is that the two hazard rates are equivalent.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.26|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||1.48||||||||1.48||
91008251|NCT00041119|181900595|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were designed to detect effects in the marginal distributions of the two study factors, agent and length, and assume no interaction between the two factors. Calculations also assume exponential DFS and a total of 4556 treated patients accrued over 29 months and followed for four years after accrual termination for a total study time of 6.4 years. We assume the 5-year DFS of CA therapy is 88% and 84.7% for T. These assumptions are based upon results of SWOG 8897.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.27|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||1.56||||||||1.56||
91008252|NCT00041119|181900599|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were designed to detect effects in the marginal distributions of the two study factors, agent and length, and assume no interaction between the two factors. Calculations also assume exponential DFS and a total of 4556 treated patients accrued over 29 months and followed for four years after accrual termination for a total study time of 6.4 years.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.49||||||||1.49|.84|
91008253|NCT01258738|181900608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.64||||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.36|27.92||P-value \<0.05 was required to declare statistical significance.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"The null hypothesis was that the efficacy of etanercept was not different from placebo as measured by the proportion of subjects achieving an ASAS 40 response after 12 weeks of treatment. The alternative hypothesis was that the efficacy of etanercept was different from placebo.~The primary endpoint was tested at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 12 data only."||27.92|5.36|0.0062
91008254|NCT01258738|181900609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.46||||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.69|19.24|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||19.24|3.69|0.0059
91008255|NCT01258738|181900609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.19||||0.3786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.98|15.35|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made.~Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4"||15.35|-4.98|0.3786
91008256|NCT01258738|181900609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.83||||0.0304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.79|23.87|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||23.87|1.79|0.0304
91008257|NCT01258738|181900609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.52||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.29|29.75|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||29.75|7.29|0.0023
91008258|NCT01258738|181900610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.44||||0.0189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|25.68|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||25.68|3.20|0.0189
91008259|NCT01258738|181900610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.29||||0.0983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.17|22.75|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||22.75|-2.17|0.0983
91008260|NCT01258738|181900610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.61||||0.0867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.63|23.84|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||23.84|-2.63|0.0867
91008261|NCT01258738|181900610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.27||||0.0195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|29.43|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||29.43|3.10|0.0195
91008262|NCT01258738|181900611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.85|33.41|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||33.41|11.85|<0.0001
91008263|NCT01258738|181900611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.83||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.09|20.57|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||20.57|5.09|0.0021
91008264|NCT01258738|181900611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.89||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.18|24.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||24.60|5.18|0.0020
91008265|NCT01258738|181900611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.92|32.67|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||32.67|10.92|<0.0001
91008266|NCT01258738|181900612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test. For open-label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.||||<0.001
91008267|NCT01258738|181900612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.34|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||-0.34|-0.74|<0.001
91008268|NCT01258738|181900612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.41|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||-0.41|-0.81|<0.001
91008269|NCT01258738|181900612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.37|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||-0.37|-0.85|<0.001
91008270|NCT01258738|181900613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.84||||0.0209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.58|23.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||23.09|2.58|0.0209
91050535|NCT02037165|181987277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0282|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|2.9|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 24:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||2.9|-5.0|
91008271|NCT01258738|181900613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.65||||0.0179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.82|15.48|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only.~Week 2"||15.48|1.82|0.0179
91008272|NCT01258738|181900613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.81||||0.0611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|13.65|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||13.65|-0.03|0.0611
91008273|NCT01258738|181900613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.73||||0.0141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.14|22.32|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||22.32|3.14|0.0141
91008274|NCT01258738|181900613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test. For open-label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.||||<0.001
91008275|NCT01258738|181900614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||"Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made.~Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 12 data only."||||0.0022
91008276|NCT01258738|181900615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test. For open-label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.||||<0.001
91008277|NCT01258738|181900615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.0156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|-0.13|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||-0.13|-1.26|0.0156
91008278|NCT01258738|181900615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.14|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||-0.14|-1.06|0.0111
91008279|NCT01258738|181900615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42||||0.0936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.07|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||0.07|-0.91|0.0936
91008280|NCT01258738|181900615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29||||0.2678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.23|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||0.23|-0.81|0.2678
91008281|NCT01258738|181900616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test. For open-label period results included unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.||||<0.001
91008282|NCT01258738|181900616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.0102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.19|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||-0.19|-1.40|0.0102
91008283|NCT01258738|181900616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.92||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|-0.39|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||-0.39|-1.44|0.0007
91008284|NCT01258738|181900616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.79||||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|-0.23|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||-0.23|-1.35|0.0057
91050536|NCT02037165|181987278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8566|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|2.7|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 0:30h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||2.7|-4.6|
91050537|NCT02037165|181987278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-2.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.856|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|0.8|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 1:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||0.8|-6.5|
91050538|NCT02037165|181987278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-3.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8557|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|0.6|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 2:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||0.6|-6.7|
91008285|NCT01258738|181900616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.83||||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|-0.22|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||-0.22|-1.44|0.0077
91008286|NCT01258738|181900617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test. For open-label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.||||<0.001
91050539|NCT02037165|181987278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-1.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8555|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|2.0|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 3:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||2.0|-5.3|
91077890|NCT02913105|182041136|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.9||||0.1125|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|1.0|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Triglycerides: Day 14||1.00|0.80|0.1125
91008287|NCT01258738|181900617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.93||||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|-0.23|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||-0.23|-1.62|0.0091
91008288|NCT01258738|181900617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.79||||0.0097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|-0.19|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||-0.19|-1.38|0.0097
91008289|NCT01258738|181900617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.82||||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||-0.20|-1.45|0.0101
91008290|NCT01258738|181900617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.97||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|-0.33|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||-0.33|-1.61|0.0031
91008291|NCT01258738|181900618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test. For open-label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.||||<0.001
91050540|NCT02037165|181987278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8554|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|3.8|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 4:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||3.8|-3.5|
91008292|NCT01258738|181900618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.87||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|-0.25|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||-0.25|-1.49|0.0064
91008293|NCT01258738|181900618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57||||0.0407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||-0.02|-1.12|0.0407
91008294|NCT01258738|181900618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.64||||0.0349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||-0.05|-1.24|0.0349
91008295|NCT01258738|181900618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.01||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|-0.37|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||-0.37|-1.65|0.0021
91008296|NCT01258738|181900619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test. For open-label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.||||<0.001
91008297|NCT01258738|181900619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57||||0.0164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||-0.11|-1.04|0.0164
91008298|NCT01258738|181900619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.54||||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.13|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||-0.13|-0.95|0.0095
91008299|NCT01258738|181900619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55||||0.0127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.12|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||-0.12|-0.99|0.0127
91008300|NCT01258738|181900619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55||||0.0166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||-0.10|-0.99|0.0166
91008301|NCT01258738|181900620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test. For open-label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.||||<0.001
91008302|NCT01258738|181900620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.78||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|-0.27|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||-0.27|-1.28|0.0029
91008303|NCT01258738|181900620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.67||||0.0147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|-0.13|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||-0.13|-1.21|0.0147
91008304|NCT01258738|181900620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.75||||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|-0.22|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||-0.22|-1.28|0.0056
91008305|NCT01258738|181900620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.95||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|-0.39|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||-0.39|-1.52|0.0010
91008306|NCT01258738|181900621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test. For open-label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.||||<0.001
91008307|NCT01258738|181900621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.65||||0.0173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|-0.12|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||-0.12|-1.19|0.0173
91008308|NCT01258738|181900621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.1618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|0.16|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||0.16|-0.97|0.1618
91077674|NCT02470403|182040869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.76|-3.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"This analysis included normoglycemic subjects. The following criteria were assessed:~1. upper confidence limit of 80% CI for treatment difference was less than 0, and~2. estimated mean treatment difference was less than or equal to -5%. The first criterion addressed whether, with high certainty, there was superior weight loss in LIK066 treated group compared to placebo. The second criterion addressed whether observed mean reduction in body weight over placebo was at least 5%."||-3.34|-5.76|<0.001
91050541|NCT02037165|181987278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8555|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|4.3|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 5:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||4.3|-3.0|
91008309|NCT01258738|181900621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69||||0.0153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|-0.13|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||-0.13|-1.25|0.0153
91008310|NCT01258738|181900621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49||||0.0866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||0.07|-1.05|0.0866
91008311|NCT01258738|181900622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test. For open-label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.||||<0.001
91008312|NCT01258738|181900622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41||||0.1413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.14|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||0.14|-0.95|0.1413
91008313|NCT01258738|181900622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.0284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|-0.06|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||-0.06|-1.14|0.0284
91008314|NCT01258738|181900622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52||||0.0659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||0.03|-1.07|0.0659
91008315|NCT01258738|181900622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.72||||0.0098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|-0.18|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||-0.18|-1.26|0.0098
91008316|NCT01258738|181900623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test. For open-label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.||||<0.001
91008317|NCT01258738|181900623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.75||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|-0.25|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||-0.25|-1.26|0.0037
91008318|NCT01258738|181900623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|-0.25|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||-0.25|-1.35|0.0044
91078075|NCT01492101|182041421|EQUIVALENCE|\[13\] - Analysis of variance with change from baseline in linear transformed score at the last visit as the dependent variable and treatment arm, geographic region, prior use of eribulin, and receptor status as fixed effects.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.6||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.57|13.72|||F-test|||||13.72|3.57|0.0009
91008319|NCT01258738|181900623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71||||0.0104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|-0.17|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||-0.17|-1.26|0.0104
91008320|NCT01258738|181900623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.78||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.22|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||-0.22|-1.33|0.0060
91008321|NCT01258738|181900624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test. For open-label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.||||<0.001
91008322|NCT01258738|181900624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.2268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||0.19|-0.80|0.2268
91008323|NCT01258738|181900624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42||||0.1145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||0.10|-0.93|0.1145
91008324|NCT01258738|181900624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.0512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||0.00|-1.00|0.0512
91008325|NCT01258738|181900624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51||||0.0509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||0.00|-1.02|0.0509
91008326|NCT01258738|181900625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test. For open-label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.||||<0.001
91050542|NCT02037165|181987278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8557|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|2.5|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 6:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||2.5|-4.8|
91050543|NCT02037165|181987278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-1.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.856|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|2.3|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 22:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||2.3|-5.0|
91008327|NCT01258738|181900625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29||||0.243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||0.20|-0.79|0.2430
91008328|NCT01258738|181900625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56||||0.0384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||-0.03|-1.09|0.0384
91008329|NCT01258738|181900625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48||||0.0797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||0.06|-1.03|0.0797
91008330|NCT01258738|181900625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35||||0.2186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.21|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||0.21|-0.90|0.2186
91008331|NCT01258738|181900626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test. For open-label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.||||<0.001
91008332|NCT01258738|181900626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41||||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.14|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||0.14|-0.96|0.1410
91008333|NCT01258738|181900626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33||||0.2299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.21|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||0.21|-0.88|0.2299
91008334|NCT01258738|181900626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29||||0.3221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.29|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||0.29|-0.87|0.3221
91008335|NCT01258738|181900626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.1891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||0.20|-0.99|0.1891
91008336|NCT01258738|181900627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test. For open-label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.||||<0.001
91008337|NCT01258738|181900627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.09|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||0.09|-0.90|0.1080
91008338|NCT01258738|181900627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.54||||0.0389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||-0.03|-1.06|0.0389
91008339|NCT01258738|181900627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44||||0.1181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||0.11|-0.98|0.1181
91008340|NCT01258738|181900627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36||||0.2271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.22|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||0.22|-0.94|0.2271
91008341|NCT01258738|181900628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test. For open-label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.||||<0.001
91008342|NCT01258738|181900628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.75||||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||-0.24|-1.27|0.0044
91008343|NCT01258738|181900628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55||||0.0455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||-0.01|-1.09|0.0455
91008344|NCT01258738|181900628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||0.17|-0.91|0.1750
91008345|NCT01258738|181900628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.58||||0.0379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||-0.03|-1.12|0.0379
91008346|NCT01258738|181900629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test. For open-label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.||||<0.001
91008347|NCT01258738|181900629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46||||0.0826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||0.06|-0.98|0.0826
91008348|NCT01258738|181900629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.1538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.15|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||0.15|-0.96|0.1538
91008349|NCT01258738|181900629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.0728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||0.05|-1.04|0.0728
91008350|NCT01258738|181900629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45||||0.0975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||0.08|-0.99|0.0975
91008351|NCT01258738|181900630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test. For open-label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.||||<0.001
91050544|NCT02037165|181987278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8566|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|2.8|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 24:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||2.8|-4.5|
91077675|NCT02470403|182040871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.16|-1.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"This analysis on all subjects. The following criteria were assessed:~1. upper confidence limit of 80% CI for treatment difference was less than 0, and~2. estimated mean treatment difference was less than or equal to -5%. The first criterion addressed whether, with high certainty, there was superior weight loss in LIK066 treated group compared to placebo. The second criterion addressed whether observed mean reduction in body weight over placebo was at least 5%."||-1.51|-2.16|<0.001
91008352|NCT01258738|181900630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.65||||0.0186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||-0.11|-1.18|0.0186
91008353|NCT01258738|181900630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57||||0.0106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.13|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||-0.13|-1.01|0.0106
91008354|NCT01258738|181900630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||-0.20|-1.11|0.0048
91008355|NCT01258738|181900630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.81||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|-0.31|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||-0.31|-1.31|0.0016
91008356|NCT01258738|181900631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test. For open-label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.||||<0.001
91008357|NCT01258738|181900631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||-0.24|-1.37|0.0058
91008358|NCT01258738|181900631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.83||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||-0.24|-1.42|0.0064
91008359|NCT01258738|181900631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.23||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|-0.6|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||-0.60|-1.85|0.0002
91008360|NCT01258738|181900631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.83||||0.0134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|-0.17|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||-0.17|-1.49|0.0134
91008361|NCT01258738|181900632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test. For open-label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.||||<0.001
91008362|NCT01258738|181900632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57||||0.0316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||-0.05|-1.09|0.0316
91008363|NCT01258738|181900632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45||||0.0973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||0.08|-0.99|0.0973
91008364|NCT01258738|181900632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68||||0.0216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||-0.10|-1.27|0.0216
91008365|NCT01258738|181900632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39||||0.2425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|0.26|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||0.26|-1.03|0.2425
91008366|NCT01258738|181900633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test. For open-label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.||||<0.001
91008367|NCT01258738|181900633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33||||0.2688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.26|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||0.26|-0.92|0.2688
91008368|NCT01258738|181900633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.54||||0.0866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||0.08|-1.17|0.0866
91008369|NCT01258738|181900633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71||||0.0277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|-0.08|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||-0.08|-1.34|0.0277
91078076|NCT01492101|182041421|EQUIVALENCE|\[14\] - Analysis of variance with change from baseline in linear transformed score at the last visit as the dependent variable and treatment arm, geographic region, prior use of eribulin, and receptor status as fixed effects.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.8||||0.2337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.35|1.8|||F-test|||||1.8|-7.35|0.2337
91008370|NCT01258738|181900633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39||||0.239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|0.26|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||0.26|-1.04|0.2390
91008371|NCT01258738|181900634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test. For open-label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.||||<0.001
91008372|NCT01258738|181900634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46||||0.0928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||0.08|-1.00|0.0928
91008373|NCT01258738|181900634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71||||0.0139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|-0.15|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||-0.15|-1.27|0.0139
91008374|NCT01258738|181900634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.94||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|-0.36|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||-0.36|-1.53|0.0017
91008375|NCT01258738|181900634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.02||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|-0.43|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||-0.43|-1.61|0.0008
91008376|NCT01258738|181900635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test. For open-label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.||||<0.001
91008377|NCT01258738|181900635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0.4559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.38|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||0.38|-0.84|0.4559
91008378|NCT01258738|181900635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66||||0.0345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||-0.05|-1.28|0.0345
91008379|NCT01258738|181900635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||-0.05|-1.30|0.0340
91008380|NCT01258738|181900635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.0634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||0.03|-1.24|0.0634
91008381|NCT01258738|181900636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test. For open-label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.||||<0.001
91008382|NCT01258738|181900636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|-0.43|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||-0.43|-1.56|0.0007
91008383|NCT01258738|181900636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.81||||0.0073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|-0.22|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||-0.22|-1.39|0.0073
91008384|NCT01258738|181900636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85||||0.0094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|-0.21|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||-0.21|-1.48|0.0094
91008385|NCT01258738|181900636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.87||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|-0.19|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||-0.19|-1.54|0.0120
91008386|NCT01258738|181900637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.96||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.54|32.37|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||32.37|7.54|0.0029
91008387|NCT01258738|181900637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.59||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.18|19.99|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||19.99|3.18|0.0100
91008388|NCT01258738|181900637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.75||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.62|23.89|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||23.89|3.62|0.0120
91008389|NCT01258738|181900637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.12||||0.0213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.04|27.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||27.20|3.04|0.0213
91008390|NCT01258738|181900638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.88||||0.2755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.15|20.92|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||20.92|-5.15|0.2755
91008391|NCT01258738|181900638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.57||||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.39|21.54|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||21.54|-4.39|0.1950
91008392|NCT01258738|181900638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.99||||0.0278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|27.26|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||27.26|0.72|0.0278
91008393|NCT01258738|181900638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.29||||0.0174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.28|28.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||28.30|2.28|0.0174
91008394|NCT01258738|181900639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test. For open-label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.||||<0.001
91008395|NCT01258738|181900639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.54||||0.0201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.09|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 4 and 12 data only. Week 4||-0.09|-0.99|0.0201
91008396|NCT01258738|181900639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.0558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 4 and 12 data only. Week 12||0.01|-1.02|0.0558
91008397|NCT01258738|181900640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test, after Week 24. For label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.||||<0.001
91008398|NCT01258738|181900640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.6741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.28|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||0.28|-0.18|0.6741
91008399|NCT01258738|181900640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.3896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.13|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||0.13|-0.33|0.3896
91008400|NCT01258738|181900640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.7468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.31|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||0.31|-0.22|0.7468
91008401|NCT01258738|181900640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.6871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.23|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||0.23|-0.35|0.6871
91008402|NCT01258738|181900641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test, after Week 24. For label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.||||<0.001
91008403|NCT01258738|181900641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37||||0.4332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|1.32|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||1.32|-0.57|0.4332
91008404|NCT01258738|181900641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.9947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.98|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||0.98|-0.98|0.9947
91008405|NCT01258738|181900641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.74||||0.1558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|1.75|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||1.75|-0.28|0.1558
91008406|NCT01258738|181900641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.21||||0.0488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|2.39|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||2.39|0.03|0.0488
91008407|NCT01258738|181900642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test, after Week 24. For label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.||||<0.001
91008408|NCT01258738|181900642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37||||0.7645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|2.8|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||2.80|-2.06|0.7645
91008409|NCT01258738|181900642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.03||||0.4178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|3.55|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||3.55|-1.48|0.4178
91008410|NCT01258738|181900642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.06||||0.443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|3.79|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||3.79|-1.67|0.4430
91008411|NCT01258738|181900642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.39||||0.1095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|5.31|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||5.31|-0.54|0.1095
91008412|NCT01258738|181900643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test, after Week 24. For label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.||||<0.001
91008413|NCT01258738|181900643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.9504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.49|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||0.49|-0.46|0.9504
91008414|NCT01258738|181900643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.4971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.34|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||0.34|-0.70|0.4971
91008415|NCT01258738|181900643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.8999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.54|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||0.54|-0.47|0.8999
91008416|NCT01258738|181900643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.9712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.62|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||0.62|-0.60|0.9712
91008417|NCT01258738|181900644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test, after Week 24. For label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.||||<0.001
91050545|NCT02037165|181987278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8257|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|2.5|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 0:30h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||2.5|-4.7|
91008418|NCT01258738|181900644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.89||||0.4556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|3.24|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||3.24|-1.46|0.4556
91008419|NCT01258738|181900644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.85||||0.0543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|5.75|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||5.75|-0.05|0.0543
91008420|NCT01258738|181900644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.26||||0.1754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|5.53|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||5.53|-1.02|0.1754
91008421|NCT01258738|181900644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.45||||0.3985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|4.82|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||4.82|-1.93|0.3985
91008422|NCT01258738|181900645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test, after Week 24. For label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.||||<0.001
91050546|NCT02037165|181987278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-3.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8254|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|-0.4|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 1:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||-0.4|-7.6|
91050547|NCT02037165|181987278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-2.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8252|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|1.2|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 2:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||1.2|-6.0|
91050548|NCT02037165|181987278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8251|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|2.3|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 3:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||2.3|-4.9|
91050549|NCT02037165|181987278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-1.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.825|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|1.9|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 4:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||1.9|-5.3|
91050550|NCT02037165|181987278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8251|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|3.4|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 5:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||3.4|-3.8|
91050551|NCT02037165|181987278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-1.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8252|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|2.1|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 6:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||2.1|-5.0|
91050552|NCT02037165|181987278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-2.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8254|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|0.9|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 22:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||0.9|-6.2|
91077676|NCT02470403|182040871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.94|-1.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"This analysis on all subjects. The following criteria were assessed:~1. upper confidence limit of 80% CI for treatment difference was less than 0, and~2. estimated mean treatment difference was less than or equal to -5%. The first criterion addressed whether, with high certainty, there was superior weight loss in LIK066 treated group compared to placebo. The second criterion addressed whether observed mean reduction in body weight over placebo was at least 5%."||-1.84|-2.94|<0.001
91008423|NCT01258738|181900645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22||||0.2823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.62|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||0.62|-0.18|0.2823
91008424|NCT01258738|181900645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17||||0.4029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.58|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||0.58|-0.23|0.4029
91008425|NCT01258738|181900645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.51|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||0.51|-0.25|0.5110
91008426|NCT01258738|181900645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.5844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.56|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||0.56|-0.32|0.5844
91008427|NCT01258738|181900646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Most within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test. For open-label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.||||<0.001
91008428|NCT01258738|181900646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53||||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||-0.11|-0.95|0.0129
91008429|NCT01258738|181900646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.6003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.35|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||0.35|-0.61|0.6003
91008430|NCT01258738|181900646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41||||0.0911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||0.07|-0.89|0.0911
91008431|NCT01258738|181900646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||0.3144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.24|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||0.24|-0.73|0.3144
91008432|NCT01258738|181900647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Most within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test. For open-label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.||||<0.001
91008433|NCT01258738|181900647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.6476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.29|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12, data only. Week 2||0.29|-0.46|0.6476
91008434|NCT01258738|181900647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.9777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.39|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12, data only. Week 4||0.39|-0.40|0.9777
91008435|NCT01258738|181900647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.4453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.65|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12, data only. Week 8||0.65|-0.28|0.4453
91008436|NCT01258738|181900647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.5782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12, data only. Week 12||0.60|-0.33|0.5782
91008437|NCT01258738|181900648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.96||||0.0414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 12 data only.||-0.04|-1.88|0.0414
91008438|NCT01258738|181900649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test.||||<0.001
91008439|NCT01258738|181900649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.16|-1.7|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 12 data only.||-1.70|-4.16|<0.001
91008440|NCT01258738|181900650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test.||||<0.001
91008441|NCT01258738|181900650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.96||||0.0414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 12 data only.||-0.04|-1.88|0.0414
91008442|NCT01258738|181900651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.0132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.08|||ANCOVA|||"Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made.~Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 12 data only."||-0.08|-0.72|0.0132
91008443|NCT01258738|181900652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test.||||<0.001
91008444|NCT01258738|181900652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.2438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.13|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||0.13|-0.52|0.2438
91008445|NCT01258738|181900652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.1958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.09|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||0.09|-0.42|0.1958
91008446|NCT01258738|181900652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.1624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||0.08|-0.46|0.1624
91008447|NCT01258738|181900652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31||||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.08|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||-0.08|-0.54|0.0091
91008448|NCT01258738|181900653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test.||||<0.001
91008449|NCT01258738|181900653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62||||0.0836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||0.08|-1.32|0.0836
91008450|NCT01258738|181900653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.5402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|0.54|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||0.54|-1.02|0.5402
91008451|NCT01258738|181900653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.8167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.87|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||0.87|-0.69|0.8167
91008452|NCT01258738|181900653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.9891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.73|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||0.73|-0.72|0.9891
91008453|NCT01258738|181900654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test.||||<0.001
91008454|NCT01258738|181900654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.6148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||0.05|-0.08|0.6148
91008455|NCT01258738|181900654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.2547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||0.03|-0.11|0.2547
91008456|NCT01258738|181900654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.1208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||0.01|-0.08|0.1208
91008457|NCT01258738|181900654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.8291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||0.17|-0.13|0.8291
91008458|NCT01258738|181900655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test.||||<0.001
91008459|NCT01258738|181900655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21||||0.3536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.23|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||0.23|-0.64|0.3536
91008460|NCT01258738|181900655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46||||0.0769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||0.05|-0.97|0.0769
91008461|NCT01258738|181900655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.4698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.33|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||0.33|-0.70|0.4698
91008462|NCT01258738|181900655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.65||||0.0167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|-0.12|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||-0.12|-1.19|0.0167
91008463|NCT01258738|181900656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Most within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test. For open-label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.||||<0.001
91008464|NCT01258738|181900656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.39|-1.66|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||-1.66|-4.39|<0.0001
91008465|NCT01258738|181900656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.86||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.09|-1.62|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||-1.62|-6.09|0.0008
91008466|NCT01258738|181900656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.04||||0.0143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.47|-0.61|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||-0.61|-5.47|0.0143
91008467|NCT01258738|181900656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.12||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.23|-1.02|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||-1.02|-5.23|0.0038
91008468|NCT01258738|181900657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test||||<0.001
91008469|NCT01258738|181900657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.85|-4.58|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||-4.58|-10.85|<0.0001
91008470|NCT01258738|181900657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.16|-3.09|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||-3.09|-9.16|<0.0001
91008471|NCT01258738|181900657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.78||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.15|-2.41|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||-2.41|-9.15|0.0009
91008472|NCT01258738|181900657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.34|-3.73|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||-3.73|-10.34|<0.0001
91008473|NCT01258738|181900658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.037|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||With the exception of change from Baseline in the placebo group at Week 12, within group comparisons to baseline for all other treatment groups and time points were \<0.001, from paired t-test.||||0.0370
91008474|NCT01258738|181900658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.9965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.39|4.37|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||4.37|-4.39|0.9965
91008475|NCT01258738|181900658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.61||||0.197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|9.1|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||9.10|-1.89|0.1970
91008476|NCT01258738|181900658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.07||||0.0394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|11.84|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||11.84|0.30|0.0394
91008477|NCT01258738|181900659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.01 at Week 12 and \<0.001 thereafter, from paired t-test.||||<0.01
91078077|NCT01492101|182041421|EQUIVALENCE|\[15\] - Analysis of variance with change from baseline in linear transformed score at the last visit as the dependent variable and treatment arm, geographic region, prior use of eribulin, and receptor status as fixed effects.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.6|13.98|||F-test|||||13.98|6.6|<0.0001
91008478|NCT01258738|181900659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.1341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.21|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||0.21|-0.02|0.1341
91008479|NCT01258738|181900659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.0447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.14|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||0.14|0.00|0.0447
91008480|NCT01258738|181900659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.1345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.13|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||0.13|-0.02|0.1345
91008481|NCT01258738|181900660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test.||||<0.001
91008482|NCT01258738|181900660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.31||||0.1035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|2.9|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 4, 12 data only. Week 4||2.90|-0.27|0.1035
91008483|NCT01258738|181900660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.38||||0.0134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|4.26|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 4, 12 data only. Week 12||4.26|0.50|0.0134
91008484|NCT01258738|181900661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.05, from paired t-test.||||<0.05
91008485|NCT01258738|181900661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.18||||0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|3.19|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 4, 12 data only. Week 4||3.19|-0.84|0.2520
91008486|NCT01258738|181900661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.85||||0.4981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|3.34|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 4, 12 data only. Week 12||3.34|-1.63|0.4981
91008487|NCT01258738|181900662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test.||||<0.001
91008488|NCT01258738|181900662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.4621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.41|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 4, 12 data only. Week 4||0.41|-0.90|0.4621
91008489|NCT01258738|181900662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39||||0.3842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 4, 12 data only. Week 12||0.50|-1.28|0.3842
91008490|NCT01258738|181900663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test.||||<0.001
91008491|NCT01258738|181900663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17||||0.6357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.86|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 4, 12 data only. Week 4||0.86|-0.52|0.6357
91008492|NCT01258738|181900663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52||||0.2439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|0.36|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 4, 12 data only. Week 12||0.36|-1.39|0.2439
91008493|NCT01258738|181900664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test.||||<0.001
91008494|NCT01258738|181900664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52||||0.3286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|0.52|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Descriptive analysis was carried out for Week 12 data only.||0.52|-1.55|0.3286
91008495|NCT01258738|181900665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test.||||<0.001
91008496|NCT01258738|181900665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.78||||0.1829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|0.37|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 12 data only.||0.37|-1.93|0.1829
91008497|NCT01258738|181900666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.05, from paired t-test.||||<0.05
91008498|NCT01258738|181900666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.37||||0.5226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.95|9.68|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||9.68|-4.95|0.5226
91008499|NCT01258738|181900666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.62||||0.6232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|8.14|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||8.14|-4.90|0.6232
91008500|NCT01258738|181900666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.52||||0.3877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.53|11.57|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||11.57|-4.53|0.3877
91008501|NCT01258738|181900666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.74||||0.2402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.22|12.69|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||12.69|-3.22|0.2402
91008502|NCT01258738|181900667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001 at Week 16 and thereafter, from paired t-test.||||<0.001
91008503|NCT01258738|181900667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.19||||0.0193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.85|-1.52|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||-1.52|-16.85|0.0193
91008504|NCT01258738|181900667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.08||||0.173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.41|2.26|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||2.26|-12.41|0.1730
91008505|NCT01258738|181900667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.26||||0.1224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.23|1.71|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||1.71|-14.23|0.1224
91008506|NCT01258738|181900667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.14||||0.0461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.11|-0.16|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||-0.16|-18.11|0.0461
91008507|NCT01258738|181900668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test.||||<0.001
91008508|NCT01258738|181900668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.97||||0.0372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.58|-0.36|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||-0.36|-11.58|0.0372
91008509|NCT01258738|181900668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.1||||0.2126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.98|1.79|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||1.79|-7.98|0.2126
91008510|NCT01258738|181900668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.66||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.79|-0.54|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||-0.54|-12.79|0.0330
91008511|NCT01258738|181900668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.85||||0.0397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.38|-0.33|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||-0.33|-13.38|0.0397
91008512|NCT01258738|181900669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001 at Week 16 and at Week 32 and thereafter, from paired t test.||||<0.001
91008513|NCT01258738|181900669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.29||||0.0382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.12|-0.46|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||-0.46|-16.12|0.0382
91008514|NCT01258738|181900669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.25||||0.1648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.69|2.19|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||2.19|-12.69|0.1648
91008515|NCT01258738|181900669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.98||||0.1476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.11|2.15|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||2.15|-14.11|0.1476
91008516|NCT01258738|181900669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.68||||0.0687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.03|0.68|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||0.68|-18.03|0.0687
91008517|NCT01258738|181900670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test.||||<0.001
91008518|NCT01258738|181900670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44||||0.2578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|0.33|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 4, 12 data only. Week 4||0.33|-1.21|0.2578
91008519|NCT01258738|181900670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35||||0.4334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|0.52|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 4, 12 data only. Week 12||0.52|-1.21|0.4334
91008520|NCT01258738|181900671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test.||||<0.001
91050553|NCT02037165|181987278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8257|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|3.3|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 24:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||3.3|-3.9|
91050554|NCT02037165|181987279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3652|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|2.5|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 0:30h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||2.5|-2.8|
91050555|NCT02037165|181987279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|2.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3652|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|4.9|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 1:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||4.9|-0.5|
91008521|NCT01258738|181900671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.3554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|1.7|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 4, 12 data only. Week 4||1.70|-4.70|0.3554
91008522|NCT01258738|181900671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.91||||0.335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.82|1.99|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 4, 12 data only. Week 12||1.99|-5.82|0.3350
91008523|NCT01258738|181900672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.41||||14.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|28.78|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Descriptive analysis was carried out for Week 12 data only.||28.78|0.04|14.41
91008524|NCT01258738|181900673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.03||||0.1285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|24.56|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Descriptive analysis was carried out for Week 12 data only.||24.56|-2.51|0.1285
91008525|NCT01722552|181900677|EQUIVALENCE|The margin for non-equivalence was 25 percentage points.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.59|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|2.1|||Chi-squared|||The primary analysis was by intent to treat (ITT). This included data for all randomized subjects, with post-intervention adherence measured by the last 30 days of available data; adherence over the entire 6-month intervention period was measured using all available post-intervention data. Our sample size was designed to detect a 25 percentage point difference in proportion achieving optimal adherence post-intervention.||2.1|1.21|<0.05
91078078|NCT01492101|182041421|EQUIVALENCE|\[16\] - Analysis of variance with change from baseline in linear transformed score at the last visit as the dependent variable and treatment arm, geographic region, prior use of eribulin, and receptor status as fixed effects.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.74|3.69|||F-test|||||3.69|-3.74|0.99
91008526|NCT00568399|181900678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.987||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Coronary calcium score after treatment compared to baseline|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This was a pilot study without a control group. There were no power calculations (see manuscript).||||0.001
91008527|NCT00724594|181900685|OTHER|||||||0.9||||||not significant|t-test, 2 sided|||Term infant cohort : NAC vs control H0= there will be no difference in resistive index in Middle Cerebral Artery after N-acetylcysteine or saline in the term cohort.||||0.9
91008528|NCT00724594|181900685|OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Preterm infant cohort: NAC vs control H0= there will be no difference in resisitive index in MCA after N-acetylcysteine or saline in preterm cohort||||0.9
91008529|NCT00724594|181900686|OTHER|||||||0.9||||||not significant|t-test, 2 sided|||Maternal cohort: NAC versus control l H0= PT will not be different in mothers after NAC or saline||||0.9
91008530|NCT00724594|181900686|OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Infant cohort: NAC versus control H0= prothrombin time will not be different in the infants after NAC or saline||||0.9
91008531|NCT00724594|181900687|OTHER|||||||0.072|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||correcting for gestational age at birth||||0.072
91008532|NCT00724594|181900688|OTHER|||||||0.014|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.014
91008533|NCT00405756|181900693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.395|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.278|0.56||The p-value is based on unstratified log rank test of Kaplan-Meier curve differences between the treatment groups.|Log Rank|||||0.560|0.278|<0.001
91050556|NCT02037165|181987279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3652|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|3.7|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 2:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||3.7|-1.7|
91050557|NCT02037165|181987279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3652|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|3.9|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 3:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||3.9|-1.4|
91050558|NCT02037165|181987279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3652|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|3.4|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 4:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||3.4|-2.0|
91008534|NCT00405756|181900693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.494|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.347|0.702||The p-value is based on unstratified log rank test of Kaplan-Meier curve differences between the treatment groups.|Log Rank|||||0.702|0.347|<0.001
91008535|NCT00405756|181900693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.796||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.589|1.075||The p-value is based on unstratified log rank test of Kaplan-Meier curve differences between the treatment groups.|Log Rank|||||1.075|0.589|0.134
91008536|NCT00405756|181900694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.214|0.541|||Log Rank|P-value is based on unstratified log rank test of Kaplan-Meier curve differences between the treatment groups.||||0.541|0.214|<0.001
91008537|NCT00405756|181900696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.337|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.231|0.493||The p-value is based on unstratified log rank test of Kaplan-Meier curve differences between the treatment groups.|Log Rank|||||0.493|0.231|<0.001
91008538|NCT00405756|181900696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.414|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.284|0.603||The p-value is based on unstratified log rank test of Kaplan-Meier curve differences between the treatment groups.|Log Rank|||||0.603|0.284|<0.001
91008539|NCT00405756|181900696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.826||||0.223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.606|1.125||The p-value is based on unstratified log rank test of Kaplan-Meier curve differences between the treatment groups.|Log Rank|||||1.125|0.606|0.223
91008540|NCT00405756|181900697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value calculation excludes the category - Response not evaluable (NE)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91078079|NCT01492101|182041423|EQUIVALENCE|\[17\] - Analysis of variance with change from baseline in linear transformed score at the last visit as the dependent variable and treatment arm, geographic region, prior use of eribulin, and receptor status as fixed effects.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.5833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.42|4.29|||F-test|||||4.29|-2.42|0.5833
91008541|NCT00405756|181900697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0||||P-value calculation excludes the category - Response not evaluable (NE)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.009
91008542|NCT00405756|181900697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||P-value calculation excludes the category - Response not evaluable (NE)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.003
91008543|NCT00405756|181900697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.04|5.47|||Fisher Exact|||Based on dichotomized response: 1) CR or PR 2) SD or PD or NE||5.47|2.04|<0.001
91008544|NCT00405756|181900697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.58||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.62|||Fisher Exact|||Based on dichotomized response: 1) CR or PR 2) SD or PD or NE||2.62|0.95|0.096
91008545|NCT00405756|181900697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.12||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|3.37|||Fisher Exact|||Based on dichotomized response: 1) CR or PR 2) SD or PD or NE||3.37|1.33|0.002
91008546|NCT00405756|181900699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.348|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.228|0.531||The p-value is based on unstratified log rank test of Kaplan Meier curve differences between the treatment groups.|Log Rank|||||0.531|0.228|<0.001
91008547|NCT00405756|181900699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.419|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.281|0.623||The p-value is based on unstratified log rank test of Kaplan Meier curve differences between the treatment groups.|Log Rank|||||0.623|0.281|<0.001
91008548|NCT00405756|181900699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.825||||0.302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.571|1.191||The p-value is based on unstratified log rank test of Kaplan Meier curve differences between the treatment groups.|Log Rank|||||1.191|0.571|0.302
91008549|NCT00405756|181900700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.404|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.296|0.553||The p-value is based on unstratified log rank test of Kaplan Meier curve differences between the treatment groups.|Log Rank|||||0.553|0.296|<0.001
91008550|NCT00405756|181900700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.499|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.363|0.688||The p-value is based on unstratified log rank test of Kaplan Meier curve differences between the treatment groups.|Log Rank|||||0.688|0.363|<0.001
91008551|NCT00405756|181900700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.827||||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.085||The p-value is based on unstratified log rank test of Kaplan Meier curve differences between the treatment groups.|Log Rank|||||1.085|0.630|0.169
91008552|NCT01051856|181900740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.35|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.35
91008553|NCT02176226|181900742|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
91008554|NCT02176226|181900743|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
91008555|NCT03894501|181900760|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.048|||||||ANOVA|||||||.048
91008556|NCT03894501|181900761|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.037|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.037
91008557|NCT03894501|181900762|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.024
91008558|NCT03894501|181900763|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.005
91077677|NCT02470403|182040871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.93|-1.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"This analysis on all subjects. The following criteria were assessed:~1. upper confidence limit of 80% CI for treatment difference was less than 0, and~2. estimated mean treatment difference was less than or equal to -5%. The first criterion addressed whether, with high certainty, there was superior weight loss in LIK066 treated group compared to placebo. The second criterion addressed whether observed mean reduction in body weight over placebo was at least 5%"||-1.83|-2.93|<0.001
91008559|NCT03894501|181900764|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013|||||||ANOVA|||||||.013
91008560|NCT03894501|181900765|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035|||||||ANOVA|||||||.035
91008561|NCT01072500|181900766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.98|||Regression, Cox|To compare interventions, we used a likelihood ratio test from a Cox regression model, stratified by field center and sex.||||0.98|0.69|0.03
91008562|NCT01072500|181900767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.91|||Regression, Cox|||||0.91|0.57|0.006
91008563|NCT01038635|181900809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Maximal tolerated dose|75.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Maximal tolerated dose not reached as no dose limiting toxicity documented. MTD considered to be last dose level.|||||
91008564|NCT01566981|181900853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6925|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.4708||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2221|1.1629|||t-test, 2 sided|without adjustments, df=39||"Null hypothesis was that Information and Communication Technology (ICT) supported diabetes care could have significant impact on reduction of baseline glycated hemoglobin (EHbA1c) after 1 year follow-up.~The sample in intervention group was normally distributed, so observed power (two-tailed hypothesis) was 0.45, for Cohen's d= 0.6 and alpha level =0.05"||1.1629|0.2221|0.005
91008565|NCT01009333|181900866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.008
91008566|NCT01009333|181900867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.589||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.589
91008567|NCT01009333|181900868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.04
91008568|NCT01012037|181900872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.97|-0.52|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin 2.5mg bid versus Placebo||-0.52|-0.97|<0.0001
91008569|NCT01012037|181900872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.02|-0.58|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin 5mg qd versus Placebo||-0.58|-1.02|<0.0001
91008570|NCT01012037|181900872|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The pre-defined non-inferiority margin was +0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||||95.0|-0.07|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin 2.5mg bid versus Linagliptin 5mg qd||0.19|-0.07|
91008571|NCT01012037|181900873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.83|-0.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linagliptin 2.5mg bid versus Placebo||-0.48|-0.83|<0.0001
91008572|NCT01012037|181900873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.84|-0.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linagliptin 5mg qd versus Placebo||-0.49|-0.84|<0.0001
91008573|NCT01012037|181900873|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The pre-defined non-inferiority margin was +0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||||95.0|-0.1|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linagliptin 2.5mg bid versus Linagliptin 5mg qd||0.10|-0.10|
91008574|NCT01012037|181900874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.0|-0.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linagliptin 2.5mg bid versus Placebo||-0.54|-1.00|<0.0001
91008575|NCT01012037|181900874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.05|-0.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linagliptin 5mg qd versus Placebo||-0.59|-1.05|<0.0001
91008576|NCT01012037|181900874|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The pre-defined non-inferiority margin was +0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||||95.0|-0.08|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linagliptin 2.5mg bid versus Linagliptin 5mg qd||0.18|-0.08|
91008577|NCT01012037|181900875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.6||0.0029||95.0|-22.7|-4.7|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin 2.5mg bid versus Placebo||-4.7|-22.7|0.0029
91008578|NCT01012037|181900875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.6||0.0001||95.0|-26.7|-8.8|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin 5 mg qd versus Placebo||-8.8|-26.7|0.0001
91008579|NCT01012037|181900875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6||||95.0|-1.0|9.2|||ANCOVA||No non-inferiority margin was pre-defined for FPG|Linagliptin 2.5mg bid versus Linagliptin 5mg qd||9.2|-1.0|
91008580|NCT01012037|181900876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.4||0.0002||95.0|-25.3|-7.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linagliptin 2.5mg bid versus Placebo||-7.8|-25.3|0.0002
91008581|NCT01012037|181900876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.4|<|0.0001||95.0|-27.6|-10.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linagliptin 5mg qd versus Placebo||-10.2|-27.6|<0.0001
91008582|NCT01012037|181900876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||||95.0|-2.6|7.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||No non-inferiority margin was pre-defined for FPG|Linagliptin 2.5mg bid versus Linagliptin 5mg qd||7.3|-2.6|
91008583|NCT01012037|181900877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4||0.0653||95.0|-20.6|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linagliptin 2.5mg bid versus Placebo||0.6|-20.6|0.0653
91008584|NCT01012037|181900877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4||0.0047||95.0|-25.8|-4.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linagliptin 5mg qd versus Placebo||-4.7|-25.8|0.0047
91008585|NCT01012037|181900877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0||||95.0|-0.7|11.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||No non-inferiority margin was pre-defined for FPG|Linagliptin 2.5mg bid versus Linagliptin 5mg qd||11.3|-0.7|
91008586|NCT02237898|181900886|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3
91008587|NCT01809327|181900897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.657|-0.269|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||-0.269|-0.657|0.001
91008588|NCT01809327|181900897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.28|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||-0.280|-0.670|0.001
91008589|NCT01809327|181900897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.594|-0.207|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||-0.207|-0.594|0.001
91008590|NCT01809327|181900897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.557|-0.169|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||-0.169|-0.557|0.001
91008591|NCT01809327|181900897|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|P value corresponds to a comparison that canagliflozin is noninferior to Metformin XR by a margin of 0.35%.|Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.258|0.133|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||0.133|-0.258|0.001
91050559|NCT02037165|181987279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3652|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|3.0|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 5:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||3.0|-2.3|
91008592|NCT01809327|181900897|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|P value corresponds to a comparison that canagliflozin is noninferior to Metformin XR by a margin of 0.35%.|Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.307|0.082|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||0.082|-0.307|0.001
91008593|NCT01809327|181900898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.2|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||-0.2|-1.6|0.016
91008594|NCT01809327|181900898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-1.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||-1.1|-2.6|0.002
91008595|NCT01809327|181900898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.6|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||-0.6|-2.1|0.001
91008596|NCT01809327|181900898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-1.4|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||-1.4|-2.9|0.001
91008597|NCT01809327|181900899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.58||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.37|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||||2.37|1.06|0.027
91008598|NCT01809327|181900899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.21||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|3.33|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||||3.33|1.46|0.016
91008599|NCT01809327|181900900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-1.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.882||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.641|-0.182|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||-0.182|-3.641|0.060
91008600|NCT01809327|181900900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.889||0.147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.058|0.431|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||0.431|-3.058|0.147
91008601|NCT01809327|181900901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|9.5|||ANCOVA|||||9.5|1.2|0.147
91008602|NCT01809327|181900901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|8.5|||ANCOVA|||||8.5|0.2|0.147
91008603|NCT01809327|181900902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehman Estimate|-3.7||||0.608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|3.4|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||3.4|-11.1|0.608
91077678|NCT02631070|182040886|SUPERIORITY||Common Risk Difference on Response Rate|24.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.48|34.64|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||34.64|14.48|<0.0001
91008604|NCT01809327|181900902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehman Estimate|1.3||||0.806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|10.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||10.0|-7.3|0.806
91008605|NCT00852761|181900933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7298||95.0||||This is the result for the Day 3 analysis.|Chi-squared|||||||0.7298
91008606|NCT00852761|181900933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||This is the result for the Day 8 analysis.|Chi-squared|||||||1.0000
91008607|NCT00852761|181900934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7298||95.0||||This is the result for the Day 3 analysis.|Chi-squared|||||||0.7298
91008608|NCT00852761|181900934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||||||This is the result for the Day 8 analysis.|Chi-squared|||||||0.0060
91008609|NCT00852761|181900934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0||||This is the result for the Day 15 analysis.|Chi-squared|||||||0.0060
91008610|NCT00852761|181900935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0332||||||Data apply to Day 15.|Chi-squared|||||||0.0332
91008611|NCT00852761|181900937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3101||95.0||||This is the result for the Day 3 analysis.|Chi-squared|||||||0.3101
91008612|NCT00852761|181900937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7242||95.0||||This is the result for the Day 8 analysis.|Chi-squared|||||||0.7242
91008613|NCT00852761|181900937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0135||||||This is the p value for day 15|Chi-squared|||||||0.0135
91050560|NCT02037165|181987279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-1.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3652|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|1.1|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 6:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||1.1|-4.3|
91050561|NCT02037165|181987279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-1.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3652|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|1.2|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 22:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||1.2|-4.2|
91008614|NCT00852761|181900939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1449||||||P value at day 15.|Chi-squared|||||||0.1449
91008615|NCT00852761|181900939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1634||||||P value at day 3.|Chi-squared|||||||0.1634
91008616|NCT00852761|181900939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5454||||||P value at day 8.|Chi-squared|||||||0.5454
91008617|NCT00852761|181900940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6715||||||This is the p value for day 15.|Chi-squared|||||||0.6715
91008618|NCT00852761|181900940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7242||||||This is the p value for day 8.|Chi-squared|||||||0.7242
91008619|NCT00852761|181900940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6715||||||This is the p value for day 3.|Chi-squared|||||||0.6715
91008620|NCT00852761|181900941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4858||||||P value on day 8.|Chi-squared|||||||0.4858
91008621|NCT00852761|181900941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3001||||||P value on day 15.|Chi-squared|||||||0.3001
91050562|NCT02037165|181987279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3652|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|1.8|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 24:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||1.8|-3.5|
91050563|NCT02037165|181987279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-1.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3254|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|1.0|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 0:30h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||1.0|-4.2|
91050564|NCT02037165|181987279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3253|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|3.7|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 1:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||3.7|-1.5|
91050565|NCT02037165|181987279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3253|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|3.4|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 2:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||3.4|-1.8|
91050566|NCT02037165|181987279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-1.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3253|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|1.3|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 3:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||1.3|-3.9|
91050567|NCT02037165|181987279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3254|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|3.2|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 4:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||3.2|-2.0|
91077679|NCT02631070|182040886|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.065|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.278|11.259|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||11.259|2.278|<0.0001
91008622|NCT02140762|181900976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Effectiveness|67.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.0|69.0|||Generalized Linear Model||VE is based on the relative risk (RR). The Poisson Distribution and Log Link options were used in the generalized linear model to compute the log10 RR and the corresponding confidence interval. Fixed effects: treatment group, strain (and center).|H0 (Null Hypothesis): Vaccine Effectiveness (VE) ≤10%. If the lower limit of the 95% CI for VE is \> 10% the null hypothesis is to be rejected and effectiveness declared. The VE at 1 month after the 2nd injection for each strain is defined as \[1-(% of subjects without bactericidal activity at 1:4 dilution in MenABCWY group / % of subjects without bactericidal activity at 1:4 dilution in MenACWY group)\]x100. The combined VE across all strains will be computed by mean of a generalized linear model.||69|65|<0.0001
91050568|NCT02037165|181987279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3253|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|2.6|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 5:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||2.6|-2.6|
91008623|NCT02140762|181900976|OTHER|Vaccine effectiveness at one month after the second vaccination against each of the endemic US N.meningitidis serogroup B strains. Each individual strain data was analysed separately with treatment group as only independent variable in the model.|Vaccine Effectiveness|4.6|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Generalized Linear Model|||vaccine effectiveness\<10% For each strain, vaccine effectiveness (VE) of the MenABCWY compared to MenACWY was evaluated. For each strain, vaccine effectiveness (VE) of the MenABCWY compared to MenACWY was evaluated as VE= \[1- (% not killed/without bactericidal activity strains in ABCWY)/(% of not killed strains/without bactericidal activity strains in ACWY)\*100\].||||
91008624|NCT02140762|181900976|OTHER|Vaccine effectiveness at one month after the second vaccination against each of the endemic US N.meningitidis serogroup B strains. Each individual strain data was analysed separately with treatment group as only independent variable in the model.|Vaccine Effectiveness|12.7|||||TWO_SIDED||||||generalized linear model.|||Vaccine effectiveness \<30% For each strain, vaccine effectiveness (VE) of the MenABCWY compared to MenACWY was evaluated. For each strain, vaccine effectiveness (VE) of the MenABCWY compared to MenACWY was evaluated as VE= \[1- (% not killed/without bactericidal activity strains in ABCWY)/(% of not killed strains/without bactericidal activity strains in ACWY)\*100\].||||
91050569|NCT02037165|181987279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-2.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3253|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|0.6|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 6:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||0.6|-4.7|
91077680|NCT02631070|182040887|SUPERIORITY||Common Risk Difference on Response Rate|20.0||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.92|29.08|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||29.08|10.92|0.0002
91077681|NCT02631070|182040887|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.071||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.002|12.844|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||12.844|2.002|0.0002
91077682|NCT02631070|182040888|SUPERIORITY||Common Risk Difference on Response Rate|21.37||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.23|31.51|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||31.51|11.23|0.0003
91077683|NCT02631070|182040888|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.045||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.827|8.956|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||8.956|1.827|0.0003
91077684|NCT02631070|182040889|SUPERIORITY||Common Risk Difference on Response Rate|29.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.73|40.36|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||40.36|18.73|<0.0001
91077685|NCT02631070|182040889|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.306|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.526|11.146|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||11.146|2.526|<0.0001
91077686|NCT02631070|182040891|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1 -24||||<0.0001
91077687|NCT02631070|182040891|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1 - 48||||<0.0001
91077688|NCT02631070|182040892|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 1 Through Week 24||||<0.0001
91077689|NCT02631070|182040892|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 1 Through Week 48||||<0.0001
91077690|NCT02631070|182040893|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.446||||0.0445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.196|1.013|||Log Rank||HR is from the Cox proportional hazards model|||1.013|0.196|0.0445
91077691|NCT02631070|182040894|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.784||||0.5121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.362|1.699|||Log Rank||HR is from the Cox proportional hazards model|||1.699|0.362|0.5121
91077692|NCT02631070|182040896|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2382|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1 -24||||0.2382
91077693|NCT02631070|182040896|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5127|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1 - 48||||0.5127
91077694|NCT02631070|182040897|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5479|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1 -24||||0.5479
91077695|NCT02631070|182040897|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.298|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1 - 48||||0.2980
91077696|NCT02631070|182040898|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-229.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|74.43||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-375.8|-82.4|||ANCOVA|||Week 9 Through 24||-82.4|-375.8|0.0024
91077697|NCT02631070|182040898|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-319.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|144.57||0.0294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-606.3|-32.7|||ANCOVA|||Week 33 Through 48||-32.7|-606.3|0.0294
91077698|NCT02631070|182040899|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-41.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|40.18||0.3087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-120.3|38.2|||ANCOVA|||Weeks 9 Through 24||38.2|-120.3|0.3087
91077699|NCT02631070|182040899|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-24.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|93.42||0.7903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-210.7|160.8|||ANCOVA|||Weeks 33 Through 48||160.8|-210.7|0.7903
91077700|NCT02631070|182040904|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.986||||0.958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.595|1.636|||Log Rank||HR is from the Cox proportional hazards model|||1.636|0.595|0.9580
91077701|NCT01430624|182040944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|||||6 month follow-up comparison|ANOVA|df 2, 109||||||.24
91077702|NCT01430624|182040945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|||||6 month follow-up comparison|ANOVA|df = 2, 111||||||.89
91050570|NCT02037165|181987279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3253|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|3.0|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 22:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||3.0|-2.2|
91008625|NCT02140762|181900976|OTHER|Vaccine effectiveness at one month after the second vaccination against each of the endemic US N.meningitidis serogroup B strains. Each individual strain data was analysed separately with treatment group as only independent variable in the model.|Vaccine Effectiveness|18.2|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Vaccine effectiveness\<60% For each strain, vaccine effectiveness (VE) of the MenABCWY compared to MenACWY was evaluated. For each strain, vaccine effectiveness (VE) of the MenABCWY compared to MenACWY was evaluated as VE= \[1- (% not killed/without bactericidal activity strains in ABCWY)/(% of not killed strains/without bactericidal activity strains in ACWY)\*100\].||||
91050571|NCT02037165|181987279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3254|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|2.3|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 24:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||2.3|-2.9|
91050572|NCT02037165|181987280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2419|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|1.5|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 0:30h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||1.5|-3.4|
91050573|NCT02037165|181987280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2418|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|0.5|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 1:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||0.5|-4.4|
91050574|NCT02037165|181987280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2418|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|0.8|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 2:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||0.8|-4.1|
91050575|NCT02037165|181987280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2418|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|1.9|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 3:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||1.9|-3.0|
91008626|NCT02140762|181900976|OTHER|Vaccine effectiveness at one month after the second vaccination against each of the endemic US N.meningitidis serogroup B strains. Each individual strain data was analysed separately with treatment group as only independent variable in the model.|Vaccine Effectiveness|59.1|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Vaccine effectiveness \<100% For each strain, vaccine effectiveness (VE) of the MenABCWY compared to MenACWY was evaluated. For each strain, vaccine effectiveness (VE) of the MenABCWY compared to MenACWY was evaluated as VE= \[1- (% not killed/without bactericidal activity strains in ABCWY)/(% of not killed strains/without bactericidal activity strains in ACWY)\*100\].||||
91050576|NCT02037165|181987280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2418|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.7|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 4:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||2.7|-2.1|
91050577|NCT02037165|181987280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2418|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.8|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 5:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||2.8|-2.1|
91050578|NCT02037165|181987280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2418|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|2.6|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 6:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||2.6|-2.3|
91050579|NCT02037165|181987280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2418|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|1.9|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 22:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||1.9|-3.0|
91050580|NCT02037165|181987280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2419|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|1.3|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 24:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||1.3|-3.6|
91050581|NCT02037165|181987280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2344|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|1.1|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 0:30h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||1.1|-3.7|
91050582|NCT02037165|181987280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2343|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|0.5|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 1:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||0.5|-4.3|
91050583|NCT02037165|181987280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2343|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|1.3|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 2:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||1.3|-3.6|
91050584|NCT02037165|181987280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2343|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|2.5|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 3:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||2.5|-2.3|
91050585|NCT02037165|181987280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2343|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|1.7|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 4:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||1.7|-3.1|
91050586|NCT02037165|181987280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2343|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|2.8|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 5:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||2.8|-2.0|
91077703|NCT01430624|182040946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||6 week comparison|ANOVA|df = 2, 150||||||.01
91077704|NCT01430624|182040946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|||||3 month comparison|ANOVA|||||||.48
91077705|NCT01430624|182040946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|||||6 month comparison|ANOVA|||||||.17
91077706|NCT01430624|182040947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|||||6 week comparison|Chi-squared|df = 2, 154||||||.37
91050587|NCT02037165|181987280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2343|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|2.6|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 6:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||2.6|-2.3|
91008627|NCT02140762|181900977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine effectiveness|44.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.0|47.0|||General Linear Model (GLM)||VE is based on the relative risk (RR). The POISSON DISTRIBUTION and LOG LINK options was used in the generalized linear model to compute the log10 RR and the corresponding confidence interval. Fixed effects: treatment group, strain (and center).|H0 (Null Hypothesis): Vaccine Effectiveness (VE) ≤10%. If the LL of the 95% CI for VE is \> 10% the null hypothesis is to be rejected and effectiveness declared. The VE at 4 months after the second injection for each strain is defined as \[1 - (% of subjects without bactericidal activity at 1:4 dilution in MenABCWY group / % of subjects without bactericidal activity at 1:4 dilution in MenACWY group)\] x 100.The combined VE across all strains will be computed by mean of a generalized linear model.||47|41|< 0.0001
91050588|NCT02037165|181987280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2343|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|0.7|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 22:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||0.7|-4.1|
91050589|NCT02037165|181987280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2344|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|1.2|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 24:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||1.2|-3.6|
91008628|NCT02140762|181900977|OTHER|Vaccine effectiveness at one month after the second vaccination against each of the endemic US N.meningitidis serogroup B strains. Each individual strain data was analysed separately with treatment group as only independent variable in the model.|Vaccine Effectiveness|9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Vaccine effectiveness\<10% For each strain, vaccine effectiveness (VE) of the MenABCWY compared to MenACWY was evaluated. For each strain, vaccine effectiveness (VE) of the MenABCWY compared to MenACWY was evaluated as VE= \[1- (% not killed/without bactericidal activity at 1:4 dilution in MenABCWY group)/(% of not killed strains/without bactericidal activity in ACWY group)\*100\].||||
91008629|NCT02140762|181900977|OTHER|Vaccine effectiveness at one month after the second vaccination against each of the endemic US N.meningitidis serogroup B strains. Each individual strain data was analysed separately with treatment group as only independent variable in the model.|Vaccine Effectiveness|22.7|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Vaccine effectiveness\<30% For each strain, vaccine effectiveness (VE) of the MenABCWY compared to MenACWY was evaluated. For each strain, vaccine effectiveness (VE) of the MenABCWY compared to MenACWY was evaluated as VE= \[1- (% not killed/without bactericidal activity at 1:4 dilution in MenABCWY group)/(% of not killed strains/without bactericidal activity in ACWY group)\*100\].||||
91008630|NCT02140762|181900977|OTHER|Vaccine effectiveness at one month after the second vaccination against each of the endemic US N.meningitidis serogroup B strains. Each individual strain data was analysed separately with treatment group as only independent variable in the model.|Vaccine Effectiveness|19.1|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Vaccine effectiveness\<60% For each strain, vaccine effectiveness (VE) of the MenABCWY compared to MenACWY was evaluated. For each strain, vaccine effectiveness (VE) of the MenABCWY compared to MenACWY was evaluated as VE= \[1- (% not killed/without bactericidal activity at 1:4 dilution in MenABCWY group)/(% of not killed strains/without bactericidal activity in ACWY group)\*100\].||||
91008631|NCT02140762|181900977|OTHER|Vaccine effectiveness at one month after the second vaccination against each of the endemic US N.meningitidis serogroup B strains. Each individual strain data was analysed separately with treatment group as only independent variable in the model.|Vaccine Effectiveness|38.2|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Vaccine effectiveness\<100% For each strain, vaccine effectiveness (VE) of the MenABCWY compared to MenACWY was evaluated. For each strain, vaccine effectiveness (VE) of the MenABCWY compared to MenACWY was evaluated as VE= \[1- (% not killed/without bactericidal activity at 1:4 dilution in MenABCWY group)/(% of not killed strains/without bactericidal activity in ACWY group)\*100\].||||
91050590|NCT02037165|181987281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1758|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|3.1|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 0:30h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||3.1|-1.5|
91050591|NCT02037165|181987281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1755|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|2.8|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 1:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||2.8|-1.8|
91050592|NCT02037165|181987281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|2.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1752|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|4.4|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 2:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||4.4|-0.2|
91008632|NCT02140762|181900978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Effectiveness|46.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.0|49.0|||Generalized Linear Model||VE is based on the relative risk (RR).The Poisson Distribution and Log Link options were used in the generalized linear model to compute the log10 RR and the corresponding confidence interval. Fixed effects:treatment group, strain (and center).|H0 (Null Hypothesis): Vaccine Effectiveness (VE) ≤ 10%. If the lower limit of the 95% CI for VE is \>10% the null hypothesis is to be rejected and effectiveness declared. The VE at 1 month after the 2nd injection for each strain is defined as \[1-(% of subjects without bactericidal activity at 1:8 dilution in MenABCWY group / % of subjects without bactericidal activity at 1:8 dilution in MenACWY group)\]x100. The combined VE across all strains will be computed by mean of a generalized linear model.||49|43|<0.0001
91008633|NCT02140762|181900978|OTHER|Vaccine effectiveness at one month after the second vaccination against each of the endemic US N.meningitidis serogroup B strains. Each individual strain data was analysed separately with treatment group as only independent variable in the model.|Vaccine Effectiveness|25.5|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Vaccine effectiveness\<10% For each strain, vaccine effectiveness (VE) of the MenABCWY compared to MenACWY was evaluated. For each strain, vaccine effectiveness (VE) of the MenABCWY compared to MenACWY was evaluated as VE= \[1- (% not killed/without bactericidal activity at 1:8 dilution in MenABCWY group)/(% of not killed strains/without bactericidal activity in ACWY group)\*100\].||||
91008634|NCT02140762|181900978|OTHER|For each strain, vaccine effectiveness (VE) of the MenABCWY compared to MenACWY was evaluated. For each strain, vaccine effectiveness (VE) of the MenABCWY compared to MenACWY was evaluated as VE= \[1- (% not killed/without bactericidal activity at 1:8 dilution in MenABCWY group)/(% of not killed strains/without bactericidal activity in ACWY group)\*100\].|Vaccine Effectiveness|19.1|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Vaccine effectiveness\<30%||||
91008635|NCT02140762|181900978|OTHER|Vaccine effectiveness at one month after the second vaccination against each of the endemic US N.meningitidis serogroup B strains. Each individual strain data was analysed separately with treatment group as only independent variable in the model.|Vaccine Effectiveness|10.9|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Vaccine effectiveness\<60% For each strain, vaccine effectiveness (VE) of the MenABCWY compared to MenACWY was evaluated. For each strain, vaccine effectiveness (VE) of the MenABCWY compared to MenACWY was evaluated as VE= \[1- (% not killed/without bactericidal activity at 1:8 dilution in MenABCWY group)/(% of not killed strains/without bactericidal activity in ACWY group)\*100\].||||
91008636|NCT02140762|181900978|OTHER|Vaccine effectiveness at one month after the second vaccination against each of the endemic US N.meningitidis serogroup B strains. Each individual strain data was analysed separately with treatment group as only independent variable in the model.|Vaccine Effectiveness|40.9|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Vaccine effectiveness\<100% For each strain, vaccine effectiveness (VE) of the MenABCWY compared to MenACWY was evaluated. For each strain, vaccine effectiveness (VE) of the MenABCWY compared to MenACWY was evaluated as VE= \[1- (% not killed/without bactericidal activity at 1:8 dilution in MenABCWY group)/(% of not killed strains/without bactericidal activity in ACWY group)\*100\].||||
91008637|NCT02140762|181900979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Effectiveness|20.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.0|23.0||VE is based on the relative risk (RR). The POISSON DISTRIBUTION and LOG LINK options was used in the generalized linear model to compute the log10 RR and the corresponding confidence interval. Fixed effects: treatment group, strain (and center).|Generalized Linear Model||VE is based on the relative risk (RR). The POISSON DISTRIBUTION and LOG LINK options was used in the generalized linear model to compute the log10 RR and the corresponding confidence interval. Fixed effects: treatment group, strain (and center).|H0 (Null Hypothesis): Vaccine Effectiveness (VE) ≤10%. If the lower limit of 95% CI for VE is \> 10% the null hypothesis is to be rejected and effectiveness declared. The VE at 4 months after the 2nd injection for each strain is defined as \[1 - (% of subjects without bactericidal activity at 1:8 dilution in MenABCWY group/% of subjects without bactericidal activity at 1:8 dilution in MenACWY group)\] x 100. The combined VE across all strains was computed by mean of a generalized linear model.||23|16|< 0.0001
91008638|NCT02140762|181900979|OTHER|Vaccine effectiveness at one month after the second vaccination against each of the endemic US N.meningitidis serogroup B strains. Each individual strain data was analysed separately with treatment group as only independent variable in the model.|Vaccine Effectiveness|36.4|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Vaccine effectiveness\<10% For each strain, vaccine effectiveness (VE) of the MenABCWY compared to MenACWY was evaluated. For each strain, vaccine effectiveness (VE) of the MenABCWY compared to MenACWY was evaluated as VE= \[1- (% not killed/without bactericidal activity at 1:8 dilution in MenABCWY group)/(% of not killed strains/without bactericidal activity in ACWY group)\*100\].||||
91008639|NCT02140762|181900979|OTHER|Vaccine effectiveness at one month after the second vaccination against each of the endemic US N.meningitidis serogroup B strains. Each individual strain data was analysed separately with treatment group as only independent variable in the model.|Vaccine Effectiveness|15.5|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Vaccine effectiveness\<30% For each strain, vaccine effectiveness (VE) of the MenABCWY compared to MenACWY was evaluated. For each strain, vaccine effectiveness (VE) of the MenABCWY compared to MenACWY was evaluated as VE= \[1- (% not killed/without bactericidal activity at 1:8 dilution in MenABCWY group)/(% of not killed strains/without bactericidal activity in ACWY group)\*100\].||||
91050593|NCT02037165|181987281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1751|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|3.6|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 3:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||3.6|-1.0|
91050594|NCT02037165|181987281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.175|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|3.4|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 4:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||3.4|-1.2|
91050595|NCT02037165|181987281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1751|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|1.7|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 5:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||1.7|-2.9|
91050596|NCT02037165|181987281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-1.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1752|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|0.9|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 6:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||0.9|-3.7|
91050597|NCT02037165|181987281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1755|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.5|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 22:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||2.5|-2.1|
91050598|NCT02037165|181987281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1758|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|2.7|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 24:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||2.7|-1.9|
91050599|NCT02037165|181987281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-1.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1567|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|0.6|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 0:30h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||0.6|-4.0|
91050600|NCT02037165|181987281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1566|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|2.8|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 1:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||2.8|-1.8|
91050601|NCT02037165|181987281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|1.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1565|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|4.2|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 2:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||4.2|-0.4|
91050602|NCT02037165|181987281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1564|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|3.5|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 3:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||3.5|-1.0|
91077707|NCT01430624|182040947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|||||3 month comparison|Chi-squared|df = 2, 135||||||.15
91077708|NCT01430624|182040947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|||||6 month comparison|Chi-squared|df = 2, 121||||||.87
91077709|NCT01430624|182040948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|||||6 week comparison|ANOVA|df = 2, 150||||||.63
91077710|NCT01430624|182040948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|||||3 month comparison|ANOVA|df = 2, 132||||||.25
91008640|NCT02140762|181900979|OTHER|Vaccine effectiveness at one month after the second vaccination against each of the endemic US N.meningitidis serogroup B strains. Each individual strain data was analysed separately with treatment group as only independent variable in the model.|Vaccine Effectiveness|20.9|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Vaccine effectiveness\<60% For each strain, vaccine effectiveness (VE) of the MenABCWY compared to MenACWY was evaluated. For each strain, vaccine effectiveness (VE) of the MenABCWY compared to MenACWY was evaluated as VE= \[1- (% not killed/without bactericidal activity at 1:8 dilution in MenABCWY group)/(% of not killed strains/without bactericidal activity in ACWY group)\*100\].||||
91008641|NCT02140762|181900979|OTHER|Vaccine effectiveness at one month after the second vaccination against each of the endemic US N.meningitidis serogroup B strains. Each individual strain data was analysed separately with treatment group as only independent variable in the model.|Vaccine Effectiveness|11.8|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Vaccine effectiveness\<100% For each strain, vaccine effectiveness (VE) of the MenABCWY compared to MenACWY was evaluated. For each strain, vaccine effectiveness (VE) of the MenABCWY compared to MenACWY was evaluated as VE= \[1- (% not killed/without bactericidal activity at 1:8 dilution in MenABCWY group)/(% of not killed strains/without bactericidal activity in ACWY group)\*100\].||||
91050603|NCT02037165|181987281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1564|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.9|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 4:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||2.9|-1.6|
91050604|NCT02037165|181987281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference of 200 mg BI mi|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1564|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|1.8|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 5:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||1.8|-2.7|
91050605|NCT02037165|181987281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1565|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|1.5|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 6:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||1.5|-3.0|
91050606|NCT02037165|181987281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1566|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|2.4|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 22:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||2.4|-2.2|
91050607|NCT02037165|181987281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1567|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|1.6|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 24:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||1.6|-3.0|
91050608|NCT02037165|181987282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1242|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|1.7|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 0:30h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||1.7|-2.7|
91077711|NCT01430624|182040948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|||||6 month comparison|ANOVA|df = 2, 118||||||.59
91077712|NCT01430624|182040949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|||||6 week comparison|ANOVA|df = 2, 151||||||.83
91008642|NCT01711359|181901007|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Noninferiority is concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference in response rate is \>-12%|Newcombe-Wilson method|14.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.5|24.1|||||Estimation Parameter: Newcombe-Wilson method without continuity correction for difference in the response rate (Baricitinib minus Methotrexate).|||24.1|5.5|
91077713|NCT01430624|182040949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|||||3 month comparison|ANOVA|df = 2, 132||||||.29
91077714|NCT01430624|182040949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|||||6 month comparison|ANOVA|df = 2, 118||||||.13
91077715|NCT01430624|182040950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|||||6 week comparison|ANOVA|df = 2, 151||||||.012
91077716|NCT01430624|182040950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|||||3 month comparison|ANOVA|df = 2, 132||||||.31
91077717|NCT01430624|182040950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|||||6 month comparison|ANOVA|df = 2,116||||||.35
91077718|NCT01430624|182040951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|||||6 week comparison|ANOVA|df = 2, 141||||||.15
91050609|NCT02037165|181987282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.124|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|1.2|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 1:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||1.2|-3.2|
91008643|NCT01385098|181901029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||< 0.001
91008644|NCT01385098|181901030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013||||||Change from preoperative to 12 weeks|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.013
91050610|NCT02037165|181987282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1238|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|0.8|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 2:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||0.8|-3.7|
91050611|NCT02037165|181987282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1236|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|1.2|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 3:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||1.2|-3.3|
91050612|NCT02037165|181987282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1236|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|2.1|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 4:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||2.1|-2.3|
91050613|NCT02037165|181987282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1236|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|2.1|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 5:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||2.1|-2.3|
91050614|NCT02037165|181987282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1238|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|0.7|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 6:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||0.7|-3.7|
91050615|NCT02037165|181987282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.124|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|1.2|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 22:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||1.2|-3.3|
91050616|NCT02037165|181987282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1242|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|2.1|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 24:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||2.1|-2.3|
91077719|NCT01430624|182040951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|||||3 month comparison|ANOVA|df = 2, 127||||||.67
91077720|NCT01430624|182040951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|||||6 month comparison|ANOVA|df = 2, 110||||||.40
91077721|NCT03019003|182040969|OTHER||||||<|0.036|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.036
91008645|NCT01385098|181901030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||||||Change from preoperative to 12 weeks|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.010
91008646|NCT05315297|181901048|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.87
91008647|NCT05315297|181901049|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.13
91008648|NCT05315297|181901050|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.78
91008649|NCT05315297|181901051|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.59
91050617|NCT02037165|181987282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0986|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.8|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 0:30h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||1.8|-2.5|
91008650|NCT05315297|181901052|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.37
91008651|NCT05315297|181901053|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.19
91008652|NCT01138995|181901062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher's combination test|Between group difference for entire sample||||||0.75
91008653|NCT01138995|181901063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.022|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.022
91008654|NCT01138995|181901064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91008655|NCT00784225|181901068|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.75||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.79|||Regression, Cox|||Statistical analysis for number of participants with visually significant AMD in SEE sites during pill-taking for selenium||1.79|0.32|0.52
91008656|NCT00784225|181901068|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.75||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.77|||Regression, Cox|||Statistical analysis for number of participants with visually significant AMD in SEE sites during pill-taking for vitamin E||1.77|0.31|0.51
91008657|NCT00784225|181901069|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.91||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.11|||Regression, Cox|||||1.11|0.75|0.37
91050618|NCT02037165|181987282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0985|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|-0.2|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 1:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||-0.2|-4.5|
91008658|NCT00784225|181901069|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.02||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.25|||Regression, Cox|||||1.25|0.84|0.81
91008659|NCT00784225|181901070|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|2.5||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|7.98|||Regression, Cox|||Statistical analysis for number of participants with advanced AMD in SEE sites during pill-taking for selenium||7.98|0.79|0.12
91008660|NCT00784225|181901070|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.99||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|2.82|||Regression, Cox|||Statistical analysis for number of participants with advanced AMD in SEE sites during pill-taking for vitamin E||2.82|0.35|0.98
91008661|NCT00784225|181901071|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.84||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.09|||Regression, Cox|||||1.09|0.64|0.19
91008662|NCT00784225|181901071|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.08||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.41|||Regression, Cox|||||1.41|0.83|0.58
91008663|NCT02551874|181901072|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was defined by upper bound of 95% CI \<0.3%|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.085||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.03||Superiority|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for treatment, baseline HbA1c, randomization stratification factor, visit, treatment-by-visit, and baseline HbA1c-by-visit.||||0.03|-0.30|0.118
91008664|NCT02551874|181901073|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.282|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|-3.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for treatment, baseline body weight, randomization stratification factor, visit, treatment-by-visit, and baseline body weight-by-visit.||||-3.09|-4.20|<0.001
91008665|NCT02551874|181901074|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.62|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline HbA1c and randomization stratification factor (background medication of metformin with or without SU).||||0.62|0.30|<0.001
91008666|NCT02551874|181901075|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|2.67|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.67|1.16|0.008
91008667|NCT02551874|181901076|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was defined by lower bound of 95% CI \>-10%.|Adjusted Percent Difference|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.42|6.54||||||||6.54|-7.42|
91008668|NCT02551874|181901077|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was defined by upper bound of 95% CI \<12 mg/dL.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.55|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.98|-13.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for treatment, baseline measurement, randomization stratification factor, visit, treatment-by-visit, and baseline-by-visit.||||-13.00|-26.98|<0.0001
91008669|NCT02528643|181901093|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.146||||0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.774|1.696||One-sided p-value.|Log Rank||Calculated using a Cox proportional hazard model, stratified by geographic region and ECOG performance status. Hazard ratio \< 1 indicated a reduction in hazard rate in favor of enzalutamide group.|Stratified Analysis. The null hypothesis was stated as: OS distributions of the 2 arms are equivalent. The alternative hypothesis was stated as: OS is prolonged in enzalutamide arm. The null hypothesis was tested using a stratified one-sided log-rank test at the 0.10 level. Stratification factors were ECOG performance status and region from eCRF.||1.696|0.774|0.248
91008670|NCT02528643|181901093|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.142||||0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.773|1.688||One-sided p-value.|Log Rank||Calculated using a Cox proportional hazard model. Hazard ratio \< 1 indicated a reduction in hazard rate in favor of enzalutamide group.|Unstratified Analysis. The null hypothesis was stated as: OS distributions of the 2 arms are equivalent. The alternative hypothesis was stated as: OS is prolonged in enzalutamide arm. The null hypothesis was tested using a one-sided log-rank test at the 0.10 level.||1.688|0.773|0.252
91077722|NCT00561470|182040989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Stratified Hazard Ratio|0.817||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.34|0.713|0.937||Stratified Log-Rank test p-value. Stratified on ECOG Performance Status and prior Bevacizumab according to IVRS using the Cox Proportional Hazard Model. Significance threshold was set to 0.0466 using the O'Brien-Fleming alpha spending function.|Stratified Log-Rank test||Stratified on ECOG Performance Status (0 vs 1 vs 2) and prior Bevacizumab (yes vs no) according to IVRS using the Cox Proportional Hazard Model. Significance threshold was set to 0.0466 using the O'Brien-Fleming alpha spending function.|||0.937|0.713|0.0032
91008671|NCT02528643|181901098|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.039||||0.396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.732|1.474||One-sided p-value.|Log Rank||Calculated using a Cox proportional hazard model, stratified by ECOG performance status and region. Hazard ratio \< 1 indicated a reduction in hazard rate in favor of enzalutamide group.|Stratified Analysis. The null hypothesis was stated as: PFS distributions of the 2 arms are equivalent. The alternative hypothesis was stated as: PFS is prolonged in enzalutamide arm. The null hypothesis was tested using a stratified one-sided log-rank test at the 0.10 level. Stratification factors were ECOG performance status and region from eCRF.||1.474|0.732|0.396
91008672|NCT02528643|181901098|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.959||||0.586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.684|1.345||One-sided p-value.|Log Rank||Calculated using a Cox proportional hazard model. Hazard ratio \< 1 indicated a reduction in hazard rate in favor of enzalutamide group.|Unstratified Analysis. The null hypothesis was stated as: PFS distributions of the 2 arms are equivalent. The alternative hypothesis was stated as: PFS is prolonged in enzalutamide arm. The null hypothesis was tested using a one-sided log-rank test at the 0.10 level.||1.345|0.684|0.586
91008673|NCT02058940|181901113|OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||Spearman's Correlation Coefficient|||||||0.2
91008674|NCT05064449|181901160|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|116.59|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.3|148.9|||||GMR (%) was calculated as 100\*(Soticlestat + Itraconazole / Soticlestat Alone).|Linear mixed-effects model was used for analysis, using fixed-effect (treatment), random-effect (participants). The point estimates and the 90 percent (%) confidence intervals (CIs) for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) of Cmax for soticlestat with versus without itraconazole were calculated by exponentiation of the point estimates of the differences between treatments and the corresponding 90% CIs from the analyses on the ln-transformed Cmax.||148.90|91.30|
91050619|NCT02037165|181987282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0984|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|0.8|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 2:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||0.8|-3.6|
91050620|NCT02037165|181987282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0984|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|0.8|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 3:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||0.8|-3.5|
91008675|NCT05064449|181901161|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|107.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.02|130.83|||||GMR (%) was calculated as 100\*(Soticlestat + Mefenamic Acid / Soticlestat Alone).|Linear mixed-effects model was used for analysis, using fixed-effect (treatment), random-effect (participants). The point estimates and the 90% CIs for the GMR of Cmax for soticlestat with versus without mefenamic acid were calculated by exponentiation of the point estimates of the differences between treatments and the corresponding 90% CIs from the analyses on the ln-transformed Cmax.||130.83|88.02|
91008676|NCT05064449|181901162|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|123.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|106.21|144.68|||||GMR (%) was calculated as 100\*(Soticlestat + Itraconazole / Soticlestat Alone).|Linear mixed-effects model was used for analysis, using fixed-effect (treatment), random-effect (participants). The point estimates and the 90% CIs for the GMR of AUC∞ for soticlestat with versus without itraconazole were calculated by exponentiation of the point estimates of the differences between treatments and the corresponding 90% CIs from the analyses on the ln-transformed AUC∞.||144.68|106.21|
91008677|NCT05064449|181901163|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|100.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.17|117.38|||||GMR (%) was calculated as 100\*(Soticlestat + Mefenamic Acid / Soticlestat Alone).|Linear mixed-effects model was used for analysis, using fixed-effect (treatment), random-effect (participants). The point estimates and the 90% CIs for the GMR of AUC∞ for soticlestat with versus without mefenamic acid were calculated by exponentiation of the point estimates of the differences between treatments and the corresponding 90% CIs from the analyses on the ln-transformed AUC∞.||117.38|86.17|
91008678|NCT05064449|181901164|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|121.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.47|143.79|||||GMR (%) was calculated as 100\*(Soticlestat + Itraconazole / Soticlestat Alone).|Linear mixed-effects model was used for analysis, using fixed-effect (treatment), random-effect (participants). The point estimates and the 90% CIs for the GMR of AUClast for soticlestat with versus without itraconazole were calculated by exponentiation of the point estimates of the differences between treatments and the corresponding 90% CIs from the analyses on the ln-transformed AUClast.||143.79|103.47|
91008679|NCT05064449|181901165|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|107.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.68|125.77|||||GMR (%) was calculated as 100\*(Soticlestat + Mefenamic Acid / Soticlestat Alone).|Linear mixed-effects model was used for analysis, using fixed-effect (treatment), random-effect (participants). The point estimates and the 90% CIs for the GMR of AUClast for soticlestat with versus without mefenamic acid were calculated by exponentiation of the point estimates of the differences between treatments and the corresponding 90% CIs from the analyses on the ln-transformed AUClast.||125.77|91.68|
91008680|NCT05064449|181901166|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.003|||=|0.2305|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.001|0.126|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Difference was calculated as (Soticlestat + Itraconazole) - Soticlestat Alone. The difference of medians (treatment effect) and the corresponding 90% CI was estimated using the Hodges-Lehmann method and Walsh Averages.|||0.126|-0.001|=0.2305
91008681|NCT05064449|181901167|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.096|||=|0.583|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.128|0.018|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Difference was calculated as (Soticlestat + Mefenamic Acid) - Soticlestat Alone. The difference of medians (treatment effect) and the corresponding 90% was estimated using the Hodges-Lehmann method and Walsh Averages.|||0.018|-0.128|=0.5830
91008682|NCT03479203|181901194|OTHER|T-Test followed by Bonferroni post-hoc analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.96|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.5||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|6.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||"Blood assessed for C-reactive protein (CRP), soluble intercellular adhesion molecule (sICAM), the high mobility group box-1 (HMGB1), the NLRP3 inflammasome, and nitrates (NOx for nitric oxide) pre- and post-vaping. CRP, sICAM HMGB1 and NLRP3 is in ng/ml blood and NOx is in nanomol/ml. These numbers were weighted to obtain an inflammation index in blood. This index represents the fold increase over pre-vaping values."||6|1|0.05
91008683|NCT03419741|181901208|OTHER|We plan to enroll 20 participants within one year. Eleven participants were enrolled. 11/20 = 55% completed the number of enrollment.|%|11.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||percentage|||||||
91008684|NCT04450394|181901278|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is 0.4%. Non-inferiority is achieved if the upper limit of the 90% Confidence Interval is below 0.4.|LS Mean Difference|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.11|0.24||||||||0.24|-0.11|
91008685|NCT00836342|181901282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference in mean carotenoid levels between subjects with a history of squamous cell carcinom and control subjects.||||0.31
91050621|NCT02037165|181987282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0983|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|1.0|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 4:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||1.0|-3.3|
91008686|NCT00836342|181901283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.49
91008687|NCT00836342|181901284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.09
91008688|NCT01066819|181901287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.596||||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.704|18.378|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Ethnic origin (ASIAN vs WHITE/CAUCASIAN). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week \[Wk\] 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||18.378|1.704|0.0045
91077723|NCT00561470|182040990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Stratified Hazard ratio|0.758||||7e-05|TWO_SIDED|99.99|0.578|0.995||Stratified on ECOG Performance Status (0 vs 1 vs 2) and prior Bevacizumab (yes vs no) according to IVRS|Stratified Log-Rank test||Stratified on ECOG Performance Status (0 vs 1 vs 2) and prior Bevacizumab (yes vs no) according to IVRS using the Cox Proportional Hazard Model.|||0.995|0.578|0.00007
91008689|NCT01066819|181901287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.989||||0.9755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.497|1.967|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Ethnic origin (BLACK vs WHITE/CAUCASIAN). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.967|0.497|0.9755
91008690|NCT01066819|181901287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.743||||0.4786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.327|1.688|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Ethnic origin (HISPANIC vs WHITE/CAUCASIAN). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.688|0.327|0.4786
91008691|NCT01066819|181901287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.38||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.405|20.597|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Ethnic origin (OTHER vs WHITE/CAUCASIAN). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||20.597|1.405|0.0140
91008692|NCT01066819|181901287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.078|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.062|1.094|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for treatment duration after VR in weeks. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.094|1.062|<0.0001
91008693|NCT01066819|181901287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.136||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.819|20.701|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Ethnic origin (ASIAN vs WHITE/CAUCASIAN). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||20.701|1.819|0.0035
91008694|NCT01066819|181901287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.903||||0.7821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.439|1.857|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Ethnic origin (BLACK vs WHITE/CAUCASIAN). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.857|0.439|0.7821
91008695|NCT01066819|181901287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.4846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.317|1.723|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Ethnic origin (HISPANIC vs WHITE/CAUCASIAN). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.723|0.317|0.4846
91008696|NCT01066819|181901287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.424||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.353|21.749|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Ethnic origin (OTHER vs WHITE/CAUCASIAN). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||21.749|1.353|0.0170
91008697|NCT01066819|181901287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.695||||0.0125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.523|0.925|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for HCV RNA at BL in log10(IU/mL). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.925|0.523|0.0125
91008698|NCT01066819|181901287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.472||||0.0139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.288|9.357|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for average number of drinks per week (1 vs 0). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||9.357|1.288|0.0139
91008699|NCT01066819|181901287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.179||||0.6327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.601|2.311|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for average number of drinks per week (\> 1 vs 0). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||2.311|0.601|0.6327
91008700|NCT01066819|181901287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.061|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.042|1.08|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for treatment duration after VR in weeks. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.080|1.042|<0.0001
91008701|NCT01066819|181901287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.185||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.058|1.326|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Cumulative PEG-IFN alfa-2a dose per 1000 ug. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.326|1.058|0.0033
91008702|NCT01066819|181901287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.227|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.151|1.308|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for treatment duration after VR in weeks. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.308|1.151|<0.0001
91050622|NCT02037165|181987282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0984|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|1.5|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 5:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||1.5|-2.8|
91050623|NCT02037165|181987282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0984|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|0.6|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 6:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||0.6|-3.7|
91008703|NCT01066819|181901287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.814||||0.0289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.676|0.979|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for cumulative ribavirin dose per 10000 mg, 1st 12 weeks. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.979|0.676|0.0289
91008704|NCT01066819|181901287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.276|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.177|1.383|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for treatment duration after VR in weeks. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.383|1.177|<0.0001
91008705|NCT01066819|181901287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.894||||0.0099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.821|0.973|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Cumulative ribavirin dose per 10000 mg. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.973|0.821|0.0099
91008706|NCT01066819|181901287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.945||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.213|3.12|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for age per 10 years. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||3.120|1.213|0.0058
91008707|NCT01066819|181901287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.262|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.154|1.38|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for treatment duration after VR in weeks. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.380|1.154|<0.0001
91008708|NCT01066819|181901287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.945||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.213|3.12|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for age per 10 years. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||3.120|1.213|0.0058
91008709|NCT01066819|181901287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.262|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.154|1.38|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for treatment duration after VR in weeks. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.380|1.154|<0.0001
91008710|NCT01066819|181901287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.615||||0.0205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.219|10.721|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Ethnic origin (ASIAN vs WHITE/CAUCASIAN). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||10.721|1.219|0.0205
91008711|NCT01066819|181901287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.981||||0.9557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.506|1.903|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Ethnic origin (BLACK vs WHITE/CAUCASIAN). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.903|0.506|0.9557
91050624|NCT02037165|181987282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0985|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|1.2|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 22:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||1.2|-3.1|
91077724|NCT00561470|182040991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified on ECOG Performance Status (0 vs 1 vs 2) and Prior Bevacizumab (yes vs no) according to IVRS.||||||0.0001
91008712|NCT01066819|181901287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.599||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.273|1.312|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Ethnic origin (HISPANIC vs WHITE/CAUCASIAN). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.312|0.273|0.2000
91008713|NCT01066819|181901287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.684||||0.0437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.037|13.083|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for (OTHER vs WHITE/CAUCASIAN). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||13.083|1.037|0.0437
91008714|NCT01066819|181901287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|134.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.956|1009.0|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for On-treatment response (RVR vs NO RVR/EVR). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1009.0|17.956|<0.0001
91008715|NCT01066819|181901287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|77.905|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.521|576.85|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for On-treatment response (cEVR vs NO RVR/EVR). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||576.85|10.521|<0.0001
91050625|NCT02037165|181987282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0986|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|2.9|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 24:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||2.9|-1.4|
91050626|NCT02037165|181987283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-6.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2064|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|0.2|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 0:30h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||0.2|-12.5|
91050627|NCT02037165|181987283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-3.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4032|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|2.9|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 1:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||2.9|-10.6|
91050628|NCT02037165|181987283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-6.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3393|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|0.0|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 2:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||-0.0|-13.3|
91050629|NCT02037165|181987283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5727|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|5.3|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 3:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||5.3|-8.9|
91050630|NCT02037165|181987283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-4.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1554|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|1.8|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 4:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||1.8|-10.7|
91050631|NCT02037165|181987283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6161|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|4.0|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 5:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||4.0|-6.4|
91008716|NCT01066819|181901287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.527||||0.0105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.872|112.73|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for On-treatment response (pEVR vs NO RVR/EVR). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||112.73|1.872|0.0105
91008717|NCT01066819|181901287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.563||||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.152|2.12|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for age per 10 years. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||2.120|1.152|0.0041
91008718|NCT01066819|181901287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.557|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.405|12.838|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for On-treatment response, combined (RVR vs NO RVR). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||12.838|2.405|<0.0001
91008719|NCT01066819|181901287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.822||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.216|2.732|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for age per 10 years. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||2.732|1.216|0.0037
91008720|NCT01066819|181901287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.342|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.977|32.347|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for On-treatment response, combined (RVR vs NO RVR). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||32.347|3.977|<0.0001
91008721|NCT01066819|181901287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.112|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.068|1.158|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for treatment duration after VR in weeks. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2b.||1.158|1.068|<0.0001
91050632|NCT02037165|181987283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-2.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1849|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|4.0|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 6:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||4.0|-8.7|
91077725|NCT02028169|182040998|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Friedman test|||Baseline vs. Month 9||||< 0.001
91008722|NCT01066819|181901287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.112|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.068|1.158|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for treatment duration after VR in weeks. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2b.||1.158|1.068|<0.0001
91008723|NCT01066819|181901287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.921||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.686|14.362|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for On-treatment response, combined (RVR vs NO RVR). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2b.||14.362|1.686|0.0035
91008724|NCT01066819|181901304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.441||||0.0162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.226|0.859|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Sex (MALE vs FEMALE). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.859|0.226|0.0162
91008725|NCT01066819|181901304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.745||||0.0156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.111|2.741|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for HCV RNA at BL in log10(IU/mL). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||2.741|1.111|0.0156
91008726|NCT01066819|181901304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.372||||0.1075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.829|6.789|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Alanine Aminotransferase (ALT) ratio at BL (\<=1 vs \> 3). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||6.789|0.829|0.1075
91008727|NCT01066819|181901304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.906||||0.8518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.321|2.559|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for ALT ratio at BL (\> 1 - 3 vs \> 3). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||2.559|0.321|0.8518
91008728|NCT01066819|181901304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.969||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.951|0.988|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for treatment duration after VR in weeks. The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.988|0.951|0.0012
91077726|NCT02028169|182040999|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Friedman test|||Baseline vs. Month 9||||< 0.001
91077727|NCT02028169|182041000|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Friedman test|||Baseline Vs. Month 9||||< 0.001
91077728|NCT02028169|182041001|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Friedman test|||Baseline vs. Month 9||||< 0.001
91077729|NCT02028169|182041002|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Friedman test|||Baseline vs. Month 3||||< 0.001
91077730|NCT02028169|182041002|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Friedman test|||Baseline vs. Month 6||||< 0.001
91077731|NCT02028169|182041002|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Friedman test|||Baseline vs. Month 9||||< 0.001
91077732|NCT02028169|182041005|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Friedman test|||Baseline vs. Month 3||||< 0.001
91077733|NCT02028169|182041005|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Friedman test|||Baseline vs. Month 6||||< 0.001
91077734|NCT02028169|182041005|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Friedman test|||Baseline vs. Month 9||||< 0.001
91077735|NCT02028169|182041006|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Friedman test|||Baseline vs. Month 3||||< 0.001
91077736|NCT02028169|182041006|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Friedman test|||Baseline vs. Month 6||||< 0.001
91077737|NCT02028169|182041006|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Friedman test|||Baseline vs. Month 9||||< 0.001
91077738|NCT02028169|182041007|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Friedman test|||Baseline vs. Month 9||||< 0.001
91077739|NCT02028169|182041008|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Friedman test|||Baseline vs. Month 3||||< 0.001
91077740|NCT02028169|182041008|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Friedman test|||Baseline vs. Month 6||||< 0.001
91077741|NCT02028169|182041008|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Friedman test|||Baseline vs. Month 9||||< 0.001
91077742|NCT02028169|182041010|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Friedman test|||Baseline vs. Month 9||||< 0.001
91077743|NCT02028169|182041012|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Friedman test|||Baseline vs. Month 3||||< 0.001
91077744|NCT02028169|182041012|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Friedman test|||Baseline vs. Month 6||||< 0.001
91077745|NCT02028169|182041012|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Friedman test|||Baseline vs. Month 9||||< 0.001
91077746|NCT02028169|182041013|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Friedman test|||Baseline vs. Month 3||||< 0.001
91077747|NCT02028169|182041013|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Friedman test|||Baseline vs. Month 6||||< 0.001
91077748|NCT02028169|182041013|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Friedman test|||Baseline vs. Month 9||||< 0.001
91077749|NCT02028169|182041014|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Friedman test|||Baseline vs. Month 3||||< 0.001
91077750|NCT02028169|182041014|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Friedman test|||Baseline vs. Month 6||||< 0.001
91077751|NCT02028169|182041014|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Friedman test|||Baseline vs. Month 9||||< 0.001
91077752|NCT02028169|182041015|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Friedman test|||Baseline vs. Month 3||||< 0.001
91077753|NCT02028169|182041015|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Friedman test|||Baseline vs. Month 6||||< 0.001
91077754|NCT02028169|182041015|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Friedman test|||Baseline vs. Month 9||||< 0.001
91077755|NCT02028169|182041016|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Friedman test|||Baseline vs. Month 3||||< 0.001
91077756|NCT02028169|182041016|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Friedman test|||Baseline vs. Month 6||||< 0.001
91077757|NCT02028169|182041016|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Friedman test|||Baseline vs. Month 9||||< 0.001
91077758|NCT02240069|182041045|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models with a fixed term for mean pre-intervention response measure, and a nested random effect to account for repeated measures.||Pre- to post-intervention change in FEV1 for Education group relative to Placebo group||0.02|-0.24|0.10
91077759|NCT02240069|182041045|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models with a fixed term for mean pre-intervention response measure, and a nested random effect to account for repeated measures.||Pre- to post-intervention change in FEV1 for Filtration group relative to Placebo group||0.13|-0.11|0.90
91077760|NCT02240069|182041046|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models with a fixed term for mean pre-intervention response measure, and a nested random effect to account for repeated measures.||Pre- to post-intervention change in FVC for Education group relative to Placebo group||0.07|-0.24|0.28
91077761|NCT02240069|182041046|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models with a fixed term for mean pre-intervention response measure, and a nested random effect to account for repeated measures.||Pre- to post-intervention change in FVC for Filter group relative to Placebo group||0.16|-0.14|0.89
91077762|NCT02240069|182041047|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models with a fixed term for mean pre-intervention response measure, and a nested random effect to account for repeated measures.||Pre- to post-intervention change in FEV1/FVC for Education group relative to Placebo group||0.00|-0.05|0.06
91077763|NCT02240069|182041047|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models with a fixed term for mean pre-intervention response measure, and a nested random effect to account for repeated measures.||Pre- to post-intervention change in FEV1/FVC for Filter group relative to Placebo group||0.02|-0.03|0.71
91077764|NCT02240069|182041048|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.46||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.45|4.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models with a fixed term for mean pre-intervention response measure, and a nested random effect to account for repeated measures.||Pre- to post-intervention change in systolic blood pressure for Education group relative to Placebo group||4.54|-11.45|0.39
91077765|NCT02240069|182041048|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.25||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.73|8.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models with a fixed term for mean pre-intervention response measure, and a nested random effect to account for repeated measures.||Pre- to post-intervention change in systolic blood pressure for Filter group relative to Placebo group||8.24|-7.73|0.95
91077766|NCT02240069|182041049|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.42|3.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models with a fixed term for mean pre-intervention response measure, and a nested random effect to account for repeated measures.||Pre- to post-intervention change in diastolic blood pressure for Education group relative to Placebo group||3.42|-5.42|0.65
91050633|NCT02037165|181987283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-2.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7688|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|4.7|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 22:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||4.7|-10.3|
91050634|NCT02037165|181987283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.857|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|4.4|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 24:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||4.4|-7.0|
91050635|NCT02037165|181987283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-6.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1527|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|-0.07|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 0:30h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||-.07|-13.2|
91050636|NCT02037165|181987283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-4.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3457|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|2.4|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 1:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||2.4|-10.9|
91050637|NCT02037165|181987283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-3.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2806|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|2.9|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 2:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||2.9|-10.1|
91050638|NCT02037165|181987283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5078|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|6.2|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 3:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||6.2|-7.8|
91050639|NCT02037165|181987283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0965|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|6.1|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 4:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||6.1|-6.2|
91077767|NCT02240069|182041049|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.58||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.97|3.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models with a fixed term for mean pre-intervention response measure, and a nested random effect to account for repeated measures.||Pre- to post-intervention change in diastolic blood pressure for Filter group relative to Placebo group||3.81|-4.97|0.79
91077768|NCT02240069|182041050|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.9||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.6|42.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models adjusted for pre-intervention PM2.5. The model includes a nested random term to account for repeated measures.||Pre- to post-intervention change in indoor PM2.5 concentration for Education group relative to Placebo group||42.0|-33.6|0.88
91077769|NCT02240069|182041050|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-50.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.1|-27.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models adjusted for pre-intervention PM2.5. The model includes a nested random term to account for repeated measures.||Pre- to post-intervention change in indoor PM2.5 concentration for Filter group relative to Placebo group||-27.8|-66.1|<0.001
91077770|NCT01712334|182041069|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ratio of the mean percent predicted FEV1 at the end of the eRapid treatment to the mean percent predicted FEV1 at the end of the LC Plus jet nebulizer treatment. The two nebulizers were considered equivalent if the 90% CI was within 80%-125%.|Ratio (Fieller's theorem)|100.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.5|102.3||||||||102.3|99.5|
91008729|NCT01066819|181901304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.441||||0.0162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.226|0.859|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Sex (MALE vs FEMALE). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.859|0.226|0.0162
91008730|NCT01066819|181901304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.745||||0.0156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.111|2.741|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for HCV RNA at BL in log10(IU/mL). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||2.741|1.111|0.0156
91008731|NCT01066819|181901304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.372||||0.1075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.829|6.789|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for ALT ratio at BL (\<=1 vs \> 3). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||6.789|0.829|0.1075
91077771|NCT00232596|182041071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Non-parametric rank analysis of covariance adjusted for baseline 28-seizure frequency and stratified by baseline seizure frequency category and region|Non-parametric rank ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91077772|NCT00232596|182041072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91077773|NCT02407054|182041097|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5871|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3967|0.869||||||||0.8690|0.3967|
91077774|NCT02407054|182041098|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6515|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4123|1.0294||||||||1.0294|0.4123|
91077775|NCT01447927|182041121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7981|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Rum Test (1-sided)|||The null hypothesis was that the percent change in mean pS6K1 values (from pre to post) was the same or increased for the metformin arm as compared to placebo. Assuming equal standard deviations (i.e. 50%) across the metformin and placebo groups, 30 participants per arm yielded 84% power to detect at least a 35% decrease in the metformin arm as compared to placebo, using a 1-sided t-test with a significant level of 0.05.||||0.7981
91008732|NCT01066819|181901304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.906||||0.8518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.321|2.559|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for ALT ratio at BL (\> 1 - 3 vs \> 3). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||2.559|0.321|0.8518
91008733|NCT01066819|181901304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.969||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.951|0.988|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for treatment duration after VR in weeks. The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.988|0.951|0.0012
91008734|NCT01066819|181901304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.848||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.765|0.94|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for treatment duration after VR in weeks. The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.940|0.765|0.0017
91008735|NCT01066819|181901304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.848||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.765|0.94|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for treatment duration after VR in weeks. The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.940|0.765|0.0017
91008736|NCT01066819|181901304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.401||||0.0071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.206|0.78|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Sex (MALE vs FEMALE). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.780|0.206|0.0071
91008737|NCT01066819|181901304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.016||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.169|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for On-treatment response (RVR vs NO RVR/EVR). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.169|0.001|0.0006
91008738|NCT01066819|181901304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.076||||0.0255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.008|0.729|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for On-treatment response (cEVR vs NO RVR/EVR). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.729|0.008|0.0255
91008739|NCT01066819|181901304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.184||||0.1501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.018|1.845|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for On-treatment response (pEVR vs NO RVR/EVR). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.845|0.018|0.1501
91008740|NCT01066819|181901304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|27.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.729|110.35|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for On-treatment response (cEVR vs RVR). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||110.35|6.729|<0.0001
91008741|NCT01192139|181901326|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|BE was concluded if the 90% CIs for the test-to-reference ratios of geometric means were entirely contained within 0.800 to 1.250 for both Cmax and AUC0-inf of saxagliptin|Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|1.039|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.011|1.068|||||Ratio=Treatment B/Treatment A. Geometric least squares means values are presented in other statistical analysis entries.|If there was no difference between the bioavailabilities of saxagliptin from the FDC tablet versus saxagliptin from coadministration of a saxagliptin tablet and a metformin XR tablet under fed conditions, then 24 subjects would have provided 99% power to conclude bioequivalence (BE) with respect to Cmax and AUC0-inf. If there was a 5% difference, then 24 subjects would have provided 94% and 99% power to conclude BE with respect to Cmax and AUC0-inf, respectively.||1.068|1.011|
91008742|NCT01192139|181901326|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Lack of food effect was concluded if the 90% CIs for the test-to-reference ratios of geometric means were entirely contained within (80%, 125%) for both Cmax and AUC(INF) of saxagliptin and metformin.|Ratio of Least Squares Means|1.078|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.049|1.108|||||Ratio=Treatment B/Treatment C. Geometric least squares means values are presented in other statistical analysis entries.|||1.108|1.049|
91008743|NCT01192139|181901326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares mean (ng*hr/mL)|104.65||||||95.0||||||||Geometric least squares means for treatment A||||
91008744|NCT01192139|181901326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares mean (ng*hr/mL)|108.74||||||95.0||||||||Geometric least squares means for treatment B||||
91008745|NCT01192139|181901326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares mean (ng*hr/mL)|100.84||||||95.0||||||||Geometric least squares mean for treatment C||||
91008746|NCT01192139|181901328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Mean|1.039|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.011|1.068|||||Ratio = Treatment B/Treatment A. Geometric least squares means values are presented in other statistical analysis entries.|||1.068|1.011|
91008747|NCT01192139|181901328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.051|1.11|||||Ratio=Treatment B/Treatment C. Geometric least squares means values are presented in other statistical analysis entries.|||1.110|1.051|
91008748|NCT01192139|181901328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares mean (ng*hr/mL)|102.84||||||95.0||||||||Geometric least squares mean for treatment A||||
91008749|NCT01192139|181901328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares mean (ng*hr/mL)|106.89||||||95.0||||||||Geometric least squares mean for treatment B||||
91008750|NCT01192139|181901328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares mean (ng*hr/mL)|98.99||||||95.0||||||||Geometric least squares mean for treatment C||||
91008751|NCT01192139|181901329|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|BE was concluded if the 90% CIs for the test-to-reference ratios of geometric means were entirely contained within 0.800 to 1.250 for both Cmax and AUC0-inf of saxagliptin.|Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|1.021|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|1.109|||||Ratio=Treatment B/Treatment A. Geometric least squares means values are presented in other statistical analysis entries.|If there was no difference between the bioavailabilities of saxagliptin from the FDC tablet versus saxagliptin from coadministration of a saxagliptin tablet and a metformin XR tablet under fed conditions, then 24 subjects would have provided 99% power to conclude bioequivalence (BE) with respect to Cmax and AUC0-inf. If there was a 5% difference, then 24 subjects would have provided 94% and 99% power to conclude BE with respect to Cmax and AUC0-inf, respectively.||1.109|0.940|
91008752|NCT01192139|181901329|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Lack of food effect was concluded if the fed to fasted ratios of geometric means were entirely contained within (80%, 125%) for both Cmax and AUC(INF) of saxagliptin.|Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|0.949|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.873|1.031|||||Ratio = Treatment B/Treatment C. Geometric least squares means values are presented in other statistical analysis entries.|||1.031|0.873|
91008753|NCT01192139|181901329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares mean (ng*hr/mL)|25.68||||||95.0||||||||Geometric least squares mean for treatment A||||
91008754|NCT01192139|181901329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares mean (ng*hr/mL)|26.21||||||95.0||||||||Geometric least squares mean for treatment B||||
91008755|NCT01192139|181901329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares mean (ng*hr/mL)|27.63||||||95.0||||||||Geometric least squares mean for treatment C||||
91050640|NCT02037165|181987283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5649|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|4.0|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 5:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||4.0|-6.1|
91050641|NCT02037165|181987283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-2.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.125|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|3.7|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 6:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||3.7|-8.8|
91050642|NCT02037165|181987283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-3.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7013|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|3.5|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 22:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||3.5|-11.2|
91050643|NCT02037165|181987283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-3.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8201|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|2.6|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 24:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||2.6|-8.7|
91050644|NCT02037165|181987284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-3.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5753|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|1.3|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 0:30h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||1.3|-8.9|
91050645|NCT02037165|181987284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-4.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5162|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|0.3|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 1:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||0.3|-9.8|
91050646|NCT02037165|181987284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-6.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9156|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|-0.3|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 2:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||-0.3|-11.9|
91008756|NCT01192139|181901338|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|BE concluded if the 90% CIs for the test-to-reference ratios of geometric means were entirely contained within (80%, 125%) for both Cmax and AUC(INF) of saxagliptin and metformin.|Ratio of Least Squares Geometric Means|0.915|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.836|1.002|||||Ratio = Treatment B/Treatment A. Geometric least squares means values are presented in other statistical analysis entries.|If there was no difference between the bioavailabilities of metformin from the FDC tablet versus metformin from coadministration of a saxagliptin tablet and a metformin XR tablet under fed conditions, then 24 subjects would have provided 99% power to conclude BE with respect to Cmax and AUC0-inf. If there was a 5% difference, then 24 subjects would have provided 96% and 97% power to conclude BE with respect to Cmax and AUC0-inf, respectively.||1.002|0.836|
91008757|NCT01192139|181901338|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|lack of food effect concluded if the 90% CIs for the test-to-reference ratios of geometric means were entirely contained within (80%, 125%) for both Cmax and AUC(INF) of saxagliptin and metformin.|Ratio of Geometric LS Mean and 90% CI|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.918|1.111|||||Ratio = Treatment B/Treatment C. Geometric least squares means values are presented in other statistical analysis entries.|||1.111|0.918|
91008758|NCT01192139|181901338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares mean (ng*hr/mL)|5542.2||||||95.0||||||||Geometric least squares means for treatment A||||
91008759|NCT01192139|181901338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares mean (ng*hr/mL)|5072.9||||||95.0||||||||Geometric least squares mean for treatment B||||
91008760|NCT01192139|181901338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares mean (ng*hr/mL)|5023.3||||||95.0||||||||Geometric least squares mean for treatment C||||
91008761|NCT01192139|181901339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Mean|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.854|0.992|||||Ratio=Treatment B/Treatment A. Geometric least squares means values are presented in other statistical analysis entries.|||0.992|0.854|
91008762|NCT01192139|181901339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|1.025|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.951|1.105|||||Ratio=Treatment B/Treatment C. Geometric least squares means values are presented in other statistical analysis entries.|||1.105|0.951|
91008763|NCT01192139|181901339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares mean (ng*hr/mL)|5287.1||||||95.0||||||||Geometric least squares means for treatment A||||
91008764|NCT01192139|181901339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares mean (ng*hr/mL)|4866.2||||||95.0||||||||Geometric least squares mean for treatment B||||
91008765|NCT01192139|181901339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares mean (ng*hr/mL)|4746.8||||||95.0||||||||Geometric least squares means for treatment C||||
91050647|NCT02037165|181987284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-6.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4987|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|0.1|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 3:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||0.1|-13.8|
91008766|NCT01192139|181901340|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|BE was concluded if the 90% CIs for the test-to-reference ratios of geometric means were entirely contained within 0.800 to 1.250 for both Cmax and AUC0-inf of metformin.|Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|0.933|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.865|1.007|||||Ratio = Treatment B/Treatment A. Geometric least squares means values are presented in other statistical analysis entries.|If there was no difference between the bioavailabilities of metformin from the FDC tablet versus metformin from coadministration of a metformin XR tablet under fed conditions, then 24 subjects would have provided 99% power to conclude BE with respect to Cmax and AUC0-inf. If there was a 5% difference, then 24 subjects would have provided 96% and 97% power to conclude BE with respect to Cmax and AUC0-inf, respectively.||1.007|0.865|
91008767|NCT01192139|181901340|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Lack of food effect was concluded if the 90% CIs for the test-to-reference ratios of geometric means were entirely contained within (80%, 125%) for both Cmax and AUC(inf) of saxagliptin and metformin.|Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|0.898|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.832|0.969|||||Ration = Treatment B/Treatment C. Geometric least squares means values are presented in other statistical analysis entries.|||0.969|0.832|
91008768|NCT01192139|181901340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares mean (ng*hr/mL)|608.41||||||95.0||||||||Geometric least squares mean for treatment A||||
91078080|NCT01492101|182041423|EQUIVALENCE|\[18\] - Analysis of variance with change from baseline in linear transformed score at the last visit as the dependent variable and treatment arm, geographic region, prior use of eribulin, and receptor status as fixed effects.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.3098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|3.9|||F-test|||||3.9|-1.24|0.3098
91008769|NCT01192139|181901340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares mean (ng*hr/mL)|567.85||||||95.0||||||||Geometric least squares mean for treatment B||||
91008770|NCT01192139|181901340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares mean (ng*hr/mL)|632.39||||||95.0||||||||Geometric least squares mean for treatment C||||
91008771|NCT03287960|181901346|OTHER|Two-sided confidence interval obtained using Clopper-Pearson method and one-sided p-value obtained from exact binomial test, testing that at least 5% of participants in the population of interest will achieve 10% weight loss.||||||0.0001|||||||Clopper-Pearson method|||||||0.0001
91008772|NCT03287960|181901347|OTHER|Two-sided confidence interval (CI) obtained using Clopper-Pearson method and one-sided p-value obtained from exact binomial test, testing that at least 5% of patients in the population of interest would achieve 10% weight loss.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Clopper-Pearson method|||||||<0.0001
91008773|NCT03287960|181901348|OTHER|Model based summary statistics from longitudinal mixed analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with fixed effect for visit, baseline body weight and random effect for participant, one sided p-value from model.|Least Squares Mean|-12.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.08|-9.66|||ANOVA|Longitudinal mixed ANOVA||||-9.66|-15.08|<.0001
91008774|NCT03287960|181901349|OTHER|Model based summary statistics from longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effect for week, baseline daily hunger score and random effect for participant, one sided p-value from model.|Least Squares Mean|-42.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-56.35|-29.02|||ANOVA|Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance (ANOVA) model||||-29.02|-56.35|<.0001
91008775|NCT03287960|181901350|OTHER|Two-sided CI obtained using Clopper-Pearson method and one-sided p-value obtained from exact binomial test, testing that ≥5 % of participants in the population of interest would achieve ≥25 % improvement in daily hunger score.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Clopper-Pearson method|||||||<.0001
91008776|NCT03287960|181901351|OTHER|Model based summary statistics from longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effect for visit, baseline waist circumference and random effect for participant, one sided p-value from model.|Least Squares Mean|-8.9||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.1|-3.61|||ANOVA|Longitudinal mixed ANOVA||||-3.61|-14.10|0.0031
91008777|NCT03287960|181901354|OTHER|Model based summary statistics from longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effect for week, baseline BMI and random effect for participant, one sided p-value from model.|Least Squares Mean|-14.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.8|-11.2|||ANOVA|Longitudinal mixed ANOVA model||||-11.20|-16.80|<.0001
91008778|NCT03812224|181901356|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.62|||<|0.001||95.0|-2.52|-0.73|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||The primary endpoint was analyzed using a generalized linear mixed model which includes treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, stratification factors of migraine type and prior migraine preventive treatment status, and baseline value as covariates and assumes a first-order auto regression covariance structure.||-0.73|-2.52|<0.001
91050648|NCT02037165|181987284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-5.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6922|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|2.1|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 4:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||2.1|-12.6|
91008779|NCT03812224|181901357|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.33||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|4.23|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, stratified by stratification factors of migraine type and prior migraine preventive treatment status.||||4.23|1.29|0.005
91008780|NCT03812224|181901358|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.47|||<|0.001||95.0|-2.24|-0.71|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||Analysis utilizes a generalized linear mixed model which includes treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, stratification factors of migraine type (episodic migraine or chronic migraine) and prior migraine preventive treatment status (ever used or never used), and baseline value as covariates and assumes a first-order auto regression covariance structure.||-0.71|-2.24|<0.001
91008781|NCT02600715|181901376|EQUIVALENCE|Test for differences in continuous variables.||||||0.94||||||Two-sided alpha of 0.05 was used to determine statistical significance.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.94
91008782|NCT00656136|181901384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.077||||0.7428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.862|1.346||P-value is one-sided (afatinib vs placebo) log rank test stratified by gender and baseline ECOG score (0,1 vs 2)|Regression, Cox|Model stratified by gender and baseline ECOG score (0,1 vs 2)||Primary analysis was performed after 358 deaths were observed among randomized patients. The data cut-off date for the primary analysis was 08 July 2010.||1.346|0.862|0.7428
91008783|NCT00656136|181901384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.976||||0.3955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.814|1.17||P-value is one-sided (afatinib vs placebo) log rank test stratified by gender and baseline ECOG score (0,1 vs 2)|Regression, Cox|Model stratified by gender and baseline ECOG score (0,1 vs 2)||Final analysis was performed after 526 deaths were observed among randomized patients. The data cut-off date for the final analysis was 04 October 2013.||1.170|0.814|0.3955
91008784|NCT00656136|181901385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.381|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.306|0.475||P-value is one-sided (afatinib vs placebo) log rank test stratified by gender and baseline ECOG score (0,1 vs 2)|Regression, Cox|Model stratified by gender and baseline ECOG score (0,1 vs 2)||||0.475|0.306|<0.0001
91008785|NCT00656136|181901386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|15.61||||0.0071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|115.0||P-value is derived from logistic regression model adjusted for stratification factors, gender and baseline ECOG score (0, 1 vs 2)|Regression, Logistic|Model stratified by gender and baseline ECOG score (0,1 vs 2)||||115|2.1|0.0071
91008786|NCT04853368|181901387|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.22|4.04||One-sided p-value; p-value \<=0.05 indicates significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Primary analysis of ppFEV1 using MMRM excludes data inconsistent with baseline in terms of the timing of bronchodilator or airway clearance regimen.||||4.04|1.22|0.002
91008787|NCT04853368|181901387|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.92||0.254|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.07|4.67||One-sided p-value; p-value \<=0.05 indicates significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Primary analysis of ppFEV1 using MMRM excludes data inconsistent with baseline in terms of the timing of bronchodilator or airway clearance regimen.||||4.67|-2.07|0.254
91008788|NCT04853368|181901387|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.9||||0.402|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.07|6.77||One-sided p-value; p-value \<=0.05 indicates significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Primary analysis of ppFEV1 using MMRM excludes data inconsistent with baseline in terms of the timing of bronchodilator or airway clearance regimen.||||6.77|-5.07|0.402
91008789|NCT04853368|181901389|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|5.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.63||0.022|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.07|9.92||One-sided p-value; p-value \<=0.05 indicates significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|The LS mean is estimated using the mixed-Effect model repeat measurement method.||||9.92|1.07|0.022
91008790|NCT04853368|181901389|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-14.1||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.59|-0.62||One-sided p-value; p-value \<=0.05 indicates significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|The LS mean is estimated using the mixed-Effect model repeat measurement method.||||-0.62|-27.59|0.043
91008791|NCT04853368|181901390|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047||0.003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.059|0.219||One-sided p-value; p-value \<=0.05 indicates significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|The LS mean is estimated using the mixed-Effect model repeat measurement method.||||0.219|0.059|0.003
91008792|NCT04853368|181901390|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.089||0.475|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.162|0.15||One-sided p-value; p-value \<=0.05 indicates significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|The LS mean is estimated using the mixed-Effect model repeat measurement method.||||0.150|-0.162|0.475
91008793|NCT04853368|181901390|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.06||||0.352|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.332|0.212||One-sided p-value; p-value \<=0.05 indicates significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|The LS mean is estimated using the mixed-Effect model repeat measurement method.||Cohort 2: Difference between Triple Therapy and Placebo||0.212|-0.332|0.352
91008794|NCT04853368|181901391|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.089|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0403||0.017|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0209|0.1568||One-sided p-value; p-value \<=0.05 indicates significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|The LS mean is estimated using the mixed-Effect model repeat measurement method.||||0.1568|0.0209|0.017
91008795|NCT04853368|181901391|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.103|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1033||0.169|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1814|0.288||One-sided p-value; p-value \<=0.05 indicates significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|The LS mean is estimated using the mixed-Effect model repeat measurement method.||||0.2880|-0.1814|0.169
91008796|NCT04853368|181901391|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.136||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1809|0.4527||One-sided p-value; p-value \<=0.05 indicates significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|The LS mean is estimated using the mixed-Effect model repeat measurement method.||||0.4527|-0.1809|0.230
91008797|NCT04853368|181901392|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|4.4||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.04|6.78||One-sided p-value; p-value \<=0.05 indicates significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.78|2.04|0.002
91008798|NCT04853368|181901392|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|1.3||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.42|6.97||One-sided p-value; p-value \<=0.05 indicates significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.97|-4.42|0.350
91008799|NCT04853368|181901392|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|1.3||||0.412|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.75|11.34||One-sided p-value; p-value \<=0.05 indicates significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.34|-8.75|0.412
91008800|NCT04853368|181901393|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|4.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.19|6.524||One-sided p-value; p-value \<=0.05 indicates significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.524|2.190|<0.001
91008801|NCT04853368|181901393|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.59||||0.396|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.449|3.268||One-sided p-value; p-value \<=0.05 indicates significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.268|-4.449|0.396
91008802|NCT04853368|181901393|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-2.0||||0.305|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.724|4.732||One-sided p-value; p-value \<=0.05 indicates significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.732|-8.724|0.305
91008803|NCT04853368|181901394|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|6.475||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.4443|11.5056||One-sided p-value; p-value \<=0.05 indicates significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.5056|1.4443|0.018
91008804|NCT04853368|181901394|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|6.019||||0.214|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.1464|19.1844||One-sided p-value; p-value \<=0.05 indicates significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||19.1844|-7.1464|0.214
91008805|NCT04853368|181901394|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|7.29||||0.286|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.186|29.766||One-sided p-value; p-value \<=0.05 indicates significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||29.7660|-15.1860|0.286
91008806|NCT04853368|181901395|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|5.6||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.26|11.37||One-sided p-value; p-value \<=0.05 indicates significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.37|-0.26|0.057
91008807|NCT04853368|181901395|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|8.6||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.18|19.4||One-sided p-value; p-value \<=0.05 indicates significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||19.40|-2.18|0.088
91008808|NCT04853368|181901395|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|11.2||||0.142|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.9|29.25||One-sided p-value; p-value \<=0.05 indicates significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Note: The LS mean is estimated using the linear regression on the change in CFQ-R from baseline to day 29.||||29.25|-6.90|0.142
91008809|NCT00266799|181901422|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Non-inferiority was tested using the upper limit of the 95% CI for the hazard ratio as quantitative estimate of the minimum effect of PLD relative to capecitabine. Margin for non-inferiority was set to 1.143, reflecting an acceptable difference in TTP of 0.75 months assuming an expected median TTP of up to 6 months with the comparator. If the estimate was below margin, PLD was to be considered non-inferior to capecitabine assuming sufficient sensitivity to detect the drug effects of~interest."|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.6686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.54|||Log Rank|||By Investigator Assessment of ITT Population||1.54|0.76|0.6686
91008810|NCT00266799|181901422|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Non-inferiority was tested using the upper limit of the 95% CI for the hazard ratio as quantitative estimate of the minimum effect of PLD relative to capecitabine. Margin for non-inferiority was set to 1.143, reflecting an acceptable difference in TTP of 0.75 months assuming an expected median TTP of up to 6 months with the comparator. If the estimate was below margin, PLD was to be considered non-inferior to capecitabine assuming sufficient sensitivity to detect the drug effects of~interest."|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||0.4472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.65|||Log Rank|||By RECIST Criteria of ITT Population||1.65|0.80|0.4472
91008811|NCT00266799|181901422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.5508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.77|||Log Rank|||By Investigator Assessment of TTP Population||1.77|0.74|0.5508
91008812|NCT00266799|181901422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.21||||0.4088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.89|||Log Rank|||By RECIST Criteria of TTP Population||1.89|0.77|0.4088
91008813|NCT00266799|181901423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1726||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||By Investigator Assessment||||0.1726
91008814|NCT00266799|181901423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6541||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||By RECIST Criteria||||0.6541
91008815|NCT00266799|181901424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.5265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.58|||Log Rank|||||1.58|0.79|0.5265
91008816|NCT00266799|181901425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.29||||0.0841||95.0|||||Log Rank|p-value also given for Hazard Ratio||||||0.0841
91008817|NCT02607865|181901427|NON_INFERIORITY|This hypothesis was controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the in-trial observation period. The estimated treatment effect includes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (treatment policy estimand). A value of 0.3% (the non-inferiority margin) was added to imputed values at week 26 for the oral semaglutide treatment arm only.|Mean treatment difference|-0.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.4||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from the non-inferiority margin (non-inferiority). The non-inferiority margin was 0.3%.|Pattern mixture model||Oral semaglutide 14 mg - Sitagliptin 100 mg|The analysis was based on a pattern mixture model using multiple imputation to handle missing week 26 data, assuming that data were missing at random within the groups used for imputation. The imputed data sets were analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c value as covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete data sets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||-0.4|-0.6|< 0.0001
91008818|NCT02607865|181901427|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the in-trial observation period. The estimated treatment effect includes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (treatment policy estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-0.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.4||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0 (superiority).|Pattern mixture model||Oral semaglutide 14 mg - Sitagliptin 100 mg|The analysis was based on a pattern mixture model using multiple imputation to handle missing week 26 data, assuming that data were missing at random within the groups used for imputation. The imputed data sets were analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment, strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c value as covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete data sets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||-0.4|-0.6|< 0.0001
91008819|NCT02607865|181901427|NON_INFERIORITY|This hypothesis was controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the in-trial observation period. The estimated treatment effect includes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (treatment policy estimand). A value of 0.3% (the non-inferiority margin) was added to imputed values at week 26 for the oral semaglutide treatment arm only.|Mean treatment difference|-0.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.1||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from the non-inferiority margin (non-inferiority). The non-inferiority margin was 0.3%.|Pattern mixture model||Oral semaglutide 7 mg - Sitagliptin 100 mg|The analysis was based on a pattern mixture model using multiple imputation to handle missing week 26 data, assuming that data were missing at random within the groups used for imputation. The imputed data sets were analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment, strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c value as covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete data sets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||-0.1|-0.4|< 0.0001
91008820|NCT02607865|181901427|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the in-trial observation period. The estimated treatment effect includes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (treatment policy estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-0.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.1||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0 (superiority).|Pattern mixture model||Oral semaglutide 7 mg - Sitagliptin 100 mg|The analysis was based on a pattern mixture model using multiple imputation to handle missing week 26 data, assuming that data were missing at random within the groups used for imputation. The imputed data sets were analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment, strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c value as covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete data sets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||-0.1|-0.4|< 0.0001
91008821|NCT02607865|181901427|NON_INFERIORITY|This hypothesis was controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the in-trial observation period. The estimated treatment effect includes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (treatment policy estimand). A value of 0.3% (the non-inferiority margin) was added to imputed values at week 26 for the oral semaglutide treatment arm only.|Mean treatment difference|0.2|||=|0.0856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.3||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from the non-inferiority margin (non-inferiority). The non-inferiority margin was 0.3%.|Pattern mixture model||Oral semaglutide 3 mg - Sitagliptin 100 mg|The analysis was based on a pattern mixture model using multiple imputation to handle missing week 26 data, assuming that data were missing at random within the groups used for imputation. The imputed data sets were analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment, strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c value as covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete data sets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||0.3|0.1|= 0.0856
91008822|NCT02607865|181901427|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity, since the non-inferiority test of change in HbA1c for oral semaglutide 3 mg versus sitagliptin 100 mg could not be confirmed. Results are based on the data from the in-trial observation period. The estimated treatment effect includes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (treatment policy estimand).|Mean treatment difference|0.2|||=|0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.3||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0 (superiority).|Pattern mixture model||Oral semaglutide 3 mg - Sitagliptin 100 mg. If the mean treatment difference is non-negative, the superiority hypothesis of oral semaglutide 3 mg vs sitagliptin 100 mg will never be confirmed irrespective of the observed two-sided p-value.|The analysis was based on a pattern mixture model using multiple imputation to handle missing week 26 data, assuming that data were missing at random within the groups used for imputation. The imputed data sets were analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment, strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c value as covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete data sets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||0.3|0.0|= 0.0080
91008823|NCT02607865|181901427|NON_INFERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The estimated treatment effect excludes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (hypothetical estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-0.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.5||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from the non-inferiority margin (non-inferiority). The non-inferiority margin was 0.3%.|MMRM||Oral semaglutide 14 mg - Sitagliptin 100 mg|The analysis was based on a mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM) that assumed data to be missing at random. As dependent variables, the MMRM model included all post-baseline values collected at scheduled visits up to and including week 26. The independent effects were treatment, strata and region as categorical fixed effects and the baseline HbA1c value as a covariate, all nested within visit, and an unstructured residual covariance matrix.||-0.5|-0.7|<0.0001
91008824|NCT02607865|181901427|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The estimated treatment effect excludes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (hypothetical estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-0.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.5||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0 (superiority).|MMRM||Oral semaglutide 14 mg - Sitagliptin 100 mg|The analysis was based on a MMRM that assumed data to be missing at random. As dependent variables, the MMRM model included all post-baseline values collected at scheduled visits up to and including week 26. The independent effects were treatment, strata and region as categorical fixed effects and the baseline HbA1c value as a covariate, all nested within visit, and an unstructured residual covariance matrix.||-0.5|-0.7|<0.0001
91050649|NCT02037165|181987284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-4.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6166|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|2.5|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 5:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||2.5|-11.9|
91008825|NCT02607865|181901427|NON_INFERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The estimated treatment effect excludes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (hypothetical estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-0.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.2||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from the non-inferiority margin (non-inferiority). The non-inferiority margin was 0.3%.|MMRM||Oral semaglutide 7 mg - Sitagliptin 100 mg|The analysis was based on a MMRM that assumed data to be missing at random. As dependent variables, the MMRM model included all post-baseline values collected at scheduled visits up to and including week 26. The independent effects were treatment, strata and region as categorical fixed effects and the baseline HbA1c value as a covariate, all nested within visit, and an unstructured residual covariance matrix.||-0.2|-0.4|<0.0001
91008826|NCT02607865|181901427|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The estimated treatment effect excludes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (hypothetical estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-0.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.2||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0 (superiority).|MMRM||Oral semaglutide 7 mg - Sitagliptin 100 mg|The analysis was based on a MMRM that assumed data to be missing at random. As dependent variables, the MMRM model included all post-baseline values collected at scheduled visits up to and including week 26. The independent effects were treatment, strata and region as categorical fixed effects and the baseline HbA1c value as a covariate, all nested within visit, and an unstructured residual covariance matrix.||-0.2|-0.4|<0.0001
91008827|NCT02607865|181901427|NON_INFERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The estimated treatment effect excludes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (hypothetical estimand).|Mean treatment difference|0.2|||=|0.3851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.4||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from the non-inferiority margin (non-inferiority). The non-inferiority margin was 0.3%.|MMRM||Oral semaglutide 3 mg - Sitagliptin 100 mg|The analysis was based on a MMRM that assumed data to be missing at random. As dependent variables, the MMRM model included all post-baseline values collected at scheduled visits up to and including week 26. The independent effects were treatment, strata and region as categorical fixed effects and the baseline HbA1c value as a covariate, all nested within visit, and an unstructured residual covariance matrix.||0.4|0.1|=0.3851
91008828|NCT02607865|181901427|OTHER|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The estimated treatment effect excludes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (hypothetical estimand).|Mean treatment difference|0.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.4||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0 (superiority).|MMRM||Oral semaglutide 3 mg - Sitagliptin 100 mg. If the mean treatment difference is non-negative, the superiority hypothesis of oral semaglutide 3 mg vs sitagliptin 100 mg will never be confirmed irrespective of the observed two-sided p-value.|The analysis was based on a MMRM that assumed data to be missing at random. As dependent variables, the MMRM model included all post-baseline values collected at scheduled visits up to and including week 26. The independent effects were treatment, strata and region as categorical fixed effects and the baseline HbA1c value as a covariate, all nested within visit, and an unstructured residual covariance matrix.||0.4|0.1|<0.0001
91008829|NCT02607865|181901428|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the in-trial observation period. The estimated treatment effect includes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (treatment policy estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-2.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-2.0||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0 (superiority).|Pattern mixture model||Oral semaglutide 14 mg - Sitagliptin 100 mg|The analysis was based on a pattern mixture model using multiple imputation to handle missing week 26 data, assuming that data were missing at random within the groups used for imputation. The imputed data sets were analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment, strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline body weight value as covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete data sets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||-2.0|-3.0|< 0.0001
91008830|NCT02607865|181901428|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the in-trial observation period. The estimated treatment effect includes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (treatment policy estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-1.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-1.1||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0 (superiority).|Pattern mixture model||Oral semaglutide 7 mg - Sitagliptin 100 mg|The analysis was based on a pattern mixture model using multiple imputation to handle missing week 26 data, assuming that data were missing at random within the groups used for imputation. The imputed data sets were analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment, strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline body weight value as covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete data sets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||-1.1|-2.0|< 0.0001
91050650|NCT02037165|181987284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-3.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7073|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|4.3|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 6:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||4.3|-10.5|
91077776|NCT02913105|182041124|OTHER|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (Body Mass Index (BMI) group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.97||||0.7489|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|1.13|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||||1.13|0.83|0.7489
91008831|NCT02607865|181901428|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity, since the non-inferiority test of change in HbA1c for oral semaglutide 3 mg versus sitagliptin 100 mg could not be confirmed. Results are based on the data from the in-trial observation period. The estimated treatment effect includes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (treatment policy estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-0.6|||=|0.0185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.1||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0 (superiority).|Pattern mixture model||Oral semaglutide 3 mg - Sitagliptin 100 mg|The analysis was based on a pattern mixture model using multiple imputation to handle missing week 26 data, assuming that data were missing at random within the groups used for imputation. The imputed data sets were analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment, strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline body weight value as covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete data sets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||-0.1|-1.1|= 0.0185
91008832|NCT02607865|181901428|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The estimated treatment effect excludes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (hypothetical estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-2.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-2.1||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0 (superiority).|MMRM||Oral semaglutide 14 mg - Sitagliptin 100 mg|The analysis was based on a MMRM that assumed data to be missing at random. As dependent variables, the MMRM model included all post-baseline values collected at scheduled visits up to and including week 26. The independent effects were treatment, strata and region as categorical fixed effects and the baseline body weight value as a covariate, all nested within visit, and an unstructured residual covariance matrix.||-2.1|-3.1|<0.0001
91008833|NCT02607865|181901428|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The estimated treatment effect excludes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (hypothetical estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-1.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-1.1||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0 (superiority).|MMRM||Oral semaglutide 7 mg - Sitagliptin 100 mg|The analysis was based on a MMRM that assumed data to be missing at random. As dependent variables, the MMRM model included all post-baseline values collected at scheduled visits up to and including week 26. The independent effects were treatment, strata and region as categorical fixed effects and the baseline body weight value as a covariate, all nested within visit, and an unstructured residual covariance matrix.||-1.1|-2.0|<0.0001
91008834|NCT02607865|181901428|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The estimated treatment effect excludes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (hypothetical estimand).|type Mean treatment difference|-0.5|||=|0.0257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.1||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0 (superiority).|MMRM||Oral semaglutide 3 mg - Sitagliptin 100 mg|The analysis was based on a MMRM that assumed data to be missing at random. As dependent variables, the MMRM model included all post-baseline values collected at scheduled visits up to and including week 26. The independent effects were treatment, strata and region as categorical fixed effects and the baseline body weight value as a covariate, all nested within visit, and an unstructured residual covariance matrix.||-0.1|-1.0|=0.0257
91008835|NCT02607865|181901449|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.34|||=|0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.65||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox||Oral semaglutide 3 mg / Sitagliptin 100 mg|Time to initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment, strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Withdrawal for any reason or lost to follow-up contributed to the analysis as events (initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication). Censoring time was one day before planned end of treatment.||1.65|1.09|=0.0063
91008836|NCT02607865|181901449|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77|||=|0.0221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.96||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox||Oral semaglutide 7 mg / Sitagliptin 100 mg|Time to initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment, strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Withdrawal for any reason or lost to follow-up contributed to the analysis as events (initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication). Censoring time was one day before planned end of treatment.||0.96|0.61|=0.0221
91008837|NCT02607865|181901449|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.68||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox||Oral semaglutide 14 mg / Sitagliptin 100 mg|Time to initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment, strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Withdrawal for any reason or lost to follow-up contributed to the analysis as events (initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication). Censoring time was one day before planned end of treatment.||0.68|0.41|<0.0001
91008838|NCT02607865|181901450|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.33|||=|0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.68||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox||Oral semaglutide 3 mg / Sitagliptin 100 mg|Time to initiation of rescue medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment, strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Censoring time was one day before last day on trial product.||1.68|1.05|=0.0160
91008839|NCT02607865|181901450|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66|||=|0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.86||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox||Oral semaglutide 7 mg / Sitagliptin 100 mg|Time to initiation of rescue medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment, strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Censoring time was one day before last day on trial product.||0.86|0.51|=0.0022
91078081|NCT01492101|182041423|EQUIVALENCE|\[19\] - Analysis of variance with change from baseline in linear transformed score at the last visit as the dependent variable and treatment arm, geographic region, prior use of eribulin, and receptor status as fixed effects.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.6264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.39|5.63|||F-test|||||5.63|-3.39|0.6264
91008840|NCT02607865|181901450|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.43||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox||Oral semaglutide 14 mg / Sitagliptin 100 mg|Time to initiation of rescue medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment, strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Censoring time was one day before last day on trial product.||0.43|0.22|<0.0001
91008841|NCT03427528|181901532|OTHER|To assess paternal and maternal outcomes on the BDI-II we conducted a series of paired t-tests with Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons. T-tests compared baseline scores on each outcome to 3-month follow-up scores, with separate t-tests conducted to examine changes between baseline and 6-month follow-up. We used a Cohen's d statistic to indicate effect sizes for our BDI-II.|||||<|0.05|||||||Paired T-test|||We used a single group longitudinal pre-post design to evaluate study outcomes||||<0.05
91008842|NCT03427528|181901533|OTHER|To assess paternal and maternal outcomes on the GAD-7, we conducted a series of paired t-tests with Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons. T-tests compared baseline scores on each outcome to 3-month follow-up scores, with separate t-tests conducted to examine changes between baseline and 6-month follow-up. We used a Cohen's d statistic to indicate effect sizes for our outcomes.|||||>|0.05|||||||Paired T-test|||We used a single group longitudinal pre-post design to evaluate study outcomes||||>0.05
91008843|NCT03427528|181901534|OTHER|To assess paternal and maternal outcomes on the PSS-10, we conducted a series of paired t-tests with Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons. T-tests compared baseline scores on each outcome to 3-month follow-up scores, with separate t-tests conducted to examine changes between baseline and 6-month follow-up. We used a Cohen's d statistic to indicate effect sizes for our PSS-10 outcomes.|||||<|0.05|||||||Paired T-test|||We used a single group longitudinal pre-post design to evaluate study outcomes||||<0.05
91008844|NCT03427528|181901534|OTHER|To assess paternal and maternal outcomes on the PSS-10 we conducted a series of paired t-tests with Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons. T-tests compared baseline scores on each outcome to 3-month follow-up scores, with separate t-tests conducted to examine changes between baseline and 6-month follow-up. We used a Cohen's d statistic to indicate effect sizes for our PSS-10 outcomes.|||||<|0.05|||||||Paired T-test|||We used a single group longitudinal pre-post design to evaluate study outcomes||||<0.05
91008845|NCT03427528|181901535|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We used a single group longitudinal pre-post design to evaluate study outcomes||||>0.05
91008846|NCT01351415|181901538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Stratified Hazard Ratio|0.84||||0.1044|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.71|1.0|||Stratified Log-Rank test|||The stratification factors for Log-Rank test and Hazard Ratio (HR) are the type of planned 2nd-line SoC treatment, the number of cycles of bevacizumab maintenance treatment prior to first PD and smoking status.||1.00|0.71|0.1044
91008847|NCT01351415|181901539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Stratified Hazard Ratio|0.83||||0.0573|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7|0.98|||Stratified Log-Rank test|||PFS 2: The stratification factors for Log-Rank test are the type of planned 2nd-line SoC treatment, the number of cycles of bevacizumab maintenance treatment prior to PD1 and the smoking status.||0.98|0.70|0.0573
91008848|NCT01351415|181901539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Stratified Hazard Ratio|0.63||||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.49|0.83|||Stratified Log-Rank test|||PFS 3: The stratification factors for Log-Rank test are the type of planned 2nd-line SoC treatment, the number of cycles of bevacizumab maintenance treatment prior to PD1 and the smoking status.||0.83|0.49|0.0045
91008849|NCT01351415|181901540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated difference in response rate|0.0237||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0156|0.063|||Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test|||The stratification factors for Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test are the type of planned 2nd-line SoC treatment, the number of cycles of Bevacizumab maintenance treatment prior to PD1 and the smoking status.||0.0630|-0.0156|0.0810
91008850|NCT01351415|181901541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated difference in Disease Control|0.0326||||0.0218|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0288|0.094|||Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test|||The stratification factors for Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test are the type of planned 2nd-line SoC treatment, the number of cycles of Bevacizumab maintenance treatment prior to PD1 and the smoking status.||0.0940|-0.0288|0.0218
91050651|NCT02037165|181987284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-3.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.186|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|4.5|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 22:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||4.5|-12.1|
91077777|NCT02913105|182041124|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.72||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.62|0.84|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||||0.84|0.62|0.0005
91008851|NCT01351415|181901542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Stratified Hazard Ratio|0.29||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.09|0.9|||Stratified Log-Rank test|||The stratification factors for Log-Rank test are the type of planned 2nd-line SoC treatment, the number of cycles of Bevacizumab maintenance treatment prior to PD1 and the smoking status.||0.90|0.09|0.0600
91008852|NCT01351415|181901544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Stratified Hazard Ratio|0.79||||0.0311|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.65|0.95|||Stratified Log-Rank test|||TTP2: The stratification factors for Log-Rank test are the type of planned 2nd-line SoC treatment, the number of cycles of Bevacizumab maintenance treatment prior to PD1 and the smoking status.||0.95|0.65|0.0311
91008853|NCT01351415|181901544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Stratified Hazard Ratio|0.69||||0.0326|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.52|0.92|||Stratified Log-Rank test|||TTP3: The stratification factors for Log-Rank test are the type of planned 2nd-line SoC treatment, the number of cycles of Bevacizumab maintenance treatment prior to PD1 and the smoking status.||0.92|0.52|0.0326
91008854|NCT00247962|181901546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|22.99|||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91008855|NCT00247962|181901547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.719|||||||ANCOVA|||baseline||||0.719
91008856|NCT00247962|181901547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||week 16||||0.010
91008857|NCT03525613|181901551|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4114||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6397|-0.1831|||MMRM model|||Model included treatment + baseline GA lesion area (\<7.5 mm\^2 or ≥7.5 mm\^2) + analysis visit + presence of choroidal neovascularization (CNV) in the fellow eye (yes or no) + analysis visit × treatment + baseline GA lesion area × analysis visit.||-0.1831|-0.6397|0.0004
91050652|NCT02037165|181987284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4254|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|4.1|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 24:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||4.1|-9.5|
91050653|NCT02037165|181987284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-3.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5461|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|1.4|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 0:30h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||1.4|-8.7|
91008858|NCT03525613|181901551|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.318||||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5423|-0.0937|||MMRM model|||Model included treatment + baseline GA lesion area (\<7.5 mm\^2 or ≥7.5 mm\^2) + analysis visit + presence of CNV in the fellow eye (yes or no) + analysis visit × treatment + baseline GA lesion area × analysis visit.||-0.0937|-0.5423|0.0055
91008859|NCT03525613|181901552|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9015|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3026|-0.5004|||MMRM model|||Model included treatment + baseline GA lesion area (\<7.5 mm\^2 or ≥7.5 mm\^2) + analysis visit + baseline presence of CNV in the fellow eye (yes or no) + analysis visit × treatment + baseline GA lesion area (\<7.5 mm\^2 or ≥7.5 mm\^2) × analysis visit.||-0.5004|-1.3026|<0.0001
91008860|NCT03525613|181901552|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7426||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1282|-0.357|||MMRM model|||Model included treatment + baseline GA lesion area (\<7.5 mm\^2 or ≥7.5 mm\^2) + analysis visit + baseline presence of CNV in the fellow eye (yes or no) + analysis visit × treatment + baseline GA lesion area (\<7.5 mm\^2 or ≥7.5 mm\^2) × analysis visit.||-0.3570|-1.1282|0.0002
91008861|NCT03525613|181901553|SUPERIORITY|Baseline GA lesion area x Time (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous). A heterogeneous autoregressive covariance matrix was used to model within-subject errors.|Mean Difference|-0.2234||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3522|-0.0946|||MMRM model|||Estimates for Baseline to Month 6: Model included Treatment + Baseline GA lesion area (\< 7.5 mm\^2 or \>= 7.5 mm\^2) + Time (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) + Presence of CNV in the fellow eye (Yes or No) + Time (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) x Treatment +||-0.0946|-0.3522|0.0007
91008862|NCT03525613|181901553|SUPERIORITY|Baseline GA lesion area x Time (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous). A heterogeneous autoregressive covariance matrix was used to model within-subject errors.|Mean Difference|-0.1618||||0.0116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2874|-0.0361|||MMRM model|||Estimates for Baseline to Month 6: Model included Treatment + Baseline GA lesion area (\< 7.5 mm\^2 or \>= 7.5 mm\^2) + Time (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) + Presence of CNV in the fellow eye (Yes or No) + Time (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) x Treatment +||-0.0361|-0.2874|0.0116
91008863|NCT03525613|181901553|SUPERIORITY|Baseline GA lesion area x Time (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous). A heterogeneous autoregressive covariance matrix was used to model within-subject errors.|Mean Difference|-0.1862||||0.0181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3406|-0.0318|||MMRM model|||Estimates for Month 6 to Month 12: Model included Treatment + Baseline GA lesion area (\< 7.5 mm\^2 or \>= 7.5 mm\^2) + Time (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) + Presence of CNV in the fellow eye (Yes or No) + Time (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) x Treatment +||-0.0318|-0.3406|0.0181
91008864|NCT03525613|181901553|SUPERIORITY|Baseline GA lesion area x Time (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous). A heterogeneous autoregressive covariance matrix was used to model within-subject errors.|Mean Difference|-0.1526||||0.0467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.303|-0.0023|||MMRM model|||Estimates for Month 6 to Month 12: Model included Treatment + Baseline GA lesion area (\< 7.5 mm\^2 or \>= 7.5 mm\^2) + Time (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) + Presence of CNV in the fellow eye (Yes or No) + Time (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) x Treatment +||-0.0023|-0.3030|0.0467
91050654|NCT02037165|181987284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4848|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|2.5|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 1:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||2.5|-7.4|
91050655|NCT02037165|181987284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-3.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8811|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|2.5|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 2:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||2.5|-9.0|
91008865|NCT03525613|181901553|SUPERIORITY|Baseline GA lesion area x Time (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous). A heterogeneous autoregressive covariance matrix was used to model within-subject errors.|Mean Difference|-0.2265||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3696|-0.0834|||MMRM model|||Estimates for Month 12 to Month 18: Model included Treatment + Baseline GA lesion area (\< 7.5 mm\^2 or \>= 7.5 mm\^2) + Time (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) + Presence of CNV in the fellow eye (Yes or No) + Time (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) x Treatment +||-0.0834|-0.3696|0.0019
91050656|NCT02037165|181987284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4569|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|4.0|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 3:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||4.0|-9.8|
91050657|NCT02037165|181987284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6471|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|7.5|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 4:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||7.5|-7.0|
91050658|NCT02037165|181987284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5708|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|4.8|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 5:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||4.8|-9.4|
91050659|NCT02037165|181987284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-4.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6602|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|3.1|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 6:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||3.1|-11.5|
91050660|NCT02037165|181987284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1389|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|8.8|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 22:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||8.8|-7.7|
91050661|NCT02037165|181987284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3835|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|4.7|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 24:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||4.7|-8.8|
91050662|NCT02037165|181987285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-29.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|29.5691|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-88.3|29.0|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 0:30h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||29.0|-88.3|
91078082|NCT01492101|182041423|EQUIVALENCE|\[20\] - Analysis of variance with change from baseline in linear transformed score at the last visit as the dependent variable and treatment arm, geographic region, prior use of eribulin, and receptor status as fixed effects.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.6||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.11|-2.1|||F-test|||||-2.1|-7.11|0.0003
91008866|NCT03525613|181901553|SUPERIORITY|Baseline GA lesion area x Time (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous). A heterogeneous autoregressive covariance matrix was used to model within-subject errors.|Mean Difference|-0.1586||||0.0288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3009|-0.0164|||MMRM model|||Estimates for Month 12 to Month 18: Model included Treatment + Baseline GA lesion area (\< 7.5 mm\^2 or \>= 7.5 mm\^2) + Time (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) + Presence of CNV in the fellow eye (Yes or No) + Time (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) x Treatment +||-0.0164|-0.3009|0.0288
91008867|NCT03525613|181901553|SUPERIORITY|Baseline GA lesion area x Time (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous). A heterogeneous autoregressive covariance matrix was used to model within-subject errors.|Mean Difference|-0.2341||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4071|-0.0611|||MMRM model|||Estimates for Month 18 to Month 24: Model included Treatment + Baseline GA lesion area (\< 7.5 mm\^2 or \>= 7.5 mm\^2) + Time (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) + Presence of CNV in the fellow eye (Yes or No) + Time (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) x Treatment +||-0.0611|-0.4071|0.0080
91008868|NCT03525613|181901553|SUPERIORITY|Baseline GA lesion area x Time (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous). A heterogeneous autoregressive covariance matrix was used to model within-subject errors.|Mean Difference|-0.2459||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3886|-0.1031|||MMRM model|||Estimates for Month 18 to Month 24: Model included Treatment + Baseline GA lesion area (\< 7.5 mm\^2 or \>= 7.5 mm\^2) + Time (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) + Presence of CNV in the fellow eye (Yes or No) + Time (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) x Treatment +||-0.1031|-0.3886|0.0007
91008869|NCT03525613|181901553|SUPERIORITY|Baseline GA lesion area x Time (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous). A heterogeneous autoregressive covariance matrix was used to model within-subject errors.|Mean Difference|-0.8702|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.274|-0.4664|||MMRM model|||Estimates for Baseline to Month 24: Model included Treatment + Baseline GA lesion area (\< 7.5 mm\^2 or \>= 7.5 mm\^2) + Time (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) + Presence of CNV in the fellow eye (Yes or No) + Time (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) x Treatment +||-0.4664|-1.2740|<0.0001
91008870|NCT03525613|181901553|SUPERIORITY|Baseline GA lesion area x Time (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous). A heterogeneous autoregressive covariance matrix was used to model within-subject errors.|Mean Difference|-0.7189||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1039|-0.3339|||MMRM model|||Estimates for Baseline to Month 24: Model included Treatment + Baseline GA lesion area (\< 7.5 mm\^2 or \>= 7.5 mm\^2) + Time (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) + Presence of CNV in the fellow eye (Yes or No) + Time (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) x Treatment +||-0.3339|-1.1039|0.0003
91008871|NCT02120469|181901614|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Dose level B1 (eribulin 1.1 mg/m2 days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks with everolimus 5 mg daily) was defined as the highest dose with acceptable toxicity (RP2D).|||
91008872|NCT03756285|181901644|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means Ratio|0.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: atrial fibrillation status at randomization, baseline value, treatment, visit, and treatment\*visit.||||0.52|0.12|<0.001
91008873|NCT03756285|181901645|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means Ratio|0.97||||0.568|ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.74||||ANCOVA|Covariates: atrial fibrillation status at randomization, baseline value, treatment|||||0.74|0.568
91008874|NCT03756285|181901646|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.8||||0.407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.5|74.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: atrial fibrillation status at randomization, baseline value, treatment, visit, and treatment\*visit.||||74.1|-30.5|0.407
91050663|NCT02037165|181987285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-16.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|29.8613|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.5|42.9|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 1:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||42.9|-75.5|
91050664|NCT02037165|181987285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|7.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|25.1035|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.2|57.5|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 2:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||57.5|-42.2|
91078083|NCT01492101|182041423|EQUIVALENCE|\[21\] - Analysis of variance with change from baseline in linear transformed score at the last visit as the dependent variable and treatment arm, geographic region, prior use of eribulin, and receptor status as fixed effects.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0.2473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.84|0.99|||F-test|||||0.99|-3.84|0.2473
91008875|NCT00711009|181901661|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The exact 95% confidence interval for the difference in response rates (LPV/r + RAL minus LPV/r + FTC/TDF) was used to assess non-inferiority. The LPV/r+RAL arm was considered non-inferior to the LPV/r+FTC/TDF arm because the lower limit of the confidence interval was \>/= -20%. Because the LPV/r+RAL arm was considered non-inferior based on the 20% margin, the results were assessed on a more rigorous 12% margin (-12%), as prespecified.|Diff. in Percentage of Subj. Responding|-1.6||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|8.8|||exact binomial method|||The null hypothesis was that the response rate for the LPV/r + RAL arm was more than 20% lower than the response rate for the LPV/r + FTC/TDF arm. The planned sample size of 100 participants per treatment group provided 90% power to conclude that the LPV/r + RAL arm was non-inferior to the control arm, based on a non-inferiority margin of -20% (with a type I error rate of 0.05).||8.8|-12.0|0.850
91008876|NCT02534324|181901744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.49
91008877|NCT02534324|181901745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.15
91008878|NCT01432236|181901776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.31||Primary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|Satterthwaite's approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||Analysis was done using a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors.||-0.31|-0.91|0.0001
91008879|NCT01432236|181901778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.33|-3.87||Analysis was conducted using a two-sided test with α=0.05. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis presented above is for the FIQ total score. Analysis was performed using a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors.||-3.87|-9.33|<0.0001
91008880|NCT01432236|181901778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.11||Analysis was conducted using a two-sided test with α=0.05. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis presented above is for parameter 'physical impairment'. Analysis was performed using a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors.||-0.11|-0.74|0.0078
91050665|NCT02037165|181987285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-20.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|23.311|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.7|25.8|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 3:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||25.8|-66.7|
91050666|NCT02037165|181987285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-12.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|23.1894|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.6|33.4|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 4:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||33.4|-58.6|
91050667|NCT02037165|181987285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|23.7285|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.8|46.5|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 5:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||46.5|-47.8|
91050668|NCT02037165|181987285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-19.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|27.6359|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.3|35.7|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 6:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||35.7|-74.3|
91008881|NCT01432236|181901778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|-0.33||Analysis was conducted using a two-sided test with α=0.05. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis presented above is for the parameter 'feel good'. Analysis was performed using a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors.||-0.33|-1.36|0.0014
91008882|NCT01432236|181901778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.18||Analysis was conducted using a two-sided test with α=0.05. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis presented above for parameter 'work missed'. Analysis was performed using a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors.||-0.18|-1.01|0.0050
91008883|NCT01432236|181901778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.75||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|-0.36||Analysis was conducted using a two-sided test with α=0.05. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis presented above is for the parameter 'do work'. Analysis was performed using a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors.||-0.36|-1.14|0.0002
91008884|NCT01432236|181901778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.64||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.28||Analysis was conducted using a two-sided test with α=0.05. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis presented above is for the parameter 'pain'. Analysis was performed using a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors.||-0.28|-1.00|0.0006
91008885|NCT01432236|181901778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44||||0.0315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.04||Analysis was conducted using a two-sided test with α=0.05. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis presented above is for the parameter 'fatigue'. Analysis was performed using a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors.||-0.04|-0.85|0.0315
91008886|NCT01432236|181901778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.76||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|-0.35||Analysis was conducted using a two-sided test with α=0.05. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis presented above is for the parameter 'rested'. Analysis was performed using a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors.||-0.35|-1.17|0.0003
91008887|NCT01432236|181901778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.31||Analysis was conducted using a two-sided test with α=0.05. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis presented above is for the parameter 'stiffness'. Analysis was performed using a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors.||-0.31|-1.11|0.0007
91008888|NCT01432236|181901778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|-0.17||Analysis was conducted using a two-sided test with α=0.05. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis presented above is for the parameter 'anxiety'. Analysis was performed using a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors.||-0.17|-0.93|0.0048
91008889|NCT01432236|181901778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.92|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|-0.53||Analysis was conducted using a two-sided test with α=0.05. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis presented above is for the parameter 'depression'. Analysis was performed using a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors.||-0.53|-1.32|<0.0001
91008890|NCT01432236|181901779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0637|TWO_SIDED|||||This analysis was conducted using a two-sided test with α=0.05. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The PGIC variable was analyzed using Cochran Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with modified ridit transformation.||||0.0637
91008891|NCT01432236|181901780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.116|TWO_SIDED|||||This analysis was conducted using a two-sided test with α=0.05. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The PGIC variable was analyzed using CMH test with modified ridit transformation.||||0.1160
91008892|NCT01432236|181901781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|||||This secondary analyses was conducted using a two-sided test with α=0.05. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis presented above is for 30% responders. Analysis was conducted using a logistic regression model using sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors. Logit link transformation was used for the model.||||0.0007
91050669|NCT02037165|181987285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-25.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|27.5524|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-79.9|29.5|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 22:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||29.5|-79.9|
91008893|NCT01432236|181901781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0205|TWO_SIDED|||||This secondary analyses was conducted using a two-sided test with α=0.05. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis presented above is for 50% responders. Analysis was conducted using a logistic regression model using sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors. Logit link transformation was used for the model.||||0.0205
91078084|NCT01492101|182041423|EQUIVALENCE|\[22\] - Analysis of variance with change from baseline in linear transformed score at the last visit as the dependent variable and treatment arm, geographic region, prior use of eribulin, and receptor status as fixed effects.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.9||||0.0333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.54|-0.23|||F-test|||||-0.23|-5.54|0.0333
91008894|NCT01432236|181901782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.84||This was done using a two-sided test with α=0.05. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analyzed using a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within-subject error as random factors.||0.84|0.31|<0.0001
91008895|NCT01432236|181901783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.81||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.66|-2.96||This was done using a two-sided test with α=0.05. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analyzed using a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors.||-2.96|-12.66|0.0018
91008896|NCT01432236|181901784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.8||||0.0117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.29|-1.31||This was done using a two-sided test with α=0.05. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analyzed using a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors||-1.31|-10.29|0.0117
91008897|NCT01432236|181901785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.35||||0.0511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|16.74||This was done using a two-sided test with α=0.05. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analyzed using a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors.||16.74|-0.04|0.0511
91008898|NCT01432236|181901786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.1139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.03||This was done using a two-sided test with α=0.05. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analyzed using a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors. Analyzed as a count variable using a generalized linear model assuming a Poisson distribution and utilizing a log link transformation.||0.03|-0.29|0.1139
91008899|NCT01432236|181901788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.95|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.5||Two-sided test with α=0.05 was used. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis presented in the above table is for HADS-A (anxiety). Analyzed using a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors.||-0.50|-1.40|<0.0001
91008900|NCT01432236|181901788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.88||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|-0.39||Two-sided test with α=0.05 was used. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis presented in the above table is for HADS-D (depression). Analyzed using a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and subject within sequence and within-subject error as random factors.||-0.39|-1.37|0.0005
91008901|NCT01432236|181901790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.3854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.06||Two-sided test with α=0.05 was used. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analyzed using a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors.||0.06|-0.02|0.3854
91008902|NCT01432236|181901792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.55||||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.97||Two-sided test with α=0.05 was used. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analyzed using a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors.||0.97|0.14|0.0085
91008903|NCT02194699|181901807|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was that the exacerbation rate during the 52-week double-blind treatment period on tralokinumab was equal to the corresponding exacerbation rate on placebo.|Rate ratio|0.84||||0.4656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.34|||Negative binomial||Covariates in the model included treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group at baseline and number of exacerbations in the year before the study.|"Comparison of AAER (rate ratio): Biomarker positive population; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.~A variable for the biomarker population (positive, negative) as well as a treatment-by-biomarker population interaction term was included in the analysis model."||1.34|0.53|0.4656
91008904|NCT02194699|181901807|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was that the exacerbation rate during the 52-week double-blind treatment period on tralokinumab was equal to the corresponding exacerbation rate on placebo.|Rate ratio|1.13||||0.4126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.5|||Negative binomial||Covariates in the model included treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group at baseline and number of exacerbations in the year before the study.|"Comparison of AAER (rate ratio): Biomarker negative population; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.~A variable for the biomarker population (positive, negative) as well as a treatment-by-biomarker population interaction term was included in the analysis model."||1.50|0.85|0.4126
91050670|NCT02037165|181987285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-17.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|27.0135|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.9|36.5|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 24:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||36.5|-70.9|
91078085|NCT01492101|182041423|EQUIVALENCE|\[23\] - Analysis of variance with change from baseline in linear transformed score at the last visit as the dependent variable and treatment arm, geographic region, prior use of eribulin, and receptor status as fixed effects.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.5||||0.2575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|3.28|||F-test|||||3.28|-12.2|0.2575
91008905|NCT02194699|181901807|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was that the exacerbation rate during the 52-week double-blind treatment period on tralokinumab was equal to the corresponding exacerbation rate on placebo.|Rate reduction|15.83||||0.4656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.71|47.01|||Negative binominal||Covariates in the model included treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group at baseline and number of exacerbations in the year before the study.|"Comparison of AAER (rate reduction): Biomarker positive population; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.~A variable for the biomarker population (positive, negative) as well as a treatment-by-biomarker population interaction term was included in the analysis model."||47.01|-33.71|0.4656
91008906|NCT02194699|181901807|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was that the exacerbation rate during the 52-week double-blind treatment period on tralokinumab was equal to the corresponding exacerbation rate on placebo.|Rate ratio|1.03||||0.8027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.31|||Negative binomial||Covariates in the model included treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group at baseline and number of exacerbations in the year before the study.|Comparison of AAER (rate ratio): FAS population; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.||1.31|0.81|0.8027
91008907|NCT02194699|181901807|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was that the exacerbation rate during the 52-week double-blind treatment period on tralokinumab was equal to the corresponding exacerbation rate on placebo.|Rate reduction|-3.14||||0.8027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.46|19.08|||Negative binominal||Covariates in the model included treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group at baseline and number of exacerbations in the year before the study.|Comparison of AAER (rate reduction): FAS population; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.||19.08|-31.46|0.8027
91008908|NCT02194699|181901808|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) Mean difference|1.86||||0.6033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.16|8.88|||Repeated measures analysis||Fixed categorical effects of treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as a fixed covariate.|"Comparison of % change from baseline in pre-dose/pre-BD FEV1 at Week 52: Biomarker positive population; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.~Restricted maximum likelihood (REML) based repeated measures analysis on patients with a baseline pre-dose/pre-BD FEV1 assessment.~A variable for the biomarker population (positive, negative) as well as a treatment-by-biomarker population interaction term and a 3-way biomarker population-by-treatment-by-visit interaction term was included in the analysis model."||8.88|-5.16|0.6033
91008909|NCT02194699|181901808|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|3.37||||0.1276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|7.7|||Repeated measures analysis||Fixed categorical effects of treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as a fixed covariate.|"Comparison of % change from baseline in pre-dose/pre-BD FEV1 at Week 52: Biomarker negative population; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.~REML based repeated measures analysis on patients with a baseline pre-dose/pre-BD FEV1 assessment.~A variable for the biomarker population (positive, negative) as well as a treatment-by-biomarker population interaction term and a 3-way biomarker population-by-treatment-by-visit interaction term was included in the analysis model."||7.70|-0.97|0.1276
91008910|NCT02194699|181901808|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|2.95||||0.1164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|6.62|||Repeated measures analysis||Fixed categorical effects of treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as a fixed covariate.|Comparison of % change from baseline in pre-dose/pre-BD FEV1 at Week 52: FAS population; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo. REML based repeated measures analysis on patients with a baseline pre-dose/pre-BD FEV1 assessment||6.62|-0.73|0.1164
91008911|NCT02194699|181901809|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.2||||0.1456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.07|||Repeated measures analysis||Fixed categorical effects of baseline asthma symptom score, treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as a fixed covariate.|"Comparison of mean change from baseline in total asthma symptom score at Week 52: Biomarker positive population; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.~REML based repeated measures analysis. A variable for the biomarker population (positive, negative) as well as a treatment-by-biomarker population interaction term and a 3-way biomarker population-by-treatment-by-visit interaction term was included in the analysis model."||0.07|-0.47|0.1456
91008912|NCT02194699|181901809|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|0.04||||0.6548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.2|||Repeated measures analysis||Fixed categorical effects of baseline asthma symptom score, treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as a fixed covariate.|"Comparison of mean change from baseline in total asthma symptom score at Week 52: Biomarker negative population; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.~REML based repeated measures analysis. A variable for the biomarker population (positive, negative) as well as a treatment-by-biomarker population interaction term and a 3-way biomarker population-by-treatment-by-visit interaction term was included in the analysis model."||0.20|-0.13|0.6548
91008913|NCT02194699|181901809|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.04||||0.5763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.1|||Repeated measures analysis||Fixed categorical effects of baseline asthma symptom score, treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as a fixed covariate.|Comparison of mean change from baseline in total asthma symptom score at Week 52: FAS population; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo. REML based repeated measures analysis.||0.10|-0.18|0.5763
91008914|NCT02194699|181901810|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|0.27||||0.0874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.57|||Repeated measures analysis||Fixed categorical effects of baseline AQLQ(S)+12 score, treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as a fixed covariate.|"Comparison of change in mean score from baseline for AQLQ(S)+12 at Week 52: Biomarker positive population; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.~REML based repeated measures analysis. A variable for the biomarker population (positive, negative) as well as a treatment-by-biomarker population interaction term and a 3-way biomarker population-by-treatment-by-visit interaction term was included in the analysis model."||0.57|-0.04|0.0874
91077778|NCT02913105|182041124|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.74||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.65|0.85|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||||0.85|0.65|0.0005
91008915|NCT02194699|181901810|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.01||||0.9083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.17|||Repeated measures analysis||Fixed categorical effects of baseline AQLQ(S)+12 score, treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as a fixed covariate.|"Comparison of change in mean score from baseline for AQLQ(S)+12 at Week 52: Biomarker negative population; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.~REML based repeated measures analysis. A variable for the biomarker population (positive, negative) as well as a treatment-by-biomarker population interaction term and a 3-way biomarker population-by-treatment-by-visit interaction term was included in the analysis model."||0.17|-0.20|0.9083
91008916|NCT02194699|181901810|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|0.06||||0.4506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.22|||Repeated measures analysis||Fixed categorical effects of baseline AQLQ(S)+12 score, treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as a fixed covariate.|Comparison of change in mean score from baseline for AQLQ(S)+12 at Week 52: FAS population; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo. REML based repeated measures analysis.||0.22|-0.10|0.4506
91008917|NCT02194699|181901811|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.27||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.01|||Repeated measures analysis||Fixed categorical effects of baseline ACQ-6 score, treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as a fixed covariate.|"Comparison of change in mean score from baseline for ACQ-6 at Week 52: Biomarker positive population; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.~REML based repeated measures analysis. A variable for the biomarker population (positive, negative) as well as a treatment-by-biomarker population interaction term and a 3-way biomarker population-by-treatment-by-visit interaction term was included in the analysis model."||-0.01|-0.53|0.0400
91008918|NCT02194699|181901811|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|0.0||||0.9735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.16|||Repeated measures analysis||Fixed categorical effects of baseline ACQ-6 score, treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as a fixed covariate.|"Comparison of change in mean score from baseline for ACQ-6 at Week 52: Biomarker negative population; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.~REML based repeated measures analysis. A variable for the biomarker population (positive, negative) as well as a treatment-by-biomarker population interaction term and a 3-way biomarker population-by-treatment-by-visit interaction term was included in the analysis model."||0.16|-0.16|0.9735
91008919|NCT02194699|181901811|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.08||||0.2432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.05|||Repeated measures analysis||Fixed categorical effects of baseline ACQ-6 score, treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as a fixed covariate.|Comparison of change in mean score from baseline for ACQ-6 at Week 52: FAS population; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo. REML based repeated measures analysis.||0.05|-0.21|0.2432
91008920|NCT02194699|181901812|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.39||||0.0576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.03|||Negative binomial||Covariates in the model included treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group at baseline and number of exacerbations resulting in hospitalisation or ER treatment (yes/no) in the year before the study.|"Comparison of AAER associated with an ER/UC visit or hospitalisation: Biomarker positive population; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.~A variable for the biomarker population (positive, negative) as well as a treatment-by-biomarker population interaction term was included in the analysis model."||1.03|0.15|0.0576
91050671|NCT02037165|181987285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-39.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|29.3023|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-97.7|18.5|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 0:30h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||18.5|-97.7|
91050672|NCT02037165|181987285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-37.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|29.5797|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-95.7|21.6|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 1:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||21.6|-95.7|
91050673|NCT02037165|181987285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-52.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|24.8429|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-101.8|-3.1|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 2:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||-3.1|-101.8|
91008921|NCT02194699|181901812|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.83||||0.5249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.48|||Negative binomial||Covariates in the model included treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group at baseline and number of exacerbations resulting in hospitalisation or ER treatment (yes/no) in the year before the study.|"Comparison of AAER associated with an ER/UC visit or hospitalisation: Biomarker negative population; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.~A variable for the biomarker population (positive, negative) as well as a treatment-by-biomarker population interaction term was included in the analysis model."||1.48|0.46|0.5249
91008922|NCT02194699|181901812|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.67||||0.1155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.1|||Negative binomial||Covariates in the model included treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group at baseline and number of exacerbations resulting in hospitalisation or ER treatment (yes/no) in the year before the study.|Comparison of AAER associated with an ER/UC visit or hospitalisation: FAS population; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.||1.10|0.41|0.1155
91008923|NCT02194699|181901814|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.95||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|-0.06|||Repeated measures analysis||Fixed categorical effects of baseline rescue medication use, treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as a fixed covariate.|"Comparison of mean change from baseline in rescue medication use at Week 52: Biomarker positive population; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.~REML based repeated measures analysis. A variable for the biomarker population (positive, negative) as well as a treatment-by-biomarker population interaction term and a 3-way biomarker population-by-treatment-by-visit interaction term was included in the analysis model."||-0.06|-1.85|0.0360
91008924|NCT02194699|181901814|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|0.15||||0.5864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.7|||Repeated measures analysis||Fixed categorical effects of baseline rescue medication use, treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as a fixed covariate.|"Comparison of mean change from baseline in rescue medication use at Week 52: Biomarker negative population; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.~REML based repeated measures analysis. A variable for the biomarker population (positive, negative) as well as a treatment-by-biomarker population interaction term and a 3-way biomarker population-by-treatment-by-visit interaction term was included in the analysis model."||0.70|-0.40|0.5864
91050674|NCT02037165|181987285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-59.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|23.0541|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-105.6|-14.1|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 3:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||-14.1|-105.6|
91008925|NCT02194699|181901814|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.17||||0.4689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.29|||Repeated measures analysis||Fixed categorical effects of baseline rescue medication use, treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as a fixed covariate.|Comparison of mean change from baseline in rescue medication use at Week 52: FAS population; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo. REML based repeated measures analysis.||0.29|-0.63|0.4689
91008926|NCT02194699|181901815|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|6.15||||0.5094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.13|24.43|||Repeated measures analysis||Fixed categorical effects of baseline PEF (morning), treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as a fixed covariate.|"Comparison of mean change from baseline in morning PEF at Week 52: Biomarker positive population; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.~REML based repeated measures analysis. A variable for the biomarker population (positive, negative) as well as a treatment-by-biomarker population interaction term and a 3-way biomarker population-by-treatment-by-visit interaction term was included in the analysis model."||24.43|-12.13|0.5094
91008927|NCT02194699|181901815|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|3.02||||0.5984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.22|14.26|||Repeated measures analysis||Fixed categorical effects of baseline PEF (morning), treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as a fixed covariate.|"Comparison of mean change from baseline in morning PEF at Week 52: Biomarker negative population; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.~REML based repeated measures analysis. A variable for the biomarker population (positive, negative) as well as a treatment-by-biomarker population interaction term and a 3-way biomarker population-by-treatment-by-visit interaction term was included in the analysis model."||14.26|-8.22|0.5984
91008928|NCT02194699|181901815|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|7.84||||0.3971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.32|26.0|||Repeated measures analysis||Model included fixed categorical effects of baseline PEF (evening), treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as fixed covariate.|"Comparison of mean change from baseline in evening PEF at Week 52: Biomarker positive population; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.~REML based repeated measures analysis. A variable for the biomarker population (positive, negative) as well as a treatment-by-biomarker population interaction term and a 3-way biomarker population-by-treatment-by-visit interaction term was included in the analysis model."||26.00|-10.32|0.3971
91008929|NCT02194699|181901815|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|3.59||||0.531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.65|14.83|||Repeated measures analysis||Model included fixed categorical effects of baseline PEF (evening), treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as fixed covariate.|"Comparison of mean change from baseline in evening PEF at Week 52: Biomarker negative population; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.~REML based repeated measures analysis. A variable for the biomarker population (positive, negative) as well as a treatment-by-biomarker population interaction term and a 3-way biomarker population-by-treatment-by-visit interaction term was included in the analysis model."||14.83|-7.65|0.5310
91008930|NCT02194699|181901815|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|3.46||||0.4764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.06|12.97|||Repeated measures analysis||Model included fixed categorical effects of baseline PEF (morning), treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as fixed covariate.|Comparison of mean change from baseline in morning PEF at Week 52: FAS population; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo. REML based repeated measures analysis.||12.97|-6.06|0.4764
91050675|NCT02037165|181987285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-39.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.9336|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-85.5|5.5|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 4:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||5.5|-85.5|
91050676|NCT02037165|181987285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-38.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|23.4683|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-85.6|7.6|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 5:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||7.6|-85.6|
91050677|NCT02037165|181987285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-63.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|27.3484|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-118.1|-9.3|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 6:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||-9.3|-118.1|
91008931|NCT02194699|181901815|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|3.88||||0.4221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|13.37|||Repeated measures analysis||Model included fixed categorical effects of baseline PEF (evening), treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as fixed covariate.|Comparison of mean change from baseline in evening PEF at Week 52: FAS population; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo. REML based repeated measures analysis.||13.37|-5.60|0.4221
91008932|NCT02194699|181901816|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-5.04||||0.1099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.21|1.14|||Repeated measures analysis||Fixed categorical effects of baseline number (%) of awakenings, treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as a fixed covariate.|"Comparison of mean change from baseline in number (%) of awakenings at Week 52: Biomarker positive population; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.~REML based repeated measures analysis. A variable for the biomarker population (positive, negative) as well as a treatment-by-biomarker population interaction term and a 3-way biomarker population-by-treatment-by-visit interaction term was included in the analysis model."||1.14|-11.21|0.1099
91008933|NCT02194699|181901816|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|0.46||||0.8112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.33|4.25|||Repeated measures analysis||Fixed categorical effects of baseline number (%) of awakenings, treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as a fixed covariate.|"Comparison of mean change from baseline in number (%) of awakenings at Week 52: Biomarker positive population; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.~REML based repeated measures analysis. A variable for the biomarker population (positive, negative) as well as a treatment-by-biomarker population interaction term and a 3-way biomarker population-by-treatment-by-visit interaction term was included in the analysis model."||4.25|-3.33|0.8112
91008934|NCT02194699|181901816|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-1.19||||0.4645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|2.01|||Repeated measures analysis||Fixed categorical effects of baseline number (%) of awakenings, treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as a fixed covariate.|Comparison of mean change from baseline in number (%) of awakenings at Week 52: FAS population; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo. REML based repeated measures analysis.||2.01|-4.40|0.4645
91008935|NCT02194699|181901817|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77||||0.344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.33|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The estimate of each odds ratio was obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test controlling for geographical region, age group and periostin group at baseline.|Comparison of number of patients with ≥ 1 asthma exacerbations up to Week 52: Biomarker positive population; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.||1.33|0.44|0.3440
91008936|NCT02194699|181901817|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.7768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.46|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The estimate of each odds ratio was obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test controlling for geographical region, age group and periostin group at baseline.|Comparison of number of patients with ≥ 1 asthma exacerbations up to Week 52: Biomarker negative population; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.||1.46|0.75|0.7768
91008937|NCT02194699|181901817|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.5276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.21|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The estimate of each odds ratio was obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test controlling for geographical region, age group and periostin group at baseline.|Comparison of number of patients with ≥ 1 asthma exacerbations up to Week 52: FAS population; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.||1.21|0.69|0.5276
91008938|NCT00612573|181901837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Change from Baseline|-0.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.85||0.779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|10.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Investigational Site||||10.3|-14.8|0.779
91008939|NCT00612573|181901837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Change from Baseline|-0.69|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.9||0.983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|11.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Investigational Site||||11.7|-13.7|0.983
91077779|NCT02913105|182041129|OTHER|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using an ANCOVA model which included effects for treatment, log-transformed baseline and stratification factor (BMI group). BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian =30 and Non-Asian=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.95||||0.5354|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|1.09|||ANCOVA|||||1.09|0.83|0.5354
91008940|NCT00612573|181901837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Change from Baseline|-0.92|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.97||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|27.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Investigational Site||||27.3|-1.5|0.087
91008941|NCT00612573|181901838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.807||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Investigational Site||||||0.807
91008942|NCT00612573|181901838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.075||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Investigational Site||||||0.075
91008943|NCT00612573|181901838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.039||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Investigational Site||||||0.039
91008944|NCT00612573|181901839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.212||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Investigational Site||||||0.212
91008945|NCT00612573|181901839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.505||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Investigational Site||||||0.505
91008946|NCT00612573|181901839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.399||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Investigational Site||||||0.399
91008947|NCT00612573|181901840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.276||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Investigational Site||||||0.276
91008948|NCT00612573|181901840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.231||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Investigational Site||||||0.231
91008949|NCT00612573|181901840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.081||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Investigational Site||||||0.081
91008950|NCT02516605|181901857|OTHER||adjusted fold change from baseline|0.86||||0.293|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.68|1.09|||ANCOVA|||||1.09|0.68|0.293
91008951|NCT02516605|181901857|OTHER||adjusted fold change from baseline|0.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.37|0.6|||ANCOVA|||||0.60|0.37|<0.001
91008952|NCT02516605|181901857|OTHER||adjusted fold change from baseline|0.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.26|0.4|||ANCOVA|||||0.40|0.26|<.001
91008953|NCT02516605|181901857|OTHER||adjusted fold change from baseline|0.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.27|0.47|||ANCOVA|||||0.47|0.27|<.001
91008954|NCT02516605|181901867|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|1.0||||0.898|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.0|6.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|Day 28||||6.0|-7.0|0.898
91008955|NCT02516605|181901867|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|2.0||||0.593|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.0|10.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|Day 56||||10.0|-4.0|0.593
91008956|NCT02516605|181901867|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|-3.0||||0.509|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.0|4.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|Day 84||||4.0|-11.0|0.509
91008957|NCT02516605|181901867|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|1.5||||0.591|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.0|7.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|Day 28||||7.0|-5.0|0.591
91008958|NCT02516605|181901867|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|-2.0||||0.702|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.0|4.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|Day 56||||4.0|-12.0|0.702
91008959|NCT02516605|181901867|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|-1.0||||0.838|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.0|8.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|Day 84||||8.0|-10.0|0.838
91008960|NCT02516605|181901867|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|4.0||||0.297|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.0|8.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|Day 28||||8.0|-3.0|0.297
91008961|NCT02516605|181901867|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|-6.0||||0.236|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|Day 56||||1.0|-14.0|0.236
91008962|NCT02516605|181901867|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|-6.5||||0.192|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|Day 84||||1.0|-15.0|0.192
91008963|NCT02516605|181901867|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|2.0||||0.605|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.0|9.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|Day 28||||9.0|-2.0|0.605
91008964|NCT02516605|181901867|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|-11.0||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.0|-1.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|Day 56||||-1.0|-21.0|0.037
91008965|NCT02516605|181901867|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|-3.5||||0.397|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.0|3.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|Day 84||||3.0|-11.0|0.397
91008966|NCT02516605|181901868|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|1.0||||0.342|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|2.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|Day 28||||2.0|-1.0|0.342
91008967|NCT02516605|181901868|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|0.0||||0.699|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|2.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|Day 56||||2.0|-1.0|0.699
91008968|NCT02516605|181901868|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|-1.0||||0.377|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|Day 84||||0.0|-3.0|0.377
91008969|NCT02516605|181901868|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|1.0||||0.132|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|2.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|Day 28||||2.0|0.0|0.132
91008970|NCT02516605|181901868|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|1.0||||0.292|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|2.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|Day 56||||2.0|0.0|0.292
91008971|NCT02516605|181901868|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|0.0||||0.979|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|Day 84||||1.0|-2.0|0.979
91008972|NCT02516605|181901868|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|2.0||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|4.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|Day 28||||4.0|0.0|0.102
91008973|NCT02516605|181901868|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|0.0||||0.717|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|2.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|Day 56||||2.0|-1.0|0.717
91008974|NCT02516605|181901868|OTHER||Median difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|Day 84||||1.0|-2.0|1.000
91008975|NCT02516605|181901868|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|2.0||||0.142|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|5.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|Day 28||||5.0|0.0|0.142
91008976|NCT02516605|181901868|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|0.0||||0.975|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|Day 56||||1.0|-1.0|0.975
91008977|NCT02516605|181901868|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|0.0||||0.602|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|Day 84||||1.0|-2.0|0.602
91008978|NCT02516605|181901869|OTHER||Mean difference from baseline|-2.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.436||0.743|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.91|11.34|||ANCOVA|Day 7||||11.34|-16.91|0.743
91008979|NCT02516605|181901869|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|-14.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.229||0.093|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.85|-0.28|||ANCOVA|Day 14||||-0.28|-27.85|0.093
91008980|NCT02516605|181901869|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|7.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.71||0.376|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.81|22.38|||ANCOVA|Day 21||||22.38|-6.81|0.376
91008981|NCT02516605|181901869|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|7.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.187||0.448|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.36|22.43|||ANCOVA|Day 28||||22.43|-8.36|0.448
91008982|NCT02516605|181901869|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|-15.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.192||0.039|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.3|-3.19|||ANCOVA|Day 56||||-3.19|-27.30|0.039
91008983|NCT02516605|181901869|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|-16.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.592||0.054|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-31.31|-2.54|||ANCOVA|Day 84||||-2.54|-31.31|0.054
91008984|NCT02516605|181901869|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|11.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.434||0.185|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.78|25.46|||ANCOVA|Day 7||||25.46|-2.78|0.185
91008985|NCT02516605|181901869|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|7.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.226||0.351|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.05|21.52|||ANCOVA|Day 14||||21.52|-6.05|0.351
91008986|NCT02516605|181901869|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|16.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.707||0.059|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.2|31.38|||ANCOVA|day 21||||31.38|2.20|0.059
91008987|NCT02516605|181901869|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|14.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.184||0.132|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.35|29.44|||ANCOVA|Day 28||||29.44|-1.35|0.132
91008988|NCT02516605|181901869|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|-1.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.19||0.809|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.8|10.31|||ANCOVA|Day 56||||10.31|-13.80|0.809
91008989|NCT02516605|181901869|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|-10.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.59||0.21|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-25.29|3.48|||ANCOVA|Day 84||||3.48|-25.29|0.210
91008990|NCT02516605|181901869|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|13.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.963||0.086||90.0|0.58|27.25|||ANCOVA|day 7||||27.25|0.58|0.086
91008991|NCT02516605|181901869|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.787||0.951|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.57|13.53|||ANCOVA|Day 14||||13.53|-12.57|0.951
91008992|NCT02516605|181901869|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|5.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.244||0.545|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.79|18.83|||ANCOVA|day 21||||18.83|-8.79|0.545
91008993|NCT02516605|181901869|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.697||0.982|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.38|14.77|||ANCOVA|Day 28||||14.77|-14.38|0.982
91008994|NCT02516605|181901869|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|-13.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.797||0.047|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-25.21|-2.43|||ANCOVA|day 56||||-2.43|-25.21|0.047
91008995|NCT02516605|181901869|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|-18.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.11||0.029|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-31.81|-4.64|||ANCOVA|Day 84||||-4.64|-31.81|0.029
91008996|NCT02516605|181901869|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|26.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.799||0.004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|11.97|41.44|||ANCOVA|Day 7||||41.44|11.97|0.004
91008997|NCT02516605|181901869|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|8.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.032||0.37|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.96|23.29|||ANCOVA|Day 14||||23.29|-6.96|0.370
91008998|NCT02516605|181901869|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.014||0.558|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.86|22.66|||ANCOVA|Day 21||||22.66|-10.86|0.558
91008999|NCT02516605|181901869|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|8.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.911||0.418|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.34|27.15|||ANCOVA|Day 28||||27.15|-9.34|0.418
91009000|NCT02516605|181901869|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|-11.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.69||0.156|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.95|1.8|||ANCOVA|Day 56||||1.80|-23.95|0.156
91009001|NCT02516605|181901869|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|-16.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.961||0.064|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-31.94|-1.92|||ANCOVA|Day 84||||-1.92|-31.94|0.064
91009002|NCT02643420|181901870|NON_INFERIORITY|The margin of non-inferiority to be used in the study is 0.62 day. The non-inferiority of SPI-2012 to Pegfilgrastim was declared if the upper bound of 95% confidence interval (CI) of the difference in mean DSN between the treatment arms was \<0.62 days.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.148|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.266|-0.031|||t-statistics|The p-values are based on the calculated t-statistics from the bootstrapped sample mean and standard deviation.||||-0.031|-0.266|<0.0001
91009003|NCT02643420|181901871|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||0.685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|0.94|||Negative binomial regression|||||0.94|-1.43|0.685
91009004|NCT02643420|181901872|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.2||||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.56|||Asymptotic normality assumption|P-value was obtained based upon asymptotic normality assumption on the log10 transformed data.||||1.56|0.93|0.155
91077780|NCT02913105|182041129|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using an ANCOVA model which included effects for treatment, log-transformed baseline and stratification factor (BMI group). BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian =30 and Non-Asian=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.59|0.78|||ANCOVA|||||0.78|0.59|<.0001
91009005|NCT02643420|181901873|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|1.1||||0.435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|10.8|||Fisher Exact|||||10.8|-8.6|0.435
91009006|NCT02643420|181901874|NON_INFERIORITY|The margin of non-inferiority to be used in the study is 0.62 day. The non-inferiority of SPI-2012 to Pegfilgrastim was declared if the upper bound of 95% CI of the difference in mean DSN between the treatment arms was \<0.62 days.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.042|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.032|0.116|||t-statistics|||DSN in Cycle 2||0.116|-0.032|<0.0001
91009007|NCT02643420|181901874|NON_INFERIORITY|The margin of non-inferiority to be used in the study is 0.62 day. The non-inferiority of SPI-2012 to Pegfilgrastim was declared if the upper bound of 95% CI of the difference in mean DSN between the treatment arms was \<0.62 days.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.026|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.032|0.085|||t-statistics|||DSN in Cycle 3||0.085|-0.032|<0.0001
91009008|NCT02643420|181901874|NON_INFERIORITY|The margin of non-inferiority to be used in the study is 0.62 day. The non-inferiority of SPI-2012 to Pegfilgrastim was declared if the upper bound of 95% CI of the difference in mean DSN between the treatment arms was \<0.62 days.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.027|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.036|0.089|||t-statistics|||DSN in Cycle 4||0.089|-0.036|<0.0001
91009009|NCT02643420|181901875|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|0.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|10.0|||Fisher Exact|||||10.0|-9.5|1.000
91009010|NCT02643420|181901876|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|9.8|||Fisher Exact|||FN in Cycle 2||9.8|-9.7|1.000
91009011|NCT02643420|181901876|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|1.6||||0.201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|11.3|||Fisher Exact|||FN in Cycle 3||11.3|-8.2|0.201
91009012|NCT02643420|181901876|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|1.0||||0.232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|10.8|||Fisher Exact|||FN in Cycle 4||10.8|-8.7|0.232
91009013|NCT02127970|181901879|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority hypothesis test was to be a one-sided hypothesis test performed at the 2.5% level of significance. If the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference in responder rates is greater than -10%, then the single-dose dalbavancin regimen was to be declared non-inferior to the two dose dalbavancin regimen.|Difference|-2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|2.8|||||For the difference in clinical responder rates (single-dose group minus two dose group), the 95% CI was calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen method without adjustment.|||2.8|-8.5|
91009014|NCT00542321|181901910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference between proportions|0.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|Chi-Square = 0.750, df = 1||Pearson Chi-Square Test for difference between groups||||1.00
91009015|NCT00542321|181901911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rank sums|52.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Alpha = .05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||There will be no difference in duration of mechanical ventilation between groups.||||1.0
91009016|NCT00542321|181901912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.451||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.451
91009017|NCT00542321|181901913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||probability|0.43||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
91009018|NCT00542321|181901914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rank sums|56.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.0
91009019|NCT04138758|181901921|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.85|||||Hazard Ratio lower than 1 favors Tiotropium + Olodaterol.|Cox proportional hazard regression models were used to assess the effect of Tiotropium + Olodaterol combination versus the Long-acting beta agonist / inhaled corticosteroid therapy combination on the risk of a first COPD exacerbation.||0.85|0.68|
91009020|NCT04138758|181901922|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.97|||||Hazard Ratio lower than 1 favors Tiotropium + Olodaterol.|Cox proportional hazard regression models were used to assess the effect of Tiotropium + Olodaterol combination versus the Long-acting beta agonist / inhaled corticosteroid therapy combination on the risk of first hospitalization for community-acquired pneumonia.||0.97|0.57|
91009021|NCT04138758|181901923|OTHER|Cox proportional hazard regression models were used to assess the effect of Tiotropium + Olodaterol combination versus the Long-acting beta agonist / inhaled corticosteroid therapy combination on the risk of escalation.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.27|||||Hazard Ratio lower than 1 favors Tiotropium + Olodaterol.|||0.27|0.19|
91009022|NCT04138758|181901924|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.26|||||Hazard Ratio lower than 1 favors Tiotropium + Olodaterol.|Cox proportional hazard regression models were used to assess the effect of Tiotropium + Olodaterol combination versus the Long-acting beta agonist / inhaled corticosteroid therapy combination on the risk of escalation.||0.26|0.19|
91009023|NCT04138758|181901925|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.51|||||Hazard Ratio lower than 1 favors Tiotropium + Olodaterol.|Cox proportional hazard regression models were used to assess the effect of Tiotropium + Olodaterol combination versus the Long-acting beta agonist / inhaled corticosteroid therapy combination on the risk of any element of a composite outcome including exacerbation, hospitalization for pneumonia, or escalation.||0.51|0.42|
91009024|NCT04138758|181901926|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.49|||||Hazard Ratio lower than 1 favors Tiotropium + Olodaterol.|Cox proportional hazard regression models were used to assess the effect of Tiotropium + Olodaterol combination versus the Long-acting beta agonist / inhaled corticosteroid therapy combination on the risk of any element of a composite outcome including exacerbation, hospitalization for pneumonia, or escalation.||0.49|0.41|
91009025|NCT02275052|181901939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|3.31||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.12|27.74||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least squares mean change difference=UMEC/VI 62.5/25 µg minus Placebo.|||27.74|-21.12|0.790
91009026|NCT02275052|181901940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.206|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.167|0.246|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM)|Least squares mean change difference=UMEC/VI 62.5/25 µg minus Placebo.|||0.246|0.167|<0.001
91009027|NCT02275052|181901941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.346|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.487|-0.204|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM)|Least squares mean change difference=UMEC/VI 62.5/25 µg minus Placebo.|||-0.204|-0.487|<0.001
91009028|NCT02275052|181901942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.259|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.194|0.324|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM)|Least squares mean change difference=UMEC/VI 62.5/25 µg minus Placebo.|||0.324|0.194|<0.001
91009029|NCT01143116|181901955|OTHER|||||||0.625|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6250
91009030|NCT01143116|181901955|OTHER|||||||0.75|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7500
91077781|NCT02913105|182041129|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using an ANCOVA model which included effects for treatment, log-transformed baseline and stratification factor (BMI group). BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian =30 and Non-Asian=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.63|0.8|||ANCOVA|||||0.80|0.63|<.0001
91009031|NCT01143116|181901956|OTHER|||||||0.875|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8750
91009032|NCT01143116|181901956|OTHER|||||||0.625|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6250
91009033|NCT01143116|181901957|OTHER|||||||0.0254|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0254
91009034|NCT01143116|181901957|OTHER|||||||0.0039|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0039
91009035|NCT01143116|181901958|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.0
91009036|NCT01143116|181901958|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.0000
91009037|NCT01143116|181901959|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.0
91009038|NCT01143116|181901959|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.0000
91009039|NCT01143116|181901960|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.0000
91009040|NCT01143116|181901961|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.0000
91009041|NCT01143116|181901962|OTHER|||||||0.0313|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0313
91009042|NCT01143116|181901962|OTHER|||||||0.0078|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0078
91009043|NCT01143116|181901963|OTHER|||||||0.7188|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7188
91009044|NCT01143116|181901963|OTHER|||||||0.6406|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6406
91009045|NCT01143116|181901964|OTHER|||||||0.4375|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4375
91009046|NCT01143116|181901964|OTHER|||||||0.2969|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2969
91009047|NCT01143116|181901965|OTHER|||||||0.5391|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5391
91009048|NCT01143116|181901965|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0010
91009049|NCT01143116|181901966|OTHER|||||||0.4766|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4766
91009050|NCT01143116|181901966|OTHER|||||||0.0068|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0068
91009051|NCT01143116|181901967|OTHER|||||||0.0625|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0625
91009052|NCT01143116|181901967|OTHER|||||||0.418|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4180
91009053|NCT02630459|181901982|SUPERIORITY|To maintain a family-wise type I error at 0.05, the pairwise comparisons were tested in a sequential testing procedure in the order of erenumab 140 mg QM vs placebo, erenumab 70 mg QM vs placebo and erenumab 28 mg QM vs placebo. The lower dose group was tested only when the higher dose group was considered statistically significant.|LS Mean Difference|-1.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.58|-1.2||P-values for pairwise comparisons were nominal and without multiplicity adjustment.|Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||The primary analysis utilized a generalized linear mixed model which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (prior/current treatment with migraine prophylactic medication status), and baseline value as covariates and assumed a first-order autoregressive covariance structure||-1.20|-2.58|<0.001
91009054|NCT02630459|181901982|SUPERIORITY|To maintain a family-wise type I error at 0.05, the pairwise comparisons were tested in a sequential testing procedure in the order of erenumab 140 mg QM vs placebo, erenumab 70 mg QM vs placebo and erenumab 28 mg QM vs placebo. The lower dose group was tested only when the higher dose group was considered statistically significant.|LS Mean Difference|-2.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-1.62||P-values for pairwise comparisons were nominal and without multiplicity adjustment.|Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||The primary analysis utilized a generalized linear mixed model which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (prior/current treatment with migraine prophylactic medication status), and baseline value as covariates and assumed a first-order autoregressive covariance structure||-1.62|-3.00|<0.001
91009055|NCT02630459|181901982|SUPERIORITY|To maintain a family-wise type I error at 0.05, the pairwise comparisons were tested in a sequential testing procedure in the order of erenumab 140 mg QM vs placebo, erenumab 70 mg QM vs placebo and erenumab 28 mg QM vs placebo. The lower dose group was tested only when the higher dose group was considered statistically significant.|LS Mean Difference|-1.25||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.41||P-values for pairwise comparisons were nominal and without multiplicity adjustment.|Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||The primary analysis utilized a generalized linear mixed model which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (prior/current treatment with migraine prophylactic medication status), and baseline value as covariates and assumed a first-order autoregressive covariance structure||-0.41|-2.10|0.004
91009056|NCT02630459|181901983|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|13.8|||||The 95% CI for the difference was calculated using the Newcombe hybrid score method.|Week 4: Full Administration||13.8|-13.3|
91009057|NCT02630459|181901983|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|13.3|||||The 95% CI for the difference was calculated using the Newcombe hybrid score method.|Week 4: Not Full Administration||13.3|-13.8|
91009058|NCT02630459|181901983|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|13.3|||||The 95% CI for the difference was calculated using the Newcombe hybrid score method.|Week 4: Discontinued Investigational Product||13.3|-13.8|
91009059|NCT02630459|181901983|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|13.8|||||The 95% CI for the difference was calculated using the Newcombe hybrid score method.|Week 8: Full Administration||13.8|-13.3|
91009060|NCT02630459|181901983|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|13.3|||||The 95% CI for the difference was calculated using the Newcombe hybrid score method.|Week 8: Not Full Administration||13.3|-13.8|
91009061|NCT02630459|181901983|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|13.3|||||The 95% CI for the difference was calculated using the Newcombe hybrid score method.|Week 8: Discontinued Investigational Product||13.3|-13.8|
91009062|NCT02630459|181901984|SUPERIORITY||Common Odds Ratio|4.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.24|9.99||P-values for pairwise comparisons were nominal and obtained from the CMH test using data including placebo and corresponding erenumab dose group only.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The common odds ratios and p-values were obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, stratified by stratification factor prior/current treatment with migraine prophylactic medication status.||9.99|2.24|<0.001
91009063|NCT02630459|181901984|SUPERIORITY||Common Odds Ratio|5.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|12.06||P-values for pairwise comparisons were nominal and obtained from the CMH test using data including placebo and corresponding erenumab dose group only.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The common odds ratios and p-values were obtained from a CMH test, stratified by stratification factor prior/current treatment with migraine prophylactic medication status.||12.06|2.60|<0.001
91009064|NCT02630459|181901984|SUPERIORITY||Common Odds Ratio|3.21||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|7.88||P-values for pairwise comparisons were nominal and obtained from the CMH test using data including placebo and corresponding erenumab dose group only.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The common odds ratios and p-values were obtained from a CMH test, stratified by stratification factor prior/current treatment with migraine prophylactic medication status.||7.88|1.30|0.009
91009065|NCT02630459|181901985|SUPERIORITY|To maintain a family-wise type I error at 0.05, the pairwise comparisons were tested in a sequential testing procedure in the order of erenumab 140 mg QM vs placebo, erenumab 70 mg QM vs placebo and erenumab 28 mg QM vs placebo. The lower dose group was tested only when the higher dose group was considered statistically significant.|LS Mean Difference|-2.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.63|-1.45||P-values for pairwise comparisons were nominal and without multiplicity adjustment.|Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||The primary analysis utilized a generalized linear mixed model which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (prior/current treatment with migraine prophylactic medication status), and baseline value as covariates and assumed a first-order autoregressive covariance structure||-1.45|-2.63|<0.001
91050678|NCT02037165|181987285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-61.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|27.2866|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-115.6|-7.2|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 22:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||-7.2|-115.6|
91009066|NCT02630459|181901985|SUPERIORITY|To maintain a family-wise type I error at 0.05, the pairwise comparisons were tested in a sequential testing procedure in the order of erenumab 140 mg QM vs placebo, erenumab 70 mg QM vs placebo and erenumab 28 mg QM vs placebo. The lower dose group was tested only when the higher dose group was considered statistically significant.|LS Mean Difference|-2.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.66|-1.49||P-values for pairwise comparisons were nominal and without multiplicity adjustment.|Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||The primary analysis utilized a generalized linear mixed model which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (prior/current treatment with migraine prophylactic medication status), and baseline value as covariates and assumed a first-order autoregressive covariance structure||-1.49|-2.66|<0.001
91078086|NCT01492101|182041423|EQUIVALENCE|\[24\] - Analysis of variance with change from baseline in linear transformed score at the last visit as the dependent variable and treatment arm, geographic region, prior use of eribulin, and receptor status as fixed effects.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.6||||0.1072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|12.34|||F-test|||||12.34|-1.22|0.1072
91009067|NCT02630459|181901985|SUPERIORITY|To maintain a family-wise type I error at 0.05, the pairwise comparisons were tested in a sequential testing procedure in the order of erenumab 140 mg QM vs placebo, erenumab 70 mg QM vs placebo and erenumab 28 mg QM vs placebo. The lower dose group was tested only when the higher dose group was considered statistically significant.|LS Mean Difference|-1.07||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.35||P-values for pairwise comparisons were nominal and without multiplicity adjustment.|Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||The primary analysis utilized a generalized linear mixed model which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (prior/current treatment with migraine prophylactic medication status), and baseline value as covariates and assumed a first-order autoregressive covariance structure||-0.35|-1.80|0.004
91009068|NCT01797302|181902006|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88||||||interaction term from model group\*time|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.88
91050679|NCT02037165|181987285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-49.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|26.7541|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-102.6|3.8|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 24:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||3.8|-102.6|
91050680|NCT02440022|181987340|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0562|||||||Kaplan-Meier|||||||0.0562
91050681|NCT02440022|181987341|NON_INFERIORITY|Where δ = 10% is the non-inferiority margin, which is the range of difference that is considered not clinically important. A non-inferiority Farrington and Manning Test was used to test the primary safety hypothesis. The test is successful if the one-sided p-value is less than 0.025. In addition to the p-value of the test, the confidence intervals of the rate in each group and the difference between the two groups is calculated.||||||0.002|||||||Binary Analysis|||"H0: The primary safety rate p1 in the DCB treatment group through 30 days post index procedure is inferior to that p2 of the PTA treatment group. (i.e. p1 ≤ p2 - δ)~H1: The primary safety rate p1 in the DCB treatment group through 30 days post index procedure is non-inferior to that p2 of the PTA treatment group. (i.e. p1 \> p2 - δ)"||||0.002
91050682|NCT02440022|181987347|OTHER|||||||0.716||||||P-value was type 3 test of the interaction of treatment group and pre-dilation balloon type.|Regression, Cox|||||||0.7160
91050683|NCT00368979|181987434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.6||||0.003||95.0|-2.7|-0.5|||ANCOVA|||||-0.5|-2.7|0.003
91050684|NCT00912093|181987442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Peto-Peto Wilcoxon|||||||<0.001
91050685|NCT00912093|181987443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Peto-Peto Wilcoxon|||||||<0.001
91050686|NCT00912093|181987444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.012|||||||Peto Peto Wilcoxon|||||||0.012
91050687|NCT00912093|181987445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Peto-Peto Wilcoxon|||||||<0.001
91050688|NCT00912093|181987446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Peto-Peto Wilcoxon|||||||<0.001
91050689|NCT01462318|181987455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio|1.015|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.894|1.153|||||test/reference = midazolam+DAC HYP/midazolam|Pairwise comparison: midazolam. Based on linear mixed model with fixed effect for treatment and random effect for participants.||1.153|0.894|
91050690|NCT01462318|181987455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio|1.005|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.951|1.063|||||test/reference = S-warfarin+DAC HYP/S-warfarin|Pairwise comparison: S-warfarin. Based on linear mixed model with fixed effect for treatment and random effect for participants.||1.063|0.951|
91050691|NCT01462318|181987455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio|0.996|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.127|||||test/reference = omeprazole+DAC HYP/omeprazole|Pairwise comparison: omeprazole. Based on linear mixed model with fixed effect for treatment and random effect for participants.||1.127|0.880|
91050692|NCT01462318|181987455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio|1.032|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|1.145|||||test/reference = caffeine+DAC HYP/caffeine|Pairwise comparison: caffeine. Based on linear mixed model with fixed effect for treatment and random effect for participants. Excludes participants with high predose concentration (\>5% of maximum observed concentration \[Cmax\]).||1.145|0.930|
91050693|NCT01462318|181987456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio|1.012|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.764|1.342|||||test/reference = dextromethorphan+DAC HYP/dextromethorphan|Pairwise comparison: dextromethorphan. Based on linear mixed model with fixed effect for treatment and random effect for participants.||1.342|0.764|
91050694|NCT01462318|181987464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio|1.079|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.912|1.276|||||test/reference = midazolam+DAC HYP/midazolam|Pairwise comparison: midazolam. Based on linear mixed model with fixed effect for treatment and random effect for participants.||1.276|0.912|
91009069|NCT01797302|181902007|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85||||||interaction term for group\*time|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.85
91050695|NCT01462318|181987464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio|1.012|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.952|1.075|||||test/reference = S-warfarin+DAC HYP/S-warfarin|Pairwise comparison: S-warfarin. Based on linear mixed model with fixed effect for treatment and random effect for participants.||1.075|0.952|
91050696|NCT01462318|181987464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio|1.058|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.804|1.392|||||test/reference = omeprazole+DAC HYP/omeprazole|Pairwise comparison: omeprazole. Based on linear mixed model with fixed effect for treatment and random effect for participants.||1.392|0.804|
91050697|NCT01462318|181987464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio|1.116|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.005|1.238|||||test/reference = caffeine+DAC HYP/caffeine|Pairwise comparison: caffeine. Based on linear mixed model with fixed effect for treatment and random effect for participants. Excludes participants with high predose concentration (\>5% of Cmax).||1.238|1.005|
91050698|NCT01462318|181987466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio|0.878|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.697|1.105|||||test/reference = omeprazole+DAC HYP/omeprazole|Pairwise comparison: omeprazole. Based on linear mixed model with fixed effect for treatment and random effect for participants.||1.105|0.697|
91050699|NCT00270257|181987475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incident rate per 100 person-years|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.8||||||||2.8|0.7|
91050700|NCT00270257|181987475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incident rate per 100 person-years|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|3.7||||||||3.7|1.2|
91050701|NCT00270257|181987475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.694||||0.3769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.308|1.562|||Regression, Cox|||||1.562|0.308|0.3769
91050702|NCT00270257|181987476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.844||||0.4325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.553|1.289||P value applies for the comparison at visit 104.|Regression, Logistic|adjusted for site||||1.289|0.553|0.4325
91009070|NCT01797302|181902008|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61||||||interaction term group\*time from linear mixed model|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.61
91009071|NCT01797302|181902009|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24||||||interaction term group\*time from linear mixed model|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.24
91009072|NCT01797302|181902010|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0117||||||interaction term group\*time from linear mixed model|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0117
91009073|NCT01797302|181902011|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53||||||interaction term group\*time from linear mixed model|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.53
91009074|NCT01797302|181902012|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0256||||||interaction term group\*time from linear mixed model|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0256
91009075|NCT01797302|181902013|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0945||||||interaction term group\*time from linear mixed model|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0945
91009076|NCT01797302|181902014|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12||||||interaction term group\*time from linear mixed model|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.12
91009077|NCT01797302|181902015|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0094||||||interaction term group\*time from linear mixed model|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0094
91050703|NCT00270257|181987477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.2749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.536|1.194||P value applies for the comparison at visit 104 only.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.194|0.536|0.2749
91009078|NCT00783263|181902054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.89|-10.6|||Longitudinal Data Analysis (LDA)|Longitudinal Data Analysis was based on a constrained LDA model with terms for treatment, time, stratum and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-10.60|-19.89|<0.001
91009079|NCT00783263|181902055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.95|-5.67|||Longitudinal Data Analysis (LDA)|Longitudinal Data Analysis was based on a constrained LDA model with terms for treatment, time and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-5.67|-18.95|<0.001
91009080|NCT00783263|181902055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.92|-10.99|||Longitudinal Data Analysis (LDA)|Longitudinal Data Analysis was based on a constrained LDA model with terms for treatment, time and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-10.99|-23.92|<0.001
91009081|NCT00783263|181902056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|6.9|||Logistic Regression|Logistic Regression included terms for treatment, stratum and baseline LDL-C category (3 levels: \<100, 100-\<130, ≥130 mg/dL).||||6.9|2.9|<0.001
91009082|NCT00783263|181902057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|5.8|||Logistic Regression|Logistic Regression included terms for treatment and baseline LDL-C category (3 levels: \<100, 100-\<130, \>=130 mg/dL).||||5.8|1.7|<0.001
91050704|NCT00270257|181987478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.746||||0.3446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.407|1.369||Analysis is done for visit 104|Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for site||||1.369|0.407|0.3446
91050705|NCT00270257|181987479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8712||||0.362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6477|1.1718||P value applies for the comparison at visit 104 only. See the estimation comments for the other visits|Generalized linear model|adjusted for site.||||1.1718|0.6477|0.3620
91009083|NCT00783263|181902057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|12.3|||Logistic Regression|Logistic Regression included terms for treatment and baseline LDL-C category (3 levels: \<100, 100-\<130, \>=130 mg/dL).||||12.3|3.4|<0.001
91009084|NCT00783263|181902058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.6|14.0|||Logistic Regression|||||14.0|4.6|<0.001
91009085|NCT00783263|181902059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|11.8|||Logistic Regression|||Stratum I||11.8|2.2|<0.001
91009086|NCT00783263|181902059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.2|24.8|||Logistic Regression|||Stratum II||24.8|5.2|<0.001
91009087|NCT00783263|181902060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.59|-5.71|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|||Total Cholesterol (mg/dL)||-5.71|-11.59|<0.001
91009088|NCT00783263|181902060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.1||||0.306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.04|2.84|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|||Triglycerides (mg/dL)||2.84|-9.04|0.306
91009089|NCT00783263|181902060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.15||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.79|0.49|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|||High-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol||0.49|-4.79|0.111
91009090|NCT00783263|181902060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.1|-7.86|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|||Non High-Density Liproprotein Cholesterol||-7.86|-16.10|<0.001
91009091|NCT00783263|181902060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.36|-8.13|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|||LDL Cholesterol/HDL Cholesterol||-8.13|-18.36|<0.001
91009092|NCT00783263|181902060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.45||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.53|-2.36|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|||Total Cholesterol/HDL Cholesterol||-2.36|-10.53|0.002
91009093|NCT00783263|181902060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.52||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.3|-3.75|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|||Non-HDL Cholestrol/HDL Cholesterol||-3.75|-15.30|0.001
91009094|NCT00783263|181902060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.74|-6.08|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|||Apolipoprotein B (Apo B)||-6.08|-12.74|<0.001
91009095|NCT00783263|181902060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.82||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.99|0.36|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|||Apolipoprotein A-I (Apo A-I)||0.36|-3.99|0.102
91009096|NCT00783263|181902060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.25|-3.83|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|||Apolipoprotein B/Apo A-I||-3.83|-11.25|<0.001
91009097|NCT00783263|181902060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.08||||0.861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.13|10.97|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|||hs-C-Reactive Protein||10.97|-13.13|0.861
91050706|NCT00270257|181987480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incident rate of 100 person-years|22.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.7|31.6|||||29 events over 132 person-years|||31.6|14.7|
91050707|NCT00270257|181987480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incident rate of 100 person-years|4.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|9.0|||||8 events over 174 person-years|||9.0|2.0|
91050708|NCT00270257|181987481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incident rate of 100 person-years|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|5.08|||||9 events over 336 person-years|||5.08|1.22|
91050709|NCT00270257|181987481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incident rate of 100 person-years|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|10.1|||||0 events over 37 person-years|||10.1|0.00|
91078087|NCT01004432|182041428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage achive ACR 20 response|34.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.4|39.4||One sided test adjusting for conducting one interim analysis|Chi-squared|||null hypothesis: proportion \<=0.2||39.4|30.4|<0.0001
91078088|NCT02696434|182041464|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.68||||0.407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.68|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.68|0.28|0.407
91078089|NCT00355706|182041486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.964||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.964
91078090|NCT00355706|182041487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.892||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.892
91078091|NCT00355706|182041488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.56||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.560
91078092|NCT03114657|182041507|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.633|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.6||||||||2.60|0.00|
91078093|NCT03114657|182041508|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.028|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|5.89||||||||5.89|-2.40|
91078094|NCT03114657|182041509|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.124|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.03|4.68||||||||4.68|-4.03|
91078095|NCT03114657|182041510|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.39||||||||0.39|-0.20|
91009098|NCT00721136|181902063|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Continuous variables were expressed as mean ± standard deviation and analyzed using Student's t-test and Mann-Whitney U-test in cases of nonparametric distribution. Categorical variables were expressed as numbers or percentages and analyzed with two-tailed Fisher's exact test or χ2-test as appropriate. Data were analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis using STATA 10.1 (College Station, TX). A two-tailed alpha of 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Continuous variables were expressed as mean ± standard deviation and analyzed using Student's t-test and Mann-Whitney U-test in cases of nonparametric distribution. Categorical variables were expressed as numbers or percentages and analyzed with two-tailed Fisher's exact test or χ2-test as appropriate. Data were analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis using STATA 10.1 (College Station, TX). A two-tailed alpha of 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|||
91009099|NCT00732199|181902066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T- test was conducted to compare the 2 groups.||||<0.05
91009100|NCT00732199|181902067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|Compares control vs hypoxia trials vs recovery post-hypoxia||||||<0.05
91009101|NCT00732199|181902068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91009102|NCT00732199|181902069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91009103|NCT03018028|181902102|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The estimated treatment effect excludes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (hypothetical estimand).|Treatment difference|-1.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.8||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0.|Mixed model for repeated measurements||Oral semaglutide 3 mg - Placebo|The analysis was based on a mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM) that assumed data to be missing at random. As dependent variables, the MMRM model included all post-baseline values collected at scheduled visits up to and including week 26. The independent effects were treatment and stratification factor as categorical fixed effects and the baseline HbA1c value as a covariate, all nested within visit, and an unstructured residual covariance matrix.||-0.8|-1.4|<0.0001
91009104|NCT03018028|181902102|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The estimated treatment effect excludes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (hypothetical estimand).|Treatment difference|-1.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-1.2||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0.|Mixed model for repeated measurements||Oral semaglutide 7 mg - Placebo|The analysis was based on a MMRM that assumed data to be missing at random. As dependent variables, the MMRM model included all post-baseline values collected at scheduled visits up to and including week 26. The independent effects were treatment and stratification factor as categorical fixed effects and the baseline HbA1c value as a covariate, all nested within visit, and an unstructured residual covariance matrix.||-1.2|-1.7|<0.0001
91009105|NCT03018028|181902102|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The estimated treatment effect excludes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (hypothetical estimand).|Treatment difference|-1.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-1.4||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0.|Mixed model for repeated measurements||Oral semaglutide 14 mg - Placebo|The analysis was based on a MMRM that assumed data to be missing at random. As dependent variables, the MMRM model included all post-baseline values collected at scheduled visits up to and including week 26. The independent effects were treatment and stratification factor as categorical fixed effects and the baseline HbA1c value as a covariate, all nested within visit, and an unstructured residual covariance matrix.||-1.4|-2.0|<0.0001
91009106|NCT03018028|181902102|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The estimated treatment effect excludes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (hypothetical estimand).|Treatment difference|0.3||||0.0799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.6||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0.|Mixed model for repeated measurements||Oral semaglutide 3 mg - Liraglutide 0.9 mg|The analysis was based on a MMRM that assumed data to be missing at random. As dependent variables, the MMRM model included all post-baseline values collected at scheduled visits up to and including week 26. The independent effects were treatment and stratification factor as categorical fixed effects and the baseline HbA1c value as a covariate, all nested within visit, and an unstructured residual covariance matrix.||0.6|-0.0|0.0799
91009107|NCT03018028|181902102|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The estimated treatment effect excludes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (hypothetical estimand).|Treatment difference|-0.1||||0.3942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0.|Mixed model for repeated measurements||Oral semaglutide 7 mg - Liraglutide 0.9 mg|The analysis was based on a MMRM that assumed data to be missing at random. As dependent variables, the MMRM model included all post-baseline values collected at scheduled visits up to and including week 26. The independent effects were treatment and stratification factor as categorical fixed effects and the baseline HbA1c value as a covariate, all nested within visit, and an unstructured residual covariance matrix.||0.2|-0.4|0.3942
91050710|NCT02920918|181987498|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.083|||||||ANOVA|||We expected a baseline peak oxygen consumption (VO2) of 14.5 mL/kg/min. A sample size of 40 patients per group (total of 80 patients) provided sufficient power to detect a mean difference in the interval change in peak VO2 of 1.50±1.76 mL/kg/min (primary endpoint) expected with Canagliflozin compared to Sitagliptin, which we predict to have no significant effect on peak VO2 (0±1.76 mL/kg/min).||||0.083
91050711|NCT02920918|181987499|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.51
91050712|NCT00450619|181987507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5019||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.041
91050713|NCT00450619|181987507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5019||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Hazard Ratio|||||||0.046
91050714|NCT00450619|181987511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.35|||Kaplan Meier|||||1.35|0.37|0.30
91078096|NCT03114657|182041511|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.985|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.42|1.6||||||||1.60|-2.42|
91050715|NCT04442490|181987544|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.0141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-0.3|||MMRM||Model used was the MMRM with treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, antidepressant use at baseline (Yes or No), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects with Unstructured covariance structure.|||-0.3|-3.1|0.0141
91050716|NCT04442490|181987545|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.1193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.0|||MMRM||Model used was the MMRM with treatment (SAGE-217 or placebo), baseline CGI-S score, antidepressant use at baseline (Yes or No), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects with Unstructured covariance structure.|||0.0|-0.4|0.1193
91009108|NCT03018028|181902102|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The estimated treatment effect excludes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (hypothetical estimand).|Treatment difference|-0.3||||0.0272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.0||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0.|Mixed model for repeated measurement||Oral semaglutide 14 mg - Liraglutide 0.9 mg|The analysis was based on a MMRM that assumed data to be missing at random. As dependent variables, the MMRM model included all post-baseline values collected at scheduled visits up to and including week 26. The independent effects were treatment and stratification factor as categorical fixed effects and the baseline HbA1c value as a covariate, all nested within visit, and an unstructured residual covariance matrix.||-0.0|-0.6|0.0272
91050717|NCT04442490|181987546|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-2.0|||MMRM||Model used was the MMRM with treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, antidepressant use at baseline (Yes or No), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects with Unstructured covariance structure.|Change from baseline at Day 3||-2.0|-4.0|<0.0001
91050718|NCT04442490|181987546|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|-1.4|||MMRM||Model used was the MMRM with treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, antidepressant use at baseline (Yes or No), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects with Unstructured covariance structure.|Change from baseline at Day 8||-1.4|-3.8|<0.0001
91009109|NCT03018028|181902102|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the in-trial observation period. The estimated treatment effect includes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (treatment policy estimand).|Treatment difference|-0.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.5||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0.|Pattern Mixture model||Oral semaglutide 3 mg - Placebo|The analysis was based on a pattern mixture model using multiple imputation to handle missing week 26 data, assuming that data were missing at random within the groups used for imputation. The imputed data sets were analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment and stratification factor as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as a covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete data sets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||-0.5|-1.1|<0.0001
91050719|NCT04442490|181987546|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.2344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.6|||MMRM||Model used was the MMRM with treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, antidepressant use at baseline (Yes or No), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects with Unstructured covariance structure.|Change from baseline at Day 42||0.6|-2.4|0.2344
91078097|NCT03114657|182041512|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.052|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.74|3.7||||||||3.70|-8.74|
91078098|NCT03114657|182041513|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.501|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.29|3.92||||||||3.92|-6.29|
91078099|NCT03114657|182041514|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.42|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|3.51||||||||3.51|-2.25|
91078100|NCT03114657|182041516|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.502|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|0.23||||||||0.23|-1.75|
91078101|NCT03114657|182041517|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.383|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|2.39||||||||2.39|-3.30|
91078102|NCT03114657|182041518|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|6.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.527|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.35|17.44||||||||17.44|-4.35|
91078103|NCT03114657|182041519|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.831|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.31|11.71||||||||11.71|-12.31|
91078104|NCT03114657|182041520|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.94|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|4.73||||||||4.73|-11.50|
91078105|NCT03114657|182041526|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.622|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.01|0.89||||||||0.89|-2.01|
91078106|NCT03114657|182041527|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.668|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|4.9||||||||4.90|-1.70|
91078107|NCT03114657|182041528|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.373|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|0.41||||||||0.41|-1.13|
91078108|NCT04245202|182041529|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91078109|NCT04245202|182041530|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91078110|NCT04245202|182041531|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.003
91078111|NCT04245202|182041532|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.29|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.72|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.53|-1.05||The p-Value of the interaction between time and groups was given. In all analyses, p values \<0·05 were considered being statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference= High-Flow Nasal Cannula Oxygen Therapy (96-0 h) - Standard Face Mask Oxygen Therapy (96-0 h) (based on least-square means)|||-1.05|-23.53|<0.001
91078112|NCT04245202|182041533|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.66|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.77|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.05|-3.28|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference= High-Flow Nasal Cannula Oxygen Therapy (96-0 h) - Standard Face Mask Oxygen Therapy (96-0 h) (based on least-square means)|The p-Value of the interaction between time and groups was given. In all analyses, p values \<0·05 were considered being statistically significant.||-3.28|-22.05|<0.001
91078113|NCT04245202|182041534|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.91|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.43|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.68|0.86||The p-Value of the interaction between time and groups was given. In all analysis, p values \<0.05 were considered being statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference= High-Flow Nasal Cannula Oxygen Therapy (96-0 h) - Standard Face Mask Oxygen Therapy (96-0 h) (based on least-square means)|||0.86|-8.68|<0.001
91078114|NCT04245202|182041535|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.41|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.14||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.62|1.78|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference= High-Flow Nasal Cannula Oxygen Therapy (96-0 h) - Standard Face Mask Oxygen Therapy (96-0 h) (based on least-square means)|The p-Value of the interaction between time and groups was given. In all analysis, p values \<0.05 were considered being statistically significant.||1.78|-6.62|0.003
91050720|NCT04442490|181987547|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.0599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.98|||Generalized Estimating Equation Model|||Day 15|Model used is a GEE for binary response model, with factors for treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, antidepressant use at baseline (Yes or No), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction with Unstructured covariance structure. Odds ratio was the estimate of the odds of having HAM-D response for participants treated with SAGE-217 relative to that for participants treated with placebo.|1.98|0.99|0.0599
91050721|NCT04442490|181987547|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.0889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.94|||GEE Model|||Day 42|Model used is a GEE for binary response model, with factors for treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, antidepressant use at baseline (Yes or No), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction with Unstructured covariance structure.Odds ratio was the estimate of the odds of having HAM-D response for participants treated with SAGE-217 relative to that for participants treated with placebo.|1.94|0.95|0.0889
91050722|NCT04442490|181987548|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.5495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.66|||GEE Model|||Day 15|Model used is GEE for binary response model, with factors for treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, antidepressant use at baseline, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction with Unstructured covariance structure. Odds ratio was the estimate of the odds of having HAM-D remission for participants treated with SAGE-217 relative to that for participants treated with placebo.|1.66|0.76|0.5495
91050723|NCT04442490|181987548|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.6|||GEE Model|||Day 42|Model used is GEE for binary response model, with factors for treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, antidepressant use at baseline, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction with Unstructured covariance structure. Odds ratio was the estimate of the odds of having HAM-D remission for participants treated with SAGE-217 relative to that for participants treated with placebo.|1.60|0.74|0.6790
91050724|NCT04442490|181987549|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.52||||0.0191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|2.16|||GEE Model|||Placebo, SAGE-217|Model used was a GEE for binary response model, with factors for treatment, CGI-S baseline score, antidepressant use at baseline (Yes or No), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction with Unstructured covariance structure. Odds ratio was the estimate of the odds of having CGI-I response for participants treated with SAGE-217 relative to that for participants treated with placebo.|2.16|1.07|0.0191
91050725|NCT04442490|181987550|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.0238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|-0.3|||MMRM||Model used was the MMRM with treatment (SAGE-217/placebo), baseline MADRS total score, antidepressant use at baseline (Yes or No), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects with Unstructured covariance structure|Placebo, SAGE-217||-0.3|-4.4|0.0238
91009110|NCT03018028|181902102|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the in-trial observation period. The estimated treatment effect includes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (treatment policy estimand).|Treatment difference|-1.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.9||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0.|Pattern Mixture model||Oral semaglutide 7 mg - Placebo|The analysis was based on a pattern mixture model using multiple imputation to handle missing week 26 data, assuming that data were missing at random within the groups used for imputation. The imputed data sets were analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment and stratification factor as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as a covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete data sets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||-0.9|-1.5|<0.0001
91009111|NCT03018028|181902102|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the in-trial observation period. The estimated treatment effect includes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (treatment policy estimand).|Treatment difference|-1.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-1.1||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0.|Pattern Mixture model||Oral semaglutide 14 mg - Placebo|The analysis was based on a pattern mixture model using multiple imputation to handle missing week 26 data, assuming that data were missing at random within the groups used for imputation. The imputed data sets were analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment and stratification factor as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as a covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete data sets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||-1.1|-1.7|<0.0001
91009112|NCT03018028|181902102|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the in-trial observation period. The estimated treatment effect includes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (treatment policy estimand).|Treatment difference|0.2||||0.1958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.5||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0.|Pattern Mixture model||Oral semaglutide 3 mg - Liraglutide 0.9 mg|The analysis was based on a pattern mixture model using multiple imputation to handle missing week 26 data, assuming that data were missing at random within the groups used for imputation. The imputed data sets were analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment and stratification factor as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as a covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete data sets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||0.5|-0.1|0.1958
91009113|NCT03018028|181902102|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the in-trial observation period. The estimated treatment effect includes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (treatment policy estimand).|Treatment difference|-0.2||||0.1868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0.|Pattern Mixture model||Oral semaglutide 7 mg - Liraglutide 0.9 mg|The analysis was based on a pattern mixture model using multiple imputation to handle missing week 26 data, assuming that data were missing at random within the groups used for imputation. The imputed data sets were analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment and stratification factor as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as a covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete data sets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||0.1|-0.5|0.1868
91009114|NCT03018028|181902102|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the in-trial observation period. The estimated treatment effect includes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (treatment policy estimand).|Treatment difference|-0.4||||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.1||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0.|Pattern Mixture model||Oral semaglutide 14 mg - Liraglutide 0.9 mg|The analysis was based on a pattern mixture model using multiple imputation to handle missing week 26 data, assuming that data were missing at random within the groups used for imputation. The imputed data sets were analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment and stratification factor as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as a covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete data sets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||-0.1|-0.7|0.0077
91009115|NCT03018028|181902129|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63||||0.2579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.4||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox||Oral semaglutide 3 mg / Placebo|Time to initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment and stratification factor as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Withdrawal for any reason or lost to follow-up contributed to the analysis as events (initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication). Censoring time was one day before planned end of treatment.||1.40|0.29|0.2579
91050726|NCT04442490|181987551|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.0199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-0.2|||MMRM||Model used was MMRM with treatment (SAGE-217/placebo), baseline HAM-A total score, antidepressant use at baseline (Yes or No), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects with Unstructured covariance structure.|Placebo, SAGE-217||-0.2|-2.5|0.0199
91009116|NCT03018028|181902129|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.25||||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.66||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox||Oral semaglutide 7 mg / Placebo|Time to initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment and stratification factor as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Withdrawal for any reason or lost to follow-up contributed to the analysis as events (initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication). Censoring time was one day before planned end of treatment.||0.66|0.10|0.0052
91009117|NCT03018028|181902129|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.31||||0.0259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.87||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox||Oral semaglutide 14 mg / Placebo|Time to initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment and stratification factor as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Withdrawal for any reason or lost to follow-up contributed to the analysis as events (initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication). Censoring time was one day before planned end of treatment.||0.87|0.11|0.0259
91050727|NCT04442490|181987553|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.3216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.5|||MMRM||Model used is MMRM with treatment(SAGE-217/placebo), baseline SF-36v2 domain/component score, antidepressant use at baseline(Yes/No)assessment time point and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects with Unstructured covariance structure.|Physical Functioning Domain Score: Change from Baseline at Day 8||1.5|-0.5|0.3216
91050728|NCT04442490|181987553|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.1247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.8|||MMRM||Model used is MMRM with treatment(SAGE-217/placebo), baseline SF-36v2 domain/component score, antidepressant use at baseline(Yes/No)assessment time point and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects with Unstructured covariance structure.|Physical Functioning Domain Score: Change from Baseline at Day 15||1.8|-0.2|0.1247
91050729|NCT04442490|181987553|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.1111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|2.0|||MMRM||Model used is MMRM with treatment(SAGE-217/placebo), baseline SF-36v2 domain/component score, antidepressant use at baseline(Yes/No)assessment time point and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects with Unstructured covariance structure.|Physical Functioning Domain Score: Change from Baseline at Day 28||2.0|-0.2|0.1111
91050730|NCT04442490|181987553|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.1449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|2.0|||MMRM||Model used is MMRM with treatment(SAGE-217/placebo), baseline SF-36v2 domain/component score, antidepressant use at baseline(Yes/No)assessment time point and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects with Unstructured covariance structure.|Physical Functioning Domain Score: Change from Baseline at Day 42||2.0|-0.3|0.1449
91050731|NCT04442490|181987553|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.8242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.0|||MMRM||Model used is MMRM with treatment(SAGE-217/placebo), baseline SF-36v2 domain/component score, antidepressant use at baseline(Yes/No)assessment time point and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects with Unstructured covariance structure.|Role-Physical Domain Score: Change from Baseline at Day 8||1.0|-1.3|0.8242
91050732|NCT04442490|181987553|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.8329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.1|||MMRM|||Role-Physical Domain Score: Change from Baseline at Day 15||1.1|-1.4|0.8329
91050733|NCT04442490|181987553|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.8127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.1|||MMRM|||Role-Physical Domain Score: Change from Baseline at Day 28||1.1|-1.4|0.8127
91050734|NCT04442490|181987553|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.5435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.6|||MMRM|||Role-Physical Domain Score: Change from Baseline at Day 42||1.6|-0.9|0.5435
91009118|NCT03018028|181902129|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.7||||0.0674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|7.8||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox||Oral semaglutide 3 mg / Liraglutide 0.9 mg|Time to initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment and stratification factor as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Withdrawal for any reason or lost to follow-up contributed to the analysis as events (initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication). Censoring time was one day before planned end of treatment.||7.80|0.93|0.0674
91050735|NCT04442490|181987553|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.3551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.8|||MMRM|||Bodily Pain Domain Score: Change from Baseline at Day 8||1.8|-0.7|0.3551
91050736|NCT04442490|181987553|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.7495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.6|||MMRM|||Bodily Pain Domain Score: Change from Baseline at Day 15||1.6|-1.1|0.7495
91050737|NCT04442490|181987553|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.6471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.7|||MMRM|||Bodily Pain Domain Score: Change from Baseline at Day 28||1.7|-1.1|0.6471
91050738|NCT04442490|181987553|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.1832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|2.5|||MMRM|||Bodily Pain Domain Score: Change from Baseline at Day 42||2.5|-0.5|0.1832
91050739|NCT04442490|181987553|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.0168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.2|||MMRM|||General Health Domain Score: Change from Baseline at Day 8||2.2|0.2|0.0168
91050740|NCT04442490|181987553|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.0787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|2.0|||MMRM|||General Health Domain Score: Change from Baseline at Day 15||2.0|-0.1|0.0787
91050741|NCT04442490|181987553|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.4273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.6|||MMRM|||General Health Domain Score: Change from Baseline at Day 28||1.6|-0.7|0.4273
91050742|NCT04442490|181987553|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.0938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|2.2|||MMRM|||General Health Domain Score: Change from Baseline at Day 42||2.2|-0.2|0.0938
91050743|NCT04442490|181987553|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|4.3|||MMRM|||Vitality Domain Score: Change from Baseline at Day 8||4.3|0.9|0.0033
91050744|NCT04442490|181987553|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|5.1|||MMRM|||Vitality Domain Score: Change from Baseline at Day 15||5.1|1.1|0.0029
91050745|NCT04442490|181987553|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.0791|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|3.9|||MMRM|||Vitality Domain Score: Change from Baseline at Day 28||3.9|-0.2|0.0791
91050746|NCT04442490|181987553|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12||0.0761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|4.2|||MMRM|||Vitality Domain Score: Change from Baseline at Day 42||4.2|-0.2|0.0761
91050747|NCT04442490|181987553|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91||0.1568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|3.1|||MMRM|||Social Functioning Domain Score: Change from Baseline at Day 8||3.1|-0.5|0.1568
91050748|NCT04442490|181987553|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99||0.2807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|3.0|||MMRM|||Social Functioning Domain Score: Change from Baseline at Day 15||3.0|-0.9|0.2807
91050749|NCT04442490|181987553|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.7751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|2.4|||MMRM|||Social Functioning Domain Score: Change from Baseline at Day 28||2.4|-1.8|0.7751
91050750|NCT04442490|181987553|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.07||0.0913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|3.9|||MMRM|||Social Functioning Domain Score: Change from Baseline at Day 42||3.9|-0.3|0.0913
91050751|NCT04442490|181987553|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.2863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|3.2|||MMRM|||Role-Emotional Domain Score: Change from Baseline at Day 8||3.2|-0.9|0.2863
91050752|NCT04442490|181987553|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.13||0.1801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|3.7|||MMRM|||Role-Emotional Domain Score: Change from Baseline at Day 15||3.7|-0.7|0.1801
91050753|NCT04442490|181987553|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16||0.1107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|4.1|||MMRM|||Role-Emotional Domain Score: Change from Baseline at Day 28||4.1|-0.4|0.1107
91009119|NCT03018028|181902129|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.9087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|3.54||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox||Oral semaglutide 7 mg / Liraglutide 0.9 mg|Time to initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment and stratification factor as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Withdrawal for any reason or lost to follow-up contributed to the analysis as events (initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication). Censoring time was one day before planned end of treatment.||3.54|0.32|0.9087
91009120|NCT03018028|181902129|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.33||||0.6498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|4.62||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox||Oral semaglutide 14 mg / Liraglutide 0.9 mg|Time to initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment and stratification factor as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Withdrawal for any reason or lost to follow-up contributed to the analysis as events (initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication). Censoring time was one day before planned end of treatment.||4.62|0.38|0.6498
91050754|NCT04442490|181987553|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.23||0.3274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|3.6|||MMRM|||Role-Emotional Domain Score: Change from Baseline at Day 42||3.6|-1.2|0.3274
91050755|NCT04442490|181987553|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93||0.0873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|3.4|||MMRM|||Mental Health Domain Score: Change from Baseline at Day 8||3.4|-0.2|0.0873
91050756|NCT04442490|181987553|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.0871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|3.9|||MMRM|||Mental Health Domain Score: Change from Baseline at Day 15||3.9|-0.3|0.0871
91050757|NCT04442490|181987553|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12||0.3095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|3.3|||MMRM|||Mental Health Domain Score: Change from Baseline at Day 28||3.3|-1.1|0.3095
91050758|NCT04442490|181987553|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17||0.1477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|4.0|||MMRM|||Mental Health Domain Score: Change from Baseline at Day 42||4.0|-0.6|0.1477
91050759|NCT04442490|181987554|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.0828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.1|||MMRM||Model used was the MMRM with treatment (SAGE-217/placebo), baseline PHQ-9 total score, antidepressant use at baseline (Yes or No), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects with Unstructured covariance structure.|Change from Baseline at Day 8||0.1|-2.1|0.0828
91050760|NCT04442490|181987554|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.0606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.1|||MMRM||Model used was the MMRM with treatment (SAGE-217/placebo), baseline PHQ-9 total score, antidepressant use at baseline (Yes or No), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects with Unstructured covariance structure.|Change from Baseline at Day 15||0.1|-2.4|0.0606
91050761|NCT04442490|181987554|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.1079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.2|||MMRM||Model used was the MMRM with treatment (SAGE-217/placebo), baseline PHQ-9 total score, antidepressant use at baseline (Yes or No), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects with Unstructured covariance structure.|Change from Baseline at Day 28||0.2|-2.3|0.1079
91050762|NCT04442490|181987554|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.3951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.7|||MMRM||Model used was the MMRM with treatment (SAGE-217/placebo), baseline PHQ-9 total score, antidepressant use at baseline (Yes or No), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects with Unstructured covariance structure.|Change from Baseline at Day 42||0.7|-1.9|0.3951
91050763|NCT00063635|181987557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26||95.0||||Since two primary comparisons are planned, a P-value of 0.025 will be considered significant, applying a Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons.|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.26
91050764|NCT00063635|181987557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83||95.0||||Since two primary comparisons are planned, a P-value of 0.025 will be considered significant, applying a Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons.|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.83
91050765|NCT00063635|181987558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.32
91050766|NCT00063635|181987558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.29
91050767|NCT00063635|181987559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.02
91050768|NCT00063635|181987559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.25
91050769|NCT00063635|181987560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.71
91050770|NCT00063635|181987560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.72
91050771|NCT00063635|181987561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.18
91050772|NCT00063635|181987561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.25
91050773|NCT00063635|181987562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.89
91050774|NCT00063635|181987562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.73
91050775|NCT00063635|181987563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.02
91050776|NCT00063635|181987563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.02
91050777|NCT00063635|181987564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.77
91050778|NCT00063635|181987564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.25
91050779|NCT00063635|181987565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91050780|NCT00063635|181987565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.44
91050781|NCT00063635|181987566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.08
91050782|NCT00063635|181987566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.63
91050783|NCT00063635|181987567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.15
91050784|NCT00063635|181987567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.96
91050785|NCT00415194|181987568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.02|||Stratified Log Rank|||||1.02|0.75|0.082
91050786|NCT00415194|181987569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.03|||Stratified Log Rank|||||1.03|0.76|0.166
91050787|NCT00415194|181987570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.061||95.0|||||Unadjusted normal distribution|p-value is based on an unadjusted, normal distribution approximation for differences in rates.||||||0.061
91050788|NCT00415194|181987571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.53|||Stratified Log Rank|||||1.53|0.56|0.811
91050789|NCT00415194|181987572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.07|||Stratified Log Rank|||||1.07|0.69|0.20
91050790|NCT01297465|181987574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.947|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.15|0.59|||ANOVA|ANOVA model adjusted for treatment and country|The primary efficacy variable was to be analyzed using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model, adjusted for treatment and country.|The null hypothesis was that the difference between the mean number of oocytes is less than (-3) or greater than (+3) between the two treatment arm. The alternate hypothesis was that the difference is between (-3) and (+3). The study had 80% power to show that the group randomized to Pergoveris® has an absolute difference of no more than 3 oocytes retrieved in comparison to the group randomized to GONAL-f®/Pergoveris®||0.59|-3.15|
91050791|NCT03801265|181987594|NON_INFERIORITY|The margin of non-inferiority is 0.5. The true difference between the means is assumed to be -0.2. The significance level (alpha) of the test is 0.05. The data are drawn from populations with standard deviations of 0.7 and 0.3 (PASS 15 Power Analysis and Sample Size Software (2017). NCSS, LLC. Kaysville, Utah, USA, ncss.com/software/pass).||||||0.77|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.770
91050792|NCT03801265|181987595|NON_INFERIORITY|The margin of non-inferiority is 0.5. The true difference between the means is assumed to be -0.2. The significance level (alpha) of the test is 0.05. The data are drawn from populations with standard deviations of 0.7 and 0.3 (PASS 15 Power Analysis and Sample Size Software (2017). NCSS, LLC. Kaysville, Utah, USA, ncss.com/software/pass).||||||0.826|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.826
91009121|NCT03018028|181902130|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.34||||0.0219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.86||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox||Oral semaglutide 3 mg / Placebo|Time to initiation of rescue medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment and stratification factor as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Censoring time was one day before last day on trial product.||0.86|0.14|0.0219
91009122|NCT03018028|181902130|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.15||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.44||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox||Oral semaglutide 7 mg / Placebo|Time to initiation of rescue medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment and stratification factor as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Censoring time was one day before last day on trial product.||0.44|0.05|0.0005
91009123|NCT03018028|181902130|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.23||||0.0098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.7||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox||Oral semaglutide 14 mg / Placebo|Time to initiation of rescue medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment and stratification factor as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Censoring time was one day before last day on trial product.||0.70|0.07|0.0098
91009124|NCT03018028|181902130|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.95||||0.1193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|11.46||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox||Oral Semaglutide 3 mg / Liraglutide 0.9 mg|Time to initiation of rescue medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment and stratification factor as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Censoring time was one day before last day on trial product.||11.46|0.76|0.1193
91009125|NCT03018028|181902130|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.31||||0.7147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|5.56||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox||Oral Semaglutide 7 mg / Liraglutide 0.9 mg|Time to initiation of rescue medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment and stratification factor as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Censoring time was one day before last day on trial product.||5.56|0.31|0.7147
91009126|NCT03018028|181902130|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.97||||0.3765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|8.85||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox||Oral Semaglutide 14 mg / Liraglutide 0.9 mg|Time to initiation of rescue medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment and stratification factor as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Censoring time was one day before last day on trial product.||8.85|0.44|0.3765
91050793|NCT03801265|181987596|NON_INFERIORITY|The margin of non-inferiority is 0.5. The true difference between the means is assumed to be -0.2. The significance level (alpha) of the test is 0.05. The data are drawn from populations with standard deviations of 0.7 and 0.3 (PASS 15 Power Analysis and Sample Size Software (2017). NCSS, LLC. Kaysville, Utah, USA, ncss.com/software/pass).||||||0.859|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.859
91050794|NCT03801265|181987597|NON_INFERIORITY|The margin of non-inferiority is 0.5. The true difference between the means is assumed to be -0.2. The significance level (alpha) of the test is 0.05. The data are drawn from populations with standard deviations of 0.7 and 0.3 (PASS 15 Power Analysis and Sample Size Software (2017). NCSS, LLC. Kaysville, Utah, USA, ncss.com/software/pass).||||||0.904|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.904
91050795|NCT03801265|181987598|NON_INFERIORITY|The margin of non-inferiority is 0.5. The true difference between the means is assumed to be -0.2. The significance level (alpha) of the test is 0.05. The data are drawn from populations with standard deviations of 0.7 and 0.3 (PASS 15 Power Analysis and Sample Size Software (2017). NCSS, LLC. Kaysville, Utah, USA, ncss.com/software/pass).||||||0.122|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.122
91050796|NCT03801265|181987599|NON_INFERIORITY|The margin of non-inferiority is 0.5. The true difference between the means is assumed to be -0.2. The significance level (alpha) of the test is 0.05. The data are drawn from populations with standard deviations of 0.7 and 0.3 (PASS 15 Power Analysis and Sample Size Software (2017). NCSS, LLC. Kaysville, Utah, USA, ncss.com/software/pass).||||||0.379|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.379
91050797|NCT03801265|181987600|NON_INFERIORITY|The margin of non-inferiority is 0.5. The true difference between the means is assumed to be -0.2. The significance level (alpha) of the test is 0.05. The data are drawn from populations with standard deviations of 0.7 and 0.3 (PASS 15 Power Analysis and Sample Size Software (2017). NCSS, LLC. Kaysville, Utah, USA, ncss.com/software/pass).||||||0.881|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.881
91050798|NCT03801265|181987601|NON_INFERIORITY|The margin of non-inferiority is 0.5. The true difference between the means is assumed to be -0.2. The significance level (alpha) of the test is 0.05. The data are drawn from populations with standard deviations of 0.7 and 0.3 (PASS 15 Power Analysis and Sample Size Software (2017). NCSS, LLC. Kaysville, Utah, USA, ncss.com/software/pass).||||||0.818|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.818
91050799|NCT03801265|181987602|NON_INFERIORITY|The margin of non-inferiority is 0.5. The true difference between the means is assumed to be -0.2. The significance level (alpha) of the test is 0.05. The data are drawn from populations with standard deviations of 0.7 and 0.3 (PASS 15 Power Analysis and Sample Size Software (2017). NCSS, LLC. Kaysville, Utah, USA, ncss.com/software/pass).||||||0.678|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.678
91050800|NCT03801265|181987603|NON_INFERIORITY|The margin of non-inferiority is 0.5. The true difference between the means is assumed to be -0.2. The significance level (alpha) of the test is 0.05. The data are drawn from populations with standard deviations of 0.7 and 0.3 (PASS 15 Power Analysis and Sample Size Software (2017). NCSS, LLC. Kaysville, Utah, USA, ncss.com/software/pass).||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.002
91050801|NCT03801265|181987604|NON_INFERIORITY|The margin of non-inferiority is 0.5. The true difference between the means is assumed to be -0.2. The significance level (alpha) of the test is 0.05. The data are drawn from populations with standard deviations of 0.7 and 0.3 (PASS 15 Power Analysis and Sample Size Software (2017). NCSS, LLC. Kaysville, Utah, USA, ncss.com/software/pass).||||||0.007|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.007
91050802|NCT03801265|181987605|NON_INFERIORITY|The margin of non-inferiority is 0.5. The true difference between the means is assumed to be -0.2. The significance level (alpha) of the test is 0.05. The data are drawn from populations with standard deviations of 0.7 and 0.3 (PASS 15 Power Analysis and Sample Size Software (2017). NCSS, LLC. Kaysville, Utah, USA, ncss.com/software/pass).||||||0.271|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.271
91050803|NCT03801265|181987606|NON_INFERIORITY|The margin of non-inferiority is 0.5. The true difference between the means is assumed to be -0.2. The significance level (alpha) of the test is 0.05. The data are drawn from populations with standard deviations of 0.7 and 0.3 (PASS 15 Power Analysis and Sample Size Software (2017). NCSS, LLC. Kaysville, Utah, USA, ncss.com/software/pass).||||||0.81|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.810
91050804|NCT03801265|181987607|NON_INFERIORITY|The margin of non-inferiority is 0.5. The true difference between the means is assumed to be -0.2. The significance level (alpha) of the test is 0.05. The data are drawn from populations with standard deviations of 0.7 and 0.3 (PASS 15 Power Analysis and Sample Size Software (2017). NCSS, LLC. Kaysville, Utah, USA, ncss.com/software/pass).||||||0.676|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.676
91050805|NCT03801265|181987608|NON_INFERIORITY|The margin of non-inferiority is 0.5. The true difference between the means is assumed to be -0.2. The significance level (alpha) of the test is 0.05. The data are drawn from populations with standard deviations of 0.7 and 0.3 (PASS 15 Power Analysis and Sample Size Software (2017). NCSS, LLC. Kaysville, Utah, USA, ncss.com/software/pass).||||||0.908|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.908
91050806|NCT03801265|181987609|NON_INFERIORITY|The margin of non-inferiority is 0.5. The true difference between the means is assumed to be -0.2. The significance level (alpha) of the test is 0.05. The data are drawn from populations with standard deviations of 0.7 and 0.3 (PASS 15 Power Analysis and Sample Size Software (2017). NCSS, LLC. Kaysville, Utah, USA, ncss.com/software/pass).||||||0.27|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.270
91009127|NCT02519777|181902156|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC in change in normalized composite neurocognitive test scores at Week 48 from baseline||||0.60
91050807|NCT03801265|181987610|NON_INFERIORITY|The margin of non-inferiority is 0.5. The true difference between the means is assumed to be -0.2. The significance level (alpha) of the test is 0.05. The data are drawn from populations with standard deviations of 0.7 and 0.3 (PASS 15 Power Analysis and Sample Size Software (2017). NCSS, LLC. Kaysville, Utah, USA, ncss.com/software/pass).||||||0.015|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.015
91050808|NCT03801265|181987611|NON_INFERIORITY|The margin of non-inferiority is 0.5. The true difference between the means is assumed to be -0.2. The significance level (alpha) of the test is 0.05. The data are drawn from populations with standard deviations of 0.7 and 0.3 (PASS 15 Power Analysis and Sample Size Software (2017). NCSS, LLC. Kaysville, Utah, USA, ncss.com/software/pass).||||||0.203|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.203
91050809|NCT03801265|181987612|NON_INFERIORITY|The margin of non-inferiority is 0.5. The true difference between the means is assumed to be -0.2. The significance level (alpha) of the test is 0.05. The data are drawn from populations with standard deviations of 0.7 and 0.3 (PASS 15 Power Analysis and Sample Size Software (2017). NCSS, LLC. Kaysville, Utah, USA, ncss.com/software/pass).||||||0.672|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.672
91050810|NCT04078126|181987613|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.017|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0179||0.345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.054|0.02|||ANCOVA|||||0.020|-0.054|0.3450
91050811|NCT04078126|181987614|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.017|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0183||0.3675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.054|0.021|||ANCOVA|||||0.021|-0.054|0.3675
91050812|NCT04078126|181987615|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0199||0.7563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.047|0.034|||ANCOVA|||||0.034|-0.047|0.7563
91050813|NCT04078126|181987616|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.032|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0521||0.5419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.139|0.075|||ANCOVA|||||0.075|-0.139|0.5419
91050814|NCT04078126|181987617|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.334||0.1337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.39|1.18|||ANCOVA|||||1.18|-8.39|0.1337
91009128|NCT02519777|181902156|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in normalized composite neurocognitive test scores at Week 48 from baseline||||0.33
91009129|NCT02519777|181902156|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in normalized composite neurocognitive test scores at Week 48 from baseline||||0.61
91050815|NCT04078126|181987618|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.269||0.0431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.29|-0.09|||ANCOVA|||||-0.09|-5.29|0.0431
91050816|NCT04078126|181987619|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.667||0.3625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.87|1.81|||ANCOVA|||||1.81|-4.87|0.3625
91050817|NCT04078126|181987620|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.043|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0198||0.0375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.003|0.084|||ANCOVA|||||0.084|0.003|0.0375
91050818|NCT04078126|181987621|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0443||0.9089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.086|0.096|||ANCOVA|||||0.096|-0.086|0.9089
91050819|NCT03056157|181987622|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.236||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.34|-0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for SDS scores, t(1519 )= -2.19, d = 0.15.||-0.18|-3.34|0.03
91050820|NCT03056157|181987622|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-8.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.12|-6.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to- treat data for SDS scores, t(160)= -15.74, d = 2.97.||-6.11|-10.12|<.001
91050821|NCT03056157|181987622|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-6.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.35|-6.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for SDS scores, t(160) = -12.72, d = 1.86.||-6.11|-8.35|<0.001
91050822|NCT03056157|181987622|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.65||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|0.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for SDS scores, t(1510) = -0.90, d = 0.05.||0.86|-2.13|0.49
91050823|NCT03056157|181987622|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|2.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for SDS scores, t(1510) = 2.11, d = 0.11.||2.17|0.06|<0.001
91050824|NCT03056157|181987622|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for SDS scores, t(1510) = 3.45, d = 0.18||2.81|0.75|<0.001
91050825|NCT03056157|181987623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.35||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|5.56|||Fisher Exact|||Odds ratio comparison of the proportions of participants who experienced probable recovery in SDS from baseline to post-treatment in AD-MIL versus PCT.||5.56|1.01|0.03
91050826|NCT03056157|181987623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.71|||Fisher Exact|||Odds ratio comparison of the proportion of participants who experienced improvement from baseline to post-treatment in SDS in AD-MIL versus PCT.||0.71|0|0.01
91050827|NCT03056157|181987623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.87|||Fisher Exact|||Odds ratio comparison of the proportion of participants who experienced no change in SDS from baseline to post-treatment in AD-MIL versus PCT.||1.87|0.35|.69
91050828|NCT03056157|181987623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|0.0|0.0|5.83|||Fisher Exact|||Odds ratio comparison of the proportion of participants who experienced deterioration in SDS from baseline to post-treatment in AD-MIL versus PCT.||5.83|0|0.50
91050829|NCT03056157|181987624|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-3.39||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.57|3.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for B-IPF scores, t(326) = -0.93, d = 0.10.||3.79|-10.57|0.35
91050830|NCT03056157|181987624|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-8.64||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.83|-3.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for BIPF scores, t(116) = -3.27, d = 0.61.||-3.44|-13.83|0.001
91050831|NCT03056157|181987624|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-5.25||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.21|-0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for B-IPF scores, t(116) = -2.08, d = 0.39.||-0.29|-10.21|0.04
91050832|NCT03056157|181987624|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-5.17||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.86|0.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for B-IPF scores, t(326) = -1.79, d = 0.20.||0.52|-10.86|0.08
91050833|NCT03056157|181987624|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-5.64||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.72|-1.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for B-IPF scores, t(326) = -2.72, d = 0.30.||-1.57|-9.72|0.007
91050834|NCT03056157|181987624|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.47||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.44|3.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for B-IPF scores, t(326) = -0.23, d = 0.03.||3.50|-4.44|0.82
91050835|NCT03056157|181987625|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.6||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.68|3.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for SDS scores for the COVID-19 cohort, t(373) = -0.32, d = 0.03.||3.36|-4.68|0.75
91050836|NCT03056157|181987625|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-9.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.12|-6.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for SDS scores for the COVID-19 cohort, t(37) = -6.01, d = 1.97.||-6.12|-12.12|<0.001
91050837|NCT03056157|181987625|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-8.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.16|-5.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for SDS scores for the COVID-19 cohort, t(37) = -6.11, d = 2.01.||-5.76|-11.16|<0.001
91050838|NCT03056157|181987625|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.28||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.08|5.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for SDS scores for the COVID-19 cohort, t(373) = -0.59, d = 0.06.||5.52|-10.08|0.56
91050839|NCT03056157|181987625|SUPERIORITY||Slope|4.2||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|10.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for SDS scores for the COVID-19 cohort, t(373) = 1.25, d = 0.13.||10.92|-0.24|0.22
91050840|NCT03056157|181987625|SUPERIORITY||Slope|6.6||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.52|10.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for SDS scores for the COVID-19 cohort, t(373) = 3.18, d = 0.33.||10.69|2.52|0.002
91050841|NCT03056157|181987626|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.48||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|10.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for PCL-5 scores for the COVID-19 cohort, t(367) = 0.10, d = 0.01.||10.69|-9.60|0.92
91050842|NCT03056157|181987626|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-16.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.64|-8.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for PCL-5 scores for the COVID-19 cohort, t(37) = -4.23, d = 1.39.||-8.52|-23.64|<0.001
91050843|NCT03056157|181987626|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-16.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.4|-9.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for PCL-5 scores for the COVID-19 cohort, t(37) = -4.77, d = 1.57.||-9.72|-23.40|<0.001
91050844|NCT03056157|181987626|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-26.28||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.6|-9.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for PCL-5 scores for the COVID-19 cohort, t(367) = -3.15, d = 0.33.||-9.84|-42.60|0.002
91050845|NCT03056157|181987626|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-18.72||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.4|-4.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for PCL-5 scores for the COVID-19 cohort, t(37) = -2.67, d = 0.28.||-4.92|-32.40|0.01
91050846|NCT03056157|181987626|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-5.25||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.21|-0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for B- IPF scores, the Pre-Post PCT Time slope was -5.25 \[95% CI = -10.21, -0.29\], p-value = 0.04, t(116) = -2.08, d = 0.39.||-0.29|-10.21|0.04
91050847|NCT03056157|181987627|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-6.38||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.97|1.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for CAPS-5 scores for the COVID-19 cohort, t(49) = -1.69, d = 0.48.||1.22|-13.97|0.10
91050848|NCT03056157|181987627|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-13.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.96|-7.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for CAPS-5 scores for the COVID-19 cohort, t(32) = -4.71, d = 1.67.||-7.62|-18.96|<0.001
91050849|NCT03056157|181987627|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-6.92||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.96|-1.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for CAPS-5 scores for the COVID-19 cohort, t(32) = -2.75, d = 0.97.||-1.87|-11.96|0.001
91050850|NCT03056157|181987627|SUPERIORITY||Slope|5.22||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|16.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for CAPS-5 scores for the COVID-19 cohort, t(49) = 0.97, d = 0.28.||16.05|-5.60|0.34
91050851|NCT03056157|181987627|SUPERIORITY||Slope|5.93||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.55|14.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for CAPS-5 scores for the COVID-19 cohort, t(49) = 1.40, d = 0.40.||14.41|-2.55|0.17
91050852|NCT03056157|181987627|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.7||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.04|7.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for CAPS-5 scores for the COVID-19 cohort, t(49) = 0.21, d = 0.06.||7.44|-6.04|0.83
91050853|NCT03056157|181987628|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.6||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.12|4.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for PHQ-9 scores for the COVID-19 cohort, t(373) = 0.30, d = 0.03.||4.20|-3.12|0.76
91050854|NCT03056157|181987628|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-3.12||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.96|-1.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for PHQ-9 scores for the COVID-19 cohort, t(37) = -3.14, d = 1.03.||-1.56|-6.96|0.002
91050855|NCT03056157|181987628|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-4.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.32|-2.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for PHQ-9 scores for the COVID-19 cohort, t(37) = -3.88, d = 1.27.||-2.40|-7.32|<0.001
91050856|NCT03056157|181987628|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-4.8||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.16|1.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for PHQ-9 scores for the COVID-19 cohort, t(373) = -1.50, d = 0.16.||1.44|-11.16|0.13
91009130|NCT02519777|181902158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC in change in normalized composite neurocognitive test scores at Week 24 from baseline||||0.61
91009131|NCT02519777|181902158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC in change in normalized composite neurocognitive test scores at Week 72 from baseline||||0.72
91050857|NCT03056157|181987628|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.4||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.68|3.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for PHQ-9 scores for the COVID-19 cohort, t(373) = -0.87, d = 0.09.||3.00|-7.68|0.38
91050858|NCT03056157|181987628|SUPERIORITY||Slope|2.4||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|5.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for PHQ-9 scores for the COVID-19 cohort, t(373) = 1.42, d = 0.15.||5.88|-0.96|0.26
91050859|NCT03056157|181987629|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-6.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.23|-3.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for CAPS-5 scores, t(348) = -3.65, d = 0.39.||-3.07|-10.23|<0.001
91050860|NCT03056157|181987629|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-11.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.43|-9.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for CAPS-5 scores, t(131) = -9.14, d = 1.60.||-9.32|-14.43|<0.001
91050861|NCT03056157|181987629|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-5.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.74|-2.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for CAPS-5 scores, t(131) = -4.10, d = 0.72.||-2.72|-7.74|<0.001
91050862|NCT03056157|181987629|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.36||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|4.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for CAPS-5 scores, t(348) = 0.87, d = 0.09.||4.45|-1.73|0.39
91050863|NCT03056157|181987629|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.08||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for CAPS-5 scores, t(348) = 0.07, d = 0.001.||2.26|-2.10|0.94
91050864|NCT03056157|181987629|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.28||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.48|0.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for CAPS-5 scores, t(348) = -1.15, d = 0.12.||0.91|-3.48|0.25
91050865|NCT03056157|181987630|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.44||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|63.18|||Fisher Exact|||Odds ratio comparison of the proportions of participants who experienced probable recovery in CAPS-5 from baseline to post-treatment in AD-MIL versus PCT.||63.18|1.29|0.01
91050866|NCT03056157|181987630|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|3.75|||Fisher Exact|||Odds ratio comparison of the proportions of participants who experienced improvement in CAPS-5 from baseline to post-treatment in AD-MIL versus PCT.||3.75|0.61|0.40
91050867|NCT03056157|181987630|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.7|||Fisher Exact|||Odds ratio comparison of the proportions of participants who experienced no change in CAPS-5 from baseline to post-treatment in AD-MIL versus PCT.||1.70|0.36|0.58
91050868|NCT03056157|181987630|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.15||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.003|1.2|||Fisher Exact|||Odds ratio comparison of the proportions of participants who experienced deterioration in CAPS-5 from baseline to post-treatment in AD-MIL versus PCT.||1.20|0.003|0.06
91050869|NCT03056157|181987631|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.49||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.06|||Fisher Exact|||Odds ratio comparison of the proportions of participants with a PTSD Diagnosis in CAPS-5 at post-treatment in AD-MIL versus PCT.||1.06|0.22|0.07
91050870|NCT03056157|181987631|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.66||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.56|||Fisher Exact|||Odds ratio comparison of the proportions of participants with PTSD Diagnosis in CAPS-5 at 3MFU in AD-MIL versus PCT.||1.56|0.28|0.33
91050871|NCT03056157|181987631|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.42||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.08|||Fisher Exact|||Odds ratio comparison of the proportions of participants with PTSD Diagnosis in CAPS-5 at 6MFU in AD-MIL versus PCT.||1.08|0.15|0.05
91050872|NCT03056157|181987632|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-4.63||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.16|-2.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for PCL-5 scores, t(1542) = -3.01, d = 0.13.||-2.10|-7.16|.003
91050873|NCT03056157|181987632|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-12.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.43|-10.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for PCL-5 scores, t(161) = -11.50, d = 1.81.||-10.80|-14.43|<0.001
91050874|NCT03056157|181987632|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-7.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.77|-6.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for PCL-5 scores, t(161) = -7.40, d = 1.16.||-6.20|-9.77|<0.001
91050875|NCT03056157|181987632|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.75||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.01|2.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for PCL-5 scores, t(1542) = -0.45, d = 0.02.||2.52|-4.01|0.65
91050876|NCT03056157|181987632|SUPERIORITY||Slope|2.3||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|4.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for PCL-5 scores, t(1542) = 1.94, d = 0.10.||4.63|-0.03|0.05
91050877|NCT03056157|181987632|SUPERIORITY||Slope|3.04||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|5.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for PCL-5 scores, t(1542) = 2.61, d = 0.13.||5.34|0.75|0.001
91050878|NCT03056157|181987633|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.39||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|5.84|||Fisher Exact|||Odds ratio comparison of the proportions of participants experiencing probable recovery in PCL-5 at post-treatment in AD-MIL versus PCT.||5.84|1.01|0.04
91050879|NCT03056157|181987633|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.95|||Fisher Exact|||Odds ratio comparison of the proportions of participants experiencing improvement in PCL-5 at post-treatment in AD-MIL versus PCT.||1.95|0.25|0.49
91050880|NCT03056157|181987633|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.58||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.32|||Fisher Exact|||Odds ratio comparison of the proportions of participants experiencing no change in PCL-5 at post-treatment in AD-MIL versus PCT.||1.32|0.25|0.18
91009132|NCT02519777|181902158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC in change in normalized composite neurocognitive test scores at Week 96 from baseline||||0.79
91009133|NCT02519777|181902158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in normalized composite neurocognitive test scores at Week 24 from baseline||||0.55
91050881|NCT03056157|181987634|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.99||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for PHQ-9 scores, t(1550) = -1.46, d = 0.07||0.34|-2.29|0.14
91050882|NCT03056157|181987634|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-5.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|-4.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for PHQ-9 scores, t(161) = -12.41, d = 1.96.||-4.90|-6.80|<0.001
91050883|NCT03056157|181987634|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-4.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.82|-3.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for PHQ-9 scores, t(161) = -10.29, d = 1.62.||-3.94|-5.82|<0.001
91050884|NCT03056157|181987634|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.02||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|1.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for PHQ-9 scores, t(1550) = 0.42, d = 0.02.||1.53|-0.99|0.68
91050885|NCT03056157|181987634|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.36||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|2.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for PHQ-9 scores, t(1550) = 3.02, d = 0.15.||2.24|0.48|0.003
91050886|NCT03056157|181987634|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.09||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for PHQ-9 scores, t(1550) = 2.37, d = 0.12.||1.99|0.19|0.02
91050887|NCT03056157|181987635|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.2||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for TRGI Justification scores, t(314) = -1.35, d = 0.15.||0.09|-0.49|0.18
91050888|NCT03056157|181987635|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.26||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for TRGI Justification scores, t(113) = -2.44, d = 0.46.||-0.05|-0.47|0.02
91050889|NCT03056157|181987635|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.06||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for TRGI Justification scores, t(113) = -0.69, d = 0.12.||0.14|-0.26|0.62
91050890|NCT03056157|181987635|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.16||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for TRGI Justification scores, t(314) = 1.34, d = 0.15.||0.39|-0.07|0.18
91050891|NCT03056157|181987635|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.13||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for TRGI Justification scores, t(113) = 1.49, d = 0.28.||0.30|-0.04|0.14
91050892|NCT03056157|181987635|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.03||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for TRGI Justification scores, t(113) = -0.38, d = 0.07.||0.13|-0.19|0.71
91050893|NCT03056157|181987636|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for TRGI Hindsight-Bias scores, t(314) = -3.41, d = 0.39.||-0.20|-0.74|<0.001
91050894|NCT03056157|181987636|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for TRGI Hindsight-Bias scores, t(113) = -6.41, d = 1.20.||-0.44|-0.83|<0.001
91050895|NCT03056157|181987636|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.17||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for TRGI Hindsight-Bias scores, t(113) = -1.83, d = 0.34.||0.02|-0.36|0.07
91050896|NCT03056157|181987636|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.35||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for TRGI Hindsight-Bias scores, t(314) = 3.13, d = 0.06.||0.57|0.13|0.002
91050897|NCT03056157|181987636|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.18||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for TRGI Hindsight-Bias scores, t(113) = 2.21, d = 0.42.||0.34|0.02|0.03
91050898|NCT03056157|181987636|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.17||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for TRGI Hindsight-Bias scores, t(113) = -2.22, d = 0.42.||-0.02|-0.32|0.03
91050899|NCT03056157|181987637|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.32||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for TRGI Wrongdoing scores, t(314) = 2.46, d = 0.28.||0.57|0.06|0.01
91050900|NCT03056157|181987637|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.001||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for RGI Wrongdoing scores, t(113) = 0.06, d = 0.01.||0.18|-0.17|0.95
91050901|NCT03056157|181987637|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.31||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for RGI Wrongdoing scores, t(113) = -3.32, d = 0.62.||-0.13|-0.50|0.01
91050902|NCT03056157|181987637|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.21||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for TRGI Wrongdoing scores, t(314) = -2.02, d = 0.23.||-0.01|-0.41|0.04
91050903|NCT03056157|181987637|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.16||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for TRGI Wrongdoing scores, t(113) = -2.18, d = 0.03.||-0.02|-0.30|0.03
91050904|NCT03056157|181987637|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.05||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for RGI Wrongdoing scores, t(113) = 0.70, d = 0.13.||0.20|-0.09|0.48
91050905|NCT03056157|181987638|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.7||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|2.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for TRSI scores, t(317) = 0.76, d = 0.09.||2.52|-1.12|0.45
91050906|NCT03056157|181987638|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.2||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for TRSI scores, t(113) = -1.79, d = 0.34.||0.12|-2.52|0.08
91050907|NCT03056157|181987638|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.91||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.15|-0.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for TRSI scores, t(113) = -3.00, d = 0.56.||-0.66|-3.15|0.003
91009134|NCT02519777|181902158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in normalized composite neurocognitive test scores at Week 72 from baseline||||0.47
91009135|NCT02519777|181902158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in normalized composite neurocognitive test scores at Week 96 from baseline||||0.95
91009136|NCT02519777|181902158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in normalized composite neurocognitive test scores at Week 24 from baseline||||0.85
91009137|NCT02519777|181902158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in normalized composite neurocognitive test scores at Week 72 from baseline||||0.67
91009138|NCT02519777|181902158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in normalized composite neurocognitive test scores at Week 96 from baseline||||0.70
91009139|NCT02519777|181902159|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC in change in functional status scores at Week 24 from baseline||||0.99
91009140|NCT02519777|181902159|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC in change in functional status scores at Week 48 from baseline||||0.97
91009141|NCT02519777|181902159|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC in change in functional status scores at Week 72 from baseline||||0.79
91009142|NCT02519777|181902159|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC in change in functional status scores at Week 96 from baseline||||0.99
91009143|NCT02519777|181902159|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in functional status scores at Week 24 from baseline||||0.74
91009144|NCT02519777|181902159|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in functional status scores at Week 48 from baseline||||0.69
91009145|NCT02519777|181902159|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in functional status scores at Week 72 from baseline||||0.44
91009146|NCT02519777|181902159|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in functional status scores at Week 96 from baseline||||1.00
91009147|NCT02519777|181902159|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in functional status scores at Week 24 from baseline||||0.83
91009148|NCT02519777|181902159|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in functional status scores at Week 48 from baseline||||0.80
91009149|NCT02519777|181902159|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in functional status scores at Week 72 from baseline||||0.86
91050908|NCT03056157|181987638|SUPERIORITY||standardized effect size of the slope|-0.29||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|1.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for TRSI scores, t(317) = -0.39, d = 0.04.||1.17|-1.75|0.70
91050909|NCT03056157|181987638|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.59||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|0.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for TRSI scores, t(317) = -1.11, d = 0.12.||0.46|-1.64|0.27
91050910|NCT03056157|181987638|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.29||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|0.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for TRSI scores, t(317) = -0.57, d = 0.06.||0.72|-1.32|0.57
91050911|NCT03056157|181987639|SUPERIORITY||Slope|3.41||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|6.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for SOS-10 scores, t(326) = 2.35, d = 0.26.||6.25|0.56|0.02
91050912|NCT03056157|181987639|SUPERIORITY||Slope|6.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.78|8.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for SOS-10 scores, t(116) = -6.53, d = 1.21.||8.90|4.78|<0.001
91050913|NCT03056157|181987639|SUPERIORITY||Slope|3.43||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|5.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for SOS-10 scores, t(116) = 3.44, d = 0.64.||5.40|1.47|0.001
91050914|NCT03056157|181987639|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.76||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|3.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for SOS-10 scores, t(326) = 0.66, d = 0.07.||3.03|-1.50|0.51
91050915|NCT03056157|181987639|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.27||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|1.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for SOS-10 scores, t(326) = -0.32, d = 0.04.||1.35|-1.89|0.75
91050916|NCT03056157|181987639|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.03||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|0.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for SOS-10 scores, t(326) = -1.28, d = 0.14.||0.55|-2.61|0.20
91050917|NCT03056157|181987640|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.26||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for SCS scores, t(319) = 2.93, d = 0.33.||0.43|0.08|0.004
91050918|NCT03056157|181987640|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for SCS scores, t(114) = 5.56, d = 1.04.||0.48|0.23|<0.001
91050919|NCT03056157|181987640|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.1||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for SCS scores, t(114) = 1.61, d = 0.30.||0.22|-0.02|0.11
91050920|NCT03056157|181987640|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.007||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for SCS scores, t(319) = 0.10, d = 0.10.||0.15|-0.13|0.92
91050921|NCT03056157|181987640|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.02||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for SCS scores, t(319) = 0.31, d = 0.03.||0.12|-0.08|0.75
91050922|NCT03056157|181987640|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.01||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for SCS scores, t(319) = 0.18, d = 0.02.||0.11|-0.09|0.86
91050923|NCT03056157|181987641|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.56||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|0.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for DAR scores, t(325) = -1.43, d = 0.16.||0.97|-6.10|0.15
91050924|NCT03056157|181987641|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-5.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.83|-2.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for DAR scores, t(116) = -4.07, d = 0.76||-2.73|-7.83|<0.001
91050925|NCT03056157|181987641|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.71||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.16|-0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for DAR scores, t(116) = -2.19, d = 0.41.||-0.28|-5.16|0.03
91050926|NCT03056157|181987641|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.38||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.17|1.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for DAR scores, t(325) = -0.97, d = 0.11.||1.42|-4.17|0.33
91050927|NCT03056157|181987641|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.54||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.54|0.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for DAR scores, t(325) = -1.51, d = 0.17.||0.46|-3.54|0.13
91050928|NCT03056157|181987641|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.17||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|1.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for DAR scores, t(325) = -0.17, d = 0.02.||1.79|-2.12|0.87
91050929|NCT03056157|181987642|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.37||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for CTS2 Psychological Aggression scores, t(319) = -2.03, d = 0.23.||-0.01|-0.72|0.04
91050930|NCT03056157|181987642|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|-0.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for CTS2 Psychological Aggression scores, t(116)= -6.40, d = 1.19.||-0.58|-1.09|<0.001
91050931|NCT03056157|181987642|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.47||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for CTS2 Psychological Aggression scores, t(116) = -3.78, d = 0.70.||-0.22|-0.71|0.002
91050932|NCT03056157|181987642|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.08||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for CTS2 Psychological Aggression scores, t(319) = -0.56, d = 0.06.||0.21|-0.37|0.58
91050933|NCT03056157|181987642|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.1||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for CTS2 Psychological Aggression scores, t(319) = -0.96, d = 0.11.||0.11|-0.31|0.34
91050934|NCT03056157|181987642|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.02||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for CTS2 Psychological Aggression scores, t(319) = -0.19, d = 0.02.||0.18|-0.22|0.85
91050935|NCT03056157|181987643|SUPERIORITY|We log-transformed CTS2 scores because they were heavily positively skewed in conjunction with zero-inflation.|Slope|-0.23||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for CTS2 Physical Assault scores, t(319)= -1.82, d = 0.20.||0.02|-0.48|0.07
91050936|NCT03056157|181987643|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.13||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|-0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for CTS2 Physical Assault scores, t(116) = -1.39, d = 0.16.||-0.05|-0.31|0.17
91050937|NCT03056157|181987643|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.1||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for CTS2 Physical Assault scores, t(116) = 1.18, d = 0.13.||0.27|-0.07|0.24
91050938|NCT03056157|181987643|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.11||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for CTS2 Physical Assault scores, t(319) = -0.37, d = 0.04.||0.15|-0.23|0.71
91050939|NCT03056157|181987643|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.07||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for CTS2 Physical Assault scores, t(319) = -1.00, d = 0.11.||0.07|-0.21|0.32
91050940|NCT03056157|181987643|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.04||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for CTS2 Physical Assault scores, t(319) = -0.51, d = 0.06.||0.10|-0.17|0.61
91050941|NCT03056157|181987644|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.07||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for DSI-SS scores, t(318) = -0.33, d = 0.04||0.36|-0.50|0.74
91050942|NCT03056157|181987644|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.12||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for DSI-SS scores, t(114) = -0.77, d = 0.14.||0.19|-0.43|0.44
91050943|NCT03056157|181987644|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.06||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for DSI-SS scores, t(114) = -0.34, d = 0.06.||0.24|-0.35|0.74
91050944|NCT03056157|181987644|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.1||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for DSI-SS scores, t(114) = -0.57, d = 0.11.||0.25|-0.45|0.57
91050945|NCT03056157|181987644|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.03||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for DSI-SS scores, t(114) = -0.23, d = 0.04.||0.22|-0.28|0.82
91050946|NCT03056157|181987644|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.07||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for DSI-SS scores, t(114) = 0.58, d = 0.11.||0.31|-0.17|0.57
91050947|NCT03056157|181987645|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.1||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.63|0.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for QDS scores, t(316) = -1.42, d = 0.16.||0.43|-2.63|0.16
91050948|NCT03056157|181987645|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.76||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for QDS scores, t(114)= -1.35, d = 0.25.||0.35|-1.87|0.18
91050949|NCT03056157|181987645|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.34||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|1.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for QDS scores, t(114) = 0.63, d = 0.12.||1.39|-0.71|0.53
91050950|NCT03056157|181987645|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.6||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|0.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for QDS scores, t(316) = -0.89, d = 0.12.||0.73|-1.93|.37
91050951|NCT03056157|181987645|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.04||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for QDS scores, t(114) = -0.08, d = 0.02.||0.92|-1.00|0.94
91050952|NCT03056157|181987645|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.57||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|1.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for QDS scores, t(114) = 1.21, d = 0.23.||1.48|-0.35|0.23
91050953|NCT03056157|181987646|SUPERIORITY||Slope|3.98||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|7.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for SCS scores, t(316) = 2.49, d = 0.28.||7.13|0.83|0.01
91050954|NCT03056157|181987646|SUPERIORITY||Slope|4.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.55|7.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for SCS scores, t(114) = 4.16, d = 0.78.||7.13|2.55|<0.001
91050955|NCT03056157|181987646|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.85||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|3.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for SCS scores, t(114) = 0.78, d = 0.15.||3.02|-1.31|0.44
91050956|NCT03056157|181987646|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.21||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.32|2.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for SCS scores, t(316) = 0.17, d = 0.02.||2.75|-2.32|0.88
91050957|NCT03056157|181987646|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.55||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|2.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for SCS scores, t(316) = 0.60, d = 0.07.||2.37|-1.27|0.55
91050958|NCT03056157|181987646|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.38||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|2.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for SCS scores, t(316) = 0.38, d = 0.04.||2.10|-1.42|0.70
91050959|NCT03056157|181987647|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.04||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for SCBSC scores, t(318) = -0.25, d = 0.03.||0.25|-0.32|0.80
91050960|NCT03056157|181987647|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.04||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for SCBSC scores, t(115) = 0.57, d = 0.11.||0.16|-0.09|0.57
91050961|NCT03056157|181987647|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.01||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for SCBSC scores, t(115) = -0.23, d = 0.04.||0.11|-0.14|0.82
91050962|NCT03056157|181987647|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.05||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for SCBSC scores, t(320) = 0.57, d = 0.06.||0.23|-0.13|0.57
91050963|NCT03056157|181987648|SUPERIORITY||Slope|3.91||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|6.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for VLQ scores, t(408) = 3.16, d = 0.32.||6.35|1.48|0.002
91050964|NCT03056157|181987648|SUPERIORITY||Slope|4.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.41|5.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for VLQ scores, t(121) = 4.66, d = 0.85.||5.92|2.41|<0.001
91050965|NCT03056157|181987648|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.25||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|1.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for VLQ scores, t(121) = 0.63, d = 0.11.||1.94|-1.44|0.78
91050966|NCT03056157|181987648|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.05||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for VLQ scores, t(408) = -0.34, d = 0.01.||0.24|-0.34|0.73
91009150|NCT02519777|181902159|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in functional status scores at Week 96 from baseline||||1.00
91009151|NCT02519777|181902160|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Participants|3.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|9.42||||||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC in number of participants with HIV-1 RNA ≥ 50 copies/mL at Week 24||9.42|-2.78|
91009152|NCT02519777|181902160|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Participants|5.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|10.87||||||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC in number of participants with HIV-1 RNA ≥ 50 copies/mL at Week 48||10.87|-0.53|
91009153|NCT02519777|181902160|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Participants|-8.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.56|0.13||||||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC in number of participants with HIV-1 RNA ≥ 50 copies/mL at Week 96||0.13|-16.56|
91009154|NCT02519777|181902160|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Participants|3.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.07|9.42||||||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm C: MVC and DTG in number of participants with HIV-1 RNA ≥ 50 copies/mL at Week 24||9.42|-3.07|
91050967|NCT03056157|181987648|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.06||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for VLQ scores, t(408) = 0.56, d = 0.06.||0.27|-0.15|0.58
91009155|NCT02519777|181902160|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Participants|3.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.11|10.06||||||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm C: MVC and DTG in number of participants with HIV-1 RNA ≥ 50 copies/mL at Week 48||10.06|-3.11|
91009156|NCT02519777|181902160|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Participants|-1.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.89|4.19||||||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm C: MVC and DTG in number of participants with HIV-1 RNA ≥ 50 copies/mL at Week 96||4.19|-7.89|
91009157|NCT02519777|181902160|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Participants|-0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.53|4.23||||||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC and Arm C: MVC and DTG in number of participants with HIV-1 RNA ≥ 50 copies/mL at Week 24||4.23|-4.53|
91050968|NCT03056157|181987648|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.11||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for VLQ scores, t(408) = 1.07, d = 0.11.||0.31|-0.10|0.28
91050969|NCT02149108|181987649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.69||Hazard ratio, confidence interval and p-value obtained from log-rank test stratified by regorafenib pre-treatment (yes vs no), time from onset metastatic disease until randomisation (less than 24 months vs 24 months or more ) and region.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio \<1 favors Nintedanib.|||0.69|0.49|<0.0001
91050970|NCT02149108|181987650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.8659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.19||Hazard ratio, confidence interval and p-value obtained from log-rank test stratified by regorafenib pre-treatment (yes vs no), time from onset metastatic disease until randomisation (less than 24 months vs 24 months or more ) and region.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio below 1 favors Nintedanib.|||1.19|0.86|0.8659
91050971|NCT02149108|181987652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.96|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|4.47||Odds ratio and p-value are obtained from logistic regression model adjusted for regorafenib pre-treatment (yes vs no), time from onset metastatic disease until randomization in the trial (less than 24 months vs. 24 months or more) and region.|Regression, Logistic||An odds ratio \>1 indicates benefit to Nintedanib.|||4.47|2.00|<0.0001
91050972|NCT01675661|181987658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.59|||Regression, Logistic|OR=1.00||For the primary outcome measure, a repeated-measures logistic regression model was used to analyze the odds of a negative urine cannabinoid test as an indicator of abstinence across all 12 weeks of treatment. A generalized estimating equations (GEEs) were used to adjust for this correlation with multiple samples per participant. The model for the primary analysis included the main effect of treatment, main effect of time, site effects, effect of smoking tobacco, and timeXtreatment interaction.||1.59|0.63|0.985
91050973|NCT02992418|181987666|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the ratio of GMCs between groups (Group 1/ Group 2) was greater than (\>) 1/1.5 for each antigen. Overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if the 4 antigens achieved non-inferiority.|GMC ratio|0.848|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.721|0.997||||||Anti-PT||0.997|0.721|
91050974|NCT02992418|181987666|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMCs between groups (Group 1/ Group 2) was \> 1/1.5 for each antigen. Overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if the 4 antigens achieved non-inferiority.|GMC ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.892|1.18||||||Anti-FHA||1.18|0.892|
91050975|NCT02992418|181987666|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMCs between groups (Group 1/ Group 2) was \> 1/1.5 for each antigen. Overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if the 4 antigens achieved non-inferiority.|GMC ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.836|1.46||||||Anti-PRN||1.46|0.836|
91050976|NCT02992418|181987666|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMCs between groups (Group 1/ Group 2) was \> 1/1.5 for each antigen. Overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if the 4 antigens achieved non-inferiority.|GMC ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.827|1.33||||||Anti-FIM2+3||1.33|0.827|
91050977|NCT02992418|181987667|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of all the 95% CI of the percentage difference was \> -10% for all antigens.|Percentage difference|0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.53|5.04||||||Anti-D||5.04|-4.53|
91050978|NCT02992418|181987667|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of all the 95% CI of the percentage difference was \> -10% for all antigens.|Percentage difference|-0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.87|1.37||||||Anti-T||1.37|-2.87|
91050979|NCT02992418|181987668|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs between groups (Group 1/Group 2) was \> 1/2 for each serotype. Overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if all 4 serotypes achieved non-inferiority.|GMT ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.862|1.44||||||Serotype 1||1.44|0.862|
91050980|NCT02992418|181987668|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs between groups (Group 1/Group 2) was \> 1/2 for each serotype. Overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if all 4 serotypes achieved non-inferiority.|GMT ratio|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.47||||||Serotype 2||1.47|0.97|
91050981|NCT02992418|181987668|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs between groups (Group 1/Group 2) was \> 1/2 for each serotype. Overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if all 4 serotypes achieved non-inferiority.|GMT ratio|0.925|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.739|1.16||||||Serotype 3||1.16|0.739|
91050982|NCT02992418|181987668|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs between groups (Group 1/Group 2) was \> 1/2 for each serotype. Overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if all 4 serotypes achieved non-inferiority.|GMT ratio|0.802|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.644|0.999||||||Serotype 4||0.999|0.644|
91050983|NCT00289536|181987681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1662|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA with dose as fixed effect||Null Hypothesis: The mean log initial recovery will be the same in each dose group.||||0.1662
91009158|NCT02519777|181902160|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Participants|-1.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.99|1.6||||||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC and Arm C: MVC and DTG in number of participants with HIV-1 RNA ≥ 50 copies/mL at Week 48||1.60|-4.99|
91009159|NCT02519777|181902160|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Participants|6.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|15.42||||||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC and Arm C: MVC and DTG in number of participants with HIV-1 RNA ≥ 50 copies/mL at Week 96||15.42|-2.70|
91009160|NCT02519777|181902162|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC in change in CD4+ T-cell count at Week 24 from baseline||||0.67
91009161|NCT02519777|181902162|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC in change in CD4+ T-cell count at Week 48 from baseline||||0.78
91050984|NCT00289536|181987682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0965||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA with dose as fixed effect||Null Hypothesis: The mean log AUC/dose will be the same in each dose group.||||0.0965
91009162|NCT02519777|181902162|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC in change in CD4+ T-cell count at Week 96 from baseline||||0.94
91009163|NCT02519777|181902162|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in CD4+ T-cell count at Week 24 from baseline||||0.42
91009164|NCT02519777|181902162|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in CD4+ T-cell count at Week 48 from baseline||||0.07
91009165|NCT02519777|181902162|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in CD4+ T-cell count at Week 96 from baseline||||0.37
91009166|NCT02519777|181902162|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in CD4+ T-cell count at Week 24 from baseline||||0.08
91009167|NCT02519777|181902162|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in CD4+ T-cell count at Week 48 from baseline||||0.33
91009168|NCT02519777|181902162|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in CD4+ T-cell count at Week 96 from baseline||||0.56
91009169|NCT02519777|181902164|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC in change in CD8+ T-cell count at Week 24 from baseline||||0.63
91009170|NCT02519777|181902164|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC in change in CD8+ T-cell count at Week 48 from baseline||||0.38
91009171|NCT02519777|181902164|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC in change in CD8+ T-cell count at Week 96 from baseline||||0.95
91009172|NCT02519777|181902164|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in CD8+ T-cell count at Week 24 from baseline||||0.27
91050985|NCT00289536|181987683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5057|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA with dose as fixed effect||Null Hypothesis: The mean terminal half-life will be the same in each dose group.||||0.5057
91050986|NCT00289536|181987691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7048||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||Regression analysis: Relationship of initial recovery to pre-infusion level of VWF:Rco with dose groups combined.||||0.7048
91009173|NCT02519777|181902164|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in CD8+ T-cell count at Week 48 from baseline||||0.23
91009174|NCT02519777|181902164|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in CD8+ T-cell count at Week 96 from baseline||||0.09
91009175|NCT02519777|181902164|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in CD8+ T-cell count at Week 24 from baseline||||0.03
91009176|NCT02519777|181902164|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in CD8+ T-cell count at Week 48 from baseline||||0.02
91009177|NCT02519777|181902164|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in CD8+ T-cell count at Week 96 from baseline||||0.09
91009178|NCT02519777|181902165|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC in change in Log10 sCD14 in plasma at Week 48 from baseline||||1.00
91009179|NCT02519777|181902165|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in Log10 sCD14 in plasma at Week 48 from baseline||||0.95
91009180|NCT02519777|181902165|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in Log10 sCD14 in plasma at Week 48 from baseline||||0.96
91009181|NCT02519777|181902166|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC in change in Log10 MIP-1 Beta in plasma at Week 48 from baseline||||0.52
91009182|NCT02519777|181902166|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in Log10 MIP-1 Beta in plasma at Week 48 from baseline||||<0.01
91009183|NCT02519777|181902166|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in Log10 MIP-1 Beta in plasma at Week 48 from baseline||||<0.01
91009184|NCT02519777|181902167|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC in change in Log10 sTNFr-II in plasma at Week 48 from baseline||||0.91
91009185|NCT02519777|181902167|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in Log10 sTNFr-II in plasma at Week 48 from baseline||||0.86
91009186|NCT02519777|181902167|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in Log10 sTNFr-II in plasma at Week 48 from baseline||||0.94
91009187|NCT02519777|181902168|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC in change in Log10 VCAM in plasma at Week 48 from baseline||||0.70
91009188|NCT02519777|181902168|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in Log10 VCAM in plasma at Week 48 from baseline||||0.28
91009189|NCT02519777|181902168|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in Log10 VCAM in plasma at Week 48 from baseline||||0.85
91009190|NCT02519777|181902169|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC in change in Log10 MIP-1 Beta in CSF at Week 48 from baseline||||0.99
91009191|NCT02519777|181902169|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in Log10 MIP-1 Beta in CSF at Week 48 from baseline||||0.26
91009192|NCT02519777|181902169|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in Log10 MIP-1 Beta in CSF at Week 48 from baseline||||0.20
91009193|NCT02519777|181902170|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC in change in Log10 IP-10 in CSF at Week 48 from baseline||||0.59
91009194|NCT02519777|181902170|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in Log10 IP-10 in CSF at Week 48 from baseline||||0.39
91009195|NCT02519777|181902170|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in Log10 IP-10 in CSF at Week 48 from baseline||||0.80
91009196|NCT02519777|181902171|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC in change in Log10 Neopterin in CSF at Week 48 from baseline||||0.90
91009197|NCT02519777|181902171|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in Log10 Neopterin in CSF at Week 48 from baseline||||0.14
91009198|NCT02519777|181902171|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in Log10 Neopterin in CSF at Week 48 from baseline||||0.49
91009199|NCT02519777|181902172|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC in change in Log10 NFL in CSF at Week 48 from baseline||||0.52
91009200|NCT02519777|181902172|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in Log10 NFL in CSF at Week 48 from baseline||||0.99
91009201|NCT02519777|181902172|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in Log10 NFL in CSF at Week 48 from baseline||||0.54
91009202|NCT00256204|181902193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0133|||||||Repeated Measures Mixed Linear Model|||"Hypothesis #1: Slopes Superiority of 1mg Rasagiline over Placebo in the PC Phase Where slope is the model estimate of the change from baseline in total UPDRS per week.~In this analysis, all available post-baseline observations in the PC Phase of the trial are analyzed (ITT efficacy data analysis set, weeks 12, 24 and 36). The placebo groups for rasagiline 1mg (delayed-start) and 2mg (delayed-start)are combined to one placebo group."||||0.0133
91050987|NCT00289536|181987691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0322||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||Regression analysis: relationship of AUC/Dose to pre-infusion level of VWF:Rco with dose groups combined.||||.0322
91050988|NCT00289536|181987691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0056||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||Regression analysis: relationship of terminal half-life to pre-infusion level of VWF:Rco with dose groups combined.||||0.0056
91050989|NCT00289536|181987692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3696||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||Regression analysis: relationship of initial recovery to pre-infusion level of VWF:Ag with dose groups combined.||||0.3696
91050990|NCT00289536|181987692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||Regression analysis: relationship of AUC/Dose to pre-infusion level of VWF:Ag with dose groups combined.||||0.0001
91050991|NCT00289536|181987692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||Regression analysis: relationship of terminal half-life to pre-infusion level of VWF:Ag with dose groups combined.||||<0.0001
91050992|NCT01974440|181987693|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.806||||0.0922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.626|1.037|||Log Rank|||||1.037|0.626|0.0922
91050993|NCT01974440|181987694|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.725||||0.4505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.312|1.682|||Log Rank|||||1.682|0.312|0.4505
91050994|NCT02749292|181987712|EQUIVALENCE|Using a two-sided log-rank test with an alpha level of 0.05, a projected relapse risk of 15% in the superior group and 30% in the inferior group, and an estimated enrollment time of 36 months, it was determined that 200 patients were required to detect a significant difference with a power of 0.80. Due to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and the deleterious impact of rituximab on vaccination efficacy, the trial was concluded before reaching the target enrollment of 200.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.37||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.9|||Log Rank|||"The difference between the two treatment strategies was assessed using the log-rank test. P values of 0.05 were considered significant. Both rows were included and combined in the statistical analysis (ANCA-PR3 and ANCA-MPO) to assess the difference in treatment strategies.~Null hypothesis: No difference in the ANCA and B-cell arm in the probability of relapses."||0.90|0.15|0.045
91050995|NCT02749292|181987713|OTHER|chi square test||||||0.87|||||||Chi-squared|||"Null hypothesis: No difference in the proportion of patients with SAEs in each arm"||||0.87
91050996|NCT02749292|181987718|OTHER||||||<|1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: no difference in the mean number of infusions per patient in each arm.||||<0001
91050997|NCT02749292|181987719|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|-0.06|||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the mean change from baseline Vasculitis Damage Index between each arm. A t-test was used.||-0.06|-0.34|0.17
91050998|NCT02749292|181987720|OTHER|Using a two-sided log-rank test with an alpha level of 0.05, a projected relapse risk of 15% in the superior group and 30% in the inferior group, and an estimated enrollment time of 36 months, it was determined that 200 patients were required to detect a significant difference with a power of 0.80. Due to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and the deleterious impact of rituximab on vaccination efficacy, the trial was concluded before reaching the target enrollment of 200.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.64||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|5.36|||Log Rank|||"The difference between the two treatment strategies was assessed using the log-rank test. P values of 0.05 were considered significant.~Null hypothesis: No difference in the ANCA and B-cell arm in the probability of relapses"||5.36|0.50|0.42
91050999|NCT00251641|181987722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|Pearson's chi-square test||The treatment comparison for this endpoint was carried at the 4.9% level of significance.||||<0.001
91051000|NCT00251641|181987723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Multiplicity adjustment was provided using Hochberg test.|Chi-squared|Pearson's chi-square test||||||<0.001
91051001|NCT00251641|181987724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Multiplicity adjustment was provided using the Hochberg test.|Chi-squared|Pearson's chi-square test||||||<0.001
91051002|NCT00251641|181987725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Multiplicity adjustment was provided using the Hochberg test.|Chi-squared|Pearson's chi-square test||||||<0.001
91051003|NCT00876018|181987726|OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||Mann Whitney U test|||||||0.004
91051004|NCT00876018|181987726|OTHER|||||||0.147||95.0|||||Mann Whitney U test|||||||0.147
91051005|NCT00876018|181987727|OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Mann Whitney U test|||||||0.002
91051006|NCT00876018|181987727|OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||Mann Whitney U test|||||||0.003
91051007|NCT00876018|181987728|OTHER|||||||0.153||95.0|||||Mann Whitney U test|||||||0.153
91051008|NCT00876018|181987728|OTHER|||||||0.903||95.0|||||Mann Whitney U test|||||||0.903
91051009|NCT00876018|181987729|OTHER|||||||0.143||95.0|||||Mann Whitney U test|||||||0.143
91009203|NCT00256204|181902193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Repeated Measures Mixed Linear Model|||"Hypothesis #1: Slopes Superiority of 2mg Rasagiline over Placebo in the PC Phase Where slope is the model estimate of the change from baseline in total UPDRS per week.~In this analysis, all available post-baseline observations in the PC Phase of the trial are analyzed (ITT efficacy data analysis set, weeks 12, 24 and 36). The placebo groups for rasagiline 1mg (delayed-start)and 2mg (delayed-start) are combined to one placebo group."||||0.0001
91009204|NCT00256204|181902193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025||95.0||||The analysis was performed on separate datasets and not on the combined dataset as was pre-specified to account for unexpected interactions of dose level by baseline UPDRS and of dose level by center .|Repeated Measures|||Hypothesis #2: Superiority of Early over Delayed Start at Week 72 In this analysis, observations of subjects entering the active phase with at least 24 weeks of treatment during the PC Phase and at least one available Total UPDRS measurement during the active-treatment phase from weeks 48, 54, 60, 66 or 72, are analyzed (ACTE data analysis set).||||0.0250
91051010|NCT00876018|181987729|OTHER|||||||0.678||95.0|||||Mann Whitney U test|||||||0.678
91051011|NCT00888459|181987742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.432||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||.432
91051012|NCT01000493|181987743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.62||||0.3624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.9|6.65||The mixed effects model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis included treatment, week, Baseline total CAPS score and the treatment by week and Baseline. Week was used as the repeated effect in the model.|MMRM analysis||Comparison between Placebo and Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 12.|||6.65|-17.9|0.3624
91051013|NCT01000493|181987744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.91||||0.3156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|6.76|||Logistic regression analysis|The analysis method was logistic regression adjusted for Baseline CAPS total score.|Comparison between Placebo and Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 1. Odds ratios represent the odds of improvement, relative to placebo.|||6.76|0.54|0.3156
91051014|NCT01000493|181987744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.64||||0.3024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.5|||Logistic regression analysis|The analysis method was logistic regression adjusted for Baseline CAPS total score.|Comparison between Placebo and Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 1. Odds ratios represent the odds of improvement, relative to placebo.|||1.50|0.27|0.3024
91051015|NCT01000493|181987744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.4||||0.1208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|7.28|||Logistic regression analysis|The analysis method was logistic regression adjusted for Baseline CAPS total score.|Comparison between Placebo and Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 8. Odds ratios represent the odds of improvement, relative to placebo.|||7.28|0.79|0.1208
91051016|NCT01000493|181987744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.27||||0.1331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|15.4|||Logistic regression analysis|The analysis method was logistic regression adjusted for Baseline CAPS total score.|Comparison between Placebo and Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 1. Odds ratios represent the odds of improvement, relative to placebo.|||15.4|0.70|0.1331
91051017|NCT01000493|181987746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.87||||0.7015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.35|3.61||The MMRM analysis model included treatment, week, Baseline total CAPS score, and the treatment by week and Baseline by week interaction terms. Week was used as the repeated effect in the model.|MMRM analysis||Comparison between placebo and orvepitant 60 mg once daily at Week 1.|||3.61|-5.35|0.7015
91051018|NCT01000493|181987746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.81||||0.4292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.22|9.84||The MMRM analysis model included treatment, week, Baseline total CAPS score, and the treatment by week and Baseline by week interaction terms. Week was used as the repeated effect in the model.|MMRM analysis||Comparison between placebo and orvepitant 60 mg once daily at Week 4.|||9.84|-4.22|0.4292
91009205|NCT00256204|181902193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6028||95.0||||The analysis was performed on separate datasets and not on the combined dataset as was pre-specified to account for unexpected interactions of dose level by baseline UPDRS and of dose level by center|Repeated Measures|||Hypothesis #2:Superiority of Early over Delayed Start at Week 72 In this analysis, observations of subjects entering the active phase with at least 24 weeks of treatment during the PC Phase and at least one available Total UPDRS measurement during the active-treatment phase from weeks 48, 54, 60, 66 or 72, are analyzed (ACTE data analysis set.)||||0.6028
91051019|NCT01000493|181987746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.64||||0.3702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|5.62||The MMRM analysis model included treatment, week, Baseline total CAPS score, and the treatment by week and Baseline by week interaction terms. Week was used as the repeated effect in the model.|MMRM analysis||Comparison between placebo and orvepitant 60 mg once daily at Week 8.|||5.62|-14.9|0.3702
91051020|NCT01000493|181987747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.49||||0.5719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|5.82|||Logistic regression analysis||Odds ratios represent the odds of improvement, relative to place. Comparison between placebo and orvepitant 60 mg once daily at Week 4.|||5.82|0.04|0.5719
91051021|NCT01000493|181987747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.908||95.0|0.07|20.1|||Logistic regression analysis||Odds ratios represent the odds of improvement, relative to place. Comparison between placebo and orvepitant 60 mg once daily at Week 8.|||20.1|0.07|0.9080
91051022|NCT01000493|181987747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.9486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|12.5|||Logistic regression analysis||Odds ratios represent the odds of improvement, relative to place. Comparison between placebo and orvepitant 60 mg once daily at Week 12.|||12.5|0.07|0.9486
91051023|NCT01000493|181987749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.67||||0.5426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|2.85||The MMRM analysis model included treatment, week, Baseline CAPS A/N subscore and the treatment by week and Baseline by week interaction terms. Week was used as the repeated effect in the model.|MMRM analysis||Comparison between placebo and orvepitant 60 mg once daily at Week 1.|||2.85|-1.51|0.5426
91051024|NCT01000493|181987749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.51||||0.7552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.73|3.75||The MMRM analysis model included treatment, week, Baseline CAPS A/N subscore and the treatment by week and Baseline by week interaction terms. Week was used as the repeated effect in the model.|MMRM analysis||Comparison between placebo and orvepitant 60 mg once daily at Week 4.|||3.75|-2.73|0.7552
91051025|NCT01000493|181987749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.22||||0.3827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.27|2.83||The MMRM analysis model included treatment, week, Baseline CAPS A/N subscore and the treatment by week and Baseline by week interaction terms. Week was used as the repeated effect in the model.|MMRM analysis||Comparison between placebo and orvepitant 60 mg once daily at Week 8.|||2.83|-7.27|0.3827
91051026|NCT01000493|181987749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.98||||0.4915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.71|3.75||The MMRM analysis model included treatment, week, Baseline CAPS A/N subscore and the treatment by week and Baseline by week interaction terms. Week was used as the repeated effect in the model.|MMRM analysis||Comparison between placebo and orvepitant 60 mg once daily at Week 12.|||3.75|-7.71|0.4915
91051027|NCT01000493|181987750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09||||0.919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|1.74||The MMRM analysis model included treatment, week, Baseline CAPS hyperarousal subscore and the treatment by week and Baseline by week interaction terms. Week was used as the repeated effect in the model.|MMRM analysis||Comparison between placebo and orvepitant 60 mg once daily at Week 1.|||1.74|-1.93|0.9190
91051028|NCT01000493|181987750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.32||||0.3326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|4.0||The MMRM analysis model included treatment, week, Baseline CAPS hyperarousal subscore and the treatment by week and Baseline by week interaction terms. Week was used as the repeated effect in the model.|MMRM analysis||Comparison between placebo and orvepitant 60 mg once daily at Week 4.|||4.00|-1.37|0.3326
91051029|NCT01000493|181987750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07||||0.9712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.91|3.77||The MMRM analysis model included treatment, week, Baseline CAPS hyperarousal subscore and the treatment by week and Baseline by week interaction terms. Week was used as the repeated effect in the model.|MMRM analysis||Comparison between placebo and orvepitant 60 mg once daily at Week 8.|||3.77|-3.91|0.9712
91051030|NCT01000493|181987750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.92||||0.6711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.22|3.39||The MMRM analysis model included treatment, week, Baseline CAPS hyperarousal subscore and the treatment by week and Baseline by week interaction terms. Week was used as the repeated effect in the model.|MMRM analysis||Comparison between placebo and orvepitant 60 mg once daily at Week 12.|||3.39|-5.22|0.6711
91051031|NCT01000493|181987751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.57||||0.5532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|6.92||The analysis method was logistic regression adjusted for Baseline total Clinical Global Impression-Severity of Illness scales (CGI-S) score.|Logistic regression analysis||Odds ratios represent the odds of improvement, relative to placebo. Comparison between placebo and orvepitant 60 mg once daily at Week 1.|||6.92|0.36|0.5532
91051032|NCT01000493|181987751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46||||0.4508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|3.93|||Logistic regression analysis||Odds ratios represent the odds of improvement, relative to placebo. The analysis method was logistic regression adjusted for Baseline total CGI-S score. Comparison between placebo and orvepitant 60 mg once daily at Week 2.|||3.93|0.54|0.4508
91051033|NCT01000493|181987751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.9234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|2.62|||Logistic regression analysis||Odds ratios represent the odds of improvement, relative to placebo. The analysis method was logistic regression adjusted for Baseline total CGI-S score. Comparison between placebo and orvepitant 60 mg once daily at Week 4.|||2.62|0.42|0.9234
91051034|NCT01000493|181987751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.48||||0.0662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|6.53|||Logistic regression analysis||Odds ratios represent the odds of improvement, relative to placebo. The analysis method was logistic regression adjusted for Baseline total CGI-S score. Comparison between placebo and orvepitant 60 mg once daily at Week 1|||6.53|0.94|0.0662
91051035|NCT01000493|181987751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.83||||0.2767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|5.48|||Logistic regression analysis||Odds ratios represent the odds of improvement, relative to placebo. The analysis method was logistic regression adjusted for Baseline total CGI-S score. Comparison between placebo and orvepitant 60 mg once daily at Week 8.|||5.48|0.61|0.2767
91051036|NCT01000493|181987751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.17||||0.0588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|10.5|||Logistic regression analysis||Odds ratios represent the odds of improvement, relative to placebo. The analysis method was logistic regression adjusted for Baseline total CGI-S score. Comparison between placebo and orvepitant 60 mg once daily at Week 10.|||10.5|0.96|0.0588
91051037|NCT01000493|181987751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.33||||0.1032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|14.1|||Logistic regression analysis||Odds ratios represent the odds of improvement, relative to placebo. The analysis method was logistic regression adjusted for Baseline total CGI-S score. Comparison between placebo and orvepitant 60 mg once daily at Week 12.|||14.1|0.78|0.1032
91051038|NCT01000493|181987752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12||||0.1743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.05||The MMRM analysis model included treatment, week, baseline CGI-S score, and the treatment by week and baseline by week interaction terms. Week was used as the repeated effect in the model.|MMRM analysis||Comparison between placebo and orvepitant 60 mg once daily at Week 1.|||0.05|-0.29|0.1743
91051039|NCT01000493|181987752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.1181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.05||The MMRM analysis model included treatment, week, baseline CGI-S score, and the treatment by week and baseline by week interaction terms. Week was used as the repeated effect in the model.|MMRM analysis||Comparison between placebo and orvepitant 60 mg once daily at Week 2.|||0.05|-0.46|0.1181
91051040|NCT01000493|181987752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.9698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.34||The MMRM analysis model included treatment, week, baseline CGI-S score, and the treatment by week and baseline by week interaction terms. Week was used as the repeated effect in the model.|MMRM analysis||Comparison between placebo and orvepitant 60 mg once daily at Week 4.|||0.34|-0.35|0.9698
91051041|NCT01000493|181987752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.1341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.09||The MMRM analysis model included treatment, week, baseline CGI-S score, and the treatment by week and baseline by week interaction terms. Week was used as the repeated effect in the model.|MMRM analysis||Comparison between placebo and orvepitant 60 mg once daily at Week 6.|||0.09|-0.69|0.1341
91051042|NCT01000493|181987752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.61||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|-0.18||The MMRM analysis model included treatment, week, baseline CGI-S score, and the treatment by week and baseline by week interaction terms. Week was used as the repeated effect in the model.|MMRM analysis||Comparison between placebo and orvepitant 60 mg once daily at Week 8.|||-0.18|-1.04|0.0064
91051043|NCT01000493|181987752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.44||||0.1095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.1||The MMRM analysis model included treatment, week, baseline CGI-S score, and the treatment by week and baseline by week interaction terms. Week was used as the repeated effect in the model.|MMRM analysis||Comparison between placebo and orvepitant 60 mg once daily at Week 10.|||0.10|-0.98|0.1095
91009206|NCT00256204|181902193|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-Inf Test for difference in slopes between treatment groups. One sided 95% CI calculated for difference between slopes of the 1mg early-start group and the 1mg delayed-start group. The inferiority null hypothesis of the early-start group slope over delayed-start group slope is rejected, if the upper limit of one sided 95% CI for difference in slopes does not cross non-inferiority margin of 0.15 UPDRS points per week.|Slope|0.0||||||90.0|-0.036|0.036||||||"Hypothesis #3: Slopes Non-Inferiority of Early Start over Delayed Start in the Active Phase.~Where slope is the model estimate of the change from baseline in total UPDRS per week. In this analysis, observations of all subjects entering the active phase with at least 24 weeks of treatment during the PC Phase and at least one available Total UPDRS measurement during the active treatment phase from weeks 48, 54, 60, 66 or 72, are analyzed (ACTE data analysis set)."||0.036|-0.036|
91009207|NCT00256204|181902193|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-Inf Test for difference in slopes between treatment groups. One sided 95% CI calculated for difference between slopes of the 2mg early-start group and the 2mg delayed-start group. The inferiority null hypothesis of the early-start group slope over delayed-start group slope is rejected, if the upper limit of one sided 95% CI for difference in slopes does not cross non-inferiority margin of 0.15 UPDRS points per week.|Slope|0.029||||||90.0|-0.005|0.062||||||"Hypothesis #3: Slopes Non-Inferiority of Early Start over Delayed Start in the Active Phase.~Where slope is the model estimate of the change from baseline in total UPDRS per week. In this analysis, observations of all subjects entering the active phase with at least 24 weeks of treatment during the PC Phase and at least one available Total UPDRS measurement during the active treatment phase from weeks 48, 54, 60, 66 or 72, are analyzed (ACTE data analysis set)."||0.062|-0.005|
91009208|NCT00256204|181902194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.005|||<|0.0001||95.0|-3.857|-2.153|||ANCOVA|||The adjusted means of the changes in Total UPDRS from baseline to LOV in the placebo-controlled phase, observed in the 1 mg and 2 mg rasagiline early-start groups are compared (two contrasts) to the combined placebo group (1 mg and 2 mg rasagiline delayed-start groups), by applying an Analysis of Covariance model. The model includes treatment group, center and baseline Total UPDRS as covariates. For this analysis, both delayed start arms are pooled as a 'placebo arm'||-2.153|-3.857|<0.0001
91009209|NCT00256204|181902194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.154|||<|0.0001||95.0|-4.004|-2.305|||ANCOVA|||"The adjusted means of the changes in Total UPDRS from baseline to LOV in the placebo-controlled phase, observed in the 1 mg and 2 mg rasagiline early-start groups are compared (two contrasts) to the combined placebo group (1 mg and 2 mg rasagiline delayed-start groups), by applying an Analysis of Covariance model. The model includes treatment group, center and baseline Total UPDRS as covariates.~For this analysis, both delayed start arms are pooled as a 'placebo arm'"||-2.305|-4.004|<0.0001
91009210|NCT02176005|181902255|OTHER||Contrast (B/A)|0.0093|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.006|0.0144|||General linear model|||||0.0144|0.0060|<.000001
91009211|NCT02176005|181902256|OTHER||Contrast (B/A)|0.0096|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0061|0.0151|||General linear model|||||0.0151|0.0061|<.000001
91009212|NCT02176005|181902257|OTHER||Contrast (B/A)|0.9811||||0.806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8608|1.1182|||General linear model|||||1.1182|0.8608|0.806
91009213|NCT02176005|181902258|OTHER||Contrast (B/A)|0.8785||||0.139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.0155|||General linear model|||||1.0155|0.7600|0.139
91009214|NCT02176005|181902259|OTHER||Contrast (B/A)|1.1763||||0.104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9982|1.3861|||General linear model|||||1.3861|0.9982|0.104
91009215|NCT02176005|181902260|OTHER||Contrast (B/A)|0.9391||||0.519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7969|1.1066|||General linear model|||||1.1066|0.7969|0.519
91009216|NCT01981096|181902275|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011||||||The a priori threshold was alpha = .05.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for age and baseline pain levels||This analysis represents the between group comparisons (i.e., FIT Teens vs. CBT) from baseline assessment to the 3-month follow-up, the primary endpoint of the trial.||||.011
91009217|NCT01981096|181902276|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.055||||||The a priori threshold was alpha = .05.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for age and baseline pain levels||This analysis represents the between group comparisons (i.e., FIT Teens vs. CBT) from baseline assessment to the 3-month follow-up, the primary endpoint of the trial.||||.055
91009218|NCT01899729|181902289|OTHER|Used mixed effects model||||||0.06|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.06
91009219|NCT01454531|181902293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Paired values|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is no changes in IgE-blocking factor values from visit 1 (baseline) to visit 6 (end of treatment) versus the alternative hypothesis of change in IgE-blocking factor values||||<0.001
91009220|NCT01454531|181902294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Paired samples|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is no changes in Phleum specific IgG4 values from visit 1 (baseline) to visit 6 (end of treatment) versus the alternative hypothesis of change in Phleum specific IgG4 values||||<0.001
91009221|NCT01454531|181902295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Parallel Line Assay|||Parallel Line Assay is based on the construction of two dose-response regression lines obtained plotting the allergen concentration used to prick test the subjects against the wheal size obtained. ANOVA allows to check for regression, linearity and parallelism. A common slope and y-intercepts are calculated. The CTI is the exponentiation of the difference between y-intercepts divided by the common slope. (Finney D.J., Statistical Method in Biological Assay, 1978).||||<0.01
91009222|NCT04259749|181902297|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|3.4|||||Adjusted for age, education, lifetime use of tobacco products.|||3.40|0.58|
91009223|NCT04259749|181902297|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|5.63|||||Adjusted for age, education, and lifetime use of tobacco products|||5.63|0.92|
91009224|NCT04259749|181902298|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|4.07|||||Adjusted for age, education, and lifetime use of tobacco products|||4.07|0.61|
91009225|NCT04259749|181902298|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|9.02|||||Adjusted for age, education, and lifetime use of tobacco products|||9.02|1.32|
91009226|NCT04259749|181902299|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|3.68|||||Adjusted for age, education, and lifetime use of tobacco|||3.68|.59|
91009227|NCT04259749|181902299|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|6.42|||||Adjusted for age, education, and lifetime use of tobacco products.|||6.42|1.05|
91009228|NCT04259749|181902300|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|2.49|||||Adjusted for age, education, and lifetime use of tobacco|||2.49|.47|
91009229|NCT04259749|181902300|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|3.31|||||Adjusted for age, education, and lifetime use of tobacco products|||3.31|.62|
91009230|NCT04259749|181902301|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|4.14|||||Adjusted for age, education, and lifetime use of tobacco products|||4.14|.72|
91009231|NCT04259749|181902301|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|4.95|||||Adjusted for age, education, and lifetime use of tobacco products.|||4.95|.83|
91009232|NCT04259749|181902302|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.18|||||Adjusted for age, education, and lifetime tobacco use|||3.18|.40|
91009233|NCT04259749|181902302|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|5.71|||||Adjusted for age, education, and lifetime tobacco use|||5.71|.73|
91009234|NCT04259749|181902303|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|4.75|||||Adjusted for age, education, and lifetime tobacco use|||4.75|.66|
91009235|NCT04259749|181902303|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|8.29|||||Adjusted for age, education, and lifetime use of tobacco|||8.29|1.13|
91009236|NCT04259749|181902304|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|3.7|||||Adjusted for age, education, and lifetime tobacco use|||3.70|.51|
91009237|NCT04259749|181902304|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|6.31|||||Adjusted for age, education, and lifetime tobacco use|||6.31|.85|
91009238|NCT04259749|181902305|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|4.26|||||Adjusted for age, education, and lifetime tobacco use|||4.26|.29|
91009239|NCT04259749|181902305|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|7.06|||||Adjusted for age, education, and lifetime tobacco use|||7.06|.57|
91009240|NCT04259749|181902306|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|3.31|||||Adjusted for age, education, and lifetime tobacco use|||3.31|.33|
91009241|NCT04259749|181902306|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.43|||||TWO_SIDED|0.95|0.83|7.13|||||Adjusted for age, education, and lifetime tobacco use|||7.13|.83|
91009242|NCT04259749|181902307|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|4.14|||||Adjusted for age, education, and lifetime tobacco use|||4.14|.72|
91009243|NCT04259749|181902307|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|4.95|||||Adjusted for age, education, and lifetime tobacco use|||4.95|.83|
91009244|NCT03922945|181902316|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
91009245|NCT03922945|181902317|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0017|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0017
91009246|NCT03922945|181902324|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7465|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7465
91051044|NCT01000493|181987752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.32||||0.2814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.27||The MMRM analysis model included treatment, week, baseline CGI-S score, and the treatment by week and baseline by week interaction terms. Week was used as the repeated effect in the model.|MMRM analysis||Comparison between placebo and orvepitant 60 mg once daily at Week 12.|||0.27|-0.90|0.2814
91009247|NCT00313716|181902327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||||||"H0: Proportion of participants expected to have a favorable GOS outcome in the Epo2 group - in Placebo group is \>= 0.2.~H1: Proportion in Epo2 group - in Placebo group \< 0.2"|Futility analysis|||The primary analysis plan was a futility trial of the Epo 2 regimen arm. We hypothesized that 30% of subjects in the placebo group would have a favorable outcome at six months and there would be no interaction between the Epo and the transfusion threshold groups. Using a one-sided alpha of 0.15, a sample size of 62 subjects in the Epo 2 regimen group and 100 subjects in the placebo group provided 91% power to test the futility hypothesis.||||.01
91009248|NCT00313716|181902327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13||||||"H0: Proportion of participants expected to have a favorable GOS outcome in the Epo1 group - in Placebo group is \>= 0.2.~H1: Proportion in Epo1 group - in Placebo group \< 0.2"|Futility analysis|||The primary analysis plan was a futility trial of the Epo 1 regimen arm. We hypothesized that 30% of subjects in the placebo group would have a favorable outcome at six months and there would be no interaction between the Epo and the transfusion threshold groups.||||0.13
91009249|NCT00313716|181902327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34|||||||2-sample test of proportions|||We hypothesized that 40% of the patients in the TT7 group would have a favorable GOS score and that there would be no interaction between the Epo and TT groups. Assuming a 2-sided test with an alpha level of 0.05, we estimated that a sample size of 200 patients would provide 80% power to detect a 20% absolute increase in the GOS score for the TT10 group.||||.34
91009250|NCT00313716|181902328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.06
91009251|NCT00313716|181902329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Log Rank|||||||.25
91051045|NCT01000493|181987759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.92||||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.33|-0.5||The MMRM analysis model included treatment, week, Baseline total HAM-D score, and the treatment by week and Baseline by week interaction terms. Week was used as the repeated effect in the model.|MMRM analysis||Comparison between placebo and orvepitant 60 mg once daily at Week 1|||-0.50|-3.33|0.0083
91051046|NCT01000493|181987759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.94||||0.0311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.71|-0.18||The MMRM analysis model included treatment, week, Baseline total HAM-D score, and the treatment by week and Baseline by week interaction terms. Week was used as the repeated effect in the model.|MMRM analysis||Comparison between placebo and orvepitant 60 mg once daily at Week 2.|||-0.18|-3.71|0.0311
91051047|NCT01000493|181987759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.89||||0.1155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.26|0.47||The MMRM analysis model included treatment, week, Baseline total HAM-D score, and the treatment by week and Baseline by week interaction terms. Week was used as the repeated effect in the model.|MMRM analysis||Comparison between placebo and orvepitant 60 mg once daily at Week 4.|||0.47|-4.26|0.1155
91009252|NCT00313716|181902329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75|||||||Log Rank|||||||.75
91009253|NCT00313716|181902329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72|||||||Log Rank|||||||.72
91051048|NCT01000493|181987759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.89||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.33|-0.45||The MMRM analysis model included treatment, week, Baseline total HAM-D score, and the treatment by week and Baseline by week interaction terms. Week was used as the repeated effect in the model.|MMRM analysis||Comparison between placebo and orvepitant 60 mg once daily at Week 6.|||-0.45|-5.33|0.0210
91051049|NCT01000493|181987759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.86||||0.0582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.83|0.1||The MMRM analysis model included treatment, week, Baseline total HAM-D score, and the treatment by week and Baseline by week interaction terms. Week was used as the repeated effect in the model.|MMRM analysis||Comparison between placebo and orvepitant 60 mg once daily at Week 8.|||0.10|-5.83|0.0582
91051050|NCT01000493|181987759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.88||||0.0927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.25|0.49||The MMRM analysis model included treatment, week, Baseline total HAM-D score, and the treatment by week and Baseline by week interaction terms. Week was used as the repeated effect in the model.|MMRM analysis||Comparison between placebo and orvepitant 60 mg once daily at Week 10.|||0.49|-6.25|0.0927
91009254|NCT00313716|181902330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.79||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|3.45|||Regression, Cox|||||3.45|.93|.08
91051051|NCT01000493|181987759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.27||||0.8954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.36|3.83||The MMRM analysis model included treatment, week, Baseline total HAM-D score, and the treatment by week and Baseline by week interaction terms. Week was used as the repeated effect in the model.|MMRM analysis||Comparison between placebo and orvepitant 60 mg once daily at Week 12.|||3.83|-4.36|0.8954
91078115|NCT04245202|182041536|OTHER||Relative treatment effect difference|-0.07||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-Value of the interaction between time and groups was given. In all analysis, p values \<0.05 were considered being statistically significant.|Brunner-Langer Method||Relative Treatment Effect Difference= High-Flow Nasal Cannula Oxygen Therapy (96-0 h) - Standard Face Mask Oxygen Therapy (96-0 h) (based on least-square means)|||||0.002
91009255|NCT00313716|181902331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.05|||2-sample test - equality of proportions|||||.05|-.22|.26
91009256|NCT03521089|181902347|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0039|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0039
91009257|NCT03521089|181902347|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.00
91009258|NCT03521089|181902347|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0156|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0156
91009259|NCT03521089|181902348|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9674|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.9674
91009260|NCT03521089|181902348|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0938|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0938
91009261|NCT03521089|181902348|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2500
91009262|NCT03521089|181902349|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0067|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0067
91009263|NCT03521089|181902349|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0313|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0313
91009264|NCT03521089|181902349|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7500
91009265|NCT03521089|181902350|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3069|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3069
91009266|NCT03521089|181902350|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1875|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1875
91009267|NCT03521089|181902350|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7188|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7188
91009268|NCT03521089|181902351|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2609|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2609
91009269|NCT03521089|181902351|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0313|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0313
91009270|NCT03521089|181902351|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0156|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0156
91009271|NCT03521089|181902352|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6951|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.6951
91009272|NCT03521089|181902352|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0938|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0938
91009273|NCT03521089|181902352|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0938|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0938
91009274|NCT03521089|181902353|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3592|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3592
91009275|NCT03521089|181902353|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0625|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0625
91009276|NCT03521089|181902353|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.0000
91009277|NCT03474380|181902356|SUPERIORITY|A generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) with a negative binomial distribution and a log link was fit including a time-varying indicator for when iHI-FIVES program launched, fixed effects for time (indicator variables for each of the time periods) and site. The final model was adjusted for Veteran characteristics, including age, gender, race, marital status, service connection, rural status, and chronic disease burden concurrence score (Nosos).|rate ratio (RR)|0.58||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.09|||generalized linear mixed model (GLMM)||Rate ratio, rate of days not in the community in 6 month intervals in intervention versus usual care.|Days not at home in 6 month intervals.||1.09|0.31|0.091
91009278|NCT03474380|181902357|SUPERIORITY|A generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) was fit including a time-varying indicator for when iHI-FIVES program launched, fixed effects for time (indicator variables for each of the time periods), site, and indicator for the time point of the survey, and an indicator for the interaction of the time point of the survey with the time-varying indicator for treatment. The final model was adjusted for caregiver characteristics.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||This is the estimated mean difference from baseline to 3 months between usual care and intervention.|||0.8|-0.7|0.98
91009279|NCT03474380|181902358|SUPERIORITY|A generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) was fit including a time-varying indicator for when iHI-FIVES program launched, fixed effects for time (indicator variables for each of the time periods), site, and indicator for the time point of the survey, and an indicator for the interaction of the time point of the survey with the time-varying indicator for treatment. The final model was adjusted for caregiver characteristics.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.4||||0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||This is the estimated mean difference from baseline to 3 months between usual care and intervention.|||1.0|-0.2|0.167
91009280|NCT03474380|181902359|SUPERIORITY|A generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) was fit including a time-varying indicator for when iHI-FIVES program launched, fixed effects for time (indicator variables for each of the time periods), site, and indicator for the time point of the survey, and an indicator for the interaction of the time point of the survey with the time-varying indicator for treatment. The final model was adjusted for caregiver characteristics.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||This is the estimated mean difference from baseline to 3 months between usual care and intervention.|||0.1|-1.0|0.122
91009281|NCT02074436|181902364|OTHER|||||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|0.001|||||Fisher Exact|||The results are from the first and only interim analysis focusing on the primary endpoint: proportion of patient with major bleeding (Grade 3 and 4) during the study. The interim analysis was performed after 11 patients in each arm were randomized and results were obtained. One-sided fisher's exact test was employed in the analysis. The null hypothesis is the probability of occurring major bleeding is the same for Arm A and Arm B||||0.5
91009282|NCT03490734|181902365|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52||||||Corrected for multiple comparisons by using the threshold free cluster enhancement, nonparametric thresholding algorithm in FMRIB Software Library (FSL), resulting in a family-wise error rate (FWE) corrected significance threshold of p-FWE\<0.05|ANCOVA|||Whole-brain analyses were used. No clusters of significant activation were detected.||||0.52
91009283|NCT03490734|181902366|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016||||||Corrected for multiple comparisons by using the threshold free cluster enhancement (TFCE), nonparametric thresholding algorithm in FSL, resulting in a family-wise error rate corrected significance threshold of p-FWE \< 0.05|ANCOVA|||||||0.016
91009284|NCT00792922|181902382|SUPERIORITY|Predicted prevalence was estimated in each community using the baseline observed prevalence, treatment arm \& parameters estimated from square root transformed model.For each arm estimated prevalences were averaged.Difference in adjusted mean prevalence for enhanced arm and standard arm was calculated.For confidence intervals for adjusted difference,steps 1 to 4 for 1000 bootstrap samples were repeated.Median of adjusted mean differences, corresponding 2.5 % \& 97.5 % percentiles were reported.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|3.8|||Regression, Linear|||"This is analysis done in Tanzania:~Only the main effect of coverage was analyzed.We hypothesized that increasing the coverage of MDA to greater than 90 % as monitored in children would result in more rapid decline in infection and trachoma compared to usual coverage.Here we are looking at the prevalence of infection."||3.8|-1|0.22
91009285|NCT00792922|181902382|SUPERIORITY|For each community using the baseline observed prevalence, treatment arm and parameters estimated from square root transformed model we estimated predicted prevalence.For each arm we average estimated prevalences.The difference in the adjusted mean prevalence for enhanced arm and standard arm was then calculated.In order to derive the confidence intervals for the adjusted difference, we repeated Steps 1 to 4 for 1000 bootstrap samples.The median of the adjusted mean differences were reported.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.6||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|5.3|||Ordinary least squares linear regression|||"This is the analysis done in Tanzania:~Only the main effect of coverage was analyzed.We hypothesized that increasing the coverage of MDA to greater than 90 % as monitored in children would result in more rapid decline in infection and trachoma compared to usual coverage.~Here we are looking at the prevalence of trachoma"||5.3|-0.3|0.73
91009286|NCT00792922|181902382|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-4.6||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|1.9|||Regression, Linear|||"This is the statistical analysis for Niger:~We hypothesized that increasing the coverage of MDA to greater than 90 % as monitored in children would result in more rapid decline in infection and trachoma compared to usual coverage.Here we are looking at the prevalence of infection."||1.9|-11.1|0.20
91009287|NCT00792922|181902382|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|12.5|||Regression, Linear|||"This is the statistical analysis for Niger:~We hypothesized that increasing the coverage of MDA to greater than 90 % as monitored in children would result in more rapid decline in infection and trachoma compared to usual coverage.Here we are looking at the prevalence of trachoma."||12.5|-7.7|0.60
91009288|NCT04491591|181902384|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.801|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.801
91009289|NCT04491591|181902385|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1336|||||||Fisher Exact|||Reconstruction versus No reconstruction||||0.1336
91009290|NCT04491591|181902385|SUPERIORITY|Immediate reconstruction versus delayed reconstruction||||||0.5505|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.5505
91009291|NCT04491591|181902385|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6178|||||||Fisher Exact|||Flap reconstruction versus Implant reconstruction||||0.6178
91009292|NCT04491591|181902386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2317|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2317
91009293|NCT04491591|181902387|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1052|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1052
91009294|NCT04491591|181902388|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Within subjects pre/post comparison|||
91009295|NCT04491591|181902389|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
91009296|NCT04491591|181902391|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Descriptive analysis using mean and standard deviation|||
91009297|NCT04491591|181902392|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0302|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0302
91009298|NCT04491591|181902393|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.135|||||||Fisher Exact|||Reconstruction versus No reconstruction||||0.135
91009299|NCT04491591|181902393|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||Fisher Exact|||Immediate reconstruction versus delayed reconstruction||||0.510
91009300|NCT04491591|181902393|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.469|||||||Fisher Exact|||Flap reconstruction versus Implant reconstruction||||0.469
91009301|NCT04491591|181902394|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.308|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.308
91009302|NCT04491591|181902395|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.036
91009303|NCT02274766|181902446|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-14.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.4|-8.3|||Linear Mixed Model w/ Repeated Measures|Change from baseline is a dependent variable; the baseline value is a continuous covariate||32 subjects per treatment arm provided 90% power using a 2-sided test at 5% significance.||-8.3|-20.4|<0.0001
91009304|NCT02274766|181902447|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.775||0.0168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|3.45||Change from Baseline in ON time without troublesome dyskinesia.|Linear Mixed Model w/ Repeated Measures|||||3.45|0.35|0.0168
91009305|NCT02274766|181902447|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.648||0.0853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.42|0.16||Change from Baseline in ON time with troublesome dyskinesia.|Linear Mixed Model w/ Repeated Measures|||||0.16|-2.42|0.0853
91009306|NCT02274766|181902447|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.461||0.0199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|-0.18||Change from Baseline in OFF time.|Linear Mixed Model w/ Repeated Measures|||||-0.18|-2.02|0.0199
91009307|NCT02130635|181902462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Median Ratio|0.9||||0.599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|2.07||Posterior Probability the True Treatment Ratio \<1 for Day 7|Bayesian repeated measures||Comparison of IL6 concentrations at Day 7. This is the baseline corrected ratio of 100ug/placebo for day 7.|||2.07|0.39|0.599
91009308|NCT02130635|181902462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Median Ratio|1.07||||0.442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|2.59||Posterior Probability the True Treatment Ratio \<1 for Day 14|Bayesian repeated measures||Comparison of IL6 concentrations at Day 14. This is the baseline corrected ratio of 100ug/placebo for day 14.|||2.59|0.43|0.442
91009309|NCT02130635|181902462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Median Ratio|0.68||||0.823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.57||Posterior Probability the True Treatment Ratio \<1 for Day 7|Bayesian repeated measures||Comparison of IL6 concentrations at Day 7. This is the baseline corrected ratio of 200ug/placebo for day 7.|||1.57|0.30|0.823
91009310|NCT02130635|181902462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Median Ratio|0.81||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.97||Posterior Probability the True Treatment Ratio \<1 for Day 14|Bayesian repeated measures||Comparison of IL6 concentrations at Day 14. This is the baseline corrected ratio of 200ug/placebo for day 14.|||1.97|0.33|0.690
91009311|NCT02130635|181902462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Median Ratio|0.75||||0.764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.71||Posterior Probability the True Treatment Ratio \<1 for Day 7|Bayesian repeated measures||Comparison of IL6 concentrations at Day 7. This is the baseline corrected ratio of 500ug/placebo for day 7.|||1.71|0.33|0.764
91009312|NCT02130635|181902462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Median Ratio|0.64||||0.841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.56||Posterior Probability the True Treatment Ratio \<1 for Day 14|Bayesian repeated measures||Comparison of IL6 concentrations at Day 14. This is the baseline corrected ratio of 500ug/placebo for day 14.|||1.56|0.27|0.841
91009313|NCT02130635|181902462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Median Ratio|0.81||||0.702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.81||Posterior Probability the True Treatment Ratio \<1 for Day 7|Bayesian repeated measures||Comparison of IL8 concentrations at Day 7.This is the baseline corrected ratio of 100ug/placebo for day 7.|||1.81|0.35|0.702
91009314|NCT02130635|181902462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Median Ratio|0.91||||0.578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|2.47||Posterior Probability the True Treatment Ratio \<1 for Day 14|Bayesian repeated measures||Comparison of IL8 concentrations at Day 14. This is the baseline corrected ratio of 100ug/placebo for day 14.|||2.47|0.33|0.578
91009315|NCT02130635|181902462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Median Ratio|0.71||||0.783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.7||Posterior Probability the True Treatment Ratio \<1 for Day 7|Bayesian repeated measures||Comparison of IL8 concentrations at Day 7. This is the baseline corrected ratio of 200ug/placebo for day 7.|||1.70|0.29|0.783
91009316|NCT02130635|181902462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Median Ratio|0.64||||0.797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.87||Posterior Probability the True Treatment Ratio \<1 for Day 14|Bayesian repeated measures||Comparison of IL8 concentrations at Day 14. This is the baseline corrected ratio of 200ug/placebo for day 14.|||1.87|0.22|0.797
91009317|NCT02130635|181902462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Median Ratio|0.58||||0.919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.26||Posterior Probability the True Treatment Ratio \<1 for Day 7|Bayesian repeated measures||Comparison of IL8 concentrations at Day 7. This is the baseline corrected ratio of 500ug/placebo for day 7.|||1.26|0.27|0.919
91009318|NCT02130635|181902462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Median Ratio|0.55||||0.892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.43||Posterior Probability the True Treatment Ratio \<1 for Day 14|Bayesian repeated measures||Comparison of IL8 concentrations at Day 14. This is the baseline corrected ratio of 500ug/placebo for day 14.|||1.43|0.21|0.892
91009319|NCT02130635|181902462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Median Ratio|0.47||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|1.93||Posterior Probability the True Treatment Ratio \<1 for Day 7|Bayesian repeated measures||Comparison of TNFalpha concentrations at Day 7. This is the baseline corrected ratio of 100ug/placebo for day 7.|||1.93|0.11|0.860
91051052|NCT03629028|181987766|NON_INFERIORITY|Data compared to meta-analysis conducted in Sardo et al., 2017||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared or Fisher's test statistic was used to compare the categorical variables.||The sample size was calculated based on the study of Sardo et al. The website http://powerandsamplesize.com/Calculators was used. As a result of the sample size calculation with 90% power and 0.05 alpha error, it was planned to include 141 patients in each group.||||0.05
91051053|NCT03431974|181987779|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||Fisher Exact|||The efficacy of LD-AMT established using a step-down analysis approach with one-sided Fisher's exact tests. First, the analysis for subjects attaining PASI 75 will be performed, then, if that analysis shows a significant treatment effect, analysis for subjects attaining a sPGA success will be performed.||||0.43
91051054|NCT02192164|181987783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.757334|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.594019|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.916307|0.401638||||||||0.401638|-5.916307|
91051055|NCT02192164|181987784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.911449|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.426517|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.73847|1.915572||||||||1.915572|-3.73847|
91051056|NCT03123861|181987790|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.09
91051057|NCT03123861|181987791|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.09
91051058|NCT03123861|181987792|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.08
91051059|NCT03123861|181987793|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.91
91051060|NCT01929031|181987798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|41.738|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.058|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.767|49.708|||ANCOVA|The statistical model included baseline PI (VRS), and treatment.|Ibuprofen/Caffeine vs. Placebo|||49.708|33.767|<0.0001
91051061|NCT01929031|181987798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|36.467|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.058|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.497|44.437|||ANCOVA|The statistical model included baseline PI (VRS), and treatment.|Ibuprofen/Caffeine vs. Caffeine|||44.437|28.497|<0.0001
91051062|NCT01929031|181987798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.126|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.868|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.493|17.759|||ANCOVA|The statistical model included baseline PI (VRS), and treatment.|Ibuprofen/Caffeine vs. Ibuprofen|||17.759|6.493|<0.0001
91051063|NCT01929031|181987799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.525|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.808|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.937|10.113|||ANCOVA|The statistical model included baseline PI (VRS), and treatment.|Ibuprofen/Caffeine vs. Placebo|||10.113|6.937|<0.0001
91051064|NCT01929031|181987799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.972|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.808|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.384|9.559|||ANCOVA|The statistical model included baseline PI (VRS), and treatment.|Ibuprofen/Caffeine vs. Caffeine|||9.559|6.384|<0.0001
91051065|NCT01929031|181987799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.594|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.571|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.472|4.716|||ANCOVA|The statistical model included baseline PI (VRS), and treatment.|Ibuprofen/Caffeine vs. Ibuprofen|||4.716|2.472|<0.0001
91051066|NCT01929031|181987800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|Log rank test stratified for baseline pain intensity as measured on the 4-point VRS.||Ibuprofen/Caffeine vs. Placebo||||<0.0001
91051067|NCT01929031|181987800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|Log rank test stratified for baseline pain intensity as measured on the 4-point VRS.||Ibuprofen/Caffeine vs. Caffeine||||<0.0001
91051068|NCT01929031|181987800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2389|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|Log rank test stratified for baseline pain intensity as measured on the 4-point VRS.||Ibuprofen/Caffeine vs. Ibuprofen||||0.2389
91051069|NCT01929031|181987801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|Log rank test stratified for baseline pain intensity as measured on the 4-point VRS.||Ibuprofen/Caffeine vs. Placebo||||<0.0001
91051070|NCT01929031|181987801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|Log rank test stratified for baseline pain intensity as measured on the 4-point VRS.||Ibuprofen/Caffeine vs. Caffeine||||<0.0001
91051071|NCT01929031|181987801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|Log rank test stratified for baseline pain intensity as measured on the 4-point VRS.||Ibuprofen/Caffeine vs. Ibuprofen||||0.0001
91051072|NCT01366443|181987802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Sensitivity|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.89|||||"The calculation for the Wilson CI is computed using the cii (confidence interval immediate) command in Stata version 11.2, with the Wilson option."|Sensitivity = true positives/(true positives + false negatives); It indicates how likely is the test to detect the presence of a characteristic in someone with the characteristic.||0.89|0.79|
91051073|NCT01366443|181987802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Specificity|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|0.99|||||"The calculation for the Wilson CI is computed using the cii (confidence interval immediate) command in Stata version 11.2, with the Wilson option."|Specificity = true negatives/(false positives + true negatives); It indicates how likely the test is to detect the absence of a characteristic in someone without the characteristic.||0.99|0.93|
91051074|NCT01366443|181987802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Positive Predictive Value|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.0|||||"The calculation for the Wilson CI is computed using the cii (confidence interval immediate) command in Stata version 11.2, with the Wilson option."|Positive Predictive Value = true positives/(true positives + false positives); It indicates how likely it is that someone with a positive test result will actually have the characteristic.||1.00|0.96|
91051075|NCT01366443|181987802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Negative Predictive Value|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.84|||||"The calculation for the Wilson CI is computed using the cii (confidence interval immediate) command in Stata version 11.2, with the Wilson option."|Negative Predictive Value = true negatives/(true negatives + false negatives); It indicates how likely it is that someone with a negative test result will actually not have the characteristic.||0.84|0.69|
91051076|NCT01366443|181987802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Sensitivity|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.0|||||"The calculation for the Wilson CI is computed using the cii (confidence interval immediate) command in Stata version 11.2, with the Wilson option."|Sensitivity = true positives/(true positives + false negatives); It indicates how likely is the test to detect the presence of a characteristic in someone with the characteristic.||1.00|0.97|
91051077|NCT01366443|181987802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Specificity|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|0.95|||||"The calculation for the Wilson CI is computed using the cii (confidence interval immediate) command in Stata version 11.2, with the Wilson option."|Specificity = true negatives/(false positives + true negatives); It indicates how likely the test is to detect the absence of a characteristic in someone without the characteristic.||0.95|0.83|
91051078|NCT01366443|181987802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Positive Predictive Value|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|0.98|||||"The calculation for the Wilson CI is computed using the cii (confidence interval immediate) command in Stata version 11.2, with the Wilson option."|Positive Predictive Value = true positives/(true positives + false positives); It indicates how likely it is that someone with a positive test result will actually have the characteristic.||0.98|0.90|
91051079|NCT01366443|181987802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Negative Predictive Value|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.0|||||"The calculation for the Wilson CI is computed using the cii (confidence interval immediate) command in Stata version 11.2, with the Wilson option."|Negative Predictive Value = true negatives/(true negatives + false negatives); It indicates how likely it is that someone with a negative test result will actually not have the characteristic.||1.00|0.94|
91051080|NCT01565616|181987820|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.4||0.52|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This statistical analysis is the paired difference in t-scores of the anxiety domain of the PROMIS-57 quality of life scale. 16 participants with paired measurements of the PROMIS-57 survey (baseline and 1 year) are included in this analysis.||||0.52
91051081|NCT01565616|181987820|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.4||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This statistical analysis is the paired difference in t-scores of the depression domain of the PROMIS-57 quality of life scale. 16 participants with paired measurements of the PROMIS-57 survey (baseline and 1 year) are included in this analysis.||||0.12
91009320|NCT02130635|181902462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Median Ratio|1.05||||0.463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|2.86||Posterior Probability the True Treatment Ratio \<1 for Day 14|Bayesian repeated measures||Comparison of TNFalpha concentrations at Day 14. This is the baseline corrected ratio of 100ug/placebo for day 14.|||2.86|0.38|0.463
91009321|NCT02130635|181902462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Median Ratio|0.35||||0.932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.42||Posterior Probability the True Treatment Ratio \<1 for Day 7|Bayesian repeated measures||Comparison of TNFalpha concentrations at Day 7. This is the baseline corrected ratio of 200ug/placebo for day 7.|||1.42|0.09|0.932
91009322|NCT02130635|181902462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Median Ratio|0.43||||0.952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.17||Posterior Probability the True Treatment Ratio \<1 for Day 14|Bayesian repeated measures||Comparison of TNFalpha concentrations at Day 14. This is the baseline corrected ratio of 200ug/placebo for day 14.|||1.17|0.16|0.952
91009323|NCT02130635|181902462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Median Ratio|0.46||||0.873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|1.81||Posterior Probability the True Treatment Ratio \<1 for Day 7|Bayesian repeated measures||Comparison of TNFalpha concentrations at Day 7. This is the baseline corrected ratio of 500ug/placebo for day 7.|||1.81|0.12|0.873
91009324|NCT02130635|181902462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Median Ratio|0.43||||0.953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.16||Posterior Probability the True Treatment Ratio \<1 for Day 14|Bayesian repeated measures||Comparison of TNFalpha concentrations at Day 14. This is the baseline corrected ratio of 500ug/placebo for day 14.|||1.16|0.16|0.953
91051082|NCT01565616|181987820|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.5||0.54|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This statistical analysis is the paired difference in t-scores of the fatigue domain of the PROMIS-57 quality of life scale. 16 participants with paired measurements of the PROMIS-57 survey (baseline and 1 year) are included in this analysis.||||0.54
91051083|NCT01565616|181987820|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.3||0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This statistical analysis is the paired difference in t-scores of the pain interference domain of the PROMIS-57 quality of life scale. 16 participants with paired measurements of the PROMIS-57 survey (baseline and 1 year) are included in this analysis.||||0.006
91051084|NCT01565616|181987820|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.5||0.044|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This statistical analysis is the paired difference in t-scores of the physical function domain of the PROMIS-57 quality of life scale. 16 participants with paired measurements of the PROMIS-57 survey (baseline and 1 year) are included in this analysis.||||0.044
91051085|NCT01565616|181987820|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.8||0.85|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This statistical analysis is the paired difference in t-scores of the satisfaction with social role domain of the PROMIS-57 quality of life scale. 16 participants with paired measurements of the PROMIS-57 survey (baseline and 1 year) are included in this analysis.||||0.85
91051086|NCT01565616|181987820|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.5||0.88|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This statistical analysis is the paired difference in t-scores of the sleep disturbances domain of the PROMIS-57 quality of life scale. 16 participants with paired measurements of the PROMIS-57 survey (baseline and 1 year) are included in this analysis.||||0.88
91051087|NCT01565616|181987820|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.1||0.53|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This statistical analysis is the paired difference in raw scores of the pain intensity domain of the PROMIS-57 quality of life scale. 16 participants with paired measurements of the PROMIS-57 survey (baseline and 1 year) are included in this analysis.||||0.53
91051088|NCT00986453|181987821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4697||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4697
91051089|NCT00986453|181987822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.147||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1470
91051090|NCT00986453|181987823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0428||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0428
91051091|NCT00986453|181987824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0776||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0776
91051092|NCT00986453|181987825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0002
91051093|NCT00609466|181987842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean|70.8|||<|0.0001||95.0|35.9|105.6||No multiplicity adjustment used.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and centre as fixed effects and baseline pain as covariate.||Null hypothesis of no treatment difference.||105.6|35.9|<0.0001
91051094|NCT00609466|181987843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Test for time (in hours) to first rescue medication use. No multiplicity adjustment.|Log Rank|Adjusted for site||||||<0.0001
91051095|NCT00609466|181987844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean|37.5|||<|0.0001||95.0|22.7|52.2||No multiplicity adjustment used|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and centre as fixed effects and baseline pain as covariate.||Null hypothesis of no treatment difference.||52.2|22.7|<0.0001
91009325|NCT02130635|181902462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Median Ratio9|1.26||||0.281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|2.82||Posterior Probability the True Treatment Ratio \<1 for Day 7|Bayesian repeated measures||Comparison of IL6 concentrations at Day 7. This is the baseline corrected ratio of 700ug/placebo for day 7.|||2.82|0.56|0.281
91009326|NCT02130635|181902462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Median Ratio|1.0||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|2.35||Posterior Probability the True Treatment Ratio \<1 for Day 14|Bayesian repeated measures||Comparison of IL6 concentrations at Day 14. This is the baseline corrected ratio of 700ug/placebo for day 14.|||2.35|0.42|0.500
91009327|NCT02130635|181902462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Median Ratio|0.76||||0.744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.77||Posterior Probability the True Treatment Ratio \<1 for Day 7|Bayesian repeated measures||Comparison of IL6 concentrations at Day 7. This is the baseline corrected ratio of 1000ug/placebo for day 7.|||1.77|0.32|0.744
91009328|NCT02130635|181902462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Median Ratio|1.21||||0.334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|3.04||Posterior Probability the True Treatment Ratio \<1 for Day 14|Bayesian repeated measures||Comparison of IL6 concentrations at Day 14. This is the baseline corrected ratio of 1000ug/placebo for day 14.|||3.04|0.49|0.334
91009329|NCT02130635|181902462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Median Ratio|0.81||||0.698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.85||Posterior Probability the True Treatment Ratio \<1 for Day 7|Bayesian repeated measures||Comparison of IL6 concentrations at Day 7. This is the baseline corrected ratio of 2000ug/placebo for day 7.|||1.85|0.35|0.698
91009330|NCT02130635|181902462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Median Ratio|1.18||||0.353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|2.88||Posterior Probability the True Treatment Ratio \<1 for Day 14|Bayesian repeated measures||Comparison of IL6 concentrations at Day 14. This is the baseline corrected ratio of 2000ug/placebo for day 14.|||2.88|0.48|0.353
91009331|NCT02130635|181902462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Median Ratio9|1.01||||0.489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.26||Posterior Probability the True Treatment Ratio \<1 for Day 7|Bayesian repeated measures||Comparison of IL8 concentrations at Day 7. This is the baseline corrected ratio of 700ug/placebo for day 7.|||2.26|0.45|0.489
91051096|NCT00609466|181987845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square means|9.9|||<|0.0001||95.0|6.2|13.6||No multiplicity adjustment used.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and centre as fixed effects and baseline pain as covariate.||Null hypothesis of no treatment difference.||13.6|6.2|<0.0001
91009332|NCT02130635|181902462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Median Ratio|0.46||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.23||Posterior Probability the True Treatment Ratio \<1 for Day 14|Bayesian repeated measures||Comparison of IL8 concentrations at Day 14. This is the baseline corrected ratio of 700ug/placebo for day 14.|||1.23|0.17|0.940
91009333|NCT02130635|181902462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Median Ratio|1.01||||0.495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|2.4||Posterior Probability the True Treatment Ratio \<1 for Day 7|Bayesian repeated measures||Comparison of IL8 concentrations at Day 7. This is the baseline corrected ratio of 1000ug/placebo for day 7.|||2.40|0.42|0.495
91009334|NCT02130635|181902462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Median Ratio|0.82||||0.647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|2.37||Posterior Probability the True Treatment Ratio \<1 for Day 14|Bayesian repeated measures||Comparison of IL8 concentrations at Day 14. This is the baseline corrected ratio of 1000ug/placebo for day 14.|||2.37|0.28|0.647
91009335|NCT02130635|181902462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Median Ratio|0.87||||0.646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.86||Posterior Probability the True Treatment Ratio \<1 for Day 7|Bayesian repeated measures||Comparison of IL8 concentrations at Day 7. This is the baseline corrected ratio of 2000ug/placebo for day 7.|||1.86|0.40|0.646
91009336|NCT02130635|181902462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Median Ratio|0.74||||0.741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.9||Posterior Probability the True Treatment Ratio \<1 for Day 14|Bayesian repeated measures||Comparison of IL8 concentrations at Day 14. This is the baseline corrected ratio of 2000ug/placebo for day 14.|||1.90|0.29|0.741
91009337|NCT02130635|181902462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Median Ratio9|2.18||||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|7.95||Posterior Probability the True Treatment Ratio \<1 for Day 7|Bayesian repeated measures||Comparison of TNFalpha concentrations at Day 7. This is the baseline corrected ratio of 700ug/placebo for day 7.|||7.95|0.62|0.109
91009338|NCT02130635|181902462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Median Ratio|1.37||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|3.45||Posterior Probability the True Treatment Ratio \<1 for Day 14|Bayesian repeated measures||Comparison of TNFalpha concentrations at Day 14. This is the baseline corrected ratio of 700ug/placebo for day 14.|||3.45|0.55|0.240
91009339|NCT02130635|181902462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Median Ratio|1.1||||0.447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|4.44||Posterior Probability the True Treatment Ratio \<1 for Day 7|Bayesian repeated measures||Comparison of TNFalpha concentrations at Day 7. This is the baseline corrected ratio of 1000ug/placebo for day 7.|||4.44|0.27|0.447
91009340|NCT02130635|181902462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Median Ratio|1.03||||0.472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|2.74||Posterior Probability the True Treatment Ratio \<1 for Day 14|Bayesian repeated measures||Comparison of TNFalpha concentrations at Day 14. This is the baseline corrected ratio of 1000ug/placebo for day 14.|||2.74|0.39|0.472
91009341|NCT02130635|181902462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Median Ratio|0.78||||0.698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|2.9||Posterior Probability the True Treatment Ratio \<1 for Day 7|Bayesian repeated measures||Comparison of TNFalpha concentrations at Day 7. This is the baseline corrected ratio of 2000ug/placebo for day 7.|||2.90|0.21|0.698
91009342|NCT02130635|181902462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Median Ratio|0.53||||0.911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.37||Posterior Probability the True Treatment Ratio \<1 for Day 14|Bayesian repeated measures||Comparison of TNFalpha concentrations at Day 14. This is the baseline corrected ratio of 2000ug/placebo for day 14.|||1.37|0.21|0.911
91009343|NCT04111185|181902484|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91009344|NCT02417935|181902513|NON_INFERIORITY|If the upper bound of the 95% CI does not exceed 0.51 (pre-defined non-inferiority margin), it will be concluded that duloxetine is not inferior to Pregabalin.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.072||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.295|0.439|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.439|-0.295|0.700
91009345|NCT02417935|181902514|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.1|-0.4|0.149
91009346|NCT02417935|181902515|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Worst Pain||0.6|-0.3|.535
91009347|NCT02417935|181902515|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Least Pain||0.2|-0.5|.436
91009348|NCT02417935|181902515|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Average Pain||0.5|-0.2|.534
91051097|NCT00609466|181987846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean|20.6|||<|0.0001||95.0|13.2|28.0||No multiplicity adjustment used.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and centre as fixed effects and baseline pain as covariate.||Null hypothesis of no treatment difference.||28.0|13.2|<0.0001
91009349|NCT02417935|181902515|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pain Right Now||0.4|-0.4|.948
91009350|NCT02417935|181902515|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||General Activity||0.1|-0.6|.225
91009351|NCT02417935|181902515|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mood||0.2|-0.6|.276
91009352|NCT02417935|181902515|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Walking Ability||0.2|-0.4|.507
91009353|NCT02417935|181902515|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Normal Work||0.1|-0.5|.216
91009354|NCT02417935|181902515|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Relations with other people||0.1|-0.4|.233
91009355|NCT02417935|181902515|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sleep||0.3|-0.3|.857
91009356|NCT02417935|181902515|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Enjoyment of life||0.1|-0.5|.133
91009357|NCT02417935|181902515|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16||||0.246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Average Interference Score||0.11|-0.44|.246
91009358|NCT02417935|181902516|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|2.2|||ANCOVA|||Total Score||2.2|-3.6|.627
91009359|NCT02417935|181902516|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Burning Pain||0.2|-0.6|.355
91009360|NCT02417935|181902516|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Pressing Pain||0.4|-0.3|.731
91009361|NCT02417935|181902516|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Paroxysmal Pain||0.4|-0.3|.721
91009362|NCT02417935|181902516|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Evoked Pain||0.2|-0.5|.345
91009363|NCT02417935|181902516|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Paresthesia/Dysesthesia||0.3|-0.5|.557
91009364|NCT02417935|181902517|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.0|-0.4|.106
91009365|NCT02417935|181902518|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.014||||0.361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0161|0.0441|||ANCOVA|||||0.0441|-0.0161|.361
91009366|NCT02417935|181902519|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.1|-0.8|.701
91009367|NCT02417935|181902520|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.005||||0.976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.355|0.366|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.366|-0.355|.976
91009368|NCT02417935|181902521|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.136||||0.503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.264|0.537|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.537|-0.264|.503
91009369|NCT02417935|181902522|OTHER|||||||0.632||||||30% reduction|Fisher Exact|||||||.632
91009370|NCT02417935|181902522|OTHER|||||||0.907|||||||Fisher Exact|||50% Reduction||||.907
91009371|NCT00989664|181902544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||McNemar|||||||<0.001
91009372|NCT02055976|181902627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-49.838|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.775|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.335|-42.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-value (adjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-42.340|-57.335|<0.001
91009373|NCT02055976|181902627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-66.754|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.912|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.523|-58.986|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-value (adjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-58.986|-74.523|<0.001
91009374|NCT02055976|181902627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-71.534|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.903|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-79.284|-63.784|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (adjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-63.784|-79.284|<0.001
91009375|NCT02055976|181902627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-47.531|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.016|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.511|-39.551|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (adjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-39.551|-55.511|<0.001
91009376|NCT02055976|181902627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-62.624|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.993|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.557|-54.691|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (adjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-54.691|-70.557|<0.001
91009377|NCT02055976|181902627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-64.268|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.955|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.128|-56.409|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (adjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-56.409|-72.128|<0.001
91009378|NCT02055976|181902628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-42.293|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.587|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.417|-35.168|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (adjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-35.168|-49.417|<0.001
91009379|NCT02055976|181902628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-56.262|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.696|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.603|-48.921|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (adjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-48.921|-63.603|<0.001
91051098|NCT00609466|181987847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean|36.4|||<|0.0001||95.0|20.7|52.0||No multiplicity adjustment used.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and centre as fixed effects and baseline pain as covariate.||Null hypothesis of no treatment difference.||52.0|20.7|<0.0001
91051099|NCT00609466|181987848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square means|108.2||||0.0002||95.0|51.9|164.5||No multiplicity adjustment used.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and centre as fixed effects and baseline pain as covariate.||Null hypothesis of no treatment difference.||164.5|51.9|0.0002
91009380|NCT02055976|181902628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-61.384|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.733|-54.035|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (adjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-54.035|-68.733|<0.001
91009381|NCT02055976|181902628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-47.578|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.273|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.067|-39.088|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (adjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-39.088|-56.067|<0.001
91051100|NCT00922987|181987859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|||||||<0.0001
91051101|NCT00586482|181987882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sided p value of less than or equal to 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||0.12
91051102|NCT00586482|181987883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.23
91051103|NCT00586482|181987884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.29
91051104|NCT00586482|181987885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.93
91051105|NCT00586482|181987886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
91009382|NCT02055976|181902628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-63.346|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.244|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.776|-54.915|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (adjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-54.915|-71.776|<0.001
91009383|NCT02055976|181902628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-66.691|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.226|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.088|-58.295|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (adjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-58.295|-75.088|<0.001
91009384|NCT02055976|181902630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-67.254|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.785|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.757|-57.752|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-57.752|-76.757|<0.001
91009385|NCT02055976|181902630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-87.122|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.959|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-96.969|-77.275|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-77.275|-96.969|<0.001
91009386|NCT02055976|181902630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-93.327|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.949|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-103.153|-83.501|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-83.501|-103.153|<0.001
91009387|NCT02055976|181902630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-71.724|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.243|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.128|-59.321|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-59.321|-84.128|<0.001
91009388|NCT02055976|181902630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-96.206|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.209|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-108.541|-83.872|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-83.872|-108.541|<0.001
91009389|NCT02055976|181902630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-98.533|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.145|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-110.743|-86.323|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-86.323|-110.743|<0.001
91009390|NCT02055976|181902630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-56.225|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.736|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.63|-46.819|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-46.819|-65.630|<0.001
91009391|NCT02055976|181902630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-73.813|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.881|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.507|-64.119|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-64.119|-83.507|<0.001
91009392|NCT02055976|181902630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-81.239|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.885|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-90.939|-71.538|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-71.538|-90.939|<0.001
91009393|NCT02055976|181902630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-72.573|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.983|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.461|-60.684|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-60.684|-84.461|<0.001
91009394|NCT02055976|181902630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-96.222|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.948|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-108.039|-84.405|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-84.405|-108.039|<0.001
91009395|NCT02055976|181902630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-102.184|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.919|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-113.945|-90.424|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113:Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-90.424|-113.945|<0.001
91051106|NCT05011123|181987889|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was \>-5%|Difference in percentage of participants|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|1.8|||||95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson score method without continuity correction.|||1.8|-3.4|
91051107|NCT05011123|181987890|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was \>-5%|Difference in percentage of participants|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|3.0|||||95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson score method without continuity correction.|||3.0|-4.0|
91051108|NCT04221789|181987902|OTHER|differences in proportions|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.12||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.2||Statistical significance threshold p \<0.05|Chi-squared|||Ho no difference in treatment success between groups. The study was originally powered to detect a 15% difference between groups||1.20|1.02|0.049
91051109|NCT04221789|181987903|OTHER|comparison of proportions and relative risk with 95% CI|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.7|||<|0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.97||statistical significance if p value \<0.05|Chi-squared||intervention / control|Ho No difference between arms. 80% power to detect a 10% difference||0.97|0.50|<0.043
91051110|NCT00461253|181987942|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assuming a prevalence of current Mirena use among fertile women of 8% in Finland and 2% in Germany, it was estimated that 3,500 cases and 14,000 controls would be needed to exclude a 1.5-fold breast cancer risk for Mirena users compared with users of copper IUDs.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.12|||||Breast cancer OR for ever use of LNG-IUD vs. Cu-IUD; adjusted for BMI, family history of breast cancer, age at first birth, age at menarche and physical activity (primary analysis)|In this matched case-control study, conditional logistic regression was used to investigate the relationship between a woman being a breast cancer case or a control (dichotomous dependent variable), and a set of actual or potential prognostic factors (covariates) for breast cancer (incl. the use of Mirena). Conditional logistic regression uses a maximum likelihood approach for estimating the covariates; data are stratified and the likelihoods are computed relative to each stratum.||1.12|0.88|
91051111|NCT00461253|181987942|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assuming a prevalence of current Mirena use among fertile women of 8% in Finland and 2% in Germany, it was estimated that 3,500 cases and 14,000 controls would be needed to exclude a 1.5-fold breast cancer risk for Mirena users compared with users of copper IUDs.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.17|||||Breast cancer OR for ever use of LNG-IUD vs. Cu-IUD, crude|In this matched case-control study, conditional logistic regression was used to investigate the relationship between a woman being a breast cancer case or a control (dichotomous dependent variable), and a set of actual or potential prognostic factors (covariates) for breast cancer (incl. the use of Mirena). Conditional logistic regression uses a maximum likelihood approach for estimating the covariates; data are stratified and the likelihoods are computed relative to each stratum.||1.17|0.93|
91051112|NCT00461253|181987942|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assuming a prevalence of current Mirena use among fertile women of 8% in Finland and 2% in Germany, it was estimated that 3,500 cases and 14,000 controls would be needed to exclude a 1.5-fold breast cancer risk for Mirena users compared with users of copper IUDs.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.39|||||"Breast cancer OR for current use of LNG-IUD vs. Cu-IUD at time of breast cancer diagnosis; adjusted for BMI, family history of breast cancer, age at first birth, age at first menarche, physical activity (primary analysis)"|In this matched case-control study, conditional logistic regression was used to investigate the relationship between a woman being a breast cancer case or a control (dichotomous dependent variable), and a set of actual or potential prognostic factors (covariates) for breast cancer (incl. the use of Mirena). Conditional logistic regression uses a maximum likelihood approach for estimating the covariates; data are stratified and the likelihoods are computed relative to each stratum.||1.39|0.52|
91051113|NCT00461253|181987942|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assuming a prevalence of current Mirena use among fertile women of 8% in Finland and 2% in Germany, it was estimated that 3,500 cases and 14,000 controls would be needed to exclude a 1.5-fold breast cancer risk for Mirena users compared with users of copper IUDs.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.41|||||"Breast cancer OR for current use of LNG-IUD vs. Cu-IUD at time of breast cancer diagnosis, crude"|In this matched case-control study, conditional logistic regression was used to investigate the relationship between a woman being a breast cancer case or a control (dichotomous dependent variable), and a set of actual or potential prognostic factors (covariates) for breast cancer (incl. the use of Mirena). Conditional logistic regression uses a maximum likelihood approach for estimating the covariates; data are stratified and the likelihoods are computed relative to each stratum.||1.41|0.58|
91051114|NCT02297438|181987944|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.677||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.529|0.867||1-sided p-value from the adjusted log-rank test.|Log Rank||Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Palbociclib + Letrozole.|Stratified by disease site (visceral vs. non-visceral) per Randomization.||0.867|0.529|0.0012
91051115|NCT02297438|181987945|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.861||||0.14778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.651|1.139||1-sided p-value from the log-rank test.|Log Rank||Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Palbociclib + Letrozole.|Stratified by disease site (visceral versus non-visceral) per Randomization.||1.139|0.651|0.14778
91051116|NCT02297438|181987946|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.301||||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.805|2.1||1-sided p-value was from exact test.|Fisher Exact||An Odds Ratio \>1 means better response in favor of Palbociclib + Letrozole group.|Stratified by disease site (visceral versus non-visceral) per Randomization.||2.100|0.805|0.154
91051117|NCT02297438|181987947|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.255||||0.206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.762|2.066||1-sided p-value was from exact test.|Fisher Exact||An Odds Ratio \>1 means better response in favor of Palbociclib + Letrozole group.|Stratified by disease site (visceral versus non-visceral) per Randomization.||2.066|0.762|0.206
91051118|NCT02297438|181987948|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.315||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.825|2.095||1-sided p-value was from exact test.|Fisher Exact||An Odds Ratio \>1 means better response in favor of Palbociclib + Letrozole group.|Stratified by disease site (visceral versus non-visceral) per Randomization.||2.095|0.825|0.135
91051119|NCT02297438|181987949|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.392||||0.117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.825|2.346||1-sided p-value was from exact test.|Fisher Exact||An Odds Ratio \>1 means better response in favor of Palbociclib + Letrozole group.|Stratified by disease site (visceral versus non-visceral) per Randomization.||2.346|0.825|0.117
91051120|NCT02297438|181987952|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.945||||0.471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.533|1.673||1-sided p-value was from exact test.|Fisher Exact||An Odds Ratio \>1 means better response in favor of Palbociclib + Letrozole group.|Stratified by disease site (visceral versus non-visceral) per Randomization.||1.673|0.533|0.471
91051121|NCT02297438|181987953|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.878||||0.383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.474|1.621||1-sided p-value was from exact test.|Fisher Exact||An Odds Ratio \>1 means better response in favor of Palbociclib + Letrozole group.|Stratified by disease site (visceral versus non-visceral) per Randomization.||1.621|0.474|0.383
91009396|NCT02055976|181902632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-69.537|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.721|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.9|-58.175|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-value (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-58.175|-80.900|<0.001
91009397|NCT02055976|181902632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-86.446|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.855|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-98.074|-74.818|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-74.818|-98.074|<0.001
91009398|NCT02055976|181902632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-98.273|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.898|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-109.983|-86.563|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-86.563|-109.983|<0.001
91009399|NCT02055976|181902632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-71.435|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.209|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-85.757|-57.112|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-57.112|-85.757|<0.001
91009400|NCT02055976|181902632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-94.959|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.236|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-109.333|-80.585|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-80.585|-109.333|<0.001
91009401|NCT02055976|181902632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-98.519|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-112.727|-84.311|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-84.311|-112.727|<0.001
91009402|NCT02055976|181902632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-55.191|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.741|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.592|-43.791|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-43.791|-66.592|<0.001
91051122|NCT02297438|181987954|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.227||||0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.725|2.082||1-sided p-value was from exact test.|Fisher Exact||An Odds Ratio \>1 means better response in favor of Palbociclib + Letrozole group.|Stratified by disease site (visceral versus non-visceral) per Randomization.||2.082|0.725|0.248
91051123|NCT02297438|181987955|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.349||||0.189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.731|2.509||1-sided p-value was from exact test.|Fisher Exact||An Odds Ratio \>1 means better response in favor of Palbociclib + Letrozole group.|Stratified by disease site (visceral versus non-visceral) per Randomization.||2.509|0.731|0.189
91009403|NCT02055976|181902632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-72.211|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.848|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.825|-60.597|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-60.597|-83.825|<0.001
91009404|NCT02055976|181902632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-83.065|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.913|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-94.807|-71.323|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-71.323|-94.807|<0.001
91009405|NCT02055976|181902632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-73.879|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.678|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-87.147|-60.612|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-60.612|-87.147|<0.001
91009406|NCT02055976|181902632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-95.428|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.697||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-108.732|-82.124|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-82.124|-108.732|0.001
91009407|NCT02055976|181902632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-104.859|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.654|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-118.079|-91.639|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-91.639|-118.079|<0.001
91051124|NCT02297438|181987956|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.947||||0.36502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.698|1.286||1-sided p-value was from exact test.|Log Rank||Assuming Cox proportional hazards, hazard ratio less than 1 indicates reduction in hazard rate in favor of Palbociclib + Letrozole.|Stratified by disease site (visceral versus non-visceral) per Randomization.||1.286|0.698|0.36502
91051125|NCT02297438|181987963|SUPERIORITY||Mean|0.031||||0.1914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.08|||Mixed effects model||A positive change indicates improvement from baseline and a negative change indicates deterioration.|The analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||0.08|-0.02|0.1914
91051126|NCT02297438|181987964|SUPERIORITY||Mean|3.358||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|5.83|||Mixed effects model||A positive change indicates improvement from baseline and a negative change indicates deterioration.|The analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||5.83|0.88|0.0078
91009408|NCT02055976|181902633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-31.642|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.717|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.039|-26.246|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-26.246|-37.039|<0.001
91009409|NCT02055976|181902633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-39.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.781|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.403|-34.358|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-34.358|-45.403|<0.001
91009410|NCT02055976|181902633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-45.889|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.45|-40.329|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-40.329|-51.450|<0.001
91051127|NCT02297438|181987965|SUPERIORITY||Mean|0.476||||0.7862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.97|3.92|||Mixed effects model||A positive change indicates improvement from baseline and a negative change indicates deterioration.|The analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||3.92|-2.97|0.7862
91051128|NCT02766374|181987968|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.1|||||||GEE regression|||||||>0.1
91051129|NCT02358343|181987969|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77||||||a priori threshold for significance is 0.05.|Likelihood Ratio Test|Likelihood ratio test obtained from logistic regression analysis adjusting for site||||||0.77
91051130|NCT02358343|181987970|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.84||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.54|-0.13||a priori threshold for significance is 0.05.|Wald Test|The Wald test is for the week 12 comparative treatment effect from a longitudinal model of QIDS-C adjusting for clinical site.|The week 12 mean difference estimated from the longitudinal model is the difference between antidepressant drug therapy (drug) and the cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) at 12 weeks, (drug - CBT).|All participants randomized to treatment (N=120) were included in the pre-specified longitudinal model of QIDS-C used to estimate comparative treatment effect at 12 weeks (primary outcome). The model adjustment for clinical site and included baseline, 6 week and 12 week QIDS-C scores. Week 0 (baseline) and week 6 measurements are not pre-specified primary or secondary outcomes. The Observational Cohort arm was not included in the analysis.||-0.13|-3.54|0.035
91051131|NCT02358343|181987971|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96||||||a priori threshold for significance is 0.05.|Likelihood Ratio Test|Likelihood Ratio Test from logistic regression analysis adjusting for clinical site.||||||0.96
91051132|NCT02358343|181987972|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|-0.02|||||The mean difference estimate is from longitudinal model adjusted for clinical site. It is the difference in scores between treatment groups (Drug - CBT) at 12 weeks. All participants are included in the longitudinal model (N=120).|||-0.02|-7.4|
91051133|NCT02358343|181987973|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|0.8|||||The mean difference estimate is from longitudinal model adjusted for clinical site. It is the difference in scores between treatment groups (Drug - CBT) at 12 weeks. All participants are included in the longitudinal model (N=120).|||0.8|-3.1|
91051134|NCT02358343|181987974|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|-0.1|||||The mean difference estimate is from longitudinal model adjusted for clinical site. It is the difference in scores between treatment groups (Drug - CBT) at 12 weeks. All participants are included in the longitudinal model (N=120).|||-0.1|-6.2|
91051135|NCT02358343|181987975|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|19.0|||||The mean difference estimate is from longitudinal model adjusted for clinical site. It is the difference in scores between treatment groups (Drug - CBT) at 12 weeks. All participants are included in the longitudinal model (N=120).|||19.0|1.3|
91051136|NCT02358343|181987976|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.4|||||The mean difference estimate is from longitudinal model adjusted for clinical site. It is the difference in scores between treatment groups (Drug - CBT) at 12 weeks. All participants are included in the longitudinal model (N=120).|||1.4|-0.2|
91051137|NCT02358343|181987977|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|5.1|||||The mean difference estimate is from longitudinal model adjusted for clinical site. It is the difference in scores between treatment groups (Drug - CBT) at 12 weeks. All participants are included in the longitudinal model (N=120).|||5.1|0.1|
91009411|NCT02055976|181902633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-30.137|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.006|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.11|-24.164|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-24.164|-36.110|<0.001
91051138|NCT02358343|181987978|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5|||||The mean difference estimate is from longitudinal model adjusted for clinical site. It is the difference in scores between treatment groups (Drug - CBT) at 12 weeks. All participants are included in the longitudinal model (N=120).|||0.5|-0.5|
91051139|NCT02358343|181987980|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.7|||||The mean difference estimate is from longitudinal model adjusted for clinical site. It is the difference in scores between treatment groups (Drug - CBT) at 12 weeks. All participants are included in the longitudinal model (N=120).|||0.7|-0.5|
91051140|NCT02358343|181987981|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.1|||||The mean difference estimate is from a negative binomial model adjusted for clinical site. It is the rate of sessions skipped/shortened in the Drug group (numerator) compared to CBT (denominator).|||1.10|0.55|
91051141|NCT02358343|181987982|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.34|||||The mean difference estimate is from longitudinal model adjusted for clinical site. It is the difference in scores between treatment groups (Drug - CBT) at 12 weeks. All participants are included in the longitudinal model (N=120).|||0.34|-0.54|
91051142|NCT02358343|181987983|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.75|||||The mean difference estimate is from longitudinal model adjusted for clinical site. It is the difference in scores between treatment groups (Drug - CBT) at 12 weeks. All participants are included in the longitudinal model (N=120).|||0.75|-0.25|
91051143|NCT01951885|181987996|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|47 patients per arm were needed to detect a 25% improvement in mucositis based on a one-sided test with 5% significance and 80% power.||||||0.05
91051144|NCT01951885|181987999|NON_INFERIORITY|Cumulative incidence methods are compared using the Gray test with a p-value \<0.05|||||<|0.05|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.05
91051145|NCT01951885|181988000|NON_INFERIORITY|Hospital stay will be compared between groups using the Wilcoxon rank sum test with a p value of 0.05.||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
91051146|NCT01951885|181988001|NON_INFERIORITY|TPN use will be compared using the Chi-square test.|||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
91051147|NCT01951885|181988002|NON_INFERIORITY|Overall survival was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared between patients receiving Tac/MTX versus Tac/mini-MTX/MMF using the log-rank test|||||<|0.05|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.05
91051148|NCT01951885|181988003|NON_INFERIORITY|Progression-free survival was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared between patients receiving Tac/MTX versus Tac/mini-MTX/MMF using the log-rank test|||||<|0.05|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.05
91051149|NCT01951885|181988006|NON_INFERIORITY|Infusion times will be compared using the Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91051150|NCT01951885|181988007|NON_INFERIORITY|100-day incidence of complications will be compared using the Gray test.|||||<|0.05|||||||Gray Test|||||||<0.05
91051151|NCT01951885|181988008|NON_INFERIORITY|100-day incidence of complications will be compared using the Gray test.|||||<|0.05|||||||Gray Test|||||||<0.05
91051152|NCT01951885|181988009|NON_INFERIORITY|100-day incidence of complications will be compared using the Gray test.|||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
91051153|NCT01951885|181988010|NON_INFERIORITY|100-day incidence of complications will be compared using the Gray test.|||||<|0.05|||||||Gray Test|||||||<0.05
91051154|NCT01951885|181988012|NON_INFERIORITY|180-day incidence of complications will be compared using the Gray test.|||||<|0.05|||||||Gray Test|||||||<0.05
91051155|NCT01951885|181988013|NON_INFERIORITY|180-day incidence of complications will be compared using the Gray test.|||||<|0.05|||||||Gray Test|||||||<0.05
91051156|NCT01951885|181988014|NON_INFERIORITY|180-day incidence of complications will be compared using the Gray test.|||||<|0.05|||||||Gray Test|||||||<0.05
91051157|NCT01687478|181988016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.04|1.8|||||The Confidence Interval is based on the treatment difference LS Mean changes from baseline between Olanzapine + Fluoxetine and Placebo + Fluoxetine.|||1.80|-5.04|
91051158|NCT03716076|181988036|OTHER|mixed-effects linear regression|||||||||||||||||To compare time values to baseline, post-hoc Tukey's test was applied|||
91051159|NCT01276301|181988051|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability|Geometric Mean Ratio|102.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.87|107.02|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with fixed terms for sequence, period, treatment and random term for subject within sequence.|Standard error of the mean is actually the Intra-Individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV).|Ratio calculated as empa plus verapamil divided by empa||107.02|98.87|
91051160|NCT01276301|181988052|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability|Geometric Mean Ratio|92.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.38|99.97|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with fixed terms for sequence, period, treatment and random term for subject within sequence.|Standard error of the mean is actually the Intra-Individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV).|Ratio calculated as empa plus verapamil divided by empa||99.97|85.38|
91051161|NCT01276301|181988053|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability|Geometric Mean Ratio|102.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.87|106.83|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with fixed terms for sequence, period, treatment and random term for subject within sequence.|Standard error of the mean is actually the Intra-Individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV).|Ratio calculated as empa plus verapamil divided by empa||106.83|98.87|
91051162|NCT00792935|181988066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.4||0.847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|9.6|||Constrained longitudinal analysis|||Using a standard deviation of 23.5 mg/dL, a sample size of at least 65 participants per treatment group would be required to have an 80% power to detect a true difference of 12.5 mg/dL between MK-0941 and glimepiride as measured by change from baseline in 24-hour WMG at Week 6.||9.6|-7.9|0.847
91051163|NCT00792935|181988067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportions|-7.7||||0.361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.6|8.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen method.||The estimated value represents the difference in percentages, MK-0941 minus Glimepiride.|||8.7|-23.6|0.361
91051164|NCT01155024|181988081|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|10 participants required to detect one value change in rating for the SCS scale, with 80% power.|||||>|0.4||95.0||||Two-Sided|t-test, 2 sided|||Alpha level of 0.05||||>0.4
91051165|NCT02666352|181988123|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.89|2.31||||||||2.31|0.89|
91051166|NCT02666352|181988123|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|2.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.33|3.47||||||||3.47|1.33|
91051167|NCT02666352|181988124|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|2.31||||||||2.31|0.88|
91051168|NCT02666352|181988124|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|2.15||||||90.0|1.33|3.48||||||||3.48|1.33|
91051169|NCT02666352|181988125|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.89|2.31||||||||2.31|0.89|
91051170|NCT02666352|181988125|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|2.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.33|3.47||||||||3.47|1.33|
91051171|NCT02666352|181988126|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|2.15||||||||2.15|0.81|
91051172|NCT02666352|181988126|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|1.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.11|2.94||||||||2.94|1.11|
91051173|NCT02666352|181988132|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.58|1.1||||||||1.10|0.58|
91051174|NCT02666352|181988132|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.61|1.16||||||||1.16|0.61|
91051175|NCT02666352|181988133|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.58|1.11||||||||1.11|0.58|
91009412|NCT02055976|181902633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-39.525|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.018|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.52|-33.531|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-33.531|-45.520|<0.001
91009413|NCT02055976|181902633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-41.372|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.983|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.299|-35.445|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-35.445|-47.299|<0.001
91009414|NCT02055976|181902633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-25.374|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.69|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.717|-20.032|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-20.032|-30.717|<0.001
91009415|NCT02055976|181902633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-33.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.741|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.934|-28.047|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-28.047|-38.934|<0.001
91009416|NCT02055976|181902633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-38.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.77|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.262|-33.258|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-33.258|-44.262|<0.001
91009417|NCT02055976|181902633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-30.847|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.879|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.568|-25.127|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-25.127|-36.568|<0.001
91009418|NCT02055976|181902633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-40.019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.887|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.754|-34.285|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-34.285|-45.754|<0.001
91009419|NCT02055976|181902633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-43.947|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.869|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.647|-38.247|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113:Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-38.247|-49.647|<0.001
91009420|NCT02055976|181902635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-41.118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.344|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.76|-34.476|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-34.476|-47.760|<0.001
91009421|NCT02055976|181902635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-54.787|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.402|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.543|-48.032|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-48.032|-61.543|<0.001
91009422|NCT02055976|181902635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-60.549|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.453|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.403|-53.694|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-53.694|-67.403|<0.001
91009423|NCT02055976|181902635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-36.589|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.73|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.999|-29.178|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-29.178|-43.999|<0.001
91009424|NCT02055976|181902635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-54.683|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.734|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.102|-47.265|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-47.265|-62.102|<0.001
91009425|NCT02055976|181902635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-56.517|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.688|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.845|-49.189|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-49.189|-63.845|<0.001
91009426|NCT02055976|181902635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-33.262|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.196|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.608|-26.915|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-26.915|-39.608|<0.001
91009427|NCT02055976|181902635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-45.956|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.239|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.388|-39.523|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-39.523|-52.388|<0.001
91009428|NCT02055976|181902635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-51.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.305|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.063|-44.937|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-44.937|-58.063|<0.001
91051176|NCT02666352|181988133|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.86||||||90.0|0.62|1.18||||||||1.18|0.62|
91051177|NCT02666352|181988134|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.57|1.05||||||||1.05|0.57|
91051178|NCT02666352|181988134|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.54|0.99||||||||0.99|0.54|
91051179|NCT02666352|181988135|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.61|1.13||||||||1.13|0.61|
91051180|NCT02666352|181988135|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.55|1.01||||||||1.01|0.55|
91051181|NCT02666352|181988136|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6|1.15||||||||1.15|0.60|
91051182|NCT02666352|181988136|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.59|1.13||||||||1.13|0.59|
91051183|NCT02666352|181988140|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.52|0.9||||||||0.90|0.52|
91051184|NCT02666352|181988140|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|0.86||||||||0.86|0.50|
91051185|NCT02666352|181988141|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.48|0.86||||||||0.86|0.48|
91051186|NCT02666352|181988141|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.61||||||90.0|0.46|0.82||||||||0.82|0.46|
91051187|NCT02666352|181988142|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.62|1.01||||||||1.01|0.62|
91051188|NCT02666352|181988142|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.63|1.02||||||||1.02|0.63|
91051189|NCT02666352|181988143|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.61|1.05||||||||1.05|0.61|
91051190|NCT02666352|181988143|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6|1.03||||||||1.03|0.60|
91051191|NCT02666352|181988144|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.57|0.89||||||||0.89|0.57|
91051192|NCT02666352|181988144|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.58|0.91||||||||0.91|0.58|
91051193|NCT02666352|181988147|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio (GMR)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|1.58||||||||1.58|0.85|
91051194|NCT02666352|181988147|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.85||||||||1.85|1.00|
91051195|NCT02666352|181988148|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.68||||||||1.68|0.91|
91051196|NCT02666352|181988148|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|1.58||||||90.0|1.17|2.14||||||||2.14|1.17|
91051197|NCT02666352|181988149|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6|1.33||||||||1.33|0.60|
91051198|NCT02666352|181988149|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6|1.34||||||||1.34|0.60|
91051199|NCT02666352|181988150|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.45|1.3||||||||1.30|0.45|
91009429|NCT02055976|181902635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-40.474|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.547|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.523|-33.426|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-33.426|-47.523|<0.001
91009430|NCT02055976|181902635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-54.634|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.549|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.685|-47.583|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-47.583|-61.685|<0.001
91051200|NCT02666352|181988150|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|1.14||||||||1.14|0.40|
91051201|NCT02666352|181988151|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.6||||||||1.60|0.90|
91051202|NCT02666352|181988151|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|1.41|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.06|1.87||||||||1.87|1.06|
91077782|NCT02913105|182041130|OTHER|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.079|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.389||0.8402|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.724|0.567|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 28||0.567|-0.724|0.8402
91051203|NCT00302081|181988156|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority for SVR was concluded if the lower limit of the one-sided 95% CI was greater than -10%. Otherwise, noninferiority was concluded for both dose and treatment duration comparisons if the lower limits of the two-sided 95% CIs were greater than -10%.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.02||||0.041||95.0|-0.1|1.0||The Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for the multiple comparisons (\[PEG2b 1.0/R(24 weeks)\] - \[PEG2b 1.5/R(24 weeks\]) and (\[PEG2b 1.5/R(16 weeks)\]-\[PEG2b 1.5/R(24 weeks)\]).|z-test (non-inferiority margin=-0.1)|SVR rates are 0.665 (153/230 subjects) in the 1.5-dose group and 0.643 (144/224 subjects) in the 1.0-dose group, for a risk difference of -0.02.||This is an evaluation of the effect of the peginterferon alfa-2b dose (1.0 vs 1.5 micrograms/kg/week) on the primary outcome measure.||1|-0.10|0.041
91051204|NCT00302081|181988156|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority for SVR was concluded if the lower limit of the one-sided 95% CI was greater than -10%. Otherwise, noninferiority was concluded for both dose and treatment duration comparisons if the lower limits of the two-sided 95% CIs were greater than -10%.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1||||0.495||95.0|-0.17|1.0||The Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for the multiple comparisons (\[PEG2b 1.0/R(24 weeks)\] - \[PEG2b 1.5/R(24 weeks\]) and (\[PEG2b 1.5/R(16 weeks\]-\[PEG2b 1.5/R(24 weeks\]).|z-test (non-inferiority margin=-0.1)|SVR rates are 0.665 (153/230 subjects) in the 24-week group and 0.566 (129/228 subjects) in the 16-week group, for a risk difference of -0.10.||This is an evaluation of the effect of treatment duration (24 weeks vs 16 weeks) on the primary outcome measure.||1|-0.17|0.495
91051205|NCT02701413|181988171|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.04
91051206|NCT02701413|181988175|OTHER|||||||0.88|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.88
91051207|NCT00535587|181988180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.94|<|0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.02
91009431|NCT02055976|181902635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-59.608|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.52|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.602|-52.614|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113:Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-52.614|-66.602|<0.001
91051208|NCT04795908|181988189|NON_INFERIORITY|looking for statistical significant differences between groups||||||0.1997|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.1997
91051209|NCT04795908|181988190|NON_INFERIORITY|looking for statistical significant differences between groups||||||0.076|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.076
91009432|NCT02055976|181902636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-43.265|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.566|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.347|-36.183|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-36.183|-50.347|<0.001
91051210|NCT04795908|181988191|NON_INFERIORITY|looking for statistically significant differences between groups||||||0.6228|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.6228
91051211|NCT04795908|181988192|NON_INFERIORITY|looking for statistically significant differences between groups||||||0.8984|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.8984
91051212|NCT04795908|181988193|NON_INFERIORITY|looking for statistically significant differences between groups||||||0.8188|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.8188
91051213|NCT04795908|181988194|NON_INFERIORITY|Looking for statistically significant differences between groups||||||0.0288|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0288
91051214|NCT04795908|181988195|NON_INFERIORITY|looking for statistically significant differences between groups||||||0.0524|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0524
91051215|NCT00311311|181988201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.036||||0.0445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.07||P-value and 95% CI for least square (LS) mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value, treatment group, time, and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects, and subjects as random effect.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|12 months post-transplant||0.070|0.001|0.0445
91051216|NCT00311311|181988201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.034||||0.0288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|0.064||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value, treatment group, time, and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects, and subjects as random effect.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|18 months post-transplant||0.064|0.004|0.0288
91051217|NCT00311311|181988201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.032||||0.0269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|0.06||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value, treatment group, time, and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects, and subjects as random effect.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|24 months post-transplant||0.060|0.004|0.0269
91051218|NCT00311311|181988201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.028||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|0.06||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value, treatment group, time, and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects, and subjects as random effect.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|36 months post-transplant||0.060|-0.005|0.0970
91051219|NCT00311311|181988204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.09||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|TC 12 Months Post-transplant||1.09|0.39|<.0001
91051220|NCT00311311|181988204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.67||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|LDL 12 Months Post-transplant||0.67|0.15|0.0022
91009433|NCT02055976|181902636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-57.962|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.628|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.167|-50.758|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-50.758|-65.167|<0.001
91009434|NCT02055976|181902636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-64.729|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.682|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.039|-57.419|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-57.419|-72.039|<0.001
91009435|NCT02055976|181902636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-36.428|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.535|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.451|-29.405|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-29.405|-43.451|<0.001
91009436|NCT02055976|181902636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-53.296|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.538|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.325|-46.267|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-46.267|-60.325|<0.001
91009437|NCT02055976|181902636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-55.489|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.496|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.436|-48.542|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-48.542|-62.436|<0.001
91009438|NCT02055976|181902636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-35.288|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.41|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.059|-28.516|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-28.516|-42.059|<0.001
91009439|NCT02055976|181902636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-48.845|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.456|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.709|-41.982|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-41.982|-55.709|<0.001
91009440|NCT02055976|181902636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-55.114|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.526|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.116|-48.112|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-48.112|-62.116|<0.001
91009441|NCT02055976|181902636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-40.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.56|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.118|-32.971|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-32.971|-47.118|<0.001
91009442|NCT02055976|181902636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-53.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.56|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.883|-46.737|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-46.737|-60.883|<0.001
91009443|NCT02055976|181902636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-58.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.533|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.64|-51.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113:Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-51.600|-65.640|<0.001
91009444|NCT02055976|181902638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|8.896|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.643|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.646|14.145|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||14.145|3.646|<0.001
91009445|NCT02055976|181902638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|15.429|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.662|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.141|20.717|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||20.717|10.141|<0.001
91009446|NCT02055976|181902638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|12.321|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.959|17.683|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||17.683|6.959|<0.001
91009447|NCT02055976|181902638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|6.804|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.041||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.761|12.847|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||12.847|0.761|0.014
91009448|NCT02055976|181902638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|10.565|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.023|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.556|16.573|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||16.573|4.556|<0.001
91009449|NCT02055976|181902638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|12.895|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.969|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.993|18.796|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||18.796|6.993|<0.001
91051221|NCT00311311|181988204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.1612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.19||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|HDL 12 Months Post-transplant||0.19|-0.03|0.1612
91009450|NCT02055976|181902638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|8.644|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.266||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.157|15.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||15.130|2.157|0.005
91009451|NCT02055976|181902638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|14.708|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.272|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.208|21.208|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||21.208|8.208|<0.001
91009452|NCT02055976|181902638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|11.168|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.317|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.58|17.757|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||17.757|4.580|<0.001
91009453|NCT02055976|181902638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|8.132|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.609||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.947|13.316|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||13.316|2.947|0.001
91009454|NCT02055976|181902638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|10.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.592|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.079|15.381|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||15.381|5.079|<0.001
91009455|NCT02055976|181902638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|5.767|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.565||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|10.864|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113:Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||10.864|0.670|0.014
91009456|NCT02055976|181902639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|6.079|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.905|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.296|9.863|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||9.863|2.296|<0.001
91009457|NCT02055976|181902639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|10.786|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.918|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.976|14.597|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||14.597|6.976|<0.001
91009458|NCT02055976|181902639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|9.069|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.945|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.206|12.932|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||12.932|5.206|<0.001
91009459|NCT02055976|181902639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|4.859|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.173||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.541|9.178|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||9.178|0.541|0.014
91009460|NCT02055976|181902639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|7.331|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.161|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.037|11.624|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||11.624|3.037|<0.001
91009461|NCT02055976|181902639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|9.075|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.122|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.856|13.293|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||13.293|4.856|<0.001
91009462|NCT02055976|181902639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|5.936|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.266||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.435|10.437|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||10.437|1.435|0.005
91009463|NCT02055976|181902639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|10.213|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.271|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.702|14.724|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||14.724|5.702|<0.001
91009464|NCT02055976|181902639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|8.056|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.302|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.484|12.629|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||12.629|3.484|<0.001
91051222|NCT00311311|181988204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.56||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.86||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|Tg 12 Months Post-transplant||0.86|0.26|0.0005
91051223|NCT00311311|181988204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.66||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.02||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|TC 18 Months Post-transplant||1.02|0.30|0.0006
91051224|NCT00311311|181988204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34||||0.0126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.61||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|LDL 18 Months Post-transplant||0.61|0.08|0.0126
91051225|NCT00311311|181988204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.17||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|HDL 18 Months Post-transplant||0.17|-0.04|0.2380
91051226|NCT00311311|181988204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.58||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.88||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|Tg 18 Months Post-transplant||0.88|0.27|0.0003
91009465|NCT02055976|181902639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|5.846|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.778|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.312|9.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||9.380|2.312|<0.001
91051227|NCT00311311|181988204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.59||||0.0065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.0||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|TC 24 Months Post-transplant||1.00|0.17|0.0065
91051228|NCT00311311|181988204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28||||0.0845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.6||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|LDL 24 Months Post-transplant||0.60|-0.04|0.0845
91009466|NCT02055976|181902639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|6.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.766|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|10.421|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||10.421|3.400|<0.001
91009467|NCT02055976|181902639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|4.168|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.748||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.693|7.642|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113:Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||7.642|0.693|0.010
91009468|NCT02055976|181902641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.7208|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6289||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5283|1.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||1.9700|-0.5283|0.127
91009469|NCT02055976|181902641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.0574|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6461||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2259|2.3406|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||2.3406|-0.2259|0.053
91009470|NCT02055976|181902641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.2445|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6511||0.354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0486|1.5375|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||1.5375|-1.0486|0.354
91009471|NCT02055976|181902641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.8055|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8615||0.176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9066|2.5177|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||2.5177|-0.9066|0.176
91009472|NCT02055976|181902641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|2.0071|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8641||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2899|3.7242|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||3.7242|0.2899|0.011
91009473|NCT02055976|181902641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.7116|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.852||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0184|3.4049|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||3.4049|0.0184|0.024
91009474|NCT02055976|181902641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.8585|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7844||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6992|2.4163|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||2.4163|-0.6992|0.138
91009475|NCT02055976|181902641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.8807|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.799||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7064|2.4678|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||2.4678|-0.7064|0.137
91009476|NCT02055976|181902641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.2624|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8053||0.373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.337|1.8618|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||1.8618|-1.3370|0.373
91009477|NCT02055976|181902641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.3239|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7472||0.333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1611|1.8089|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||1.8089|-1.1611|0.333
91009478|NCT02055976|181902641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.9322|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7488||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4441|3.4203|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||3.4203|0.4441|0.006
91009479|NCT02055976|181902641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.834|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7442||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6451|2.313|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113:Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||2.3130|-0.6451|0.133
91009480|NCT02055976|181902642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|2.0813|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0411||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.973|6.1356|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||6.1356|-1.9730|0.155
91009481|NCT02055976|181902642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|3.2608|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0965||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9035|7.425|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||7.4250|-0.9035|0.062
91009482|NCT02055976|181902642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.8224|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1126||0.349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3733|5.0182|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||5.0182|-3.3733|0.349
91051229|NCT00311311|181988204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.3742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.16||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|HDL 24 Months Post-transplant||0.16|-0.06|0.3742
91051230|NCT00311311|181988204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.59||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.92||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|Tg 24 Months Post-transplant||0.92|0.27|0.0006
91009483|NCT02055976|181902642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|2.3254|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7702||0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1801|7.831|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||7.8310|-3.1801|0.202
91009484|NCT02055976|181902642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|6.1048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7784||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5833|11.6263|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||11.6263|0.5833|0.015
91009485|NCT02055976|181902642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|5.2393|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7396||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2058|10.6845|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||10.6845|-0.2058|0.030
91009486|NCT02055976|181902642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|2.1827|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4251||0.185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6334|6.9988|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||6.9988|-2.6334|0.185
91009487|NCT02055976|181902642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|2.1376|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4716||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7718|7.0469|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||7.0469|-2.7718|0.195
91009488|NCT02055976|181902642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.3113|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4909||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6358|5.2584|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||5.2584|-4.6358|0.450
91009489|NCT02055976|181902642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.6078|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3322||0.397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0274|5.2431|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||5.2431|-4.0274|0.397
91009490|NCT02055976|181902642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|5.7096|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3367||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0659|10.3532|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||10.3532|1.0659|0.008
91009491|NCT02055976|181902642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|2.4558|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.323||0.147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1608|7.0724|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113:Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||7.0724|-2.1608|0.147
91009492|NCT02055976|181902644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-4.9203|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3242|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5504|-2.2901|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-2.2901|-7.5504|<0.001
91051231|NCT00311311|181988204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44||||0.1488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|1.03||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|TC 36 Months Post-transplant||1.03|-0.16|0.1488
91009493|NCT02055976|181902644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-7.1983|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3462|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8718|-4.5249|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-4.5249|-9.8718|<0.001
91009494|NCT02055976|181902644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-7.3118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3505|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9935|-4.6301|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-4.6301|-9.9935|<0.001
91051232|NCT00311311|181988204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.62||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|LDL 36 Months Post-transplant||0.62|-0.33|0.5460
91051233|NCT00311311|181988204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.7511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.16||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|HDL 36 Months Post-transplant||0.16|-0.12|0.7511
91051234|NCT00311311|181988204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.63||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.06||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|Tg 36 Months Post-transplant||1.06|0.20|0.0048
91051235|NCT00311311|181988205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.78||||0.1757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|1.91||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|12 months post-transplant||1.91|-0.36|0.1757
91051236|NCT00311311|181988205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.94||||0.0509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.89||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|24 months post-transplant||1.89|-0.00|0.0509
91051237|NCT00311311|181988205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.11||||0.0683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|2.31||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|36 months post-transplant||2.31|-0.09|0.0683
91051238|NCT00311311|181988206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-37.47||||0.2741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-105.79|30.85||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|12 months post-transplant||30.85|-105.79|0.2741
91051239|NCT00311311|181988206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.97||||0.4865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.48|37.53||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|24 months post-transplant||37.53|-77.48|0.4865
91051240|NCT00311311|181988206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.48||||0.9339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.54|57.59||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|36 months post-transplant||57.59|-62.54|0.9339
91051241|NCT00311311|181988207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.003||||0.4892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|0.011||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|12 months post-transplant||0.011|-0.005|0.4892
91051242|NCT00311311|181988207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.006||||0.0514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.012||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference||24 months post-transplant||0.012|-0.000|0.0514
91051243|NCT00311311|181988207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.009||||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.002|0.02||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|36 months post-transplant||0.020|-0.002|0.1180
91051244|NCT00311311|181988208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.56||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|8.93||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|12 months post-transplant||8.93|2.20|0.0016
91051245|NCT00311311|181988208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.91||||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|6.8||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|24 months post-transplant||6.80|1.01|0.0091
91051246|NCT00311311|181988208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.25||||0.2468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|6.1||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|36 months post-transplant||6.10|-1.60|0.2468
91051247|NCT00311311|181988209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.95||||0.5282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|3.94||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|12 months post-transplant||3.94|-2.05|0.5282
91078972|NCT03816644|182043486|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.32|5.07||||||The estimate of odds ratio, its 95% confidence interval and p-value are obtained from logistic regression models which were used to examine the difference in dementia care outcomes between the intervention and control groups at 90 days post screening visit. Models are adjusted for age, sex, and years of education.||5.07|2.32|
91051248|NCT00311311|181988209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.27||||0.5057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.53|5.07||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|24 months post-transplant||5.07|-2.53|0.5057
91051249|NCT00311311|181988209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.59||||0.5701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|7.18||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|36 months post-transplant||7.18|-4.00|0.5701
91051250|NCT00311311|181988211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.48||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA|||12 months post-transplant||0.48|0.03|0.0280
91051251|NCT00311311|181988211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.48||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA|||24 months post-transplant||0.48|0.04|0.0190
91051252|NCT00311311|181988211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27||||0.1182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.6||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA|||36 months post-transplant||0.60|-0.07|0.1182
91051253|NCT00311311|181988212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.7361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|1.49||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|12 months post-transplant||1.49|-2.09|0.7361
91051254|NCT00311311|181988212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53||||0.5549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.32|1.26||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|24 months post-transplant||1.26|-2.32|0.5549
91051255|NCT00311311|181988212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.76||||0.6058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.69|2.17||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|36 months post-transplant||2.17|-3.69|0.6058
91051256|NCT00311311|181988213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.5902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|2.84||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|12 months post-transplant||2.84|-1.63|0.5902
91051257|NCT00311311|181988213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36||||0.7536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.68|1.95||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|24 months post-transplant||1.95|-2.68|0.7536
91051258|NCT00311311|181988213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.33||||0.4066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.53|1.86||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|36 months post-transplant||1.86|-4.53|0.4066
91051259|NCT00311311|181988214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.47||||0.3678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.46|30.4||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|12 months post-transplant||30.40|-11.46|0.3678
91051260|NCT00311311|181988214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.72||||0.2179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.53|27.97||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|24 months post-transplant||27.97|-6.53|0.2179
91051261|NCT00311311|181988214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.96||||0.3663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.39|38.32||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|36 months post-transplant||38.32|-14.39|0.3663
91051262|NCT00311311|181988215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.8||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|12 months post-transplant||0.8|0.0|0.0410
91051263|NCT00311311|181988215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.0275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.6||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|24 months post-transplant||0.6|0.0|0.0275
91051264|NCT00311311|181988215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.1841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.6||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|36 months post-transplant||0.6|-0.1|0.1841
91009495|NCT02055976|181902644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-3.0629|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.032||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1132|-1.0125|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-1.0125|-5.1132|0.002
91009496|NCT02055976|181902644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-3.6209|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0367|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6804|-1.5614|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-1.5614|-5.6804|<0.001
91009497|NCT02055976|181902644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-4.1778|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0269|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2184|-2.1372|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-2.1372|-6.2184|<0.001
91009498|NCT02055976|181902644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-3.2914|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2954||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8649|-0.7178|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-0.7178|-5.8649|0.006
91051265|NCT00311311|181988216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-51.3||||0.0797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-108.9|6.3||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference||12 months post-transplant||6.3|-108.9|0.0797
91051266|NCT00311311|181988216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-33.3||||0.2341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-88.7|22.2||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference||24 months post-transplant||22.2|-88.7|0.2341
91009499|NCT02055976|181902644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-6.3569|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3157|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9706|-3.7432|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-3.7432|-8.9706|<0.001
91009500|NCT02055976|181902644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-6.3962|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3233|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0247|-3.7677|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-3.7677|-9.0247|<0.001
91009501|NCT02055976|181902644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-3.9228|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9199|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7506|-2.095|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-2.0950|-5.7506|<0.001
91051267|NCT00311311|181988216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.2||||0.6854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-90.3|59.8||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|36 months post-transplant||59.8|-90.3|0.6854
91051268|NCT00311311|181988217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-72.8||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-108.6|-36.9||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|12 months post-transplant||-36.9|-108.6|0.0002
91051269|NCT00311311|181988217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-67.6||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-108.5|-26.6||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|24 months post-transplant||-26.6|-108.5|0.0017
91009502|NCT02055976|181902644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-4.7094|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9244|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5459|-2.8729|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-2.8729|-6.5459|<0.001
91051270|NCT00311311|181988217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-62.3||||0.0293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-118.2|-6.5||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|36 months post-transplant||-6.5|-118.2|0.0293
91051271|NCT00311311|181988219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2573|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was calculated from 2-sided Fisher's exact test. Alpha is unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Use Lipid-Lowering From Consent to Conversion||||0.2573
91051272|NCT00311311|181988219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6386|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was calculated from 2-sided Fisher's exact test. Alpha is unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Use Lipid-Lowering From Conversion to Month 12||||0.6386
91051273|NCT00311311|181988219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0709|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was calculated from 2-sided Fisher's exact test. Alpha is unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Use Lipid-Lowering From Month 12 to Month 24||||0.0709
91051274|NCT00311311|181988219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was calculated from 2-sided Fisher's exact test. Alpha is unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Use Lipid-Lowering From Month 24 to Month 36||||1.0000
91051275|NCT00311311|181988220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4286|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was calculated from 2-sided Fisher's exact test. Alpha is unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Use Anti-hypertension From Consent to Conversion||||0.4286
91051276|NCT00311311|181988220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was calculated from 2-sided Fisher's exact test. Alpha is unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Use Anti-hypertension From Conversion to Month 12||||1.0000
91051277|NCT00311311|181988220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was calculated from 2-sided Fisher's exact test. Alpha is unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Use Anti-hypertension From Month 12 to Month 24||||1.0000
91051278|NCT00311311|181988220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was calculated from 2-sided Fisher's exact test. Alpha is unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Use Anti-hypertension From Month 24 to Month 36||||1.0000
91051279|NCT00311311|181988221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.0||||0.2718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.7|14.7||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value, treatment group, time, and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects, and subjects as random effect.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|18 months post-transplant||14.7|-50.7|0.2718
91051280|NCT00311311|181988221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.7||||0.2729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.6|12.1||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value, treatment group, time, and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects, and subjects as random effect.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|24 months post-transplant||12.1|-41.6|0.2729
91051281|NCT00311311|181988221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.2||||0.2902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.8|7.3||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value, treatment group, time, and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects, and subjects as random effect.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|36 months post-transplant||7.3|-23.8|0.2902
91051282|NCT00536263|181988222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|0.008||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.063|0.079||P-values are unadjusted; Hochberg's adjustment for multiple comparisons was used to maintain the overall 0.05 significance level in test of superiority using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by genotype||"Null hypothesis: no difference in the proportion with HBeAg loss.~Based on the targeted sample size, there was 80% statistical power (2-sided 0.05 alpha) to detect a true 36% HBeAg loss rate in this treatment arm versus a true rate of 23% in the control arm."||0.079|-0.063|0.860
91051283|NCT00536263|181988222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|0.139|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.061|0.217||P-values are unadjusted; Hochberg's adjustment for multiple comparisons was used to maintain the overall 0.05 significance level in test of superiority using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by genotype||"Null hypothesis: no difference in the proportion with HBeAg loss.~Based on the targeted sample size, there was 80% statistical power (2-sided 0.05 alpha) to detect a true 36% HBeAg loss rate in this treatment arm versus a true rate of 23% in the control arm."||0.217|0.061|<0.001
91051284|NCT00536263|181988222|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The noninferiority of PEG 1.5 mcg/kg\*24 weeks with respect to PEG 1.5 mcg/kg\*48 weeks was to be concluded if the lower bound of the one-sided 95% confidence interval of the difference of the rates (PEG 1.5 mcg/kg\*24 weeks minus PEG 1.5 mcg/kg\*48 weeks) was greater than the noninferiority margin of -10%.|Pairwise rate difference|-0.132|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.198|-0.065||||||||-0.065|-0.198|
91051285|NCT00536263|181988223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|-0.011||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.074|0.052|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by genotype||||0.052|-0.074|0.700
91051286|NCT00536263|181988223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|0.054||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.014|0.123|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by genotype||||0.123|-0.014|0.125
91051287|NCT00536263|181988223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|-0.065|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.122|-0.008||||||||-0.008|-0.122|
91051288|NCT00536263|181988224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|-0.016||||0.598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.078|0.047|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by genotype||End of treatment||0.047|-0.078|0.598
91051289|NCT00536263|181988224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|0.041||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.027|0.108|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by genotype||End of treatment||0.108|-0.027|0.24
91051290|NCT00536263|181988224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|-0.056|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.112|-0.001||||||End of treatment||-0.001|-0.112|
91051291|NCT00536263|181988224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|-0.006||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.075|0.063|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by genotype||24 weeks after EOT||0.063|-0.075|0.830
91051292|NCT00536263|181988224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|0.13||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.053|0.208|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by genotype||24 weeks after EOT||0.208|0.053|0.001
91009503|NCT02055976|181902644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-4.4374|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9187|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.263|-2.6118|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113:Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-2.6118|-6.2630|<0.001
91009504|NCT02055976|181902645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-27.4492|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.2401||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.7872|-7.1112|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-7.1112|-47.7872|0.004
91009505|NCT02055976|181902645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-40.5908|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.4568|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.3577|-19.824|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-19.8240|-61.3577|<0.001
91009506|NCT02055976|181902645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-27.163|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.5402||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.0927|-6.2332|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-6.2332|-48.0927|0.006
91009507|NCT02055976|181902645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-24.1677|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.8755||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.8023|-6.5332|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-6.5332|-41.8023|0.004
91009508|NCT02055976|181902645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-19.2255|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.9203||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.9471|-1.5038|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-1.5038|-36.9471|0.017
91009509|NCT02055976|181902645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-26.5155|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.8387||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.0795|-8.9515|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-8.9515|-44.0795|0.002
91009510|NCT02055976|181902645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-18.3898|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.1768|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.6698|-8.1097|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-8.1097|-28.6698|<0.001
91009511|NCT02055976|181902645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-36.7882|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.264|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.2423|-26.3341|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-26.3341|-47.2423|<0.001
91009512|NCT02055976|181902645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-36.8453|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.3084|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.3864|-26.3041|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-26.3041|-47.3864|<0.001
91009513|NCT02055976|181902645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-32.9411|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.8656|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.5748|-17.3075|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-17.3075|-48.5748|<0.001
91009514|NCT02055976|181902645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-31.3176|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.9032|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.0238|-15.6114|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-15.6114|-47.0238|<0.001
91009515|NCT02055976|181902645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-32.847|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.8576|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.465|-17.2289|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113:Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-17.2289|-48.4650|<0.001
91051293|NCT00536263|181988224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|-0.136||||||90.0|-0.201|-0.071||||||24 weeks after EOT||-0.071|-0.201|
91009516|NCT02055976|181902647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|7.663|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.431|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.82|10.506|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||10.506|4.820|<0.001
91009517|NCT02055976|181902647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|9.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.46|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.389|12.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||12.190|6.389|<0.001
91051294|NCT00536263|181988225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|0.072||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.007|0.151|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by genotype||End of treatment||0.151|-0.007|0.076
91051295|NCT00536263|181988225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|0.135||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.053|0.216|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by genotype||End of treatment||0.216|0.053|0.001
91051296|NCT00536263|181988225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|-0.063|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.135|0.009||||||End of treatment||0.009|-0.135|
91051297|NCT00536263|181988225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|0.017||||0.662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.058|0.092|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by genotype||24 weeks after EOT||0.092|-0.058|0.662
91051298|NCT00536263|181988225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|0.139|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.059|0.22|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by genotype||24 weeks after EOT||0.220|0.059|<0.001
91051299|NCT00536263|181988225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|-0.122|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.191|-0.053||||||24 weeks after EOT||-0.053|-0.191|
91051300|NCT00536263|181988226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|0.019||||0.373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.023|0.061|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by genotype||End of treatment||0.061|-0.023|0.373
91051301|NCT00536263|181988226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|0.049||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.003|0.096|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by genotype||End of treatment||0.096|0.003|0.040
91051302|NCT00536263|181988226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.072|0.011||||||End of treatment||0.011|-0.072|
91051303|NCT00536263|181988226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|0.001||||0.969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.041|0.043|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by genotype||24 weeks after EOT||0.043|-0.041|0.969
91051304|NCT00536263|181988226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|0.045||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.094|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by genotype||24 weeks after EOT||0.094|-0.004|0.074
91051305|NCT00536263|181988226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|-0.044|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.085|-0.003||||||24 weeks after EOT||-0.003|-0.085|
91051306|NCT00536263|181988227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|-0.004||||0.724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.027|0.019|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by genotype||End of treatment||0.019|-0.027|0.724
91051307|NCT00536263|181988227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|0.018||||0.243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.012|0.048|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by genotype||End of treatment||0.048|-0.012|0.243
91051308|NCT00536263|181988227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|-0.022|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.046|0.002||||||End of treatment||0.002|-0.046|
91051309|NCT00536263|181988227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|-0.004||||0.724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.027|0.019|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by genotype||24 weeks after EOT||0.019|-0.027|0.724
91051310|NCT00536263|181988227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|0.018||||0.232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.012|0.048|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by genotype||24 weeks after EOT||0.048|-0.012|0.232
91051311|NCT00536263|181988227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|-0.022|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.046|0.002||||||24 weeks after EOT||0.002|-0.046|
91051312|NCT00536263|181988228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|0.056||||0.219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.033|0.145|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by genotype||End of treatment||0.145|-0.033|0.219
91051313|NCT00536263|181988228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|0.126||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.037|0.216|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by genotype||End of treatment||0.216|0.037|0.006
91051314|NCT00536263|181988228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|-0.071|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.148|0.006||||||End of treatment||0.006|-0.148|
91051315|NCT00536263|181988228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|0.082||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.168|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by genotype||24 weeks after EOT||0.168|-0.004|0.067
91051316|NCT00536263|181988228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|0.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.092|0.268|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by genotype||24 weeks after EOT||0.268|0.092|<0.001
91051317|NCT00536263|181988228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|-0.098|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.174|-0.021||||||24 weeks after EOT||-0.021|-0.174|
91051318|NCT00536263|181988229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|0.001||||0.995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.039|0.041|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by genotype||End of treatment||0.041|-0.039|0.995
91051319|NCT00536263|181988229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|0.054||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.005|0.103|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by genotype||End of treatment||0.103|0.005|0.031
91051320|NCT00536263|181988229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|-0.053|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.094|-0.012||||||End of treatment||-0.012|-0.094|
91051321|NCT00536263|181988229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|0.024||||0.389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.078|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by genotype||24 weeks after EOT||0.078|-0.030|0.389
91051322|NCT00536263|181988229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|0.121|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.058|0.184|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by genotype||24 weeks after EOT||0.184|0.058|<0.001
91051323|NCT00536263|181988229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|-0.097|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.152|-0.041||||||24 weeks after EOT||-0.041|-0.152|
91051324|NCT00536263|181988230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|0.0||||0.991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.012|0.012|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by genotype||End of treatment||0.012|-0.012|0.991
91051325|NCT00536263|181988230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|0.013||||0.181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.006|0.033|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by genotype||End of treatment||0.033|-0.006|0.181
91051326|NCT00536263|181988230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|-0.013|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.03|0.003||||||End of treatment||0.003|-0.030|
91051327|NCT00536263|181988230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|0.0||||0.971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.012|0.012|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by genotype||24 weeks after EOT||0.012|-0.012|0.971
91051328|NCT00536263|181988230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|0.013||||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.006|0.033|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by genotype||24 weeks after EOT||0.033|-0.006|0.179
91051329|NCT00536263|181988230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|-0.013|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.03|0.003||||||24 weeks after EOT||0.003|-0.030|
91051330|NCT00536263|181988231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.991|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|"Stratified by genotype~Due to zero responses in the 2 arms, pairwise rate difference \& corresponding 95% confidence interval were not applicable."||End of treatment||||0.991
91051331|NCT00536263|181988231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|0.004||||0.322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.013|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by genotype||End of treatment||0.013|-0.004|0.322
91009518|NCT02055976|181902647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|7.255|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.47|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.336|10.175|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||10.175|4.336|<0.001
91051332|NCT00536263|181988231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|-0.004|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.012|0.003||||||End of treatment||0.003|-0.012|
91051333|NCT00536263|181988231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.991||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|"Stratified by genotype~Due to zero responses in the 2 arms, pairwise rate difference \& corresponding 95% confidence interval were not applicable."||24 weeks after EOT||||0.991
91051334|NCT00536263|181988231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|0.009||||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.003|0.021|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by genotype||24 weeks after EOT||0.021|-0.003|0.157
91051335|NCT00536263|181988231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|-0.009|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.019|0.001||||||24 weeks after EOT||0.001|-0.019|
91051336|NCT00536263|181988232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|comparison of post-treatment versus baseline values||||||0.014
91009519|NCT02055976|181902647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|2.228|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.806||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.361|5.818|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||5.818|-1.361|0.110
91051337|NCT00536263|181988232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|comparison of post-treatment versus baseline values||||||<0.001
91051338|NCT00536263|181988232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|comparison of post-treatment versus baseline values||||||0.010
91051339|NCT00536263|181988232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|-0.2||||0.631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.8|||ANCOVA|Treatment group and genotype were the fixed effects and baseline was the covariate.||||0.8|-1.2|0.631
91051340|NCT00536263|181988232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|-0.3||||0.617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.8|||ANCOVA|Treatment group and genotype were the fixed effects and baseline was the covariate.||||0.8|-1.4|0.617
91051341|NCT00536263|181988232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.1||||||||1.1|-1.1|
91051342|NCT01640873|181988258|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-8.5||||0.356|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-47.4|30.4||The posterior probability that the reduction in FPG is ≥ 20 mg/dL is 0.06, and hence, the FPG hypothesis was not met.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||30.4|-47.4|0.356
91051343|NCT01640873|181988260|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.05||||0.2714|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.19||The posterior probability that the reduction in 24h-WMG is ≥ 20 mg/dL is \< 0.01, and hence, the 24h- WMG hypothesis was not met.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||1.19|0.92|0.2714
91051344|NCT01640873|181988261|OTHER|Day 1|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.22||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.55|||ANOVA|Placebo-corrected (MK-8655 / placebo)||||1.55|0.99|0.060
91051345|NCT01640873|181988261|OTHER|Day 3|Geometric mean Ratio|1.2||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.47|||ANOVA|Placebo-corrected (MK-8655 / placebo)||||1.47|0.98|0.065
91051346|NCT01640873|181988261|OTHER|Day 16|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.1||||0.217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.37|||ANOVA|Placebo-corrected (MK-8655 / placebo)||||1.37|0.89|0.217
91051347|NCT00534794|181988285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.532||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||ITT (Intent to Treat)||||0.532
91051348|NCT00534794|181988286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.927||95.0|||||Student's t-test|||ITT (Intent to Treat)||||0.927
91051349|NCT01301508|181988293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||||||p-value was calculated for the statistical significant difference between greater decrease in vehicle lesion and greater decrease in active lesion for the AN2898 Topical Ointment, 1% + Ointment Vehicle group.|Two-sided sign test|||||||0.008
91051350|NCT01301508|181988293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017||||||p-value was calculated for the statistical significant difference between greater decrease in vehicle lesion and greater decrease in active lesion for the AN2728 Topical Ointment, 2% + Ointment Vehicle group.|Two-sided sign test|||||||0.017
91051351|NCT00321594|181988319|OTHER||Maximum Tolerated Dose|1400.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||MTD was not reached and the maximum dose of 1400 mg/m2 is used in Phase II portion|MTD is defined as the dose below which \>=2 of 3 or \>= 2 of 6 patients experience DLT||||
91051352|NCT00369382|181988321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|||||two-sided alpha = 0.05|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline creatinine clearance (Cockcroft-Gault) as a covariate and treatment group and center as factors||Change from baseline to Week 52||||0.004
91051353|NCT00369382|181988323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha is unadjusted|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline creatinine clearance (Cockcroft-Gault) as a covariate and treatment group and center as factors||Change from baseline to Week 4||||0.018
91051354|NCT00369382|181988323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha is unadjusted|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline creatinine clearance (Cockcroft-Gault) as a covariate and treatment group and center as factors||Change from baseline to Week 16||||<.001
91051355|NCT00369382|181988323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha is unadjusted|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline creatinine clearance (Cockcroft-Gault) as a covariate and treatment group and center as factors||Change from baseline to Week 24||||0.012
91051356|NCT00369382|181988323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha is unadjusted|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline creatinine clearance (Cockcroft-Gault) as a covariate and treatment group and center as factors||Change from baseline to Week 32||||0.072
91051357|NCT00369382|181988323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha is unadjusted|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline creatinine clearance (Cockcroft-Gault) as a covariate and treatment group and center as factors||Change from baseline to Week 40||||0.175
91051358|NCT00369382|181988324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha is unadjusted|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline creatinine clearance (MDRD) as a covariate and treatment group and center as factors||Change from baseline to Week 4||||0.031
91051359|NCT00369382|181988324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha is unadjusted|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline creatinine clearance (MDRD) as a covariate and treatment group and center as factors||Change from baseline to Week 16||||<0.001
91051360|NCT00369382|181988324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha is unadjusted|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline creatinine clearance (MDRD) as a covariate and treatment group and center as factors||Change from baseline to Week 24||||0.020
91051361|NCT00369382|181988324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha is unadjusted|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline creatinine clearance (MDRD) as a covariate and treatment group and center as factors||Change from baseline to Week 32||||0.151
91051362|NCT00369382|181988324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.295|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha is unadjusted|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline creatinine clearance (MDRD) as a covariate and treatment group and center as factors||Change from baseline to Week 40||||0.295
91051363|NCT00369382|181988324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha is unadjusted|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline creatinine clearance (MDRD) as a covariate and treatment group and center as factors||Change from baseline to Week 52||||0.010
91051364|NCT00369382|181988326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha is unadjusted|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline serum creatinine as a covariate and treatment group and center as factors||Change from baseline to Week 4||||0.009
91051365|NCT00369382|181988326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha is unadjusted|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline serum creatinine as a covariate and treatment group and center as factors||Change from baseline to Week 16||||<0.001
91051366|NCT00369382|181988326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha is unadjusted|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline serum creatinine as a covariate and treatment group and center as factors||Change from baseline to Week 24||||0.002
91051367|NCT00369382|181988326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha is unadjusted|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline serum creatinine as a covariate and treatment group and center as factors||Change from baseline to Week 32||||0.030
91051368|NCT00369382|181988326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha is unadjusted|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline serum creatinine as a covariate and treatment group and center as factors||Change from baseline to Week 40||||0.121
91051369|NCT00369382|181988326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha is unadjusted|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline serum creatinine as a covariate and treatment group and center as factors||Change from baseline to Week 52||||0.001
91051370|NCT00369382|181988328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||slope difference (CNI - SRL)|-2.311||||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.282|0.66||alpha is unadjusted|Random coefficient model||Random coefficient model with each participant's creatinine clearance function of time on treatment; intra-subject regression coefficients considered random.|||0.660|-5.282|0.126
91051371|NCT00369382|181988330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.206|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha is unadjusted|Fisher Exact|||For-cause Biopsy-Confirmed Acute Rejection compared between treatment groups||||0.206
91051372|NCT00369382|181988330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.476|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha is unadjusted|Fisher Exact|||Standard of Care Biopsy-Confirmed Acute Rejection compared between treatment groups||||0.476
91051373|NCT00507546|181988335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Friedman|||||||0.70
91051374|NCT00507546|181988336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35||95.0|||||Friedman|||||||0.35
91051375|NCT03736213|181988340|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.54||||0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, two-tailed|df = 6|Ultrasound biofeedback treatment condition - visual-acoustic biofeedback treatment condition. Because more accurate productions have lower normalized acoustic values, a negative difference indicates an advantage for US biofeedback.|||||.13
91051376|NCT03512262|181988341|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LSM) Means Difference|7.3165|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|5.0668|9.5663||Significance level of 0.01.|ANCOVA|Missing values were imputed using a multiple imputation method.||||9.5663|5.0668|<0.0001
91051377|NCT03512262|181988342|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|2.1209|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.9948|3.2469||Significance level of 0.01.|ANCOVA|Missing values were imputed using a multiple imputation method.||||3.2469|0.9948|<0.0001
91051378|NCT03512262|181988343|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|2.8221|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|1.3972|4.2471||Significance level of 0.01.|ANCOVA|Missing values were imputed using a multiple imputation method.||||4.2471|1.3972|<0.0001
91051379|NCT04394351|181988384|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|53.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.37|392.82|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p-value was derived by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by baseline weight group.|Odds ratio and corresponding Confidence Interval (CI) are based on CMH test stratified by baseline weight group.|Part A: Dupilumab High Dose versus Part A: Pooled Placebo||392.82|7.37|<0.0001
91051380|NCT04394351|181988384|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|46.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.47|399.54|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p-value was derived by CMH test stratified by baseline weight group.|Odds ratio and corresponding CI are based on CMH test stratified by baseline weight group.|Part A: Dupilumab Low Dose versus Part A: Pooled Placebo||399.54|5.47|<0.0001
91051381|NCT04394351|181988385|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|178.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.84|1682.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p-value was derived by CMH test stratified by baseline weight group|Odds ratio and corresponding CI are based on CMH test stratified by baseline weight group|Part A: Dupilumab High Dose versus Part A: Pooled Placebo||1682.4|18.84|<0.0001
91051382|NCT04394351|181988385|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|55.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.45|410.23||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p-value was derived by CMH test stratified by baseline weight group|Odds ratio and corresponding CI are based on CMH test stratified by baseline weight group|Part A: Dupilumab Low Dose versus Part A: Pooled Placebo||410.23|7.45|<0.0001
91051383|NCT04394351|181988386|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-107.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-139.249|-74.9|||ANCOVA||CI was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs. placebo) of the LS mean change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, baseline weight group strata as fixed factors.|Part A: Dupilumab High Dose versus Part A: Pooled Placebo||-74.900|-139.249|<0.0001
91051384|NCT04394351|181988386|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-98.92|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-132.463|-65.37||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA||CI was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs. placebo) of the LS mean change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, baseline weight group strata as fixed factors.|Part A: Dupilumab Low Dose versus Part A: Pooled Placebo||-65.370|-132.463|<0.0001
91051385|NCT04394351|181988387|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.902|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0325|-0.7714|||ANCOVA||CI was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs. placebo) of the LS mean change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, baseline weight group strata as fixed factors.|Part A: Dupilumab High Dose versus Part A: Pooled Placebo||-0.7714|-1.0325|<0.0001
91078973|NCT03816644|182043487|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.133|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.837|1.534||||||The estimate of odds ratio, its 95% confidence interval and p-value are obtained from logistic regression models which were used to examine the difference in participants who were hospitalized or visited an ER 6 months post screening visit.||1.534|0.837|
91051386|NCT04394351|181988387|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.917|-0.644||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA||CI was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs. placebo) of the LS mean change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, baseline weight group strata as fixed factors.|Part A: Dupilumab Low Dose versus Part A: Pooled Placebo||-0.6440|-0.9170|<0.0001
91051387|NCT04394351|181988388|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.883|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0095|-0.7568|||ANCOVA||CI was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs. placebo) of the LS mean change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, baseline weight group strata as fixed factors.|Part A: Dupilumab High Dose versus Part A: Pooled Placebo||-0.7568|-1.0095|<0.0001
91078974|NCT01801241|182043494|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.45
91078975|NCT01160380|182043537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.289|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between arms at Day 28 of treatment||||0.289
91078976|NCT01160380|182043537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between Day 1 and Day 28||||<0.001
91078977|NCT01160380|182043537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between Day 1 and day 28||||<0.002
91078978|NCT01160380|182043537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.449|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between Day 28 and Day 56 of treatment for the armodafinil arm||||0.449
91078979|NCT01160380|182043538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.954|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between arms at Day 28 of treatment||||0.954
91078980|NCT01160380|182043538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 1 vs. Day 28 of treatment for the Placebo-First arm||||0.007
91078981|NCT01160380|182043538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.369|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 1 vs. Day 28 of treatment for the Armodafinil arm||||0.369
91078982|NCT01160380|182043538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.973|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between Day 28 and Day 56 of treatment for the Armodafinil arm||||0.973
91078983|NCT01160380|182043539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.699|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between arms at day 28||||0.699
91078984|NCT01160380|182043539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.984|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 1 vs. Day 28 of treatment for the Placebo-First arm||||0.984
91078985|NCT01160380|182043539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.239|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 1 vs. Day 28 of treatment for the Armodafinil arm||||0.239
91078986|NCT01160380|182043539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.089|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 28 vs. Day 56 of treatment for the Armodafinil arm||||0.089
91078987|NCT01160380|182043540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.636|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between arms at Day 28 of treatment for the Digit Span Test score-Forward test||||0.636
91078988|NCT01160380|182043540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.531|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between arms at Day 28 of treatment for the Digit Span Test score-Backward test||||0.531
91078989|NCT01160380|182043540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.037|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 1 vs. Day 28 of treatment for the Placebo-First arm-Digit Span Test score Forward test||||0.037
91078990|NCT01160380|182043540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.656|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 1 vs. Day 28 of treatment for the Placebo-First arm-Digit Span Test score Backward test||||0.656
91078991|NCT01160380|182043540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 1 vs. day 28 of treatment for the Armodafinil arm-Digit Span Test score-Forward test||||0.028
91078992|NCT01160380|182043540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.805|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 1 vs. day 28 of treatment for the Armodafinil arm-Digit Span Test score-Backward test||||0.805
91078993|NCT01160380|182043540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.692|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 28 vs. day 56 of treatment for the Armodafinil arm-Digit Span Test score-Forward test||||0.692
91078994|NCT01160380|182043540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.863|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 28 vs. day 56 of treatment for the Armodafinil arm-Digit Span Test score-Backward test||||0.863
91078995|NCT01160380|182043541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.559|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between arms for Day 28 of treatment- FACIT-F total||||0.559
91078996|NCT01160380|182043541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 1 vs. Day 28 of treatment for the Placebo-First arm- FACIT-F total||||<0.001
91078997|NCT01160380|182043541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.192|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 1 vs. Day 28 of treatment for the Armodafinil arm- FACIT-F total||||0.192
91078998|NCT01160380|182043541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.495|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 28 vs. Day 56of treatment for the Armodafinil arm- FACIT-F total||||0.495
91078999|NCT01160380|182043542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.945|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between arms at Day 28 of treatment- HADS anxiety||||0.945
91079000|NCT01160380|182043542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.316|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between arms at Day 28 of treatment- HADS depression||||0.316
91079001|NCT01160380|182043542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 1 vs. Day 28 of treatment for the Placebo-First arm-HADS anxiety||||0.005
91079002|NCT01160380|182043542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 1 vs. Day 28 of treatment for the Placebo-First arm-HADS depression||||0.005
91079003|NCT01160380|182043542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 1 vs. Day 28 of treatment for the Armodafinil arm-HADS anxiety||||0.001
91079004|NCT01160380|182043542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.315|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 1 vs. Day 28 of treatment for the Placebo-First arm-HADS depression||||0.315
91079005|NCT01160380|182043542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.933|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 28 vs. Day 56 of treatment for the Armodafinil arm-HADS anxiety||||0.933
91079006|NCT01160380|182043542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.378|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 28 vs. Day 56 of treatment for the Armodafinil arm-HADS depression||||0.378
91079007|NCT01160380|182043543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between arms for Day 28 of treatment -ESS||||0.840
91079008|NCT01160380|182043543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 1 vs. Day 28 of treatment for the Placebo-First arm-ESS||||0.050
91079009|NCT01160380|182043543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.051|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 1 and Day 28 of treatment for the Armodafinil arm- ESS||||0.051
91009520|NCT02055976|181902647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|5.578|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.815||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.972|9.185|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||9.185|1.972|0.001
91078116|NCT04245202|182041537|OTHER||Relative treatment effect difference|-0.08||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The p-Value of the interaction between time and groups was given. In all analysis, p values \<0.05 were considered being statistically significant.|Brunner-Langer Method||Relative Treatment Effect Difference= High-Flow Nasal Cannula Oxygen Therapy (96-0 h) - Standard Face Mask Oxygen Therapy (96-0 h) (based on least-square means)|||||0.001
91009521|NCT02055976|181902647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|4.712|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.789||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.156|8.268|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||8.268|1.156|0.005
91009522|NCT02055976|181902647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|5.888|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.035||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.844|9.932|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||9.932|1.844|0.002
91009523|NCT02055976|181902647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|9.251|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.062|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.153|13.349|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||13.349|5.153|<0.001
91009524|NCT02055976|181902647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|5.264|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.072||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.147|9.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||9.380|1.147|0.006
91009525|NCT02055976|181902647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|5.065|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.843||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.402|8.728|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||8.728|1.402|0.004
91009526|NCT02055976|181902647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|5.096|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.853||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.413|8.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||8.780|1.413|0.004
91009527|NCT02055976|181902647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|4.301|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.832||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.658|7.943|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113:Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||7.943|0.658|0.011
91009528|NCT02055976|181902648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|13.389|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.525|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.373|18.405|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||18.405|8.373|<0.001
91009529|NCT02055976|181902648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|16.546|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.576|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.43|21.663|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||21.663|11.430|<0.001
91009530|NCT02055976|181902648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|13.288|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.593|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.137|18.438|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||18.438|8.137|<0.001
91009531|NCT02055976|181902648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|4.112|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.909||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.671|9.895|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||9.895|-1.671|0.081
91009532|NCT02055976|181902648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|9.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.927|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.743|15.377|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||15.377|3.743|<0.001
91009533|NCT02055976|181902648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|9.826|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.878|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.103|15.548|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||15.548|4.103|<0.001
91051388|NCT04394351|181988388|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.769|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9013|-0.6362||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA||CI was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs. placebo) of the LS mean change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, baseline weight group strata as fixed factors.|Part A: Dupilumab Low Dose versus Part A: Pooled Placebo||-0.6362|-0.9013|<0.0001
91051389|NCT04394351|181988389|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-2.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|-1.95|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Median Difference is Dupilumab minus Placebo|Part A: Dupilumab High Dose versus Part A: Pooled Placebo||-1.9500|-2.4400|<0.0001
91051390|NCT04394351|181988389|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-2.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.45|-1.82||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Median Difference is Dupilumab minus Placebo|Part A: Dupilumab Low Dose versus Part A: Pooled Placebo||-1.8200|-2.4500|<0.0001
91051391|NCT04394351|181988390|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-2.84|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.35|-1.96|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Median Difference is Dupilumab minus Placebo|Part A: Dupilumab High Dose versus Part A: Pooled Placebo||-1.9600|-3.3500|<0.0001
91051392|NCT04394351|181988390|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-2.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.31|-1.62||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Median Difference is Dupilumab minus Placebo|Part A: Dupilumab Low Dose versus Part A: Pooled Placebo||-1.6200|-3.3100|<0.0001
91051393|NCT04394351|181988391|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.94|-2.63|||ANCOVA||CI was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs. placebo) of the LS mean change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, baseline weight group strata as fixed factors.|Part A: Dupilumab High Dose versus Part A: Pooled Placebo||-2.63|-4.94|<0.0001
91051394|NCT04394351|181988391|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.59|-2.1||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA||CI was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs. placebo) of the LS mean change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, baseline weight group strata as fixed factors.|Part A: Dupilumab Low Dose versus Part A: Pooled Placebo||-2.10|-4.59|<0.0001
91051395|NCT04394351|181988392|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.1||||0.1526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.244|0.038|||ANCOVA||CI was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs. placebo) of the LS mean change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, baseline weight group strata as fixed factors.|Part A: Dupilumab High Dose versus Part A: Pooled Placebo||0.038|-0.244|0.1526
91051396|NCT04394351|181988392|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.0||||0.9533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.155|0.146||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA||CI was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs. placebo) of the LS mean change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, baseline weight group strata as fixed factors.|Part A: Dupilumab Low Dose versus Part A: Pooled Placebo||0.146|-0.155|0.9533
91051397|NCT04394351|181988393|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.45||||0.1507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.527|3.422||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA||CI was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs. placebo) of the LS mean change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, baseline weight group strata as fixed factors.|Part A: Dupilumab High Dose versus Part A: Pooled Placebo||3.422|-0.527|0.1507
91051398|NCT04394351|181988393|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.0||||0.9965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.107|2.117||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA||CI was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs. placebo) of the LS mean change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, baseline weight group strata as fixed factors.|Part A: Dupilumab Low Dose versus Part A: Pooled Placebo||2.117|-2.107|0.9965
91051399|NCT04394351|181988394|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.05||||0.2064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.139|0.03||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA||CI was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs. placebo) of the LS mean change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, baseline weight group strata as fixed factors.|Part A: Dupilumab High Dose versus Part A: Pooled Placebo||0.030|-0.139|0.2064
91051400|NCT04394351|181988394|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.02||||0.6361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.069|0.112||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA||CI was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs. placebo) of the LS mean change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, baseline weight group strata as fixed factors.|Part A: Dupilumab Low Dose versus Part A: Pooled Placebo||0.112|-0.069|0.6361
91051401|NCT04394351|181988395|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.13||||0.2086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.072|0.33||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA||CI was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs. placebo) of the LS mean change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, baseline weight group strata as fixed factors.|Part A: Dupilumab High Dose versus Part A: Pooled Placebo||0.330|-0.072|0.2086
91051402|NCT04394351|181988395|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.1||||0.2975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.088|0.286||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA||CI was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs. placebo) of the LS mean change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, baseline weight group strata as fixed factors.|Part A: Dupilumab Low Dose versus Part A: Pooled Placebo||0.286|-0.088|0.2975
91051403|NCT04394351|181988396|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.8||||0.2085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.615|1.007||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA||CI was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs. placebo) of the LS mean change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, baseline weight group strata as fixed factors.|Part A: Dupilumab High Dose versus Part A: Pooled Placebo||1.007|-4.615|0.2085
91051404|NCT04394351|181988396|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.36||||0.3098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.972|1.26||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA||CI was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs. placebo) of the LS mean change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, baseline weight group strata as fixed factors.|Part A: Dupilumab Low Dose versus Part A: Pooled Placebo||1.260|-3.972|0.3098
91051405|NCT04394351|181988397|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.07||||0.236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.046|0.186||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA||CI was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs. placebo) of the LS mean change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, baseline weight group strata as fixed factors.|Part A: Dupilumab High Dose versus Part A: Pooled Placebo||0.186|-0.046|0.2360
91009534|NCT02055976|181902648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|10.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.326||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.395|16.612|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||16.612|3.395|0.002
91078117|NCT04245202|182041539|OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.08
91078118|NCT04245202|182041540|OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.22
91078119|NCT04245202|182041541|OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.99
91078120|NCT04245202|182041542|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.02
91078121|NCT04245202|182041543|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.02
91078122|NCT04245202|182041544|OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.08
91078123|NCT01153620|182041548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.006||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||=0.006
91078124|NCT03878875|182041611|SUPERIORITY|Multiple linear regressions analysed the effect of conditioning (group) on each outcome at the second time point - session 2 (after noise exposure), controlling for session 1 outcome (before noise exposure), event exposure, age, and gender. It was hypothesised those with high recent noise exposure, Group 1 (noise unit \> 0.323), would experience less temporary hearing damage than irregular attendees, Group 0.|F(5, 26)|116.044|||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Group coefficient = -2.153.||||||< 0.0005
91078125|NCT03878875|182041612|SUPERIORITY|Multiple linear regressions analysed the effect of conditioning (group) on each outcome at the second time point - session 2 (after noise exposure), controlling for session 1 outcome (before noise exposure), event exposure, age, and gender. It was hypothesised those with high recent noise exposure, Group 1 (noise unit \> 0.323), would experience less temporary hearing damage than irregular attendees, Group 0.|F(5, 26)|12.839|||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Group coefficient = 1.602.||||||< 0.0005
91078126|NCT03878875|182041613|SUPERIORITY|Multiple linear regressions analysed the effect of conditioning (group) on each outcome at the second time point - session 2 (after noise exposure), controlling for session 1 outcome (before noise exposure), event exposure, age, and gender. It was hypothesised those with high recent noise exposure, Group 1 (noise unit \> 0.323), would experience less temporary hearing damage than irregular attendees, Group 0.|F(5, 26)|8.391|||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Group coefficient was 1.059.||||||< 0.0005
91078127|NCT03878875|182041614|SUPERIORITY|Multiple linear regressions analysed the effect of conditioning (group) on each outcome at the second time point - session 2 (after noise exposure), controlling for session 1 outcome (before noise exposure), event exposure, age, and gender. It was hypothesised those with high recent noise exposure, Group 1 (noise unit \> 0.323), would experience less temporary hearing damage than irregular attendees, Group 0.|F(5, 26)|6.416|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Group coefficient was 0.635.||||||< 0.001
91078128|NCT03878875|182041615|SUPERIORITY|Multiple linear regressions analysed the effect of conditioning (group) on each outcome at the second time point - session 2 (after noise exposure), controlling for session 1 outcome (before noise exposure), event exposure, age, and gender. It was hypothesised those with high recent noise exposure, Group 1 (noise unit \> 0.323), would experience less temporary hearing damage than irregular attendees, Group 0.|F(5, 26)|5.805|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Group coefficient was -0.383.||||||< 0.001
91078129|NCT03878875|182041616|SUPERIORITY|A binary logistic regression was employed to assess the effect of conditioning on tinnitus change (i.e. increasing or not) at session 2, adjusting for tinnitus reported at session 1, age, gender, and event exposure.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.071|1.85|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.85|1.071|< 0.005
91078130|NCT01832818|182041628|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91078131|NCT01832818|182041629|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||< 0.05
91078132|NCT00236899|182041635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.345||95.0|0.87|1.5|||Regression, Cox|||||1.50|0.87|0.345
91078133|NCT00236899|182041636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.37|||Regression, Cox|||||1.37|0.69|0.885
91078134|NCT00236899|182041637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.42|||Regression, Cox|||||1.42|0.71|0.976
91078135|NCT00236899|182041638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.442||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.259|0.754|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.754|0.259|0.0028
91078136|NCT00236899|182041639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.23||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.62|||Regression, Cox|||||1.62|0.93|0.150
91078137|NCT00236899|182041640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.818||||0.4567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.482|1.389|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.389|0.482|0.4567
91078138|NCT00236899|182041642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.142||95.0||||This is the p-value for Treatment Schedule (Docetaxel and Gemcitabine 3 Weekly + Paclitaxel and Gemcitabine 3 Weekly) and Treatment Drug (Docetaxel and Gemcitabine Weekly + Paclitaxel and Gemcitabine Weekly).|Fisher Exact|||||||0.142
91078139|NCT00236899|182041642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47||95.0||||This is the p-value for Treatment Drug (Docetaxel and Gemcitabine 3 Weekly + Docetaxel and Gemcitabine Weekly vs Paclitaxel and Gemcitabine 3 Weekly + Paclitaxel and Gemcitabine Weekly).|Fisher Exact|||||||0.470
91078140|NCT00236899|182041643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.293||95.0||||This is the p-value for Treatment Schedule (Docetaxel and Gemcitabine 3 Weekly + Paclitaxel and Gemcitabine 3 Weekly) and Treatment Drug (Docetaxel and Gemcitabine Weekly + Paclitaxel and Gemcitabine Weekly).|Fisher Exact|||||||0.293
91078141|NCT00236899|182041643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.476||95.0||||This is the p-value for Treatment Drug (Docetaxel and Gemcitabine 3 Weekly + Docetaxel and Gemcitabine Weekly vs Paclitaxel and Gemcitabine 3 Weekly + Paclitaxel and Gemcitabine Weekly).|Fisher Exact|||||||0.476
91078142|NCT00568334|182041662|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower limit (LL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the GMT ratio (derived from IFA) between Group Varilrix HSA-Free and (divided by) Group Varilrix is equal to or above (≥) the pre-defined clinical limit of 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.46|||ANOVA|||Non-inferiority of Varilrix™ HSA-Free vaccine as compared to Varilrix™ vaccine in terms of geometric mean titers (GMTs) of varicella zoster virus (VZV) antibodies 43-57 days after the first vaccine dose.||1.46|0.86|
91079010|NCT01160380|182043543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.635|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 28 vs. Day 56 of treatment for the Armodafinil arm||||0.635
91009535|NCT02055976|181902648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|16.252|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.367|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.56|22.943|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||22.943|9.560|<0.001
91051406|NCT04394351|181988397|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.07||||0.1939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.037|0.181||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA||CI was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs. placebo) of the LS mean change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, baseline weight group strata as fixed factors.|Part A: Dupilumab Low Dose versus Part A: Pooled Placebo||0.181|-0.037|0.1939
91051407|NCT03653507|181988453|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.689||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.552|0.86|||Log Rank||Log-rank test stratified by:\* Region (Asia vs Non-Asia), \* Number of organs with metastatic sites (0 to 2 vs \>= 3), \* Prior gastrectomy (Yes or No)|||0.860|0.552|0.0005
91051408|NCT03653507|181988454|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.763||||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.622|0.936|||Log Rank||Log-rank test stratified by:\* Region (Asia vs Non-Asia), \* Number of organs with metastatic sites (0 to 2 vs \>= 3), \* Prior gastrectomy (Yes or No)|||0.936|0.622|0.0047
91051409|NCT03653507|181988455|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.012||||0.4654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.772|1.328|||Log Rank||Log-rank test stratified by:\* Region (Asia vs Non-Asia), \* Number of organs with metastatic sites (0 to 2 vs \>= 3), \* Prior gastrectomy (Yes or No)|||1.328|0.772|0.4654
91051410|NCT03653507|181988456|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.4478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.673|1.577|||Log Rank||Log-rank test stratified by:\* Region (Asia vs Non-Asia), \* Number of organs with metastatic sites (0 to 2 vs \>= 3), \* Prior gastrectomy (Yes or No)|||1.577|0.673|0.4478
91051411|NCT03653507|181988457|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.869||||0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.655|1.153|||Log Rank||Log-rank test stratified by:\* Region (Asia vs Non-Asia), \* Number of organs with metastatic sites (0 to 2 vs \>= 3), \* Prior gastrectomy (Yes or No)|||1.153|0.655|0.1670
91051412|NCT03653507|181988458|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2219||||||Based on 1-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test. Stratification factors were Region, Number of Metastatic Sites and Prior Gastrectomy.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2219
91051413|NCT03653507|181988459|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.781||||0.0826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.552|1.105|||Log Rank||Log-rank test stratified by:\* Region (Asia vs Non-Asia), \* Number of organs with metastatic sites (0 to 2 vs \>= 3), \* Prior gastrectomy (Yes or No)|||1.105|0.552|0.0826
91051414|NCT05205772|181988468|OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.08
91051415|NCT05205772|181988468|OTHER|||||||0.54|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.54
91051416|NCT05205772|181988468|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
91051417|NCT05205772|181988468|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.98
91051418|NCT05205772|181988468|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.41
91051419|NCT05205772|181988468|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.63
91051420|NCT05205772|181988469|OTHER|||||||0.38||||||Adjusted for age.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.38
91051421|NCT05205772|181988470|OTHER|||||||0.67||||||Adjusted for age.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.67
91051422|NCT05205772|181988471|OTHER|||||||0.156|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.156
91051423|NCT03188666|181988479|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-24.6||||0.0741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.8|2.5|||ANCOVA|||||2.5|-51.8|0.0741
91051424|NCT03188666|181988480|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-24.9||||0.3726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.8|30.9|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measure (MMRM)|||||30.9|-80.8|0.3726
91051425|NCT03188666|181988481|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0039||||||Week 56 vs. Week 28|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Compared number of new lesions per participant by CT at week 28 (relative to baseline) and week 56 (relative to week 28).||||0.0039
91051426|NCT03188666|181988482|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-25.6||||0.0756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.9|2.8|||ANCOVA|||||2.8|-53.9|0.0756
91051427|NCT03188666|181988483|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-27.8||||0.3407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-86.1|30.5|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measure (MMRM)|||||30.5|-86.1|0.3407
91051428|NCT03188666|181988484|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.34||||0.2656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.27|||ANCOVA|||||0.27|-0.96|0.2656
91051429|NCT03188666|181988485|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.36||||0.2651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|0.29|||ANCOVA|||||0.29|-1.01|0.2651
91051430|NCT03188666|181988492|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0039||||||Week 56 vs. Week 28|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Compared number of new lesions per participant by PET at week 28 (relative to baseline) and week 56 (relative to week 28).||||0.0039
91051431|NCT03188666|181988493|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0027||||||Week 56 vs. Week 28|McNemar|||Compared percent of participants with new lesions by CT at week 28 (relative to baseline) and week 56 (relative to week 28).||||0.0027
91051432|NCT03188666|181988494|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0047||||||Week 56 vs. Week 28|McNemar|||Compared percent of participants with new lesions by PET at week 28 (relative to baseline) and week 56 (relative to week 28).||||0.0047
91051433|NCT03188666|181988497|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3663||||||Period 2 vs. Period 1|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.3663
91051434|NCT03188666|181988498|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||Period 2 vs. Period 1|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0010
91051435|NCT03188666|181988504|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0039||||||Week 56 vs. Week 28|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Compared total new lesion volume per participant by CT at week 28 (relative to baseline) and week 56 (relative to week 28).||||0.0039
91051436|NCT03188666|181988505|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0273||||||Week 56 vs. Week 28|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Compared total lesion activity per participant in new lesions by PET at week 28 (relative to baseline) and week 56 (relative to week 28).||||0.0273
91051437|NCT03188666|181988506|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2123||||||Period 2 vs. Period 1|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.2123
91051438|NCT03188666|181988507|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1528||||||Period 2 vs. Period 1|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.1528
91051439|NCT03696953|181988523|OTHER|t test comparing||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
91051440|NCT03696953|181988524|OTHER|||||||0.73|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.73
91051441|NCT03696953|181988524|OTHER|T test||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
91051442|NCT03696953|181988525|OTHER|T test||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of 36 week AP-GI-SA Scores between probiotic and placebo groups at 36 weeks||||0.01
91051443|NCT03696953|181988526|OTHER|T test||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
91051444|NCT03696953|181988527|OTHER|T test||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
91051445|NCT01106014|181988535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.46|0.78||one-sided p-value|Log Rank|||The primary analysis was performed on the Full Analysis Set by a one-sided unstratified log-rank test||0.78|0.46|<0.0001
91079011|NCT01760447|182043596|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.49|||=|0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"The Least Squares (LS) Mean for the arm Sitagliptin/Metformin and Sitagliptin/Metformin XR Pooled is compared against that of Metformin and Metformin XR Pooled."||-0.09|-0.90|= 0.018
91079012|NCT01760447|182043597|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|11.3|||||The Miettinen and Nurminen methodology was used to calculate the difference and 95% confidence interval.|"The percentage of participants who experienced ≥1 adverse event for the arm Sitagliptin/Metformin and Sitagliptin/Metformin XR Pooled is compared against that of Metformin and Metformin XR Pooled."||11.3|-13.9|
91079013|NCT01760447|182043598|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|5.0|||||The Miettinen and Nurminen methodology was used to calculate the difference and 95% confidence interval.|"The percentage of participants who discontinued study drug due to experiencing an adverse event for the arm Sitagliptin/Metformin and Sitagliptin/Metformin XR Pooled is compared against that of Metformin and Metformin XR Pooled."||5.0|-6.2|
91079014|NCT01760447|182043599|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|14.4|||||The Miettinen and Nurminen methodology was used to calculate the difference and 95% confidence interval.|"The percentage of participants who experienced ≥1 adverse event for the arm Sitagliptin/Metformin and Sitagliptin/Metformin XR Pooled is compared against that of Metformin and Metformin XR Pooled."||14.4|-8.9|
91079015|NCT01760447|182043600|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|5.8|||||The Miettinen and Nurminen methodology was used to calculate the difference and 95% confidence interval.|"The percentage of participants who discontinued study drug due to experiencing an adverse event for the arm Sitagliptin/Metformin and Sitagliptin/Metformin XR Pooled is compared against that of Metformin and Metformin XR Pooled."||5.8|-10.1|
91079016|NCT01760447|182043602|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-10.8|||=|0.159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.9|4.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"The Least Squares (LS) Mean for the arm Sitagliptin/Metformin and Sitagliptin/Metformin XR Pooled is compared against that of Metformin and Metformin XR Pooled."||4.3|-25.9|= 0.159
91079017|NCT01760447|182043604|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|16.0||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|28.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||"The percentage of participants with A1C at the A1C goal (\<7.0%) in the arm Sitagliptin/Metformin and Sitagliptin/Metformin XR Pooled is compared against that of Metformin and Metformin XR Pooled. For estimating the treatment difference, when the A1C result for a participant at Week 20 was not available, a multiple imputation method was used to impute whether the participant had met the goal."||28.9|2.9|0.017
91079018|NCT01760447|182043605|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|12.2||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|24.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||"The percentage of participants with A1C at the A1C goal (\<6.5%) in the arm Sitagliptin/Metformin and Sitagliptin/Metformin XR Pooled is compared against that of Metformin and Metformin XR Pooled. For estimating the treatment difference, when the A1C result for a participant at Week 20 was not available, a multiple imputation method was used to impute whether the participant had met the goal."||24.8|0.0|0.049
91079019|NCT01760447|182043608|SUPERIORITY||Kaplan-Meier Difference in Percentage|-13.2||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.1|-5.3|||Log-Rank Test|||"The percentage of participants initiating glycemic rescue therapy in the arm Sitagliptin/Metformin and Sitagliptin/Metformin XR Pooled is compared against that of Metformin and Metformin XR Pooled."||-5.3|-21.1|0.002
91079020|NCT03706469|182043677|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence in the AUClast will be concluded if the 90 percent (%) confidence interval for the test/reference ratio of the least squares means is fully contained within the acceptance range, 80.00% - 125.00%.|Percentage of Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|83.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.5|93.8||||||||93.80|74.50|
91079021|NCT03706469|182043677|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence in the AUClast will be concluded if the 90% confidence interval for the test/reference ratio of the least squares means is fully contained within the acceptance range, 80.00% - 125.00%.|Percentage of GMR|102.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.1|114.7||||||||114.70|91.10|
91079022|NCT03706469|182043677|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence in the AUClast will be concluded if the 90% confidence interval for the test/reference ratio of the least squares means is fully contained within the acceptance range, 80.00% - 125.00%.|Percentage of GMR|172.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|152.55|195.58||||||||195.58|152.55|
91079023|NCT03706469|182043678|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence in the AUC∞ will be concluded if the 90% confidence interval for the test/reference ratio of the least squares means is fully contained within the acceptance range, 80.00% - 125.00%.|Percentage of GMR|84.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|73.92|96.11||||||||96.11|73.92|
91079024|NCT03706469|182043678|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence in the AUC∞ will be concluded if the 90% confidence interval for the test/reference ratio of the least squares means is fully contained within the acceptance range, 80.00% - 125.00%.|Percentage of GMR|99.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.88|111.63||||||||111.63|88.88|
91079025|NCT03706469|182043678|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence in the AUC∞ will be concluded if the 90% confidence interval for the test/reference ratio of the least squares means is fully contained within the acceptance range, 80.00% - 125.00%.|Percentage of GMR|172.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|149.07|200.09||||||||200.09|149.07|
91079026|NCT03706469|182043679|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence in the Cmax will be concluded if the 90% confidence interval for the test/reference ratio of the least squares means is fully contained within the acceptance range, 80.00% - 125.00%.|Percentage of GMR|79.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|67.36|92.99||||||||92.99|67.36|
91079027|NCT03706469|182043679|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence in the Cmax will be concluded if the 90% confidence interval for the test/reference ratio of the least squares means is fully contained within the acceptance range, 80.00% - 125.00%.|Percentage of GMR|99.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.94|117.27||||||||117.27|84.94|
91079028|NCT03706469|182043679|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence in the Cmax will be concluded if the 90% confidence interval for the test/reference ratio of the least squares means is fully contained within the acceptance range, 80.00% - 125.00%.|Percentage of GMR|173.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|150.05|200.16||||||||200.16|150.05|
91079029|NCT03924505|182043687|SUPERIORITY||Incidence Rate Ratio|2.15|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|2.35||A priori threshold for statistical significance set at p\<0.05|Negative Binomial Regression|We adjusted for baseline rate due to baseline differences.|The incidence rate ratio estimates the effect of facilitation for implementation effectiveness and dissemination of best practice recommendations, as compared to dissemination of best practice recommendations.|||2.35|1.42|<0.01
91078667|NCT01964716|182043078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.06||||||Serotype 6A: Ratio of GMTs, MDV to SDS, was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS).||1.06|0.70|
91078668|NCT01964716|182043078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.33||||||Serotype 6B: Ratio of GMTs, MDV to SDS, was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS).||1.33|0.74|
91078669|NCT01964716|182043078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.0||||||Serotype 7F: Ratio of GMTs, MDV to SDS, was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS).||1.00|0.70|
91078670|NCT01964716|182043078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.27||||||Serotype 9V: Ratio of GMTs, MDV to SDS, was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS).||1.27|0.79|
91078671|NCT01964716|182043078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.08||||||Serotype 14: Ratio of GMTs, MDV to SDS, was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS).||1.08|0.48|
91078672|NCT01964716|182043078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|2.19||||||Serotype 18C: Ratio of GMTs, MDV to SDS, was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS).||2.19|1.38|
91078673|NCT01964716|182043078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.16||||||Serotype 19A: Ratio of GMTs, MDV to SDS, was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS).||1.16|0.74|
91078674|NCT01964716|182043078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.18||||||Serotype 19F: Ratio of GMTs, MDV to SDS, was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS).||1.18|0.71|
91078675|NCT01964716|182043078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.25||||||Serotype 23F: Ratio of GMTs, MDV to SDS, was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS).||1.25|0.67|
91078676|NCT02943785|182043099|NON_INFERIORITY|The two-sided p-value (Noninferiority) was based on the noninferiority margin of 1.38.|Cox Proportional Hazard|1.05||||0.0141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.31|||Regression, Cox|||||1.31|0.85|0.0141
91078677|NCT02943785|182043100|NON_INFERIORITY|The two-sided p-value (Noninferiority) was based on the noninferiority margin of 1.38.|Cox Proportional Hazard|1.4||||0.9267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.91|||Regression, Cox|||||1.91|1.03|0.9267
91079030|NCT03924505|182043688|SUPERIORITY||Incidence Rate Ratio|1.97||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|3.3||A priori threshold for statistical signicance is p\<0.05|Negative Binomial Regression||The incidence rate ratio estimates the effect of facilitation for implementation effectiveness and dissemination of best practice recommendations, as compared to dissemination of best practice recommendations.|||3.30|1.18|0.01
91079031|NCT03924505|182043689|OTHER|Testing for differences in means|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.0|-0.7|0.68
91079032|NCT03743402|182043696|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was a point null of exactly 0 expected difference in MME/day between arms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.54||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.55|5.88|||Regression, Linear||mean difference=(pain self-management)-(usual care)|A priori power calculations indicated 90% power to detect an average 24 MME/day difference between arms.||5.88|-10.55|0.58
91079033|NCT03743402|182043697|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was a point null of exactly 0 expected difference in PEG score between arms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.52|||Regression, Linear||mean difference = (pain self-management)-(usual care)|A priori power calculations indicated 90% power to detect a 1.2-point average difference in PEG score between arms.||0.52|-0.51|0.98
91079034|NCT03743402|182043698|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was a point null of exactly 0 difference in average MME/day between arms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.69|8.29|||Regression, Linear||mean difference=(pain self-management)-(usual care)|||8.29|-5.69|0.72
91079035|NCT03743402|182043699|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is a point null of exactly 0 difference in expected PEG score between arms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|0.05|||Regression, Linear||mean difference = (pain self-management) - (usual care)|||0.05|-1.11|0.07
91009536|NCT02055976|181902648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|9.571|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.384||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.847|16.295|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||16.295|2.847|0.003
91009537|NCT02055976|181902648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|9.029|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.858||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.348|14.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||14.710|3.348|0.001
91009538|NCT02055976|181902648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|8.543|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.876||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.827|14.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||14.260|2.827|0.002
91009539|NCT02055976|181902648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|8.898|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.84||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.252|14.544|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113:Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||14.544|3.252|0.001
91009540|NCT02055976|181902650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-7.462|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.434|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.311|-4.614|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-4.614|-10.311|<0.001
91009541|NCT02055976|181902650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-6.693|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.469|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.61|-3.776|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-3.776|-9.610|<0.001
91051446|NCT01106014|181988536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|12.0||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|99.0|1.0|24.0||One-sided p-value of the nonparametric ANCOVA, adjusted for 6-minute walk distance at baseline|ANCOVA||Point estimate and 2-sided 99% CI for location shift using the HodgesLehmann method|Non-parametric ANCOVA with 6MWD as covariate at baseline. Missing values were imputed based on the following imputation rules: 1) if patient was unable to walk at week 26, 0 meter was imputed, 2) if rule 1 did not apply, the second lowest observed 6MWD value (10 meters) at Week 26 was imputed. Missing values were imputed for 21.6% of the subjects.||24|1|0.0027
91009542|NCT02055976|181902650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-8.755|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.479|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.692|-5.817|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-5.817|-11.692|<0.001
91009543|NCT02055976|181902650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.072|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.773||0.484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.596|3.451|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||3.451|-3.596|0.484
91009544|NCT02055976|181902650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.701|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.793||0.173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.264|1.862|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||1.862|-5.264|0.173
91009545|NCT02055976|181902650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.953|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.761||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.452|1.546|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||1.546|-5.452|0.135
91009546|NCT02055976|181902650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-4.447|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.406||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.23|0.335|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||0.335|-9.230|0.034
91009547|NCT02055976|181902650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-6.764|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.442||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.617|-1.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-1.910|-11.617|0.003
91009548|NCT02055976|181902650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-5.951|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.458||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.836|-1.066|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-1.066|-10.836|0.009
91009549|NCT02055976|181902650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-3.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.915||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.876|0.736|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||0.736|-6.876|0.056
91051447|NCT01106014|181988537|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|It was assumed that the probabilities for absence of worsening in WHO FC at Week 26 were the same for both treatment groups|Odds Ratio, log|1.161||||0.2843|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.811|1.664||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by WHO FC at baseline. For patients with missing NYHA/WHO FC at Week 26, the NYHA/WHO FC is considered as having worsened from baseline at Week 26. Missing values were imputed for 18.3% of subjects .|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.664|0.811|0.2843
91009550|NCT02055976|181902650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.557|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.937||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.408|1.293|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||1.293|-6.408|0.095
91009551|NCT02055976|181902650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-5.271|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.913||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.074|-1.469|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113:Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-1.469|-9.074|0.004
91009552|NCT02055976|181902651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-31.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.071|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.925|-17.836|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-17.836|-45.925|<0.001
91009553|NCT02055976|181902651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-29.187|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.242|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.571|-14.803|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-14.803|-43.571|<0.001
91009554|NCT02055976|181902651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-39.657|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.136|-25.178|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-25.178|-54.136|<0.001
91009555|NCT02055976|181902651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-4.681|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.601||0.366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.713|22.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||22.350|-31.713|0.366
91009556|NCT02055976|181902651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|10.227|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.586||0.773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.774|37.228|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||37.228|-16.774|0.773
91009557|NCT02055976|181902651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.646|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.362||0.422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.206|23.915|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||23.915|-29.206|0.422
91009558|NCT02055976|181902651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-12.911|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.309||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.411|7.589|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||7.589|-33.411|0.107
91009559|NCT02055976|181902651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-23.119|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.461||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.923|-2.315|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-2.315|-43.923|0.015
91009560|NCT02055976|181902651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-17.159|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.535||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.108|3.789|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||3.789|-38.108|0.054
91009561|NCT02055976|181902651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-24.416|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.718||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.696|0.865|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||0.865|-49.696|0.029
91009562|NCT02055976|181902651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-6.287|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.705||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.541|18.968|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||18.968|-31.541|0.311
91051448|NCT00062010|181988589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Overall Response Percentage|8.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.4|21.3||||||The study was designed to have adequate (90%) power to distinguish a true response rate of 50% from a null rate of 35% assuming total accrual of 76 patients in two stages. The design mandated that at least 13 objective responses be observed among 34 patients in the first stage in order to continue to the second stage. These were not observed, so the study stopped after the first stage. 90% exact binomial confidence intervals are provided for the response rate.||21.3|2.4|
91051449|NCT00852969|181988592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.69||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.79|7.41|||t-test, 2 sided|||||7.41|-10.79|0.71
91051450|NCT00852969|181988593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.48||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|2.24|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.24|-7.20|0.29
91009563|NCT02055976|181902651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-32.443|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.555||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.4|-7.485|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113:Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-7.485|-57.400|0.006
91051451|NCT03986138|181988595|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|1.6||To demonstrate the superiority, a statistically significant (one-sided p-value ≤0.025) positive difference in mean scores in border delineation, internal morphology and degree of contrast enhancement of lesions had to be met for 2 out of 3 readers.|t-test, 2 sided|||Criterion: Border delineation; Reader 1. The null hypothesis for primary objective was that the difference in mean scores between Paired images and Pre-contrast images for each of the 3 co-primary criteria was equal to 0. The Null hypothesis was rejected if the difference was significantly different from zero with a type 1 error set at 0.025. To conclude the superiority, the null hypothesis had to be rejected for all co-criteria simultaneously and for at least 2 out of 3 readers.||1.60|1.46|< 0.0001
91051452|NCT03986138|181988595|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.58||To demonstrate the superiority, a statistically significant (one-sided p-value ≤0.025) positive difference in mean scores in border delineation, internal morphology and degree of contrast enhancement of lesions had to be met for 2 out of 3 readers.|t-test, 2 sided|||Criterion: Border delineation; Reader 2. The null hypothesis for primary objective was that the difference in mean scores between Paired images and Pre-contrast images for each of the 3 co-primary criteria was equal to 0. The Null hypothesis was rejected if the difference was significantly different from zero with a type 1 error set at 0.025. To conclude the superiority, the null hypothesis had to be rejected for all co-criteria simultaneously and for at least 2 out of 3 readers.||0.58|0.36|<0.0001
91009564|NCT02055976|181902653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-35.967|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.822|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.463|-14.472|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-14.472|-57.463|<0.001
91078715|NCT01887678|182043162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0172|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|For equality of survival functions||After third injection of study drug||||0.0172
91051453|NCT03986138|181988595|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|1.78||To demonstrate the superiority, a statistically significant (one-sided p-value ≤0.025) positive difference in mean scores in border delineation, internal morphology and degree of contrast enhancement of lesions had to be met for 2 out of 3 readers.|t-test, 2 sided|||Criterion: Border delineation; Reader 3. The null hypothesis for primary objective was that the difference in mean scores between Paired images and Pre-contrast images for each of the 3 co-primary criteria was equal to 0. The Null hypothesis was rejected if the difference was significantly different from zero with a type 1 error set at 0.025. To conclude the superiority, the null hypothesis had to be rejected for all co-criteria simultaneously and for at least 2 out of 3 readers.||1.78|1.65|<0.0001
91051454|NCT03986138|181988595|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.76|1.87||To demonstrate the superiority, a statistically significant (one-sided p-value ≤0.025) positive difference in mean scores in border delineation, internal morphology and degree of contrast enhancement of lesions had to be met for 2 out of 3 readers.|t-test, 2 sided|||Criterion: Internal morphology; Reader 1. The null hypothesis for primary objective was that the difference in mean scores between Paired images and Pre-contrast images for each of the 3 co-primary criteria was equal to 0. The Null hypothesis was rejected if the difference was significantly different from zero with a type 1 error set at 0.025. To conclude the superiority, the null hypothesis had to be rejected for all co-criteria simultaneously and for at least 2 out of 3 readers.||1.87|1.76|<0.0001
91051455|NCT03986138|181988595|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.64||To demonstrate the superiority, a statistically significant (one-sided p-value ≤0.025) positive difference in mean scores in border delineation, internal morphology and degree of contrast enhancement of lesions had to be met for 2 out of 3 readers.|t-test, 2 sided|||Criterion: Internal morphology; Reader 2. The null hypothesis for primary objective was that the difference in mean scores between Paired images and Pre-contrast images for each of the 3 co-primary criteria was equal to 0. The Null hypothesis was rejected if the difference was significantly different from zero with a type 1 error set at 0.025. To conclude the superiority, the null hypothesis had to be rejected for all co-criteria simultaneously and for at least 2 out of 3 readers.||0.64|0.42|<0.0001
91009565|NCT02055976|181902653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-29.186|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.044||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.123|-7.249|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-7.249|-51.123|0.005
91009566|NCT02055976|181902653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-40.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.16|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.175|-17.845|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-17.845|-62.175|<0.001
91009567|NCT02055976|181902653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|3.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.906||0.614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.502|24.842|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||24.842|-18.502|0.614
91009568|NCT02055976|181902653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-8.563|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.067||0.221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.554|13.427|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||13.427|-30.554|0.221
91009569|NCT02055976|181902653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-5.649|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.933||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.376|16.079|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||16.079|-27.376|0.303
91009570|NCT02055976|181902653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-22.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.53||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.882|6.875|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||6.875|-50.882|0.067
91009571|NCT02055976|181902653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-41.761|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.676||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.934|-12.588|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-12.588|-70.934|0.003
91009572|NCT02055976|181902653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-34.933|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.832||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.41|-5.456|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-5.456|-64.410|0.010
91009573|NCT02055976|181902653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-17.978|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.725||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.282|5.326|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||5.326|-41.282|0.064
91009574|NCT02055976|181902653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-5.654|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.903||0.318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.311|18.004|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||18.004|-29.311|0.318
91009575|NCT02055976|181902653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-19.435|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.807||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.902|4.032|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113:Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||4.032|-42.902|0.052
91009576|NCT02055976|181902654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-25.974|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.674|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.217|-10.731|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-10.731|-41.217|<0.001
91009577|NCT02055976|181902654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-21.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.831||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.665|-5.555|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-5.555|-36.665|0.004
91009578|NCT02055976|181902654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-31.034|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.917|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.758|-15.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-15.310|-46.758|<0.001
91009579|NCT02055976|181902654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|8.034|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.553||0.799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.948|27.015|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||27.015|-10.948|0.799
91009580|NCT02055976|181902654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.511|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.682||0.398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.748|16.727|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||16.727|-21.748|0.398
91009581|NCT02055976|181902654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.369|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.58||0.515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.668|19.407|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||19.407|-18.668|0.515
91009582|NCT02055976|181902654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-10.056|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.801||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.549|7.437|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||7.437|-27.549|0.128
91051456|NCT03986138|181988595|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.95|2.11||To demonstrate the superiority, a statistically significant (one-sided p-value ≤0.025) positive difference in mean scores in border delineation, internal morphology and degree of contrast enhancement of lesions had to be met for 2 out of 3 readers.|t-test, 2 sided|||Criterion: Internal morphology; Reader 3. The null hypothesis for primary objective was that the difference in mean scores between Paired images and Pre-contrast images for each of the 3 co-primary criteria was equal to 0. The Null hypothesis was rejected if the difference was significantly different from zero with a type 1 error set at 0.025. To conclude the superiority, the null hypothesis had to be rejected for all co-criteria simultaneously and for at least 2 out of 3 readers.||2.11|1.95|<0.0001
91009583|NCT02055976|181902654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-24.352|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.882||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.008|-6.695|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-6.695|-42.008|0.004
91051457|NCT03986138|181988595|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.56|2.72||To demonstrate the superiority, a statistically significant (one-sided p-value ≤0.025) positive difference in mean scores in border delineation, internal morphology and degree of contrast enhancement of lesions had to be met for 2 out of 3 readers.|t-test, 2 sided|||Criterion: Contrast enhancement; Reader 1. The null hypothesis for primary objective was that the difference in mean scores between Paired images and Pre-contrast images for each of the 3 co-primary criteria was equal to 0. The Null hypothesis was rejected if the difference was significantly different from zero with a type 1 error set at 0.025. To conclude the superiority, the null hypothesis had to be rejected for all co-criteria simultaneously and for at least 2 out of 3 readers.||2.72|2.56|<0.0001
91009584|NCT02055976|181902654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-14.994|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.987||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.858|2.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||2.870|-32.858|0.049
91051458|NCT03986138|181988595|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.68|1.96||To demonstrate the superiority, a statistically significant (one-sided p-value ≤0.025) positive difference in mean scores in border delineation, internal morphology and degree of contrast enhancement of lesions had to be met for 2 out of 3 readers.|t-test, 2 sided|||Criterion: Contrast enhancement; Reader 2. The null hypothesis for primary objective was that the difference in mean scores between Paired images and Pre-contrast images for each of the 3 co-primary criteria was equal to 0. The Null hypothesis was rejected if the difference was significantly different from zero with a type 1 error set at 0.025. To conclude the superiority, the null hypothesis had to be rejected for all co-criteria simultaneously and for at least 2 out of 3 readers.||1.96|1.68|<0.0001
91051459|NCT03986138|181988595|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.26|2.41||To demonstrate the superiority, a statistically significant (one-sided p-value ≤0.025) positive difference in mean scores in border delineation, internal morphology and degree of contrast enhancement of lesions had to be met for 2 out of 3 readers.|t-test, 2 sided|||Criterion: Contrast enhancement; Reader 3. The null hypothesis for primary objective was that the difference in mean scores between Paired images and Pre-contrast images for each of the 3 co-primary criteria was equal to 0. The Null hypothesis was rejected if the difference was significantly different from zero with a type 1 error set at 0.025. To conclude the superiority, the null hypothesis had to be rejected for all co-criteria simultaneously and for at least 2 out of 3 readers.||2.41|2.26|<0.0001
91051460|NCT03986138|181988596|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority between gadopiclenol and gadobutrol was concluded if the lower bound of this confidence interval was above the non-inferiority margin set to 0.35 for at least 2 out of 3 blinded readers and for the 3 co-primary criteria simultaneously.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.05||The Null hypothesis was rejected if the 2-sided 95% Confidence Interval (CI) for the difference \[gadopiclenol scores mean - gadobutrol scores mean\] had its lower limit above -0.35.|t-test, 2 sided|The Student's t-based 95% CIs of the difference between gadopiclenol and gadobutrol were constructed for each of 3 co-primary criteria.||Criterion: Border delineation; Reader 1. The null hypothesis was that the difference in mean scores between gadopiclenol and gadobutrol for each of the 3 primary criteria was equal to the non inferiority margin (-0.35). The alternative hypothesis was that the difference in mean scores between gadopiclenol and gadobutrol for each of the 3 co-primary criteria was greater than the non inferiority margin.||0.05|-0.05|<0.0001
91051461|NCT03986138|181988596|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority between gadopiclenol and gadobutrol was concluded if the lower bound of this confidence interval was above the non-inferiority margin set to 0.35 for at least 2 out of 3 blinded readers and for the 3 co-primary criteria simultaneously.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.1||The Null hypothesis was rejected if the 2-sided 95% Confidence Interval (CI) for the difference \[gadopiclenol scores mean - gadobutrol scores mean\] had its lower limit above -0.35.|t-test, 2 sided|The Student's t-based 95% CIs of the difference between gadopiclenol and gadobutrol were constructed for each of 3 co-primary criteria.||Criterion: Border delineation; Reader 2. The null hypothesis was that the difference in mean scores between gadopiclenol and gadobutrol for each of the 3 primary criteria was equal to the non inferiority margin (-0.35). The alternative hypothesis was that the difference in mean scores between gadopiclenol and gadobutrol for each of the 3 co-primary criteria was greater than the non inferiority margin.||0.10|-0.05|<0.0001
91051462|NCT03986138|181988596|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority between gadopiclenol and gadobutrol was concluded if the lower bound of this confidence interval was above the non-inferiority margin set to 0.35 for at least 2 out of 3 blinded readers and for the 3 co-primary criteria simultaneously.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.01||The Null hypothesis was rejected if the 2-sided 95% Confidence Interval (CI) for the difference \[gadopiclenol scores mean - gadobutrol scores mean\] had its lower limit above -0.35.|t-test, 2 sided|The Student's t-based 95% CIs of the difference between gadopiclenol and gadobutrol were constructed for each of 3 co-primary criteria.||Criterion: Border delineation; Reader 3. The null hypothesis was that the difference in mean scores between gadopiclenol and gadobutrol for each of the 3 primary criteria was equal to the non inferiority margin (-0.35). The alternative hypothesis was that the difference in mean scores between gadopiclenol and gadobutrol for each of the 3 co-primary criteria was greater than the non inferiority margin.||0.01|-0.10|<0.0001
91009585|NCT02055976|181902654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-13.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.326||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.368|4.709|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||4.709|-32.368|0.071
91009586|NCT02055976|181902654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-3.378|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.464||0.361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.191|15.435|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||15.435|-22.191|0.361
91009587|NCT02055976|181902654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-15.035|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.389||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.698|3.629|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113:Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||3.629|-33.698|0.056
91009588|NCT02055976|181902656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-76.189|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.431|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-86.975|-65.403|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-65.403|-86.975|<0.001
91009589|NCT02055976|181902656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-95.205|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.556|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-106.238|-84.172|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-84.172|-106.238|<0.001
91009590|NCT02055976|181902656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-106.077|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.622|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-117.239|-94.915|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-94.915|-117.239|<0.001
91009591|NCT02055976|181902656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-71.234|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.622|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.39|-58.077|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-58.077|-84.390|<0.001
91009592|NCT02055976|181902656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-100.638|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.609|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-113.768|-87.508|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-87.508|-113.768|<0.001
91009593|NCT02055976|181902656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-103.386|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.525|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-116.353|-90.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-90.420|-116.353|<0.001
91009594|NCT02055976|181902656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-61.124|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.382|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.813|-50.435|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-50.435|-71.813|<0.001
91009595|NCT02055976|181902656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-81.837|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.48|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-92.721|-70.954|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-70.954|-92.721|<0.001
91009596|NCT02055976|181902656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-89.683|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.567|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.74|-78.627|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-78.627|-100.740|<0.001
91009597|NCT02055976|181902656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-76.747|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.118|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-88.902|-64.593|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-64.593|-88.902|<0.001
91009598|NCT02055976|181902656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-100.666|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.098|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-112.781|-88.551|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-88.551|-112.781|<0.001
91009599|NCT02055976|181902656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-109.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.054|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-121.519|-97.462|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113:Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-97.462|-121.519|<0.001
91051463|NCT03986138|181988596|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin : -0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.05|||t-test, 2 sided|||Criterion: Internal morphology; Reader 1||0.05|-0.06|<0.0001
91009600|NCT02055976|181902657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-46.772|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.473|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.671|-39.874|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-39.874|-53.671|<0.001
91009601|NCT02055976|181902657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-59.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.554|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.257|-52.143|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-52.143|-66.257|<0.001
91051464|NCT03986138|181988596|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin : -0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.07|||t-test, 2 sided|||Criterion: Internal morphology; Reader 2||0.07|-0.07|<0.0001
91051465|NCT03986138|181988596|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin : -0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.02|||t-test, 2 sided|||Criterion: Internal morphology; Reader 3||0.02|-0.08|<0.0001
91051466|NCT03986138|181988596|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin : -0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.09|||t-test, 2 sided|||Criterion: Contrast enhancement; Reader 1||0.09|-0.06|<0.0001
91051467|NCT03986138|181988596|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin : -0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.12|||t-test, 2 sided|||Criterion: Contrast enhancement; Reader 2||0.12|-0.07|<0.0001
91051468|NCT03986138|181988596|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin : -0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.04|||t-test, 2 sided|||Criterion: Contrast enhancement; Reader 3||0.04|-0.08|<0.0001
91051469|NCT03182244|181988611|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.612||||0.00152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.451|0.832|||Log Rank|Stratification factors were response to first-line AML therapy and preselected salvage chemotherapy per interactive response technology (IRT).|Based on Cox proportional hazard model. Assuming proportional hazards, an HR \< 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate where the numerator is the Gilteritinib arm and the denominator is the Salvage chemotherapy arm.|||0.832|0.451|0.00152
91051470|NCT03182244|181988612|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.589||||5e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.438|0.792|||Log Rank|Stratification factors were response to first-line AML therapy and preselected salvage chemotherapy per IRT.|Based on Cox proportional hazard model. Assuming proportional hazards, an HR \< 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate where the numerator is the Gilteritinib arm and the denominator is the Salvage chemotherapy arm.|||0.792|0.438|0.00005
91051471|NCT03182244|181988613|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|8.9||||0.04256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|17.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification factors: first-line AML therapy \& preselected salvage chemotherapy/IRT response. Treatment difference based on stratification factors.||||17.5|0.3|0.04256
91051472|NCT03182244|181988614|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.163||||0.8871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.131|10.338|||Log Rank|Stratification factors were response to first-line AML therapy and preselected salvage chemotherapy per IRT.|Based on Cox proportional hazard model. Assuming proportional hazards, an HR \< 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate where the numerator is the Gilteritinib arm and the denominator is the Salvage chemotherapy arm.|||10.338|0.131|0.88710
91051473|NCT03182244|181988615|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.55969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.209|2.414|||Log Rank|Stratification factors were response to first-line AML therapy and preselected salvage chemotherapy per IRT.|Based on Cox proportional hazard model. Assuming proportional hazards, an HR \< 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate where the numerator is the Gilteritinib arm and the denominator is the Salvage chemotherapy arm.|||2.414|0.209|0.55969
91051474|NCT03182244|181988616|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.583||||0.66261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.192|13.048|||Log Rank|Stratification factors were response to first-line AML therapy and preselected salvage chemotherapy per IRT.|Based on Cox proportional hazard model. Assuming proportional hazards, an HR \< 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate where the numerator is the Gilteritinib arm and the denominator is the Salvage chemotherapy arm.|||13.048|0.192|0.66261
91051475|NCT03182244|181988617|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.756||||0.55731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.286|1.999|||Log Rank|Stratification factors were response to first-line AML therapy and preselected salvage chemotherapy per IRT.|Based on Cox proportional hazard model. Assuming proportional hazards, an HR \< 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate where the numerator is the Gilteritinib arm and the denominator is the Salvage chemotherapy arm.|||1.999|0.286|0.55731
91051476|NCT03182244|181988618|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|17.7||||0.00049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.9|27.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification factors: first-line AML therapy \& preselected salvage chemotherapy/IRT response. Treatment difference based on stratification factors.||||27.5|7.9|0.00049
91051477|NCT03182244|181988620|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.857||||0.56944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.494|1.487|||Log Rank|Stratification factors were response to first-line AML therapy and preselected salvage chemotherapy per IRT.|Based on Cox proportional hazard model. Assuming proportional hazards, an HR \< 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate where the numerator is the Gilteritinib arm and the denominator is the Salvage chemotherapy arm.|||1.487|0.494|0.56944
91051478|NCT03182244|181988621|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|31.2|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.2|42.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification factors: first-line AML therapy \& preselected salvage chemotherapy/IRT response. Treatment difference based on stratification factors.||||42.3|20.2|<0.00001
91051479|NCT03182244|181988627|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|14.7||||0.00055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|22.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification factors: first-line AML therapy \& preselected salvage chemotherapy/IRT response. Treatment difference based on stratification factors.||||22.8|6.5|0.00055
91051480|NCT03182244|181988628|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.6||||0.14841||||||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including treatment as a fixed factor, baseline score, response to first-line AML therapy and preselected salvage chemotherapy per IRT as covariates. LS Mean difference was estimated using chemotherapy as control.|ANCOVA|||||||0.14841
91051481|NCT04709835|181988656|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.292||0.7144|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.49|0.27|||ANCOVA||A difference in adjusted means of \<0 favors RO7496998 (AT-527).|Day 3||0.27|-0.49|0.7144
91009602|NCT02055976|181902657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-66.868|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.595|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.007|-59.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-59.730|-74.007|<0.001
91009603|NCT02055976|181902657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-40.051|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.595|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.195|-32.908|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-32.908|-47.195|<0.001
91009604|NCT02055976|181902657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-56.009|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.587|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.135|-48.882|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-48.882|-63.135|<0.001
91009605|NCT02055976|181902657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-57.576|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.544|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.618|-50.533|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-50.533|-64.618|<0.001
91009606|NCT02055976|181902657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-37.991|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.389|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.721|-31.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-31.260|-44.721|<0.001
91009607|NCT02055976|181902657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-50.856|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.451|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.709|-44.002|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-44.002|-57.709|<0.001
91009608|NCT02055976|181902657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-56.354|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.505|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.315|-49.393|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-49.393|-63.315|<0.001
91009609|NCT02055976|181902657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-43.172|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.647|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.417|-35.926|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-35.926|-50.417|<0.001
91009610|NCT02055976|181902657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-56.698|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.633|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.916|-49.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-49.480|-63.916|<0.001
91009611|NCT02055976|181902657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-61.305|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.609|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.477|-54.134|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113:Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-54.134|-68.477|<0.001
91009612|NCT02055976|181902659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.69928|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13216|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96175|-1.43682|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-1.43682|-1.96175|<0.001
91009613|NCT02055976|181902659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.07922|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13446|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34622|-1.81223|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-1.81223|-2.34622|<0.001
91009614|NCT02055976|181902659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.23886|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13553|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.50795|-1.96978|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-1.96978|-2.50795|<0.001
91009615|NCT02055976|181902659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.43281|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16311|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75689|-1.10872|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-1.10872|-1.75689|<0.001
91051482|NCT04709835|181988656|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.327||0.3373|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.11|0.74|||ANCOVA||A difference in adjusted means of \<0 favors RO7496998 (AT-527).|Day 5||0.74|-0.11|0.3373
91051483|NCT04709835|181988656|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.315||0.426|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.66|0.16|||ANCOVA||A difference in adjusted means of \<0 favors RO7496998 (AT-527).|Day 7||0.16|-0.66|0.4260
91051484|NCT04709835|181988657|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.53|1.74|||||Hazard ratio (80% CI) was estimated with a Cox proportional hazards model (unadjusted).|||1.74|0.53|
91009616|NCT02055976|181902659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.01501|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16217|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33718|-1.69283|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-1.69283|-2.33718|<0.001
91051485|NCT04709835|181988657|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.76|2.32|||||Hazard ratio (80% CI) was estimated with a Cox proportional hazards model (unadjusted).|||2.32|0.76|
91051486|NCT04709835|181988658|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.44|1.7|||||Hazard ratio (80% CI) was estimated with a Cox proportional hazards model (unadjusted).|||1.70|0.44|
91051487|NCT04709835|181988658|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.56|2.03|||||Hazard ratio (80% CI) was estimated with a Cox proportional hazards model (unadjusted).|||2.03|0.56|
91009617|NCT02055976|181902659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.11359|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16038|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4323|-1.79489|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-1.79489|-2.43230|<0.001
91009618|NCT02055976|181902659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.35298|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13609|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62324|-1.08271|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-1.08271|-1.62324|<0.001
91009619|NCT02055976|181902659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.79615|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1379|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07001|-1.52229|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-1.52229|-2.07001|<0.001
91009620|NCT02055976|181902659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.86921|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13927|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.14575|-1.59266|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-1.59266|-2.14575|<0.001
91009621|NCT02055976|181902659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.57311|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14333|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85788|-1.28834|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-1.28834|-1.85788|<0.001
91009622|NCT02055976|181902659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.00256|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14228|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28521|-1.7199|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-1.71990|-2.28521|<0.001
91009623|NCT02055976|181902659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.20298|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14142|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48399|-1.92197|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113:Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-1.92197|-2.48399|<0.001
91009624|NCT02055976|181902660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-41.92915|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.83037|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.55052|-36.30778|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-36.30778|-47.55052|<0.001
91009625|NCT02055976|181902660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-51.08604|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.88356|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.81235|-45.35973|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-45.35973|-56.81235|<0.001
91009626|NCT02055976|181902660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-55.516|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.91014|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.29424|-49.73777|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-49.73777|-61.29424|<0.001
91009627|NCT02055976|181902660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-33.30375|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.07498|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.41376|-27.19373|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-27.19373|-39.41376|<0.001
91009628|NCT02055976|181902660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-47.8521|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.05746|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.92668|-41.77751|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-41.77751|-53.92668|<0.001
91009629|NCT02055976|181902660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-48.65686|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.02097|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.6606|-42.65313|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-42.65313|-54.66060|<0.001
91009630|NCT02055976|181902660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-33.5292|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.96599|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.42015|-27.63826|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-27.63826|-39.42015|<0.001
91009631|NCT02055976|181902660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-43.8568|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.00531|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.82617|-37.88744|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-37.88744|-49.82617|<0.001
91009632|NCT02055976|181902660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-46.36865|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.03981|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.40589|-40.33142|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-40.33142|-52.40589|<0.001
91009633|NCT02055976|181902660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-38.06019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1361|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.29176|-31.82863|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-31.82863|-44.29176|<0.001
91009634|NCT02055976|181902660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-48.57807|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1135|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.76397|-42.39217|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-42.39217|-54.76397|<0.001
91009635|NCT02055976|181902660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-51.87214|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.09363|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.01968|-45.7246|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113:Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-45.72460|-58.01968|<0.001
91009636|NCT02055976|181902662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.33157|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02639|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38399|-0.27916|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-0.27916|-0.38399|<0.001
91009637|NCT02055976|181902662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.44402|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02682|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49727|-0.39077|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-0.39077|-0.49727|<0.001
91009638|NCT02055976|181902662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.48314|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02698|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53671|-0.42956|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-0.42956|-0.53671|<0.001
91009639|NCT02055976|181902662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.30542|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0323|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3696|-0.24124|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-0.24124|-0.36960|<0.001
91009640|NCT02055976|181902662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.44143|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03183|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.50466|-0.37821|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-0.37821|-0.50466|<0.001
91009641|NCT02055976|181902662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.46235|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03148|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52491|-0.3998|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-0.39980|-0.52491|<0.001
91051488|NCT04709835|181988659|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Positivity|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.16|10.16|||||Confidence interval estimated with the Farrington-Manning method.|Day 3||10.16|-0.16|
91009642|NCT02055976|181902662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.26949|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02615|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32142|-0.21755|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-0.21755|-0.32142|<0.001
91051489|NCT04709835|181988659|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Positivity|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-9.2|5.41|||||Confidence interval estimated with the Farrington-Manning method.|Day 3||5.41|-9.20|
91009643|NCT02055976|181902662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.37493|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02649|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42754|-0.32231|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-0.32231|-0.42754|<0.001
91009644|NCT02055976|181902662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.41199|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02676|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46512|-0.35886|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-0.35886|-0.46512|<0.001
91009645|NCT02055976|181902662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.31806|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02979|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37723|-0.25888|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-0.25888|-0.37723|<0.001
91009646|NCT02055976|181902662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.42583|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02932|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48409|-0.36758|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-0.36758|-0.48409|<0.001
91009647|NCT02055976|181902662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.45501|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02912|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51287|-0.39715|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-0.39715|-0.51287|<0.001
91009648|NCT02055976|181902663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-49.42411|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.72907|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.83019|-42.01803|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-42.01803|-56.83019|<0.001
91009649|NCT02055976|181902663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-66.63383|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7905|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.16086|-59.10681|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-59.10681|-74.16086|<0.001
91009650|NCT02055976|181902663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-71.72901|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.81541|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-79.30431|-64.15371|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-64.15371|-79.30431|<0.001
91009651|NCT02055976|181902663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-43.56596|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.92236|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.35899|-35.77293|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-35.77293|-51.35899|<0.001
91009652|NCT02055976|181902663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-62.34926|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.86432|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.02607|-54.67245|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-54.67245|-70.02607|<0.001
91009653|NCT02055976|181902663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-65.06617|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.82052|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.65818|-57.47415|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-57.47415|-72.65818|<0.001
91009654|NCT02055976|181902663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-40.52435|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.66973|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.81299|-33.23571|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-33.23571|-47.81299|<0.001
91009655|NCT02055976|181902663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-56.14495|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.71641|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.52668|-48.76322|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-48.76322|-63.52668|<0.001
91009656|NCT02055976|181902663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-61.5637|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7569|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.0251|-54.1023|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-54.10230|-69.02510|<0.001
91051490|NCT04709835|181988659|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Positivity|5.79|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.82|16.4|||||Confidence interval estimated with the Farrington-Manning method.|Day 5||16.40|-4.82|
91051491|NCT04709835|181988659|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Positivity|-0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-12.4|10.65|||||Confidence interval estimated with the Farrington-Manning method.|Day 5||10.65|-12.40|
91009657|NCT02055976|181902663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-46.34109|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.16385|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.61427|-38.06792|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-38.06792|-54.61427|<0.001
91009658|NCT02055976|181902663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-61.3789|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.09957|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.52338|-53.23443|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-53.23443|-69.52338|<0.001
91009659|NCT02055976|181902663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-64.67274|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.06866|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.75728|-56.5882|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-56.58820|-72.75728|<0.001
91009660|NCT02504424|181902677|OTHER||percent of breasts successfully exchange|100.0|||||ONE_SIDED|||||||||Treatment Success includes all breasts which were exchanged successfully in the Per Protocol Cohort, excluding non-device related failures. The Treatment Success Rate per breast is 100% (80/80). Note: Denominator = 80 (86 implanted breasts - 6 breasts). Failed exchange = 4 breasts (non-device related) \& Missing = 2 breasts (patient non-compliant w/study and withdrew consent after treatment).||||
91009661|NCT02504424|181902677|OTHER||% breasts successfully exchanged|100.0|||||ONE_SIDED|||||||||Sensitivity Analysis (Best / Worst Case): Treatment Success by subject for the Per Protocol cohort includes all failures (excluding non-device related failures). The best case analysis considers success if the subject has at least one breast successfully reconstructed, and the worst case analysis considers it a failure if at least one breast has failed. The treatment success by subject is 100% for both best and worst case analysis.||||
91009662|NCT02504424|181902678|OTHER||% breasts successfully exchanged|95.2|||||ONE_SIDED|||||||||Secondary analysis is repeated including all breasts in the PP cohort (including non-device related failures). The Treatment Success Rate by breast, based on the Per Protocol cohort, including all cause failures, is 95.2% (80/84). One subject (2 breasts) are not included in analysis as subject withdrew from the study prior to exchange of her expanders.||||
91009663|NCT01277666|181902683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5||||0.546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|11.0|||Mantel Haenszel|||comparison of Placebo and GSK1605786A 500 mg once daily||11.0|-6.1|0.546
91009664|NCT01277666|181902683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1||||0.648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|10.7|||Mantel Haenszel|||comparison of Placebo and GSK1605786A 500 mg twice daily||10.7|-6.5|0.648
91009665|NCT01277666|181902684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|4.8|||Mantel Haenszel|||||4.8|-8.8|0.592
91009666|NCT01277666|181902684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4||||0.475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|4.4|||Mantel Haenszel|||||4.4|-9.2|0.475
91051492|NCT04709835|181988659|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Positivity|2.39|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-10.64|15.42|||||Confidence interval estimated with the Farrington-Manning method.|Day 7||15.42|-10.64|
91051493|NCT04709835|181988659|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Positivity|-0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-13.39|12.88|||||Confidence interval estimated with the Farrington-Manning method.|Day 7||12.88|-13.39|
91009667|NCT01277666|181902685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0||||0.415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|10.3|||Mantel Haenszel|||||10.3|-4.4|0.415
91009668|NCT01277666|181902685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.5||||0.354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|10.9|||Mantel Haenszel|||||10.9|-3.9|0.354
91009669|NCT01277666|181902686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|5.2|||Mantel Haenszel|||||5.2|-5.2|0.985
91009670|NCT01277666|181902686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|4.1|||Mantel Haenszel|||||4.1|-6.1|0.709
91009671|NCT01277666|181902687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|10.4|||Mantel Haenszel|||||10.4|-6.5|0.633
91009672|NCT01277666|181902687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|9.0|||Mantel Haenszel|||||9.0|-7.8|0.889
91009673|NCT01277666|181902688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|4.2|||Mantel Haenszel|||||4.2|-8.1|0.541
91009674|NCT01277666|181902688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|3.7|||Mantel Haenszel|||||3.7|-8.5|0.430
91009675|NCT01277666|181902689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.426||0.642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.89|3.64||P-values were obtained from an analysis of covariance model with baseline score as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||3.64|-5.89|0.642
91009676|NCT01277666|181902689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.652||0.898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.55|4.87||P-values were obtained from an analysis of covariance model with baseline score as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||4.87|-5.55|0.898
91009677|NCT01277666|181902689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.467||0.173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|8.21||P-values were obtained from an analysis of covariance model with baseline score as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||8.21|-1.48|0.173
91009678|NCT01277666|181902689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.697||0.493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.45|7.15||P-values were obtained from an analysis of covariance model with baseline score as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||7.15|-3.45|0.493
91051494|NCT04709835|181988671|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.294||0.7351|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.48|0.28|||ANCOVA||A difference in adjusted means of \<0 favors RO7496998 (AT-527).|Day 3||0.28|-0.48|0.7351
91051495|NCT04709835|181988671|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.7524|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.5|0.3|||ANCOVA||A difference in adjusted means of \<0 favors RO7496998 (AT-527).|Day 5||0.30|-0.50|0.7524
91051496|NCT04709835|181988671|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.314||0.8083|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.48|0.33|||ANCOVA||A difference in adjusted means of \<0 favors RO7496998 (AT-527).|Day 7||0.33|-0.48|0.8083
91078716|NCT01370616|182043189|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 95% confidence interval for the estimated difference between the two groups has a lower bound greater than -15%, then ertapenem sodium will be considered at least as effective as piperacillin/tazobactam sodium.|Estimated Difference|-3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|0.0|||||Ertapenem minus Piperacillin/tazobactam. Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by the severity of diabetes foot infection.|||0.0|-8.3|
91078717|NCT01370616|182043190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Difference|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|1.8|||||Ertapenem minus Piperacillin/tazobactam. Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by the severity of diabetes foot infection.|||1.8|-5.5|
91078718|NCT01370616|182043191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Difference|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|2.8|||||Ertapenem minus Piperacillin/tazobactam. Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by the severity of diabetes foot infection.|||2.8|-7.7|
91078719|NCT01370616|182043192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Difference|-4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|3.4|||||Ertapenem minus Piperacillin/tazobactam. Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by the severity of diabetes foot infection.|||3.4|-11.9|
91078720|NCT01370616|182043193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Difference|-4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|3.3|||||Ertapenem minus Piperacillin/tazobactam. Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by the severity of diabetes foot infection.|||3.3|-12.1|
91078721|NCT01370616|182043194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Difference|7.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|15.4|||||Ertapenem minus Piperacillin/tazobactam group. Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method without adjusting strata.|||15.4|-0.9|
91078722|NCT01370616|182043195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Difference|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|3.4|||||Ertapenem minus Piperacillin/tazobactam group. Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method without adjusting strata.|||3.4|-8.5|
91078723|NCT01370616|182043196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Difference|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|5.8|||||Ertapenem minus Piperacillin/tazobactam group. Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method without adjusting strata.|||5.8|-2.0|
91078724|NCT01370616|182043197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Difference|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|1.9|||||Ertapenem minus Piperacillin/tazobactam group. Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method without adjusting strata.|||1.9|-5.7|
91078725|NCT01017601|182043203|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||||0.50
91078726|NCT01017601|182043204|OTHER|||||||0.96|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||||0.96
91078727|NCT01017601|182043205|OTHER|||||||0.54|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.54
91078728|NCT01017601|182043206|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
91078729|NCT00076999|182043207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of TPV OS 2-\<6 yrs versus TPV OS 6-\<12 yrs||||0.02
91078730|NCT00076999|182043207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of TPV OS 12-18 yrs versus TPV SEDDS 12-18 yrs||||0.78
91078731|NCT00076999|182043208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of TPV OS 2-\<6 yrs versus TPV OS 6-\<12 yrs||||0.00
91078732|NCT00076999|182043208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of TPV OS 12-18 yrs versus TPV SEDDS 12-18 yrs||||1.00
91078733|NCT00076999|182043209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of TPV OS 2-\<6 yrs versus TPV OS 6-\<12 yrs||||0.12
91078734|NCT00076999|182043209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of TPV OS 12-18 yrs versus TPV SEDDS 12-18 yrs||||1.00
91078735|NCT00076999|182043210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of TPV OS 2-\<6 yrs versus TPV OS 6-\<12 yrs||||0.12
91078736|NCT00076999|182043210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of TPV OS 12-18 yrs versus TPV SEDDS 12-18 yrs||||1.00
91078737|NCT00076999|182043211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of TPV OS 2-\<6 yrs versus TPV OS 6-\<12 yrs||||0.01
91078738|NCT00076999|182043211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of TPV OS 12-18 yrs versus TPV SEDDS 12-18 yrs||||1.00
91078739|NCT00076999|182043212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of TPV OS 2-\<6 yrs versus TPV OS 6-\<12 yrs||||0.06
91078740|NCT00076999|182043212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of TPV OS 12-18 yrs versus TPV SEDDS 12-18 yrs||||1.00
91078741|NCT00076999|182043213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of TPV OS 2-\<6 yrs versus TPV OS 6-\<12 yrs||||0.60
91078742|NCT00076999|182043213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of TPV OS 12-18 yrs versus TPV SEDDS 12-18 yrs||||1.00
91078743|NCT00076999|182043214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of TPV OS 2-\<6 yrs versus TPV OS 6-\<12 yrs||||0.20
91078744|NCT00076999|182043214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of TPV OS 12-18 yrs versus TPV SEDDS 12-18 yrs||||1.00
91078745|NCT00076999|182043215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of TPV OS 2-\<6 yrs versus TPV OS 6-\<12 yrs||||0.18
91078746|NCT00076999|182043215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of TPV OS 12-18 yrs versus TPV SEDDS 12-18 yrs||||1.00
91078747|NCT00076999|182043217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Comparison of TPV OS 2-\<6 yrs versus TPV OS 6-\<12 yrs||||0.02
91078748|NCT00076999|182043217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Comparison of TPV OS 12-18 yrs versus TPV SEDDS 12-18 yrs||||0.47
91078749|NCT00076999|182043218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Comparison of TPV OS 2-\<6 yrs versus TPV OS 6-\<12 yrs||||0.00
91078750|NCT00076999|182043218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Comparison of TPV OS 12-18 yrs versus TPV SEDDS 12-18 yrs||||0.81
91078751|NCT00076999|182043219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Comparison of TPV OS 2-\<6 yrs versus TPV OS 6-\<12 yrs||||0.00
91078752|NCT00076999|182043219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Comparison of TPV OS 12-18 yrs versus TPV SEDDS 12-18 yrs||||0.69
91078753|NCT00076999|182043221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Comparison of TPV OS 2-\<6 yrs versus TPV OS 6-\<12 yrs||||0.64
91078754|NCT00076999|182043221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Comparison of TPV OS 12-18 yrs versus TPV SEDDS 12-18 yrs||||0.26
91078755|NCT00076999|182043222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Comparison of TPV OS 2-\<6 yrs versus TPV OS 6-\<12 yrs||||0.25
91078756|NCT00076999|182043222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Comparison of TPV OS 12-18 yrs versus TPV SEDDS 12-18 yrs||||0.70
91009679|NCT01657903|181902700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|41.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.42|47.89||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and subject (random effect).|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means for the treatments in comparison to be equal with respect to %RER. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||47.89|34.42|<0.0001
91009680|NCT01657903|181902700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|41.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.51|48.06||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and subject (random effect).|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means for the treatments in comparison to be equal with respect to %RER. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||48.06|34.51|<0.0001
91009681|NCT01657903|181902700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|40.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.06|47.61||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and subject (random effect).|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means for the treatments in comparison to be equal with respect to %RER. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||47.61|34.06|<0.0001
91009682|NCT01657903|181902701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|9.36|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.01|12.72||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and subject (random effect).|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means for the treatments in comparison to be equal with respect to %SMH recovery. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||12.72|6.01|<0.0001
91009683|NCT01657903|181902701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|9.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.07|12.82||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and subject (random effect).|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means for the treatments in comparison to be equal with respect to %SMH recovery. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||12.82|6.07|<0.0001
91009684|NCT01657903|181902701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|11.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.28|15.03||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and subject (random effect).|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means for the treatments in comparison to be equal with respect to %SMH recovery. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||15.03|8.28|<0.0001
91009685|NCT02312934|181902716|OTHER||||||=|0.41||||||All pairwise comparisons were Sidak corrected for multiple comparisons at the p \< 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom were corrected using Greenhouse-Geisser estimates of sphericity (ε = 0.72).||For the Primary Aim (Specific Aim 1), a mixed-models repeated measures ANOVA was used to assess the interaction of treatment group (nicotine, placebo) with time (Visit), using change from baseline PCI FACT-Cog score (Visit 3, Visit 4, and Visit 5) as the dependent measure.||||=0.41
91009686|NCT02312934|181902717|OTHER|||||||0.79||||||All pairwise comparisons were Sidak corrected for multiple comparisons at the p \< 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom were corrected using Greenhouse-Geisser estimates of sphericity (ε = 0.72).||For the Secondary Aim (Specific Aim 2), a mixed-models repeated measures ANOVA was used to assess the interaction of treatment group (nicotine, placebo) with time (Visit), using change from baseline CPT Scores (Visit 3, Visit 4, and Visit 5) as the dependent measure.||||0.79
91009687|NCT03395704|181902726|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||General Linear Model|||||||< 0.0001
91009688|NCT01801189|181902730|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1||||||Threshold for significance was P \<0.05.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.10
91009689|NCT01801189|181902730|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23||||||Threshold for significance \<0.05|t-test, 1 sided|||POD 1||||.23
91009690|NCT01801189|181902730|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31||||||Threshold for significance \<0.05|t-test, 1 sided|||POD 2||||.31
91009691|NCT00498706|181902732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||t value|-2.95||||0.003||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
91009692|NCT00498706|181902733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-square|5.83||||0.02||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.02
91009693|NCT00498706|181902733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-square|7.75||||0.006||95.0|||||Chi-squared||Attrition before week 5 was significantly lower in T-CBT than in face-to-face CBT.|||||.006
91009694|NCT00498706|181902735|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority is established by showing that the true difference between 2 treatment arms is likely to be smaller than a prespecified noninferiority margin that separates clinically important from clinically negligible (acceptable) differences.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.26||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|1.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Longitudinal depression scores were modeled with repeated-measures linear regression models.Time was treated as a categorical variable to account for nonlinear effects of time, and an unstructured covariance matrix was assumed.||1.17|-1.35|0.89
91009695|NCT00498706|181902736|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority is established by showing that the true difference between 2 treatment arms is likely to be smaller than a prespecified noninferiority margin that separates clinically important from clinically negligible (acceptable) differences.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.695||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|2.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Longitudinal depression scores were modeled with repeated-measures linear regression models.Time was treated as a categorical variable to account for nonlinear effects of time, and an unstructured covariance matrix was assumed.||2.76|-0.63|0.22
91078757|NCT00076999|182043223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Comparison of TPV OS 2-\<6 yrs versus TPV OS 6-\<12 yrs||||0.73
91078758|NCT00076999|182043223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Comparison of TPV OS 12-18 yrs versus TPV SEDDS 12-18 yrs||||0.79
91078759|NCT00076999|182043225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Comparison of TPV OS 2-\<6 yrs versus TPV OS 6-\<12 yrs||||0.38
91009696|NCT00772031|181902767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|2.4|||ANCOVA|covariate adjustments: study site, baseline mod-to-sev 28-day headache-rate, topiramate use, medication overuse, and anti-depressive medications use.|Topiramate plus placebo mean reduction minus topiramate plus propranolol reduction|The study was designed to enroll 250 subjects to provide at least 90% power to detect a 3-day difference and 87% power to detect a 2.5-day difference in 28-day moderate-to-severe headache rate reductions at six months, assuming a type I error rate of 0.05, a two-sided test, a 10% loss to follow-up and a standard deviation of within-person change in days with headache of six.||2.4|-1.8|0.77
91009697|NCT00772031|181902768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.78||||||||2.78|0.75|
91009698|NCT00772031|181902769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||||95.0|0.5|2.02||||||||2.02|0.50|
91009699|NCT00772031|181902771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.28|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.75||0.91||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.91
91009700|NCT01101321|181902784|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A mixed-model analysis of variance was used to compare (test vs reference) and the 90% confidence intervals were estimated for the ratios (test/reference)|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.14|104.96|||ANOVA||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80%-125%.|||104.96|96.14|
91009701|NCT01101321|181902785|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A mixed-model analysis of variance was used to compare (test vs reference) and the 90% confidence intervals were estimated for the ratios (test/reference)|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|98.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.44|101.73|||ANOVA||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80%-125%.|||101.73|95.44|
91009702|NCT01101321|181902786|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A mixed-model analysis of variance was used to compare (test vs reference) and the 90% confidence intervals were estimated for the ratios (test/reference)|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|98.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.42|101.7|||ANOVA||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80%-125%.|||101.70|95.42|
91009703|NCT01111058|181902798|SUPERIORITY||Difference in survival proportions|0.0022||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.33|||Comparison of Kaplan-Meier estimates|Used Greenwood standard errors||||0.33|-0.33|0.90
91009704|NCT01111058|181902798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.54
91009705|NCT01111058|181902799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.086|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.086
91051497|NCT03347422|181988686|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|15.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.88|88.04||Threshold for significance was 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Stratified by baseline hemoglobin (\< median versus \>=median) and geographic region (Asia/Other, North America, and Europe).|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when primary outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05 level.||88.04|2.88|<0.001
91009706|NCT01856920|181902807|EQUIVALENCE|Alpha= 0.05||||||0.376|||||||Rank-Sum|||||||0.3760
91009707|NCT02790476|181902809|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.8|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.2|-17.63||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||This measure is a difference-in-difference, calculated by subtracting the pre- and post-intervention difference in mean MME in the letter (288.36-347.65 = -59.29) and control (318.60-350.09 = -31.49) arms, resulting in a difference of -27.80.|1-3 months post intervention||-17.63|-38.20|<0.05
91009708|NCT02790476|181902809|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.42|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.4|-6.55||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||This measure is a difference-in-difference, calculated by subtracting the pre- and post-intervention difference in mean MME in the letter (167.83-347.65 = -179.83) and control (182.67-350.09 = -167.41) arms, resulting in a difference of -12.42.|||-6.55|-18.40|<0.01
91009709|NCT02790476|181902810|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35||||0.224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.22||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||This measure is a difference-in-difference, calculated by subtracting the pre- and post-intervention difference in mean MME in the letter (3.45-3.74 = -0.29) and control (3.45-4.59= -0.64) arms, resulting in a difference of -0.35.|Change in mean number of =\> 50 MME prescriptions pre- to 1-3 months post-intervention||0.22|-0.92|0.224
91009710|NCT02790476|181902810|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.33||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||This measure is a difference-in-difference, calculated by subtracting the pre- and post-intervention difference in mean MME in the letter (3.00-3.74 = -0.74) and control (3.15-4.59= -1.44) arms, resulting in a difference of -0.70.|Change in mean number of =\> 50 MME prescriptions pre- to 4-12 months post-intervention||-0.33|-1.08|<0.001
91009711|NCT02790476|181902810|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21||||0.279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.17||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||This measure is a difference-in-difference, calculated by subtracting the pre- and post-intervention difference in mean MME in the letter (2.00-2.14 = -0.14) and control (2.20-2.55= -0.35) arms, resulting in a difference of -0.21.|Change in mean number of \> 90 MME prescriptions pre- to 1-3 months post-intervention||0.17|-0.59|0.279
91009712|NCT02790476|181902810|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.12||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||This measure is a difference-in-difference, calculated by subtracting the pre- and post-intervention difference in mean MME in the letter (1.71-2.14 = -0.43) and control (1.74-2.55= -0.81) arms, resulting in a difference of -0.38.|Change in mean number of \> 90 MME prescriptions pre- to 4-12 months post-intervention||-0.12|-0.63|<0.01
91009713|NCT02790476|181902811|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-0.1||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Pre-intervention values were trimmed at 95% with bootstrapped means and confidence intervals.|This measure is a difference-in-difference, calculated by subtracting the pre- and post-intervention difference in mean DME in the letter (72.3-76 = -3.7) and control (82-82.9 = -0.9) arms, resulting in a difference of -1.6.|||-0.1|-3.2|<0.05
91009714|NCT02790476|181902813|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.29||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||This measure is a difference-in-difference, calculated by subtracting the pre- and post-intervention difference in mean MME in the letter (2.44-3.72 = -1.28) and control (2.26-3.51= -1.25) arms, resulting in a difference of 0.03.|Change in mean number of new patients pre- to 1-3 months post-intervention||0.29|-0.23|0.823
91009715|NCT02790476|181902813|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.14||The threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||This measure is a difference-in-difference, calculated by subtracting the pre- and post-intervention difference in mean MME in the letter (2.08-3.72 = -1.64) and control (1.84-3.51= -1.67) arms, resulting in a difference of -0.03.|Change in mean number of new patients pre- to 4-12 months post-intervention||0.14|-0.20|0.692
91009716|NCT03287089|181902847|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|2.43|||Chi-squared|||||2.43|0.49|0.84
91009717|NCT03287089|181902848|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.44
91009718|NCT03287089|181902849|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.68
91009719|NCT01729559|181902850|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A 10% noninferiority margin was selected based on a previous trial showing a difference in the incidence of DVT of 13% with the use of 30 mg of enoxaparin every 12 hours compared to 5,000 U of unfractionated heparin (UFH) every 12 hr. To achieve 90% power using an a priori margin of 10% with a one-sided alpha of 0.025, a total of 182 patients (91 in each arm) was required.|Risk Difference (RD)|6.5||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|15.8||One-tailed test of the cumulative VTE incidence between treatment groups.|Chi-squared, Corrected||Unadjusted cumulative incidence values between the two treatment groups were subtracted to calculate the risk difference for VTE between groups. This difference was compared to the a priori 10% margin of difference using the 95% confidence interval.|Analysis was performed in a subset of patients who received at least one follow-up venous duplex ultrasound of the lower extremities.||15.8|-2.9|0.025
91009720|NCT01729559|181902850|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A 10% noninferiority margin was selected based on these data showing a difference in the incidence of DVT of 13% with the use of 30 mg of enoxaparin every 12 hours compared to 5,000 U of UFH every 12 hours. To achieve 90% power using an a priori margin of 10% with a one-sided alpha of 0.025, a total of 182 patients (91 in each arm) was required. This analysis was performed in the entire sample.|Risk Difference (RD)|3.1||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|7.7||One-tailed test of the cumulative VTE incidence between treatment groups.|Chi-squared, Corrected||Unadjusted cumulative incidence values between the two treatment groups were subtracted to calculate the risk difference for VTE between groups. This difference was compared to the a priori 10% margin of difference using the 95% confidence interval.|"Analysis was performed in the total sample of eligible patients and who received their assigned treatment (referred to as the randomized treated sample) ."||7.7|-1.6|0.025
91009721|NCT01453439|181902868|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.4602|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1249|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||Degrees of freedom=90.9|Mixed Models Analysis|Effect of interest: time by group interaction|The estimated value describes the mean slope difference of CBT compared to SPT.|"We compared the difference in the rate of change in BDD symptom severity over time (during treatment phase) between the randomized treatment groups (CBT vs. SPT) using a latent growth curve model that included terms for treatment group, time, site, and all their interactions, modeling intercepts and slopes as random effects per person.~Null hypothesis: The rate of change in BDD symptom severity in the CBT group will not be significantly different from the SPT group \[to be tested\]."||||<.01
91009722|NCT01453439|181902868|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.00984|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1038||0.62|TWO_SIDED|||||Degrees of freedom=74.7|Mixed Models Analysis|The effect of interest was the time by group interaction.|The estimated value describes the mean slope difference of CBT compared to SPT during follow-up (week 24 to week 50).|"We compared the difference in the rate of change in BDD symptom severity over time (during the follow-up phase) between the randomized treatment groups (CBT vs. SPT) using a latent growth curve model that included terms for treatment group, time, site, and all their interactions, modeling intercepts and slopes as random effects per person.~Null hypothesis: The rate of change in BDD symptom severity during follow-up will not differ significantly between CBT and SPT treatments \[to be tested\]."||||.62
91009723|NCT01453439|181902869|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1||||||Degrees of freedom=93.2|Mixed Models Analysis|||"We compared the change in Patient Insight over time (During Treatment phase) by randomized treatment group (CBT vs. SPT) using a latent growth curve model that included terms for treatment group, time, site, and all their interactions, modeling intercepts and slopes as random effects per person.~Null hypothesis: The rate of improvement in insight in the CBT group will not be significantly different from the SPT group \[to be tested\]."||||.10
91009724|NCT01453439|181902869|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45||||||Degrees of freedom=74.5|Mixed Models Analysis|||"We compared the change in Patient Insight over time (during the follow-up phase), by randomized treatment group (CBT vs. SPT) using a latent growth curve model that included terms for treatment group, time, site, and all their interactions, modeling intercepts and slopes as random effects per person.~Null hypothesis: The rate of improvement in insight in the CBT group will not be significantly different from the SPT group during follow-up \[to be tested\]."||||.45
91009725|NCT01453439|181902870|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||Degrees of freedom=89.1|Mixed Models Analysis|||"We compared the change in depressive symptoms over time (During Treatment phase) by randomized treatment group (CBT vs. SPT) using a latent growth curve model that included terms for treatment group, time, site, and all their interactions, modeling intercepts and slopes as random effects per person.~Null hypothesis: The rate of improvement in depressive symptoms in the CBT group will not be significantly different from the SPT group \[to be tested\]."||||.05
91009726|NCT01453439|181902870|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26||||||Degrees of freedom=63.7|Mixed Models Analysis|||"We compared the change in depressive symptoms over time (during the follow-up phase), by randomized treatment group (CBT vs. SPT) using a latent growth curve model that included terms for treatment group, time, site, and all their interactions, modeling intercepts and slopes as random effects per person.~Null hypothesis: The rate of change in depressive symptoms in the CBT group will not be significantly different from the SPT group during follow-up \[to be tested\]."||||.26
91009727|NCT01453439|181902871|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||Degrees of freedom=91.4|Mixed Models Analysis|||"We compared the change in Quality of life satisfaction over time (During treatment phase) by randomized treatment group (CBT vs. SPT) using a latent growth curve model that included terms for treatment group, time, site, and all their interactions, modeling intercepts and slopes as random effects per person.~Null hypothesis: The rate of change in Quality of life satisfaction severity in the CBT group will not be significantly different from the SPT group \[to be tested\]."||||.04
91078760|NCT00076999|182043225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Comparison of TPV OS 12-18 yrs versus TPV SEDDS 12-18 yrs||||0.20
91078761|NCT00076999|182043226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Comparison of TPV OS 2-\<6 yrs versus TPV OS 6-\<12 yrs||||0.08
91009728|NCT01453439|181902871|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82||||||Degrees of freedom=74.7|Mixed Models Analysis|||"We compared the change in the quality of life satisfaction over time (during the follow-up phase), by randomized treatment group (CBT vs. SPT) using a latent growth curve model that included terms for treatment group, time, site, and all their interactions, modeling intercepts and slopes as random effects per person.~Null hypothesis: The rate of change in the quality of life satisfaction in the CBT group will not be significantly different from the SPT group during follow-up \[to be tested\]."||||.82
91009729|NCT01453439|181902872|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.7937|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3007||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|||||Effect of interest: Treatment main effect, two-sided alpha = 0.05 effect adjusted for site effects, time effects, and interactions|ANOVA|repeated measures 3-way ANOVA (treatment type, site, time (repeated)) Effect of interest: main effect of treatment: F(num df=1, den df=112) = 5.17|Least Squares Means difference|Null hypothesis: There is no significant different in the perceived credibility of CBT and SPT.||||0.0095
91009730|NCT01453439|181902876|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3||||||Degrees of freedom=88.0|Mixed Models Analysis|||"We compared the change in social functioning over time (During Treatment phase) by randomized treatment group (CBT vs. SPT) using a latent growth curve model that included terms for treatment group, time, site, and all their interactions, modeling intercepts, and slopes as random effects per person.~Null hypothesis: The rate of improvement in social functioning in the CBT group will not be significantly different from the SPT group \[to be tested\]."||||.30
91009731|NCT01453439|181902876|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85||||||Degrees of freedom=74.5|Mixed Models Analysis|||"We compared the change in social functioning over time (during the follow-up phase), by randomized treatment group (CBT vs. SPT) using a latent growth curve model that included terms for treatment group, time, site, and all their interactions, modeling intercepts and slopes as random effects per person.~Null hypothesis: The rate of improvement in social functioning CBT group will not be significantly different from the SPT group during follow-up \[to be tested\]."||||.85
91009732|NCT01453439|181902877|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.5867|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6882||0.0235|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori significance level: 2-sided alpha = 0.05 effect adjusted for site effects, time effects, and interactions|ANOVA|repeated measures 3-way ANOVA (treatment type, site, time (repeated)) Effect of interest: main effect of treatment - F(num def=1,den df=79.9) = 15.55|Least Squares Means difference|Null hypothesis: There is no significant difference in treatment satisfaction between patients with BDD assigned to CBT vs. SPT.||||0.0235
91009733|NCT01453439|181902878|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|9.439|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4259||0.0069|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori significance level: 2-sided alpha=0.05 effect adjusted for site effects, time effects, and interactions|ANOVA|repeated measures 3-way ANOVA (treatment group, site, time (repeated)) effect of interest: main effect of treatment: F(num df=1, den df=110) = 7.59|Least Squares Mean difference|Null hypotheses: There is no significant difference in patient expectancy of improvement between BDD patients assigned to CBT vs. SPT.||||0.0069
91009734|NCT01014442|181902879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|1.305||||0.2649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|4.25|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Cmax of MPA at Day 4. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||4.2500|-0.8300|0.2649
91009735|NCT01014442|181902879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|11.405||||0.3113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|42.78|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Cmax of MPAG at Day 4. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||42.7800|-10.2000|0.3113
91009736|NCT01014442|181902879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.305||||0.2953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.19|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Cmax of AcMPAG at Day 4. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.1900|-0.8100|0.2953
91009737|NCT01014442|181902880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-1.29||||0.1308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.99|0.41|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Cmax of MPA at Day 8. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.4100|-2.9900|0.1308
91009738|NCT01014442|181902880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-10.845||||0.4886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.5|20.79|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Cmax of MPAG at Day 8. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||20.7900|-31.5000|0.4886
91009739|NCT01014442|181902880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.2||||0.2218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.19|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Cmax of AcMPAG at Day 8. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.1900|-0.6000|0.2218
91009740|NCT01014442|181902881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-1.87||||0.0886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.79|0.28|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Cmax of MPA at Day 20. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.2800|-3.7900|0.0886
91078762|NCT00076999|182043226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Comparison of TPV OS 12-18 yrs versus TPV SEDDS 12-18 yrs||||0.36
90890167|NCT01059565|181644244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean (LSM)|0.91||||0.663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.24|5.06||"To correct for multiplicity, a family alpha spending rule was used to control the type 1 error rate of alpha=0.05.~A gate-keeping procedure to control family-wise Type 1 error was established a priori for primary and key secondary endpoints."|ANCOVA|Baseline was included as a covariate in this model.||"The primary analysis was a test for superiority. Null hypothesis was no difference between the AZLI and placebo treatment groups versus the alternative hypothesis that there was a difference.~A sample size of 50 participants per group provided at least 80% power to detect an 8.5% difference in mean AUCave of relative change from baseline in FEV1 % predicted through Week 24 using a two-sided 0.05-level test, assuming a common standard deviation of 15."||5.06|-3.24|0.663
91051498|NCT03347422|181988688|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.408|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.75|3.38||Threshold of significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed model for repeated measures|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05 level.||3.38|1.75|<0.001
91078763|NCT00076999|182043227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Comparison of TPV OS 2-\<6 yrs versus TPV OS 6-\<12 yrs||||0.23
91078764|NCT00076999|182043227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Comparison of TPV OS 12-18 yrs versus TPV SEDDS 12-18 yrs||||0.23
91078765|NCT04964986|182043235|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.041|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.041
91009741|NCT01014442|181902881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-30.76||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.97|-6.36|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Cmax of MPAG at Day 20. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||-6.3600|-54.9700|0.0220
91009742|NCT01014442|181902881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.56||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.27|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Cmax of AcMPAG at Day 20. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||-0.2700|-1.0200|0.0008
91009743|NCT01014442|181902882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|3.945||||0.0318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|8.23|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Cmax of MPA at Day 90. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||8.2300|0.2500|0.0318
91009744|NCT01014442|181902882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-7.59||||0.7144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.19|30.7|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Cmax of MPAG at Day 90. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||30.7000|-51.1900|0.7144
91009745|NCT01014442|181902882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|0.27||||0.393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.88|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Cmax of AcMPA at Day 90. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.8800|-0.3100|0.3930
90890168|NCT01059565|181644245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4158||||||To correct for multiplicity, a family alpha spending rule was used to control the type 1 error rate of alpha=0.05.|Negative binomial regression|The negative binomial regression model included an offset parameter which accounted for potential differing study durations due to discontinuations.||The primary analysis was a test for superiority. Null hypothesis was no difference between the AZLI and placebo treatment groups versus the alternative hypothesis that there was a difference.||||0.4158
91051499|NCT03347422|181988689|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|8.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.45|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|13.85||Threshold of significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed model for repeated measures|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05 level.||13.85|4.00|<0.001
90890169|NCT01059565|181644246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|0.18||||0.939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.43|1.78||To correct for multiplicity, a family alpha spending rule was used to control the type 1 error rate of alpha=0.05.|ANCOVA|The AUCs of changes from baseline were compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA methods with baseline value as a covariate.||Null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the AZLI and placebo treatment groups versus the alternative hypothesis that there was a difference.||1.78|-4.43|0.939
90890170|NCT01059565|181644247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|0.77||||0.711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.33|4.86|||ANCOVA|The AUCs of changes from baseline were compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA methods with baseline value as a covariate.||Null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the AZLI and placebo treatment groups versus the alternative hypothesis that there was a difference.||4.86|-3.33|0.711
91051500|NCT01383135|181988755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.034||||||GraphPad (GraphPad Software, San Diego, Calif) was used for the paired two-sample t test and was performed to compare SUVmax values. P \< .05 was considered to indicate a significant difference|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison made between baseline tumor values and tumor values 6-weeks post-bevacizumab therapy||||.034
91051501|NCT01971970|181988788|EQUIVALENCE|The number of genes with a 1.5 fold change (FDR value ≤ 0.05; paired t-test) from week 0 to week 8 were assessed for pediatric IBD or adult IBD patients.|||||<|0.05|||||||Paired t-test,FDR 1.5fold,FDRvalue≤ 0.05|||The number of genes with a 1.5 fold change (FDR value ≤ 0.05; paired t-test) from week 0 to week 8 were assessed for pediatric IBD or adult IBD patients.||||< 0.05
91078766|NCT04964986|182043237|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||paired t-test|||Week 24||||<0.001
91078767|NCT04964986|182043237|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||paired t-test|||Week 52||||<0.001
91078768|NCT04964986|182043241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||paired t-test|||Week 24||||0.002
91078769|NCT04964986|182043241|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||paired t-test|||Week 52||||<0.001
91009746|NCT01014442|181902883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|17.08||||0.3002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|74.32|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Cmax of Free MPA at Day 4. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||74.3200|-16.5000|0.3002
91009747|NCT01014442|181902884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-25.24||||0.0334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.25|-2.29|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Cmax of Free MPA at Day 8. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||-2.2900|-53.2500|0.0334
91009748|NCT01014442|181902885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-23.805||||0.1151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.27|5.97|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Cmax of Free MPA at Day 20. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||5.9700|-52.2700|0.1151
91009749|NCT01014442|181902886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-15.63||||0.5974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.88|30.56|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Cmax of Free MPA at Day 90. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||30.5600|-63.8800|0.5974
91009750|NCT01014442|181902887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|0.0005||||0.5466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00103|0.00259|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dose-Normalized Cmax of MPA at Day 4. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.00259|-0.00103|0.5466
91009751|NCT01014442|181902887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|0.00728||||0.3223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00707|0.03161|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dose-Normalized Cmax of MPAG at Day 4. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.03161|-0.00707|0.3223
91009752|NCT01014442|181902887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.00026||||0.2108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0007|0.00012|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dose-Normalized Cmax of AcMPAG at Day 4. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.00012|-0.00070|0.2108
91009753|NCT01014442|181902887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|0.0000112||||0.4334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.000014|0.0000462|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dose-Normalized Cmax of Free MPA at Day 4. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called a Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.0000462|-0.0000140|0.4334
91009754|NCT01014442|181902888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.00081||||0.1511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00216|0.0003|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dose-Normalized Cmax of MPA at Day 8. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.00030|-0.00216|0.1511
91009755|NCT01014442|181902888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.00695||||0.4131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0205|0.01103|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dose-Normalized Cmax of MPAG at Day 8. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.01103|-0.02050|0.4131
91009756|NCT01014442|181902888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.00017||||0.2677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00046|0.00013|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dose-Normalized Cmax of AcMPAG at Day 8. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.00013|-0.00046|0.2677
91009757|NCT01014442|181902888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.0000185||||0.0173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0000394|-0.000005|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dose-Normalized Cmax of Free MPA at Day 8. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||-0.0000050|-0.0000394|0.0173
91051502|NCT01971970|181988789|OTHER|||||||0.2616||||||Kaplan-Meier curve comparing the percentage of children and adults on continued anti-TNF therapy over the course of study duration|gehan-breslow-wilcoxon test|||Kaplan-Meier curves were produced by dividing the population in the following groups i) paediatric versus adult patients.These groups were used to statistically compare the proportions of patients over time regarding continued anti-TNF therapy, reflecting maintenance of response at 12 and 18 months.||||0.2616
91009758|NCT01014442|181902889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.00063||||0.3784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0023|0.00084|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dose-Normalized Cmax of MPA at Day 20. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.00084|-0.00230|0.3784
91009759|NCT01014442|181902889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.01602||||0.0942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03229|0.00297|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dose-Normalized Cmax of MPAG at Day 20. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.00297|-0.03229|0.0942
91078770|NCT04964986|182043243|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.294|||||||paired t-test|||Fat absorption increase at Week 4||||0.294
90890171|NCT01059565|181644248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|0.6||||0.762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|4.49|||ANCOVA|The AUCs of changes from baseline were compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA methods with baseline value as a covariate.||Null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the AZLI and placebo treatment groups versus the alternative hypothesis that there was a difference.||4.49|-3.30|0.762
91009760|NCT01014442|181902889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.00037||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00062|-0.00015|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dose-Normalized Cmax of AcMPAG at Day 20. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||-0.00015|-0.00062|0.0032
91009761|NCT01014442|181902889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.0000126||||0.176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0000328|-0.0000091|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dose-Normalized Cmax of Free MPA at Day 20. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||-0.0000091|-0.0000328|0.1760
91009762|NCT01014442|181902890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|0.0043||||0.0509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00027|0.00833|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dose-Normalized Cmax of MPA at Day 90. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.00833|-0.00027|0.0509
91009763|NCT01014442|181902890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.00567||||0.8262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03414|0.02671|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dose-Normalized Cmax of MPAG at Day 90. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.02671|-0.03414|0.8262
91009764|NCT01014442|181902890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|0.00023||||0.4345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0003|0.0007|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dose-Normalized Cmax of AcMPAG at Day 90. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.00070|-0.00030|0.4345
91009765|NCT01014442|181902890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.00001||||0.6472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0000586|0.0000364|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dose-Normalized Cmax of Free MPA at Day 90. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.0000364|-0.0000586|0.6472
91009766|NCT01014442|181902891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.0333||||0.5745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|0.5|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Tmax of MPA at Day 4. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.5000|-1.9500|0.5745
91009767|NCT01014442|181902891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-1.8||||0.2003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3333|0.0833|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Tmax of MPAG at Day 4. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.0833|-2.3333|0.2003
91009768|NCT01014442|181902891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.5||||0.0929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0833|0.0|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Tmax of AcMPA at Day 4. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.0000|-2.0833|0.0929
91009769|NCT01014442|181902891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|0.0||||0.0823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0667|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Tmax of Free MPA at Day 4. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.0667|0.0000|0.0823
91009770|NCT01014442|181902892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|0.0417||||0.8106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.7333|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Tmax of MPA at Day 8. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||1.7333|-0.5000|0.8106
91009771|NCT01014442|181902892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1667|0.1667|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Tmax of MPAG at Day 8. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.1667|-0.1667|1.0000
91009772|NCT01014442|181902892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|0.0667||||0.6311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3333|1.4667|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Tmax of AcMPAG at Day 8. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||1.4667|-0.3333|0.6311
91009773|NCT01014442|181902892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|0.0||||0.433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1667|0.0167|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Tmax of Free MPA at Day 8. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.0167|-0.1667|0.4330
91009774|NCT01014442|181902893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1667|0.5833|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Tmax of MPA at Day 20. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.5833|-1.1667|1.0000
91078771|NCT04964986|182043243|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.155|||||||paired t-test|||Fat absorption increase at Week 48||||0.155
91078772|NCT04964986|182043243|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||paired t-test|||Carbohydrate absorption at Week 4||||0.260
91078773|NCT04964986|182043243|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024|||||||paired t-test|||Carbohydrate absorption at Week 48||||0.024
91078774|NCT04964986|182043243|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.096|||||||paired t-test|||Protein absorption at Week 4||||0.096
91078775|NCT04964986|182043243|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.075|||||||paired t-test|||Protein absorption at Week 48||||0.075
91051503|NCT01971970|181988790|OTHER|||||||0.0177||||||Kaplan-Meier curve comparing the percentage of children and adults with therapy intensification over the course of study duration|gehan-breslow-wilcoxon test|||Kaplan-Meier curves were produced by dividing the population in the following groups i) paediatric versus adult patients.These groups were used to statistically compare the proportions of patients over time regarding the escalation of anti-TNF therapy (dose increase above 5 mg/kg and/or interval shortening to less than 8 weeks)||||0.0177
91077783|NCT02913105|182041130|OTHER|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.144|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.472||0.7607|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.927|0.639|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 42||0.639|-0.927|0.7607
91078776|NCT04964986|182043244|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.063|||||||paired t-test|||Week 4||||0.063
91077784|NCT02913105|182041130|OTHER|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.228|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.487||0.6406|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.037|0.581|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 56||0.581|-1.037|0.6406
91078777|NCT04964986|182043244|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.112|||||||paired t-test|||Week 48||||0.112
91078778|NCT04964986|182043245|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.306|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.306
91078779|NCT04964986|182043246|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.3346||||0.704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7887|0.8748|||paired t-test||Based on one-sample (paired) Hodges-Lehmann median estimator for non-parametric estimate of change from baseline.|Calcium, Week 4||0.8748|-0.7887|0.704
90890172|NCT01059565|181644249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|1.95||||0.553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.54|8.44|||ANCOVA|The AUCs of changes from baseline were compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA methods with baseline value as a covariate.||Null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the AZLI and placebo treatment groups versus the alternative hypothesis that there was a difference.||8.44|-4.54|0.553
91009775|NCT01014442|181902893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.0833||||0.4947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.0833|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Tmax of MPAG at Day 20. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.0833|-2.0000|0.4947
91009776|NCT01014442|181902893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.1667||||0.4425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9667|0.2|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Tmax of AcMPAG at Day 20. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.2000|-1.9667|0.4425
91078780|NCT04964986|182043246|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.104||||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7442|0.8896|||paired t-test||Based on one-sample (paired) Hodges-Lehmann median estimator for non-parametric estimate of change from baseline.|Calcium, Week 48||0.8896|-2.7442|0.488
91078781|NCT04964986|182043246|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.219||||0.382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.896|0.313|||paired t-test||Based on one-sample (paired) Hodges-Lehmann median estimator for non-parametric estimate of change from baseline.|Magnesium, Week 4||0.313|-0.896|0.382
91078782|NCT04964986|182043246|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.566||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.279|-0.165|||paired t-test||Based on one-sample (paired) Hodges-Lehmann median estimator for non-parametric estimate of change from baseline.|Magnesium, Week 48||-0.165|-5.279|0.059
91078783|NCT04964986|182043246|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|33.116||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.51|51.861|||paired t-test||Based on one-sample (paired) Hodges-Lehmann median estimator for non-parametric estimate of change from baseline.|Sodium, Week 4||51.861|5.510|0.004
91078784|NCT04964986|182043246|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|20.727||||0.337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.758|55.828|||paired t-test||Based on one-sample (paired) Hodges-Lehmann median estimator for non-parametric estimate of change from baseline.|Sodium, Week 48||55.828|-27.758|0.337
91078785|NCT04964986|182043246|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.618||||0.724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.87|14.931|||paired t-test||Based on one-sample (paired) Hodges-Lehmann median estimator for non-parametric estimate of change from baseline.|Potassium, Week 4||14.931|-11.870|0.724
91078786|NCT04964986|182043246|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-9.19||||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.88|3.737|||paired t-test||Based on one-sample (paired) Hodges-Lehmann median estimator for non-parametric estimate of change from baseline.|Potassium, Week 48||3.737|-18.880|0.115
91078787|NCT04964986|182043246|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|12.297||||0.707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.551|52.617|||paired t-test||Based on one-sample (paired) Hodges-Lehmann median estimator for non-parametric estimate of change from baseline.|Urea, Week 4||52.617|-39.551|0.707
91078788|NCT04964986|182043246|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-91.487||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-159.956|-20.068|||paired t-test||Based on one-sample (paired) Hodges-Lehmann median estimator for non-parametric estimate of change from baseline.|Urea, Week 48||-20.068|-159.956|0.009
91078789|NCT04964986|182043246|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.281||||0.572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.649|0.96|||paired t-test||Based on one-sample (paired) Hodges-Lehmann median estimator for non-parametric estimate of change from baseline.|Creatinine, Week 4||0.960|-0.649|0.572
91078790|NCT04964986|182043246|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.136||||0.981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|1.073|||paired t-test||Based on one-sample (paired) Hodges-Lehmann median estimator for non-parametric estimate of change from baseline.|Creatinine, Week 48||1.073|-1.060|0.981
91078791|NCT04964986|182043247|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.066|||||||paired t-test|||Week 24||||0.066
91078792|NCT04964986|182043247|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015|||||||paired t-test|||Week 52||||0.015
91078793|NCT00803205|182043254|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3264|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.3264
91078794|NCT00803205|182043255|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.754|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.78124||0.1235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.756|6.264||The p-value is the LS-mean for the comparison between active treatment and placebo. The level of significance was 0.04998.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Least squares (LS) mean estimates based on mixed model for repeated measures (Weeks 8, 16, 24, 32, 40 and 48) of relative change in percent-predicted FEV1 as the dependent variable; independent variables including Baseline percent-predicted FEV1, treatment, visit, interactions between treatment and visit and between Baseline percent-predicted FEV1 and visit; and stratification factors of Baseline age, Baseline inhaled antibiotics, and Baseline percent-predicted FEV1.||6.2640|-0.7560|0.1235
91078795|NCT01432561|182043286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||ANOVA|||High-fat/calorie compared to fasted condition||||.04
91078796|NCT01432561|182043286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0|||||ANOVA|||High-protein compared to fasted condition||||.005
91078797|NCT01432561|182043287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16||95.0|||||ANOVA|||High-fat/calorie compared to fasted condition||||.16
91078798|NCT01432561|182043287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036||95.0|||||ANOVA|||High-protein compared to fasted condition||||.036
91078799|NCT01432561|182043288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3||95.0|||||Non-parametric Hodges-Lehmann method|||Fed high-fat/calorie compared to fasted condition.||||.30
91078800|NCT01432561|182043288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||Non-parametric Hodges-Lehmann method|||High-protein compared to fasted condition||||.05
91078801|NCT02638259|182043295|EQUIVALENCE|A margin of 0.6 can be statistically and clinically justified based on the results Keystone et al, Arthritis and Rheumatism, p353-363, (2004) and on the EULAR response criteria. The sample size of 155 per group with 90% power is based on the common SD of 1.46 and was calculated using nQuery 7.0.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.097|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.12||||||Therapeutic equivalence in terms of change from baseline in DAS28-CRP at week 24 will be concluded if the 95% confidence interval for the LS mean difference between GP2015 and Enbrel is contained within the interval \[-0.6; 0.6\]. A mixed-model repeated measures analysis was performed for DAS28-CRP change from baseline including treatment, stratification factors, time, the interaction between time (visits) and treatment all as categorical variables, and baseline DAS28-CRP as a continuous variable.||0.12|-0.26|
91079036|NCT03743402|182043700|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is a point null of exactly 0 expected difference in PSEQ score between arms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.11||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.83|18.04|||Regression, Linear||mean difference = (pain self-management) - (usual care)|||18.04|-13.83|0.80
91009777|NCT01014442|181902893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|0.0||||0.972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.0333|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Tmax of Free MPA at Day 20. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.0333|-0.0500|0.9720
91009778|NCT01014442|181902894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.0333||||0.8834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1667|0.7|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Tmax of MPA at Day 90. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.7000|-1.1667|0.8834
91009779|NCT01014442|181902894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-1.8333||||0.0386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.0|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Tmax of MPAG at Day 90. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.0000|-2.2000|0.0386
91009780|NCT01014442|181902894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.525||||0.0558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6167|0.0|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Tmax of AcMPAG at Day 90. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.0000|-2.6167|0.0558
91009781|NCT01014442|181902894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.15||||0.0082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2333|-0.0667|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Tmax of Free MPA at Day 90. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||-0.0667|-0.2333|0.0082
90890173|NCT01059565|181644250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|2.99||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|7.28|||ANCOVA|Baseline was included as a covariate in this model.||Null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the AZLI and placebo treatment groups versus the alternative hypothesis that there was a difference.||7.28|-1.20|0.170
91009782|NCT01014442|181902895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|0.13||||0.5224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.5|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Cmin of MPA at Day 4. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.5000|-0.2600|0.5224
90890174|NCT01059565|181644251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|-2.57||||0.528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.62|5.49|||ANCOVA|Baseline was included as a covariate in this model.||Null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the AZLI and placebo treatment groups versus the alternative hypothesis that there was a difference.||5.49|-10.62|0.528
91051504|NCT01831765|181988792|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment was done by comparing the difference of faster aspart vs. NovoRapid®/NovoLog® in change from baseline in HbA1c after 26 weeks of randomised treatment to a non-inferiority limit of 0.4%.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|-0.07||||||Change from baseline in HbA1c analysed using a mixed effect model for repeated measurements including visit 14, 18, 22, 26, 30, 34 and 36. The model included treatment, region and strata (combination of bolus adjusting method, basal treatment regimen and continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and frequently sampled meal test subgroup) as fixed effects, subject as random effect, baseline HbA1c as covariate and interaction between all fixed effects and visit, and between the covariate and visit.||-0.07|-0.23|
91078824|NCT00824434|182043410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean In-stent Late Loss in WH Lesions|0.17|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.22|||t-test, 1 sided|||The Student t-test was used to compare the outcome to a prespecified performance goal of 0.44 mm based on an historical TAXUS Express workhorse 9-month in-stent late loss (0.41 mm) value plus delta (0.03 mm)||0.22||<0.0001
91077785|NCT02913105|182041130|OTHER|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.158|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.685||0.8185|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.294|0.979|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 84||0.979|-1.294|0.8185
91077786|NCT02913105|182041130|OTHER|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.214|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.766||0.7804|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.485|1.057|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 112 (EOS)||1.057|-1.485|0.7804
91009783|NCT01014442|181902895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|11.16||||0.2088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.29|30.29|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Cmin of MPAG at Day 4. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||30.2900|-5.2900|0.2088
91009784|NCT01014442|181902895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.165||||0.1794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.08|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Cmin of AcMPAG at Day 4. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.0800|-0.4500|0.1794
91009785|NCT01014442|181902896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.125||||0.4027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.19|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Cmin of MPA at Day 8. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.1900|-0.3800|0.4027
91079037|NCT03743402|182043701|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is a point null of exactly 0 expected difference in PSEQ score between arms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.33||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|8.09|||Regression, Linear||mean difference = (pain self-management) - (usual care)|||8.09|0.56|0.02
91079038|NCT03743402|182043702|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is a point null of exactly 0 expected difference in PHQ-8 score between arms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.53|1.82|||Regression, Linear||mean difference = (pain self-management) - (usual care)|||1.82|-2.53|0.75
91079039|NCT03743402|182043703|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is a point null of exactly 0 expected difference in PHQ-8 score between arms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|0.87|||Regression, Linear||mean difference = (pain self-management) - (usual care)|||0.87|-1.87|0.48
90890175|NCT01059565|181644252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|3.62||||0.132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|8.34|||ANCOVA|Baseline was included as a covariate in this model.||Null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the AZLI and placebo treatment groups versus the alternative hypothesis that there was a difference.||8.34|-1.11|0.132
91009786|NCT01014442|181902896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-16.09||||0.0875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.35|6.39|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Cmin of MPAG at Day 8. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||6.3900|-29.3500|0.0875
91009787|NCT01014442|181902896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.2||||0.0112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.05|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Cmin of AcMPAG at Day 8. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||-0.0500|-0.3500|0.0112
91051505|NCT01831765|181988792|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment was done by comparing the difference of faster aspart vs. NovoRapid®/NovoLog® in change from baseline in HbA1c after 26 weeks of randomised treatment to a non-inferiority limit of 0.4%.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.12||||||Change from baseline in HbA1c analysed using a mixedeffect model for repeated measurements including visit 14, 18, 22, 26, 30, 34 and 36. The model included treatment, region and strata (combination of bolus adjusting method, basal treatment regimen and continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and frequently sampled meal test subgroup) as fixed effects, subject as random effect, baseline HbA1c as covariate and interaction between all fixed effects and visit, and between the covariate and visit.||0.12|-0.04|
91051506|NCT04561375|181988815|SUPERIORITY||Proportional odds ratio|0.37||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.07|||proportional odds logistic regression|In the analysis, 100 µg and 150 µg were merged as one level since too few cases used 150 µg.||||1.07|0.13|0.067
91051507|NCT04561375|181988816|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.0||||0.147|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-5.8|26.0|||Regression, Linear|||||26|-5.8|0.147
91051508|NCT04561375|181988817|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.4||||0.463|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-18.0|34.0|||Regression, Linear|||||34|-18|0.463
91051509|NCT04561375|181988818|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-13.0||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0|-25|0.032
91051510|NCT02605993|181988826|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Hypothesis testing was performed at the 0.05 level of significance. P-value tested whether the percent changes differed from 0 for the combined cohorts.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Statistical Analysis presented is of Cohorts 1 to 4 combined at Day 253. A sample size of 20 participants from the combined cohorts was required to provide approximately 95% power to detect a mean paired difference in LDH from Baseline of -40% at Day 253 for Cohorts 1 to 4, with an estimated standard deviation (SD) of 45%. This was based on a 2-sided paired t-test, with 5% type I error rate. To account for a possible 15% dropout rate, up to 26 participants were enrolled.||||<0.0001
91051511|NCT02605993|181988826|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Hypothesis testing was performed at the 0.05 level of significance. P-value tested whether the percent changes differed from 0.|MMRM|||Statistical Analysis presented is of Cohort 4 at Day 281. A sample size of 20 participants from the combined cohorts was required to provide approximately 95% power to detect a mean paired difference in LDH from Baseline of -40% at Day 281 for Cohort 4 only, with an estimated SD of 45%. This was based on a 2-sided paired t-test, with 5% type I error rate. To account for a possible 15% dropout rate, up to 26 participants were enrolled.||||<0.0001
91051512|NCT02605993|181988827|OTHER|||||||0.0214||||||Hypothesis testing was performed at the 0.05 level of significance. P-value tested whether the percent changes differed from 0 for the combined cohorts.|MMRM|||Statistical Analysis presented is of Cohorts 1 to 4 combined at Day 253.||||0.0214
91051513|NCT02605993|181988827|OTHER|||||||0.0313||||||Hypothesis testing was performed at the 0.05 level of significance. P-value tested whether the percent changes differed from 0.|MMRM|||Statistical Analysis presented is of Cohort 4 at Day 281.||||0.0313
91051514|NCT02605993|181988828|OTHER|||||||0.0625||||||Hypothesis testing was performed at the 0.05 level of significance. P-value tested whether the percent changes differed from 0 for the combined cohorts.|MMRM|||tatistical Analysis presented is of Cohorts 1 to 4 combined at Day 253.||||0.0625
91051515|NCT02605993|181988828|OTHER|MMRM||||||0.5||||||Hypothesis testing was performed at the 0.05 level of significance. P-value tested whether the percent changes differed from 0.|MMRM|||Hypothesis testing was performed at the 0.05 level of significance. P-value tested whether the percent changes differed from 0 for the combined cohorts.||||0.5000
91051516|NCT02605993|181988829|OTHER|||||||0.4871||||||Hypothesis testing was performed at the 0.05 level of significance. P-value tested whether the percent changes differed from 0 for the combined cohorts.|MMRM|||Statistical Analysis presented is of Cohorts 1 to 4 combined at Day 253.||||0.4871
91051517|NCT02605993|181988829|OTHER|||||||0.4688||||||Hypothesis testing was performed at the 0.05 level of significance. P-value tested whether the percent changes differed from 0.|MMRM|||Statistical Analysis presented is of Cohort 4 at Day 281.||||0.4688
91051518|NCT02605993|181988830|OTHER|||||||0.0023||||||Hypothesis testing was performed at the 0.05 level of significance. P-value tested whether the percent changes differed from 0 for the combined cohorts.|MMRM|||Statistical Analysis presented is of Cohorts 1 to 4 combined at Day 253.||||0.0023
91051519|NCT02605993|181988831|OTHER|||||||0.0029||||||Hypothesis testing was performed at the 0.05 level of significance. P-value tested whether the percent changes differed from 0 for the combined cohorts.|MMRM|||Statistical Analysis presented is of Cohorts 1 to 4 combined at Day 253.||||0.0029
91051520|NCT02605993|181988831|OTHER|||||||0.125||||||Hypothesis testing was performed at the 0.05 level of significance. P-value tested whether the percent changes differed from 0.|MMRM|||Statistical Analysis presented is of Cohort 4 at Day 281.||||0.1250
91051521|NCT00117325|181988862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.335||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.0|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD Week 1-4 analysis.||0.00|-0.67|0.050
91051522|NCT00117325|181988863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.393||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.05||Week 1-4|ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline iTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD Week 1-4 analysis.||-0.05|-0.74|0.027
91051523|NCT00117325|181988864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.184|||||||Regression, Logistic|logistic regression adjusting for age, gender, investigator, and treatment.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD up to Week 4 analysis.|Effectiveness of study medication for relieving non-allergic rhinitis symptoms over the entire treatment period (Total response) was analyzed.|||0.184
91051524|NCT00117325|181988865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.348||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.0|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD Week 1-4 analysis.||0.00|-0.70|0.051
91051525|NCT00117325|181988866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.304||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.03|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD up to Week 4 analysis||0.03|-0.64|0.076
91009788|NCT01014442|181902897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.215||||0.0818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.05|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Cmin of MPA at Day 20. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.0500|-0.5600|0.0818
91009789|NCT01014442|181902897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-14.03||||0.0945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.9|2.94|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Cmin of MPAG at Day 20. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||2.9400|-26.9000|0.0945
91051526|NCT00117325|181988867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.51||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.77|0.75|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD Week 1-4 analysis.||0.75|-9.77|0.093
90890176|NCT01059565|181644253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|0.14||||0.531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|P-value was based on a Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure model that included terms for treatment, visit, baseline, and treatment/visit interaction.||Null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the AZLI and placebo treatment groups versus the alternative hypothesis that there was a difference.||0.56|-0.29|0.531
91051527|NCT00117325|181988868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.372||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|-0.9|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline iTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD Week 1-4 analysis.||-0.90|-11.8|0.023
91051528|NCT00117325|181988869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.118||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.01|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for Rhinorrhea||0.01|-0.24|0.061
90890177|NCT01059565|181644254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|0.93||||0.232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|2.48|||ANCOVA|Baseline was included as a covariate in this model.||Null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the AZLI and placebo treatment groups versus the alternative hypothesis that there was a difference.||2.48|-0.62|0.232
91009790|NCT01014442|181902897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.19||||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.04|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Cmin of AcMPAG at Day 20. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||-0.0400|-0.4100|0.0081
91009791|NCT01014442|181902898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.36||||0.3289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|0.28|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Cmin of MPA at Day 90. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.2800|-1.1400|0.3289
91051529|NCT00117325|181988869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.124||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for Nasal Congestion||0.01|-0.25|0.061
91009792|NCT01014442|181902898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-20.3||||0.1243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.39|4.71|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Cmin of MPAG at Day 90. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||4.7100|-49.3900|0.1243
91009793|NCT01014442|181902898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.03||||0.8704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.23|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Cmin of AcMPAG at Day 90. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.2300|-0.2800|0.8704
91051530|NCT00117325|181988869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.095||||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.03|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for post-nasal drip||0.03|-0.22|0.138
90890178|NCT01059565|181644255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.103|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the AZLI and placebo treatment groups versus the alternative hypothesis that there was a difference.||||0.103
91051531|NCT00117325|181988870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.113||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.02|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for Rhinorrhea||0.02|-0.24|0.087
91051532|NCT00117325|181988870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.164||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.03|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for nasal congestion||-0.03|-0.30|0.015
91009794|NCT01014442|181902899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|5.22||||0.4043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.01|24.49|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||24.4900|-5.0100|0.4043
90890179|NCT01059565|181644256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.646|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the AZLI and placebo treatment groups versus the alternative hypothesis that there was a difference.||||0.646
91009795|NCT01014442|181902900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.44||||0.893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.07|8.01|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||8.0100|-6.0700|0.8930
91009796|NCT01014442|181902901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-4.935||||0.0819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.31|1.11|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||1.1100|-14.3100|0.0819
91009797|NCT01014442|181902902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-8.205||||0.0414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.27|-0.07|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||-0.0700|-19.2700|0.0414
91009798|NCT01014442|181902903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|69.7186||||0.1552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.4659|162.9545|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Vz of MPA at Day 4. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||162.9545|-23.4659|0.1552
91009799|NCT01014442|181902903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.7836||||0.6057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2675|2.5529|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Vz of MPAG at Day 4. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||2.5529|-3.2675|0.6057
91009800|NCT01014442|181902903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|299.1021||||0.0188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|79.5869|695.1789|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Vz of AcMPAG at Day 4. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||695.1789|79.5869|0.0188
91009801|NCT01014442|181902904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|88.959||||0.0659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7876|209.0183|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Vz of MPA at Day 8. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||209.0183|-5.7876|0.0659
91009802|NCT01014442|181902904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.4456||||0.7842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1366|2.292|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Vz of MPAG at Day 8. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||2.2920|-3.1366|0.7842
91009803|NCT01014442|181902904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|121.3737||||0.4072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-233.6483|560.0069|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Vz of AcMPAG at Day 8. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||560.0069|-233.6483|0.4072
91009804|NCT01014442|181902905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|207.9933||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.2442|355.1739|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Vz of MPA at Day 20. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||355.1739|71.2442|0.0040
91009805|NCT01014442|181902905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|2.6186||||0.0689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1999|6.7766|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Vz of MPAG at Day 20. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||6.7766|-0.1999|0.0689
91009806|NCT01014442|181902905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|635.7812||||0.0306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.4696|2793.7642|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Vz of AcMPAG at Day 20. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||2793.7642|49.4696|0.0306
91051533|NCT00117325|181988870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.112||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.02|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for post-nasal drip||0.02|-0.25|0.106
91051534|NCT00117325|181988871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.132||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.0|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for rhinorrhea||-0.00|-0.26|0.048
91051535|NCT00117325|181988871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.124||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.01|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for Nasal congestion||0.01|-0.26|0.076
91051536|NCT00117325|181988871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.093||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.04|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg for post-nasal drip||0.04|-0.22|0.164
91051537|NCT00117325|181988872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.096||||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.03|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for Rhinorrhea||0.03|-0.22|0.136
91009807|NCT01014442|181902906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|4.7477||||0.9029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.5212|59.8304|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Vz of MPA at Day 90. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||59.8304|-73.5212|0.9029
91009808|NCT01014442|181902906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|0.0077||||0.9692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6739|3.9521|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Vz of MPAG at Day 90. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||3.9521|-3.6739|0.9692
91051538|NCT00117325|181988872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.111||||0.1||95.0|-0.24|0.02|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for nasal congestion||0.02|-0.24|0.100
91051539|NCT00117325|181988872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.111||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.02|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for post-nasal drip||0.02|-0.24|0.100
91051540|NCT00117325|181988873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.45||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM iTNSS at Day 1||-0.10|-0.80|0.011
91009809|NCT01014442|181902906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-149.7962||||0.3744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-644.4526|311.9735|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Vz of AcMPAG at Day 90. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||311.9735|-644.4526|0.3744
91051541|NCT00117325|181988873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.325||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.05|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM iTNSS at Day 2||0.05|-0.70|0.089
90890180|NCT01059565|181644257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.284|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the AZLI and placebo treatment groups versus the alternative hypothesis that there was a difference.||||0.284
91051542|NCT00117325|181988873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.393||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.0|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM iTNSS at Day 3||0.00|-0.79|0.052
91051543|NCT00117325|181988873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.262||||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.13|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM iTNSS at Day 4||0.13|-0.65|0.187
91051544|NCT00117325|181988873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.298||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.12|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM iTNSS at Day 5||0.12|-0.72|0.164
91051545|NCT00117325|181988873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.573||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.15|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM iTNSS at Day 6||-0.15|-1.00|0.008
91051546|NCT00117325|181988873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.376||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.05|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM iTNSS at Day 7||0.05|-0.80|0.082
91051547|NCT00117325|181988873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.231||||0.296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM iTNSS at Day 8||0.20|-0.67|0.296
91051548|NCT00117325|181988873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.191||||0.383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.24|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM iTNSS at Day 9||0.24|-0.62|0.383
91051549|NCT00117325|181988873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.464||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.0|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM iTNSS at Day 10||-0.00|-0.92|0.048
91051550|NCT00117325|181988873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.172||||0.469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.29|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM iTNSS at Day 11||0.29|-0.64|0.469
91051551|NCT00117325|181988873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.34||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.12|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM iTNSS at Day 12||0.12|-0.80|0.151
91051552|NCT00117325|181988873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.344||||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.12|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM iTNSS at Day 13||0.12|-0.81|0.145
91051553|NCT00117325|181988873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.235||||0.297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.21|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM iTNSS at Day 14||0.21|-0.68|0.297
91051554|NCT00117325|181988873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.38||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.07|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM iTNSS at Day 15||0.07|-0.82|0.094
91051555|NCT00117325|181988873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.43||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.03|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM iTNSS at Day 16||0.03|-0.89|0.064
91051556|NCT00117325|181988873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.563||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.09|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM iTNSS at Day 17||-0.09|-1.03|0.019
91051557|NCT00117325|181988873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.457||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.01|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM iTNSS at Day 18||-0.01|-0.90|0.044
91051558|NCT00117325|181988873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.633||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|-0.17|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM iTNSS at Day 19||-0.17|-1.09|0.007
90890181|NCT01981564|181644377|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||ANOVA|||ANOVA F=3.55, df=1, p=0.06||||0.06
91051559|NCT00117325|181988873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.222||||0.348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.24|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM iTNSS at Day 20||0.24|-0.69|0.348
91051560|NCT00117325|181988873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.281||||0.243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.19|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM iTNSS at Day 21||0.19|-0.76|0.243
91051561|NCT00117325|181988873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.595||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.12|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM iTNSS at Day 22||-0.12|-1.07|0.014
91051562|NCT00117325|181988873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.474||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.01|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM iTNSS at Day 23||0.01|-0.96|0.055
91051563|NCT00117325|181988873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.464||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.02|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM iTNSS at Day 24||0.02|-0.95|0.062
91051564|NCT00117325|181988873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.43||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.05|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM iTNSS at Day 25||0.05|-0.91|0.079
91051565|NCT00117325|181988873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.576||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM iTNSS at Day 26||-0.10|-1.06|0.019
91051566|NCT00117325|181988873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.48||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|0.01|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM iTNSS at Day 27||0.01|-0.97|0.056
90890182|NCT01869491|181644508|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|-0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.11|-0.31|<0.0001
90890183|NCT01869491|181644509|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|-0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.08|-0.29|0.0004
90890184|NCT01869491|181644510|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.10|-0.32|0.0001
91009810|NCT01014442|181902907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|7.8422||||0.1362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.911|18.4444|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||CL of MPA at Day 4. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||18.4444|-3.9110|0.1362
91009811|NCT01014442|181902907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.1609||||0.4325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5693|0.271|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||CL of MPAG at Day 4. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.2710|-0.5693|0.4325
91009812|NCT01014442|181902907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|47.2686||||0.0316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.197|112.7806|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||CL of AcMPAG at Day 4. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||112.7806|4.1970|0.0316
91009813|NCT01014442|181902908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estmator|19.0536||||0.0572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.425|35.3852|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||CL of MPA at Day 8. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||35.3852|-0.4250|0.0572
91009814|NCT01014442|181902908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|0.3541||||0.3198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2524|1.1097|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||CL of MPAG at Day 8. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||1.1097|-0.2524|0.3198
91009815|NCT01014442|181902908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|54.0322||||0.0845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7706|160.3469|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||CL of AcMPAG at Day 8. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||160.3469|-6.7706|0.0845
91051567|NCT00117325|181988873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.659||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.11|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM iTNSS at Day 28||-0.11|-1.20|0.018
91051568|NCT00117325|181988873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.222||||0.194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for rTNSS at Day 1||0.1|-0.56|0.194
91051569|NCT00117325|181988873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.263||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.08|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for rTNSS at Day 2||0.08|-0.61|0.134
91051570|NCT00117325|181988873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.31||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.05|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for rTNSS at Day 3||0.05|-0.67|0.091
91051571|NCT00117325|181988873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.278||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.08|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for rTNSS at Day 4||0.08|-0.64|0.131
91051572|NCT00117325|181988873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13||||0.483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.23|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for rTNSS at Day 5||0.23|-0.49|0.483
91051573|NCT00117325|181988873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.301||||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for rTNSS at Day 6||0.10|-0.70|0.137
91051574|NCT00117325|181988873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.297||||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for rTNSS at Day 7||0.10|-0.69|0.142
91051575|NCT00117325|181988873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.245||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.15|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for rTNSS at Day 8||0.15|-0.64|0.220
91051576|NCT00117325|181988873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.373||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.05|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for rTNSS at Day 9||0.05|-0.79|0.081
91051577|NCT00117325|181988873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.453||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.04|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for rTNSS at Day 10||-0.04|-0.87|0.034
91051578|NCT00117325|181988873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.314||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.11|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for rTNSS at Day 11||0.11|-0.74|0.150
91051579|NCT00117325|181988873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.333||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for rTNSS at Day 12||0.08|-0.74|0.111
90890185|NCT01869491|181644511|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|-0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.09|-0.32|0.0004
90890186|NCT01869491|181644512|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91051580|NCT00117325|181988873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.25||||0.261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.19|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for rTNSS at Day 13||0.19|-0.69|0.261
91051581|NCT00117325|181988873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.342||||0.123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.09|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for rTNSS at Day 14||0.09|-0.78|0.123
91051582|NCT00117325|181988873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.415||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.01|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for rTNSS at Day 15||0.01|-0.84|0.056
91051583|NCT00117325|181988873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.566||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.13|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for rTNSS at Day 16||-0.13|-1.00|0.011
91051584|NCT00117325|181988873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.59||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.15|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for rTNSS at Day 17||-0.15|-1.03|0.009
91051585|NCT00117325|181988873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.301||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.13|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for rTNSS at Day 18||0.13|-0.74|0.175
91051586|NCT00117325|181988873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.449||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.02|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for rTNSS at Day 19||-0.02|-0.87|0.039
91051587|NCT00117325|181988873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.315||||0.152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.12|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for rTNSS at Day 20||0.12|-0.75|0.152
91051588|NCT00117325|181988873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.424||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.02|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for rTNSS at Day 21||0.02|-0.87|0.063
91051589|NCT00117325|181988873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.454||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.01|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for rTNSS at Day 22||-0.01|-0.90|0.044
91051590|NCT00117325|181988873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.312||||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.14|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for rTNSS at Day 23||0.14|-0.77|0.179
91051591|NCT00117325|181988873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.479||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|-0.04|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for rTNSS at Day 24||-0.04|-0.92|0.034
91051592|NCT00117325|181988873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.157||||0.505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.31|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for rTNSS at Day 25||0.31|-0.62|0.505
91051593|NCT00117325|181988873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.317||||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.15|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for rTNSS at Day 26||0.15|-0.79|0.186
91051594|NCT00117325|181988873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.283||||0.234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.18|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for rTNSS at Day 27||0.18|-0.75|0.234
91051595|NCT00117325|181988873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.645||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|-0.12|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for rTNSS at Day 28||-0.12|-1.17|0.017
91051596|NCT00117325|181988873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.32||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.06|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM rTNSS at Day 1||0.06|-0.70|0.095
91051597|NCT00117325|181988873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.231||||0.236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.15|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM rTNSS at Day 2||0.15|-0.61|0.236
91051598|NCT00117325|181988873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.255||||0.205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.14|||ANCOVA|||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM rTNSS at Day 3||0.14|-0.65|0.205
91051599|NCT00117325|181988873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.343||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.05|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM rTNSS at Day 4||0.05|-0.73|0.084
91051600|NCT00117325|181988873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.146||||0.475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.26|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM rTNSS at Day 5||0.26|-0.55|0.475
90890187|NCT01869491|181644513|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0433|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0433
91051601|NCT00117325|181988873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.296||||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.14|||ANCOVA|||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM rTNSS at Day 6||0.14|-0.73|0.178
91051602|NCT00117325|181988873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.406||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.04|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM rTNSS at Day 7||0.04|-0.85|0.071
91051603|NCT00117325|181988873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.111||||0.621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.33|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM rTNSS at Day 8||0.33|-0.55|0.621
91051604|NCT00117325|181988873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.206||||0.372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.25|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM rTNSS at Day 9||0.25|-0.66|0.372
91051605|NCT00117325|181988873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.452||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.01|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM rTNSS at Day 10||-0.01|-0.90|0.046
91051606|NCT00117325|181988873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.302||||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.14|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM rTNSS at Day 11||0.14|-0.75|0.183
91051607|NCT00117325|181988873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.226||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.22|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM rTNSS at Day 12||0.22|-0.67|0.320
91051608|NCT00117325|181988873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.188||||0.431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.28|||ANCOVA|||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM rTNSS at Day 13||0.28|-0.66|0.431
91051609|NCT00117325|181988873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.299||||0.191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.15|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM rTNSS at Day 14||0.15|-0.75|0.191
91051610|NCT00117325|181988873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.475||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.02|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM rTNSS at Day 15||-0.02|-0.94|0.043
91051611|NCT00117325|181988873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.619||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.16|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM rTNSS at Day 16||-0.16|-1.08|0.009
91051612|NCT00117325|181988873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.495||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.02|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM rTNSS at Day 17||-0.02|-0.97|0.040
91051613|NCT00117325|181988873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.262||||0.249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.18|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM rTNSS at Day 18||0.18|-0.71|0.249
91051614|NCT00117325|181988873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.536||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.07|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM rTNSS at Day 19||-0.07|-1.00|0.023
91051615|NCT00117325|181988873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.24||||0.321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.23|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM rTNSS at Day 20||0.23|-0.71|0.321
91051616|NCT00117325|181988873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.568||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|-0.09|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM rTNSS at Day 21||-0.09|-1.04|0.019
91051617|NCT00117325|181988873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.419||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.07|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM rTNSS at Day 22||0.07|-0.91|0.092
91051618|NCT00117325|181988873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.206||||0.404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.28|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM rTNSS at Day 23||0.28|-0.69|0.404
91051619|NCT00117325|181988873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.546||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.06|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM rTNSS at Day 24||-0.06|-1.03|0.027
91051620|NCT00117325|181988873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.227||||0.357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.26|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM rTNSS at Day 25||0.26|-0.71|0.357
91051621|NCT00117325|181988873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.403||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM rTNSS at Day 26||0.10|-0.90|0.114
90890188|NCT01869491|181644514|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0503|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0503
90890189|NCT04313634|181644538|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.611|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.611
91051622|NCT00117325|181988873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.307||||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.19|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM rTNSS at Day 27||0.19|-0.81|0.228
91051623|NCT00117325|181988873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.725||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|-0.16|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM rTNSS at Day 28||-0.16|-1.29|0.012
91051624|NCT00117325|181988873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.093||||0.643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.3|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for PM rTNSS at Day 1||0.30|-0.49|0.643
91051625|NCT00117325|181988873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.279||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for PM rTNSS at Day 2||0.10|-0.66|0.150
91051626|NCT00117325|181988873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.291||||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.12|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for PM rTNSS at Day 3||0.12|-0.70|0.162
91051627|NCT00117325|181988873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.244||||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.17|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for PM rTNSS at Day 4||0.17|-0.65|0.242
91051628|NCT00117325|181988873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.223||||0.278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.18|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for PM rTNSS at Day 5||0.18|-0.63|0.278
91051629|NCT00117325|181988873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.282||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.15|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for PM rTNSS at Day 6||0.15|-0.71|0.200
91051630|NCT00117325|181988873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.164||||0.456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.27|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for PM rTNSS at Day 7||0.27|-0.60|0.456
90890190|NCT04313634|181644539|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.020
90890191|NCT04313634|181644540|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.024
91051631|NCT00117325|181988873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.385||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.04|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for PM rTNSS at Day 8||0.04|-0.81|0.076
91051632|NCT00117325|181988873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.396||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.05|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for PM rTNSS at Day 9||0.05|-0.85|0.084
91051633|NCT00117325|181988873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.481||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.02|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for PM rTNSS at Day 10||-0.02|-0.94|0.040
91051634|NCT00117325|181988873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.405||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.06|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for PM rTNSS at Day 11||0.06|-0.87|0.090
91051635|NCT00117325|181988873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.432||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.02|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for PM rTNSS at Day 12||0.02|-0.88|0.060
91051636|NCT00117325|181988873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.277||||0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for PM rTNSS at Day 13||0.20|-0.75|0.252
91051637|NCT00117325|181988873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.19|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for PM rTNSS at Day 14||0.19|-0.79|0.229
91051638|NCT00117325|181988873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.373||||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.08|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for PM rTNSS at Day 15||0.08|-0.83|0.109
91051639|NCT00117325|181988873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.484|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.01|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for PM rTNSS at Day 16||-0.01|-0.96|
91051640|NCT00117325|181988873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|-0.23|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for PM rTNSS at Day 17||-0.23|-1.17|0.003
91051641|NCT00117325|181988873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.326||||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.15|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for PM rTNSS at Day 18||0.15|-0.81|0.182
91051642|NCT00117325|181988873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.299||||0.194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.15|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for PM rTNSS at Day 19||0.15|-0.75|0.194
91051643|NCT00117325|181988873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.348||||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for PM rTNSS at Day 20||0.10|-0.80|0.129
91051644|NCT00117325|181988873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.292||||0.232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.19|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for PM rTNSS at Day 21||0.19|-0.77|0.232
91051645|NCT00117325|181988873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.499||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.02|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for PM rTNSS at Day 22||-0.02|-0.98|0.042
91051646|NCT00117325|181988873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.356||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.13|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for PM rTNSS at Day 23||0.13|-0.84|0.150
91051647|NCT00117325|181988873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.398||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.06|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for PM rTNSS at Day 24||0.06|-0.86|0.090
91051648|NCT00117325|181988873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.028||||0.909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.46|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for PM rTNSS at Day 25||0.46|-0.52|0.909
91051649|NCT00117325|181988873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.233||||0.354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.26|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for PM rTNSS at Day 26||0.26|-0.73|0.354
91051650|NCT00117325|181988873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.29||||0.245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for PM rTNSS at Day 27||0.20|-0.78|0.245
91051651|NCT00117325|181988873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.601||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|-0.03|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for PM rTNSS at Day 28||-0.03|-1.17|0.038
91051652|NCT00759187|181988874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0||||Two way Anova general linear model (subject and treatment as factors)|ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91051653|NCT04620135|181988878|SUPERIORITY||The least squares (LS) mean difference|-1.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.221|<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.17|-1.31||Analyzed as ANCOVA with mean diurnal IOP at Week 4 as the response, baseline mean diurnal IOP as a covariate, and treatment as a main effect, using the ITT population with MCMC and regression-based multiple imputation to impute missing data.|ANCOVA||||The primary analysis of the primary endpoint employed an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with mean diurnal IOP at Week 4 as the response, baseline mean diurnal IOP as a covariate, and treatment as a main effect, using the ITT population with Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) and regression based multiple imputation (MI) techniques to impute missing data. The least squares (LS) mean difference (netarsudil - ripasudil) was presented with a 2-sided p-value and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). A success criterion for the superiority of netarsudil to ripasudil was defined as the 2-sided p value ≤ 0.05 for testing the difference (netarsudil QD - ripasudil BID) to 0 and the point estimate of the LS mean difference of \< 0.|-1.31|-2.17|<0.00001
91051654|NCT01442688|181988881|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|If the 90% Confidence Intervals of the geometric mean ratio are wholly contained within the interval (0.80, 1.25), then the hypothesis of a drug interaction will be rejected.|Geometric mean ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.995|1.04|||ANOVA|||||1.04|0.995|
91051655|NCT01442688|181988882|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|If the 90% Confidence Intervals of the geometric mean ratio are wholly contained within the interval (0.80, 1.25), then the hypothesis of a drug interaction will be rejected.|Geometric mean ratio|0.991|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|1.04|||ANOVA|||||1.04|0.940|
91051656|NCT00546572|181988886|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95 % confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion). Statistical significance demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95 % confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \> 1.|ratio of geometric mean titer|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|1.88|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS).|Serotype 1: ratio of GMT (13vPnC to 23vPS) calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||1.88|1.17|
91079040|NCT03743402|182043704|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is a point null of exactly 0 expected difference in GAD-7 score between arms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|0.81|||Regression, Linear||mean difference = (pain self-management) - (usual care)|||0.81|-1.31|0.64
91051657|NCT00546572|181988886|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95 % confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion). Statistical significance demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95 % confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \> 1.|ratio of geometric mean titer|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.35|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS).|Serotype 3: ratio of GMT (13vPnC to 23vPS) calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||1.35|0.91|
91079041|NCT03743402|182043705|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is a point null of exactly 0 expected difference in GAD-7 score between arms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|1.51|||Regression, Linear||mean difference = (pain self-management) - (usual care)|||1.51|-0.94|0.65
90890192|NCT04313634|181644541|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.149|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.149
91009816|NCT01014442|181902909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|25.0037||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.2373|43.5102|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||CL of MPA at Day 20. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||43.5102|8.2373|0.0048
91009817|NCT01014442|181902909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|0.4297||||0.0277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.034|0.9925|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||CL of MPAG at Day 20. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.9925|0.0340|0.0277
91009818|NCT01014442|181902909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|318.5455||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|154.1902|526.1716|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||CL of AcMPAG at Day 20. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||526.1716|154.1902|0.0002
91009819|NCT01014442|181902910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.579||||0.9417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5052|11.6346|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||CL of MPA at Day 90. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||11.6346|-14.5052|0.9417
91009820|NCT01014442|181902910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|0.1817||||0.2941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1954|0.6246|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||CL of MPAG at Day 90. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.6246|-0.1954|0.2941
91009821|NCT01014442|181902910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-4.9076||||0.817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.8234|109.9321|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||CL of AcMPAG at Day 90. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||109.9321|-84.8234|0.8170
91009822|NCT01014442|181902911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-2.4102||||0.2798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5642|3.0044|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||AUC0-12 of MPA at Day 4. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||3.0044|-8.5642|0.2798
91009823|NCT01014442|181902911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|72.7203||||0.4063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-107.1596|393.5295|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||AUC0-12 of MPAG at Day 4. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||393.5295|-107.1596|0.4063
91009824|NCT01014442|181902911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-3.6042||||0.0441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1854|-0.1887|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||AUC0-12 of AcMPAG at Day 4. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||-0.1887|-8.1854|0.0441
91009825|NCT01014442|181902912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-5.8077||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7302|0.0033|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||AUC0-12 of MPA at Day 8. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.0033|-11.7302|0.0510
91009826|NCT01014442|181902912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-171.159||||0.2733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-361.4437|171.9652|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||AUC0-12 of MPAG at Day 8. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||171.9652|-361.4437|0.2733
91009827|NCT01014442|181902912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-1.9621||||0.0718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8456|0.2067|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||AUC0-12 of AcMPAG at Day 8. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.2067|-4.8456|0.0718
91009828|NCT01014442|181902913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-8.6964||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7713|-4.6498|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||AUC0-12 of MPA at Day 20. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||-4.6498|-13.7713|0.0002
91009829|NCT01014442|181902913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-268.9537||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-506.7782|-77.397|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||AUC0-12 of MPAG at Day 20. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||-77.3970|-506.7782|0.0058
91009830|NCT01014442|181902913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-4.828|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1455|-2.6133|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||AUC0-12 of AcMPAG at Day 20. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||-2.6133|-7.1455|<0.0001
91009831|NCT01014442|181902914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|1.7477||||0.7144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.101|14.6563|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||AUC0-12 of MPA at Day 90. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||14.6563|-12.1010|0.7144
91009832|NCT01014442|181902914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-156.3255||||0.3413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-526.0765|195.8348|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||AUC0-12 of MPAG at Day 90. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||195.8348|-526.0765|0.3413
91009833|NCT01014442|181902914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|0.888||||0.6251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0288|4.2273|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||AUC0-12 of AcMPAG at Day 90. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||4.2273|-3.0288|0.6251
90890193|NCT04313634|181644543|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.953|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.953
91051658|NCT00546572|181988886|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95 % confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion). Statistical significance demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95 % confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \> 1.|ratio of geometric mean titer|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.93|3.74|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS).|Serotype 4: ratio of GMT (13vPnC to 23vPS) calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||3.74|1.93|
91051659|NCT00546572|181988886|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95 % confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion). Statistical significance demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95 % confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \> 1.|ratio of geometric mean titer|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|2.63|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS).|Serotype 5: ratio of GMT (13vPnC to 23vPS) calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||2.63|1.55|
91051660|NCT00546572|181988886|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95 % confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion). Statistical significance demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95 % confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \> 1.|ratio of geometric mean titer|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.21|4.13|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS).|Serotype 6B: ratio of GMT (13vPnC to 23vPS) calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||4.13|2.21|
91051661|NCT00546572|181988886|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95 % confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion). Statistical significance demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95 % confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \> 1.|ratio of geometric mean titer|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|2.18|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS).|Serotype 7F: ratio of GMT (13vPnC to 23vPS) calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||2.18|1.07|
91051662|NCT00546572|181988886|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95 % confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|ratio of geometric mean titer|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|2.97|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS).|Serotype 9V: ratio of GMT (13vPnC to 23vPS) calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. Statistical significance demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95 % confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \> 1.||2.97|1.36|
91009834|NCT01014442|181902915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|24.315||||0.2342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0292|79.365|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||79.3650|-16.0292|0.2342
91051663|NCT00546572|181988886|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95 % confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion). Statistical significance demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95 % confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \> 1.|ratio of geometric mean titer|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.33|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS).|Serotype 14: ratio of GMT (13vPnC to 23vPS) calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||1.33|0.73|
91079042|NCT03743402|182043706|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is a point null of exactly 0 expected difference in PGIC score between arms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.61||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|1.1|||Regression, Linear||mean difference = (pain self-management) - (usual care)|||1.10|0.12|0.02
91009835|NCT01014442|181902916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-13.5592||||0.1964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.395|5.4825|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||5.4825|-37.3950|0.1964
91051664|NCT00546572|181988886|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95 % confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion). Statistical significance demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95 % confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \> 1.|ratio of geometric mean titer|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|2.5|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS).|Serotype 18C: ratio of GMT (13vPnC to 23vPS) calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||2.50|1.42|
91051665|NCT00546572|181988886|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95 % confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion). Statistical significance demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95 % confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \> 1.|ratio of geometric mean titer|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|2.2|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS).|Serotype 19A: ratio of GMT (13vPnC to 23vPS) calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||2.20|1.43|
91051666|NCT00546572|181988886|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95 % confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion). Statistical significance demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95 % confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \> 1.|ratio of geometric mean titer|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|2.06|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS).|Serotype 19F: ratio of GMT (13vPnC to 23vPS) calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||2.06|1.17|
91009836|NCT01014442|181902917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-22.7878||||0.0672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.8217|3.7573|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||3.7573|-44.8217|0.0672
91051667|NCT00546572|181988886|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95 % confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion). Statistical significance demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95 % confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \> 1.|ratio of geometric mean titer|3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.69|5.09|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS).|Serotype 23F: ratio of GMT (13vPnC to 23vPS) calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||5.09|2.69|
91009837|NCT01014442|181902918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-21.4737||||0.2453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.1567|8.5708|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||8.5708|-64.1567|0.2453
91009838|NCT01014442|181902919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.00237||||0.1362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00734|0.00106|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dose-Normalized AUC0-12 of MPA at Day 4. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.00106|-0.00734|0.1362
91009839|NCT01014442|181902919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|0.04797||||0.4325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08467|0.26322|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dose-Normalized AUC0-12 MPAG at Day 4. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.26322|-0.08467|0.4325
91051668|NCT00546572|181988887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|43.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.4|49.9|||||Exact 2-sided CI (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, 13vPnC - 23vPS expressed as a percentage.|"Serotype 6A: difference in proportions, 13vPnC - 23vPS, expressed as a percentage.~Statistical significance was shown if the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference in proportions (13vPnC - 23vPS) was \> 0."||49.9|37.4|
91051669|NCT00546572|181988888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titer|9.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|13.26|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS).|"Serotype 6A: ratio of GMT (13vPnC to 23vPS) calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.~Statistical significance was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio was \>2."||13.26|7.00|
91051670|NCT00546572|181988889|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the back-transformed GMFR was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|geometric mean fold rise|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.1|||||Confidence intervals are back transformations of a CI based on the student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the titers.|Serotype 1: geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) \[(13vPnC / 13vPnC) / (13vPnC)\] calculated using all participants with available data from both the postvaccination 1 and postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.10|0.85|
91051671|NCT00546572|181988889|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the back-transformed GMFR was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|geometric mean fold rise|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.11|||||Confidence intervals are back transformations of a CI based on the student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the titers.|Serotype 3: geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) \[(13vPnC / 13vPnC) / (13vPnC)\] calculated using all participants with available data from both the postvaccination 1 and postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.11|0.91|
91051672|NCT00546572|181988889|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the back-transformed GMFR was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|geometric mean fold rise|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.92|||||Confidence intervals are back transformations of a CI based on the student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the titers.|Serotype 4: geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) \[(13vPnC / 13vPnC) / (13vPnC)\] calculated using all participants with available data from both the postvaccination 1 and postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.92|0.68|
91079043|NCT03743402|182043707|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is a point null of exactly 0 expected difference in PGIC score between arms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.33|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.88|||Regression, Linear||mean difference = (pain self-management) - (usual care)|||1.88|0.77|<0.01
91009840|NCT01014442|181902919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.00311||||0.0316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00645|-0.00029|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dose-Normalized AUC0-12 of AcMPAG at Day 4. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||-0.00029|-0.00645|0.0316
91051673|NCT00546572|181988889|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the back-transformed GMFR was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|geometric mean fold rise|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.94|||||Confidence intervals are back transformations of a CI based on the student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the titers.|Serotype 5: geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) \[(13vPnC / 13vPnC) / (13vPnC)\] calculated using all participants with available data from both the postvaccination 1 and postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.94|0.73|
91051674|NCT00546572|181988889|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the back-transformed GMFR was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|geometric mean fold rise|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.4|||||Confidence intervals are back transformations of a CI based on the student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the titers.|Serotype 6A: geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) \[(13vPnC / 13vPnC) / (13vPnC)\] calculated using all participants with available data from both the postvaccination 1 and postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.40|1.03|
90890194|NCT02105948|181644575|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio (mepolizumab/placebo)|0.82|||=|0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.98||Adjusted p-value to account for two treatment comparisons|Negative binomial model||Analysis using a negative binomial model with covariates of treatment, geographic region, no.of moderate/severe exacerbations in previous year, Baseline percent predicted for FEV1,smoking status and offset of log (time in on-and off-treatment period)|||0.98|0.68|=0.036
91009841|NCT01014442|181902919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|0.0000158||||0.3269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0000134|0.0000552|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dose-Normalized AUC0-12 of Free MPA at Day 4. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.0000552|-0.0000134|0.3269
91009842|NCT01014442|181902920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.00383||||0.0572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00761|0.0001|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dose-Normalized AUC0-12 of MPA at Day 8. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.00010|-0.00761|0.0572
91009843|NCT01014442|181902920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.09626||||0.3198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25269|0.11464|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dose-Normalized AUC0-12 of MPAG at Day 8. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.11464|-0.25269|0.3198
91009844|NCT01014442|181902920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.00131||||0.0845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00352|0.00013|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dose-Normalized AUC0-12 of AcMPAG at Day 8. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.00013|-0.00352|0.0845
91009845|NCT01014442|181902920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.00001||||0.1769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.000025|0.0000043|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dose-Normalized AUC0-12 of Free MPA at Day 8. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.0000043|-0.0000250|0.1769
91009846|NCT01014442|181902921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.0049||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00876|-0.00148|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dose-Normalized AUC0-12 of MPA at Day 20. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||-0.00148|-0.00876|0.0048
91009847|NCT01014442|181902921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.14764||||0.0277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31026|-0.01067|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dose-Normalized AUC0-12 of MPAG at Day 20. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||-0.01067|-0.31026|0.0277
91079044|NCT03743402|182043708|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is a point null of exactly 0 expected difference in POMI score between arms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.31|||Regression, Linear||mean difference = (pain self-management) - (usual care)|||0.31|-0.13|0.42
91009848|NCT01014442|181902921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.0035||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00476|0.00168|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dose-Normalized AUC0-12 of AcMPAG at Day 20. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.00168|-0.00476|0.0002
91009849|NCT01014442|181902921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.0000138||||0.1661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0000295|0.0000047|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dose-Normalized AUC0-12 of Free MPA at Day 20. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.0000047|-0.0000295|0.1661
91009850|NCT01014442|181902922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|0.00054||||0.9417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01037|0.01042|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dose-Normalized AUC0-12 of MPA at Day 90. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.01042|-0.01037|0.9417
91051675|NCT00546572|181988889|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the back-transformed GMFR was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|geometric mean fold rise|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.35|||||Confidence intervals are back transformations of a CI based on the student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the titers.|Serotype 6B: geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) \[(13vPnC / 13vPnC) / (13vPnC)\] calculated using all participants with available data from both the postvaccination 1 and postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.35|1.02|
91051676|NCT00546572|181988889|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the back-transformed GMFR was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|geometric mean fold rise|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.01|||||Confidence intervals are back transformations of a CI based on the student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the titers.|Serotype 7F: geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) \[(13vPnC / 13vPnC) / (13vPnC)\] calculated using all participants with available data from both the postvaccination 1 and postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.01|0.65|
91051677|NCT00546572|181988889|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the back-transformed GMFR was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|geometric mean fold rise|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.15|||||Confidence intervals are back transformations of a CI based on the student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the titers.|Serotype 9V: geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) \[(13vPnC / 13vPnC) / (13vPnC)\] calculated using all participants with available data from both the postvaccination 1 and postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.15|0.69|
91051678|NCT00546572|181988889|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the back-transformed GMFR was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|geometric mean fold rise|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.05|||||Confidence intervals are back transformations of a CI based on the student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the titers.|Serotype 14: geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) \[(13vPnC / 13vPnC) / (13vPnC)\] calculated using all participants with available data from both the postvaccination 1 and postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.05|0.79|
91051679|NCT00546572|181988889|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the back-transformed GMFR was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|geometric mean fold rise|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.23|||||Confidence intervals are back transformations of a CI based on the student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the titers.|Serotype 18C: geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) \[(13vPnC / 13vPnC) / (13vPnC)\] calculated using all participants with available data from both the postvaccination 1 and postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.23|0.97|
91051680|NCT00546572|181988889|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the back-transformed GMFR was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|geometric mean fold rise|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.07|||||Confidence intervals are back transformations of a CI based on the student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the titers.|Serotype 19A: geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) \[(13vPnC / 13vPnC) / (13vPnC)\] calculated using all participants with available data from both the postvaccination 1 and postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.07|0.89|
91051681|NCT00546572|181988889|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the back-transformed GMFR was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|geometric mean fold rise|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.15|||||Confidence intervals are back transformations of a CI based on the student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the titers.|Serotype 19F: geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) \[(13vPnC / 13vPnC) / (13vPnC)\] calculated using all participants with available data from both the postvaccination 1 and postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.15|0.83|
91051682|NCT00546572|181988889|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the back-transformed GMFR was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|geometric mean fold rise|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|2.14|||||Confidence intervals are back transformations of a CI based on the student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the titers.|Serotype 23F: geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) \[(13vPnC / 13vPnC) / (13vPnC)\] calculated using all participants with available data from both the postvaccination 1 and postvaccination 2 blood draws.||2.14|1.60|
91051683|NCT00546572|181988890|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95 % confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|ratio of geometric mean titer|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.76|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC / 13vPnC )- (23vPS)\].|Serotype 1: ratio of GMT (13vPnC / 13vPnC to 23vPS) calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||1.76|1.10|
91051684|NCT00546572|181988890|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95 % confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|ratio of geometric mean titer|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.34|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC / 13vPnC )- (23vPS)\].|Serotype 3: ratio of GMT (13vPnC / 13vPnC to 23vPS) calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||1.34|0.91|
91051685|NCT00546572|181988890|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95 % confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|ratio of geometric mean titer|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|3.25|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC / 13vPnC )- (23vPS)\].|Serotype 4: ratio of GMT (13vPnC / 13vPnC to 23vPS) calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||3.25|1.66|
91077787|NCT02913105|182041130|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.598|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.402||0.1403|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.265|0.07|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 28||0.070|-1.265|0.1403
90890195|NCT02105948|181644575|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio (mepolizumab/placebo)|0.82|||=|0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.98||Unadjusted p-value.|Negative binomial mode||Analysis using a negative binomial model with covariates of treatment, geographic region, no.of moderate/severe exacerbations in previous year, Baseline percent predicted FEV1, smoking status and offset of log (time in on- and off-treatment period)|||0.98|0.68|=0.029
91051686|NCT00546572|181988890|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95 % confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|ratio of geometric mean titer|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|2.06|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC / 13vPnC )- (23vPS)\].|Serotype 5: ratio of GMT (13vPnC / 13vPnC to 23vPS) calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||2.06|1.21|
91009851|NCT01014442|181902922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.1461||||0.2941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39951|0.12988|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dose-Normalized AUC0-12 of MPAG at Day 90. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.12988|-0.39951|0.2941
91051687|NCT00546572|181988890|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95 % confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|ratio of geometric mean titer|3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.78|5.07|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC / 13vPnC )- (23vPS)\].|Serotype 6B: ratio of GMT (13vPnC / 13vPnC to 23vPS) calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||5.07|2.78|
91051688|NCT00546572|181988890|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95 % confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|ratio of geometric mean titer|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.67|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC / 13vPnC )- (23vPS)\].|Serotype 7F: ratio of GMT (13vPnC / 13vPnC to 23vPS) calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||1.67|0.80|
91051689|NCT00546572|181988890|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95 % confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|ratio of geometric mean titer|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|2.62|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC / 13vPnC )- (23vPS)\].|Serotype 9V: ratio of GMT (13vPnC / 13vPnC to 23vPS) calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||2.62|1.18|
91051690|NCT00546572|181988890|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95 % confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|ratio of geometric mean titer|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.13|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC / 13vPnC )- (23vPS)\].|Serotype 14: ratio of GMT (13vPnC / 13vPnC to 23vPS) calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||1.13|0.62|
91051691|NCT00546572|181988890|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95 % confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|ratio of geometric mean titer|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|2.69|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC / 13vPnC )- (23vPS)\].|Serotype 18C: ratio of GMT (13vPnC / 13vPnC to 23vPS) calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||2.69|1.53|
91051692|NCT00546572|181988890|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95 % confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|ratio of geometric mean titer|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|2.1|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC / 13vPnC )- (23vPS)\].|Serotype 19A: ratio of GMT (13vPnC / 13vPnC to 23vPS) calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||2.10|1.37|
91051693|NCT00546572|181988890|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95 % confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|ratio of geometric mean titer|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.93|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC / 13vPnC )- (23vPS)\].|Serotype 19F: ratio of GMT (13vPnC / 13vPnC to 23vPS) calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||1.93|1.09|
91051694|NCT00546572|181988890|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95 % confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|ratio of geometric mean titer|7.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.36|9.82|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC / 13vPnC )- (23vPS)\].|Serotype 23F: ratio of GMT (13vPnC / 13vPnC to 23vPS) calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||9.82|5.36|
91051695|NCT00546572|181988891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titer|12.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.92|16.44|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC / 13vPnC )- (23vPS)\].|"Serotype 6A: ratio of GMT (13vPnC / 13vPnC to 23vPS) calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.~Statistical significance was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio was \>2."||16.44|8.92|
91009852|NCT01014442|181902922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|0.00033||||0.817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00361|0.00421|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dose-Normalized AUC0-12 of AcMPAG at Day 90. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.00421|-0.00361|0.8170
91009853|NCT01014442|181902922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodge-Lehmann estimator|-0.0000239||||0.1927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0000594|0.0000154|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dose-Normalized AUC0-12 of Free MPA at Day 90. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.0000154|-0.0000594|0.1927
91009854|NCT01014442|181902923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|0.1616||||0.0821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0121|0.4188|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Free Fraction of Free MPA at Day 4. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.4188|-0.0121|0.0821
91009855|NCT01014442|181902924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|0.0427||||0.3628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0455|0.1221|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Free Fraction of Free MPA at Day 8. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.1221|-0.0455|0.3628
91009856|NCT01014442|181902925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|0.001||||0.9873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1152|0.1173|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Free Fraction of Free MPA at Day 20. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.1173|-0.1152|0.9873
91009857|NCT01014442|181902926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.0857||||0.2178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.187|0.0265|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Free Fraction of Free MPA at Day 90. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.0265|-0.1870|0.2178
91009858|NCT01014442|181902932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in rates|-1.8||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.9|22.1|||Fisher Exact|||||22.1|-24.9|1.0000
91009859|NCT00147082|181902967|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||The threshold for significance was p\<0.05|Kruskal-Wallis|||p values were calculated||||0.05
91009860|NCT00147082|181902968|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||The p value (\<0.05) was the threshold for significance|Kruskal-Wallis|||p value was calculated||||0.05
91009861|NCT00147082|181902969|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||The p value (\<0.05) was the threshold for significance|Kruskal-Wallis|||The p value was calculated||||0.05
91009862|NCT02242305|181902970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.809|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.33|0.27|||ANCOVA|Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model including treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline pain intensity as a covariate was used.|Treatment differences were estimated by reference to the Least Squares (LS) mean differences within 3 days and the corresponding 90% CIs. The mean difference calculated as Hyoscine Butylbromide tablets 10 mg - Hyoscine Butylbromide capsules 10 mg.|||0.27|-0.33|0.809
91009863|NCT02242305|181902970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.33|||ANCOVA|Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model including treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline pain intensity as a covariate was used.|Treatment differences were estimated by reference to the Least Squares (LS) mean differences within 1 day and the corresponding 90% CIs. The mean difference calculated as Hyoscine Butylbromide tablets 10 mg - Hyoscine Butylbromide capsules 10 mg.|||0.33|-0.39|0.809
91009864|NCT02242305|181902971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.079|||||||ANCOVA|Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model including treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline pain intensity as a covariate was used.||||||0.079
91009865|NCT02242305|181902976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.531|||||||ANCOVA|Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model including treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline score as covariates was used.||||||0.531
91009866|NCT03547960|181902977|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.639|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.639
91009867|NCT03547960|181902977|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.283|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.283
91009868|NCT03547960|181902979|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.564|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.564
91009869|NCT02532998|181902980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment differences|-1.258|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.721|0.7945|||mixed linear model|Analyses done using mixed linear model involving fixed effect, random effect, and a covariate.||Statistical analysis of urinary sodium/potassium ratio between Treatment C and Treatment D.||0.7945|-1.721|
91009870|NCT02532998|181902995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment differences|3.409|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.946|3.872|||mixed linear model|Analyses done using mixed linear model involving fixed effect, random effect, and a covariate.||Statistical analysis of urinary sodium/potassium ratio between Treatment A and Treatment B.||3.872|2.946|
91009871|NCT02625610|181903028|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.1779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.11|||Log Rank|The treatment arms were compared using a stratified, 1-sided, log rank Test. The stratification factor was region (Asia versus non Asia).||||1.11|0.74|0.1779
91009872|NCT02625610|181903029|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.28||||||||1.28|0.85|
91009873|NCT02625610|181903031|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.51||||||||1.51|0.55|
91009874|NCT00082628|181903041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Nonparametric ANCOVA Model|||||||<0.001
91051696|NCT00546572|181988892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-11.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|-5.6|||Chan & Zhang||Exact 2-sided confidence interval and corresponding p-value (based on Chan \& Zhang) for the difference in proportions, \[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS\], expressed as a percentage.|Redness: any; difference in proportions, \[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS\], expressed as a percentage.||-5.6|-17.3|<0.001
91009875|NCT03459794|181903046|OTHER|||||||||||||||||All measurements were compared to the same group at t=0, that is before the drug or placebo was administered. We compared the expression levels for each transcript, using the mean levels in each group, not at the individual participant level.|We analyzed the changes is level for each cytokine between the groups. P value was adjusted for multiple comparisons and significance determined using the Holm-Sidak method. The threshold value for statistical significance for the mean value between groups was set at p =\<0.05 for each cytokine measured. The number of cytokines that met this threshold is reported.|||
91009876|NCT03459794|181903047|OTHER|||||||||||||||||All measurements were compared to the same treated/control group at t=0, before the drug or placebo was administered. We compared the expression levels for each transcript, using the mean levels in each group, not at the individual participant level.|We compared the expression levels for each transcript, using the mean levels in each group, not at the individual participant level. The p-value for each transcript is adjusted for multiple comparisons across all 770 transcripts, using the Benjamini-Yekutieli method. The number reported is the number of transcripts where p=\<0.05.|||
91009877|NCT03459794|181903048|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.05
91009878|NCT03481634|181903049|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority (4-letter margin)|LS mean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|0.3||1-sided p-value|ANOVA|||||0.3|-2.9|<0.001
91009879|NCT03481634|181903049|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority (4-letter margin)|LS mean difference|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94||0.227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|-1.4||1-sided p-value|ANOVA|||||-1.4|-5.1|0.227
91009880|NCT03481634|181903050|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority (4-letter margin)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|0.0||(1-sided)|ANOVA|||||-0.0|-3.0|<0.001
91009881|NCT03481634|181903050|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority (4-letter margin)|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|-1.7||(1-sided)|ANOVA|||||-1.7|-5.2|
91009882|NCT03481634|181903054|OTHER|Descriptive|LS mean difference|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|-1.7|||ANOVA|||||-1.7|-6.0|
91009883|NCT03481634|181903054|OTHER|Descriptive|LS mean difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|0.1|||ANOVA|||||0.1|-4.0|
91009884|NCT03481634|181903057|OTHER|Descriptive|LS mean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.68|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|16.4|||ANOVA|||Week 4||16.4|-17.7|
91009885|NCT03481634|181903057|OTHER|Descriptive|LS mean difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.41|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.7|14.4|||ANOVA|||Week 4||14.4|-18.7|
91009886|NCT03481634|181903057|OTHER|Descriptive|LS mean difference|12.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.87|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|29.7|||ANOVA|||Week 6||29.7|-5.2|
91009887|NCT03481634|181903057|OTHER|Descriptive|LS mean difference|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.38|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|18.9|||ANOVA|||Week 6||18.9|-14.0|
91009888|NCT03481634|181903057|OTHER|Descriptive|LS mean difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.61|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|17.9|||ANOVA|||Week 8||17.9|-16.0|
91009889|NCT03481634|181903057|OTHER|Descriptive|LS mean difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.28|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.6|12.9|||ANOVA|||Week 8||12.9|-19.6|
91009890|NCT03481634|181903057|OTHER|Descriptive|LS mean difference|6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.73|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|23.6|||ANOVA|||Week 12||23.6|-10.7|
91009891|NCT03481634|181903057|OTHER|Descriptive|LS mean difference|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.85|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|20.2|||ANOVA|||Week 12||20.2|-14.6|
91009892|NCT03481634|181903057|OTHER|Descriptive|LS mean difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.7|17.8|||ANOVA|||Week 16||17.8|-15.7|
91009893|NCT03481634|181903057|OTHER|Descriptive|LS mean difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.29|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|12.9|||ANOVA|||Week 16||12.9|-19.7|
91009894|NCT03481634|181903057|OTHER|Descriptive|LS mean difference|8.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.92|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|26.5|||ANOVA|||Week 18||26.5|-8.6|
91009895|NCT03481634|181903057|OTHER|Descriptive|LS mean difference|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.47|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|19.2|||ANOVA|||Week 18||19.2|-14.1|
91009896|NCT03481634|181903057|OTHER|Descriptive|LS mean difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.55|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.2|13.4|||ANOVA|||Week 20||13.4|-20.2|
91009897|NCT03481634|181903057|OTHER|Descriptive|LS mean difference|-5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.7|10.2|||ANOVA|||Week 20||10.2|-21.7|
91079045|NCT03743402|182043709|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is a point null of exactly 0 expected difference in POMI score between arms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.36|||Regression, Linear||mean difference = (pain self-management) - (usual care)|||0.36|-0.10|0.26
91051697|NCT00546572|181988892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-4.0||||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|1.1|||Chan & Zhang||Exact 2-sided confidence interval and corresponding p-value (based on Chan \& Zhang) for the difference in proportions, \[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS\], expressed as a percentage.|Redness: mild; difference in proportions, \[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS\], expressed as a percentage.||1.1|-9.1|0.129
91051698|NCT00546572|181988892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-6.8||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|-2.3|||Chan & Zhang||Exact 2-sided confidence interval and corresponding p-value (based on Chan \& Zhang) for the difference in proportions, \[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS\], expressed as a percentage.|Redness: moderate; difference in proportions, \[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS\], expressed as a percentage.||-2.3|-11.3|0.002
91051699|NCT00546572|181988892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-3.2||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|-0.3|||Chan & Zhang||Exact 2-sided confidence interval and corresponding p-value (based on Chan \& Zhang) for the difference in proportions, \[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS\], expressed as a percentage.|Redness: severe; difference in proportions, \[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS\], expressed as a percentage.||-0.3|-6.3|0.028
91051700|NCT00546572|181988892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-12.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.5|-7.0|||Chan & Zhang||Exact 2-sided confidence interval and corresponding p-value (based on Chan \& Zhang) for the difference in proportions, \[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS\], expressed as a percentage.|Swelling: any; difference in proportions, \[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS\], expressed as a percentage.||-7.0|-18.5|<0.001
91051701|NCT00546572|181988892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-5.1||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|-0.1|||Chan & Zhang||Exact 2-sided confidence interval and corresponding p-value (based on Chan \& Zhang) for the difference in proportions, \[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS\], expressed as a percentage.|Swelling: mild; difference in proportions, \[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS\], expressed as a percentage.||-0.1|-10.2|0.048
91051702|NCT00546572|181988892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-9.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.2|-5.1|||Chan & Zhang||Exact 2-sided confidence interval and corresponding p-value (based on Chan \& Zhang) for the difference in proportions, \[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS\], expressed as a percentage.|Swelling: moderate; difference in proportions, \[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS\], expressed as a percentage.||-5.1|-14.2|<0.001
91051703|NCT00546572|181988892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-4.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|-2.7|||Chan & Zhang||Exact 2-sided confidence interval and corresponding p-value (based on Chan \& Zhang) for the difference in proportions, \[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS\], expressed as a percentage.|Swelling: severe; difference in proportions, \[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS\], expressed as a percentage.||-2.7|-7.9|<0.001
91051704|NCT00546572|181988892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chan & Zhang|-6.8||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|0.4|||Chan & Zhang||Exact 2-sided confidence interval and corresponding p-value (based on Chan \& Zhang) for the difference in proportions, \[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS\], expressed as a percentage.|Pain: any; difference in proportions, \[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS\], expressed as a percentage.||0.4|-14.0|0.062
91051705|NCT00546572|181988892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-4.0||||0.284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|3.3|||Chan & Zhang||Exact 2-sided confidence interval and corresponding p-value (based on Chan \& Zhang) for the difference in proportions, \[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS\], expressed as a percentage.|Pain: mild; difference in proportions, \[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS\], expressed as a percentage.||3.3|-11.3|0.284
91051706|NCT00546572|181988892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-16.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.7|-10.6|||Chan & Zhang||Exact 2-sided confidence interval and corresponding p-value (based on Chan \& Zhang) for the difference in proportions, \[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS\], expressed as a percentage.|Pain: moderate; difference in proportions, \[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS\], expressed as a percentage.||-10.6|-21.7|<0.001
91051707|NCT00546572|181988892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-0.9||||0.539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|1.4|||Chan & Zhang||Exact 2-sided confidence interval and corresponding p-value (based on Chan \& Zhang) for the difference in proportions, \[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS\], expressed as a percentage.|Pain: severe; difference in proportions, \[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS\], expressed as a percentage.||1.4|-3.5|0.539
91051708|NCT00546572|181988892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-17.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.1|-11.1|||Chan & Zhang||Exact 2-sided confidence interval and corresponding p-value (based on Chan \& Zhang) for the difference in proportions, \[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS\], expressed as a percentage.|Limitation of arm movement: any; difference in proportions, \[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS\], expressed as a percentage.||-11.1|-23.1|<0.001
91051709|NCT00546572|181988892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-14.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.8|-9.0|||Chan & Zhang||Exact 2-sided confidence interval and corresponding p-value (based on Chan \& Zhang) for the difference in proportions, \[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS\], expressed as a percentage.|Limitation of arm movement: mild; difference in proportions, \[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS\], expressed as a percentage.||-9.0|-20.8|<0.001
91051710|NCT00546572|181988892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-2.3||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|-0.4|||Chan & Zhang||Exact 2-sided confidence interval and corresponding p-value (based on Chan \& Zhang) for the difference in proportions, \[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS\], expressed as a percentage.|Limitation of arm movement: moderate; difference in proportions, \[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS\], expressed as a percentage.||-0.4|-4.8|0.020
91051711|NCT00546572|181988892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-2.3||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|-0.1|||Limitation of arm movement: any; differe||Exact 2-sided confidence interval and corresponding p-value (based on Chan \& Zhang) for the difference in proportions, \[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS\], expressed as a percentage.|Limitation of arm movement: severe; difference in proportions, \[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS\], expressed as a percentage.||-0.1|-4.9|0.042
91051712|NCT00546572|181988897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-7.9||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|-0.6|||Chan & Zhang||Exact 2-sided confidence interval and corresponding p-value (based on Chan \& Zhang) for the difference in proportions, \[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS\], expressed as a percentage.|New generalized muscle pain: difference in proportions, \[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS\], expressed as a percentage.||-0.6|-15.2|0.034
91051713|NCT00546572|181988897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-6.9||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|-0.3|||Chan & Zhang||Exact 2-sided confidence interval and corresponding p-value (based on Chan \& Zhang) for the difference in proportions, \[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS\], expressed as a percentage.|Aggravated generalized muscle pain: difference in proportions, \[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS\], expressed as a percentage.||-0.3|-13.6|0.039
91009898|NCT03481634|181903057|OTHER|Descriptive|LS mean difference|-13.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.06|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.7|3.9|||ANOVA|||Week 24||3.9|-31.7|
91009899|NCT03481634|181903057|OTHER|Descriptive|LS mean difference|-17.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.95|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.4|-0.2|||ANOVA|||Week 24||-0.2|-35.4|
91009900|NCT03481634|181903057|OTHER|Descriptive|LS mean difference|-8.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.26|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.0|7.5|||ANOVA|||Week 28||7.5|-25.0|
91009901|NCT03481634|181903057|OTHER|Descriptive|LS mean difference|-8.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.49|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.4|8.0|||ANOVA|||Week 28||8.0|-25.4|
91009902|NCT03481634|181903057|OTHER|Descriptive|LS mean difference|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.49|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.8|15.5|||ANOVA|||Week 32||15.5|-21.8|
91009903|NCT03481634|181903057|OTHER|Descriptive|LS mean difference|-11.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.5|6.0|||ANOVA|||Week 32||6.0|-29.5|
91051714|NCT03979820|181988902|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean TSFs|544.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|340.57|870.09|||ANOVA||"The arm Phenelzine/Phenelzine + Tyramine represented the numerator. The arm Placebo/Placebo + Tyramine represented the denominator."|"The statistical model used for the analysis of the primary endpoint was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale for each treatment relative to placebo.~TSF was log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. The model included the fixed effects 'treatment'."||870.09|340.57|
91009904|NCT03481634|181903057|OTHER|Descriptive|LS mean difference|36.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.01|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.6|57.9|||ANOVA|||Week 36||57.9|14.6|
91009905|NCT03481634|181903057|OTHER|Descriptive|LS mean difference|20.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.97|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|40.0|||ANOVA|||Week 36||40.0|0.7|
91009906|NCT03481634|181903057|OTHER|Descriptive|LS mean difference|-6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.19|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.2|11.9|||ANOVA|||Week 40||11.9|-24.2|
91009907|NCT03481634|181903057|OTHER|Descriptive|LS mean difference|-6.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.2|12.2|||ANOVA|||Week 40||12.2|-25.2|
91009908|NCT03481634|181903057|OTHER|Descriptive|LS mean difference|7.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.33|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|26.3|||ANOVA|||Week 44||26.3|-10.4|
91009909|NCT03481634|181903057|OTHER|Descriptive|LS mean difference|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.78|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|18.3|||ANOVA|||Week 44||18.3|-16.2|
91009910|NCT03481634|181903057|OTHER|Descriptive|LS mean difference|13.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.84|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|32.9|||ANOVA|||Week 48||32.9|-5.8|
91009911|NCT03481634|181903057|OTHER|Descriptive|LS mean difference|4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.26|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|23.0|||ANOVA|||Week 48||23.0|-13.5|
91009912|NCT03481634|181903057|OTHER|Descriptive|LS mean difference|4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.52|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|23.0|||ANOVA|||Week 52||23.0|-14.5|
91009913|NCT03481634|181903057|OTHER|Descriptive|LS mean difference|-5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.78|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.3|12.2|||ANOVA|||Week 52||12.2|-22.3|
91009914|NCT03481634|181903058|OTHER|Descriptive|LS mean difference|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|20.0|||ANOVA|||||20.0|-16.6|
91078825|NCT00824434|182043411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Post-procedure Incomplete Apposi|5.7|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||11.6|||One-sided exact binomial test|||A one-sided 95% Clopper-Pearson upper confidence bound was derived and tested to determine if the outcome was less than a prespecified performance goal based on historical XIENCE V/PROMUS post-procedure incomplete apposition data from the SPIRIT III study (34.4%).||11.6||<0.0001
91078826|NCT03646305|182043444|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental,control) × 2(Activity: singing,verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to measure main effect of time. Null: Across the sample, believability of thought were equivalent across time||||<0.001
91078827|NCT03646305|182043444|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A paired sample t-test was conducted to measure differences in believability of thought from baseline to post-intervention. Null hypothesis: there would be no significant difference in believability of thought from baseline to post-intervention||||<0.001
91078828|NCT03646305|182043444|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A paired sample t-test was conducted to measure differences from post-intervention to follow-up. Null hypothesis: there would be no significant differences in believability of thought from post-intervention to follow-up.||||<0.001
91009915|NCT03481634|181903058|OTHER|Descriptive|LS mean difference|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.79|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.7|13.8|||ANOVA|||||13.8|-20.7|
91009916|NCT03481634|181903065|OTHER|Descriptive; Week 28|Difference - %|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|8.4|||Bootstrap method|||||8.4|-5.3|
91009917|NCT03481634|181903065|OTHER|Descriptive; Week 28|Difference - %|4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|10.3|||Bootstrap method|||||10.3|-2.1|
91009918|NCT03481634|181903065|OTHER|Descriptive; Week 52|Difference - %|5.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|12.4|||Bootstrap method|||||12.4|-1.2|
91009919|NCT03481634|181903065|OTHER|Descriptive; Week 52|Difference - %|6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|12.9|||Bootstrap method|||||12.9|0.6|
91009920|NCT03481634|181903065|OTHER|Descriptive: Week 76|Difference - %|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|9.4|||Bootstrap method|||||9.4|-3.9|
91009921|NCT03481634|181903065|OTHER|Descriptive: Week 76|Difference - %|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|7.0|||Bootstrap method|||||7.0|-5.7|
91009922|NCT03481634|181903065|OTHER|Descriptive: Week 100|Difference - %|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|8.1|||Bootstrap method|||||8.1|-5.0|
91009923|NCT03481634|181903065|OTHER|Descriptive: Week 100|Difference - %|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|8.4|||Bootstrap method|||||8.4|-4.0|
91009924|NCT03481634|181903067|OTHER|Descriptive; Week 28|Difference - %|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|5.8|||Bootstrap method|||||5.8|-6.4|
91009925|NCT03481634|181903067|OTHER|Descriptive; Week 28|Difference - %|4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|11.0|||Bootstrap method|||||11.0|-1.3|
91009926|NCT03481634|181903067|OTHER|Descriptive; Week 52|Difference - %|-4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|2.2|||Bootstrap method|||||2.2|-10.2|
91009927|NCT03481634|181903067|OTHER|Descriptive; Week 52|Difference - %|3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|10.5|||Bootstrap method|||||10.5|-2.2|
91009928|NCT03481634|181903067|OTHER|Descriptive; Week 72|Difference - %|-9.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5|-2.8|||Bootstrap method|||||-2.8|-15.5|
91009929|NCT03481634|181903067|OTHER|Descriptive; Week 72|Difference - %|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|4.4|||Bootstrap method|||||4.4|-8.4|
91009930|NCT03481634|181903067|OTHER|Descriptive; Week 100|Difference - %|-7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|-1.6|||Bootstrap method|||||-1.6|-14.0|
91009931|NCT03481634|181903067|OTHER|Descriptive; Week 100|Difference - %|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|6.8|||Bootstrap method|||||6.8|-5.7|
91009932|NCT00352027|181903084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.997|||||||Cox Model|||The association of age with EFS was compared. P values from Score test were computed for the statistical significance.||||0.9970
91009933|NCT00352027|181903087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.997|||||||Cox Model|||||||0.9970
91009934|NCT00352027|181903119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.265||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.265
91009935|NCT00352027|181903119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.057||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.057
91009936|NCT00352027|181903119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.079||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.079
91009937|NCT00352027|181903119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.025||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.025
91009938|NCT00352027|181903119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.68||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.680
91009939|NCT00352027|181903120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.563||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.563
91009940|NCT00352027|181903120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.563||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.563
91009941|NCT00352027|181903120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.563||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.563
91009942|NCT00352027|181903120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.184||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.184
91009943|NCT00352027|181903120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.563||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.563
91009944|NCT00352027|181903121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.319||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.319
91009945|NCT00352027|181903121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.01||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.010
91009946|NCT00352027|181903121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.002
91009947|NCT00352027|181903121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.015||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.015
91009948|NCT00352027|181903121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.588||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.588
91009949|NCT00352027|181903122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.071||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.071
91009950|NCT00352027|181903122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||<0.001
91009951|NCT00352027|181903122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||<0.001
91009952|NCT00352027|181903122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||<0.001
91009953|NCT00352027|181903122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.707||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.707
91009954|NCT00352027|181903123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.042||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.042
91009955|NCT00352027|181903123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.025||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.025
91009956|NCT00352027|181903123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.013||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.013
91009957|NCT00352027|181903123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.027||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.027
91009958|NCT00352027|181903123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.243||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.243
91009959|NCT00352027|181903124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.546||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.546
91009960|NCT00352027|181903124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.242||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.242
91009961|NCT00352027|181903124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.372||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.372
91009962|NCT00352027|181903124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.503||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.503
91009963|NCT00352027|181903124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.372||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.372
91009964|NCT00352027|181903125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.558||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.558
91009965|NCT00352027|181903125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.039||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.039
91009966|NCT00352027|181903125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.162||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.162
91009967|NCT00352027|181903125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.162||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.162
91009968|NCT00352027|181903126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.381||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.381
91009969|NCT00352027|181903126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.006||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.006
91009970|NCT00352027|181903126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.277||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.277
91009971|NCT00352027|181903126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.134||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.134
91009972|NCT00352027|181903127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.629||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.629
91009973|NCT00352027|181903127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.629||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.629
91009974|NCT00352027|181903127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.629||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.629
91009975|NCT00352027|181903127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.858||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.858
91009976|NCT00352027|181903128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.744||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.744
91009977|NCT00352027|181903128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.075||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.075
91009978|NCT00352027|181903128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.512||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.512
91009979|NCT00352027|181903128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.088||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.088
91051715|NCT03979820|181988902|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean TSFs|123.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.09|196.95|||ANOVA||"The arm 10 mg BI 1467335/10 mg BI 1467335 + Tyramine represented the numerator.~The arm Placebo/Placebo + Tyramine represented the denominator."|"The statistical model used for the analysis of the primary endpoint was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale for each treatment relative to placebo.~TSF was log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. The model included the fixed effects 'treatment'."||196.95|77.09|
91051716|NCT01229735|181988906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1|||=|0.7007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.7||P-value is from likelihood ratio test of treatment group regression coefficient against 0.|Regression, Logistic|||The Odds Ratio (OR) for LEV vs TPM is based on logistic regression modeling of subject retention by treatment and center pooling category. A profile likelihood confidence interval for the OR is presented.||1.7|0.7|=0.7007
91051717|NCT05071313|181989042|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of Group 2 versus Group 1 in terms of the HI antibody titers against all four influenza vaccine strains 28 days after vaccination with fluzone, using a non-inferiority margin of 1.5 for the GMT ratio (Group 2/Group 1).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.14||||||A/Victoria||1.14|0.89|
91051718|NCT05071313|181989042|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of Group 2 versus Group 1 in terms of the HI antibody titers against all four influenza vaccine strains 28 days after vaccination with fluzone, using a non-inferiority margin of 1.5 for the GMT ratio (Group 2/Group 1).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.28||||||A/Tasmania||1.28|0.97|
91051719|NCT05071313|181989042|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of Group 2 versus Group 1 in terms of the HI antibody titers against all four influenza vaccine strains 28 days after vaccination with fluzone, using a non-inferiority margin of 1.5 for the GMT ratio (Group 2/Group 1).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.05||||||B/Washington||1.05|0.79|
91051720|NCT05071313|181989042|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of Group 2 versus Group 1 in terms of the HI antibody titers against all four influenza vaccine strains 28 days after vaccination with fluzone, using a non-inferiority margin of 1.5 for the GMT ratio (Group 2/Group 1).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.97||||||95.0|0.85|1.1||||||B/Phuket||1.10|0.85|
91051721|NCT03107026|181989093|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.187||0.1187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.08|-0.66|0.1187
91009980|NCT00352027|181903129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.078||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.078
91051722|NCT03107026|181989093|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.192||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|-0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.17|-0.93|0.0045
91051723|NCT03107026|181989094|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.162||0.0256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.04|-0.68|0.0256
91051724|NCT03107026|181989094|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.166||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.18|-0.83|0.0025
91051725|NCT03107026|181989095|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.5342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.726|1.854|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.854|0.726|0.5342
91051726|NCT03107026|181989095|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.179||||0.4905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.738|1.882|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.882|0.738|0.4905
91051727|NCT03107026|181989096|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.946||0.0154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.16|-0.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.44|-4.16|0.0154
91009981|NCT00352027|181903129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.041||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.041
91009982|NCT00352027|181903129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.078||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.078
91051728|NCT03107026|181989096|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.969||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.31|-1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.50|-5.31|0.0005
91051729|NCT04763564|181989109|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.03||||||A priori threshold for significance was \< 0.05. Significance level liraglutide vs. placebo in percent reduction of bowel frequency at week 4 vs. baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The 2 treatment modalities, Liraglutide and Placebo, were compared. A repeated-measures mixed model was fitted to the data, with treatment (liraglutide or placebo), period, and treatment sequence as fixed effects and the repeated measures within the subject as a random effect.||||<0.03
91051730|NCT04763564|181989112|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The 2 treatment modalities, Liraglutide and Placebo, were compared. A repeated-measures mixed model was fitted to the data, with treatment (liraglutide or placebo), period, and treatment sequence as fixed effects and the repeated measures within the subject as a random effect.||||0.01
91051731|NCT00807248|181989136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96||0.6405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|1.44|||ANCOVA|||||1.44|-2.34|0.6405
91051732|NCT00807248|181989136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96||0.6227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|2.35|||ANCOVA|||||2.35|-1.41|0.6227
91051733|NCT00807248|181989137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.24|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.98|-3.11|||ANCOVA|||||-3.11|-7.98|<0.0001
91051734|NCT00807248|181989137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.24|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.53|-2.66|||ANCOVA|||||-2.66|-7.53|<0.0001
91051735|NCT00807248|181989137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.24|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.43|-3.56|||ANCOVA|||||-3.56|-8.43|<0.0001
91051736|NCT00807248|181989138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.13|-2.84|||ANCOVA|||||-2.84|-7.13|<0.0001
91051737|NCT00807248|181989138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|-2.32|||ANCOVA|||||-2.32|-6.60|<0.0001
91051738|NCT00807248|181989138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.41|-3.13|||ANCOVA|||||-3.13|-7.41|<0.0001
91051739|NCT00807248|181989139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.59|-1.58|||ANCOVA|||||-1.58|-4.59|<0.0001
91009983|NCT00352027|181903129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.078||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.078
91051740|NCT00807248|181989139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.15|-1.14|||ANCOVA|||||-1.14|-4.15|0.0006
91051741|NCT00807248|181989139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.13|-2.1|||ANCOVA|||||-2.10|-5.13|<0.0001
91009984|NCT00352027|181903130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.739||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.739
91051742|NCT00807248|181989140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|-0.64|||ANCOVA|||||-0.64|-1.85|<0.0001
91009985|NCT00352027|181903130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.739||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.739
91051743|NCT00807248|181989140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|-0.5|||ANCOVA|||||-0.50|-1.72|0.0004
91051744|NCT00807248|181989140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|-0.65|||ANCOVA|||||-0.65|-1.87|<0.0001
91051745|NCT00807248|181989141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|-0.46|||ANCOVA|||||-0.46|-1.72|0.0007
91051746|NCT00807248|181989141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|-0.41|||ANCOVA|||||-0.41|-1.69|0.0013
91051747|NCT00807248|181989141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.92|-0.66|||ANCOVA|||||-0.66|-1.92|<0.0001
91051748|NCT00807248|181989142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|-0.58|||ANCOVA|||||-0.58|-1.82|0.0002
91009986|NCT00352027|181903130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.739||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.739
91051749|NCT00807248|181989142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|-0.48|||ANCOVA|||||-0.48|-1.72|0.0006
91009987|NCT00352027|181903130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.739||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.739
91051750|NCT00807248|181989142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.76|||ANCOVA|||||-0.76|-2.00|<0.0001
91051751|NCT00807248|181989143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.34|||ANCOVA|||||-0.34|-0.89|<0.0001
91051752|NCT00807248|181989143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.26|||ANCOVA|||||-0.26|-0.82|0.0001
91051753|NCT00807248|181989143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.44|||ANCOVA|||||-0.44|-0.99|<0.0001
91051754|NCT00807248|181989144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.5|||ANCOVA|||||-0.50|-1.02|<0.0001
91051755|NCT00807248|181989144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.36|||ANCOVA|||||-0.36|-0.88|<0.0001
91051756|NCT00807248|181989144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.45|||ANCOVA|||||-0.45|-0.97|<0.0001
91051757|NCT02504671|181989192|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.12||||0.547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|24.52|||Regression, Logistic||95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||24.52|0.18|0.547
91051758|NCT02504671|181989192|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.11||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|62.44|||Regression, Logistic||95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||62.44|0.81|0.077
91051759|NCT02504671|181989192|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.39||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|72.14|||Regression, Logistic||95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||72.14|0.98|0.053
91051760|NCT02504671|181989192|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.69||||0.122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|51.4|||Regression, Logistic||95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||51.40|0.63|0.122
91051761|NCT02504671|181989192|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.4||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|48.83|||Regression, Logistic||95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||48.83|0.60|0.134
91051762|NCT02504671|181989193|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.46||||0.905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.13|8.05||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)||CRP, Week 12|||8.05|-7.13|0.905
91051763|NCT02504671|181989193|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.36||||0.387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|4.28||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||CRP, Week 12|||4.28|-11.00|0.387
91051764|NCT02504671|181989193|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.58||||0.495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.04|4.87||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||CRP, Week 12|||4.87|-10.04|0.495
91051765|NCT02504671|181989193|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.68||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.92|2.55||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||PtGA, Week 12|||2.55|-17.92|0.140
91051766|NCT02504671|181989193|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.68||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.85|-3.52||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||PtGA, Week 12|||-3.52|-23.85|0.009
91051767|NCT02504671|181989193|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-17.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.44|-7.35||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||PtGA, Week 12|||-7.35|-27.44|<0.001
91051768|NCT02504671|181989193|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.42||||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.45|0.62||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||SJC28, Week 12|||0.62|-5.45|0.118
91051769|NCT02504671|181989193|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.17||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|-0.14||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||SJC28, Week 12|||-0.14|-6.20|0.041
91051770|NCT02504671|181989193|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.56||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|0.05||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||SJC28, Week 12|||0.05|-6.00|0.003
91051771|NCT02504671|181989193|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.3||||0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.61|1.01||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||TC28, Week 12|||1.01|-5.61|0.172
91051772|NCT02504671|181989193|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.92||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.22|-0.62||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||TJC28, Week 12|||-0.62|-7.22|0.020
91051773|NCT02504671|181989193|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.98|-2.45||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||TJC28, Week 12|||-2.45|-8.98|<0.001
91051774|NCT02504671|181989193|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.51||||0.518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.13|5.12||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||CRP, Week 12|||5.12|-10.13|0.518
91009988|NCT00352027|181903131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.933||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.933
91009989|NCT00352027|181903131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.933||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.933
91009990|NCT00352027|181903131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.051||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.051
91009991|NCT00352027|181903131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0779||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.0779
91009992|NCT00352027|181903132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.415||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.415
91009993|NCT00352027|181903132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.005||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.005
91009994|NCT00352027|181903132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.245||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.245
91009995|NCT00352027|181903132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.005||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.005
91009996|NCT00352027|181903133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.814||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.814
91009997|NCT00352027|181903133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.553||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.553
91009998|NCT00352027|181903133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.173||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.173
91009999|NCT00352027|181903133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.122||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.122
91010000|NCT00352027|181903134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE)|||||||<0.001
91010001|NCT00352027|181903135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Generallized Estimating Equations (GEE)|||||||<0.001
91010002|NCT00352027|181903136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Generallized Estimating Equations (GEE)|||||||<0.001
91010003|NCT00352027|181903137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Generallized Estimating Equations (GEE)|||||||<0.001
91051775|NCT02504671|181989193|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.0||||0.599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|5.49||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||CRP, Week 12|||5.49|-9.50|0.599
91010004|NCT00352027|181903138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Generallized Estimating Equations (GEE)|||||||<0.001
91010005|NCT00352027|181903139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Generallized Estimating Equations (GEE)|||||||<0.001
91010006|NCT00352027|181903140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE)|||||||<0.001
91010007|NCT00352027|181903141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE)|||||||<0.001
91010008|NCT00352027|181903142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE)|||||||<0.001
91010009|NCT00352027|181903143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.005|||||||Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE)|||||||0.005
91010010|NCT00352027|181903144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE)|||||||<0.001
91010011|NCT00352027|181903145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE)|||||||<0.001
91010012|NCT00352027|181903146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE)|||||||<0.001
91010013|NCT00352027|181903147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE)|||||||<0.001
91010014|NCT00352027|181903148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE)|||||||<0.001
91010015|NCT00352027|181903149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.908|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.908
91010016|NCT00352027|181903150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.178|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.178
91010017|NCT00352027|181903151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.411|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.411
91010018|NCT00352027|181903153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4318|||||||Cox Model|||||||0.4318
91010019|NCT00352027|181903154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2199|||||||Cox Model|||||||0.2199
91010020|NCT00352027|181903155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8946|||||||Cox Model|||||||0.8946
91010021|NCT03099304|181903170|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.79||||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.73|640.85||The exact logistic regression model includes treatment and stratification factor (age ≤30 versus \>30).|exact logistic regression|||||640.85|1.73|0.0057
91010022|NCT03099304|181903170|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.3||||0.0243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|487.28||The exact logistic regression model includes treatment and stratification factor (age ≤30 versus \>30).|exact logistic regression|||||487.28|1.24|0.0243
91010023|NCT03099304|181903170|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|28.48|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.74|1305.2||The exact logistic regression model includes treatment and stratification factor (age ≤30 versus \>30).|exact logistic regression|||||1305.2|3.74|<0.0001
91051776|NCT02504671|181989193|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.63||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.78|-2.48||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||PtGA, Week 12|||-2.48|-22.78|0.015
91051777|NCT02504671|181989193|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-17.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.27|-7.1||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||PtGA, Week 12|||-7.10|-27.27|<0.001
91051778|NCT02504671|181989193|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.98||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|0.05||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||SJC28, Week 12|||0.05|-6.00|0.054
91051779|NCT02504671|181989193|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.05|-3.02||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||SJC28, Week 12|||-3.02|-9.05|<0.001
91051780|NCT02504671|181989193|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.63||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.92|-0.33||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||TJC28, Week 12|||-0.33|-6.92|0.031
91051781|NCT02504671|181989193|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.61|-3.02||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||TJC28, Week 12|||-3.02|-9.61|<0.001
91051782|NCT02504671|181989194|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Week 4. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
91051783|NCT02504671|181989194|OTHER||Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|10.3|||||Week 6. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||10.3|-10.3|
91051784|NCT02504671|181989194|OTHER||Difference|-5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|1.9|||||Week 6. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||1.9|-12.7|
91051785|NCT02504671|181989194|OTHER||Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|10.3|||||Week 6. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||10.3|-10.3|
91051786|NCT02504671|181989194|OTHER||Difference|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|2.5|||||Week 8. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||2.5|-7.9|
91051787|NCT02504671|181989194|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|11.7|||||Week 8. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||11.7|-6.3|
91051788|NCT02504671|181989194|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|23.0|||||Week 8. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||23.0|-1.4|
91051789|NCT02504671|181989194|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|15.6|||||Week 12. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||15.6|-4.8|
91051790|NCT02504671|181989194|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|11.7|||||Week 12. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||11.7|-6.3|
91051791|NCT02504671|181989194|OTHER||Difference|21.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|36.4|||||Week 12. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||36.4|6.8|
91051792|NCT02504671|181989194|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Week 16. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
91051793|NCT02504671|181989194|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|24.5|||||Week 16. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||24.5|2.5|
91051794|NCT02504671|181989194|OTHER||Difference|27.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.7|41.3|||||Week 16. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||41.3|12.7|
91051795|NCT02504671|181989194|OTHER||Difference|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|2.5|||||Week 20. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||2.5|-7.9|
91051796|NCT02504671|181989194|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Week 20. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
91051797|NCT02504671|181989194|OTHER||Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|29.9|||||Week 20. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||29.9|2.6|
91051798|NCT02504671|181989194|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|11.7|||||Week 24. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||11.7|-6.3|
91051799|NCT02504671|181989194|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Week 24. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
91051800|NCT02504671|181989194|OTHER||Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|29.9|||||Week 24. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||29.9|2.6|
91051801|NCT02504671|181989194|OTHER||Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|7.4|||||Week 28. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.4|-7.4|
91051802|NCT02504671|181989194|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Week 28. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
91051803|NCT02504671|181989194|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Week 28. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
91051804|NCT02504671|181989194|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|11.7|||||Week 32. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||11.7|-6.3|
91051805|NCT02504671|181989194|OTHER||Difference|18.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|33.2|||||Week 32. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||33.2|4.7|
91051806|NCT02504671|181989194|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|23.0|||||Week 32. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||23.0|-1.4|
91051807|NCT02504671|181989194|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|11.7|||||Week 36. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||11.7|-6.3|
91051808|NCT02504671|181989194|OTHER||Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|29.9|||||Week 36. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||29.9|2.6|
91051809|NCT02504671|181989194|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|15.6|||||Week 36. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||15.6|-4.8|
91051810|NCT02504671|181989194|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Week 40. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
91051811|NCT02504671|181989194|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|24.5|||||Week 40. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||24.5|2.5|
91051812|NCT02504671|181989194|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|24.5|||||Week 40. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||24.5|2.5|
91051813|NCT02504671|181989194|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|11.7|||||Week 44. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||11.7|-6.3|
91051814|NCT02504671|181989194|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|23.0|||||Week 44. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||23.0|-1.4|
91051815|NCT02504671|181989194|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Week 44. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
91010024|NCT03099304|181903170|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|24.66||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.28|1121.4||The exact logistic regression model includes treatment and stratification factor (age ≤30 versus \>30).|exact logistic regression|||||1121.4|3.28|0.0001
91051816|NCT02504671|181989194|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Week 48. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
91051817|NCT02504671|181989194|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|24.5|||||Week 48. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||24.5|2.5|
91051818|NCT02504671|181989194|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|24.5|||||Week 48. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||24.5|2.5|
91051819|NCT02504671|181989194|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|11.7|||||Week 52. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||11.7|-6.3|
91051820|NCT02504671|181989194|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|23.0|||||Week 52. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||23.0|-1.4|
91051821|NCT02504671|181989194|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|19.4|||||Week 52. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||19.4|-3.2|
91051822|NCT02504671|181989194|OTHER||Difference|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|2.5|||||Week 62 (follow-up). 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||2.5|-7.9|
91051823|NCT02504671|181989194|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|15.6|||||Week 62 (follow-up). 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||15.6|-4.8|
91051824|NCT02504671|181989194|OTHER||Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|7.4|||||Week 62 (follow-up). 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.4|-7.4|
91051825|NCT02504671|181989194|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Week 2. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
91051826|NCT02504671|181989194|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Week 4. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
91051827|NCT02504671|181989194|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|20.8|||||Week 4. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||20.8|0.8|
91051828|NCT02504671|181989194|OTHER||Difference|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|6.3|||||95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||6.3|-11.7|
91051829|NCT02504671|181989194|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|14.1|||||Week 6. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||14.1|-8.7|
91051830|NCT02504671|181989194|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|11.7|||||Week 8. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||11.7|-6.3|
91051831|NCT02504671|181989194|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|15.6|||||Week 8. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||15.6|-4.8|
91051832|NCT02504671|181989194|OTHER||Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|7.4|||||Week 12. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.4|-7.4|
91051833|NCT02504671|181989194|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Week 12. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
91051834|NCT02504671|181989194|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Week 16. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
91051835|NCT02504671|181989194|OTHER||Difference|18.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|31.5|||||Week 16. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||31.5|6.3|
91010025|NCT03099304|181903171|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.4936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05||The upper limit of the confidence interval was not estimatable because there were too few participants with a response of clear or almost clear.|The exact logistic regression model includes treatment and stratification factor (age ≤30 versus \>30).|exact logistic regression||||||0.05|0.4936
91010026|NCT03099304|181903171|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.16||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62||The upper limit of the confidence interval was not estimatable because there were too few participants with a response of clear or almost clear.|The exact logistic regression model includes treatment and stratification factor (age ≤30 versus \>30).|exact logistic regression||||||0.62|0.1140
91051836|NCT02504671|181989194|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|23.0|||||Week 20. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||23.0|-1.4|
91051837|NCT02504671|181989194|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Week 20. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
91051838|NCT02504671|181989194|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|23.0|||||Week 24. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||23.0|-1.4|
91051839|NCT02504671|181989194|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|23.0|||||Week 24. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||23.0|-1.4|
91051840|NCT02504671|181989194|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|23.0|||||Week 28. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||23.0|-1.4|
91051841|NCT02504671|181989194|OTHER||Difference|18.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|33.2|||||Week 28. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||33.2|4.7|
91010027|NCT03099304|181903171|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.1||||0.0501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0||The upper limit of the confidence interval was not estimatable because there were too few participants with a response of clear or almost clear.|The exact logistic regression model includes treatment and stratification factor (age ≤30 versus \>30).|exact logistic regression||||||1.00|0.0501
91010028|NCT03099304|181903171|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.89||||0.1257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58||The upper limit of the confidence interval was not estimatable because there were too few participants with a response of clear or almost clear.|The exact logistic regression model includes treatment and stratification factor (age ≤30 versus \>30).|exact logistic regression||||||0.58|0.1257
91010029|NCT03099304|181903172|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.9794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|4.33|||exact logistic regression|The exact logistic regression model includes treatment and stratification factor (age ≤30 versus \>30).||||4.33|0.33|0.9794
91051842|NCT02504671|181989194|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|19.4|||||Week 32. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||19.4|-3.2|
91051843|NCT02504671|181989194|OTHER||Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|29.9|||||Week 32. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||29.9|2.6|
91051844|NCT02504671|181989194|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Week 36. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
91051845|NCT02504671|181989194|OTHER||Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|29.9|||||Week 36, 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||29.9|2.6|
91051846|NCT02504671|181989194|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|20.8|||||Week 40. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||20.8|0.8|
91010030|NCT03099304|181903172|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.69||||0.4893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|5.86|||exact logistic regression|The exact logistic regression model includes treatment and stratification factor (age ≤30 versus \>30).||||5.86|0.51|0.4893
91010031|NCT03099304|181903179|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean (LSM) difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.13|||Log Rank|Treatment comparisons were performed using the log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factor.|LSM difference = treatment minus vehicle|||-0.13|-0.75|0.0056
91051847|NCT02504671|181989194|OTHER||Difference|24.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.5|38.1|||||Week 40. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||38.1|10.5|
91051848|NCT02504671|181989194|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|23.0|||||Week 44. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||23.0|-1.4|
91051849|NCT02504671|181989194|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Week 44. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
91010032|NCT03099304|181903179|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.1|||Log Rank|Treatment comparisons were performed using the log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factor.|LSM difference = treatment minus vehicle|||-0.10|-0.70|0.0095
91010033|NCT03099304|181903179|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.37|||Log Rank|Treatment comparisons were performed using the log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factor.|LSM difference = treatment minus vehicle|||-0.37|-0.99|<0.0001
91010034|NCT03099304|181903179|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.21|||Log Rank|Treatment comparisons were performed using the log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factor.|LSM difference = treatment minus vehicle|||-0.21|-0.80|0.0011
91051850|NCT02504671|181989194|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|24.5|||||Week 48. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||24.5|2.5|
91051851|NCT02504671|181989194|OTHER||Difference|18.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|31.5|||||Week 48. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||31.5|6.3|
91051852|NCT02504671|181989194|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|23.0|||||Week 52. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||23.0|-1.4|
91051853|NCT02504671|181989194|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|23.0|||||Week 52. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||23.0|-1.4|
91051854|NCT02504671|181989194|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|19.4|||||Week 62 (follow-up). 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||19.4|-3.2|
91051855|NCT02504671|181989194|OTHER||Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|29.9|||||Week 62 (follow-up). 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||29.9|2.6|
91051856|NCT02504671|181989195|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.32||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|-0.01||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 1|||-0.01|-0.64|0.046
91051857|NCT02504671|181989195|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.03||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 1|||0.03|-0.62|0.071
91051858|NCT02504671|181989195|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.37||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.05||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 1|||-0.05|-0.69|0.022
91051859|NCT02504671|181989195|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.28||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.11||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 2|||0.11|-0.67|0.160
91051860|NCT02504671|181989195|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.32||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.07||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 2|||0.07|-0.71|0.103
91051861|NCT02504671|181989195|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.42||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.03||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 2|||-0.03|-0.80|0.034
91051862|NCT02504671|181989195|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.07||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4|||0.07|-0.87|0.096
91051863|NCT02504671|181989195|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.56||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.09||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4|||-0.09|-1.02|0.020
91051864|NCT02504671|181989195|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.76||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|-0.29||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4|||-0.29|-1.22|0.001
91051865|NCT02504671|181989195|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.42||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.1||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 6|||0.10|-0.93|0.110
91051866|NCT02504671|181989195|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.47||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.05||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 6|||0.05|-0.98|0.076
91051867|NCT02504671|181989195|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.61||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.1||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 6|||-0.10|-1.11|0.020
91010035|NCT03099304|181903181|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-36.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.34||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.15|-16.27|||Log Rank|Treatment comparisons were performed using the log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factor.|LSM difference = treatment minus vehicle|||-16.27|-57.15|0.0005
91010036|NCT03099304|181903181|SUPERIORITY||LM difference|-35.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.01||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.91|-15.33|||Log Rank|Treatment comparisons were performed using the log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factor.|LSM difference = treatment minus vehicle|||-15.33|-54.91|0.0006
91010037|NCT03099304|181903181|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-46.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.35|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.47|-25.57|||Log Rank|Treatment comparisons were performed using the log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factor.|LSM difference = treatment minus vehicle|||-25.57|-66.47|<0.0001
91010038|NCT03099304|181903181|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-43.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.98|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.52|-24.07|||Log Rank|Treatment comparisons were performed using the log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factor.|LSM difference = treatment minus vehicle|||-24.07|-63.52|<0.0001
91010039|NCT03099304|181903188|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-2.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32||0.0326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.44|-0.24|||Log Rank|Treatment comparisons were performed using the log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factor.|LSM difference = treatment minus vehicle|||-0.24|-5.44|0.0326
91010040|NCT03099304|181903188|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-2.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.28||0.0333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.26|-0.22|||Log Rank|Treatment comparisons were performed using the log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factor.|LSM difference = treatment minus vehicle|||-0.22|-5.26|0.0333
91051868|NCT02504671|181989195|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.42||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|0.12||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 8|||0.12|-0.97|0.128
91010041|NCT03099304|181903188|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-5.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.31||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.68|-2.48|||Log Rank|Treatment comparisons were performed using the log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factor.|LSM difference = treatment minus vehicle|||-2.48|-7.68|0.0002
91010042|NCT03099304|181903188|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-4.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.27||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.59|-1.57|||Log Rank|Treatment comparisons were performed using the log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factor.|LSM difference = treatment minus vehicle|||-1.57|-6.59|0.0016
91010043|NCT03099304|181903190|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-23.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.99||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.35|-9.71|||Log Rank|Treatment comparisons were performed using the log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factor.|LSM difference = treatment minus vehicle|||-9.71|-37.35|0.0010
91010044|NCT03099304|181903190|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-18.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.77||0.0072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.86|-5.08|||Log Rank|Treatment comparisons were performed using the log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factor.|LSM difference = treatment minus vehicle|||-5.08|-31.86|0.0072
91010045|NCT03099304|181903190|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-29.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.98|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.61|-16.0|||Log Rank|Treatment comparisons were performed using the log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factor.|LSM difference = treatment minus vehicle|||-16.00|-43.61|<0.0001
91010046|NCT03099304|181903190|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-25.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.75||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.89|-12.22|||Log Rank|Treatment comparisons were performed using the log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factor.|LSM difference = treatment minus vehicle|||-12.22|-38.89|0.0002
91010047|NCT03099304|181903202|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.4936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05||The upper limit of the confidence interval was not estimatable because there were too few participants with a response of clear or almost clear.||exact logistic regression|The exact logistic regression model includes treatment and stratification factor (age ≤30 versus \>30).|||||0.05|0.4936
91010048|NCT03099304|181903202|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.16||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62||The upper limit of the confidence interval was not estimatable because there were too few participants with a response of clear or almost clear.||exact logistic regression|The exact logistic regression model includes treatment and stratification factor (age ≤30 versus \>30).|||||0.62|0.1140
91010049|NCT03099304|181903202|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.1||||0.0501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0||The upper limit of the confidence interval was not estimatable because there were too few participants with a response of clear or almost clear.||exact logistic regression|The exact logistic regression model includes treatment and stratification factor (age ≤30 versus \>30).|||||1.00|0.0501
91051869|NCT02504671|181989195|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.78||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.24||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 8|||-0.24|-1.33|0.005
91051870|NCT02504671|181989195|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.82||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|-0.29||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 8|||-0.29|-1.36|0.003
91051871|NCT02504671|181989195|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.53||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|0.12||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12|||0.12|-1.17|0.110
91051872|NCT02504671|181989195|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.88||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|-0.23||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12|||-0.23|-1.53|0.008
91010050|NCT03099304|181903202|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.89||||0.1257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58||The upper limit of the confidence interval was not estimatable because there were too few participants with a response of clear or almost clear.||exact logistic regression|The exact logistic regression model includes treatment and stratification factor (age ≤30 versus \>30).|||||0.58|0.1257
91010051|NCT01624974|181903246|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares (LS) Means|0.047||||0.282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.039|0.134|||LDA model|The LDA model assumes that repeated measurements follow a multivariate normal distribution.||||0.134|-0.039|0.282
91010052|NCT02607735|181903255|SUPERIORITY|The SVR12 rate for the SOF/VEL/VOX group was compared to the performance goal of 85% using a 2-sided exact 1-sample binomial test at the 0.05 significance level.|||||<|0.001|||||||2-sided exact 1-sample binomial test|||||||<0.001
91010053|NCT02430389|181903287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0575|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.0575
91010054|NCT02430389|181903288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.348|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.348
91010055|NCT00742391|181903301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91010056|NCT00742391|181903302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0001
91010057|NCT02394028|181903304|SUPERIORITY||Difference in rate|1.1||||0.8508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.85|12.56||The multiplicity adjusted p-values are presented.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in remission rates is adjusted using CMH weights and the 95% CIs use the Newcombes method.|||12.56|-10.85|0.8508
91010058|NCT02394028|181903304|SUPERIORITY||Difference in rate|3.8||||0.5235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|15.27||The multiplicity adjusted p-values are presented.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in remission rates is adjusted using CMH weights and the 95% CIs use the Newcombes method.|||15.27|-8.30|0.5235
91010059|NCT02394028|181903306|SUPERIORITY||Difference in rate|4.9||||0.7908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.26|16.11||The multiplicity adjusted p-values are presented.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in response rates is adjusted using CMH weights and the 95% CIs use the Newcombes method.|||16.11|-6.26|0.7908
91010060|NCT02394028|181903306|SUPERIORITY||Difference in rate|5.8||||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.43|17.05||The multiplicity adjusted p-values are presented.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in response rates is adjusted using CMH weights and the 95% CIs use the Newcombes method.|||17.05|-5.43|0.3170
91010061|NCT02394028|181903307|SUPERIORITY||Difference in rate|11.3||||0.0088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|19.65||The multiplicity adjusted p-values are presented.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in response rates is adjusted using CMH weights and the 95% CIs use the Newcombes method.|||19.65|2.70|0.0088
91010062|NCT02394028|181903308|SUPERIORITY||Difference in rate|11.5||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.11|18.83||The multiplicity adjusted p-values are presented.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in response rates is adjusted using CMH weights and the 95% CIs use the Newcombes method.|||18.83|4.11|0.0026
91010063|NCT02394028|181903310|SUPERIORITY||Difference in rate|3.1||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.02|13.45||The multiplicity adjusted p-values are presented.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in remission rates are adjusted using CMH weights and the 95% CIs use the Newcombes method.|||13.45|-8.02|1
91010064|NCT02394028|181903310|SUPERIORITY||Difference in rate|2.3||||0.7908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.78|12.56||The multiplicity adjusted p-values are presented.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in remission rates are adjusted using CMH weights and the 95% CIs use the Newcombes method.|||12.56|-8.78|0.7908
91010065|NCT02394028|181903312|SUPERIORITY||Difference in rate|1.6||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.51|9.73||The multiplicity adjusted p-values are presented.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in remission rates are adjusted using CMH weights and the 95% CIs use the Newcombes method.|||9.73|-6.51|1
91010066|NCT02394028|181903312|SUPERIORITY||Difference in rate|6.5||||0.5235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.24|15.16||The multiplicity adjusted p-values are presented.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in remission rates are adjusted using CMH weights and the 95% CIs use the Newcombes method.|||15.16|-2.24|0.5235
91010067|NCT02394028|181903313|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-0.5||||0.311|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.4|0.3|||MMRM|||Bowel Domain Score||0.3|-1.4|0.3110
91010068|NCT02394028|181903314|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|0.2||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.9||The multiplicity adjusted p-values are presented.|MMRM|||Functional Domain Scale||0.9|-0.5|1
91010069|NCT02394028|181903314|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.7||The multiplicity adjusted p-values are presented.|MMRM|||Functional Domain Score||0.7|-0.7|1
91010070|NCT02394028|181903314|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|0.1||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.9||The multiplicity adjusted p-values are presented.|MMRM|||Bowel Domain Score||0.9|-0.8|1
91010071|NCT02394028|181903314|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-0.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.5||The multiplicity adjusted p-values are presented.|MMRM|||Bowel Domain Score||0.5|-1.1|1
91010072|NCT02394028|181903315|SUPERIORITY||Difference in rate|17.3||||0.0677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.52|30.27||The multiplicity adjusted p-values are presented.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in remission rates is adjusted using CMH weights and the 95% CIs use the Newcombes method.|||30.27|3.52|0.0677
91010073|NCT02394028|181903316|SUPERIORITY||Difference in rates|18.6||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.07|25.96||The multiplicity adjusted p-values are presented.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in remission rates is adjusted using CMH weights and the 95% CIs use the Newcombes method.|||25.96|11.07|0.0480
91010074|NCT02394028|181903317|SUPERIORITY||Difference in rates|13.5||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|29.94|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in response rates is adjusted using CMH weights and the 95% CIs use the Newcombes method.|||29.94|-2.90|0.1210
91010075|NCT02394028|181903318|SUPERIORITY||Difference in rates|6.2||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|11.93||The multiplicity adjusted p-values are presented.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in remission rates is adjusted using CMH weights and the 95% CIs use the Newcombes method.|||11.93|0.54|0.0480
91010076|NCT02394028|181903319|SUPERIORITY||Difference in rates|11.2||||0.0677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.04|19.24||The multiplicity adjusted p-values are presented.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in response rates is adjusted using CMH weights and the 95% CIs use the Newcombes method.|||19.24|3.04|0.0677
91010077|NCT02394028|181903320|SUPERIORITY||Difference in rates|16.2||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.96|23.31||Nominal p-value, no adjustment for multiplicity performed.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in remission rates is adjusted using CMH weights and the 95% CIs use the Newcombes method.|||23.31|8.96|0.0035
91010078|NCT02394028|181903321|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-0.3||||0.4009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.4||The multiplicity adjusted p-values are presented.|MMRM|||Functional Symptoms Domain||0.4|-0.9|0.4009
91010079|NCT02394028|181903321|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-0.3||||0.4009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.4||The multiplicity adjusted p-values are presented.|MMRM|||Bowel Symptoms Domain||0.4|-1.0|0.4009
91010080|NCT02109939|181903360|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.836|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.758||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.285|0.613|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated Measures including week 4.||||0.613|-6.285|0.1070
91010081|NCT02109939|181903361|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.207|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.653||0.1822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.45|1.036|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with week 4 data.||||1.036|-5.450|0.1822
91010082|NCT02109939|181903362|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.0134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.86|||Generalized linear mixed model|The reported outcome measure is the estimated percentage from a generalized linear mixed model, not a simple count of subjects.||||1.86|1.07|0.0134
91010083|NCT02109939|181903365|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.61||||0.0066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|2.27|||Generalized linear mixed model|The reported outcome measure is the estimated percentage from a generalized linear mixed model, not a simple count of subjects.||||2.27|1.14|0.0066
91010084|NCT02109939|181903368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.2852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.43|||Generalized linear mixed model.|The reported outcome measure is the estimated percentage from a generalized linear mixed model, not a simple count of subjects.||||1.43|0.90|0.2852
91010085|NCT02109939|181903369|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.79|||Generalized linear mixed model|The reported outcome measure is the estimated percentage from a generalized linear mixed model, not a simple count of subjects.||||1.79|1.14|0.0023
91010086|NCT02109939|181903378|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.89|||Generalized linear mixed model|The reported outcome measure is the estimated percentage from a generalized linear mixed model, not a simple count of subjects.||||1.89|1.07|0.0140
91010087|NCT02109939|181903379|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.0663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.76|||Generalized linear mixed model|The reported outcome measure is the estimated percentage from a generalized linear mixed model, not a simple count of subjects.||||1.76|0.98|0.0663
91010088|NCT01058356|181903386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|4.15|||Regression, Logistic|||"Null hypothesis: The efficay of the probiotic Lactobacilli (Lacidofil cap®) for the prevention of AAD in adults is not different form the placebo group in multi-center, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial.~Power calculation:~The assumption of sample size calculation:~difference 18% (8% : 26%) α: 0.05, statistical power: 90%, two sided difference: 18% Compliance: 80%~\- Unadjusted sample size (N=200) 180 + 10(%) drop out = 180 + 180/ (1-0.1)2 = 222.2 Total 220 subjects"||4.15|0.17|<0.05
91010089|NCT01058356|181903387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.55|||Regression, Logistic|||"Null hypothesis: The efficay of the probiotic Lactobacilli (Lacidofil cap®) for the prevention of AAD in adults is not different form the placebo group in multi-center, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial.~Power calculation:~The assumption of sample size calculation:~difference 18% (8% : 26%) α: 0.05, statistical power: 90%, two sided difference: 18% Compliance: 80%~\- Unadjusted sample size (N=200) 180 + 10(%) drop out = 180 + 180/ (1-0.1)2 = 222.2 Total 220 subjects"||1.55|0.18|<0.05
91010090|NCT00606021|181903403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.1815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.37||The significant level for the primary outcome measure of progression free survival during maintenance phase is one-sided 0.2.|Regression, Cox|Stratified Cox regression model is used for hazard ratio estimate. Stratification factor: response status prior to randomization.||||1.37|0.42|0.1815
91010091|NCT00606021|181903404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.1233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.26||The significant level for the secondary outcome measure of progression free survival during overall period is one-sided 0.2.|Regression, Cox|Stratified Cox regression model is used for hazard ratio estimate. Stratification factor: response status prior to randomization.||||1.26|0.40|0.1233
91010092|NCT00606021|181903405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.7239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|2.28||The significant level for the secondary outcome measure overall survival during maintenance period is two-sided 0.05.|Regression, Cox|Stratified Cox regression model is used for hazard ratio estimate. Stratification factor: response status prior to randomization.||||2.28|0.56|0.7239
91010093|NCT00606021|181903406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18||||0.6376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.38||The significant level for the secondary outcome measure overall survival during overall period is two-sided 0.05.|Regression, Cox|Stratified Cox regression model is used for hazard ratio estimate. Stratification factor: response status prior to randomization.||||2.38|0.59|0.6376
91010094|NCT03198884|181903423|OTHER|The percent of patients with an RNA \<50 copies/mL at each time point was analyzed using McNemar's test following the guidelines of the Snapshot algorithm. Missing RNA data was considered a treatment failure. Change in mean serum creatinine from baseline was analyzed using Wilcoxon signed rank test.|||||<|0.05|||||||McNemar||||Change in mean CD4+ cell counts from baseline was analyzed using a paired t-test. All analyses used a p-value of less than or equal to 0.05 as significant. Statistical analyses were performed using R software, version 3.4.3.|||<0.05
91010095|NCT03198884|181903424|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91010096|NCT01202643|181903430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.67
91010097|NCT01202643|181903431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Study was closed due to insufficient recruitment||||0.74
91010098|NCT04524663|181903432|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.59||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.14|9.32|||Regression, Linear|||||9.32|-8.14|0.89
91010099|NCT04524663|181903433|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|18.9||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.98|34.83|||Regression, Linear|||||34.83|2.98|0.02
91010100|NCT04524663|181903434|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.69||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|4.1|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||4.10|0.70|0.24
91010101|NCT04524663|181903435|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.49
91010102|NCT04524663|181903436|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.33|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||1.33|0.32|0.24
91010103|NCT00911508|181903439|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.15||||||||1.15|0.65|
91010104|NCT00911508|181903440|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.21||||||||1.21|0.60|
91010105|NCT00911508|181903441|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.93||||||||0.93|0.74|
91010106|NCT00911508|181903442|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.09||||||||1.09|0.72|
91010107|NCT00911508|181903443|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.68||||||||1.68|0.53|
91010108|NCT00911508|181903444|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.51||||||||1.51|0.51|
91010109|NCT00911508|181903445|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.72||||||||1.72|0.33|
91010110|NCT00911508|181903446|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|3.09||||||||3.09|0.41|
91010111|NCT00911508|181903447|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.6||||||||0.60|0.45|
91010112|NCT00911508|181903448|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.97||||||||0.97|0.77|
91010113|NCT00911508|181903449|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|6.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||12 Month||6.9|3.7|<0.001
91010114|NCT00911508|181903449|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|4.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||5 Years||4.8|2.1|<0.001
91010115|NCT00911508|181903450|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.7||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||12 Month||-1.2|-2.3|0.001
91010116|NCT00911508|181903450|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.4||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||5 Year||-0.9|-1.9|0.001
91010117|NCT00911508|181903451|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||12 Month||-1.1|-2.0|<0.001
91010118|NCT00911508|181903451|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||5 Year||-0.4|-1.7|<0.001
91010119|NCT04308668|181903453|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.4||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|2.2|||Fisher Exact||Values represent percentages. Experimental treatment arm compared with the placebo control arm.|||2.2|-7.0|0.35
91010120|NCT04308668|181903454|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.27||||0.117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.27|-0.61|0.117
91010121|NCT01266967|181903462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|41.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.3|52.6|||Exact Test||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with OIR.|||52.6|29.3|<0.0001
91010122|NCT01266967|181903462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|37.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.3|49.8|||Exact Test||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with OIR.|||49.8|25.3|<0.0001
91010123|NCT01519700|181903484|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority limit: -1 day Power: 90% Confidence level: 97.5% Randomization ratio: 1:1 (EP2006:Neupogen)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.04|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|-0.26||||||The one-sided 97.5% Confidence Interval: \[-0.26, ∞).||||-0.26|
91010124|NCT05111548|181903491|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.923|||||||ANOVA|||Mixed ANOVA (within-subjects factor=time; between-subjects factor=group)||||0.923
91010125|NCT05111548|181903492|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||ANOVA|||Mixed ANOVA (within-subjects factor=time; between-subjects factor=group)||||0.110
91010126|NCT05111548|181903493|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.818|||||||ANOVA|||Mixed ANOVA (within-subjects factor=time; between-subjects factor=group)||||0.818
91010127|NCT05111548|181903494|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||ANOVA|||Mixed ANOVA (within-subjects factor=time; between-subjects factor=group)||||0.130
91010128|NCT03938857|181903504|OTHER||Slope|-0.1088295|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4728041||0.814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.035508|0.8178494|||Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated value represents interaction between treatment and days.|Placebo group compared to combined Dexmedetomidine groups.||0.8178494|-1.035508|0.814
91010129|NCT02577107|181903532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.314|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1613|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.618|31.011||||||||31.011|9.618|
91010130|NCT02988115|181903554|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means difference|-21.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.897|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.132|-17.697|||ANCOVA||bempedoic acid (BA) therapy minus placebo|||-17.697|-25.132|<0.001
91010131|NCT02988115|181903555|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means difference|-18.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.063|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.951|-14.865|||ANCOVA||BA therapy minus placebo|||-14.865|-22.951|<0.001
91010132|NCT02988115|181903556|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means difference|-17.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.597|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.07|-14.811|||ANCOVA||BA therapy minus placebo|non-HDL-C||-14.811|-21.070|<0.001
91010133|NCT02988115|181903556|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means difference|-14.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.287|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.283|-12.239|||ANCOVA||BA therapy minus placebo|TC||-12.239|-17.283|<0.001
91010134|NCT02988115|181903556|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means difference|-14.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.581|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.062|-11.866|||ANCOVA||BA therapy minus placebo|apoB||-11.866|-18.062|<0.001
91010135|NCT02988115|181903557|SUPERIORITY||Median treatment difference|-24.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|-24.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.888|-12.712|||Wilcoxon rank sum test||BA therapy minus placebo|||-12.712|-35.888|<0.001
91010136|NCT00649220|181903609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22626||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Two-side, paired t-test on the null hypothesis that antipsychotics are reduced by 10% compared to baseline||||0.22626
91051873|NCT02504671|181989195|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|-0.6||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12|||-0.60|-1.88|<0.001
91010137|NCT00649220|181903609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34192||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Wilcoxon signed rank test on the null hypothesis that antipsychotics are reduced by 10% compared to baseline||||0.34192
91010138|NCT04646668|181903627|SUPERIORITY|Due to the pilot nature of the current study, formal power calculations were not conducted.||||||0.002|||||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in nicotine delivery between cigarettes, e-cigarettes, and heat not burn after the standardized 10-puff bout. ANOVAs were conducted to detect differences between products for nicotine concentration at five minutes (immediately following 10-puff bout). The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).||||0.002
91010139|NCT03288987|181903633|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared by comparing the 90% CI for the hazard ratio (HR) of the AryoGen Pharmed Bevacizumab to the reference product (Roche Bevacizumab) to the point-estimate margin and was based on the synthesis method.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.46|1.35|||Regression, Cox|Upper limit of CI is lower than the noninferiority margin (1.44).|The 90 % CI based on synthesis method is (0.45,1.38). In HR calculation, the AryoGen Pharmed Bevacizumab to Roche Bevacizumab was reported. (reference group was Roche Bevacizumab)|||1.35|0.46|0.47
91010140|NCT03288987|181903634|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.8|||Regression, Cox||In HR calculation, the AryoGen Pharmed Bevacizumab to Roche Bevacizumab was reported. (reference group was Roche Bevacizumab)|||1.80|0.55|0.99
91051874|NCT02504671|181989195|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.29||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|0.56||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 16|||0.56|-1.15|0.500
91051875|NCT02504671|181989195|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.99||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|-0.15||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 16|||-0.15|-1.83|0.021
91010141|NCT03288987|181903635|OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||Fisher's Exact Test|||||||0.17
91010142|NCT03288987|181903636|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.61|||Regression, Cox||In HR calculation, the AryoGen Pharmed Bevacizumab to Roche Bevacizumab was reported. (reference group was Roche Bevacizumab)|||1.61|0.76|0.59
91010143|NCT03288987|181903637|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher's Exact Test|||||||>0.05
91010144|NCT00608426|181903639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||.02
91010145|NCT00608426|181903640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||for the comparison of telephone counseling between the two groups|Mixed effects logistic regression|||||||<.001
91010146|NCT00608426|181903640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|||||for the comparison of in-person counseling between the two groups|Mixed effects logistic regression|||||||0.57
91051876|NCT02504671|181989195|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|-0.18||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 16|||-0.18|-1.83|0.017
91051877|NCT02504671|181989195|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07||||0.871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.83||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 20|||0.83|-0.98|0.871
91051878|NCT02504671|181989195|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.58||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|0.29||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 20|||0.29|-1.46|0.190
91010147|NCT00608426|181903640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|||||for the comparison of used medications between the two groups|Mixed effects logistic regression|||||||.15
91010148|NCT00608426|181903640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||for the comparison of combination counseling and medication between the two groups|Mixed effects logistic regression|||||||<.001
91051879|NCT02504671|181989195|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.66||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|0.2||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 20|||0.20|-1.51|0.130
91010149|NCT00608426|181903640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|||||for the comparison of attended VA smoking cessation clinic between the two groups|Mixed effects logistic regression|||||||.77
91010150|NCT00608426|181903640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||for the comparison of received VA smoking cessation medication between the two groups|Mixed effects logistic regression|||||||.002
91051880|NCT02504671|181989195|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.22||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.24|-0.2||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24|||-0.20|-2.24|0.019
91010151|NCT00608426|181903641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.13
91010152|NCT00368069|181903644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.155||||0.038||95.0|0.009|0.301|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) on (log-) POS freq/week over Treatment period with Treatment, (log-) Baseline POS freq/week as covariate.||||0.301|0.009|0.038
91010153|NCT00368069|181903644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent reduction over Placebo|14.4||||||95.0|0.9|26.0|||Transf. of ANCOVA results on log data|Percent Reduction of Keppra over PBO is calculated based on the ANCOVA on log data as 100\*(1-exp(LSmeans Keppra -LSMeans Placebo))||Treatment difference was assessed through the percent reduction in POS freq/week of Keppra over Placebo by back transformation of the results of the ANCOVA on log data||26.0|0.9|
91051881|NCT02504671|181989195|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.53||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|-0.55||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24|||-0.55|-2.51|0.002
91051882|NCT02504671|181989195|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.39||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|-0.43||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24|||-0.43|-2.34|0.005
91010154|NCT00368069|181903646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.158||||0.034||95.0|0.012|0.305|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA on (log-) seizure frequency per week over Treatment period with Treatment, (log-) Baseline seizure frequency per week as covariate.||||0.305|0.012|0.034
91010155|NCT00368069|181903646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent reduction over Placebo|14.7||||||95.0|1.2|26.3|||Transf. of ANCOVA results on log data|Percent Reduction of Keppra over Placebo is calculated based on the ANCOVA on log data as 100\*(1-exp(LSmeans Keppra -LSMeans Placebo))||Treatment difference was assessed through the percent reduction in POS frequency per week of Keppra over Placebo by back transformation of the results of the ANCOVA on log data||26.3|1.2|
91010156|NCT00368069|181903647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.84||||0.07||95.0|0.95|3.55|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression analysis including Treatment as a factor.|Based on the number of evaluable patients. A patient is considered as evaluable for the response status if he has seizure information in at least one of the period (baseline or treatment period.|||3.55|0.95|0.070
91051883|NCT02504671|181989195|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.41||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.09||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 1|||-0.09|-0.73|0.013
91010157|NCT00368069|181903648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.033||95.0|||||Mantel Haenszel|Subjects with missing data during the Treatment period were considered in the category \<-25%.||||||0.033
91010158|NCT00368069|181903649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.205||||0.003||95.0|0.07|0.341|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA on (log-) Treatment POS frequency per week with Treatment and (log-) Baseline POS frequency per week as covariate||||0.341|0.070|0.003
91010159|NCT00368069|181903649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent reduction over Placebo|18.6||||||95.0|6.7|28.9|||Transf. of ANCOVA results on log data|Percent Reduction of Keppra over Placebo is calculated based on the ANCOVA on log data as 100\*(1-exp(LSmeans Keppra -LSMeans Placebo))||Treatment difference was assessed through the percent reduction in POS frequency per week of Keppra over Placebo by back transformation of the results of the ANCOVA on log data||28.9|6.7|
91051884|NCT02504671|181989195|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.49||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.17||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 1|||-0.17|-0.80|0.003
91051885|NCT02504671|181989195|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.47||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|-0.09||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 2|||-0.09|-0.86|0.017
91051886|NCT02504671|181989195|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.52||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.13||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 2|||-0.13|-0.90|0.009
91051887|NCT02504671|181989195|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.67||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|-0.2||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4|||-0.20|-1.13|0.005
91051888|NCT02504671|181989195|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|-0.55||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4|||-0.55|-1.48|<0.001
91051889|NCT02504671|181989195|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.47||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.04||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 6|||0.04|-0.99|0.073
91010160|NCT02735382|181903709|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.663|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.116|5.283|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||5.283|4.116|<.0001
91010161|NCT02735382|181903710|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.284|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.672|4.035|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||4.035|2.672|<.0001
91010162|NCT02735382|181903711|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.885||||0.8438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.698|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||1.698|0.420|.8438
91010163|NCT02735382|181903712|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.161||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.123|0.757|||t-test, 2 sided|df=292||A change score from baseline to 6-months was computed and served as the data to be analyzed in the t-test of group differences.||0.757|0.123|.007
91010164|NCT02996981|181903713|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.299|||||||Chi-squared|df=1||||||0.299
91010165|NCT03451630|181903752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0211||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 2.49 with degrees of freedom (6, 3152).||Overall Test of Group by Time Interaction||||0.0211
91010166|NCT03451630|181903752|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.22||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|5.09||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 4.83 with degrees of freedom (1, 3152).||Test for group difference in the change from baseline to 12-Months using linear contrast.||5.09|0.29|0.0280
91051890|NCT02504671|181989195|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.85||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|-0.34||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 6|||-0.34|-1.36|0.001
91051891|NCT02504671|181989195|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.89||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|-0.35||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 8|||-0.35|-1.43|0.001
91051892|NCT02504671|181989195|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|-0.56||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 8|||-0.56|-1.65|<0.001
91051893|NCT02504671|181989195|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.68||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|-0.03||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12|||-0.03|-1.32|0.039
91051894|NCT02504671|181989195|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|-0.63||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12|||-0.63|-1.91|<0.001
91051895|NCT02504671|181989195|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.77||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|0.07||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 16|||0.07|-1.61|0.073
91051896|NCT02504671|181989195|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.11||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|-0.3||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 16|||-0.30|-1.91|0.007
91051897|NCT02504671|181989195|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.77||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|0.1||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 20|||0.10|-1.65|0.083
91051898|NCT02504671|181989195|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|0.03||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 20|||0.03|-1.63|0.059
91051899|NCT02504671|181989195|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.48||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.46|-0.5||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24|||-0.50|-2.46|0.003
91051900|NCT02504671|181989195|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.75|-0.89||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24|||-0.89|-2.75|<0.001
91051901|NCT02504671|181989197|OTHER||Difference|16.2||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|31.4|||Regression, Logistic||Difference to placebo for Week 1 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||31.4|1.1|0.037
91051902|NCT02504671|181989197|OTHER||Difference|10.8||||0.144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|24.7|||Regression, Logistic||Difference to placebo for Week 1 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||24.7|-3.1|0.144
91051903|NCT02504671|181989197|OTHER||Difference|18.9||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|34.5|||Regression, Logistic||Difference to placebo for Week 1 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||34.5|3.3|0.033
91051904|NCT02504671|181989197|OTHER||Difference|5.4||||0.437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|22.2|||Regression, Logistic||Difference to placebo for Week 2 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||22.2|-11.3|0.437
91051905|NCT02504671|181989197|OTHER||Difference|2.7||||0.755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|18.9|||Regression, Logistic||Difference to placebo for Week 2 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||18.9|-13.5|0.755
91051906|NCT02504671|181989197|OTHER||Difference|24.3||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.2|43.4|||Regression, Logistic||Difference to placebo for Week 2 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||43.4|5.2|0.023
91051907|NCT02504671|181989197|OTHER||Difference|29.7||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.8|49.7|||Regression, Logistic||Difference to placebo for Week 4 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||49.7|9.8|0.006
91051908|NCT02504671|181989197|OTHER||Difference|21.6||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|41.2|||Regression, Logistic||Difference to placebo for Week 4 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||41.2|2.0|0.039
91051909|NCT02504671|181989197|OTHER||Difference|29.7||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.8|49.7|||Regression, Logistic||Difference to placebo for Week 4 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||49.7|9.8|0.008
91051910|NCT02504671|181989197|OTHER||Difference|21.6||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|42.8|||Regression, Logistic||Difference to placebo for Week 4 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||42.8|0.4|0.044
91051911|NCT02504671|181989197|OTHER||Difference|18.9||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|40.0|||Regression, Logistic||Difference to placebo for Week 6 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||40.0|-2.2|0.083
91051912|NCT02504671|181989197|OTHER||Difference|27.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.8|48.3|||||Difference to placebo for Week 6 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||48.3|5.8|
91051913|NCT02504671|181989197|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|32.8|||||Difference to placebo for Week 8 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.Wald confidence limits without correction.|||32.8|-11.2|
91051914|NCT02504671|181989197|OTHER||Difference|27.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.2|48.9|||||Difference to placebo for Week 8 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||48.9|5.2|
91051915|NCT02504671|181989197|OTHER||Difference|32.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.9|54.0|||||Difference to placebo for Week 8 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||54.0|10.9|
91051916|NCT02504671|181989197|OTHER||Difference|21.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|42.4|||||Difference to placebo for Week 12 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||42.4|0.9|
91010167|NCT03451630|181903752|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.23||0.0935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|4.48||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 2.81 with degrees of freedom (1, 3152).||Test for group difference in the change from baseline to 12-Months using linear contrast.||4.48|-0.35|0.0935
91051917|NCT02504671|181989197|OTHER||Difference|29.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.9|50.6|||||Difference to placebo for Week 12 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||50.6|8.9|
91051918|NCT02504671|181989197|OTHER||Difference|45.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.9|66.0|||||Difference to placebo for Week 12 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||66.0|25.9|
91051919|NCT02504671|181989197|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|33.8|||||Difference to placebo for Week 16 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||33.8|-6.8|
91051920|NCT02504671|181989197|OTHER||Difference|32.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.6|53.3|||||Difference to placebo for Week 16 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||53.3|11.6|
91051921|NCT02504671|181989197|OTHER||Difference|37.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.2|58.5|||||Difference to placebo for Week 16 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||58.5|17.2|
91051922|NCT02504671|181989197|OTHER||Difference|18.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|38.4|||||Difference to placebo for Week 20 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||38.4|-0.5|
91051923|NCT02504671|181989197|OTHER||Difference|35.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.1|55.1|||||Difference to placebo for Week 20 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||55.1|15.1|
91051924|NCT02504671|181989197|OTHER||Difference|48.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.2|68.1|||||Difference to placebo for Week 20 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||68.1|29.2|
91051925|NCT02504671|181989197|OTHER||Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|35.4|||||Difference to placebo for Week 24 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||35.4|-3.0|
91051926|NCT02504671|181989197|OTHER||Difference|29.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.8|49.7|||||Difference to placebo for Week 24 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||49.7|9.8|
91051927|NCT02504671|181989197|OTHER||Difference|37.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.9|57.8|||||Difference to placebo for Week 24 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||57.8|17.9|
91051928|NCT02504671|181989197|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|15.6|||||Difference to placebo for Week 28 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||15.6|-4.8|
91051929|NCT02504671|181989197|OTHER||Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|29.9|||||Difference to placebo for Week 28 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||29.9|2.6|
91051930|NCT02504671|181989197|OTHER||Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|29.9|||||Difference to placebo for Week 28 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||29.9|2.6|
91051931|NCT02504671|181989197|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|15.6|||||Difference to placebo for Week 32 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||15.6|-4.8|
91051932|NCT02504671|181989197|OTHER||Difference|18.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|33.2|||||Difference to placebo for Week 32 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||33.2|4.7|
91051933|NCT02504671|181989197|OTHER||Difference|18.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|33.2|||||Difference to placebo for Week 32 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||33.2|4.7|
91051934|NCT02504671|181989197|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|15.6|||||Difference to placebo for Week 36 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||15.6|-4.8|
91051935|NCT02504671|181989197|OTHER||Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|29.9|||||Difference to placebo for Week 36 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||29.9|2.6|
91051936|NCT02504671|181989197|OTHER||Difference|18.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|33.2|||||Difference to placebo for Week 36 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||33.2|4.7|
91051937|NCT02504671|181989197|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|15.6|||||Difference to placebo for Week 40 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||15.6|-4.8|
91051938|NCT02504671|181989197|OTHER||Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|29.9|||||Difference to placebo for Week 40 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||29.9|2.6|
91051939|NCT02504671|181989197|OTHER||Difference|18.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|33.2|||||Difference to placebo for Week 40 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||33.2|4.7|
91051940|NCT02504671|181989197|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|15.6|||||Difference to placebo for Week 48 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||15.6|-4.8|
91051941|NCT02504671|181989197|OTHER||Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|29.9|||||Difference to placebo for Week 48 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||29.9|2.6|
91051942|NCT02504671|181989197|OTHER||Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|29.9|||||Difference to placebo for Week 48 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||29.9|2.6|
91051943|NCT02504671|181989197|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|15.6|||||Difference to placebo for Week 52 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||15.6|-4.8|
91051944|NCT02504671|181989197|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Difference to placebo for Week 52 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
91051945|NCT02504671|181989197|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Difference to placebo for Week 52 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
91051946|NCT02504671|181989197|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|11.7|||||Difference to placebo for Week 62 (follow-up) is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||11.7|-6.3|
91051947|NCT02504671|181989197|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Difference to placebo for Week 62 (follow-up) is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
91051948|NCT02504671|181989197|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Difference to placebo for Week 62 (follow-up) is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
91010168|NCT03451630|181903752|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.5538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|2.68||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 0.35 with degrees of freedom (1, 3152).||Test for group difference in the change from baseline to12-Months using linear contrast.||2.68|-1.44|0.5538
91010169|NCT03451630|181903753|SUPERIORITY|Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).||||||0.8505|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 0.44 with degrees of freedom (6, 3154).||Overall Test of the Group by Time Interaction||||0.8505
91051949|NCT02504671|181989197|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|28.1|||||Difference to placebo for Week 1 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||28.1|-1.1|
91051950|NCT02504671|181989197|OTHER||Difference|21.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.6|37.7|||||Difference to placebo for Week 1 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||37.7|5.6|
91051951|NCT02504671|181989197|OTHER||Difference|18.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|37.6|||||Difference to placebo for Week 2 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||37.6|0.2|
91051952|NCT02504671|181989197|OTHER||Difference|24.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.2|43.4|||||Difference to placebo for Week 2 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||43.4|5.2|
91051953|NCT02504671|181989197|OTHER||Difference|27.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.1|46.9|||||Difference to placebo for Week 4 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||46.9|7.1|
91051954|NCT02504671|181989197|OTHER||Difference|51.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.2|70.5|||||Difference to placebo for Week 4 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||70.5|32.2|
91051955|NCT02504671|181989197|OTHER||Difference|21.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|42.8|||||Difference to placebo for Week 6 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||42.8|0.4|
91051956|NCT02504671|181989197|OTHER||Difference|40.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.9|61.2|||||Difference to placebo for Week 6 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||61.2|19.9|
91051957|NCT02504671|181989197|OTHER||Difference|27.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.2|48.9|||||Difference to placebo for Week 8 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||48.9|5.2|
91051958|NCT02504671|181989197|OTHER||Difference|35.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.8|56.5|||||Difference to placebo for Week 8 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||56.5|13.8|
91051959|NCT02504671|181989197|OTHER||Difference|27.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.2|47.9|||||Difference to placebo for Week 12 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||47.9|6.2|
91051960|NCT02504671|181989197|OTHER||Difference|54.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.9|73.2|||||Difference to placebo for Week 12 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||73.2|34.9|
91051961|NCT02504671|181989197|OTHER||Difference|21.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|42.4|||||Difference to placebo for Week 16 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||42.4|0.9|
91051962|NCT02504671|181989197|OTHER||Difference|51.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.8|70.9|||||Difference to placebo for Week 16 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||70.9|31.8|
91051963|NCT02504671|181989197|OTHER||Difference|27.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.1|46.9|||||Difference to placebo for Week 20 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||46.9|7.1|
91051964|NCT02504671|181989197|OTHER||Difference|56.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.2|75.4|||||Difference to placebo for Week 20 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||75.4|38.2|
91051965|NCT02504671|181989197|OTHER||Difference|27.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.1|46.9|||||Difference to placebo for Week 24 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||46.9|7.1|
91051966|NCT02504671|181989197|OTHER||Difference|54.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.1|73.0|||||Difference to placebo for Week 24 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||73.0|35.1|
91051967|NCT02504671|181989197|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Difference to placebo for Week 28 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
91051968|NCT02504671|181989197|OTHER||Difference|75.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.4|89.9|||||Difference to placebo for Week 28 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||89.9|61.4|
91051969|NCT02504671|181989197|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Difference to placebo for Week 32 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
91051970|NCT02504671|181989197|OTHER||Difference|70.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.0|85.5|||||Difference to placebo for Week 32 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||85.5|55.0|
91051971|NCT02504671|181989197|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Difference to placebo for Week 36 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
91051972|NCT02504671|181989197|OTHER||Difference|70.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.0|85.5|||||Difference to placebo for Week 36 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||85.5|55.0|
91051973|NCT02504671|181989197|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Difference to placebo for Week 40 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
91051974|NCT02504671|181989197|OTHER||Difference|62.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.9|78.4|||||Difference to placebo for Week 40 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||78.4|45.9|
91010170|NCT03451630|181903753|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 16.97 with degrees of freedom (3, 3160).||Test for significant change over time when the treatment-by-time interaction effect is not significant.||||<0.0001
91051975|NCT02504671|181989197|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Difference to placebo for Week 44 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
91051976|NCT02504671|181989197|OTHER||Difference|56.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.1|73.4|||||Difference to placebo for Week 44 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||73.4|40.1|
91051977|NCT02504671|181989197|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Difference to placebo for Week 48 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
91051978|NCT02504671|181989197|OTHER||Difference|62.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.9|78.4|||||Difference to placebo for Week 48 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||78.4|45.9|
91010171|NCT03451630|181903753|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8656||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 0.14 with degrees of freedom (2, 1229).||Test for significant change by treatment when the treatment-by-time interaction effect is not significant.||||0.8656
91010172|NCT03451630|181903753|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29||0.474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|3.46||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 0.51 with degrees of freedom (1, 3154)||Test for group difference in the change from baseline to 12-Months using the linear contrasts.||3.46|-1.61|0.4740
91010173|NCT03451630|181903753|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26||0.6017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|3.13||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 0.27 with degrees of freedom (1, 3154).||Test for group difference in the change from baseline to 12-Months using the linear contrasts.||3.13|-1.81|0.6017
91010174|NCT03451630|181903753|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99||0.786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|2.2||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 0.07 with degrees of freedom (1, 3154).||Test for group difference in the change from baseline to 12-Months using the linear contrasts.||2.20|-1.67|0.7860
91010175|NCT03451630|181903754|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Regression, Logistic|Chi-squared statistics 0.08 with degrees of freedom (2).||Overall Test of Marginal Group Differences||||0.59
91010176|NCT03451630|181903754|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.6692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.11||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Regression, Logistic|Chi-square statistics 0.8 with degrees of freedom (2).||Test for the Treatment Effect||2.11|0.76|0.6692
91010177|NCT03451630|181903754|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.6692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.93||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Regression, Logistic|Chi-square statistics 0.80 with degrees of freedom (2).||Test for the Treatment Effect||1.93|0.70|0.6692
91051979|NCT02504671|181989197|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Difference to placebo for Week 52 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
91051980|NCT02504671|181989197|OTHER||Difference|48.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.7|65.6|||||Difference to placebo for Week 52 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||65.6|31.7|
91051981|NCT02504671|181989197|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Difference to placebo for Week 62 (follow-up) is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
91051982|NCT02504671|181989197|OTHER||Difference|51.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.5|68.2|||||Difference to placebo for Week 62 (follow-up) is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||68.2|34.5|
91051983|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Week 1, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 1 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
91051984|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.9|||||Week 1, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 1 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||16.9|-0.7|
91051985|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|20.8|||||Week 1, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 1 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||20.8|0.8|
91010178|NCT03451630|181903754|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.6692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.59||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Regression, Logistic|Chi-square statistics 0.8 with degrees of freedom (2).||Test for the Treatment Effect||1.59|0.75|0.6692
91051986|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Week 1, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 1 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
91051987|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|28.1|||||Week 2, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 2 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||28.1|-1.1|
91051988|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|21.3|||||Week 2, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 2 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||21.3|-5.1|
91010179|NCT03451630|181903755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Regression, Logistic|Chi-squared statistics 0.08 with degrees of freedom (2).||Overall Test of Marginal Group Differences||||0.58
91051989|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|24.7|||||Week 2, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 2 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||24.7|-3.1|
91051990|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Week 2, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 2 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
91010180|NCT03451630|181903755|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.7436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|3.02||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Regression, Logistic|Chi-squared statistics 0.59 with degrees of freedom (2).||Test for the treatment effect||3.02|0.43|0.7436
91010181|NCT03451630|181903755|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.7436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|2.25||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Regression, Logistic|Chi-squared statistics 0.59 with degrees of freedom (2).||Test for the treatment effect.||2.25|0.31|0.7436
91051991|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Week 2, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 2 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
91051992|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.9|||||Week 2, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 2 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||16.9|-0.7|
91051993|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|32.6|||||Week 4, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 4 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||32.6|-0.2|
91051994|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|27.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.3|44.7|||||Week 4, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 4 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||44.7|9.3|
91051995|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|24.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|41.8|||||Week 4, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 4 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||41.8|6.9|
91051996|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|10.3|||||Week 4, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 4 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||10.3|-10.3|
91051997|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|10.3|||||Week 4, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 4 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||10.3|-10.3|
91051998|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|17.8|||||Week 4, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 4 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||17.8|-7.0|
91051999|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Week 4, ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 4 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
91052000|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|30.9|||||Week 6, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 6 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||30.9|-9.3|
91052001|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|27.9|||||Week 6, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 6 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||27.9|-11.7|
91010182|NCT03451630|181903755|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.7436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.97|||Regression, Logistic|Chi-squared statistics 0.59 with degrees of freedom (2).||Test for the treatment effect.||2.97|0.62|0.7436
90890196|NCT02105948|181644576|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio (mepolizumab/placebo)|0.98|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.12||Adjusted p-value to account for two treatment comparisons|Negative Binomial Model||Analysis using a negative binomial model with covariates of treatment, geographic region, no.of moderate/severe exacerbations in previous year, Baseline percent predicted FEV1, smoking status and offset of log (time in on- and off-treatment period)|||1.12|0.85|>0.999
91052002|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|30.9|||||Week 6, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 6 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||30.9|-9.3|
91052003|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|-5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|7.0|||||Week 6, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 6 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.0|-17.8|
90890197|NCT02105948|181644576|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio (mepolizumab/placebo)|0.98|||=|0.731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.12||Unadjusted p-value.|Negative binomial mode||Analysis using a negative binomial model with covariates of treatment, geographic region, no.of moderate/severe exacerbations in previous year, Baseline percent predicted FEV1, smoking status and offset of log (time in on- and off-treatment period)|||1.12|0.85|=0.731
91052004|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|10.6|||||Week 6, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 6 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||10.6|-16.0|
91010183|NCT03451630|181903756|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5558||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 0.82 with degrees of freedom (6, 3057)||Overall test of treatment-by-time interaction||||0.5558
91010184|NCT03451630|181903756|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 6.74 with degrees of freedom (3, 3063).||Test for the change over time when the treatment-by-time interaction effect is not significant.||||0.0002
91052005|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|14.1|||||Week 6, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 6 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||14.1|-14.1|
91052006|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Week 6, ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 6 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
91052007|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Week 6, ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 6 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
90890198|NCT02105948|181644577|SUPERIORITY||Hazard ratio (Mepolizumab/placebo)|0.75|||=|0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.94||Adjusted p-value|Cox Proportional Hazards Model||Analysis performed using a Cox Proportional Hazards Model with covariates of treatment, geographic region, no. moderate/severe exacerbations in previous year, Baseline percent predicted FEV1 and smoking status|||0.94|0.60|=0.036
91052008|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|26.3|||||Week 8, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 8 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.3|-10.1|
91052009|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|24.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|44.1|||||Week 8, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 8 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||44.1|4.5|
91052010|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|29.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.8|49.7|||||Week 8, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 8 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||49.7|9.8|
91052011|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|19.4|||||Week 8, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 8 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||19.4|-3.2|
91052012|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|23.0|||||Week 8, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 8 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||23.0|-1.4|
91052013|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|29.9|||||Week 8, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 8 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||29.9|2.6|
91052014|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|2.5|||||Week 8, ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 8 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||2.5|-7.9|
91052015|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|7.4|||||Week 8, ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 8 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.4|-7.4|
91010185|NCT03451630|181903756|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7846||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 0.24 with degrees of freedom (2,1197).||Test for the change by treatment when the treatment-by-time interaction effect is not significant.||||0.7846
91010186|NCT03451630|181903756|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.2444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.92|0.49||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-Statistics 1.36 with degrees of freedom (1, 3057).||Test for Group difference in the change from baseline to 12 months using the linear contrasts.||0.49|-1.92|0.2444
91010187|NCT03451630|181903756|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|0.92||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 0.21 with degrees of freedom (1, 3057).||Test for Group difference in the change from baseline to 12 months using the linear contrasts.||0.92|-1.48|0.6480
91010188|NCT03451630|181903756|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.3476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|0.47||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 0.88 with degrees of freedom (1, 3057).||Test for Group difference in the change from baseline to 12 months using the linear contrasts.||0.47|-1.34|0.3476
91052016|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|19.4|||||Week 8, ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 8 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||19.4|-3.2|
91010189|NCT03451630|181903757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5199||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 0.86 with degrees of freedom (6, 3148)||Overall test of treatment-by-time||||0.5199
91052017|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|24.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|42.7|||||Week 12, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 12 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||42.7|6.0|
91052018|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|29.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|48.4|||||Week 12, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 12 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||48.4|11.0|
91010190|NCT03451630|181903757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0008||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 5.56 with degrees of freedom (3, 3154).||Test for the change over time when the treatment-by-time interaction effect is not significant.||||0.0008
91010191|NCT03451630|181903757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9897||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 0.01 with degrees of freedom (2,1229).||Test for the change by treatment when the treatment-by-time interaction effect is not significant.||||0.9897
91010192|NCT03451630|181903757|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.8749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.03||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 0.02 with degrees of freedom (1, 3148).||Test for Group difference in the change from baseline to 12 months using the linear contrasts.||0.03|-0.03|0.8749
91010193|NCT03451630|181903757|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.2216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.01||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 1.49 with degrees of freedom (1, 3148).||Test for Group difference in the change from baseline to 12 months using the linear contrasts.||0.01|-0.05|0.2216
91010194|NCT03451630|181903757|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.0607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.04||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 3.52 with degrees of freedom (1, 3148).||Test for Group difference in the change from baseline to 12 months using the linear contrasts.||0.04|0.00|0.0607
91010195|NCT03451630|181903758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1884||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 1.46 with degrees of freedom (6, 3138)||Overall test of treatment-by-time||||0.1884
91010196|NCT03451630|181903758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 3.87 with degrees of freedom (3, 3144).||Test for the change over time when the treatment-by-time interaction effect is not significant.||||0.0090
91052019|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|40.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.6|59.5|||||Week 12, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 12 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||59.5|21.6|
91010197|NCT03451630|181903758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.217||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 1.53 with degrees of freedom (2, 1227).||Test for the change by treatment when the treatment-by-time interaction effect is not significant.||||0.2170
91010198|NCT03451630|181903758|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.28||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 1.71 with degrees of freedom (1, 3138).||Test for Group difference in the change from baseline to 12 months using the linear contrasts.||0.28|-0.06|0.1910
91010199|NCT03451630|181903758|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.0229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.35||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 5.18 with degrees of freedom (1, 3138).||Test for Group difference in the change from baseline to 12 months using the linear contrasts.||0.35|0.03|0.0229
91052020|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|16.0|||||Week 12, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 12 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||16.0|-10.6|
91052021|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|18.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|35.7|||||Week 12, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 12 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||35.7|2.1|
91052022|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|32.6|||||Week 12, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 12 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||32.6|-0.2|
91052023|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|6.3|||||Week 12, ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 12 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||6.3|-11.7|
91052024|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|21.3|||||Week 12, ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 12 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||21.3|-5.1|
91052025|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|28.1|||||Week 12, ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 12 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||28.1|-1.1|
91052026|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|32.4|||||Week 16, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 16 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||32.4|-5.4|
91052027|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|29.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.8|49.7|||||Week 16, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 16 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||49.7|9.8|
91052028|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|35.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.1|55.1|||||Week 16, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 16 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||55.1|15.1|
91052029|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|29.4|||||Week 16, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 16 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||29.4|-2.4|
91052030|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|18.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|35.7|||||Week 16, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 16 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||35.7|2.1|
91052031|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|18.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|35.7|||||Week 16, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 16 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||35.7|2.1|
91052032|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|6.3|||||Week 16, ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 16 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||6.3|-11.7|
91010200|NCT03451630|181903758|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.2547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.06||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 1.30 with degrees of freedom (1, 3138).||Test for Group difference in the change from baseline to 12 months using the linear contrasts.||0.06|-0.21|0.2547
91052033|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|21.3|||||Week 16, ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 16 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||21.3|-5.1|
91010201|NCT03451630|181903759|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0413||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 2.49 with degrees of freedom (4, 3164).||Overall test for the treatment-by-time interaction||||0.0413
91052034|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|28.1|||||Week 16, ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 16 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||28.1|-1.1|
91010202|NCT03451630|181903759|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.1433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.04||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 2.14 with degrees of freedom (1, 3164).||Test for Group difference in the change from baseline to 12-Months using the linear contrasts.||0.04|-0.28|0.1433
91010203|NCT03451630|181903759|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.4272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.23||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 0.63 with degrees of freedom (1, 3164).||Test for Group difference in the change from baseline to 12-Months using the linear contrasts.||0.23|-0.10|0.4272
91052035|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|26.3|||||Week 20, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 20 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.3|-10.1|
91052036|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|21.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|41.2|||||Week 20, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 20 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||41.2|2.0|
91052037|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|37.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.9|57.8|||||Week 20, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 20 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||57.8|17.9|
91052038|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|16.0|||||Week 20, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 20 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||16.0|-10.6|
91052039|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|32.6|||||Week 20, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 20 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||32.6|-0.2|
91010204|NCT03451630|181903759|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|-0.06||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 8.45 with degrees of freedom (1, 3164).||Test for Group difference in the change from baseline to 12-Months using the linear contrasts.||-0.06|-0.31|0.0037
91052040|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|29.4|||||Week 20, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 20 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||29.4|-2.4|
91052041|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|6.3|||||Week 20, ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 20 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||6.3|-11.7|
91010205|NCT03451630|181903760|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8231||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 0.38 with degrees of freedom (4, 3164).||Overall test for the treatment-by-time interaction||||0.8231
91052042|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|24.7|||||Week 20, ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 20 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||24.7|-3.1|
91010206|NCT03451630|181903760|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 330.05 with degrees of freedom (2, 1948).||Test for the change over time when the treatment-by-time interaction effect is not significant.||||<0.0001
91052043|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|21.3|||||Week 20, ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 20 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||21.3|-5.1|
91052044|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|28.5|||||Week 24, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 24 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||28.5|-6.9|
91052045|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|27.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|46.3|||||Week 24, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 24 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||46.3|7.7|
91052046|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|43.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.8|62.6|||||Week 24, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 24 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||62.6|23.8|
91052047|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|14.1|||||Week 24, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 24 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||14.1|-14.1|
91052048|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|33.7|||||Week 24, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 24 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||33.7|-1.2|
91052049|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|18.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|36.7|||||Week 24, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 24 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||36.7|1.1|
91052050|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|10.3|||||Week 24, ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 24 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||10.3|-10.3|
91052051|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|21.3|||||Week 24, ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 24 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||21.3|-5.1|
91010207|NCT03451630|181903760|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6061||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 0.50 with degrees of freedom (2 , 1948).||Test for the change by treatment when the treatment-by-time interaction effect is not significant.||||0.6061
91010208|NCT03451630|181903760|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.7459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.11||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 0.11 with degrees of freedom (1, 3164).||Test for Group difference in the change from baseline to 12-Months using the linear contrasts.||0.11|-0.15|0.7459
91052052|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|21.3|||||Week 24, ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 24 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||21.3|-5.1|
91052053|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|15.6|||||Week 28, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 28 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||15.6|-4.8|
91052054|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|29.9|||||Week 28, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 28 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||29.9|2.6|
91052055|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|29.9|||||Week 28, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 28 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||29.9|2.6|
91052056|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|15.6|||||Week 28, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 28 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||15.6|-4.8|
91052057|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Week 28, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 28 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
91052058|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|29.9|||||Week 28, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 28 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||29.9|2.6|
91052059|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|15.6|||||Week 28, ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 28 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||15.6|-4.8|
91052060|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|23.0|||||Week 28, ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 28 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||23.0|-1.4|
91052061|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|23.0|||||Week 28, ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 28 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||23.0|-1.4|
91052062|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|15.6|||||Week 32, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 32 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||15.6|-4.8|
91052063|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|18.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|33.2|||||Week 32, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 32 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||33.2|4.7|
91052064|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|18.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|33.2|||||Week 32, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 32 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||33.2|4.7|
91052065|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|15.6|||||Week 32, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 32 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||15.6|-4.8|
90890199|NCT02105948|181644577|SUPERIORITY||Hazard ratio (Mepolizumab/placebo)|0.75|||=|0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.94||Unadjusted p-value|Cox Proportional Hazards Model||Analysis performed using a Cox Proportional Hazards Model with covariates of treatment, geographic region, no. moderate/severe exacerbations in previous year, Baseline percent predicted FEV1 and smoking status|||0.94|0.60|=0.012
91052066|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|18.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|33.2|||||Week 32, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 32 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||33.2|4.7|
90890200|NCT02105948|181644578|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio (mepolizumab/placebo)|1.16|||=|0.598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.75||Adjusted p-value|Negative binomial model||Analysis using a negative binomial model with covariates of treatment, geographic region, no. moderate/severe exacerbations in previous year, Baseline percent predicted FEV1, smoking status and offset of log (time in on- and off-treatment period).|||1.75|0.77|=0.598
91052067|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Week 32, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 32 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
91052068|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|11.7|||||Week 32, ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 32 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||11.7|-6.3|
91052069|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|29.9|||||Week 32, ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 32 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||29.9|2.6|
91052070|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|23.0|||||Week 32, ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 32 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||23.0|-1.4|
91052071|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|15.6|||||Week 36, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 36 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||15.6|-4.8|
91052072|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|29.9|||||Week 36, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 36 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||29.9|2.6|
91052073|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Week 36, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 36 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
91052074|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|11.7|||||Week 36, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 36 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||11.7|-6.3|
91052075|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|29.9|||||Week 36, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 36 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||29.9|2.6|
91052076|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|19.4|||||Week 36, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 36 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||19.4|-3.2|
91010209|NCT03451630|181903760|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.3169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.08||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 1.00 with degrees of freedom (1, 3164).||Test for Group difference in the change from baseline to 12-Months using the linear contrasts.||0.08|-0.18|0.3169
91010210|NCT03451630|181903760|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.4098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.14||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 0.68 with degrees of freedom (1, 3164).||Test for Group difference in the change from baseline to 12-Months using the linear contrasts.||0.14|-0.07|0.4098
91010211|NCT03451630|181903761|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4732||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 0.88 with degrees of freedom (4, 1945).||Overall test for the treatment-by-time interaction||||0.4732
91052077|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Week 36, ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 36 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
91010212|NCT03451630|181903761|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 319.14 with degrees of freedom (2, 1948).||Test for the change over time when the treatment-by-time interaction effect is not significant.||||<0.0001
91010213|NCT03451630|181903761|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9628||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 0.04 with degrees of freedom (2, 1948).||Test for the change by treatment when the treatment-by-time interaction effect is not significant.||||0.9628
91052078|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|18.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|31.5|||||Week 36, ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 36 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||31.5|6.3|
91052079|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|20.8|||||Week 36, ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 36 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||20.8|0.8|
91052080|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|15.6|||||Week 40, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 40 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||15.6|-4.8|
91052081|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|29.9|||||Week 40, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 40 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||29.9|2.6|
91052082|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|18.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|33.2|||||Week 40, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 40 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||33.2|4.7|
91052083|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|15.6|||||Week 40, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 40 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||15.6|-4.8|
91052084|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Week 40, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 40 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
91052085|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|23.0|||||Week 40, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 40 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||23.0|-1.4|
91052086|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|11.7|||||Week 40, ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 40 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||11.7|-6.3|
91052087|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Week 40, ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 40 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
91052088|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|23.0|||||Week 40, ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 40 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||23.0|-1.4|
91010214|NCT03451630|181903761|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.8438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.19||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 0.04 with degrees of freedom (1, 1945).||Test for Group difference in the change from baseline to 12-Months using the linear contrasts.||0.19|-0.16|0.8438
91010215|NCT03451630|181903761|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.7425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.15||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 0.11 with degrees of freedom (1, 1945).||Test for Group difference in the change from baseline to 12-Months using the linear contrasts.||0.15|-0.19|0.7425
91052089|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|15.6|||||Week 44, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 44 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||15.6|-4.8|
91010216|NCT03451630|181903761|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.5044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.17||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 0.45 with degrees of freedom (1, 1945).||Test for Group difference in the change from baseline to 12-Months using the linear contrasts.||0.17|-0.10|0.5044
91052090|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|29.9|||||Week 44, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 44 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||29.9|2.6|
91052091|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|29.9|||||Week 44, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 44 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||29.9|2.6|
91010217|NCT03451630|181903762|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9804||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 0.11 with degrees of freedom (4, 3164).||Overall test for the treatment-by-time interaction||||0.9804
91052092|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|15.6|||||Week 44, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 44 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||15.6|-4.8|
91052093|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|29.9|||||Week 44, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 44 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||29.9|2.6|
91010218|NCT03451630|181903762|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 21.80 with degrees of freedom (2, 3168).||Test for the change over time when the treatment-by-time interaction effect is not significant.||||<0.0001
91010219|NCT03451630|181903762|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9764||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 0.02 with degrees of freedom (2, 1211).||Test for the change by treatment when the treatment-by-time interaction effect is not significant.||||0.9764
91010220|NCT03451630|181903762|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.9757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.6||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|T-test statistics 0.03.||Odds ratio of Treatment at 12-Months||1.60|0.63|0.9757
91010221|NCT03451630|181903762|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.7958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.68||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|T-test statistics 0.26.||Odds ratio of Treatment at 12-Months||1.68|0.67|0.7958
91010222|NCT03451630|181903762|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.7646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.34||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|T-statistics -0.30||Odds ratio of Treatment at 12-Months||1.34|0.67|0.7646
91010223|NCT03451630|181903763|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9622||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 0.15 with degrees of freedom (4, 3164).||Overall test for the treatment-by-time interaction||||0.9622
91010224|NCT03451630|181903763|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0377||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 3.28 with degrees of freedom (2, 3168).||Test for the change over time when the treatment-by-time interaction effect is not significant.||||0.0377
91052094|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Week 44, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 44 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
91010225|NCT03451630|181903763|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistic 0.19 with degrees of freedom (2, 1903).||Test for the change by treatment when the treatment-by-time interaction effect is not significant.||||0.8300
91010226|NCT03451630|181903763|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.7507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|2.0||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|T-statistics -0.32||Odds ratio of Treatment at 12-Months||2.00|0.38|0.7507
91052095|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Week 44, ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 44 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
91010227|NCT03451630|181903763|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.8844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|2.13||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|T-statistics -0.15||Odds ratio of Treatment at 12-Months||2.13|0.42|0.8844
91010228|NCT03451630|181903763|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.8227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.77||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|T-statistics -0.22||Odds ratio of Treatment at 12-Months||1.77|0.49|0.8227
91010229|NCT03451630|181903764|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|Fisher's exact test for the null hypothesis of no association between each event and treatment group.||Frequency and test of the marginal association between event rate and treatment for eligible participants' data at 12 months for MMA-1a||||1.00
91052096|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|18.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|31.5|||||Week 44, ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 44 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||31.5|6.3|
91052097|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|20.8|||||Week 44, ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 44 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||20.8|0.8|
91052098|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|15.6|||||Week 48, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 48 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||15.6|-4.8|
91052099|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|29.9|||||Week 48, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 48 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||29.9|2.6|
91052100|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|29.9|||||Week 48, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 48 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||29.9|2.6|
91052101|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Week 48, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 48 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
91052102|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|29.9|||||Week 48, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 48 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||29.9|2.6|
91010230|NCT03451630|181903764|OTHER|||||||0.242|||||||Fisher Exact|Fisher's exact test for the null hypothesis of no association between each event and treatment group.||Frequency and test of the marginal association between event rate and treatment for eligible participants' data at 12 months for MMA-1b||||0.242
91010231|NCT03451630|181903765|OTHER|||||||0.1112|||||||Fisher Exact|Fisher's exact test for the null hypothesis of no association between each event and treatment group.||Test of the marginal association between event rate and treatment for eligible participants' data at 12 months for PCE-1||||0.1112
91010232|NCT03451630|181903765|OTHER|||||||0.4754|||||||Fisher Exact|Fisher's exact test for the null hypothesis of no association between each event and treatment group.||Test of the marginal association between event rate and treatment for eligible participants' data at 12 months for PCE-2||||0.4754
91052103|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|29.9|||||Week 48, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 48 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||29.9|2.6|
91052104|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Week 48, ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 48 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
91052105|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|18.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|31.5|||||Week 48, ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 48 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||31.5|6.3|
91052106|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.9|||||Week 48, ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 48 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||16.9|-0.7|
90890201|NCT02105948|181644578|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio (mepolizumab/placebo)|1.16|||=|0.479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.75||Unadjusted p-value|Negative binomial model||Analysis using a negative binomial model with covariates of treatment, geographic region, no. moderate/severe exacerbations in previous year, Baseline percent predicted FEV1, smoking status and offset of log (time in on- and off-treatment period).|||1.75|0.77|=0.479
91010233|NCT03451630|181903766|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.9079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|4.28||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Regression, Logistic|Chi-squared statistics 0.19 with degrees of freedom (2).||Test for the treatment effect (without weight) using a Firth's penalized logistic regression model for rare events.||4.28|0.13|0.9079
91010234|NCT03451630|181903766|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.68||||0.9079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|3.72||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Regression, Logistic|Chi-squared statistics 0.19 with degrees of freedom (2).||Test for the treatment effect (without weight) using a Firth's penalized logistic regression model for rare events.||3.72|0.13|0.9079
91052107|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|15.6|||||Week 52, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 52 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||15.6|-4.8|
91052108|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Week 52, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 52 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
91052109|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Week 52, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 52 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
91052110|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|15.6|||||Week 52, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 52 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||15.6|-4.8|
91052111|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Week 52, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 52 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
90890202|NCT02105948|181644579|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Mepolizumab - Placebo)|0.2|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|3.2||Adjusted p-value|Mixed Model Repeated Measure Analysis||Analysis performed using mixed model repeated measures with covariates of baseline SGRQ Total Score, geographic region, smoking status, treatment and visit, plus interaction terms for visit by Baseline and visit by treatment group.|||3.2|-2.8|>0.999
91052112|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Week 52, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 52 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
91052113|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Week 52, ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 52 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
91052114|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|28.1|||||Week 52, ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 52 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||28.1|4.3|
91010235|NCT03451630|181903766|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.9079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|3.45||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Regression, Logistic|Chi-squared statistics 0.19 with degrees of freedom (2).||Test for the treatment effect (without weight) using a Firth's penalized logistic regression model for rare events.||3.45|0.34|0.9079
91052115|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|20.8|||||Week 52, ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 52 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||20.8|0.8|
90890203|NCT02105948|181644579|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Mepolizumab - Placebo)|0.2|||=|0.901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|3.2||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Model Repeated Measure Analysis||Analysis performed using mixed model repeated measures with covariates of baseline SGRQ Total Score, geographic region, smoking status, treatment and visit, plus interaction terms for visit by Baseline and visit by treatment group.|||3.2|-2.8|=0.901
91052116|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|15.6|||||Week 62 (follow-up), ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 62 (follow-up) is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||15.6|-4.8|
91052117|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Week 62 (follow-up), ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 62 (follow-up) is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
91010236|NCT03451630|181903767|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9912||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 0.07 with degrees of freedom (4, 335).||Test for the treatment-by-time interaction (without weight) for SPC-1.||||0.9912
91010237|NCT03451630|181903767|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.876||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 0.13 with degrees of freedom (2, 339).||Test for change over time for SPC-1||||0.8760
91010238|NCT03451630|181903767|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.678||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 0.39 with degrees of freedom (2, 276).||Test for change in treatment effect for SPC-1||||0.6780
91010239|NCT03451630|181903767|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1761||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 1.59 with degrees of freedom (4, 284).||Test for the treatment-by-time interaction (without weight) for SPC-2||||0.1761
91010240|NCT03451630|181903767|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3239||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 1.13 with degrees of freedom (2, 288).||Test for change over time for SPC-2||||0.3239
91052118|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|19.4|||||Week 62 (follow-up), ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 62 (follow-up) is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||19.4|-3.2|
91052119|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|11.7|||||Week 62 (follow-up), ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 62 (follow-up) is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||11.7|-6.3|
91052120|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Week 62 (follow-up), ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 62 (follow-up) is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
91052121|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|15.6|||||Week 62 (follow-up), ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 62 (follow-up) is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||15.6|-4.8|
91052122|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|2.5|||||Week 62 (follow-up), ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 62 (follow-up) is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||2.5|-7.9|
91052123|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Week 62 (follow-up), ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 62 (follow-up) is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
91052124|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|7.4|||||Week 62 (follow-up), ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 62 (follow-up) is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.4|-7.4|
91052125|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Week 1, ACR20. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 1. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
91052126|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|18.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|31.5|||||Week 1, ACR20. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 1. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||31.5|6.3|
91052127|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|29.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.7|46.8|||||Week 2, ACR20. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 2. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||46.8|12.7|
91052128|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|37.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.3|55.4|||||Week 2, ACR20. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 2. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||55.4|20.3|
91052129|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Week 2, ACR50. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 2. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
91052130|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Week 2, ACR50. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 2. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
91052131|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|37.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.5|56.1|||||Week 4, ACR20. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 4. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||56.1|19.5|
91052132|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|51.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.5|56.1|||||Week 4, ACR20. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 4. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||56.1|19.5|
91052133|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|14.1|||||Week 4, ACR50. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 4. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||14.1|-8.7|
91052134|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|14.1|||||Week 4, ACR50. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 4. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||14.1|-8.7|
91052135|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Week 4, ACR70. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 4. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
91052136|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|33.8|||||Week 6, ACR20. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 6. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||33.8|-6.8|
91052137|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|24.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|45.2|||||Week 6, ACR20. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 6. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||45.2|3.5|
91052138|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|17.6|||||Week 6, ACR50. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 6. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||17.6|-12.2|
91052139|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|17.6|||||Week 6, ACR50. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 6. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||17.6|-12.2|
91052140|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Week 6, ACR70. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 6. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
91052141|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Week 6, ACR70. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 6. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
91052142|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|32.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.4|52.4|||||Week 8, ACR20. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 8. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||52.4|12.4|
91052143|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|35.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.1|55.1|||||Week 8, ACR20. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 8. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||55.1|15.1|
91010241|NCT03451630|181903767|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7415||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 0.30 with degrees of freedom (2, 139).||Test for change in treatment effect for SPC-2||||0.7415
91010242|NCT03451630|181903768|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9786||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 0.11 with degrees of freedom (4, 608).||Test for the treatment-by-time interaction (without weight) for SPD-1.||||0.9786
91010243|NCT03451630|181903768|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4703||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 0.76 with degrees of freedom (2, 612).||Test for change over time for SPD-1||||0.4703
91010244|NCT03451630|181903768|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.877||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 0.13 with degrees of freedom (2, 332).||Test for change in treatment effect for SPD-1||||0.8770
91010245|NCT03451630|181903768|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6198||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 0.66 with degrees of freedom (4, 469).||Test for the treatment-by-time interaction (without weight) for SPD-2||||0.6198
91052144|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|21.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|36.4|||||Week 8, ACR50. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 8. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||36.4|6.8|
91010246|NCT03451630|181903768|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6211||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 0.48 with degrees of freedom (2, 473).||Test for change over time for SPD-2||||0.6211
91010247|NCT03451630|181903768|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1471||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 1.93 with degrees of freedom (2, 219).||Test for change in treatment effect for SPD-2.||||0.1471
91010248|NCT03451630|181903769|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8247||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 0.38 with degrees of freedom (4, 280).||Test for the treatment-by-time interaction (without weight) for AMM-1||||0.8247
91052145|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|29.9|||||Week 8, ACR50. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 8. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||29.9|2.6|
91052146|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|15.6|||||Week 8, ACR70. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 8. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||15.6|-4.8|
91052147|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|15.6|||||Week 8, ACR70. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 8. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||15.6|-4.8|
91052148|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|29.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|48.4|||||Week 12, ACR20. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 8. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||48.4|11.0|
91010249|NCT03451630|181903769|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6651||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 0.41 with degrees of freedom (2, 284).||Test for change over time for AMM-1||||0.6651
91010250|NCT03451630|181903769|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3441||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 1.07 with degrees of freedom (2, 218).||Test for change in treatment effect for AMM-1||||0.3441
91010251|NCT03451630|181903769|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0847||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 2.07 with degrees of freedom (4, 280).||Test for the treatment-by-time interaction (without weight) for AMM-2||||0.0847
91052149|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|40.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.6|59.5|||||Week 12, ACR20. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 8. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||59.5|21.6|
91052150|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|21.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|38.8|||||Week 12, ACR50. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 12. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||38.8|4.5|
91052151|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|29.4|||||Week 12, ACR50. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 12. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||29.4|-2.4|
91052152|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|14.1|||||Week 12, ACR70. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 12. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||14.1|-8.7|
91052153|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|17.8|||||Week 12, ACR70. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 12. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||17.8|-7.0|
91052154|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|24.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|44.1|||||Week 16, ACR20. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 16. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||44.1|4.5|
91052155|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|51.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.2|70.5|||||Week 16, ACR20. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 16. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||70.5|32.2|
91052156|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|18.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|35.7|||||Week 16, ACR50. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 16. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||35.7|2.1|
91052157|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|29.4|||||Week 16, ACR50. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 16. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||29.4|-2.4|
91052158|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|17.8|||||Week 16, ACR70. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 16. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||17.8|-7.0|
91052159|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|21.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|41.2|||||Week 20, ACR20. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 20. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||41.2|2.0|
91052160|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|43.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.5|63.0|||||Week 20, ACR20. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 20. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||63.0|23.5|
91052161|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|24.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|41.8|||||Week 20, ACR50. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 20. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||41.8|6.9|
91052162|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|21.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|38.8|||||Week 20, ACR50. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 20. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||38.8|4.5|
91052163|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|18.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|34.5|||||Week 20, ACR70. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 20. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||34.5|3.3|
91052164|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|28.1|||||Week 20, ACR70. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 20. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||28.1|-1.1|
91052165|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|27.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|46.3|||||Week 24, ACR20. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 24. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||46.3|7.7|
91052166|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|45.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.7|65.2|||||Week 24, ACR20. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 24. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||65.2|26.7|
91052167|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|30.6|||||Week 24, ACR50. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 24. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||30.6|-3.6|
91052168|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|33.7|||||Week 24, ACR50. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 24. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||33.7|-1.2|
91052169|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|28.1|||||Week 24, ACR70. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 24. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||28.1|-1.1|
91052170|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|28.1|||||Week 24, ACR70. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 24. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||28.1|-1.1|
91052171|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Week 28, ACR20. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 28. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
91052172|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|64.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.9|80.8|||||Week 28, ACR20. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 28. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||80.8|48.9|
91052173|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Week 28, ACR50. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 28. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
91052174|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|21.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|36.4|||||Week 28, ACR50. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 28. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||36.4|6.8|
91052175|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|19.4|||||Week 28, ACR70. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 28. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||19.4|-3.2|
91052176|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|23.0|||||Week 28, ACR70. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 28. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||23.0|-1.4|
91052177|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Week 32, ACR20. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 32. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
91010252|NCT03451630|181903769|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9695||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 0.03 with degrees of freedom (2, 284).||Test for change over time for AMM-2||||0.9695
91052178|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|51.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.5|68.2|||||Week 32, ACR20. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 32. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||68.2|34.5|
91052179|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Week 32, ACR50. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 32. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
91010253|NCT03451630|181903769|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9396||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 0.06 with degrees of freedom (2, 200).||Test for change in treatment effect for AMM-2||||0.9396
91010254|NCT00545740|181903774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.063||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.063
91010255|NCT00545740|181903774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.736||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.736
91052180|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|27.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.4|42.7|||||Week 32, ACR50. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 32. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||42.7|11.4|
91052181|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|23.0|||||Week 32, ACR70. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 32. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||23.0|-1.4|
91010256|NCT00545740|181903774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.78||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.780
91010257|NCT00545740|181903776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.047||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.047
91010258|NCT00545740|181903776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.741||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.741
91010259|NCT00545740|181903776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.78||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.780
91010260|NCT02117024|181903781|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0011|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0011
91010261|NCT02117024|181903781|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Other|||With only 50% of enrollment complete prior to study termination by sponsor, insufficient sample size exists to fully complete efficacy analysis.||||<0.05
91010262|NCT00529152|181903815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005|||||||Regression, Linear|||Change in Serum Ferritin from baseline to week 24 was compared using regression analysis; null hypothesis was defined as no change in serum ferritin from baseline to week 24||||0.0005
91010263|NCT01497899|181903830|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was that the E/C/F/TAF group was at least 12% lower than the E/C/F/TDF group with respect to the percentage of participants achieving HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL at Week 24. The alternative hypothesis was that the E/C/F/TAF group was less than 12% lower than the E/C/F/TDF group.|Difference in percentages|-2.9||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|7.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value comparing the percentages of virologic success was from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum.|Difference in percentages of virologic success and its 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated based on baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel (MH) proportion.|||7.7|-13.5|0.58
91010264|NCT02828982|181903848|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.585||||||Statistical significance was set a-priori at p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis was that there would be no difference in metabolic costs between the two groups||||0.585
91010265|NCT02828982|181903849|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.452||||||Statistical significance was set a-priori at p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis was that there were no differences in the number of steps taken outside of the home for the two prostheses.||||0.452
91010266|NCT02828982|181903850|OTHER|paired t-test of Physical component scores between the two conditions||||||0.48||||||a prior threshold for significance was 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.480
91010267|NCT02828982|181903850|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.408||||||Statistical significance was set a-priori at p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Mental Component Score||||0.408
91010268|NCT02828982|181903851|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.058||||||Statistical significance was set a-priori at p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Ambulation Score||||0.058
91010269|NCT02828982|181903851|OTHER|paired t-test between conditions||||||0.123||||||Statistical significance was set a-priori at p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Appearance Score||||.123
91010270|NCT02828982|181903851|OTHER|paired t-test between conditions||||||0.052||||||Statistical significance was set a-priori at p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Frustration Score||||.052
91010271|NCT02828982|181903851|OTHER|paired t-test between conditions||||||0.188||||||Statistical significance was set a-priori at p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Perceived Response Score||||.188
91010272|NCT02828982|181903851|OTHER|paired t-test between conditions||||||0.336||||||Statistical significance was set a-priori at p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Residual Limb Health Score||||.336
91010273|NCT02828982|181903851|OTHER|paired t-test between conditions||||||0.043||||||Statistical significance was set a-priori at p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Social Burden Score||||.043
91010274|NCT02828982|181903851|OTHER|paired t-test between conditions||||||0.391||||||Statistical significance was set a-priori at p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Sounds Score||||.391
91010275|NCT02828982|181903851|SUPERIORITY|paired t-test between conditions||||||0.799||||||Statistical significance was set a-priori at p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Utility Score||||.799
91010276|NCT02828982|181903851|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.173||||||Statistical significance was set a-priori at p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Well-Being||||.173
91010277|NCT02828982|181903852|OTHER|paired t-test between conditions||||||0.655||||||Statistical significance was set a-priori at p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Intact Side Biceps Femoris||||0.655
91010278|NCT02828982|181903852|OTHER|paired t-test between conditions||||||0.281||||||Statistical significance was set a-priori at p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Intact Side Rectus Femoris||||.281
91010279|NCT02828982|181903852|OTHER|paired t-test between conditions||||||0.844||||||Statistical significance was set a-priori at p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Intact Side Soleus||||.844
91010280|NCT02828982|181903852|OTHER|paired t-test between conditions||||||0.11||||||Statistical significance was set a-priori at p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Intact Side Tibialis Anterior||||.110
91010281|NCT02828982|181903852|OTHER|paired t-test between conditions||||||0.394||||||Statistical significance was set a-priori at p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Residual Side Biceps Femoris||||.394
91010282|NCT02828982|181903852|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.141||||||Statistical significance was set a-priori at p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Residual Side Rectus Femoris||||.141
91010283|NCT02828982|181903853|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.212||||||Statistical significance was set a-priori at p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.212
91010284|NCT02475564|181903854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||Mann-Whitney test|||A sample size of at least 21 patients per arm would be necessary to have a 90% chance of detecting, as significant at the 1% level, a difference of 3 points in a scale of 10 points, between both groups as the primary outcome, after 42 days of treatment.||||0.7
91010285|NCT02475564|181903855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||Mann-Whitney test|||||||0.1
91010286|NCT02475564|181903856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||Mann-Whitney test|||||||0.8
91052182|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Week 32, ACR70. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 32. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
91052183|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Week 36, ACR20. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 36. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
91052184|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|56.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.1|73.4|||||Week 36, ACR20. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 36. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||73.4|40.1|
91052185|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Week 36, ACR50. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 36. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
90890204|NCT02105948|181644580|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Mepolizumab - Placebo)|-0.8|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.5||Adjusted p-value|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Analysis performed using mixed model repeated measures with covariates of baseline CAT score, geographic region, smoking status, treatment and visit, plus interaction terms for visit by Baseline and visit by treatment group.|||0.5|-2.0|>0.999
91010287|NCT02705755|181903867|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.4||||0.0399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.57|-0.23||P-values were reported without multiplicity adjustment.|Repeated-measures Mixed-effect Model|||Least squares mean differences were calculated based on a repeated-measures mixed-effect model with change from baseline at different time points as the dependent variable, the treatment group (TD-9855 or placebo), time point, baseline and the interaction between the treatment group and time point as fixed factors. A compound symmetry was used as the variance-covariance structure.||-0.23|-8.57|0.0399
91010288|NCT01906489|181903875|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.4739|||=|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3505|39.2931|||Fisher Exact|||||39.2931|3.3505|=0.0001
91010289|NCT01906489|181903876|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
91052186|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|32.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.2|48.7|||||Week 36, ACR50. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 36. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||48.7|16.2|
91010290|NCT01906489|181903877|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
91010291|NCT01906489|181903879|OTHER||||||=|0.0953|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||=0.0953
91010292|NCT01906489|181903880|OTHER||||||=|0.1238|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||=0.1238
91010293|NCT01906489|181903881|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
91010294|NCT01906489|181903882|OTHER||||||=|0.0019|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 2||||=0.0019
91010295|NCT01906489|181903882|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4||||<0.0001
91010296|NCT01906489|181903882|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 6||||<0.0001
91010297|NCT01906489|181903882|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 8||||<0.0001
91010298|NCT01906489|181903882|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12||||<0.0001
91010299|NCT01906489|181903882|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 16||||<0.0001
91010300|NCT01906489|181903882|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 19||||<0.0001
91010301|NCT01906489|181903882|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 20||||<0.0001
91010302|NCT01906489|181903884|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 2||||<0.0001
91010303|NCT01906489|181903884|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4||||<0.0001
91010304|NCT01906489|181903884|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 6||||<0.0001
91010305|NCT01906489|181903884|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 8||||<0.0001
91010306|NCT01906489|181903884|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12||||<0.0001
91010307|NCT01906489|181903884|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 16||||<0.0001
91010308|NCT01906489|181903884|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 19||||<0.0001
91010309|NCT01906489|181903884|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 20||||<0.0001
91010310|NCT01906489|181903886|OTHER||||||=|0.0031|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 2||||=0.0031
91010311|NCT01906489|181903886|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4||||<0.0001
91010312|NCT01906489|181903886|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 6||||<0.0001
91010313|NCT01906489|181903886|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 8||||<0.0001
91010314|NCT01906489|181903886|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12||||<0.0001
91010315|NCT01906489|181903886|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 16||||<0.0001
91010316|NCT01906489|181903886|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 19||||<0.0001
91010317|NCT01906489|181903886|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 20||||<0.0001
91010318|NCT01906489|181903888|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 2||||<0.0001
91010319|NCT01906489|181903888|OTHER||||||=|0.0133|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4||||=0.0133
91010320|NCT01906489|181903888|OTHER||||||=|0.3053|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 6||||=0.3053
91010321|NCT01906489|181903888|OTHER||||||=|0.1918|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 8||||=0.1918
91010322|NCT01906489|181903888|OTHER||||||=|0.209|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12||||=0.2090
91010323|NCT01906489|181903888|OTHER||||||=|0.6184|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 16||||=0.6184
91010324|NCT01906489|181903888|OTHER||||||=|0.3604|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 19||||=0.3604
91010325|NCT01906489|181903888|OTHER||||||=|0.4056|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 20||||=0.4056
91010326|NCT01906489|181903894|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.1451|||=|0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5752|10.908|||Log Rank|||||10.9080|1.5752|=0.0017
91010327|NCT00692198|181903936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.12|||Log Rank|||||1.12|0.79|0.52
91010328|NCT00692198|181903937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.25|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio, LTOT vs No LTOT|||1.25|0.64|0.53
91010329|NCT00692198|181903938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|1.01||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.13|||Fisher Exact||Rate ratio, LTOT vs No LTOT|||1.13|0.91|0.81
91010330|NCT00692198|181903940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|1.08||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.19|||Fisher Exact||Rate ratio, LTOT vs No LTOT|||1.19|0.98|0.12
91010331|NCT00692198|181903941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.73
91010332|NCT00692198|181903942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.21
91010333|NCT00692198|181903943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.71
90890205|NCT02105948|181644580|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Mepolizumab - Placebo)|-0.8|||=|0.244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.5||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Analysis performed using mixed model repeated measures with covariates of baseline CAT score, geographic region, smoking status, treatment and visit, plus interaction terms for visit by Baseline and visit by treatment group.|||0.5|-2.0|=0.244
91010334|NCT00692198|181903944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
91010335|NCT00692198|181903945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.28
91010336|NCT00692198|181903946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.41
91010337|NCT00692198|181903947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|8.0|||||Relative risk, LTOT vs No LTOT|||8.00|0.54|
91010338|NCT00692198|181903948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.37
91010339|NCT00692198|181903949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.21
91010340|NCT03330275|181903950|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of -0.25 was used. Non-inferioirty was concluded if the lower limit of the 95% CI was above 0.25.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.069|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0574|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.045|0.183|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger Method was used for denominator degrees of freedom|Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control 1|It was calculated that a total of 24 participants was required to show that the Test lens is non-inferior to the control 1 lens with 80% power. Sample size for this study was based on night driving only.||0.183|-0.045|
91010341|NCT03330275|181903951|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 0.1 logMAR was used. Non-inferiority was concluded if the upper limit was below 0.1.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.028|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0076|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.043|-0.012|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger Method was used for the degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control 1|||-0.012|-0.043|
91010342|NCT03330275|181903952|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was concluded if 0 was contained in the 95% confidence interval.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.162|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.442|22.604|||Generalized Estimating Equation||Odds ratio was calculated as Test over Control 1|||22.604|0.442|
91010343|NCT03330275|181903953|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was concluded if 0 was contained in the 95% confidence interval.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.16|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model||Odds ratio was calculated as Test over Control1|||1.16|0.82|
91010344|NCT03330275|181903954|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was concluded if 0 was contained in the 95% confidence interval.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.29|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.1|28.5|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger Method was used for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control 1|||28.5|7.1|
91010345|NCT03330275|181903955|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was concluded if 0 was contained in the 95% confidence interval.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.74|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model||Odds Ratio was calculated as Test over Control 1|||1.74|0.33|
91010346|NCT03330275|181903956|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was concluded if 0 was contained in the 95% confidence interval.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.93|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|20.7|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger Method was used for denominator Degrees of Freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control 1|||20.7|-11.4|
91010347|NCT04594213|181903971|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91052187|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|28.1|||||Week 36, ACR70. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 36. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||28.1|4.3|
91010348|NCT04594213|181903972|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91010349|NCT04594213|181903973|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91010350|NCT04594213|181903974|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91010351|NCT04594213|181903975|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91010352|NCT04594213|181903976|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91010353|NCT04594213|181903977|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91010354|NCT04594213|181903978|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91052188|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|24.5|||||Week 36, ACR70. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 36. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||24.5|2.5|
91052189|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Week 40, ACR20. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 40. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
91010355|NCT04594213|181903979|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91010356|NCT04594213|181903980|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91010357|NCT04594213|181903981|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91010358|NCT04594213|181903981|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91010359|NCT04594213|181903982|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91010360|NCT04594213|181903982|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91010361|NCT04594213|181903983|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91010362|NCT04594213|181903984|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91010363|NCT04594213|181903984|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91052190|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|51.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.5|68.2|||||Week 40, ACR20. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 40. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||68.2|34.5|
91052191|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|23.0|||||Week 40, ACR50. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 40. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||23.0|-1.4|
91052192|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|29.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.8|45.7|||||Week 40, ACR50. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 40. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||45.7|13.8|
91010364|NCT00104299|181903994|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|non-inferiority margin of -20%|Difference between group success rates|10.6|||<|0.001||95.1|-3.2|24.3||P-value is adjusted for interim analysis using a Lan-DeMets alpha spending function with an O'Brien-Fleming boundary, allocating 0.003 alpha to the interim analysis and 0.049 alpha to the final analysis.|95.1% CI of difference|Calculate 95.1% CI around the difference in success rates between arms. Lower bound above non-inferiority margin of -20% indicates non-inferiority.||In calculating the sample size, we assumed that the percentage of patients in both treatment groups would achieve disease remission off prednisone by 6 months was 70%. We specified a non-inferiority margin of -20% on the difference in remission rates (rituximab rate minus cyclophosphamide rate) and a one-sided 0.025 level test. Assuming a 10% dropout rate, RAVE required 100 patients in each arm to have 83% power to conclude non-inferiority.||24.3|-3.2|<0.001
91010365|NCT00104299|181903995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.927||||||P-value is from the Poisson regression model adjusting for clinical study site and ANCA type. The natural logarithm of participant-months is used as an offset in this model|Poisson regression model|||Participant-months are defined as duration in months from the first study drug dosing date to the last date of the participant in the protocol. The rate of selected AEs is defined as the total number of selected AEs divided by total participant-months, and indicates the number of events per participant per month on average. Participants are grouped according to their originally received treatment.||||0.927
91010366|NCT00104299|181903996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||95.1% Confidence Interval of Difference|10.6||||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.1|-3.2|24.4|||Chi-squared|At 6 months, the confidence interval is 95.1%.||The p-value is from a chi-square test.||24.4|-3.2|0.133
91010367|NCT00104299|181903997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.9||||0.761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.7||The log-rank test assesses the difference between the two treatment arms in the flaring pattern after complete remission|Log Rank|The log-rank test assesses the difference between the two treatment arms in the flaring pattern after complete remission||Participants are censored at the time of crossover, open label rituximab, or best medical judgement, if applicable. If a participant has no flare after complete remission prior to their Month 18 visit, the duration is censored at the date of the Month 18 Visit||1.7|0.5|0.761
91010368|NCT00104299|181903998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.9||||0.861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.5|||Log Rank|The log-rank test assesses the difference between the two treatment arms in the flaring pattern after remission||Participants are censored at the time of crossover, open label rituximab, or best medical judgement, if applicable. If a participant has no flare after complete remission prior to their Month 18 visit, the duration is censored at the date of the Month 18 Visit||1.5|0.6|0.861
91010369|NCT00104299|181903999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.0||||0.497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.3|||Log Rank|The log-rank test assesses the difference between the two treatment arms in the pattern of achieving remission|The hazard ratio and confidence interval are based on a Cox proportional hazard model comparing rituximab to the control group, adjusting for clinical study site, ANCA type, and glucocorticoid use prior to baseline.|||1.3|0.7|0.497
91052193|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|19.4|||||Week 40, ACR70. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 40. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||19.4|-3.2|
91010370|NCT00104299|181904000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.3||||0.147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.8|||Log Rank|The log-rank test assesses the difference between the two treatment arms in the pattern of achieving complete remission|The hazard ratio and confidence interval are based on a Cox proportional hazard model comparing rituximab to the control group, adjusting for clinical study site, ANCA type, and glucocorticoid use prior to baseline.|||1.8|0.9|0.147
90890206|NCT02105948|181644581|SUPERIORITY||Hazard ratio (Mepolizumab/Placebo)|0.89|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.05||Adjusted p-value|Cox Proportional Hazards Model||Analysis performed using a Cox Proportional Hazards Model with covariates of treatment, geographic region, no. moderate/severe exacerbations in previous year, Baseline percent predicted FEV1 and smoking status|||1.05|0.75|>0.999
91010371|NCT00104299|181904001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.504||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Proportions of subjects experiencing a serious adverse event through 18 months and prior to censoring for open-label, crossover, or best medical judgment according to originally assigned treatment arm were compared using a two-sided Chi-squared test.||||0.504
91010372|NCT01707667|181904002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.8||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|9.9|||Linear Mixed-Effect Models Analysis|||||9.9|1.6|0.012
91010373|NCT01707667|181904003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|69051.4||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12004.5|150107.3|||Linear Mixed-Effect Models Analysis|||||150107.3|-12004.5|0.079
91052194|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Week 40, ACR70. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 40. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
91010374|NCT01707667|181904004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.2||||0.717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.3|63.7|||Linear Mixed-Effect Models Analysis|||||63.7|-45.3|0.717
91010375|NCT01707667|181904005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.295|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.295
91010376|NCT01707667|181904006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.179||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.465|0.107|||Linear Mixed-Effect Models Analysis|||||0.107|-0.465|0.180
91010377|NCT01707667|181904007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.8||||0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|44.3|||Linear Mixed-Effect Models Analysis|||||44.3|-12.6|0.225
91010378|NCT03802331|181904009|OTHER|Relative bioavailability|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio T/R (%)|166.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|143.17|192.53|||||The Adjusted Geometric Mean is adjusted by treatment. Geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 19.0.|This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment.||192.53|143.17|
91010379|NCT03802331|181904010|OTHER|Relative bioavailability|Ajusted Geometric Mean Ratio T/R (%)|235.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|179.82|308.42|||||The Adjusted Geometric Mean is adjusted by treatment. Geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 35.4.|This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment.||308.42|179.82|
91010380|NCT03802331|181904011|OTHER|Relative bioavailability|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio T/R (%)|159.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|140.11|181.34|||||The Adjusted Geometric Mean is adjusted by treatment. Geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 16.5.|This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment.||181.34|140.11|
91010381|NCT03432819|181904020|SUPERIORITY|Using an intent-to-treat approach, intervention efficacy was tested with a hierarchical linear repeated-measures regressions where responses came from either follow-up, and MEMS adherence from 5, 6, or 7 month measurements. Predictors were an indicator for study arm, baseline value, follow-up time-point, and covariates. Standard errors were adjusted for clustering at the individual-level (ultimate clustering methods). Covariates were socio-demographics associated with the outcome at p\>.05.|Mean Difference (Net)|9.24||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|19.03|||Regression, Linear|||||19.03|-0.55|0.06
90890207|NCT02105948|181644581|SUPERIORITY||Hazard ratio (Mepolizumab/Placebo)|0.89|||=|0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.05||Unadjusted p-value|Cox Proportional Hazards Model||Analysis performed using a Cox Proportional Hazards Model with covariates of treatment, geographic region, no. moderate/severe exacerbations in previous year, Baseline percent predicted FEV1 and smoking status|||1.05|0.75|=0.160
91052195|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Week 44, ACR20. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 44. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
90890208|NCT02105948|181644582|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio (mepolizumab/placebo)|1.1|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.49||Adjusted p-value|Negative binomial model||Analysis using a negative binomial model with covariates of treatment, geographic region, no. moderate/severe exacerbations in previous year, Baseline percent predicted FEV1, smoking status and offset of log (time in on- and off-treatment period).|||1.49|0.81|>0.999
91052196|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|51.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.5|68.2|||||Week 44, ACR20. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 44. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||68.2|34.5|
91052197|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|23.0|||||Week 44, ACR50. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 44. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||23.0|-1.4|
91010382|NCT03432819|181904021|SUPERIORITY|Using an intent-to-treat approach, intervention efficacy was tested with a hierarchical linear repeated-measures regressions where responses came from either follow-up, and MEMS adherence from 5, 6, or 7 month measurements. Predictors were an indicator for study arm, baseline value, follow-up time-point, and covariates. Standard errors were adjusted for clustering at the individual-level (ultimate clustering methods). Covariates were socio-demographics associated with the outcome at p\>.05.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.5||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|8.3|||Regression, Linear|||||8.30|0.70|0.02
91010383|NCT03432819|181904022|SUPERIORITY|Using an intent-to-treat approach, intervention efficacy was tested with a hierarchical linear repeated-measures regressions where responses came from either follow-up, and MEMS adherence from 5, 6, or 7 month measurements. Predictors were an indicator for study arm, baseline value, follow-up time-point, and covariates. Standard errors were adjusted for clustering at the individual-level (ultimate clustering methods). Covariates were socio-demographics associated with the outcome at p\>.05.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.26|||Regression, Linear|||||0.26|-0.10|0.39
91010384|NCT03432819|181904023|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.2|||Regression, Linear|||Using an intent-to-treat approach, intervention efficacy was tested with a hierarchical linear repeated-measures regressions where responses came from either follow-up, and MEMS adherence from 5, 6, or 7 month measurements. Predictors were an indicator for study arm, baseline value, follow-up time-point, and covariates. Standard errors were adjusted for clustering at the individual-level (ultimate clustering methods). Covariates were socio-demographics associated with the outcome at p\>.05.||0.20|-0.37|0.54
91052198|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|35.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.7|51.6|||||Week 44, ACR50. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 44. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||51.6|18.7|
91052199|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|20.8|||||Week 44, ACR70. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 44. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||20.8|0.8|
91052200|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|18.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|31.5|||||Week 44, ACR70. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 44. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||31.5|6.3|
91052201|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Week 48, ACR20. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 48. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
91052202|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|51.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.3|70.9|||||Week 48, ACR20. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 48. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||70.9|37.3|
91052203|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Week 48, ACR50. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 48. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
91052204|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|32.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.2|48.7|||||Week 48, ACR50. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 48. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||48.7|16.2|
91052205|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|24.5|||||Week 48, ACR70. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 48. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||24.5|2.5|
91052206|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|21.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.4|34.9|||||Week 48, ACR70. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 48. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||34.9|8.4|
91052207|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Week 52, ACR20. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 52. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
91010385|NCT03432819|181904024|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.14|||Regression, Linear|||Using an intent-to-treat approach, intervention efficacy was tested with a hierarchical linear repeated-measures regressions where responses came from either follow-up, and MEMS adherence from 5, 6, or 7 month measurements. Predictors were an indicator for study arm, baseline value, follow-up time-point, and covariates. Standard errors were adjusted for clustering at the individual-level (ultimate clustering methods). Covariates were socio-demographics associated with the outcome at p\>.05.||0.14|-0.18|0.81
91010386|NCT03432819|181904025|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.01|||Regression, Linear|||Using an intent-to-treat approach, intervention efficacy was tested with a hierarchical linear repeated-measures regressions where responses came from either follow-up, and MEMS adherence from 5, 6, or 7 month measurements. Predictors were an indicator for study arm, baseline value, follow-up time-point, and covariates. Standard errors were adjusted for clustering at the individual-level (ultimate clustering methods). Covariates were socio-demographics associated with the outcome at p\>.05.||0.01|-0.37|0.06
91052208|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|48.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.7|65.6|||||Week 52, ACR20. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 52. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||65.6|31.7|
91052209|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Week 52, ACR50. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 52. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
91010387|NCT03432819|181904026|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.13|||Regression, Linear|||Using an intent-to-treat approach, intervention efficacy was tested with a hierarchical linear repeated-measures regressions where responses came from either follow-up, and MEMS adherence from 5, 6, or 7 month measurements. Predictors were an indicator for study arm, baseline value, follow-up time-point, and covariates. Standard errors were adjusted for clustering at the individual-level (ultimate clustering methods). Covariates were socio-demographics associated with the outcome at p\>.05.||0.13|-0.78|0.16
91010388|NCT03432819|181904027|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.09|||Regression, Linear|||Using an intent-to-treat approach, intervention efficacy was tested with a hierarchical linear repeated-measures regressions where responses came from either follow-up, and MEMS adherence from 5, 6, or 7 month measurements. Predictors were an indicator for study arm, baseline value, follow-up time-point, and covariates. Standard errors were adjusted for clustering at the individual-level (ultimate clustering methods). Covariates were socio-demographics associated with the outcome at p\>.05.||-0.09|-0.84|0.02
91052210|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|24.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.1|39.6|||||Week 52, ACR50. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 52. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||39.6|9.1|
91010389|NCT03432819|181904028|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.47|||Regression, Linear|||Using an intent-to-treat approach, intervention efficacy was tested with a hierarchical linear repeated-measures regressions where responses came from either follow-up, and MEMS adherence from 5, 6, or 7 month measurements. Predictors were an indicator for study arm, baseline value, follow-up time-point, and covariates. Standard errors were adjusted for clustering at the individual-level (ultimate clustering methods). Covariates were socio-demographics associated with the outcome at p\>.05.||0.47|-0.32|0.71
91052211|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|24.5|||||Week 52, ACR70. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 52. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||24.5|2.5|
91010390|NCT03432819|181904029|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.06|||Regression, Linear|||Using an intent-to-treat approach, intervention efficacy was tested with a hierarchical linear repeated-measures regressions where responses came from either follow-up, and MEMS adherence from 5, 6, or 7 month measurements. Predictors were an indicator for study arm, baseline value, follow-up time-point, and covariates. Standard errors were adjusted for clustering at the individual-level (ultimate clustering methods). Covariates were socio-demographics associated with the outcome at p\>.05.||0.06|-0.73|0.10
91052212|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|24.5|||||Week 52, ACR70. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 52. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||24.5|2.5|
91010391|NCT02041533|181904042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||0.2511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.45|||Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified by histology (squamous vs. non-squamous) as entered into the IVRS.|Stratified Cox proportional hazard model. Hazard ratio of nivolumab to investigator's choice chemotherapy.|||1.45|0.91|0.2511
91052213|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Week 62 (follow-up), ACR20. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 62 (follow-up). 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
90890209|NCT02105948|181644582|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio (mepolizumab/placebo)|1.1|||=|0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.49||Unadjusted p-value|Negative binomial model||Analysis using a negative binomial model with covariates of treatment, geographic region, no. moderate/severe exacerbations in previous year, Baseline percent predicted FEV1, smoking status and offset of log (time in on- and off-treatment period).|||1.49|0.81|=0.556
90890210|NCT02105948|181644583|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference (Mepolizumab - Placebo)|0.7|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.9||Adjusted p-value|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Analysis performed using mixed model repeated measures with covariates of baseline SGRQ Total Score, geographic region, smoking status, treatment and visit, plus interaction terms for visit by Baseline and visit by treatment group.|||2.9|-1.5|>0.999
91010392|NCT02041533|181904043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.43|||||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model. Hazard ratio of nivolumab to investigator's choice chemotherapy.|||1.43|0.95|
91010393|NCT02041533|181904044|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.2|||||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model. Hazard ratio of nivolumab to investigator's choice chemotherapy.|||1.20|0.79|
91010394|NCT02041533|181904045|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.24|||||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model. Hazard ratio of nivolumab to investigator's choice chemotherapy.|||1.24|0.86|
91052214|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|40.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.7|57.3|||||Week 62 (follow-up), ACR20. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 62 (follow-up). 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||57.3|23.7|
91010395|NCT02041533|181904046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.06|||||Stratified by histology (squamous vs.non-squamous) at randomization. Strata adjusted odds ratio (Nivolumab over investigator choice of chemotherapy) using Mantel-Haenszel method.|||1.06|0.46|
91010396|NCT01646255|181904050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean|-1.2|||=|0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|-0.57||Primary efficacy analyses was made with confirmatory 2-sided test with significance level 0.05.|ANCOVA|||"Estimate of treatment effect has been obtained from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model to the change from Baseline value in absolute time spent off. The ANCOVA model contained treatment and (pooled) site as factors and Baseline off time as covariate. A last observation carried forward (LOCF) imputation approach was used for missing values (during both Titration and Maintenance Periods) for the primary efficacy analysis."||-0.57|-1.83|=0.0002
91052215|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Week 62 (follow-up), ACR50. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 62 (follow-up). 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
91052216|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|24.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.1|39.6|||||Week 62 (follow-up), ACR50. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 62 (follow-up). 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||39.6|9.1|
91052217|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|23.0|||||Week 62 (follow-up), ACR70. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 62 (follow-up). 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||23.0|-1.4|
91010397|NCT01468844|181904063|OTHER|The mean difference between the minocycline and placebo arms in change in BCVA in the study eye at Month 12 compared to baseline is reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|15.3|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||||
91010398|NCT01468844|181904064|OTHER|The difference between the minocycline and placebo treatment arms in number of participants improving ≥ 1 logOCT scale step in the study eye at Month 12 compared to baseline is reported.|Difference in Number of Participants|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||||
91010399|NCT01468844|181904065|OTHER|The difference between the minocycline and placebo treatment arms in number of participants improving ≥ 1 logOCT scale step in the study eye at Month 24 compared to baseline is reported|Difference in Number of Participants|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||||
91010400|NCT01468844|181904066|OTHER|The mean difference between the minocycline and placebo treatment arms in number of bevacizumab injections received from baseline to Month 12 is reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|-5.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.3|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||||
91010401|NCT01468844|181904067|OTHER|The mean difference between the minocycline and placebo treatment arms in number of bevacizumab injections received from baseline to Month 24 is reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|-8.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.4|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||||
91010402|NCT01468844|181904068|OTHER|The mean difference between the minocycline and placebo groups in the change in macular sensitivity in the study eye at Month 3 compared to baseline is reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.3|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||||
91010403|NCT01468844|181904069|OTHER|The mean difference between the minocycline and placebo groups in the change in macular sensitivity in the study eye at Month 6 compared to baseline is reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.5|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||||
91052218|NCT02504671|181989198|OTHER||Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|29.9|||||Week 62 (follow-up), ACR70. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 62 (follow-up). 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||29.9|2.6|
91010404|NCT01468844|181904070|OTHER|The mean difference between the minocycline and placebo groups in the change in macular sensitivity in the study eye at Month 12 compared to baseline is reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.2|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||||
91010405|NCT01468844|181904071|OTHER|The mean difference between the minocycline and placebo groups in the change in macular sensitivity in the study eye at Month 18 compared to baseline is reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|-5.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.8|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||||
91010406|NCT01468844|181904072|OTHER|The mean difference between the minocycline and placebo groups in the change in macular sensitivity in the study eye at Month 24 compared to baseline is reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|-5.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.8|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||||
91010407|NCT01468844|181904073|OTHER|The mean difference between the minocycline and placebo arms in change in BCVA in the study eye at Month 24 compared to baseline is reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|30.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||||
91010408|NCT01468844|181904074|OTHER|The mean difference between the minocycline and placebo treatment arms in change in retinal thickness as measured by OCT in the study eye at Month 6 compared to baseline is reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|39.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|113.3|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||||
91010409|NCT01468844|181904075|OTHER|The mean difference between the minocycline and placebo treatment arms in change in retinal thickness as measured by OCT in the study eye at Month 12 compared to baseline is reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|313.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|267.3|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||||
91010410|NCT01468844|181904076|OTHER|The mean difference between the minocycline and placebo treatment arms in change in retinal thickness as measured by OCT in the study eye at Month 18 compared to baseline is reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|428.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|146.2|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||||
91010411|NCT01468844|181904077|OTHER|The mean difference between the minocycline and placebo treatment arms in change in retinal thickness as measured by OCT in the study eye at Month 24 compared to baseline is reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|119.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|66.6|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||||
91010412|NCT01468844|181904078|OTHER|The difference between the minocycline and treatment arms in the number of participants experiencing a decrease in fluid leakage at Month 12 compared to baseline is reported.|Difference in Number of Participants|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||||
91010413|NCT01468844|181904078|OTHER|The difference between the minocycline and treatment arms in the number of participants experiencing an increase in fluid leakage at Month 12 compared to baseline is reported.|Difference in Number of Participants|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||||
91010414|NCT01468844|181904078|OTHER|The difference between the minocycline and treatment arms in the number of participants experiencing no change in fluid leakage at Month 12 compared to baseline is reported.|Difference in Number of Participants|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||||
91010415|NCT01468844|181904079|OTHER|The difference between the minocycline and treatment arms in the number of participants experiencing a decrease in fluid leakage at Month 24 compared to baseline is reported.|Difference in Number of Participants|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||||
91052219|NCT02504671|181989199|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 4. Difference to Placebo for Week 4 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
91010416|NCT01468844|181904079|OTHER|The difference between the minocycline and treatment arms in the number of participants experiencing an increase in fluid leakage at Month 24 compared to baseline is reported.|Difference in Number of Participants|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||||
91010417|NCT01468844|181904079|OTHER|The difference between the minocycline and treatment arms in the number of participants experiencing no change in fluid leakage at Month 24 compared to baseline is reported.|Difference in Number of Participants|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||||
91010418|NCT01241318|181904082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.44|||||The chlorhexidine arm is the numerator and dry cord care arm is the denominator in the relative risk calculation. Generalised estimating equation models were used to adjust for cluster randomized design.|||1.44|0.88|
91010419|NCT01241318|181904083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.47|||||Generalized estimating equation models adjusting for cluster-randomized design were used.|||1.47|0.86|
91010420|NCT01241318|181904084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.13|||||Generalized estimating equation models adjusting for cluster-randomized design were used.|||1.13|0.47|
91010421|NCT02355665|181904088|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Success Rate Ratio|2.0||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|3.66||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by study site and number of cigarettes smoked per day at baseline (\<20 per day vs ≥20 per day).|Estimated Success Rate Ratio = Nicotine/Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in continuous smoking abstinence rates between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in continuous smoking abstinence rates between treatments.||3.66|1.10|0.021
91010422|NCT02355665|181904089|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Success Rate Ratio|3.04||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|6.68||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by study site and number of cigarettes smoked per day at baseline (\<20 per day vs ≥20 per day).|Estimated Success Rate Ratio = Nicotine/Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in continuous smoking abstinence rates between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in continuous smoking abstinence rates between treatments.||6.68|1.39|0.004
91010423|NCT02355665|181904090|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Success Rate Ratio|2.87||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|6.71||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by study site and number of cigarettes smoked per day at baseline (\<20 per day vs ≥20 per day).|Estimated Success Rate Ratio = Nicotine/Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in continuous smoking abstinence rates between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in continuous smoking abstinence rates between treatments.||6.71|1.23|0.011
91052220|NCT02504671|181989199|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 6. Difference to Placebo for Week 6 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
91052221|NCT02504671|181989199|OTHER||Difference|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|2.5|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 8. Difference to Placebo for Week 8 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||2.5|-7.9|
90890211|NCT02105948|181644583|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference (Mepolizumab - Placebo)|0.7|||=|0.532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.9||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Analysis performed using mixed model repeated measures with covariates of baseline SGRQ Total Score, geographic region, smoking status, treatment and visit, plus interaction terms for visit by Baseline and visit by treatment group.|||2.9|-1.5|=0.532
91010424|NCT02355665|181904091|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Success Rate Ratio|1.66||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|2.71||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by study site and number of cigarettes smoked per day at baseline (\<20 per day vs ≥20 per day).|Estimated Success Rate Ratio = Nicotine/Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in continuous smoking abstinence rates between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in continuous smoking abstinence rates between treatments.||2.71|1.02|0.040
91052222|NCT02504671|181989199|OTHER||Difference|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|2.5|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 8. Difference to Placebo for Week 8 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||2.5|-7.9|
91010425|NCT02355665|181904092|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Success Rate Ratio|2.09||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|3.98||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by study site and number of cigarettes smoked per day at baseline (\<20 per day vs ≥20 per day).|Estimated Success Rate Ratio = Nicotine/Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in continuous smoking abstinence rates between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in continuous smoking abstinence rates between treatments.||3.98|1.09|0.023
91010426|NCT02355665|181904093|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Success Rate Ratio|2.91||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|6.42||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by study site and number of cigarettes smoked per day at baseline (\<20 per day vs ≥20 per day).|Estimated Success Rate Ratio = Nicotine/Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in continuous smoking abstinence rates between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in continuous smoking abstinence rates between treatments.||6.42|1.32|0.006
91010427|NCT02355665|181904094|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Success Rate Ratio|2.66||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|5.92||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by study site and number of cigarettes smoked per day at baseline (\<20 per day vs ≥20 per day).|Estimated Success Rate Ratio = Nicotine/Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in continuous smoking abstinence rates between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in continuous smoking abstinence rates between treatments.||5.92|1.20|0.013
91010428|NCT02355665|181904095|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|-0.02||||0.847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.6||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated Mean Difference = Nicotine - Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in distribution of the ratings of desire/urge to smoke between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in distribution of the ratings of desire/urge to smoke between treatments.||0.60|-0.64|0.847
91010429|NCT02355665|181904096|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.42||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated Mean Difference = Nicotine - Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in distribution of the ratings of desire/urge to smoke between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in distribution of the ratings of desire/urge to smoke between treatments.||0.42|-0.62|0.861
91010430|NCT02355665|181904097|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|-0.19||||0.266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.24||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated Mean Difference = Nicotine - Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in distribution of the ratings of desire/urge to smoke between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in distribution of the ratings of desire/urge to smoke between treatments.||0.24|-0.61|0.266
91010431|NCT02355665|181904098|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|0.09||||0.487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.55||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated Mean Difference = Nicotine - Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in distribution of the ratings of desire/urge to smoke between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in distribution of the ratings of desire/urge to smoke between treatments.||0.55|-0.38|0.487
91010432|NCT02355665|181904099|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|-0.11||||0.433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.43||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated Mean Difference = Nicotine - Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in distribution of the ratings of irritability/frustration/anger between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in distribution of the ratings of irritability/frustration/anger between treatments.||0.43|-0.65|0.433
91010433|NCT02355665|181904100|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|-0.58||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|-0.01||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated Mean Difference = Nicotine - Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in distribution of the ratings of irritability/frustration/anger between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in distribution of the ratings of irritability/frustration/anger between treatments.||-0.01|-1.15|0.022
91052223|NCT02504671|181989199|OTHER||Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|7.4|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 8. Difference to Placebo for Week 8 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.4|-7.4|
90890212|NCT02105948|181644584|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference (Mepolizumab - Placebo)|-0.6|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.4||Adjusted p-value|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Analysis performed using mixed model repeated measures with covariates of baseline CAT score, geographic region, smoking status, treatment and visit, plus interaction terms for visit by Baseline and visit by treatment group.|||0.4|-1.5|>0.999
91010434|NCT02355665|181904101|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|0.0||||0.665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.49||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated Mean Difference = Nicotine - Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in distribution of the ratings of irritability/frustration/anger between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in distribution of the ratings of irritability/frustration/anger between treatments.||0.49|-0.50|0.665
91010435|NCT02355665|181904102|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.31||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated Mean Difference = Nicotine - Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in distribution of the ratings of irritability/frustration/anger between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in distribution of the ratings of irritability/frustration/anger between treatments.||0.31|-0.51|0.300
91010436|NCT02355665|181904103|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|-0.17||||0.754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.43||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated Mean Difference = Nicotine - Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in distribution of the ratings of restlessness between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in distribution of the ratings of restlessness between treatments.||0.43|-0.78|0.754
91010437|NCT02355665|181904104|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|-0.41||||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.08||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated Mean Difference = Nicotine - Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in distribution of the ratings of restlessness between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in distribution of the ratings of restlessness between treatments.||0.08|-0.89|0.116
91010438|NCT02355665|181904105|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|-0.14||||0.392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.2||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated Mean Difference = Nicotine - Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in distribution of the ratings of restlessness between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in distribution of the ratings of restlessness between treatments.||0.20|-0.47|0.392
91052224|NCT02504671|181989199|OTHER||Difference|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|2.5|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 12. Difference to Placebo for Week 12 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||2.5|-7.9|
91010439|NCT02355665|181904106|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|-0.23||||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.13||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated Mean Difference = Nicotine - Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in distribution of the ratings of restlessness between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in distribution of the ratings of restlessness between treatments.||0.13|-0.59|0.179
91010440|NCT02355665|181904107|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|0.01||||0.925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.47||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated Mean Difference = Nicotine - Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in distribution of the ratings of difficulty concentrating between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in distribution of the ratings of difficulty concentrating between treatments.||0.47|-0.44|0.925
91052225|NCT02504671|181989199|OTHER||Difference|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|2.5|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 12. Difference to Placebo for Week 12 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||2.5|-7.9|
91052226|NCT02504671|181989199|OTHER||Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|7.4|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 12. Difference to Placebo for Week 12 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.4|-7.4|
91010441|NCT02355665|181904108|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|-0.21||||0.325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.24||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated Mean Difference = Nicotine - Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in distribution of the ratings of difficulty concentrating between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in distribution of the ratings of difficulty concentrating between treatments.||0.24|-0.66|0.325
91052227|NCT02504671|181989199|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 16. Difference to Placebo for Week 16 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
91010442|NCT02355665|181904109|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|0.13||||0.891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.51||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated Mean Difference = Nicotine - Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in distribution of the ratings of difficulty concentrating between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in distribution of the ratings of difficulty concentrating between treatments.||0.51|-0.24|0.891
91010443|NCT02355665|181904110|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|-0.11||||0.721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.25||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated Mean Difference = Nicotine - Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in distribution of the ratings of difficulty concentrating between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in distribution of the ratings of difficulty concentrating between treatments.||0.25|-0.48|0.721
91010444|NCT02355665|181904111|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|-0.03||||0.608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.49||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated Mean Difference = Nicotine - Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in distribution of the ratings of anxiety between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in distribution of the ratings of anxiety between treatments.||0.49|-0.54|0.608
91052228|NCT02504671|181989199|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|24.5|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 16. Difference to Placebo for Week 16 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||24.5|2.5|
91052229|NCT02504671|181989199|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 20. Difference to Placebo for Week 20 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
91052230|NCT02504671|181989199|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|20.8|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 20. Difference to Placebo for Week 20 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||20.8|0.8|
91052231|NCT02504671|181989199|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 24. Difference to Placebo for Week 24 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
91052232|NCT02504671|181989199|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.9|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 24. Difference to Placebo for Week 24 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||16.9|-0.7|
91052233|NCT02504671|181989199|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 28. Difference to Placebo for Week 28 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
91052234|NCT02504671|181989199|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|20.8|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 28. Difference to Placebo for Week 28 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||20.8|0.8|
91052235|NCT02504671|181989199|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|24.5|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 32. Difference to Placebo for Week 32 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||24.5|2.5|
91052236|NCT02504671|181989199|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.9|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 32. Difference to Placebo for Week 32 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||16.9|-0.7|
91052237|NCT02504671|181989199|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 36. Difference to Placebo for Week 36 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
91052238|NCT02504671|181989199|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|20.8|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 36. Difference to Placebo for Week 36 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||20.8|0.8|
91052239|NCT02504671|181989199|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.9|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 36. Difference to Placebo for Week 36 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||16.9|-0.7|
91052240|NCT02504671|181989199|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 40. Difference to Placebo for Week 40 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
91052241|NCT02504671|181989199|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|20.8|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 40. Difference to Placebo for Week 40 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||20.8|0.8|
91052242|NCT02504671|181989199|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.9|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 40. Difference to Placebo for Week 40 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||16.9|-0.7|
91052243|NCT02504671|181989199|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 44. Difference to Placebo for Week 44 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
91052244|NCT02504671|181989199|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.9|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 44. Difference to Placebo for Week 44 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||16.9|-0.7|
91052245|NCT02504671|181989199|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|20.8|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 44. Difference to Placebo for Week 44 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||20.8|0.8|
91052246|NCT02504671|181989199|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 48. Difference to Placebo for Week 48 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
91052247|NCT02504671|181989199|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|20.8|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 48. Difference to Placebo for Week 48 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||20.8|0.8|
91052248|NCT02504671|181989199|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.9|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 48. Difference to Placebo for Week 48 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||16.9|-0.7|
91052249|NCT02504671|181989199|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 52. Difference to Placebo for Week 52 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
91052250|NCT02504671|181989199|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|24.5|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 52. Difference to Placebo for Week 52 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||24.5|2.5|
91052251|NCT02504671|181989199|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 52. Difference to Placebo for Week 52 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
91052252|NCT02504671|181989199|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.9|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 62 (follow-up). Difference to Placebo for Week 62 (follow-up) is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||16.9|-0.7|
91052253|NCT02504671|181989199|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 62 (follow-up). Difference to Placebo for Week 62 (follow-up) is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
91052254|NCT02504671|181989199|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 2. Difference to Placebo for Week 2 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
91052255|NCT02504671|181989199|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 4. Difference to Placebo for Week 4 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
91052256|NCT02504671|181989199|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 6. Difference to Placebo for Week 6 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
91052257|NCT02504671|181989199|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 6. Difference to Placebo for Week 6 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
91010445|NCT02355665|181904112|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|-0.63||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|-0.09||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated Mean Difference = Nicotine - Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in distribution of the ratings of anxiety between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in distribution of the ratings of anxiety between treatments.||-0.09|-1.16|0.014
91010446|NCT02355665|181904113|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|0.04||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.38||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated Mean Difference = Nicotine - Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in distribution of the ratings of anxiety between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in distribution of the ratings of anxiety between treatments.||0.38|-0.30|0.900
91010447|NCT02355665|181904114|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|-0.06||||0.731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.31||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated Mean Difference = Nicotine - Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in distribution of the ratings of anxiety between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in distribution of the ratings of anxiety between treatments.||0.31|-0.44|0.731
91052258|NCT02504671|181989199|OTHER||Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|7.4|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 8. Difference to Placebo for Week 8 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.4|-7.4|
91010448|NCT02355665|181904115|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|0.04||||0.635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.36||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated Mean Difference = Nicotine - Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in distribution of the ratings of dysphoric or depressed mood between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in distribution of the ratings of dysphoric or depressed mood between treatments.||0.36|-0.28|0.635
91052259|NCT02504671|181989199|OTHER||Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|7.4|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 8. Difference to Placebo for Week 8 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.4|-7.4|
91052260|NCT02504671|181989199|OTHER||Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|7.4|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 12. Difference to Placebo for Week 12 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.4|-7.4|
91052261|NCT02504671|181989199|OTHER||Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|7.4|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 12. Difference to Placebo for Week 12 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.4|-7.4|
91010449|NCT02355665|181904116|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|-0.05||||0.273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.32||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated Mean Difference = Nicotine - Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in distribution of the ratings of dysphoric or depressed mood between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in distribution of the ratings of dysphoric or depressed mood between treatments.||0.32|-0.42|0.273
91010450|NCT02355665|181904117|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|-0.06||||0.879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.28||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated Mean Difference = Nicotine - Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in distribution of the ratings of dysphoric or depressed mood between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in distribution of the ratings of dysphoric or depressed mood between treatments.||0.28|-0.40|0.879
91010451|NCT02355665|181904118|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|0.02||||0.823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.32||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated Mean Difference = Nicotine - Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in distribution of the ratings of dysphoric or depressed mood between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in distribution of the ratings of dysphoric or depressed mood between treatments.||0.32|-0.28|0.823
91010452|NCT02355665|181904119|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|0.0||||0.804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated Mean Difference = Nicotine - Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in distribution of the ratings of insomnia between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in distribution of the ratings of insomnia between treatments.||0.40|-0.40|0.804
91052262|NCT02504671|181989199|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 16. Difference to Placebo for Week 16 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
91010453|NCT02355665|181904120|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|0.13||||0.438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.57||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated Mean Difference = Nicotine - Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in distribution of the ratings of insomnia between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in distribution of the ratings of insomnia between treatments.||0.57|-0.30|0.438
91052263|NCT02504671|181989199|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 16. Difference to Placebo for Week 16 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
90890213|NCT02105948|181644584|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference (Mepolizumab - Placebo)|-0.6|||=|0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.4||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Analysis performed using mixed model repeated measures with covariates of baseline CAT score, geographic region, smoking status, treatment and visit, plus interaction terms for visit by Baseline and visit by treatment group.|||0.4|-1.5|=0.252
91052264|NCT02504671|181989199|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|12.7|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 20. Difference to Placebo for Week 20 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-2.5|
91052265|NCT02504671|181989199|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|68.2|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 20. Difference to Placebo for Week 20 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||68.2|-1.9|
91010454|NCT02355665|181904121|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|-0.08||||0.517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.28||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated Mean Difference = Nicotine - Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in distribution of the ratings of insomnia between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in distribution of the ratings of insomnia between treatments.||0.28|-0.44|0.517
91010455|NCT02355665|181904122|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|-0.42||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.06||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated Mean Difference = Nicotine - Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in distribution of the ratings of insomnia between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in distribution of the ratings of insomnia between treatments.||-0.06|-0.77|0.027
91010456|NCT02355665|181904123|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.33||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated Mean Difference = Nicotine - Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in distribution of the ratings of increased appetite between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in distribution of the ratings of increased appetite between treatments.||0.33|-0.93|0.105
91010457|NCT02355665|181904124|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|-0.04||||0.604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.51||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated Mean Difference = Nicotine - Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in distribution of the ratings of increased appetite between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in distribution of the ratings of increased appetite between treatments.||0.51|-0.60|0.604
91010458|NCT02355665|181904125|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|-0.35||||0.194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.24||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated Mean Difference = Nicotine - Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in distribution of the ratings of increased appetite between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in distribution of the ratings of increased appetite between treatments.||0.24|-0.93|0.194
91052266|NCT02504671|181989199|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.9|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 24. Difference to Placebo for Week 24 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||16.9|-0.7|
91010459|NCT02355665|181904126|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|-0.11||||0.502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.4||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated Mean Difference = Nicotine - Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in distribution of the ratings of increased appetite between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in distribution of the ratings of increased appetite between treatments.||0.40|-0.62|0.502
91010460|NCT02355665|181904127|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|-0.56||||0.483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.84|1.73||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated Mean Difference = Nicotine - Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in distribution of aggregated withdrawal scores between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in distribution of aggregated withdrawal scores between treatments.||1.73|-2.84|0.483
91052267|NCT02504671|181989199|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 24. Difference to Placebo for Week 24 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
91052268|NCT02504671|181989199|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.9|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 28. Difference to Placebo for Week 28 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||16.9|-0.7|
91052269|NCT02504671|181989199|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|24.5|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 28. Difference to Placebo for Week 28 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||24.5|2.5|
91052270|NCT02504671|181989199|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.9|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 32. Difference to Placebo for Week 32 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||16.9|-0.7|
91052271|NCT02504671|181989199|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|20.8|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 32. Difference to Placebo for Week 32 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||20.8|0.8|
90890214|NCT01462344|181644617|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority comparison was statistically significant if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI falls below 2.675, the non-inferiority margin, and the non-inferiority test one-sided p-value \<0.025.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.285||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.726|2.272|||Regression, Cox||Estimated for Hazard ratio|||2.272|0.726|0.006
91052272|NCT02504671|181989199|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|24.5|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 36. Difference to Placebo for Week 36 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||24.5|2.5|
91052273|NCT02504671|181989199|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 36. Difference to Placebo for Week 36 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
91052274|NCT02504671|181989199|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 40. Difference to Placebo for Week 40 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
91052275|NCT02504671|181989199|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|24.5|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 40. Difference to Placebo for Week 40 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||24.5|2.5|
91010461|NCT02355665|181904128|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|-1.79||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.24|0.67||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated Mean Difference = Nicotine - Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in distribution of aggregated withdrawal scores between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in distribution of aggregated withdrawal scores between treatments.||0.67|-4.24|0.102
91010462|NCT02355665|181904129|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|-0.45||||0.532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.27|1.38||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated Mean Difference = Nicotine - Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in distribution of aggregated withdrawal scores between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in distribution of aggregated withdrawal scores between treatments.||1.38|-2.27|0.532
91010463|NCT02355665|181904130|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|-1.01||||0.354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.93|0.91||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated Mean Difference = Nicotine - Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in distribution of aggregated withdrawal scores between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in distribution of aggregated withdrawal scores between treatments.||0.91|-2.93|0.354
91052276|NCT02504671|181989199|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 44. Difference to Placebo for Week 44 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
91052277|NCT02504671|181989199|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.9|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 44. Difference to Placebo for Week 44 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||16.9|-0.7|
91052278|NCT02504671|181989199|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|20.8|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 48. Difference to Placebo for Week 48 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||20.8|0.8|
91052279|NCT02504671|181989199|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 48. Difference to Placebo for Week 48 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
91052280|NCT02504671|181989199|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 52. Difference to Placebo for Week 52 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
91052281|NCT02504671|181989199|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.9|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 52. Difference to Placebo for Week 52 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||16.9|-0.7|
91052282|NCT02504671|181989199|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 62 (follow-up). Difference to Placebo for Week 62 (follow-up) is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
91052283|NCT02504671|181989199|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|24.5|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 62 (follow-up). Difference to Placebo for Week 62 (follow-up) is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||24.5|2.5|
91052284|NCT02504671|181989200|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 8. Difference to Placebo for Week 8 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
91052285|NCT02504671|181989200|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.9|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 12. Difference to Placebo for Week 12 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||16.9|-0.7|
91052286|NCT02504671|181989200|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Difference to Placebo for Week 16 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
91052287|NCT02504671|181989200|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 16. Difference to Placebo for Week 16 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
90890215|NCT01462344|181644617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0019|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0024|0.0063|||||Estimated for Absolute risk difference|||0.0063|-0.0024|
90890216|NCT01462344|181644618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.859|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.729|1.012|||||Estimated for Hazard ratio|||1.012|0.729|
91052288|NCT02504671|181989200|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 20. Difference to Placebo for Week 20 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
91052289|NCT02504671|181989200|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.9|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 20. Difference to Placebo for Week 20 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||16.9|-0.7|
91052290|NCT02504671|181989200|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 24. Difference to Placebo for Week 24 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
91052291|NCT02504671|181989200|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.9|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 24. Difference to Placebo for Week 24 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||16.9|-0.7|
91052292|NCT02504671|181989200|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 28. Difference to Placebo for Week 28 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
91052293|NCT02504671|181989200|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.9|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 28. Difference to Placebo for Week 28 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||16.9|-0.7|
91052294|NCT02504671|181989200|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 32. Difference to Placebo for Week 32 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
91052295|NCT02504671|181989200|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 32. Difference to Placebo for Week 32 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
91052296|NCT02504671|181989200|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.9|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 36. Difference to Placebo for Week 36 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||16.9|-0.7|
91010464|NCT02355665|181904299|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.679||0.558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.42|4.41||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment, baseline smoking category, study site, and baseline weight were factors.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Nicotine - Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in mean change from baseline in body weight between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean change from baseline in body weight between treatments.||4.41|-2.42|0.558
91052297|NCT02504671|181989200|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 36. Difference to Placebo for Week 36 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
91052298|NCT02504671|181989200|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.9|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 40. Difference to Placebo for Week 40 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||16.9|-0.7|
91052299|NCT02504671|181989200|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.9|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 40. Difference to Placebo for Week 40 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||16.9|-0.7|
91052300|NCT02504671|181989200|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|20.8|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 44. Difference to Placebo for Week 44 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||20.8|0.8|
91052301|NCT02504671|181989200|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.9|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 44. Difference to Placebo for Week 44 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||16.9|-0.7|
91052302|NCT02504671|181989200|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 48. Difference to Placebo for Week 48 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
91052303|NCT02504671|181989200|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 48. Difference to Placebo for Week 48 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
91052304|NCT02504671|181989200|OTHER||Difference|21.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|42.8|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 48. Difference to Placebo for Week 48 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||42.8|0.4|
91052305|NCT02504671|181989200|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|20.8|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 52. Difference to Placebo for Week 52 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||20.8|0.8|
91052306|NCT02504671|181989200|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 52. Difference to Placebo for Week 52 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
91052307|NCT02504671|181989200|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.9|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 62 (follow-up). Difference to Placebo for Week 62 (follow-up) is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||16.9|-0.7|
91052308|NCT02504671|181989200|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 62 (follow-up). Difference to Placebo for Week 62 (follow-up) is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
91052309|NCT02504671|181989200|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 2. Difference to Placebo for Week 2 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
91052310|NCT02504671|181989200|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 6. Difference to Placebo for Week 6 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
91052311|NCT02504671|181989200|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 6. Difference to Placebo for Week 6 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
91052312|NCT02504671|181989200|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 8. Difference to Placebo for Week 8 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
91052313|NCT02504671|181989200|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 8. Difference to Placebo for Week 8 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
91052314|NCT02504671|181989200|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 12. Difference to Placebo for Week 12 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
91052315|NCT02504671|181989200|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 16. Difference to Placebo for Week 16 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
91052316|NCT02504671|181989200|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 16. Difference to Placebo for Week 16 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
91052317|NCT02504671|181989200|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 20. Difference to Placebo for Week 20 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
90890217|NCT02276482|181644626|OTHER||Difference in percentages|3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|13.5|||||The difference (Tedizolid minus Comparator group) in the clinical success rate and 95% confidence interval calculated using the unstratified method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|||13.5|-6.3|
91052318|NCT02504671|181989200|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 20. Difference to Placebo for Week 20 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
91052319|NCT02504671|181989200|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 24. Difference to Placebo for Week 24 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
91052320|NCT02504671|181989200|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 24. Difference to Placebo for Week 24 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
91052321|NCT02504671|181989200|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 28. Difference to Placebo for Week 28 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
91052322|NCT02504671|181989200|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 28. Difference to Placebo for Week 28 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
91010465|NCT02355665|181904300|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.409||0.383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.03|10.11||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment, baseline smoking category, study site, and baseline weight were factors.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Nicotine - Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in mean change from baseline in body weight between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean change from baseline in body weight between treatments.||10.11|-4.03|0.383
91010466|NCT02355665|181904301|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|7.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.573||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.56|16.83||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment, baseline smoking category, study site, and baseline weight were factors.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Nicotine - Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in mean change from baseline in body weight between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean change from baseline in body weight between treatments.||16.83|-2.56|0.138
91052323|NCT02504671|181989200|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 32. Difference to Placebo for Week 32 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
91052324|NCT02504671|181989200|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 32. Difference to Placebo for Week 32 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
91052325|NCT02504671|181989200|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.9|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 36. Difference to Placebo for Week 36 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||16.9|-0.7|
90890218|NCT02276482|181644627|OTHER||Difference in percentages|3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|10.8|||||The difference (Tedizolid minus Comparator group) in the clinical success rate and 95% confidence interval calculated using the unstratified method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|||10.8|-3.4|
91052326|NCT02504671|181989200|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 36. Difference to Placebo for Week 36 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
90890219|NCT02276482|181644628|OTHER||Difference in percentages|-4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|4.4|||||The difference (Tedizolid minus Comparator group) in the clinical success rate and 95% confidence interval calculated using the unstratified method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|||4.4|-12.9|
91010467|NCT02380703|181904332|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.34||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.32||For participants who dropped out, their time until study attrition was used as the exposure period; and they were carried forward as part of the overall incidence count.|Regression, Cox|||Sample-size calculations were performed, based on the ability to detect a small-to-moderate difference (Cohen's h = 0.4) in rate of aggression onset over a 1-year period between APT and EU-PC, assuming 80% power and a type I error rate of 5%. Given an anticipated rate of aggression onset over 1 year of 37% for EU-PC, an ES of h = 0.4 allows detection of aggression onset in APT as high as 19%. Given this effect size and up to 10% attrition, our goal was to include 220 total participants.||2.32|0.78|0.29
91010468|NCT02380703|181904332|EQUIVALENCE|Examination of whether the presence of aggression is equivalent between APT and EU-PC|Difference in frequencies|1.21||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|||||Association between presence of aggression and condition (APT vs EU-PC).|Chi-squared|X2(1) = 1.21||||||0.27
91052327|NCT02504671|181989200|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 40. Difference to Placebo for Week 40 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
91052328|NCT02504671|181989200|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.9|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 40. Difference to Placebo for Week 40 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||16.9|-0.7|
91052329|NCT02504671|181989200|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 44. Difference to Placebo for Week 44 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
91052330|NCT02504671|181989200|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 44. Difference to Placebo for Week 44 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
91052331|NCT02504671|181989200|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|20.8|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 48. Difference to Placebo for Week 48 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||20.8|0.8|
91052332|NCT02504671|181989200|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 48. Difference to Placebo for Week 48 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
91052333|NCT02504671|181989200|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 52. Difference to Placebo for Week 52 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
91052334|NCT02504671|181989200|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 52. Difference to Placebo for Week 52 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
91052335|NCT02504671|181989200|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 62 (follow-up). Difference to Placebo for Week 62 (follow-up) is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
91052336|NCT02504671|181989200|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 62 (follow-up). Difference to Placebo for Week 62 (follow-up) is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
91052337|NCT02504671|181989201|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||CDAI, Week 4, Difference to Placebo for Week 4 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
91052338|NCT02504671|181989201|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||CDAI, Week 6. Difference to Placebo for Week 6 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
91052339|NCT02504671|181989201|OTHER||Difference|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|2.5|||||CDAI, Week 8. Difference to Placebo for Week 8 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||2.5|-7.9|
91052340|NCT02504671|181989201|OTHER||Difference|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|2.5|||||CDAI, Week 8. Difference to Placebo for Week 8 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||2.5|-7.9|
90890220|NCT02276482|181644629|OTHER||Difference in percentages|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|7.7|||||The difference (Tedizolid minus Comparator group) in the clinical success rate and 95% confidence interval calculated using the unstratified method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|||7.7|-7.4|
91052341|NCT02504671|181989201|OTHER||Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|7.4|||||CDAI, Week 8. Difference to Placebo for Week 8 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.4|-7.4|
91052342|NCT02504671|181989201|OTHER||Difference|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|2.5|||||CDAI, Week 12. Difference to Placebo for Week 12 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||2.5|-7.9|
91052343|NCT02504671|181989201|OTHER||Difference|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|2.5|||||CDAI, Week 12. Difference to Placebo for Week 12 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||2.5|-7.9|
91052344|NCT02504671|181989201|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|19.4|||||CDAI, Week 12. Difference to Placebo for Week 12 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||19.4|-3.2|
91052345|NCT02504671|181989201|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||CDAI, Week 16. Difference to Placebo for Week 16 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
91052346|NCT02504671|181989201|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||CDAI, Week 16. Difference to Placebo for Week 16 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
91052347|NCT02504671|181989201|OTHER||Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|28.1|||||CDAI, Week 16. Difference to Placebo for Week 16 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||28.1|4.3|
91052348|NCT02504671|181989201|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||CDAI, Week 20. Difference to Placebo for Week 20 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
91052349|NCT02504671|181989201|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|20.8|||||CDAI, Week 20. Difference to Placebo for Week 20 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||20.8|0.8|
91052350|NCT02504671|181989201|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||CDAI, Week 24. Difference to Placebo for Week 24 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
91052351|NCT02504671|181989201|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||CDAI, Week 24. Difference to Placebo for Week 24 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
91052352|NCT02504671|181989201|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||CDAI, Week 28. Difference to Placebo for Week 28 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
91052353|NCT02504671|181989201|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|20.8|||||CDAI, Week 28. Difference to Placebo for Week 28 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||20.8|0.8|
91052354|NCT02504671|181989201|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|24.5|||||CDAI, Week 32. Difference to Placebo for Week 32 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||24.5|2.5|
91052355|NCT02504671|181989201|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.9|||||CDAI, Week 32. Difference to Placebo for Week 32 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||16.9|-0.7|
91052356|NCT02504671|181989201|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||CDAI, Week 36. Difference to Placebo for Week 36 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
91052357|NCT02504671|181989201|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|20.8|||||CDAI, Week 36. Difference to Placebo for Week 36 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||20.8|0.8|
91052358|NCT02504671|181989201|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.9|||||CDAI, Week 36. Difference to Placebo for Week 36 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||16.9|-0.7|
91052359|NCT02504671|181989201|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||CDAI, Week 40. Difference to Placebo for Week 40 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
91052360|NCT02504671|181989201|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|20.8|||||CDAI, Week 40. Difference to Placebo for Week 40 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||20.8|0.8|
91052361|NCT02504671|181989201|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.9|||||CDAI, Week 40. Difference to Placebo for Week 40 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||16.9|-0.7|
91052362|NCT02504671|181989201|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||CDAI, Week 44. Difference to Placebo for Week 44 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
91052363|NCT02504671|181989201|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|20.8|||||CDAI, Week 44. Difference to Placebo for Week 44 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||20.8|0.8|
91052364|NCT02504671|181989201|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|20.8|||||CDAI, Week 44. Difference to Placebo for Week 44 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||20.8|0.8|
91052365|NCT02504671|181989201|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||CDAI, Week 48. Difference to Placebo for Week 48 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
91052366|NCT02504671|181989201|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|24.5|||||CDAI, Week 48. Difference to Placebo for Week 48 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||24.5|2.5|
91052367|NCT02504671|181989201|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||CDAI, Week 48. Difference to Placebo for Week 48 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
91052368|NCT02504671|181989201|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|24.5|||||CDAI, Week 52. Difference to Placebo for Week 52 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||24.5|2.5|
90890221|NCT02276482|181644630|OTHER||Difference in percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||||The difference (Tedizolid minus Comparator group) in the clinical success rate and 95% confidence interval calculated using the unstratified method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|||0.0|0.0|
90890222|NCT01410448|181644639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0921|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.0921
91052369|NCT02504671|181989201|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||CDAI, Week 52. Difference to Placebo for Week 52 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
91052370|NCT02504671|181989201|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.9|||||CDAI, Week 62 (follow-up). Difference to Placebo for Week 62 (follow-up) is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||16.9|-0.7|
91052371|NCT02504671|181989201|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||CDAI, Week 62 (follow-up). Difference to Placebo for Week 62 (follow-up) is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
91052372|NCT02504671|181989201|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||CDAI, Week 2. Difference to Placebo for Week 2 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
91052373|NCT02504671|181989201|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||CDAI, Week 4. Difference to Placebo for Week 4 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.6|||7.9|-2.5|
91052374|NCT02504671|181989201|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||CDAI, Week 6. Difference to Placebo for Week 6 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
91052375|NCT02504671|181989201|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||CDAI, Week 6. Difference to Placebo for Week 6 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
91052376|NCT02504671|181989201|OTHER||Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|7.4|||||CDAI, Week 8. Difference to Placebo for Week 8 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.4|-7.4|
91052377|NCT02504671|181989201|OTHER||Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|7.4|||||CDAI, Week 8. Difference to Placebo for Week 8 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.4|-7.4|
91052378|NCT02504671|181989201|OTHER||Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|7.4|||||CDAI, Week 12. Difference to Placebo for Week 12 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.4|-7.4|
91052379|NCT02504671|181989201|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|11.7|||||CDAI, Week 12. Difference to Placebo for Week 12 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||11.7|-6.3|
90890223|NCT01218438|181644658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Poisson|0.012|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|99.0||0.024|||Poisson|||||0.024||<0.0001
91052380|NCT02504671|181989201|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||CDAI, Week 16. Difference to Placebo for Week 16 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
91052381|NCT02504671|181989201|OTHER||5.4|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||CDAI, Week 16. Difference to Placebo for Week 16 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
91052382|NCT02504671|181989201|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||CDAI, Week 20. Difference to Placebo for Week 20 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
91052383|NCT02504671|181989201|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||CDAI, Week 20. Difference to Placebo for Week 20 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
91052384|NCT02504671|181989201|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.9|||||CDAI, Week 24. Difference to Placebo for Week 24 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||16.9|-0.7|
91052385|NCT02504671|181989201|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||CDAI, Week 24. Difference to Placebo for Week 24 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
91052386|NCT02504671|181989201|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|24.5|||||CDAI, Week 28. Difference to Placebo for Week 28 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||24.5|2.5|
91052387|NCT02504671|181989201|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.9|||||CDAI, Week 32. Difference to Placebo for Week 32 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||16.9|-0.7|
91052388|NCT02504671|181989201|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|20.8|||||CDAI, Week 32. Difference to Placebo for Week 32 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||20.8|0.8|
91052389|NCT02504671|181989201|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|24.5|||||CDAI, Week 36. Difference to Placebo for Week 36 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||24.5|2.5|
91052390|NCT02504671|181989201|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||CDAI, Week 36. Difference to Placebo for Week 36 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
91052391|NCT02504671|181989201|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||CDAI, Week 40. Difference to Placebo for Week 40 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
91052392|NCT02504671|181989201|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|24.5|||||CDAI, Week 40. Difference to Placebo for Week 40 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||24.5|2.5|
91052393|NCT02504671|181989201|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||CDAI, Week 44. Difference to Placebo for Week 44 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
91052394|NCT02504671|181989201|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||CDAI, Week 44. Difference to Placebo for Week 44 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
91052395|NCT02504671|181989201|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|20.8|||||CDAI, Week 48. Difference to Placebo for Week 48 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||20.8|0.8|
91052396|NCT02504671|181989201|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.9|||||CDAI, Week 48. Difference to Placebo for Week 48 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||16.9|-0.7|
91052397|NCT02504671|181989201|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||CDAI, Week 52. Difference to Placebo for Week 52 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
91052398|NCT02504671|181989201|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.9|||||CDAI, Week 52. Difference to Placebo for Week 52 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||16.9|-0.7|
91052399|NCT02504671|181989201|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||CDAI, Week 62 (follow-up). Difference to Placebo for Week 62 (follow-up) is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
91052400|NCT02504671|181989201|OTHER||Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|28.1|||||CDAI, Week 62 (follow-up). Difference to Placebo for Week 62 (follow-up) is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||28.1|4.3|
91052401|NCT02504671|181989201|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Difference to Placebo for Week 28 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
91052402|NCT02504671|181989202|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.09||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.18|0.0||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 1, SDAI|||0.00|-8.18|0.050
91052403|NCT02504671|181989202|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.66||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.84|0.52||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 1,SDAI|||0.52|-7.84|0.086
91052404|NCT02504671|181989202|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.33||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.43|-0.23||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 1,SDAI|||-0.23|-8.43|0.038
91052405|NCT02504671|181989202|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.06||||0.119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.18|1.05||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 2,SDAI|||1.05|-9.18|0.119
91052406|NCT02504671|181989202|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.72||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.85|0.4||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 2,SDAI|||0.40|-9.85|0.071
91052407|NCT02504671|181989202|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.48||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.53|-0.42||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 2,SDAI|||-0.42|-10.53|0.034
91052408|NCT02504671|181989202|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.78||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.61|-0.94||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4,SDAI|||-0.94|-12.61|0.023
91052409|NCT02504671|181989202|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.28||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.09|-1.47||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4,SDAI|||-1.47|-13.09|0.014
91052410|NCT02504671|181989202|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.23||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.99|-3.47||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4,SDAI|||-3.47|-14.99|0.002
91052411|NCT02504671|181989202|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.65||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.62|0.32||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 6,SDAI|||0.32|-11.62|0.063
91052412|NCT02504671|181989202|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.29||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.28|-0.3||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 6,SDAI|||-0.30|-12.28|0.040
91052413|NCT02504671|181989202|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.79||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.69|-0.9||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 6,SDAI|||-0.90|-12.69|0.024
91052414|NCT02504671|181989202|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.58||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.15|-0.01||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 8,SDAI|||-0.01|-13.15|0.050
91052415|NCT02504671|181989202|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.15||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.71|-2.6||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 8,SDAI|||-2.60|-15.71|0.006
91052416|NCT02504671|181989202|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.86||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.32|-2.41||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 8,SDAI|||-2.41|-15.32|0.007
91052417|NCT02504671|181989202|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.91||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.49|0.68||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12,SDAI|||0.68|-14.49|0.074
91052418|NCT02504671|181989202|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.37||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.99|-2.74||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12,SDAI|||-2.74|-17.99|0.008
91010469|NCT02380703|181904333|SUPERIORITY||F-statistic|1.59||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|||||P value for interaction between treatment arm and time|Mixed Models Analysis||"Interaction between time and treatment arm:~Numerator df = 3, denominator df = 510"|"Differences between APT and EU-PC in change over time (baseline, and 3, 6 and 12 months) for our secondary outcomes were evaluated using individual linear growth curve models (SAS Proc Mixed, SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC) with an autoregressive covariance structure type.~The main interest was the interaction between group (APT vs EU-PC) and time."||||0.19
91052419|NCT02504671|181989202|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.64|-6.67||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12,SDAI|||-6.67|-21.64|<0.001
91052420|NCT02504671|181989202|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.88||||0.656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.19|6.43||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 16,SDAI|||6.43|-10.19|0.656
91010470|NCT02380703|181904334|SUPERIORITY||F-statistic|2.43||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|||||P value for interaction between treatment arm and time|Mixed Models Analysis||"Interaction between time and treatment arm:~Numerator df = 3, denominator df = 510"|"Differences between APT and EU-PC in change over time (baseline, and 3, 6 and 12 months) for our secondary outcomes were evaluated using individual linear growth curve models (SAS Proc Mixed, SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC) with an autoregressive covariance structure type.~The main interest was the interaction between group (APT vs EU-PC) and time."||||0.06
91010471|NCT02380703|181904335|SUPERIORITY||F-statistic|0.33||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|||||P value for interaction between treatment arm and time|Mixed Models Analysis||"Interaction between time and treatment arm:~Numerator df = 3, denominator df = 510"|"Differences between APT and EU-PC in change over time (baseline, and 3, 6 and 12 months) for our secondary outcomes were evaluated using individual linear growth curve models (SAS Proc Mixed, SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC) with an autoregressive covariance structure type.~The main interest was the interaction between group (APT vs EU-PC) and time."||||0.80
91052421|NCT02504671|181989202|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.0||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.19|1.19||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 16,SDAI|||1.19|-15.19|0.093
91052422|NCT02504671|181989202|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.26||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.3|0.78||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 16,SDAI|||0.78|-15.30|0.076
91052423|NCT02504671|181989202|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.14|9.74||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 20,SDAI|||9.74|-8.14|0.860
91052424|NCT02504671|181989202|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.71||||0.196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|2.99||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 20,SDAI|||2.99|-14.40|0.196
91052425|NCT02504671|181989202|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.0||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.48|2.48||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 20,SDAI|||2.48|-14.48|0.164
91052426|NCT02504671|181989202|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.65||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.99|0.69||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24,SDAI|||0.69|-21.99|0.066
91052427|NCT02504671|181989202|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.37||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.25|-5.49||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24,SDAI|||-5.49|-27.25|0.003
91052428|NCT02504671|181989202|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-15.67||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.3|-5.03||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24,SDAI|||-5.03|-26.30|0.004
91052429|NCT02504671|181989202|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.78||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.91|-0.65||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 1,SDAI|||-0.65|-8.91|0.024
91052430|NCT02504671|181989202|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.84|-3.7||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 1,SDAI|||-3.70|-11.84|<0.001
91052431|NCT02504671|181989202|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.67||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.74|-1.6||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 2,SDAI|||-1.60|-11.74|0.010
91052432|NCT02504671|181989202|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.85||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.91|-1.78||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 2,SDAI|||-1.78|-11.91|0.008
91052433|NCT02504671|181989202|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.44||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.2|-2.67||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4,SDAI|||-2.67|-14.20|0.004
91052434|NCT02504671|181989202|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.26|-6.75||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4,SDAI|||-6.75|-18.26|<0.001
91052435|NCT02504671|181989202|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.0||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.99|-1.01||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 6,SDAI|||-1.01|-12.99|0.022
91052436|NCT02504671|181989202|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.07|-4.24||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 6,SDAI|||-4.24|-16.07|<0.001
91052437|NCT02504671|181989202|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|-4.66||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 8,SDAI|||-4.66|-17.70|<0.001
91052438|NCT02504671|181989202|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.57|-7.44||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 8,SDAI|||-7.44|-20.57|<0.001
91052439|NCT02504671|181989202|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.68||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.26|-2.11||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12,SDAI|||-2.11|-17.26|0.013
91010472|NCT02380703|181904336|SUPERIORITY||F-statistic|0.21||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|||||P value for interaction between treatment arm and time|Mixed Models Analysis||"Interaction between time and treatment arm:~Numerator df = 3, denominator df = 510"|"Differences between APT and EU-PC in change over time (baseline, and 3, 6 and 12 months) for our secondary outcomes were evaluated using individual linear growth curve models (SAS Proc Mixed, SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC) with an autoregressive covariance structure type.~The main interest was the interaction between group (APT vs EU-PC) and time."||||0.89
91010473|NCT02380703|181904337|SUPERIORITY||F-statistic|1.48||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|||||P value for interaction between treatment arm and time|Mixed Models Analysis||"Interaction between time and treatment arm:~Numerator df = 3, denominator df = 510"|"Differences between APT and EU-PC in change over time (baseline, and 3, 6 and 12 months) for our secondary outcomes were evaluated using individual linear growth curve models (SAS Proc Mixed, SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC) with an autoregressive covariance structure type.~The main interest was the interaction between group (APT vs EU-PC) and time."||||0.22
91010474|NCT02380703|181904338|SUPERIORITY||F-statistic|0.38||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|||||P value for interaction between treatment arm and time|Mixed Models Analysis||"Interaction between time and treatment arm:~Numerator df = 3, denominator df = 510"|"Differences between APT and EU-PC in change over time (baseline, and 3, 6 and 12 months) for our secondary outcomes were evaluated using individual linear growth curve models (SAS Proc Mixed, SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC) with an autoregressive covariance structure type.~The main interest was the interaction between group (APT vs EU-PC) and time."||||0.77
91010475|NCT02380703|181904339|SUPERIORITY||F-statistic|0.56||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|||||P value for interaction between treatment arm and time|Mixed Models Analysis||"Interaction between time and treatment arm:~Numerator df = 3, denominator df = 510"|"Differences between APT and EU-PC in change over time (baseline, and 3, 6 and 12 months) for our secondary outcomes were evaluated using individual linear growth curve models (SAS Proc Mixed, SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC) with an autoregressive covariance structure type.~The main interest was the interaction between group (APT vs EU-PC) and time."||||0.64
91010476|NCT01408862|181904371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Results will be expressed as mean + SD from independent experiments. Statistical significance between means were determined by Wilcoxon-paired test. Variable will be log-transformed if they were not normally distributed. . We used the CSS/ Statistica program package, StatSoft V 6.0.~This analysis applies to both GLP1R and GIPR categories"||||0.04
91010477|NCT01408862|181904372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.2|||||||ANOVA|||Results will be expressed as mean + SD from independent experiments. Statistical significance between means were determined by two-way ANOVA with repeated measures on one factor, for variables measured in several consecutive times. Variable will be log-transformed if they were not normally distributed. Wilcoxon test for paired samples was used. The Statistica program package (StatSoft V 6.0) were used to perform these analyses, which applied to both GLP1R and GIPR agonist effect categories.||||0.20
91010478|NCT01813149|181904381|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df=20 t-statistic = 2.90||A t-test to see if expression of α1-AR differs between phenylephrine responders and non-responders||||0.009
91010479|NCT01882439|181904387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|25.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.73|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.72|37.19|||Large sample approximation|Missing response (MR) = non-response (NR)||||37.19|14.72|<0.0001
91010480|NCT01882439|181904387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|23.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.71|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.1|34.51|||Large sample approximation|MR=NR||||34.51|12.10|<0.0001
91010481|NCT01882439|181904388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2529|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06422|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3792|-0.1266|||Mixed Models Analysis|No imputation||||-0.1266|-0.3792|<0.0001
91010482|NCT01882439|181904388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.215|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06453||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3419|-0.0881|||Mixed Models Analysis|No imputation||||-0.0881|-0.3419|0.0009
91010483|NCT03125902|181904427|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.2032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.12|||Log Rank|||Stratified Analysis||1.12|0.60|0.2032
91010484|NCT03125902|181904427|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.2601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.14|||Log Rank|||Unstratified Analysis||1.14|0.62|0.2601
91052440|NCT02504671|181989202|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.39|-9.32||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12,SDAI|||-9.32|-24.39|<0.001
91010485|NCT03125902|181904428|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.1343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.05|||Log Rank|||||1.05|0.70|0.1343
91010486|NCT03125902|181904428|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.1285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.05|||Log Rank|||Unstratified Analysis||1.05|0.70|0.1285
91010487|NCT03125902|181904429|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.5798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.64|||Log Rank|||Stratified Analysis||1.64|0.76|0.5798
91010488|NCT03125902|181904429|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18||||0.4035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.72|||Log Rank|||Unstratified Analysis||1.72|0.80|0.4035
91010489|NCT03125902|181904430|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.3425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.43|||Log Rank|||Stratified analysis||1.43|0.88|0.3425
91052441|NCT02504671|181989202|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.03||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.24|2.18||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 16,SDAI|||2.18|-14.24|0.149
91052442|NCT02504671|181989202|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.43||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.32|-1.55||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 16,SDAI|||-1.55|-17.32|0.019
91010490|NCT03125902|181904430|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||0.2166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.48|||Log Rank|||Unstratified Analysis||1.48|0.92|0.2166
91010491|NCT03125902|181904432|OTHER|Stratified analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.6465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.24|||Log Rank|||||1.24|0.71|0.6465
91010492|NCT03125902|181904434|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.1526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|2.37|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.37|0.87|0.1526
91052443|NCT02504671|181989202|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.59||||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.32|2.14||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 20,SDAI|||2.14|-15.32|0.138
91010493|NCT03125902|181904435|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.1834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|2.31|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.31|0.85|0.1834
91010494|NCT03125902|181904436|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.0513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.02|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.02|1.00|0.0513
91010495|NCT03125902|181904437|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.1226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.81|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.81|0.93|0.1226
91010496|NCT03125902|181904438|OTHER|Unstratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.0641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.02|||Log Rank|||||1.02|0.54|0.0641
91010497|NCT03125902|181904448|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.01227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.9|||Log Rank|||Unstratified Analysis||0.90|0.42|0.01227
91010498|NCT01997333|181904449|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.761|||||||Log Rank|Stratified log rank test.||||||0.761
91052444|NCT02504671|181989202|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.7||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.99|-0.42||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 20,SDAI|||-0.42|-16.99|0.040
91010499|NCT01997333|181904450|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.264|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for stratification factors.||||||0.264
91010500|NCT01997333|181904452|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.726|||||||Log Rank|Stratified log rank.||||||0.726
91010501|NCT02269709|181904455|OTHER|Changes in mean liver shear wave speed (SWS) between time points were assessed using a mixed-effect model with post hoc Tukey correction.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of Baseline and Follow-up #1||||<0.0001
91010502|NCT02269709|181904455|OTHER|Changes in mean liver shear wave speed (SWS) between time points were assessed using a mixed-effect model with post hoc Tukey correction.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of Baseline vs. Follow up #2||||<0.0001
91010503|NCT02269709|181904455|OTHER|Changes in mean liver shear wave speed (SWS) between time points were assessed using a mixed-effect model with post hoc Tukey correction.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of Baseline vs. Follow-up #3||||<0.0001
91052445|NCT02504671|181989202|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-15.88||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.77|-4.98||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24,SDAI|||-4.98|-26.77|0.005
91010504|NCT02269709|181904456|OTHER|Mean IVC pressures from different time points were compared using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test.|||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91052446|NCT02504671|181989202|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-20.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.2|-10.53||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24,SDAI|||-10.53|-31.20|<0.001
91052447|NCT02504671|181989203|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.84||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.89|0.2||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 1,CDAI|||0.20|-7.89|0.063
91010505|NCT00890396|181904457|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||Fisher Exact|||The primary analysis compared the frequency of worsening spleen function (from normal to decreased or absent, or from decreased to absent).||||0.67
91010506|NCT00890396|181904458|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||The primary analysis compared the frequency of worsening spleen function (from normal to decreased or absent, or from decreased to absent).||||>0.99
91010507|NCT00890396|181904459|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test was used to test if there were a statistically significant difference between the two treatment groups.||||0.61
91010508|NCT00890396|181904460|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test was used to test if there were a statistically significant difference between the two treatment groups.||||0.78
91052448|NCT02504671|181989203|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.84||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.95|0.28||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 1,CDAI|||0.28|-7.95|0.067
91052449|NCT02504671|181989203|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.43||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.46|-0.39||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 1,CDAI|||-0.39|-8.46|0.032
91010509|NCT00890396|181904461|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test was used to test if there were a statistically significant difference between the two treatment groups.||||0.80
91052450|NCT02504671|181989203|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.17||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.17|0.84||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 2,CDAI|||0.84|-9.17|0.102
91010510|NCT00890396|181904462|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test was used to test if there were a statistically significant difference between the two treatment groups.||||0.11
91052451|NCT02504671|181989203|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.47||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.43|1.49||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 2,CDAI|||1.49|-8.43|0.170
91052452|NCT02504671|181989203|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.2||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.13|-0.27||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 2,CDAI|||-0.27|-10.13|0.039
91052453|NCT02504671|181989203|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.2||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.82|-1.57||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4,CDAI|||-1.57|-12.82|0.012
91052454|NCT02504671|181989203|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.73||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|-1.16||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4,CDAI|||-1.16|-12.30|0.018
91052455|NCT02504671|181989203|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.19||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.73|-3.66||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4,CDAI|||-3.66|-14.73|0.001
91010511|NCT00890396|181904463|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test was used to test if there were a statistically significant difference between the two treatment groups.||||0.85
91052456|NCT02504671|181989203|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.48||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.31|0.35||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 6,CDAI|||0.35|-11.31|0.065
91052457|NCT02504671|181989203|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.85||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.69|0.0||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 6,CDAI|||-0.00|-11.69|0.050
91010512|NCT00890396|181904464|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test was used to test if there were a statistically significant difference between the two treatment groups.||||0.95
91010513|NCT00890396|181904465|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test was used to test if there were a statistically significant difference between the two treatment groups.||||0.40
91052458|NCT02504671|181989203|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.63||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.38|-0.87||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 6,CDAI|||-0.87|-12.38|0.024
91052459|NCT02504671|181989203|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.41||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.84|0.02||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 8,CDAI|||0.02|-12.84|0.051
91010514|NCT00890396|181904466|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test was used to test if there were a statistically significant difference between the two treatment groups.||||0.11
91010515|NCT04411472|181904467|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.8025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.805|1.732|||One-sided p-value|||||1.732|0.805|0.8025
91010516|NCT04411472|181904468|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.54||||0.1824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.139|2.131|||One-sided p-value|||||2.131|0.139|0.1824
91010517|NCT04411472|181904469|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.02||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.405|||One-sided p-value|||||0.405|0.001|0.0080
91010518|NCT04411472|181904470|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.3894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.606|1.454|||One-sided p-value|||||1.454|0.606|0.3894
91010519|NCT04411472|181904471|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.47||||0.1237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.128|1.697|||One-sided p-value|||||1.697|0.128|0.1237
91010520|NCT04411472|181904473|SUPERIORITY||z-score statistic difference proportions|-7.9||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|-0.4||one-sided p-value based on the z-score statistic for the difference in proportions|one-sided p-value|||||-0.4|-15.4|0.019
91010521|NCT04411472|181904474|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.546|||||||One-sided p-value from re-randomization|||Days alive and free of organ support through to Day 28||||0.5460
91010522|NCT04411472|181904474|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.677|||||||One-sided p-value from re-randomization|||Number of days free of MV||||0.6770
91010523|NCT04411472|181904474|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.993|||||||One-sided p-value from re-randomization|||Number of days free of RRT||||0.9930
91010524|NCT04411472|181904474|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.779|||||||One-sided p-value from re-randomization|||Number of days free of vasopressors and inotropes||||0.7790
91052460|NCT02504671|181989203|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.6||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.97|-2.22||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 8,CDAI|||-2.22|-14.97|0.008
91052461|NCT02504671|181989203|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.74||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.06|-2.43||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 8,CDAI|||-2.43|-15.06|0.007
91010525|NCT04411472|181904475|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.051|||||||One-sided p-value from re-randomization|||Days alive and free of organ support through Day 28||||0.0510
91010526|NCT04411472|181904475|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013|||||||One-sided p-value from re-randomization|||Number of days free of MV||||0.0130
91010527|NCT04411472|181904475|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.025|||||||One-sided p-value from re-randomization|||Number of days free of RRT||||0.0250
91010528|NCT04411472|181904475|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.073|||||||One-sided p-value from re-randomization|||Number of days free of vasopressors and inotropes||||0.0730
91010529|NCT04411472|181904476|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||One-sided p-value from re-randomization|||Days alive and free of organ support through Day 28||||1.0000
91010530|NCT04411472|181904476|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.979|||||||One-sided p-value from re-randomization|||Number of days free of MV||||0.9790
91010531|NCT04411472|181904476|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.675|||||||One-sided p-value from re-randomization|||Number of days free of RRT||||0.6750
91052462|NCT02504671|181989203|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.8||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.19|0.58||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12,CDAI|||0.58|-14.19|0.071
91052463|NCT02504671|181989203|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.8||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.17|-2.44||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12,CDAI|||-2.44|-17.17|0.009
91052464|NCT02504671|181989203|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.17|-6.59||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12,CDAI|||-6.59|-21.17|<0.001
91010532|NCT04411472|181904476|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.031|||||||One-sided p-value from re-randomization|||Number of days free of vasopressors and inotropes||||0.0310
91010533|NCT04411472|181904477|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.545|||||||One-sided p-value from re-randomization|||||||0.5450
91010534|NCT04411472|181904478|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.081|||||||One-sided p-value from re-randomization|||||||0.0810
91010535|NCT04411472|181904479|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.979|||||||One-sided p-value from re-randomization|||||||0.9790
91010536|NCT04411472|181904480|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.6916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.806|1.437|||One-sided p-value|||||1.437|0.806|0.6916
91010537|NCT04411472|181904481|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.47||||0.0628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.234|||One-sided p-value|||||1.234|0.180|0.0628
91010538|NCT04411472|181904482|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.054|||One-sided p-value|||||0.054|0.001|<0.0001
91010539|NCT00440232|181904483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.969||||0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|5.235|||Chi-squared|||||5.235|0.74|0.172
91052465|NCT02504671|181989203|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.68||||0.676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.63|6.26||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 16,CDAI|||6.26|-9.63|0.676
91052466|NCT02504671|181989203|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.33||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.11|1.44||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 16,CDAI|||1.44|-14.11|0.110
91052467|NCT02504671|181989203|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.44||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.12|1.23||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 16,CDAI|||1.23|-14.12|0.099
91010540|NCT00440232|181904484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||log rank chi square|1.247||||0.264||95.0|||||Log Rank|df=1||||||0.264
91010541|NCT00684073|181904502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.42||||0.13||95.0||||p-value adjusted for treatment only|ANCOVA||Difference between treatments (Suboxone minus Subutex)estimated by ANCOVA = 0.42.|||||0.130
91010542|NCT01259388|181904507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.346|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.346
91010543|NCT01259388|181904509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.013|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.013
91010544|NCT00620815|181904510|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To show statistical equivalence was, confidence intervals (CIs) of all 3 pair wise ratios of the GMAs were inspected.|Group Mean Ratio|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|96.67|1.02|1.25||P-values were not calculated for the equivalence tests due to lack of appropriate statistical software|ANOVA|||(On day 1) Null hypothesis representing non-equivalence was rejected if the two-sided (1-2α)\*100% CI on one GMA ratio is completely within the equivalence range \[0.5, 2.0\].||1.25|1.02|
91052468|NCT02504671|181989203|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.04||||0.812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.61|9.69||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 20,CDAI|||9.69|-7.61|0.812
91052469|NCT02504671|181989203|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.39||||0.204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.75|2.96||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 20,CDAI|||2.96|-13.75|0.204
91010545|NCT00620815|181904510|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To show statistical equivalence was, confidence intervals (CIs) of all 3 pair wise ratios of the GMAs were inspected.|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|96.67|0.91|1.12||P-values were not calculated for the equivalence tests due to lack of appropriate statistical software|ANOVA|||(On day 1) Null hypothesis representing non-equivalence was rejected if the two-sided (1-2α)\*100% CI on one GMA ratio is completely within the equivalence range \[0.5, 2.0\].||1.12|0.91|
91010546|NCT00620815|181904510|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To show statistical equivalence was, confidence intervals (CIs) of all 3 pair wise ratios of the GMAs were inspected.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|96.67|0.8|0.99||P-values were not calculated for the equivalence tests due to lack of appropriate statistical software|ANOVA|||(On day 1)Null hypothesis representing non-equivalence was rejected if the two-sided (1-2α)\*100% CI on one GMA ratio is completely within the equivalence range \[0.5, 2.0\].||0.99|0.80|
91010547|NCT00620815|181904510|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To show statistical equivalence was, confidence intervals (CIs) of all 3 pair wise ratios of the GMAs were inspected.|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|96.67|0.74|1.93||P-values were not calculated for the equivalence tests due to lack of appropriate statistical software|ANOVA|||(On day 22) Null hypothesis representing non-equivalence was rejected if the two-sided (1-2α)\*100% CI on one GMA ratio is completely within the equivalence range \[0.5, 2.0\].||1.93|0.74|
91010548|NCT00620815|181904510|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To show statistical equivalence was, confidence intervals (CIs) of all 3 pair wise ratios of the GMAs were inspected.|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|96.67|0.52|1.38||P-values were not calculated for the equivalence tests due to lack of appropriate statistical software|ANOVA|||(On day 22) Null hypothesis representing non-equivalence was rejected if the two-sided (1-2α)\*100% CI on one GMA ratio is completely within the equivalence range \[0.5, 2.0\].||1.38|0.52|
91010549|NCT00620815|181904510|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To show statistical equivalence was, confidence intervals (CIs) of all 3 pair wise ratios of the GMAs were inspected.|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|96.67|0.44|1.15||P-values were not calculated for the equivalence tests due to lack of appropriate statistical software|ANOVA|||(On day 22) Null hypothesis representing non-equivalence was rejected if the two-sided (1-2α)\*100% CI on one GMA ratio is completely within the equivalence range \[0.5, 2.0\].||1.15|0.44|
91052470|NCT02504671|181989203|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.9||||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.09|2.3||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 20,CDAI|||2.30|-14.09|0.157
91052471|NCT02504671|181989203|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.37||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.15|1.42||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24,CDAI|||1.42|-20.15|0.088
91052472|NCT02504671|181989203|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-15.12||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.4|-4.83||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24,CDAI|||-4.83|-25.40|0.004
91010550|NCT00620815|181904510|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To show statistical equivalence was, confidence intervals (CIs) of all 3 pair wise ratios of the GMAs were inspected.|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|96.67|1.01|1.3||P-values were not calculated for the equivalence tests due to lack of appropriate statistical software|ANOVA|||(On day 43) Null hypothesis representing non-equivalence was rejected if the two-sided (1-2α)\*100% CI on one GMA ratio is completely within the equivalence range \[0.5, 2.0\].||1.30|1.01|
91052473|NCT02504671|181989203|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.91||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.01|-4.8||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24,CDAI|||-4.80|-25.01|0.004
91052474|NCT02504671|181989203|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.89||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.96|0.17||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 1,CDAI|||0.17|-7.96|0.060
91052475|NCT02504671|181989203|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.42|-3.36||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 1,CDAI|||-3.36|-11.42|<0.001
91052476|NCT02504671|181989203|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.1||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.06|-1.14||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 2,CDAI|||-1.14|-11.06|0.016
91010551|NCT00620815|181904510|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To show statistical equivalence was, confidence intervals (CIs) of all 3 pair wise ratios of the GMAs were inspected.|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|96.67|0.93|1.19||P-values were not calculated for the equivalence tests due to lack of appropriate statistical software|ANOVA|||(On day 43) Null hypothesis representing non-equivalence was rejected if the two-sided (1-2α)\*100% CI on one GMA ratio is completely within the equivalence range \[0.5, 2.0\].||1.19|0.93|
91010552|NCT00620815|181904510|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To show statistical equivalence was, confidence intervals (CIs) of all 3 pair wise ratios of the GMAs were inspected.|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|96.67|0.81|1.04||P-values were not calculated for the equivalence tests due to lack of appropriate statistical software|ANOVA|||(On day 43) Null hypothesis representing non-equivalence was rejected if the two-sided (1-2α)\*100% CI on one GMA ratio is completely within the equivalence range \[0.5, 2.0\].||1.04|0.81|
91010553|NCT01032265|181904524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.27||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||analysis between groups||||0.27
91052477|NCT02504671|181989203|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.85||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.78|-1.91||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 2,CDAI|||-1.91|-11.78|0.007
91052478|NCT02504671|181989203|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.92||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.48|-2.37||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4,CDAI|||-2.37|-13.48|0.005
91052479|NCT02504671|181989203|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.74|-6.64||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4,CDAI|||-6.64|-17.74|<0.001
91052480|NCT02504671|181989203|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.62||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.45|0.21||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 6,CDAI|||0.21|-11.45|0.059
91052481|NCT02504671|181989203|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.97|-4.38||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 6,CDAI|||-4.38|-15.97|<0.001
91010554|NCT01032265|181904525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.52||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||analysis between groups||||0.52
91010555|NCT01032265|181904526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||analysis between groups||||0.30
91010556|NCT01032265|181904527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||analysis between groups||||0.02
91010557|NCT01032265|181904528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||analysis between groups||||<0.001
91010558|NCT01032265|181904529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.23||95.0|||||negative binomial regression|||analysis between groups||||0.23
91010559|NCT01032265|181904530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.01||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||analysis between groups||||0.01
91010560|NCT02728804|181904536|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.29|||Regression, Cox|Covariate adjustment for insurance status, education, and sex.||||1.29|0.66|0.65
91010561|NCT02728804|181904537|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.43|||Regression, Cox|Covariate adjustment for insurance status, education, and sex.||||1.43|0.79|0.70
91010562|NCT02728804|181904538|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.31|||Regression, Cox|Covariate adjustment for insurance status, education, and sex.||||1.31|0.73|0.87
91010563|NCT02728804|181904539|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.92|||Regression, Cox|Covariate adjustment for insurance status, education, and sex.||||0.92|0.48|0.01
91010564|NCT02728804|181904540|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.33||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.87|||Regression, Cox|Covariate adjustment for insurance status, education, and sex.||||1.87|0.95|0.10
91052482|NCT02504671|181989203|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.37||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.75|-4.0||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 8,CDAI|||-4.00|-16.75|0.002
91052483|NCT02504671|181989203|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.18|-7.41||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 8,CDAI|||-7.41|-20.18|<0.001
91052484|NCT02504671|181989203|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.67||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.03|-2.31||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12,CDAI|||-2.31|-17.03|0.010
91052485|NCT02504671|181989203|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.97|-9.3||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12,CDAI|||-9.30|-23.97|<0.001
91052486|NCT02504671|181989203|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.53||||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.37|2.3||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 16,CDAI|||2.30|-13.37|0.165
91052487|NCT02504671|181989203|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.85||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.39|-1.32||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 16,CDAI|||-1.32|-16.39|0.022
91010565|NCT02728804|181904540|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.92||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|2.89|||Regression, Cox|Covariate adjustment for insurance status, education, and sex.||||2.89|1.28|0.002
91010566|NCT00453349|181904628|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The non-inferiority margin was set to 15% in the protocol. Sample size was estimated using the method as described in Farrington-Manning (STATISTICS IN MEDICINE, Vol. 9; Farrington CP, Manning G: Test statistics and sample size formulae for comparative binomial trials with null hypothesis of non-zero risk difference..., pg.1447-1454 \[1990\]). Estimation was performed to achieve 90% power, based on the equivalence delta of 15%, and a clinical success rate of 87% in the per protocol population"|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.2||||||95.0|-10.7|4.9|||||Mean difference denotes the difference of clinical cure rates in percent between the two treatment groups. A positive value indicates an advantage for the treatment group of moxifloxacin, a negative value an advantage for the comparator group.|Calculated were 95% confidence intervals for the difference in success rates between treatment groups (moxifloxacin minus comparator). Method as described in Koch et al. ('Categorical Data Analysis' in Statistical methodology in the pharmaceutical sciences / edited by D. A. Berry, p. 415 ff., Marcel Dekker, 1990)||4.9|-10.7|
91010567|NCT00453349|181904629|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size estimation was based on the primary efficacy variables.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||||95.0|-9.9|6.0|||||Mean difference denotes the difference of clinical cure rates in percent between the two treatment groups. A positive value indicates an advantage for the treatment group of moxifloxacin, a negative value an advantage for the comparator group.|Calculated were 95% confidence intervals for the difference in success rates between treatment groups (moxifloxacin minus comparator). Method as described in Koch et al. ('Categorical Data Analysis' in Statistical methodology in the pharmaceutical sciences / edited by D. A. Berry, p. 415 ff., Marcel Dekker, 1990)||6.0|-9.9|
91010568|NCT00453349|181904630|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size estimation was based on the primary efficacy variables.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.2||||||95.0|-7.4|0.8|||||Mean difference denotes the difference of clinical improvement rates in percent between the two treatment groups. A positive value indicates an advantage for the treatment group of moxifloxacin, a negative value an advantage for the comparator group.|Calculated were 95% confidence intervals for the difference in success rates between treatment groups (moxifloxacin minus comparator). Method as described in Koch et al. ('Categorical Data Analysis' in Statistical methodology in the pharmaceutical sciences / edited by D. A. Berry, p. 415 ff., Marcel Dekker, 1990)||0.8|-7.4|
91010569|NCT00453349|181904631|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size estimation was based on the primary efficacy variables.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||||95.0|-8.1|7.5|||||Mean difference denotes the difference of clinical improvement rates in percent between the two treatment groups. A positive value indicates an advantage for the treatment group of moxifloxacin, a negative value an advantage for the comparator group.|Calculated were 95% confidence intervals for the difference in success rates between treatment groups (moxifloxacin minus comparator). Method as described in Koch et al. ('Categorical Data Analysis' in Statistical methodology in the pharmaceutical sciences / edited by D. A. Berry, p. 415 ff., Marcel Dekker, 1990)||7.5|-8.1|
91010570|NCT00453349|181904632|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size estimation was based on the primary efficacy variables.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.4||||||95.0|-12.7|20.3|||||Mean difference denotes the difference of eradication rates in percent between the two treatment groups. A positive value indicates an advantage for the treatment group of moxifloxacin, a negative value an advantage for the comparator group.|Calculated were 95% confidence intervals for the difference in success rates between treatment groups (moxifloxacin minus comparator). Method as described in Koch et al. ('Categorical Data Analysis' in Statistical methodology in the pharmaceutical sciences / edited by D. A. Berry, p. 415 ff., Marcel Dekker, 1990)||20.3|-12.7|
91010571|NCT00453349|181904633|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size estimation was based on the primary efficacy variables.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.3||||||95.0|-19.4|17.6|||||Mean difference denotes the difference of eradication rates in percent between the two treatment groups. A positive value indicates an advantage for the treatment group of moxifloxacin, a negative value an advantage for the comparator group.|Calculated were 95% confidence intervals for the difference in success rates between treatment groups (moxifloxacin minus comparator). Method as described in Koch et al. ('Categorical Data Analysis' in Statistical methodology in the pharmaceutical sciences / edited by D. A. Berry, p. 415 ff., Marcel Dekker, 1990)||17.6|-19.4|
91052488|NCT02504671|181989203|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.55||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.99|1.89||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 20,CDAI|||1.89|-14.99|0.127
91052489|NCT02504671|181989203|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.67||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.67|-0.67||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 20,CDAI|||-0.67|-16.67|0.034
91010572|NCT00453349|181904634|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size estimation was based on the primary efficacy variables.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5||||||95.0|-8.6|4.9|||||Mean difference denotes the difference of clinical cure rates in percent between the two treatment groups. A positive value indicates an advantage for the treatment group of moxifloxacin, a negative value an advantage for the comparator group.|Calculated were 95% confidence intervals for the difference in success rates between treatment groups (moxifloxacin minus comparator). Method as described in Koch et al. ('Categorical Data Analysis' in Statistical methodology in the pharmaceutical sciences / edited by D. A. Berry, p. 415 ff., Marcel Dekker, 1990)||4.9|-8.6|
91052490|NCT02504671|181989203|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-15.43||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.78|-5.07||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24,CDAI|||-5.07|-25.78|0.004
91010573|NCT00453349|181904635|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size estimation was based on the primary efficacy variables.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||||95.0|-8.1|7.5|||||Mean difference denotes the difference of clinical cure rates in percent between the two treatment groups. A positive value indicates an advantage for the treatment group of moxifloxacin, a negative value an advantage for the comparator group.|Calculated were 95% confidence intervals for the difference in success rates between treatment groups (moxifloxacin minus comparator). Method as described in Koch et al. ('Categorical Data Analysis' in Statistical methodology in the pharmaceutical sciences / edited by D. A. Berry, p. 415 ff., Marcel Dekker, 1990)||7.5|-8.1|
91010574|NCT00453349|181904636|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size estimation was based on the primary efficacy variables.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.9||||||95.0|-24.9|15.9|||||Mean difference denotes the difference of eradication rates in percent between the two treatment groups. A positive value indicates an advantage for the treatment group of moxifloxacin, a negative value an advantage for the comparator group.|Calculated were 95% confidence intervals for the difference in success rates between treatment groups (moxifloxacin minus comparator). Method as described in Koch et al. ('Categorical Data Analysis' in Statistical methodology in the pharmaceutical sciences / edited by D. A. Berry, p. 415 ff., Marcel Dekker, 1990)||15.9|-24.9|
91052491|NCT02504671|181989203|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-19.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.7|-10.06||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24,CDAI|||-10.06|-29.70|<0.001
91052492|NCT02504671|181989204|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.16||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 1, HAQ-DI|||0.16|-0.14|0.938
91052493|NCT02504671|181989204|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.15||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 1, HAQ-DI|||0.15|-0.15|0.981
91052494|NCT02504671|181989204|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.14||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 1, HAQ-DI|||0.14|-0.16|0.857
91052495|NCT02504671|181989204|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.22||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 2, HAQ-DI|||0.22|-0.13|0.592
91052496|NCT02504671|181989204|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.18||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 2, HAQ-DI|||0.18|-0.16|0.917
91052497|NCT02504671|181989204|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05||||0.545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.12||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 2, HAQ-DI|||0.12|-0.23|0.545
91010575|NCT00453349|181904637|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size estimation was based on the primary efficacy variables.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.7||||||95.0|-30.5|11.9|||||Mean difference denotes the difference of eradication rates in percent between the two treatment groups. A positive value indicates an advantage for the treatment group of moxifloxacin, a negative value an advantage for the comparator group.|Calculated were 95% confidence intervals for the difference in success rates between treatment groups (moxifloxacin minus comparator). Method as described in Koch et al. ('Categorical Data Analysis' in Statistical methodology in the pharmaceutical sciences / edited by D. A. Berry, p. 415 ff., Marcel Dekker, 1990)||11.9|-30.5|
91010576|NCT00149227|181904663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.975|0.975|||Cox's proportional hazard analysis|||"We estimated the number of enrolled patients to validate the hypothesis under the assumption that the valsartan add-on group achieves a 20% risk reduction compared with the conventional treatment group and gives 80% statistical power for detecting a clinical signiﬁcance with a two-tailed 5% statistical signiﬁcant level.~with a two-tailed 5% statistical signiﬁcant level."||0.975|-0.975|<0.05
91010577|NCT02978339|181904677|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.03
91010578|NCT02978339|181904678|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.59
91010579|NCT02978339|181904679|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.91
91010580|NCT02978339|181904680|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.41
91010581|NCT02978339|181904681|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.15
91010582|NCT02978339|181904682|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.06
91010583|NCT02978339|181904683|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.93
91052498|NCT02504671|181989204|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04||||0.707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.24||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, HAQ-DI|||0.24|-0.16|0.707
91010584|NCT00195702|181904689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||The 3 primary efficacy variables were considered in a hierarchical order, with the ACR20 response tested first. The ACR20 response rate at Week 24 was initially assessed using Pearson's chi-squared test at a significance level of 0.05. If significant, pairwise comparisons between each adalimumab dose group and the placebo group were performed.||||<0.001
91010585|NCT00195702|181904689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||The 3 primary efficacy variables were considered in a hierarchical order, with the ACR20 response tested first. The ACR20 response rate at Week 24 was initially assessed using Pearson's chi-squared test at a significance level of 0.05. If significant, pairwise comparisons between each adalimumab dose group and the placebo group were performed.||||<0.001
91010586|NCT00195702|181904690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||An ANCOVA model with baseline erosion scores as the covariate was performed. An overall significance test at alpha =0.05 was done. Pairwise comparisons, each at alpha =0.05 (2-sided), were performed if the overall test was significant.|ANCOVA|||The 3 primary efficacy variables were considered in a hierarchical order, with the change in modified total Sharp x-ray score at Week 52 tested second. Normality was evaluated by applying the Shapiro-Wilk test procedure to the residuals from the parametric model. The final analysis was performed following a non-parametric approach, ranking the results prior to fitting the model.||||<0.001
91052499|NCT02504671|181989204|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.26||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, HAQ-DI|||0.26|-0.15|0.603
91052500|NCT02504671|181989204|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07||||0.473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.13||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, HAQ-DI|||0.13|-0.27|0.473
91010587|NCT00195702|181904690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||An ANCOVA model with baseline erosion scores as the covariate was performed. An overall significance test at alpha =0.05 was done. Pairwise comparisons, each at alpha =0.05 (2-sided), were performed if the overall test was significant.|ANCOVA|||The 3 primary efficacy variables were considered in a hierarchical order, with the change in modified total Sharp x-ray score at Week 52 tested second. Normality was evaluated by applying the Shapiro-Wilk test procedure to the residuals from the parametric model. The final analysis was performed following a non-parametric approach, ranking the results prior to fitting the model.||||<0.001
91010588|NCT00195702|181904691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
90890224|NCT00844857|181644811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis (MMRM) terms included baseline, country, treatment, visit, and treatment \* visit interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Tested was the null hypothesis that there was no difference in mean changes from baseline to Week 8 between OFC and placebo.~A conservative estimate of effect size of 0.4 was used in the sample size estimation for this study. A randomized ratio of 2:1 provided a 90% power with an effect size of 0.4."||||0.003
90890225|NCT00844857|181644812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there was no difference in proportions between OFC and placebo.||||0.035
91010589|NCT00195702|181904691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91010590|NCT00195702|181904692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.01
91010591|NCT00195702|181904692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91010592|NCT00195702|181904693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91010593|NCT00195702|181904693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91010594|NCT00195702|181904694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Normality was evaluated by applying the Shapiro-Wilk test to residuals from the parametric model. The final analysis was performed using a parametric approach.|ANCOVA|||The 3 primary efficacy variables were considered in a hierarchical order, with the change from baseline in the HAQ at Week 52 tested last. The difference among all treatment groups was assessed using ANCOVA with the baseline value as the covariate. If this was significant (p\<=0.05), pairwise comparisons between each adalimumab dose group and placebo were evaluated using the same method.||||<0.001
91052501|NCT02504671|181989204|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.22||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 6, HAQ-DI|||0.22|-0.21|0.987
91052502|NCT02504671|181989204|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04||||0.713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.17||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 6, HAQ-DI|||0.17|-0.25|0.713
91052503|NCT02504671|181989204|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.11||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 6, HAQ-DI|||0.11|-0.31|0.357
91010595|NCT00195702|181904694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Normality was evaluated by applying the Shapiro-Wilk test to residuals from the parametric model. The final analysis was performed using a parametric approach.|ANCOVA|||The 3 primary efficacy variables were considered in a hierarchical order, with the change from baseline in the HAQ at Week 52 tested last. The difference among all treatment groups was assessed using ANCOVA with the baseline value as the covariate. If this was significant (p\<=0.05), pairwise comparisons between each adalimumab dose group and placebo were evaluated using the same method.||||<0.001
91010596|NCT00195702|181904695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91010597|NCT00195702|181904695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91010598|NCT00195702|181904697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91010599|NCT00195702|181904697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91010600|NCT00195702|181904701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91010601|NCT00195702|181904701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91010602|NCT04823494|181904720|NON_INFERIORITY|For sample size in each sequence group is 16 (total N=32), a 2 X 2 crossover design will have 80% power to reject the null hypothesis that the SELF-FIT APHAB mean is inferior to the PRO-FIT APHAB mean. The non-inferiority difference margin is 8.4, the standard deviation of differences is 16.3, and p\<.025. The non-inferiority margin of 8.4 preserves half the 95% critical difference for the global APHAB score (16.8). The common standard deviation reported for the APHAB global score is 16.0.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4|||<|0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|4.73||There were two outcome measures, primary and secondary, considered. As a result, the a priori p value of .05 for statistical significance was adjusted for multiple comparisons to .025.|t-test, 1 sided|The mean differences and 95% CIs in APHAB global score between SELF-FIT and PRO-FIT were calculated using bias-corrected \& accelerated bootstrapping.|The mean difference and 95% CIs are for Self-Fit minus Pro-Fit aided scores. These values are the pooled data for all 37 participants, 19 receiving one sequence and 18 the other sequence.|"For the wear-time crossover field trial, the APHAB was measured following both the audiology best-practices hearing aid fitting (PRO-FIT) and the self-fitting method (SELF-FIT).~* Null hypothesis: Mean (APHAB SELF-FIT - APHAB PRO-FIT ) ≥ 8.4~* Alternative hypothesis: Mean (APHAB SELF-FIT - APHAB PRO-FIT) \< 8.4~The mean difference between the aided scores for the two fitting methods, Self-Fit minus Pro-Fit, represent the primary outcome measure. The expected difference = 0."||4.73|-1.59|<0.025
91052504|NCT02504671|181989204|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.26||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 8, HAQ-DI|||0.26|-0.19|0.748
91052505|NCT02504671|181989204|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11||||0.327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.11||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 8, HAQ-DI|||0.11|-0.34|0.327
91010603|NCT04823494|181904721|NON_INFERIORITY|For the QuickSIN, a clinically meaningful difference is 3 dB and half that difference resulted in a margin of 1.5 dB. This 1.5-dB margin was used for the QuickSIN for the non-inferiority analyses of the data from the field-trial component. The mean difference, QuickSIN Self-Fit minus QuickSIN Pro-Fit, should be less than 1.5 dB for the entire sample (N=37) to meet the non-inferiority criterion.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.58|||<|0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|1.2||The a priori threshold value of 0.05 was Bonferroni-adjusted to 0.025 based on the use of two outcome measures, APHAB global (primary) and QuickSIN (secondary).|t-test, 1 sided|The mean differences in dB, SELF-FIT minus PRO-FIT, were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (bias-corrected, accelerated bootstrap) generated.|Mean differences in aided QuickSIN SNR in dB, Self-Fit minus Pro-Fit, were calculated for the entire group of 37 participants with about 1/2 receiving one of the two fit sequences (Pro-Fit then Self-Fit or Self-Fit then Pro-Fit).|"For the QuickSIN, aided performance after each wear period was compared between SELF-FIT and PRO-FIT.~* Null hypothesis: Mean (QuickSIN SELF-FIT - QuickSIPRO-FIT) ≥ 1.5 dB~* Alternative hypothesis: Mean (QuickSIN SELF-FIT - QuickSIN PRO-FIT) \< 1.5 dB~Power calculations were based on the primary outcome measured, the aided APHAB global score, (see information for that outcome measure). With the minimum required N of 32 based on the APHAB global score, the power for QuickSIN exceeded 80%."||1.20|-0.03|<0.025
91010604|NCT03691831|181904722|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.8||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.14|10.76||P-Value test comparing the Patients Cleared of All Baseline Warts in the Active (A-101 45%) and vehicle groups.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A summary of the wart clearance at Visit 10.||10.76|2.14|0.0001
91010605|NCT03691831|181904723|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.71||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.61|4.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||P-Value test comparing the Patients Cleared of All Baseline Warts in the Active (A-101 45%) and vehicle groups.||4.56|1.61|0.0001
91010606|NCT03691831|181904724|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|15.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.0|21.8|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||21.8|9.0|<0.0001
91010607|NCT03691831|181904725|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.2||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.76|15.53|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||15.53|1.76|0.0006
91010608|NCT03691831|181904726|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
91010609|NCT00329433|181904745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Published data show that the incidence of PF4/heparin EIA antibodies is approximately 40% (range, 20% to 60%) following cardiac surgery. We estimated that antibody formation would occur in approximately 20% of patients following thoracic surgery. Sixty patients in each group would provide 80% power to detect a decrease in the incidence of positive PF4/heparin EIA tests from 20% to 4% at an alpha level of \<0.05.||||<0.05
91052506|NCT02504671|181989204|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.13||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 8, HAQ-DI|||0.13|-0.32|0.395
90890226|NCT00844857|181644813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there was no difference in proportions between OFC and placebo.||||0.003
91010610|NCT00329433|181904746|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
91010611|NCT00329433|181904747|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
91010612|NCT01682876|181904748|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was demonstrated for 2 to 5 years of age group if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in seroresponse rate between the 2-dose vaccination schedule and the 1-dose vaccination schedule (2-dose schedule minus the 1-dose schedule) was greater than -10% for MenA|Vaccine Group Differences at Day 86|19.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|10.0|28.9|||MN method|||Non-inferiority of seroresponse of two vaccinations vs.one vaccination for age cohort (2 to 5 years of age) for MenA||28.9|10|
91052507|NCT02504671|181989204|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.21||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, HAQ-DI|||0.21|-0.30|0.710
91010613|NCT01682876|181904748|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was demonstrated for 2 to 5 years of age group if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in seroresponse rate between the 2-dose vaccination schedule and the 1-dose vaccination schedule (2-dose schedule minus the 1-dose schedule) was greater than -10% for MenC|Vaccine Group Differences at Day 86|27.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|16.9|37.7|||MN method|||Non-inferiority of seroresponse of two vaccinations vs. one vaccination for age cohort (2 to 5 years of age) for MenC||37.7|16.9|
91010614|NCT01682876|181904748|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was demonstrated for 2 to 5 years of age group if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in seroresponse rate between the 2-dose vaccination schedule and the 1-dose vaccination schedule (2-dose schedule minus the 1-dose schedule) was greater than -10% for MenW|Vaccine Group Differences at Day 86|14.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.4|26.7|||MN method|||Non-inferiority of seroresponse of two vaccinations vs. one vaccination for age cohort (2 to 5 years of age) for MenW||26.7|1.4|
91010615|NCT01682876|181904748|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was demonstrated for 2 to 5 years of age group if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in seroresponse rate between the 2-dose vaccination schedule and the 1-dose vaccination schedule (2-dose schedule minus the 1-dose schedule) was greater than -10% for Men Y|Vaccine Group differences at Day 86|27.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|15.6|37.6|||MN method|||Non-inferiority of seroresponse of two vaccinations vs. one vaccination for age cohort (2 to 5 years of age) for MenY||37.6|15.6|
91010616|NCT01682876|181904748|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was demonstrated for 6 to 10 years of age group if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in seroresponse rate between the 2-dose vaccination schedule and the 1-dose vaccination schedule (2-dose schedule minus the 1-dose schedule) was greater than -10% for MenA|Vaccines Group Differences at Day 86|11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.7|21.3|||MN method|||Non-inferiority of seroresponse of two vaccinations vs. one vaccination for age cohort (6 to 10 years of age) for MenA||21.3|1.7|
91010617|NCT01682876|181904748|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was demonstrated for 6 to 10 years of age group if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in seroresponse rate between the 2-dose vaccination schedule and the 1-dose vaccination schedule (2-dose schedule minus the 1-dose schedule) was greater than -10% for MenC|Vaccines Group differences at Day 86|19.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|9.9|29.2|||MN method|||Non-inferiority of seroresponse of two vaccinations vs. one vaccination for age cohort (6 to 10 years of age) for MenC||29.2|9.9|
91052508|NCT02504671|181989204|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.21||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, HAQ-DI|||0.21|-0.30|0.740
91052509|NCT02504671|181989204|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11||||0.398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.14||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, HAQ-DI|||0.14|-0.36|0.398
91052510|NCT02504671|181989204|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.16||||0.364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.52||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 16, HAQ-DI|||0.52|-0.19|0.364
91052511|NCT02504671|181989204|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12||||0.503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.46||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 16, HAQ-DI|||0.46|-0.23|0.503
90890227|NCT00844857|181644814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. Ordinal Logistic Regression Model terms include baseline CDRS-R, baseline YMRS, and treatment.|Ordinal Logistic Regression|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there was no difference in proportions between OFC and placebo.||||0.007
90890228|NCT00844857|181644815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.527||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. MMRM terms included baseline, country, treatment, visit, and treatment\*visit interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there was no difference in mean changes from baseline to Week 8 between OFC and placebo.||||0.527
91010618|NCT01682876|181904748|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was demonstrated for 6 to 10 years of age group if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in seroresponse rate between the 2-dose vaccination schedule and the 1-dose vaccination schedule (2-dose schedule minus the 1-dose schedule) was greater than -10% for MenW|Vaccines Group Differences at Day 86|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-8.6|17.4|||MN method|||Non-inferiority of seroresponse of two vaccinations vs. one vaccination for age cohort (6 to 10 years of age) for MenW||17.4|-8.6|
91052512|NCT02504671|181989204|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08||||0.647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.26||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 16, HAQ-DI|||0.26|-0.42|0.647
91052513|NCT02504671|181989204|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.33||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 20, HAQ-DI|||0.33|-0.37|0.910
91052514|NCT02504671|181989204|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.26||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 20, HAQ-DI|||0.26|-0.42|0.660
91052515|NCT02504671|181989204|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.16||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.17||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 20, HAQ-DI|||0.17|-0.50|0.340
91052516|NCT02504671|181989204|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02||||0.902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.39||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, HAQ-DI|||0.39|-0.34|0.902
91052517|NCT02504671|181989204|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07||||0.687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.28||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, HAQ-DI|||0.28|-0.42|0.687
91052518|NCT02504671|181989204|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09||||0.599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.25||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, HAQ-DI|||0.25|-0.44|0.599
91052519|NCT02504671|181989204|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04||||0.588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.11||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 1, HAQ-DI|||0.11|-0.19|0.588
91010619|NCT01682876|181904748|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was demonstrated for 6 to 10 years of age group if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in seroresponse rate between the 2-dose vaccination schedule and the 1-dose vaccination schedule (2-dose schedule minus the 1-dose schedule) was greater than -10% for MenY|Vaccines Group Differences at Day 86|29.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|18.4|40.0|||MN method|||Non-inferiority of seroresponse for two vaccinations vs. one vaccination for age cohort (6 to 10 years of age) for MenY||40|18.4|
91010620|NCT01682876|181904749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Group Differences at Day 86|18.0|||||TWO_SIDED|98.75|9.1|28.0|||MN method|||Superiority for age cohort (2 through 5 years of age) for MenA was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided (1-2α) % CI for seroresponse increase between the 2-dose vaccination schedule and the 1-dose vaccination schedule was above 10% for MenA||28|9.1|
91010621|NCT01682876|181904749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Group Differences at Day 86|28.0||||||98.75|17.1|38.7|||MN method|||Superiority for age cohort (2 through 5 years of age) for MenC was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided (1-2α) % CI for seroresponse increase between the 2-dose vaccination schedule and the 1-dose vaccination schedule was above 10% for MenC||38.7|17.1|
91010622|NCT01682876|181904749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Group differences at Day 86|14.0|||||TWO_SIDED|98.75|1.0|27.1|||MN method|||Superiority for age cohort (2 through 5 years of age) for MenW was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided (1-2α) % CI for seroresponse increase between the 2-dose vaccination schedule and the 1-dose vaccination schedule was above 10% for MenW||27.1|1|
91052520|NCT02504671|181989204|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09||||0.259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.06||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 1, HAQ-DI|||0.06|-0.23|0.259
91052521|NCT02504671|181989204|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08||||0.358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.09||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 2, HAQ-DI|||0.09|-0.26|0.358
91052522|NCT02504671|181989204|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09||||0.325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.09||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 2, HAQ-DI|||0.09|-0.26|0.325
91052523|NCT02504671|181989204|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07||||0.473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.13||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, HAQ-DI|||0.13|-0.28|0.473
91010623|NCT01682876|181904749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine groups Differences at Day 86|28.0|||||TWO_SIDED|98.75|16.2|39.3|||MN method|||Superiority for age cohort (2 through 5 years of age) for MenY was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided (1-2α) % CI for seroresponse increase between the 2-dose vaccination schedule and the 1-dose vaccination schedule was above 10% for MenY||39.3|16.2|
91010624|NCT01682876|181904749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine groups differences at Day 86|11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|98.75|1.0|21.2|||MN method|||Superiority for age cohort (6 through 10 years of age) for MenA was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided (1-2α) % CI for seroresponse increase between the 2-dose vaccination schedule and the 1-dose vaccination schedule was above 10% for MenA||21.2|1|
91052524|NCT02504671|181989204|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.18||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.02||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, HAQ-DI|||0.02|-0.38|0.085
91052525|NCT02504671|181989204|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.23||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 6, HAQ-DI|||0.23|-0.20|0.897
91052526|NCT02504671|181989204|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.01||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 6, HAQ-DI|||0.01|-0.42|0.065
91052527|NCT02504671|181989204|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14||||0.238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.09||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 8, HAQ-DI|||0.09|-0.36|0.238
91010625|NCT01682876|181904749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Group differences at Day 86|18.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|9.5|27.1|||MN method|||Superiority for age cohort (6 through 10 years of age) for MenC was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided (1-2α) % CI for seroresponse increase between the 2-dose vaccination schedule and the 1-dose vaccination schedule was above 10% for MenC||27.1|9.5|
91010626|NCT01682876|181904749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Group Differences at Day 86|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|98.75|-8.4|18.8|||MN method|||Superiority for age cohort (6 through 10 years of age) for MenW was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided (1-2α) % CI for seroresponse increase between the 2-dose vaccination schedule and the 1-dose vaccination schedule was above 10% for MenW||18.8|-8.4|
91010627|NCT01682876|181904749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine group Differences at Day 86|29.0|||||TWO_SIDED|98.75|17.0|39.6|||MN method|||Superiority for age cohort (6 through 10 years of age) for MenY was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided (1-2α) % CI for seroresponse increase between the 2-dose vaccination schedule and the 1-dose vaccination schedule was above 10% for MenY||39.6|17|
91010628|NCT01682876|181904754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|4.53||||||The safety of two vaccine groups was compared by calculating risk ratio of the proportions of subjects who experienced erythema in the two doses versus in the one dose of MenACWY-CRM||4.53|1.17|
91010629|NCT01682876|181904754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|6.36||||||The safety of two vaccine groups was compared by calculating risk ratio of the proportions of subjects who experienced induration in the two doses versus in the one dose of MenACWY-CRM||6.36|1.18|
91010630|NCT01682876|181904754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.34||||||The safety of two vaccine groups was compared by calculating risk ratio of the proportions of subjects who experienced tenderness in the two doses versus in the one dose of MenACWY-CRM||1.34|0.85|
91052528|NCT02504671|181989204|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.21||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.02||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 8, HAQ-DI|||0.02|-0.44|0.071
91010631|NCT01682876|181904754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.42||||||The safety of two vaccine groups was compared by calculating risk ratio of the proportions of subjects who experienced change in eating habits in the two doses versus in the one dose of MenACWY-CRM||1.42|0.54|
91010632|NCT01682876|181904754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.52||||||The safety of two vaccine groups was compared by calculating risk ratio of the proportions of subjects who experienced sleepiness in the two doses versus in the one dose of MenACWY-CRM||1.52|0.76|
91010633|NCT01682876|181904754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.43||||||The safety of two vaccine groups was compared by calculating risk ratio of the proportions of subjects who experienced irritability in the two doses versus in the one dose of MenACWY-CRM||1.43|0.74|
91010634|NCT01682876|181904754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.74||||||The safety of two vaccine groups was compared by calculating risk ratio of the proportions of subjects who experienced fever (≥38 °C) in the two doses versus in the one dose of MenACWY-CRM||1.74|0.33|
91010635|NCT01682876|181904755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.65||||||The safety of two vaccine groups was compared by calculating risk ratio of the proportions of subjects who experienced erythema in the two doses versus in the one dose of MenACWY-CRM||2.65|0.77|
91010636|NCT01682876|181904755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.74||||||The safety of two vaccine groups was compared by calculating risk ratio of the proportions of subjects who experienced induration in the two doses versus in the one dose of MenACWY-CRM||2.74|0.81|
91010637|NCT01682876|181904755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.55||||||The safety of two vaccine groups was compared by calculating risk ratio of the proportions of subjects who experienced pain in the two doses versus in the one dose of MenACWY-CRM||1.55|1.04|
91010638|NCT01682876|181904755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|3.33||||||The safety of two vaccine groups was compared by calculating risk ratio of the proportions of subjects who experienced loss of appetite in the two doses versus in the one dose of MenACWY-CRM||3.33|0.98|
91010639|NCT01682876|181904755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.17||||||The safety of two vaccine groups was compared by calculating risk ratio of the proportions of subjects who experienced nausea in the two doses versus in the one dose of MenACWY-CRM||2.17|0.77|
91010640|NCT01682876|181904755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.57||||||The safety of two vaccine groups was compared by calculating risk ratio of the proportions of subjects who experienced fatigue in the two doses versus in the one dose of MenACWY-CRM||2.57|1.06|
91010641|NCT01682876|181904755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.89||||||The safety of two vaccine groups was compared by calculating risk ratio of the proportions of subjects who experienced myalgia in the two doses versus in the one dose of MenACWY-CRM||1.89|0.99|
91052529|NCT02504671|181989204|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.13||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, HAQ-DI|||0.13|-0.38|0.340
91052530|NCT02504671|181989204|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.24||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.01||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, HAQ-DI|||0.01|-0.49|0.059
91052531|NCT02504671|181989204|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.09||||0.607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.44||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 16, HAQ-DI|||0.44|-0.26|0.607
90890229|NCT00844857|181644816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. MMRM terms included baseline, country, treatment, visit, and treatment\*visit interaction|Mixed Models Analysis|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there was no difference in mean changes from baseline to Week 8 between OFC and placebo.||||0.030
90890230|NCT00844857|181644817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) Model terms included baseline, country, and treatment.|ANCOVA|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there was no difference in mean changes from baseline to up to Week 8 between OFC and placebo.||||0.002
91052532|NCT02504671|181989204|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.32||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 16, HAQ-DI|||0.32|-0.34|0.959
91010642|NCT01682876|181904755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|4.42||||||The safety of two vaccine groups was compared by calculating risk ratio of the proportions of subjects who experienced arthralgia in the two doses versus in the one dose of MenACWY-CRM||4.42|0.97|
91010643|NCT01682876|181904755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|2.74||||||The safety of two vaccine groups was compared by calculating risk ratio of the proportions of subjects who experienced headache in the two doses versus in the one dose of MenACWY-CRM||2.74|1.22|
91010644|NCT01682876|181904755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|2.68||||||The safety of two vaccine groups was compared by calculating risk ratio of the proportions of subjects who experienced fever (≥38 °C) in the two doses versus in the one dose of MenACWY-CRM||2.68|0.48|
91010645|NCT04120116|181904758|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.3||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|1.08||P value for statistical significance is \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.08|0.11|0.068
91010646|NCT04120116|181904760|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.611||0.634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.945|6.439||P value for statistical significance is \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.439|-3.945|0.634
91052533|NCT02504671|181989204|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15||||0.401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.2||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 20, HAQ-DI|||0.20|-0.49|0.401
91052534|NCT02504671|181989204|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.21||||0.207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.12||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 20, HAQ-DI|||0.12|-0.54|0.207
91052535|NCT02504671|181989204|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08||||0.637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.27||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, HAQ-DI|||0.27|-0.44|0.637
91010647|NCT01098266|181904801|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.18||The log-rank test (unstratified) was used to compare the two treatment arms. In addition, a stratified version of the log-rank test was performed with the stratification factors used for randomization.|Log Rank|Cox regression analyses (unstratified and stratified) were performed to assess the influence of baseline covariates in an exploratory manner.||Study with one control per experimental patient, an accrual interval of 24 months, and an additional FU after the accrual interval of 12 months.If the true HR of experimental relative to control patients was 0.726, then 195 experimental patients and 195 control patients were required to be able to reject the null hypothesis that the experimental and control survival curves were equal with probability (power)0.80 Type I error probability associated with this test of this null hypothesis was 0.05||1.18|0.75|0.58
91010648|NCT01098266|181904802|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.17|||Log Rank|Cox regression analyses (unstratified and stratified) was performed to assess the influence of baseline covariates in an exploratory manner.||The log-rank test (unstratified and stratified) was used at an alpha level of 5% to test for differences in PFS between the two treatment arms. Kaplan-Meier curves and estimates were provided.||1.17|0.78|0.65
91010649|NCT01098266|181904803|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.68|||Fisher Exact||Logistic regression analyses were performed to assess the influence of baseline covariates in an exploratory manner|Difference in DCR between the two treatment arms were tested using a chi-squared test with 95% confidence intervals calculated in each treatment arm.||1.68|0.76|0.62
91010650|NCT01098266|181904806|OTHER|Two-sided log-rank test was used to compare time to symptomatic progression between treatment arms. Median and 95% confidence limits for the time to symptomatic progression were estimated using Kaplan-Meier survival methodology. Estimates of the treatment effect were expressed as hazard ratio including 95% confidence intervals.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.5806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.26|||Log Rank|||QoL assessment was performed by using a questionnaire according to LCSS, which consists of nine 100-mm visual analog scales, with scores reported from 0 to 100(the best score). The LCSS subscore is the average symptom burden index computed as the mean score for all 6 major symptoms. Symptomatic progression was defined as a worsening in the average symptom burden index by 25%.||1.26|0.68|0.5806
91010651|NCT01733758|181904815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|-1.39|||ANCOVA|||||-1.39|-1.72|
91010652|NCT01733758|181904815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|-1.18|||ANCOVA|||||-1.18|-1.51|
91010653|NCT01733758|181904815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||The first test in a sequential testing procedure starting with albiglutide 50 mg versus placebo, and if significant at 0.05 level, followed by albiglutide 30 mg versus placebo.|t-test, 2 sided|The p-value is from a 2-sided t-test to test whether the difference of least squares (LS) means (albiglutide 50 mg - placebo) is equal to zero.||||||<0.0001
90890231|NCT00844857|181644818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there was no difference in proportions between OFC and placebo.||||1.00
90890232|NCT00844857|181644819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.309||||||P-value for Suicidal Ideation. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there was no difference in proportions between OFC and placebo.||||0.309
91052536|NCT02504671|181989204|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.14||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, HAQ-DI|||0.14|-0.53|0.251
91010654|NCT01733758|181904815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||The second test in a sequential testing procedure starting with albiglutide 50 mg versus placebo, and if significant at 0.05 level, followed by albiglutide 30 mg versus placebo.|t-test, 2 sided|The p-value is from a 2-sided t-test to test whether the difference of LS means (albiglutide 30 mg - placebo) is equal to zero.||||||<0.0001
91010655|NCT00727246|181904851|OTHER|||||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|A repeated measures ANOVA was completed to evaluate differences in cognitive composite scores between groups and CDP-Choline or placebo||A repeated measures ANOVA was completed to evaluate differences in cognitive composite scores of individuals with a history of TBI as compared to healthy controls 6 weeks after treatment with CDP Choline (1000 mg CDP-Choline 2 x per day for 6 weeks) as compared to those treated with placebo. A mean index score created as a composite cognitive performance across domains (higher t-score = higher cognition). Purpose was to serve as a measure of overall cognitive functioning for data analysis.||||.85
91052537|NCT02504671|181989205|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.45||||0.511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.81|4.9||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 1, Pain score|||4.90|-9.81|0.511
90890233|NCT00844857|181644819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.667||||||P-value for Suicidal Behavior. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there was no difference in proportions between OFC and placebo.||||0.667
91010656|NCT00727246|181904852|OTHER|||||||0.329|TWO_SIDED|0.95|||||ANOVA|A repeated measures ANOVA was completed to evaluate differences in cognitive composite scores between groups and CDP-Choline or placebo||A repeated measure ANOVA was completed to evaluate potential differences in cognitive composite scores of individuals with a history of TBI as compared to healthy controls 6 weeks after treatment with CDP Choline (1000 mg CDP-Choline 2 x per day for 6 weeks) as compared to those treated with placebo.||||.329
91010657|NCT00661362|181904853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.29|||ANCOVA|||||-0.29|-0.55|<0.0001
91010658|NCT00661362|181904854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.149|<|0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.26|||ANCOVA|||||-0.26|-0.85|<0.0002
91010659|NCT00661362|181904855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.684|<|0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.37|-4.83|||ANCOVA|||||-4.83|-15.37|<0.0002
91010660|NCT00661362|181904856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-155.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|55.0||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-264.0|-47.0|||ANCOVA|||||-47|-264|0.0052
91010661|NCT00661362|181904857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2802.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|989.8||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4753.0|-852.0|||ANCOVA|||||-852|-4753|0.0052
91010662|NCT00661362|181904858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|16.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|24.0|||ANCOVA|||||24.0|8.0|<0.0001
91010663|NCT03982069|181904925|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||All listed antigens|Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91010664|NCT03982069|181904926|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||All listed antigens|Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91010665|NCT03982069|181904927|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Day 28 for all listed antigens|Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91052538|NCT02504671|181989205|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.76||||0.461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.13|4.6||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 1, Pain score|||4.60|-10.13|0.461
90890234|NCT00844857|181644819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.309||||||P-value for Suicidal Ideation or Behavior. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there was no difference in proportions between OFC and placebo.||||0.309
91052539|NCT02504671|181989205|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.71||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.03|-0.39||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 1, Pain score|||-0.39|-15.03|0.039
90890235|NCT00844857|181644820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there was no difference in proportions between OFC and placebo.||||1.00
90890236|NCT00844857|181644821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.545||||||P-value for ADHDRS-IV-PI Total Score. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. ANCOVA Model terms included baseline, country and treatment.|ANCOVA|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there was no difference in mean changes from baseline to up to Week 8 between OFC and placebo.||||0.545
90890237|NCT00844857|181644822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.066||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. ANCOVA Model terms included baseline, country and treatment.|ANCOVA|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there was no difference in mean changes from baseline to up to Week 8 between OFC and placebo.||||0.066
90890238|NCT00844857|181644823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there was no difference in proportions between OFC and placebo.||||1.00
91010666|NCT03982069|181904927|OTHER|||||||0.4||||||Day 0, A/H1N1-A/Brisbane|Chi-squared|||||||0.40
91052540|NCT02504671|181989205|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.92||||0.469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.86|5.01||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 2, Pain score|||5.01|-10.86|0.469
91052541|NCT02504671|181989205|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.99||||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.82|1.85||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 2, Pain score|||1.85|-13.82|0.133
91010667|NCT03982069|181904927|OTHER|||||||0.36||||||Day 0 A/H1N1-A/Kansas egg grown virus|Chi-squared|||||||0.36
91010668|NCT03982069|181904927|OTHER|||||||0.08||||||Day 0 A/H1N1-A/Kansas cell grown virus|Chi-squared|||||||0.08
90890239|NCT00844857|181644824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there was no difference in proportions between OFC and placebo.||||1.00
91010669|NCT03982069|181904927|OTHER|||||||0.91||||||Day 0 B/Victoria-B/Colorado|Chi-squared|||||||0.91
91010670|NCT03982069|181904927|OTHER|||||||0.31||||||Day 0 B/Yamagata-B/Phuket|Chi-squared|||||||0.31
91010671|NCT03982069|181904928|OTHER|||||||0.79||||||Day 0 A/H1N1-A/Brisbane|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.79
91010672|NCT03982069|181904928|OTHER|||||||0.79||||||Day 0 A/H3N2-A/Kansas egg grown virus|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.79
91010673|NCT03982069|181904928|OTHER|||||||0.56||||||Day 0 A/H3N2-A/Kansas cell grown virus|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.56
91010674|NCT03982069|181904928|OTHER|||||||0.95||||||Day 0 B/Victoria-B/Colorado|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.95
91010675|NCT03982069|181904928|OTHER|||||||0.44||||||Day 0 B/Yamagata-B/Phuket|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.44
91010676|NCT03982069|181904928|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Day 28 for all listed variables|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91010677|NCT03982069|181904929|OTHER|||||||0.83|||||||Chi-squared|Day 0: A/H1N1-A/Hawaii66-egg based antigen||||||0.83
91010678|NCT03982069|181904929|OTHER|||||||0.79|||||||Chi-squared|Day 0: A/H1N1-A/Hawaii70-cell based antigen||||||0.79
91010679|NCT03982069|181904929|OTHER|||||||0.65|||||||Chi-squared|Day 0: A/H1N1-A/Delaware||||||0.65
91010680|NCT03982069|181904929|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||Chi-squared|Day 0: A/H3N2-A/Hong Kong||||||0.06
91010681|NCT03982069|181904929|OTHER|||||||0.98|||||||Chi-squared|Day 0: B/Victoria-B/Washington||||||0.98
91010682|NCT03982069|181904929|OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||Chi-squared|Day 0: B/Yamagata-B/Phuket||||||0.24
91010683|NCT03982069|181904929|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Chi-squared|Day 28: A/H1N1-A/Hawaii66-egg based antigen, A/H1N1-A/Hawaii70-cell based antigen, A/H1N1-A/Delaware, B/Victoria-B/Washington, B/Yamagata-B/Phuket||||||<0.01
91052542|NCT02504671|181989205|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.58||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|0.23||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 2, Pain score|||0.23|-15.40|0.057
91052543|NCT02504671|181989205|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.03||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.67|5.61||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, Pain score|||5.61|-11.67|0.490
91052544|NCT02504671|181989205|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.38||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.91|-0.86||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, Pain score|||-0.86|-17.91|0.031
91010684|NCT03982069|181904929|OTHER|||||||0.66|||||||Chi-squared|A/H3N2-A/Hong Kong||||||0.66
91010685|NCT03982069|181904930|OTHER|||||||0.22||||||Day 0: A/H1N1-A/Hawaii66 egg based antigen|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.22
91010686|NCT03982069|181904930|OTHER|||||||0.25||||||Day 0: A/H1N1-A/Hawaii70 cell based antigen|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.25
91010687|NCT03982069|181904930|OTHER|||||||0.13||||||Day 0: A/H1N1-A/Delaware|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.13
91010688|NCT03982069|181904930|OTHER|||||||0.06||||||Day 0: A/H3N2-A/Hong Kong|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.06
91010689|NCT03982069|181904930|OTHER|||||||0.78||||||Day 0: B/Victoria-B/Washington|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.78
91010690|NCT03982069|181904930|OTHER|||||||0.36||||||Day 0: B/Yamagata-B/Phuket|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.36
91010691|NCT03982069|181904930|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Day 28: A/H1N1-A/Hawaii66 egg based antigen, A/H1N1-A/Hawaii70 cell based antigen, A/H1N1-A/Delaware, B/Victoria-B/Washington, B/Yamagata-B/Phuket|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91010692|NCT03982069|181904930|OTHER|||||||0.01||||||Day 28: A/H3N2-A/Hong Kong|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
91010693|NCT03970330|181904931|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1123.0||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-755.0|3000.0|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference calculated as Naltrexone minus Placebo|||3000|-755|0.20
91010694|NCT03970330|181904932|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.9||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|59.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|A single model was run with comparisons between naltrexone and placebo at each visit (not adjusted for multiple comparisons)|Difference calculated as Naltrexone minus Placebo|Comparison of treatment groups at BASELINE||59.6|-1.9|0.06
91010695|NCT03970330|181904932|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.4||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.3|41.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|A single model was run with comparisons between naltrexone and placebo at each visit (not adjusted for multiple comparisons)|Difference calculated as Naltrexone minus Placebo|Comparison of treatment groups at WEEK 4||41.2|-20.3|0.48
91010696|NCT03970330|181904932|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.9||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|49.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|A single model was run with comparisons between naltrexone and placebo at each visit (not adjusted for multiple comparisons)|Difference calculated as Naltrexone minus Placebo|Comparison of treatment groups at WEEK 8||49.6|-11.8|0.21
91010697|NCT03970330|181904932|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.5||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|46.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|A single model was run with comparisons between naltrexone and placebo at each visit (not adjusted for multiple comparisons)|Difference calculated as Naltrexone minus Placebo|Comparison of treatment groups at WEEK 12||46.2|-15.2|0.30
91010698|NCT03970330|181904932|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.8||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.0|37.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|A single model was run with comparisons between naltrexone and placebo at each visit (not adjusted for multiple comparisons)|Difference calculated as Naltrexone minus Placebo|Comparison of treatment groups at WEEK 16||37.5|-24.0|0.65
91052545|NCT02504671|181989205|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.21||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.67|-3.74||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, Pain score|||-3.74|-20.67|0.005
91052546|NCT02504671|181989205|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.49||||0.345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.83|4.85||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 6, Pain score|||4.85|-13.83|0.345
91052547|NCT02504671|181989205|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.02||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|1.26||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 6, Pain score|||1.26|-17.30|0.090
91052548|NCT02504671|181989205|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.36||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.55|0.83||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 6, Pain score|||0.83|-17.55|0.074
91052549|NCT02504671|181989205|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.61||||0.268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.57|4.34||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 8, Pain score|||4.34|-15.57|0.268
91010699|NCT03970330|181904933|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at WEEK 4||||0.07
91010700|NCT03970330|181904933|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at WEEK 8||||0.07
91052550|NCT02504671|181989205|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.57||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.43|-4.7||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 8, Pain score|||-4.70|-24.43|0.004
91052551|NCT02504671|181989205|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.94||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.72|-4.16||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 8, Pain score|||-4.16|-23.72|0.005
91052552|NCT02504671|181989205|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.02||||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.36|3.32||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, Pain score|||3.32|-17.36|0.182
91052553|NCT02504671|181989205|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.15||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.42|-3.87||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, Pain score|||-3.87|-24.42|0.007
91052554|NCT02504671|181989205|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-18.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.35|-8.01||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, Pain score|||-8.01|-28.35|<0.001
91052555|NCT02504671|181989205|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.89||||0.527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.15|10.36||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 16, Pain score|||10.36|-20.15|0.527
91052556|NCT02504671|181989205|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-15.95||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.72|-1.19||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 16, Pain score|||-1.19|-30.72|0.034
91052557|NCT02504671|181989205|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.86||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.42|0.7||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 16, Pain score|||0.70|-28.42|0.062
91052558|NCT02504671|181989205|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.69||||0.924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.85|13.47||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 20, Pain score|||13.47|-14.85|0.924
91052559|NCT02504671|181989205|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.17||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.82|0.48||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 20, Pain score|||0.48|-26.82|0.058
91052560|NCT02504671|181989205|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.49||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.91|-0.08||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 20, Pain score|||-0.08|-26.91|0.049
91052561|NCT02504671|181989205|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.38||||0.445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.84|10.07||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, Pain score|||10.07|-22.84|0.445
91052562|NCT02504671|181989205|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.14||||0.205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.87|5.58||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, Pain score|||5.58|-25.87|0.205
91052563|NCT02504671|181989205|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.07||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.55|3.41||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, Pain score|||3.41|-27.55|0.125
91010701|NCT03970330|181904933|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at WEEK 12||||0.06
91010702|NCT03970330|181904933|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at WEEK 16||||1.00
91010703|NCT03970330|181904934|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treament groups at WEEK 4||||0.29
91010704|NCT03970330|181904934|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at WEEK 8||||0.24
91010705|NCT03970330|181904934|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at WEEK 12||||0.20
91010706|NCT03970330|181904934|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at WEEK 16||||0.53
91052564|NCT02504671|181989205|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.93||||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.26|2.41||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 1, Pain score|||2.41|-12.26|0.187
91052565|NCT02504671|181989205|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.63||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.93|1.67||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 1, Pain score|||1.67|-12.93|0.130
90890240|NCT00844857|181644825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. ANCOVA Model terms included baseline, country and treatment.|ANCOVA|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there was no difference in mean changes from baseline to up to Week 8 between OFC and placebo.||||0.050
91010707|NCT03970330|181904935|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at WEEK 4||||0.37
91052566|NCT02504671|181989205|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.85||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.72|0.03||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 2, Pain score|||0.03|-15.72|0.051
91052567|NCT02504671|181989205|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.44||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.27|-2.6||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 2, Pain score|||-2.60|-18.27|0.009
91010708|NCT03970330|181904935|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at WEEK 8||||0.39
91052568|NCT02504671|181989205|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.94||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.47|0.58||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, Pain score|||0.58|-16.47|0.068
91052569|NCT02504671|181989205|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.96||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.47|-5.44||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, Pain score|||-5.44|-22.47|0.001
91052570|NCT02504671|181989205|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.36||||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.62|1.89||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 6, Pain score|||1.89|-16.62|0.118
91010709|NCT03970330|181904935|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at WEEK 12||||0.37
91052571|NCT02504671|181989205|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.43||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.68|-3.19||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 6, Pain score|||-3.19|-21.68|0.009
91010710|NCT03970330|181904935|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at WEEK 16||||0.39
91010711|NCT03970330|181904936|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.3||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|9.2|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference calculated as Naltrexone minus Placebo|||9.2|-0.6|0.08
91010712|NCT02500706|181904979|NON_INFERIORITY|"Stepwise hierarchical testing procedure was applied for confirmatory endpoints:~Step 1: Primary analysis: HbA1c non-inferiority of mealtime faster aspart versus mealtime NovoRapid®/NovoLog®.~Non-inferiority of mealtime faster aspart was considered confirmed if the upper boundary of the two-sided 95% CI was below or equal to 0.4%"|Treatment difference|-0.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.07||p-value from the 2-sided test for treatment difference evaluated at the 5% level|ANOVA model after multiple imputation|||The endpoint was analysed using an analysis of variance model after multiple imputation assuming treatment according to randomisation. The model includes treatment, region and bolus adjusting method at randomisation as factors, and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||0.07|-0.11|<0.001
90890241|NCT00844857|181644826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. ANCOVA Model terms included baseline and treatment.|ANCOVA|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there was no difference in mean changes from baseline to up to Week 8 between OFC and placebo.||||<0.001
91052572|NCT02504671|181989205|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.51||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.38|-6.65||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 8, Pain score|||-6.65|-26.38|0.001
91052573|NCT02504671|181989205|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-20.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.27|-10.52||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 8, Pain score|||-10.52|-30.27|<0.001
91052574|NCT02504671|181989205|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.0||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.27|-1.73||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, Pain score|||-1.73|-22.27|0.022
91052575|NCT02504671|181989205|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-17.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.18|-7.7||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, Pain score|||-7.70|-28.18|<0.001
91052576|NCT02504671|181989205|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.2||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.18|1.79||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 16, Pain score|||1.79|-28.18|0.084
91052577|NCT02504671|181989205|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.87||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.02|2.27||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 16, Pain score|||2.27|-26.02|0.099
91052578|NCT02504671|181989205|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.91||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.68|-0.14||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 20, Pain score|||-0.14|-27.68|0.048
91052579|NCT02504671|181989205|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.22||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.32|-0.13||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 20, Pain score|||-0.13|-26.32|0.048
91052580|NCT02504671|181989205|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.23||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.11|2.64||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, Pain score|||2.64|-29.11|0.102
91052581|NCT02504671|181989205|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.7||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.79|-1.62||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, Pain score|||-1.62|-31.79|0.030
91052582|NCT02504671|181989206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6||||0.683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.31|3.52||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, PCS|||3.52|-2.31|0.683
91052583|NCT02504671|181989206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.19||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|6.07||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, PCS|||6.07|0.31|0.030
91052584|NCT02504671|181989206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.61||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|5.47||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, PCS|||5.47|-0.25|0.074
91052585|NCT02504671|181989206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.46||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|4.8||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, PCS|||4.80|-1.88|0.390
91052586|NCT02504671|181989206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.42||||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|5.75||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, PCS|||5.75|-0.91|0.154
91052587|NCT02504671|181989206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.73||||0.302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|5.02||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, PCS|||5.02|-1.56|0.302
91052588|NCT02504671|181989206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.69||||0.521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|6.88||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, PCS|||6.88|-3.50|0.521
91052589|NCT02504671|181989206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.28||||0.606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.63|6.2||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, PCS|||6.20|-3.63|0.606
91052590|NCT02504671|181989206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.46||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|7.32||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, PCS|||7.32|-2.41|0.320
91052591|NCT02504671|181989206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.65|3.64||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, MCS|||3.64|-4.65|0.811
91052592|NCT02504671|181989206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.45||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.65|4.55||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, MCS|||4.55|-3.65|0.830
91052593|NCT02504671|181989206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.54||||0.795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.61|3.54||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, MCS|||3.54|-4.61|0.795
91052594|NCT02504671|181989206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.32||||0.548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|5.64||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, MCS|||5.64|-3.00|0.548
91052595|NCT02504671|181989206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.46||||0.505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.85|5.77||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, MCS|||5.77|-2.85|0.505
91052596|NCT02504671|181989206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.12||||0.605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.15|5.39||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, MCS|||5.39|-3.15|0.605
91052597|NCT02504671|181989206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.43||||0.895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.03|6.9||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, MCS|||6.90|-6.03|0.895
91052598|NCT02504671|181989206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.29||||0.461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.84|8.42||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, MCS|||8.42|-3.84|0.461
91052599|NCT02504671|181989206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.05||||0.732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|4.99||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, MCS|||4.99|-7.10|0.732
91052600|NCT02504671|181989206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11||||0.941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.11|2.88||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, Bodily Pain|||2.88|-3.11|0.941
91052601|NCT02504671|181989206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.73||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|6.67||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, Bodily Pain|||6.67|0.78|0.013
91052602|NCT02504671|181989206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.92||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|5.84||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, Bodily Pain|||5.84|-0.01|0.051
91052603|NCT02504671|181989206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.53||||0.403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|5.12||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, Bodily Pain|||5.12|-2.07|0.403
91052604|NCT02504671|181989206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.82||||0.122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|6.4||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, Bodily Pain|||6.40|-0.76|0.122
91052605|NCT02504671|181989206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.08||||0.247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|5.62||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, Bodily Pain|||5.62|-1.45|0.247
91010713|NCT02500706|181904979|NON_INFERIORITY|"Stepwise hierarchical testing procedure was applied for confirmatory endpoints:~Step 2: HbA1c non-inferiority of postmeal faster aspart versus mealtime NovoRapid®/NovoLog®.~Non-inferiority of postmeal faster aspart was considered confirmed if the upper boundary of the two-sided 95% CI was below or equal to 0.4%"|Treatment difference|0.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|0.19||p-value from the 2-sided test for treatment difference evaluated at the 5% level.|ANOVA model after multiple imputation|||The endpoint was analysed using an analysis of variance model after multiple imputation assuming treatment according to randomisation. The model includes treatment, region and bolus adjusting method at randomisation as factors, and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||0.19|0.004|<0.001
91052606|NCT02504671|181989206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.85||||0.384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.61|9.32||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, Bodily Pain|||9.32|-3.61|0.384
91052607|NCT02504671|181989206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.05||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|11.16||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, Bodily Pain|||11.16|-1.07|0.105
91052608|NCT02504671|181989206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.21||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.76|9.17||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, Bodily Pain|||9.17|-2.76|0.290
91052609|NCT02504671|181989206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.51||||0.738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.52|2.5||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, General Health|||2.50|-3.52|0.738
90890242|NCT00844857|181644827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98||||||P-value for Fasting Glucose. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. ANCOVA Model terms included baseline and treatment.|ANCOVA|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there was no difference in mean changes from baseline to up to Week 8 between OFC and placebo.||||0.980
91052610|NCT02504671|181989206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.99||||0.513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|3.97||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, General Health|||3.97|-1.99|0.513
91052611|NCT02504671|181989206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12||||0.934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.83|3.08||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, General Health|||3.08|-2.83|0.934
91010714|NCT02500706|181904979|SUPERIORITY|"Stepwise hierarchical testing procedure was applied for confirmatory endpoints:~Step 4: HbA1c superiority of mealtime faster aspart versus mealtime NovoRapid®/NovoLog®.~Superiority was to be confirmed if the upper boundary of the two-sided 95% CI of the mean treatment difference (mealtime faster aspart minus mealtime NovoRapid®/NovoLog®) was below 0%-points."|Treatment difference|-0.02||||0.633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.07||p-value from the 2-sided test for treatment difference evaluated at the 5% level|ANOVA model after multiple imputation|||The endpoint was analysed using an analysis of variance model after multiple imputation assuming treatment according to randomisation. The model includes treatment, region and bolus adjusting method at randomisation as factors, and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||0.07|-0.11|0.633
91010715|NCT02500706|181904980|SUPERIORITY|"Stepwise hierarchical testing procedure was applied for confirmatory endpoints:~Step 3: 1-hour postprandial glucose (PPG) increments superiority of mealtime faster aspart versus mealtime NovoRapid®/NovoLog.~Superiority was confirmed if the upper boundary of the two-sided 95% CI of the mean treatment difference (mealtime faster aspart minus mealtime NovoRapid®/NovoLog®) was below 0."|Treatment difference|-0.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|-0.45||p-value from the 2-sided test for treatment difference evaluated at the 5% level.|ANOVA|||Change from baseline in postprandial glucose increment (meal test) is analysed using an analysis of variance model. The model includes treatment, region and bolus adjusting method at randomisation as factors, and baseline postprandial glucose increment as a covariate.||-0.45|-1.36|<0.001
91010716|NCT02500706|181904981|SUPERIORITY|"Stepwise hierarchical testing procedure was applied for confirmatory endpoints:~Step 5: 1,5-anhydroglucitol superiority of mealtime faster aspart versus mealtime NovoRapid®/NovoLog®.~Superiority was to be confirmed if the lower boundary of the two-sided 95% CI of the mean treatment difference (mealtime faster aspart minus mealtime NovoRapid®/NovoLog®) was above 0."|Treatment difference|0.02||||0.924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.34||p-values are from the 2-sided test for treatment difference evaluated at the 5% level.|ANOVA model after multiple imputation|||Change from baseline in 1,5-anhydroglucitol was analysed using an analysis of variance model after multiple imputation assuming treatment according to randomisation. The model includes treatment, region and bolus adjusting method at randomisation as factors, and baseline 1,5-anhydroglucitol as a covariate.||0.34|-0.31|0.924
91010717|NCT04269629|181905054|OTHER|All patients participating in this study belong to one of the following two groups for analysis: the group with antihypertensive treatment (β-blockers or ACEI) and the group without such treatment. The primary outcome was analyzed using logistic linear mixed models with a random intercept. This model type takes into account the clustered structure of the data, i.e., observations clustered in the different participating centers.||||||0.25||||||The level of significance was set at 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Missing at random was assumed, and multiple imputations were conducted with 50 imputations taking into account the cluster design.||It was assumed that 24% of the patients would be on β-blockers and/or ACE inhibitors (ACEI). A χ2 test with a two-sided 5% significance level has an 80% power to detect the difference between the group without antihypertensive medication with 6% SR during VIT and the group on β-blockers and/or ACEI with 12.3% SR during VIT (OR = 2.2) when the sample sizes are 631 and 200, respectively. A drop-out rate of 37% was assumed which resulted in a required number of 1,319 patients.||||0.25
91010718|NCT04269629|181905055|OTHER|All patients participating in this study belong to one of the following two groups for analysis: the group with antihypertensive treatment (β-blockers or ACE inhibitors) and the group without such treatment. The secondary outcomes was analyzed using logistic linear mixed models with a random intercept. This model type takes into account the clustered structure of the data, i.e., observations clustered in the different participating centers.||||||0.29||||||The level of significance was set at 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Missing at random was assumed, and multiple imputations were conducted with 50 imputations taking into account the cluster design.||||||0.29
91010719|NCT04269629|181905056|OTHER|All patients participating in this study belong to one of the following two groups for analysis: the group with antihypertensive treatment (β-blockers or ACE inhibitor) and the group without such treatment. The secondary outcomes were analyzed using logistic linear mixed models with a random intercept. This model type takes into account the clustered structure of the data, i.e., observations clustered in the different participating centers.||||||0.04||||||The level of significance was set at 0.05. Correlation of the prevalence of cardiovascular diseases and/or hypertension with the risk for more severe systemic sting reactions (p=0.04).|Mixed Models Analysis|Missing at random was assumed, and multiple imputations were conducted with 50 imputations taking into account the cluster design.||Analysis for correlation of the prevalence of cardiovascular diseases and/or hypertension with the risk for more severe systemic sting reactions.||||0.04
91010720|NCT04269629|181905057|OTHER|All patients participating in this study belong to one of the following two groups for analysis: the group with antihypertensive treatment (β-blockers or ACE inhibitors) and the group without such treatment. The secondary outcomes was analyzed using logistic linear mixed models with a random intercept. This model type takes into account the clustered structure of the data, i.e., observations clustered in the different participating centers.|||||<|0.001||||||The level of significance was set at 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Missing at random was assumed, and multiple imputations were conducted with 50 imputations taking into account the cluster design.||||||<0.001
91052612|NCT02504671|181989206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.63||||0.687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.43|3.68||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, General Health|||3.68|-2.43|0.687
91052613|NCT02504671|181989206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.85||||0.233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|4.91||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, General Health|||4.91|-1.20|0.233
91052614|NCT02504671|181989206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.57||||0.708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|3.59||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, General Health|||3.59|-2.44|0.708
91052615|NCT02504671|181989206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.29||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|8.93||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, General Health|||8.93|-2.34|0.250
91052616|NCT02504671|181989206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.76||||0.307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.57|8.09||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, General Health|||8.09|-2.57|0.307
91052617|NCT02504671|181989206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.53||||0.345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.74|7.79||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, General Health|||7.79|-2.74|0.345
91052618|NCT02504671|181989206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.16||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.52||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, Mental Health|||0.52|-0.19|0.950
91052619|NCT02504671|181989206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.88||||0.664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.11|4.87||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, Mental Health|||4.87|-3.11|0.664
91052620|NCT02504671|181989206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.99|3.96||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, Mental Health|||3.96|-3.99|0.994
91052621|NCT02504671|181989206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.6||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|7.03||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, Mental Health|||7.03|-1.84|0.250
91052622|NCT02504671|181989206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.21||||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|7.64||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, Mental Health|||7.64|-1.22|0.154
91052623|NCT02504671|181989206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.5||||0.262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|6.89||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, Mental Health|||6.89|-1.88|0.262
91052624|NCT02504671|181989206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.32||||0.693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.28|7.93||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, Mental Health|||7.93|-5.28|0.693
91052625|NCT02504671|181989206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.28||||0.302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.98|9.54||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, Mental Health|||9.54|-2.98|0.302
91052626|NCT02504671|181989206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.61||||0.844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.54|6.77||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, Mental Health|||6.77|-5.54|0.844
91052627|NCT02504671|181989206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.66||||0.698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.71|4.04||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, Physical Functioning|||4.04|-2.71|0.698
91052628|NCT02504671|181989206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.38||||0.159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|5.7||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, Physical Functioning|||5.70|-0.94|0.159
91052629|NCT02504671|181989206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.53||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|4.83||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, Physical Functioning|||4.83|-1.76|0.360
91052630|NCT02504671|181989206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.82||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|6.69||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, Physical Functioning|||6.69|-1.04|0.151
91052631|NCT02504671|181989206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.01||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|6.86||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, Physical Functioning|||6.86|-0.83|0.124
91052632|NCT02504671|181989206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.0||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|6.8||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, Physical Functioning|||6.80|-0.79|0.120
91052633|NCT02504671|181989206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.64||||0.814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.98|4.7||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, Physical Functioning|||4.70|-5.98|0.814
91052634|NCT02504671|181989206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.41||||0.873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.49|4.67||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, Physical Functioning|||4.67|-5.49|0.873
91052635|NCT02504671|181989206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.23||||0.928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|5.26||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, Physical Functioning|||5.26|-4.80|0.928
91052636|NCT02504671|181989206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.29||||0.541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.44|2.86||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, Role Emotional|||2.86|-5.44|0.541
91052637|NCT02504671|181989206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.29||||0.535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.39|2.81||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, Role Emotional|||2.81|-5.39|0.535
91052638|NCT02504671|181989206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.03||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|3.05||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, Role Emotional|||3.05|-5.10|0.620
91052639|NCT02504671|181989206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.34||||0.881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.08|4.76||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, Role Emotional|||4.76|-4.08|0.881
91052640|NCT02504671|181989206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.66||||0.767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.74|5.07||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12,Role Emotional|||5.07|-3.74|0.767
91052641|NCT02504671|181989206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.24||||0.913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.12|4.61||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, Role Emotional|||4.61|-4.12|0.913
91052642|NCT02504671|181989206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.91||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.81|7.63||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, Role Emotional|||7.63|-5.81|0.790
91052643|NCT02504671|181989206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5||||0.876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.86|6.87||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, Role Emotional|||6.87|-5.86|0.876
91052644|NCT02504671|181989206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3||||0.684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.59|4.99||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, Role Emotional|||4.99|-7.59|0.684
91052645|NCT02504671|181989206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.86||||0.588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28|4.01||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, Role Physical|||4.01|-2.28|0.588
91052646|NCT02504671|181989206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.9||||0.229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|5.0||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, Role Physical|||5.00|-1.21|0.229
91052647|NCT02504671|181989206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.41||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|5.49||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, Role Physical|||5.49|-0.67|0.125
91052648|NCT02504671|181989206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6||||0.736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.92|4.12||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, Role Physical|||4.12|-2.92|0.736
91052649|NCT02504671|181989206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.72||||0.338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|5.23||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, Role Physical|||5.23|-1.80|0.338
91052650|NCT02504671|181989206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.92||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.55|4.4||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, Role Physical|||4.40|-2.55|0.600
91052651|NCT02504671|181989206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.26||||0.657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.34|6.86||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, Role Physical|||6.86|-4.34|0.657
91052652|NCT02504671|181989206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12||||0.965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.41|5.17||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, Role Physical|||5.17|-5.41|0.965
91052653|NCT02504671|181989206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.12||||0.675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.14|6.37||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, Role Physical|||6.37|-4.14|0.675
91052654|NCT02504671|181989206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.32||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.54|3.89||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, Social Functioning|||3.89|-4.54|0.880
91052655|NCT02504671|181989206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.17||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|7.33||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, Social Functioning|||7.33|-1.00|0.135
91052656|NCT02504671|181989206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.57||||0.785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.56|4.71||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, Social Functioning|||4.71|-3.56|0.785
91052657|NCT02504671|181989206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.55||||0.797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.69|4.8||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, Social Functioning|||4.80|-3.69|0.797
91052658|NCT02504671|181989206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.23|4.23||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, Social Functioning|||4.23|-4.23|>0.999
91052659|NCT02504671|181989206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.28||||0.896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.91|4.46||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, Social Functioning|||4.46|-3.91|0.896
91052660|NCT02504671|181989206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.89||||0.424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.02|4.24||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, Social Functioning|||4.24|-10.02|0.424
91052661|NCT02504671|181989206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.44||||0.898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.16|6.29||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, Social Functioning|||6.29|-7.16|0.898
91052662|NCT02504671|181989206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.79||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.42|2.84||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, Social Functioning|||2.84|-10.42|0.260
91052663|NCT02504671|181989206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.02||||0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.85|4.9||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, Vitality|||4.90|-2.85|0.603
91052664|NCT02504671|181989206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.56||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|7.39||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, Vitality|||7.39|-0.26|0.068
91052665|NCT02504671|181989206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.63||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|6.43||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, Vitality|||6.43|-1.17|0.174
91052666|NCT02504671|181989206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.97||||0.334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|5.98||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, Vitality|||5.98|-2.04|0.334
91052667|NCT02504671|181989206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.91||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|6.91||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, Vitality|||6.91|-1.09|0.153
91052668|NCT02504671|181989206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.18||||0.279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|6.13||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, Vitality|||6.13|-1.78|0.279
91052669|NCT02504671|181989206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.94||||0.584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.04|8.91||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24,Vitality|||8.91|-5.04|0.584
91052670|NCT02504671|181989206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.15||||0.346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.44|9.73||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, Vitality|||9.73|-3.44|0.346
91010721|NCT04269629|181905058|OTHER|All patients participating in this study belong to one of the following two groups for analysis: the group with antihypertensive treatment (β-blockers or ACE inhibitors) and the group without such treatment. The secondary outcomes was analyzed using logistic linear mixed models with a random intercept. This model type takes into account the clustered structure of the data, i.e., observations clustered in the different participating centers.||||||0.99||||||The level of significance was set at 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Missing at random was assumed, and multiple imputations were conducted with 50 imputations taking into account the cluster design.||Analysis for sIgE levels - bee venom.||||0.99
91010722|NCT04269629|181905058|OTHER|All patients participating in this study belong to one of the following two groups for analysis: the group with antihypertensive treatment (β-blockers or ACE inhibitors) and the group without such treatment. The secondary outcomes was analyzed using logistic linear mixed models with a random intercept. This model type takes into account the clustered structure of the data, i.e., observations clustered in the different participating centers.||||||0.15||||||The level of significance was set at 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Missing at random was assumed, and multiple imputations were conducted with 50 imputations taking into account the cluster design.||Analysis for sIgE levels - vespid venom.||||0.15
91010723|NCT04269629|181905059|OTHER|All patients participating in this study belong to one of the following two groups for analysis: the group with antihypertensive treatment (β-blockers or ACE inhibitors) and the group without such treatment. The secondary outcomes was analyzed using logistic linear mixed models with a random intercept. This model type takes into account the clustered structure of the data, i.e., observations clustered in the different participating centers.||||||0.16||||||The level of significance was set at 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Missing at random was assumed, and multiple imputations were conducted with 50 imputations taking into account the cluster design.||||||0.16
91010724|NCT04269629|181905060|OTHER|All patients participating in this study belong to one of the following two groups for analysis: the group with antihypertensive treatment (β-blockers or ACE inhibitors) and the group without such treatment. The secondary outcomes was analyzed using logistic linear mixed models with a random intercept. This model type takes into account the clustered structure of the data, i.e., observations clustered in the different participating centers.||||||0.5||||||The level of significance was set at 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Missing at random was assumed, and multiple imputations were conducted with 50 imputations taking into account the cluster design.||||||0.50
91010725|NCT04269629|181905061|OTHER|||||||0.72||||||The level of significance was set at 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.72
91010726|NCT04269629|181905062|OTHER|All patients participating in this study belong to one of the following two groups for analysis: the group with antihypertensive treatment (β-blockers or ACE inhibitor) and the group without such treatment. The secondary outcomes were analyzed using logistic linear mixed models with a random intercept. This model type takes into account the clustered structure of the data, i.e., observations clustered in the different participating centers.||||||0.11||||||The level of significance was set at 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Missing at random was assumed, and multiple imputations were conducted with 50 imputations taking into account the cluster design.||Analysis for correlation of the prevalence of cardiovascular diseases and/or hypertension with the risk for more frequent SR under VIT.||||0.11
91010727|NCT01000311|181905063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Lower limit of 95% confidence interval|83.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|83.0|93.0||||||The null hypothesis associated with the primary objective was that the immune response was considered sufficient if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:8, at one month after 4th dose was greater than 80% for the serogroup A.||93|83|
91010728|NCT01000311|181905063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Lower limit of 95% confidence interval|90.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|90.0|98.0||||||The null hypothesis associated with the primary objective was that the immune response was considered sufficient if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:8, at one month after 4th dose was greater than 85% for the serogroup C.||98|90|
91010729|NCT01000311|181905063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Lower limit of 95% confidence interval|93.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.0|99.0||||||The null hypothesis associated with the primary objective was that the immune response was considered sufficient if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:8, at one month after 4th dose was greater than 85% for the serogroup W.||99|93|
91052671|NCT02504671|181989206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.97||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.55|9.48||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, Vitality|||9.48|-3.55|0.370
91052672|NCT02504671|181989206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.94||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|5.83||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, PCS|||5.83|0.06|0.045
91052673|NCT02504671|181989206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.11||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|7.01||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, PCS|||7.01|1.22|0.006
91052674|NCT02504671|181989206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.89||||0.264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|5.23||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12,PCS|||5.23|-1.44|0.264
91052675|NCT02504671|181989206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.55||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|6.88||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12,PCS|||6.88|0.22|0.037
91052676|NCT02504671|181989206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.16||||0.392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.81|7.14||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, PCS|||7.14|-2.81|0.392
91052677|NCT02504671|181989206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.65||||0.493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|6.39||MMRM analysis adjusted for PCS Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, PCS|||6.39|-3.09|0.493
91052678|NCT02504671|181989206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.16||||0.577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.94|5.26||MMRM analysis adjusted for MCS Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, MCS|||5.26|-2.94|0.577
91052679|NCT02504671|181989206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.01|4.2||MMRM analysis adjusted for MCS Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, MCS|||4.20|-4.01|0.964
91052680|NCT02504671|181989206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.97||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|6.28||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, MCS|||6.28|-2.35|0.370
91052681|NCT02504671|181989206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.25||||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|7.54||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, MCS|||7.54|-1.05|0.138
91052682|NCT02504671|181989206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.36||||0.667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.85|7.56||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, MCS|||7.56|-4.85|0.667
91052683|NCT02504671|181989206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.79||||0.203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.85|7.56||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, MCS|||7.56|-4.85|0.203
91052684|NCT02504671|181989206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.45||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|6.41||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 4, Bodily pain|||6.41|0.49|0.023
91052685|NCT02504671|181989206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.14|8.03||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 4, Bodily pain|||8.03|2.14|<0.001
91052686|NCT02504671|181989206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.11||||0.249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|5.7||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 12, Bodily pain|||5.70|-1.49|0.249
91052687|NCT02504671|181989206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.43||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|6.99||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 12, Bodily pain|||6.99|-0.13|0.059
91052688|NCT02504671|181989206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.72||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|10.9||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 24, Bodily pain|||10.90|-1.47|0.134
91052689|NCT02504671|181989206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.2||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|10.97||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 24, Bodily pain|||10.97|-0.58|0.078
91052690|NCT02504671|181989206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.65||||0.275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|4.62||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 4, General health|||4.62|-1.32|0.275
91052691|NCT02504671|181989206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.94||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|4.91||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 4, General health|||4.91|-1.03|0.199
91052692|NCT02504671|181989206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.69||||0.654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.36|3.74||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 12, General health|||3.74|-2.36|0.654
91052693|NCT02504671|181989206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.29||||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|5.33||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 12, General health|||5.33|-0.74|0.138
91052694|NCT02504671|181989206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.77||||0.516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.62|7.17||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 24, General health|||7.17|-3.62|0.516
91052695|NCT02504671|181989206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.35||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|8.46||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 24, General health|||8.46|-1.77|0.198
91052696|NCT02504671|181989206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15||||0.941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.15|3.84||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 4, Mental health|||3.84|-4.15|0.941
91052697|NCT02504671|181989206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.94|4.05||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 4, Mental health|||4.05|-3.94|0.979
91052698|NCT02504671|181989206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.4||||0.287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.03|6.84||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 12, Mental health|||6.84|-2.03|0.287
91010730|NCT01000311|181905063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Lowe limit of 95% confidence interval|92.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|92.0|99.0||||||The null hypothesis associated with the primary objective was that the immune response was considered sufficient if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:8, at one month after 4th dose was greater than 85% for the serogroup Y.||99|92|
91010731|NCT01000311|181905067|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune seroresponse to diphtheria toxin, when DTaP is given concomitantly with MenACWY-CRM, was considered non-inferior to that of DTaP given alone, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than or equal to -10%.|Group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|2.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of seroresponse to diphtheria toxin, when DTaP vaccine is given with MenACWY-CRM compared with when DTaP vaccine is given alone||2.6|-2.9|
91010732|NCT01000311|181905067|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune seroresponse to tetanus toxin, when DTaP is given concomitantly with MenACWY-CRM, was considered non-inferior to that of DTaP given alone, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than or equal to -10%.|Group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|3.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of seroresponse to tetanus toxin, when DTaP vaccine is given with MenACWY-CRM compared with when DTaP vaccine is given alone||3.9|-3.3|
91052699|NCT02504671|181989206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.45||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|7.85||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 12, Mental health|||7.85|-0.96|0.125
91052700|NCT02504671|181989206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.15||||0.503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.18|8.49||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 24, Mental health|||8.49|-4.18|0.503
91052701|NCT02504671|181989206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.01||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|10.98||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 24,Mental health|||10.98|-0.96|0.099
91052702|NCT02504671|181989206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.88||||0.268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|5.21||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 4, Physical functioning|||5.21|-1.45|0.268
91052703|NCT02504671|181989206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.45||||0.147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|5.77||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 4, Physical functioning|||5.77|-0.87|0.147
91052704|NCT02504671|181989206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.87||||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|6.73||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 12, Physical functioning|||6.73|-0.99|0.145
91052705|NCT02504671|181989206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.54||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|8.61||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 12, Physical functioning|||8.61|0.97|0.014
91052706|NCT02504671|181989206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.47||||0.856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.66|5.61||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 24, Physical functioning|||5.61|-4.66|0.856
91052707|NCT02504671|181989206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.65||||0.793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.24|5.55||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 24, Physical functioning|||5.55|-4.24|0.793
91052708|NCT02504671|181989206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.59||||0.778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.51|4.69||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 4, Role emotional|||4.69|-3.51|0.778
91052709|NCT02504671|181989206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|3.5||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 4, Role emotional|||3.50|-4.70|0.773
91052710|NCT02504671|181989206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.08||||0.631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.34|5.49||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 12, Role emotional|||5.49|-3.34|0.631
91052711|NCT02504671|181989206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.68||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|7.07||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 12, Role emotional|||7.07|-1.71|0.230
91052712|NCT02504671|181989206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.41||||0.901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.03|6.84||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 24, Role emotional|||6.84|-6.03|0.901
91052713|NCT02504671|181989206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.52||||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.54|8.59||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 24, Role emotional|||8.59|-3.54|0.412
91052714|NCT02504671|181989206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.88||||0.234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|4.98||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 4, Role physical|||4.98|-1.22|0.234
91052715|NCT02504671|181989206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.66||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|5.77||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 4, Role physical|||5.77|-0.46|0.094
91052716|NCT02504671|181989206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.43||||0.423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.08|4.94||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 12, Role physical|||4.94|-2.08|0.423
91052717|NCT02504671|181989206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.35||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|6.86||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 12, Role physical|||6.86|-0.16|0.061
91052718|NCT02504671|181989206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.21||||0.657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.16|6.57||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 24, Role physical|||6.57|-4.16|0.657
91052719|NCT02504671|181989206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.87||||0.737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.22|5.95||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 24, Role physical|||5.95|-4.22|0.737
91052720|NCT02504671|181989206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.95||||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|7.11||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 4, Social Functioning|||7.11|-1.22|0.165
91052721|NCT02504671|181989206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.4||||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|7.56||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 4, Social Functioning|||7.56|-0.77|0.109
91052722|NCT02504671|181989206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.98||||0.359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|6.21||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 12, Social Functioning|||6.21|-2.26|0.359
91052723|NCT02504671|181989206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.35||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|8.56||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 12, Social Functioning|||8.56|0.14|0.043
91052724|NCT02504671|181989206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.33||||0.923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.15|6.49||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 24, Social Functioning|||6.49|-7.15|0.923
91052725|NCT02504671|181989206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.11|6.7||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, Social Functioning|||6.70|-6.11|0.927
91052726|NCT02504671|181989206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.64||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|8.46||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, Vitality|||8.46|0.82|0.018
91052727|NCT02504671|181989206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.34||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|7.17||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 4, Vitality|||7.17|-0.49|0.087
91052728|NCT02504671|181989206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.64||||0.193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|6.64||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 12, Vitality|||6.64|-1.35|0.193
91052729|NCT02504671|181989206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.97||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|7.95||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 12, Vitality|||7.95|-0.01|0.051
91052730|NCT02504671|181989206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.36||||0.321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.31|10.02||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 24, Vitality|||10.02|-3.31|0.321
91052731|NCT02504671|181989206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.13||||0.328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.18|9.44||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, Vitality|||9.44|-3.18|0.328
91052732|NCT02504671|181989207|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.65||||0.701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.97|2.67||MMRM analysis adjusted for FACIT Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, FACIT score|||2.67|-3.97|0.701
91052733|NCT02504671|181989207|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.5||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.79|4.78||MMRM analysis adjusted for FACIT Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, FACIT score|||4.78|-1.79|0.370
91010733|NCT01000311|181905067|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune seroresponse to pertussis toxin (PT), when DTaP is given concomitantly with MenACWY-CRM, was considered non-inferior to that of DTaP given alone, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than or equal to -10%.|Group difference|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|4.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of seroresponse to pertussis toxin (PT), when DTaP vaccine is given, compared with MenACWY-CRM compared with when DTaP vaccine is given alone||4.3|-12.1|
91010734|NCT01000311|181905067|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune seroresponse to pertussis (FHA antigen), when DTaP is given concomitantly with MenACWY-CRM, was considered non-inferior to that of DTaP given alone, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than or equal to -10%.|Group difference|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|13.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of seroresponse to pertussis FHA antigen, when DTaP vaccine is given with MenACWY-CRM compared with when DTaP vaccine is given alone||13.6|-5.1|
91010735|NCT01000311|181905067|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune seroresponse to pertussis pertactin antigen, when DTaP vaccine is given concomitantly with MenACWY-CRM, was considered non-inferior to that of DTaP given alone, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than or equal to -10%.|Group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|9.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of seroresponse to pertussis pertactin antigen, when DTaP vaccine is given with MenACWY-CRM compared with when DTaP is given alone.||9.1|-8.8|
91010736|NCT01000311|181905067|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune seroresponse to pertussis FIM antigen, when DTaP is given concomitantly with MenACWY-CRM, was considered non-inferior to that of DTaP given alone, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than or equal to -10%.|Group difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|6.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of seroresponse to pertussis FIM antigen, when DTaP vaccine is given with MenACWY-CRM compared with when DTaP vaccine is given alone||6.8|-10.6|
91010737|NCT01000311|181905067|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune seroresponse to hepatitis B, when given concomitantly with MenACWY-CRM, was considered non-inferior to that of hepatitis B vaccine given alone, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than or equal to -10%.|Group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|4.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of seroresponse to hepatitis B antigen, when hepatitis B vaccine is given with MenACWY-CRM compared with when hepatitis B vaccine is given alone.||4.5|-5.2|
91010738|NCT01000311|181905067|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune seroresponse to Hib vaccine, when given concomitantly with MenACWY-CRM, was considered non-inferior to that of Hib vaccine given alone, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than or equal to -10%.|Group difference|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|11.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of seroresponse to Hib antigen, when Hib vaccine is given with MenACWY-CRM compared with when Hib vaccine is given alone.||11.2|0|
91010739|NCT01000311|181905067|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune seroresponse to polio antigen (Type 1), when IPV is given concomitantly with MenACWY-CRM, was considered non-inferior to that of IPV given alone, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than or equal to -5%.|Group difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|5.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of seroresponse to polio antigen (Type 1), when IPV routine is given with MenACWY-CRM, compared with when IPV is given alone||5.4|-3.1|
91010740|NCT01000311|181905067|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune seroresponse to polio antigen (Type 2), when IPV is given concomitantly with MenACWY-CRM, was considered non-inferior to that of IPV given alone, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than or equal to -5%.|Group difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|3.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of seroresponse to polio antigen (Type 2), when IPV routine is given with MenACWY-CRM, compared with when IPV is given alone||3|-1.4|
91010741|NCT01000311|181905067|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune seroresponse to polio antigen (Type 3), when IPV is given concomitantly with MenACWY-CRM, was considered non-inferior to that of IPV given alone, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than or equal to -5%.|Group difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|1.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of seroresponse to polio antigen (Type 3), when IPV routine is given with MenACWY-CRM, compared with when IPV is given alone||1.7|-3.3|
91052734|NCT02504671|181989207|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.55||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|5.81||MMRM analysis adjusted for FACIT Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, FACIT score|||5.81|-0.71|0.125
91010742|NCT01000311|181905067|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune seroresponse to pneumococcal PnC 4 antigen, when PCV is given concomitantly with MenACWY-CRM, was considered non-inferior to that of PCV given alone, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than or equal to -10%.|Group difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|4.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of seroresponse to pneumococcal PnC 4 antigen, when PCV is given with MenACWY-CRM, compared with when PCV is given alone||4.6|-1.9|
91010743|NCT01000311|181905067|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune seroresponse to pneumococcal PnC 6B antigen, when PCV is given concomitantly with MenACWY-CRM, was considered non-inferior to that of PCV given alone, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than or equal to -10%.|Group difference|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|3.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of seroresponse to pneumococcal PnC 6B antigen, when PCV is given with MenACWY-CRM, compared with when PCV is given alone||3.2|-10.3|
91010744|NCT01000311|181905067|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune seroresponse to pneumococcal PnC 9V antigen, when PCV is given concomitantly with MenACWY-CRM, was considered non-inferior to that of PCV given alone, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than or equal to -10%.|Group difference|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|2.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of seroresponse to pneumococcal PnC 9V antigen, when PCV is given with MenACWY-CRM, compared with when PCV is given alone||2.3|-8.7|
91052735|NCT02504671|181989207|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.92||||0.292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|5.5||MMRM analysis adjusted for FACIT Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, FACIT score|||5.50|-1.66|0.292
91052736|NCT02504671|181989207|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.11||||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|6.11||MMRM analysis adjusted for FACIT Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, FACIT sscore|||6.11|-1.04|0.163
91052737|NCT02504671|181989207|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.08||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|6.61||MMRM analysis adjusted for FACIT Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, FACIT score|||6.61|-0.46|0.087
91052738|NCT02504671|181989207|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.76||||0.808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|6.92||MMRM analysis adjusted for FACIT Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, FACIT score|||6.92|-5.40|0.808
91052739|NCT02504671|181989207|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.47||||0.874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.31|5.38||MMRM analysis adjusted for FACIT Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, FACIT score|||5.38|-6.31|0.874
91052740|NCT02504671|181989207|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.81||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.58|4.95||MMRM analysis adjusted for FACIT Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24,FACIT score|||4.95|-6.58|0.780
91052741|NCT02504671|181989207|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.57||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|6.85||MMRM analysis adjusted for FACIT Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, FACIT score|||6.85|0.29|0.033
91052742|NCT02504671|181989207|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.81||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|6.1||MMRM analysis adjusted for FACIT Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, FACIT score|||6.10|-0.48|0.094
91052743|NCT02504671|181989207|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.92||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|7.49||MMRM analysis adjusted for FACIT Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, FACIT score|||7.49|0.34|0.032
91052744|NCT02504671|181989207|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.33||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|8.89||MMRM analysis adjusted for FACIT Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, FACIT score|||8.89|1.77|0.004
91052745|NCT02504671|181989207|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.73||||0.808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.19|6.64||MMRM analysis adjusted for FACIT Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, FACIT score|||6.64|-5.19|0.808
91052746|NCT02504671|181989207|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.87||||0.511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.74|7.48||MMRM analysis adjusted for FACIT Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, FACIT score|||7.48|-3.74|0.511
91052747|NCT02504671|181989208|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07||||0.888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|0.9||MMRM analysis adjusted for BFI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, BFI score|||0.90|-1.04|0.888
91052748|NCT02504671|181989208|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|0.46||MMRM analysis adjusted for BFI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, BFI score|||0.46|-1.46|0.307
91052749|NCT02504671|181989208|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.99||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|-0.04||MMRM analysis adjusted for BFI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, BFI score|||-0.04|-1.95|0.041
91052750|NCT02504671|181989208|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.64||||0.191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.32||MMRM analysis adjusted for BFI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, BFI score|||0.32|-1.60|0.191
91052751|NCT02504671|181989208|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|-0.24||MMRM analysis adjusted for BFI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, BFI score|||-0.24|-2.16|0.014
91052752|NCT02504671|181989208|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.39||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|-0.45||MMRM analysis adjusted for BFI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, BFI score|||-0.45|-2.34|0.004
91052753|NCT02504671|181989208|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.36||||0.656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|1.23||MMRM analysis adjusted for BFI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, BFI score|||1.23|-1.94|0.656
91052754|NCT02504671|181989208|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07||||0.928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|1.57||MMRM analysis adjusted for BFI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, BFI score|||1.57|-1.43|0.928
91052755|NCT02504671|181989208|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|1.28||MMRM analysis adjusted for BFI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, BFI score|||1.28|-1.68|0.788
91052756|NCT02504671|181989208|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.26||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|-0.3||MMRM analysis adjusted for BFI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, BFI score|||-0.30|-2.22|0.010
91052757|NCT02504671|181989208|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.93||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|0.03||MMRM analysis adjusted for BFI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, BFI score|||0.03|-1.89|0.059
91052758|NCT02504671|181989208|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.44||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.48||MMRM analysis adjusted for BFI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, BFI score|||-0.48|-2.40|0.003
91052759|NCT02504671|181989208|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.57||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.53|-0.62||MMRM analysis adjusted for BFI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, BFI score|||-0.62|-2.53|0.001
91052760|NCT02504671|181989208|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.76||||0.324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28|0.76||MMRM analysis adjusted for BFI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, BFI score|||0.76|-2.28|0.324
91052761|NCT02504671|181989208|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.58||||0.432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|0.87||MMRM analysis adjusted for BFI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, BFI score|||0.87|-2.02|0.432
91052762|NCT03222583|181989215|NON_INFERIORITY|The percentage of participants in Arm A with SVR12 was non-inferior to the historical SVR12 rate of 96% if the lower confidence bound (LCB) of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the percentage was \> 90%.|Percentage of Participants with SVR12|97.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|95.5|98.9||||||In order to control the Type I error rate, a fixed sequence testing procedure was used for the 3 ranked primary efficacy endpoints. Only if success had been demonstrated for the first primary endpoint was testing to proceed to the second primary endpoint. Similarly, only if success had been demonstrated for the second primary endpoint was testing to proceed to the third primary endpoint.||98.9|95.5|
91052763|NCT03222583|181989216|NON_INFERIORITY|The percentage of GT1-infected participants in Arm A with SVR12 was non-inferior to the historical SVR12 rate of 97% if the LCB of the 2-sided 95% CI for the percentage was \> 91%.|Percentage of Participants with SVR12|99.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.3|100.0||||||In order to control the Type I error rate, a fixed sequence testing procedure was used for the 3 ranked primary efficacy endpoints. Only if success had been demonstrated for the first primary endpoint was testing to proceed to the second primary endpoint. Similarly, only if success had been demonstrated for the second primary endpoint was testing to proceed to the third primary endpoint.||100.0|98.3|
91052764|NCT03222583|181989217|NON_INFERIORITY|The percentage of GT2-infected participants in Arm A with SVR12 was non-inferior to the historical SVR12 rate of 95% if the LCB of the 2-sided 95% CI for the percentage was \> 89%.|Percentage of Participants with SVR12|97.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|95.4|100.0||||||In order to control the Type I error rate, a fixed sequence testing procedure was used for the 3 ranked primary efficacy endpoints. Only if success had been demonstrated for the first primary endpoint was testing to proceed to the second primary endpoint. Similarly, only if success had been demonstrated for the second primary endpoint was testing to proceed to the third primary endpoint.||100.0|95.4|
91052765|NCT04280705|181989221|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.49|||Log Rank|||||1.49|1.12|<0.001
91052766|NCT04280705|181989245|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.058|||||||Barnard's Exact Test|||||||0.058
91052767|NCT04280705|181989246|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Barnard's Exact Test|||||||0.010
91052768|NCT04280705|181989258|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.23||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.41|||Log Rank|||||1.41|1.08|0.002
91052769|NCT04280705|181989259|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.48|||Log Rank|||||1.48|1.12|<0.001
91052770|NCT04280705|181989260|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.46|||Log Rank|||||1.46|1.10|<0.001
91052771|NCT04280705|181989261|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.58||||||This analysis is for Asian participants||1.58|0.73|
91052772|NCT04280705|181989261|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.72||||||This analysis is for Black or African American participants||1.72|0.91|
91052773|NCT04280705|181989261|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.57||||||This analysis is for White participants||1.57|1.06|
91052774|NCT04280705|181989261|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.58||||||This analysis is for Race of Other participants||2.58|1.10|
91052775|NCT04280705|181989262|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.55||||||This analysis is for Not Hispanic or Latino participants||1.55|1.10|
91052776|NCT04280705|181989262|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.73||||||This analysis is for Hispanic or Latino participants||1.73|0.94|
91052777|NCT04280705|181989263|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.56||||||This analysis is for Male participants||1.56|1.09|
91052778|NCT04280705|181989263|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.66||||||This analysis is for Female participants||1.66|1.03|
91052779|NCT00667810|181989280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.83||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.71|0.05||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparison. The Hochberg approach is used to control for multiplicity between the two dose levels (0.5 mg/kg and 1.0 mg/kg) of bapineuzumab.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline in ADAS-Cog/11 total score was analyzed using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML) based mixed model for repeated-measures (MMRM). The number of participants in each group provided approximately 90% power to detect a 2.65 point advantage at Week 78. This calculation was based on a 2-sided test with alpha set at 0.05, the use of the Hochberg procedure to control for multiplicity.||0.05|-3.71|0.057
91052780|NCT00667810|181989280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19||||0.848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|2.1||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparison. The Hochberg approach is used to control for multiplicity between the two dose levels (0.5 mg/kg and 1.0 mg/kg) of bapineuzumab.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline in ADAS-Cog/11 total score was analyzed using a REML based MMRM. The number of participants in each group provided approximately 90% power to detect a 2.65 point advantage at Week 78. This calculation was based on a 2-sided test with alpha set at 0.05, the use of the Hochberg procedure to control for multiplicity.||2.10|-1.73|0.848
91052781|NCT00667810|181989281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.51||||0.459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|5.49||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparison. The Hochberg approach is used to control for multiplicity between the two dose levels (0.5 mg/kg and 1.0 mg/kg) of bapineuzumab.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline in DAD total score was analyzed using a REML based MMRM. The number of participants in each group provided approximately 90% power to detect a 6.56 point advantage at Week 78. This calculation was based on a 2-sided test with alpha set at 0.05, the use of the Hochberg procedure to control for multiplicity.||5.49|-2.48|0.459
91052782|NCT00667810|181989281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.01||||0.623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.04|5.07||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparison. The Hochberg approach is used to control for multiplicity between the two dose levels (0.5 mg/kg and 1.0 mg/kg) of bapineuzumab.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline in DAD total score was analyzed using a REML based MMRM. The number of participants in each group provided approximately 90% power to detect a 6.56 point advantage at Week 78. This calculation was based on a 2-sided test with alpha set at 0.05, the use of the Hochberg procedure to control for multiplicity.||5.07|-3.04|0.623
91052783|NCT00667810|181989282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The analysis is based on the pooled bapineuzumab (with subjects in the bapineuzumab 0.5 and 1.0 mg/kg groups combined) treatment difference estimated at Week 71. The number of participants gave 90% power to detect a 0.186 unit advantage for a bapineuzumab dose group over placebo for PiB PET binding at Week 71. The calculations were based on 2-sided tests with alpha set at 0.05 and the use of the Hochberg procedure to control for multiplicity for 2 individual doses.||0.09|-0.15|0.654
91052784|NCT00667810|181989283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.18||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.38|1.02|||ANCOVA|||The analysis is based on the pooled bapineuzumab (with subjects in the bapineuzumab 0.5 and 1.0 mg/kg groups combined) treatment difference estimated at Week 71. The number of participants gave 90% power to detect a 15 ng/L advantage in p-tau for a bapineuzumab dose group over placebo at Week 71. The calculations were based on 2-sided tests with alpha set at 0.05 and the use of the Hochberg procedure to control for multiplicity for 2 individual doses.||1.02|-15.38|0.085
91052785|NCT00667810|181989284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.01||||0.437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|3.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in MRI BBSI was analyzed using a REML based MMRM. The number of participants gave 90% power to detect a 5.05-cm3 advantage for a bapineuzumab dose group over placebo on reduction in brain volume as measured by the BBSI at Week 71. The calculations were based on 2-sided tests with alpha set at 0.05 and the use of the Hochberg procedure to control for multiplicity for 2 individual doses.||3.57|-1.55|0.437
91052786|NCT00667810|181989284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.06||||0.423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|3.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in MRI BBSI was analyzed using a REML based MMRM. The number of participants gave 90% power to detect a 5.05-cm3 advantage for a bapineuzumab dose group over placebo on reduction in brain volume as measured by the BBSI at Week 71. The calculations were based on 2-sided tests with alpha set at 0.05 and the use of the Hochberg procedure to control for multiplicity for 2 individual doses.||3.66|-1.54|0.423
91052787|NCT00667810|181989285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.32||||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|0.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.76|-3.40|0.212
91052788|NCT00667810|181989285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38||||0.725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|2.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.52|-1.76|0.725
91052789|NCT00667810|181989286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.2||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|7.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.56|-1.15|0.149
91052790|NCT00667810|181989286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.01||||0.375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|6.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.46|-2.44|0.375
91052791|NCT00667810|181989287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|||||Not specifed.|Log Rank|||||||0.030
91052792|NCT00667810|181989287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.567|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.567
91052793|NCT00667810|181989288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.079|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.079
91052794|NCT00667810|181989288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.675|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.675
91052795|NCT00667810|181989289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.846|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Not spsecified.||||0.846
91052796|NCT00667810|181989289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.797|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.797
91052797|NCT00667810|181989290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.933|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.933
91052798|NCT00667810|181989290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.714|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.714
91052799|NCT00667810|181989292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.277|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.277
91052800|NCT00667810|181989292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.996|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.996
91052801|NCT00667810|181989294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.855|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.855
91052802|NCT00667810|181989294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.423|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.423
91052803|NCT00667810|181989295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16||||0.516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in DS score was analyzed using a REML based MMRM.||0.33|-0.65|0.516
91052804|NCT00667810|181989295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29||||0.257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in DS score was analyzed using a REML based MMRM.||0.21|-0.79|0.257
91052805|NCT00667810|181989296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36||||0.238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in CDR-SOB total score was analyzed using a REML based MMRM.||0.24|-0.96|0.238
91052806|NCT00667810|181989296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in CDR-SOB total score was analyzed using a REML based MMRM.||0.43|-0.78|0.564
91052807|NCT04796779|181989314|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Direct likelihood model|The model was adjusted for the baseline value of the metric, age, prior CGM and pump use, and site as a random effect.||||||<0.001
91052808|NCT04796779|181989315|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||To preserve the overall type I error for the multiple secondary outcomes, a hierarchical gatekeeping approach was used.|Robust regression using M-estimation|The model was adjusted for baseline value of the metric, age, prior CGM and pump use, and site as a fixed effect.||||||<0.001
91052809|NCT04796779|181989316|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||To preserve the overall type I error for the multiple secondary outcomes, a hierarchical gatekeeping approach was used.|Direct likelihood model|The model was adjusted for the baseline value of the metric, age, prior CGM and pump use, and site as a random effect.||||||<0.001
91052810|NCT04796779|181989317|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||To preserve the overall type I error for the multiple secondary outcomes, a hierarchical gatekeeping approach was used.|Direct likelihood model|The model was adjusted for the baseline value of the metric, age, prior CGM and pump use, and site as a random effect.||||||<0.001
91052811|NCT04796779|181989318|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57||||||To preserve the overall type I error for the multiple secondary outcomes, a hierarchical gatekeeping approach was used.|Robust regression using M-estimation|The model was adjusted for the baseline value of the metric, age, prior CGM and pump use, and site as a fixed effect.||||||0.57
91052812|NCT00158600|181989367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|28.12||||0.0347||95.0|2.07|54.17||The threshold for determining statistical significance is 0.05. A fixed testing sequence procedure was used to preserve an overall error rate of 5% for the co-primary efficacy endpoints by linking the test of FVC to the result of 6MWT.|ANCOVA|||The difference between alglucosidase alfa and placebo treatment groups in change in distance walked from baseline to last observation was estimated by ANCOVA after adjusting for baseline value and randomization strata.||54.17|2.07|0.0347
91052813|NCT00158600|181989368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|3.4||||0.0055||95.0|1.03|5.77||The threshold for determining statistical significance is 0.05. A fixed testing sequence procedure was used to preserve an overall error rate of 5% for the co-primary efficacy endpoints by linking the test of FVC to the result of 6MWT.|ANCOVA|||The difference between alglucosidase alfa and placebo treatment groups in change in % predicted FVC from baseline to last observation was estimated by ANCOVA after adjusting for baseline value and randomization strata.||5.77|1.03|0.0055
91052814|NCT00158600|181989369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|3.18||||0.1093||95.0|-0.73|7.08||The threshold for determining statistical significance is 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparison was made for secondary efficacy endpoints.|ANCOVA|||The difference between alglucosidase alfa and placebo treatment groups in change in QMT from baseline to last observation was estimated by ANCOVA after adjusting for baseline value and randomization strata.||7.08|-0.73|0.1093
91052815|NCT00158600|181989370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-0.37||||0.8333||95.0|-3.83|3.09||The threshold for determining statistical significance is 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparison was made for secondary efficacy endpoints.|ANCOVA|||The difference between alglucosidase alfa and placebo treatment groups in change in PCS from baseline to last observation was estimated by ANCOVA after adjusting for baseline value and randomization strata.||3.09|-3.83|0.8333
91052816|NCT02618408|181989438|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-7.08||||0.0916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.38|1.22|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.22|-15.38|0.0916
91052817|NCT02618408|181989438|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-1.76||||0.7136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.78|8.27|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Based on the results of a prespecified interim analysis, the enrollment of the low dose SPN-810 arm was halted, and this treatment arm was dropped. Accordingly, all analysis of primary and secondary endpoints focused on the comparison of SPN-810 high dose and placebo||8.27|-11.78|0.7136
91010745|NCT01000311|181905067|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune seroresponse to pneumococcal PnC 14 antigen, when PCV is given concomitantly with MenACWY-CRM, was considered non-inferior to that of PCV given alone, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than or equal to -10%.|Group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|3.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of seroresponse to pneumococcal PnC 14 antigen, when PCV is given with MenACWY-CRM, compared with when PCV is given alone||3.0|-2.8|
91010746|NCT01000311|181905067|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune seroresponse to pneumococcal PnC 18C antigen, when PCV is given concomitantly with MenACWY-CRM, was considered non-inferior to that of PCV given alone, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than or equal to -10%.|Group difference|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|1.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of seroresponse to pneumococcal PnC 18C antigen, when PCV is given with MenACWY-CRM, compared with when PCV is given alone||1.6|-7.3|
91010747|NCT01000311|181905067|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune seroresponse to pneumococcal PnC 19F antigen, when PCV is given concomitantly with MenACWY-CRM, was considered non-inferior to that of PCV given alone, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than or equal to -10%.|Group difference|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|7.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of seroresponse to pneumococcal PnC 19F antigen, when PCV is given with MenACWY-CRM, compared with when PCV is given alone||7.1|1.3|
91010748|NCT01000311|181905067|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune seroresponse to pneumococcal PnC 23F antigen, when PCV is given concomitantly with MenACWY-CRM, was considered non-inferior to that of PCV given alone, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than or equal to -10%.|Group difference|-5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|0.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of seroresponse to pneumococcal PnC 23F antigen, when PCV is given with MenACWY-CRM, compared with when PCV is given alone||0.5|-11.4|
91010749|NCT01000311|181905068|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response measured as GMC of antibodies to pertussis toxin (PT), when DTaP is given concomitantly with MenACWY-CRM, was considered non-inferior to that of DTaP given alone, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMCs (GMC of MenACWY-CRM + Routine Vaccines group divided by GMC of Routine Vaccines group) was greater than 0.67.|GMCs ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.28|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of GMC of antibodies to pertussis toxin (PT), when DTaP is given with MenACWY-CRM compared with when DTap is given alone||1.28|0.81|
91052818|NCT02618408|181989439|SUPERIORITY|This analysis pertains to Visit 4|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.108||0.0238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.03|-0.46|0.0238
91052819|NCT02618408|181989439|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.123||0.0683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis pertains to Visit 5||0.02|-0.47|0.0683
91010750|NCT01000311|181905068|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response measured as GMC of antibodies to pertussis FHA antigen, when DTaP is given concomitantly with MenACWY-CRM, was considered non-inferior to that of DTaP given alone, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMCs (GMC of MenACWY-CRM + Routine Vaccines group divided by GMC of Routine Vaccines group) was greater than 0.67.|GMCs ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.19|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of GMC of antibodies to pertussis FHA antigen, when DTaP is given with MenACWY-CRM compared with when DTaP is given alone||1.19|0.9|
91010751|NCT01000311|181905068|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response measured as GMC of antibodies to pertussis pertactin antigen, when DTaP is given concomitantly with MenACWY-CRM, was considered non-inferior to that of DTaP given alone, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMCs (GMC of MenACWY-CRM + Routine Vaccines group divided by GMC of Routine Vaccines group) was greater than 0.67.|GMCs ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.28|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of GMC of antibodies to pertussis pertactin antigen, when DTaP is given with MenACWY-CRM compared with when DTaP is given alone||1.28|0.84|
91010752|NCT01000311|181905068|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response measured as GMC of antibodies to pertussis FIM antigen, when DTaP is given concomitantly with MenACWY-CRM, was considered non-inferior to that of DTaP given alone, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMCs (GMC of MenACWY-CRM + Routine Vaccines group divided by GMC of Routine Vaccines group) was greater than 0.67.|GMCs ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.35|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of GMC of antibodies to pertussis FIM antigen, when DTaP is given with MenACWY-CRM compared with when DTaP is given alone||1.35|0.88|
91010753|NCT01000311|181905069|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response as GMC of antibodies to pneumococcal PnC 4 antigen, when PCV is given concomitantly with MenACWY-CRM, was considered non-inferior to that of PCV given alone, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMCs (GMC of MenACWY-CRM + Prevnar group divided by GMC of Prevnar group) was greater than 0.50.|GMCs ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.19|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of GMC of antibodies to pneumococcal PnC 4 antigen when PCV is given with MenACWY-CRM compared with when PCV is given alone||1.19|0.8|
91010754|NCT01000311|181905069|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response as GMC of antibodies to pneumococcal PnC 6B antigen, when PCV is given concomitantly with MenACWY-CRM, was considered non-inferior to that of PCV given alone, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMCs (GMC of MenACWY-CRM + Prevnar group divided by GMC of Prevnar group) was greater than 0.50.|GMCs ratio|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.93|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of GMC of antibodies to pneumococcal PnC 6B antigen when PCV is given with MenACWY-CRM compared with when PCV is given alone||0.93|0.62|
91052820|NCT02618408|181989439|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136||0.0742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis pertains to Visit 6||0.02|-0.51|0.0742
91010755|NCT01000311|181905069|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response as GMC of antibodies to pneumococcal PnC 9V antigen, when PCV is given concomitantly with MenACWY-CRM, was considered non-inferior to that of PCV given alone, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMCs (GMC of MenACWY-CRM + Prevnar group divided by GMC of Prevnar group) was greater than 0.50.|GMCs ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.06|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of GMC of antibodies to pneumococcal PnC 9V antigen when PCV is given with MenACWY-CRM compared with when PCV is given alone||1.06|0.72|
91010756|NCT01000311|181905069|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response as GMC of antibodies to pneumococcal PnC 14 antigen, when PCV is given concomitantly with MenACWY-CRM, was considered non-inferior to that of PCV given alone, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMCs (GMC of MenACWY-CRM + Prevnar group divided by GMC of Prevnar group) was greater than 0.50.|GMCs ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.28|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of GMC of antibodies to pneumococcal PnC 14 antigen when PCV is given with MenACWY-CRM compared with when PCV is given alone||1.28|0.84|
91010757|NCT01000311|181905069|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response as GMC of antibodies to pneumococcal PnC 18C antigen, when PCV is given concomitantly with MenACWY-CRM, was considered non-inferior to that of PCV given alone, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMCs (GMC of MenACWY-CRM + Prevnar group divided by GMC of Prevnar group) was greater than 0.50.|GMCs ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.2|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of GMC of antibodies to pneumococcal PnC 18C antigen when PCV is given with MenACWY-CRM compared with when PCV is given alone||1.2|0.82|
91010758|NCT01000311|181905069|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response as GMC of antibodies to pneumococcal PnC 19F antigen, when PCV is given concomitantly with MenACWY-CRM, was considered non-inferior to that of PCV given alone, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMCs (GMC of MenACWY-CRM + Prevnar group divided by GMC of Prevnar group) was greater than 0.50.|GMCs ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.07|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of GMC of antibodies to pneumococcal PnC 19F antigen when PCV is given with MenACWY-CRM compared with when PCV is given alone||1.07|0.73|
91010759|NCT01000311|181905069|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response as GMC of antibodies to pneumococcal PnC 23F antigen, when PCV is given concomitantly with MenACWY-CRM, was considered non-inferior to that of PCV given alone, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMCs (GMC of MenACWY-CRM + Prevnar group divided by GMC of Prevnar group) was greater than 0.50.|GMCs ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.04|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of GMC of antibodies to pneumococcal PnC 23F antigen when PCV is given with MenACWY-CRM compared with when PCV is given alone||1.04|0.68|
91010760|NCT00819052|181905075|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of nevirapine XR to nevirapine IR was established if the lower bound of the confidence interval was greater than -12%|Cochran's statistic|1.0||||||95.0|-4.3|6.2|||Cochran's statistic||Weighted treatment difference and corresponding variance were calculated based on Cochran's statistic.|||6.2|-4.3|
91010761|NCT00819052|181905088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.64||||0.7587||95.0|-34.34|25.05|||ANCOVA|Means adjusted for background ARV (Antiretroviral) stratum||||25.05|-34.34|0.7587
91010762|NCT00362297|181905118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incident Risk Ratio|0.79||||0.052||95.0|0.63|1.0|||Regression, Poisson|Adjusted for period effects.||Comparison of genital HSV shedding rate on high dose acyclovir to standard dose valacyclovir. Powered with 80% chance of detecting 50% reduction in genital shedding rate on high dose acyclovir compared to standard dose valacyclovir.||1.00|0.63|0.052
91010763|NCT00982111|181905130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.9561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.21|||Log Rank|||||1.21|0.84|0.9561
91010764|NCT00982111|181905131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.6647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.16|||Log Rank|||||1.16|0.80|0.6647
91010765|NCT00982111|181905132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.7945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.34|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.34|0.68|0.7945
91010766|NCT00982111|181905133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18||||0.0459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.39|||Log Rank|||||1.39|1.00|0.0459
91010767|NCT03091920|181905175|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.2|12.4|||||LS mean difference and associated 95% confidence interval (CI) is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate. Standard Error of the Mean=Standard Error of the LS Mean Difference.|Day 1 postdose AM 1 hour||12.4|-14.2|
91010768|NCT03091920|181905175|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|12.9|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1 postdose AM 1 hour||12.9|-11.8|
91010769|NCT03091920|181905175|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-13.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.6|2.8|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1 postdose AM 4 hour||2.8|-30.6|
91010770|NCT03091920|181905175|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-15.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.0|0.0|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1 postdose AM 4 hour||0|-31.0|
91010771|NCT03091920|181905175|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-9.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.8|3.9|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1 postdose AM 8 hour||3.9|-23.8|
90890243|NCT00844857|181644827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value for Fasting Cholesterol. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. ANCOVA Model terms included baseline and treatment|ANCOVA|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there was no difference in mean changes from baseline to up to Week 8 between OFC and placebo.||||<0.001
91010772|NCT03091920|181905175|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|9.7|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1 postdose AM 8 hour||9.7|-16.0|
91010773|NCT03091920|181905175|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-8.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.2|8.6|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1 predose PM||8.6|-26.2|
90890244|NCT00844857|181644827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value for Fasting Triglycerides. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. ANCOVA Model terms included baseline and treatment.|ANCOVA|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there was no difference in mean changes from baseline to up to Week 8 between OFC and placebo.||||<0.001
91010774|NCT03091920|181905175|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|12.6|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1 predose PM||12.6|-19.7|
91010775|NCT03091920|181905175|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.7|12.2||||||Day 1 postdose PM 1 hour||12.2|-18.7|
91010776|NCT03091920|181905175|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.7|9.9|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1 postdose PM||9.9|-18.7|
91010777|NCT03091920|181905175|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-8.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.2|1.3|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 2 predose AM||1.3|-18.2|
91010778|NCT03091920|181905175|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|3.3|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 2 predose AM||3.3|-14.8|
91010779|NCT03091920|181905175|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-15.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.1|-2.8|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 2 postdose AM 1 hour||-2.8|-28.1|
91010780|NCT03091920|181905175|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-9.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.1|2.3|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 2 postdose AM 1 hour||2.3|-21.1|
91010781|NCT03091920|181905175|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-8.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.6|7.9|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 2 postdose AM 4 hour||7.9|-25.6|
91010782|NCT03091920|181905175|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-11.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.7|4.4|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 2 postdose AM 4 hour||4.4|-26.7|
91010783|NCT03091920|181905175|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-11.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.0|0.6|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 2 predose PM||0.6|-24.0|
91010784|NCT03091920|181905175|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.4|4.4|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 2 predose PM||4.4|-18.4|
91010785|NCT03091920|181905175|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|16.2|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 2 postdose PM 1 hour||16.2|-13.0|
91010786|NCT03091920|181905175|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|14.2|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 2 postdose PM 1 hour||14.2|-12.9|
91010787|NCT03091920|181905175|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|7.1|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 2 postdose PM 4 hour||7.1|-16.4|
91052821|NCT02618408|181989440|SUPERIORITY|This analysis pertains to Visit 4|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.105||0.3713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.11|-0.30|0.3713
91052822|NCT02618408|181989440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.131||0.1367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis pertains to Visit 5||0.06|-0.45|0.1367
90890245|NCT00844857|181644828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. ANCOVA Model terms included baseline and treatment.|ANCOVA|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there was no difference in mean changes from baseline to up to Week 8 between OFC and placebo.||||0.005
91010788|NCT03091920|181905175|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|7.9|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 2 postdose PM 4 hour||7.9|-13.9|
91010789|NCT03091920|181905175|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.8|6.4|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 3 predose AM||6.4|-15.8|
91010790|NCT03091920|181905175|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|4.5|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 3 predose AM||4.5|-16.0|
91010791|NCT03091920|181905175|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|13.1|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 3 postdose PM 4 hour||13.1|-13.6|
91010792|NCT03091920|181905175|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|9.6|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 3 postdose PM 4 hour||9.6|-15.2|
91010793|NCT03091920|181905175|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-6.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5|3.0|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 4 predose AM||3.0|-15.5|
91010794|NCT03091920|181905175|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-8.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|0.5|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 4 predose AM||0.5|-16.6|
91010795|NCT03091920|181905175|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|8.4|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 5 predose AM||8.4|-11.8|
91010796|NCT03091920|181905175|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-10.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|-0.7|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 5 predose AM||-0.7|-19.4|
91010797|NCT03091920|181905175|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.1|4.7|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 6 predose AM||4.7|-18.1|
91010798|NCT03091920|181905175|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|6.3|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 6 predose AM||6.3|-14.8|
91052823|NCT02618408|181989440|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.146||0.1729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis pertains to Visit 6||0.09|-0.49|0.1729
91010799|NCT03091920|181905175|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|14.1|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7 predose AM||14.1|-12.2|
91052824|NCT02618408|181989441|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.456||0.1407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|5.02|||ANCOVA|||This analysis pertains to the physical functioning summary score at Visit 6.||5.02|-0.72|0.1407
91010800|NCT03091920|181905175|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|8.4|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7 predose AM||8.4|-16.0|
91010801|NCT03091920|181905175|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.1|9.1|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7 postdose AM 1 hour||9.1|-15.1|
91010802|NCT03091920|181905175|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6|4.8|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7 postdose AM 1 hour||4.8|-17.6|
91010803|NCT03091920|181905175|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-9.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.7|3.7|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7 postdose AM 4 hour||3.7|-22.7|
91010804|NCT03091920|181905175|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-17.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.5|-5.0|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7 postdose AM 4 hour||-5.0|-29.5|
91010805|NCT03091920|181905175|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-11.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.4|1.1|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 8 predose AM||1.1|-24.4|
91010806|NCT03091920|181905175|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-8.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.2|3.5|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 8 predose AM||3.5|-20.2|
91010807|NCT03091920|181905175|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-13.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.1|1.4|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 8 postdose AM 1 hour||1.4|-28.1|
91010808|NCT03091920|181905175|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-10.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.0|3.3|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 8 postdose AM 1 hour||3.3|-24.0|
91052825|NCT02618408|181989441|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.898||0.5586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|1.24|||ANCOVA|||This analysis pertains to the psychosocial health summary score at Visit 6||1.24|-2.29|0.5586
91010809|NCT03091920|181905175|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-10.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.0|6.9|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 8 postdose AM 4 hour||6.9|-27.0|
91052826|NCT02618408|181989442|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.07||0.7637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|3.45|||ANCOVA|||This analysis pertains to the Total Stress summary score Visit 6.||3.45|-4.70|0.7637
90792491|NCT02732145|181466150|OTHER|"Question: Determination of sensitivity of the Vulvoscopy Index as a measure of the sensitivity of Three Rings Vulvoscopy in comparison to the histopathological diagnosis of vulvar dermatosis."|Sensitivity (2x2 Table)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.0|||||"The Sensitivity of the Vulvoscopy Index for Detection of Vulvar Dermatosis was 1.000 (Range: 1.0000 - 1.0000)."|"Parameter: Sensitivity of Three Rings Vulvoscopy for detection of vulvar dermatosis."||1.0000|1.0000|
90792492|NCT02732145|181466150|OTHER|"Question: Determination of specificity of the Vulvoscopy index as a measure of the specificity of Three Rings Vulvoscopy in comparison to the histopathological diagnosis of vulvar dermatosis."|Specificity (2x2 Table)|0.9609|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5794|1.0|||||"The Specificity of the Vulvoscopy Index for Detection of Vulvar Dermatosis was 0.9609 (Range: 0.5794 - 1.0000)"|"Parameter: Specificity of Three Rings Vulvoscopy for detection of vulvar dermatosis."||1.0000|0.5794|
90792493|NCT02732145|181466150|OTHER|"Question: Determination of diagnostic accuracy of the Vulvoscopy index as a measure of the diagnostic value of Three Rings Vulvoscopy in comparison to the histopathological diagnosis of vulvar dermatosis."|Diagnostic Accuracy (2x2 Table)|0.9695|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6313|1.0|||||"The Diagnostic accuracy of the Vulvoscopy Index for Detection of Vulvar Dermatosis was 0.9695 (Range: 0.6313 - 1.0000)"|"Parameter: Diagnostic accuracy of Three Rings Vulvoscopy for detection of vulvar dermatosis."||1.0000|0.6313|
90792494|NCT02732145|181466150|SUPERIORITY|"Question: Determination of positive predictive value of the Vulvoscopy index for detection of vulvar dermatosis in comparison to the histopathology results."|PPV (2x2 Table)|0.878|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.227|1.0|||||"Positive predictive value of the Vulvoscopy Index for Detection of Vulvar Dermatosis was 0.8780 (Range: 0.2270 - 1.0000)."|"Parameter: Positive predictive value of Three Rings Vulvoscopy for detection of vulvar dermatosis."||1.0000|0.2270|
90792495|NCT02732145|181466150|OTHER|"Question: Determination of negative predictive value of the Vulvoscopy index for detection of vulvar dermatosis in comparison to the histopathology results."|NPV (2x2 Table)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.0|||||"Negative predictive value of the Vulvoscopy Index for Detection of Vulvar Dermatosis was 1.0000 (Range: 1.0000 - 1.0000)."|"Parameter: Negative predictive value of Three Rings Vulvoscopy for detection of vulvar dermatosis."||1.0000|1.0000|
90792496|NCT02732145|181466150|SUPERIORITY|"Question: Is there a difference in the diagnostic accuracy of the Vulvoscopy Index as an outcome measure of the diagnostic value of Three Rings Vulvoscopy, and histopathology?"||||||0.6108|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the diagnostic accuracy between TRIV using the Vulvoscopy Index and histopathology for detection of vulvar dermatosis."||||0.6108
90792497|NCT02732145|181466151|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of vulvar complaints among the patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||1|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of vulvar complaints in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||1.0000
90792498|NCT02732145|181466151|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of positive Marinoff Index among the patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||0.9628|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of positive Marinoff Index in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||0.9628
90792499|NCT02732145|181466151|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of the positive Cotton-Swab test among the patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||0.9152|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of the positive Cotton-Swab test in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||0.9152
90792500|NCT02732145|181466151|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of any lesion in any vulvar ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||1|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of any lesion in any vulvar ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||1.0000
90792501|NCT02732145|181466151|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of any vulvar lesion of the Outer Vulvar Ring among the patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed with vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||0.8862|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of any vulvar lesion of the Outer Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||0.8862
90792502|NCT02732145|181466151|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of any vulvar lesion of the Middle Vulvar Ring among the patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||1|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of any vulvar lesion of the Middle Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||1.0000
90792503|NCT02732145|181466151|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of any vulvar lesion of the Inner Vulvar Ring among the patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||0.3319|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of any vulvar lesion of the Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||0.3319
90792504|NCT02732145|181466151|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of non-specific vulvar lesions among the patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||0.8662|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of non-specific vulvar lesions in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||0.8662
90792505|NCT02732145|181466151|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of specific vulvar lesions among the patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||1|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of vulvar lesions specific for dermatosis in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||1.0000
90792506|NCT02732145|181466152|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of vulvar complaints among the patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||0.5399|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of vulvar complaints in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||0.5399
90792507|NCT02732145|181466152|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of positive Marinoff Index among the patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||0.9248|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of positive Marinoff Index in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||0.9248
90792508|NCT02732145|181466152|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of the positive Cotton-Swab test among the patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||0.9839|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of the positive Cotton-Swab test in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||0.9839
91052827|NCT02618408|181989442|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.895||0.8365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|1.58|||ANCOVA|||This analysis pertains to the Parental Distress Domain score at Visit 6.||1.58|-1.95|0.8365
91052828|NCT02618408|181989442|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.829||0.4606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.24|1.02|||ANCOVA|||This analysis pertains to the Parent-Child Dysfunctional Interaction score at Visit 6.||1.02|-2.24|0.4606
91052829|NCT02618408|181989442|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.837||0.8222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|1.46|||ANCOVA|||This analysis pertains to the Difficult Child Domain score Visit 6.||1.46|-1.84|0.8222
91052830|NCT02618408|181989443|SUPERIORITY|This analysis pertains to Visit 4|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121||0.1031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.04|-0.43|0.1031
91052831|NCT02618408|181989443|SUPERIORITY|This analysis pertains to Visit 5|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.132||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.04|-0.56|0.0250
90792509|NCT02732145|181466152|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of any lesion in any vulvar ring among the patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||0.7537|||||||t|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of any lesion in any vulvar ring in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||0.7537
90792510|NCT02732145|181466152|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of any vulvar lesion of the Outer Vulvar Ring among the patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||0.2054|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of any vulvar lesion of the Outer Vulvar Ring in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||0.2054
90792511|NCT02732145|181466152|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of any vulvar lesion of the Middle Vulvar Ring among the patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||0.6409|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of any vulvar lesion of the Middle Vulvar Ring in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||0.6409
90792512|NCT02732145|181466152|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of any vulvar lesion of the Inner Vulvar Ring among the patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||0.9753|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of any vulvar lesion of the Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||0.9753
90792513|NCT02732145|181466152|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of non-specific vulvar lesions among the patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||0.8986|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of non-specific vulvar lesions in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||0.8986
90792514|NCT02732145|181466152|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of specific vulvar lesions among the patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology (first biopsy)?||||||0.0017|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of vulvar lesions specific for dermatosis in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology (first biopsy).||||0.0017
90792515|NCT02732145|181466153|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the score for vulvar complaints (mean) among the patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Parameter: The difference in the score for vulvar complaints (mean) in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||1.0000
90792516|NCT02732145|181466153|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the score for Marinoff Index (mean) among patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||0.9899|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Parameter: The difference in the score for Marinoff Index (mean) in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||0.9899
90792517|NCT02732145|181466153|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the score for the Cotton-Swab test (mean) among the patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||0.9686|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Parameter: The difference in the score for the Cotton-Swab test (mean) in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||0.9686
90792518|NCT02732145|181466153|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the score for any lesion in any vulvar ring (mean) among the patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||0.7055|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Parameter: The difference in the score for any lesion in any vulvar ring (mean) in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||0.7055
90792519|NCT02732145|181466153|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the score for any vulvar lesion of the Outer Vulvar Ring (mean) among the patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||0.8852|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Parameter: The difference in the score for any vulvar lesion of the Outer Vulvar Ring (mean) in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||0.8852
90792520|NCT02732145|181466153|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the score for any vulvar lesion of the Middle Vulvar Ring (mean) among the patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Parameter: The difference in the score for any vulvar lesion of the Middle Vulvar Ring (mean) in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||1.0000
91052832|NCT02618408|181989443|SUPERIORITY|This analysis pertains to Visit 6|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.158||0.0384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.02|-0.64|0.0384
91052833|NCT02618408|181989444|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.084||0.1935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.06|||ANCOVA|||This analysis pertains to the inattention subscale at Visit 6.||0.06|-0.27|0.1935
91052834|NCT02618408|181989444|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.092||0.1445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.05|||ANCOVA|||This analysis pertains to hyperactivity/Impulsivity subscale at Visit 6||0.05|-0.32|0.1445
91052835|NCT02618408|181989444|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.1064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.03|||ANCOVA|||This analysis pertains to the oppositional defiant disorder subscale at Visit 6||0.03|-0.36|0.1064
91052836|NCT02618408|181989444|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.082||0.1418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.04|||ANCOVA|||This analysis pertains to the combined scale score at Visit 6||0.04|-0.28|0.1418
91052837|NCT04870138|181989445|OTHER|||||||1||||||One-sided Fisher's Exact Test with alpha = 0.05|Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
91052838|NCT04870138|181989447|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|One-sided single sample t-test with alpha=0.05||Null hypothesis: The proportion of the strain in the inoculum = 0.5||||<0.0001
90792521|NCT02732145|181466153|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the score for any vulvar lesion of the Inner Vulvar Ring (mean) among the patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||0.3351|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Parameter: The difference in the score for any vulvar lesion of the Inner Vulvar Ring (mean) in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||0.3351
90792522|NCT02732145|181466153|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the score for the specificity of vulvar lesions (mean) among the patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||0.8673|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Parameter: The difference in the score for the specificity of vulvar lesions (mean) in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||0.8673
90792523|NCT02732145|181466153|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the score for non-specific vulvar lesions (mean) among the patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||0.8673|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Parameter: The difference in the score for non-specific vulvar lesions (mean) in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||0.8673
90792524|NCT02732145|181466153|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the score for specific vulvar lesions (mean) among the patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Parameter: The difference in the score for specific vulvar lesions (mean) with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||1.0000
90792525|NCT02732145|181466153|EQUIVALENCE|"Question: Is there a difference in the overall sum of points for the Vulvoscopy Index (mean) among the patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?"||||||0.8472|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Parameter: The difference in the overall sum of points for the Vulvoscopy Index (mean) in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology."||||0.8472
90792526|NCT02732145|181466155|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the score for vulvar complaints (median) among the patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Parameter: The difference in the score for vulvar complaints (median) in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||1.0000
90792527|NCT02732145|181466155|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the score for Marinoff Index (median) among the patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||0.9629|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Parameter: The difference in the score for Marinoff Index (median) in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||0.9629
90792528|NCT02732145|181466155|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the score for the Cotton-Swab test (median) among the patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||0.9155|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Parameter: The difference in the score for the Cotton-Swab test (median) in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||0.9155
90792529|NCT02732145|181466155|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the score for any lesion in any vulvar ring (median) among the patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||0.4913|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Parameter: The difference in the score for any lesion in any vulvar ring (median) in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||0.4913
90792530|NCT02732145|181466155|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the score for any vulvar lesion of the Outer Vulvar Ring (median) among the patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||0.8866|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Parameter: The difference in the score for any vulvar lesion of the Outer Vulvar Ring (median) in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||0.8866
90792531|NCT02732145|181466155|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the score for any vulvar lesion of the Middle Vulvar Ring (median) among the patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Parameter: The difference in the score for any vulvar lesion of the Middle Vulvar Ring (median) in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||1.0000
90792532|NCT02732145|181466155|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the score for any vulvar lesion of the Inner Vulvar Ring (median) among the patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||0.3335|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Parameter: The difference in the score for any vulvar lesion of the Inner Vulvar Ring (median) in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||0.3335
90792533|NCT02732145|181466155|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the score for the specificity of vulvar lesions (median) among the patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||0.8666|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Parameter: The difference in the score for the specificity of vulvar lesions (median) in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||0.8666
90792534|NCT02732145|181466155|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the score for non-specific vulvar lesions (median) among the patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||0.8666|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Parameter: The difference in the score for non-specific vulvar lesions (median) in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||0.8666
91010810|NCT03091920|181905175|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.4|11.1|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 8 postdose AM 4 hour||11.1|-20.4|
91010811|NCT03091920|181905175|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.5|11.0|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 8 predose PM||11.0|-19.5|
91010812|NCT03091920|181905175|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|12.8|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 8 predose PM||12.8|-15.4|
91010813|NCT03091920|181905175|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-12.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.0|-2.5|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 9 predose AM||-2.5|-23.0|
90792535|NCT02732145|181466155|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the score for specific vulvar lesions (median) among the patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Parameter: The difference in the score for specific vulvar lesions (median) with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||1.0000
90792536|NCT02732145|181466155|EQUIVALENCE|"Question: Is there a difference in the overall sum of points for the Vulvoscopy Index (median) among the patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?"||||||0.8144|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Parameter: The difference in the overall sum of points for the Vulvoscopy Index (median) in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology."||||0.8144
90792537|NCT02732145|181466156|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the score for vulvar complaints in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||0.5403|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Parameter: The difference in the score for vulvar complaints (median) in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||0.5403
90792538|NCT02732145|181466156|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the score for Marinoff Index in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||0.9248|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Parameter: The difference in the score for Marinoff Index (median) in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||0.9248
90792539|NCT02732145|181466156|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the score for the Cotton-Swab test in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||0.9839|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Parameter: The difference in the score for the Cotton-Swab test (median) in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||0.9839
90792540|NCT02732145|181466156|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the score for any lesion in any vulvar ring (median) in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||0.5124|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Parameter: The difference in the score for any lesion in any vulvar ring (median) in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||0.5124
90792541|NCT02732145|181466156|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the score for any vulvar lesion of the Outer Vulvar Ring in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||0.2058|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Parameter: The difference in the score for any vulvar lesion of the Outer Vulvar Ring (median) in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||0.2058
90792542|NCT02732145|181466156|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the score for any vulvar lesion of the Middle Vulvar Ring in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||0.6412|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Parameter: The difference in the score for any vulvar lesion of the Middle Vulvar Ring (median) in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||0.6412
90792543|NCT02732145|181466156|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the score for any vulvar lesion of the Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||0.9753|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Parameter: The difference in the score for any vulvar lesion of the Inner Vulvar Ring (median) in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||0.9753
90792544|NCT02732145|181466156|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the score for the specificity of vulvar lesions in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||0.3621|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Parameter: The difference in the score for the specificity of vulvar lesions (median) in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||0.3621
90792545|NCT02732145|181466156|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the score for non-specific vulvar lesions in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||0.8987|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Parameter: The difference in the score for non-specific vulvar lesions (median) in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||0.8987
90792546|NCT02732145|181466156|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the score for specific vulvar lesions in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology (first biopsy)?||||||0.0018|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Parameter: The difference in the score for vulvar lesions specific for dermatosis (median) in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology (first biopsy).||||0.0018
90792547|NCT02732145|181466156|EQUIVALENCE|"Question: Is there a difference in the overall sum of points for the Vulvoscopy Index in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?"||||||0.4409|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Parameter: The difference in the overall sum of points for the Vulvoscopy Index (median) in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology."||||0.4409
90792548|NCT02732145|181466157|OTHER|"Question: Determination of sensitivity of the N-S-P Scheme as a measure of the sensitivity of Three Rings Vulvoscopy, in comparison to the histopathological diagnosis of vulvar dermatosis."|Sensitivity (2x2 Table)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.0|||||"The Sensitivity of the N-S-P Scheme for Detection of Vulvar Dermatosis was 1.0000 (Range: 1.0000 - 1.0000)."|"Parameter: Sensitivity of Three Rings Vulvoscopy for detection of vulvar dermatosis."||1.0000|1.0000|
90792549|NCT02732145|181466157|OTHER|"Question: Determination of specificity of the N-S-P Scheme as a measure of the specificity of Three Rings Vulvoscopy, in comparison to the histopathological diagnosis of vulvar dermatosis."|Specificity (2x2 Table)|0.9609|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5794|1.0|||||"The Specificity of the N-S-P Scheme for Detection of Vulvar Dermatosis was 0.9609 (Range: 0.5794 - 1.0000)."|"Parameter: Specificity of Three Rings Vulvoscopy for detection of vulvar dermatosis."||1.0000|0.5794|
90890246|NCT00844857|181644829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. ANCOVA Model terms included baseline and treatment.|ANCOVA|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there was no difference in mean changes from baseline to up to Week 8 between OFC and placebo.||||<0.001
91010814|NCT03091920|181905175|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|4.3|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 9 predose AM||4.3|-14.7|
91010815|NCT03091920|181905175|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|2.9|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 10 predose AM||2.9|-19.0|
90792550|NCT02732145|181466157|OTHER|"Question: Determination of diagnostic accuracy of the N-S-P Scheme as a measure of the diagnostic value of the Three Rings Vulvoscopy, in relation to the histopathological diagnosis of vulvar dermatosis."|Diagnostic Accuracy (2x2 Table)|0.9695|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6313|1.0|||||"The Diagnostic accuracy of the N-S-P Scheme for Detection of Vulvar Dermatosis was 0.9695 (Range: 0.6313 - 1.0000)."|"Parameter: Diagnostic accuracy of Three Rings Vulvoscopy for detection of vulvar dermatosis."||1.0000|0.6313|
90792551|NCT02732145|181466157|OTHER|"Question: Determination of positive predictive value of the N-S-P Scheme for detection of vulvar dermatosis in comparison to the histopathology results."|PPV (2x2 Table)|0.878|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.227|1.0|||||"Positive predictive value of the N-S-P Scheme for Detection of Vulvar Dermatosis was 0.8780 (Range: 0.2270 - 1.0000)."|"Parameter: Positive predictive value of Three Rings Vulvoscopy for detection of vulvar dermatosis."||1.0000|0.2270|
90792552|NCT02732145|181466157|OTHER|"Question: Determination of negative predictive value of the N-S-P Scheme for detection of vulvar dermatosis in comparison to the histopathology results."|NPV (2x2 Table)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.0|||||"Negative predictive value of the N-S-P Scheme for Detection of Vulvar Dermatosis was 1.0000 (Range: 1.0000 - 1.0000)."|"Parameter: Negative predictive value of Three Rings Vulvoscopy for detection of vulvar dermatosis."||1.0000|1.0000|
90792553|NCT02732145|181466157|SUPERIORITY|"Question: Is there a difference in the diagnostic accuracy of the N-S-P Scheme as an outcome measure of the diagnostic value of Three Rings Vulvoscopy, and histopathology?"||||||0.6108|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the diagnostic accuracy between TRIV using the N-S-P Scheme and histopathology for detection of vulvar dermatosis."||||0.6108
90792554|NCT02732145|181466158|SUPERIORITY|"Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of N-#-# result (no lesions) of the Outer Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?"||||||0.9286|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the frequency of N-#-# result (no lesions) of the Outer Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology."||||0.9286
90792555|NCT02732145|181466158|SUPERIORITY|"Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of S-#-# result (non-specific lesions) of the Outer Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?"||||||0.8618|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the frequency of S-#-# result (non-specific lesions) of the Outer Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology."||||0.8618
90792556|NCT02732145|181466158|SUPERIORITY|"Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of P-#-# result (specific lesions) of the Outer Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?"||||||0.9786|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the frequency of P-#-# result (specific lesions) of the Outer Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology."||||0.9786
90792557|NCT02732145|181466158|SUPERIORITY|"Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of #-N-# result (no lesions) of the Middle Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?"||||||1|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the frequency of #-N-# result (no lesions) of the Middle Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology."||||1.0000
90792558|NCT02732145|181466158|SUPERIORITY|"Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of #-S-# result (non-specific lesions) of the Middle Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?"||||||0.8634|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the frequency of #-S-# result (non-specific lesions) of the Middle Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology."||||0.8634
90792559|NCT02732145|181466158|SUPERIORITY|"Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of #-P-# result (specific lesions) of the Middle Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?"||||||0.7992|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the frequency of #-P-# result (specific lesions) of the Middle Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology."||||0.7992
90792560|NCT02732145|181466158|SUPERIORITY|"Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of #-#-N result (no lesions) of the Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?"||||||0.3912|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the frequency of #-#-N result (no lesions) of the Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology."||||0.3912
90792561|NCT02732145|181466158|SUPERIORITY|"Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of #-#-S result (non-specific lesions) of the Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?"||||||0.6152|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the frequency of #-#-S result (non-specific lesions) of the Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology."||||0.6152
90792562|NCT02732145|181466158|SUPERIORITY|"Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of #-#-P result (specific lesions) of the Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?"||||||0.6108|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the frequency of #-#-P result (specific lesions) of the Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology."||||0.6108
90792563|NCT02732145|181466158|SUPERIORITY|"Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of N-N-N result (no lesions) in any of the Three Vulvar Rings in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?"||||||1|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the frequency of N-N-N result (no lesions) in any of the Three Vulvar Rings in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology."||||1.0000
90792564|NCT02732145|181466158|SUPERIORITY|"Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of S result (non-specific lesions) in any of the Three Vulvar Rings (S-#-#; S-S-#; S-S-S; S-N-S etc.) in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?"||||||0.7912|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the frequency of S result (non-specific lesions) in any of the Three Vulvar Rings (S-#-#; S-S-#; S-S-S; S-N-S etc.) in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology."||||0.7912
90792565|NCT02732145|181466158|SUPERIORITY|"Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of P result (specific lesions) in any of the Three Vulvar Rings (P-#-#; P-P-; P-P-P; P-N-S etc.) in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?"||||||1|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the frequency of P result (specific lesions) in any of the Three Vulvar Rings (P-#-#; P-P-; P-P-P; P-N-S etc.) in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology."||||1.0000
90792566|NCT02732145|181466159|SUPERIORITY|"Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of N-#-# result (no lesions) of the Outer Vulvar Ring in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?"||||||0.253|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the frequency of N-#-# result (no lesions) of the Outer Vulvar Ring in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology."||||0.2530
91010816|NCT03091920|181905175|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|6.3|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 10 predose||6.3|-14.0|
91010817|NCT03091920|181905175|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-16.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.0|-1.2|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 11 predose AM||-1.2|-31.0|
91010818|NCT03091920|181905175|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-8.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.1|5.6|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 11 predose AM||5.6|-22.1|
91010819|NCT03091920|181905175|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|7.9|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 12 predose AM||7.9|-14.6|
91010820|NCT03091920|181905175|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-5.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.9|4.9|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 12 predose AM||4.9|-15.9|
91010821|NCT03091920|181905175|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-11.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.1|-1.7|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 13 predose AM||-1.7|-22.1|
91010822|NCT03091920|181905175|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-6.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|2.9|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 13 predose AM||2.9|-16.0|
91010823|NCT03091920|181905175|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-14.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.4|-3.2|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 13 postdose AM 1 hour||-3.2|-25.4|
90792567|NCT02732145|181466159|SUPERIORITY|"Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of S-#-# result (non-specific lesions) of the Outer Vulvar Ring in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?"||||||0.8338|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the frequency of S-#-# result (non-specific lesions) of the Outer Vulvar Ring in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology."||||0.8338
91010824|NCT03091920|181905175|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-11.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.1|-1.5|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 13 postdose AM 1 hour||-1.5|-22.1|
91010825|NCT03091920|181905175|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-11.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.0|5.6|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 13 postdose AM 4 hour||5.6|-29.0|
91010826|NCT03091920|181905175|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-9.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.9|6.2|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 13 postdose AM 4 hour||6.2|-25.9|
91010827|NCT03091920|181905175|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-11.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.4|-0.1|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 13 postdose PM||-0.1|-22.4|
91010828|NCT03091920|181905175|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-9.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.2|0.4|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 13 predose PM||0.4|-20.2|
91010829|NCT03091920|181905175|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|10.5|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14 predose AM||10.5|-22.0|
91010830|NCT03091920|181905175|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.1|9.0|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14 predose AM||9.0|-21.1|
91010831|NCT03091920|181905175|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-8.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.7|5.6|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 15 / Discharge||5.6|-21.7|
91010832|NCT03091920|181905175|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|7.6|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 15 / Discharge||7.6|-17.7|
91010833|NCT03091920|181905175|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|16.7|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 21 / Follow-up||16.7|-7.0|
91010834|NCT03091920|181905175|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|16.2|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 21 / Follow-up||16.2|-5.8|
90792568|NCT02732145|181466159|SUPERIORITY|"Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of P-#-# result (specific lesions) of the Outer Vulvar Ring in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?"||||||0.0019|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the frequency of P-#-# result (specific lesions) of the Outer Vulvar Ring in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology."||||0.0019
90792569|NCT02732145|181466159|SUPERIORITY|"Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of #-N-# result (no lesions) of the Middle Vulvar Ring in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?"||||||0.6541|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the frequency of #-N-# result (no lesions) of the Middle Vulvar Ring in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology."||||0.6541
90792570|NCT02732145|181466159|SUPERIORITY|"Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of #-S-# result (non-specific lesions) of the Middle Vulvar Ring in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?"||||||0.8224|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the frequency of #-S-# result (non-specific lesions) of the Middle Vulvar Ring in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology."||||0.8224
90792571|NCT02732145|181466159|SUPERIORITY|"Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of #-P-# result (specific lesions) of the Middle Vulvar Ring in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?"||||||0.0064|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the frequency of #-P-# result (specific lesions) of the Middle Vulvar Ring in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology."||||0.0064
90792572|NCT02732145|181466159|SUPERIORITY|"Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of #-#-N result (no lesions) of the Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?"||||||0.9723|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the frequency of #-#-N result (no lesions) of the Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology."||||0.9723
90792573|NCT02732145|181466159|SUPERIORITY|"Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of #-#-S result (non-specific lesions) of the Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?"||||||0.8161|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the frequency of #-#-S result (non-specific lesions) of the Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology."||||0.8161
90792574|NCT02732145|181466159|SUPERIORITY|"Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of #-#-P result (specific lesions) of the Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?"||||||0.1165|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the frequency of #-#-P result (specific lesions) of the Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology."||||0.1165
90792575|NCT02732145|181466159|SUPERIORITY|"Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of N-N-N result (no lesions) in any of the Three Vulvar Rings in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?"||||||0.6339|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the frequency of N-N-N result (no lesions) in any of the Three Vulvar Rings in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology."||||0.6339
90792576|NCT02732145|181466159|SUPERIORITY|"Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of S result (non-specific lesions) in any of the Three Vulvar Rings (S-#-#; S-S-#; S-S-S; S-N-S etc.) in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?"||||||0.9724|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the frequency of S result (non-specific lesions) in any of the Three Vulvar Rings (S-#-#; S-S-#; S-S-S; S-N-S etc.) in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology."||||0.9724
90792577|NCT02732145|181466159|SUPERIORITY|"Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of P result (specific lesions) in any of the Three Vulvar Rings (P-#-#; P-P-; P-P-P; P-N-S etc.) in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?"||||||0.0016|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the frequency of P result (specific lesions) in any of the Three Vulvar Rings (P-#-#; P-P-; P-P-P; P-N-S etc.) in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology."||||0.0016
90792578|NCT02732145|181466160|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the age of patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||ANOVA|||Parameter: The difference in the age of patients from different groups.||||0.0000
90792579|NCT02732145|181466161|EQUIVALENCE|Is there a difference in the weight of patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||ANOVA|||The difference in the weight of patients from different groups.||||0.0000
90792580|NCT02732145|181466162|EQUIVALENCE|Is there a difference in the height of patients from different groups.||||||0.0557|||||||ANOVA|||The difference in the height of patients from different groups.||||0.0557
90792581|NCT02732145|181466163|EQUIVALENCE|Is there a difference in the body mass index of patients from different groups.||||||0|||||||ANOVA|||The difference in the body mass index of patients from different groups.||||0.0000
90792582|NCT02732145|181466164|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of patients older than 65 years in different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of patients older than 65 years between different groups.||||0.0000
90792583|NCT02732145|181466164|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of menopausal patients among different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of menopausal patients among different groups.||||0.0000
90792584|NCT02732145|181466164|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of domicile country (Croatia) as a country of birth among patients from different groups.||||||0.3708|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of domicile country (Croatia) as a country of birth among patients from different groups.||||0.3708
90792585|NCT02732145|181466164|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of patients educated equally or less than 12 years among different groups?||||||0.018|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of patients educated equally or less than 12 years among different groups.||||0.0180
90792586|NCT02732145|181466164|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in marital status among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of marital status among patients from different groups.||||0.0000
90792587|NCT02732145|181466164|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the nulliparity among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the nulliparity among patients from different groups.||||0.0000
90792588|NCT02732145|181466164|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the multiparity among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the multiparity among patients from different groups.||||0.0000
90792589|NCT02732145|181466164|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the number of abortions among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the number of abortions among patients from different groups.||||0.0000
90792590|NCT02732145|181466164|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the using of contraception among patients from different groups?||||||0.1323|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the using of contraception among patients from different groups.||||0.1323
90792591|NCT02732145|181466165|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of symptoms of the dull pain of the vulva among patients with vulvar discomfort?||||||0.3158|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of symptoms of the dull pain of the vulva (burning, stinging, soreness, irritation, itching, inflammation, aching) among patients with vulvar discomfort.||||0.3158
90792592|NCT02732145|181466165|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of symptoms of the sharp pain of the vulva among patients with vulvar discomfort?||||||0.0007|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of symptoms of the sharp pain in the vulva (stabbing, sticking, knife-like pain, paper-cuts pain) among patients with vulvar discomfort.||||0.0007
90792593|NCT02732145|181466165|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of the dull pain versus the sharp pain of the vulva in the patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of symptoms of the dull pain versus the sharp pain of the vulva in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0000
90792594|NCT02732145|181466165|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of the dull pain versus the sharp pain of the vulva in the patients with vulvodynia?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of symptoms of the dull pain versus the sharp pain of the vulva in patients with vulvodynia.||||0.0000
91010835|NCT03091920|181905175|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|5.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|22.6|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 42 / End of Trial||22.6|-11.7|
90792595|NCT02732145|181466165|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar burning among patients with vulvar discomfort?||||||0.0147|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar burning among patients with vulvar discomfort.||||0.0147
90792596|NCT02732145|181466165|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar stinging among patients with vulvar discomfort?||||||0.8456|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar stinging among patients with vulvar discomfort.||||0.8456
90792597|NCT02732145|181466165|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar soreness among patients with vulvar discomfort?||||||0.0076|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar soreness among patients with vulvar discomfort.||||0.0076
90792598|NCT02732145|181466165|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of irritation of the vulva among the patients with vulvar discomfort?||||||0.0423|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of irritation of the vulva among patients with vulvar discomfort.||||0.0423
90792599|NCT02732145|181466165|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of the knife-like pain in the vulva among the patients with vulvar discomfort?||||||0.0457|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of the knife-like pain in the vulva among patients with vulvar discomfort.||||0.0457
90792600|NCT02732145|181466165|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of the paper-cuts pain of the vulva among the patients with vulvar discomfort?||||||0.043|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of the paper-cuts pain of the vulva among patients with vulvar discomfort.||||0.0430
90792601|NCT02732145|181466165|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of the stabbing of the vulva among the patients with vulvar discomfort?||||||0.0134|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of the stabbing of the vulva among patients with vulvar discomfort.||||0.0134
90792602|NCT02732145|181466165|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of sticking of the vulva among the patients with vulvar discomfort?||||||0.0581|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of sticking of the vulva among patients with vulvar discomfort.||||0.0581
90792603|NCT02732145|181466165|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of itching of the vulva among the patients with vulvar discomfort?||||||0.0002|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of itching of the vulva among patients with vulvar discomfort.||||0.0002
90792604|NCT02732145|181466165|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of the feeling of inflammation of the vulva among the patients with vulvar discomfort?|t-test proportion|0.0||||0.0852|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of the feeling of inflammation of the vulva among patients with vulvar discomfort.||||0.0852
90792605|NCT02732145|181466165|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aching of the vulva among the patients with vulvar discomfort?||||||0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aching of the vulva among patients with vulvar discomfort.||||0.0001
90792606|NCT02732145|181466165|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the association of different symptoms of the vulva among the patients with vulvar discomfort?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of association of different vulvar symptoms among patients with vulvar discomfort.||||0.0000
90792607|NCT02732145|181466165|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar itching versus burning in the patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar itching versus burning in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0000
90792608|NCT02732145|181466165|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar itching versus stinging in the patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.0008|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar itching versus stinging in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0008
91052839|NCT03914950|181989474|OTHER|"The calculation of power and sample size is based on a formula that selects the sample size so that the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval by the expected specificity of the new method most probably exceeds the specificity value of the current method.~Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analysis of the values of SUVmax of the early and delayed images with and without TOF of all pancreatic lesions was done in correlation with the histopathological findings."||||||0.78|||||||DeLong-test|The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.||It was calculated that 118 participants would have at least 90% power to demonstrate an improvement in specificity of 25% (to 70%) with the new method assuming a specificity of the current method of 45% at a prevalence of malignant lesions of 70% (corresponding to 30% benign lesions). Assumptions included a discontinuation rate of 25%.||||0.78
91052840|NCT03914950|181989474|OTHER|||||||0.95|||||||DeLong-test|The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.||||||0.95
91052841|NCT02633488|181989478|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence defined as less that 2 SD in FMD between 2 treatments|||||>|0.05||||||FMD % change exceeded the threshold of our statistical significance test, i.e. the null hypothesis that there was no effect of metformin remained tenable.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91052842|NCT03167723|181989479|NON_INFERIORITY|15% Non-Inferiority||||||0.036|||||||Farrington-Manning|||||||0.036
91052843|NCT03397771|181989489|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.963|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.963
91052844|NCT03397771|181989490|NON_INFERIORITY|The analysis was conducted according to the nul hypothesis, assuming no difference between treatment arms||||||0.022|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.022
91052845|NCT04040322|181989491|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference in change|-1.26||||0.421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.34|1.82||Threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|ANCOVA|||||1.82|-4.34|0.4210
91052846|NCT03493386|181989548|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CI of the ratio of geometric mean doesn't fall within a range of 0.80 to 1.25 i.e., null hypothesis is not rejected the bioequivalence is established if the point estimate falls within a range of 0.90 to 1.11|Ratio of geometric mean|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.07|||||AUC (0-t)|||1.07|0.97|
91052847|NCT03493386|181989548|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CI of the ratio of geometric mean doesn't fall within a range of 0.80 to 1.25 i.e., null hypothesis is not rejected the bioequivalence is established if the point estimate falls within a range of 0.90 to 1.11|Ratio of geometric mean|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.07|||||AUC(0-inf)|||1.07|0.97|
91052848|NCT03493386|181989549|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CI of the ratio of geometric mean doesn't fall within a range of 0.80 to 1.25 i.e., null hypothesis is not rejected the bioequivalence is established if the point estimate falls within a range of 0.90 to 1.11|Ratio of geometric mean|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.12|||||Cmax|||1.12|0.97|
90792609|NCT02732145|181466165|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar itching versus soreness in the patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar itching versus soreness in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0000
90792610|NCT02732145|181466165|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar itching versus irritation in the patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar itching versus irritation in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0000
90792611|NCT02732145|181466165|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||There was a statistically significant difference at p\<0.001. Patients with vulvar dermatosis had significantly more often itching than the feeling of inflammation of the vulva.|t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar itching versus the feeling of inflammation in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0000
90792612|NCT02732145|181466165|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar itching versus aching in the patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar itching versus aching in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0000
91052849|NCT03493386|181989556|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CI of the ratio of geometric mean doesn't fall within a range of 0.80 to 1.25 i.e., null hypothesis is not rejected the bioequivalence is established if the point estimate falls within a range of 0.90 to 1.11|Ratio of geometric mean|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.82|1.01|||||AUC (0-t)|||1.01|0.82|
91052850|NCT03493386|181989556|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CI of the ratio of geometric mean doesn't fall within a range of 0.80 to 1.25 i.e., null hypothesis is not rejected the bioequivalence is established if the point estimate falls within a range of 0.90 to 1.11|Ratio of geometric mean|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.82|1.01|||||AUC (0-inf)|||1.01|0.82|
90792613|NCT02732145|181466165|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar stinging versus burning in the patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar stinging versus burning in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0000
91052851|NCT03493386|181989557|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CI of the ratio of geometric mean doesn't fall within a range of 0.80 to 1.25 i.e., null hypothesis is not rejected the bioequivalence is established if the point estimate falls within a range of 0.90 to 1.11|Ratio of geomtric mean|0.89||||||90.0|0.73|1.08||||||||1.08|0.73|
91052852|NCT00988442|181989607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||Two-sided 5% significance level.|Fisher Exact|||A Fisher's exact test was used to compare the proportion of participants with virologic suppression, defined as HIV-1 RNA less than 200 copies/mL at week 48 between the standard of care and standard of care + enhanced telephone support groups.||||1.000
91052853|NCT00271154|181989635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: mean 12-month change in LVESVi in group 1 = mean 12-month change in LVESVi in group 2.||||<0.0001
90792614|NCT02732145|181466165|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar stinging versus soreness in the patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar stinging versus soreness in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0000
91052854|NCT00271154|181989636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Null hypothesis: Percentage worsened in CRT OFF group = Percentage worsened in CRT ON group||||0.10
91077788|NCT02913105|182041130|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.0603|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.743|-0.117|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 42||-0.117|-1.743|0.0603
90792615|NCT02732145|181466165|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar stinging versus irritation in the patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar stinging versus irritation in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0000
90792616|NCT02732145|181466165|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar stinging versus the feeling of inflammation in the patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar stinging versus the feeling of inflammation in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0000
90792617|NCT02732145|181466165|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar stinging versus aching in the patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar stinging versus aching in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0000
90792618|NCT02732145|181466165|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar aching versus burning in the patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.8591|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar aching versus burning in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.8591
90792619|NCT02732145|181466165|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar aching versus soreness in the patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.009|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar aching versus soreness in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0090
90792620|NCT02732145|181466165|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar aching versus irritation in the patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.0212|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar aching versus irritation in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0212
90792621|NCT02732145|181466165|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar aching versus the feeling of inflammation in the patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.0057|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar aching versus the feeling of inflammation in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0057
90792622|NCT02732145|181466165|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar sticking versus knife-like pain in the patients with vulvar dermatosis who had sharp pain?||||||0.0977|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar sticking versus knife-like pain in patients with vulvar dermatosis who had sharp vulvar pain.||||0.0977
90792623|NCT02732145|181466165|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar sticking versus paper-cuts pain in the patients with vulvar dermatosis who had sharp pain?||||||0.0143|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar sticking versus paper-cuts pain in patients with vulvar dermatosis who had sharp vulvar pain.||||0.0143
90792624|NCT02732145|181466165|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar sticking versus stabbing in the patients with vulvar dermatosis who had sharp pain?||||||0.2059|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar sticking versus stabbing in patients with vulvar dermatosis who had sharp vulvar pain.||||0.2059
90792625|NCT02732145|181466165|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar stabbing versus knife-like pain in the patients with vulvar dermatosis who had sharp pain?||||||0.682|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar stabbing versus knife-like pain in patients with vulvar dermatosis who had sharp vulvar pain.||||0.6820
90792626|NCT02732145|181466165|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar stabbing versus paper-cuts pain in the patients with vulvar dermatosis who had sharp pain?||||||0.2059|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar stabbing versus paper-cuts pain in patients with vulvar dermatosis who had sharp vulvar pain.||||0.2059
90792627|NCT02732145|181466165|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar stinging versus burning in the patients with vulvodynia?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar stinging versus burning in patients with vulvodynia.||||0.0000
90792628|NCT02732145|181466165|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar stinging versus soreness in the patients with vulvodynia?||||||0.0344|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar stinging versus soreness in patients with vulvodynia.||||0.0344
90792629|NCT02732145|181466165|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar stinging versus irritation in the patients with vulvodynia?||||||0.0023|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar stinging versus irritation in patients with vulvodynia.||||0.0023
90792630|NCT02732145|181466165|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar stinging versus itching in the patients with vulvodynia?||||||0.5675|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar stinging versus itching in patients with vulvodynia.||||0.5675
90792631|NCT02732145|181466165|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar stinging versus the feeling of inflammation in the patients with vulvodynia?||||||0.0037|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar stinging versus the feeling of inflammation in patients with vulvodynia.||||0.0037
90792632|NCT02732145|181466165|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar stinging versus aching in the patients with vulvodynia?||||||0.0005|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar stinging versus aching in patients with vulvodynia.||||0.0005
90792633|NCT02732145|181466165|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar itching versus burning in the patients with vulvodynia?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar itching versus burning in patients with vulvodynia.||||0.0000
90792634|NCT02732145|181466165|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar itching versus soreness in the patients with vulvodynia?||||||0.1201|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar itching versus soreness in patients with vulvodynia.||||0.1201
90792635|NCT02732145|181466165|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar itching versus irritation in the patients with vulvodynia?||||||0.0123|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar itching versus irritation in patients with vulvodynia.||||0.0123
90792636|NCT02732145|181466165|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar itching versus the feeling of inflammation in the patients with vulvodynia?||||||0.0188|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar itching versus the feeling of inflammation in patients with vulvodynia.||||0.0188
90792637|NCT02732145|181466165|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar itching versus aching in the patients with vulvodynia?||||||0.003|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar itching versus aching in patients with vulvodynia.||||0.0030
90792638|NCT02732145|181466165|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar aching versus burning in the patients with vulvodynia?||||||0.2155|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar aching versus burning in patients with vulvodynia.||||0.2155
90792639|NCT02732145|181466165|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar aching versus soreness in the patients with vulvodynia?||||||0.1508|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar aching versus soreness in patients with vulvodynia.||||0.1508
90792640|NCT02732145|181466165|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar aching versus irritation in the patients with vulvodynia?||||||0.6364|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar aching versus irritation in patients with vulvodynia.||||0.6364
90792641|NCT02732145|181466165|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar aching versus the feeling of inflammation in the patients with vulvodynia?||||||0.5277|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar aching versus the feeling of inflammation in patients with vulvodynia.||||0.5277
90792642|NCT02732145|181466165|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar sticking versus knife-like pain in the patients with vulvodynia who had sharp vulvar pain?||||||0.2041|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar sticking versus knife-like pain in patients with vulvodynia who had sharp vulvar pain.||||0.2041
90792643|NCT02732145|181466165|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar sticking versus paper-cuts pain in the patients with vulvodynia who had sharp vulvar pain?||||||0.0412|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar sticking versus paper-cuts pain in patients with vulvodynia who had sharp vulvar pain.||||0.0412
90792644|NCT02732145|181466165|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar sticking versus stabbing in the patients with vulvodynia who had sharp vulvar pain?||||||0.7978|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar sticking versus stabbing in patients with vulvodynia who had sharp vulvar pain.||||0.7978
90792645|NCT02732145|181466165|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar stabbing versus knife-like pain in the patients with vulvodynia who had sharp vulvar pain?||||||0.3094|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar stabbing versus knife-like pain in patients with vulvodynia who had sharp vulvar pain.||||0.3094
90792646|NCT02732145|181466165|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar stabbing versus paper-cuts pain in the patients with vulvodynia who had sharp vulvar pain?||||||0.073|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar stabbing versus paper-cuts pain in patients with vulvodynia who had sharp vulvar pain.||||0.0730
90792647|NCT02732145|181466165|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the duration of vulvar complaints for more than 24 months among patients with vulvar dermatosis and vulvodynia?||||||0.4038|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the duration of vulvar complaints for more than 24 months among patients with vulvar dermatosis or vulvodynia.||||0.4038
90792648|NCT02732145|181466165|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the duration of vulvar complaints for more than 12 months among patients with vulvar dermatosis and vulvodynia?||||||0.7299|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the duration of vulvar complaints for more than 12 months among patients with vulvar dermatosis or vulvodynia.||||0.7299
90792649|NCT02732145|181466165|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the duration of vulvar complaints for more than six months among patients with vulvar dermatosis and vulvodynia?||||||0.7241|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the duration of vulvar complaints for more than six months among patients with vulvar dermatosis or vulvodynia.||||0.7241
90792650|NCT02732145|181466166|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the sexual activity among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the sexual activity among patients from different groups.||||0.0000
90792651|NCT02732145|181466166|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of dyspareunia as a cause of sexual inactivity among patients from different groups?||||||0.0006|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of dyspareunia as a cause of sexual inactivity among patients from different groups.||||0.0006
90792652|NCT02732145|181466166|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of sexual inactivity due to dyspareunia and lack of a sexual partner among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of sexual inactivity due to dyspareunia and lack of a sexual partner among patients from different groups.||||0.0000
90792653|NCT02732145|181466167|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of dyspareunia among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of dyspareunia among patients from different groups.||||0.0000
90792654|NCT02732145|181466167|EQUIVALENCE|Parameter: The difference in the degree of dyspareunia (Marinoff Index) among sexually active patients with vulvodynia or vulvar dermatosis who had dyspareunia.||||||0.2999|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the degree of dyspareunia (Marinoff Index) among sexually active patients with vulvodynia or vulvar dermatosis who had dyspareunia.||||0.2999
90792655|NCT02732145|181466168|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of the frequency of vulvar discomfort provoked through the intercourse in patients with vulvodynia and vulvar dermatosis?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of vulvar discomfort provoked through the intercourse in patients with vulvodynia and vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0000
90792656|NCT02732145|181466168|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of vulvar discomfort provoked through the penetration in patients with vulvodynia and vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.0347|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of vulvar discomfort provoked through the penetration in patients with vulvodynia and vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0347
91079046|NCT03743402|182043710|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is a point null of exactly 0 expected difference in PODS score between arms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.47|6.66|||Regression, Linear||mean difference = (pain self-management) - (usual care)|||6.66|-3.47|0.54
91052855|NCT02731326|181989637|EQUIVALENCE|The study was designed to have 80% power to detect a hazard ratio of 2 for recurrence detection (α = .05).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.56||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.3|||Regression, Cox||Treatment arm equals numerator. Control arm=denominator.|The study was designed to have 80% power to detect a hazard ratio of 2 for recurrence detection (α = .05). Kaplan-Meier curves were created for recurrence detection in the intervention and control groups over the 6-month follow-up period. Differences in time to recurrence between groups were assessed using a Cox proportional hazards model. Baseline variables that differed significantly between groups were included as covariates and adjusted Kaplan-Meier curves were constructed.||2.30|1.06|0.05
91052856|NCT02731326|181989638|EQUIVALENCE|The study was designed to have 80% power to detect a hazard ratio of 2 (α = .05).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.33||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.58|||Regression, Cox||Treatment arm equals numerator. Control arm=denominator.|Kaplan-Meier curves were created for assessing time to treatment for intervention and control groups. Time to treatment was defined as the time interval from detection of a recurrent arrhythmia to treatment for that arrhythmia.||0.58|0.09|0.05
91052857|NCT02731326|181989639|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.58|||Regression, Cox|||||0.58|0.19|<.0001
91052858|NCT02731326|181989640|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.24
91052859|NCT02731326|181989641|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.89
91052860|NCT01355159|181989674|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.34|||Chi-squared|||||1.34|0.90|0.37
91052861|NCT01355159|181989676|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.29||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|2.28|||Chi-squared|||||2.28|0.74|0.37
90792657|NCT02732145|181466168|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of vulvar discomfort aggravated through sexual intercourse in patients with vulvodynia and vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.7068|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of vulvar discomfort aggravated through sexual intercourse in patients with vulvodynia and vulvar dermatosis.||||0.7068
91052862|NCT01355159|181989677|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.64||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.31|||Chi-squared|||||1.31|0.31|0.21
91052863|NCT01355159|181989678|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.97||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.15|||Chi-squared|||||1.15|0.82|0.71
90792658|NCT02732145|181466168|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of vulvar discomfort aggravated after sexual intercourse in patients with vulvodynia and vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.0025|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of vulvar discomfort aggravated after sexual intercourse in patients with vulvodynia and vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0025
90792659|NCT02732145|181466169|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of use of vaginal tampon among patients with vulvodynia and vulvar dermatosis?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of use of vaginal tampon among patients with vulvodynia and vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0000
90792660|NCT02732145|181466169|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of worsening of vulvar discomfort due to the use of vaginal tampon in symptomatic patients, who use vaginal tampons?||||||0.6552|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of worsening of vulvar discomfort due to the use of vaginal tampon in symptomatic patients, who use vaginal tampons.||||0.6552
90792661|NCT02732145|181466169|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of cycling among patients with vulvodynia and vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.0002|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of cycling among patients with vulvodynia and vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0002
90792662|NCT02732145|181466169|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of worsening of vulvar discomfort due to the cycling in symptomatic patients, who ride a bicycle?||||||0.2877|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of worsening of vulvar discomfort due to the cycling in symptomatic patients, who ride a bicycle.||||0.2877
91052864|NCT01355159|181989679|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.13|||Chi-squared|||||1.13|0.86|0.87
91052865|NCT01355159|181989680|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.21||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|3.96|||Chi-squared|||||3.96|0.37|0.75
91052866|NCT01355159|181989681|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.52||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.84|||Chi-squared|||||2.84|0.81|0.19
91052867|NCT01355159|181989682|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.0||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|1.63|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.63|-0.96|0.61
91052868|NCT01355159|181989683|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.6||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.19|||Chi-squared|||||1.19|0.30|0.14
91052869|NCT01355159|181989684|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.76||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.39|||Chi-squared|||||1.39|0.41|0.37
91052870|NCT01355159|181989685|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.3|||Chi-squared|||||1.30|0.81|0.82
91052871|NCT01355159|181989686|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.87||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|2.44|||Chi-squared|||||2.44|0.31|0.79
91052872|NCT01355159|181989687|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.63||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.05|||Chi-squared|||||1.05|0.37|0.07
91052873|NCT01355159|181989688|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.2||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|2.66|||Chi-squared|||||2.66|0.54|0.65
91052874|NCT01355159|181989689|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.34||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.23|||Chi-squared|||||1.23|0.09|0.10
90792663|NCT02732145|181466169|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of wearing tight clothes among patients with vulvar dermatosis and vulvodynia?||||||0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of wearing tight clothes among patients with vulvar dermatosis and vulvodynia.||||0.0001
90792664|NCT02732145|181466169|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of worsening of vulvar discomfort due to wearing of tight clothes in symptomatic patients, who wear tight clothes?||||||0.4754|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of worsening of vulvar discomfort due to wearing of tight clothes in symptomatic patients, who wear tight clothes.||||0.4754
90792665|NCT02732145|181466169|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of worsening of vulvar discomfort depending on the menstrual cycle in symptomatic patients of reproductive age?||||||0.1082|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of worsening of vulvar discomfort depending on the menstrual cycle in symptomatic patients of reproductive age.||||0.1082
91052875|NCT01355159|181989690|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.04||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|8.57|||Chi-squared|||||8.57|0.49|0.33
91052876|NCT01355159|181989691|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.97||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|2.0|||Chi-squared|||||2.00|0.47|0.94
91052877|NCT01355159|181989692|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.61||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|2.66|||Chi-squared|||||2.66|0.97|0.06
90792666|NCT02732145|181466169|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of worsening of vulvar discomfort before starting menstrual bleeding in symptomatic patients of reproductive age?||||||0.0179|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of worsening of vulvar discomfort before starting menstrual bleeding in symptomatic patients of reproductive age.||||0.0179
90792667|NCT02732145|181466169|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of worsening of vulvar discomfort during menstrual bleeding in symptomatic patients of reproductive age?||||||0.5722|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of worsening of vulvar discomfort during menstrual bleeding in symptomatic patients of reproductive age.||||0.5722
91010836|NCT03091920|181905175|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.4|11.4|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 42 / End of Trial||11.4|-20.4|
91010837|NCT03091920|181905176|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|3.8|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, post-dose AM 1 hour||3.8|-8.9|
91010838|NCT03091920|181905176|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|4.5|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, post-dose AM 1 hour||4.5|-8.4|
91010839|NCT03091920|181905176|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|3.4|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, post-dose AM 4 hour||3.4|-9.2|
91010840|NCT03091920|181905176|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|-0.6|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, post-dose AM 4 hour||-0.6|-13.5|
91010841|NCT03091920|181905176|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-5.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|0.6|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, post-dose AM 8 hour||0.6|-11.5|
91010842|NCT03091920|181905176|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|1.5|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, post-dose AM 8 hour||1.5|-10.8|
91010843|NCT03091920|181905176|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|2.2|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, pre-dose PM||2.2|-9.4|
91010844|NCT03091920|181905176|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|3.7|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, pre-dose PM||3.7|-8.0|
91010845|NCT03091920|181905176|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|3.9|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, post-dose PM 1 hour||3.9|-13.8|
91052878|NCT01355159|181989693|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.37||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|9.14|||Chi-squared|||||9.14|0.61|0.21
91052879|NCT01355159|181989694|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.2||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.8|||Chi-squared|||||1.80|0.80|0.38
91010846|NCT03091920|181905176|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|6.2|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, post-dose PM 1 hour||6.2|-11.7|
91010847|NCT03091920|181905176|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|0.9|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 2, pre-dose AM||0.9|-9.7|
91010848|NCT03091920|181905176|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|2.2|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 2, pre-dose AM||2.2|-8.5|
91010849|NCT03091920|181905176|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|-0.3|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 2, post-dose AM 1 hour||-0.3|-13.1|
91010850|NCT03091920|181905176|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|1.2|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 2, post-dose AM 1 hour||1.2|-11.8|
91010851|NCT03091920|181905176|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-5.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.2|3.5|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 2, post-dose AM 4 hour||3.5|-14.2|
91052880|NCT01355159|181989695|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.6||||46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.84|2.64|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.64|-5.84|046
91052881|NCT01355159|181989696|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.87||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|2.44|||Chi-squared|||||2.44|0.31|0.79
91052882|NCT01355159|181989697|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.0||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|10.92|||Chi-squared|||||10.92|0.37|0.42
90792668|NCT02732145|181466169|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of worsening of vulvar discomfort after menstrual bleeding in symptomatic patients of reproductive age?||||||0.6148|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of worsening of vulvar discomfort after menstrual bleeding in symptomatic patients of reproductive age.||||0.6148
90792669|NCT02732145|181466169|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of worsening of vulvar discomfort between two menstrual bleeding in symptomatic patients of reproductive age?||||||0.5307|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of worsening of vulvar discomfort between two menstrual bleeding in symptomatic patients of reproductive age.||||0.5307
90792670|NCT02732145|181466169|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of worsening of vulvar discomfort during urination?||||||0.1546|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of worsening of vulvar discomfort during urination.||||0.1546
90792671|NCT02732145|181466169|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of worsening of vulvar complaints during urination after sexual intercourse in symptomatic patients, who are sexually active?||||||0.1019|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of worsening of vulvar complaints during urination after sexual intercourse in symptomatic patients, who are sexually active.||||0.1019
90792672|NCT02732145|181466170|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of problems associated with urination and defecation between patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of problems associated with urination and defecation between patients from different groups.||||0.0000
90792673|NCT02732145|181466170|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of dysuria between patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of dysuria between patients from different groups.||||0.0000
90792674|NCT02732145|181466170|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of intermittent dysuria between patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of intermittent dysuria between patients from different groups.||||0.0000
90792675|NCT02732145|181466170|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of frequent dysuria between patients from different groups?||||||0.0003|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of frequent dysuria between patients from different groups.||||0.0003
90792676|NCT02732145|181466170|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of urinary incontinence between patients from different groups?||||||0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of urinary incontinence between patients from different groups.||||0.0010
90792677|NCT02732145|181466170|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of intermittent urinary incontinence between patients from different groups?||||||0.1859|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of intermittent urinary incontinence between patients from different groups.||||0.1859
90792678|NCT02732145|181466170|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of frequent urinary incontinence between patients from different groups?||||||0.0003|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of frequent urinary incontinence between patients from different groups.||||0.0003
90792679|NCT02732145|181466170|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of difficulties at starting urination between patients from different groups?||||||0.0015|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of difficulties at starting urination between patients from different groups.||||0.0015
90792680|NCT02732145|181466170|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of intermittent difficulties at starting urination between patients from different groups?||||||0.0013|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of intermittent difficulties at starting urination between patients from different groups.||||0.0013
90792681|NCT02732145|181466170|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of frequent difficulties at starting urination between patients from different groups?||||||0.5673|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of frequent difficulties at starting urination between patients from different groups.||||0.5673
90792682|NCT02732145|181466170|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of urgency between patients from different groups?||||||0.0065|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of urgency between patients from different groups.||||0.0065
90792683|NCT02732145|181466170|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of intermittent urgency between patients from different groups?||||||0.083|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of intermittent urgency between patients from different groups.||||0.0830
90792684|NCT02732145|181466170|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of frequent urgency between patients from different groups?||||||0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of frequent urgency between patients from different groups.||||0.0001
90792685|NCT02732145|181466170|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of nocturia between patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of nocturia between patients from different groups.||||0.0000
90792686|NCT02732145|181466170|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of intermittent nocturia between patients from different groups?||||||0.2315|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of intermittent nocturia between patients from different groups.||||0.2315
91010852|NCT03091920|181905176|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-8.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|0.5|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 2, post-dose AM 4 hour||0.5|-17.5|
90792687|NCT02732145|181466170|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of frequent nocturia between patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of frequent nocturia between patients from different groups.||||0.0000
90792688|NCT02732145|181466170|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of recurrent cystitis between patients from different groups?||||||0.0539|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of recurrent cystitis between patients from different groups.||||0.0539
90792689|NCT02732145|181466170|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of constipation between patients from different groups?||||||0.0379|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of constipation between patients from different groups.||||0.0379
90792690|NCT02732145|181466170|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of intermittent constipation between patients from different groups?||||||0.1485|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of intermittent constipation between patients from different groups.||||0.1485
90792691|NCT02732145|181466170|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of frequent constipation between patients from different groups?||||||0.4155|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of frequent constipation between patients from different groups.||||0.4155
90792692|NCT02732145|181466170|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of diarrhea between patients from different groups?||||||0.0092|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of diarrhea between patients from different groups.||||0.0092
90792693|NCT02732145|181466170|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of intermittent diarrhea between patients from different groups?||||||0.0192|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of intermittent diarrhea between patients from different groups.||||0.0192
91010853|NCT03091920|181905176|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|0.2|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 2, pre-dose PM||0.2|-11.6|
91010854|NCT03091920|181905176|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|1.5|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 2, pre-dose PM||1.5|-10.6|
91010855|NCT03091920|181905176|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|6.4|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 2, post-dose PM 1 hour||6.4|-7.4|
91010856|NCT03091920|181905176|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|4.7|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 2, post-dose PM 1 hour||4.7|-9.3|
91010857|NCT03091920|181905176|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|4.6|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 2, post-dose PM 4 hour||4.6|-9.4|
91010858|NCT03091920|181905176|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|5.6|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 2, post-dose PM 4 hour||5.6|-8.7|
91010859|NCT03091920|181905176|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|6.7|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 3, pre-dose AM||6.7|-6.2|
91010860|NCT03091920|181905176|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|6.8|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 3, pre-dose AM||6.8|-6.2|
91010861|NCT03091920|181905176|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|9.4|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 3, post-dose PM 4 hour||9.4|-6.4|
91077789|NCT02913105|182041130|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.344|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.505||0.009|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.182|-0.506|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 56||-0.506|-2.182|0.0090
91010862|NCT03091920|181905176|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|6.8|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 3, post-dose PM 4 hour||6.8|-9.3|
90792694|NCT02732145|181466170|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of frequent diarrhea between patients from different groups?||||||0.5253|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of frequent diarrhea between patients from different groups.||||0.5253
91010863|NCT03091920|181905176|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|1.4|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 4, pre-dose AM||1.4|-10.0|
91010864|NCT03091920|181905176|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|1.3|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 4, pre-dose AM||1.3|-10.3|
91010865|NCT03091920|181905176|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|3.3|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 5, pre-dose AM||3.3|-8.2|
91010866|NCT03091920|181905176|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|-1.3|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 5, pre-dose AM||-1.3|-13.0|
91010867|NCT03091920|181905176|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|2.2|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 6, pre-dose AM||2.2|-7.7|
91010868|NCT03091920|181905176|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|0.3|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 6, pre-dose AM||0.3|-9.7|
91010869|NCT03091920|181905176|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|3.5|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, pre-dose AM||3.5|-11.6|
91010870|NCT03091920|181905176|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|3.3|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, pre-dose AM||3.3|-12.0|
90792695|NCT02732145|181466170|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of the irritable colon between patients from different groups?||||||0.006|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of the irritable colon between patients from different groups.||||0.0060
91052883|NCT03276221|181989699|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.215|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons by the Bonferroni correction across outcomes for the paired associates learning module. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|Estimates were obtained using generalized estimating equations (GEE) with robust standard errors obtained by the sandwich estimator.|The estimate is the mean difference in the log probability of making an error for the abstinence group above and beyond the monitoring group (positive values indicate higher error commission for the abstinence group).|The mean difference in scale scores between the abstinence and monitoring groups was estimated via a binomial model with a dummy-coded contrast (0 for monitoring, 1 for abstinence). The model adjusted for change at weeks 2, 3, and 4 of the study, and for a subject's scale scores at baseline.||||0.215
91052884|NCT03276221|181989700|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.495|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons by the Bonferroni correction across outcomes for the paired associates learning module. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|Estimates were obtained using generalized estimating equations (GEE) with robust standard errors obtained by the sandwich estimator.|The estimate is the mean difference in the log probability of picking the correct box for the abstinence group above and beyond the monitoring group (positive values indicate better memory performance for the abstinence group).|The mean difference in scale scores between the abstinence and monitoring groups was estimated via a binomial model with a dummy-coded contrast (0 for monitoring, 1 for abstinence). The model adjusted for change at weeks 2, 3, and 4 of the study, and for a subject's scale scores at baseline.||||0.495
91052885|NCT03276221|181989701|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons by the Bonferroni correction across outcomes for the spatial span module. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|Estimates were obtained using generalized estimating equations (GEE) with robust standard errors obtained by the sandwich estimator.|The estimate is the mean difference in the log probability of reaching a longer span for the abstinence group above and beyond the monitoring group (positive values indicate higher span lengths for the abstinence group).|The mean difference in scale scores between the abstinence and monitoring groups was estimated via a binomial model with a dummy-coded contrast (0 for monitoring, 1 for abstinence). The model adjusted for change at weeks 2, 3, and 4 of the study, and for a subject's scale scores at baseline.||||0.050
91052886|NCT03276221|181989702|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.532|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons by the Bonferroni correction across outcomes for the spatial span module. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|Estimates were obtained using generalized estimating equations (GEE) with robust standard errors obtained by the sandwich estimator.|The estimate is the mean difference in the log probability of reaching a longer span for the abstinence group above and beyond the monitoring group (positive values indicate higher span lengths for the abstinence group).|The mean difference in scale scores between the abstinence and monitoring groups was estimated via a binomial model with a dummy-coded contrast (0 for monitoring, 1 for abstinence). The model adjusted for change at weeks 2, 3, and 4 of the study, and for a subject's scale scores at baseline.||||0.532
91052887|NCT03276221|181989703|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.226|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons by the Bonferroni correction across outcomes for the verbal recognition memory module. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.0125.|Mixed Models Analysis|Estimates were obtained using generalized estimating equations (GEE) with robust standard errors obtained by the sandwich estimator.|The estimate is the mean difference in the log probability of making a correct choice for the abstinence group above and beyond the monitoring group (positive values indicate higher memory performance for the abstinence group).|The mean difference in scale scores between the abstinence and monitoring groups was estimated via a binomial model with a dummy-coded contrast (0 for monitoring, 1 for abstinence). The model adjusted for change at weeks 2, 3, and 4 of the study, and for a subject's scale scores at baseline.||||0.226
91052888|NCT03276221|181989704|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.369|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons by the Bonferroni correction across outcomes for the verbal recognition memory module. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.0125.|Mixed Models Analysis|Estimates were obtained using generalized estimating equations (GEE) with robust standard errors obtained by the sandwich estimator.|The estimate is the mean difference in the log probability of making a correct choice for the abstinence group above and beyond the monitoring group (positive values indicate higher memory performance for the abstinence group).|The mean difference in scale scores between the abstinence and monitoring groups was estimated via a binomial model with a dummy-coded contrast (0 for monitoring, 1 for abstinence). The model adjusted for change at weeks 2, 3, and 4 of the study, and for a subject's scale scores at baseline.||||0.369
91052889|NCT03276221|181989705|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.647|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons by the Bonferroni correction across outcomes for the verbal recognition memory module. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.0125.|Mixed Models Analysis|Estimates were obtained using generalized estimating equations (GEE) with robust standard errors obtained by the sandwich estimator.|The estimate is the mean difference in the log probability of making a correct choice for the abstinence group above and beyond the monitoring group (positive values indicate higher memory performance for the abstinence group).|The mean difference in scale scores between the abstinence and monitoring groups was estimated via a binomial model with a dummy-coded contrast (0 for monitoring, 1 for abstinence). The model adjusted for change at weeks 2, 3, and 4 of the study, and for a subject's scale scores at baseline.||||0.647
90792696|NCT02732145|181466171|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of any associated symptom or disease among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of any associated symptom or disease among patients from different groups.||||0.0000
91052890|NCT03276221|181989706|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.511|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons by the Bonferroni correction across outcomes for the verbal recognition memory module. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.0125.|Mixed Models Analysis|Estimates were obtained using generalized estimating equations (GEE) with robust standard errors obtained by the sandwich estimator.|The estimate is the mean difference in the log probability of making a correct choice for the abstinence group above and beyond the monitoring group (positive values indicate higher memory performance for the abstinence group).|The mean difference in scale scores between the abstinence and monitoring groups was estimated via a binomial model with a dummy-coded contrast (0 for monitoring, 1 for abstinence). The model adjusted for change at weeks 2, 3, and 4 of the study, and for a subject's scale scores at baseline.||||0.511
90792697|NCT02732145|181466171|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of a frequent headache among patients from different groups?||||||0.3957|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of a frequent headache among patients from different groups.||||0.3957
90792698|NCT02732145|181466171|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of chronic fatigue among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of chronic fatigue among patients from different groups.||||0.0000
91010871|NCT03091920|181905176|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|1.9|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, post-dose AM 1 hour||1.9|-10.6|
91010872|NCT03091920|181905176|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|0.7|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, post-dose AM 1 hour||0.7|-12.0|
91010873|NCT03091920|181905176|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|10.3|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, post-dose AM 4 hour||10.3|-8.3|
91010874|NCT03091920|181905176|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|9.7|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, post-dose AM 4 hour||9.7|-9.2|
91010875|NCT03091920|181905176|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|2.3|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 8, pre-dose AM||2.3|-11.5|
90792699|NCT02732145|181466171|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of lumbar pain among patients from different groups?||||||0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of lumbar pain among patients from different groups.||||0.0001
91010876|NCT03091920|181905176|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|4.2|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 8, pre-dose AM||4.2|-9.9|
91010877|NCT03091920|181905176|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-9.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5|-3.0|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 8, post-dose AM 1 hour||-3.0|-15.5|
91010878|NCT03091920|181905176|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-8.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|-1.9|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 8, post-dose AM 1 hour||-1.9|-14.6|
90792700|NCT02732145|181466171|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of fibromyalgia among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of fibromyalgia among patients from different groups.||||0.0000
91010879|NCT03091920|181905176|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|2.0|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 8, post-dose AM 4 hour||2.0|-12.6|
91010880|NCT03091920|181905176|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|6.1|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 8, post-dose AM 4 hour||6.1|-8.7|
91010881|NCT03091920|181905176|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|6.7|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 8, pre-dose PM||6.7|-8.2|
91010882|NCT03091920|181905176|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|7.9|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 8, pre-dose PM||7.9|-7.3|
91010883|NCT03091920|181905176|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|0.6|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 9, pre-dose AM||0.6|-10.3|
91010884|NCT03091920|181905176|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|3.4|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 9, pre-dose AM||3.4|-7.7|
91010885|NCT03091920|181905176|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|2.3|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 10, pre-dose||2.3|-10.0|
91010886|NCT03091920|181905176|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|1.2|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 10, pre-dose AM||1.2|-11.4|
90792701|NCT02732145|181466171|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of energy loss among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of energy loss among patients from different groups.||||0.0000
90792702|NCT02732145|181466171|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of sleep disorders among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of sleep disorders among patients from different groups.||||0.0000
91010887|NCT03091920|181905176|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-8.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|-2.2|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 11, pre-dose AM||-2.2|-15.2|
91010888|NCT03091920|181905176|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|1.3|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 11, pre-dose AM||1.3|-12.0|
91010889|NCT03091920|181905176|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|2.8|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 12, pre-dose AM||2.8|-7.6|
91010890|NCT03091920|181905176|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|0.8|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 12, pre-dose AM||0.8|-9.7|
91010891|NCT03091920|181905176|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|0.8|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 13, pre-dose AM||0.8|-10.7|
91010892|NCT03091920|181905176|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|1.3|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 13, pre-dose AM||1.3|-10.4|
91010893|NCT03091920|181905176|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|-3.4|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 13, post-dose AM 1 hour||-3.4|-14.6|
91010894|NCT03091920|181905176|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-8.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.2|-2.8|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 13, post-dose AM 1 hour||-2.8|-14.2|
91010895|NCT03091920|181905176|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-6.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|1.5|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 13, post-dose AM 4 hour||1.5|-13.8|
91010896|NCT03091920|181905176|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-6.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|1.2|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 13, post-dose AM 4 hour||1.2|-14.3|
91077790|NCT02913105|182041130|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.787|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.0134|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.965|-0.609|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 84||-0.609|-2.965|0.0134
90792703|NCT02732145|181466171|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of pelvic pain among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of pelvic pain among patients from different groups.||||0.0000
91010897|NCT03091920|181905176|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|-1.0|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 13, pre-dose PM||-1.0|-15.0|
91010898|NCT03091920|181905176|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.2|0.0|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 13, pre-dose PM||0|-14.2|
91010899|NCT03091920|181905176|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|6.4|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, pre-dose AM||6.4|-9.8|
91010900|NCT03091920|181905176|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|8.5|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, pre-dose AM||8.5|-8.0|
91010901|NCT03091920|181905176|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|3.7|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 15, Discharge||3.7|-9.0|
91010902|NCT03091920|181905176|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|5.8|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 15, Discharge||5.8|-7.1|
91010903|NCT03091920|181905176|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|3.9|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 21, Follow-up||3.9|-5.5|
90792704|NCT02732145|181466171|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of unintended weight loss among patients from different groups?||||||0.1764|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of unintended weight loss among patients from different groups.||||0.1764
90792705|NCT02732145|181466171|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of endometriosis among patients from different groups?||||||0.3127|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of endometriosis among patients from different groups.||||0.3127
90792706|NCT02732145|181466171|EQUIVALENCE|"Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of D-D-D Triad among patients from different groups?"||||||0.0028|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The difference in the difference in the incidence of D-D-D Triad (Dysmenorrhoea-Dyspareunia-Dysuria) among patients from different groups."||||0.0028
90792707|NCT02732145|181466171|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of hypertension among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of hypertension among patients from different groups.||||0.0000
90792708|NCT02732145|181466171|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of genital herpes among patients from different groups?||||||0.9323|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of genital herpes among patients from different groups.||||0.9323
90792709|NCT02732145|181466171|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of thyroid disease among patients from different groups?||||||0.0011|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of thyroid disease among patients from different groups.||||0.0011
90792710|NCT02732145|181466171|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of drug allergy among patients from different groups?||||||0.2756|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of drug allergy among patients from different groups.||||0.2756
91052891|NCT03276221|181989707|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.312|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons by the Bonferroni correction across outcomes for the multitasking test module. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.0125.|Mixed Models Analysis|Estimates were obtained using generalized estimating equations (GEE) with robust standard errors obtained by the sandwich estimator.|The estimate is the mean difference in the log probability of making an error for the abstinence group above and beyond the monitoring group (positive values indicate higher error commission for the abstinence group).|The mean difference in scale scores between the abstinence and monitoring groups was estimated via a binomial model with a dummy-coded contrast (0 for monitoring, 1 for abstinence). The model adjusted for change at weeks 2, 3, and 4 of the study, and for a subject's scale scores at baseline.||||0.312
91079047|NCT03743402|182043711|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is a point null of exactly 0 expected difference in PODS score between arms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.48||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|2.21|||Regression, Linear||mean difference = (pain self-management) - (usual care)|||2.21|-1.26|0.59
90792711|NCT02732145|181466171|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of recurrent attacks of sinusitis among patients from different groups?||||||0.0105|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of recurrent attacks of sinusitis among patients from different groups.||||0.0105
90792712|NCT02732145|181466171|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of HPV infection among patients from different groups, who were tested for HPV?||||||0.2128|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of HPV infection among patients from different groups, who were tested for HPV.||||0.2128
90792713|NCT02732145|181466171|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of abnormal PAP smear among patients from different groups?||||||0.0018|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of abnormal PAP smear among patients from different groups.||||0.0018
90792714|NCT02732145|181466171|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of genital warts among patients from different groups?||||||0.2524|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of genital warts among patients from different groups.||||0.2524
90792715|NCT02732145|181466171|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of conization or LETZ among patients from different groups?||||||0.2452|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of conization or LETZ among patients from different groups.||||0.2452
90792716|NCT02732145|181466172|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of any previous treatment between patients with vulvar dermatosis and vulvodynia?||||||0.1583|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of any previous treatment between patients with vulvar dermatosis and vulvodynia.||||0.1583
90792717|NCT02732145|181466172|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of previous local treatment with antifungals between the patients with vulvar dermatosis and vulvodynia?||||||0.038|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of previous local treatment with antifungals among patients with vulvar dermatosis and vulvodynia.||||0.0380
90792718|NCT02732145|181466172|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of previous systemic treatment with antifungals between the patients with vulvar dermatosis and vulvodynia?||||||0.6468|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of previous systemic treatment with antifungals among patients with vulvar dermatosis and vulvodynia.||||0.6468
90792719|NCT02732145|181466172|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of previous local treatment with antibiotics between the patients with vulvar dermatosis and vulvodynia?||||||0.467|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of previous local treatment with antibiotics among patients with vulvar dermatosis and vulvodynia.||||0.4670
90792720|NCT02732145|181466172|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of previous systemic treatment with antibiotics between the patients with vulvar dermatosis and vulvodynia?||||||0.2131|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of previous systemic treatment with antibiotics among patients with vulvar dermatosis and vulvodynia.||||0.2131
90792721|NCT02732145|181466172|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of previous local treatment with corticosteroids between the patients with vulvar dermatosis and vulvodynia?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of previous local treatment with corticoids among patients with vulvar dermatosis and vulvodynia.||||0.0000
90792722|NCT02732145|181466172|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of previous systemic treatment with antidepressant between the patients with vulvar dermatosis and vulvodynia?||||||0.0962|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of previous systemic treatment with antidepressant among patients with vulvar dermatosis and vulvodynia.||||0.0962
90792723|NCT02732145|181466173|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of a positive Cotton-Swab test of the vulva among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of a positive Cotton-Swab test of the vulva among patients from different groups.||||0.0000
91010904|NCT03091920|181905176|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|4.9|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 21, Follow-up||4.9|-4.6|
90792724|NCT02732145|181466173|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of a positive Cotton-Swab test at the point marked as 2h among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of a positive Cotton-Swab test at the point marked as 2h among patients from different groups.||||0.0000
90792725|NCT02732145|181466173|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of a positive Cotton-Swab test at the point marked as 4h among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of a positive Cotton-Swab test at the point marked as 4h among patients from different groups.||||0.0000
90792726|NCT02732145|181466173|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of a positive Cotton-Swab test at the point marked as 6h among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of a positive Cotton-Swab test at the point marked as 6h among patients from different groups.||||0.0000
90792727|NCT02732145|181466173|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of a positive Cotton-Swab test at the point marked as 8h among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of a positive Cotton-Swab test at the point marked as 8h among patients from different groups.||||0.0000
90792728|NCT02732145|181466173|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of a positive Cotton-Swab test at the point marked as 10h among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of a positive Cotton-Swab test at the point marked as 10h among patients from different groups.||||0.0000
90792729|NCT02732145|181466173|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of a positive Cotton-Swab test at the point marked as 12h among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of a positive Cotton-Swab test at the point marked as 12h among patients from different groups.||||0.0000
90792730|NCT02732145|181466173|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of a positive Cotton-Swab test of the vulva in patients with vulvar dermatosis versus normal vulva?||||||0.0009|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of a positive Cotton-Swab test of the vulva in patients with vulvar dermatosis versus normal vulva.||||0.0009
90792731|NCT02732145|181466173|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of a positive Cotton-Swab test at the point marked as 2h in patients with vulvar dermatosis versus normal vulva?||||||0.0289|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of a positive Cotton-Swab test at the point marked as 2h in patients with vulvar dermatosis versus normal vulva.||||0.0289
91010905|NCT03091920|181905176|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|10.7|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 42, End of trial||10.7|-6.5|
90792732|NCT02732145|181466173|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of a positive Cotton-Swab test at the point marked as 4h in patients with vulvar dermatosis versus normal vulva?||||||0.0134|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of a positive Cotton-Swab test at the point marked as 4h in patients with vulvar dermatosis and normal vulva.||||0.0134
91010906|NCT03091920|181905176|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|9.6|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 42, End of trial||9.6|-7.9|
91010907|NCT03091920|181905177|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|6.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|16.8|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, post-dose AM 1 hour||16.8|-4.4|
91010908|NCT03091920|181905177|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|9.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|19.8|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, post-dose AM 1 hour||19.8|-1.5|
91010909|NCT03091920|181905177|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|9.0|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, post-dose AM 4 hour||9.0|-9.0|
90792733|NCT02732145|181466173|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of a positive Cotton-Swab test at the point marked as 6h in patients with vulvar dermatosis versus normal vulva?||||||0.0037|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of a positive Cotton-Swab test at the point marked as 6h in patients with vulvar dermatosis and normal vulva.||||0.0037
91010910|NCT03091920|181905177|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|13.4|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, post-dose AM 4 hour||13.4|-4.6|
91010911|NCT03091920|181905177|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|7.1|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, post-dose AM 8 hour||7.1|-7.5|
91010912|NCT03091920|181905177|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|8.9|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, post-dose AM 8 hour||8.9|-5.7|
91010913|NCT03091920|181905177|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|12.1|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, pre-dose PM||12.1|-2.0|
91010914|NCT03091920|181905177|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|12.3|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, pre-dose PM||12.3|-1.8|
90792734|NCT02732145|181466173|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of a positive Cotton-Swab test at the point marked as 8h in patients with vulvar dermatosis and normal vulva?||||||0.008|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of a positive Cotton-Swab test at the point marked as 8h in patients with vulvar dermatosis and normal vulva.||||0.0080
91052892|NCT03276221|181989708|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.27||0.836|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons by the Bonferroni correction across outcomes for the multitasking test module. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.0125.|Mixed Models Analysis|Estimates were obtained using generalized estimating equations (GEE) with robust standard errors obtained by the sandwich estimator.|The estimate is the mean difference in the median response latency for the abstinence group above and beyond the monitoring group (positive values indicate higher slower responses for the abstinence group).|The mean difference in scale scores between the abstinence and monitoring groups was estimated via a binomial model with a dummy-coded contrast (0 for monitoring, 1 for abstinence). The model adjusted for change at weeks 2, 3, and 4 of the study, and for a subject's scale scores at baseline.||||0.836
90792735|NCT02732145|181466173|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of a positive Cotton-Swab test at the point marked as 10h in patients with vulvar dermatosis versus normal vulva?||||||0.0579|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of a positive Cotton-Swab test at the point marked as 10h in patients with vulvar dermatosis and normal vulva.||||0.0579
91052893|NCT03276221|181989709|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.93||0.898|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons by the Bonferroni correction across outcomes for the multitasking test module. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.0125.|Mixed Models Analysis|Estimates were obtained using generalized estimating equations (GEE) with robust standard errors obtained by the sandwich estimator.|The estimate is the mean difference in the median incongruency cost for the abstinence group above and beyond the monitoring group (positive values indicate higher costs for incongruent trials for the abstinence group).|The mean difference in scale scores between the abstinence and monitoring groups was estimated via a binomial model with a dummy-coded contrast (0 for monitoring, 1 for abstinence). The model adjusted for change at weeks 2, 3, and 4 of the study, and for a subject's scale scores at baseline.||||0.898
91052894|NCT03276221|181989710|SUPERIORITY||Slope|16.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.05||0.068|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons by the Bonferroni correction across outcomes for the multitasking test module. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.0125.|Mixed Models Analysis|Estimates were obtained using generalized estimating equations (GEE) with robust standard errors obtained by the sandwich estimator.|The estimate is the mean difference in the multitasking cost for the abstinence group above and beyond the monitoring group (positive values indicate higher costs for multitasking trials for the abstinence group).|The mean difference in scale scores between the abstinence and monitoring groups was estimated via a binomial model with a dummy-coded contrast (0 for monitoring, 1 for abstinence). The model adjusted for change at weeks 2, 3, and 4 of the study, and for a subject's scale scores at baseline.||||0.068
91052895|NCT03276221|181989711|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.15|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons by the Bonferroni correction across outcomes for the one touch stockings of Cambridge module. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|Estimates were obtained using generalized estimating equations (GEE) with robust standard errors obtained by the sandwich estimator.|The estimate is the mean difference in the log probability of making a correct response for the abstinence group above and beyond the monitoring group (positive values indicate higher accuracy for the abstinence group).|The mean difference in scale scores between the abstinence and monitoring groups was estimated via a binomial model with a dummy-coded contrast (0 for monitoring, 1 for abstinence). The model adjusted for change at weeks 2, 3, and 4 of the study, and for a subject's scale scores at baseline.||||0.150
91052896|NCT03276221|181989712|SUPERIORITY||Slope|179.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|281.76||0.525|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons by the Bonferroni correction across outcomes for the one touch stockings of Cambridge module. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|Estimates were obtained using generalized estimating equations (GEE) with robust standard errors obtained by the sandwich estimator.|The estimate is the mean difference in the log probability of making an error for the abstinence group above and beyond the monitoring group (positive values indicate higher error commission for the abstinence group).|The mean difference in scale scores between the abstinence and monitoring groups was estimated via a binomial model with a dummy-coded contrast (0 for monitoring, 1 for abstinence). The model adjusted for change at weeks 2, 3, and 4 of the study, and for a subject's scale scores at baseline.||||0.525
91052897|NCT03276221|181989713|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-10.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.24||0.038|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons by the Bonferroni correction across outcomes for the stop signal task module. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Estimates were obtained using generalized estimating equations (GEE) with robust standard errors obtained by the sandwich estimator.|The estimate is the mean difference in the inhibition latency for the abstinence group above and beyond the monitoring group (positive values indicate slower inhibition for the abstinence group).|The mean difference in scale scores between the abstinence and monitoring groups was estimated via a binomial model with a dummy-coded contrast (0 for monitoring, 1 for abstinence). The model adjusted for change at weeks 2, 3, and 4 of the study, and for a subject's scale scores at baseline.||||0.038
90792736|NCT02732145|181466173|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of a positive Cotton-Swab test at the point marked as 12h in patients with vulvar dermatosis versus normal vulva?||||||0.072|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of a positive Cotton-Swab test at the point marked as 12h in patients with vulvar dermatosis and normal vulva.||||0.0720
90890247|NCT00844857|181644830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. ANCOVA Model terms included baseline and treatment.|ANCOVA|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there was no difference in mean changes from baseline to up to Week 8 between OFC and placebo.||||<0.001
90890248|NCT00570674|181644837|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Sign test|||||||<0.01
90890249|NCT00570674|181644838|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Sign test|||||||<0.01
91052898|NCT03276221|181989714|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.576|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons by the Bonferroni correction across outcomes for the spatial working memory module. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|Estimates were obtained using generalized estimating equations (GEE) with robust standard errors obtained by the sandwich estimator.|The estimate is the mean difference in the log probability of making an error for the abstinence group above and beyond the monitoring group (positive values indicate higher error commission for the abstinence group).|The mean difference in scale scores between the abstinence and monitoring groups was estimated via a binomial model with a dummy-coded contrast (0 for monitoring, 1 for abstinence). The model adjusted for change at weeks 2, 3, and 4 of the study, and for a subject's scale scores at baseline.||||0.576
91052899|NCT03276221|181989715|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.296|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons by the Bonferroni correction across outcomes for the spatial working memory module. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|Estimates were obtained using generalized estimating equations (GEE) with robust standard errors obtained by the sandwich estimator.|The estimate is the mean difference in the log probability of trials with strategic responding for the abstinence group above and beyond the monitoring group (positive values indicate higher rates of strategic responding for the abstinence group).|The mean difference in scale scores between the abstinence and monitoring groups was estimated via a binomial model with a dummy-coded contrast (0 for monitoring, 1 for abstinence). The model adjusted for change at weeks 2, 3, and 4 of the study, and for a subject's scale scores at baseline.||||0.296
91052900|NCT03276221|181989716|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.65|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons by the Bonferroni correction across outcomes for the rapid visual information processing module. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|Estimates were obtained using generalized estimating equations (GEE) with robust standard errors obtained by the sandwich estimator.|The estimate is the mean difference in the discriminability measure for the abstinence group above and beyond the monitoring group (positive values indicate higher discriminability rates for the abstinence group).|The mean difference in scale scores between the abstinence and monitoring groups was estimated via a binomial model with a dummy-coded contrast (0 for monitoring, 1 for abstinence). The model adjusted for change at weeks 2, 3, and 4 of the study, and for a subject's scale scores at baseline.||||0.650
91052901|NCT03276221|181989717|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-11.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.55||0.223|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons by the Bonferroni correction across outcomes for the rapid visual information processing module. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|Estimates were obtained using generalized estimating equations (GEE) with robust standard errors obtained by the sandwich estimator.|The estimate is the mean difference in the median response latency for the abstinence group above and beyond the monitoring group (positive values indicate slower responses for the abstinence group).|The mean difference in scale scores between the abstinence and monitoring groups was estimated via a binomial model with a dummy-coded contrast (0 for monitoring, 1 for abstinence). The model adjusted for change at weeks 2, 3, and 4 of the study, and for a subject's scale scores at baseline.||||0.223
91052902|NCT02615171|181989719|OTHER|||||||0.0106|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0106
91052903|NCT02615171|181989720|OTHER|||||||0.0027|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0027
91052904|NCT02615171|181989721|OTHER|||||||0.7829|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.7829
91052905|NCT00975286|181989731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||[Least squares (LS) mean difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.074|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.463|-0.171||Statistical testing: 2-sided at significance level=0.05. Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) included treatment arms; randomization strata of Week -1 HbA1c (\<8.0,\>=8.0%) and TZD use (yes/no); country as fixed effects; baseline HbA1c as covariate.|ANCOVA|||To detect a difference of 0.5% (or 0.4%) in change from baseline to Week 24 in HbA1c between lixisenatide and placebo, 225 patients in each arm would provide a power of 98% (or 90%) assuming common standard deviation of 1.3% with a 2-sided test at 5% significance level.||-0.171|-0.463|<0.0001
91077791|NCT02913105|182041130|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.123|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.793||0.0087|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.439|-0.807|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 112 (EOS)||-0.807|-3.439|0.0087
91079048|NCT03743402|182043712|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is a point null of exactly 0 expected difference in opioid craving score between arms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.57|||Regression, Linear||mean difference = (pain self-management) - (usual care)|||0.57|-0.66|0.90
90792737|NCT02732145|181466174|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Outer Vulvar Ring between patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of non-specific lesions of the Outer Vulvar Ring in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0000
90792738|NCT02732145|181466174|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Middle Vulvar Ring between patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of non-specific lesions of the Middle Vulvar Ring in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0000
90792739|NCT02732145|181466174|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Inner Vulvar Ring between patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of non-specific lesions of the Inner Vulvar Ring in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0000
90792740|NCT02732145|181466174|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of erythema of the Outer Vulvar Ring between patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of erythema of the Outer Vulvar Ring in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0000
91010915|NCT03091920|181905177|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|9.6|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, post-dose PM 1 hour||9.6|-5.1|
91010916|NCT03091920|181905177|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|8.7|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, post-dose PM 1 hour||8.7|-6.0|
91010917|NCT03091920|181905177|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|6.9|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 2, pre-dose AM||6.9|-5.0|
91010918|NCT03091920|181905177|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|6.6|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 2, pre-dose AM||6.6|-5.3|
91010919|NCT03091920|181905177|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|13.2|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 2, post-dose AM 1 hour||13.2|-8.1|
91010920|NCT03091920|181905177|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|15.0|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 2, post-dose AM 1 hour||15.0|-6.3|
91010921|NCT03091920|181905177|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|11.2|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 2, post-dose AM 4 hour||11.2|-4.6|
91010922|NCT03091920|181905177|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|14.9|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 2, post-dose AM 4 hour||14.9|-1.0|
91010923|NCT03091920|181905177|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|5.9|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 2, pre-dose PM||5.9|-8.5|
91010924|NCT03091920|181905177|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|5.9|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 2, pre-dose PM||5.9|-8.5|
91010925|NCT03091920|181905177|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|9.5|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 2, post-dose PM 1 hour||9.5|-9.2|
90890250|NCT00570674|181644839|OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||Sign test|||||||0.52
91010926|NCT03091920|181905177|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|9.2|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 2, post-dose PM 1 hour||9.2|-9.5|
91010927|NCT03091920|181905177|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|7.4|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 2, post-dose PM 4 hour||7.4|-5.1|
91010928|NCT03091920|181905177|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|9.2|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 2, post-dose PM 4 hour||9.2|-3.4|
91010929|NCT03091920|181905177|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|4.8|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 3, pre-dose AM||4.8|-7.5|
91010930|NCT03091920|181905177|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|5.8|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 3, pre-dose AM||5.8|-6.5|
91010931|NCT03091920|181905177|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|5.3|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 3, post-dose PM 4 hour||5.3|-9.9|
91010932|NCT03091920|181905177|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|9.8|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 3, post-dose PM 4 hour||9.8|-5.4|
91010933|NCT03091920|181905177|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|13.7|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 4, pre-dose AM||13.7|0.2|
90890251|NCT00570674|181644840|OTHER|||||||0.39|||||||Sign test|||||||0.39
90792741|NCT02732145|181466174|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of erythema of the Middle Vulvar Ring between patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of erythema of the Middle Vulvar Ring in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0000
90792742|NCT02732145|181466174|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of erythema of the Inner Vulvar Ring between patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of erythema of the Inner Vulvar Ring in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0000
90792743|NCT02732145|181466174|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of excoriations of the Outer Vulvar Ring between patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of excoriations of the Outer Vulvar Ring in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0000
91010934|NCT03091920|181905177|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|11.8|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 4, pre-dose AM||11.8|-1.7|
91010935|NCT03091920|181905177|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|9.0|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 5, pre-dose AM||9.0|-3.1|
91010936|NCT03091920|181905177|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|8.7|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 5, pre-dose AM||8.7|-3.4|
91010937|NCT03091920|181905177|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|10.0|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 6, pre-dose AM||10.0|-5.4|
91010938|NCT03091920|181905177|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|7.0|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 6, pre-dose AM||7.0|-8.4|
91010939|NCT03091920|181905177|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|11.8|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, pre-dose AM||11.8|-1.6|
91010940|NCT03091920|181905177|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|11.7|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, pre-dose AM||11.7|-1.7|
91010941|NCT03091920|181905177|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|9.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|20.2|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, post-dose AM 1 hour||20.2|-1.6|
91010942|NCT03091920|181905177|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|13.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|23.9|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, post-dose AM 1 hour||23.9|2.1|
91010943|NCT03091920|181905177|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|13.9|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, post-dose AM 4 hour||13.9|0.2|
91010944|NCT03091920|181905177|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|11.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.6|18.3|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, post-dose AM 4 hour||18.3|4.6|
91010945|NCT03091920|181905177|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|8.6|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 8, pre-dose AM||8.6|-4.8|
91010946|NCT03091920|181905177|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|10.8|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 8, pre-dose||10.8|-2.6|
91010947|NCT03091920|181905177|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|9.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|19.6|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 8, post-dose AM 1 hour||19.6|-0.1|
91010948|NCT03091920|181905177|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|9.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|19.4|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 8, post-dose AM 1 hour||19.4|-0.3|
91010949|NCT03091920|181905177|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|7.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|15.5|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 8, post-dose AM 4 hour||15.5|0|
91010950|NCT03091920|181905177|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|8.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|16.1|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 8, post-dose AM 4 hour||16.1|0.6|
91010951|NCT03091920|181905177|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|11.7|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 8, pre-dose PM||11.7|-5.1|
91010952|NCT03091920|181905177|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|11.3|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 8, pre-dose PM||11.3|-5.4|
91010953|NCT03091920|181905177|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|9.1|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 9, pre-dose AM||9.1|-6.1|
91010954|NCT03091920|181905177|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|9.9|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 9, pre-dose AM||9.9|-5.3|
91010955|NCT03091920|181905177|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|12.6|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 10, pre-dose||12.6|-4.0|
91010956|NCT03091920|181905177|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|13.4|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 10, pre-dose AM||13.4|-3.2|
91010957|NCT03091920|181905177|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|8.0|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 11, pre-dose AM||8.0|-11.0|
91010958|NCT03091920|181905177|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|8.6|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 11, pre-dose AM||8.6|-10.3|
91010959|NCT03091920|181905177|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|13.4|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 12, pre-dose AM||13.4|-7.7|
91010960|NCT03091920|181905177|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|11.8|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 12, pre-dose AM||11.8|-9.4|
91010961|NCT03091920|181905177|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|10.3|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 13, pre-dose AM||10.3|-8.4|
91010962|NCT03091920|181905177|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|9.4|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 13, pre-dose AM||9.4|-9.3|
91010963|NCT03091920|181905177|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|15.3|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 13, post-dose AM 1 hour||15.3|-1.3|
91010964|NCT03091920|181905177|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|9.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|18.2|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 13, post-dose AM 1 hour||18.2|1.6|
91010965|NCT03091920|181905177|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|12.3|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 13, post-dose AM 4 hour||12.3|-1.0|
91010966|NCT03091920|181905177|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|7.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|13.9|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 13, post-dose AM 4 hour||13.9|0.5|
91010967|NCT03091920|181905177|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|7.4|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 13, pre-dose PM||7.4|-8.4|
91010968|NCT03091920|181905177|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|9.9|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 13, pre-dose PM||9.9|-6.0|
91010969|NCT03091920|181905177|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|11.8|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, pre-dose AM||11.8|-4.0|
91010970|NCT03091920|181905177|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|11.2|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, pre-dose AM||11.2|-4.6|
91010971|NCT03091920|181905177|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|7.3|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 15, Discharge||7.3|-8.0|
91010972|NCT03091920|181905177|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|8.1|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 15, Discharge||8.1|-7.2|
91010973|NCT03091920|181905177|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|10.2|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 21, Follow-up||10.2|-11.5|
91010974|NCT03091920|181905177|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|17.5|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 21, Follow-up||17.5|-4.1|
91010975|NCT03091920|181905177|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|9.6|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 42, End of trial||9.6|-9.1|
91010976|NCT03091920|181905177|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|10.2|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 42, End of trial||10.2|-8.5|
91010977|NCT03091920|181905182|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-3.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.07|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.68|3.04|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate. Standard Error of the Mean=Standard Error of the LS Mean Difference.|Day 1||3.04|-9.68|
91010978|NCT03091920|181905182|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.99|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.76|3.66|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate. Standard Error of the Mean=Standard Error of the LS Mean Difference.|Day 1||3.66|-8.76|
91010979|NCT03091920|181905182|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.74|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.62|2.75|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate. Standard Error of the Mean=Standard Error of the LS Mean Difference.|Day 1||2.75|-8.62|
91010980|NCT03091920|181905182|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-3.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.44|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.37|3.92|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate. Standard Error of the Mean=Standard Error of the LS Mean Difference.|Day 7||3.92|-10.37|
91010981|NCT03091920|181905182|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.36|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.46|7.49|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate. Standard Error of the Mean=Standard Error of the LS Mean Difference.|Day 7||7.49|-6.46|
91010982|NCT03091920|181905182|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.08|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.74|5.03|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate. Standard Error of the Mean=Standard Error of the LS Mean Difference.|Day 7||5.03|-7.74|
91010983|NCT03091920|181905182|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.21|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.46|6.04|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate. Standard Error of the Mean=Standard Error of the LS Mean Difference.|Day 14||6.04|-11.46|
91010984|NCT03091920|181905182|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-1.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.95|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.09|6.35|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate. Standard Error of the Mean=Standard Error of the LS Mean Difference.|Day 14||6.35|-10.09|
91010985|NCT03091920|181905182|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.67|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.93|5.35|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate. Standard Error of the Mean=Standard Error of the LS Mean Difference.|Day 14||5.35|-9.93|
91010986|NCT03091920|181905183|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-7.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.52|0.4|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1||0.40|-14.52|
91010987|NCT03091920|181905183|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.54|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.52|3.14|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1||3.14|-11.52|
91010988|NCT03091920|181905183|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-3.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.69|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.47|3.83|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7||3.83|-11.47|
91010989|NCT03091920|181905183|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|1.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.63|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|8.94|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7||8.94|-6.10|
91010990|NCT03091920|181905183|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-6.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.77|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.36|3.47|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14||3.47|-16.36|
91077792|NCT02913105|182041130|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.519|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.368||0.1609|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.13|0.091|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 28||0.091|-1.130|0.1609
91010991|NCT03091920|181905183|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.52|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.44|8.38|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14||8.38|-10.44|
91052906|NCT00899470|181989744|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If no difference between bioavailabilities of saxagliptin from FDC tablet vs. co-administration of saxagliptin tablet and metformin (fasted condition), then 20 subjects provided 97% power to conclude BE with respect to Cmax of saxagliptin. If 5% difference then 20 subjects provided 93% power to conclude BE with respect to Cmax of saxagliptin.|Geometric Mean Ratio, Test vs. Reference|1.011|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|1.088|||Mixed Models Analysis|Bioequivalence=90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the test|For Cmax of saxagliptin, the point estimate and 90% CI were calculated for the ratio of the geometric mean of the Test formulation in fasted state: the geometric mean of the Reference formulation in fasted state|To demonstrate bioequivalence (BE) of FDC tablets (Test) versus co-administration of saxagliptin and metformin IR tablets (Reference) formulations in fasted state, linear mixed model analysis was performed on log(Cmax) of saxagliptin. Factors in the model were sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a random effect.||1.088|0.940|
91052907|NCT00899470|181989744|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If no difference between bioavailabilities of saxagliptin from FDC tablet vs. co-administration of saxagliptin tablet and metformin (fed condition), then 20 subjects provided 97% power to conclude BE with respect to Cmax of saxagliptin. If 5% difference then 20 subjects provided 93% power to conclude BE with respect to Cmax of saxagliptin.|Geometric Mean Ratio, Test vs Reference|0.999|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.929|1.075||||Bioequivalence=90% CIs for the test|For Cmax of saxagliptin, the point estimate and 90% CI were calculated for the ratio of the geometric mean of the Test formulation in fed state: the geometric mean of the Reference formulation in fed state|To demonstrate BE of FDC tablets (Test) versus co-administration of saxagliptin and metformin IR tablets (Reference) formulations in fed state, linear mixed model analysis was performed on log(Cmax) of saxagliptin. Factors in the model were sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a random effect.||1.075|0.929|
91052908|NCT00899470|181989745|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If no difference between bioavailabilities of saxagliptin from FDC tablet vs. co-administration of saxagliptin tablet and metformin (fasted condition), then 20 subjects provided 99% power to conclude BE with respect to AUC(INF) of saxagliptin. If 5% difference then 20 subjects provided 99% power to conclude BE with respect to AUC(INF) of saxagliptin.|Geometric Mean Ratio, Test vs. Reference|1.029|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.993|1.066|||Mixed Models Analysis|Bioequivalence=90% CIs for the test|For AUC(0-T) of saxagliptin, the point estimate and 90% CI were calculated for the ratio of the geometric mean of the Test formulation in fasted state: geometric mean of the Reference formulation in fasted state|To demonstrate BE of FDC tablets (Test) versus co-administration of saxagliptin and metformin IR tablets (Reference) formulations in fasted and fed states, linear mixed model analysis was performed on log\[AUC(0-T)\] of saxagliptin. Factors in the model were sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a random effect.||1.066|0.993|
91052909|NCT00899470|181989745|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If no difference between bioavailabilities of saxagliptin from FDC tablet vs. co-administration of saxagliptin tablet and metformin (fed condition), then 20 subjects provided 99% power to conclude BE with respect to AUC(INF) of saxagliptin. If 5% difference then 20 subjects provided 99% power to conclude BE with respect to AUC(INF) of saxagliptin.|Geometric Means Ratio|1.021|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.986|1.058|||Mixed Models Analysis|Bioequivalence=90% CIs for the test|For AUC(0-T) of saxagliptin, the point estimate and 90% CI were calculated for the ratio of the geometric mean of the Test formulation in fed state: the geometric mean of the Reference formulation in fed state|To demonstrate BE of FDC tablets (Test) versus co-administration of saxagliptin and metformin IR tablets (Reference) formulations in fed state, linear mixed model analysis was performed on log\[AUC(0-T)\] of saxagliptin. Factors in the model were sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a random effect.||1.058|0.986|
91052910|NCT00899470|181989746|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If no difference between bioavailabilities of saxagliptin from FDC tablet vs. co-administration of saxagliptin tablet and metformin (fasted condition), then 20 subjects provided 99% power to conclude BE with respect to AUC(INF) of saxagliptin. If 5% difference then 20 subjects provided 99% power to conclude BE with respect to AUC(INF) of saxagliptin.|Geometric Mean Ratio, Test vs. Reference|1.027|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.99|1.066|||Mixed Models Analysis|Bioequivalence=90% CIs for the test|For AUC(INF) of saxagliptin, the point estimate and 90% CI were calculated for the ratio of the geometric mean of the Test formulation in fasted state: geometric mean of the Reference formulation in fasted state|To demonstrate BE of FDC tablets (Test) versus co-administration of saxagliptin and metformin IR tablets (Reference) formulations in fasted state, linear mixed model analysis was performed on log\[AUC(INF)\] of saxagliptin. Factors in the model were sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a random effect.||1.066|0.990|
91052911|NCT00899470|181989746|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If no difference between bioavailabilities of saxagliptin from FDC tablet vs. co-administration of saxagliptin tablet and metformin (fed condition), then 20 subjects provided 99% power to conclude BE with respect to AUC(INF) of saxagliptin. If 5% difference then 20 subjects provided 99% power to conclude BE with respect to AUC(INF) of saxagliptin.|Geometric Means Ratio Test vs. Reference|1.022|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.985|1.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|Bioequivalence=90% CIs for the test|For AUC(INF) of saxagliptin, the point estimate and 90% CI were calculated for the ratio of the geometric mean of the Test formulation in fed state: the geometric mean of the Reference formulation in fed state|To demonstrate BE of FDC tablets (Test) versus co-administration of saxagliptin and metformin IR tablets (Reference) formulations in fed state, linear mixed model analysis was performed on log\[AUC(INF)\] of saxagliptin and metformin. Factors in the model were sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a random effect.||1.060|0.985|
91052912|NCT00899470|181989748|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If no difference between bioavailabilities of metformin from FDC tablet vs. co-administration of saxagliptin tablet and metformin (fasted and fed), then 20 subjects provided 98% power to conclude BE with respect to Cmax of metformin. If 5% difference then 20 subjects provided 93% power to conclude BE with respect to Cmax of metformin, respectively.|Geometric Mean Ratio, Test vs. Reference|1.009|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.939|1.084|||Mixed Models Analysis|Bioequivalence=90% CIs for the test|For Cmax of metformin, the point estimate and 90% CI were calculated for the ratio of the geometric mean of the Test formulation in fasted state: geometric mean of the Reference formulation in fasted fed state|To demonstrate BE of FDC tablets (Test) versus co-administration of saxagliptin and metformin IR tablets (Reference) formulations in fasted state, linear mixed model analysis was performed on log(Cmax) of metformin. Factors in the model were sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a random effect.||1.084|0.939|
91010992|NCT03091920|181905184|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.26|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.97|6.54|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1||6.54|-6.97|
91010993|NCT03091920|181905184|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.24|5.03|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1||5.03|-8.24|
91010994|NCT03091920|181905184|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-3.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.74|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.88|4.65|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7||4.65|-10.88|
91010995|NCT03091920|181905184|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.68|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.45|6.8|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7||6.80|-8.45|
91010996|NCT03091920|181905184|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.19|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.84|9.58|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14||9.58|-7.84|
91010997|NCT03091920|181905184|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.96|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.23|5.26|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14||5.26|-11.23|
91010998|NCT03091920|181905185|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-5.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.84|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.51|2.41|||||Least squares mean difference and associated 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 0-4 hours||2.41|-13.51|
91010999|NCT03091920|181905185|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.83|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.41|5.47|||||Least squares mean difference and associated 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 0-4 hours||5.47|-10.41|
91011000|NCT03091920|181905185|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-8.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.49|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.36|1.25|||||Least squares mean difference and associated 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 4-8 hours||1.25|-17.36|
91011001|NCT03091920|181905185|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-8.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.41|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.42|0.87|||||Least squares mean difference and associated 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 4-8 hours||0.87|-17.42|
91011002|NCT03091920|181905185|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-9.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.86|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.43|0.74|||||Least squares mean difference and associated 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 8-12 hours||0.74|-19.43|
91011003|NCT03091920|181905185|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-3.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.77|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.95|6.84|||||Least squares mean difference and associated 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 8-12 hours||6.84|-12.95|
91011004|NCT03091920|181905185|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|3.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.91|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.74|11.47|||||Least squares mean difference and associated 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 12-16 hours||11.47|-4.74|
91011005|NCT03091920|181905185|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|2.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.82|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|10.75|||||Least squares mean difference and associated 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 12-16 hours||10.75|-5.10|
91011006|NCT03091920|181905185|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.21|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.23|6.37|||||Least squares mean difference and associated 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 16-20 hours||6.37|-15.23|
91011007|NCT03091920|181905185|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.21|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.65|5.94|||||Least squares mean difference and associated 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 16-20 hours||5.94|-15.65|
91011008|NCT03091920|181905185|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|7.47|||||Least squares mean difference and associated 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 20-24 hours||7.47|-9.10|
91011009|NCT03091920|181905185|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.76|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.42|5.16|||||Least squares mean difference and associated 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 20-24 hours||5.16|-10.42|
91011010|NCT03091920|181905185|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-5.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|2.72|||||Least squares mean difference and associated 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 0-4 hours||2.72|-13.80|
91011011|NCT03091920|181905185|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.97|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.25|8.23|||||Least squares mean difference and associated 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 0-4 hours||8.23|-8.25|
91011012|NCT03091920|181905185|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.01|6.23|||||Least squares mean difference and associated 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 4-8 hours||6.23|-12.01|
91011013|NCT03091920|181905185|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|2.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.32|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.78|11.13|||||Least squares mean difference and associated 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 4-8 hours||11.13|-6.78|
90792744|NCT02732145|181466174|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of fissures the Middle Vulvar Ring between patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of fissures of the Middle Vulvar Ring in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0000
90792745|NCT02732145|181466174|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of rhagades of the Outer Vulvar Ring between patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of rhagades of the Outer Vulvar Ring in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0000
90792746|NCT02732145|181466174|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of smoothness of the Middle Vulvar Ring between patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of smoothness of the Middle Vulvar Ring in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0000
91011014|NCT03091920|181905185|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.68|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.93|5.47|||||Least squares mean difference and associated 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 8-12 hours||5.47|-13.93|
91011015|NCT03091920|181905185|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|1.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.59|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.14|10.88|||||Least squares mean difference and associated 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 8-12 hours||10.88|-8.14|
91011016|NCT03091920|181905185|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.32|9.18|||||Least squares mean difference and associated 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 12-16 hours||9.18|-10.32|
91011017|NCT03091920|181905185|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|2.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.04|12.02|||||Least squares mean difference and associated 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 12-16 hours||12.02|-7.04|
91011018|NCT03091920|181905185|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-7.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.33|2.55|||||Least squares mean difference and associated 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 16-20 hours||2.55|-18.33|
91011019|NCT03091920|181905185|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-6.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.92|3.95|||||Least squares mean difference and associated 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 16-20 hours||3.95|-16.92|
91011020|NCT03091920|181905185|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-3.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.91|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.03|6.35|||||Least squares mean difference and associated 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 20-24 hours||6.35|-14.03|
91011021|NCT03091920|181905185|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.62|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|10.35|||||Least squares mean difference and associated 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 20-24 hours||10.35|-8.80|
91011022|NCT03091920|181905185|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-7.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.79|3.53|||||Least squares mean difference and associated 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 0-4 hours||3.53|-17.79|
91011023|NCT03091920|181905185|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|1.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.93|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.59|11.91|||||Least squares mean difference and associated 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 0-4 hours||11.91|-8.59|
91011024|NCT03091920|181905185|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-6.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.74|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.17|3.55|||||Least squares mean difference and associated 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 4-8 hours||3.55|-16.17|
91011025|NCT03091920|181905185|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.54|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|8.27|||||Least squares mean difference and associated 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 4-8 hours||8.27|-10.60|
91011026|NCT03091920|181905185|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-7.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.83|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.13|5.11|||||Least squares mean difference and associated 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 8-12 hours||5.11|-19.13|
91011027|NCT03091920|181905185|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.55|7.34|||||Least squares mean difference and associated 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 8-12 hours||7.34|-15.55|
91011028|NCT03091920|181905185|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|1.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.48|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.63|13.17|||||Least squares mean difference and associated 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 12-16 hours||13.17|-9.63|
91011029|NCT03091920|181905185|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-3.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.18|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.25|7.31|||||Least squares mean difference and associated 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 12-16 hours||7.31|-14.25|
91011030|NCT03091920|181905185|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-1.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.57|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.24|7.77|||||Least squares mean difference and associated 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 16-20 hours||7.77|-11.24|
91011031|NCT03091920|181905185|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-5.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.46|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.83|3.73|||||Least squares mean difference and associated 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 16-20 hours||3.73|-14.83|
91052913|NCT00899470|181989748|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If no difference between bioavailabilities of metformin from FDC tablet vs. co-administration of saxagliptin tablet and metformin (fed), then 20 subjects provided 98% power to conclude BE with respect to Cmax of metformin. If 5% difference then 20 subjects provided 93% power to conclude BE with respect to Cmax of metformin.|Geometric Mean Ratio, Test vs. Reference|1.034|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.962|1.111|||Mixed Models Analysis|Bioequivalence=90% CIs for the test|For Cmax of metformin, the point estimate and 90% CI were calculated for the ratio of the geometric mean of the Test formulation in fed state: the geometric mean of the Reference formulation in fed state|To demonstrate BE of FDC tablets (Test) versus co-administration of saxagliptin and metformin IR tablets (Reference) formulations in fed state, linear mixed model analysis was performed on log(Cmax) of metformin. Factors in the model were sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a random effect.||1.111|0.962|
91052914|NCT00899470|181989749|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If no difference between bioavailabilities of metformin from FDC tablet vs. co-administration of saxagliptin tablet and metformin (fasted), then 20 subjects provided 99% power to conclude BE with respect to AUC(INF) of metformin. If 5% difference then 20 subjects provided 95% power to conclude BE with respect to AUC(INF) of metformin.|Geometric Mean Ratio, Test vs. Reference|1.024|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.964|1.088|||Mixed Models Analysis|Bioequivalence=90% CIs for the test|For AUC(0-T) of metformin the point estimate and 90% CI were calculated for the ratio of the geometric mean of the Test formulation in fasted state: geometric mean of the Reference formulation in fasted state|To demonstrate BE of FDC tablets (Test) versus co-administration of saxagliptin and metformin IR tablets (Reference) formulations in fasted state, linear mixed model analysis was performed on log\[AUC(0-T)\] of metformin. Factors in the model were sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a random effect.||1.088|0.964|
91052915|NCT00899470|181989749|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If no difference between bioavailabilities of metformin from FDC tablet vs. co-administration of saxagliptin tablet and metformin (fed), then 20 subjects provided 99% power to conclude BE with respect to AUC(INF) of metformin. If 5% difference then 20 subjects provided 95% power to conclude BE with respect to AUC(INF) of metformin.|Geometric Mean Ratio, Test vs. Reference|1.042|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.981|1.108|||Mixed Models Analysis|Bioequivalence=90% CIs for the test|For AUC(0-T) of metformin, the point estimate and 90% CI were calculated for the ratio of the geometric mean of the Test formulation in fed state: the geometric mean of the Reference formulation in fed state|To demonstrate BE of FDC tablets (Test) versus co-administration of saxagliptin and metformin IR tablets (Reference) formulations in fed state, linear mixed model analysis was performed on log\[AUC(0-T)\] of metformin. Factors in the model were sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a random effect.||1.108|0.981|
91052916|NCT00899470|181989750|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If no difference between bioavailabilities of metformin from FDC tablet vs. co-administration of saxagliptin tablet and metformin (fasted ), then 20 subjects provided 99% power to conclude BE with respect to AUC(INF) of metformin. If 5% difference then 20 subjects provided 95% power to conclude BE with respect to AUC(INF) of metformin.|Geometric Mean Ratio, Test vs. Reference|1.029|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.973|1.088|||Mixed Models Analysis|Bioequivalence=90% CIs for the test|For AUC(INF) of metformin, the point estimate and 90% CI were calculated for the ratio of the geometric mean of the Test formulation in fasted state: the geometric mean of the Reference formulation in fasted state|To demonstrate BE of FDC tablets (Test) versus co-administration of saxagliptin and metformin IR tablets (Reference) formulations in fasted state, linear mixed model analysis was performed on log\[AUC(INF)\] of metformin. Factors in the model were sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a random effect.||1.088|0.973|
91052917|NCT00899470|181989750|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If no difference between bioavailabilities of metformin from FDC tablet vs. co-administration of saxagliptin tablet and metformin (fed), then 20 subjects provided 99% power to conclude BE with respect to AUC(INF) of metformin. If 5% difference then 20 subjects provided 95% power to conclude BE with respect to AUC(INF) of metformin.|Geometric Mean Ratio, Test vs. Reference|1.042|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.986|1.102|||Mixed Models Analysis|Bioequivalence=90% CIs for the test|For AUC(INF) of metformin, the point estimate and 90% confidence interval (CI) were calculated for the ratio of the geometric mean of the Test formulation in fed state: the geometric mean of the Reference formulation in fed state|To demonstrate BE of FDC tablets (Test) versus co-administration of saxagliptin and metformin IR tablets (Reference) formulations in fed state, linear mixed model analysis was performed on log\[AUC(INF)\] of metformin. Factors in the model were sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a random effect.||1.102|0.986|
91052918|NCT03456960|181989761|EQUIVALENCE|The difference in the least square means (LSM) between study medications (TAK-438ASA tablet - concomitant administration of TAK-438 tablet and aspirin enteric-coated tablet) and the two-sided 90 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) were provided using a crossover analysis of variance (ANOVA) model. The ANOVA model included a log-transformed (natural log) analysis variable as the dependent variable, and study medication, sequence, and period as independent variables.|LSM Difference|0.0059|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.034|0.0458||||||||0.0458|-0.0340|
91011032|NCT03091920|181905185|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|1.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.21|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.85|12.81|||||Least squares mean difference and associated 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 20-24 hours||12.81|-8.85|
91011033|NCT03091920|181905185|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.69|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.68|10.82|||||Least squares mean difference and associated 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 20-24 hours||10.82|-8.68|
91011034|NCT03091920|181905186|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.06|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.38|2.15|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1||2.15|-6.38|
91011035|NCT03091920|181905186|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.59|1.8|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1||1.80|-6.59|
91052919|NCT03456960|181989762|EQUIVALENCE|The difference in the LSM between study medications (TAK-438ASA tablet - concomitant administration of TAK-438 tablet and aspirin enteric-coated tablet) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The ANOVA model included a log-transformed (natural log) analysis variable as the dependent variable, and study medication, sequence, and period as independent variables.|LSM Difference|0.0508|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0079|0.1096||||||||0.1096|-0.0079|
90792747|NCT02732145|181466174|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of smoothness of the Inner Vulvar Ring between patients within different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of smoothness of the Inner Vulvar Ring in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0000
91011036|NCT03091920|181905186|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.11|1.6|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate. Standard Error of the Mean=Standard Error of the LS Mean Difference.|Day 1||1.60|-6.11|
91011037|NCT03091920|181905186|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-3.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.34|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.25|1.47|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7||1.47|-8.25|
91011038|NCT03091920|181905186|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.31|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|3.18|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7||3.18|-6.40|
91011039|NCT03091920|181905186|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|1.9|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate. Standard Error of the Mean=Standard Error of the LS Mean Difference.|Day 7||1.90|-6.90|
91011040|NCT03091920|181905186|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.01|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.22|1.31|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14||1.31|-11.22|
91011041|NCT03091920|181905186|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.84|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.41|1.4|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14||1.40|-10.41|
91011042|NCT03091920|181905186|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.67|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.27|0.81|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate. Standard Error of the Mean=Standard Error of the LS Mean Difference.|Day 14||0.81|-10.27|
91011043|NCT03091920|181905187|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.86|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|1.06|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1||1.06|-10.80|
91011044|NCT03091920|181905187|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-5.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.82|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.87|0.83|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1||0.83|-10.87|
91011045|NCT03091920|181905187|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.57|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.55|1.1|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7||1.10|-9.55|
91011046|NCT03091920|181905187|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.53|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|3.11|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7||3.11|-7.40|
91011047|NCT03091920|181905187|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-8.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.31|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.64|-1.85|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14||-1.85|-15.64|
91011048|NCT03091920|181905187|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-5.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.84|1.15|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14||1.15|-11.84|
91011049|NCT03091920|181905188|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.86|3.96|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1||3.96|-4.86|
91011050|NCT03091920|181905188|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.07|3.65|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1||3.65|-5.07|
91011051|NCT03091920|181905188|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-3.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.64|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.79|2.14|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7||2.14|-8.79|
91011052|NCT03091920|181905188|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-1.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.61|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.14|3.67|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7||3.67|-7.14|
91011053|NCT03091920|181905188|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-1.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.22|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.58|4.83|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14||4.83|-8.58|
91011054|NCT03091920|181905188|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.08|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.69|2.1|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14||2.10|-10.69|
90792748|NCT02732145|181466174|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of ischemia of the Middle Vulvar Ring between patients from different groups?||||||0.0632|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of ischemia of the Middle Vulvar Ring in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0632
90792749|NCT02732145|181466174|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of ischemia of the Inner Vulvar Ring between patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of ischemia of the Inner Vulvar Ring in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0000
90792750|NCT02732145|181466174|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of punctuation of the Middle Vulvar Ring between patients within different groups?||||||0.0043|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of punctuation of the Middle Vulvar Ring in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0043
91011055|NCT03091920|181905189|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.31|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|2.41|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 0-4 hours||2.41|-11.30|
91011056|NCT03091920|181905189|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-5.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.34|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|1.75|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 0-4 hours||1.75|-12.10|
91011057|NCT03091920|181905189|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-5.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.69|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.87|2.42|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 4-8 hours||2.42|-12.87|
91011058|NCT03091920|181905189|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-8.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.58|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.64|-0.79|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 4-8 hours||-0.79|-15.64|
91011059|NCT03091920|181905189|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-6.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.65|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.29|0.86|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 8-12 hours||0.86|-14.29|
91011060|NCT03091920|181905189|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-3.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.63|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.66|4.38|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 8-12 hours||4.38|-10.66|
91011061|NCT03091920|181905189|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.45|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.71|5.45|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 12-16 hours||5.45|-4.71|
91011062|NCT03091920|181905189|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.37|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.94|4.91|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 12-16||4.91|-4.94|
91011063|NCT03091920|181905189|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.73|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.07|5.41|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 16-20 hours||5.41|-10.07|
91011064|NCT03091920|181905189|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.77|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.26|5.37|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 16-20 hours||5.37|-10.26|
91011065|NCT03091920|181905189|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.83|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.62|5.13|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 20-24 hours||5.13|-6.62|
91011066|NCT03091920|181905189|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.75|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.83|4.58|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 20-24 hours||4.58|-6.83|
91011067|NCT03091920|181905189|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-5.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.72|0.47|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 0-4 hours||0.47|-10.72|
91011068|NCT03091920|181905189|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-3.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.72|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.29|2.01|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 0-4 hours||2.01|-9.29|
91011069|NCT03091920|181905189|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-3.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.52|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.22|3.38|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 4-8 hours||3.38|-11.22|
91011070|NCT03091920|181905189|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.42|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.54|4.63|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 4-8 hours||4.63|-9.54|
91011071|NCT03091920|181905189|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.96|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|1.39|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 8-12 hours||1.39|-10.90|
90792751|NCT02732145|181466174|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of punctuation of the Inner Vulvar Ring between patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of punctuation of the Inner Vulvar Ring in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Typ), evaluated with Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0000
90792752|NCT02732145|181466174|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of papillae of the Inner Vulvar Ring between patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of papillae of the Inner Vulvar Ring in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0000
90792753|NCT02732145|181466174|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Outer versus non-specific lesions of the Middle Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.0697|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Outer versus non-specific lesions of the Middle Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0697
90792754|NCT02732145|181466174|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Outer versus non-specific lesions of the Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.0319|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Outer versus non-specific lesions of the Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0319
90792755|NCT02732145|181466174|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Middle versus non-specific lesions of the Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.7273|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Middle versus non-specific lesions of the Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.7273
90792756|NCT02732145|181466174|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Outer versus non-specific lesions of the Middle Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvodynia?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Outer versus non-specific lesions of the Middle Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvodynia.~The diagnosis of vulvodynia was based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection, Q-Tip) following Friedrich's criteria. Vulvoscopic lesions were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0000
90792757|NCT02732145|181466174|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Outer versus non-specific lesions of the Middle Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvodynia?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Outer versus non-specific lesions of the Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvodynia.~The diagnosis of vulvodynia was based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection, Q-Tip) following Friedrich's criteria. Vulvoscopic lesions were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0000
90792758|NCT02732145|181466174|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Middle versus non-specific lesions of the Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvodynia?||||||0.2203|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Middle versus non-specific lesions of the Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvodynia.~The diagnosis of vulvodynia was based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection, Q-Tip) following Friedrich's criteria. Vulvoscopic lesions were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.2203
90792759|NCT02732145|181466174|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Outer versus non-specific lesions of the Middle Vulvar Ring in patients with impaired vulvar skin?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Outer versus non-specific lesions of the Middle Vulvar Ring in patients with impaired vulvar skin.||||0.0000
90792760|NCT02732145|181466174|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Outer versus non-specific lesions of the Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with impaired vulvar skin?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Outer versus non-specific lesions of the Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with impaired vulvar skin.||||0.0000
90792761|NCT02732145|181466174|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Middle versus non-specific lesions of the Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with impaired vulvar skin?||||||0.1456|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The incidence of non-specific lesions of the Middle versus non-specific lesions of the Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with impaired vulvar skin.||||0.1456
90792762|NCT02732145|181466174|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of specific lesions of the Outer versus specific lesions of the Middle Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.1133|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of specific lesions of the Outer versus specific lesions of the Middle Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.1133
90792763|NCT02732145|181466174|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of specific lesions of the Outer versus specific lesions of the Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of specific lesions of the Outer versus specific lesions of the Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0000
90792764|NCT02732145|181466174|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of specific lesions of the Middle versus specific lesions of the Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.0058|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of specific lesions of the Middle versus specific lesions of the Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0058
90792765|NCT02732145|181466175|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Mons Pubis among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of non-specific lesions of Mons pubis in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant for the diagnosis of the vulvodynia."||||0.0000
90792766|NCT02732145|181466175|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Labia Majora among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of non-specific lesions of Labia Majora in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant for the diagnosis of the vulvodynia."||||0.0000
90792767|NCT02732145|181466175|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Perineum among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of non-specific lesions of the Perineum in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant for the diagnosis of the vulvodynia."||||0.0000
90792768|NCT02732145|181466175|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of erythema of Mons Pubis among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of erythema of Mons Pubis in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant for the diagnosis of the vulvodynia."||||0.0000
90792769|NCT02732145|181466175|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of erythema of Labia Majora among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of erythema of Labia Majora in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant for the diagnosis of the vulvodynia."||||0.0000
90792770|NCT02732145|181466175|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of erythema of the Perineum among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of erythema of the Perineum in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant for the diagnosis of the vulvodynia."||||0.0000
90792771|NCT02732145|181466175|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of excoriations of Mons Pubis among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of excoriations of Mons Pubis in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant for the diagnosis of the vulvodynia."||||0.0000
90792772|NCT02732145|181466175|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of excoriations of Labia Majora among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of excoriations of Labia Majora in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant for the diagnosis of the vulvodynia."||||0.0000
90792773|NCT02732145|181466175|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of excoriations of the Perineum among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of excoriations of the Perineum in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant for the diagnosis of the vulvodynia."||||0.0000
90792774|NCT02732145|181466175|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of rhagades of Mons Pubis among patients from different groups?||||||0.0016|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of rhagades of Mons Pubis in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant for the diagnosis of the vulvodynia."||||0.0016
90792775|NCT02732145|181466175|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of rhagades of Labia Majora among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of rhagades of Labia Majora in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant for the diagnosis of the vulvodynia."||||0.0000
90792776|NCT02732145|181466175|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of rhagades of the Perineum among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of rhagades of the Perineum in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant for the diagnosis of the vulvodynia."||||0.0000
90792777|NCT02732145|181466175|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Mons Pubis versus non-specific lesions of Labia Majora in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.0014|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Mons Pubis versus non-specific lesions of Labia Majora in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0014
91052920|NCT03456960|181989763|EQUIVALENCE|Pilot Study 1: The difference in the LSM between study medications (TAK-438ASA tablet - concomitant administration of TAK-438 tablet and aspirin enteric-coated tablet) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The ANOVA model included a log-transformed (natural log) analysis variable as the dependent variable, and study medication, sequence, and period as independent variables.|LSM Difference|0.0546|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0941|0.2034||||||||0.2034|-0.0941|
90792778|NCT02732145|181466175|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Mons Pubis versus non-specific lesions of the Perineum in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Mons Pubis versus non-specific lesions of the Perineum in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0000
91079049|NCT03743402|182043713|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is a point null of exactly 0 expected difference in PSEQ score between arms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|0.32|||Regression, Linear||mean difference = (pain self-management) - (usual care)|||0.32|-1.03|0.30
90792779|NCT02732145|181466175|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Labia Majora versus non-specific lesions of the Perineum in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.0414|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesion of Labia Majora versus non-specific lesions of the Perineum in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0414
90792780|NCT02732145|181466175|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Mons Pubis versus non-specific lesions of Labia Majora in patients with vulvodynia?||||||0.0898|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Mons Pubis versus non-specific lesions of Labia Majora in patients with vulvodynia.~The diagnosis of vulvodynia was based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection, Q-Tip) following Friedrich's criteria. Vulvoscopic lesions were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0898
90792781|NCT02732145|181466175|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Mons Pubis versus non-specific lesions of the Perineum in patients with vulvodynia?||||||0.0008|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Mons Pubis versus non-specific lesions of the Perineum in patients with vulvodynia.~The diagnosis of vulvodynia was based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection, Q-Tip) following Friedrich's criteria. Vulvoscopic lesions were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0008
90792782|NCT02732145|181466175|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Labia Majora versus non-specific lesions of the Perineum in patients with vulvodynia?||||||0.0587|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Labia Majora versus non-specific lesions of the Perineum in patients with vulvodynia.~The diagnosis of vulvodynia was based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection, Q-Tip) following Friedrich's criteria. Vulvoscopic lesions were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0587
90792783|NCT02732145|181466175|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Mons Pubis versus non-specific lesions of Labia Majora in patients with impaired vulvar skin?||||||1|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Mons Pubis versus non-specific lesions of Labia Majora in patients with impaired vulvar skin.||||1.0000
90792784|NCT02732145|181466175|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Mons Pubis versus non-specific lesions of the Perineum in patients with impaired vulvar skin?||||||0.1352|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Mons Pubis versus non-specific lesions of the Perineum in patients with impaired vulvar skin.||||0.1352
90792785|NCT02732145|181466175|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Labia Majora versus non-specific lesions of the Perineum in patients with impaired vulvar skin?||||||0.1352|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesion of Labia Majora versus non-specific lesions of the Perineum in patients with impaired vulvar skin.||||0.1352
90792786|NCT02732145|181466175|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of specific lesions of Mons Pubis versus specific lesions of Labia Majora in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.0002|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of specific lesions of Mons Pubis versus specific lesions of Labia Majora in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0002
90792787|NCT02732145|181466175|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of specific lesions of Mons Pubis versus specific lesions of the Perineum in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of specific lesions of Mons Pubis versus specific lesions of the Perineum in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0000
91079050|NCT03743402|182043714|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is a point null of the relative risk of 30% reduction from baseline equal exactly to 1.|Risk Ratio (RR)|2.1||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|6.53|||Regression, Poison||relative risk = (pain self-management)/(usual care)|||6.53|0.68|0.20
90792788|NCT02732145|181466175|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of specific lesions of Labia Majora versus specific lesions of the Perineum in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.0854|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of specific lesions of Labia Majora versus specific lesions of the Perineum in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0854
90792789|NCT02732145|181466176|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Anterior Commissure among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of non-specific lesions of the Anterior Commissure in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0000
90792790|NCT02732145|181466176|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Interlabial Sulci among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of non-specific lesions of Interlabial Sulci in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0000
91011072|NCT03091920|181905189|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.94|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.35|4.85|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 8-12 hours||4.85|-7.35|
91011073|NCT03091920|181905189|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.57|4.35|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 12-16 hours||4.35|-8.57|
91011074|NCT03091920|181905189|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.21|6.31|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 12-16 hours||6.31|-6.21|
91011075|NCT03091920|181905189|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-6.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.65|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.22|0.9|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 16-20 hours||0.90|-14.22|
90792791|NCT02732145|181466176|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Labia Minora among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of non-specific lesions of Labia Minora in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0000
90792792|NCT02732145|181466176|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Posterior Commissure among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of non-specific lesions of the Posterior Commissure in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy.. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0000
90792793|NCT02732145|181466176|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of erythema of the Anterior Commissure among patients from different groups?||||||0.0199|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of erythema of the Anterior Commissure in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q- Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0199
91052921|NCT03456960|181989763|EQUIVALENCE|Pivotal Study 1: The difference in the LSM between study medications (TAK-438ASA tablet - concomitant administration of TAK-438 tablet and aspirin enteric-coated tablet) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The ANOVA model will include a log-transformed (natural log) analysis variable as the dependent variable, and study medication, sequence, and period as independent variables.|LSM Difference|0.0912|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0399|0.1424||||||||0.1424|0.0399|
91052922|NCT03456960|181989764|EQUIVALENCE|Pilot Study 1: The difference in the LSM between study medications (TAK-438ASA tablet - concomitant administration of TAK-438 tablet and aspirin enteric-coated tablet) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The ANOVA model included a log-transformed (natural log) analysis variable as the dependent variable, and study medication, sequence, and period as independent variables.|LSM Difference|0.0916|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.133|0.3162||||||||0.3162|-0.1330|
91052923|NCT03456960|181989764|EQUIVALENCE|Pivotal Study 1: The difference in the LSM between study medications (TAK-438ASA tablet - concomitant administration of TAK-438 tablet and aspirin enteric-coated tablet) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The ANOVA model included a log-transformed (natural log) analysis variable as the dependent variable, and study medication, sequence, and period as independent variables.|LSM Difference|0.2293|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.1519|0.3068||||||||0.3068|0.1519|
91052924|NCT03456960|181989765|EQUIVALENCE|The difference in the LSM between study medications (TAK-438ASA tablet - concomitant administration of TAK-438 tablet and aspirin enteric-coated tablet) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The ANOVA model included a log-transformed (natural log) analysis variable as the dependent variable, and study medication, sequence, and period as independent variables.|LSM Difference|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0299|0.05||||||||0.0500|-0.0299|
91052925|NCT03456960|181989766|EQUIVALENCE|The difference in the LSM between study medications (TAK-438ASA tablet - concomitant administration of TAK-438 tablet and aspirin enteric-coated tablet) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The ANOVA model included a log-transformed (natural log) analysis variable as the dependent variable, and study medication, sequence, and period as independent variables.|LSM Difference|-0.0281|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1662|0.11||||||||0.1100|-0.1662|
91052926|NCT03456960|181989767|EQUIVALENCE|The difference in the LSM between study medications (TAK-438ASA tablet - concomitant administration of TAK-438 tablet and aspirin enteric-coated tablet) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The ANOVA model included a log-transformed (natural log) analysis variable as the dependent variable, and study medication, sequence, and period as independent variables.|LSM Difference|-0.015|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0448|0.0149||||||||0.0149|-0.0448|
91052927|NCT03456960|181989768|EQUIVALENCE|The difference in the LSM between study medications (TAK-438ASA tablet - concomitant administration of TAK-438 tablet and aspirin enteric-coated tablet) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The ANOVA model included a log-transformed (natural log) analysis variable as the dependent variable, and study medication, sequence, and period as independent variables.|LSM Difference|-0.0195|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0676|0.0286||||||||0.0286|-0.0676|
91052928|NCT03456960|181989769|EQUIVALENCE|Pilot Study 1: The difference in the LSM between study medications (TAK-438ASA tablet - concomitant administration of TAK-438 tablet and aspirin enteric-coated tablet) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The ANOVA model included a log-transformed (natural log) analysis variable as the dependent variable, and study medication, sequence, and period as independent variables.|LSM Difference|0.0547|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0937|0.2032||||||||0.2032|-0.0937|
91052929|NCT03456960|181989769|EQUIVALENCE|Pivotal Study 1: The difference in the LSM between study medications (TAK-438ASA tablet - concomitant administration of TAK-438 tablet and aspirin enteric-coated tablet) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The ANOVA model included a log-transformed (natural log) analysis variable as the dependent variable, and study medication, sequence, and period as independent variables.|LSM Difference|0.0654|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0141|0.1167||||||||0.1167|0.0141|
90792794|NCT02732145|181466176|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of erythema of Interlabial Sulci among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of erythema of Interlabial Sulci in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q- Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0000
91079051|NCT03743402|182043715|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is a point null of the relative risk of 30% reduction from baseline equal exactly to 1.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.34||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|3.32|||Regression, Poison||relative risk = (pain self-management)/(usual care)|||3.32|0.54|0.53
90792795|NCT02732145|181466176|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of erythema of Labia Minora among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of erythema of Labia Minora in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q- Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0000
91052930|NCT03456960|181989770|EQUIVALENCE|Pilot Study 1: The difference in the LSM between study medications (TAK-438ASA tablet - concomitant administration of TAK-438 tablet and aspirin enteric-coated tablet) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The ANOVA model included a log-transformed (natural log) analysis variable as the dependent variable, and study medication, sequence, and period as independent variables.|LSM Difference|-0.146|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2478|-0.0443||||||||-0.0443|-0.2478|
91052931|NCT03456960|181989770|EQUIVALENCE|Pivotal Study 1: The difference in the LSM between study medications (TAK-438ASA tablet - concomitant administration of TAK-438 tablet and aspirin enteric-coated tablet) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The ANOVA model included a log-transformed (natural log) analysis variable as the dependent variable, and study medication, sequence, and period as independent variables.|LSM Difference|-0.1674|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2084|-0.1264||||||||-0.1264|-0.2084|
91052932|NCT03456960|181989771|EQUIVALENCE|Pilot Study 1: The difference in the LSM between study medications (TAK-438ASA tablet - concomitant administration of TAK-438 tablet and aspirin enteric-coated tablet) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The ANOVA model included a log-transformed (natural log) analysis variable as the dependent variable, and study medication, sequence, and period as independent variables.|LSM Difference|-0.1193|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2179|-0.0206||||||||-0.0206|-0.2179|
91052933|NCT03456960|181989771|EQUIVALENCE|Pivotal Study 1: The difference in the LSM between study medications (TAK-438ASA tablet - concomitant administration of TAK-438 tablet and aspirin enteric-coated tablet) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The ANOVA model included a log-transformed (natural log) analysis variable as the dependent variable, and study medication, sequence, and period as independent variables.|LSM Difference|-0.1366|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.173|-0.1002||||||||-0.1002|-0.1730|
91052934|NCT03456960|181989772|EQUIVALENCE|Pilot Study 1: The difference in the LSM between study medications (TAK-438ASA tablet - concomitant administration of TAK-438 tablet and aspirin enteric-coated tablet) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The ANOVA model included a log-transformed (natural log) analysis variable as the dependent variable, and study medication, sequence, and period as independent variables.|LSM Difference|0.0148|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0734|0.103||||||||0.1030|-0.0734|
91052935|NCT03456960|181989772|EQUIVALENCE|Pivotal Study 1: The difference in the LSM between study medications (TAK-438ASA tablet - concomitant administration of TAK-438 tablet and aspirin enteric-coated tablet) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The ANOVA model included a log-transformed (natural log) analysis variable as the dependent variable, and study medication, sequence, and period as independent variables.|LSM Difference|-0.002|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0463|0.0424||||||||0.0424|-0.0463|
91052936|NCT03456960|181989773|EQUIVALENCE|TAK-438F: The difference in the LSM between dosing condition (TAK-438ASA tablet taken in a fed \[30 minutes after starting breakfast\] - TAK-438ASA tablet taken in a fasted \[without breakfast\] condition) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The ANOVA model included a log-transformed (natural log) analysis variable as the dependent variable, and dosing condition, sequence, and period as independent variables.|LSM Difference|0.2138|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.1609|0.2667||||||||0.2667|0.1609|
91052937|NCT03456960|181989774|EQUIVALENCE|TAK-438F: The difference in the LSM between dosing condition (TAK-438ASA tablet taken in a fed \[30 minutes after starting breakfast\] - TAK-438ASA tablet taken in a fasted \[without breakfast\] condition) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The ANOVA model included a log-transformed (natural log) analysis variable as the dependent variable, and dosing condition, sequence, and period as independent variables.|LSM Difference|0.2161|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.1652|0.2671||||||||0.2671|0.1652|
91052938|NCT03456960|181989775|EQUIVALENCE|TAK-438F: The difference in the LSM between dosing condition (TAK-438ASA tablet taken in a fed \[30 minutes after starting breakfast\] - TAK-438ASA tablet taken in a fasted \[without breakfast\] condition) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The ANOVA model included a log-transformed (natural log) analysis variable as the dependent variable, and dosing condition, sequence, and period as independent variables.|LSM Difference|0.219|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.1675|0.2706||||||||0.2706|0.1675|
91052939|NCT03456960|181989776|EQUIVALENCE|TAK-438F: The difference in the LSM between dosing condition (TAK-438ASA tablet taken in a fed \[30 minutes after starting breakfast\] - TAK-438ASA tablet taken in a fasted \[without breakfast\] condition) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The ANOVA model included a log-transformed (natural log) analysis variable as the dependent variable, and dosing condition, sequence, and period as independent variables.|LSM Difference|0.3653|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.218|0.5126||||||||0.5126|0.2180|
91052940|NCT03456960|181989779|EQUIVALENCE|Unchanged aspirin: The difference in the LSM between dosing condition (TAK-438ASA tablet taken in a fed \[30 minutes after starting breakfast\] - TAK-438ASA tablet taken in a fasted \[without breakfast\] condition) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The ANOVA model included a log-transformed (natural log) analysis variable as the dependent variable, and dosing condition, sequence, and period as independent variables.|LSM Difference|0.2089|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0061|0.4239||||||||0.4239|-0.0061|
91052941|NCT03456960|181989779|EQUIVALENCE|Salicylic acid: The difference in the LSM between dosing condition (TAK-438ASA tablet taken in a fed \[30 minutes after starting breakfast\] - TAK-438ASA tablet taken in a fasted \[without breakfast\] condition) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The ANOVA model included a log-transformed (natural log) analysis variable as the dependent variable, and dosing condition, sequence, and period as independent variables.|LSM Difference|0.014|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0639|0.0918||||||||0.0918|-0.0639|
91052942|NCT03456960|181989780|EQUIVALENCE|Unchanged aspirin: The difference in the LSM between dosing condition (TAK-438ASA tablet taken in a fed \[30 minutes after starting breakfast\] - TAK-438ASA tablet taken in a fasted \[without breakfast\] condition) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The ANOVA model included a log-transformed (natural log) analysis variable as the dependent variable, and dosing condition, sequence, and period as independent variables.|LSM Difference|0.2099|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0048|0.4246||||||||0.4246|-0.0048|
91052943|NCT03456960|181989780|EQUIVALENCE|Salicylic acid: The difference in the LSM between dosing condition (TAK-438ASA tablet taken in a fed \[30 minutes after starting breakfast\] - TAK-438ASA tablet taken in a fasted \[without breakfast\] condition) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The ANOVA model included a log-transformed (natural log) analysis variable as the dependent variable, and dosing condition, sequence, and period as independent variables.|LSM Difference|0.0137|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0712|0.0986||||||||0.0986|-0.0712|
91079052|NCT03411902|182043731|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.048|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.048
91052944|NCT03456960|181989781|EQUIVALENCE|Unchanged aspirin: The difference in the LSM between dosing condition (TAK-438ASA tablet taken in a fed \[30 minutes after starting breakfast\] - TAK-438ASA tablet taken in a fasted \[without breakfast\] condition) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The ANOVA model included a log-transformed (natural log) analysis variable as the dependent variable, and dosing condition, sequence, and period as independent variables.|LSM Difference|0.2096|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0054|0.4246||||||||0.4246|-0.0054|
91052945|NCT03456960|181989781|EQUIVALENCE|Salicylic acid: The difference in the LSM between dosing condition (TAK-438ASA tablet taken in a fed \[30 minutes after starting breakfast\] - TAK-438ASA tablet taken in a fasted \[without breakfast\] condition) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The ANOVA model included a log-transformed (natural log) analysis variable as the dependent variable, and dosing condition, sequence, and period as independent variables.|LSM Difference|0.0201|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.069|0.1092||||||||0.1092|-0.0690|
91052946|NCT03456960|181989782|EQUIVALENCE|Unchanged aspirin: The difference in the LSM between dosing condition (TAK-438ASA tablet taken in a fed \[30 minutes after starting breakfast\] - TAK-438ASA tablet taken in a fasted \[without breakfast\] condition) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The ANOVA model included a log-transformed (natural log) analysis variable as the dependent variable, and dosing condition, sequence, and period as independent variables.|LSM Difference|0.4058|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0803|0.7312||||||||0.7312|0.0803|
91052947|NCT03456960|181989782|EQUIVALENCE|Salicylic acid: The difference in the LSM between dosing condition (TAK-438ASA tablet taken in a fed \[30 minutes after starting breakfast\] - TAK-438ASA tablet taken in a fasted \[without breakfast\] condition) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The ANOVA model included a log-transformed (natural log) analysis variable as the dependent variable, and dosing condition, sequence, and period as independent variables.|LSM Difference|0.1969|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.1065|0.2873||||||||0.2873|0.1065|
91052948|NCT01822574|181989812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||A p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||0.001
91052949|NCT01822574|181989813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||A p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||<0.001
91052950|NCT01822574|181989814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||A p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||0.240
91052951|NCT01195272|181989835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.308|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||4 hrs: Visit 3 versus Visit 2||||0.308
91052952|NCT01195272|181989835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.415|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||4 hrs: Visit 5 versus Visit 2||||0.415
91052953|NCT01195272|181989835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.335|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||4 hrs: Visit 5 versus Visit 3||||0.335
91052954|NCT01195272|181989835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||4 hrs: Visit 8 versus Visit 2||||0.120
91052955|NCT01195272|181989835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.061|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||4 hrs: Visit 8 versus Visit 3||||0.061
91052956|NCT01195272|181989835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||4 hrs: Visit 8 versus Visit 5||||0.031
91052957|NCT01195272|181989835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.131|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||20 hrs: Visit 3 versus Visit 2||||0.131
91052958|NCT01195272|181989835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.202|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||20 hrs: Visit 5 versus Visit 2||||0.202
91052959|NCT01195272|181989835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.484|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||20 hrs: Visit 5 versus Visit 3||||0.484
91052960|NCT01195272|181989835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||20 hrs: Visit 8 versus Visit 2||||0.047
91052961|NCT01195272|181989835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.285|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||20 hrs: Visit 8 versus Visit 3||||0.285
91052962|NCT01195272|181989835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.315|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||20 hrs: Visit 8 versus Visit 5||||0.315
91052963|NCT01195272|181989836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.288|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||4 hrs: Visit 3 versus Visit 2||||0.288
91052964|NCT01195272|181989836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.318|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||4 hrs: Visit 5 versus Visit 2||||0.318
91052965|NCT01195272|181989836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||4 hrs: Visit 5 versus Visit 3||||0.400
91052966|NCT01195272|181989836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.317|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||4 hrs: Visit 8 versus Visit 2||||0.317
91052967|NCT01195272|181989836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.137|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||4 hrs: Visit 8 versus Visit 3||||0.137
91052968|NCT01195272|181989836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.052|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||4 hrs: Visit 8 versus Visit 5||||0.052
91052969|NCT01195272|181989836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.354|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||20 hrs: Visit 3 versus Visit 2||||0.354
91052970|NCT01195272|181989836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.266|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||20 hrs: Visit 5 versus Visit 2||||0.266
91052971|NCT01195272|181989836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.378|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||20 hrs: Visit 5 versus Visit 3||||0.378
91052972|NCT01195272|181989836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.422|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||20 hrs: Visit 8 versus Visit 2||||0.422
91052973|NCT01195272|181989836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.444|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||20 hrs: Visit 8 versus Visit 3||||0.444
91052974|NCT01195272|181989836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.345|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||20 hrs: Visit 8 versus Visit 5||||0.345
91052975|NCT01195272|181989837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 3 versus Visit 2||||0.39
91052976|NCT01195272|181989837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 5 versus Visit 3||||0.08
91052977|NCT01195272|181989837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 5 versus Visit 3||||0.18
91052978|NCT01195272|181989838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 3 versus Visit 2||||0.48
91052979|NCT01195272|181989838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 5 versus Visit 2||||0.30
91052980|NCT01195272|181989838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 5 versus Visit 3||||0.34
91052981|NCT01195272|181989839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 3 versus Visit 2||||0.22
91052982|NCT01195272|181989839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 5 versus Visit 2||||0.44
91052983|NCT01195272|181989839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 5 versus Visit 3||||0.23
91052984|NCT01195272|181989840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 3 versus Visit 2||||0.22
91052985|NCT01195272|181989840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 5 versus Visit 2||||0.46
91052986|NCT01195272|181989840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 5 versus Visit 3||||0.24
90792796|NCT02732145|181466176|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of erythema of the Posterior Commissure among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of erythema of the Posterior Commissure in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q- Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0000
90792797|NCT02732145|181466176|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of fissures of Interlabial Sulci among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of fissures of Interlabial Sulci in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q- Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0000
90792798|NCT02732145|181466176|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of fissures of the Posterior Commissure among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of fissures of the Posterior Commissure in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q- Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0000
90792799|NCT02732145|181466176|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of smoothness of the Anterior Commissure among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of smoothness of the Anterior Commissure in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0000
90792800|NCT02732145|181466176|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of smoothness of Interlabial Sulci among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of smoothness of Interlabial Sulci in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q- Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0000
90792801|NCT02732145|181466176|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of smoothness of Labia Minora among patients from different groups?||||||0.0024|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The frequency of smoothness of Labia Minora in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q- Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0024
91011076|NCT03091920|181905189|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-6.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.68|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.01|1.25|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 16-20 hours||1.25|-14.01|
91011077|NCT03091920|181905189|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.38|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|4.71|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 20-24 hours||4.71|-9.30|
91011078|NCT03091920|181905189|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.28|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.97|6.64|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 20-24 hours||6.64|-6.97|
91011079|NCT03091920|181905189|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-7.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.51|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.03|-0.44|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 0-4 hours||-0.44|-15.03|
91011080|NCT03091920|181905189|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-3.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.37|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.88|3.16|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 0-4 hours||3.16|-10.88|
91011081|NCT03091920|181905189|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-9.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.1|-2.95|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 4-8||-2.95|-16.10|
91011082|NCT03091920|181905189|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-5.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.96|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.82|0.5|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 4-8 hours||0.50|-11.82|
91052987|NCT01195272|181989841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 3 versus Visit 2||||0.05
90792802|NCT02732145|181466176|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of smoothness of the Posterior Commissure among patients from different groups?||||||0.0205|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of smoothness of the Posterior Commissure in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q- Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0205
91011083|NCT03091920|181905189|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-8.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.77|0.54|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 8-12 hours||0.54|-17.77|
91011084|NCT03091920|181905189|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-6.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.79|2.69|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 8-12 hours||2.69|-14.79|
91052988|NCT01195272|181989841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 5 versus Visit 2||||0.01
91052989|NCT01195272|181989841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 5 versus Visit 3||||0.18
91052990|NCT01195272|181989842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 3 versus Visit 2||||0.48
91052991|NCT01195272|181989842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 5 versus Visit 2||||0.43
91052992|NCT01195272|181989842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 5 versus Visit 3||||0.44
91011085|NCT03091920|181905189|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.51|7.79|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 12-16 hours||7.79|-10.51|
91011086|NCT03091920|181905189|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|3.6|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 12-16 hours||3.60|-13.50|
91011087|NCT03091920|181905189|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-3.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.55|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.81|3.96|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 16-20 hours||3.96|-10.81|
91011088|NCT03091920|181905189|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-5.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.49|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.64|1.89|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 16-20 hours||1.89|-12.64|
91011089|NCT03091920|181905189|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.59|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.55|7.39|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 20-24 hours||7.39|-7.55|
91011090|NCT03091920|181905189|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-1.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.37|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.89|5.12|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 20-24 hours||5.12|-8.89|
91011091|NCT03091920|181905190|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.17|2.59|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1||2.59|-4.17|
91011092|NCT03091920|181905190|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.47|2.29|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1||2.29|-4.47|
91011093|NCT03091920|181905190|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.48|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.02|2.14|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate. Standard Error of the Mean=Standard Error of the LS Mean Difference.|Day 1||2.14|-4.02|
91011094|NCT03091920|181905190|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.89|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|1.26|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7||1.26|-6.60|
91011095|NCT03091920|181905190|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-1.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.77|2.1|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7||2.10|-5.77|
91011096|NCT03091920|181905190|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.72|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.83|1.32|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate. Standard Error of the Mean=Standard Error of the LS Mean Difference.|Day 7||1.32|-5.83|
91011097|NCT03091920|181905190|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-3.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.66|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|1.56|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14||1.56|-9.50|
91011098|NCT03091920|181905190|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.57|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.52|1.18|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14||1.18|-9.52|
91011099|NCT03091920|181905190|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.38|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.01|0.87|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate. Standard Error of the Mean=Standard Error of the LS Mean Difference.|Day 14||0.87|-9.01|
91011100|NCT03091920|181905191|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.22|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.01|1.21|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1||1.21|-8.01|
91011101|NCT03091920|181905191|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.23|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.21|1.02|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1||1.02|-8.21|
91011102|NCT03091920|181905191|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.53|0.92|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7||0.92|-7.53|
91011103|NCT03091920|181905191|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.24|2.23|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7||2.23|-6.24|
91011104|NCT03091920|181905191|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-7.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.65|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|-1.79|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14||-1.79|-12.80|
91011105|NCT03091920|181905191|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.56|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.43|0.23|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14||0.23|-10.43|
91011106|NCT03091920|181905192|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.97|4.95|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1||4.95|-2.97|
90792803|NCT02732145|181466176|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Anterior Commissure versus non-specific lesions of Interlabial Sulci in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.0158|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Anterior Commissure versus non-specific lesions of Interlabial Sulci in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0158
90792804|NCT02732145|181466176|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Anterior Commissure versus non-specific lesions of the Posterior Commissure in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.0001|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Anterior Commissure versus non-specific lesions of the Posterior Commissure in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0001
90792805|NCT02732145|181466176|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Labia Minora versus non-specific lesions of the Posterior Commissure in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.028|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Labia Minora versus non-specific lesions of the Posterior Commissure in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0280
90792806|NCT02732145|181466176|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Anterior Commissure versus non-specific lesions of Interlabial Sulci in patients with vulvodynia?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Anterior Commissure versus non-specific lesions of Interlabial Sulci in patients with vulvodynia.~The diagnosis of vulvodynia was based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection, Q-Tip) following Friedrich's criteria. Vulvoscopic lesions were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0000
90890252|NCT00240487|181644842|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The primary outcome variable is the mean PaO2/FiO2 in each group after 8 hours of study participation to determine whether timing of treatment with nitric oxide impacts outcome (immediate treatment versus delayed treatment).|||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in mean PaO2/FiO2 ratios between the two groups will help to determine whether order of therapy (immediate treatment with nitric oxide versus delayed treatment with nitric oxide) impacts outcomes.||||>0.05
91011107|NCT03091920|181905192|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.41|4.52|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1||4.52|-3.41|
91011108|NCT03091920|181905192|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.46|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.63|2.56|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7||2.56|-7.63|
91011109|NCT03091920|181905192|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.46|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.36|2.85|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7||2.85|-7.36|
91011110|NCT03091920|181905192|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.55|5.49|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14||5.49|-7.55|
91011111|NCT03091920|181905192|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-3.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.04|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|2.65|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14||2.65|-10.00|
91011112|NCT03091920|181905193|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.49|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.76|2.59|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 0-4 hours||2.59|-7.76|
91011113|NCT03091920|181905193|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.53|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.32|1.19|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 0-4 hours||1.19|-9.32|
91011114|NCT03091920|181905193|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-3.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.73|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.51|1.8|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 4-8 hours||1.80|-9.51|
91011115|NCT03091920|181905193|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.73|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|0.93|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 4-8 hours||0.93|-10.40|
91011116|NCT03091920|181905193|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.36|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.06|1.86|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 8-12 hours||1.86|-12.06|
91011117|NCT03091920|181905193|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.33|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.87|3.96|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 8-12 hours||3.96|-9.87|
91011118|NCT03091920|181905193|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.69|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|6.45|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 12-16 hours||6.45|-4.70|
91011119|NCT03091920|181905193|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.63|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|6.01|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 12-16 hours||6.01|-4.90|
91052993|NCT01195272|181989843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.313|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 3 versus Visit 2||||0.313
91052994|NCT01195272|181989843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.083|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 5 versus Visit 2||||0.083
91052995|NCT01195272|181989843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.092|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 5 versus Visit 3||||0.092
91052996|NCT01195272|181989843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.145|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 8 versus Visit 2||||0.145
91052997|NCT01195272|181989843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.398|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 8 versus Visit 3||||0.398
91052998|NCT01195272|181989843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.138|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 8 versus Visit 5||||0.138
91052999|NCT01195272|181989844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.467|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 3 versus Visit 2||||0.467
91053000|NCT01195272|181989844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 5 versus Visit 2||||0.250
91053001|NCT01195272|181989844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 5 versus Visit 3||||0.060
91053002|NCT01195272|181989844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.149|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 8 versus Visit 2||||0.149
91053003|NCT01195272|181989844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.061|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 8 versus Visit 3||||0.061
91053004|NCT01195272|181989844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 8 versus Visit 5||||0.047
91053005|NCT01195272|181989845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.169|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 3 versus Visit 2||||0.169
90792807|NCT02732145|181466176|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Anterior Commissure versus non-specific lesions of Labia Minora in patients with vulvodynia?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Anterior Commissure versus non-specific lesions of Labia Minora in patients with vulvodynia.~The diagnosis of vulvodynia was based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection, Q-Tip) following Friedrich's criteria. Vulvoscopic lesions were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0000
90792808|NCT02732145|181466176|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Anterior Commissure versus non-specific lesions of the Posterior Commissure in patients with vulvodynia?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Anterior Commissure versus non-specific lesions of the Posterior Commissure in patients with vulvodynia.~The diagnosis of vulvodynia was based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection, Q-Tip) following Friedrich's criteria. Vulvoscopic lesions were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0000
90792809|NCT02732145|181466176|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Interlabial Sulci versus non-specific lesions of the Posterior Commissure in patients with vulvodynia?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Interlabial Sulci versus non-specific lesions of the Posterior Commissure in patients with vulvodynia.~The diagnosis of vulvodynia was based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection, Q-Tip) following Friedrich's criteria. Vulvoscopic lesions were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0000
90890253|NCT01217073|181644893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-0.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|-0.5||With terms for treatment, prior AHA therapy status, geographic region (Japan/ex-Japan), and the interaction of time by treatment, time by prior AHA therapy status, with the constraint that the mean baseline is the same for all treatment groups.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-0.50|-0.93|<0.001
91053006|NCT01195272|181989845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.165|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 5 versus Visit 2||||0.165
91053007|NCT01195272|181989845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.471|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 5 versus Visit 3||||0.471
91053008|NCT01195272|181989845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.243|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 8 versus Visit 2||||0.243
91053009|NCT01195272|181989845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.396|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 8 versus Visit 3||||0.396
91053010|NCT01195272|181989845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.375|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 8 versus Visit 5||||0.375
91053011|NCT01195272|181989846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.496|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 3 versus Visit 2||||0.496
91053012|NCT01195272|181989846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.122|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 5 versus Visit 2||||0.122
91053013|NCT01195272|181989846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 5 versus Visit 3||||0.070
91053014|NCT01195272|181989846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.135|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 8 versus Visit 2||||0.135
91053015|NCT01195272|181989846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.082|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 8 versus Visit 3||||0.082
91053016|NCT01195272|181989846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.461|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 8 versus Visit 5||||0.461
91053017|NCT01769339|181989862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91053018|NCT00292188|181989883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.01||95.0|-1.09|-0.15|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment group, baseline mean pain score and pooled country||The study is powered to detect a clinically significant difference of 1 between treatment groups in the weekly mean pain score. Null hypothesis was that there was no difference in weekly mean pain scores between pregabalin and placebo.||-0.15|-1.09|0.010
91053019|NCT00292188|181989884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.031||95.0|-1.6|-0.08|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment group, baseline score and pooled country.||||-0.08|-1.60|0.031
91053020|NCT00292188|181989885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.003||95.0|-1.61|-0.33|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment group, baseline score and pooled country.||||-0.33|-1.61|0.003
91053021|NCT00292188|181989886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.099||95.0|-3.69|0.32|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment group, baseline score and pooled country.||||0.32|-3.69|0.099
91053022|NCT00292188|181989887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.819||95.0|-1.87|2.34|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment group, baseline score and pooled country.||||2.34|-1.87|0.819
91053023|NCT00292188|181989888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.099||95.0|-0.56|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated Measures Mixed Models. Adjusted for treatment, week, baseline pain score, pooled country and treatment-week.||Week 1||0.05|-0.56|0.099
91053024|NCT00292188|181989888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.15||95.0|-0.62|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated Measures Mixed Models. Adjusted for treatment, week, baseline pain score, pooled country and treatment-week.||Week 2: FAS||0.10|-0.62|0.150
91053025|NCT00292188|181989888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.01||95.0|-0.93|-0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated Measures Mixed Models. Adjusted for treatment, week, baseline pain score, pooled country and treatment-week.||Week 3: FAS||-0.13|-0.93|0.010
91079053|NCT03411902|182043732|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.745|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.745
91079054|NCT03411902|182043733|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.163|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.163
91053026|NCT00292188|181989888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.137||95.0|-0.74|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated Measures Mixed Models. Adjusted for treatment, week, baseline pain score, pooled country and treatment-week.||Week 4: FAS||0.10|-0.74|0.137
91053027|NCT00292188|181989888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.041||95.0|-0.9|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated Measures Mixed Models. Adjusted for treatment, week, baseline pain score, pooled country and treatment-week.||Week 5: FAS||-0.02|-0.90|0.041
91053028|NCT00292188|181989888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.009||95.0|-1.03|-0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated Measures Mixed Models. Adjusted for treatment, week, baseline pain score, pooled country and treatment-week.||Week 6: FAS||-0.15|-1.03|0.009
91053029|NCT00292188|181989888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.035||95.0|-1.01|-0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated Measures Mixed Models. Adjusted for treatment, week, baseline pain score, pooled country and treatment-week.||Week 7: FAS||-0.04|-1.01|0.035
91053030|NCT00292188|181989888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.019||95.0|-1.1|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated Measures Mixed Models. Adjusted for treatment, week, baseline pain score, pooled country and treatment-week.||Week 8: FAS||-0.10|-1.10|0.019
91053031|NCT00292188|181989889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.84||||0.032||95.0|1.05|3.21|||Regression, Logistic|logstic regression adjusted for treatment group, baseline pain score and pooled country.||30% responder||3.21|1.05|0.032
91053032|NCT00292188|181989889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.78||||0.088||95.0|0.92|3.46|||Regression, Logistic|logstic regression adjusted for treatment group, baseline pain score and pooled country.||50% responder||3.46|0.92|0.088
91011120|NCT03091920|181905193|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.21|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.22|6.1|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 16-20 hours||6.10|-7.22|
91011121|NCT03091920|181905193|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.28|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.27|6.34|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 16-20 hours||6.34|-7.27|
91053033|NCT00292188|181989890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.001||95.0|-1.25|-0.34|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment group, baseline score and pooled country.||||-0.34|-1.25|0.001
91053034|NCT00292188|181989891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.62||0||95.0|-15.89|-5.55|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment group, baseline score and pooled country.||Sleep Disturbance||-5.55|-15.89|0.000
91053035|NCT00292188|181989891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.71||0.7||95.0|-4.3|6.4|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment group, baseline score and pooled country.||Snoring||6.40|-4.30|0.700
91053036|NCT00292188|181989891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.88||0.04||95.0|-11.62|-0.28|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment group, baseline score and pooled country.||Awaken Short of Breath/Headache||-0.28|-11.62|0.040
91053037|NCT00292188|181989891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.846||95.0|-0.92|0.76|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment group, baseline score and pooled country.||Sleep Quantity||0.76|-0.92|0.846
91011122|NCT03091920|181905193|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|1.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.26|6.69|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 20-24 hours||6.69|-3.26|
91011123|NCT03091920|181905193|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.38|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.69|5.2|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 20-24 hours||5.20|-4.69|
91053038|NCT00292188|181989891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.27||0.001||95.0|4.19|17.07|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment group, baseline score and pooled country.||Sleep Adequacy||17.07|4.19|0.001
91053039|NCT00292188|181989891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.34||0.324||95.0|-2.3|6.92|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment group, baseline score and pooled country.||Somnolence||6.92|-2.30|0.324
91053040|NCT00292188|181989891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.63||0||95.0|-14.71|-4.33|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment group, baseline score and pooled country.||Sleep Problems Index-6||-4.33|-14.71|0.000
91053041|NCT00292188|181989891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.02||0||95.0|-11.52|-3.56|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment group, baseline score and pooled country.||Sleep Problems Index-9||-3.56|-11.52|0.000
91053042|NCT00292188|181989892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.267||95.0|0.76|2.64|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression adjusted for treatment group, baseline score and pooled country.||||2.64|0.76|0.267
91053043|NCT00292188|181989900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.25||0.09||95.0|-8.28|0.61|||ANCOVA|||||0.61|-8.28|0.090
91053044|NCT00824616|181989910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11||||0.745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.58|||Longitudinal Data Analysis (LDA) model|||||0.58|-0.81|0.745
91053045|NCT00824616|181989911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportions|5.9||||0.537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|25.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Between-treatment difference (MK-0941 group minus Placebo group) in the percentage of participants who experienced one or more episodes of hypoglycemia.||25.4|-13.7|0.537
91053046|NCT04711902|181989919|OTHER|estimation and confidence interval|Marginal difference|39.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.87|68.95|||Regression, Logistic|||||68.95|10.87|
91053047|NCT04711902|181989920|OTHER|estimation and confidence interval|Marginal difference|11.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.18|30.91|||Regression, Logistic|||||30.91|-7.18|
91053048|NCT04711902|181989921|OTHER|estimation and confidence interval|Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|-0.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.52|-1.68|
91053049|NCT04711902|181989922|OTHER|estimation and confidence interval|Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|-1.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|-0.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.94|-2.35|
91053050|NCT04711902|181989923|OTHER|estimation and confidence interval|Mixed model repeated scores (MMRM)|4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|7.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.46|0.94|
91053051|NCT04711902|181989924|OTHER|estimation and confidence interval|Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|-0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.21|-0.58|
91053052|NCT03786718|181989925|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||One sample median test|||Due to nonnormality, we used nonparametric tests to analyze the data. This analysis is a one sample median test of participants' median SUS score compared to the threshold score of 68 indicative of 'above average' usability.||||<0.001
91053053|NCT03786718|181989929|OTHER|||||||0.77|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Sum test|||||||0.77
91053054|NCT03786718|181989930|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Sum test|||Analysis for pre-post change in General Diet sub-scale score||||0.02
91053055|NCT03786718|181989930|OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Sum test|||Analysis for pre-post change in Specific Diet sub-scale score||||0.13
91053056|NCT03786718|181989930|OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Sum test|||Analysis for pre-post change in Exercise sub-scale score||||0.35
90792810|NCT02732145|181466176|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Labia Minora versus non-specific lesions of the Posterior Commissure in patients with vulvodynia?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Labia Minora versus non-specific lesions of the Posterior Commissure in patients with vulvodynia.~The diagnosis of vulvodynia was based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection, Q-Tip) following Friedrich's criteria. Vulvoscopic lesions were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0000
90792811|NCT02732145|181466176|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Anterior Commissure versus non-specific lesions of Interlabial Sulci in patients with impaired vulvar skin?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Anterior Commissure versus non-specific lesions of Interlabial Sulci in patients with impaired vulvar skin.||||0.0000
90792812|NCT02732145|181466176|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Anterior Commissure versus non-specific lesions of Labia Minora in patients with impaired vulvar skin?||||||0.0006|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Anterior Commissure versus non-specific lesions of Labia Minora in patients with impaired vulvar skin.||||0.0006
90792813|NCT02732145|181466176|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Anterior Commissure versus non-specific lesions of the Posterior Commissure in patients with impaired vulvar skin?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Anterior Commissure versus non-specific lesions of the Posterior Commissure in patients with impaired vulvar skin.||||0.0000
90792814|NCT02732145|181466176|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Interlabial Sulci versus non-specific lesions of the Posterior Commissure in patients with impaired vulvar skin?||||||0.0003|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Interlabial Sulci versus non-specific lesions of the Posterior Commissure in patients with impaired vulvar skin.||||0.0003
90792815|NCT02732145|181466176|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Labia Minora versus non-specific lesions of the Posterior Commissure in patients with impaired vulvar skin?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Labia Minora versus non-specific lesions of the Posterior Commissure in patients with impaired vulvar skin.||||0.0000
90792816|NCT02732145|181466176|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of specific lesion of the Anterior Commissure versus specific lesions of Interlabial Sulci in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.3053|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of specific lesions of the Anterior Commissure versus specific lesions of Interlabial Sulci in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.3053
91053057|NCT03786718|181989930|OTHER|||||||0.67|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Sum test|||Analysis for pre-post change in Blood-glucose Testing sub-scale score||||0.67
91053058|NCT03786718|181989930|OTHER|||||||0.65|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Sum test|||Analysis for pre-post change in Foot Care sub-scale score||||0.65
91053059|NCT03786718|181989931|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Sum test|||||||0.001
91053060|NCT03786718|181989932|OTHER|||||||0.86|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Sum test|||||||0.86
91053061|NCT03786718|181989933|OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||McNemar|||Analysis for pre-post change in knowledge of definition of A1C||||0.30
91053062|NCT03786718|181989933|OTHER|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||Analysis for pre-post change in knowledge of goal range for hemoglobin A1c.||||1.00
91053063|NCT03786718|181989933|OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||McNemar|||Analysis for pre-post change in knowledge of definition of systolic blood pressure||||0.63
91053064|NCT03786718|181989933|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||McNemar|||Analysis of pre-post change in knowledge of goal range for systolic blood pressure||||0.02
91053065|NCT03786718|181989933|OTHER|||||||0.55|||||||McNemar|||Analysis of pre-post change in knowledge of definition of LDL cholesterol||||0.55
91053066|NCT03786718|181989933|OTHER|||||||0.0009|||||||McNemar|||Analysis for pre-post change in knowledge of goal range for LDL cholesterol||||0.0009
91053067|NCT03786718|181989933|OTHER|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||Analysis of pre-post change in knowledge of definition of flu vaccine||||1.00
91053068|NCT03786718|181989933|OTHER|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||Analysis of pre-post change in knowledge of recommended frequency of flu vaccination||||1.00
91053069|NCT03786718|181989934|OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Sum test|||||||0.15
91053070|NCT03786718|181989935|OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||McNemar|||Analysis of pre-post change in interest in information about how my diabetes health data compares to other patients like me (i.e., social comparison information)||||0.23
91053071|NCT03786718|181989935|OTHER|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||Analysis of pre-post change in interest in information about how their diabetes health data compares to the goal range (i.e., goal-based comparison information)||||1.00
91053072|NCT03786718|181989935|OTHER|||||||0.51|||||||McNemar|||Analysis of pre-post change in agreement with statement: 'Information about how my diabetes health data compares to other patients like me \[social comparison information\] is useful.'||||0.51
91053073|NCT03786718|181989935|OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||McNemar|||Analysis of pre-post change in agreement with statement: 'Information about how my diabetes health data compares to the goals range \[goal-based comparison information\] is useful.||||0.63
91053074|NCT03786718|181989936|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Sum test|||||||0.01
91053075|NCT03244644|181989942|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|13.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|24.0|||||The Bayesian posterior probability of superiority was 0.99136. This value exceeded the pre-specified threshold of 0.9750338 (nominal 0.025 one-sided level).|A hierarchical, closed-testing procedure (Bayesian hierarchical model) was utilized for the primary endpoint. The Bayesian hierarchical model formally incorporated data from the previous Phase 2B study (NCT02299570) of RBX2660. This analysis tested the hypothesis that the response rate of RBX2660 was superior to Placebo and was performed at the nominal 0.00125 and 0.025 one-sided levels.||24.0|2.3|
91053076|NCT03244644|181989943|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.156||||||P-value for secondary outcome evaluated from baseline through 6 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.156
91053077|NCT01781481|181989947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Inter-rater reliability|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Inter rater reliability for a subset of 40 patients whose Pediatric INTERMED was scored by two trained raters. The median inter-rater reliability coefficient was .87.|||||
91053078|NCT01781481|181989947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cronbach's Alpha|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Overall internal consistency of the overall Pediatric INTERMED scale (34 items).|||||
91053079|NCT01781481|181989948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||Correlation between the biological and psychological domain scores on the Pediatric INTERMED. The threshold for significance is p\< .05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.05
91053080|NCT01781481|181989948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\< .05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between the Biological and Social domain scores on the Pediatric INTERMED.||||<0.01
91053081|NCT01781481|181989948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\< .05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between the Biological and Family/Caregiver Pediatric INTERMED domain scores.||||<0.01
90792817|NCT02732145|181466176|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of specific lesion of the Anterior Commissure versus specific lesions of Labia Minora in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.7758|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of specific lesions of the Anterior Commissure versus specific lesions of Labia Minora in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.7758
91053082|NCT01781481|181989948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\< .05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Biological and Health Service Pediatric INTERMED domain scores.||||<0.01
91053083|NCT01781481|181989948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\< .05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Psychology and Social Pediatric INTERMED domain scores.||||<0.01
90792818|NCT02732145|181466176|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of specific lesion of the Anterior Commissure versus specific lesions of the Posterior Commissure in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.6676|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of specific lesions of the Anterior Commissure versus specific lesions of the Posterior Commissure in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.6676
90792819|NCT02732145|181466176|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of specific lesion of Interlabial Sulci versus specific lesions of Labia Minora in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.4577|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of specific lesions of Interlabial Sulci versus specific lesions of Labia Minora in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.4577
91053084|NCT01781481|181989948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\< .05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||||||<0.01
91053085|NCT01781481|181989948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\< .05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Psychological and Health Service Pediatric INTERMED domain scores.||||<0.01
91053086|NCT01781481|181989948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\< .05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Social and Family/Caregiver Pediatric INTERMED domain scores.||||<0.01
91053087|NCT01781481|181989948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\< .05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Social and Health Service Pediatric INTERMED domain scores.||||<0.01
91053088|NCT01781481|181989948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\< .05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Family/Caregiver and Health Service Pediatric INTERMED domain scores.||||<0.01
91053089|NCT01781481|181989962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Biological Domain Score and IBD Disease Severity at Diagnosis||||>0.05
91053090|NCT01781481|181989962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\< .05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Biological Domain Score and IBD Disease Severity (at time of Study Participation).||||<0.01
91053091|NCT01781481|181989962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\< .05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Biological Domain Score and Functional Disability Index (child rating).||||<0.01
91053092|NCT01781481|181989962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Biological Domain Score and Functional Disability Index (parent rating).||||<0.01
91053093|NCT01781481|181989962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Biological Domain Score and Impact Quality of Life: General Well Being scale.||||<0.01
91053094|NCT01781481|181989962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Biological Domain Score and Number of Surgeries.||||>0.05
91053095|NCT01781481|181989962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Biological Domain Score and Number of Courses of Prednisone.||||>0.05
91053096|NCT01781481|181989962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Biological Domain Score and Use of Immunomodulators.||||>0.05
91079055|NCT03411902|182043734|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.013
91053097|NCT01781481|181989962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Biological Domain Score and Use of ant-TNFa medications.||||>0.05
91053098|NCT01781481|181989962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Chronicity Item (Historical Biological) and Disease Severity at Diagnosis.||||>0.05
91053099|NCT01781481|181989962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Chronicity Item (Historical Biological) and Disease Severity at time of study participation (Pediatric INTERMED interview).||||>0.05
91053100|NCT01781481|181989962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Chronicity Item (Historical Biological) and Functional Disability Index (Child Report)||||>0.05
91053101|NCT01781481|181989962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Chronicity Item (Historical Biological) and Functional Disability Index (Parent)||||<0.01
91053102|NCT01781481|181989962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Chronicity Item (Historical Biological) and Impact Quality of Life: General Well-Being.||||>0.05
91053103|NCT01781481|181989962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Chronicity Item (Historical Biological) and Number of Surgeries.||||>0.05
91053104|NCT01781481|181989962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Chronicity Item (Historical Biological) and Number of Courses of Prednisone.||||>0.05
91053105|NCT01781481|181989962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\< 0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficent|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Chronicity Item (Historical Biological) and Use of Immunomodulators (azathioprine or methotrexate)||||<0.05
91053106|NCT01781481|181989962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Chronicity Item (Historical Biological) and use of anti-TNFa medications.||||>0.05
91053107|NCT01781481|181989962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Symptom Severity Item (Current/Biological) and Disease Severity at Diagnosis."||||>0.05
91053108|NCT01781481|181989962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Symptom Severity Item (Current Biological) and IBD Disease Severity at time of study participation."||||<0.01
91053109|NCT01781481|181989962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Symptom Severity Item (Current Biological) and Functional Disability Index (child rating)."||||<0.01
91053110|NCT01781481|181989962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Symptom Severity Item (Current Biological) and Functional Disability Index (Parent Rating)"||||<0.01
91053111|NCT01781481|181989962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Symptom Severity Item (Current Biological) and Impact Quality of Life: General Well-Being Scale"||||<0.01
91053112|NCT01781481|181989962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Symptom Severity Item (Current/Biological) and Number of Surgeries"||||>0.05
91053113|NCT01781481|181989962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Symptom Severity Item (Current/Biological) and Number of Courses of Prednisone."||||>0.05
91053114|NCT01781481|181989962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Symptom Severity Item (Current/Biological) and Use of Immunomodulators."||||>0.05
91053115|NCT01781481|181989962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Symptom Severity Item (Current/Biological) and Use of anti-TNFa Medications."||||>0.05
91053116|NCT01781481|181989962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05. The P-Value indicated above was found for all the correlations which were examined.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlations between Pediatric INTERMED Diagnostic Dilemma Item (Historical Biological) and Functional Disability Index (Parent) and each of the following variables: Disease Severity at Diagnosis, Disease Severity at Interview, Functional Disability Index - Child, Functional Disability Index- Parent, Impact Quality of Life: General Well Being, Number of Surgeries, Number of Courses of Prednisone, Use of Immunomodulators, Use of Anti-TNFa Medications."||||>0.05
91053117|NCT01781481|181989962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Diagnostic/Therapeutic Challenge Item (Current Biological) and IBD Disease Severity at Diagnosis."||||>0.05
91053118|NCT01781481|181989962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Diagnostic/Therapeutic Challenge Item (Current Biological) and IBD Disease Severity at time of study participation."||||<0.05
91053119|NCT01781481|181989962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Diagnostic/Therapeutic Challenge Item (Current Biological) and Functional Disability Index (Child Rating)"||||<0.05
91053120|NCT01781481|181989962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Diagnostic/Therapeutic Challenge Item (Current Biological) and Functional Disability Index (parent rating)."||||>0.05
91053121|NCT01781481|181989962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Diagnostic/Therapeutic Challenge Item (Current Biological) and Impact Quality of LIfe: General Well-Being Scale"||||<0.01
91053122|NCT01781481|181989962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Diagnostic/Therapeutic Challenge Item (Current Biological) and Number of Surgeries."||||>0.05
91053123|NCT01781481|181989962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Diagnostic/Therapeutic Challenge Item (Current Biological) and Number of Courses of Prednisone."||||>0.05
91053124|NCT01781481|181989962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Diagnostic/Therapeutic Challenge Item (Current Biological) and Use of Immunomodulators. ."||||>0.05
91053125|NCT01781481|181989962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Diagnostic/Therapeutic Challenge Item (Current Biological) and Use of anti-TNFa Medications"||||>0.05
91053126|NCT01781481|181989962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Therapeutic Complexity Item (Current Biological) and Disease Severity at Diagnosis."||||>0.05
91053127|NCT01781481|181989962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Therapeutic Complexity Item (Current Biological) and Disease Severity at time of study participation (Pediatric INTERMED interview)."||||>0.05
91053128|NCT01781481|181989962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Therapeutic Complexity Item (Current Biological) and Functional Disability Index (Child Rating)."||||>0.05
91053129|NCT01781481|181989962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Therapeutic Complexity Item (Current Biological) and Functional Disability Index (Parent Rating)"||||>0.05
91053130|NCT01781481|181989962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Therapeutic Complexity Item (Current Biological) and Impact Quality of Life: General Well-Being"||||>0.05
90792820|NCT02732145|181466176|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of specific lesion of Interlabial Sulci versus specific lesions of the Posterior Commissure in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.1681|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of specific lesions of Interlabial Sulci versus specific lesions of the Posterior Commissure in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.1681
91053131|NCT01781481|181989962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Therapeutic Complexity Item (Current Biological) and Number of Surgeries."||||>0.05
91053132|NCT01781481|181989962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Therapeutic Complexity Item (Current Biological) and Number of Courses of Prednisone since diagnosis."||||<0.05
91053133|NCT01781481|181989962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significiance is p\<0.01.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Therapeutic Complexity Item (Current Biological) and Use of Immunomodulators (azathioprine or methotrexate)."||||<0.01
91053134|NCT01781481|181989962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The Threshold for significance is p\<0.05)|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Therapeutic Complexity Item (Current Biological) and Use of ant-TNFa Medications (infliximab or adalimumab)."||||<0.01
91053135|NCT01781481|181989962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Complications and Life Threat Item (Vulnerability Biological) and Disease Severity at diagnosis."||||>0.05
91053136|NCT01781481|181989962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Complications and Life Threat Item (Vulnerability Biological) and Disease Severity at study participation."||||<0.05
91053137|NCT01781481|181989962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Complications and Life Threat Item (Vulnerability Biological) and Functional Disability Index (Child Rating)."||||<0.01
91053138|NCT01781481|181989962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.01.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Complications and Life Threat Item (Vulnerability Biological) and Functional Disability Index (parent rating)."||||<0.01
91011124|NCT03091920|181905193|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.96|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|-0.36|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 0-4 hours||-0.36|-8.50|
91053139|NCT01781481|181989962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Complications and Life Threat Item (Vulnerability Biological) and Impact Quality of Life: General Well Being Scale."||||<0.05
91053140|NCT01781481|181989962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Complications and Life Threat Item (Vulnerability Biological) and Number of Surgeries."||||>0.05
91053141|NCT01781481|181989962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Complications and Life Threat Item (Vulnerability Biological) and Number of Courses of Prednisone."||||>0.05
91053142|NCT01781481|181989962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Complications and Life Threat Item (Vulnerability Biological) and Use of Immunomodulators (azathioprine or methotrexate)."||||<0.05
91079056|NCT03411902|182043735|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.337|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pertaining to Radius 33 BMD||||0.337
91011125|NCT03091920|181905193|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.99|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|-0.03|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 0-4 hours||-0.03|-8.30|
91053143|NCT01781481|181989962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Complications and Life Threat Item (Vulnerability Biological) and Use of anti-TNFa Medications."||||>0.05
91053144|NCT01781481|181989963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Psychological Domain Score (psychological needs) and Internalizing Problems (Child Behaviour Checklist).||||<0.01
91053145|NCT01781481|181989963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Psychological Domain Score (psychological needs) and Externalizing Problems (Child Behaviour Checklist).||||<0.01
91053146|NCT01781481|181989963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Psychological Domain Score (psychological needs) and Children's Depression Inventory: Total Score||||<0.01
91053147|NCT01781481|181989963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Psychological Domain Score (psychological needs) and Multidimensional Anxiety Scale for Children: Total Score.||||<0.05
91053148|NCT01781481|181989963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Psychological Domain Score (psychological needs) and Impact Quality of Life: Emotional Scale||||<0.01
91053149|NCT01781481|181989963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Psychological Domain Score (psychological needs) and Social Competence Scale (Child Behaviour Checklist).||||0.01
91053150|NCT01781481|181989963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Psychological Domain Score (psychological needs) and Activities Competence Scale (Child Behaviour Checklist).||||<0.05
90792821|NCT02732145|181466176|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of specific lesion of Labia Minora versus specific lesions of the Posterior Commissure in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.8848|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of specific lesions of Labia Minora versus specific lesions of the Posterior Commissure in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.8848
91053151|NCT01781481|181989963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Psychological Domain Score (psychological needs) and Academic Competence Scale (Child Behaviour Checklist).||||<0.01
91053152|NCT01781481|181989963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Psychological Domain Score (psychological needs) and Impact Quality of Life: Social Scale||||<0.01
91053153|NCT01781481|181989963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Psychological Domain Score (psychological needs) and Pediatric Inventory for Parents: Difficulty Score (parenting stress).||||<0.05
91053154|NCT01781481|181989963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Psychological Domain Score (psychological needs) and Family Inventory of Life Events (family stress measure).||||<0.01
91053155|NCT01781481|181989963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Psychological Domain Score (psychological needs) and Family Inventory of Resources for Management (family resources measure).||||<0.01
91053156|NCT01781481|181989963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Social Domain Score (social needs) and Internalizing Problems (Child Behaviour Checklist).||||<0.01
91053157|NCT01781481|181989963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Social Domain Score (social needs) and Externalizing Problems (Child Behaviour Checklist).||||<0.01
91053158|NCT01781481|181989963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Social Domain Score (social needs) and Children's Depression Inventory: Total Score||||<0.01
91053159|NCT01781481|181989963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Social Domain Score (social needs) and Multidimensional Anxiety Scale for Children: Total Score.||||<0.05
91053160|NCT01781481|181989963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Social Domain Score (social needs) and Impact Quality of Life: Emotional Scale||||<0.01
91053161|NCT01781481|181989963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Social Domain Score (social needs) and Social Competence Scale (Child Behaviour Checklist).||||<0.01
91053162|NCT01781481|181989963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Social Domain Score (social needs) and Activities Competence Scale (Child Behaviour Checklist).||||<0.01
91053163|NCT01781481|181989963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Social Domain Score (social needs) and Academic Competence Scale (Child Behaviour Checklist).||||<0.01
91053164|NCT01781481|181989963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Social Domain Score (social needs) and Impact Quality of Life: Social Scale||||<0.01
91053165|NCT01781481|181989963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Social Domain Score (social needs) and Pediatric Inventory for Parents: Difficulty Score (parenting stress).||||<0.01
91053166|NCT01781481|181989963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Social Domain Score (social needs) and Family Inventory of Life Events (family stress measure).||||<0.01
91053167|NCT01781481|181989963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Social Domain Score (social needs) and Family Inventory of Resources for Management (family resources measure).||||<0.01
91053168|NCT01781481|181989963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Caregiver/Family Domain Score (caregiver/family needs) and Internalizing Problems (Child Behaviour Checklist).||||<0.01
91053169|NCT01781481|181989963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Caregiver/Family Domain Score (caregiver/family needs) and Externalizing Problems (Child Behaviour Checklist).||||<0.01
90792822|NCT02732145|181466177|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Clitoris among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of non-specific lesions of the Clitoris in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant for the diagnosis of the vulvodynia."||||0.0000
90792823|NCT02732145|181466177|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Hart's Line among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of non-specific lesions of Hart's Line in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant for the diagnosis of the vulvodynia."||||0.0000
90792824|NCT02732145|181466177|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Urethral Sulcus among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of non-specific lesions of the Urethral Sulcus in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of the vulvodynia."||||0.0000
90792825|NCT02732145|181466177|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Urethral Meatus among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of non-specific lesions of the Urethral meatus in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of the vulvodynia."||||0.0000
91011126|NCT03091920|181905193|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-3.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.82|3.04|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 4-8 hours||3.04|-9.82|
91011127|NCT03091920|181905193|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.51|5.38|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 4-8 hours||5.38|-7.51|
91011128|NCT03091920|181905193|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.56|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.12|2.48|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 8-12 hours||2.48|-8.12|
91011129|NCT03091920|181905193|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.54|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.63|3.91|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 8-12 hours||3.91|-6.63|
91053170|NCT01781481|181989963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Caregiver/Family Domain Score (caregiver/family needs) and Children's Depression Inventory: Total Score||||<0.01
91053171|NCT01781481|181989963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Caregiver/Family Domain Score (caregiver/family needs) and Multidimensional Anxiety Scale for Children: Total Score.||||>0.05
91053172|NCT01781481|181989963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Psychological Domain Score (psychological needs) and Impact Quality of Life: Emotional Scale||||<0.01
91011130|NCT03091920|181905193|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.97|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.35|4.97|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 12-16 hours||4.97|-7.35|
91011131|NCT03091920|181905193|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.91|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|4.77|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 12-16 hours||4.77|-7.30|
91011132|NCT03091920|181905193|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-5.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.29|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.68|0.95|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 16-20 hours||0.95|-12.68|
91011133|NCT03091920|181905193|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-6.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.36|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.16|0.76|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 16-20 hours||0.76|-13.16|
91011134|NCT03091920|181905193|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.87|4.65|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 20-24 hours||4.65|-7.87|
91011135|NCT03091920|181905193|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.85|5.59|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 20-24 hours||5.59|-6.85|
91053173|NCT01781481|181989963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Caregiver/Family Domain Score (caregiver/family needs) and Social Competence Scale (Child Behaviour Checklist).||||<0.01
91053174|NCT01781481|181989963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Caregiver/Family Domain Score (caregiver/family needs) and Activities Competence Scale (Child Behaviour Checklist).||||<0.01
91053175|NCT01781481|181989963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Caregiver/Family Domain Score (caregiver/family needs) and Academic Competence Scale (Child Behaviour Checklist).||||<0.01
91053176|NCT01781481|181989963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Caregiver/Family Domain Score (caregiver/family needs) and Impact Quality of Life: Social Scale||||<0.01
91053177|NCT01781481|181989963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Caregiver/Family Domain Score (caregiver/family needs) and Pediatric Inventory for Parents: Difficulty Score (parenting stress).||||<0.01
91053178|NCT01781481|181989963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Psychological Domain Score (psychological needs) and Family Inventory of Life Events (family stress measure).||||<0.01
91053179|NCT01781481|181989963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Caregiver/Family Domain Score (caregiver/family needs) and Family Inventory of Resources for Management (family resources measure).||||<0.01
91053180|NCT01781481|181989964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|34.47||||||||34.47|2.02|
91053181|NCT01781481|181989965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|43.02||||||||43.02|1.70|
91053182|NCT01781481|181989966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.17|24.36||||||||24.36|2.17|
91053183|NCT01781481|181989967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|24.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|122.84||||||||122.84|5.00|
91053184|NCT01781481|181989968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Health System Domain Score (health system needs/complexity) and Number of Hospital Services involved in the child's care.||||<0.01
91053185|NCT01781481|181989968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Health System Domain Score (health system needs/complexity) and Number of Inpatient Hospitalizations since IBD diagnosis.||||<0.01
91053186|NCT01781481|181989968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Health System Domain Score (health system needs/complexity) and Number of Surgeries since IBD diagnosis.||||<0.01
91053187|NCT01781481|181989968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Health System Domain Score (health system needs/complexity) and Family Financial Well Being||||<0.01
91053188|NCT01781481|181989968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Access to Health Care Item (historical/health system) and Number of Hospital Services Involved in the Child's Care."||||>0.05
91053189|NCT01781481|181989968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Access to Health Care Item (historical/health system) and Number of Hospitalizations since Child's IBD Diagnosis."||||<0.01
91053190|NCT01781481|181989968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Access to Health Care Item (historical/health system) and Number of Surgeries since Diagnosis."||||<0.01
91053191|NCT01781481|181989968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Access to Health Care Item (historical/health system) and Family Financial Well-Being."||||<0.01
91053192|NCT01781481|181989968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Treatment Experience Item (historical/health system) and Number of Hospital Services Involved in the Child's Care."||||<0.01
91053193|NCT01781481|181989968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Treatment Experience Item (historical/health system) and Number of Hospitalizations since Child's IBD Diagnosis."||||>0.05
91053194|NCT01781481|181989968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Treatment Experience Item (historical/health system) and Number of Surgeries since child's diagnosis."||||>0.05
91053195|NCT01781481|181989968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Treatment Experience Item (historical/health system) and Family Financial Well-Being."||||>0.05
91053196|NCT01781481|181989968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Organization of Care Item (current/health system) and Number of Hospital Services Involved in the Child's Care."||||<0.01
91053197|NCT01781481|181989968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Organization of Care Item (current/health system) and Number of Hospitalizations since IBD Diagnosis."||||>0.05
91053198|NCT01781481|181989968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Organization of Care Item (current/health system) and Number of Surgeries since Child's IBD Diagnosis."||||>0.05
91053199|NCT01781481|181989968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Organization of Care Item (current/health system) and Family Financial Well-Being."||||<0.01
91053200|NCT01781481|181989968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Coordination of Care Item (current/health system) and Number of Hospital Services Involved in the Child's Care."||||<0.01
91053201|NCT01781481|181989968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Coordination of Care Item (current/health system) and Number of Hospitalizations since Child's IBD Diagnosis."||||>0.05
91053202|NCT01781481|181989968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Coordination of Care Item (current/health system) and Number of Surgeries Child's IBD Diagnosis."||||>0.05
91053203|NCT01781481|181989968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Coordination of Care Item (current/health system) and Family Financial Well Being."||||>0.05
91053204|NCT01781481|181989968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Health System Impediments Item (vulnerability/health system) and Number of Hospital Services Involved in the Child's Care."||||>0.05
91053205|NCT01781481|181989968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Health System Impediments Item (vulnerability/health system) and Number of Hospitalizations since Child's IBD Diagnosis. Services Involved in the Child's Care."||||<0.01
91053206|NCT01781481|181989968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Health System Impediments Item (vulnerability/health system) and Number of Surgeries since Child's IBD Diagnosis."||||>0.05
91053207|NCT01781481|181989968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Health System Impediments Item (vulnerability/health system) and Family Financial Well-Being."||||<0.01
90792826|NCT02732145|181466177|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Hymenal Remnants among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of non-specific lesions of Hymenal Remnants in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of the vulvodynia."||||0.0000
91053208|NCT01781481|181989969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rsquare change statistic|0.08|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.05 Threshold for statistical significance|Regression, Linear|||A hierarchical multiple (linear) regression analysis was conducted to determine the predictive relation between the Pediatric INTERMED indicator of case complexity and the number of hospital services involved in child's care. Gender, and time since diagnosis were entered as covariates (Step 1), followed by current disease severity (Step 2) and the Pediatric INTERMED Complexity Index (Step 3). Diagnostic tests for collinearity were conducted and all assumptions for the analysis were met.||||<0.01
91053209|NCT01781481|181989970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R2Change|0.05|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.01|Regression, Linear|||A hierarchical multiple (linear) regression analysis was conducted to determine the predictive relation between the Pediatric INTERMED indicator of case complexity and the number of calls to the IBD Nurse. Gender, and time since diagnosis were entered as covariates (Step 1), followed by current disease severity (Step 2) and the Pediatric INTERMED Complexity Index (Step 3). Diagnostic tests for collinearity were conducted and all assumptions for the analysis were met.||||<0.01
91053210|NCT01781481|181989971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rsquare change statistic|0.05|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<.05 threshold for statistical significance|Regression, Linear|Diagnostic tests for collinearity were conducted and all assumptions for the analysis were met.||A hierarchical multiple (linear) regression analysis was conducted to determine the predictive relation between the Pediatric INTERMED indicator of case complexity and the number of extra appointments with the IBD team. Gender, and time since diagnosis were entered as covariates (Step 1), followed by current disease severity (Step 2) and the Pediatric INTERMED Complexity Index (Step 3).||||<0.01
91053211|NCT01781481|181989972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R2Change|0.03|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for statistical significance is p \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||A hierarchical multiple (linear) regression analysis was conducted to determine the predictive relation between the Pediatric INTERMED indicator of case complexity and the number of ER Visits. Gender, and time since diagnosis were entered as covariates (Step 1), followed by current disease severity (Step 2) and the Pediatric INTERMED Complexity Index (Step 3). Diagnostic tests for collinearity were conducted and all assumptions for the analysis were met.||||<0.05
91053212|NCT01781481|181989973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R2Change|0.07|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||A hierarchical multiple (linear) regression analysis was conducted to determine the predictive relation between the Pediatric INTERMED indicator of case complexity and the number of hospital services involved in child's care. Gender, and time since diagnosis were entered as covariates (Step 1), followed by current disease severity (Step 2) and the Pediatric INTERMED Complexity Index (Step 3). Diagnostic tests for collinearity were conducted and all assumptions for the analysis were met.||||<0.01
91053213|NCT00372411|181989974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.17||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|4.58||All p-values are 2-sided with a significance level of 0.022 to adjust for multiple comparisons and interim analyses|ANCOVA|Analysis is of change at 12 weeks minus baseline adjusted for the study site as a fixed effect, the Comorbidity Disease Index, and baseline FM value.||Because randomization to usual care was stopped after 15 months as specified by the protocol, comparisons of robot-assisted therapy with usual care included only patients who were recruited during this period.||4.58|-0.23|0.08
91053214|NCT00372411|181989974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.88||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|5.18||All p-values are 2-sided with a significance level of 0.022 to adjust for multiple comparisons and interim analyses.|Mixed Models Analysis|Secondary analysis used longitudinal methods to assess the effect of treatment on outcomes over 36 weeks with visits at 6, 12, 24, and 36 weeks.||Because randomization to usual care was stopped after 15 months as specified by the protocol comparisons of robot-assisted therapy with usual care included only patients who were recruited during this period.||5.18|0.57|0.02
91079057|NCT03411902|182043735|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.238|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pertaining to Radius UD BMD||||0.238
91053215|NCT00372411|181989974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.94|2.65||All p-values are 2-sided with a significance level of 0.022 to adjust for multiple comparisons and interim analyses|ANCOVA|Analysis is of change at 12 weeks minus baseline adjusted for the study site as a fixed effect, the Comorbidity Disease Index, and baseline FM value.||Comparisons between robot-assisted therapy and intensive comparison therapy included all patients who underwent randomization and were evaluated.||2.65|-2.94|0.92
91053216|NCT00372411|181989974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.58||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.97|1.81||All p-values are 2-sided with a significance level of 0.022 to adjust for multiple comparisons and interim analyses.|Mixed Models Analysis|Secondary analysis used longitudinal methods to assess the effect of treatment on outcomes over 36 weeks with visits at 6, 12, 24, and 36 weeks.||Comparisons between robot-assisted therapy and intensive comparison therapy included all patients who underwent randomization and were evaluated.||1.81|-2.97|0.63
91053217|NCT00372411|181989975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.64||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.03|13.24||All p-values are 2-sided with a significance level of 0.022 to adjust for multiple comparisons and interim analyses|ANCOVA|Analysis is change at 12 weeks minus baseline, adjusted for study site as a fixed effect, Comorbidity Disease Index, and the baseline SIS value.||Because randomization to usual care was stopped after 15 months as specified by the protocol, comparisons of robot-assisted therapy with usual care included only patients who were recruited during this period.||13.24|2.03|0.009
91053218|NCT00372411|181989975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.95||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|11.56||All p-values are 2-sided with a significance level of 0.022 to adjust for multiple comparisons and interim analyses.|Mixed Models Analysis|Secondary analysis used longitudinal methods to assess the effect of treatment on outcomes over 36 weeks with visits at 6, 12, 24, and 36 weeks.||Because randomization to usual care was stopped after 15 months as specified by the protocol comparisons of robot-assisted therapy with usual care included only patients who were recruited during this period.||11.56|0.34|0.04
91053219|NCT00372411|181989975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.54||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.87|4.94||All p-values are 2-sided with a significance level of 0.022 to adjust for multiple comparisons and interim analyses.|ANCOVA|Analysis is change at 12 weeks minus baseline, adjusted for study site as a fixed effect, Comorbidity Disease Index, and the baseline SIS value.||Comparisons between robot-assisted therapy and intensive comparison therapy included all patients who underwent randomization and were evaluated.||4.94|-3.87|0.81
91053220|NCT00372411|181989975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.19||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.74|5.12||All p-values are 2-sided with a significance level of 0.022 to adjust for multiple comparisons and interim analyses.|Mixed Models Analysis|Secondary analysis used longitudinal methods to assess the effect of treatment on outcomes over 36 weeks with visits at 6, 12, 24, and 36 weeks.||Comparisons between robot-assisted therapy and intensive comparison therapy included all patients who underwent randomization and were evaluated.||5.12|-2.74|0.55
91053221|NCT00372411|181989976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.41||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.52|2.7||All p-values are 2-sided with a significance level of 0.022 to adjust for multiple comparisons and interim analyses.|ANCOVA|Analysis is change at 12 weeks minus baseline adjusted for the study site as a fixed effect, the Comorbidity Disease Index, and baseline WMFT value.||Because randomization to usual care was stopped after 15 months as specified by the protocol comparisons of robot-assisted therapy with usual care included only patients who were recruited during this period.||2.70|-11.52|0.22
91053222|NCT00372411|181989976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.1||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.61|-2.6||All p-values are 2-sided with a significance level of 0.022 to adjust for multiple comparisons and interim analyses.|Mixed Models Analysis|Secondary analysis used longitudinal methods to assess the effect of treatment on outcomes over 36 weeks with visits at 6, 12, 24, and 36 weeks.||Because randomization to usual care was stopped after 15 months as specified by the protocol comparisons of robot-assisted therapy with usual care included only patients who were recruited during this period.||-2.60|-13.61|0.005
91053223|NCT00372411|181989976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.93||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.03|8.89||All p-values are 2-sided with a significance level of 0.022 to adjust for multiple comparisons and interim analyses.|ANCOVA|Analysis is change at 12 weeks minus baseline adjusted for the study site as a fixed effect, the Comorbidity Disease Index, and baseline WMFT value.||Comparisons between robot-assisted therapy and intensive comparison therapy included all patients who underwent randomization and were evaluated.||8.89|-7.03|0.82
91053224|NCT00372411|181989976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.13||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|4.93||All p-values are 2-sided with a significance level of 0.022 to adjust for multiple comparisons and interim analyses.|Mixed Models Analysis|Secondary analysis used longitudinal methods to assess the effect of treatment on outcomes over 36 weeks with visits at 6, 12, 24, and 36 weeks.||Comparisons between robot-assisted therapy and intensive comparison therapy included all patients who underwent randomization and were evaluated.||4.93|-9.20|0.55
91079058|NCT03411902|182043736|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.860
90792827|NCT02732145|181466177|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Bartholin's Gland Opening among the patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of non-specific lesions of Bartholin's Gland Opening in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of the vulvodynia."||||0.0000
90792828|NCT02732145|181466177|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Vestibule among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of non-specific lesions of the Vestibule in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of the vulvodynia."||||0.0000
90792829|NCT02732145|181466177|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of erythema of the Clitoris among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of erythema of the Clitoris in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of the vulvodynia."||||0.0000
91053225|NCT00372411|181989977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.81||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|0.11||All p-values are 2-sided with a significance level of 0.022 to adjust for multiple comparisons and interim analyses.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance at 12 weeks, adjusted for study site as a fixed effect, Comorbidity Disease Index, and the baseline value of the outcome.||Because randomization to usual care was stopped after 15 months as specified by the protocol comparisons of robot-assisted therapy with usual care included only patients who were recruited during this period.||0.11|-1.73|0.08
91053226|NCT00372411|181989977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.84||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|-0.06||All p-values are 2-sided with a significance level of 0.022 to adjust for multiple comparisons and interim analyses.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance at 12 weeks, adjusted for study site as a fixed effect, Comorbidity Disease Index, and the baseline value of the outcome.||Comparisons between robot-assisted therapy and intensive comparison therapy included all patients who underwent randomization and were evaluated.||-0.06|-1.62|0.03
91053227|NCT00372411|181989978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.26||All p-values are 2-sided with a significance level of 0.022 to adjust for multiple comparisons and interim analyses.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance at 12 weeks, adjusted for study site as a fixed effect, Comorbidity Disease Index, and the baseline value of the outcome.||Because randomization to usual care was stopped after 15 months as specified by the protocol comparisons of robot-assisted therapy with usual care included only patients who were recruited during this period.||0.26|-0.25|0.95
91053228|NCT00372411|181989978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.19||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.04||All p-values are 2-sided with a significance level of 0.022 to adjust for multiple comparisons and interim analyses.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance at 12 weeks, adjusted for study site as a fixed effect, Comorbidity Disease Index, and the baseline value of the outcome.||Comparisons between robot-assisted therapy and intensive comparison therapy included all patients who underwent randomization and were evaluated.||0.04|-0.42|0.10
91053229|NCT02227147|181990006|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|40.4|||=|0.006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|14.2|66.6|||Chi-squared|||||66.6|14.2|=0.006
91053230|NCT02227147|181990007|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|36.1|||=|0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.4|62.7|||Chi-squared|||||62.7|9.4|=0.013
91053231|NCT02227147|181990008|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage|19.0|||=|0.191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|47.1|||Chi-squared|||week 4 - central reviewer||47.1|-9.0|=0.191
91053232|NCT02227147|181990008|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage|10.7|||=|0.464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|39.1|||Chi-squared|||week 6 - central reviewer||39.1|-17.7|=0.464
91053233|NCT02227147|181990008|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage|14.9|||=|0.308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|43.1|||Chi-squared|||week 4 - investigator||43.1|-13.4|=0.308
91053234|NCT02227147|181990008|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage|23.6|||=|0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|51.3|||Chi-squared|||week 6 - investigator||51.3|-4.2|=0.106
91053235|NCT02227147|181990009|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage|9.5|||=|0.255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|25.9|||Chi-squared|||week 4||25.9|-6.9|=0.255
91053236|NCT02227147|181990009|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage|0.8|||=|0.927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.6|17.1|||Chi-squared|||week 6||17.1|-15.6|=0.927
91053237|NCT02227147|181990009|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage|18.6|||=|0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|37.8|||Chi-squared|||week 8||37.8|-0.7|=0.062
91053238|NCT02227147|181990010|SUPERIORITY||difference in least square means|1.1|||=|0.745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|7.7|||ANCOVA|||||7.7|-5.6|=0.745
90792830|NCT02732145|181466177|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of erythema of Hart's Line among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of erythema of Hart's Line in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of the vulvodynia."||||0.0000
90792831|NCT02732145|181466177|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of erythema of the Urethral Sulcus among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of erythema of the Urethral Sulcus in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of the vulvodynia."||||0.0000
90792832|NCT02732145|181466177|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of erythema of the Urethral Meatus among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of erythema of the Urethral Meatus in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of the vulvodynia."||||0.0000
90890254|NCT01217073|181644893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-0.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.45||With terms for treatment, prior AHA therapy status, geographic region (Japan/ex-Japan), and the interaction of time by treatment, time by prior AHA therapy status, with the constraint that the mean baseline is the same for all treatment groups.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-0.45|-0.88|<0.001
91053239|NCT02227147|181990011|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage|-3.8|||=|0.672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.3|13.7|||Chi-squared|||week 4||13.7|-21.3|=0.672
91053240|NCT02227147|181990011|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage|0.5|||=|0.955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.5|19.6|||Chi-squared|||week 6||19.6|-18.5|=0.955
91053241|NCT02227147|181990011|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage|-3.6|||=|0.727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.9|16.7|||Chi-squared|||week 8||16.7|-23.9|=0.727
91053242|NCT02227147|181990012|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|0.6|||=|0.207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.5|||ANCOVA|||||1.5|-0.4|=0.207
91053243|NCT02227147|181990013|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage|-13.3|||=|0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.5|3.9|||Chi-squared|||||3.9|-30.5|=0.110
91053244|NCT03514641|181990020|SUPERIORITY||LS Means difference|-2.72||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.47|-0.96|||Covariance|Covariance model diabetes status, eGFR at screening, pre-treatment status, treatment, and baseline 24-hour mean SBP||||-0.96|-4.47|0.0025
91053245|NCT03514641|181990021|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.43||||0.0117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.32|-0.54|||Covariance|Covariance model diabetes status, eGFR at screening, pre-treatment status, treatment, and baseline 24-hour mean SBP||||-0.54|-4.32|0.0117
91053246|NCT03514641|181990022|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.1317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.83||Covariance model diabetes status, eGFR at screening, pre-treatment status, treatment, and baseline 24-hour mean SBP|Covariance|||||1.83|0.92|0.1317
91053247|NCT03514641|181990023|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6||||0.0113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|2.3|||Covariance|Covariance model diabetes status, eGFR at screening, pre-treatment status, treatment, and baseline 24-hour mean SBP||||2.30|1.11|0.0113
91053248|NCT03514641|181990024|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.83|-2.42|||Covariance|Covariance model diabetes status, eGFR at screening, pre-treatment status, treatment, and baseline 24-hour mean SBP||||-2.42|-6.83|<0.0001
91053249|NCT03514641|181990025|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.86||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|2.62|||Covariance|Covariance model diabetes status, eGFR at screening, pre-treatment status, treatment, and baseline 24-hour mean SBP||||2.62|1.32|0.0004
91053250|NCT03514641|181990026|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.83||||0.0863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.79|0.12|||Covariance|Covariance model diabetes status, eGFR at screening, pre-treatment status, treatment, and baseline 24-hour mean SBP||||0.12|-1.79|0.0863
91053251|NCT03514641|181990027|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.0232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.08|||Covariance|Covariance model diabetes status, eGFR at screening, pre-treatment status, treatment, and baseline 24-hour mean SBP||||2.08|1.06|0.0232
91053252|NCT03514641|181990028|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.81||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|2.91|||Covariance|Covariance model diabetes status, eGFR at screening, pre-treatment status, treatment, and baseline 24-hour mean SBP||||2.91|1.13|0.0140
91053253|NCT03514641|181990029|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.31||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|-0.92|||Covariance|Covariance model diabetes status, eGFR at screening, pre-treatment status, treatment, and baseline 24-hour mean SBP||||-0.92|-3.70|0.0011
91053254|NCT03514641|181990030|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.0094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|2.35|||Covariance|Covariance model diabetes status, eGFR at screening, pre-treatment status, treatment, and baseline 24-hour mean SBP||||2.35|1.13|0.0094
91053255|NCT03514641|181990031|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.2||||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.57|-0.83|||Covariance|Covariance model diabetes status, eGFR at screening, pre-treatment status, treatment, and baseline 24-hour mean SBP||||-0.83|-5.57|0.0083
91053256|NCT03514641|181990032|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.84||||0.1085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|0.19|||Covariance|Covariance model diabetes status, eGFR at screening, pre-treatment status, treatment, and baseline 24-hour mean SBP||||0.19|-1.87|0.1085
91053257|NCT03514641|181990033|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.25||||0.0837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.67|0.17|||Covariance|Covariance model diabetes status, eGFR at screening, pre-treatment status, treatment, and baseline 24-hour mean SBP||||0.17|-2.67|0.0837
91053258|NCT03688282|181990041|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91053259|NCT01055132|181990064|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Based on historical data, a minimum of 42 subjects is needed to achieve 80% power with 0.05 type I error.|Least-square mean difference|-0.037|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0072|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.041|-0.0013|||linear mixed model|Sequence of wear, period and lens were included as fixed effects; site, patient, eye\*patient, period\*patient and period\*eye\*patient as random effects.|Comparison between study lenses was carried out using 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the least-square mean difference(test minus control). The non-inferiority was concluded if the upper limit of the confidence limit is below 0.05 LogMAR.|Ho:The test lens is non-inferior to the active comparator lens for monocular visual performance on logMAR scale at 1-week follow-up. A non-inferiority margin of 0.05 logMAR was used.||-0.0013|-0.041|
91053260|NCT01055132|181990065|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Based on historical data, a minimum of 42 subjects is needed to achieve a minimum of 80% power with 0.05 type I error.|Least-square mean difference|-0.015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0062|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.027|-0.003|||linear mixed model|Sequence of wear,lens period and lens were included in the model as fixed effects; site, patient, period\*patient were included as random effects.|Comparison between study lenses was carried out using 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the least-square mean difference (test minus control). The non-inferiority was concluded if the upper limit of the confidence limit is below 0.05 LogMAR.|Ho:The test lens is non-inferior to the active comparator lens for Binocular visual performance on logMAR scale at 1-week follow-up. A non-inferiority margin of 0.05 logMAR was used.||-0.003|-0.027|
91053261|NCT01055132|181990066|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Based on historical data, a minimum of 42 subjects is needed to achieve a minimum of 80% power with 0.05 type I error.|Least-square mean difference|11.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.93|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.05|19.79|||linear mixed model|Sequence of lens wear, lens period and lens type were included in the model as fixed effects; and Site and patient as random effects.|Comparison between study lenses was carried out using 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the least-square mean difference (test minus control). The non-inferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the confidence interval is higher than -5.|Ho:The test lens is non-inferior to the active comparator lens for comfort at 1-week follow-up. A non-inferiority margin of -5 units was used.||19.79|4.05|
91053262|NCT01055132|181990067|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Based on historical data, a minimum of 42 subjects is needed to achieve a minimum of 80% power with 0.05 type I error.|least-square mean difference|7.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.55|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|14.8|||linear mixed model|Sequence of lens wear, lens period and lens type were included in the model as fixed effects; and site and patient as random effects.|Comparison between study lenses was carried out using 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the least-square mean difference (test minus control). The non-inferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the confidence interval is higher than -5.|Ho:The test lens is non-inferior to the active comparator lens for overall quality of vision at 1-week follow-up. A non-inferiority margin of -5 units was used.||14.80|0.58|
91053263|NCT00910091|181990074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1895|TWO_SIDED||||||Kaplan-Meier Analysis|||||||0.1895
91053264|NCT00910091|181990075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0203|TWO_SIDED||||||Kaplan-Meier Analysis|||||||0.0203
91053265|NCT00910091|181990077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.698|TWO_SIDED||||||Kaplan-Meier Analysis|||||||0.6980
91053266|NCT00910091|181990078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3078|TWO_SIDED||||||Kaplan-Meier Analysis|||||||0.3078
91053267|NCT00910091|181990079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0484|TWO_SIDED||||||Kaplan-Meier Analysis|||||||0.0484
91053268|NCT01659866|181990080|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
91053269|NCT04536935|181990131|SUPERIORITY|A series of mixed effects models using restricted maximum likelihood estimation were built to test linear time change on the PHQ-9 and to test for condition differences at follow-up and change slope. Models were built in an outwardly nested fashion, such that an initial null model was computed, followed by models that added a random intercept, random time component, condition assignment, and condition x time interaction effects.|Slope|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.1|-1.8|<.001
91053270|NCT04536935|181990132|OTHER|A series of mixed effects models using restricted maximum likelihood estimation were built to test linear time change on the GAD-7 and to test for condition differences at follow-up and change slope. Models were built in an outwardly nested fashion, such that an initial null model was computed, followed by models that added a random intercept, random time component, condition assignment, and condition x time interaction effects.|Slope|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.0|-1.6|<.001
91053271|NCT04536935|181990133|OTHER|A series of mixed effects models using restricted maximum likelihood estimation were built to test linear time change on the DERS and to test for condition differences at follow-up and change slope. Models were built in an outwardly nested fashion, such that an initial null model was computed, followed by models that added a random intercept, random time component, condition assignment, and condition x time interaction effects.||||||0.73|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.73
91053272|NCT04536935|181990134|OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.25
91053273|NCT04536935|181990135|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||ANOVA|||||||.22
91053274|NCT04536935|181990136|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||ANOVA|||||||.48
91053275|NCT04536935|181990137|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<.0001
91053276|NCT01447420|181990154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Participants without measurement at the end of the 24 week untreated follow-up period were considered as non-responders.||IL28B Genotypes (CC, CT or TT)||||0.0007
91053277|NCT01447420|181990157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|4.14|||||Odds Ratio for SVR estimated from the logistic regression model.|Anemia after the first month of treatment vs No anemia||4.14|0.69|
91053278|NCT01447420|181990157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|2.59|||||Odds Ratio for SVR estimated from the logistic regression model.|Anemia in the first month of treatment vs No anemia||2.59|0.28|
91053279|NCT01447420|181990157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.27|13.12|||||Odds Ratio for SVR estimated from the logistic regression model.|IL28B - CC vs CT||13.12|2.27|
91053280|NCT01447420|181990157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|13.61|||||Odds Ratio for SVR estimated from the logistic regression model.|IL28B - CC vs TT||13.61|1.19|
91053281|NCT01948986|181990171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Heathy Normal/T2DM Normal)|103.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.32|132.27|||||The model was an ANOVA model with renal function group as a fixed effect. The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|||132.27|80.32|
91053282|NCT01948986|181990171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Mild Renal Impair./Pooled Norm.)|156.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|127.83|191.23|||||The model was an ANOVA model with renal function group as a fixed effect. The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|||191.23|127.83|
91053283|NCT01948986|181990171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Mod. Renal Impair./Pooled Norm.)|170.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|139.02|207.98|||||The model was an ANOVA model with renal function group as a fixed effect. The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|||207.98|139.02|
91053284|NCT01948986|181990171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Severe Renal Impair./Pooled Norm.|155.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|124.38|193.8|||||The model was an ANOVA model with renal function group as a fixed effect. The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|||193.80|124.38|
91053285|NCT01948986|181990172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Heathy Normal/T2DM Normal)|103.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.66|132.61|||||The model was an ANOVA model with renal function group as a fixed effect. The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|||132.61|80.66|
91053286|NCT01948986|181990172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Mild Renal Impair./Pooled Norm.)|151.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|124.05|185.34|||||The model was an ANOVA model with renal function group as a fixed effect. The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|||185.34|124.05|
91053287|NCT01948986|181990172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Mod. Renal Impair./Pooled Norm.)|168.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|137.53|205.49|||||The model was an ANOVA model with renal function group as a fixed effect. The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|||205.49|137.53|
91053288|NCT01948986|181990172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Severe Renal Impair./Pooled Norm.|151.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|121.69|189.36|||||The model was an ANOVA model with renal function group as a fixed effect. The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|||189.36|121.69|
91053289|NCT01948986|181990174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Heathy Normal/T2DM Normal)|101.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.83|130.87|||||The model was an ANOVA model with renal function group as a fixed effect. The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|||130.87|78.83|
91053290|NCT01948986|181990174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Mild Renal Impair./Pooled Norm.)|143.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|117.15|176.37|||||The model was an ANOVA model with renal function group as a fixed effect. The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|||176.37|117.15|
91053291|NCT01948986|181990174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Mod. Renal Impair./Pooled Norm.)|140.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|114.4|172.23|||||The model was an ANOVA model with renal function group as a fixed effect. The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|||172.23|114.40|
91053292|NCT01948986|181990174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Severe Renal Impair./Pooled Norm.|90.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|71.99|112.96|||||The model was an ANOVA model with renal function group as a fixed effect. The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|||112.96|71.99|
91053293|NCT01948986|181990181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Heathy Normal/T2DM Normal)|80.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|59.41|108.76|||||The model was an ANOVA model with renal function group as a fixed effect. The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|||108.76|59.41|
91053294|NCT01948986|181990181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Mild Renal Impair./Pooled Norm.)|53.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|41.64|68.63|||||The model was an ANOVA model with renal function group as a fixed effect. The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|||68.63|41.64|
91053295|NCT01948986|181990181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Mod. Renal Impair./Pooled Norm.)|43.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|33.85|55.78|||||The model was an ANOVA model with renal function group as a fixed effect. The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|||55.78|33.85|
90792833|NCT02732145|181466177|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of erythema of Hymenal Remnants among patients from different groups?||||||0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of erythema of Hymenal Remnants in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of the vulvodynia."||||0.0001
91011136|NCT03091920|181905193|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-6.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.74|-1.08|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 0-4 hours||-1.08|-12.74|
91011137|NCT03091920|181905193|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.74|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.73|1.66|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 0-4 hours||1.66|-9.73|
91011138|NCT03091920|181905193|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-8.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.57|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.59|-2.91|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 4-8 hours||-2.91|-13.59|
91011139|NCT03091920|181905193|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-5.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.76|-0.35|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 4-8 hours||-0.35|-10.76|
91011140|NCT03091920|181905193|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-7.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.91|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|1.05|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 8-12 hours||1.05|-15.20|
91011141|NCT03091920|181905193|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-5.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.77|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.68|1.98|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 8-12 hours||1.98|-13.68|
91011142|NCT03091920|181905193|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.14|7.33|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 12-16 hours||7.33|-10.14|
91011143|NCT03091920|181905193|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-5.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.99|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.46|3.14|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 12-16 hours||3.14|-13.46|
91053296|NCT01948986|181990181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Severe Renal Impair./Pooled Norm.|29.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|22.04|38.21|||||The model was an ANOVA model with renal function group as a fixed effect. The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|||38.21|22.04|
91053297|NCT01948986|181990198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio: Mild Ren. Impa./T2DM Norm. Renal|76.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.58|121.19|||||Adjusted geometrics mean values were used. The model was an ANOVA model with renal function group as a fixed effect.|||121.19|48.58|
91053298|NCT01948986|181990198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio: Mod. Ren. Impa./T2DM Norm. Renal|86.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.78|136.65|||||Adjusted geometrics mean values were used. The model was an ANOVA model with renal function group as a fixed effect.|||136.65|54.78|
91053299|NCT01948986|181990198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio: Sev. Ren. Impa./T2DM Norm. Renal|72.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.63|118.58|||||Adjusted geometrics mean values were used. The model was an ANOVA model with renal function group as a fixed effect.|||118.58|44.63|
91053300|NCT01948986|181990200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Mild Renal Impair./T2DM Norm. Ren|49.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|27.22|90.93|||||The model was an ANOVA model with renal function group as a fixed effect.|||90.93|27.22|
90792834|NCT02732145|181466177|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of erythema of Bartholin's Gland Opening among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of erythema of Bartholin's Gland Opening in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of the vulvodynia."||||0.0000
91011144|NCT03091920|181905193|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.74|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.14|5.4|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 16-20 hours||5.40|-10.14|
91011145|NCT03091920|181905193|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.72|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.25|3.23|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 16-20 hours||3.23|-12.25|
91011146|NCT03091920|181905193|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.44|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|6.72|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 20-24 hours||6.72|-7.60|
91011147|NCT03091920|181905193|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-1.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.32|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.88|4.92|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 20-24 hours||4.92|-8.88|
91011148|NCT03091920|181905194|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|3.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.59|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|6.48|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1||6.48|-0.10|
91011149|NCT03091920|181905194|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|3.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.58|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|6.82|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1||6.82|0.25|
91011150|NCT03091920|181905194|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|3.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.43|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|6.32|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate. Standard Error of the Mean=Standard Error of the LS Mean Difference.|Day 1||6.32|0.40|
91011151|NCT03091920|181905194|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|4.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.76|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|8.23|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7||8.23|0.95|
91011152|NCT03091920|181905194|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|4.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.75|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|8.12|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7||8.12|0.86|
91011153|NCT03091920|181905194|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|4.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.58|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|7.81|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate. Standard Error of the Mean=Standard Error of the LS Mean Difference.|Day 7||7.81|1.27|
91011154|NCT03091920|181905194|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|2.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.94|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|6.61|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14||6.61|-1.45|
91011155|NCT03091920|181905194|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|3.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|7.11|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14||7.11|-0.78|
91011156|NCT03091920|181905194|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|2.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.72|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|6.45|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate. Standard Error of the Mean=Standard Error of the LS Mean Difference.|Day 14||6.45|-0.71|
91011157|NCT03091920|181905195|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|2.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.32|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.65|6.99|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1||6.99|-2.65|
91011158|NCT03091920|181905195|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|4.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.33|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|8.91|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1||8.91|-0.73|
91011159|NCT03091920|181905195|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|4.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|8.51|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7||8.51|0.60|
91011160|NCT03091920|181905195|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|4.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|7.98|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7||7.98|0.07|
91011161|NCT03091920|181905195|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|3.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.05|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|7.39|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14||7.39|-1.15|
91053301|NCT01948986|181990200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Mod. Renal Impair./T2DM Norm. Ren|38.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|20.85|69.64|||||The model was an ANOVA model with renal function group as a fixed effect.|||69.64|20.85|
91011162|NCT03091920|181905195|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|3.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.01|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|7.92|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14||7.92|-0.44|
91011163|NCT03091920|181905196|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.54|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|7.49|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1||7.49|1.10|
91011164|NCT03091920|181905196|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|2.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.53|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|6.1|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1||6.10|-0.23|
91011165|NCT03091920|181905196|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.07|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|9.11|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7||9.11|0.50|
91011166|NCT03091920|181905196|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.05|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|9.36|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7||9.36|0.84|
91011167|NCT03091920|181905196|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|1.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.32|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.93|6.7|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14||6.70|-2.93|
91011168|NCT03091920|181905196|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|2.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|7.25|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14||7.25|-2.15|
91011169|NCT03091920|181905197|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|6.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.61|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|12.22|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 0-4 hours||12.22|1.40|
91011170|NCT03091920|181905197|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|6.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.62|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|11.99|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 0-4 hours||11.99|1.12|
91011171|NCT03091920|181905197|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.49|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.18|6.28|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 4-8 hours||6.28|-8.18|
91053302|NCT01948986|181990200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Sev. Renal Impair./T2DM Norm. Ren|13.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.32|26.58|||||The model was an ANOVA model with renal function group as a fixed effect.|||26.58|7.32|
91053303|NCT02994940|181990220|SUPERIORITY||Hodges Lehman estimator|21.3||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|44.2|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||44.2|-2.5|0.127
91053304|NCT02994940|181990221|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.851|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.851
91053305|NCT02994940|181990222|SUPERIORITY||Hodges Lehman estimator|2.0||||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|6.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||6.0|-1.0|0.109
91053306|NCT02994940|181990223|SUPERIORITY||Hodges Lehman estimator|7.0||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|8.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||8.0|4.0|0.0001
91053307|NCT00392236|181990233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.083|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.083
91053308|NCT00741936|181990310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
91053309|NCT00741936|181990311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|T-Tests were implemented: 1) between two groups of each time frame; 2) between each treatment group of each time frame and its baseline.||||||<0.05
91053310|NCT00741936|181990312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|T-Tests were implemented: 1) between two groups of each time frame; 2) between each treatment group of each time frame and its baseline||||||<0.05
91053311|NCT00741936|181990313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|T-Tests were implemented: 1) between two groups of each time frame; 2) between each treatment group of each time frame and its baseline.||||||<0.05
91053312|NCT00741936|181990314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared test from Crosstabs analysis was implemented between two treatment groups in each time frame.||||||<0.05
91053313|NCT00741936|181990315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0||95.0|||||simple percentage|||||||0
91053314|NCT00741936|181990316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
91053315|NCT00741936|181990317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Paired-samples t-test|Paired-Samples T Test was implemented between pre-treatment (Wk2) and post-treatment (Wk10) of each treatment group.||||||<0.05
91053316|NCT00741936|181990318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Paired-Samples T Test|Paired-Samples T Test was implemented between pre-treatment (Wk2) and post-treatment (Wk10) of each treatment group.||||||<0.05
91053317|NCT00741936|181990319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Paired-Samples T Test|Paired-Samples T Test was implemented between pre-treatment (Wk2) and post-treatment (Wk10) of each treatment group.||||||<0.05
91053318|NCT00741936|181990320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Paired-Samples T Test|Paired-Samples T Test was implemented between pre-treatment (Wk2) and post-treatment (Wk10) of each treatment group.||||||<0.05
91053319|NCT01941940|181990321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests|||Analysis for change from baseline to Week 24 was performed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests for dependent sample.||||<0.0001
91053320|NCT01941940|181990327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests|||Analysis for change from baseline to Week 2 was performed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests for dependent sample.||||<0.0001
91053321|NCT01941940|181990329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests|||Analysis for change from baseline to Week 2 was performed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests for dependent sample.||||<0.0001
91053322|NCT01941940|181990329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests|||Analysis for change from baseline to Week 24 was performed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests for dependent sample.||||<0.0001
91053323|NCT01941940|181990329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests|||Analysis for change from baseline to Week 52 was performed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests for dependent sample.||||<0.0001
91053324|NCT01941940|181990330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests|||Analysis for change from baseline to Week 2 was performed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests for dependent sample.||||<0.0001
91053325|NCT01941940|181990330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests|||Analysis for change from baseline to Week 24 was performed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests for dependent sample.||||<0.0001
91053326|NCT01941940|181990330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests|||Analysis for change from baseline to Week 52 was performed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests for dependent sample.||||<0.0001
91053327|NCT01941940|181990333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests|||TJC-68: Analysis for change from baseline to Week 2 was performed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests for dependent sample.||||<0.0001
91053328|NCT01941940|181990333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests|||TJC-68: Analysis for change from baseline to Week 24 was performed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests for dependent sample.||||<0.0001
91053329|NCT01941940|181990333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests|||TJC-68: Analysis for change from baseline to Week 52 was performed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests for dependent sample.||||<0.0001
91053330|NCT01941940|181990333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests|||TJC-28: Analysis for change from baseline to Week 2 was performed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests for dependent sample.||||<0.0001
91053331|NCT01941940|181990333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests|||TJC-28: Analysis for change from baseline to Week 24 was performed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests for dependent sample.||||<0.0001
91053332|NCT01941940|181990333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests|||TJC-28: Analysis for change from baseline to Week 52 was performed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests for dependent sample.||||<0.0001
91053333|NCT01941940|181990334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests|||SJC-66: Analysis for change from baseline to Week 2 was performed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests for dependent sample.||||<0.0001
91053334|NCT01941940|181990334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests|||SJC-66: Analysis for change from baseline to Week 24 was performed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests for dependent sample.||||<0.0001
91053335|NCT01941940|181990334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests|||SJC-66: Analysis for change from baseline to Week 52 was performed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests for dependent sample.||||<0.0001
91053336|NCT01941940|181990334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests|||SJC-28: Analysis for change from baseline to Week 2 was performed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests for dependent sample.||||<0.0001
91053337|NCT01941940|181990334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests|||SJC-28: Analysis for change from baseline to Week 24 was performed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests for dependent sample.||||<0.0001
91053338|NCT01941940|181990334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests|||SJC-28: Analysis for change from baseline to Week 52 was performed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests for dependent sample.||||<0.0001
91053339|NCT01941940|181990335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between DAS28-ESR and CDAI at Week 2||||<0.0001
91053340|NCT01941940|181990335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between DAS28-ESR and CDAI at Week 24||||<0.0001
91053341|NCT01941940|181990335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between DAS28-ESR and CDAI at Week 52||||<0.0001
91053342|NCT01941940|181990336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between DAS28-ESR and SDAI at Week 2||||<0.0001
91053343|NCT01941940|181990336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between DAS28-ESR and SDAI at Week 24||||<0.0001
91053344|NCT01941940|181990336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between DAS28-ESR and SDAI at Week 52||||<0.0001
91053345|NCT01941940|181990337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between CDAI and SDAI at Week 2||||<0.0001
91053346|NCT01941940|181990337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between CDAI and SDAI at Week 24||||<0.0001
91053347|NCT01941940|181990337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between CDAI and SDAI at Week 52||||<0.0001
91053348|NCT01941940|181990338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between DAS28-ESR and ACR20 at Week 2||||<0.0001
91053349|NCT01941940|181990338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between DAS28-ESR and ACR50 at Week 2||||<0.0001
91053350|NCT01941940|181990338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between DAS28-ESR and ACR70 at Week 2||||<0.0001
91053351|NCT01941940|181990338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between DAS28-ESR and ACR20 at Week 24||||<0.0001
91053352|NCT01941940|181990338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between DAS28-ESR and ACR50 at Week 24||||<0.0001
91053353|NCT01941940|181990338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between DAS28-ESR and ACR70 at Week 24||||<0.0001
91053354|NCT01941940|181990338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between DAS28-ESR and ACR20 at Week 52||||0.0004
91053355|NCT01941940|181990338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between DAS28-ESR and ACR50 at Week 52||||0.0004
91053356|NCT01941940|181990338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between DAS28-ESR and ACR70 at Week 52||||0.0004
91053357|NCT01941940|181990339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between DAS28-ESR and EULAR at Week 2||||<0.0001
91053358|NCT01941940|181990339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between DAS28-ESR and EULAR at Week 24||||<0.0001
91053359|NCT01941940|181990339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between DAS28-ESR and EULAR at Week 52||||<0.0001
91053360|NCT01941940|181990340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between CDAI and ACR20 at Week 2||||<0.0001
91053361|NCT01941940|181990340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between CDAI and ACR50 at Week 2||||<0.0001
91053362|NCT01941940|181990340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between CDAI and ACR70 at Week 2||||<0.0001
91053363|NCT01941940|181990340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between CDAI and ACR20 at Week 24||||<0.0001
91053364|NCT01941940|181990340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between CDAI and ACR50 at Week 24||||<0.0001
91053365|NCT01941940|181990340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between CDAI and ACR70 at Week 24||||<0.0001
91053366|NCT01941940|181990340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between CDAI and ACR20 at Week 52||||<0.0001
91053367|NCT01941940|181990340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between CDAI and ACR50 at Week 52||||<0.0001
91053368|NCT01941940|181990340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between CDAI and ACR70 at Week 52||||<0.0001
91053369|NCT01941940|181990341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between CDAI and EULAR at Week 2||||<0.0001
91053370|NCT01941940|181990341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between CDAI and EULAR at Week 24||||<0.0001
91053371|NCT01941940|181990341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between CDAI and EULAR at Week 52||||<0.0001
91053372|NCT01941940|181990342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between SDAI and ACR20 at Week 2||||<0.0001
91053373|NCT01941940|181990342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between SDAI and ACR50 at Week 2||||<0.0001
91053374|NCT01941940|181990342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between SDAI and ACR70 at Week 2||||<0.0001
91053375|NCT01941940|181990342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between SDAI and ACR20 at Week 24||||<0.0001
91053376|NCT01941940|181990342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between SDAI and ACR50 at Week 24||||<0.0001
91053377|NCT01941940|181990342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between SDAI and ACR70 at Week 24||||<0.0001
91053378|NCT01941940|181990342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between SDAI and ACR20 at Week 52||||<0.0001
91053379|NCT01941940|181990342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between SDAI and ACR50 at Week 52||||<0.0001
91053380|NCT01941940|181990342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between SDAI and ACR70 at Week 52||||<0.0001
91053381|NCT01941940|181990343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between SDAI and EULAR at Week 2||||<0.0001
91053382|NCT01941940|181990343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between SDAI and EULAR at Week 24||||<0.0001
91053383|NCT01941940|181990343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0016|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between SDAI and EULAR at Week 52||||0.0016
91053384|NCT01941940|181990346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests|||Analysis for change from baseline to Week 2 was performed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests for dependent sample.||||<0.0001
91053385|NCT01941940|181990346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests|||Analysis for change from baseline to Week 24 was performed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests for dependent sample.||||<0.0001
91053386|NCT01941940|181990346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests|||Analysis for change from baseline to Week 52 was performed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests for dependent sample.||||<0.0001
91053387|NCT01941940|181990347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests|||Analysis for change from baseline to Week 2 was performed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests for dependent sample.||||<0.0001
91053388|NCT01941940|181990347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests|||Analysis for change from baseline to Week 24 was performed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests for dependent sample.||||<0.0001
91053389|NCT01941940|181990347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests|||Analysis for change from baseline to Week 52 was performed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests for dependent sample.||||<0.0001
90792835|NCT02732145|181466177|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of erythema of the Vestibule among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of erythema of the Vestibule in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of the vulvodynia."||||0.0000
91053390|NCT01941940|181990348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests|||Analysis for change from baseline to Week 2 was performed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests for dependent sample.||||<0.0001
91053391|NCT01941940|181990348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests|||Analysis for change from baseline to Week 24 was performed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests for dependent sample.||||<0.0001
91053392|NCT01941940|181990348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests|||Analysis for change from baseline to Week 52 was performed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests for dependent sample.||||<0.0001
91053393|NCT01941940|181990349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests|||Analysis for change from baseline to Week 2 was performed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests for dependent sample.||||<0.0001
91053394|NCT01941940|181990349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests|||Analysis for change from baseline to Week 24 was performed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests for dependent sample.||||<0.0001
91053395|NCT01941940|181990349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests|||Analysis for change from baseline to Week 52 was performed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests for dependent sample.||||<0.0001
91053396|NCT01941940|181990351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests|||Analysis for change from baseline to Week 2 was performed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests for dependent sample.||||<0.0001
90792836|NCT02732145|181466177|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of smoothness of the Clitoris among patients from different groups?||||||0.0023|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of smoothness of the Clitoris in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of the vulvodynia."||||0.0023
90890255|NCT01217073|181644893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-0.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.27||With terms for treatment, prior AHA therapy status, geographic region (Japan/ex-Japan), and the interaction of time by treatment, time by prior AHA therapy status, with the constraint that the mean baseline is the same for all treatment groups.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-0.27|-0.70|<0.001
91053397|NCT01941940|181990351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests|||Analysis for change from baseline to Week 24 was performed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests for dependent sample.||||<0.0001
91053398|NCT01941940|181990351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests|||Analysis for change from baseline to Week 52 was performed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests for dependent sample.||||<0.0001
91053399|NCT01941940|181990352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0045|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests|||Analysis for change from baseline to Week 24 was performed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests for dependent sample.||||0.0045
91053400|NCT01941940|181990352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1992|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests|||Analysis for change from baseline to Week 52 was performed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests for dependent sample.||||0.1992
91053401|NCT00532935|181990358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.47|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.28|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included a term for treatment and a covariate for the baseline A1C value.||||-0.28|-0.66|<0.001
91053402|NCT00532935|181990359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-27.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|29.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.7|-22.4|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included a term for treatment and a covariate for the baseline FPG value.||||-22.4|-32.7|<0.001
91053403|NCT00532935|181990360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-20.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|59.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.1|-8.3|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included a term for treatment and a covariate for the baseline 2-hour PMG value.||||-8.3|-32.1|<0.001
91053404|NCT00532935|181990361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|40.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|-4.9|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included a term for treatment and a covariate for the baseline FPG value.||||-4.9|-19.0|<0.001
91053405|NCT00532935|181990362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.8||Based on a test of the odds ratio = 1, comparing the odds of having A1C \<7.0% at Week 32 in the Sitagliptin/Metformin 50/1000 mg b.i.d. group vs. the Pioglitazone 45 mg q.d. group.|Regression, Logistic|logistic regression model included a term for treatment and a covariate for the baseline A1C value.|This parameter estimate and 95% confidence interval correspond to the odds of having A1C \<7.0% at Week 32 in the Sitagliptin/Metformin 50/1000 mg b.i.d. group vs. the Pioglitazone 45 mg q.d. group.|||2.8|1.3|<0.001
91053406|NCT03176459|181990405|SUPERIORITY||LSM treatment difference|-16.5||||0.0117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.8|-2.2|||ANCOVA|||||-2.2|-30.8|0.0117
91053407|NCT03176459|181990406|NON_INFERIORITY|Pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 36|LSM treatment difference (SE)|-30.6||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.9|14.7|||ANCOVA|||||14.7|-75.9|0.0020
91053408|NCT03176459|181990407|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.51||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.557|7.906|||LSM probability from logistic regression|||||7.906|1.557|0.0012
91053409|NCT03176459|181990408|SUPERIORITY||Least squares treatment difference|-3.2||||0.0543|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||.0543
91053410|NCT03176459|181990409|SUPERIORITY||Least squares treatment difference|-11.4||||0.0096|ONE_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||.0096
91053411|NCT03176459|181990410|SUPERIORITY||Least squares treatment difference|-22.4||||0.0175|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||.0175
91053412|NCT03176459|181990411|SUPERIORITY||Least squares treatment difference|-19.6||||0.0542|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||.0542
91053413|NCT03176459|181990412|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7536|||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.7536
91053414|NCT03176459|181990413|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.3609|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.3609
91053415|NCT00446199|181990437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||significance level of 1.7% is used to adjust (Bonferroni) for the comparison of three active arms with Placebo.|Wilcoxon/van Elteren|stratification by center||Comparison between DRSP/E2 (0.5mg/0.5mg) and Placebo with respect to a shift in the distribution of the end point. Null hypothesis: The distribution of the change from baseline to week 12 in the number of hot flushes is identical in both arms, alternative: there is a shift in the distribution.||||<0.0001
91053416|NCT00446199|181990437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||significance level of 1.7% is used to adjust (Bonferroni) for the comparison of three active arms with Placebo.|Wilcoxon/van Elteren|stratification by center||Comparison between DRSP/E2 (0.25mg/0.5mg) and Placebo with respect to a shift in the distribution of the end point. Null hypothesis: The distribution of the change from baseline to week 12 in the number of hot flushes is identical in both arms, alternative: there is a shift in the distribution.||||<0.0001
91053417|NCT00446199|181990437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005||95.0||||significance level of 1.7% is used to adjust (Bonferroni) for the comparison of three active arms with Placebo.|Wilcoxon/van Elteren|stratification by center||Comparison between E2 (0.3mg) and Placebo with respect to a shift in the distribution of the end point. Null hypothesis: The distribution of the change from baseline to week 12 in the number of hot flushes is identical in both arms, alternative: there is a shift in the distribution.||||0.0005
91053418|NCT00446199|181990438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||significance level of 1.7% is used to adjust (Bonferroni) for the comparison of three active arms with Placebo.|Wilcoxon/ van Elteren|stratification by center||Comparison between DRSP/E2 (0.5mg/0.5mg) and Placebo with respect to a shift in the distribution of the end point. Null hypothesis: The distribution of the change from baseline to week 4 in the number of hot flushes is identical in both arms, alternative: there is a shift in the distribution.||||<0.0001
91053419|NCT00446199|181990438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||significance level of 1.7% is used to adjust (Bonferroni) for the comparison of three active arms with Placebo.|Wilcoxon/van Elteren|stratification by center||Comparison between DRSP/E2 (0.25mg/0.5mg) and Placebo with respect to a shift in the distribution of the end point. Null hypothesis: The distribution of the change from baseline to week 4 in the number of hot flushes is identical in both arms, alternative: there is a shift in the distribution.||||<0.0001
91053420|NCT00446199|181990438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||significance level of 1.7% is used to adjust (Bonferroni) for the comparison of three active arms with Placebo.|Wilcoxon/van Elteren|stratification by center||Comparison between E2 (0.3mg) and Placebo with respect to a shift in the distribution of the end point. Null hypothesis: The distribution of the change from baseline to week 4 in the number of hot flushes is identical in both arms, alternative: there is a shift in the distribution.||||<0.0001
91053421|NCT00446199|181990439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||significance level of 1.7% is used to adjust (Bonferroni) for the comparison of three active arms with Placebo.|Wilcoxon/van Elteren|stratification by center||Comparison between DRSP/E2 (0.5mg/0.5mg) and Placebo with respect to a shift in the distribution of the end point. Null hypothesis: The distribution of the change from baseline to week 12 in the mean daily severity of hot flushes is identical in both arms, alternative: there is a shift in the distribution.||||<0.0001
91053422|NCT00446199|181990439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||significance level of 1.7% is used to adjust (Bonferroni) for the comparison of three active arms with Placebo.|Wilcoxon/van Elteren|stratification by center||Comparison between DRSP/E2 (0.25mg/0.5mg) and Placebo with respect to a shift in the distribution of the end point. Null hypothesis: The distribution of the change from baseline to week 12 in the mean daily severity of hot flushes is identical in both arms, alternative: there is a shift in the distribution.||||<0.0001
91053423|NCT00446199|181990439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0096||95.0||||significance level of 1.7% is used to adjust (Bonferroni) for the comparison of three active arms with Placebo.|Wilcoxon/van Elteren|stratification by center||Comparison between E2 (0.3mg) and Placebo with respect to a shift in the distribution of the end point. Null hypothesis: The distribution of the change from baseline to week 12 in the mean daily severity of hot flushes is identical in both arms, alternative: there is a shift in the distribution.||||0.0096
91053424|NCT00446199|181990440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Significance level of 1.7% is used to adjust (Bonferroni) for the comparison of three active arms with Placebo.|Wilcoxon/van Elteren|Stratification by center||Comparison between DRSP/E2 (0.5mg/0.5mg) and Placebo with respect to a shift in the distribution of the end point. Null hypothesis: The distribution of the change from baseline to week 4 in the mean daily severity of hot flushes is identical in both arms, alternative: there is a shift in the distribution.||||<0.0001
91053425|NCT00446199|181990440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Significance level of 1.7% is used to adjust (Bonferroni) for the comparison of three active arms with Placebo.|Wilcoxon/van Elteren|Stratification by center||Comparison between DRSP/E2 (0.25mg/0.5mg) and Placebo with respect to a shift in the distribution of the end point. Null hypothesis: The distribution of the change from baseline to week 4 in the mean daily severity of hot flushes is identical in both arms, alternative: there is a shift in the distribution.||||<0.0001
91079059|NCT01693185|182043737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||We wished to be able to distinguish a difference of 7.5 min,|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Recovery time in patients administered remifentanil alone will be significantly shorter than that in patients administered midazolam-meperidine combination for colonoscopy.||||< 0.001
91053426|NCT00446199|181990440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005||95.0||||Significance level of 1.7% is used to adjust (Bonferroni) for the comparison of three active arms with Placebo.|Wilcoxon/van Elteren|Stratification by center||Comparison between E2 (0.3mg) and Placebo with respect to a shift in the distribution of the end point. Null hypothesis: The distribution of the change from baseline to week 4 in the mean daily severity of hot flushes is identical in both arms, alternative: there is a shift in the distribution.||||0.0005
91053427|NCT00446199|181990441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon/van Elteren|Stratification by center||Comparison between DRSP/E2 (0.5mg/0.5mg) and Placebo with respect to a shift in the distribution of the end point. Null hypothesis: The distribution of the change from baseline to week 12 in vaginal pH is identical in both arms, alternative: there is a shift in the distribution.||||<0.0001
91053428|NCT00446199|181990441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon/van Elteren|Stratification by center||Comparison between DRSP/E2 (0.25mg/0.5mg) and Placebo with respect to a shift in the distribution of the end point. Null hypothesis: The distribution of the change from baseline to week 12 in vaginal pH is identical in both arms, alternative: there is a shift in the distribution.||||<0.0001
91011172|NCT03091920|181905197|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|1.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.49|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.39|9.09|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 4-8 hours||9.09|-5.39|
91011173|NCT03091920|181905197|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.98|5.23|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 8-12 hours||5.23|-5.98|
91053429|NCT00446199|181990441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon/van Elteren|Stratification by center||Comparison between E2 (0.3 mg) and Placebo with respect to a shift in the distribution of the end point. Null hypothesis: The distribution of the change from baseline to week 12 in vaginal pH is identical in both arms, alternative: there is a shift in the distribution.||||<0.0001
91053430|NCT00446199|181990442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon/van Elteren|stratification by center||Comparison between DRSP/E2 (0.5mg/0.5mg) and Placebo with respect to a shift in the distribution of the end point. Null hypothesis: The distribution of the change from baseline to week 12 in vaginal maturation value is identical in both arms, alternative: there is a shift in the distribution.||||<0.0001
91053431|NCT00446199|181990442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon/van Elteren|Stratification by center||Comparison between DRSP/E2 (0.25mg/0.5mg) and Placebo with respect to a shift in the distribution of the end point. Null hypothesis: The distribution of the change from baseline to week 12 in vaginal maturation value is identical in both arms, alternative: there is a shift in the distribution.||||<0.0001
91053432|NCT00446199|181990442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon/van Elteren|Stratification by center||Comparison between E2 (0.3mg) and Placebo with respect to a shift in the distribution of the end point. Null hypothesis: The distribution of the change from baseline to week 12 in vaginal maturation value is identical in both arms, alternative: there is a shift in the distribution.||||<0.0001
91053433|NCT00446199|181990443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0314||95.0||||no correction for multiplicity|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|stratification by center||Comparison of active treatment arm with placebo on complete 2\*4 table||||0.0314
91053434|NCT00446199|181990443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.878||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification by center||Comparison of active treatment arm with placebo on complete 2\*4 table||||0.8780
90792837|NCT02732145|181466177|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of smoothness of the Urethral Sulcus among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of smoothness of the Urethral Sulcus in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of the vulvodynia."||||0.0000
90792838|NCT02732145|181466177|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of smoothness of the Urethral Meatus among patients from different groups?||||||0.0235|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of smoothness of Urethral Meatus in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of the vulvodynia."||||0.0235
90792839|NCT02732145|181466177|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of ischemia of the Clitoris among patients from different groups?||||||0.0021|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of ischemia of the Clitoris in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of the vulvodynia."||||0.0021
91053435|NCT00446199|181990443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5908||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification by center||Comparison of active treatment arm with placebo on complete 2\*4 table||||0.5908
90792840|NCT02732145|181466177|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of ischemia of the Urethral Sulcus among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of ischemia of the Urethral Sulcus in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of the vulvodynia."||||0.0000
91053436|NCT00446199|181990444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0027||95.0||||no correction for multiplicity|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification by center||Comparison of active treatment arm with placebo on complete 2\*4 table||||0.0027
91011174|NCT03091920|181905197|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|8.7|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 8-12 hours||8.70|-2.50|
91011175|NCT03091920|181905197|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|6.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|10.89|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 12-16 hours||10.89|2.02|
91053437|NCT00446199|181990444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4463||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification by center||Comparison of active treatment arm with placebo on complete 2\*4 table||||0.4463
90792841|NCT02732145|181466177|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of ischemia of the Urethral Meatus among patients from different groups?||||||0.0038|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of ischemia of the Urethral Meatus in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of the vulvodynia."||||0.0038
90792842|NCT02732145|181466177|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of ischemia of the Vestibule among patients from different groups?||||||0.0019|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of ischemia of the Vestibule in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of the vulvodynia."||||0.0019
90792843|NCT02732145|181466177|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of punctuation of Hart's Line among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of punctuation of Hart's Line in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of the vulvodynia."||||0.0000
90792844|NCT02732145|181466177|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of punctuation of the Vestibule among patients from different groups?||||||0.0198|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of punctuation of the Vestibule in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy.. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of the vulvodynia."||||0.0198
91053438|NCT00446199|181990444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0303||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification by center||Comparison of active treatment arm with placebo on complete 2\*4 table||||0.0303
91053439|NCT00446199|181990445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4397||95.0||||no correction for multiplicity|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification by center||Comparison of active treatment arm with placebo on complete 2\*4 table||||0.4397
91053440|NCT00446199|181990445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0132||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification by center||Comparison of active treatment arm with placebo on complete 2\*4 table||||0.0132
91053441|NCT00446199|181990445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.325||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification by center||Comparison of active treatment arm with placebo on complete 2\*4 table||||0.3250
90792845|NCT02732145|181466177|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of papillae of Hart's Line among patients from different groups?||||||0.0004|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of papillae of Hart's Line in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of the vulvodynia."||||0.0004
90792846|NCT02732145|181466177|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of papillae of the Vestibule among patients from different groups?||||||0.0053|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of papillae of the Vestibule in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of the vulvodynia."||||0.0053
90792847|NCT02732145|181466177|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Clitoris versus non-specific lesions of Hart's Line in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.001|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Clitoris versus non-specific lesions of Hart's Line in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0010
90792848|NCT02732145|181466177|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Clitoris versus non-specific lesions of the Urethral Sulcus in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.001|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Clitoris versus non-specific lesions of the Urethral Sulcus in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0010
90792849|NCT02732145|181466177|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Clitoris versus non-specific lesions of the Vestibule in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Clitoris versus non-specific lesions of the Vestibule in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0000
91053442|NCT00446199|181990446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9555||95.0||||no correction for multiplicity|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification by center||Comparison of active treatment arm with placebo on complete 2\*4 table||||0.9555
91053443|NCT00446199|181990446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1743||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification by center||Comparison of active treatment arm with placebo on complete 2\*4 table||||0.1743
91053444|NCT00446199|181990446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4395||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification by center||Comparison of active treatment arm with placebo on complete 2\*4 table||||0.4395
91053445|NCT00446199|181990447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8966||95.0||||no correction for multiplicity|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification by center||Comparison of active treatment arm with placebo on complete 2\*4 table||||0.8966
91053446|NCT00446199|181990447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7512||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification by center||Comparison of active treatment arm with placebo on complete 2\*4 table||||0.7512
91053447|NCT00446199|181990447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8751||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification by center||Comparison of active treatment arm with placebo on complete 2\*4 table||||0.8751
91053448|NCT00446199|181990448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1067||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification for center||Comparison of active treatment arm with placebo||||0.1067
91053449|NCT00446199|181990448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6011||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification for center||Comparison of active treatment arm with placebo||||0.6011
91053450|NCT00446199|181990448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4408||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification for center||Comparison of active treatment arm with placebo||||0.4408
91053451|NCT00446199|181990449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0144||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification for center||Comparison of active treatment arm with placebo||||0.0144
91053452|NCT00446199|181990449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5589||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification for center||Comparison of active treatment arm with placebo||||0.5589
91053453|NCT00446199|181990449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification for center||Comparison of active treatment arm with placebo||||0.5500
91053454|NCT00446199|181990450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2179||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification for center||Comparison of active treatment arm with placebo||||0.2179
91053455|NCT00446199|181990450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7749||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification for center||Comparison of active treatment arm with placebo||||0.7749
91053456|NCT00446199|181990450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8307||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification for center||Comparison of active treatment arm with placebo||||0.8307
91053457|NCT00446199|181990451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.6|||<|0.0001||95.0|-33.2|-22.0||significance level of 1.7% is used to adjust (Bonferroni) for the comparison of three active arms with Placebo.|ANCOVA|treatment, center and baseline value used as covariate|Change in active treatment arm minus change in placebo arm|Comparison between DRSP/E2 (0.5mg/0.5mg) and Placebo with respect to a shift in the distribution of the end point. Null hypothesis: The mean change from baseline to week 12 is identical in both arms, alternative: there is a difference in the mean change from baseline.||-22.0|-33.2|<0.0001
90792850|NCT02732145|181466177|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Hart's Line versus non-specific lesions of Hymenal Remnants in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.0208|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Hart's Line versus non-specific lesions of Hymenal Remnants in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0208
90792851|NCT02732145|181466177|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Hart's Line versus non-specific lesions of Bartholin's Gland Opening in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.0007|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Hart's Line versus non-specific lesions of Bartholin's Gland Opening in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0007
90792852|NCT02732145|181466177|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Urethral Sulcus versus non-specific lesions of Hymenal Remnants in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.0208|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Urethral Sulcus versus non-specific lesions of Hymenal Remnants in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0208
91053458|NCT00446199|181990451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.2|||<|0.0001||95.0|-27.8|-16.6||significance level of 1.7% is used to adjust (Bonferroni) for the comparison of three active arms with Placebo.|ANCOVA|treatment, center and baseline value used as covariate|Change in active treatment arm minus change in placebo arm|Comparison between DRSP/E2 (0.25mg/0.5mg) and Placebo with respect to a shift in the distribution of the end point. Null hypothesis: The mean change from baseline to week 12 is identical in both arms, alternative: there is a difference in the mean change from baseline.||-16.6|-27.8|<0.0001
91053459|NCT00446199|181990451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.8||||0.0007||95.0|-15.4|-4.2||significance level of 1.7% is used to adjust (Bonferroni) for the comparison of three active arms with Placebo.|ANCOVA|treatment, center and baseline value used as covariate|Change in active treatment arm minus change in placebo arm|Comparison between E2 (0.3mg) and Placebo with respect to a shift in the distribution of the end point. Null hypothesis: The mean change from baseline to week 12 is identical in both arms, alternative: there is a difference in the mean change from baseline||-4.2|-15.4|0.0007
90792853|NCT02732145|181466177|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Urethral Sulcus versus non-specific lesions of Bartholin's Gland Opening in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.0007|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Urethral Sulcus versus non-specific lesions of Bartholin's Gland Opening in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0007
90792854|NCT02732145|181466177|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Urethral Meatus versus non-specific lesions of the Vestibule in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.004|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Urethral Meatus versus non-specific lesions of the Vestibule in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0040
91053460|NCT00446199|181990452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.9|||<|0.0001||95.0|-29.9|17.8||significance level of 1.7% is used to adjust (Bonferroni) for the comparison of three active arms with Placebo.|ANCOVA|treatment, center and baseline value used as covariate|Change in active treatment arm minus change in placebo arm|Comparison between DRSP/E2 (0.5mg/0.5mg) and Placebo with respect to a shift in the distribution of the end point. Null hypothesis: The mean change from baseline to week 4 is identical in both arms, alternative: there is a difference in the mean change from baseline.||17.8|-29.9|<0.0001
91053461|NCT00446199|181990452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.2|||<|0.0001||95.0|-20.2|-8.1||significance level of 1.7% is used to adjust (Bonferroni) for the comparison of three active arms with Placebo.|ANCOVA|treatment, center and baseline value used as covariate|Change in active treatment arm minus change in placebo arm|Comparison between DRSP/E2 (0.25mg/0.5mg) and Placebo with respect to a shift in the distribution of the end point. Null hypothesis: The mean change from baseline to week 4 is identical in both arms, alternative: there is a difference in the mean change from baseline.||-8.1|-20.2|<0.0001
91053462|NCT00446199|181990452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.6||||0.0054||95.0|-14.6|-2.5||significance level of 1.7% is used to adjust (Bonferroni) for the comparison of three active arms with Placebo.|ANCOVA|treatment, center and baseline value used as covariate|Change in active treatment arm minus change in placebo arm|Comparison between E2 (0.3mg) and Placebo with respect to a shift in the distribution of the end point. Null hypothesis: The mean change from baseline to week 4 is identical in both arms, alternative: there is a difference in the mean change from baseline.||-2.5|-14.6|0.0054
91079060|NCT00419159|182043752|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.657|4.929|||Unadjusted Logistic Regression|||||4.929|0.657|0.253
91079061|NCT00419159|182043753|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.382||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.135|1.083|||Unadjusted Logistic Regression|||||1.083|0.135|0.070
91079062|NCT00419159|182043754|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.814||||0.399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.505|1.312|||Unadjusted Logistic Regression|||||1.312|0.505|0.399
90792855|NCT02732145|181466177|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Hymenal Remnants versus non-specific lesions of the Vestibule in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.0012|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Hymenal Remnants versus non-specific lesions of the Vestibule in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0012
90792856|NCT02732145|181466177|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Bartholin's Gland Opening versus non-specific lesions of the Vestibule in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Bartholin's Gland Opening versus non-specific lesions of the Vestibule in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0000
90792857|NCT02732145|181466177|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Hart's Line versus non-specific lesions of the Urethral Meatus in patients with vulvodynia?||||||0.0048|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Hart's Line versus non-specific lesions of the Urethral Meatus in patients with vulvodynia.~The diagnosis of vulvodynia was based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection, Q-Tip) following Friedrich's criteria. Vulvoscopic lesions were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0048
90792858|NCT02732145|181466177|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Hart's Line versus non-specific lesions of Hymenal Remnants in patients with vulvodynia?||||||0.0007|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Hart's Line versus non-specific lesions of Hymenal Remnants in patients with vulvodynia.~The diagnosis of vulvodynia was based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection, Q-Tip) following Friedrich's criteria. Vulvoscopic lesions were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0007
90792859|NCT02732145|181466177|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Urethral Sulcus versus non-specific lesions of the Urethral Meatus in patients with vulvodynia?||||||0.0048|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Urethral Sulcus versus non-specific lesions of the Urethral Meatus in patients with vulvodynia.~The diagnosis of vulvodynia was based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection, Q-Tip) following Friedrich's criteria. Vulvoscopic lesions were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0048
90792860|NCT02732145|181466177|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Urethral Sulcus versus non-specific lesions of Hymenal Remnants in patients with vulvodynia?||||||0.0007|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Urethral Sulcus versus non-specific lesions of Hymenal Remnants in patients with vulvodynia.~The diagnosis of vulvodynia was based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection, Q-Tip) following Friedrich's criteria. Vulvoscopic lesions were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0007
91011176|NCT03091920|181905197|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|5.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|9.95|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 12-16 hours||9.95|1.19|
91011177|NCT03091920|181905197|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|3.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.59|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|6.91|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 16-20 hours||6.91|0.34|
91011178|NCT03091920|181905197|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|2.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.57|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|5.66|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 16-20 hours||5.66|-0.84|
91011179|NCT03091920|181905197|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|1.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.23|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.89|6.36|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 20-24 hours||6.36|-2.89|
91011180|NCT03091920|181905197|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.33|4.99|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 20-24 hours||4.99|-4.33|
91011181|NCT03091920|181905197|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|4.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.66|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|9.88|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 0-4 hours||9.88|-1.17|
91011182|NCT03091920|181905197|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|5.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.68|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|10.96|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 0-4 hours||10.96|-0.14|
91011183|NCT03091920|181905197|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|4.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.18|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|9.4|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 4-8 hours||9.40|0.36|
91011184|NCT03091920|181905197|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.18|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|8.83|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 4-8 hours||8.83|-0.22|
91011185|NCT03091920|181905197|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|4.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|8.72|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 8-12 hours||8.72|-0.65|
91011186|NCT03091920|181905197|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|2.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.42|6.94|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 8-12 hours||6.94|-2.42|
91011187|NCT03091920|181905197|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|6.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.41|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.91|11.89|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 12-16 hours||11.89|1.91|
91053463|NCT00446199|181990453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.069|||<|0.0001||95.0|-1.28|-0.859||significance level of 1.7% is used to adjust (Bonferroni) for the comparison of three active arms with Placebo.|ANCOVA|treatment, center and baseline value used as covariate|Change in active treatment arm minus change in placebo arm|Comparison between DRSP/E2 (0.5mg/0.5mg) and Placebo with respect to a shift in the distribution of the end point. Null hypothesis: The mean change from baseline to week 12 is identical in both arms, alternative: there is a difference in the mean change from baseline.||-0.859|-1.280|<0.0001
91053464|NCT00446199|181990453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.803|||<|0.0001||95.0|-1.013|-0.593||significance level of 1.7% is used to adjust (Bonferroni) for the comparison of three active arms with Placebo.|ANCOVA|treatment, center and baseline value used as covariate|Change in active treatment arm minus change in placebo arm|Comparison between DRSP/E2 (0.25mg/0.5mg) and Placebo with respect to a shift in the distribution of the end point. Null hypothesis: The mean change from baseline to week 12 is identical in both arms, alternative: there is a difference in the mean change from baseline.||-0.593|-1.013|<0.0001
91053465|NCT00446199|181990453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.361||||0.0007||95.0|-0.57|-0.152||significance level of 1.7% is used to adjust (Bonferroni) for the comparison of three active arms with Placebo.|ANCOVA|treatment, center and baseline value used as covariate|Change in active treatment arm minus change in placebo arm|Comparison between E2 (0.3mg) and Placebo with respect to a shift in the distribution of the end point. Null hypothesis: The mean change from baseline to week 12 is identical in both arms, alternative: there is a difference in the mean change from baseline.||-0.152|-0.570|0.0007
90792861|NCT02732145|181466177|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Urethral Meatus versus non-specific lesions of the Vestibule in patients with vulvodynia?||||||0.0131|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Urethral Meatus versus non-specific lesions of the Vestibule in patients with vulvodynia.~The diagnosis of vulvodynia was based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection, Q-Tip) following Friedrich's criteria. Vulvoscopic lesions were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0131
90792862|NCT02732145|181466177|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Hymenal Remnants versus non-specific lesions of Bartholin's Gland Opening in patients with vulvodynia?||||||0.0423|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Hymenal Remnants versus non-specific lesions of Bartholin's Gland Opening in patients with vulvodynia.~The diagnosis of vulvodynia was based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection, Q-Tip) following Friedrich's criteria. Vulvoscopic lesions were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0423
90792863|NCT02732145|181466177|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Hymenal Remnants versus non-specific lesions of the Vestibule in patients with vulvodynia?||||||0.0021|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Hymenal Remnants versus non-specific lesions of the Vestibule in patients with vulvodynia.~The diagnosis of vulvodynia was based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection, Q-Tip) following Friedrich's criteria. Vulvoscopic lesions were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0021
90792864|NCT02732145|181466177|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Clitoris versus non-specific lesions of Hart's Line in patients with impaired vulvar skin?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Clitoris versus non-specific lesions of Hart's Line in patients with impaired vulvar skin.||||0.0000
90792865|NCT02732145|181466177|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Clitoris versus non-specific lesions of the Urethral Sulcus in patients with impaired vulvar skin?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Clitoris versus non-specific lesions of the Urethral Sulcus in patients with impaired vulvar skin.||||0.0000
90792866|NCT02732145|181466177|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Clitoris versus non-specific lesions of the Vestibule in patients with impaired vulvar skin?||||||0.0091|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Clitoris versus non-specific lesions of the Vestibule in patients with impaired vulvar skin.||||0.0091
90792867|NCT02732145|181466177|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Hart's Line versus non-specific lesions of the Urethral Meatus in patients with impaired vulvar skin?||||||0.0002|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Hart's Line versus non-specific lesions of the Urethral Meatus in patients with impaired vulvar skin.||||0.0002
91053466|NCT00446199|181990454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.635|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.813|-0.458||Significance level of 1.7% is used to adjust (Bonferroni) for the comparison of three active arms with Placebo.|ANCOVA|Treatment, Center, and Baseline value used as covariate||Comparison between DRSP/E2 (0.5mg/0.5mg) and Placebo with respect to a shift in the distribution of the end point. Null hypothesis: The mean change from baseline to week 4 is identical in both arms, alternative: there is a difference in the mean change from baseline.||-0.458|-0.813|<0.0001
91053467|NCT00446199|181990454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.382|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.56|-0.205||Significance level of 1.7% is used to adjust (Bonferroni) for the comparison of three active arms with Placebo.|ANCOVA|Treatment, Center, and Baseline value used as covariate||Comparison between DRSP/E2 (0.25mg/0.5mg) and Placebo with respect to a shift in the distribution of the end point. Null hypothesis: The mean change from baseline to week 4 is identical in both arms, alternative: there is a difference in the mean change from baseline.||-0.205|-0.560|<0.0001
90792868|NCT02732145|181466177|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Hart's Line versus non-specific lesions of Hymenal Remnants in patients with impaired vulvar skin?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Hart's Line versus non-specific lesions of Hymenal Remnants in patients with impaired vulvar skin.||||0.0000
90792869|NCT02732145|181466177|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Hart's Line versus non-specific lesions of Bartholin's Gland Opening in patients with impaired vulvar skin?||||||0.0013|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Hart's Line versus non-specific lesions of Bartholin's Gland Opening in patients with impaired vulvar skin.||||0.0013
90792870|NCT02732145|181466177|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Urethral Sulcus versus non-specific lesions of the Urethral Meatus in patients with impaired vulvar skin?||||||0.0001|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Urethral Sulcus versus non-specific lesions of the Urethral Meatus in patients with impaired vulvar skin.||||0.0001
90792871|NCT02732145|181466177|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Urethral Sulcus versus non-specific lesions of Hymenal Remnants in patients with impaired vulvar skin?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Urethral Sulcus versus non-specific lesions of Hymenal Remnants in patients with impaired vulvar skin.||||0.0000
90792872|NCT02732145|181466177|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Urethral Sulcus versus non-specific lesions of Bartholin's Gland Opening in patients with impaired vulvar skin?||||||0.0008|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Urethral Sulcus versus non-specific lesions of Bartholin's Gland Opening in patients with impaired vulvar skin.||||0.0008
90792873|NCT02732145|181466177|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Urethral Meatus versus non-specific lesions of the Vestibule in patients with impaired vulvar skin?||||||0.0251|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Urethral Meatus versus non-specific lesions of the Vestibule in patients with impaired vulvar skin.||||0.0251
91053468|NCT00446199|181990454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.204||||0.0233||95.0|-0.381|-0.028||Significance level of 1.7% is used to adjust (Bonferroni) for the comparison of three active arms with Placebo.|ANCOVA|Treatment, Center, and Baseline value used as covariate||Comparison between E2 (0.3) and Placebo with respect to a shift in the distribution of the end point. Null hypothesis: The mean change from baseline to week 4 is identical in both arms, alternative: there is a difference in the mean change from baseline.||-0.028|-0.381|0.0233
91053469|NCT00290251|181990460|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||t-test, 2 sided|performed on log-transformed delta change in total fibroid volume from baseline to end of treatment||||||0.43
91053470|NCT00290251|181990460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|Performed on log-transformed delta change||Ulipristal acetate groups one and two were first compared and found to be similar (see statistical analysis 1), so they were combined into a single treatment group for comparison to placebo group||||0.003
90792874|NCT02732145|181466177|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Hymenal Remnants versus non-specific lesions of the Vestibule in patients with impaired vulvar skin?||||||0.0006|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Hymenal Remnants versus non-specific lesions of the Vestibule in patients with impaired vulvar skin.||||0.0006
90792875|NCT02732145|181466177|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of specific lesions of the Clitoris versus specific lesions of Hart's Line in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.0211|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of specific lesions of the Clitoris versus specific lesions of Hart's Line in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0211
90792876|NCT02732145|181466177|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of specific lesions of the Clitoris versus specific lesions of the Urethral Sulcus in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.3067|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of specific lesions of the Clitoris versus specific lesions of the Urethral Sulcus in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.3067
91053471|NCT00290251|181990461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The Delta of scores from treatment end to baseline was used to compare by ANOVA.|ANOVA|Adjustment for age||No sample size calculation was made.||||< 0.05
91053472|NCT00006721|181990476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.05|||Regression, Cox|adjusting for the stratification factor (serum beta-2 microglobulin level)|CHOP + Tositumomab versus CHOP + Rituximab|||1.05|0.6|0.11
90792877|NCT02732145|181466177|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of specific lesions of the Clitoris versus specific lesions of the Urethral Meatus in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.0295|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of specific lesions of the Clitoris versus specific lesions of the Urethral Meatus in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0295
90792878|NCT02732145|181466177|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of specific lesions of the Clitoris versus specific lesions of Hymenal Remnants in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.0149|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of specific lesions of the Clitoris versus specific lesions of Hymenal Remnants in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0149
91053473|NCT00006721|181990480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.55||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.54|||Regression, Cox|adjusting for the stratification factor (serum beta-2 microglobulin level)|CHOP + Tositumomab versus CHOP + Rituximab|||2.54|0.95|0.08
91053474|NCT05091307|181990508|NON_INFERIORITY|The criterion for non-inferiority (NI) was the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR was below 1.5.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.53|||ANOVA|||A/Victoria (H1N1): Based on analysis of variance (ANOVA) models, CIs around the difference (Group 2 \[control group\] minus Group 1 \[CoAd group\]) was calculated and back-transformed (by exponentiation: 2\^CI) to CIs around a geometric mean ratio (GMR: GMTControl/GMTCoAd).||1.53|1.09|
90792879|NCT02732145|181466177|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of specific lesions of the Clitoris versus specific lesions of Bartholin's Gland Opening in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.0007|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of specific lesions of the Clitoris versus specific lesions of Bartholin's Gland Opening in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0007
91053475|NCT05091307|181990508|NON_INFERIORITY|The criterion for NI was the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR was below 1.5.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.45|||ANOVA|||A/Cambodia (H3N2): Based on analysis of variance (ANOVA) models, CIs around the difference (Group 2 \[control group\] minus Group 1 \[CoAd group\]) was calculated and back-transformed (by exponentiation: 2\^CI) to CIs around a geometric mean ratio (GMR: GMTControl/GMTCoAd).||1.45|1.05|
91079063|NCT00419159|182043754|OTHER||Hazard Ratio, log|1.001||||0.995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.617|||Unadjusted Logistic Regression|||||1.617|0.620|0.995
91079064|NCT00419159|182043755|OTHER||Hazard Ratio, log|1.203||||0.441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.752|1.923|||Unadjusted Logistic Regression|||||1.923|0.752|0.441
91053476|NCT05091307|181990508|NON_INFERIORITY|The criterion for NI was the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR was below 1.5.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.19|||ANOVA|||B/Victoria (B/Victoria): Based on analysis of variance (ANOVA) models, CIs around the difference (Group 2 \[control group\] minus Group 1 \[CoAd group\]) was calculated and back-transformed (by exponentiation: 2\^CI) to CIs around a geometric mean ratio (GMR: GMTControl/GMTCoAd).||1.19|0.84|
90792880|NCT02732145|181466177|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of specific lesions of the Clitoris versus specific lesions of the Vestibule in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.0295|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of specific lesions of the Clitoris versus specific lesions of the Vestibule in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0295
90792881|NCT02732145|181466178|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening between patients from different groups, with positive AWR?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening between patients from different groups, with positive AWR.||||0.0000
90792882|NCT02732145|181466178|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of coarse AWR between patients from different groups and positive AWR?||||||0.0071|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of coarse AWR between patients from different groups and positive AWR.||||0.0071
90792883|NCT02732145|181466178|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of slow AWR between patients from different groups and positive AWR?||||||0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of slow AWR occurrence between patients from different groups and positive AWR.||||0.0010
90792884|NCT02732145|181466178|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of provoked erythema among patients from different groups and positive AWR?||||||0.0036|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of provoked erythema among patients from different groups and positive AWR.||||0.0036
90792885|NCT02732145|181466178|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of sharply bordered AWR between patients from different groups and positive AWR?||||||0.0032|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of sharply bordered AWR between patients from different groups and positive AWR.||||0.0032
90792886|NCT02732145|181466178|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Outer Vulvar Ring between the patients from different groups and positive AWR?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Outer Vulvar Ring between the patients from different groups and positive AWR.||||0.0000
90792887|NCT02732145|181466178|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Middle Vulvar Ring between the patients from different groups and positive AWR?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Middle Vulvar Ring between the patients from different groups and positive AWR.||||0.0000
90792888|NCT02732145|181466178|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Inner Vulvar Ring between the patients from different groups and positive AWR?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Inner Vulvar Ring between the patients from different groups and positive AWR.||||0.0000
90792889|NCT02732145|181466178|EQUIVALENCE|"Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of Ring sign between the patients from different groups and positive AWR?"||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The difference in the incidence of Ring sign, aceto-whitening of all structures of the Inner Vulvar Ring, between the patients from different groups and positive AWR."||||0.0000
90792890|NCT02732145|181466178|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Outer versus Middle Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR?||||||0.0856|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Outer versus Middle Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR.||||0.0856
90792891|NCT02732145|181466178|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Outer versus Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR?||||||0.429|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Outer versus Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR.||||0.4290
90792892|NCT02732145|181466178|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Middle versus Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR?||||||0.0124|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Middle versus Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR.||||0.0124
90792893|NCT02732145|181466178|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Outer versus Middle Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Outer versus Middle Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR.||||0.0000
90792894|NCT02732145|181466178|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Outer versus Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Outer versus Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR.||||0.0000
90792895|NCT02732145|181466178|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Middle versus Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR?||||||0.1918|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Middle versus Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR.||||0.1918
90792896|NCT02732145|181466178|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Outer versus Middle Vulvar Ring in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Outer versus Middle Vulvar Ring in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR.||||0.0000
90792897|NCT02732145|181466178|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Outer versus Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Outer versus Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR.||||0.0000
90792898|NCT02732145|181466178|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Middle versus Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR?||||||0.5822|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Middle versus Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR.||||0.5822
91053477|NCT05091307|181990508|NON_INFERIORITY|The criterion for NI was the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR was below 1.5.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.21|||ANOVA|||B/Phuket (B/Yamagata): Based on analysis of variance (ANOVA) models, CIs around the difference (Group 2 \[control group\] minus Group 1 \[CoAd group\]) was calculated and back-transformed (by exponentiation: 2\^CI) to CIs around a geometric mean ratio (GMR: GMTControl/GMTCoAd).||1.21|0.88|
90792899|NCT02732145|181466178|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Outer versus Middle Vulvar Ring in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Outer versus Middle Vulvar Ring in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR.||||0.0000
90792900|NCT02732145|181466178|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Outer versus Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Outer versus Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR.||||0.0000
90792901|NCT02732145|181466178|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Middle versus Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR?||||||0.4975|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Middle versus Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR.||||0.4975
90792902|NCT02732145|181466179|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the velocity of the aceto-whitening occurrence among patients from different groups, in which the AWR was positive?||||||0.0003|||||||ANOVA|||Parameter: The difference in the velocity of the aceto-whitening occurrence (positive AWR) among patients from different groups, in which the AWR was positive.||||0.0003
90792903|NCT02732145|181466180|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the velocity of the aceto-whitening occurrence among patients with positive AWR from different groups?||||||0.0004|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Parameter: The difference in the velocity of the aceto-whitening occurrence among patients with positive AWR from different groups.||||0.0004
90792904|NCT02732145|181466180|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the velocity of the aceto-whitening occurrence between patients with vulvar dermatosis and vulvodynia, with positive AWR?||||||0.0231|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Parameter: The difference in the velocity of the aceto-whitening occurrence between patients with vulvar dermatosis and vulvodynia, with positive AWR.||||0.0231
90792905|NCT02732145|181466180|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the velocity of the aceto-whitening occurrence between the patients with normal vulva and impaired vulvar skin, with positive AWR?||||||0.0006|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Parameter: The difference in the velocity of the aceto-whitening occurrence between the patients with normal vulva and impaired vulvar skin, with positive AWR.||||0.0006
90792906|NCT02732145|181466180|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the velocity of the aceto-whitening occurrence between patients with normal vulva and vulvodynia, with positive AWR?||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Parameter: The difference in the velocity of the aceto-whitening occurrence between patients with normal vulva and vulvodynia, with positive AWR.||||0.0000
90792907|NCT02732145|181466181|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Mons Pubis among patients from different groups, with positive AWR?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Mons Pubis among patients from different groups, with positive AWR.||||0.0000
90792908|NCT02732145|181466181|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Labia Majora among patients from different groups, with positive AWR?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Labia Majora among patients from different groups, with positive AWR.||||0.0000
90792909|NCT02732145|181466181|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Perineum among patients from different groups, with positive AWR?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Perineum among patients from different groups, with positive AWR.||||0.0000
90792910|NCT02732145|181466181|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Mons Pubis versus Labia Majora in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR?||||||0.0128|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Mons Pubis versus Labia Majora in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR.||||0.0128
90792911|NCT02732145|181466181|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Mons Pubis versus Perineum in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Mons Pubis versus Perineum in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR.||||0.0000
90792912|NCT02732145|181466181|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Labia Majora versus Perineum in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR?||||||0.0635|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Labia Majora versus Perineum in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR.||||0.0635
90792913|NCT02732145|181466181|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Mons Pubis versus Labia Majora in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR?||||||0.0429|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Mons Pubis versus Labia Majora in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR.||||0.0429
90792914|NCT02732145|181466181|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Mons Pubis versus Perineum in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR?||||||0.0011|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Mons Pubis versus Perineum in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR.||||0.0011
90792915|NCT02732145|181466181|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Labia Majora versus Perineum in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR?||||||0.0936|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Labia Majora versus Perineum in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR.||||0.0936
90792916|NCT02732145|181466181|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Mons Pubis versus Labia Majora in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR?||||||1|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Mons Pubis versus Labia Majora in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR.||||1.0000
91079065|NCT00419159|182043755|OTHER||Hazard Ratio, log|1.547||||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.884|2.708|||Unadjusted Logistic Regression|||||2.708|0.884|0.126
90792917|NCT02732145|181466181|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Mons Pubis versus Perineum in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR?||||||0.0429|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Mons Pubis versus Perineum in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR.||||0.0429
90792918|NCT02732145|181466181|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Labia Majora versus Perineum in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR?||||||0.0429|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Labia Majora versus Perineum in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR.||||0.0429
90792919|NCT02732145|181466182|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Anterior Commissure among patients from different groups, with positive AWR?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Anterior Commissure among patients from different groups, with positive AWR.||||0.0000
90792920|NCT02732145|181466182|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Interlabial Sulci among patients from different groups, with positive AWR?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Interlabial Sulci among patients from different groups, with positive AWR.||||0.0000
90792921|NCT02732145|181466182|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Labia Minora among patients from different groups, with positive AWR?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Labia Minora among patients from different groups, with positive AWR.||||0.0000
90792922|NCT02732145|181466182|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Posterior Commissure among patients from different groups, with positive AWR?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Posterior Commissure among patients from different groups, with positive AWR.||||0.0000
91011188|NCT03091920|181905197|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|6.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.38|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|11.08|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 12-16 hours||11.08|1.22|
90792923|NCT02732145|181466182|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Anterior Commissure versus Interlabial Sulci in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR?||||||0.0318|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Anterior Commissure versus Interlabial Sulci in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR.||||0.0318
90792924|NCT02732145|181466182|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Anterior Commissure versus Labia Minora in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR?||||||0.0318|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Anterior Commissure versus Labia Minora in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR.||||0.0318
90792925|NCT02732145|181466182|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Anterior Commissure versus Posterior Commissure in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Anterior Commissure versus Posterior Commissure in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR.||||0.0000
90792926|NCT02732145|181466182|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Interlabial Sulci versus Labia Minora in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR?||||||1|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Interlabial Sulci versus Labia Minora in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR.||||1.0000
90792927|NCT02732145|181466182|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Interlabial Sulci versus Posterior Commissure in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR?||||||0.0389|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Interlabial Sulci versus Posterior Commissure in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR.||||0.0389
91079066|NCT00419159|182043756|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.529||||0.238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.184|1.523|||Unadjusted Logistic Regression|||||1.523|0.184|0.238
90792928|NCT02732145|181466182|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Labia Minora versus Posterior Commissure in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR?||||||0.0389|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Labia Minora versus Posterior Commissure in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR.||||0.0389
90792929|NCT02732145|181466182|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Anterior Commissure versus Interlabial Sulci in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR?||||||1e-05|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Anterior Commissure versus Interlabial Sulci in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR.||||0.00001
90792930|NCT02732145|181466182|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Anterior Commissure versus Labia Minora in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Anterior Commissure versus Labia Minora in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR.||||0.0000
90792931|NCT02732145|181466182|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Anterior Commissure versus Posterior Commissure in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Anterior Commissure versus Posterior Commissure in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR.||||0.0000
90792932|NCT02732145|181466182|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Interlabial Sulci versus Labia Minora in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR?||||||0.0008|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Interlabial Sulci versus Labia Minora in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR.||||0.0008
91011189|NCT03091920|181905197|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|4.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.38|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|9.93|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 16-20 hours||9.93|0.05|
91079067|NCT00419159|182043757|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.044||||0.938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.352|3.099|||Unadjusted Logistic Regression|||||3.099|0.352|0.938
90792933|NCT02732145|181466182|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Interlabial Sulci versus Posterior Commissure in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Interlabial Sulci versus Posterior Commissure in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR.||||0.0000
90792934|NCT02732145|181466182|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Labia Minora versus Posterior Commissure in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Labia Minora versus Posterior Commissure in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR.||||0.0000
90792935|NCT02732145|181466182|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Anterior Commissure versus Interlabial Sulci in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR?||||||0.0005|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Anterior Commissure versus Interlabial Sulci in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR.||||0.0005
90792936|NCT02732145|181466182|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Anterior Commissure versus Labia Minora in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Anterior Commissure versus Labia Minora in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR.||||0.0000
90792937|NCT02732145|181466182|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Anterior Commissure versus Posterior Commissure in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Anterior Commissure versus Posterior Commissure in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR.||||0.0000
90792938|NCT02732145|181466182|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Interlabial Sulci versus Labia Minora in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR?||||||0.4505|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Interlabial Sulci versus Labia Minora in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR.||||0.4505
90792939|NCT02732145|181466182|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Interlabial Sulci versus Posterior Commissure in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Interlabial Sulci versus Posterior Commissure in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR.||||0.0000
90792940|NCT02732145|181466182|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Labia Minora versus Posterior Commissure in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Labia Minora versus Posterior Commissure in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR.||||0.0000
90792941|NCT02732145|181466182|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Anterior Commissure versus Interlabial Sulci in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR?||||||1|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Anterior Commissure versus Interlabial Sulci in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR.||||1.0000
90792942|NCT02732145|181466182|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Anterior Commissure versus Labia Minora in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR?||||||0.0534|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Anterior Commissure versus Labia Minora in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR.||||0.0534
90792943|NCT02732145|181466182|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Anterior Commissure versus Posterior Commissure in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Anterior Commissure versus Posterior Commissure in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR.||||0.0000
90792944|NCT02732145|181466182|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Interlabial Sulci versus Labia Minora in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR?||||||0.0534|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Interlabial Sulci versus Labia Minora in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR.||||0.0534
90792945|NCT02732145|181466182|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Interlabial Sulci versus Posterior Commissure in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Interlabial Sulci versus Posterior Commissure in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR.||||0.0000
90792946|NCT02732145|181466182|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Labia Minora versus Posterior Commissure in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR?||||||0.0005|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Labia Minora versus Posterior Commissure in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR.||||0.0005
91053478|NCT05091307|181990509|NON_INFERIORITY|The criterion for NI was the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR was below 1.5.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.26|||ANOVA|||Based on analysis of variance (ANOVA) models, CIs around the difference (Group 2 \[control group\] minus Group 1 \[CoAd group\]) was calculated and back-transformed (by exponentiation: 2\^CI) to CIs around a geometric mean ratio (GMR: GMTControl/GMTCoAd).||1.26|0.97|
90792947|NCT02732145|181466183|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris among patients from different groups, with positive AWR?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris among patients from different groups, with positive AWR.||||0.0000
90792948|NCT02732145|181466183|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line among patients from different groups, with positive AWR?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line among patients from different groups, with positive AWR.||||0.0000
90792949|NCT02732145|181466183|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Urethral Sulcus among patients from different groups, with positive AWR?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Urethral Sulcus among patients from different groups, with positive AWR.||||0.0000
91079068|NCT00419159|182043758|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.474||||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.875|2.484|||Unadjusted Cox Model|||||2.484|0.875|0.145
90792950|NCT02732145|181466183|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Urethral Meatus among patients from different groups, with positive AWR?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Urethral Meatus among patients from different groups, with positive AWR.||||0.0000
90792951|NCT02732145|181466183|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hymenal Remnants among patients from different groups, with positive AWR?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hymenal Remnants among patients from different groups, with positive AWR.||||0.0000
90792952|NCT02732145|181466183|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Bartholin's Gland Opening among patients from different groups, with positive AWR?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Bartholin's Gland Opening among patients from different groups, with positive AWR.||||0.0000
90792953|NCT02732145|181466183|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Vestibule among patients from different groups, with positive AWR?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Vestibule among patients from different groups, with positive AWR.||||0.0000
90792954|NCT02732145|181466183|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Hart's line in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR?||||||0.8545|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Hart's line in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR.||||0.8545
90792955|NCT02732145|181466183|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Urethral Sulcus in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR?||||||0.8569|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Urethral Sulcus in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR.||||0.8569
90792956|NCT02732145|181466183|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Urethral Meatus in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR?||||||0.2478|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Urethral Meatus in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR.||||0.2478
90792957|NCT02732145|181466183|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Hymenal Remnants in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR?||||||0.2478|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Hymenal Remnants in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR.||||0.2478
90792958|NCT02732145|181466183|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Bartholin's Gland Opening in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR?||||||0.1627|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Bartholin's Gland Opening in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR.||||0.1627
91011190|NCT03091920|181905197|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|5.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.36|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|10.22|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 16-20 hours||10.22|0.45|
91011191|NCT03091920|181905197|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|1.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.33|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.17|6.52|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 20-24 hours||6.52|-3.17|
91011192|NCT03091920|181905197|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|4.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.36|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|8.92|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 20-24 hours||8.92|-0.86|
91011193|NCT03091920|181905197|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|4.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.51|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|9.27|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 0-4 hours||9.27|-1.18|
91011194|NCT03091920|181905197|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|3.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.47|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|8.9|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 0-4 hours||8.90|-1.38|
91011195|NCT03091920|181905197|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|5.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.31|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|12.06|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 4-8 hours||12.06|-1.70|
91011196|NCT03091920|181905197|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|5.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|12.37|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 4-8 hours||12.37|-1.14|
91011197|NCT03091920|181905197|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.47|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.35|4.92|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 8-12 hours||4.92|-5.35|
91011198|NCT03091920|181905197|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.42|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.42|6.65|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 8-12 hours||6.65|-3.42|
91011199|NCT03091920|181905197|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|5.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|11.36|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 12-16 hours||11.36|-1.19|
91011200|NCT03091920|181905197|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.94|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|11.42|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 12-16 hours||11.42|-0.83|
91011201|NCT03091920|181905197|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.56|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.02|6.63|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 16-20 hours||6.63|-4.02|
91053479|NCT04732221|181990527|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-9.2||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.3|2.9||A 1-sided p-value was obtained from fitting a Robust regression estimate based on a Huber-type M estimator including terms for treatment and WHO-FC (Class II and Class III/IV) at baseline|Robust Regression|Missing data at week 12 due to death were imputed using the worst observed value and other missingness were imputed using J2R method|Least Square Mean of the overall treatment difference with 95% confidence interval (CI) was reported|||2.9|-21.3|0.068
91053480|NCT04732221|181990527|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-22.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.7|-10.3||based on a Huber-type M estimator including terms for treatment and WHO-FC (Class II and Class III/IV) at baseline|Robust Regression|Missing data at week 12 due to death were imputed using the worst observed value and other missingness were imputed using J2R method|Least Square Mean of the overall treatment difference with 95% confidence interval (CI) was reported|||-10.3|-33.7|<0.001
91053481|NCT04732221|181990527|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-19.9||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.4|-6.4||A 1-sided p-value was obtained from fitting a Robust regression estimate based on a Huber-type M estimator including terms for treatment and WHO-FC (Class II and Class III/IV) at baseline|Robust Regression|Missing data at week 12 due to death were imputed using the worst observed value and other missingness were imputed using J2R method|Least Square Mean of the overall treatment difference with 95% confidence interval (CI) was reported|||-6.4|-33.4|0.002
91053482|NCT03611543|181990539|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Information related to the INVESTIGATIONAL group.|Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test|||||||<0.0001
91053483|NCT05538065|181990546|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.4||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.78||Adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Logistic|||Outcomes were evaluated using generalized estimating equations with a log link and binary errors, adjusting for provider-level clustering and Holm-Bonferroni multiple comparisons.||1.78|1.10|0.002
91053484|NCT05538065|181990546|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.26||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.57||Adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Logistic|||Outcomes were evaluated using generalized estimating equations with a log link and binary errors, adjusting for provider-level clustering and Holm-Bonferroni multiple comparisons.||1.57|1.01|0.039
91053485|NCT05538065|181990547|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|29.0||||0.386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.6|94.6||Adjusted for multiple testing|Regression, Linear|||Outcomes were evaluated using generalized estimating equations with an identity link and normally-distributed errors, adjusting for provider-level clustering and Holm-Bonferroni multiple comparisons.||94.6|-36.6|0.386
90792959|NCT02732145|181466183|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Vestibule in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR?||||||0.5943|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Vestibule in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR.||||0.5943
91053486|NCT05538065|181990547|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|38.1||||272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.9|106.1||Adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Linear|||Outcomes were evaluated using generalized estimating equations with an identity link and normally-distributed errors, adjusting for provider-level clustering and Holm-Bonferroni multiple comparisons.||106.1|-29.9|272
91053487|NCT05538065|181990548|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.8||||0.657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.5|47.0||Adjusted for multiple testing|Regression, Linear|||Outcomes were evaluated using generalized estimating equations with an identity link and normally-distributed errors, adjusting for provider-level clustering and Holm-Bonferroni multiple comparisons.||47.0|-74.5|0.657
91053488|NCT05538065|181990548|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.1||||0.696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.7|91.0|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for multiple testing||Outcomes were evaluated using generalized estimating equations with an identity link and normally-distributed errors, adjusting for provider-level clustering and Holm-Bonferroni multiple comparisons.||91.0|-60.7|0.696
91053489|NCT02752906|181990585|NON_INFERIORITY|95% confidence interval (CI) of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction. If the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between the 2 percentage was \> -10%, the non- inferiority assumption was rejected.|Percentage Difference|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.735|9.38||||||Serogroup A||9.38|0.735|
90792960|NCT02732145|181466183|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line versus Urethral Sulcus in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR?||||||0.7161|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line versus Urethral Sulcus in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR.||||0.7161
90792961|NCT02732145|181466183|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line versus Urethral Meatus in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR?||||||0.3301|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line versus Urethral Meatus in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR.||||0.3301
91053490|NCT02752906|181990585|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction. If the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between the 2 percentage was \> -10%, the non-inferiority assumption was rejected.|Percentage Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.16|8.76||||||Serogroup C||8.76|2.16|
91053491|NCT02752906|181990585|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction. If the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between the 2 percentage was \> -10%, the non-inferiority assumption was rejected.|Percentage Difference|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.907|4.55||||||Serogroup Y||4.55|-0.907|
91053492|NCT02752906|181990585|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction. If the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between the 2 percentage was \> -10%, the non-inferiority assumption was rejected.|Percentage Difference|7.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|10.9||||||Serogroup W||10.9|4.30|
90792962|NCT02732145|181466183|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line versus Hymenal Remnants in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR?||||||0.3301|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line versus Hymenal Remnants in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR.||||0.3301
91053493|NCT01007942|181990594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.95|||Log Rank|||||0.95|0.65|0.0067
91079069|NCT00419159|182043758|OTHER||Hazard Ratio, log|1.151||||0.583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.696|1.903|||Unadjusted Cox Model|||||1.903|0.696|0.583
91011202|NCT03091920|181905197|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|2.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|8.12|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 16-20 hours||8.12|-2.26|
91011203|NCT03091920|181905197|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-1.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.52|4.85|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 20-24 hours||4.85|-7.52|
91011204|NCT03091920|181905197|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.94|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.25|4.98|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 20-24 hours||4.98|-7.25|
91011205|NCT03091920|181905198|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-0.288|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.274|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.857|0.282|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate. Standard Error of the Mean=Standard Error of the LS Mean Difference.|||0.282|-0.857|
91011206|NCT03091920|181905198|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-0.105|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.708|0.498|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate. Standard Error of the Mean=Standard Error of the LS Mean Difference.|||0.498|-0.708|
91011207|NCT03091920|181905198|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-0.196|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.255|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.727|0.335|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate. Standard Error of the Mean=Standard Error of the LS Mean Difference.|||0.335|-0.727|
91011208|NCT03091920|181905203|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-23.188|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|27.97|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.13|37.753|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% confidence interval (CI) is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate. Standard Error of the Mean=Standard Error of the LS Mean Difference.|Day 8||37.753|-84.130|
90792963|NCT02732145|181466183|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line versus Bartholin's Gland Opening in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR?||||||0.1627|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line versus Bartholin's Gland Opening in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR.||||0.1627
90792964|NCT02732145|181466183|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line versus Vestibule in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR?||||||0.4742|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line versus Vestibule in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR.||||0.4742
91011209|NCT03091920|181905203|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-14.033|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|26.092|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.883|42.817|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% confidence interval (CI) is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate. Standard Error of the Mean=Standard Error of the LS Mean Difference.|Day 8||42.817|-70.883|
91011210|NCT03091920|181905203|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-18.611|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|24.138|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.204|33.982|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% confidence interval (CI) is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate. Standard Error of the Mean=Standard Error of the LS Mean Difference.|Day 8||33.982|-71.204|
91011211|NCT03091920|181905203|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-25.389|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.885|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.551|11.774|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% confidence interval (CI) is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate. Standard Error of the Mean=Standard Error of the LS Mean Difference.|Day 15||11.774|-62.551|
91011212|NCT03091920|181905203|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-21.176|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.221|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.879|14.527|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% confidence interval (CI) is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate. Standard Error of the Mean=Standard Error of the LS Mean Difference.|Day 15||14.527|-56.879|
91011213|NCT03091920|181905203|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-23.282|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.691|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.618|9.053|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% confidence interval (CI) is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate. Standard Error of the Mean=Standard Error of the LS Mean Difference.|Day 15||9.053|-55.618|
91011214|NCT01078389|181905248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.472|||||||Ranked Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA)|Baseline modified Sharp/van der Heijde Erosion Score as a covariate.||Change from Baseline at Month 24||||0.472
91011215|NCT01078389|181905249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.548|||||||Ranked ANCOVA|Baseline modified Sharp/van der Heijde Total Score from full hands and feet as a covariate.||Change from Baseline at Month 24||||0.548
91011216|NCT01078389|181905250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.389|||||||Ranked ANCOVA|Baseline modified Sharp/van der Heijde Erosion Score from full hands and feet as a covariate.||Change from Baseline at Month 24||||0.389
91011217|NCT01078389|181905251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Ranked ANCOVA|Baseline RAMRIS Synovitis Score as a covariate.||Synovitis: Change from Baseline at Month 24||||<0.001
91011218|NCT01078389|181905251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.634|||||||Ranked ANCOVA|Baseline RAMRIS Erosion(Distal+Proximal) Score as a covariate.||Erosion(Distal+Proximal): Change from Baseline at Month 24||||0.634
91011219|NCT01078389|181905251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.307|||||||Ranked ANCOVA|Baseline RAMRIS Edema(Distal+Proximal) Score as a covariate.||Edema(Distal+Proximal): Change from Baseline at Month 24||||0.307
91011220|NCT01078389|181905252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.122|||||||Ranked ANCOVA|Baseline modified Sharp/van der Heijde Total Score as a covariate.||Change from Baseline at Month 24||||0.122
91011221|NCT00337935|181905272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.9||a priori theshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|ANCOVA|Baseline Hemoglobin was used as a covariate.||||0.9|0.2|.0062
91053494|NCT00655876|181990608|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.16|||Log Rank|||The sample size was based on the primary hypothesis of a 29% reduction in the hazard rate of death with cetuximab, corresponding to an increase in 2-year overall survival (OS) from 41% to 53% and a hazard ratio (λ\[exp\]/λ\[cont\]) of 0.71 in favor of the cetuximab arm. Assuming an exponential distribution and constant hazards, 400 patients were required to reach 281 OS events, with 80% statistical power, a 1-sided α of 0.025, 4.5 years of accrual, 2 years of follow-up, and 4 interim analyses.||1.16|0.70|0.47
91053495|NCT00655876|181990609|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.28|||Log Rank|One-sided significance level = 0.025||||1.28|0.66|0.65
91053496|NCT00655876|181990611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||Fisher Exact|One-sided significance level = 0.025||||||0.66
91053497|NCT00655876|181990612|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Chi-squared|Two-sided significance level = 0.05||6-8 weeks post-treatment||||0.04
90792965|NCT02732145|181466183|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Urethral Sulcus versus Urethral Meatus in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR?||||||0.1822|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Urethral Sulcus versus Urethral Meatus in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR.||||0.1822
91011222|NCT00337935|181905273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance p=0.05|Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91011223|NCT00337935|181905274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance p=0.05|Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
91011224|NCT02361307|181905275|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.05
91011225|NCT01189201|181905286|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ratio calculated as empa plus linagliptin FDC A1 (fasted) divided by empa plus linagliptin individual tablets (fasted)|Geometric Mean Ratio|104.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.07|107.8|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV)|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability||107.80|102.07|
91011226|NCT01189201|181905287|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ratio calculated as empa plus linagliptin FDC A1 (fasted) divided by empa plus linagliptin individual tablets (fasted)|Geometric Mean Ratio|104.91|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.8|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.97|110.09|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment|Standard deviation is actually the gCV|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability||110.09|99.97|
91053498|NCT00655876|181990612|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||Chi-squared|Two-sided significance level = 0.05||1 year||||0.77
90792966|NCT02732145|181466183|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Urethral Sulcus versus Hymenal Remnants in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR?||||||0.1822|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Urethral Sulcus versus Hymenal Remnants in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR.||||0.1822
91053499|NCT00655876|181990612|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Chi-squared|Two-sided significance level = 0.05||2 years||||0.17
91053500|NCT01992523|181990623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Continuous data were expressed as mean ± standard deviation or medians (quartiles) as appropriate, and categorical data as proportions (%). Data were compared by means of the chi-2 test or Fisher exact test for categorical variables and unpaired t test or Mann-Whitney U-test for continuous variables, as appropriate. A P value \< .05 was considered statistically significant. All tests were two-sided.||||0.006
91053501|NCT00296231|181990633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired Student's t-test was used to compare pre and post intervention pCO2 values.||||0.011
91053502|NCT04091659|181990635|EQUIVALENCE|To determine if the two training approaches were comparable to one another a margin of +/- 1 was used in differences of both OOKS and OOAS scale scores based on previously established literature. An equivalence test of differences using two one-sided tests on data from a cluster-randomized design was conducted using structural equation modeling. Sample sizes of 35 and 57 in group two, obtained by sampling 9 clusters, achieve 85% power to detect equivalence. The significance level is 0.05.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.49|||SEM||||The control group, standard education was the reference for this model.|0.49|-0.85|0.65
91079070|NCT00419159|182043759|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.868||||0.588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.521|1.447|||Unadjusted Cox Model|||||1.447|0.521|0.588
91079071|NCT00419159|182043759|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.611||||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.314|1.191|||Unadjusted Cox Model|||||1.191|0.314|0.148
91011227|NCT01189201|181905288|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ratio calculated as empa plus linagliptin FDC A1 (fasted) divided by empa plus linagliptin individual tablets (fasted)|Geometric Mean Ratio|107.68|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.7|114.02|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment|Standard deviation is actually the gCV|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability||114.02|101.70|
91011228|NCT01189201|181905289|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ratio calculated as empa plus linagliptin FDC A1 (fasted) divided by empa plus linagliptin individual tablets (fasted)|Geometric Mean Ratio|109.68|STANDARD_DEVIATION|26.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.55|120.83|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment|Standard deviation is actually the gCV|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability||120.83|99.55|
91011229|NCT01189201|181905292|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ratio calculated as empa plus linagliptin FDC A1 (fasted) divided by empa plus linagliptin individual tablets (fasted)|Geometric Mean Ratio|104.78|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.02|107.61|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment|Standard deviation is actually the gCV|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability||107.61|102.02|
91011230|NCT01189201|181905293|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ratio calculated as empa plus linagliptin FDC A1 (fasted) divided by empa plus linagliptin individual tablets (fasted)|Geometric Mean Ratio|104.64|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.23|112.62|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment|Standard deviation is actually the gCV|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability||112.62|97.23|
91011231|NCT01189201|181905294|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ratio calculated as empa plus linagliptin FDC A1 (fasted) divided by empa plus linagliptin FDC A1 (fed)|Geometric Mean Ratio|85.86|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.33|90.64|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment|Standard deviation is actually the gCV|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability||90.64|81.33|
91053503|NCT04091659|181990636|EQUIVALENCE|To determine if the two training approaches were comparable to one another a margin of +/- 1 was used in differences of both OOKS and OOAS scale scores based on previously established literature. An equivalence test of differences using two one-sided tests on data from a cluster-randomized design was conducted using structural equation modeling. Sample sizes of 35 and 57 in group two, obtained by sampling 9 clusters, achieve 85% power to detect equivalence. The significance level is 0.05.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.5|||SEM||The control group, standard education, was the reference|||0.50|0.02|0.02
91053504|NCT00895947|181990637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25||95.0||||Overall comparison of treatment groups for incidence of ILI|Chi-squared|||||||0.25
91053505|NCT00895947|181990637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0||||Comparision of ILI incidence in subjects age 50 and older at baseline.|Chi-squared|||||||0.01
91053506|NCT00895947|181990637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32||95.0||||Comparison of ILI in subjects age \< 50 at baseline|Chi-squared|||||||0.32
91053507|NCT00895947|181990637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0||||Comparison of ILI incidence in subjects vaccinated against seasonal influenza prior to enrollment.|Chi-squared|||||||0.01
91053508|NCT00895947|181990637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45||95.0||||Comparison of ILI incidence in subjects not vaccinated against seasonal influenza prior to enrollment|Chi-squared|||||||0.45
91053509|NCT00895947|181990637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0||||Comparison of ILI incidence in male subjects|Chi-squared|||||||0.03
91053510|NCT00895947|181990637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99||95.0||||Comparison of ILI incidence in female subjects|Chi-squared|||||||0.99
90792967|NCT02732145|181466183|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hymenal Remnants versus Vestibule in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR?||||||0.0927|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hymenal Remnants versus Vestibule in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR.||||0.0927
91053511|NCT00895947|181990638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16||95.0||||Proportion of subjects reporting any cold/flu symptoms during treatment|Chi-squared|||||||0.16
91053512|NCT00895947|181990638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0||||Proportion of subjects reporting moderate to severe feverishness|Chi-squared|||||||0.03
91053513|NCT00895947|181990638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0||||Proportion of subjects reporting moderate to severe head congestion|Chi-squared|||||||0.04
90792968|NCT02732145|181466183|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Bartholin's Gland Opening versus Vestibule in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR?||||||0.036|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Bartholin's Gland Opening versus Vestibule in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR.||||0.0360
90792969|NCT02732145|181466183|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Hart's Line in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR?||||||0.072|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Hart's Line in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR.||||0.0720
90792970|NCT02732145|181466183|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Urethral Sulcus in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR?||||||1|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Urethral Sulcus in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR.||||1.0000
90792971|NCT02732145|181466183|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Urethral Meatus in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR?||||||0.4833|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Urethral Meatus in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR.||||0.4833
90792972|NCT02732145|181466183|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Hymenal Remnants in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR?||||||0.3594|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Hymenal Remnants in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR.||||0.3594
90792973|NCT02732145|181466183|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Bartholin's Gland Opening in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR?||||||0.5987|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Bartholin's Gland Opening in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR.||||0.5987
91053514|NCT00895947|181990638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07||95.0||||Proportion of subjects reporting moderate to severe sore throat|Chi-squared|||||||0.07
91053515|NCT00895947|181990639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39||95.0||||Proportion of subjects reporting one of more days that cold/flu symptoms impacted ability to think clearly|Chi-squared|||||||0.39
91053516|NCT00895947|181990639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15||95.0||||Proportion of subjects reporting one of more days that cold/flu symptoms impacted ability to sleep well|Chi-squared|||||||0.15
91053517|NCT00895947|181990639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66||95.0||||Proportion of subjects reporting one of more days that cold/flu symptoms impacted ability to breathe easily|Chi-squared|||||||0.66
91053518|NCT00895947|181990639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48||95.0||||Proportion of subjects reporting one of more days that cold/flu symptoms impacted ability to walk, climb stairs and exercise|Chi-squared|||||||0.48
91053519|NCT00895947|181990639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26||95.0||||Proportion of subjects reporting one of more days that cold/flu symptoms impacted ability to perform daily activities|Chi-squared|||||||0.26
91053520|NCT00895947|181990639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25||95.0||||Proportion of subjects reporting one of more days that cold/flu symptoms impacted ability to work outside the home|Chi-squared|||||||0.25
91053521|NCT00895947|181990639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2||95.0||||Proportion of subjects reporting one of more days that cold/flu symptoms impacted ability to work inside the home|Chi-squared|||||||0.20
91053522|NCT00895947|181990639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2||95.0||||Proportion of subjects reporting one of more days that cold/flu symptoms impacted ability to interact with others|Chi-squared|||||||0.20
91053523|NCT00895947|181990639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32||95.0||||Proportion of subjects reporting one of more days that cold/flu symptoms impacted ability to live personal life|Chi-squared|||||||0.32
91053524|NCT00895947|181990640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66||95.0||||Proportion of subjects in each group reporting one or more days they felt sick|Chi-squared|||||||0.66
91011232|NCT01189201|181905295|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ratio calculated as empa plus linagliptin FDC A1 (fasted) divided by empa plus linagliptin FDC A1 (fed)|Geometric Mean Ratio|61.41|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|54.1|69.71|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment|Standard deviation is actually the gCV|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability||69.71|54.10|
90792974|NCT02732145|181466183|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Vestibule in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR?||||||0.4164|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Vestibule in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR.||||0.4164
90792975|NCT02732145|181466183|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line versus Urethral Sulcus in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR?||||||0.072|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line versus Urethral Sulcus in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR.||||0.0720
90792976|NCT02732145|181466183|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line versus Urethral Meatus in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR?||||||0.0148|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line versus Urethral Meatus in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR.||||0.0148
90792977|NCT02732145|181466183|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line versus Hymenal Remnants in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR?||||||0.0085|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line versus Hymenal Remnants in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR.||||0.0085
90792978|NCT02732145|181466183|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line versus Bartholin's Gland Opening in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR?||||||0.1918|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line versus Bartholin's Gland Opening in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR.||||0.1918
90792979|NCT02732145|181466183|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's line versus Vestibule in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR?||||||0.3037|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's line versus Vestibule in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR.||||0.3037
91011233|NCT01189201|181905296|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ratio calculated as empa plus linagliptin FDC A1 (fasted) divided by empa plus linagliptin FDC A1 (fed)|Geometric Mean Ratio|85.32|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.77|90.14|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment|Standard deviation is actually the gCV|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability||90.14|80.77|
90792980|NCT02732145|181466183|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Urethral Sulcus versus Urethral Meatus in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR?||||||0.4833|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Urethral Sulcus versus Urethral Meatus in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR.||||0.4833
90792981|NCT02732145|181466183|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Urethral Sulcus versus Hymenal Remnants in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR?||||||0.3594|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Urethral Sulcus versus Hymenal Remnants in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR.||||0.3594
90792982|NCT02732145|181466183|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Hymenal Remnants versus Vestibule in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR?||||||0.0877|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Hymenal Remnants versus Vestibule in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR.||||0.0877
90792983|NCT02732145|181466183|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Bartholin's Gland Opening versus Vestibule in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR?||||||0.7726|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Bartholin's Gland Opening versus Vestibule in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR.||||0.7726
90792984|NCT02732145|181466183|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Hart's Line in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR?||||||0.0191|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Hart's Line in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR.||||0.0191
90792985|NCT02732145|181466183|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Urethral Sulcus in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR?||||||0.0287|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Urethral Sulcus in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR.||||0.0287
91011234|NCT01189201|181905297|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ratio calculated as empa plus linagliptin FDC A1 (fasted) divided by empa plus linagliptin FDC A1 (fed)|Geometric Mean Ratio|93.18|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.07|102.05|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment|Standard deviation is actually the gCV|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability||102.05|85.07|
91011235|NCT01189201|181905298|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ratio calculated as empa plus linagliptin FDC A1 (fasted) divided by empa plus linagliptin FDC A1 (fed)|Geometric Mean Ratio|68.48|STANDARD_DEVIATION|27.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|58.59|80.03|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment|Standard deviation is actually the gCV|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability||80.03|58.59|
91011236|NCT01189201|181905299|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ratio calculated as empa plus linagliptin FDC A1 (fasted) divided by empa plus linagliptin FDC A1 (fed)|Geometric Mean Ratio|90.95|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.24|98.19|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment|Standard deviation is actually the gCV|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability||98.19|84.24|
91011237|NCT01189201|181905300|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ratio calculated as empa plus linagliptin FDC A1 (fasted) divided by empa plus linagliptin FDC A3 (fasted)|Geometric Mean Ratio|95.64|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.19|100.3|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment|Standard deviation is actually the gCV|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability||100.30|91.19|
91053525|NCT00895947|181990640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88||95.0||||Proportion of subjects in each group reporting one or more days they missed work|Chi-squared|||||||0.88
90792986|NCT02732145|181466183|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Urethral Meatus in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR?||||||0.6374|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Urethral Meatus in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR.||||0.6374
90792987|NCT02732145|181466183|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Hymenal Remnants in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR?||||||0.7512|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Hymenal Remnants in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR.||||0.7512
90792988|NCT02732145|181466183|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Bartholin's Gland Opening in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR?||||||0.2734|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Bartholin's Gland Opening in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR.||||0.2734
90792989|NCT02732145|181466183|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Vestibule in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR?||||||0.0287|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Vestibule in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR.||||0.0287
90792990|NCT02732145|181466183|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line versus Urethral Sulcus in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR?||||||0.8732|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line versus Urethral Sulcus in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR.||||0.8732
90792991|NCT02732145|181466183|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line versus Urethral Meatus in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR?||||||0.0602|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line versus Urethral Meatus in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR.||||0.0602
90792992|NCT02732145|181466183|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line versus Hymenal Remnants in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR?||||||0.0079|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line versus Hymenal Remnants in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR.||||0.0079
90792993|NCT02732145|181466183|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line versus Bartholin's Gland Opening in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR?||||||0.2081|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line versus Bartholin's Gland Opening in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR.||||0.2081
90792994|NCT02732145|181466183|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line versus Vestibule in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR?||||||0.8732|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line versus Vestibule in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR.||||0.8732
90792995|NCT02732145|181466183|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Urethral Sulcus versus Urethral Meatus in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR?||||||0.0852|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Urethral Sulcus versus Urethral Meatus in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR.||||0.0852
90792996|NCT02732145|181466183|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Urethral Sulcus versus Hymenal Remnants in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR?||||||0.0125|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Urethral Sulcus versus Hymenal Remnants in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR.||||0.0125
90792997|NCT02732145|181466183|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hymenal Remnants versus Vestibule in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR?||||||0.0125|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hymenal Remnants versus Vestibule in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR.||||0.0125
90792998|NCT02732145|181466183|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Bartholin's Gland Opening versus Vestibule in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR?||||||0.2714|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Bartholin's Gland Opening versus Vestibule in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR.||||0.2714
90792999|NCT02732145|181466183|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Hart's Line in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR?||||||0.1692|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Hart's Line in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR.||||0.1692
91011238|NCT01189201|181905301|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ratio calculated as empa plus linagliptin FDC A1 (fasted) divided by empa plus linagliptin FDC A3 (fasted)|Geometric Mean Ratio|98.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.95|104.53|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment|Standard deviation is actually the gCV|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability||104.53|91.95|
91011239|NCT01189201|181905302|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ratio calculated as empa plus linagliptin FDC A1 (fasted) divided by empa plus linagliptin FDC A3 (fasted)|Geometric Mean Ratio|95.69|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.8|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.17|100.43|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment|Standard deviation is actually the gCV|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability||100.43|91.17|
91011240|NCT01189201|181905303|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ratio calculated as empa plus linagliptin FDC A1 (fasted) divided by empa plus linagliptin FDC A3 (fasted)|Geometric Mean Ratio|92.98|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.36|100.09|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment|Standard deviation is actually the gCV|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability||100.09|86.36|
91011241|NCT01189201|181905304|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ratio calculated as empa plus linagliptin FDC A1 (fasted) divided by empa plus linagliptin FDC A3 (fasted)|Geometric Mean Ratio|103.71|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.93|115.74|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment|Standard deviation is actually the gCV|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability||115.74|92.93|
91053526|NCT00895947|181990640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||Proportion of subjects in each group reporting one or more days they visited the doctor|Chi-squared|||||||1.0
91053527|NCT00895947|181990640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54||95.0||||Proportion of subjects in each group reporting one or more days they visited the pharmacy|Chi-squared|||||||0.54
91053528|NCT00895947|181990640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24||95.0||||Proportion of subjects in each group reporting one or more days they took cold/flu medication|Chi-squared|||||||0.24
91053529|NCT00895947|181990640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89||95.0||||Proportion of subjects in each group reporting one or more days they skipped a planned activity|Chi-squared|||||||0.89
91053530|NCT00895947|181990641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61||95.0||||Proportion of subjects in each group with a confirmed viral respiratory infection|Chi-squared|||||||0.61
91053531|NCT00895947|181990641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||Proportion of subjects in each group with a moderate/severe viral respiratory infection|Chi-squared|||||||0.003
91053532|NCT00895947|181990641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0||||Proportion of subjects in each group with a moderate/severe influenza infection|Chi-squared|||||||0.03
91053533|NCT00895947|181990641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0||||Proportion of subjects in each group with a moderate/severe viral respiratory infection other than influenza|Chi-squared|||||||0.03
91053534|NCT00895947|181990642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54||95.0||||Proportion of subjects meeting the definition of acute respiratory illness during treatment|Chi-squared|||||||0.54
91053535|NCT00895947|181990642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0||||Proportion of subjects meeting with moderate/severe acute respiratory illness during treatment|Chi-squared|||||||0.06
91053536|NCT00895947|181990642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0||||Proportion of subjects with moderate/severe febrile acute respiratory illness during treatment|Chi-squared|||||||0.03
90793000|NCT02732145|181466183|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Urethral Sulcus in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR?||||||0.0772|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Urethral Sulcus in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR.||||0.0772
90793001|NCT02732145|181466183|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Urethral Meatus in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR?||||||0.5762|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Urethral Meatus in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR.||||0.5762
91053537|NCT00895947|181990642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6||95.0||||Proportion of subjects with moderate/severe afebrile acute respiratory illness during treatment|Chi-squared|||||||0.60
91053538|NCT01243112|181990651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.359||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Null Hypothesis is that no difference would be measured between treatment arms.||||0.359
91053539|NCT01243112|181990652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.490
91053540|NCT00123474|181990667|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of the QD schedule relative to the BID schedule was deduced if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the MCyRRQD minus MCyRRBID difference was greater than or equal to -15%.|Risk Difference (RD)|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|11.6||||||6 Month Analysis||11.6|-6.0|
90793002|NCT02732145|181466183|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Hymenal Remnants in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR?||||||0.5762|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Hymenal Remnants in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR.||||0.5762
91053541|NCT00123474|181990668|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of the QD schedule relative to the BID schedule was deduced if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the MCyRRQD minus MCyRRBID difference was greater than or equal to -15%.|Risk Difference (RD)|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|10.6||||||||10.6|-6.8|
91053542|NCT00123474|181990668|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of 100 mg total daily dose relative to 140 mg total daily dose was deduced if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference was greater than or equal to -15%.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|8.5||||||||8.5|-8.9|
91053543|NCT00123474|181990679|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of the QD schedule relative to the BID schedule was deduced if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the MCyRRQD minus MCyRRBID difference was greater than or equal to -15%.|Risk Difference (RD)|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|15.3||||||6 Month Analysis||15.3|-11.7|
91053544|NCT00123474|181990679|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of 100 mg QD Total Daily Dose relative to 140 mg QD Total Daily Dose was deduced if the lower bound of the 95% CI difference was greater than or equal to -15%.|Risk Difference (RD)|4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|17.6||||||6 Month Analysis||17.6|-9.3|
91053545|NCT00123474|181990679|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of the QD schedule relative to the BID schedule was deduced if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the MCyRRQD minus MCyRRBID difference was greater than or equal to -15%.|Risk Difference (RD)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|14.1||||||24 Month Analysis||14.1|-11.2|
91053546|NCT00123474|181990679|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of 100 mg QD Total Daily Dose relative to 140 mg QD Total Daily Dose was deduced if the lower bound of the 95% CI difference was greater than or equal to -15%.|Risk Difference (RD)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|14.1||||||24 Month Analysis||14.1|-11.2|
91053547|NCT01059344|181990689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.069|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.069
91053548|NCT01059344|181990690|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91053549|NCT01059344|181990691|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91053550|NCT01059344|181990692|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.010
91053551|NCT01059344|181990693|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91053552|NCT01059344|181990694|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91053553|NCT01059344|181990695|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.011
91053554|NCT01739348|181990703|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|0.2||||0.6287|TWO_SIDED|97.51|-0.9|1.3|||Longitudinal ANCOVA|||||1.3|-0.9|0.6287
91053555|NCT01739348|181990703|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|0.4||||0.4625|TWO_SIDED|97.51|-0.8|1.5|||Longitudinal ANCOVA|||||1.5|-0.8|0.4625
91053556|NCT01739348|181990704|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.5||||0.4925|TWO_SIDED|97.51|-1.1|2.1|||Longitudinal ANCOVA|||||2.1|-1.1|0.4925
91053557|NCT01739348|181990704|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.7||||0.3221|TWO_SIDED|97.51|-0.9|2.3|||Longitudinal ANCOVA|||||2.3|-0.9|0.3221
91053558|NCT01739348|181990711|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.0||||0.8426|TWO_SIDED|97.51|-0.4|0.3|||Longitudinal ANCOVA|||||0.3|-0.4|0.8426
91011242|NCT01189201|181905305|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ratio calculated as empa plus linagliptin FDC A1 (fasted) divided by empa plus linagliptin FDC A3 (fasted)|Geometric Mean Ratio|96.36|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.78|103.42|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment|Standard deviation is actually the gCV|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability||103.42|89.78|
91011243|NCT03852901|181905315|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|40.717|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.866|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.166|50.268||Type III of fixed effects. Num df = 1; Den df = 902.758; F = 70.003; Sig. \< 0.001 (threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05)|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: ID; Repeated measures: Visit \& Timepoint; Fixed effects: Visit, Timepoint, Sex, Visit\*Sex||No a-priori power calculation was performed due to the exploratory nature of the study.||50.268|31.166|<0.001
91011244|NCT03852901|181905316|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.637|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.051||0.545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.699|1.426||Type III of fixed effects. Num df = 1; Den df = 884.229; F = .367; Sig = .545 (threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05)|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: ID; Repeated measures: Visit \& Timepoint; Fixed effects: Visit, Timepoint, Sex, Visit\*Sex||No a-priori power calculation was performed due to the exploratory nature of the study.||1.426|-2.699|0.545
91053559|NCT01739348|181990711|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.0||||0.8264|TWO_SIDED|97.51|-0.3|0.4|||Longitudinal ANCOVA|||||0.4|-0.3|0.8264
91053560|NCT01739348|181990712|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.6||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|97.51|-1.0|-0.2|||Longitudinal ANCOVA|||||-0.2|-1.0|0.0005
91011245|NCT03852901|181905317|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.027|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.009||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.009|0.044||Type III of fixed effects. Num df = 1; Den df = 880.629; F = 8.782; Sig. = 0.003 (threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05)|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: ID; Repeated measures: Visit \& Timepoint; Fixed effects: Visit, Timepoint, Sex, Visit\*Sex||No a-priori power calculation was performed due to the exploratory nature of the study.||.044|.009|0.003
91011246|NCT03852901|181905318|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.647|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.329||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.255|-0.04||Type III of fixed effects. Num df = 1; Den df = 880.870; F = 3.970; Sig. = 0.047 (threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05)|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: ID; Repeated measures: Visit \& Timepoint; Fixed effects: Visit, Timepoint, Sex, Visit\*Sex||No a-priori power calculation was performed due to the exploratory nature of the study.||-0.040|-5.255|0.047
91011247|NCT03852901|181905319|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.573|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.853||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.21|-1.937||Type III of fixed effects. Num df = 1; Den df = 902.181; F = 9.049; Sig. = 0.003 (threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05)|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: ID; Repeated measures: Visit \& Timepoint; Fixed effects: repeated-measures. Visit, Timepoint, Sex, Visit\*Sex||No a-priori power calculation was performed due to the exploratory nature of the study.||-1.937|-9.210|0.003
91011248|NCT03852901|181905320|OTHER|||||||0.5849||||||Type III of fixed effects. Num df: 2; Den df = 33; F = 0.5451; Sig. = 0.5849 (threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05)|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: ID; Repeated measures: Visit; Fixed effects: Visit, Sex, Age, fCSF||No a-priori power calculation was performed due to the exploratory nature of the study.||||0.5849
91011249|NCT03852901|181905321|OTHER|||||||0.0142||||||Type III of fixed effects. Num df = 2; Den df = 35; F = 4.8191; Sig. = 0.0142 (threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05)|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: ID; Repeated measures: Visit; Fixed effects: Visit, Sex, Age, fCSF||No a-priori power calculation was performed due to the exploratory nature of the study.||||0.0142
91011250|NCT03852901|181905322|OTHER|||||||0.024||||||Type III of fixed effects. Num df: 2; Den df = 34; F = 4.1501; Sig. = 0.0244 (threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05)|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effects: ID; Repeated measures: Visit; Fixed effects: Visit, Sex, Age and fCSF||No a-priori power calculation was performed due to the exploratory nature of the study.||||0.024
91011251|NCT01409382|181905334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|7.6|||Chi-squared|||Take home babies||7.6|1.5|<0.05
91011252|NCT00965458|181905691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for testing treatment effect using an analysis of covariance with baseline ln(AUC+1) as a covariate and change in ln(AUC+1) from baseline as the outcome variable.|ANCOVA|||Primary imputation method used for missing Month 12 AUC. Measuring range for C-peptide is 0.05-30 ng/mL.||||0.065
91011253|NCT00965458|181905692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for testing treatment effect using an analysis of covariance with baseline In(AUC+1) as a covariate and change in In(AUC+1) from baseline as the outcome|ANCOVA|||Primary imputation method used for missing Week 52 AUC. Measuring range for C-peptide is 0.05-30 ng/mL||||0.019
91011254|NCT00965458|181905692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for testing treatment effect using an analysis of covariance with baseline In(AUC+1) as a covariate and change in In(AUC+1) from baseline as the outcome|ANCOVA|||Primary imputation method used for missing Week 104 AUC. Measuring range for C-peptide is 0.05-30 ng/mL||||0.002
91011255|NCT00965458|181905693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for testing treatment effect using an analysis of covariance with baseline In(AUC+1) as a covariate and change in In(AUC+1) from baseline as the outcome|ANCOVA|||Primary imputation method used for missing Week 52 AUC. Measuring range for C-peptide is 0.05-30 ng/mL||||0.065
91053561|NCT01739348|181990712|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.7||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|97.51|-1.1|-0.3|||Longitudinal ANCOVA|||||-0.3|-1.1|0.0002
91053562|NCT01739348|181990713|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Fold Change from Baseline|0.95||||0.2138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.04|||Longitudinal ANCOVA|||||1.04|0.87|0.2138
91053563|NCT01739348|181990713|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Fold Change from Baseline|0.97||||0.433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.05|||Longitudinal ANCOVA|||||1.05|0.90|0.4330
91053564|NCT01739348|181990714|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.03||||0.0066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.0|||Longitudinal ANCOVA|||||0.00|-0.05|0.0066
91053565|NCT01739348|181990714|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|-0.02|||Longitudinal ANCOVA|||||-0.02|-0.06|<0.0001
91053566|NCT01739348|181990716|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.7||||0.2949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|2.1|||Longitudinal ANCOVA|||||2.1|-0.6|0.2949
91053567|NCT01739348|181990716|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|1.1||||0.1372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|2.6|||Longitudinal ANCOVA|||||2.6|-0.4|0.1372
91011256|NCT00965458|181905693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for testing treatment effect using an analysis of covariance with baseline In(AUC+1) as a covariate and change in In(AUC+1) from baseline as the outcome|ANCOVA|||Primary imputation method used for missing Week 104 AUC. Measuring range for C-peptide is 0.05-30 ng/mL||||0.015
91011257|NCT00965458|181905694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for testing treatment effect using an analysis of covariance with baseline level as a covariate and change from baseline as the outcome variable|ANCOVA|||Week 52 mean insulin use comparison||||0.020
91011258|NCT00965458|181905694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for testing treatment effect using an analysis of covariance with baseline level as a covariate and change from baseline as the outcome variable|ANCOVA|||Week 104 mean insulin use comparison||||0.002
91011259|NCT00965458|181905695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is from a poisson regression comparing the person-year adjusted event rates between the two treatment groups|Regression, Logistic|||Hypoglycemic Events Occurring from Baseline to Week 52||||<0.001
91011260|NCT00965458|181905695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is from a poisson regression comparing the person-year adjusted event rates between the two treatment groups|Regression, Logistic|||Hypoglycemic Events Occurring from Week 52 to Week 104||||<0.001
91011261|NCT00965458|181905696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.746|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for testing treatment effect using an analysis of covariance with baseline level as a covariate and change from baseline as the outcome variable|ANCOVA|||Week 52 mean HbA1C comparison||||0.746
91011262|NCT00965458|181905696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.942|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for testing treatment effect using an analysis of covariance with baseline level as a covariate and change from baseline as the outcome variable|ANCOVA|||Week 104 mean HbA1C comparison||||0.942
91011263|NCT04516291|181905719|OTHER||Least Square (LS) Mean difference|-22.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.93|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.1|-12.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline value, treatment, visit, interaction term of treatment by visit as fixed effects and unstructured covariance structure was used.||||-12.7|-32.1|<0.001
91011264|NCT04516291|181905719|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-22.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.88|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.7|-12.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline value, treatment, visit, interaction term of treatment by visit as fixed effects and unstructured covariance structure was used.||||-12.4|-31.7|<0.001
91053568|NCT01739348|181990717|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.2||||0.4721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.7|||Longitudinal ANCOVA|||||0.7|-0.3|0.4721
91011265|NCT04516291|181905719|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-24.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.05|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.1|-14.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline value, treatment, visit, interaction term of treatment by visit as fixed effects and unstructured covariance structure was used.||||-14.2|-34.1|<0.001
91011266|NCT04516291|181905719|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-27.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.7|-19.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline value, treatment, visit, interaction term of treatment by visit as fixed effects and unstructured covariance structure was used.||||-19.6|-35.7|<0.001
91011267|NCT04516291|181905719|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-26.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.98|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.5|-18.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline value, treatment, visit, interaction term of treatment by visit as fixed effects and unstructured covariance structure was used.||||-18.8|-34.5|<0.001
91011268|NCT04516291|181905719|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-24.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.96|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.5|-16.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline value, treatment, visit, interaction term of treatment by visit as fixed effects and unstructured covariance structure was used.||||-16.9|-32.5|<0.001
91011269|NCT04516291|181905719|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-26.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.51|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.4|-17.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline value, treatment, visit, interaction term of treatment by visit as fixed effects and unstructured covariance structure was used.||||-17.6|-35.4|<0.001
91011270|NCT04516291|181905721|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-44.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.66|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.1|-30.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline value, treatment, visit, interaction term of treatment by visit as fixed effects and unstructured covariance structure was used.||TG||-30.8|-57.1|<0.001
91011271|NCT04516291|181905721|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-43.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.64|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.9|-30.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline value, treatment, visit, interaction term of treatment by visit as fixed effects and unstructured covariance structure was used.||TG||-30.7|-56.9|<0.001
91011272|NCT04516291|181905721|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-41.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.85|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.8|-27.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline value, treatment, visit, interaction term of treatment by visit as fixed effects and unstructured covariance structure was used.||TG||-27.8|-54.8|<0.001
91053569|NCT01739348|181990717|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.5||||0.0599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.0|||Longitudinal ANCOVA|||||1.0|0.0|0.0599
91011273|NCT04516291|181905721|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-50.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.54|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.4|-39.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline value, treatment, visit, interaction term of treatment by visit as fixed effects and unstructured covariance structure was used.||TG||-39.6|-61.4|<0.001
91011274|NCT04516291|181905721|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-45.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.38|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.5|-35.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline value, treatment, visit, interaction term of treatment by visit as fixed effects and unstructured covariance structure was used.||TG||-35.2|-56.5|<0.001
91011275|NCT04516291|181905721|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-50.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.35|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.2|-40.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline value, treatment, visit, interaction term of treatment by visit as fixed effects and unstructured covariance structure was used.||TG||-40.1|-61.2|<0.001
91053570|NCT05472662|181990728|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was demonstrated if the 95% CI of the adjusted mean difference in relative change from baseline in FEV1 between HFA-152a and HFA-134a was within the equivalence limits \[-10% ; +10%\].|Adjusted mean difference|1.86||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|4.2|||ANCOVA|||"Statistical analysis performed on the data at 15 min post-dose timepoint.~Statistical analysis was performed by means of Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model including treatment group, subject, and period as fixed effects and FEV1 baseline as covariate."||4.20|-0.48|0.113
91079088|NCT00672841|182043858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Sensitivity|100.0||||||95.0|||||Sensitivity %||Sensitivity \[1\] = (True positives \[n=6\]/ True positives + False negatives \[n=6\])|Clinical sensitivity of the BDG test was calculated for both study groups combined||||
91011276|NCT04516291|181905721|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-56.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.9|-44.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline value, treatment, visit, interaction term of treatment by visit as fixed effects and unstructured covariance structure was used.||TG||-44.7|-68.9|<0.001
91011277|NCT04516291|181905721|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-15.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.36|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.7|-6.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline value, treatment, visit, interaction term of treatment by visit as fixed effects and unstructured covariance structure was used.||ApoB||-6.5|-23.7|<0.001
91011278|NCT04516291|181905721|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-10.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.34||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.2|-2.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline value, treatment, visit, interaction term of treatment by visit as fixed effects and unstructured covariance structure was used.||ApoB||-2.1|-19.2|0.015
91011279|NCT04516291|181905721|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-11.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.49||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.3|-2.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline value, treatment, visit, interaction term of treatment by visit as fixed effects and unstructured covariance structure was used.||ApoB||-2.7|-20.3|0.011
91011280|NCT04516291|181905721|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-12.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.64|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|-5.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline value, treatment, visit, interaction term of treatment by visit as fixed effects and unstructured covariance structure was used.||ApoB||-5.3|-19.7|<0.001
91011281|NCT04516291|181905721|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-12.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.54|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.5|-5.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline value, treatment, visit, interaction term of treatment by visit as fixed effects and unstructured covariance structure was used.||ApoB||-5.6|-19.5|<0.001
91011282|NCT04516291|181905721|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.56||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline value, treatment, visit, interaction term of treatment by visit as fixed effects and unstructured covariance structure was used.||ApoB||1.0|-13.0|0.095
91011283|NCT04516291|181905721|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-8.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.01||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline value, treatment, visit, interaction term of treatment by visit as fixed effects and unstructured covariance structure was used.||ApoB||-0.6|-16.4|0.036
91011284|NCT04516291|181905721|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-10.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.55||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.9|2.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline value, treatment, visit, interaction term of treatment by visit as fixed effects and unstructured covariance structure was used.||LDL-C||2.9|-22.9|0.129
91011285|NCT04516291|181905721|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-7.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.65||0.238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|5.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline value, treatment, visit, interaction term of treatment by visit as fixed effects and unstructured covariance structure was used.||LDL-C||5.2|-21.0|0.238
91011286|NCT04516291|181905721|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-11.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.73||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.7|1.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline value, treatment, visit, interaction term of treatment by visit as fixed effects and unstructured covariance structure was used.||LDL-C||1.8|-24.7|0.090
91011287|NCT04516291|181905721|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-16.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.44||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.7|-5.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline value, treatment, visit, interaction term of treatment by visit as fixed effects and unstructured covariance structure was used.||LDL-C||-5.3|-26.7|0.004
91011288|NCT04516291|181905721|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-14.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.38||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.1|-3.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline value, treatment, visit, interaction term of treatment by visit as fixed effects and unstructured covariance structure was used.||LDL-C||-3.9|-25.1|0.008
91011289|NCT04516291|181905721|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-7.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.28||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.3|2.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline value, treatment, visit, interaction term of treatment by visit as fixed effects and unstructured covariance structure was used.||LDL-C||2.5|-18.3|0.136
91011290|NCT04516291|181905721|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.01||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.8|2.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline value, treatment, visit, interaction term of treatment by visit as fixed effects and unstructured covariance structure was used.||LDL-C||2.9|-20.8|0.138
91011291|NCT04516291|181905723|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-69.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.97|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-81.6|-58.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline value, treatment, visit, interaction term of treatment by visit as fixed effects and unstructured covariance structure was used.||||-58.1|-81.6|<0.001
91011292|NCT04516291|181905723|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-79.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.03|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-91.5|-67.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline value, treatment, visit, interaction term of treatment by visit as fixed effects and unstructured covariance structure was used.||||-67.7|-91.5|<0.001
91011293|NCT04516291|181905723|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-77.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.22|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-89.4|-64.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline value, treatment, visit, interaction term of treatment by visit as fixed effects and unstructured covariance structure was used.||||-64.9|-89.4|<0.001
91011294|NCT04516291|181905723|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-86.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.04|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-96.2|-76.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline value, treatment, visit, interaction term of treatment by visit as fixed effects and unstructured covariance structure was used.||||-76.3|-96.2|<0.001
91011295|NCT04516291|181905723|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-80.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.82|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-89.9|-70.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline value, treatment, visit, interaction term of treatment by visit as fixed effects and unstructured covariance structure was used.||||-70.9|-89.9|<0.001
91011296|NCT04516291|181905723|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-92.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.92|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-101.9|-82.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline value, treatment, visit, interaction term of treatment by visit as fixed effects and unstructured covariance structure was used.||||-82.6|-101.9|<0.001
91079089|NCT00672841|182043858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Specificity|50.0||||||95.0|||||% Specificity||Specificity \[0.50\]= True negatives \[n=28\]/ True negatives + False positives \[56\])|Clinical specificity of the BDG test was calculated for the study groups combined||||
91011297|NCT04516291|181905723|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-95.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.59|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-106.2|-84.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline value, treatment, visit, interaction term of treatment by visit as fixed effects and unstructured covariance structure was used.||||-84.2|-106.2|<0.001
91011298|NCT02181634|181905733|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.02||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|4.75|||Log Rank|||||4.75|0.86|0.099
91011299|NCT02181634|181905734|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.54||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|3.71|||Log Rank|||||3.71|0.64|0.34
91011300|NCT04250558|181905742|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Kinetic parameters were assessed by Mann-Whitney U test in MATLAB Statistics and Machine Learning Toolbox. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis based on logistic regression was utilized, with one surgical condition versus the other two states as the binary dependent variable, and each perfusion-related kinetic parameter of Imax, IS and BF as the independent variable. Power analysis was performed to evaluate the statistical validity, using G\*Power software||||0.05
91011301|NCT02843282|181905782|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.69||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.040
91011302|NCT02843282|181905783|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.98||||0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.004
91011303|NCT02843282|181905784|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.001
91011304|NCT02843282|181905785|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.52||||0.039|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.039
91011305|NCT02843282|181905786|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.42||||0.092|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.092
91011306|NCT02843282|181905787|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.58||||0.052|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.052
91011307|NCT02843282|181905788|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.52||||0.121|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.121
91011308|NCT02843282|181905789|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.23||||0.019|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.019
91011309|NCT02843282|181905790|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.37||||0.278|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.278
91011310|NCT02843282|181905791|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|7.0||||0.095|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.095
91011311|NCT02843282|181905792|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.15|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Whole brain voxel-wise correlation analy|||||||< 0.01
91053571|NCT05472662|181990729|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was demonstrated if the 95% CI of the adjusted mean difference in relative change from baseline in FEV1 between HFA-152a and HFA-134a was within the equivalence limits \[-10% ; +10%\].|Adjusted mean difference|0.58||||0.483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.25|||ANCOVA|||"Statistical analysis performed on the data at 5 min post-dose timepoint.~Statistical analysis was performed by means of Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model including treatment group, subject, and period as fixed effects and FEV1 baseline as covariate."||2.25|-1.10|0.483
91011312|NCT02843282|181905793|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.22||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.001
91011313|NCT02843282|181905794|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.33||||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.007
91011314|NCT01091116|181905800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5263||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Tests of Fixed Effects for the primary efficacy variable including baseline treatment and visit (from Visit 3 to Visit 5) as covariates||||0.5263
91011315|NCT02155660|181905816|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.85||||0.0638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.01|||Negative binomial|Model includes treatment group, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, number of exacerbations in the previous year.||||1.01|0.71|0.0638
91011316|NCT02155660|181905816|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|1.04||||0.6575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.23|||Negative binomial|Model includes treatment group, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, number of exacerbations in the previous year.||||1.23|0.88|0.6575
91011317|NCT02155660|181905816|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.93||||0.3988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.1|||Negative binomial|Model includes treatment group, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, number of exacerbations in the previous year.||||1.10|0.78|0.3988
91011318|NCT02155660|181905817|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|1.04||||0.7564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.32|||Negative binomial|Model includes treatment group, region, background therapy, number of exacerbations in the previous year.||||1.32|0.82|0.7564
91011319|NCT02155660|181905817|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|1.08||||0.5573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.37|||Negative binomial|Model includes treatment group, region, background therapy, number of exacerbations in the previous year.||||1.37|0.84|0.5573
91011320|NCT02155660|181905817|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|1.02||||0.8644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.3|||Negative binomial|Model includes treatment group, region, background therapy, number of exacerbations in the previous year.||||1.30|0.80|0.8644
91011321|NCT02155660|181905818|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.015||||0.5043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.029|0.059|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment group, baseline FEV1 value, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||0.059|-0.029|0.5043
91011322|NCT02155660|181905818|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.007||||0.7691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.051|0.037|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment group, baseline FEV1 value, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||0.037|-0.051|0.7691
91011323|NCT02155660|181905818|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.3767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.024|0.064|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment group, baseline FEV1 value, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||0.064|-0.024|0.3767
91011324|NCT02155660|181905819|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.011||||0.3636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.192|1.171|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment group, baseline SGRQ score, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||1.171|-3.192|0.3636
91011325|NCT02155660|181905819|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.388||||0.2106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.562|0.786|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment group, baseline SGRQ score, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||0.786|-3.562|0.2106
91011326|NCT02155660|181905819|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.602||||0.5851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.763|1.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment group, baseline SGRQ score, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||1.560|-2.763|0.5851
91011327|NCT02155660|181905820|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.8525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment group, baseline CAT total score, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||0.99|-0.82|0.8525
91053572|NCT05472662|181990729|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was demonstrated if the 95% CI of the adjusted mean difference in relative change from baseline in FEV1 between HFA-152a and HFA-134a was within the equivalence limits \[-10% ; +10%\].|Adjusted mean difference|0.23||||0.782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|1.9|||ANCOVA|||"Statistical analysis performed on the data at 30 min post-dose timepoint.~Statistical analysis was performed by means of Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model including treatment group, subject, and period as fixed effects and FEV1 baseline as covariate."||1.90|-1.45|0.782
91053573|NCT05472662|181990729|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was demonstrated if the 95% CI of the adjusted mean difference in relative change from baseline in FEV1 between HFA-152a and HFA-134a was within the equivalence limits \[-10% ; +10%\].|Adjusted mean difference|-0.4||||0.599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.97|1.16|||ANCOVA|||"Statistical analysis performed on the data at 1 h post-dose timepoint.~Statistical analysis was performed by means of Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model including treatment group, subject, and period as fixed effects and FEV1 baseline as covariate."||1.16|-1.97|0.599
91053574|NCT05472662|181990729|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was demonstrated if the 95% CI of the adjusted mean difference in relative change from baseline in FEV1 between HFA-152a and HFA-134a was within the equivalence limits \[-10% ; +10%\].|Adjusted mean difference|-0.13||||0.815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|0.99|||ANCOVA|||"Statistical analysis performed on the data at 1.5 h post-dose timepoint.~Statistical analysis was performed by means of Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model including treatment group, subject, and period as fixed effects and FEV1 baseline as covariate."||0.99|-1.24|0.815
91053575|NCT05472662|181990729|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was demonstrated if the 95% CI of the adjusted mean difference in relative change from baseline in FEV1 between HFA-152a and HFA-134a was within the equivalence limits \[-10% ; +10%\].|Adjusted mean difference|-0.69||||0.294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.01|0.64|||ANCOVA|||"Statistical analysis performed on the data at 3 h post-dose timepoint.~Statistical analysis was performed by means of Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model including treatment group, subject, and period as fixed effects and FEV1 baseline as covariate."||0.64|-2.01|0.294
91053576|NCT05472662|181990730|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.015||||0.519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.032|0.061|||ANCOVA|||"Statistical analysis performed on the data at 5 min post-dose timepoint.~Statistical analysis was performed by means of Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model including treatment group, subject and period as fixed effects and FEV1 baseline as covariate."|Assess differences between treatment groups.|0.061|-0.032|0.519
90793003|NCT02732145|181466183|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Bartholin's Gland Opening in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR?||||||1|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Bartholin's Gland Opening in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR.||||1.0000
90793004|NCT02732145|181466183|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Vestibule in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR?||||||0.0078|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Vestibule in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR.||||0.0078
91053577|NCT05472662|181990730|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.061||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.009|0.13|||ANCOVA|||"Statistical analysis performed on the data at 15 min post-dose timepoint.~Statistical analysis was performed by means of Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model including treatment group, subject and period as fixed effects and FEV1 baseline as covariate."|Assess differences between treatment groups.|0.130|-0.009|0.085
91053578|NCT05472662|181990730|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.004||||0.858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.045|0.054|||ANCOVA|||"Statistical analysis performed on the data at 30 min post-dose timepoint.~Statistical analysis was performed by means of Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model including treatment group, subject and period as fixed effects and FEV1 baseline as covariate."|Assess differences between treatment groups.|0.054|-0.045|0.858
91053579|NCT05472662|181990730|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.011||||0.632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.058|0.036|||ANCOVA|||"Statistical analysis performed on the data at 1 h post-dose timepoint.~Statistical analysis was performed by means of Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model including treatment group, subject and period as fixed effects and FEV1 baseline as covariate."|Assess differences between treatment groups.|0.036|-0.058|0.632
91053580|NCT05472662|181990730|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.003||||0.846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.038|0.031|||ANCOVA|||"Statistical analysis performed on the data at 1.5 h post-dose timepoint.~Statistical analysis was performed by means of Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model including treatment group, subject and period as fixed effects and FEV1 baseline as covariate."|Assess differences between treatment groups.|0.031|-0.038|0.846
91053581|NCT05472662|181990730|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.024||||0.282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.068|0.021|||ANCOVA|||"Statistical analysis performed on the data at 3 h post-dose timepoint.~Statistical analysis was performed by means of Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model including treatment group, subject and period as fixed effects and FEV1 baseline as covariate."|Assess differences between treatment groups.|0.021|-0.068|0.282
91053582|NCT00790335|181990748|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.96||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.11|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for extent of DVT and for clinical center|Numerator: PCDT Arm; Denominator: Control Arm. Primary outcome = no statistically significant difference between the two arms.|||1.11|0.82|0.56
90793005|NCT02732145|181466183|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line versus Urethral Sulcus in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR?||||||0.6862|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line versus Urethral Sulcus in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR.||||0.6862
90793006|NCT02732145|181466183|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line versus Urethral Meatus in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR?||||||0.0563|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line versus Urethral Meatus in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR.||||0.0563
91053583|NCT00790335|181990749|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.58||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.98|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted by extent of thrombus and clinical center|Numerator: PCDT Arm; Denominator: Control Arm. No statistically significant difference was seen.|||1.98|0.17|0.38
91053584|NCT00790335|181990750|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.94||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for thrombus extent and clinical center|No statistically significant difference was seen.|||1.09|0.80|0.39
91053585|NCT00790335|181990751|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.73||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.98|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted by extent of DVT and clinical center|Numerator: PCDT Arm; Denominator: Control Arm|||0.98|0.54|0.04
90793007|NCT02732145|181466183|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line versus Hymenal Remnants in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR?||||||0.0563|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line versus Hymenal Remnants in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR.||||0.0563
91053586|NCT00790335|181990752|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|6.18||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|49.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Numerator: PCDT Arm; Denominator: Control Arm. More major bleeding was observed in the PCDT Arm.|||49.2|0.78|0.049
91053587|NCT00790335|181990753|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.52||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|3.01|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Numerator: PCDT Arm; Denominator: Control Arm|||3.01|0.76|0.23
91053588|NCT00790335|181990754|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.64||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|6.68|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Numerator = PCDT Arm; Denominator = Control Arm. Bleeding was more frequent in the PCDT Arm.|||6.68|1.04|0.03
91053589|NCT00790335|181990755|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.26||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.89|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Numerator: PCDT Arm; Denominator: Control Arm|||1.89|0.85|0.25
91053590|NCT00790335|181990756|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.53||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|5.28|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Numerator = PCDT Arm; Denominator = Control Arm|||5.28|0.44|0.50
91053591|NCT00790335|181990757|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.47||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|2.29|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Numerator: PCDT Arm; Denominator: Control Arm|||2.29|0.94|0.09
90793008|NCT02732145|181466183|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line versus Bartholin's Gland Opening in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR?||||||0.1692|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line versus Bartholin's Gland Opening in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR.||||0.1692
91053592|NCT00790335|181990759|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.89||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|2.44|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.44|0.33|0.83
91053593|NCT00790335|181990760|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Piecewise linear-regression growth-curve models with adjustment for extent of DVT, clinical center) and pre-specified baseline co-variates|Lower (better) mean scores in the PCDT Arm|||||< 0.001
91053594|NCT00790335|181990761|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Piecewise linear-regression growth-curve models with adjustment for extent of DVT, clinical center) and pre-specified baseline co-variates|Lower (better) mean scores in the PCDT Arm|||||< 0.001
91053595|NCT00790335|181990762|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Piecewise linear-regression growth-curve models with adjustment for extent of DVT, clinical center) and pre-specified baseline co-variates|Lower (better) mean scores in the PCDT Arm|||||< 0.001
91053596|NCT00790335|181990763|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Piecewise linear-regression growth-curve models with adjustment for extent of DVT, clinical center) and pre-specified baseline co-variates|Lower (better) mean scores in the PCDT Arm|||||0.005
91053597|NCT00790335|181990764|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Piecewise linear-regression growth-curve models with adjustment for extent of DVT, clinical center) and pre-specified baseline co-variates|Lower (better) mean scores in the PCDT Arm|||||< 0.001
91053598|NCT00790335|181990765|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Piecewise linear-regression growth-curve models with adjustment for extent of DVT, clinical center) and pre-specified baseline co-variates|Lower (better) mean scores in the PCDT Arm|||||0.01
91053599|NCT00790335|181990766|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Piecewise linear-regression growth-curve models with adjustment for extent of DVT, clinical center) and pre-specified baseline co-variates|Lower (better) mean scores in the PCDT Arm|||||< 0.001
91053600|NCT00790335|181990767|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Piecewise linear-regression growth-curve models with adjustment for extent of DVT, clinical center) and pre-specified baseline co-variates|Lower (better) mean scores in the PCDT Arm|||||0.03
91053601|NCT00790335|181990768|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26||0.37|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted by extent of thrombus and clinical center|No significant difference was seen in the degree of change from baseline to 24 months between the two treatment arms.|||||0.37
91053602|NCT00790335|181990769|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16||0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted by extent of thrombus and clinical center|No difference was observed in the degree of change from baseline to 24 months in the two treatment groups.|||||0.99
91053603|NCT00790335|181990770|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.39||0.08|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted by extent of thrombus and clinical center|No significant difference in the change from baseline to 24 months between the two treatment arms.|||||0.08
91053604|NCT00790335|181990771|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted by extent of thrombus and clinical center||||||0.02
91053605|NCT00790335|181990772|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted by extent of thrombus and clinical center||||||0.03
91053606|NCT00790335|181990773|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted by extent of thrombus and clinical center||||||0.02
91053607|NCT00790335|181990774|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted by extent of thrombus and clinical center||||||0.05
90793009|NCT02732145|181466183|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line versus Vestibule in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR?||||||0.1822|||||||t|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line versus Vestibule in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR.||||0.1822
90793010|NCT02732145|181466183|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Urethral Sulcus versus Urethral Meatus in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR?||||||0.022|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Urethral Sulcus versus Urethral Meatus in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR.||||0.0220
91011328|NCT02155660|181905820|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment group, baseline CAT total score, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||0.89|-0.91|0.9870
91011329|NCT02155660|181905820|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.8204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment group, baseline CAT total score, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||0.79|-1.00|0.8204
91011330|NCT02155660|181905821|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.2636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.102|0.301|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment group, baseline total score, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||0.301|-1.102|0.2636
91011331|NCT02155660|181905821|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.296||||0.4087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.998|0.406|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment group, baseline total score, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||0.406|-0.998|0.4087
91011332|NCT02155660|181905821|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.425||||0.2336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.125|0.275|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment group, baseline total score, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||0.275|-1.125|0.2336
91011333|NCT02155660|181905822|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.642||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.029|-0.254|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment group, baseline rescue med. use, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||-0.254|-1.029|0.0012
91011334|NCT02155660|181905822|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0.0852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.727|0.047|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment group, baseline rescue med. use, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||0.047|-0.727|0.0852
91011335|NCT02155660|181905822|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.364||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.023|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment group, baseline rescue med. use, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||0.023|-0.750|0.0650
90793011|NCT02732145|181466183|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Urethral Sulcus versus Hymenal Remnants in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR?||||||0.022|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Urethral Sulcus versus Hymenal Remnants in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR.||||0.0220
91011336|NCT02155660|181905823|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.041||||0.0415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.081|-0.002|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment group, baseline prop. of nights awakens., EOS cohort, region, background therapy, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||-0.002|-0.081|0.0415
91011337|NCT02155660|181905823|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.055||||0.0069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.094|-0.015|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment group, baseline prop. of nights awakens., EOS cohort, region, background therapy, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||-0.015|-0.094|0.0069
91011338|NCT02155660|181905823|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.026||||0.2008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.065|0.014|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment group, baseline prop. of nights awakens., EOS cohort, region, background therapy, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||0.014|-0.065|0.2008
91011339|NCT02155660|181905827|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.98||||0.8158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.18|||Negative binomial|Model includes treatment group, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, number of exacerbations in the previous year.||||1.18|0.81|0.8158
91011340|NCT02155660|181905827|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.98||||0.8378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.18|||Negative binomial|Model includes treatment group, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, number of exacerbations in the previous year.||||1.18|0.82|0.8378
91011341|NCT02155660|181905827|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.92||||0.3759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.11|||Negative binomial|Model includes treatment group, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, number of exacerbations in the previous year.||||1.11|0.76|0.3759
90793012|NCT02732145|181466183|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hymenal Remnants versus Vestibule in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR?||||||0.022|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hymenal Remnants versus Vestibule in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR.||||0.0220
90793013|NCT02732145|181466183|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Bartholin's Gland Opening versus Vestibule in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR?||||||0.0078|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Bartholin's Gland Opening versus Vestibule in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR.||||0.0078
90793014|NCT02732145|181466184|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of hyperkeratosis in vulvar specimens of patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of the histopathological finding of hyperkeratosis in vulvar specimens of patients from different groups.||||0.0000
91011342|NCT02155660|181905828|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.9141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.36|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test controlling for EOS cohort, region, and background therapy.||Proportion of participants with \>=1 COPD exacerbation.||1.36|0.76|0.9141
91011343|NCT02155660|181905828|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.0323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.87|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test controlling for EOS cohort, region, and background therapy.||Proportion of participants with \>=1 COPD exacerbation.||1.87|1.03|0.0323
91011344|NCT02155660|181905828|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.5109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.48|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test controlling for EOS cohort, region, and background therapy.||Proportion of participants with \>=1 COPD exacerbation.||1.48|0.82|0.5109
91011345|NCT02155660|181905830|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.68||||0.0287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.96|||Negative binomial|Model includes treatment group, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, previous year exacerbations associated with hospitalization (Y/N).||||0.96|0.49|0.0287
91011346|NCT02155660|181905830|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.89||||0.4631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.22|||Negative binomial|Model includes treatment group, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, previous year exacerbations associated with hospitalization (Y/N).||||1.22|0.65|0.4631
91011347|NCT02155660|181905830|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.67||||0.0185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.94|||Negative binomial|Model includes treatment group, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, previous year exacerbations associated with hospitalization (Y/N).||||0.94|0.48|0.0185
91053608|NCT04420273|181990854|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||McNemar|McNemar's chi-square with continuity correction||1-month survey||||<0.001
91053609|NCT04420273|181990854|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||McNemar|McNemar's chi-square with continuity correction||2- months||||<0.001
91053610|NCT04420273|181990854|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||McNemar|McNemar's chi-square with continuity correction||3-months||||<0.001
91053611|NCT04420273|181990855|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91053612|NCT04420273|181990856|OTHER||||||<|0.1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||< 0.1
91053613|NCT04420273|181990857|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91053614|NCT04420273|181990858|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91053615|NCT04420273|181990859|OTHER|||||||0.459|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.459
91053616|NCT04420273|181990859|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91053617|NCT04420273|181990860|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91053618|NCT04558918|181990871|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|338.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.07|4564.14||two sided unadjusted p-value|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model using Firth||||4564.14|25.07|<0.0001
91053619|NCT04558918|181990871|SUPERIORITY||Difference in marginal proportion|80.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.2|87.6||||||||87.6|71.2|
91053620|NCT04558918|181990872|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|495.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.41|10066.53||two sided unadjusted p-value|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model using Firth||||10066.53|24.41|<0.0001
90793015|NCT02732145|181466184|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of parakeratosis in vulvar specimens of patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of the histopathological finding of parakeratosis in vulvar specimens of patients from different groups.||||0.0000
90793016|NCT02732145|181466184|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of acanthosis in vulvar specimens of patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of the histopathological finding of acanthosis in vulvar specimens of patients from different groups.||||0.0000
91053621|NCT04558918|181990872|SUPERIORITY||Diff. in marginal proportion|67.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.4|76.9||||||||76.9|56.4|
91053622|NCT04558918|181990875|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.51||||||||0.51|-0.53|
91053623|NCT04558918|181990876|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.01|1.68||||||||1.68|-4.01|
91053624|NCT04558918|181990877|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|108.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.25|681.24||two sided unadjusted p-value|Conditional logistic regression|||||681.24|17.25|<0.0001
91053625|NCT04558918|181990877|SUPERIORITY||Diff. in marginal proportion|68.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.4|83.9||||||logistic regression model||83.9|51.4|
91053626|NCT04558918|181990878|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean diff.|3.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|4.12||two sided unadjusted p-value|Mixed Model of Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||4.12|3.20|<0.0001
91053627|NCT04558918|181990879|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|8.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.28|11.29||two sided unadjusted p-value|Mixed Model of Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||11.29|5.28|<0.0001
91053628|NCT04558918|181990880|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-116.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-132.04|-100.26||two sided unadjusted p-value|Mixed Model of Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||-100.26|-132.04|<0.0001
91053629|NCT04558918|181990881|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.99||||0.8361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.1||two sided unadjusted p-value|Mixed Model of Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||1.10|0.89|0.8361
91053630|NCT04558918|181990882|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.1||||0.01183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.61||two sided unadjusted p-value|Negative binomial model|||||0.61|0.02|0.01183
91053631|NCT04558918|181990882|SUPERIORITY||Rate difference|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|0.04||||||||0.04|-1.24|
91053632|NCT04558918|181990883|SUPERIORITY||rate difference|0.03||||0.31731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.1||two sided unadjusted p-value|Poisson model|||||0.10|-0.03|0.31731
91053633|NCT04558918|181990884|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|1.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.86|20.23||||||||20.23|-16.86|
91053634|NCT04558918|181990885|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.3||||||||1.30|0.97|
91053635|NCT02256436|181990888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.41648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.19||One-sided p-value based on stratified log-rank test|Regression, Cox|Treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG PS, presence/absence of liver metastases, hemoglobin and time from completion of most recent chemotherapy||PFS - All Participants||1.19|0.81|0.41648
91053636|NCT02256436|181990889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.00224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.91||One-sided p-value based on stratified log-rank test|Regression, Cox|Treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG PS, presence/absence of liver metastases, hemoglobin and time from completion of most recent chemotherapy||OS - All Participants (Note: ECOG PS=Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status)||0.91|0.59|0.00224
91053637|NCT02256436|181990890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.26443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.24||One-sided p-value based on stratified log-rank test|Regression, Cox|Treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG PS, presence/absence of liver metastases, hemoglobin and time from completion of most recent chemotherapy||PFS - PD-L1 positive participants||1.24|0.68|0.26443
91053638|NCT02256436|181990891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61||||0.00239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.86||One-sided p-value based on stratified log-rank test|Regression, Cox|Treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG PS, presence/absence of liver metastases, hemoglobin and time from completion of most recent chemotherapy||OS - PD-L1 positive participants||0.86|0.43|0.00239
91053639|NCT02256436|181990892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.23958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.28||One-sided p-value based on stratified log-rank test|Regression, Cox|Treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG PS, presence/absence of liver metastases, hemoglobin and time from completion of most recent chemotherapy||PFS - Strongly PD-L1 positive participants||1.28|0.61|0.23958
91053640|NCT02256436|181990893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57||||0.00483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.88||One-sided p-value based on stratified log-rank test|Regression, Cox|Treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG PS, presence/absence of liver metastases, hemoglobin and time from completion of most recent chemotherapy||OS - Strongly PD-L1 positive participants||0.88|0.37|0.00483
91053641|NCT02256436|181990896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages|17.2||||0.00061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|29.4||One-sided p-value for testing H0: difference in %=0; H1: difference in %\>0|Miettinen & Nurminen method|Treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG PS, presence/absence of liver metastases, hemoglobin and time from completion of most recent chemotherapy||ORR per RECIST 1.1 - Strongly PD-L1 Positive Participants||29.4|6.8|0.00061
91053642|NCT02256436|181990897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages|15.6||||0.00049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|25.7||One-sided p-value for testing H0: difference in %=0; H1: difference in %\>0|Miettinen & Nurminen method|Treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG PS, presence/absence of liver metastases, hemoglobin and time from completion of most recent chemotherapy||ORR per RECIST 1.1 - PD-L1 Positive Participants||25.7|6.5|0.00049
91053643|NCT02256436|181990898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages|10.0||||0.00068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|16.2||One-sided p-value for testing H0: difference in %=0; H1: difference in %\>0|Miettinen & Nurminen method|Treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG PS, presence/absence of liver metastases, hemoglobin and time from completion of most recent chemotherapy||ORR per RECIST 1.1 - All Participants||16.2|3.9|0.00068
91053644|NCT02256436|181990899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.07066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.11||One-sided p-value based on stratified log-rank test|Regression, Cox|Treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG PS, presence/absence of liver metastases, hemoglobin and time from completion of most recent chemotherapy||PFS per mRECIST - Strongly PD-L1 Positive Participants||1.11|0.53|0.07066
91053645|NCT02256436|181990900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.08745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.1||One-sided p-value based on stratified log-rank test|Regression, Cox|Treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG PS, presence/absence of liver metastases, hemoglobin and time from completion of most recent chemotherapy||PFS per mRECIST - PD-L1 Positive Participants||1.10|0.60|0.08745
91053646|NCT02256436|181990901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.05328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.04||One-sided p-value based on stratified log-rank test|Regression, Cox|Treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG PS, presence/absence of liver metastases, hemoglobin and time from completion of most recent chemotherapy||PFS per mRECIST - All Participants||1.04|0.71|0.05328
91053647|NCT02256436|181990902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages|21.5||||9e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.1|34.2||One-sided p-value for testing H0: difference in %=0; H1: difference in %\>0|Miettinen & Nurminen method|Treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG PS, presence/absence of liver metastases, hemoglobin and time from completion of most recent chemotherapy||ORR per mRECIST - Strongly PD-L1 Positive Participants||34.2|10.1|0.00009
91053648|NCT02256436|181990903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages|21.0||||2e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.1|31.5||One-sided p-value for testing H0: difference in %=0; H1: difference in %\>0|Miettinen & Nurminen method|Treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG PS, presence/absence of liver metastases, hemoglobin and time from completion of most recent chemotherapy||ORR per mRECIST - PD-L1 Positive Participants||31.5|11.1|0.00002
91053649|NCT02256436|181990904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages|13.8||||1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|20.3||One-sided p-value for testing H0: difference in %=0; H1: difference in %\>0|Miettinen & Nurminen method|Treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG PS, presence/absence of liver metastases, hemoglobin and time from completion of most recent chemotherapy||ORR per mRECIST - All Participants||20.3|7.4|0.00001
91053650|NCT01394952|181990910|SUPERIORITY|"Superiority was declared if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95.33% confidence interval (CI) of the hazard ratio was below 1.0 (after adjustment for the interim analysis).~Once superiority was achieved for the primary endpoint, multiplicity adjustments using the graphical approach were performed for secondary efficacy endpoints in order to control the overall Type I error rate at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.0467."|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.33|0.79|0.99|||Regression, Cox|||Primary CV endpoint||0.99|0.79|0.026
91053651|NCT01394952|181990911|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity adjustments using the graphical approach were performed for secondary efficacy endpoints in order to control the overall Type I error rate at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.0467.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.06|||Regression, Cox|||Death from CV causes||1.06|0.78|0.211
91053652|NCT01394952|181990911|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity adjustments using the graphical approach were performed for secondary efficacy endpoints in order to control the overall Type I error rate at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.0467.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.652|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.16|||Regression, Cox|||Nonfatal MI||1.16|0.79|0.652
91053653|NCT01394952|181990911|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity adjustments using the graphical approach were performed for secondary efficacy endpoints in order to control the overall Type I error rate at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.0467.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.95|||Regression, Cox|||Nonfatal stroke||0.95|0.61|0.017
91053654|NCT01394952|181990912|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity adjustments using the graphical approach were performed for secondary efficacy endpoints in order to control the overall Type I error rate at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.0467.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.01|||Regression, Cox|||Time to all cause mortality||1.01|0.80|0.067
91053655|NCT01394952|181990913|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity adjustments using the graphical approach were performed for secondary efficacy endpoints in order to control the overall Type I error rate at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.0467.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.93|||Regression, Cox|||microvascular endpoint||0.93|0.79|<0.001
91053656|NCT01394952|181990914|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity adjustments using the graphical approach were performed for secondary efficacy endpoints in order to control the overall Type I error rate at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.0467.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.12|||Regression, Cox|||Heart failure requiring hospitalization or an urgent heart failure clinic visit||1.12|0.77|0.456
91053657|NCT01394952|181990915|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity adjustments using the graphical approach were performed for secondary efficacy endpoints in order to control the overall Type I error rate at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.0467.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.54|||Regression, Cox|||Hospitalization for unstable angina||1.54|0.84|0.413
91053658|NCT01986010|181990923|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.6||||||GMT Ratio: GMT V160/GMT placebo||2.6|0.8|
91053659|NCT01986010|181990923|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|3.2||||||GMT Ratio: GMT V160/GMT placebo||3.2|1.1|
91053660|NCT01986010|181990923|OTHER||GMT Ratio|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|7.4||||||GMT Ratio: GMT V160/GMT placebo||7.4|1.6|
91053661|NCT01986010|181990923|OTHER||GMT Ratio|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|4.6||||||GMT Ratio: GMT V160/GMT placebo||4.6|1.4|
91053662|NCT01986010|181990923|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|3.0||||||GMT Ratio: GMT V160/GMT placebo||3.0|0.9|
91053663|NCT01986010|181990923|OTHER||GMT Ratio|3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|7.0||||||GMT Ratio: GMT V160/GMT placebo||7.0|2.2|
91053664|NCT01986010|181990923|OTHER||GMT Ratio|16.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.5|28.4||Hypothesis is GMT Ratio \>1|Two sample t-test|||GMT Ratio: GMT V160/GMT placebo||28.4|9.5|<0.001
90793017|NCT02732145|181466184|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of epidermal atrophy in vulvar specimens of patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of the histopathological finding of epidermal atrophy in vulvar specimens of patients from different groups.||||0.0000
90793018|NCT02732145|181466184|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of inflammatory infiltrates in vulvar specimens of patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of the histopathological finding of inflammatory infiltrates in vulvar specimens of patients from different groups.||||0.0000
90793019|NCT02732145|181466184|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of mononuclear inflammatory infiltrates in vulvar specimens of patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of the histopathological finding of mononuclear inflammatory infiltrates in vulvar specimens of patients from different groups.||||0.0000
90793020|NCT02732145|181466184|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of lymphocytes in vulvar specimens of patients from different groups?||||||0.0105|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of the histopathological finding of lymphocytes (infiltrates) in vulvar specimens of patients from different groups.||||0.0105
90793021|NCT02732145|181466184|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of mastocytes in vulvar specimens of patients from different groups?||||||0.0064|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of the histopathological finding of mastocytes in vulvar specimens of patients from different groups.||||0.0064
90793022|NCT02732145|181466184|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of collagen fibers in vulvar specimens of patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of the histopathological finding of collagen fibers in vulvar specimens of patients from different groups.||||0.0000
90793023|NCT02732145|181466184|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of hyalinization in vulvar specimens of patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of the histopathological finding of hyalinization in vulvar specimens of patients from different groups.||||0.0000
91011348|NCT02087085|181905842|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3589|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1804||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7132|-0.0047||MMRM model included treatment group, study region, analysis visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors and baseline value and baseline value-by-analysis visit interaction as covariates.|MMRM|||||-0.0047|-0.7132|0.047
91011349|NCT02087085|181905843|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|1.5||MMRM model included treatment group, study region, analysis visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors and baseline value and baseline value-by-analysis visit interaction as covariates.|MMRM|||||1.5|-3.9|0.390
91011350|NCT02087085|181905844|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|1.3||MMRM model included treatment group, study region, analysis visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors and baseline value and baseline value-by-analysis visit interaction as covariates.|MMRM|||||1.3|-4.2|0.301
91011351|NCT01425268|181905872|NON_INFERIORITY|Assuming that the success rate for both expanders was 95%, at least 92 breasts implanted with a AeroForm Tissue Expander and 46 breasts implanted with a saline expander were needed to be 80% confident (i.e., have a statistical power of 80%) that the lower bound of the one-sided 95% Confidence Interval for the difference in the Success rates (πTreatment - πControl) was greater than or equal to -10%.|margin of non-inferiority|-7.3|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|-7.3241||||||The Treatment Success Rate per breast is 96.1% (149/155) for AeroForm and 98.8% (82/83) for saline.The difference (AeroForm - saline) is -2.7% with a lower confidence limit of -7.3%, meeting the non-inferiority margin of \> -10%.|The study was powered to show that the Treatment Success rate for the AeroForm System (πTreatment) was not worse than the rate for the saline expander (πControl) by more than 10% (-0.10 \< πTreatment - πControl).|||-7.3241|
91011352|NCT01425268|181905873|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Kaplan-Meier Log Rank test|Subjects not completing tissue expansion are censored in the analysis||||||<0.0001
91011353|NCT02681094|181905879|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.24|-0.55|<0.0001
90793024|NCT02732145|181466184|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of hyperpigmentation in vulvar specimens of patients from different groups?||||||0.0342|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of the histopathological finding of hyperpigmentation in vulvar specimens of patients from different groups.||||0.0342
90793025|NCT02732145|181466184|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of elongated dermal papillae in vulvar specimens of patients from different groups?||||||0.0148|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of the histopathological finding of elongated dermal papillae in vulvar specimens of patients from different groups.||||0.0148
90793026|NCT02732145|181466184|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of blood vessels in vulvar specimens of patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of the histopathological finding of blood vessels in vulvar specimens of patients from different groups.||||0.0000
90793027|NCT02732145|181466184|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of sebaceous glands in vulvar specimens of patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of the histopathological finding of sebaceous glands in vulvar specimens of patients from different groups.||||0.0000
90793028|NCT02732145|181466184|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of nerve fibers in vulvar specimens of patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of the histopathological finding of nerve fibers in vulvar specimens of patients from different groups.||||0.0000
91011354|NCT02681094|181905879|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.19|-0.50|<0.0001
91011355|NCT02681094|181905880|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|19.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.7|26.9|||Method of Zhang, Tsiatis, and Davidian|||||26.9|12.7|<0.0001
91011356|NCT02681094|181905880|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.7||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|19.1|||Method of Zhang, Tsiatis, and Davidian|||||19.1|4.4|0.0018
91011357|NCT02681094|181905881|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-7.58||||0.0135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.59|-1.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.57|-13.59|0.0135
91011358|NCT02681094|181905881|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-14.88|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.85|-8.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.91|-20.85|<0.0001
90793029|NCT02732145|181466185|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar complaints depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar complaints depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0000
90793030|NCT02732145|181466185|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of symptoms of the dull pain of the vulva on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of symptoms of the dull (slow) pain of the vulva (burning, stinging, soreness, irritation, itching, inflammation, aching) depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||1.0000
91011359|NCT02681094|181905882|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|-1.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.09|-2.11|<0.0001
91011360|NCT01072175|181905883|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Cmax of dabrafenib was log e transformed and analyzed by a linear mixed effect model with fixed effect for treatment (dabrafenib alone and combined with trametinib) and participant as a random effect. Geometric mean ratio (Day 15/Day 1) and 90% confidence interval were provided.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.79|1.34|||||Geometric mean ratio (Day 15 Cmax/Day 1 Cmax) and 90% confidence interval for dabrafenib were calculated.|||1.34|0.79|
91011361|NCT01072175|181905883|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Cmax of GSK2285403 was log e transformed and analyzed by a linear mixed effect model with fixed effect for treatment (dabrafenib alone and combined with trametinib) and participant as a random effect. Geometric mean ratio (Day 15/Day 1) and 90% confidence interval were provided.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.78|1.25|||||Geometric mean ratio (Day 15 Cmax/Day 1 Cmax) and 90% confidence interval for GSK2285403 were calculated.|||1.25|0.78|
91011362|NCT01072175|181905883|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Cmax of GSK2298683 was log e transformed and analyzed by a linear mixed effect model with fixed effect for treatment (dabrafenib alone and combined with trametinib) and participant as a random effect. Geometric mean ratio (Day 15/Day 1) and 90% confidence interval were provided.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|1.27|||||Geometric mean ratio (Day 15 Cmax/Day 1 Cmax) and 90% confidence interval for GSK2298683 were calculated.|||1.27|0.84|
91011363|NCT01072175|181905883|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Cmax of GSK2167542 was log e transformed and analyzed by a linear mixed effect model with fixed effect for treatment (dabrafenib alone and combined with trametinib) and participant as a random effect. Geometric mean ratio (Day 15/Day 1) and 90% confidence interval were provided.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.66|1.45|||||Geometric mean ratio (Day 15 Cmax/Day 1 Cmax) and 90% confidence interval for GSK2167542 were calculated.|||1.45|0.66|
91011364|NCT01072175|181905884|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|AUC(0-t) of dabrafenib was log e transformed and analyzed by a linear mixed effect model with fixed effect for treatment (dabrafenib alone and combined with trametinib) and participant as a random effect. Geometric mean ratio (Day 15/Day 1) and 90% confidence interval were provided.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|1.19|||||Geometric mean ratio (Day 15 AUC(0-inf)/ Day 1 AUC(0-inf)) and 90% confidence interval for dabrafenib were calculated.|||1.19|0.85|
91011365|NCT01072175|181905884|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|AUC(0-inf) of dabrafenib was log e transformed and analyzed by a linear mixed effect model with fixed effect for treatment (dabrafenib alone and combined with trametinib) and participant as a random effect. Geometric mean ratio (Day 15/Day 1) and 90% confidence interval were provided.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.82|1.08|||||Geometric mean ratio (Day 15 AUC(0-inf)/ Day 1 AUC(0-inf)) and 90% confidence interval for dabrafenib were calculated.|||1.08|0.82|
91011366|NCT01072175|181905884|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|AUC(0-t) of GSK2285403 was log e transformed and analyzed by a linear mixed effect model with fixed effect for treatment (dabrafenib alone and combined with trametinib) and participant as a random effect. Geometric mean ratio (Day 15/Day 1) and 90% confidence interval were provided.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|1.25|||||Geometric mean ratio (Day 15 AUC(0-t)/ Day 1 AUC(0-t)) and 90% confidence interval for GSK2285403 were calculated.|||1.25|0.84|
91011367|NCT01072175|181905884|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|AUC(0-inf) of GSK2285403 was log e transformed and analyzed by a linear mixed effect model with fixed effect for treatment (dabrafenib alone and combined with trametinib) and participant as a random effect. Geometric mean ratio (Day 15/Day 1) and 90% confidence interval were provided.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|1.03|||||Geometric mean ratio (Day 15 AUC(0-inf)/ Day 1 AUC(0-inf)) and 90% confidence interval for GSK2285403 were calculated.|||1.03|0.81|
91011368|NCT01072175|181905884|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|AUC(0-t) of GSK2298683 was log e transformed and analyzed by a linear mixed effect model with fixed effect for treatment (dabrafenib alone and combined with trametinib) and participant as a random effect. Geometric mean ratio (Day 15/Day 1) and 90% confidence interval were provided.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|1.29|||||Geometric mean ratio (Day 15 AUC(0-t)/ Day 1 AUC(0-t)) and 90% confidence interval for GSK2298683 were calculated.|||1.29|0.81|
90793031|NCT02732145|181466185|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar burning depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.3533|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The incidence of vulvar burning depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.3533
90793032|NCT02732145|181466185|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar stinging depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.5641|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The incidence of vulvar stinging depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.5641
91011369|NCT01072175|181905884|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|AUC(0-t) of GSK2167542 was log e transformed and analyzed by a linear mixed effect model with fixed effect for treatment (dabrafenib alone and combined with trametinib) and participant as a random effect. Geometric mean ratio (Day 15/Day 1) and 90% confidence interval were provided.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.76|1.37|||||Geometric mean ratio (Day 15 AUC(0-t)/ Day 1 AUC(0-t)) and 90% confidence interval for GSK2167542 were calculated.|||1.37|0.76|
91053665|NCT01986010|181990923|OTHER||GMT Ratio|76.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.5|118.6||Hypothesis is GMT Ratio \>1|Two sample t-test|||GMT Ratio: GMT V160/GMT placebo||118.6|49.5|<0.001
91053666|NCT01986010|181990923|OTHER||GMT Ratio|68.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.1|115.6||Hypothesis is GMT Ratio \>1|Two sample t-test|||GMT Ratio: GMT V160/GMT placebo||115.6|40.1|<0.001
90793033|NCT02732145|181466185|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar soreness depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.9684|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The incidence of vulvar soreness depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.9684
90793034|NCT02732145|181466185|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar irritation depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.8599|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The incidence of vulvar irritation depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.8599
90793035|NCT02732145|181466185|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar itching depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.9402|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The incidence of vulvar itching depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.9402
90793036|NCT02732145|181466185|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of the feeling of vulvar inflammation depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.8389|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The incidence of the feeling of vulvar inflammation depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.8389
90793037|NCT02732145|181466185|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar aching depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.7617|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The incidence of vulvar aching depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.7617
90793038|NCT02732145|181466185|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of the sharp pain of the vulva depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.4613|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of the sharp (fast) pain of the vulva (knife-like pain, paper-cuts pain, stabbing, sticking) depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.4613
91011370|NCT01072175|181905891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unconditional exact method|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.1|15.9||||||Difference in response rate Arm2 - Arm1||15.9|-23.1|
91011371|NCT01072175|181905891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unconditional exact method|22.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|40.7||||||Difference in response rate Arm3 - Arm1||40.7|2.5|
90793039|NCT02732145|181466185|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar knife-like pain depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.0331|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Parameter: The incidence of the vulvar knife-like pain depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0331
90793040|NCT02732145|181466185|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar paper-cuts pain depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.9402|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The incidence of the vulvar paper-cuts pain depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.9402
91011372|NCT01072175|181905892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unconditional exact method|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.9|14.1||||||Difference in response rate Arm2- Arm1||14.1|-24.9|
91011373|NCT01072175|181905892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unconditional exact method|15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|33.7||||||Difference in response rate Arm3 - Arm1||33.7|-4.9|
91011374|NCT01072175|181905893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response rate|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.1|26.8||||||||26.8|5.1|
90793041|NCT02732145|181466185|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar pain like stabbing depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.9139|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The incidence of vulvar pain like stabbing depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.9139
90793042|NCT02732145|181466185|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar pain like sticking depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.8925|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The incidence of the vulvar pain like sticking depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.8925
90793043|NCT02732145|181466186|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar complaints depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvodynia?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar complaints depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvodynia.||||0.0000
91011375|NCT01072175|181905894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.87|||Log Rank||HRs were estimated using the Pike estimator.|||0.87|0.38|0.0048
91011376|NCT01072175|181905894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.68|||Log Rank||HRs were estimated using the Pike estimator.|||0.68|0.29|<0.0001
91011377|NCT01072175|181905896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.1667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.18|||Log Rank||HRs were estimated using the Pike estimator.|||1.18|0.45|0.1667
91011378|NCT01072175|181905896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54||||0.0119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.9|||Log Rank||HRs were estimated using the Pike estimator.|||0.90|0.32|0.0119
91011379|NCT01072175|181905904|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Following loge tranformation, Cmax of dabrafenib after repeat doses from the pooled data in Part B and D were analyzed by a linear model with the following fixed effects as categorical variables: Capsule type (Gelatin or HPMC), BRAF dose (75 or 150 mg BID), Capsule type by BRAF dose interaction, Day (Day 15 or 21), MEK dose (0, 1, 1.5 or 2 mg QD). Geometric mean ratio (HPMC/Gelatin) and the corresponding 90% CI were provided for BRAF dose level 150 mg BID.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1|2.08|||||Geometric mean ratio (HPMC/Gelatin) and the corresponding 90% CI were provided for BRAF dose level 150 mg BID.|||2.08|1.10|
91053667|NCT01986010|181990923|OTHER||GMT Ratio|41.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.8|70.7||Hypothesis is GMT Ratio \>1|Two sample t-test|||GMT Ratio: GMT V160/GMT placebo||70.7|23.8|<0.001
91053668|NCT01986010|181990923|OTHER||GMT Ratio|128.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|87.0|190.3||Hypothesis is GMT Ratio \>1|Two sample t-test|||GMT Ratio: GMT V160/GMT placebo||190.3|87.0|<0.001
91011380|NCT01072175|181905906|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Following loge transformation, AUC(0-tau) of dabrafenib was analyzed by a linear mixed effect model with dosing chort and day as fixed effects and subject as random effect. Based on the model, geometric mean ratio (Day 21 Dabrafenib 150 mg BID+Trametinib 2 mg QD/Day 21 Dabrafenib 150 mg BID alone) and the corresponding 90% confidence interval were provided.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.89|1.69|||||Geometric mean ratio (Day 21 Dabrafenib 150 mg BID+Trametinib 2 mg QD/Day 21 Dabrafenib 150 mg BID alone) and the corresponding 90% confidence interval were provided.|||1.69|0.89|
90793044|NCT02732145|181466186|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of symptoms of the dull pain depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvodynia?||||||0.6921|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of symptoms of the dull (slow) pain depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvodynia.||||0.6921
90793045|NCT02732145|181466186|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar burning on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvodynia?||||||0.1848|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The incidence of vulvar burning depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvodynia.||||0.1848
90793046|NCT02732145|181466186|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar stinging depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvodynia?||||||0.9048|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The incidence of vulvar stinging depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvodynia.||||0.9048
90793047|NCT02732145|181466186|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar soreness depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvodynia?||||||0.3953|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The incidence of vulvar soreness depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvodynia.||||0.3953
90793048|NCT02732145|181466186|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar irritation depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvodynia?||||||0.0921|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The incidence of vulvar irritation depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvodynia.||||0.0921
91011381|NCT01072175|181905906|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Following loge tranformation, AUC(0-tau) of dabrafenib after repeat doses from the pooled data in Part B and D were analyzed by a linear model with the following fixed effects as categorical variables: Capsule type (Gelatin or HPMC), BRAF dose (75 or 150 mg BID), Capsule type by BRAF dose interaction, Day (Day 15 or 21), MEK dose (0, 1, 1.5, 2 or 2 mg QD). Geometric mean ratio (HPMC/Gelatin) and the corresponding 90% CI were then provided for BRAF dose level 150 mg BID.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|1.44|||||Geometric mean ratio (HPMC/Gelatin) and the corresponding 90% CI were provided for BRAF dose level 150 mg BID.|||1.44|0.84|
91011382|NCT02839330|181905940|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin: The 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of all the 3 pairwise comparisons of GMTs to fall between the predefined equivalence ranges of 0.667 and 1.5|GMT ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.13||||||aH5N1c Lot #1 vs. aH5N1c Lot #2||1.13|0.90|
91011383|NCT02839330|181905940|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin: The 2-sided 95% CIs of all the 3 pairwise comparisons of GMTs to fall between the predefined equivalence ranges of 0.667 and 1.5|GMT ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.08||||||aH5N1c Lot #2 vs. aH5N1c Lot #3||1.08|0.86|
90793049|NCT02732145|181466186|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar itching depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvodynia?||||||0.6734|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The incidence of vulvar itching depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvodynia.||||0.6734
90793050|NCT02732145|181466186|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of the feeling of vulvar inflammation depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvodynia?||||||0.3458|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The incidence of the feeling of vulvar inflammation depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvodynia.||||0.3458
90793051|NCT02732145|181466186|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar aching depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvodynia?||||||0.5304|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The incidence of vulvar aching depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvodynia.||||0.5304
91011384|NCT02839330|181905940|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin: The 2-sided 95% CIs of all the 3 pairwise comparisons of GMTs to fall between the predefined equivalence ranges of 0.667 and 1.5|GMT ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.09||||||aH5N1c Lot #1 vs. aH5N1c Lot #3||1.09|0.87|
91011385|NCT00218439|181905955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91011386|NCT00218439|181905956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.006|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.006
90793052|NCT02732145|181466186|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of symptoms of the sharp pain depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvodynia?||||||0.0012|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of symptoms of the sharp (fast) pain depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvodynia.||||0.0012
90793053|NCT02732145|181466186|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar knife-like pain depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvodynia?||||||0.0002|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The incidence of vulvar knife-like pain depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvodynia.||||0.0002
91011387|NCT00218439|181905957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.56|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.56
91011388|NCT00218439|181905958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.33|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.33
91011389|NCT00218439|181905959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.82|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.82
91053669|NCT01986010|181990923|OTHER||GMT Ratio|62.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.5|126.1||Hypothesis is GMT Ratio \>1|Two sample t-test|||GMT Ratio: GMT V160/GMT placebo||126.1|30.5|<0.001
91053670|NCT01986010|181990923|OTHER||GMT Ratio|63.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.9|124.6||Hypothesis is GMT Ratio \>1|Two sample t-test|||GMT Ratio: GMT V160/GMT placebo||124.6|31.9|<0.001
91053671|NCT02800213|181990944|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.280
90793054|NCT02732145|181466186|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar paper-cuts pain depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvodynia?||||||0.0218|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Parameter: The incidence of vulvar paper-cuts pain depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvodynia.||||0.0218
91053672|NCT01898650|181990979|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||no adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. the threshold for significance was set a priori at 0.05.|t-test, 1 sided|||Null hypothesis was that blood flow would be equivalent on the unaffected and affected sides.||||0.004
90793055|NCT02732145|181466186|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar pain like stabbing depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvodynia?||||||0.0297|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The incidence of vulvar pain like stabbing depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvodynia.||||0.0297
90793056|NCT02732145|181466186|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar pain like sticking depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvodynia?||||||0.6468|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The incidence of vulvar pain like sticking depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvodynia.||||0.6468
90793057|NCT02732145|181466187|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of the finding of inflammatory infiltrates in vulvar specimens from patients with vulvar dermatosis depending on the duration of vulvar discomfort for less or more than 24 months?||||||0.2045|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of the histopathological finding of inflammatory infiltrates in vulvar specimens from patients with vulvar dermatosis depending on the duration of vulvar discomfort.||||0.2045
90793058|NCT02732145|181466187|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of the finding of mononuclear inflammatory infiltrates in vulvar specimens from patients with vulvar dermatosis depending on the duration of vulvar discomfort for less or more than 24 months?||||||0.7469|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of the histopathological finding of mononuclear inflammatory infiltrates in vulvar specimens from patients with vulvar dermatosis depending on the duration of vulvar discomfort.||||0.7469
90793059|NCT02732145|181466187|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of the finding of lymphocytes in vulvar specimens from patients with vulvar dermatosis depending on the duration of vulvar discomfort for less or more than 24 months?||||||0.4271|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of the histopathological finding of lymphocytes in vulvar specimens from patients with vulvar dermatosis depending on the duration of vulvar discomfort.||||0.4271
90793060|NCT02732145|181466187|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of the finding of collagen fibers in vulvar specimens from patients with vulvar dermatosis depending on the duration of vulvar discomfort for less or more than 24 months?||||||0.3607|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of the histopathological finding of collagen fibers in vulvar specimens from patients with vulvar dermatosis depending on the duration of vulvar discomfort.||||0.3607
91053673|NCT02912650|181990981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|30.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.14|36.02|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference and 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) were based on LS Mean from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment, gender, baseline categorical pain severity rating (PSR) as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||36.02|24.14|<0.001
90793061|NCT02732145|181466187|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of the finding of hyalinization in vulvar specimens from patients with vulvar dermatosis depending on the duration of vulvar discomfort for less or more than 24 months?||||||0.8672|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of the histopathological finding of hyalinization in vulvar specimens from patients with vulvar dermatosis depending on the duration of vulvar discomfort.||||0.8672
90793062|NCT02732145|181466188|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of the finding of inflammatory infiltrates in vulvar specimens from patients with vulvodynia depending on the duration of vulvar discomfort for less or more than 24 months?||||||0.0045|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of the histopathological finding of inflammatory infiltrates in vulvar specimens from patients with vulvodynia depending on the duration of vulvar discomfort.||||0.0045
90793063|NCT02732145|181466188|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of the finding of mononuclear inflammatory infiltrates in vulvar specimens from patients with vulvodynia depending on the duration of vulvar discomfort for less or more than 24 months?||||||0.0032|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of the histopathological finding of mononuclear inflammatory infiltrates in vulvar specimens from patients with vulvodynia depending on the duration of vulvar discomfort.||||0.0032
90793064|NCT02732145|181466188|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of the finding of collagen fibers in vulvar specimens from patients with vulvodynia depending on the duration of vulvar discomfort for less or more than 24 months?||||||0.1067|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of the histopathological finding of collagen fibers in vulvar specimens from patients with vulvodynia depending on the duration of vulvar discomfort.||||0.1067
90793065|NCT02732145|181466188|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of inflammatory cells in vulvar specimens from patients with vulvodynia depending on the duration of vulvar discomfort for less or more than 24 months?||||||0.8672|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of the histopathological finding of hyalinization in vulvar specimens from patients with vulvodynia depending on the duration of vulvar discomfort.||||0.8672
90793066|NCT02732145|181466188|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of blood vessels in vulvar specimens from patients with vulvodynia depending on the duration of vulvar discomfort for less or more than 24 months?||||||0.0219|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of the histopathological finding of blood vessels in vulvar specimens from patients with vulvodynia depending on the duration of vulvar discomfort.||||0.0219
90793067|NCT02732145|181466188|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of sebaceous glands in vulvar specimens from patients with vulvodynia depending on the duration of vulvar discomfort for less or more than 24 months?||||||0.8213|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of the histopathological finding of sebaceous glands in vulvar specimens from patients with vulvodynia depending on the duration of vulvar discomfort.||||0.8213
90793068|NCT02732145|181466188|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of the finding of nerve fibers in vulvar specimens from patients with vulvodynia depending on the duration of vulvar discomfort for less or more than 24 months?||||||0.0613|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of the histopathological finding of nerve fibers in vulvar specimens from patients with vulvodynia depending on the duration of vulvar discomfort.||||0.0613
90793069|NCT04204902|181466199|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90 percentage Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.00 percentage - 125.00 percentage|Ratio of Geometric Least Square Mean|91.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.21|99.84||||||||99.84|83.21|
90793070|NCT04204902|181466200|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90 percentage Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.00 percentage - 125.00 percentage|Ratio of Geometric Least square Mean|90.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.99|99.61||||||||99.61|82.99|
90793071|NCT04204902|181466201|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90 percentage Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.00 percentage - 125.00 percentage|Ratio of Geometric Least Square Mean|104.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.17|115.0||||||||115.00|95.17|
90793072|NCT02412982|181466234|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.092|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.092
90793073|NCT00803049|181466260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.824||||0.2079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.602|1.128||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Log Rank||Placebo/Teriflunomide 7 mg vs. Teriflunomide 7 mg/7 mg|Analysis was performed using Log-rank test with treatment, EDSS strata at baseline and region as covariates. Estimation was performed using Cox proportional hazard model with treatment, EDSS strata at baseline and region as covariates.||1.128|0.602|0.2079
90793074|NCT00803049|181466260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.825||||0.3039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.591|1.152||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Log Rank||Placebo/Teriflunomide 14 mg vs.Teriflunomide 14 mg/14 mg|Analysis was performed using Log-rank test with treatment, EDSS strata at baseline and region as covariates. Estimation was performed using Cox proportional hazard model with treatment, EDSS strata at baseline and region as covariates.||1.152|0.591|0.3039
90793075|NCT00803049|181466260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.963||||0.8271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.736|1.26||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Log Rank||Teriflunomide 7 mg/7 mg vs. Teriflunomide 14 mg/14 mg|Analysis was performed using Log-rank test with treatment, EDSS strata at baseline and region as covariates. Estimation was performed using Cox proportional hazard model with treatment, EDSS strata at baseline and region as covariates.||1.260|0.736|0.8271
90793076|NCT00803049|181466261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.961||||0.8017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.678|1.362||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Log Rank||Placebo/Teriflunomide 7 mg vs. Teriflunomide 7 mg/7 mg|Analysis was performed using Log-rank test with treatment, EDSS strata at baseline and region as covariates. Estimation was performed using Cox proportional hazard model with treatment, EDSS strata at baseline and region as covariates.||1.362|0.678|0.8017
90793077|NCT00803049|181466261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.1866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.559|1.117||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Log Rank||Placebo/Teriflunomide 14 mg vs. Teriflunomide 14 mg/14 mg|Analysis was performed using Log-rank test with treatment, EDSS strata at baseline and region as covariates. Estimation was performed using Cox proportional hazard model with treatment, EDSS strata at baseline and region as covariates.||1.117|0.559|0.1866
90793078|NCT00803049|181466261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.8763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.767|1.357||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Log Rank||Teriflunomide 7 mg/7 mg vs. Teriflunomide 14 mg/14 mg|Analysis was performed using Log-rank test with treatment, EDSS strata at baseline and region as covariates. Estimation was performed using Cox proportional hazard model with treatment, EDSS strata at baseline and region as covariates.||1.357|0.767|0.8763
90793079|NCT01272219|181466265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated mean difference|-5.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.82|-4.95|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA model with treatment, country, sex, pre-diabetes status at screening, baseline BMI stratum and an interaction between pre-diabetes status at screening and BMI stratum as fixed factors, and the baseline value as covariate.|Null-hypothesis: no treatment difference between treatment arms, i.e. liraglutide 3.0 mg and liraglutide placebo. Liraglutide 3.0 mg was considered superior to placebo in inducing and maintaining weight loss, if the estimated treatment effect (liraglutide 3.0 mg - liraglutide placebo) was statistically significantly smaller than zero.||-4.95|-5.82|<0.0001
90793080|NCT01272219|181466266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.12|5.6|||Regression, Logistic||The model included treatment, country, sex, pre-diabetes status at screening, BMI stratum and an interaction between pre-diabetes status at screening and BMI stratum as fixed factors, and the baseline value as covariate.|Null-hypothesis: no treatment difference between treatment arms, i.e. liraglutide 3.0 mg and liraglutide placebo. Liraglutide 3.0 mg was considered superior to placebo in inducing and maintaining weight loss as assessed by the proportion of subjects losing ≥5% of their fasting baseline weight, if the estimated odds ratio (liraglutide 3.0 mg/liraglutide placebo) was statistically significantly greater than one.||5.60|4.12|<0.0001
90793081|NCT01272219|181466267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.54|5.32|||Regression, Logistic||The model included treatment, country, sex, pre-diabetes status at screening, BMI stratum and an interaction between pre-diabetes status at screening and BMI stratum as fixed factors, and the baseline value as covariate.|Null-hypothesis: no treatment difference between treatment arms, i.e. liraglutide 3.0 mg and liraglutide placebo. Liraglutide 3.0 mg was considered superior to placebo in inducing and maintaining weight loss as assessed by the proportion of subjects losing \>10% of their fasting baseline weight, if the estimated odds ratio (liraglutide 3.0 mg/liraglutide placebo) was statistically significantly greater than one.||5.32|3.54|<0.0001
90793082|NCT01272219|181466268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment estimate|2.681|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.856|3.872|||Weibull analysis||The treatment estimate was the factor that the time to event is multiplied with for liraglutide 3.0 mg compared to placebo.|If the estimated time-to-event ratio (liraglutide 3.0 mg/ placebo), as assessed by the survival endpoint describing the time until onset of T2DM ('diabetes-free time'), is statistically significantly \>1, then liraglutide 3.0 mg was to be considered superior to placebo in delaying the onset of T2DM in subjects with pre-diabetes at baseline. Weibull model was used; included treatment, sex and BMI stratification factor as fixed factors and baseline FPG as a covariate.||3.872|1.856|<.0001
91079090|NCT00672841|182043860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Sensitivity|100.0||||||95.0|||||Sensitivity||Sensitivity = (true positives \[n=6\]/true positives + false negative \[n=6\])|The clinic sensitivity of the BDG test was calculated for both study groups combined||||
91011390|NCT02615158|181905960|EQUIVALENCE|If the 95% confidence interval of the difference in the change over time does not include 0, it means that there is a significant difference in the change over time between the two groups.|Slope|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.31||The alpha for statistical significance is set at 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||This is to compare change in maternal lifestyle group to child safety group.|H0: There are no differences between the maternal lifestyle and child safety groups in the change in BMI z-score over time. Mixed models included the interaction between time and intervention, accounting for clustering of the repeated measures within each individual.||0.31|-0.17|0.555
91053674|NCT02912650|181990981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.66||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|9.8|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||9.80|1.51|0.008
90793093|NCT03555994|181466371|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-105.7||||0.023||90.0|-178.8|-32.6|||ANCOVA|||||-32.6|-178.8|0.023
90793094|NCT03555994|181466372|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-25.87||||0.008||90.0|-40.88|-10.86|||ANCOVA|||||-10.86|-40.88|0.008
90793095|NCT03555994|181466373|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean difference|-21.99||||0.008||90.0|-34.55|-9.43|||ANCOVA|||||-9.43|-34.55|0.008
90793096|NCT03555994|181466374|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean difference|-35.06||||0.07||90.0|-66.54|-3.58|||ANCOVA|||||-3.58|-66.54|0.070
90793097|NCT03555994|181466374|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean difference|-11.72||||0.03||90.0|-20.13|-3.3|||ANCOVA|||||-3.30|-20.13|0.030
90793098|NCT00392288|181466404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2696||95.0||||Due to usage of a-priori ordered hypotheses, adjustment of p-values is not necessary. The pre-specified significance level was 0.05. The tests were carried out two-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: Change in FEV1 = baseline FEV1 + age \[yrs\] + treatment + pooled center + previous corticosteroid therapy + holding chamber||This is an analysis of the change from baseline to week 12 or last visit. In this pairwise comparison Ciclesonide was compared with Placebo by testing the average effect of Ciclesonide 40 and Ciclesonide 80 versus Placebo. As statistical test a t-test was used to compare the corresponding least-square means of both treatment groups.||||0.2696
90793099|NCT00392288|181466404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0703||95.0||||Due to usage of a-priori ordered hypotheses, adjustment of p-values is not necessary. The pre-specified significance level was 0.05. The tests were carried out two-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: Change in FEV1 = baseline FEV1 + age \[yrs\] + treatment + pooled center + previous corticosteroid therapy + holding chamber||This is an analysis of the change from baseline to week 12 or last visit. A t-test was used to compare the least-square means of Ciclesonide 80 versus Placebo.||||0.0703
90793100|NCT00392288|181466404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9146||95.0||||Due to usage of a-priori ordered hypotheses, adjustment of p-values is not necessary. The pre-specified significance level was 0.05. The tests were carried out two-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: Change in FEV1 = baseline FEV1 + age \[yrs\] + treatment + pooled center + previous corticosteroid therapy + holding chamber||This is an analysis of the change from baseline to week 12 or last visit. As statistical test a t-test was used to compare the corresponding least-square means of Ciclesonide 40 versus Placebo.||||0.9146
90793101|NCT02544763|181466407|SUPERIORITY||Percentage reduction|48.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.4|55.8||||||||55.8|40.4|
90793102|NCT02544763|181466407|SUPERIORITY||Percentage reduction|47.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.0|54.8||||||||54.8|39.0|
90793103|NCT02544763|181466407|SUPERIORITY||Percentage reduction|26.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.9|36.5||||||||36.5|14.9|
90793104|NCT02544763|181466407|SUPERIORITY||Treatment ratio|0.699|||=|0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.567|0.861|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.861|0.567|=0.0009
90793105|NCT02544763|181466407|SUPERIORITY||Treatment ratio|0.715|||=|0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.881|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.881|0.580|=0.0018
90793106|NCT02544763|181466408|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.95|||=|0.0692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|4.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The p-value was calculated from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group (1-6, 7-11, 12-17 and 18-65 years).||||4.00|0.95|=0.0692
91011391|NCT02615158|181905960|EQUIVALENCE|95% CI|Slope|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.39||Two-side test|Mixed Models Analysis||This is to compare the Responsive Parenting to the safety intervention group.|||0.39|-0.08|0.200
91011392|NCT02615158|181905961|EQUIVALENCE|95% confidence interval (CI) was estimated. If the 95% CI does not include 0, it means there is significant difference in the change over time between the two groups.|Slope|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.52||The alpha for statistical significance is set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||This is to compare maternal lifestyle to child safety group.|H0: There is no difference between maternal lifestyle and child safety groups in the change of BMI over time.||0.52|-0.74|0.739
91011393|NCT02615158|181905961|EQUIVALENCE|The 95% CI was estimated. If it does not include 0, it means that there is a statistically significant difference in the change over time between the two groups.|Slope|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.59||The alpha for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||This is to compare the responsive parenting group to the child safety group.|H0: There are no differences in the change over time between responsive parenting and child safety groups.||0.59|-0.66|0.904
91011394|NCT02615158|181905962|EQUIVALENCE|The 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in the change over time was estimated. If it does not include 0, it indicates significant difference in the change over time.|Slope|3.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|8.02||Alpha is set at 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||H0 is that there is no difference between maternal lifestyle and child safety groups in the change of HEI 2015 score over time.||8.02|-1.4|0.168
91053675|NCT02912650|181990981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|14.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.55|18.97|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||18.97|10.55|<0.001
91053676|NCT02912650|181990981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|24.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.5|30.35|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||30.35|18.50|<0.001
91053677|NCT02912650|181990981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|15.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.35|21.29|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||21.29|9.35|<0.001
91053678|NCT02912650|181990981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|9.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|13.31|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||13.31|4.90|<0.001
91053679|NCT02912650|181990982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|9.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.59|11.94|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||11.94|6.59|<0.001
91053680|NCT02912650|181990982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.84||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|3.71|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||3.71|-0.03|0.053
91053681|NCT02912650|181990982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.69|7.49|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||7.49|3.69|<0.001
91053682|NCT02912650|181990982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.75|10.09|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||10.09|4.75|<0.001
91053683|NCT02912650|181990982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.67||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|6.36|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||6.36|0.98|0.008
90793107|NCT02544763|181466408|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.29|||=|0.0245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|4.67|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The p-value was calculated from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group (1-6, 7-11, 12-17 and 18-65 years).||||4.67|1.12|=0.0245
91053684|NCT02912650|181990982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.85|5.64|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||5.64|1.85|<0.001
91053685|NCT02912650|181990983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|13.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.39|15.71|||ANOVA|||0-8 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from analysis of variance (ANOVA) with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||15.71|10.39|<0.001
91053686|NCT02912650|181990983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.01||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|4.86|||ANOVA|||0 to 8 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||4.86|1.15|0.002
91053687|NCT02912650|181990983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.06|8.83|||ANOVA|||0 to 8 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||8.83|5.06|<0.001
90793108|NCT02544763|181466409|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.25|||=|0.0074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|4.07|||nominal|The global impression of change was analyzed using an ordinal logistic regression model with treatment group as a fixed factor.||||4.07|1.24|=0.0074
90793109|NCT02544763|181466409|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77|||=|0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|3.2|||nominal|The global impression of change is analyzed using an ordinal logistic regression model with treatment group as a fixed factor.||||3.20|0.98|=0.0580
90793110|NCT02544763|181466410|SUPERIORITY|Model includes the total number of seizures as a response variable and age group, time (Baseline and treatment period), treatment and treatment by time interaction as fixed effects and participant as a random effect. The log transformed number of days seizures were reported by period is included as an offset.|Percentage reduction|0.519|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.447|0.602||||||||0.602|0.447|
90793111|NCT02544763|181466410|SUPERIORITY||Percentage reduction|0.524|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.452|0.607||||||||0.607|0.452|
90793112|NCT02544763|181466410|SUPERIORITY||Percentage reduction|0.731|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.632|0.846||||||||0.846|0.632|
90793113|NCT02544763|181466410|SUPERIORITY||Treatment ratio|0.709|||=|0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.576|0.873|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.873|0.576|=0.0013
90793114|NCT02544763|181466410|SUPERIORITY||Treatment ratio|0.716|||=|0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.582|0.882|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.882|0.582|=0.0018
90793115|NCT03109769|181466428|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0444|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"The sample size was calculated as 44 participants. Sample size calculation was carried out through a pilot study on 30 participants with the group I mean=1.31, SD=0.39 and group II mean=1.62, SD=0.30, with ⍺=0.05 and 80% power.~The null hypothesis was: there is no difference in plaque index and gingival index between verbal oral hygiene instructions and oral hygiene instructions using mobile applications in patients with orthodontic fixed appliances."||||0.0444
90793116|NCT03109769|181466428|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1373||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||"Difference in plaque index within the first group (mobile phone application) at 4 weeks compared to baseline.~The mean difference was calculated as follows:~plaque index at 4 weeks - plaque index at baseline"|||||0.0002
90793117|NCT03109769|181466428|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0932||||0.0283|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||"Difference in plaque index within the second group (verbal oral hygiene instructions) at 4 weeks compared to baseline.~The mean difference was calculated as follows:~plaque index at 4 weeks - plaque index at baseline"|||||0.0283
90793118|NCT03109769|181466429|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0283|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"The sample size was calculated as 44 participants. Sample size calculation was carried out through a pilot study on 30 participants with the group I mean=1.31, SD=0.39 and group II mean=1.62, SD=0.30, with ⍺=0.05 and 80% power.~The null hypothesis was: there is no difference in plaque index and gingival index between verbal oral hygiene instructions and oral hygiene instructions using mobile applications in patients with orthodontic fixed appliances."||||0.0283
90793119|NCT03109769|181466429|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1177||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||"Difference in gingival index within the first group (mobile phone application) at 4 weeks compared to baseline.~The mean difference was calculated as follows:~gingival index at 4 weeks - gingival index at baseline"|||||0.0002
90793120|NCT03109769|181466429|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1014||||0.4809|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||"Difference in gingival index within the second group (verbal oral hygiene instructions) at 4 weeks compared to baseline.~The mean difference was calculated as follows:~gingival index at 4 weeks - gingival index at baseline"|||||0.4809
91011395|NCT02615158|181905962|EQUIVALENCE|95% CI was estimated. If it does not include 0, it indicates that there is a significant difference in the change between the two groups.|Slope|0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.39||0.733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.88|5.52|||Mixed Models Analysis||This is to compare the responsive feeding group to child safety group.|H0 is that there is no difference between the responsive parenting and child safety groups in the change of HEI score over time||5.52|-3.88|0.733
91011396|NCT02615158|181905963|EQUIVALENCE|The 95% CI was estimated. If it does not include 0, it indicates that there is significant difference in the change over time between the two groups.|Slope|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.49||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|8.2||Alpha is set at 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||This is to compare the maternal lifestyle group to the child safety group.|Null hypothesis is that there are no differences between the two groups regarding the change of HEI 2015 score over time.||8.2|-1.6|0.186
91011397|NCT02615158|181905963|EQUIVALENCE|95% CI for the difference in change over time was estimated. If it does not include 0, it indicates that there is significant difference between the two groups.|Slope|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.51||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.97|4.91||Alpha is set to 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||This is to compare the responsive parenting group to child safety group.|H0 is there is no difference in the change of maternal HEI score over time between the two groups.||4.91|-4.97|0.990
91011398|NCT02615158|181905964|EQUIVALENCE|A 95% CI was estimated. If it does not include 0, it indicates significant difference in change over time between the two groups.|Slope|23.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.03||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.88|45.46||Alpha is set at 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||This is for maternal lifestyle group compared to safety control group.|Null hypothesis is there were no differences in the change over time for toddler MVPA across the two groups.||45.46|1.88|0.034
90793124|NCT00553475|181466469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.63||||0.0075||95.0|-1.09|-0.17|||ANCOVA|Treatment groups and the CLcr strata as factors and baseline values as covariates.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.17|-1.09|0.0075
90793125|NCT00553475|181466469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.74||||0.0254||95.0|-1.39|-0.09|||ANCOVA|Treatment groups and the CLcr strata as factors and baseline values as covariates.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.09|-1.39|0.0254
90793126|NCT00553475|181466470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28||||0.8731||95.0|-3.67|3.12|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||3.12|-3.67|0.8731
90793127|NCT00553475|181466470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.16||||0.6337||95.0|-3.62|5.94|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||5.94|-3.62|0.6337
90793128|NCT00553475|181466471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1||||0.4398||95.0|-7.44|3.24|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||3.24|-7.44|0.4398
90793129|NCT00553475|181466471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41||||0.9153||95.0|-7.96|7.14|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||7.14|-7.96|0.9153
90793130|NCT00553475|181466472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5||||0.4873||95.0|-2.75|5.76|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||5.76|-2.75|0.4873
90793131|NCT00553475|181466472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.56||||0.4008||95.0|-3.42|8.53|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||8.53|-3.42|0.4008
90793132|NCT00553475|181466473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.98||||0.5372||95.0|-2.13|4.09|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||4.09|-2.13|0.5372
90793133|NCT00553475|181466473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.09||||0.348||95.0|-2.29|6.47|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||6.47|-2.29|0.3480
90793134|NCT00553475|181466474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.06||||0.0544||95.0|-0.1|10.21|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||10.21|-0.10|0.0544
91011399|NCT02615158|181905964|EQUIVALENCE|H0 is that there is no difference between the change of MVPA over time between the two groups.|Slope|13.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.89||0.216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.98|35.03|||Mixed Models Analysis||This is to compare the responsive parenting group to child safety group.|||35.03|-7.98|0.216
90793135|NCT00553475|181466474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.15||||0.0278||95.0|0.89|15.42|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||15.42|0.89|0.0278
91011400|NCT02615158|181905965|EQUIVALENCE|The 95% CI for the difference in the change between the two groups was estimated. If it does not include 0, it indicates that there is a significant difference by group in the change.|Slope|10.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.82||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|20.48|||Mixed Models Analysis||This is to compare the maternal lifestyle group to the child safety group.|H0 is that there is no difference in the change of maternal MVPA over time between the two groups.||20.48|1.46|0.024
91011401|NCT02615158|181905965|EQUIVALENCE|The 95% CI was estimated. If it does not include 0, it indicates that there is a significant difference by group in the difference.|Slope|0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.94||0.804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.76|10.72|||Mixed Models Analysis||This is to compare responsive parenting group to child safety group.|H0 is that there is no significant difference in the change of maternal MVPA between the two groups.||10.72|-8.76|0.804
90793136|NCT00553475|181466475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.92||||0.7394||95.0|-4.52|6.37|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||6.37|-4.52|0.7394
90793137|NCT00553475|181466475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.22||||0.5712||95.0|-5.49|9.93|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||9.93|-5.49|0.5712
91011402|NCT02615158|181905966|EQUIVALENCE|The 95% CI was estimated. If it does not include 0, it indicates that there is a significant difference by group in the difference.|Slope|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.06||Alpha is set at 0.05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis||This is to compare maternal lifestyle group to the child safety group.|The 95% CI was estimated. If it does not include 0, it indicates that there is a significant difference by group in the difference.||0.06|-0.78|0.056
91011403|NCT02615158|181905966|EQUIVALENCE|Alpha is set at 0.05 to indicate statistical significance.|Slope|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.45|||Mixed Models Analysis||This is to compare responsive parenting group to child safety group.|The 95% CI was estimated. If it does not include 0, it indicates that there is a significant difference by group in the difference.||0.45|-0.39|0.896
91011404|NCT02257970|181905968|EQUIVALENCE|The likelihood of rejecting the null hypothesis (equivalence between the two groups) was defined as P\<0.05|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||For the analysis, the 4-month post-minus-pre change in this score for ketoprofen was compared.||||<0.0001
91011405|NCT02257970|181905969|EQUIVALENCE|Pre-to-post comparison: the likelihood of rejecting the null hypothesis (equivalence between the two groups) was defined as P\<0.05|||||=|0.6|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||=0.6
91011406|NCT02257970|181905969|EQUIVALENCE|Pre-to-Post comparison: The likelihood of rejecting the null hypothesis (equivalence between the two groups) was defined as P\<0.05|||||=|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||||=0.01
91011407|NCT00883896|181905983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|-5.9||||0.558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.0|13.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was assessed from 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by anti-tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||13.3|-25.0|0.558
90793138|NCT00553475|181466476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.67||||0.0058||95.0|-1.14|-0.19|||ANCOVA|Treatment groups as factors and baseline values as covariates||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.19|-1.14|0.0058
90793139|NCT00553475|181466476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.64||||0.0333||95.0|-1.23|-0.05|||ANCOVA|Treatment groups as factors and baseline values as covariates||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.05|-1.23|0.0333
90793140|NCT00553475|181466477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.153||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|stratified by CLcr stratum||Significance level of 0.05 was used.||||0.153
90793141|NCT00553475|181466477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.059||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|stratified by CLcr stratum||Significance level of 0.05 was used.||||0.059
90793142|NCT00553475|181466478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43||||0.0287||95.0|-0.82|-0.05|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Model included treatment, CLcr stratum, week and treatment-by-week interaction, and baseline scores as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.05|-0.82|0.0287
90793143|NCT00553475|181466478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.75||||0.0073||95.0|-1.29|-0.2|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Model included treatment, CLcr stratum, week and treatment-by-week interaction, and baseline scores as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.20|-1.29|0.0073
90793144|NCT00553475|181466479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61||||0.0021||95.0|-1.0|-0.22|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Model included treatment, CLcr stratum, week and treatment-by-week interaction, and baseline scores as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.22|-1.00|0.0021
90793145|NCT00553475|181466479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.23|||<|0.0001||95.0|-1.78|-0.69|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Model included treatment, CLcr stratum, week and treatment-by-week interaction, and baseline scores as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.69|-1.78|<0.0001
90793146|NCT00553475|181466480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.0026||95.0|-0.99|-0.21|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Model included treatment, CLcr stratum, week and treatment-by-week interaction, and baseline scores as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.21|-0.99|0.0026
91011408|NCT00883896|181905983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|-11.4||||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.1|7.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||7.3|-30.1|0.251
90793147|NCT00553475|181466480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.13|||<|0.0001||95.0|-1.69|-0.58|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Model included treatment, CLcr stratum, week and treatment-by-week interaction, and baseline scores as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.58|-1.69|<0.0001
91011409|NCT00883896|181905983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|-3.7||||0.707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.7|14.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||14.4|-21.7|0.707
91011410|NCT00883896|181905984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|-0.1||||0.991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|14.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||14.7|-14.8|0.991
91011411|NCT00883896|181905984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|-4.8||||0.518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.4|8.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||8.8|-18.4|0.518
90793148|NCT00553475|181466481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.64||||0.0012||95.0|-1.03|-0.25|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Model included treatment, CLcr stratum, week and treatment-by-week interaction, and baseline scores as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.25|-1.03|0.0012
90793149|NCT00553475|181466481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.11|||<|0.0001||95.0|-1.67|-0.56|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Model included treatment, CLcr stratum, week and treatment-by-week interaction, and baseline scores as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.56|-1.67|<0.0001
90793150|NCT00553475|181466482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.65||||0.0011||95.0|-1.04|-0.26|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Model included treatment, CLcr stratum, week and treatment-by-week interaction, and baseline scores as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.26|-1.04|0.0011
90793151|NCT00553475|181466482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.16|||<|0.0001||95.0|-1.72|-0.6|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Model included treatment, CLcr stratum, week and treatment-by-week interaction, and baseline scores as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.60|-1.72|<0.0001
90793152|NCT00553475|181466483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.79|||<|0.0001||95.0|-1.18|-0.4|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Model included treatment, CLcr stratum, week and treatment-by-week interaction, and baseline scores as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.40|-1.18|<0.0001
90793153|NCT00553475|181466483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.12|||<|0.0001||95.0|-1.68|-0.56|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Model included treatment, CLcr stratum, week and treatment-by-week interaction, and baseline scores as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.56|-1.68|<0.0001
90793154|NCT00553475|181466484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.72||||0.0003||95.0|-1.12|-0.33|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Model included treatment, CLcr stratum, week and treatment-by-week interaction, and baseline scores as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.33|-1.12|0.0003
90793155|NCT00553475|181466484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.09||||0.0002||95.0|-1.66|-0.52|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Model included treatment, CLcr stratum, week and treatment-by-week interaction, and baseline scores as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.52|-1.66|0.0002
90793156|NCT00553475|181466485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.67||||0.0008||95.0|-1.07|-0.28|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Model included treatment, CLcr stratum, week and treatment-by-week interaction, and baseline scores as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.28|-1.07|0.0008
90793157|NCT00553475|181466485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.94||||0.0014||95.0|-1.51|-0.36|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Model included treatment, CLcr stratum, week and treatment-by-week interaction, and baseline scores as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.36|-1.51|0.0014
90793158|NCT00553475|181466486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.73||||0.0003||95.0|-1.12|-0.33|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Model included treatment, CLcr stratum, week and treatment-by-week interaction, and baseline scores as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.33|-1.12|0.0003
90793159|NCT00553475|181466486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.86||||0.0036||95.0|-1.44|-0.28|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Model included treatment, CLcr stratum, week and treatment-by-week interaction, and baseline scores as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.28|-1.44|0.0036
90793160|NCT00553475|181466487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.0005||95.0|-1.1|-0.31|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Model included treatment, CLcr stratum, week and treatment-by-week interaction, and baseline scores as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.31|-1.10|0.0005
90793161|NCT00553475|181466487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.87||||0.0034||95.0|-1.46|-0.29|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Model included treatment, CLcr stratum, week and treatment-by-week interaction, and baseline scores as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.29|-1.46|0.0034
90793162|NCT00553475|181466488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62||||0.0023||95.0|-1.02|-0.22|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Model included treatment, CLcr stratum, week and treatment-by-week interaction, and baseline scores as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.22|-1.02|0.0023
91053688|NCT02912650|181990983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|10.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.39|12.7|||ANOVA|||0 to 8 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||12.70|7.39|<0.001
90793163|NCT00553475|181466488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.77||||0.0105||95.0|-1.36|-0.18|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Model included treatment, CLcr stratum, week and treatment-by-week interaction, and baseline scores as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.18|-1.36|0.0105
90793164|NCT00553475|181466489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.65||||0.0016||95.0|-1.05|-0.25|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Model included treatment, CLcr stratum, week and treatment-by-week interaction, and baseline scores as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.25|-1.05|0.0016
90793165|NCT00553475|181466489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.77||||0.0111||95.0|-1.37|-0.18|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Model included treatment, CLcr stratum, week and treatment-by-week interaction, and baseline scores as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.18|-1.37|0.0111
90793166|NCT00553475|181466490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.07||||0.6118||95.0|-5.23|3.08|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||3.08|-5.23|0.6118
90793167|NCT00553475|181466490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.59||||0.0109||95.0|1.76|13.42|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||13.42|1.76|0.0109
90793168|NCT00553475|181466491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.49||||0.4602||95.0|-2.47|5.45|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||5.45|-2.47|0.4602
90793169|NCT00553475|181466491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.97||||0.1625||95.0|-1.61|9.54|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||9.54|-1.61|0.1625
90793170|NCT00553475|181466492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85|||<|0.0001||95.0|-1.25|-0.46|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.46|-1.25|<0.0001
90793171|NCT00553475|181466492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.63||||0.0273||95.0|-1.19|-0.07|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.07|-1.19|0.0273
90793172|NCT00553475|181466493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.79||||0.0013||95.0|-2.87|-0.71|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.71|-2.87|0.0013
90793173|NCT00553475|181466493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.13||||0.0062||95.0|-3.65|-0.61|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.61|-3.65|0.0062
90793174|NCT00553475|181466494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.0068||95.0|-1.03|-0.17|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.17|-1.03|0.0068
90793175|NCT00553475|181466494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56||||0.0707||95.0|-1.17|0.05|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||0.05|-1.17|0.0707
90793176|NCT00553475|181466495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.35||||0.0013||95.0|-3.76|-0.93|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.93|-3.76|0.0013
90793177|NCT00553475|181466495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.67||||0.0087||95.0|-4.67|-0.68|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.68|-4.67|0.0087
90793178|NCT00553475|181466496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.27||||0.0056||95.0|-12.4|-2.14|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-2.14|-12.40|0.0056
90793179|NCT00553475|181466496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.49||||0.0427||95.0|-14.74|-0.25|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.25|-14.74|0.0427
90793180|NCT00553475|181466497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21||||0.0365||95.0|-0.4|-0.01|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.01|-0.40|0.0365
90793181|NCT00553475|181466497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37||||0.0073||95.0|-0.65|-0.1|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.10|-0.65|0.0073
91011412|NCT00883896|181905984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Perecent Difference|0.781||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.9|9.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||9.8|-16.9|0.630
90793182|NCT00553475|181466498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.37||||0.0019||95.0|-10.38|-2.36|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-2.36|-10.38|0.0019
90793183|NCT00553475|181466498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.78||||0.1907||95.0|-9.45|1.89|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||1.89|-9.45|0.1907
90793184|NCT00553475|181466499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.9905||95.0|-5.37|5.43|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||5.43|-5.37|0.9905
90793185|NCT00553475|181466499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.44||||0.2532||95.0|-3.19|12.08|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||12.08|-3.19|0.2532
90793186|NCT00553475|181466500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.39||||0.4538||95.0|-5.05|2.26|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||2.26|-5.05|0.4538
91011413|NCT00883896|181905984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|9.4||||0.295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|27.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||27.0|-8.3|0.295
91011414|NCT00883896|181905984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Perecent Difference|-3.4||||0.686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.3|12.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||12.5|-19.3|0.686
91011415|NCT00883896|181905984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|2.5||||0.772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|18.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||18.2|-13.2|0.772
90793187|NCT00553475|181466500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.84||||0.2782||95.0|-7.97|2.3|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||2.30|-7.97|0.2782
90793188|NCT00553475|181466501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32||||0.0177||95.0|0.06|0.59|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||0.59|0.06|0.0177
90793189|NCT00553475|181466501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17||||0.3661||95.0|-0.2|0.55|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||0.55|-0.20|0.3661
90793190|NCT00553475|181466502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.62||||0.0511||95.0|-0.03|11.26|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||11.26|-0.03|0.0511
90793191|NCT00553475|181466502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.65||||0.0173||95.0|1.72|17.59|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||17.59|1.72|0.0173
91053689|NCT02912650|181990983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.44|8.78|||ANOVA|||0 to 8 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||8.78|3.44|<0.001
90793192|NCT00553475|181466503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.79||||0.1123||95.0|-0.89|8.47|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||8.47|-0.89|0.1123
90793193|NCT00553475|181466503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.79||||0.0206||95.0|1.2|14.38|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||14.38|1.20|0.0206
90793194|NCT00553475|181466504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.54||||0.0269||95.0|-6.67|-0.41|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.41|-6.67|0.0269
90793195|NCT00553475|181466504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.82||||0.4183||95.0|-6.24|2.6|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||2.60|-6.24|0.4183
90793196|NCT00553475|181466505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0148||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-squared with a modified ridit transformation, stratified by stratum based on the CLcr||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||||0.0148
90793197|NCT00553475|181466505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0063||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-squared with a modified ridit transformation, stratified by stratum based on the CLcr||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||||0.0063
90793198|NCT00553475|181466506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0818||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-squared with a modified ridit transformation, stratified by stratum based on the CLcr||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||||0.0818
90793199|NCT00553475|181466506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0075||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-squared with a modified ridit transformation, stratified by stratum based on the CLcr||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||||0.0075
90793200|NCT00553475|181466507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66||||0.0013||95.0|-1.07|-0.26|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Model included treatment, CLcr stratum, week and treatment-by-week interaction, and baseline scores as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.26|-1.07|0.0013
91053690|NCT02912650|181990983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.06|5.81|||ANOVA|||0 to 8 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||5.81|2.06|<0.001
90793201|NCT00553475|181466507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.74||||0.0152||95.0|-1.34|-0.14|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Model included treatment, CLcr stratum, week and treatment-by-week interaction, and baseline scores as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.14|-1.34|0.0152
91053691|NCT02912650|181990983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.63|5.05|||ANOVA|||6 to 8 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||5.05|2.63|<0.001
90890256|NCT01217073|181644893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.28||With terms for treatment, prior AHA therapy status, geographic region (Japan/ex-Japan), and the interaction of time by treatment, time by prior AHA therapy status, with the constraint that the mean baseline is the same for all treatment groups.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-0.28|-0.71|<0.001
91053692|NCT02912650|181990983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.07||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.92|||ANOVA|||6 to 8 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.92|0.23|0.013
90793212|NCT04101331|181466554|OTHER|||||||0.051||||||One-sided p-value.|Exact binomial test|Exact binomial test compares versus a proportion of 0.25.||||||0.051
90793213|NCT04101331|181466555|OTHER|||||||0.051||||||One-sided p-value.|Exact binomial test|Exact binomial test compares versus a proportion of 0.25.||||||0.051
90793214|NCT04101331|181466556|OTHER|||||||0.112||||||One-sided p-value.|Exact binomial test|Exact binomial test compares versus a proportion of 0.25.||||||0.112
90793215|NCT04101331|181466558|OTHER|||||||0.537||||||One-sided p-value.|Exact binomial test|Exact binomial test compares versus a proportion of 0.25.||||||0.537
90793216|NCT02579759|181466580|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.008|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.68|-0.06|||ANCOVA|||"The main analysis was performed as follows:~1. Analysis population: modified Full Analysis Set (mFAS)~2. Statistical model: ANCOVA where the mean at 12 and 15 months of each treatment group was compared against the placebo group, adjusting for the baseline value and assuming centre as a random effect~3. Missing value imputation: multiple imputation taking into account the reason of missingness"||-0.06|-0.68|0.008
90793217|NCT02579759|181466580|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.287|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.39|0.14|||ANCOVA|||"The main analysis was performed as follows:~1. Analysis population: modified Full Analysis Set (mFAS)~2. Statistical model: ANCOVA where the mean at 12 and 15 months of each treatment group was compared against the placebo group, adjusting for the baseline value and assuming centre as a random effect~3. Missing value imputation: multiple imputation taking into account the reason of missingness"||0.14|-0.39|0.287
91011416|NCT00883896|181905984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|12.8||||0.201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|32.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6: P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||32.0|-6.5|0.201
91011417|NCT00883896|181905984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|-10.4||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.3|6.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6: P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||6.5|-27.3|0.256
90793218|NCT02579759|181466580|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.013|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.59|-0.03|||Longitudinal mixed model|||"This analysis was performed as follows:~1. Analysis population: modified Full Analysis Set (mFAS)~2. Statistical model: Longitudinal model where the effect of each treatment over time (baseline, 6, 12 and 15 months) was estimated through a mixed model with repeated measures (MMRM) assuming time from baseline (Time) and Time-by-Treatment full interaction as fixed effects and patient as random effect and considering Time as continuous linear effect~3. Missing value imputation: No imputation"||-0.03|-0.59|0.013
90793219|NCT02579759|181466580|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.05|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.42|0.03|||Longitudinal mixed model|||"This analysis was performed as follows:~1. Analysis population: modified Full Analysis Set (mFAS)~2. Statistical model: Longitudinal model where the effect of each treatment over time (baseline, 6, 12 and 15 months) was estimated through a mixed model with repeated measures (MMRM) assuming time from baseline (Time) and Time-by-Treatment full interaction as fixed effects and patient as random effect and considering Time as continuous linear effect~3. Missing value imputation: No imputation"||0.03|-0.42|0.05
90793220|NCT02579759|181466580|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|-0.04|||Regression, Linear|||"Dose effect:~Dose is defined as a numerical variable proportional to quantity of PXT3003 administered (0 for Placebo, 1 for Dose 1, 2 for Dose 2).~The analysis was performed as follows:~1. Analysis population: modified Full Analysis Set (mFAS)~2. Statistical model: ANCOVA assessing the dose-effect at the mean of 12 and 15 months, adjusting for baseline value and assuming centre as random effect~3. Missing value imputation: multiple imputation taking into account the reason of missingness"||-0.04|-0.31|0.013
90793221|NCT02579759|181466581|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.016|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.91|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||"The main analysis was performed as follows:~1. Analysis population: modified Full Analysis Set (mFAS)~2. Statistical model: ANCOVA where the mean at 12 and 15 months of each treatment group was compared against the placebo group, adjusting for the baseline value and assuming centre as a random effect~3. Missing value imputation: multiple imputation taking into account the reason of missingness"||-0.03|-0.91|0.016
91053693|NCT02912650|181990983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.83|3.55|||ANOVA|||6 to 8 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||3.55|1.83|<0.001
90793222|NCT02579759|181466581|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.084|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.65|0.08|||ANCOVA|||"The main analysis was performed as follows:~1. Analysis population: modified Full Analysis Set (mFAS)~2. Statistical model: ANCOVA where the mean at 12 and 15 months of each treatment group was compared against the placebo group, adjusting for the baseline value and assuming centre as a random effect~3. Missing value imputation: multiple imputation taking into account the reason of missingness"||0.08|-0.65|0.084
90793223|NCT02579759|181466581|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.04|||Regression, Linear|||"Dose effect:~Dose is defined as a numerical variable proportional to quantity of PXT3003 administered (0 for Placebo, 1 for Dose 1, 2 for Dose 2).~The analysis was performed as follows:~1. Analysis population: modified Full Analysis Set (mFAS)~2. Statistical model: ANCOVA assessing the dose-effect at the mean of 12 and 15 months, adjusting for baseline value and assuming centre as random effect~3. Missing value imputation: multiple imputation taking into account the reason of missingness"||-0.04|-0.41|0.015
90793224|NCT02579759|181466582|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.162|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.01|0.23|||ANCOVA|||"The main analysis was performed as follows:~1. Analysis population: modified Full Analysis Set (mFAS)~2. Statistical model: ANCOVA where the mean at 12 and 15 months of each treatment group was compared against the placebo group, adjusting for the baseline value and assuming centre as a random effect~3. Missing value imputation: multiple imputation taking into account the reason of missingness"||0.23|-1.01|0.162
90793225|NCT02579759|181466582|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.556|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.66|0.39|||ANCOVA|||"The main analysis was performed as follows:~1. Analysis population: modified Full Analysis Set (mFAS)~2. Statistical model: ANCOVA where the mean at 12 and 15 months of each treatment group was compared against the placebo group, adjusting for the baseline value and assuming centre as a random effect~3. Missing value imputation: multiple imputation taking into account the reason of missingness"||0.39|-0.66|0.556
90793226|NCT02579759|181466582|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.09|||Regression, Linear|||"Dose is defined as a numerical variable proportional to quantity of PXT3003 administered (0 for Placebo, 1 for Dose 1, 2 for Dose 2).~The analysis was performed as follows:~1. Analysis population: modified Full Analysis Set (mFAS)~2. Statistical model: ANCOVA assessing the dose-effect at the mean of 12 and 15 months, adjusting for baseline value and assuming centre as random effect~3. Missing value imputation: multiple imputation taking into account the reason of missingness"||0.09|-0.43|0.204
90793227|NCT02579759|181466583|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.232|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.25|0.38|||ANCOVA|||"The main analysis was performed as follows:~1. Analysis population: modified Full Analysis Set (mFAS)~2. Statistical model: ANCOVA where the mean at 12 and 15 months of each treatment group was compared against the placebo group, adjusting for the baseline value and assuming centre as a random effect~3. Missing value imputation: multiple imputation taking into account the reason of missingness"||0.38|-1.25|0.232
90793228|NCT02579759|181466583|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.868|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.74|0.64|||ANCOVA|||"The main analysis was performed as follows:~1. Analysis population: modified Full Analysis Set (mFAS)~2. Statistical model: ANCOVA where the mean at 12 and 15 months of each treatment group was compared against the placebo group, adjusting for the baseline value and assuming centre as a random effect~3. Missing value imputation: multiple imputation taking into account the reason of missingness"||0.64|-0.74|0.868
90793229|NCT02579759|181466583|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.17|||Regression, Linear|||"Dose is defined as a numerical variable proportional to quantity of PXT3003 administered (0 for Placebo, 1 for Dose 1, 2 for Dose 2).~The analysis was performed as follows:~1. Analysis population: modified Full Analysis Set (mFAS)~2. Statistical model: ANCOVA assessing the dose-effect at the mean of 12 and 15 months, adjusting for baseline value and assuming centre as random effect~3. Missing value imputation: multiple imputation taking into account the reason of missingness"||0.17|-0.53|0.322
90793230|NCT02579759|181466584|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.377|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.43|0.62|||ANCOVA|||"The main analysis was performed as follows:~1. Analysis population: modified Full Analysis Set (mFAS)~2. Statistical model: ANCOVA where the mean at 12 and 15 months of each treatment group was compared against the placebo group, adjusting for the baseline value and assuming centre as a random effect~3. Missing value imputation: multiple imputation taking into account the reason of missingness"||0.62|-1.43|0.377
90793231|NCT02579759|181466584|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.334|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.21|0.48|||ANCOVA|||"The main analysis was performed as follows:~1. Analysis population: modified Full Analysis Set (mFAS)~2. Statistical model: ANCOVA where the mean at 12 and 15 months of each treatment group was compared against the placebo group, adjusting for the baseline value and assuming centre as a random effect~3. Missing value imputation: multiple imputation taking into account the reason of missingness"||0.48|-1.21|0.334
90793232|NCT02579759|181466584|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.23|||Regression, Linear|||"Dose is defined as a numerical variable proportional to quantity of PXT3003 administered (0 for Placebo, 1 for Dose 1, 2 for Dose 2).~The analysis was performed as follows:~1. Analysis population: modified Full Analysis Set (mFAS)~2. Statistical model: ANCOVA assessing the dose-effect at the mean of 12 and 15 months, adjusting for baseline value and assuming centre as random effect~3. Missing value imputation: multiple imputation taking into account the reason of missingness"||0.23|-0.62|0.373
90793233|NCT02579759|181466588|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.023|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.58|0.0|||ANCOVA|||"The main analysis was performed as follows:~1. Analysis population: modified Full Analysis Set (mFAS)~2. Statistical model: ANCOVA where the mean at 12 and 15 months of each treatment group was compared against the placebo group, adjusting for the baseline value and assuming centre as a random effect~3. Missing value imputation: multiple imputation taking into account the reason of missingness"||0|-0.58|0.023
91011418|NCT00883896|181905984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|6.1||||0.519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|23.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6: P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||23.5|-11.4|0.519
90793234|NCT02579759|181466588|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.162|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.4|0.09|||ANCOVA|||"The main analysis was performed as follows:~1. Analysis population: modified Full Analysis Set (mFAS)~2. Statistical model: ANCOVA where the mean at 12 and 15 months of each treatment group was compared against the placebo group, adjusting for the baseline value and assuming centre as a random effect~3. Missing value imputation: multiple imputation taking into account the reason of missingness"||0.09|-0.4|0.162
90793235|NCT02579759|181466592|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.09||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.77|5.68|||General Linear Mixed Model|||The proportion of responders (on Completers selection only) at the end of treatment was assessed through a Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLMM) featuring logistic regression including treatment as a fixed effect, adjusting for the baseline value and center as a random effect.||5.68|0.77|0.097
90793236|NCT02579759|181466592|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.865|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.42|2.7|||General Linear Mixed Model|||The proportion of responders (on Completers selection only) at the end of treatment was assessed through a Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLMM) featuring logistic regression including treatment as a fixed effect, adjusting for the baseline value and center as a random effect.||2.7|0.42|0.865
90793237|NCT02579759|181466593|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.39||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.99|11.62|||General Linear Mixed Model|||The proportion of responders (on Completers selection only) at the end of treatment was assessed through a Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLMM) featuring logistic regression including treatment as a fixed effect, adjusting for the baseline value and center as a random effect.||11.62|0.99|0.026
90793238|NCT02579759|181466593|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.569|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.5|3.16|||General Linear Mixed Model|||The proportion of responders (on Completers selection only) at the end of treatment was assessed through a Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLMM) featuring logistic regression including treatment as a fixed effect, adjusting for the baseline value and center as a random effect.||3.16|0.5|0.569
90793239|NCT00666263|181466622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least squared means|35.13||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.81|61.46|||ANOVA|Fixed effects ANOVA with factors for sequence (1 or 2), nested within sequence, period (Cross-Over Period 1 or 2), \& treatment (IGIV, 10% or placebo)||||61.46|8.81|0.005
90793240|NCT00666263|181466623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||McNemar|||||||<0.001
90793241|NCT00666263|181466625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least squared means|32.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.01|51.06|||ANOVA|||||51.06|14.01|<0.001
90793242|NCT00666263|181466626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||McNemar|||||||<0.001
90793243|NCT00666263|181466630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squared Means|6.03||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.14|9.92|||ANOVA|||||9.92|2.14|0.002
90793244|NCT00666263|181466632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squared Means|-15.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.37|-6.77|||ANOVA|||||-6.77|-24.37|<0.001
90793245|NCT00666263|181466634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squared Means|-26.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.96|-13.26|||ANOVA|||||-13.26|-38.96|<0.001
90793246|NCT00666263|181466636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squared Means|-216.6||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-490.41|57.22|||ANOVA|||||57.22|-490.41|0.059
90793247|NCT00666263|181466638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||McNemar|||||||<0.001
90793248|NCT00666263|181466639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.021||95.0|||||McNemar|||||||0.021
90793249|NCT00586157|181466649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Z-test|||||||<.001
90793250|NCT00586157|181466650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Z-test|||||||.001
90793251|NCT00586157|181466651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||Z-test|||||||.003
90793252|NCT00831389|181466652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.791||95.0||||p \< 0.05 is considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: Median change in PG concentration due to exercise for the OL and CL study phases do not differ.||||0.791
90793253|NCT00831389|181466653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5||95.0||||p \< 0.05 is considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: Median tally of hypoglycemic events immediately following exercise for the OL and CL study phases do not differ.||||0.5
90793254|NCT00831389|181466654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25||95.0||||p \< 0.05 is considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: Median tally of nocturnal hypoglycemic events following exercise for the OL and CL study phases do not differ.||||0.25
90793255|NCT00831389|181466655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0669||95.0||||p \< 0.05 is considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: Median peak post-prandial PG for the OL and CL study phases do not differ.||||0.0669
90793256|NCT00831389|181466656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2256||95.0||||p \< 0.05 is considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: Median nadir PG immediately following exercise for the OL and CL study phases do not differ.||||0.2256
90793257|NCT00831389|181466657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.791||95.0||||p \< 0.05 is considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: Median overnight nadir PG for the OL and CL arms do not differ.||||0.791
90793258|NCT00831389|181466658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2036||95.0||||p \< 0.05 is considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: Median percentage of time PG is within euglycemic range for the OL and CL phases do not differ.||||0.2036
90793259|NCT00831389|181466659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6221||95.0||||p \< 0.05 is considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: Median percentage of time PG is above euglycemic range for the OL and CL phases do not differ.||||0.6221
90793260|NCT00831389|181466660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021||95.0||||p \< 0.05 is considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: Median percentage of time PG is below euglycemic range for the OL and CL phases do not differ.||||0.021
90793261|NCT00831389|181466661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0176||95.0||||p \< 0.05 is considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: Median tally of hypoglycemic events over 48 hour in-patient period for the OL and CL phases do not differ.||||0.0176
90793262|NCT01592747|181466699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was performed controlling for Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) subtype. Odds ratio was calculated for placebo vs. memantine full dose.||1.8|0.7|0.6590
90793263|NCT01592747|181466699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.7839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was performed controlling for Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) subtype. Odds ratio was calculated for placebo vs. Memantine reduced dose||1.7|0.7|0.7839
91011419|NCT00883896|181905984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|16.7||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|35.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||35.2|-1.9|0.094
91011420|NCT00883896|181905984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|2.8||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|20.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||20.1|-14.4|0.760
90793264|NCT01592747|181466701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.1||||0.8136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.7|||ANCOVA|||||0.7|-0.5|0.8136
90793265|NCT01592747|181466701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.0||||0.9244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.5|||ANCOVA|||||0.5|-0.6|0.9244
90793266|NCT01592747|181466702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.1||||0.7611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.7|||ANCOVA|||||0.7|-0.5|0.7611
90793267|NCT01592747|181466702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.3||||0.3176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.9|||ANCOVA|||||0.9|-0.3|0.3176
90793268|NCT01592747|181466703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.0||||0.902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.6|||ANCOVA|||||0.6|-0.5|0.9020
90793269|NCT01592747|181466703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.4||||0.1279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.0|||ANCOVA|||||1.0|-0.1|0.1279
90793270|NCT01592747|181466704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.3||||0.4144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.1|||ANCOVA|||||1.1|-0.4|0.4144
90793271|NCT01592747|181466704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.3||||0.4212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.0|||ANCOVA|||||1.0|-0.4|0.4212
91011421|NCT00883896|181905984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|0.6||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.8|18.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||18.0|-16.8|0.950
90793272|NCT01592747|181466705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.2||||0.6238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.5|||ANCOVA|||||0.5|-0.9|0.6238
90793273|NCT01592747|181466705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.2||||0.5957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.9|||ANCOVA|||||0.9|-0.5|0.5957
90793274|NCT01592747|181466706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.1||||0.864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.7|||ANCOVA|||||0.7|-0.6|0.8640
90793275|NCT01592747|181466706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.3||||0.4362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.9|||ANCOVA|||||0.9|-0.4|0.4362
90793276|NCT01592747|181466707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.1||||0.7182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.6|||ANCOVA|||||0.6|-0.8|0.7182
90793277|NCT01592747|181466707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.1||||0.839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.6|||ANCOVA|||||0.6|-0.8|0.8390
90793278|NCT01592747|181466708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.7||||0.0813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.4|||ANCOVA|||||1.4|-0.1|0.0813
91011422|NCT00883896|181905984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|13.6||||0.185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|33.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 10: P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||33.0|-5.9|0.185
91011423|NCT00883896|181905984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|0.2||||0.982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.8|19.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 10: P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||19.3|-18.8|0.982
90793279|NCT01592747|181466708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.3||||0.4365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.0|||ANCOVA|||||1.0|-0.4|0.4365
90793280|NCT01592747|181466709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.3||||0.4213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.0|||ANCOVA|||||1.0|-0.4|0.4213
90793281|NCT01592747|181466709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.3||||0.4267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.0|||ANCOVA|||||1.0|-0.4|0.4267
90793282|NCT01592747|181466710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.3||||0.3713||95.0|-0.4|1.0|||ANCOVA|||||1.0|-0.4|0.3713
90793283|NCT01592747|181466710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.4||||0.2855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.1|||ANCOVA|||||1.1|-0.3|0.2855
90793284|NCT00266032|181466711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|29.0|<|0.0001||95.0|-29.0|-20.0|||t-test, 2 sided||Mean of Yaz flexible regimen minus mean of Yaz standard was tested|Primary variable was tested for the hypothesis, whether the means are equal against the alternative (means are different) at a level of significance of alpha = 0.05 (t-test). For power calculation, a normal distribution, a absolute difference of 10 days, a Standard Deviation of 28 days and a drop-out rate of 40% was assumed.||-20|-29|<0.0001
90793285|NCT00124657|181466738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Kaplan-Meier|0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.0||||||1-year progression-free survival (n=8)||1.00|0.48|
90793286|NCT00124657|181466738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Kaplan-Meier|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.57||||||1-year progression-free survival (n=12)||0.57|0.09|
90793287|NCT00124657|181466738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Kaplan-Meier|0.45|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.106|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.198|0.602||||||1-year progression free survival (n=20)||0.602|0.198|
90793288|NCT00124657|181466738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Kaplan-Meier|0.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.069|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.015|0.285||||||2-year progression free survival (n=20)||0.285|0.015|
90793289|NCT00124657|181466738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Kaplan-Meier|0.19|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.077|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.039|0.341||||||1-year progression free survival (n=21)||0.341|0.039|
90793290|NCT00124657|181466738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Kaplan-Meier|0.19|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.077|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.039|0.341||||||2-year progression free survival (n=21)||0.341|0.039|
90793291|NCT03533491|181466811|EQUIVALENCE|A test of the null hypothesis that the proportion of participants from pretest to posttest change is equal to zero.|Proportion Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044||0.044|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||A paired t-test that evaluates whether significant pretest to posttest change in the proportion of users is different from zero.|||||.044
90793292|NCT03533491|181466812|EQUIVALENCE|A test of the null hypothesis that the proportion who use from pretest to posttest is equal to zero.|Proportion Difference|0.035|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056||0.532|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|A paired t-test that evaluates whether the proportion who use from pretest to posttest change is different from zero.||||||.532
90793293|NCT03533491|181466813|EQUIVALENCE|A test of the null hypothesis that the proportion of participants who use from pretest to posttest is equal to zero.|Proportion Difference|-0.053|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.058||0.37|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|A paired t-test that evaluates whether significant pretest to posttest change is different from zero.||||||.370
90793294|NCT03533491|181466814|EQUIVALENCE|A test of the null hypothesis that the proportion of participants that use from pretest to posttest is equal to zero.|Proportion Difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|A paired t-test that evaluates whether proportion who use from pretest to posttest is different from zero.||||||.020
90793295|NCT03533491|181466815|EQUIVALENCE|A test of the null hypothesis that the pretest to posttest change is equal to zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.031|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.108||0.773|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|A paired t-test that evaluates whether significant pretest to posttest change is different from zero.||||||.773
90793296|NCT03533491|181466816|EQUIVALENCE|A test of the null hypothesis that the pretest to posttest change is equal to zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.978|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|A paired t-test that evaluates whether significant pretest to posttest change is different from zero.||||||.978
90793297|NCT03533491|181466817|EQUIVALENCE|A test of the null hypothesis that the pretest to posttest change is equal to zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.029|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.089||0.745|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|A paired t-test that evaluates whether significant pretest to posttest change is different from zero.||||||.745
90793298|NCT03533491|181466818|EQUIVALENCE|A test of the null hypothesis that the pretest to posttest change is equal to zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.154|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.101||0.132|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|A paired t-test that evaluates whether significant pretest to posttest change is different from zero.||||||.132
90793299|NCT03533491|181466819|EQUIVALENCE|A test of the null hypothesis that the pretest to posttest change is equal to zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.066|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.111||0.551|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|A paired t-test that evaluates whether significant pretest to posttest change is different from zero.||||||.551
90793300|NCT03533491|181466820|EQUIVALENCE|A test of the null hypothesis that the pretest to posttest change is equal to zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.158|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.255||0.255|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|A paired t-test that evaluates whether significant pretest to posttest change is different from zero.||||||.255
90793301|NCT03533491|181466821|EQUIVALENCE|A test of the null hypothesis that the pretest to posttest change is equal to zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.139|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.142|||TWO_SIDED|||||||A paired t-test that evaluates whether significant pretest to posttest change is different from zero.||||||
90793302|NCT03533491|181466822|EQUIVALENCE|A test of the null hypothesis that the pretest to posttest change is equal to zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.119|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.091||0.198|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.198
90793303|NCT03533491|181466823|EQUIVALENCE|A test of the null hypothesis that the pretest to posttest change is equal to zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.035|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121||0.77|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|A paired t-test that evaluates whether significant pretest to posttest change is different from zero.||||||.770
90793304|NCT03533491|181466824|EQUIVALENCE|A test of the null hypothesis that the pretest to posttest change is equal to zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.029|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.834|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|A paired t-test that evaluates whether significant pretest to posttest change is different from zero.||||||.834
90793305|NCT03533491|181466825|EQUIVALENCE|A test of the null hypothesis that the pretest to posttest change is equal to zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.096|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.175|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|A paired t-test that evaluates whether significant pretest to posttest change is different from zero.||||||.175
90793306|NCT00456365|181466857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.03
90793307|NCT00456365|181466858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.02
90793308|NCT00456365|181466859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.69
90793309|NCT00456365|181466860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.21
90793310|NCT00928720|181466861|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.045|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.045
90793311|NCT03715829|181466872|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (Net)|-23.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.62|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-32.53|-13.96||Hochberg's step-up procedure was conducted to compare ritlecitinib 200mg - 50mg QD dose group vs placebo using observed p-values. The familywise Type 1 error rate was controlled at one-sided 0.05. Hochberg adjusted p-value is presented here.|ANCOVA|||||-13.96|-32.53|<0.0001
90793312|NCT03715829|181466872|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (Net)|-23.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.63|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-32.53|-13.93||Hochberg's step-up procedure was conducted to compare ritlecitinib 100mg - 50mg QD dose group vs placebo using observed p-values. The familywise Type 1 error rate was controlled at one-sided 0.05. Hochberg adjusted p-value is presented here.|ANCOVA|||||-13.93|-32.53|<0.0001
90793313|NCT03715829|181466872|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (Net)|-20.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.84||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-30.23|-10.93||Hochberg's step-up procedure was conducted to compare the ritlecitinib 50 mg QD dose group vs placebo using observed p-values. The familywise Type 1 error rate was controlled at one-sided 0.05. Hochberg adjusted p-value is presented here.|ANCOVA|||||-10.93|-30.23|0.0003
90793314|NCT03715829|181466872|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (Net)|-16.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.71||0.0068|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.77|-5.61||Hochberg's step-up procedure was conducted to compare the ritlecitinib 30 mg QD dose group vs placebo using observed p-values. The familywise Type 1 error rate was controlled at one-sided 0.05. One-sided unadjusted p-value is presented here.|ANCOVA|||||-5.61|-27.77|0.0068
90793315|NCT03715829|181466872|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (Net)|-5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.03||0.2015|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.02|4.91||Hochberg's step-up procedure was conducted to compare the ritlecitinib 10 mg QD dose group vs placebo using observed p-values. The familywise Type 1 error rate was controlled at one-sided 0.05. One-sided unadjusted p-value is presented here.|ANCOVA|||||4.91|-15.02|0.2015
90793316|NCT05273437|181466905|OTHER|We conducted a Bayesian Regression for all available participants, then visualized the results. (N x 16 table, N: number of participants).|Credibility interval|80.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Bayesian Regression|We explicitly sought 80% credibility of at least 100 steps more within the 3-hour increment in comparison to the intervention.|We decided that 100 steps/3 hours is the minimum value of the MAP intervention effect estimate and that an INUS condition is valid only if there is at least an 80% chance of achieving an effect beyond 100 steps/3 hours.|We hypothesized that some individuals have their own time and decision-policy-specific response pattern regardless of day elapsed since the beginning of the intervention. We did not hypothesize the direction of the effect variation.|The decision point was the unit of analysis. For the Bayesian Regression, we used Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC). Four sampling chains were used when performing Bayesian modeling. The number of estimation samples and target acceptance rate were gradually increased until numerical stability was achieved. The number of estimation samples was increased by multiplied by 2, as advised by previous literature, depending on the ratio of convergence diagnostics R̂ \> 1.1. We used 100 steps increase during 3 hours as the effect threshold value. We assumed that there is an effect only if the estimated effect is more than 80% probable (i.e., the credibility interval is over 100 steps/3 hours) and the Maximum A Posteriori Point (MAP) of the effect is more than 100 steps/3 hours. Otherwise, there is no effect. Among the models with effects, we clipped to 1000 steps/3hours as a maximum if the MAP was greater than 1000 steps/3 hours.|||
90793317|NCT03647137|181466906|OTHER||Standardized β Coefficient|-2.256||||0.00468|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value is derived from model comparison between the FEOVB model and the FEOVB\*PIB interaction model.|ChiSq Goodness of Fit Test|||L-DOPA sensitivity outcome measure was modeled with 3-level hierarchical ordinal logistic regression. The null model contained only striatal DTBZ as predictor of group, the FEOVB model additionally had FEOVB tracer, and interaction model had in addition an interaction term between FEOVB and PIB tracer. Model comparisons were performed using Chi-Square goodness of fit test.||||0.00468
90793318|NCT01554904|181466913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|162.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|62.4||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.32|297.16|||paired t test|||The null hypothesis is that the snore index would not be different after 6 weeks of treatment compared to baseline. The comparison group is the subjects completing the 6 weeks of training and the second sleep study.||297.16|27.32|0.02
90793319|NCT01554904|181466914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28|0.584||paired t test|t-test, 2 sided|||Participants completing 6 weeks of training and the second sleep study. The null hypothesis was that the AHI would not be different after 6 weeks of training compared to baseline.||0.584|-2.28|0.22
90793320|NCT03773562|181466937|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Responders vs Non-responders||||0.04
90793321|NCT03773562|181466939|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Responders vs Non-Responders||||0.002
90793322|NCT03773562|181466940|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Responders vs Non-responders||||0.01
90793323|NCT03773562|181466942|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Responder vs non-responder||||0.0003
90793324|NCT03773562|181466943|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Responder vs non-responder||||0.0003
90793325|NCT03773562|181466944|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Responder vs non-responder||||0.0003
90793326|NCT03773562|181466945|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0033|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Responder vs non-responder||||0.0033
90793327|NCT03773562|181466946|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0041|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Responder vs non-responder||||0.0041
90793328|NCT03773562|181466947|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0046|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Responder vs non-responder||||0.0046
90793329|NCT01854762|181466975|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.1|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|7.4|||Fisher Exact||||Kaplan-Meier estimates for the proportion of patients without virological failure by weeks 2, 4 and 6, and at delivery, using treatment-related discontinuation equal failure analysis|7.4|1.3|<0.01
90793330|NCT05078112|181466978|OTHER|||||||0.000393|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.000393
90793331|NCT03996395|181466982|OTHER||Descriptive statistic|71.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|23.0|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90793332|NCT02528305|181466998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.474|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.474
90793333|NCT02528305|181466999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.174|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.174
90793334|NCT02528305|181467000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.303|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.303
90793335|NCT02528305|181467001|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.023|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.023
90793336|NCT02528305|181467002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.092|||||||ANOVA|For the analysis of Total body fat||||||0.092
90793337|NCT02528305|181467002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.101|||||||ANOVA|For the analysis of Trunk fat||||||0.101
90793338|NCT02528305|181467003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.771|||||||ANOVA|For the analysis of systolic blood pressure||||||0.771
90793339|NCT02528305|181467003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028|||||||ANOVA|For the analysis of diastolic blood pressure||||||0.028
90793340|NCT02528305|181467004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.099|||||||ANOVA|For the analysis of Physical Function||||||0.099
90793341|NCT02528305|181467004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.566|||||||ANOVA|For the analysis of Social Function||||||0.566
90793342|NCT02528305|181467004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.246|||||||ANOVA|For the analysis of Mental Health||||||0.246
90793343|NCT02528305|181467004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.145|||||||ANOVA|For the analysis of Pain||||||0.145
90793344|NCT02528305|181467004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.085|||||||ANOVA|For the analysis of Change in Health||||||0.085
90793345|NCT02528305|181467004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.114|||||||ANOVA|For the analysis of Physical Role Limitation||||||0.114
90793346|NCT02528305|181467004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.841|||||||ANOVA|For the analysis of Mental Role Limitation||||||0.841
90793347|NCT02528305|181467004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.366|||||||ANOVA|For the analysis of Energy/Vitality||||||0.366
90793348|NCT02528305|181467004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.745|||||||ANOVA|For the analysis of Health Perception||||||0.745
90793349|NCT02528305|181467005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.310
90793350|NCT02528305|181467006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90793351|NCT02528305|181467007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.005
90793352|NCT02528305|181467008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.793|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.793
90793353|NCT02528305|181467009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.513|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.513
90793354|NCT02528305|181467010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.009
90793355|NCT01852214|181467011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.022
90793356|NCT01852214|181467012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.086|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.086
90793357|NCT04105725|181467029|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||negative binomial regression|||||||<0.05
90793358|NCT01308788|181467045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4414||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.4414
90793359|NCT01308788|181467046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.782||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.7820
90793360|NCT01308788|181467047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5496||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.5496
90793361|NCT01308788|181467048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.293||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.2930
90793362|NCT01308788|181467049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5058||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.5058
90793363|NCT01308788|181467050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6156||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.6156
90793364|NCT01308788|181467051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5443||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.5443
90793365|NCT01308788|181467052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7847||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.7847
90793366|NCT01308788|181467053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1331||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.1331
90793367|NCT01308788|181467054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5431||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.5431
90793368|NCT01308788|181467055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0684||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.0684
90793369|NCT01308788|181467056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.2500
90793370|NCT01308788|181467057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6896||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.6896
90793371|NCT01308788|181467058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7965||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.7965
90793372|NCT00322218|181467060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8578|||||||Stratified Log-Rank Test|||||||0.8578
90793373|NCT03379870|181467074|SUPERIORITY|Analyzed Consonant Nucleus Consonant (CNC) Word scores obtained 12-months post-activation to evaluate differences between groups. Percent correct data were converted to rationalized arcsine units (RAU) prior to data analysis to control for potential floor or ceiling effects (e.g., scores \<20%).||||||0.768||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.768
91011424|NCT00883896|181905984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|-11.6||||0.223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.0|5.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 10: P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||5.8|-29.0|0.223
90793374|NCT03379870|181467075|SUPERIORITY|Analyzed BKB-SIN scores obtained 12-months post-activation to evaluate differences between groups. Scores range from -6 to +21 and lower scores are better.||||||0.529||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.529
90793375|NCT03379870|181467076|SUPERIORITY|Analyzed SSQ scores obtained pre-operatively and at 12-months post-activation to evaluate benefit of cochlear implantation.||||||0.01||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.010
90793376|NCT03379870|181467077|SUPERIORITY|Analyzed receptive language scores pre-operatively and 12-months post activation to test for change over time and differences between groups.|||||>|0.069||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>.069
90793377|NCT03379870|181467078|SUPERIORITY|Analyzed articulation scores pre-operative and 12-months post activation to test for change over time and differences between groups.||||||0.02||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Main effect of test point (pre-operative vs post-activation)||||||.02
90793378|NCT03379870|181467079|SUPERIORITY|Analyzed expressive language scores pre-operatively and 12-months post activation to test for change over time and differences between groups.||||||0.007||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Main effect of test point (pre-operative vs post activation)||||||.007
90793379|NCT05796245|181467115|OTHER|Estimation|Cox Proportional Hazard|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|5.2|||||Hazard Ratio of Exposed/Reference, where Exposed is Infliximab-Pfizer Biosimilar and Reference is Remicade.|Comparative analysis set, IPTW weighted||5.20|0.39|
90793380|NCT05796245|181467115|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|5.34|||||Risk Ratio of Exposed/Reference, where Exposed is Infliximab-Pfizer Biosimilar and Reference is Remicade.|Comparative analysis set, IPTW weighted||5.34|0.38|
90793381|NCT05796245|181467115|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Difference (RD)|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.11|||||Risk Difference (Exposed-Reference), where Exposed is Infliximab-Pfizer Biosimilar and Reference is Remicade.|Comparative analysis set, IPTW weighted||0.11|-0.20|
90793382|NCT05796245|181467115|OTHER|Estimation|Cox Proportional Hazard|1.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|4.9|||||Hazard Ratio of Exposed/Reference, where Exposed is Infliximab-Pfizer Biosimilar and Reference is Remicade.|Comparative matched analysis set||4.90|0.54|
90793383|NCT05796245|181467115|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|5.26|||||Risk Ratio of Exposed/Reference, where Exposed is Infliximab-Pfizer Biosimilar and Reference is Remicade.|Comparative matched analysis set||5.26|0.55|
91011425|NCT00883896|181905985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|-0.5||||0.885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|5.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||5.8|-6.8|0.885
90793384|NCT05796245|181467115|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Difference (RD)|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.39|||||Risk Difference (Exposed-Reference), where Exposed is Infliximab-Pfizer Biosimilar and Reference is Remicade.|Comparative matched analysis set||0.39|-0.10|
90793385|NCT05796245|181467115|OTHER|Estimation|Cox Proportional Hazard|2.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|5.67|||||Crude Hazard Ratio of Exposed/Reference, where Exposed is Infliximab-Pfizer Biosimilar and Reference is Remicade.|Comparative analysis set||5.67|1.05|
90793386|NCT05796245|181467115|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|2.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|5.99|||||Crude Risk Ratio of Exposed/Reference, where Exposed is Infliximab-Pfizer Biosimilar and Reference is Remicade.|Comparative analysis set||5.99|1.02|
90793387|NCT05796245|181467115|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Difference (RD)|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.32|||||Crude Risk Difference (Exposed-Reference), where Exposed is Infliximab-Pfizer Biosimilar and Reference is Remicade.|Comparative analysis set||0.32|-0.06|
91053694|NCT02912650|181990983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|3.98|||ANOVA|||6 to 8 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||3.98|1.56|<0.001
90793388|NCT05796245|181467116|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.0|||||Crude Risk Difference (Exposed-Reference), where Exposed is Infliximab-Pfizer Biosimilar and Reference is Remicade.|Comparative analysis set Note: Hazard ratio, risk ratio, and risk difference for the Comparative analysis set (IPTW weighted) and for the Comparative matched analysis set could not be calculated. Also, crude hazard ratio and crude risk ratio could not be calculated.||0.00|-0.01|
90793389|NCT05796245|181467117|OTHER|Estimation|Cox Proportional Hazard|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|12.49|||||Hazard Ratio of Exposed/Reference, where Exposed is Infliximab-Pfizer Biosimilar and Reference is Remicade.|Comparative analysis set, IPTW weighted||12.49|0.12|
90793390|NCT05796245|181467117|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|17.14|||||Risk Ratio of Exposed/Reference, where Exposed is Infliximab-Pfizer Biosimilar and Reference is Remicade.|Comparative analysis set, IPTW weighted||17.14|0.12|
90793391|NCT05796245|181467117|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.01|||||Risk Difference (Exposed-Reference), where Exposed is Infliximab-Pfizer Biosimilar and Reference is Remicade.|Comparative analysis set, IPTW weighted||0.01|-0.05|
90793392|NCT05796245|181467117|OTHER|Estimation|Cox Proportional Hazard|6.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|45.94|||||Crude Hazard Ratio of Exposed/Reference, where Exposed is Infliximab-Pfizer Biosimilar and Reference is Remicade.|Comparative analysis set Note: Hazard ratio, risk ratio, and risk difference for the comparative matched analysis set could not be calculated.||45.94|0.81|
90793393|NCT05796245|181467117|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|7.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|53.51|||||Crude Risk Ratio of Exposed/Reference, where Exposed is Infliximab-Pfizer Biosimilar and Reference is Remicade.|Comparative analysis set||53.51|0.93|
90793394|NCT05796245|181467117|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Difference (RD)|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.1|||||Crude Risk Difference (Exposed-Reference), where Exposed is Infliximab-Pfizer Biosimilar and Reference is Remicade.|Comparative analysis set||0.10|-0.04|
90793395|NCT05796245|181467118|OTHER|Estimation|Cox Proportional Hazard|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|17.61|||||Hazard Ratio of Exposed/Reference, where Exposed is Infliximab-Pfizer Biosimilar and Reference is Remicade.|Comparative analysis set, IPTW weighted||17.61|0.16|
90793396|NCT05796245|181467118|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|19.79|||||Risk Ratio of Exposed/Reference, where Exposed is Infliximab-Pfizer Biosimilar and Reference is Remicade.|Comparative analysis set, IPTW weighted||19.79|0.17|
90793397|NCT05796245|181467118|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Difference (RD)|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.03|||||Risk Difference (Exposed-Reference), where Exposed is Infliximab-Pfizer Biosimilar and Reference is Remicade.|Comparative analysis set, IPTW weighted||0.03|-0.12|
90793398|NCT05796245|181467118|OTHER|Estimation|Cox Proportional Hazard|2.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|45.68|||||Hazard Ratio of Exposed/Reference, where Exposed is Infliximab-Pfizer Biosimilar and Reference is Remicade.|Comparative matched analysis set||45.68|0.15|
91011426|NCT00883896|181905985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|6.1||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|15.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||15.6|-3.4|0.180
90793399|NCT05796245|181467118|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|2.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|34.94|||||Risk Ratio of Exposed/Reference, where Exposed is Infliximab-Pfizer Biosimilar and Reference is Remicade.|Comparative matched analysis set||34.94|0.12|
90793400|NCT05796245|181467118|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Difference (RD)|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.26|||||Risk Difference (Exposed-Reference), where Exposed is Infliximab-Pfizer Biosimilar and Reference is Remicade.|Comparative matched analysis set||0.26|-0.10|
90793401|NCT05796245|181467118|OTHER|Estimation|Cox Proportional Hazard|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|19.93|||||Crude Hazard Ratio Exposed/Reference, where Exposed is Infliximab-Pfizer Biosimilar and Reference is Remicade.|Comparative analysis set||19.93|0.37|
90793402|NCT05796245|181467118|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|2.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|19.31|||||Crude Risk Ratio Exposed/Reference, where Exposed is Infliximab-Pfizer Biosimilar and Reference is Remicade.|Comparative analysis set||19.31|0.37|
90793403|NCT05796245|181467118|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Difference (RD)|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.1|||||Crude Risk Difference (Exposed-Reference), where Exposed is Infliximab-Pfizer Biosimilar and Reference is Remicade.|Comparative analysis set||0.10|-0.05|
90793404|NCT05796245|181467119|OTHER|Estimation|Cox Proportional Hazard|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|1.85|||||Hazard Ratio of Exposed/Reference, where Exposed is Infliximab-Pfizer Biosimilar and Reference is Remicade.|Comparative analysis set, IPTW weighted||1.85|0.02|
90793405|NCT05796245|181467119|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|1.99|||||Risk Ratio of Exposed/Reference, where Exposed is Infliximab-Pfizer Biosimilar and Reference is Remicade.|Comparative analysis set, IPTW weighted||1.99|0.02|
90793406|NCT05796245|181467119|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.0|||||Risk Difference (Exposed-Reference), where Exposed is Infliximab-Pfizer Biosimilar and Reference is Remicade.|Comparative analysis set, IPTW weighted||0.00|-0.17|
90793407|NCT05796245|181467119|OTHER|Estimation|Cox Proportional Hazard|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|6.0|||||Hazard Ratio of Exposed/Reference, where Exposed is Infliximab-Pfizer Biosimilar and Reference is Remicade.|Comparative matched analysis set||6.00|0.07|
90793408|NCT05796245|181467119|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|6.61|||||Risk Ratio of Exposed/Reference, where Exposed is Infliximab-Pfizer Biosimilar and Reference is Remicade.|Comparative matched analysis set||6.61|0.08|
90793409|NCT05796245|181467119|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.21|||||Risk Difference (Exposed-Reference), where Exposed is Infliximab-Pfizer Biosimilar and Reference is Remicade.|Comparative matched analysis set||0.21|-0.10|
90793410|NCT05796245|181467119|OTHER|Estimation|Cox Proportional Hazard|2.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|15.22|||||Crude Hazard Ratio Exposed/Reference, where Exposed is Infliximab-Pfizer Biosimilar and Reference is Remicade.|Comparative analysis set||15.22|0.28|
90793411|NCT05796245|181467119|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|15.08|||||Crude Risk Ratio of Exposed/Reference, where Exposed is Infliximab-Pfizer Biosimilar and Reference is Remicade.|Comparative analysis set||15.08|0.29|
90793412|NCT05796245|181467119|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Difference (RD)|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.09|||||Crude Risk Difference (Exposed-Reference), where Exposed is Infliximab-Pfizer Biosimilar and Reference is Remicade.|Comparative analysis set||0.09|-0.05|
90793413|NCT02943499|181467137|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To examine between-group differences in pre- vs. post-treatment cue reactivity, the post-treatment PCC BOLD response for the smoking vs neutral contrast was subtracted from the baseline response. The groups were then compared directly on this measure using a t-test.||||0.92
90793414|NCT02853136|181467157|OTHER||Adjusted geometric Mean ratio [%]|3107.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2332.9|4140.1|||||The estimated parameter was the adjusted geometric Mean (gMean) ratio \[%\] = adjusted gMean T2/ adjusted gMean R2. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] =42.7.|The statistical model used for the analysis of the endpoint was an ANOVA (Analysis of Variance) model. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||4140.10|2332.90|
90793415|NCT02853136|181467158|OTHER||Adjusted geometric Mean ratio [%]|659.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|489.791|886.676|||||The estimated parameter was the adjusted geometric Mean (gMean) ratio \[%\] = adjusted gMean T2/ adjusted gMean R2. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation \[%\]=44.8.|The statistical model used for the analysis of the endpoint was an ANOVA (Analysis of Variance) model. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||886.676|489.791|
90793416|NCT02853136|181467159|OTHER||Adjusted geometric Mean ratio [%]|3103.41|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2330.5|4132.65|||||"The estimated parameter was the adjusted geometric Mean (gMean) ratio \[%\] = adjusted gMean T2/ adjusted gMean R2.~Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] =42.7."|The statistical model used for the analysis of the endpoint was an ANOVA (Analysis of Variance) model. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||4132.65|2330.50|
90793417|NCT00841815|181467160|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of Least Squares Means|96.43||||||90.0|91.4|101.74|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||101.74|91.40|
90793418|NCT00841815|181467161|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of Least Squares Means|100.94||||||90.0|95.6|106.58|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||106.58|95.60|
90793419|NCT00841815|181467162|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of Least Squares Means|100.11||||||90.0|95.08|105.4|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||105.40|95.08|
90793420|NCT03900650|181467240|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.32|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<.01
90793421|NCT03900650|181467241|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.377||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value tests the effect of the study arms on number of sex events.|ANOVA|||||||.770
90793422|NCT00829868|181467253|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of Geometric Means|109.0||||||90.0|99.3|120.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||120|99.3|
90793423|NCT00829868|181467254|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of Geometric Means|101.0||||||90.0|97.5|106.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||106|97.5|
91053695|NCT02912650|181990983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.15||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|2.37|||ANOVA|||6 to 8 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||2.37|-0.07|0.064
90793424|NCT00829868|181467255|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of Geometric Means|100.0||||||90.0|96.2|104.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||104|96.2|
90793425|NCT00721110|181467264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.93||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-52.0|54.0||Significant if P \< 0.003 for efficacy and P \> 0.5311 for futility; 97.5% confidence intervals adjusted for group sequential design to maintain the overall alpha of 0.025 for each primary intervention.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline 6-minute walk distance||The effect of lidocaine on 6-minute walk distance on the 2nd postoperative morning was assessed using analysis of covariance. We expected the control group's mean 6-minute walk distance to be 300 meters with a standard deviation (SD) of about 20% of the mean for each group. Assuming a correlation of 0.5 between baseline and 2nd postoperative day, a maximum 128 total patients (32 for each group) was needed to have 80% power at the 0.025 significance level to detect effects of 36 meters or more.||54|-52|0.96
90793426|NCT00721110|181467264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.0||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-65.0|44.0||97.5% confidence interval adjusted for group sequential design (using confidence coefficient of 2.97) to maintain theoverall α of 0.025 for each primary intervention and 0.05 for the trial.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline 6-minute walk distance||The effect of ketamine on 6-minute walk distance on the 2nd postoperative morning was assessed using analysis of covariance. We expected the control group's mean 6-minute walk distance to be 300 meters with a standard deviation (SD) of about 20% of the mean for each group. Assuming a correlation of 0.5 between baseline and 2nd postoperative day, a maximum 128 total patients (32 for each group) was needed to have 80% power at the 0.025 significance level to detect effects of 36 meters or more.||44|-65|0.54
90793427|NCT00721110|181467265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.3|1.3||97.5% confidence intervals (CIs) adjusted for group sequential design (using confidence coefficient of 2.97) to maintain the overall α of 0.025 for each intervention and 0.05 for the trial.|t-test, 2 sided|||Groups compared on VRS scores at PACU admit using a t test.||1.3|-3.3|0.20
91053696|NCT02912650|181990983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.47|||ANOVA|||6 to 8 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||2.47|0.76|<0.001
90793428|NCT00721110|181467265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.8|1.9||97.5% confidence intervals (CIs) adjusted for group sequential design (using confidence coefficient of 2.97) to maintain the overall α of 0.025 for each intervention and 0.05 for the trial.|t-test, 2 sided|||Ketamine compared to placebo at PACU admit using a t test||1.9|-2.8|0.54
90793429|NCT00721110|181467265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.5|0.8||97.5% confidence intervals (CIs) adjusted for group sequential design (using confidence coefficient of 2.97) to maintain the overall α of 0.025 for each intervention and 0.05 for the trial.|t-test, 2 sided|||Lidocaine versus nonlidocaine on pain severity at postoperative care unit discharge was assessed using a t test.||0.8|-2.5|0.11
90793430|NCT00721110|181467265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.4|2.0||97.5% confidence intervals (CIs) adjusted for group sequential design (using confidence coefficient of 2.97) to maintain the overall α of 0.025 for each intervention and 0.05 for the trial.|t-test, 2 sided|||Ketamine versus nonketamine on postoperative care unit discharge pain severity was assessed using a t test.||2.0|-1.4|0.56
90793431|NCT00721110|181467265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.9|2.2||97.5% confidence intervals (CIs) adjusted for group sequential design (using confidence coefficient of 2.97) to maintain the overall α of 0.025 for each intervention and 0.05 for the trial.|t-test, 2 sided|||Lidocaine versus nonlidocaine on postoperative day 1 pain severity assessed using a t test.||2.2|-0.9|0.20
90793432|NCT00721110|181467265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.4|1.7||97.5% confidence intervals (CIs) adjusted for group sequential design (using confidence coefficient of 2.97) to maintain the overall α of 0.025 for each intervention and 0.05 for the trial.|t-test, 2 sided|||Ketamine versus nonketamine on postoperative day 1 pain severity was assessed using a t test.||1.7|-1.4|0.79
90793433|NCT00721110|181467265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.1|1.7||97.5% confidence intervals (CIs) adjusted for group sequential design (using confidence coefficient of 2.97) to maintain the overall α of 0.025 for each intervention and 0.05 for the trial.|t-test, 2 sided|||Lidocaine versus nonlidocaine on postoperative day 2 pain severity was assessed using a t test.||1.7|-1.1|0.55
91011427|NCT00883896|181905985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|-2.7||||0.277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|1.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||1.1|-6.5|0.277
91011428|NCT00883896|181905985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|1.7||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|11.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||11.3|-7.9|0.740
91011429|NCT00883896|181905985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|0.4||||0.934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|10.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||10.1|-9.3|0.934
91053697|NCT02912650|181990984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon test|||p-value was calculated by using Gehan-Wilcoxon test, stratified by gender and baseline categorical PSR terms.||||<0.001
91053698|NCT02912650|181990984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.069|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon test|||p-value was calculated by using Gehan-Wilcoxon test, stratified by gender and baseline categorical PSR terms.||||0.069
90793434|NCT00721110|181467265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.1|1.8||97.5% confidence intervals (CIs) adjusted for group sequential design (using confidence coefficient of 2.97) to maintain the overall α of 0.025 for each intervention and 0.05 for the trial.|t-test, 2 sided|||Ketamine versus nonketamine on postoperative day 2 pain severity was assessed using a t test.||1.8|-1.1|0.47
91053699|NCT02912650|181990984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon test|||p-value was calculated by using Gehan-Wilcoxon test, stratified by gender and baseline categorical PSR terms.||||<0.001
91053700|NCT02912650|181990984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon test|||p-value was calculated by using Gehan-Wilcoxon test, stratified by gender and baseline categorical PSR terms.||||<0.001
91053701|NCT02912650|181990984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon test|||p-value was calculated by using Gehan-Wilcoxon test, stratified by gender and baseline categorical PSR terms.||||<0.001
90793435|NCT00721110|181467266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-7.0|7.0||97.5% confidence intervals (CIs) adjusted for group sequential design (using confidence coefficient of 2.97) to maintain the overall α of 0.025 for each intervention and 0.05 for the trial.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Lidocaine versus nonlidocaine on intraoperative opioid consumption was assessed using the Wilcoxon rank sum test.||7|-7|0.63
90793436|NCT00721110|181467266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-10.0|5.0||97.5% confidence intervals (CIs) adjusted for group sequential design (using confidence coefficient of 2.97) to maintain the overall α of 0.025 for each intervention and 0.05 for the trial.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Ketamine versus nonketamine on intraoperative opioid consumption was assessed using a Wilcoxon rank sum test.||5|-10|0.27
91053702|NCT02912650|181990984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon test|||p-value was calculated by using Gehan-Wilcoxon test, stratified by gender and baseline categorical PSR terms.||||0.005
91053703|NCT02912650|181990985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-45.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.96|-31.58|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At 8 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) adjusted proportions, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-31.58|-58.96|<0.001
91053704|NCT02912650|181990985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-8.88||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.27|0.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At 8 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||0.50|-18.27|0.064
91011430|NCT00883896|181905985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|-0.6||||0.876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|6.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||6.4|-7.7|0.876
91011431|NCT00883896|181905985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|-1.1||||0.842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|9.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6: P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||9.2|-11.4|0.842
91011432|NCT00883896|181905985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|4.1||||0.509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|16.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6: P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||16.3|-8.1|0.509
91011433|NCT00883896|181905985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|4.0||||0.504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|15.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6: P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||15.0|-7.0|0.504
91011434|NCT00883896|181905985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|5.4||||0.373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|17.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||17.0|-6.3|0.373
91011435|NCT00883896|181905985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|-3.4||||0.499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|5.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||5.2|-12.0|0.499
91011436|NCT00883896|181905985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|7.0||||0.244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|18.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||18.3|-4.2|0.244
91011437|NCT00883896|181905985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|-0.2||||0.979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|14.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 10: P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||14.6|-15.0|0.979
91011438|NCT00883896|181905985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|-9.8||||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.8|2.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 10: P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||2.2|-21.8|0.166
90793437|NCT00721110|181467266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-3.0||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-15.0|5.0||97.5% confidence intervals (CIs) adjusted for group sequential design (using confidence coefficient of 2.97) to maintain the overall α of 0.025 for each intervention and 0.05 for the trial.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Lidocaine versus nonlidocaine on postoperative care unit opioid consumption was assessed using a Wilcoxon rank sum test.||5|-15|0.28
90793438|NCT00721110|181467266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-4.0||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-15.0|4.0||97.5% confidence intervals (CIs) adjusted for group sequential design (using confidence coefficient of 2.97) to maintain the overall α of 0.025 for each intervention and 0.05 for the trial.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Ketamine versus nonketamine on postoperative care unit opioid consumption was assessed using a Wilcoxon rank sum test.||4|-15|0.22
90793439|NCT00721110|181467266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.5||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-13.0|21.0||97.5% confidence intervals (CIs) adjusted for group sequential design (using confidence coefficient of 2.97) to maintain the overall α of 0.025 for each intervention and 0.05 for the trial.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Lidocaine versus nonlidocaine on postoperative day 1 opioid consumption was assessed using a Wilcoxon rank sum test.||21|-13|0.76
90793440|NCT00721110|181467266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-3.0||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-19.0|14.0||97.5% confidence intervals (CIs) adjusted for group sequential design (using confidence coefficient of 2.97) to maintain the overall α of 0.025 for each intervention and 0.05 for the trial.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Ketamine versus nonketamine on postoperative day 1 opioid consumption was assessed using a Wilcoxon rank sum test.||14|-19|0.66
90793441|NCT00721110|181467266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.5||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-5.0|10.0||97.5% confidence intervals (CIs) adjusted for group sequential design (using confidence coefficient of 2.97) to maintain the overall α of 0.025 for each intervention and 0.05 for the trial.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Lidocaine versus nonlidocaine on postoperative day 2 opioid consumption was assessed using a Wilcoxon rank sum test.||10|-5|0.30
91011439|NCT00883896|181905985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|0.5||||0.947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|14.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 10: P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||14.2|-13.2|0.947
90793442|NCT00721110|181467266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-5.0|8.0||97.5% confidence intervals (CIs) adjusted for group sequential design (using confidence coefficient of 2.97) to maintain the overall α of 0.025 for each intervention and 0.05 for the trial.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Ketamine versus nonketamine on postoperative day 2 opioid consumption was assessed using a Wilcoxon rank sum test.||8|-5|0.79
90793443|NCT00721110|181467267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.06||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.28|0.41||97.5% confidence intervals (CIs) adjusted for group sequential design (using confidence coefficient of 2.97) to maintain the overall α of 0.025 for each intervention and 0.05 for the trial.|Chi-squared||numerator: lidocaine; denominator: control|Lidocaine versus nonlidocaine on PACU (postoperative care unit) nausea assessed using Pearson chi square test.||0.41|-0.28|0.58
91011440|NCT00883896|181905985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|8.3||||0.286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|23.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||23.8|-7.1|0.286
91011441|NCT00883896|181905985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|-1.6||||0.822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|11.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||11.8|-15.0|0.822
90793444|NCT00721110|181467267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.02||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.32|0.36||97.5% confidence intervals (CIs) adjusted for group sequential design (using confidence coefficient of 2.97) to maintain the overall α of 0.025 for each intervention and 0.05 for the trial.|Chi-squared||Numinator: ketamine; denominator: nonketamine|Ketamine versus nonketamine on PACU (postoperative care unit) nausea assessed using Pearson chi square test.||0.36|-0.32|0.87
90793445|NCT00721110|181467267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.06||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.31|0.44||97.5% confidence intervals (CIs) adjusted for group sequential design (using confidence coefficient of 2.97) to maintain the overall α of 0.025 for each intervention and 0.05 for the trial.|Chi-squared|||Lidocaine versus nonlidocaine on POD 1 (first postoperative day) nausea assessed using Pearson chi square test.||0.44|-0.31|0.61
90793446|NCT00721110|181467267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.03||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.34|0.41||97.5% confidence intervals (CIs) adjusted for group sequential design (using confidence coefficient of 2.97) to maintain the overall α of 0.025 for each intervention and 0.05 for the trial.|Chi-squared|||Ketamine versus nonketamine on POD 1(first postoperative day) nausea assessed using Pearson chi square test.||0.41|-0.34|0.79
90793447|NCT00721110|181467267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|-0.13||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.38|0.12||97.5% confidence intervals (CIs) adjusted for group sequential design (using confidence coefficient of 2.97) to maintain the overall α of 0.025 for each intervention and 0.05 for the trial.|Chi-squared|||Lidocaine versus nonlidocaine on PACU (postoperative care unit) vomiting assessed using Pearson chi square test.||0.12|-0.38|0.26
90793448|NCT00721110|181467267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|-0.06||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.31|0.19||97.5% confidence intervals (CIs) adjusted for group sequential design (using confidence coefficient of 2.97) to maintain the overall α of 0.025 for each intervention and 0.05 for the trial.|Chi-squared|||Ketamine versus nonketamine on PACU (postoperative care unit) vomiting assessed using a Pearson chi square test.||0.19|-0.31|0.71
90793449|NCT00721110|181467267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.06||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.23|0.36||97.5% confidence intervals (CIs) adjusted for group sequential design (using confidence coefficient of 2.97) to maintain the overall α of 0.025 for each intervention and 0.05 for the trial.|Chi-squared|||Lidocaine versus nonlidocaine on postoperative day 1 vomiting assessed using a Pearson chi square test.||0.36|-0.23|0.52
90793450|NCT00721110|181467267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.07||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.22|0.38|||Chi-squared|||Ketamine versus nonketamine on postoperative day 1 vomiting assessed using Pearson chi square test.||0.38|-0.22|0.44
90793451|NCT00721110|181467268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.14|2.2||97.5% confidence intervals (CIs) adjusted for group sequential design (using confidence coefficient of 2.97) to maintain the overall α of 0.025 for each intervention and 0.05 for the trial.|t-test, 2 sided|||Lidocaine was compared to nonlidocaine on mean VRS fatigue score using a t test.||2.2|-2.14|0.96
90793452|NCT00721110|181467268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.8|2.57||97.5% confidence intervals (CIs) adjusted for group sequential design (using confidence coefficient of 2.97) to maintain the overall α of 0.025 for each intervention and 0.05 for the trial.|t-test, 2 sided|||Ketamine was compared to nonketamine on mean VRS fatigue score using a t test.||2.57|-1.80|0.59
90793453|NCT01603368|181467284|OTHER|Student's t-test|||||=|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.001
91011442|NCT00883896|181905985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|-0.1||||0.986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|12.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||12.1|-12.3|0.986
90793454|NCT02951481|181467288|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.56
90793455|NCT02951481|181467289|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.55
90793456|NCT02951481|181467290|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.023|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.023
90793457|NCT02951481|181467291|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
90793458|NCT02951481|181467292|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5
90793459|NCT02951481|181467293|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.07
90793460|NCT02951481|181467294|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.47
90793461|NCT02951481|181467295|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.29
90793462|NCT01051661|181467296|SUPERIORITY|The non-inferiority objective was met if the lower limit (LL) of the 95% CI for the Vaccine Efficacy Improvement (VEI) was \> -33%. Furthermore, the superiority objective was met if the LL of the 95% CI for the VEI was \>0.|Vaccine efficacy increase|76.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.53|93.39||||||Evaluation of the relative protective efficacy of 2 doses of Arepanrix™ vaccine (Arepanrix 2D Group) compared to two doses of GSK2340273A vaccine (GSK2340273A Group) beginning 14 days after Dose 1 vaccination (for each subject enrolled) and continuing until study conclusion on Day 385.||93.39|18.53|
90793463|NCT01051661|181467324|OTHER||Adjusted GMT ratios|5.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.92|6.41||||||Adjusted Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratios of Hemagglutination Inhibition (HI) antibody post vaccination between Arepanrix 2D Group and GSK2340273A Group for A/California influenza strain (Arepanrix 2D Group/GSK2340273A Group).||6.41|4.92|
90793464|NCT01051661|181467324|OTHER||Adjusted GMT ratios|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.19||||||Adjusted Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratios of Hemagglutination Inhibition (HI) antibody post vaccination between Arepanrix 1D Group and GSK2340273A Group for A/California influenza strain (Arepanrix 1D Group/GSK2340273A Group).||1.19|0.93|
90793465|NCT01916226|181467366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|-0.3||0.278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.2||Estimating the standard deviation of CFB in rTNSS over 2 weeks to be approximately 2.6, a two-sample t-test with α=0.05 suggests that a sample size of 144 participants per arm would provide 90% power to show a difference of 1.0 between treatments.|ANCOVA|||||0.2|-0.7|0.278
90793466|NCT05430919|181467435|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-2.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.229|-1.385|||ANCOVA||REGN5713-5714-5715 900 mg vs. Placebo, Day 29|||-1.385|-3.229|<0.0001
90793467|NCT05430919|181467436|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.634|-1.658|||ANCOVA||REGN5713-5715 600 mg vs. Placebo, Day 29|||-1.658|-3.634|<0.0001
90793468|NCT05430919|181467436|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.51||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.478|-0.539|||ANCOVA||REGN5715 300 mg vs. Placebo, Day 29|||-0.539|-2.478|0.0023
90793469|NCT05430919|181467452|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-63.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.411|-52.95|||ANCOVA||REGN5713-5714-5715 900 mg vs. Placebo, Day 29|||-52.950|-73.411|<0.0001
90793470|NCT05430919|181467452|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-56.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.806|-45.204|||ANCOVA||REGN5713-5715 600 mg vs. Placebo, Day 29|||-45.204|-66.806|<0.0001
90793471|NCT05430919|181467452|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-34.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.304|-24.343|||ANCOVA||REGN5715 300 mg vs. Placebo, Day 29|||-24.343|-45.304|<0.0001
90793472|NCT00967486|181467491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
90793473|NCT01469156|181467492|OTHER|Visually significant ocular or systemic AEs were predominantly mild or moderate. No significant safety signals were observed in either group.High- and standard-dose ranibizumab were generally well tolerated without evidence of ocular or systemic severe adverse events, including arterial thromboembolic events.|data survey|28.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|28.0||28 ocular and non-ocular adverse events collected, in mild to moderate nature|t-test, 2 sided|||Purpose was to determine safety and efficacy of intravitreal high-dose ranibizumab in the treatment of active PCV.|Visually significant ocular or systemic AEs that were either reported by subjects or identified by imaging and/or ocular exam|28|0|0.05
90793474|NCT04439903|181467534|OTHER||Intercept|1.9726|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8238||0.61532|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.61532
90793475|NCT04439903|181467534|OTHER||Slope|-0.68016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0084||0.5128|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Predictor variable 1: Number of simulations per participant per week.|||||0.5128
90793476|NCT04439903|181467534|OTHER||Slope|0.15238|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3629||0.68197|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Predictor variable 2: Minutes of interaction with the Web-Based Simulation Tool per participant per week.|||||0.68197
90793477|NCT04439903|181467535|OTHER||Intercept|-0.49527|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44535||0.28789|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.28789
90793478|NCT04439903|181467535|OTHER||Slope|0.16785|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11745||0.17848|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Predictor variable 1: Number of simulations per participant per week.|||||0.17848
90793479|NCT04439903|181467535|OTHER||Slope|-0.06091|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.042266||0.17514|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Predictor variable 2: Minutes of interaction with the Web-Based Simulation Tool per participant per week.|||||0.17514
90793480|NCT04439903|181467536|OTHER||Intercept|-0.28825|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59949||0.63929|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.63929
90793481|NCT04439903|181467536|OTHER||Slope|-0.14422|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1581||0.37964|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Predictor variable 1: Number of simulations per participant per week.|||||0.37964
90793482|NCT04439903|181467536|OTHER||Slope|0.06718|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056895||0.26057|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Predictor variable 2: Minutes of interaction with the Web-Based Simulation Tool per participant per week.|||||0.26057
90793483|NCT00373360|181467543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change between Baseline and Week 8||||1.000
90793484|NCT00373360|181467544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change between Baseline and Week 8||||0.008
90793485|NCT00373360|181467545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change between Baseline and Week 8||||1.000
90793486|NCT00373360|181467546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.531||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change between Baseline and Week 8||||0.531
90793487|NCT00373360|181467547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change between Baseline and Week 8||||1.000
90793488|NCT00373360|181467548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change between Baseline and Week 8||||0.500
90793489|NCT00373360|181467549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change between Baseline and Week 8||||1.000
90793490|NCT00373360|181467550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change from Baseline to Week 8||||1.000
90793491|NCT00373360|181467551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change between Baseline and Week 8||||0
90793492|NCT00373360|181467552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change between Baseline and Week 8||||1.000
90793493|NCT00373360|181467553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change between Baseline and Week 8||||0.031
90793494|NCT00373360|181467554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change between Baseline and Week 8||||0.031
90793495|NCT00373360|181467555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change between Baseline and Week 8||||0.004
90793496|NCT00373360|181467556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.063||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change between Baseline and Week 8||||0.063
90793497|NCT00373360|181467557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.203||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change Between Baseline and Week 8||||0.203
90793498|NCT00373360|181467561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change from Baseline to Week 8||||0.250
90793499|NCT00373360|181467562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.207||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change between Baseline and Week 8||||0.207
90793500|NCT00373360|181467563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.297||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change between Baseline and Week 8||||0.297
90793501|NCT00373360|181467564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change between Baseline and Week 8||||0.004
90793502|NCT00913835|181467581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.054||||0.8049|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.751|1.478|||Log Rank|Stratified by prior platinum treatment, platinum-refractory versus platinum-resistance reaction.||||1.478|0.751|0.8049
91011443|NCT00883896|181905986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|2.5||||0.205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|7.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||7.4|-2.3|0.205
90793503|NCT00913835|181467582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.115||||0.6346|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.768|1.618|||Log Rank|Stratified by prior platinum treatment, platinum-refractory versus platinum-resistance reaction.||||1.618|0.768|0.6346
90793504|NCT00913835|181467583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.619|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6190
90793505|NCT00773461|181467594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
90793506|NCT00773461|181467594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||ITT Population (Sensitivity)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
90793507|NCT00773461|181467595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Comparison of ACR 50 responders in placebo and Tocilizumab groups|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
90793508|NCT00773461|181467595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0345||||||Comparison of ACR 70 responders in placebo and Tocilizumab groups|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0345
91011444|NCT00883896|181905986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|2.5||||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|7.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2:P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||7.3|-2.3|0.188
91011445|NCT00883896|181905986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||||||Week 2: Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||0.0|0.0|
91011446|NCT00883896|181905986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|1.1||||0.699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|6.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4:P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||6.6|-4.5|0.699
91011447|NCT00883896|181905986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|5.4||||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|13.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4:P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||13.8|-3.0|0.155
91053705|NCT02912650|181990985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-26.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.91|-17.05|||ANOVA|||At 8 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-17.05|-36.91|<0.001
90793509|NCT00773461|181467597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|-2.8||p value was calculated using the difference between core set values of the two arms.|ANCOVA|||Placebo + DMARDs Vs Tocilizumab + DMARDs analysis for Swollen Joint Count||-2.8|-6.6|<0.0001
90793510|NCT00773461|181467597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|-6.1||p value was calculated using the difference between core set values of the two arms.|ANCOVA|||Placebo + DMARDs Vs Tocilizumab + DMARDs analysis for Tender Joint Count||-6.1|-11.3|<0.0001
91053706|NCT02912650|181990985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-36.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.45|-22.07|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At 8 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-22.07|-50.45|<0.001
90793511|NCT00773461|181467598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.3|-12.9|||ANCOVA|||||-12.9|-25.3|<0.0001
90793512|NCT00773461|181467599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.5|-14.0|||ANCOVA|||||-14.0|-24.5|<0.0001
90793513|NCT00773461|181467600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.2|-12.7|||ANCOVA|||||-12.7|-25.2|<0.0001
90793514|NCT00773461|181467601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7384|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1464|-1.3303|||ANCOVA|||||-1.3303|-2.1464|<0.0001
90793515|NCT00773461|181467602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-39.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.7|-33.7|||ANCOVA|||||-33.7|-44.7|<.0001
90793516|NCT00773461|181467604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.8||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|5.9|||ANCOVA|||||5.9|1.8|0.0003
90793517|NCT00773461|181467605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-68.3||||0.0599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-139.5|2.9|||ANCOVA|||||2.9|-139.5|0.0599
90793518|NCT00773461|181467606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.956|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.125|16.786|||ANCOVA|||||16.786|9.125|<0.0001
90793519|NCT00773461|181467607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.28|||ANCOVA|||||-0.28|-0.56|<0.0001
90793520|NCT00834574|181467615|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model containing factors for sequence of products, subjects within sequence, periods, and products was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|103.0||||||90.0|97.2|110.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||110|97.2|
90793521|NCT00834574|181467616|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model containing factors for sequence of products, subjects within sequence, periods, and products was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|107.0||||||90.0|101.0|114.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||114|101|
91011448|NCT00883896|181905986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|-1.0||||0.546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|0.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4:P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||0.9|-2.9|0.546
90793522|NCT00834574|181467617|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model containing factors for sequence of products, subjects within sequence, periods, and products was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|107.0||||||90.0|101.0|114.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||114|101|
90793523|NCT00107575|181467618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||>.05
90793524|NCT00107575|181467619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||expected count ratio|0.81||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.98||a priori p-value was p \< .05|generalized estimating equations|Negative binomial model controlling for sex, motivation to change drinking, and baseline drinking||||0.98|0.67|.027
90793525|NCT00107575|181467620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||.18
90793526|NCT00107575|181467621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||.95
90793527|NCT00107575|181467622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||.76
90793528|NCT01373281|181467623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Vaccine efficacy|56.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.8|66.4||||||The statistical methodology was based on the use of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the vaccine efficacy (expressed in %). The CI was calculated using the exact method conditional on the total number of cases in both groups (exact method by Breslow \& Day). The vaccine efficacy of the CYD dengue vaccine was considered significant if the lower bound of its 95% CI was greater than 25%.||66.4|43.8|
90793529|NCT01373281|181467626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Vaccine Efficacy|55.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.3|62.3||||||The statistical methodology was based on the use of the two-sided 95% CI of the vaccine efficacy (expressed in %) calculated using the exact method conditional on the total number of cases in both groups.||62.3|47.3|
90793530|NCT01373281|181467627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Vaccine Efficacy|57.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.0|65.2||||||The statistical methodology was based on the use of the two-sided 95% CI of the vaccine efficacy (expressed in %) calculated using the exact method conditional on the total number of cases in both groups.||65.2|49.0|
90793531|NCT01373281|181467628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Vaccine Efficacy|54.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.8|61.7||||||The statistical methodology was based on the use of the two-sided 95% CI of the vaccine efficacy (expressed in %) calculated using the exact method conditional on the total number of cases in both groups.||61.7|46.8|
91053707|NCT02912650|181990985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-18.58||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.64|-4.52|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At 8 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-4.52|-32.64|0.010
90793532|NCT03257657|181467670|OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1
90793533|NCT03257657|181467672|OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.13
91053708|NCT02912650|181990985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-18.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.44|-7.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At 8 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-7.90|-28.44|<0.001
90793534|NCT03257657|181467674|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
90793535|NCT02296099|181467679|EQUIVALENCE|The Mann-Whitney U test was utilized.||||||0.014||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|There were no adjustments.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the pain scores between the two groups.||||0.014
90793536|NCT02272985|181467698|OTHER||||||=|0.03||||||the p value was calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||=0.03
90793537|NCT02272985|181467699|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Left frontal gray matter:||||0.001
91053709|NCT02912650|181990985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-57.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.44|-44.72|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At 6 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-44.72|-70.44|<0.001
90793538|NCT02272985|181467699|OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Right frontal gray matter:||||0.08
90793539|NCT03707821|181467712|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of -5 points was used. This margin is based on a 10% shift in the distribution of CLUE scores. Non-inferiority was declared in the lower limit of the 95% credible interval was above 5.|Mean Difference (Net)|3.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.65|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|8.5|||Bayesian normal random-effects|A 95% Credible Interval for the Posterior mean difference between the Test and Control was used to test for non-inferiority.|Mean difference was calculated as Test minus Control.|It was calculated that 224 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the two lens types would have at least 80% power to detect a 5 points difference in mean overall comfort at he 2-week follow-up. Sample size was determined using Stroup's Method (alpha=0.05).||8.5|-2.0|
90793540|NCT03707821|181467713|NON_INFERIORITY|A cumulative odds ratio non-inferiority margin of 2 was used. This margin is based on a 10% difference if the proportion of subjects that report a higher rating/experience.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.034|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.15|||Bayesian random -effects model|A 95% Credible Interval for the Posterior proportion mean difference between the Test and Control was used to test for non-inferiority.|mean difference was calculated as Test minus Control.|It was calculated that 40 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the two lens types would have at least 80% power to detect a 10% difference in proportion of subjects that reported at higher rating (Strongly Agree and Agree) with the Test compared to the Control lens at the 2-week follow-up. Sample size was determined using simulation-based methods (alpha=0.05).||0.15|0.02|
90793541|NCT03707821|181467714|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 0.05 points was used. This margin corresponds to a half line difference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.008|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|-0.01|||Bayesian Normal Random effects model|A 95% Credible Interval for the Posterior mean difference between the Test and control was used to test for non-inferiority.|Mean difference was calculated as Test minus Control.|It was calculated that 30 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the two lens types would have at least 80% power to detect a 0.05 difference in LogMAR visual acuity at the 2-week follow-up. Sample size was determined using simulations methods for repeated measures.||-0.01|-0.04|
91079091|NCT00672841|182043860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Specificity|52.0||||||95.0|||||Specificity||Specificity \[0.52\]= (True negatives \[n=30\]/True negatives + false positives \[n=58\])|The clinical specificity of the BDG test was calculated for both study groups combined||||
90793542|NCT03707821|181467715|SUPERIORITY|A superiority margin of 90% was used. Lower limit of 95% credible interval was compared to 90%|Mean Percentage of Acceptable Fitting|99.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.38|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.5|100.0|||Bayesian Beta-Binomial Model|model for correlated data||It was calculated that 100 participants were required to show that the acceptable lens fitting for the Test lens would be superior to 90% with at least 80% power. Sample size was determined using simulations methods for repeated measures.||100|98.5|
90793543|NCT03707821|181467716|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 5% was used. Upper limit of the 95% credible interval was compared to 5%|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0036|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.007|0.008|||Bayesian beta-binomial model|model for correlated data|mean difference was calculated as Test minus Control.|It was calculated that 224 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the two lens types would have at least 80% power to detect 5% difference between the Test and Control lens with respect to the proportion of eyes with Grade 3 or higher slit lamp findings across all study visits. Sample size was determined using simulations methods. Sample size for this study was primarily driven by the slit lamp findings.||0.008|-0.007|
90793544|NCT03707821|181467717|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of -5 points was used. This margin is based on a 10% shift in the distribution of CLUE scores. Non-inferiority was declared in the lower limit of the 95% credible interval was above 5.|Mean Difference (Net)|2.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.94|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|6.3|||Bayesian normal random-effects|A 95% Credible Interval for the Posterior mean difference between the Test and Control was used to test for non-inferiority.|Mean difference was calculated as Test minus Control.|Sample Size was based on primary endpoints only.||6.3|-1.3|
90793545|NCT03707821|181467718|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of -5 points was used. This margin is based on a 10% shift in the distribution of CLUE scores. Non-inferiority was declared in the lower limit of the 95% credible interval was above 5.|Mean Difference (Net)|8.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.295|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.48|12.54|||Bayesian normal random-effects|A 95% Credible Interval for the Posterior mean difference between the Test and Control was used to test for non-inferiority.|Mean difference was calculated as Test minus Control.|Sample Size was based on primary endpoints only.||12.54|3.48|
90793546|NCT02378480|181467735|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 10% was used for the analysis.|treatment difference|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|4.9|||||The 95% confidence interval was constructed based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification. Treatment difference for a response of clinical success was calculated as omadacycline minus linezolid.|||4.9|-6.3|
90793547|NCT02378480|181467736|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 10% was used for the analysis.|treatment difference|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|8.2|||||The 95% confidence interval was constructed based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification. Treatment difference for a response of clinical success was calculated as omadacycline minus linezolid.|||8.2|-3.2|
90793548|NCT02378480|181467737|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 10% was used for the analysis.|treatment difference|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|6.9|||||The 95% confidence interval was constructed based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification. Treatment difference for a response of clinical success was calculated as omadacycline minus linezolid.|||6.9|-1.0|
90793549|NCT02014467|181467748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.67|5.18|||ANCOVA|||||5.18|3.67|<0.0001
90793550|NCT02014467|181467748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7495||95.0||||Treatment By Region Interaction: Based on ANCOVA, Percent change from Baseline = Baseline + treatment + region + treatment by region|ANCOVA|||||||0.7495
90793551|NCT02014467|181467749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.45|3.96|||ANCOVA|||||3.96|2.45|<0.0001
90793552|NCT02014467|181467749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9029||95.0||||Treatment By Region Interaction: Based on ANCOVA, Percent change from Baseline = Baseline + treatment + region + treatment by region|ANCOVA|||||||0.9029
90793553|NCT02014467|181467750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|2.8|||ANCOVA|||||2.80|1.72|<0.0001
90793554|NCT02014467|181467750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.107||95.0||||Treatment By Region Interaction: Based on ANCOVA, Percent change from Baseline = Baseline + treatment + region + treatment by region|ANCOVA|||||||0.1070
90793555|NCT02014467|181467751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|2.2|||ANCOVA|||||2.20|0.98|<0.0001
90793556|NCT02014467|181467751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4369||95.0||||Treatment By Region Interaction: Based on ANCOVA, Percent change from Baseline = Baseline + treatment + region + treatment by region|ANCOVA|||||||0.4369
90793557|NCT02014467|181467752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.36|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.39|4.32|||ANCOVA|||||4.32|2.39|<0.0001
90793558|NCT02014467|181467752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6082||95.0||||Treatment By Region Interaction: Based on ANCOVA, Percent change from Baseline = Baseline + treatment + region + treatment by region|ANCOVA|||||||0.6082
90793559|NCT02014467|181467753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.74|3.88|||ANCOVA|||||3.88|2.74|<0.0001
90793560|NCT02014467|181467753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3513||95.0||||Treatment By Region Interaction: Based on ANCOVA, Percent change from Baseline = Baseline + treatment + region + treatment by region|ANCOVA|||||||0.3513
90793561|NCT02014467|181467754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.96|3.27|||ANCOVA|||||3.27|1.96|<0.0001
90793562|NCT02014467|181467754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.541||95.0||||Treatment By Region Interaction: Based on ANCOVA, Percent change from Baseline = Baseline + treatment + region + treatment by region|ANCOVA|||||||0.5410
90793563|NCT02014467|181467755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.71|5.72|||ANCOVA|||||5.72|3.71|<0.0001
90793564|NCT02014467|181467755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3957||95.0||||Treatment By Region Interaction: Based on ANCOVA, Percent change from Baseline = Baseline + treatment + region + treatment by region|ANCOVA|||||||0.3957
90793565|NCT02014467|181467756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges Lehmann Estimate of Difference|-56.92|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.38|-52.65||Two-Sided, Wilcoxon t Approximation|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test||s-CTX at Month 6|||-52.65|-61.38|<0.0001
90793566|NCT02014467|181467756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges Lehmann Estimate of Difference|-52.56|||<|0.0001||95.0|-59.38|-46.17||Two-Sided, Wilcoxon t Approximation|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test||s-CTX at Month 12|||-46.17|-59.38|<0.0001
90793567|NCT02014467|181467757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges Lehmann Estimate of Difference|-56.94|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.6|-52.7||Two-Sided, Wilcoxon t Approximation|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test||s-PINP at Month 6|||-52.70|-61.60|<0.0001
90793568|NCT02014467|181467757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges Lehmann Estimate of Difference|-51.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.26|-45.91||Two-Sided, Wilcoxon t Approximation|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test||s-PINP at Month 12|||-45.91|-56.26|<0.0001
90793569|NCT01217892|181467783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.084||0.0106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.05||significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided) applying Hochberg's method across the two Dapagliflozin BID groups.|ANCOVA|with treatment group as effect (all treatment groups included) and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0 (with alpha = 0.05 using Hochberg's method to control the overall Type I error across hypotheses in the two Dapagliflozin BID groups, two-sided)||-0.05|-0.38|0.0106
90793570|NCT01217892|181467783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0843|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.18||significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided) applying Hochberg's method across the two Dapagliflozin BID groups.|ANCOVA|with treatment group as effect (all treatment groups included) and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0 (with alpha = 0.05 using Hochberg's method to control the overall Type I error across hypotheses in the two Dapagliflozin BID groups, two-sided)||-0.18|-0.52|<0.0001
90793571|NCT01217892|181467784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.363|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.53|-1.1||significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure within treatment group for treatment groups tested significantly different from placebo for the primary endpoint.|ANCOVA|with treatment group (all treatment groups included) and stratum (HbA1c \<7.0% vs \>=7.0% at randomization) as effect and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0 (with alpha = 0.05, two-sided)||-1.10|-2.53|<0.0001
90793572|NCT01217892|181467784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3636|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.89|-1.46||significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure within treatment group for treatment groups tested significantly different from placebo for the primary endpoint.|ANCOVA|with treatment group (all treatment groups included) and stratum (HbA1c \<7.0% vs \>=7.0% at randomization) as effect and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0 (with alpha = 0.05, two-sided)||-1.46|-2.89|<0.0001
91011449|NCT00883896|181905986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|2.5||||0.205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|7.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6:P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||7.4|-2.3|0.205
91011450|NCT00883896|181905986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|2.2||||0.269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|6.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6:P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||6.1|-1.8|0.269
91011451|NCT00883896|181905986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|2.0||||0.723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|5.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6: P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||5.6|-1.6|0.723
91011452|NCT00883896|181905986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|2.5||||0.205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|7.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||7.4|-2.3|0.205
91011453|NCT00883896|181905986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||||||Week 8: Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the cochran method.||0.0|0.0|
90793573|NCT01217892|181467785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.7|-9.7||significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure within treatment group for treatment groups tested significantly different from placebo for the primary endpoint.|ANCOVA|with treatment group (all treatment groups included) and stratum (HbA1c \<7.0% vs \>=7.0% at randomization) as effect and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0 (with alpha = 0.05, two-sided)||-9.7|-21.7|<0.0001
90793574|NCT01217892|181467785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.039|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.7|-10.7||significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure within treatment group for treatment groups tested significantly different from placebo for the primary endpoint.|ANCOVA|with treatment group (all treatment groups included) and stratum (HbA1c \<7.0% vs \>=7.0% at randomization) as effect and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0 (with alpha = 0.05, two-sided)||-10.7|-22.7|<0.0001
91011454|NCT00883896|181905986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|4.0||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|9.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8:P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||9.4|-1.3|0.125
91011455|NCT00883896|181905986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|5.0||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|11.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 10:P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||11.8|-1.7|0.071
91053710|NCT02912650|181990985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-11.28||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.99|-3.57|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At 6 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-3.57|-18.99|0.004
90793575|NCT01217892|181467786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.132||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|-4.2||significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure within treatment group for treatment groups tested significantly different from placebo for the primary endpoint.|ANCOVA|with treatment group (all treatment groups included) and stratum (HbA1c \<7.0% vs \>=7.0% at randomization) as effect and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0 (with alpha = 0.05, two-sided)||-4.2|-16.5|0.0010
90793576|NCT01217892|181467786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.139|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.4|-9.1||significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure within treatment group for treatment groups tested significantly different from placebo for the primary endpoint.|ANCOVA|with treatment group (all treatment groups included) and stratum (HbA1c \<7.0% vs \>=7.0% at randomization) as effect and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0 (with alpha = 0.05, two-sided)||-9.1|-21.4|<0.0001
90793577|NCT01217892|181467787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|12.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.097||0.0455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|24.1||significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure within treatment group for treatment groups tested significantly different from placebo for the primary endpoint.|Regression, Logistic|Methodology of Zhang, Tsiatis \& Davidian and Davidian, Tsiatis, Zhang \& Lu, with adjustment for baseline value.||H0: proportion(treat) minus proportion(placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: proportion(treat) minus proportion(placebo) =/= 0||24.1|0.2|0.0455
90793578|NCT01217892|181467787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|16.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.153||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.8|28.9||significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure within treatment group for treatment groups tested significantly different from placebo for the primary endpoint.|Regression, Logistic|Methodology of Zhang, Tsiatis \& Davidian and Davidian, Tsiatis, Zhang \& Lu, with adjustment for baseline value.||H0: proportion(treat) minus proportion(placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: proportion(treat) minus proportion(placebo) =/= 0||28.9|4.8|0.0062
90793579|NCT03802916|181467791|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0074||||||A p-value was calculated for the one-sample proportion test.|One-sample proportion test|||One-sample proportion test to determine if the overall preference for deferiprone DR was greater than chance (i.e., a 50% preference for each formulation)||||0.0074
90793580|NCT03802916|181467791|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002||||||A p-value was calculated for the one-sample proportion test.|One-sample proportion test|||One-sample proportion test to determine if the overall preference for deferiprone DR was greater than chance (i.e., a 50% preference for each formulation)||||0.0002
90793581|NCT00557440|181467798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.165|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0492||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.066|0.263||Statistical significance (two-sided) at 5% level. p-values were not corrected for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Treatment, period, sequence and center as fixed effects, period baseline FEV1 as a covariate, and patient nested within sequence as a random effect.||||0.263|0.066|0.001
90793582|NCT01946880|181467806|OTHER|The estimated risk difference (i.e. risk(MMF Withdrawal) - risk(MMF Maintenance)) and 95% confidence intervals around the risk difference at Week 60 were reported using the Kaplan-Meier product-limit estimator.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.068|0.214||||||||0.214|-0.068|
90793583|NCT01946880|181467808|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.116|0.279||||||||0.279|-0.116|
90793584|NCT01946880|181467809|OTHER|The estimated risk difference (i.e. risk(MMF Withdrawal) - risk(MMF Maintenance)) and 95% confidence intervals around the risk difference at Week 60 were reported using the Kaplan-Meier product-limit estimator.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.091|0.36||||||||0.360|-0.091|
90793585|NCT01946880|181467810|OTHER|The estimated risk difference (i.e. risk(MMF Withdrawal) - risk(MMF Maintenance)) and 95% confidence intervals around the risk difference at Week 60 were reported using the Kaplan-Meier product-limit estimator.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.475|0.333||||||||0.333|-0.475|
90793586|NCT01946880|181467811|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.286|0.249||||||The estimated risk difference (i.e. risk(MMF Withdrawal) - risk(MMF Maintenance)) and 95% confidence intervals around the risk difference at Week 60 were reported using the Kaplan-Meier product-limit estimator.||0.249|-0.286|
90793587|NCT01946880|181467812|OTHER|The estimated risk difference (i.e. risk(MMF Withdrawal) - risk(MMF Maintenance)) and 95% confidence intervals around the risk difference at Week 60 were reported using the Kaplan-Meier product-limit estimator.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.497||||||||0.497|-0.090|
90793588|NCT01946880|181467813|OTHER|The estimated risk difference (i.e. risk(MMF Withdrawal) - risk(MMF Maintenance)) and 95% confidence intervals around the risk difference at Week 60 were reported using the Kaplan-Meier product-limit estimator.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.056|0.211||||||||0.211|-0.056|
90793589|NCT01946880|181467814|OTHER|The estimated risk difference (i.e. risk(MMF Withdrawal) - risk(MMF Maintenance)) and 95% confidence intervals around the risk difference at Week 60 were reported using the Kaplan-Meier product-limit estimator.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.041|0.284||||||||0.284|-0.041|
90793590|NCT01946880|181467815|OTHER|The estimated risk difference (i.e. risk(MMF Withdrawal) - risk(MMF Maintenance)) and 95% confidence intervals around the risk difference at Week 60 were reported using the Kaplan-Meier product-limit estimator.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.285|0.206||||||||0.206|-0.285|
90793591|NCT01946880|181467816|OTHER|The estimated risk difference (i.e. risk(MMF Withdrawal) - risk(MMF Maintenance)) and 95% confidence intervals around the risk difference at Week 60 were reported using the Kaplan-Meier product-limit estimator.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.118|0.289||||||||0.289|-0.118|
90793592|NCT01946880|181467817|OTHER|The estimated risk difference (i.e. risk(MMF Withdrawal) - risk(MMF Maintenance)) and 95% confidence intervals around the risk difference at Week 60 were reported using the Kaplan-Meier product-limit estimator.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.103|0.212||||||||0.212|-0.103|
90793593|NCT01946880|181467820|OTHER|The estimated risk difference (i.e. risk(MMF Withdrawal) - risk(MMF Maintenance)) and 95% confidence intervals around the risk difference at Week 60 were reported using the Kaplan-Meier product-limit estimator.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.028|0.149||||||||0.149|-0.028|
90793594|NCT01946880|181467821|OTHER|The estimated risk difference (i.e. risk(MMF Withdrawal) - risk(MMF Maintenance)) and 95% confidence intervals around the risk difference at Week 60 were reported using the Kaplan-Meier product-limit estimator.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.134||||||||0.134|-0.020|
90793595|NCT01946880|181467822|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||||Estimate is for the difference in the change from baseline for MMF Withdrawal - MMF Maintenance at Week 24.|Descriptive statistics (mean and 95% confidence interval) are reported for the difference in the change from baseline in the SLICC/DI score between the treatment groups at Week 24.||0.1|-0.1|
90793596|NCT01946880|181467822|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||||Estimate is for the difference in the change from baseline for MMF Withdrawal - MMF Maintenance at Week 48.|Descriptive statistics (mean and 95% confidence interval) are reported for the difference in the change from baseline in the SLICC/DI score between the treatment groups at Week 48.||0.1|-0.1|
90793597|NCT01946880|181467822|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||||Estimate is for the difference in the change from baseline for MMF Withdrawal - MMF Maintenance at Week 60.|Descriptive statistics (mean and 95% confidence interval) are reported for the difference in the change from baseline in the SLICC/DI score between the treatment groups at Week 60.||0.1|-0.2|
90793598|NCT01946880|181467823|OTHER|The estimated risk difference (i.e. risk(MMF Withdrawal) - risk(MMF Maintenance)) and 95% confidence intervals around the risk difference at Week 60 were reported using the Kaplan-Meier product-limit estimator.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.019|0.059||||||||0.059|-0.019|
90793599|NCT01946880|181467825|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.24|5.45|||||Estimate is for the difference in the change from baseline for MMF Withdrawal - MMF Maintenance at Week 24.|Descriptive statistics (mean and 95% confidence interval) are reported for the difference in the change from baseline in the FACIT fatigue score between the treatment groups at Week 24.||5.45|-2.24|
90793600|NCT01946880|181467825|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|6.21|||||Estimate is for the difference in the change from baseline for MMF Withdrawal - MMF Maintenance at Week 48.|Descriptive statistics (mean and 95% confidence interval) are reported for the difference in the change from baseline in the FACIT fatigue score between the treatment groups at Week 48.||6.21|-1.13|
90793601|NCT01946880|181467825|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|7.28|||||Estimate is for the difference in the change from baseline for MMF Withdrawal - MMF Maintenance at Week 60.|Descriptive statistics (mean and 95% confidence interval) are reported for the difference in the change from baseline in the FACIT fatigue score between the treatment groups at Week 60.||7.28|-0.17|
90793602|NCT01946880|181467826|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|2.92|||||Estimate is for the difference in the change from baseline for MMF Withdrawal - MMF Maintenance at Week 24.|Descriptive statistics (mean and 95% confidence interval) are reported for the difference in the change from baseline in the PF score between the treatment groups at Week 24.||2.92|-1.82|
90793603|NCT01946880|181467826|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|4.03|||||Estimate is for the difference in the change from baseline for MMF Withdrawal - MMF Maintenance at Week 48.|Descriptive statistics (mean and 95% confidence interval) are reported for the difference in the change from baseline in the PF score between the treatment groups at Week 48.||4.03|-1.14|
90793604|NCT01946880|181467826|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|4.67|||||Estimate is for the difference in the change from baseline for MMF Withdrawal - MMF Maintenance at Week 60.|Descriptive statistics (mean and 95% confidence interval) are reported for the difference in the change from baseline in the PF score between the treatment groups at Week 60.||4.67|-0.71|
90793605|NCT01946880|181467827|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|4.32|||||Estimate is for the difference in the change from baseline for MMF Withdrawal - MMF Maintenance at Week 24.|Descriptive statistics (mean and 95% confidence interval) are reported for the difference in the change from baseline in the PCS score between the treatment groups at Week 24.||4.32|-1.03|
90793606|NCT01946880|181467827|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|5.02|||||Estimate is for the difference in the change from baseline for MMF Withdrawal - MMF Maintenance at Week 48.|Descriptive statistics (mean and 95% confidence interval) are reported for the difference in the change from baseline in the PCS score between the treatment groups at Week 48.||5.02|-0.69|
90793607|NCT01946880|181467827|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|5.82|||||Estimate is for the difference in the change from baseline for MMF Withdrawal - MMF Maintenance at Week 60.|Descriptive statistics (mean and 95% confidence interval) are reported for the difference in the change from baseline in the PCS score between the treatment groups at Week 60.||5.82|0.22|
90793608|NCT01618708|181467868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|0.07|||=|0.7462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.52||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level|Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo vs Synvisc-One|Synvisc-One group was compared to placebo group using mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) approach assuming missing data at random (MAR).||0.52|-0.38|= 0.7462
90793609|NCT03131479|181467889|EQUIVALENCE|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included diabetic status, renal function, day and renal function\*day and diabetic status\*day as fixed factors and age, baseline body weight and baseline fasting plasma glucose as covariates.|adjusted arithmetic mean difference|-9.21||||0.154|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-19.88|1.45|||Regression, Logistic|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used. Baseline is defined to be the measurement collected on Day -1.||||1.45|-19.88|0.154
90793610|NCT03131479|181467889|EQUIVALENCE|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included diabetic status, renal function, day and renal function\*day and diabetic status\*day as fixed factors and age, baseline body weight and baseline fasting plasma glucose as covariates.|adjusted arithmetic mean difference|-6.05||||0.343|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.65|4.55|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.55|-16.65|0.343
90793611|NCT03131479|181467889|EQUIVALENCE|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included diabetic status, renal function, day and renal function\*day and diabetic status\*day as fixed factors and age, baseline body weight and baseline fasting plasma glucose as covariates.|adjusted arithmetic mean difference|-21.5||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-31.79|4.55|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.55|-31.79|0.001
91079092|NCT03578146|182043864|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|-73.14||||0.0121|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0121
91079093|NCT03578146|182043864|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|-153.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
90793612|NCT03131479|181467889|EQUIVALENCE|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included diabetic status, renal function, day and renal function\*day and diabetic status\*day as fixed factors and age, baseline body weight and baseline fasting plasma glucose as covariates.|adjusted arithmetic mean difference|-35.6||||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-46.0|-25.11|||Regression, Logistic|||||-25.11|-46.00|0.000
90793613|NCT01111552|181467926|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-1.3|||=|0.595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|3.4|||ANCOVA|||||3.4|-5.9|=0.595
90793614|NCT01111552|181467926|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.4|||=|0.869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|5.1|||ANCOVA|||||5.1|-4.4|=0.869
90793615|NCT01111552|181467927|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.1|||=|0.856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Row Mean Scores Test was used to determine the p-value.||||0.6|-0.7|=0.856
90793616|NCT01111552|181467927|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.1|||=|0.838|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Row Mean Scores Test was used to determine the p-value.||||0.7|-0.6|=0.838
90793617|NCT01111552|181467928|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.2|||=|0.765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.2|||ANCOVA|||||1.2|-1.6|=0.765
90793618|NCT01111552|181467928|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.2|||=|0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.6|||ANCOVA|||||1.6|-1.2|=0.760
90793619|NCT05135754|181467929|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.59||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.99|0.35|0.046
90793620|NCT05135754|181467930|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.45|9.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.78|3.45|<0.001
90793621|NCT05135754|181467931|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.02|25.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||25.00|15.02|<0.001
90793622|NCT05135754|181467932|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.71|9.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.94|2.71|<0.001
90793623|NCT05135754|181467933|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.26|20.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||20.35|8.26|<0.001
90793624|NCT05135754|181467934|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.075|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.075
90793625|NCT05135754|181467935|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.68||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|7.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.81|1.55|0.004
90793626|NCT00637156|181467964|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is 0.1.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.113||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.022|0.201||The posterior probability of non-inferiority was calculated and presented instead of the p-value.|Bayesian model||The posterior mean of P1-P0, along with the corresponding 95% highest posterior density (HPD) interval, was presented instead of the usual 95% CI.|"The null hypothesis H0: p1 + d ≤ p0, and the alternative hypothesis is Ha: p1 + d \> p0 where P0 and P1 are the overall success rates in the control group and the investigational group respectively, and d is the non-inferiority margin. The analyses used Bayesian methodology. Should the posterior probability P(p1 - p0 \> -d \| data) be at least 0.95, then the null non-inferiority hypothesis will be rejected, and non-inferiority of the investigational device to the control will be claimed."||0.201|0.022|1.000
90793627|NCT00637156|181467964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.993||||||The posterior probability of superiority was calculated and presented instead of the p-value.|Bayesian model|||Superiority comparison of overall success rates in two treatment groups was a secondary objective of this trial. Superiority analysis was performed if non-inferiority was demonstrated. If the posterior probability is at least 0.95, a claim of superiority can be made.||||0.993
90793628|NCT00637156|181467965|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin is 0.1.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.088||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.012|0.167||The posterior probability of non-inferiority was calculated and presented instead of the p-value.|Bayesian model||The posterior mean of P1-P0, along with the corresponding 95% highest posterior density (HPD) interval, was presented instead of the usual 95% CI.|"The null hypothesis H0: p1 + d ≤ p0, and the alternative hypothesis is Ha: p1 + d \> p0 where P0 and P1 are the NDI success rates in the control group and the investigational group respectively, and d is the non-inferiority margin. The analyses used Bayesian methodology. Should the posterior probability P (p1 - p0 \> -d \| data) be at least 0.95, then the null non-inferiority hypothesis will be rejected, and non-inferiority of the investigational device to the control will be claimed."||0.167|0.012|1.000
90793629|NCT00637156|181467965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99||||||The posterior probability of superiority was calculated and presented instead of the p-value.|Bayesian model|||Superiority comparison of NDI success rates in two treatment groups was performed if non-inferiority was demonstrated.||||0.990
90793630|NCT00637156|181467966|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin is 0.1.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.05||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.014|0.119||The posterior probability of non-inferiority was calculated and presented instead of the p-value.|Bayesian model||The posterior mean of P1-P0, along with the corresponding 95% highest posterior density (HPD) interval, was presented instead of the usual 95% CI.|"The null hypothesis H0: p1 + d ≤ p0, and the alternative hypothesis is Ha: p1 + d \> p0 where P0 and P1 are the neurological success rates in the control group and the investigational group respectively, and d is the non-inferiority margin. The analyses used Bayesian methodology. Should the posterior probability P (p1 - p0 \> -d \| data) be at least 0.95, then the null non-inferiority hypothesis will be rejected, and non-inferiority of the investigational device to the control will be claimed."||0.119|-0.014|1.000
90793631|NCT00637156|181467966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.931||||||The posterior probability of superiority was calculated and presented instead of the p-value.|Bayesian model|||Superiority comparison of neurological success rates in two treatment groups was performed if non-inferiority was demonstrated.||||0.931
90793632|NCT00637156|181467967|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin is 0.1.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.021||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.019|0.062||The posterior probability of non-inferiority was calculated and presented instead of the p-value.|Bayesian model||The posterior mean of P1-P0, along with the corresponding 95% highest posterior density (HPD) interval, was presented instead of the usual 95% CI.|"The null hypothesis H0: p1 + d ≤ p0, and the alternative hypothesis is Ha: p1 + d \> p0 where P0 and P1 are the neck pain success rates in the control group and the investigational group respectively, and d is the non-inferiority margin. The analyses used Bayesian methodology. Should the posterior probability P (p1 - p0 \> -d \| data) be at least 0.95, then the null non-inferiority hypothesis will be rejected, and non-inferiority of the investigational device to the control will be claimed."||0.062|-0.019|1.000
91079094|NCT03578146|182043864|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|-189.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
90793633|NCT00637156|181467967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.852||||||The posterior probability of superiority was calculated and presented instead of the p-value.|Bayesian model|||Superiority comparison of neck pain success rates in two treatment groups was performed if non-inferiority was demonstrated.||||0.852
90793634|NCT00637156|181467968|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin is 0.1.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.008||||0.997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.073|0.056||The posterior probability of non-inferiority was calculated and presented instead of the p-value.|Bayesian model||The posterior mean of P1-P0, along with the corresponding 95% highest posterior density (HPD) interval, was presented instead of the usual 95% CI.|"The null hypothesis H0: p1 + d ≤ p0, and the alternative hypothesis is Ha: p1 + d \> p0 where P0 and P1 are the arm pain success rates in the control group and the investigational group respectively, and d is the non-inferiority margin. The analyses used Bayesian methodology. Should the posterior probability P (p1 - p0 \> -d \| data) be at least 0.95, then the null non-inferiority hypothesis will be rejected, and non-inferiority of the investigational device to the control will be claimed."||0.056|-0.073|0.997
90793635|NCT00637156|181467968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.395||||||The posterior probability of superiority was calculated and presented instead of the p-value.|Bayesian model|||Superiority comparison of arm pain success rates in two treatment groups was performed if non-inferiority was demonstrated.||||0.395
90793636|NCT00637156|181467969|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin is 0.1.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.024||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.042|0.088||The posterior probability of non-inferiority was calculated and presented instead of the p-value.|Bayesian model||The posterior mean of P1-P0, along with the corresponding 95% highest posterior density (HPD) interval, was presented instead of the usual 95% CI.|"The null hypothesis H0: p1 + d ≤ p0, and the alternative hypothesis is Ha: p1 + d \> p0 where P0 and P1 are the SF-36 PCS success rates in the control group and the investigational group respectively, and d is the non-inferiority margin. The analyses used Bayesian methodology. Should the posterior probability P (p1 - p0 \> -d \| data) be at least 0.95, then the null non-inferiority hypothesis will be rejected, and non-inferiority of the investigational device to the control will be claimed."||0.088|-0.042|1.000
90793637|NCT00637156|181467969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.767||||||The posterior probability of superiority was calculated and presented instead of the p-value.|Bayesian model|||Superiority comparison of SF-36 PCS success rates in two treatment groups was performed if non-inferiority was demonstrated.||||0.767
90793638|NCT00637156|181467970|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin is 0.1.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.024||||0.945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.067||The posterior probability of non-inferiority was calculated and presented instead of the p-value.|Bayesian model||The posterior mean of P1-P0, along with the corresponding 95% highest posterior density (HPD) interval, was presented instead of the usual 95% CI.|"The null hypothesis H0: p1 + d ≤ p0, and the alternative hypothesis is Ha: p1 + d \> p0 where P0 and P1 are the SF-36 MCS success rates in the control group and the investigational group respectively, and d is the non-inferiority margin. The analyses used Bayesian methodology. Should the posterior probability P (p1 - p0 \> -d \| data) be at least 0.95, then the null non-inferiority hypothesis will be rejected, and non-inferiority of the investigational device to the control will be claimed."||0.067|-0.120|0.945
90793639|NCT00637156|181467971|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin is 0.1.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.017||||0.997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.072|0.04||The posterior probability of non-inferiority was calculated and presented instead of the p-value.|Bayesian model||The posterior mean of P1-P0, along with the corresponding 95% highest posterior density (HPD) interval, was presented instead of the usual 95% CI.|"The null hypothesis H0: p1 + d ≤ p0, and the alternative hypothesis is Ha: p1 + d \> p0 where P0 and P1 are the FSU success rates in the control group and the investigational group respectively, and d is the non-inferiority margin. The analyses used Bayesian methodology. Should the posterior probability P (p1 - p0 \> -d \| data) be at least 0.95, then the null non-inferiority hypothesis will be rejected, and non-inferiority of the investigational device to the control will be claimed."||0.040|-0.072|0.997
90793640|NCT00637156|181467971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.271||||||The posterior probability of superiority was calculated and presented instead of the p-value.|Bayesian model|||Superiority comparison of FSU success rates in two treatment groups was performed if non-inferiority was demonstrated.||||0.271
90793641|NCT00637156|181467972|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin is 0.1.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.013||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.013|0.04||The posterior probability of non-inferiority was calculated and presented instead of the p-value.|Bayesian model||The posterior mean of P1-P0, along with the corresponding 95% highest posterior density (HPD) interval, was presented instead of the usual 95% CI.|"The null hypothesis H0: p1 + d ≤ p0, and the alternative hypothesis is Ha: p1 + d \> p0 where P0 and P1 are the gait success rates in the control group and the investigational group respectively, and d is the non-inferiority margin. The analyses used Bayesian methodology. Should the posterior probability P (p1 - p0 \> -d \| data) be at least 0.95, then the null non-inferiority hypothesis will be rejected, and non-inferiority of the investigational device to the control will be claimed."||0.040|-0.013|1.000
90793642|NCT00637156|181467972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.859||||||The posterior probability of superiority was calculated and presented instead of the p-value.|Bayesian model|||Superiority comparison of gait success rates in two treatment groups was performed if non-inferiority was demonstrated.||||0.859
90793643|NCT00637156|181467973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior Mean Difference|0.4||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.252|0.548||The posterior probably of superiority was calculated and presented instead of the p-value.|Bayesian model||The posterior mean difference (µ1- µ0) and the corresponding 95% highest posterior density (HPD) interval were presented instead of the usual 95% CI.|"Superiority comparison of the operative time in two treatment groups was assessed. The null hypothesis is H0: μ1 = μ0 and the alternative hypothesis is Ha: μ1 ≠ μ0, where μ0 and μ1 denote the mean in control group the investigational group, respectively. Should the posterior probability of superiority P(μ1- μ0 \< 0\|data) be at least 97.5%, the superiority would be claimed."||0.548|0.252|0.0
91053711|NCT02912650|181990985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-28.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.77|-19.35|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At 6 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-19.35|-36.77|<0.001
91053712|NCT02912650|181990985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-46.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.98|-32.04|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At 6 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-32.04|-59.98|<0.001
90793644|NCT00637156|181467974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior Mean Difference|11.5||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|22.44|||Bayesian model||The posterior mean difference (µ1- µ0) and the corresponding 95% highest posterior density (HPD) interval were presented instead of the usual 95% CI.|"Superiority comparison of the blood loss in two treatment groups was assessed.The null hypothesis is H0: μ1 = μ0 and the alternative hypothesis is Ha: μ1 ≠ μ0, where μ0 and μ1 denote the mean in control group the investigational group, respectively. Should the posterior probability of superiority P(μ1- μ0 \< 0\|data) be at least 97.5%, the superiority would be claimed."||22.440|0.560|0.02
90793645|NCT00637156|181467975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.258|0.058||The posterior probably of superiority was calculated and presented instead of the p-value.|Bayesian model||The posterior mean difference (µ1- µ0) and the corresponding 95% highest posterior density (HPD) interval were presented instead of the usual 95% CI.|"Superiority comparison of the hospital stay in two treatment groups was assessed.The null hypothesis is H0: μ1 = μ0 and the alternative hypothesis is Ha: μ1 ≠ μ0, where μ0 and μ1 denote the mean in control group the investigational group, respectively. Should the posterior probability of superiority P(μ1- μ0 \< 0\|data) be at least 97.5%, the superiority would be claimed."||0.058|-0.258|0.892
90793646|NCT04548219|181467995|OTHER|A linear fixed-effects model is used to estimate the relative bioavailability.|Ratio of Geometric least squares mean|0.907|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.775|1.06||||||||1.06|0.775|
90793647|NCT04548219|181467996|OTHER|A linear fixed-effects model is used to estimate the relative bioavailability.|Ratio of Geometric least squares mean|0.915|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.761|1.1||||||||1.10|0.761|
90793648|NCT04548219|181467997|OTHER|A linear fixed-effects model is used to estimate the relative bioavailability.|Ratio of Geometric least squares mean|0.915|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.76|1.1||||||||1.10|0.760|
90793649|NCT02657356|181468045|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Net)|-12.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.012||0.0683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.69|0.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: screening 6MWT, day 1 hemoglobin, treatment grp, # of PAH medications, time, interactions btwn treatment \& time, and screening 6MWT \& time|Difference is bardoxolone methyl - placebo|||0.98|-26.69|0.0683
90793650|NCT02657356|181468046|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.984||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|2.895|||Chi-squared||Estimated from Cox Regression adjusted by baseline PAH medication status (0-1 vs 2) as the covariate. Hazard ratio \>1 indicates a beneficial effect that favors bardoxolone methyl.|||2.895|1.360|0.0004
90793651|NCT03514134|181468047|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|Repeated measures ANCOVA||||||<0.001
90793652|NCT03514134|181468048|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.358|||||||ANCOVA|Repeated measures ANCOVA||||||0.358
90793653|NCT03514134|181468049|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029|||||||ANCOVA|Repeated measures ANCOVA||||||0.029
90793654|NCT03514134|181468050|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.01
91053713|NCT02912650|181990985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-29.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.65|-15.75|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At 6 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-15.75|-43.65|<0.001
90793655|NCT03514134|181468050|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.05
90793656|NCT03514134|181468051|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7||||||Group by time interaction|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.70
90793657|NCT02947984|181468067|OTHER|||||||0.234|||||||Log Rank|||Null hypothesis: Progression free survival is not significantly different by dose level in the overall cohort.||||0.234
90793658|NCT02947984|181468067|OTHER|||||||0.82|||||||Log Rank|||Null hypothesis: Progression free survival is not significantly different by dose level in the subgroup receiving treatment due to a sub-total resection||||.820
90793659|NCT02947984|181468067|OTHER|||||||0.061|||||||Log Rank|||Null hypothesis: Progression free survival is not significantly different by dose level in the sub-group receiving treatment due to recurrent disease||||.061
90793660|NCT04378153|181468095|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % Participants|2.17||||0.1215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|5.7|||Fisher Exact||Confidence interval calculated using the Newcombe-Wilson method without continuity correction. Direction of difference is Discontinue - Continue.|Null hypothesis: proportion of participants changing assigned regimen is the same in Discontinue and Continue arms.||5.7|-0.7|0.1215
90793661|NCT00500331|181468096|OTHER|Tukey's trend test for dose response: Change= Baseline+Treatment|||||<|0.001||||||Tukey's trend test adjusts for multiplicity with statistical significance based on p-value \<0.05|ANCOVA|Change= Baseline+Treatment||Placebo, GSK189075 50 mg, GSK189075 100 mg, GSK189075 250 mg, GSK189075 500 mg, GSK189075 1000 mg||||<0.001
90793662|NCT00500331|181468096|OTHER|Tukey's trend test for dose response|||||<|0.001||||||Tukey's trend test adjusts for multiplicity with statistical significance based on p-value \<0.05|ANCOVA|||Placebo, GSK189075 50 mg, GSK189075 100 mg, GSK189075 250 mg, GSK189075 500 mg||||<0.001
90793663|NCT00500331|181468096|OTHER|Tukey's trend test for dose response|||||<|0.001||||||Tukey's trend test adjusts for multiplicity with statistical significance based on p-value \<0.05|ANCOVA|Change=Baseline+Treatment||Placebo, GSK189075 50 mg, GSK189075 100 mg, GSK189075 250 mg||||<0.001
90793664|NCT00500331|181468096|OTHER|Tukey's trend test for dose response|||||<|0.001||||||Tukey's trend test adjusts for multiplicity with statistical significance based on p-value \<0.05|ANCOVA|Change=Baseline+Treatment||Placebo, GSK189075 50 mg, GSK189075 100 mg||||<0.001
90793665|NCT00500331|181468096|OTHER|Tukey's trend test for dose response|||||<|0.001||||||Tukey's trend test adjusts for multiplicity with statistical significance based on p-value \<0.05|ANCOVA|Change=Baseline+Treatment||Placebo, GSK189075 50 mg||||<0.001
90793666|NCT00500331|181468096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.44||Pairwise comparison included for informational purposes and not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change=Baseline+Treatment||Placebo vs. GSK189075 50 mg||-0.44|-1.02|<0.001
90793667|NCT00500331|181468096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.35||Pairwise comparison included for informational purposes and not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change=Baseline+Treatment||Placebo vs. GSK189075 100 mg||-0.35|-0.94|<0.001
90793668|NCT00500331|181468096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.44||Pairwise comparison included for informational purposes and not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change=Baseline+Treatment||Placebo vs. GSK189075 250 mg||-0.44|-1.03|<0.001
91079095|NCT03578146|182043864|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|-239.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91079096|NCT03578146|182043864|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|-231.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
90793669|NCT00500331|181468096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|-0.61||Pairwise comparison included for informational purposes and not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change=Baseline+Treatment||Placebo vs. GSK189075 500 mg||-0.61|-1.19|<0.001
90793670|NCT00500331|181468096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|-0.77||Pairwise comparison included for informational purposes and not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change=Baseline+Treatment||Placebo vs. GSK189075 1000 mg||-0.77|-1.36|<0.001
90793671|NCT00500331|181468096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.47||Pairwise comparison included for informational purposes and not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change=Baseline+Treatment||Placebo vs. Pioglitazone 30 mg||-0.47|-1.05|<0.001
90793672|NCT03345550|181468114|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Baseline||||.24
90793673|NCT03345550|181468114|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||1 month analysis||||.43
90793674|NCT03345550|181468114|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||3 month||||.54
90793675|NCT03345550|181468117|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.31
90793676|NCT01149460|181468143|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of Least Squares Means (T/R)|111.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.54|123.29|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the test (T) and reference (R) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||123.29|100.54|
90793677|NCT01149460|181468144|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of Least Squares Means (T/R)|100.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.34|103.82|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the test (T) and reference (R) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||103.82|96.34|
90793678|NCT01149460|181468145|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of Least Squares Means (T/R)|100.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.38|103.78|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the test (T) and reference (R) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||103.78|96.38|
90793679|NCT01149460|181468146|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of Least Squares Means (T/R)|103.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.87|109.41|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the test (T) and reference (R) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||109.41|97.87|
90793680|NCT01149460|181468147|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of Least Squares Means (T/R)|99.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.14|101.31|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the test (T) and reference (R) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||101.31|97.14|
90793681|NCT01149460|181468148|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of Least Squares Means|99.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.04|101.19|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the test (T) and reference (R) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||101.19|97.04|
90793682|NCT00734032|181468158|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.514|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.449|0.59|||ANCOVA||The point estimate was calculated as adjusted geometric mean ratio of placebo and SB-480848 40 mg. Dunnett adjustment was used for comparison of each dose group to placebo.|||0.590|0.449|<.001
90793683|NCT00734032|181468158|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.421|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.367|0.483|||ANCOVA||The point estimate was calculated as adjusted geometric mean ratio of placebo and SB-480848 80 mg. Dunnett adjustment was used for comparison of each dose group to placebo.|||0.483|0.367|<.001
90793684|NCT00734032|181468158|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.326|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.284|0.375|||ANCOVA||The point estimate was calculated as adjusted geometric mean ratio of placebo and SB-480848 160 mg. Dunnett adjustment was used for comparison of each dose group to placebo.|||0.375|0.284|<.001
90793685|NCT00137449|181468164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CBR Rate (percentage)|50.0||||||95.0|31.3|68.7|||F distribution|||||68.7|31.3|
90793686|NCT00137449|181468164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CBR Rate (percentage)|56.7||||||95.0|37.4|74.5|||F distribution|||||74.5|37.4|
90793687|NCT00137449|181468164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CBR Rate (percentage)|53.3||||||95.0|40.0|66.3|||F distribution|||Null hypothesis that the true CBR \<=20% vs the alternative hypothesis that the true clinical benefit rate is at least 35%. The sample size is determined using a single-stage design with an alpha level of 10% \& 90% power. If \>=17 CR, PR or SD for at least 24 weeks are observed, null hypothesis can be rejected with a 20% target false positive error rate. If \<= 16 CR, PR,or SD for at least 24 weeks are observed, null hypothesis can not be rejected with a target false negative error rate of 10%.||66.3|40.0|
91079097|NCT03578146|182043865|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|52837.94|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
90793688|NCT00137449|181468166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ORR rate (percentage)|10.0||||||95.0|2.1|26.5|||F distribution||PR or CR responding tumor measurements confirmed by repeat studies performed at \> 4 weeks after the criteria for response first met.|||26.5|2.1|
90793689|NCT00137449|181468166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ORR rate (percentage)|16.7||||||95.0|5.6|34.7|||F distribution||PR or CR responding tumor measurements confirmed by repeat studies performed at \> 4 weeks after the criteria for response first met.|||34.7|5.6|
90793690|NCT00137449|181468166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ORR rate (percentage)|13.3||||||95.0|5.9|24.6|||F distribution||PR or CR responding tumor measurements confirmed by repeat studies performed at \> 4 weeks after the criteria for response first met.|||24.6|5.9|
90793691|NCT00137449|181468168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||median|27.0||||||95.0|22.0|73.1|||Kaplan-Meier method|||95% CI calculated based on the method of Brookmeyer and Crowley. Median reported is progression free survival weeks.||73.1|22.0|
90793692|NCT00137449|181468168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||median|35.1||||||95.0|24.4|51.6|||Kaplan-Meier method|||95% CI calculated based on the method of Brookmeyer and Crowley.Median reported is progression free survival weeks.||51.6|24.4|
90793693|NCT00137449|181468168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||median|33.6||||||95.0|24.1|49.0|||Kaplan-Meier method|||95% CI calculated based on the method of Brookmeyer and Crowley.Median reported is progression free survival weeks.||49.0|24.1|
90793694|NCT00137449|181468169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||median|57.0||||||95.0|24.1|73.1|||Kaplan-Meier method|||95% CI calculated based on the method of Brookmeyer and Crowley.Time to progression in weeks reported as median.||73.1|24.1|
90793695|NCT00137449|181468169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||median|42.1||||||95.0|26.1|65.9|||Kaplan-Meier method|||95% CI calculated based on the method of Brookmeyer and Crowley.Time to progression in weeks reported as median.||65.9|26.1|
90793696|NCT00137449|181468169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||median|42.1||||||95.0|26.1|65.9|||Kaplan-Meier method|||95% CI calculated based on the method of Brookmeyer and Crowley.Time to progression in weeks reported as median.||65.9|26.1|
90793697|NCT00137449|181468171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||1 year survival rate|60.0||||||95.0|40.5|75.0|||Kaplan-Meier method|||||75.0|40.5|
91011456|NCT00883896|181905986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|2.0||||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|5.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 10:P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||5.1|-1.2|0.317
90793698|NCT00137449|181468171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||1 year survival rate|79.7||||||95.0|60.3|90.3|||Kaplan-Meier method|||||90.3|60.3|
90793699|NCT00137449|181468171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||1 year survival rate|69.7||||||95.0|56.3|79.7|||Kaplan-Meier method|||||79.7|56.3|
90793700|NCT01356940|181468175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.586||||0.586|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||P values above 0.05 are considered statistically not significant in this study|||||0.586
90793701|NCT02489279|181468177|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.026|||||||GLM with repeated measures ANOVA|||We used a General Linear Model (GLM) with time (Baseline and 10 Weeks) as the within subjects factor, experimental group (Active and Control) as the between subjects factor, and a group by time interaction to test for differential treatment effects. We report the Group x Time interaction.||||0.026
90793702|NCT02489279|181468177|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0075|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||We then examined the within-subjects factor of Time (Post-Treatment (10 week measure) - Baseline), for each Group, using a 1-tailed t test.||||0.0075
91011457|NCT00883896|181905986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|2.0||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|5.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 10:P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||5.6|-1.6|0.280
90793703|NCT02489279|181468177|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||We then examined the within-subjects factor of Time (Post-Treatment (10 week measure) - Baseline), for each Group, using a 1-tailed t test.||||0.25
90793704|NCT02489279|181468178|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||GLM with repeated measures ANOVA|||We used a GLM with time (Baseline and 10 Weeks) as the within subjects factor, experimental group (Active and Control) as the between subjects factor, and a group by time interaction to test for differential treatment effects. We report the Group x Time interaction.||||0.014
90793705|NCT02489279|181468178|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||We then examined the within-subjects factor of Time (Post-Treatment (10 week measure) - Baseline), for each Group, using a 1-tailed t test.||||0.0005
90793706|NCT02489279|181468178|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||We then examined the within-subjects factor of Time (Post-Treatment (10 week measure) - Baseline), for each Group, using a 1-tailed t test.||||0.21
90793707|NCT02489279|181468179|SUPERIORITY|||||||1e-06|||||||GLM with repeated measures ANOVA|||We used a GLM with time (Baseline and 10 Weeks) as the within subjects factor, experimental group (Active and Control) as the between subjects factor, and a group by time interaction to test for differential treatment effects. We report only a main effect of Time.||||0.000001
90793708|NCT02489279|181468180|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.00018|||||||GLM with repeated measures ANOVA|||We used a GLM with time (Baseline and 10 Weeks) as the within subjects factor, experimental group (Active and Control) as the between subjects factor, and a group by time interaction to test for differential treatment effects. We report only a main effect of Time.||||0.00018
90793709|NCT01432444|181468192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was derived from Exact McNemar test.|McNemar|||Inpatient hospitalization for retrospective period (Months 4-6) and prospective period (Months 4-6) for closed or open unit.||||<.0001
90793710|NCT01432444|181468193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Derived from T-test of Mean=0.|t-test|Mean duration was derived as the cumulative duration divided by the number of inpatient non-psychiatric hospitalization.||Statistical analyses for Week 4, 12 and 24.||||<.0001
90793711|NCT01432444|181468194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Derived from T-test of Mean=0.|t-test, 2 sided|Mean duration was derived as the cumulative duration divided by the number of inpatient non-psychiatric hospitalization.||Statistical analyses for Week 4, Week 12 and Week 24.||||<.0001
90793712|NCT01432444|181468195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Derived from T-test of Mean=0.|t-test, 2 sided|Mean duration was derived as the cumulative duration divided by the number of inpatient non-psychiatric hospitalization.||Statistical analysis for Week 4, 12 and 24.||||<.0001
90793713|NCT01432444|181468196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Derived from t-test of mean=0.|t-test|||Statistical analysEs for Week 4, 12 and 24.||||<.0001
90793714|NCT02301897|181468198|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0008|||||||Chi-Square Test|||||||0.0008
90793715|NCT02301897|181468198|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-Square Test|||||||<0.001
90793716|NCT02301897|181468199|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0719|||||||Chi-Square Test|||||||0.0719
90793717|NCT02301897|181468199|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004|||||||Chi-Square Test|||||||0.0004
90793718|NCT02301897|181468200|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0167|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||CFB to Week 18 Course 1||||0.0167
90793719|NCT02301897|181468200|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1257|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||CFB to Week 18 Course 1||||0.1257
91011458|NCT00883896|181905986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|0.6||||0.892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|8.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12:P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||8.8|-7.6|0.892
91011459|NCT00883896|181905986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|-0.5||||0.903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|7.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12:P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||7.2|-8.3|0.903
91011460|NCT00883896|181905986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|-1.7||||0.625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|3.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12:P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||3.8|-7.2|0.625
90793720|NCT02301897|181468200|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9754|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||CFB to ODI Course 1||||0.9754
90793721|NCT02301897|181468200|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7672|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||CFB to ODI Course 1||||0.7672
90793722|NCT02301897|181468200|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2232|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||CFB to Week 18 Course 2||||0.2232
90793723|NCT02301897|181468200|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4512|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||CFB to Week 18 Course 2||||0.4512
90793724|NCT02301897|181468200|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3545|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||CFB to Course 2 Week 28 FU||||0.3545
90793725|NCT02301897|181468200|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2482|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||CFB to Course 2 Week 28 FU||||0.2482
90793726|NCT02301897|181468201|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0016|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 1||||0.0016
90793727|NCT02301897|181468201|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 1||||0.0003
90793728|NCT02301897|181468201|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6666|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to ODI Course 1||||0.6666
90793729|NCT02301897|181468201|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3612|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to ODI Course 1||||0.3612
90793730|NCT02301897|181468201|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0309|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 2||||0.0309
90793731|NCT02301897|181468201|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0007|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 2||||0.0007
90793732|NCT02301897|181468201|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0641|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Course 2 Week 28 FU||||0.0641
90793733|NCT02301897|181468201|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3743|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Course 2 Week 28 FU||||0.3743
90793734|NCT02301897|181468202|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0049|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 1||||0.0049
90793735|NCT02301897|181468202|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0064|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 1||||0.0064
90793736|NCT02301897|181468202|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5637|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to On-Drug Course 2||||0.5637
90793737|NCT02301897|181468202|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0505|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to On-Drug Course 2||||0.0505
90793738|NCT02301897|181468202|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4262|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 2||||0.4262
90793739|NCT02301897|181468202|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1419|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 2||||0.1419
90793740|NCT02301897|181468202|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4497|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Course 2 Week 24 FU||||0.4497
90793741|NCT02301897|181468202|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5371|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Course 2 Week 24 FU||||0.5371
90793742|NCT02301897|181468203|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0069|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 1||||0.0069
90793743|NCT02301897|181468203|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0059|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 1||||0.0059
90793744|NCT02301897|181468203|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2117|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to On-Drug Course 2||||0.2117
90793745|NCT02301897|181468203|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0006|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to On-Drug Course 2||||0.0006
90793746|NCT02301897|181468203|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0788|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 2||||0.0788
90793747|NCT02301897|181468203|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 2||||0.0080
90793748|NCT02301897|181468203|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1516|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Course 2 Week 24 FU||||0.1516
90793749|NCT02301897|181468203|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0565|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Course 2 Week 24 FU||||0.0565
90793750|NCT02301897|181468204|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 1||||0.0110
90793751|NCT02301897|181468204|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0601|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 1||||0.0601
90793752|NCT02301897|181468204|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2168|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to On-Drug Course 2||||0.2168
90793753|NCT02301897|181468204|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0101|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to On-Drug Course 2||||0.0101
90793754|NCT02301897|181468204|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.243|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 2||||0.2430
90793755|NCT02301897|181468204|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0843|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 2||||0.0843
90793756|NCT02301897|181468204|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.557|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Course 2 Week 24 FU||||0.5570
90793757|NCT02301897|181468204|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5302|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Course 2 Week 24 FU||||0.5302
90793758|NCT02301897|181468205|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0504|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 1||||0.0504
90793759|NCT02301897|181468205|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0151|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 1||||0.0151
90793760|NCT02301897|181468205|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5932|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to On-Drug Course 2||||0.5932
90793761|NCT02301897|181468205|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0831|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to On-Drug Course 2||||0.0831
90793762|NCT02301897|181468205|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1416|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 2||||0.1416
90793763|NCT02301897|181468205|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0392|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 2||||0.0392
90793764|NCT02301897|181468205|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8275|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Course 2 Week 24 FU||||0.8275
90793765|NCT02301897|181468205|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8733|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Course 2 Week 24 FU||||0.8733
90793766|NCT02301897|181468206|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0651|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 1||||0.0651
90793767|NCT02301897|181468206|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0298|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 1||||0.0298
91053714|NCT02912650|181990985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-16.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.59|-7.29|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At 6 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-7.29|-26.59|<0.001
90793768|NCT02301897|181468206|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4005|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to On-Drug Course 2||||0.4005
90793769|NCT02301897|181468206|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1114|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to On-Drug Course 2||||0.1114
90793770|NCT02301897|181468206|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1318|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 2||||0.1318
90793771|NCT02301897|181468206|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0807|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 2||||0.0807
90793772|NCT02301897|181468206|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4506|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Course 2 Week 24 FU||||0.4506
90793773|NCT02301897|181468206|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4614|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Course 2 Week 24 FU||||0.4614
90793774|NCT02301897|181468207|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0653|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 1||||0.0653
90793775|NCT02301897|181468207|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.048|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 1||||0.0480
90793776|NCT02301897|181468207|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.401|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to On-Drug Course 2||||0.4010
90793777|NCT02301897|181468207|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0772|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to On-Drug Course 2||||0.0772
90793778|NCT02301897|181468207|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3206|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 2||||0.3206
90793779|NCT02301897|181468207|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1605|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 2||||0.1605
90793780|NCT02301897|181468207|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.557|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Course 2 Week 24 FU||||0.5570
90793781|NCT02301897|181468207|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3437|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Course 2 Week 24 FU||||0.3437
90793782|NCT02301897|181468208|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2624|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 1||||0.2624
90793783|NCT02301897|181468208|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0688|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 1||||0.0688
90793784|NCT02301897|181468208|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.279|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to On-Drug Course 2||||0.2790
90793785|NCT02301897|181468208|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6541|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to On-Drug Course 2||||0.6541
90793786|NCT02301897|181468208|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8559|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 2||||0.8559
90793787|NCT02301897|181468208|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4326|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 2||||0.4326
90793788|NCT02301897|181468208|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1052|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Course 2 Week 24 FU||||0.1052
90793789|NCT02301897|181468208|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9206|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Course 2 Week 24 FU||||0.9206
90793790|NCT02301897|181468209|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1439|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 1||||0.1439
90793791|NCT02301897|181468209|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.067|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 1||||0.0670
90793792|NCT02301897|181468209|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6761|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to On-Drug Course 2||||0.6761
90793793|NCT02301897|181468209|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0639|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to On-Drug Course 2||||0.0639
90793794|NCT02301897|181468209|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2218|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 2||||0.2218
90793795|NCT02301897|181468209|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4468|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 2||||0.4468
90793796|NCT02301897|181468209|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7678|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Course 2 Week 24 FU||||0.7678
90793797|NCT02301897|181468209|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8922|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Course 2 Week 24 FU||||0.8922
90793798|NCT02301897|181468210|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1262|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 1||||0.1262
90793799|NCT02301897|181468210|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2075|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 1||||0.2075
90793800|NCT02301897|181468210|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5904|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to On-Drug Course 2||||0.5904
90793801|NCT02301897|181468210|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.243|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to On-Drug Course 2||||0.2430
90793802|NCT02301897|181468210|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7067|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 2||||0.7067
90793803|NCT02301897|181468210|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2725|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 2||||0.2725
90793804|NCT02301897|181468210|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7016|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Course 2 Week 24 FU||||0.7016
90793805|NCT02301897|181468210|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8751|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Course 2 Week 24 FU||||0.8751
90793806|NCT02301897|181468211|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0338|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 1||||0.0338
90793807|NCT02301897|181468211|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 1||||0.0004
90793808|NCT02301897|181468211|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0807|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to On-Drug Course 2||||0.0807
90793809|NCT02301897|181468211|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0142|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to On-Drug Course 2||||0.0142
90793810|NCT02301897|181468211|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0807|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 2||||0.0807
90793811|NCT02301897|181468211|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0142|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 2||||0.0142
90793812|NCT02301897|181468211|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1859|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Course 2 Off-drug||||0.1859
90793813|NCT02301897|181468211|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0896|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Course 2 Off-drug||||0.0896
90793814|NCT02069847|181468248|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.992|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.992
90793815|NCT02069847|181468249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.531|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Total number of budesonide subjects with 50% or greater esophageal stricture (N=4) vs total number of control subjects with 50% or greater esophageal structure (N=15)||||0.531
90793816|NCT06045273|181468279|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.224|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.064||0.0006|TWO_SIDED||||||Satterthwaite approximations|Also used a mixed models analysis||||||0.0006
90793817|NCT06045273|181468280|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.084|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.0504|TWO_SIDED||||||Satterthwaite approximations|Also used a mixed models analysis||||||0.0504
90793818|NCT06045273|181468281|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.131|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.00134|TWO_SIDED||||||Satterthwaite approximations|Also used a mixed models analysis||||||0.00134
90793819|NCT02743221|181468285|OTHER|This was a non-comparative study.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.06|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model with adjustment for the stratification factors (RAS status, performance status ECOG)||||1.06|0.48|0.09
90793820|NCT02743221|181468286|OTHER|||||||0.73|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.73
90793821|NCT02743221|181468287|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|2.74||||||||2.74|0.49|
90793822|NCT02743221|181468288|OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.22
90793823|NCT02743221|181468289|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.98|||Cox proportional hazard model|||||0.98|0.32|0.04
90793824|NCT04011241|181468333|OTHER|Relative bioavailability|Ratio of the geometric means (T/R) %|173.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|154.58|195.21|||ANOVA|"The statistical model was analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale considering the effects subjects as random and treatment as fixed."|Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV%) = 17.6.|||195.21|154.58|
90793825|NCT04011241|181468334|OTHER|Relative bioavailability|Ratio of the geometric means (T/R) %|137.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|120.84|156.24|||ANOVA|"The statistical model was analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale considering the effects subjects as random and treatment as fixed."|Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV%) = 19.4.|||156.24|120.84|
90793826|NCT04011241|181468335|OTHER|Relative bioavailability|Ratio of the geometric means (T/R) %|168.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|145.59|195.34|||ANOVA|"The statistical model was analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale considering the effects subjects as random and treatment as fixed."|Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV%) = 18.1.|||195.34|145.59|
90793827|NCT02181413|181468349|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.582|0.89|||Log Rank|P-value was based on log-rank test stratified by pre-induction regimen, International Staging System (ISS) stage and response after transplantation.|HR was based on Cox's proportional hazard regression model stratified by pre-induction regimen, pre-induction ISS stage and response after transplantation. \<1 HR indicates better prevention of progression in Ixazomib arm compared to Placebo.|||0.890|0.582|0.002
90793828|NCT02181413|181468350|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.025||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.789|1.332||P-value was based on log-rank test stratified by pre-induction regimen, ISS stage and response after transplantation.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio is based on an unadjusted Cox's proportional hazard regression model stratified by induction regimen, pre-induction ISS, and response after transplantation, comparing the hazard rate of Ixazomib arm over the hazard rate of Placebo arm.|||1.332|0.789|0.850
90793829|NCT02181413|181468351|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.732||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.365|1.466||P-value is based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by pre-induction regimen, pre-induction international staging system (ISS), and response after transplantation at screening.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio and CI are based on a logistic regression model with treatment group as a categorical predictor variable and pre-induction regimen, pre-induction ISS, and response after transplantation at screening as covariates.|CR||1.466|0.365|0.370
90793830|NCT02181413|181468352|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.716||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.579|0.886||P-value was based on log-rank test stratified by pre-induction regimen, ISS stage and response after transplantation.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio is based on an unadjusted Cox's proportional hazard regression model stratified by induction regimen, pre-induction ISS, and response after transplantation, comparing the hazard rate of Ixazomib arm over the hazard rate of Placebo arm.|||0.886|0.579|0.002
90793831|NCT02181413|181468353|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.015||||0.902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.795|1.298||P-value was based on log-rank test stratified by pre-induction regimen, ISS stage and response after transplantation.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio is based on an unadjusted Cox's proportional hazard regression model stratified by induction regimen, pre-induction ISS, and response after transplantation, comparing the hazard rate of Ixazomib arm over the hazard rate of Placebo arm.|||1.298|0.795|0.902
90793832|NCT02181413|181468354|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.833||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.005|||Log Rank|P-value was based on log-rank test stratified by pre-induction regimen, ISS stage and response after transplantation.|Hazard ratio is based on an unadjusted Cox's proportional hazard regression model stratified by induction regimen, pre-induction ISS, and response after transplantation, comparing the hazard rate of Ixazomib arm over the hazard rate of Placebo arm.|||1.005|0.690|0.056
90793833|NCT02181413|181468355|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.922||||0.431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.753|1.129||P-value was based on log-rank test stratified by pre-induction regimen, ISS stage, and response after transplantation.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio is based on an unadjusted Cox's proportional hazard regression model stratified by induction regimen, pre-induction ISS, and response after transplantation, comparing the hazard rate of Ixazomib arm over the hazard rate of Placebo arm.|||1.129|0.753|0.431
90793834|NCT02181413|181468356|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.179|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.959|1.45|||||Hazard ratio is based on an unadjusted Cox's proportional hazard regression model stratified by induction regimen, pre-induction ISS, and response after transplantation, comparing the hazard rate of Ixazomib arm over the hazard rate of Placebo arm.|||1.450|0.959|
90793835|NCT02181413|181468358|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.814||||||P-value was based on Fisher's exact test comparing conversion to MRD- at any time post study entry between treatment groups.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.814
90793836|NCT02181413|181468359|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.805||||||P-value was based on fisher's exact test comparing conversion to MRD- at any time post study entry between treatment groups.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.805
90793837|NCT02181413|181468360|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.612||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.386|0.969||P-value was based on log-rank test stratified by pre-induction regimen, ISS stage and response after transplantation.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio is based on an unadjusted Cox's proportional hazard regression model stratified by induction regimen, pre-induction ISS, and response after transplantation, comparing the hazard rate of Ixazomib arm over the hazard rate of Placebo arm.|MRD- at Study Entry||0.969|0.386|0.034
90793838|NCT02181413|181468360|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.704||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.539|0.92||P-value was based on log-rank test stratified by pre-induction regimen, ISS stage and response after transplantation.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio is based on an unadjusted Cox's proportional hazard regression model stratified by induction regimen, pre-induction ISS, and response after transplantation, comparing the hazard rate of Ixazomib arm over the hazard rate of Placebo arm.|MRD+ at Study Entry||0.920|0.539|0.010
90793839|NCT02181413|181468361|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.414|1.184||P-value was based on log-rank test stratified by pre-induction regimen, ISS stage and response after transplantation.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio is based on an unadjusted Cox's proportional hazard regression model stratified by induction regimen, pre-induction ISS, and response after transplantation, comparing the hazard rate of Ixazomib arm over the hazard rate of Placebo arm.|MRD- at Study Entry||1.184|0.414|0.182
90793840|NCT02181413|181468361|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.966||||0.847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.682|1.368||P-value was based on log-rank test stratified by pre-induction regimen, ISS stage and response after transplantation.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio is based on an unadjusted Cox's proportional hazard regression model stratified by induction regimen, pre-induction ISS, and response after transplantation, comparing the hazard rate of Ixazomib arm over the hazard rate of Placebo arm.|MRD+ at Study Entry||1.368|0.682|0.847
90793841|NCT02181413|181468362|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.583|1.613||P-value was based on log-rank test stratified by pre-induction regimen, ISS stage and response after transplantation.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio is based on an unadjusted Cox's proportional hazard regression model stratified by induction regimen, pre-induction ISS, and response after transplantation, comparing the hazard rate of Ixazomib arm over the hazard rate of Placebo arm.|||1.613|0.583|0.905
90793842|NCT02181413|181468367|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-2.3||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|0.2|||t-test, 2 sided|P-value was from the significance test for the coefficient of the interaction between treatment and visit.||||0.2|-4.9|0.074
90793843|NCT00323622|181468435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||1 - (HR1/HR2)|16.8||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|32.4||The p-value presented is the Wald Chi-square p-value from the Cox regression model.|Regression, Cox|Point estimate of efficacy was adjusted for age, geographical area of residence, bednet use and distance from health center.||The analysis aimed to compare rates of first PFMI (RPFMI) between groups over the Months 21-33 time period. Using RFPMI, a Cox model was used to evaluate vaccine efficacy (VE) allowing for adjustment factors. VE, point estimate of efficacy adjusted for covariates, was calculated as 1 - (minus) \[Hazard Ratio (HR) in Cohort 1 - GSK RTS,S/AS02A Group \[HR1\]) divided by HR in Cohort 1 - Engerix-B/Prevnar-Hiberix Group \[HR2\])\], i. e. 1 - (HR1/HR2).||32.40|-2.50|0.08
90793844|NCT00323622|181468435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||1 - (HR1/HR2)|11.8||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.11|35.18||The p-value presented is the Wald Chi-square p-value from the Cox regression model|Regression, Cox|Point estimate of efficacy was adjusted for age, geographical area of residence, bednet use and distance from health center.||The analysis aimed to compare rates of first PFMI (RPFMI) between groups over the Months 33-45 time period. Using RFPMI, a Cox model was used to evaluate vaccine efficacy (VE) allowing for adjustment factors. VE, point estimate of efficacy adjusted for covariates, was calculated as 1 - (minus) \[Hazard Ratio (HR) in Cohort 1 - RTS,S/AS02A Group \[HR1\]) divided by HR in Cohort 1 - Engerix-B/Prevnar-Hiberix Group \[HR2\])\], i. e. 1 - (HR1/HR2).||35.18|-20.11|0.43
90793845|NCT00323622|181468436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||1 - (R1/R2)|14.9||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.88|30.28||The p-value presented is the Wald Chi-square p-value from the Cox regression model.|Regression, Cox|Point estimate of efficacy was adjusted for age, geographical area of residence, bednet use and distance from health center.||The analysis aimed to compare rates of first PFMI (RPFMI) between groups over the Months 21-33 time period. Using RFPMI, a Cox model was used to evaluate vaccine efficacy (VE) allowing for adjustment factors. VE, point estimate of efficacy adjusted for covariates, was calculated as 1 - (minus) \[Hazard Ratio (HR) in Cohort 1 - RTS,S/AS02A Group \[HR1\]) divided by HR in Cohort 1 - Engerix-B/Prevnar-Hiberix Group \[HR2\])\], i. e. 1 - (HR1/HR2).||30.28|-3.88|0.11
90793846|NCT00323622|181468436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||1 - (R1/R2)|12.79||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.27|34.59||The p-value presented is the Wald Chi-square p-value from the Cox regression model.|Regression, Cox|Point estimate of efficacy was adjusted for age, geographical area of residence, bednet use and distance from health center.||The analysis aimed to compare rates of first PFMI (RPFMI) between groups over the Months 33-45 time period. Using RFPMI, a Cox model was used to evaluate vaccine efficacy (VE) allowing for adjustment factors. VE, point estimate of efficacy adjusted for covariates, was calculated as 1 - (minus) \[Hazard Ratio (HR) in Cohort 1 - RTS,S/AS02A Group \[HR1\]) divided by HR in Cohort 1 - Engerix-B/Prevnar-Hiberix Group \[HR2\])\], i. e. 1 - (HR1/HR2).||34.59|-16.27|0.35
90793847|NCT00323622|181468437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||1 - (R1/R2)|19.42||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.62|31.93||The p-value presented is the Wald Chi-square p-value from the Cox regression model.|Regression, Cox|Point estimate of efficacy was adjusted for age, geographical area of residence, bednet use and distance from health center.||The analysis aimed to compare rates of first PFMI (RPFMI) between groups over the Months 21-33 time period. Using RFPMI, a Cox model was used to evaluate vaccine efficacy (VE) allowing for adjustment factors. VE, point estimate of efficacy adjusted for covariates, was calculated as 1 - (minus) \[Hazard Ratio (HR) in Cohort 1 - RTS,S/AS02A Group \[HR1\]) divided by HR in Cohort 1 - Engerix-B/Prevnar-Hiberix Group \[HR2\])\], i. e. 1 - (HR1/HR2).||31.93|4.62|0.01
90890257|NCT01217073|181644893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-0.28||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.06||With terms for treatment, prior AHA therapy status, geographic region (Japan/ex-Japan), and the interaction of time by treatment, time by prior AHA therapy status, with the constraint that the mean baseline is the same for all treatment groups.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-0.06|-0.50|0.012
90890258|NCT01217073|181644894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|6.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|18.4||||||||18.4|-6.2|
91011461|NCT00883896|181905998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: P-value was assessed from 2-sided stratified CMH row mean test by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site.||||0.900
91011462|NCT00883896|181905998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.522|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: P-value was assessed from 2-sided stratified CMH row mean test by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site.||||0.522
91011463|NCT00883896|181905998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.147|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: P-value was assessed from 2-sided stratified CMH row mean test by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site.||||0.147
91011464|NCT00883896|181905998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.534|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: P-value was assessed from 2-sided stratified CMH row mean test by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site.||||0.534
91011465|NCT00883896|181905998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.206|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: P-value was assessed from 2-sided stratified CMH row mean test by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site.||||0.206
91011466|NCT00883896|181905998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.07|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: P-value was assessed from 2-sided stratified CMH row mean test by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site.||||0.070
91011467|NCT00883896|181905998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.936|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: P-value was assessed from 2-sided stratified CMH row mean test by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site.||||0.936
91011468|NCT00883896|181905998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.625|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: P-value was assessed from 2-sided stratified CMH row mean test by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site.||||0.625
91011469|NCT00883896|181905998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.586|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: P-value was assessed from 2-sided stratified CMH row mean test by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site.||||0.586
91011470|NCT00883896|181905998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.685|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: P-value was assessed from 2-sided stratified CMH row mean test by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site.||||0.685
91011471|NCT00883896|181905998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.34|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: P-value was assessed from 2-sided stratified CMH row mean test by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site.||||0.340
91011472|NCT00883896|181905998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.212|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: P-value was assessed from 2-sided stratified CMH row mean test by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site.||||0.212
91011473|NCT00883896|181905998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.455|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6: P-value was assessed from 2-sided stratified CMH row mean test by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site.||||0.455
91011474|NCT00883896|181905998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.145|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6: P-value was assessed from 2-sided stratified CMH row mean test by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site.||||0.145
91011475|NCT00883896|181905998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.66|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6: P-value was assessed from 2-sided stratified CMH row mean test by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site.||||0.660
91053715|NCT02912650|181990986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon test|||p-value was calculated by using Gehan-Wilcoxon test, stratified by gender and baseline categorical PSR terms.||||<0.001
91053716|NCT02912650|181990986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon test|||p-value was calculated by using Gehan-Wilcoxon test, stratified by gender and baseline categorical PSR terms.||||0.003
91011476|NCT00883896|181905998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.05|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6: P-value was assessed from 2-sided stratified CMH row mean test by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site.||||0.050
91011477|NCT00883896|181905998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.428|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6: P-value was assessed from 2-sided stratified CMH row mean test by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site.||||0.428
91011478|NCT00883896|181905998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.16|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6: P-value was assessed from 2-sided stratified CMH row mean test by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site.||||0.160
91011479|NCT00883896|181905998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.757|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: P-value was assessed from 2-sided stratified CMH row mean test by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site.||||0.757
91011480|NCT00883896|181905998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.408|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: P-value was assessed from 2-sided stratified CMH row mean test by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site.||||0.408
91011481|NCT00883896|181905998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.983|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: P-value was assessed from 2-sided stratified CMH row mean test by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site.||||0.983
90890259|NCT01217073|181644894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|12.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|24.7||||||||24.7|-0.1|
90890260|NCT01217073|181644894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|18.0||||||||18.0|-6.5|
90890261|NCT01217073|181644894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|17.7||||||||17.7|-6.8|
91011482|NCT00883896|181905998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.374|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: P-value was assessed from 2-sided stratified CMH row mean test by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site.||||0.374
91011483|NCT00883896|181905998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.992|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: P-value was assessed from 2-sided stratified CMH row mean test by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site.||||0.992
91011484|NCT00883896|181905998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.422|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: P-value was assessed from 2-sided stratified CMH row mean test by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site.||||0.422
91011485|NCT00883896|181905998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.743|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 10: P-value was assessed from 2-sided stratified CMH row mean test by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site.||||0.743
91053717|NCT02912650|181990986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon test|||p-value was calculated by using Gehan-Wilcoxon test, stratified by gender and baseline categorical PSR terms.||||0.031
91079098|NCT03578146|182043865|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|110388.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
90793848|NCT00323622|181468437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||1 - (R1/R2)|7.08||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.37|26.44||The p-value presented is the Wald Chi-square p-value from the Cox regression model.|Regression, Cox|||The analysis aimed to compare rates of first PFMI (RPFMI) between groups over the Months 33-45 time period. Using RFPMI, a Cox model was used to evaluate vaccine efficacy (VE) allowing for adjustment factors. VE, point estimate of efficacy adjusted for covariates, was calculated as 1 - (minus) \[Hazard Ratio (HR) in Cohort 1 - RTS,S/AS02A Group \[HR1\]) divided by HR in Cohort 1 - Engerix-B/Prevnar-Hiberix Group \[HR2\])\], i. e. 1 - (HR1/HR2).||26.44|-17.37|0.54
90793849|NCT00323622|181468438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||1 - (R1/R2)|16.79||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.75|33.25||The p-value presented is the Wald Chi-square p-value from the Cox regression model.|Regression, Cox|||The analysis aimed to compare rates of first PFMI (RPFMI) between groups over the Months 21-33 time period. Using RFPMI, a Cox model was used to evaluate vaccine efficacy (VE) allowing for adjustment factors. VE, point estimate of efficacy adjusted for covariates, was calculated as 1 - (minus) \[Hazard Ratio (HR) in Cohort 1 - RTS,S/AS02A Group \[HR1\]) divided by HR in Cohort 1 - Engerix-B/Prevnar-Hiberix Group \[HR2\])\], i. e. 1 - (HR1/HR2).||33.25|-3.75|0.10
90793850|NCT00323622|181468438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||1 - (R1/R2)|6.31||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.0|32.99||The p-value presented is the Wald Chi-square p-value from the Cox regression model.|Regression, Cox|Point estimate of efficacy was adjusted for age, geographical area of residence, bednet use and distance from health center.||The analysis aimed to compare rates of first PFMI (RPFMI) between groups over the Months 33-45 time period. Using RFPMI, a Cox model was used to evaluate vaccine efficacy (VE) allowing for adjustment factors. VE, point estimate of efficacy adjusted for covariates, was calculated as 1 - (minus) \[Hazard Ratio (HR) in Cohort 1 - RTS,S/AS02A Group \[HR1\]) divided by HR in Cohort 1 - Engerix-B/Prevnar-Hiberix Group \[HR2\])\], i. e. 1 - (HR1/HR2).||32.99|-31.00|0.70
91011486|NCT00883896|181905998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.188|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 10: P-value was assessed from 2-sided stratified CMH row mean test by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site.||||0.188
91011487|NCT00883896|181905998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.385|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 10: P-value was assessed from 2-sided stratified CMH row mean test by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site.||||0.385
91011488|NCT00883896|181905998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.148|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 10: P-value was assessed from 2-sided stratified CMH row mean test by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site.||||0.148
91011489|NCT00883896|181905998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.304|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 10: P-value was assessed from 2-sided stratified CMH row mean test by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site.||||0.304
91011490|NCT00883896|181905998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.552|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 10: P-value was assessed from 2-sided stratified CMH row mean test by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site.||||0.552
91011491|NCT00883896|181905998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.494|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: P-value was assessed from 2-sided stratified CMH row mean test by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site.||||0.494
91011492|NCT00883896|181905998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.421|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: P-value was assessed from 2-sided stratified CMH row mean test by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site.||||0.421
91011493|NCT00883896|181905998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.418|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: P-value was assessed from 2-sided stratified CMH row mean test by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site.||||0.418
91011494|NCT00883896|181905998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.235|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: P-value was assessed from 2-sided stratified CMH row mean test by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site.||||0.235
91011495|NCT00883896|181905998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.268|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: P-value was assessed from 2-sided stratified CMH row mean test by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site.||||0.268
91011496|NCT00883896|181905998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.957|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: P-value was assessed from 2-sided stratified CMH row mean test by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site.||||0.957
91011497|NCT01177943|181906027|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|80-125% was used for bioequivalence (BE) criteria in terms of geometric means.|Ratio of Geometric LS Mean values|0.945|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.858|1.04|||ANOVA|||||1.04|0.858|
91011498|NCT01177943|181906028|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|80-125% was used for bioequivalence (BE) criteria in terms of the ratio of geometric means.|Ratio of AUC(0-tlast) values|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.07|||ANOVA|||||1.07|1.00|
91011499|NCT02467504|181906032|OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.530
91011500|NCT02467504|181906033|OTHER|||||||0.315|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.315
91053718|NCT02912650|181990986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon test|||p-value was calculated by using Gehan-Wilcoxon test, stratified by gender and baseline categorical PSR terms.||||<0.001
90890262|NCT01217073|181644894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|14.5||||||||14.5|-9.8|
91011501|NCT02467504|181906034|OTHER|||||||0.018|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.018
91011502|NCT02467504|181906035|OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.015
91011503|NCT02467504|181906036|OTHER|Chi||||||0.474|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.474
91011504|NCT02467504|181906037|OTHER|description of Treg cells in CD4+ T cells||||||0.665|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.665
91011505|NCT02467504|181906038|OTHER|||||||0.616|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.616
91011506|NCT02467504|181906039|OTHER|||||||0.616|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.616
91011507|NCT02467504|181906040|OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.200
91011508|NCT02467504|181906041|OTHER|||||||0.373|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.373
91011509|NCT02467504|181906042|OTHER|||||||0.565|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.565
91011510|NCT02467504|181906043|OTHER|||||||0.221|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.221
91011511|NCT02467504|181906044|OTHER|||||||0.085|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.085
91011512|NCT02467504|181906045|OTHER|||||||0.74|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.740
91011513|NCT02467504|181906046|OTHER|||||||0.881|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.881
91011514|NCT02467504|181906047|OTHER|||||||0.422|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.422
91011515|NCT02467504|181906048|OTHER|||||||0.055|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.055
91053719|NCT02912650|181990986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon test|||p-value was calculated by using Gehan-Wilcoxon test, stratified by gender and baseline categorical PSR terms.||||<0.001
91053720|NCT02912650|181990986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.631|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon test|||p-value was calculated by using Gehan-Wilcoxon test, stratified by gender and baseline categorical PSR terms.||||0.631
91053721|NCT02912650|181990987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon test|||p-value was calculated by using Gehan-Wilcoxon test, stratified by gender and baseline categorical PSR terms.||||<0.001
91053722|NCT02912650|181990987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.088|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon test|||p-value was calculated by using Gehan-Wilcoxon test, stratified by gender and baseline categorical PSR terms.||||0.088
91053723|NCT02912650|181990987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.133|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon test|||p-value was calculated by using Gehan-Wilcoxon test, stratified by gender and baseline categorical PSR terms.||||0.133
91053724|NCT02912650|181990987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon test|||p-value was calculated by using Gehan-Wilcoxon test, stratified by gender and baseline categorical PSR terms.||||<0.001
91053725|NCT02912650|181990987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon test|||p-value was calculated by using Gehan-Wilcoxon test, stratified by gender and baseline categorical PSR terms.||||<0.001
91053726|NCT02912650|181990987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.887|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon test|||p-value was calculated by using Gehan-Wilcoxon test, stratified by gender and baseline categorical PSR terms.||||0.887
91053727|NCT02912650|181990988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.52|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.52|0.14|<0.001
91053728|NCT02912650|181990988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.15||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.28|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.28|0.01|0.034
91053729|NCT02912650|181990988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.14|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.14|-0.13|0.963
91053730|NCT02912650|181990988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.18||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.37|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.37|-0.01|0.062
91053731|NCT02912650|181990988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.32||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.52|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.52|0.13|0.001
90793851|NCT04603560|181468450|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.66|||||The odds ratio represents Social Norming vs Control.|Generalized estimating equation adjusting for clustering of patients within providers as well as provider panel size||1.66|0.54|
91053732|NCT02912650|181990988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.14||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|-0.01|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||-0.01|-0.28|0.040
91053733|NCT02912650|181990988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.27|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.27|0.70|<0.001
91053734|NCT02912650|181990988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.17||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.37|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.37|-0.03|0.095
90793852|NCT04603560|181468450|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.29|||||The odds ratio represents Pharmacist E-Detailing vs Control.|Generalized estimating equation adjusting for clustering of patients within providers as well as provider panel size||2.29|0.72|
91053735|NCT02912650|181990988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.09||||0.414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.29|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.29|-0.12|0.414
91053736|NCT02912650|181990988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.1|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.10|0.52|<0.001
90793853|NCT04603560|181468450|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|2.56|||||The odds ratio represents Pharmacist e-detailing vs Social Norming.|Generalized estimating equation adjusting for clustering of patients within providers as well as provider panel size.||2.56|0.74|
91053737|NCT02912650|181990988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.19|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.19|0.61|<0.001
91053738|NCT02912650|181990988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.09||||0.406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.12|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.12|-0.29|0.406
91053739|NCT02912650|181990988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|2.09|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||2.09|1.40|<0.001
91053740|NCT02912650|181990988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.34||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.58|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.58|0.10|0.006
91053741|NCT02912650|181990988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.33||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.57|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.57|0.08|0.009
91053742|NCT02912650|181990988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.75|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.75|1.07|<0.001
91053743|NCT02912650|181990988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.77|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.77|1.08|<0.001
91053744|NCT02912650|181990988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.01||||0.908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.23|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.23|-0.26|0.908
91079099|NCT03578146|182043865|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|163880.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
90793854|NCT01385995|181468451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|3.24|||Generalized Estimating Equation|Controlled for period and baseline 2 hour OGTT glucose level.||Based on an intent to treat approach a Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) was used to estimate the effect of therapy (CPAP or Sham) on the odds of normalization of Impaired Glucose Tolerance (IGT). This model provides an estimate of the odds ratio of normalizing the 2-hour oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) with CPAP compared with Sham-CPAP.||3.24|0.52|0.57
90793855|NCT01385995|181468452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|3.0|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for period, baseline level of the outcome variable, BMI, Apnea-Hypopnea Index (AHI), gender and race.||Based on an intent-to-treat approach, a linear mixed effect model was used to estimate the association between therapy and measures of glucose indices, in this case fasting glucose, between CPAP and sham-CPAP.||3.0|-1.2|0.38
90793856|NCT01385995|181468452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.3||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|1.7|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for period, baseline level of the outcome variable, BMI, AHI, gender and race.||Based on an intent-to-treat approach, a linear mixed effect model was used to estimate the association between measures of glucose indices, in this case, 2 hour OGTT, and therapeutic CPAP vs. Sham.||1.7|-16.3|0.11
90793857|NCT01385995|181468452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|2.7|||Regression, Linear|||Based on an intent-to-treat approach, a linear mixed effect model was used to estimate the association between therapy and measures of glucose indices, in this case fasting glucose, between CPAP and sham-CPAP, stratified for the most severe sleep apnea group (Apnea-Hypopnea Index (AHI) \>=30) in order to assess whether the differences in the effect of CPAP on outcomes were observed according to sleep apnea severity. N=25.||2.7|-3.3|0.86
91053745|NCT02912650|181990988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.64|2.35|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||2.35|1.64|<0.001
91053746|NCT02912650|181990988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.39||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.64|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.64|0.15|0.002
90793858|NCT01385995|181468452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.6||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.6|1.3|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for period, baseline level of the outcome variable, BMI, AHI, gender and race.||Based on an intent-to-treat approach, a linear mixed effect model was used to estimate the association between therapy and measures of glucose indices, in this case 2-hour oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) glucose, between CPAP and sham-CPAP, stratified for the most severe sleep apnea group (Apnea-Hypopnea Index (AHI) \>=30) in order to assess whether the differences in the effect of CPAP on outcomes were observed according to sleep apnea severity. N= 25.||1.3|-24.6|0.08
90793859|NCT01385995|181468453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|0.5|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for period, baseline level of the outcome variable, BMI, Apnea-Hypopnea Index (AHI), gender and race.||Based on an intent-to-treat approach, a linear mixed effect model was used to estimate the association between therapy and measures of insulin indices, in this case, fasting insulin, between CPAP and sham-CPAP.||0.5|-3.4|0.14
90793860|NCT01385995|181468453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.7||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.3|2.8|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for period, baseline level of the outcome variable, BMI, Apnea-Hypopnea Index (AHI), gender and race.||Based on an intent-to-treat approach, a linear mixed effect model was used to estimate the association between therapy and measures of insulin indices, in this case, 2-hour oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) insulin, between CPAP and sham-CPAP.||2.8|-23.3|0.12
90890263|NCT01217073|181644895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|4.1||||||||4.1|-4.1|
90890264|NCT01217073|181644895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|2.4||||||||2.4|-4.9|
90890265|NCT01217073|181644895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|4.0||||||||4.0|-4.1|
91011516|NCT02467504|181906049|OTHER|||||||0.039|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.039
91011517|NCT02467504|181906050|OTHER|||||||0.156|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.156
91011518|NCT00078715|181906063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.141||0.527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.26|2.251||The significance level reflects the direct comparison of drugs after factoring out baseline depression levels.|Mixed Models Analysis|A linear mixed model was used with factors for drug, time of evaluation, the drug by time interaction, and a baseline depression covariate.||The hypothesis was that yohimbine would provide lower levels of depression than placebo. Initial estimates of sample size assumed a minimum of 25 patients were required to detect differences in depression.||2.251|-4.260|.527
91011519|NCT02347124|181906064|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.78||Adjusted for baseline sex, age, cigarettes per day, depression history, motivation, self-efficacy, current use of a stop-smoking medication, state quitline, and dental insurance.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.78|0.93|0.13
91011520|NCT02347124|181906065|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.53||Adjusted for baseline sex, age, depression history, motivation, self-efficacy, state quitline, and dental insurance.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.53|0.69|0.90
91011521|NCT02347124|181906066|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.69||Model is adjusted for sex, age, cigarettes per day at baseline, depression, self-efficacy, motivation, self-reported use of a stop smoking medication at baseline, and stratification variables state quit line and dental insurance.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.69|0.89|0.21
91011522|NCT02347124|181906067|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|2.0||Model is adjusted for sex, age, cigarettes per day at baseline, depression, self-efficacy, motivation, self-reported use of a stop smoking medication at baseline, and stratification variables state quit line and dental insurance.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.00|1.01|0.04
91011523|NCT02347124|181906068|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.96||Model is adjusted for sex, age, cigarettes per day at baseline, depression, self-efficacy, motivation, self-reported use of a stop smoking medication at baseline, and stratification variables state quit line and dental insurance.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.96|0.95|0.09
91011524|NCT02347124|181906069|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.05||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.47|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for sex, age, state quit line, and baseline knowledge score.||||0.47|-0.57|0.85
90793861|NCT01385995|181468453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|0.5|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for period, baseline level of the outcome variable, BMI, AHI, gender and race.||Based on an intent-to-treat approach, a linear mixed effect model was used to estimate the association between therapy and measures of insulin indices, in this case fasting insulin, between CPAP and sham-CPAP, stratified for the most severe sleep apnea group (Apnea-Hypopnea Index (AHI) \>=30) in order to assess whether the differences in the effect of CPAP on outcomes were observed according to sleep apnea severity. N=23.||0.5|-5.2|0.10
90793862|NCT01385995|181468453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-28.7||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.5|-10.9|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for period, baseline level of the outcome variable, BMI, AHI, gender and race.||Based on an intent-to-treat approach, a linear mixed effect model was used to estimate the association between therapy and measures of insulin indices, in this case oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) insulin, between CPAP and sham-CPAP, stratified for the most severe sleep apnea group (Apnea-Hypopnea Index (AHI) \>=30) in order to assess whether the differences in the effect of CPAP on outcomes were observed according to sleep apnea severity. N=23.||-10.9|-46.5|0.002
90793863|NCT01385995|181468454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.5||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6|3.8|||Regression, Linear|||Based on an intent-to-treat approach, a linear mixed effect model was used to estimate the association between therapy and Homeostasis Model Assessment-Insulin Resistance (HOMA-IR), between CPAP and sham-CPAP.||3.8|-17.6|0.18
90793864|NCT01385995|181468454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.1||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.5|1.8|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for period, baseline level of the outcome variable, BMI, AHI, gender and race.||Based on an intent-to-treat approach, a linear mixed effect model was used to estimate the association between therapy and measures of insulin resistance, in this case Homeostasis Model Assessment-Insulin Resistance (HOMA-IR), between CPAP and sham-CPAP, stratified for the most severe sleep apnea group (Apnea-Hypopnea Index (AHI) \>=30) in order to assess whether the differences in the effect of CPAP on outcomes were observed according to sleep apnea severity. N=23.||1.8|-27.5|0.08
90793865|NCT01385995|181468455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.7||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|9.8|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for period, baseline level of the outcome variable, BMI, Apnea-Hypopnea Index (AHI), gender and race.||Based on an intent-to-treat approach, a linear mixed effect model was used to estimate the association between therapy and the Insulin Sensivity Index, between CPAP and sham-CPAP.||9.8|-2.0|0.20
90793866|NCT01385995|181468455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.3||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.2|22.1|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for period, baseline level of the outcome variable, BMI, AHI, gender and race.||Based on an intent-to-treat approach, a linear mixed effect model was used to estimate the association between therapy and the Insulin Sensitivity Index (ISI(0,120)), between CPAP and sham-CPAP, stratified for the most severe sleep apnea group (Apnea-Hypopnea Index (AHI) \>=30) in order to assess whether the differences in the effect of CPAP on outcomes were observed according to sleep apnea severity. N=23.||22.1|5.2|0.002
90793867|NCT00934180|181468463|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Ratio of Geometric Means|103.0||||||90.0|95.1|111.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||111|95.1|
90793868|NCT00934180|181468464|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Ratio of Geometric Means|101.0||||||90.0|95.3|107.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||107|95.3|
90793869|NCT00934180|181468465|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Ratio of Geometric Means|101.0||||||90.0|95.2|108.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||108|95.2|
90793870|NCT00775658|181468497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Before the study, we determined that a sample size of 18 would be adequate to detect a 20% difference in wheal and flare areas with 80% power and a significance level of 0.05.||||0.57
90793871|NCT00775658|181468498|SUPERIORITY|Sample size determined that 18 participants would provide 80% power to detect a 20% difference with a significance level of 0.05.||||||0.09|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.09
90793872|NCT01892189|181468515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.2348|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.20458||0.259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6506|0.1809|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 3 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Left Anterior Cingulate Cortex: Values were obtained using analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with sequence, period, regimen and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.1809|-0.6506|0.259
90793873|NCT01892189|181468515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.0367|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22075||0.869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4853|0.4119|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 10 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Left Anterior Cingulate Cortex: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.4119|-0.4853|0.869
90793874|NCT01892189|181468515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.218|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.20968||0.306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6441|0.2081|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 30 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Left Anterior Cingulate Cortex: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.2081|-0.6441|0.306
90793875|NCT01892189|181468515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2525|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17956||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6174|0.1124|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 3 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Right Anterior Cingulate Cortex: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.1124|-0.6174|0.169
90793876|NCT01892189|181468515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.0417|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19375||0.831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4354|0.3521|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 10 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Right Anterior Cingulate Cortex: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.3521|-0.4354|0.831
90890266|NCT01217073|181644895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|2.4||||||||2.4|-4.9|
90793877|NCT01892189|181468515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2421|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18403||0.197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6161|0.1319|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 30 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Right Anterior Cingulate Cortex: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.1319|-0.6161|0.197
90793878|NCT01892189|181468515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1155|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1618||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4443|0.2133|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 3 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Left Posterior Cingulate Cortex: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.2133|-0.4443|0.480
90793879|NCT01892189|181468515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1673|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17458||0.345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1875|0.5221|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 10 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Left Posterior Cingulate Cortex: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.5221|-0.1875|0.345
90793880|NCT01892189|181468515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1504|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16583||0.371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4874|0.1866|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 30 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Left Posterior Cingulate Cortex: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.1866|-0.4874|0.371
90793881|NCT01892189|181468515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1731|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18808||0.364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5553|0.2092|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 3 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Right Posterior Cingulate Cortex: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.2092|-0.5553|0.364
90793882|NCT01892189|181468515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1362|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.20294||0.507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2762|0.5486|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 10 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Right Posterior Cingulate Cortex: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.5486|-0.2762|0.507
90793883|NCT01892189|181468515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2464|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19276||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6381|0.1453|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 30 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Right Posterior Cingulate Cortex: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.1453|-0.6381|0.210
90793884|NCT01892189|181468515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3059|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14253||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5955|-0.0162|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 3 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Left Striatum: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||-0.0162|-0.5955|0.039
90793885|NCT01892189|181468515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0134|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1538||0.931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2991|0.326|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 10 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Left Striatum: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.3260|-0.2991|0.931
90793886|NCT01892189|181468515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1164|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14608||0.431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4133|0.1804|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 30 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Left Striatum: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.1804|-0.4133|0.431
90793887|NCT01892189|181468515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3269|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13362||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5985|-0.0554|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 3 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Right Striatum: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||-0.0554|-0.5985|0.020
90793888|NCT01892189|181468515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.0845|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14418||0.562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3775|0.2085|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 10 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Right Striatum: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.2085|-0.3775|0.562
91053747|NCT02912650|181990988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.82|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.82|0.32|<0.001
90793889|NCT01892189|181468515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1727|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13695||0.216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.451|0.1056|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 30 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Right Striatum: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.1056|-0.4510|0.216
90793890|NCT01892189|181468515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.0084|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17609||0.962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3663|0.3495|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 3 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Left Amygdala: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.3495|-0.3663|0.962
90793891|NCT01892189|181468515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.0357|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19001||0.852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4218|0.3505|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 10 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Left Amygdala: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.3505|-0.4218|0.852
90793892|NCT01892189|181468515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2154|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18048||0.241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5822|0.1514|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 30 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Left Amygdala: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.1514|-0.5822|0.241
90793893|NCT01892189|181468515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.138|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17766||0.443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4991|0.223|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 3 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Right Amygdala: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.2230|-0.4991|0.443
90793894|NCT01892189|181468515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2037|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1917||0.295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5933|0.1859|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 10 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Right Amygdala: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.1859|-0.5933|0.295
90793895|NCT01892189|181468515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.0602|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18209||0.743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4303|0.3098|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 30 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Right Amygdala: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.3098|-0.4303|0.743
90793896|NCT01892189|181468515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1774|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16068||0.277||95.0|-0.504|0.1491|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 3 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Left Substantia Nigra: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.1491|-0.5040|0.277
90793897|NCT01892189|181468515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.0539|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17338||0.758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4062|0.2985|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 10 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Left Substantia Nigra: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.2985|-0.4062|0.758
90793898|NCT01892189|181468515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4377|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16468||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7724|-0.1031|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 30 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Left Substantia Nigra: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||-0.1031|-0.7724|0.012
90793899|NCT01892189|181468515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1037|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14849||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4055|0.1981|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 3 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Right Substantia Nigra: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.1981|-0.4055|0.490
90793900|NCT01892189|181468515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16023||0.534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4263|0.2249|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 10 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Right Substantia Nigra: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.2249|-0.4263|0.534
90793901|NCT01892189|181468515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.214|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15219||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5233|0.0953|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 30 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Right Substantia Nigra: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.0953|-0.5233|0.169
90793902|NCT01892189|181468515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2641|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14118||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.551|0.0228|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 3 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Left Thalamus: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.0228|-0.5510|0.070
90793903|NCT01892189|181468515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.0854|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15234||0.579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.395|0.2242|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 10 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Left Thalamus: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.2242|-0.3950|0.579
90793904|NCT01892189|181468515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2446|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1447||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5387|0.0494|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 30 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Left Thalamus: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.0494|-0.5387|0.100
90793905|NCT01892189|181468515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13533||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.495|0.055|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 3 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Right Thalamus: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.0550|-0.4950|0.113
90793906|NCT01892189|181468515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.0527|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14603||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3495|0.244|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 10 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Right Thalamus: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.2440|-0.3495|0.720
90793907|NCT01892189|181468515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.183|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1387||0.196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4649|0.0989|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 30 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Right Thalamus: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.0989|-0.4649|0.196
91053748|NCT02912650|181990988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|1.95|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.95|1.25|<0.001
91053749|NCT02912650|181990988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.78|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.78|1.07|<0.001
91053750|NCT02912650|181990988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.18||||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.43|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.43|-0.07|0.157
91053751|NCT02912650|181990988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.73|2.48|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||2.48|1.73|<0.001
90793908|NCT01892189|181468515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2051|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.20032||0.313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6122|0.202|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 3 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Left Ventrolateral Prefrontal Cortex: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.2020|-0.6122|0.313
90793909|NCT01892189|181468515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0253|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21616||0.908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.414|0.4646|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 10 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Left Ventrolateral Prefrontal Cortex: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.4646|-0.4140|0.908
90793910|NCT01892189|181468515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.20531||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7214|0.1131|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 30 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Left Ventrolateral Prefrontal Cortex: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.1131|-0.7214|0.148
90793911|NCT01892189|181468515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3409|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17997||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7066|0.0249|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 3 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Right Ventrolateral Prefrontal Cortex: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.0249|-0.7066|0.067
91053752|NCT02912650|181990988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.37||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.63|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.63|0.11|0.005
90793912|NCT01892189|181468515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.0652|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19419||0.739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4599|0.3294|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 10 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Right Ventrolateral Prefrontal Cortex: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.3294|-0.4599|0.739
90793913|NCT01892189|181468515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4163|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18445||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7912|-0.0415|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 30 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Right Ventrolateral Prefrontal Cortex: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||-0.0415|-0.7912|0.031
90793914|NCT01892189|181468515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2032|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14369||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4952|0.0888|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 3 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Left Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.0888|-0.4952|0.166
90793915|NCT01892189|181468515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0932|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15504||0.552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2219|0.4083|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 10 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Left Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.4083|-0.2219|0.552
90793916|NCT01892189|181468515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1648|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14727||0.271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4641|0.1345|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 30 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Left Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.1345|-0.4641|0.271
91053753|NCT02912650|181990988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.05|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.05|0.52|<0.001
91053754|NCT02912650|181990988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|2.1|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||2.10|1.36|<0.001
91053755|NCT02912650|181990988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.69|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.69|0.94|<0.001
91053756|NCT02912650|181990988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.42||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.68|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.68|0.15|0.002
91053757|NCT02912650|181990988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.67|2.45|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||2.45|1.67|<0.001
91053758|NCT02912650|181990988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.67|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.67|0.13|0.004
91079100|NCT03578146|182043865|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|263236.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
90793917|NCT01892189|181468515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2516|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16169||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5802|0.077|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 3 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Right Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.0770|-0.5802|0.129
90793918|NCT01892189|181468515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1279|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17447||0.468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2266|0.4825|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 10 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Right Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.4825|-0.2266|0.468
90793919|NCT01892189|181468515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2033|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16572||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5401|0.1334|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 30 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Right Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.1334|-0.5401|0.228
90793920|NCT01892189|181468515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13268||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4696|0.0696|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 3 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Left Hippocampus: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.0696|-0.4696|0.141
90793921|NCT01892189|181468515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.0065|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14317||0.964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2975|0.2844|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 10 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Left Hippocampus: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.2844|-0.2975|0.964
90793922|NCT01892189|181468515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1935|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13599||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4699|0.0828|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 30 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Left Hippocampus: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.0828|-0.4699|0.164
90793923|NCT01892189|181468515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1446|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13315||0.285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4152|0.126|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 3 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Right Hippocampus: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.1260|-0.4152|0.285
90793924|NCT01892189|181468515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.0176|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14368||0.903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3096|0.2744|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 10 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Right Hippocampus: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.2744|-0.3096|0.903
90793925|NCT01892189|181468515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1615|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13647||0.245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4388|0.1159|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 30 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Right Hippocampus: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.1159|-0.4388|0.245
90793926|NCT01892189|181468515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3659|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45708||0.429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.563|1.2948|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 3 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Left Subgenual Cingulate/BA25: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||1.2948|-0.5630|0.429
90793927|NCT01892189|181468515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0395|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49321||0.937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9628|1.0419|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 10 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Left Subgenual Cingulate/BA25: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||1.0419|-0.9628|0.937
90793928|NCT01892189|181468515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.7902|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46847||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1618|1.7423|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 30 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Left Subgenual Cingulate/BA25: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||1.7423|-0.1618|0.101
90793929|NCT01892189|181468515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4404|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43756||0.321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3296|0.4488|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 3 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Right Subgenual Cingulate/BA25: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.4488|-1.3296|0.321
90793930|NCT01892189|181468515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4685|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47214||0.328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.428|0.491|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 10 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Right Subgenual Cingulate/BA25: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.4910|-1.4280|0.328
90793931|NCT01892189|181468515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44846||0.356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4914|1.3314|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 30 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Right Subgenual Cingulate/BA25: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||1.3314|-0.4914|0.356
90890267|NCT01217073|181644895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|7.9||||||||7.9|-1.7|
90890268|NCT01217073|181644896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percent|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|13.1||||||||13.1|-9.8|
90793932|NCT01892189|181468515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2254|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1679||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5666|0.1158|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 3 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Left Paracingulte gyrus/BA32. Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.1158|-0.5666|0.188
90793933|NCT01892189|181468515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.0232|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18117||0.899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3914|0.3449|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 10 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Left Paracingulte gyrus/BA32: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.3449|-0.3914|0.899
90793934|NCT01892189|181468515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2534|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17208||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6032|0.0963|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 30 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Left Paracingulte gyrus/BA32: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.0963|-0.6032|0.150
90793935|NCT01892189|181468515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2821|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19038||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.669|0.1048|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 3 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Right Paracingulte gyrus/BA3: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.1048|-0.6690|0.148
90793936|NCT01892189|181468515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.20543||0.817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4655|0.3695|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 10 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Right Paracingulte gyrus/BA32: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.3695|-0.4655|0.817
90793937|NCT01892189|181468515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3395|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19513||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7361|0.057|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 30 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Right Paracingulte gyrus/BA32: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.0570|-0.7361|0.091
90793938|NCT00856557|181468524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is equal distribution of proportion of successful encounters among groups||||0.33
90793939|NCT00856557|181468524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|0.724|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.346||0.036|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Considering all encounters (n=179) of all physicians for who outcomes were measured (n=111) together, are encounters in which physicians contextualized the plan of care more likely to be associated with target health outcome achievement than encounters in which physicians did not, controlling for clustering of encounters within physicians. (Generalized logistic mixed model, with random intercept for physician)||||.036
90793940|NCT00856557|181468525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.99
90793941|NCT00856557|181468526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.39
90793942|NCT01052779|181468530|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI was ≥-0.5 g/dL and superiority if the lower bound was ≥0 g/dL.|Treatment Difference|0.1||||0.515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.41||The p-value for hemoglobin change from Baseline (Day 1) was adjusted for baseline hemoglobin level and hemodialysis status.|ANOVA||The 95% CI for hemoglobin change from Baseline (Day 1) was from an ANOVA model and adjusted for baseline hemoglobin level and hemodialysis status.|With LOCF Imputation: The p-value and two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the treatment difference in mean change in hemoglobin from Baseline (Day 1) to Week 5 were generated based on an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model adjusted for baseline hemoglobin level and hemodialysis status.||0.41|-0.21|0.515
90793943|NCT01052779|181468530|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI was ≥-0.5 g/dL and superiority if the lower bound was ≥0 g/dL.|Treatment Difference|0.09||||0.587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.41||The p-value for hemoglobin change from Baseline (Day 1) was adjusted for baseline hemoglobin level and hemodialysis status.|ANOVA||The 95% CI for hemoglobin change from Baseline (Day 1) was from an ANOVA model and adjusted for baseline hemoglobin level and hemodialysis status.|Without Imputation (Sensitivity Analysis): The p-value and two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference in mean change in hemoglobin from Baseline (Day 1) to Week 5 were generated based on an ANOVA model adjusted for baseline hemoglobin level and hemodialysis status.||0.41|-0.23|0.587
90793944|NCT03524157|181468548|NON_INFERIORITY|it will be considered non-inferior if there are no differences greater than 20%.||||||0.273|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.273
90793945|NCT03524157|181468549|NON_INFERIORITY|it will be considered non-inferiority if there are no differences greater than 20%||||||0.788|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.788
90793946|NCT03524157|181468551|NON_INFERIORITY|it will be considered non-inferiority if there are no differences greater than 20%|||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||>0.05
90793947|NCT03524157|181468552|NON_INFERIORITY|it will be considered non-inferiority if there are no differences greater than 20%||||||0.008|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.008
90793948|NCT03524157|181468553|NON_INFERIORITY|it will be considered non-inferiority if there are no differences greater than 20%|||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||>0.05
90793949|NCT03524157|181468555|NON_INFERIORITY|it will be considered non-inferiority if there are no differences greater than 20%|||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||>0.05
90793950|NCT03524157|181468556|NON_INFERIORITY|it will be considered non-inferiority if there are no differences greater than 20%|||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||>0.05
90793951|NCT03524157|181468557|NON_INFERIORITY|it will be considered non-inferiority if there are no differences greater than 20%|||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
90793952|NCT04507763|181468558|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Change from Baseline at Month 12: For Early Referral||||0.001
90793953|NCT04507763|181468559|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Change from Baseline at Month 12: For Early Referral||||0.001
90890269|NCT01217073|181644897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percent|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|2.6||||||||2.6|-9.1|
91079101|NCT03578146|182043865|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|270297.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
90793954|NCT03322566|181468560|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|-18.5||||0.9948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.0|-4.3||One-sided p-value for testing. H0: difference in % = 0 versus H1: difference in % \> 0.|Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen method||Stratified by PD-L1 TPS ( \<50% vs. \>=50% ) and predominant tumor histology (squamous vs non-squamous);because of small sample size, the strata 'TPS \>= 50 percent Non-squamous' and 'TPS \>= 50% Squamous' were combined into one stratum.|||-4.3|-32.0|0.9948
91011525|NCT02347124|181906070|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.41||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.96|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for sex, age, state quit line, and baseline knowledge score.||||0.96|-0.14|0.14
91053759|NCT02912650|181990988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.37|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.37|0.82|<0.001
90793955|NCT03322566|181468561|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.47||||0.94305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|2.36||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by TPS (\<50% vs \>=50%) and predominant histology (squamous vs non-squamous), because of small sample size, the strata 'TPS \>= 50% Non-squamous' and 'TPS \>= 50% Squamous' were combined into one.|Regression, Cox|Efron's method of tie handling||||2.36|0.91|0.94305
90793956|NCT03322566|181468562|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.9||||0.96272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|3.9||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by PD-L1 TPS (\<50% vs \>=50%) and predominant tumor histology (squamous vs non-squamous), because of small sample size, the strata (\<50% vs \>=50%) were combined into one stratum.|Regression, Cox|||||3.90|0.93|0.96272
90793957|NCT02947048|181468605|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.61|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Clinical Global Impression - Severity||||0.61
90793958|NCT02947048|181468605|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.33|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Clinical Global Impression - Severity||||0.33
90793959|NCT02947048|181468605|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.61|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Clinical Global Impression - Improvement||||0.61
90793960|NCT02947048|181468605|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.91|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Clinical Global Impression - Improvement||||0.91
90793961|NCT03895372|181468646|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.87||||0.2621|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.5|26.26||One-sided Hochberg p-value, significant level is 0.05.|Chan and Zhang method|||The analysis was based on the data at Week 16.||26.26|-4.50|0.2621
90793962|NCT03895372|181468646|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.76||||0.2621|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.07|21.48||One-sided Hochberg p-value, significant level is 0.05.|Chan and Zhang method|||The analysis was based on the data at Week 16.||21.48|-7.07|0.2621
90793963|NCT03895372|181468646|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|33.02||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|18.01|47.11||One-sided Hochberg p-value, significant level is 0.05.|Chan and Zhang method|||The analysis was based on the data at Week 16.||47.11|18.01|0.0004
90793964|NCT03895372|181468646|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|46.46|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|30.62|60.56||One-sided Hochberg p-value, significant level is 0.05.|Chan and Zhang method|||The analysis was based on the data at Week 16.||60.56|30.62|<0.0001
90793965|NCT03895372|181468654|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.82|23.42||||||The analysis was based on the data at Week 16.||23.42|-11.82|
90793966|NCT03895372|181468654|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.61|13.29||||||The analysis was based on the data at Week 16.||13.29|-18.61|
90793967|NCT03895372|181468654|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|32.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|14.32|47.52||||||The analysis was based on the data at Week 16.||47.52|14.32|
90793968|NCT03895372|181468654|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|58.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|41.01|72.41||||||The analysis was based on the data at Week 16.||72.41|41.01|
90793969|NCT03895372|181468655|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.52|20.77||||||The analysis was based on the data at Week 16.||20.77|-14.52|
90793970|NCT03895372|181468655|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.67|17.01||||||The analysis was based on the data at Week 16.||17.01|-17.67|
90793971|NCT03895372|181468655|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|27.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.86|43.26||||||The analysis was based on the data at Week 16.||43.26|8.86|
90793972|NCT03895372|181468655|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|54.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|36.46|68.27||||||The analysis was based on the data at Week 16.||68.27|36.46|
90793973|NCT03895372|181468656|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.52|20.77||||||The analysis was based on the data at Week 16.||20.77|-14.52|
90793974|NCT03895372|181468656|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.67|17.01||||||The analysis was based on the data at Week 16.||17.01|-17.67|
90793975|NCT03895372|181468656|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|27.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.86|43.26||||||The analysis was based on the data at Week 16.||43.26|8.86|
90793976|NCT03895372|181468656|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|54.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|36.46|68.27||||||The analysis was based on the data at Week 16.||68.27|36.46|
90793977|NCT03895372|181468659|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.42|2.51||||||The analysis was based on the data at Week 16.||2.51|-5.42|
90793978|NCT03895372|181468659|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.54|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.5|0.42||||||The analysis was based on the data at Week 16.||0.42|-7.50|
90793979|NCT03895372|181468659|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.05|-6.56||||||The analysis was based on the data at Week 16.||-6.56|-13.05|
90793980|NCT03895372|181468659|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-12.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.61|-9.04||||||The analysis was based on the data at Week 16.||-9.04|-15.61|
90793981|NCT03895372|181468660|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-8.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.61|6.35||||||The analysis was based on the data at Week 16.||6.35|-23.61|
90793982|NCT03895372|181468660|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-13.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.98|1.94||||||The analysis was based on the data at Week 16.||1.94|-27.98|
90793983|NCT03895372|181468660|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-40.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-53.02|-28.46||||||The analysis was based on the data at Week 16.||-28.46|-53.02|
91011526|NCT02347124|181906071|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.35||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.56|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for sex, age, state quit line, and baseline self-efficacy score.||||0.56|0.13|.002
91011527|NCT02347124|181906072|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.23||Adjusted for sex, age, state quit line, and baseline self-efficacy score.|Regression, Linear|||||0.23|-0.22|0.97
91079102|NCT03578146|182043866|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|-9.91||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.002
90793984|NCT03895372|181468660|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-53.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-65.44|-40.63||||||The analysis was based on the data at Week 16.||-40.63|-65.44|
90793985|NCT03895372|181468661|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.52|0.09||||||The analysis was based on the data at Week 16.||0.09|-2.52|
90793986|NCT03895372|181468661|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.46|0.05||||||The analysis was based on the data at Week 16.||0.05|-2.46|
90793987|NCT03895372|181468661|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.51|-2.43||||||The analysis was based on the data at Week 16.||-2.43|-4.51|
90793988|NCT03895372|181468661|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.71|-2.61||||||The analysis was based on the data at Week 16.||-2.61|-4.71|
90793989|NCT03895372|181468662|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.52|32.87||||||The analysis was based on the data at Week 16.||32.87|-4.52|
90793990|NCT03895372|181468662|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|23.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.62|44.64||||||The analysis was based on the data at Week 16.||44.64|2.62|
90793991|NCT03895372|181468662|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|41.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|23.47|56.18||||||The analysis was based on the data at Week 16.||56.18|23.47|
90793992|NCT03895372|181468662|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|49.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|30.62|63.69||||||The analysis was based on the data at Week 16.||63.69|30.62|
90793993|NCT03895372|181468663|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.82|-0.59||||||The analysis was based on the data at Week 16.||-0.59|-7.82|
90793994|NCT03895372|181468663|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.89|-2.99||||||The analysis was based on the data at Week 16.||-2.99|-9.89|
90793995|NCT03895372|181468663|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-10.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.4|-7.62||||||The analysis was based on the data at Week 16.||-7.62|-13.40|
90793996|NCT03895372|181468663|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-10.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.68|-7.94||||||The analysis was based on the data at Week 16.||-7.94|-13.68|
90793997|NCT03685149|181468671|SUPERIORITY||percent reduction|72.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.0|82.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||82|56|<0.0001
90793998|NCT03685149|181468672|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.00
90793999|NCT03685149|181468673|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.009
90794000|NCT03685149|181468674|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.207|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.207
90794001|NCT02034565|181468682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|0.977|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.756|1.261||||||||1.261|0.756|
90794002|NCT02034565|181468683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.938|1.176||||||||1.176|0.938|
90794003|NCT02034565|181468684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|1.043|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.933|1.167||||||||1.167|0.933|
90794004|NCT03232567|181468695|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2451|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2451
90794005|NCT03232567|181468695|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0063|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0063
90794006|NCT03232567|181468695|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0063|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0063
90794007|NCT03232567|181468696|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4828|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4828
90794008|NCT03232567|181468696|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0996|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0996
90794009|NCT03232567|181468696|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0421|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0421
90794010|NCT03232567|181468698|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0169|||||||Fisher Exact|||NasoVAX low dose vs placebo||||0.0169
90794011|NCT03232567|181468698|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0063|||||||Fisher Exact|||NasoVAX medium dose vs placebo||||0.0063
90794012|NCT03232567|181468698|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||NasoVAX high dose vs placebo||||<0.0001
90794013|NCT02655601|181468700|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.791||||0.135|ONE_SIDED|95.0||95.0||Study was originally designed with 1 IA after approximately 42 deaths. An unplanned, 2nd IA was conducted to support a BTDR. The study was not terminated early as a result of either IAs. No further IA were conducted until the primary analysis.|Log Rank|89 study participants had passed away at the time of this analysis (41 in the RT/TMZ + BMX-001 arm and 48 in the Radiation Therapy/TMZ arm).||A 1-tailed logrank test was conducted at the 0.2 level. This test had 90% power to detect a hazard ratio of 0.63 after 84 deaths were observed among the 160 randomized patients.||95||0.135
90794014|NCT02655601|181468712|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.45||||0.465|ONE_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||With 78 and 71 patients in Arms A and B, respectively, there was 80% power with a one-tailed chi-square test (α=0.05) to detect a reduction in grade 3 or 4 thrombocytopenia from 15% in Arm B (without BMX-001) to 3.7% in Arm A (with BMX-001). Given the small number of patients that experienced low platelet counts or thrombocytopenia, a one-tailed Fisher's exact test was performed instead.||||0.465
90794015|NCT02655601|181468713|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.978||||0.911|ONE_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||A 1-tailed logrank test was conducted at the 0.2 level.||||0.911
90794016|NCT02655601|181468714|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.401|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|A continuity adjusted Chi-Squared test was performed.||||||0.401
90794017|NCT02014376|181468720|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3699|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||=0.3699
90794018|NCT00086515|181468728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.53|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, prior AHA status (not on AHA, on monotherapy oral AHA, or on metformin-based oral combination AHA), and baseline A1C||||-0.53|-0.77|<0.001
90794019|NCT00086515|181468729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.0|-19.8|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, prior AHA status (not on AHA, on monotherapy oral AHA, or on metformin-based oral combination AHA), and baseline FPG||||-19.8|-31.0|<0.001
90794020|NCT00086515|181468730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-50.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.5|-40.8|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, prior AHA status (not on AHA, on monotherapy oral AHA, or on metformin-based oral combination AHA), and baseline 2-hour PMG||||-40.8|-60.5|<0.001
90794021|NCT03312543|181468771|SUPERIORITY|Superiority to baseline concluded if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval for the mean difference is above 0.5.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.18|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.328|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.26|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.26|0.09|<0.001
90794022|NCT03312543|181468771|SUPERIORITY|Superiority to baseline concluded if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval for the mean difference is above 0.5.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.341|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.39|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.39|0.21|<0.001
91079103|NCT03578146|182043866|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|-15.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
90794023|NCT03312543|181468771|OTHER|The null hypothesis was that the change from baseline to Week 12 was equal for the active cell and the sham cell. The alternative hypothesis was that the mean change from Baseline was not equal between the two cells.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.25|||ANCOVA|With treatment and skin type group as factors and the corresponding averaged baseline score as a covariate.||||0.25|0.02|0.025
90794024|NCT03312543|181468772|SUPERIORITY|Superiority to baseline concluded if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval for the mean difference is above 0.5.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.349|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.29|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.29|0.11|<0.001
90794025|NCT03312543|181468772|SUPERIORITY|Superiority to baseline concluded if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval for the mean difference is above 0.5.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.22|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.328|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.31|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.31|0.13|<0.001
90794026|NCT03312543|181468772|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was that the change from baseline to Week 12 was equal for the active cell and the sham cell. The alternative hypothesis was that the mean change from Baseline was not equal between the two cells.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.16|||ANCOVA|With treatment and skin type group as factors and the corresponding averaged baseline score as a covariate.||||0.16|-0.09|0.540
90794027|NCT03312543|181468773|SUPERIORITY|Superiority to baseline concluded if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval for the mean difference is above 0.5.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.532||0.627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.10|-0.17|0.627
90794028|NCT03312543|181468773|SUPERIORITY|Superiority to baseline concluded if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval for the mean difference is above 0.5.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.5||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.34|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.34|0.08|0.002
90794029|NCT03312543|181468773|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was that the change from baseline to Week 12 was equal for the active cell and the sham cell. The alternative hypothesis was that the mean change from Baseline was not equal between the two cells.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.092||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.42|||ANCOVA|With treatment and skin type group as factors and the corresponding averaged baseline score as a covariate.||||0.42|0.06|0.009
90794030|NCT03312543|181468774|SUPERIORITY|Superiority to baseline concluded if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval for the mean difference is above 0.5.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.36|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.465|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.48|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.48|0.23|<0.001
90794031|NCT03312543|181468774|SUPERIORITY|Superiority to baseline concluded if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval for the mean difference is above 0.5.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.47|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.578|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.63|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.63|0.32|<0.001
90794032|NCT03312543|181468774|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was that the change from baseline to Week 12 was equal for the active cell and the sham cell. The alternative hypothesis was that the mean change from Baseline was not equal between the two cells.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094||0.224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.3|||ANCOVA|With treatment and skin type group as factors and the corresponding averaged baseline score as a covariate.||||0.30|-0.07|0.224
90794033|NCT04197583|181468821|OTHER||Proportion by group|0.984|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.948|0.995|||||For Tria subjects with stone management indication only|||0.995|0.948|
90794034|NCT02414841|181468867|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.39|||Log Rank|Weighted|Performed as sensitivity analysis|||1.39|0.67|0.932
90794035|NCT02414841|181468868|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.328|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.328
90794036|NCT05293314|181468869|OTHER|Evaluate the ability of the breath test model to distinguish bronchiectasis from healthy individuals by measuring the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. The maximum value in the area below the receiver is 1. The closer the value is to 1, the higher the prediction accuracy of the model.|receiver operating characteristic|0.964|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.932|0.996|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Evaluate the ability of the breath test model to distinguish bronchiectasis from healthy individuals by measuring the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. The maximum value in the area below the receiver is 1. The closer the value is to 1, the higher the prediction accuracy of the model.||0.996|0.932|<0.05
90794037|NCT05293314|181468869|OTHER|Evaluate the ability of the breath test model to distinguish bronchiectasis from healthy individuals by measuring the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. The maximum value in the area below the receiver is 1. The closer the value is to 1, the higher the prediction accuracy of the model.|receiver operating characteristic|0.932|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.879|0.982|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Evaluate the ability of the breath test model to distinguish bronchiectasis from healthy individuals by measuring the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. The maximum value in the area below the receiver is 1. The closer the value is to 1, the higher the prediction accuracy of the model.||0.982|0.879|<0.05
90794038|NCT05293314|181468870|OTHER|Sensitivity=number of true positives/(number of true positives+number of false negatives) \* 100% Sensitivity is the rate of correctly judging patients.We calculated the sensitivity of the breath test model to distinguish bronchiectasis from healthy people.The maximum percentage of the sensitivity is 100%. The higher the percentage is , the more sensitive of the model.|Sensitivity|86.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|77.1|95.2||||||Sensitivity=number of true positives/(number of true positives+number of false negatives) \* 100% Sensitivity is the rate of correctly judging patients.We calculated the sensitivity of the breath test model to distinguish bronchiectasis from healthy people.The maximum percentage of the sensitivity is 100%. The higher the percentage is , the more sensitive of the model.||95.2|77.1|
90794039|NCT05293314|181468870|OTHER|Sensitivity=number of true positives/(number of true positives+number of false negatives) \* 100% Sensitivity is the rate of correctly judging patients.We calculated the sensitivity of the breath test model to distinguish bronchiectasis from healthy people.The maximum percentage of the sensitivity is 100%. The higher the percentage is , the more sensitive of the model.|Sensitivity|86.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|77.1|95.2||||||Sensitivity=number of true positives/(number of true positives+number of false negatives) \* 100% Sensitivity is the rate of correctly judging patients.We calculated the sensitivity of the breath test model to distinguish bronchiectasis from healthy people.The maximum percentage of the sensitivity is 100%. The higher the percentage is , the more sensitive of the model.||95.2|77.1|
91053760|NCT02912650|181990988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|2.04|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||2.04|1.27|<0.001
90794040|NCT05293314|181468871|OTHER|Specificity=number of true negative cases/(number of true negative cases+number of false positive cases) \* 100% The specificity is the rate of correctly judging non patients.We calculated the specificity of the breath test model to distinguish bronchiectasis from healthy people.The maximum percentage of the specificity is 100%. The higher the percentage is , the more specificity of the model.|Specificity|92.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.2|98.8||||||Specificity=number of true negative cases/(number of true negative cases+number of false positive cases) \* 100% The specificity is the rate of correctly judging non patients.We calculated the specificity of the breath test model to distinguish bronchiectasis from healthy people.The maximum percentage of the specificity is 100%. The higher the percentage is , the more specificity of the model.||98.8|86.2|
90794041|NCT05293314|181468871|OTHER|Specificity=number of true negative cases/(number of true negative cases+number of false positive cases) \* 100% The specificity is the rate of correctly judging non patients.We calculated the specificity of the breath test model to distinguish bronchiectasis from healthy people.The maximum percentage of the specificity is 100%. The higher the percentage is , the more specificity of the model.|Specificity|73.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.0|91.9||||||Specificity=number of true negative cases/(number of true negative cases+number of false positive cases) \* 100% The specificity is the rate of correctly judging non patients.We calculated the specificity of the breath test model to distinguish bronchiectasis from healthy people.The maximum percentage of the specificity is 100%. The higher the percentage is , the more specificity of the model.||91.9|56|
90794042|NCT02613507|181468872|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|||||The boundary for statistical significance requires the p-value to be less than 0.0231|Stratified weighted Log-Rank|Stratified weighted using G \[rho=0, gamma=1\] Fleming and Harrington.||||||0.0006
90794043|NCT02613507|181468872|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|97.7|0.52|0.9|||Stratified Cox Proportional Hazard Model|||||0.90|0.52|
90794044|NCT02613507|181468872|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0017|||||||Log Rank|regular stratified log-rank test p-value||||||0.0017
90794045|NCT02471144|181468888|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|25.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.08|114.66|||Regression, Logistic|||vs Placebo||114.66|7.08|<.0001
90794046|NCT02471144|181468888|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|22.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.31|98.93|||Regression, Logistic|||vs Placebo||98.93|6.31|<.0001
90794047|NCT02471144|181468889|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|51.77|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.02|538.64|||Regression, Logistic|||vs Placebo||538.64|10.02|<.0001
90794048|NCT02471144|181468889|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|32.52|||<|0.0001||95.0|6.48|329.52|||Regression, Logistic|||vs Placebo||329.52|6.48|<.0001
90794049|NCT02471144|181468890|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|72.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.9|84.9|||Regression, Logistic|||vs Placebo||84.9|55.9|<.0001
91011528|NCT02347124|181906073|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.1||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.04|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for sex, age, state quit line, use of stop-smoking medications, baseline motivation, and baseline cigarettes per day.||||0.04|-0.24|0.16
90794050|NCT02471144|181468890|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|67.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.8|80.9|||Regression, Logistic|||vs Placebo||80.9|50.8|<.0001
90794051|NCT03977155|181468905|SUPERIORITY|Individual BOS-589 dose levels versus placebo were only to be tested if pooled BOS-589 doses versus placebo was significant at p\<0.05.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.3776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.38|||t test|P-values were calculated from the independent two-sample t test with equal variance.||Statistical Analysis 1||0.38|-1.00|0.3776
90794052|NCT03977155|181468905|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.82||||||Statistical Analysis 2||0.82|-0.73|
90794053|NCT03977155|181468905|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.403|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|0.19||||||Statistical Analysis 3||0.19|-1.41|
90794054|NCT03977155|181468905|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.397|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|1.44||||||Statistical Analysis 4||1.44|-0.13|
90794055|NCT03977155|181468907|SUPERIORITY|Individual BOS-589 dose levels versus placebo were only to be tested if pooled BOS-589 doses versus placebo was significant at p\<0.05.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.211||0.884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.39|||t test|P-values were calculated from the independent two-sample t test with equal variance.||Statistical Analysis 1||0.39|-0.45|0.8840
90794056|NCT03977155|181468907|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.249|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.39||||||Statistical Analysis 2||0.39|-0.60|
90794057|NCT03977155|181468907|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.231|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.49||||||Statistical Analysis 3||0.49|-0.43|
90794058|NCT03977155|181468907|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.247|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.36||||||Statistical Analysis 4||0.36|-0.63|
90794059|NCT03977155|181468908|SUPERIORITY|Individual BOS-589 dose levels versus placebo were only to be tested if pooled BOS-589 doses versus placebo was significant at p\<0.05.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.228||0.4725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.29|||t test|P-values were calculated from the independent two-sample t test with equal variance.||Statistical Analysis 1||0.29|-0.62|0.4725
90794060|NCT03977155|181468908|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.256|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.31||||||Statistical Analysis 2||0.31|-0.71|
91053761|NCT02912650|181990988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.36|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.36|0.58|<0.001
90794061|NCT03977155|181468908|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.248|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.37||||||Statistical Analysis 3||0.37|-0.62|
90794062|NCT03977155|181468908|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.262|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.45||||||Statistical Analysis 4||0.45|-0.60|
91011529|NCT02347124|181906074|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.02||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.13|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for sex, age, state quit line, use of a smoking cessation medication at baseline, baseline motivation score, and baseline cigarettes per day.||||0.13|-0.16|0.83
91011530|NCT02347124|181906075|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.22||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.41|||Regression, Linear|adjusted for sex, age, state quit line, and baseline motivation score.||||0.41|0.04|0.02
91011531|NCT02347124|181906076|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.02||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.21|||Regression, Linear|||||0.21|-0.17|0.82
91079104|NCT03578146|182043866|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|-17.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
90794063|NCT03977155|181468909|SUPERIORITY|Individual BOS-589 dose levels versus placebo were only to be tested if pooled BOS-589 doses versus placebo was significant at p\<0.05.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.5693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.51|||t test|P-values were calculated from the independent two-sample t test with equal variance.||Statistical Analysis 1||0.51|-0.28|0.5693
90794064|NCT03977155|181468909|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.248|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.63||||||Statistical Analysis 2||0.63|-0.35|
90794065|NCT03977155|181468909|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.51||||||Statistical Analysis 3||0.51|-0.33|
90794066|NCT03977155|181468909|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.231|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.51||||||Statistical Analysis 4||0.51|-0.41|
90794067|NCT03977155|181468910|SUPERIORITY|Individual BOS-589 dose levels versus placebo were only to be tested if pooled BOS-589 doses versus placebo was significant at p\<0.05.|Mean Difference (Net)|-7.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|25.208||0.7603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.76|42.33|||t test|P-values were calculated from the independent two-sample t test with equal variance.||Statistical Analysis 1||42.33|-57.76|0.7603
90794068|NCT03977155|181468910|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|24.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|29.087|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.22|82.22||||||Statistical Analysis 2||82.22|-34.22|
90794069|NCT03977155|181468910|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-33.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|27.285|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-87.91|21.07||||||Statistical Analysis 3||21.07|-87.91|
90794070|NCT03977155|181468910|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|57.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|28.174|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|113.69||||||Statistical Analysis 4||113.69|1.16|
90794071|NCT03977155|181468911|SUPERIORITY|Individual BOS-589 dose levels versus placebo were only to be tested if pooled BOS-589 doses versus placebo was significant at p\<0.05.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.2149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.1|||t test|P-values were calculated from the independent two-sample t test with equal variance.||Statistical Analysis 1||0.10|-0.44|0.2149
90794072|NCT03977155|181468911|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.29||||||Statistical Analysis 2||0.29|-0.27|
90794073|NCT03977155|181468911|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.159|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|-0.01||||||Statistical Analysis 3||-0.01|-0.64|
90794074|NCT03977155|181468911|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.65||||||Statistical Analysis 4||0.65|0.02|
90794075|NCT03440385|181468949|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.8125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.39|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Odds ratio, and p-value are obtained using the CMH test stratified by corticosteroid use at baseline (yes or no), and prior biologic use (yes or no).||||1.39|0.66|0.8125
90794076|NCT03440385|181468950|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.66|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Odds ratio, and p-value are obtained using the CMH test stratified by corticosteroid use at baseline (yes or no), and prior biologic use (yes or no).||||1.66|0.77|0.5400
91079105|NCT03578146|182043866|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|-17.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
90794077|NCT03440385|181468951|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28||||0.2411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.95|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Odds ratio, and p-value are obtained using the CMH test stratified by corticosteroid use at baseline (yes or no), and prior biologic use (yes or no).||||1.95|0.85|0.2411
90794078|NCT03440385|181468952|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.7469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.34|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Odds ratio, and p-value are obtained using the CMH test stratified by corticosteroid use at baseline (yes or no), and prior biologic use (yes or no).||||1.34|0.67|0.7469
90794079|NCT03440385|181468953|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.4255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.97|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Odds ratio, and p-value are obtained using the CMH test stratified by corticosteroid use at baseline (yes or no), and prior biologic use (yes or no).||||1.97|0.75|0.4255
90794080|NCT03440385|181468954|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.9313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.76|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Odds ratio, and p-value are obtained using the CMH test stratified by corticosteroid use at baseline (yes or no), and prior biologic use (yes or no).||||1.76|0.60|0.9313
90794081|NCT03440385|181468955|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.4339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.31|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Odds ratio and p-value are obtained using the CMH test stratified by corticosteroid use at baseline (yes or no), and prior biologic use (yes or no).||||2.31|0.70|0.4339
90794082|NCT03440385|181468956|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Odds ratio, and p-value are obtained using the CMH test stratified by corticosteroid use at baseline (yes or no), and prior biologic use (yes or no).||||2.20|0.77|0.3330
90794083|NCT03440385|181468957|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.47|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Odds ratio and p-value are obtained using the CMH test stratified by corticosteroid use at baseline (yes or no), and prior biologic use (yes or no).||||1.47|0.74|0.8200
90794084|NCT03440385|181468958|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.7776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.59|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Odds ratio and p-value are obtained using the CMH test stratified by corticosteroid use at baseline (yes or no), and prior biologic use (yes or no).||||1.59|0.71|0.7776
90794085|NCT03440385|181468959|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.1187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.11|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Odds ratio and p-value are obtained using the CMH test stratified by corticosteroid use at baseline (yes or no), and prior biologic use (yes or no)||||2.11|0.92|0.1187
90794086|NCT03440385|181468960|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28||||0.403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.26|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Odds ratio and p-value are obtained using the CMH test stratified by corticosteroid use at baseline (yes or no), and prior biologic use (yes or no)||||2.26|0.72|0.4030
90794087|NCT03440385|181468961|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.78|||Mantel Haenszel|Odds ratio, and p-value are obtained using the CMH test stratified by corticosteroid use at baseline (yes or no), and prior biologic use (yes or no).||||1.78|0.35|0.5630
90794088|NCT00488293|181468962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.66
90794089|NCT00488293|181468963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.88
90794090|NCT00488293|181468964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.39
90794091|NCT00488293|181468965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.22
90794092|NCT00488293|181468966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.81
90794093|NCT00488293|181468967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.61
90794094|NCT00488293|181468968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.36
90794095|NCT00488293|181468969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.73
90794096|NCT00488293|181468970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.22
90794097|NCT00488293|181468971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.65
90794098|NCT04033640|181468998|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||K-sample test|The p-value was calculated using a nonparametric k-sample test on the equality of medians.||Comparison of SD Biosensor POC G6PD test results for capillary and venous samples||||<0.001
90794099|NCT01425814|181469022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.259|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.219|0.298|||ANCOVA|||||0.298|0.219|<0.0001
90794100|NCT01425814|181469022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.233|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.194|0.273|||ANCOVA|||||0.273|0.194|<0.0001
90794101|NCT01425814|181469022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.203|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.164|0.242|||ANCOVA|||||0.242|0.164|<0.0001
90794102|NCT01425814|181469022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.102|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.062|0.141|||ANCOVA|||||0.141|0.062|<0.0001
90794103|NCT02743962|181469070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.12|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||The control group reported a mean reduction in O'Leary-Sant Insterstitial Cystitis Symptom Score from baseline to 6 weeks that met the MCID (4 points), whereas the TW group reported a reduction of 1.5 times the MCID (ISCI score change: control group 4.25, + 0.95, TW group 6.2, + 0.83). From 6 to 12 weeks the control group reported no change in ISCI score (0 + 0.95) whereas the Therapeutic Wand group ISCI socre reduced by 1.8 +1.73.||||
90794104|NCT02743962|181469070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.25|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.67|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||There was a small mean baseline ICPI score difference of 1.2 points between the groups (control group 10.5, +, TW group 11.2, + 2.68). Both groups reported a reduction in their ICPI scores from baseline to twelve weeks; the control group nearly met the minimal clinically important difference of 4 points and the TW group reported nearly twice the control group's score change (mean change control group 3.75, + 2.44, TW group 7, + 1.87).||||
90794105|NCT04805593|181469078|SUPERIORITY|Superiority testing was conducted to confirm the proportion is higher than the targeted value of 50%.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Exact Test of Binomial Proportion|||||||<0.0001
90794106|NCT04805593|181469079|SUPERIORITY|Superiority testing was conducted to confirm the proportion is higher than the targeted value of 75%.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Exact Test of Binomial Proportion|||||||<0.0001
91011532|NCT02347124|181906077|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.02||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.16|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for sex, age, state quit line, baseline self-efficacy score, baseline cigarettes per day, and baseline use of stop smoking medications.||||0.16|-0.20|0.80
90794107|NCT04330859|181469117|SUPERIORITY||Agresti-Caffo|95.0||||0.0543|TWO_SIDED|||||58.8 ± 7.2 (intervention) and 57.2 ± 11.2 (control; p = 0.0543)|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0543
90794108|NCT04620668|181469150|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed ANOVA|Assessing interaction between experimental group and time point.||||||<0.001
90794109|NCT04620668|181469150|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|Assessing change within treatment group (follow-up to Mixed ANOVA).||||||<0.001
90794110|NCT04620668|181469150|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.044|||||||Dependent t-test (2-sided)|"Assessing change within treatment group from baseline to week 2 (follow-up to Repeated Measures ANOVA).~Bonferroni-adjusted p value."||||||0.044
90794111|NCT04620668|181469150|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Dependent t-test (2-sided)|"Assessing change within treatment group from week 2 to week 4 (follow-up to Repeated Measures ANOVA).~Bonferroni-adjusted p value."||||||0.001
90794112|NCT04620668|181469150|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.731|||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|Assessing change within control group (follow-up to Mixed ANOVA).||||||0.731
90794113|NCT04620668|181469151|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed ANOVA|Assessing interaction between experimental group and time point.||||||<0.001
90794114|NCT04620668|181469151|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|Assessing change within treatment group (follow-up to Mixed ANOVA).||||||<0.001
90794115|NCT04620668|181469151|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Dependent t-test (2-sided)|"Assessing change within treatment group from baseline to week 2 (follow-up to Repeated Measures ANOVA).~Bonferroni-adjusted p value."||||||0.05
90794116|NCT04620668|181469151|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024|||||||Dependent t-test (2-sided)|"Assessing change within treatment group from week 2 to week 4 (follow-up to Repeated Measures ANOVA).~Bonferroni-adjusted p value."||||||0.024
90794117|NCT04620668|181469151|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.674|||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|Assessing change within control group (follow-up to Mixed ANOVA).||||||0.674
90794118|NCT04620668|181469152|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.159|||||||Mixed ANOVA|Assessing interaction between experimental group and time point.||||||0.159
90794119|NCT04620668|181469153|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.326|||||||Mixed ANOVA|Assessing interaction between experimental group and time point.||||||0.326
90794120|NCT04047355|181469156|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|3.0||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|||||The a-priori threshold for statistical significance was set at α = 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The placebo phase serves as the control condition and the propranolol phase serves as the treatment condition.|A post-hoc power analysis was conducted using G\*Power, v. 3.1, to determine the achieved power for the Wilcoxon signed-rank test for matched pairs.||||0.12
90794121|NCT04047355|181469156|SUPERIORITY||Effect size (r)|-0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90794122|NCT04047355|181469156|SUPERIORITY||Post-hoc power analysis|0.39|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||The alpha error probability was set at α = 0.05 (two-tailed).|||||
91011533|NCT02347124|181906078|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.07||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.26|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for sex, age, state quit line, baseline self-efficacy score, baseline cigarettes per day, and baseline use of stop smoking medication.||||0.26|-0.11|0.45
91011534|NCT03742271|181906083|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded in the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval was above 0.50.|Proportion|0.974|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.925|0.995|||Binomial Exact Test|||This study was powered to test the hypothesis that at least 50% will have an acceptable lens fitting.||0.995|0.925|
91011535|NCT03808298|181906087|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at Day 14 0.75 Hours Pre-dose|LS Mean|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.47|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.99|2.9||||||||2.90|-1.99|
91011536|NCT03808298|181906087|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at Day 14 0.5 Hours Pre-dose|LS Mean|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.73|2.24||||||||2.24|-2.73|
90794123|NCT04047355|181469157|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|||||The a-priori threshold for statistical significance was set at α = 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The placebo phase serves as the control condition and the propranolol phase serves as the treatment condition.|A post-hoc power analysis was conducted using G\*Power, v. 3.1, to determine the achieved power for the Wilcoxon signed-rank test for matched pairs.||||0.07
90794124|NCT04047355|181469157|SUPERIORITY||Effect size (r)|-0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90794125|NCT04047355|181469157|SUPERIORITY||Post-hoc power analysis|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||The alpha error probability was set at α = 0.05 (two-tailed).|||||
90794126|NCT00427700|181469174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.0||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|33.0|||Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that there is no significant difference between two drugs for ovulation induction.A sample size of 40 women per arm was calculated for this superiority trial, considering an alpha and beta error of 0.05 and 0.2, respectively, to find an absolute difference of 30% in the ovulation rate between groups, based on a previous study published by Mitwally and Casper (18) where the ovulation rate with CC was approximately 45%.||33|-9|0.3
90794127|NCT00427700|181469175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.0||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|34.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the mean values of progesterone between both groups.||34|-6|0.2
90794128|NCT01441492|181469210|OTHER|||||||0.804|||||||Chi-squared|||the study is powered to be able to detect a 15% difference in the ≥ Grade II complication rate between the drain and no drain groups. A total of 342 evaluable patients will be needed for the two study groups (n=171 per group) in order to achieve 80% power to detect a 15% increase or decrease in the complication rate with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.804
90794129|NCT05081843|181469229|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.233||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.056|0.522|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.522|-0.056|0.05
90794130|NCT05081843|181469230|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.534||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.078|0.99|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.990|0.078|0.05
90794131|NCT05081843|181469231|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.326||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.177|0.829|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.829|-0.177|0.05
90794132|NCT05081843|181469232|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.756||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.208|1.31|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.31|0.208|0.05
90794133|NCT05852340|181469247|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% confidence interval (CI) are expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|102.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.81|109.35||||||Reference: Ritlecitinib 30 mg Capsule (Fasted) Test: Ritlecitinib 30 mg Capsule Mixed with Strawberry Jam (Fasted)||109.35|95.81|
90794134|NCT05852340|181469247|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|97.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.94|103.79||||||Reference: Ritlecitinib 30 mg Capsule (Fasted) Test: Ritlecitinib 30 mg Capsule Mixed with Yoghurt (Fasted)||103.79|90.94|
90794135|NCT05852340|181469247|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|99.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.28|106.46||||||Reference: Ritlecitinib 30 mg Capsule (Fasted) Test: Ritlecitinib 30 mg Capsule Mixed with Applesauce (Fasted)||106.46|93.28|
90794136|NCT05852340|181469247|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|104.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.3|112.96||||||Reference: Ritlecitinib 30 mg Capsule (Fasted) Test: Ritlecitinib 30 mg Capsule Given with High Fat Meal||112.96|97.30|
90794137|NCT05852340|181469248|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|96.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.66|111.62||||||Reference: Ritlecitinib 30 mg Capsule (Fasted) Test: Ritlecitinib 30 mg Capsule Mixed with Strawberry Jam (Fasted)||111.62|83.66|
90794138|NCT05852340|181469248|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|84.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|73.23|97.7||||||Reference: Ritlecitinib 30 mg Capsule (Fasted) Test: Ritlecitinib 30 mg Capsule Mixed with Yoghurt (Fasted)||97.70|73.23|
90794139|NCT05852340|181469248|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|93.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.3|108.48||||||Reference: Ritlecitinib 30 mg Capsule (Fasted) Test: Ritlecitinib 30 mg Capsule Mixed with Applesauce (Fasted)||108.48|81.30|
90794140|NCT05852340|181469248|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|43.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|37.5|51.23||||||Reference: Ritlecitinib 30 mg Capsule (Fasted) Test: Ritlecitinib 30 mg Capsule Given with High Fat Meal||51.23|37.50|
90794141|NCT00071032|181469255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.22|||||Liberal Arm (numerator) compared to Restrictive Arm (denominator)|||1.22|0.84|
90794142|NCT00071032|181469256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|-3.3|1.6|||||Liberal Arm (numerator) compared to Restrictive Arm (denominator)|||1.6|-3.3|
91011537|NCT03808298|181906087|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at Day 14 0.25 Hours Pre-dose|LS Mean|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.25|2.79||||||||2.79|-2.25|
91011538|NCT03808298|181906087|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at Day 14 0.5 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.94|3.09||||||||3.09|-1.94|
91011539|NCT03808298|181906087|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at Day 14 1 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.62|2.35||||||||2.35|-2.62|
91011540|NCT03808298|181906087|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at Day 14 2.5 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.51|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.88|4.11||||||||4.11|-0.88|
90794143|NCT00375713|181469271|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The pre-set threshold for non inferiority is -10%.|Difference in proportion of responders|0.00069213||||||95.0|-0.0875|0.0888||||||The lower bound of the 95% two sided confidence interval for the difference (Levocetirizine - Cetirizine) in percentage of responders is compared to the pre-set threshold for non inferiority (-10% which is equal to -0.1 for the proportion of responders). Standard method for estimation of the difference in proportions incl. confidence interval using normal approximation is used.||0.0888|-0.0875|
90794144|NCT00375713|181469272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4369||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Pruritus score is adjusted on pruritus Baseline score.||The mean daily pruritus score at Day 14 visit or at study completion was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model, including pruritus severity score of the day before the randomization as a covariate and treatment group as a factor||||0.4369
90794145|NCT00375713|181469273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3549||95.0|||||ANCOVA|pruritus severity score at baseline has been used as a covariate.||The categorized duration of Pruritus at endpoint during the 14 day treatment period was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model, including pruritus severity score of the day before the randomization as a covariate and treatment group as a factor.||||0.3549
90794146|NCT00375713|181469274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7518||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|stratified on the prurity severity score at the previous day of randomization.||||||0.7518
90794147|NCT02085720|181469280|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Data were given as means and standard deviations, unless otherwise stated. AHI was categorized as ≥ 5, ≥ 10, ≥ 15 and ≥ 20. The frequency distribution of responses on the SHQ and their relationship to AHI was assessed with the chi-squared analysis. The association of variables such as age, BMI, neck circumference, ESS and sleep health questionnaire responses versus AHI was evaluated using one-way analysis of variance and Pearson Correlation Analysis.|||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
90794148|NCT05472870|181469287|SUPERIORITY|One-way ANOVA with repeated measures was used to examine differences in the effects of cTMS on the SRS. A P value \<0.05 was considered statistically significant for all analyses.|||||<|0.001||||||Bonferroni correction was used to adjust P values in post hoc analyses.|ANOVA|||All clinical behavioral data analysis was performed using Statistical Product and Service Solutions (SPSS) software (version 25.0). A P value \<0.05 was considered statistically significant for all analyses. One-way ANOVA with repeated measures was used to examine differences in the effects of cTMS on the SRS.||||<0.001
90794149|NCT00895921|181469409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.242|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1139||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.00943|0.47605||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||.47605|.00943|0.042
90794150|NCT00895921|181469410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.253|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.224||0.269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.208|0.714||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.714|-0.208|0.269
90794151|NCT00895921|181469411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.149||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.095|0.705|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Comparison of akathisia rates between the two arms.||.705|.095|0.012
90794152|NCT01358734|181469412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.789||||0.119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.861|3.718|||Log Rank|||||3.718|0.861|0.119
90794153|NCT01358734|181469412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.659||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.214|5.822|||Log Rank|||||5.822|1.214|0.014
90794154|NCT01358734|181469412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.367||||0.356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.704|2.653|||Log Rank|||||2.653|0.704|0.356
90794155|NCT01905540|181469430|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The statistical comparison of log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters between the single-dose treatment groups (Treatments AQ and SS) was based on the 90% CI for the ratio of the geometric means. If the 90% CI was entirely contained within the acceptance range of 0.8-1.25 then it was concluded that there was no statistically significant difference between treatments for the relevant parameter. Doses were normalized to the SSP-004184AQ (40mg/kg) dose prior to statistical analysis.|Ratio of geometric LS means|1.244|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.081|1.43||||||||1.430|1.081|
90794156|NCT01905540|181469431|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The statistical comparison of log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters between the single-dose treatment groups (Treatments AQ and SS) was based on the 90% CI for the ratio of the geometric means. If the 90% CI was entirely contained within the acceptance range of 0.8-1.25 then it was concluded that there was no statistically significant difference between treatments for the relevant parameter. Doses were normalized to the SSP-004184AQ (40mg/kg) dose prior to statistical analysis.|Geometric LS Means|1.233|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.07|1.422||||||||1.422|1.070|
90794157|NCT01905540|181469432|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The statistical comparison of log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters between the single-dose treatment groups (Treatments AQ and SS) was based on the 90% CI for the ratio of the geometric means. If the 90% CI was entirely contained within the acceptance range of 0.8-1.25 then it was concluded that there was no statistically significant difference between treatments for the relevant parameter. Doses were normalized to the SSP-004184AQ (40mg/kg) dose prior to statistical analysis.|Ratio of geometric LS means|1.344|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.135|1.592||||||||1.592|1.135|
90794158|NCT00127439|181469440|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The power analysis indicated that when the mean difference equals to 1.2 times of standard deviation, a two-sided t-test at 0.05 level will have 80% power; and for a mean difference of 1.4 times of standard deviation the power increases to 91%. To test the null hypothesis that correlation will be 0 at 0.5 level, a two-sided test based on Fisher's Z transformation will yield a power of 89% in detecting correlations of 0.6 or above with n=24 or above.||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
90794159|NCT00127439|181469440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Pearson correlation of gait speed changes with directional difference of standardized kinematic scores (i.e. foot trajectory toe-off - degrees, foot trajectory toe-off - % cycle, foot trajectory initial contact - degrees, foot trajectory range - degrees, propulsive impulse N-s, minimum thigh angle - flexion degrees, minimum hip angle - extension degrees, trunk angle mid-stance)||||0.05
90794160|NCT00127439|181469441|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Previously provided||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
90794161|NCT00127439|181469442|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Provided previously||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
90794162|NCT00127439|181469443|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Provided previously||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
91053762|NCT02912650|181990988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.96|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.96|0.42|<0.001
90794163|NCT00127439|181469444|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Previously provided||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
90794164|NCT00127439|181469445|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Previously provided||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
90794165|NCT00127439|181469446|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Previously provided||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
90794166|NCT00127439|181469447|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Previously provided||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
90794167|NCT00127439|181469448|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Previously provided||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
90794168|NCT00376558|181469449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.003
90794169|NCT00376558|181469450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||delta bpnd|-12.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.0||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The limbic striatum was our primary region of interest using an unpaired t test to compare BPND and deltaBPND between the treatment responders and non-responders.||||0.001
90794170|NCT04770285|181469470|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-1.78||||0.0568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|0.05|||MMRM|p-value was calculated by MMRM method with model terms: Treatment, trial center, visit, treatment by visit, and baseline by visit interaction.||||0.05|-3.60|0.0568
90794171|NCT04770285|181469471|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.77||||0.0705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|0.07|||MMRM|p-value was calculated by MMRM method with model terms: Treatment, trial center, visit, treatment by visit, and baseline by visit interaction.||||0.07|-1.61|0.0705
90794172|NCT04770285|181469472|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.62||||0.3687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|0.74||p-value was calculated by MMRM method with model terms: Treatment, trial center, visit, treatment by visit, and baseline by visit interaction.|MMRM|||Week 2||0.74|-1.99|0.3687
90794173|NCT04770285|181469472|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-1.45||||0.0828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|0.19||p-value was calculated by MMRM method with model terms: Treatment, trial center, visit, treatment by visit, and baseline by visit interaction.|MMRM|||Week 4||0.19|-3.10|0.0828
90794174|NCT04770285|181469473|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.34||||0.3549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|0.38||p-value was calculated by MMRM method with model terms: Treatment, trial center, visit, treatment by visit, and baseline by visit interaction.|MMRM|||Week 2||0.38|-1.06|0.3549
90794175|NCT04770285|181469473|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.28||||0.4948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|0.53||p-value was calculated by MMRM method with model terms: Treatment, trial center, visit, treatment by visit, and baseline by visit interaction.|MMRM|||Week 4||0.53|-1.09|0.4948
90794176|NCT04770285|181469474|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|1.68||||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|3.34||p-value was calculated by Cochran-Mantel-Haenzsel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||3.34|0.84|0.1420
90794177|NCT04770285|181469474|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|1.31||||0.2939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.16||p-value was calculated by Cochran-Mantel-Haenzsel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||2.16|0.79|0.2939
90794178|NCT04770285|181469474|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|1.38||||0.0884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.99||p-value was calculated by Cochran-Mantel-Haenzsel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6||1.99|0.96|0.0884
90794179|NCT04770285|181469475|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.19||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|-0.06||p-value was calculated by MMRM method with model terms: Treatment, trial center, visit, treatment by visit, and baseline by visit interaction.|MMRM|||Week 2||-0.06|-0.32|0.0039
90794180|NCT04770285|181469475|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.32||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.15||p-value was calculated by MMRM method with model terms: Treatment, trial center, visit, treatment by visit, and baseline by visit interaction.|MMRM|||Week 4||-0.15|-0.50|0.0003
90794181|NCT04770285|181469475|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.26||||0.0098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.06||p-value was calculated by MMRM method with model terms: Treatment, trial center, visit, treatment by visit, and baseline by visit interaction.|MMRM|||Week 6||-0.06|-0.46|0.0098
90794182|NCT04770285|181469476|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-1.02||||0.4463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.66|1.61||p-value was calculated by ANCOVA model, with treatment and study center as main effects and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||1.61|-3.66|0.4463
90794183|NCT04770285|181469477|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-1.29||||0.0102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28|-0.31||p-value was calculated by MMRM method with model terms: Treatment, trial center, visit, treatment by visit, and baseline by visit interaction.|MMRM|||Week 4||-0.31|-2.28|0.0102
90794184|NCT04770285|181469477|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-1.58||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.62|-0.54||p-value was calculated by MMRM method with model terms: Treatment, trial center, visit, treatment by visit, and baseline by visit interaction.|MMRM|||Week 6||-0.54|-2.62|0.0029
90794185|NCT04770285|181469478|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|1.18||||0.5757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|2.16||p-value was calculated by Cochran-Mantel-Haenzsel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||2.16|0.65|0.5757
90794186|NCT04770285|181469478|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|1.16||||0.5102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.78||p-value was calculated by Cochran-Mantel-Haenzsel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||1.78|0.75|0.5102
90794187|NCT04770285|181469478|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|1.15||||0.5342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.79||p-value was calculated by Cochran-Mantel-Haenzsel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6||1.79|0.74|0.5342
90794188|NCT04770285|181469479|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.22||||||Week 8||1.22|0.82|
90794189|NCT04770285|181469479|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.25||||||Week 10||1.25|0.88|
90794190|NCT04918771|181469534|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.09||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.67|||t-test, 2 sided|||Mean time to resolution of ARVI symptoms||1.67|0.51|0.0003
90794191|NCT04918771|181469535|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.35||||0.3274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.36|7.06|||t-test, 2 sided|||Mean AUC score for severity of ARVI (Clinically Diagnosed and/or PCR-confirmed).||7.06|-2.36|0.3274
90794192|NCT04918771|181469535|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.3||||0.1171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|11.93|||t-test, 2 sided|||Mean AUC score for severity of ARVI (PCR-confirmed).||11.93|-1.34|0.1171
90794193|NCT04918771|181469536|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
90794194|NCT04918771|181469537|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.58||||0.0073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||The mean time to Resolution of ARVI Symptoms was analysed.||1.00|0.16|0.0073
90794195|NCT04918771|181469538|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
90794196|NCT04918771|181469539|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3627|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Dosing Frequency of Antipyretics. Comparison for Day 1.||||0.3627
90794197|NCT04918771|181469539|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5578|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Dosing Frequency of Antipyretics. Comparison for Day 2.||||0.5578
90794198|NCT04918771|181469539|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7688|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Dosing Frequency of Antipyretics. Comparison for Day 3.||||0.7688
90794199|NCT04918771|181469540|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4926|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4926
90794200|NCT04918771|181469541|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.021|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of severity distributions.||||0.021
90794201|NCT04918771|181469541|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison for outcome distribution.||||1.00
90794202|NCT04918771|181469542|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7848|||||||Median test|||Comparison for Visit 1.||||0.7848
90794203|NCT04918771|181469542|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9596|||||||Median test|||Comparison for Visit 2.||||0.9596
90794204|NCT04918771|181469542|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6902|||||||Median test|||Comparison for Visit 3.||||0.6902
90794205|NCT04918771|181469543|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3266|||||||Median test|||Comparison for Visit 1.||||0.3266
90794206|NCT04918771|181469543|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.093|||||||Median test|||Comparison for Visit 2.||||0.0930
90794207|NCT04918771|181469543|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2308|||||||Median test|||Comparison for Visit 3.||||0.2308
90794208|NCT04918771|181469544|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.661|||||||Median test|||Comparison for Visit 1/Systolic blood pressure.||||0.6610
90794209|NCT04918771|181469544|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4884|||||||Median test|||Comparison for Visit 2/Systolic blood pressure.||||0.4884
90794210|NCT04918771|181469544|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3494|||||||Median test|||Comparison for Visit 3/Systolic blood pressure.||||0.3494
90794211|NCT04918771|181469544|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9531|||||||Median test|||Comparison for Visit 1/Diastolic blood pressure.||||0.9531
90794212|NCT04918771|181469544|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5506|||||||Median test|||Comparison for Visit 2/Diastolic blood pressure.||||0.5506
90794213|NCT04918771|181469544|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8259|||||||Median test|||Comparison for Visit 3/Diastolic blood pressure.||||0.8259
90794214|NCT04918771|181469545|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.49
90794215|NCT01287208|181469575|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.16
90794216|NCT01287208|181469578|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.59
90794217|NCT04910165|181469580|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||p-values reported are calculated by the listed statistical test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
90794218|NCT04910165|181469581|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||p-values reported are calculated by the listed statistical test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
90794219|NCT04910165|181469582|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||p-values reported are calculated by the listed statistical test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
90794220|NCT04910165|181469583|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||p-values reported are calculated by the listed statistical test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
90794221|NCT04910165|181469584|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||p-values reported are calculated by the listed statistical test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
90794222|NCT04910165|181469585|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||p-values reported are calculated by the listed statistical test.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
90794223|NCT04910165|181469586|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||p-values reported are calculated by the listed statistical test.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
90794224|NCT01813357|181469587|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.002||||0.684|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.684
91079106|NCT03578146|182043866|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|-19.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
90794225|NCT03863574|181469603|OTHER|Proof of Concept||||||0.7689|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7689
90794226|NCT03863574|181469603|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.6007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6007
90794227|NCT03863574|181469604|OTHER|||||||0.5238|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.5238
90794228|NCT03863574|181469604|OTHER||||||>|0.9999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.9999
90794229|NCT03863574|181469605|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.0476|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0476
90794230|NCT03863574|181469605|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.0333|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0333
90794231|NCT03863574|181469606|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.6845|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome Variable: Steatosis||||0.6845
90794232|NCT03863574|181469606|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.4625|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome Variable: Steatosis||||0.4625
90794233|NCT03863574|181469606|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.1705|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome Variable: Lobular Inflammation||||0.1705
90794234|NCT03863574|181469606|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.3122|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome variable: Lobular Inflammation||||0.3122
90794235|NCT03863574|181469606|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.1705|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome Variable: Hepatocyte Ballooning||||0.1705
90794236|NCT03863574|181469606|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.3877|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome Variable: Hepatocyte Ballooning||||0.3877
90794237|NCT03863574|181469607|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.1705|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1705
90794238|NCT03863574|181469607|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.174|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1740
90794239|NCT03863574|181469608|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.8019|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome variable: Alanine Aminotransferase||||0.8019
90794240|NCT03863574|181469608|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.5396|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome Variable: Alanine Aminotransferase||||0.5396
90794241|NCT03863574|181469608|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.774|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome Variable: Aspartate Aminotransferase||||0.7740
90794242|NCT03863574|181469608|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.9221|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome Variable: Aspartate Aminotransferase||||0.9221
90794243|NCT03863574|181469608|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome Variable: Alkaline Phosphatase||||0.0030
90794244|NCT03863574|181469608|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.0177|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome Variable: Alkaline Phosphatase||||0.0177
90794245|NCT03863574|181469608|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.1399|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome Variable: Gamma Glutamyl Transferase||||0.1399
90794246|NCT03863574|181469608|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.2384|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome Variable: Gamma Glutamyl Transferase||||0.2384
90794247|NCT03863574|181469609|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.2218|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome Variable: Albumin||||0.2218
90794248|NCT03863574|181469609|OTHER|Proof-of-Concept||||||0.1483|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome Variable: Albumin||||0.1483
90794249|NCT03863574|181469609|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.0839|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome Variable: Total Protein||||0.0839
90794250|NCT03863574|181469609|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.2895|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome Variable: Total Protein||||0.2895
90794251|NCT03863574|181469610|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.6808|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome Variable: Direct Bilirubin||||0.6808
90794252|NCT03863574|181469610|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.5351|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome Variable: Direct Bilirubin||||0.5351
90794253|NCT03863574|181469611|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.2329|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome Variable: Triglyceride||||0.2329
90794254|NCT03863574|181469611|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.7211|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome Variable: Triglyceride||||0.7211
90794255|NCT03863574|181469611|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.652|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome Variables: Total Cholesterol||||0.6520
90794256|NCT03863574|181469611|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.4302|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome Variable: Total Cholesterol||||0.4302
91053763|NCT02912650|181990988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|2.4|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||2.40|1.60|<0.001
90794257|NCT03863574|181469611|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.9432|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome Variable: High-density Lipoprotein||||0.9432
90794258|NCT03863574|181469611|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.2133|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome Variable: High-density Lipoprotein||||0.2133
90794259|NCT03863574|181469611|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.2446|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome Variable: Low-density lipoprotein||||0.2446
90794260|NCT03863574|181469611|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.7075|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome Variable: Low-density lipoprotein||||0.7075
90794261|NCT03863574|181469611|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.2195|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome Variable: Very low-density lipoprotein||||0.2195
90794262|NCT03863574|181469611|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.7435|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome Variable: Very low-density lipoprotein||||0.7435
90794263|NCT03863574|181469611|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.5702|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome Variable: non-HDL Cholesterol||||0.5702
90794264|NCT03863574|181469611|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.6441|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome Variable: non-HDL Cholesterol||||0.6441
90794265|NCT03863574|181469611|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.8415|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome Variable: Apo lipoprotein A1||||0.8415
91053764|NCT02912650|181990988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.44||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.72|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.72|0.16|0.002
90794266|NCT03863574|181469611|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.0786|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome Variable: Apo lipoprotein A1||||0.0786
90794267|NCT03863574|181469611|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.8878|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome Variable: Apo lipoprotein B||||0.8878
90794268|NCT03863574|181469611|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.3219|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome variable: Apo lipoprotein B||||0.3219
90794269|NCT03863574|181469611|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.6557|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome Variable: Small dense LDL||||0.6557
90794270|NCT03863574|181469611|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.0763|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome Variable: Small dense LDL||||0.0763
91053765|NCT02912650|181990988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.44|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.44|0.88|<0.001
91053766|NCT02912650|181990988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|1.96|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.96|1.16|<0.001
91053767|NCT02912650|181990988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.24|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.24|0.44|<0.001
90794271|NCT03863574|181469613|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.6988|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6988
90794272|NCT03863574|181469613|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.7413|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7413
90794273|NCT03863574|181469614|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.22|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2200
90794274|NCT03863574|181469614|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.5798|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5798
90794275|NCT03863574|181469615|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.4981|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4981
90794276|NCT03863574|181469615|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.8939|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.8939
90794277|NCT03863574|181469616|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.3605|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3605
90794278|NCT03863574|181469616|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.8394|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.8394
90794279|NCT03863574|181469617|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.2665|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2665
90794280|NCT03863574|181469617|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.9133|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9133
90794281|NCT03863574|181469618|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.7267|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7267
90794282|NCT03863574|181469618|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.9211|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9211
90794283|NCT03863574|181469619|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.8683|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.8683
90794284|NCT03863574|181469619|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.7436|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7436
90794285|NCT00835354|181469654|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model containing factors for sequence of products, subjects within sequence, periods, and products was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|89.2||||||90.0|86.2|92.2|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||92.2|86.2|
90794286|NCT00835354|181469655|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model containing factors for sequence of products, subjects within sequence, periods, and products was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|90.5||||||90.0|88.9|92.1|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||92.1|88.9|
90890270|NCT01217073|181644898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-44.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.0|-30.7||With terms for treatment, prior AHA therapy status, geographic region (Japan/ex-Japan), and the interaction of time by treatment, time by prior AHA therapy status, with the constraint that the mean baseline is the same for all treatment groups.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-30.7|-59.0|<0.001
90794287|NCT00835354|181469656|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model containing factors for sequence of products, subjects within sequence, periods, and products was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|90.7||||||90.0|89.1|92.3|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||92.3|89.1|
90794288|NCT02496000|181469665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0117|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|ANOVA model on the ranks||This outcome measure requires that the the mean differences of ORMD-0801 in each of the two arms be pooled.||||0.0117
90794289|NCT01877278|181469670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90794290|NCT01877278|181469670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
90794291|NCT01877278|181469671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.0001
90794292|NCT01877278|181469671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
90794293|NCT01969058|181469672|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in T-cell activation from baseline to week 14/16.||||0.030
90794294|NCT04262479|181469714|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Counting number of events.|||
90794295|NCT04262479|181469715|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Counting number of events|||
90794296|NCT04262479|181469716|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value threshold for significance: \<0.05|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.001
90794297|NCT04262479|181469717|OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||P-value threshold for significance: \<0.05|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.05
90794298|NCT04262479|181469718|OTHER||||||<|0.61||||||P-value threshold for significance: \<0.05|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.61
90794299|NCT04262479|181469719|OTHER||||||<|0.3||||||P-value threshold for significance: \<0.05|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.30
90794300|NCT04262479|181469720|OTHER||||||<|0.002||||||P-value threshold for significance: \<0.05|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.002
90794301|NCT04262479|181469721|OTHER||||||<|0.72||||||P-value threshold for significance: \<0.05|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.72
90794302|NCT04262479|181469722|OTHER||||||<|0.03||||||P-value threshold for significance: \<0.05|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.03
90794303|NCT04262479|181469723|OTHER||||||<|0.044||||||P-value threshold for significance: \<0.05|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.044
90794304|NCT00835172|181469762|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|102.0||||||90.0|92.1|112.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||112|92.1|
90794305|NCT00835172|181469763|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|101.0||||||90.0|96.8|105.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||105|96.8|
90794306|NCT00835172|181469764|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|103.0||||||90.0|99.3|106.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||106|99.3|
90794307|NCT05339659|181469765|OTHER|The point null hypothesis of the significance test was a difference in expected number of log ins of 0.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.55||||0.219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|9.44|||Regression, Linear||mean difference=experimental-control|A priori power calculations estimated detectable differences with 80% power with type 1 error rate=0.05, assuming a two-sided unequal variance t-test (standard deviations of 2.0 and 7.0 in the control and experimental arms, respectively) and a total sample of n=50 equally split between arms. Given a final sample size of 19 (7 control, 12 experimental), we re-calculated the detectable mean difference with these sample sizes (maintaining all other original assumptions), which is 6.51 sessions.||9.44|-2.33|0.219
90794308|NCT05339659|181469767|OTHER|The null hypothesis for the significance test is 0 difference in average number of days of use between arms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.12||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.44|9.19|||Regression, Linear||mean difference=experimental-control|||9.19|-53.44|0.153
90794309|NCT05339659|181469768|OTHER|The null hypothesis for the significance test is a relative difference=0.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.095||||0.727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.352|0.558|||Barnard's exact test||risk difference=experimental-control|||0.558|-0.352|0.727
90794310|NCT05339659|181469769|OTHER|The null hypothesis for the significance test is 0 difference in average score between arms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.61|||Regression, Linear||mean difference=experimental-control|||1.61|-0.60|0.325
90794311|NCT05339659|181469770|OTHER|The null hypothesis of the significance test is 0 difference in average score between arms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22||||0.745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|1.72|||Regression, Linear||mean difference=experimental-control|||1.72|-1.28|0.745
90794312|NCT05339659|181469771|OTHER|The null hypothesis of the significance test is a risk difference=0.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.58||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.85|||Barnard's exact test||risk difference=experimental-control|||0.85|0.16|0.009
90794313|NCT05339659|181469774|OTHER|The null hypothesis for the significance test is a mean difference of 0 cigarettes/day between arms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.39||||0.469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.66|5.44|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline cigarettes/day.|mean difference=experimental-control|||5.44|-2.66|0.469
90794314|NCT05339659|181469775|OTHER|The null hypothesis for the significance test is a mean difference of 0 cigarettes/day between arms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66||||0.614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.48|2.16|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline cigarettes/day.|mean difference=experimental-control|||2.16|-3.48|0.614
90794315|NCT05339659|181469776|OTHER|The null hypothesis for the significance test is 0 difference in average score between arms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.67|2.38|||Regression, Linear||mean difference=experimental-control|||2.38|-2.67|0.90
90794316|NCT05339659|181469777|OTHER|The null hypothesis for the significance test is 0 difference in average score between arms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55||||0.632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.03|1.93|||Regression, Linear||mean difference=experimental-control|||1.93|-3.03|0.632
90794317|NCT05339659|181469778|OTHER|The null hypothesis for the significance test is 0 difference in average score between arms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.31||||0.227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.55|-0.94|||Regression, Linear||mean difference=experimental-control|||-0.94|-3.55|0.227
91011541|NCT03808298|181906087|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at Day 14 4 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.66|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.63|3.85||||||||3.85|-1.63|
91053768|NCT02912650|181990988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.0|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.00|0.44|<0.001
91053769|NCT02912650|181990988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|2.31|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||2.31|1.50|<0.001
91053770|NCT02912650|181990988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.46||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.74|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.74|0.18|0.001
90794318|NCT05339659|181469779|OTHER|The null hypothesis for the significance test is 0 difference in average score between arms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.22||||0.274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.58|1.15|||Regression, Linear||mean difference=experimental-control|||1.15|-3.58|0.274
90794319|NCT05339659|181469783|OTHER|The null hypothesis for the significance test is 0 difference in probability of engaging with the app component.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.04||||0.981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.39|||Barnard's exact test||risk difference=experimental-control|||0.39|-0.39|0.981
90794320|NCT05339659|181469784|OTHER|The null hypothesis for the significance test is 0 difference in probability of engaging with the app component.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.01||||0.845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.43|||Barnard's exact test||risk difference=experimental-control|||0.43|-0.49|0.845
90794321|NCT05339659|181469785|OTHER|The null hypothesis for the significance test is 0 difference in probability of engaging with the app component.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.05||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.28|||Barnard's exact test||||risk difference=experimental-control|0.28|-0.47|0.560
90794322|NCT05339659|181469786|OTHER|The null hypothesis for the significance test is 0 difference in probability of engaging with the app component.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.04||||0.981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.39|||Barnard's exact test||risk difference=experimental-control|||0.39|-0.39|0.981
90794323|NCT05339659|181469787|OTHER|The null hypothesis for the significance test is 0 difference in probability of engaging with the app component.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.13||||0.632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.34|||Barnard's exact test||risk difference=experimental-control|||0.34|-0.49|0.632
90794324|NCT05339659|181469788|OTHER|The null hypothesis for the significance test is 0 difference in probability of engaging with the app component.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.03|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.45|||Barnard's exact test||risk difference=experimental-control|||0.45|-0.48|>0.999
90794325|NCT00791648|181469811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.75|||||||Pearson x2|||||||.75
90794326|NCT00791648|181469812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.56|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.56
90794327|NCT00791648|181469813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.71|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.71
90794328|NCT00791648|181469814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.11|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.11
90794329|NCT00791648|181469815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.06|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.06
90794330|NCT00791648|181469816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.39|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.39
90794331|NCT03360344|181469863|OTHER|non-parametric tests were used as data was not normally distributed.||||||0.48|||||||Wilcoxan signed Rank|||statistical analysis for wrist||||0.48
90794332|NCT03360344|181469863|OTHER|nonparametric test were used as the distribution was not normal.||||||0.99|||||||Wilcoxan Signed Rank|||statistical analysis for forearm||||.99
90794333|NCT03360344|181469864|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||ANOVA|||statistical analysis for forearm||||.001
90794334|NCT03360344|181469864|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||ANOVA|||statistical analysis for wrist||||.001
90794335|NCT03360344|181469865|OTHER|||||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.06
90794336|NCT03360344|181469866|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.01
90794337|NCT03360344|181469867|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.001
90794338|NCT01765400|181469886|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
90794339|NCT01342666|181469890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.1154|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9057|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2925|6.9383||We did only one comparison. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||We compare de mean difference of the delta (final-basal levels) between groups. The values posted are the difference found in the tomato group in comparison of the control group. The mean represent the increment of HDL-c in the tomato group.|We test the effect of two daily roma tomatoes during one month in HDL-c levels. We estimate the sample size to have a 80% study power.||6.9383|3.2925|<0.0001
90794340|NCT01342666|181469890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|5.656|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.789|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.027|7.232||A priori p value of \<0.05|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for adherence, smoking, age, gender, waist to hip ratio, triglycerides, body mass index, exercise, omega 3, alcohol, fish, simple sugars.|Parameters of the model: F= 4.06; r = 0.798; r2 = 0.638; p=0.001|||7.232|4.027|<0.0001
90794341|NCT00836706|181469895|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The pharmacokinetic parameters will be evaluated statistically by an analysis of variance (ANOVA) appropriate for the experimental design of this study.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|101.0||||||90.0|85.2|120.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||120|85.2|
90794342|NCT00836706|181469896|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The pharmacokinetic parameters will be evaluated statistically by an analysis of variance (ANOVA) appropriate for the experimental design of this study.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|101.0||||||90.0|88.7|114.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||114|88.7|
91011542|NCT03808298|181906087|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at Day 14 8 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.79|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.13|2.79||||||||2.79|-3.13|
91011543|NCT03808298|181906087|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at Day 14 12 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.13|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.6|4.47||||||||4.47|-2.60|
91011544|NCT03808298|181906087|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at Day 14 24 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.03|2.98||||||||2.98|-2.03|
91011545|NCT03808298|181906088|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at Day 1 0.5 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.19|2.64||||||||2.64|-0.19|
90794343|NCT00836706|181469897|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The pharmacokinetic parameters will be evaluated statistically by an analysis of variance (ANOVA) appropriate for the experimental design of this study.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|101.0||||||90.0|88.4|114.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||114|88.4|
90794344|NCT02989857|181469898|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.54||P-value was calculated from the one-sided stratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio was calculated from stratified Cox regression model with placebo as the denominator, with two-sided 95% confidence interval.|||0.54|0.25|<0.0001
90794345|NCT02989857|181469905|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.12||P-value was calculated from the one-sided stratified log-rank test. Stratification factor was the number of prior line of therapies at randomization.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio was calculated from the stratified Cox regression model with placebo as the comparator, with two-sided 95% CI. Stratification factor was the number of prior line of therapies at randomization.|||1.12|0.56|0.093
90794346|NCT02989857|181469906|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.466||||||P-value was calculated from 1-sided Fisher exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.466
90794347|NCT02989857|181469907|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.299||||||P-value was calculated from 1-sided Fisher exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.299
91053771|NCT02912650|181990988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.43|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.43|0.85|<0.001
90794348|NCT02989857|181469912|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.68||P-value was calculated from one-sided stratified log-rank test. Stratification factor was the number of prior line of therapies at randomization.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio was calculated from the stratified Cox regression model with placebo as the denominator, with two-sided 95% CI. Stratification factor was the number of prior line of therapies at randomization.|||0.68|0.33|<0.0001
90794349|NCT02989857|181469913|OTHER||Least-squares mean difference|11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.23|17.73||||||Cycle 2 Day 1: Physical Functioning||17.73|4.23|
90794350|NCT02989857|181469913|OTHER||Least-squares mean difference|-10.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.18|-0.52||||||Cycle 2 Day 1: Pain||-0.52|-20.18|
90794351|NCT02989857|181469913|OTHER||Least-squares mean difference|3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.65|13.91||||||Cycle 2 Day 1: Appetite Loss||13.91|-6.65|
90794352|NCT02989857|181469913|OTHER||Least-squares mean difference|12.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.85|20.78||||||Cycle 3 Day 1: Physical Functioning||20.78|3.85|
90794353|NCT02989857|181469913|OTHER||Least-squares mean difference|4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.74|17.04||||||Cycle 3 Day 1: Pain||17.04|-8.74|
90794354|NCT02989857|181469913|OTHER||Least-squares mean difference|-3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.46|10.11||||||Cycle 3 Day 1: Appetite Loss||10.11|-17.46|
90794355|NCT02989857|181469914|OTHER||Least-squares mean difference|-5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.93|2.8||||||Cycle 2 Day 1: Pain||2.80|-12.93|
90794356|NCT02989857|181469914|OTHER||Least-squares mean difference|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.56|7.88||||||Cycle 2 Day 1: Appetite Loss||7.88|-6.56|
91053772|NCT02912650|181990988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.85|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.85|1.04|<0.001
91053773|NCT02912650|181990988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.17|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.17|0.36|<0.001
91079107|NCT02638051|182043881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014|||||||Chi-squared|||"Applies to Objective Response Rate (ORR)"||||0.0140
90794357|NCT02989857|181469914|OTHER||Least-squares mean difference|4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.82|14.55||||||Cycle 3 Day 1: Pain||14.55|-5.82|
90794358|NCT02989857|181469914|OTHER||Least-squares mean difference|-6.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.34|3.12||||||Cycle 3 Day 1: Appetite Loss||3.12|-15.34|
90794359|NCT00688740|181469937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.795||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.679|0.932||Pairwise stratified log-rank test on the number of positive axillary nodes as per randomization|Log Rank|||||0.932|0.679|0.0043
90794360|NCT00688740|181469938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.742||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.613|0.898||Pairwise stratified log-rank test on the number of positive axillary nodes as per randomization|Log Rank|||||0.898|0.613|0.0020
90794361|NCT00725985|181469952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.381|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.248|0.584||The treatment effect was also assessed by hazard ratios using the Cox's proportional hazards model.|two-sided Wald test|||||0.584|0.248|<0.0001
90794362|NCT00725985|181469952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.327|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.509||The treatment effect was also assessed by hazard ratios using the Cox's proportional hazards model.|two-sided Wald test|||||0.509|0.210|< 0.0001
90794363|NCT00725985|181469953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.425|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.331|0.547||The treatment effect was also assessed by hazard ratios using the Cox's proportional hazards model.|two-sided Wald test|||||0.547|0.331|< 0.0001
90794364|NCT00725985|181469953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.497|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.633||The treatment effect was also assessed by hazard ratios using the Cox's proportional hazards model.|two-sided Wald test|||||0.633|0.390|< 0.0001
90794365|NCT00725985|181469954|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.667|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.971|-0.5|||ANCOVA|||CUA lesions||-0.500|-0.971|<0.0001
90794366|NCT00725985|181469954|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.625|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.857|-0.429|||ANCOVA|||CUA lesions||-0.429|-0.857|<0.0001
90794367|NCT00725985|181469954|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.286|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.333|-0.167|||ANCOVA|||T1 Gd-Enhancing Lesions||-0.167|-0.333|<0.0001
90794368|NCT00725985|181469954|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.286|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.375|-0.167|||ANCOVA|||T1 Gd-Enhancing Lesions||-0.167|-0.375|<0.0001
90794369|NCT00725985|181469954|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.333|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.167|||ANCOVA|||T2 Lesions||-0.167|-0.500|<0.0001
90794370|NCT00725985|181469954|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.286|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.429|-0.143|||ANCOVA|||T2 Lesions||-0.143|-0.429|<0.0001
90794371|NCT00725985|181469973|SUPERIORITY||Point Estimate|-1.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.2|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.000|-37.200|<0.0001
90794372|NCT00725985|181469973|SUPERIORITY||Point Estimate|-28.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-117.3|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.000|-117.300|<0.0001
91053774|NCT02912650|181990988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.97|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.97|0.39|<0.001
90794373|NCT03898180|181470023|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.4107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.14||Two-sided p-value based on log rank test stratified on chemotherapy ineligibility, programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) CPS, and ECOG performance status (PS).|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified on chemotherapy ineligibility, PD-L1 CPS, and ECOG PS.|||1.14|0.72|0.4107
90794374|NCT03898180|181470024|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.3505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.48||Two-sided p-value based on log rank test stratified on chemotherapy ineligibility, PD-L1 CPS, and ECOG PS.|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified on chemotherapy ineligibility, PD-L1 CPS, and ECOG PS.|||1.48|0.87|0.3505
90794375|NCT03898180|181470025|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|12.2|||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified on chemotherapy ineligibility, PD-L1 CPS, and ECOG PS.|||12.2|-4.0|
90794376|NCT03898180|181470028|OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-3.07||||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.57|1.44||Two-sided p-value based on log rank test stratified on chemotherapy ineligibility, PD-L1 CPS, and ECOG PS.|cLDA model||Based on a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by chemotherapy ineligibility, PD-L1 CPS, and ECOG PS.|||1.44|-7.57|0.182
90794377|NCT03898180|181470029|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.64||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|2.16||Two-sided p-value based on log rank test stratified on chemotherapy ineligibility, PD-L1 CPS, and ECOG PS.|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by chemotherapy ineligibility, PD-L1 CPS, and ECOG PS.|||2.16|1.24|0.0005
90794378|NCT01472185|181470037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in least squares mean (LSM)|-0.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.36||P-value is from a mixed effects model including terms for baseline HbA1c value, treatment group, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Mixed Effects Model Analysis||The estimation (LSM) is of the placebo-corrected change from baseline.|Assuming a common standard deviation of 1.2%, an effective sample size of 400 would provide at least 90% power to detect a statistically significant treatment difference of -0.5% (ranolazine vs. placebo) for the reduction of HbA1c from baseline at Week 24 based on a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 and 1:1 randomization.||-0.36|-0.76|< 0.0001
90794379|NCT02958865|181470042|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.17|-0.89|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||The null hypothesis was that the there was no difference between the distributions of the total Mayo score at Week 8 between the pooled placebo group and active arm. The treatment arm was declared efficacious if an upper limit of 2-sided 90% confidence interval for the treatment effect was below zero.||-0.89|-3.17|0.0017
90794380|NCT02958865|181470042|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.01|-2.74|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||The null hypothesis was that the there was no difference between the distributions of the total Mayo score at Week 8 between the pooled placebo group and active arm. The treatment arm was declared efficacious if an upper limit of 2-sided 90% confidence interval for the treatment effect was below zero.||-2.74|-5.01|< 0.0001
90794381|NCT02958865|181470042|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.76|-3.46|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||The null hypothesis was that the there was no difference between the distributions of the total Mayo score at Week 8 between the pooled placebo group and active arm. The treatment arm was declared efficacious if an upper limit of 2-sided 90% confidence interval for the treatment effect was below zero.||-3.46|-5.76|< 0.0001
90794382|NCT02958865|181470042|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.92|-0.67|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||The null hypothesis was that the there is no difference between the distributions of the total Mayo score at Week 8 between the pooled placebo group and active arm. The treatment arm is declared efficacious if an upper limit of 2-sided 90% confidence interval for the treatment effect is below zero.||-0.67|-2.92|0.0045
90794383|NCT02958865|181470042|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.41|-1.14|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||The null hypothesis was that the there was no difference between the distributions of the total Mayo score at Week 8 between the pooled placebo group and active arm. The treatment arm was declared efficacious if an upper limit of 2-sided 90% confidence interval for the treatment effect was below zero.||-1.14|-3.41|0.0005
90794384|NCT02958865|181470042|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.34|-2.08|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||The null hypothesis was that the there was no difference between the distributions of the total Mayo score at Week 8 between the pooled placebo group and active arm. The treatment arm was declared efficacious if an upper limit of 2-sided 90% confidence interval for the treatment effect was below zero.||-2.08|-4.34|< 0.0001
91053775|NCT02912650|181990988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|1.98|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.98|1.13|<0.001
90794385|NCT02958865|181470059|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.8||||0.0626|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|19.5|||Chan and Zhang method|||||19.5|-1.0|0.0626
91053776|NCT02912650|181990988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.36||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.65|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.65|0.06|0.017
90794386|NCT02958865|181470059|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.6||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|90.0|13.9|41.0|||Chan and Zhang method|||||41.0|13.9|0.0027
90794387|NCT02958865|181470059|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|34.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|20.2|46.5|||Chan and Zhang Method|||||46.5|20.2|0.0010
90794388|NCT02958865|181470059|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.3||||0.0774|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.0|18.1|||Chan and Zhang method|||||18.1|-4.0|0.0774
90794389|NCT02958865|181470059|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.4||||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.2|35.8|||Chan and Zhang method|||||35.8|8.2|0.0055
90794390|NCT02958865|181470059|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.4||||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.2|35.8|||Chan and Zhang method|||||35.8|8.2|0.0055
90794391|NCT02958865|181470060|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.6||||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.6|33.2|||Chan and Zhang method|||||33.2|5.6|0.0111
90794392|NCT02958865|181470060|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|34.7||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|20.2|47.4|||Chan and Zhang method|||||47.4|20.2|0.0006
90794393|NCT02958865|181470060|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|42.0||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|29.5|54.6|||Chan and Zhang Method|||||54.6|29.5|0.0001
90794394|NCT02958865|181470060|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.8||||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.6|33.0|||Chan and Zhang method|||||33.0|5.6|0.0101
90794395|NCT02958865|181470060|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|31.9||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|90.0|17.0|44.8|||Chan and Zhang method|||||44.8|17.0|0.0014
90794396|NCT02958865|181470060|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|29.8||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|90.0|17.0|42.6|||Chan and Zhang method|||||42.6|17.0|0.0015
90794397|NCT02958865|181470061|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.2||||0.0788|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.4|34.4|||Chan and Zhang method|||||34.4|-3.4|0.0788
90794398|NCT02958865|181470061|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|45.4||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|23.6|62.1|||Chan and Zhang method|||||62.1|23.6|0.0002
90794399|NCT02958865|181470061|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|44.0||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|23.5|60.5|||Chan and Zhang Method|||||60.5|23.5|0.0003
90794400|NCT02958865|181470061|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.7||||0.0773|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.0|35.1|||Chan and Zhang method|||||35.1|-4.0|0.0773
90794401|NCT02958865|181470061|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|29.2||||0.0136|TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.6|47.0|||Chan and Zhang method|||||47.0|5.6|0.0136
90794402|NCT02958865|181470061|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|37.7||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|90.0|13.9|54.7|||Chan and Zhang method|||||54.7|13.9|0.0015
90794403|NCT02958865|181470062|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.9||||0.2259|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.5|11.8|||Chan and Zhang method|||||11.8|-6.5|0.2259
90794404|NCT02958865|181470062|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.2||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.8|17.7|||Chan and Zhang method|||||17.7|-3.8|0.0820
91053777|NCT02912650|181990988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.37|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.37|0.77|<0.001
90794405|NCT02958865|181470062|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.0||||0.0649|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|22.3|||Chan and Zhang Method|||||22.3|-0.7|0.0649
90794406|NCT02958865|181470062|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1||||0.3777|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.6|9.7|||Chan and Zhang method|||||9.7|-8.6|0.3777
91053778|NCT02912650|181990988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.62|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.62|0.78|<0.001
91053779|NCT02912650|181990988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.48||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.91|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.91|0.06|0.026
90794407|NCT02958865|181470062|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.0||||0.0212|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.9|28.6|||Chan and Zhang method|||||28.6|2.9|0.0212
90794408|NCT02958865|181470062|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.5||||0.0742|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.2|18.4|||Chan and Zhang method|||||18.4|-4.2|0.0742
90794409|NCT02958865|181470063|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.8||||0.0872|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.4|17.1|||Chan and Zhang method|||||17.1|-3.4|0.0872
90794410|NCT02958865|181470063|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.3||||0.0254|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.0|27.5|||Chan and Zhang method|||||27.5|3.0|0.0254
90794411|NCT02958865|181470063|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|26.0||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|90.0|11.0|38.1|||Chan and Zhang Method|||||38.1|11.0|0.0034
90794412|NCT02958865|181470063|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.3||||0.1565|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.5|15.4|||Chan and Zhang method|||||15.4|-4.5|0.1565
90794413|NCT02958865|181470063|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.9||||0.0288|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.7|26.2|||Chan and Zhang method|||||26.2|1.7|0.0288
90794414|NCT02958865|181470063|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.9||||0.0288|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.7|26.2|||Chan and Zhang method|||||26.2|1.7|0.0288
90794415|NCT02958865|181470064|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.9||||0.2259|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.5|11.8|||Chan and Zhang method|||||11.8|-6.5|0.2259
90794416|NCT02958865|181470064|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.2||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.8|17.7|||Chan and Zhang method|||||17.7|-3.8|0.0820
90794417|NCT02958865|181470064|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.0||||0.0649|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|22.3|||Chan and Zhang Method|||||22.3|-0.7|0.0649
90794418|NCT02958865|181470064|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.3|6.1|||Chan and Zhang method|||||6.1|-11.3|1.0000
90794419|NCT02958865|181470064|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.9||||0.0288|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.7|26.2|||Chan and Zhang method|||||26.2|1.7|0.0288
90794420|NCT02958865|181470064|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.4||||0.1593|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.4|15.7|||Chan and Zhang method|||||15.7|-4.4|0.1593
90794421|NCT00635050|181470097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90794422|NCT04380142|181470108|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean of Difference|1.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|3.05||The model included fixed categorical effects of treatment, country and visit, baseline-by-visit and treatment-by-visit interactions, and baseline as a covariate. An unstructured variance-covariance matrix was used.|mixed model repeated measures|||||3.05|0.46|0.0083
90794423|NCT04380142|181470109|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.03|-0.54||The model included fixed categorical effects of treatment, country and visit, baseline-by-visit and treatment-by-visit interactions, and baseline as a covariate. An unstructured variance-covariance matrix was used.|mixed model repeated measures|||||-0.54|-3.03|0.0054
90794424|NCT04380142|181470110|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.1318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.65|0.48||The model included fixed categorical effects of treatment, country and visit, baseline-by-visit and treatment-by-visit interactions, and baseline as a covariate. An unstructured variance-covariance matrix was used.|mixed model repeated measures|||||0.48|-3.65|0.1318
90794425|NCT04380142|181470111|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49|<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.31||The generalized linear mixed model: status = treatment country visit baseline treatment\*visit. The unstructured variance-covariance structure is used.|generalized linear mixed model|||||0.31|0.04|<=0.001
90794426|NCT04380142|181470112|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|3.16|||generalized linear mixed model|||||3.16|0.46|0.0091
90794427|NCT04380142|181470113|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-5.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32|<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.03|-2.78||ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and baseline.|ANCOVA|||||-2.78|-8.03|<=0.001
90794428|NCT04380142|181470114|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean of Difference|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.14|-0.05||ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and baseline.|ANCOVA|||||-0.05|-8.14|0.0470
90794429|NCT04380142|181470115|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.049|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|0.1||ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and baseline.|ANCOVA|||||0.100|-0.001|0.0566
90794430|NCT04380142|181470116|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|1.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.0184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.15||The model included fixed categorical effects of treatment, country and visit, baseline-by-visit and treatment-by-visit interactions, and baseline as a covariate. An unstructured variance-covariance matrix was used.|Repeated measures model|||||3.15|0.30|0.0184
90794431|NCT04380142|181470117|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.7989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.55||The model included fixed categorical effects of treatment, country and visit, baseline-by-visit and treatment-by-visit interactions, and baseline as a covariate. An unstructured variance-covariance matrix was used.|Repeated measures model|||||1.55|-1.20|0.7989
90794432|NCT04380142|181470118|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-2.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.96||0.1656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.61|1.15||The model included fixed categorical effects of treatment, country and visit, baseline-by-visit and treatment-by-visit interactions, and baseline as a covariate. An unstructured variance-covariance matrix was used.|Repeated measures model|||||1.15|-6.61|0.1656
90794433|NCT04380142|181470119|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-5.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.65||0.1347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.71|1.73||The model included fixed categorical effects of treatment, country and visit, baseline-by-visit and treatment-by-visit interactions, and baseline as a covariate. An unstructured variance-covariance matrix was used.|Repeated measures model|||||1.73|-12.71|0.1347
90794434|NCT00209131|181470126|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Other|||No analysis was conducted.||||<0.05
90794435|NCT02796651|181470129|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.108|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.055|0.161|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.161|0.055|<0.001
90794436|NCT02796651|181470129|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.117|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.064|0.171|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.171|0.064|<0.001
90794437|NCT02796651|181470129|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.162|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.107|0.216|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.216|0.107|<0.001
90794438|NCT02796651|181470129|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.122|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.069|0.175|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.175|0.069|<0.001
90794439|NCT02796651|181470129|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.009||||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.021|0.039|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.039|-0.021|0.556
90794440|NCT02796651|181470129|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.053||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.021|0.085|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.085|0.021|0.001
90794441|NCT02796651|181470129|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.014||||0.365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.016|0.044|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.044|-0.016|0.365
91053780|NCT02912650|181990988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.01|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.01|0.42|<0.001
90794442|NCT02796651|181470129|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.044||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.013|0.076|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.076|0.013|0.006
90794443|NCT02796651|181470129|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.005||||0.756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.026|0.036|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.036|-0.026|0.756
90794444|NCT02796651|181470129|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.039||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.071|-0.008|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.008|-0.071|0.014
90794445|NCT02796651|181470130|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.091|0.169|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.169|0.091|<0.001
90794446|NCT02796651|181470130|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.167|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.128|0.206|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.206|0.128|<0.001
90794447|NCT02796651|181470130|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.224|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.184|0.263|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.263|0.184|<0.001
90794448|NCT02796651|181470130|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.214|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.176|0.253|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.253|0.176|<0.001
90794449|NCT02796651|181470130|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.265|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.226|0.304|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.304|0.226|<0.001
90794450|NCT02796651|181470130|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.037||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.012|0.062|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.062|0.012|0.004
90794451|NCT02796651|181470130|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.094|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.068|0.119|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.119|0.068|<0.001
90794452|NCT02796651|181470130|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.084|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.059|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.110|0.059|<0.001
90794453|NCT02796651|181470130|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.135|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.109|0.161|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.161|0.109|<0.001
90794454|NCT02796651|181470130|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.057|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.031|0.082|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.082|0.031|<0.001
90794455|NCT02796651|181470130|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.047|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.023|0.071|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.071|0.023|<0.001
90794456|NCT02796651|181470130|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.098|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.073|0.123|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.123|0.073|<0.001
90794457|NCT02796651|181470130|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.009||||0.469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.035|0.016|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.016|-0.035|0.469
90794458|NCT02796651|181470130|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.041||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.015|0.068|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.068|0.015|0.002
90794459|NCT02796651|181470130|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.051|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.025|0.076|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.076|0.025|<0.001
90794460|NCT02796651|181470131|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.159|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.105|0.213|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.213|0.105|<0.001
90794461|NCT02796651|181470131|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.116|0.224|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.224|0.116|<0.001
90794462|NCT02796651|181470131|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.219|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.163|0.274|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.274|0.163|<0.001
90794463|NCT02796651|181470131|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.179|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.125|0.233|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.233|0.125|<0.001
90794464|NCT02796651|181470131|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.011||||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.042|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.042|-0.020|0.488
90794465|NCT02796651|181470131|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.027|0.092|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.092|0.027|<0.001
90794466|NCT02796651|181470131|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.02||||0.206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.011|0.051|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.051|-0.011|0.206
90794467|NCT02796651|181470131|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.049||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.016|0.081|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.081|0.016|0.004
90794468|NCT02796651|181470131|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.009||||0.567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.022|0.041|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.041|-0.022|0.567
90794469|NCT02796651|181470131|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.039||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.072|-0.007|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.007|-0.072|0.017
90794470|NCT02796651|181470132|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.075||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.008|0.141|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.141|0.008|0.027
90794471|NCT02796651|181470132|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.065||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|0.131|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.131|-0.001|0.054
90794472|NCT02796651|181470132|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.1||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.032|0.168|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.168|0.032|0.004
90794473|NCT02796651|181470132|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.059||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.006|0.123|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.123|-0.006|0.075
90794474|NCT02796651|181470132|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.01||||0.615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.048|0.028|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.028|-0.048|0.615
90794475|NCT02796651|181470132|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.025||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.014|0.065|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.065|-0.014|0.209
90794476|NCT02796651|181470132|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.016||||0.403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.053|0.022|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.022|-0.053|0.403
90794477|NCT02796651|181470132|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.035||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.003|0.074|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.074|-0.003|0.074
90794478|NCT02796651|181470132|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.006||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.045|0.032|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.032|-0.045|0.750
90794479|NCT02796651|181470132|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.041||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|-0.003|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.003|-0.080|0.035
90794480|NCT00437073|181470133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|38.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.9|68.4|||||The estimated value indicates the percentage of participants with CNS OR in the Lapatinib plus Capecitabine treatment arm.|||68.4|13.9|
90794481|NCT04875533|181470149|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMT20vPnC/saline to GMT13vPnC/PPSV23 for that serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs (20vPnC/13vPnC)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.92||||||Serotype 1: the ratio of GMT (GMR) (the 20vPnC/saline group to the 13vPnC/PPSV23 group) and the 2-sided 95% CI||0.92|0.66|
90794482|NCT04875533|181470149|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMT20vPnC/saline to GMT13vPnC/PPSV23 for that serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs (20vPnC/13vPnC)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.99||||||Serotype 3: GMR (the 20vPnC/saline group to the 13vPnC/PPSV23 group) and the 2-sided 95% CI||0.99|0.79|
90794483|NCT04875533|181470149|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMT20vPnC/saline to GMT13vPnC/PPSV23 for that serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs (20vPnC/13vPnC)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.94||||||Serotype 4: GMR (the 20vPnC/saline group to the 13vPnC/PPSV23 group) and the 2-sided 95% CI||0.94|0.67|
90794484|NCT04875533|181470149|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMT20vPnC/saline to GMT13vPnC/PPSV23 for that serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs (20vPnC/13vPnC)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.91||||||Serotype 5: GMR (the 20vPnC/saline group to the 13vPnC/PPSV23 group) and the 2-sided 95% CI||0.91|0.65|
90794485|NCT04875533|181470149|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMT20vPnC/saline to GMT13vPnC/PPSV23 for that serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs (20vPnC/13vPnC)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.05||||||Serotype 6A: GMR (the 20vPnC/saline group to the 13vPnC/PPSV23 group) and the 2-sided 95% CI||1.05|0.73|
90794486|NCT04875533|181470149|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMT20vPnC/saline to GMT13vPnC/PPSV23 for that serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs (20vPnC/13vPnC)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.08||||||Serotype 6B: GMR (the 20vPnC/saline group to the 13vPnC/PPSV23 group) and the 2-sided 95% CI||1.08|0.77|
90794487|NCT04875533|181470149|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMT20vPnC/saline to GMT13vPnC/PPSV23 for that serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs (20vPnC/13vPnC)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|0.93||||||Serotype 7F: GMR (the 20vPnC/saline group to the 13vPnC/PPSV23 group) and the 2-sided 95% CI||0.93|0.75|
90794488|NCT04875533|181470149|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMT20vPnC/saline to GMT13vPnC/PPSV23 for that serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs (20vPnC/13vPnC)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.02||||||Serotype 9V: GMR (the 20vPnC/saline group to the 13vPnC/PPSV23 group) and the 2-sided 95% CI||1.02|0.76|
90794489|NCT04875533|181470149|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMT20vPnC/saline to GMT13vPnC/PPSV23 for that serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs (20vPnC/13vPnC)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.29||||||Serotype 14: GMR (the 20vPnC/saline group to the 13vPnC/PPSV23 group) and the 2-sided 95% CI||1.29|0.92|
90794490|NCT04875533|181470149|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMT20vPnC/saline to GMT13vPnC/PPSV23 for that serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs (20vPnC/13vPnC)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.85||||||Serotype 18C: GMR (the 20vPnC/saline group to the 13vPnC/PPSV23 group) and the 2-sided 95% CI||0.85|0.62|
91079108|NCT02638051|182043882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0016|||||||Chi-squared|||"Applies to All Adverse Events rate"||||0.0016
90794491|NCT04875533|181470149|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMT20vPnC/saline to GMT13vPnC/PPSV23 for that serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs (20vPnC/13vPnC)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.86||||||Serotype 19A: GMR (the 20vPnC/saline group to the 13vPnC/PPSV23 group) and the 2-sided 95% CI||0.86|0.63|
90794492|NCT04875533|181470149|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMT20vPnC/saline to GMT13vPnC/PPSV23 for that serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs (20vPnC/13vPnC)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.76||||||Serotype 19F: GMR (the 20vPnC/saline group to the 13vPnC/PPSV23 group) and the 2-sided 95% CI||0.76|0.53|
90794493|NCT04875533|181470149|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMT20vPnC/saline to GMT13vPnC/PPSV23 for that serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs (20vPnC/13vPnC)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.99||||||Serotype 23F: GMR (the 20vPnC/saline group to the 13vPnC/PPSV23 group) and the 2-sided 95% CI||0.99|0.65|
90794494|NCT04875533|181470150|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMT20vPnC/saline to GMT13vPnC/PPSV23 for that serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs (20vPnC/PPSV23)|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.67||||||Serotype 8: GMR (the 20vPnC/saline group to the 13vPnC/PPSV23 group) and the 2-sided 95% CI||0.67|0.50|
90794495|NCT04875533|181470150|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMT20vPnC/saline to GMT13vPnC/PPSV23 for that serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs (20vPnC/PPSV23)|2.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|2.53||||||Serotype 10A: GMR (the 20vPnC/saline group to the 13vPnC/PPSV23 group) and the 2-sided 95% CI||2.53|1.80|
90794496|NCT04875533|181470150|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMT20vPnC/saline to GMT13vPnC/PPSV23 for that serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs (20vPnC/PPSV23)|1.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|2.06||||||Serotype 11A: GMR (the 20vPnC/saline group to the 13vPnC/PPSV23 group) and the 2-sided 95% CI||2.06|1.44|
90794497|NCT04875533|181470150|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMT20vPnC/saline to GMT13vPnC/PPSV23 for that serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs (20vPnC/PPSV23)|1.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|2.04||||||Serotype 12F: GMR (the 20vPnC/saline group to the 13vPnC/PPSV23 group) and the 2-sided 95% CI||2.04|1.39|
90794498|NCT04875533|181470150|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMT20vPnC/saline to GMT13vPnC/PPSV23 for that serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs (20vPnC/PPSV23)|2.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|2.64||||||Serotype 15B: GMR (the 20vPnC/saline group to the 13vPnC/PPSV23 group) and the 2-sided 95% CI||2.64|1.72|
90794499|NCT04875533|181470150|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMT20vPnC/saline to GMT13vPnC/PPSV23 for that serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs (20vPnC/PPSV23)|1.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|1.98||||||Serotype 22F: GMR (the 20vPnC/saline group to the 13vPnC/PPSV23 group) and the 2-sided 95% CI||1.98|1.33|
90794500|NCT04875533|181470150|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMT20vPnC/saline to GMT13vPnC/PPSV23 for that serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs (20vPnC/PPSV23)|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.34||||||Serotype 33F: GMR (the 20vPnC/saline group to the 13vPnC/PPSV23 group) and the 2-sided 95% CI||1.34|0.97|
90794501|NCT02702999|181470170|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|18.0|||||The intervention arm and control arm were compared using a log binomial (or Poisson in case of nonconvergence) model with the intervention arm as a covariate to estimate relative risk and 95% confidence interval (CI).|||18.0|0.9|
90794502|NCT02702999|181470171|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|18.0|||||The intervention arm and control arm were compared using a log binomial (or Poisson in case of nonconvergence) model with the intervention arm as a covariate to estimate relative risk and 95% confidence interval (CI).|||18.0|0.9|
90794503|NCT02702999|181470172|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|10.5|||||The intervention arm and control arm were compared using a log binomial (or Poisson in case of nonconvergence) model with the intervention arm as a covariate to estimate relative risk and 95% confidence interval (CI).|||10.5|0.4|
90794504|NCT02702999|181470173|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|23.7|||||The intervention arm and control arm were compared using a log binomial (or Poisson in case of nonconvergence) model with the intervention arm as a covariate to estimate relative risk and 95% confidence interval (CI).|||23.7|1.2|
90794505|NCT02702999|181470174|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|2.1|||||The intervention arm and control arm were compared using a log binomial (or Poisson in case of nonconvergence) model with the intervention arm as a covariate to estimate relative risk and 95% confidence interval (CI).|||2.1|0.03|
90794506|NCT02702999|181470175|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.3|||||The intervention arm and control arm were compared using a log binomial (or Poisson in case of nonconvergence) model with the intervention arm as a covariate to estimate relative risk and 95% confidence interval (CI).|||2.3|0.4|
90794507|NCT01299961|181470186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.1|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Most involved side: Synovitis (S), tenosynovitis (T), and power Doppler (PD) of wrist (dorsal (D), palmar (P), and ulnar (U)); S and T of MCP 2,3 (P, plus D for T); PD of the MCP joints (P and D); S and PD of PIP 2, 3 (P, plus D for PD); S and PD for MTP 2, 4 (D). S and PD graded from 0 to 3, and max individual scores are 27 and 39, respectively. T graded on 0-1 scale; max T score is 5. High score is worse. The 7-joint US score is sum of T, S, and PD scores. Change calculated baseline- month 12.||||<0.01
90794508|NCT01299961|181470187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.7|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||7 joints were scanned by power doppler ultra sound of the most affected side: wrist, MCP 2/3, PIP 2/3, and MTP 2/5. PDUS was scored semi-quantitatively on a scale of 0-3 (higher score is worse). The mean score of the 2-3 views obtained for each joint was added across all 7 joints, and the total PDUS (range 0-21) scores were calculated. The change from baseline to 12 months is calculated as the baseline PDUS minus 12 month PDUS.||||<0.01
91011546|NCT03808298|181906088|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at Day 1 1 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.12|2.33||||||||2.33|-0.12|
90794509|NCT01299961|181470188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.7||0.19|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||7 joints were scanned by grey-scale ultra sound of the most affected side: wrist, MCP 2/3, PIP 2/3, and MTP 2/5. GSUS was scored semi-quantitatively on a scale of 0-3 (higher score is worse). The mean score of the 2-3 views obtained for each joint was added across all 7 joints, and the total GSUS (range 0-21) scores were calculated. The change from baseline to 12 months is calculated as the baseline GSUS minus 12 month GSUS.||||0.19
90794510|NCT02904096|181470189|NON_INFERIORITY|Estimates for PA, PB, and PA-PB were reported together with one-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for PA-PB constructed via the Farrington-Manning likelihood method. Here PA and PB are the percentage of subjects in Group A and B (Non-inferiority margin = 12%).|Difference in percentage|1.5|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||3.35||||||||3.35||
90794511|NCT02904096|181470190|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|1.5|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||3.35||||||||3.35||
90794512|NCT02904096|181470191|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison between Group A: Flexion (Left Hand)-baseline and Group A: Flexion (Left Hand)-change from baseline at Month 24.||||<.001
90794513|NCT02904096|181470191|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison between Group A: Flexion (Right Hand)-baseline and Group A: Flexion (Right Hand)-change from baseline at Month 24.||||<.001
90794514|NCT02904096|181470191|OTHER|||||||0.054|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison between Group B: Flexion (Left Hand)-baseline and Group B: Flexion (Left Hand)-change from baseline at Month 24.||||.054
90794515|NCT02904096|181470191|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison between Group B: Flexion (Right Hand)-baseline and Group B: Flexion (Right Hand)-change from baseline at Month 24.||||<.001
90794516|NCT02904096|181470191|OTHER|||||||0.049|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison between Group A: Extension (Left Hand)-baseline and Group A: Extension (Left Hand)-change from baseline at Month 24.||||.049
90794517|NCT02904096|181470191|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison between Group A: Extension (Right Hand)-baseline and Group A: Extension (Right Hand)-change from baseline at Month 24.||||.003
90794518|NCT02904096|181470191|OTHER|||||||0.781|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison between Group B: Extension (Left Hand)-baseline and Group B: Extension (Left Hand)-change from baseline at Month 24.||||.781
90794519|NCT02904096|181470191|OTHER|||||||0.573|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison between Group B: Extension (Right Hand)-baseline and Group B: Extension (Right Hand)-change from baseline at Month 24.||||.573
90794520|NCT02904096|181470192|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison between Group A: (Left Hand)-baseline and Group A: (Left Hand)-change from baseline at Month 24.||||<.001
90794521|NCT02904096|181470192|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison between Group A: (Right Hand)-baseline and Group A: (Right Hand)-change from baseline at Month 24.||||<.001
90794522|NCT02904096|181470192|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison between Group B: (Left Hand)-baseline and Group B: (Left Hand)-change from baseline at Month 24.||||<.001
90794523|NCT02904096|181470192|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison between Group B: (Right Hand)-baseline and Group B: (Right Hand)-change from baseline at Month 24.||||<.001
90794524|NCT02904096|181470193|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison between Group A: (Left Hand)-baseline and Group A: (Left Hand)-change from baseline at Month 24.||||<.001
90794525|NCT02904096|181470193|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison between Group A: (Right Hand)-baseline and Group A: (Right Hand)-change from baseline at Month 24.||||<.001
90794526|NCT02904096|181470193|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison between Group B: (Left Hand)-baseline and Group B: (Left Hand)-change from baseline at Month 24.||||<.001
90794527|NCT02904096|181470193|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison between Group B: (Right Hand)-baseline and Group B: (Right Hand)-change from baseline at Month 24.||||<.001
90794528|NCT02904096|181470194|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison between Group A: Hand grip strength (Left Hand)-baseline and Group A: Hand grip strength (Left Hand)-change from baseline at Month 24.||||<.001
90794529|NCT02904096|181470194|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison between Group A: Hand grip strength (Right Hand)-baseline and Group A: Hand grip strength (Right Hand)-change from baseline at Month 24.||||.001
90794530|NCT02904096|181470194|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison between Group B: Hand grip strength (Left Hand)-baseline and Group B: Hand grip strength (Left Hand)-change from baseline at Month 24.||||<.001
90794531|NCT02904096|181470194|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison between Group B: Hand grip strength (Right Hand)-baseline and Group B: Hand grip strength (Right Hand)-change from baseline at Month 24.||||.002
90794532|NCT02904096|181470194|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison between Group A: Hand tip pinch strength (Left Hand)-baseline and Group A: Hand tip pinch strength (Left Hand)-change from baseline at Month 24.||||<.001
90794533|NCT02904096|181470194|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison between Group A: Hand tip pinch strength (Right Hand)-baseline and Group A: Hand tip pinch strength (Right Hand)-change from baseline at Month 24.||||<.001
90794534|NCT02904096|181470194|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison between Group B: Hand tip pinch strength (Left Hand)-baseline and Group B: Hand tip pinch strength (Left Hand)-change from baseline at Month 24.||||<.001
90794535|NCT02904096|181470194|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison between Group B: Hand tip pinch strength (Right Hand)-baseline and Group B: Hand tip pinch strength (Right Hand)-change from baseline at Month 24.||||<.001
90794536|NCT02904096|181470194|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison between Group A: Hand key pinch strength (Left Hand)-baseline and Group A: Hand key pinch strength (Left Hand)-change from baseline at Month 24.||||.001
90794537|NCT02904096|181470194|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison between Group A: Hand key pinch strength (Right Hand)-baseline and Group A: Hand key pinch strength (Right Hand)-change from baseline at Month 24.||||<.001
90794538|NCT02904096|181470194|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison between Group B: Hand key pinch strength (Left Hand)-baseline and Group B: Hand key pinch strength (Left Hand)-change from baseline at Month 24.||||<.001
90794539|NCT02904096|181470194|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison between Group B: Hand key pinch strength (Right Hand)-baseline and Group B: Hand key pinch strength (Right Hand)-change from baseline at Month 24.||||<.001
90794540|NCT02904096|181470194|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison between Group A: Hand palmar pinch strength (Left Hand)-baseline and Group A: Hand palmar pinch strength (Left Hand)-change from baseline at Month 24.||||.010
90794541|NCT02904096|181470194|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison between Group A: Hand palmar pinch strength (Right Hand)-baseline and Group A: Hand palmar pinch strength (Right Hand)-change from baseline at Month 24.||||.060
90794542|NCT02904096|181470194|OTHER|||||||0.177|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison between Group B: Hand palmar pinch strength (Left Hand)-baseline and Group B: Hand palmar pinch strength (Left Hand)-change from baseline at Month 24.||||.177
90794543|NCT02904096|181470194|OTHER|||||||0.177|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison between Group B: Hand palmar pinch strength (Right Hand)-baseline and Group B: Hand palmar pinch strength (Right Hand)-change from baseline at Month 24.||||.177
90794544|NCT00980798|181470199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2365||||0.1212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5357|0.0627||No adjustment for multiple comparisons necessary, as only 1 primary hypothesis was tested. Threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed-model regression analysis|The difference above is presented as the difference OROS hydromorphone HCl minus placebo, so negative scores favour OROS hydromorphone HCl.|The analysis was adjusted for baseline BPI item 5 score, time on study, and whether the primary affected joint was the hip or knee.|The F test for treatment tested the null hypothesis of no treatment difference. Assuming that 3 baseline measures and 7 post baseline measures were collected 81 patients were required per group to detect a difference of 1 point in the BPI measure with 90% power at a significance level of 5%. To allow for a drop-out rate of approximately 40%, the study planned to recruit 135 patients per group (i.e. 270 in total).||0.0627|-0.5357|0.1212
90794545|NCT04938427|181470206|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Location Shift Estimate|-1.17|||=|0.785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.02|9.99||The p-value was calculated using Rank Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model using treatment group, age stratum (≤6 years, \>6 years), and rank of Baseline seizure frequency per 28 days as predictors.|ANCOVA||The location shift between soticlestat and placebo (soticlestat - placebo) and its asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) are based on the Hodges-Lehmann estimation.|||9.99|-13.02|=0.785
90794546|NCT04938427|181470207|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Location Shift Estimate|2.43|||=|0.778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.86|15.14||The p-value was calculated using the Rank ANCOVA model using the treatment group, age stratum (≤6 years, \>6 years), and rank of Baseline seizure frequency per 28 days as predictors.|ANCOVA||The location shift between soticlestat and placebo (soticlestat - placebo) and its asymptotic 95% CI are based on the Hodges-Lehmann estimation.|||15.14|-10.86|=0.778
90794547|NCT04938427|181470208|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|3.87||||||||3.87|0.94|
90794548|NCT04938427|181470209|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|4.05||||||||4.05|0.92|
90794549|NCT04938427|181470211|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|2.13||||||||2.13|0.86|
90794550|NCT04938427|181470212|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|2.21||||||||2.21|0.89|
90794551|NCT04938427|181470213|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|2.3||||||Alertness Domain||2.30|0.85|
90794552|NCT04938427|181470213|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|2.48||||||Communication Domain||2.48|0.91|
90794553|NCT04938427|181470213|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|3.43||||||Disruptive Behaviors Domain||3.43|1.06|
90794554|NCT04938427|181470214|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|3.24||||||||3.24|-2.20|
90794555|NCT04938427|181470215|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.65||||||||2.65|1.06|
90794556|NCT04938427|181470216|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Location Shift Estimate|-6.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.83|4.16|||||The location shift between soticlestat and placebo (soticlestat - placebo) and its asymptotic 95% CI are based on the Hodges-Lehmann estimation.|||4.16|-16.83|
90794557|NCT04938427|181470217|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Location Shift Estimate|-6.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.67|3.12|||||The location shift between soticlestat and placebo (soticlestat - placebo) and its asymptotic 95% CI are based on the Hodges-Lehmann estimation.|||3.12|-16.67|
90794558|NCT04938427|181470218|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|6.67|||||A linear model with treatment group and age stratum as factors and baseline percentage as a covariate was used for analysis.|||6.67|-1.74|
90794559|NCT04938427|181470219|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|8.9||||||||8.9|1.9|
90794560|NCT04938427|181470220|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|2.0||||||||2.0|-3.7|
90794561|NCT01107496|181470232|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|6.0||||0.0414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|12.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis applies to Week 6 data.||12.00|1.00|0.0414
90794562|NCT01107496|181470233|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|3.0||||0.0803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|7.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis applies to Week 1 data.||7.00|0.00|0.0803
90794563|NCT01107496|181470234|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.5308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis pertains to Week 1 data.||1.00|-1.00|0.5308
90794564|NCT01107496|181470234|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.2032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis pertains to Week 2 data.||0.00|-2.00|0.2032
90794565|NCT01107496|181470234|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.0677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis pertains to Week 3 data.||0.00|-2.00|0.0677
90794566|NCT01107496|181470234|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.0743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis pertains to Week 4 data.||0.00|-2.00|0.0743
90794567|NCT01107496|181470234|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.0437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis pertains to Week 5 data.||0.00|-2.00|0.0437
90794568|NCT01107496|181470234|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.1209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis applies to Week 6 data.||0.00|-2.00|0.1209
90794569|NCT01107496|181470235|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|1.0||||0.6022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|6.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis applies to Week 2 data.||6.00|-4.00|0.6022
90794570|NCT01107496|181470235|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-4.0||||0.0794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis applies to Week 3 data.||1.00|-10.0|0.0794
90794571|NCT01107496|181470235|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-6.0||||0.0747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis applies to Week 4 data.||0.00|-10.0|0.0747
90794572|NCT01107496|181470235|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-6.5||||0.0545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis applies to Week 5 data.||0.00|-12.0|0.0545
90794573|NCT01107496|181470236|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|7.0||||0.0349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|13.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis applies to Week 6 data.||13.00|1.00|0.0349
90794574|NCT01107496|181470237|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.4038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Analysis pertains to Week 1 data||0.00|-1.00|0.4038
90794575|NCT01107496|181470237|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Analysis pertains to Week 2 data||0.00|-1.00|0.4460
90794576|NCT01107496|181470237|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.0549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Analysis pertains to Week 3 data||0.00|-1.00|0.0549
90794577|NCT01107496|181470237|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.0759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Analysis pertains to Week 4 data||0.00|-1.00|0.0759
90794578|NCT01107496|181470237|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.0342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Analysis pertains to Week 5 data||0.00|-1.00|0.0342
90794579|NCT01107496|181470237|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.0474|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Analysis pertains to Week 6 data||||0.0474
90794580|NCT03909971|181470238|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
90794581|NCT00057577|181470281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.038|TWO_SIDED||||||Subdistribution hazard model|||||||=.038
90794582|NCT00057577|181470282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Subdistribution hazard model|||||||<0.01
90794583|NCT03537508|181470297|NON_INFERIORITY|The overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was \>-10% for all 4 serogroups. 95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score method without continuity correction.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|1.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.38|8.64||||||Statistical analysis for Serogroup A||8.64|-4.38|
91053781|NCT02912650|181990988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.69|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.69|0.84|<0.001
91053782|NCT02912650|181990988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.36||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.66|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.66|0.07|0.017
90794584|NCT03537508|181470297|NON_INFERIORITY|The overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was \>-10% for all 4 serogroups. 95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score method without continuity correction.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|8.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.8|13.6||||||Statistical analysis for Serogroup C||13.60|4.80|
90794585|NCT03537508|181470297|NON_INFERIORITY|The overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was \>-10% for all 4 serogroups. 95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score method without continuity correction.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|4.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|8.44||||||Statistical analysis for Serogroup Y||8.44|0.68|
90794586|NCT03537508|181470297|NON_INFERIORITY|The overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was \>-10% for all 4 serogroups. 95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score method without continuity correction.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|4.45||||||Statistical analysis for Serogroup W||4.45|-1.18|
90794587|NCT03537508|181470298|NON_INFERIORITY|The overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was \>-10% for all 4 serogroups. 95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score method without continuity correction.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|10.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.98|15.59||||||Statistical analysis for Serogroup A||15.59|4.98|
90794588|NCT03537508|181470298|NON_INFERIORITY|The overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was \>-10% for all 4 serogroups. 95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score method without continuity correction.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|7.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.31|10.96||||||Statistical analysis for Serogroup C||10.96|5.31|
90794589|NCT03537508|181470298|NON_INFERIORITY|The overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was \>-10% for all 4 serogroups. 95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score method without continuity correction.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|6.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.01|9.62||||||Statistical analysis for Serogroup Y||9.62|4.01|
90794590|NCT03537508|181470298|NON_INFERIORITY|The overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was \>-10% for all 4 serogroups. 95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score method without continuity correction.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|5.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.44|8.57||||||Statistical analysis for Serogroup W||8.57|3.44|
91053783|NCT02912650|181990988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.2|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.20|0.60|<0.001
91053784|NCT02912650|181990988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.33|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.33|0.48|<0.001
90794591|NCT00391716|181470314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||The numerator is the number of subjects completely abstinent and the denominator is the number of subjects randomized, within each treatment group.|Mantel Haenszel|Extended Mantel-Haenszel Chi-square test for linear-by-linear association.||The extended Mantel-Haenszel Chi-square test for linear trend assesses the relationship between ROW and COLUMN of a single contingency table, where both row (dose: 0mg, 900mg, 1800mg) and column (response (0= non-abstinent, 1=abstinent), and at least 1 variable has more than 2 levels. It specifically tests linear dose-response without need for multiple comparisons.||||<0.04
90794592|NCT00391716|181470314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||linear dose effects for rates of abstinence were assessed using the extended Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test for linear association.|Mantel Haenszel|The numerator is the number of subjects completely abstinent and the denominator is the number of subjects randomized, within each treatment group.||The extended Mantel-Haenszel Chi-square test for linear trend assesses the relationship between ROW and COLUMN of a single contingency table, where both row (dose: 0mg, 900mg, 1800mg) and column (response (0= heavy drinking, 1=no heavy drinking), and at least 1 variable has more than 2 levels. It specifically tests linear dose-response without need for multiple comparisons.||||<0.02
90794593|NCT00391716|181470315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Cumulative means over 12 weeks|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90794594|NCT00391716|181470316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Cumulative means over 12 weeks|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90794595|NCT00391716|181470317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.003||||||Cumulative means over 12 weeks|ANOVA|||||||<0.003
90794596|NCT02757768|181470323|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean of Difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.02|-0.76|0.039
90794597|NCT02757768|181470324|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.25|||ANCOVA|||Week 4 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.25|-0.46|0.558
90794598|NCT02757768|181470324|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.14|||ANCOVA|||Week 8 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.14|-0.89|0.007
90794599|NCT02757768|181470324|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||Week 12 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.02|-0.76|0.041
90794600|NCT02757768|181470325|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|3.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8||0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|9.37|||ANCOVA|||Week 4 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||9.37|-1.63|0.167
90794601|NCT02757768|181470325|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|6.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.28||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|12.73|||ANCOVA|||Week 8 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||12.73|-0.15|0.056
90794602|NCT02757768|181470325|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|8.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.58||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.97|16.01|||ANCOVA|||Week 12 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||16.01|1.97|0.012
90794603|NCT02757768|181470325|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|9.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.43||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.53|15.98|||ANCOVA|||EoT Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||15.98|2.53|0.007
90794604|NCT02757768|181470326|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.38|||ANCOVA|||Week 4 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.38|-0.63|0.747
90794605|NCT02757768|181470326|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.54|||ANCOVA|||Week 8 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.54|-0.72|0.393
90794606|NCT02757768|181470326|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.38|||ANCOVA|||Week 12 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.38|-0.87|0.672
90794607|NCT02757768|181470326|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.3|||ANCOVA|||EoT Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.30|-0.90|0.640
90794608|NCT02757768|181470327|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.16|||ANCOVA|||Week 4 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.16|-0.68|0.222
90794609|NCT02757768|181470327|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||Week 8 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.24|-1.18|0.003
90794610|NCT02757768|181470327|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|-0.17|||ANCOVA|||Week 12 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.17|-1.13|0.008
90794611|NCT02757768|181470327|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|-0.21|||ANCOVA|||EoT Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.21|-1.13|0.004
90794612|NCT02757768|181470328|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.9|||ANCOVA|||Week 4 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.9|-0.6|0.723
91011547|NCT03808298|181906088|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at Day 1 2.5 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|3.67||||||||3.67|0.40|
90794613|NCT02757768|181470328|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.0|||ANCOVA|||Week 8 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||1.0|-0.7|0.700
90794614|NCT02757768|181470328|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Week 12 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.5|-1.3|0.400
90794615|NCT02757768|181470328|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.8|||ANCOVA|||EoT Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.8|-1.0|0.812
90794616|NCT02757768|181470329|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.9|||ANCOVA|||Week 4 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.9|-0.1|0.121
90794617|NCT02757768|181470329|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Week 8 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.8|-0.2|0.241
90794618|NCT02757768|181470329|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Week 12 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.5|-0.6|0.843
90794619|NCT02757768|181470329|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.7|||ANCOVA|||EoT Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.7|-0.4|0.679
90794620|NCT02757768|181470330|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Week 4 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.1|-0.7|0.175
90794621|NCT02757768|181470330|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Week 8 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.2|-0.6|0.430
90794622|NCT02757768|181470330|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Week 12 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.1|-0.8|0.141
90794623|NCT02757768|181470330|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.2|||ANCOVA|||EoT Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.2|-0.7|0.288
90794624|NCT02757768|181470331|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Week 4 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.0|-0.3|0.128
91053785|NCT02912650|181990988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.37||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.8|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.80|-0.06|0.089
90794625|NCT02757768|181470331|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Week 8 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.0|-0.4|0.054
90794626|NCT02757768|181470331|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Week 12 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.0|-0.4|0.079
90794627|NCT02757768|181470331|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1|||ANCOVA|||EoT Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.1|-0.4|0.148
90794628|NCT02757768|181470332|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.39|||ANCOVA|||Week 4 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.39|-0.61|0.660
91053786|NCT02912650|181990988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.83|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.83|0.24|<0.001
91079109|NCT02638051|182043882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||"Applies to Abdominal pain rate"||||>0.05
91011548|NCT03808298|181906088|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at Day 1 4 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6|4.49||||||||4.49|0.60|
91011549|NCT03808298|181906088|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at Day 1 8 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.46|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.09|4.94||||||||4.94|0.09|
91011550|NCT03808298|181906088|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at Day 1 12 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.84|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.62|4.47||||||||4.47|-1.62|
91011551|NCT03808298|181906088|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at Day 1 24 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|3.39||||||||3.39|-0.10|
91011552|NCT03808298|181906089|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at Day 1 0.5 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|2.2||||||||2.20|-0.60|
91011553|NCT03808298|181906089|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at Day 1 1 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.13|2.55||||||||2.55|0.13|
91011554|NCT03808298|181906089|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at Day 1 2.5 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.04|3.27||||||||3.27|0.04|
90794629|NCT02757768|181470332|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.53|||ANCOVA|||Week 8 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.53|-0.72|0.767
90794630|NCT02757768|181470332|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.34|||ANCOVA|||Week 12 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.34|-0.89|0.372
90794631|NCT02757768|181470332|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.26|||ANCOVA|||EoT Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.26|-0.92|0.272
90794632|NCT02757768|181470333|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.29|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Week 4 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.80|-4.29|0.179
91011555|NCT03808298|181906089|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at Day 1 4 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.64|3.2||||||||3.20|-0.64|
90794633|NCT02757768|181470333|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-3.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.41||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|-1.08|||ANCOVA|||Week 8 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-1.08|-6.60|0.006
90794634|NCT02757768|181470333|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.51||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.86|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Week 12 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.06|-5.86|0.055
90794635|NCT02757768|181470333|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-2.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.48||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.02|0.8|||ANCOVA|||EoT Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.80|-5.02|0.154
91011556|NCT03808298|181906089|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at Day 1 8 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.13|4.67||||||||4.67|-0.13|
91011557|NCT03808298|181906089|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at Day 1 12 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.82|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.31|3.7||||||||3.70|-2.31|
91011558|NCT03808298|181906089|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at Day 1 24 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.35|2.1||||||||2.10|-1.35|
91011559|NCT03808298|181906089|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at Day 14 0.75 Hours Pre-dose|LS Mean|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.46|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.94|1.89||||||||1.89|-2.94|
91011560|NCT03808298|181906089|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at Day 14 0.5 Hours Pre-dose|LS Mean|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.48|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.19|1.72||||||||1.72|-3.19|
91011561|NCT03808298|181906089|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at Day 14 0.25 Hours Pre-dose|LS Mean|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.51|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.26|2.74||||||||2.74|-2.26|
91011562|NCT03808298|181906089|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at Day 14 0.5 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.51|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.02|2.96||||||||2.96|-2.02|
91011563|NCT03808298|181906089|EQUIVALENCE|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at Day 14 1 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.49|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.39|2.54||||||||2.54|-2.39|
91011564|NCT03808298|181906089|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at Day 14 2.5 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.67|4.28||||||||4.28|-0.67|
91011565|NCT03808298|181906089|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at Day 14 4 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.64|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.11|3.31||||||||3.31|-2.11|
91011566|NCT03808298|181906089|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at Day 14 8 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.76|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.38|3.47||||||||3.47|-2.38|
91011567|NCT03808298|181906089|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at Day 14 12 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.11|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.85|4.14||||||||4.14|-2.85|
91011568|NCT03808298|181906089|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at Day 14 24 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.36|2.6||||||||2.60|-2.36|
91079110|NCT02638051|182043882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||"Applies to Gastrointestinal reactions"||||>0.05
91011569|NCT03808298|181906090|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline HR (bpm) at Day 1 0.5 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.2|0.73||||||||0.73|-1.20|
91011570|NCT03808298|181906090|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline HR (bpm) at Day 1 1 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.08|0.96||||||||0.96|-1.08|
91011571|NCT03808298|181906090|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline HR (bpm) at Day 1 2.5 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.73|0.78||||||||0.78|-1.73|
90794636|NCT02757768|181470334|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.13||0.233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.57|0.87|||ANCOVA|||Week 4 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.87|-3.57|0.233
90794637|NCT02757768|181470334|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|2.82|||ANCOVA|||Week 8 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||2.82|-1.89|0.698
90794638|NCT02757768|181470334|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.28||0.486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|3.4|||ANCOVA|||Week 12 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||3.40|-1.62|0.486
90794639|NCT02757768|181470334|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26||0.968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|2.42|||ANCOVA|||EoT Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||2.42|-2.52|0.968
90794640|NCT02757768|181470335|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.56|0.78|||ANCOVA|||Week 4 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.78|-4.56|0.165
90794641|NCT02757768|181470335|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.41||0.592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|3.54|||ANCOVA|||Week 8 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||3.54|-2.02|0.592
90794642|NCT02757768|181470335|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.54||0.559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|3.92|||ANCOVA|||Week 12 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||3.92|-2.12|0.559
90794643|NCT02757768|181470335|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.51||0.985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.94|3.0|||ANCOVA|||EoT Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||3.00|-2.94|0.985
90794644|NCT02757768|181470336|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.35|0.72|||ANCOVA|||Week 4 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.72|-4.35|0.161
90794645|NCT02757768|181470336|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38||0.798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.36|3.07|||ANCOVA|||Week 8 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||3.07|-2.36|0.798
90794646|NCT02757768|181470336|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.42||0.408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|3.95|||ANCOVA|||Week 12 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||3.95|-1.61|0.408
91011572|NCT03808298|181906090|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline HR (bpm) at Day 1 4 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.8|0.7||||||||0.70|-1.80|
91011573|NCT03808298|181906090|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline HR (bpm) at Day 1 8 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.42|1.05||||||||1.05|-2.42|
91011574|NCT03808298|181906090|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline HR (bpm) at Day 1 12 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.66|1.24||||||||1.24|-2.66|
91011575|NCT03808298|181906090|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline HR (bpm) at Day 1 24 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.91|0.85||||||||0.85|-1.91|
91011576|NCT03808298|181906090|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline HR (bpm) at Day 14 0.75 Hours Pre-dose|LS Mean|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.9|-0.48||||||||-0.48|-3.90|
91011577|NCT03808298|181906090|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline HR (bpm) at Day 14 0.5 Hours Pre-dose|LS Mean|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.41|0.0||||||||0.00|-3.41|
91011578|NCT03808298|181906090|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline HR (bpm) at Day 14 0.25 Hours Pre-dose|LS Mean|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.21|0.36||||||||0.36|-3.21|
91011579|NCT03808298|181906090|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline HR (bpm) at Day 14 0.5 Hours Pre-dose|LS Mean|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.25|0.01||||||||0.01|-3.25|
91011580|NCT03808298|181906090|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline HR (bpm) at Day 14 1 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.01|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.36|-0.01||||||||-0.01|-3.36|
91011581|NCT03808298|181906090|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline HR (bpm) at Day 14 2.5 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.75|-0.14||||||||-0.14|-3.75|
90794647|NCT02757768|181470336|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.39||0.919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|2.88|||ANCOVA|||EoT Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||2.88|-2.60|0.919
90794648|NCT02757768|181470337|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.49||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.94|2.91|||ANCOVA|||Week 4 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||2.91|-2.94|0.990
90794649|NCT02757768|181470337|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.55||0.554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|3.96|||ANCOVA|||Week 8 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||3.96|-2.12|0.554
90794650|NCT02757768|181470337|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|1.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63||0.348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|4.73|||ANCOVA|||Week 12 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||4.73|-1.67|0.348
90794651|NCT02757768|181470337|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.89|3.38|||ANCOVA|||EoT Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||3.38|-2.89|0.876
90794652|NCT02757768|181470338|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.16|0.95|||ANCOVA|||Week 4 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.95|-3.16|0.293
90794653|NCT02757768|181470338|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12||0.773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|1.87|||ANCOVA|||Week 8 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||1.87|-2.52|0.773
90794654|NCT02757768|181470338|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28|2.11|||ANCOVA|||Week 12 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||2.11|-2.28|0.940
91011582|NCT03808298|181906090|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline HR (bpm) at Day 14 4 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.01|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.06|0.29||||||||0.29|-3.06|
90794655|NCT02757768|181470338|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.86|1.44|||ANCOVA|||EoT Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||1.44|-2.86|0.516
90794656|NCT02757768|181470339|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4591|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Statistical comparisons were be made using 2-sided tests at α = 0.05 significance level.||Week 4 Placebo vs. Mirabegron.||||0.4591
90794657|NCT02757768|181470339|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4073|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Statistical comparisons were be made using 2-sided tests at α = 0.05 significance level.||Week 8 Placebo vs. Mirabegron.||||0.4073
90794658|NCT02757768|181470339|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.774|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Statistical comparisons were be made using 2-sided tests at α = 0.05 significance level.||Week 12 Placebo vs. Mirabegron.||||0.7740
90794659|NCT02757768|181470339|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5121|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Statistical comparisons were be made using 2-sided tests at α = 0.05 significance level.||EoT Placebo vs. Mirabegron.||||0.5121
90794660|NCT02757768|181470340|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Week 4 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.1|-0.2|0.223
90794661|NCT02757768|181470340|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Week 8 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.1|-0.2|0.598
90794662|NCT02757768|181470340|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Week 12 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.1|-0.3|0.312
90794663|NCT02757768|181470340|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||ANCOVA|||EoT Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.1|-0.2|0.525
90794664|NCT02757768|181470342|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.34|||ANCOVA|||Week 4 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.34|-0.08|0.226
91011583|NCT03808298|181906090|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline HR (bpm) at Day 14 8 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.24|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.08|1.01||||||||1.01|-3.08|
91011584|NCT03808298|181906090|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline HR (bpm) at Day 14 12 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.03|0.76||||||||0.76|-3.03|
90794665|NCT02757768|181470342|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.28|||ANCOVA|||Week 8 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.28|-0.14|0.501
90794666|NCT02757768|181470342|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.23|||ANCOVA|||Week 12 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.23|-0.22|0.984
90794667|NCT02757768|181470342|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.24|||ANCOVA|||EoT Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.24|-0.18|0.780
90794668|NCT02757768|181470343|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|6.8|||ANCOVA|||Week 4 Difference vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||6.8|-0.7|0.107
90794669|NCT02757768|181470343|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|6.3|||ANCOVA|||Week 8 Difference vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||6.3|-1.3|0.190
90794670|NCT02757768|181470343|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|6.3|||ANCOVA|||Week 12 Difference vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||6.3|-1.9|0.297
90794671|NCT02757768|181470343|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|5.5|||ANCOVA|||EoT Difference vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||5.5|-2.7|0.493
90794672|NCT00835367|181470348|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Parametric analysis of variance (ANOVA)on AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax; geometric Confidence Intervals for AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax|Ratio of Least Squares Means|101.84||||||90.0|98.22|105.59|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||105.59|98.22|
90794673|NCT00835367|181470349|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Parametric analysis of variance (ANOVA)on AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax; geometric Confidence Intervals for AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax|Slope|102.53||||||90.0|99.71|105.44|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||105.44|99.71|
91011585|NCT03808298|181906090|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline HR (bpm) at Day 14 24 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.13|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.87|0.87||||||||0.87|-2.87|
91053787|NCT02912650|181990988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.44|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.44|0.60|<0.001
91011586|NCT03808298|181906090|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline HR (bpm) at Day 1 0.5 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.89|1.07||||||||1.07|-0.89|
91053788|NCT02912650|181990988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.35||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.65|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.65|0.06|0.018
91053789|NCT02912650|181990988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.02|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.02|0.42|<0.001
90794674|NCT00835367|181470350|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Parametric analysis of variance (ANOVA)on AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax; geometric Confidence Intervals for AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax|Ratio of Least Squares Means|102.49||||||90.0|99.75|105.3|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||105.30|99.75|
90794675|NCT00835367|181470351|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Parametric analysis of variance (ANOVA)on AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax; geometric Confidence Intervals for AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax|Ratio of Least Squares Means|91.79||||||90.0|84.83|99.32|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||99.32|84.83|
90794676|NCT00835367|181470352|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Parametric analysis of variance (ANOVA)on AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax; geometric Confidence Intervals for AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax|Ratio of Least Squares Means|95.85||||||90.0|92.54|99.27|||||Metabolite presented for informational purposes only.|||99.27|92.54|
90794677|NCT00835367|181470353|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Parametric analysis of variance (ANOVA)on AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax; geometric Confidence Intervals for AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax|Ratio of Least Squares Means|100.28||||||90.0|98.3|102.3|||||Metabolite presented for informational purposes only|||102.30|98.30|
90794678|NCT00835367|181470354|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Parametric analysis of variance (ANOVA)on AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax; geometric Confidence Intervals for AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax|Ratio of Least Squares Means|102.74||||||90.0|100.35|105.19|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||105.19|100.35|
91011587|NCT03808298|181906090|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline HR (bpm) at Day 1 1 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.21|0.86||||||||0.86|-1.21|
91011588|NCT03808298|181906090|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline HR (bpm) at Day 1 2.5 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.71|0.83||||||||0.83|-1.71|
91053790|NCT02912650|181990988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.67||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.09|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.09|0.25|0.002
91053791|NCT02912650|181990988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.72|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.72|-0.12|0.163
91011589|NCT03808298|181906090|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline HR (bpm) at Day 1 4 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.07|1.46||||||||1.46|-1.07|
91011590|NCT03808298|181906090|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline HR (bpm) at Day 1 8 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.5|1.0||||||||1.00|-2.50|
91011591|NCT03808298|181906090|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline HR (bpm) at Day 1 12 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.19|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.22|1.74||||||||1.74|-2.22|
91011592|NCT03808298|181906090|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline HR (bpm) at Day 1 24 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.63|-0.85||||||||-0.85|-3.63|
91053792|NCT02912650|181990988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.37||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.66|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.66|0.07|0.016
91079111|NCT02638051|182043882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||"Applies to Damage of hepatic or renal function"||||>0.05
91079112|NCT02638051|182043882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0215|||||||Chi-squared|||"Applies to Bone marrow depression"||||0.0215
91079113|NCT02638051|182043883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0053|||||||Chi-squared|||"Applies to Better QoL"||||0.0053
91079114|NCT02638051|182043883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0527|||||||Chi-squared|||"Applies to No Change"||||0.0527
91079115|NCT02638051|182043883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||"Applies to Worse QoL"||||>0.05
91079116|NCT01524783|182043907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.67|||Log Rank|||||0.67|0.35|<0.001
90794679|NCT00835367|181470355|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Parametric analysis of variance (ANOVA)on AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax; geometric Confidence Intervals for AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax|Ratio of Least Squares Means|102.72||||||90.0|100.3|105.2|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||105.20|100.30|
90794680|NCT00835367|181470356|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Parametric analysis of variance (ANOVA)on AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax; geometric Confidence Intervals for AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax|Ratio of Least Squares Means|100.28||||||90.0|98.25|102.35|||||Metabolite presented for informational purposes only.|||102.35|98.25|
90794681|NCT03396445|181470365|OTHER||Difference in Percent|6.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.2|32.8|||||Comparison based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in percentage of participants who experienced a CR or PR (Arm 2b Boserolimab 30 mg Q3W + Pembrolizumab 200 mg Q3W \[Endometrial\] - Arm 1a Boserolimab 30 mg Q3W \[Endometrial\])||32.8|-21.2|
90794682|NCT03396445|181470365|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.1|17.2|||||Comparison based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in percentage of participants who experienced a CR or PR (Arm 2c Boserolimab 30 mg Q6W + Pembrolizumab 400 mg Q6W \[Endometrial\] - Arm 1a Boserolimab 30 mg \[Endometrial\])||17.2|-32.1|
90794683|NCT03396445|181470365|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|13.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|38.4|||||Comparison based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in percentage of participants who experienced a CR or PR (Arm 2b Boserolimab 30 mg Q3W + Pembrolizumab 200 mg Q3W \[Endometrial\] - Arm 2c Boserolimab 30 mg Q6W + Pembrolizumab 400 mg Q6W \[Endometrial\])||38.4|-11.7|
90794684|NCT02964377|181470370|EQUIVALENCE|Difference in trough vs. peak values was evaluated using a paired t-test analysis.||||||0.0482|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0482
90794685|NCT02964377|181470370|EQUIVALENCE|Difference in trough vs. peak values was evaluated using a paired t-test analysis.||||||0.0075|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0075
90794686|NCT02964377|181470370|EQUIVALENCE|Difference in trough vs. peak values was evaluated using a paired t-test analysis.||||||0.0083|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0083
90794687|NCT02964377|181470371|EQUIVALENCE|Difference in trough vs. peak values was evaluated using a paired t-test analysis.||||||0.0127|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0127
90794688|NCT02964377|181470371|EQUIVALENCE|Difference in trough vs. peak values was evaluated using a paired t-test analysis.||||||0.0202|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0202
90794689|NCT02964377|181470371|EQUIVALENCE|Difference in trough vs. peak values was evaluated using a paired t-test analysis.||||||0.0007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0007
90794690|NCT02964377|181470372|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression|||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 4 (Cohort 1)||||<0.0001
90794691|NCT02964377|181470372|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression|||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 4 (Cohort 2)||||<0.0001
90794692|NCT02964377|181470372|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression|||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 4 (Cohort 3)||||<0.0001
90794693|NCT02964377|181470372|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression|||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 8 (Cohort 1)||||<0.0001
90794694|NCT02964377|181470372|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression|||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 8 (Cohort 2)||||<0.0001
90794695|NCT02964377|181470372|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression|||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 8 (Cohort 3)||||<0.0001
90794696|NCT02964377|181470375|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression||||||0.002|||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 4||||0.002
90794697|NCT02964377|181470375|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression|||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 4||||<0.001
90794698|NCT02964377|181470375|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression|||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 4||||<0.0001
90794699|NCT02964377|181470375|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression|||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 8||||<0.0001
90794700|NCT02964377|181470375|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression|||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 8||||<0.0001
90794701|NCT02964377|181470375|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression|||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 8||||<0.0001
90794702|NCT02964377|181470376|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression|||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 4||||<0.0001
90794703|NCT02964377|181470376|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression|||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 4||||<0.0001
90794704|NCT02964377|181470376|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression|||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 4||||<0.0001
90794705|NCT02964377|181470376|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression|||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 8||||<0.0001
90794706|NCT02964377|181470376|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression|||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 8||||<0.0001
90794707|NCT02964377|181470376|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression|||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 8||||<0.0001
90794708|NCT02964377|181470377|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression|||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 4||||<0.0001
90794709|NCT02964377|181470377|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression|||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 4||||<0.0001
90794710|NCT02964377|181470377|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression|||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 4||||<0.0001
90794711|NCT02964377|181470377|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression|||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 8||||<0.0001
90794712|NCT02964377|181470377|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression|||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 8||||<0.0001
90794713|NCT02964377|181470377|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression|||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 8||||<0.0001
90794714|NCT02964377|181470378|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression||||||0.012|||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 4||||0.012
90794715|NCT02964377|181470378|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression|||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 4||||<0.0001
90794716|NCT02964377|181470378|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression|||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 4||||<0.0001
90794717|NCT02964377|181470378|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression||||||0.01|||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 8||||0.01
90794718|NCT02964377|181470378|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression|||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 8||||<0.0001
91011593|NCT03808298|181906090|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline HR (bpm) at Day 14 0.75 Hours Pre-dose|LS Mean|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.42|1.03||||||||1.03|-2.42|
91011594|NCT03808298|181906090|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline Day 14 HR (bpm) at 0.5 Hours Pre-dose|LS Mean|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.96|0.49||||||||0.49|-2.96|
91011595|NCT03808298|181906090|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline HR (bpm) at Day 14 0.25 Hours Pre-dose|LS Mean|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.58|1.02||||||||1.02|-2.58|
90794719|NCT02964377|181470378|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression|||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 8||||<0.0001
90794720|NCT02964377|181470380|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression||||||0.01|||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 4||||0.01
90794721|NCT02964377|181470380|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression||||||0.019|||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 4||||0.019
90794722|NCT02964377|181470380|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression|||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 8||||<0.001
90794723|NCT02964377|181470380|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression||||||0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 8||||0.05
90794724|NCT02964377|181470381|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression||||||0.054||||||p-value for difference at Week 4|Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 8||||0.054
90794725|NCT02964377|181470381|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression||||||0.009|||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 4||||0.009
90794726|NCT02964377|181470382|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression||||||0.025|||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 8||||0.025
90794727|NCT02964377|181470382|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression||||||0.026|||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 4||||0.026
90794728|NCT02964377|181470383|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression||||||0.006|||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 4||||0.006
90794729|NCT02964377|181470383|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression||||||0.002|||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 8||||0.002
91011596|NCT03808298|181906090|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline HR (bpm) at Day 14 0.5 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.34|0.95||||||||0.95|-2.34|
91011597|NCT03808298|181906090|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline HR (bpm) at Day 14 1 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.65|0.73||||||||0.73|-2.65|
91011598|NCT03808298|181906090|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline HR (bpm) at Day 14 2.5 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.11|0.53||||||||0.53|-3.11|
90794730|NCT02541591|181470391|SUPERIORITY||Median ratio of final values|1.37||||0.0881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.98|||ANOVA|due to non normality of the residuals the data were log-transformed prior to the anova|the estimated mean difference obtained using the anova on the log-transformed data was back transformed thus yielding a ratio of median values|missing data were accounted for by multiple imputation||1.98|0.95|0.0881
90794731|NCT00123630|181470401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
90794732|NCT01098747|181470410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-square (LS) mean difference|24.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.32|29.09||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms.|ANOVA|||Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI):based on LS means from analysis of variance(ANOVA). Type I error controlled at 5% significance level (2-sided) by testing primary endpoints sequentially: Ibuprofen sodium (IBU Na) versus(vs.) Placebo for SPRID 0-8 then time to meaningful relief(TMR), IBU Na vs. IBU (Advil and Motrin IB) for TMR. If comparison at preceding step was significant only then subsequent comparisons were significant.||29.09|19.32|<0.001
90794733|NCT01098747|181470411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|12.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.78|24.15||p-value was calculated using the PH model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms.|Proportional hazards model|||Hazard Ratio (HR) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the proportional hazards (PH) model. Type I error controlled at 5% significance level (2-sided) by testing primary endpoints sequentially: IBU Na vs. Placebo for SPRID 0-8 then TMR, IBU Na vs. IBU (Advil and Motrin IB) for TMR. If comparison at preceding step was significant only then subsequent comparisons were significant.||24.15|6.78|<0.001
90794734|NCT01098747|181470411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|2.06||p-value was calculated using the PH model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms.|Proportional hazards model|||HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model. Type I error controlled at 5% significance level (2-sided) by testing primary endpoints sequentially: IBU Na vs. Placebo for SPRID 0-8 then TMR, IBU Na vs. IBU (Advil and Motrin IB) for TMR. If comparison at preceding step was significant only then subsequent comparisons were significant.||2.06|1.22|<0.001
90794735|NCT01098747|181470412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|12.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.51|23.46||p-value was calculated using the PH model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Proportional hazards model|||HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model.||23.46|6.51|<0.001
91011599|NCT03808298|181906090|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline HR (bpm) at Day 14 4 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.73|0.66||||||||0.66|-2.73|
91011600|NCT03808298|181906090|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline HR (bpm) at Day 14 8 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.77|1.37||||||||1.37|-2.77|
91011601|NCT03808298|181906090|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline HR (bpm) at Day 14 12 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.5|1.33||||||||1.33|-2.50|
91011602|NCT03808298|181906090|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline HR (bpm) at Day 14 24 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.57|0.2||||||||0.20|-3.57|
91011603|NCT03808298|181906091|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline PR (ms) at Day 1 0.5 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.56|0.17||||||||0.17|-2.56|
91011604|NCT03808298|181906091|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline PR (ms) at Day 1 1 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.62|1.55||||||||1.55|-1.62|
91011605|NCT03808298|181906091|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline PR (ms) at Day 1 2.5 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.22|2.09||||||||2.09|-1.22|
91011606|NCT03808298|181906091|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline PR (ms) at Day 1 4 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.04|1.33||||||||1.33|-2.04|
91011607|NCT03808298|181906091|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline PR (ms) at Day 1 8 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.31|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|3.33||||||||3.33|-1.00|
91011608|NCT03808298|181906091|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline PR (ms) at Day 1 12 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.56|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.3|2.88||||||||2.88|-2.30|
91011609|NCT03808298|181906091|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline PR (ms) at Day 1 24 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.0|0.81||||||||0.81|-3.00|
90794736|NCT01098747|181470412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|2.34||p-value was calculated using the PH model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Proportional hazards model|||HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model.||2.34|1.38|<0.001
90794737|NCT01098747|181470413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.35||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.6||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||0.25 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS mean from the ANOVA model.||0.60|0.10|0.007
90794738|NCT01098747|181470413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.24||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.42||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||0.25 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS mean from the ANOVA model.||0.42|0.06|0.010
90794739|NCT01098747|181470413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.84||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95 % CI were calculated based on LS mean from the ANOVA model.||1.84|1.10|<0.001
90794740|NCT01098747|181470413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.8||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS mean from the ANOVA model.||0.80|0.27|<0.001
90794741|NCT01098747|181470413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.84|2.6||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS mean from the ANOVA model.||2.60|1.84|<0.001
90794742|NCT01098747|181470413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.39||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.66||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS mean from the ANOVA model.||0.66|0.12|0.006
90794743|NCT01098747|181470413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|2.77||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS mean from the ANOVA model.||2.77|2.00|<0.001
90794744|NCT01098747|181470413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.33||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.6||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS mean from the ANOVA model.||0.60|0.05|0.022
90794745|NCT01098747|181470413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|2.79||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS mean from the ANOVA model.||2.79|2.00|<0.001
90794746|NCT01098747|181470413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.13||||0.369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.41||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||2 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS mean from the ANOVA model.||0.41|-0.15|0.369
90794747|NCT01098747|181470413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|2.6||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS mean from the ANOVA model.||2.60|1.78|<0.001
90794748|NCT01098747|181470413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.12||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.17||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||3 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS mean from the ANOVA model.||0.17|-0.42|0.420
90794749|NCT01098747|181470413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|2.45||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS mean from the ANOVA model.||2.45|1.58|<0.001
90794750|NCT01098747|181470413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.23||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.08||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||4 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS mean from the ANOVA model.||0.08|-0.54|0.151
90794751|NCT01098747|181470413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|2.33||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS mean from the ANOVA model.||2.33|1.43|<0.001
91011610|NCT03808298|181906091|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline PR (ms) at Day 14 0.75 Hours Pre-dose|LS Mean|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.64|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.08|3.35||||||||3.35|-2.08|
91011611|NCT03808298|181906091|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline PR (ms) at Day 14 0.5 Hours Pre-dose|LS Mean|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.69|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.48|3.12||||||||3.12|-2.48|
90794752|NCT01098747|181470413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.23||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.09||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||5 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS mean from the ANOVA model.||0.09|-0.56|0.160
90794753|NCT01098747|181470413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|2.1||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS mean from the ANOVA model.||2.10|1.16|<0.001
90794754|NCT01098747|181470413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.33||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.01||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||6 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS mean from the ANOVA model.||0.01|-0.67|0.055
90794755|NCT01098747|181470413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.88||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||7 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS mean from the ANOVA model.||1.88|0.91|<0.001
90794756|NCT01098747|181470413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.37||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.02||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||7 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS mean from the ANOVA model.||-0.02|-0.71|0.040
91011612|NCT03808298|181906091|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline PR (ms) at Day 14 0.25 Hours Pre-dose|LS Mean|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.69|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.55|3.06||||||||3.06|-2.55|
91053793|NCT02912650|181990988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.68||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.1|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.10|0.26|0.002
90794757|NCT01098747|181470413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.69||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS mean from the ANOVA model.||1.69|0.71|<0.001
90794758|NCT01098747|181470413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.44||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.08||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||8 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS mean from the ANOVA model.||-0.08|-0.79|0.015
90794759|NCT01098747|181470414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.46||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||0.25 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.46|0.13|<0.001
90794760|NCT01098747|181470414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.34||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||0.25 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.34|0.11|<0.001
90794761|NCT01098747|181470414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.19||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.19|0.70|<0.001
90794762|NCT01098747|181470414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.55||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.55|0.20|<0.001
90794763|NCT01098747|181470414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|1.75||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.75|1.18|<0.001
90794764|NCT01098747|181470414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.25||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.45||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.45|0.04|0.017
91011613|NCT03808298|181906091|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline PR (ms) at Day 14 0.5 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.17|3.12||||||||3.12|-3.17|
91011614|NCT03808298|181906091|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline PR (ms) at Day 14 1 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.77|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.47|3.37||||||||3.37|-2.47|
91011615|NCT03808298|181906091|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline PR (ms) at Day 14 2.5 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.74|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.42|2.34||||||||2.34|-3.42|
91011616|NCT03808298|181906091|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline PR (ms) at Day 14 4 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.71|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.54|2.12||||||||2.12|-3.54|
91053794|NCT02912650|181990988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.4|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.40|-0.19|0.496
90794765|NCT01098747|181470414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|1.96||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.96|1.39|<0.001
90794766|NCT01098747|181470414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.25||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.46||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.46|0.05|0.015
90794767|NCT01098747|181470414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|1.98||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.98|1.41|<0.001
90794768|NCT01098747|181470414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.09||||0.362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.3||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||2 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.30|-0.11|0.362
90794769|NCT01098747|181470414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|1.86||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.86|1.27|<0.001
90794770|NCT01098747|181470414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.08||||0.472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.14||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||3 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.14|-0.29|0.472
90794771|NCT01098747|181470414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.7||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.70|1.07|<0.001
90794772|NCT01098747|181470414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.17||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.05||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||4 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.05|-0.40|0.134
90794773|NCT01098747|181470414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.63||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.63|1.00|<0.001
90794774|NCT01098747|181470414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.17||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.05||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||5 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.05|-0.40|0.135
90794775|NCT01098747|181470414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.5||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.50|0.84|<0.001
90794776|NCT01098747|181470414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.25||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|-0.02||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||6 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||-0.02|-0.49|0.036
90794777|NCT01098747|181470414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.26||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||7 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.26|0.61|<0.001
90794778|NCT01098747|181470414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.22||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.01||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||7 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.01|-0.46|0.064
90794779|NCT01098747|181470414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.18||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.18|0.52|<0.001
90794780|NCT01098747|181470414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.22||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.02||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||8 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.02|-0.46|0.074
91011617|NCT03808298|181906091|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline PR (ms) at Day 14 8 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.57|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.31|1.88||||||||1.88|-3.31|
91079117|NCT01524783|182043908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.24|||Log Rank|||||1.24|0.66|0.259
90794781|NCT01098747|181470415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.65||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.04||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||0.25 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.04|0.26|0.001
90794782|NCT01098747|181470415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.46||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.75||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||0.25 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.75|0.18|0.001
90794783|NCT01098747|181470415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.82|3.01||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||3.01|1.82|<0.001
90794784|NCT01098747|181470415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.34||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.34|0.48|<0.001
90794785|NCT01098747|181470415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|3.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.03|4.33||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||4.33|3.03|<0.001
90794786|NCT01098747|181470415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.64||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.11||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.11|0.17|0.008
90794787|NCT01098747|181470415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|4.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|4.72||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||4.72|3.40|<0.001
90794788|NCT01098747|181470415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.58||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.06||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.06|0.10|0.017
90794789|NCT01098747|181470415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|4.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.42|4.75||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||4.75|3.42|<0.001
90794790|NCT01098747|181470415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.22||||0.359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.7||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||2 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.70|-0.26|0.359
90794791|NCT01098747|181470415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|3.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.06|4.45||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||4.45|3.06|<0.001
90794792|NCT01098747|181470415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.2||||0.436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.3||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||3 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.30|-0.70|0.436
90794793|NCT01098747|181470415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|3.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.66|4.14||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||4.14|2.66|<0.001
90794794|NCT01098747|181470415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.4||||0.139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.13||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||4 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.13|-0.93|0.139
90794795|NCT01098747|181470415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|3.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.44|3.95||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||3.95|2.44|<0.001
90794796|NCT01098747|181470415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.41||||0.144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.14||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||5 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.14|-0.95|0.144
91011618|NCT03808298|181906091|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline PR (ms) at Day 14 12 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.21|4.09||||||||4.09|-1.21|
90794797|NCT01098747|181470415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.01|3.58||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||3.58|2.01|<0.001
90794798|NCT01098747|181470415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.58||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|-0.02||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||6 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||-0.02|-1.15|0.043
90794799|NCT01098747|181470415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|3.12||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||7 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||3.12|1.53|<0.001
90794800|NCT01098747|181470415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.59||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|-0.02||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||7 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||-0.02|-1.16|0.044
90794801|NCT01098747|181470415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|2.85||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||2.85|1.25|<0.001
90794802|NCT01098747|181470415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.65||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|-0.08||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||8 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||-0.08|-1.23|0.027
90794803|NCT01098747|181470416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.27|3.18||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPID 0-2: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||3.18|2.27|<0.001
90794804|NCT01098747|181470416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.45||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.78||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPID 0-2: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.78|0.12|0.007
90794805|NCT01098747|181470416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|4.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.6|4.98||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPID 0-3: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||4.98|3.60|<0.001
90794806|NCT01098747|181470416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.37||||0.144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.87||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPID 0-3: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.87|-0.13|0.144
90794807|NCT01098747|181470416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|8.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.66|9.66||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPID 0-6: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||9.66|6.66|<0.001
90794808|NCT01098747|181470416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.23||||0.679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|0.85||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPID 0-6: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.85|-1.31|0.679
90794809|NCT01098747|181470416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|9.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.92|11.96||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPID 0-8: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||11.96|7.92|<0.001
90794810|NCT01098747|181470416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.67||||0.367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|0.79||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPID 0-8: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.79|-2.12|0.367
90794811|NCT01098747|181470417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|3.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.32|4.59||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 0-2: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||4.59|3.32|< 0.001
90794812|NCT01098747|181470417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.62||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.07||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 0-2: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.07|0.16|0.009
91011619|NCT03808298|181906091|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline PR (ms) at Day 14 24 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.9|2.49||||||||2.49|-2.90|
90794813|NCT01098747|181470417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|6.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.18|7.12||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 0-3: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||7.12|5.18|<0.001
90794814|NCT01098747|181470417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.49||||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|1.2||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 0-3: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.20|-0.21|0.166
90794815|NCT01098747|181470417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|11.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.54|13.81||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 0-6: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||13.81|9.54|<0.001
90794816|NCT01098747|181470417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.3||||0.703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|1.24||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 0-6: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.24|-1.84|0.703
90794817|NCT01098747|181470417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|14.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.36|17.18||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 0-8: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||17.18|11.36|<0.001
90794818|NCT01098747|181470417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.1||||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|1.0||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 0-8: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.00|-3.20|0.303
90794819|NCT01098747|181470418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|6.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.6|7.76||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPRID 0-2: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS mean from the ANOVA model.||7.76|5.60|<0.001
90794820|NCT01098747|181470418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.06||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.84||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPRID 0-2: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS mean from the ANOVA model.||1.84|0.29|0.007
90794821|NCT01098747|181470418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|10.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.79|12.08||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPRID 0-3: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS mean from the ANOVA model.||12.08|8.79|<0.001
90794822|NCT01098747|181470418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.87||||0.152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|2.05||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPRID 0-3: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS mean from the ANOVA model.||2.05|-0.32|0.152
90794823|NCT01098747|181470418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|19.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.23|23.43||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPRID 0-6: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS mean from the ANOVA model.||23.43|16.23|<0.001
90794824|NCT01098747|181470418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.53||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.12|2.07||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPRID 0-6: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS mean from the ANOVA model.||2.07|-3.12|0.690
91053795|NCT02912650|181990988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.46||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.76|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.76|0.16|0.003
90794825|NCT01098747|181470418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.77||||0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.29|1.75||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPRID 0-8 Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS mean from the ANOVA model.||1.75|-5.29|0.323
90794826|NCT01098747|181470419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|1.01||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|3.0||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.25 hours-Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||3.00|-0.97|0.490
90794827|NCT01098747|181470419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|0.54||||0.623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|2.95||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.25 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||2.95|-1.88|0.623
91053796|NCT02912650|181990988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.57||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.0|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.00|0.15|0.008
90794828|NCT01098747|181470419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|24.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.51|35.22||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||35.22|13.51|<0.001
90794829|NCT01098747|181470419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|11.82||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|22.48||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||22.48|1.15|0.023
90794830|NCT01098747|181470419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|61.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.99|73.7||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||73.70|48.99|<0.001
90794831|NCT01098747|181470419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|21.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.58|32.92||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||32.92|9.58|<0.001
90794832|NCT01098747|181470419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|72.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.59|83.71||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||83.71|61.59|<0.001
90794833|NCT01098747|181470419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|17.44||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.83|27.06||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||27.06|7.83|0.001
90794834|NCT01098747|181470419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|72.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.14|84.11||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||84.11|61.14|<0.001
90794835|NCT01098747|181470419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|11.7||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.47|19.93||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||19.93|3.47|0.013
90794836|NCT01098747|181470419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|73.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.83|85.33||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||85.33|61.83|<0.001
90794837|NCT01098747|181470419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|8.01||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|14.75||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||14.75|1.27|0.041
90794838|NCT01098747|181470419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|73.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.83|85.33||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||85.33|61.83|<0.001
90794839|NCT01098747|181470419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|6.79||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|13.36||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||13.36|0.23|0.073
90794840|NCT01098747|181470419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|73.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.83|85.33||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||85.33|61.83|<0.001
90794841|NCT01098747|181470419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|6.79||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|13.36||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||13.36|0.23|0.073
91011620|NCT03808298|181906091|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline PR (ms) at Day 1 0.5 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.0|0.77||||||||0.77|-2.00|
91011621|NCT03808298|181906091|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline PR (ms) at Day 1 1 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.71|1.5||||||||1.50|-1.71|
90794842|NCT01098747|181470419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|73.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.83|85.33||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||85.33|61.83|<0.001
90794843|NCT01098747|181470419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|6.79||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|13.36||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||13.36|0.23|0.073
90794844|NCT01098747|181470419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|74.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.14|86.27||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||86.27|63.14|<0.001
90794845|NCT01098747|181470419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|7.84||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|14.1||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||14.10|1.57|0.035
90794846|NCT01098747|181470419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|72.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.05|84.17||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||84.17|61.05|<0.001
90794847|NCT01098747|181470419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|7.28||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|13.48||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||13.48|1.07|0.047
90794848|NCT01098747|181470420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|20.01||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.79|31.24||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.25 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||31.24|8.79|0.004
90794849|NCT01098747|181470420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|14.35||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.26|24.43||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.25 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||24.43|4.26|0.003
90794850|NCT01098747|181470420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|69.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.67|81.4||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||81.40|57.67|<0.001
90794851|NCT01098747|181470420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|23.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.16|33.75||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||33.75|13.16|<0.001
90794852|NCT01098747|181470420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|73.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.77|84.67||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||84.67|62.77|<0.001
90794853|NCT01098747|181470420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|10.14||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.21|17.08||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||17.08|3.21|0.014
90794854|NCT01098747|181470420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|72.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.05|84.17||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||84.17|61.05|<0.001
91011622|NCT03808298|181906091|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline PR (ms) at Day 1 2.5 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02||||90.0|-1.64|1.73||||||||1.73|-1.64|
91011623|NCT03808298|181906091|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline PR (ms) at Day 1 4 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.39|1.02||||||||1.02|-2.39|
91011624|NCT03808298|181906091|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline PR (ms) at Day 1 8 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.33|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.26|3.13||||||||3.13|-1.26|
91011625|NCT03808298|181906091|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline PR (ms) at Day 1 12 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.59||||90.0|-3.92|1.35||||||||1.35|-3.92|
90794855|NCT01098747|181470420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|8.35||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|14.68||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||14.68|2.02|0.028
90794856|NCT01098747|181470420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|72.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.05|84.17||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||84.17|61.05|<0.001
90794857|NCT01098747|181470420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|7.81||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|14.08||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||14.08|1.54|0.036
90794858|NCT01098747|181470420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|72.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.05|84.17||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||84.17|61.05|<0.001
90794859|NCT01098747|181470420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|7.28||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|13.48||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||13.48|1.07|0.047
90794860|NCT01098747|181470420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|72.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.05|84.17||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||84.17|61.05|<0.001
90794861|NCT01098747|181470420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|7.28||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|13.48||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||13.48|1.07|0.047
91053797|NCT02912650|181990988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.22||||0.315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.64|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.64|-0.21|0.315
90794862|NCT01098747|181470420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|72.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.05|84.17||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||84.17|61.05|<0.001
90794863|NCT01098747|181470420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|7.28||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|13.48||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||13.48|1.07|0.047
90794864|NCT01098747|181470420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|72.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.05|84.17||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||84.17|61.05|<0.001
90794865|NCT01098747|181470420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|7.28||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|13.48||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||13.48|1.07|0.047
90794866|NCT01098747|181470420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|72.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.05|84.17||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||84.17|61.05|<0.001
90794867|NCT01098747|181470420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|7.28||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|13.48||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||13.48|1.07|0.047
91053798|NCT02912650|181990988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.36||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.66|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.66|0.06|0.019
91053799|NCT02912650|181990988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.45||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.87|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.87|0.02|0.038
90794868|NCT01098747|181470420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|72.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.05|84.17||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||84.17|61.05|<0.001
90794869|NCT01098747|181470420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|7.28||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|13.48||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||13.48|1.07|0.047
90794870|NCT01098747|181470421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.22||p-value was calculated using PH model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Proportional hazards model|||HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model.||0.22|0.08|<0.001
90794871|NCT01098747|181470421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.33||||0.281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.22||p-value was calculated using PH model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Proportional hazards model|||HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model.||2.22|0.79|0.281
90794872|NCT01098747|181470422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-23.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.67|-11.2||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-11.20|-36.67|<0.001
90794873|NCT01098747|181470422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-1.21||||0.483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.12|1.7||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||1.70|-4.12|0.483
90794874|NCT01098747|181470422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-51.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.63|-38.22||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-38.22|-65.63|<0.001
90794875|NCT01098747|181470422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-3.61||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.97|0.75||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||0.75|-7.97|0.174
90794876|NCT01098747|181470422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-66.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-79.8|-53.35||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-53.35|-79.80|<0.001
90794877|NCT01098747|181470422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-3.75||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.38|1.89||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||1.89|-9.38|0.240
90794878|NCT01098747|181470422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-61.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.21|-47.5||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-47.50|-75.21|<0.001
90794879|NCT01098747|181470422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|1.52||||0.668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.47|8.52||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||8.52|-5.47|0.668
90794880|NCT01098747|181470422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-60.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.28|-46.34||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-46.34|-74.28|<0.001
90794881|NCT01098747|181470422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|1.1||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.44|7.63||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||7.63|-7.44|0.980
90794882|NCT01098747|181470422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-59.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.05|-45.5||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-45.50|-73.05|<0.001
90794883|NCT01098747|181470422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|1.56||||0.711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.68|9.81||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||9.81|-6.68|0.711
90794884|NCT01098747|181470422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-56.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.84|-42.85||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-42.85|-70.84|<0.001
90794885|NCT01098747|181470422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|3.72||||0.445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.94|13.38||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||13.38|-5.94|0.445
90794886|NCT01098747|181470422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-52.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.77|-38.81||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-38.81|-66.77|<0.001
90794887|NCT01098747|181470422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|6.05||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.75|16.84||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||16.84|-4.75|0.256
90794888|NCT01098747|181470423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|6.34||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|11.34||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||11.34|1.34|0.078
90794889|NCT01098747|181470423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|2.74||||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.01|8.49||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||8.49|-3.01|0.303
90794890|NCT01098747|181470423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|27.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.14|36.34||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||36.34|18.14|<0.001
90794891|NCT01098747|181470423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|6.66||||0.217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.31|17.63||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||17.63|-4.31|0.217
90794892|NCT01098747|181470423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|41.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.2|51.12||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||51.12|31.20|<0.001
90794893|NCT01098747|181470423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|8.86||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.33|21.04||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||21.04|-3.33|0.149
90794894|NCT01098747|181470423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|48.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.49|58.73||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||58.73|38.49|<0.001
90794895|NCT01098747|181470423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|4.55||||0.477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.03|17.13||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||17.13|-8.03|0.477
90794896|NCT01098747|181470423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|52.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.63|62.99||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||62.99|42.63|<0.001
91011626|NCT03808298|181906091|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline PR (ms) at Day 1 24 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.96|1.89||||||||1.89|-1.96|
91011627|NCT03808298|181906091|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline PR (ms) at Day 14 0.75 Hours Pre-dose|LS Mean|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.65|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.34|4.13||||||||4.13|-1.34|
90794897|NCT01098747|181470423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-2.14||||0.739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.77|10.5||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||10.50|-14.77|0.739
90794898|NCT01098747|181470423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|48.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.29|60.77||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||60.77|36.29|<0.001
90794899|NCT01098747|181470423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-6.8||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.24|5.65||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||5.65|-19.24|0.280
90794900|NCT01098747|181470423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|48.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.29|60.77||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||60.77|36.29|<0.001
90794901|NCT01098747|181470423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-8.01||||0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.44|4.41||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||4.41|-20.44|0.202
90794902|NCT01098747|181470423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|48.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.29|60.77||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||60.77|36.29|<0.001
91011628|NCT03808298|181906091|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline PR (ms) at Day 14 0.5 Hours Pre-dose|LS Mean|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.71|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.61|4.05||||||||4.05|-1.61|
91053800|NCT02912650|181990988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.02||||0.918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.31|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.31|-0.28|0.918
91053801|NCT02912650|181990988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.25||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.55|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.55|-0.05|0.105
90794903|NCT01098747|181470423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-8.61||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.02|3.8||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||3.80|-21.02|0.170
90794904|NCT01098747|181470423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|48.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.29|60.77||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||60.77|36.29|<0.001
90794905|NCT01098747|181470423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-9.23||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.62|3.16||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||3.16|-21.62|0.140
90794906|NCT01098747|181470423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|48.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.29|60.77||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||60.77|36.29|<0.001
90794907|NCT01098747|181470423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-9.23||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.62|3.16||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||3.16|-21.62|0.140
91011629|NCT03808298|181906091|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline PR (ms) at Day 14 0.25 Hours Pre-dose|LS Mean|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.71|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.32|4.35||||||||4.35|-1.32|
91011630|NCT03808298|181906091|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline PR (ms) at Day 14 0.5 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.92|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.38|2.97||||||||2.97|-3.38|
91011631|NCT03808298|181906091|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline PR (ms) at Day 14 1 Hours Pre-dose|LS Mean|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.78||||90.0|-3.48|2.42||||||||2.42|-3.48|
91053802|NCT02912650|181990988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.43||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.85|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.85|0.01|0.045
91053803|NCT02912650|181990988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.62|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.62|-0.22|0.355
90794908|NCT01098747|181470424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|0.98||p-value was calculated using CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and the associated CI were calculated based on the weighted Gamma statistic.||0.98|0.83|<0.001
90794909|NCT01098747|181470424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.04||||0.667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.24||p-value was calculated using the PH model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Proportional hazards model|||HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model.||0.24|-0.15|0.667
90794910|NCT00600340|181470436|NON_INFERIORITY|"Null hypothesis: Hazard Ratio (HR) \>= 1.33~Based on Cox proportional hazards model adjusted by stratification factors at randomization:~1. estrogen and/or progesterone status (positive vs. other)~2. country~3. menopausal status (premenopausal or male \<=50 years of age vs. postmenopausal or male \>50 years of age)"|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.042||||0.1983|ONE_SIDED|97.5||1.689||Based on approach using repeated confidence intervals, with one-sided 97.5% repeated confidence intervals|Regression, Cox||HR is the hazard rate of Bevacizumab plus Capecitabine divided by hazard rate of Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel.|HR of Bevacizumab plus Capecitabine vs. Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel for OS (interim, stratified).||1.689||0.1983
90794911|NCT00600340|181470436|NON_INFERIORITY|"Null hypothesis: Hazard Ratio (HR) \>= 1.33~Based on Cox proportional hazards model adjusted by stratification factors at randomization:~1. estrogen and/or progesterone status (positive vs. other)~2. country~3. menopausal status (premenopausal or male \<=50 years of age vs. postmenopausal or male \>50 years of age)"|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.018||||0.007|ONE_SIDED|97.5||1.261||Based on approach using repeated confidence intervals, with one-sided 97.5% repeated confidence intervals. Non-inferiority margin was a HR of 1.33.|Regression, Cox||HR is the hazard rate of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine divided by hazard rate of Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel.|HR of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine vs. Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel for OS (final, stratified).||1.261||0.0070
90794912|NCT00600340|181470436|NON_INFERIORITY|Null hypothesis: Hazard Ratio (HR) \>= 1.33 Based on Cox proportional hazards model.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.058||||0.2024|ONE_SIDED|97.5||1.674||Based on approach using repeated confidence intervals, with one-sided 97.5% repeated confidence intervals. Non-inferiority margin was a HR of 1.33.|Regression, Cox||HR is the hazard rate of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine divided by hazard rate of Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel.|HR of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine vs. Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel for OS (interim, unstratified).||1.674||0.2024
90794913|NCT00600340|181470436|NON_INFERIORITY|Null hypothesis: Hazard Ratio (HR) \>= 1.33 Based on Cox proportional hazards model.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.134||||0.0612|ONE_SIDED|97.5||1.386||Based on approach using repeated confidence intervals, with one-sided 97.5% repeated confidence intervals. Non-inferiority margin was a HR of 1.33.|Regression, Cox||HR is the hazard rate of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine divided by hazard rate of Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel.|HR of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine vs. Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel for OS (final, unstratified).||1.386||0.0612
90794914|NCT00600340|181470437|NON_INFERIORITY|"Null hypothesis: Hazard ratio (HR) \>= 1.33~Based on Cox proportional hazards model adjusted by stratification factors at randomization:~1. estrogen and/or progesterone status (positive vs. other)~2. country~3. menopausal status (premenopausal or male \<=50 years of age vs. postmenopausal or male \>50 years of age)"|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.027||||0.1534|ONE_SIDED|97.5||1.606||Based on approach using repeated confidence intervals, with one-sided 97.5% repeated confidence intervals|Regression, Cox||HR is the hazard rate of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine divided by hazard rate of Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel.|HR of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine vs. Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel for OS (interim, stratified).||1.606||0.1534
90794915|NCT00600340|181470437|NON_INFERIORITY|"Null hypothesis: Hazard ratio (HR) \>= 1.33~Based on Cox proportional hazards model adjusted by stratification factors at randomization:~1. estrogen and/or progesterone status (positive vs. other)~2. country~3. menopausal status (premenopausal or male \<=50 years of age vs. postmenopausal or male \>50 years of age)"|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.035||||0.0085|ONE_SIDED|97.5||1.273||Based on approach using repeated confidence intervals, with one-sided 97.5% repeated confidence intervals|Regression, Cox||HR is the hazard rate of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine divided by hazard rate of Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel.|HR of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine vs. Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel for OS (final, stratified).||1.273||0.0085
90794916|NCT00600340|181470437|NON_INFERIORITY|Null hypothesis: Hazard Ratio (HR) \>= 1.33 Based on Cox proportional hazards model.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.058||||0.1778|ONE_SIDED|97.5||1.623||Based on approach using repeated confidence intervals, with one-sided 97.5% repeated confidence intervals|Regression, Cox||HR is the hazard rate of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine divided by hazard rate of Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel.|HR of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine vs. Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel for OS (interim, unstratified).||1.623||0.1778
90794917|NCT00600340|181470437|NON_INFERIORITY|Null hypothesis: Hazard Ratio (HR) \>= 1.33 Based on Cox proportional hazards model.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.126||||0.049|ONE_SIDED|97.5||1.37||Based on approach using repeated confidence intervals, with one-sided 97.5% repeated confidence intervals|Regression, Cox||HR is the hazard rate of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine divided by hazard rate of Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel.|HR of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine vs. Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel for OS (final, unstratified).||1.37||0.049
90794918|NCT00600340|181470443|SUPERIORITY|OR is the odds for objective response of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine divided by the odds for objective response of Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.67||"Test adjusted by stratification factors at randomization:~1. estrogen and/or progesterone status (positive vs. other)~2. country~3. menopausal status (premenopausal or male \<=50 years of age vs. postmenopausal or male \>50 years of age"|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||OR is the odds for objective response of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine divided by the odds for objective response of Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel|Odds Ratio (OR) of objective response and Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test (stratified)||0.67|0.33|< 0.0001
90794919|NCT00600340|181470443|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-17.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.0|-9.0|||||Difference calculated as ORR in Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine minus ORR in Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel, units in percent.|Difference in ORR in Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine vs. Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel||-9|-24|
90890271|NCT01217073|181644898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-41.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.3|-27.8||With terms for treatment, prior AHA therapy status, geographic region (Japan/ex-Japan), and the interaction of time by treatment, time by prior AHA therapy status, with the constraint that the mean baseline is the same for all treatment groups.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-27.8|-55.3|<0.001
91011632|NCT03808298|181906091|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline PR (ms) at Day 14 2.5 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.76|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.81|4.02||||||||4.02|-1.81|
91011633|NCT03808298|181906091|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline PR (ms) at Day 14 4 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.72|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.67|4.04||||||||4.04|-1.67|
91011634|NCT03808298|181906091|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline PR (ms) at Day 14 8 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.58|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.95|3.29||||||||3.29|-1.95|
91011635|NCT03808298|181906091|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline PR (ms) at Day 14 12 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.62|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6|5.96||||||||5.96|0.60|
91011636|NCT03808298|181906091|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline PR (ms) at Day 14 24 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.64|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.72|4.72||||||||4.72|-0.72|
91011637|NCT03808298|181906092|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QRS (ms) at Day 1 0.5 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.29|0.07||||||||0.07|-0.29|
90794920|NCT00600340|181470443|SUPERIORITY|OR is the odds for disease control of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine divided by the odds for disease control of Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.43||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.7||"Test adjusted by stratification factors at randomization:~1. estrogen and/or progesterone status (positive vs. other)~2. country~3. menopausal status (premenopausal or male \<=50 years of age vs. postmenopausal or male \>50 years of age"|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||OR is the odds for disease control of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine divided by the odds for disease control of Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel|OR of disease control and CMH test (stratified)||0.70|0.27|0.0006
91011638|NCT03808298|181906092|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QRS (ms) at Day 1 1 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.02|0.34||||||||0.34|-0.02|
91011639|NCT03808298|181906092|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline (ms) at QRS Day 1 2.5 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|0.12||||||||0.12|-0.30|
91011640|NCT03808298|181906092|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QRS (ms) at Day 1 4 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.26|0.18||||||||0.18|-0.26|
91011641|NCT03808298|181906092|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QRS (ms) at Day 1 8 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.57|0.38||||||||0.38|-0.57|
91011642|NCT03808298|181906092|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QRS (ms) at Day 1 12 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.65|0.56||||||||0.56|-0.65|
91011643|NCT03808298|181906092|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QRS (ms) at Day 1 24 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||||90.0|-0.11|0.4||||||||0.40|-0.11|
91011644|NCT03808298|181906092|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QRS (ms) at Day 14 0.75 Hours Pre-dose|LS Mean|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.34|0.74||||||||0.74|-0.34|
91011645|NCT03808298|181906092|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QRS (ms) at Day 14 0.5 Hours Pre-dose|LS Mean|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.17|0.91||||||||0.91|-0.17|
91011646|NCT03808298|181906092|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QRS (ms) at Day 14 0.25 Hours Pre-dose|LS Mean|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.04|1.05||||||||1.05|-0.04|
91011647|NCT03808298|181906092|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QRS (ms) at Day 14 0.5 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.26|0.82||||||||0.82|-0.26|
91011648|NCT03808298|181906092|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QRS (ms) at Day 14 1 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|32.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.18|0.9||||||||0.90|-0.18|
91011649|NCT03808298|181906092|OTHER||LS Mean|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.08|1.0||||||Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QRS (ms) at Day 14 2.5 Hours Post-dose||1.00|-0.08|
91011650|NCT03808298|181906092|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QRS (ms) at Day 14 4 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.19|0.94||||||||0.94|-0.19|
91011651|NCT03808298|181906092|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QRS (ms) at Day 14 8 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.33|1.1||||||||1.10|-0.33|
91011652|NCT03808298|181906092|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QRS (ms) at Day 14 12 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|1.06||||||||1.06|-0.50|
91011653|NCT03808298|181906092|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QRS (ms) at Day 14 24 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.06|1.11||||||||1.11|-0.06|
91011654|NCT03808298|181906092|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QRS (ms) at Day 1 0.5 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.25|0.11||||||||0.11|-0.25|
91011655|NCT03808298|181906092|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QRS (ms) at Day 1 1 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.36||||||||0.36|0.00|
91011656|NCT03808298|181906092|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QRS (ms) at Day 1 2.5 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.34|0.09||||||||0.09|-0.34|
91011657|NCT03808298|181906092|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QRS (ms) at Day 1 4 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|0.34||||||||0.34|-0.10|
91011658|NCT03808298|181906092|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QRS (ms) at Day 1 8 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|0.57||||||||0.57|-0.40|
91011659|NCT03808298|181906092|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QRS (ms) at Day 1 12 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.31|0.93||||||||0.93|-0.31|
91011660|NCT03808298|181906092|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QRS (ms) at Day 1 24 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.07|0.58||||||||0.58|0.07|
91011661|NCT03808298|181906092|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QRS (ms) at Day 14 0.75 Hours Pre-dose|LS Mean|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.19|0.9||||||||0.90|-0.19|
91011662|NCT03808298|181906092|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QRS (ms) at Day 14 0.5 Hours Pre-dose|LS Mean|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.11|0.98||||||||0.98|-0.11|
91011663|NCT03808298|181906092|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QRS (ms) at Day 14 0.25 Hours Pre-dose|LS Mean|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.06|1.05||||||||1.05|-0.06|
91011664|NCT03808298|181906092|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QRS (ms) at Day 14 0.5 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.27|0.82||||||||0.82|-0.27|
90794921|NCT00600340|181470443|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|-6.0|||||Difference calculated as the DCR in Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine minus ORR in Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel, units in percent.|Difference in DCR in Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine vs. Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel||-6|-18|
90794922|NCT00600340|181470444|SUPERIORITY|OR is the odds for objective response of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine divided by the odds for objective response of Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.65||"Test adjusted by stratification factors at randomization:~1. estrogen and/or progesterone status (positive vs. other)~2. country~3. menopausal status (premenopausal or male \<=50 years of age vs. postmenopausal or male \>50 years of age"|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||OR is the odds for objective response of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine divided by the odds for objective response of Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel|OR of objective response and CMH test (stratified)||0.65|0.31|< 0.0001
91011665|NCT03808298|181906092|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QRS (ms) at Day 14 1 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.14|0.94||||||||0.94|-0.14|
90794923|NCT00600340|181470444|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-18.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.0|-10.0|||||Difference calculated as ORR in Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine minus ORR in Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel, units in percent.|Difference in ORR in Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine vs. Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel||-10|-26|
90794924|NCT00600340|181470444|SUPERIORITY|OR is the odds for disease control of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine divided by the odds for disease control of Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.39||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.65||"Test adjusted by stratification factors at randomization:~1. estrogen and/or progesterone status (positive vs. other)~2. country~3. menopausal status (premenopausal or male \<=50 years of age vs. postmenopausal or male \>50 years of age"|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||OR is the odds for disease control of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine divided by the odds for disease control of Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel|OR of disease control and CMH test (stratified)||0.65|0.24|0.0003
90794925|NCT00600340|181470444|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|-6.0|||||Difference calculated as the DCR in Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine minus ORR in Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel, units in percent.|Difference in DCR in Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine vs. Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel||-6|-19|
90794926|NCT00600340|181470445|SUPERIORITY|OR is the odds for objective response of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine divided by the odds for objective response of Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.63||"Test adjusted by stratification factors at randomization:~1. estrogen and/or progesterone status (positive vs. other)~2. country~3. menopausal status (premenopausal or male \<=50 years of age vs. postmenopausal or male \>50 years of age"|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||OR is the odds for objective response of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine divided by the odds for objective response of Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel|OR of objective response and CMH test (stratified)||0.63|0.31|< 0.0001
90794927|NCT00600340|181470445|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.0|-11.0|||||Difference calculated as ORR in Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine minus ORR in Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel, units in percent.|Difference in ORR in Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine vs. Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel||-11|-28|
90794928|NCT00600340|181470445|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.43||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.7||"Test adjusted by stratification factors at randomization:~1. estrogen and/or progesterone status (positive vs. other)~2. country~3. menopausal status (premenopausal or male \<=50 years of age vs. postmenopausal or male \>50 years of age"|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||OR is the odds for disease control of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine divided by the odds for disease control of Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel|OR of disease control and CMH test (stratified)||0.70|0.27|0.0006
90794929|NCT00600340|181470445|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|-6.0|||||Difference calculated as DCR in Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine minus DCR in Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel, units in percent.|Difference in DCR in Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine vs. Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel||-6|-18|
90794930|NCT00600340|181470446|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.6||"Test adjusted by stratification factors at randomization:~1. estrogen and/or progesterone status (positive vs. other)~2. country~3. menopausal status (premenopausal or male \<=50 years of age vs. postmenopausal or male \>50 years of age"|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||OR is the odds for objective response of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine divided by the odds for objective response of Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel|OR of objective response and CMH test (stratified)||0.60|0.29|< 0.0001
90794931|NCT00600340|181470446|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-21.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.0|-13.0|||||Difference calculated as ORR in Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine minus ORR in Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel, unit in percent.|Difference in ORR in Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine vs. Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel||-13|-30|
90794932|NCT00600340|181470446|SUPERIORITY|OR is the odds for disease control of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine divided by the odds for disease control of Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.39||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.65||"Test adjusted by stratification factors at randomization:~1. estrogen and/or progesterone status (positive vs. other)~2. country~3. menopausal status (premenopausal or male \<=50 years of age vs. postmenopausal or male \>50 years of age"|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||OR is the odds for disease control of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine divided by the odds for disease control of Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel|OR of disease control and CMH test (stratified)||0.65|0.24|0.0003
90794933|NCT00600340|181470446|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|-6.0|||||Difference calculated as DCR in Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine minus DCR in Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel, unit in percent.|Difference in DCR in Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine vs. Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel||-6|-19|
90794934|NCT00600340|181470447|SUPERIORITY|HR is the hazard rate of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine divided by hazard rate of Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.32||||0.0066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.61|||Log Rank|Two-sided log-rank test adjusted by stratification factors at randomization|HR is the hazard rate of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine divided by hazard rate of Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel.|"HR of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine vs. Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel for PFS (stratified)~Based on Cox proportional hazards model adjusted by stratification factors at randomization:~1. estrogen and/or progesterone status (positive vs. other)~2. country~3. menopausal status (premenopausal or male \<=50 years of age vs. postmenopausal or male \>50 years of age)"||1.61|1.08|0.0066
91011666|NCT03808298|181906092|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QRS (ms) at Day 14 2.5 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.24|0.86||||||||0.86|-0.24|
91011667|NCT03808298|181906092|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QRS (ms) at Day 14 4 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.07|1.2||||||||1.20|0.07|
90794935|NCT00600340|181470448|SUPERIORITY|HR is the hazard rate of Bevacizumab plus Capecitabine divided by hazard rate of Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.31||||0.0094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.61|||Log Rank|Two-sided log-rank test adjusted by stratification factors at randomization|HR is the hazard rate of Bevacizumab plus Capecitabine divided by hazard rate of Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel.|"HR of Bevacizumab plus Capecitabine vs. Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel for PFS (stratified)~Based on Cox proportional hazards model adjusted by stratification factors at randomization:~1. estrogen and/or progesterone status (positive vs. other)~2. country~3. menopausal status (premenopausal or male \<=50 years of age vs. postmenopausal or male \>50 years of age)"||1.61|1.07|0.0094
90794936|NCT00600340|181470449|SUPERIORITY|HR is the hazard rate of Bevacizumab plus Capecitabine divided by hazard rate of Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.1957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.35||Two-sided log-rank test adjusted by stratification factors at randomization|Log Rank||HR is the hazard rate of Bevacizumab plus Capecitabine divided by hazard rate of Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel.|"HR of Bevacizumab plus Capecitabine vs. Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel for TTF (stratified)~Based on Cox proportional hazards model adjusted by stratification factors at randomization:~1. estrogen and/or progesterone status (positive vs. other)~2. country~3. menopausal status (premenopausal or male \<=50 years of age vs. postmenopausal or male \>50 years of age)"||1.35|0.94|0.1957
90794937|NCT00600340|181470450|SUPERIORITY|HR is the hazard rate of Bevacizumab plus Capecitabine divided by hazard rate of Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.2583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.34||Two-sided log-rank test adjusted by stratification factors at randomization|Log Rank||HR is the hazard rate of Bevacizumab plus Capecitabine divided by hazard rate of Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel.|"HR of Bevacizumab plus Capecitabine vs. Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel for TTF (stratified)~Based on Cox proportional hazards model adjusted by stratification factors at randomization:~1. estrogen and/or progesterone status (positive vs. other)~2. country~3. menopausal status (premenopausal or male \<=50 years of age vs. postmenopausal or male \>50 years of age)"||1.34|0.92|0.2583
90794938|NCT00600340|181470451|SUPERIORITY|HR is the hazard rate of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine divided by hazard rate of Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.77||Two-sided log-rank test adjusted by stratification factors at randomization|Log Rank||HR is the hazard rate of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine divided by hazard rate of Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel.|"HR of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine vs. Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel for TR (stratified)~Based on Cox proportional hazards model adjusted by stratification factors at randomization:~1. estrogen and/or progesterone status (positive vs. other)~2. country~3. menopausal status (premenopausal or male \<=50 years of age vs. postmenopausal or male \>50 years of age)"||0.77|0.43|0.0001
90794939|NCT00600340|181470452|SUPERIORITY|HR is the hazard rate of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine divided by hazard rate of Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.75||Two-sided log-rank test adjusted by stratification factors at randomization|Log Rank||HR is the hazard rate of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine divided by hazard rate of Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel.|"HR of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine vs. Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel for TR (stratified)~Based on Cox proportional hazards model adjusted by stratification factors at randomization:~1. estrogen and/or progesterone status (positive vs. other)~2. country~3. menopausal status (premenopausal or male \<=50 years of age vs. postmenopausal or male \>50 years of age)"||0.75|0.41|0.0001
90794940|NCT00600340|181470453|SUPERIORITY|HR is the hazard rate of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine divided by hazard rate of Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.41||||0.0582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|2.02||Two-sided log-rank test adjusted by stratification factors at randomization|Log Rank||HR is the hazard rate of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine divided by hazard rate of Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel.|"HR of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine vs. Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel for DR (stratified)~Based on Cox proportional hazards model adjusted by stratification factors at randomization:~1. estrogen and/or progesterone status (positive vs. other)~2. country~3. menopausal status (premenopausal or male \<=50 years of age vs. postmenopausal or male \>50 years of age)"||2.02|0.99|0.0582
90794941|NCT00600340|181470454|SUPERIORITY|HR is the hazard rate of Arm B divided by hazard rate of Arm A.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.45||||0.0429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|2.1||Two-sided log-rank test adjusted by stratification factors at randomization|Log Rank||HR is the hazard rate of Arm B divided by hazard rate of Arm A.|"HR of Arm B vs. Arm A for DR (stratified)~Based on Cox proportional hazards model adjusted by stratification factors at randomization:~1. estrogen and/or progesterone status (positive vs. other)~2. country~3. menopausal status (premenopausal or male \<=50 years of age vs. postmenopausal or male \>50 years of age)"||2.10|1.01|0.0429
91011668|NCT03808298|181906092|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QRS (ms) at Day 14 8 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|1.35||||||||1.35|-0.10|
91011669|NCT03808298|181906092|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QRS (ms) at Day 14 12 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|1.07||||||||1.07|-0.50|
90794942|NCT04023045|181470463|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Descriptive analyses (mean and standard deviation) were used to compare the Habitual condition to the Assist-Knee conditions.|||
91011670|NCT03808298|181906092|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QRS (ms) at Day 14 24 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.14|1.04||||||||1.04|-0.14|
90794943|NCT04023045|181470464|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Descriptive analyses (mean and standard deviation) were used to compare the Habitual condition to the Assist-Knee conditions.|||
90794944|NCT04023045|181470465|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Descriptive analyses (mean and standard deviation) were used to compare the Habitual condition to the Assist-Knee conditions.|||
90794945|NCT04023045|181470466|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Descriptive analyses (mean and standard deviation) were used to compare the Habitual condition to the Assist-Knee conditions.|||
90794946|NCT04023045|181470467|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Descriptive analyses (mean and standard deviation) were used to compare the Habitual condition to the Assist-Knee conditions.|||
90794947|NCT04023045|181470468|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Descriptive analyses (mean and standard deviation) were used to compare the Habitual condition to the Assist-Knee conditions.|||
91011671|NCT03808298|181906114|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at 0.5 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.71|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.64|4.04||||||||4.04|-1.64|
91011672|NCT03808298|181906114|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at 1 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|5.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.22|8.63||||||||8.63|2.22|
91053804|NCT02912650|181990988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.23||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.53|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.53|-0.07|0.127
90794948|NCT04023045|181470469|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Descriptive analyses (mean and standard deviation) were used to compare the Habitual condition to the Assist-Knee conditions.|||
90794949|NCT04023045|181470470|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Descriptive analyses (mean and standard deviation) were used to compare the Habitual condition to the Assist-Knee conditions.|||
90794950|NCT02314923|181470500|OTHER|||||||0.951|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.951
90794951|NCT02314923|181470500|OTHER|||||||0.458|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.458
90794952|NCT02314923|181470500|OTHER|||||||0.071|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.071
90794953|NCT02314923|181470500|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90794954|NCT02314923|181470500|OTHER|||||||0.029|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.029
90794955|NCT02314923|181470500|OTHER|||||||0.325|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.325
90794956|NCT02314923|181470500|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.003
90794957|NCT02314923|181470500|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91011673|NCT03808298|181906114|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at 2.5 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|8.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.64|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.81|11.28||||||||11.28|5.81|
91011674|NCT03808298|181906114|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at 4 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|8.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.65|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.86|11.34||||||||11.34|5.86|
91011675|NCT03808298|181906114|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at 8 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|8.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.43|11.61||||||||11.61|5.43|
91011676|NCT03808298|181906114|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at 12 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|6.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.88|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.76|10.0||||||||10.00|3.76|
91053805|NCT02912650|181990988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.29||||0.171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.7|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.70|-0.12|0.171
90794958|NCT02314923|181470500|OTHER|||||||0.427|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.427
90794959|NCT02314923|181470500|OTHER|||||||0.065|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.065
90794960|NCT02314923|181470500|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90794961|NCT02314923|181470500|OTHER|||||||0.027|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.027
90794962|NCT02314923|181470500|OTHER|||||||0.303|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.303
90794963|NCT02314923|181470500|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.003
90794964|NCT02314923|181470500|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90794965|NCT02314923|181470500|OTHER|||||||0.286|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.286
90794966|NCT02314923|181470500|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90794967|NCT02314923|181470500|OTHER|||||||0.094|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.094
90794968|NCT02314923|181470500|OTHER|||||||0.757|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.757
90794969|NCT02314923|181470500|OTHER|||||||0.022|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.022
90794970|NCT02314923|181470500|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.001
90794971|NCT02314923|181470500|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90794972|NCT02314923|181470500|OTHER|||||||0.348|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.348
90794973|NCT02314923|181470500|OTHER|||||||0.508|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.508
90794974|NCT02314923|181470500|OTHER|||||||0.191|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.191
90794975|NCT02314923|181470500|OTHER|||||||0.024|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.024
90794976|NCT02314923|181470500|OTHER|||||||0.169|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.169
90794977|NCT02314923|181470500|OTHER|||||||0.961|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.961
90794978|NCT02314923|181470500|OTHER|||||||0.454|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.454
90794979|NCT02314923|181470500|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90794980|NCT02314923|181470500|OTHER|||||||0.068|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.068
90794981|NCT02314923|181470500|OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.007
90794982|NCT02314923|181470500|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90794983|NCT02314923|181470500|OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.370
90794984|NCT02314923|181470500|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90794985|NCT02546323|181470505|OTHER||Estimated mean difference|-0.0103|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00445||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0191|-0.0016||Statistical significance of the MeanMax CIMT annualized rate of change between rosuvastatin 20 mg and placebo was evaluated using time-by-treatment interaction term in the model.|Multi-level mixed effects model||Randomized treatment group, time, time-by-treatment interaction, ICVD risk stratification, carotid artery site, center, age, sex, and scan reader were fixed effects. Random effects were the intercept and slope for individual patients.|Comparison of annualized rate of change in MeanMax CIMT measurement difference between rosuvastatin 20 mg and placebo.||-0.0016|-0.0191|0.020
90794986|NCT02546323|181470506|OTHER||Estimated mean difference|-0.011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00442||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0197|-0.0024||Statistical significance of the MeanMax CIMT annualized rate of change between rosuvastatin 20 mg and placebo was evaluated using time-by-treatment interaction term in the model.|Multi-level mixed effects model||Randomized treatment group, time, time-by-treatment interaction, ICVD risk stratification, carotid artery site, center, age, sex, and scan reader were fixed effects. Random effects were the intercept and slope for individual patients.|Comparison of annualized rate of change in MeanMax CIMT measurement difference between rosuvastatin 20 mg and placebo.||-0.0024|-0.0197|0.013
90794987|NCT02546323|181470507|OTHER||Estimated mean difference|-0.0162|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00903||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0339|0.0015||Statistical significance of the MeanMax CIMT annualized rate of change between rosuvastatin 20 mg and placebo was evaluated using time-by-treatment interaction term in the model.|Multi-level mixed effects model||Randomized treatment group, time, time-by-treatment interaction, ICVD risk stratification, carotid artery site, center, age, sex, and scan reader were fixed effects. Random effects were the intercept and slope for individual patients.|Comparison of annualized rate of change in MeanMax CIMT measurement difference between rosuvastatin 20 mg and placebo.||0.0015|-0.0339|0.073
90794988|NCT02546323|181470508|OTHER||Estimated mean difference|-0.0043|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00716||0.547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0183|0.0097||Statistical significance of the MeanMax CIMT annualized rate of change between rosuvastatin 20 mg and placebo was evaluated using time-by-treatment interaction term in the model.|Multi-level mixed effects model||Randomized treatment group, time, time-by-treatment interaction, ICVD risk stratification, carotid artery site, center, age, sex, and scan reader were fixed effects. Random effects were the intercept and slope for individual patients.|Comparison of annualized rate of change in MeanMax CIMT measurement difference between rosuvastatin 20 mg and placebo.||0.0097|-0.0183|0.547
91011677|NCT03808298|181906114|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at 24 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.58|8.62||||||||8.62|3.58|
90794989|NCT02546323|181470509|OTHER||Estimated mean difference|-0.0086|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00272||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0139|-0.0032||Statistical significance of the MeanMean CIMT annualized rate of change between rosuvastatin 20 mg and placebo was evaluated using time-by-treatment interaction term in the model.|Multi-level mixed effects model||Randomized treatment group, time, time-by-treatment interaction, ICVD risk stratification, carotid artery site, center, age, sex, and scan reader were fixed effects. Random effects were the intercept and slope for individual patients|Comparison of annualized rate of change in MeanMean CIMT measurement difference between rosuvastatin 20 mg and placebo||-0.0032|-0.0139|0.002
90794990|NCT02546323|181470510|OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-35.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.426|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.23|-30.7|||ANCOVA||Treatment as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference (rosuvastatin 20 mg - placebo): LDL-C||-30.70|-40.23|<0.001
90794991|NCT02546323|181470510|OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-21.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.441|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.68|-19.02|||ANCOVA||Treatment as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference (rosuvastatin 20 mg - placebo): total cholesterol||-19.02|-24.68|<0.001
90794992|NCT02546323|181470510|OTHER||Least squares mean difference|5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.347|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.35|7.64|||ANCOVA||Treatment as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference (rosuvastatin 20 mg - placebo): HDL-C||7.64|2.35|<0.001
90794993|NCT02546323|181470510|OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-19.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.671|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.86|-12.44|||ANCOVA||Treatment as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference (rosuvastatin 20 mg - placebo): Triglycerides||-12.44|-26.86|<0.001
90794994|NCT02546323|181470510|OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-29.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.917|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.25|-25.72|||ANCOVA||Treatment as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference (rosuvastatin 20 mg - placebo): Non-HDL-C||-25.72|-33.25|<0.001
90794995|NCT02546323|181470510|OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-31.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.334|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.33|-27.16|||ANCOVA||Treatment as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference (rosuvastatin 20 mg - placebo): Non-HDL-C/HDL-C ratio||-27.16|-36.33|<0.001
90794996|NCT02546323|181470510|OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-26.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.84|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.73|-22.5|||ANCOVA||Treatment as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference (rosuvastatin 20 mg - placebo): ApoB||-22.50|-29.73|<0.001
90794997|NCT02546323|181470510|OTHER||Least squares mean difference|2.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.104||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|4.36|||ANCOVA||Treatment as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate|Treatment difference (rosuvastatin 20 mg - placebo): ApoA-I||4.36|0.02|0.047
90794998|NCT02546323|181470510|OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-26.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.041|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.78|-22.76|||ANCOVA||Treatment as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference (rosuvastatin 20 mg - placebo): ApoB/ApoA-I ratio||-22.76|-30.78|<0.001
90794999|NCT02546323|181470511|OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-39.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.819|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.08|-35.94|||ANCOVA||Treatment as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference (rosuvastatin 20 mg - placebo): LDL-C||-35.94|-43.08|<0.001
91011678|NCT01020812|181906122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||proportion of participants|0.286|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.031|0.636|||||The data was analyzed in a competing risk model with death as a competing risk. The proportion of 0.286 is the cumulative incidence function at 12 months.|The data was analyzed in a competitive risk model with the cumulative incidence function as the estimator. Death and other progression were competitive risks.||0.636|0.031|
91011679|NCT01020812|181906123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||probability|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||This is the overall survival probability at 18 months.|The data was analyzed using the Kaplan Meier estimator.||||
91011680|NCT05040295|181906127|EQUIVALENCE|The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.|Ratio of adjust geometric means|102.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.21|111.51|||||Reference = Treatment A Test = Treatment B Ratio=Test/Reference|AUCinf was analyzed using a mixed effects model with sequence and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were obtained from the model.||111.51|94.21|
90795000|NCT02546323|181470511|OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-25.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.139|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.7|-23.23|||ANCOVA||Treatment as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference (rosuvastatin 20 mg - placebo): total cholesterol||-23.23|-27.70|<0.001
90795001|NCT02546323|181470511|OTHER||Least squares mean difference|3.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.051|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|5.73|||ANCOVA||Treatment as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference (rosuvastatin 20 mg - placebo): HDL-C||5.73|1.60|<0.001
90795002|NCT02546323|181470511|OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-18.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.981|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.26|-12.55|||ANCOVA||Treatment as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference (rosuvastatin 20 mg - placebo): Triglycerides||-12.55|-24.26|<0.001
90795003|NCT02546323|181470511|OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-33.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.529|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.78|-30.78|||ANCOVA||Treatment as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference (rosuvastatin 20 mg - placebo): Non-HDL-C||-30.78|-36.78|<0.001
91053806|NCT02912650|181990988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.04||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.33|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.33|-0.25|0.790
90795004|NCT02546323|181470511|OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-33.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.836|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.54|-30.32|||ANCOVA||Treatment as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference (rosuvastatin 20 mg - placebo): Non-HDL-C/HDL-C ratio||-30.32|-37.54|<0.001
90795005|NCT00863304|181470516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|-0.62||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.62|-1.65|<0.001
90795006|NCT00863304|181470516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|-0.29||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.29|-1.32|0.002
90795007|NCT00863304|181470516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.07||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.07|-0.96|0.090
90795008|NCT00863304|181470516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|-0.17||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.17|-1.21|0.009
90795009|NCT00863304|181470516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.16||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.16|-0.87|0.175
90795010|NCT00863304|181470517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|-0.75||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.75|-1.71|<0.001
90795011|NCT00863304|181470517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|-0.51||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.51|-1.48|<0.001
90795012|NCT00863304|181470517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.03||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.03|-0.94|0.067
90795013|NCT00863304|181470517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|-0.29||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.29|-1.26|0.002
90795014|NCT00863304|181470517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.05||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.05|-1.03|0.031
90795015|NCT00863304|181470518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.18||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.18|-0.50|<0.001
90795016|NCT00863304|181470518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.16||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.16|-0.48|<0.001
90795017|NCT00863304|181470518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.02||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.02|-0.30|0.078
90795018|NCT00863304|181470518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.03||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.03|-0.35|0.019
90795019|NCT00863304|181470518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|-0.02||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.02|-0.34|0.029
90795020|NCT00863304|181470519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.05||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.05|-0.94|0.029
90795021|NCT00863304|181470519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.16||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.16|-0.73|0.214
90795022|NCT00863304|181470519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|-0.32||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.32|-1.21|<0.001
90795023|NCT00863304|181470519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.72||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.72|-0.18|0.234
90795024|NCT00863304|181470519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.93||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.93|0.04|0.034
90795025|NCT00863304|181470519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|-0.7||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.70|-1.63|<0.001
90795026|NCT00863304|181470519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|-0.49||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.49|-1.42|<0.001
90795027|NCT00863304|181470519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.18||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.18|-1.11|0.007
90795028|NCT00863304|181470519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.05||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.05|-0.99|0.029
90795029|NCT00863304|181470519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.16||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.16|-0.78|0.193
90795030|NCT00863304|181470519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|-0.73||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.73|-1.68|<0.001
90795031|NCT00863304|181470519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|-0.32||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.32|-1.28|0.001
90795032|NCT00863304|181470519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.14||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.14|-1.10|0.011
90795033|NCT00863304|181470519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.1||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.10|-1.06|0.017
90795034|NCT00863304|181470519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.3||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.30|-0.66|0.464
90795035|NCT00863304|181470519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|-0.72||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.72|-1.72|<0.001
90795036|NCT00863304|181470519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|-0.54||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.54|-1.55|<0.001
90795037|NCT00863304|181470519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|-0.13||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.13|-1.14|0.014
90795038|NCT00863304|181470519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|-0.08||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.08|-1.09|0.023
90795039|NCT00863304|181470519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.1||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.10|-0.92|0.114
91053807|NCT02912650|181990988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.18||||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.47|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.47|-0.12|0.235
90795040|NCT00863304|181470520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.05||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.05|-0.94|0.029
90795041|NCT00863304|181470520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.16||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.16|-0.73|0.214
90795042|NCT00863304|181470520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|-0.32||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.32|-1.21|<0.001
90795043|NCT00863304|181470520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.72||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.72|-0.18|0.234
90795044|NCT00863304|181470520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.93||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.93|0.04|0.034
90795045|NCT00863304|181470520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|-0.67||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.67|-1.59|<0.001
90795046|NCT00863304|181470520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|-0.45||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.45|-1.37|<0.001
91053808|NCT02912650|181990988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.25||||0.236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.66|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.66|-0.16|0.236
90795047|NCT00863304|181470520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.13||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.13|-1.05|0.012
90795048|NCT00863304|181470520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.07||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.07|-1.00|0.023
90795049|NCT00863304|181470520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.14||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.14|-0.78|0.175
90795050|NCT00863304|181470520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|-0.63||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.63|-1.55|<0.001
90795051|NCT00863304|181470520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|-0.41||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.41|-1.34|<0.001
90795052|NCT00863304|181470520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.1||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.10|-1.03|0.017
90795053|NCT00863304|181470520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.06||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.06|-0.99|0.027
90795054|NCT00863304|181470520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.15||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.15|-0.78|0.190
91053809|NCT02912650|181990988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.11||||0.599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.53|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.53|-0.30|0.599
90795055|NCT00863304|181470520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|-0.68||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.68|-1.63|<0.001
90795056|NCT00863304|181470520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|-0.6||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.60|-1.55|<0.001
90795057|NCT00863304|181470520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.04||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.04|-0.99|0.034
90795058|NCT00863304|181470520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.009|TWO_SIDED|9.0|-1.12|-0.16||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.16|-1.12|0.009
91053810|NCT02912650|181990988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.14||||0.353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.43|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.43|-0.15|0.353
90795059|NCT00863304|181470520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|-0.08||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.08|-1.04|0.023
90795060|NCT00863304|181470520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.64||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 16: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.64|-1.60|<0.001
90795061|NCT00863304|181470520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|-0.39||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 16: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.39|-1.35|<0.001
90795062|NCT00863304|181470520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.07||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 16: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.07|-0.90|0.092
90795063|NCT00863304|181470520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|-0.23||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 16: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.23|-1.19|0.004
90795064|NCT00863304|181470520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.03||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 16: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.03|-0.94|0.064
90795065|NCT00863304|181470521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|-0.27||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.27|-1.12|0.001
90795066|NCT00863304|181470521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|-0.23||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.23|-1.09|0.003
90795067|NCT00863304|181470521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|-0.39||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.39|-1.25|<0.001
90795068|NCT00863304|181470521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.55||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.55|-0.31|0.572
90795069|NCT00863304|181470521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.59||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.59|-0.27|0.467
90795070|NCT00863304|181470521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|-0.83||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.83|-1.74|<0.001
90795071|NCT00863304|181470521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|-0.66||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.66|-1.58|<0.001
90795072|NCT00863304|181470521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|-0.27||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.27|-1.19|0.002
90795073|NCT00863304|181470521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.09||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.09|-1.01|0.019
90795074|NCT00863304|181470521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.08||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.08|-0.85|0.101
90795075|NCT00863304|181470521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.78||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.78|-1.70|<0.001
90795076|NCT00863304|181470521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|-0.54||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.54|-1.47|<0.001
90795077|NCT00863304|181470521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.16||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.16|-1.08|0.009
90795078|NCT00863304|181470521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.16||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.16|-1.08|0.008
90795079|NCT00863304|181470521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.08||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.08|-0.85|0.101
90795080|NCT00863304|181470521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.79|-0.83||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.83|-1.79|<0.001
90795081|NCT00863304|181470521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|-0.67||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.67|-1.63|<0.001
90795082|NCT00863304|181470521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|-0.24||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.24|-1.21|0.003
90795083|NCT00863304|181470521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.11||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.11|-1.08|0.016
90795084|NCT00863304|181470521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.06||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.06|-0.91|0.082
90795085|NCT00863304|181470522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|-0.27||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.27|-1.12|0.001
91079118|NCT01524783|182043911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.1|||Log Rank|||||1.10|0.50|0.073
91011681|NCT05040295|181906127|EQUIVALENCE|The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.|Ratio of adjust geometric means|106.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.07|113.66|||||Reference = Treatment A Test = Treatment C Ratio=Test/Reference|AUCinf was analyzed using a mixed effects model with sequence and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were obtained from the model.||113.66|100.07|
91011682|NCT05040295|181906128|EQUIVALENCE|The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.|Ratio of adjust geometric means|101.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.25|115.87|||||Reference = Treatment A Test = Treatment B Ratio=Test/Reference|Cmax was analyzed using a mixed effects model with sequence and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were obtained from the model.||115.87|88.25|
91011683|NCT05040295|181906128|EQUIVALENCE|The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.|Ratio of adjust geometric means|90.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.49|103.44|||||Reference = Treatment A Test = Treatment C Ratio=Test/Reference|Cmax was analyzed using a mixed effects model with sequence and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were obtained from the model.||103.44|78.49|
91011684|NCT00953849|181906131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|A Student's t test was performed to determine significance of differences between each of two groups.||||||<0.05
91011685|NCT00953849|181906132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|A Student's t test was performed to determine significance of differences between each of two groups.||||||<0.05
91011686|NCT00953849|181906133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|A Student's t test was performed to determine significance of differences between each of two groups.||||||<0.05
90795086|NCT00863304|181470522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|-0.23||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.23|-1.09|0.003
90795087|NCT00863304|181470522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|-0.39||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.39|-1.25|<0.001
90795088|NCT00863304|181470522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.55||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.55|-0.31|0.572
91011687|NCT00953849|181906134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|A Student's t test was performed to determine significance of differences between each of two groups.||||||<0.05
91011688|NCT01801475|181906138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||The nonlinear mixed-effects modeling software program NONMEM (version VII; Icon Development Solutions, Ellicott City, MD) was used to estimate the pharmacokinetic parameters. The first-order conditional estimation (FOCE) with η-ε interaction was used for the estimation process. Volume and clearance in this model is computed as a mean of the study population (pregnant and non-pregnant women) with a log-normal distribution in the population.||||<0.05
91011689|NCT01801475|181906139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||The nonlinear mixed-effects modeling software program NONMEM (version VII; Icon Development Solutions, Ellicott City, MD) was used to estimate the pharmacokinetic parameters. The first-order conditional estimation (FOCE) with η-ε interaction was used for the estimation process. Volume and clearance in this model is computed as a mean of the study population (pregnant and non-pregnant women) with a log-normal distribution in the population.||||<0.05
91011690|NCT00421928|181906147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.05||95.0|-1.04|-0.33|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used with treatment and pooled analysis center as factors and baseline pain intensity score as a covariate.||The primary null hypothesis to be tested for the study was that the tapentadol ER group was not different from the placebo group for the primary endpoint. Assuming the mean treatment group difference of 0.7 with an SD of 2.7, 314 subjects per treatment group were estimated to provide 90% power to show that the tapentadol ER group was statistically different from placebo at an alpha level of 0.05. The total number of subjects to be randomly assigned to a treatment group for the study was 942.||-0.33|-1.04|<0.05
91053811|NCT02912650|181990988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.22||||0.293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.62|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.62|-0.19|0.293
90795089|NCT00863304|181470522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.59||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.59|-0.27|0.467
90795090|NCT00863304|181470522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|-0.82||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.82|-1.73|<0.001
90795091|NCT00863304|181470522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|-0.7||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.70|-1.61|<0.001
90795092|NCT00863304|181470522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|-0.24||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.24|-1.16|0.003
90795093|NCT00863304|181470522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.11||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.11|-1.03|0.015
90795094|NCT00863304|181470522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.01||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.01|-0.91|0.053
90795095|NCT00863304|181470522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|-0.75||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.75|-1.66|<0.001
90795096|NCT00863304|181470522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|-0.65||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.65|-1.56|<0.001
90795097|NCT00863304|181470522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.16||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.16|-1.07|0.009
90795098|NCT00863304|181470522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.14||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.14|-1.05|0.011
90795099|NCT00863304|181470522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.03||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.03|-0.95|0.035
90795100|NCT00863304|181470522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.79|-0.85||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.85|-1.79|<0.001
90795101|NCT00863304|181470522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|-0.76||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.76|-1.71|<0.001
90795102|NCT00863304|181470522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.16||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.16|-1.11|0.008
90795103|NCT00863304|181470522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|-0.21||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.21|-1.16|0.005
90795104|NCT00863304|181470522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.12||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.12|-1.07|0.013
90795105|NCT00863304|181470522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|-0.81||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 16: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.81|-1.76|<0.001
90795106|NCT00863304|181470522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|-0.63||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 16: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.63|-1.58|<0.001
90795107|NCT00863304|181470522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.0||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 16: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.00|-0.95|0.050
90795108|NCT00863304|181470522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|-0.34||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 16: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.34|-1.29|<0.001
90795109|NCT00863304|181470522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.16||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 16: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.16|-1.11|0.009
90795110|NCT00863304|181470523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.04||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.04|-0.35|0.012
90795111|NCT00863304|181470523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.03||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.03|-0.28|0.113
90795112|NCT00863304|181470523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|-0.18||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.18|-0.49|<0.001
91053812|NCT02912650|181990988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.28|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.28|-0.28|0.986
90795113|NCT00863304|181470523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.29||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.29|-0.01|0.076
90795114|NCT00863304|181470523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.37||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.37|0.06|0.007
90795115|NCT00863304|181470523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.24||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.24|-0.56|<0.001
90795116|NCT00863304|181470523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|-0.26||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.26|-0.58|<0.001
90795117|NCT00863304|181470523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.11||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.11|-0.43|<0.001
90795118|NCT00863304|181470523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.03||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.03|-0.29|0.102
90795119|NCT00863304|181470523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.01||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.01|-0.31|0.066
90795120|NCT00863304|181470523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.28||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.28|-0.60|<0.001
91011691|NCT00444028|181906159|OTHER|"The units on such analyses are generally those of slope (rise over run), with 1.000 being perfect. Although any positive slope might be considered clinically useful, a 90% CI within the criteria of 0.800-1.250 may be considered a delivery system which is as good as it gets."|Slope|0.909|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.832|0.987||||||Dose proportionality by power analysis examines the linear regression of the log-AUC versus log-Dose on a by-patient basis across all doses administered. The slope and 90% confidence interval (CI) provide a clear, quantitative (best practices) assessment of the relationship of drug delivered to dose administered.||0.987|0.832|
91053813|NCT02912650|181990988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.11||||0.459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.39|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.39|-0.18|0.459
91011692|NCT00346775|181906162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.3|||ANCOVA|||||0.3|-0.6|0.517
91011693|NCT02138227|181906166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
91053814|NCT02912650|181990988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.22||||0.287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.62|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.62|-0.18|0.287
90795121|NCT00863304|181470523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.21||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.21|-0.53|<0.001
90795122|NCT00863304|181470523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|-0.02||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.02|-0.34|0.027
90795123|NCT00863304|181470523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.1||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.10|-0.42|0.001
90795124|NCT00863304|181470523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.03||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.03|-0.35|0.020
90795125|NCT00863304|181470523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|-0.17||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.17|-0.49|<0.001
90795126|NCT00863304|181470523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.11||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.11|-0.43|0.001
90795127|NCT00863304|181470523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.08||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.08|-0.24|0.328
90795128|NCT00863304|181470523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.09||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.09|-0.41|0.002
91011694|NCT02138227|181906167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|F (2, 1574)||||||<0.01
91079119|NCT01524783|182043914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.61|||Log Rank|||||1.61|0.65|0.539
90795129|NCT00863304|181470523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.03||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.03|-0.35|0.022
90795130|NCT00863304|181470524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.04||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.04|-0.35|0.012
90795131|NCT00863304|181470524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.03||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.03|-0.28|0.113
90795132|NCT00863304|181470524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|-0.18||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.18|-0.49|<0.001
90795133|NCT00863304|181470524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.29||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.29|-0.01|0.076
90795134|NCT00863304|181470524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.37||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.37|0.06|0.007
90795135|NCT00863304|181470524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.26||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.26|-0.57|<0.001
90795136|NCT00863304|181470524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.25||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.25|-0.57|<0.001
90795137|NCT00863304|181470524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.13||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.13|-0.45|<0.001
90795138|NCT00863304|181470524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.03||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.03|-0.29|0.120
90795139|NCT00863304|181470524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.04||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.04|-0.29|0.126
90795140|NCT00863304|181470524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.3||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.30|-0.62|<0.001
90795141|NCT00863304|181470524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.25||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.25|-0.57|<0.001
90795142|NCT00863304|181470524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.08||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.08|-0.41|0.003
90795143|NCT00863304|181470524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.05||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.05|-0.38|0.009
90795144|NCT00863304|181470524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.0||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.00|-0.32|0.052
90795145|NCT00863304|181470524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.25||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.25|-0.57|<0.001
90795146|NCT00863304|181470524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.15||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.15|-0.48|<0.001
90795147|NCT00863304|181470524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.0||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.00|-0.33|0.051
90795148|NCT00863304|181470524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.08||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.08|-0.41|0.003
91053815|NCT02912650|181990988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.11||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.51|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.51|-0.30|0.600
90795149|NCT00863304|181470524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.01||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.01|-0.32|0.069
90795150|NCT00863304|181470524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.24||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 16: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.24|-0.57|<0.001
90795151|NCT00863304|181470524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.2||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 16: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.20|-0.53|<0.001
90795152|NCT00863304|181470524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.05||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 16: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.05|-0.37|0.012
90795153|NCT00863304|181470524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.03||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 16: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.03|-0.36|0.020
90795154|NCT00863304|181470524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.01||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 16: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.01|-0.32|0.064
90795155|NCT00806585|181470553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.1||||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|0.8|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Model included terms for treatment, stratification factor, time, interaction of time by stratification factor and the interaction of time by treatment||||0.8|-3.1|0.253
90795156|NCT00806585|181470553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.1||||0.919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.9|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Model included terms for treatment, stratification factor, time, interaction of time by stratification factor and the interaction of time by treatment||||1.9|-2.1|0.919
90795157|NCT00806585|181470553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.2||||0.829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.8|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Model included terms for treatment, stratification factor, time, interaction of time by stratification factor and the interaction of time by treatment||||1.8|-2.2|0.829
90795158|NCT00806585|181470553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.1||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|0.2|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Model included terms for treatment, stratification factor, time, interaction of time by stratification factor and the interaction of time by treatment||||0.2|-4.5|0.074
90795159|NCT00806585|181470553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|1.0||||0.393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|3.3|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Model included terms for treatment, stratification factor, time, interaction of time by stratification factor and the interaction of time by treatment||||3.3|-1.3|0.393
90795160|NCT00806585|181470553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|2.0||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|4.4|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Model included terms for treatment, stratification factor, time, interaction of time by stratification factor and the interaction of time by treatment||||4.4|-0.3|0.088
90795161|NCT00806585|181470553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|1.9||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|4.3|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Model included terms for treatment, stratification factor, time, interaction of time by stratification factor and the interaction of time by treatment||||4.3|-0.4|0.108
90795162|NCT00806585|181470554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.9||||0.543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|2.1|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Model included terms for treatment, stratification factor, time, interaction of time by stratification factor and the interaction of time by treatment||||2.1|-4.0|0.543
90795163|NCT00806585|181470554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.8||||0.246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|1.3|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Model included terms for treatment, stratification factor, time, interaction of time by stratification factor and the interaction of time by treatment||||1.3|-4.9|0.246
90795164|NCT00806585|181470554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.4||||0.821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|2.7|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Model included terms for treatment, stratification factor, time, interaction of time by stratification factor and the interaction of time by treatment||||2.7|-3.5|0.821
90795165|NCT00806585|181470554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-7.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|-3.3|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Model included terms for treatment, stratification factor, time, interaction of time by stratification factor and the interaction of time by treatment||||-3.3|-10.7|<0.001
91053816|NCT02912650|181990988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.11||||0.447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.4|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.40|-0.17|0.447
90795166|NCT00806585|181470554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|6.1||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|9.8|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Model included terms for treatment, stratification factor, time, interaction of time by stratification factor and the interaction of time by treatment||||9.8|2.4|0.001
90795167|NCT00806585|181470554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|5.2||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|8.9|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Model included terms for treatment, stratification factor, time, interaction of time by stratification factor and the interaction of time by treatment||||8.9|1.5|0.006
91053817|NCT02912650|181990989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.59||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.96|||ANCOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||0.96|0.23|0.001
91079120|NCT01625689|182043920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>=|0.498|TWO_SIDED|||||No comparison between the LAIV and placebo groups by type of solicited reaction had a p-value below 0.498.|Fisher Exact|||||||>=0.498
91053818|NCT02912650|181990989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.13||||0.297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.39|||ANCOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||0.39|-0.12|0.297
91053819|NCT02912650|181990989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.16|||ANCOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||0.16|-0.35|0.457
91053820|NCT02912650|181990989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.46||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.82|||ANCOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||0.82|0.10|0.012
91053821|NCT02912650|181990989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.06|||ANCOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||1.06|0.33|<0.001
91053822|NCT02912650|181990989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.23||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.02|||ANCOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||0.02|-0.49|0.076
91053823|NCT02912650|181990989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|2.63|||ANCOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||2.63|1.42|<0.001
91053824|NCT02912650|181990989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.51||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.93|||ANCOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||0.93|0.10|0.016
91053825|NCT02912650|181990989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.21||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.64|||ANCOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||0.64|-0.21|0.330
91053826|NCT02912650|181990989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|2.11|||ANCOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||2.11|0.91|<0.001
91053827|NCT02912650|181990989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|2.42|||ANCOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||2.42|1.21|<0.001
91053828|NCT02912650|181990989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.12|||ANCOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||0.12|-0.73|0.163
91053829|NCT02912650|181990989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.18|4.65|||ANCOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||4.65|3.18|<0.001
91053830|NCT02912650|181990989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.86||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.38|||ANCOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||1.38|0.35|0.001
91053831|NCT02912650|181990989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.78||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.31|||ANCOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||1.31|0.26|0.003
91053832|NCT02912650|181990989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.32|3.79|||ANCOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||3.79|2.32|<0.001
91053833|NCT02912650|181990989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.39|3.87|||ANCOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||3.87|2.39|<0.001
90795168|NCT00806585|181470554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|6.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|10.4|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Model included terms for treatment, stratification factor, time, interaction of time by stratification factor and the interaction of time by treatment||||10.4|3.0|<0.001
91053834|NCT02912650|181990989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.08||||0.769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.44|||ANCOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||0.44|-0.60|0.769
90795169|NCT00806585|181470555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.4||||0.684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|5.5|||ANCOVA|Fixed effects for treatment baseline, stratification, time, interaction of time by stratification and treatments factors and a random subject effect||||5.5|-8.3|0.684
90795170|NCT00806585|181470555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|1.8||||0.597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|8.7|||ANCOVA|Fixed effects for treatment baseline, stratification, time, interaction of time by stratification and treatments factors and a random subject effect||||8.7|-5.0|0.597
90795171|NCT00806585|181470555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.9||||0.793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|5.8|||ANCOVA|Fixed effects for treatment baseline, stratification, time, interaction of time by stratification and treatments factors and a random subject effect||||5.8|-7.6|0.793
90795172|NCT00806585|181470555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|0.8||||0.854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|9.2|||ANCOVA|Fixed effects for treatment baseline, stratification, time, interaction of time by stratification and treatments factors and a random subject effect||||9.2|-7.6|0.854
90795173|NCT00806585|181470556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.9||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-0.5|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Model included terms for treatment, stratification factor, time, interaction of time by stratification factor and the interaction of time by treatment||||-0.5|-3.2|0.006
90795174|NCT00806585|181470556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.0||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-0.6|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Model included terms for treatment, stratification factor, time, interaction of time by stratification factor and the interaction of time by treatment||||-0.6|-3.3|0.004
90795175|NCT00806585|181470556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diffference in least squares means|-1.3||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.1|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Model included terms for treatment, stratification factor, time, interaction of time by stratification factor and the interaction of time by treatment||||0.1|-2.6|0.066
90795176|NCT00806585|181470556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.2||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|-0.6|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Model included terms for treatment, stratification factor, time, interaction of time by stratification factor and the interaction of time by treatment||||-0.6|-3.7|0.008
90795177|NCT00806585|181470557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.18||||0.152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.07|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Model included terms for treatment, stratification factor, time, interaction of time by stratification factor and the interaction of time by treatment||||0.07|-0.44|0.152
90795178|NCT00806585|181470557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least sqaures means|-0.28||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.02|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Model included terms for treatment, stratification factor, time, interaction of time by stratification factor and the interaction of time by treatment||||-0.02|-0.54|0.035
90795179|NCT00806585|181470557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.22||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.04|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Model included terms for treatment, stratification factor, time, interaction of time by stratification factor and the interaction of time by treatment||||0.04|-0.48|0.095
90795180|NCT00806585|181470557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.32||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.01|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Model included terms for treatment, stratification factor, time, interaction of time by stratification factor and the interaction of time by treatment||||-0.01|-0.63|0.045
90795181|NCT02507934|181470562|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.56||||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.41|14.72||For each parameter, for each eye, an ANOVA model for repeated measures has been used by including each available timepoint. The estimated mean difference between treatments (Vismed-Lubricin) over time has been reported and tested.|repeated measures ANOVA|||Analysis of variance for repeated measures on Foreign body sensation - Left eye||14.72|2.41|0.0129
90795182|NCT02507934|181470562|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.58||||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|13.45||For each parameter, for each eye, an ANOVA model for repeated measures has been used by including each available timepoint. The estimated mean difference between treatments (Vismed-Lubricin) over time has been reported and tested.|repeated measures ANOVA|||Analysis of variance for repeated measures on Foreign body sensation - Right eye||13.45|1.70|0.0077
90795183|NCT02507934|181470562|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.99||||0.1589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|9.62||For each parameter, for each eye, an ANOVA model for repeated measures has been used by including each available timepoint. The estimated mean difference between treatments (Vismed-Lubricin) over time has been reported and tested.|repeated measures ANOVA|||Analysis of variance for repeated measures on Burning/ Stinging - Left eye||9.62|-1.64|0.1589
90795184|NCT02507934|181470562|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.78||||0.3167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|8.35||For each parameter, for each eye, an ANOVA model for repeated measures has been used by including each available timepoint. The estimated mean difference between treatments (Vismed-Lubricin) over time has been reported and tested.|repeated measures ANOVA|||Analysis of variance for repeated measures on Burning/ Stinging - Right eye||8.35|-2.78|0.3167
90795185|NCT02507934|181470562|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.84||||0.5243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.64|3.96||For each parameter, for each eye, an ANOVA model for repeated measures has been used by including each available timepoint. The estimated mean difference between treatments (Vismed-Lubricin) over time has been reported and tested.|repeated measures ANOVA|||Analysis of variance for repeated measures on Itching - Left eye||3.96|-7.64|0.5243
91053835|NCT02912650|181990989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.88|5.42|||ANCOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||5.42|3.88|<0.001
90795186|NCT02507934|181470562|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.19||||0.6714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.45|6.82||For each parameter, for each eye, an ANOVA model for repeated measures has been used by including each available timepoint. The estimated mean difference between treatments (Vismed-Lubricin) over time has been reported and tested.|repeated measures ANOVA|||Analysis of variance for repeated measures on Itching - Right eye||6.82|-4.45|0.6714
90795187|NCT02507934|181470562|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.89||||0.0828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.31|0.53||For each parameter, for each eye, an ANOVA model for repeated measures has been used by including each available timepoint. The estimated mean difference between treatments (Vismed-Lubricin) over time has been reported and tested.|repeated measures ANOVA|||Analysis of variance for repeated measures on Pain - Left eye||0.53|-8.31|0.0828
90795188|NCT02507934|181470562|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.58||||0.7823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.77|3.62||For each parameter, for each eye, an ANOVA model for repeated measures has been used by including each available timepoint. The estimated mean difference between treatments (Vismed-Lubricin) over time has been reported and tested.|repeated measures ANOVA|||Analysis of variance for repeated measures on Pain - Right eye||3.62|-4.77|0.7823
90795189|NCT02507934|181470562|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.93||||0.0432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|9.7||For each parameter, for each eye, an ANOVA model for repeated measures has been used by including each available timepoint. The estimated mean difference between treatments (Vismed-Lubricin) over time has been reported and tested.|repeated measures ANOVA|||Analysis of variance for repeated measures on Sticky feeling - Left eye||9.70|0.16|0.0432
90795190|NCT02507934|181470562|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.35||||0.0088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|11.0||For each parameter, for each eye, an ANOVA model for repeated measures has been used by including each available timepoint. The estimated mean difference between treatments (Vismed-Lubricin) over time has been reported and tested.|repeated measures ANOVA|||Analysis of variance for repeated measures on Sticky feeling - Right eye||11.00|1.70|0.0088
90795191|NCT02507934|181470562|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.28||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|14.66||For each parameter, for each eye, an ANOVA model for repeated measures has been used by including each available timepoint. The estimated mean difference between treatments (Vismed-Lubricin) over time has been reported and tested.|repeated measures ANOVA|||Analysis of variance for repeated measures on Blurred vision - Left eye||14.66|3.90|0.0013
90795192|NCT02507934|181470562|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.31||||0.00629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|10.92||For each parameter, for each eye, an ANOVA model for repeated measures has been used by including each available timepoint. The estimated mean difference between treatments (Vismed-Lubricin) over time has been reported and tested.|repeated measures ANOVA|||Analysis of variance for repeated measures on Blurred vision - Right eye||10.92|-0.30|0.00629
90795193|NCT02507934|181470562|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.92||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.89|15.95||For each parameter, for each eye, an ANOVA model for repeated measures has been used by including each available timepoint. The estimated mean difference between treatments (Vismed-Lubricin) over time has been reported and tested.|repeated measures ANOVA|||Analysis of variance for repeated measures on Photophobia - Left eye||15.95|3.89|0.0020
90795194|NCT02507934|181470562|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.95||||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.93|13.97||For each parameter, for each eye, an ANOVA model for repeated measures has been used by including each available timepoint. The estimated mean difference between treatments (Vismed-Lubricin) over time has been reported and tested.|repeated measures ANOVA|||Analysis of variance for repeated measures on Photophobia - Right eye||13.97|1.93|0.0111
90795195|NCT02507934|181470562|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|31.67||||0.0448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|62.56||For each parameter, for each eye, an ANOVA model for repeated measures has been used by including each available timepoint. The estimated mean difference between treatments (Vismed-Lubricin) over time has been reported and tested.|repeated measures ANOVA|||Analysis of variance for repeated measures on Total score ocular tolerability - Left eye||62.56|0.78|0.0448
90795196|NCT02507934|181470562|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|26.36||||0.0834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.66|56.37||For each parameter, for each eye, an ANOVA model for repeated measures has been used by including each available timepoint. The estimated mean difference between treatments (Vismed-Lubricin) over time has been reported and tested.|repeated measures ANOVA|||Analysis of variance for repeated measures on Total score ocular tolerability - Right eye||56.37|-3.66|0.0834
90795197|NCT02507934|181470564|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||0.2317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.57|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on changes from baseline on corneal fluorescein surface staining - Left eye - Day 7 ±1||0.57|-0.14|0.2317
90795198|NCT02507934|181470564|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.6017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.41|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on changes from baseline on corneal fluorescein surface staining - Right eye - Day 7 ±1||0.41|-0.70|0.6017
90795199|NCT02507934|181470564|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.74||||0.0232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|1.36|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on changes from baseline on corneal fluorescein surface staining - Left eye - Day 14 ±1||1.36|0.11|0.0232
90795200|NCT02507934|181470564|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.0398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|1.17|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on changes from baseline on corneal fluorescein surface staining - Right eye - Day 14 ±1||1.17|0.03|0.0398
90795201|NCT02507934|181470564|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.05||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.74|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on changes from baseline on corneal fluorescein surface staining - Left eye - Day 21 ±1||1.74|0.36|0.0038
90795202|NCT02507934|181470564|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.75||||0.0135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.33|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on changes from baseline on corneal fluorescein surface staining - right eye||1.33|0.17|0.0135
90795203|NCT02507934|181470565|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.59||||0.3442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|1.83|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on changes from baseline on Schirmer's test type I strip wetting distance - Left eye - Day 7±1||1.83|-0.66|0.3442
90795204|NCT02507934|181470565|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||0.772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|1.49|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on changes from baseline on Schirmer's test type I strip wetting distance - Right eye - Day 7±1||1.49|-1.99|0.7720
90795205|NCT02507934|181470565|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.9725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|1.44|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on changes from baseline on Schirmer's test type I strip wetting distance - Left eye - Day 14±1||1.44|-1.49|0.9725
90795206|NCT02507934|181470565|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.36||||0.2111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.54|0.81|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on changes from baseline on Schirmer's test type I strip wetting distance - Right eye - Day 14±1||0.81|-3.54|0.2111
90795207|NCT02507934|181470565|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.2629|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.06|0.86|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on changes from baseline on Schirmer's test type I strip wetting distance - Left eye - Day 21±1||0.86|-3.06|0.2629
90795208|NCT02507934|181470565|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.25||||0.2862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|1.1|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on changes from baseline on Schirmer's test type I strip wetting distance - Right eye - 21±1||1.10|-3.60|0.2862
90795209|NCT02507934|181470566|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.24||||0.2075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.66|29.14|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on changes from baseline in symptom assessment in dry eye - Frequency - Day 7±1||29.14|-6.66|0.2075
90795210|NCT02507934|181470566|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.16||||0.0435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|35.76|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on changes from baseline in symptom assessment in dry eye - Frequency - Day 14±1||35.76|0.57|0.0435
90795211|NCT02507934|181470566|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.58||||0.0133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.24|41.93|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on changes from baseline in symptom assessment in dry eye - Frequency - Day 21±1||41.93|5.24|0.0133
90795212|NCT02507934|181470567|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.36||||0.613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.98|21.69|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on changes from baseline in symptom assessment in dry eye - Severity - Day 7±1||21.69|-12.98|0.6130
91053836|NCT02912650|181990989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.86||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.4|||ANCOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||1.40|0.32|0.002
91053837|NCT02912650|181990989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.93|||ANCOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||1.93|0.83|<0.001
90795213|NCT02507934|181470567|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.7||||0.1047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|28.18|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on changes from baseline in symptom assessment in dry eye - Severity - Day 14±1||28.18|-2.78|0.1047
91053838|NCT02912650|181990989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.02|4.56|||ANCOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||4.56|3.02|<0.001
91053839|NCT02912650|181990989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.49|4.04|||ANCOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||4.04|2.49|<0.001
90795214|NCT02507934|181470567|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.4||||0.1108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.24|30.04|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on changes from baseline in symptom assessment in dry eye - Severity - Day 21±1||30.04|-3.24|0.1108
90795215|NCT02507934|181470568|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||0.498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.81|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on changes from baseline in Ocular Protection Index - Left eye - Day 7±1||0.81|-0.40|0.4980
90795216|NCT02507934|181470568|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33||||0.1986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.83|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on changes from baseline in Ocular Protection Index - Right eye - Day 7±1||0.83|-0.18|0.1986
90795217|NCT02507934|181470568|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26||||0.4067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.37|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on changes from baseline in Ocular Protection Index - Left eye - Day 14±1||0.37|-0.90|0.4067
90795218|NCT02507934|181470568|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.5256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.42|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on changes from baseline in Ocular Protection Index - Right eye - Day 14±1||0.42|-0.81|0.5256
90795219|NCT02507934|181470568|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47||||0.1471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|0.17|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on changes from baseline in Ocular Protection Index - Left eye - Day 21±1||0.17|-1.12|0.1471
90795220|NCT02507934|181470568|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35||||0.2455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.25|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on changes from baseline in Ocular Protection Index - Right eye - Day 21±1||0.25|-0.96|0.2455
90795221|NCT02507934|181470569|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56||||0.4233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|0.85|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T test p-value - Left eye - Day 7±1||0.85|-1.98|0.4233
90795222|NCT02507934|181470569|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32||||0.6335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|1.69|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T test p-value - Right eye - Day 7±1||1.69|-1.04|0.6335
90795223|NCT02507934|181470569|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.04||||0.0103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.56|-0.51|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T test p-value - Left eye - Day 14±1||-0.51|-3.56|0.0103
90795224|NCT02507934|181470569|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.34||||0.1006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.95|0.27|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T test p-value - Right eye - Day 14±1||0.27|-2.95|0.1006
90795225|NCT02507934|181470569|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5||||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.15|-0.85|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T test p-value - Left eye - Day 21±1||-0.85|-4.15|0.0041
90795226|NCT02507934|181470569|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.87||||0.0429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.67|-0.06|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T test p-value - Right eye - Day 21±1||-0.06|-3.67|0.0429
90795227|NCT02507934|181470570|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28||||0.2338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.19|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on changes from baseline in Visual acuity score - Left eye - Day 7±1||0.19|-0.75|0.2338
90795228|NCT02507934|181470570|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.3081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.19|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on changes from baseline in Visual acuity score - Right eye - Day 7±1||0.19|-0.58|0.3081
90795229|NCT02507934|181470570|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.59||||0.4287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.57|5.74|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on changes from baseline in Visual acuity score - Left eye - Day 14±1||5.74|-2.57|0.4287
90795230|NCT02507934|181470570|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.15||||0.5765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.14|5.44|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on changes from baseline in Visual acuity score - Right eye - Day 14±1||5.44|-3.14|0.5765
90795231|NCT02507934|181470570|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.17||||0.0259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|-0.15|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on changes from baseline in Visual acuity score - Left eye - Day 21±1||-0.15|-2.18|0.0259
90795232|NCT02507934|181470570|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.93||||0.1496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|0.37|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on changes from baseline in Visual acuity score - Right eye - Day 21±1||0.37|-2.23|0.1496
90795233|NCT02507934|181470571|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2342|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Eyelid - Meibomian Glands - Right - Day 7±1||||0.2342
90795234|NCT02507934|181470571|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8874|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Eyelid - Meibomian Glands - Left - Day 7±1||||0.8874
90795235|NCT02507934|181470571|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0504|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Eyelid - Erythema - Right - Day 7±1||||0.0504
90795236|NCT02507934|181470571|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0814|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Eyelid - Erythema - Left - Day 7±1||||0.0814
90795237|NCT02507934|181470571|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Eyelid - Oedema - Right - Day 7±1||||1.0000
90795238|NCT02507934|181470571|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3855|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Eyelid - Oedema - Left - Day 7±1||||0.3855
90795239|NCT02507934|181470571|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Lashes - Right - Day 7±1||||1.0000
90795240|NCT02507934|181470571|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Lashes - Left - Day 7±1||||1.0000
90795241|NCT02507934|181470571|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4754|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Conjunctiva - Erythema - Right - Day 7±1||||0.4754
90795242|NCT02507934|181470571|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2914|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Conjunctiva - Erythema - Left - Day 7±1||||0.2914
90795243|NCT02507934|181470571|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Conjunctiva - Oedema - Right - Day 7±1||||1.0000
90795244|NCT02507934|181470571|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Conjunctiva - Oedema - Left - Day 7±1||||1.0000
90795245|NCT02507934|181470571|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Lens - Right - Day 7±1||||1.0000
90795246|NCT02507934|181470571|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Lens - Left - Day 7±1||||1.0000
90795247|NCT02507934|181470571|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Iris - Right - Day 7±1||||1.0000
90795248|NCT02507934|181470571|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Iris - Left - Day 7±1||||1.0000
90795249|NCT02507934|181470571|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Anterior chamber inflammation - Right - Day 7±1||||1.0000
90795250|NCT02507934|181470571|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Anterior chamber inflammation - Left - Day 7±1||||1.0000
90795251|NCT02507934|181470571|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Cornea transparency - Right - Day 7±1||||1.0000
90795252|NCT02507934|181470571|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Cornea transparency - Left - Day 7±1||||1.0000
90795253|NCT02507934|181470571|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Cornea neovascularization - Right - Day 7±1||||1.0000
90795254|NCT02507934|181470571|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Cornea neovascularization - Left - Day 7±1||||1.0000
90795255|NCT02507934|181470571|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2429|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Eyelid - Meibomian Glands - Right - Day 14±1||||0.2429
90795256|NCT02507934|181470571|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5707|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Eyelid - Meibomian Glands - Left - Day 14±1||||0.5707
90795257|NCT02507934|181470571|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0092|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Eyelid - Erythema - Right - Day 14±1||||0.0092
90795258|NCT02507934|181470571|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0039|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Eyelid - Erythema - Left - Day 14±1||||0.0039
90795259|NCT02507934|181470571|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2882|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Eyelid - Oedema - Right - Day 14±1||||0.2882
90795260|NCT02507934|181470571|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4017|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Eyelid - Oedema - Left - Day 14±1||||0.4017
90795261|NCT02507934|181470571|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Lashes - Right - Day 14±1||||1.0000
90795262|NCT02507934|181470571|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Lashes - Left - Day 14±1||||1.0000
90795263|NCT02507934|181470571|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0731|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Conjunctiva - Erythema - Right - Day 14±1||||0.0731
90795264|NCT02507934|181470571|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Conjunctiva - Erythema - Left - Day 14±1||||0.0020
90795265|NCT02507934|181470571|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Conjunctiva - Oedema - Right - Day 14±1||||1.0000
90795266|NCT02507934|181470571|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Conjunctiva - Oedema - Left - Day 14±1||||1.0000
90795267|NCT02507934|181470571|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Lens - Right - Day 14±1||||1.0000
90795268|NCT02507934|181470571|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Lens - Left - Day 14±1||||1.0000
90795269|NCT02507934|181470571|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Iris - Right - Day 14±1||||1.0000
90795270|NCT02507934|181470571|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Iris - Left - Day 14±1||||1.0000
90795271|NCT02507934|181470571|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Anterior chamber inflammation - Right - Day 14±1||||1.0000
90795272|NCT02507934|181470571|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Anterior chamber inflammation - Left - Day 14±1||||1.0000
90795273|NCT02507934|181470571|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Cornea transparency - Right - Day 14±1||||1.0000
91053840|NCT02912650|181990989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.52||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|1.06|||ANCOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||1.06|-0.03|0.062
91053841|NCT02912650|181990989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.01|5.64|||ANCOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||5.64|4.01|<0.001
90795274|NCT02507934|181470571|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Cornea transparency - Left - Day 14±1||||1.0000
90795275|NCT02507934|181470571|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Cornea neovascularization - Right - Day 14±1||||1.0000
90795276|NCT02507934|181470571|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Cornea neovascularization - Left - Day 14±1||||1.0000
90795277|NCT02507934|181470571|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1376|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Eyelid - Meibomian Glands - Right - Day 21±1||||0.1376
90795278|NCT02507934|181470571|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3252|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Eyelid - Meibomian Glands - Left - Day 21±1||||0.3252
90795279|NCT02507934|181470571|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0111|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Eyelid - Erythema - Right - Day 21±1||||0.0111
90795280|NCT02507934|181470571|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0049|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Eyelid - Erythema - Right - Day 21±1||||0.0049
90795281|NCT02507934|181470571|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1178|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Eyelid - Oedema - Right - Day 21±1||||0.1178
90795282|NCT02507934|181470571|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9042|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Eyelid - Oedema - Left - Day 21±1||||0.9042
90795283|NCT02507934|181470571|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Lashes - Right - Day 21±1||||1.0000
90795284|NCT02507934|181470571|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Lashes - Left - Day 21±1||||1.0000
90795285|NCT02507934|181470571|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0253|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Conjunctiva - Erythema - Right - Day 21±1||||0.0253
90795286|NCT02507934|181470571|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0016|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Conjunctiva - Erythema - Left - Day 21±1||||0.0016
90795287|NCT02507934|181470571|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Conjunctiva - Oedema - Right - Day 21±1||||1.0000
90795288|NCT02507934|181470571|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Conjunctiva - Oedema - Left - Day 21±1||||1.0000
90795289|NCT02507934|181470571|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3165|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Lens - Right - Day 21±1||||0.3165
90795290|NCT02507934|181470571|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3165|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Lens - Left - Day 21±1||||0.3165
90795291|NCT02507934|181470571|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Iris - Right - Day 21±1||||1.0000
90795292|NCT02507934|181470571|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Iris - Left - Day 21±1||||1.0000
90795293|NCT02507934|181470571|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Anterior chamber inflammation - Right - Day 21±1||||1.0000
90795294|NCT02507934|181470571|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Anterior chamber inflammation - Left - Day 21±1||||1.0000
90795295|NCT02507934|181470571|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Cornea transparency - Right - Day 21±1||||1.0000
90795296|NCT02507934|181470571|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Cornea transparency - Left - Day 21±1||||1.0000
90795297|NCT02507934|181470571|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Cornea neovascularization - Right - Day 21±1||||1.0000
90795298|NCT02507934|181470571|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Cornea neovascularization - Left - Day 21±1||||1.0000
90795299|NCT02507934|181470572|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.12||||0.0599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|2.29|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on changes from baseline in Intraocular pressure - Left eye - Day 7±1||2.29|-0.05|0.0599
90795300|NCT02507934|181470572|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.49||||0.3969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|1.66|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on changes from baseline in Intraocular pressure - Right eye - Day 7±1||1.66|-0.68|0.3969
90795301|NCT02507934|181470572|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28||||0.7225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|1.84|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on changes from baseline in Intraocular pressure - Left eye - Day 14±1||1.84|-1.29|0.7225
90795302|NCT02507934|181470572|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.76||||0.269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.14|0.62|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on changes from baseline in Intraocular pressure - Right eye - Day 14±1||0.62|-2.14|0.2690
90795303|NCT02507934|181470572|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.78||||0.2344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|2.1|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on changes from baseline in Intraocular pressure - Left eye - Day 21±1||2.10|-0.53|0.2344
90795304|NCT02507934|181470572|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47||||0.5953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|2.24|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on changes from baseline in Intraocular pressure - Right eye||2.24|-1.30|0.5953
90795305|NCT02507934|181470573|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.79||||0.2193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|2.11|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on number of daily administrations of IMD during the second week of the clinical investigation - Day 7||2.11|-0.54|0.2193
91053842|NCT02912650|181990989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.76||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.33|||ANCOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||1.33|0.19|0.009
91053843|NCT02912650|181990989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|2.33|||ANCOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||2.33|1.17|<0.001
90795306|NCT02507934|181470573|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.34||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|2.18|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on number of daily administrations of IMD during the second week of the clinical investigation - Day 8||2.18|0.51|0.0024
90795307|NCT02507934|181470573|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33||||0.425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|1.14|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on number of daily administrations of IMD during the second week of the clinical investigation - Day 9||1.14|-0.49|0.4250
90795308|NCT02507934|181470573|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.56||||0.1275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|1.29|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on number of daily administrations of IMD during the second week of the clinical investigation - Day 10||1.29|-0.17|0.1275
90795309|NCT02507934|181470573|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.66||||0.0844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|1.42|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on number of daily administrations of IMD during the second week of the clinical investigation - Day 11||1.42|-0.09|0.0844
90795310|NCT02507934|181470573|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.86||||0.0238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|1.6|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on number of daily administrations of IMD during the second week of the clinical investigation - Day 12||1.60|0.12|0.0238
90795311|NCT02507934|181470573|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.83||||0.0369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|1.61|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on number of daily administrations of IMD during the second week of the clinical investigation - Day 13||1.61|0.05|0.0369
90795312|NCT02507934|181470573|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.52||||0.3496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|1.64|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on number of daily administrations of IMD during the second week of the clinical investigation - Day 14||1.64|-0.61|0.3496
90795313|NCT03766399|181470607|OTHER||LS means difference|-0.44||||0.9511|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.9|12.0|||Linear Mixed Model|||Comparison of Part 2a (MAD) Cohort 1 Vs Part 2a (MAD) Cohort 2||12.0|-12.9|0.9511
90795314|NCT03766399|181470607|OTHER||LS means difference|-7.87||||0.2849|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.3|4.59|||Linear Mixed Model|||Comparison of Part 2a (MAD) Cohort 2 Vs Part 2a (MAD) Placebo||4.59|-20.3|0.2849
90795315|NCT03766399|181470607|OTHER||LS means difference|-8.31||||0.2595|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.8|4.14|||Linear Mixed Model|||Comparison of Part 2a (MAD) Cohort 1 Vs Part 2a (MAD) Placebo||4.14|-20.8|0.2595
90795316|NCT03766399|181470607|OTHER||LS means difference|-3.04||||0.3604|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.6|2.51|||Linear Mixed Model|||Comparison of Part 3a (DPI/PoM) Vs Part 3a (DPI/PoM) Placebo||2.51|-8.60|0.3604
90795317|NCT03766399|181470608|OTHER||LS means difference|-25.4||||0.7544|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-166.0|115.0|||Linear Mixed Model|||Comparison of Part 2a (MAD) Cohort 1 Vs Part 2a (MAD) Cohort 2||115|-166|0.7544
90795318|NCT03766399|181470608|OTHER||LS means difference|-73.3||||0.375|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-214.0|67.6|||Linear Mixed Model|||Comparison of Part 2a (MAD) Cohort 2 Vs Part 2a (MAD) Placebo||67.6|-214|0.3750
90795319|NCT03766399|181470608|OTHER||LS means difference|-98.7||||0.2377|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-240.0|42.3|||Linear Mixed Model|||Comparison of Part 2a (MAD) Cohort 1 Vs Part 2a (MAD) Placebo||42.3|-240|0.2377
90795320|NCT03766399|181470608|OTHER||LS means difference|-50.4||||0.1105|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-102.0|1.61|||Linear Mixed Model|||Comparison of Part 3a (DPI/PoM) Vs Part 3a (DPI/PoM) Placebo||1.61|-102|0.1105
90795321|NCT01251757|181470652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.022|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.011|0.034|||Regression, Linear|adjusted for site, gender, age, total number of prescription medications patient is taking, comorbid diabetes/CVD, and baseline statin adherence.|Adjusted difference in adherence for IVR group versus UC group, calculated as IVR - UC.|We conducted separate primary analyses of each of IVR and IVR+ versus usual care at the .025 level of significance to assure a trial-wide error rate of .05. This analysis summary is for the IVR versus UC comparison only. Also, we only report results here for the full sample, and not also separately for the 3 baseline adherence level groups.||0.034|0.011|<.001
90795322|NCT01251757|181470652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.019|0.042|||Regression, Linear|adjusted for site, gender, age, total number of prescription medications participant is taking, comorbid diabetes/CVD, and baseline statin adherence.|Adjusted difference in adherence for IVR+ group versus UC group, calculated as IVR+ - UC.|We conducted separate primary analyses of each of IVR and IVR+ versus usual care at the .025 level of significance to assure a trial-wide error rate of .05. This analysis summary is for the IVR+ versus UC comparison only. Also, we only report results here for the full sample, and not also separately for the 3 baseline adherence level groups.||0.042|0.019|<.001
90795323|NCT01251757|181470653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.016||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.002|0.029|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for site, gender, age, total number of prescription medications participant was taking, comorbid diabetes/CVD, baseline ACEI/ARB adherence.|Adjusted difference in adherence for IVR+ group versus UC group, calculated as IVR+ - UC.|We conducted separate primary analyses of each of IVR and IVR+ versus usual care at the .025 level of significance to assure a trial-wide error rate of .05. This analysis summary is for the IVR versus UC comparison only. Also, we only report results here for the full sample, and not also separately for the 3 baseline adherence level groups.||0.029|0.002|0.022
90795324|NCT01251757|181470653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.037|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.023|0.05|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for site, gender, age, total number of prescription medications participant was taking, comorbid diabetes/CVD, baseline ACEI/ARB adherence.|Adjusted difference in adherence for IVR+ group versus UC group, calculated as IVR+ - UC.|We conducted separate primary analyses of each of IVR and IVR+ versus usual care at the .025 level of significance to assure a trial-wide error rate of .05. This analysis summary is for the IVR+ versus UC comparison only. Also, we only report results here for the full sample, and not also separately for the 3 baseline adherence level groups.||0.050|0.023|<.001
90795325|NCT01251757|181470654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.24||Adjusted for site, gender, age, total number of prescription medications patient is taking, comorbid diabetes/CVD, and baseline statin adherence.|Regression, Logistic||Adjusted odds ratio for good adherence in IVR group versus UC group, calculated as IVR - UC.|We conducted separate primary analyses of each of IVR and IVR+ versus usual care at the .025 level of significance to assure a trial-wide error rate of .05. This analysis summary is for the IVR versus UC comparison only. Also, we only report results here for the full sample, and not also separately for the 3 baseline adherence level groups.||1.24|1.05|0.002
90795326|NCT01251757|181470654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.26||Adjusted for site, gender, age, total number of prescription medications patient is taking, comorbid diabetes/CVD, and baseline statin adherence.|Regression, Logistic||Adjusted odds ratio for good adherence in IVR+ group versus UC group, calculated as IVR+ - UC.|We conducted separate primary analyses of each of IVR and IVR+ versus usual care at the .025 level of significance to assure a trial-wide error rate of .05. This analysis summary is for the IVR+ versus UC comparison only. Also, we only report results here for the full sample, and not also separately for the 3 baseline adherence level groups.||1.26|1.06|<0.001
90795327|NCT01251757|181470655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.23||adjusted for site, gender, age, total number of prescription medications participant was taking, comorbid diabetes/CVD, baseline ACEI/ARB adherence|Regression, Logistic||Adjusted odds ratio for good adherence in IVR group versus UC group, calculated as IVR - UC.|We conducted separate primary analyses of each of IVR and IVR+ versus usual care at the .025 level of significance to assure a trial-wide error rate of .05. This analysis summary is for the IVR versus UC comparison only. Also, we only report results here for the full sample, and not also separately for the 3 baseline adherence level groups.||1.23|1.02|0.014
90795328|NCT01251757|181470655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.32||Adjusted for site, gender, age, total number of prescription medications patient is taking, comorbid diabetes/CVD, and baseline statin adherence.|Regression, Logistic||Adjusted odds ratio for good adherence in IVR group versus UC group, calculated as IVR - UC.|We conducted separate primary analyses of each of IVR and IVR+ versus usual care at the .025 level of significance to assure a trial-wide error rate of .05. This analysis summary is for the IVR+ versus UC comparison only. Also, we only report results here for the full sample, and not also separately for the 3 baseline adherence level groups.||1.32|1.10|<0.001
90890272|NCT01217073|181644898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-35.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.9|-21.3||With terms for treatment, prior AHA therapy status, geographic region (Japan/ex-Japan), and the interaction of time by treatment, time by prior AHA therapy status, with the constraint that the mean baseline is the same for all treatment groups.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-21.3|-48.9|<0.001
91011695|NCT01545375|181906204|SUPERIORITY|The objective was to demonstrate that VE induced by GSK2189242A vaccine (three doses in the first year of life and a booster dose in the second year of life)in preventing clinical AOM diagnosed and verified against AAP criteria was greater than 0%, as compared to the control group. One-sided p-value for the Wald-Test obtained from the general Cox proportional hazard model was calculated.|Vaccine Efficacy|3.81||||0.3016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.35|16.9||The primary objective was met if the one-sided p-value calculated for the null hypothesis H0=\[clinical AOM VE ≤ 0%\] was lower than defined 1-sided alpha level: (17.8%).|Regression, Cox|||VE-AOM against AAP criteria: Occurrence of AOM during efficacy follow-up period was compared between groups to estimate Vaccine Efficacy (VE) and its 95% confidence interval using the Anderson \& Gill model (generalization of Cox proportional hazard model) taking into account for recurrent events \[Kelly, 2000\]. VE= (1 - hazard ratio) x 100 Censoring occurred at the time of the last scheduled or medically attended visit.||16.90|-11.35|0.3016
90795329|NCT01251757|181470656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||As noted above, the a priori threshold for statistical significance for this test was .025.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for site, gender, age, total number of prescription medications patient is taking, comorbid diabetes/CVD, and baseline SBP group.||We conducted separate primary analyses of each of IVR and IVR+ versus usual care at the .025 level of significance to assure a trial-wide error rate of .05. This analysis summary is for the IVR versus UC comparison only. Also, we only report results here for the full sample, and not also separately for the 3 baseline SBP level groups.||0.0|-1.0|.041
90890273|NCT01217073|181644898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-33.5|||<|0.001||95.0|-47.3|-19.7||With terms for treatment, prior AHA therapy status, geographic region (Japan/ex-Japan), and the interaction of time by treatment, time by prior AHA therapy status, with the constraint that the mean baseline is the same for all treatment groups.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-19.7|-47.3|<0.001
91053844|NCT02912650|181990989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.25|4.88|||ANCOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||4.88|3.25|<0.001
90795330|NCT01251757|181470656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5||As noted above, the a priori threshold for statistical significance for this test was .025.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for site, gender, age, total number of prescription medications participant is taking, comorbid diabetes/CVD, and baseline SBP group.||We conducted separate primary analyses of each of IVR and IVR+ versus usual care at the .025 level of significance to assure a trial-wide error rate of .05. This analysis summary is for the IVR+ versus UC comparison only. Also, we only report results here for the full sample, and not also separately for the 3 baseline SBP level groups.||.5|-.5|.93
90795331|NCT01251757|181470657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.19||As noted above, the a priori threshold for statistical significance for this test was .025.|Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for site, gender, age, total number of prescription medications participant is taking, comorbid diabetes/CVD, and baseline SBP group||We conducted separate primary analyses of each of IVR and IVR+ versus usual care at the .025 level of significance to assure a trial-wide error rate of .05. This analysis summary is for the IVR versus UC comparison only. Also, we only report results here for the full sample, and not also separately for the 3 baseline SBP level groups.||1.19|0.93|.404
91011696|NCT03039686|181906260|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.17|1.27|||||Based on the MMRM using an unstructured covariance matrix -change = Baseline + Age Interactive response system (IXRS) Stratum + Corticosteroid Regimen IXRS Stratum + Analysis Visit\*Treatment.|||1.27|-2.17|
91011697|NCT03039686|181906260|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.26|||||Based on the MMRM using an unstructured covariance matrix -change = Baseline + Age IXRS Stratum + Corticosteroid Regimen IXRS Stratum + Analysis Visit\*Treatment.|||2.26|-1.10|
91011698|NCT03039686|181906262|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.2|||||Based on the MMRM using an unstructured covariance matrix - change = Baseline + Age IXRS Stratum + Corticosteroid Regimen IXRS Stratum + Analysis Visit\*Treatment.|||0.20|-0.21|
91011699|NCT03039686|181906262|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.27|||||Based on the MMRM using an unstructured covariance matrix - change = Baseline + Age IXRS Stratum + Corticosteroid Regimen IXRS Stratum + Analysis Visit\*Treatment.|||0.27|-0.12|
91011700|NCT03039686|181906264|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.06|||||Based on the MMRM using an unstructured covariance matrix - change = Baseline + Age IXRS Stratum + Corticosteroid Regimen IXRS Stratum + Analysis Visit\*Treatment.|||0.06|-0.00|
91011701|NCT03039686|181906264|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.06|||||Based on the MMRM using an unstructured covariance matrix - change = Baseline + Age IXRS Stratum + Corticosteroid Regimen IXRS Stratum + Analysis Visit\*Treatment.|||0.06|-0.00|
91011702|NCT03039686|181906266|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.27|||||Based on the MMRM using an unstructured covariance matrix - change = Baseline + Age IXRS Stratum + Corticosteroid Regimen IXRS Stratum + Analysis Visit\*Treatment.|||0.27|-0.08|
91011703|NCT03039686|181906266|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.18|||||Based on the MMRM using an unstructured covariance matrix - change = Baseline + Age IXRS Stratum + Corticosteroid Regimen IXRS Stratum + Analysis Visit\*Treatment.|||0.18|-0.17|
91011704|NCT03039686|181906268|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.41|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.76|2.77|||||Based on the MMRM using an unstructured covariance matrix - change = Baseline + Age IXRS Stratum + Corticosteroid Regimen IXRS Stratum + Analysis Visit\*Treatment.|||2.77|-6.76|
90795332|NCT01251757|181470657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.09||As noted above, the a priori threshold for statistical significance for this test was .025.|Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for site, gender, age, total number of prescription medications participant is taking, comorbid diabetes/CVD, and baseline SBP group||We conducted separate primary analyses of each of IVR and IVR+ versus usual care at the .025 level of significance to assure a trial-wide error rate of .05. This analysis summary is for the IVR+ versus UC comparison only. Also, we only report results here for the full sample, and not also separately for the 3 baseline SBP level groups.||1.09|.85|.54
90795333|NCT01251757|181470658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.7||As noted above, the a priori threshold for statistical significance for this test was .025.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for site, gender, age, total number of prescription medications participant is taking, comorbid diabetes/CVD, and baseline LDL group.||We conducted separate primary analyses of each of IVR and IVR+ versus usual care at the .025 level of significance to assure a trial-wide error rate of .05. This analysis summary is for the IVR versus UC comparison only. Also, we only report results here for the full sample, and not also separately for the 3 baseline LDL subgroups.||0.7|-1.8|.38
90795334|NCT01251757|181470658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.2||As noted above, the a priori threshold for statistical significance for this test was .025.|Regression, Linear|adjusted for site, gender, age, total number of prescription medications participant is taking, comorbid diabetes/CVD, and baseline LDL group.|MeanLDL levels were sig lower for IVR+ participants than for UC participants. In subgroup analyses this difference was most pronounced in those individuals with baseline LDL levels above 100 mg/dL (adj diff=-3.6 mg/dL, 95%CI= (-5.9, -1.3), p=.002).|We conducted separate primary analyses of each of IVR and IVR+ versus usual care at the .025 level of significance to assure a trial-wide error rate of .05. This analysis summary is for the IVR+ versus UC comparison only. Also, we only report results here for the full sample, and not also separately for the 3 baseline LDL level subgroups.||-0.2|-2.7|.019
90795335|NCT01251757|181470659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.13||As noted above, the a priori threshold for statistical significance for this test was .025.|Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for site, gender, age, total number of prescription medications participant is taking, comorbid diabetes/CVD, and baseline LDL group.||We conducted separate primary analyses of each of IVR and IVR+ versus usual care at the .025 level of significance to assure a trial-wide error rate of .05. This analysis summary is for the IVR versus UC comparison only. Also, we only report results here for the full sample, and not also separately for the 3 baseline LDL level subgroups.||1.13|0.93|.59
91011705|NCT03039686|181906268|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.36|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.71|5.63|||||Based on the MMRM using an unstructured covariance matrix - change = Baseline + Age IXRS Stratum + Corticosteroid Regimen IXRS Stratum + Analysis Visit\*Treatment.|||5.63|-3.71|
90795336|NCT01251757|181470659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.22||As noted above, the a priori threshold for statistical significance for this test was .025.|Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for site, gender, age, total number of prescription medications participant is taking, comorbid diabetes/CVD, and baseline LDL group.|Though higher for the IVR+ group, LDL control did not differ significantly between the IVR+ and UC arms. Among those with poor initial control, however, control was sig better for the IVR+ arm (OR = 1.21, 95%CI = (1.04, 1.42), p=.015).|We conducted separate primary analyses of each of IVR and IVR+ versus usual care at the .025 level of significance to assure a trial-wide error rate of .05. This analysis summary is for the IVR+ versus UC comparison only. Also, we only report results here for the full sample, and not also separately for the 3 baseline LDL level subgroups.||1.22|1.00|.058
90795337|NCT04992065|181470666|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-31.95|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.02|-20.87|||ANCOVA|||LDL-C percentage change at week 12 from baseline responses were analysed using an analysis of covariance model with randomised treatment and strata as factors and baseline LDL-C as covariate.||-20.87|-43.02|<.0001
90795338|NCT04992065|181470666|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-44.91|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.04|-33.79|||ANCOVA|||LDL-C percentage change at week 12 from baseline responses were analysed using an analysis of covariance model with randomised treatment and strata as factors and baseline LDL-C as covariate.||-33.79|-56.04|<.0001
90795339|NCT04992065|181470666|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-61.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.94|-50.72|||ANCOVA|||LDL-C percentage change at week 12 from baseline responses were analysed using an analysis of covariance model with randomised treatment and strata as factors and baseline LDL-C as covariate.||-50.72|-72.94|<.0001
90795340|NCT04992065|181470666|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|33.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.16|44.47||||||LDL-C percentage change at week 12 from baseline responses were analysed using an analysis of covariance model with randomised treatment and strata as factors and baseline LDL-C as covariate.||44.47|22.16|
90795341|NCT04992065|181470666|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|20.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.21|31.48||||||LDL-C percentage change at week 12 from baseline responses were analysed using an analysis of covariance model with randomised treatment and strata as factors and baseline LDL-C as covariate.||31.48|9.21|
91011706|NCT03039686|181906271|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.1|24.6|||||Based on the MMRM using an unstructured covariance matrix - change = Baseline + Age IXRS Stratum + Corticosteroid Regimen IXRS Stratum + Analysis Visit\*Treatment.|||24.6|-21.1|
91011707|NCT03039686|181906271|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|33.6|||||Based on the MMRM using an unstructured covariance matrix - change = Baseline + Age IXRS Stratum + Corticosteroid Regimen IXRS Stratum + Analysis Visit\*Treatment.|||33.6|-11.0|
91011708|NCT03947333|181906307|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6||||0.221|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.221
91011709|NCT03947333|181906307|OTHER||fixed-effects estimate of intervention|0.846||||0.559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|3.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects model||3.68|-1.99|0.559
91011710|NCT03947333|181906308|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.532|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.532
91011711|NCT03947333|181906309|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.086|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Change at 3 months||||0.086
91011712|NCT03947333|181906309|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.562|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Change at 6 months||||0.562
90795342|NCT04992065|181470666|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|3.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.81|14.68||||||LDL-C percentage change at week 12 from baseline responses were analysed using an analysis of covariance model with randomised treatment and strata as factors and baseline LDL-C as covariate.||14.68|-7.81|
90795343|NCT00663260|181470677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1448||0.561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.2||Primary endpoints were tested at alpha=0.027 applying Dunnett's adjustment|ANCOVA|||||0.20|-0.37|0.561
90795344|NCT00663260|181470677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1457||0.435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.17||Primary endpoints were tested at alpha=0.027 applying Dunnett's adjustment|ANCOVA|||||0.17|-0.40|0.435
90795345|NCT00663260|181470678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.142|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.7|2.4||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05; secondary efficacy analyses were not tested since the primary endpoint was not significant.|ANCOVA|||||2.4|-29.7|
90795346|NCT00663260|181470678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.136|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.0|7.0||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05; secondary efficacy analyses were not tested since the primary endpoint was not significant.|ANCOVA|||||7.0|-25.0|
90795347|NCT00663260|181470679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4435|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.68|-0.94||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05; secondary efficacy analyses were not tested since the primary endpoint was not significant.|ANCOVA|||||-0.94|-2.68|
90795348|NCT00663260|181470679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4395|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.03|-1.29||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05; secondary efficacy analyses were not tested since the primary endpoint was not significant.|ANCOVA|||||-1.29|-3.03|
90795349|NCT01506726|181470680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.94||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.08|0.2|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon two sample test||||0.20|-2.08|0.230
90795350|NCT01506726|181470681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.347|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.347
90795351|NCT01506726|181470682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.857|TWO_SIDED|||||Correlation between change in IL-6 and change in hemoglobin in the salsalate group. Testing the correlation equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.857
90795352|NCT01506726|181470682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.706|TWO_SIDED|||||Correlation between change in IL-6 and change in hemoglobin in the placebo group. Testing the correlation equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.706
90795353|NCT01506726|181470682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|||||Correlation between change in TNF and change in hemoglobin in the salsalate group. Testing the correlation equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.014
90795354|NCT01506726|181470682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.136|TWO_SIDED|||||Correlation between change in TNF and change in hemoglobin in the placebo group. Testing the correlation equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.136
91011713|NCT03947333|181906309|OTHER||fixed-effects estimate of intervention|0.348||||0.451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.557|1.254|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed Effects Model||1.254|-0.557|0.451
91011714|NCT03947333|181906310|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.27|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Change at 3 months||||0.270
90795355|NCT01506726|181470682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.803|TWO_SIDED|||||Correlation between change in CRP and change in hemoglobin in the salsalate group. Testing the correlation equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.803
90795356|NCT01506726|181470682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.894|TWO_SIDED|||||Correlation between change in CRP and change in hemoglobin in the placebo group. Testing the correlation equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.894
90795357|NCT01506726|181470683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.143|TWO_SIDED|||||P value comparing change in IL6 between treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.143
90795358|NCT01506726|181470683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.257|TWO_SIDED|||||P value comparing the change in TNF between treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.257
90795359|NCT01506726|181470684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.535|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value comparing the change in EPO between treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.535
90795360|NCT01506726|181470685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.232|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.232
90795361|NCT01506726|181470686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.076|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.076
90795362|NCT01506726|181470687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.999
90795363|NCT01506726|181470688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.187|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.187
90795364|NCT01506726|181470689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.193|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.193
90795365|NCT01506726|181470690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.619|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.619
90795366|NCT01506726|181470691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.642|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.642
90795367|NCT01506726|181470692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.42
90795368|NCT01506726|181470693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.999
90795369|NCT01506726|181470694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.375|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.375
90795370|NCT01506726|181470696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.398|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.398
90795371|NCT01506726|181470697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.412|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.412
90795372|NCT04562090|181470698|SUPERIORITY|Statistical testing was conducted using 2-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean|-3.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|-3.16||Repeated Measures Analysis (RMA): CFB as response, treatment group (TG), visit (week 4, 8 and 12), pooled site, sex and the interaction between TG and visit as fixed effects and mean number of micturitions per 24 hours at baseline as covariate.|MMRM|||Week 12||-3.16|-4.30|<0.001
90795373|NCT04562090|181470701|SUPERIORITY|Statistical testing was conducted using 2-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean|-2.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.25|-1.99||RMA: CFB as response, TG, visit (week 4, 8 and 12), pooled site, sex and interaction between TG and visit as fixed effects and mean (SD) number of grade 3 or 4 (PPIUS) urgency episodes per 24 hours at baseline as covariate.|MMRM|||Week 4||-1.99|-3.25|<0.001
91011715|NCT03947333|181906310|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.299|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Change at 6 months||||0.299
91011716|NCT03947333|181906310|OTHER||fixed-effects estimate of intervention|0.1||||0.917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.786|1.986|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects model||1.986|-1.786|0.917
90795374|NCT04562090|181470701|SUPERIORITY|Statistical testing was conducted using 2-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean|-2.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.93|-2.02||RMA: CFB as response, TG, visit (week 4, 8 and 12), pooled site, sex and interaction between TG and visit as fixed effects and mean (SD) number of grade 3 or 4 (PPIUS) urgency episodes per 24 hours at baseline as covariate.|MMRM|||Week 4||-2.02|-2.93|<0.001
90795375|NCT04562090|181470701|SUPERIORITY|Statistical testing was conducted using 2-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean|-3.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.96|-2.3||RMA: CFB as response, TG, visit (week 4, 8 and 12), pooled site, sex and interaction between TG and visit as fixed effects and mean (SD) number of grade 3 or 4 (PPIUS) urgency episodes per 24 hours at baseline as covariate.|MMRM|||Week 8||-2.30|-3.96|<0.001
90795376|NCT04562090|181470701|SUPERIORITY|Statistical testing was conducted using 2-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean|-2.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.39|-2.47||RMA: CFB as response, TG, visit (week 4, 8 and 12), pooled site, sex and interaction between TG and visit as fixed effects and mean (SD) number of grade 3 or 4 (PPIUS) urgency episodes per 24 hours at baseline as covariate.|MMRM|||Week 8||-2.47|-3.39|<0.001
90795377|NCT04562090|181470701|SUPERIORITY|Statistical testing was conducted using 2-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean|-3.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.37|-2.56||RMA: CFB as response, TG, visit (week 4, 8 and 12), pooled site, sex and interaction between TG and visit as fixed effects and mean (SD) number of grade 3 or 4 (PPIUS) urgency episodes per 24 hours at baseline as covariate.|MMRM|||Week 12||-2.56|-4.37|<0.001
91011717|NCT03947333|181906311|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.093|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Change at 3 months||||0.093
91011718|NCT03947333|181906311|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.034|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Change at 6 months||||0.034
91011719|NCT03947333|181906311|OTHER||fixed-effects estimate of intervention|0.242||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.049|0.533|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed Effects Model||0.533|-0.049|0.103
91011720|NCT03947333|181906312|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.116|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Change at 3 months||||0.116
90795378|NCT04562090|181470701|SUPERIORITY|Statistical testing was conducted using 2-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean|-3.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.06|-3.12||RMA: CFB as response, TG, visit (week 4, 8 and 12), pooled site, sex and interaction between TG and visit as fixed effects and mean (SD) number of grade 3 or 4 (PPIUS) urgency episodes per 24 hours at baseline as covariate.|MMRM|||Week 12||-3.12|-4.06|<0.001
90795379|NCT04562090|181470702|SUPERIORITY|Statistical testing was conducted using 2-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.44||RMA: CFB as response, TG, visit (week 4, 8 and 12), pooled site, sex and the interaction between TG and visit as fixed effects and mean number of daytime incontinence episodes per 24 hours at baseline as covariate.|MMRM|||Week 4||-0.44|-0.88|<0.001
90795380|NCT04562090|181470702|SUPERIORITY|Statistical testing was conducted using 2-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.65||RMA: CFB as response, TG, visit (week 4, 8 and 12), pooled site, sex and the interaction between TG and visit as fixed effects and mean number of daytime incontinence episodes per 24 hours at baseline as covariate.|MMRM|||Week 4||-0.65|-0.97|<0.001
90795381|NCT04562090|181470702|SUPERIORITY|Statistical testing was conducted using 2-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean|-0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|-0.58||RMA: CFB as response, TG, visit (week 4, 8 and 12), pooled site, sex and the interaction between TG and visit as fixed effects and mean number of daytime incontinence episodes per 24 hours at baseline as covariate.|MMRM|||Week 8||-0.58|-1.17|<0.001
90795382|NCT04562090|181470702|SUPERIORITY|Statistical testing was conducted using 2-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean|-0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.78||RMA: CFB as response, TG, visit (week 4, 8 and 12), pooled site, sex and the interaction between TG and visit as fixed effects and mean number of daytime incontinence episodes per 24 hours at baseline as covariate.|MMRM|||Week 8||-0.78|-1.10|<0.001
91011721|NCT03947333|181906312|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.009
91011722|NCT03947333|181906312|OTHER||fixed-effects estimate of intervention|0.183||||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.084|0.451|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed Effects Model||0.451|-0.084|0.178
91011723|NCT03947333|181906313|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.188|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Change at 3 months||||0.188
91011724|NCT03947333|181906313|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.749|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Change at 6 months||||0.749
91011725|NCT03947333|181906313|OTHER||fixed-effects estimate of intervention|0.031||||0.847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.288|0.351|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed Effects Model||0.351|-0.288|0.847
91011726|NCT03947333|181906314|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.182|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Change at 3 months||||0.182
91011727|NCT03947333|181906314|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.158|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Change at 6 months||||0.158
91011728|NCT03947333|181906314|OTHER||fixed-effects estimate of intervention|0.107||||0.612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.305|0.519|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed Effects Model||0.519|-0.305|0.612
91011729|NCT03947333|181906315|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.97|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Change at 3 months||||0.970
91011730|NCT03947333|181906315|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.786|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Change at 6 months||||0.786
91011731|NCT03947333|181906315|OTHER||fixed-effects estimate of intervention|-0.088||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.493|0.317|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed Effects Model||0.317|-0.493|0.670
91011732|NCT03947333|181906316|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.478|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Change at 3 months||||0.478
91011733|NCT03947333|181906316|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.666|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Change at 6 months||||0.666
91011734|NCT03947333|181906316|OTHER||fixed-effects estimate of intervention|-0.15||||0.601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.713|0.413|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed Effects Model||0.413|-0.713|0.601
91011735|NCT03947333|181906317|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.654|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.654
91011736|NCT03947333|181906318|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.485|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.485
91011737|NCT03947333|181906319|OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||McNemar|||||||0.480
90795383|NCT04562090|181470702|SUPERIORITY|Statistical testing was conducted using 2-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean|-1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|-0.71||RMA: CFB as response, TG, visit (week 4, 8 and 12), pooled site, sex and the interaction between TG and visit as fixed effects and mean number of daytime incontinence episodes per 24 hours at baseline as covariate.|MMRM|||Week 12||-0.71|-1.35|<0.001
90795384|NCT04562090|181470702|SUPERIORITY|Statistical testing was conducted using 2-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean|-0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|-0.81||RMA: CFB as response, TG, visit (week 4, 8 and 12), pooled site, sex and the interaction between TG and visit as fixed effects and mean number of daytime incontinence episodes per 24 hours at baseline as covariate.|MMRM|||Week 12||-0.81|-1.14|<0.001
90795385|NCT04562090|181470703|SUPERIORITY|Statistical testing was conducted using 2-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|-0.37||RMA: CFB as response, TG, visit (week 4, 8 and 12), pooled site, sex and the interaction between TG and visit as fixed effects and mean number of nighttime incontinence episodes per 24 hours at baseline as covariate.|MMRM|||Week 4||-0.37|-0.58|<0.001
90795386|NCT04562090|181470703|SUPERIORITY|Statistical testing was conducted using 2-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.38||RMA: CFB as response, TG, visit (week 4, 8 and 12), pooled site, sex and the interaction between TG and visit as fixed effects and mean number of nighttime incontinence episodes per 24 hours at baseline as covariate.|MMRM|||Week 4||-0.38|-0.53|<0.001
90795387|NCT04562090|181470703|SUPERIORITY|Statistical testing was conducted using 2-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.39||RMA: CFB as response, TG, visit (week 4, 8 and 12), pooled site, sex and the interaction between TG and visit as fixed effects and mean number of nighttime incontinence episodes per 24 hours at baseline as covariate.|MMRM|||Week 8||-0.39|-0.67|<0.001
91053845|NCT02912650|181990989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.26|3.9|||ANCOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||3.90|2.26|<0.001
90795388|NCT04562090|181470703|SUPERIORITY|Statistical testing was conducted using 2-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.37||RMA: CFB as response, TG, visit (week 4, 8 and 12), pooled site, sex and the interaction between TG and visit as fixed effects and mean number of nighttime incontinence episodes per 24 hours at baseline as covariate.|MMRM|||Week 8||-0.37|-0.52|<0.001
90795389|NCT04562090|181470703|SUPERIORITY|Statistical testing was conducted using 2-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.38||RMA: CFB as response, TG, visit (week 4, 8 and 12), pooled site, sex and the interaction between TG and visit as fixed effects and mean number of nighttime incontinence episodes per 24 hours at baseline as covariate.|MMRM|||Week 12||-0.38|-0.68|<0.001
90795390|NCT04562090|181470703|SUPERIORITY|Statistical testing was conducted using 2-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.45||RMA: CFB as response, TG, visit (week 4, 8 and 12), pooled site, sex and the interaction between TG and visit as fixed effects and mean number of nighttime incontinence episodes per 24 hours at baseline as covariate.|MMRM|||Week 12||-0.45|-0.60|<0.001
90795391|NCT04562090|181470704|SUPERIORITY|Statistical testing was conducted using 2-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|-0.9||RMA: CFB as response, treatment group, visit (week 4, 8 and 12), pooled site, sex and the interaction between treatment group and visit as fixed effects and mean number of urge incontinence episodes per 24 hours at baseline as covariate.|MMRM|||Week 4||-0.90|-1.31|<0.001
90795392|NCT04562090|181470704|SUPERIORITY|Statistical testing was conducted using 2-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean|-1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|-0.96||RMA: CFB as response, treatment group, visit (week 4, 8 and 12), pooled site, sex and the interaction between treatment group and visit as fixed effects and mean number of urge incontinence episodes per 24 hours at baseline as covariate.|MMRM|||Week 4||-0.96|-1.25|<0.001
90795393|NCT04562090|181470704|SUPERIORITY|Statistical testing was conducted using 2-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean|-1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|-0.99||RMA: CFB as response, treatment group, visit (week 4, 8 and 12), pooled site, sex and the interaction between treatment group and visit as fixed effects and mean number of urge incontinence episodes per 24 hours at baseline as covariate.|MMRM|||Week 8||-0.99|-1.53|<0.001
90795394|NCT04562090|181470704|SUPERIORITY|Statistical testing was conducted using 2-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|-1.05||RMA: CFB as response, treatment group, visit (week 4, 8 and 12), pooled site, sex and the interaction between treatment group and visit as fixed effects and mean number of urge incontinence episodes per 24 hours at baseline as covariate.|MMRM|||Week 8||-1.05|-1.34|<0.001
91053846|NCT02912650|181990989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.56|||ANCOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||1.56|0.41|<0.001
91053847|NCT02912650|181990989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.82|5.52|||ANCOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||5.52|3.82|<0.001
91011738|NCT03947333|181906319|OTHER|||||||0.023|||||||McNemar|||||||0.023
91011739|NCT03947333|181906320|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.542|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.542
91011740|NCT02898662|181906326|OTHER|The null hypothesis was that during the 52-week double-blind treatment period, the time to LOAC in the AZD1419 arm was equal to the corresponding time to LOAC in the placebo arm.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.5722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.87||1-sided p-value|Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio \< 1 favours AZD1419 over placebo.|Comparison between groups for time to LOAC. Cox regression model analysis with age and gender included as covariates.||1.87|0.59|0.5722
91011741|NCT02898662|181906327|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.86||||0.2006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|4.79||2-sided p-value|Generalized estimating equation analysis|||Comparison between groups for participants experiencing LOAC. Odds ratio was estimated using a generalized linear model based on a generalized estimating equation approach fitting treatment, visit and age and gender as covariates.||4.79|0.72|0.2006
90795395|NCT04562090|181470704|SUPERIORITY|Statistical testing was conducted using 2-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean|-1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|-0.96||RMA: CFB as response, treatment group, visit (week 4, 8 and 12), pooled site, sex and the interaction between treatment group and visit as fixed effects and mean number of urge incontinence episodes per 24 hours at baseline as covariate.|MMRM|||Week 12||-0.96|-1.54|<0.001
90795396|NCT04562090|181470704|SUPERIORITY|Statistical testing was conducted using 2-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean|-1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|-1.12||RMA: CFB as response, treatment group, visit (week 4, 8 and 12), pooled site, sex and the interaction between treatment group and visit as fixed effects and mean number of urge incontinence episodes per 24 hours at baseline as covariate.|MMRM|||Week 12||-1.12|-1.42|<0.001
90795397|NCT04562090|181470705|SUPERIORITY|Statistical testing was conducted using 2-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean|-2.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-2.43||RMA: CFB as response, TG, visit (week 4, 8 and 12), pooled site, sex and the interaction between TG and visit as fixed effects and mean number of OABSS at baseline as covariate.|MMRM|||Week 4||-2.43|-3.50|<0.001
90795398|NCT04562090|181470705|SUPERIORITY|Statistical testing was conducted using 2-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean|-3.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.44|-2.65||RMA: CFB as response, TG, visit (week 4, 8 and 12), pooled site, sex and the interaction between TG and visit as fixed effects and mean number of OABSS at baseline as covariate.|MMRM|||Week 4||-2.65|-3.44|<0.001
90795399|NCT04562090|181470705|SUPERIORITY|Statistical testing was conducted using 2-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean|-5.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|-4.39||RMA: CFB as response, TG, visit (week 4, 8 and 12), pooled site, sex and the interaction between TG and visit as fixed effects and mean number of OABSS at baseline as covariate.|MMRM|||Week 8||-4.39|-5.80|<0.001
90795400|NCT04562090|181470705|SUPERIORITY|Statistical testing was conducted using 2-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean|-4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|-3.9||RMA: CFB as response, TG, visit (week 4, 8 and 12), pooled site, sex and the interaction between TG and visit as fixed effects and mean number of OABSS at baseline as covariate.|MMRM|||Week 8||-3.90|-4.70|<0.001
90795401|NCT04562090|181470705|SUPERIORITY|Statistical testing was conducted using 2-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean|-6.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.78|-5.24||RMA: CFB as response, TG, visit (week 4, 8 and 12), pooled site, sex and the interaction between TG and visit as fixed effects and mean number of OABSS at baseline as covariate.|MMRM|||Week 12||-5.24|-6.78|<0.001
90795402|NCT04562090|181470705|SUPERIORITY|Statistical testing was conducted using 2-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean|-5.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.82|-4.98||RMA: CFB as response, TG, visit (week 4, 8 and 12), pooled site, sex and the interaction between TG and visit as fixed effects and mean number of OABSS at baseline as covariate.|MMRM|||Week 12||-4.98|-5.82|<0.001
90795403|NCT04562090|181470706|SUPERIORITY|Statistical testing was conducted using 2-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean|-1.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.73|-1.21||RMA: CFB as response, TG, visit (week 4, 8), pooled site, sex and the interaction between TG and visit as fixed effects and mean number of micturitions per 24 hours at baseline as covariate.|MMRM|||Week 4||-1.21|-2.73|<0.001
90795404|NCT04562090|181470706|SUPERIORITY|Statistical testing was conducted using 2-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean|-2.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-1.81||RMA: CFB as response, TG, visit (week 4, 8), pooled site, sex and the interaction between TG and visit as fixed effects and mean number of micturitions per 24 hours at baseline as covariate.|MMRM|||Week 4||-1.81|-2.90|<0.001
90795405|NCT04562090|181470706|SUPERIORITY|Statistical testing was conducted using 2-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|-2.2||RMA: CFB as response, TG, visit (week 4, 8), pooled site, sex and the interaction between TG and visit as fixed effects and mean number of micturitions per 24 hours at baseline as covariate.|MMRM|||Week 8||-2.20|-4.20|<0.001
91011742|NCT02898662|181906328|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.02||||0.8166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.17||2-sided p-value|Repeated measures analysis|||Comparison between groups for ACQ-5 score. Repeated measures analysis.||0.17|-0.22|0.8166
90795406|NCT04562090|181470706|SUPERIORITY|Statistical testing was conducted using 2-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean|-2.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.47|-2.37||RMA: CFB as response, TG, visit (week 4, 8), pooled site, sex and the interaction between TG and visit as fixed effects and mean number of micturitions per 24 hours at baseline as covariate.|MMRM|||Week 8||-2.37|-3.47|<0.001
90795407|NCT00432965|181470709|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.89||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|3.02|||Fisher Exact|||Time Frame: Days 0-114||3.02|1.19|0.007
90795408|NCT05318287|181470816|EQUIVALENCE|Whether change in linear slope from pretest through the 8-week follow-up is equivalent to zero (null hypothesis).|Slope|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.083|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.083
91011743|NCT02898662|181906329|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.03||||0.8412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.26||2-sided p-value|Repeated measures analysis|||Comparison between groups for asthma daily diary score. Repeated measures analysis.||0.26|-0.32|0.8412
91011744|NCT02898662|181906330|OTHER|The null hypothesis was that the time to moderate or severe exacerbation was not different between AZD1419 and placebo.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.5477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.67||2-sided p-value|Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio \< 1 favours AZD1419 over placebo.|Comparison between groups for time to moderate or severe asthma exacerbation. Cox regression model analysis with age and gender included as covariates.||1.67|0.38|0.5477
91011745|NCT02898662|181906330|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.7294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.86||2-sided p-value|Generalized estimating equation analysis|||Comparison between groups for participants with moderate or severe asthma exacerbation. Odds ratio was estimated using a generalized linear model based on a generalized estimating equation approach fitting treatment and visit as covariates.||1.86|0.41|0.7294
90795409|NCT05318287|181470817|EQUIVALENCE|Whether change in linear slope from pretest through the 8-week follow-up is equivalent to zero (null hypothesis).|Slope|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.010
90795410|NCT05318287|181470818|EQUIVALENCE|Whether change in linear slope from pretest through the 8-week follow-up is equivalent to zero (null hypothesis).|Slope|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.160
90795411|NCT05318287|181470819|EQUIVALENCE|Whether change in linear slope from pretest through the 8-week follow-up is equivalent to zero (null hypothesis).|Slope|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.167|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.167
90795412|NCT05318287|181470820|EQUIVALENCE|Whether change in linear slope from pretest through the 8-week follow-up is equivalent to zero (null hypothesis).|Slope|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.012|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.012
90795413|NCT05318287|181470821|EQUIVALENCE|Whether change in linear slope from pretest through the 8-week follow-up is equivalent to zero (null hypothesis).|Slope|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.347|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.347
90795414|NCT05318287|181470822|EQUIVALENCE|Whether change in linear slope from pretest through the 8-week follow-up is equivalent to zero (null hypothesis).|Slope|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.007
91011746|NCT02898662|181906332|OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.06||||0.3764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.2||2-sided p-value|Repeated measures analysis|||Comparison between groups for pre-BD FEV1. Repeated measures analysis.||0.20|-0.08|0.3764
90795415|NCT05318287|181470823|EQUIVALENCE|Whether change in linear slope from pretest through the 8-week follow-up is equivalent to zero (null hypothesis).|Slope|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.001
90795416|NCT05318287|181470824|EQUIVALENCE|Whether change in linear slope from pretest through the 8-week follow-up is equivalent to zero (null hypothesis).|Slope|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.403|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.403
90795417|NCT05318287|181470825|EQUIVALENCE|Whether change in linear slope from pretest through the 8-week follow-up is equivalent to zero (null hypothesis).|Slope|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.194|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.194
90795418|NCT04983979|181470872|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.752|0.552||||||Due to the small sample size only an estimate of the difference between study arms was generated. No hypothesis tests were completed.||0.552|-0.752|
90795419|NCT04983979|181470873|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.97|0.65|||||Only the mean difference for the study end (week 12) is presented here|Due to the small sample size only an estimate of the difference between study arms was generated. No hypothesis tests were completed.||0.65|-1.97|
90795420|NCT04983979|181470874|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.83|99.13|||||Difference in change in systolic blood pressure between study arms.|Due to the small sample size only an estimate of the difference between study arms was generated. No hypothesis tests were completed.||99.13|-48.83|
90795421|NCT04983979|181470874|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.92|40.47|||||Difference in change in diastolic blood pressure between study arms.|Due to the small sample size only an estimate of the difference between study arms was generated. No hypothesis tests were completed.||40.47|-22.92|
90795422|NCT04983979|181470875|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.174|0.674||||||Due to the small sample size only an estimate of the difference between study arms was generated. No hypothesis tests were completed.||0.674|-0.174|
91011747|NCT02898662|181906332|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.03||||0.7013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.11||2-sided p-value|Repeated measures analysis|||Comparison between groups for post-BD FEV1. Repeated measures analysis.||0.11|-0.17|0.7013
90795423|NCT04983979|181470876|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||||||Due to the small sample size only an estimate of the difference between study arms was generated. No hypothesis tests were completed.||0.00|0.00|
90795424|NCT04983979|181470877|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.174|0.674||||||Due to the small sample size only an estimate of the difference between study arms was generated. No hypothesis tests were completed.||0.674|-0.174|
90795425|NCT04983979|181470878|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.5|11.4||||||Due to the small sample size only an estimate of the difference between study arms was generated. No hypothesis tests were completed.||11.4|-19.5|
90795426|NCT03941093|181470933|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.5487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.41|||Stratified Log Rank Test|||||1.41|0.83|0.5487
90795427|NCT04632030|181470941|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|3.6|||||Adjusted for age, education, and lifetime tobacco use|||3.6|.69|
90795428|NCT04632030|181470941|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|6.55|||||Adjusted for age, education, and lifetime tobacco use|||6.55|1.28|
90795429|NCT04632030|181470942|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|6.47|||||Adjusted for age, education, and lifetime tobacco use|||6.47|1.28|
90795430|NCT04632030|181470942|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|6.5|||||Adjusted for age, education, and lifetime tobacco use|||6.50|1.26|
90795431|NCT04632030|181470943|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|3.86|||||Adjusted for age, education, and lifetime tobacco use|||3.86|.59|
90795432|NCT04632030|181470943|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|4.67|||||Adjusted for age, education, and lifetime tobacco use|||4.67|.73|
90795433|NCT04632030|181470944|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|2.99|||||Adjusted for age, education, and lifetime tobacco use|||2.99|.53|
90795434|NCT04632030|181470944|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|5.13|||||Adjusted for age, education, and lifetime tobacco use|||5.13|.94|
90795435|NCT00964678|181470945|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|20.0||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.028
90795436|NCT00964678|181470946|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.028
90795437|NCT00964678|181470947|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|20.0||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|ANOVA|||||||>0.05
90795438|NCT00964678|181470948|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|20.0|||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
90795439|NCT01323192|181470963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least square means|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|-2.4|||ANCOVA||LS mean of JNS001 minus LS mean of Placebo|||-2.4|-6.7|<0.0001
90795440|NCT01323192|181470964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least square means|-6.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.83||0.0002|||||||ANCOVA||LS mean of JNS001 minus LS mean of Placebo|||||0.0002
90795441|NCT01323192|181470965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
90795442|NCT01323192|181470966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
90795443|NCT01323192|181470967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least square means|-6.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.83||0.0003|||||||ANCOVA||LS mean of JNS001 minus LS mean of Placebo|||||0.0003
90795444|NCT01323192|181470968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4041|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.4041
90795445|NCT01276704|181470990|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance: \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||83% power to detect an absolute 2.5% reduction in Ki-67 for the treatment group compared with no reduction in the control group.||||0.72
90795446|NCT01276704|181470991|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Standard threshold of P\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.018
90795447|NCT01276704|181470992|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Standard threshold of P \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.036
90795448|NCT01168596|181470993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.26||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.13|11.73|||Regression, Linear|||||11.73|-9.13|0.81
90795449|NCT01168596|181470994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|4.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.75|11.51|||Regression, Linear|||||11.51|-2.75|0.23
90795450|NCT01168596|181470995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.03||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.37|11.59|||Regression, Linear|||||11.59|-8.37|0.75
91011748|NCT02898662|181906333|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.32||||0.9686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.54|15.9||2-sided p-value|Repeated measures analysis|||Comparison between groups for PEF. Repeated measures analysis.||15.90|-16.54|0.9686
90795451|NCT01168596|181470996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.06||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.18|7.94|||Regression, Linear|||||7.94|-4.18|0.54
90795452|NCT01168596|181470997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-5.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.36||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.76|7.43|||Regression, Linear|||||7.43|-17.76|0.42
90795453|NCT01168596|181470998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|1.29|||Regression, Linear|||||1.29|-0.56|0.44
90795454|NCT01168596|181470999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|2.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.02||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.59|22.13|||Regression, Linear|||||22.13|-17.59|0.82
91011749|NCT02898662|181906334|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-2.02||||0.5403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.55|4.52||2-sided p-value|Repeated measures analysis|||Comparison between groups for FeNO. Repeated measures analysis.||4.52|-8.55|0.5403
90795455|NCT01168596|181471000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-4.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.36||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.31|9.85|||Regression, Linear|||||9.85|-19.31|0.52
90795456|NCT01168596|181471001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|2.36|||Regression, Linear|||||2.36|-2.15|0.93
90795457|NCT01168596|181471002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|0.83|||Regression, Linear|||||0.83|-1.05|0.82
90795458|NCT01168596|181471003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-4.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.68||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.74|10.69|||Regression, Linear|||||10.69|-19.74|0.56
91011750|NCT00399542|181906335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.023||||||No adjustment|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled center, used to test the null hypothesis of equal rates between the 2 groups vs. the alternate hypothesis of non-equality||70.6% improvement in response with lubiprostone at 90% statistical power||||0.023
90795459|NCT01168596|181471004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-2.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.93||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.02|3.59|||Regression, Linear|||||3.59|-8.02|0.45
90795460|NCT01168596|181471005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|2.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.94||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.02|12.55|||Regression, Linear|||||12.55|-7.02|0.58
90795461|NCT01168596|181471006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|1.11|||Regression, Linear|||||1.11|-1.04|0.95
90795462|NCT01168596|181471007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|0.69|||Regression, Linear|||||0.69|-1.45|0.48
90795463|NCT01168596|181471008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.58|||Regression, Linear|||||0.58|-0.71|0.84
90795464|NCT01168596|181471009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|1.76|||Regression, Linear|||||1.76|-0.77|0.44
90795465|NCT01168596|181471010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|1.41|||Regression, Linear|||||1.41|-2.06|0.71
90795466|NCT01168596|181471011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|1.9|||Regression, Linear|||||1.90|-0.62|0.31
90795467|NCT01168596|181471012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|1.56|||Regression, Linear|||||1.56|-1.68|0.94
90795468|NCT00710593|181471021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% of participants who were responders|97.5||||0.1613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.8|99.9|||Fisher Exact|||Historical comparison group can be referenced in: Villa et al. Immunologic responses following administration of a vaccine targeting human papillomavirus Types 6, 11, 16, and 18; Vaccine 24 (2006):5571-5583. PMID 16753240.||99.9|86.8|0.1613
90795469|NCT00710593|181471022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% of participants who were responders|96.8||||0.0534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.0|99.9|||Fisher Exact|||Historical comparison group can be referenced in: Villa et al. Immunologic responses following administration of a vaccine targeting human papillomavirus Types 6, 11, 16, and 18; Vaccine 24 (2006):5571-5583. PMID 16753240.||99.9|89.0|0.0534
90795470|NCT00710593|181471023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% of participants who were responders|96.1||||0.0427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.5|99.5|||Fisher Exact|||Historical comparison group can be referenced in: Villa et al. Immunologic responses following administration of a vaccine targeting human papillomavirus Types 6, 11, 16, and 18; Vaccine 24 (2006):5571-5583. PMID 16753240.||99.5|86.5|0.0427
90795471|NCT00710593|181471024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% of participants who were responders|92.5||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|83.4|97.5|||Fisher Exact|||Historical comparison group can be referenced in: Villa et al. Immunologic responses following administration of a vaccine targeting human papillomavirus Types 6, 11, 16, and 18; Vaccine 24 (2006):5571-5583. PMID 16753240.||97.5|83.4|0.0006
90795472|NCT00710593|181471025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% of participants with at least 1 event|49.3||||0.8305|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The p-value is to test the proportions of subjects with at least one event among Group A during the study at Entry, Week 8 and Week 24 after vaccine was administered.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.8305
90795473|NCT00710593|181471025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% of participants with at least 1 event|46.7||||0.8305|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value is to test the proportions of subjects with at least one event among Group B during the study at Entry, Week 8 and Week 24 after vaccine was administered.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.8305
90795474|NCT00710593|181471033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Overall aquisition rate|7.9||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|P-value is from the Fisher's Exact test to compare the proportion of HPV positive between two study groups.||||||1.000
90795475|NCT00710593|181471034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Overall aquisition rate|1.6||||1||95.0||||P-value is from the Fisher's Exact test to compare the proportion of HPV positive between two study groups.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
90795476|NCT00710593|181471035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Overall aquisition rate|2.0||||1||95.0||||P-value is from the Fisher's Exact test to compare the proportion of HPV positive between two study groups.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
90795477|NCT00710593|181471036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Overall aquisition rate|4.5||||1||95.0||||P-value is from the Fisher's Exact test to compare the proportion of HPV positive between two study groups.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
90795478|NCT00710593|181471037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Overall aquisition rate|8.3||||1||95.0||||P-value is from the Fisher's Exact test to compare the proportion of HPV positive between two study groups.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
90795479|NCT00710593|181471038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Overall aquistion rate|3.6||||1||95.0||||P-value is from the Fisher's Exact test to compare the proportion of HPV positive between two study groups.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
90795480|NCT00710593|181471039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Overall aquisition rate|6.3||||1||95.0||||P-value is from the Fisher's Exact test to compare the proportion of HPV positive between two study groups.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
90795481|NCT00710593|181471040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Overall aquisition rate|8.1||||1||95.0||||P-value is from the Fisher's Exact test to compare the proportion of HPV positive between two study groups.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
90795482|NCT00710593|181471041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.1|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.1|1.02|0.0004
90795483|NCT00710593|181471042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.1|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.1|1.0|0.0012
90795484|NCT00710593|181471043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90795485|NCT03801525|181471081|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.778||||0.696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.219|2.755|||Log Rank|||||2.755|0.219|0.6960
91011751|NCT00399542|181906336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.391|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|Adjusted for center||||||0.391
91011752|NCT00399542|181906337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.151|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|Adjusted for center||||||0.151
90795486|NCT03801525|181471088|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.201||||0.1038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.023|1.721|||Log Rank|||||1.721|0.023|0.1038
91011753|NCT00399542|181906338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.163|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|Adjusted for center||||||0.163
91011754|NCT00399542|181906339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.185|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|Adjusted for center||||||0.185
91011755|NCT00399542|181906340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.300
90795487|NCT03309202|181471096|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|130.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.57|167.6|||ANOVA|The natural log transformed parameter was used.|Estimate mean difference was derived from ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means of Test and Reference.Cohort 2 (Mild Hepatic Impairment) was Test and Cohort 1 (Without Hepatic Impairment) was Reference.|||167.60|101.57|
90795488|NCT03309202|181471096|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|117.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.46|150.93|||ANOVA|The natural log transformed parameter was used.|Estimate mean difference was derived from ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means of Test and Reference.Cohort 3 (Moderate Hepatic Impairment) was Test and Cohort 1 (Without Hepatic Impairment) was Reference.|||150.93|91.46|
90795489|NCT03309202|181471096|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|130.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.63|167.7|||ANOVA|The natural log transformed parameter was used.|Estimate mean difference was derived from ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means of Test and Reference.Cohort 4 (Severe Hepatic Impairment) was Test and Cohort 1 (Without Hepatic Impairment) was Reference.|||167.70|101.63|
90795490|NCT03309202|181471097|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|136.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.63|196.53|||ANOVA|The natural log transformed parameter was used.|Estimate mean difference was derived from ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means of Test and Reference.Cohort 2 (Mild Hepatic Impairment) was Test and Cohort 1 (Without Hepatic Impairment) was Reference.|||196.53|94.63|
90795491|NCT03309202|181471097|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|124.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.2|179.03|||ANOVA|The natural log transformed parameter was used.|Estimate mean difference was derived from ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means of Test and Reference.Cohort 3 (Moderate Hepatic Impairment) was Test and Cohort 1 (Without Hepatic Impairment) was Reference.|||179.03|86.20|
90795492|NCT03309202|181471097|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|118.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.33|170.99|||ANOVA|The natural log transformed parameter was used.|Estimate mean difference was derived from ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means of Test and Reference.Cohort 4 (Severe Hepatic Impairment) was Test and Cohort 1 (Without Hepatic Impairment) was Reference.|||170.99|82.33|
90795493|NCT03309202|181471098|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|124.7309|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.5275|188.5165|||ANOVA|The natural log transformed parameter was used.|Estimate mean difference was derived from ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means of Test and Reference.Cohort 2 (Mild Hepatic Impairment) was Test and Cohort 1 (Without Hepatic Impairment) was Reference.|||188.5165|82.5275|
90795494|NCT03309202|181471098|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|147.0778|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.3132|222.2911|||ANOVA|The natural log transformed parameter was used.|Estimate mean difference was derived from ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means of Test and Reference.Cohort 3 (Moderate Hepatic Impairment) was Test and Cohort 1 (Without Hepatic Impairment) was Reference.|||222.2911|97.3132|
90795495|NCT03309202|181471098|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|224.7373|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|148.6962|339.6647|||ANOVA|The natural log transformed parameter was used.|Estimate mean difference was derived from ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means of Test and Reference.Cohort 4 (Severe Hepatic Impairment) was Test and Cohort 1 (Without Hepatic Impairment) was Reference.|||339.6647|148.6962|
91011756|NCT00399542|181906341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.303||||||Sequential closed testing procedures were employed|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled center, used to test the null hypothesis of equal rates between the 2 groups vs. the alternate hypothesis of non-equality||||||0.303
90795496|NCT03309202|181471099|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|162.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.12|256.32|||ANOVA|The natural log transformed parameter was used.|Estimate mean difference was derived from ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means of Test and Reference.Cohort 2 (Mild Hepatic Impairment) was Test and Cohort 1 (Without Hepatic Impairment) was Reference.|||256.32|103.12|
90795497|NCT03309202|181471099|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|172.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|109.56|272.35|||ANOVA|The natural log transformed parameter was used.|Estimate mean difference was derived from ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means of Test and Reference.Cohort 3 (Moderate Hepatic Impairment) was Test and Cohort 1 (Without Hepatic Impairment) was Reference.|||272.35|109.56|
90795498|NCT03309202|181471099|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|293.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|186.04|462.44|||ANOVA|The natural log transformed parameter was used.|Estimate mean difference was derived from ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means of Test and Reference.Cohort 4 (Severe Hepatic Impairment) was Test and Cohort 1 (Without Hepatic Impairment) was Reference.|||462.44|186.04|
90795499|NCT03309202|181471100|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|169.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|104.02|277.32|||ANOVA|The natural log transformed parameter was used.|Estimate mean difference was derived from ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means of Test and Reference.Cohort 2 (Mild Hepatic Impairment) was Test and Cohort 1 (Without Hepatic Impairment) was Reference.|||277.32|104.02|
90795500|NCT03309202|181471100|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|182.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|111.78|298.02|||ANOVA|The natural log transformed parameter was used.|Estimate mean difference was derived from ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means of Test and Reference.Cohort 3 (Moderate Hepatic Impairment) was Test and Cohort 1 (Without Hepatic Impairment) was Reference.|||298.02|111.78|
90795501|NCT03309202|181471100|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|266.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|163.08|434.8|||ANOVA|The natural log transformed parameter was used.|Estimate mean difference was derived from ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means of Test and Reference.Cohort 4 (Severe Hepatic Impairment) was Test and Cohort 1 (Without Hepatic Impairment) was Reference.|||434.80|163.08|
90795502|NCT04734210|181471115|OTHER|Exploratory, descriptive analysis||||||0.2933||||||The difference in response rates between each of the SURF-200 formulations and vehicle was compared by Fisher's exact method.|Fisher Exact|The threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.||Exploratory Phase 2 Study; approximately 120 subjects (approximately 40 subjects per each of the 3 treatment groups) were planned to be enrolled in the study. The sample size was based on medical judgment. No formal sample size calculation was performed, and the sample size was empirical. However, the sample size selected was considered sufficient to adequately characterize the general safety and efficacy profile of the study treatments.||||0.2933
90795503|NCT04734210|181471116|OTHER|Exploratory, descriptive analysis||||||0.1966||||||The difference in response rates between each of the SURF-200 formulations and vehicle was compared by Fisher's exact method.|Fisher Exact|The threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.||Exploratory Phase 2 Study; approximately 120 subjects (approximately 40 subjects per each of the 3 treatment groups) were planned to be enrolled in the study. The sample size was based on medical judgment. No formal sample size calculation was performed, and the sample size was empirical. However, the sample size selected was considered sufficient to adequately characterize the general safety and efficacy profile of the study treatments.||||0.1966
90795504|NCT04734210|181471117|OTHER|Exploratory, descriptive analysis||||||0.0213||||||The difference in response rates between each of the SURF-200 formulations and vehicle was compared by Fisher's exact method.|Fisher Exact|The threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.||Exploratory Phase 2 Study; approximately 120 subjects (approximately 40 subjects per each of the 3 treatment groups) were planned to be enrolled in the study. The sample size was based on medical judgment. No formal sample size calculation was performed, and the sample size was empirical. However, the sample size selected was considered sufficient to adequately characterize the general safety and efficacy profile of the study treatments.||||0.0213
90795505|NCT03243084|181471132|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.319||||||Threshold for significance is \<.05.|ANOVA|||A 2x2 ANOVA was used to measure change in HF-HRV by condition (10 Hz vs sham) and session (first vs second) as within subjects variables||||.319
90795506|NCT03243084|181471134|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0488||||||Threshold for significance is \<.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Investigators hypothesized that active stimulation would have a greater normalized pain change using a modulation index \[(Pre-Post)/(Pre+Post)\]||||.0488
90795507|NCT05870345|181471142|OTHER|Sample size too small to perform additional statistical tests.|||||||||||||||||Sample size too small to perform additional statistical tests.|||
91011757|NCT00399542|181906342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.047||||||Sequential closed testing procedures were employed|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled center, used to test the null hypothesis of equal rates between the 2 groups vs. the alternate hypothesis of non-equality||||||0.047
90795508|NCT05870345|181471143|OTHER|Sample size too small to perform additional statistical tests.|||||||||||||||||Sample size too small to perform additional statistical tests.|||
90795509|NCT02008617|181471157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.18
91011758|NCT00399542|181906343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.008||||||Sequential closed testing procedures were employed|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled center, used to test the null hypothesis of equal rates between the 2 groups vs. the alternate hypothesis of non-equality||||||0.008
90795510|NCT02008617|181471158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||At Rest||||0.86
90795511|NCT02008617|181471158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Plantar Flexion||||0.89
90795512|NCT02008617|181471159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.78
90795513|NCT02008617|181471160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.82
90795514|NCT00976456|181471166|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The estimation was that in the pemetrexed-carboplatin plus bevacizumab Arm the median PFS will be 5.5 months. A median PFS of 4 months (5.5 - 27%) had been regarded non-inferior. Assuming the accrual period of 24 months and the whole study duration of 42 months, 246 patients had to be recruited. According to the fact, that the required statistical power of 80% will be reached by occurrence of altogether 227 events, the final analysis was done at this time point.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.29||||0.0583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.989|1.682|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.682|0.989|0.0583
90890274|NCT01217073|181644898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-18.8||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.9|-4.8||With terms for treatment, prior AHA therapy status, geographic region (Japan/ex-Japan), and the interaction of time by treatment, time by prior AHA therapy status, with the constraint that the mean baseline is the same for all treatment groups.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-4.8|-32.9|0.009
90795515|NCT00976456|181471167|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The estimation was that in the pemetrexed-carboplatin plus bevacizumab Arm the median PFS will be 5.5 months. A median PFS of 4 months (5.5 - 27%) had been regarded non-inferior. Assuming the accrual period of 24 months and the whole study duration of 42 months, 246 patients had to be recruited. According to the fact, that the required statistical power of 80% will be reached by occurrence of altogether 227 events, the final analysis was done at this time Point.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.091||||0.3869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.794|1.499|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.499|0.794|0.3869
90795516|NCT04562116|181471179|OTHER||Ratio|94.59||||0.5789|TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.57|112.45||A linear mixed-effect model was used to compare the natural log-transformed of the value, with substrate with or without Nemolizumab as the fixed effect and subject as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Caffeine||112.45|79.57|0.5789
90795517|NCT04562116|181471179|OTHER||Ratio|99.34||||0.9468|TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.66|117.96||A linear mixed-effect model was used to compare the natural log-transformed of the value, with substrate with or without Nemolizumab as the fixed effect and subject as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Metoprolol Tartrate||117.96|83.66|0.9468
90795518|NCT04562116|181471179|OTHER||Ratio|107.81||||0.1364|TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.14|117.24||A linear mixed-effect model was used to compare the natural log-transformed of the value, with substrate with or without Nemolizumab as the fixed effect and subject as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Midazolam||117.24|99.14|0.1364
90795519|NCT04562116|181471179|OTHER||Ratio|92.13||||0.1915|TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.85|102.44||A linear mixed-effect model was used to compare the natural log-transformed of the value, with substrate with or without Nemolizumab as the fixed effect and subject as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Omeprazole||102.44|82.85|0.1915
90795520|NCT04562116|181471179|OTHER||Ratio|101.67||||0.5059|TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.41|106.12||A linear mixed-effect model was used to compare the natural log-transformed of the value, with substrate with or without Nemolizumab as the fixed effect and subject as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Warfarin Sodium||106.12|97.41|0.5059
90795521|NCT04562116|181471180|OTHER||Ratio|95.82||||0.6665|TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.72|113.75||A linear mixed-effect model was used to compare the natural log-transformed of the value, with substrate with or without Nemolizumab as the fixed effect and subject as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Caffeine||113.75|80.72|0.6665
90795522|NCT04562116|181471180|OTHER||Ratio|99.15||||0.9316|TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.43|117.83||A linear mixed-effect model was used to compare the natural log-transformed of the value, with substrate with or without Nemolizumab as the fixed effect and subject as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Metoprolol Tartrate||117.83|83.43|0.9316
90795523|NCT04562116|181471180|OTHER||Ratio|107.75||||0.1371|TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.12|117.13||A linear mixed-effect model was used to compare the natural log-transformed of the value, with substrate with or without Nemolizumab as the fixed effect and subject as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Midazolam||117.13|99.12|0.1371
90795524|NCT04562116|181471180|OTHER||Ratio|88.66||||0.0962|TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.72|99.85||A linear mixed-effect model was used to compare the natural log-transformed of the value, with substrate with or without Nemolizumab as the fixed effect and subject as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Omeprazole||99.85|78.72|0.0962
90795525|NCT04562116|181471180|OTHER||Ratio|100.81||||0.6807|TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.45|104.29||A linear mixed-effect model was used to compare the natural log-transformed of the value, with substrate with or without Nemolizumab as the fixed effect and subject as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Warfarin Sodium||104.29|97.45|0.6807
90795526|NCT04562116|181471181|OTHER||Ratio|91.22||||0.3431|TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.3|107.63||A linear mixed-effect model was used to compare the natural log-transformed of the value, with substrate with or without Nemolizumab as the fixed effect and subject as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Caffeine||107.63|77.30|0.3431
90795527|NCT04562116|181471181|OTHER||Ratio|91.05||||0.4277|TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.33|111.53||A linear mixed-effect model was used to compare the natural log-transformed of the value, with substrate with or without Nemolizumab as the fixed effect and subject as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Metoprolol Tartrate||111.53|74.33|0.4277
90795528|NCT04562116|181471181|OTHER||Ratio|94.79||||0.4963|TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.8|108.52||A linear mixed-effect model was used to compare the natural log-transformed of the value, with substrate with or without Nemolizumab as the fixed effect and subject as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Midazolam||108.52|82.80|0.4963
90795529|NCT04562116|181471181|OTHER||Ratio|88.24||||0.1931|TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.08|103.7||A linear mixed-effect model was used to compare the natural log-transformed of the value, with substrate with or without Nemolizumab as the fixed effect and subject as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Omeprazole||103.70|75.08|0.1931
90795530|NCT04562116|181471181|OTHER||Ratio|92.94||||0.296|TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.51|104.69||A linear mixed-effect model was used to compare the natural log-transformed of the value, with substrate with or without Nemolizumab as the fixed effect and subject as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Warfarin Sodium||104.69|82.51|0.2960
90795531|NCT03331354|181471183|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.87|||=|0.016|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||=.016
90795532|NCT03331354|181471184|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||ANCOVA|Initial interview scores were used as control in the ANCOVA||||||.008
90795533|NCT03331354|181471185|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||ANCOVA|Change in confidence was evaluated using time one as a covariate.||||||.99
90795534|NCT03331354|181471185|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||ANCOVA|Interview scores at enrollment were used as a covariate||||||.99
90795535|NCT03331354|181471186|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Pearson Correlation|||This post-hoc analysis was performed on only the COMPASS group to determine the association between percent of the online system completed and change in interview scores||||<.001
90795536|NCT05889468|181471200|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test, a non-parametric test, was used since the empirical distribution of data did not follow the normality assumption.||This was an intention-to-treat analysis.||||0.49
90795537|NCT05889468|181471201|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Fisher Exact|||Intention-to-treat analysis||||0.32
90795538|NCT05889468|181471203|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||Intention-to-treat analysis||||>0.99
90795539|NCT05889468|181471204|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||Intention-to-treat analysis||||>0.99
90795540|NCT05468918|181471207|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.002
90795541|NCT05468918|181471208|OTHER|||||||0.023|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.023
90795542|NCT02284893|181471227|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1001||0.0008|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0008
90795543|NCT02284893|181471228|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.175||0.0034|||||||Regression, Logistic|the analysis was by Zhang et.al. method with adjustment for baseline A1c.The measure of interest is NOT odds ratio but Risk Difference.||||||0.0034
90795544|NCT02284893|181471229|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2891||0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0001
90795545|NCT02284893|181471230|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.682||0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0001
90795546|NCT02908178|181471331|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|1.18|1.63||P-value is unadjusted. Threshold for statistical significance is 0.01.|Chi-squared||Reference is no SLNB. Odds ratio accounts for matching and adjusted for subsequent mastectomy within 180 days after initial BCS, prior MRI, and radiation therapy status.|Testing the association between use of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) and any complication in the Aim 1 matched cohort.||1.63|1.18|<.001
90795547|NCT02908178|181471331|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|2.27|8.75||P-value is unadjusted. Threshold for statistical significance is 0.01.|Chi-squared||Reference is no SLNB. Odds ratio accounts for matching and adjusted for subsequent mastectomy within 180 days after initial BCS, prior MRI, and radiation therapy status|Testing the association between use of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) and lymphedema in the Aim 1 matched cohort.||8.75|2.27|<.001
90795548|NCT02908178|181471331|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|1.0|1.54||P-value is unadjusted. Threshold for statistical significance is 0.01.|Chi-squared||Reference is no SLNB. Odds ratio accounts for matching and adjusted for subsequent mastectomy within 180 days after initial BCS, prior MRI, and radiation therapy status|Testing the association between use of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) and wound infection in the Aim 1 matched cohort.||1.54|1.00|<.001
90795549|NCT02908178|181471331|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|1.03|1.91||P-value is unadjusted. Threshold for statistical significance is 0.01.|Chi-squared||Reference is no SLNB. Odds ratio accounts for matching and adjusted for subsequent mastectomy within 180 days after initial BCS, prior MRI, and radiation therapy status|Testing the association between use of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) and seroma in the Aim 1 matched cohort.||1.91|1.03|<.001
90795550|NCT02908178|181471331|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|99.0|1.04|1.65||P-value is unadjusted. Threshold for statistical significance is 0.01.|Chi-squared||Reference is no SLNB. Odds ratio accounts for matching and adjusted for subsequent mastectomy within 180 days after initial BCS, prior MRI, and radiation therapy status|Testing the association between use of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) and pain in the Aim 1 matched cohort.||1.65|1.04|.003
90795551|NCT02908178|181471332|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value is unadjusted. Threshold for statistical significance is 0.01.|Chi-squared|||Testing the association between receipt of SLNB and receipt of mastectomy within 6 months of DCIS diagnosis.||||<.001
90795552|NCT02908178|181471333|OTHER|||||||0.48||||||P-value is unadjusted. Threshold for statistical significance is 0.01.|Chi-squared|||Testing the association between receipt of SLNB and receipt of radiation therapy within 9 months of DCIS diagnosis.||||.48
90795553|NCT02908178|181471334|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.73|1.05||P-value is unadjusted. Threshold for statistical significance is 0.01.|Chi-squared||Reference is no SLNB. Estimates are from matched cohort and adjusted for physician visits, any hospitalization in the 3-24 months prior to DCIS diagnosis, use of preoperative breast MRI, surgeon's operation volume, and receipt of radiation therapy.|Testing the association between use of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) and overall mortality in the Aim 2 matched cohort.||1.05|0.73|<.001
90795554|NCT02908178|181471335|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.207|TWO_SIDED|99.0|1.0|1.2||P-value is unadjusted. Threshold for statistical significance is 0.01.|Chi-squared||Reference is no SLNB. Estimates are from matched cohort and adjusted for physician visits, any hospitalization in the 3-24 months prior to DCIS diagnosis, use of preoperative breast MRI, surgeon's operation volume, and receipt of radiation therapy.|Testing the association between use of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) and any side effects in the matched Aim 2 cohort.||1.20|1.00|0.207
90795555|NCT02908178|181471335|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|1.12|2.11||P-value is unadjusted. Threshold for statistical significance is 0.01.|Chi-squared||Reference is no SLNB. Estimates are from matched cohort and adjusted for physician visits, any hospitalization in the 3-24 months prior to DCIS diagnosis, use of preoperative breast MRI, surgeon's operation volume, and receipt of radiation therapy.|Testing the association between use of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) and lymphedema related complications in the Aim 2 matched cohort.||2.11|1.12|<.001
90795556|NCT02908178|181471335|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.87|1.1||P-value is unadjusted. Threshold for statistical significance is 0.01.|Chi-squared||Reference is no SLNB. Estimates are from matched cohort and adjusted for physician visits, any hospitalization in the 3-24 months prior to DCIS diagnosis, use of preoperative breast MRI, surgeon's operation volume, and receipt of radiation therapy.|Testing the association between use of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) and any infection in the Aim 2 matched cohort.||1.10|0.87|0.113
90795557|NCT02908178|181471335|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.21||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.93|1.58||P-value is unadjusted. Threshold for statistical significance is 0.01.|Chi-squared||Reference is no SLNB. Estimates are from matched cohort and adjusted for physician visits, any hospitalization in the 3-24 months prior to DCIS diagnosis, use of preoperative breast MRI, surgeon's operation volume, and receipt of radiation therapy.|Testing the association between use of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) and seroma in the Aim 2 matched cohort.||1.58|0.93|0.010
90795558|NCT02908178|181471335|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.98|1.25||P-value is unadjusted. Threshold for statistical significance is 0.01|Chi-squared||Reference is no SLNB. Estimates are from matched cohort and adjusted for physician visits, any hospitalization in the 3-24 months prior to DCIS diagnosis, use of preoperative breast MRI, surgeon's operation volume, and receipt of radiation therapy.|Testing the association between use of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) and pain in the Aim 2 matched cohort.||1.25|0.98|0.029
90795559|NCT02908178|181471336|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.861|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.54|2.35||P-value is unadjusted. Threshold for statistical significance is 0.01.|Chi-squared||Reference is no SLNB. Estimates are from matched cohort and adjusted for physician visits, any hospitalization in the 3-24 months prior to DCIS diagnosis, use of preoperative breast MRI, surgeon's operation volume, and receipt of radiation therapy.|Testing the association between between use of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) and breast cancer specific mortality.||2.35|0.54|0.861
90795560|NCT02908178|181471337|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.603|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.71|1.51||P-value is unadjusted. Threshold for statistical significance is 0.01.|Chi-squared||Reference is no SLNB. Estimates are from matched cohort and adjusted for physician visits, any hospitalization in the 3-24 months prior to DCIS diagnosis, use of preoperative breast MRI, surgeon's operation volume, and receipt of radiation therapy.|Testing the association between use of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) and ipsilateral invasive breast cancer occurrence for the Aim 2 matched cohort.||1.51|0.71|0.603
90795561|NCT02908178|181471338|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.81|1.69||P-value is unadjusted. Threshold for statistical significance is 0.01.|Chi-squared||Reference is no SLNB. Estimates are from matched cohort and adjusted for physician visits, any hospitalization in the 3-24 months prior to DCIS diagnosis, use of preoperative breast MRI, surgeon's operation volume, and receipt of radiation therapy.|Testing the association between use of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) and treated recurrence in the Aim 2 matched cohort.||1.69|0.81|0.620
90795562|NCT01979185|181471349|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|If the 90% CI of the geometric mean ratios fell within the range (0.80, 1.25), then equivalence was assumed and the hypothesis that a drug interaction occurred was rejected. If the 90% CIs were not wholly contained within the range (0.80, 1.25), then a drug interaction was not excluded.|Ratio of Geometric LS Means|0.632|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.538|0.744|||Mixed-effects Model|||The means of the log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters were compared between treatments using a mixed-effects model with period and treatment as fixed effects, and subject nested within sequence as a random effect. In order to estimate the magnitude of the treatment regimen differences in pharmacokinetic parameters, the geometric mean ratio (i.e., the least squares mean difference in the log-transformed parameters back transformed to the original scale) and their 90% CIs were calculated.||0.744|0.538|
90795563|NCT01979185|181471350|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|If the 90% CI of the geometric mean ratios fell within the range (0.80, 1.25), then equivalence was assumed and the hypothesis that a drug interaction occurred was rejected. If the 90% CIs were not wholly contained within the range (0.80, 1.25), then a drug interaction was not excluded.|Ratio of Geometric LS Means|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.543|0.73|||Mixed-effects Model|||The means of the log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters were compared between treatments using a mixed-effects model with period and treatment as fixed effects, and subject nested within sequence as a random effect. In order to estimate the magnitude of the treatment regimen differences in pharmacokinetic parameters, the geometric mean ratio (i.e., the least squares mean difference in the log-transformed parameters back transformed to the original scale) and their 90% CIs were calculated.||0.730|0.543|
90795564|NCT01979185|181471351|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|If the 90% CI of the geometric mean ratios fell within the range (0.80, 1.25), then equivalence was assumed and the hypothesis that a drug interaction occurred was rejected. If the 90% CIs were not wholly contained within the range (0.80, 1.25), then a drug interaction was not excluded.|Ratio of Geometric LS Means|0.594|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.526|0.672|||Mixed-effects Model|||The means of the log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters were compared between treatments using a mixed-effects model with period and treatment as fixed effects, and subject nested within sequence as a random effect. In order to estimate the magnitude of the treatment regimen differences in pharmacokinetic parameters, the geometric mean ratio (i.e., the least squares mean difference in the log-transformed parameters back transformed to the original scale) and their 90% CIs were calculated.||0.672|0.526|
90795565|NCT03620981|181471382|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|-4.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 2 mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 10.||-4.3|-10.0|< 0.0001
90795566|NCT03620981|181471382|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.7||||0.0175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|-0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 1 mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 10.||-0.7|-6.8|0.0175
90795567|NCT03620981|181471383|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 2 mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 10.||-0.5|-1.0|< 0.0001
90795568|NCT03620981|181471383|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 1 mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 10.||-0.1|-0.6|0.0083
90795569|NCT03620981|181471384|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH), Last observation carried forward (LOCF)||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 2 mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 10.||-0.6|-1.2|< 0.0001
90795570|NCT03620981|181471384|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH, LOCF||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 1 mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 10.||-0.1|-0.8|0.0052
90795571|NCT02303821|181471401|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The objective of this endpoint was to compare the rate of CRi or better status against an external control arm selected from an observational study (Amgen 20180065). The rate of CRi or better status in the external control arm was 26.3% (95% CI: 15.1, 37.5) for B-Cell participants with treatment difference odds ratio of 2.082 (95% CI: 0.968, 4.477). For T-Cell participants the rate of CRi or better status was 18.6% (95% CI: 7.1, 30.0) with treatment difference odds ratio of 1.646 (95% CI: 0.639. 4.245).|||
90795572|NCT02303821|181471402|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The objective of this endpoint was to compare EFS in study 20140106 with EFS in an external control arm selected from an observational study (Amgen 20180065). The median duration in months in the external control arm was 3.62 (95% CI: 1.55, 5.36) for B-cell participants, with a treatment difference hazard ration of 1.435 (95% CI: 0.976, 2.111). For T-Cell participants the median in months was 2.93 (95% CI: 0.95, 5.10) with a treatment difference hazard ratio of 1.404 (95% CI: 0.869, 2.270).|||
90795573|NCT02303821|181471403|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The objective of this endpoint was to compare the OS in study 20140106 with OS in an external control arm selected from an observational study (Amgen 20180065). The median OS in months for the B-Cell participants in the external control arm was 8.59 (95% CI: 5.26, 10.59) with a treatment difference hazard ratio of 1.245 (95% CI: 0.805, 1.927). For the T-Cell participants the median OS in months was 7.04 (95% CI: 7.04, NE) with a treatment difference hazard ratio of 1.040 (95% CI: 0.641, 1.688).|||
90795574|NCT02303821|181471404|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The DOR in study 20140106 was estimated relative to the DOR in an external control arm selected from an observational study (Amgen 20180065). The median DOR in months in the external control arm was 8.72 (95% CI: 5.07, 32.24) in B-Cell participants. For T-Cell participants the median DOR in months was 5.82 (95% CI: 1.22, 19.80).|||
90795575|NCT02303821|181471416|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The primary objective of this endpoint was to compare the percentage of participants achieving CR after the end of induction therapy in study 20140106 with the percentage of participants achieving CR in an external control arm selected from an observational study (Amgen 20180065). In the external control arm, 7.8% of B-Cell participants (95% confidence interval \[CI\]: 1.0%, 14.7%) achieved CR, with a treatment difference odds ratio of 2.04 (95% CI: 0.54, 7.66). For T-Cell participants, 9.1% (95% CI: 0.7%, 17.5%) achieved CR, with an odds ratio of 1.58 (95% CI: 0.47, 5.31).|||
90795576|NCT00210132|181471417|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of proportions.||||0.99
90795577|NCT00210132|181471418|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.69
90795578|NCT01903863|181471429|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.39
90795579|NCT01903863|181471430|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07||||||Intracranial hemorrhage|Fisher Exact|||||||0.07
90795580|NCT01903863|181471430|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7||||||Surgical bleed|Fisher Exact|||||||0.7
90795581|NCT01903863|181471430|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5||||||Gastrointestinal hemorrhage|Fisher Exact|||||||0.5
90795582|NCT01903863|181471431|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.004
90795583|NCT01903863|181471432|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8
90795584|NCT01903863|181471433|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.37
90795585|NCT01903863|181471434|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8
90795586|NCT01903863|181471435|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.12
90795587|NCT01903863|181471436|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.95
91011759|NCT00399542|181906344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.663|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|Adjusted for center||||||0.663
91011760|NCT00399542|181906345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.224|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|Adjusted for center||||||0.224
91011761|NCT00399542|181906346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.271|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|Adjusted for center||||||0.271
91011762|NCT00399542|181906347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.945|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|Adjusted for center||||||0.945
91011763|NCT00399542|181906348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.352|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|||||||0.352
90795588|NCT04795531|181471451|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of insulin icodec was considered confirmed if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for mean treatment difference (insulin icodec minus insulin degludec) was strictly below 0.3%.|Treatment difference|-0.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|-0.08|||ANCOVA|||The response and change from baseline in response after 26 weeks are analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, region and sulfonylureas (SU)/glinides use as fixed factors, and baseline response as covariate.||-0.08|-0.34|<0.0001
90795589|NCT00582907|181471530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio, log|-1.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.78||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-0.1|||Signed rank|||Based upon FMF colchicine controlled studies showing an \~80% decrease in attacks, we estimated, based on baseline attacks every 4 weeks, there would be a difference of 0.5 attacks per month between rilonacept and placebo. With a two-sided 5% significance level and power of 80% we aimed for 14 evaluable participants who completed at least 2 treatment courses. The null hypothesis is that there would be no significant differences in the number of attacks between use of rilonacept and placebo.||-0.1|-3.4|0.027
90795590|NCT00582907|181471530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.12||||95.0|0.39|0.85|||Bayesian modeling||Attacks while receiving rilonacept is the numerator and attacks while receiving placebo is the denominator. In Bayesian statistics credible interval equals confidence interval.|This analysis was done by Bayesian Statistics using a non-informative (neutral) prior (log normal distribution mean 9 \[SD 10\]). The null hypothesis was that the rilonacept/placebo FMF odds ratio of attacks was 1.||0.85|0.39|
90795591|NCT00582907|181471531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.26||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|0.0|||Signed rank|||Null hypothesis: There were no significant differences between rilonacept and placebo in the occurence of injection site reactions. No power calculations for this outcome.||0|-4|0.047
90795592|NCT00582907|181471531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.17|||Signed rank|||Null hypothesis: There were no significant differences between rilonacept and placebo in the occurence of infections. No power calculations for this outcome.||0.17|-0.56|0.13
90795593|NCT00582907|181471532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.5||0.32||95.0|-2.4|0.5|||Signed rank|||Null hypothesis: There were no significant differences in the length of attacks during rilonacept vs. placebo treatment courses. Since this was a secondary outcome there were no power calculations performed.||0.5|-2.4|0.32
90795594|NCT00582907|181471533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Differences in percent of courses|29.0||||0.004||95.0|||||McNemar|||Null hypothesis: There are no significant differences in the number of treatment courses without attacks between rilonacept and placebo. As a secondary measure there were no power calculations.||||0.004
90795595|NCT00582907|181471534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percent of courses|40.0||||0.006||95.0|||||McNemar|||Null hypothesis: There are no significant differences in the number of treatment courses attaining at least a 50% decrease in attacks when compared to baseline between rilonacept and placebo courses.Since this was a secondary measure there were no power calculations.||||0.006
90795596|NCT00582907|181471535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Log Rank|0.009||||0.009||95.0|||||Kaplan-Meier survival analysis|||Null hypothesis: There were no significant differences between rilonacept and placebo in the number of days from the start of the treatment course until the development of the a second attack.||||0.009
90795597|NCT00582907|181471536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|6.5||||0.156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|12.5|||Signed Rank|||Null hypothesis: There are no significant differences in the erythrocyte sedimentation rate between rilonacept and placebo. As a secondary measure there were no power calculations.||12.5|-0.5|0.156
90795598|NCT00582907|181471537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.04||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.29|||Signed Rank|||Null hypothesis: There are no differences in the C-reactive protein levels between the treatment courses. Since this was a secondary outcome measure no power calculations were performed.||0.29|-0.03|0.22
91011764|NCT00399542|181906349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.18|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|Adjusted for center||||||0.180
91011765|NCT00399542|181906350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.275|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|Adjusted for center||||||0.275
90795599|NCT00582907|181471538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|29.4||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|78.1|||Signed Rank|||Null hypothesis: There were no differences between the platelet count between the rilonacept and placebo courses. Since this was a secondary outcome no power calculations were performed.||78.1|0.4|0.078
90795600|NCT00582907|181471539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|108.0||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|139.5|||Signed Rank|||Null hypothesis: There are no differences between the treatment arms in the fibrinogen level. Since this was a secondary outcome no power calculations were performed.||139.5|6.5|0.063
90795601|NCT00582907|181471540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|0.0|||Signed Rank|||Null hypothesis: There are no differences between the treatment arms in the serum amyloid A levels. Since this was a secondary outcome no power calculations were performed.||0|-4|0.50
90795602|NCT00582907|181471541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-6.5||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|-2.3|||Signed rank|||Null hypothesis: There are no significant differences in the physical health-related quality of life between rilonacept and placebo. As a secondary measure there were no power calculations.||-2.3|-11.1|0.021
90795603|NCT00582907|181471541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-4.2||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|3.9|||Signed Rank|||||3.9|-6.8|0.42
90795604|NCT00582907|181471542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|2.5||||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|9.8|||Signed rank|||Null hypothesis: There are no significant differences in the FMF Armenian Evaluation (severity) Score between rilonacept and placebo. As a secondary measure there were no power calculations.||9.8|-2.3|0.136
90795605|NCT00582907|181471543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-5.0||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|-1.0|||Signed rank|||Null hypothesis: There are no significant differences in the proportion of time participants were treated with rilonacept and placebo. As a secondary measure there were no power calculations.||-1|-15|0.089
90795606|NCT00189423|181471591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.58||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|2.36|||Fisher Exact|||||2.36|1.07|0.019
90795607|NCT00189423|181471592|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|non-inferiority margin of 5%||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||p value is for non-inferiority with a margin of 5% (exact binomial test)|Fisher Exact test, for non-inferiority|||||||0.0001
90795608|NCT00189423|181471592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.681
90795609|NCT00189423|181471598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.024
90795610|NCT01263119|181471605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.13|1.00|
90795611|NCT01263119|181471606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.07|1.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.16|1.07|
90795612|NCT01263119|181471607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.9551|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|0.5|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.50|-0.50|0.9551
90795613|NCT01263119|181471608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.20|1.10|
90795614|NCT01263119|181471609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.09|1.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.17|1.09|
90795615|NCT01263119|181471610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.6094|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|0.02|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.02|-0.50|0.6094
90795616|NCT01263119|181471611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.02|1.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Least Squares (LS) geometric mean was based on pharmacodynamic AUCINR of warfarin.||1.05|1.02|
90795617|NCT01263119|181471612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.01|1.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Least Squares (LS) geometric mean was based on pharmacodynamic INRmax of warfarin.||1.08|1.01|
90795618|NCT02138825|181471613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|21.48||||0.2074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.75|51.71|||ANCOVA|||The evaluation of primary efficacy endpoint will be based on change from baseline in 6MWD using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline 6MWD, treatment arm and region as factors.||51.71|-8.75|0.2074
90795619|NCT02138825|181471614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3437|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||The difference in incidences in clinical worsening and mortality will be analyzed using Mantel-Haenszel weights, stratified by region.||||0.3437
90795620|NCT01690273|181471621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.13
90795621|NCT01690273|181471621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.99
90795622|NCT01690273|181471621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.11
91011766|NCT00399542|181906351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.722|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|Adjusted for center||||||0.722
90795623|NCT01690273|181471621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9913|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.9913
90795624|NCT01690273|181471621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0427|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0427
90795625|NCT01690273|181471621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1856|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1856
90795626|NCT01690273|181471622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.04
90795627|NCT01690273|181471622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0002
90795628|NCT01690273|181471622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0002
90795629|NCT01690273|181471622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||1
90795630|NCT01690273|181471622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.935|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.935
90795631|NCT01690273|181471622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.876|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.876
90795632|NCT01690273|181471623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.004
90795633|NCT01690273|181471623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.87
90795634|NCT01690273|181471623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.83
90795635|NCT01690273|181471623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.989|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.989
90795636|NCT01690273|181471623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.022
90795637|NCT01690273|181471623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.119|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.119
90795638|NCT01690273|181471624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.09
90795639|NCT01690273|181471624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.99
90795640|NCT01690273|181471624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.94|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.94
90795641|NCT01690273|181471624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.213|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.213
91011767|NCT00399542|181906352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.177|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|Adjusted for center||||||0.177
91011768|NCT00399542|181906353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.082|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|Adjusted for center||||||0.082
91011769|NCT00399542|181906354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.11|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|Adjusted for center||||||0.110
90795642|NCT01690273|181471624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.007
90795643|NCT01690273|181471624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.900
90795644|NCT01690273|181471625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.003
90795645|NCT01690273|181471625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.99
90795646|NCT01690273|181471625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.69
90795647|NCT01690273|181471625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.874|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.874
90795648|NCT01690273|181471625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.057|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.057
90795649|NCT01690273|181471625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.526|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.526
91011770|NCT00399542|181906355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.146|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|Adjusted for center||||||0.146
91011771|NCT00399542|181906356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.373|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|Adjusted for center||||||0.373
91011772|NCT00399542|181906357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.339|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|Adjusted for center||||||0.339
91011773|NCT00399542|181906358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.023|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.023
91011774|NCT00399542|181906359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.073|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.073
91011775|NCT00399542|181906360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.062|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for center||||||0.062
91011776|NCT00399542|181906361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.06|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|||||||0.060
90795650|NCT01690273|181471626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.853|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.853
90795651|NCT01690273|181471626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.016
90795652|NCT01690273|181471626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.000
90795653|NCT01690273|181471626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.889|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.889
90795654|NCT01690273|181471626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.098|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.098
90795655|NCT01690273|181471626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.645|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.645
90795656|NCT01690273|181471627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.07
90795657|NCT01690273|181471627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.13
91011777|NCT00399542|181906362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.29|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|||||||0.290
91011778|NCT00399542|181906363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.495|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|||||||0.495
91011779|NCT04680273|181906396|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.573|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.11|||||||||||The geometric coefficient of variation (%) for the AUC(0-72) geometric mean ratio was 10.4%. The standard deviation (SD) reported is a geometric SD.|The geometric mean ratio was calculated for the AUC(0-72) of GDC-9545 in plasma samples compared with the AUC(0-72) of total radioactivity in plasma samples.||||
91011780|NCT04680273|181906396|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.752|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.036|||||||||||The geometric coefficient of variation (%) for the AUC(0-72) geometric mean ratio was 3.5%. The standard deviation (SD) reported is a geometric SD.|The geometric mean ratio was calculated for the AUC(0-72) of total radioactivity (TR) in whole blood samples compared with the AUC(0-72) of TR in plasma samples.||||
90795658|NCT01690273|181471627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.97
90795659|NCT01690273|181471627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||1
90795660|NCT01690273|181471627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.338|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.338
90795661|NCT01690273|181471627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.476|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.476
90795662|NCT01690273|181471628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.88
90795663|NCT01690273|181471628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.99
90795664|NCT01690273|181471628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||1
90795665|NCT01690273|181471628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||1
90795666|NCT01690273|181471628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.995|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.995
90795667|NCT01690273|181471628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.985|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.985
90795668|NCT01690273|181471629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.9
90795669|NCT01690273|181471629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7
90795670|NCT01690273|181471629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.99
90795671|NCT01690273|181471629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.999|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.999
90795672|NCT01690273|181471629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.900
90795673|NCT01690273|181471629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.739|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.739
90795674|NCT01690273|181471630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||1
90795675|NCT01690273|181471630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||1
90795676|NCT01690273|181471630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.37
90795677|NCT01690273|181471630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.618|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.618
90795678|NCT01690273|181471630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||1
90795679|NCT01690273|181471630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.689|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.689
90795680|NCT01690273|181471631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8
90795681|NCT01690273|181471631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.97
91011781|NCT04680273|181906397|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.625|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.134|||||||||||The geometric coefficient of variation (%) for the AUC(0-t) geometric mean ratio was 12.7%. The standard deviation (SD) reported is a geometric SD.|The geometric mean ratio was calculated for the AUC(0-t) of GDC-9545 in plasma samples compared with the AUC(0-t) of total radioactivity in plasma samples.||||
90795682|NCT01690273|181471631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.99
90795683|NCT01690273|181471631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.999|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.999
90795684|NCT01690273|181471631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.929|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.929
90795685|NCT01690273|181471631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.980
90795686|NCT01690273|181471632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||1
90795687|NCT01690273|181471632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.000
90795688|NCT01690273|181471632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.350
90795689|NCT01690273|181471632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.997|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.997
90795690|NCT01690273|181471632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.970
90795691|NCT01690273|181471632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.999|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.999
90795692|NCT01690273|181471633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.997|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.997
90795693|NCT01690273|181471633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.000
90795694|NCT01690273|181471633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.503|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.503
90795695|NCT01690273|181471633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.814|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.814
90795696|NCT01690273|181471633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.643|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.643
90795697|NCT01690273|181471633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.999|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.999
90795698|NCT01690273|181471634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.787|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.787
90795699|NCT01690273|181471634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.408|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.408
90795700|NCT01690273|181471634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.157|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.157
90795701|NCT01690273|181471634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.835|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.835
90795702|NCT01690273|181471634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.256|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.256
90795703|NCT01690273|181471634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.935|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.935
90795704|NCT01690273|181471635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.978|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.978
90795705|NCT01690273|181471635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.169|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.169
90795706|NCT01690273|181471635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.002
90795707|NCT01690273|181471635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.993|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.993
90795708|NCT01690273|181471635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.105|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.105
90795709|NCT01690273|181471635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.335|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.335
90795710|NCT01383005|181471655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.16||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.052|0.494|||Regression, Logistic|Degree of freedom is 1 for the independent variable 'viral load change from detectable to undetectable.'|Stepwise procedures forward and backward were used to select variables in the model using entry and exit probabilities of 0.05 and 0.1 respectively. Identical models were obtained by forward and backward selection procedures.|Statistical Analysis 1 presents the risk of a 'mean score \<5' on the HIVTSQ overall satisfaction dimension (see Outcome Measure 8) when correlated with a viral load change from 'detectable to undetectable' in the last model of the Wald test.||0.494|0.052|0.001
90795711|NCT01383005|181471655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.279||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.118|||Regression, Logistic|Degree of freedom is 1 for the independent variable 'viral load change from undetectable to undetectable.'|Stepwise procedures forward and backward were used to select variables in the model using entry and exit probabilities of 0.05 and 0.1 respectively. Identical models were obtained by forward and backward selection procedures.|Statistical Analysis 2 presents the risk of a 'mean score \<5' on the HIVTSQ overall satisfaction dimension (see Outcome Measure 8) when correlated with a viral load change from 'undetectable to undetectable' in the last model of the Wald test.||1.118|0.070|0.072
90795712|NCT01383005|181471656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.996||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.992|0.999|||Regression, Logistic|Degree of freedom is 1 for the independent variable 'time on LPV/r.'|Stepwise procedures forward and backward were used to select variables in the model using entry and exit probabilities of 0.05 and 0.1 respectively. Identical models were obtained by forward and backward selection procedures.|Statistical Analysis 1 presents the risk of a 'mean score \<5' on the HIVTSQ overall satisfaction dimension (see Outcome Measure 8) when correlated with time on treatment with LPV/r QD in the last model of the Wald test.||0.999|0.992|0.025
90795713|NCT01137890|181471661|SUPERIORITY||F-value for main effect of Coc dose|24.9|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value was calculated as less than 0.01. Note: this is not an attempt to indicate a threshold|ANOVA||F-value for main effect of Cocaine dose on VAQ score|||||<0.01
90795714|NCT01137890|181471661|SUPERIORITY||F-value for main effect of Zon dose|0.34||||0.72|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA||F-value for main effect of Zonisamide dose on VAQ score|||||0.72
90795715|NCT01137890|181471661|SUPERIORITY||F-value for main effect of Coc x Zon|0.66||||0.63|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA||F-value for main effect of Cocaine x Zonisamide interaction on VAQ scores|||||0.63
90795716|NCT01137890|181471662|SUPERIORITY||F-value for main effect of Coc dose|9.91|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value was calculated as less than 0.01. Note: this is not an attempt to indicate a threshold|ANOVA||F-value for main effect of Cocaine dose on Behavioral Choice measure|||||<0.01
90795717|NCT01137890|181471662|SUPERIORITY||F-value for main effect of Zon dose|0.07||||0.93|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA||F-value for main effect of Zonisamide dose on Behavioral Choice measure|||||0.93
90795718|NCT01137890|181471662|SUPERIORITY||F-value for main effect of Coc x Zon|0.24||||0.92|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA||F-value for main effect of Cocaine dose x Zonisamide dose interaction on Behavioral Choice measure|||||0.92
90795719|NCT01137890|181471663|SUPERIORITY||t-value for main effect of Group|1.51||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|||||Group (Zonisamide vs Placebo)|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.16
90795720|NCT01137890|181471663|SUPERIORITY|Day (Day 1-39)|t-value for main effect of Day|-3.2||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0015
90795721|NCT01137890|181471663|SUPERIORITY|Group\*Day interaction|t value for Group x Day interaction|-1.63||||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.10
90795722|NCT01137890|181471664|SUPERIORITY||F-value for main effect of Coc dose|21.1|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value was calculated as less than 0.01. Note: this is not an attempt to indicate a threshold|ANOVA||F-value for main effect of Cocaine dose|||||<0.01
91011782|NCT04680273|181906397|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.79|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.171|||||||||||The geometric coefficient of variation (%) for the AUC(0-t) geometric mean ratio was 15.9%. The standard deviation (SD) reported is a geometric SD.|The geometric mean ratio was calculated for the AUC(0-t) of total radioactivity (TR) in whole blood samples compared with the AUC(0-t) of TR in plasma samples.||||
90795723|NCT01137890|181471664|SUPERIORITY||F-value for main effect of Zon dose|0.77||||0.48|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA||F-value for main effect of Zonisamide dose|||||0.48
90795724|NCT01137890|181471664|SUPERIORITY||F-value for the main effect of Zon x Coc|0.93||||0.46|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA||F-value for main effect of Zonisamide x Cocaine interaction on drug value (i.e., street value) measurement|||||0.46
90795725|NCT02090764|181471665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||The treatment comparison was done using only the outcomes of Clinical success and Clinical failure. The p value of the chi square test (without continuity correction) was provided. The analysis was performed to test the superiority of ozenoxacin versus placebo.||||0.001
90795726|NCT04752566|181471673|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.8938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.97||Log Rank Test stratified by randomization strata.|Log Rank||Cox proportional hazard model stratified by randomization strata, with treatment group as the fixed effect. Firth's adjustment was applied if no event was observed in a treatment group.|||1.97|0.45|0.8938
90795727|NCT04752566|181471674|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.8987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|3.17|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||3.17|0.27|0.8987
90795728|NCT04752566|181471674|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.4083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|2.02|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24||2.02|0.18|0.4083
90795729|NCT04752566|181471675|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.6739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|2.54|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.54|0.24|0.6739
91011783|NCT01430559|181906427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.43||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA, repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||||-0.43|-1.20|<0.0001
90795730|NCT01838226|181471691|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|2.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.8|-1.3|0.50
90795731|NCT01838226|181471692|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|3.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.1|-1.3|
90795732|NCT01838226|181471693|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|-0.2||||||||-0.2|-4.9|
90795733|NCT00023595|181471694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.04|||Log Rank||Hazard Ratio is for (H01: Medication +CABG) versus (H01: Medication)|||1.04|0.72|0.12
90795734|NCT00023595|181471695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.97|||Log Rank||Hazard Ratio is for (H01: Medication +CABG) versus (H01: Medication)|||0.97|0.73|0.02
91053848|NCT02912650|181990989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.78||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.38|||ANCOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||1.38|0.19|0.010
90795735|NCT00023595|181471696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.17|||Log Rank||Hazard Ratio is for (H02: Medication + CABG + SVR) versus (H02: Medication + CABG)|||1.17|0.84|0.90
90795736|NCT00023595|181471697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio, log|0.79||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.93|||Log Rank||Hazard Ratio is for (H01: Medication +CABG) versus (H01: Medication)|||0.93|0.66|0.006
90795737|NCT00023595|181471698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.0|||Log Rank||Hazard Ratio is for (H01: Medication +CABG) versus (H01: Medication)|||1.00|0.66|0.05
90795738|NCT00023595|181471699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.85|||Log Rank||Hazard Ratio is for (H01: Medication +CABG) versus (H01: Medication)|||0.85|0.64|<0.001
90795739|NCT00023595|181471700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.82|||Log Rank||Hazard Ratio is for (H01: Medication +CABG) versus (H01: Medication)|||0.82|0.64|<0.001
90795740|NCT00023595|181471701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.26|||Log Rank||Hazard Ratio is for (H02: Medication + CABG + SVR) versus (H02: Medication + CABG)|||1.26|0.79|0.98
90795741|NCT00023595|181471702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.19||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|7.52|||Regression, Logistic||Odds Ratio is for (H01: Medication +CABG) versus (H01: Medication)|||7.52|1.35|0.008
90795742|NCT00023595|181471703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.41|||Regression, Logistic||Odds Ratio is for (H02: Medication + CABG + SVR) versus (H02: Medication + CABG)|||2.41|0.78|0.275
90795743|NCT00023595|181471704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.98|||Log Rank||Hazard Ratio is for (H01: Medication +CABG) versus (H01: Medication)|||0.98|0.71|0.030
90795744|NCT00023595|181471705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.31|||Log Rank||Hazard Ratio is for (H02: Medication + CABG + SVR) versus (H02: Medication + CABG)|||1.31|0.89|0.401
90795745|NCT00023595|181471706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.93|||Log Rank||Hazard Ratio is for (H01: Medication +CABG) versus (H01: Medication)|||0.93|0.71|0.002
90795746|NCT00023595|181471722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.71|||Log Rank||Hazard Ratio is for (H01: Medication +CABG) versus (H01: Medication)|||0.71|0.51|<0.001
90795747|NCT00023595|181471723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.13|||Log Rank||Hazard Ratio is for (H02: Medication + CABG + SVR) versus (H02: Medication + CABG)|||1.13|0.73|0.414
90795748|NCT00023595|181471724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.73|||Log Rank||Hazard Ratio is for (H01: Medication +CABG) versus (H01: Medication)|||0.73|0.55|<0.001
90795749|NCT00023595|181471725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.03|||Log Rank||Hazard Ratio is for (H01: Medication +CABG) versus (H01: Medication)|||1.03|0.72|0.108
90795750|NCT00023595|181471726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.32|||Log Rank||Hazard Ratio is for (H02: Medication + CABG + SVR) versus (H02: Medication + CABG)|||1.32|0.83|0.717
90795751|NCT00023595|181471727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.97|||Log Rank||Hazard Ratio is for (H01: Medication +CABG) versus (H01: Medication)|||0.97|0.73|0.018
90795752|NCT00023595|181471743|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015||||||4 months|Chi-squared|H01 P-values were based on the Chi-Square test applied to maximum likelihood estimates derived from an adjusted mixed model.||||||0.015
90795753|NCT00023595|181471743|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||12 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.002
90795754|NCT00023595|181471743|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011||||||24 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.011
90795755|NCT00023595|181471743|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44||||||36 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.44
90795756|NCT00023595|181471744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91||||||Baseline|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.91
91011784|NCT01430559|181906428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.09||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Pain subscale (Week 2)||-0.09|-0.65|0.0103
91011785|NCT01430559|181906428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.04||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Pain subscale (Week 4)||-0.04|-0.67|0.0295
91011786|NCT01430559|181906428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.17||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Pain subscale (Week 8)||-0.17|-0.87|0.0041
90795757|NCT00023595|181471744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62||||||4 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.62
90795758|NCT00023595|181471744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||12 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.04
90795759|NCT00023595|181471744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.96
90795760|NCT00023595|181471744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.78
90795761|NCT00023595|181471745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31||||||4 months|Chi-squared|H01 P-values were based on the Chi-Square test applied to maximum likelihood estimates derived from an adjusted mixed model.||||||0.31
91053849|NCT02912650|181990989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.81|3.01|||ANCOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||3.01|1.81|<0.001
90795762|NCT00023595|181471745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||12 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.002
90795763|NCT00023595|181471745|SUPERIORITY|24 months||||||0.028|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.028
91011787|NCT01430559|181906428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.43||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Pain subscale (Week 12)||-0.43|-1.20|<0.0001
90795764|NCT00023595|181471745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.079||||||36 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.079
90795765|NCT00023595|181471746|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74||||||Baseline|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.74
90795766|NCT00023595|181471746|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61||||||4 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.61
90795767|NCT00023595|181471746|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.78
90795768|NCT00023595|181471746|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94||||||24 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.94
90795769|NCT00023595|181471746|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29||||||36 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.29
90795770|NCT00023595|181471747|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.063||||||4 months|Chi-squared|H01 P-values were based on the Chi-Square test applied to maximum likelihood estimates derived from an adjusted mixed model.||||||0.063
90795771|NCT00023595|181471747|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.187||||||12 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.187
90795772|NCT00023595|181471747|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.168||||||24 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.168
90795773|NCT00023595|181471747|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||36 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.050
90795774|NCT00023595|181471748|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82||||||Baseline|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.82
90795775|NCT00023595|181471748|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48||||||4 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.48
90795776|NCT00023595|181471748|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69||||||12 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.69
90795777|NCT00023595|181471748|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63||||||24 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.63
90795778|NCT00023595|181471748|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9||||||36 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.90
90795779|NCT00023595|181471749|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.039||||||4 months|Chi-squared|H01 P-values were based on the Chi-Square test applied to maximum likelihood estimates derived from an adjusted mixed model.||||||0.039
90795780|NCT00023595|181471749|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||12 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.002
90795781|NCT00023595|181471749|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008||||||24 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.008
90795782|NCT00023595|181471749|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31||||||36 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.31
90795783|NCT00023595|181471750|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36||||||Baseline|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.36
90795784|NCT00023595|181471750|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87||||||4 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.87
90795785|NCT00023595|181471750|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17||||||12 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.17
90795786|NCT00023595|181471750|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12||||||24 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.12
90795787|NCT00023595|181471750|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79||||||36 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.79
90795788|NCT00023595|181471751|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||4 months|Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
90795789|NCT00023595|181471751|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||12 months|Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
90795790|NCT00023595|181471751|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||24 months|Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
90795791|NCT00023595|181471751|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.024||||||36 months|Chi-squared|||||||<0.024
90795792|NCT00023595|181471752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31||||||Baseline|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.31
90795793|NCT00023595|181471752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42||||||4 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.42
90795794|NCT00023595|181471752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66||||||12 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.66
90795795|NCT00023595|181471752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32||||||24 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.32
90795796|NCT00023595|181471752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43||||||36 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.43
90795797|NCT00023595|181471753|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.051||||||4 months|Chi-squared|H01 P-values were based on the Chi-Square test applied to maximum likelihood estimates derived from an adjusted mixed model.||||||0.051
90795798|NCT00023595|181471753|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||12 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.003
90795799|NCT00023595|181471753|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.065||||||24 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.065
90795800|NCT00023595|181471753|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83||||||36 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.83
90795801|NCT00023595|181471754|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71||||||Baseline|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.71
90795802|NCT00023595|181471754|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57||||||4 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.57
90795803|NCT00023595|181471754|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15||||||12 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.15
90795804|NCT00023595|181471754|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64||||||24 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.64
90795805|NCT00023595|181471754|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07||||||36 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.07
90795806|NCT00023595|181471755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||4 months|Chi-squared|H01 P-values were based on the Chi-Square test applied to maximum likelihood estimates derived from an adjusted mixed model.||||||0.004
90795807|NCT00023595|181471755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011||||||12 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.011
90795808|NCT00023595|181471755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007||||||24 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.007
90795809|NCT00023595|181471755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.044||||||36 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.044
90795810|NCT00023595|181471756|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74||||||Baseline|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.74
90795811|NCT00023595|181471756|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87||||||4 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.87
90795812|NCT00023595|181471756|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||12 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
90795813|NCT00023595|181471756|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6||||||24 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.60
90795814|NCT00023595|181471756|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87||||||36 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.87
90795815|NCT00023595|181471757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||4 months|Chi-squared|H01 P-values were based on the Chi-Square test applied to maximum likelihood estimates derived from an adjusted mixed model.||||||0.050
90795816|NCT00023595|181471757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||12 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.003
90795817|NCT00023595|181471757|SUPERIORITY|24 months||||||0.049|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.049
90795818|NCT00023595|181471757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.097||||||36 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.097
90795819|NCT00023595|181471758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4||||||Baseline|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.40
90795820|NCT00023595|181471758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13||||||4 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.13
90795821|NCT00023595|181471758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86||||||12 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.86
90795822|NCT00023595|181471758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89||||||24 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.89
90795823|NCT00023595|181471758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87||||||36 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.87
90795824|NCT00023595|181471759|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||4 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.005
90795825|NCT00023595|181471759|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.023||||||12 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.023
90795826|NCT00023595|181471759|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009||||||24 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.009
90795827|NCT00023595|181471759|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26||||||36 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.26
90795828|NCT00023595|181471760|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38||||||Baseline|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.38
90795829|NCT00023595|181471760|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45||||||4 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.45
90795830|NCT00023595|181471760|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62||||||12 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.62
90795831|NCT00023595|181471760|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82||||||24 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.82
90795832|NCT00023595|181471760|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94||||||36 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.94
90795833|NCT00023595|181471761|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.205||||||4 months|Chi-squared|H01 P-values were based on the Chi-Square test applied to maximum likelihood estimates derived from an adjusted mixed model.||||||0.205
90795834|NCT00023595|181471761|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017||||||12 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.017
90795835|NCT00023595|181471761|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028||||||24 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.028
90795836|NCT00023595|181471761|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.123||||||36 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.123
90795837|NCT00023595|181471762|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19||||||Baseline|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.19
90795838|NCT00023595|181471762|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07||||||4 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.07
90795839|NCT00023595|181471762|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94||||||12 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.94
90795840|NCT00023595|181471762|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67||||||24 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.67
90795841|NCT00023595|181471762|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44||||||36 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.44
90795842|NCT00023595|181471763|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||4 months|Chi-squared|P-values were based on the Chi-Square test applied to maximum likelihood estimates derived from an adjusted mixed model.||||||0.050
90795843|NCT00023595|181471763|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006||||||12 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.006
90795844|NCT00023595|181471763|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.039||||||24 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.039
90795845|NCT00023595|181471763|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.074||||||36 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.074
90795846|NCT00023595|181471764|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23||||||Baseline|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.23
90795847|NCT00023595|181471764|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43||||||4 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.43
90795848|NCT00023595|181471764|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35||||||12 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.35
90795849|NCT00023595|181471764|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9||||||24 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.90
90795850|NCT00023595|181471764|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48||||||36 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.48
90795851|NCT00023595|181471765|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.085||||||4 months|Chi-squared|H01 P-values were based on the Chi-Square test applied to maximum likelihood estimates derived from an adjusted mixed model.||||||0.085
90795852|NCT00023595|181471765|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.007
90795853|NCT00023595|181471765|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.026||||||24 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.026
90795854|NCT00023595|181471765|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.085||||||36 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.085
90795855|NCT00023595|181471766|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18||||||Baseline|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.18
90795856|NCT00023595|181471766|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17||||||4 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.17
90795857|NCT00023595|181471766|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59||||||12 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.59
90795858|NCT00023595|181471766|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78||||||24 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.78
90795859|NCT00023595|181471766|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48||||||36 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.48
90795860|NCT00023595|181471767|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||4 months|Chi-squared|H01 P-values were based on the Chi-Square test applied to maximum likelihood estimates derived from an adjusted mixed model.||||||<0.001
90795861|NCT00023595|181471767|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||12 month|Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
90795862|NCT00023595|181471767|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||24 months|Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
90795863|NCT00023595|181471767|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018||||||36 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.018
90795864|NCT00023595|181471768|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7||||||Baseline|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.70
90795865|NCT00023595|181471768|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47||||||4 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.47
90795866|NCT00023595|181471768|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87||||||12 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.87
90795867|NCT00023595|181471768|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84||||||24 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.84
90795868|NCT00023595|181471768|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82||||||36 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.82
90795869|NCT00023595|181471769|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.023||||||4 months|Chi-squared|H01 P-values were based on the Chi-Square test applied to maximum likelihood estimates derived from an adjusted mixed model.||||||0.023
90795870|NCT00023595|181471769|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||12 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.001
90795871|NCT00023595|181471769|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.077||||||24 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.077
90795872|NCT00023595|181471769|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17||||||36 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.170
90795873|NCT00023595|181471770|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63||||||Baseline|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.63
90795874|NCT00023595|181471770|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29||||||4 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.29
90795875|NCT00023595|181471770|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68||||||12 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.68
90795876|NCT00023595|181471770|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25||||||24 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.25
90795877|NCT00023595|181471770|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68||||||36 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.68
90795878|NCT00023595|181471771|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.033||||||4 months|Chi-squared|H01 P-values were based on the Chi-Square test applied to maximum likelihood estimates derived from an adjusted mixed model.||||||0.033
90795879|NCT00023595|181471771|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||12 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.002
90795880|NCT00023595|181471771|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015||||||24 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.015
90795881|NCT00023595|181471771|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.051||||||36 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.051
90795882|NCT00023595|181471772|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26||||||Baseline|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.26
90795883|NCT00023595|181471772|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23||||||4 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.23
90795884|NCT00023595|181471772|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66||||||12 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.66
90795885|NCT00023595|181471772|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98||||||24 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.98
90795886|NCT00023595|181471772|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86||||||36 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.86
90795887|NCT00023595|181471773|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||4 months|Chi-squared|H01 P-values were based on the Chi-Square test applied to maximum likelihood estimates derived from an adjusted mixed model.||||||<0.001
90795888|NCT00023595|181471773|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
90795889|NCT00023595|181471773|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006||||||24 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.006
90795890|NCT00023595|181471773|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.037||||||36 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.037
90795891|NCT00023595|181471774|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53||||||Baseline|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.53
90795892|NCT00023595|181471774|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26||||||4 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.26
90795893|NCT00023595|181471774|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76||||||12 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.76
90795894|NCT00023595|181471774|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89||||||24 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.89
90795895|NCT00023595|181471774|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89||||||36 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.89
90795896|NCT00023595|181471775|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||4 months|Chi-squared|H01 P-values were based on the Chi-Square test applied to maximum likelihood estimates derived from an adjusted mixed model.||||||<0.001
90795897|NCT00023595|181471775|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||12 months|Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
90795898|NCT00023595|181471775|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||24 months|Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
90795899|NCT00023595|181471775|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||36 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.010
90795900|NCT00023595|181471776|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||Baseline|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.01
90795901|NCT00023595|181471776|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74||||||4 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.74
90795902|NCT00023595|181471776|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77||||||12 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.77
90795903|NCT00023595|181471776|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46||||||24 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.46
90795904|NCT00023595|181471776|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27||||||36 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.27
90795905|NCT00023595|181471777|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029||||||4 months|Chi-squared|H01 P-values were based on the Chi-Square test applied to maximum likelihood estimates derived from an adjusted mixed model.||||||0.029
90795906|NCT00023595|181471777|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.042||||||12 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.042
90795907|NCT00023595|181471777|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3||||||24 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.30
90795908|NCT00023595|181471777|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2||||||36 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.20
90795909|NCT00023595|181471778|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98||||||Baseline|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.98
90795910|NCT00023595|181471778|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16||||||4 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.16
90795911|NCT00023595|181471778|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88||||||12 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.88
90795912|NCT00023595|181471778|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95||||||24 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.95
90795913|NCT00023595|181471778|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48||||||36 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.48
90795914|NCT00023595|181471779|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||4 months|Chi-squared|H01 P-values were based on the Chi-Square test applied to maximum likelihood estimates derived from an adjusted mixed model.||||||<0.001
90795915|NCT00023595|181471779|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||12 months|Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
90795916|NCT00023595|181471779|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||24 months|Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
90795917|NCT00023595|181471779|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||36 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.001
90795918|NCT00023595|181471780|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86||||||Baseline|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.86
90795919|NCT00023595|181471780|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39||||||4 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.39
90795920|NCT00023595|181471780|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65||||||12 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.65
90795921|NCT00023595|181471780|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15||||||24 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.15
90795922|NCT00023595|181471780|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68||||||36 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.68
90795923|NCT00023595|181471781|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||4 months|Chi-squared|H01 P-values were based on the Chi-Square test applied to maximum likelihood estimates derived from an adjusted mixed model.||||||<0.001
90795924|NCT00023595|181471781|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||12 months|Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
90795925|NCT00023595|181471781|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||24 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.001
91053850|NCT02912650|181990989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.04|4.74|||ANCOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||4.74|3.04|<0.001
90795926|NCT00023595|181471781|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.001
90795927|NCT00023595|181471782|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96||||||Baseline|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.96
90795928|NCT00023595|181471782|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53||||||4 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.53
90795929|NCT00023595|181471782|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37||||||12 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.37
90795930|NCT00023595|181471782|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78||||||24 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.78
90795931|NCT00023595|181471782|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21||||||36 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.21
90795932|NCT00023595|181471783|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007||||||4 months|Chi-squared|H01 P-values were based on the Chi-Square test applied to maximum likelihood estimates derived from an adjusted mixed model.||||||0.007
90795933|NCT00023595|181471783|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||12 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.003
90795934|NCT00023595|181471783|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.023||||||24 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.023
90795935|NCT00023595|181471783|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06||||||36 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.060
90795936|NCT00023595|181471784|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31||||||Baseline|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.31
90795937|NCT00023595|181471784|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43||||||4 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.43
90795938|NCT00023595|181471784|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57||||||12 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.57
90795939|NCT00023595|181471784|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95||||||24 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.95
90795940|NCT00023595|181471784|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38||||||36 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.38
90795941|NCT00023595|181471785|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86||||||Baseline|Chi-squared|All P-values were based on the Likelihood Ratio Chi-Square test.||||||0.86
90795942|NCT00023595|181471785|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78||||||4 months|Chi-squared|All P-values were based on the Likelihood Ratio Chi-Square test.||||||0.78
90795943|NCT00023595|181471785|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55||||||12 months|Chi-squared|All P-values were based on the Likelihood Ratio Chi-Square test.||||||0.55
90795944|NCT00023595|181471785|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027||||||24 months|Chi-squared|All P-values were based on the Likelihood Ratio Chi-Square test.||||||0.027
90795945|NCT00023595|181471785|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.031||||||36 months|Chi-squared|All P-values were based on the Likelihood Ratio Chi-Square test.||||||0.031
90795946|NCT00023595|181471786|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4||||||Baseline|Chi-squared|All P-values were based on the Likelihood Ratio Chi-Square test.||||||0.40
90795947|NCT00023595|181471786|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42||||||4 months|Chi-squared|All P-values were based on the Likelihood Ratio Chi-Square test.||||||0.42
90795948|NCT00023595|181471786|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41||||||12 months|Chi-squared|All P-values were based on the Likelihood Ratio Chi-Square test.||||||0.41
90795949|NCT00023595|181471786|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25||||||24 months|Chi-squared|All P-values were based on the Likelihood Ratio Chi-Square test.||||||0.25
90795950|NCT00023595|181471786|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25||||||36 months|Chi-squared|All P-values were based on the Likelihood Ratio Chi-Square test.||||||0.25
90795951|NCT00023595|181471787|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||4 months|Chi-squared|H01 P-values were based on the Chi-Square test applied to maximum likelihood estimates derived from an adjusted mixed model.||||||0.002
90795952|NCT00023595|181471787|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007||||||12 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.007
90795953|NCT00023595|181471787|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.049||||||24 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.049
90795954|NCT00023595|181471787|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038||||||36 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.038
90795955|NCT00023595|181471788|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4||||||Baseline|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.40
90795956|NCT00023595|181471788|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37||||||4 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.37
90795957|NCT00023595|181471788|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98||||||12 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.98
90795958|NCT00023595|181471788|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15||||||24 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.15
90795959|NCT00023595|181471788|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||36 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.04
90795960|NCT00023595|181471789|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036||||||4 months|Chi-squared|H01 P-values were based on the Chi-Square test applied to maximum likelihood estimates derived from an adjusted mixed model.||||||0.036
90795961|NCT00023595|181471789|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.043||||||12 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.043
90795962|NCT00023595|181471789|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018||||||24 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.018
90795963|NCT00023595|181471789|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.037||||||36 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.037
90795964|NCT00023595|181471790|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75||||||Baseline|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.75
90795965|NCT00023595|181471790|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72||||||4 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.72
90795966|NCT00023595|181471790|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77||||||12 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.77
90795967|NCT00023595|181471790|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52||||||24 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.52
90795968|NCT00023595|181471790|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12||||||36 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.12
90795969|NCT00023595|181471791|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002||||||4 months|Chi-squared|H01 P-values were based on the Chi-Square test applied to maximum likelihood estimates derived from an adjusted mixed model.||||||0.0002
90795970|NCT00023595|181471791|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||12 months|Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
90795971|NCT00023595|181471791|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009||||||24 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.009
90795972|NCT00023595|181471791|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32||||||36 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.32
90795973|NCT00023595|181471792|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6||||||Baseline|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.60
90795974|NCT00023595|181471792|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14||||||4 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.14
90795975|NCT00023595|181471792|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57||||||12 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.57
90795976|NCT00023595|181471792|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15||||||24 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.15
90795977|NCT00023595|181471792|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84||||||36 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.84
90795978|NCT00023595|181471793|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Hospital costs|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
90795979|NCT00023595|181471793|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Physician fees|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
90795980|NCT00023595|181471793|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Total index cost|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
90795981|NCT00023595|181471794|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006||||||Hospital costs|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.006
90795982|NCT00023595|181471794|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Physician fees|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
90795983|NCT00023595|181471794|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||Total index cost|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.004
90795984|NCT06203717|181471802|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|9.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.06||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.08|15.23||a priori threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|Paired-sample t-test|||||15.23|3.08|0.007
90795985|NCT06203717|181471803|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|7.77|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.35||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.93|11.61|||Paired-sample t-test|||||11.61|3.93|0.0009
90795986|NCT02231580|181471811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.104|||=|0.5743|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.823|1.482|||MMRM|||Left hand position-index statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement (MMRM) analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the restricted maximum likelihood (REML) model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.482|0.823|=0.5743
90795987|NCT02231580|181471811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.141|||=|0.4349|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.862|1.51|||MMRM|||Right hand position-index statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.510|0.862|=0.4349
90795988|NCT02231580|181471812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.035|||=|0.8937|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.675|1.587|||MMRM|||Left hand orientation-index statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.587|0.675|=0.8937
90795989|NCT02231580|181471812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.093|||=|0.636|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|1.493|||MMRM|||Right hand orientation-index statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.493|0.800|=0.6360
90795990|NCT02231580|181471813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.247|||=|0.2865|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.886|1.756|||MMRM|||Left hand grip force variability statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.756|0.886|=0.2865
90795991|NCT02231580|181471813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.16|||=|0.5338|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.781|1.724|||MMRM|||Right hand grip force variability statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.724|0.781|=0.5338
90795992|NCT02231580|181471814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|0.693|||=|0.0864|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.487|0.985|||MMRM|||Left hand isometric grip forces statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||0.985|0.487|=0.0864
90795993|NCT02231580|181471814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|0.686|||=|0.0399|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.508|0.925|||MMRM|||Right hand isometric grip forces statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||0.925|0.508|=0.0399
90795994|NCT02231580|181471815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.509|||=|0.0574|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.06|2.15|||MMRM|||Left finger IOI variability statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||2.150|1.060|=0.0574
90795995|NCT02231580|181471815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|0.953|||=|0.8277|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.662|1.372|||MMRM|||Right finger IOI variability statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.372|0.662|=0.8277
90795996|NCT02231580|181471815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.238|||=|0.0162|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.074|1.426|||MMRM|||Left finger IOI duration statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.426|1.074|=0.0162
91011788|NCT01430559|181906428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|-0.02||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Stiffness subscale (Week 2)||-0.02|-0.64|0.0369
91011789|NCT01430559|181906428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.2642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.15||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Stiffness subscale (Week 4)||0.15|-0.54|0.2642
91011790|NCT01430559|181906428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.1||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Stiffness subscale (Week 8)||-0.10|-0.84|0.0140
91011791|NCT01430559|181906428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.28||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Stiffness subscale (Week 12)||-0.28|-1.06|0.0009
91011792|NCT01430559|181906428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.17||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Physical function subscale (Week 2)||-0.17|-0.72|0.0017
91011793|NCT01430559|181906428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.03||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Physical function subscale (Week 4)||-0.03|-0.66|0.0328
91011794|NCT01430559|181906428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|-0.16||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Physical function subscale (Week 8)||-0.16|-0.86|0.0043
91011795|NCT01430559|181906428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|-0.43||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Physical function subscale (Week 12)||-0.43|-1.19|<0.0001
91011796|NCT01430559|181906428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.12||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Average score (Week 2)||-0.12|-0.65|0.0051
91011797|NCT01430559|181906428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.01||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Average score (Week 4)||0.01|-0.61|0.0593
91011798|NCT01430559|181906428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.16||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Average score (Week 8)||-0.16|-0.84|0.0046
91011799|NCT01430559|181906428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|-0.39||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Average score (Week 12)||-0.39|-1.14|<0.0001
91011800|NCT01430559|181906429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.3||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Walking on flat surface (Week 2)||-0.30|-0.94|0.0002
91011801|NCT01430559|181906429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|-0.22||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Walking on flat surface (Week 4)||-0.22|-0.92|0.0015
91011802|NCT01430559|181906429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.32||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Walking on flat surface (Week 8)||-0.32|-1.08|0.0003
90795997|NCT02231580|181471815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.038|||=|0.632|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.912|1.182|||MMRM|||Right finger IOI duration statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.182|0.912|=0.6320
90795998|NCT02231580|181471816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.308|||=|0.3005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|2.014|||MMRM|||Left finger variability of TD statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||2.014|0.85|=0.3005
90795999|NCT02231580|181471816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.177|||=|0.4793|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.804|1.722|||MMRM|||Right finger variability of TD statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.722|0.804|=0.4793
90796000|NCT02231580|181471816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.15|||=|0.2653|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.934|1.416|||MMRM|||Left finger duration of TD statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.416|0.934|=0.2653
90796001|NCT02231580|181471816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.045|||=|0.6777|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.875|1.248|||MMRM|||Right finger duration of TD statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.248|0.875|=0.6777
90796002|NCT02231580|181471817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.618|||=|0.0326|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.124|2.331|||MMRM|||Left finger IPI variability statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||2.331|1.124|=0.0326
90796003|NCT02231580|181471817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|0.886|||=|0.6016|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.605|1.299|||MMRM|||Right finger IPI variability statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.299|0.605|=0.6016
90796004|NCT02231580|181471817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.242|||=|0.0152|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.077|1.433|||MMRM|||Left finger IPI duration statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.433|1.077|=0.0152
90796005|NCT02231580|181471817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.042|||=|0.6033|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.915|1.186|||MMRM|||Right finger IPI duration statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.186|0.915|=0.6033
90796006|NCT02231580|181471818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.657|||=|0.052|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.086|2.529|||MMRM|||Left finger ITI variability statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||2.529|1.086|=0.0520
91011803|NCT01430559|181906429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|-0.51||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Walking on flat surface (Week 12)||-0.51|-1.34|<0.0001
90796007|NCT02231580|181471818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|0.916|||=|0.6978|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.63|1.333|||MMRM|||Right finger ITI variability statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.333|0.630|=0.6978
90796008|NCT02231580|181471818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.298|||=|0.0522|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.043|1.614|||MMRM|||Left finger ITI duration statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.614|1.043|=0.0522
90796009|NCT02231580|181471818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.014|||=|0.9012|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.837|1.229|||MMRM|||Right finger ITI duration statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.229|0.837|=0.9012
91011804|NCT01430559|181906429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.02||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Going up or down stairs (Week 2)||-0.02|-0.67|0.0363
90796010|NCT02231580|181471819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.198|||=|0.1779|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.494|||MMRM|||Left finger TF statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.494|0.96|=0.1779
90796011|NCT02231580|181471819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|0.966|||=|0.8036|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.765|1.22|||MMRM|||Right finger TF statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.220|0.765|=0.8036
90796012|NCT02231580|181471820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|0.812|||=|0.0177|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.706|0.935|||MMRM|||Left finger freq statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||0.935|0.706|=0.0177
90796013|NCT02231580|181471820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|0.967|||=|0.6491|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.856|1.093|||MMRM|||Right finger freq statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.093|0.856|=0.6491
90796014|NCT02231580|181471821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.168|||=|0.6176|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.697|1.955|||MMRM|||Left hand IOI variability statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.955|0.697|=0.6176
90796015|NCT02231580|181471821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|0.759|||=|0.4541|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.411|1.399|||MMRM|||Right hand IOI variability statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.399|0.411|=0.4541
90796016|NCT02231580|181471821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.119|||=|0.2018|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.967|1.294|||MMRM|||Left hand IOI duration statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.294|0.967|=0.2018
90796017|NCT02231580|181471821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.046|||=|0.6527|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.886|1.234|||MMRM|||Right hand IOI duration statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.234|0.886|=0.6527
90796018|NCT02231580|181471822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|0.929|||=|0.8279|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.529|1.63|||MMRM|||Left hand variability of TD statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.630|0.529|=0.8279
90796019|NCT02231580|181471822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|0.612|||=|0.2738|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.292|1.283|||MMRM|||Right hand variability of TD statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.283|0.292|=0.2738
90796020|NCT02231580|181471822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.018|||=|0.9218|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.752|1.378|||MMRM|||Left hand duration of TD statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.378|0.752|=0.9218
90796021|NCT02231580|181471822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|0.847|||=|0.5032|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.561|1.277|||MMRM|||Right hand duration of TD statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.277|0.561|=0.5032
90796022|NCT02231580|181471823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.14|||=|0.6759|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.677|1.917|||MMRM|||Left hand IPI variability statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.917|0.677|=0.6759
90796023|NCT02231580|181471823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|0.815|||=|0.5764|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.444|1.496|||MMRM|||Right hand IPI variability statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.496|0.444|=0.5764
91053851|NCT02912650|181990989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|3.11|||ANCOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||3.11|1.40|<0.001
91053852|NCT02912650|181990989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|2.23|||ANCOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||2.23|1.02|<0.001
90796024|NCT02231580|181471823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.115|||=|0.2127|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.965|1.289|||MMRM|||Left hand IPI duration statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.289|0.965|=0.2127
90796025|NCT02231580|181471823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.059|||=|0.5661|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.897|1.25|||MMRM|||Right hand IPI duration statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.25|0.897|=0.5661
90796026|NCT02231580|181471824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.571|||=|0.0874|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.018|2.424|||MMRM|||Left hand ITI variability statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||2.424|1.018|=0.0874
90796027|NCT02231580|181471824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.18|||=|0.6431|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.644|2.162|||MMRM|||Right hand ITI variability statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||2.162|0.644|=0.6431
90796028|NCT02231580|181471824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.193|||=|0.0389|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.038|1.371|||MMRM|||Left hand ITI duration statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.371|1.038|=0.0389
90796029|NCT02231580|181471824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.138|||=|0.1641|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.976|1.327|||MMRM|||Right hand ITI duration statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.327|0.976|=0.1641
90796030|NCT02231580|181471825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|0.93|||=|0.5668|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.755|1.147|||MMRM|||Left hand TF variability statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.147|0.755|=0.5668
90796031|NCT02231580|181471825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|0.978|||=|0.8686|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.778|1.229|||MMRM|||Right hand TF variability statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.229|0.778|=0.8686
91053853|NCT02912650|181990989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.65|5.4|||ANCOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||5.40|3.65|<0.001
90796032|NCT02231580|181471826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|0.879|||=|0.1244|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.765|1.009|||MMRM|||Left hand freq statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.009|0.765|=0.1244
90796033|NCT02231580|181471826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|0.919|||=|0.3535|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.789|1.069|||MMRM|||Right hand freq statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.069|0.789|=0.3535
91053854|NCT02912650|181990989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.82||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.43|||ANCOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||1.43|0.21|0.009
91053855|NCT02912650|181990989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.79|3.04|||ANCOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||3.04|1.79|<0.001
91053856|NCT02912650|181990989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.83|4.58|||ANCOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||4.58|2.83|<0.001
91053857|NCT02912650|181990989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|2.99|||ANCOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||2.99|1.23|<0.001
91053858|NCT02912650|181990989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|2.22|||ANCOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||2.22|0.97|<0.001
90796034|NCT02231580|181471827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|2.163|||=|0.015|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.295|3.614|||MMRM|||Left foot IOI variability statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||3.614|1.295|=0.015
90796035|NCT02231580|181471827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.274|||=|0.5136|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.688|2.361|||MMRM|||Right foot IOI variability statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||2.361|0.688|=0.5136
90796036|NCT02231580|181471827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.56|||=|0.0218|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.139|2.137|||MMRM|||Left foot IOI duration statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||2.137|1.139|=0.0218
90796037|NCT02231580|181471827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.251|||=|0.372|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.825|1.899|||MMRM|||Right foot IOI duration statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.899|0.825|=0.3720
90796038|NCT02231580|181471828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.911|||=|0.915|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.017|3.592|||MMRM|||Left foot TD variability statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||3.592|1.017|=0.915
90796039|NCT02231580|181471828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.687|||=|0.2745|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.762|3.737|||MMRM|||Right foot TD variability statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||3.737|0.762|=0.2745
90796040|NCT02231580|181471828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.598|||=|0.1148|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|2.608|||MMRM|||Left foot TD duration statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||2.608|0.980|=0.1148
90796041|NCT02231580|181471828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.454|||=|0.308|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.789|2.679|||MMRM|||Right foot TD duration statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||2.679|0.789|=0.3080
90796042|NCT02231580|181471829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|2.272|||=|0.0079|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.381|3.737|||MMRM|||Left foot IPI variability statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||3.737|1.381|=0.0079
90796043|NCT02231580|181471829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.21|||=|0.0204|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.686|2.133|||MMRM|||Right foot IPI variability statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||2.133|0.686|=0.0204
90796044|NCT02231580|181471829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.564|||=|0.0204|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.144|2.138|||MMRM|||Left foot IPI duration statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||2.138|1.144|=0.0204
90796045|NCT02231580|181471829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.269|||=|0.3144|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.856|1.884|||MMRM|||Right foot IPI duration statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.884|0.856|=0.3144
90796046|NCT02231580|181471830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.914|||=|0.0324|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.167|3.141|||MMRM|||Left foot ITI variability statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||3.141|1.167|=0.0324
90796047|NCT02231580|181471830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.462|||=|0.246|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|2.515|||MMRM|||Right foot ITI variability statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||2.515|0.85|=0.246
90890275|NCT01217073|181644899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-21.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.4|-13.4||With terms for treatment, prior AHA therapy status, geographic region (Japan/ex-Japan), and the interaction of time by treatment, time by prior AHA therapy status, with the constraint that the mean baseline is the same for all treatment groups.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-13.4|-29.4|<0.001
90796048|NCT02231580|181471830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.387|||=|0.1057|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.994|1.935|||MMRM|||Left foot ITI duration statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.935|0.994|=0.1057
90796049|NCT02231580|181471830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.074|||=|0.7342|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.758|1.523|||MMRM|||Right foot ITI duration statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.523|0.758|=0.7342
90796050|NCT02231580|181471831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.392|||=|0.1027|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.997|1.943|||MMRM|||Left foot TF variability statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.943|0.997|=0.1027
90796051|NCT02231580|181471831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.158|||=|0.4494|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|1.595|||MMRM|||Right foot TF variability statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.595|0.840|=0.4494
90796052|NCT02231580|181471832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|0.699|||=|0.035|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.53|0.922|||MMRM|||Left foot freq statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||0.922|0.530|=0.0350
90796053|NCT02231580|181471832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|0.853|||=|0.3556|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.64|1.136|||MMRM|||Right foot freq statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.136|0.640|=0.3556
90796054|NCT01380080|181471844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cumulative probability difference|-0.06||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.05|2.94|||z-test|||Treatment comparison was made using the difference (arm B- arm A) in the Kaplan-Meier estimate for 24 week cumulative probability of death or unknown vital status with 95% confidence interval||2.94|-3.05|0.97
90796055|NCT05852470|181471867|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin = 0.1 logMAR|Difference in Means|0.034|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0167|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.067||Since a non-inferiority hypothesis is being tested, a p-value is not applicable. Confidence limit is being reported and compared to the non-inferiority margin.|||Parameter Dispersion Type is Standard Error of the Difference in Means. Difference = Vivity/Vivity Toric Extended Vision IOL minus Clareon/Clareon Toric Monofocal IOL|||0.067|0.001|
91053859|NCT02912650|181990989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.37|5.17|||ANCOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||5.17|3.37|<0.001
90796056|NCT05852470|181471868|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Means|-0.091|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0151|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|-0.061|||t-test, 1 sided||||Parameter Dispersion Type is Standard Error of the Difference in Means. Difference = Vivity/Vivity Toric Extended Vision IOL minus Clareon/Clareon Toric Monofocal IOL|-0.061|-0.120|<.001
90796057|NCT05852470|181471869|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Means|-0.129|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0202|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.169|-0.089|||t-test, 1 sided||Parameter Dispersion Type is Standard Error of the Difference in Means. Difference = Vivity/Vivity Toric Extended Vision IOL minus Clareon/Clareon Toric Monofocal IOL|||-0.089|-0.169|<.001
90796058|NCT05852470|181471870|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|17.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.66||Upper limit is not applicable for testing.|The lower boundary of the confidence interval is reported instead of a p-value.|Miettinen-Nurminen||Difference = Vivity/Vivity Toric Extended Vision IOL minus Clareon/Clareon Toric Monofocal IOL||||8.66|
90796059|NCT00937105|181471891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cumulative Probability of no-CIE|92.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|88.6|96.9|||Kaplan-Meier|Cumulative Unadjusted Probability of remaining CIE-free presented for entire cohort (both solution groups) to remain consistent with the primary aim||Cumulative Unadjusted Probability of Remaining Infiltrate Free in entire Cohort||96.9|88.6|
90796060|NCT00937105|181471892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.737||||0.3923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|6.156|||Regression, Cox|Univariate hazard ratio provided because non-significant finding did not enter into multivariate analyses|referent is no substantial lens bioburden|To determine if microbial contamination of lenses is a risk factor for CIE||6.156|0.49|0.3923
90796061|NCT00937105|181471893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.316||||0.7943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.167|10.393|||Regression, Cox|Univariate hazard ratio provided because non-significant finding did not enter into multivariate analyses|referent is no corneal staining|||10.393|0.167|0.7943
90796062|NCT00937105|181471894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.674||||0.5894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.161|2.822|||Regression, Cox|Univariate hazard ratio provided because non-significant finding did not enter into multivariate analyses|referent is no substantial case bioburden|||2.822|0.161|0.5894
90796063|NCT00937105|181471895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.406||||0.1742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.678|8.537||Univariate hazard ratio provided because non-significant finding did not enter into multivariate analyses|Regression, Cox||referent is no substantial overall lid bioburden|||8.537|0.678|0.1742
91053860|NCT02912650|181990989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.81||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.44|||ANCOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||1.44|0.18|0.012
90796064|NCT00937105|181471896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|5.22||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|24.7|||Regression, Cox|Multivariate model adjusted for solution, gender and age|referent is no substantial CNS lid bioburden|||24.70|1.10|0.04
90796065|NCT03176173|181471909|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0007|||||||Exact binomial test|||||||0.0007
90890276|NCT01217073|181644899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-13.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.3|-5.7||With terms for treatment, prior AHA therapy status, geographic region (Japan/ex-Japan), and the interaction of time by treatment, time by prior AHA therapy status, with the constraint that the mean baseline is the same for all treatment groups.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-5.7|-21.3|<0.001
90890277|NCT01217073|181644899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-14.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.2|-6.3||With terms for treatment, prior AHA therapy status, geographic region (Japan/ex-Japan), and the interaction of time by treatment, time by prior AHA therapy status, with the constraint that the mean baseline is the same for all treatment groups.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-6.3|-22.2|<0.001
90890278|NCT01217073|181644899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-19.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.9|-11.2||With terms for treatment, prior AHA therapy status, geographic region (Japan/ex-Japan), and the interaction of time by treatment, time by prior AHA therapy status, with the constraint that the mean baseline is the same for all treatment groups.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-11.2|-26.9|<0.001
90890279|NCT01217073|181644899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-2.5||||0.539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|5.5||With terms for treatment, prior AHA therapy status, geographic region (Japan/ex-Japan), and the interaction of time by treatment, time by prior AHA therapy status, with the constraint that the mean baseline is the same for all treatment groups.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||5.5|-10.4|0.539
90890280|NCT03561090|181644906|SUPERIORITY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|0.055||||0.6346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.172|0.281|||MMRM||Treatment difference (IW-3718 - placebo)|Treatment difference calculated as least squares mean (LSM) change from baseline at Week 8; IW-3718 - placebo based on an mixed models repeated measures (MMRM) model with week (categorical), treatment group, week-by-treatment group, and week-by-baseline value interactions, baseline esophagitis status (present vs. not present), and baseline WHSS (\< 3 vs. ≥ 3) as fixed effect terms and baseline value as a covariate, with subject as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.||0.281|-0.172|0.6346
90890281|NCT03561090|181644907|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.035||||0.7101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.151|0.221|||MMRM||Treatment difference (IW-3718 - placebo)|Treatment difference calculated as LSM change from baseline at Week 8; IW-3718 - placebo based on an MMRM model with week (categorical), treatment group, week-by-treatment group, and week-by-baseline value interactions, baseline esophagitis status (present vs. not present), and baseline WHSS (\< 3 vs. ≥ 3) as fixed effect terms and baseline value as a covariate, with subject as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.||0.221|-0.151|0.7101
90890282|NCT03561090|181644908|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of responders|-5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|3.7|||||95% confidence interval (CI) for Difference in Responder Rates is obtained using the Newcombe CI.|||3.7|-14.7|
90890283|NCT03561090|181644908|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.2531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.17|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds Ratio for Response (IW-3718 : placebo)|Treatment difference was calculated as the difference in the responder rates at Week 8; IW-3718 - placebo. The 95% CI for the difference in the responder rates was obtained using the Newcombe CI. P value was based on the odds ratio for the response rate (IW-3718:placebo) obtained from the CMH tests controlling for baseline esophagitis status and baseline heartburn severity level (\< 3 vs. ≥ 3).||1.17|0.56|0.2531
90890284|NCT03561090|181644909|SUPERIORITY||Proportion ratio|0.938||||0.7445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.636|1.382||Negative binomial model was used to deal with data overdispersion.|Negative binomial model||Proportion Ratio (1500 mg IW-3718 BID + PPI: Placebo + PPI)|Poisson regression including the fixed categorical effect of treatment, the baseline esophagitis status (present vs. not present) and baseline WHSS (\<3 vs. ≥3), the covariate of baseline proportion of heartburn-free days, and with the diary entry duration (in days) as a weight variable adjusted in the model was applied.||1.382|0.636|0.7445
90890285|NCT03561090|181644909|OTHER|Negative binomial model was used to deal with data overdispersion.|Difference in Proportion Ratio|-0.015|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.103|0.074|||||Difference in Proportion Ratio, (1500 mg IW-3718 BID + PPI) - (Placebo + PPI).|Poisson regression including the fixed categorical effect of treatment, the baseline esophagitis status (present vs. not present) and baseline WHSS (\<3 vs. ≥3), the covariate of baseline proportion of heartburn-free days, and with the diary entry duration (in days) as a weight variable adjusted in the model was applied.||0.074|-0.103|
90890286|NCT01426191|181644961|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.05
90890287|NCT01426191|181644962|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.01
90890288|NCT01715805|181644983|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (LSMD)|-0.2||||0.7948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.2||MMRM with treatment group, study center, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline value and baseline by-visit interaction as the covariates was used for analyses.|Mixed Models Analysis||Cariprazine + ADT - Placebo + ADT|||1.2|-1.6|0.7948
90890289|NCT01715805|181644984|SUPERIORITY||LSMD|-0.7||||0.2784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.5||MMRM with treatment group, study center, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline value and baseline by-visit interaction as the covariates was used for analyses.|Mixed Models Analysis||Cariprazine +ADT - Placebo + ADT|||0.5|-1.9|0.2784
90890290|NCT02647359|181644991|OTHER||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|10.76||||0.4868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.914|43.434||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with age and baseline Maximum Reading Speed (both eyes) as covariates, and treatment as a factor.||43.434|-21.914|0.4868
90890291|NCT02219932|181645019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.61||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|2.26|||Regression, Logistic||fampridine vs. placebo|Based on logistic regression, adjusting for baseline MSWS-12 score, baseline TUG speed, age, screening Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score and prior aminopyridine. Missing data handled by multiple imputation. Hypothesis testing was performed at the 2-sided 5% significance level overall, with adjustment for testing multiple secondary endpoints.||2.26|1.15|0.006
90796066|NCT05847686|181471961|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<.0001
90796067|NCT05395936|181471969|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0001
90796068|NCT04887831|181471971|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|-0.101|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1052||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.308|0.105||The 2-sided p-value was calculated using stratified CMH method to account for the presence of visceral metastasis (yes/no) and initial chemotherapy type (cisplatin/carboplatin) as the stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.105|-0.308|0.340
90796069|NCT04887831|181471972|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|-0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1078||0.938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.203||The 2-sided p-value was calculated using stratified CMH method to account for the presence of visceral metastasis (yes/no) and initial chemotherapy type (cisplatin/carboplatin) as the stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.203|-0.220|0.938
90796070|NCT02180828|181471984|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Yes||||||0.925|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.925
90796071|NCT02180828|181471985|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Yes||||||0.298|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.298
90796072|NCT02180828|181471986|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|90% power and a two-sided alpha level of 0.05||||||0.147|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.147
90796073|NCT02180828|181471987|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Yes||||||0.147|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.147
90796074|NCT02180828|181471988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.010
90796075|NCT02180828|181471989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.002
90796076|NCT02180828|181471990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.658|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.658
90796077|NCT02180828|181471991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.123|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.123
90796078|NCT02180828|181471992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.274|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.274
90796079|NCT03674281|181471994|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.002
90796080|NCT03674281|181471994|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90796081|NCT00402987|181472089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.7||||0.0003||95.0|5.5|17.9|||generalized linear model|p-value was calculated using Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||Null hypothesis: No difference in SPID2 (PI-VAS) at two hours between celecoxib 100 mg and placebo. Sample size was based on an expected effect size of 0.42 (from earlier studies), 80% power and an alpha of 0.05.||17.9|5.5|0.0003
90796082|NCT00402987|181472090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.212||95.0||||"Analysis at 15 min~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.212
90796083|NCT00402987|181472090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.056||95.0||||"Analysis at 30 min~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.056
90796084|NCT00402987|181472090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.005||95.0||||"Analysis at 45 min~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.005
90796085|NCT00402987|181472090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002||95.0||||"Analysis at 60 min~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.002
90796086|NCT00402987|181472090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 75 min~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
90796087|NCT00402987|181472090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 90 min~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
90796088|NCT00402987|181472090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 1.75 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
90796089|NCT00402987|181472090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 2 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
90796090|NCT00402987|181472090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 3 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
90796091|NCT00402987|181472090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 4 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
90796092|NCT00402987|181472090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 5 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
90796093|NCT00402987|181472090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 6 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
90796094|NCT00402987|181472091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 7 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized Linear Model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.001
90796095|NCT00402987|181472091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 8 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
90796096|NCT00402987|181472091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.006||95.0||||"Analysis at 9 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.006
90796097|NCT00402987|181472091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.007||95.0||||"Analysis at 10 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.007
90796098|NCT00402987|181472091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.014||95.0||||"Analysis at 11 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.014
90796099|NCT00402987|181472091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.012||95.0||||"Analysis at 12 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.012
90796100|NCT00402987|181472091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.365||95.0||||"Analysis at 24 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.365
90796101|NCT00402987|181472092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.18||95.0||||"Analysis at 15 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized Linear Model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.180
90796102|NCT00402987|181472092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.069||95.0||||"Analysis at 30 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.069
90796103|NCT00402987|181472092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.01||95.0||||"Analysis at 45 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.010
90796104|NCT00402987|181472092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002||95.0||||"Analysis at 60 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.002
90796105|NCT00402987|181472092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 75 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
90796106|NCT00402987|181472092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 90 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
90796107|NCT00402987|181472092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 1.75 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
90796108|NCT00402987|181472092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 2 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
90796109|NCT00402987|181472092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 3 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
90796110|NCT00402987|181472092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 4 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
90796111|NCT00402987|181472092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 5 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
90796112|NCT00402987|181472092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 6 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
90796113|NCT00402987|181472092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.096||95.0||||"Analysis at 15 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.096
90796114|NCT00402987|181472092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.034||95.0||||"Analysis at 30 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.034
90796115|NCT00402987|181472092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.022||95.0||||"Analysis at 45 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.022
90796116|NCT00402987|181472092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.01||95.0||||"Analysis at 60 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.010
90796117|NCT00402987|181472092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.005||95.0||||"Analysis at 75 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.005
90796118|NCT00402987|181472092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002||95.0||||"Analysis at 90 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.002
90796119|NCT00402987|181472092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 1.75 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.001
90796120|NCT00402987|181472092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 2 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
90796121|NCT00402987|181472092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 3 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
90796122|NCT00402987|181472092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 4 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
90796123|NCT00402987|181472092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 5 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
90796124|NCT00402987|181472092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 6 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
90796125|NCT00402987|181472092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.741||95.0||||"Analysis at 15 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.741
90796126|NCT00402987|181472092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.759||95.0||||"Analysis at 30 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.759
90796127|NCT00402987|181472092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.775||95.0||||"Analysis at 45 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.775
90796128|NCT00402987|181472092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.561||95.0||||"Analysis at 60 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.561
90796129|NCT00402987|181472092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.419||95.0||||"Analysis at 75 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.419
90796130|NCT00402987|181472092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.237||95.0||||"Analysis at 90 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.237
90796131|NCT00402987|181472092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.146||95.0||||"Analysis at 1.75 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.146
90796132|NCT00402987|181472092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.113||95.0||||"Analysis at 2 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.113
90796133|NCT00402987|181472092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.086||95.0||||"Analyaia at 3 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.086
90796134|NCT00402987|181472092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.111||95.0||||"Analysis at 4 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.111
90796135|NCT00402987|181472092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.183||95.0||||"Analysis at 5 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.183
90796136|NCT00402987|181472092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.259||95.0||||"Analysis at 6 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.259
90796137|NCT00402987|181472093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 7 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
90796138|NCT00402987|181472093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 8 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
90796139|NCT00402987|181472093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 9 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
90796140|NCT00402987|181472093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 10 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
90796141|NCT00402987|181472093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 11 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
90796142|NCT00402987|181472093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 12 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
90796143|NCT00402987|181472093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 24 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
90796144|NCT00402987|181472093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 7 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
90796145|NCT00402987|181472093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 8 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
90796146|NCT00402987|181472093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 9 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
90796147|NCT00402987|181472093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 10 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
90796148|NCT00402987|181472093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 12 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
90796149|NCT00402987|181472093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.017||95.0||||"Analysis at 24 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.017
90796150|NCT00402987|181472093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.011||95.0||||"Analysis at 7 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.011
90796151|NCT00402987|181472093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.009||95.0||||"Analysis at 8 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.009
90796152|NCT00402987|181472093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.008||95.0||||"Analysis at 9 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.008
90796153|NCT00402987|181472093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.008||95.0||||"Analysis at 10 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.008
90796154|NCT00402987|181472093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.008||95.0||||"Analysis at 11 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.008
90796155|NCT00402987|181472093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.008||95.0||||"Analysis at 12 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.008
90796156|NCT00402987|181472093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.012||95.0||||"Analysis at 24 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.012
90796157|NCT00402987|181472093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.904||95.0||||"Analysis at 7 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.904
90796158|NCT00402987|181472093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.891||95.0||||"Analysis at 8 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.891
90796159|NCT00402987|181472093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.929||95.0||||"Analysis at 9 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.929
90796160|NCT00402987|181472093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.994||95.0||||"Analysis at 10 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.994
90796161|NCT00402987|181472093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.933||95.0||||"Analysis at 11 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.933
90796162|NCT00402987|181472093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.876||95.0||||"Analysis at 12 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.876
90796163|NCT00402987|181472093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.622||95.0||||"Analysis at 24 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.622
90796164|NCT00402987|181472093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.081||95.0||||"Analysis at 7 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.081
90796165|NCT00402987|181472093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.117||95.0||||"Analysis at 8 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.117
90796166|NCT00402987|181472093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.152||95.0||||"Analysis at 9 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.152
90796167|NCT00402987|181472093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.171||95.0||||"Analysis at 10 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.171
90796168|NCT00402987|181472093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.197||95.0||||"Analysis at 11 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.197
90796169|NCT00402987|181472093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.244||95.0||||"Analysis at 12 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.244
90796170|NCT00402987|181472093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.708||95.0||||"Analysis at 24 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.708
90796171|NCT00402987|181472093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.106||95.0||||"Analysis at 7 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.106
90796172|NCT00402987|181472093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.14||95.0||||"Analysis at 8 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.140
90796173|NCT00402987|181472093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.188||95.0||||"Analysis at 9 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.188
90796174|NCT00402987|181472093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.239||95.0||||"Analysis at 10 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.239
90796175|NCT00402987|181472093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.297||95.0||||"Analysis at 11 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.297
90796176|NCT00402987|181472093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.383||95.0||||"Analysis at 12 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.383
90796177|NCT00402987|181472093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.919||95.0||||"Analysis at 24 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.919
90796178|NCT00402987|181472093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 11 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
90796179|NCT00402987|181472094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.537||95.0||||"Analysis at 15 min~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.537
90796180|NCT00402987|181472094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.697||95.0||||"Analysis at 30 min~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.697
90796181|NCT00402987|181472094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.203||95.0||||"Analysis at 45 min~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.203
90796182|NCT00402987|181472094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.003||95.0||||"Analysis at 60 min~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.003
90796183|NCT00402987|181472094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 75 min~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
90796184|NCT00402987|181472094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 90 min~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
90796185|NCT00402987|181472094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 1.75 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
90796186|NCT00402987|181472094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 2 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
90796187|NCT00402987|181472094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 3 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
90796188|NCT00402987|181472094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 4 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
90796189|NCT00402987|181472094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 5 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
90796190|NCT00402987|181472094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 6 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
90796191|NCT00402987|181472095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 7 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.001
90796192|NCT00402987|181472095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.005||95.0||||"Analysis at 8 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.005
90796193|NCT00402987|181472095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.046||95.0||||"Analysis at 9 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.046
90796194|NCT00402987|181472095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.046||95.0||||"Analysis at 10 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.046
90796195|NCT00402987|181472095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.111||95.0||||"Analysis at 11 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.111
90796196|NCT00402987|181472095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.226||95.0||||"Analysis at 12 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.226
90796197|NCT00402987|181472095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.537||95.0||||"Analysis at 24 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.537
90796198|NCT00402987|181472096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.64||||0.01||95.0|1.3|5.5||Treatment as a factor|Regression, Logistic|||||5.5|1.3|0.010
90796199|NCT00402987|181472096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.07||||0.003||95.0|1.5|6.4||Treatment as a factor|Regression, Logistic|||||6.4|1.5|0.003
90796200|NCT00402987|181472096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.634||95.0|0.6|2.2||Treatment as a factor|Regression, Logistic|||||2.2|0.6|0.634
90796201|NCT00402987|181472097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.202||95.0|0.8|3.5||Treatment as a factor|Regression, Logistic|||||3.5|0.8|0.202
90796202|NCT00402987|181472097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.18||||0.077||95.0|0.9|5.1||Treatment as a factor|Regression, Logistic|||||5.1|0.9|0.077
90796203|NCT00402987|181472097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.95||||0.134||95.0|0.8|4.7||Treatment as a factor|Regression, Logistic|||||4.7|0.8|0.134
90796204|NCT00402987|181472097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.671||95.0|0.4|1.9||Treatment as a factor|Regression, Logistic|||||1.9|0.4|0.671
90796205|NCT00402987|181472097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.484||95.0|0.3|1.7||Treatment as a factor|Regression, Logistic|||||1.7|0.3|0.484
90796206|NCT00402987|181472097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.814||95.0|0.4|2.8||Treatment as a factor|Regression, Logistic|||||2.8|0.4|0.814
90796207|NCT00402987|181472098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05||95.0||||p-value for distribution of time to perceptible pain relief|Log Rank|||For subjects who did not experience perceptible pain relief within 2 hours post-first dose, the time to perceptible pain relief was censored at 2 hours||||<0.05
90796208|NCT00402987|181472098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05||95.0||||p-value for distribution of time to perceptible pain relief|Log Rank|||For subjects who did not experience perceptible pain relief within 2 hours post-first dose, the time to perceptible pain relief was censored at 2 hours||||<0.05
90796209|NCT00402987|181472098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05||95.0||||p-value for distribution of time to perceptible pain relief|Log Rank|||For subjects who did not experience perceptible pain relief within 2 hours post-first dose, the time to perceptible pain relief was censored at 2 hours||||<0.05
90796210|NCT00402987|181472099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05||95.0||||p-value for distribution of time to meaningful pain relief|Log Rank|||For subjects who did not experience meaningful pain relief within 2 hours post-first dose, the time to meaningful pain relief was censored at 2 hours.||||<0.05
90796211|NCT00402987|181472099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05||95.0||||p-value for distribution of time to meaningful pain relief|Log Rank|||For subjects who did not experience meaningful pain relief within 2 hours post-first dose, the time to meaningful pain relief was censored at 2 hours||||<0.05
90796212|NCT00402987|181472100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05||95.0||||p-value for distribution of time to onset of analgesia|Log Rank|||For subjects who did not experience onset of analgesia within 2 hours post-first dose, the time to onset of analgesia was censored at 2 hours||||<0.05
90796213|NCT00402987|181472100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05||95.0||||p-value for distribution of time to onset of analgesia|Log Rank|||For subjects who did not experience onset of analgesia within 2 hours post-first dose, the time to onset of analgesia was censored at 2 hours||||<0.05
90796214|NCT00402987|181472101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Overall test of Celecoxib 50mg/50mg versus Placebo that takes into account the ordered data (categories: excellent, good, fair, poor).|Mantel Haenszel|Test of row mean score differences based on modified ridits (standardizing the mid-rank)||||||<0.001
90796215|NCT00402987|181472101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Overall test of Celecoxib 100mg (pooled) versus Placebo that takes into account the ordered data (categories: excellent, good, fair, poor).|Mantel Haenszel|Test of row mean score differences based on modified ridits (standardizing the mid-rank)||||||<0.001
90796216|NCT00402987|181472101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.889||95.0||||Overall test of Celecoxib 50mg/50mg versus Celecoxib 100mg (pooled) that takes into account the ordered data (categories: excellent, good, fair, poor).|Mantel Haenszel|Test of row mean score differences based on modified ridits (standardizing the mid-rank)||||||0.889
90796217|NCT00402987|181472102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 12 hours~Overall test of Celecoxib 50mg/50mg versus Placebo that takes into account the ordered data (categories: excellent, good, fair, poor)."|Mantel Haenszel|Test of row mean score differences based on modified ridits (standardizing the mid-rank)||||||<0.001
90796218|NCT00402987|181472102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002||95.0||||"Analysis at 12 hours~Overall test of Celecoxib 100mg/Placebo versus Placebo that takes into account the ordered data (categories: excellent, good, fair, poor)."|Mantel Haenszel|Test of row mean score differences based on modified ridits (standardizing the mid-rank)||||||0.002
90796219|NCT00402987|181472102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.015||95.0||||Analysis at 12 hours Overall test of Celecoxib 100mg/50mg versus Placebo that takes into account the ordered data (categories: excellent, good, fair, poor).|Mantel Haenszel|Test of row mean score differences based on modified ridits (standardizing the mid-rank)||||||0.015
90796220|NCT00402987|181472102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.411||95.0||||"Analysis at 12 hours~Overall test of Celecoxib 50mg/50mg versus Celecoxib 100mg/50mg that takes into account the ordered data (categories: excellent, good, fair, poor)."|Mantel Haenszel|Test of row mean score differences based on modified ridits (standardizing the mid-rank)||||||0.411
90796221|NCT00402987|181472102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.93||95.0||||"Analysis at 12 hours~Overall test of Celecoxib 50mg/50mg versus Celecoxib 100mg/Placebo that takes into account the ordered data (categories: excellent, good, fair, poor)."|Mantel Haenszel|Test of row mean score differences based on modified ridits (standardizing the mid-rank)||||||0.930
90796222|NCT00402987|181472102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.438||95.0||||"Analysis at 12 hours~Overall test of Celecoxib 100mg/Placebo versus Celecoxib 100mg/50mg that takes into account the ordered data (categories: excellent, good, fair, poor)."|Mantel Haenszel|Test of row mean score differences based on modified ridits (standardizing the mid-rank)||||||0.438
90796223|NCT00402987|181472102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002||95.0||||"Analysis at 24 hours~Overall test of Celecoxib 50mg/50mg versus Placebo that takes into account the ordered data (categories: excellent, good, fair, poor)."|Mantel Haenszel|Test of row mean score differences based on modified ridits (standardizing the mid-rank)||||||0.002
90796224|NCT00402987|181472102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.013||95.0||||"Analysis at 24 hours~Overall test of Celecoxib 100mg/Placebo versus Placebo that takes into account the ordered data (categories: excellent, good, fair, poor)."|Mantel Haenszel|Test of row mean score differences based on modified ridits (standardizing the mid-rank)||||||0.013
90796225|NCT00402987|181472102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.015||95.0||||"Analysis at 24 hours~Overall test of Celecoxib 100mg/50mg versus Placebo that takes into account the ordered data (categories: excellent, good, fair, poor)."|Mantel Haenszel|Test of row mean score differences based on modified ridits (standardizing the mid-rank)||||||0.015
90796226|NCT00402987|181472102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.748||95.0||||"Analysis at 24 hours~Overall test of Celecoxib 50mg/50mg versus Celecoxib 100mg/50mg that takes into account the ordered data (categories: excellent, good, fair, poor)."|Mantel Haenszel|Test of row mean score differences based on modified ridits (standardizing the mid-rank)||||||0.748
91053861|NCT02912650|181990989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|3.0|||ANCOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||3.00|1.72|<0.001
90796227|NCT00402987|181472102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.958||95.0||||"Analysis at 24 hours~Overall test of Celecoxib 50mg/50mg versus Celecoxib 100mg/Placebo that takes into account the ordered data (categories: excellent, good, fair, poor)."|Mantel Haenszel|Test of row mean score differences based on modified ridits (standardizing the mid-rank)||||||0.958
90796228|NCT00402987|181472102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.747||95.0||||"Analysis at 24 hours~Overall test of Celecoxib 100mg/Placebo versus Celecoxib 100mg/50mg that takes into account the ordered data (categories: excellent, good, fair, poor)."|Mantel Haenszel|Test of row mean score differences based on modified ridits (standardizing the mid-rank)||||||0.747
90796229|NCT00402987|181472103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.999||95.0||||"Analysis at 15 min~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.999
90796230|NCT00402987|181472103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.609||95.0||||"Analysis at 30 min~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.609
90796231|NCT00402987|181472103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.076||95.0||||"Analysis at 45 min~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.076
90796232|NCT00402987|181472103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.008||95.0||||"Analysis at 60 min~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.008
90796233|NCT00402987|181472103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 75 min~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
90796234|NCT00402987|181472103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 90 min~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
90796235|NCT00402987|181472103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 1.75 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
90796236|NCT00402987|181472103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 2 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Continuous data were analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
90796237|NCT00402987|181472103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 3 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
90796238|NCT00402987|181472103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 4 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
90796239|NCT00402987|181472103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 5 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
90796240|NCT00402987|181472103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 6 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.001
90796241|NCT00402987|181472104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.003||95.0||||"Analysis at 7 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.003
90796242|NCT00402987|181472104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.009||95.0||||"Analysis at 8 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.009
90796243|NCT00402987|181472104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.043||95.0||||"Analysis at 9 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.043
90796244|NCT00402987|181472104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.032||95.0||||"Analysis at 10 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.032
90796245|NCT00402987|181472104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.029||95.0||||"Analysis at 11 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.029
90796246|NCT00402987|181472104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.066||95.0||||"Analysis at 12 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.066
90796247|NCT00402987|181472104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.482||95.0||||"Analysis at 24 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.482
90796248|NCT00402987|181472105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|||<|0.001||95.0|0.8|1.9||Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity.|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||1.9|0.8|<0.001
90796249|NCT00402987|181472105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.002||95.0|0.4|1.5||Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity.|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||1.5|0.4|0.002
90796250|NCT00402987|181472105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.186||95.0|-1.0|0.2||Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity.|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||0.2|-1.0|0.186
90796251|NCT00402987|181472106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.961||95.0||||"Analysis at 15 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.961
90796252|NCT00402987|181472106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.985||95.0||||"Analysis at 15 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.985
90796253|NCT00402987|181472106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.975||95.0||||"Analysis at 15 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.975
90796254|NCT00402987|181472106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.532||95.0||||"Analysis at 30 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.532
90796255|NCT00402987|181472106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.69||95.0||||"Analysis at 30 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.690
90796256|NCT00402987|181472106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.82||95.0||||"Analysis at 30 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.820
90796257|NCT00402987|181472106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.18||95.0||||"Analysis at 45 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.180
90796258|NCT00402987|181472106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.344||95.0||||"Analysis at 45 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.344
90796259|NCT00402987|181472106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.693||95.0||||"Analysis at 45 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.693
90796260|NCT00402987|181472106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.039||95.0||||"Analysis at 60 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.039
90796261|NCT00402987|181472106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.154||95.0||||"Analysis at 60 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.154
90796262|NCT00402987|181472106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.521||95.0||||"Analysis at 60 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.521
90796263|NCT00402987|181472106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.006||95.0||||"Analysis at 75 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.006
90796264|NCT00402987|181472106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.07||95.0||||"Analysis at 75 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.070
90796265|NCT00402987|181472106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.344||95.0||||"Analysis at 75 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.344
90796266|NCT00402987|181472106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 90 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.001
90796267|NCT00402987|181472106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.022||95.0||||"Analysis at 90 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.022
90796268|NCT00402987|181472106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.249||95.0||||"Analysis at 90 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.249
90796269|NCT00402987|181472106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 1.75 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
90796270|NCT00402987|181472106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.006||95.0||||"Analysis at 1.75 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.006
90796271|NCT00402987|181472106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.205||95.0||||"Analysis at 1.75 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.205
90796272|NCT00402987|181472106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 2 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
90796273|NCT00402987|181472106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002||95.0||||"Analysis at 2 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.002
90796274|NCT00402987|181472106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.186||95.0||||"Analysis at 2 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.186
90796275|NCT00402987|181472106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 3 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
90796276|NCT00402987|181472106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 3 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
90796277|NCT00402987|181472106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.179||95.0||||"Analysis at 3 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.179
90796278|NCT00402987|181472106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 4 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
90796279|NCT00402987|181472106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 4 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
90796280|NCT00402987|181472106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.259||95.0||||"Analysis at 4 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.259
90796281|NCT00402987|181472106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 5 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
90796282|NCT00402987|181472106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 5 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
90796283|NCT00402987|181472106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.393||95.0||||"Analysis at 5 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.393
90796284|NCT00402987|181472106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 6 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
90796285|NCT00402987|181472106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 6 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
90796286|NCT00402987|181472106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.512||95.0||||"Analysis at 6 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.512
90796287|NCT00402987|181472107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 7 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
90796288|NCT00402987|181472107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 7 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
90796289|NCT00402987|181472107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.026||95.0||||"Analysis at 7 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.026
90796290|NCT00402987|181472107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.463||95.0||||"Analysis at 7 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.463
90796291|NCT00402987|181472107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.131||95.0||||"Analysis at 7 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.131
90796292|NCT00402987|181472107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.053||95.0||||"Analysis at 7 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.053
90796293|NCT00402987|181472107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 8 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
90796294|NCT00402987|181472107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 8 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
90796295|NCT00402987|181472107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.02||95.0||||"Analysis at 8 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.020
90796296|NCT00402987|181472107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.484||95.0||||"Analysis at 8 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.484
90796297|NCT00402987|181472107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.197||95.0||||"Analysis at 8 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.197
90796298|NCT00402987|181472107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.086||95.0||||"Analysis at 8 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.086
90796299|NCT00402987|181472107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 9 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
90796300|NCT00402987|181472107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 9 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
91011805|NCT01430559|181906429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.04||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Going up or down stairs (Week 4)||-0.04|-0.75|0.0311
90796301|NCT00402987|181472107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.018||95.0||||"Analysis at 9 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.018
90796302|NCT00402987|181472107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.561||95.0||||"Analysis at 9 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.561
90796303|NCT00402987|181472107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.252||95.0||||"Analysis at 9 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.252
90796304|NCT00402987|181472107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.136||95.0||||"Analysis at 9 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.136
90796305|NCT00402987|181472107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 10 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
90796306|NCT00402987|181472107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 10 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
90796307|NCT00402987|181472107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.018||95.0||||"Analysis at 10 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.018
90796308|NCT00402987|181472107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.653||95.0||||"Analysis at 10 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.653
90796309|NCT00402987|181472107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.287||95.0||||"Analysis at 10 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.287
90796310|NCT00402987|181472107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.191||95.0||||"Analysis at 10 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.191
90796311|NCT00402987|181472107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 11 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
90796312|NCT00402987|181472107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 11 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
90796313|NCT00402987|181472107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.018||95.0||||"Analysis at 11 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.018
90796314|NCT00402987|181472107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.741||95.0||||"Analysis at 11 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.741
90796315|NCT00402987|181472107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.326||95.0||||"Analysis at 11 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.326
90796316|NCT00402987|181472107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.256||95.0||||"Analysis at 11 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.256
90796317|NCT00402987|181472107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 12 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
90796318|NCT00402987|181472107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 12 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.001
90796319|NCT00402987|181472107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.016||95.0||||"Analysis at 12 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.016
91053862|NCT02912650|181990989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.57|4.36|||ANCOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||4.36|2.57|<0.001
90796320|NCT00402987|181472107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.808||95.0||||"Analysis at 12 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.808
90796321|NCT00402987|181472107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.394||95.0||||"Analysis at 12 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.394
90796322|NCT00402987|181472107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.343||95.0||||"Analysis at 12 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.343
90796323|NCT00402987|181472107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.005||95.0||||"Analysis at 24 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.005
90796324|NCT00402987|181472107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.029||95.0||||"Analysis at 24 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.029
90796325|NCT00402987|181472107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.023||95.0||||"Analysis at 24 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.023
90796326|NCT00402987|181472107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.892||95.0||||"Analysis at 24 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.892
90796327|NCT00402987|181472107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.952||95.0||||"Analysis at 24 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.952
90796328|NCT00402987|181472107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.948||95.0||||"Analysis at 24 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.948
90796329|NCT00402987|181472108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.775||95.0||||"Analysis at 15 min~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.775
90796330|NCT00402987|181472108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.094||95.0||||"Analysis at 30 min~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.094
90796331|NCT00402987|181472108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.114||95.0||||"Analysis at 45 min~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.114
90796332|NCT00402987|181472108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.005||95.0||||"Analysis at 60 min~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.005
90796333|NCT00402987|181472108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 75 min~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
90796334|NCT00402987|181472108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 90 min~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
90796335|NCT00402987|181472108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 1.75 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
90796336|NCT00402987|181472108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 2 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
90796337|NCT00402987|181472108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 3 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
90796338|NCT00402987|181472108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 4 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
90796339|NCT00402987|181472108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 5 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
90796340|NCT00402987|181472108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 6 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.001
90796341|NCT00402987|181472109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 7 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.001
90796342|NCT00402987|181472109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002||95.0||||"Analysis at 8 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.002
90796343|NCT00402987|181472109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.007||95.0||||"Analysis at 9 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.007
90796344|NCT00402987|181472109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.015||95.0||||"Analysis at 10 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.015
90796345|NCT00402987|181472109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.033||95.0||||"Analysis at 11 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.033
90796346|NCT00402987|181472109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.036||95.0||||"Analysis at 12 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.036
90796347|NCT00402987|181472109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5||95.0||||"Analysis at 24 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.500
90796348|NCT00402987|181472110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.2|||<|0.001||95.0|8.5|23.8||"Analysis at 2 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||23.8|8.5|<0.001
90796349|NCT00402987|181472110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.2||||0.009||95.0|2.6|17.9||"Analysis at 2 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||17.9|2.6|0.009
90796350|NCT00402987|181472110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.9||||0.127||95.0|-13.5|1.7||"Analysis at 2 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||1.7|-13.5|0.127
90796351|NCT00402987|181472111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.48||95.0||||"Analysis at 15 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.480
90796352|NCT00402987|181472111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.78||95.0||||"Analysis at 15 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.780
90796353|NCT00402987|181472111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.667||95.0||||"Analysis at 15 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.667
90796354|NCT00402987|181472111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.153||95.0||||"Analysis at 30 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.153
90796355|NCT00402987|181472111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.479||95.0||||"Analysis at 30 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.479
90796356|NCT00402987|181472111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.469||95.0||||"Analysis at 30 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.469
90796357|NCT00402987|181472111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.062||95.0||||"Analysis at 45 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.062
90796358|NCT00402987|181472111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.284||95.0||||"Analysis at 45 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.284
90796359|NCT00402987|181472111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.421||95.0||||"Analysis at 45 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.421
90796360|NCT00402987|181472111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.022||95.0||||"Analysis at 60 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.022
90796361|NCT00402987|181472111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.171||95.0||||"Analysis at 60 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.171
90796362|NCT00402987|181472111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.354||95.0||||"Analysis at 60 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.354
90796363|NCT00402987|181472111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.005||95.0||||"Analysis at 75 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.005
90796364|NCT00402987|181472111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.09||95.0||||"Analysis at 75 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.090
90796365|NCT00402987|181472111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.262||95.0||||"Analysis at 75 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.262
90796366|NCT00402987|181472111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 90 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.001
90796367|NCT00402987|181472111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.044||95.0||||"Analysis at 90 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.044
90796368|NCT00402987|181472111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.194||95.0||||"Analysis at 90 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.194
90796369|NCT00402987|181472111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 1.75 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
90796370|NCT00402987|181472111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.02||95.0||||"Analysis at 1.75 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.020
90796371|NCT00402987|181472111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.148||95.0||||"Analysis at 1.75 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.148
90796372|NCT00402987|181472111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 2 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
90796373|NCT00402987|181472111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.009||95.0||||"Analysis at 2 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.009
90796374|NCT00402987|181472111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.127||95.0||||"Analysis at 2 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.127
90796375|NCT00402987|181472111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 3 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
90796376|NCT00402987|181472111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 3 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.001
91053863|NCT02912650|181990989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.82|||ANCOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||2.82|1.00|<0.001
91053864|NCT02912650|181990989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.19|||ANCOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||2.19|0.92|<0.001
91053865|NCT02912650|181990989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.76|4.6|||ANCOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||4.60|2.76|<0.001
91053866|NCT02912650|181990989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.63||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|1.27|||ANCOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||1.27|-0.01|0.055
90796377|NCT00402987|181472111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.122||95.0||||"Analysis at 3 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.122
90796378|NCT00402987|181472111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 4 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
90796379|NCT00402987|181472111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 4 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
90796380|NCT00402987|181472111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.164||95.0||||"Analysis at 4 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.164
90796381|NCT00402987|181472111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Analysis at 5 hours Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity.|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
90796382|NCT00402987|181472111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 5 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
90796383|NCT00402987|181472111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.244||95.0||||"Analysis at 5 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.244
90796384|NCT00402987|181472111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 6 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
90796385|NCT00402987|181472111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 6 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
91011806|NCT01430559|181906429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.16||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Going up or down stairs (Week 8)||-0.16|-0.94|0.0057
91011807|NCT01430559|181906429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|-0.64||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Going up or down stairs (Week 12)||-0.64|-1.52|<0.0001
91011808|NCT01430559|181906431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.2373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.55||P-value and 95% confidence interval for odds ratio were calculated from logistic regression model (including baseline value and treatment group as factors) for binary data for comparison of meloxicam group versus placebo.|Regression, Logistic|||\>=30% reduction (Week 2)||2.55|0.79|0.2373
91011809|NCT01430559|181906431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.2069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.26||P-value and 95% confidence interval for odds ratio were calculated from logistic regression model (including baseline value and treatment group as factors) for binary data for comparison of meloxicam group versus placebo.|Regression, Logistic|||\>=30% reduction (Week 4)||2.26|0.84|0.2069
91053867|NCT02912650|181990989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|2.84|||ANCOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||2.84|1.54|<0.001
91053868|NCT02912650|181990989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.14|3.97|||ANCOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||3.97|2.14|<0.001
91053869|NCT02912650|181990989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.49||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|2.42|||ANCOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||2.42|0.57|0.002
91053870|NCT02912650|181990989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|2.21|||ANCOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||2.21|0.91|<0.001
90796386|NCT00402987|181472111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.336||95.0||||"Analysis at 6 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.336
90796387|NCT00402987|181472112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 7 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
90796388|NCT00402987|181472112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 7 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
90796389|NCT00402987|181472112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.09||95.0||||"Analysis at 7 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.090
90796390|NCT00402987|181472112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.518||95.0||||"Analysis at 7 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.518
90796391|NCT00402987|181472112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.038||95.0||||"Analysis at 7 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.038
90796392|NCT00402987|181472112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.019||95.0||||"Analysis at 7 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.019
90796393|NCT00402987|181472112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 8 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
90796394|NCT00402987|181472112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 8 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
90796395|NCT00402987|181472112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.081||95.0||||"Analysis at 8 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.081
90796396|NCT00402987|181472112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.552||95.0||||"Analysis at 8 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.552
90796397|NCT00402987|181472112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.05||95.0||||"Analysis at 8 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.050
90796398|NCT00402987|181472112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.027||95.0||||"Analysis at 8 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.027
90796399|NCT00402987|181472112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 9 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
90796400|NCT00402987|181472112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 9 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
90796401|NCT00402987|181472112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.071||95.0||||"Analysis at 9 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.071
91011810|NCT01430559|181906431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|2.53||P-value and 95% confidence interval for odds ratio were calculated from logistic regression model (including baseline value and treatment group as factors) for binary data for comparison of meloxicam group versus placebo.|Regression, Logistic|||\>=30% reduction (Week 8)||2.53|0.97|0.0680
90796402|NCT00402987|181472112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.609||95.0||||"Analysis at 9 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.609
90796403|NCT00402987|181472112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.065||95.0||||"Analysis at 9 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.065
90796404|NCT00402987|181472112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.042||95.0||||"Analysis at 9 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.042
90796405|NCT00402987|181472112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 10 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
90796406|NCT00402987|181472112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 10 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
90796407|NCT00402987|181472112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.07||95.0||||"Analysis at 10 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.070
90796408|NCT00402987|181472112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.689||95.0||||"Analysis at 10 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.689
90796409|NCT00402987|181472112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.075||95.0||||"Analysis at 10 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Continuous data were analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.075
90796410|NCT00402987|181472112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.059||95.0||||"Analysis at 10 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.059
90796411|NCT00402987|181472112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 11 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
90796412|NCT00402987|181472112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 11 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
90796413|NCT00402987|181472112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.069||95.0||||"Analysis at 11 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.069
90796414|NCT00402987|181472112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.762||95.0||||"Analysis at 11 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.762
90796415|NCT00402987|181472112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.089||95.0||||"Analysis at 11 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.089
90796416|NCT00402987|181472112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.083||95.0||||"Analysis at 11 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.083
90796417|NCT00402987|181472112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 12 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
90796418|NCT00402987|181472112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 12 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
90796419|NCT00402987|181472112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.064||95.0||||"Analysis at 12 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.064
90796420|NCT00402987|181472112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.841||95.0||||"Analysis at 12 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.841
90796421|NCT00402987|181472112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.11||95.0||||"Analysis at 12 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.110
91053871|NCT02912650|181990989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.17|4.03|||ANCOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||4.03|2.17|<0.001
90796422|NCT00402987|181472112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.119||95.0||||"Analysis at 12 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.119
90796423|NCT00402987|181472112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 24 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.001
90796424|NCT00402987|181472112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.015||95.0||||"Analysis at 24 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.015
90796425|NCT00402987|181472112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.087||95.0||||"Analysis at 24 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.087
90796426|NCT00402987|181472112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.826||95.0||||"Analysis at 24 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.826
90796427|NCT00402987|181472112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.345||95.0||||"Analysis at 24 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.345
90796428|NCT00402987|181472112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.53||95.0||||"Analysis at 24 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.530
90796429|NCT00402987|181472113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73||||0.149||95.0|0.8|3.7|||Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||3.7|0.8|0.149
90796430|NCT00402987|181472113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.95||||0.076||95.0|0.9|4.1|||Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||4.1|0.9|0.076
90796431|NCT00402987|181472113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.733||95.0|0.6|2.2|||Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||2.2|0.6|0.733
90796432|NCT00402987|181472114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.33||||0.03||95.0|1.1|5.0|||Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||5.0|1.1|0.030
90796433|NCT00402987|181472114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.33||||0.064||95.0|1.0|5.7|||Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||5.7|1.0|0.064
91011811|NCT01430559|181906431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.41||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|3.94||P-value and 95% confidence interval for odds ratio were calculated from logistic regression model (including baseline value and treatment group as factors) for binary data for comparison of meloxicam group versus placebo.|Regression, Logistic|||\>=30% reduction (Week 12)||3.94|1.47|0.0005
90796434|NCT00402987|181472114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.83||||0.201||95.0|0.7|4.6|||Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||4.6|0.7|0.201
90796435|NCT00402987|181472114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.575||95.0|0.5|3.0|||Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||3.0|0.5|0.575
90796436|NCT00402987|181472114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||1||95.0|0.4|2.2|||Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||2.2|0.4|1.000
90796437|NCT00402987|181472114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.624||95.0|0.5|3.3|||Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||3.3|0.5|0.624
90796438|NCT00402987|181472115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.28|||<|0.001||95.0|0.7|1.9||"Analysis at 2 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||1.9|0.7|<0.001
90796439|NCT00402987|181472115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.88||||0.003||95.0|0.3|1.5||"Analysis at 2 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||1.5|0.3|0.003
90796440|NCT00402987|181472115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.177||95.0|-1.0|0.2||"Analysis at 2 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||0.2|-1.0|0.177
90796441|NCT00402987|181472115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.25|||<|0.001||95.0|3.0|7.5||"Analysis at 6 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||7.5|3.0|<0.001
90796442|NCT00402987|181472115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.54|||<|0.001||95.0|2.3|6.8||"Analysis at 6 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||6.8|2.3|<0.001
90796443|NCT00402987|181472115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.72||||0.531||95.0|-3.0|1.5||"Analysis at 6 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||1.5|-3.0|0.531
90796444|NCT00402987|181472116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.07|||<|0.001||95.0|4.4|13.7||"Analysis at 12 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||13.7|4.4|<0.001
90796445|NCT00402987|181472116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.46|||<|0.001||95.0|4.7|16.2||"Analysis at 12 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||16.2|4.7|<0.001
90796446|NCT00402987|181472116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.96||||0.041||95.0|0.2|11.7||"Analysis at 12 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||11.7|0.2|0.041
90796447|NCT00402987|181472116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.39||||0.633||95.0|-7.1|4.3||"Analysis at 12 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||4.3|-7.1|0.633
90796448|NCT00402987|181472116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.11||||0.284||95.0|-2.6|8.8||"Analysis at 12 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||8.8|-2.6|0.284
90796449|NCT00402987|181472116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.5||||0.18||95.0|-2.1|11.1||"Analysis at 12 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||11.1|-2.1|0.180
90796450|NCT00402987|181472116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.57||||0.009||95.0|3.4|23.7||"Analysis at 24 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||23.7|3.4|0.009
90796451|NCT00402987|181472116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.15||||0.026||95.0|1.7|26.6||"Analysis at 24 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||26.6|1.7|0.026
90796452|NCT00402987|181472116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.39||||0.138||95.0|-3.0|21.8||"Analysis at 24 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||21.8|-3.0|0.138
90796453|NCT00402987|181472116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59||||0.926||95.0|-13.0|11.8||"Analysis at 24 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||11.8|-13.0|0.926
90796454|NCT00402987|181472116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.18||||0.507||95.0|-8.2|16.6||"Analysis at 24 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||16.6|-8.2|0.507
91011812|NCT01430559|181906431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.94||||0.1736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|5.01||P-value and 95% confidence interval for odds ratio were calculated from logistic regression model (including baseline value and treatment group as factors) for binary data for comparison of meloxicam group versus placebo.|Regression, Logistic|||\>=50% reduction (Week 2)||5.01|0.75|0.1736
90796455|NCT00402987|181472116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.77||||0.513||95.0|-9.6|19.1||"Analysis at 24 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||19.1|-9.6|0.513
90796456|NCT00402987|181472117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.93||||0.023||95.0|1.2|7.4|||Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||7.4|1.2|0.023
90796457|NCT00402987|181472117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.13||||0.015||95.0|1.2|7.9|||Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||7.9|1.2|0.015
90796458|NCT00402987|181472117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.854||95.0|0.5|2.2|||Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||2.2|0.5|0.854
90796459|NCT00402987|181472118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.46||||0.013||95.0|1.3|9.2|||Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||9.2|1.3|0.013
90796460|NCT00402987|181472118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.03||||0.003||95.0|1.7|14.5|||Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||14.5|1.7|0.003
90796461|NCT00402987|181472118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.99||||0.057||95.0|1.0|9.2|||Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||9.2|1.0|0.057
90796462|NCT00402987|181472118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.758||95.0|0.5|2.9|||Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||2.9|0.5|0.758
90796463|NCT00402987|181472118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||0.381||95.0|0.3|1.6|||Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||1.6|0.3|0.381
90796464|NCT00402987|181472118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.68||||0.313||95.0|0.6|4.6|||Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||4.6|0.6|0.313
90796465|NCT00402987|181472119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||NNT at 6 hours|8.2||||||95.0|4.5|46.4||||||NNT is the inverse of the absolute risk reduction at 6 hours||46.4|4.5|
90796466|NCT00402987|181472119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||NNT at 6 hours|7.5||||||95.0|4.3|32.0||||||NNT is the inverse of the absolute risk reduction at 6 hours||32.0|4.3|
90796467|NCT00402987|181472120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||NNT at 12 hours|7.5||||||95.0|4.3|28.7||||||NNT is the inverse of the absolute risk reduction at 12 hours||28.7|4.3|
90796468|NCT00402987|181472120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||NNT at 12 hours|5.0||||||95.0|3.0|16.7||||||NNT is the inverse of the absolute risk reduction at 12 hours||16.7|3.0|
90796469|NCT00402987|181472121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.77|||<|0.001||95.0|1.9|7.6||Analysis for 2 hours \>=35% gone|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||7.6|1.9|<0.001
90796470|NCT00402987|181472121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.72||||0.005||95.0|1.3|5.5||Analysis for 2 hours \>=35% gone|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||5.5|1.3|0.005
90796471|NCT00402987|181472121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72||||0.286||95.0|0.4|1.3||Analysis for 2 hours \>=35% gone|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||1.3|0.4|0.286
90796472|NCT00402987|181472121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.37||||0.001||95.0|1.6|7.1||Analysis for 6 hours \>=35% gone|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||7.1|1.6|0.001
90796473|NCT00402987|181472121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.05||||0.004||95.0|1.4|6.5||Analysis for 6 hours \>=35% gone|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||6.5|1.4|0.004
90796474|NCT00402987|181472121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.752||95.0|0.5|1.7||Analysis for 6 hours \>=35% gone|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||1.7|0.5|0.752
90796475|NCT00402987|181472121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.57|||<|0.001||95.0|1.9|10.7||Analysis for 2 hours \>=50% gone|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||10.7|1.9|<0.001
90796476|NCT00402987|181472121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.68||||0.003||95.0|1.6|8.7||Analysis for 2 hours \>=50% gone|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||8.7|1.6|0.003
90796477|NCT00402987|181472121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.511||95.0|0.4|1.5||Analysis for 2 hours \>=50% gone|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||1.5|0.4|0.511
90796478|NCT00402987|181472121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.05||||0.009||95.0|1.3|7.0||Analysis for 6 hours \>=50% gone|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||7.0|1.3|0.009
90796479|NCT00402987|181472121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.88||||0.014||95.0|1.2|6.7||Analysis for 6 hours \>=50% gone|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||6.7|1.2|0.014
90796480|NCT00402987|181472121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.863||95.0|0.5|1.9||Analysis for 6 hours \>=50% gone|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||1.9|0.5|0.863
90796481|NCT00402987|181472122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.92||||0.004||95.0|1.4|6.1||12 hours \>=35% gone|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||6.1|1.4|0.004
90796482|NCT00402987|181472122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.37||||0.052||95.0|1.0|5.7||12 hours \>=35% gone|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||5.7|1.0|0.052
90796483|NCT00402987|181472122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.13||||0.095||95.0|0.9|5.1||12 hours \>=35% gone|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||5.1|0.9|0.095
90796484|NCT00402987|181472122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.431||95.0|0.6|3.0||12 hours \>=35% gone|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||3.0|0.6|0.431
90796485|NCT00402987|181472122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.602||95.0|0.6|2.7||12 hours \>=35% gone|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||2.7|0.6|0.602
90796486|NCT00402987|181472122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.814||95.0|0.4|2.8||12 hours \>=35% gone|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||2.8|0.4|0.814
90796487|NCT00402987|181472122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.88||||0.014||95.0|1.2|6.7||12 hours \>=50% gone|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||6.7|1.2|0.014
90796488|NCT00402987|181472122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.23||||0.016||95.0|1.2|8.4||12 hours \>=50% gone|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||8.4|1.2|0.016
90796489|NCT00402987|181472122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.54||||0.063||95.0|0.9|6.8||12 hours \>=50% gone|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||6.8|0.9|0.063
90796490|NCT00402987|181472122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.775||95.0|0.5|2.7||12 hours \>=50% gone|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||2.7|0.5|0.775
90796491|NCT00402987|181472122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.779||95.0|0.4|2.0||12 hours \>=50% gone|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||2.0|0.4|0.779
91053872|NCT02912650|181990989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.65||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.3|||ANCOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||1.30|0.00|0.049
91053873|NCT02912650|181990989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|2.59|||ANCOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||2.59|1.27|<0.001
91053874|NCT02912650|181990989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|3.37|||ANCOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||3.37|1.52|<0.001
90796492|NCT00402987|181472122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.624||95.0|0.5|3.3||12 hours \>=50% gone|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||3.3|0.5|0.624
90796493|NCT00402987|181472123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001||95.0||||Analysis for meaningful Relief at 2 hours|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.001
90796494|NCT00402987|181472123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.012||95.0||||Analysis for meaningful Relief at 2 hours|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.012
90796495|NCT00402987|181472123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.453||95.0||||Analysis for meaningful Relief at 2 hours|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.453
91053875|NCT02912650|181990989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.17||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|2.1|||ANCOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||2.10|0.23|0.015
91053876|NCT02912650|181990989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.94|||ANCOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||1.94|0.62|<0.001
91053877|NCT02912650|181990989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|3.4|||ANCOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||3.40|1.56|<0.001
91053878|NCT02912650|181990989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.56||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|1.2|||ANCOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||1.20|-0.08|0.087
90796496|NCT00402987|181472123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Analysis for meaningful Relief at 6 hours|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||<0.001
90796497|NCT00402987|181472123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001||95.0||||Analysis for meaningful Relief at 6 hours|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.001
91053879|NCT02912650|181990989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|2.12|||ANCOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||2.12|0.82|<0.001
91053880|NCT02912650|181990989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.84|||ANCOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||2.84|1.00|<0.001
91053881|NCT02912650|181990989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.01||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.94|||ANCOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||1.94|0.09|0.032
91053882|NCT02912650|181990989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.91||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.56|||ANCOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||1.56|0.26|0.006
91053883|NCT02912650|181990989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|2.66|||ANCOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||2.66|0.85|<0.001
90796498|NCT00402987|181472123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.814||95.0||||Analysis for meaningful Relief at 6 hours|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.814
90796499|NCT00402987|181472123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.024||95.0||||Analysis for Much Improvement at 2 hours|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.024
90796500|NCT00402987|181472123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.022||95.0||||Analysis for Much Improvement at 2 hours|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.022
90796501|NCT00402987|181472123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.966||95.0||||Analysis for Much Improvement at 2 hours|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.966
90796502|NCT00402987|181472123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001||95.0||||Analysis for Much Improvement at 6 hours|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.001
90796503|NCT00402987|181472123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001||95.0||||Analysis for Much Improvement at 6 hours|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.001
90796504|NCT00402987|181472123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.798||95.0||||Analysis for Much Improvement at 6 hours|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.798
90796505|NCT00402987|181472124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Analysis for Meaningful Relief|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||<0.001
90796506|NCT00402987|181472124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Analysis for Meaningful Relief|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||<0.001
90796507|NCT00402987|181472124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.008||95.0||||Analysis for Meaningful Relief|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.008
90796508|NCT00402987|181472124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.709||95.0||||Analysis for Meaningful Relief|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.709
90796509|NCT00402987|181472124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.331||95.0||||Analysis for Meaningful Relief|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.331
90796510|NCT00402987|181472124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.246||95.0||||Analysis for Meaningful Relief|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.246
90796511|NCT00402987|181472124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001||95.0||||Analysis for Much Improvement|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.001
90796512|NCT00402987|181472124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Analysis for Much Improvement|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||<0.001
90796513|NCT00402987|181472124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.219||95.0||||Analysis for Much Improvement|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.219
91011813|NCT01430559|181906431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72||||0.1496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|3.59||P-value and 95% confidence interval for odds ratio were calculated from logistic regression model (including baseline value and treatment group as factors) for binary data for comparison of meloxicam group versus placebo.|Regression, Logistic|||\>=50% reduction (Week 4)||3.59|0.82|0.1496
91053884|NCT02912650|181990989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.14||||0.669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.77|||ANCOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||0.77|-0.49|0.669
90796514|NCT00402987|181472124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.095||95.0||||Analysis for Much Improvement|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.095
90796515|NCT00402987|181472124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.463||95.0||||Analysis for Much Improvement|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.463
90796516|NCT00402987|181472124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.038||95.0||||Analysis for Much Improvement|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.038
90796517|NCT00402987|181472125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.001
90796518|NCT00402987|181472125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.008||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.008
90796519|NCT00402987|181472125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.557||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.557
91053885|NCT02912650|181990989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.89||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|1.53|||ANCOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||1.53|0.24|0.007
90796520|NCT00402987|181472126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Analysis at 12 hours|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||<0.001
90796521|NCT00402987|181472126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002||95.0||||Analysis at 12 hours|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.002
90796522|NCT00402987|181472126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.036||95.0||||Analysis at 12 hours|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.036
90796523|NCT00402987|181472126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.339||95.0||||Analysis at 12 hours|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.339
90796524|NCT00402987|181472126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1||95.0||||Analysis at 12 hours|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||1.000
90796525|NCT00402987|181472126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.401||95.0||||Analysis at 12 hours|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.401
90796526|NCT00402987|181472126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.003||95.0||||Analysis at 24 hours|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.003
90796527|NCT00402987|181472126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002||95.0||||Analysis at 24 hours|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.002
90796528|NCT00402987|181472126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.223||95.0||||Analysis at 24 hours|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.223
90796529|NCT00402987|181472126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.198||95.0||||Analysis at 24 hours|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.198
90796530|NCT00402987|181472126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.604||95.0||||Analysis at 24 hours|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.604
90796531|NCT00402987|181472126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.117||95.0||||Analysis at 24 hours|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.117
90796532|NCT00402987|181472129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.001
90796533|NCT00402987|181472129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||<0.001
90796534|NCT00402987|181472129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.025||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.025
90796535|NCT00402987|181472129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.539||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.539
90796536|NCT00402987|181472129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.329||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.329
90796537|NCT00402987|181472129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.171||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.171
90796538|NCT00402987|181472130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.007||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.007
90796539|NCT00402987|181472130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.244||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.244
90796540|NCT00402987|181472130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.096||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.096
90796541|NCT00402987|181472130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.579||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.579
90796542|NCT00402987|181472130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.277||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.277
90796543|NCT00402987|181472130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.649||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.649
90796544|NCT00402987|181472131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.4|||<|0.001||95.0|7.5|23.2||Analysis of Effectiveness|Generalized linear model|Treatment as a fixed effect||||23.2|7.5|<0.001
91011814|NCT01430559|181906431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.12||||0.0171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|3.93||P-value and 95% confidence interval for odds ratio were calculated from logistic regression model (including baseline value and treatment group as factors) for binary data for comparison of meloxicam group versus placebo.|Regression, Logistic|||\>=50% reduction (Week 8)||3.93|1.14|0.0171
90796545|NCT00402987|181472131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.4||||0.003||95.0|4.9|24.0||Analysis of Effectiveness|Generalized linear model|Treatment as a fixed effect||||24.0|4.9|0.003
91011815|NCT01430559|181906431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.77||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|4.89||P-value and 95% confidence interval for odds ratio were calculated from logistic regression model (including baseline value and treatment group as factors) for binary data for comparison of meloxicam group versus placebo.|Regression, Logistic|||\>=50% reduction (Week 12)||4.89|1.57|0.0004
91011816|NCT01430559|181906432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|-0.07||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||-0.07|-0.31|0.0027
91011817|NCT01430559|181906432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.0308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.01||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||-0.01|-0.30|0.0308
91011818|NCT01430559|181906432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||Week 8||-0.05|-0.31|0.0060
91011819|NCT01430559|181906432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.0076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|-0.05||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||-0.05|-0.34|0.0076
91011820|NCT01430559|181906433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.13||||0.2843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|8.5||P-value and 95% confidence interval for odds ratio were calculated from logistic regression model (including baseline value and treatment group as factors) for binary data for comparison of meloxicam group versus placebo.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||8.50|0.53|0.2843
91011821|NCT01430559|181906433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.05||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|4.87||P-value and 95% confidence interval for odds ratio were calculated from logistic regression model (including baseline value and treatment group as factors) for binary data for comparison of meloxicam group versus placebo.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||4.87|0.86|0.1050
91011822|NCT01430559|181906433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.7861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.32||P-value and 95% confidence interval for odds ratio were calculated from logistic regression model (including baseline value and treatment group as factors) for binary data for comparison of meloxicam group versus placebo.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||3.32|0.40|0.7861
91011823|NCT01430559|181906433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.1873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|3.78||P-value and 95% confidence interval for odds ratio were calculated from logistic regression model (including baseline value and treatment group as factors) for binary data for comparison of meloxicam group versus placebo.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||3.78|0.77|0.1873
91011824|NCT01430559|181906434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.55||0.3738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|4.42||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||General health||4.42|-1.67|0.3738
91011825|NCT01430559|181906434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|5.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.96||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.07|9.8||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Physical functioning||9.80|2.07|0.0028
91011826|NCT01430559|181906434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|8.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.14||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.95|12.38||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Role physical||12.38|3.95|0.0002
91053886|NCT02912650|181990989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.52|||ANCOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||2.52|0.71|<0.001
90796546|NCT00402987|181472131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.2||||0.096||95.0|-1.5|17.8||Analysis of Effectiveness|Generalized linear model|Treatment as a fixed effect||||17.8|-1.5|0.096
90796547|NCT00402987|181472131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.2||||0.141||95.0|-2.4|16.8||Analysis of Effectiveness|Generalized linear model|Treatment as a fixed effect||||16.8|-2.4|0.141
91011827|NCT01430559|181906434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|7.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.66|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|10.63||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Bodily pain||10.63|4.10|<0.0001
91011828|NCT01430559|181906434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.64||0.2124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|5.27||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Vitality||5.27|-1.18|0.2124
91011829|NCT01430559|181906434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|5.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.82|10.1||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Social functioning||10.10|1.82|0.0050
90796548|NCT00402987|181472131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.849||95.0|-8.6|10.5||Analysis of Effectiveness|Generalized linear model|Treatment as a fixed effect||||10.5|-8.6|0.849
90796549|NCT00402987|181472131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.3||||0.266||95.0|-4.8|17.4||Analysis of Effectiveness|Generalized linear model|Treatment as a fixed effect||||17.4|-4.8|0.266
90796550|NCT00402987|181472131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3||||0.141||95.0|-5.4|0.8||Analysis of Side Effects|Generalized linear model|Treatment as a fixed effect||||0.8|-5.4|0.141
90796551|NCT00402987|181472131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||0.312||95.0|-5.7|1.8||Analysis of Side Effects|Generalized linear model|Treatment as a fixed effect||||1.8|-5.7|0.312
90796552|NCT00402987|181472131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.724||95.0|-4.5|3.1||Analysis of Side Effects|Generalized linear model|Treatment as a fixed effect||||3.1|-4.5|0.724
90796553|NCT00402987|181472131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6||||0.398||95.0|-5.4|2.1||Analysis of Side Effects|Generalized linear model|Treatment as a fixed effect||||2.1|-5.4|0.398
90796554|NCT00402987|181472131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.846||95.0|-4.1|3.4||Analysis of Side Effects|Generalized linear model|Treatment as a fixed effect||||3.4|-4.1|0.846
90796555|NCT00402987|181472131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.572||95.0|-5.6|3.1||Analysis of Side Effects|Generalized linear model|Treatment as a fixed effect||||3.1|-5.6|0.572
90796556|NCT00402987|181472131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.8||||0.014||95.0|1.2|10.4||Analysis of Convenience|Generalized linear model|Treatment as a fixed effect||||10.4|1.2|0.014
91011830|NCT01430559|181906434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|5.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.24||0.0093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|10.28||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Role emotional||10.28|1.46|0.0093
91011831|NCT01430559|181906434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.64||0.7274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.66|3.81||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Mental health||3.81|-2.66|0.7274
91011832|NCT01430559|181906434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88||0.2819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|2.67||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Mental component aggregate||2.67|-0.78|0.2819
90796557|NCT00402987|181472131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6||||0.573||95.0|-4.0|7.2||Analysis of Convenience|Generalized linear model|Treatment as a fixed effect||||7.2|-4.0|0.573
90796558|NCT00402987|181472131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.482||95.0|-7.7|3.6||Analysis of Convenience|Generalized linear model|Treatment as a fixed effect||||3.6|-7.7|0.482
90796559|NCT00402987|181472131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.8||||0.007||95.0|2.2|13.5||Analysis of Convenience|Generalized linear model|Treatment as a fixed effect||||13.5|2.2|0.007
90796560|NCT00402987|181472131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.2||||0.143||95.0|-1.4|9.8||Analysis of Convenience|Generalized linear model|Treatment as a fixed effect||||9.8|-1.4|0.143
90796561|NCT00402987|181472131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.6||||0.273||95.0|-2.9|10.2||Analysis of Convenience|Generalized linear model|Treatment as a fixed effect||||10.2|-2.9|0.273
90796562|NCT00402987|181472131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.0||||0.003||95.0|4.4|21.6||Analysis of Global Satisfaction|Generalized linear model|Treatment as a fixed effect||||21.6|4.4|0.003
90796563|NCT00402987|181472131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.7||||0.029||95.0|1.2|22.2||Analysis of Global Satisfaction|Generalized linear model|Treatment as a fixed effect||||22.2|1.2|0.029
90796564|NCT00402987|181472131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.2||||0.251||95.0|-4.4|16.8||Analysis of Global Satisfaction|Generalized linear model|Treatment as a fixed effect||||16.8|-4.4|0.251
90796565|NCT00402987|181472131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.8||||0.204||95.0|-3.7|17.4||Analysis of Global Satisfaction|Generalized linear model|Treatment as a fixed effect||||17.4|-3.7|0.204
90796566|NCT00402987|181472131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.808||95.0|-9.2|11.8||Analysis of Global Satisfaction|Generalized linear model|Treatment as a fixed effect||||11.8|-9.2|0.808
90796567|NCT00402987|181472131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.5||||0.371||95.0|-6.6|17.7||Analysis of Global Satisfaction|Generalized linear model|Treatment as a fixed effect||||17.7|-6.6|0.371
90796568|NCT00402987|181472132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Based on life-table extension of Mantel-Haenszel method.~p-value for general association"|Mantel Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90796569|NCT00402987|181472132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002||95.0||||"Based on life-table extension of Mantel-Haenszel method.~p-value for general association"|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.002
90796570|NCT00402987|181472132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.235||95.0||||"Based on life-table extension of Mantel-Haenszel method.~p-value for general association"|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.235
90796571|NCT00402987|181472132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.012||95.0||||"Based on life-table extension of Mantel-Haenszel method.~p-value for general association"|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.012
90796572|NCT00402987|181472132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.438||95.0||||"Based on life-table extension of Mantel-Haenszel method.~p-value for general association"|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.438
90796573|NCT00402987|181472132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.067||95.0||||"Based on life-table extension of Mantel-Haenszel method.~p-value for general association"|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.067
91011833|NCT01430559|181906434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|3.86||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Physical component aggregate||3.86|1.27|0.0001
90796574|NCT00402987|181472133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.128||95.0||||"Based on life-table extension of Mantel-Haenszel method.~p-value for general association"|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.128
90796575|NCT00402987|181472133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.123||95.0||||"Based on life-table extension of Mantel-Haenszel method.~p-value for general association"|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.123
90796576|NCT00402987|181472133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.266||95.0||||"Based on life-table extension of Mantel-Haenszel method.~p-value for general association"|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.266
90796577|NCT00402987|181472133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.849||95.0||||"Based on life-table extension of Mantel-Haenszel method.~p-value for general association"|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.849
90796578|NCT00402987|181472133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.828||95.0||||"Based on life-table extension of Mantel-Haenszel method.~p-value for general association"|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.828
90796579|NCT00402987|181472133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.741||95.0||||"Based on life-table extension of Mantel-Haenszel method.~p-value for general association"|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.741
90796580|NCT01668004|181472134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||Treatment comparison of uveitis occurrence rate assessed 1 year before initial anti-TNF/GLM treatment and 1 year after start of GLM treatment. Number of subjects included in analysis: N=93.||||1.0000
90796581|NCT01668004|181472135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratio|4.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.86|5.25|||Generalized estimating equation|||Treatment difference (expressed as ratio) in uveitis incidence rate assessed 1 year before initial anti-TNF/GLM treatment and 1 year after start of GLM treatment. Number of subjects included in analysis: N=92.||5.25|3.86|<0.0001
90796582|NCT02448381|181472143|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.04
91011834|NCT01430559|181906435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.6||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|4.66||P-value and 95% confidence interval for odds ratio were calculated from logistic regression model (including baseline value and treatment group as factors) for binary data for comparison of meloxicam group versus placebo.|Regression, Logistic|||Mobility||4.66|1.45|0.0014
91011835|NCT01430559|181906435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|2.48||P-value and 95% confidence interval for odds ratio were calculated from logistic regression model (including baseline value and treatment group as factors) for binary data for comparison of meloxicam group versus placebo.|Regression, Logistic|||Self-care||2.48|0.91|0.1080
91011836|NCT01430559|181906435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.06||||0.0119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|3.62||P-value and 95% confidence interval for odds ratio were calculated from logistic regression model (including baseline value and treatment group as factors) for binary data for comparison of meloxicam group versus placebo.|Regression, Logistic|||Usual activities||3.62|1.17|0.0119
90796583|NCT02448381|181472144|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.0001
90796584|NCT02448381|181472145|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046|||||||McNemar|||||||0.046
90796585|NCT02448381|181472146|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0009|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||=0.0009
90796586|NCT02448381|181472147|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
90796587|NCT02300233|181472157|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean (LSM)|-70.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-85.4|-55.3|||ANCOVA|||||-55.3|-85.4|<0.0001
90796588|NCT02300233|181472158|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-943.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1197.0|-689.0|||ANCOVA|||||-689|-1197|<0.0001
90796589|NCT02300233|181472159|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|96.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.71|467.79|||Regression, Logistic|||||467.79|19.71|<0.0001
90796590|NCT02300233|181472160|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|56.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.1|68.6|||ANCOVA|||||68.6|45.1|<0.0001
90796591|NCT02300233|181472161|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.93||||0.0474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|215.88|||Regression, Logistic|||||215.88|1.03|0.0474
90796592|NCT00744861|181472203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9905|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|site stratified||||||0.9905
90796593|NCT02038647|181472250|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.557|1.067||P-value tests the hypothesis of equal event times in both treatment arms obtained using the Log-rank test stratified by disease subtype as sensitive versus resistant/refractory and the presence of brain metastases.|Log Rank||The stratification factors were: disease subtype as sensitive versus resistant/refractory and the presence of brain metastases (yes or no) with treatment (Alisertib + Paclitaxel vs Placebo + Paclitaxel) as a factor in the model.|||1.067|0.557|0.113
90796594|NCT02038647|181472252|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.93||||0.714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.652|1.341||P-value tests the hypothesis of equal event times in both treatment arms obtained using the Log-rank test stratified by disease subtype as sensitive versus resistant/refractory and the presence of brain metastases.|Log Rank||The stratification factors were: disease subtype as sensitive versus resistant/refractory and the presence of brain metastases (yes or no) with treatment (Alisertib + Paclitaxel vs Placebo + Paclitaxel) as a factor in the model.|||1.341|0.652|0.714
90796595|NCT02038647|181472253|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.55||Stratification factors were disease subtypes (sensitive versus resistant/refractory), the presence of brain metastases and region.|Weighted Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test||Logistic regression using ORR as dependent variable, treatment arm as independent variable and disease subtype (sensitive vs resistant/refractory) and presence of brain metastases as stratification factors.|||1.55|0.35|0.406
90796596|NCT02038647|181472254|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.01||||0.283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|9999.99||Stratification factors were disease subtypes (sensitive versus resistant/refractory), the presence of brain metastases and region.|Weighted Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test||Logistic regression using CRR as dependent variable, treatment arm as independent variable and disease subtype (sensitive vs resistant/refractory) and presence of brain metastases as stratification factors.|||9999.99|0.01|0.283
90796597|NCT02038647|181472255|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.08||Stratification factors were disease subtypes (sensitive versus resistant/refractory), the presence of brain metastases and region.|Weighted Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test||Logistic regression using DCR as dependent variable, treatment arm as independent variable and disease subtype (sensitive vs resistant/refractory) and presence of brain metastases as stratification factors.|||1.08|0.32|0.077
91011837|NCT01430559|181906435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.62||||0.0887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|2.83||P-value and 95% confidence interval for odds ratio were calculated from logistic regression model (including baseline value and treatment group as factors) for binary data for comparison of meloxicam group versus placebo.|Regression, Logistic|||Pain/discomfort||2.83|0.93|0.0887
91011838|NCT01430559|181906435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.2466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.33||P-value and 95% confidence interval for odds ratio were calculated from logistic regression model (including baseline value and treatment group as factors) for binary data for comparison of meloxicam group versus placebo.|Regression, Logistic|||Anxiety/depression||2.33|0.80|0.2466
91011839|NCT01430559|181906436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|-0.02||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||-0.02|-0.58|0.0367
91011840|NCT01430559|181906436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0652|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.02||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||0.02|-0.65|0.0652
91011841|NCT01430559|181906436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.07||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||-0.07|-0.81|0.0200
91011842|NCT01430559|181906436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.24||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||-0.24|-1.02|0.0016
91011843|NCT00174460|181906447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.991|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1067|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.773|1.21|||ANCOVA|Results from analysis of covariance method (ANCOVA) adjusted for baseline height SDS and target height SDS; Last observation carried forward (LOCF).||Treatment difference||1.210|0.773|<0.001
91053887|NCT02912650|181990989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.86||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|1.78|||ANCOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||1.78|-0.05|0.063
90796598|NCT01983111|181472278|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|In the PP set, for a non-inferiority test of the reduction in the pain intensity score from Visit 1 (Baseline) to Week 6 of treatment, the lower limit of the 97.5% onesided confidence interval was compared to a clinical non-inferiority margin, -1.5.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.79||0.2658|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-6.0|3.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||In the Per protocol set||3|-6|0.2658
90796599|NCT03097289|181472318|NON_INFERIORITY|"The acceptance criterion for the recovery (%) of platelets is the demonstration of non-inferiority by the rejection of the Null Hypothesis (H0) defined by the following hypotheses: Null Hypothesis H0: μd ≤ 0 where μd=μT-0.66\*μC Alternate Hypothesis H1: μd \>~Let Xi = (XTi-0.66\*XCi) be a difference if recovery for patient i. The sample mean and standard deviations of these observed differences will be used to construct the lower limit of a 1-sided 97.5% confidence interval."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.18|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|4.03||||||||||4.03|
90796600|NCT03097289|181472319|NON_INFERIORITY|"The acceptance criterion for the survival (days) of platelets is the demonstration of non inferiority by the rejection of the null hypothesis (H0) defined by the following hypotheses:~Null Hypothesis H0: μd ≤ 0 where μd = μT-0.58 × μC Alternate Hypothesis H1: μd \> 0"|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|0.39||||||||||0.39|
90796601|NCT00049543|181472348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.24||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.64|||Log Rank|||The Kaplan-Meier estimates of survival distribution for overall survival by treatment arm are reported, and the log rank test stratified by the stratification factors at randomization (exclude center) was used to compare the difference in the overall survival between two treatment arms. Hazard ratio of comparison of study treatment arm to placebo and it 95% C.I. were reported.||1.64|0.94|0.14
90796602|NCT00049543|181472349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.22||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.61||Stratified by stratification factors at randomization (except center)|Log Rank|Stratified by stratification factors at randomization (except center)||||1.61|0.93|0.15
90796603|NCT02106832|181472351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7062||||0.0511|TWO_SIDED|99.9|0.3928|1.2698|||Wald-type test|||The hazard ratio for time to first exacerbation event within 48 weeks and 99.9% Confidence Interval (CI) was calculated by using Cox proportional hazards model by comparison of Cipro 28/Pooled Placebo reporting groups. P-value was analysed using Wald-type test.||1.2698|0.3928|0.0511
90796604|NCT02106832|181472359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8662||||0.3965|TWO_SIDED|95.1|0.6206|1.209|||Wald-type test|||The hazard ratio for time to first exacerbation event within 48 weeks and 95.1% Confidence Interval (CI) was calculated by using Cox proportional hazards model by comparison of Cipro 28/Pooled Placebo reporting groups. P-value was analysed using Wald-type test.||1.2090|0.6206|0.3965
90796605|NCT04716894|181472362|OTHER||adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio(%)|197.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|187.9|208.15|||||Ratio (%) = T/R\*100. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 7.0.|Relative bioavailability. Model used was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. Data were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. The effect 'subjects' was considered as random effect, whereas 'treatment' was considered as fixed effect.||208.15|187.90|
90796606|NCT04716894|181472363|OTHER||adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio(%)|143.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|121.92|168.6|||||Ratio (%) = T/R\*100. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 22.1.|Relative bioavailability. Model used was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. Data were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. The effect 'subjects' was considered as random effect, whereas 'treatment' was considered as fixed effect.||168.60|121.92|
91053888|NCT02912650|181990989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.75||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|1.39|||ANCOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||1.39|0.11|0.022
91053889|NCT02912650|181990989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.22||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|2.12|||ANCOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||2.12|0.32|0.008
90796607|NCT04716894|181472364|OTHER||adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio(%)|201.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|192.23|211.52|||||Ratio (%) = T/R\*100. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 6.5.|Relative bioavailability. Model used was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. Data were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. The effect 'subjects' was considered as random effect, whereas 'treatment' was considered as fixed effect.||211.52|192.23|
90796608|NCT00608062|181472366|OTHER|Repeated measurements of FMD were modeled using a general linear mixed model with maximum likelihood estimation. An unstructured covariance structure allowing for heterogeneity in the parameter estimate for each level of menopause stage was chosen for the model based on using AIC to compare various covariance structures.||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.05
91011844|NCT00174460|181906448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.415|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.395|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.605|5.225|||ANCOVA|Results from ANCOVA adjusted for baseline growth velocity, target height SDS, sex, and age; LOCF.||Treatment difference Month 12||5.225|3.605|<0.001
91011845|NCT00174460|181906448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.884|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5327||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.977|0.208|||ANCOVA|Results from ANCOVA adjusted for baseline growth velocity, target height SDS, sex, and age; LOCF.||Treatment difference Month 24||0.208|-1.977|0.108
91011846|NCT00174460|181906449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.074|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7089||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.524|0.376|||ANCOVA|Results from ANCOVA adjusted for baseline growth velocity SDS and target height SDS; LOCF.||Treatment difference||0.376|-2.524|0.141
91011847|NCT00174460|181906450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3661|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.789|5.291|||ANCOVA|Results from ANCOVA adjusted for baseline height, target height SDS, sex, and age; LOCF.||Treatment difference Month 12||5.291|3.789|<0.001
91011848|NCT00174460|181906450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.064|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9822|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.049|6.08|||ANCOVA|Results from ANCOVA adjusted for baseline height, target height SDS, sex, and age; LOCF.||Treatment difference Month 24||6.080|2.049|<0.001
91011849|NCT00174460|181906451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.719|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1606|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.047|||ANCOVA|Results from ANCOVA adjusted for baseline height SDS and target height SDS; LOCF.||Treatment difference Month 24||1.047|0.390|<0.001
91011850|NCT00174460|181906452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.497|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.73|-1.68|||ANCOVA|Results from ANCOVA adjusted for baseline skinfold thickness, target height SDS, age, and sex; LOCF.||Treatment difference Month 12||-1.68|-3.73|<0.001
91053890|NCT02912650|181990989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.05||||0.876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.68|||ANCOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||0.68|-0.58|0.876
90796609|NCT00608062|181472368|OTHER|Similar analyses as primary outcome||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.05
90796610|NCT00608062|181472369|OTHER|same analysis as primary outcome||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.05
90796611|NCT01467466|181472374|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.24|||Wald's Chi-Square|||||1.24|0.73|0.70
91011851|NCT00174460|181906452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.758||0.537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|1.09|||ANCOVA|Results from ANCOVA adjusted for baseline skinfold thickness, target height SDS, age, and sex; LOCF.||Treatment difference Month 24||1.09|-2.04|0.537
91011852|NCT00174460|181906453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.405||0.364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|0.46|||ANCOVA|Results from ANCOVA adjusted for baseline skinfold thickness, target height SDS, sex, and age; LOCF.||Treatment difference Month 12||0.46|-1.21|0.364
91011853|NCT00174460|181906453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.345||0.506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.48|||ANCOVA|Results from ANCOVA adjusted for baseline skinfold thickness, target height SDS, sex, and age; LOCF.||Treatment difference Month 24||0.48|-0.94|0.506
90796612|NCT01467466|181472375|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.34|||Wald's Chi-Square|||||1.34|0.78|0.86
91011854|NCT00174460|181906454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.188||0.959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.42|2.54|||ANCOVA|Results from ANCOVA adjusted for baseline skinfold thickness, target height SDS, sex, and age; LOCF.||Treatment difference Month 12||2.54|-2.42|0.959
91011855|NCT00174460|181906454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.065||0.919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|2.32|||ANCOVA|Results from ANCOVA adjusted for baseline skinfold thickness, target height SDS, sex, and age; LOCF.||Treatment difference Month 24||2.32|-2.11|0.919
91011856|NCT00174460|181906455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.892|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8161||0.336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.158|1.374|||ANCOVA|Results from ANCOVA adjusted for baseline volumetric cortical bone mineral density SDS and target height SDS; LOCF.||Treatment difference Month 12||1.374|-3.158|0.336
91011857|NCT00174460|181906455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.717|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6027||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.956|2.391|||ANCOVA|Results from ANCOVA adjusted for baseline volumetric cortical bone mineral density SDS and target height SDS; LOCF.||Treatment difference Month 24||2.391|-0.956|0.300
91011858|NCT00174460|181906456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.615|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6591|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.266|6.963|||ANCOVA|Results from ANCOVA adjusted for baseline growth velocity SDS and target height SDS; LOCF.||Treatment difference||6.963|4.266|<0.001
91011859|NCT00174460|181906457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.482|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9666||0.653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.558|2.595|||ANCOVA|Results from ANCOVA adjusted for baseline cortical cross-sectional area SDS and target height SDS; LOCF.||Treatment difference Month 12||2.595|-3.558|0.653
91053891|NCT02912650|181990989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.49||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|1.13|||ANCOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||1.13|-0.15|0.134
90796613|NCT06028464|181472418|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|36.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|31.96|41.64|||||Ratio calculated as test/reference\*100. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 21.9|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. The pharmacokinetic endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model.||41.64|31.96|
90796614|NCT06028464|181472419|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|56.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|45.11|70.6|||||Ratio calculated as test/reference\*100. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 37.9.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. The pharmacokinetic endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model.||70.60|45.11|
90796615|NCT06028464|181472420|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|36.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|31.91|41.74|||||Ratio calculated as test/reference\*100. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 22.3.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. The pharmacokinetic endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model.||41.74|31.91|
90796616|NCT03330847|181472421|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.9403|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.63|1.66|||Two-sided log-rank tests|Stratified for prior platinum-based therapy (no,yes) using Breslow's approach for handling of ties.|Proportional hazards models based on prior platinum-based therapy (no, yes). Hazard ratio \< 1 favours respective combination treatment related with a longer PFS than olaparib monotherapy. Here, favours olaparib monotherapy.|Patient Population BRCAm||1.66|0.63|0.9403
90796617|NCT03330847|181472421|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.9282|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.52|1.88|||Two-sided log-rank tests|Stratified for prior platinum-based therapy (no,yes) using Breslow's approach for handling of ties.|Proportional hazards models based on prior platinum-based therapy (no, yes). Hazard ratio \< 1 favours respective combination treatment related with a longer PFS than olaparib monotherapy. Here, favours olaparib monotherapy.|Patient Population BRCAm||1.88|0.52|0.9282
91053892|NCT02912650|181990989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.17||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|2.07|||ANCOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||2.07|0.27|0.011
91053893|NCT02912650|181990989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.73||||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|1.64|||ANCOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||1.64|-0.17|0.112
91053894|NCT02912650|181990989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.44||||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.08|||ANCOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||1.08|-0.20|0.179
90796618|NCT03330847|181472421|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54||||0.1274|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.28|1.03|||Two-sided log-rank tests|Stratified for prior platinum-based therapy (no,yes) using Breslow's approach for handling of ties.|Proportional hazards models based on prior platinum-based therapy (no, yes). Hazard ratio \< 1 favours respective combination treatment related with a longer PFS than olaparib monotherapy. Here, favours olaparib + ceralasertib.|Patient Population Non BRCAm HRRm||1.03|0.28|0.1274
90796619|NCT03330847|181472421|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56||||0.2956|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.23|1.26|||Two-sided log-rank tests|Stratified for prior platinum-based therapy (no,yes) using Breslow's approach for handling of ties.|Proportional hazards models based on prior platinum-based therapy (no, yes). Hazard ratio \< 1 favours respective combination treatment related with a longer PFS than olaparib monotherapy. Here, favours olaparib + adavosertib.|Patient Population Non BRCAm HRRm||1.26|0.23|0.2956
90796620|NCT03330847|181472421|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.2959|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|1.14|||Two-sided log-rank tests|Stratified for prior platinum-based therapy (no,yes) using Breslow's approach for handling of ties.|Proportional hazards models based on prior platinum-based therapy (no, yes). Hazard ratio \< 1 favours respective combination treatment related with a longer PFS than olaparib monotherapy. Here, favours olaparib + ceralasertib.|Patient Population Non HRRm||1.14|0.50|0.2959
90796621|NCT03330847|181472421|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.48||||0.0193|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.28|0.8|||Two-sided log-rank tests|Stratified for prior platinum-based therapy (no,yes) using Breslow's approach for handling of ties.|Proportional hazards models based on prior platinum-based therapy (no, yes). Hazard ratio \< 1 favours respective combination treatment related with a longer PFS than olaparib monotherapy. Here, favours olaparib + adavosertib.|Patient Population Non HRRm||0.80|0.28|0.0193
90796622|NCT03330847|181472422|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.6147|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.53|1.39|||Two-sided log-rank tests|Stratified for prior platinum-based therapy (no,yes) using Breslow's approach for handling of ties.|Proportional hazards models based on prior platinum-based therapy (no, yes). Hazard ratio \< 1 favours respective combination treatment related with a longer PFS than olaparib monotherapy. Here, favours olaparib + ceralasertib.|Patient Population BRCAm||1.39|0.53|0.6147
90796623|NCT03330847|181472422|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.7879|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.48|1.68|||Two-sided log-rank tests|Stratified for prior platinum-based therapy (no,yes) using Breslow's approach for handling of ties.|Proportional hazards models based on prior platinum-based therapy (no, yes). Hazard ratio \< 1 favours respective combination treatment related with a longer PFS than olaparib monotherapy. Here, favours olaparib + adavosertib.|Patient Population BRCAm||1.68|0.48|0.7879
91053895|NCT02912650|181990989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.97||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.85|||ANCOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||1.85|0.09|0.032
91053896|NCT02912650|181990989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.06||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.67|||ANCOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||0.67|-0.56|0.850
91053897|NCT02912650|181990989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.32||||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.95|||ANCOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||0.95|-0.30|0.311
90796624|NCT03330847|181472422|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.3695|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.38|1.31|||Two-sided log-rank tests|Stratified for prior platinum-based therapy (no,yes) using Breslow's approach for handling of ties.|Proportional hazards models based on prior platinum-based therapy (no, yes). Hazard ratio \< 1 favours respective combination treatment related with a longer PFS than olaparib monotherapy. Here, favours olaparib + ceralasertib.|Patient Population Non BRCAm HRRm||1.31|0.38|0.3695
90796625|NCT03330847|181472422|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.4586|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.29|1.58|||Two-sided log-rank tests|Stratified for prior platinum-based therapy (no,yes) using Breslow's approach for handling of ties.|Proportional hazards models based on prior platinum-based therapy (no, yes). Hazard ratio \< 1 favours respective combination treatment related with a longer PFS than olaparib monotherapy. Here, favours olaparib + adavosertib.|Patient Population Non BRCAm HRRm||1.58|0.29|0.4586
90796626|NCT03330847|181472422|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.7452|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.61|1.31|||Two-sided log-rank tests|Stratified for prior platinum-based therapy (no,yes) using Breslow's approach for handling of ties.|Proportional hazards models based on prior platinum-based therapy (no, yes). Hazard ratio \< 1 favours respective combination treatment related with a longer PFS than olaparib monotherapy. Here, favours olaparib + ceralasertib.|Patient Population Non HRRm||1.31|0.61|0.7452
90796627|NCT03330847|181472422|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61||||0.1185|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.37|1.0|||Two-sided log-rank tests|Stratified for prior platinum-based therapy (no,yes) using Breslow's approach for handling of ties.|Proportional hazards models based on prior platinum-based therapy (no, yes). Hazard ratio \< 1 favours respective combination treatment related with a longer PFS than olaparib monotherapy. Here, favours olaparib + adavosertib.|Patient Population Non HRRm||1.00|0.37|0.1185
90796628|NCT05819398|181472453|OTHER||Difference of least square means|-20.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.9|1.1|||||Difference = (least square mean Spesolimab low dose) - (least square mean Placebo)|The MMRM included fixed categorical effects of treatment at each visit, Tumor Necrosis Factor inhibitor (TNFi) status at baseline, and categorical baseline dT count at each visit. Visit were treated as the repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure used to model the within-trial participant measurements.||1.1|-41.9|
90796629|NCT05819398|181472453|OTHER||Difference of least square means|-17.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.5|3.9|||||Difference = (least square mean Spesolimab medium dose) - (least square mean Placebo)|The MMRM included fixed categorical effects of treatment at each visit, Tumor Necrosis Factor inhibitor (TNFi) status at baseline, and categorical baseline dT count at each visit. Visit were treated as the repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure used to model the within-trial participant measurements.||3.9|-39.5|
90796630|NCT05819398|181472453|OTHER||Difference of least square means|-4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.0|17.5|||||Difference = (least square mean Spesolimab high dose) - (least square mean Placebo)|The MMRM included fixed categorical effects of treatment at each visit, Tumor Necrosis Factor inhibitor (TNFi) status at baseline, and categorical baseline dT count at each visit. Visit were treated as the repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure used to model the within-trial participant measurements.||17.5|-26.0|
90796631|NCT05819398|181472453|OTHER|||||||0.697||||||Adjusted p-value from multiple contrast test.|MCPMod Linear model|No assumptions.||Multiple comparison and modelling techniques (MCPMod) was used to evaluate several possible dose response models (patterns: Linear, Exponential, Emax, SigEmax, BetaMod), and to identify the best-fitting model or subset of models.||||0.697
90796632|NCT05819398|181472453|OTHER|||||||0.844||||||Adjusted p-value from multiple contrast test.|MCPMod Exponential: model|Assumption: 30% of the maximum effect is achieved at the medium dose.||Multiple comparison and modelling techniques (MCPMod) was used to evaluate several possible dose response models (patterns: Linear, Exponential, Emax, SigEmax, BetaMod), and to identify the best-fitting model or subset of models.||||0.844
90796633|NCT05819398|181472453|OTHER|||||||0.256||||||Adjusted p-value from multiple contrast test.|MCPMod Emax model|Assumption: 70% of the maximum effect is achieved at the medium dose.||Multiple comparison and modelling techniques (MCPMod) was used to evaluate several possible dose response models (patterns: Linear, Exponential, Emax, SigEmax, BetaMod), and to identify the best-fitting model or subset of models.||||0.256
90796634|NCT05819398|181472453|OTHER|||||||0.571||||||Adjusted p-value from multiple contrast test.|MCPMod SigEmax model|Assumption: 70% of the maximum effect is achieved at the medium dose and 25% of the maximum effect is achieved at the low dose.||Multiple comparison and modelling techniques (MCPMod) was used to evaluate several possible dose response models (patterns: Linear, Exponential, Emax, SigEmax, BetaMod), and to identify the best-fitting model or subset of models.||||0.571
90796635|NCT05819398|181472453|OTHER|||||||0.232||||||Adjusted p-value from multiple contrast test.|MCPMod BetaMod model|Assumption: 80% of the maximum effect is achieved at the medium dose and the maximum effect is achieved at the 70% of the high dose.||Multiple comparison and modelling techniques (MCPMod) was used to evaluate several possible dose response models (patterns: Linear, Exponential, Emax, SigEmax, BetaMod), and to identify the best-fitting model or subset of models.||||0.232
90796636|NCT05819398|181472454|OTHER||Difference of least square means|-9.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.2|20.1|||||Difference = (least square mean Spesolimab low dose) - (least square mean Placebo)|The MMRM included fixed categorical effects of treatment at each visit, TNFi status at baseline, categorical baseline dT count and fixed continuous effect of baseline of outcome measures at each visit. Visit was treated as repeated measure with an unstructured covariance matrix for the within trial participant variability and all visits with planned measurements of the outcome variable as well as all dose groups were included in the model.||20.1|-39.2|
90796637|NCT05819398|181472454|OTHER||Difference of least square means|-22.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.0|7.6|||||Difference = (least square mean Spesolimab medium dose) - (least square mean Placebo)|The MMRM included fixed categorical effects of treatment at each visit, TNFi status at baseline, categorical baseline dT count and fixed continuous effect of baseline of outcome measures at each visit. Visit was treated as repeated measure with an unstructured covariance matrix for the within trial participant variability and all visits with planned measurements of the outcome variable as well as all dose groups were included in the model.||7.6|-52.0|
91011860|NCT00174460|181906457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.205|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8991||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.701|1.292|||ANCOVA|Results from ANCOVA adjusted for baseline cortical cross-sectional area SDS and target height SDS; LOCF.||Treatment difference Month 24||1.292|-3.701|0.251
90796638|NCT05819398|181472454|OTHER||Difference of least square means|-8.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.1|21.6|||||Difference = (least square mean Spesolimab high dose) - (least square mean Placebo)|The MMRM included fixed categorical effects of treatment at each visit, TNFi status at baseline, categorical baseline dT count and fixed continuous effect of baseline of outcome measures at each visit. Visit was treated as repeated measure with an unstructured covariance matrix for the within trial participant variability and all visits with planned measurements of the outcome variable as well as all dose groups were included in the model.||21.6|-39.1|
90796639|NCT05819398|181472455|OTHER||Difference of least square means|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|9.4|||||Difference = (least square mean Spesolimab low dose) - (least square mean Placebo)|The MMRM included fixed categorical effects of treatment at each visit, TNFi status at baseline, categorical baseline dT count and fixed continuous effect of baseline of outcome measures at each visit. Visit was treated as repeated measure with an unstructured covariance matrix for the within trial participant variability and all visits with planned measurements of the outcome variable as well as all dose groups were included in the model.||9.4|-4.5|
90796640|NCT05819398|181472455|OTHER||Difference of least square means|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|6.3|||||Difference = (least square mean Spesolimab medium dose) - (least square mean Placebo)|The MMRM included fixed categorical effects of treatment at each visit, TNFi status at baseline, categorical baseline dT count and fixed continuous effect of baseline of outcome measures at each visit. Visit was treated as repeated measure with an unstructured covariance matrix for the within trial participant variability and all visits with planned measurements of the outcome variable as well as all dose groups were included in the model.||6.3|-7.5|
90796641|NCT05819398|181472455|OTHER||Difference of least square means|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|10.0|||||Difference = (least square mean Spesolimab high dose) - (least square mean Placebo)|The MMRM included fixed categorical effects of treatment at each visit, TNFi status at baseline, categorical baseline dT count and fixed continuous effect of baseline of outcome measures at each visit. Visit was treated as repeated measure with an unstructured covariance matrix for the within trial participant variability and all visits with planned measurements of the outcome variable as well as all dose groups were included in the model.||10.0|-3.9|
90796642|NCT05819398|181472455|OTHER|||||||0.887||||||Adjusted p-value from multiple contrast test.|MCPMod Linear model|No assumptions.||Multiple comparison and modelling techniques (MCPMod) was used to evaluate several possible dose response models (patterns: Linear, Exponential, Emax, SigEmax, BetaMod), and to identify the best-fitting model or subset of models.||||0.887
90796643|NCT05819398|181472455|OTHER|||||||0.902||||||Adjusted p-value from multiple contrast test.|MCPMod Exponential: model|Assumption: 30% of the maximum effect is achieved at the medium dose.||Multiple comparison and modelling techniques (MCPMod) was used to evaluate several possible dose response models (patterns: Linear, Exponential, Emax, SigEmax, BetaMod), and to identify the best-fitting model or subset of models.||||0.902
90796644|NCT05819398|181472455|OTHER|||||||0.866||||||Adjusted p-value from multiple contrast test.|MCPMod Emax model|Assumption: 70% of the maximum effect is achieved at the medium dose.||Multiple comparison and modelling techniques (MCPMod) was used to evaluate several possible dose response models (patterns: Linear, Exponential, Emax, SigEmax, BetaMod), and to identify the best-fitting model or subset of models.||||0.866
90796645|NCT05819398|181472455|OTHER|||||||0.825||||||Adjusted p-value from multiple contrast test.|MCPMod SigEmax model|Assumption: 70% of the maximum effect is achieved at the medium dose and 25% of the maximum effect is achieved at the low dose.||Multiple comparison and modelling techniques (MCPMod) was used to evaluate several possible dose response models (patterns: Linear, Exponential, Emax, SigEmax, BetaMod), and to identify the best-fitting model or subset of models.||||0.825
90796646|NCT05819398|181472455|OTHER|||||||0.634||||||Adjusted p-value from multiple contrast test.|MCPMod BetaMod model|Assumption: 80% of the maximum effect is achieved at the medium dose and the maximum effect is achieved at the 70% of the high dose.||Multiple comparison and modelling techniques (MCPMod) was used to evaluate several possible dose response models (patterns: Linear, Exponential, Emax, SigEmax, BetaMod), and to identify the best-fitting model or subset of models.||||0.634
90796647|NCT05819398|181472456|OTHER||Difference of least square means|4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|15.3|||||Difference = (least square mean Spesolimab low dose) - (least square mean Placebo)|The MMRM included fixed categorical effects of treatment at each visit, TNFi status at baseline, categorical baseline dT count and fixed continuous effect of baseline of outcome measures at each visit. Visit was treated as repeated measure with an unstructured covariance matrix for the within trial participant variability and all visits with planned measurements of the outcome variable as well as all dose groups were included in the model.||15.3|-6.1|
90796648|NCT05819398|181472456|OTHER||Difference of least square means|-5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.9|5.5|||||Difference = (least square mean Spesolimab medium dose) - (least square mean Placebo)|The MMRM included fixed categorical effects of treatment at each visit, TNFi status at baseline, categorical baseline dT count and fixed continuous effect of baseline of outcome measures at each visit. Visit was treated as repeated measure with an unstructured covariance matrix for the within trial participant variability and all visits with planned measurements of the outcome variable as well as all dose groups were included in the model.||5.5|-15.9|
90796649|NCT05819398|181472456|OTHER||Difference of least square means|7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|18.5|||||Difference = (least square mean Spesolimab high dose) - (least square mean Placebo)|The MMRM included fixed categorical effects of treatment at each visit, TNFi status at baseline, categorical baseline dT count and fixed continuous effect of baseline of outcome measures at each visit. Visit was treated as repeated measure with an unstructured covariance matrix for the within trial participant variability and all visits with planned measurements of the outcome variable as well as all dose groups were included in the model.||18.5|-3.3|
90796650|NCT02445911|181472470|OTHER||Least-squares Mean Difference|-6.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.75|10.18|||||Least-squares means have baseline and site as covariates. Placebo was the reference group.|||10.18|-23.75|
90796651|NCT02445911|181472470|OTHER||Least-squares Mean Difference|-2.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.65|13.72|||||Least-squares means have baseline and site as covariates. Placebo was the reference group.|||13.72|-19.65|
91011861|NCT00174460|181906458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.135|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1499||0.914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.524|3.795|||ANCOVA|Results from ANCOVA adjusted for baseline total cross-sectional area SDS and target height SDS; LOCF.||Treatment difference Month 12||3.795|-3.524|0.914
91011862|NCT00174460|181906458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.292|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4432||0.547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.939|1.522|||ANCOVA|Results from ANCOVA adjusted for baseline total cross-sectional area SDS and target height SDS; LOCF.||Treatment difference Month 24||1.522|-0.939|0.547
90796652|NCT02445911|181472470|OTHER||Least-squares Mean Difference|-5.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.97|11.88|||||Least-squares means have baseline and site as covariates. Placebo was the reference group.|||11.88|-21.97|
90796653|NCT02581930|181472496|OTHER|Exact binomial test|Probability of response|0.0||||1|ONE_SIDED|||||Significant if p-value is less than 0.1|Exact binomial test, 1-sided||Estimated as proportion of subjects with response|The primary comparison was between the response rate of an ineffective drug, such as investigators' choice chemotherapy (5%), and the response rate of ibrutinib.||||1.00
90796654|NCT01139515|181472535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted ratio of geometric means|98.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.17|105.7||||||Natural log transformed, dose-normalized AUC\[0- ∞\] of eletriptan was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||105.70|92.17|
90796655|NCT01139515|181472535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted ratio of geometric means|109.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.23|117.24||||||Natural log transformed, dose-normalized AUC\[0- ∞\] of eletriptan was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||117.24|102.23|
90796656|NCT01139515|181472535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted ratio of geometric means|109.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.65|117.72||||||Natural log transformed, dose-normalized AUC\[0- ∞\] of eletriptan was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||117.72|102.65|
90796657|NCT01139515|181472536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted geometric means ratio|99.41|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.97|106.31||||||Natural log transformed, dose-normalized AUClast of eletriptan was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||106.31|92.97|
90796658|NCT01139515|181472536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted ratio of geometric means|110.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.36|118.18||||||Natural log transformed, dose-normalized AUClast of eletriptan was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||118.18|103.36|
90796659|NCT01139515|181472536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted ratio of geometric means|110.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.28|118.09||||||Natural log transformed, dose-normalized AUClast of eletriptan was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||118.09|103.28|
90796660|NCT01139515|181472537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted geometric means ratio|101.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.97|120.58||||||"Natural log transformed, dose-normalized Cmax of eletriptan was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.~The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios."||120.58|85.97|
90796661|NCT01139515|181472537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted ratio of geometric means|98.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.23|116.73||||||"Natural log transformed, dose-normalized Cmax of eletriptan was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.~The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios."||116.73|83.23|
90796662|NCT01139515|181472537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted ratio of geometric means|107.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.72|127.25||||||"Natural log transformed, dose-normalized Cmax of eletriptan was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.~The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios."||127.25|90.72|
90796663|NCT02621892|181472675|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.31|||<|0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.02
90796664|NCT02621892|181472677|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.86|||<|0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.008
90796665|NCT02621892|181472678|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90796666|NCT02621892|181472679|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90796667|NCT02621892|181472680|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.9|||<|0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.003
90796668|NCT02735200|181472681|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.67||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|||||the p value correspond to the pretreatment time frame.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9
90796669|NCT02735200|181472681|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|26.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||p value corresponds to the post treatment time frame.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90796670|NCT01605669|181472719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Sensitivity|85.7||||||95.0||||||||||||
90796671|NCT01605669|181472719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Specificity|72.4||||||95.0||||||||||||
91011863|NCT00174460|181906459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4542||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.049|3.572|||ANCOVA|Results from ANCOVA adjusted for baseline muscle cross-sectional area SDS and target height SDS; LOCF.||Treatment difference Month 12||3.572|1.049|0.007
90796672|NCT01605669|181472719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Error Rate|25.0||||||95.0|||||||Error rate of 9/36 is equal to total of false positives plus false negatives over the total of participants analyzed.|||||
90796673|NCT00934921|181472728|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Ratio of Geometric Means|97.1||||||90.0|91.2|103.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||103|91.2|
90796674|NCT00934921|181472729|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Ratio of Geometric Means|95.2||||||90.0|88.8|102.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||102|88.8|
90796675|NCT00934921|181472730|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Ratio of Geometric Means|95.9||||||90.0|89.5|103.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||103|89.5|
90796676|NCT02329587|181472735|OTHER||Between-group effect size (Hedge's g)|0.138|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90796677|NCT02329587|181472736|OTHER||Between-group effect size (Hedge's g)|-0.214|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90796678|NCT02329587|181472737|OTHER||Between-groups effect size (Hedge's g)|-0.007|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90796679|NCT02329587|181472738|OTHER||Between-group effect size (Hedge's g)|-0.151|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90796680|NCT02329587|181472739|OTHER||Between-groups effect size (Hedge's g)|0.704|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90796681|NCT02329587|181472740|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.125|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91011864|NCT00174460|181906459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.626|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6536||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.189|3.44|||ANCOVA|Results from ANCOVA adjusted for baseline muscle cross-sectional area SDS and target height SDS; LOCF.||Treatment difference Month 24||3.440|-0.189|0.068
91011865|NCT00174460|181906462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5061||0.331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.846|1.965|||ANCOVA|Results from ANCOVA adjusted for baseline strength-strain index SDS and target height SDS; LOCF.||Treatment difference Month 12||1.965|-0.846|0.331
91011866|NCT00174460|181906462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.114|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4703||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.192|1.42|||ANCOVA|Results from ANCOVA adjusted for baseline strength-strain index SDS and target height SDS; LOCF.||Treatment difference Month 24||1.420|-1.192|0.820
91011867|NCT00174460|181906463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|1.05|||ANCOVA|Results from ANCOVA adjusted for baseline hand grip strength SDS and target height SDS; LOCF.||Treatment difference Month 12||1.05|-0.88|0.844
90796682|NCT02421094|181472750|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1621|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1621
90796683|NCT02421094|181472751|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9835|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.9835
90796684|NCT02421094|181472752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.266|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2660
90796685|NCT00619866|181472770|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.2311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.2|||Repeated Measures Analysis of Covariance||Difference = Elagolix - Placebo|Change from baseline in in monthly mean values of the NRS for overall endometriosis-associated pelvic pain was analyzed by a repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for subject, and the baseline-by-time interaction, and the baseline value as a covariate.||0.20|-0.81|0.2311
90796686|NCT00619866|181472770|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.1521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.14|||Repeated Measures Analysis of Covariance||Difference = Elagolix - Placebo|Change from baseline in in monthly mean values of the NRS for overall endometriosis-associated pelvic pain was analyzed by a repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for subject, and the baseline-by-time interaction, and the baseline value as a covariate.||0.14|-0.86|0.1521
90796687|NCT00619866|181472771|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.2041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.17|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA||Difference = Elagolix - Placebo|Analysis at week 4. Change from baseline in in monthly mean values of the NRS for overall endometriosis-associated pelvic pain was analyzed by a repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for subject, and the baseline-by-time interaction, and the baseline value as a covariate.||0.17|-0.77|0.2041
90796688|NCT00619866|181472771|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.3375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.24|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA||Difference = Elagolix - Placebo|Analysis at week 4. Change from baseline in in monthly mean values of the NRS for overall endometriosis-associated pelvic pain was analyzed by a repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for subject, and the baseline-by-time interaction, and the baseline value as a covariate.||0.24|-0.69|0.3375
90796689|NCT00619866|181472771|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.0354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.04|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA||Difference = Elagolix - Placebo|Analysis at week 8. Change from baseline in in monthly mean values of the NRS for overall endometriosis-associated pelvic pain was analyzed by a repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for subject, and the baseline-by-time interaction, and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.04|-1.01|0.0354
90796690|NCT00619866|181472771|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.3618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.26|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA||Difference = Elagolix - Placebo|Analysis at week 8. Change from baseline in in monthly mean values of the NRS for overall endometriosis-associated pelvic pain was analyzed by a repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for subject, and the baseline-by-time interaction, and the baseline value as a covariate.||0.26|-0.71|0.3618
91011868|NCT00174460|181906463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.329||0.519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.96|||ANCOVA|Results from ANCOVA adjusted for baseline hand grip strength SDS and target height SDS; LOCF.||Treatment difference Month 24||0.96|-0.52|0.519
91011869|NCT00174460|181906466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.998|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1095|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.778|1.219|||Mixed models analysis|Results from repeated measures mixed models analysis adjusted for baseline height SDS, visit, visit\*treatment and target height SDS.||Treatment difference Month 12||1.219|0.778|<0.001
90796691|NCT00619866|181472772|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|0.78|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA||Difference = Elagolix - Placebo|Analysis at week 4. Change from baseline in in monthly peak values of the NRS for overall endometriosis-associated pelvic pain was analyzed by a repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for subject, and the baseline-by-time interaction, and the baseline value as a covariate.||0.78|-1.01|0.7990
90796692|NCT00619866|181472772|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.5042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|0.59|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA||Difference = Elagolix - Placebo|Analysis at week 4. Change from baseline in in monthly peak values of the NRS for overall endometriosis-associated pelvic pain was analyzed by a repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for subject, and the baseline-by-time interaction, and the baseline value as a covariate.||0.59|-1.21|0.5042
91011870|NCT00174460|181906466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.688|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1519|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.382|0.994|||Mixed models analysis|Results from repeated measures mixed models analysis adjusted for baseline height SDS, visit, visit\*treatment and target height SDS.||Treatment difference Month 24||0.994|0.382|<0.001
91011871|NCT00174460|181906468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.585|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3859|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.806|5.363|||Mixed models analysis|Results from repeated measure mixed models analysis adjusted for baseline height, sex, age, visit, visit\*treatment and target height SDS.||Treatment difference Month 12||5.363|3.806|<0.001
91011872|NCT00174460|181906468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.563|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.708|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.134|4.992|||Mixed models analysis|Results from repeated measure mixed models analysis adjusted for baseline height, sex, age, visit, visit\*treatment and target height SDS.||Treatment difference Month 24||4.992|2.134|<0.001
91011873|NCT04652245|181906475|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.028
91011874|NCT04652245|181906476|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.008
91011875|NCT01288911|181906494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.57|||Log Rank||Estimated by use of Cox proportional hazards model.|PFS based on ICR Enzalutamide Vs. Bicalutamide. The (unstratified) log-rank test with an overall significance level of 0.05 (two-sided) was used to compare the PFS of enzalutamide to bicalutamide. The (unstratified) Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate the hazard ratio of enzalutamide to bicalutamide, calculate the corresponding two-sided 95% confidence intervals and test the hypothesis that the hazard ratio is equal to 1.||0.57|0.34|<0.0001
91011876|NCT01288911|181906495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.55|||Log Rank||Estimated by use of Cox proportional hazards model.|PFS on based investigator assessment Enzalutamide Vs. Bicalutamide.||0.55|0.33|<0.0001
91011877|NCT01288911|181906496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||PSA Response Enzalutamide Vs. Bicalutamide.||||<0.0001
91011878|NCT01288911|181906497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Best PSA Response Enzalutamide Vs. Bicalutamide.||||<0.0001
91011879|NCT01288911|181906498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.39|||Log Rank||Estimated by use of Cox proportional hazards model.|Time to PSA progression Enzalutamide Vs. Bicalutamide.||0.39|0.20|<0.0001
91011880|NCT01288911|181906499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|5.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.18|8.09|||Log Rank||Estimated by use of Cox proportional hazards model.|Time to PSA Enzalutamide Vs. Bicalutamide.||8.09|3.18|<0.0001
91011881|NCT01288911|181906500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|5.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.96|7.79|||Log Rank||Estimated by use of Cox proportional hazards model.|Time to ≥ 30% PSA decline from baseline Enzalutamide Vs. Bicalutamide.||7.79|3.96|<0.0001
91011882|NCT01288911|181906501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|7.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.83|10.16|||Log Rank||Estimated by use of Cox proportional hazards model.|Time to ≥ 50% PSA decline from baseline Enzalutamide Vs. Bicalutamide.||10.16|4.83|<0.0001
91011883|NCT01288911|181906502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|13.91|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.23|26.79|||Log Rank||Estimated by use of Cox proportional hazards model.|Time to ≥ 90% PSA decline from baseline Enzalutamide Vs. Bicalutamide.||26.79|7.23|<0.0001
91011884|NCT01288911|181906503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.74|||Log Rank||Estimated by use of Cox proportional hazards model.|Radiographic PFS based on ICR Enzalutamide Vs. Bicalutamide.||0.74|0.36|0.0002
91011885|NCT02543918|181906506|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of the ixekizumab arm to the control arm for the tetanus vaccine was established if the lower limit of the 90% CI excludes an absolute difference of 40% or more.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.6|19.2||||||Tetanus vaccine responders||19.2|-16.6|
91011886|NCT02543918|181906506|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of the ixekizumab arm to the control arm for the pneumococcal vaccine was established if the lower limit of the 90% CI excludes an absolute difference of 40% or more.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.9|11.0||||||Pneumococcal vaccine responders||11.0|-12.9|
91011887|NCT03503617|181906507|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
91011888|NCT05489146|181906515|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.046
91011889|NCT05489146|181906516|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.003
91011890|NCT05489146|181906517|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>0.05
91011891|NCT05489146|181906518|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
91011892|NCT05489146|181906519|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>0.05
91011893|NCT05489146|181906520|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>0.05
91011894|NCT05489146|181906521|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.001
91011895|NCT05489146|181906522|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.035
91053898|NCT02912650|181990989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.91||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|1.79|||ANCOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||1.79|0.03|0.043
90796693|NCT00619866|181472772|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.1459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|0.24|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA||Difference = Elagolix - Placebo|Analysis at week 8. Change from baseline in in monthly peak values of the NRS for overall endometriosis-associated pelvic pain was analyzed by a repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for subject, and the baseline-by-time interaction, and the baseline value as a covariate.||0.24|-1.63|0.1459
90796694|NCT00619866|181472772|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.0163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.21|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA||Difference = Elagolix - Placebo|Analysis at week 8. Change from baseline in in monthly peak values of the NRS for overall endometriosis-associated pelvic pain was analyzed by a repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for subject, and the baseline-by-time interaction, and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.21|-2.10|0.0163
90796695|NCT00619866|181472772|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.0207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|-0.18|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA||Difference = Elagolix - Placebo|Analysis at week 12. Change from baseline in in monthly peak values of the NRS for overall endometriosis-associated pelvic pain was analyzed by a repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for subject, and the baseline-by-time interaction, and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.18|-2.13|0.0207
90796696|NCT00619866|181472772|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.42|-0.47|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA||Difference = Elagolix - Placebo|Analysis at week 12. Change from baseline in in monthly peak values of the NRS for overall endometriosis-associated pelvic pain was analyzed by a repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for subject, and the baseline-by-time interaction, and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.47|-2.42|0.0038
90796697|NCT00619866|181472773|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.5744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.1|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA||Difference = Elagolix - Placebo|Analysis at week 4. Change from baseline in non-menstrual pelvic pain score was analyzed by a repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for subject, and the baseline-by-time interaction, and the baseline value as a covariate.||0.10|-0.18|0.5744
90796698|NCT00619866|181472773|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.12|||Repeated measures ANCOVA||Difference = Elagolix - Placebo|Analysis at week 4. Change from baseline in non-menstrual pelvic pain score was analyzed by a repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for subject, and the baseline-by-time interaction, and the baseline value as a covariate.||0.12|-0.17|0.7280
90796699|NCT00619866|181472773|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.0195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|-0.03|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA||Difference = Elagolix - Placebo|Analysis at week 8. Change from baseline in non-menstrual pelvic pain score was analyzed by a repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for subject, and the baseline-by-time interaction, and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.03|-0.32|0.0195
90796700|NCT00619866|181472773|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.5589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.1|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA||Difference = Elagolix - Placebo|Analysis at week 8. Change from baseline in non-menstrual pelvic pain score was analyzed by a repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for subject, and the baseline-by-time interaction, and the baseline value as a covariate.||0.10|-0.19|0.5589
90796701|NCT00619866|181472773|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.5558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.11|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA||Difference = Elagolix - Placebo|Analysis at week 12. Change from baseline in non-menstrual pelvic pain score was analyzed by a repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for subject, and the baseline-by-time interaction, and the baseline value as a covariate.||0.11|-0.20|0.5558
90796702|NCT00619866|181472773|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.7121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.12|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA||Difference = Elagolix - Placebo|Analysis at week 12. Change from baseline in non-menstrual pelvic pain score was analyzed by a repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for subject, and the baseline-by-time interaction, and the baseline value as a covariate.||0.12|-0.18|0.7121
90796703|NCT00619866|181472774|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.03|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA||Difference = Elagolix - Placebo|Analysis at week 4. Change from baseline in dysmenorrhea score was analyzed by a repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for subject, and the baseline-by-time interaction, and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.03|-0.54|0.0286
91011896|NCT02452892|181906535|SUPERIORITY|To control for multiple comparisons in the primary endpoint analysis, a hierarchical approach was taken. First LFMS 60min. was compared to LFMS sham. If p\<0.05 for this comparison, then LFMS 20min. was formally compared to LFMS sham for statistical significance.||||||0.307||||||"P-value displayed for 60min.~Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) model."|Mixed Models Analysis|Week 1 baseline HAM-D6 total score, treatment,visit treatment\*visit age, \& gender included in model. Visit was the repeated measure within subjects.||Comparisons of 60 min LFMS vs. sham, LSMean diff with 95% Confidence Interval (CI) reported. Hypothesis 1: no difference between 60 min. LFMS and sham therapy in mean change from baseline (Day 1) to end of Tx Day 4 in HAM-D6 total score. If hypothesis is rejected at significance level of 0.05, then second hypothesis will be tested. Hypothesis 2:no difference between 20 min. LFMS \& sham therapy in mean change from baseline (Day 1) to the end of Tx. Day 4 in HAM-D6 total score.||||0.307
91053899|NCT02912650|181990989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.64||||0.154||95.0|-0.24|1.53|||ANCOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||1.53|-0.24|0.154
90796704|NCT00619866|181472774|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.05|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA||Difference = Elagolix - Placebo|Analysis at week 4. Change from baseline in dysmenorrhea score was analyzed by a repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for subject, and the baseline-by-time interaction, and the baseline value as a covariate.||0.05|-0.45|0.1210
90796705|NCT00619866|181472774|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.15|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA||Difference = Elagolix - Placebo|Analysis at week 8. Change from baseline in dysmenorrhea score was analyzed by a repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for subject, and the baseline-by-time interaction, and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.15|-0.68|0.0024
90796706|NCT00619866|181472774|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.22|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA||Difference = Elagolix - Placebo|Analysis at week 8. Change from baseline in dysmenorrhea score was analyzed by a repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for subject, and the baseline-by-time interaction, and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.22|-0.76|0.0003
90796707|NCT00619866|181472774|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.16|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA||Difference = Elagolix - Placebo|Analysis at week 12. Change from baseline in dysmenorrhea score was analyzed by a repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for subject, and the baseline-by-time interaction, and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.16|-0.72|0.0021
90796708|NCT00619866|181472774|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.24|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA||Difference = Elagolix - Placebo|Analysis at week 12. Change from baseline in dysmenorrhea score was analyzed by a repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for subject, and the baseline-by-time interaction, and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.24|-0.80|0.0003
90796709|NCT00619866|181472775|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.01|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA||Difference = Elagolix - Placebo|Analysis at week 4. Change from baseline in total of non-menstrual pelvic pain and dysmenorrhea scores was analyzed by a repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for subject, and the baseline-by-time interaction, and the baseline value as a covariate.||0.01|-0.34|0.0603
90796710|NCT00619866|181472775|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.1855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.06|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA||Difference = Elagolix - Placebo|Analysis at week 4. Change from baseline in total of non-menstrual pelvic pain and dysmenorrhea scores was analyzed by a repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for subject, and the baseline-by-time interaction, and the baseline value as a covariate.||0.06|-0.29|0.1855
90796711|NCT00619866|181472775|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.12|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA||Difference = Elagolix - Placebo|Analysis at week 8. Change from baseline in total of non-menstrual pelvic pain and dysmenorrhea scores was analyzed by a repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for subject, and the baseline-by-time interaction, and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.12|-0.48|0.0012
90796712|NCT00619866|181472775|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.1002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.03|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA||Difference = Elagolix - Placebo|Analysis at week 8. Change from baseline in total of non-menstrual pelvic pain and dysmenorrhea scores was analyzed by a repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for subject, and the baseline-by-time interaction, and the baseline value as a covariate.||0.03|-0.33|0.1002
90796713|NCT00619866|181472775|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.01|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA||Difference = Elagolix - Placebo|Analysis at week 12. Change from baseline in total of non-menstrual pelvic pain and dysmenorrhea scores was analyzed by a repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for subject, and the baseline-by-time interaction, and the baseline value as a covariate.||0.01|-0.36|0.0568
90796714|NCT00619866|181472775|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.04|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA||Difference = Elagolix - Placebo|Analysis at week 12. Change from baseline in total of non-menstrual pelvic pain and dysmenorrhea scores was analyzed by a repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for subject, and the baseline-by-time interaction, and the baseline value as a covariate.||0.04|-0.33|0.1190
90796715|NCT03510273|181472831|OTHER|"Type of statistical test: Independence~Description: Adequacy of baseline image"||||||0.396|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.396
90796716|NCT03510273|181472831|OTHER|"Type of statistical test: Independence~Description: Squamous columnar junction visibility"||||||0.351|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.351
90796717|NCT03510273|181472831|OTHER|"Type of statistical test: Independence~Description: Visible abnormal areas"||||||0.774|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.774
90796718|NCT03510273|181472831|OTHER|"Type of statistical test: Independence~Description: Location of the lesion"||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
90796719|NCT03510273|181472831|OTHER|"Type of statistical test: Independence~Description: Mosaic of the worst lesion"||||||0.36|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.36
90796720|NCT03510273|181472831|OTHER|"Type of Statistical Test: Independence~Description: Acetowhite changes"||||||0.881|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.881
90796721|NCT03510273|181472831|OTHER|"Type of Statistical Test: Independence~Description: Border of the worst lesion"||||||0.829|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.829
90796722|NCT03510273|181472831|OTHER|"Type of Statistical Test: Independence~Description: Possible diagnosis"||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
90796723|NCT03510273|181472831|OTHER|"Type of Statistical Test: Independence~Description: Baseline histology"||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
90796724|NCT03510273|181472831|OTHER|"Type of Statistical Test: Independence~Description: Size of the worst lesion (% coverage)"||||||0.493|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.493
90796725|NCT01474109|181472832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||NB-2 estimate of new DUs per patient|1.103||||0.706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.663|1.834|||negative binomial-2 regression (NB-2)||The estimated value corresponds to the treatment effect i.e. the ratio between the estimated number of new DUs in Macitentan 3 mg and in Placebo|||1.834|0.663|0.706
90796726|NCT01474109|181472832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||NB-2 estimate of new DUs per patient|1.268||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.763|2.106|||negative binomial-2 regression (NB-2)||The estimated value corresponds to the treatment effect i.e. the ratio between the estimated number of new DUs in Macitentan 10 mg and in Placebo|||2.106|0.763|0.360
90796727|NCT01474109|181472833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.875||||0.667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.477|1.606|||Chi-squared|||||1.606|0.477|0.6670
90796728|NCT01474109|181472833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.832||||0.5518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.454|1.524|||Chi-squared|||||1.524|0.454|0.5518
90796729|NCT01474109|181472834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.696||||0.3625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.319|1.518|||Chi-squared|||||1.518|0.319|0.3625
90796730|NCT01474109|181472834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.9362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.498|2.133|||Chi-squared|||||2.133|0.498|0.9362
90796731|NCT01474109|181472835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2|||ANCOVA|||||0.2|-0.1|0.863
91053900|NCT02912650|181990989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.26||||0.408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.89|||ANCOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||0.89|-0.36|0.408
91053901|NCT02912650|181990989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.81||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|1.68|||ANCOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||1.68|-0.05|0.065
91053902|NCT02912650|181990989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.05||||0.862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.55|||ANCOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||0.55|-0.66|0.862
91053903|NCT02912650|181990989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.29||||0.352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.9|||ANCOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||0.90|-0.32|0.352
91053904|NCT02912650|181990989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.87||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.73|||ANCOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||1.73|0.00|0.049
91053905|NCT02912650|181990989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.52||||0.239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|1.39|||ANCOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||1.39|-0.35|0.239
91053906|NCT02912650|181990989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.34||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.96|||ANCOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||0.96|-0.27|0.270
90796732|NCT01474109|181472835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.2|0.649
90796733|NCT01474109|181472836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.2|0.456
90796734|NCT01474109|181472836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.2|0.440
90796735|NCT01474109|181472837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.3|0.464
90796736|NCT01474109|181472837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.3|0.342
90796737|NCT02589938|181472838|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis of covariance (RMANCOVA) models were constructed to assess differences in each outcome adjusting for baseline outcome value, group, time, and group by time interaction assuming an unstructured covariance. The primary objective was assessed using a linear contrast of group effect at 4 weeks||||||0.0167|||||||ANCOVA|||The primary endpoint was to determine whether true acupuncture (TA) was more effective than sham acupuncture (SA) or standard oral hygiene (SOH) at treating xerostomia as assessed by the xerostomia questionnaire (XQ) at Week 4. The study was powered to detect a difference of 10 points with an assumed standard deviation (SD)=16 between each pair of groups on XQ.This assumed a t-test with a two-sided significance level of 0·0133 and 84% power with 20% dropout.||||0.0167
90796738|NCT00330733|181472850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired comparisons (follow-up vs baseline) and unpaired group comparisons were performed by Student's t tests or Wilcoxon signed rank tests.||||<0.05
90796739|NCT04116489|181472914|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5272|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.5272
90796740|NCT04116489|181472915|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1657|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.1657
90796741|NCT04116489|181472916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2437|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.2437
90796742|NCT04116489|181472917|OTHER|||||||0.0373|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.0373
90796743|NCT03781570|181472919|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0544|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00517|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0648|-0.0441|||Mixed Models Analysis|Satterthwaite's method was used to estimate degrees of freedom for the mixed effects model.||Comparing placebo vs. control for thermal pain ratings with mixed effects models controlling for the stimulus intensity and the familial structure of the data.||-0.0441|-0.0648|<0.001
90796744|NCT01346592|181472933|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was established if the lower limit of the confidence interval of the day 50 ratio of GMTs was \>0.667|GMT ratio (H1N1 strain)|2.44|||||TWO_SIDED|97.6|2.06|2.9||||||||2.9|2.06|
90796745|NCT01346592|181472933|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was established if the lower limit of the confidence interval of the day 50 ratio of GMTs was \>0.667|GMT ratio (H3N2 strain)|1.89|||||TWO_SIDED|97.6|1.69|2.1||||||||2.1|1.69|
90796746|NCT01346592|181472933|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was established if the lower limit of the confidence interval of the day 50 ratio of GMTs was \>0.667|GMT ratio (B strain)|3.07|||||TWO_SIDED|97.6|2.66|3.54||||||||3.54|2.66|
90796747|NCT01346592|181472933|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was established if the lower limit of the confidence interval of the day 50 ratio of GMTs was \>0.667|GMT ratio (H1N1 strain)|3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|97.6|2.7|3.8||||||||3.8|2.7|
90796748|NCT01346592|181472933|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was established if the lower limit of the confidence interval of the day 50 ratio of GMTs was \>0.667|GMT ratio (H3N2 strain)|2.38|||||TWO_SIDED|97.6|2.14|2.65||||||||2.65|2.14|
90796749|NCT01346592|181472933|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was established if the lower limit of the confidence interval of the day 50 ratio of GMTs was \>0.667|GMT ratio (B strain)|3.14|||||TWO_SIDED|97.6|2.72|3.62||||||||3.62|2.72|
90796750|NCT01346592|181472934|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \>-10%.|Group difference (H1N1 strain)|9.09|||||TWO_SIDED|97.6|5.48|12.69||||||||12.69|5.48|
90796751|NCT01346592|181472934|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \>-10%|Group difference (H3N2 strain)|4.07|||||TWO_SIDED|97.6|1.58|6.55||||||||6.55|1.58|
90796752|NCT01346592|181472934|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%|Group difference (B strain)|11.82|||||TWO_SIDED|97.6|8.72|14.92||||||||14.92|8.72|
90796753|NCT01346592|181472934|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%|Group difference (H1N1 strain)|14.21|||||TWO_SIDED|97.6|10.3|18.13||||||||18.13|10.3|
90796754|NCT01346592|181472934|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%|Group difference (H3N2 strain)|7.31|||||TWO_SIDED|97.6|4.47|10.14||||||||10.14|4.47|
90796755|NCT01346592|181472934|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%|Group difference (B strain)|11.1|||||TWO_SIDED|97.6|8.11|14.1||||||||14.1|8.11|
90796756|NCT01346592|181472935|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the confidence interval for day 50 GMT group ratios was \>0.667|Group ratio (H1N1 strain)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|97.4|0.62|0.93||||||||0.93|0.62|
91053907|NCT02912650|181990990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.15||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.28|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.28|0.01|0.031
91053908|NCT02912650|181990990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.03||||0.527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.12|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.12|-0.06|0.527
90796757|NCT01346592|181472935|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the confidence interval for day 50 GMT group ratios was \>0.667|GMT ratio (H3N2 strain)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|97.4|0.68|0.86||||||||0.86|0.68|
90796758|NCT01346592|181472935|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the confidence interval for day 50 GMT group ratios was \>0.667|GMT ratio (B strain)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|97.4|0.8|1.11||||||||1.11|0.8|
90796759|NCT01346592|181472936|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group differences was \> -10%|Group difference (H1N1 strain)|-5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|97.4|-10.13|-0.47||||||||-0.47|-10.13|
90796760|NCT01346592|181472936|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group differences was \> -10%|Group difference (H3N2 strain)|-2.84|||||TWO_SIDED|97.4|-6.16|0.5||||||||0.5|-6.16|
90796761|NCT01346592|181472936|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group differences was \> -10%|Group difference (B strain)|-2.49|||||TWO_SIDED|97.4|-7.01|2.0||||||||2|-7.01|
90796762|NCT01346592|181472937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio (H1N1 strain)|3.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.86|4.6||||||Superiority was concluded if the lower limit of the confidence interval for the day 50 vaccine group GMT ratios for at least 2 homologous strains was \>1.5.||4.6|2.86|
90796763|NCT01346592|181472937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio (H3N2 strain)|2.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.96|2.59||||||superiority was concluded if the lower limit of the confidence interval of the day 50 vaccine group GMT ratios for at least 2 homologous strains was \>1.5||2.59|1.96|
90796764|NCT01346592|181472937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio (B strain)|4.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.86|5.59||||||superiority was concluded if the lower limit of the confidence interval of the day 50 vaccine group GMT ratios for at least 2 homologous strains was \>1.5||5.59|3.86|
90796765|NCT01346592|181472937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio (H1N1 strain)|5.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.16|6.7||||||superiority was concluded if the lower limit of the confidence interval of the day 50 vaccine group GMT ratios for at least 2 homologous strains was \>1.5||6.7|4.16|
90796766|NCT01346592|181472937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio (H3N2 strain)|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.69|3.56||||||superiority was concluded if the lower limit of the confidence interval of the day 50 vaccine group GMT ratios for at least 2 homologous strains was \>1.5||3.56|2.69|
90796767|NCT01346592|181472937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio (B strain)|4.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.86|5.59||||||superiority was concluded if the lower limit of the confidence interval of the day 50 vaccine group GMT ratios for at least 2 homologous strains was \>1.5||5.59|3.86|
90796768|NCT01346592|181472938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Group difference (H1N1 strain)|10.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.1|14.7||||||superiority was concluded if the lower limit of the confidence interval of day 50 vaccine group difference,for at least 2 homologous strains, was \>10%||14.7|6.1|
90796769|NCT01346592|181472938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Group difference (H3N2 strain)|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|5.1||||||superiority was concluded if the lower limit of the confidence interval of day 50 vaccine group difference,for at least 2 homologous strains, was \>10%||5.1|-0.12|
90796770|NCT01346592|181472938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Group difference (B strain)|12.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.9|16.7||||||superiority was concluded if the lower limit of the confidence interval of day 50 vaccine group difference,for at least 2 homologous strains, was \>10%||16.7|8.9|
91011897|NCT02452892|181906535|SUPERIORITY|To control for multiple comparisons in the primary endpoint analysis, a hierarchical approach was taken. First LFMS 60min. was compared to LFMS sham. If p\<0.05 for this comparison, then LFMS 20min. was formally compared to LFMS sham for statistical significance.||||||0.859||||||P-value displayed for 20min. Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) model.|Mixed Models Analysis|Week 1 baseline HAM-D6 total score, treatment,visit treatment\*visit age, \& gender included in model. Visit was the repeated measure within subjects.||Comparisons of 20 min LFMS vs. sham, LSMean diff with 95% Confidence Interval (CI) reported. Hypothesis 1: no difference between 60 min. LFMS and sham therapy in mean change from baseline (Day 1) to end of Tx Day 4 in HAM-D6 total score. If hypothesis is rejected at significance level of 0.05, then second hypothesis will be tested. Hypothesis 2:no difference between 20 min. LFMS \& sham therapy in mean change from baseline (Day 1) to the end of Tx. Day 4 in HAM-D6 total score.||||0.859
90796771|NCT01346592|181472938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Group difference (H1N1 strain)|17.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.9|22.6||||||superiority was concluded if the lower limit of the confidence interval of day 50 vaccine group difference,for at least 2 homologous strains, was \>10%||22.6|12.9|
90796772|NCT01346592|181472938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Group difference (H3N2 strain)|5.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|8.7||||||superiority was concluded if the lower limit of the confidence interval of day 50 vaccine group difference,for at least 2 homologous strains, was \>10%||8.7|2.5|
90796773|NCT01346592|181472938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Group difference (B strain)|18.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.4|23.1||||||superiority was concluded if the lower limit of the confidence interval of day 50 vaccine group difference,for at least 2 homologous strains, was \>10%||23.1|14.4|
90796774|NCT01346592|181472939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio (H1N1 strain)|2.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.07|2.75||||||superiority was concluded if the lower limit of the confidence interval of the day 50 vaccine group GMT ratios for at least 2 homologous strains was \>1.5||2.75|2.07|
90796775|NCT01346592|181472939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio (H3N2 strain)|1.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|2.06||||||superiority was concluded if the lower limit of the confidence interval of the day 50 vaccine group GMT ratios for at least 2 homologous strains was \>1.5||2.06|1.72|
90796776|NCT01346592|181472939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio (B strain)|2.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|3.3||||||superiority was concluded if the lower limit of the confidence interval of the day 50 vaccine group GMT ratios for at least 2 homologous strains was \>1.5||3.3|2.6|
90796777|NCT01346592|181472939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio (H1N1 strain)|3.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.79|3.71||||||superiority was concluded if the lower limit of the confidence interval of the day 50 vaccine group GMT ratios for at least 2 homologous strains was \>1.5||3.71|2.79|
90796778|NCT01346592|181472939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio (H3N2 strain)|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.19|2.62||||||superiority was concluded if the lower limit of the confidence interval of the day 50 vaccine group GMT ratios for at least 2 homologous strains was \>1.5||2.62|2.19|
90796779|NCT01346592|181472939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio (B strain)|3.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.73|3.47||||||superiority was concluded if the lower limit of the confidence interval of the day 50 vaccine group GMT ratios for at least 2 homologous strains was \>1.5||3.47|2.73|
90796780|NCT01346592|181472940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Group difference (H1N1 strain)|9.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|12.4||||||superiority was concluded if the lower limit of the confidence interval of day 50 vaccine group difference,for at least 2 homologous strains, was \>10%||12.4|6.3|
91011898|NCT02452892|181906536|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.966||||||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. P-value was estimated from Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) model.|Mixed Models Analysis|Week 2 baseline HAM-D6 total score, treatment, visit, treatment\*visit, age, \& gender included in model. Visit was the repeated measure within subject.||||||0.966
90796781|NCT01346592|181472940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Group difference (H3N2 strain)|3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|5.9||||||superiority was concluded if the lower limit of the confidence interval of day 50 vaccine group difference,for at least 2 homologous strains, was \>10%||5.9|1.8|
90796782|NCT01346592|181472940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Group difference (B strain)|10.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.1|13.3||||||superiority was concluded if the lower limit of the confidence interval of day 50 vaccine group difference,for at least 2 homologous strains, was \>10%||13.3|8.1|
90796783|NCT01346592|181472940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Group difference (H1N1 strain)|14.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.1|17.7||||||superiority was concluded if the lower limit of the confidence interval of day 50 vaccine group difference,for at least 2 homologous strains, was \>10%||17.7|11.1|
90796784|NCT01346592|181472940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Group difference (H3N2 strain)|6.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|9.1||||||superiority was concluded if the lower bound of 95% CI of day 50 vaccine group difference,for at least 2 homologous strains, was \>10%||9.1|4.5|
90796785|NCT01346592|181472940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Group difference (B strain)|10.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.3|13.4||||||superiority was concluded if the lower limit of the confidence interval of day 50 vaccine group difference,for at least 2 homologous strains, was \>10%||13.4|8.3|
90796786|NCT01346592|181472945|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT Ratio (H1N1 strain)|2.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|3.12||||||No risk subjects.||3.12|2.3|
90796787|NCT01346592|181472945|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT Ratio (H3N2 strain)|1.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|2.05||||||No risk subjects.||2.05|1.7|
90796788|NCT01346592|181472945|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (B strain)|3.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.68|3.44||||||No risk subjects.||3.44|2.68|
90796789|NCT01346592|181472945|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (H1N1 strain)|2.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|4.42||||||At risk subjects.||4.42|1.11|
90796790|NCT01346592|181472945|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (H3N2 strain)|2.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.61|3.72||||||At risk subjects.||3.72|1.61|
90796791|NCT01346592|181472945|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (B strain)|3.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.88|6.34||||||At risk subjects||6.34|1.88|
90796792|NCT01346592|181472945|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratios (H1N1 strain)|3.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.03|4.1||||||No risk subjects.||4.1|3.03|
91053909|NCT02912650|181990990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.04||||0.386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.05|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.05|-0.14|0.386
91053910|NCT02912650|181990990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.12||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.25|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.25|-0.02|0.084
90796793|NCT01346592|181472945|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (H3N2 strain)|2.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.15|2.59||||||No risk subjects.||2.59|2.15|
90796794|NCT01346592|181472945|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (B strain)|3.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.78|3.56||||||No risk subjects.||3.56|2.78|
90796795|NCT01346592|181472945|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (H1N1 strain)|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|5.68||||||At risk subjects.||5.68|1.28|
90796796|NCT01346592|181472945|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (H3N2 strain)|3.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.09|5.06||||||At risk subjects.||5.06|2.09|
90796797|NCT01346592|181472945|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (B strain)|2.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|5.3||||||At risk subjects.||5.3|1.44|
90796798|NCT01346592|181472945|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (H1N1 strain)|2.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.34|3.37||||||No risk subjects.||3.37|2.34|
90796799|NCT01346592|181472945|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (H3N2 strain)|2.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.83|2.28||||||No risk subjects.||2.28|1.83|
90796800|NCT01346592|181472945|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (B strain)|3.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.22|4.34||||||No risk subjects||4.34|3.22|
90796801|NCT01346592|181472945|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (H1N1 strain)|2.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|6.0||||||At risk subjects.||6|0.92|
90796802|NCT01346592|181472945|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (H3N2 strain)|2.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|5.45||||||At risk subjects.||5.45|1.57|
91053911|NCT02912650|181990990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.19||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.32|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.32|0.06|0.006
90796803|NCT01346592|181472945|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (B strain)|5.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.52|12.0||||||At risk subjects||12|2.52|
90796804|NCT01346592|181472945|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (H1N1 strain)|3.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.05|4.39||||||No risk subjects.||4.39|3.05|
90796805|NCT01346592|181472945|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (H3N2 strain)|2.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|2.99||||||No risk subjects||2.99|2.4|
90796806|NCT01346592|181472945|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (B strain)|3.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.42|4.61||||||No risk subjects.||4.61|3.42|
90796807|NCT01346592|181472945|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (H1N1 strain)|2.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|7.31||||||At risk subjects.||7.31|1.02|
90796808|NCT01346592|181472945|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (H3N2 strain)|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.85|6.62||||||At risk subjects.||6.62|1.85|
90796809|NCT01346592|181472945|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (B strain)|5.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.32|12.0||||||At risk subjects.||12|2.32|
90796810|NCT01346592|181472945|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (H1N1 strain)|1.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|1.97||||||No risk subjects.||1.97|1.21|
90796811|NCT01346592|181472945|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (H3N2 strain)|1.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|1.82||||||No risk subjects||1.82|1.26|
90796812|NCT01346592|181472945|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (B strain)|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|2.38||||||No risk subjects||2.38|1.52|
91053912|NCT02912650|181990990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.07||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.02|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.02|-0.17|0.135
90796813|NCT01346592|181472945|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (H1N1 strain)|1.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|5.4||||||At risk subjects||5.4|0.57|
90796814|NCT01346592|181472945|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (H3N2 strain)|1.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|2.89||||||At risk subjects||2.89|1.09|
90796815|NCT01346592|181472945|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (B strain)|1.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|4.54||||||At risk subjects||4.54|0.73|
90796816|NCT01346592|181472945|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (H1N1 strain)|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.89|3.05||||||No risk subjects||3.05|1.89|
90796817|NCT01346592|181472945|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (H3N2 strain)|1.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|1.85||||||No risk subjects.||1.85|1.29|
90796818|NCT01346592|181472945|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (B strain)|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|2.11||||||No risk subjects||2.11|1.36|
90796819|NCT01346592|181472945|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (H1N1 strain)|2.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|7.71||||||At risk subjects.||7.71|0.58|
90796820|NCT01346592|181472945|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (H3N2 strain)|2.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.61|4.89||||||At risk subjects||4.89|1.61|
90796821|NCT01346592|181472945|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (B strain)|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|3.67||||||At risk subjects||3.67|0.37|
90796822|NCT01346592|181472946|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%|Group difference (H1N1 strain)|9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.4|12.0||||||No risk subjects.||12|5.4|
90796823|NCT01346592|181472946|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H3N2 strain)|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|6.6||||||No risk subjects.||6.6|1.8|
90796824|NCT01346592|181472946|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (B strain)|12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.2|14.8||||||No risk subjects.||14.8|9.2|
91011899|NCT02452892|181906537|SUPERIORITY|The persistence rate calculated based on Week 1 treatment group: 20 minutes LFMS, 60 minutes LFMS and sham therapy.||||||0.294||||||For 60 min LFMS, P-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. P-value estimated using LR model including Wk2 baseline HAM-D6 total score, treatment, age \& gender as covariates.|Regression, Logistic|Non-responder imputation (NRI) for missing data, where missing post-baseline results were considered non-response||||||0.294
90796825|NCT01346592|181472946|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H1N1 strain)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.0|18.7||||||At risk subjects.||18.7|-24|
90796826|NCT01346592|181472946|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H3N2 strain)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.2|18.9||||||At risk subjects.||18.9|-21.2|
90796827|NCT01346592|181472946|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (B strain)|14.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|29.5||||||At risk subjects.||29.5|-1.6|
90796828|NCT01346592|181472946|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H1N1 strain)|14.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.7|17.7||||||No risk subjects.||17.7|10.7|
90796829|NCT01346592|181472946|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H3N2 strain)|7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.6|9.8||||||No risk subjects.||9.8|4.6|
90796830|NCT01346592|181472946|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (B strain)|13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.7|16.4||||||No risk subjects||16.4|10.7|
90796831|NCT01346592|181472946|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H1N1 strain)|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.1|19.2||||||At risk subjects.||19.2|-26.1|
90796832|NCT01346592|181472946|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H3N2 strain)|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|27.3||||||At risk subjects.||27.3|-17.5|
90796833|NCT01346592|181472946|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (B strain)|12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|29.2||||||At risk subjects.||29.2|-4.4|
90796834|NCT01346592|181472946|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H1N1 strain)|11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.2|14.5||||||No risk subjects.||14.5|7.2|
90796835|NCT01346592|181472946|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H3N2 strain)|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|7.5||||||No risk subjects.||7.5|2.6|
90796836|NCT01346592|181472946|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (B strain)|13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.5|15.8||||||No risk subjects.||15.8|9.5|
90796837|NCT01346592|181472946|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H1N1 strain)|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.7|26.3||||||At risk subjects.||26.3|-24.7|
90796838|NCT01346592|181472946|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H3N2 strain)|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.9|30.3||||||At risk subjects.||30.3|-26.9|
90796839|NCT01346592|181472946|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (B strain)|9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.9|27.1||||||At risk subjects.||27.1|-16.9|
90796840|NCT01346592|181472946|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H1N1 strain)|16.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.4|20.2||||||No risk subjects.||20.2|12.4|
90796841|NCT01346592|181472946|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H3N2 strain)|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.1|10.5||||||No risk subjects||10.5|5.1|
90796842|NCT01346592|181472946|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (B strain)|15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|18.6||||||No risk subjects||18.6|12|
90796843|NCT01346592|181472946|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H1N1 strain)|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.1|25.5||||||At risk subjects||25.5|-27.1|
91011900|NCT02452892|181906537|SUPERIORITY|The persistence rate calculated based on Week 1 treatment group: 20 minutes LFMS, 60 minutes LFMS and sham therapy.||||||0.232||||||For 20min. LFMS, P-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. P-value estimated using Logistic Regression model including Wk2 baseline HAM-D6 total score, treatment, age \& gender as covariates.|Regression, Logistic|Non-responder imputation (NRI) for missing data, where missing post-baseline results were considered non-response||||||0.232
91011901|NCT02452892|181906538|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0932||||||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|P-value was estimated using ANCOVA model with treatment, age, \& gender as factors and baseline negative MADRS score as a covariate.||Estimates for LS Means, confidence intervals, difference in LS means and p-value are from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, sex as factors and baseline negative MADRS score as a covariate.||||0.0932
91011902|NCT02452892|181906538|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7509||||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|P-value was estimated using ANCOVA model with treatment, age, \& gender as factors and baseline negative MADRS score as a covariate.||Estimates for LS Means, confidence intervals, difference in LS means and p-value are from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, sex as factors and baseline negative MADRS score as a covariate.||||0.7509
90796844|NCT01346592|181472946|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H3N2 strain)|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.5|37.2||||||At risk subjects||37.2|-23.5|
90796845|NCT01346592|181472946|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (B strain)|16.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|38.0||||||At risk subjects.||38|-10.7|
91011903|NCT02452892|181906539|SUPERIORITY|Positive score is the sum of 10 items: 1,3,5,9,10,12,14,16,17,19.||||||0.2672||||||P-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|P-value estimated using ANCOVA model with treatment,age,\& gender as factors \& baseline positive PANAS score as a covariate.||||||0.2672
91053913|NCT02912650|181990990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.73|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.73|0.34|<0.001
91053914|NCT02912650|181990990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.13||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.27|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.27|-0.01|0.062
90796846|NCT01346592|181472946|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H1N1 strain)|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|10.4||||||No risk subjects.||10.4|-4.2|
90796847|NCT01346592|181472946|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H3N2 subjects)|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|11.9||||||No risk subjects.||11.9|-1.2|
90796848|NCT01346592|181472946|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (B strain)|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|15.1||||||No risk subjects.||15.1|2.9|
90796849|NCT01346592|181472946|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H1N1 strain)|-5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.4|32.0||||||At risk subjects.||32|-42.4|
90796850|NCT01346592|181472946|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H3N2 strain)|-10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.2|16.6||||||At risk subjects.||16.6|-41.2|
90796851|NCT01346592|181472946|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (B strain)|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|53.9||||||At risk subjects.||53.9|-7.1|
90796852|NCT01346592|181472946|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H1N1 strain)|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|16.4||||||No risk subjects.||16.4|1|
90796853|NCT01346592|181472946|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H3N2 strain)|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|16.1||||||No risk subjects.||16.1|2|
90796854|NCT01346592|181472946|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (B strain)|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|10.0||||||No risk subjects.||10|0|
90796855|NCT01346592|181472946|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H1N1 strain)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.1|43.0||||||At risk subjects.||43|-42.1|
90796856|NCT01346592|181472946|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H3N2 strain)|-10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.5|28.7||||||At risk subjects||28.7|-41.5|
90796857|NCT01346592|181472946|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (B strain)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.0|36.8||||||At risk subjects.||36.8|-29|
90796858|NCT01346592|181472947|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H1N1 strain)|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.4|12.8||||||No risk subjects.||12.8|6.4|
90796859|NCT01346592|181472947|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H3N2 strain)|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|6.4||||||No risk subjects.||6.4|1.8|
90796860|NCT01346592|181472947|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (B strain)|11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.6|13.9||||||No risk subjects.||13.9|8.6|
90796861|NCT01346592|181472947|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H1N1 strain)|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.7|14.9||||||At risk subjects.||14.9|-24.7|
90796862|NCT01346592|181472947|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H3N2 strain)|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|20.7||||||At risk subjects.||20.7|-14.4|
91011904|NCT02452892|181906539|SUPERIORITY|Positive score is the sum of 10 items: 1,3,5,9,10,12,14,16,17,19.||||||0.166||||||P-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|P-value estimated using ANCOVA model with treatment,age,\& gender as factors \& baseline positive PANAS score as a covariate.||||||0.1660
91011905|NCT02452892|181906540|SUPERIORITY|Negative score is sum of 10 items: 2,4,6,7,8,11,13,15,18,20.||||||0.0307||||||P-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. All missing values including the 72 data points in Item#2 were considered as random missing data.|ANCOVA|P-value estimated using ANCOVA model with treatment, age, \& gender as factors \& baseline negative PANAS score as a covariate.||"Due to item #2 error, analyses were done in the following manner to check robustness:~* All missing values including these 72 data points in item #2 were considered as random missing data (values posted in outcome measures).~* The 72 data points were removed \& the negative score for affected subjects \& visits were not calculated.~* The 72 data points were imputed using worst value imputation algorithm (using score =5 as extremely) while other random missing values imputed by average."||||0.0307
91053915|NCT02912650|181990990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.14|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.14|-0.14|0.977
91011906|NCT02452892|181906540|SUPERIORITY|Negative score is sum of 10 items: 2,4,6,7,8,11,13,15,18,20.||||||0.3537||||||"P-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. All missing values including the 72 data points in Item#2 were considered as random missing data.~."|ANCOVA|P-value estimated using ANCOVA model with treatment, age, \& gender as factors \& baseline negative PANAS score as a covariate.||"Due to item #2 error, analyses were done in the following manner to check robustness:~All missing values including these 72 data points in item #2 were considered as random missing data (values posted in outcome measures).~The 72 data points were removed \& the negative score for affected subjects \& visits were not calculated.~The 72 data points were imputed using worst value imputation algorithm (using score =5 as extremely) while other random missing values imputed by average."||||0.3537
91053916|NCT02912650|181990990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.6|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.60|0.21|<0.001
90796863|NCT01346592|181472947|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (B strain)|9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|23.4||||||At risk subjects.||23.4|-6.8|
90796864|NCT01346592|181472947|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H1N1 strain)|15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.3|18.1||||||No risk subjects.||18.1|11.3|
90796865|NCT01346592|181472947|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H3N2 strain)|7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|9.1||||||No risk subjects.||9.1|4.2|
90796866|NCT01346592|181472947|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (B strain)|13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.5|16.1||||||No risk subjects.||16.1|10.5|
90796867|NCT01346592|181472947|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H1N1 strain)|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.3|15.4||||||At risk subjects||15.4|-25.3|
90796868|NCT01346592|181472947|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H3N2 strain)|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|24.2||||||At risk subjects.||24.2|-12.7|
90796869|NCT01346592|181472947|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group differences (B strain)|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|23.2||||||At risk subjects.||23.2|-7.8|
90796870|NCT01346592|181472947|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H1N1 strain)|12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.2|15.3||||||No risk subjects.||15.3|8.2|
90796871|NCT01346592|181472947|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H3N2 strain)|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|7.4||||||No risk subjects.||7.4|2.5|
91011907|NCT02452892|181906541|SUPERIORITY|Negative score is sum of 10 items: 2,4,6,7,8,11,13,15,18,20.||||||0.0848||||||P-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. All missing values including the 72 data points in Item#2 were treated where incorrect Item #2 data was removed.|ANCOVA|P-value estimated using ANCOVA model with treatment, age, \& gender as factors \& baseline negative PANAS score as a covariate.||"Due to item #2 error, analyses were done in the following manner to check robustness:~All missing values including these 72 data points in item #2 were considered as random missing data (values posted in outcome measures).~The 72 data points were removed \& the negative score for affected subjects \& visits were not calculated.~The 72 data points were imputed using worst value imputation algorithm (using score =5 as extremely) while other random missing values imputed by average."||||0.0848
90796872|NCT01346592|181472947|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (B strain)|12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.2|15.3||||||No risk subjects.||15.3|9.2|
90796873|NCT01346592|181472947|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H1N1 strain)|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.5|20.2||||||At risk subjects.||20.2|-28.5|
90796874|NCT01346592|181472947|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H3N2 strain)|11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|33.5||||||At risk subjects.||33.5|-14.9|
90796875|NCT01346592|181472947|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (B strain)|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.7|19.7||||||At risk subjects.||19.7|-20.7|
90796876|NCT01346592|181472947|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H1N1 strain)|16.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.6|20.1||||||No risk subjects.||20.1|12.6|
90796877|NCT01346592|181472947|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H3N2 strain)|7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.6|9.8||||||No risk subjects||9.8|4.6|
91011908|NCT02452892|181906541|SUPERIORITY|Negative score is sum of 10 items: 2,4,6,7,8,11,13,15,18,20.||||||0.593||||||P-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. All missing values including the 72 data points in Item#2 were treated where Incorrect Item #2 data was removed.|ANCOVA|P-value estimated using ANCOVA model with treatment, age, \& gender as factors \& baseline negative PANAS score as a covariate.||"Due to item #2 error, analyses were done in the following manner to check robustness:~All missing values including these 72 data points in item #2 were considered as random missing data (values posted in outcome measures).~The 72 data points were removed \& the negative score for affected subjects \& visits were not calculated.~The 72 data points were imputed using worst value imputation algorithm (using score =5 as extremely) while other random missing values imputed by average."||||0.5930
91011909|NCT02452892|181906542|SUPERIORITY|Negative score is sum of 10 items: 2,4,6,7,8,11,13,15,18,20.||||||0.0307||||||P-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. All missing values including the 72 data points in Item#2 were treated where incorrect Item #2 data was imputed using worst possible value.|ANCOVA|P-value estimated using ANCOVA model with treatment, age, \& gender as factors \& baseline negative PANAS score as a covariate.||"Due to item #2 error, analyses were done in the following manner to check robustness:~All missing values including these 72 data points in item #2 were considered as random missing data (values posted in outcome measures).~The 72 data points were removed \& the negative score for affected subjects \& visits were not calculated.~The 72 data points were imputed using worst value imputation algorithm (using score =5 as extremely) while other random missing values imputed by average."||||0.0307
91053917|NCT02912650|181990990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.73|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.73|0.34|<0.001
90796878|NCT01346592|181472947|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (B strain)|15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.9|18.3||||||No risk subjects.||18.3|11.9|
90796879|NCT01346592|181472947|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H1N1 strain)|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.5|20.2||||||At risk subjects.||20.2|-28.5|
90796880|NCT01346592|181472947|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H3N2 strain)|11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|33.5||||||At risk subjects.||33.5|-14.9|
90796881|NCT01346592|181472947|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (B strain)|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|29.3||||||At risk subjects.||29.3|-14|
90796882|NCT01346592|181472947|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H1N1 strain)|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|9.5||||||No risk subjects.||9.5|-3.8|
90796883|NCT01346592|181472947|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H3N2 strain)|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|10.0||||||No risk subjects.||10|-1.8|
90796884|NCT01346592|181472947|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (B strain)|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|12.5||||||No risk subjects.||12.5|1.5|
91053918|NCT02912650|181990990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.13||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.01|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.01|-0.27|0.069
91053919|NCT02912650|181990990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.38|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.38|0.90|<0.001
90796885|NCT01346592|181472947|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H1N1 strain)|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.7|27.9||||||At risk subjects.||27.9|-40.7|
90796886|NCT01346592|181472947|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H3N2 strain)|-9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.4|14.3||||||At risk subjects.||14.3|-38.4|
90796887|NCT01346592|181472947|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (B strain)|21.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|48.1||||||At risk subjects.||48.1|-7.9|
90796888|NCT01346592|181472947|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H1N1 strain)|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|18.5||||||No risk subjects.||18.5|3|
90796889|NCT01346592|181472947|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H3N2 strain)|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|15.6||||||No risk subjects.||15.6|2.2|
90796890|NCT01346592|181472947|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (B strain)|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|9.6||||||No risk subjects.||9.6|0|
90796891|NCT01346592|181472947|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H1N1 strain)|-5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.7|35.0||||||At risk subjects.||35|-41.7|
90796892|NCT01346592|181472947|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H3N2 strain)|-9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.6|23.4||||||At risk subjects.||23.4|-38.6|
90796893|NCT01346592|181472947|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (B strain)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.9|31.0||||||At risk subjects.||31|-26.9|
90796894|NCT01346592|181472948|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT Ratio (H1N1 strain)|2.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.91|2.76||||||No risk subjects.||2.76|1.91|
90796895|NCT01346592|181472948|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT Ratio (H3N2 strain)|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|1.89||||||No risk subjects.||1.89|1.35|
90796896|NCT01346592|181472948|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (B strain)|2.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.57|3.31||||||No risk subjects.||3.31|2.57|
91011910|NCT02452892|181906542|SUPERIORITY|Negative score is sum of 10 items: 2,4,6,7,8,11,13,15,18,20.||||||0.3907||||||P-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. All missing values including the 72 data points in Item#2 were treated where incorrect Item #2 data was imputed using worst possible value.|ANCOVA|P-value estimated using ANCOVA model with treatment, age, \& gender as factors \& baseline negative PANAS score as a covariate.||"Due to item #2 error, analyses were done in the following manner to check robustness:~All missing values including these 72 data points in item #2 were considered as random missing data (values posted in outcome measures).~The 72 data points were removed \& the negative score for affected subjects \& visits were not calculated.~The 72 data points were imputed using worst value imputation algorithm (using score =5 as extremely) while other random missing values imputed by average."||||0.3907
90796897|NCT01346592|181472948|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (H1N1 strain)|1.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.93||||||At risk subjects.||3.93|0.6|
90796898|NCT01346592|181472948|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (H3N2 strain)|2.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|4.61||||||At risk subjects.||4.61|0.89|
90796899|NCT01346592|181472948|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (B strain)|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|4.67||||||At risk subjects.||4.67|1.34|
90796900|NCT01346592|181472948|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (H1N1 strain)|3.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.77|4.01||||||No risk subjects.||4.01|2.77|
90796901|NCT01346592|181472948|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (H3N2 strain)|2.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.75|2.45||||||No risk subjects||2.45|1.75|
90796902|NCT01346592|181472948|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (B strain)|3.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.72|3.49||||||No risk subjects||3.49|2.72|
90796903|NCT01346592|181472948|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (H1N1 strain)|1.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|4.5||||||At risk subjects.||4.5|0.65|
90796904|NCT01346592|181472948|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (H3N2 strain)|3.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|7.51||||||At risk subjects.||7.51|1.38|
90796905|NCT01346592|181472948|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (B strain)|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|3.98||||||At risk subjects.||3.98|1.1|
90796906|NCT01346592|181472948|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|GMT ratio (H1N1 strain)|2.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|3.21||||||No risk subjects.||3.21|2.1|
90796907|NCT01346592|181472948|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|GMT ratio (H3N2 strain)|2.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.71|2.52||||||No risk subjects.||2.52|1.71|
90796908|NCT01346592|181472948|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|GMT ratio (B strain)|3.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.22|4.33||||||No risk subjects.||4.33|3.22|
90796909|NCT01346592|181472948|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|GMT ratio (H1N1 strain)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|4.4||||||At risk subjects.||4.4|0.45|
90796910|NCT01346592|181472948|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|GMT ratio (H3N2 strain)|2.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|8.66||||||At risk subjects.||8.66|0.94|
90796911|NCT01346592|181472948|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|GMT ratio (B strain)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|4.4||||||At risk subjects.||4.4|0.45|
90796912|NCT01346592|181472948|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|GMT ratio (H1N1 strain)|3.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.97|4.54||||||No risk subjects.||4.54|2.97|
91011911|NCT03137173|181906544|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was assessed by the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the between-group difference (ceftobiprole minus vancomycin+aztreonam) using a 10% non-inferiority margin in the ITT population. Difference was computed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights method, adjusted for geographical region and actual type of ABSSSI.|Risk Difference (RD)|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|7.8||||||||7.8|-1.2|
91011912|NCT03137173|181906545|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was assessed by the two-sided 95% CI of the between-group difference (ceftobiprole minus vancomycin+aztreonam) using a 10% non-inferiority margin in the ITT population. Difference was computed using the CMH weights method, adjusted for geographical region and actual type of ABSSSI.|Risk Difference (RD)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|5.6||||||||5.6|-3.5|
91011913|NCT03137173|181906546|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was assessed by the two-sided 95% CI of the between-group difference (ceftobiprole minus vancomycin plus aztreonam) using a 10% non-inferiority margin in the CE populations. Difference was computed using the CMH weights method, adjusted for geographical region and actual type of ABSSSI.|Risk Difference (RD)|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|5.6||||||||5.6|-0.3|
91053920|NCT02912650|181990990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.46|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.46|0.12|<0.001
90796913|NCT01346592|181472948|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|GMT ratio (H3N2 strain)|2.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.29|3.37||||||No risk subjects.||3.37|2.29|
90796914|NCT01346592|181472948|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|GMT ratio (B strain)|4.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.46|4.65||||||No risk subjects.||4.65|3.46|
90796915|NCT01346592|181472948|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|GMT ratio (H1N1 strain)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|4.4||||||At risk subjects.||4.4|0.45|
90796916|NCT01346592|181472948|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (H3N2 strain)|4.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|13.0||||||At risk subjects.||13|1.43|
90796917|NCT01346592|181472948|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (B strain)|3.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.67|8.15||||||At risk subjects.||8.15|1.67|
90796918|NCT01346592|181472948|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (H1N1 strain)|1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|2.04||||||No risk subjects.||2.04|0.89|
91011914|NCT03512028|181906570|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.2||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||Interaction effect of group x time from pre- to post- intervention|ANOVA||Estimated difference between slopes|Mixed model ANOVA with group (RLIC, Sham) and time (pre-, post-, and follow-up ). The main analysis of interest is the group x time interaction from pre- to post-.||||0.002
91011915|NCT03512028|181906570|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||Main effect of time|ANOVA|||||||0.001
91053921|NCT02912650|181990990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.22||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.39|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.39|0.05|0.011
90796919|NCT01346592|181472948|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (H3N2 strain)|1.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|2.22||||||No risk subjects.||2.22|1.14|
90796920|NCT01346592|181472948|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (B strain)|1.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.15||||||No risk subjects.||2.15|1.3|
90796921|NCT01346592|181472948|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (H1N1 strain)|1.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|10.0||||||At risk subjects.||10|0.29|
90796922|NCT01346592|181472948|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (H3N2 strain)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|4.01||||||At risk subjects.||4.01|0.33|
90796923|NCT01346592|181472948|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (B strain)|1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|3.94||||||At risk subjects.||3.94|0.53|
91011916|NCT03512028|181906570|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.844||||||Main effect of group|ANOVA|||||||0.844
91011917|NCT01522391|181906571|OTHER||Ratio between geometric means|0.045||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|0.491|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.491|0.004|0.012
91011918|NCT01522391|181906572|OTHER||Ratio between geometric means|0.045||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|0.491|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.491|0.004|0.012
90796924|NCT01346592|181472948|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (H1N1 strain)|2.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|3.39||||||No risk subjects||3.39|1.48|
90796925|NCT01346592|181472948|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (H3N2 strain)|1.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|2.46||||||No risk subjects.||2.46|1.26|
90796926|NCT01346592|181472948|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (B strain)|1.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|2.04||||||No risk subjects||2.04|1.24|
90796927|NCT01346592|181472948|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (H1N1 strain)|2.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|18.0||||||At risk subjects.||18|0.34|
90796928|NCT01346592|181472948|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (H3N2 strain)|1.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|7.92||||||At risk subjects.||7.92|0.49|
90796929|NCT01346592|181472948|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (B strain)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|2.16||||||At risk subjects.||2.16|0.23|
90796930|NCT01346592|181472951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio (H1N1 strain)|4.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.34|4.95||||||GMTs were considered to be statistically significantly higher if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval around the vaccine group ratio was \>1.0||4.95|3.34|
90796931|NCT01346592|181472951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio (H3N2 strain)|1.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.74|2.18||||||statistically significantly greater response was concluded if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval around the vaccine group ratio is \>1.0||2.18|1.74|
90796932|NCT01346592|181472951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio (B strain)|2.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.73|2.39||||||statistically significantly greater response was concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI around the vaccine group ratio was \>1.0||2.39|1.73|
90796933|NCT01346592|181472951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio (H1N1 strain)|3.82||||||95.0|3.14|4.64||||||statistically significantly greater response was concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI around the vaccine group ratio was \>1.0||4.64|3.14|
91011919|NCT01522391|181906573|OTHER||Ratio between geometric means|0.242||||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.022|2.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7||2.66|0.022|0.242
90796934|NCT01346592|181472951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio (H3N2 strain)|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.15|2.68||||||statistically significantly greater response was concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI around the vaccine group ratio was \>1.0||2.68|2.15|
90796935|NCT01346592|181472951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio (B strain)|1.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|2.29||||||statistically significantly greater response was concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI around the vaccine group ratio was \>1.0||2.29|1.65|
90796936|NCT04604431|181472954|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|29.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Odds ratios will be computed to describe the odds of adherence for the iREACH intervention compared to the control intervention for low-risk infants.||29.1|6.9|<0.001
90796937|NCT04604431|181472954|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.1||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|8.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Odds ratios will be computed to describe the odds of adherence for the iREACH intervention compared to the control intervention for high-risk infants.||8.8|1.1|0.034
90796938|NCT00643279|181472959|SUPERIORITY|Survival estimate at 6-months|6-month survival rate|91.5|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|88.7||||||||||88.7|
90796939|NCT00643279|181472960|SUPERIORITY|Survival estimate at 6-months|6-month survival rate|100.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|98.9||||||||||98.9|
90796940|NCT03274466|181472990|SUPERIORITY|Modified Intent-To-Treat|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.22||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.59||Threshold for statistical significance: alpha = 0.048|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.59|0.08|0.0013
90796941|NCT03274466|181472991|SUPERIORITY|Modified Intent-To-Treat|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.33||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.7||Threshold for Statistical Significance: alpha = 0.048|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.70|0.07|0.1680
90796942|NCT03274466|181472992|SUPERIORITY|Modified Intent-To-Treat|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.34||||0.3386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|3.39||Threshold for Statistical Significance: alpha = 0.048|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.39|0.04|0.3386
90796943|NCT03274466|181472993|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.22||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.59||Threshold for statistical significance: alpha = 0.048|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Sensitivity analysis of the Primary Endpoint using the Intent-To-Treat population.||0.59|0.08|0.0013
90796944|NCT01576783|181473026|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in Linoleic acid (18:2n-6) mol% between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|0.9||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05)|Mixed Models Analysis|||The change in erythrocyte fatty acids and the change in dietary DHA and EPA (aside from the supplement) were examined by treatment group using mixed effects regression, again with a random-effect for within-family dependence.||0.9|-3.4|<0.001
90796945|NCT01576783|181473026|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in Arachidonic acid (20:4n-6) mol% between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|2.8||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05)|Mixed Models Analysis|||The change in erythrocyte fatty acids and the change in dietary DHA and EPA (aside from the supplement) were examined by treatment group using mixed effects regression, again with a random-effect for within-family dependence.||2.8|1.7|<0.001
90796946|NCT01576783|181473026|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in Total n-6 mol% between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.7||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05)|Mixed Models Analysis|||The change in erythrocyte fatty acids and the change in dietary DHA and EPA (aside from the supplement) were examined by treatment group using mixed effects regression, again with a random-effect for within-family dependence.||1.7|-1.0|0.61
91011920|NCT01522391|181906573|OTHER||Ratio between geometric means|0.428||||0.482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.039|4.696|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 21||4.696|0.039|0.482
91011921|NCT01522391|181906574|OTHER||Ratio between geometric means|0.242||||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.022|2.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7||2.660|0.022|0.242
90796947|NCT01576783|181473026|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in α-linolenic acid (18:3n-3) between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05)|Mixed Models Analysis|||The change in erythrocyte fatty acids and the change in dietary DHA and EPA (aside from the supplement) were examined by treatment group using mixed effects regression, again with a random-effect for within-family dependence.||0.1|-0.1|0.40
90796948|NCT01576783|181473026|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in Eicosapentaenoic acid (20:5n-3) between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.1||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05)|Mixed Models Analysis|||The change in erythrocyte fatty acids and the change in dietary DHA and EPA (aside from the supplement) were examined by treatment group using mixed effects regression, again with a random-effect for within-family dependence.||0.1|0.0|0.12
90796949|NCT01576783|181473026|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in Docosapentaenoic acid (22:5n-3) between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.0||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05)|Mixed Models Analysis|||The change in erythrocyte fatty acids and the change in dietary DHA and EPA (aside from the supplement) were examined by treatment group using mixed effects regression, again with a random-effect for within-family dependence.||0.0|-0.1|<0.001
90796950|NCT01576783|181473026|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in Docosahexaenoic acid (22:6n-3) between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.5||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05)|Mixed Models Analysis|||The change in erythrocyte fatty acids and the change in dietary DHA and EPA (aside from the supplement) were examined by treatment group using mixed effects regression, again with a random-effect for within-family dependence.||1.5|1.0|<0.001
90796951|NCT01576783|181473026|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in Total n-3 between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.4||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05)|Mixed Models Analysis|||The change in erythrocyte fatty acids and the change in dietary DHA and EPA (aside from the supplement) were examined by treatment group using mixed effects regression, again with a random-effect for within-family dependence.||1.4|0.9|<0.001
90796952|NCT01576783|181473027|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in n-6:n-3 ratio between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|-3.7||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05)|Mixed Models Analysis|||The change in erythrocyte fatty acids and the change in dietary DHA and EPA (aside from the supplement) were examined by treatment group using mixed effects regression, again with a random-effect for within-family dependence.||-3.7|-5.5|<0.001
90796953|NCT01576783|181473030|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in Effortful Control Composite scores between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo).||||||0.13||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05)|Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses compared the change in scores between groups, using mixed effects regression that leveraged maximum likelihood to include missing data.||||||.13
90796954|NCT01576783|181473030|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in Activity Level Composite scores between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo).||||||0.76||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.76
90796955|NCT01576783|181473031|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in Cognitive Composite scores between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo).||||||0.66||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05)|Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses compared the change in scores between groups, using mixed effects regression that leveraged maximum likelihood to include missing data.||A sample of 448 was planned to achieve \>80% power to detect a 4.2-point difference (0.27-standard deviation (SD)) in Bayley-III cognitive composite scores with 10% loss to follow-up.The investigational product manufacturer discontinued production once 377 were enrolled, thereby capping enrollment. That sample provided 80% power to detect a 0.29-SD difference in Bayley-III scores.||||.66
90796956|NCT01576783|181473031|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in Language Composite scores between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo).||||||0.55||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05)|Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses compared the change in scores between groups, using mixed effects regression that leveraged maximum likelihood to include missing data.||A sample of 448 was planned to achieve \>80% power to detect a 4.2-point difference (0.27-standard deviation (SD)) in Bayley-III cognitive composite scores with 10% loss to follow-up.The investigational product manufacturer discontinued production once 377 were enrolled, thereby capping enrollment. That sample provided 80% power to detect a 0.29-SD difference in Bayley-III scores.||||.55
90796957|NCT01576783|181473031|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in Motor Composite scores between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo).||||||0.88||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05)|Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses compared the change in scores between groups, using mixed effects regression that leveraged maximum likelihood to include missing data.||A sample of 448 was planned to achieve \>80% power to detect a 4.2-point difference (0.27-standard deviation (SD)) in Bayley-III cognitive composite scores with 10% loss to follow-up.The investigational product manufacturer discontinued production once 377 were enrolled, thereby capping enrollment. That sample provided 80% power to detect a 0.29-SD difference in Bayley-III scores.||||.88
90796958|NCT01576783|181473032|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in Nocturnal Sleep Duration between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo).||||||0.11||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses compared the change in scores between groups, using mixed effects regression that leveraged maximum likelihood to include missing data.||||||.11
90796959|NCT01576783|181473032|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in daytime sleep duration between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo).||||||0.47||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses compared the change in scores between groups, using mixed effects regression that leveraged maximum likelihood to include missing data.||||||0.47
91011922|NCT01522391|181906574|OTHER||Ratio between geometric means|0.428||||0.482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.039|4.696|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 21||4.696|0.039|0.482
91011923|NCT01522391|181906575|OTHER||Ratio between geometric means|0.288||||0.395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.016|5.221|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7||5.221|0.016|0.395
91011924|NCT01522391|181906575|OTHER||Ratio between geometric means|0.067||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|1.218|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14||1.218|0.004|0.067
90796960|NCT01576783|181473032|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in total sleep duration between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo).||||||0.32||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses compared the change in scores between groups, using mixed effects regression that leveraged maximum likelihood to include missing data.||||||0.32
90796961|NCT01576783|181473033|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in weight-for-age z scores between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo).||||||0.99||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05)|Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses compared the change in scores between groups, using mixed-effects regression that leveraged maximum likelihood to account for missing data.||||||0.99
90796962|NCT01576783|181473033|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in length-for-age z scores between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo).||||||0.27||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05)|Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses compared the change in scores between groups, using mixed-effects regression that leveraged maximum likelihood to account for missing data.||||||0.27
90796963|NCT01576783|181473033|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in head circumference-for-age z scores between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo).||||||0.39||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05)|Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses compared the change in scores between groups, using mixed-effects regression that leveraged maximum likelihood to account for missing data.||||||0.39
90796964|NCT01576783|181473033|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in mid upper arm circumference-for-age z scores between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo).||||||0.25||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05)|Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses compared the change in scores between groups, using mixed-effects regression that leveraged maximum likelihood to account for missing data.||||||0.25
90796965|NCT01576783|181473033|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in triceps skinfold-for-age z scores between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo).||||||0.85||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05)|Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses compared the change in scores between groups, using mixed-effects regression that leveraged maximum likelihood to account for missing data.||||||0.85
90796966|NCT01576783|181473033|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in subscapular skinfold-for-age z scores between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo).||||||0.82||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05)|Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses compared the change in scores between groups, using mixed-effects regression that leveraged maximum likelihood to account for missing data.||||||0.82
90796967|NCT01576783|181473034|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the scores between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo) at the end of the trial.||||||0.42||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis|Continuous scores at the end of the trial were compared using a linear mixed model.||||||0.42
90796968|NCT01576783|181473034|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the scores between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo) at the end of the trial.||||||0.68||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis|Continuous scores at the end of the trial were compared using a linear mixed model.||||||0.68
90796969|NCT01576783|181473034|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the scores between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo) at the end of the trial.||||||0.78||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis|Continuous scores at the end of the trial were compared using a linear mixed model.||||||0.78
90796970|NCT01576783|181473034|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the scores between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo) at the end of the trial.||||||0.32||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis|Continuous scores at the end of the trial were compared using a linear mixed model.||||||0.32
91011925|NCT01522391|181906575|OTHER||Ratio between geometric means|0.484||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.027|8.787|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 21||8.787|0.027|0.620
90796971|NCT01576783|181473034|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the scores between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo) at the end of the trial.||||||0.97||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis|Continuous scores at the end of the trial were compared using a linear mixed model.||||||0.97
90796972|NCT01576783|181473034|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the scores between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo) at the end of the trial.||||||0.62||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis|Continuous scores at the end of the trial were compared using a linear mixed model.||||||0.62
90796973|NCT01576783|181473034|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the scores between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo) at the end of the trial.||||||0.69||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis|Continuous scores at the end of the trial were compared using a linear mixed model.||||||0.69
90796974|NCT01576783|181473035|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the scores between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo) at the end of the trial.||||||0.22||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis|Continuous scores at the end of the trial were compared using a linear mixed model.||||||0.22
90796975|NCT01576783|181473036|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in Nocturnal Sleep Duration between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo).||||||0.23||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.23
90796976|NCT01576783|181473036|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in Daytime Sleep Duration between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo).||||||0.07||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.07
90796977|NCT01576783|181473036|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in Total Sleep Duration between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo).||||||0.06||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.06
90796978|NCT01576783|181473037|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the scores between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo) at post-intervention follow-up (median of 8.3 months (IQR = 4.8) after trial completion and supplementation stopped).||||||0.51||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis|Continuous scores at the end of the trial were compared using a linear mixed model.||||||0.51
91011926|NCT01522391|181906576|OTHER||Ratio between geometric means|0.287||||0.403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.015|5.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7||5.550|0.015|0.403
91011927|NCT01522391|181906576|OTHER||Ratio between geometric means|0.032||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.002|0.583|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14||0.583|0.002|0.021
91011928|NCT01522391|181906576|OTHER||Ratio between geometric means|0.271||||0.368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.015|4.779|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 21||4.779|0.015|0.368
91011929|NCT01522391|181906577|OTHER||Ratio between geometric means|1.045||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.106|10.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7||10.32|0.106|0.970
90796979|NCT01576783|181473038|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the scores between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo) at post-intervention follow-up (median of 8.3 months (IQR = 4.8) after trial completion and supplementation stopped).||||||0.09||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models compared continuous scores at follow-up between treatment groups. Model controlled for baseline scores.||||||0.09
90796980|NCT01576783|181473039|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the scores between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo) at post-intervention follow-up (median of 8.3 months (IQR = 4.8) after trial completion and supplementation stopped).||||||0.29||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models compared continuous scores at follow-up between treatment groups. Model controlled for baseline scores.||||||0.29
90796981|NCT01576783|181473039|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the scores between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo) at post-intervention follow-up (median of 8.3 months (IQR = 4.8) after trial completion and supplementation stopped).||||||0.11||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models compared continuous scores at follow-up between treatment groups. Model controlled for baseline scores.||||||0.11
90796982|NCT01576783|181473039|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the scores between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo) at post-intervention follow-up (median of 8.3 months (IQR = 4.8) after trial completion and supplementation stopped).||||||0.23||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models compared continuous scores at follow-up between treatment groups.||||||0.23
90796983|NCT01576783|181473039|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the scores between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo) at post-intervention follow-up (median of 8.3 months (IQR = 4.8) after trial completion and supplementation stopped).||||||0.29||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models compared continuous scores at follow-up between treatment groups.||||||0.29
90796984|NCT01576783|181473039|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the scores between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo) at post-intervention follow-up (median of 8.3 months (IQR = 4.8) after trial completion and supplementation stopped).||||||0.06||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models compared continuous scores at follow-up between treatment groups.||||||0.06
90796985|NCT01576783|181473039|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the scores between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo) at post-intervention follow-up (median of 8.3 months (IQR = 4.8) after trial completion and supplementation stopped).||||||0.14||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models compared continuous scores at follow-up between treatment groups.||||||0.14
90796986|NCT01576783|181473039|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the scores between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo) at post-intervention follow-up (median of 8.3 months (IQR = 4.8) after trial completion and supplementation stopped).||||||0.13||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models compared continuous scores at follow-up between treatment groups.||||||0.13
90796987|NCT01576783|181473039|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the scores between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo) at post-intervention follow-up (median of 8.3 months (IQR = 4.8) after trial completion and supplementation stopped).||||||0.16||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models compared continuous scores at follow-up between treatment groups.||||||0.16
90796988|NCT01576783|181473040|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the scores between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo) at post-intervention follow-up (median of 8.3 months (IQR = 4.8) after trial completion and supplementation stopped).||||||0.98|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models compared continuous scores at follow-up between treatment groups.||||||0.98
91011930|NCT01522391|181906577|OTHER||Ratio between geometric means|0.045||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.005|0.447|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14||0.447|0.005|0.009
91011931|NCT01522391|181906577|OTHER||Ratio between geometric means|0.36||||0.377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.036|3.556|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 21||3.556|0.036|0.377
90796989|NCT01576783|181473040|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the scores between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo) at post-intervention follow-up (median of 8.3 months (IQR = 4.8) after trial completion and supplementation stopped).||||||0.67||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models compared continuous scores at follow-up between treatment groups.||||||0.67
90796990|NCT01576783|181473041|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the scores between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo) at post-intervention follow-up (median of 8.3 months (IQR = 4.8) after trial completion and supplementation stopped).||||||0.047||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models compared continuous scores at follow-up between treatment groups.||||||0.047
90796991|NCT01576783|181473042|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the scores between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo) at post-intervention follow-up (median of 8.3 months (IQR = 4.8) after trial completion and supplementation stopped).||||||0.2||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models compared continuous scores at follow-up between treatment groups. Model controlled for baseline scores.||||||0.20
90796992|NCT01576783|181473043|OTHER|Results are the comparison of proportion of those with a developmental condition between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo) at post-intervention follow-up (median of 8.3 months (IQR = 4.8) after trial completion and supplementation stopped).|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|3.32||||||||3.32|0.80|
90796993|NCT01576783|181473044|OTHER|Results are the comparison of proportion of those with a behavioral condition between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo) at post-intervention follow-up (median of 8.3 months (IQR = 4.8) after trial completion and supplementation stopped).|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|39.15||||||||39.15|0.52|
90796994|NCT01819272|181473106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann Estimation|-9.0||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|1.0||p-value for pair-wise comparison without adjustment|Kruskal-Wallis|||||1.0|-21.0|0.0670
91011932|NCT01522391|181906578|OTHER||Ratio between geometric means|0.961||||0.974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.081|11.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7||11.43|0.081|0.974
91011933|NCT01522391|181906578|OTHER||Ratio between geometric means|0.046||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|0.512|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14||0.512|0.004|0.013
91011934|NCT01522391|181906578|OTHER||Ratio between geometric means|0.447||||0.504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.041|4.883|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 21||4.883|0.041|0.504
91011935|NCT01522391|181906579|OTHER||Ratio between geometric means|0.242||||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.022|2.659|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7||2.659|0.022|0.242
90796995|NCT01819272|181473106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann Estimation|-14.0||||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|-4.0||p-value for pair-wise comparison without adjustment|Kruskal-Wallis|||||-4.0|-22.0|0.0057
90796996|NCT01819272|181473106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann Estimation|-12.0||||0.1095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.0|3.0||p-value for pair-wise comparison without adjustment|Kruskal-Wallis|||||3.0|-25.0|0.1095
90796997|NCT01819272|181473106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann Estimation|-12.0||||0.0097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.0|-3.0||p-value for pair-wise comparison without adjustment|Kruskal-Wallis|||||-3.0|-23.0|0.0097
90796998|NCT01819272|181473106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann Estimation|-28.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.0|-17.0||p-value for pair-wise comparison without adjustment|Kruskal-Wallis|||||-17.0|-42.0|<0.0001
90796999|NCT01819272|181473107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann Estimation|-106.0||||0.0226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-208.0|-16.0||p-value for pair-wise comparison without adjustment|Kruskal-Wallis|||||-16.00|-208.0|0.0226
90797000|NCT01819272|181473107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann Estimation|-106.0||||0.0068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-180.0|-32.0||p-value for pair-wise comparison without adjustment|Kruskal-Wallis|||||-32.00|-180.0|0.0068
90797001|NCT01819272|181473107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann Estimation|-152.0||||0.0071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-252.0|-42.0||p-value for pair-wise comparison without adjustment|Kruskal-Wallis|||||-42.00|-252.0|0.0071
90797002|NCT01819272|181473107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann Estimation|-101.0||||0.0405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-208.0|-4.0||p-value for pair-wise comparison without adjustment|Kruskal-Wallis|||||-4.00|-208.0|0.0405
90797003|NCT01819272|181473107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann Estimation|-224.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-334.0|-118.0||p-value for pair-wise comparison without adjustment|Kruskal-Wallis|||||-118.0|-334.0|<.0001
90797004|NCT01819272|181473108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean|-0.48||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.12|||ANCOVA|Factor for treatment and baseline HbA1c as a covariate||||-0.12|-0.85|0.0100
90797005|NCT01819272|181473108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean|-0.45||||0.0153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.09|||ANCOVA|Factor for treatment and baseline HbA1c as a covariate||||-0.09|-0.81|0.0153
91011936|NCT01522391|181906579|OTHER||Ratio between geometric means|0.045||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|0.491|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14||0.491|0.004|0.012
90797006|NCT01819272|181473108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean|-0.35||||0.0611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.02|||ANCOVA|Factor for treatment and baseline HbA1c as a covariate||||0.02|-0.71|0.0611
90797007|NCT01819272|181473108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean|-0.45||||0.0188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.08|||ANCOVA|Factor for treatment and baseline HbA1c as acovariate||||-0.08|-0.83|0.0188
90797008|NCT01819272|181473108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean|-0.67||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|-0.29|||ANCOVA|Factor for treatment and baseline HbA1c as a covariate||||-0.29|-1.04|0.0006
90797009|NCT03021486|181473109|OTHER|||||||0.71|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.71
90797010|NCT03021486|181473111|OTHER|||||||0.86|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.86
90797011|NCT03021486|181473112|OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||Two-tailed Fisher's exact test|||||||0.12
90797012|NCT03021486|181473113|OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||Two-tailed Fisher's exact test|||||||0.007
90797013|NCT03021486|181473114|OTHER|||||||0.83|||||||Two-tailed Fisher's exact test|||Perceived Comfort level as assessed by caregiver||||0.83
90797014|NCT03021486|181473114|OTHER|||||||0.82|||||||Two-tailed Fisher's exact test|||Perceived agitation level as assessed by caregiver||||0.82
90797015|NCT03021486|181473115|OTHER|||||||0.82|||||||Two-tailed Fisher's exact test|||Perceived Comfort level as assessed by nurse||||0.82
90797016|NCT03021486|181473115|OTHER|||||||0.91|||||||Two-tailed Fisher's exact test|||Perceived agitation level as assessed by nurse||||0.91
90797017|NCT03021486|181473116|OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Nursing assessment, disorientation to time - frequency||||0.12
90797018|NCT03021486|181473116|OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Nursing assessment, disorientation to place - frequency||||0.07
90797019|NCT03021486|181473116|OTHER|||||||0.051|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Nursing assessment, visual hallucination - frequency||||0.051
90797020|NCT03021486|181473116|OTHER|||||||0.048|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Nursing assessment, tactile hallucination - frequency||||0.048
90797021|NCT03021486|181473116|OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Nursing assessment, auditory hallucination - frequency||||0.15
90797022|NCT03021486|181473116|OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Nursing assessment, delusional thoughts - frequency||||0.10
90797023|NCT03021486|181473116|OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Nursing assessment, psychomotor agitation- frequency||||0.15
90797024|NCT03021486|181473116|OTHER|||||||0.98|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Nursing assessment, disorientation to time - distress||||0.98
90797025|NCT03021486|181473116|OTHER|||||||0.93|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Nursing assessment, disorientation to place - distress||||0.93
90797026|NCT03021486|181473116|OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Nursing assessment, visual hallucination - distress||||0.08
90797027|NCT03021486|181473116|OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Nursing assessment, tactile hallucination - distress||||0.28
90797028|NCT03021486|181473116|OTHER|||||||0.83|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Nursing assessment, auditory hallucination - distress||||0.83
90797029|NCT03021486|181473116|OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Nursing assessment, delusional thoughts - distress||||0.22
90797030|NCT03021486|181473116|OTHER|||||||0.75|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Nursing assessment, psychomotor agitation - distress||||0.75
90797031|NCT03021486|181473117|OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.09
90797032|NCT03021486|181473118|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Mean change in pain.||||0.02
90797033|NCT03021486|181473118|OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Mean change in Fatigue.||||0.10
90797034|NCT03021486|181473118|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Mean change in Nausea.||||0.02
90797035|NCT03021486|181473118|OTHER|||||||0.97|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Mean change in Depression.||||0.97
90797036|NCT03021486|181473118|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Mean change in Anxiety.||||0.03
90797037|NCT03021486|181473118|OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Mean change in Drowsiness.||||0.68
90797038|NCT03021486|181473118|OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Mean change in Appetite.||||0.80
91011937|NCT01522391|181906579|OTHER||Ratio between geometric means|0.428||||0.483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.039|4.697|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 21||4.697|0.039|0.483
90797039|NCT03021486|181473118|OTHER|||||||0.45|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Mean change in Feeling of well being.||||0.45
90797040|NCT03021486|181473118|OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Mean change in Shortness of breath.||||0.16
90797041|NCT03021486|181473118|OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Mean change in Sleep.||||0.12
90797042|NCT04043286|181473120|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.85|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|The Shapiro-Wilk test assessed data normality, and paired t-tests or Wilcoxon tests were applied based on normality results.||The null hypothesis was that there would be no significant difference in peri-implant bone levels between implants with definitive abutments delivered at the time of surgery, and those subjected to multiple abutment disconnections and reconnections. Power analysis was performed and showed that a sample size of 38 implants was needed to achieve 80% power to detect a difference between the null proportion of 0.500 at a significance level of 0.05.||0.85|0.10|0.009
90797043|NCT04043286|181473121|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0000168|1.25|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"The null hypothesis was that there would be no significant difference in peri-implant bone levels between implants with definitive abutments delivered at the time of surgery, and those subjected to multiple abutment disconnections and reconnections. Power analysis was performed and showed that a sample size of 38 implants was needed to achieve 80% power to detect a difference between the null proportion of 0.500 at a significance level of 0.05.~Type of Statistical Test"||1.25|-0.0000168|0.049
90797044|NCT04043286|181473122|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0000522|0.75|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"The null hypothesis was that there would be no significant difference in peri-implant bone levels between implants with definitive abutments delivered at the time of surgery, and those subjected to multiple abutment disconnections and reconnections. Power analysis was performed and showed that a sample size of 38 implants was needed to achieve 80% power to detect a difference between the null proportion of 0.500 at a significance level of 0.05.~Type of Statistical Test"||0.75|-0.0000522|0.053
90797045|NCT03186638|181473130|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7917|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for Baseline values||||||0.7917
90797046|NCT02369536|181473158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Intention-to-treat-analysis. Differences between basal values in active and control groups and between T1 vsT0 changes in the two groups assessed by ANOVA and Fisher's exact test.||||<0.05
90797047|NCT02369536|181473161|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Intention-to-treat-analysis. Differences between basal values in active and control groups and between T1 vsT0 changes in the two groups assessed by ANOVA and Fisher's exact test.||||<0.05
90797048|NCT02410772|181473166|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was assessed using the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference between the percentage of patients who are classified as having an unfavorable status on the control regimen (2HRZE/ 4 HR) and the investigational regimens, Regimen 2 (2HPZ/2HP) and Regimen 3 (2HPZM/2HPM). If the upper bound of the confidence interval is less than , then the non-inferiority of Arm 2 or Arm 3 to Arm 1 with a significance level of 0.05 is established (equivalent to one-sided α=0.025).|Risk Difference (RD)|1.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|4.5||For a significance level of 0.05, the statistical test is equivalent to obtaining the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference of r\_b-r\_a.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For primary efficacy endpoint, unfavorable outcomes for Arm1(control) vs Arm3(2PHZM/2PHM) will be considered first, if non-inferiority criteria are met, then Arm 1 vs Arm 2(2PHZE/2PH) will be compared. The proportion of participants with unfavorable outcome can be estimated as: if r\_a and r\_b are the proportions of unfavorable outcome for the two study arms (a=Arm1 and b = Arm2 or Arm3) and if δ is the non-inferiority margin (=6.6%), statistical hypothesis is H\_0:r\_b-r\_a≥δ vs.H\_1:r\_b-r\_a\<δ||4.5|-2.6|0.05
91011938|NCT01522391|181906580|OTHER||Ratio between geometric means|0.202||||0.197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.017|2.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7||2.340|0.017|0.197
91011939|NCT01522391|181906580|OTHER||Ratio between geometric means|0.021||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.002|0.227|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14||0.227|0.002|0.002
90797049|NCT02410772|181473166|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was assessed using the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference between the percentage of patients who are classified as having an unfavorable status on the control regimen (2HRZE/ 4 HR) and the investigational regimens, Regimen 2 (2HPZ/2HP) and Regimen 3 (2HPZM/2HPM). If the upper bound of the confidence interval is less than , then the non-inferiority of Arm 2 or Arm 3 to Arm 1 with a significance level of 0.05 is established (equivalent to one-sided α=0.025).|Risk Difference (RD)|3.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|6.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|For a significance level of 0.05, the statistical test is equivalent to obtaining the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference of r\_b-r\_a.||For primary efficacy endpoint, unfavorable outcomes for Arm1(control) vs Arm3(2PHZM/2PHM) will be considered first, if non-inferiority criteria are met, then Arm 1 vs Arm 2(2PHZE/2PH) will be compared. The proportion of participants with unfavorable outcome can be estimated as: if r\_a and r\_b are the proportions of unfavorable outcome for the two study arms (a=Arm1 and b = Arm2 or Arm3) and if δ is the non-inferiority margin (=6.6%), statistical hypothesis is H\_0:r\_b-r\_a≥δ vs.H\_1:r\_b-r\_a\<δ||6.6|-0.6|0.05
90890292|NCT02219932|181645019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference for Adjusted Proportions|0.104|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.178||||||Based on logistic regression, adjusting for baseline MSWS-12 score, baseline TUG speed, age, screening Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score and prior aminopyridine. Missing data handled by multiple imputation. Hypothesis testing was performed at the 2-sided 5% significance level overall, with adjustment for testing multiple secondary endpoints.||0.178|0.030|
90890293|NCT02219932|181645019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.7||||||Based on logistic regression, adjusting for baseline MSWS-12 score, baseline TUG speed, age, screening Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score and prior aminopyridine. Missing data handled by multiple imputation. Hypothesis testing was performed at the 2-sided 5% significance level overall, with adjustment for testing multiple secondary endpoints.||1.70|1.06|
91011940|NCT01522391|181906580|OTHER||Ratio between geometric means|0.257||||0.257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.024|2.752|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 21||2.752|0.024|0.257
91011941|NCT01522391|181906581|OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|20.38||||0.346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.42|63.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7||63.19|-22.42|0.346
91011942|NCT01522391|181906581|OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|29.1||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.71|71.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14||71.90|-13.71|0.18
90797050|NCT02410772|181473167|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was assessed using the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference between the percentage of patients who are classified as having an unfavorable status on the control regimen (2HRZE/ 4 HR) and the investigational regimens, Regimen 2 (2HPZ/2HP) and Regimen 3 (2HPZM/2HPM). If the upper bound of the confidence interval is less than , then the non-inferiority of Arm 2 or Arm 3 to Arm 1 with a significance level of 0.05 is established (equivalent to one-sided α=0.025).|Risk Difference (RD)|2.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|5.1||For a significance level of 0.05, the statistical test is equivalent to obtaining the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference of r\_b-r\_a|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For primary efficacy endpoint, unfavorable outcomes for Arm1(control) vs Arm3(2PHZM/2PHM) will be considered first, if non-inferiority criteria are met, then Arm 1 vs Arm 2(2PHZE/2PH) will be compared. The proportion of participants with unfavorable outcome can be estimated as: if r\_a and r\_b are the proportions of unfavorable outcome for the two study arms (a=Arm1 and b = Arm2 or Arm3) and if δ is the non-inferiority margin (=6.6%), statistical hypothesis is H\_0:r\_b-r\_a≥δ vs.H\_1:r\_b-r\_a\<δ||5.1|-1.1|0.05
90797051|NCT02410772|181473167|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was assessed using the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference between the percentage of patients who are classified as having an unfavorable status on the control regimen (2HRZE/ 4 HR) and the investigational regimens, Regimen 2 (2HPZ/2HP) and Regimen 3 (2HPZM/2HPM). If the upper bound of the confidence interval is less than , then the non-inferiority of Arm 2 or Arm 3 to Arm 1 with a significance level of 0.05 is established (equivalent to one-sided α=0.025).|Risk Difference (RD)|4.4||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|7.7||For a significance level of 0.05, the statistical test is equivalent to obtaining the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference of r\_b-r\_a|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For primary efficacy endpoint, unfavorable outcomes for Arm1(control) vs Arm3(2PHZM/2PHM) will be considered first, if non-inferiority criteria are met, then Arm 1 vs Arm 2(2PHZE/2PH) will be compared. The proportion of participants with unfavorable outcome can be estimated as: if r\_a and r\_b are the proportions of unfavorable outcome for the two study arms (a=Arm1 and b = Arm2 or Arm3) and if δ is the non-inferiority margin (=6.6%), statistical hypothesis is H\_0:r\_b-r\_a≥δ vs.H\_1:r\_b-r\_a\<δ||7.7|1.2|0.05
90797052|NCT02410772|181473168|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was assessed using the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference between the percentage of patients who are classified as having an unfavorable status on the control regimen (2HRZE/ 4 HR) and the investigational regimens, Regimen 2 (2HPZ/2HP) and Regimen 3 (2HPZM/2HPM). If the upper bound of the confidence interval is less than, then the non-inferiority of Arm 2 or Arm 3 to Arm 1 with a significance level of 0.05 is established (equivalent to one-sided α=0.025).|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.6||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|3.2||For a significance level of 0.05, the statistical test is equivalent to obtaining the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference of r\_b-r\_a.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For primary Safety endpoint, unfavorable outcomes for Arm1(control) vs Arm3(2PHZM/2PHM) will be considered first, if non-inferiority criteria are met, then Arm 1 vs Arm 2(2PHZE/2PH) will be compared. The proportion of participants with unfavorable outcome can be estimated as: if r\_a and r\_b are the proportions of unfavorable outcome for the two study arms (a=Arm1 and b = Arm2 or Arm3) and if δ is the non-inferiority margin (=6.6%), statistical hypothesis is H\_0:r\_b-r\_a≥δ vs.H\_1:r\_b-r\_a\<δ||3.2|-4.3|0.05
90797053|NCT02410772|181473168|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was assessed using the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference between the percentage of patients who are classified as having an unfavorable status on the control regimen (2HRZE/ 4 HR) and the investigational regimens, Regimen 2 (2HPZ/2HP) and Regimen 3 (2HPZM/2HPM). If the upper bound of the confidence interval is less than, then the non-inferiority of Arm 2 or Arm 3 to Arm 1 with a significance level of 0.05 is established (equivalent to one-sided α=0.025).|Risk Difference (RD)|-5.1||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|-1.5||For a significance level of 0.05, the statistical test is equivalent to obtaining the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference of r\_b-r\_a.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For primary Safety endpoint, unfavorable outcomes for Arm1(control) vs Arm3(2PHZM/2PHM) will be considered first, if non-inferiority criteria are met, then Arm 1 vs Arm 2(2PHZE/2PH) will be compared. The proportion of participants with unfavorable outcome can be estimated as: if r\_a and r\_b are the proportions of unfavorable outcome for the two study arms (a=Arm1 and b = Arm2 or Arm3) and if δ is the non-inferiority margin (=6.6%), statistical hypothesis is H\_0:r\_b-r\_a≥δ vs.H\_1:r\_b-r\_a\<δ||-1.5|-8.7|0.05
90797054|NCT02410772|181473173|NON_INFERIORITY|Margin to define inferiority: 6.6% (δ = 0.066).|Risk Difference (RD)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.45|4.63||||||||4.63|-2.45|
90797055|NCT02410772|181473173|NON_INFERIORITY|Margin to define inferiority: 6.6% (δ = 0.066).|Risk Difference (RD)|4.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|7.79||||||||7.79|0.45|
90797056|NCT02410772|181473174|NON_INFERIORITY|Margin to define inferiority: 6.6% (δ = 0.066).|Risk Difference (RD)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.01|4.11||||||||4.11|-2.01|
90797057|NCT02410772|181473174|NON_INFERIORITY|Margin to define inferiority: 6.6% (δ = 0.066)|Risk Difference (RD)|3.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|6.9||||||||6.90|0.42|
90797058|NCT02410772|181473176|NON_INFERIORITY|Margin to define inferiority: 6.6% (δ = 0.066).|Risk Difference (RD)|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|6.6||||||||6.6|-0.6|
90797059|NCT02410772|181473176|NON_INFERIORITY|Margin to define inferiority: 6.6% (δ = 0.066).|Risk Difference (RD)|2.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|5.7||||||||5.70|-1.12|
91011943|NCT01522391|181906581|OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-11.64||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.44|31.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 21||31.16|-54.44|0.590
91011944|NCT01522391|181906582|OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|5.95||||0.748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.84|42.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7||42.73|-30.84|0.748
91011945|NCT01522391|181906582|OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|14.62||||0.437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.65|51.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14||51.88|-22.65|0.437
90797060|NCT02410772|181473177|NON_INFERIORITY|Margin to define inferiority: 6.6% (δ = 0.066).|Risk Difference (RD)|5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|8.9||||||||8.9|2.8|
91011946|NCT01522391|181906582|OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-18.66||||0.322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.92|18.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 21||18.61|-55.92|0.322
91011947|NCT01522391|181906583|OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|8.04||||0.631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.15|41.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7||41.24|-25.15|0.631
91011948|NCT01522391|181906583|OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|20.44||||0.224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.75|53.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14||53.63|-12.75|0.224
91011949|NCT01522391|181906583|OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.23||||0.941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.42|31.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 21||31.96|-34.42|0.941
90797061|NCT02410772|181473177|NON_INFERIORITY|Margin to define inferiority: 6.6% (δ = 0.066).|Risk Difference (RD)|3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|6.3||||||||6.3|0.5|
90797062|NCT02384421|181473213|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90797063|NCT02384421|181473214|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0064|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0064
90797064|NCT02384421|181473215|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.014
90797065|NCT02384421|181473216|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|||||||0.25
90797066|NCT02384421|181473217|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
90797067|NCT02384421|181473218|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90797068|NCT02493764|181473237|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was declared when the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in mortality (IMI/REL minus PIP/TAZ) was \< 10 percentage points.|Adjusted difference in ACM|-5.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|1.2|||t-test, 1 sided|A one-sided alpha level of 0.025 was used to declare significance.|Adjusted difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Adjusted difference in all-cause mortality||1.2|-11.9|<0.001
90797069|NCT02493764|181473238|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was declared when the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in FCR (IMI/REL minus PIP/TAZ) was \> 12.5 percentage points.|Adjusted difference in FCR|5.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|13.2|||t-test, 1 sided|A one-sided alpha level of 0.025 was used to declare significance.|Adjusted difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Adjusted difference in FCR||13.2|-3.2|<0.001
90797070|NCT02493764|181473239|OTHER|Difference in % with AE vs PIP/TAZ|Difference in % with AE|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|4.3||||||||4.3|-7.7|
90797071|NCT02493764|181473240|OTHER|Difference in % discontinuing vs PIP/TAZ|Difference in % discontinuing|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|1.8||||||||1.8|-7.1|
90797072|NCT02493764|181473241|OTHER||Adjusted difference in ACM|-3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|3.6|||||Adjusted difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Adjusted difference in all-cause mortality||3.6|-10.9|
90797073|NCT02493764|181473242|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was declared when the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in mortality (IMI/REL minus PIP/TAZ) was ≥ 10 percentage points.|Adjusted difference in ACM|-4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|1.7|||||Adjusted difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Adjusted difference in all-cause mortality||1.7|-11.0|
90797074|NCT02493764|181473243|OTHER|Adjusted difference in ACM|Adjusted difference in ACM|-3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|3.8|||||Adjusted difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Adjusted difference in all-cause mortality||3.8|-10.2|
91011950|NCT01522391|181906584|OTHER||Least Square Means Difference|0.97||||0.954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.93|34.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7||34.87|-32.93|0.954
90797075|NCT02493764|181473244|OTHER|Difference in FCR|Adjusted difference in FCR|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|7.8|||||Adjusted difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Adjusted difference in favorable clinical response||7.8|-11.3|
90797076|NCT02493764|181473245|OTHER|Difference in FCR|Adjusted difference in FCR|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|5.5|||||Adjusted difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Adjusted difference in favorable clinical response||5.5|-9.8|
90797077|NCT02493764|181473246|OTHER|Difference in favorable clinical response|Adjusted difference in FCR|6.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|18.4|||||Adjusted difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Adjusted difference in favorable clinical response||18.4|-4.6|
90797078|NCT02493764|181473247|OTHER|Difference in FCR|Adjusted difference in FCR|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|7.4|||||Adjusted difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Adjusted difference in favorable clinical response||7.4|-8.1|
90797079|NCT02493764|181473248|OTHER|Difference in FCR|Adjusted difference in FCR|-3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|7.5|||||Adjusted difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Adjusted difference in favorable clinical response||7.5|-14.3|
90797080|NCT02493764|181473249|OTHER|Difference in FCR|Adjusted difference in FCR|-3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|6.4|||||Adjusted difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Adjusted difference in favorable clinical response||6.4|-13.6|
90797081|NCT02493764|181473250|OTHER|Difference in FCR|Adjusted difference in FCR|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|11.6|||||Adjusted difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Adjusted difference in favorable clinical response||11.6|-4.6|
90797082|NCT02493764|181473251|OTHER|Difference in FCR|Adjusted difference in FCR|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|7.4|||||Adjusted difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Adjusted difference in favorable clinical response||7.4|-6.3|
90797083|NCT02493764|181473252|OTHER|Difference in FCR|Adjusted difference in FCR|3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|14.2|||||Adjusted difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Adjusted difference in favorable clinical response||14.2|-7.1|
90797084|NCT02493764|181473253|OTHER|Difference in FCR|Adjusted difference in FCR|4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|12.0|||||Adjusted difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Adjusted difference in favorable clinical response||12.0|-3.1|
90797085|NCT02493764|181473254|OTHER|Difference in FCR|Adjusted difference in FCR|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|9.4|||||Adjusted difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Adjusted difference in favorable clinical response||9.4|-7.2|
90797086|NCT02493764|181473255|OTHER|Difference in FMR|Adjusted difference in FMR|9.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|17.9|||||Adjusted difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Adjusted difference in favorable microbiological response||17.9|1.6|
90797087|NCT02493764|181473256|OTHER|Difference in FMR|Adjusted difference in FMR|6.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|15.0|||||Adjusted difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Adjusted difference in favorable microbiological response||15.0|-2.7|
90797088|NCT02493764|181473257|OTHER|Difference in FMR|Adjusted difference in FMR|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|11.0|||||Adjusted difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Adjusted difference in favorable microbiological response||11.0|-5.5|
90797089|NCT02493764|181473258|OTHER|Difference in FMR|Adjusted difference in FMR|4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|14.1|||||Adjusted difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Adjusted difference in favorable microbiological response||14.1|-4.0|
91011951|NCT01522391|181906584|OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|15.72||||0.358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.18|49.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14||49.62|-18.18|0.358
91011952|NCT01522391|181906584|OTHER||least Square Mean Difference|-7.94||||0.642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.82|25.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 21||25.94|-41.82|0.642
90797090|NCT01463527|181473259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.57||||||Odds of intervention in capnography open group as compared to capnography blind group after adjusting of age and length of sedation.||0.57|0.17|
90797091|NCT01463527|181473260|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||GEE (Generalized Estimating Equation)|||||||0.30
90797092|NCT04846231|181473261|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|35.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.13|41.32|||ANCOVA|||To control the overall alpha of the study, the primary endpoint will be evaluated hierarchically. Each comparison to rosuvastatin will use an alpha of 0.05. This belongs to the primary endpoint.||41.32|29.13|<0.001
90797093|NCT04846231|181473261|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|34.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.28|40.58|||ANCOVA|||To control the overall alpha of the study, the primary endpoint will be evaluated hierarchically. Each comparison to rosuvastatin will use an alpha of 0.05.||40.58|28.28|<0.001
90797094|NCT04846231|181473261|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|38.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.2|44.34|||ANCOVA|||To control the overall alpha of the study, the primary endpoint will be evaluated hierarchically. Each comparison to rosuvastatin will use an alpha of 0.05.||44.34|32.20|<0.001
90797095|NCT04846231|181473261|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|42.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.02|48.95|||ANCOVA|||To control the overall alpha of the study, the primary endpoint will be evaluated hierarchically. Each comparison to rosuvastatin will use an alpha of 0.05.||48.95|37.02|<0.001
90797096|NCT04846231|181473261|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|36.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.61|42.54|||ANCOVA|||To control the overall alpha of the study, the primary endpoint will be evaluated hierarchically. Each comparison to rosuvastatin will use an alpha of 0.05.||42.54|30.61|<0.001
90797097|NCT04846231|181473261|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|33.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.42|39.55|||ANCOVA|||To control the overall alpha of the study, the primary endpoint will be evaluated hierarchically. Each comparison to rosuvastatin will use an alpha of 0.05.||39.55|27.42|<0.001
90797098|NCT04846231|181473261|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|31.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.16|37.47|||ANCOVA|||To control the overall alpha of the study, the primary endpoint will be evaluated hierarchically. Each comparison to rosuvastatin will use an alpha of 0.05.||37.47|25.16|<0.001
90797099|NCT04846231|181473263|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.05
91011953|NCT01522391|181906585|OTHER|||||||0.701|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 7||||0.701
90797100|NCT03648385|181473265|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE) w|||Treatment period 1: DHEA to Placebo group, measurement of % change at 18 Weeks Treatment period 1: Placebo to DHEA group, % change at 18 Weeks||||0.83
91011954|NCT01522391|181906585|OTHER|||||||0.898|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 14||||0.898
90797101|NCT03648385|181473265|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE) w|||Treatment period 2: DHEA to Placebo group, % change between 18 and 40 Weeks Treatment period 2: Placebo to DHEA group, % change between 18 and 40 Weeks||||0.56
90797102|NCT03648385|181473266|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE) w|||Treatment period 1: DHEA to Placebo group, measurement of % change at 18 Weeks Treatment period 1: Placebo to DHEA group, % change at 18 Weeks||||0.08
90797103|NCT03648385|181473266|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|with sandwich estimation to correct for model misspecification.||Treatment period 2: DHEA to Placebo group, % change between 18 and 40 Weeks Treatment period 2: Placebo to DHEA group, % change between 18 and 40 Weeks||||0.03
90797104|NCT03648385|181473267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.047|||||||generalized estimating equations|||Treatment period 1: DHEA to Placebo group, measurement of % change at 18 Weeks Treatment period 1: Placebo to DHEA group, % change at 18 Weeks||||0.047
90797105|NCT03648385|181473267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.052|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||Treatment period 2: DHEA to Placebo group, % change between 18 and 40 Weeks Treatment period 2: Placebo to DHEA group, % change between 18 and 40 Weeks||||0.052
90797106|NCT03648385|181473268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.044|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE) w|||Treatment period 1: DHEA to Placebo group, measurement of % change at 18 Weeks Treatment period 1: Placebo to DHEA group, % change at 18 Weeks||||0.044
90797107|NCT03648385|181473268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||Treatment period 2: DHEA to Placebo group, % change between 18 and 40 Weeks Treatment period 2: Placebo to DHEA group, % change between 18 and 40 Weeks||||0.96
90797108|NCT03648385|181473269|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||Treatment period 1: DHEA to Placebo group, measurement of % change at 18 Weeks Treatment period 1: Placebo to DHEA group, % change at 18 Weeks||||0.91
90797109|NCT03648385|181473269|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE) w|||Treatment period 2: DHEA to Placebo group, % change between 18 and 40 Weeks Treatment period 2: Placebo to DHEA group, % change between 18 and 40 Weeks||||0.61
90797110|NCT03648385|181473270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||generalized estimating equations|||Treatment period 1: DHEA to Placebo group, measurement of % change at 18 Weeks Treatment period 1: Placebo to DHEA group, % change at 18 Weeks||||0.14
90797111|NCT03648385|181473270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||generalized estimating equations|||Treatment period 2: DHEA to Placebo group, % change between 18 and 40 Weeks Treatment period 2: Placebo to DHEA group, % change between 18 and 40 Weeks||||0.84
90797112|NCT03648385|181473271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||generalized estimating equations|||Treatment period 1: DHEA to Placebo group, measurement of % change at 18 Weeks Treatment period 1: Placebo to DHEA group, % change at 18 Weeks||||0.36
90797113|NCT03648385|181473271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||generalized estimating equations|||Treatment period 2: DHEA to Placebo group, % change between 18 and 40 Weeks Treatment period 2: Placebo to DHEA group, % change between 18 and 40 Weeks||||0.71
90797114|NCT03648385|181473272|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||generalized estimating equations|||Treatment period 1: DHEA to Placebo group, measurement of % change at 18 Weeks Treatment period 1: Placebo to DHEA group, % change at 18 Weeks||||0.55
91011955|NCT01522391|181906585|OTHER|||||||0.271|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 21||||0.271
91011956|NCT01522391|181906586|OTHER|||||||0.511|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 7||||0.511
91011957|NCT01522391|181906586|OTHER|||||||0.777|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 14||||0.777
91011958|NCT01522391|181906586|OTHER|||||||0.204|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 21||||0.204
91011959|NCT01522391|181906587|OTHER|||||||0.489|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 7||||0.489
91011960|NCT01522391|181906587|OTHER|||||||0.249|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 14||||0.249
90797115|NCT03648385|181473272|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||generalized estimating equations|||Treatment period 2: DHEA to Placebo group, % change between 18 and 40 Weeks Treatment period 2: Placebo to DHEA group, % change between 18 and 40 Weeks||||0.44
90797116|NCT03648385|181473273|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||Treatment period 1: DHEA to Placebo group, change at 18 Weeks Treatment period 1: Placebo to DHEA group, change at 18 Weeks||||0.79
90797117|NCT03648385|181473273|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||Treatment period 2: DHEA to Placebo group, change between 18 and 40 Weeks Treatment period 2: Placebo to DHEA group, change between 18 and 40 Weeks||||0.34
90797118|NCT03648385|181473274|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE) w|||Treatment period 1: DHEA to Placebo group, change at 18 Weeks Treatment period 1: Placebo to DHEA group, change at 18 Weeks||||0.33
90797119|NCT03648385|181473274|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE) w|||Treatment period 2: DHEA to Placebo group, change between 18 and 40 Weeks Treatment period 2: Placebo to DHEA group, change between 18 and 40 Weeks||||0.99
90797120|NCT03648385|181473275|SUPERIORITY|Treatment period 1: DHEA to Placebo group, change at 18 Weeks Treatment period 1: Placebo to DHEA group, change at 18 Weeks||||||0.13|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||SF-36 PCS||||0.13
90797121|NCT03648385|181473275|SUPERIORITY|Treatment period 2: DHEA to Placebo group, change between 18 and 40 Weeks Treatment period 2: Placebo to DHEA group, change between 18 and 40 Weeks||||||0.044|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||SF-36 PCS||||0.044
90797122|NCT03648385|181473275|SUPERIORITY|Treatment period 1: DHEA to Placebo group, change at 18 Weeks Treatment period 1: Placebo to DHEA group, change at 18 Weeks||||||0.77|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||SF-36 MCS||||0.77
90797123|NCT03648385|181473275|SUPERIORITY|Treatment period 2: DHEA to Placebo group, change between 18 and 40 Weeks Treatment period 2: Placebo to DHEA group, change between 18 and 40 Weeks||||||0.98|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||SF-MCS||||0.98
90797124|NCT03648385|181473276|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||Treatment period 1: DHEA to Placebo group, change at 18 Weeks Treatment period 1: Placebo to DHEA group, change at 18 Weeks||||0.70
90797125|NCT03648385|181473276|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.037|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||Treatment period 2: DHEA to Placebo group, change between 18 and 40 Weeks Treatment period 2: Placebo to DHEA group, change between 18 and 40 Weeks||||0.037
90797126|NCT03648385|181473277|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||Treatment period 1: DHEA to Placebo group, measurement of % change at 18 Weeks Treatment period 1: Placebo to DHEA group, % change at 18 Weeks||||0.005
90797127|NCT03648385|181473277|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||Treatment period 2: DHEA to Placebo group, % change between 18 and 40 Weeks Treatment period 2: Placebo to DHEA group, % change between 18 and 40 Weeks||||0.9
90797128|NCT03648385|181473278|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||Treatment period 1: DHEA to Placebo group, measurement of % change at 18 Weeks Treatment period 1: Placebo to DHEA group, % change at 18 Weeks||||<0.0001
90797129|NCT03648385|181473278|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.034|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||Treatment period 2: DHEA to Placebo group, % change between 18 and 40 Weeks Treatment period 2: Placebo to DHEA group, % change between 18 and 40 Weeks||||0.034
90797130|NCT03648385|181473279|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||Treatment period 1: DHEA to Placebo group, change at 18 Weeks Treatment period 1: Placebo to DHEA group, at 18 Weeks||||0.36
90797131|NCT03648385|181473279|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||Treatment period 2: DHEA to Placebo group, change between 18 and 40 Weeks Treatment period 2: Placebo to DHEA group, change between 18 and 40 Weeks||||0.23
90797132|NCT03648385|181473280|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||Treatment period 1: DHEA to Placebo group, change at 18 Weeks Treatment period 1: Placebo to DHEA group, change at 18 Weeks||||0.002
90797133|NCT03648385|181473280|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||Treatment period 2: DHEA to Placebo group, change between 18 and 40 Weeks Treatment period 2: Placebo to DHEA group, change between 18 and 40 Weeks||||<0.0001
90797134|NCT03648385|181473281|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||Treatment period 1: DHEA to Placebo group, change at 18 Weeks Treatment period 1: Placebo to DHEA group, change at 18 Weeks||||0.42
90797135|NCT03648385|181473281|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||Treatment period 2: DHEA to Placebo group, change between 18 and 40 Weeks Treatment period 2: Placebo to DHEA group, change between 18 and 40 Weeks||||0.28
90797136|NCT03648385|181473282|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||Treatment period 1: DHEA to Placebo group, change at 18 Weeks Treatment period 1: Placebo to DHEA group, change at 18 Weeks||||0.08
90797137|NCT03648385|181473282|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||Treatment period 2: DHEA to Placebo group, change between 18 and 40 Weeks Treatment period 2: Placebo to DHEA group, change between 18 and 40 Weeks||||0.65
90797138|NCT03648385|181473283|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||Treatment period 1: DHEA to Placebo group, change at 18 Weeks Treatment period 1: Placebo to DHEA group, change at 18 Weeks||||0.07
90797139|NCT03648385|181473283|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||Treatment period 2: DHEA to Placebo group, change between 18 and 40 Weeks Treatment period 2: Placebo to DHEA group, change between 18 and 40 Weeks||||<0.01
90797140|NCT03648385|181473284|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||generalized estimating equations|||Treatment period 1: DHEA to Placebo group, measurement of change at 18 Weeks Treatment period 1: Placebo to DHEA group, change at 18 Weeks||||0.27
91011961|NCT01522391|181906587|OTHER|||||||0.098|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 21||||0.098
91011962|NCT01522391|181906588|OTHER|||||||0.291|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 7||||0.291
91011963|NCT01522391|181906588|OTHER|||||||0.113|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 14||||0.113
91011964|NCT01522391|181906588|OTHER|||||||0.033|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 21||||0.033
91011965|NCT01522391|181906589|OTHER|||||||0.825|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 7||||0.825
91011966|NCT01522391|181906589|OTHER|||||||0.825|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 14||||0.825
91011967|NCT01522391|181906589|OTHER|||||||0.208|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.208
91011968|NCT01522391|181906590|OTHER|||||||0.825|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 7||||0.825
91011969|NCT01522391|181906590|OTHER|||||||0.82|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 14||||0.820
90797141|NCT03648385|181473284|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||Treatment period 2: DHEA to Placebo group, change between 18 and 40 Weeks Treatment period 2: Placebo to DHEA group, change between 18 and 40 Weeks||||0.26
90797142|NCT03648385|181473285|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||generalized estimating equations|||Treatment period 1: DHEA to Placebo group, change at 18 Weeks Treatment period 1: Placebo to DHEA group, change at 18 Weeks||||0.81
90797143|NCT03648385|181473285|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||Treatment period 2: DHEA to Placebo group, change between 18 and 40 Weeks Treatment period 2: Placebo to DHEA group, change between 18 and 40 Weeks||||0.94
90797144|NCT03648385|181473286|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93|||||||generalized estimating equations|||Treatment period 1: DHEA to Placebo group, change at 18 Weeks Treatment period 1: Placebo to DHEA group, change at 18 Weeks||||0.93
90797145|NCT03648385|181473286|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||Treatment period 2: DHEA to Placebo group, change between 18 and 40 Weeks Treatment period 2: Placebo to DHEA group, change between 18 and 40 Weeks||||0.83
90797146|NCT03648385|181473287|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||generalized estimating equations|||Treatment period 1: DHEA to Placebo group, change at 18 Weeks Treatment period 1: Placebo to DHEA group, change at 18 Weeks||||0.85
90797147|NCT03648385|181473287|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||Treatment period 2: DHEA to Placebo group, change between 18 and 40 Weeks Treatment period 2: Placebo to DHEA group, change between 18 and 40 Weeks||||0.74
90797148|NCT03648385|181473288|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||generalized estimating equations|||Treatment period 1: DHEA to Placebo group, change at 18 Weeks Treatment period 1: Placebo to DHEA group, change at 18 Weeks||||0.004
90797149|NCT03648385|181473288|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||||||0.05
90797150|NCT03648385|181473289|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||generalized estimating equations|||Treatment period 1: DHEA to Placebo group, change at 18 Weeks Treatment period 1: Placebo to DHEA group, change at 18 Weeks||||0.33
90797151|NCT03648385|181473289|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||generalized estimating equations|||Treatment period 2: DHEA to Placebo group, change between 18 and 40 Weeks Treatment period 2: Placebo to DHEA group, change between 18 and 40 Weeks||||0.23
90797152|NCT03648385|181473290|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||Treatment period 1: DHEA to Placebo group, change at 18 Weeks Treatment period 1: Placebo to DHEA group, change at 18 Weeks||||0.19
90797153|NCT03648385|181473290|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||Treatment period 2: DHEA to Placebo group, change between 18 and 40 Weeks Treatment period 2: Placebo to DHEA group, change between 18 and 40 Weeks||||0.94
91011970|NCT01522391|181906590|OTHER|||||||0.086|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 21||||0.086
91011971|NCT01522391|181906591|OTHER|||||||0.378|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 7||||0.378
90797154|NCT03648385|181473291|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||generalized estimating equations|||Treatment period 1: DHEA to Placebo group, change at 18 Weeks Treatment period 1: Placebo to DHEA group, change at 18 Weeks||||0.62
90797155|NCT03648385|181473291|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||Treatment period 2: DHEA to Placebo group, change between 18 and 40 Weeks Treatment period 2: Placebo to DHEA group, change between 18 and 40 Weeks||||0.39
90797156|NCT03648385|181473292|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||generalized estimating equations|||Treatment period 1: DHEA to Placebo group, change at 18 Weeks Treatment period 1: Placebo to DHEA group, change at 18 Weeks||||0.33
90797157|NCT03648385|181473292|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||Treatment period 2: DHEA to Placebo group, change between 18 and 40 Weeks Treatment period 2: Placebo to DHEA group, change between 18 and 40 Weeks||||0.88
90797158|NCT03648385|181473293|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||generalized estimating equations|||Treatment period 1: DHEA to Placebo group, change at 18 Weeks Treatment period 1: Placebo to DHEA group, change at 18 Weeks||||0.55
90797159|NCT03648385|181473293|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||Treatment period 2: DHEA to Placebo group, change between 18 and 40 Weeks Treatment period 2: Placebo to DHEA group, change between 18 and 40 Weeks||||1.00
90797160|NCT00265122|181473332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.337||95.0||||The P-Value is from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the route of administration.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis: No difference between ustekinumab and placebo at a significant level of 0.05.||||0.337
90797161|NCT00265122|181473334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.292||95.0||||The P-Value is from a CMH test stratified by the route of administration.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.292
90797162|NCT01276106|181473335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.175||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.01||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made and a value of p\<0.05 was considered statistically significant.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline in HbA1c was analyzed using an analysis of covariance model with change in HbA1c as the dependent variable, treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||-0.01|-0.70|0.044
90797163|NCT01276106|181473335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.176||0.0979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.05||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made and a value of p\<0.05 was considered statistically significant.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline in HbA1c was analyzed using an analysis of covariance model with change in HbA1c as the dependent variable, treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||0.05|-0.64|0.0979
90797164|NCT01276106|181473335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.174||0.2643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.15||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made and a value of p\<0.05 was considered statistically significant.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline in HbA1c was analyzed using an analysis of covariance model with change in HbA1c as the dependent variable, treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||0.15|-0.54|0.2643
91011972|NCT01522391|181906591|OTHER|||||||0.975|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 14||||0.975
91011973|NCT01522391|181906591|OTHER|||||||0.962|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 21||||0.962
91011974|NCT01522391|181906592|OTHER|||||||0.375|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 7||||0.375
91011975|NCT01522391|181906592|OTHER|||||||0.946|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 14||||0.946
91011976|NCT01522391|181906592|OTHER|||||||0.495|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 21||||0.495
91011977|NCT01522391|181906595|OTHER|||||||0.477|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 7 morning||||0.477
91011978|NCT01522391|181906595|OTHER|||||||0.651|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 14 morning||||0.651
90797165|NCT03773484|181473343|OTHER||Slope|-0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pre post comparison for Opioid Naïve patients||0.01|-0.03|0.43
90797166|NCT03773484|181473343|OTHER||Slope|-0.019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.051|0.013|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pre-post comparison for at-risk for long term use patients||0.013|-0.051|0.24
90797167|NCT04724837|181473344|SUPERIORITY|Two-sided p-value is presented. A p-value \<0.10 indicates statistical significance, which is consistent with a one-sided test at the 5% level.|Adjusted % mean change from baseline|-33.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-42.5|-23.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||If adjusted percentage mean change from baseline \>0 then the result favours Dapa 10 mg + PBO for UACR.|Comparison between Zibotentan 1.5 mg + Dapagliflozin and Dapagliflozin 10 mg + Placebo (PBO)||-23.5|-42.5|<0.001
90797168|NCT04724837|181473345|SUPERIORITY|Two-sided p-value is presented. A p-value \<0.10 indicates statistical significance, which is consistent with a one-sided test at the 5% level.|Adjusted % mean change from baseline|-27.0||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-38.4|-13.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||If adjusted percentage mean change from baseline \>0 then the result favours Dapa 10 mg + PBO for UACR.|Comparison between Zibotentan 0.25 mg + Dapagliflozin and Dapagliflozin 10 mg + PBO||-13.6|-38.4|0.002
90797169|NCT04724837|181473346|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) mean CFB|-3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.8|-0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||If mean change from baseline (CFB) \>0 then the result favours Dapa 10 mg + PBO for office systolic blood pressure.|Comparison between Zibotentan 0.25 mg + Dapagliflozin and Dapagliflozin 10 mg + PBO||-0.5|-6.8|
90797170|NCT04724837|181473346|SUPERIORITY||LS mean CFB|-7.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.3|-4.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||If mean change from baseline \>0 then the result favours Dapa 10 mg + PBO for office systolic blood pressure.|Comparison between Zibotentan 1.5 mg + Dapagliflozin and Dapagliflozin 10 mg + PBO||-4.9|-10.3|
90797171|NCT04724837|181473347|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean CFB|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.0|-1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||If mean change from baseline \>0 then the result favours Dapa 10 mg + PBO for office diastolic blood pressure.|Comparison between Zibotentan 0.25 mg + Dapagliflozin and Dapagliflozin 10 mg + PBO||-1.0|-5.0|
90797172|NCT04724837|181473347|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean CFB|-5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.1|-3.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||If mean change from baseline \>0 then the result favours Dapa 10 mg + PBO for office diastolic blood pressure.|Comparison between Zibotentan 1.5 mg + Dapagliflozin and Dapagliflozin 10 mg + PBO||-3.7|-7.1|
90797173|NCT04724837|181473348|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted % mean change from baseline|-27.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-38.4|-13.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||If adjusted percentage mean change from baseline \>0 then the result favours Dapa 10 mg + PBO for UACR.|Comparison between Zibotentan 0.25 mg + Dapagliflozin and Dapagliflozin 10 mg + PBO||-13.6|-38.4|
90797174|NCT04724837|181473348|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted % mean change from baseline|-33.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-42.5|-23.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||If adjusted percentage mean change from baseline \>0 then the result favours Dapa 10 mg + PBO for UACR.|Comparison between Zibotentan 1.5 mg + Dapagliflozin and Dapagliflozin 10 mg + PBO||-23.5|-42.5|
90797175|NCT04724837|181473349|SUPERIORITY||LS mean CFB|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|2.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||If mean change from baseline \<0 then the result favours Dapa 10 mg + PBO for eGFR.|Week 1 - Comparison between Zibotentan 0.25 mg + Dapagliflozin and Dapagliflozin 10 mg + PBO||2.6|-0.5|
90797176|NCT04724837|181473349|SUPERIORITY||LS mean CFB|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.1|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||If mean change from baseline \<0 then the result favours Dapa 10 mg + PBO for eGFR.|Week 1 - Comparison between Zibotentan 1.5 mg + Dapagliflozin and Dapagliflozin 10 mg + PBO||0.5|-2.1|
90797177|NCT04724837|181473349|SUPERIORITY||LS mean CFB|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.8|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||If mean change from baseline \<0 then the result favours Dapa 10 mg + PBO for eGFR.|Week 12 - Comparison between Zibotentan 0.25 mg + Dapagliflozin and Dapagliflozin 10 mg + PBO||0.5|-2.8|
90797178|NCT04724837|181473349|SUPERIORITY||LS mean CFB|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.5|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||If mean change from baseline \<0 then the result favours Dapa 10 mg + PBO for eGFR.|Week 12 - Comparison between Zibotentan 1.5 mg + Dapagliflozin and Dapagliflozin 10 mg + PBO||0.3|-2.5|
90797179|NCT04724837|181473349|SUPERIORITY||LS mean CFB|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.6|1.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||If mean change from baseline \<0 then the result favours Dapa 10 mg + PBO for eGFR.|Week 14 - Comparison between Zibotentan 0.25 mg + Dapagliflozin and Dapagliflozin 10 mg + PBO||1.8|-1.6|
90797180|NCT04724837|181473349|SUPERIORITY||LS mean CFB|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.5|-0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||If mean change from baseline \<0 then the result favours Dapa 10 mg + PBO for eGFR.|Week 14 - Comparison between Zibotentan 1.5 mg + Dapagliflozin and Dapagliflozin 10 mg + PBO||-0.7|-3.5|
90797181|NCT04724837|181473351|SUPERIORITY||LS mean change|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.0|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||If mean change \<0 then the result favours Dapa 10 mg + PBO for eGFR.|Week 1 and Week 12 - Comparison between Zibotentan 0.25 mg + Dapagliflozin and Dapagliflozin 10 mg + PBO||-0.4|-4.0|
90797182|NCT04724837|181473351|SUPERIORITY||LS mean change|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.8|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||If mean change \<0 then the result favours Dapa 10 mg + PBO for eGFR.|Week 1 and 12 - Comparison between Zibotentan 1.5 mg + Dapagliflozin and Dapagliflozin 10 mg + PBO||1.3|-1.8|
90797183|NCT04222673|181473352|SUPERIORITY|Given the small sample size and recommendations for pilot studies, quantitative analyses were descriptive (frequencies, means) and based on the Reliable Change Index (RCI) for each participant for each outcome measure. The RCI is used to determine whether pre- to post- score differences are statistically reliable and to categorize changes as either improved, deteriorated, or indeterminate. A statistical threshold of RCI score z = + 1.96 and p \< .05 was used to establish clinical significance.||||||0.05|||||||the Reliable Change Index|||||||.05
90797184|NCT04222673|181473353|SUPERIORITY|Given the small sample size and recommendations for pilot studies, quantitative analyses were descriptive (frequencies, means) and based on the Reliable Change Index (RCI) for each participant for each outcome measure. The RCI is used to determine whether pre- to post- score differences are statistically reliable and to categorize changes as either improved, deteriorated, or indeterminate. A statistical threshold of RCI score z = + 1.96 and p \< .05 was used to establish clinical significance.||||||0.05|||||||the Reliable Change Index|||||||.05
91011979|NCT01522391|181906595|OTHER|||||||0.34|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 21 morning||||0.340
91011980|NCT01522391|181906596|OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 7 morning||||0.300
91011981|NCT01522391|181906596|OTHER|||||||0.705|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 14||||0.705
91011982|NCT01522391|181906596|OTHER|||||||0.286|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 21||||0.286
90797185|NCT04222673|181473354|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||the Reliable Change Index|||Given the small sample size and recommendations for pilot studies, quantitative analyses were descriptive (frequencies, means) and based on the Reliable Change Index (RCI) for each participant for each outcome measure. The RCI is used to determine whether pre- to post- score differences are statistically reliable and to categorize changes as either improved, deteriorated, or indeterminate. A statistical threshold of RCI score z = + 1.96 and p \< .05 was used to establish clinical significance.||||.05
90797186|NCT04222673|181473355|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||the Reliable Change Index|||Given the small sample size and recommendations for pilot studies, quantitative analyses were descriptive (frequencies, means) and based on the Reliable Change Index (RCI) for each participant for each outcome measure. The RCI is used to determine whether pre- to post- score differences are statistically reliable and to categorize changes as either improved, deteriorated, or indeterminate. A statistical threshold of RCI score z = + 1.96 and p \< .05 was used to establish clinical significance.||||.05
90797187|NCT04222673|181473356|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||the Reliable Change Index|||Given the small sample size and recommendations for pilot studies, quantitative analyses were descriptive (frequencies, means) and based on the Reliable Change Index (RCI) for each participant for each outcome measure. The RCI is used to determine whether pre- to post- score differences are statistically reliable and to categorize changes as either improved, deteriorated, or indeterminate. A statistical threshold of RCI score z = + 1.96 and p \< .05 was used to establish clinical significance.||||.05
90797188|NCT04222673|181473357|SUPERIORITY|Given the small sample size and recommendations for pilot studies, quantitative analyses were descriptive (frequencies, means) and based on the Reliable Change Index (RCI) for each participant for each outcome measure. The RCI is used to determine whether pre- to post- score differences are statistically reliable and to categorize changes as either improved, deteriorated, or indeterminate. A statistical threshold of RCI score z = + 1.96 and p \< .05 was used to establish clinical significance.||||||0.05|||||||the Reliable Change Index|||||||.05
90797189|NCT04222673|181473358|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||the Reliable Change Index|||Given the small sample size and recommendations for pilot studies, quantitative analyses were descriptive (frequencies, means) and based on the Reliable Change Index (RCI) for each participant for each outcome measure. The RCI is used to determine whether pre- to post- score differences are statistically reliable and to categorize changes as either improved, deteriorated, or indeterminate. A statistical threshold of RCI score z = + 1.96 and p \< .05 was used to establish clinical significance.||||.05
90797190|NCT04222673|181473359|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||the Reliable Change Index|||Given the small sample size and recommendations for pilot studies, quantitative analyses were descriptive (frequencies, means) and based on the Reliable Change Index (RCI) for each participant for each outcome measure. The RCI is used to determine whether pre- to post- score differences are statistically reliable and to categorize changes as either improved, deteriorated, or indeterminate. A statistical threshold of RCI score z = + 1.96 and p \< .05 was used to establish clinical significance.||||.05
90797191|NCT04251533|181473360|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.41|||Regression, Cox|||||2.41|0.92|
91011983|NCT02514889|181906615|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.05||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.12|1.91||a priori threshold is p = .017, so that experiment-wide critical alpha would be p = .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: sex, age, ethnicity, marital status and educational attainment|Difference in differences interaction term is the product of assessment period (baseline, 6-months, 12-months) and experimental condition (MyPlate, Calorie Counting).|||1.91|-6.12|0.30
91011984|NCT02514889|181906616|EQUIVALENCE|p-value \>0.20 would be considered equivalent.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.39||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1342|5.3228|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates included age, sex, ethnicity, educational attainment and marital status||||5.3228|-0.1342|0.06
91011985|NCT02514889|181906617|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.55||0.504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.37|3.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates included: age, sex, ethnicity, educational attainment and marital status|Difference in differences interaction term is the product of assessment period (baseline, 6-months, 12-months) and experimental condition (MyPlate, Calorie Counting).|||3.63|-6.37|0.504
90797192|NCT05177354|181473427|SUPERIORITY||Proportion|89.3|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|71.8|||"It is hypothesized that the proportion of low-back and leg pain subjects with a reduction in overstimulation sensation during Closed Loop On compared to Closed Loop Off period exceeds a performance goal of 50%.~H0: p ≤ 50% HA: p \> 50%"|Binomial Exact Test||||||71.8|<0.001
90797193|NCT02769481|181473451|NON_INFERIORITY|A 95% CI was to be calculated to estimate the range of values in which the treatment difference was likely to lie. If the 95% CI fell below the specified non inferiority margin of 0.35%, the non inferiority of bexagliflozin treatment to glimepiride treatment would be demonstrated and the null hypothesis would be rejected.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.11|||||A lower value represents a better treatment effect.|The null hypothesis for the primary endpoint was that the change in HbA1c from baseline to week 60 in the bexagliflozin arm would be greater than change in the glimepiride arm by greater than 0.35%.||0.11|-0.21|
91053922|NCT02912650|181990990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.09|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.09|0.61|< 0.001
90797194|NCT02769481|181473452|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-4.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|-3.52||P-value is based on one sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance.|Mixed-effects repeated measures|Region, background treatment, baseline HbA1c, baseline eGFR, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline weight as a fixed effect covariate.||||-3.52|-5.10|< 0.0001
90797195|NCT02769481|181473453|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-6.53||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.56|-2.51||P-value is based on one sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance.|Mixed-effects repeated measures|Region, background treatment, baseline HbA1c, baseline eGFR, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline weight as a fixed effect covariate.||||-2.51|-10.56|0.0008
91011986|NCT02514889|181906618|SUPERIORITY|Difference in differences|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.35||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.47|2.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates included: age, sex, ethnicity, educational attainment, marital status|The difference in differences interaction term is the product of assessment period (baseline, 6-months, 12-months) and experimental condition (MyPlate, Calorie Counting)|||2.74|-6.47|0.30
90797196|NCT02769481|181473454|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.28||P-value is based on one sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance.|Regression, Logistic|Region, baseline HbA1c, background treatment, eGFR at baseline, treatment as a fixed effect covariate.|Odds ratio is calculated as the odds ratio of bexagliflozin over glimepiride.|||0.28|0.05|< 0.0001
90797197|NCT02769481|181473455|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of bexagliflozin over glimepiride in HbA1c reduction from baseline to week 60 will be declared if the upper bound of 95% confidence interval is less than 0|Difference of LS Means|-0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.11||||||||0.11|-0.21|
90797198|NCT05715827|181473490|OTHER|The study used descriptive statistics and 95% confidence intervals to summarize data. The sample size of 40 patients (20 per surgery type) was based on prior studies with 3% device malfunction and 0.9% failure-related conversion rates. The primary endpoint was the completion rate, defined as ≥95% without conversion due to system issues or major complications within 24 hours. The Full Analysis Set included all subjects who started the procedure. No interim analyses were planned.|Completion rate|97.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.8|99.9||The study used descriptive statistics and confidence intervals, not hypothesis testing with p-values. The main goal was to confirm the completion rate met or exceeded 95% and present a 95% confidence interval||The main goal was to confirm the completion rate met or exceeded 95% with a 95% confidence interval.|Estimated Value of 97.5% is an overall completion rate|The study aimed to confirm the Medtronic Hugo™ RAS System's performance for prostatectomy or cholecystectomy, targeting a 95% completion rate (no conversion due to system issues or major complications within 24 hours). The Full Analysis Set (FAS) included all subjects starting the procedure. Descriptive statistics and 95% confidence intervals were used to assess primary and secondary endpoints, confirming safety and effectiveness.|Descriptive Analysis was used|99.9|86.8|
91011987|NCT02514889|181906619|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|2.39|||Mixed Models Analysis||The differences in difference interaction term consists of the product of assessment intervals (baseline, 6-months, 12-months) and experimental condition (MyPlate, Calorie Counting)|||2.39|-1.47|0.640
91011988|NCT02514889|181906620|EQUIVALENCE|For the comparison conditions to be equivalent, as predicted, the critical alpha was set at P \> 0.20.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.135||0.747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates included: age, sex, ethnicity, educational attainment and marital status|The differences in difference interaction term consists of the product of assessment intervals (baseline, 6-months, 12-months) and experimental condition (MyPlate, Calorie Counting)|||0.22|-.31|0.747
91011989|NCT02514889|181906621|EQUIVALENCE|For the comparison conditions to be judged equivalent, as predicted, the critical p-value was set to P \>.20|Mean Difference (Net)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|1.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates included: age, sex, ethnicity, educational attainment and marital status|The differences in difference interaction term consists of the product of assessment intervals (baseline, 6-months, 12-months) and experimental condition (MyPlate, Calorie Counting)|||1.14|-0.85|0.776
91011990|NCT01519648|181906652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.872|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.237||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.178|2.977|||Chi-squared|||||2.977|1.178|0.007
91011991|NCT02713490|181906657|SUPERIORITY||LSMD|-26.884||||0.0381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.608|2.841|||ANOVA|||||2.841|-56.608|0.0381
91011992|NCT02713490|181906658|SUPERIORITY||LSM treatment ratio|0.203||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.065|0.631|||ANOVA|||||0.631|0.065|0.0029
91011993|NCT02713490|181906659|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|0.098||||0.0088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0284|0.1685|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.1685|0.0284|0.0088
91011994|NCT02713490|181906660|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.023|||||||Log Rank|||Analysis applies to the overall distribution of time to first opioid rescue, estimated from Kaplan-Meier analysis.||||0.0230
91011995|NCT02713490|181906661|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4285|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.4285
90890294|NCT02219932|181645020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|2.07|||Regression, Logistic|||Based on logistic regression, adjusting for baseline TUG speed, screening EDSS score and prior aminopyridine. Missing data were handled using multiple imputation.||2.07|1.04|0.030
91011996|NCT00134563|181906672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative risk reduction (%)|31.5||||0.0005||||||"Step down approach used to adjust for multiplicity:~* H1 tested first~* H2 tested only if the comparison H1 was statistically significant~A priori threshold for statistical significance for both comparisons ≤0.05"|Regression, Poisson||Relative risk reduction with Teriflunomide 14 mg compared to placebo|"Null hypothesis:~* H1: No difference between Teriflunomide 14 mg and placebo~* H2: No difference between Teriflunomide 7 mg and placebo~The study was sized to detect a 25% relative risk reduction with teriflunomide in the 2-year relapse rate at a significance level of 0.050 with a power ≥95% anticipating a potential 20% 2-year dropout rate."||||0.0005
91011997|NCT00134563|181906672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk Reduction (%)|31.2||||0.0002||||||"Step down approach used to adjust for multiplicity:~* H1 tested first~* H2 tested only if the comparison H1 was statistically significant~A priori threshold for statistical significance for both comparisons ≤0.05"|Regression, Poisson||Relative risk reduction with Teriflunomide 7 mg compared to placebo|||||0.0002
91011998|NCT00134563|181906673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard ratio reduction (%)|29.8||||0.0279||||||"Step down approach:~* H1 tested only if both comparisons on the primary outcome measure were statistically significant~* H2 tested only if the comparison H1 was statistically significant~A priori threshold for statistical significance ≤0.05"|Log Rank|Two-sided Log-rank test stratified by region of enrollment and baseline EDSS stratum|Relative risk reduction with Teriflunomide 14 mg compared to placebo (estimated from a Cox proportional hazard model with treatment arm, region of enrollment and baseline EDSS stratum as covariates)|"Null hypothesis:~* H1: No difference between Teriflunomide 14 mg and placebo~* H2: No difference between Teriflunomide 7 mg and placebo~The study was also sized to detect a 37% hazard rate reduction of an assumed disability progression hazard rate of 0.1783 in the placebo group and 0.1116 in the teriflunomide group by the end of 2 years with a power of 80% anticipating a potential 20% 2-year dropout rate."||||0.0279
91011999|NCT00134563|181906673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard ratio reduction (%)|23.7||||0.0835||||||"Step down approach:~* H1 tested only if both comparisons on the primary outcome measure were statistically significant~* H2 tested only if the comparison H1 was statistically significant~A priori threshold for statistical significance ≤0.05"|Log Rank|Two-sided Log-rank test stratified by region of enrollment and baseline EDSS stratum|Relative risk reduction with Teriflunomide 7 mg compared to placebo (estimated from a Cox proportional hazard model with treatment arm, region of enrollment and baseline EDSS stratum as covariates)|||||0.0835
90797199|NCT05715827|181473491|OTHER|Descriptive statistics will be used, presenting frequency, percentage, and 95% confidence intervals for each secondary endpoint: overall complication rate, major complication rate, readmission rate, reoperation rate, and Device Deficiencies (DD) rate through 30 days post-surgery. Secondary endpoints will be assessed overall and by surgery type (prostatectomy and cholecystectomy).|Overall Complication Rate|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.1|35.6||Descriptive statistics and estimated rates were used. P-values were not calculated for secondary endpoints.||||The secondary objective is to assess the short-term safety outcome of the Medtronic Hugo™ RAS System when used for prostatectomy or cholecystectomy. Overall complication rate through 30-day post-surgery: A proportion of subjects with any postoperative complication within 30-days post-surgery using the investigational device||35.6|9.1|
90797200|NCT05715827|181473492|OTHER|Descriptive statistics will be used, presenting frequency, percentage, and 95% confidence intervals for each secondary endpoint: overall complication rate, major complication rate, readmission rate, reoperation rate, and Device Deficiencies (DD) rate through 30 days post-surgery. Secondary endpoints will be assessed overall and by surgery type (prostatectomy and cholecystectomy).|Major complication rate|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|16.9||Descriptive statistics and estimated rates were used. P-values were not calculated for secondary endpoints.||||The secondary objective is to assess the short-term safety outcome of the Medtronic Hugo™ RAS System when used for prostatectomy or cholecystectomy. Overall complication rate through 30-day post-surgery: A proportion of subjects with any postoperative complication within 30-days post-surgery using the investigational device||16.9|0.6|
90797201|NCT05715827|181473493|OTHER|Descriptive statistics will be used, presenting frequency, percentage, and 95% confidence intervals for each secondary endpoint: overall complication rate, major complication rate, readmission rate, reoperation rate, and Device Deficiencies (DD) rate through 30 days post-surgery. Secondary endpoints will be assessed overall and by surgery type (prostatectomy and cholecystectomy).|Readmission rate|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|23.7||Descriptive statistics and estimated rates were used. P-values were not calculated for secondary endpoints.||||The secondary objective is to assess the short-term safety outcome of the Medtronic Hugo™ RAS System when used for prostatectomy or cholecystectomy. Overall complication rate through 30-day post-surgery: A proportion of subjects with any postoperative complication within 30-days post-surgery using the investigational device||23.7|2.8|
90797202|NCT05715827|181473494|OTHER|Descriptive statistics will be used, presenting frequency, percentage, and 95% confidence intervals for each secondary endpoint: overall complication rate, major complication rate, readmission rate, reoperation rate, and Device Deficiencies (DD) rate through 30 days post-surgery. Secondary endpoints will be assessed overall and by surgery type (prostatectomy and cholecystectomy).|Reoperation rate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive statistics and estimated rates were used. P-values were not calculated for secondary endpoints.||||The secondary objective is to assess the short-term safety outcome of the Medtronic Hugo™ RAS System when used for prostatectomy or cholecystectomy. Overall complication rate through 30-day post-surgery: A proportion of subjects with any postoperative complication within 30-days post-surgery using the investigational device||||
90797203|NCT05715827|181473495|OTHER|Descriptive statistics will be used, presenting frequency, percentage, and 95% confidence intervals for each secondary endpoint: overall complication rate, major complication rate, readmission rate, reoperation rate, and Device Deficiencies (DD) rate through 30 days post-surgery. Secondary endpoints will be assessed overall and by surgery type (prostatectomy and cholecystectomy).|Device deficiency rate|32.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.6|49.1||Descriptive statistics and estimated rates were used. P-values were not calculated for secondary endpoints.||||The secondary objective is to assess the short-term safety outcome of the Medtronic Hugo™ RAS System when used for prostatectomy or cholecystectomy. Overall complication rate through 30-day post-surgery: A proportion of subjects with any postoperative complication within 30-days post-surgery using the investigational device||49.1|18.6|
91012000|NCT00134563|181906674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003||95.0||||"A priori threshold for statistical significance ≤0.05~No adjustment for multiple comparisons"|t-test, 2 sided|2-sided t-test on baseline adjusted least-square means||Mixed-effect model with repeated measures \[MMRM\] on cubic root transformed total lesion volume data (treatment group, region of enrollment, baseline EDSS stratum, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value (cubic root transformed) and baseline-by-visit interaction).||||0.0003
90797204|NCT04846868|181473496|SUPERIORITY|The estimated treatment effect included the effect of any concomitant therapies for all randomized patients on on-treatment periods.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.063|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4355||0.8854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.793|0.918||"Null hypothesis: The adjusted mean change from baseline to Week 26 in MCCB overall composite T-score in iclepertin 10mg is worse than or equal to that in placebo.~one-sided p\< 0.025 required for testing subsequent key secondary endpoint hypotheses"|Mixed Models Analysis||Iclepertin 10 mg versus Placebo|MMRM, including the fixed effects: treatment at each visit, stratification factor using the screening MCCB overall composite T-score, and baseline MCCB overall composite T-score at each visit. Visit was the repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure to model the within-patient measurements.||0.918|-0.793|0.8854
90797205|NCT04846868|181473497|OTHER|The estimated treatment effect included the effect of any concomitant therapies and partner change in SCoR assessment for all randomized patients on-treatment.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.234|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5867||0.6902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.918|1.386|||Mixed Models Analysis||Iclepertin 10 mg versus Placebo|MMRM including the fixed effects: treatment at each visit, stratification factor using the screening MCCB overall composite T-score, and baseline MCCB overall composite T-score at each visit. Visit was treated as the repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure used to model the within-patient measurements.||1.386|-0.918|0.6902
90797206|NCT04846868|181473498|OTHER|The estimated treatment effect included the effect of any concomitant therapies for all randomized patients on-treatment.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.543|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1388||0.6334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|1.694|||Mixed Models Analysis||Iclepertin 10 mg vs. placebo|MMRM including the fixed effects: treatment at each visit, stratification factor using the screening MCCB overall composite T-score, and baseline MCCB overall composite T-score at each visit. Visit was treated as the repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure used to model the within-patient measurements.||1.694|-2.780|0.6334
90890295|NCT02219932|181645020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference for Adjusted Proportions|0.092|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.009|0.175||||||Based on logistic regression, adjusting for baseline TUG speed, screening EDSS score and prior aminopyridine. Missing data were handled using multiple imputation.||0.175|0.009|
90797207|NCT04846868|181473499|OTHER|The estimated treatment effect included the effect of any concomitant therapies for all randomized patients on-treatment.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.047|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0448||0.2902||95.0|-0.041|0.135|||Mixed Models Analysis||Iclepertin 10 mg vs Placebo|MMRM including the fixed effects: treatment at each visit, stratification factor using the screening MCCB overall composite T-score, and baseline MCCB overall composite T-score at each visit. Visit was treated as the repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure used to model the within-patient measurements.||0.135|-0.041|0.2902
90797208|NCT04846868|181473500|OTHER|The estimated treatment effect included the effect of any concomitant therapies for all randomized patients on-treatment.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.628||||0.4956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.181|2.437|||ANCOVA||Iclepertin 10 mg vs. Placebo|ANCOVA model including treatment, stratification factor of screening MCCB overall composite T-score, and baseline number of correct responses on Tower of London T-score.||2.437|-1.181|0.4956
90797209|NCT01334918|181473525|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Predefined noninferiority criterion: If the lower boundary of the 95% CI was within 0.15 of 0.78, MDCT would be determined to be noninferior to SPECT.|Agreement rate|0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.051|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.97||||||Analysis of agreement rate based on participants with 0 -1 and ≥ 2 reversible defects according to SPECT. Agreement is defined as the proportion of participants who had the same status from SPECT and MDCT, averaged across those with 2 or more reversible defects and those without, where SPECT is the reference standard.||0.97|0.77|
90797210|NCT01334918|181473530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Specificity|0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|0.99||||||Analysis of specificity based on participants with no fixed defects according to SPECT. Specificity is defined as a proportion of true negatives that are correctly identified, using SPECT as the reference standard.||0.99|0.90|
90797211|NCT01334918|181473530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Sensitivity|0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.117|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.0||||||Analysis of sensitivity based on participants with ≥ 1 fixed defect according to SPECT. Sensitivity is the proportion of true positives that are correctly identified using SPECT as the reference standard.||1.00|0.54|
90797212|NCT02777086|181473538|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||3-month outcome measures were compared between the StaySafe and Comparison groups controlling for the baseline measure using generalized linear models.||||<.001
90797213|NCT01732536|181473580|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1365|||||||ANCOVA|Based on between group comparison using ANCOVA model with baseline as a covariate and site and treatment as fixed effects||||||0.1365
90797214|NCT01732536|181473580|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0505||||||Based on between group comparison using ANCOVA model with baseline as a covariate and site and treatment as fixed effects|ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Day 90 in Nasal Obstruction/Congestion score in the subset of participants with higher polyp burden at baseline (grade 2 or higher polyps on each side; N=67).||||0.0505
90797215|NCT01732536|181473581|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0985|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA model with baseline as a covariate, site and treatment as fixed effect||||||0.0985
90797216|NCT01732536|181473581|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.049|||||||ANOVA|Based on ANCOVA model with baseline as a covariate, site and treatment as fixed effect||Bilateral polyp grade change in a subset of 67 patients with higher polyp burden at baseline (grade 2 or higher on each side confirmed by the independent panel)||||0.0490
90797217|NCT01732536|181473582|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0099|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0099
90797218|NCT01732536|181473583|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0162||||||P-value for change from baseline to 90 days not adjusted for multiplicity|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with baseline as a covariate and site and treatment as fixed effects||||||0.0162
90797219|NCT01732536|181473583|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0175||||||P-value for change from baseline to 6 months not adjusted for multiplicity|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with baseline as a covariate and site and treatment as fixed effects||||||0.0175
90797220|NCT01732536|181473584|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0209||||||P-value not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Based on between arm comparison using ANCOVA model with baseline as a covariate and site and treatment as fixed effects||||||0.0209
90797221|NCT03376516|181473618|OTHER|||||||0.9593||||||P-Value for patients aged 1-\<6 years (N=5)|ANOVA|||||||0.9593
90797222|NCT03376516|181473618|OTHER|||||||0.3752||||||P-Value for patients aged 6-\<12 years (N=5)|ANOVA|||||||0.3752
90797223|NCT03376516|181473618|OTHER|||||||0.8273||||||P-Value for total PK population (N=10)|ANOVA|||||||0.8273
90797224|NCT03376516|181473619|OTHER|P-Value for patients aged 1-\<6 years (N=5)||||||0.8536|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.8536
91012001|NCT00134563|181906674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0317||||||"A priori threshold for statistical significance ≤0.05~No adjustment for multiple comparisons"|t-test, 2 sided|2-sided t-test on baseline adjusted least-square means||Mixed-effect model with repeated measures \[MMRM\] on cubic root transformed total lesion volume data (treatment group, region of enrollment, baseline EDSS stratum, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value (cubic root transformed) and baseline-by-visit interaction).||||0.0317
91053923|NCT02912650|181990990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.16|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.16|0.67|<0.001
90797225|NCT03376516|181473619|OTHER|||||||0.9791||||||P-Value for patients aged 6-\<12 years (N=5)|ANOVA|||||||0.9791
90797226|NCT03376516|181473619|OTHER|||||||0.9791||||||P-Value for total PK population (N=10)|ANOVA|||||||0.9791
90797227|NCT03376516|181473621|OTHER||Pearson-Copper|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|30.85||||||||30.85|0|
90797228|NCT00370292|181473623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for 1 Hour Post-Dose (1 hour across cycles compared with pre-dose across cycles).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||||||<0.001
90797229|NCT00370292|181473623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for 2 Hours Post-Dose (2 hours across cycles compared with pre-dose across cycles).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||||||<0.001
90797230|NCT00370292|181473623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0||||P-value for 4 Hours Post-Dose (4 hours across cycles compared with pre-dose across cycles).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||||||0.030
91012002|NCT00134563|181906677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8271||||||"A priori threshold for statistical significance ≤0.05~No adjustment for multiple comparisons"|t-test, 2 sided|2-sided t-test on baseline adjusted least-square means||||||0.8271
91053924|NCT02912650|181990990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.07||||0.427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.1|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.10|-0.24|0.427
91012003|NCT00134563|181906677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3861||||||"A priori threshold for statistical significance ≤0.05~No adjustment for multiple comparisons"|t-test, 2 sided|2-sided t-test on baseline adjusted least-square means||||||0.3861
91012004|NCT03382639|181906678|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.2|-1.4|0.426
91012005|NCT03382639|181906678|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.1|-1.5|0.725
91012006|NCT03382639|181906678|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.9|-0.7|0.808
91012007|NCT06104423|181906726|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference pre vs post treatment|-19.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.62|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.0|-14.0|||paired t-test|||Primary endpoint, verified on the single cohort of patients who completed the monotherapy run-in period, is calculated as the mean difference in sitting systolic blood pressure between Visit 2 (Week 0, Baseline Visit of the combination therapy) and Visit 5 (Week 12, End of Study Visit). This is not a comparison of two different arms, but a comparison of two measurements taken from the same patient treated with combination therapy (single arm paired pre- vs. post-combination therapy comparison)||-14.0|-26.0|< 0.001
91012008|NCT00538434|181906727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-52.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.24|-30.32|||ANCOVA|adjustment for stratification factor and for variable at Baseline||||-30.32|-75.24|< 0.0001
91012009|NCT00538434|181906727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-73.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.29|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-95.28|-50.78|||ANCOVA|adjustment for stratification factor and for variable at Baseline||||-50.78|-95.28|< 0.0001
91012010|NCT00538434|181906727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-64.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.28|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-86.93|-42.45|||ANCOVA|adjustment for stratification factor and for variable at Baseline||||-42.45|-86.93|< 0.0001
91012011|NCT00538434|181906728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0313|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0313
91012012|NCT00538434|181906728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5793|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.5793
91012013|NCT00538434|181906728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4905|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4905
90797231|NCT00370292|181473623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.166||95.0||||P-value for 6 Hours Post-Dose (6 hours across cycles compared with pre-dose across cycles).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||||||0.166
90797232|NCT00370292|181473623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for 24 Hours Post-Dose (24 hours across cycles compared with pre-dose across cycles).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||||||<0.001
90797233|NCT00370292|181473623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for 48 Hours Post-Dose (48 hours across cycles compared with pre-dose across cycles).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||||||<0.001
90797234|NCT00370292|181473625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for 1 Hour Post-Dose (1 hour across cycles compared with pre-dose across cycles).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||||||<0.001
90797235|NCT00370292|181473625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for 2 Hours Post-Dose (2 hours across cycles compared with pre-dose across cycles).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||||||<0.001
90797236|NCT00370292|181473625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.333||95.0||||P-value for 4 Hours Post-Dose (4 hours across cycles compared with pre-dose across cycles).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||||||0.333
90797237|NCT00370292|181473625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.849||95.0||||P-value for 6 Hours Post-Dose (6 hours across cycles compared with pre-dose across cycles).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||||||0.849
91012014|NCT00538434|181906729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0062|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0062
91012015|NCT00538434|181906729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0943|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0943
91012016|NCT00538434|181906729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2955|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2955
91012017|NCT00538434|181906730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-4.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.48||0.4644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.53|8.03||Analyzed using analysis of covariance with adjustment for stratification factor and for variable at baseline.|ANCOVA||Comparison of least square means provides the difference (of individual change scores) between each reslizumab dose group and placebo.|Physical Summary Score||8.03|-17.53|0.4644
91012018|NCT00538434|181906730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.44||0.8196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.17|11.23||Analyzed using analysis of covariance with adjustment for stratification factor and for variable at baseline.|ANCOVA||Comparison of least square means provides the difference (of individual change scores) between each reslizumab dose group and placebo.|Physical Summary Score||11.23|-14.17|0.8196
91053925|NCT02912650|181990990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|1.6|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.60|1.11|<0.001
90797238|NCT00370292|181473625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for 24 Hours Post-Dose (24 hours across cycles compared with pre-dose across cycles).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||||||<0.001
90797239|NCT00370292|181473625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for 48 Hours Post-Dose (48 hours across cycles compared with pre-dose across cycles).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||||||<0.001
90797240|NCT01444911|181473641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.89|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.89
90797241|NCT01766102|181473653|OTHER|||||||0.716|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||H0: Procedure time is not significantly different based on mammography type used||||0.716
90797242|NCT01766102|181473653|OTHER|||||||0.676|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||H0: Operating room time is not significantly different based on mammography type used||||0.676
90797243|NCT05093621|181473655|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Mortality at 1 year||||1.000
90797244|NCT05093621|181473656|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.729|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.729
90797245|NCT05093621|181473657|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.650
90797246|NCT05093621|181473658|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.873|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.873
90890296|NCT02219932|181645020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.51||||||Based on logistic regression, adjusting for baseline TUG speed, screening EDSS score and prior aminopyridine. Missing data were handled using multiple imputation.||1.51|0.99|
90797247|NCT01664624|181473659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.82||0.388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.9|6.7||The comparison was evaluated at the 5% level of significance.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect, and baseline Postprandial AUC (0-8) of active GLP-1 as a continuous covariate.||ANCOVA was used to test the null hypothesis that the change from Baseline in the postprandial AUC(0-8) of active GLP-1 is no difference between the roflumilast + alogliptin and alogliptin alone.||6.7|-16.9|0.388
90797248|NCT01664624|181473659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|22.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.1|34.3||The comparison was evaluated at the 5% level of significance.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect, and Baseline Postprandial AUC (0-8) of active GLP-1 as a continuous covariate.||ANCOVA was used to test the null hypothesis that the change from Baseline in the postprandial AUC(0-8) of active GLP-1 is no difference between the roflumilast + alogliptin and roflumilast alone.||34.3|11.1|<0.001
90797249|NCT01664624|181473659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|28.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.76|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.1|40.5||The comparison was evaluated at the 5% level of significance.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect, and Baseline Postprandial AUC (0-8) of active GLP-1 as a continuous covariate.||ANCOVA was used to test the null hypothesis that the change from Baseline in the postprandial AUC(0-8) of active GLP-1 is no difference between the roflumilast + alogliptin and roflumilast alone.||40.5|17.1|<0.001
90797250|NCT01152307|181473669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.42|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.6||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|6.09|||t-test, 2 sided|||We tested for a difference in the mean total knowledge score between the decision aid and control groups using independent t-test (2 sided). With 100 patients in each arm, the study had more than 90% power to detect a 10% difference in knowledge assuming a common standard deviation of 18%.||6.09|0.76|0.01
90797251|NCT00524121|181473674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.011
90797252|NCT00524121|181473675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.115||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.115
90797253|NCT00524121|181473676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
90797254|NCT00524121|181473677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
90797255|NCT00524121|181473678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5467|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.5467
90797256|NCT05528770|181473696|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.23|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.98||0.4291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|8.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||8.3|-3.8|0.4291
90797257|NCT00583219|181473701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||P value change from baseline at one month||||0.004
90797258|NCT00583219|181473701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||P value change from baseline to 3 months||||0.81
90797259|NCT00583219|181473702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||P value change from baseline to 1 month||||0.21
90797260|NCT00583219|181473702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||P value change from baseline to 3 months||||0.43
90797261|NCT00583219|181473704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||P value change from baseline||||0.005
90797262|NCT00583219|181473705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||P value change from baseline||||0.22
90797263|NCT00583219|181473706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||P value change from baseline to 1 month||||0.24
90797264|NCT00583219|181473706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||P value change from baseline to 3 months||||0.14
90797265|NCT00583219|181473707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||P value change from baseline to 1 month||||0.24
90797266|NCT00583219|181473707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||P value change from baseline to 3 months||||0.033
90797267|NCT00583219|181473708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99|||||||Exact binomial sign test|||P value change from baseline to 1 month||||>0.99
90797268|NCT00583219|181473708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||exact binomial sign test|||P value change from baseline to 3 months||||0.25
90797269|NCT00583219|181473710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||P value change from baseline to one month||||<0.001
90797270|NCT00583219|181473711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||P value change from baseline||||0.004
90797271|NCT00583219|181473712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||P value change from baseline to 1 month||||0.003
90797272|NCT00583219|181473712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||P value change from baseline to 3 months.||||0.001
90797273|NCT00583219|181473713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||P value change from baseline to one month||||0.001
90797274|NCT00583219|181473713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||P value change from baseline to 3 months||||<0.001
90797275|NCT00583219|181473714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||P value change from baseline to 1 month.||||0.007
90797276|NCT00583219|181473714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||P value change from baseline to 3 months||||0.002
90797277|NCT02037529|181473717|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5623|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.5623
90797278|NCT02037529|181473722|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.984|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.9840
90797279|NCT02037529|181473723|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5968|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.5968
90797280|NCT00718315|181473755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.481||||||Test for Binomial Ratio, where H0: P \>=61%; Ha: P \< 61% (One-tailed Test)|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.481
90797281|NCT00718315|181473755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.933||||||Test for Binomial Ratio, where H0: P \>=61%; Ha: P \< 61% (One-tailed Test)|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.933
90797282|NCT00718315|181473755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.986||||||Test for Binomial Ratio, where H0: P \>=61%; Ha: P \< 61% (One-tailed Test)|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.986
90797283|NCT00718315|181473757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.095|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.095
90797284|NCT00718315|181473758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.199|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.199
90797285|NCT00718315|181473759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.108|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.108
90797286|NCT00718315|181473760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.179|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.179
90797287|NCT00718315|181473761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.066|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.066
90797288|NCT00718315|181473762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.087|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.087
90797289|NCT00718315|181473763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.308|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.308
90797290|NCT00474903|181473787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0955|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0955
90797291|NCT00474903|181473787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0204|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0204
90797292|NCT02519842|181473793|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|27.9|||||Mean difference in percentage of participants who experienced at least 1 tier 2 AE and received fosaprepitant regimen compared with participants who received control regimen.|||27.9|-7.6|
90797293|NCT02519842|181473794|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|17.8|||||Mean difference in percentage of participants who discontinued due to an AE and received fosaprepitant regimen compared with participants who received control regimen.|||17.8|-5.1|
90797294|NCT00859833|181473798|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation for equivalence: SD for adenosine = 0.59, SD for regadenoson = 0.92, true difference between groups = 0.19. With n=28, DOF = 46. Power for equivalence (with alpha = 0.05) = 0.98585.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.7||0.3617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6041|0.2241|||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis is that myocardial perfusion reserve (MPR) is not different when measured with adenosine or regadenoson in patients across a broad range of body sizes.||0.2241|-0.6041|0.3617
90797295|NCT01561976|181473799|OTHER||Ratio|108.94||||0.1413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|101.01|117.5|||ANOVA||Ratio= METLEAD ForteSR-Fed/METLEAD ForteSR-Fasting|||117.50|101.01|0.1413
90797296|NCT01561976|181473799|OTHER||Ratio|107.24||||0.1413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.37|115.73|||ANOVA||Ratio= METLEAD G2 Forte/METLEAD ForteSR-Fasting|||115.73|99.37|0.1413
90797297|NCT01561976|181473800|OTHER||Ratio|116.5||||0.0171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|106.91|126.95|||ANOVA||Ratio= METLEAD ForteSR-Fed/METLEAD ForteSR-Fasting|||126.95|106.91|0.0171
90797298|NCT01561976|181473800|OTHER||Ratio|107.24||||0.0171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.35|116.94|||ANOVA||Ratio= METLEAD G2 Forte/METLEAD ForteSR-Fasting|||116.94|98.35|0.0171
90797299|NCT01561976|181473801|OTHER||Ratio|116.87||||0.0169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|107.07|127.57|||ANOVA||Ratio= METLEAD ForteSR-Fed/METLEAD ForteSR-Fasting|||127.57|107.07|0.0169
90797300|NCT01561976|181473801|OTHER||Ratio|107.38||||0.0169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.3|117.29|||ANOVA||Ratio= METLEAD G2 Forte/METLEAD ForteSR-Fasting|||117.29|98.30|0.0169
90797301|NCT01977222|181473814|OTHER|||||||0.1673|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1673
90797302|NCT01977222|181473815|OTHER|||||||0.5745|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5745
90797303|NCT01977222|181473816|OTHER|||||||0.511|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.511
90797304|NCT01977222|181473817|OTHER|||||||0.776|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.776
90797305|NCT01977222|181473818|OTHER|||||||0.5374|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5374
90797306|NCT01977222|181473819|OTHER|||||||0.3385|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3385
90797307|NCT01977222|181473820|OTHER|||||||0.0189|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0189
90797308|NCT01977222|181473821|OTHER|||||||0.1183|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1183
90797309|NCT00928668|181473848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.157|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.252|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.657|1.657|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using an analysis of variance with terms for centre, patients within centre, treatment and period (all as fixed effects)|Olo 2 mcg minus Placebo|||1.657|0.657|<0.0001
91012019|NCT00538434|181906730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.36||0.8306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.19|13.91||Analyzed using analysis of covariance with adjustment for stratification factor and for variable at baseline.|ANCOVA||Comparison of least square means provides the difference (of individual change scores) between each reslizumab dose group and placebo.|Physical Summary Score||13.91|-11.19|0.8306
91012020|NCT00538434|181906730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-6.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.37||0.1459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.01|2.24||Analyzed using analysis of covariance with adjustment for stratification factor and for variable at baseline.|ANCOVA||Comparison of least square means provides the difference (of individual change scores) between each reslizumab dose group and placebo.|Psychosocial Summary Score||2.24|-15.01|0.1459
91053926|NCT02912650|181990990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.27||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.44|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.44|0.10|0.002
90797310|NCT00928668|181473848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.711|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.255|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.205|2.217|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using an analysis of variance with terms for centre, patients within centre, treatment and period (all as fixed effects)|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||2.217|1.205|<0.0001
90797311|NCT00928668|181473848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.443|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.248|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.952|2.935|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using an analysis of variance with terms for centre, patients within centre, treatment and period (all as fixed effects)|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||2.935|1.952|<0.0001
90797312|NCT00928668|181473848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.984|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.251|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.486|3.483|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using an analysis of variance with terms for centre, patients within centre, treatment and period (all as fixed effects)|Form 20 mcg minus Placebo|||3.483|2.486|<0.0001
90797313|NCT00928668|181473849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.139|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.249|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.645|2.633|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using an analysis of variance with terms for centre, patients within centre, treatment and period (all as fixed effects)|Olo 2 mcg minus Placebo|||2.633|1.645|<0.0001
90797314|NCT00928668|181473849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.636|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.252|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.135|3.136|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using an analysis of variance with terms for centre, patients within centre, treatment and period (all as fixed effects)|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||3.136|2.135|<0.0001
90797315|NCT00928668|181473849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.245|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.074|4.046|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using an analysis of variance with terms for centre, patients within centre, treatment and period (all as fixed effects)|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||4.046|3.074|<0.0001
90797316|NCT00928668|181473849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.224|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.249|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.731|4.717|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using an analysis of variance with terms for centre, patients within centre, treatment and period (all as fixed effects)|Form 20 mcg minus Placebo|||4.717|3.731|<0.0001
90797317|NCT00928668|181473850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.025|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.296|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.437|2.613|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using an analysis of variance with terms for centre, patients within centre, treatment and period (all as fixed effects)|Olo 2 mcg minus Placebo|||2.613|1.437|<0.0001
90797318|NCT00928668|181473850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.785|2.975|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using an analysis of variance with terms for centre, patients within centre, treatment and period (all as fixed effects)|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||2.975|1.785|<0.0001
90797319|NCT00928668|181473850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.549|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.292|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.971|4.127|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using an analysis of variance with terms for centre, patients within centre, treatment and period (all as fixed effects)|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||4.127|2.971|<0.0001
90797320|NCT00928668|181473850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.208|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.296|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.622|4.794|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using an analysis of variance with terms for centre, patients within centre, treatment and period (all as fixed effects)|Form 20 mcg minus Placebo|||4.794|3.622|<0.0001
90797321|NCT00928668|181473851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.907|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.295|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.322|2.492|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using an analysis of variance with terms for centre, patients within centre, treatment and period (all as fixed effects)|Olo 2 mcg minus Placebo|||2.492|1.322|<0.0001
90797322|NCT00928668|181473851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.474|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.299|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.822|3.066|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using an analysis of variance with terms for centre, patients within centre, treatment and period (all as fixed effects)|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||3.066|1.822|<0.0001
90797323|NCT00928668|181473851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.327|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.752|3.902|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using an analysis of variance with terms for centre, patients within centre, treatment and period (all as fixed effects)|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||3.902|2.752|<0.0001
90797324|NCT00928668|181473851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.294|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.637|4.803|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using an analysis of variance with terms for centre, patients within centre, treatment and period (all as fixed effects)|Form 20 mcg minus Placebo|||4.803|3.637|<0.0001
91012021|NCT00538434|181906730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-3.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.38||0.4375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.05|5.23||Analyzed using analysis of covariance with adjustment for stratification factor and for variable at baseline.|ANCOVA||Comparison of least square means provides the difference (of individual change scores) between each reslizumab dose group and placebo.|Psychosocial Summary Score||5.23|-12.05|0.4375
91012022|NCT00538434|181906730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.35||0.9217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|8.15||Analyzed using analysis of covariance with adjustment for stratification factor and for variable at baseline.|ANCOVA||Comparison of least square means provides the difference (of individual change scores) between each reslizumab dose group and placebo.|Psychosocial Summary Score||8.15|-9.00|0.9217
90797325|NCT00928668|181473852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.229|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.271|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.692|1.766|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using an analysis of variance with terms for centre, patients within centre, treatment and period (all as fixed effects)|Olo 2 mcg minus Placebo|||1.766|0.692|<0.0001
90797326|NCT00928668|181473852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.825|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.274|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.281|2.369|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using an analysis of variance with terms for centre, patients within centre, treatment and period (all as fixed effects)|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||2.369|1.281|<0.0001
90797327|NCT00928668|181473852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.114|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.578|2.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using an analysis of variance with terms for centre, patients within centre, treatment and period (all as fixed effects)|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||2.650|1.578|<0.0001
90797328|NCT00928668|181473852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.645|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.11|3.181|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using an analysis of variance with terms for centre, patients within centre, treatment and period (all as fixed effects)|Form 20 mcg minus Placebo|||3.181|2.110|<0.0001
90797329|NCT01728246|181473869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
90797330|NCT01728246|181473870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
90797331|NCT01728246|181473872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
90797332|NCT01968980|181473952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square (LS) mean difference|-54.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.54|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.5|-49.5|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||LS-mean difference,associated 95 percent (%) confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||-49.5|-59.5|<0.001
90797333|NCT01968980|181473953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-37.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.77|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.1|-34.1|||MMRM|||LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||-34.1|-41.1|<0.001
90797334|NCT01968980|181473954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-51.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.36|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.7|-46.4|||MMRM|||LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||-46.4|-55.7|<0.001
91012023|NCT00538434|181906730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.82||0.8412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.98|13.85||Analyzed using analysis of covariance with adjustment for stratification factor and for variable at baseline.|ANCOVA||Comparison of least square means provides the difference (of individual change scores) between each reslizumab dose group and placebo.|Global Health Score||13.85|-16.98|0.8412
90797335|NCT01968980|181473955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-48.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.44|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.8|-43.2|||MMRM|||LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||-43.2|-52.8|<0.001
90797336|NCT01968980|181473956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-28.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.73|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.9|-23.2|||MMRM|||LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||-23.2|-33.9|<0.001
90797337|NCT01968980|181473957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.47|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|9.9|||MMRM|||LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||9.9|4.1|<0.001
90797338|NCT01968980|181473958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-52.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.2|-46.0||||||Week 24: LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||-46.0|-58.2|
90797339|NCT01968980|181473958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-48.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.87|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.6|-42.3||||||Week 52: LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||-42.3|-53.6|
90797340|NCT01968980|181473959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-35.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.0|-31.6||||||Week 24: LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||-31.6|-40.0|
91012024|NCT00538434|181906730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-5.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.81||0.4794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.94|9.87||Analyzed using analysis of covariance with adjustment for stratification factor and for variable at baseline.|ANCOVA||Comparison of least square means provides the difference (of individual change scores) between each reslizumab dose group and placebo.|Global Health Score||9.87|-20.94|0.4794
91012025|NCT00538434|181906730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.66||0.8906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.16|14.06||Analyzed using analysis of covariance with adjustment for stratification factor and for variable at baseline.|ANCOVA||Comparison of least square means provides the difference (of individual change scores) between each reslizumab dose group and placebo.|Global Health Score||14.06|-16.16|0.8906
91012026|NCT00351611|181906731|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper CI bound was less than 0.10 (10%).|Difference in percentage of participants|-1.7094|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1751|5.9784||||||A 2-sided 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) on the difference in percentage of participants, between pregabalin and placebo was constructed using unconditional exact methods.||5.9784|-9.1751|
91012027|NCT00351611|181906732|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority with respect to mean deviation was demonstrated if the lower bound of the CI is greater than -2.0 decibels.|Difference in LS mean|-0.125||||0.4414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.443|0.194|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and center in the model and the baseline mean deviation as the covariate was used to construct a 2-sided 95% CI on the difference in least squares (LS) mean between pregabalin and placebo.||0.194|-0.443|0.4414
91012028|NCT00351611|181906733|OTHER||Difference in LS mean|-0.9||||0.1346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.083|0.283|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA with treatment and center in the model and the baseline visual acuity as the covariate was used to construct a 2-sided 95% confidence interval on the difference in LS mean between pregabalin and placebo.||0.283|-2.083|0.1346
90797341|NCT01968980|181473959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-31.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.8|-27.8||||||Week 52: LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||-27.8|-35.8|
90797342|NCT01968980|181473960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-48.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.86|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.1|-42.8||||||Week 24: LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||-42.8|-54.1|
90797343|NCT01968980|181473960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-42.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.71|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.5|-36.9||||||Week 52: LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||-36.9|-47.5|
90797344|NCT01968980|181473961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-46.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.67|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.1|-41.6||||||Week 24: LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||-41.6|-52.1|
90797345|NCT01968980|181473961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-40.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.53|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.5|-35.5||||||Week 52: LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||-35.5|-45.5|
91012029|NCT01589185|181906735|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3962||||||\< 0.1 is considered borderline significant|Fisher Exact|||The number (%) of patients who died on or before end of study (EOS) was compared among all 5 groups. The mITT population was used.||||0.3962
91012030|NCT03781167|181906813|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 1 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91012031|NCT03781167|181906813|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 1 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91012032|NCT03781167|181906813|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 1 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91012033|NCT03781167|181906813|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 6 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91012034|NCT03781167|181906813|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 6 vs Baseline||||<0.001
90797346|NCT01968980|181473962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-35.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.58|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.8|-10.3||||||Week 24: LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||-10.3|-59.8|
90797347|NCT01968980|181473962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-15.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.58|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.3|-4.4||||||Week 52: LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||-4.4|-26.3|
90797348|NCT01968980|181473963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.42|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|8.7||||||Week 24: LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||8.7|3.1|
90797349|NCT01968980|181473963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.53|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|5.9||||||Week 52: LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||5.9|-0.1|
90797350|NCT01968980|181473964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-17.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.22|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.3|-8.7||||||Week 12: LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||-8.7|-25.3|
90797351|NCT01968980|181473964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-17.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.0|-7.8||||||Week 24: LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||-7.8|-27.0|
91012035|NCT03781167|181906813|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 6 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91012036|NCT03781167|181906813|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 13 vs Baseline||||<0.001
90797352|NCT01968980|181473964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-9.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.04|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|0.4||||||Week 52: LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||0.4|-19.4|
90797353|NCT01968980|181473965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|7.8||||||Week 12: LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||7.8|2.9|
90797354|NCT01968980|181473965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|6.8||||||Week 24: LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||6.8|2.5|
90797355|NCT01968980|181473965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.22|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|5.4||||||Week 52: LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||5.4|0.5|
90797356|NCT01968980|181473966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|3.6||||||Week 12: LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||3.6|-2.3|
90797357|NCT01968980|181473966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.31|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|3.2||||||Week 24: LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||3.2|-1.9|
90797358|NCT01968980|181473966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.39|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|3.6||||||Week 52: LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||3.6|-1.9|
90797359|NCT01968980|181473967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-17.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.22|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.3|-8.7||||||Week 12: LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||-8.7|-25.3|
90797360|NCT01968980|181473967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-17.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.0|-7.8||||||Week 24: LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||-7.8|-27.0|
90890297|NCT02219932|181645021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.925|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.13|-1.5|||mixed model for repeated measures|||||-1.50|-5.13|< 0.001
91012037|NCT03781167|181906813|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 13 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91012038|NCT03781167|181906813|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 13 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91012039|NCT03781167|181906813|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 26 vs Baseline||||<0.001
90797361|NCT01968980|181473967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-9.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.04|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|0.4||||||Week 52: LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||0.4|-19.4|
90797362|NCT01968980|181473968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-78.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.75|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-86.2|-71.4||||||LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||-71.4|-86.2|
90797363|NCT01968980|181473969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-83.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.15|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-91.3|-75.0||||||LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||-75.0|-91.3|
90797364|NCT01968980|181473970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-87.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-95.4|-78.7||||||LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||-78.7|-95.4|
90797365|NCT01968980|181473971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-53.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.71|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.2|-48.5||||||LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||-48.5|-59.2|
91012040|NCT03781167|181906813|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 26 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91012041|NCT03781167|181906813|SUPERIORITY|Week 26 vs Baseline|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 26 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91012042|NCT03781167|181906813|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 39 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91012043|NCT03781167|181906813|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 39 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91012044|NCT03781167|181906813|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 39 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91012045|NCT03781167|181906813|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 52 vs Baseline||||<0.001
90797366|NCT01968980|181473972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-11.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.47|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|-8.9||||||LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||-8.9|-14.7|
90797367|NCT01968980|181473973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|4.9||||||LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||4.9|2.0|
90797368|NCT01968980|181473974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-1.8||||||Week 12: LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||-1.8|-2.2|
90797369|NCT01968980|181473974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-1.6||||||Week 24: LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||-1.6|-2.1|
90797370|NCT01968980|181473974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-1.3||||||Week 52: LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||-1.3|-1.8|
90797371|NCT01968980|181473975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.4||||||Week 12: LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||-0.4|-0.5|
91012046|NCT03781167|181906813|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 52 vs Baseline||||<0.001
90797372|NCT01968980|181473975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.4||||||Week 24:LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||-0.4|-0.4|
91012047|NCT03781167|181906813|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 52 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91012048|NCT03781167|181906814|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||>|0.999|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 1 vs Baseline||||>0.999
91012049|NCT03781167|181906814|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.5095|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 1 vs Baseline||||=0.5095
91012050|NCT03781167|181906814|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.6962|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 1 vs Baseline||||=0.6962
91012051|NCT03781167|181906814|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.0035|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 6 vs Baseline||||=0.0035
91012052|NCT03781167|181906814|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.0324|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 6 vs Baseline||||=0.0324
91012053|NCT03781167|181906814|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 6 vs Baseline||||<0.001
90797373|NCT01968980|181473975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.3||||||Week 52: LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||-0.3|-0.4|
90797374|NCT01968980|181473976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|51.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.24|106.1||||||Week 12: Odds ratio, associated 95% confidence interval and p-value from a Logistic Regression Model with fixed effects for treatment group,baseline value and geographical region was used for analysis.||106.10|25.24|
90797375|NCT01968980|181473976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|66.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.32|147.43||||||Week 24: Odds ratio, associated 95% confidence interval and p-value from a Logistic Regression Model with fixed effects for treatment group,baseline value and geographical region was used for analysis.||147.43|30.32|
90797376|NCT01968980|181473976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|22.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.85|44.01||||||Week 52: Odds ratio, associated 95% confidence interval and p-value from a Logistic Regression Model with fixed effects for treatment group,baseline value and geographical region was used for analysis.||44.01|11.85|
90797377|NCT01968980|181473977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|200.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.16|854.6||||||Week 12: Odds ratio, associated 95% confidence interval and p-value from a Logistic Regression Model with fixed effects for treatment group,baseline value and geographical region was used for analysis.||854.60|47.16|
91012054|NCT03781167|181906814|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.0072|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 13 vs Baseline||||=0.0072
91012055|NCT03781167|181906814|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.0129|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 13 vs Baseline||||=0.0129
91012056|NCT03781167|181906814|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 13 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91012057|NCT03781167|181906814|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.0119|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 26 vs Baseline||||=0.0119
90797378|NCT01968980|181473977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|228.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.95|1000.39||||||Week 24: Odds ratio, associated 95% confidence interval and p-value from a Logistic Regression Model with fixed effects for treatment group,baseline value and geographical region was used for analysis.||1000.39|51.95|
90797379|NCT01968980|181473977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|259.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.87|1937.06||||||Week 52: Odds ratio, associated 95% confidence interval and p-value from a Logistic Regression Model with fixed effects for treatment group,baseline value and geographical region was used for analysis.||1937.06|34.87|
90797380|NCT00862940|181473990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.9754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|2.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model relating direct change in brain volume (BBSI) to time and its interaction with treatment group. This model additionally includes a time-by-AChEI group interaction as a fixed effect.||2.52|-2.60|0.9754
90797381|NCT00862940|181473991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.52||0.842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.04|31.04|||MMRM|||Mixed model repeated measurements (MMRM) with unstructured covariance including time, time-by-treatment, visit, pre-treatment HCV, and AChEI group.||31.04|-38.04|0.842
90797382|NCT00862940|181473992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|3.23||The p-value represents the difference from placebo for COWAT at Week 52 (MMRM).|MMRM|||||3.23|0.13|0.034
90797383|NCT00862940|181473993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|1.15||The p-value represents the difference from placebo for MMSE at Week 52 (MMRM).|MMRM|||||1.15|-0.67|0.602
90797384|NCT00485173|181473994|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The predefined non-inferiority margin was 0.10.|||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value was one-sided from random samplings, based on logistic regression model by using propensity score as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
90797385|NCT00485173|181473994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value was one-sided, obtained from logistic regression model by using propensity score as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Superiority comparison of success rates in two treatment groups was a secondary objective of this trial. Superiority analysis was performed if non-inferiority was demonstrated.||||<0.001
90797386|NCT00485173|181473995|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The predefined non-inferiority margin was 0.10.|||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value was one-sided from random samplings, based on logistic regression model by using propensity score as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
90797387|NCT00485173|181473995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-value was one-sided, obtained from logistic regression model by using propensity score as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Superiority analysis was performed if non-inferiority was demonstrated.||||0.002
90797388|NCT00485173|181473996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-value was one-sided, adjusted from ANCOVA with the propensity score as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.002
90797389|NCT00485173|181473997|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The predefined non-inferiority margin was 0.10.|||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value was one-sided from random sampling, based on covariance matrix produced by logistic regression using propensity score as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
90890298|NCT02219932|181645022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.277||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.95|||mixed model for repeated measures|||||0.95|-0.13|0.141
91012058|NCT03781167|181906814|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.22||||||A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|paired-sample t-test|||Week 26 vs Baseline||||=0.2200
91012059|NCT03781167|181906814|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.0063|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 26 vs Baseline||||=0.0063
91012060|NCT03781167|181906814|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 39 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91012061|NCT03781167|181906814|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.4331|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 39 vs Baseline||||=0.4331
91012062|NCT03781167|181906814|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.0045|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 39 vs Baseline||||=0.0045
91012063|NCT03781167|181906814|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.0049|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 52 vs Baseline||||=0.0049
90797390|NCT00485173|181473997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011||95.0||||P-value was one-sided, obtained from logistic regression model by using propensity score as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Superiority analysis was performed if non-inferiority was demonstrated.||||0.011
90797391|NCT00485173|181473998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.063||95.0||||P-value was one-sided, adjusted from ANCOVA with the propensity score as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.063
90797392|NCT00485173|181473999|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The predefined non-inferiority margin was 0.10.|||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value was one-sided from random samplings, based on logistic regression model by using propensity score as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
90797393|NCT00485173|181473999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value was one-sided, obtained from logistic regression model by using propensity score as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Superiority analysis was performed if non-inferiority was demonstrated.||||<0.001
90797394|NCT00485173|181474000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031||95.0||||P-value was one-sided, adjusted from ANCOVA with the propensity score as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.031
90797395|NCT00485173|181474001|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The predefined non-inferiority margin was 0.10.||||||0.001||95.0||||P-value was one-sided from random samplings, based on logistic regression model by using propensity score as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.001
91012064|NCT03781167|181906814|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.6312|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 52 vs Baseline||||=0.6312
91012065|NCT03781167|181906814|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.1892|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 52 vs Baseline||||=0.1892
91053927|NCT02912650|181990990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.58|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.58|0.23|<0.001
90797396|NCT00485173|181474001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.414||95.0||||P-value was one-sided, obtained from logistic regression model by using propensity score as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Superiority analysis was performed if non-inferiority was demonstrated.||||0.414
90797397|NCT00485173|181474002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0||||P-value was one-sided, adjusted from ANCOVA with the propensity score as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.030
90797398|NCT00485173|181474003|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The predefined non-inferiority margin was 0.10.|||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value was one-sided from random samplings, based on logistic regression model by using propensity score as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
90797399|NCT00485173|181474003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017||95.0||||P-value was one-sided, obtained from logistic regression model by using propensity score as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Superiority analysis was performed if non-inferiority was demonstrated.||||0.017
90797400|NCT00485173|181474004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.189||95.0||||P-value was one-sided, adjusted from ANCOVA with the propensity score as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.189
90797401|NCT00485173|181474005|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The predefined non-inferiority margin was 0.10.||||||0.003||95.0||||P-value was one-sided from random samplings, based on logistic regression model by using propensity score as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.003
90797402|NCT00485173|181474005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.466||95.0||||P-value was one-sided, obtained from logistic regression model by using propensity score as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Superiority analysis was performed if non-inferiority was demonstrated.||||0.466
90797403|NCT00485173|181474006|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The predefined non-inferiority margin was 0.10.|||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value was one-sided from random samplings, based on logistic regression model by using propensity score as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
90797404|NCT00485173|181474006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.133||95.0||||P-value was one-sided, obtained from logistic regression model by using propensity score as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Superiority analysis was performed if non-inferiority was demonstrated.||||0.133
90797405|NCT00485173|181474007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value was two-sided, adjusted from ANCOVA with the propensity score as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90797406|NCT00485173|181474008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value was two-sided, adjusted from ANCOVA with the propensity score as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90797407|NCT00485173|181474009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.341||95.0||||P-value was two-sided, adjusted from ANCOVA with the propensity score as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.341
90797408|NCT00485173|181474010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.479||95.0||||P-value was two-sided, obtained from Cox regression and adjusted with propensity scores.|Regression, Cox|||||||0.479
90797409|NCT00485173|181474011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value was from logistic regression model by using propensity score and any ossification 'Yes/No' at preop as the covariates.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis at 24 months postoperation.||||<0.001
90797410|NCT04537650|181474012|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|21.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|243.24|||Chi-squared|||||243.24|1.8|<0.001
90797411|NCT04537650|181474013|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|45.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.15|487.5|||Chi-squared|||||487.5|4.15|<0.001
90797412|NCT00879398|181474020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Statistical significant level: 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90797413|NCT00879398|181474021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Statistical significant level: 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91012066|NCT03781167|181906815|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 1 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91012067|NCT03781167|181906815|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 1 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91012068|NCT03781167|181906815|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 1 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91012069|NCT03781167|181906815|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 6 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91012070|NCT03781167|181906815|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 6 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91053928|NCT02912650|181990990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.33|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.33|0.84|<0.001
90797414|NCT00879398|181474022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Statistical significant level: 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90797415|NCT00879398|181474024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1319||95.0||||Statistical significant level: 0.05|Chi-squared|||Geriatric Status: \<65 years versus (vs) Geriatric Status: ≥65 years||||0.1319
90797416|NCT00879398|181474024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.601||95.0||||Statistical significant level: 0.05|Chi-squared|||Comparison among Age Categories: \<50 years, 50 to 59 years, 60 to 69 years, 70 to 79 years, and ≥80 years.||||0.6010
90797417|NCT00879398|181474024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0289||95.0||||Statistical significant level: 0.05|Chi-squared|||Male vs Female||||0.0289
90797418|NCT00879398|181474024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3078||95.0||||Statistical significant level: 0.05|Chi-squared|||Comparison among Weight Categories: \<50 kg, 50 to 60 kg, 60 to 70 kg, and ≥70 kg.||||0.3078
90797419|NCT00879398|181474024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9614||95.0||||Statistical significant level: 0.05|Chi-squared|||Comparison among Height Categories: \<160 cm, 160 to 170 cm, and ≥170 cm.||||0.9614
90797420|NCT00879398|181474024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0788||95.0||||Statistical significant level: 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Allergic History: Yes vs Allergic History: No||||0.0788
90797421|NCT00879398|181474024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Statistical significant level: 0.05|Chi-squared|||Comparison among Duration of Disease: \<1 week, 1 to 8 weeks, 8 to 16 weeks, and ≥16 weeks.||||<0.0001
90797422|NCT00879398|181474024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Statistical significant level: 0.05|Chi-squared|||Past OAB Treatment History: Yes vs Past OAB Treatment History: No||||<0.0001
90797423|NCT00879398|181474024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1147||95.0||||Statistical significant level: 0.05|Chi-squared|||Medical History of Past Disease: Yes vs Medical History of Past Disease: No||||0.1147
90797424|NCT00879398|181474024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Statistical significant level: 0.05|Chi-squared|||Medical History of Present Disease: Yes vs Medical History of Present Disease: No||||<0.0001
90797425|NCT00879398|181474024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||Statistical significant level: 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Kidney Disorder: Yes vs Kidney Disorder: No||||1.0000
90797426|NCT00879398|181474024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||Statistical significant level: 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Liver Disorder: Yes vs Liver Disorder: No||||1.0000
91012071|NCT03781167|181906815|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 6 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91012072|NCT03781167|181906815|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 13 vs Baseline||||<0.001
90797427|NCT00879398|181474024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Statistical significant level: 0.05|Chi-squared|||Comparison among Total Administration Period of Toviaz Subgroups: \<2 months, 2 to 4 months, and ≥4 months.||||<0.0001
90797428|NCT00879398|181474024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0239||95.0||||Statistical significant level: 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Comparison among Daily Dose of Toviaz: 3 mg, 4 mg, \>4 mg to \<8 mg, and 8 mg.||||0.0239
90797429|NCT00879398|181474024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Statistical significant level: 0.05|Chi-squared|||Completion vs Discontinuation||||<0.0001
90797430|NCT00879398|181474024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5889||95.0||||Statistical significant level: 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Total Administration Period \<274 days vs Total Administration Period ≥ 274 days||||0.5889
90797431|NCT00879398|181474024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||Statistical significant level: 0.05|Chi-squared|||Concurrent Medication: Yes vs Concurrent Medication: No||||0.0010
90797432|NCT00829244|181474025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-0.1|||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis was that the difference between the mean number of oocytes \[CONSORT calculator dosing - Standard dosing\] was less than or equal to \[=\<\] (-3). The alternate hypothesis was that the difference was greater than \[\>\] (-3).||-0.1|-3.3|0.037
90797433|NCT00829244|181474026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-511.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|64.52|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-638.78|-383.96|||ANOVA|||||-383.96|-638.78|<0.001
90797434|NCT00829244|181474027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-45.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.75|-37.46|||ANOVA|||||-37.46|-53.75|<0.001
90797435|NCT00829244|181474028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.5|||ANOVA|||||0.5|-0.4|0.933
90797436|NCT00829244|181474030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|18.2||||||||18.2|-11.0|
90797437|NCT00829244|181474032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.6||0.926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|13.6|||ANOVA|||||13.6|-12.3|0.926
90797438|NCT00829244|181474034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|2.47|||ANOVA|||||2.47|-0.61|0.235
90797439|NCT00829244|181474035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|14.6||||||||14.6|-13.5|
90797440|NCT05047627|181474055|OTHER||Differences in slopes|0.76||||0.755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.14|5.66|||Robust linear mixed models|||||5.66|-4.14|.755
90797441|NCT05047627|181474056|OTHER||Differences in slopes|1.38||||0.713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.15|8.91|||Robust linear mixed models|||||8.91|-6.15|0.713
90797442|NCT05047627|181474057|OTHER||Differences in slopes|1.03||||0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|3.09|||Robust linear mixed models|||||3.09|-1.02|0.323
90797443|NCT05047627|181474058|OTHER||Differences in slopes|-0.33||||0.692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|1.3|||Robust linear mixed models|||||1.30|-1.95|.692
90797444|NCT05047627|181474059|OTHER||Differences in slopes|-2.92||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.41|0.58|||Robust linear mixed models|||||0.58|-6.41|0.1
91012073|NCT03781167|181906815|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 13 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91012074|NCT03781167|181906815|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 13 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91012075|NCT03781167|181906815|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 26 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91012076|NCT03781167|181906815|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 26 vs Baseline||||<0.001
90797445|NCT06378008|181474086|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.092|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|-1.62|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test toothpaste minus reference toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 56||-1.62|-1.98|<0.0001
90797446|NCT06378008|181474087|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|52.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.428|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.08|57.65|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test toothpaste minus reference toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 56||57.65|48.08|<0.0001
90797447|NCT06378008|181474088|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|-0.08|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test toothpaste minus reference toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 3||-0.08|-0.29|0.0005
90797448|NCT06378008|181474088|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.49|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test toothpaste minus reference toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 7||-0.49|-0.73|<0.0001
90797449|NCT06378008|181474088|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.092|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|-1.04|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test toothpaste minus reference toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 14||-1.04|-1.41|<0.0001
90797450|NCT06378008|181474088|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.093|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|-1.38|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test toothpaste minus reference toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 28||-1.38|-1.74|<0.0001
91012077|NCT03781167|181906815|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 26 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91012078|NCT03781167|181906815|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 39 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91053929|NCT02912650|181990990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.2|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.20|0.70|<0.001
91053930|NCT02912650|181990990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.14||||0.123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.31|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.31|-0.04|0.123
91053931|NCT02912650|181990990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.67|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.67|1.14|<0.001
90797451|NCT06378008|181474089|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|7.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.706|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.75|8.53|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test toothpaste minus reference toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 3||8.53|5.75|<0.0001
90797452|NCT06378008|181474089|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|14.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.112|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.2|16.59|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test toothpaste minus reference toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 7||16.59|12.20|<0.0001
90797453|NCT06378008|181474089|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|25.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.59|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.67|28.93|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test toothpaste minus reference toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 14||28.93|22.67|<0.0001
90797454|NCT06378008|181474089|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|40.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.254|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.55|45.43|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test toothpaste minus reference toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 28||45.43|36.55|<0.0001
90797455|NCT06378008|181474090|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.219||0.3489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.23|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted Mean Difference was calculated as Test Toothpaste minus Reference Toothpaste.|Q7 (How intense are the sensations?): Change from Baseline at Day 28||0.23|-0.64|0.3489
90797456|NCT06378008|181474090|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.267||0.0876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.07|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test Toothpaste minus Reference Toothpaste.|Q7 (How intense are the sensations?): Change from Baseline at Day 56||0.07|-0.98|0.0876
90797457|NCT06378008|181474090|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.252||0.9108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.52|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test Toothpaste minus Reference Toothpaste.|Q8 (How bothered are you by any sensations?): Change from Baseline at Day 28||0.52|-0.47|0.9108
90797458|NCT06378008|181474090|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.281||0.4854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.36|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test Toothpaste minus Reference Toothpaste.|Q8 (How bothered are you by any sensations?): Change from Baseline at Day 56||0.36|-0.75|0.4854
91012079|NCT03781167|181906815|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 39 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91012080|NCT03781167|181906815|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 39 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91012081|NCT03781167|181906815|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 52 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91053932|NCT02912650|181990990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.24||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.42|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.42|0.05|0.012
91053933|NCT02912650|181990990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.75|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.75|0.38|<0.001
91053934|NCT02912650|181990990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.43|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.43|0.90|<0.001
91053935|NCT02912650|181990990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.11|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.11|0.57|<0.001
90797459|NCT06378008|181474090|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.261||0.8309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.57|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test Toothpaste minus Reference Toothpaste.|Q9 (How well can you tolerate sensations?): Change from Baseline at Day 28||0.57|-0.46|0.8309
90797460|NCT06378008|181474090|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.297||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|0.0|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test Toothpaste minus Reference Toothpaste.|Q9 (How well can you tolerate sensations?): Change from Baseline at Day 56||-0.00|-1.17|0.0500
90797461|NCT06378008|181474091|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.859||0.5565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.88|5.33|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test Toothpaste minus Reference Toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 28||5.33|-9.88|0.5565
90797462|NCT06378008|181474091|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-5.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.715||0.2078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.25|3.34|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test Toothpaste minus Reference Toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 56||3.34|-15.25|0.2078
90797463|NCT06378008|181474092|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.588||0.5597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.82|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test Toothpaste minus Reference Toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 28||0.82|-1.50|0.5597
90797464|NCT06378008|181474092|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.705||0.4627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|0.87|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test Toothpaste minus Reference Toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 56||0.87|-1.91|0.4627
90797465|NCT06378008|181474093|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.583||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.77|1.48|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test Toothpaste minus Reference Toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 28||1.48|-4.77|0.3000
90797466|NCT06378008|181474093|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.958||0.1974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.39|1.33|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test Toothpaste minus Reference Toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 56||1.33|-6.39|0.1974
90797467|NCT06378008|181474094|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.679||0.9203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|1.41|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test Toothpaste minus Reference Toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 28||1.41|-1.27|0.9203
90797468|NCT06378008|181474094|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.717||0.2489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.24|0.58|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test Toothpaste minus Reference Toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 56||0.58|-2.24|0.2489
90797469|NCT06378008|181474095|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09||0.8496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.36|1.94|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test Toothpaste minus Reference Toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 28||1.94|-2.36|0.8496
90797470|NCT06378008|181474095|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.226||0.1596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.15|0.69|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test Toothpaste minus Reference Toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 56||0.69|-4.15|0.1596
90797471|NCT06378008|181474096|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.697||0.9577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|1.41|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test Toothpaste minus Reference Toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 28||1.41|-1.34|0.9577
91053936|NCT02912650|181990990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.51|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.51|0.14|<0.001
90797472|NCT06378008|181474096|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.748||0.8261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|1.31|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test Toothpaste minus Reference Toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 56||1.31|-1.64|0.8261
90797473|NCT06378008|181474097|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.089||0.8895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.16|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test Toothpaste minus Reference Toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 28||0.16|-0.19|0.8895
90797474|NCT06378008|181474097|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.101||0.8083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.22|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test Toothpaste minus Reference Toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 56||0.22|-0.17|0.8083
90797475|NCT06378008|181474098|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.351||0.7362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.81|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test Toothpaste minus Reference Toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 28||0.81|-0.57|0.7362
90797476|NCT06378008|181474098|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.5568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.54|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test Toothpaste minus Reference Toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 56||0.54|-1.00|0.5568
90797477|NCT02302222|181474116|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.113||||0.1981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.016|0.243|||Fisher Exact|||||0.243|-0.016|0.1981
90797478|NCT03110562|181474126|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.702||||0.0075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5279|0.9335||One Sided P-value|Stratified Log-rank Test|Stratified for prior PI therapies, number of prior of anti-MM regimens and R-ISS Stage at screening.|Based on stratified Cox Proportional Hazard model with Efron's Method of handling ties.|||0.9335|0.5279|0.0075
90797479|NCT03110562|181474127|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9626||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2641|3.0471||One Sided P-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysis using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region, prior PI therapies, number of prior anti-MM regimens, and R-ISS stage at screening.||||3.0471|1.2641|0.0012
90797480|NCT03110562|181474128|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6594||||0.0082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0993|2.5049||One Sided P-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysis using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region, prior PI therapies, number of prior anti-MM regimens, and R-ISS stage at screening.||||2.5049|1.0993|0.0082
91053937|NCT02912650|181990990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|1.65|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.65|1.11|<0.001
90797481|NCT03110562|181474129|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5042||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3216|0.7906||One Sided P-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Stratified by Prior PI therapies (Yes or No), Number of prior anti-MM regimens (1 or \>1), and R-ISS stage at study entry (R-ISS Stage III versus R-ISS Stage I or II).|||0.7906|0.3216|0.0013
90797482|NCT03110562|181474130|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8764||||0.2152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6313|1.2168||One Sided P-value|Stratified log-rank test|Stratified for prior PI therapies, number of prior anti-MM regimens and R-ISS Stage at screening.|Based on stratified Cox Proportional Hazard model with Efron's Method of handling ties.|||1.2168|0.6313|0.2152
90797483|NCT01561469|181474138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.009
90797484|NCT01561469|181474139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Analysis for superinfections category reported.||||1.00
90797485|NCT01561469|181474139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.759|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Analysis for colonization category reported.||||0.759
90797486|NCT01561469|181474140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.773|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.773
91012082|NCT03781167|181906815|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 52 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91012083|NCT03781167|181906815|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 52 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91012084|NCT03781167|181906816|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Day 2 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91053938|NCT02912650|181990990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.48|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.48|0.11|0.002
91053939|NCT02912650|181990990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.95|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.95|0.56|<0.001
90797487|NCT01561469|181474141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.823|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.823
90797488|NCT01561469|181474142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.276|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.276
90797489|NCT01561469|181474143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.512|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.512
90797490|NCT01246960|181474231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.37|||Stratified Log Rank|||||1.37|0.69|0.886
90797491|NCT01246960|181474232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.58|||Stratified Log Rank|||||1.58|0.73|0.712
90797492|NCT01246960|181474235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.3|||Stratified Log Rank|||||1.30|0.59|0.516
90797493|NCT01409096|181474238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9084|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Baseline HRSD scores used as covariate.||||0.9084
90797494|NCT01409096|181474239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5187|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Baseline IDS-SR used as a covariate.||||0.5187
90797495|NCT01409096|181474240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.606|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Baseline YMRS used as a covariate.||||0.6060
90797496|NCT01409096|181474241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.511|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Baseline HRSA used as a covariate.||||0.5110
90797497|NCT00508521|181474272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47871||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.27348|-19.22652|||t-test, 2 sided|||This was a feasibility study. Pre and post treatment analysis was performed for the study participants.||-19.22652|-22.27348|.0001
90797498|NCT01622296|181474273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23||||||Significant at p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Inferior Alveolar nerve injection - H(0): Lidocaine VAS score = Buffered Lidocaine VAS score. Based on data from medial trials of buffered anesthetic, a power calculation for sample size indicated that 20 subjects would provide a 90% change of detecting an effect size of 0.83 (a change of 0.83 standard deviations)||||0.23
90797499|NCT01622296|181474273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57||||||Significant at p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Long buccal nerve injection - H(0): Lidocaine VAS score = Buffered Lidocaine VAS score. Based on data from medial trials of buffered anesthetic, a power calculation for sample size indicated that 20 subjects would provide a 90% change of detecting an effect size of 0.83 (a change of 0.83 standard deviations)||||0.57
90797500|NCT02465931|181474278|OTHER|||||||0.89|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.89
90890299|NCT02219932|181645023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.573||0.197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|1.86|||mixed model for repeated measures|||||1.86|-0.38|0.197
90890300|NCT04642638|181645026|OTHER||Difference in median|6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.35|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|6.7|||||Post-baseline change from baseline in IFN-gamma ELISpot response magnitudes was compared between groups using differences in medians and associated non-parametric 95% confidence interval (CI).|||6.70|0.00|
90890301|NCT04642638|181645026|OTHER||Difference in median|13.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.55|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|17.8|||||Post-baseline change from baseline in IFN-gamma ELISpot response magnitudes was compared between groups using differences in medians and associated non-parametric 95% CI.|||17.80|3.30|
91012085|NCT03781167|181906816|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Day 2 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91012086|NCT03781167|181906816|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Day 2 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91012087|NCT03781167|181906816|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 1 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91012088|NCT03781167|181906816|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 1 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91012089|NCT03781167|181906816|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 1 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91053940|NCT02912650|181990990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.36|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.36|0.82|<0.001
91053941|NCT02912650|181990990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.9|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.90|0.35|<0.001
90797501|NCT04790786|181474288|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between two arms was defined as 95% posterior probability the odds ratio is within a given bound.||||||||||||Equivalence between two arms was defined as 95% posterior probability the odds ratio is within a given bound based on Bayesian probability.|Bayesian cumulative logistic model|Bayesian cumulative logistic model, Equivalence between two arms was defined as 95% posterior probability the odds ratio is within a given bound.||The primary analysis model was a Bayesian cumulative logistic model that adjusted for treatment location (infusion center or ED), age (\<30, 30-39, 40-49, 50-59, 60-69, 70-79, and ≥ 80 years), sex, and time (2-week epochs). Comparisons between individual mAb were based on the relative odds ratio between a given two arms for the primary outcome. An odds ratio for an arm to a comparator \>1 implies improved outcomes. A sliding scale with different levels of equivalence bounds was pre-defined|Equivalence between two arms was defined as 95% posterior probability the odds ratio is within a given bound.|||
90797502|NCT03289143|181474301|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6147||||||Unadjusted|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures|||||||0.6147
90797503|NCT03289143|181474301|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5778||||||Unadjusted|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures|||||||0.5778
90797504|NCT03289143|181474301|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5136||||||Unadjusted|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures|||||||0.5136
90797505|NCT03289143|181474303|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8198||||||Unadjusted|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures|||||||0.8198
91012090|NCT03781167|181906816|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 2 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91012091|NCT03781167|181906816|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 2 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91053942|NCT02912650|181990990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.65|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.65|0.27|<0.001
91053943|NCT02912650|181990990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.61|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.61|1.06|<0.001
91053944|NCT02912650|181990990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.49|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.49|0.10|0.003
90797506|NCT03289143|181474303|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3961||||||Unadjusted|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures|||||||0.3961
90797507|NCT03289143|181474303|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6043||||||Unadjusted|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures|||||||0.6043
90797508|NCT03289143|181474304|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0783||||||Unadjusted|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures|||||||0.0783
90797509|NCT03289143|181474304|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.601||||||Unadjusted|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures|||||||0.6010
90797510|NCT03289143|181474304|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3961||||||Unadjusted|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures|||||||0.3961
90797511|NCT03289143|181474305|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9749||||||Unadjusted|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures|||||||0.9749
90797512|NCT03289143|181474305|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7718||||||Unadjusted|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures|||||||0.7718
90797513|NCT03289143|181474305|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5789||||||Unadjusted|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures|||||||0.5789
90797514|NCT03289143|181474306|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5235||||||Unadjusted|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures|||||||0.5235
90797515|NCT03289143|181474306|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5612||||||Unadjusted|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures|||||||0.5612
90797516|NCT03289143|181474306|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.713||||||Unadjusted|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures|||||||0.7130
90797517|NCT00730756|181474311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.845||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Center, baseline eosinophils, baseline symptom score, age, and gender were included as covariates in all efficacy analyses.||||||0.845
90797518|NCT05067335|181474376|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM(Romosozumab - Placebo)|9.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.524|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.34|10.39|||ANCOVA|||The ANCOVA model was used and included treatment group, Baseline DXA BMD value, machine type (hologic or lunar) at Baseline, age strata group (stratification factor), region, and interaction of Baseline DXA BMD value and machine type at Baseline as independent variables.||10.39|8.34|<0.001
90797519|NCT05067335|181474379|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM(Romosozumab - Placebo)|2.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.348|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.18|3.54|||ANCOVA|||The ANCOVA model was used and included treatment group, Baseline DXA BMD value, machine type (hologic or lunar) at Baseline, age strata group (stratification factor), region, and interaction of Baseline DXA BMD value and machine type at Baseline as independent variables.||3.54|2.18|<0.001
90797520|NCT05067335|181474380|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM(Romosozumab - Placebo)|3.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.458|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.58|4.38|||ANCOVA|||The ANCOVA model was used and included treatment group, Baseline DXA BMD value, machine type (hologic or lunar) at Baseline, age strata group (stratification factor), region, and interaction of Baseline DXA BMD value and machine type at Baseline as independent variables.||4.38|2.58|<0.001
91012092|NCT03781167|181906816|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 2 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91012093|NCT03781167|181906816|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 3 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91012094|NCT03781167|181906816|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 3 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91012095|NCT03781167|181906816|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 3 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91053945|NCT02912650|181990990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.98|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.98|0.58|<0.001
91053946|NCT02912650|181990990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.32|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.32|0.76|<0.001
91053947|NCT02912650|181990990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.84|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.84|0.28|<0.001
91012096|NCT03781167|181906816|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.0042|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 4 vs Baseline||||=0.0042
91012097|NCT03781167|181906816|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 4 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91012098|NCT03781167|181906816|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 4 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91012099|NCT03781167|181906816|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.1135|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 6 vs Baseline||||=0.1135
91012100|NCT03781167|181906816|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.0029|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 6 vs Baseline||||=0.0029
91012101|NCT03781167|181906816|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.0026|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 6 vs Baseline||||=0.0026
91012102|NCT03781167|181906816|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.0034|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 13 vs Baseline||||=0.0034
91053948|NCT02912650|181990990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.68|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.68|0.29|<0.001
91053949|NCT02912650|181990990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.57|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.57|1.00|<0.001
91053950|NCT02912650|181990990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.5|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.50|0.10|0.003
91012103|NCT03781167|181906816|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.0103|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 13 vs Baseline||||=0.0103
91012104|NCT03781167|181906816|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 13 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91012105|NCT03781167|181906816|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.0493|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 26 vs Baseline||||=0.0493
91012106|NCT03781167|181906816|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.3003|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 26 vs Baseline||||=0.3003
91053951|NCT02912650|181990990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.91|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.91|0.51|<0.001
91012107|NCT03781167|181906816|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.0354|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 26 vs Baseline||||=0.0354
91012108|NCT03781167|181906816|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.2553|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 39 vs Baseline||||=0.2553
91012109|NCT03781167|181906816|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.864|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 39 vs Baseline||||=0.8640
91012110|NCT03781167|181906816|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.4774|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 39 vs Baseline||||=0.4774
91012111|NCT03781167|181906816|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.3865|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 52 vs Baseline||||=0.3865
91012112|NCT03781167|181906816|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.||||||0.1186|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 52 vs Baseline||||0.1186
91012113|NCT03781167|181906816|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.083|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 52 vs Baseline||||=0.0830
91012114|NCT03781167|181906817|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Day 2 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91012115|NCT03781167|181906817|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.0041|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Day 2 vs Baseline||||=0.0041
91012116|NCT03781167|181906817|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Day 2 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91012117|NCT03781167|181906817|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 1 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91012118|NCT03781167|181906817|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 1 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91012119|NCT03781167|181906817|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 1 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91012120|NCT03781167|181906817|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 2 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91012121|NCT03781167|181906817|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 2 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91012122|NCT03781167|181906817|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 2 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91012123|NCT03781167|181906817|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 3 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91012124|NCT03781167|181906817|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 3 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91053952|NCT02912650|181990990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.27|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.27|0.70|<0.001
91053953|NCT02912650|181990990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.86|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.86|0.29|<0.001
91053954|NCT02912650|181990990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.61|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.61|0.21|<0.001
90797521|NCT02136914|181474398|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|-3.3|||Linear Mixed Model w/ Repeated Measures|Change from baseline is a dependent variable, treatment group is a factor, and the baseline value is a covariate.||46 subjects per treatment arm provided 90% power using a 2-sided test at 5% significance.||-3.3|-12.5|0.0009
90797522|NCT02136914|181474399|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|-4.0|||Linear Mixed Model w/ Repeated Measures|||||-4.0|-14.7|0.0008
90797523|NCT02136914|181474400|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.612|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|3.96||Change from Baseline in ON time without troublesome dyskinesia at Week 12.|Linear Mixed Model w/ Repeated Measures|||||3.96|1.53|<0.0001
90797524|NCT02136914|181474400|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.634||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|3.47||Change from Baseline in ON time without troublesome dyskinesia at Week 24.|Linear Mixed Model w/ Repeated Measures|||||3.47|0.96|0.0007
90797525|NCT02136914|181474400|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.373||0.0171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|-0.16||Change from Baseline in OFF time at Week 12.|Linear Mixed Model w/ Repeated Measures|||||-0.16|-1.64|0.0171
91012125|NCT03781167|181906817|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 3 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91012126|NCT03781167|181906817|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 4 vs Baseline||||<0.001
90797526|NCT02136914|181474400|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.389||0.0406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|-0.04||Change from Baseline in OFF time at Week 24.|Linear Mixed Model w/ Repeated Measures|||||-0.04|-1.58|0.0406
91012127|NCT03781167|181906817|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 4 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91012128|NCT03781167|181906817|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 4 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91012129|NCT03781167|181906817|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 6 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91012130|NCT03781167|181906817|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 6 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91012131|NCT03781167|181906817|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 6 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91053955|NCT02912650|181990990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.38|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.38|0.81|<0.001
90797527|NCT02136914|181474400|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.508||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.55|-0.53||Change from Baseline in ON time with troublesome dyskinesia at Week 12.|Linear Mixed Model w/ Repeated Measures|||||-0.53|-2.55|0.0031
90797528|NCT02136914|181474400|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.526||0.0072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.49|-0.4||Change from Baseline in ON time with troublesome dyskinesia at Week 24.|Linear Mixed Model w/ Repeated Measures|||||-0.40|-2.49|0.0072
91012132|NCT03781167|181906817|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 13 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91012133|NCT03781167|181906817|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 13 vs Baseline||||<0.001
90797529|NCT02136914|181474401|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.74||0.6833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|4.3||Change from Baseline in MDS-UPDRS at Week 12.|Linear Mixed Model w/ Repeated Measures|||||4.3|-6.6|0.6833
90797530|NCT02136914|181474401|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.58||0.5557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|9.2||Change from Baseline in MDS-UPDRS at Week 24.|Linear Mixed Model w/ Repeated Measures|||||9.2|-5.0|0.5557
90797531|NCT02136914|181474402|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Baseline to Week 12|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
90797532|NCT02136914|181474402|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1071||||||Baseline to Week 24|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1071
90797533|NCT00949533|181474412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.825|||||||Pearson Chi-Square|||||||0.825
90797534|NCT00949533|181474413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||> 0.05
90797535|NCT00949533|181474414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||Cough: statistical difference between 2 groups was based on chi-squared test.||||1.000
90797536|NCT00949533|181474414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.284|||||||Chi-squared|||Rhinorrhea: statistical difference between 2 groups was based on chi-squared test.||||0.284
90797537|NCT00949533|181474414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Sore throat: statistical difference between 2 groups was based on fisher-exact test.||||1.000
90797538|NCT00949533|181474414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Shortness of breath: statistical difference between 2 groups was based on fisher-exact test.||||1.000
90797539|NCT00949533|181474414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.487|||||||Fisher Exact|||Diarrhea: statistical difference between 2 groups was based on fisher-exact test.||||0.487
90797540|NCT00949533|181474414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.593|||||||Fisher Exact|||Headache: statistical difference between 2 groups was based on fisher-exact test.||||0.593
91012134|NCT03781167|181906817|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 13 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91012135|NCT03781167|181906817|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 26 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91012136|NCT03781167|181906817|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 26 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91012137|NCT03781167|181906817|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 26 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91012138|NCT03781167|181906817|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 39 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91012139|NCT03781167|181906817|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 39 vs Baseline||||<0.001
90797541|NCT00949533|181474414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Conjunctivitis: statistical difference between 2 groups was based on fisher-exact test.||||1.000
90797542|NCT00949533|181474414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Vomiting: statistical difference between 2 groups was based on fisher-exact test.||||1.000
90797543|NCT00949533|181474414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.106|||||||Fisher Exact|||Other: statistical difference between 2 groups was based on fisher-exact test.||||0.106
90797544|NCT01493089|181474417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.097||||0.563||95.0|||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.563
90797545|NCT01493089|181474418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.903||||0.712||95.0|||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.712
90797546|NCT01493089|181474419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.457
90797547|NCT01493089|181474420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8||||0.625||95.0|-9.7|15.3|||Regression, Cox|||Sustained partial response||15.3|-9.7|0.625
90797548|NCT01493089|181474420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2||||0.755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|10.6|||Regression, Cox|||Sustained response||10.6|-15.0|0.755
90797549|NCT01493089|181474420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.8||||0.194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|17.2|||Regression, Cox|||Sustained total relief||17.2|-3.6|0.194
90797550|NCT01493089|181474421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0||||0.501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|7.0|||Regression, Cox|||Sustained partial response||7.0|-15.0|0.501
90797551|NCT01493089|181474421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.7||||0.518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6|8.2|||Regression, Cox|||Sustained response||8.2|-17.6|0.518
90797552|NCT01493089|181474421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|13.1|||Regression, Cox|||Sustained total relief||13.1|-11.2|0.794
90797553|NCT01493089|181474422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4||||0.494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|11.2|||Regression, Cox|||Sustained partial response||11.2|-6.3|0.494
90797554|NCT01493089|181474422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.8||||0.751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|9.1|||Regression, Cox|||Sustained response||9.1|-14.7|0.751
90797555|NCT01493089|181474422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.4||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|9.6|||Regression, Cox|||Sustained total relief||9.6|-16.4|0.690
90797556|NCT00560417|181474449|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority margin was prespecified at 0.4%|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.38|||ANCOVA|Variable = Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c Group + Baseline SU Group.||||0.38|0.06|
90797557|NCT00560417|181474450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.39||p-value is for 24 weeks.|ANCOVA|Variable = Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c Group + Baseline SU Group||||0.39|0.08|0.003
90797558|NCT00560417|181474450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.38||p-value is for Endpoint (LOCF)|ANCOVA|Variable = Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c Group + Baseline SU Group||||0.38|0.06|0.008
90797559|NCT00560417|181474451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.39||p-value is for 24 Weeks change.|ANCOVA|Variable = Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c Group + Baseline SU Group||||0.39|0.08|0.003
90797560|NCT00560417|181474451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.38||p-value is for Endpoint (LOCF) Change.|ANCOVA|||||0.38|0.06|0.008
90797561|NCT00560417|181474452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.561||95.0||||p-value is for Week 12: HbA1c \<7.0%|Fisher Exact|||||||0.561
90797562|NCT00560417|181474452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.511||95.0||||p-value is for Week 12: HbA1c \<=6.5%|Fisher Exact|||||||0.511
90797563|NCT00560417|181474452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||95.0||||p-value is for Week 18: HbA1c \<7.0%|Fisher Exact|||||||0.012
90797564|NCT00560417|181474452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.269||95.0||||p-value is for Week 18: HbA1c \<=6.5%|Fisher Exact|||||||0.269
90797565|NCT00560417|181474452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.161||95.0||||p-value is for Week 24: HbA1c \<7.0%|Fisher Exact|||||||0.161
90797566|NCT00560417|181474452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.071||95.0||||p-value is for Week 24: HbA1c \<=6.5%|Fisher Exact|||||||0.071
90797567|NCT00560417|181474452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.177||95.0||||p-value is for Endpoint (LOCF): HbA1c \<7.0%|Fisher Exact|||||||0.177
90797568|NCT00560417|181474452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0||||p-value is for Endpoint (LOCF): HbA1c \<=6.5%|Fisher Exact|||||||0.060
90797569|NCT00560417|181474453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.28||||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.97|10.53||p-value is for Endpoint Morning Pre-Meal.|ANCOVA|Variable = Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c Group + Baseline SU Group||||10.53|-1.97|0.179
90797570|NCT00560417|181474453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.72|22.19||p-value is for Endpoint Morning Postprandial.|ANCOVA|Variable = Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c Group + Baseline SU Group||||22.19|5.72|<0.001
90797571|NCT00560417|181474453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.8||||0.325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.79|11.39||p-value is for Endpoint Midday Pre-Meal.|ANCOVA|Variable = Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c Group + Baseline SU Group||||11.39|-3.79|0.325
91012140|NCT03781167|181906817|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 39 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91012141|NCT03781167|181906817|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.0091|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 52 vs Baseline||||=0.0091
91012142|NCT03781167|181906817|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 52 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91012143|NCT03781167|181906817|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 52 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91012144|NCT03781167|181906818|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.4447|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Day 2 vs Baseline||||=0.4447
91012145|NCT03781167|181906818|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.3567|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Day 2 vs Baseline||||=0.3567
91012146|NCT03781167|181906818|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.2315|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Day 2 vs Baseline||||=0.2315
91012147|NCT03781167|181906818|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.0667|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 1 vs Baseline||||=0.0667
90797572|NCT00560417|181474453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.73||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|17.5||p-value is for Endpoint Midday Postprandial.|ANCOVA|Variable = Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c Group + Baseline SU Group||||17.50|-0.04|0.051
91053956|NCT02912650|181990990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.25||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.45|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.45|0.05|0.014
91053957|NCT02912650|181990990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.86|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.86|0.45|<0.001
90797573|NCT00560417|181474453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.92||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.66|18.19||p-value is for Endpoint Evening Pre-Meal.|ANCOVA|Variable = Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c Group + Baseline SU Group||||18.19|3.66|0.003
90797574|NCT00560417|181474453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.19||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.44|22.94||p-value is for Endpoint Evening Postprandial.|ANCOVA|Variable = Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c Group + Baseline SU Group||||22.94|5.44|0.002
90797575|NCT00560417|181474453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.03||||0.415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.35|4.28||p-value is for Endpoint 0300 Hours.|ANCOVA|Variable = Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c Group + Baseline SU Group||||4.28|-10.35|0.415
90797576|NCT00560417|181474453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.39||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|13.32||p-value is for Endpoint Daily Mean 7-Point Blood Glucose.|ANCOVA|Variable = Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c Group + Baseline SU Group||||13.32|1.46|0.015
90797577|NCT00560417|181474453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.12||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|13.14||p-value is for Endpoint Daily Mean Pre-Meal.|ANCOVA|Variable = Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c Group + Baseline SU Group||||13.14|1.10|0.021
90797578|NCT00560417|181474453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.01|18.93||p-value is for Endpoint Daily Mean Postprandial.|ANCOVA|Variable = Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c Group + Baseline SU Group||||18.93|5.01|<0.001
90797579|NCT00560417|181474454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.27||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|5.22||p-value is for Baseline.|ANOVA|Variable = Treatment + Baseline HbA1c Group + Baseline SU Group||||5.22|-0.68|0.131
90797580|NCT00560417|181474454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.82|9.16||p-value is for Endpoint.|ANOVA|Variable = Treatment + Baseline HbA1c Group + Baseline SU Group||||9.16|2.82|<0.001
90797581|NCT00560417|181474455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.826||95.0||||p-value is for all reported hypoglycemic events at endpoint.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.826
90797582|NCT00560417|181474455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.394||95.0||||p-value is for all reported hypoglycemic events overall.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.394
90797583|NCT00560417|181474455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07||95.0||||p-value is for non-nocturnal hypoglycemic events at endpoint.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.070
90797584|NCT00560417|181474455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.133||95.0||||p-value is for non-nocturnal hypoglycemic events overall.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.133
90797585|NCT00560417|181474455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013||95.0||||p-value is for nocturnal hypoglycemic events at endpoint.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.013
90797586|NCT00560417|181474455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.061||95.0||||p-value is for nocturnal hypoglycemic events overall.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.061
90797587|NCT00560417|181474455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.248||95.0||||p-value is for severe hypoglycemic events overall.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.248
90797588|NCT00560417|181474456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.628||95.0||||p-value is for All reported episodes rate - Endpoint.|Negative Binomial regression model|Total hypoglycemia count=Treatment+Baseline HbA1c Group+Baseline SU Group with log of patient's total number of days of exposure as an offset variable||||||0.628
90797589|NCT00560417|181474456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57||95.0||||p-value is for All reported episodes rate - Overall.|Negative Binomial regression model|Total hypoglycemia count=Treatment+Baseline HbA1c Group+Baseline SU Group with log of patient's total number of days of exposure as an offset variable||||||0.570
90797590|NCT00560417|181474456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.116||95.0||||p-value is for Non-Nocturnal reported episodes rate - Endpoint.|Negative Binomial regression model|Total hypoglycemia count=Treatment+Baseline HbA1c Group+Baseline SU Group with log of patient's total number of days of exposure as an offset variable||||||0.116
90797591|NCT00560417|181474456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.044||95.0||||p-value is for Non-Nocturnal reported episodes rate - Overall.|Negative Binomial regression model|Total hypoglycemia count=Treatment+Baseline HbA1c Group+Baseline SU Group with log of patient's total number of days of exposure as an offset variable||||||0.044
90797592|NCT00560417|181474456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0||||p-value is for Nocturnal reported episodes rate - Endpoint.|Negative Binomial regression model|Total hypoglycemia count=Treatment+Baseline HbA1c Group+Baseline SU Group with log of patient's total number of days of exposure as an offset variable||||||0.006
90797593|NCT00560417|181474456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0||||p-value is for Nocturnal reported episodes rate - Overall.|Negative Binomial regression model|Total hypoglycemia count=Treatment+Baseline HbA1c Group+Baseline SU Group with log of patient's total number of days of exposure as an offset variable||||||0.004
90797594|NCT00560417|181474457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.343||95.0||||p-value is for endpoint.|ANCOVA|Variable = Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c Group + Baseline SU Group (Type III sums of squares)||||||0.343
90797595|NCT00560417|181474458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.417||95.0||||p-value is for the change in body weight at endpoint in the ILPS treatment group.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.417
90797596|NCT00560417|181474458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.041||95.0||||p-value is for the change in body weight at endpoint in the glargine treatment group.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.041
90797597|NCT00560417|181474458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38||||0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|0.4||p-value is for change in body weight at endpoint between ILPS and glargine treatment groups.|ANOVA|||||0.40|-1.15|0.343
90797598|NCT00560417|181474459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|Variable = Treatment + Baseline HbA1c Group+ Baseline SU Group||||||<0.001
90890302|NCT04642638|181645026|OTHER||Difference in median|-6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|-5.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|0.0|||||Post-baseline change from baseline in IFN-gamma ELISpot response magnitudes was compared between groups using differences in medians and associated non-parametric 95% CI.|||0.00|-10.00|
90797599|NCT02164864|181474460|NON_INFERIORITY|All non-inferiority tests were based on a margin of 1.38.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.63||P values for noninferiority were calculated at a one-sided alpha level of 0.025|Regression, Cox|The Cox proportional hazard model is stratified by age, non-elderly vs elderly \[\<70 or \>=70 in Japan and \<80 or \>=80 years old elsewhere\].|Hazard Ratio (HR) and Wald confidence intervals are derived from a Cox proportional-hazard model|A pre-defined hierarchical testing approach was used. This was the first step in hierarchy. The upper bound of the Wald confidence interval (CI) of the HR of Dabigatran Etexilate 110mg vs Warfarin (one-sided 97.5%) was compared with this noninferiority margin for the testing of non-inferiority.||0.63|0.42|<0.0001
90797600|NCT02164864|181474460|NON_INFERIORITY|All non-inferiority tests were based on a margin of 1.38.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.88||P-values for non-inferiority were calculated at a one-sided alpha level of 0.025|Regression, Cox|unstratified Cox proportional hazards model was used and elderly patients outside the USA were excluded|Hazard Ratio (HR) and Wald confidence intervals are derived from a Cox proportional-hazard model|A pre-defined hierarchical testing approach was used. This was the second step in hierarchy. The upper bound of the Wald confidence interval (CI) of the HR of Dabigatran Etexilate 150mg vs Warfarin (one-sided 97.5%) was compared with this noninferiority margin for the testing of non-inferiority||0.88|0.58|<.0001
90797601|NCT02164864|181474460|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.63||Wald 2-sided p-value from (stratified) Cox proportional hazards model|Regression, Cox|The Cox proportional hazard model is stratified by age, non-elderly vs elderly \[\<70 or \>=70 in Japan and \<80 or \>=80 years old elsewhere\].|Hazard Ratio (HR) and Wald confidence intervals are derived from a Cox proportional-hazard model|A pre-defined hierarchical testing approach was used. This was the fourth step in hierarchy.||0.63|0.42|<0.001
90797602|NCT02164864|181474460|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.88||unstratified Cox proportional hazards model was used and elderly patients outside the USA were excluded|Regression, Cox|Wald 2-sided p-value from (unstratified) Cox proportional hazards model||A pre-defined hierarchical testing approach was used. This was the sixth step in hierarchy.|Hazard Ratio (HR) and Wald confidence intervals are derived from a Cox proportional-hazard model|0.88|0.58|0.0020
90797603|NCT02164864|181474461|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.9862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|3.95||Wald 2-sided p-value from (stratified) Cox proportional hazards model|Regression, Cox|The Cox proportional hazard model is stratified by age, non-elderly vs elderly \[\<70 or \>=70 in Japan and \<80 or \>=80 years old elsewhere\].|Hazard Ratio (HR) and Wald confidence intervals are derived from a Cox proportional-hazard model|||3.95|0.25|0.9862
90797604|NCT02164864|181474461|OTHER|Wald 2-sided p-value from (unstratified) Cox proportional hazards model|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.59||||0.5277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|6.64|||Regression, Cox|unstratified Cox proportional hazards model was used and elderly patients outside the USA were excluded from|Hazard Ratio (HR) and Wald confidence intervals are derived from a Cox proportional-hazard model|||6.64|0.38|0.5277
91012148|NCT03781167|181906818|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 1 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91012149|NCT03781167|181906818|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 1 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91012150|NCT03781167|181906818|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 2 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91012151|NCT03781167|181906818|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.2033|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 2 vs Baseline||||=0.2033
90797605|NCT02164864|181474462|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.8853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.25||Wald 2-sided p-value from (stratified) Cox proportional hazards model|Regression, Cox|The Cox proportional hazard model is stratified by age, non-elderly vs elderly \[\<70 or \>=70 in Japan and \<80 or \>=80 years old elsewhere\].|Hazard Ratio (HR) and Wald confidence intervals are derived from a Cox proportional-hazard model|||2.25|0.50|0.8853
90797606|NCT02164864|181474462|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.49||||0.238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.61||Wald 2-sided p-value from (unstratified) Cox proportional hazards model|Regression, Cox|unstratified Cox proportional hazards model was used and elderly patients outside the USA were excluded from|Hazard Ratio (HR) and Wald confidence intervals are derived from a Cox proportional-hazard model|||1.61|0.15|0.2380
90797607|NCT02164864|181474463|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.5252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.88||Wald 2-sided p-value from (stratified) Cox proportional hazards model|Regression, Cox|The Cox proportional hazard model is stratified by age, non-elderly vs elderly \[\<70 or \>=70 in Japan and \<80 or \>=80 years old elsewhere\].|Hazard Ratio (HR) and Wald confidence intervals are derived from a Cox proportional-hazard model|||1.88|0.72|0.5252
91012152|NCT03781167|181906818|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 2 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91012153|NCT03781167|181906818|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.0012|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 3 vs Baseline||||=0.0012
90890303|NCT04642638|181645027|OTHER||Geometric Mean Fold Rise (GMFR) Ratio|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|3.632|||||95% CI of GMFR ratio is based on t-distribution, where GMFR ratio is based on the between-treatment-group comparisons.|||3.632|1.720|
91012154|NCT03781167|181906818|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.0734|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 3 vs Baseline||||=0.0734
91012155|NCT03781167|181906818|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 3 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91012156|NCT03781167|181906818|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.0304|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 4 vs Baseline||||=0.0304
91012157|NCT03781167|181906818|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||>|0.999|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 4 vs Baseline||||>0.999
91012158|NCT03781167|181906818|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.0891|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 4 vs Baseline||||=0.0891
91012159|NCT03781167|181906818|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.0832|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 6 vs Baseline||||=0.0832
91012160|NCT03781167|181906818|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.4941|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 6 vs Baseline||||=0.4941
90797608|NCT02164864|181474463|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.51||Wald 2-sided p-value from (unstratified) Cox proportional hazards model|Regression, Cox|unstratified Cox proportional hazards model was used and elderly patients outside the USA were excluded from|Hazard Ratio (HR) and Wald confidence intervals are derived from a Cox proportional-hazard model|||1.51|0.47|0.5670
90797609|NCT02164864|181474464|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.5579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.65||Wald 2-sided p-value from (stratified) Cox proportional hazards model|Regression, Cox|The Cox proportional hazard model is stratified by age, non-elderly vs elderly \[\<70 or \>=70 in Japan and \<80 or \>=80 years old elsewhere\].|Hazard Ratio (HR) and Wald confidence intervals are derived from a Cox proportional-hazard model|||1.65|0.76|0.5579
90797610|NCT02164864|181474464|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.4414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.34||Wald 2-sided p-value from (unstratified) Cox proportional hazards model|Regression, Cox|unstratified Cox proportional hazards model was used and elderly patients outside the USA were excluded|Hazard Ratio (HR) and Wald confidence intervals are derived from a Cox proportional-hazard model|||1.34|0.51|0.4414
90797611|NCT02164864|181474465|OTHER|Wald 2-sided p-value from (stratified) Cox proportional hazards model|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.51||||0.0861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|2.41|||Regression, Cox|The Cox proportional hazard model is stratified by age, non-elderly vs elderly \[\<70 or \>=70 in Japan and \<80 or \>=80 years old elsewhere\].|Hazard Ratio (HR) and Wald confidence intervals are derived from a Cox proportional-hazard model|||2.41|0.94|0.0861
90797612|NCT02164864|181474465|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||0.6144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.04||Wald 2-sided p-value from (unstratified) Cox proportional hazards model|Regression, Cox|unstratified Cox proportional hazards model was used and elderly patients outside the USA were excluded from|Hazard Ratio (HR) and Wald confidence intervals are derived from a Cox proportional-hazard model|||2.04|0.66|0.6144
90797613|NCT02164864|181474466|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3||||0.4803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.67||Wald 2-sided p-value from (stratified) Cox proportional hazards model|Regression, Cox|The Cox proportional hazard model is stratified by age, non-elderly vs elderly \[\<70 or \>=70 in Japan and \<80 or \>=80 years old elsewhere\].|Hazard Ratio (HR) and Wald confidence intervals are derived from a Cox proportional-hazard model|||2.67|0.63|0.4803
91012161|NCT03781167|181906818|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.2764|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 6 vs Baseline||||=0.2764
91012162|NCT03781167|181906818|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.3248|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 13 vs Baseline||||=0.3248
91053958|NCT02912650|181990990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.13|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.13|0.56|<0.001
90797614|NCT02164864|181474466|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.8537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|2.83||Wald 2-sided p-value from (unstratified) Cox proportional hazards model|Regression, Cox|unstratified Cox proportional hazards model was used and elderly patients outside the USA were excluded from|Hazard Ratio (HR) and Wald confidence intervals are derived from a Cox proportional-hazard model|||2.83|0.42|0.8537
91012163|NCT03781167|181906818|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.2535|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 13 vs Baseline||||=0.2535
91012164|NCT03781167|181906818|OTHER|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.9274|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 13 vs Baseline||||=0.9274
91053959|NCT02912650|181990990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.44||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.73|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.73|0.15|0.003
91053960|NCT02912650|181990990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.61|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.61|0.21|<0.001
90797615|NCT02164864|181474467|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.9388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|4.66||Wald 2-sided p-value from (stratified) Cox proportional hazards model|Regression, Cox|The Cox proportional hazard model is stratified by age, non-elderly vs elderly \[\<70 or \>=70 in Japan and \<80 or \>=80 years old elsewhere\].|Hazard Ratio (HR) and Wald confidence intervals are derived from a Cox proportional-hazard model|||4.66|0.19|0.9388
90797616|NCT02164864|181474467|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.3||||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|2.93||Wald 2-sided p-value from (unstratified) Cox proportional hazards model|Regression, Cox|unstratified Cox proportional hazards model was used and elderly patients outside the USA were excluded from|Hazard Ratio (HR) and Wald confidence intervals are derived from a Cox proportional-hazard model|||2.93|0.03|0.3030
90797617|NCT02164864|181474468|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.86||||0.1546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|4.4||Wald 2-sided p-value from (stratified) Cox proportional hazards model|Regression, Cox|The Cox proportional hazard model is stratified by age, non-elderly vs elderly \[\<70 or \>=70 in Japan and \<80 or \>=80 years old elsewhere\].|Hazard Ratio (HR) and Wald confidence intervals are derived from a Cox proportional-hazard model|||4.40|0.79|0.1546
90797618|NCT02164864|181474468|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.9789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|2.81||Wald 2-sided p-value from (unstratified) Cox proportional hazards model|Regression, Cox|unstratified Cox proportional hazards model was used and elderly patients outside the USA were excluded from|Hazard Ratio (HR) and Wald confidence intervals are derived from a Cox proportional-hazard model|||2.81|0.35|0.9789
91012165|NCT03781167|181906818|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.3297|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 26 vs Baseline||||=0.3297
91012166|NCT03781167|181906818|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.9722|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 26 vs Baseline||||=0.9722
91012167|NCT03781167|181906818|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.4403|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 26 vs Baseline||||=0.4403
91012168|NCT03781167|181906818|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.1946|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 39 vs Baseline||||=0.1946
91012169|NCT03781167|181906818|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.2077|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 39 vs Baseline||||=0.2077
91012170|NCT03781167|181906818|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.0692|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 39 vs Baseline||||=0.0692
91012171|NCT03781167|181906818|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.2276|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 52 vs Baseline||||=0.2276
91012172|NCT03781167|181906818|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.||||||0.3369|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 52 vs Baseline||||0.3369
91012173|NCT03781167|181906818|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.1218|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 52 vs Baseline||||=0.1218
91012174|NCT03781167|181906819|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Day 2 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91053961|NCT02912650|181990990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.2|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.20|0.62|<0.001
91053962|NCT02912650|181990990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.21||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.42|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.42|0.01|0.041
90797619|NCT02164864|181474469|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.34||||0.0484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.79||Wald 2-sided p-value from (stratified) Cox proportional hazards model|Regression, Cox|The Cox proportional hazard model is stratified by age, non-elderly vs elderly \[\<70 or \>=70 in Japan and \<80 or \>=80 years old elsewhere\].|Hazard Ratio (HR) and Wald confidence intervals are derived from a Cox proportional-hazard model|||1.79|1.00|0.0484
90797620|NCT02164864|181474469|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.8903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.47||Wald 2-sided p-value from (unstratified) Cox proportional hazards model|Regression, Cox|unstratified Cox proportional hazards model was used and elderly patients outside the USA were excluded from|Hazard Ratio (HR) and Wald confidence intervals are derived from a Cox proportional-hazard model|||1.47|0.71|0.8903
90797621|NCT02164864|181474470|NON_INFERIORITY|All non-inferiority tests were based on a margin of 1.38.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.1128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.53||P values for noninferiority were calculated at a one-sided alpha level of 0.025|Regression, Cox|The Cox proportional hazard model is stratified by age, non-elderly vs elderly \[\<70 or \>=70 in Japan and \<80 or \>=80 years old elsewhere\].|The upper bound of the Wald confidence interval (CI) of the HR of All Dabigatran Etexilate (110mg and 150 mg) vs Warfarin (one-sided 97.5%) was compared with this noninferiority margin for the testing of non-inferiority|A pre-defined hierarchical testing approach was used. This was the fifth step in hierarchy.||1.53|0.90|0.1128
90797622|NCT02164864|181474470|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.73||Wald 2-sided p-value from (stratified) Cox proportional hazards model|Regression, Cox|The Cox proportional hazard model is stratified by age, non-elderly vs elderly \[\<70 or \>=70 in Japan and \<80 or \>=80 years old elsewhere\].|Hazard Ratio (HR) and Wald confidence intervals are derived from a Cox proportional-hazard model|||1.73|0.98|0.0720
90797623|NCT02164864|181474470|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.39||Wald 2-sided p-value from (unstratified) Cox proportional hazards model|Regression, Cox|unstratified Cox proportional hazards model was used and elderly patients outside the USA were excluded|Hazard Ratio (HR) and Wald confidence intervals are derived from a Cox proportional-hazard model|||1.39|0.68|0.8750
90797624|NCT02164864|181474471|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.51||Wald 2-sided p-value from (stratified) Cox proportional hazards model|Regression, Cox|The Cox proportional hazard model is stratified by age, non-elderly vs elderly \[\<70 or \>=70 in Japan and \<80 or \>=80 years old elsewhere\].|Hazard Ratio (HR) and Wald confidence intervals are derived from a Cox proportional-hazard model|||1.51|0.79|0.6080
90797625|NCT02164864|181474471|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.8348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.41||Wald 2-sided p-value from (unstratified) Cox proportional hazards model|Regression, Cox|unstratified Cox proportional hazards model was used and elderly patients outside the USA were excluded from|Hazard Ratio (HR) and Wald confidence intervals are derived from a Cox proportional-hazard model|||1.41|0.65|0.8348
90797626|NCT02164864|181474472|NON_INFERIORITY|All non-inferiority tests were based on a margin of 1.38.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.29||P values for noninferiority were calculated at a one-sided alpha level of 0.025|Regression, Cox|The Cox proportional hazard model is stratified by age, non-elderly vs elderly \[\<70 or \>=70 in Japan and \<80 or \>=80 years old elsewhere\].|The upper bound of the Wald confidence interval (CI) of the HR of All Dabigatran Etexilate (110mg and 150 mg) vs Warfarin (one-sided 97.5%) was compared with this noninferiority margin for the testing of non-inferiority|A pre-defined hierarchical testing approach was used. This was the third step in hierarchy.||1.29|0.84|0.0047
90797627|NCT02164864|181474472|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.3002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.43||Wald 2-sided p-value from (stratified) Cox proportional hazards model|Regression, Cox|The Cox proportional hazard model is stratified by age, non-elderly vs elderly \[\<70 or \>=70 in Japan and \<80 or \>=80 years old elsewhere\].|Hazard Ratio (HR) and Wald confidence intervals are derived from a Cox proportional-hazard model|||1.43|0.90|0.3002
90797628|NCT02164864|181474472|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.4432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.19||Wald 2-sided p-value from (unstratified) Cox proportional hazards model|Regression, Cox|unstratified Cox proportional hazards model was used and elderly patients outside the USA were excluded|Hazard Ratio (HR) and Wald confidence intervals are derived from a Cox proportional-hazard model|||1.19|0.67|0.4432
90890304|NCT04642638|181645027|OTHER||GMFR Ratio|3.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.638|5.7|||||95% CI of GMFR ratio is based on t-distribution, where GMFR ratio is based on the between-treatment-group comparisons.|||5.700|2.638|
91012175|NCT03781167|181906819|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.002|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Day 2 vs Baseline||||=0.0020
91012176|NCT03781167|181906819|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 1 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91012177|NCT03781167|181906819|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 1 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91012178|NCT03781167|181906819|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 1 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91012179|NCT03781167|181906819|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Day 2 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91012180|NCT03781167|181906819|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 2 vs Baseline||||<0.001
90797629|NCT00261833|181474473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in lung density(adjusted P15)|0.618||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.024|1.261||A 1-sided P-value less than 0.025 and a positive estimate of the treatment difference Zemaira minus placebo (ie, the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval \[CI\] being greater than zero) will indicate superiority of Zemaira compared with Placebo.|95% confidence interval||A mixed model was used to estimate the 95% CI for the difference (Zemaira® - placebo) in annual lung density decline.|Analysis of the annual rate of change in lung density (TLC+FRC combined) was a linear mixed model with country, inspiration state, time since baseline treatment, and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and participant and participant-by-time interaction as random coefficients at a 1-sided significance level of 0.025.||1.261|-0.024|0.029
90797630|NCT00261833|181474473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in lung density(adjusted P15)|0.74||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.059|1.42||A 1-sided P-value less than 0.025 and a positive estimate of the treatment difference Zemaira® minus placebo (ie, the lower bound of the 95% CI being greater than zero) will indicate superiority of Zemaira® compared with Placebo.|95% confidence interval||A mixed model was used to estimate the 95% CI for the difference (Zemaira® - placebo) in annual lung density decline.|Analysis of the annual rate of change in lung density (TLC) was a linear mixed model with country, time since baseline treatment, and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and participant and participant-by-time interaction as random coefficients at a 1-sided significance level of 0.025.||1.420|0.059|0.017
91012181|NCT03781167|181906819|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 2 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91012182|NCT03781167|181906819|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 2 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91012183|NCT03781167|181906819|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 3 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91012184|NCT03781167|181906819|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 3 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91012185|NCT03781167|181906819|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 3 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91012186|NCT03781167|181906819|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 4 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91012187|NCT03781167|181906819|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 4 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91012188|NCT03781167|181906819|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 4 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91012189|NCT03781167|181906819|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 6 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91012190|NCT03781167|181906819|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 6 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91012191|NCT03781167|181906819|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 6 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91012192|NCT03781167|181906819|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 13 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91053963|NCT02912650|181990990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.76|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.76|0.35|<0.001
91053964|NCT02912650|181990990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.99|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.99|0.41|<0.001
91012193|NCT03781167|181906819|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 13 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91012194|NCT03781167|181906819|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 13 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91012195|NCT03781167|181906819|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 26 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91012196|NCT03781167|181906819|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 26 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91012197|NCT03781167|181906819|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 26 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91012198|NCT03781167|181906819|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 39 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91012199|NCT03781167|181906819|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 39 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91053965|NCT02912650|181990990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.35||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.65|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.65|0.06|0.018
91012200|NCT03781167|181906819|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 39 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91012201|NCT03781167|181906819|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 52 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91012202|NCT03781167|181906819|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 52 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91012203|NCT03781167|181906819|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 52 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91012204|NCT03781167|181906820|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 6 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91012205|NCT03781167|181906820|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 6 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91012206|NCT03781167|181906820|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 6 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91012207|NCT03781167|181906820|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 13 vs Baseline||||<0.001
90797631|NCT00261833|181474473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in lung density(adjusted P15)|0.478||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.223|1.18||A 1-sided P-value less than 0.025 and a positive estimate of the treatment difference Zemaira® minus placebo (ie, the lower bound of the 95% CI being greater than zero) will indicate superiority of Zemaira® compared with Placebo.|95% confidence interval||A mixed model was used to estimate the 95% CI for the difference (Zemaira® - placebo) in annual lung density decline.|Analysis of the annual rate of change in lung density (FRC) was a linear mixed model with country, time since baseline treatment, and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and participant and participant-by-time interaction as random coefficients at a 1-sided significance level of 0.025.||1.180|-0.223|0.090
90797632|NCT00261833|181474477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in lung density(adjusted P15)|1.04||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|2.34||A 1-sided P-value less than 0.025 and a positive estimate of the treatment difference Zemaira® minus placebo (ie, the lower bound of the 95% CI being greater than zero) will indicate superiority of Zemaira® compared with Placebo.|95% confidence interval||A mixed model ANCOVA was used to estimate the 95% CI for the difference (Zemaira® - placebo) in the change in lung density.|Analysis of the change in lung density (TLC+FRC combined) from baseline to Month 24 was a mixed effects analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with country, treatment, and baseline lung density as fixed effects and inspiration state as a repeated random effect at a 1-sided significance level of 0.025.||2.34|-0.26|0.058
90797633|NCT00261833|181474477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in lung density(adjusted P15)|1.32||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|2.67||A 1-sided P-value less than 0.025 and a positive estimate of the treatment difference Zemaira® minus placebo (i.e., the lower bound of the 95% CI being greater than zero) will indicate superiority of Zemaira® compared with Placebo.|95% confidence interval||A mixed model ANCOVA was used to estimate the 95% CI for the difference (Zemaira® - placebo) in the change in lung density.|Analysis of the change in lung density (TLC) from baseline to Month 24 was a mixed effects ANCOVA model with country, treatment, and baseline lung density as fixed effects at a 1-sided significance level of 0.025.||2.67|-0.03|0.028
91012208|NCT03781167|181906820|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 13 vs Baseline||||<0.001
90797634|NCT00261833|181474477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in lung density(adjusted P15)|0.89||||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|2.34||A 1-sided P-value less than 0.025 and a positive estimate of the treatment difference Zemaira® minus placebo (ie, the lower bound of the 95% CI being greater than zero) will indicate superiority of Zemaira® compared with Placebo.|95% confidence interval||A mixed model ANCOVA was used to estimate the 95% CI for the difference (Zemaira® - placebo) in the change in lung density.|Analysis of the change in lung density (FRC) from baseline to Month 24 was a mixed effects ANCOVA model with country, treatment, and baseline lung density as fixed effects as a repeated random effect at a 1-sided significance level of 0.025.||2.34|-0.57|0.115
90797635|NCT03781479|181474502|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.792||||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.37|||Mixed Models Analysis||Results show the LSMeans for the estimated difference between treatments along with a 95% confidence interval for this difference.|A mixed effects liner model was fit with the HFMSE change from baseline (CFB) scores at Day 28 as a response and treatment, sequence, and treatment by sequence as fixed effect terms and patient as a random effect.||1.37|0.22|0.0083
90797636|NCT01138514|181474506|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|provides 85% power of success|equivalence ratio|98.77||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.2|102.5|||Fieller's method|||||102.5|95.2|0.05
90797637|NCT01138514|181474507|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|provides 85% power of success|equivalence ratio|100.27||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.6|105.2|||Fieller's method|||||105.2|95.6|0.05
90797638|NCT01138514|181474508|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|"Clinical success was defined as a score of clear (0) or almost clear (1) on Investigators Global Assessment (IGA) at Visit 4/Week 10"|equivalence difference|1.6||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.2|7.4|||Wald's method Yates' continuity correct|||||7.4|-4.2|0.05
90797639|NCT02297412|181474511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0186|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0186
91012209|NCT03781167|181906820|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 13 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91012210|NCT03781167|181906820|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 26 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91012211|NCT03781167|181906820|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 26 vs Baseline||||<0.001
90797640|NCT02297412|181474512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1146|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1146
90797641|NCT02297412|181474513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0243|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0243
91012212|NCT03781167|181906820|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 26 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91012213|NCT03781167|181906820|OTHER|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 39 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91012214|NCT03781167|181906820|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 39 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91012215|NCT03781167|181906820|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 39 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91012216|NCT03781167|181906820|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 52 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91012217|NCT03781167|181906820|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 52 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91012218|NCT03781167|181906820|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 52 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91012219|NCT03781167|181906821|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 6 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91012220|NCT03781167|181906821|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 6 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91012221|NCT03781167|181906821|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 6 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91012222|NCT03781167|181906821|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 13 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91012223|NCT03781167|181906821|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 13 vs Baseline||||<0.001
90797642|NCT03189719|181474514|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.75|||Stratified Log-Rank|||OS in ESCC PD-L1 CPS ≥10 participants of the pembrolizumab + SOC arm was compared to OS in ESCC PD-L1 CPS ≥10 participants of the placebo + SOC arm based on a Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region (Asia versus Rest of the World) and ECOG performance status (0 versus 1).||0.75|0.43|<0.0001
90797643|NCT03189719|181474515|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.88|||Stratified Log-Rank|||OS in ESCC participants of the pembrolizumab + SOC arm was compared to OS in ESCC participants of the placebo + SOC arm based on a Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region (Asia versus Rest of the World) and ECOG performance status (0 versus 1).||0.88|0.60|0.0006
90797644|NCT03189719|181474516|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.78|||Stratified Log-Rank|||OS in PD-L1 CPS ≥10 participants of the pembrolizumab + SOC arm was compared to OS in PD-L1 CPS ≥10 participants of the placebo + SOC arm based on a Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region (Asia versus Rest of the World) and tumor histology (Adenocarcinoma versus Squamous Cell Carcinoma).||0.78|0.49|<0.0001
90797645|NCT03189719|181474517|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.86|||Stratified Log-Rank|||OS in all participants of the pembrolizumab + SOC arm was compared to OS in all participants of the placebo + SOC arm based on a Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region (Asia versus Rest of the World), tumor histology (Adenocarcinoma versus Squamous Cell Carcinoma), and ECOG performance status (0 versus 1).||0.86|0.62|<0.0001
90797646|NCT03189719|181474518|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.78|||Stratified Log-Rank|||PFS in ESCC participants of the pembrolizumab + SOC arm was compared to PFS in ESCC participants of the placebo + SOC arm based on a Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region (Asia versus Rest of the World) and ECOG performance status (0 versus 1).||0.78|0.54|<0.0001
90797647|NCT03189719|181474519|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.65|||Stratified Log-Rank|||PFS in PD-L1 CPS ≥10 participants of the pembrolizumab + SOC arm was compared to PFS in PD-L1 CPS ≥10 participants of the placebo + SOC arm based on a Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region (Asia versus Rest of the World) and tumor histology (Adenocarcinoma versus Squamous Cell Carcinoma).||0.65|0.41|<0.0001
90797648|NCT03189719|181474520|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.76|||Stratified Log-Rank|||PFS in all participants of the pembrolizumab + SOC arm was compared to PFS in all participants of the placebo + SOC arm based on a Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region (Asia versus Rest of the World), tumor histology (Adenocarcinoma versus Squamous Cell Carcinoma), and ECOG performance status (0 versus 1).||0.76|0.55|<0.0001
90797649|NCT03189719|181474521|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|15.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.0|22.5|||One-sided p-value|||ORR in all participants of the pembrolizumab + SOC arm was compared to ORR in all participants of the placebo + SOC arm based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by geographic region (Asia versus Rest of the World), tumor histology (Adenocarcinoma versus Squamous Cell Carcinoma), and ECOG performance status (0 versus 1).||22.5|9.0|<0.0001
90797650|NCT03189719|181474522|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|22.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.6|33.4|||One-sided p-value|||ORR in ESCC PD-L1 CPS ≥10 participants of the pembrolizumab + SOC arm was compared to ORR in ESCC PD-L1 CPS ≥10 participants of the placebo + SOC arm based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by geographic region (Asia versus Rest of the World) and ECOG performance status (0 versus 1).||33.4|11.6|<0.0001
91012224|NCT03781167|181906821|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 13 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91012225|NCT03781167|181906821|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 26 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91012226|NCT03781167|181906821|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 26 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91053966|NCT02912650|181990990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.34||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.55|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.55|0.14|0.001
90797651|NCT03189719|181474523|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|12.8||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|20.7|||One-sided p-value|||ORR in ESCC participants of the pembrolizumab + SOC arm was compared to ORR in ESCC participants of the placebo + SOC arm based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by geographic region (Asia versus Rest of the World) and ECOG performance status (0 versus 1).||20.7|4.7|0.0009
91012227|NCT03781167|181906821|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 26 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91012228|NCT03781167|181906821|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 39 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91012229|NCT03781167|181906821|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 39 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91012230|NCT03781167|181906821|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 39 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91012231|NCT03781167|181906821|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 52 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91012232|NCT03781167|181906821|OTHER|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 52 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91012233|NCT03781167|181906821|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 52 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91012234|NCT03781167|181906822|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.0035|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 6 vs Baseline||||=0.0035
90797652|NCT03189719|181474524|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|24.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.3|33.2|||One-sided p-value|||ORR in PD-L1 CPS ≥10 participants of the pembrolizumab + SOC arm was compared to ORR in PD-L1 CPS ≥10 participants of the placebo + SOC arm based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by geographic region (Asia versus Rest of the World) and tumor histology (Adenocarcinoma versus Squamous Cell Carcinoma).||33.2|14.3|<0.0001
90797653|NCT03189719|181474531|OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.1||||0.953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|3.2|||constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||Change from baseline to Week 18 in EORTC-QLQ-C30 GHS/QoL combined score was compared between treatment arms based on a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model with the EORTC-QLQ-C30 GHS/QoL scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors including geographic region (Asia versus Rest of the World) and tumor histology (Adenocarcinoma versus Squamous Cell Carcinoma) and ECOG performance status (0 versus 1).||3.20|-3.40|0.9530
90797654|NCT03189719|181474532|OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.95||||0.5053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.72|3.82|||constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||Change from baseline to Week 18 in EORTC-QLQ-C30 GHS/QoL combined score was compared between treatment arms based on a cLDA model with the EORTC-QLQ-C30 GHS/QoL scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors including geographic region (Asia versus Rest of the World) and ECOG performance status (0 versus 1).||3.82|-7.72|0.5053
90797655|NCT03189719|181474533|OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.06||||0.9742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.93|3.81|||constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||Change from baseline to Week 18 in EORTC-QLQ-C30 GHS/QoL combined score was compared between treatment arms based on a cLDA model with the EORTC-QLQ-C30 GHS/QoL scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors including geographic region (Asia versus Rest of the World) and ECOG performance status (0 versus 1).||3.81|-3.93|0.9742
90797656|NCT03189719|181474534|OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.77||||0.481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.71|3.17|||constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||Change from baseline to Week 18 in EORTC-QLQ-C30 GHS/QoL combined score was compared between treatment arms based on a cLDA model with the EORTC-QLQ-C30 GHS/QoL scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors including geographic region (Asia versus Rest of the World) and tumor histology (Adenocarcinoma versus Squamous Cell Carcinoma).||3.17|-6.71|0.4810
90797657|NCT03189719|181474535|OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-5.54||||0.0436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.93|-0.16|||constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||DYSPHAGIA: Change from baseline to Week 18 in EORTC QLQ-OES18 Dysphagia subscale was compared between treatment arms based on a cLDA model with EORTC QLQ-OES18 scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors including geographic region (Asia versus Rest of the World) and tumor histology (Adenocarcinoma versus Squamous Cell Carcinoma) and ECOG performance status (0 versus 1).||-0.16|-10.93|0.0436
90797658|NCT03189719|181474535|OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-2.94||||0.0487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.86|-0.02|||constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||PAIN: Change from baseline to Week 18 in EORTC QLQ-OES18 Pain subscale was compared between treatment arms based on a cLDA model with EORTC QLQ-OES18 scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors including geographic region (Asia versus Rest of the World) and tumor histology (Adenocarcinoma versus Squamous Cell Carcinoma) and ECOG performance status (0 versus 1).||-0.02|-5.86|0.0487
90797659|NCT03189719|181474535|OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.93||||0.5932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.36|2.49|||constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||REFLUX: Change from baseline to Week 18 in EORTC QLQ-OES18 Reflux subscale was compared between treatment arms based on a cLDA model with EORTC QLQ-OES18 scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors including geographic region (Asia versus Rest of the World) and tumor histology (Adenocarcinoma versus Squamous Cell Carcinoma) and ECOG performance status (0 versus 1).||2.49|-4.36|0.5932
90797660|NCT03189719|181474536|OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-8.68||||0.0564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.59|0.24|||constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||DYSPHAGIA: Change from baseline to Week 18 in EORTC QLQ-OES18 Dysphagia subscale was compared between treatment arms based on a cLDA model with EORTC QLQ-OES18 scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors including geographic region (Asia versus Rest of the World) and ECOG performance status (0 versus 1).||0.24|-17.59|0.0564
90890305|NCT04642638|181645027|OTHER||GMFR Ratio|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.512|0.893|||||95% CI of GMFR ratio is based on t-distribution, where GMFR ratio is based on the between-treatment-group comparisons|||0.893|0.512|
91012235|NCT03781167|181906822|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 6 vs Baseline||||<0.001
90890306|NCT00511004|181645042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.2|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.2
91012236|NCT03781167|181906822|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 6 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91012237|NCT03781167|181906822|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.0098|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 13 vs Baseline||||=0.0098
91012238|NCT03781167|181906822|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 13 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91012239|NCT03781167|181906822|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 13 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91053967|NCT02912650|181990990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.05|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.05|0.48|<0.001
91012240|NCT03781167|181906822|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 26 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91012241|NCT03781167|181906822|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 26 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91012242|NCT03781167|181906822|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 26 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91012243|NCT03781167|181906822|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 39 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91012244|NCT03781167|181906822|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 39 vs Baseline||||<0.001
90797661|NCT03189719|181474536|OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-2.13||||0.3813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.93|2.66|||constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||PAIN: Change from baseline to Week 18 in EORTC QLQ-OES18 Pain subscale was compared between treatment arms based on a cLDA model with EORTC QLQ-OES18 scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors including geographic region (Asia versus Rest of the World) and ECOG performance status (0 versus 1).||2.66|-6.93|0.3813
90797662|NCT03189719|181474536|OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-5.11||||0.0816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.86|0.65|||constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||REFLUX: Change from baseline to Week 18 in EORTC QLQ-OES18 Reflux subscale was compared between treatment arms based on a cLDA model with EORTC QLQ-OES18 scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors including geographic region (Asia versus Rest of the World) and ECOG performance status (0 versus 1).||0.65|-10.86|0.0816
90797663|NCT03189719|181474537|OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-4.49||||0.1632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.81|1.83|||constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||DYSPHAGIA: Change from baseline to Week 18 in EORTC QLQ-OES18 Dysphagia subscale was compared between treatment arms based on a cLDA model with EORTC QLQ-OES18 scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors including geographic region (Asia versus Rest of the World) and ECOG performance status (0 versus 1).||1.83|-10.81|0.1632
90797664|NCT03189719|181474537|OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.71||||0.3259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.12|1.71|||constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||PAIN: Change from baseline to Week 18 in EORTC QLQ-OES18 Pain subscale was compared between treatment arms based on a cLDA model with EORTC QLQ-OES18 scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors including geographic region (Asia versus Rest of the World) and ECOG performance status (0 versus 1).||1.71|-5.12|0.3259
90797665|NCT03189719|181474537|OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.5||||0.4598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.47|2.48|||constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||REFLUX: Change from baseline to Week 18 in EORTC QLQ-OES18 Reflux subscale was compared between treatment arms based on a cLDA model with EORTC QLQ-OES18 scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors including geographic region (Asia versus Rest of the World) and ECOG performance status (0 versus 1).||2.48|-5.47|0.4598
90797666|NCT03189719|181474538|OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-8.2||||0.0317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.67|-0.73|||constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||DYSPHAGIA: Change from baseline to Week 18 in EORTC QLQ-OES18 Dysphagia subscale was compared between treatment arms based on a cLDA model with EORTC QLQ-OES18 scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors including geographic region (Asia versus Rest of the World) and tumor histology (Adenocarcinoma versus Squamous Cell Carcinoma).||-0.73|-15.67|0.0317
90797667|NCT03189719|181474538|OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-3.57||||0.0945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.77|0.62|||constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||PAIN: Change from baseline to Week 18 in EORTC QLQ-OES18 Pain subscale was compared between treatment arms based on a cLDA model with EORTC QLQ-OES18 scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors including geographic region (Asia versus Rest of the World) and tumor histology (Adenocarcinoma versus Squamous Cell Carcinoma).||0.62|-7.77|0.0945
90890307|NCT00511004|181645043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.9
91012245|NCT03781167|181906822|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 39 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91012246|NCT03781167|181906822|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.003|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 52 vs Baseline||||=0.0030
91053968|NCT02912650|181990990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.4|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.40|0.00|0.045
91053969|NCT02912650|181990990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.64|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.64|0.24|<0.001
91053970|NCT02912650|181990990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.84|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.84|0.28|< 0.001
90890308|NCT04313881|181645074|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.876||||0.5218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.585|1.312||2-sided P-value, odds ratio and its 95% CI were based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method stratified by stratification factors (geographic region, cytogenetic risk status, and bone marrow blast percentage).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.312|0.585|0.5218
91012247|NCT03781167|181906822|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 52 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91012248|NCT03781167|181906822|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 52 vs Baseline||||<0.001
91012249|NCT00679354|181906838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman's Correlation Coefficient|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman's Correlation|||||||1.000
91012250|NCT00679354|181906839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman's Correlation Coefficient|0.56||||0.057|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman's Correlation|||||||0.057
91012251|NCT00679354|181906840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman's Correlation Coefficient|-0.22||||0.495|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman's Correlation|||||||0.495
91012252|NCT00679354|181906841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman's Correlation Coefficient|-0.48||||0.114|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman's Correlation|||||||0.114
91012253|NCT01258803|181906842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.124|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.094|0.154|||ANCOVA|||"Pairwise Treatment Comparison of MF/F MDI with spacer and Placebo MDI combined with or without spacer.~Analysis was performed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model extracting the effects due to treatment, sequence, subject (random effect nested within sequence), period, age groups (5 to 7 years and 8 to 11 years) and Baseline FEV1 as a covariate."||0.154|0.094|<0.001
91053971|NCT02912650|181990990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.32||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.61|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.61|0.04|0.027
90797668|NCT03189719|181474538|OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-4.76||||0.0555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.64|0.11|||constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||REFLUX: Change from baseline to Week 18 in EORTC QLQ-OES18 Reflux subscale was compared between treatment arms based on a cLDA model with EORTC QLQ-OES18 scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors including geographic region (Asia versus Rest of the World) and tumor histology (Adenocarcinoma versus Squamous Cell Carcinoma).||0.11|-9.64|0.0555
90797669|NCT05211596|181474550|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.43||||0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.008
90797670|NCT05211596|181474551|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.22||||0.264|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.264
90797671|NCT05211596|181474552|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|849.35||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
90797672|NCT05211596|181474553|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|777.42||||0.054|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.054
90797673|NCT05211596|181474554|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90797674|NCT05211596|181474555|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91012254|NCT01258803|181906843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.102|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.073|0.131|||ANCOVA|||"Pairwise Treatment Comparison of MF/F MDI without spacer and Placebo MDI combined with or without spacer.~Analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model extracting the effects due to treatment, sequence, subject (random effect nested within sequence), period, age groups (5 to 7 years and 8 to 11 years) and Baseline FEV1 as a covariate."||0.131|0.073|<0.001
91012255|NCT01258803|181906844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.022||||0.144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.008|0.052|||ANCOVA|||"Pairwise Treatment Comparison of MF/F MDI with spacer and MF/F MDI without spacer.~Analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model extracting the effects due to treatment, sequence, subject (random effect nested within sequence), period, age groups (5 to 7 years and 8 to 11 years) and Baseline FEV1 as a covariate."||0.052|-0.008|0.144
91012256|NCT01258803|181906846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.018||||0.229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.012|0.048|||ANCOVA|||"Pairwise Treatment Comparison of MF/F MDI with spacer and F DPI.~Analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model extracting the effects due to treatment, sequence, subject (random effect nested within sequence), period, age groups (5 to 7 years and 8 to 11 years) and Baseline FEV1 as a covariate."||0.048|-0.012|0.229
91012257|NCT01258803|181906847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.004||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.033|0.025|||ANCOVA|||"Pairwise Treatment Comparison of MF/F MDI without spacer and F DPI.~Analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model extracting the effects due to treatment, sequence, subject (random effect nested within sequence), period, age groups (5 to 7 years and 8 to 11 years) and Baseline FEV1 as a covariate."||0.025|-0.033|0.790
91053972|NCT02912650|181990990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.24||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.44|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.44|0.04|0.020
90797675|NCT02293551|181474556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric Ratio of Least Squares Mean|1.04||||0.2071|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.988|1.1|||Log Rank|Log (PK) model included treatment, period, and sequence group as fixed effects and participant as a random effect.||||1.10|0.988|0.2071
91012258|NCT01258803|181906848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.106|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.077|0.135|||ANCOVA|||"Pairwise Treatment Comparison of F DPI and Placebo MDI combined with or without spacer.~Analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model extracting the effects due to treatment, sequence, subject (random effect nested within sequence), period, age groups (5 to 7 years and 8 to 11 years) and Baseline FEV1 as a covariate."||0.135|0.077|<0.001
91012259|NCT01632345|181906876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (Doravirine - Efavirenz)|6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|22.4|||||A negative value would be considered as favoring doravirine over efavirenz.|||22.4|-9.0|
91012260|NCT01632345|181906876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (Doravirine - Efavirenz)|9.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|24.9|||||A negative value would be considered as favoring doravirine over efavirenz.|||24.9|-4.6|
90797676|NCT02293551|181474556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric Ratio of Least Square Means|1.11||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.06|1.17|||Log Rank|Log (PK) model included treatment, period, and sequence group as fixed effects and participant as a random effect.||||1.17|1.06|0.0005
90797677|NCT02293551|181474556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric of Ratio Least Square Means|1.08||||0.0123|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.03|1.13|||Log Rank|Log (PK) model included treatment, period, and sequence group as fixed effects and participant as a random effect.||||1.13|1.03|0.0123
91012261|NCT01632345|181906876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (Doravirine - Efavirenz)|-11.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.9|6.3|||||A negative value would be considered as favoring doravirine over efavirenz.|||6.3|-27.9|
91012262|NCT01632345|181906876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (Doravirine - Efavirenz)|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|18.4|||||A negative value would be considered as favoring doravirine over efavirenz.|||18.4|-14.5|
90797678|NCT02293551|181474556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric Ratio of Least Square Means|1.07||||0.0331|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.02|1.13|||Log Rank|Log (PK) model included treatment, period, and sequence group as fixed effects and participant as a random effect.||||1.13|1.02|0.0331
90797679|NCT02293551|181474556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.06|1.16|||||Dose proportionality and the degree of dose proportionality was assessed by fitting the power model versus dose. Estimated ratio of dose-normalized geometric means of PK parameters between the highest and lowest doses assessed dose proportionality.|||1.16|1.06|
90797680|NCT04532749|181474557|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) mean difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.43|=|0.411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|1.64|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||1.64|-4.00|=0.411
90797681|NCT04532749|181474558|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.27|=|0.473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.41|1.59|||MMRM model|||In accordance with protocol predefined testing sequence, statistical significance of the primary endpoint was required before testing the first secondary endpoint (MADRS-WOSI) and thus, a formal statistical testing was not performed.||1.59|-3.41|=0.473
90797682|NCT04532749|181474559|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45|=|0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.87|0.85|||MMRM Model|||In accordance with protocol predefined testing sequence, statistical significance of the primary endpoint was required before testing the second secondary endpoint (PROMIS-SD; Short Form 8a) and thus, a formal statistical testing was not performed.||0.85|-4.87|=0.167
90797683|NCT01400412|181474578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Two-sided p-value without adjustment for multiple testing, interpreted at the 5% nominal level of significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Stratified Wilcoxon rank sum test stratified by age (\<30 and \>=30 years)||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two arms in the percent of total hip BMD change from baseline to week 48||||<0.001
90797684|NCT01649869|181474598|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0859|||||||Generalized linear model|Generalized linear model for binary outcome based on generalized estimating equations.||||||0.0859
90797685|NCT01649869|181474599|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7068|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.7068
90797686|NCT01649869|181474600|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
91053973|NCT02912650|181990990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.85|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.85|0.29|<0.001
90797687|NCT01649869|181474601|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7068|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.7068
90797688|NCT01649869|181474602|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0752|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0752
90797689|NCT01649869|181474604|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4823|||||||Generalized linear model|Generalized linear model for binary outcome using generalized estimating equations.||||||0.4823
91012263|NCT01632345|181906877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (Doravirine - Efavirenz)|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|8.8|||||A negative value would be considered as favoring doravirine over efavirenz.|||8.8|-13.7|
90797690|NCT01649869|181474605|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0859|||||||Generalized linear model|Generalized linear model for binary outcome using generalized estimating equations.||||||0.0859
90797691|NCT01649869|181474606|OTHER|Association of binary outcome and continuous outcome||||||0.8212|||||||Generalized linear model|For binary outcome using generalized estimating equations||||||0.8212
90797692|NCT01649869|181474607|OTHER|Association of binary outcome and continuous outcome and continuous outcome||||||0.8356|||||||Generalized linear model|Generalized linear model for binary outcome using generalized estimating equations.||||||0.8356
91053974|NCT02912650|181990990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.09||||0.374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.28|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.28|-0.11|0.374
90797693|NCT01649869|181474608|OTHER|Association of binary outcome and continuous outcome||||||0.7961|||||||Generalized linear model|Generalized linear model for binary outcome using generalized estimating equations||||||0.7961
90797694|NCT01649869|181474609|OTHER|Association of binary outcome and continuous outcome||||||0.8675|||||||Generalized linear model|Generalized linear model for binary outcome||||||0.8675
90797695|NCT01649869|181474610|OTHER|Association of binary outcome and continuous outcome||||||0.9682|||||||Generalized linear model|Generalized linear model for binary outcome||||||0.9682
90797696|NCT01649869|181474611|OTHER|Association of binary outcome and continuous outcome||||||0.6063|||||||Generalized linear model|Generalized linear model for binary outcome||||||0.6063
90797697|NCT01649869|181474612|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0001
90797698|NCT01649869|181474613|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6043|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6043
90797699|NCT01649869|181474614|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6513|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6513
90797700|NCT01649869|181474615|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
90797701|NCT01649869|181474616|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0659|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0659
90797702|NCT01649869|181474617|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
90797703|NCT05395338|181474624|OTHER|cox proportional hazards models with stratification by matching pairs|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.05|||Regression, Cox||rt-PA/non reperfusion|||1.05|0.78|0.183
90797704|NCT05395338|181474625|OTHER|Conditional logistic regression models with stratification by matching pairs.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.39|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.39|1.12|<0.001
90797705|NCT05395338|181474626|OTHER|Conditional logistic regression models with stratification by matching pairs.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|1.36|||Regression, Logistic||rt-PA/non reperfusion|||1.36|1.11|<0.001
90797706|NCT05395338|181474627|OTHER|Conditional logistic regression models with stratification by matching pairs|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.83|||Regression, Logistic||rt-PA/non reperfusion|||0.83|0.64|<0.001
90797707|NCT05395338|181474628|OTHER|Ordinal logistic regression models|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.93|||Regression, Logistic||rt-PA/non reperfusion|||0.93|0.77|<0.001
90797708|NCT00285779|181474629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0978|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0978
90797709|NCT00285779|181474630|OTHER||||||>|0.9999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.9999
90797710|NCT00285779|181474631|OTHER|||||||0.031|||||||Wilcoxon Paired|||Week 12 versus baseline||||0.031
90797711|NCT00285779|181474631|OTHER|||||||0.34|||||||Wilcoxon Paired|||Week 12 versus baseline||||0.34
90797712|NCT00285779|181474631|OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||Wilcoxon Paired|||Week 24 versus baseline||||0.13
90797713|NCT00285779|181474631|OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||Wilcoxon Paired|||Week 24 versus baseline||||0.22
90797714|NCT00285779|181474632|OTHER||||||>|0.9999|||||||Wilcoxon Paired|||Week 12 versus baseline||||>0.9999
90797715|NCT00285779|181474632|OTHER||||||>|0.9999|||||||Wilcoxon Paired|||Week 24 versus baseline||||>0.9999
90797716|NCT00285779|181474633|OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon Paired|||Week 12 versus baseline||||0.25
90797717|NCT00285779|181474633|OTHER||||||>|0.9999|||||||Wilcoxon Paired|||Week 12 versus baseline||||>0.9999
90797718|NCT00285779|181474633|OTHER|||||||0.063|||||||Wilcoxon Paired|||Week 24 versus baseline||||0.063
90797719|NCT00285779|181474633|OTHER||||||>|0.9999|||||||Wilcoxon Paired|||Week 24 versus baseline||||>0.9999
90797720|NCT00285779|181474634|OTHER|||||||0.063|||||||Wilcoxon Paired|||Week 12 versus baseline||||0.063
91012264|NCT01632345|181906877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (Doravirine - Efavirenz)|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|14.7|||||A negative value would be considered as favoring doravirine over efavirenz.|||14.7|-9.9|
91012265|NCT01632345|181906877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (Doravirine - Efavirenz)|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|8.2|||||A negative value would be considered as favoring doravirine over efavirenz.|||8.2|-13.8|
91012266|NCT01632345|181906877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (Doravirine - Efavirenz)|-4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.9|4.1|||||A negative value would be considered as favoring doravirine over efavirenz.|||4.1|-15.9|
91053975|NCT02912650|181990990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.54|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.54|0.14|<0.001
90797721|NCT00285779|181474634|OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon Paired|||Week 12 versus baseline||||0.25
90797722|NCT00285779|181474634|OTHER|||||||0.031|||||||Wilcoxon Paired|||Week 24 versus baseline||||0.031
90797723|NCT00285779|181474634|OTHER|||||||0.32|||||||Wilcoxon Paired|||Week 24 versus baseline||||0.32
90797724|NCT00285779|181474635|OTHER|||||||0.094|||||||Wilcoxon Paired|||Week 12 versus baseline||||0.094
90797725|NCT00285779|181474635|OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon Paired|||Week 12 versus baseline||||0.25
90797726|NCT00285779|181474635|OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||Wilcoxon Paired|||Week 24 versus baseline||||0.13
90797727|NCT00285779|181474635|OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||Wilcoxon Paired|||Week 24 versus baseline||||0.13
91012267|NCT01632345|181906878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-10.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.9|0.5|||||A negative value would be considered as favoring doravirine over efavirenz.|||0.5|-20.9|
90797728|NCT00285779|181474636|OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||Wilcoxon Paired|||Week 12 versus baseline||||0.63
90797729|NCT00285779|181474636|OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||Wilcoxon Paired|||Week 12 versus baseline||||0.38
90797730|NCT00285779|181474636|OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||Wilcoxon Paired|||Week 24 versus baseline||||0.38
91012268|NCT01632345|181906879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (Doravirine - Efavirenz)|-20.4||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.4|-7.8||Superiority analysis|Miettinen and Nurminen method||A negative value would be considered as favoring doravirine over efavirenz.|||-7.8|-32.4|0.002
90797731|NCT00285779|181474636|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon Paired|||Week 24 versus baseline||||0.50
90797732|NCT00285779|181474637|OTHER|||||||0.031|||||||Wilcoxon Paired|||Week 12 versus baseline||||0.031
90797733|NCT00285779|181474637|OTHER|||||||0.094|||||||Wilcoxon Paired|||Week 12 versus baseline||||0.094
90797734|NCT00285779|181474637|OTHER|||||||0.039|||||||Wilcoxon Paired|||Week 24 versus baseline||||0.039
90797735|NCT00285779|181474637|OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||Wilcoxon Paired|||Week 24 versus baseline||||0.19
90797736|NCT00285779|181474638|OTHER|||||||0.26|||||||Paired t test|||Week 12 versus baseline||||0.26
90797737|NCT00285779|181474638|OTHER|||||||0.55|||||||Paired t test|||Week 12 versus baseline||||0.55
90797738|NCT00285779|181474638|OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||Paired t test|||Week 24 versus baseline||||0.18
90797739|NCT00285779|181474638|OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||Paired t test|||Week 24 versus baseline||||0.13
90797740|NCT00285779|181474639|OTHER|||||||0.51|||||||Paired t test|||Week 12 versus baseline||||0.51
90797741|NCT00285779|181474639|OTHER|||||||0.47|||||||Paired t test|||Week 24 versus baseline||||0.47
90797742|NCT00285779|181474639|OTHER|||||||0.087|||||||Paired t test|||Week 24 versus baseline||||0.087
90797743|NCT00285779|181474639|OTHER|||||||0.86|||||||Paired t test|||Week 24 versus baseline||||0.86
90797744|NCT00285779|181474640|OTHER|||||||0.033|||||||Paired t test|||Week 12 versus baseline||||0.033
90797745|NCT00285779|181474640|OTHER|||||||0.069|||||||Paired t test|||Week 12 versus baseline||||0.069
90797746|NCT00285779|181474640|OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||Paired t test|||Week 24 versus baseline||||0.015
90797747|NCT00285779|181474640|OTHER|||||||0.026|||||||Paired t test|||Week 24 versus baseline||||0.026
90797748|NCT03235050|181474660|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.59|||ANCOVA|||||-0.59|-1.06|<0.001
90797749|NCT03235050|181474660|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|-0.85|||ANCOVA|||||-0.85|-1.23|<0.001
90797750|NCT03235050|181474660|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.72|||ANCOVA|||||-0.72|-1.11|<0.001
90797751|NCT03235050|181474661|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.08|-0.91|||ANCOVA|||||-0.91|-3.08|<0.001
90797752|NCT03235050|181474661|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.65|-1.87|||ANCOVA|||||-1.87|-3.65|<0.001
90797753|NCT03235050|181474661|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.51|-2.73|||ANCOVA|||||-2.73|-4.51|<0.001
90797754|NCT03235050|181474662|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||Week 26||-0.40|-0.92|<0.001
90797755|NCT03235050|181474662|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.6|||ANCOVA|||Week 26||-0.60|-1.03|<0.001
90797756|NCT03235050|181474662|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.51|||ANCOVA|||Week 26||-0.51|-0.94|<0.001
90797757|NCT03235050|181474662|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||Week 54||-0.24|-0.80|<0.001
90797758|NCT03235050|181474662|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|-0.39|||ANCOVA|||Week 54||-0.39|-0.86|<0.001
90797759|NCT03235050|181474662|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.34|||ANCOVA|||Week 54||-0.34|-0.80|<0.001
90797760|NCT03235050|181474663|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|6.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|92.0|3.34|13.3|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||13.30|3.34|<0.001
90797761|NCT03235050|181474663|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|9.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.39|18.36|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||18.36|5.39|<0.001
90797762|NCT03235050|181474663|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|8.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.65|15.61|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||15.61|4.65|<0.001
90797763|NCT03235050|181474663|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|3.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.98|7.03|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 26||7.03|1.98|<0.001
90797764|NCT03235050|181474663|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|5.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.13|9.34|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 26||9.34|3.13|<0.001
91012269|NCT01632345|181906880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (Doravirine - Efavirenz)|-20.4||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.6|-7.5||Superiority analysis|Miettinen and Nurminen method||A negative value would be considered as favoring doravirine over efavirenz.|||-7.5|-32.6|0.002
91012270|NCT01632345|181906881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in % response|15.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|34.4|||||A positive value would be considered as favoring doravirine over efavirenz.|||34.4|-4.1|
91012271|NCT01632345|181906881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in % response|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|29.1|||||A positive value would be considered as favoring doravirine over efavirenz.|||29.1|-9.6|
91012272|NCT01632345|181906881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in % response|6.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|26.0|||||A positive value would be considered as favoring doravirine over efavirenz.|||26.0|-13.2|
91012273|NCT01632345|181906881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in % response|15.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|34.4|||||A positive value would be considered as favoring doravirine over efavirenz.|||34.4|-3.4|
90797765|NCT03235050|181474663|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|5.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.02|8.97|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 26||8.97|3.02|<0.001
90797766|NCT03235050|181474663|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|4.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.61|9.36|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 54||9.36|2.61|<0.001
90797767|NCT03235050|181474663|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|4.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.62|7.89|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 54||7.89|2.62|<0.001
90797768|NCT03235050|181474663|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|4.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.51|7.51|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 54||7.51|2.51|<0.001
90797769|NCT03235050|181474664|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.32|-0.85|||ANCOVA|||Week 26||-0.85|-3.32|<0.001
90797770|NCT03235050|181474664|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.82|-1.79|||ANCOVA|||Week 26||-1.79|-3.82|<0.001
90797771|NCT03235050|181474664|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.48|-2.44|||ANCOVA|||Week 26||-2.44|-4.48|<0.001
91012274|NCT01632345|181906882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in % response|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|11.2|||||A positive value would be considered as favoring doravirine over efavirenz.|||11.2|-13.2|
90797772|NCT03235050|181474664|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.86|-1.0|||ANCOVA|||Week 54||-1.00|-3.86|<0.001
90797773|NCT03235050|181474664|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.41|-1.06|||ANCOVA|||Week 54||-1.06|-3.41|<0.001
90797774|NCT03235050|181474664|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.49|-2.14|||ANCOVA|||Week 54||-2.14|-4.49|<0.001
91012275|NCT01632345|181906883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in % response|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|9.2|||||A positive value would be considered as favoring doravirine over efavirenz.|||9.2|-12.9|
91012276|NCT01632345|181906884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in % response|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|10.7|||||A positive value would be considered as favoring doravirine over efavirenz.|||10.7|-12.4|
91012277|NCT01632345|181906885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in % response|4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|21.5|||||A positive value would be considered as favoring doravirine over efavirenz.|||21.5|-12.5|
91012278|NCT01632345|181906885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in % response|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|19.8|||||A positive value would be considered as favoring doravirine over efavirenz.|||19.8|-13.9|
91012279|NCT01632345|181906885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in % response|12.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|28.0|||||A positive value would be considered as favoring doravirine over efavirenz.|||28.0|-2.5|
90797775|NCT03235050|181474665|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.03|-0.87|||ANCOVA|||Week 14||-0.87|-3.03|<0.001
90797776|NCT03235050|181474665|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.63|-1.86|||ANCOVA|||Week 14||-1.86|-3.63|<0.001
90797777|NCT03235050|181474665|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|-2.82|||ANCOVA|||Week 14||-2.82|-4.60|<0.001
90797778|NCT03235050|181474665|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.01||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.27|-0.74|||ANCOVA|||Week 26||-0.74|-3.27|0.002
90797779|NCT03235050|181474665|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.78|-1.71|||ANCOVA|||Week 26||-1.71|-3.78|<0.001
90797780|NCT03235050|181474665|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.59|-2.52|||ANCOVA|||Week 26||-2.52|-4.59|<0.001
90797781|NCT03235050|181474665|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.27||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.74|-0.79|||ANCOVA|||Week 54||-0.79|-3.74|0.003
90797782|NCT03235050|181474665|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.37|-0.95|||ANCOVA|||Week 54||-0.95|-3.37|<0.001
90797783|NCT03235050|181474665|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.63|-2.2|||ANCOVA|||Week 54||-2.20|-4.63|<0.001
90797784|NCT03235050|181474666|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.7||||0.211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|1.79|||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Week 14||1.79|-0.39|0.211
90797785|NCT03235050|181474666|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.07||||0.881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.83|||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Week 14||0.83|-0.96|0.881
90797786|NCT03235050|181474666|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.93||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Week 14||-0.04|-1.82|0.042
90797787|NCT03235050|181474666|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.9||||0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|2.14|||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Week 26||2.14|-0.35|0.158
90797788|NCT03235050|181474666|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.18||||0.734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|1.2|||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Week 26||1.20|-0.85|0.734
90797789|NCT03235050|181474666|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.48||||0.357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|0.54|||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Week 26||0.54|-1.51|0.357
90797790|NCT03235050|181474666|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.07||||0.921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|1.37|||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Week 54||1.37|-1.51|0.921
90797791|NCT03235050|181474666|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.12||||0.847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|1.3|||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Week 54||1.30|-1.07|0.847
90797792|NCT03235050|181474666|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.96||||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|0.22|||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Week 54||0.22|-2.15|0.112
90797793|NCT03235050|181474667|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.59||||0.284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|1.68|||ANCOVA|||Absolute change at Week 14||1.68|-0.49|0.284
90797794|NCT03235050|181474667|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|0.69|||ANCOVA|||Absolute change at Week 14||0.69|-1.09|0.658
90797795|NCT03235050|181474667|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.17||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|-0.27|||ANCOVA|||Absolute change at Week 14||-0.27|-2.06|0.010
90797796|NCT03235050|181474667|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.7||||0.279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|1.97|||ANCOVA|||Absolute change at Week 26||1.97|-0.57|0.279
90797797|NCT03235050|181474667|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|1.0|||ANCOVA|||Absolute change at Week 26||1.00|-1.08|0.940
91012280|NCT01632345|181906885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in % response|9.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|25.7|||||A positive value would be considered as favoring doravirine over efavirenz.|||25.7|-6.2|
91012281|NCT01632345|181906886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in % response|2.7||||||95.0|-6.1|11.7|||||A positive value would be considered as favoring doravirine over efavirenz.|||11.7|-6.1|
91012282|NCT01632345|181906887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in % response|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|9.9|||||A positive value would be considered as favoring doravirine over efavirenz.|||9.9|-9.7|
90797798|NCT03235050|181474667|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.85||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Absolute change at Week 26||0.19|-1.89|0.110
90797799|NCT03235050|181474667|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.26||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|1.22|||ANCOVA|||Absolute change at Week 54||1.22|-1.74|0.730
90797800|NCT03235050|181474667|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.15||||0.804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|1.07|||ANCOVA|||Absolute change at Week 54||1.07|-1.38|0.804
90797801|NCT03235050|181474667|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.41||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.63|-0.19|||ANCOVA|||Absolute change at Week 54||-0.19|-2.63|0.023
90797802|NCT03235050|181474668|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|8.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.38|29.43|||Regression, Logistic|||weight loss \>=5% at Week 14||29.43|2.38|<0.001
90797803|NCT03235050|181474668|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|12.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.82|40.64|||Regression, Logistic|||weight loss \>=5% at Week 14||40.64|3.82|<0.001
90797804|NCT03235050|181474668|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|21.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.55|68.97|||Regression, Logistic|||weight loss \>=5% at Week 14||68.97|6.55|<0.001
90797805|NCT03235050|181474668|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|3.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|7.89|||Regression, Logistic|||weight loss \>=5% at Week 26||7.89|1.72|<0.001
90797806|NCT03235050|181474668|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|3.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|7.78|||Regression, Logistic|||weight loss \>=5% at Week 26||7.78|2.00|<0.001
90797807|NCT03235050|181474668|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|7.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.72|14.24|||Regression, Logistic|||weight loss \>=5% at Week 26||14.24|3.72|<0.001
90797808|NCT03235050|181474668|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|3.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.84|7.45|||Regression, Logistic|||weight loss \>=5% at Week 54||7.45|1.84|<0.001
90797809|NCT03235050|181474668|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|2.73||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|5.09|||Regression, Logistic|||weight loss \>=5% at Week 54||5.09|1.46|0.002
90797810|NCT03235050|181474668|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|4.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.42|8.3|||ANCOVA|||weight loss \>=5% at Week 54||8.30|2.42|<0.001
90797811|NCT03235050|181474668|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|8.47||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|70.17|||Regression, Logistic|||weight loss \>=10% at Week 26||70.17|1.02|0.048
90797812|NCT03235050|181474668|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|13.81||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.85|102.91|||Regression, Logistic|||weight loss \>=10% at Week 26||102.91|1.85|0.010
90797813|NCT03235050|181474668|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|13.09||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.75|97.68|||Regression, Logistic|||weight loss \>=10% at Week 26||97.68|1.75|0.012
90797814|NCT03235050|181474668|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|6.92||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.49|32.07|||Regression, Logistic|||weight loss \>=10% at Week 54||32.07|1.49|0.013
90797815|NCT03235050|181474668|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|4.98||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|21.6|||Regression, Logistic|||weight loss \>=10% at Week 54||21.60|1.15|0.032
90797816|NCT03235050|181474668|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|7.91||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.86|33.64|||Regression, Logistic|||weight loss \>=10% at Week 54||33.64|1.86|0.005
90797817|NCT03235050|181474669|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.09||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.73|||Regression, Logistic|||received rescue medication at 14 wks||0.73|0.01|0.024
90797818|NCT03235050|181474669|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.4|||Regression, Logistic|||received rescue medication at 14 wks||0.40|0.03|<0.001
90797819|NCT03235050|181474669|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.33|||Regression, Logistic|||received rescue medication at 14 wks||0.33|0.02|<0.001
90797820|NCT03235050|181474669|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.14||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.48|||Regression, Logistic|||received rescue medication at 26 wks||0.48|0.04|0.002
90797821|NCT03235050|181474669|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.34|||Regression, Logistic|||received rescue medication at 26 wks||0.34|0.06|<0.001
90797822|NCT03235050|181474669|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.28|||Regression, Logistic|||received rescue medication at 26 wks||0.28|0.04|<0.001
90797823|NCT03235050|181474669|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.53|||Regression, Logistic|||received rescue medication at 54 wks||0.53|0.11|<0.001
90797824|NCT03235050|181474669|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.44|||Regression, Logistic|||received rescue medication at 54 wks||0.44|0.13|<0.001
90797825|NCT03235050|181474669|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.41|||Regression, Logistic|||received rescue medication at 54 wks||0.41|0.12|<0.001
90797826|NCT03235050|181474669|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.22||||0.216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|2.43|||Regression, Logistic|||discontinued IP at 14 wks||2.43|0.02|0.216
90797827|NCT03235050|181474669|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.28||||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|2.52|||Regression, Logistic|||discontinued IP at 26 wks||2.52|0.03|0.253
90797828|NCT03235050|181474669|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.21||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|1.19|||Regression, Logistic|||discontinued IP at 26 wks||1.19|0.04|0.079
90797829|NCT03235050|181474669|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.27||||0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|2.5|||Regression, Logistic|||discontinued IP at 54 wks||2.50|0.03|0.252
90797830|NCT03235050|181474669|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.32||||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.47|||Regression, Logistic|||discontinued IP at 54 wks||1.47|0.07|0.143
90797831|NCT00069641|181474677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|18.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.47||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.99|31.93|||ANCOVA|||p-value for treatment difference based on Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model containing treatment, region, baseline participant age, and baseline disease score.||31.93|5.99|0.0049
90797832|NCT03545672|181474681|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Chi-squared|||||||0.001
90797833|NCT03545672|181474682|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
90890309|NCT04313881|181645075|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.203||||0.1299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.947|1.528||2-sided P-value was based on stratified log-rank test, stratified by stratification factors.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio and its 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using the Cox proportional hazards regression model, stratified by stratification factors.|||1.528|0.947|0.1299
90890310|NCT04313881|181645077|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.821||||0.2563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.584|1.155||2-sided P-value, odds ratio and its 95% CI were based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method stratified by stratification factors (geographic region, cytogenetic risk status, and bone marrow blast percentage).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.155|0.584|0.2563
90797834|NCT02415556|181474683|OTHER|"A spatial power variance-covariance structure was used to model within-subject correlated measurements where the number of days from the baseline visit was used as the power of the autoregressive correlation coefficient. Each efficacy and safety outcome variable was modeled separately.~The independent variables included: 4 treatment groups, TIMEG (baseline, on-treatment and post-treatment period), TIMEG \* treatment group.; an average number of treatment days; subjects as random effects."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.52||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|12.23||Mixed model p-value represents on-treatment difference between between Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus - Insulin vs. Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus - Placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We set type-I error rate at 0.05, power of 0.80 or above, effect size of 15% improvement due to INI, and obtained n=120 for the DM group (60 DM-INI; 60 DM-Placebo) and n=90 for the Control group (45 Control-INI; 45 Control-Placebo) yielding 210 patients with data at the end of the treatment period.||12.23|0.81|0.025
90797835|NCT02415556|181474683|OTHER|The independent variables in the model included a four-level indicator variable for the four treatment groups, a three-level time indicator variable (TIMEG) representing baseline, on-treatment and post-treatment period and an interaction term between TIMEG and treatment group. An average number of treatment days at each assessment visit was used as a continuous repeated variable and subjects were included as random effects. Each efficacy and safety outcome variable was modeled separately.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.28||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|10.6||Mixed model p-value represents on-treatment difference between between Control - Insulin vs. Control - Placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We set type-I error rate at 0.05, power of 0.80 or above, effect size of 15% improvement due to INI, and obtained n=120 for the DM group (60 DM-INI; 60 DM-Placebo) and n=90 for the Control group (45 Control-INI; 45 Control-Placebo) yielding 210 patients with data at the end of the treatment period.||10.60|-0.03|0.051
90797836|NCT02415556|181474684|OTHER|The independent variables in the model included a four-level indicator variable for the four treatment groups, a three-level time indicator variable (TIMEG) representing baseline, on-treatment and post-treatment period and an interaction term between TIMEG and treatment group. An average number of treatment days at each assessment visit was used as a continuous repeated variable and subjects were included as random effects. Each efficacy and safety outcome variable was modeled separately.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.31||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.33|14.29||Mixed model p-value represents on-treatment difference between between Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus - Insulin vs. Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus - Placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We set type-I error rate at 0.05, power of 0.80 or above, effect size of 15% improvement due to INI, and obtained n=120 for the DM group (60 DM-INI; 60 DM-Placebo) and n=90 for the Control group (45 Control-INI; 45 Control-Placebo) yielding 210 patients with data at the end of the treatment period.||14.29|2.33|0.007
90797837|NCT02415556|181474684|OTHER|The independent variables in the model included a four-level indicator variable for the four treatment groups, a three-level time indicator variable (TIMEG) representing baseline, on-treatment and post-treatment period and an interaction term between TIMEG and treatment group. An average number of treatment days at each assessment visit was used as a continuous repeated variable and subjects were included as random effects. Each efficacy and safety outcome variable was modeled separately.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.71||||0.342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|8.32||Mixed model p-value represents on-treatment difference between between Control - Insulin vs. Control - Placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We set type-I error rate at 0.05, power of 0.80 or above, effect size of 15% improvement due to INI, and obtained n=120 for the DM group (60 DM-INI; 60 DM-Placebo) and n=90 for the Control group (45 Control-INI; 45 Control-Placebo) yielding 210 patients with data at the end of the treatment period.||8.32|-2.90|0.342
90890311|NCT04313881|181645079|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72||||0.2191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.427|1.212||95% CI for transfusion independence rate was based on Clopper-Pearson exact method. 2-sided P-value, odds ratio and its 95% CI were based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method stratified by stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.212|0.427|0.2191
91012283|NCT01632345|181906888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in % response|3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|15.0|||||A positive value would be considered as favoring doravirine over efavirenz.|||15.0|-7.3|
91012284|NCT01632345|181906889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in CD4 change|33.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.1|94.0|||||A positive value would be considered as favoring doravirine over efavirenz.|||94.0|-28.1|
91012285|NCT01632345|181906889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in CD4 change|-8.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.5|51.9|||||A positive value would be considered as favoring doravirine over efavirenz.|||51.9|-68.5|
91012286|NCT01632345|181906889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in CD4 change|12.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.6|69.5|||||A positive value would be considered as favoring doravirine over efavirenz.|||69.5|-44.6|
91012287|NCT01632345|181906889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in CD4 change|19.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.1|84.2|||||A positive value would be considered as favoring doravirine over efavirenz.|||84.2|-45.1|
91012288|NCT01632345|181906890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in CD4 change|6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.2|50.8|||||A positive value would be considered as favoring doravirine over efavirenz.|||50.8|-38.2|
91012289|NCT01632345|181906891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in CD4 change|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.5|41.3|||||A positive value would be considered as favoring doravirine over efavirenz.|||41.3|-46.5|
91012290|NCT01632345|181906892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in CD4 change|-4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.0|55.1|||||A positive value would be considered as favoring doravirine over efavirenz.|||55.1|-64.0|
91012291|NCT01632345|181906893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|6.0|||||A negative value would be considered as favoring doravirine over efavirenz.|||6.0|-11.7|
91012292|NCT01632345|181906894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|0.3|||||A negative value would be considered as favoring doravirine over efavirenz.|||0.3|-14.1|
91012293|NCT00089505|181906900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.79|7.61||P-value was not adjusted for multiple interim analyses, but any adjustment would be negligible because Peto-Haybittle spending function was used as a basis for calculating the repeated confidence intervals used in interim monitoring.|Regression, Cox|The model was stratified by screening CD4 strata (\<50 vs. \>=50 cells/mm\^3).|The HR is for NVP/NVP vs. NVP/LPV\_r.|||7.61|1.79|<0.001
91053976|NCT02912650|181990990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.76|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.76|0.20|<0.001
90797838|NCT02415556|181474685|OTHER|The independent variables in the model included a four-level indicator variable for the four treatment groups, a three-level time indicator variable (TIMEG) representing baseline, on-treatment and post-treatment period and an interaction term between TIMEG and treatment group. An average number of treatment days at each assessment visit was used as a continuous repeated variable and subjects were included as random effects. Each efficacy and safety outcome variable was modeled separately.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37||||0.144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.13||Mixed model p-value represents on-treatment difference between between Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus - Insulin vs. Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus - Placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We set type-I error rate at 0.05, power of 0.80 or above, effect size of 15% improvement due to INI, and obtained n=120 for the DM group (60 DM-INI; 60 DM-Placebo) and n=90 for the Control group (45 Control-INI; 45 Control-Placebo) yielding 210 patients with data at the end of the treatment period.||0.13|-0.87|0.144
90797839|NCT02415556|181474685|OTHER|The independent variables in the model included a four-level indicator variable for the four treatment groups, a three-level time indicator variable (TIMEG) representing baseline, on-treatment and post-treatment period and an interaction term between TIMEG and treatment group. An average number of treatment days at each assessment visit was used as a continuous repeated variable and subjects were included as random effects. Each efficacy and safety outcome variable was modeled separately.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.64||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.16||Mixed model p-value represents on-treatment difference between between Control - Insulin vs. Control - Placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We set type-I error rate at 0.05, power of 0.80 or above, effect size of 15% improvement due to INI, and obtained n=120 for the DM group (60 DM-INI; 60 DM-Placebo) and n=90 for the Control group (45 Control-INI; 45 Control-Placebo) yielding 210 patients with data at the end of the treatment period.||-0.16|-1.11|0.008
90797840|NCT02415556|181474686|OTHER|The independent variables in the model included a four-level indicator variable for the four treatment groups, a three-level time indicator variable (TIMEG) representing baseline, on-treatment and post-treatment period and an interaction term between TIMEG and treatment group. An average number of treatment days at each assessment visit was used as a continuous repeated variable and subjects were included as random effects. Each efficacy and safety outcome variable was modeled separately.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.35||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.83||Mixed model p-value represents on-treatment difference between between Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus - Insulin vs. Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus - Placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We set type-I error rate at 0.05, power of 0.80 or above, effect size of 15% improvement due to INI, and obtained n=120 for the DM group (60 DM-INI; 60 DM-Placebo) and n=90 for the Control group (45 Control-INI; 45 Control-Placebo) yielding 210 patients with data at the end of the treatment period.||0.83|-0.13|0.149
90797841|NCT02415556|181474686|OTHER|The independent variables in the model included a four-level indicator variable for the four treatment groups, a three-level time indicator variable (TIMEG) representing baseline, on-treatment and post-treatment period and an interaction term between TIMEG and treatment group. An average number of treatment days at each assessment visit was used as a continuous repeated variable and subjects were included as random effects. Each efficacy and safety outcome variable was modeled separately.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.35||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.8||Mixed model p-value represents on-treatment difference between between Control - Insulin vs. Control - Placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We set type-I error rate at 0.05, power of 0.80 or above, effect size of 15% improvement due to INI, and obtained n=120 for the DM group (60 DM-INI; 60 DM-Placebo) and n=90 for the Control group (45 Control-INI; 45 Control-Placebo) yielding 210 patients with data at the end of the treatment period.||0.80|-0.11|0.134
90797842|NCT02415556|181474687|OTHER|The independent variables in the model included a four-level indicator variable for the four treatment groups, a three-level time indicator variable (TIMEG) representing baseline, on-treatment and post-treatment period and an interaction term between TIMEG and treatment group. An average number of treatment days at each assessment visit was used as a continuous repeated variable and subjects were included as random effects. Each efficacy and safety outcome variable was modeled separately.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.29||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|19.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||19.58|1.00|0.030
90797843|NCT02415556|181474687|OTHER|See primary aims.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.21||||0.607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.22|10.63||See primary aims.|Mixed Models Analysis|||See primary aims.||10.63|-6.22|0.607
90797844|NCT02415556|181474688|OTHER|See primary aims.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1||||0.576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|5.29||See primary aims.|Mixed Models Analysis|||See primary aims.||5.29|-9.50|0.576
90797845|NCT02415556|181474688|OTHER|See primary aims.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.86||||0.802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.58|5.87||See primary aims.|Mixed Models Analysis|||See primary aims.||5.87|-7.58|0.802
90797846|NCT02415556|181474689|EQUIVALENCE|CBF and vasoreactivity maps were analyzed on a voxel-by-voxel basis using Statistical non-Parametric Mapping (SnPM, http://www.sph.umich.edu/ni-stat/SnPM/), voxel-level threshold p \< 0.005.||||||0.03|||||||Voxel-Based Morphometry|||||||0.03
90797847|NCT01621178|181474691|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-Inferiority to Glargine with a 0.4% margin|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 26||0.15|-0.26|<0.001
91053977|NCT02912650|181990990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.23||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.51|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.51|-0.05|0.106
91053978|NCT02912650|181990990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.25||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.45|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.45|0.05|0.013
91053979|NCT02912650|181990990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.39||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.67|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.67|0.11|0.006
91053980|NCT02912650|181990990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.03||||0.796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.22|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.22|-0.17|0.796
91053981|NCT02912650|181990990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.16||||0.104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.36|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.36|-0.03|0.104
91053982|NCT02912650|181990990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.37||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.65|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.65|0.09|0.010
90797848|NCT01621178|181474691|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-Inferiority to Glargine with a 0.4% margin|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 26||0.22|-0.18|<0.001
90797849|NCT00492557|181474730|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for a given virus subtype was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% confidence interval (CI), computed using the Chan and Zhang procedure, for the difference in proportions (13vPnC+TIV - TIV alone) was greater than -0.10.|Percent Difference|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|6.5||||||Influenza virus subtype: A/H1N1. Primary null hypothesis for each of the influenza virus subtypes is: proportion of participants achieving a 4-fold increase in titer when 13vPnC+TIV were administered concomitantly, minus the proportion of participants achieving a 4-fold increase in titer when TIV was administered alone (with placebo) \<= -0.10.||6.5|-3.1|
90797850|NCT00492557|181474730|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for a given virus subtype was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI, computed using the Chan and Zhang procedure, for the difference in proportions (13vPnC+TIV - TIV alone) was greater than -0.10.|Percent Difference|-4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|1.3||||||Influenza virus subtype: A/H3N2. Primary null hypothesis for each of the influenza virus subtypes is: proportion of participants achieving a 4-fold increase in titer when 13vPnC+TIV were administered concomitantly, minus the proportion of participants achieving a 4-fold increase in titer when TIV was administered alone (with placebo) \<= -0.10.||1.3|-10.4|
90797851|NCT00492557|181474730|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for a given virus subtype was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI, computed using the Chan and Zhang procedure, for the difference in proportions (13vPnC+TIV - TIV alone) was greater than -0.10.|Percent Difference|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|4.1||||||Influenza virus subtype: B. Primary null hypothesis for each of the influenza virus subtypes is: proportion of participants achieving a 4-fold increase in titer when 13vPnC+TIV were administered concomitantly, minus the proportion of participants achieving a 4-fold increase in titer when TIV was administered alone (with placebo) \<= -0.10.||4.1|-7.8|
90797852|NCT00492557|181474731|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion upon which to declare non-inferiority was the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the geometric mean ratio greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMCs|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.04|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of the CIs based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithmically transformed assay results.|Serotype 1. The primary null hypothesis was: the log of the GMC in the group receiving 13vPnC and TIV concomitantly, minus the log of the GMC in the group receiving 13vPnC alone (1 month after TIV) \<= -0.693.||1.04|0.60|
90797853|NCT00492557|181474731|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion upon which to declare non-inferiority was the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the geometric mean ratio greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMCs|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.13|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of the CIs based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithmically transformed assay results.|Serotype 3. The primary null hypothesis was: the log of the GMC in the group receiving 13vPnC and TIV concomitantly, minus the log of the GMC in the group receiving 13vPnC alone (1 month after TIV) \<= -0.693.||1.13|0.78|
90797854|NCT00492557|181474731|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion upon which to declare non-inferiority was the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the geometric mean ratio greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMCs|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.87|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of the CIs based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithmically transformed assay results.|Serotype 4. The primary null hypothesis was: the log of the GMC in the group receiving 13vPnC and TIV concomitantly, minus the log of the GMC in the group receiving 13vPnC alone (1 month after TIV) \<= -0.693.||0.87|0.51|
90797855|NCT00492557|181474731|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion upon which to declare non-inferiority was the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the geometric mean ratio greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMCs|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.86|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of the CIs based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithmically transformed assay results.|Serotype 5. The primary null hypothesis was: the log of the GMC in the group receiving 13vPnC and TIV concomitantly, minus the log of the GMC in the group receiving 13vPnC alone (1 month after TIV) \<= -0.693.||0.86|0.55|
90797856|NCT00492557|181474731|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion upon which to declare non-inferiority was the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the geometric mean ratio greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMCs|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.94|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of the CIs based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithmically transformed assay results.|Serotype 6A. The primary null hypothesis was: the log of the GMC in the group receiving 13vPnC and TIV concomitantly, minus the log of the GMC in the group receiving 13vPnC alone (1 month after TIV) \<= -0.693.||0.94|0.61|
90797857|NCT00492557|181474731|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion upon which to declare non-inferiority was the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the geometric mean ratio greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMCs|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.25|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of the CIs based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithmically transformed assay results.|Serotype 6B. The primary null hypothesis was: the log of the GMC in the group receiving 13vPnC and TIV concomitantly, minus the log of the GMC in the group receiving 13vPnC alone (1 month after TIV) \<= -0.693.||1.25|0.75|
90797858|NCT00492557|181474731|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion upon which to declare non-inferiority was the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the geometric mean ratio greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMCs|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.07|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of the CIs based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithmically transformed assay results.|Serotype 7F. The primary null hypothesis was: the log of the GMC in the group receiving 13vPnC and TIV concomitantly, minus the log of the GMC in the group receiving 13vPnC alone (1 month after TIV) \<= -0.693.||1.07|0.67|
90797859|NCT00492557|181474731|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion upon which to declare non-inferiority was the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the geometric mean ratio greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMCs|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.02|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of the CIs based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithmically transformed assay results.|Serotype 9V. The primary null hypothesis was: the log of the GMC in the group receiving 13vPnC and TIV concomitantly, minus the log of the GMC in the group receiving 13vPnC alone (1 month after TIV) \<= -0.693.||1.02|0.63|
90797860|NCT00492557|181474731|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion upon which to declare non-inferiority was the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the geometric mean ratio greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMCs|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.97|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of the CIs based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithmically transformed assay results.|Serotype 14. The primary null hypothesis was: the log of the GMC in the group receiving 13vPnC and TIV concomitantly, minus the log of the GMC in the group receiving 13vPnC alone (1 month after TIV) \<= -0.693.||0.97|0.53|
90797861|NCT00492557|181474731|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion upon which to declare non-inferiority was the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the geometric mean ratio greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMCs|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.01|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of the CIs based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithmically transformed assay results.|Serotype 18C. The primary null hypothesis was: the log of the GMC in the group receiving 13vPnC and TIV concomitantly, minus the log of the GMC in the group receiving 13vPnC alone (1 month after TIV) \<= -0.693.||1.01|0.64|
90797862|NCT00492557|181474731|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion upon which to declare non-inferiority was the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the geometric mean ratio greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMCs|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.87|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of the CIs based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithmically transformed assay results.|Serotype 19A. The primary null hypothesis was: the log of the GMC in the group receiving 13vPnC and TIV concomitantly, minus the log of the GMC in the group receiving 13vPnC alone (1 month after TIV) \<= -0.693.||0.87|0.56|
90797863|NCT00492557|181474731|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion upon which to declare non-inferiority was the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the geometric mean ratio greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMCs|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.85|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of the CIs based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithmically transformed assay results.|Serotype 19F. The primary null hypothesis was: the log of the GMC in the group receiving 13vPnC and TIV concomitantly, minus the log of the GMC in the group receiving 13vPnC alone (1 month after TIV) \<= -0.693.||0.85|0.49|
90797864|NCT00492557|181474731|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion upon which to declare non-inferiority was the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the geometric mean ratio greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMCs|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.27|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of the CIs based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithmically transformed assay results.|Serotype 23F. The primary null hypothesis was: the log of the GMC in the group receiving 13vPnC and TIV concomitantly, minus the log of the GMC in the group receiving 13vPnC alone (1 month after TIV) \<= -0.693.||1.27|0.71|
90797865|NCT00492557|181474734|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion upon which to declare non-inferiority was if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95%CI for the GMT ratios, (13vPnC+TIV relative to 13vPnC administered 1 month after TIV+placebo) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMT Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.24|||||2-sided 95% CIs for the GMT ratio were calculated by back transformations of the 95% CIs based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithmically transformed assay results.|Serotype 1. The primary null hypothesis was: the log of the GMT in the group receiving 13vPnC + TIV minus the log of the GMT in the group receiving 13vPnC alone (1 month after TIV) \<= -0.693.||1.24|0.68|
90797866|NCT00492557|181474734|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion upon which to declare non-inferiority was if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95%CI for the GMT ratios, (13vPnC+TIV relative to 13vPnC administered 1 month after TIV+placebo) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMT Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.2|||||2-sided 95% CIs for the GMT ratio were calculated by back transformations of the 95% CIs based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithmically transformed assay results.|Serotype 3. The primary null hypothesis was: the log of the GMT in the group receiving 13vPnC + TIV minus the log of the GMT in the group receiving 13vPnC alone (1 month after TIV) \<= -0.693.||1.20|0.69|
90797867|NCT00492557|181474734|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion upon which to declare non-inferiority was if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95%CI for the GMT ratios, (13vPnC+TIV relative to 13vPnC administered 1 month after TIV+placebo) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMT Ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.95|||||2-sided 95% CIs for the GMT ratio were calculated by back transformations of the 95% CIs based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithmically transformed assay results.|Serotype 4. The primary null hypothesis was: the log of the GMT in the group receiving 13vPnC + TIV minus the log of the GMT in the group receiving 13vPnC alone (1 month after TIV) \<= -0.693.||0.95|0.47|
90797868|NCT00492557|181474734|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion upon which to declare non-inferiority was if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95%CI for the GMT ratios, (13vPnC+TIV relative to 13vPnC administered 1 month after TIV+placebo) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMT Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.6|||||2-sided 95% CIs for the GMT ratio were calculated by back transformations of the 95% CIs based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithmically transformed assay results.|Serotype 5. The primary null hypothesis was: the log of the GMT in the group receiving 13vPnC + TIV minus the log of the GMT in the group receiving 13vPnC alone (1 month after TIV) \<= -0.693.||1.60|0.77|
91012294|NCT00089505|181906901|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|NoNVP/NVP regimen will be considered equivalent to the NoNVP/LPV\_r regimen if the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the hazard ratio for virologi falure is entirely below 2.0; equivalence will be established if the same confidence interval is entirely within the range 0.5 to 2.0.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.29||P-value is for a test of superiority and was not adjusted for interim analyses, but any adjustment would be negligible because Peto-Haybittle spending function was used as a basis for calculating the repeated confidence intervals used.|Regression, Cox|The cox proportional hazard model was stratified by screening CD4 strata (\<50 vs. \>=50 cells/mm3).|The HR is for NoNVP/NVP vs. NoNVP/LPV\_r.|||1.29|0.56|0.43
91012295|NCT05047601|181906931|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.702||||0.1722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.422|1.167|||Generalized estimating equation (GEE)|Model included the fixed effects of treatment, geographic regions and presence of risk factors. Compound symmetry variance-covariance structure.||||1.167|0.422|0.1722
91012296|NCT05047601|181906931|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.645||||0.1163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.373|1.115|||GEE|Model included the fixed effects of treatment, geographic regions and presence of risk factors. Compound symmetry variance-covariance structure.||||1.115|0.373|0.1163
90797869|NCT00492557|181474734|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion upon which to declare non-inferiority was if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95%CI for the GMT ratios, (13vPnC+TIV relative to 13vPnC administered 1 month after TIV+placebo) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMT Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.08|||||2-sided 95% CIs for the GMT ratio were calculated by back transformations of the 95% CIs based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithmically transformed assay results.|Serotype 6A. The primary null hypothesis was: the log of the GMT in the group receiving 13vPnC + TIV minus the log of the GMT in the group receiving 13vPnC alone (1 month after TIV) \<= -0.693.||1.08|0.54|
90797870|NCT00492557|181474734|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion upon which to declare non-inferiority was if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95%CI for the GMT ratios, (13vPnC+TIV relative to 13vPnC administered 1 month after TIV+placebo) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMT Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.09|||||2-sided 95% CIs for the GMT ratio were calculated by back transformations of the 95% CIs based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithmically transformed assay results.|Serotype 6B. The primary null hypothesis was: the log of the GMT in the group receiving 13vPnC + TIV minus the log of the GMT in the group receiving 13vPnC alone (1 month after TIV) \<= -0.693.||1.09|0.55|
90797871|NCT00492557|181474734|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion upon which to declare non-inferiority was if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95%CI for the GMT ratios, (13vPnC+TIV relative to 13vPnC administered 1 month after TIV+placebo) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMT Ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.12|||||2-sided 95% CIs for the GMT ratio were calculated by back transformations of the 95% CIs based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithmically transformed assay results.|Serotype 7F. The primary null hypothesis was: the log of the GMT in the group receiving 13vPnC + TIV minus the log of the GMT in the group receiving 13vPnC alone (1 month after TIV) \<= -0.693.||1.12|0.47|
90797872|NCT00492557|181474734|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion upon which to declare non-inferiority was if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95%CI for the GMT ratios, (13vPnC+TIV relative to 13vPnC administered 1 month after TIV+placebo) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMT Ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.03|||||2-sided 95% CIs for the GMT ratio were calculated by back transformations of the 95% CIs based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithmically transformed assay results.|Serotype 9V. The primary null hypothesis was: the log of the GMT in the group receiving 13vPnC + TIV minus the log of the GMT in the group receiving 13vPnC alone (1 month after TIV) \<= -0.693.||1.03|0.42|
90797873|NCT00492557|181474734|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion upon which to declare non-inferiority was if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95%CI for the GMT ratios, (13vPnC+TIV relative to 13vPnC administered 1 month after TIV+placebo) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMT Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.24|||||2-sided 95% CIs for the GMT ratio were calculated by back transformations of the 95% CIs based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithmically transformed assay results.|Serotype 14. The primary null hypothesis was: the log of the GMT in the group receiving 13vPnC + TIV minus the log of the GMT in the group receiving 13vPnC alone (1 month after TIV) \<= -0.693.||1.24|0.65|
90797874|NCT00492557|181474734|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion upon which to declare non-inferiority was if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95%CI for the GMT ratios, (13vPnC+TIV relative to 13vPnC administered 1 month after TIV+placebo) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMT Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.14|||||2-sided 95% CIs for the GMT ratio were calculated by back transformations of the 95% CIs based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithmically transformed assay results.|Serotype 18C. The primary null hypothesis was: the log of the GMT in the group receiving 13vPnC + TIV minus the log of the GMT in the group receiving 13vPnC alone (1 month after TIV) \<= -0.693.||1.14|0.59|
90797875|NCT00492557|181474734|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion upon which to declare non-inferiority was if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95%CI for the GMT ratios, (13vPnC+TIV relative to 13vPnC administered 1 month after TIV+placebo) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMT Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.12|||||2-sided 95% CIs for the GMT ratio were calculated by back transformations of the 95% CIs based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithmically transformed assay results.|Serotype 19A. The primary null hypothesis was: the log of the GMT in the group receiving 13vPnC + TIV minus the log of the GMT in the group receiving 13vPnC alone (1 month after TIV) \<= -0.693.||1.12|0.61|
91012297|NCT05047601|181906933|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.88||||0.6766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.484|1.602|||GEE|Model included the fixed effects of treatment, geographic regions. Compound symmetry variance-covariance structure.||||1.602|0.484|0.6766
91012298|NCT05047601|181906933|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.809||||0.507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.433|1.512|||GEE|Model included the fixed effects of treatment, geographic regions. Compound symmetry variance-covariance structure.||||1.512|0.433|0.5070
91012299|NCT05047601|181906935|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.672||||0.1869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.373|1.213|||GEE|Model included the fixed effects of treatment, geographic regions and presence of risk factors. Compound symmetry variance-covariance structure.||||1.213|0.373|0.1869
91012300|NCT05047601|181906935|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.633||||0.1221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.355|1.13|||GEE|Model included the fixed effects of treatment, geographic regions and presence of risk factors. Compound symmetry variance-covariance structure.||||1.130|0.355|0.1221
91012301|NCT05047601|181906936|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0368|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0368
91012302|NCT05047601|181906936|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0186|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0186
91012303|NCT05047601|181906937|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.75||||0.4126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.378|1.491|||GEE|Model included the fixed effects of treatment, geographic regions and presence of risk factors. Compound symmetry variance-covariance structure.||||1.491|0.378|0.4126
91053983|NCT02912650|181990990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.23||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.51|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.51|-0.05|0.114
91012304|NCT05047601|181906937|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.244||||0.4273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.725|2.135|||GEE|Model included the fixed effects of treatment, geographic regions and presence of risk factors. Compound symmetry variance-covariance structure.||||2.135|0.725|0.4273
91053984|NCT02912650|181990990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.14||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.34|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.34|-0.06|0.168
90797876|NCT00492557|181474734|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion upon which to declare non-inferiority was if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95%CI for the GMT ratios, (13vPnC+TIV relative to 13vPnC administered 1 month after TIV+placebo) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMT Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.16|||||2-sided 95% CIs for the GMT ratio were calculated by back transformations of the 95% CIs based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithmically transformed assay results.|Serotype 19F. The primary null hypothesis was: the log of the GMT in the group receiving 13vPnC + TIV minus the log of the GMT in the group receiving 13vPnC alone (1 month after TIV) \<= -0.693.||1.16|0.57|
90797877|NCT00492557|181474734|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion upon which to declare non-inferiority was if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95%CI for the GMT ratios, (13vPnC+TIV relative to 13vPnC administered 1 month after TIV+placebo) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMT Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.27|||||2-sided 95% CIs for the GMT ratio were calculated by back transformations of the 95% CIs based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithmically transformed assay results.|Serotype 23F. The primary null hypothesis was: the log of the GMT in the group receiving 13vPnC + TIV minus the log of the GMT in the group receiving 13vPnC alone (1 month after TIV) \<= -0.693.||1.27|0.54|
90797878|NCT00372957|181474745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28|-1.93|||Double-delta analysis||The point estimate is the least square mean difference between placebo and GW 823093C 15 mg.|AUC(0-12 hr), Day 7||-1.93|-2.28|
90797879|NCT00372957|181474745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|-1.98|||Double-delta analysis||The point estimate is the least square mean difference between placebo and GW 823093C 30 mg.|AUC(0-12 hr), Day 7||-1.98|-2.33|
90797880|NCT00372957|181474745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|-1.82|||Double-delta analysis||The point estimate is the least square mean difference between placebo and GW 823093C 15 mg.|AUC(0-24 hr), Day 7||-1.82|-2.15|
90797881|NCT00372957|181474745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28|-1.95|||Double-delta analysis||The point estimate is the least square mean difference between placebo and GW 823093C 30 mg.|AUC(0-24 hr), Day 7||-1.95|-2.28|
90797882|NCT00372957|181474746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.33|5.41|||Double-delta analysis||he point estimate is the least square mean difference between placebo and GW 823093C 15 mg.|AUC(0-12 hr), Day 7||5.41|2.33|
90797883|NCT00372957|181474746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|6.73|||Double-delta analysis||The point estimate is the least square mean difference between placebo and GW 823093C 30 mg.|AUC(0-12 hr), Day 7||6.73|3.70|
90797884|NCT00372957|181474746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|4.54|||Double-delta analysis||The point estimate is the least square mean difference between placebo and GW 823093C 15 mg.|AUC(0-24 hr), Day 7||4.54|1.90|
91053985|NCT02912650|181990990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.32||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.59|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.59|0.05|0.022
91053986|NCT02912650|181990990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.05||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.24|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.24|-0.14|0.620
90797885|NCT00372957|181474746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|5.68|||Double-delta analysis||The point estimate is the least square mean difference between placebo and GW 823093C 30 mg.|AUC(0-24 hr), Day 7||5.68|3.10|
90797886|NCT00372957|181474747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|2.89|||Double-delta analysis||The point estimate is the least square mean difference between placebo and GW 823093C 15 mg.|AUC(0-12 hr), Day 7||2.89|-6.00|
90797887|NCT00372957|181474747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|5.72|||Double-delta analysis||The point estimate is the least square mean difference between placebo and GW 823093C 30 mg.|AUC(0-12 hr), Day 7||5.72|-3.30|
90797888|NCT00372957|181474747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|2.5|||Double-delta analysis||The point estimate is the least square mean difference between placebo and GW 823093C 15 mg.|AUC(0-24 hr), Day 7||2.50|-5.20|
90797889|NCT00372957|181474747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.47|5.43|||Double-delta analysis||The point estimate is the least square mean difference between placebo and GW 823093C 30 mg.|AUC(0-24 hr), Day 7||5.43|-2.47|
90797890|NCT00372957|181474748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.4|4.2|||Double-delta analysis||The point estimate is the least square mean difference between placebo and GW 823093C 15 mg.|AUC(0-12 hr), Day 7||4.2|-20.4|
90797891|NCT00372957|181474748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.4|-3.9|||Double-delta analysis||The point estimate is the least square mean difference between placebo and GW 823093C 30 mg.|AUC(0-12 hr), Day 7||-3.9|-28.4|
90797892|NCT00372957|181474748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.1|1.4|||Double-delta analysis||The point estimate is the least square mean difference between placebo and GW 823093C 15 mg.|AUC(0-24 hr), Day 7||1.4|-23.1|
90797893|NCT00372957|181474748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.9|-3.3|||Double-delta analysis||The point estimate is the least square mean difference between placebo and GW 823093C 30 mg.|AUC(0-24 hr), Day 7||-3.3|-27.9|
90797894|NCT00372957|181474749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|1.16|||Double-delta analysis||The point estimate is the least square mean difference between placebo and GW 823093C 15 mg.|AUC(0-12 hr), Day 7||1.16|-0.64|
90797895|NCT00372957|181474749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|1.32|||Double-delta analysis||The point estimate is the least square mean difference between placebo and GW 823093C 30 mg.|AUC(0-12 hr), Day 7||1.32|-0.47|
91053987|NCT02912650|181990990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.14||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.33|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.33|-0.06|0.164
91053988|NCT02912650|181990990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.27||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.54|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.54|-0.00|0.052
90797896|NCT00372957|181474749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|1.07|||Double-delta analysis||The point estimate is the least square mean difference between placebo and GW 823093C 15 mg.|AUC(0-24 hr), Day 7||1.07|-0.37|
90797897|NCT00372957|181474749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|1.21|||Double-delta analysis||The point estimate is the least square mean difference between placebo and GW 823093C 30 mg.|AUC(0-24 hr), Day 7||1.21|-0.24|
90797898|NCT00372957|181474750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.7|0.9|||Double-delta analysis||The point estimate is the least square mean difference between placebo and GW 823093C 15 mg.|AUC(0-12 hr), Day 7||0.9|-40.7|
90797899|NCT00372957|181474750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.8|11.7|||Double-delta analysis||The point estimate is the least square mean difference between placebo and GW 823093C 30 mg.|AUC(0-12 hr), Day 7||11.7|-29.8|
90797900|NCT00372957|181474750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.2|1.4|||Double-delta analysis||The point estimate is the least square mean difference between placebo and GW 823093C 15 mg.|AUC(0-24 hr), Day 7||1.4|-33.2|
90797901|NCT00372957|181474750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.4|11.1|||Double-delta analysis||The point estimate is the least square mean difference between placebo and GW 823093C 30 mg.|AUC(0-24 hr), Day 7||11.1|-23.4|
90797902|NCT04778592|181474752|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.291||0.4549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.79|-0.36|0.4549
90797903|NCT04102007|181474772|OTHER|There is no statistical test for this study|Proportion of sPGA 0/1 @ WK 16|57.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.1|63.4|||Other|There is no test of hypothesis for this study.|Non-Responder Imputation incorporating multiple imputation to handle missing due to COVID-19 for proportion calculation and Wilson score method for confidence interval construction|||63.4|51.1|
90797904|NCT04102007|181474773|OTHER|There is no statistical test for this study|Proportion of sPGA 0 @ WK 16|20.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.4|26.0|||Other|There is no test of hypothesis for this study|Non-Responder Imputation incorporating multiple imputation to handle missing due to COVID-19 for proportion calculation and Wilson score method for confidence interval construction|||26.0|15.4|
90797905|NCT04102007|181474774|OTHER|There is no statistical test for this study|Proportion of DLQI 0 or 1 @ WK 16|40.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.2|46.4|||Other|There is no test of hypothesis for this study.|Non-Responder Imputation incorporating multiple imputation to handle missing due to COVID-19 for proportion calculation and Wilson score method for confidence interval construction|||46.4|34.2|
91053989|NCT02912650|181990990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.18||||0.196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.45|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.45|-0.09|0.196
90797906|NCT04102007|181474775|OTHER|There is no statistical test for this study|Proportion of PSS 0 @ WK 16|20.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.3|26.4|||Other|There is no test of hypothesis for this study|Non-Responder Imputation incorporating multiple imputation to handle missing due to COVID-19 for proportion calculation and Wilson score method for confidence interval construction|||26.4|16.3|
90797907|NCT04102007|181474776|OTHER|There is no statistical test for this study|Proportion of sPGA 0/1 @ WK 52|62.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.0|68.1|||Other|There is no test of hypothesis for this study|Non-Responder Imputation incorporating multiple imputation to handle missing due to COVID-19 for proportion calculation and Wilson score method for confidence interval construction|||68.1|56.0|
90797908|NCT04102007|181474777|OTHER|There is no statistical test for this study|Proportion of sPGA 0 @ WK 52|27.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.9|33.0|||Other|There is no test of hypothesis for this study|Non-Responder Imputation incorporating multiple imputation to handle missing due to COVID-19 for proportion calculation and Wilson score method for confidence interval construction|||33.0|21.9|
90797909|NCT04102007|181474778|OTHER|There is no statistical test for this study|Proportion of DLQI 0 or 1 @ WK 52|47.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.0|53.4|||Other|There is no test of hypothesis for this study.|Non-Responder Imputation incorporating multiple imputation to handle missing due to COVID-19 for proportion calculation and Wilson score method for confidence interval construction|||53.4|41.0|
90797910|NCT04102007|181474779|OTHER|There is no statistical test for this study|Proportion of PSS 0 @ WK 52|27.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.3|33.4|||Other|There is no test of hypothesis for this study|Non-Responder Imputation incorporating multiple imputation to handle missing due to COVID-19 for proportion calculation and Wilson score method for confidence interval construction|||33.4|22.3|
90797911|NCT05173974|181474782|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.29||P-value included Bonferroni adjustment.|ANCOVA||ANCOVA with treatment and period as fixed effects; covariates for participant level baseline (natural logged) and period level baseline (natural logged) minus participant level baseline (natural logged). Participants included as a random effect.|||0.29|0.01|0.037
90797912|NCT05173974|181474782|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.28||P-value included Bonferroni adjustment.|ANCOVA||ANCOVA with treatment and period as fixed effects; covariates for participant level baseline (natural logged) and period level baseline (natural logged) minus participant level baseline (natural logged). Participant included as a random effect.|||0.28|0.00|0.044
90797913|NCT05173974|181474782|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.3||unadjusted P-value was presented.|ANCOVA||||ANCOVA with treatment and period as fixed effects; covariates for participant level baseline (natural logged) and period level baseline (natural logged) minus participant level baseline (natural logged). Participants included as a random effect.|0.30|0.06|0.005
90797914|NCT05173974|181474783|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.17|||ANCOVA||Statistical comparison for AOB 0-0.5|||0.17|-0.04|0.218
90797915|NCT05173974|181474783|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.21|||ANCOVA||Statistical comparison for AOB 0-0.5|||0.21|0.01|0.034
90797916|NCT05173974|181474783|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.25|||ANCOVA||Statistical comparison for AOB 0-0.5|||0.25|0.05|0.004
90797917|NCT05173974|181474783|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.24|||ANCOVA||Statistical comparison for AOB 0-1|||0.24|-0.00|0.058
91053990|NCT02912650|181990990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.09||||0.364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.28|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.28|-0.10|0.364
91012305|NCT05047601|181906938|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.726||||0.1333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.478|1.103|||GEE|Model included the fixed effects of treatment, geographic regions and presence of risk factors. Compound symmetry variance-covariance structure.||||1.103|0.478|0.1333
90797918|NCT05173974|181474783|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.27|||ANCOVA||Statistical comparison for AOB 0-1|||0.27|0.03|0.017
90797919|NCT05173974|181474783|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.33|||ANCOVA||Statistical comparison for AOB 0-1|||0.33|0.09|0.001
90797920|NCT05173974|181474783|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.3|||ANCOVA||Statistical comparison for AOB 0-3|||0.30|0.06|0.004
90797921|NCT05173974|181474783|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.27|||ANCOVA||Statistical comparison for AOB0-3|||0.27|0.04|0.010
90797922|NCT05173974|181474783|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.31|||ANCOVA||Statistical comparison for AOB0-3|||0.31|0.07|0.002
90797923|NCT05173974|181474783|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.29|||ANCOVA||Statistical comparison for AOB 0-6|||0.29|0.02|0.022
90797924|NCT05173974|181474783|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.3|||ANCOVA||Statistical comparison for AOB 0-6|||0.30|0.04|0.011
90797925|NCT05173974|181474783|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.33|||ANCOVA||Statistical comparison for AOB 0-6|||0.33|0.06|0.005
90797926|NCT05173974|181474783|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.27|||ANCOVA||Statistical comparison for AOB 0-9|||0.27|0.01|0.037
90797927|NCT05173974|181474783|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.3|||ANCOVA||Statistical comparison for AOB 0-9|||0.30|0.04|0.013
90797928|NCT05173974|181474783|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.32|||ANCOVA||Statistical comparison for AOB 0-9|||0.32|0.06|0.005
90797929|NCT01977898|181474926|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.877|||||||Fisher Exact|||A sample size of 65 patients in each group would be required to achieve 80% power to detect this difference between intrathecal morphine and saline administration . Sample size of 64 per group achieve 80% power to detect a difference between the group proportions of 0.25. The proportion in the treatment group is assumed to be 0.5 under the null hypothesis and 0.25 under the alternative hypothesis. The proportion in the control group is .05.The significance level of the test was targeted at .05.||||.877
90797930|NCT01977898|181474927|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.499|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.499
90797931|NCT01977898|181474928|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.463|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.463
90797932|NCT01977898|181474929|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0463|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.0463
90797933|NCT01977898|181474930|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.525|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.525
90797934|NCT01977898|181474931|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.691|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.691
91012306|NCT05047601|181906938|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.953||||0.8088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.645|1.408|||GEE|Model included the fixed effects of treatment, geographic regions and presence of risk factors. Compound symmetry variance-covariance structure.||||1.408|0.645|0.8088
90797935|NCT01977898|181474932|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.610
90797936|NCT01977898|181474933|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.499|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.499
90797937|NCT01977898|181474934|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.06
90797938|NCT01977898|181474935|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.31
90797939|NCT01453166|181474963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|120.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.0|<|0.05||95.0|100.0|140.0|||ANOVA|||"The absolute changes has been assessed by ANOVA, in which the homogeneity of variance was assessed and the Brown-Forsythe correction was used when necessary. In cases of statistically significant differences between groups, we used multiple comparisons with Bonferroni adjustment to locate the differences. Was considered statistically significant p values \<0.05. All analyzes were performed following the principle of intention to treat."||140|100|<0.05
90797940|NCT01453166|181474964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|78.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.0||0.05||95.0|66.0|95.0|||ANOVA|||||95|66|0.05
90797941|NCT01453166|181474965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|170.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|39.0||0.05||95.0|140.0|220.0|||ANOVA|||"The absolute changes has been assessed by ANOVA, in which the homogeneity of variance was assessed and the Brown-Forsythe correction was used when necessary. In cases of statistically significant differences between groups, we used multiple comparisons with Bonferroni adjustment to locate the differences. Was considered statistically significant p values \<0.05. All analyzes were performed following the principle of intention to treat."||220|140|0.05
90797942|NCT01453166|181474966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|100.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.0||0.05||95.0|88.0|112.0|||ANOVA|||"The absolute changes has been assessed by ANOVA, in which the homogeneity of variance was assessed and the Brown-Forsythe correction was used when necessary. In cases of statistically significant differences between groups, we used multiple comparisons with Bonferroni adjustment to locate the differences. Was considered statistically significant p values \<0.05. All analyzes were performed following the principle of intention to treat."||112|88|0.05
90797943|NCT01453166|181474967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|100.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|30.0||0.05||95.0|77.0|137.0|||ANOVA|||"The absolute changes has been assessed by ANOVA, in which the homogeneity of variance was assessed and the Brown-Forsythe correction was used when necessary. In cases of statistically significant differences between groups, we used multiple comparisons with Bonferroni adjustment to locate the differences. Was considered statistically significant p values \<0.05. All analyzes were performed following the principle of intention to treat."||137|77|0.05
90797944|NCT02727322|181474968|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.04|||Chi-squared|||||2.04|0.50|0.97
91012307|NCT05047601|181906946|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.969||||0.7991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.758|1.238|||Negative binomial regression model|||||1.238|0.758|0.7991
91012308|NCT05047601|181906946|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.847||||0.1985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.657|1.091|||Negative binomial regression model|||||1.091|0.657|0.1985
91012309|NCT01294319|181906963|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4872|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4872
91012310|NCT01294319|181906964|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2786|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2786
91012311|NCT02924129|181906965|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin (δ) of 10%|||||<|0.001||||||Significance threshold (α) of 0.05|normal approximation to the binomial|||||||<0.001
90797945|NCT02727322|181474969|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.12||||0.665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.885|1.43|||Chi-squared|||||1.43|0.885|0.665
90797946|NCT02727322|181474970|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.32||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|5.68|||Fisher Exact|||||5.68|0.31|1.0
90797947|NCT01049373|181474971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0426
90797948|NCT01049373|181474972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0757
90797949|NCT01049373|181474973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0465
90797950|NCT01049373|181474974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.04443
90797951|NCT01155050|181475000|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.296|||||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the outcome across groups.||||.296
90797952|NCT01155050|181475001|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.787|||||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the outcome across groups.||||.787
90797953|NCT01155050|181475002|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the outcome across groups.||||.340
90797954|NCT01155050|181475003|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.502|||||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the outcome across groups.||||.502
90797955|NCT01155050|181475004|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis is that the outcome does not differ across the four groups.||||.860
90797956|NCT01155050|181475005|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.634|||||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis is that the outcome does not differ across the four groups.||||.634
90797957|NCT01155050|181475006|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.879|||||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the outcome across the four treatment groups.||||.879
90797958|NCT01198587|181475011|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.88
90797959|NCT01198587|181475011|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.19
90797960|NCT01959529|181475019|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of IDeg to IGlar was considered confirmed if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the HR was below 1.3 or equivalent if the p-value for the one-sided test of null hypothesis (H0): HR≥1.3 against the alternative hypothesis (Ha): HR\<1.3 was less than 2.5%.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.908|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.781|1.055||p value : Refers to one-sided test of HR \>= 1.3 (against Ha: HR\<1.3).|Regression, Cox|||The hazard ratio (HR) (IDeg vs IGlar) was based on Cox regression with investigational medicinal product as only factor for primary analysis.||1.055|0.781|<0.001
90797961|NCT01959529|181475020|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.601|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.476|0.759||p-value : Refers to one-sided test of RR \>= 1.0 (against Ha: RR\<1.0)|Negative binomial regression|The model included treatment (IDeg vs IGlar) as a fixed factor and was fitted using the FAS.||Superiority was considered confirmed if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the rate ratio (RR) was below 1.0 or equivalent if the p-value for the one-sided test of H0: RR ≥1.0 against Ha: RR \<1.0, was less than 2.5%||0.759|0.476|<0.001
90797962|NCT01959529|181475021|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.729|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.866||p-value: Refers to one-sided test of OR \>= 1.0 (against Ha: OR\<1.0)|Regression, Logistic|The model was logistic regression with log-link function.The model included treatment (IDeg vs IGlar) as a fixed factor and was fitted using the FAS||Superiority of IDeg to IGlar was considered confirmed if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the odds ratio (OR) was below 1.0 or equivalent if the p-value for the one-sided test of H0: OR ≥1.0 against Ha: OR\<1.0, was less than 2.5%.||0.866|0.600|<0.001
90797963|NCT01440764|181475023|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99||||||a priori threshold for significance was 0.05. Not corrected for multiple comparisons. This p-value describes the a priori analysis of comparing the furosemide test result to the saline test result.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.99
90797964|NCT01440764|181475023|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32||||||a priori threshold for significance was 0.05. Not corrected for multiple comparisons. Thes p-value describes the a priori analysis of comparing the response to furosemide to the mean response to saline.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.32
90797965|NCT01440764|181475025|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0006||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.0006
90797966|NCT01440764|181475025|SUPERIORITY||||||=|1e-05||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||=.00001
90797967|NCT01440764|181475025|SUPERIORITY|||||||2e-07||||||a priori threshold for significance was 0.05. Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.0000002
90797968|NCT00557193|181475032|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.107||||0.672|ONE_SIDED|85.0||1.403||A priori significance level threshold of alpha=0.15|Log Rank||Arm C is the numerator and Arm B is the denominator of the estimated hazard ratio|A one-sided log rank test will be used for testing whether the EFS in Arm C (chemo+lest) at DL2 is greater than the EFS in Arm B (chemo). This is equivalent to testing the null hypothesis of hazard ratio (HR)=1 versus the alternative of HR\<1.||1.403||0.672
90797969|NCT00652834|181475060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The p value is only for GSRS score comparison only.|t-test, 2 sided||The GSRS range is 1-7|"The results of the initial SBCE exams were evaluated by a visually challenged GI specialist who gave us a descriptive report. By the end of the study, we submitted the final reports to the same specialist and asked his impression on the significant changes observed in patients' exams for each GI segment (stomach and small bowel).~There were no comparison groups. Each patient is their own control. Given that this is a pilot study there is no power calculation."||||0.05
90797970|NCT00320606|181475061|OTHER||95% confidence interval using an exact b|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.8|||||Proportion Success|The proportion of participants in whom immunosuppression withdrawal was attempted who are successfully withdrawn from immunosuppression are descriptively summarized with 95% confidence intervals using an exact binomial method||0.8|0.4|
90797971|NCT00320606|181475062|OTHER||Binomial Proportion|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.1684|||||95% Confidence Interval Exact Binomial|The proportion of participants in whom immunosuppression (IS) withdrawal was attempted who are successfully withdrawn from immunosuppression and experience death or graft loss are descriptively summarized with 95% confidence intervals using an exact binomial method.||0.1684|0.0|
90797972|NCT04358406|181475185|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||>0.05
90797973|NCT04358406|181475185|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.1
91012312|NCT02924129|181906966|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin (δ) of 10%|Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|20.4||significance threshold (α) of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||20.4|-2.4|<0.001
91012313|NCT02924129|181906967|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin (δ) of 10%|Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|26.3||significance threshold (α) of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||26.3|2.9|<0.001
91012314|NCT02924129|181906968|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin (δ) of 10%||||||0.002||||||significance threshold (α) of 0.05|normal approximation to the binomial|||||||0.002
90797974|NCT00854360|181475225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.21||A multiplicity adjustment procedure was implemented which allowed for control of the Type I error within a particular treatment comparison, as well as within a particular endpoint, however it did not control the overall Type I error.|Repeated measures ANCOVA|The repeated measures ANCOVA included covariate adjustment for baseline, day, treatment, and the treatment by day interaction.||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05.||0.21|-0.80|0.255
90797975|NCT00854360|181475225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.21||A multiplicity adjustment procedure was implemented which allowed for control of the Type I error within a particular treatment comparison, as well as within a particular endpoint, however it did not control the overall Type I error.|Repeated measures ANCOVA|The repeated measures ANCOVA included covariate adjustment for baseline, day, treatment, and the treatment by day interaction.||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05.||0.21|-0.78|0.257
91053991|NCT02912650|181990990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.25||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.52|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.52|-0.02|0.071
90797976|NCT00854360|181475225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|-0.13||A multiplicity adjustment procedure was implemented which allowed for control of the Type I error within a particular treatment comparison, as well as within a particular endpoint, however it did not control the overall Type I error.|Repeated measures ANCOVA|The repeated measures ANCOVA included covariate adjustment for baseline, day, treatment, and the treatment by day interaction.||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05.||-0.13|-1.13|0.013
90797977|NCT00854360|181475226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.22||A multiplicity adjustment procedure was implemented which allowed for control of the Type I error within a particular treatment comparison, as well as within a particular endpoint, however it did not control the overall Type I error.|Repeated measures ANCOVA|The repeated measures ANCOVA included covariate adjustment for baseline, day, treatment, and the treatment by day interaction.||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05.||0.22|-0.77|0.278
90797978|NCT00854360|181475226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.27||A multiplicity adjustment procedure was implemented which allowed for control of the Type I error within a particular treatment comparison, as well as within a particular endpoint, however it did not control the overall Type I error.|Repeated measures ANCOVA|The repeated measures ANCOVA included covariate adjustment for baseline, day, treatment, and the treatment by day interaction.||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05.||0.27|-0.70|0.385
90797979|NCT00854360|181475226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|-0.11||A multiplicity adjustment procedure was implemented which allowed for control of the Type I error within a particular treatment comparison, as well as within a particular endpoint, however it did not control the overall Type I error.|Repeated Measures ANCOVA|The repeated measures ANCOVA included covariate adjustment for baseline, day, treatment, and the treatment by day interaction.||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05.||-0.11|-1.09|0.016
90797980|NCT00854360|181475227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.06||A multiplicity adjustment procedure was implemented which allowed for control of the Type I error within a particular treatment comparison, as well as within a particular endpoint, however it did not control the overall Type I error.|Repeated measures ANCOVA|The repeated measures ANCOVA included covariate adjustment for baseline, day, treatment, and the treatment by day interaction.||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05.||0.06|-0.95|0.082
90797981|NCT00854360|181475227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.1||A multiplicity adjustment procedure was implemented which allowed for control of the Type I error within a particular treatment comparison, as well as within a particular endpoint, however it did not control the overall Type I error.|Repeated measures ANCOVA|The repeated measures ANCOVA included covariate adjustment for baseline, day, treatment, and the treatment by day interaction.||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05.||0.10|-0.90|0.114
90797982|NCT00854360|181475227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.33||A multiplicity adjustment procedure was implemented which allowed for control of the Type I error within a particular treatment comparison, as well as within a particular endpoint, however it did not control the overall Type I error.|Repeated measures ANCOVA|The repeated measures ANCOVA included covariate adjustment for baseline, day, treatment, and the treatment by day interaction.||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05.||-0.33|-1.33|0.001
91012315|NCT02924129|181906969|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin (δ) of 10%|||||<|0.001||||||significance threshold (α) of 0.05|normal approximation to the binomial|||||||<0.001
90890312|NCT04313881|181645080|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.979||||0.8788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.746|1.285||2-sided P-value was based on stratified log-rank test, stratified by stratification factors.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio and its 95% CI were calculated using the Cox proportional hazards regression model, stratified by stratification factors.|||1.285|0.746|0.8788
91012316|NCT02924129|181906970|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin (δ) of 10%|||||<|0.001||||||significance threshold (α) of 0.05|normal approximation to the binomial|||||||<0.001
91012317|NCT02924129|181906971|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin (δ) of 10%|Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|23.3||significance threshold (α) of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||23.3|-1.8|<0.001
91012318|NCT02924129|181906972|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin (δ) of 10%|Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|28.3||significance threshold (α) of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||28.3|2.5|<0.001
91053992|NCT02912650|181990990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.02||||0.865||95.0|-0.2|0.17|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.17|-0.20|0.865
90797983|NCT00854360|181475228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.37||A multiplicity adjustment procedure was implemented which allowed for control of the Type I error within a particular treatment comparison, as well as within a particular endpoint, however it did not control the overall Type I error.|ANCOVA|Results obtained from ANCOVA with treatment, baseline and center in the model.||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05.||0.37|-0.52|0.747
90797984|NCT00854360|181475228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.31||A multiplicity adjustment procedure was implemented which allowed for control of the Type I error within a particular treatment comparison, as well as within a particular endpoint, however it did not control the overall Type I error.|ANCOVA|Results obtained from ANCOVA with treatment, baseline and center in the model.||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05.||0.31|-0.53|0.605
90797985|NCT00854360|181475228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.05||A multiplicity adjustment procedure was implemented which allowed for control of the Type I error within a particular treatment comparison, as well as within a particular endpoint, however it did not control the overall Type I error.|ANCOVA|Results obtained from ANCOVA with treatment, baseline and center in the model.||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05.||0.05|-0.84|0.083
90797986|NCT00854360|181475229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.46||A multiplicity adjustment procedure was implemented which allowed for control of the Type I error within a particular treatment comparison, as well as within a particular endpoint, however it did not control the overall Type I error.|Repeated measures ANCOVA|The repeated measures ANCOVA included covariate adjustment for baseline, day, treatment, and the treatment by day interaction.||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05.||0.46|-0.45|0.989
90797987|NCT00854360|181475229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.5||A multiplicity adjustment procedure was implemented which allowed for control of the Type I error within a particular treatment comparison, as well as within a particular endpoint, however it did not control the overall Type I error.|Repeated measures ANCOVA|The repeated measures ANCOVA included covariate adjustment for baseline, day, treatment, and the treatment by day interaction.||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05.||0.50|-0.39|0.808
90797988|NCT00854360|181475229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.15||A multiplicity adjustment procedure was implemented which allowed for control of the Type I error within a particular treatment comparison, as well as within a particular endpoint, however it did not control the overall Type I error.|Repeated measures ANCOVA|The repeated measures ANCOVA included covariate adjustment for baseline, day, treatment, and the treatment by day interaction.||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05.||0.15|-0.74|0.195
90797989|NCT00854360|181475230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.57||A multiplicity adjustment procedure was implemented which allowed for control of the Type I error within a particular treatment comparison, as well as within a particular endpoint, however it did not control the overall Type I error.|Repeated measures ANCOVA|The repeated measures ANCOVA included covariate adjustment for baseline, day, treatment, and the treatment by day interaction.||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05.||0.57|-0.64|0.903
91012319|NCT02924129|181906973|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin (δ) of 10%|||||<|0.001|||||||normal approximation to the binomial|||||||<0.001
91012320|NCT02924129|181906974|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin (δ) of 10%|||||<|0.001||||||significance threshold (α) of 0.05|normal approximation to the binomial|||||||<0.001
91053993|NCT02912650|181990990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.11||||0.238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.3|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.30|-0.08|0.238
90797990|NCT00854360|181475230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.62||A multiplicity adjustment procedure was implemented which allowed for control of the Type I error within a particular treatment comparison, as well as within a particular endpoint, however it did not control the overall Type I error.|Repeated measures ANCOVA|The repeated measures ANCOVA included covariate adjustment for baseline, day, treatment, and the treatment by day interaction.||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05.||0.62|-0.58|0.952
90797991|NCT00854360|181475230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.19||A multiplicity adjustment procedure was implemented which allowed for control of the Type I error within a particular treatment comparison, as well as within a particular endpoint, however it did not control the overall Type I error.|Repeated measures ANCOVA|The repeated measures ANCOVA included covariate adjustment for baseline, day, treatment, and the treatment by day interaction.||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05.||0.19|-0.99|0.187
90797992|NCT01164007|181475234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.071|||||||One-sample exact binomial test|||The observed percentage of participants with CR or PR was compared with the expected proportion under the null hypothesis (0.10) and analyzed for statistical significance using a one-sample exact binomial test.||||0.071
90797993|NCT02319486|181475250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Probability of Event-Free Survival ，pEFS|0.32||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|||||stage 2 vs stage 3|pEFS||over all pEFS|||||0.034
90890313|NCT04313881|181645081|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.441||||0.0375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.203|0.96||2-sided P-value, odds ratio and its 95% CI were based on unstratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for response rate was based on Clopper-Pearson exact method.|||0.960|0.203|0.0375
91012321|NCT02780869|181906985|NON_INFERIORITY|The primary endpoint was designed to establish comparable efficacy based upon a non-inferiority margin of 10% for the difference in the probability of TTH within 6 minutes comparing HEMOBLAST™ to G+T (HEMOBLAST™- G+T). Letting θ denote the true difference in the probability of hemostasis at 6 minutes between HEMOBLAST™ to G+T, the trial will test the null hypothesis H0: θ ≤ -0.10 vs. the alternative hypothesis HA : θ \> -0.10 using a one-sided level 0.025 test.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified adjustments for surgery type were made using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting.||||||<0.0001
91053994|NCT02912650|181990990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.26||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.53|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.53|-0.00|0.054
90797994|NCT01908140|181475279|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|non-inferiority margin=-0,055 L|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.093|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.063|0.123|||MMRM|If non-inferiority on the PP was achieved then switch to superiority was tested on the ITT.||This sample size of 900 had 90% power to show that the lower bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference between Aclidinium bromide 400 μg/Formoterol Fumarate 12 μg and SeretideTM AccuhalerTM (50/500 μg) in Peak FEV1 at 24 weeks is above -0,055 L||0.123|0.063|<0.001
90797995|NCT01908140|181475280|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|non-inferiority limit -0.5 units|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.001|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.46|||MMRM|||The total sample size provided 81% nominal power to show that the lower bound of the two-sided 95 confidence interval for the difference between Aclidinium bromide 400 μg/Formoterol fumarate 12 μg and SeretideTM AccuhalerTM (50/500 μg) in transitional dyspnoea index (TDI) at 24 weeks is above -0,5||0.46|-0.46|>0.05
90797996|NCT03218917|181475281|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.014||||||P-value is one-sided for superiority.|Stratified Log-rank test|Stratified by Pseudomonas aeruginosa (Pa) colonization status and maintenance antibiotic use at Baseline.||||||= 0.014
90797997|NCT03218917|181475281|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.022||||||P-value is one-sided for superiority.|Stratified Log-rank test|Stratified by colonization status and maintenance antibiotic use at Baseline.||||||= 0.022
90797998|NCT00427193|181475286|OTHER||difference in mean change|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.02||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.019|0.059||Type I error was controlled using a hierarchical gatekeeping strategy.|Mixed Models Analysis|||All analysis under intention-to-treat. All observations were included The primary analytic was a repeated measures analysis. The dependent variable was the change from baseline 12 \& 14mos., with treatment, time, and the treatment × time interaction as independent variables. Site, sex, BMI stratum, and the baseline value of the outcome were included as covariates. The predicted mean changes ± standard errors are the adjusted values from the contrasts of the multiple timepoints.||0.059|-0.019|0.70
90797999|NCT00427193|181475287|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0092|0.069|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.069|-0.0092|0.84
90798000|NCT00427193|181475288|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-82.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-103.8|-60.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-60.2|-103.8|<0.001
90798001|NCT00427193|181475289|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-64.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-90.5|-37.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-37.5|-90.5|<0.0001
91012322|NCT02780869|181906985|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001||||||Adjustment for mulitple comparisons were made when assessing secondary endpoints using a fixed sequence closed testing procedure to control the family-wise type I error rate at 0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A secondary endpoint of superiority of HEMOBLAST relative to G+T for success at achieving hemostasis within 6 minutes was evaluated.||||0.0001
91012323|NCT02780869|181906986|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Adjustment for mulitple comparisons were made when assessing secondary endpoints using a fixed sequence closed testing procedure to control the family-wise type I error rate at 0.05|Regression, Linear|||The difference in mean preparation time was tested using a linear regression model with stratified adjustment for surgery type.||||<0.0001
91012324|NCT02780869|181906987|NON_INFERIORITY|The difference in the probability of hemostasis within 3 minutes was tested using a logistic regression model with stratified adjustment for surgery type.|||||<|0.0001||||||Adjustment for multiple comparisons when assessing secondary endpoints was performed using a fixed sequence closed testing procedure to control the family-wise type I error rate at 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.0001
90798002|NCT00427193|181475290|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.23|-0.16|0.82
90798003|NCT00427193|181475291|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|-5.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference in change in Fat Mass between prescribed 25% Caloric Restriction (CR) and Ad Libitum (AL) at 12 and 24 months as measured by dual X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) using the Hologic 4500A, Delphi W or Discovery A, by a standardized protocol according to a standardized protocol. Fat Mass (FM) and Fat Free Mass (FFM) were determined for the whole body.||-5.3|-6.5|<0.001
90798004|NCT00427193|181475292|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|-5.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of change in FM in 2 groups over at 24 mos, controlling for site, sex, BMI group, and baseline FM. A repeated measures Mixed Model was employed for the analysis. For any outcome, Type I error was controlled using a hierarchical gatekeeping strategy testing, first, the GroupXTime interaction, and, if non-significant, the main effects of these two factors. Bonferroni corrections were employed for non-significant effects. All tests were at p\<0.05||-5.3|-6.4|<0.0001
90798005|NCT01076010|181475300|OTHER||25% Quartile (months)|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|12.9||||||||12.9|4.4|
90798006|NCT01076010|181475300|OTHER||50% Quartile (months)|15.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.1||DR was only summarized for subjects who had an objective tumor response. Upper limit of confidence interval could not be determined.||||||||11.1|
90798007|NCT01076010|181475300|OTHER||25% Quartile (months)|12.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.6||DR was only summarized for subjects who had an objective tumor response. Upper limit of confidence interval could not be determined.||||||||5.6|
90798008|NCT01076010|181475301|OTHER||25% Quartile (months)|3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|5.2||||||||5.2|1.9|
90798009|NCT01076010|181475301|OTHER||50% Quartile (months)|11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.3|12.7||||||||12.7|7.3|
90798010|NCT01076010|181475301|OTHER||75% Quartile (months)|20.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.5||For the subjects in each treatment arm, PFS is calculated from the first dose date of the respective study drugs. Upper limit of confidence interval could not be determined.||||||||16.5|
90798011|NCT01076010|181475301|OTHER||25% Quartile (months)|7.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|9.2||||||||9.2|3.5|
90798012|NCT01076010|181475302|OTHER||25% Quartile (months)|8.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|12.1||||||||12.1|6.0|
91012325|NCT02780869|181906987|SUPERIORITY|The difference in the probability of hemostasis within 3 minutes was tested using a logistic regression model with stratified adjustment for surgery type.||||||0.0001||||||Adjustment for multiple comparisons when assessing secondary endpoints was performed using a fixed sequence closed testing procedure to control the family-wise type I error rate at 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.0001
91053995|NCT02912650|181990990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.13||||0.335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.4|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.40|-0.14|0.335
90798013|NCT01076010|181475302|OTHER||50% Quartile (months)|21.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.0|27.6||||||||27.6|17.0|
90798014|NCT01076010|181475302|OTHER||75% Quartile (months)|30.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.8||For the subjects in each treatment arm, OS is calculated from the first dose date of the respective study drugs. Upper limit of confidence interval could not be determined.||||||||28.8|
90798015|NCT03767881|181475305|NON_INFERIORITY|The upper limit of a 97.8% confidence limit of the mean days to resolution of acute cholecystitis is compared to a Performance Goal of 3.5 days.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.5|||||ONE_SIDED|97.8||10.78|||t-test, 1 sided|||||10.78||
90798016|NCT03767881|181475306|NON_INFERIORITY|The upper limit of a 99.7% confidence limit of the proportion of patients with reintervention, including migration and occlusion, is compared to a Performance Goal of 46.2%.|Performance Goal|16.7|||||ONE_SIDED|99.7||42.0|||1-sided Clopper-Pearson 99.7% CI|||||42.0||
90798017|NCT01959932|181475328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|8.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.89|10.2||The primary endpoints were tested using a multiple testing procedure to preserve the overall alpha level by simultaneously testing the endpoints using a closed procedure with each test performed at an alpha level of 2.5% one sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on MHBMA levels with product, sex, cigarette consumption, and baseline value as covariates.|LS mean ratio THS 2.2:CC|"The hypothesis to be tested is that the geometric mean level on Day 5 of the biomarker of exposure for THS 2.2 is lower relative to CC.~Analysis of the BoExp was conducted on the natural log scale in order to test the following hypothesis (one sided test with 2.5% type I error probability):~* Null hypothesis (H0): m1≥m2~* Alternative hypothesis (H1): m1\<m2 Where m1 and m2 are the geometric means of the BoExp levels on Day 5 for THS 2.2 and CC respectively."||10.20|6.89|<0.001
90798018|NCT01959932|181475329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS mean ratio|41.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.75|45.91||The primary endpoints were tested using a multiple testing procedure to preserve the overall alpha level by simultaneously testing the endpoints using a closed procedure with each test performed at an alpha level of 2.5% one sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on 3-HPMA levels with product, sex, cigarette consumption, and baseline value as covariates.|LS mean ratio THS 2.2:CC|"The hypothesis to be tested is that the geometric mean level on Day 5 of the biomarker of exposure for THS 2.2 is lower relative to CC.~Analysis of the BoExp was conducted on the natural log scale in order to test the following hypothesis (one sided test with 2.5% type I error probability):~* Null hypothesis (H0): m1≥m2~* Alternative hypothesis (H1): m1\<m2 Where m1 and m2 are the geometric means of the BoExp levels on Day 5 for THS 2.2 and CC respectively."||45.91|37.75|<0.001
90798019|NCT01959932|181475330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|5.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.21|6.87||The primary endpoints were tested using a multiple testing procedure to preserve the overall alpha level by simultaneously testing the endpoints using a closed procedure with each test performed at an alpha level of 2.5% one sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on S-PMA levels with product, sex, cigarette consumption, and baseline value as covariates.|LS mean ratio THS 2.2:CC|"The hypothesis to be tested is that the geometric mean level on Day 5 of the biomarker of exposure for THS 2.2 is lower relative to CC.~Analysis of the BoExp was conducted on the natural log scale in order to test the following hypothesis (one sided test with 2.5% type I error probability):~* Null hypothesis (H0): m1≥m2~* Alternative hypothesis (H1): m1\<m2 Where m1 and m2 are the geometric means of the BoExp levels on Day 5 for THS 2.2 and CC respectively."||6.87|5.21|<0.001
90798020|NCT01959932|181475331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|23.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.0|24.99||The primary endpoints were tested using a multiple testing procedure to preserve the overall alpha level by simultaneously testing the endpoints using a closed procedure with each test performed at an alpha level of 2.5% one sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on COHb levels with product, sex, cigarette consumption, and baseline value as covariates.|LS mean ratio THS 2.2:CC|"The hypothesis to be tested is that the geometric mean level on Day 5 of the biomarker of exposure for THS 2.2 is lower relative to CC.~Analysis of the BoExp was conducted on the natural log scale in order to test the following hypothesis (one sided test with 2.5% type I error probability):~* Null hypothesis (H0): m1≥m2~* Alternative hypothesis (H1): m1\<m2 Where m1 and m2 are the geometric means of the BoExp levels on Day 5 for THS 2.2 and CC respectively."||24.99|22.00|<0.001
90798021|NCT00758563|181475332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.05
90798022|NCT00060944|181475333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.734||||0.0302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.554|0.974|||Log Rank|||||0.974|0.554|0.0302
90798023|NCT00060944|181475336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.755||||0.0418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.574|0.992|||Log Rank|||||0.992|0.574|0.0418
90798024|NCT00060944|181475337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.843||||0.192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.653|1.09|||Log Rank|||||1.090|0.653|0.1920
90798025|NCT00256126|181475352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
90798026|NCT03435380|181475358|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.37||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|5.07|||Mantel Haenszel|Stratified by age at consent (25-39 vs \>=40), diagnosis (Hodgkin lymphoma vs other) and previous breast imaging exam (either mammogram or breast MRI).||||5.07|1.11|0.019
90798027|NCT03435380|181475358|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.96||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|4.38|||Mantel Haenszel|Stratified by age at consent (25-39 vs \>=40), diagnosis (Hodgkin lymphoma vs other) and previous breast imaging exam (either mammogram or breast MRI).||||4.38|0.87|0.092
90798028|NCT01170663|181475374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.807||||0.0169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.678|0.962|||Stratified Log Rank Test|Adjusted for stratification factors: geographic region, time-to-progression from start of first-line therapy and disease measurability.||||0.962|0.678|0.0169
90798029|NCT01170663|181475375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.635|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.536|0.752|||Stratified Log Rank Test|Adjusted for stratification factors: geographic region, time-to-progression from start of first-line therapy and disease measurability.||||0.752|0.536|<0.0001
90798030|NCT01170663|181475376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.596|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.494|0.72|||Stratified Log Rank Test|Adjusted for stratification factors: geographic region, time-to-progression from start of first-line therapy and disease measurability.||||0.720|0.494|<0.0001
90798031|NCT01170663|181475378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.14||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|3.16|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for stratification factors: geographic region, time-to-progression from the start of first-line therapy and disease measurability.||||3.16|1.45|0.0001
90798032|NCT01170663|181475386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3973||||||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) included treatment group, randomization stratification factors and baseline value of Global Health Status scale.|ANCOVA|||||||0.3973
90798033|NCT02581891|181475435|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is set to 5 letters.|LS mean difference|-2.0199|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3833||0.0162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.747|0.7073|||ANCOVA|||||0.7073|-4.7470|0.0162
90798034|NCT01734902|181475541|EQUIVALENCE|The statistical model, analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale includes effects: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'. The effect 'subject within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|Adjusted gMean ratio T/R (%)|86.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|35.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.046|102.151|||||Standard error of the mean is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variance \[%\]. Statistical analysis is based on PKS which includes 27 subjects.|||102.151|74.046|
90798035|NCT01734902|181475542|EQUIVALENCE|The statistical model, analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale includes effects: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'. The effect 'subject within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|Adjusted gMean ratio T/R (%)|89.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|31.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.26|102.62|||||Standard error of the mean is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variance \[%\]. Statistical analysis is based on PKS which includes 27 subjects.|||102.62|77.26|
90798036|NCT01734902|181475543|EQUIVALENCE|The statistical model, analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale includes effects: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'. The effect 'subject within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|Adjusted gMean ratio T/R [%]|90.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|29.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.78|102.88|||||Standard error of the mean is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variance \[%\]. Statistical analysis is based on PKS which includes 27 subjects.|||102.88|78.78|
90798037|NCT02972996|181475605|OTHER|||||||0.56|||||||ANCOVA|||Values are least-squares means ± SEs (adjusted for the baseline values) from ANCOVA linear mixed model that included covariates of age, baseline (pretreatment values), BMI and weight.||||0.56
90798038|NCT02972996|181475606|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.03
90798039|NCT01240863|181475613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.35||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.82||statistical significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Treatment and stratification (opioid naïve/opioid experienced) factors as the fixed effects; screening and baseline APIs as covariates.|placebo - hydrocodone|||0.82|-0.11|0.134
90798040|NCT03961308|181475641|OTHER|Geometric least-squares means (LSMs) were calculated by exponentiating the LSMs derived from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with weight as a covariate. Confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using treatment standard errors from the ANCOVA model and t-statistic for error degrees of freedom.|Ratio of Geometric LSMs|1.0734|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9963|1.1565||||||||1.1565|0.9963|
91012326|NCT01535638|181907010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (%)|123.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|108.0|141.1|||||The estimate of the relative bioavailability (%) is adjusted for the period effects in the ANOVA. The standard deviation is actually the gCV. CIs are based on the residual error from ANOVA, considering only the data from the 2 compared treatments.|Relative bioavailability comparison of Deleobuvir Trial Formulation II (reference) and Deleobuvir Final Formulation (test) in pairwise comparison. (reference : test)||141.1|108.0|
91012327|NCT01535638|181907010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (%)|109.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|28.8|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.6|136.1|||||The estimate of the relative bioavailability (%) is adjusted for the period effects in the ANOVA. The standard deviation is actually the gCV. CIs are based on the residual error from ANOVA, considering only the data from the 2 compared treatments.|relative bioavailability comparison of Deleobuvir Final Formulation modified (test) and Deleobuvir Final Formulation (reference) in pairwise comparison. (reference : test)||136.1|88.6|
90798041|NCT03961308|181475642|OTHER|Geometric LSMs were calculated by exponentiating the LSMs derived from ANCOVA with weight as a covariate. CIs were calculated using treatment standard errors from the ANCOVA model and t-statistic for error degrees of freedom.|Ratio of Geometric LSMs|1.0824|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0169|1.1521||||||||1.1521|1.0169|
91012328|NCT01535638|181907011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (%)|122.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|107.9|139.1|||||The estimate of the relative bioavailability (%) is adjusted for the period effects in the ANOVA. The standard deviation is actually the gCV. CIs are based on the residual error from ANOVA, considering only the data from the 2 compared treatments.|relative bioavailability comparison of Deleobuvir Final Formulation (test) and Deleobuvir Trial Formulation II (reference) in pairwise comparison. (test : reference)||139.1|107.9|
91053996|NCT02912650|181990990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.13||||0.176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.32|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.32|-0.06|0.176
90798042|NCT03961308|181475643|OTHER|Geometric LSMs were calculated by exponentiating the LSMs derived from ANCOVA with weight as a covariate. CIs were calculated using treatment standard errors from the ANCOVA model and t-statistic for error degrees of freedom.|Ratio of Geometric LSMs|1.0465|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9935|1.1023||||||||1.1023|0.9935|
90798043|NCT04549454|181475671|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.598||0.985|TWO_SIDED||||||Tukey-Kramer|||As detailed in the statistical analysis plan, a multi-level model which held constant participant age, race, ethnicity, in examining Time\*Arm interactions on weekly drinks. To probe the significant Time\*Arm interaction, a Tukey post-hoc test examined the change in weekly drinks from baseline to the 1-month follow-up in the Intervention Arm versus the Control Arm.||||.985
90798044|NCT04549454|181475672|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.244|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.618||0.694|TWO_SIDED||||||Tukey-Kramer|||As detailed in the statistical analysis plan, a multi-level model which held constant participant age, race, ethnicity, in examining Time\*Arm interactions on weekly drinks. To probe the significant Time\*Arm interaction, a Tukey post-hoc test examined the change in weekly drinks from baseline to the 6-month follow-up in the Intervention Arm versus the Control Arm.||||.694
91053997|NCT02912650|181990991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.48||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.77|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.77|0.18|0.002
91053998|NCT02912650|181990991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.18||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.38|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.38|-0.03|0.098
90798045|NCT04549454|181475673|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.327||0.889|TWO_SIDED||||||Tukey-Kramer|||As detailed in the statistical analysis plan, a multi-level model which held constant participant age, race, ethnicity, in examining Time\*Arm interactions on consequences. To probe the significant Time\*Arm interaction, a Tukey post-hoc test examined the change in consequences from baseline to the 1-month follow-up in the Intervention Arm versus the Control Arm.||||.889
90798046|NCT04549454|181475674|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.186|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.338||0.582|TWO_SIDED||||||Tukey-Kramer|||As detailed in the statistical analysis plan, a multi-level model which held constant participant age, race, ethnicity, in examining Time\*Arm interactions on consequences. To probe the significant Time\*Arm interaction, a Tukey post-hoc test examined the change in consequences from baseline to the 6-month follow-up in the Intervention Arm versus the Control Arm.||||.582
90798047|NCT04549454|181475675|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.265|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.414||0.523|TWO_SIDED||||||Tukey-Kramer|||As detailed in the statistical analysis plan, a multi-level model which held constant participant age, race, ethnicity, in examining Time\*Arm interactions on peak drinks. To probe the significant Time\*Arm interaction, a Tukey post-hoc test examined the change in peak drinks from baseline to the 1-month follow-up in the Intervention Arm versus the Control Arm.||||.523
90798048|NCT04549454|181475676|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.427||0.981|TWO_SIDED||||||Tukey-Kramer|||As detailed in the statistical analysis plan, a multi-level model which held constant participant age, race, ethnicity, in examining Time\*Arm interactions on peak drinks. To probe the significant Time\*Arm interaction, a Tukey post-hoc test examined the change in peak drinks from baseline to the 6-month follow-up in the Intervention Arm versus the Control Arm.||||.981
90798049|NCT04549454|181475677|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.327||0.889|TWO_SIDED||||||Tukey-Kramer|||As detailed in the statistical analysis plan, a multi-level model which held constant participant age, race, ethnicity, in examining Time\*Arm interactions on HED. To probe the significant Time\*Arm interaction, a Tukey post-hoc test examined the change in HED from baseline to the 1-month follow-up in the Intervention Arm versus the Control Arm.||||.889
90798050|NCT04549454|181475678|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.186|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.338||0.582|TWO_SIDED||||||Tukey-Kramer|||As detailed in the statistical analysis plan, a multi-level model which held constant participant age, race, ethnicity, in examining Time\*Arm interactions on HED. To probe the significant Time\*Arm interaction, a Tukey post-hoc test examined the change in HED from baseline to the 6-month follow-up in the Intervention Arm versus the Control Arm.||||.582
90798051|NCT01355627|181475700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.485|||||||Regression, Logistic|Treatment and pooled centre as covariates.|\< 1 implies a smaller likelihood of a TachoSil treated patient to experience a CSF leak.|||||0.485
90798052|NCT01230411|181475702|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.12||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|11.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||11.0|0.88|0.078
91053999|NCT02912650|181990991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.04||||0.719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.17|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.17|-0.25|0.719
90798053|NCT01405196|181475719|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.23||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.89|5.62||P-value was displayed without adjusting for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Point estimates of the Odds ratio (ORs) as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||5.62|0.89|0.076
90798054|NCT01405196|181475719|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.528|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.38|2.41||P-value was displayed without adjusting for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||2.41|0.38|0.528
90798055|NCT01405196|181475720|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.62|12.4||||||Week 4: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||12.40|0.62|
90798056|NCT01405196|181475720|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.54|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.31|7.71||||||Week 4: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||7.71|0.31|
90798057|NCT01405196|181475720|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|2.67||||||Week 8: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||2.67|0.40|
90798058|NCT01405196|181475720|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.29|2.05||||||Week 8: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||2.05|0.29|
90798059|NCT01405196|181475720|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.35|2.24||||||Week 12: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||2.24|0.35|
90798060|NCT01405196|181475720|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.16|1.16||||||Week 12: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||1.16|0.16|
91054000|NCT02912650|181990991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.6|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.60|0.00|0.048
91054001|NCT02912650|181990991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.81|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.81|0.21|<0.001
91054002|NCT02912650|181990991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.21||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.0|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||-0.00|-0.42|0.046
90798061|NCT01405196|181475720|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.64|4.09||||||Week 16: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||4.09|0.64|
90798062|NCT01405196|181475720|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.27|1.77||||||Week 16: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||1.77|0.27|
90798063|NCT01405196|181475720|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.78|4.84||||||Week 20: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||4.84|0.78|
90798064|NCT01405196|181475720|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.38|2.32||||||Week 20: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||2.32|0.38|
90798065|NCT01405196|181475721|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.28|3.88||||||Week 4: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||3.88|0.28|
90798066|NCT01405196|181475721|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.19|3.01||||||Week 4: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||3.01|0.19|
90798067|NCT01405196|181475721|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.28|1.85||||||Week 8: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||1.85|0.28|
90798068|NCT01405196|181475721|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.32|2.02||||||Week 8: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||2.02|0.32|
90798069|NCT01405196|181475721|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.3|1.83||||||Week 12: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||1.83|0.30|
90798070|NCT01405196|181475721|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.18|1.13||||||Week 12: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||1.13|0.18|
90798071|NCT01405196|181475721|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.58|3.6||||||Week 16: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||3.60|0.58|
91012329|NCT01535638|181907011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (%)|107.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|35.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.1|139.4|||||The estimate of the relative bioavailability (%) is adjusted for the period effects in the ANOVA. The standard deviation is actually the gCV. CIs are based on the residual error from ANOVA, considering only the data from the 2 compared treatments.|relative bioavailability comparison of Deleobuvir Final Formulation modified (test) and Deleobuvir Final Formulation (reference) in pairwise comparison. (test : reference)||139.4|83.1|
91012330|NCT03524664|181907012|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.523||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|F(1,71) = 0.411, p =.523||Repeated measures ANOVA||||.523
91012331|NCT03524664|181907013|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.173||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|F(1,71)=1.89, p=.173||Repeated measures ANOVA||||.173
91012332|NCT03524664|181907014|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|F(1,71)=2.23, p=.140||Outcome data analyzed for those with complete data at both timepoints.||||.140
91012333|NCT03524664|181907015|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.845||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|F(1,70)=.039, p=0.845||Outcome data analyzed for those with complete data at both timepoints.||||0.845
90798072|NCT01405196|181475721|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.3|1.84||||||Week 16: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||1.84|0.30|
90798073|NCT01405196|181475721|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.72|4.37||||||Week 20: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||4.37|0.72|
90798074|NCT01405196|181475721|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|2.92||||||Week 20: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||2.92|0.50|
90798075|NCT01405196|181475721|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.89|5.55||||||Week 24: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||5.55|0.89|
90798076|NCT01405196|181475721|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|2.46||||||Week 24: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||2.46|0.40|
90798077|NCT01405196|181475722|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.53|3.35||||||Week 4: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||3.35|0.53|
90798078|NCT01405196|181475722|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.41|2.65||||||Week 4: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||2.65|0.41|
90798079|NCT01405196|181475722|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.33|1.96||||||Week 8: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||1.96|0.33|
90798080|NCT01405196|181475722|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.39|2.23||||||Week 8: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||2.23|0.39|
90798081|NCT01405196|181475722|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.42|2.45||||||Week 12: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||2.45|0.42|
90798082|NCT01405196|181475722|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.55|3.1||||||Week 12: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||3.10|0.55|
90798083|NCT01405196|181475722|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|5.88||||||Week 16: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||5.88|0.95|
90798084|NCT01405196|181475722|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.74|4.46||||||Week 16: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||4.46|0.74|
90798085|NCT01405196|181475722|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1|7.12||||||Week 20: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||7.12|1.10|
90798086|NCT01405196|181475722|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.66|4.21||||||Week 20: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||4.21|0.66|
90798087|NCT01405196|181475722|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.18|7.41||||||Week 24: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||7.41|1.18|
90798088|NCT01405196|181475722|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.82|5.06||||||Week 24: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||5.06|0.82|
90798089|NCT01405196|181475723|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.59||||0.205|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.63|4.02||P-value was displayed without adjusting for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||\>=4 points reduction in SLEDAI score: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||4.02|0.63|0.205
90798090|NCT01405196|181475723|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.625|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.34|2.08||P-value was displayed without adjusting for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||\>=4 points reduction in SLEDAI score: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||2.08|0.34|0.625
90798091|NCT01405196|181475723|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.81||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.38|20.65||P-value was displayed without adjusting for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||No worsening in PhGA: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||20.65|0.38|0.198
90798092|NCT01405196|181475723|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.88||||0.192|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.39|21.3||P-value was displayed without adjusting for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||No worsening in PhGA: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||21.30|0.39|0.192
90798093|NCT01405196|181475735|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-5.41|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.3|1.49||||||Week 2: Analysis was done using linear mixed effect model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit, treatment by visit and baseline VAS.||1.49|-12.30|
90798094|NCT01405196|181475735|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-1.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.21|5.42||||||Week 4: Analysis was done using linear mixed effect model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit, treatment by visit and baseline VAS.||5.42|-8.21|
90798095|NCT01405196|181475735|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.71|8.32||||||Week 6: Analysis was done using linear mixed effect model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit, treatment by visit and baseline VAS.||8.32|-5.71|
90798096|NCT01405196|181475735|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|4.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.22|11.57||||||Week 8: Analysis was done using linear mixed effect model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit, treatment by visit and baseline VAS.||11.57|-2.22|
90798097|NCT01405196|181475735|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-3.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.04|3.07||||||Week 12: Analysis was done using linear mixed effect model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit, treatment by visit and baseline VAS.||3.07|-11.04|
90798098|NCT01405196|181475735|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-2.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.87|4.1||||||Week 16: Analysis was done using linear mixed effect model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit, treatment by visit and baseline VAS.||4.10|-9.87|
90798099|NCT01405196|181475735|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-6.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.37|0.94||||||Week 20: Analysis was done using linear mixed effect model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit, treatment by visit and baseline VAS.||0.94|-13.37|
90798100|NCT01405196|181475735|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|1.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.17|9.13||||||Week 24: Analysis was done using linear mixed effect model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit, treatment by visit and baseline VAS.||9.13|-5.17|
90798101|NCT01405196|181475735|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|2.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.7|8.84||||||Week 2: Analysis was done using linear mixed effect model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit, treatment by visit and baseline VAS.||8.84|-4.70|
90798102|NCT01405196|181475735|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-2.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.62|4.0||||||Week 4: Analysis was done using linear mixed effect model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit, treatment by visit and baseline VAS.||4.00|-9.62|
90798103|NCT01405196|181475735|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|3.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.95|10.9||||||Week 6: Analysis was done using linear mixed effect model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit, treatment by visit and baseline VAS.||10.90|-2.95|
90798104|NCT01405196|181475735|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|2.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.29|9.4||||||Week 8: Analysis was done using linear mixed effect model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit, treatment by visit and baseline VAS.||9.40|-4.29|
90798105|NCT01405196|181475735|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|3.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.67|9.94||||||Week 12: Analysis was done using linear mixed effect model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit, treatment by visit and baseline VAS.||9.94|-3.67|
90798106|NCT01405196|181475735|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-4.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.91|2.03||||||Week 16: Analysis was done using linear mixed effect model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit, treatment by visit and baseline VAS.||2.03|-11.91|
90798107|NCT01405196|181475735|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-2.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.61|4.32||||||Week 20: Analysis was done using linear mixed effect model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit, treatment by visit and baseline VAS.||4.32|-9.61|
91054003|NCT02912650|181990991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.99|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.99|1.05|<0.001
90798108|NCT01405196|181475735|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|2.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.48|9.8||||||Week 24: Analysis was done using linear mixed effect model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit, treatment by visit and baseline VAS.||9.80|-4.48|
90798109|NCT01405196|181475736|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.63||||||90.0|-2.56|9.83||||||Week 4: Analysis was done using linear mixed effect model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit, treatment by visit and baseline tender score.||9.83|-2.56|
90798110|NCT01405196|181475736|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.02||||||90.0|-8.21|4.18||||||Week 8: Analysis was done using linear mixed effect model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit, treatment by visit and baseline tender score.||4.18|-8.21|
90798111|NCT01405196|181475736|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.57|8.82||||||Week 12: Analysis was done using linear mixed effect model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit, treatment by visit and baseline tender score.||8.82|-3.57|
91054004|NCT02912650|181990991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.63|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.63|-0.02|0.069
90798112|NCT01405196|181475736|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.51|7.88||||||Week 16: Analysis was done using linear mixed effect model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit, treatment by visit and baseline tender score.||7.88|-4.51|
90798113|NCT01405196|181475736|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|4.59|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.61|10.79||||||Week 20: Analysis was done using linear mixed effect model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit, treatment by visit and baseline tender score.||10.79|-1.61|
90798114|NCT01405196|181475736|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.95||||||90.0|-2.24|10.15||||||Week 24: Analysis was done using linear mixed effect model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit, treatment by visit and baseline tender score.||10.15|-2.24|
90798115|NCT01405196|181475736|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.92||||||90.0|-4.17|8.01||||||Week 4: Analysis was done using linear mixed effect model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit, treatment by visit and baseline tender score.||8.01|-4.17|
90798116|NCT01405196|181475736|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-4.2||||||90.0|-10.25|1.85||||||Week 8: Analysis was done using linear mixed effect model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit, treatment by visit and baseline tender score.||1.85|-10.25|
90798117|NCT01405196|181475736|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.56|7.55||||||Week 16: Analysis was done using linear mixed effect model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit, treatment by visit and baseline tender score.||7.55|-4.56|
90798118|NCT01405196|181475736|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.96|6.15||||||Week 20: Analysis was done using linear mixed effect model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit, treatment by visit and baseline tender score.||6.15|-5.96|
91054005|NCT02912650|181990991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.09||||0.604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.42|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.42|-0.24|0.604
90798119|NCT01405196|181475736|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.39|5.71||||||Week 24: Analysis was done using linear mixed effect model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit, treatment by visit and baseline tender score.||5.71|-6.39|
90798120|NCT01405196|181475736|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.39|3.71||||||Week 12: Analysis was done using linear mixed effect model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit, treatment by visit and baseline tender score.||3.71|-8.39|
90798121|NCT01405196|181475738|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.53|3.59||||||MCS Week 4: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||3.59|-2.53|
91054006|NCT02912650|181990991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.69|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.69|0.75|<0.001
91054007|NCT02912650|181990991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.9|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.90|0.96|<0.001
90798122|NCT01405196|181475738|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.54|2.58||||||MCS Week 8: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||2.58|-3.54|
90798123|NCT01405196|181475738|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.78|4.34||||||MCS Week 12: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||4.34|-1.78|
90798124|NCT01405196|181475738|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.28|4.84||||||MCS Week 16: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||4.84|-1.28|
90798125|NCT01405196|181475738|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.86|4.26||||||MCS Week 20: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||4.26|-1.86|
90798126|NCT01405196|181475738|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.98|3.15||||||MCS Week 24: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||3.15|-2.98|
90798127|NCT01405196|181475738|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.03|3.03||||||MCS Week 4: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||3.03|-3.03|
90798128|NCT01405196|181475738|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.09|2.92||||||MCS Week 8: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||2.92|-3.09|
90798129|NCT01405196|181475738|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.03|2.99||||||MCS Week 12: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||2.99|-3.03|
90798130|NCT01405196|181475738|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.17|2.85||||||MCS Week 16: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||2.85|-3.17|
90798131|NCT01405196|181475738|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.58|1.43||||||MCS Week 20: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||1.43|-4.58|
90798132|NCT01405196|181475738|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.72|2.3||||||MCS Week 24: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||2.30|-3.72|
90798133|NCT01405196|181475738|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.14|5.2||||||PCS Week 4: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||5.20|0.14|
90798134|NCT01405196|181475738|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|5.89||||||PCS Week 8: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||5.89|0.84|
90798135|NCT01405196|181475738|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7|5.76||||||PCS Week 12: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||5.76|0.70|
90798136|NCT01405196|181475738|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.24|6.3||||||PCS Week 16: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||6.30|1.24|
91012334|NCT03524664|181907016|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.147||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|F(1,70)=2.147, p=.147||Outcome data analyzed for those with complete data at both timepoints.||||.147
90798137|NCT01405196|181475738|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.57|5.63||||||PCS Week 20: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||5.63|0.57|
90798138|NCT01405196|181475738|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.03||||||90.0|0.5|5.56||||||PCS Week 24: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||5.56|0.50|
90798139|NCT01405196|181475738|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.53|4.46||||||PCS Week 4: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||4.46|-0.53|
90798140|NCT01405196|181475738|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.68||||||90.0|0.2|5.17||||||PCS Week 8: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||5.17|0.20|
90798141|NCT01405196|181475738|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.65|4.32||||||PCS Week 12: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||4.32|-0.65|
91012335|NCT03524664|181907017|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.429||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|F(1,70)=.633, p=.429||Outcome data analyzed for those with complete data at both timepoints.||||.429
90798142|NCT01405196|181475738|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.47|4.5||||||PCS Week 16: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||4.50|-0.47|
90798143|NCT01405196|181475738|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.15|4.82||||||PCS Week 20: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||4.82|-0.15|
90798144|NCT01405196|181475738|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.59|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.11|5.08||||||PCS Week 24: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||5.08|0.11|
90798145|NCT01405196|181475739|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.47||||||90.0|-6.33|7.27||||||Week 4: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||7.27|-6.33|
90798146|NCT01405196|181475739|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.92||||||90.0|-2.88|10.72||||||Week 8: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||10.72|-2.88|
90798147|NCT01405196|181475739|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.25|10.36||||||Week 12: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||10.36|-3.25|
90798148|NCT01405196|181475739|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|7.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.05|14.66||||||Week 16: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||14.66|1.05|
90798149|NCT01405196|181475739|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|7.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.32|13.92||||||Week 20: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||13.92|0.32|
90798150|NCT01405196|181475739|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|4.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.47|11.13||||||Week 24: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||11.13|-2.47|
91012336|NCT03524664|181907018|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.208||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|F(1,70)=1.618, p=.208||Outcome data analyzed for those with complete data at both timepoints.||||.208
91012337|NCT03524664|181907019|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|F(1,71)=1.09, p=.300||Outcome data analyzed for those with complete data at both timepoints.||||.300
91012338|NCT03524664|181907020|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.099||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|F(1,71)=2.79, p=.099||Outcome data analyzed for those with complete data at both timepoints.||||.099
90798151|NCT01405196|181475739|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.4|8.05||||||Week 4: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||8.05|-5.40|
91012339|NCT03524664|181907021|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.105||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|F(1,71)=2.70, p=.105||Outcome data analyzed for those with complete data at both timepoints.||||.105
91012340|NCT03524664|181907022|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.699||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|F(1,71)=0.15, p=.699||Repeated measures ANOVA||||.699
90798152|NCT01405196|181475739|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.75|10.62||||||Week 8: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||10.62|-2.75|
90798153|NCT01405196|181475739|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.47|5.91||||||Week 12: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||5.91|-7.47|
90798154|NCT01405196|181475739|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.67||||||90.0|-3.02|10.35||||||Week 16: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||10.35|-3.02|
91012341|NCT03524664|181907023|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.945||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|F(1,71)=0.005, p=.945||Repeated measures ANOVA||||.945
91012342|NCT03524664|181907024|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.767||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|F(1,71)=0.088, p=.767||Repeated measures ANOVA||||.767
91054008|NCT02912650|181990991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.22||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.11|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.11|-0.54|0.200
90798155|NCT01405196|181475739|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.7|9.68||||||Week 20: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||9.68|-3.70|
91012343|NCT03524664|181907025|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.682||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|F(1,71)=.0.17, p=.682||Repeated measures ANOVA||||.682
91054009|NCT02912650|181990991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.32|3.46|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||3.46|2.32|<0.001
90798156|NCT01405196|181475739|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.24|8.13||||||Week 24: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||8.13|-5.24|
90798157|NCT01405196|181475740|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.53|3.59||||||MCS Week 4: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||3.59|-2.53|
90798158|NCT01405196|181475740|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.54|2.58||||||MCS Week 8: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||2.58|-3.54|
90798159|NCT01405196|181475740|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.78|4.34||||||MCS Week 12: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||4.34|-1.78|
91012344|NCT03524664|181907026|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|F(1,42)=0.003, p=.960||Repeated measures ANOVA||||.960
91012345|NCT03524664|181907027|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.643||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|F(1,42)=0.218, p=.643||Repeated measures ANOVA||||.643
91012346|NCT03524664|181907028|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.118||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|Time X Group F(2,90)=2.19, p.118||Repeated measures ANOVA||||.118
91012347|NCT03524664|181907029|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|Time x Group F(2,90)=.223, p=.800||Repeated measures ANOVA||||.800
91012348|NCT03524664|181907030|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.863||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|Group x Time F(2,92)=0.148, p=.863||Repeated measures ANOVA||||.863
91012349|NCT03702166|181907038|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Multiple t-tests with Bonferroni corrections for multiple comparisons||||||0.01
91012350|NCT03702166|181907040|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Multiple t-tests, with Bonferroni corrections for multiple comparisons,||||||0.038
91012351|NCT03702166|181907042|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.031||||||Multiple t-tests, with Bonferroni corrections for multiple comparisons|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.031
91012352|NCT02028182|181907142|OTHER||Kappa statistic-Concordance 0.4 mg/cm2|75.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.4|94.0||||||||94.0|60.4|
91012353|NCT02028182|181907142|OTHER||Kappa statistic: Concordance 0.20 mg/cm2|65.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.6|90.4||||||||90.4|55.6|
91012354|NCT02028182|181907142|OTHER||Kappa statistic: Concordance0.10 mg/cm2|60.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.3|88.4||||||||88.4|53.3|
91012355|NCT01336647|181907158|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The primary efficacy endpoint was responder rate calculated based on the percentage of subjects who were lice free at all follow-up visits (Days 1, 7 and 14). Because the number of responders and non-responders in the family size\>= 5 household members was less than five in at least one of the treatment arms, (Table 14.2.1.5), Fisher's Exact test was used to compare treatment arms, instead of the CMH test.|||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|The assessment of statistical significance will be done using Hochberg's modified Bonferroni test.||Null hypothesis; 80% power and 0.025 two-sided level of significance for each pairwise active vs. vehicle comparison||||<0.001
91054010|NCT02912650|181990991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.63||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.03|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.03|0.23|0.002
91054011|NCT02912650|181990991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.55||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.95|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.95|0.14|0.008
90798160|NCT01405196|181475740|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.28|4.84||||||MCS Week 16: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||4.84|-1.28|
90798161|NCT01405196|181475740|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.86|4.26||||||MCS Week 20: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||4.26|-1.86|
90798162|NCT01405196|181475740|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.98|3.15||||||MCS Week 24: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||3.15|-2.98|
90798163|NCT01405196|181475740|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.03|3.03||||||MCS Week 4: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||3.03|-3.03|
90798164|NCT01405196|181475740|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.09|2.92||||||MCS Week 8: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||2.92|-3.09|
90798165|NCT01405196|181475740|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.03|2.99||||||MCS Week 12: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||2.99|-3.03|
91012356|NCT01018680|181907160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.91|||<|0.001||95.0||||A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|In Mixed Models Analysis, degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Rogers approximation.||Using a 1:1 ratio of allocation to treatment, a 2-tailed 0.05 level of significance and 80% power, 253 participants per arm had been estimated to be adequate to assess an effect size of 0.25, based on a 2-sample Student's t-test. This derived estimate was increased slightly to 261 participants per arm to account for extremely early discontinuation that would have led to exclusion from the efficacy analysis in a small number of participants (approximately 3%).||||<0.001
91012357|NCT01018680|181907161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59|||<|0.001||95.0||||First gated secondary outcome measure. Gatekeeper strategy (Westfall and Krishen 2001) controlled experiment-wise type I error for 2 secondary outcomes with sequential comparisons of treatments until outcome failed to be significant (p\>0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis|In Mixed Models Analysis, degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Rogers approximation.||||||<0.001
91012358|NCT01018680|181907162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.84|||<|0.001||95.0||||WOMAC Physical Disability Score p-value. Second gated secondary outcome measure. Gatekeeper strategy controlled experiment-wise type I error for 2 secondary outcomes with sequential treatment comparisons until outcome failed significance (p\>0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis|In Mixed Models Analysis, degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Rogers approximation.||||||<0.001
91012359|NCT01018680|181907162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.28|||<|0.001||95.0||||This is the p-value for the WOMAC Pain Score. A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|In Mixed Models Analysis, degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Rogers approximation.||||||<0.001
90798166|NCT01405196|181475740|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.17|2.85||||||MCS Week 16: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||2.85|-3.17|
90798167|NCT01405196|181475740|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.58|1.43||||||MCS Week 20: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||1.43|-4.58|
90798168|NCT01405196|181475740|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.72|2.3||||||MCS Week 24: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||2.30|-3.72|
90798169|NCT01405196|181475740|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.14|5.2||||||PCS Week 4: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||5.20|0.14|
90798170|NCT01405196|181475740|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|5.89||||||PCS Week 8: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||5.89|0.84|
91054012|NCT02912650|181990991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.69|2.83|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||2.83|1.69|<0.001
90798171|NCT01405196|181475740|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7|5.76||||||PCS Week 12: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||5.76|0.70|
90798172|NCT01405196|181475740|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.24|6.3||||||PCS Week 16: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||6.30|1.24|
90798173|NCT01405196|181475740|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.57|5.63||||||PCS Week 20: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||5.63|0.57|
90798174|NCT01405196|181475740|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.03||||||90.0|0.5|5.56||||||PCS Week 24: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||5.56|0.50|
91054013|NCT02912650|181990991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|2.91|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||2.91|1.77|<0.001
90798175|NCT01405196|181475740|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.53|4.46||||||PCS Week 4: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||4.46|-0.53|
90798176|NCT01405196|181475740|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.68||||||90.0|0.2|5.17||||||PCS Week 8: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||5.17|0.20|
90798177|NCT01405196|181475740|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.65|4.32||||||PCS Week 12: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||4.32|-0.65|
90798178|NCT01405196|181475740|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.47|4.5||||||PCS Week 16: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||4.50|-0.47|
90798179|NCT01405196|181475740|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.15|4.82||||||PCS Week 20: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||4.82|-0.15|
90798180|NCT01405196|181475740|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.59|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.11|5.08||||||PCS Week 24: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||5.08|0.11|
90798181|NCT01405196|181475742|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.26|5.42||||||Week 4: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the Least Square (LS) mean difference from that model.||5.42|-1.26|
90798182|NCT01405196|181475742|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.38|5.29||||||Week 8: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||5.29|-1.38|
90798183|NCT01405196|181475742|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.53|6.15||||||Week 12: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||6.15|-0.53|
90798184|NCT01405196|181475742|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.54|7.22||||||Week 16: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||7.22|0.54|
90798185|NCT01405196|181475742|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.39|5.29||||||Week 20: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||5.29|-1.39|
90798186|NCT01405196|181475742|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.65|5.03||||||Week 24: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||5.03|-1.65|
90798187|NCT01405196|181475742|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.61|4.99||||||Week 4: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||4.99|-1.61|
90798188|NCT01405196|181475742|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.31|4.26||||||Week 8: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||4.26|-2.31|
91012360|NCT01018680|181907162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42||||0.004||95.0||||This is the p-value for WOMAC Stiffness Score. A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|In Mixed Models Analysis, degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Rogers approximation.||||||0.004
91012361|NCT01018680|181907163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|||<|0.001||95.0||||This is the p-value for Night Pain Intensity. A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|In Mixed Models Analysis, degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Rogers approximation.||||||<0.001
91012362|NCT01018680|181907163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.03|||<|0.001||95.0||||This is the p-value for Worst Pain Intensity. A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|In Mixed Models Analysis, degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Rogers approximation.||||||<0.001
91012363|NCT01018680|181907164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.08|||<|0.001||95.0||||This is the p-value for BPI-S for Worst Pain. A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|In Mixed Models Analysis, degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Rogers approximation.||||||<0.001
91012364|NCT01018680|181907164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|||<|0.001||95.0||||This is the p-value for BPI-S for Least Pain. A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|In Mixed Models Analysis, degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Rogers approximation.||||||<0.001
91054014|NCT02912650|181990991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.08||||0.685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.32|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.32|-0.49|0.685
91054015|NCT02912650|181990991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.77|3.93|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||3.93|2.77|<0.001
90798189|NCT01405196|181475742|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.96|4.61||||||Week 12: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||4.61|-1.96|
90798190|NCT01405196|181475742|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.32|6.89||||||Week 16: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||6.89|0.32|
91012365|NCT01018680|181907164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.95|||<|0.001||95.0||||This is the p-value for BPI-S for Average Pain. A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|In Mixed Models Analysis, degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Rogers approximation.||||||<0.001
90798191|NCT01405196|181475742|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.38|4.19||||||Week 20: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||4.19|-2.38|
90798192|NCT01405196|181475742|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.68|3.88||||||Week 24: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||3.88|-2.68|
91012366|NCT01018680|181907164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71|||<|0.001||95.0||||This is the p-value for BPI-S for Pain Right Now. A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|In Mixed Models Analysis, degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Rogers approximation.||||||<0.001
91012367|NCT01018680|181907164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.97|||<|0.001||95.0||||This is the p-value for BPI-I for General Activity. A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|In Mixed Models Analysis, degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Rogers approximation.||||||<0.001
91054016|NCT02912650|181990991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.66||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.07|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.07|0.26|0.001
91054017|NCT02912650|181990991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.39|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.39|0.57|<0.001
90798193|NCT01542788|181475743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|77.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.0|83.6||P-value is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by presence or absence of cirrhosis for the superiority of SOF+RBV over placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference in proportions between treatment groups and associated 95% confidence interval (CI) are calculated based on stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel proportions.|A sample size of 180 subjects in the active group and 60 in the placebo group would provide 99% power to detect a difference between group SVR12 rates of 40% using a 2-sided continuity-corrected chi-square test at significance level of 0.05.||83.6|71.0|< 0.001
90798194|NCT01542788|181475745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|82.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|76.8|88.5|||||The difference in proportions between treatment groups and associated 95% CI are calculated based on stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel proportions.|||88.5|76.8|
90798195|NCT01542788|181475746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|77.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.0|83.6||P-value is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by randomization stratification factor for the superiority of SOF+RBV over placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference in proportions between treatment groups and associated 95% CI are calculated based on stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel proportions.|||83.6|71.0|< 0.001
90798196|NCT04756531|181475755|OTHER|Natural log transformed AUClast for PF-07321332 was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period, and treatment included as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect. PF-07321332 250 mg (Tablet), Fasted was the test treatment and PF-07321332 250 mg (Suspension), Fasted was the reference treatment.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|81.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|69.21|95.28||||||||95.28|69.21|
90798197|NCT04756531|181475756|OTHER|Natural log transformed AUCinf for PF-07321332 was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period, and treatment included as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect. PF-07321332 250 mg (Tablet), Fasted was the test treatment and PF-07321332 250 mg (Suspension), Fasted was the reference treatment.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|76.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.14|96.2||||||||96.20|60.14|
91012368|NCT01018680|181907164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.72|||<|0.001||95.0||||This is the p-value for BPI-I for Mood. A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|In Mixed Models Analysis, degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Rogers approximation.||||||<0.001
91012369|NCT01018680|181907164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.95|||<|0.001||95.0||||This is the p-value for BPI-I for Walking Ability. A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|In Mixed Models Analysis, degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Rogers approximation.||||||<0.001
91012370|NCT01018680|181907164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85|||<|0.001||95.0||||This is the p-value for BPI-I for Normal Work. A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|In Mixed Models Analysis, degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Rogers approximation.||||||<0.001
91012371|NCT01018680|181907164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69|||<|0.001||95.0||||This is the p-value for BPI-I for Relations with Others. A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|In Mixed Models Analysis, degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Rogers approximation.||||||<0.001
91012372|NCT01018680|181907164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68|||<|0.001||95.0||||This is the p-value for BPI-I for Sleep. A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|In Mixed Models Analysis, degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Rogers approximation.||||||<0.001
91012373|NCT01018680|181907164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.77|||<|0.001||95.0||||This is the p-value for BPI-I for Enjoyment of Life. A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|In Mixed Models Analysis, degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Rogers approximation.||||||<0.001
91012374|NCT01018680|181907164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.84|||<|0.001||95.0||||This is the p-value for BPI-I for Mean Interference Score. A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|In Mixed Models Analysis, degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Rogers approximation.||||||<0.001
90798198|NCT04756531|181475757|OTHER|Natural log transformed Cmax for PF-07321332 was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period, and treatment included as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect. PF-07321332 250 mg (Tablet), Fasted was the test treatment and PF-07321332 250 mg (Suspension), Fasted was the reference treatment.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|56.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|43.42|73.19||||||||73.19|43.42|
90798199|NCT04756531|181475790|OTHER|Natural log transformed AUClast for PF-07321332 was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period, and treatment included as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect. PF-07321332 250 mg (Tablet), Fed was the test treatment and PF-07321332 250 mg (Tablet), Fasted was the reference treatment.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|148.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|126.92|174.72||||||||174.72|126.92|
90798200|NCT04756531|181475791|OTHER|Natural log transformed AUCinf for PF-07321332 was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period, and treatment included as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect. PF-07321332 250 mg (Tablet), Fed was the test treatment and PF-07321332 250 mg (Tablet), Fasted was the reference treatment.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|146.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|118.8|181.41||||||||181.41|118.80|
90798201|NCT04756531|181475792|OTHER|Natural log transformed Cmax for PF-07321332 was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period, and treatment included as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect. PF-07321332 250 mg (Tablet), Fed was the test treatment and PF-07321332 250 mg (Tablet), Fasted was the reference treatment.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|244.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|188.58|317.87||||||||317.87|188.58|
90798202|NCT01729039|181475833|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.356||||||Main effect of time (baseline to post-PT) alpha = .05|ANOVA|||||||.356
90798203|NCT01729039|181475833|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84||||||Interaction of Time by Group (GS vs. CON) alpha = .05|ANOVA|||||||.840
90798204|NCT01729039|181475834|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17||||||Main effect of Time (baseline to post-PT) Alpha=.05|ANOVA|||||||.170
91012375|NCT01018680|181907165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|||<|0.001||95.0||||A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|In Mixed Models Analysis, degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Rogers approximation.||||||<0.001
91012376|NCT01018680|181907166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.17|||<|0.001||95.0||||A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|In Mixed Models Analysis, degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Rogers approximation.||||||<0.001
91012377|NCT01018680|181907167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.83||||0.449||95.0||||This is the p-value for the BPOMS Total Score. A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|In Mixed Models Analysis, degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Rogers approximation.||||||0.449
90798205|NCT01729039|181475834|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.297||||||Interaction of Time by Group (GS vs. CON) alpha = .05|ANOVA|||||||.297
90798206|NCT01729039|181475835|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|Main effect of Time (baseline to post-PT) alpha = .05||||||<.001
90798207|NCT01729039|181475835|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.817||||||Interaction of Time by Group (GS vs. CON) alpha = .05|ANOVA|||||||.817
90798208|NCT01729039|181475836|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||Main effect of Time (baseline to post-PT) alpha = .05|ANOVA|||||||.005
90798209|NCT01729039|181475836|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.172||||||Interaction of Time by Group (GS vs. CON) alpha = .05|ANOVA|||||||.172
90798210|NCT01729039|181475837|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009||||||Main effect of time (baseline to post-PT) alpha = .05|ANOVA|||||||.009
90798211|NCT01729039|181475837|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.146||||||Interaction of Time by Grou (GS vs. CON) alpha = .05|ANOVA|||||||.146
90798212|NCT00253422|181475846|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.24|||Log Rank|||||1.24|0.86|0.76
90798213|NCT00253422|181475846|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.2|||Log Rank|||||1.20|0.83|1.00
90798214|NCT00253422|181475847|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.99
90798215|NCT00253422|181475847|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.12
91012378|NCT01018680|181907167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28||||0.265||95.0||||This is the p-value for the BPOMS Tension-Anxiety Score. A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|In Mixed Models Analysis, degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Rogers approximation.||||||0.265
90798216|NCT00253422|181475849|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.33
90798217|NCT00253422|181475849|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.94
90798218|NCT00253422|181475851|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.21|||Log Rank||HR less than 1 favour Faslodex + Arimidex|||1.21|0.84|0.95
90798219|NCT00253422|181475851|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.25|||Log Rank||HR less than 1 favours Faslodex + placebo|||1.25|0.87|0.66
90798220|NCT00253422|181475852|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.19|||Log Rank||HR less than 1 favours Faslodex + Arimidex|||1.19|0.82|0.91
90798221|NCT00253422|181475852|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.32|||Log Rank||HR less than 1 favours Faslodex + Placebo|||1.32|0.91|0.31
90798222|NCT01126190|181475872|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper endpoint of the CI for the difference in mean DSN was less than or equal to 0.62 days|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.37||||||For the primary non-inferiority endpoint of cycle 1 DSN, the 95% confidence interval (CI) for difference in DSN was calculated by stratified bootstrap resampling.||0.37|-0.13|
90798223|NCT01128569|181475876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.162|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.087|0.237||||||||0.237|0.087|
90798224|NCT01128569|181475876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.145|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.069|0.222||||||||0.222|0.069|
90798225|NCT01128569|181475876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.017|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.091|0.057||||||||0.057|-0.091|
90798226|NCT01365793|181475893|SUPERIORITY|Each statistical test uses stratification to adjust for enrolling hospital, and the arm not being tested (e.g., the test for rapid vs slower rehydration is stratified by 0.45% and 0.9% Saline, and vice versa).||||||0.34||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance for each of the 2 p-values is 0.025, for an overall significance of 0.50.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The study uses a factorial experimental design, and tests two null hypotheses. The first of these hypotheses - the frequency of GCS score declines to \<14 is equal between the Rapid Rehydration and Slower Rehydration groups - is reported here. The analysis of the second hypothesis is reported below.||||0.34
90798227|NCT01365793|181475893|SUPERIORITY|Each statistical test uses stratification to adjust for enrolling hospital, and the arm not being tested (e.g., the test for rapid vs slower rehydration is stratified by 0.45% and 0.9% Saline, and vice versa).||||||0.43||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance for each of the 2 p-values is 0.025, for an overall significance of 0.50.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The study uses a factorial experimental design, and tests the two null hypotheses. The second of these hypotheses - the frequency of GCS score declines to \<14 is equal between the 0.45% Saline group and the 0.90% Saline group - is reported here. The analysis of the first hypothesis is reported above.||||0.43
90798228|NCT04067011|181475947|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence testing was constructed using paired two one-sided t-tests (TOST) with natural log transformation of PK parameters. Results obtained from transformed analyses were back-transformed by exponentiation for presentation of the point estimates and 90% CIs for geometric mean ratio of AUC0-12h.|Ratio of AUC|0.9764|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8895|1.0718||||||Analysis of Geometric mean ratio of area under the curve from 0 to 12 hours (AUC0-12h) for ciprofloxacin on Days 8 and 35||1.0718|0.8895|
90798229|NCT04067011|181475947|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence testing was constructed using paired two one-sided t-tests (TOST) with natural log transformation of PK parameters. Results obtained from transformed analyses were back-transformed by exponentiation for presentation of the point estimates and 90% CIs for geometric mean ratio of Cmax.|Ratio of Cmax|0.9706|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8693|1.0838||||||Analysis of Geometric mean ration of Cmax for ciprofloxacin on Days 8 and 35||1.0838|0.8693|
90798230|NCT04067011|181475948|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence testing was constructed using paired two one-sided t-tests (TOST) with natural log transformation of PK parameters. Results obtained from transformed analyses were back-transformed by exponentiation for presentation of the point estimates and 90% CIs for geometric mean ratio of AUC0-12h.|Ratio of AUC|0.9173|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8187|1.0278||||||Analysis of Geometric mean ratio of Area under the curve from 0 to 12 hours (AUC0-12h) for doxycycline on Days 8 and 38||1.0278|0.8187|
91054018|NCT02912650|181990991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.11|3.27|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||3.27|2.11|<0.001
90798231|NCT04067011|181475948|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence testing was constructed using paired two one-sided t-tests (TOST) with natural log transformation of PK parameters. Results obtained from transformed analyses were back-transformed by exponentiation for presentation of the point estimates and 90% CIs for geometric mean ratio of Cmax.|Ratio of Cmax|0.8974|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7841|1.0271||||||Analysis of Geometric mean ration of Cmax for doxycycline on Days 8 and 38||1.0271|0.7841|
90798232|NCT04067011|181475949|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin is 0.5.|Ratio of GMT (Group 1/Group 3)|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.64||||||||1.64|0.78|
90798233|NCT04067011|181475949|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin is 0.5.|Ratio of GMT (Group 2/Group 3)|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.6||||||||1.6|0.81|
90798234|NCT05209386|181475950|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Permutation-based clustering analysis was used to identify channels that significantly encode change in acoustic dimensions. For each channel, a sliding-window encoding model was built comparing evoked responses (z-scored voltages) to Canonical Block stimuli across varying F0 with fixed VOT. This analysis identified the n = 17 channels and time windows where neural responses differed according to change in F0.|||
90798235|NCT05209386|181475951|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t(20.45) = -5.8||||||<0.0001
90798236|NCT05209386|181475952|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|For interaction term (effect of interest): t(1016) = -2.7|||Time-averaged neural responses across respective windows of significance were averaged for all stimuli with ambiguous VOT (Canonical and Reverse blocks) to provide trial-averaged responses. A single linear mixed-effects model was built with fixed effects of F0, condition/listening context (block), and their interaction, as well as a random effect (intercept only) of patient+channel. The effect of interest was the interaction term, indicating that neural responses to F0 varied according to listening context (block).|||<0.0001
90798237|NCT05209386|181475953|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|t(48) = -4.50||The null hypothesis is that there is no effect of change in listening context on behavioral responses of participants.||||<0.0001
90798238|NCT05209386|181475954|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Permutation-based clustering analysis was used to identify channels in non-regions of interest that significantly encode change in acoustic dimensions. For each channel, a sliding-window encoding model was built comparing evoked responses (z-scored voltages) to Canonical Block stimuli across varying F0 with fixed VOT. This analysis identified the n = 4 channels and time windows where neural responses differed according to change in F0.|||
91012379|NCT01018680|181907167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0.18||95.0||||This is the p-value for the BPOMS Depression-Dejection Score. A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|In Mixed Models Analysis, degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Rogers approximation.||||||0.180
91012380|NCT01018680|181907167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52||||0.041||95.0||||This is the p-value for the BPOMS Anger-Hostility Score. 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|In Mixed Models Analysis, degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Rogers approximation.||||||0.041
91012381|NCT01018680|181907167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37||||0.356||95.0||||This is the p-value for the BPOMS Vigor-Activity Score. A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|In Mixed Models Analysis, degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Rogers approximation.||||||0.356
91012382|NCT01018680|181907167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.862||95.0||||This is the p-value for the BPOMS Fatigue-Inertia Score. A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|In Mixed Models Analysis, degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Rogers approximation.||||||0.862
91012383|NCT01018680|181907167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.883||95.0||||This is the p-value for the BPOMS Confusion-Bewilderment Score. A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|In Mixed Models Analysis, degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Rogers approximation.||||||0.883
91012384|NCT01018680|181907168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0||||0.083||95.0||||A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|In Mixed Models Analysis, degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Rogers approximation.||||||0.083
90798239|NCT05209386|181475955|OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|For interaction term (effect of interest): t(216) = -0.707|||Time-averaged neural responses across respective windows of significance were averaged for all stimuli with ambiguous VOT (Canonical and Reverse blocks) to provide trial-averaged responses. A single linear mixed-effects model was built with fixed effects of F0, condition/listening context (block), and their interaction, as well as a random effect (intercept only) of patient+channel. The effect of interest was the interaction term, indicating that neural responses to F0 varied according to listening context (block).|||0.480
90798240|NCT00265850|181475956|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.01|||Log Rank|||||1.01|0.77|0.08
90798241|NCT00265850|181475957|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.08|||Log Rank|||||1.08|0.84|0.45
90798242|NCT04436744|181475973|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0433|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0433
90798243|NCT04436744|181475974|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Overall Response Rates|-0.93||||0.8272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.66|12.81|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||ORR was calculated using the stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test.||12.81|-14.66|0.8272
90798244|NCT04436744|181475975|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Rate|6.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.25|17.97||||||||17.97|-4.25|
90798245|NCT01538199|181475989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance: p≤0.05|t-test, 1 sided|We used a modified intent-to-treat approach with LOCF and unpaired Student's t-test (one-way), comparing the change in total severity score.||||||0.04
91012385|NCT01018680|181907169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91012386|NCT01018680|181907170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||This is the p-value for the 30% Response (LOCF) based on 24-Hour Average Pain Ratings. A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91012387|NCT01018680|181907170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||This is the p-value for the 50% Response (LOCF) based on 24-Hour Average Pain Ratings. A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
90798246|NCT01538199|181475989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance: p≤0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Modified intent-to-treat approach with lost observation carried forward (LOCF) and a two-tailed t-test to compare the change in total severity score.||||||0.08
91012388|NCT01018680|181907171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||This is the p-value for the 30% Response (LOCF) based on BPI Average Pain Ratings.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91012389|NCT01018680|181907171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||This is the p-value for the 50% Response (LOCF) based on BPI Average Pain Ratings.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
90798247|NCT01538199|181475989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance: p≤0.05|t-test, 1 sided|One-tailed t-test to compare the change in total severity score for treatment completers.||This analysis includes only treatment completers (participants who who were followed for the entire 8-week study period and who received a clinical assessment immediately after).||||0.01
90798248|NCT01538199|181475989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance: p≤0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Two-tailed t-test to compare the change in total severity score for treatment completers.||This analysis includes only treatment completers (participants who who were followed for the entire 8-week study period and who received a clinical assessment immediately after).||||0.02
90798249|NCT01538199|181475989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||By means of a paired t-test we tested the significance of the change in the mean HAM-D17 total score (from baseline) to week 8. Although the primary comparison was with the last assessment (week 8). A last observation carried forward (LOCF) was also performed to account for one missing value at week 8.||||0.004
90798250|NCT01538199|181475992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance: p≤0.05|t-test, 1 sided|Last observation carried forward (LOCF), one tailed t-test to compare change in QIDS score.||||||0.18
90798251|NCT01538199|181475992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance: p≤0.05|t-test, 1 sided|One-tailed t-test to measure the change in QIDS score for treatment completers.||This analysis includes only treatment completers (participants who who were followed for the entire 8-week study period and who received a clinical assessment immediately after). One treatment completer in Group 1 was excluded because they consistently skipped several answers across self-rated scales for the duration of the study.||||0.01
90798252|NCT01538199|181475992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance: p≤0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Two-tailed t-test measuring change in QIDS score for treatment completers.||This analysis includes only treatment completers (participants who who were followed for the entire 8-week study period and who received a clinical assessment immediately after). One treatment completer in Group 1 was excluded because they consistently skipped several answers across self-rated scales for the duration of the study.||||0.02
90798253|NCT03358030|181475994|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Day 12 through Day 260||||<0.05
90798254|NCT03358030|181475994|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Day 15 through Day 232||||<0.05
91012390|NCT01018680|181907172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||95.0||||A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.012
90798255|NCT03358030|181475995|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test based on t approximation||Day 15 through Day 176||||< 0.05
90798256|NCT03358030|181475995|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test based on t approximation||Day 12 through Day 176||||< 0.05
90798257|NCT03449576|181476059|SUPERIORITY||Slope|5.3846|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.5525||0.4154|TWO_SIDED|||||This P value is the interaction term between Visit and Treatment.|Regression, Linear||This is the beta value for the interaction term between Visit and Treatment.|Test of prediction of dependent variable -- the CAPS score-- with the interaction between Visit (pre/post) and treatment type (TMT vs. EXP+EDU), as well as independent variable, age||||0.4154
90798258|NCT03449576|181476060|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.267397|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.362521||0.4636|TWO_SIDED|||||This P value is the interaction term between Visit and Treatment.|Regression, Linear||This is the beta value for the interaction term between Visit and Treatment.|Test of prediction of dependent variable -- the SAS-SR score-- with the interaction between Visit (pre/post) and Treatment type (TMT vs. EXP+EDU), as well as independent variable, age||||0.4636
90798259|NCT03449576|181476061|SUPERIORITY||Slope|2.3355|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.8791||0.735129|TWO_SIDED|||||This P value is the interaction term between Visit and Treatment.|Regression, Linear||This is the beta value for the interaction term between Visit and Treatment.|Test of prediction of dependent variable -- the PCL score-- with the interaction between Visit (pre/post) and treatment type (TMT vs. EXP+EDU), as well as independent variable, age||||0.735129
90798260|NCT03449576|181476062|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.64908|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.76601||0.58|TWO_SIDED|||||This P value is the interaction term between Visit and Treatment.|Regression, Linear||This is the beta value for the interaction term between Visit and Treatment.|Test of prediction of dependent variable -- the AQ score-- with the interaction between Visit (pre/post) and treatment type (TMT vs. EXP+EDU), as well as independent variable, age||||0.580
90798261|NCT03449576|181476063|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.3946|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7193||0.808|TWO_SIDED|||||This P value is the interaction term between Visit and Treatment.|Regression, Linear||This is the beta value for the interaction term between Visit and Treatment.|Test of prediction of dependent variable -- the ITS score-- with the interaction between Visit (pre/post) and treatment type (TMT vs. EXP+EDU), as well as independent variable, age||||0.808
91012391|NCT01018680|181907173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.724||95.0||||This is the p-value for PCS Weight Gain. A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.724
91012392|NCT01018680|181907173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.106||95.0||||This is the p-value for PCS Weight Loss. A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.106
91012393|NCT01018680|181907174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031||95.0||||A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.031
90798262|NCT00404248|181476066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.9|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9
90798263|NCT00404248|181476067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.4||||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6
90798264|NCT00404248|181476068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.4||||0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.8
91012394|NCT01018680|181907175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.063||95.0||||This is the p-value for Diastolic Hypertension. A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.063
91012395|NCT01018680|181907175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018||95.0||||This is the p-value for Systolic Hypertension. A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.018
91012396|NCT01018680|181907176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.249||95.0||||A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.249
90798265|NCT05788991|181476077|NON_INFERIORITY|Difference of proportions between groups (with 95% CI) and a non inferiority margin of 15 percentage points, assuming a 1-sided α = .025 and 80% power|Farrington-Manning test|-0.5|||<|0.025|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|||1 sided alpha|Farrington-Manning test|||The outcome measure of the primary objective was a noninferiority margin of 15 percentage points in the absolute difference in clinical cure rates between dequalinium chloride and metronidazole 7 to 11 days after start of treatment.|||-10.8|<.025
90798266|NCT04712669|181476084|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|57.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|24.773||0.0208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.716|105.824||LSM, SE, CIs for each treatment group; LSM Diff, SE, CIs, and p-value are estimated using an ANCOVA model incl. factors for treatment group and randomization strata with associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|H0: The mean change from baseline in PVR at Week 24 is equal between placebo and rodatristat ethyl.||||105.824|8.716|0.0208
90798267|NCT04712669|181476084|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|58.406|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|24.558||0.0174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.272|106.54||LSM, SE, CIs for each treatment group; LSM Diff, SE, CIs, and p-value are estimated using an ANCOVA model incl. factors for treatment group and randomization strata with associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|H0: The mean change from baseline in PVR at Week 24 is equal between placebo and rodatristat ethyl.||||106.54|10.272|0.0174
90798268|NCT04712669|181476085|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.573||||||P-value based on ordinal logistic regression with treatment group and randomization stratification strata as factors at alpha=0.05.|Regression, Logistic|H0: The distribution of change from baseline in WHO FC at Week 24 is equal between placebo and rodatristat ethyl.||||||0.573
90798269|NCT04712669|181476085|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9911||||||P-value based on ordinal logistic regression with treatment group and randomization stratification strata as factors at alpha=0.05.|Regression, Logistic|H0: The distribution of change from baseline in WHO FC at Week 24 is equal between placebo and rodatristat ethyl.||||||0.9911
90798270|NCT04712669|181476086|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-33.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.121||0.0636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.13|1.91||p-value (alpha=0.05) is estimated using the aligned rank stratified Wilcoxon test with the randomization stratification factors as strata.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|H0: The distribution of change from baseline at Week 24 in 6MWT distance (meters) is equal between placebo and rodatristat ethyl.||||1.91|-69.13|0.0636
90798271|NCT04712669|181476086|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-19.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.469||0.1573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.45|7.35||p-value (alpha=0.05) is estimated using the aligned rank stratified Wilcoxon test with the randomization stratification factors as strata.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|H0: The distribution of change from baseline at Week 24 in 6MWT distance (meters) is equal between placebo and rodatristat ethyl.||||7.35|-45.45|0.1573
90798272|NCT04712669|181476087|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1125.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|351.28||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|437.39|1814.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|H0: The mean change from baseline at Week 24 in NT-proBNP is equal between placebo and rodatristat ethyl.|Estimates from a REML MMRM with baseline covariate, fixed effects, and unstructured covariance.|||1814.39|437.39|0.0014
90798273|NCT04712669|181476087|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|866.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|306.56||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|265.41|1467.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|H0: The mean change from baseline at Week 24 in NT-proBNP is equal between placebo and rodatristat ethyl.|Estimates from a REML MMRM with baseline covariate, fixed effects, and unstructured covariance.|||1467.16|265.41|0.0047
90798274|NCT04464473|181476088|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5736|||||||ANOVA|The main effect of visit (Baseline, FPl-TMS, MFG-TMS, S1-TMS) on the overall magnitude of MFG efferent connectivity||||||0.5736
90798275|NCT04464473|181476088|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.304|||||||ANOVA|Interaction of visit (Baseline, FPl-TMS, MFG-TMS, S1-TMS) and subsystem (Temporal, Contextual Control) on the magnitude of MFG efferent connectivity||||||0.304
90798276|NCT04464473|181476088|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0545|||||||ANOVA|The main effect of visit (Baseline, FPl-TMS, MFG-TMS, S1-TMS) on the overall magnitude of FPl efferent connectivity||||||0.0545
90798277|NCT04464473|181476088|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1134|||||||ANOVA|Interaction of visit (Baseline, FPl-TMS, MFG-TMS, S1-TMS) and Subsystem on the magnitude of FPl efferent connectivity||||||0.1134
90798278|NCT04464473|181476088|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4326|||||||ANOVA|The main effect of intervention (FPl-TMS, MFG-TMS, S1-TMS) on the overall magnitude of MFG efferent connectivity||||||0.4326
90798279|NCT04464473|181476088|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2546|||||||ANOVA|The interaction of intervention (FPl-TMS, MFG-TMS, S1-TMS) and subsystem (Temporal, Contextual Control) on the magnitude of MFG efferent connectivity||||||0.2546
91012397|NCT01018680|181907177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.241||95.0||||This is the p-value for outpatient group visits. A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Likelihood Ratio Chi-squared|||||||0.241
91012398|NCT01018680|181907177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.087||95.0||||This is the p-value for outpatient individual visits. A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Likelihood Ratio Chi-squared|||||||0.087
90798280|NCT04464473|181476088|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0645|||||||ANOVA|The main effect of intervention (FPl-TMS, MFG-TMS, S1-TMS) on the overall magnitude of FPl efferent connectivity||||||0.0645
90798281|NCT04464473|181476088|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2033|||||||ANOVA|Interaction of intervention (FPl-TMS, MFG-TMS, S1-TMS) and Subsystem on the magnitude of FPl efferent connectivity||||||0.2033
90798282|NCT04464473|181476089|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8152|||||||ANOVA|Main effect of visit (Baseline, MFG-cTBS, FPl-cTBS, S1-cTBS) on overall BOLD actviation.||||||0.8152
90798283|NCT04464473|181476089|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0085|||||||ANOVA|Interaction of visit (Baseline, MFG-cTBS, FPl-cTBS, S1-cTBS) and subsystem (temporal, contextual, sensorimotor control) on overall BOLD activation.||||||0.0085
90798284|NCT04464473|181476089|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1551|||||||ANOVA|Interaction of visit (Baseline, MFG-cTBS, FPl-cTBS, S1-cTBS) and temporal control on BOLD activation||||||0.1551
90798285|NCT04464473|181476089|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6431|||||||ANOVA|Interaction of visit (Baseline, MFG-cTBS, FPl-cTBS, S1-cTBS) and contextual control on BOLD activation||||||0.6431
90798286|NCT04464473|181476089|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2447|||||||ANOVA|Interaction of visit (Baseline, MFG-cTBS, FPl-cTBS, S1-cTBS), temporal control, and contextual control on BOLD activation||||||0.2447
90798287|NCT04464473|181476089|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||ANOVA|Interaction of visit (Baseline, MFG-cTBS, FPl-cTBS, S1-cTBS), temporal control, and subsystem (temporal, contextual, sensorimotor) on BOLD activation||||||0.0002
90798288|NCT04464473|181476089|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1339|||||||ANOVA|Interaction of visit (Baseline, MFG-cTBS, FPl-cTBS, S1-cTBS), contextual control, and subsystem on BOLD activation||||||0.1339
90798289|NCT04464473|181476089|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1315|||||||ANOVA|Interaction of visit, temporal control, contextual control, and subsystem on BOLD activation||||||0.1315
90798290|NCT04464473|181476089|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6836|||||||ANOVA|The main effect of intervention arm (FPl-TMS, MFG-TMS, S1-TMS) on overall BOLD activation.||||||0.6836
90798291|NCT04464473|181476089|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2146|||||||ANOVA|Interaction of intervention (MFG-cTBS, FPl-cTBS, S1-cTBS) and subsystem (temporal, contextual, sensorimotor control) on overall BOLD activation.||||||0.2146
91012399|NCT01018680|181907177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.414||95.0||||This is the p-value for emergency room visits for non-psychiatric illness. A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Likelihood Ratio Chi-squared|||||||0.414
91012400|NCT01018680|181907177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.332||95.0||||This is the p-value for outpatient visits to other physicians. A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Likelihood Ratio Chi-squared|||||||0.332
91012401|NCT01018680|181907177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.183||95.0||||This is the p-value for the average number of hours worked for pay per week. A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Likelihood Ratio Chi-squared|||||||0.183
91012402|NCT01018680|181907177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.666||95.0||||This is the p-value for how long the participant has had this job. A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Likelihood Ratio Chi-squared|||||||0.666
91012403|NCT01018680|181907177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89||95.0||||This is the p-value for the average number of hours of volunteer work per week. A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Likelihood Ratio Chi-squared|||||||0.890
91012404|NCT01018680|181907177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.413||95.0||||This is the p-value for psychiatric visits. A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Likelihood Ratio Chi-squared|||||||0.413
91012405|NCT05056311|181907195|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
91012406|NCT05056311|181907196|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
91012407|NCT05056311|181907197|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
91012408|NCT05056311|181907199|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0001
91012409|NCT05056311|181907200|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6374||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|McNemar|||||||0.6374
90798292|NCT04464473|181476089|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1541|||||||ANOVA|Interaction of intervention (MFG-cTBS, FPl-cTBS, S1-cTBS) and temporal control on BOLD activation||||||0.1541
90798293|NCT04464473|181476089|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6657|||||||ANOVA|Interaction of intervention (MFG-cTBS, FPl-cTBS, S1-cTBS) and contextual control on BOLD activation||||||0.6657
90798294|NCT04464473|181476089|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5619|||||||ANOVA|Interaction of intervention (MFG-cTBS, FPl-cTBS, S1-cTBS), temporal control, and contextual control on BOLD activation||||||0.5619
90798295|NCT04464473|181476089|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5148|||||||ANOVA|Interaction of intervention (MFG-cTBS, FPl-cTBS, S1-cTBS), temporal control, and subsystem (temporal, contextual, sensorimotor) on BOLD activation||||||0.5148
90798296|NCT04464473|181476089|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5428|||||||ANOVA|Interaction of intervention (MFG-cTBS, FPl-cTBS, S1-cTBS), contextual control, and subsystem (temporal, contextual, sensorimotor) on BOLD activation||||||0.5428
90798297|NCT04464473|181476089|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1249|||||||ANOVA|Interaction of intervention, temporal control, contextual control, and subsystem on BOLD activation||||||0.1249
90798298|NCT04464473|181476090|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9504|||||||ANOVA|Interaction between visit (Baseline, MFG-cTBS, FPl-cTBS, S1-cTBS) and temporal control on error rate||||||0.9504
90798299|NCT04464473|181476090|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7318|||||||ANOVA|Interaction between visit (Baseline, MFG-cTBS, FPl-cTBS, S1-cTBS), phase (sub-task, return), and temporal control on error rate||||||0.7318
90798300|NCT04464473|181476090|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8424|||||||ANOVA|Interaction between intervention (MFG-cTBS, FPl-cTBS, S1-cTBS) and temporal control on error rate||||||0.8424
90798301|NCT04464473|181476090|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7652|||||||ANOVA|Interaction between intervention (MFG-cTBS, FPl-cTBS, S1-cTBS), phase (sub-task, return), and temporal control on error rate||||||0.7652
91012410|NCT01714726|181907207|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|22.5|||=|0.01|TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.3|36.8|||Regression, Logistic|||||36.8|8.3|=0.01
91012411|NCT00994123|181907247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.35||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.76|||Log Rank|||||0.76|0.16|0.008
91012412|NCT00994123|181907247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.15||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|4.76|||Log Rank|||||4.76|0.97|0.059
91012413|NCT00224952|181907272|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Regression, Linear|||Least squares linear regression evaluating fractional analyte recovery (4-Methylthio-2-hydroxyiminostilbene) as a function of age||||0.004
91012414|NCT00224952|181907272|OTHER|||||||0.032|||||||Regression, Linear|||Least squares linear regression evaluating fractional analyte recovery (Log (4-Methylthio-2-hydroxyiminostilbene) as a function of age||||0.032
91012415|NCT00224952|181907272|OTHER|||||||0.018|||||||Regression, Linear|||Least squares linear regression evaluating fractional analyte recovery (Fractional Recovery (MTHIS)) as a function of age||||0.018
91012416|NCT00224952|181907272|OTHER|||||||0.033|||||||Regression, Linear|||Least squares linear regression evaluating fractional analyte recovery (Log (Fractional Recovery MTHIS)) as a function of age||||0.033
91012417|NCT00224952|181907272|OTHER|||||||0.0004|||||||Regression, Linear|||Least squares linear regression evaluating fractional analyte recovery (Log (5-N-acetylcysteine-3-ene VPA isomers)) as a function of age||||0.0004
91012418|NCT00224952|181907272|OTHER|||||||0.0003|||||||Regression, Linear|||Least squares linear regression evaluating fractional analyte recovery (Log (5-N-acetylcysteine-2-ene VPA) ) as a function of age||||0.0003
91012419|NCT00224952|181907272|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Linear|||Least squares linear regression evaluating fractional analyte recovery (Total N-acetylcysteine conjugates) as a function of age||||<0.0001
91012420|NCT00224952|181907272|OTHER|||||||0.522|||||||Regression, Linear|||Least squares linear regression evaluating fractional analyte recovery (Log (Fractional Recovery NAC-3-ene VPA isomers)) as a function of age||||0.522
90798302|NCT04464473|181476091|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0266|||||||ANOVA|Interaction between visit (Baseline, MFG-cTBS, FPl-cTBS, S1-cTBS) and contextual control on error rate||||||0.0266
90798303|NCT04464473|181476091|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2386|||||||ANOVA|Interaction between visit (Baseline, MFG-cTBS, FPl-cTBS, S1-cTBS), phase (sub-task, return) and contextual control on error rate||||||0.2386
90798304|NCT04464473|181476091|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4211|||||||ANOVA|Interaction between intervention (MFG-cTBS, FPl-cTBS, S1-cTBS) and contextual control on error rate||||||0.4211
90798305|NCT04464473|181476091|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7503|||||||ANOVA|Interaction between intervention (MFG-cTBS, FPl-cTBS, S1-cTBS), phase (sub-task, return) and contextual control on error rate||||||0.7503
90798306|NCT04464473|181476092|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0091|||||||ANOVA|Interaction of Visit (Baseline, MFG-cTBS, FPl-cTBS, S1), Temporal Control, and Contextual Control on error rate||||||0.0091
90798307|NCT04464473|181476092|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0045|||||||ANOVA|Interaction of Visit (Baseline, MFG-cTBS, FPl-cTBS, S1), phase (sub-task, return), Temporal Control, and Contextual Control on error rate||||||0.0045
90798308|NCT04464473|181476092|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1082|||||||ANOVA|Interaction of intervention (MFG-cTBS, FPl-cTBS, S1), Temporal Control, and Contextual Control on error rate||||||0.1082
90798309|NCT04464473|181476092|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0659|||||||ANOVA|Interaction of intervention (MFG-cTBS, FPl-cTBS, S1), phase (sub-task, return), Temporal Control, and Contextual Control on error rate||||||0.0659
90798310|NCT04464473|181476093|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0211|||||||ANOVA|Interaction between visit (Baseline, MFG-cTBS, FPl-cTBS, S1-cTBS) and temporal control in reaction time||||||0.0211
90798311|NCT04464473|181476093|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4964|||||||ANOVA|Interaction between visit (Baseline, MFG-cTBS, FPl-cTBS, S1-cTBS), phase (sub-task, return), and temporal control in reaction time||||||0.4964
90798312|NCT04464473|181476093|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3129|||||||ANOVA|Interaction between intervention (MFG-cTBS, FPl-cTBS, S1-cTBS) and temporal control in reaction time||||||0.3129
91012421|NCT00224952|181907272|OTHER|||||||0.925|||||||Regression, Linear|||Least squares linear regression evaluating fractional analyte recovery (Log (Fractional Recovery NAC-2-ene VPA) ) as a function of age||||0.925
90798313|NCT04464473|181476093|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5439|||||||ANOVA|Interaction between intervention (MFG-cTBS, FPl-cTBS, S1-cTBS), phase (sub-task, return), and temporal control in reaction time||||||0.5439
90798314|NCT04464473|181476094|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0344|||||||ANOVA|Interaction between visit (Baseline, MFG-cTBS, FPl-cTBS, S1-cTBS) and contextual control in reaction time||||||0.0344
90798315|NCT04464473|181476094|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5113|||||||ANOVA|Interaction between visit (Baseline, MFG-cTBS, FPl-cTBS, S1-cTBS), phase (sub-task, return), and contextual control in reaction time||||||0.5113
91012422|NCT00224952|181907272|OTHER|||||||0.469|||||||Regression, Linear|||Least squares linear regression evaluating fractional analyte recovery (Log (Fractional Recovery Total NAC conjugates) as a function of age||||0.469
90798316|NCT04464473|181476094|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0301|||||||ANOVA|Interaction between intervention (MFG-cTBS, FPl-cTBS, S1-cTBS) and contextual control in reaction time||||||0.0301
90798317|NCT04464473|181476094|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6931|||||||ANOVA|Interaction between intervention (MFG-cTBS, FPl-cTBS, S1-cTBS), phase (sub-task, return), and contextual control in reaction time||||||0.6931
90798318|NCT04464473|181476095|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0189|||||||ANOVA|Interaction of visit (Baseline, MFG-cTBS, FPl-cTBS, S1-cTBS), temporal control, and contextual control on reaction time||||||0.0189
90798319|NCT04464473|181476095|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0763|||||||ANOVA|Interaction of visit (Baseline, MFG-cTBS, FPl-cTBS, S1-cTBS), phase (sub-task, return), temporal control, and contextual control on reaction time||||||0.0763
90798320|NCT04464473|181476095|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9701|||||||ANOVA|Interaction of intervention (MFG-cTBS, FPl-cTBS, S1-cTBS), temporal control, and contextual control on reaction time||||||0.9701
90798321|NCT04464473|181476095|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3826|||||||ANOVA|Interaction of intervention(MFG-cTBS, FPl-cTBS, S1-cTBS), phase (sub-task, return), temporal control, and contextual control on reaction time||||||0.3826
90798322|NCT03802396|181476096|OTHER|||||||0.025|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.025
90798323|NCT03802396|181476097|OTHER|||||||0.116|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline to 24 hours||||0.116
90798324|NCT03802396|181476097|OTHER|||||||0.388|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline to 6 weeks||||0.388
90798325|NCT03802396|181476098|OTHER|||||||0.569|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline to 24 hours||||0.569
90798326|NCT03802396|181476098|OTHER|||||||0.047|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline to 6 weeks||||0.047
90798327|NCT03802396|181476099|OTHER|||||||0.498|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline to 24 hours||||0.498
90798328|NCT03802396|181476099|OTHER|||||||0.745|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline to 6 weeks||||0.745
90798329|NCT03802396|181476100|OTHER|||||||0.177|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline to 24 hours||||0.177
90798330|NCT03802396|181476100|OTHER|||||||0.478|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline to 6 weeks||||0.478
90798331|NCT03802396|181476101|OTHER|||||||0.803|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.803
90798332|NCT03802396|181476103|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.73||||0.286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.3|||Chi-squared|||||1.30|0.41|0.286
90798333|NCT03802396|181476104|OTHER|||||||0.189|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.189
90798334|NCT04066829|181476107|OTHER||Difference in Differences|-29.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.2|-11.8||||||Pre and post difference in the treatment group as compared to the control group. A log transformation was used.||-11.8|-42.2|
90798335|NCT00163293|181476130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6625||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.6625
90798336|NCT00163293|181476130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7303||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.7303
90798337|NCT00163293|181476131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1291||95.0|||||Wald Chi-square|zero inflated Poisson model: adjustment for centre and age \[yrs\] (zero model), treatment and race (Poisson model)||||||0.1291
90798338|NCT00163293|181476131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0145||95.0|||||Wald Chi-square|zero inflated Poisson model: adjustment for centre and age \[yrs\] (zero model), treatment and race (Poisson model)||||||0.0145
91012423|NCT00148109|181907279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||Estimate a 4 month progression-free survival rate for each group.||||<0.05
91012424|NCT04047472|181907292|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of brolucizumab to aflibercept with respect to change from baseline in BCVA, considering a margin of 4 letters.|LS mean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16||0.006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.0|0.9|||ANOVA|||||0.9|-3.0|0.006
90798339|NCT00163293|181476133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4754|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.4754
90798340|NCT00163293|181476133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6844|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.6844
90798341|NCT01492426|181476181|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Test of noninferiority was based on noninferiority margin of -12% and 2-sided alpha level of 5%. That is, if the lower bound of the 95% CI \> -12%, the Daclatasvir arm would be considered nonnferior to the telaprevir arm.|Percentage difference|4.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.885|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|11.9||Test of noninferiority carried out by taking a confidence interval (CI) for the difference in rates (daclatasvir arm minus telapravir arm). If lower bound of 95% CI difference exceeded -12%, noninferiority was demonstrated. No p-value was computed.|Stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage difference between SVR12 rate in the experimental and control arms was computed using a stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel confidence interval (95% level) for the difference in rates. The stratification factors were IL28B rs1297860 single nucleotide polymorphism (CC or non-CC) and baseline cirrhosis status (absent or present), unless otherwise indicated.||11.9|-3.3|
90798342|NCT00269113|181476187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|17.4||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.4|28.4|||Fisher Exact|||||28.4|6.4|0.0009
90798343|NCT00269113|181476188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
90798344|NCT00269113|181476189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0127|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0127
90798345|NCT00269113|181476190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
90798346|NCT00269113|181476191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0186|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0186
90798347|NCT00269113|181476192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0002
90798348|NCT00269113|181476193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0017|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0017
91012425|NCT04047472|181907293|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of brolucizumab to aflibercept with respect to change from baseline in BCVA, considering a margin of 4 letters.|LS mean difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.009|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.2|0.5|||ANOVA|||||0.5|-3.2|0.009
90798349|NCT02286895|181476258|NON_INFERIORITY|The protocol stated that non-inferiority would be achieved if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (2-sided) for the difference in sero-conversion percentages (group receiving rotavirus minus group not receiving rotavirus) was \> -10%.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|4.2||||||Based on results from a prior study, the sponsor assumed 90% sero-conversion rates in each Arms A and B for each antigen in the two co-primary objectives. To rule out a non-inferiority margin of no more than 10% with 95% power (95% power was chosen to give an overall power of at least 90%) and a one-sided type-one error rate of no more than 2.5%, 237 evaluable subjects were required in each group to explore the co-primary objectives.||4.2|-4.0|
90798350|NCT02286895|181476259|NON_INFERIORITY|The protocol stated that non-inferiority would be achieved if the lower limit of the 95% CI (2-sided) for the difference in sero-conversion percentages (group receiving rotavirus minus group not receiving rotavirus) was \> -10%.|Mean Difference (Net)|-4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|4.0||||||Based on results from a prior study completed by PATH and CVD-Mali, the sponsor assumed 90% sero-conversion rates in each Arms A and B for each antigen in the two co-primary objectives. To rule out a non-inferiority margin of no more than 10% with 95% power (95% power was chosen to give an overall power of at least 90%) and a one-sided type-one error rate of no more than 2.5%, 237 evaluable subjects were required in each group to explore the co-primary objectives.||4.0|-12.2|
90798351|NCT02286895|181476260|NON_INFERIORITY|The protocol stated that non-inferiority would be achieved if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (2-sided) for the difference in sero-conversion percentages (group receiving rotavirus minus group not receiving rotavirus) was \> -10%.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|2.7||||||Based on results from a prior study completed by PATH and CVD-Mali, the sponsor assumed 90% sero-conversion rates in each Arms A and B for each antigen in the two co-primary objectives. To rule out a non-inferiority margin of no more than 10% with 95% power (95% power was chosen to give an overall power of at least 90%) and a one-sided type-one error rate of no more than 2.5%, 237 evaluable subjects were required in each group to explore the co-primary objectives.||2.7|-7.5|
90798352|NCT02286895|181476261|EQUIVALENCE|Definition of equivalence/null hypothesis: geometric mean titer (GMT) of group receiving rotavirus vaccine divided by GMT of group not receiving rotavirus vaccine = 1.|geometric mean titer ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.1||||||||1.1|0.8|
90798353|NCT02286895|181476262|EQUIVALENCE|Definition of equivalence/null hypothesis: geometric mean concentration (GMC) of group receiving rotavirus vaccine/ GMC of group not receiving rotavirus vaccine = 1|geometric mean titer ratio|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|3.8||||||||3.8|-5.2|
90798354|NCT02286895|181476263|EQUIVALENCE|Definition of equivalence/null hypothesis: geometric mean titer (GMT) of group receiving rotavirus vaccine divided by GMT of group not receiving rotavirus vaccine = 1.|geometric mean titer ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.3||||||||1.3|0.7|
90798355|NCT02286895|181476264|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|17.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.7|25.3||||||Null hypothesis: percentage of the seroresponse to rotavirus in the group that received rotavirus vaccine minus the percentage of the seroresponse to rotavirus in the group that did not receive rotavirus vaccine is less than or equal to 0.||25.3|9.7|
90798356|NCT02286895|181476265|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|15.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.1|23.4||||||Null hypothesis: percentage of the seroresponse to rotavirus in the group that received rotavirus vaccine minus the percentage of the seroresponse to rotavirus in the group that did not receive rotavirus vaccine is less than or equal to 0.||23.4|8.1|
90798357|NCT02286895|181476266|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|25.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.6|36.2||||||Null hypothesis: percentage of the seroresponse to rotavirus in the group that received rotavirus vaccine minus the percentage of the seroresponse to rotavirus in the group that did not receive rotavirus vaccine is less than or equal to 0.||36.2|14.6|
90798358|NCT02286895|181476267|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|31.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.1|39.0||||||Null hypothesis: percentage of the seroresponse to rotavirus in the group that received rotavirus vaccine minus the percentage of the seroresponse to rotavirus in the group that did not receive rotavirus vaccine is less than or equal to 0.||39.0|23.1|
90798359|NCT02286895|181476268|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|17.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|23.5||||||Null hypothesis: percentage of the seroresponse to rotavirus in the group that received rotavirus vaccine minus the percentage of the seroresponse to rotavirus in the group that did not receive rotavirus vaccine is less than or equal to 0.||23.5|12.0|
91012426|NCT02347345|181907349|OTHER|Descriptive pilot study. Not relevant.||||||0.07|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.07
91012427|NCT04051320|181907354|SUPERIORITY||F statistic|2.164||||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||repeated measures ANOVA|||||||0.160
90798360|NCT02286895|181476269|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|52.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.7|66.3||||||Null hypothesis: percentage of the seroresponse to rotavirus in the group that received rotavirus vaccine minus the percentage of the seroresponse to rotavirus in the group that did not receive rotavirus vaccine is less than or equal to 0.||66.3|37.7|
90798361|NCT02286895|181476270|SUPERIORITY||geometric mean titer ratio|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.4||||||Null hypothesis: geometric mean titer (GMT) in group receiving rotavirus vaccine/GMT in group not receiving rotavirus vaccine ≤ 1||2.4|1.2|
90798362|NCT02286895|181476271|SUPERIORITY||geometric mean titer ratio|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|3.1||||||Null hypothesis: 28 days post-vaccination, geometric mean titer (GMT) in group receiving rotavirus vaccine/GMT in group not receiving rotavirus vaccine ≤ 1||3.1|1.7|
90798363|NCT02286895|181476272|SUPERIORITY||geometric mean titer ratio|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|3.3||||||Null hypothesis: geometric mean titer (GMT) in group receiving rotavirus vaccine/GMT in group not receiving rotavirus vaccine ≤ 1||3.3|1.2|
90798364|NCT02286895|181476273|SUPERIORITY||geometric mean titer ratio|4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|8.9||||||Null hypothesis: geometric mean titer (GMT) in group receiving rotavirus vaccine/GMT in group not receiving rotavirus vaccine ≤ 1||8.9|2.4|
90798365|NCT02949011|181476307|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference|-29.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.8|-14.6||Adjusted p-value, two-sided significance level of 0.05|Stratified generalized Wilcoxon test|Peto-Prentice's generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||The primary analysis of the primary endpoint was a comparison between the baloxavir marboxil and placebo groups.||-14.6|-42.8|<0.0001
90798366|NCT02949011|181476307|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference|-7.7||||0.8347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.7|7.9||Adjusted p-value, two-sided significance level of 0.05|Stratified generalized Wilcoxon test|Peto-Prentice's generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||The comparison between the baloxavir marboxil and the oseltamivir groups was conducted as a secondary analysis only if a statistically significant difference was observed in the primary analysis in order to maintain control of overall type I error.||7.9|-22.7|0.8347
90798367|NCT02949011|181476307|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0008||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Log Rank|Log rank test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Analysis using the stratified log rank test was performed as a sensitivity analysis.||||0.0008
90798368|NCT02949011|181476307|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8449||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Log Rank|Log rank test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Analysis using the stratified log rank test was performed as a sensitivity analysis.||||0.8449
91012428|NCT04051320|181907355|SUPERIORITY||F statistic|1.74||||0.1922|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.1922
91012429|NCT04051320|181907356|SUPERIORITY||F statistic|0.837||||0.368|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.368
90798369|NCT02949011|181476308|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 2||||<0.0001
90798370|NCT02949011|181476308|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 2||||<0.0001
90798371|NCT02949011|181476308|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 3||||<0.0001
90798372|NCT02949011|181476308|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 3||||<0.0001
90798373|NCT02949011|181476308|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 4||||<0.0001
90798374|NCT02949011|181476308|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0044||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 4||||0.0044
90798375|NCT02949011|181476308|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 5||||<0.0001
90798376|NCT02949011|181476308|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1146||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 5||||0.1146
90798377|NCT02949011|181476308|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0046||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 6||||0.0046
90798378|NCT02949011|181476308|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.441||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 6||||0.441
91012430|NCT04051320|181907357|SUPERIORITY||F statistic|0.23||||0.881|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.881
91012431|NCT04051320|181907358|SUPERIORITY||F statistic|16.541||||0.000723|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.000723
91012432|NCT04051320|181907359|SUPERIORITY||F statistic|0.072||||0.791|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.791
91012433|NCT04051320|181907360|SUPERIORITY||F statistic|4.952||||0.0372|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0372
91012434|NCT04051320|181907361|SUPERIORITY||F statistic|3.258||||0.0861|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0861
91012435|NCT04051320|181907362|SUPERIORITY||F statistic|2.37||||0.139|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.139
91012436|NCT04051320|181907363|SUPERIORITY||F statistic|1.484||||0.237|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.237
90798379|NCT02949011|181476308|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0929||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 9||||0.0929
90798380|NCT02949011|181476308|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0907||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 9||||0.0907
90798381|NCT02949011|181476309|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7383||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 2||||0.7383
90798382|NCT02949011|181476309|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9619||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 2||||0.9619
90798383|NCT02949011|181476309|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0576||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 3||||0.0576
90798384|NCT02949011|181476309|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1237||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 3||||0.1237
90798385|NCT02949011|181476309|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3071||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 4||||0.3071
90798386|NCT02949011|181476309|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9603||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 4||||0.9603
90798387|NCT02949011|181476309|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0784||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 5||||0.0784
90798388|NCT02949011|181476309|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5547||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 5||||0.5547
91012437|NCT04051320|181907364|SUPERIORITY||F statistic|0.013||||0.91|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.910
90798389|NCT02949011|181476309|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3087||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 6||||0.3087
90798390|NCT02949011|181476309|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9106||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 6||||0.9106
90798391|NCT02949011|181476309|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0017||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 9||||0.0017
90798392|NCT02949011|181476309|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3068||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 9||||0.3068
90798393|NCT02949011|181476310|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 2||||<0.0001
91012438|NCT04051320|181907365|SUPERIORITY||F statistic|4.609||||0.0449|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0449
90798394|NCT02949011|181476310|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 2||||<0.0001
90798395|NCT02949011|181476310|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 3||||<0.0001
90798396|NCT02949011|181476310|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0024||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 3||||0.0024
90798397|NCT02949011|181476310|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9127||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ven Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 4||||0.9127
90798398|NCT02949011|181476310|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5361||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 4||||0.5361
91012439|NCT04051320|181907366|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.322|||||||Pearson's Correlation Coefficient|||||||0.322
91012440|NCT04051320|181907366|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.772|||||||Pearson's Correlation Coefficient|||||||0.772
91012441|NCT04051320|181907367|SUPERIORITY||Pearson's r|-0.568314||||0.068|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson correlation|||||||0.068
91012442|NCT04051320|181907367|SUPERIORITY||Pearson's r|-0.082904||||0.8759289|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson correlation|||||||0.8759289
91012443|NCT04051320|181907368|SUPERIORITY||Pearson's r|-0.1275539||||0.70859639|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson correlation|||||||0.70859639
91012444|NCT04051320|181907368|SUPERIORITY||Pearson's r|0.49225646||||0.2617744|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson correlation|||||||0.2617744
91012445|NCT04051320|181907369|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.568|||||||Pearson's Correlation Coefficient|||||||0.568
90798399|NCT02949011|181476310|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5739||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 5||||0.5739
90798400|NCT02949011|181476310|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5466||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 5||||0.5466
90798401|NCT02949011|181476310|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0543||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 6||||0.0543
90798402|NCT02949011|181476310|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4677||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 6||||0.4677
91012446|NCT04051320|181907369|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.944|||||||Pearson's Correlation Coefficient|||||||0.944
90798403|NCT02949011|181476310|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0266||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 9||||0.0266
90798404|NCT02949011|181476310|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1281||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 9||||0.1281
90798405|NCT02949011|181476311|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 2||||<0.0001
90798406|NCT02949011|181476311|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 2||||<0.0001
90798407|NCT02949011|181476311|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 3||||<0.0001
90798408|NCT02949011|181476311|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0015||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 3||||0.0015
90798409|NCT02949011|181476311|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0028||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 4||||0.0028
90798410|NCT02949011|181476311|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0265||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 4||||0.0265
90798411|NCT02949011|181476311|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0247||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 5||||0.0247
90798412|NCT02949011|181476311|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5298||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 5||||0.5298
90798413|NCT02949011|181476311|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9554||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 6||||0.9554
90798414|NCT02949011|181476311|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9075||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 6||||0.9075
90798415|NCT02949011|181476311|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7624||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 9||||0.7624
90798416|NCT02949011|181476311|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6156||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 9||||0.6156
90798417|NCT02949011|181476312|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.034||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||||||0.0340
90798418|NCT02949011|181476312|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2766||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||||||0.2766
90798419|NCT02949011|181476313|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0072||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||||||0.0072
90798420|NCT02949011|181476313|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.733||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||||||0.7330
91012447|NCT04051320|181907370|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.103|||||||Pearson's Correlation Coefficient|||||||0.103
91012448|NCT03485976|181907389|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91012449|NCT03485976|181907390|OTHER|||||||0.004||||||The threshold for significance was p=0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004
90798421|NCT02949011|181476314|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference|-48.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.0|-48.0||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Peto-Prentice's generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region||||-48.0|-48.0|<0.0001
90798422|NCT02949011|181476314|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference|-48.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.0|-24.0||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Peto-Prentice's generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region||||-24.0|-48.0|<0.0001
90798423|NCT02949011|181476315|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference|-24.0||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-96.0|0.0||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Peto-Prentice's generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region||||0.0|-96.0|0.0006
90798424|NCT02949011|181476315|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference|0.0||||0.237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.0|24.0||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Peto-Prentice's generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region||||24.0|-48.0|0.2370
90798425|NCT02949011|181476316|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7698||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||12 hours||||0.7698
91012450|NCT03485976|181907391|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||Threshold for significance was p=0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
91012451|NCT00877929|181907493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.1||||0.0001||95.0|-7.9|-4.2|||ANCOVA|Included effects of treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction with covariate of baseline blood pressure and baseline-week interaction.||||-4.2|-7.9|0.0001
91012452|NCT00877929|181907494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.1||||0.0001||95.0|-8.9|-5.4|||ANCOVA|Included effects of treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction with covariate of baseline blood pressure and baseline-week interaction.||||-5.4|-8.9|0.0001
90798426|NCT02949011|181476316|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5777||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||12 hours||||0.5777
91012453|NCT00877929|181907495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.6||||0.0001||95.0|-8.3|-4.9|||ANCOVA|Included effects of treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction with covariate of baseline blood pressure and baseline-week interaction.||||-4.9|-8.3|0.0001
90798427|NCT02949011|181476316|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1112||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||24 hours||||0.1112
90798428|NCT02949011|181476316|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6483||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||24 hours||||0.6483
90798429|NCT02949011|181476316|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||36 hours||||0.0004
90798430|NCT02949011|181476316|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5625||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||36 hours||||0.5625
90798431|NCT02949011|181476316|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0072||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||48 hours||||0.0072
90798432|NCT02949011|181476316|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6234||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||48 hours||||0.6234
90798433|NCT02949011|181476316|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||72 hours||||0.0002
90798434|NCT02949011|181476316|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9547||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||72 hours||||0.9547
91012454|NCT00877929|181907496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.1||||0.0001||95.0|-7.9|-4.3|||ANCOVA|Included effects of treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction with covariate of baseline blood pressure and baseline-week interaction.||||-4.3|-7.9|0.0001
91012455|NCT00877929|181907497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.9||||0.0001||95.0|-6.6|-3.2|||ANCOVA|Included effects of treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction with covariate of baseline blood pressure and baseline-week interaction.||||-3.2|-6.6|0.0001
91012456|NCT01140646|181907534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0903||||||One sided t-test with 0.05 error rate was employed.|t-test, 1 sided|||To determine whether any reduction in hot flash score is beyond what is expected with a placebo (20-25%). Reference: Sloan JA, et al. Methodologic lessons learned from hot flash studies. J Clin Oncol. Dec 1 2001;19(23):4280-4290.||||0.0903
91012457|NCT01140646|181907534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1553||||||One sided t-test with 0.05 error rate was employed.|t-test, 1 sided|||To determine whether any reduction in hot flash frequency is beyond what is expected with a placebo (20-25%). Reference: Sloan JA, et al. Methodologic lessons learned from hot flash studies. J Clin Oncol. Dec 1 2001;19(23):4280-4290.||||0.1553
91012458|NCT03006276|181907539|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|2.94|||Fisher Exact|||Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF)||2.94|1.36|<0.001
91012459|NCT03006276|181907539|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|2.89|||Fisher Exact|||||2.89|1.34|<0.001
90798435|NCT02949011|181476316|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0012||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||96 hours||||0.0012
90798436|NCT02949011|181476316|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.186||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||96 hours||||0.1860
90798437|NCT02949011|181476316|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0274||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||120 hours||||0.0274
90798438|NCT02949011|181476316|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9635||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||120 hours||||0.9635
90798439|NCT02949011|181476316|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0081||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||144 hours||||0.0081
90798440|NCT02949011|181476316|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7425||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||144 hours||||0.7425
90798441|NCT02949011|181476316|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0209||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||168 hours||||0.0209
90798442|NCT02949011|181476316|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7448||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||168 hours||||0.7448
90798443|NCT02949011|181476316|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0644||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||192 hours||||0.0644
90798444|NCT02949011|181476316|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4931||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||192 hours||||0.4931
90798445|NCT02949011|181476316|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0708||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||216 hours||||0.0708
90798446|NCT02949011|181476316|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4024||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||216 hours||||0.4024
90798447|NCT02949011|181476317|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference|-25.8|||<|0.0001||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Peto-Prentice's generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||||||<0.0001
90798448|NCT02949011|181476317|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference|-8.6||||0.9127||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Peto-Prentice's generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||||||0.9127
90798449|NCT02949011|181476318|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference|-15.1||||0.0013||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Peto-Prentice's generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||||||0.0013
90798450|NCT02949011|181476318|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference|2.3||||0.8498||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Peto-Prentice's generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||||||0.8498
90798451|NCT02949011|181476319|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference|-24.1||||0.0001||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Peto-Prentice's generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||||||0.0001
90798452|NCT02949011|181476319|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference|1.5||||0.9237||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Peto-Prentice's generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||||||0.9237
90798453|NCT02949011|181476320|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference|-19.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.8|-12.5||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Peto-Prentice's generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||||-12.5|-28.8|<0.0001
90798454|NCT02949011|181476320|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference|-3.5||||0.2425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|2.7||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Peto-Prentice's generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||||2.7|-9.1|0.2425
90798455|NCT02949011|181476321|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1713||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||12 hours||||0.1713
90798456|NCT02949011|181476321|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2249||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||12 hours||||0.2249
91012460|NCT03006276|181907540|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|2.43|||Fisher Exact|||last observation carried forward (LOCF)||2.43|1.17|0.007
90798457|NCT02949011|181476321|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0387||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||24 hours||||0.0387
90798458|NCT02949011|181476321|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3915||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||24 hours||||0.3915
91012461|NCT03006276|181907540|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.69||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|2.44|||Fisher Exact|||observed cases (OC)||2.44|1.16|0.007
91012462|NCT00689728|181907566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.178||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.178
91012463|NCT00689728|181907566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.116||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.116
91012464|NCT00689728|181907568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.873||||0.062||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline at 16 weeks for LY2127399 30 mg. vs. placebo in Physical Health Component scores.|ANCOVA|||||||0.062
90798459|NCT02949011|181476321|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||36 hours||||<0.0001
91012465|NCT00689728|181907568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.427||||0.052||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline at 16 weeks for LY2127399 80 mg. vs. placebo in Physical Health Component scores.|ANCOVA|||||||0.052
90798460|NCT02949011|181476321|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2617||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||36 hours||||0.2617
90798461|NCT02949011|181476321|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||48 hours||||<0.0001
91012466|NCT00689728|181907568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.72||||0.655||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline at 16 weeks for LY2127399 30 mg. vs. placebo in Mental Health Component scores.|ANCOVA|||||||0.655
91012467|NCT00689728|181907568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.264||||0.173||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline at 16 weeks for LY2127399 80 mg. vs. placebo in Mental Health Component scores.|ANCOVA|||||||0.173
91012468|NCT00689728|181907569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.281||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.281
91012469|NCT00689728|181907569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.218||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.218
91012470|NCT00689728|181907570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.500
91012471|NCT00689728|181907570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.444||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.444
90798462|NCT02949011|181476321|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8808||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||48 hours||||0.8808
90798463|NCT02949011|181476321|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||72 hours||||0.0001
91012472|NCT00689728|181907571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.5||||0.337||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.337
91012473|NCT00689728|181907571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.6||||0.038||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.038
91012474|NCT00689728|181907572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7||||0.403||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.403
91012475|NCT00689728|181907572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.3||||0.006||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.006
91012476|NCT00689728|181907573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.2||||0.168||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.168
91012477|NCT00689728|181907573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.3||||0.075||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.075
91012478|NCT00689728|181907574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.3||||0.157||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.157
91012479|NCT00689728|181907574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.6||||0.025||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.025
91012480|NCT00689728|181907575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.4||||0.11||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.110
91012481|NCT00689728|181907575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.1||||0.147||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.147
91012482|NCT00689728|181907576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.172||||0.969||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.969
91012483|NCT00689728|181907576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28||||0.452||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.452
91012484|NCT00689728|181907577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.554||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.554
91012485|NCT00689728|181907577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.920
91012486|NCT00689728|181907578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.912||||0.1||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.100
91012487|NCT00689728|181907578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.322||||0.005||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.005
91012488|NCT00689728|181907579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022||95.0||||p-value represents comparison of LY2127399-30 mg dose versus placebo for the 3 levels of EULAR response (good response, moderate response, no response).|Fisher Exact|||||||0.022
91012489|NCT00689728|181907579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016||95.0||||p-value represents comparison of LY2127399-80 mg dose versus placebo for the 3 levels of EULAR response (good response, moderate response, no response).|Fisher Exact|||||||0.016
91012490|NCT00689728|181907580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.6||||0.818||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.818
91012491|NCT00689728|181907580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.7||||0.066||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.066
91012492|NCT00689728|181907581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.010
91012493|NCT00689728|181907581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.056||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.056
91012494|NCT00689728|181907582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.001
90798464|NCT02949011|181476321|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5923||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||72 hours||||0.5923
90798465|NCT02949011|181476321|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0064||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||96 hours||||0.0064
90798466|NCT02949011|181476321|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6746||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||96 hours||||0.6746
90798467|NCT02949011|181476321|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8167||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||120 hours||||0.8167
90798468|NCT02949011|181476321|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3773||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||120 hours||||0.3773
90798469|NCT02949011|181476321|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1041||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||144 hours||||0.1041
90798470|NCT02949011|181476321|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3328||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||144 hours||||0.3328
90798471|NCT02949011|181476321|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7867||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||168 hours||||0.7867
91012495|NCT00689728|181907582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.015
91012496|NCT00689728|181907583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.146||95.0||||p-value is for Immunoglobulin G change at week 16 (LOCF)|ANCOVA|||||||0.146
91054019|NCT02912650|181990991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.79|2.96|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||2.96|1.79|<0.001
90798472|NCT02949011|181476321|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.864||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||168 hours||||0.8640
90798473|NCT02949011|181476321|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6465||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||192 hours||||0.6465
90798474|NCT02949011|181476321|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4265||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||192 hours||||0.4265
90798475|NCT02949011|181476321|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6568||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||216 hours||||0.6568
90798476|NCT02949011|181476321|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6102||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||216 hours||||0.6102
90798477|NCT02949011|181476322|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.0408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|-0.01||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptom, region, and body temperature at baseline as covariates.||12 hours||-0.01|-0.28|0.0408
90798478|NCT02949011|181476322|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.5324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.09||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptom, region, and body temperature at baseline as covariates.||12 hours||0.09|-0.18|0.5324
90798479|NCT02949011|181476322|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.06||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptom, region, and body temperature at baseline as covariates.||24 hours||-0.06|-0.30|0.0025
90798480|NCT02949011|181476322|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.4874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.16||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptom, region, and body temperature at baseline as covariates.||24 hours||0.16|-0.08|0.4874
91012497|NCT00689728|181907583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.125||95.0||||p-value is for Immunoglobulin G change at week 16 (LOCF)|ANCOVA|||||||0.125
91012498|NCT00689728|181907583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value is for Immunoglobulin M change at week 16 (LOCF)|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91012499|NCT00689728|181907583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||p-value is for Immunoglobulin M change at week 16 (LOCF)|ANCOVA|||||||0.005
91012500|NCT00689728|181907583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.115||95.0||||p-value is for Immunoglobulin A change at week 16 (LOCF)|ANCOVA|||||||0.115
91012501|NCT00689728|181907583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019||95.0||||p-value is for Immunoglobulin A change at week 16 (LOCF)|ANCOVA|||||||0.019
91012502|NCT03245372|181907586|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.114|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.114
91012503|NCT03245372|181907587|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.692|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.692
90798481|NCT02949011|181476322|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.24||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptom, region, and body temperature at baseline as covariates.||36 hours||-0.24|-0.47|<0.0001
90798482|NCT02949011|181476322|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.5414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.08||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptom, region, and body temperature at baseline as covariates.||36 hours||0.08|-0.15|0.5414
90798483|NCT02949011|181476322|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.22||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptom, region, and body temperature at baseline as covariates.||48 hours||-0.22|-0.44|<0.0001
90798484|NCT02949011|181476322|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.3185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.05||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptom, region, and body temperature at baseline as covariates.||48 hours||0.05|-0.17|0.3185
90798485|NCT02949011|181476322|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|-0.06||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptom, region, and body temperature at baseline as covariates.||72 hours||-0.06|-0.26|0.0025
90798486|NCT02949011|181476322|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.8299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.11||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptom, region, and body temperature at baseline as covariates.||72 hours||0.11|-0.09|0.8299
90798487|NCT02949011|181476322|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.0878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.01||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptom, region, and body temperature at baseline as covariates.||96 hours||0.01|-0.19|0.0878
91012504|NCT03245372|181907588|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.082|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.082
91012505|NCT03245372|181907589|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.443|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.443
90798488|NCT02949011|181476322|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.7498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.12||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptom, region, and body temperature at baseline as covariates.||96 hours||0.12|-0.09|0.7498
90798489|NCT02949011|181476322|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.09||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptom, region, and body temperature at baseline as covariates.||120 hours||0.09|-0.11|0.8030
90798490|NCT02949011|181476322|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.3577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.15||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptom, region, and body temperature at baseline as covariates.||120 hours||0.15|-0.05|0.3577
90798491|NCT02949011|181476323|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference|-23.1||||0.0009||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Peto-Prentice's generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Cough||||0.0009
90798492|NCT02949011|181476323|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference|-0.2||||0.4074||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Peto-Prentice's generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Cough||||0.4074
90798493|NCT02949011|181476323|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference|-6.3||||0.2496||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Peto-Prentice's generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Sore Throat||||0.2496
90798494|NCT02949011|181476323|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference|0.9||||0.2963||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Peto-Prentice's generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Sore Throat||||0.2963
91012506|NCT03245372|181907590|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.668|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.668
91012507|NCT03245372|181907591|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.516|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.516
91012508|NCT03245372|181907593|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.229|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.229
91012509|NCT03245372|181907594|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
91012510|NCT00842829|181907595|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the upper limit of the 90% CI was \<8%.|Mean Difference (Net)|-6.3|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||1.4|||||The upper bound of the 2-sided 90% confidence interval is equivalent to the upper bound of the 1-sided 95% confidence interval.|Treatment comparison difference (100 mcg - 200 mcg)||1.4||
91012511|NCT02155725|181907619|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9889||||0.9563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6633|1.4744|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.4744|0.6633|0.9563
91012512|NCT02155725|181907620|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0064||||0.9786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6321|1.6022|||Regression, Logistic|||Failure on individual component of the primary endpoint defined as administration of 2 units of RBCs.||1.6022|0.6321|0.9786
91012513|NCT02155725|181907621|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0169||||0.9474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6177|1.6741|||Regression, Logistic|||Failure on individual component of the primary endpoint defined as a loss of at least 4 g/dL of Hb.||1.6741|0.6177|0.9474
90798495|NCT02949011|181476323|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference|-10.6||||0.039||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Peto-Prentice's generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Headache||||0.0390
90798496|NCT02949011|181476323|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference|2.0||||0.7877||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Peto-Prentice's generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Headache||||0.7877
90798497|NCT02949011|181476323|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference|-12.1||||0.0017||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Peto-Prentice's generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Nasal Congestion||||0.0017
90798498|NCT02949011|181476323|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference|1.5||||0.8119||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Peto-Prentice's generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Nasal Congestion||||0.8119
90798499|NCT02949011|181476323|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference|-3.6||||0.007||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Peto-Prentice's generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Feverishness or Chills||||0.0070
90798500|NCT02949011|181476323|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference|-0.7||||0.9191||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Peto-Prentice's generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Feverishness or Chills||||0.9191
90798501|NCT02949011|181476323|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference|-7.7||||0.0232||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Peto-Prentice's generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Muscle or Joint Pain||||0.0232
90798502|NCT02949011|181476323|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference|4.0||||0.5436||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Peto-Prentice's generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Muscle or Joint Pain||||0.5436
90798503|NCT02949011|181476323|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference|-7.5||||0.0207||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Peto-Prentice's generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Fatigue||||0.0207
90798504|NCT02949011|181476323|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference|-1.9||||0.371||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Peto-Prentice's generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Fatigue||||0.3710
90798505|NCT02949011|181476324|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference|-23.4||||0.4634||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Peto-Prentice's generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||||||0.4634
90798506|NCT02949011|181476324|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference|-0.6||||0.6386||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Peto-Prentice's generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||||||0.6386
90798507|NCT02949011|181476325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0112||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.0112
90798508|NCT02949011|181476325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8478||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.8478
90798509|NCT02949011|181476326|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Any Complications||||<0.0001
90798510|NCT02949011|181476326|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2558||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Any Complications||||0.2558
90798511|NCT00163189|181476328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Student's paired t-test|||Month 36||||<0.001
90798512|NCT00163189|181476329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.008|||||||Student's paired t-test|||Month 36||||0.008
91012514|NCT04047342|181907622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.3||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.30|0.72|.828
90798513|NCT02261961|181476348|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.24275|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
90798514|NCT02261961|181476349|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.3707|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
90798515|NCT02261961|181476352|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.35579|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
90798516|NCT02261961|181476353|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.004493|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
90798517|NCT02261961|181476354|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.870653|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
90798518|NCT02261961|181476355|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.38664|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
90798519|NCT02261961|181476356|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.335124|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Outcomes were compared as percent change from the baseline measure using multiple methods by a blinded statistician. Differences between groups were assessed using ANCOVA, Welch's t-test, and Wilcoxon. No significant differences were found between groups for any outcome regardless of method used.||||>0.05
90798520|NCT02261961|181476358|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.03145|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
90798521|NCT02261961|181476359|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.43902|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
90798522|NCT02261961|181476369|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.07603|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
90798523|NCT02261961|181476388|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.4745|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
90798524|NCT02431325|181476397|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.01
90798525|NCT02431325|181476398|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04
90798526|NCT02431325|181476399|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.87
90798527|NCT02431325|181476400|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.047|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.047
90798528|NCT02431325|181476401|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
90798529|NCT02431325|181476402|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.07
90798530|NCT02431325|181476403|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.68
90798531|NCT02431325|181476404|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.49
90798532|NCT02431325|181476405|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.00
90798533|NCT02431325|181476406|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04
90798534|NCT02431325|181476407|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.07
90798535|NCT02431325|181476408|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.00
90798536|NCT02431325|181476409|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.34
91054020|NCT02912650|181990991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.32||||0.132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.73|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.73|-0.10|0.132
90798537|NCT02431325|181476410|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.33
90798538|NCT02431325|181476411|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.84
90798539|NCT02431325|181476412|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.51
90798540|NCT02431325|181476413|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.93
91012515|NCT00660829|181907626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5633|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.3345|<|0.001||95.0|-2.22|-0.91|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA is being used due to a covariate being included in the model. The covariate is baseline TNSS score.||||-0.91|-2.22|<0.001
91012516|NCT00660829|181907627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7444|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1677|<|0.001||95.0|-1.07|-0.42|||ANOVA|ANCOVA is being used due to a covariate being included in the model. The covariate is baseline TNSS score.||||-0.42|-1.07|<0.001
90798541|NCT02431325|181476414|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline at week 24||||0.09
90798542|NCT02431325|181476414|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline at week 12||||0.25
90798543|NCT02431325|181476415|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.51
90798544|NCT02431325|181476416|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.07
90798545|NCT01008618|181476425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0846|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0846
90798546|NCT02941614|181476440|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction.|see above|-0.21||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.48|4.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects.||Data below is for FACT-B 3 month Total Score||4.05|-4.48|0.92
90798547|NCT02941614|181476440|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction.|see above|1.37||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.41|6.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects.||The data below is for FACT-B 6 month Total Score||6.15|-3.41|0.57
90798548|NCT02941614|181476440|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|1.18||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.54|5.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects||The data below is for the Fact-B 12 month Total Score||5.89|-3.54|0.62
90798549|NCT02941614|181476440|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction.|see above|0.12||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|1.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects.||The data below is for the Fact-B 3 month Physical Well-Being Subscale||1.23|-0.99|0.83
90798550|NCT02941614|181476440|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|0.15||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|1.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects.||Data below is for the Fact-B 6 month Physical Well-Being Subscale||1.45|-1.15|0.82
90798551|NCT02941614|181476440|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|-0.13||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|1.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects.||Data below is for the Fact-B 12 month Physical Well-Being Subscale||1.15|-1.41|0.84
90798552|NCT02941614|181476440|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|-0.17||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|0.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects.||The data below is for the Fact-B 3 month Social/Family Well-Being Subscale||0.96|-1.31|0.77
91012517|NCT00660829|181907628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4403|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.3406|<|0.001||95.0|-2.11|-0.77|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA is being used due to a covariate being included in the model. The covariate is baseline TNSS score.||||-0.77|-2.11|<0.001
91054021|NCT02912650|181990991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.88|4.13|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||4.13|2.88|<0.001
90798553|NCT02941614|181476440|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|-0.56||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|0.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects.||The data below is for the Fact-B 6 month Social/Family Well-Being Subscale||0.79|-1.91|0.42
90798554|NCT02941614|181476440|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|-0.08||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|1.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects.||The data below is for the Fact-B 12 month Social/Family Well-Being Subscale||1.24|-1.41|0.90
90798555|NCT02941614|181476440|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|0.05||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects.||The data below is for the Fact-B 3 month Emotional Well-Being Subscale||0.87|-0.76|0.90
90798556|NCT02941614|181476440|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|0.58||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects.||The data below is for the Fact B 6 month Emotional Well-Being Subscale||1.56|-0.40|0.25
90798557|NCT02941614|181476440|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|0.6||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|1.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects.||The data below is for the Fact-B 12 month Emotional Well-Being Subscale||1.57|-0.36|0.22
90798558|NCT02941614|181476440|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|0.14||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|1.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects.||The data below is for Fact-B 3 month Functional Well-Being Subscale||1.34|-1.05|0.81
90798559|NCT02941614|181476440|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|0.54||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|1.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects.||The data below is for Fact-B 6 month Functional Well-Being Subscale||1.94|-0.85|0.45
90798560|NCT02941614|181476440|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|-0.11||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|1.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects.||The data below is for the Fact-B 12 month Functional Well-Being Subscale||1.26|-1.48|0.87
91012518|NCT00660829|181907629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2907|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.3204|<|0.001||95.0|-1.92|0.66|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA is being used due to a covariate being included in the model. The covariate is baseline TNSS score.||Change in baseline||0.66|-1.92|<0.001
91012519|NCT00660829|181907630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline||||0.001
90798561|NCT02941614|181476440|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|0.16||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|1.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects.||The data below is for the Fact-B 3 month Breast Cancer Subscale||1.45|-1.13|0.80
90798562|NCT02941614|181476440|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|0.73||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|2.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects.||The data below is for the Fact-B 6 month Breast Cancer Subscale||2.24|-0.79|0.35
90890314|NCT04313881|181645082|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.947||||0.795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.629|1.426||2-sided P-value, odds ratio and its 95% CI were based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method stratified by stratification factors (geographic region, cytogenetic risk status, and bone marrow blast percentage).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for response rate was based on Clopper-Pearson exact method.|||1.426|0.629|0.7950
91012520|NCT02127931|181907637|OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Correlation|||ADHD-I||||0.005
91012521|NCT02127931|181907637|OTHER|||||||0.023|||||||Correlation|||ADHD-C||||0.023
91012522|NCT02127931|181907638|OTHER|||||||0.013|||||||Correlation|||||||0.013
91012523|NCT02612194|181907679|OTHER|Estimation only.|Overall Response Rate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.369|||||Confidence interval estimated using the Clopper Pearson method.|||0.369|0.000|
91012524|NCT02612194|181907680|OTHER|Estimation only|Median|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|6.1|||||The Kaplan Meier method was used to estimate the median OS (in months) for the population. The Greenwood method was used to estimate the confidence limits of the median overall survival.|||6.1|0.2|
91012525|NCT02612194|181907681|OTHER|Estimation only|Median|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.8|||||The Kaplan Meier method was used to estimate the median PFS (in months) for the population. The Greenwood method was used to estimate the confidence limits of the median progression free survival.|||1.8|0.2|
91012526|NCT02539160|181907682|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|6.4||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|14.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||14.3|-1.1|0.105
90798563|NCT02941614|181476440|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|0.6||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|2.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects.||The data below is for the Fact-B 12 month Breast Cancer Subscale||2.09|-0.88|0.42
90798564|NCT02941614|181476441|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction.|see above|-0.03||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.09||We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects|Mixed Models Analysis|||Data below is for the BCPT survey 3 month Total Score.||0.09|-0.15|0.59
90798565|NCT02941614|181476441|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|0.05||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects||The data below is the BCPT survey 6 month Total Score||0.19|-0.09|0.47
90798566|NCT02941614|181476441|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|-0.06||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects||The data below is the BCPT survey 12 month Total Score||0.07|-0.20|0.37
90798567|NCT02941614|181476441|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|-0.05||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects||The data below is the BCPT survey 3 month Hot Flashes Sub-Scale||0.17|-0.26|0.65
90798568|NCT02941614|181476441|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|0.08||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects||The data below is the BCPT survey 6 month Hot Flashes Sub-Scale||0.33|-0.17|0.54
90798569|NCT02941614|181476441|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|-0.02||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects||The data below is the BCPT survey 12 month Hot Flashes Sub-Scale||0.22|-0.27|0.87
90798570|NCT02941614|181476441|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|-0.06||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects||The data below is the BCPT survey 3 month Nausea Sub-Scale||0.06|-0.17|0.32
90798571|NCT02941614|181476441|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|0.0||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects||The data below is the BCPT survey 6 month Nausea Sub-Scale||0.14|-0.15|0.96
90798572|NCT02941614|181476441|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|-0.07||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects||The data below is the BCPT survey 12 month Nausea Sub-Scale||0.07|-0.21|0.32
90798573|NCT02941614|181476441|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|-0.07||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects||The data below is the BCPT survey 3 month Bladder Control Sub-Scale||0.11|-0.24|0.44
90798574|NCT02941614|181476441|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|0.09||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects||The data below is the BCPT survey 6 month Bladder Control Sub-Scale||0.30|-0.11|0.38
90798575|NCT02941614|181476441|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|-0.07||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects||The data below is for the BCPT survey 12 month Bladder Control Sub-Scale||0.13|-0.28|0.47
90798576|NCT02941614|181476441|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|-0.17||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects||The data below is the BCPT survey 3 month Vaginal Problems Sub-Scale||0.05|-0.39|0.13
91012527|NCT02539160|181907682|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.0||||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|13.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||||13.7|-1.5|0.112
90798577|NCT02941614|181476441|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|-0.29||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects||The data below is the BCPT survey 6 month Vaginal Problems Sub-Scale||-0.02|-0.55|0.03
90798578|NCT02941614|181476441|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|-0.19||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects||The data below is the BCPT survey 12 month Vaginal Problems Sub-Scale||0.06|-0.45|0.14
90798579|NCT02941614|181476441|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|0.07||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects||The data below is the BCPT survey 3 month Musculoskeletal Pain Sub-Scale||0.28|-0.14|0.53
90798580|NCT02941614|181476441|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|0.1||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects||The data below is the BCPT survey 6 month Musculoskeletal Pain Sub-Scale||0.35|-0.16|0.47
90798581|NCT02941614|181476441|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|0.07||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects||The data below is the BCPT survey 12 month Musculoskeletal Pain Sub-Scale||0.33|-0.18|0.57
90798582|NCT02941614|181476441|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|0.02||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects||The data below is the BCPT survey 3 month Cognitive Problems Sub-Scale||0.21|-0.18|0.85
91012528|NCT01728454|181907688|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||On-Drug Cycle 1||||0.0360
91012529|NCT01728454|181907688|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1087|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||On-Drug Cycle 1||||0.1087
91012530|NCT01728454|181907688|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2263|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||Off-Drug Cycle 1||||0.2263
91012531|NCT01728454|181907688|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5375|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||Off-Drug Cycle 1||||0.5375
91012532|NCT01728454|181907689|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1017|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||On-Drug Cycle 1||||0.1017
91012533|NCT01728454|181907689|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1927|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||On-Drug Cycle 1||||0.1927
91012534|NCT01728454|181907689|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1017|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||Off-Drug Cycle 1||||0.1017
91012535|NCT01728454|181907689|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1927|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||Off-Drug Cycle 1||||0.1927
91012536|NCT01728454|181907690|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7508|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||On-Drug Cycle 1||||0.7508
91012537|NCT01728454|181907690|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5507|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||On-Drug Cycle 1||||0.5507
91012538|NCT01728454|181907690|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3993|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||Off-Drug Cycle 1||||0.3993
91012539|NCT01728454|181907690|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5821|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||Off-Drug Cycle 1||||0.5821
91012540|NCT01728454|181907691|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7507|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||On-Drug Cycle||||0.7507
91012541|NCT01728454|181907691|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8919|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||On-Drug Cycle||||0.8919
91012542|NCT01728454|181907692|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.478|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||On-Drug Cycle||||0.4780
91012543|NCT01728454|181907692|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2354|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||On-Drug Cycle||||0.2354
91012544|NCT01728454|181907693|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.114|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||On-Drug Cycle||||0.1140
91012545|NCT01728454|181907693|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1636|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||On-Drug Cycle||||0.1636
91012546|NCT01728454|181907694|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.114|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||On-Drug Cycle||||0.1140
91012547|NCT01728454|181907694|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0733|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||On-Drug Cycle||||0.0733
91012548|NCT01728454|181907695|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1253|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||On-Drug Cycle||||0.1253
91012549|NCT01728454|181907695|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3442|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||On-Drug Cycle||||0.3442
91012550|NCT01728454|181907696|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0303|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||On-Drug Cycle||||0.0303
91012551|NCT01728454|181907696|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2864|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||On-Drug Cycle||||0.2864
91012552|NCT01728454|181907697|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4365|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||PTS: LOCF Cycle 1||||0.4365
91012553|NCT01728454|181907697|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1302|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||PTS: LOCF Cycle 1||||0.1302
91012554|NCT01728454|181907697|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3591|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||PTS: ODI Cycle 1||||0.3591
91012555|NCT01728454|181907697|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0872|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||PTS: ODI Cycle 1||||0.0872
91012556|NCT01728454|181907697|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4814|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||IS: LOCF Cycle 1||||0.4814
91012557|NCT01728454|181907697|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9162|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||IS: LOCF Cycle 1||||0.9162
91012558|NCT01728454|181907697|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6607|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||IS: ODI Cycle 1||||0.6607
91012559|NCT01728454|181907697|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9527|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||IS: ODI Cycle 1||||0.9527
91012560|NCT01728454|181907698|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2812|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||LOCF Cycle 1||||0.2812
90798583|NCT02941614|181476441|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|0.1||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects||The data below is the BCPT survey 6 month Cognitive Problems Sub-Scale||0.32|-0.12|0.38
90798584|NCT02941614|181476441|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|-0.13||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects||The data below is the BCPT survey 12 month Cognitive Problems Sub-Scale||0.09|-0.35|0.23
91012561|NCT01728454|181907698|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5858|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||LOCF Cycle 1||||0.5858
90798585|NCT02941614|181476441|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|-0.14||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects||The data below is the BCPT survey 3 month Weight Problems Sub-Scale||0.07|-0.35|0.18
90798586|NCT02941614|181476441|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|-0.12||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects||The data below is the BCPT survey 6 month Weight Problems Sub-Scale||0.13|-0.36|0.35
90798587|NCT02941614|181476441|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|-0.12||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects||The data below is the BCPT survey 12 month Weight Problems Sub-Scale||0.12|-0.36|0.34
90798588|NCT02941614|181476441|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|0.09||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects||The data below is the BCPT survey 3 month Arm Problems Sub-Scale||0.25|-0.06|0.22
90798589|NCT02941614|181476441|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|0.11||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects||The data below is the BCPT survey 6 month Arm Problems Sub-Scale||0.29|-0.08|0.26
90798590|NCT02941614|181476441|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|0.09||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects||The data below is the BCPT survey 12 month Arm Problems Sub-Scale||0.27|-0.09|0.34
90798591|NCT02941614|181476442|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.86||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.96|||Regression, Poisson|||||0.96|0.77|0.006
90798592|NCT02941614|181476443|OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.07||||0.356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.07|||Regression, Poisson|||||1.07|0.93|0.356
90798593|NCT02941614|181476444|OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.02||||0.919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.41|||Regression/Poisson|||||1.41|0.73|0.919
90798594|NCT02941614|181476445|OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.16||||0.367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.62|||Regression, Poisson|||The data below applies to Emergency Department visits||1.62|0.84|0.367
90798595|NCT02941614|181476445|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.84||||0.497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.38|||Regression, Poisson|||The data below applies to Urgent Care visits||1.38|0.51|0.497
90798596|NCT01469039|181476459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91012562|NCT01728454|181907698|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4116|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||ODI Cycle 1||||0.4116
90798597|NCT01469039|181476459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90798598|NCT01469039|181476460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||significant p-value, active vs placebo|Wilcoxon rank sum test based on LOCF|||||||<0.001
90798599|NCT01469039|181476460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||significant p-value, active vs placebo|Wilcoxon rank sum test based on LOCF|||||||<0.001
90798600|NCT02013609|181476476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measure (MMRM) with model terms: Baseline, visit, and Baseline by visit interaction||The null hypothesis of zero in mean change from Baseline in MADRS total score at Week 12 was tested at significance level of 0.05. Since this is an exploratory trial, no methods to control type I error rate were performed.||||<0.0001
90798601|NCT02013609|181476477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with model terms: Baseline, visit, and Baseline by visit interaction||Statistical analysis at Week 12.||||<0.0001
91012563|NCT01728454|181907698|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4252|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||ODI Cycle 1||||0.4252
91012564|NCT01728454|181907699|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6131|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||SAP: On-Drug Cycle 1||||0.6131
91012565|NCT01728454|181907699|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7881|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||SAP: On-Drug Cycle 1||||0.7881
91012566|NCT01728454|181907699|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9376|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||SAP: Off-Drug Cycle 1||||0.9376
91012567|NCT01728454|181907699|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6552|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||SAP: Off-Drug Cycle 1||||0.6552
91012568|NCT01728454|181907699|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7143|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||EP: On-Drug Cycle 1||||0.7143
91012569|NCT01728454|181907699|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2985|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||EP: On-Drug Cycle 1||||0.2985
90798602|NCT02013609|181476482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with model terms: Baseline, visit, and Baseline by visit interaction.||Statistical analysis at Week 12.||||<0.0001
90798603|NCT02013609|181476483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with model terms: Baseline, visit, and Baseline by visit interaction||Statistical analysis at Week 12.||||<0.0001
90798604|NCT02013609|181476484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value is the same for each of single item sub-scores of tasks: work/ school, social life and family life/ home responsibilities|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with model terms: Baseline, visit, and Baseline by visit interaction||Statistical analysis at Week 12 of single item sub-scores of tasks: work/ school, social life and family life/ home responsibilities||||<0.0001
90798605|NCT02013609|181476485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with model terms: Baseline, visit, and Baseline by visit interaction||Statistical analysis at Week 12.||||<0.0001
90798606|NCT02013609|181476486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with model terms: Baseline, visit, and Baseline by visit interaction||Statistical analysis at Week 12||||<0.0001
90798607|NCT02013609|181476487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with model terms: Baseline, visit, and Baseline by visit interaction||Statistical analysis at Week 12||||<0.0001
90798608|NCT02013609|181476488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3439|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|p-value for change from Baseline using t-test.||Statistical analysis at Week 12 for p-inhibition failures (Go cues)||||0.3439
90798609|NCT02013609|181476488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3385|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|p-value for change from Baseline using t-test.||Statistical analysis at Week 12 for p-inhibition failures (No-Go cues)||||0.3385
90798610|NCT02013609|181476489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2052|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|p-value for change from Baseline using t-test.||Statistical analysis at Week 12 for mean reaction time (Go cues)||||0.2052
90798611|NCT02013609|181476489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3224|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|p-value for change from Baseline using t-test.||Statistical analysis at Week 12 for mean reaction time (No-Go cues)||||0.3224
90798612|NCT02013609|181476490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3169|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|p-value for change from Baseline using t-test.||Statistical analysis at Week 12||||0.3169
90798613|NCT02013609|181476491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3352|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis at Week 12||||0.3352
90798614|NCT02013609|181476492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3517|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis at Week 12 for delay discounting task k value||||0.3517
90798615|NCT02013609|181476492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3799|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis at Week 12 for delay discounting task h value||||0.3799
90798616|NCT02013609|181476493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.261|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis at Week 12 (AUC for food)||||0.2610
90798617|NCT02013609|181476493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8138|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis at Week 12 (AUC for money)||||0.8138
90798618|NCT02013609|181476494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8138|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis at Week 12 (AUC for money)||||0.8138
90798619|NCT02013609|181476495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with model terms: Baseline, visit, and Baseline by visit interaction||Statistical analysis at Week 12.||||<0.0001
90798620|NCT01816295|181476496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
90798621|NCT01816295|181476497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.42|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|99.5|1.05|9.07|||ANCOVA|||||9.07|1.05|<0.001
90798622|NCT01816295|181476498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25||0.019|TWO_SIDED|99.5|-0.59|6.45|||ANCOVA|||||6.45|-0.59|0.019
90798623|NCT01816295|181476499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.41|||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 12||0.41|-0.94|0.442
90798624|NCT01816295|181476499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.72|||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 36||0.72|-0.82|0.905
90798625|NCT00783432|181476505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.368||95.0||||This is the Baseline P-Value|ANOVA|||Sample size was based on ICH Guideline E1:The Extent of Population Exposure to Assess Clinical Safety for Drugs Intended for Long-Term Treatment of Non-Life-Threatening Conditions. Comparisons performed using ANCOVA with baseline as a covariate. The model included treatment group and country as fixed effects to estimate least squares means.||||0.368
90798626|NCT00783432|181476505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.327||95.0||||This P-Value if for Month 1|ANCOVA|||Sample size was based on ICH Guideline E1:The Extent of Population Exposure to Assess Clinical Safety for Drugs Intended for Long-Term Treatment of Non-Life-Threatening Conditions. Comparisons performed using ANCOVA with baseline as a covariate. The model included treatment group and country as fixed effects to estimate least squares means.||||0.327
90798627|NCT00783432|181476505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.991||95.0||||This P-Value is for Month 3|ANCOVA|||Sample size was based on ICH Guideline E1:The Extent of Population Exposure to Assess Clinical Safety for Drugs Intended for Long-Term Treatment of Non-Life-Threatening Conditions. Comparisons performed using ANCOVA with baseline as a covariate. The model included treatment group and country as fixed effects to estimate least squares means.||||0.991
91012570|NCT01728454|181907699|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3162|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||EP: Off-Drug Cycle 1||||0.3162
91012571|NCT01728454|181907699|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7503|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||EP: Off-Drug Cycle 1||||0.7503
91012572|NCT01362062|181907716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 3.||||=0.001
91012573|NCT01362062|181907716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 4.||||=0.001
91012574|NCT01362062|181907716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 5.||||=0.001
91012575|NCT01362062|181907716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 6.||||=0.001
91012576|NCT01362062|181907716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 7.||||=0.001
91012577|NCT01362062|181907716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 8.||||=0.001
91012578|NCT01362062|181907716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 9.||||=0.001
91012579|NCT01362062|181907716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 10.||||=0.001
90798628|NCT00783432|181476505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.168||95.0||||This P-Value is for Month 6|ANCOVA|||Sample size was based on ICH Guideline E1:The Extent of Population Exposure to Assess Clinical Safety for Drugs Intended for Long-Term Treatment of Non-Life-Threatening Conditions. Comparisons performed using ANCOVA with baseline as a covariate. The model included treatment group and country as fixed effects to estimate least squares means.||||0.168
90798629|NCT00783432|181476505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.319||95.0||||This P-Value is for Month 9|ANCOVA|||Sample size was based on ICH Guideline E1:The Extent of Population Exposure to Assess Clinical Safety for Drugs Intended for Long-Term Treatment of Non-Life-Threatening Conditions. Comparisons performed using ANCOVA with baseline as a covariate. The model included treatment group and country as fixed effects to estimate least squares means.||||0.319
90798630|NCT00783432|181476505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.725||||||This P-Value is for Month 12/ET|ANCOVA|||Sample size was based on ICH Guideline E1:The Extent of Population Exposure to Assess Clinical Safety for Drugs Intended for Long-Term Treatment of Non-Life-Threatening Conditions. Comparisons performed using ANCOVA with baseline as a covariate. The model included treatment group and country as fixed effects to estimate least squares means.||||0.725
90798631|NCT01331681|181476511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|6.5|12.0||Significance level alpha=0.025 for two sided test to adjust for multiplicity. Since this p-value was below the significance level of 0.025, the fixed sequence testing did continue with the first secondary endpoint.|ANCOVA|Treatment group and geographic region (Japan vs. Non-Japan) as factors and baseline value as covariate.|Least square (LS) mean difference from ANCOVA. The estimate is calculated as EYLEA minus Laser. A positive value indicates a result in favor of EYLEA.|Hypothesis: Mean change identical in both groups||12.0|6.5|<0.0001
90798632|NCT01331681|181476511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|6.3|11.8||Significance level alpha=0.025 for two sided test to adjust for multiplicity. Since this p-value was below the significance level of 0.025, the fixed sequence testing did continue with the first secondary endpoint.|ANCOVA|Treatment group and geographic region (Japan vs. Non-Japan) as factors and baseline value as covariate.|LS mean difference from ANCOVA. The estimate is calculated as EYLEA minus Laser. A positive value indicates a result in favor of EYLEA.|Hypothesis: Mean change identical in both groups||11.8|6.3|<0.0001
90798633|NCT01331681|181476512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||CMH adjusted difference|28.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|15.8|41.6||Significance level alpha=0.025 for two sided test to adjust for multiplicity. Since this p-value and the preceding ones were below the significance level of 0.025, the fixed sequence testing did continue with the second secondary endpoint.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratifying by geographic region (Japan vs non-Japan).|The estimate is calculated as EYLEA minus Laser. A positive value indicates a result in favor of EYLEA.|Hypothesis: Probability to gain \>= 10 letters identical in both groups||41.6|15.8|<0.0001
90798634|NCT01331681|181476512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||CMH adjusted difference|27.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|14.6|40.5||Significance level alpha=0.025 for two sided test to adjust for multiplicity. Since this p-value and the preceding ones were below the significance level of 0.025, the fixed sequence testing did continue with the second secondary endpoint.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratifying by geographic region (Japan vs non-Japan).|The estimate is calculated as EYLEA minus Laser. A positive value indicates a result in favor of EYLEA.|Hypothesis: Probability to gain \>= 10 letters identical in both groups||40.5|14.6|<0.0001
90798635|NCT01331681|181476513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||CMH adjusted difference|23.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|12.6|33.9||Significance level alpha=0.025 for two sided test to adjust for multiplicity. Since this p-value and the preceding ones were below the significance level of 0.025, the fixed sequence testing did continue with the third secondary endpoint.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratifying by geographic region (Japan vs non-Japan).|The estimate is calculated as EYLEA minus Laser. A positive value indicates a result in favor of EYLEA.|Hypothesis: Probability to gain \>= 15 letters identical in both groups||33.9|12.6|<0.0001
90798636|NCT01331681|181476513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||CMH adjusted difference|24.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|13.5|34.9||Significance level alpha=0.025 for two sided test to adjust for multiplicity. Since this p-value and the preceding ones were below the significance level of 0.025, the fixed sequence testing did continue with the third secondary endpoint.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratifying by geographic region (Japan vs non-Japan).|The estimate is calculated as EYLEA minus Laser. A positive value indicates a result in favor of EYLEA.|Hypothesis: Probability to gain \>= 15 letters identical in both groups||34.9|13.5|<0.0001
90890315|NCT04313881|181645083|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.837||||0.461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.522|1.343||2-sided P-value was based on stratified log-rank test, stratified by stratification factors.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio and its 95% CI were calculated using the Cox proportional hazards regression model, stratified by stratification factors.|||1.343|0.522|0.4610
91012580|NCT01362062|181907716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 11.||||=0.001
91012581|NCT01362062|181907716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 12.||||=0.001
91012582|NCT01362062|181907716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 13.||||=0.001
91012583|NCT01362062|181907717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 3.||||=0.003
91012584|NCT01362062|181907717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 4.||||=0.005
91012585|NCT01362062|181907717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 5.||||=0.002
91012586|NCT01362062|181907717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.014|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 6.||||=0.014
91012587|NCT01362062|181907717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 7.||||=0.001
91012588|NCT01362062|181907717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 8.||||=0.008
91012589|NCT01362062|181907717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.014|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 9.||||=0.014
91012590|NCT01362062|181907717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 10.||||=0.009
91012591|NCT01362062|181907717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 11.||||=0.001
91012592|NCT01362062|181907717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 12.||||=0.001
90798637|NCT01331681|181476514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||CMH adjusted difference|25.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|12.2|39.4||Significance level alpha=0.025 for two sided test to adjust for multiplicity. Since this p-value and the preceding ones were below the significance level of 0.025, the fixed sequence testing did continue with the fourth secondary endpoint.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratifying by geographic region (Japan vs non-Japan).|The estimate is calculated as EYLEA minus Laser. A positive value indicates a result in favor of EYLEA.|Hypothesis: Probability to improve by \>= 2 steps identical in both groups||39.4|12.2|<0.0001
90798638|NCT01331681|181476514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||CMH adjusted difference|19.3||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|97.5|6.6|32.1||Significance level alpha=0.025 for two sided test to adjust for multiplicity. Since this p-value and the preceding ones were below the significance level of 0.025, the fixed sequence testing did continue with the fourth secondary endpoint.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratifying by geographic region (Japan vs non-Japan).|The estimate is calculated as EYLEA minus Laser. A positive value indicates a result in favor of EYLEA.|Hypothesis: Probability to improve by \>= 2 steps identical in both groups||32.1|6.6|0.0006
90798639|NCT01331681|181476515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-157.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-190.9|-123.1||Significance level alpha=0.025 for two sided test to adjust for multiplicity. Since this p-value and the preceding ones were below the significance level of 0.025, the fixed sequence testing did continue with the fifth secondary endpoint.|ANCOVA|Treatment group and geographic region (Japan vs. Non-Japan) as factors and baseline value as covariate.|LS mean difference from ANCOVA. The estimate is calculated as EYLEA minus Laser. A positive value indicates a result in favor of EYLEA.|Hypothesis: Mean change identical in both groups||-123.1|-190.9|<0.0001
90798640|NCT01331681|181476515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-142.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-179.3|-106.3||Significance level alpha=0.025 for two sided test to adjust for multiplicity. Since this p-value and the preceding ones were below the significance level of 0.025, the fixed sequence testing did continue with the fifth secondary endpoint.|ANCOVA|Treatment group and geographic region (Japan vs. Non-Japan) as factors and baseline value as covariate|LS mean difference from ANCOVA. The estimate is calculated as EYLEA minus Laser. A negative value indicates a result in favor of EYLEA.|Hypothesis: Mean change identical in both groups||-106.3|-179.3|<0.0001
90798641|NCT01331681|181476516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.41||||0.2208|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.01|6.82||Significance level alpha=0.025 for two sided test to adjust for multiplicity. Since this p-value is not below of 0.025, the fixed sequence testing stops here. The sixth secondary endpoint cannot be tested confirmatory.|ANCOVA|Treatment group and geographic region (Japan vs. Non-Japan) as factors and baseline value as covariate.|LS mean difference from ANCOVA. The estimate is calculated as EYLEA minus Laser. A positive value indicates a result in favor of EYLEA.|Hypothesis: Mean change identical in both groups||6.82|-2.01|0.2208
90798642|NCT01331681|181476516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.21||||0.5537|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-5.79|3.37||Significance level alpha=0.025 for two sided test to adjust for multiplicity. Since this p-value is not below of 0.025, the fixed sequence testing stops here. The sixth secondary endpoint cannot be tested confirmatory.|ANCOVA|Treatment group and geographic region (Japan vs. Non-Japan) as factors and baseline value as covariate.|LS mean difference from ANCOVA. The estimate is calculated as EYLEA minus Laser. A positive value indicates a result in favor of EYLEA.|Hypothesis: Mean change identical in both groups||3.37|-5.79|0.5537
90798643|NCT01331681|181476517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.19||||0.5138|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-5.29|2.91|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference from ANCOVA. The estimate is calculated as EYLEA minus Laser. A positive value indicates a result in favor of EYLEA.|Hypothesis: Mean change identical in both groups||2.91|-5.29|0.5138
90798644|NCT01331681|181476517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37||||0.8498|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-4.79|4.05|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference from ANCOVA. The estimate is calculated as EYLEA minus Laser. A positive value indicates a result in favor of EYLEA.|Hypothesis: Mean change identical in both groups||4.05|-4.79|0.8498
90798645|NCT05525910|181476530|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|105.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.54|116.68||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300(2\*150)/100 mg Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 2\*(150/50 mg) Low Disintegrant||116.68|94.54|
91012593|NCT01362062|181907717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 13.||||=0.001
91012594|NCT01362062|181907718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 3.||||=0.002
91012595|NCT01362062|181907718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 4.||||=0.001
91012596|NCT01362062|181907718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 5.||||=0.002
91012597|NCT01362062|181907718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 6.||||=0.001
91012598|NCT01362062|181907718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 7.||||=0.001
91012599|NCT01362062|181907718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 8.||||=0.001
91012600|NCT01362062|181907718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 9.||||=0.001
91012601|NCT01362062|181907718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 10.||||=0.001
91012602|NCT01362062|181907718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 11.||||=0.001
91012603|NCT01362062|181907718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 12.||||=0.001
91012604|NCT01362062|181907718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 13.||||=0.001
91012605|NCT01362062|181907719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 3.||||=0.001
90798646|NCT05525910|181476530|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|109.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.08|121.47||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300(2\*150)/100 mg Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 2\*(150/50 mg) High Disintegrant||121.47|98.08|
91012606|NCT01362062|181907719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 4.||||=0.001
90798647|NCT05525910|181476530|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|100.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.79|111.74||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300(2\*150)/100 mg Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 2\*(150/50 mg) HDL||111.74|90.79|
90798648|NCT05525910|181476530|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|110.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.58|122.52||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300(2\*150)/100 mg Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 3\*(100/33.3 mg)||122.52|99.58|
90798649|NCT05525910|181476531|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|104.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.78|117.24||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300(2\*150)/100 mg Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 2\*(150/50 mg) Low Disintegrant||117.24|93.78|
90798650|NCT05525910|181476531|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|109.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.93|122.89||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300(2\*150)/100 mg Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 2\*(150/50 mg) High Disintegrant||122.89|97.93|
90798651|NCT05525910|181476531|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|100.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.69|111.8||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300(2\*150)/100 mg Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 2\*(150/50 mg) HDL||111.80|89.69|
90798652|NCT05525910|181476531|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|109.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.36|122.57||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300(2\*150)/100 mg Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 3\*(100/33.3 mg)||122.57|98.36|
90798653|NCT05525910|181476532|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|109.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.97|127.06||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300(2\*150)/100 mg Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 2\*(150/50 mg) Low Disintegrant||127.06|94.97|
90798654|NCT05525910|181476532|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|114.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.92|132.98||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300(2\*150)/100 mg Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 2\*(150/50 mg) High Disintegrant||132.98|98.92|
90798655|NCT05525910|181476532|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|109.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.64|126.14||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300(2\*150)/100 mg Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 2\*(150/50 mg) HDL||126.14|94.64|
90798656|NCT05525910|181476532|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|115.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.48|133.87||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300(2\*150)/100 mg Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 3\*(100/33.3 mg)||133.87|100.48|
90798657|NCT05525910|181476533|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|88.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.24|103.53||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300(2\*150)/100 mg Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 2\*(150/50 mg) Low Disintegrant||103.53|76.24|
90798658|NCT05525910|181476533|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|95.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.41|111.11||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300(2\*150)/100 mg Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 2\*(150/50 mg) High Disintegrant||111.11|81.41|
90798659|NCT05525910|181476533|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|85.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|73.73|99.7||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300(2\*150)/100 mg Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 2\*(150/50 mg) HDL||99.70|73.73|
90798660|NCT05525910|181476533|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|93.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.09|108.26||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300(2\*150)/100 mg Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 3\*(100/33.3 mg)||108.26|80.09|
90798661|NCT05525910|181476534|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|88.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.64|104.78||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300(2\*150)/100 mg Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 2\*(150/50 mg) Low Disintegrant||104.78|74.64|
91012607|NCT01362062|181907719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 5.||||=0.001
91012608|NCT01362062|181907719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 6.||||=0.001
91012609|NCT01362062|181907719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 7.||||=0.001
90798662|NCT05525910|181476534|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|96.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.8|114.06||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300(2\*150)/100 mg Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 2\*(150/50 mg) High Disintegrant||114.06|80.80|
90798663|NCT05525910|181476534|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|84.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|71.15|99.43||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300(2\*150)/100 mg Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 2\*(150/50 mg) HDL||99.43|71.15|
90798664|NCT05525910|181476534|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|90.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.99|107.54||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300(2\*150)/100 mg Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 3\*(100/33.3 mg)||107.54|76.99|
90798665|NCT05525910|181476535|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|82.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|65.85|103.74||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300(2\*150)/100 mg Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 2\*(150/50 mg) Low Disintegrant||103.74|65.85|
90798666|NCT05525910|181476535|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|94.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.28|119.49||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300(2\*150)/100 mg Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 2\*(150/50 mg) High Disintegrant||119.49|75.28|
90798667|NCT05525910|181476535|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|81.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|65.18|102.07||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300(2\*150)/100 mg Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 2\*(150/50 mg) HDL||102.07|65.18|
90798668|NCT05525910|181476535|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|88.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.65|110.57||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300(2\*150)/100 mg Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 3\*(100/33.3 mg)||110.57|70.65|
90798669|NCT00565409|181476551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.36|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|9.0||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel(CMH) test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and Odds Ratio (OR) stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Loss of efficacy (LOE) imputation defined as LOE drop-outs were treated as non-responders/all other participants had LOCF applied as primary analysis.||Sample size estimated based on moderate/severe rheumatoid arthritis(RA) trial. Study design included only moderate RA participants, thus a low disease activity estimate of 85% (ETN+MTX) vs 70% (MTX only) assumed, required 175 randomized participants in 3 treatments for a 90% power and Type I error of 0.05 to reject the null hypothesis of no ETN+MTX vs MTX only differences. More participants qualified for Period 2 than expected, Period 2 sample size roughly 15% larger than protocol-specified.||9.0|3.2|<0.0001
90798670|NCT00565409|181476551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.3805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.0||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|LOE imputation defined as LOE drop-outs were treated as non-responders and all other participants had LOCF applied as primary analysis.||||2.0|0.7|0.3805
90798671|NCT00565409|181476551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|7.6||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|LOE imputation defined as LOE drop-outs were treated as non-responders and all other participants had LOCF applied as primary analysis.||||7.6|3.0|<0.0001
90798672|NCT00565409|181476553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.11||||0.0853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|21.4||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 36 Low Disease Activity||21.4|0.5|0.0853
90798673|NCT00565409|181476553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.8491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|4.8||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 36 Low Disease Activity||4.8|0.2|0.8491
90798674|NCT00565409|181476553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.97||||0.1278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|42.5||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 36 Low Disease Activity||42.5|0.4|0.1278
90798675|NCT00565409|181476553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|6.4||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40 Low Disease Activity||6.4|2.1|<0.0001
90798676|NCT00565409|181476553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.3027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.7||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40 Low Disease Activity||2.7|0.8|0.3027
90798677|NCT00565409|181476553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|4.2||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40 Low Disease Activity||4.2|1.5|<0.0001
90798678|NCT00565409|181476553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|7.6||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48 Low Disease Activity||7.6|2.7|<0.0001
90798679|NCT00565409|181476553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.5871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.1||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48 Low Disease Activity||2.1|0.7|0.5871
91012610|NCT01362062|181907719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 8.||||=0.001
90798680|NCT00565409|181476553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|6.1||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48 Low Disease Activity||6.1|2.3|<0.0001
90798681|NCT00565409|181476553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|11.0||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 56 Low Disease Activity||11.0|3.9|<0.0001
90798682|NCT00565409|181476553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.6716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.0||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 56 Low Disease Activity||2.0|0.6|0.6716
90798683|NCT00565409|181476553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|8.6||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 56 Low Disease Activity||8.6|3.4|<0.0001
90798684|NCT00565409|181476553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|7.6||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 64 Low Disease Activity||7.6|2.8|<0.0001
90798685|NCT00565409|181476553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.9399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.5||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 64 Low Disease Activity||1.5|0.5|0.9399
90798686|NCT00565409|181476553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|7.7||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 64 Low Disease Activity||7.7|3.0|<0.0001
90798687|NCT00565409|181476553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|10.5||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 72 Low Disease Activity||10.5|3.7|<0.0001
90798688|NCT00565409|181476553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.6692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.9||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 72 Low Disease Activity||1.9|0.6|0.6692
91012611|NCT01362062|181907719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 9.||||=0.001
90798689|NCT00565409|181476553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.46|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|8.7||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 72 Low Disease Activity||8.7|3.4|<0.0001
90798690|NCT00565409|181476553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|9.8||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 80 Low Disease Activity||9.8|3.4|<0.0001
90798691|NCT00565409|181476553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.4326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.1||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 80 Low Disease Activity||2.1|0.7|0.4326
90798692|NCT00565409|181476553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|8.2||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 80 Low Disease Activity||8.2|3.2|<0.0001
90798693|NCT00565409|181476553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|7.8||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 88 Low Disease Activity||7.8|2.8|<0.0001
90798694|NCT00565409|181476553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.6064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.8||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 88 Low Disease Activity||1.8|0.6|0.6064
90798695|NCT00565409|181476553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|7.4||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 88 Low Disease Activity||7.4|3.0|<0.0001
90798696|NCT00565409|181476553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.4626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.3||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 36 Remission||3.3|0.5|0.4626
90798697|NCT00565409|181476553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.2886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.3||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 36 Remission||3.3|0.6|0.2886
90798698|NCT00565409|181476553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.7779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.9||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 36 Remission||1.9|0.4|0.7779
90798699|NCT00565409|181476553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.94|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|4.7||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40 Remission||4.7|1.8|<0.0001
91012612|NCT01362062|181907719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 10.||||=0.001
91012613|NCT01362062|181907719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 11.||||=0.001
91012614|NCT01362062|181907719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 12.||||=0.001
91012615|NCT01362062|181907719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 13.||||=0.001
91012616|NCT01362062|181907720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 3.||||=0.001
90798700|NCT00565409|181476553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.2091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.0||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40 Remission||2.0|0.8|0.2091
90798701|NCT00565409|181476553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|3.6||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40 Remission||3.6|1.5|<0.0001
90798702|NCT00565409|181476553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|5.2||p-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48 Remission||5.2|2.1|<0.0001
90798703|NCT00565409|181476553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.5351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.7||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48 Remission||1.7|0.7|0.5351
91012617|NCT01362062|181907720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 4.||||=0.001
91012618|NCT01362062|181907720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 5.||||=0.001
91012619|NCT01362062|181907720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 6.||||=0.001
90798704|NCT00565409|181476553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|4.8||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48 Remission||4.8|2.0|<0.0001
91054022|NCT02912650|181990991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.61||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.05|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.05|0.17|0.007
91054023|NCT02912650|181990991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.8|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.80|0.91|<0.001
90798705|NCT00565409|181476553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.09|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|6.5||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 56 Remission||6.5|2.6|<0.0001
91012620|NCT01362062|181907720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 7.||||=0.001
91054024|NCT02912650|181990991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.27|3.52|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||3.52|2.27|<0.001
91012621|NCT01362062|181907720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 8.||||=0.001
90798706|NCT00565409|181476553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.4574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.3||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 56 Remission||1.3|0.5|0.4574
91054025|NCT02912650|181990991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|2.79|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||2.79|1.52|<0.001
91054026|NCT02912650|181990991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.74||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.19|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.19|0.30|0.001
91054027|NCT02912650|181990991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.79|4.09|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||4.09|2.79|<0.001
91054028|NCT02912650|181990991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.7||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|1.15|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.15|0.24|0.003
90798707|NCT00565409|181476553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|8.0||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 56 Remission||8.0|3.2|<0.0001
90798708|NCT00565409|181476553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|6.6||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 64 Remission||6.6|2.7|<0.0001
91012622|NCT01362062|181907720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 9.||||=0.001
91012623|NCT01362062|181907720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 10.||||=0.001
91012624|NCT01362062|181907720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 11.||||=0.001
91012625|NCT01362062|181907720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 12.||||=0.001
91012626|NCT01362062|181907720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 13.||||=0.001
91012627|NCT01362062|181907721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.064|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 3.||||=0.064
91012628|NCT01362062|181907721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.104|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 4.||||=0.104
91012629|NCT01362062|181907721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.052|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 5.||||=0.052
91012630|NCT01362062|181907721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.043|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 6.||||=0.043
91012631|NCT01362062|181907721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.015|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB of Visit 7.||||=0.015
91012632|NCT01362062|181907721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.023|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 8.||||=0.023
90798709|NCT00565409|181476553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.5229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.8||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 64 Remission||1.8|0.7|0.5229
90798710|NCT00565409|181476553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.84|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|6.0||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 64 Remission||6.0|2.5|<0.0001
90798711|NCT00565409|181476553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.36|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|8.6||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 72 Remission||8.6|3.3|<0.0001
90798712|NCT00565409|181476553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.6464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.8||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 72 Remission||1.8|0.7|0.6464
90798713|NCT00565409|181476553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|7.6||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 72 Remission||7.6|3.0|<0.0001
90798714|NCT00565409|181476553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.96|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|7.9||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 80 Remission||7.9|3.1|<0.0001
90798715|NCT00565409|181476553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.5499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.7||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 80 Remission||1.7|0.7|0.5499
90798716|NCT00565409|181476553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|6.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 80 Remission||6.4|2.6|<0.0001
90798717|NCT00565409|181476553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|7.0||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 88 Remission||7.0|2.8|<0.0001
90798718|NCT00565409|181476553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.1109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.9||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 88 Remission||1.9|0.8|0.1109
90798719|NCT00565409|181476553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|6.0||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 88 Remission||6.0|2.5|<0.0001
90798720|NCT00565409|181476555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.4|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region.||Week 40||-0.4|-0.7|<0.0001
90798721|NCT00565409|181476555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.9344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region.||Week 40||0.2|-0.2|0.9344
90798722|NCT00565409|181476555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.4|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region.||Week 40||-0.4|-0.7|<0.0001
90798723|NCT00565409|181476555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.84|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.7|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region.||Week 48||-0.7|-1.0|<0.0001
90798724|NCT00565409|181476555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.6173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region.||Week 48||0.2|-0.1|0.6173
90798725|NCT00565409|181476555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.89|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.7|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region.||Week 48||-0.7|-1.1|<0.0001
90798726|NCT00565409|181476555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.92|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.7|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region.||Week 56||-0.7|-1.1|<0.0001
90798727|NCT00565409|181476555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.5136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.3|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region.||Week 56||0.3|-0.1|0.5136
90798728|NCT00565409|181476555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.8|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region.||Week 56||-0.8|-1.2|<0.0001
90798729|NCT00565409|181476555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.7|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region.||Week 64||-0.7|-1.1|<0.0001
90798730|NCT00565409|181476555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.4868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.3|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region.||Week 64||0.3|-0.1|0.4868
90798731|NCT00565409|181476555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.93|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.7|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region.||Week 64||-0.7|-1.1|<0.0001
90798732|NCT00565409|181476555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.8|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region.||Week 72||-0.8|-1.3|<0.0001
90798733|NCT00565409|181476555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.7847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region.||Week 72||0.2|-0.2|0.7847
90798734|NCT00565409|181476555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.8|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region.||Week 72||-0.8|-1.2|<0.0001
90798735|NCT00565409|181476555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.8|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region.||Week 80||-0.8|-1.2|<0.0001
90798736|NCT00565409|181476555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region.||Week 80||0.2|-0.2|0.9810
90798737|NCT00565409|181476555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.8|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region.||Week 80||-0.8|-1.2|<0.0001
90798738|NCT00565409|181476555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.8|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region.||Week 88||-0.8|-1.3|<0.0001
90798739|NCT00565409|181476555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.3562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region.||Week 88||0.1|-0.3|0.3562
90798740|NCT00565409|181476555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.94|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.7|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region.||Week 88||-0.7|-1.2|<0.0001
90798741|NCT00565409|181476556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Week 88 censored data was censored at 372 days.|Log Rank|||Imputation of failure defined as participants who did not reach the endpoint and discontinued due to lack of efficacy, with reason of unsatisfactory response-efficacy, adverse event, other or protocol violation were set to an event at time of discontinuation.||||<0.0001
90798742|NCT00565409|181476556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Week 88 censored data was censored at 372 days.|Log Rank|||Imputation of failure defined as participants who did not reach the endpoint and discontinued due to lack of efficacy, with reason of unsatisfactory response-efficacy, adverse event, other or protocol violation were set to an event at time of discontinuation.||||<0.0001
90798743|NCT00565409|181476556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8622|TWO_SIDED|||||Week 88 censored data was censored at 372 days.|Log Rank|||Imputation of failure defined as participants who did not reach the endpoint and discontinued due to lack of efficacy, with reason of unsatisfactory response-efficacy, adverse event, other or protocol violation were set to an event at time of discontinuation.||||0.8622
90798744|NCT00565409|181476557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Week 88 censored data was censored at 372 days.|Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
90798745|NCT00565409|181476557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9841|TWO_SIDED|||||Week 88 censored data was censored at 372 days.|Log Rank|||||||0.9841
90798746|NCT00565409|181476557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Week 88 censored data was censored at 372 days.|Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
90798747|NCT00565409|181476561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.5||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||-0.5|-1.1|<0.0001
90798748|NCT00565409|181476561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.8015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||0.3|-0.3|0.8015
90798749|NCT00565409|181476561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.5||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||-0.5|-1.1|<0.0001
91012633|NCT01362062|181907721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.028|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 9.||||=0.028
91054029|NCT02912650|181990991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|2.31|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||2.31|1.39|<0.001
90798750|NCT00565409|181476561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.7||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||-0.7|-1.5|<0.0001
90798751|NCT00565409|181476561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.8534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||0.4|-0.4|0.8534
91054030|NCT02912650|181990991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|3.39|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||3.39|2.10|<0.001
90798752|NCT00565409|181476561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.8||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||-0.8|-1.6|<0.0001
90798753|NCT00565409|181476561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.8||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 56||-0.8|-1.7|<0.0001
90798754|NCT00565409|181476561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.9074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.5||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 56||0.5|-0.4|0.9074
90798755|NCT00565409|181476561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.24|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.8||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 56||-0.8|-1.7|<0.0001
90798756|NCT00565409|181476561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.8||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 64||-0.8|-1.8|<0.0001
91012634|NCT01362062|181907721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.048|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 10.||||=0.048
91012635|NCT01362062|181907721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.025|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 11.||||=0.025
91012636|NCT01362062|181907721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.023|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 12.||||=0.023
91012637|NCT01362062|181907721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.022|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 13.||||=0.022
90798757|NCT00565409|181476561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.9229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.5||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 64||0.5|-0.4|0.9229
90798758|NCT00565409|181476561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.8||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 64||-0.8|-1.8|<0.0001
90798759|NCT00565409|181476561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-1.0||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 72||-1.0|-1.9|<0.0001
90798760|NCT00565409|181476561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.9279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.4||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 72||0.4|-0.5|0.9279
90798761|NCT00565409|181476561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-1.0||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 72||-1.0|-1.9|<0.0001
90798762|NCT00565409|181476561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-1.1||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 80||-1.1|-2.1|<0.0001
90798763|NCT00565409|181476561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.7695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.4||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 80||0.4|-0.6|0.7695
90798764|NCT00565409|181476561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-1.0||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 80||-1.0|-2.0|<0.0001
90798765|NCT00565409|181476561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.75|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-1.2||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 88||-1.2|-2.3|<0.0001
90798766|NCT00565409|181476561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31||||0.2182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.2||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 88||0.2|-0.8|0.2182
90798767|NCT00565409|181476561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.9||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 88||-0.9|-1.9|<0.0001
90798768|NCT00565409|181476564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.86||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.4||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||-0.4|-1.3|0.0003
91012638|NCT02545504|181907732|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.93||||0.5625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.18||The significance level at final analysis is 0.046 (two-sided). Stratum with \< 6 participants or no informative event by combined treatment arms was pooled with the smallest adjacent stratum for stratified analyses.|Log Rank|p-value was stratified by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) status, geographic region and primary tumor site.|Hazard ratio (HR) was stratified by ECOG status, geographic region and primary tumor site with treatment arm as the only covariate.|The primary and secondary endpoints were tested sequentially in the following gate-keeping order: the primary OS endpoint, then the secondary PFS endpoint, and finally the secondary ORR endpoint.||1.18|0.74|0.5625
90798769|NCT00565409|181476564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.6088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.6||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||0.6|-0.3|0.6088
90798770|NCT00565409|181476564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.5||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||-0.5|-1.4|<0.0001
90798771|NCT00565409|181476564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-1.4||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||-1.4|-2.6|<0.0001
90798772|NCT00565409|181476564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.9048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.6||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANOVA|||Week 48||0.6|-0.5|0.9048
90798773|NCT00565409|181476564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-1.5||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||-1.5|-2.6|<0.0001
90798774|NCT00565409|181476564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-1.5||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 56||-1.5|-2.6|<0.0001
90798775|NCT00565409|181476564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.8437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.5||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 56||0.5|-0.6|0.8437
90798776|NCT00565409|181476564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-1.4||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 56||-1.4|-2.6|<0.0001
90798777|NCT00565409|181476564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-1.4||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 64||-1.4|-2.6|<0.0001
90798778|NCT00565409|181476564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.8587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.7||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 64||0.7|-0.6|0.8587
90798779|NCT00565409|181476564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-1.4||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 64||-1.4|-2.6|<0.0001
90798780|NCT00565409|181476564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-1.8||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 72||-1.8|-3.0|<0.0001
90798781|NCT00565409|181476564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.6323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.5||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 72||0.5|-0.8|0.6323
90798782|NCT00565409|181476564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-1.6||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 72||-1.6|-2.9|<0.0001
90798783|NCT00565409|181476564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-1.6||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 80||-1.6|-2.9|<0.0001
90798784|NCT00565409|181476564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.6558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.5||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 80||0.5|-0.8|0.6558
90798785|NCT00565409|181476564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-1.5||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 80||-1.5|-2.8|<0.0001
90798786|NCT00565409|181476564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-1.7||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 88||-1.7|-3.1|<0.0001
90798787|NCT00565409|181476564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.8688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.6||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 88||0.6|-0.7|0.8688
90798788|NCT00565409|181476564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-1.7||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 88||-1.7|-3.0|<0.0001
90798789|NCT00565409|181476567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.5||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||-0.5|-1.0|<0.0001
90798790|NCT00565409|181476567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.9636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.3||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||0.3|-0.2|0.9636
90798791|NCT00565409|181476567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.5||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||-0.5|-1.0|<0.0001
90798792|NCT00565409|181476567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.8||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||-0.8|-1.4|<0.0001
90798793|NCT00565409|181476567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.4605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.4||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||0.4|-0.2|0.4605
90798794|NCT00565409|181476567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.9||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||-0.9|-1.5|<0.0001
90798795|NCT00565409|181476567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.8||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 56||-0.8|-1.4|<0.0001
90798796|NCT00565409|181476567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.8404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 56||0.3|-0.3|0.8404
91054031|NCT02912650|181990991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|2.24|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||2.24|0.94|< 0.001
90798797|NCT00565409|181476567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.9||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 56||-0.9|-1.4|<0.0001
90798798|NCT00565409|181476567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.8||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 64||-0.8|-1.4|<0.0001
90798799|NCT00565409|181476567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16||||0.3118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.5||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 64||0.5|-0.1|0.3118
90798800|NCT00565409|181476567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-1.0||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 64||-1.0|-1.6|<0.0001
90798801|NCT00565409|181476567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.9||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 72||-0.9|-1.6|<0.0001
90798802|NCT00565409|181476567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.4||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 72||0.4|-0.2|0.6100
90798803|NCT00565409|181476567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-1.0||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 72||-1.0|-1.6|<0.0001
90798804|NCT00565409|181476567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-1.0||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 80||-1.0|-1.6|<0.0001
90798805|NCT00565409|181476567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.6552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 80||0.2|-0.4|0.6552
90798806|NCT00565409|181476567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-1.0||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 80||-1.0|-1.6|<0.0001
90798807|NCT00565409|181476567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.43|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-1.1||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 88||-1.1|-1.8|<0.0001
90798808|NCT00565409|181476567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.4753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 88||0.2|-0.4|0.4753
90798809|NCT00565409|181476567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-1.0||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 88||-1.0|-1.6|<0.0001
90798810|NCT00565409|181476570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.88|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.6||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||-0.6|-1.2|<0.0001
90798811|NCT00565409|181476570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.7427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.3||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||0.3|-0.4|0.7427
90798812|NCT00565409|181476570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.5||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||-0.5|-1.1|<0.0001
90798813|NCT00565409|181476570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-1.1||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||-1.1|-1.7|<0.0001
90798814|NCT00565409|181476570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.3129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.2||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||0.2|-0.5|0.3129
90798815|NCT00565409|181476570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.9||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||-0.9|-1.6|<0.0001
90798816|NCT00565409|181476570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.9||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 56||-0.9|-1.6|<0.0001
90798817|NCT00565409|181476570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.4645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.2||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 56||0.2|-0.5|0.4645
91054032|NCT02912650|181990991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.61|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.61|0.69|<0.001
90798818|NCT00565409|181476570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.8||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 56||-0.8|-1.5|<0.0001
90798819|NCT00565409|181476570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.9||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 64||-0.9|-1.7|<0.0001
90798820|NCT00565409|181476570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16||||0.3793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.2||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 64||0.2|-0.5|0.3793
90798821|NCT00565409|181476570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.8||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 64||-0.8|-1.5|<0.0001
90798822|NCT00565409|181476570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-1.2||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 72||-1.2|-2.0|<0.0001
90798823|NCT00565409|181476570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0.0816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.0||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 72||0.0|-0.7|0.0816
90798824|NCT00565409|181476570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.9||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 72||-0.9|-1.6|<0.0001
90798825|NCT00565409|181476570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-1.2||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 80||-1.2|-1.9|<0.0001
90798826|NCT00565409|181476570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42||||0.0256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.1||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 80||-0.1|-0.8|0.0256
90798827|NCT00565409|181476570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.8||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 80||-0.8|-1.5|<0.0001
90798828|NCT00565409|181476570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-1.2||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 88||-1.2|-1.9|<0.0001
90798829|NCT00565409|181476570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.1158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.1||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 88||0.1|-0.7|0.1158
90798830|NCT00565409|181476570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.24|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.9||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 88||-0.9|-1.6|<0.0001
90798831|NCT00565409|181476573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-41.67||||0.0214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.1|-6.2||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||-6.2|-77.1|0.0214
90798832|NCT00565409|181476573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.57||||0.5544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.6|24.5||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||24.5|-45.6|0.5544
91054033|NCT02912650|181990991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.67|4.0|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||4.00|2.67|<0.001
91054034|NCT02912650|181990991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.74||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.2|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.20|0.27|0.002
90798833|NCT00565409|181476573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-31.1||||0.0826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.2|4.0||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||4.0|-66.2|0.0826
90798834|NCT00565409|181476573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-80.05||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-120.3|-39.8||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||-39.8|-120.3|0.0001
90798835|NCT00565409|181476573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-43.18||||0.0344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.2|-3.2||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||-3.2|-83.2|0.0344
90798836|NCT00565409|181476573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-36.87||||0.0721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.1|3.3||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||3.3|-77.1|0.0721
91054035|NCT02912650|181990991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|2.41|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||2.41|1.47|<0.001
90798837|NCT00565409|181476573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-89.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-128.7|-49.7||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 56||-49.7|-128.7|<0.0001
90798838|NCT00565409|181476573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.14||||0.191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.4|13.1||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 56||13.1|-65.4|0.1910
90798839|NCT00565409|181476573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-63.05||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-102.5|-23.6||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 56||-23.6|-102.5|0.0018
90798840|NCT00565409|181476573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-84.36||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-129.1|-39.6||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 64||-39.6|-129.1|0.0002
90798841|NCT00565409|181476573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.85||||0.935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.3|42.6||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 64||42.6|-46.3|0.9350
90798842|NCT00565409|181476573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-82.52||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-127.2|-37.8||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 64||-37.8|-127.2|0.0003
90798843|NCT00565409|181476573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-108.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-157.0|-60.4||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 72||-60.4|-157.0|<0.0001
90798844|NCT00565409|181476573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.2||||0.6764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.2|37.8||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 72||37.8|-58.2|0.6764
90798845|NCT00565409|181476573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-98.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-146.7|-50.3||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 72||-50.3|-146.7|<0.0001
90798846|NCT00565409|181476573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-115.48|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-157.7|-73.3||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 80||-73.3|-157.7|<0.0001
90798847|NCT00565409|181476573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.69||||0.5219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.6|28.3||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 80||28.3|-55.6|0.5219
90798848|NCT00565409|181476573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-101.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-144.0|-59.6||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 80||-59.6|-144.0|<0.0001
90798849|NCT00565409|181476573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-71.6||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-116.9|-26.3||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 88||-26.3|-116.9|0.0020
90798850|NCT00565409|181476573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.3||||0.5917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.7|57.3||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 88||57.3|-32.7|0.5917
90798851|NCT00565409|181476573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-83.91||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-129.2|-38.7||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 88||-38.7|-129.2|0.0003
90798852|NCT00565409|181476576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|-5.7||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||-5.7|-11.9|<0.0001
90798853|NCT00565409|181476576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.55||||0.1033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|0.5||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||0.5|-5.6|0.1033
90798854|NCT00565409|181476576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|-3.1||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||-3.1|-9.3|<0.0001
90798855|NCT00565409|181476576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.09|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|-8.8||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||-8.8|-15.4|<0.0001
90798856|NCT00565409|181476576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69||||0.6802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|2.6||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||2.6|-4.0|0.6802
90798857|NCT00565409|181476576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|-8.1||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||-8.1|-14.7|<0.0001
90798858|NCT00565409|181476576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.09|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.6|-8.6||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 56||-8.6|-15.6|<0.0001
90798859|NCT00565409|181476576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.36||||0.4404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|2.1||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 56||2.1|-4.8|0.4404
90798860|NCT00565409|181476576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.2|-7.2||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 56||-7.2|-14.2|<0.0001
90798861|NCT00565409|181476576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|-9.4||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 64||-9.4|-16.2|<0.0001
90798862|NCT00565409|181476576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.32||||0.4437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|2.1||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 64||2.1|-4.7|0.4437
90798863|NCT00565409|181476576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|-8.1||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 64||-8.1|-14.9|<0.0001
90798864|NCT00565409|181476576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.5|-11.1||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 72||-11.1|-18.5|<0.0001
90798865|NCT00565409|181476576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.12||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|0.6||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 72||0.6|-6.8|0.0960
90798866|NCT00565409|181476576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.67|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|-8.0||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 72||-8.0|-15.4|<0.0001
90798867|NCT00565409|181476576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.1|-11.0||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 80||-11.0|-18.1|<0.0001
90798868|NCT00565409|181476576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.88||||0.2948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|1.6||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 80||1.6|-5.4|0.2948
90798869|NCT00565409|181476576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|-9.1||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 80||-9.1|-16.2|<0.0001
90798870|NCT00565409|181476576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.9|-9.5||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 88||-9.5|-16.9|<0.0001
90798871|NCT00565409|181476576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.33||||0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|1.3||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 88||1.3|-6.0|0.2130
90798872|NCT00565409|181476576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|-7.1||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 88||-7.1|-14.5|<0.0001
90798873|NCT00565409|181476579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|-5.3||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||-5.3|-11.8|<0.0001
90798874|NCT00565409|181476579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.8033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|2.8||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||2.8|-3.6|0.8033
90798875|NCT00565409|181476579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|-4.9||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||-4.9|-11.3|<0.0001
90798876|NCT00565409|181476579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.2|-10.0||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||-10.0|-17.2|<0.0001
90798877|NCT00565409|181476579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|3.1||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||3.1|-4.1|0.7830
91054036|NCT02912650|181990991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.93|3.26|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||3.26|1.93|<0.001
91054037|NCT02912650|181990991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.07|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||2.07|0.73|<0.001
90798878|NCT00565409|181476579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.7|-9.5||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||-9.5|-16.7|<0.0001
90798879|NCT00565409|181476579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.1|-8.9||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 56||-8.9|-16.1|<0.0001
90798880|NCT00565409|181476579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.02||||0.5732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|2.5||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization|ANCOVA|||Week 56||2.5|-4.6|0.5732
90798881|NCT00565409|181476579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.1|-7.9||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 56||-7.9|-15.1|<0.0001
90798882|NCT00565409|181476579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.88|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6|-10.2||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 64||-10.2|-17.6|<0.0001
90798883|NCT00565409|181476579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.94||||0.2972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|1.7||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 64||1.7|-5.6|0.2972
90798884|NCT00565409|181476579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.94|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.6|-8.3||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 64||-8.3|-15.6|<0.0001
90798885|NCT00565409|181476579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|-11.8||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 72||-11.8|-19.4|<0.0001
90798886|NCT00565409|181476579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.8||||0.1477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|1.0||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 72||1.0|-6.6|0.1477
90798887|NCT00565409|181476579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|-9.0||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 72||-9.0|-16.6|<0.0001
90798888|NCT00565409|181476579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.6|-11.1||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 80||-11.1|-18.6|<0.0001
90798889|NCT00565409|181476579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.56||||0.1808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|1.2||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 80||1.2|-6.3|0.1808
90798890|NCT00565409|181476579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.1|-8.5||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 80||-8.5|-16.1|<0.0001
90798891|NCT00565409|181476579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.5|-10.9||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 88||-10.9|-18.5|<0.0001
90798892|NCT00565409|181476579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.44||||0.2077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|1.4||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 88||1.4|-6.2|0.2077
90798893|NCT00565409|181476579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.1|-8.5||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 88||-8.5|-16.1|<0.0001
90798894|NCT00565409|181476580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0001
90798895|NCT00565409|181476581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.8974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.5||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 36||2.5|0.5|0.8974
90798896|NCT00565409|181476581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67||||0.1105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|3.7||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 36||3.7|0.8|0.1105
90798897|NCT00565409|181476581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.4||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 36||1.4|0.3|0.1900
90798898|NCT00565409|181476581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|7.5||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 64||7.5|2.3|<0.0001
90798899|NCT00565409|181476581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.4032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.4||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 64||2.4|0.6|0.4032
90798900|NCT00565409|181476581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|7.5||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 64||7.5|2.4|<0.0001
90798901|NCT00565409|181476581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.92|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|7.2||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 88||7.2|2.1|<0.0001
90798902|NCT00565409|181476581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.0272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|3.6||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 88||3.6|1.0|0.0272
90798903|NCT00565409|181476581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.34||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|4.0||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 88||4.0|1.4|0.0004
90798904|NCT00565409|181476582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||||<0.0001
90798905|NCT00565409|181476582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||||<0.0001
90798906|NCT00565409|181476582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||||<0.0001
90798907|NCT00565409|181476582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||||<0.0001
90798908|NCT00565409|181476582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 28||||<0.0001
90798909|NCT00565409|181476582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 36||||<0.0001
90798910|NCT00565409|181476583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.29||||0.1718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|10.7||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 36||10.7|0.5|0.1718
90798911|NCT00565409|181476583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.8303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|7.3||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 36||7.3|0.2|0.8303
90798912|NCT00565409|181476583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.27||||0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|10.1||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 36||10.1|0.5|0.2130
90798913|NCT00565409|181476583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|8.2||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40||8.2|2.1|<0.0001
90798914|NCT00565409|181476583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.4337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.0||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40||2.0|0.3|0.4337
90798915|NCT00565409|181476583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|10.8||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40||10.8|2.5|<0.0001
90798916|NCT00565409|181476583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|10.5||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48||10.5|3.0|<0.0001
90798917|NCT00565409|181476583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.8973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.9||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48||1.9|0.4|0.8973
90798918|NCT00565409|181476583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|10.1||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48||10.1|2.8|<0.0001
90798919|NCT00565409|181476583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|8.1||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 56||8.1|2.4|<0.0001
90798920|NCT00565409|181476583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.5708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.7||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 56||1.7|0.4|0.5708
90798921|NCT00565409|181476583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|10.3||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 56||10.3|3.0|<0.0001
90798922|NCT00565409|181476583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|12.0||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 64||12.0|3.3|<0.0001
90798923|NCT00565409|181476583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.8842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.0||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 64||2.0|0.4|0.8842
90798924|NCT00565409|181476583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.92|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|10.8||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 64||10.8|3.2|<0.0001
90798925|NCT00565409|181476583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|14.4||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 72||14.4|3.8|<0.0001
90798926|NCT00565409|181476583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.1608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.1||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 72||3.1|0.6|0.1608
91054038|NCT02912650|181990991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.67|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.67|0.73|<0.001
91054039|NCT02912650|181990991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.51|3.87|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||3.87|2.51|<0.001
90798927|NCT00565409|181476583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.92|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|8.4||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 72||8.4|2.9|<0.0001
90798928|NCT00565409|181476583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|12.4||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 80||12.4|3.4|<0.0001
90798929|NCT00565409|181476583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.2825|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.7||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 80||2.7|0.6|0.2825
90798930|NCT00565409|181476583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|7.8||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 80||7.8|2.7|<0.0001
90798931|NCT00565409|181476583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|8.7||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 88||8.7|2.7|<0.0001
90798932|NCT00565409|181476583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.4471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.1||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 88||2.1|0.5|0.4471
90798933|NCT00565409|181476583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|7.0||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 88||7.0|2.5|<0.0001
91012639|NCT02545504|181907733|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.84||||0.1031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.04||The significance level at final analysis was 0.032 (two-sided). Stratum with \< 6 participants or no informative event by combined treatment arms was pooled with the smallest adjacent stratum for stratified analyses.|Log Rank|p-value was stratified by ECOG status,geographic region and primary tumor site.|HR was stratified by ECOG status,geographic region;primary tumor site with treatment arm as a covariate.Stratum with \<6 participants or no informative event by combined treatment arms was pooled with smallest adjacent stratum for stratified analyses.|The primary and secondary endpoints were tested sequentially in the following gate-keeping order: the primary OS endpoint, then the secondary PFS endpoint, and finally the secondary ORR endpoint. PFS was tested only if OS was significant. The P-value is for display only.||1.04|0.67|0.1031
90798934|NCT00565409|181476584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||||<0.0001
91012640|NCT02545504|181907734|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.0493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.15||The significance level at final analysis was 0.032 (two-sided). Stratum with \< 6 participants or no informative event by combined treatment arms was pooled with the smallest adjacent stratum for stratified analyses.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p-value was stratified by ECOG status, geographic region and primary tumor site.|OR was stratified by ECOG status, geographic region and primary tumor site. Stratum with \< 6 participants or no informative event by combined treatment arms was pooled with the smallest adjacent stratum for stratified analyses.|The primary and secondary endpoints were tested sequentially in the following gate-keeping order: the primary OS endpoint, then the secondary PFS endpoint, and finally the secondary ORR endpoint. ORR was tested only if OS and PFS were significant.The P-value is for display only.||2.15|1.00|0.0493
90798935|NCT00565409|181476584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||||<0.0001
90798936|NCT00565409|181476584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||||<0.0001
90798937|NCT00565409|181476584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||||<0.0001
90798938|NCT00565409|181476584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 28||||<0.0001
90798939|NCT00565409|181476584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 36||||<0.0001
90798940|NCT00565409|181476585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.6006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.6||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 36||1.6|0.4|0.6006
90798941|NCT00565409|181476585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.4967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.1||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 36||2.1|0.6|0.4967
90798942|NCT00565409|181476585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.3648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.5||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 36||1.5|0.4|0.3648
90798943|NCT00565409|181476585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.98||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|3.2||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40||3.2|1.2|0.0024
90798944|NCT00565409|181476585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.8308||95.0|0.6|||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40||1.|0.6|0.8308
90798945|NCT00565409|181476585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.13||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|3.4||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40||3.4|1.3|0.0008
90798946|NCT00565409|181476585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|5.2||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48||5.2|2.0|<0.0001
90798947|NCT00565409|181476585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.7374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.8||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48||1.8|0.7|0.7374
90798948|NCT00565409|181476585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|4.8||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48||4.8|1.9|<0.0001
90798949|NCT00565409|181476585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|4.8||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 56||4.8|1.9|<0.0001
90798950|NCT00565409|181476585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.9599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.7||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 56||1.7|0.6|0.9599
90798951|NCT00565409|181476585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|4.6||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 56||4.6|1.9|<0.0001
90798952|NCT00565409|181476585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|5.7||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 64||5.7|2.3|<0.0001
90798953|NCT00565409|181476585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.4509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.0||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 64||2.0|0.8|0.4509
90798954|NCT00565409|181476585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.96|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|4.6||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 64||4.6|1.9|<0.0001
90798955|NCT00565409|181476585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|7.0||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 72||7.0|2.6|<0.0001
90798956|NCT00565409|181476585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.3037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.0||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 72||2.0|0.7|0.3037
90798957|NCT00565409|181476585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|5.1||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 72||5.1|2.1|<0.0001
90798958|NCT00565409|181476585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|7.2||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 80||7.2|2.7|<0.0001
90798959|NCT00565409|181476585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.6076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.9||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 80||1.9|0.7|0.6076
90798960|NCT00565409|181476585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|6.0||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 80||6.0|2.4|<0.0001
90798961|NCT00565409|181476585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|4.6||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 88||4.6|1.8|<0.0001
91012641|NCT02545504|181907734|SUPERIORITY||ORR Difference|9.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|18.8|||||The 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of difference for ORR between the treatment and placebo is calculated based on stratum-adjusted Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel proportion.|The primary and secondary endpoints were tested sequentially in the following gate-keeping order: the primary OS endpoint, then the secondary PFS endpoint, and finally the secondary ORR endpoint. ORR was tested only if OS and PFS were significant.||18.8|0.1|
90798962|NCT00565409|181476585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.7837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.6||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 88||1.6|0.6|0.7837
90798963|NCT00565409|181476585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|4.7||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 88||4.7|2.0|<0.0001
90798964|NCT00565409|181476586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||||<0.0001
90798965|NCT00565409|181476586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||||<0.0001
90798966|NCT00565409|181476586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||||<0.0001
90798967|NCT00565409|181476586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||||<0.0001
90798968|NCT00565409|181476586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 28||||<0.0001
90798969|NCT00565409|181476586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 36||||<0.0001
90798970|NCT00565409|181476587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.5263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.0||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 36||2.0|0.7|0.5263
90798971|NCT00565409|181476587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.1055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.3||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 36||2.3|0.9|0.1055
90798972|NCT00565409|181476587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.4348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.4||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 36||1.4|0.5|0.4348
90798973|NCT00565409|181476587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.16||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|3.3||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40||3.3|1.4|0.0003
90798974|NCT00565409|181476587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.5511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.7||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40||1.7|0.7|0.5511
90798975|NCT00565409|181476587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.92||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.9||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40||2.9|1.3|0.0013
90798976|NCT00565409|181476587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|4.3||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48||4.3|1.8|<0.0001
90798977|NCT00565409|181476587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.9225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.5||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48||1.5|0.6|0.9225
90798978|NCT00565409|181476587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.95|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|4.5||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48||4.5|1.9|<0.0001
90798979|NCT00565409|181476587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|6.6||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 56||6.6|2.7|<0.0001
90798980|NCT00565409|181476587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.2454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.0||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 56||2.0|0.9|0.2454
90798981|NCT00565409|181476587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|4.9||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 56||4.9|2.0|<0.0001
90798982|NCT00565409|181476587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|6.0||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 64||6.0|2.4|<0.0001
90798983|NCT00565409|181476587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.4919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.9||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 64||1.9|0.8|0.4919
90798984|NCT00565409|181476587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|4.9||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 64||4.9|2.0|<0.0001
90798985|NCT00565409|181476587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|7.6||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 72||7.6|3.0|<0.0001
90798986|NCT00565409|181476587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.0658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.3||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 72||2.3|1.0|0.0658
90798987|NCT00565409|181476587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|4.7||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 72||4.7|2.0|<0.0001
91012642|NCT00434876|181907737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.49
90798988|NCT00565409|181476587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|6.8||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 80||6.8|2.7|<0.0001
90798989|NCT00565409|181476587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.4014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.9||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 80||1.9|0.8|0.4014
90798990|NCT00565409|181476587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|5.5||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 80||5.5|2.3|<0.0001
90798991|NCT00565409|181476587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|7.2||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 88||7.2|2.9|<0.0001
90798992|NCT00565409|181476587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.2824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.9||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 88||1.9|0.8|0.2824
90798993|NCT00565409|181476587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|5.9||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 88||5.9|2.5|<0.0001
90798994|NCT00565409|181476588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||||<0.0001
90798995|NCT00565409|181476588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||||<0.0001
90798996|NCT00565409|181476588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||||<0.0001
90798997|NCT00565409|181476588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||||<0.0001
90798998|NCT00565409|181476588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 28||||<0.0001
90798999|NCT00565409|181476588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||week 36||||<0.0001
90799000|NCT00565409|181476589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.0575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.3||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 36||2.3|1.0|0.0575
91012643|NCT00434876|181907738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.04
91012644|NCT00434876|181907739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.57
91012645|NCT00434876|181907740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.03
90799001|NCT00565409|181476589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.3||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 36||2.3|1.0|0.0630
90799002|NCT00565409|181476589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.6||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 36||1.6|0.7|0.9160
90799003|NCT00565409|181476589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76||||0.0147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|3.0||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40||3.0|1.0|0.0147
90799004|NCT00565409|181476589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.8675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.6||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40||1.6|0.6|0.8675
90799005|NCT00565409|181476589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77||||0.0174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|3.0||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40||3.0|1.1|0.0174
90799006|NCT00565409|181476589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.24|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|5.7||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48||5.7|1.9|<0.0001
91012646|NCT00758394|181907741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0||||Two way Anova general linear model (subject and treatment as factors). Multiple comparison completed to determine differences between groups.|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||<0.05
91012647|NCT03539900|181907742|SUPERIORITY|Analyses used all available data. Analyses to compare treatments were all intent-to-treat.||||||0.44|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses were performed for all randomized participants. Models also considered weight status as a moderator or predictor.||||||.44
90799007|NCT00565409|181476589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.4941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.3||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48||1.3|0.5|0.4941
90799008|NCT00565409|181476589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|7.0||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48||7.0|2.3|<0.0001
90799009|NCT00565409|181476589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|5.9||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 56||5.9|2.0|<0.0001
91012648|NCT03539900|181907743|SUPERIORITY|Analyses used all available data. Analyses to compare treatments were all intent-to-treat.||||||0.04|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses were performed for all randomized participants. Models also considered weight status as a predictor or moderator.||||||.04
91012649|NCT03539900|181907744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||ANOVA|Analyses used all available data without imputation.||||||.98
90799010|NCT00565409|181476589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.8185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.5||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 56||1.5|0.6|0.8185
90799011|NCT00565409|181476589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|6.4||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 56||6.4|2.1|<0.0001
90799012|NCT00565409|181476589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|6.6||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 64||6.6|2.2|<0.0001
90799013|NCT00565409|181476589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.4254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.8||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 64||1.8|0.7|0.4254
90799014|NCT00565409|181476589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|5.9||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 64||5.9|1.9|<0.0001
90799015|NCT00565409|181476589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|5.8||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 72||5.8|1.8|<0.0001
90799016|NCT00565409|181476589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.8766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.6||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 72||1.6|0.7|0.8766
90799017|NCT00565409|181476589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.67|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|6.4||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 72||6.4|2.1|<0.0001
90799018|NCT00565409|181476589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|6.4||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 80||6.4|2.0|<0.0001
91012650|NCT03539900|181907745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||ANOVA|Analyses used all available data without imputation.||||||.44
91012651|NCT03539900|181907746|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||ANOVA|Analyses used all available data without imputation.||||||.99
91012652|NCT03539900|181907747|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||ANOVA|Analyses used all available data without imputation.||||||.40
91012653|NCT03159455|181907787|OTHER||Slope|2.2305|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2592|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6955|2.7655|||||Dose proportionality was explored using the power model.The perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope β of 1. PK endpoints on the log-transformed scale.|This was non confirmatory testing (Single dose). Dose proportionality of tablets for AUC0-24 was analysed in Japanese subjects.|Standard error of mean is standard error of slope.|2.7655|1.6955|
90799019|NCT00565409|181476589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.3535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.9||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 80||1.9|0.8|0.3535
90799020|NCT00565409|181476589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|6.1||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 80||6.1|1.9|<0.0001
90799021|NCT00565409|181476589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|6.1||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 88||6.1|2.0|<0.0001
90799022|NCT00565409|181476589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.3231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.9||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 88||1.9|0.8|0.3231
90799023|NCT00565409|181476589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|5.6||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 88||5.6|1.9|<0.0001
90799024|NCT00565409|181476590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||||<0.0001
90799025|NCT00565409|181476590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||||<0.0001
91012654|NCT03159455|181907788|OTHER||Slope|1.9007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2382|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4102|2.3912|||||Dose proportionality was explored using the power model.The perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope β of 1. PK endpoints on the log-transformed scale.|This was non confirmatory testing (Single dose). Dose proportionality of tablets for Cmax was analysed in Japanese subjects.|Standard error of mean is standard error of slope.|2.3912|1.4102|
90799026|NCT00565409|181476590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||||<0.0001
90799027|NCT00565409|181476590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||||<0.0001
90799028|NCT00565409|181476590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 28||||<0.0001
90799029|NCT00565409|181476590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 36||||<0.0001
91012655|NCT03159455|181907789|OTHER||Slope|3.244|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1771|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8793|3.6087|||||Dose proportionality was explored using the power model.The perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope β of 1. PK endpoints on the log-transformed scale.|This was non confirmatory testing on Day 28 (after multiple doses). Dose proportionality of tablets for AUC0-24,28 was analysed in Japanese subjects.|Standard error of mean is standard error of slope.|3.6087|2.8793|
91054040|NCT02912650|181990991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.76||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.23|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.23|0.29|0.002
91054041|NCT02912650|181990991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|2.33|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||2.33|1.37|< 0.001
90799030|NCT00565409|181476591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.14||||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|5.2||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 36||5.2|0.9|0.0089
90799031|NCT00565409|181476591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.6932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.7||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 36||1.7|0.5|0.6932
90799032|NCT00565409|181476591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.76||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|6.1||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 36||6.1|1.2|0.0019
90799033|NCT00565409|181476591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53||||0.0797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.6||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40||3.6|0.6|0.0797
90799034|NCT00565409|181476591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.8103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.9||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40||1.9|0.4|0.8103
90799035|NCT00565409|181476591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.87||||0.0903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|4.5||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40||4.5|0.8|0.0903
90799036|NCT00565409|181476591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.02||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|7.8||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48||7.8|1.2|0.0035
90799037|NCT00565409|181476591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.0||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48||2.0|0.5|0.9770
90799038|NCT00565409|181476591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.29||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|8.3||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48||8.3|1.3|0.0036
90799039|NCT00565409|181476591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.8||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|7.7||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 56||7.7|1.0|0.0038
90799040|NCT00565409|181476591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.9055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.0||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 56||2.0|0.5|0.9055
90799041|NCT00565409|181476591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.36||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|9.8||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 56||9.8|1.2|0.0020
90799042|NCT00565409|181476591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.35||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|8.8||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 64||8.8|1.3|0.0020
90799043|NCT00565409|181476591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.5763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.7||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 64||1.7|0.4|0.5763
90799044|NCT00565409|181476591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.93||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|10.0||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 64||10.0|1.5|0.0002
90799045|NCT00565409|181476591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.21||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|8.8||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 72||8.8|1.2|0.0004
90799046|NCT00565409|181476591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.4828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.6||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 72||1.6|0.4|0.4828
90799047|NCT00565409|181476591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|9.0||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 72||9.0|1.4|<0.0001
90799048|NCT00565409|181476591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.28||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|7.8||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 80||7.8|1.4|0.0002
90799049|NCT00565409|181476591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.8553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.9||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 80||1.9|0.6|0.8553
90799050|NCT00565409|181476591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.56||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|8.7||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 80||8.7|1.5|0.0003
90799051|NCT00565409|181476591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|7.6||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 88||7.6|1.6|<0.0001
91012656|NCT03159455|181907790|OTHER||Slope|2.0711|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.148|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7663|2.376|||||Dose proportionality was explored using the power model.The perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope β of 1. PK endpoints on the log-transformed scale.|This was non confirmatory testing on Day 28 (after multiple doses). Dose proportionality of tablets for Cmax,28 was analysed in Japanese subjects.|Standard error of mean is standard error of slope.|2.3760|1.7663|
90799052|NCT00565409|181476591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.5025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.0||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 88||2.0|0.6|0.5025
90799053|NCT00565409|181476591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.62||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|8.1||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 88||8.1|1.6|0.0001
90799054|NCT03498716|181476613|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis: The stratification factors used in the analysis are axillary nodal status, surgery (breast conserving vs. mastectomy),and tumor PD-L1 status.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.3846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.42|||Log Rank|||||1.42|0.87|0.3846
90799055|NCT01918189|181476685|OTHER|Mixed models (using an unstructured correlation structure) regression over the baseline and 10-week post-baseline follow-up assessments were used to examine change in outcome measures for preliminary efficacy variables. The primary endpoint for the preliminary efficacy analyses is the mean difference in baseline to post-baseline follow-up scores on the primary measure of pain interference (i.e., WHYMPI-Interference Scale) at 10 weeks post-baseline.||||||0.008||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance is p \<0.05|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.008
90799056|NCT01918189|181476686|OTHER|Mixed models (using an unstructured correlation structure) regression over the baseline and 10-week post-baseline follow-up assessments were used to examine change in outcome measures for preliminary efficacy variables. The primary endpoint for the preliminary efficacy analyses is the mean difference in baseline to post-baseline follow-up scores on the primary measure of pain intensity at 10 weeks post-baseline.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||a priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.27
90799057|NCT01918189|181476687|OTHER|Mixed models (using an unstructured correlation structure) regression over the baseline and 10-week post-baseline follow-up assessments were used to examine change in outcome measures for preliminary efficacy variables. The primary endpoint for the preliminary efficacy analyses is the mean difference in baseline to post-baseline follow-up scores on the measure of mood symptoms at 10 weeks post-baseline.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||a priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.02
90799058|NCT01918189|181476688|OTHER|Mixed models (using an unstructured correlation structure) regression over the baseline and 10-week post-baseline follow-up assessments were used to examine change in outcome measures for preliminary efficacy variables. The primary endpoint for the preliminary efficacy analyses is the mean difference in baseline to post-baseline follow-up scores on the measure of mood symptoms at 10 weeks post-baseline.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.48
90799059|NCT01918189|181476689|OTHER|Mixed models (using an unstructured correlation structure) regression over the baseline and 10-week post-baseline follow-up assessments were used to examine change in outcome measures for preliminary efficacy variables. The primary endpoint for the preliminary efficacy analyses is the mean difference in baseline to post-baseline follow-up scores on the measure of sleep at 10 weeks post-baseline.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||a priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.18
91012657|NCT02022566|181907800|OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
90799060|NCT01918189|181476690|OTHER|Mixed models (using an unstructured correlation structure) regression over the baseline and 10-week post-baseline follow-up assessments were used to examine change in outcome measures for preliminary efficacy variables. The primary endpoint for the preliminary efficacy analyses is the mean difference in baseline to post-baseline follow-up scores on the measure of depression symptoms at 10 weeks post-baseline.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||a priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.03
90799061|NCT04211363|181476710|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|20.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.58|56.48|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline IGA, and baseline intertriginous involvement per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|Common odds ratio stratified by pooled study site, baseline IGA, and baseline intertriginous involvement per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data..|IGA Success Odds Ratio||56.48|7.58|<0.0001
90799062|NCT04211363|181476711|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.867|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.795|5.351|||Log Rank|Unstratified log-rank test|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline IGA, and baseline intertriginous involvement per randomization.|Time to PASI-50||5.351|2.795|<0.0001
90799063|NCT04211363|181476712|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.15|27.93|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline IGA, and baseline intertriginous involvement per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|Common odds ratio stratified by pooled study site, baseline IGA, and baseline intertriginous involvement per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|PASI-75 at Week 8 Odds Ratio||27.93|5.15|<0.0001
90799064|NCT04211363|181476713|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|17.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.38|73.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study site, baseline IGA score, and baseline intertriginous involvement with multiple imputation of missing data.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel stratified by study site, baseline IGA score, and baseline intertriginous involvement with multiple imputation of missing data.|PASI-90 at Week 8 Odds Ratio||73.09|4.38|<0.0001
90799065|NCT04211363|181476714|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|17.94|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.33|138.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site and baseline IGA per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|Common odds ratio stratified by pooled study site and baseline IGA per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|I-IGA Success at Week 8 Odds Ratio||138.20|2.33|<0.0001
90799066|NCT04211363|181476715|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|29.36||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.99|288.36|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site and baseline IGA per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|Common odds ratio stratified by pooled study site and baseline IGA per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|I-IGA Clear at Week 8 Odds Ratio||288.36|2.99|0.003
90799067|NCT04211363|181476716|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76||||0.1197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|3.19|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline IGA, and baseline intertriginous involvement per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|Common odds ratio stratified by pooled study site, baseline IGA, and baseline intertriginous involvement per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|WI-NRS Success at Week 2 Odds Ratio||3.19|0.98|0.1197
90799068|NCT04211363|181476716|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.36|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.31|8.26|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline IGA, and baseline intertriginous involvement per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|Common odds ratio stratified by pooled study site, baseline IGA, and baseline intertriginous involvement per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|WI-NRS Success at Week 4 Odds Ratio||8.26|2.31|<0.0001
90799069|NCT04211363|181476716|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.84|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.85|15.94|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline IGA, and baseline intertriginous involvement per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|Common odds ratio stratified by pooled study site, baseline IGA, and baseline intertriginous involvement per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|WI-NRS at Week 8 Odds Ratio||15.94|3.85|<0.0001
91012658|NCT02022566|181907801|OTHER|Described elsewhere|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
90799070|NCT04211363|181476717|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.7|-20.0|||ANCOVA|Site, baseline IGA, baseline intertriginous involvement, and baseline PSD scores were independent variables, multiple imputation used for missing data|Site, baseline IGA, baseline intertriginous involvement, and baseline PSD scores were independent variables, multiple imputation used for missing data|Comparison of change from baseline in PSD score at Week 4||-20.0|-31.7|<0.0001
90799071|NCT04211363|181476717|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-30.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.2|-24.6|||ANCOVA|Site, baseline IGA, baseline intertriginous involvement, and baseline PSD scores were independent variables, multiple imputation used for missing data|Site, baseline IGA, baseline intertriginous involvement, and baseline PSD scores were independent variables, multiple imputation used for missing data|Comparison of change from baseline in PSD score at Week 8||-24.6|-37.2|<0.0001
90799072|NCT00461708|181476726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
90799073|NCT00461708|181476727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
90799074|NCT01812057|181476728|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.740
90799075|NCT01812057|181476729|SUPERIORITY|Pain Score at rest at 2 hours||||||0.171|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.171
90799076|NCT01812057|181476729|SUPERIORITY|Pain Score with movement at 2 hours||||||0.204|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.204
90799077|NCT01812057|181476730|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1965|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.1965
90799078|NCT01812057|181476731|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.709|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.709
90799079|NCT01812057|181476732|SUPERIORITY|Pain Score at rest at 24 hours||||||0.267|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.267
90799080|NCT01812057|181476732|SUPERIORITY|Pain Score with movement at 24 hours||||||0.518|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.518
91012659|NCT03799198|181907815|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.51|-1.5|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of in-trial data with missing observations for body weight at month 12 imputed from the WMP arm based on a jump to reference multiple (x=100) imputation approach. Percent change in body weight from baseline to month 12 was calculated for each study participant within the FAS and analyzed using an analysis of covariance model with randomized treatment as a factor and baseline body weight (kg) as a covariate.||-1.50|-5.51|<0.001
90799081|NCT01812057|181476733|SUPERIORITY|Pain Score at rest at 48 hours||||||0.491|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.491
90799082|NCT01812057|181476733|SUPERIORITY|Pain Scores with movement at 48 hours||||||0.525|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.525
90799083|NCT01812057|181476734|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.355|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Total opioid consumption at 24 hours|||We also performed a multivariable regression analysis to determine factors associated with 24h opioid consumption accounting for MTS category, demographic factors, study group allocation (dexamethasone vs placebo) and a preoperative questions to assess patients anxiety, anticipated pain scores after surgery and anticipated analgesic need after surgery. At each step of backward variable selection, we eliminate the factor with the largest p-value over 0.05.In the final model MTS was not associated with 24h opioid consumption parameter estimate (standard error) = 9.15 (5.27), p=0.09.|||0.355
90799084|NCT01812057|181476735|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||Fisher Exact|Chronic pain at 8 weeks||||||0.420
90799085|NCT01812057|181476736|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.322|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.322
90799086|NCT01812057|181476737|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.805|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||24 hour pain scores at rest between MTS groups|We also performed a multivariable regression analysis to determine factors associated with Pain scores at rest at 24 hours accounting for MTS category, demographic factors, study group allocation (dexamethasone vs placebo) and a preoperative questions to assess patients anxiety, anticipated pain scores after surgery and anticipated analgesic need after surgery. At each step of backward variable selection, we eliminate the factors with the largest p-value over 0.05. MTS category was not included in the final model for 24 h pain scores at rest.|||0.805
90799087|NCT01812057|181476737|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Pain scores on movement at 24h|We also performed a multivariable regression analysis to determine factors associated with Pain scores at rest at 24 hours accounting for MTS category, demographic factors, study group allocation (dexamethasone vs placebo) and a preoperative questions to assess patients anxiety, anticipated pain scores after surgery and anticipated analgesic need after surgery. At each step of backward variable selection, we eliminated the factors with the largest p-value over 0.05. MTS category was not included in the final model for 24 h pain scores on movement.|||1.000
90799088|NCT01812057|181476738|SUPERIORITY|Intraoperative nausea and vomiting||||||0.245|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.245
90799089|NCT01812057|181476738|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.676|||||||Chi-squared|Need for intraoperative antiemetics||||||0.676
90799090|NCT01812057|181476738|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
90799091|NCT01812057|181476740|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.924|||||||Chi-squared|Incidence of postoperative pruritus||||||0.924
91012660|NCT00960869|181907833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||proportions|2.7||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|5.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by NSAID use=COX-2, other NSAID, or NSAID use=NO at randomization.|The proportion is from the PA32540 treatment group.|The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of subjects with gastric ulcers throughout 6 months of treatment. The primary endpoint was analyzed with the CMH test stratified by NSAID use (COX-2/Other NSAID/No) at randomization. A sample size of 250 subjects/treatment would provide 86% power to detect the difference of 8% between EC aspirin 325 mg (13%) and PA32540 (5%) with a 2-sided significance of 5%; and, provides adequate power to test the key secondary endpoints in sequential order.||5.5|1.1|0.005
91012661|NCT00960869|181907834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by NSAID use=COX-2, other NSAID, or NSAID use=NO at randomization.||The cumulative proportion of subjects developing gastric ulcers and/or duodenal ulcers at 6 months was analyzed using the CMH test stratified by NSAID use=COX-2, other NSAID, or NSAID use=NO at randomization.||||<0.001
90799092|NCT01812057|181476741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.700
90799093|NCT01812057|181476742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.302|||||||Chi-squared|Incidence of PONV at 24 h||||||0.302
90799094|NCT01812057|181476742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028|||||||Chi-squared|Postoperative need for rescue antiemetic||||||0.028
90799095|NCT01812057|181476742|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
90799096|NCT01812057|181476742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.188|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.188
90799097|NCT01259011|181476749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|3.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.3|1.1|<.05
90799098|NCT01259011|181476750|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.2||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|0.3||HADS-anxiety|Regression, Linear|||||0.3|-2.8|0.12
90799099|NCT01259011|181476750|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.2|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|-0.3||HADS-depression|Regression, Linear|||||-0.3|-4.2|<0.05
90799100|NCT01259011|181476751|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-4.0||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|2.2|||Regression, Linear|||||2.2|-10.2|0.21
90799101|NCT03060902|181476770|SUPERIORITY||F|10.16||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.002
90799102|NCT00833521|181476802|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Ratio of Geometric Means|91.1||||||90.0|86.3|96.1|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||96.1|86.3|
90799103|NCT00833521|181476803|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Ratio of Geometric Means|97.0||||||90.0|91.0|103.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||103|91.0|
90799104|NCT00833521|181476804|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Ratio of Geometric Means|96.8||||||90.0|90.7|103.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||103|90.7|
90799105|NCT00636181|181476805|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3||||||PSG outcomes employed analysis of variance for approximately normally distributed outcomes (or outcomes that could be transformed to an approximately normal distribution), and the Kruskal-Wallis test for non-normal outcomes.|Kruskal-Wallis|Pairwise differences were determined using Tukey-Kramer test- ANOVA applied or by Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon summed rank tests and Bonferroni adjustment.||||||0.3
90799106|NCT02735421|181476837|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
90799107|NCT01978145|181476846|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non- inferiority was demonstrated if lower limit of the CI (0.025 one sided significance level) for the difference of the mean change from Baseline in trough FEV1 of FSC administered BID by CB DPI versus FSC administered BID by MD DPI is greater than -45 milliliter (mL).|Mean Difference (Net)|0.025|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.002|0.047|||Repeated Measures Mixed Models|||||0.047|0.002|
90799108|NCT01978145|181476847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.004|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.019|0.027|||||The estimated value and 95% CI values are provided for Day 28|||0.027|-0.019|
91012662|NCT00960869|181907835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by NSAID use=COX-2, other NSAID, or NSAID use=NO at randomization.||The cumulative proportion of subjects with Treatment Success was analyzed using the CMH test stratified by NSAID use=COX-2, other NSAID, or NSAID use=NO at randomization.||||<0.001
91012663|NCT00960869|181907836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by NSAID use=COX-2, other NSAID, or NSAID use=NO at randomization.||The cumulative proportion of subjects discontinuing from the study due to NSAID-associated upper GI adverse events was analyzed using the CMH test stratified by NSAID use=COX-2, other NSAID, or NSAID use=NO at randomization.||||<0.001
91012664|NCT00960869|181907837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by NSAID use=COX-2, other NSAID, or NSAID use=NO and by baseline heartburn severity at randomization.||The proportion of subjects who had no heartburn at 6 months (regardless of the presence or absence of heartburn at baseline) was analyzed using the CMH test stratified by NSAID use=COX-2, other NSAID, or NSAID use=NO at randomization.||||<0.001
91012665|NCT01153971|181907842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91012666|NCT03410693|181907860|SUPERIORITY||ORR difference (R-C)|-2.1|||=|0.6991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|9.9|||Fisher Exact|||||9.9|-14.0|=0.6991
91012667|NCT03410693|181907860|SUPERIORITY||ORR difference (R - C)|-4.5|||=|0.7944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9|9.9|||Fisher Exact|||||9.9|-18.9|=0.7944
91012668|NCT03410693|181907861|SUPERIORITY||DCR difference (R-C)|-5.1|||=|0.7962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.9|9.7|||Fisher Exact|||||9.7|-19.9|=0.7962
91012669|NCT03410693|181907861|SUPERIORITY||DCR difference (R-C)|-10.3|||=|0.9109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.5|6.9|||Fisher Exact|||||6.9|-27.5|=0.9109
90799109|NCT01978145|181476847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|0.044|||||The estimated value and 95% CI values are provided for Day 56|||0.044|-0.005|
90799110|NCT01978145|181476848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.166||||||95.0|-0.06|0.393||||||||0.393|-0.060|
90799111|NCT01978145|181476849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.003|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.278|0.272|||||The estimated and 95% CI values are presented for Day 28.|||0.272|-0.278|
91012670|NCT03410693|181907862|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.226|||=|0.8672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.853|1.762|||Log Rank|||||1.762|0.853|= 0.8672
91012671|NCT03410693|181907862|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.341||||0.9171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.043|||Log Rank|||||2.043|0.880|0.9171
91012672|NCT00665366|181907872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.04||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.14|0.07|||ANCOVA|||||0.07|-4.14|0.058
91012673|NCT00665366|181907873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.25|||ANOVA/ANCOVA||Week 3|||0.25|-0.16|0.669
91012674|NCT00665366|181907873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.16|||ANOVA/ANCOVA||Week 6|||0.16|-0.36|0.436
91012675|NCT00665366|181907873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.28||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.0|||ANOVA/ANCOVA||Week 9|||0.00|-0.56|0.053
91012676|NCT00665366|181907873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.01|||ANOVA/ANCOVA||Week 12|||-0.01|-0.59|0.044
90799112|NCT01978145|181476849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.069||||||95.0|-0.349|0.212|||||The estimated and 95% CI values are presented for Day 56.|||0.212|-0.349|
90799113|NCT01978145|181476849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.133|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.413|0.148|||||The estimated and 95% CI values are presented for Day 85.|||0.148|-0.413|
90799114|NCT01978145|181476850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.19||||||||1.19|-0.70|
90799115|NCT01978145|181476851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.02||||||||-0.02|-1.10|
90799116|NCT01714323|181476871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.07|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.37|||Chi-squared|||Data from all three sites were combined after determining that outcomes did not vary by hospital using Breslow-Day tests. The proportion abstinent by treatment arm was assessed using chi-square test.||1.37|0.84|>0.05
90799117|NCT01714323|181476872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
91012677|NCT00665366|181907874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.06|||ANOVA/ANCOVA model||Week 3|||0.06|-0.22|0.240
91012678|NCT00665366|181907874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02||||0.843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.19|||ANOVA/ANCOVA model||Week 6|||0.19|-0.15|0.843
91012679|NCT00665366|181907874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.16||||0.117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.35|||ANOVA/ANCOVA model||Week 9|||0.35|-0.04|0.117
91012680|NCT00665366|181907874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.17||||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.38|||ANOVA/ANCOVA model|Week 12||||0.38|-0.04|0.109
91012681|NCT00665366|181907875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.2|||ANOVA/ANCOVA model|Week 12||||0.20|-0.37|0.567
91012682|NCT00665366|181907876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.68||||0.566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|3.03|||ANCOVA||Total score: Week 3|||3.03|-1.66|0.566
91012683|NCT00665366|181907876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.66||||0.221||95.0|-1.0|4.32|||ANCOVA||Total score: Week 6|||4.32|-1.00|0.221
91012684|NCT00665366|181907876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.47||||0.315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|4.35|||ANCOVA||Total score: Week 9|||4.35|-1.40|0.315
91012685|NCT00665366|181907876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.88||||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|4.84|||ANCOVA||Total score: Week 12|||4.84|-1.08|0.212
91012686|NCT00665366|181907876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.48|||ANCOVA||Autonomy score: Week 3|||0.48|-0.49|0.991
91012687|NCT00665366|181907876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34||||0.201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.85|||ANCOVA||Autonomy score: Week 6|||0.85|-0.18|0.201
91012688|NCT00665366|181907876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.93|||ANCOVA||Autonomy score: Week 9|||0.93|-0.19|0.198
91012689|NCT00665366|181907876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.39||||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.96|||ANCOVA||Autonomy score: Week 12|||0.96|-0.18|0.178
91012690|NCT00665366|181907876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|0.32|||ANCOVA||Occupational functioning score: Week 3|||0.32|-1.01|0.311
91012691|NCT00665366|181907876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.61|||ANCOVA||Occupational functioning score: Week 6|||0.61|-0.94|0.671
91012692|NCT00665366|181907876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.79|||ANCOVA||Occupational functioning score: Week 9|||0.79|-0.83|0.968
90799118|NCT01714323|181476873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||This compares at Month 1||||<0.001
90799119|NCT01714323|181476873|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||This is analysis for Month 3||||<0.01
90799120|NCT01714323|181476873|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.09|||||||Chi-squared|||This is for Month 6||||<0.09
90799121|NCT01714323|181476875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||This is the p value for the comparison at each follow up point: 1 mo, 3 mo, and 6 mo.|Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
90799122|NCT01714323|181476876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
90799123|NCT01714323|181476877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
90799124|NCT00755807|181476878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM):Change from Baseline=Baseline+Treatment+Investigator+Week+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week,participant random effect.||Null hypothesis: no difference between duloxetine and placebo on pain severity reduction as measured by weekly mean of the daily 24-hour average pain scores in participants assessed at 6 weeks. Sample size is determined using 2-sided t-test with significance level of 0.05, and 5% of randomized participants without post-baseline data due to very early discontinuation. With 119 participants per arm, study has approximately 80% power to detect an effect size of 0.375 on treatment group difference.||||0.001
90799125|NCT00755807|181476879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027||95.0||||P-value is for the 30% Reduction (LOCF). P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.027
90799126|NCT00755807|181476879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.246||95.0||||P-value is for 50% Reduction (LOCF). P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.246
90799127|NCT00755807|181476879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024||95.0||||P-value is for the 30% Reduction (BOCF). P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.024
90799128|NCT00755807|181476879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.165||95.0||||P-value is for 50% Reduction (BOCF). P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.165
90799129|NCT00755807|181476880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.49||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) Model: PGI improvement at Endpoint = Treatment + Investigator.|The mean difference is for placebo - duloxetine.|||0.49|-0.06|0.121
90799130|NCT00755807|181476881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.66||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|1.2||P-value is for BPI Severity for Worst Pain score. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline Value.|The mean difference is for placebo - duloxetine.|||1.20|0.12|0.016
90799131|NCT00755807|181476881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.48||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.95||P-value is for BPI Severity for Least Pain score. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline Value.|The mean difference is for placebo - duloxetine.|||0.95|0.02|0.043
90799132|NCT00755807|181476881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.52||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.99||P-value is for BPI Severity for Average Pain score. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline Value.|The mean difference is for placebo - duloxetine.|||0.99|0.05|0.030
90799133|NCT00755807|181476881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.89||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.43||P-value is for BPI Severity for Pain Right Now score. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline Value.|The mean difference is for placebo - duloxetine.|||1.43|0.36|0.001
91012693|NCT00665366|181907876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25||||0.546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|1.07|||ANCOVA||Occupational functioning score: Week 12|||1.07|-0.56|0.546
90799134|NCT00755807|181476881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.52||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|1.11||P-value is for BPI Interference for General Activity score. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline Value.|The mean difference is for placebo - duloxetine.|||1.11|-0.07|0.083
90799135|NCT00755807|181476881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.66||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|1.27||P-value is for BPI Interference for Mood score. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline Value.|The mean difference is for placebo - duloxetine.|||1.27|0.05|0.034
90799136|NCT00755807|181476881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.55||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|1.19||P-value is for BPI Interference for Walking Ability score. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline Value.|The mean difference is for placebo - duloxetine.|||1.19|-0.08|0.089
90799137|NCT00755807|181476881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33||||0.291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.93||P-value is for BPI Interference for Normal Work score. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline Value.|The mean difference is for placebo - duloxetine.|||0.93|-0.28|0.291
90799138|NCT00755807|181476881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|1.05||P-value is for BPI Interference for Relations With Others score. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline Value.|The mean difference is for placebo - duloxetine.|||1.05|-0.06|0.077
90799139|NCT00755807|181476881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41||||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.97||P-value is for BPI Interference for Sleep score. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline Value.|The mean difference is for placebo - duloxetine.|||0.97|-0.15|0.148
90799140|NCT00755807|181476881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17||||0.582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.79||P-value is for BPI Interference for Enjoyment Of Life score. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline Value.|The mean difference is for placebo - duloxetine.|||0.79|-0.45|0.582
90799141|NCT00755807|181476881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.94||P-value is for BPI Mean Interference score. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline Value.|The mean difference is for placebo - duloxetine.|||0.94|-0.03|0.067
90799142|NCT00755807|181476882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.45||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline Value.|The mean difference is for placebo - duloxetine.|||0.45|0.01|0.041
91012694|NCT00665366|181907876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34||||0.284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.96|||ANCOVA||Cognitive functioning score: Week 3|||0.96|-0.28|0.284
91012695|NCT00665366|181907876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.66||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|1.35|||ANCOVA||Cognitive functioning score: Week 6|||1.35|-0.04|0.063
91012696|NCT00665366|181907876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.62||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.34|||ANCOVA||Cognitive functioning score: Week 9|||1.34|-0.10|0.090
91012697|NCT00665366|181907876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.68||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|1.42|||ANCOVA||Cognitive functioning score: Week 12|||1.42|-0.06|0.072
91012698|NCT00665366|181907876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24||||0.499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.93|||ANCOVA||Interpersonal relationships score: Week 3|||0.93|-0.45|0.499
91012699|NCT00665366|181907876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29||||0.457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|1.06|||ANCOVA||Interpersonal relationships score: Week 6|||1.06|-0.48|0.457
91012700|NCT00665366|181907876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27||||0.525||95.0|-0.56|1.1|||ANCOVA||Interpersonal relationships score: Week 9|||1.10|-0.56|0.525
91012701|NCT00665366|181907876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26||||0.544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|1.09|||ANCOVA||Interpersonal relationships score: Week 12|||1.09|-0.58|0.544
91012702|NCT00665366|181907876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.52|||ANCOVA||Leisure time score: Week 3|||0.52|-0.08|0.149
91012703|NCT00665366|181907876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19||||0.264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.54|||ANCOVA||Leisure time score: Week 6|||0.54|-0.15|0.264
91012704|NCT00665366|181907876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.35|||ANCOVA||Leisure time score: Week 9|||0.35|-0.35|0.988
91012705|NCT00665366|181907876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.44|||ANCOVA||Leisure time score: Week 12|||0.44|-0.27|0.641
91012706|NCT00665366|181907876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.61|||ANCOVA||Financial issues score: Week 3|||0.61|-0.02|0.068
91012707|NCT00665366|181907876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.74|||ANCOVA||Financial issues score: Week 6|||0.74|0.07|0.019
91012708|NCT00665366|181907876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26||||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.6|||ANCOVA||Financial issues score: Week 9|||0.60|-0.08|0.136
91012709|NCT00665366|181907876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23||||0.18||95.0|-0.11|0.57|||ANCOVA||Financial issues score: Week 12|||0.57|-0.11|0.18
91012710|NCT00665366|181907877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.13||||0.466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.59|||Ration of response||Week 3|||1.59|0.81|0.466
91012711|NCT00665366|181907877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.07||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.32|||Risk ratio||Week 6|||1.32|0.86|0.540
91012712|NCT00665366|181907877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.17||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.38|||Risk ratio||Week 9|||1.38|0.99|0.060
91012713|NCT00665366|181907877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.07||||0.289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.23|||Risk ratio|||||1.23|0.94|0.289
91012714|NCT00665366|181907878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.02||||0.909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.39|||Risk ratio (RR)||Week 3|||1.39|0.75|0.909
91012715|NCT00665366|181907878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.06||||0.573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.3|||RR||Week 6|||1.30|0.86|0.573
91012716|NCT00665366|181907878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.16||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.36|||RR||Week 9|||1.36|0.98|0.080
91012717|NCT00665366|181907878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1||||0.211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.27|||RR||Week 12|||1.27|0.95|0.211
91012718|NCT00665366|181907879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.29|||ANOVA/ANCOVA model||Week 6|||1.29|0.07|
91012719|NCT00665366|181907879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.83||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|1.58|||ANOVA/ANCOVA model||Week 12|||1.58|0.08|0.031
91012720|NCT00665366|181907879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.61||||0.104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|1.34|||ANOVA/ANCOVA model||Week 12 (LOCF)|||1.34|-0.13|0.104
91012721|NCT00665366|181907880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.32|||ANCOVA||Week 3|||0.32|-0.21|
91012722|NCT00665366|181907880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.53|||ANCOVA||Week 6|||0.53|-0.05|
91012723|NCT00665366|181907880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||0.197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.54|||ANCOVA||Week 12|||0.54|-0.11|0.197
91012724|NCT00665366|181907880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.63|||ANCOVA||Week 12 (LOCF)|||0.63|-0.07|0.111
91012725|NCT00665366|181907881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.64|||ANOVA/ANCOVA model||Week 12 LOCF|||0.64|-0.63|0.983
91054042|NCT02912650|181990991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.75|3.11|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||3.11|1.75|<0.001
91054043|NCT02912650|181990991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.03|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||2.03|0.66|<0.001
91054044|NCT02912650|181990991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.56|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.56|0.61|<0.001
91054045|NCT02912650|181990991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.95|3.35|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||3.35|1.95|<0.001
91054046|NCT02912650|181990991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.61||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|1.09|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.09|0.12|0.015
91054047|NCT02912650|181990991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|2.22|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||2.22|1.24|<0.001
91054048|NCT02912650|181990991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|2.74|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||2.74|1.35|<0.001
91054049|NCT02912650|181990991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.92||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.62|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.62|0.22|0.010
91012726|NCT00665366|181907882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|3.71|||Risk Ratio|Weight gain||||3.71|0.57|
91012727|NCT00665366|181907883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.582||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.582
91012728|NCT03628781|181907884|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.384||||0.535|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||.535
90799143|NCT00755807|181476883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|1.91||P-value is for treatment comparison of change from baseline on MSQOL Physical Health Composite Section score. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline Value.|The mean difference is for placebo - duloxetine.|||1.91|-3.90|0.500
90799144|NCT00755807|181476883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.22||||0.512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.87|2.44||P-value is for treatment comparison of change from baseline on MSQOL Mental Health Composite Section score. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline Value.|The mean difference is for placebo - duloxetine.|||2.44|-4.87|0.512
91012729|NCT03628781|181907885|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.018|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.081||0.829|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.829
91054050|NCT02912650|181990991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.61|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.61|0.63|<0.001
91054051|NCT02912650|181990991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|2.88|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||2.88|1.47|<0.001
91054052|NCT02912650|181990991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.57||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|1.06|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.06|0.08|0.022
91054053|NCT02912650|181990991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.95|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.95|0.95|<0.001
91012730|NCT03628781|181907886|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.105|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.093||0.357|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.357
91012731|NCT03628781|181907887|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.035|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.126||0.782|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.782
91054054|NCT02912650|181990991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.3|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||2.30|0.90|<0.001
91054055|NCT02912650|181990991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.72||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|1.43|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.43|0.02|0.045
91054056|NCT02912650|181990991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.38|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.38|0.38|<0.001
91054057|NCT02912650|181990991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|2.47|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||2.47|1.09|<0.001
91054058|NCT02912650|181990991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.56||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.04|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.04|0.07|0.024
91054059|NCT02912650|181990991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.65|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.65|0.67|<0.001
91054060|NCT02912650|181990991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.92|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.92|0.54|<0.001
91054061|NCT02912650|181990991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.62||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|1.32|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.32|-0.07|0.079
91054062|NCT02912650|181990991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.6||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|1.09|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.09|0.12|0.015
90799145|NCT00755807|181476883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.51|3.12||P-value is for treatment comparison of change from baseline on MSQOL Physical Health Subsection score. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline Value.|The mean difference is for placebo - duloxetine.|||3.12|-4.51|0.720
90799146|NCT00755807|181476883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.58|3.46||P-value is for treatment comparison of change from baseline on MSQOL Health Perceptions Subsection score. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline Value.|The mean difference is for placebo - duloxetine.|||3.46|-3.58|0.973
90799147|NCT00755807|181476883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.07|4.02||P-value is for treatment comparison of change from baseline on MSQOL Energy Subsection score. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline Value.|The mean difference is for placebo - duloxetine.|||4.02|-4.07|0.991
90799148|NCT00755807|181476883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.14||||0.441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.14|4.87||P-value is for treatment comparison of change from baseline on MSQOL Role Limitation Due to Physical Problems Subsection score. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline Value.|The mean difference is for placebo - duloxetine.|||4.87|-11.14|0.441
90799149|NCT00755807|181476883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.58||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.94|0.79||P-value is for treatment comparison of change from baseline on MSQOL Pain Subsection score. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline Value.|The mean difference is for placebo - duloxetine.|||0.79|-7.94|0.108
90799150|NCT00755807|181476883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.77|5.39||P-value is for treatment comparison of change from baseline on MSQOL Sexual Function Subsection score. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline Value.|The mean difference is for placebo - duloxetine.|||5.39|-5.77|0.948
90799151|NCT00755807|181476883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.96||||0.374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.37|6.28||P-value is for treatment comparison of change from baseline on MSQOL Social Function Subsection score. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline Value.|The mean difference is for placebo - duloxetine.|||6.28|-2.37|0.374
90799152|NCT00755807|181476883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38||||0.867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|4.87||P-value is for treatment comparison of change from baseline on MSQOL Health Distress Subsection score. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline Value.|The mean difference is for placebo - duloxetine.|||4.87|-4.10|0.867
91054063|NCT02912650|181990991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.94|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.94|0.56|<0.001
90799153|NCT00755807|181476883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.77||||0.306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|5.17||P-value is for treatment comparison of change from baseline on MSQOL Overall Quality Of Life Subsection score. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline Value.|The mean difference is for placebo - duloxetine.|||5.17|-1.63|0.306
90799154|NCT00755807|181476883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.08|2.88||P-value is for treatment comparison of change from baseline on MSQOL Emotional Well-being Subsection score. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline Value.|The mean difference is for placebo - duloxetine.|||2.88|-4.08|0.733
90799155|NCT00755807|181476883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.9||||0.283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.88|4.08||P-value is for treatment comparison of change from baseline on MSQOL Role Limitation Due to Emotional Problems score. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline Value.|The mean difference is for placebo - duloxetine.|||4.08|-13.88|0.283
90799156|NCT00755807|181476883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.81||||0.664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.49|2.86||P-value is for treatment comparison of change from baseline on MSQOL Cognitive Function Subsection score. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline Value.|The mean difference is for placebo - duloxetine.|||2.86|-4.49|0.664
90799157|NCT00755807|181476883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.98||||0.504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.81|3.85||P-value is for treatment comparison of change from baseline on MSQOL Change in Health Subsection score. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline Value.|The mean difference is for placebo - duloxetine|||3.85|-7.81|0.504
90799158|NCT00755807|181476883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.02||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.18|3.14||P-value is for treatment comparison of change from baseline on MSQOL Satisfaction with Sexual Function Subsection score. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline Value.|The mean difference is for placebo - duloxetine|||3.14|-11.18|0.270
91054064|NCT02912650|181990991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.19||||0.438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.67|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.67|-0.29|0.438
90799159|NCT00755807|181476884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.119||95.0||||P-value is for treatment comparison in number of participants with CSSR-S Suicidal Ideation during first 6 weeks of acute treatment. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.119
90799160|NCT00755807|181476884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.494||95.0||||P-value is for treatment comparison in number of participants with CSSR-S Suicidal Behavior during first 6 weeks of acute treatment. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.494
91012732|NCT03778021|181907888|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.093||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.41||"Estimated differential change in score between intervention and comparison group from repeated measures linear mixed model.~All the reported analyses conservatively specified covariance structure as general covariance (unstructured). alpha = 0.05."|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures linear mixed model analysis. Student nested within school. Model fit time, intervention and time by intervention interaction.|Estimated differential change (intervention minus control) from repeated measures linear mixed model|"The unit of measure is score on a scale. The results show the least squares estimate of change in that score, from baseline to 8-month follow-up in each group from model.~Values from the 100 and 194 baseline respondents and from the 72 and 141 follow-up respondents of intervention and comparison groups respectively contributed to the repeated measures linear mixed model, where the units of analysis were participant-time. The nesting within schools was accounted for in the model."|"In the repeated measures linear mixed model, time was treated as a fixed effect. In the specification of the repeated measures linear mixed model, students were nested within schools.~All the reported analyses conservatively specified covariance structure as general covariance (unstructured)."|0.41|0.04|0.017
90799161|NCT00755807|181476884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.494||95.0||||P-value is for treatment comparison in number of participants with CSSR-S Suicidal Acts during first 6 weeks of acute treatment. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.494
90799162|NCT00755807|181476885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures model:Change from Baseline=Baseline+Treatment+Investigator+Week+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; participant=random effect.||||||0.002
90799163|NCT00755807|181476886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.04||P-value is for treatment comparison of change from baseline on BDI-II Question #9 score. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline Value.|The mean difference is for placebo - duloxetine.|||0.04|-0.06|0.662
90799164|NCT00755807|181476887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.244||95.0||||This is the P-value for Discontinuation Due to Any Reason.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.244
90799165|NCT00755807|181476887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||95.0||||This is the P-value for Adverse Event (AE).|Fisher Exact|||||||0.012
90799166|NCT00755807|181476887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.622||95.0||||This is the P-value for Protocol Violation.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.622
90799167|NCT00755807|181476887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||This is the P-value for Subject Decision.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
90799168|NCT00755807|181476887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||This is the P-value for Lack of Efficacy.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
90799169|NCT00755807|181476887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||This is the P-value for Physician Decision.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
90799170|NCT00755807|181476890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047||95.0||||P-value is for treatment comparison of change from baseline on Bicarbonate, HCO3. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|Model: Rank-transformed change from Baseline = Treatment + Investigator.||||||0.047
90799171|NCT00755807|181476891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033||95.0||||P-value is for treatment comparison of change from baseline on creatinine. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|Model: Rank-transformed change from Baseline = Treatment + Investigator.||||||0.033
90799172|NCT00755807|181476892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034||95.0||||P-value is for treatment comparison of change from baseline on platelet count. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|Model: Rank-transformed change from baseline = Treatment + Investigator.||||||0.034
90799173|NCT00755807|181476893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0||||P-value is for treatment comparison of change from baseline on inorganic phosphorus. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|Model: Rank-transformed change from Baseline = Treatment + Investigator.||||||0.007
90799174|NCT00755807|181476894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025||95.0||||P-value is for treatment comparison of change from baseline on uric acid. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|Model: Rank-transformed change from Baseline = Treatment + Investigator.||||||0.025
90799175|NCT00755807|181476895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.86||||0.322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.55|0.84||P-value is for treatment comparison of change from baseline on diastolic blood pressure. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline Value.|The mean difference is for placebo - duloxetine.|||0.84|-2.55|0.322
90799176|NCT00755807|181476895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.32|2.52||P-value is for treatment comparison of change from baseline on systolic blood pressure. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline Value.|The mean difference is for placebo - duloxetine.|||2.52|-3.32|0.787
90799177|NCT00755807|181476896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.55||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|0.61||P-value is for treatment comparison of change from baseline on pulse rate. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline Value.|The mean difference is for placebo - duloxetine.|||0.61|-3.70|0.160
90799178|NCT00755807|181476897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.77||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.26||P-value is for treatment comparison of change from baseline on weight. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline Value.|The mean difference is for placebo - duloxetine.|||1.26|0.27|0.003
90799179|NCT00755807|181476898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|One-sample t-test of mean PGI-I score at 18 weeks for all participants who entered extension phase.||||||<0.001
90799180|NCT00755807|181476899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The P-value is for BPI-S for Worst Pain. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|One-sample t-test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint on BPI-S for Worst Pain.||||||<0.001
90799181|NCT00755807|181476899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The P-value is for BPI-S for Least Pain. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|One-sample t-test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint on BPI-S for Least Pain score.||||||<0.001
90799182|NCT00755807|181476899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The P-value is for BPI-S for Average Pain. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|One-sample t-test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint on BPI-S for Average Pain score.||||||<0.001
90799183|NCT00755807|181476899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|One-sample t-test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint on BPI-S for Pain Right Now score.||||||<0.001
90799184|NCT00755807|181476899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The P-value is for BPI-I for General Activity. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|One-sample t-test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint on BPI-I for General Activity score.||||||<0.001
90799185|NCT00755807|181476899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The P-value is for the BPI-I for Mood. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|One-sample t-test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint on BPI-I for Mood score.||||||<0.001
90799186|NCT00755807|181476899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The P-value is for the BPI-I for Walking Ability. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|One-sample t-test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint on BPI-I for Walking Ability score.||||||<0.001
90799187|NCT00755807|181476899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The P-value is for the BPI-I for Normal Work. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|One-sample t-test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint on BPI-I for Normal Work score.||||||<0.001
90799188|NCT00755807|181476899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The P-value is for the BPI-I for Relations With Others. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|One-sample t-test of mean change from baseline to endpoint on BPI-I for Relations With Others score.||||||<0.001
90799189|NCT00755807|181476899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The P-value is for the BPI-I for Sleep. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|One-sample t-test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint on BPI-I for Sleep score.||||||<0.001
90799190|NCT00755807|181476899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The P-value is for the BPI-I for Enjoyment of Life. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|One-sample t-test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint on BPI-I for Enjoyment Of Life score.||||||<0.001
90799191|NCT00755807|181476899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The P-value is for the BPI for Mean Interference Score. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|One-sample t-test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint on BPI for Mean Interference score.||||||<0.001
90799192|NCT00755807|181476900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|One-sample t-test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint on CGI-S score for all participants who entered extension phase.||||||<0.001
90799193|NCT00755807|181476901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|One-sample t-test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint on MSQOL Physical Health Composite Section score.||||||0.002
91054065|NCT02912650|181990991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.8||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.29|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.29|0.31|0.001
91054066|NCT02912650|181990991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.06||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.75|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.75|0.37|0.003
90799194|NCT00755807|181476901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.054||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|One-sample t-test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint on MSQOL Mental Health Composite Section score.||||||0.054
90799195|NCT00755807|181476901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|One-sample t-test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint on MSQOL Physical Health Subsection score.||||||0.002
91054067|NCT02912650|181990991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.45||||0.204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|1.14|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.14|-0.25|0.204
90799196|NCT00755807|181476901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|One-sample t-test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint on MSQOL Health Perceptions Subsection score.||||||0.025
90799197|NCT00755807|181476901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|One-sample t-test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint on MSQOL Energy Subsection score.||||||0.008
90799198|NCT00755807|181476901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.858||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|One-sample t-test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint on MSQOL Role Limitation Due to Physical Problems Subsection score.||||||0.858
90799199|NCT00755807|181476901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|One-sample t-test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint on MSQOL Pain Subsection score.||||||<0.001
90799200|NCT00755807|181476901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.637||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|One-sample t-test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint on MSQOL Sexual Function Subsection score.||||||0.637
90799201|NCT00755807|181476901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.051||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|One-sample t-test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint on MSQOL Social Function Subsection score.||||||0.051
90799202|NCT00755807|181476901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|One-sample t-test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint on MSQOL Health Distress Subsection score.||||||0.270
90799203|NCT00755807|181476901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.061||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|One-sample t-test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint on MSQOL Overall Quality Of Life Subsection score.||||||0.061
90799204|NCT00755807|181476901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|One-sample t-test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint on MSQOL Emotional Well-being Subsection score.||||||0.007
90799205|NCT00755807|181476901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.253||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|One-sample t-test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint on MSQOL Role Limitation Due to Emotional Problems score.||||||0.253
90799206|NCT00755807|181476901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.942||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|One-sample t-test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint on MSQOL Cognitive Function Subsection score.||||||0.942
91012733|NCT03778021|181907889|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.41||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|3.49||"Estimated differential change in score between intervention and comparison group from repeated measures linear mixed model.~All the reported analyses conservatively specified covariance structure as general covariance (unstructured). alpha = 0.05"|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures linear mixed model analysis. Student nested within school. Model fit time, intervention and time by intervention interaction.|Estimated differential change from baseline to follow-up from model (intervention minus control)|"Results present estimated change in score from baseline to 8-month follow-up in each group from model.~Values from the 100 and 194 baseline respondents and from the 72 and 141 follow-up respondents of intervention and comparison groups respectively contributed to the repeated measures linear mixed model, where the units of analysis were participant-time. The nesting within schools was accounted for in the model."|In the repeated measures linear mixed model, time was treated as a fixed effect. In the specification of the repeated measures linear mixed model, students were nested within schools|3.49|-0.66|0.18
90799207|NCT00755807|181476901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|One-sample t-test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint on MSQOL Change in Health Subsection score.||||||0.016
90799208|NCT00755807|181476901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.381||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|One-sample t-test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint on MSQOL Satisfaction with Sexual Function Subsection score.||||||0.381
90799209|NCT00755807|181476903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.524||95.0||||P-value is for test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint (Week 7). P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) Model: Change from Baseline=Baseline+Investigator+Week+Baseline\*Week; participant was treated as random effect.||||||0.524
90799210|NCT00755807|181476903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint (Week 8). P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM Model: Change from Baseline = Baseline + Investigator + Week + Baseline\* Week, where participant was treated as a random effect.||||||<0.001
90799211|NCT00755807|181476903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint (Week 9). P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM Model: Change from Baseline = Baseline + Investigator + Week + Baseline\* Week, where participant was treated as a random effect.||||||<0.001
90799212|NCT00755807|181476903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint (Week 10). P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM Model: Change from Baseline = Baseline + Investigator + Week + Baseline\* Week, where participant was treated as a random effect.||||||<0.001
90799213|NCT00755807|181476903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint (Week 11). P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM Model: Change from Baseline = Baseline + Investigator + Week + Baseline\* Week, where participant was treated as a random effect.||||||<0.001
90799214|NCT00755807|181476903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint (Week 12). P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM Model: Change from Baseline = Baseline + Investigator + Week + Baseline\* Week, where participant was treated as a random effect.||||||<0.001
90799215|NCT00755807|181476903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint (Week 13). P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM Model: Change from Baseline = Baseline + Investigator + Week + Baseline\* Week, where participant was treated as a random effect.||||||<0.001
90799216|NCT00755807|181476903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint (Week 14). P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM Model: Change from Baseline = Baseline + Investigator + Week + Baseline\* Week, where participant was treated as a random effect.||||||<0.001
90799217|NCT00755807|181476903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint (Week 15). P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM Model: Change from Baseline = Baseline + Investigator + Week + Baseline\* Week, where participant was treated as a random effect.||||||<0.001
90799218|NCT00755807|181476903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint (Week 16). P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM Model: Change from Baseline = Baseline + Investigator + Week + Baseline\* Week, where participant was treated as a random effect.||||||<0.001
90799219|NCT00755807|181476903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint (Week 17). P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM Model: Change from Baseline = Baseline + Investigator + Week + Baseline\* Week, where participant was treated as a random effect.||||||<0.001
90799220|NCT00755807|181476903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint (Week 18). P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM Model: Change from Baseline = Baseline + Investigator + Week + Baseline\* Week, where participant was treated as a random effect.||||||<0.001
90799221|NCT00755807|181476904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.706||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|1-sample t-test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint on BDI-II Question #9 score for all participants who entered extension phase.||||||0.706
90799222|NCT00755807|181476908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed rank test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint on monocytes.||||||0.035
90799223|NCT00755807|181476909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.042||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed rank test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint on sodium.||||||0.042
91054068|NCT02912650|181990991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.61||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|1.1|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.10|0.12|0.014
90799224|NCT00755807|181476910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed rank test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint on total protein.||||||0.036
90799225|NCT00755807|181476911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|One-sample t-test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint on diastolic blood pressure.||||||0.320
90799226|NCT00755807|181476911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.182||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|One-sample t-test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint on systolic blood pressure.||||||0.182
90799227|NCT00755807|181476912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.032||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|One-sample t-test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint on pulse rate.||||||0.032
90799228|NCT00755807|181476913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.151||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|One-sample t-test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint on weight.||||||0.151
90799229|NCT00939107|181476914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.5|||>|0.05||95.0|0.2|2.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.8|0.2|>0.05
90799230|NCT01585025|181476979|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Paired comparison of fasting FGF19 at baseline on day 0 and on day 14 of OCA treatment||||0.007
90799231|NCT01585025|181476979|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Paired comparison of fasting FGF19 at baseline on day 0 and on day 14 of OCA treatment||||0.11
90799232|NCT01585025|181476979|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Paired comparison of fasting FGF19 at baseline on day 0 and on day 14 of OCA treatment||||0.12
90799233|NCT01585025|181476980|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in FGF19 AUC||||0.72
90799234|NCT01585025|181476980|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in FGF19 AUC||||0.51
90799235|NCT01585025|181476980|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in FGF19 AUC||||0.13
90799236|NCT01585025|181476981|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in fasting C4||||0.03
90799237|NCT01585025|181476981|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in fasting C4||||0.11
90799238|NCT01585025|181476981|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in fasting C4||||0.02
90799239|NCT01585025|181476982|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in bile acid 6h AUC||||0.02
90799240|NCT01585025|181476982|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in bile acid 6h AUC||||0.04
90799241|NCT01585025|181476982|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in bile acid 6h AUC||||0.02
90799242|NCT01585025|181476983|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of change in number of stools per week||||0.03
90799243|NCT01585025|181476983|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of change in number of stools per week||||0.17
90799244|NCT01585025|181476983|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of change in number of stools per week||||0.31
90799245|NCT01585025|181476984|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in median stool form||||0.05
90799246|NCT01585025|181476984|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in median stool form||||0.04
90799247|NCT01585025|181476984|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in median stool form||||0.74
90799248|NCT01585025|181476985|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Paired difference in weekly index score||||0.005
90799249|NCT01585025|181476985|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Paired difference in weekly index score||||0.03
90799250|NCT01585025|181476985|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Paired difference in weekly index score||||0.61
90799251|NCT02122380|181477020|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.918|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of mean growth hormone (GH) levels between sitagliptin and placebo. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05 (two sided). A sample size of 16 participants was needed to provide 93% power to detect a difference in GH means of 0.5 mcg/L.||||0.918
90799252|NCT02122380|181477021|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.054|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of early insulin secretion between sitagliptin and placebo. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05 (two sided).||||0.054
90799253|NCT02122380|181477022|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in blood glucose levels between sitagliptin and placebo. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05 (two sided).||||0.009
90799254|NCT02122380|181477023|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in the mass of visceral adipose tissue after sitagliptin vs. placebo. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05 (two sided).||||0.022
90799255|NCT02122380|181477024|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.943|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in vascular function between sitagliptin and placebo treatments. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05 (two sided).||||0.943
90799256|NCT00952705|181477029|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response of Q/LAIV-BFS was declared noninferior to that of trivalent FluMist if the upper bound of the 95% CI for the post dose A/H1N1 GMT ratio was ≤ 1.5. This corresponded to the statistical hypothesis of: Ho: Rj \> 1.5 for any j and Ha: Rj ≤ 1.5 for all j, where Rj was the A/H1N1 post-dose GMT ratio: (FluMist B/Yamagata A/H1N1 + FluMist B/Victoria A/H1N1) divided by Q/LAIV-BFS A/H1N1.|Ratio of geometric mean titers|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.03|||Bootstrapping method|Confidence intervals calculated based on bootstrapping method.||Noninferior immune response was assessed by evaluating the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of A/H1N1 GMTs for the specified comparison. Geometric mean titers for the A/H1N1 influenza antigen measurements were calculated as: GMT = antilog\^y (mean \[log\^y x\]) where x was the assay result and y was the natural logarithm.||1.03|0.87|
90799257|NCT00952705|181477029|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response of Q/LAIV-BFS was declared noninferior to that of trivalent FluMist if the upper bound of the 95% CI for the post dose A/H3N2 GMT ratio was ≤ 1.5. This corresponded to the statistical hypothesis of: Ho: Rj \> 1.5 for any j and Ha: Rj ≤ 1.5 for all j, where Rj was the A/H3N2 post-dose GMT ratio: (FluMist B/Yamagata A/H3N2 + FluMist B/Victoria A/H3N2) divided by Q/LAIV-BFS A/H3N2.|Ratio of geometric mean titers|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.0|||Bootstrapping method|Confidence intervals calculated based on bootstrapping method.||Noninferior immune response was assessed by evaluating the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of A/H3N2 GMTs for the specified comparison. Geometric mean titers for the A/H3N2 influenza antigen measurements were calculated as: GMT = antilog\^y (mean \[log\^y x\]) where x was the assay result and y was the natural logarithm.||1.00|0.85|
90799258|NCT00952705|181477029|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response of Q/LAIV-BFS was declared noninferior to that of trivalent FluMist if the upper bound of the 95% CI for the post dose B/Yamagata GMT ratio was ≤ 1.5. This corresponded to the statistical hypothesis of: Ho: Rj \> 1.5 for any j and Ha: Rj ≤ 1.5 for all j, where Rj was the B/Yamagata post-dose GMT ratio: FluMist B/Yamagata divided by Q/LAIV-BFS B/Yamagata.|Ratio of geometric mean titers|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.02|||Bootstrapping method|Confidence intervals calculated based on bootstrapping method.||Noninferior immune response was assessed by evaluating the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of B/Yamagata GMTs for the specified comparison. Geometric mean titers for the B/Yamagata influenza antigen measurements were calculated as: GMT = antilog\^y (mean \[log\^y x\]) where x was the assay result and y was the natural logarithm.||1.02|0.79|
90799259|NCT00952705|181477029|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response of Q/LAIV-BFS was declared noninferior to that of trivalent FluMist if the upper bound of the 95% CI for the post dose B/Victoria GMT ratio was ≤ 1.5. This corresponded to the statistical hypothesis of: Ho: Rj \> 1.5 for any j and Ha: Rj ≤ 1.5 for all j, where Rj was the B/Victoria post-dose GMT ratio: FluMist B/Victoria divided by Q/LAIV-BFS B/Victoria.|Ratio of geometric mean titers|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.1|||Bootstrapping method|Confidence intervals calculated based on bootstrapping method.||Noninferior immune response was assessed by evaluating the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of B/Victoria GMTs for the specified comparison. Geometric mean titers for the B/Victoria influenza antigen measurements were calculated as: GMT = antilog\^y (mean \[log\^y x\]) where x was the assay result and y was the natural logarithm.||1.10|0.87|
90799260|NCT01114737|181477068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|0.6|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline ADHD-RS/ASRS total score, age group, and ADHD medication.||||0.6|-8.9|0.085
90799261|NCT01114737|181477069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.3|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline HAMA Anxiety Scale Total Score, age group, ADHD symptom, and ADHD medication.||||2.3|-1.5|0.669
90799262|NCT01114737|181477070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.9|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for Baseline HAM-D Rating Scale Total Score, age group, ADHD symptom, and ADHD medication.||||1.9|-1.1|0.588
90799263|NCT01114737|181477071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline CGI-Severity Response, age group, ADHD symptom, and ADHD medication.||||0.2|-0.4|0.531
90799264|NCT01114737|181477072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2||0.661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|3.6|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for Baseline BRIEF Adult-GEC T Score, ADHD symptom, and ADHD medication.||||3.6|-5.5|0.661
90799265|NCT01114737|181477073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|-0.3|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for Baseline BRIEF Parent-GEC T Score, ADHD symptom, and ADHD medication.||||-0.3|-7.9|0.034
90799266|NCT01114737|181477074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6||0.312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|7.8|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for Week 13 ADHD RS/ASRS Total Score, age group, and ADHD medication.||||7.8|-2.6|0.312
91012734|NCT03778021|181907890|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.81||"Repeated measures generalized linear mixed model with binomial distribution (variable was I know I can - yes versus no)."|Mixed Models Analysis|The odds of the odds ratio is reported as the intervention effect.|Odds ratio from estimated least squares from generalized mixed model with binomial distribution specified. Intervention odds of change compared to comparison group odds of change via odds ratio..|"Odds ratio of 8-month follow-up to baseline percent reporting  I know I can was estimated from repeated measures generalized linear mixed model with binomial distribution.~Values included from the 100 and 194 baseline respondents and from the 72 and 141 8-month follow-up respondents of intervention and comparison groups respectively. The person-timepoint is the unit of analysis."||2.81|0.60|0.51
91054069|NCT02912650|181990991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.84||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.53|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.53|0.15|0.018
91012735|NCT02687815|181907891|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.85|||Regression, Cox|||||1.85|0.69|0.63
91054070|NCT02912650|181990991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.04||||0.867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.52|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.52|-0.44|0.867
90799267|NCT01114737|181477075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.4|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for Week 13 HAMA Anxiety Rating Scale Total Score, age group, ADHD symptom, and ADHD medication.||||1.4|-2.4|0.590
90799268|NCT01114737|181477076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.9|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for Week 13 HAMD Rating Scale Total Score, age group, ADHD symptom, and ADHD||||1.9|-1.2|0.636
90799269|NCT01114737|181477077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.5|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for Week 13 Global Impression-Severity Score, ADHD symptom, and ADHD medication.||||0.5|-0.2|0.510
90799270|NCT01114737|181477078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|5.2|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for Week 13 BRIEF Adult-GEC T Score, ADHD symptom, and ADHD medication.||||5.2|-2.1|0.395
90799271|NCT01114737|181477079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|4.7|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for Week 13 BRIEF Parent-GEC T Score, ADHD symptom, and ADHD medication.||||4.7|-2.1|0.443
90799272|NCT01114737|181477080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8||0.953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|5.8|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for Baseline ADHD-RS/ASRS Total Score, ADHD symptom, and ADHD medication.||||5.8|-5.5|0.953
90799273|NCT01114737|181477081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.7|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for Baseline Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAM-A) Score, ADHD symptom, and ADHD medication.||||1.7|-2.4|0.733
90799274|NCT01114737|181477082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.2|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for Baseline Hamilton Rating Scale For Depression (HAM-D) Score, ADHD symptom, and ADHD medication.||||2.2|-1.1|0.522
90799275|NCT01114737|181477083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.4|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for Baseline Clinical Global Impression-Severity (CGI-S), ADHD symptom, and ADHD medication.||||0.4|-0.2|0.564
90799276|NCT01114737|181477084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|0.87||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.64|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for age group, ADHD symptom, and ADHD medication||||1.64|0.46|0.67
90799277|NCT01114737|181477085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8||0.833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|5.0|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for Baseline BRIEF Adult-GEC T Score, ADHD symptom, and ADHD medication.||||5.0|-6.2|0.833
90799278|NCT01114737|181477086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|1.8|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for Baseline BRIEF Parent-GEC T Score, ADHD symptom, and ADHD medication.||||1.8|-6.3|0.279
91012736|NCT02687815|181907892|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.32||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.75|||Regression, Cox|||||2.75|0.63|0.46
91012737|NCT02687815|181907893|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.52|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.52|0.66|0.99
91054071|NCT02912650|181990991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.41||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.9|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.90|-0.08|0.099
90799279|NCT00387088|181477097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.102|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.009|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.085|0.118|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with pooled centre, LABA use, and treatment fitted as main effects and the baseline trough FEV1 as a covariate.||||0.118|0.085|<0.0001
90799280|NCT02441218|181477121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|0.9|||Regression, Cox||"Estimate of the hazard ratio between treatment groups based on an adjusted Cox proportional hazards model with beta-blocker intake at randomisation as a covariate.~P-value: Wald test"|||0.90|0.75|<0.0001
90799281|NCT02441218|181477122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.03|||Regression, Cox||"Estimate of the hazard ratio between treatment groups based on an adjusted Cox proportional hazards model with beta-blocker intake at randomisation as a covariate.~P-value: Wald test"|||1.03|0.80|0.128
90799282|NCT02441218|181477123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.83|||Regression, Cox||"Estimate of the hazard ratio between treatment groups based on an adjusted Cox proportional hazards model with beta-blocker intake at randomisation as a covariate.~P-value: Wald test"|||0.83|0.66|< 0.0001
90799283|NCT02441218|181477124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.02|||Regression, Cox||"Estimate of the hazard ratio between treatment groups based on an adjusted Cox proportional hazards model with beta-blocker intake at randomisation as a covariate.~P-value: Wald test"|||1.02|0.80|0.092
90799284|NCT02441218|181477125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.94|||Regression, Cox||"Estimate of the hazard ratio between treatment groups based on an adjusted Cox proportional hazards model with beta-blocker intake at randomisation as a covariate.~P-value: Wald test"|||0.94|0.58|0.0140
90799285|NCT02441218|181477126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|0.96|||Regression, Cox||"Estimate of the hazard ratio between treatment groups based on an adjusted Cox proportional hazards model with beta-blocker intake at randomisation as a covariate.~P-value: Wald test"|||0.96|0.82|0.0027
90799286|NCT02441218|181477127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|0.92|||Regression, Cox||"Estimate of the hazard ratio between treatment groups based on an adjusted Cox proportional hazards model with beta-blocker intake at randomisation as a covariate.~P-value: Wald test"|||0.92|0.78|0.0002
91054072|NCT02912650|181990991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.8||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|1.49|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.49|0.11|0.024
90799287|NCT02441218|181477128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|0.95|||Regression, Cox||"Estimate of the hazard ratio between treatment groups based on an adjusted Cox proportional hazards model with beta-blocker intake at randomisation as a covariate.~P-value: Wald test"|||0.95|0.81|0.0013
90799288|NCT02441218|181477129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.92|||Regression, Cox||"Estimate of the hazard ratio between treatment groups based on an adjusted Cox proportional hazards model with beta-blocker intake at randomisation as a covariate.~P-value: Wald test"|||0.92|0.77|0.0002
91012738|NCT02687815|181907894|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.4||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|8.8|||Regression, Linear|||||8.80|0.001|0.049
91012739|NCT02558634|181907898|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.25||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.75||The level of significance was set at p=0.025 to allow a Bonferroni correction for these two tests (i.e. p=0.050 divided by two).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.75|0.75|0.025
91012740|NCT01238861|181907907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.09||||0.781|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.74|1.59|||Poisson Regression Method||The p-value was calculated by Poisson regression with over-dispersion adjustment factor. The correction for potential over dispersion was made by Pearson chi-square.|||1.59|0.74|0.781
91012741|NCT01238861|181907907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.64||||0.173|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.42|0.97|||Poisson Regression Method||The p-value was calculated by Poisson regression with over-dispersion adjustment factor. The correction for potential over dispersion was made by Pearson chi-square.|||0.97|0.42|0.173
91012742|NCT01238861|181907907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.59||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.4|0.89|||Poisson Regression Method||The p-value was calculated by Poisson regression with over-dispersion adjustment factor. The correction for potential over dispersion was made by Pearson chi-square.|||0.89|0.40|0.096
91012743|NCT01238861|181907912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.125|||||||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated by analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment, baseline inhaled steroid status and baseline observed value as covariates.||||||0.125
91012744|NCT01238861|181907912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.074|||||||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated by ANCOVA with treatment, baseline inhaled steroid status and baseline observed value as covariates.||||||0.074
91012745|NCT01238861|181907912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.057|||||||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated by ANCOVA with treatment, baseline inhaled steroid status and baseline observed value as covariates.||||||0.057
91012746|NCT01238861|181907912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated by ANCOVA with treatment, baseline inhaled steroid status and baseline observed value as covariates.||||||0.010
91012747|NCT01238861|181907914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.182||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.336|-0.028|||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated by ANCOVA with treatment, baseline inhaled steroid status and baseline observed value as covariates.||||-0.028|-0.336|0.131
91012748|NCT01238861|181907914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.173||||0.126|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.317|-0.028|||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated by ANCOVA with treatment, baseline inhaled steroid status and baseline observed value as covariates.||||-0.028|-0.317|0.126
91012749|NCT01238861|181907914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.247|-0.032|||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated by ANCOVA with treatment, baseline inhaled steroid status and baseline observed value as covariates.||||-0.032|-0.247|0.097
91012750|NCT01238861|181907915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.174||||0.642|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.654|0.306|||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated by ANCOVA with treatment, baseline inhaled steroid status and baseline observed value as covariates.||Analysis reported for rescue medication use without prophylactic at Week 51-52.||0.306|-0.654|0.642
91012751|NCT01238861|181907915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.111||||0.824|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.533|0.756|||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated by ANCOVA with treatment, baseline inhaled steroid status and baseline observed value as covariates.||Analysis reported for rescue medication use without prophylactic at Week 51-52.||0.756|-0.533|0.824
90799289|NCT02441218|181477130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.89|||Regression, Cox||Estimate of the hazard ratio between treatment groups based on an adjusted Cox proportional hazards model with beta-blocker intake at randomisation as a covariate. P-value: Wald test|||0.89|0.74|< 0.0001
90799290|NCT00856609|181477173|OTHER||Slope|-624.8||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-901.8|-347.8|||ANCOVA|||||-347.8|-901.8|0.01
90799291|NCT00856609|181477174|OTHER||Slope|-24.0||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-89.7|41.4|||ANCOVA|||||41.4|-89.7|0.01
90799292|NCT00856609|181477175|OTHER||Slope|-1.48||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.02|0.05|||ANCOVA|||||0.05|-3.02|0.05
90799293|NCT01788943|181477176|OTHER|||||||0.037|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.037
90799294|NCT01788943|181477177|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
90799295|NCT00186628|181477179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||.07
91012752|NCT01238861|181907915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.029||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.297|0.355|||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated by ANCOVA with treatment, baseline inhaled steroid status and baseline observed value as covariates.||Analysis reported for rescue medication use without prophylactic at Week 51-52.||0.355|-0.297|0.910
90799296|NCT01247064|181477182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
90799297|NCT01247064|181477183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.86
91012753|NCT01238861|181907915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.004||||0.992|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.602|0.593|||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated by ANCOVA with treatment, baseline inhaled steroid status and baseline observed value as covariates.||Analysis reported for rescue medication use with prophylactic at Week 51-52.||0.593|-0.602|0.992
91012754|NCT01238861|181907915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.337||||0.624|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.548|1.222|||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated by ANCOVA with treatment, baseline inhaled steroid status and baseline observed value as covariates.||Analysis reported for rescue medication use with prophylactic at Week 51-52.||1.222|-0.548|0.624
91012755|NCT01238861|181907915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.645|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.267|0.567|||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated by ANCOVA with treatment, baseline inhaled steroid status and baseline observed value as covariates.||Analysis reported for rescue medication use with prophylactic at Week 51-52.||0.567|-0.267|0.645
91012756|NCT01238861|181907916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.157||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.076|0.237|||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated by ANCOVA with treatment, baseline inhaled steroid status and baseline observed value as covariates.||||0.237|0.076|0.014
91054073|NCT02912650|181990991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.43||||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|1.12|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.12|-0.27|0.228
90799298|NCT01247064|181477184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
90799299|NCT01247064|181477185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.36
90799300|NCT01247064|181477186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.62
91012757|NCT01238861|181907916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.184||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.102|0.266|||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated by ANCOVA with treatment, baseline inhaled steroid status and baseline observed value as covariates.||||0.266|0.102|0.004
91012758|NCT01238861|181907916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.091||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.039|0.143|||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated by ANCOVA with treatment, baseline inhaled steroid status and baseline observed value as covariates.||||0.143|0.039|0.026
90799301|NCT00945659|181477193|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.003|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.2||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.36|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||0.36|-0.43|0.86
90799302|NCT00945659|181477193|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.04|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||-0.04|-0.78|0.03
90799303|NCT00945659|181477194|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.72||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.3|-0.81|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||-0.81|-19.30|0.03
90799304|NCT00945659|181477194|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.82|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.47||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.54|9.9|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||9.9|-11.54|0.88
90799305|NCT00945659|181477195|SUPERIORITY||Generalized Estimating Equation|-3.45|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.98||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.21|6.32|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||6.32|-13.21|0.49
90799306|NCT00945659|181477195|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.53|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.76||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||||0.66
90799307|NCT00945659|181477196|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.86||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|2.08|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||2.08|-1.29|0.64
90799308|NCT00945659|181477196|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.41|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.92||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|1.39|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||1.39|-2.22|0.65
90799309|NCT00945659|181477197|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.71|STANDARD_DEVIATION|63.4||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-123.56|124.97|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||124.97|-123.56|0.99
90799310|NCT00945659|181477197|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.22|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.81||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.26|25.83|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||25.83|-28.26|0.93
90799311|NCT00945659|181477198|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.47||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|4.04|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||4.04|-1.70|0.43
90799312|NCT00945659|181477198|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.59|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.87||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|0.32|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||0.32|-5.50|0.08
90799313|NCT00945659|181477199|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.32|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.66||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|4.56|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||4.56|-1.94|0.43
91012759|NCT01238861|181907917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.384|||||||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated by ANCOVA with treatment, baseline inhaled steroid status and baseline observed value as covariates.||||||0.384
91012760|NCT01238861|181907917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.092|||||||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated by ANCOVA with treatment, baseline inhaled steroid status and baseline observed value as covariates.||||||0.092
91012761|NCT01238861|181907917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.134|||||||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated by ANCOVA with treatment, baseline inhaled steroid status and baseline observed value as covariates.||||||0.134
91054074|NCT02912650|181990991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.37||||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.86|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.86|-0.12|0.136
90799314|NCT00945659|181477199|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.71|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.36||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.38|-1.04|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||-1.04|-6.38|.007
90799315|NCT00945659|181477200|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.39|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.23||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|2.79|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||2.79|-2.02|0.75
90799316|NCT00945659|181477200|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.39|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.38||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|2.32|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||2.32|-3.09|0.78
90799317|NCT00945659|181477201|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.72|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.31||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|3.29|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||3.29|-1.86|0.58
90799318|NCT00945659|181477201|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.93|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.14||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.17|1.3|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||1.3|-3.17|0.41
90799319|NCT00945659|181477202|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.95|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.66||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.26|7.15|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||7.15|-3.26|0.46
90799320|NCT00945659|181477202|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.54||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.99|1.96|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||1.96|-7.99|0.24
90799321|NCT00945659|181477203|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.31|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.37||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.33|6.91|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||6.91|-6.33|0.93
90799322|NCT00945659|181477203|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.95||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.01|3.57|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||3.57|-8.01|0.45
90799323|NCT00945659|181477204|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.77|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.26||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.15|5.62|||Generalized Estimating Equestion|||||5.62|-7.15|0.81
90799324|NCT00945659|181477204|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.99|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.63||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.11|6.08|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||6.08|-4.11|0.72
90799325|NCT00945659|181477205|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.99|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.6||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.11|6.08|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||6.08|-4.11|0.71
90799326|NCT00945659|181477205|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.85||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.74|4.43|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||4.43|-6.74|0.68
90799327|NCT04828707|181477209|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The Intent-To-Treat (ITT) dataset was used for primary outcome. To overcome impact of missing data, statistical analysis was conducted using the Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF) as an imputation method.~The data of each variable collected from the daily diary was normalized to 28 days for every period (weeks 1-4, weeks 5-8, and weeks 9-12).~Participants' data who entered the treatment phase but dropped out during weeks 5-8 were carried forward and analyzed as their data at weeks 9-12."||||<0.05
90799328|NCT01991860|181477281|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.033||||||2-sided|Chi-squared, Corrected|Yates's continuity correction||||||0.033
90799329|NCT01991860|181477282|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|Yates's continuity correction||||||0.16
90799330|NCT01991860|181477283|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|Yates's continuity correction||||||0.68
90799331|NCT01991860|181477284|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.026|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|Yates's continuity correction||||||0.026
90799332|NCT01991860|181477285|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.086|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|Yates's continuity correction||||||0.086
90799333|NCT01991860|181477286|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.074|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|Yates's continuity correction||||||0.074
90799334|NCT01991860|181477287|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|Yates's continuity correction||||||0.15
90799335|NCT02394561|181477289|NON_INFERIORITY|The difference in percentage of patients achieving PASI 90 response between the Cw6-positive cohort and the Cw6-negative cohort was H0 = Cw6-positive minus Cw6-negative ≥0.12 and HA = Cw6-positive minus Cw6-negative was \< 0.12. The percentage of PASI 90 response by cohort as well as the difference between cohort together with 97.5% upper CI was provided using Clopper Pearson CI method.|difference|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|6.2||||||||6.2|-8.8|
90799336|NCT02394561|181477292|OTHER|difference between cohorts for PASI 90 using Kaplan-Meier estimate||||||0.1295|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.1295
90799337|NCT02394561|181477292|OTHER|||||||0.447||||||difference between cohorts for PASI 75 using Kaplan-Meier estimate|Log Rank|||||||0.4470
90799338|NCT02394561|181477293|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|At all time points||||||<.0001
90799339|NCT02394561|181477294|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||All time points|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<.0001
90799340|NCT02553629|181477299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.001
90799341|NCT02553629|181477300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
90799342|NCT02553629|181477301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04
90799343|NCT02553629|181477302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
90799344|NCT02553629|181477303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
90799345|NCT02797821|181477313|OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Means Difference|-1.88|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.544|-1.216||REML-based repeated measures mixed model (treatment, visit, sex, Baseline PPi, Baseline weight group \[≥median vs \< median\], and study drug lot assignment as factors) with an unstructured covariance structure for within-participant correlation.|REML|A fixed sequence testing procedure was used to control the Type I error rate. A statistical adjustment of p-values was not performed.||A fixed sequence testing procedure was performed to compare the 3.0 mg/kg cohort with the 0.5 mg/kg cohort first. The hypothesis testing for the second comparison of the 2.0 mg/kg cohort compared with the 0.5 mg/kg cohort was only performed if the null hypothesis was rejected for the previous comparison at a significance level of 0.05 (p-value \<0.05). The primary endpoint was met if the null hypothesis was rejected for both comparisons at a significance level of 0.05 (both p-values \<0.05).||-1.216|-2.544|<0.0001
90890316|NCT04313881|181645084|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.802|1.297||2-sided P-value was based on stratified log-rank test, stratified by stratification factors (geographic region, cytogenetic risk status, and bone marrow blast percentage).|Log Rank||Hazard ratio and its 95% CI were calculated using the Cox proportional hazards regression model, stratified by stratification factors.|||1.297|0.802|0.8720
91012762|NCT01238861|181907917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.129|||||||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated by ANCOVA with treatment, baseline inhaled steroid status and baseline observed value as covariates.||||||0.129
90799346|NCT02797821|181477313|OTHER||LS Means Difference|-1.193||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.805|-0.581||REML-based repeated measures mixed model (treatment, visit, sex, Baseline PPi, Baseline weight group \[≥median vs \< median\], and study drug lot assignment as factors) with an unstructured covariance structure for within-participant correlation.|REML|A fixed sequence testing procedure was used to control the Type I error rate. A statistical adjustment of p-values was not performed.||A fixed sequence testing procedure was performed to compare the 3.0 mg/kg cohort with the 0.5 mg/kg cohort first. The hypothesis testing for the second comparison of the 2.0 mg/kg cohort compared with the 0.5 mg/kg cohort was only performed if the null hypothesis was rejected for the first comparison at a significance level of 0.05 (p-value \<0.05). The primary endpoint was met if the null hypothesis was rejected for both comparisons at a significance level of 0.05 (both p-values \<0.05).||-0.581|-1.805|0.0008
90799347|NCT02797821|181477314|OTHER||LS Means Difference|-34.047||||0.0128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.171|-7.922||REML-based repeated measures mixed model (treatment, visit, sex, Baseline PPi, Baseline weight group \[≥ median versus \< median\], and study drug lot assignment as factors) with an unstructured covariance structure for within-participant correlation.|Restricted maximum likelihood-based|A statistical adjustment of p-values was not performed.||||-7.922|-60.171|0.0128
90799348|NCT02797821|181477314|OTHER||LS Means Difference|-29.492||||0.0239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.723|-4.261||REML-based repeated measures mixed model (treatment, visit, sex, Baseline PPi, Baseline weight group \[≥ median versus \< median\], and study drug lot assignment as factors) with an unstructured covariance structure for within-participant correlation.|Restricted maximum likelihood-based|A statistical adjustment of p-values was not performed.||||-4.261|-54.723|0.0239
90799349|NCT01180127|181477318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Repeated measures ANOVA|||Repeated measures ANOVA for the interaction of time (baseline vs 12 week) and flavanol group.||||.0001
90799350|NCT01180127|181477319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|||||The ANCOVA model included a main effect for both flavanol and exercise, so this p-value is for the effect of flavanol on Modbent controlling for baseline Modbent and exercise|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA used to test main effect of flavanol||||0.038
91012763|NCT01238861|181907919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.404||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.121|0.687|||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated by ANCOVA with treatment, baseline inhaled steroid status and baseline observed value as covariates.||||0.687|0.121|0.069
91012764|NCT01238861|181907919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.462||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.163|0.761|||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated by ANCOVA with treatment, baseline inhaled steroid status and baseline observed value as covariates.||||0.761|0.163|0.049
91012765|NCT01238861|181907919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.238||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.017|0.459|||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated by ANCOVA with treatment, baseline inhaled steroid status and baseline observed value as covariates.||||0.459|0.017|0.168
91012766|NCT01238861|181907920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.058|0.019|||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated by ANCOVA with treatment, baseline inhaled steroid status and baseline observed value as covariates.||||0.019|-0.058|0.510
91012767|NCT01238861|181907920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.041||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.008|0.074|||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated by ANCOVA with treatment, baseline inhaled steroid status and baseline observed value as covariates.||||0.074|0.008|0.113
91012768|NCT01238861|181907920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.011||||0.599|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.016|0.038|||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated by ANCOVA with treatment, baseline inhaled steroid status and baseline observed value as covariates.||||0.038|-0.016|0.599
91012769|NCT01238861|181907921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.373||||0.871|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.333|2.586|||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated by ANCOVA with treatment, baseline inhaled steroid status and baseline observed value as covariates.||||2.586|-3.333|0.871
91012770|NCT01238861|181907921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.857||||0.227|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.175|5.889|||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated by ANCOVA with treatment, baseline inhaled steroid status and baseline observed value as covariates.||||5.889|-0.175|0.227
91012771|NCT01238861|181907921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.139||||0.503|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.041|3.319|||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated by ANCOVA with treatment, baseline inhaled steroid status and baseline observed value as covariates.||||3.319|-1.041|0.503
90799351|NCT01180127|181477319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.815|TWO_SIDED|||||The ANCOVA included both a main effect for flavanol and exercise, so this p-value is for the test of exercise controlling for baseline Modbent and flavanol|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA used to test main effect of exercise||||0.815
90799352|NCT01180127|181477320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.853|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA for testing main effect of flavanol||||0.853
90799353|NCT01180127|181477320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.581|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA for testing main effect of exercise||||0.581
90799354|NCT01180127|181477321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.237|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was used to test for an exercise effect.||||0.237
91012772|NCT01238861|181907922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.907||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.483|12.297|||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated by ANCOVA with treatment, baseline inhaled steroid status and baseline observed value as covariates.||||12.297|-4.483|0.550
91012773|NCT01238861|181907922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.659||||0.215|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.262|15.579|||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated by ANCOVA with treatment, baseline inhaled steroid status and baseline observed value as covariates.||||15.579|-0.262|0.215
91012774|NCT01238861|181907922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.54||||0.413|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.006|9.086|||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated by ANCOVA with treatment, baseline inhaled steroid status and baseline observed value as covariates.||||9.086|-2.006|0.413
91012775|NCT01238861|181907923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.896|||||||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated by ANCOVA with treatment, baseline inhaled steroid status and baseline observed value as covariates.||||||0.896
91012776|NCT01238861|181907923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.944|||||||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated by ANCOVA with treatment, baseline inhaled steroid status and baseline observed value as covariates.||||||0.944
91012777|NCT01238861|181907923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.667|||||||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated by ANCOVA with treatment, baseline inhaled steroid status and baseline observed value as covariates.||||||0.667
91054075|NCT02912650|181990991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.6||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|1.28|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.28|-0.07|0.078
91054076|NCT02912650|181990991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.09||||0.716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.56|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.56|-0.38|0.716
91054077|NCT02912650|181990991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.31||||0.197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.79|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.79|-0.16|0.197
91054078|NCT02912650|181990991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.52||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|1.19|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.19|-0.15|0.131
91054079|NCT02912650|181990991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.29||||0.399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.97|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.97|-0.39|0.399
91054080|NCT02912650|181990991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.23||||0.349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.7|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.70|-0.25|0.349
91054081|NCT02912650|181990991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.46||||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.12|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.12|-0.20|0.169
91054082|NCT02912650|181990991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.02||||0.937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.44|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.44|-0.48|0.937
90799355|NCT01854528|181477347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|34.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.09|47.42|||Stratum adjusted Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value for the difference in sustained virologic response rates 12 weeks after the last dose between treatment groups with HCV subgenotype (1a, non-1a) from stratum adjusted Mantel-Haenszel with previous type of response to pegIFN/RBV treatment (relapser, partial or null responder) as strata.||47.42|21.09|<0.001
91012778|NCT01928758|181907925|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-175.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-218.3|-133.1||Complete case analysis|Regression, Linear|Model was adjusted for baseline cotinine after smoking usual nicotine content cigarettes for 2-weeks.|The direction of comparison is reduced nicotine content vs. usual nicotine content cigarette treatment group.|||-133.1|-218.3|<0.0001
91012779|NCT01928758|181907926|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.69||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|1.65||Complete case analysis|Regression, Linear|Model was adjusted for baseline score after smoking usual nicotine content cigarettes for 2 weeks|The direction of comparison is reduced nicotine content vs. usual nicotine content cigarette treatment group|||1.65|-0.28|0.16
91012780|NCT01928758|181907927|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|2.16||Complete case analysis|Regression, Linear|Model was adjusted for baseline score after smoking usual nicotine content cigarettes for 2 weeks|The direction of comparison is reduced nicotine content vs. usual nicotine content cigarette treatment group.|||2.16|-1.40|0.67
91012781|NCT01928758|181907928|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|1.05||Complete case analysis|Regression, Linear|Model was adjusted for baseline score after smoking usual nicotine content cigarettes for 2 weeks|The direction of comparison is reduced nicotine content vs. usual nicotine content cigarette treatment group|||1.05|-1.68|0.65
91012782|NCT02452320|181907943|OTHER|||||||0.59|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.59
91012783|NCT03737812|181907957|OTHER|a statistical test was not performed|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.485|10.259||||||Analyzed using a logistic regression model with corresponding baseline value as a covariate and treatment as a main effect. Logistic regression model for EDSS+ includes baseline values for EDSS, Timed 25-Foot Walk, 9-Hole Peg Test-dominant, 9-Hole Peg Test-nondominant, and treatment as a main effect. Subjects with missing values were imputed as non-responders.||10.259|0.485|
91012784|NCT03737812|181907957|OTHER|a statistical test was not performed|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.859|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.899|16.561||||||Analyzed using a logistic regression model with corresponding baseline value as a covariate and treatment as a main effect. Logistic regression model for EDSS+ includes baseline values for EDSS, Timed 25-Foot Walk, 9-Hole Peg Test-dominant, 9-Hole Peg Test-nondominant, and treatment as a main effect. Subjects with missing values were imputed as non-responders.||16.561|0.899|
90799356|NCT01854528|181477348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|8.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.43|11.85|||ANCOVA|||P-value from ANCOVA model including baseline score and region as covariates and treatment arm as a factor.||11.85|5.43|<0.001
90799357|NCT01854528|181477349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|7.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.11|9.98|||ANCOVA|||P-value from ANCOVA model including baseline score and region as covariates and treatment arm as a factor.||9.98|5.11|<0.001
91012785|NCT01474291|181907969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.3|||Wald Chi-square|Wald Chi-square Test for Type 3 generalized estimating equation (GEE) Analysis.||"Influence of baseline factor Patient's Age (\>=65) upon physician's decision to initiate tocilizumab monotherapy (multivariate analysis)."||2.30|1.06|0.0230
91054083|NCT02912650|181990991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.22||||0.351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.69|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.69|-0.25|0.351
91054084|NCT02912650|181990991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.48||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|1.14|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.14|-0.18|0.151
91054085|NCT02912650|181990991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.24||||0.476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.9|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.90|-0.42|0.476
91054086|NCT02912650|181990991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.24||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.71|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.71|-0.22|0.310
91054087|NCT02912650|181990992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.09|8.61|||ANCOVA|||0 to 2 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||8.61|6.09|<0.001
90799358|NCT01854528|181477350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|54.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|435.1|||Regression, Logistic|||P-value from logistic regression model including treatment arm, baseline log10 HCV RNA level, HCV subgenotype, and previous response to pegIFN/RBV treatment as predictors.||435.1|6.9|<0.001
90799359|NCT02026011|181477358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39||||||Medication effect: b = -0.15, SE = 0.17, t = -0.86, p = 0.39|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.39
90799360|NCT02026011|181477358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34||||||Genotype effect: b = 0.20, SE = 0.21, t = 0.96, p = 0.34|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.34
91012786|NCT01474291|181907969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.92|8.43|||Wald Chi-square|Wald Chi-square Test for Type 3 GEE Analysis.||"Influence of baseline factor No methotrexate (MTX) sequences within the two last years upon physician's decision to initiate tocilizumab monotherapy (multivariate analysis)."||8.43|3.92|<0.0001
91012787|NCT01474291|181907969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.03||||0.0212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|3.7|||Wald Chi-square|Wald Chi-square Test for Type 3 GEE Analysis.||"Influence of baseline factor Past history of severe infectious disease upon physician's decision to initiate tocilizumab monotherapy (multivariate analysis)."||3.70|1.11|0.0212
91012788|NCT01474291|181907969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.0076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.41|||Wald Chi-square|Wald Chi-square Test for Type 3 GEE Analysis.||"Influence of baseline factor Higher Disease Activity Score Based on 28-joint Count and Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate (DAS28-ESR) (unit=1) on physician decision to initiate tocilizumab monotherapy; DAS28-ESR was calculated from the number of swollen joints and tender joints using 28-joint count, ESR (millimeters per hour \[mm/hour\]) and patient's global assessment of disease activity; scores range from 0 to 10; higher scores correspond to greater disease activity (multivariate analysis)."||1.41|1.05|0.0076
91012789|NCT03471507|181907991|OTHER|||||||0.46|||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age and sex.||||||0.46
91012790|NCT01399619|181907995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value corresponds to a two sided test against the historical rate of 40%.|normal approximation|||the SVR12 rate in total Faldaprevir group compared with the historical rate of 40%.||||<0.0001
91012791|NCT03417245|181908054|SUPERIORITY||ABR ratio|0.101|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.064|0.159||P-value derived from NB regression model during EP, with treatment arm, number of bleeds in 6 months prior to study (\<=10, \>10) and hemophilia type (A vs B) as fixed effects. Significance threshold was at 0.05.|Negative binomial regression mode|||||0.159|0.064|<0.0001
91012792|NCT03417245|181908056|SUPERIORITY||ABR ratio|0.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.188||P-value derived from NB regression model during TP, with treatment arm, number of bleeds in 6 months prior to study (\<=10, \>10) and hemophilia type (A vs B) as fixed effects. Significance threshold was at 0.05.|Negative binomial regression model|||||0.188|0.090|<0.0001
91012793|NCT03417245|181908058|SUPERIORITY||ABR ratio|0.083|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.049|0.141||P-value derived from NB regression model during EP, with treatment arm, number of bleeds in 6 months prior to study (\<=10, \>10) and hemophilia type (A vs B) as fixed effects. Significance threshold was at 0.05.|Negative binomial regression model|||||0.141|0.049|<0.0001
91012794|NCT03417245|181908060|SUPERIORITY||ABR ratio|0.097|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.059|0.161||P-value derived from NB regression model during EP, with treatment arm, number of bleeds in 6 months prior to study (\<=10, \>10) and hemophilia type (A vs B) as fixed effects. Significance threshold was at 0.05.|Negative binomial regression model|||||0.161|0.059|<0.0001
91012795|NCT03417245|181908062|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean difference|-19.75|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.0|-12.5||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model included treatment arm, number of bleeds in 6 months prior to study (\<=10,\>10) and hemophilia type (A vs B) as fixed effects, Baseline score as covariate. Significance threshold was at 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||-12.50|-27.00|<0.0001
91012796|NCT03417245|181908063|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-7.07|||=|0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.23|-2.9||ANCOVA model included treatment arm, number of bleeds in 6 months prior to study (\<=10,\>10) and hemophilia type (A vs B) as fixed effects, Baseline score as covariate. Significance threshold was at 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||-2.90|-11.23|=0.0011
91012797|NCT02046993|181908066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||Chi-squared|||comparison of the percentage of patients doing HBPM between intervention and control group at baseline||||0.27
91012798|NCT02046993|181908066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||McNemar|||Comparison of percentage of subjects doing HBPM at 3rd month from baseline within intervention group||||.020
91012799|NCT02046993|181908066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||McNemar|||comparison in percentage of patients doing Home BP monitoring at 6th month from baseline within intervention group||||.060
91012800|NCT02046993|181908066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||McNemar|||Change in the proportion of patients doing HBPM at 3 months from baseline within the control group||||.002
91012801|NCT02046993|181908066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||McNemar|||Change in proportion of patients doing HBPM at 6 months from baseline within control group||||.009
91012802|NCT02046993|181908067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.813|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of baseline mean clinic systolic BP mCSBP readings between control and intervention||||0.813
91012803|NCT02046993|181908067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.865|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of baseline mean clinic diastolic BP mCDBP readings between control and intervention||||0.865
91012804|NCT02046993|181908067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.476|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of difference of mean clinic systolic BP readings mCSBP between control and intervention at 3 months from baseline||||0.476
90799361|NCT02026011|181477358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||||||BrAC effect: b = 0.13, SE = 0.06, t = 2.10, p = 0.04|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.04
90799362|NCT02026011|181477358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47||||||Medication by genotype interaction: b = 0.15, SE = 0.21, t = 0.73, p = 0.47|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.47
90799363|NCT02026011|181477358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13||||||Medication by genotype by BrAC interaction: b = -0.20, SE = 0.13, t = -1.52, p = 0.13|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.13
90799364|NCT02026011|181477359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23||||||Medication effect: b = 0.16, SE = 0.13, t = 1.20, p = 0.23|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.23
90799365|NCT02026011|181477359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09||||||Genotype effect: b = 0.37, SE = 0.22, t = 1.69, p = 0.09|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.09
90799366|NCT02026011|181477359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84||||||Medication by genotype interaction: b = 0.04, SE = 0.21, t = 0.20, p = 0.84|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.84
91054088|NCT02912650|181990992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.41||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|2.28|||ANCOVA|||0 to 2 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||2.28|0.53|0.002
91054089|NCT02912650|181990992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|2.88|||ANCOVA|||0 to 2 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||2.88|1.09|<0.001
90799367|NCT02026011|181477359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||||||Medication by genotype by BrAC interaction: b = -0.32, SE = 0.16, t = -1.93, p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.05
91012805|NCT02046993|181908067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of difference of mean clinic diastolic BP mCDBP readings between control and intervention at 3 months from baseline||||0.14
91012806|NCT02046993|181908067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.495|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of difference of mean clinic systolic BP readings mCSBP between control and intervention at 6 months from baseline||||0.495
91012807|NCT02046993|181908067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.967|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of difference in mean clinic diastolic BP readings mCDBP between control and intervention at 6 months from baseline||||0.967
91012808|NCT02046993|181908068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.819|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of baselline SEMCD between telemonitoring group and enhanced usual care||||0.819
91012809|NCT02046993|181908068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.512|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of SEMCD at 3 months between telemonitoring group and enhanced usual care||||0.512
91012810|NCT02046993|181908068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.325|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of SEMCD at 6 months between telemonitoring group and enhanced usual care group||||0.325
91012811|NCT02046993|181908069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.532|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparison of baseline mHSBP in mmHg between Telemonitoring and Enhanced Usual Care groups||||0.532
91012812|NCT02046993|181908069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.902|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparison of baseline mHDBP in mmHg between Telemonitoring and Enhanced Usual Care groups||||0.902
91012813|NCT02046993|181908070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.138|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparison of mHSBP at 3 months between smartphone based telemonitoring group and control group on enhanced usual care||||0.138
91012814|NCT02046993|181908070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.204|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparison of mHDBP in mmHg between Telemonitoring and Enhanced Usual Care groups at 3 months||||0.204
91012815|NCT02046993|181908071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.199|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparison of mHSBP in mmHg between Telemonitoring groups and Enhanced Usual Care groups at 6 months||||0.199
91012816|NCT02046993|181908071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.204|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparison of mHDBP in mmHg at 6 months between Telemonitoring and Enhanced Usual Care groups||||0.204
91012817|NCT00920582|181908108|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.348||||0.609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.431|4.219|||Mantel Haenszel|||||4.219|0.431|0.609
91012818|NCT00920582|181908108|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.356||||0.601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.453|4.23|||Mantel Haenszel|||||4.230|0.453|0.601
91054090|NCT02912650|181990992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.69|7.2|||ANCOVA|||0 to 2 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||7.20|4.69|<0.001
91054091|NCT02912650|181990992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|6.63|||ANCOVA|||0 to 2 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||6.63|4.10|<0.001
91054092|NCT02912650|181990992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.58||||0.203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|1.47|||ANCOVA|||0 to 2 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||1.47|-0.31|0.203
90799368|NCT02026011|181477360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55||||||Medication effect: b = 0.14, SE = 0.23, t = 0.61, p = 0.55|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.55
91012819|NCT00920582|181908108|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.624||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.521|5.066|||Mantel Haenszel|||||5.066|0.521|0.400
91012820|NCT00920582|181908110|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.028||||0.365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.086|0.031|||ANCOVA|||||0.031|-0.086|0.365
91012821|NCT00920582|181908110|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.007||||0.842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.078|0.064|||ANCOVA|||||0.064|-0.078|0.842
91012822|NCT00920582|181908110|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.021||||0.565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.089|0.171|||ANCOVA|||||0.171|-0.089|0.565
91012823|NCT00920582|181908115|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.197||||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.764|6.312|||Mantel Haenszel|||||6.312|0.764|0.142
91012824|NCT00920582|181908115|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.487||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.517|4.278|||Mantel Haenszel|||||4.278|0.517|0.460
91012825|NCT00920582|181908115|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.954||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|5.532|||Mantel Haenszel|||||5.532|0.690|0.199
91012826|NCT00851721|181908122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0003||95.0|||||Two-sample, two-sided t-test|||H0: μ(on-demand) = μ(prophylaxis) Versus H1: μ(on-demand) ≠ μ(prophylaxis) (Where H0 implies no difference in mean bleeding episode rate between prophylaxis and on-demand treatment arms and H1 implies otherwise. This test was performed at a significance level of 5%, two-sided, two sample)||||0.0003
91012827|NCT00851721|181908124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0008|||||||Two-sample, two-sided t-test|||Spontaneous Bleeds||||0.0008
91012828|NCT00851721|181908124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0199|||||||Two-sample, two-sided t-test|||Traumatic Bleeds||||0.0199
91012829|NCT00851721|181908124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0006|||||||Two-sample, two-sided t-test|||Joint Bleeds||||0.0006
91012830|NCT00851721|181908124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0227|||||||Two-sample, two-sided t-test|||Non-Joint Bleeds||||0.0227
91054093|NCT02912650|181990992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|24.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.1|28.9|||ANCOVA|||0 to 6 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||28.90|20.10|<0.001
90799369|NCT02026011|181477360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77||||||Genotype effect: b = -0.11, SE = 0.37, t = -0.30, p = 0.77|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.77
90799370|NCT02026011|181477360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||||||BrAC effect: b = 0.30, SE = 0.15, t = 2.02, p = 0.04|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.04
90799371|NCT02026011|181477360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47||||||Medication by genotype interaction: b = -0.21, SE = 0.29, t = -0.72, p = 0.47|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.47
90799372|NCT02026011|181477360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19||||||Medication by genotype by BrAC interaction: b = 0.28, SE = 0.21, t = 1.30, p = 0.19|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.19
91012831|NCT00851721|181908124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0013|||||||Two-sample, two-sided t-test|||Spontaneous Joint Bleeds||||0.0013
91012832|NCT00851721|181908124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.003|||||||Two-sample, two-sided t-test|||Spontaneous Non-Joint Bleeds||||0.0030
91012833|NCT00851721|181908124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0254|||||||Two-sample, two-sided t-test|||Traumatic Joint Bleeds||||0.0254
91012834|NCT00851721|181908124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9322|||||||Two-sample, two-sided t-test|||Traumatic Non-Joint Bleeds||||0.9322
91012835|NCT00851721|181908126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0271|||||||Two-sample, two-sided t-test|||||||0.0271
91012836|NCT00851721|181908133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0067||95.0|||||Mann-Whitney tests (Wilcoxon-Rank Sum)|||||||0.0067
91012837|NCT01333501|181908165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7||0.494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.51|7.23|||ANCOVA|||||7.23|-3.51|0.4940
91012838|NCT01333501|181908166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.03||0.5183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.06|7.99|||ANCOVA|||||7.99|-4.06|0.5183
91012839|NCT01333501|181908167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.1334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.69|0.5|||ANCOVA|||||0.50|-3.69|0.1334
91012840|NCT01333501|181908168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.29||0.4501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.27|2.81|||ANCOVA|||||2.81|-6.27|0.4501
91012841|NCT01333501|181908169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.53||0.8561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.57|5.49|||ANCOVA|||||5.49|-4.57|0.8561
90799373|NCT02026011|181477362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14||||||Medication effect: F(1,71) = 2.24, p = 0.14|Poisson Regression|||||||0.14
90799374|NCT02026011|181477362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||||||Genotype effect: F(1, 71) = 5.79, p = 0.02|Poisson|||||||0.02
90799375|NCT02026011|181477362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41||||||Medication by genotype interaction: F(1, 70) = 0.68, p = 0.41.|Poisson|||||||0.41
90799376|NCT01669902|181477387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change at Month 3||||<0.0001
90799377|NCT01669902|181477387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0357|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change at Month 6||||0.0357
90799378|NCT01047189|181477391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.05
90799379|NCT00988156|181477392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.249|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2490
90799380|NCT00988156|181477393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9017|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.9017
90799381|NCT00688467|181477408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||100 * (placebo - navarixin) / placebo|26.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|27.377||0.411|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.411
90799382|NCT00688467|181477409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||100 * (placebo - navarixin) / placebo|23.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.306||0.292|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.292
90799383|NCT00688467|181477411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||100 * (placebo - navarixin) / placebo|-1.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.261||0.927|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.927
90799384|NCT00688467|181477412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||100 * (placebo - navarixin) / placebo|4.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.398||0.645|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.645
90799385|NCT01847092|181477473|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.279|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.279
90799386|NCT01847092|181477474|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.94
90799387|NCT03623698|181477475|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-1.5|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Statistical analysis was performed using IBM SPSS Statistics software, version 25.~This analysis applies to the category of Total courses of antibiotics."||-1.500|-4.000|<0.001
91012842|NCT01333501|181908170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.53||0.8858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.67|5.4|||ANCOVA|||||5.40|-4.67|0.8858
91012843|NCT01333501|181908171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.7119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|1.11|||ANCOVA|||||1.11|-0.76|0.7119
91012844|NCT01333501|181908172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.9496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.81|||ANCOVA|||||0.81|-0.86|0.9496
91012845|NCT01333501|181908173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18||0.8944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|2.5|||ANCOVA|||||2.50|-2.18|0.8944
91012846|NCT01333501|181908174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.6757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|0.92|||ANCOVA|||||0.92|-1.42|0.6757
91012847|NCT01333501|181908175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.34||0.3585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.82|2.5|||ANCOVA|||||2.50|-6.82|0.3585
91012848|NCT01333501|181908176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.69||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.62|2.14|||ANCOVA|||||2.14|-12.62|0.1610
91012849|NCT01680835|181908252|OTHER|Freedom from primary safety composite event at 36 months compared to a performance goal of 35%|Kaplan Meier|0.771|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|0.678||||Log Rank||||||0.678|<0.001
91012850|NCT01680835|181908253|OTHER|No hypothesis Testing for this endpoint.|Kaplan Meier|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Stent Fracture at 1 Year||||
91012851|NCT01680835|181908253|OTHER|No hypothesis testing was done for this endpoint.|Kaplan Meier|0.989|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Stent Fracture at 2 Years||||
91012852|NCT01680835|181908253|OTHER|No hypothesis testing was done for this endpoint|Kaplan Meier|0.965|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Stent Fracture at 3 Years||||
91012853|NCT01680835|181908254|OTHER|No hypothesis testing was done at this endpoint|Kaplan Meier|0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Freedom from acute death, freedom from amputation and freedom from clinically-driven target lesion revascularization at 1 year||||
91012854|NCT01680835|181908254|OTHER|No hypothesis testing was done for this endpoint.|Kaplan Meier|0.782|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Freedom from acute death, freedom from amputation and freedom from clinically-driven target lesion revascularization at 2 years||||
90799388|NCT03623698|181477475|OTHER|Linear mixed-effects model|Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)|-2.88||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.46|-1.29||95% confidence interval, significance level p-values \<0.05. Random effects pre-defined from theory and published data, and AIC was were used to define the best model. Outcome measures: Courses of antibiotics; Fixed effect: nebulised saline treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effects: age, gender, mechanical ventilation, tracheostomy, gastrostomy, non-ambulant.||"Statistical analysis was performed using IBM SPSS Statistics software, version 25.~This analysis applies to the category of Total courses of antibiotics."||-1.29|-4.46|0.001
90799389|NCT03623698|181477476|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.5|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Statistical analysis was performed using IBM SPSS Statistics software, version 25.||-0.50|-1.50|0.001
90799390|NCT03623698|181477476|OTHER||Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)|-1.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|-0.52||95% confidence interval, significance level p-values \<0.05. Random effects pre-defined from theory and published data, and AIC was were used to define the best model. Outcome measures: Courses of antibiotics; Fixed effect: nebulised saline treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effects: age, gender, prolonged mechanical ventilation (nasal or tracheostomy), and antibiotic prophylaxis||Statistical analysis was performed using IBM SPSS Statistics software, version 25.||-0.52|-1.53|<0.001
90799391|NCT03623698|181477479|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-4.5||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|-3.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||-3.00|-5.50|0.003
90799392|NCT03623698|181477480|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-2.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||-2.0|-2.5|<0.001
90799393|NCT03623698|181477483|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.76|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.76|-0.69|0.97
90799394|NCT03623698|181477484|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.47||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.26|0.34|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.34|-3.26|0.09
91012855|NCT01680835|181908255|OTHER|No hypothesis testing was done for this endpoint.|Kaplan Meier|0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Estimate from freedom from major amputation through 3 years.||||
91012856|NCT01680835|181908256|OTHER||Kaplan Meier|0.781|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Freedom from clinically-driven TLR through 3 Years||||
91012857|NCT03026556|181908263|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.766||||0.0844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.566|1.037|||Regression, Cox|||Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute Hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).||1.037|0.566|0.0844
91012858|NCT03026556|181908263|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.255||||0.4892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.659|2.39|||Regression, Cox|||Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute Hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).||2.390|0.659|0.4892
91012859|NCT03026556|181908264|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.0182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.696|0.967|||Regression, Cox|||Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute Hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).||0.967|0.696|0.0182
90799395|NCT03623698|181477485|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.38|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.38|-0.38|0.65
90799396|NCT00811954|181477491|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Confidence interval estimation was stratified by HIV-1 RNA level at screening using Greenwood's variance with the inverse of this variance used for the stratum weights. The pre-specified confidence bounds for equivalence were +/-10 percentage points.|Cumulative probability difference|3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.7|7.4||||||Treatment comparison was made using the difference (arm A - arm B) in the stratified Kaplan-Meier estimate for the week 96 cumulative probability of virologic failure with 97.5% confidence interval.||7.4|-0.7|
90799397|NCT00811954|181477491|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Confidence interval estimation was stratified by HIV-1 RNA level at screening using Greenwood's variance with the inverse of this variance used for the stratum weights. The pre-specified confidence bounds for equivalence were +/-10 percentage points.|Cumulative probability difference|5.6|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.3|9.9||||||Treatment comparison was made using the difference (arm C - arm B) in the stratified Kaplan-Meier estimate for the week 96 cumulative probability of virologic failure with 97.5% confidence interval.||9.9|1.3|
90799398|NCT00811954|181477491|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Confidence interval estimation was stratified by HIV-1 RNA level at screening using Greenwood's variance with the inverse of this variance used for the stratum weights. The pre-specified confidence bounds for equivalence were +/-10 percentage points.|Cumulative probability difference|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-6.7|2.3||||||Treatment comparison was made using the difference (arm A - arm C) in the stratified Kaplan-Meier estimate for the week 96 cumulative probability of virologic failure with 97.5% confidence interval.||2.3|-6.7|
90799399|NCT00811954|181477492|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Although the study was not specifically powered to be able to detect equivalence, equivalence was declared if the 97.5% confidence interval difference in the cumulative probability of the tolerability endpoint by 96 weeks was entirely contained within +/-10 percentage points.|Cumulative incidence difference|12.8|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|9.4|16.1||||||Treatment comparison was made using the methods of Gray. Inference regarding comparisons of the treatment groups (arm A and arm B) with respect to equivalence was made based on the two-sided 97.5% confidence intervals of differences (arm A - arm B) in 96 week probability of tolerability failure with 97.5% confidence interval.||16.1|9.4|
90799400|NCT00811954|181477492|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Although the study was not specifically powered to be able to detect equivalence, equivalence was declared if the 97.5% confidence interval difference in the cumulative probability of the tolerability endpoint by 96 weeks was entirely contained within +/-10 percentage points.|Cumulative incidence difference|3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.4|5.8||||||Treatment comparison was made using the methods of Gray. Inference regarding comparisons of the treatment groups (arm C and arm B) with respect to equivalence was made based on the two-sided 97.5% confidence intervals of differences (arm C - arm B) in 96 week probability of tolerability failure with 97.5% confidence interval.||5.8|1.4|
91012860|NCT03026556|181908264|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.374||||0.0702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.974|1.939|||Regression, Cox|||Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute Hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).||1.939|0.974|0.0702
91012861|NCT03026556|181908265|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.923||||0.6307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.667|1.278|||Regression, Cox|||Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute Hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).||1.278|0.667|0.6307
90799401|NCT00811954|181477492|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Although the study was not specifically powered to be able to detect equivalence, equivalence was declared if the 97.5% confidence interval difference in the cumulative probability of the tolerability endpoint by 96 weeks was entirely contained within +/-10 percentage points.|Cumulative incidence difference|9.2|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|5.5|12.9||||||Treatment comparison was made using the methods of Gray. Inference regarding comparisons of the treatment groups (arm A and arm C) with respect to equivalence was made based on the two-sided 97.5% confidence intervals of differences (arm A - arm C) in 96 week probability of tolerability failure with 97.5% confidence interval.||12.9|5.5|
90799402|NCT01664247|181477524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.67|-2.01|||ANOVA||The treatment contrast estimated was IDeg - Placebo.|The pre-breakfast measures of SMPG values after 26 weeks of treatment were analysed an ANOVA method with treatment, region and sex as fixed effects, and age and baseline response as covariates.||-2.01|-2.67|<.0001
90799403|NCT01664247|181477525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.04|-2.34|||Mixed Models Analysis||The treatment contrast estimated was IDeg - Placebo|The 8-point profile (SMPG) values after 26 weeks of treatment were analysed jointly using a linear mixed model with an un-structured residual covariance structure and with treatment, time-point and an interaction between treatment and time-point, region and sex as fixed effects, and age and baseline response per time-point as covariates. Missing data was imputed using LOCF. The treatment contrast estimated was IDeg - Placebo for the time point before breakfast.||-2.34|-3.04|<.0001
90799404|NCT01664247|181477525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.09|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.71|-1.48|||Mixed Models Analysis||The treatment contrast estimated was IDeg - Placebo.|The 8-point profile (SMPG) values after 26 weeks of treatment were analysed jointly using a linear mixed model with an un-structured residual covariance structure and with treatment, time-point and an interaction between treatment and time-point, region and sex as fixed effects, and age and baseline response per time-point as covariates. Missing data was imputed using LOCF. The treatment contrast estimated was IDeg - Placebo for the time point 90 mins after breakfast.||-1.48|-2.71|<.0001
90799405|NCT01664247|181477525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.47|-1.56|||Mixed Models Analysis||The treatment contrast estimated was IDeg - Placebo.|The 8-point profile (SMPG) values after 26 weeks of treatment were analysed jointly using a linear mixed model with an un-structured residual covariance structure and with treatment, time-point and an interaction between treatment and time-point, region and sex as fixed effects, and age and baseline response per time-point as covariates. Missing data was imputed using LOCF. The treatment contrast estimated was IDeg - Placebo for the time point before lunch.||-1.56|-2.47|<.0001
90799406|NCT01664247|181477525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.93|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.46|-1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||The treatment contrast estimated was IDeg - Placebo.|The 8-point profile (SMPG) values after 26 weeks of treatment were analysed jointly using a linear mixed model with an un-structured residual covariance structure and with treatment, time-point and an interaction between treatment and time-point, region and sex as fixed effects, and age and baseline response per time-point as covariates. Missing data was imputed using LOCF. The treatment contrast estimated was IDeg - Placebo for the time point 90 mins after start of lunch.||-1.40|-2.46|<.0001
90799407|NCT01664247|181477525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|-1.23|||Mixed Models Analysis||The treatment contrast estimated was IDeg - Placebo.|The 8-point profile (SMPG) values after 26 weeks of treatment were analysed jointly using a linear mixed model with an un-structured residual covariance structure and with treatment, time-point and an interaction between treatment and time-point, region and sex as fixed effects, and age and baseline response per time-point as covariates. Missing data was imputed using LOCF. The treatment contrast estimated was IDeg - Placebo for the time point main evening meal.||-1.23|-2.25|<.0001
90799408|NCT01664247|181477525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|-1.18|||Mixed Models Analysis||The treatment contrast estimated was IDeg - Placebo.|The 8-point profile (SMPG) values after 26 weeks of treatment were analysed jointly using a linear mixed model with an un-structured residual covariance structure and with treatment, time-point and an interaction between treatment and time-point, region and sex as fixed effects, and age and baseline response per time-point as covariates. Missing data was imputed using LOCF. The treatment contrast estimated was IDeg - Placebo for the time point 90 mins after main evening meal.||-1.18|-2.26|<.0001
90799409|NCT01664247|181477525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.75|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.27|-1.23|||Mixed Models Analysis||The treatment contrast estimated was IDeg - Placebo.|The 8-point profile (SMPG) values after 26 weeks of treatment were analysed jointly using a linear mixed model with an un-structured residual covariance structure and with treatment, time-point and an interaction between treatment and time-point, region and sex as fixed effects, and age and baseline response per time-point as covariates. Missing data was imputed using LOCF. The treatment contrast estimated was IDeg - Placebo for the time point before bedtime.||-1.23|-2.27|<.0001
90799410|NCT01664247|181477525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.91|-2.09|||Mixed Models Analysis||The treatment contrast estimated was IDeg - Placebo.|The 8-point profile (SMPG) values after 26 weeks of treatment were analysed jointly using a linear mixed model with an un-structured residual covariance structure and with treatment, time-point and an interaction between treatment and time-point, region and sex as fixed effects, and age and baseline response per time-point as covariates. Missing data was imputed using LOCF. The treatment contrast estimated was IDeg - Placebo for the time point before breakfast the following day.||-2.09|-2.91|<.0001
90799411|NCT01000506|181477530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.69||Hochberg testing procedure with a one-sided alpha of 2.5% used for controlling multiplicity|Negative Binomial regression model||Number of exacerbations per year in the mepolizumab 75mg IV arm divided by the number of exacerbations per year in the placebo arm.|||0.69|0.39|<0.001
90799412|NCT01000506|181477530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.81||Hochberg testing procedure with a one-sided alpha of 2.5% used for controlling multiplicity|Negative Binomial regression model||Number of exacerbations per year in the mepolizumab 250 mg IV arm divided by the number of exacerbations per year in the placebo arm.|||0.81|0.46|<0.001
90799413|NCT01000506|181477530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.64||Hochberg testing procedure with a one-sided alpha of 2.5% used for controlling multiplicity|Negative Binomial regression model||Number of exacerbations per year in the mepolizumab 750 mg IV arm divided by the number of exacerbations per year in the placebo arm.|||0.64|0.36|<0.001
90799414|NCT05018689|181477566|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04||||0.642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.22|||Regression, Linear|||How confident to identify someone showing depression?||0.22|-0.13|0.642
90799415|NCT05018689|181477566|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02||||0.864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.25|||Regression, Linear|||How confident to help a friend?||0.25|-0.21|0.864
90799416|NCT05018689|181477567|SUPERIORITY||comparison of odds ratios|0.78||||0.336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.3|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.30|0.47|0.336
90799417|NCT05018689|181477568|SUPERIORITY||comparison of odds ratios|1.05||||0.806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.59|||Regression, Logistic|||Depression runs in families. Answer: true||1.59|0.70|0.806
90799418|NCT05018689|181477568|SUPERIORITY||comparison of odds ratios|0.96||||0.781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.3|||Regression, Logistic|||Depression can be controlled through willpower. Answer: false||1.30|0.71|0.781
90799419|NCT05018689|181477568|SUPERIORITY||comparison of odds ratios|0.93||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.39|||Regression, Logistic|||Depression is treatable. Answer: true||1.39|0.62|0.720
90799420|NCT05018689|181477568|SUPERIORITY||comparison of odds ratios|1.11||||0.784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|2.38|||Regression, Logistic|||Abuse of alcohol and drugs can be a sign of depression. Answer: true||2.38|0.52|0.784
90799421|NCT05018689|181477568|SUPERIORITY||comparison of odds ratios|1.08||||0.662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.55|||Regression, Logistic|||Depression is a sign of personal weakness. Answer: false||1.55|0.76|0.662
90799422|NCT05018689|181477569|SUPERIORITY||comparison of odds ratios|0.8||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.26|||Regression, Logistic|||Difficulty concentrating or making decisions||1.26|0.51|0.340
90799423|NCT05018689|181477569|SUPERIORITY||comparison of odds ratios|0.81||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.17|||Regression, Logistic|||Feeling angry||1.17|0.56|0.265
90799424|NCT05018689|181477569|SUPERIORITY||comparison of odds ratios|0.7||||0.259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.3|||Regression, Logistic|||Changes in sleep patterns||1.30|0.38|0.259
90799425|NCT05018689|181477569|SUPERIORITY||comparison of odds ratios|1.12||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.49|||Regression, Logistic|||Frequent unexplained aches and pains||1.49|0.84|0.450
90799426|NCT05018689|181477569|SUPERIORITY||comparison of odds ratios|2.28||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|4.69|||Regression, Logistic|||Feeling tired or less energetic||4.69|1.11|0.025
90799427|NCT05018689|181477569|SUPERIORITY||comparison of odds ratios|1.01||||0.937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.44|||Regression, Logistic|||Eating more than usual||1.44|0.71|0.937
90799428|NCT05018689|181477569|SUPERIORITY||comparison of odds ratios|0.83||||0.447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.34|||Regression, Logistic|||Feeling irritable or restless||1.34|0.52|0.447
90799429|NCT05018689|181477570|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.14|||Regression, Linear|||Friend||0.14|-0.11|0.800
90799430|NCT05018689|181477570|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05||||0.451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.08|||Regression, Linear|||Parent/guardian||0.08|-0.18|0.451
90799431|NCT05018689|181477570|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07||||0.335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.2|||Regression, Linear|||School counselor||0.2|-0.07|0.335
90799432|NCT05018689|181477570|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04||||0.554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.09|||Regression, Linear|||Teacher||0.09|-0.17|0.554
90799433|NCT05018689|181477570|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04||||0.541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.1|||Regression, Linear|||Mental health professional||0.10|-0.19|0.541
90799434|NCT05018689|181477570|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.19|||Regression, Linear|||Doctor||0.19|-0.09|0.454
90799435|NCT05018689|181477570|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.12|||Regression, Linear|||Internet/website||0.12|-0.16|0.749
90799436|NCT05018689|181477570|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|-0.01|||Regression, Linear|||Clergy, priest, rabbi, or other religious person||-0.01|-0.24|0.030
90799437|NCT05018689|181477570|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.06||||0.334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.18|||Regression, Linear|||Phone helpline||0.18|-0.06|0.334
90799438|NCT05018689|181477570|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07||||0.243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.2|||Regression, Linear|||Crisis textline||0.20|-0.05|0.243
90799439|NCT05018689|181477570|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05||||0.492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.09|||Regression, Linear|||Other relative (i.e., sister, brother, aunt, uncle)||0.09|-0.19|0.492
90799440|NCT05018689|181477570|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.1|||Regression, Linear|||Boyfriend or girlfriend||0.10|-0.17|0.610
90799441|NCT05018689|181477570|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.01|||Regression, Linear|||Coach||0.01|-0.25|0.061
90799442|NCT05018689|181477571|SUPERIORITY||comparison of odds ratios|1.27||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.66|||Regression, Logistic|||If you had depression symptoms for more than 2 weeks, would you ask for help?||1.66|0.97|0.086
90799443|NCT05018689|181477571|SUPERIORITY||comparison of odds ratios|1.13||||0.526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.66|||Regression, Logistic|||If you thought you had mental health issues, is there a trusted adult you would go to?||1.66|0.77|0.526
90799444|NCT05018689|181477572|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.06||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.16|||Regression, Linear|||Do you know how to get help in your school?||0.16|-0.03|0.199
90799445|NCT05018689|181477573|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.12|||Regression, Linear|||The new student is more dangerous than other students||-0.12|-0.38|<0.001
90799446|NCT05018689|181477573|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.18||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|-0.06|||Regression, Linear|||The student is to blame for his or her condition||-0.06|-0.29|0.003
90799447|NCT05018689|181477573|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.06||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.18|||Regression, Linear|||I would have sympathy for the new student||0.18|-0.06|0.310
90799448|NCT05018689|181477573|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.02|||Regression, Linear|||The new student makes me feel scared||0.02|-0.21|0.114
90799449|NCT05018689|181477573|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02||||0.738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.15|||Regression, Linear|||The new student makes me feel uncomfortable||0.15|-0.10|0.738
90799450|NCT05018689|181477573|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.24|||Regression, Linear|||I would help the new student even if I did not know him or her well||0.24|0.01|0.040
90799451|NCT05018689|181477573|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|-0.05|||Regression, Linear|||I would try to stay away from the new student||-0.05|-0.29|0.006
90799452|NCT05018689|181477573|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.11|||Regression, Linear|||The new student would be made fun of at my school||0.11|-0.15|0.798
90799453|NCT05018689|181477573|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09||||0.197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.05|||Regression, Linear|||The new student would be ignored at my school||0.05|-0.22|0.197
90799454|NCT05018689|181477573|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03||||0.623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.16|||Regression, Linear|||I think other students in my school would try to help the new student||0.16|-0.10|0.623
90799455|NCT05018689|181477574|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.3|||Regression, Linear|||On a scale from 1 to 7, if you were seen going into the office of your school social worker or school psychologist, how would you feel?||0.30|-0.21|0.718
90799456|NCT05018689|181477575|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.21||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.46|||Regression, Linear|||How comfortable are you talking about mental health issues with other students at your school?||0.46|-0.03|0.090
90799457|NCT05018689|181477576|SUPERIORITY||comparison of odds ratios|0.99||||0.944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.44|||Regression, Logistic|||Depression||1.44|0.67|0.944
90799458|NCT05018689|181477576|SUPERIORITY||comparison of odds ratios|1.18||||0.369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.68|||Regression, Logistic|||Anxiety||1.68|0.82|0.369
90799459|NCT05018689|181477576|SUPERIORITY||comparison of odds ratios|1.07||||0.676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.5|||Regression, Logistic|||Thoughts of suicide||1.50|0.77|0.676
90799460|NCT05018689|181477576|SUPERIORITY||comparison of odds ratios|0.79||||0.432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.42|||Regression, Logistic|||I do not think there are any mental health issues that are concerning for students||1.42|0.44|0.432
90799461|NCT05018689|181477576|SUPERIORITY||comparison of odds ratios|0.87||||0.533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.35|||Regression, Logistic|||Other||1.35|0.56|0.533
90799462|NCT05018689|181477577|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.08|||Regression, Linear|||How much do your teachers know about addressing student mental health needs?||0.08|-0.11|0.769
90799463|NCT05018689|181477577|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.16|||Regression, Linear|||How much do your school counselors know about addressing student mental health needs?||0.16|-0.05|0.315
90799464|NCT05018689|181477578|SUPERIORITY||comparison of odds ratios|0.86||||0.345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.18|||Regression, Logistic|||Mental health information sheets at school||1.18|0.63|0.345
90799465|NCT05018689|181477578|SUPERIORITY||comparison of odds ratios|0.98||||0.899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.33|||Regression, Logistic|||Class activities about mental health||1.33|0.73|0.899
90799466|NCT05018689|181477578|SUPERIORITY||comparison of odds ratios|1.08||||0.612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.48|||Regression, Logistic|||Mental health information on school website||1.48|0.80|0.612
90799467|NCT05018689|181477578|SUPERIORITY||comparison of odds ratios|1.14||||0.476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.65|||Regression, Logistic|||Other||1.65|0.79|0.476
90799468|NCT05018689|181477579|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09||||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.03|||Regression, Linear|||On average, how often do your teachers speak to you about your emotions and feelings?||0.03|-0.22|0.141
90799469|NCT05018689|181477580|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04||||0.392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.13|||Regression, Linear|||Would you like your teachers to speak to you about your emotions and feelings?||0.13|-0.05|0.392
90799470|NCT01448616|181477592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.86||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.01||ITT|Poisson GLME|||For intent to treat analysis, difference between lead-in and treatment phase (within arm comparison)||1.01|0.71|0.086
90799471|NCT01448616|181477592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.94||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.16||For intent to treat analysis, difference between lead-in and treatment phase (within arm comparison)|Poisson GLME|||For intent to treat analysis, difference between lead-in and treatment phase (within arm comparison)||1.16|0.75|0.54
90799472|NCT01448616|181477592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.22|||Poisson GLME|||For intent to treat analysis, difference between lead-in and treatment phase (within arm comparison)||1.22|0.67|0.47
90799473|NCT01448616|181477593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Change in log copies|-0.16||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.07|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|||Intent to treat analysis||0.07|-0.40|0.18
90799474|NCT01448616|181477593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Change in log copies|-0.5||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|-0.13|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|||Intent to treat analysis||-0.13|-0.86|0.008
90799475|NCT01448616|181477593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Change in log copies|0.16||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.6|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|||Intent to treat analysis||0.60|-0.27|0.45
90799476|NCT01448616|181477594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.37|||Poisson GLME|||Intent to treat analysis||1.37|0.70|0.90
90799477|NCT01448616|181477594|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.8||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.18|||Poisson GLM|||Intent to treat||1.18|0.54|0.25
90799478|NCT01448616|181477594|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.95||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.57|||Poisson GLM|||||1.57|0.57|0.82
90799479|NCT01448616|181477595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.74||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.92|||Poisson GLME|||Intent to Treat||0.92|0.59|0.010
90799480|NCT01448616|181477595|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.3||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.76|||Poisson GLM|||||1.76|0.9|0.09
90799481|NCT01448616|181477595|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.22|||Poisson GLM|||Intent to treat analysis||1.22|0.67|0.47
90799482|NCT00523978|181477598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is the success rate in experimental group is less than and equal to the one in control group. This comparison of the rates was performed using a 2-sided Fisher's Exact. A sample size of 240(160 experimental and 80 control) is required to provide 80% power to detect the treatment difference using a 2-sided (alpha = 0.05)Fisher's Exact Test of binomial proportions assuming the success rate was 40% for control and 60% for treatment.||||<0.0001
91012862|NCT03026556|181908265|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.054||||0.8777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|2.055|||Regression, Cox|||Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute Hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).||2.055|0.540|0.8777
90799483|NCT00523978|181477599|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A non-inferiority margin was selected based on literature review.|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis is the proportion of subjects free from MAFE in the experimental group is inferior to that in the control group using 10% non-inferiority margin.A sample size of 160 evaluable cryoablation and 80 control subjects (one-sided α = 0.05, 2:1 randomization) was required to provide 80% power assuming the rate of free from MAFE at 12 months 80.5 and 77% in experimental and control groups respectively .||||<0.001
90799484|NCT00523978|181477600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||The test hypothesis is UCBExperimental\_CPE ≥ 14.8% vs UCBExperimental\_CPE \< 14.8%.The performance goal 14.8% was chosen based on a review of SSEDs for similar types of ablation trials.The expected rate for CPEs in a well-monitored trial of left atrial RF ablation for AF was estimated to be 10% (corresponding to a CPE-free rate of 90%).In a trial with 160 subject, the resulting one-sided 95% upper confidence bound would be 14.8%.||||<0.001
90799485|NCT01911260|181477603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|In intragroup of supplementation (zinc or placebo) we used the t-test for dependent samples in order to compare growth over time.||"Null Hypothesis: There isn't difference in the HAZ mean difference between children with Growth Deficit who received zinc amino acid or placebo.~We attributed α=0.05, β=0.20, and power=0.80."||||<0.05
90799486|NCT01911260|181477603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|In intragroup of supplementation (zinc or placebo) we used the t-test for dependent samples in order to compare growth over time.||"Null Hypothesis: There isn't difference in the HAZ mean difference between children with Normal Height who received zinc amino acid or placebo.~We attributed α=0.05, β=0.20, and power=0.80."||||<0.05
90799487|NCT01074125|181477621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3376|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||To assess dose ranging, the primary efficacy variable will be analyzed via a model with dose effect. Positive dose ranging confirmed if the null hypothesis of slope =0 was rejected at a significance level of 0.05||||<0.0001
90799488|NCT00518180|181477628|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immunogenicity of MenACWY given concomitantly with HPV and Tdap was considered non inferior to the immunogenicity of MenACWY administered alone, if, for each serogroup, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in percentage of subjects with seroresponse at one month after MenACWY vaccination (PGroup I minus PGroup II) was greater than -10%.|Vaccine Group differences (%)|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|3.0||||||Immune response to Men A when MenACWY is administered concomitantly with Tdap and HPV, compared with the immune response to MenACWY when administered alone. Method: ANCOVA. Parameter estimate: Vaccine Group Differences.||3|-6|
90799489|NCT00518180|181477628|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immunogenicity of MenACWY given concomitantly with HPV and Tdap was considered non inferior to the immunogenicity of MenACWY administered alone, if, for each serogroup, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in percentage of subjects with seroresponse at one month after MenACWY vaccination (PGroup I minus PGroup II) was greater than -10%.|Vaccine Group differences (%)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|3.0||||||Immune response to Men C when MenACWY is administered concomitantly with Tdap and HPV, compared with the immune response to MenACWY when administered alone. Method: ANCOVA. Parameter estimate: Vaccine Group Differences.||3|-6|
90799490|NCT00518180|181477628|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immunogenicity of MenACWY given concomitantly with HPV and Tdap was considered non inferior to the immunogenicity of MenACWY administered alone, if, for each serogroup, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in percentage of subjects with seroresponse at one month after MenACWY vaccination (PGroup I minus PGroup II) was greater than -10%.|Vaccine Group differences (%)|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|1.0||||||Immune response to Men W when MenACWY is administered concomitantly with Tdap and HPV, compared with the immune response to MenACWY when administered alone. Method: ANCOVA. Parameter estimate: Vaccine Group Differences.||1|-9|
90799491|NCT00518180|181477628|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immunogenicity of MenACWY given concomitantly with HPV and Tdap was considered non inferior to the immunogenicity of MenACWY administered alone, if, for each serogroup, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in percentage of subjects with seroresponse at one month after MenACWY vaccination (PGroup I minus PGroup II) was greater than -10%.|Vaccine Group differences (%)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|5.0||||||Immune response to Men Y when MenACWY is administered concomitantly with Tdap and HPV, compared with the immune response to MenACWY when administered alone. Method: ANCOVA. Parameter estimate: Vaccine Group Differences.||5|-4|
90799492|NCT00518180|181477628|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immunogenicity of MenACWY given after Tdap was considered non inferior to the immunogenicity of MenACWY administered alone, if, for each serogroup, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in percentage of subjects with seroresponse at one month after MenACWY vaccination (PGroup III minus PGroup II) was greater than -10%.|Vaccine Group differences (%)|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|10.0||||||Immune response to Men A when MenACWY is administered 1 month after Tdap, compared with the immune response to MenACWY when administered alone. Method: ANCOVA. Parameter estimate: Vaccine Group Differences.||10|1|
90799493|NCT00518180|181477628|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immunogenicity of MenACWY given after Tdap was considered non inferior to the immunogenicity of MenACWY administered alone, if, for each serogroup, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in percentage of subjects with seroresponse at one month after MenACWY vaccination (PGroup III minus PGroup II) was greater than -10%.|Vaccine Group differences (%)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|4.0||||||Immune response to Men C when MenACWY is administered 1 month after Tdap, compared with the immune response to MenACWY when administered alone. Method: ANCOVA. Parameter estimate: Vaccine Group Differences.||4|-6|
90799494|NCT00518180|181477628|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immunogenicity of MenACWY given after Tdap was considered non inferior to the immunogenicity of MenACWY administered alone, if, for each serogroup, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in percentage of subjects with seroresponse at one month after MenACWY vaccination (PGroup III minus PGroup II) was greater than -10%.|Vaccine Group differences (%)|-16.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|-10.0||||||Immune response to Men W when MenACWY is administered 1 month after Tdap, compared with the immune response to MenACWY when administered alone. Method: ANCOVA. Parameter estimate: Vaccine Group Differences.||-10|-21|
91012863|NCT03026556|181908266|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.223||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.085|0.585|||Regression, Cox|||Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute Hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).||0.585|0.085|0.0023
91012864|NCT03026556|181908267|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.654||||0.0406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.435|0.982|||Regression, Cox|||Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute Hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).||0.982|0.435|0.0406
91012865|NCT03026556|181908267|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.8124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.469|2.63|||Regression, Cox|||Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute Hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).||2.630|0.469|0.8124
91012866|NCT03026556|181908268|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.856||||0.0901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.716|1.025|||Regression, Cox|||Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute Hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).||1.025|0.716|0.0901
91012867|NCT03026556|181908268|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.431||||0.0616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.983|2.083|||Regression, Cox|||Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute Hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).||2.083|0.983|0.0616
91012868|NCT03026556|181908269|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.887||||0.2073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.736|1.069|||Regression, Cox|||Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute Hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).||1.069|0.736|0.2073
91012869|NCT03026556|181908269|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.504||||0.0417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.015|2.228|||Regression, Cox|||Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute Hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).||2.228|1.015|0.0417
91012870|NCT03026556|181908271|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.709||||0.2663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.387|1.299|||Regression, Cox|||Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute Hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).||1.299|0.387|0.2663
91012871|NCT03026556|181908271|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.864||||0.8112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.261|2.863|||Regression, Cox|||Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute Hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).||2.863|0.261|0.8112
91012872|NCT03026556|181908272|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.766||||0.1227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.546|1.075|||Regression, Cox|||Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute Hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).||1.075|0.546|0.1227
91012873|NCT03026556|181908272|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.138||||0.7115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.573|2.26|||Regression, Cox|||Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute Hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).||2.260|0.573|0.7115
91012874|NCT03026556|181908273|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.923||||0.4727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.741|1.149|||Regression, Cox|||Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute Hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).||1.149|0.741|0.4727
91012875|NCT03026556|181908273|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.721||||0.0275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.062|2.79|||Regression, Cox|||Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute Hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).||2.790|1.062|0.0275
91012876|NCT03026556|181908274|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.346||||0.2309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.828|2.189|||Regression, Cox|||Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute Hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).||2.189|0.828|0.2309
91012877|NCT03026556|181908274|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.557||||0.3333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.635|3.821|||Regression, Cox|||Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute Hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).||3.821|0.635|0.3333
91012878|NCT03026556|181908275|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.008||||0.9359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.829|1.226|||Regression, Cox|||Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute Hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).||1.226|0.829|0.9359
91012879|NCT03026556|181908275|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.024||||0.8947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.716|1.465|||Regression, Cox|||Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute Hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).||1.465|0.716|0.8947
91012880|NCT00387621|181908304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|With Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons||||||<0.05
91012881|NCT00387621|181908305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||rank-sum test|Rank-sum test was used due to non-normality of data with Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons||||||<0.05
91012882|NCT00689299|181908314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||ANOVA with baseline score as covariate||||<0.05
91012883|NCT01190839|181908323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.097||||||p-value was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by the number of risk factors for recurrence of active CD and baseline use of an immunomodulator.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|||||||0.097
91012884|NCT01190839|181908324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||p-value was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by the number of risk factors for recurrence of active CD and baseline use of an immunomodulator.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|||||||<0.001
91012885|NCT01190839|181908325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.098||||||p-value was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by the number of risk factors for recurrence of active CD and baseline use of an immunomodulator.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|||||||0.098
91012886|NCT00950755|181908341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|76.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.0|89.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with response.|||89|62|
91012887|NCT00950755|181908342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|54.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.0|69.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with confirmed response.|||69|38|
91012888|NCT00950755|181908343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|34.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.0|49.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with confirmed CR.|||49|20|
91012889|NCT00950755|181908344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|41.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.0|57.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with confirmed CR + CCR.|||57|26|
91012890|NCT00950755|181908345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|19.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with confirmed PR.|||19|1|
91012891|NCT01789476|181908365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||One-sided ANOVA with Treatment Group as a Main Effect|ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91012892|NCT01789476|181908366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.03||||||One-sided ANOVA with Treatment Group as a Main Effect|ANOVA|||||||<0.03
90799495|NCT00518180|181477628|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immunogenicity of MenACWY given after Tdap was considered non inferior to the immunogenicity of MenACWY administered alone, if, for each serogroup, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in percentage of subjects with seroresponse at one month after MenACWY vaccination (PGroup III minus PGroup II) was greater than -10%.|Vaccine Group differences (%)|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|1.0||||||Immune response to Men Y when MenACWY is administered 1 month after Tdap, compared with the immune response to MenACWY when administered alone. Method: ANCOVA. Parameter estimate: Vaccine Group Differences.||1|-9|
90799496|NCT00518180|181477629|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority of the immune response to Tdap when administered concomitantly with MenACWY and HPV, compared with the immune response to Tdap when administered alone, was demonstrated for the diphteria and tetanus antigens if the lower limits of the two-sided 95% CIs around the difference in the percentages of subjects with ELISA anti-D toxin ≥ 1.0 IU/mL \[Group I minus Group III\] were greater than -10%.|Vaccine Group differences (%)|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|4.0||||||Non inferiority of the immune response to diphteria antigen, when Tdap is administered concomitantly with MenACWY and HPV, compared with the immune response to Tdap when administered alone. Method: ANCOVA. Parameter estimate: Vaccine Group Differences.||4|1|
91054094|NCT02912650|181990992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.44||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|7.52|||ANCOVA|||0 to 6 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||7.52|1.37|0.005
90799497|NCT00518180|181477629|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority of the immune response to Tdap when administered concomitantly with MenACWY and HPV, compared with the immune response to Tdap when administered alone, was demonstrated for the diphteria and tetanus antigens if the lower limits of the two-sided 95% CIs around the difference in the percentages of subjects with ELISA anti-D toxin ≥ 1.0 IU/mL \[Group I minus Group III\] were greater than -10%.|Vaccine Group differences (%)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.0||||||Non inferiority of the immune response to tetanus antigen, when Tdap is administered concomitantly with MenACWY and HPV, compared with the immune response to Tdap when administered alone. Method: ANCOVA. Parameter estimate: Vaccine Group Differences.||1|-1|
90799498|NCT00518180|181477638|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Tdap concomitant with MenACWY a was considered non inferior to Tdap alone if, for PT, FHA and pertactin, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMCs (GMC Group I / GMC Group III) at 1 month after vaccination was \> 0.67.|Vaccine Group Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.9||||||Non inferiority of the immune response to Tdap is administered concomitantly with MenACWY and HPV, compared with the immune response to Tdap when administered alone, for PT antigen. Method: ANCOVA. Parameter estimate: Vaccine Group Ratio.||0.9|0.72|
90799499|NCT00518180|181477638|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Tdap concomitant with MenACWY a was considered non inferior to Tdap alone if, for PT, FHA and pertactin, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMCs (GMC Group I / GMC Group III) at 1 month after vaccination was \> 0.67.|Vaccine Group Ratio|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.81||||||Non inferiority of the immune response to Tdap when administered concomitantly with MenACWY and HPV, compared with the immune response to Tdap when administered alone, for PRN antigen. Method: ANCOVA. Parameter estimate: Vaccine Group Ratio.||0.81|0.58|
90799500|NCT00518180|181477638|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Tdap concomitant with MenACWY a was considered non inferior to Tdap alone if, for PT, FHA and pertactin, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMCs (GMC Group I / GMC Group III) at 1 month after vaccination was \> 0.67.|Vaccine Group Ratio|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.76||||||Non inferiority of the immune response to Tdap when administered concomitantly with MenACWY and HPV, compared with the immune response to Tdap when administered alon, for FHA antigen. Method: ANCOVA. Parameter estimate: Vaccine Group Ratio.||0.76|0.58|
90799501|NCT00508482|181477647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.238|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison among three groups over 4 weeks of treatment||||0.238
90799502|NCT00508482|181477647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison among three groups at the 4th week of follow-up||||0.004
90799503|NCT00508482|181477647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.277|||||||Least-Significant Difference|We translated the data of three groups through rank cases, so that we can use Least-Significant Difference for the comparison of any two groups.||at the 4th week of follow-up||||0.277
90799504|NCT00508482|181477647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Least-Significant Difference|We translated the data of three groups through rank cases, so that we can use Least-Significant Difference for the comparison of any two groups.||at the 4th week of follow-up||||0.001
90799505|NCT00508482|181477647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.055|||||||Least-Significant Difference|We translated the data of three groups through rank cases, so that we can use Least-Significant Difference for the comparison of any two groups.||at the 4th week of follow-up||||0.055
90799506|NCT00508482|181477647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison among three groups at the 12th week of follow-up||||0.001
90799507|NCT00508482|181477647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||Least-Significant Difference|We translated the data of three groups through rank cases, so that we can use Least-Significant Difference for the comparison of any two groups.||at the 12th week of follow-up||||0.330
90799508|NCT00508482|181477647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Least-Significant Difference|We translated the data of three groups through rank cases, so that we can use Least-Significant Difference for the comparison of any two groups.||at the 12th week of follow-up||||<0.001
90799509|NCT00508482|181477647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018|||||||Least-Significant Difference|We translated the data of three groups through rank cases, so that we can use Least-Significant Difference for the comparison of any two groups.||at the 12th week of follow-up||||0.018
90799510|NCT00508482|181477648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.573|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.573
90799511|NCT00508482|181477649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.271|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.271
90799512|NCT00508482|181477650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90799513|NCT00508482|181477650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58|||||||Least-Significant Difference|||||||0.580
90799514|NCT00508482|181477650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Least-Significant Difference|||||||<0.001
90799515|NCT00508482|181477650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Least-Significant Difference|||||||<0.001
90799516|NCT00508482|181477651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.167|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.167
90799517|NCT00508482|181477652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.066|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.066
90799518|NCT00508482|181477653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90799519|NCT00508482|181477653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024|||||||Least-Significant Difference|||||||0.024
90799520|NCT00508482|181477653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Least-Significant Difference|||||||<0.001
90799521|NCT00508482|181477653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Least-Significant Difference|||||||<0.001
90799522|NCT00508482|181477654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
90799523|NCT00508482|181477654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.627||||||α was corrected by the method of Bonferroni as 0.0167 (α=0.05/3=0.0167).|Chi-squared|||||||0.627
90799524|NCT00508482|181477654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||α was corrected by the method of Bonferroni as 0.0167 (α=0.05/3=0.0167).|Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
90799525|NCT00508482|181477654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||α was corrected by the method of Bonferroni as 0.0167 (α=0.05/3=0.0167).|Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
90799526|NCT00508482|181477655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
90799527|NCT00508482|181477655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.587||||||α was corrected by the method of Bonferroni as 0.0167 (α=0.05/3=0.0167).|Chi-squared|||||||0.587
90799528|NCT00508482|181477655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||||||α was corrected by the method of Bonferroni as 0.0167 (α=0.05/3=0.0167).|Chi-squared|||||||0.001
90799529|NCT00508482|181477655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||α was corrected by the method of Bonferroni as 0.0167 (α=0.05/3=0.0167).|Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
90799530|NCT00508482|181477656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.006
90799531|NCT00508482|181477656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.507||||||α was corrected by the method of Bonferroni as 0.0167 (α=0.05/3=0.0167).|Chi-squared|||||||0.507
90799532|NCT00508482|181477656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||||||α was corrected by the method of Bonferroni as 0.0167 (α=0.05/3=0.0167).|Chi-squared|||||||0.005
90799533|NCT00508482|181477656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||||||α was corrected by the method of Bonferroni as 0.0167 (α=0.05/3=0.0167).|Chi-squared|||||||0.008
90799534|NCT00587041|181477669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||80% power for 0.66 DG difference from placebo. The reported value is the overall p-value for CaOx supersaturation by Kruskal-Wallis test of equal change across all three groups, no pair-wise comparison.||||0.3
90799535|NCT00587041|181477669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.045||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||Ranked sum T-test for placebo group CaOx SS comparison between 0 and 6 weeks||||0.045
90799536|NCT00587041|181477669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||Ranked sum T-test for AKSB group CaOX SS comparison between 0 and 6 weeks||||0.67
90799537|NCT00587041|181477669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||Ranked-sum T-Test for Oxadrop group CaOX SS comparison between 0 and 6 weeks||||0.30
90799538|NCT01957865|181477697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Linear and Poisson regressions|||In an intention-to-treat analysis, percentage doses taken each month were compared by linear generalized estimating equations (GEEs); more than 48-h and more than 96-h lapses in dosingwere compared by Poisson GEE regression.||||<0.05
90799539|NCT01957865|181477698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher's exact test|||HIV RNA suppression (\<100 copies/ml) was compared among study arms by Fisher's exact test.||||<0.05
90799540|NCT00811720|181477702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.81|-0.85|||Adjusted change from Baseline to Month 6||The Number of Participants Analyzed is participants with efficacy measurement available at this endpoint, that is, 213 participants in the placebo group and 152 participants in the nalmefene group.|"The primary hypothesis concerned the treatment effect at Month 6. The null hypothesis of no difference in treatment effect was tested against the alternative hypothesis that there was a difference in treatment effect.~MMRM model with the Baseline score as a covariate; site, sex, time in months (Month 1-6); and treatment as fixed effects. The Baseline score-by-time and treatment-by-time interactions were also included in the model. An unstructured covariance matrix was used."||-0.85|-3.81|0.002
90799541|NCT00811720|181477703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.98|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.81|-5.11|||Adjusted change from Baseline to Month 6||The Number of Participants Analyzed is participants with efficacy measurement available at this endpoint, that is, 213 participants in the placebo group and 152 participants in the nalmefene group.|"The primary hypothesis concerned the treatment effect at Month 6. The null hypothesis of no difference in treatment effect was tested against the alternative hypothesis that there was a difference in treatment effect.~MMRM model with the Baseline score as a covariate; site, sex, time in months (Month 1-6); and treatment as fixed effects. The Baseline score-by-time and treatment-by-time interactions were also included in the model. An unstructured covariance matrix was used."||-5.11|-16.81|<0.001
90799542|NCT00811720|181477704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.98|||Adjusted Odds Ratio (OR) response|||The analysis of RSDRL used a logistic regression (LREG) model, with country, sex, Baseline DRL, and treatment as fixed effects, and missing values imputed as non-response.||0.98|0.50|0.039
90799543|NCT00811720|181477705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.16|||Adjusted change from Baseline to Week 24||The Number of Participants Analyzed is participants with efficacy measurement available at this endpoint, that is, 210 participants in the placebo group and 152 participants in the nalmefene group.|MMRM model with the Baseline score as a covariate, and site, sex, time in weeks, and treatment as fixed effects. The Baseline score-by-time and treatment-by-time interactions were also included in the model; an unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.16|-0.57|<0.001
90799544|NCT00811720|181477706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.15|||Adjusted change from Baseline to Week 24||The Number of Participants Analyzed is participants with efficacy measurement available at this endpoint, that is, 210 participants in the placebo group and 152 participants in the nalmefene group.|MMRM model with the Baseline CGI-S score as a covariate, and site, sex, time in weeks, and treatment as fixed effects. The Baseline CGI-S score-by-time and treatment-by-time interactions were also included in the model. An unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.15|-0.53|<0.001
91012893|NCT01789476|181908367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.03||||||One-sided ANOVA with Treatment Group as a Main Effect|ANOVA|||||||<0.03
90799545|NCT00811720|181477707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio to placebo|0.88||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.97|||Adjusted values||The Number of Participants Analyzed is participants with efficacy measurement available at this endpoint, that is, 211 participants in the placebo group and 158 participants in the nalmefene group.|Log-transformed GGT values were analysed using an MMRM model with the log-transformed Baseline value as a covariate, and site, sex, time in weeks, and treatment as fixed effects. Log-transformed Baseline value-by-time interaction and treatment-by-time interaction were included in the model. An unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.97|0.80|0.009
90799546|NCT00811720|181477708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio to placebo|0.9||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|0.98|||Adjusted values||The Number of Participants Analyzed is participants with efficacy measurement available at this endpoint, that is, 209 participants in the placebo group and 158 participants in the nalmefene group.|Log-transformed ALAT values were analysed using an MMRM model with the log-transformed Baseline value as a covariate, and site, sex, time in weeks, and treatment as fixed effects. Log-transformed Baseline value-by-time and treatment-by-time interactions were included in the model. An unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.98|0.84|0.011
90799547|NCT01419119|181477748|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
90799548|NCT01419119|181477749|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
90799549|NCT03768427|181477752|OTHER|Difference in least squares mean|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.7|-12.3|||Constrained longitudinal model|||"This statistical analysis was performed by fitting a constrained longitudinal model adjusting for time and the interaction of time by treatment, and time by baseline disease risk category, including all participants with baseline data (88 participants in arm Atorvastatin 10 mg - ezetimibe 10 mg/Ator 10 mg and 89 participants in arm Atorvastatin 10mg - Atorvastatin 20 mg)."|Difference in least squares mean is Atorvastatin 10 mg - EZ 10 mg/Ator 10 mg minus Atorvastatin 10mg - Atorvastatin 20 mg.|-12.3|-26.7|<0.001
90799550|NCT03768427|181477752|OTHER|Difference in least squares mean|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|-10.7|||Constrained longitudinal model|||"This statistical analysis was performed by fitting a constrained longitudinal model adjusting for time and the interaction of time by treatment, and time by baseline disease risk category, including all participants with baseline data (137 participants in arm Atorvastatin 20 mg - EZ 10 mg/Ator 20 mg and 140 participants in arm Atorvastatin 20 mg - Atorvastatin 40 mg)."|Atorvastatin 20 mg - EZ 10 mg/Ator 20 mg minus Atorvastatin 20 mg - Atorvastatin 40 mg.|-10.7|-21.0|<0.001
90799551|NCT03710889|181477771|OTHER|Within treatment paired t-tests were used to compare the differences in dynamic indices between Baseline and Month 3 using the Bone-Biopsy Population. If the normality assumption is not satisfied at the 0.01 significance level and visual inspection of the data deems it necessary, Wilcoxon signed-rank test is used. No adjustments for multiplicity were made. A 2-sided p-value \<0.05 was considered statistically significant.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90799552|NCT02121509|181477778|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (FDC/free combination) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted Geometric Means ratio|102.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.023|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.938|106.789|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'|Ratio of (FDC 1500 fasted/ L+M 1500 fasted)|||106.789|98.938|<0.0001
90799553|NCT02121509|181477778|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (FDC/free combination) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted Geometric Means ratio|101.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.026|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.99|106.121|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|Ratio of (FDC 1500 fed/ L+M 1500 fed)|||106.121|96.990|<0.0001
90799554|NCT02121509|181477779|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (FDC/free combination) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted Geometric Mean ratio|106.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.046||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.449|114.614|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|Ratio of (FDC 1500 fasted/ L+M 1500 fasted)|||114.614|98.449|0.0004
90799555|NCT02121509|181477779|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (FDC/free combination) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted Geometric Mean ratio|106.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.051||0.004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.614|116.658|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|Ratio of (FDC 1500 fed/ L+M 1500 fed)|||116.658|97.614|0.0040
90799556|NCT02121509|181477780|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (FDC/free combination) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted Geometric Mean ratio|102.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.03|110.72|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|Ratio of (FDC 1500 fasted/ L+M 1500 fasted)|||110.72|94.03|0.0001
90799557|NCT02121509|181477780|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (FDC/free combination) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted Geometric Mean ratio|96.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.96|103.22|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|Ratio of (FDC 1500 fed/ L+M 1500 fed)|||103.22|89.96|0.0002
91012894|NCT01798056|181908379|NON_INFERIORITY|Criteria used: The lower limit (LL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the Geometric Mean (GM) ratio (GSK1437173A PreChemo group over Placebo PreChemo group) in anti-gE ELISA antibody concentrations is greater than 3.|Adjusted GMC ratio|23.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.9|30.0||||Difference of means between vaccines and placebo were calculated together with 2-sided confidence intervals and back-transformed to the original units||The analysis evaluated the anti-gE humoral immune responses at Month 2, following a two-dose administration of the GSK1437173A vaccine, as compared to placebo in subjects with solid tumours receiving chemotherapy (PreChemo Groups only).||30|17.9|
91012895|NCT01008059|181908412|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<.05
91012896|NCT02660489|181908413|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.78
90799558|NCT02121509|181477781|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (FDC/free combination) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted Geometric Means ratio|105.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.057||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.829|115.269|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|Ratio of (FDC 1500 fasted/ L+M 1500 fasted)|||115.269|95.829|0.0013
90799559|NCT02121509|181477781|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (FDC/free combination) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted Geometric Means ratio|113.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.027||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|90.0|108.749|119.318|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|Ratio of (FDC 1500 fed/ L+M 1500 fed)|||119.318|108.749|0.0018
90799560|NCT02121509|181477782|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (FDC/free combination) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted Geometric Means ratio|101.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.035|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.748|107.487|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|Ratio of (FDC 1500 fasted/ L+M 1500 fasted)|||107.487|95.748|<0.0001
90799561|NCT02121509|181477782|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (FDC/free combination) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted Geometric Means ratio|106.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.034||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.268|112.763|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|Ratio of (FDC 1500 fed/ L+M 1500 fed)|||112.763|100.268|0.0002
90799562|NCT02121509|181477783|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (FDC/free combination) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted Geometric Means ratio|102.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.2|110.59|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|Ratio of (FDC 1500 fasted/ L+M 1500 fasted)|||110.59|94.20|<0.0001
91012897|NCT02660489|181908414|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.49
91012898|NCT02660489|181908415|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.50
91012899|NCT02660489|181908416|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.36
90799563|NCT02121509|181477783|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (FDC/free combination) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted Geometric Means ratio|96.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.33|103.7|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|Ratio of (FDC 1500 fed/ L+M 1500 fed)|||103.70|90.33|0.0001
90799564|NCT00867035|181477784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Rosenberg scores compared baseline to 1 hour by Mann-Whitney U test.||||<0.001
90799565|NCT00867035|181477784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||mann whitney u to compare rosenberg score baseline to 1 hour||||<.001
90799566|NCT00867035|181477784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||baseline to 2 hours||||<0.001
90799567|NCT00867035|181477784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||baseline to 4 hours||||<0.001
91012900|NCT02660489|181908417|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.12
91054095|NCT02912650|181990992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|11.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.23|14.48|||ANCOVA|||0 to 6 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||14.48|8.23|<0.001
91012901|NCT02660489|181908418|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.12
91012902|NCT02660489|181908419|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.75
91012903|NCT02660489|181908420|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.66
90799568|NCT00867035|181477784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||baseline to 1 week||||<0.001
90799569|NCT00867035|181477784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||baseline to 2 hours||||<0.01
90799570|NCT00867035|181477784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||baseline to 4 hours||||<0.01
90799571|NCT00867035|181477784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||baseline to 1 week||||<0.05
90799572|NCT00867035|181477785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Concentrations of H2S in mouth air at 1 hour analyzed between groups.||||>0.05
90799573|NCT00867035|181477786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Concentrations of H2S in mouth air at 2 hours analyzed between groups. Each time point was compared between groups by Students t test.||||>0.05
90799574|NCT00867035|181477787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Concentrations of H2S in mouth air at 4 hours analyzed between groups||||>0.05
90799575|NCT00867035|181477788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Concentrations of H2S in mouth air at 1 week analyzed between groups. Each time point was compared between groups by Students t test.||||>0.05
90799576|NCT00867035|181477789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Concentrations of MM in mouth air at 1 hour analyzed between groups||||>0.05
91012904|NCT02322866|181908421|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|-2.9||Analyses were based on ANCOVA model for the endpoint with treatment group and pooled study center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA||sarecycline - placebo|||-2.9|-5.8|< 0.0001
91012905|NCT02322866|181908422|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Rate Difference|7.3||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.53|12.07||P-values were based on the test of general association between the response and treatment group using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with pooled site as stratification factor.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||sarecycline - placebo|||12.07|2.53|0.0038
90799577|NCT00867035|181477790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Concentrations of MM in mouth air at 2 hours analyzed between groups. Each time point was compared between groups by Students t test||||>0.05
90799578|NCT00867035|181477791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Concentrations of MM in mouth air at 4 hours analyzed between groups. Each time point was compared between groups by Students t test.||||>0.05
90799579|NCT00867035|181477792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Concentrtations of MM in mouth air at 1 week analyzed between groups. Each time point was compared between groups by Students t test||||>0.05
90799580|NCT00867035|181477793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Counts of colony forming units from swab of 1square centimeter area on tongue at 1 week cultured on anaerobe plates for 1 week analyzed between groups||||>0.05
90799581|NCT00867035|181477794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Percentage of black colonies out of Total Viable Count cultured on anaerobe agar with lead acetate. Black colonies are those producing sulfides (H2S, MM)and creating black lead sulfide. Analyzed between groups. Groups compared at baseline and 1 week.||||>0.05
90799582|NCT00542178|181477800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.87|||Regression, Logistic|Comparisons made using likelihood-ratio tests from logistic-regression models with adjustment for same study-design factors used in ACCORD analysis||Our recruitment goal for the ACCORD Eye study was set in order to achieve a statistical power of 88% to detect a 15% relative reduction with intensive glycemic control as compared with standard glycemic control||0.87|0.51|0.003
90799583|NCT00542178|181477800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.79|||Regression, Logistic|Comparisons made using likelihood-ratio tests from logistic-regression models with adjustment for same study-design factors used in ACCORD analysis||Our recruitment goal for the ACCORD Eye study was set in order to achieve a statistical power of 80% to detect a 20% relative reduction with intensive blood pressure control as compared with standard blood pressure control||1.79|0.84|0.29
90799584|NCT00542178|181477800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.87|||Regression, Logistic|Comparisons made using likelihood-ratio tests from logistic-regression models with adjustment for same study-design factors used in ACCORD analysis||Our recruitment goal for the ACCORD Eye study was set in order to achieve a statistical power of 91% to detect a 20% relative reduction with lipid control with a statin and fenofibrate as compared with lipid control with a statin alone||0.87|0.42|0.006
90799585|NCT00542178|181477801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.997||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.901|1.104|||Regression, Cox|||||1.104|0.901|0.96
90799586|NCT00542178|181477801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.952||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.825|1.099|||Regression, Cox|||||1.099|0.825|0.50
91012906|NCT02322866|181908423|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-14.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|-9.5||Analyses were based on ANCOVA model for the endpoint with treatment group and pooled study center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA||sarecycline - placebo|Percent Change from Baseline to Week 12||-9.5|-19.4|< 0.0001
90799587|NCT00542178|181477801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.762|1.016|||Regression, Cox|||||1.016|0.762|0.08
90799588|NCT00542178|181477802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.884||||0.0355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.788|0.992|||Regression, Cox|||||0.992|0.788|0.0355
90799589|NCT00542178|181477802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.891||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.755|1.051|||Regression, Cox|||||1.051|0.755|0.17
90799590|NCT00542178|181477802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.015||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.865|1.19|||Regression, Cox|||||1.190|0.865|0.86
90799591|NCT00542178|181477803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.69|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.69|0.71|0.069
91012907|NCT02322866|181908424|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-12.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|-7.9||Analyses were based on ANCOVA model for the endpoint with treatment group and pooled study center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA||sarecycline - placebo|Percent Change from Baseline to Week 9||-7.9|-17.3|< 0.0001
90799592|NCT00542178|181477803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.63|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.63|0.44|0.63
90799593|NCT00542178|181477803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.96|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.96|0.60|0.78
90799594|NCT00829998|181477804|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of Geometric Means|97.4||||||90.0|89.4|106.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||106|89.4|
90799595|NCT00829998|181477805|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of Geometric Means|102.0||||||90.0|97.1|107.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||107|97.1|
91012908|NCT02322866|181908425|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-11.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.1|-7.5||Analyses were based on ANCOVA model for the endpoint with treatment group and pooled study center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA||sarecycline - placebo|Percent Change from Baseline to Week 6||-7.5|-16.1|< 0.0001
91012909|NCT02322866|181908426|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|-5.3||Analyses were based on ANCOVA model for the endpoint with treatment group and pooled study center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA||sarecycline - placebo|Percent Change from Baseline to Week 3||-5.3|-13.5|< 0.0001
91012910|NCT02322866|181908427|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|-2.5||Analyses were based on ANCOVA model for the endpoint with treatment group and pooled study center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA||sarecycline - placebo|Change from Baseline to Week 9||-2.5|-5.2|< 0.0001
90799596|NCT00829998|181477806|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of Geometric Means|102.0||||||90.0|97.1|107.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||107|97.1|
90799597|NCT00896012|181477808|OTHER|||||||0.222||||||Significance was considered to be P \< .05|t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was performed by analysis of variance and Student t test for estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) at 12 months. Chi-square analysis was used for demographics data.||||0.222
90799598|NCT02921789|181477815|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-12.7||||0.3705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.5|9.0||Incidence rate comparisons are based on Fisher's Exact test and confidence intervals are based on Normal Approximation.|Fisher Exact|||||9.0|-34.5|0.3705
90799599|NCT02921789|181477816|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-12.7||||0.3705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.5|9.0||Incidence rate comparisons are based on Fisher's Exact test and confidence intervals are based on Normal Approximation.|Fisher Exact|||Month 6||9.0|-34.5|0.3705
90799600|NCT02921789|181477816|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-12.4||||0.389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.8|11.0||Incidence rate comparisons are based on Fisher's Exact test and confidence intervals are based on Normal Approximation.|Fisher Exact|||Month 12||11.0|-35.8|0.3890
90799601|NCT02921789|181477817|SUPERIORITY||Difference|6.9||||0.752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.3|29.2||Incidence rate comparisons are based on Fisher's Exact test and confidence intervals are based on Normal Approximation.|Fisher Exact|||Month 3||29.2|-15.3|0.7520
90799602|NCT02921789|181477817|SUPERIORITY||Difference|6.9||||0.752||95.0|-15.3|29.2||Incidence rate comparisons are based on Fisher's Exact test and confidence intervals are based on Normal Approximation.|Fisher Exact|||Month 6||29.2|-15.3|0.7520
90799603|NCT02921789|181477817|SUPERIORITY||Difference|5.0||||0.7597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9|29.0||Incidence rate comparisons are based on Fisher's Exact test and confidence intervals are based on Normal Approximation.|Fisher Exact|||Month 12||29.0|-18.9|0.7597
90799604|NCT02921789|181477818|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-0.3||||1||95.0|-24.9|24.3||Incidence rate comparisons are based on Fisher's Exact test and confidence intervals are based on Normal Approximation.|Fisher Exact|||||24.3|-24.9|1.0
90799605|NCT02921789|181477819|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-3.9||||1||95.0|-30.2|22.4||Incidence rate comparisons are based on Fisher's Exact test and confidence intervals are based on Normal Approximation.|Fisher Exact|||Month 3||22.4|-30.2|1.0
90799606|NCT02921789|181477819|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-6.2||||0.772||95.0|-31.7|19.3||Incidence rate comparisons are based on Fisher's Exact test and confidence intervals are based on Normal Approximation.|Fisher Exact|||Month 6||19.3|-31.7|0.7720
90799607|NCT02921789|181477819|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-7.5||||0.772||95.0|-32.6|17.6||Incidence rate comparisons are based on Fisher's Exact test and confidence intervals are based on Normal Approximation.|Fisher Exact|||Month 12||17.6|-32.6|0.7720
90799608|NCT03423602|181477826|NON_INFERIORITY|Based on a Meta-Analysis of a focused systematic literature review from a comparable patient population, the estimated major vascular access site complication rate or PGsafety for the conservative Random Effect Model is 0.125 with a 95% Confidence Interval of 0.09 to 0.17. Given that the upper bound was 0.17 this justified the use of 0.13 as a valid PGsafety plus a non-inferiority margin of 0.04 yielding an overall non-inferiority limit (NLs) of 0.17 for Safety. Study power is greater than 90%|Wilson's exact test|0.0487|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.0487|||Wilson's exact test|All 75 enrolled subjects, regardless of their enrolment status at 1-month post implantation, including all reported safety data where included.||"The test for non-inferiority for safety was based on a one-sided test (at the 0.025 significance level) for a binomial proportion with hypotheses:~H0s: Psafety ≥ NLs versus H1s: Psafety \< NLs Where: Psafety is the actual proportion of device related major vascular access site complications within the study population; and NLs is the non-inferiority limit for proportion of expected major vascular access site complications associated with cut-down and suture closure."||0.0487||<.0001
90799609|NCT00887159|181477836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.47||P-value is one-sided.|Regression, Cox||The hazard ratio was derived comparing Arm B to Arm A.|There are 2 primary comparisons and each involves comparing the experimental arms (B, C) to the control arm (A). Accrual goal was 54 patients per arm. With a 1-sided 0.1 level logrank test for each test, we have 90% power to detect a 42% reduction in the PFS hazard rate of 0.139 to 0.082 (corresponding to an improvement in median PFS of 5 months to 8.5 months) with 18-month accrual and 12-month follow-up; assuming exponential survival. For each test, 94 events are needed to achieve this power.||1.47|0.65|0.45
90799610|NCT00887159|181477836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.48||P-value is one-sided.|Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio was derived comparing Arm C to Arm A.|There are 2 primary comparisons and each involves comparing the experimental arms (B, C) to the control arm (A). Accrual goal was 54 patients per arm. With a 1-sided 0.1 level logrank test for each test, we have 90% power to detect a 42% reduction in the PFS hazard rate of 0.139 to 0.082 (corresponding to an improvement in median PFS of 5 months to 8.5 months) with 18-month accrual and 12-month follow-up; assuming exponential survival. For each test, 94 events are needed to achieve this power.||1.48|0.66|0.48
90799611|NCT00887159|181477839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.69||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|2.52|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio was derived comparing the high CTCs group to the low CTCs group.|||2.52|1.13|0.01
90799612|NCT01343888|181477863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Koch's method|27.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.9|37.0||adjusted for genotype and race|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||adjusted for genotype and race using Koch's method, with continuity correction|||37.0|17.9|<0.0001
90799613|NCT01343888|181477863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Koch's methond|28.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.0|38.2||adjusted for genotype and race|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||adjusted for genotype and race using Koch's method, with continuity correction|||38.2|19.0|<0.0001
90799614|NCT01343888|181477863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Koch's method|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|5.8|||||adjusted for genotype and race using Koch's method, with continuity correction|||5.8|-7.9|
90799615|NCT01343888|181477864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Koch's method|27.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.5|36.7||adjusted for genotype and race|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||adjusted for genotype and race using Koch's method, with continuity correction|||36.7|17.5|<0.0001
90799616|NCT01343888|181477864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Koch's method|27.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.2|37.4||adjusted for genotype and race|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||adjusted for genotype and race using Koch's method, with continuity correction|||37.4|18.2|<0.0001
90799617|NCT01343888|181477864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Koch's method|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|6.3|||||adjusted for genotype and race using Koch's method, with continuity correction|||6.3|-7.6|
90799618|NCT01990742|181477884|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||MOnte carlo simulation|||||||>0.05
90799619|NCT01990742|181477885|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Monte carlo simulation|||||||>0.05
90799620|NCT01990742|181477886|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Monte carlo simulation|||||||>0.05
90799621|NCT01103414|181477902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.77||0.1819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.4|4.3|||ANCOVA|||||4.3|-22.4|0.1819
90799622|NCT01103414|181477902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-18.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.59||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.4|-5.4|||ANCOVA|||||-5.4|-31.4|0.0057
90799623|NCT01103414|181477902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-28.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.8|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.3|-15.6|||ANCOVA|||||-15.6|-42.3|<0.0001
90799624|NCT01103414|181477902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-31.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.8|-18.2|||ANCOVA|||||-18.2|-43.8|<0.0001
90799625|NCT01103414|181477903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.175||0.0273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||||-0.04|-0.73|0.0273
90799626|NCT01103414|181477903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.171|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|-0.45|||ANCOVA|||||-0.45|-1.13|<0.0001
90799627|NCT01103414|181477903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.176|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|-0.52|||ANCOVA|||||-0.52|-1.21|<0.0001
90799628|NCT01103414|181477903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.169|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|-0.65|||ANCOVA|||||-0.65|-1.32|<0.0001
90799629|NCT01436110|181477950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.037||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.055|0.128|||ANCOVA|||||0.128|-0.055|0.430
90799630|NCT01436110|181477950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.102||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.194|||ANCOVA|||||0.194|0.010|0.030
90799631|NCT03273907|181477956|SUPERIORITY|The primary null hypothesis tested was that the observed rate of clinically relevant complications associated with CyPass Micro-Stent placement and stability is greater than or equal to the performance target rate of 7.00 percent.||||||0.187|||||||Exact one-sided binomial test|P-value is provided from exact one-sided binomial test with type I error 0.05 comparing CyPass System with performance criterion of 7.00 percent.||||||0.1870
90799632|NCT00110214|181477963|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Superiority and futility analyses were conducted for the OS end point. The Lan-Demets analog of the Emerson-Fleming sequential boundary was used to maintain the overall significance level of alpha=0.05 while conducting interim analyses on OS. The final analysis was performed when 748 deaths had been observed. An intention-to-treat approach was used in the analysis for all the clinical end points with the exception of toxicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.05||The primary analysis was adjusted for the stratification factors (24-mo survival probability as predicted by a validated nomogram (\<10%,10%-29.9%,\>=30%), age (\<65, \>=65 years) and prior history of arterial events (yes, no)).|Log Rank|||||1.05|0.7|0.181
90799633|NCT00110214|181477964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
90799634|NCT00110214|181477965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.91||The primary analysis was adjusted for the stratification factors (24-mo survival probability as predicted by a validated nomogram (\<10%,10%-29.9%,\>=30%), age (\<65, \>=65 years) and prior history of arterial events (yes, no)).|Log Rank|||||0.91|0.71|<0.001
90799635|NCT01088503|181477967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.7108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.22||Statistical analysis adjusted for the differences in baseline characteristics between participants treated with prasugrel vs. clopidogrel using propensity scoring.|Log Rank|||||1.22|0.88|0.7108
90799636|NCT01088503|181477968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.464|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Odds Ratio for selection of Prasugrel for participants with DES vs BMS.|||||
90799637|NCT01088503|181477968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Odds Ratio for selection of Prasugrel for participants with STEMI vs not STEMI|||||
90799638|NCT01088503|181477968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|1.657|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Odds Ratio for selection of Prasugrel for participants who were Other Race vs Caucasian.|||||
90799639|NCT01088503|181477968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|1.684|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Odds Ratio for selection of Prasugrel for participants who had cardiogenic shock within 24 hours vs no cardiogenic shock within 24 hours.|||||
90799640|NCT01088503|181477968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.195|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Odds Ratio for selection of Prasugrel for participants who were male vs not male.|||||
90799641|NCT01088503|181477968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Odds Ratio for selection of Prasugrel for participants with EQ-5D US index = 1 vs. \<1.|||||
90799642|NCT01088503|181477968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.116|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Odds Ratio for selection of Prasugrel for participants who were married vs not married.|||||
90799643|NCT01088503|181477968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.125|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Odds Ratio for selection of Prasugrel for participants who had diabetes vs no diabetes.|||||
90799644|NCT01088503|181477968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.172|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Odds Ratio for selection of Prasugrel for participants with no BMS or DES placement vs BMS.|||||
90799645|NCT01088503|181477969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3||||0.1882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.93||Statistical analysis adjusted for the differences in baseline characteristics between participants treated with prasugrel vs. clopidogrel using propensity scoring.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio (HR) is for the analysis at 12 months.|||1.93|0.88|0.1882
90799646|NCT01088503|181477970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.967|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.849|1.103|||||Statistical analysis adjusted for the differences in baseline characteristics between participants treated with prasugrel vs. clopidogrel using propensity scoring.|||1.103|0.849|
90799647|NCT01088503|181477974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Odds Ratio for selection of Prasugrel for participants who had pre-procedure hemoglobin evaluation vs no hemoglobin evaluation.|||||
90799648|NCT01088503|181477975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.005|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Odds Ratio for selection of Prasugrel for participants with Duke CAD Index vs no Duke CAD Index.|||||
90799649|NCT01896687|181477976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||"The worst pain and interference scores as dependent variables, and time (baseline, 1-, and 3 week follow up visit), group (Calmare or Sham), and group by time interaction terms as the independent variable."|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90799650|NCT04577781|181478003|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.353||0.885|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.66|0.55||Mixed model repeated measure (MMRM) with treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effects (with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix).|MMRM|||||0.55|-0.66|0.885
91012911|NCT02322866|181908428|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|-2.4||Analyses were based on ANCOVA model for the endpoint with treatment group and pooled study center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA||sarecycline - placebo|Change from Baseline to Week 6||-2.4|-5.0|< 0.0001
90799651|NCT02271529|181478012|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Under the assumption that the mean percent change in stent length upon deployment being 0.2% with a standard deviation of 4%, type I error of 0.05, and two one-sided t-tests, a sample size of at least 30 stents provides power \> 0.90 to determine that the mean length change of stents deployed with the thumbwheel delivery system is within +/-10%.|Mean percent change|-1.0|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.4|||two one-sided t-tests|||||-0.4|-1.5|<0.01
90799652|NCT04389866|181478033|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.357|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.864||0.018|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|The df = 13 for arm 1 (jawline injections) analysis of Jawline Rating Scale Assessments given by blinded physician.|Treatment Difference = 4 Weeks after last injection - Baseline|The null hypothesis for the 7 participants placed randomly 1:1 in the jawline injection arm was that there would be no statistically significant change in the blinded physician Jawline Rating Scale Assessment at baseline versus four weeks after last injection.||||0.018
90799653|NCT04389866|181478033|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.214|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.864||0.082|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|The df = 13 for arm 2 (jawline and lateral zygomatic cheek area injections) analysis of Jawline Rating Scale Assessments given by blinded physician.|Treatment Difference = 4 Weeks after last injection - Baseline|The null hypothesis for the 7 participants placed randomly 1:1 in the jawline and lateral (zygomatic) cheek area injections arm was that there would be no statistically significant change in the blinded physician Jawline Rating Scale Assessment at baseline versus four weeks after last injection.||||0.082
90799654|NCT04389866|181478034|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.497||3.1e-07|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|The df = 13 for arm 1 (jawline injections) analysis of Jawline Rating Scale Assessments given by unblinded physician.|Treatment Difference = 4 Weeks after last injection - Baseline|The null hypothesis for the 7 participants placed randomly 1:1 in the jawline injection arm was that there would be no statistically significant change in the unblinded physician Jawline Rating Scale Assessment at baseline versus four weeks after last injection.||||0.00000031
90799655|NCT04389866|181478034|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.714|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.497||7.28e-05|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|The df = 13 for jawline and lateral (zygomatic) cheek area injections arm analysis of Jawline Rating Scale Assessments given by unblinded physician.|Treatment Difference = 4 Weeks after last injection - Baseline|The null hypothesis for the 7 participants placed randomly 1:1 in the jawline and lateral (zygomatic) cheek area injections arm was that there would be no statistically significant change in the unblinded physician Jawline Rating Scale Assessment at baseline versus four weeks after last injection.||||0.0000728
90799656|NCT04389866|181478035|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.571|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.611||0.014|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|The df = 13 for jawline injections analysis of Jawline Rating Scale Assessments given by subjects.|Treatment Difference = 4 Weeks after last injection - Baseline|The null hypothesis for the 7 participants placed randomly 1:1 in the jawline injection arm was that there would be no statistically significant change in the subjects' Jawline Rating Scale Assessment at baseline versus four weeks after last injection.||||0.014
90799657|NCT04389866|181478035|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.714|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.726||0.0065|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|The df = 13 for jawline and lateral (zygomatic) cheek area injections analysis of Jawline Rating Scale Assessments given by the subjects.|Treatment Difference = 4 Weeks after last injection - Baseline|The null hypothesis for the 7 participants placed randomly 1:1 in the jawline and lateral (zygomatic) cheek area injections arm was that there would be no statistically significant change in the subjects' Jawline Rating Scale Assessment at baseline versus four weeks after last injection.||||0.0065
90799658|NCT01205503|181478054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|||||This is for the interaction between baseline tnf-alpha levels and treatment received (mesna vs saline).|Mixed Models Analysis|Model was adjusted for baseline biochemical measures, time of measurement, treatment (mesna or saline), chemo type, and first-order interactions.||||||0.014
90799659|NCT00776789|181478061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4
90799660|NCT00776789|181478062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.5||||0||95.0|1.4|4.3|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Exclusive breast feeding at 48 hours was 95% (19 out of 20 partcipants were exclusively breast feeding)in the skin-to-skin contact group vs. 38.1% in the control group||4.3|1.4|0.00
90799661|NCT00776789|181478063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.5||||0.001||95.0|1.6|6.3|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||6.3|1.6|0.001
90799662|NCT02742129|181478064|SUPERIORITY|The statistical analysis compared the patient level data collected during the AIR001 period to the data collected during the placebo period. The Outcome Measure data is displaying the data as collected during each study phase and is combined together based upon expected treatment assignment for analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The mixed models used to generate the p-values included all patients, including those with incomplete data.||0.16|-0.56|0.2650
90799663|NCT02742129|181478065|SUPERIORITY|The statistical analysis compared the patient level data collected during the AIR001 period to the data collected during the placebo period. The Outcome Measure data is displaying the data as collected during each study phase and is combined together based upon expected treatment assignment for analysis|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.68||||0.9069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-263.65|234.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The mixed models used to generate the p-values included all patients, including those with incomplete data||234.29|-263.65|0.9069
90799664|NCT02742129|181478066|SUPERIORITY|The statistical analysis compared the patient level data collected during the AIR001 period to the data collected during the placebo period. The Outcome Measure data is displaying the data as collected during each study phase and is combined together based upon expected treatment assignment for analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.9338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|1.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The mixed models used to generate the p-values included all patients, including those with incomplete data.||1.27|-1.16|0.9338
91012912|NCT02322866|181908429|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|-1.7||Analyses were based on ANCOVA model for the endpoint with treatment group and pooled study center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA||sarecycline - placebo|Change from Baseline to Week 3||-1.7|-4.1|< 0.0001
91012913|NCT02145949|181908444|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.03
90799665|NCT02742129|181478067|SUPERIORITY|The statistical analysis compared the patient level data collected during the AIR001 period to the data collected during the placebo period. The Outcome Measure data is displaying the data as collected during each study phase and is combined together based upon expected treatment assignment for analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29||||0.8151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.79|2.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The mixed models used to generate the p-values included all patients, including those with incomplete data.||2.20|-2.79|0.8151
90799666|NCT02742129|181478068|SUPERIORITY|The statistical analysis compared the patient level data collected during the AIR001 period to the data collected during the placebo period. The Outcome Measure data is displaying the data as collected during each study phase and is combined together based upon expected treatment assignment for analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.82||||0.4658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|3.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The mixed models used to generate the p-values included all patients, including those with incomplete data.||3.05|-1.41|0.4658
90799667|NCT02742129|181478069|SUPERIORITY|The statistical analysis compared the patient level data collected during the AIR001 period to the data collected during the placebo period. The Outcome Measure data is displaying the data as collected during each study phase and is combined together based upon expected treatment assignment for analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.06||||0.3902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|3.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The mixed models used to generate the p-values included all patients, including those with incomplete data.||3.49|-1.37|0.3902
90799668|NCT02742129|181478070|SUPERIORITY|The statistical analysis compared the patient level data collected during the AIR001 period to the data collected during the placebo period. The Outcome Measure data is displaying the data as collected during each study phase and is combined together based upon expected treatment assignment for analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.69||||0.7404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.21|74.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The mixed models used to generate the p-values included all patients, including those with incomplete data.||74.6|-53.21|0.7404
90799669|NCT02742129|181478071|SUPERIORITY|The statistical analysis compared the patient level data collected during the AIR001 period to the data collected during the placebo period. The Outcome Measure data is displaying the data as collected during each study phase and is combined together based upon expected treatment assignment for analysis.|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.4282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The mixed models used to generate the p-values included all patients, including those with incomplete data.||0.18|-0.08|0.4282
90799670|NCT02742129|181478073|SUPERIORITY|The statistical analysis compared the patient level data collected during the AIR001 period to the data collected during the placebo period. The Outcome Measure data is displaying the data as collected during each study phase and is combined together based upon expected treatment assignment for analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49||||0.1067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The mixed models used to generate the p-values included all patients, including those with incomplete data.||0.11|-1.08|0.1067
90799671|NCT02742129|181478074|SUPERIORITY|The statistical analysis compared the patient level data collected during the AIR001 period to the data collected during the placebo period. The Outcome Measure data is displaying the data as collected during each study phase and is combined together based upon expected treatment assignment for analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.4411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The mixed models used to generate the p-values included all patients, including those with incomplete data.||0.16|-0.37|0.4411
90799672|NCT00114127|181478077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.132||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.132
90799673|NCT00114127|181478078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.292||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.292
90799674|NCT00539240|181478107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||||||P\<0.05 considered statistically significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons|Regression, Linear|adjusted for age, sex, BMI and ethnicity||||||0.04
90799675|NCT00539240|181478107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5||||||P\<0.05 considered statistically significant, No adjustment for multiple comparisons|Regression, Linear|adjusted for age, sex, BMI and ethnicity||||||0.50
90799676|NCT00539240|181478108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19||||||P\<0.05 considered statistically significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons (no post-hoc contrasts performed)|ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline score and personality traits (SCL-90)||||||0.19
91012914|NCT02145949|181908445|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.01
91012915|NCT02145949|181908446|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.04
91012916|NCT02145949|181908447|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.01
91012917|NCT02145949|181908448|OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.12
90799677|NCT00539240|181478109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||||||P\<0.05 considered statistically significant, No adjustment for multiple comparisons|Regression, Linear|adjusted for age, sex, BMI and ethnicity.||||||0.04
90799678|NCT00539240|181478109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5||||||P\<0.05 considered statistically significant, no adjustment for multiple comparisons|Regression, Linear|adjusted for age, sex, BMI and ethnicity||||||0.50
90799679|NCT00539240|181478110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||||||P\<0.05 considered statistically significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|adjusted for age, sex, BMI and ethnicity||||||0.04
90799680|NCT00539240|181478110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2||||||P\<0.05 considered statistically significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|adjusted for age, sex, BMI and ethnicity.||||||0.20
90799681|NCT00363311|181478120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk Estimate|0.56||||0.009||95.0|0.36|0.87||Statistical data are for Year 1.5|Log Rank|||||0.87|0.36|0.009
90799682|NCT00363311|181478120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk Estimate|0.61||||0.007||95.0|0.43|0.88||Statistical data are for Overall (Years 0-3)|Log Rank|||||0.88|0.43|0.007
90799683|NCT00363311|181478121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk Estimate|0.46||||0.13||95.0|0.16|1.31||Statistical data are for Year 1.5|Log Rank|||||1.31|0.16|0.13
91012918|NCT02145949|181908449|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.03
91012919|NCT02145949|181908450|OTHER|||||||0.71|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.71
91012920|NCT02145949|181908451|OTHER|||||||0.76|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.76
91012921|NCT02145949|181908452|OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.40
91012922|NCT02145949|181908453|OTHER|||||||0.97|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.97
91012923|NCT02145949|181908454|OTHER|||||||0.89|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.89
91012924|NCT02145949|181908455|OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.48
91012925|NCT02145949|181908456|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.02
91012926|NCT02145949|181908457|OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.29
91012927|NCT02145949|181908458|OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.33
90799684|NCT00363311|181478121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk Estimate|0.48||||0.053||95.0|0.22|1.03||Statistical data are for Overall (Years 0-3)|Log Rank|||||1.03|0.22|0.053
90799685|NCT00363311|181478122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk Estimate|0.59||||0.031||95.0|0.36|0.96||Statistical data are for Year 1.5|Log Rank|||||0.96|0.36|0.031
90799686|NCT00363311|181478122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk Estimate|0.7||||0.079||95.0|0.46|1.05||Statistical data are for Overall (Years 0-3)|Log Rank|||||1.05|0.46|0.079
90799687|NCT00363311|181478123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.65
90799688|NCT00363311|181478124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.024
90799689|NCT00363311|181478131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.20
90799690|NCT00363311|181478132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.039||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.039
90799691|NCT00363311|181478134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.80
90799692|NCT00363311|181478135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.12
90799693|NCT04881760|181478158|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-5.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.34|-3.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.94|-7.34|<0.001
90799694|NCT04881760|181478158|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-10.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.21|-8.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.70|-12.21|<0.001
90799695|NCT04881760|181478158|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-12.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.42|-10.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-10.08|-14.42|<0.001
90799696|NCT04881760|181478158|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-15.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.9|-13.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-13.30|-16.90|<0.001
90799697|NCT04881760|181478158|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-16.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.86|-14.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-14.58|-18.86|<0.001
90799698|NCT04881760|181478158|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-15.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.57|-14.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-14.13|-17.57|<0.001
90799699|NCT04881760|181478159|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-6.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.94|-4.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.20|-8.94|<0.001
90799700|NCT04881760|181478159|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-14.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.64|-10.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-10.78|-17.64|<0.001
90799701|NCT04881760|181478159|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-15.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.05|-12.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-12.40|-19.05|<0.001
90799702|NCT04881760|181478159|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-19.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.73|-16.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-16.51|-22.73|<0.001
90799703|NCT04881760|181478159|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-21.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.05|-18.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-18.51|-25.05|<0.001
90799704|NCT04881760|181478159|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-22.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.92|-19.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-19.31|-24.92|<0.001
90799705|NCT04881760|181478160|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|33.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.0|49.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||49|17|<0.001
90799706|NCT04881760|181478160|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|61.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.0|77.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||77|45|<0.001
90799707|NCT04881760|181478160|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|68.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.0|81.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||81|54|<0.001
90799708|NCT04881760|181478160|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|74.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.0|85.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||85|63|<0.001
90799709|NCT04881760|181478160|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|74.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.0|85.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||85|63|<0.001
90799710|NCT04881760|181478160|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|71.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.0|82.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||82|59|<0.001
90799711|NCT04881760|181478161|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|37.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.0|54.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||54|20|<0.001
90799712|NCT04881760|181478161|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|60.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.0|76.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||76|44|<0.001
90799713|NCT04881760|181478161|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|70.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.0|83.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||83|57|<0.001
90799714|NCT04881760|181478161|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|73.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.0|84.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||84|62|<0.001
90799715|NCT04881760|181478161|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|73.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.0|84.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||84|62|<0.001
90799716|NCT04881760|181478161|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|73.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.0|84.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||84|67|<0.001
90799717|NCT04881760|181478162|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|22.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|33.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||33|11|<0.001
90799718|NCT04881760|181478162|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|56.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.0|73.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||73|38|<0.001
90799719|NCT04881760|181478162|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|69.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.0|85.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||85|53|<0.001
90799720|NCT04881760|181478162|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|80.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|66.0|93.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||93|66|<0.001
90799721|NCT04881760|181478162|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|91.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|83.0|100.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||100|83|<0.001
90799722|NCT04881760|181478162|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|87.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.0|96.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||96|78|<0.001
90799723|NCT04881760|181478163|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.0||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|31.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||31|5|0.008
90799724|NCT04881760|181478163|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|64.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.0|81.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||81|48|<0.001
90799725|NCT04881760|181478163|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|67.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.0|84.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||84|51|<0.001
90799726|NCT04881760|181478163|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|81.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|69.0|94.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||94|69|<0.001
90799727|NCT04881760|181478163|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|82.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.0|94.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||94|71|<0.001
90799728|NCT04881760|181478163|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|84.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|74.0|94.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||94|74|<0.001
90799729|NCT04881760|181478164|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.0||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|17.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||17|1|0.029
91012928|NCT02145949|181908459|OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.30
90799730|NCT04881760|181478164|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|27.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|43.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||43|11|<0.001
90799731|NCT04881760|181478164|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|43.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.0|60.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||60|26|<0.001
90799732|NCT04881760|181478164|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|49.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.0|66.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||66|33|<0.001
90799733|NCT04881760|181478164|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|67.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.0|83.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||83|51|<0.001
90799734|NCT04881760|181478164|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|68.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.0|80.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||80|56|<0.001
90799735|NCT04881760|181478165|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.0||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|24.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||24|6|0.002
90799736|NCT04881760|181478165|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|53.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.0|70.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||70|36|<0.001
90799737|NCT04881760|181478165|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|63.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.0|79.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||79|47|<0.001
90799738|NCT04881760|181478165|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|71.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.0|87.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||87|55|<0.001
90799739|NCT04881760|181478165|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|75.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.0|89.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||89|62|<0.001
90799740|NCT04881760|181478165|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|82.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.0|92.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||92|71|<0.001
90799741|NCT04881760|181478166|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-6.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.36|-4.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.56|-8.36|<0.001
90799742|NCT04881760|181478166|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-11.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.34|-9.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-9.30|-13.34|<0.001
90799743|NCT04881760|181478166|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-13.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.99|-11.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-11.05|-15.99|<0.001
90799744|NCT04881760|181478166|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-16.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.41|-14.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-14.45|-18.41|<0.001
90799745|NCT04881760|181478166|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-18.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.93|-16.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-16.04|-20.93|<0.001
90799746|NCT04881760|181478166|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-17.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.11|-15.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-15.40|-19.11|<0.001
90799747|NCT04881760|181478167|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-7.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.18|-4.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.88|-10.18|<0.001
90799748|NCT04881760|181478167|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-15.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.35|-11.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-11.60|-19.35|<0.001
90799749|NCT04881760|181478167|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-17.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.19|-13.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-13.39|-21.19|<0.001
90799750|NCT04881760|181478167|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-21.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.25|-18.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-18.12|-25.25|<0.001
90799751|NCT04881760|181478167|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-24.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.72|-20.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-20.36|-27.72|<0.001
90799752|NCT04881760|181478167|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-24.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.4|-21.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-21.27|-27.40|<0.001
90799753|NCT04881760|181478168|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-2.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.50|-2.80|<0.001
90799754|NCT04881760|181478168|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-3.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.66|-3.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.29|-4.66|<0.001
90799755|NCT04881760|181478168|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-4.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.46|-3.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.82|-5.46|<0.001
90799756|NCT04881760|181478168|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-5.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.34|-4.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.99|-6.34|<0.001
90799757|NCT04881760|181478168|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-6.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.17|-5.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.53|-7.17|<0.001
90799758|NCT04881760|181478168|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-5.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.59|-5.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.32|-6.59|<0.001
90799759|NCT04881760|181478169|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-2.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.42|-1.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.57|-3.42|<0.001
90799760|NCT04881760|181478169|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-5.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.81|-4.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.03|-6.81|<0.001
90799761|NCT04881760|181478169|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-5.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.23|-4.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.67|-7.23|<0.001
90799762|NCT04881760|181478169|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-7.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.62|-6.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-6.18|-8.62|<0.001
90799763|NCT04881760|181478169|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-8.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.55|-7.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-7.05|-9.55|<0.001
90799764|NCT04881760|181478169|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-8.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.49|-7.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-7.35|-9.49|<0.001
90799765|NCT04881760|181478170|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-2.82||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.23|-0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.41|-5.23|0.022
90799766|NCT04881760|181478170|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-7.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.32|-5.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.13|-10.32|<0.001
90799767|NCT04881760|181478170|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-9.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.47|-7.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-7.43|-12.47|<0.001
90799768|NCT04881760|181478170|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-11.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.72|-8.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.56|-13.72|<0.001
90799769|NCT04881760|181478170|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-12.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.87|-9.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-9.90|-14.87|<0.001
90799770|NCT04881760|181478170|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-11.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.04|-9.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-9.43|-14.04|<0.001
90799771|NCT04881760|181478171|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-3.84||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.77|-0.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.91|-6.77|0.010
90799772|NCT04881760|181478171|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-11.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.54|-8.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.33|-15.54|<0.001
90799773|NCT04881760|181478171|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-12.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.11|-8.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.33|-16.11|<0.001
90799774|NCT04881760|181478171|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-15.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.33|-12.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-12.43|-19.33|<0.001
90799775|NCT04881760|181478171|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-15.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.39|-12.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-12.31|-19.39|<0.001
90799776|NCT04881760|181478171|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-16.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.13|-13.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-13.78|-20.13|<0.001
90799777|NCT01595529|181478173|NON_INFERIORITY|The primary analysis was a non-inferiority test comparing the proportion of subjects with symptomatic UTIs at the TOC visit to evaluate whether the difference was within the 5% equivalence interval. This test was conducted by calculating the one-sided 95% upper confidence limit for the difference in symptomatic UTI (treatment failure) rate. If this limit was less than or equal to the equivalence interval (0.05), then would conclude that short course therapy is not inferior to standard therapy.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.035569|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.054844||||||||0.054844||
90799778|NCT01595529|181478174|NON_INFERIORITY|The primary analysis was a non-inferiority test comparing the proportion of subjects with symptomatic UTIs at the TOC visit to evaluate whether the difference was within the 5% equivalence interval. This test was conducted by calculating the one-sided 95% upper confidence limit for the difference in symptomatic UTI (treatment failure) rate. If this limit was less than or equal to the equivalence interval (0.05), then would conclude that short course therapy is not inferior to standard therapy.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.022169|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.03939||||||||0.03939||
90799779|NCT01595529|181478175|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.00356|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03323|0.026102||||||||0.026102|-0.03323|
90799780|NCT01595529|181478176|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.00994|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04012|0.020236||||||||0.020236|-0.04012|
91012929|NCT02145949|181908460|OTHER|||||||0.98|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.98
90799781|NCT01595529|181478177|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2282|||||||Chi-squared|||At Test of Cure Visit||||0.2282
90799782|NCT01595529|181478177|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4876|||||||Chi-squared|||At Outcome Assessment Visit||||0.4876
90799783|NCT01595529|181478178|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4184|||||||Chi-squared|||At Test of Cure Visit||||0.4184
90799784|NCT01595529|181478178|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9782|||||||Chi-squared|||At Outcome Assessment Visit||||0.9782
90799785|NCT01595529|181478179|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.05277|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08857|-0.01698||||||||-0.01698|-0.08857|
90799786|NCT01595529|181478180|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.05664|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09479|-0.0185||||||||-0.01850|-0.09479|
90799787|NCT01595529|181478181|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.03056|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07744|0.016323||||||||0.016323|-0.07744|
90799788|NCT01595529|181478182|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.01094|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.058|0.036117||||||||0.036117|-0.0580|
90799789|NCT01595529|181478183|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.10373|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14161|-0.06585||||||||-0.06585|-0.14161|
90799790|NCT01595529|181478184|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.09198|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13006|-0.05391||||||||-0.05391|-0.13006|
90799791|NCT04016714|181478191|OTHER||Difference in percentage vs Prevenar 13™|-5.5|||=|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|0.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Injection-site erythema||0.0|-11.0|= 0.050
90799792|NCT04016714|181478191|OTHER||Difference in percentage vs Prevenar 13™|-2.1|||=|0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|3.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Injection-site induration||3.5|-7.7|= 0.460
90799793|NCT04016714|181478191|OTHER||Difference in percentage vs Prevenar 13™|3.4|||=|0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|8.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Injection-site pain||8.9|-2.1|= 0.225
90799794|NCT04016714|181478191|OTHER||Difference in percentage vs Prevenar 13™|2.3|||=|0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|7.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Injection-site swelling||7.9|-3.4|= 0.430
90799795|NCT04016714|181478192|OTHER||Difference in percentage vs Prevenar 13™|-3.5|||=|0.229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|2.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Decreased appetite||2.2|-9.1|= 0.229
90799796|NCT04016714|181478192|OTHER||Difference in percentage vs Prevenar 13™|2.2|||=|0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|4.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Irritability||4.7|-0.2|= 0.077
90799797|NCT04016714|181478192|OTHER||Difference in percentage vs Prevenar 13™|-0.6|||=|0.793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|4.1|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Somnolence||4.1|-5.4|= 0.793
90799798|NCT04016714|181478192|OTHER||Difference in percentage vs Prevenar 13™|-4.6|||=|0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|-0.1|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Urticaria||-0.1|-9.1|= 0.045
90799799|NCT04016714|181478193|OTHER||Difference in percentage vs Prevenar 13™|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.9||||||Vaccine-related SAEs||0.9|-0.9|
90799800|NCT04016714|181478194|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 13 shared serotypes, a conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage point difference|-2.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|-0.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Serotype 1||-0.6|-4.3|< 0.001
90799801|NCT04016714|181478194|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 13 shared serotypes, a conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage point difference|10.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.6|14.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Serotype 3||14.6|6.6|< 0.001
90799802|NCT04016714|181478194|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 13 shared serotypes, a conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage point difference|-1.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|0.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Serotype 4||0.0|-4.0|< 0.001
91012930|NCT02145949|181908461|OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.18
91012931|NCT02145949|181908462|OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.52
91012932|NCT02145949|181908463|OTHER|||||||0.81|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.81
91012933|NCT04602078|181908488|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.444|||||||Log Rank|||Comparisong between subgroups: patients with PD-L1 postive versus patients with PD-L1 negative||||0.444
91012934|NCT04602078|181908489|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.414|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparisong between subgroups: patients with PD-L1 postive versus patients with PD-L1 negative||||0.414
90799803|NCT04016714|181478194|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 13 shared serotypes, a conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage point difference|-0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.8|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Serotype 5||0.8|-1.4|< 0.001
90799804|NCT04016714|181478194|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 13 shared serotypes, a conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage point difference|-0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Serotype 6A||1.0|-1.5|< 0.001
90799805|NCT04016714|181478194|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 13 shared serotypes, a conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage point difference|0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Serotype 6B||1.5|-1.2|< 0.001
90799806|NCT04016714|181478194|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 13 shared serotypes, a conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage point difference|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Serotype 7F||1.4|-0.4|< 0.001
90799807|NCT04016714|181478194|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 13 shared serotypes, a conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage point difference|0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Serotype 9V||1.2|-0.8|< 0.001
90799808|NCT04016714|181478194|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 13 shared serotypes, a conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage point difference|-0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Serotype 14||0.7|-1.7|< 0.001
90799809|NCT04016714|181478194|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 13 shared serotypes, a conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage point difference|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Serotype 18C||1.5|-0.6|< 0.001
91012935|NCT01342445|181908512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Partial eta squared|0.34|||<|0.001||||||we adjusted p values to control for the false discovery rate using procedures described by Benjamini and Hochberg (1995). Thus, an alpha value of .021 was used as significance threshold.|ANOVA|"F(4, 84) = 10.9~This was a one-way ANOVA with repeated measures across dosage conditions (no drug baseline, placebo, 30-mg, 50-mg, 70-mg LDX)."||This was a within-subject crossover design with all participants going through a no-drug baseline followed by placebo and three dosages of LDX, with the latter four conditions in a randomly assigned, counterbalanced order. The comparison condition was the placebo condition.||||<0.001
91012936|NCT01342445|181908513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||partial eta squared|0.28|||<|0.001||||||we adjusted p values to control for the false discovery rate using procedures described by Benjamini and Hochberg (1995). Thus, an alpha value of .021 was used as significance threshold.|ANOVA|"F(4, 84) = 8.14~This was a one-way ANOVA with repeated measures across dosage conditions (no drug baseline, placebo, 30-mg, 50-mg, 70-mg LDX)."||This was a within-subject crossover design with all participants going through a no-drug baseline followed by placebo and three dosages of LDX, with the latter four conditions in a randomly assigned, counterbalanced order. The comparison condition was the placebo condition.||||<.001
90799810|NCT04016714|181478194|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 13 shared serotypes, a conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage point difference|-0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Serotype 19A||0.7|-1.3|< 0.001
90799811|NCT04016714|181478194|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 13 shared serotypes, a conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage point difference|0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Serotype 19F||1.2|-0.8|< 0.001
91012937|NCT06045026|181908529|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 4||||<0.0001
91012938|NCT06045026|181908529|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 8||||<0.0001
91012939|NCT06045026|181908529|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||||<0.0001
90799812|NCT04016714|181478194|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 13 shared serotypes, a conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage point difference|0.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|3.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Serotype 23F||3.0|-1.2|< 0.001
90799813|NCT04016714|181478194|SUPERIORITY|For the 2 serotypes unique to V114, a conclusion of superiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being \>10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage point difference|94.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.6|95.8|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Serotype 22F||95.8|91.6|< 0.001
90799814|NCT04016714|181478194|SUPERIORITY|For the 2 serotypes unique to V114, a conclusion of superiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being \>10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage point difference|97.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|95.4|98.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Serotype 33F||98.4|95.4|< 0.001
91012940|NCT06045026|181908529|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 16||||<0.0001
91012941|NCT06045026|181908529|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 20||||<0.0001
91012942|NCT06045026|181908529|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 24||||<0.0001
90799815|NCT04016714|181478195|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 13 shared serotypes, a conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevenar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC ratio|0.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.63|||t-test, 1 sided|||Serotype 1||0.63|0.54|< 0.001
90799816|NCT04016714|181478195|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 13 shared serotypes, a conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevenar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC ratio|1.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|1.43|||t-test, 1 sided|||Serotype 3||1.43|1.20|< 0.001
90799817|NCT04016714|181478195|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 13 shared serotypes, a conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevenar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC ratio|0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.78|||t-test, 1 sided|||Serotype 4||0.78|0.63|< 0.001
90799818|NCT04016714|181478195|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 13 shared serotypes, a conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevenar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC ratio|0.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.68|||t-test, 1 sided|||Serotype 5||0.68|0.56|< 0.001
90799819|NCT04016714|181478195|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 13 shared serotypes, a conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevenar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC ratio|0.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.67|||t-test, 1 sided|||Serotype 6A||0.67|0.54|< 0.001
90799820|NCT04016714|181478195|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 13 shared serotypes, a conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevenar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC ratio|0.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.0|||t-test, 1 sided|||Serotype 6B||1.00|0.79|< 0.001
90799821|NCT04016714|181478195|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 13 shared serotypes, a conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevenar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC ratio|0.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.81|||t-test, 1 sided|||Serotype 7F||0.81|0.69|< 0.001
90799822|NCT04016714|181478195|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 13 shared serotypes, a conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevenar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC ratio|0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.76|||t-test, 1 sided|||Serotype 9V||0.76|0.64|< 0.001
90799823|NCT04016714|181478195|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 13 shared serotypes, a conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevenar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC ratio|0.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.87|||t-test, 1 sided|||Serotype 14||0.87|0.70|< 0.001
90799824|NCT04016714|181478195|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 13 shared serotypes, a conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevenar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC ratio|0.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.92|||t-test, 1 sided|||Serotype 18C||0.92|0.77|< 0.001
90799825|NCT04016714|181478195|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 13 shared serotypes, a conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevenar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC ratio|0.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.82|||t-test, 1 sided|||Serotype 19A||0.82|0.68|< 0.001
91012943|NCT06045026|181908530|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 4||||<0.0001
90799826|NCT04016714|181478195|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 13 shared serotypes, a conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevenar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC ratio|0.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.87|||t-test, 1 sided|||Serotype 19F||0.87|0.72|< 0.001
90799827|NCT04016714|181478195|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 13 shared serotypes, a conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevenar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC ratio|0.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.0|||t-test, 1 sided|||Serotype 23F||1.00|0.81|< 0.001
90799828|NCT04016714|181478195|SUPERIORITY|For the 2 serotypes unique to V114, a conclusion of superiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2- sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevenar 13™) being \>2.0 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC ratio|68.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.73|75.65|||t-test, 1 sided|||Serotype 22F||75.65|61.73|< 0.001
90799829|NCT04016714|181478195|SUPERIORITY|For the 2 serotypes unique to V114, a conclusion of superiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevenar 13™) being \>2.0 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC ratio|48.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.45|54.01|||t-test, 1 sided|||Serotype 33F||54.01|44.45|< 0.001
90799830|NCT04016714|181478196|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of Vaxelis™ administered concomitantly with V114 to Vaxelis™ administered concomitantly with Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being greater than the specified non-inferiority margin (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage point difference|0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Diphtheria toxoid||1.0|-0.6|< 0.001
90799831|NCT04016714|181478196|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of Vaxelis™ administered concomitantly with V114 to Vaxelis™ administered concomitantly with Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being greater than the specified non-inferiority margin (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage point difference|0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Tetanus toxoid||1.0|-0.6|< 0.001
91012944|NCT06045026|181908530|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 8||||<0.0001
91012945|NCT06045026|181908530|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||||<0.0001
91012946|NCT06045026|181908530|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 16||||<0.0001
91012947|NCT06045026|181908530|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 20||||<0.0001
91012948|NCT06045026|181908530|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 24||||<0.0001
91012949|NCT06045026|181908531|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 4||||<0.0001
90799832|NCT04016714|181478196|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of Vaxelis™ administered concomitantly with V114 to Vaxelis™ administered concomitantly with Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being greater than the specified non-inferiority margin (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage point difference|0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Pertussis - PT||1.0|-0.6|< 0.001
90799833|NCT04016714|181478196|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of Vaxelis™ administered concomitantly with V114 to Vaxelis™ administered concomitantly with Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being greater than the specified non-inferiority margin (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage point difference|0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Pertussis - FHA||1.0|-0.6|< 0.001
90799834|NCT04016714|181478196|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of Vaxelis™ administered concomitantly with V114 to Vaxelis™ administered concomitantly with Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being greater than the specified non-inferiority margin (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage point difference|0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Pertussis - FIM 2/3||1.2|-0.8|< 0.001
90799835|NCT04016714|181478196|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of Vaxelis™ administered concomitantly with V114 to Vaxelis™ administered concomitantly with Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being greater than the specified non-inferiority margin (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage point difference|0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Pertussis - PRN||1.2|-0.8|< 0.001
90799836|NCT04016714|181478196|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of Vaxelis™ administered concomitantly with V114 to Vaxelis™ administered concomitantly with Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being greater than the specified non-inferiority margin (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage point difference|-1.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|0.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Hib-PRP||0.9|-3.3|< 0.001
90799837|NCT04016714|181478196|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of Vaxelis™ administered concomitantly with V114 to Vaxelis™ administered concomitantly with Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being greater than the specified non-inferiority margin (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage point difference|-0.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||HBsAg||0.5|-2.0|< 0.001
90799838|NCT04016714|181478196|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of Vaxelis™ administered concomitantly with V114 to Vaxelis™ administered concomitantly with Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being greater than the specified non-inferiority margin (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage point difference|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Poliovirus 1||0.9|-0.9|< 0.001
90799839|NCT04016714|181478196|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of Vaxelis™ administered concomitantly with V114 to Vaxelis™ administered concomitantly with Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being greater than the specified non-inferiority margin (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage point difference|0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.1|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Poliovirus 2||1.1|-0.6|< 0.001
91054096|NCT02912650|181990992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|20.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.66|24.45|||ANCOVA|||0 to 6 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||24.45|15.66|<0.001
91054097|NCT02912650|181990992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|13.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.71|17.57|||ANCOVA|||0 to 6 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||17.57|8.71|<0.001
90799840|NCT04016714|181478196|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of Vaxelis™ administered concomitantly with V114 to Vaxelis™ administered concomitantly with Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being greater than the specified non-inferiority margin (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage point difference|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Poliovirus 3||0.7|-0.8|< 0.001
90799841|NCT04016714|181478198|OTHER||GMC ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|0.89||||||Serotype 1||0.89|0.75|
90799842|NCT04016714|181478198|OTHER||GMC ratio|1.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|1.98||||||Serotype 3||1.98|1.66|
90799843|NCT04016714|181478198|OTHER||GMC ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.21||||||Serotype 4||1.21|0.99|
91054098|NCT02912650|181990992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|10.04|||ANCOVA|||0 to 6 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||10.04|3.80|<0.001
91054099|NCT02912650|181990992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|34.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.09|43.57|||ANCOVA|||0 to 12 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||43.57|26.09|<0.001
90799844|NCT04016714|181478198|OTHER||GMC ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.01||||||Serotype 5||1.01|0.81|
90799845|NCT04016714|181478198|OTHER||GMC ratio|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.5||||||Serotype 6A||0.50|0.38|
90799846|NCT04016714|181478198|OTHER||GMC ratio|1.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|2.05||||||Serotype 6B||2.05|1.46|
90799847|NCT04016714|181478198|OTHER||GMC ratio|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.84||||||Serotype 7F||0.84|0.71|
90799848|NCT04016714|181478198|OTHER||GMC ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.12||||||Serotype 9V||1.12|0.90|
90799849|NCT04016714|181478198|OTHER||GMC ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.18||||||Serotype 14||1.18|0.89|
91054100|NCT02912650|181990992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.85||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|11.95|||ANCOVA|||0 to 12 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||11.95|-0.25|0.060
91012950|NCT06045026|181908531|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 8||||<0.0001
90799850|NCT04016714|181478198|OTHER||GMC ratio|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.82||||||Serotype 18C||0.82|0.68|
90799851|NCT04016714|181478198|OTHER||GMC ratio|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.81||||||Serotype 19A||0.81|0.64|
91054101|NCT02912650|181990992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|16.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.54|22.95|||ANCOVA|||0 to 12 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||22.95|10.54|<0.001
91054102|NCT02912650|181990992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|28.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.26|37.71|||ANCOVA|||0 to 12 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||37.71|20.26|<0.001
91054103|NCT02912650|181990992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|18.08|||<|0.001||95.0|9.29|26.88|||ANCOVA|||0 to 12 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||26.88|9.29|<0.001
91054104|NCT02912650|181990992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|10.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|17.1|||ANCOVA|||0 to 12 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||17.10|4.70|<0.001
91054105|NCT02912650|181990993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|2.51|||ANOVA|||0-2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||2.51|1.72|<0.001
91054106|NCT02912650|181990993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.44||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.71|||ANOVA|||0-2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.71|0.16|0.002
90799852|NCT04016714|181478198|OTHER||GMC ratio|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.77||||||Serotype 19F||0.77|0.62|
91012951|NCT06045026|181908531|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||||<0.0001
90799853|NCT04016714|181478198|OTHER||GMC ratio|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|1.51||||||Serotype 23F||1.51|1.16|
90799854|NCT04016714|181478198|SUPERIORITY||GMC ratio|81.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|73.12|89.75||||||Serotype 22F||89.75|73.12|
90799855|NCT04016714|181478198|OTHER||GMC ratio|7.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.82|8.94||||||Serotype 33F||8.94|6.82|
90799856|NCT02629861|181478234|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||0.05 level of significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Due to the deviation from the normal distribution assumption of the data, the primary analysis was conducted using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test as outlined in the SAP.||||<0.0001
90799857|NCT02629861|181478234|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||0.05 level of significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Due to the deviation from the normal distribution assumption of the data, the primary analysis was conducted using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test as outlined in the SAP.||||<0.0001
90799858|NCT02629861|181478236|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||0.05 level of significance|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Month 1 P-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline preventive medication use.||||<0.0001
91012952|NCT06045026|181908531|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 16||||<0.0001
90799859|NCT02629861|181478236|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||0.05 level of significance|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Month 1 P-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline preventive medication use.||||<0.0001
90799860|NCT02629861|181478236|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0032||||||0.05 level of significance|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Month 2 P-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline preventive medication use.||||0.0032
90799861|NCT02629861|181478236|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||0.05 level of significance|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Month 2 P-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline preventive medication use.||||0.0010
90799862|NCT02629861|181478236|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0048||||||0.05 level of significance|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Month 3 P-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline preventive medication use.||||0.0048
90799863|NCT02629861|181478236|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003||||||0.05 level of significance|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Month 3 P-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline preventive medication use.||||0.0003
90799864|NCT02629861|181478236|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||0.05 level of significance|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Overall P-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline preventive medication use.||||<0.0001
90799865|NCT02629861|181478236|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||0.05 level of significance|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Overall P-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline preventive medication use.||||<0.0001
90799866|NCT02629861|181478237|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||0.05 level of significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Due to the deviation from the normal distribution assumption of the data, the Wilcoxon rank-sum test was conducted as the primary analysis for each active treatment group and placebo treatment group for this endpoint||||<0.0001
91012953|NCT06045026|181908531|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 20||||<0.0001
91012954|NCT06045026|181908531|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 24||||<0.0001
91012955|NCT06045026|181908532|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 4||||<0.0001
91012956|NCT06045026|181908532|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 8||||<0.0001
91012957|NCT06045026|181908532|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||||<0.0001
91054107|NCT02912650|181990993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.86|||ANOVA|||0-2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.86|0.30|<0.001
91054108|NCT02912650|181990993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|2.08|||ANOVA|||0-2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||2.08|1.29|<0.001
90799867|NCT02629861|181478237|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||0.05 level of significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Due to the deviation from the normal distribution assumption of the data, the Wilcoxon rank-sum test was conducted as the primary analysis for each active treatment group and placebo treatment group for this endpoint||||<0.0001
90799868|NCT02629861|181478238|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||0.05 level of significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Due to the deviation from the normal distribution assumption of the data, the Wilcoxon rank-sum test was conducted as the primary analysis for each active treatment group and placebo treatment group for this endpoint||||<0.0001
91012958|NCT06045026|181908532|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 16||||<0.0001
91012959|NCT06045026|181908532|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 20||||<0.0001
91012960|NCT06045026|181908532|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 24||||<0.0001
91012961|NCT06045026|181908533|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 4||||<0.0001
90799869|NCT02629861|181478238|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||0.05 level of significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Due to the deviation from the normal distribution assumption of the data, the Wilcoxon rank-sum test was conducted as the primary analysis for each active treatment group and placebo treatment group for this endpoint||||<0.0001
90799870|NCT02629861|181478239|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||0.05 level of significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Due to the deviation from the normal distribution assumption of the data, the Wilcoxon rank-sum test was conducted as the primary analysis for each active treatment group and placebo treatment group for this endpoint.||||<0.0001
90799871|NCT02629861|181478239|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||0.05 level of significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Due to the deviation from the normal distribution assumption of the data, the Wilcoxon rank-sum test was conducted as the primary analysis for each active treatment group and placebo treatment group for this endpoint.||||<0.0001
90799872|NCT02629861|181478240|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0023||||||0.05 level of significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Due to the deviation from the normal distribution assumption of the data, the Wilcoxon rank-sum test was conducted as the primary analysis for each active treatment group and placebo treatment group for this endpoint.||||0.0023
90799873|NCT02629861|181478240|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0021||||||0.05 level of significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Due to the deviation from the normal distribution assumption of the data, the Wilcoxon rank-sum test was conducted as the primary analysis for each active treatment group and placebo treatment group for this endpoint.||||0.0021
90799874|NCT01822665|181478248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-1.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|-0.59||No multiple comparisons were carried out.|t-test, 2 sided|Period and treatment were included in the model as fixed effects, while subjects were a random effect.|Difference was first named treatment minus second named treatment, such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered no significant difference in mean endoscopy score of gastric mucosal damage between two treatments.||-0.59|-1.63|<0.0001
91054109|NCT02912650|181990993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.93|||ANOVA|||0-2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.93|1.14|<0.001
91054110|NCT02912650|181990993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.15||||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.43|||ANOVA|||0-2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.43|-0.13|0.303
90799875|NCT01822665|181478249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.7||||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|-0.18|||t-test, 2 sided|Period and treatment were included in the model as fixed effects, while subjects were a random effect.|Difference was first named treatment minus second named treatment, such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered no significant difference in mean endoscopy score of gastric mucosal damage between two treatments.||-0.18|-1.23|0.0095
91012962|NCT06045026|181908533|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 8||||<0.0001
91012963|NCT06045026|181908533|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||||<0.0001
91012964|NCT06045026|181908533|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 16||||<0.0001
91012965|NCT06045026|181908533|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 20||||<0.0001
91012966|NCT06045026|181908533|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 24||||<0.0001
91012967|NCT06045026|181908534|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 4||||<0.0001
91012968|NCT06045026|181908534|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 8||||<0.0001
91012969|NCT06045026|181908534|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||||<0.0001
91012970|NCT06045026|181908534|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 16||||<0.0001
91012971|NCT06045026|181908534|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 20||||<0.0001
91012972|NCT06045026|181908534|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 24||||<0.0001
91012973|NCT06045026|181908535|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Q1 (How intense are the sensations?): Change from Baseline at Week 4||||<0.0001
91012974|NCT06045026|181908535|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Q1 (How intense are the sensations?): Change from Baseline at Week 8||||<0.0001
91012975|NCT06045026|181908535|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Q1 (How intense are the sensations?): Change from Baseline at Week 12||||<0.0001
91012976|NCT06045026|181908535|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Q1 (How intense are the sensations?): Change from Baseline at Week 16||||<0.0001
91054111|NCT02912650|181990993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.86|8.58|||ANOVA|||0-6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||8.58|5.86|<0.001
91054112|NCT02912650|181990993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.58||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.53|||ANOVA|||0-6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||2.53|0.63|0.001
90799876|NCT01822665|181478249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.19||||0.4794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.72||No multiple comparisons were carried out.|t-test, 2 sided|Period and treatment were included in the model as fixed effects, while subjects were a random effect.|Difference was first named treatment minus second named treatment, such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered no significant difference in mean endoscopy score of gastric mucosal damage between two treatments.||0.72|-0.34|0.4794
91012977|NCT06045026|181908535|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Q1 (How intense are the sensations?): Change from Baseline at Week 20||||<0.0001
90799877|NCT01822665|181478249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.4||||0.1429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.95||No multiple comparisons were carried out.|t-test, 2 sided|Period and treatment were included in the model as fixed effects, while subjects were a random effect.|Difference was first named treatment minus second named treatment, such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered no significant difference in mean endoscopy score of gastric mucosal damage between two treatments.||0.95|-0.14|0.1429
90799878|NCT01822665|181478249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.84||No multiple comparisons were carried out.|t-test, 2 sided|Period and treatment were included in the model as fixed effects, while subjects were a random effect.|Difference was first named treatment minus second named treatment, such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered no significant difference in mean endoscopy score of gastric mucosal damage between two treatments.||1.84|0.75|<0.0001
90799879|NCT01822665|181478249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.89||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.45||No multiple comparisons were carried out.|t-test, 2 sided|Period and treatment were included in the model as fixed effects, while subjects were a random effect.|Difference was first named treatment minus second named treatment, such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered no significant difference in mean endoscopy score of gastric mucosal damage between two treatments.||1.45|0.34|0.0020
91012978|NCT06045026|181908535|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Q1 (How intense are the sensations?): Change from Baseline at Week 24||||<0.0001
91054113|NCT02912650|181990993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.52|4.45|||ANOVA|||0-6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||4.45|2.52|<0.001
91054114|NCT02912650|181990993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.28|6.99|||ANOVA|||0-6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||6.99|4.28|<0.001
90799880|NCT01822665|181478250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.09||||0.6497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.31||No multiple comparisons were carried out.|t-test, 2 sided|Period and treatment were included in the model as fixed effects, while subjects were a random effect.|Difference was first named treatment minus second named treatment, such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered no significant difference in mean endoscopy score of duodenal mucosal damage between two treatments.||0.31|-0.49|0.6497
91054115|NCT02912650|181990993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.37|5.1|||ANOVA|||0-6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||5.10|2.37|<0.001
91054116|NCT02912650|181990993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.86|||ANOVA|||0-6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||2.86|0.95|<0.001
91054117|NCT02912650|181990993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|8.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.08|10.71|||ANOVA|||0-8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||10.71|7.08|<0.001
90799881|NCT01822665|181478250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.06||||0.7591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.34||No multiple comparisons were carried out.|t-test, 2 sided|Period and treatment were included in the model as fixed effects, while subjects were a random effect.|Difference was first named treatment minus second named treatment, such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered no significant difference in mean endoscopy score of duodenal mucosal damage between two treatments||0.34|-0.46|0.7591
90799882|NCT01822665|181478250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.17||||0.4126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.57||No multiple comparisons were carried out.|t-test, 2 sided|Period and treatment were included in the model as fixed effects, while subjects were a random effect.|Difference was first named treatment minus second named treatment, such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered no significant difference in mean endoscopy score of duodenal mucosal damage between two treatments.||0.57|-0.24|0.4126
90799883|NCT01822665|181478250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.03||||0.8903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.45||No multiple comparisons were carried out.|t-test, 2 sided|Period and treatment were included in the model as fixed effects, while subjects were a random effect.|Difference was first named treatment minus second named treatment, such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered no significant difference in mean endoscopy score of duodenal mucosal damage between two treatments||0.45|-0.39|0.8903
91012979|NCT06045026|181908535|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Q2 (How bothered are you by any sensations?): Change from Baseline at Week 4||||<0.0001
91012980|NCT06045026|181908535|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Q2 (How bothered are you by any sensations?): Change from Baseline at Week 8||||<0.0001
91012981|NCT06045026|181908535|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Q2 (How bothered are you by any sensations?): Change from Baseline at Week 12||||<0.0001
91012982|NCT06045026|181908535|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Q2 (How bothered are you by any sensations?): Change from Baseline at Week 16||||<0.0001
91012983|NCT06045026|181908535|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Q2 (How bothered are you by any sensations?): Change from Baseline at Week 20||||<0.0001
91012984|NCT06045026|181908535|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Q2 (How bothered are you by any sensations?): Change from Baseline at Week 24||||<0.0001
90799884|NCT01822665|181478250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.26||||0.2227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.67||No multiple comparisons were carried out.|t-test, 2 sided|Period and treatment were included in the model as fixed effects, while subjects were a random effect.|Difference was first named treatment minus second named treatment, such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered no significant difference in mean endoscopy score of duodenal mucosal damage between two treatments||0.67|-0.16|0.2227
90799885|NCT01822665|181478250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.23||||0.2855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.65||No multiple comparisons were carried out.|t-test, 2 sided|Period and treatment were included in the model as fixed effects, while subjects were a random effect.|Difference was first named treatment minus second named treatment, such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered no significant difference in mean endoscopy score of duodenal mucosal damage between two treatments.||0.65|-0.20|0.2855
90799886|NCT01822665|181478251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.19||||0.0084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|23.97||P-value associated with chi-square testing odds ratio.|Chi-squared||Odds Ratio from logistic regression model with treatment as factor and period as covariate.|||23.97|1.60|0.0084
90799887|NCT01822665|181478251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.19||||0.0999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|12.74||P-value associated with chi-square testing odds ratio.|Chi-squared||Odds Ratio from logistic regression model with treatment as factor and period as covariate.|||12.74|0.80|0.0999
90799888|NCT01822665|181478251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.94||||0.2845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|6.5|||Chi-squared||Odds Ratio from logistic regression model with treatment as factor and period as covariate.|||6.50|0.58|0.2845
90799889|NCT01685684|181478253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Marginal Mean Difference (Net)|-1.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.267|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||z-test|||||||<0.0001
90799890|NCT02031302|181478329|OTHER|One-sided Clopper-Pearson 98.699% upper bound|||||<|0.0001||||||The proportion of patients who experience an event through 30 days post-procedure out of the patients who have either had an event within 30 days post-procedure or who were event-free with last follow-up at least 23 days post-procedure.|Chi-squared|||Note: the 95% CI is from Clopper-Pearson Exact Method. The analysis was only done for the Lotus valve arm as the Lotus with Depth Guard arm has not sufficient power for this statistical analysis.|One-sided Clopper-Pearson 98.699% upper bound: 4.11% Performance goal is 14%|||<.0001
90799891|NCT01847443|181478337|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was to be established between the test and reference treatment if the 90% CI of ratio of geometric means (Test/Reference) was included within the bioequivalence limits of (0.80, 1.25)|Ratio of Geometric means|1.107|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.07|1.147|||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis stated that there was no difference between the test and reference gums in AUC(0-t)||1.147|1.070|
90799892|NCT01847443|181478342|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was to be established between the test and reference treatment if the 90% CI of ratio of geometric means (Test/Reference) was included within the bioequivalence limits of (0.80, 1.25)|Ratio of Geometric means|1.098|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.061|1.137|||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis stated that there was no difference between the test and reference gums in AUC(0-t)||1.137|1.061|
90799893|NCT01847443|181478343|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was to be established between the test and reference treatment if the 90% CI of ratio of geometric means (Test/Reference) was included within the bioequivalence limits of (0.80, 1.25)|Ratio of Geometric means|1.044|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.002|1.089|||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis stated that there was no difference between the test and reference gums in Cmax||1.089|1.002|
90799894|NCT01847443|181478344|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was to be established between the test and reference treatment if the 90% CI of ratio of geometric means (Test/Reference) was included within the bioequivalence limits of (0.80, 1.25)|Ratio of Geometric means|1.071|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.028|1.116|||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis stated that there was no difference between the test and reference gums in Cmax||1.116|1.028|
91012985|NCT06045026|181908535|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Q3 (How well can you tolerate sensations?): Change from Baseline at Week 4||||<0.0001
90799895|NCT05076045|181478351|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||This p-value has been adjusted using the Bonferroni correction. The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|Results of the pairwise comparisons for the SNR by Session interaction in the linear mixed model analysis.||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in percentage of correct answers between PSAPs and Control. Data were analyzed using a linear mixed-effects (LME) model. The model included session (PSAPs, Control) and signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) as within-subject factors. Participants were included as a random factor.||||0.03
90799896|NCT05076045|181478352|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in reaction time between PSAPs and Control. Data were analyzed using a linear mixed-effects (LME) model. The model included session (PSAPs, Control) and signal-to-noise ratio as within-subject factors. Participants were included as a random factor.||||0.28
90799897|NCT05076045|181478353|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in Quick Speech In Noise score between PSAPs and Control. The performance of the QuickSIN for the two sessions (PSAPs, Control) was compared using the Wilcoxon signed rank test on paired samples.||||0.005
90799898|NCT05076045|181478354|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||This p-value has been adjusted using the Bonferroni correction. The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|Result of the pairwise comparisons for the SNR by Session interaction in the linear mixed model analysis.||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in alpha power between PSAPs and Control. Data were analyzed using a linear mixed-effects (LME) model. The model included session (PSAPs, Control) and signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) as within-subject factors. Participants were included as a random factor.||||1.00
91012986|NCT06045026|181908535|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Q3 (How well can you tolerate sensations?): Change from Baseline at Week 8||||<0.0001
91012987|NCT06045026|181908535|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Q3 (How well can you tolerate sensations?): Change from Baseline at Week 12||||<0.0001
91012988|NCT06045026|181908535|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Q3 (How well can you tolerate sensations?): Change from Baseline at Week 16||||<0.0001
91012989|NCT06045026|181908535|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Q3 (How well can you tolerate sensations?): Change from Baseline at Week 20||||<0.0001
90799899|NCT05076045|181478355|SUPERIORITY|This p-value has been adjusted using the Bonferroni correction. The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05 (two-sided).||||||1|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Result of the pairwise comparisons for the SNR by Session interaction in the linear mixed model analysis.||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in alpha power between PSAPs and Control. Data were analyzed using a linear mixed-effects (LME) model. The model included session (PSAPs, Control) and signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) as within-subject factors. Participants were included as a random factor.||||1.00
90799900|NCT05076045|181478356|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36||||||This p-value has been adjusted using the Bonferroni correction. The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|Result of the pairwise comparisons for the SNR by Session interaction in the linear mixed model analysis.||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in alpha power between PSAPs and Control. Data were analyzed using a linear mixed-effects (LME) model. The model included session (PSAPs, Control) and signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) as within-subject factors. Participants were included as a random factor.||||0.36
90799901|NCT05076045|181478357|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05 (two-sided).|Cumulative link mixed model|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in listening effort between PSAPs and Control. The listening effort score was analyzed using a cumulative link mixed model. A logit link function with flexible thresholds was used. The model included Session (PSAPs, Control) and Block (1, 2, 3) as within-subject factors. Participants were included as a random factor.||||<0.001
90799902|NCT01347060|181478358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.93||The P-value relates to differences in combined inpatient/emergency department.|Regression, Cox|Adjusted for baseline differences||||0.93|0.68|0.0051
90799903|NCT01347060|181478359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|883.23||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|731.66|1041.69||The P-value is on the adjusted difference in total asthma costs.|Regression, Linear|Generalized Linear Model with a log-link and a gamma distribution adjusting for differences at baseline||||1041.69|731.66|0.001
90799904|NCT01347060|181478360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
90799905|NCT04552041|181478361|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis applies to ∆ between baseline and 24 weeks row.||||<0.0001
90799906|NCT04552041|181478362|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0028|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis applies to ∆ between baseline and 24 weeks row.||||0.0028
90799907|NCT04552041|181478362|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1739|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"This analysis applies to domain Delusional ideas ∆ between baseline and 24 weeks row."||||0.1739
90799908|NCT04552041|181478362|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0559|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"This analysis applies to domain Hallucinations ∆ between baseline and 24 weeks row."||||0.0559
90799909|NCT04552041|181478362|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0174|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"This analysis applies to domain Agitation ∆ between baseline and 24 weeks row."||||0.0174
90799910|NCT04552041|181478362|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.333|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"This analysis applies to domain Aggression ∆ between baseline and 24 weeks row."||||0.3330
90799911|NCT04552041|181478362|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1037|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"This analysis applies to domain Dysphoria ∆ between baseline and 24 weeks row."||||0.1037
90799912|NCT04552041|181478362|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0329|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"This analysis applies to domain Anxiety ∆ between baseline and 24 weeks row."||||0.0329
90799913|NCT04552041|181478362|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"This analysis applies to domain Euphoria ∆ between baseline and 24 weeks row."||||0.2700
90799914|NCT04552041|181478362|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0557|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"This analysis applies to domain Apathy ∆ between baseline and 24 weeks row."||||0.0557
90799915|NCT04552041|181478362|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.982|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"This analysis applies to domain Disinhibition ∆ between baseline and 24 weeks row."||||0.9820
90799916|NCT04552041|181478362|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4626|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"This analysis applies to domain Irritability ∆ between baseline and 24 weeks row."||||0.4626
90799917|NCT04552041|181478362|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0006|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"This analysis applies to domain Aberrant motor behaviour ∆ between baseline and 24 weeks row."||||0.0006
90799918|NCT04552041|181478362|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3725|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"This analysis applies to domain Sleep disorders ∆ between baseline and 24 weeks row."||||0.3725
90799919|NCT04552041|181478362|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1013|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"This analysis applies to domain Appetite disorders ∆ between baseline and 24 weeks row."||||0.1013
90799920|NCT04552041|181478362|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0432|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"This analysis applies to domain Aberrant vocalizations ∆ between baseline and 24 weeks row."||||0.0432
90799921|NCT04552041|181478363|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0316|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis applies to ∆ between baseline and 12 weeks row.||||0.0316
90799922|NCT04552041|181478364|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1483|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis applies to ∆ between baseline and 12 weeks row.||||0.1483
90799923|NCT04552041|181478365|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0018|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis applies to Therapeutic effect row.||||0.0018
90799924|NCT04552041|181478365|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4733|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis applies to Side effects row.||||0.4733
90799925|NCT04552041|181478365|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0035|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis applies to Efficiency index row.||||0.0035
91012990|NCT06045026|181908535|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Q3 (How well can you tolerate sensations?): Change from Baseline at Week 24||||<0.0001
91012991|NCT06045026|181908536|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 4||||0.0100
91012992|NCT06045026|181908536|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 8||||<0.0001
91012993|NCT06045026|181908536|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||||<0.0001
91012994|NCT06045026|181908536|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 16||||<0.0001
91012995|NCT06045026|181908536|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 20||||<0.0001
91012996|NCT06045026|181908536|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 24||||<0.0001
91012997|NCT06045026|181908537|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 4||||<0.0001
90799926|NCT02896257|181478384|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|5.38|||Regression, Logistic|Mixed-random effects for provider clustering and adjusting for smoking status. Multiple imputation by chained equations for missing smoking status.||||5.38|2.50|<0.001
90799927|NCT02896257|181478385|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.47|||Regression, Logistic|Mixed-random effects for provider clustering and adjusting for smoking status. Multiple imputation by chained equations for missing smoking status.||||1.47|0.44|0.47
90799928|NCT02896257|181478386|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.63||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.96|||Regression, Logistic|Mixed-random effects for provider clustering and adjusting for smoking status. Multiple imputation by chained equations for missing smoking status.||||1.96|0.20|0.42
90799929|NCT02098304|181478403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage agreement|72.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.8|82.7|||Exact binomial test|An exact binomial test was used and an exact 95% Confidence Interval using the Clopper-Pearson method was calculated.||The null hypothesis was of chance agreement (50%) and was tested against a two-sided alternative at the 5% level of significance.||82.7|59.8|<0.001
90799930|NCT02098304|181478403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's kappa|0.45||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.66|||Cohen's Kappa||Cohen's kappa is a chance-adjusted measure of agreement. A value of 0 indicates agreement by chance and 1 perfect agreement.|The null hypothesis was of chance agreement (Cohen's kappa of 0) and was tested against a two-sided alternative at the 5% level of significance. The study was powered such that 58 teeth (29 subjects), there would be 95% power to reject the null hypothesis of chance agreement (Cohen's kappa of 0) at the 5% level of significance, given that it was expected to be at least 0.4.||0.66|0.24|0.001
90799931|NCT03257358|181478409|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|-413.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-422.7||||ANCOVA|||||-404.|-422.7|
90799932|NCT03257358|181478409|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|3.6|||ANCOVA|||||3.6|-3.9|
90799933|NCT03257358|181478410|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|-368.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.08|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-382.8|354.7|||ANCOVA|||||354.7|-382.8|
90799934|NCT03257358|181478410|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.54|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|6.9|||ANCOVA|||||6.9|-7.1|
91054118|NCT02912650|181990993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.0||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|3.26|||ANOVA|||0-8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||3.26|0.73|0.002
90799935|NCT03257358|181478411|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|-52.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.58|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.2|-46.9|||ANCOVA|||||-46.9|-57.2|
90799936|NCT03257358|181478411|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.27|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|1.4|||ANCOVA|||||1.4|-7.6|
90799937|NCT03257358|181478412|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|-43.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.67|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.9|-40.3|||ANCOVA|||||-40.3|-46.9|
91054119|NCT02912650|181990993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|5.77|||ANOVA|||0-8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||5.77|3.20|<0.001
90799938|NCT03257358|181478412|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|1.7|||ANCOVA|||||1.7|-3.0|
90799939|NCT03257358|181478413|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|-36.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.2|-35.3|||ANCOVA|||||-35.3|-37.2|
90799940|NCT03257358|181478413|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.2|||ANCOVA|||||1.2|-0.4|
90799941|NCT03257358|181478414|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|-53.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.1|-51.3|||ANCOVA|||||-51.3|-55.1|
90799942|NCT03257358|181478414|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.4|||ANCOVA|||||1.4|-0.7|
90799943|NCT03257358|181478415|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|-140.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.71|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-145.8|-135.0|||ANCOVA|||||-135.0|-145.8|
90799944|NCT03257358|181478415|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|3.3|||ANCOVA|||||3.3|-1.9|
90799945|NCT03257358|181478416|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|-85.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.92|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-89.0|-81.4|||ANCOVA|||||-81.4|-89.0|
90799946|NCT03257358|181478416|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.9|||ANCOVA|||||1.9|-2.3|
90799947|NCT03257358|181478417|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|-27.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.65|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.1|-4.8|||ANCOVA|||||-4.8|-51.1|
90799948|NCT03257358|181478417|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|-9.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.47|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|-2.6|||ANCOVA|||||-2.6|-16.3|
90799949|NCT03257358|181478418|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|-181.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.07|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-183.3|-179.0|||ANCOVA|||||-179.0|-183.3|
90799950|NCT03257358|181478418|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.66|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|2.5|||ANCOVA|||||2.5|-4.1|
90799951|NCT03257358|181478419|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|-55.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.5|-53.9|||ANCOVA|||||-53.9|-56.5|
90799952|NCT03257358|181478419|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.1|||ANCOVA|||||1.1|-0.5|
90799953|NCT03257358|181478420|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|-7.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|-6.4|||ANCOVA|||||-6.4|-8.0|
90799954|NCT03257358|181478420|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.0|||ANCOVA|||||2.0|0.3|
90799955|NCT03257358|181478421|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|69.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.78|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.1|96.7|||ANCOVA|||||96.7|42.1|
90799956|NCT03257358|181478421|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|117.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.07|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|97.1|136.9|||ANCOVA|||||136.9|97.1|
90799957|NCT03257358|181478422|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|-782.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|138.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1058.2|-507.1|||ANCOVA|||||-507.1|-1058.2|
90799958|NCT03257358|181478422|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|-485.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|91.88|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-667.3|-304.4|||ANCOVA|||||-304.4|-667.3|
90799959|NCT03257358|181478423|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|-33.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.47|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.2|-18.5|||ANCOVA|||||-18.5|-48.2|
91054120|NCT02912650|181990993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.08|8.71|||ANOVA|||0-8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||8.71|5.08|<0.001
90799960|NCT03257358|181478423|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|-25.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.52|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.7|-14.9|||ANCOVA|||||-14.9|-36.7|
90799961|NCT03257358|181478424|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|-888.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-914.6|-862.7|||ANCOVA|||||-862.7|-914.6|
90799962|NCT03257358|181478424|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.24|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6|11.0|||ANCOVA|||||11.0|-17.6|
90799963|NCT03257358|181478425|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|-39.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.053|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.59|-37.42|||ANCOVA|||||-37.42|-41.59|
90799964|NCT03257358|181478425|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|1.14|||ANCOVA|||||1.14|-0.87|
90799965|NCT03257358|181478426|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|-248.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-278.7|-219.2|||ANCOVA|||||-219.2|-278.7|
90799966|NCT03257358|181478426|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|-9.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.71|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.1|5.4|||ANCOVA|||||5.4|-25.1|
90799967|NCT03257358|181478427|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.249|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.13|8.08|||ANCOVA|||||8.08|3.13|
90799968|NCT03257358|181478427|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.364|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.76|||ANCOVA|||||0.76|-0.68|
90799969|NCT03257358|181478428|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|-231.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.75|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-234.5|-227.6|||ANCOVA|||||-227.6|-234.5|
90799970|NCT03257358|181478428|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.45|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|4.5|||ANCOVA|||||4.5|-5.2|
90799971|NCT03257358|181478429|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|-8.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.455|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.21|-7.4|||ANCOVA|||||-7.40|-9.21|
91012998|NCT06045026|181908537|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 8||||<0.0001
90799972|NCT03257358|181478429|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.251|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.82|||ANCOVA|||||0.82|-0.17|
90799973|NCT02852967|181478457|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6384|||||||Fisher Exact|||LOCF at 16 weeks (Double-blind Treatment Period): Fisher's Exact Method analysis of the percentage of subjects treated with belumosudil 200 mg QD + placebo (n = 23) who achieved PASI 75 compared to the percentage of subjects treated with placebo (n = 18) who achieved PASI 75.||||0.6384
90799974|NCT02852967|181478457|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6419|||||||Fisher Exact|||LOCF at 16 weeks (Double-blind Treatment Period): Fisher's Exact Method analysis of the percentage of subjects treated with belumosudil 200 mg BID + placebo (n = 22) who achieved PASI 75 compared to the percentage of subjects treated with placebo (n = 18) who achieved PASI 75.||||0.6419
90799975|NCT02852967|181478457|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999|||||||Fisher Exact|||LOCF at 16 weeks (Double-blind Treatment Period): Fisher's Exact Method analysis of the percentage of subjects treated with belumosudil 400 mg QD + placebo (n = 21) who achieved PASI 75 compared to the percentage of subjects treated with placebo (n = 18) who achieved PASI 75.||||> 0.9999
90799976|NCT02852967|181478457|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3859|||||||Fisher Exact|||LOCF at 16 weeks (Double-blind Treatment Period): Fisher's Exact Method analysis of the percentage of subjects treated with belumosudil 600 mg (n = 26) who achieved PASI 75 compared to the percentage of subjects treated with placebo (n = 18) who achieved PASI 75.||||0.3859
90799977|NCT02852967|181478457|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4435|||||||Fisher Exact|||LOCF at 16 weeks (Double-blind Treatment Period): Fisher's Exact Method analysis of the percentage of all subjects treated with belumosudil (n = 92) who achieved PASI 75 compared to the percentage of subjects treated with placebo (n = 18) who achieved PASI 75||||0.4435
90799978|NCT02852967|181478457|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2721|||||||Fisher Exact|||Observed at 16 weeks (Double-blind Treatment Period): Fisher's Exact Method analysis of the percentage of subjects treated with belumosudil 200 mg QD + placebo (n = 14) who achieved PASI 75 compared to the percentage of subjects treated with placebo (n = 10) who achieved PASI 75.||||0.2721
90799979|NCT02852967|181478457|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3577|||||||Fisher Exact|||Observed at 16 weeks (Double-blind Treatment Period): Fisher's Exact Method analysis of the percentage of subjects treated with belumosudil 200 mg BID+ Placebo (n = 15) who achieved PASI 75 compared to the percentage of subjects treated with placebo (n = 10) who achieved PASI 75.||||0.3577
90799980|NCT02852967|181478457|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999|||||||Fisher Exact|||Observed at 16 weeks (Double-blind Treatment Period): Fisher's Exact Method analysis of the percentage of subjects treated with belumosudil 500 mg QD + Placebo (n = 17) who achieved PASI 75 compared to the percentage of subjects treated with placebo (n = 10) who achieved PASI 75.||||> 0.9999
90799981|NCT02852967|181478457|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3402|||||||Fisher Exact|||Observed at 16 weeks (Double-blind Treatment Period): Fisher's Exact Method analysis of the percentage of subjects treated with belumosudil 600 mg/day (n = 16) who achieved PASI 75 compared to the percentage of subjects treated with placebo (n = 10) who achieved PASI 75.||||0.3402
90799982|NCT02852967|181478457|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3542|||||||Fisher Exact|||Observed at 16 weeks (Double-blind Treatment Period): Fisher's Exact Method analysis of the percentage of all subjects treated with belumosudil 200 mg QD + Placebo (n = 62) who achieved PASI 75 compared to the percentage of subjects treated with placebo (n = 10) who achieved PASI 75.||||0.3542
90799983|NCT02852967|181478461|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5728|||||||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of subjects treated with belumosudil compared to placebo who had a PGA rating of clear or almost clear||||0.5728
90799984|NCT02852967|181478461|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1962|||||||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of subjects treated with belumosudil compared to placebo who had a PGA rating of clear or almost clear||||0.1962
90799985|NCT02852967|181478461|SUPERIORITY|Percentage of subjects treated with belumosudil compared to placebo who had a PGA rating of clear or almost clear|||||>|0.9999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||> 0.9999
90799986|NCT02852967|181478461|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5583|||||||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of subjects treated with belumosudil compared to placebo who had a PGA rating of clear or almost clear||||0.5583
90799987|NCT02852967|181478461|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2538|||||||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of subjects treated with belumosudil compared to placebo who had a PGA rating of clear or almost clear||||0.2538
91012999|NCT06045026|181908537|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||||<0.0001
91013000|NCT06045026|181908537|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 16||||<0.0001
91013001|NCT06045026|181908537|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 20||||<0.0001
91013002|NCT06045026|181908537|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 24||||<0.0001
90799988|NCT00339040|181478470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
90799989|NCT01747915|181478477|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.088||0.8121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Estimates and p-values from an ANCOVA model including fixed effects for log transformed baseline value, region, age strata, and treatment group.||0.19|-0.15|0.8121
90799990|NCT01747915|181478477|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.088||0.8889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.16|||ANCOVA|||Estimates and p-values from an ANCOVA model including fixed effects for log transformed baseline value, region, age strata, and treatment group.||0.16|-0.19|0.8889
90799991|NCT01747915|181478478|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.095||||0.7973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.548|2.186||P-values were from a Logistic Regression Model including fixed effects for region, age strata and treatment.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.186|0.548|0.7973
90799992|NCT01747915|181478478|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.934||||0.8474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.465|1.877||P-values were from a Logistic Regression Model including fixed effects for region, age strata and treatment.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.877|0.465|0.8474
90799993|NCT02163577|181478553|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Per generalized estimating equations (GEE) model, which included visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and RSS total score at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 40||||< 0.0001
90799994|NCT02163577|181478553|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Per GEE model, which included visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and RSS total score at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 40||||< 0.0001
90799995|NCT02163577|181478553|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.04||||||Difference in change to Week 40||-0.04|-0.63|
90799996|NCT02163577|181478553|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Per GEE model, which included visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and RSS total score at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 64||||< 0.0001
91013003|NCT06045026|181908539|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 1||||<0.0001
91013004|NCT06045026|181908539|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 2||||<0.0001
91054121|NCT02912650|181990993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.58|6.24|||ANOVA|||0-8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||6.24|2.58|<0.001
91054122|NCT02912650|181990993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|3.77|||ANOVA|||0-8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||3.77|1.21|<0.001
91054123|NCT02912650|181990993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|10.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.76|13.08|||ANOVA|||0-12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||13.08|7.76|<0.001
90799997|NCT02163577|181478553|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Per GEE model, which included visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and RSS total score at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 64||||< 0.0001
90799998|NCT02163577|181478553|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.13||||||Difference in change to Week 64||0.13|-0.45|
90799999|NCT02163577|181478553|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Per GEE model, which included visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and RSS total score at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 160||||< 0.0001
90800000|NCT02163577|181478553|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Per GEE model, which included visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and RSS total score at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 160||||< 0.0001
90800001|NCT02163577|181478554|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||one sample t test|||Week 40||||< 0.0001
90800002|NCT02163577|181478554|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||one sample t test|||Week 40||||< 0.0001
90800003|NCT02163577|181478554|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||one sample t test|||Week 64||||< 0.0001
90800004|NCT02163577|181478554|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||one sample t test|||Week 64||||< 0.0001
90800005|NCT02163577|181478554|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||one sample t test|||Week 160||||< 0.0001
90800006|NCT02163577|181478554|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||one sample t test|||Week 160||||< 0.0001
90800007|NCT02163577|181478555|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||one sample t test|||Week 40||||< 0.0001
90800008|NCT02163577|181478555|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||one sample t test|||Week 40||||< 0.0001
90800009|NCT02163577|181478555|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||one sample t test|||Week 64||||< 0.0001
90800010|NCT02163577|181478555|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0024|||||||one sample t test|||Week 64||||0.0024
90800011|NCT02163577|181478555|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0018|||||||one sample t test|||Week 160||||0.0018
90800012|NCT02163577|181478555|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||one sample t test|||Week 160||||0.0002
90800013|NCT02163577|181478556|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||one sample t test|||Week 40||||< 0.0001
90800014|NCT02163577|181478556|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||one sample t test|||Week 40||||< 0.0001
90800015|NCT02163577|181478556|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||one sample t test|||Week 64||||< 0.0001
90800016|NCT02163577|181478556|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||one sample t test|||Week 64||||< 0.0001
91013005|NCT06045026|181908539|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 4||||<0.0001
91013006|NCT06045026|181908539|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 8||||<0.0001
91013007|NCT06045026|181908539|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||||<0.0001
91013008|NCT06045026|181908539|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 16||||<0.0001
91013009|NCT06045026|181908539|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 20||||<0.0001
91013010|NCT06045026|181908539|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 24||||<0.0001
91013011|NCT03814499|181908553|OTHER||Coefficient|-2.3|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.01
91013012|NCT03814499|181908554|OTHER||Coefficient|-3.8|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.01
90800017|NCT02163577|181478556|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||one sample t test|||Week 160||||< 0.0001
90800018|NCT02163577|181478556|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||one sample t test|||Week 160||||< 0.0001
90800019|NCT02163577|181478557|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||ANCOVA model includes the change from baseline in RSS as the dependent variable, regimen group as factor, and RSS at baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||||< 0.0001
90800020|NCT02163577|181478557|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||ANCOVA model includes the change from baseline in RSS as the dependent variable, regimen group as factor, and RSS at baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||||< 0.0001
91013013|NCT03814499|181908555|OTHER||Coefficient|369.9||||0.3269|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.3269
91013014|NCT03814499|181908556|OTHER||Coefficient|365.4||||0.4265|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.4265
91013015|NCT03814499|181908557|OTHER||Coefficient|264.3||||0.4782|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.4782
91013016|NCT03814499|181908558|OTHER||Coefficient|730.2||||0.2716|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.2716
90800021|NCT02163577|181478557|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||GEE model includes the change from baseline in RSS as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and RSS at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 64||||< 0.0001
90800022|NCT02163577|181478557|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||GEE model includes the change from baseline in RSS as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and RSS at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 64||||< 0.0001
90800023|NCT02163577|181478557|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||GEE model includes the change from baseline in RSS as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and RSS at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 160||||< 0.0001
90800024|NCT02163577|181478557|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||GEE model includes the change from baseline in RSS as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and RSS at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 160||||< 0.0001
90800025|NCT02163577|181478558|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||ANCOVA model includes the change from baseline in RSS as the dependent variable, regimen group as factor, and RSS at baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||||< 0.0001
90800026|NCT02163577|181478558|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0015||||||ANCOVA model includes the change from baseline in RSS as the dependent variable, regimen group as factor, and RSS at baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||||0.0015
90800027|NCT02163577|181478558|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||GEE model includes the change from baseline in RSS as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and RSS at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 64||||< 0.0001
90800028|NCT02163577|181478558|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||GEE model includes the change from baseline in RSS as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and RSS at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 64||||< 0.0001
90800029|NCT02163577|181478558|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||GEE model includes the change from baseline in RSS as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and RSS at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 160||||< 0.0001
90800030|NCT02163577|181478558|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||GEE model includes the change from baseline in RSS as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and RSS at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 160||||< 0.0001
90800031|NCT02163577|181478559|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||ANCOVA model includes RGI-C as the dependent variable, regimen group as factor, and RSS at baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||||< 0.0001
90800032|NCT02163577|181478559|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||ANCOVA model includes RGI-C as the dependent variable, regimen group as factor, and RSS at baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||||< 0.0001
90800033|NCT02163577|181478559|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.54||||||Difference in change to Week 40||0.54|-0.12|
91013017|NCT03814499|181908559|OTHER||Coefficient|-0.6||||0.4178|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.4178
91013018|NCT03814499|181908560|OTHER||Coefficient|-1.5||||0.2677|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.2677
91013019|NCT03814499|181908561|OTHER||Coefficient|-467.0||||0.3364|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.3364
91013020|NCT03814499|181908562|OTHER||Coefficient|-908.0||||0.1124|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.1124
91013021|NCT03814499|181908563|OTHER||Coefficient|479.2||||0.2649|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.2649
91013022|NCT03814499|181908564|OTHER||Coefficient|1114.3||||0.216|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.216
91013023|NCT03814499|181908565|OTHER||Coefficient|0.1||||0.9032|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.9032
91013024|NCT03814499|181908566|OTHER||Coefficient|-0.4||||0.7889|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.7889
91013025|NCT03814499|181908567|OTHER||Coefficient|7.0||||0.0242|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.0242
91013026|NCT03814499|181908568|OTHER||Coefficient|1.5||||0.5092|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.5092
91013027|NCT03814499|181908569|OTHER||Coefficient|-47.1||||0.3634|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.3634
91013028|NCT03814499|181908570|OTHER||Coefficient|-204.7||||0.0677|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.0677
91013029|NCT03814499|181908571|OTHER||Coefficient|-235.8||||0.156|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.156
91013030|NCT03814499|181908572|OTHER||Coefficient|-102.0||||0.3148|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.3148
91013031|NCT03814499|181908573|OTHER||Coefficient|-0.1||||0.9349|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.9349
91013032|NCT03814499|181908574|OTHER||Coefficient|-0.6||||0.7196|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.7196
91013033|NCT03814499|181908575|OTHER||Coefficient|4.7||||0.0542|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.0542
91013034|NCT03814499|181908576|OTHER||Coefficient|2.6||||0.4224|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.4224
91013035|NCT03814499|181908577|OTHER||Coeffiient|-118.9||||0.1247|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.1247
91013036|NCT03814499|181908578|OTHER||Coefficient|-135.2||||0.1461|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.1461
91013037|NCT03814499|181908579|OTHER||Coefficient|-154.2||||0.0699|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.0699
91013038|NCT03814499|181908580|OTHER||Coefficient|-164.6||||0.0901|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.0901
91054124|NCT02912650|181990993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.14||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|4.0|||ANOVA|||0-12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||4.00|0.28|0.024
90800034|NCT02163577|181478559|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Per GEE model, which included visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and RSS total score at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 64||||< 0.0001
90800035|NCT02163577|181478559|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Per GEE model, which included visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and RSS total score at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 64||||< 0.0001
90800036|NCT02163577|181478559|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.29||||||Difference in change to Week 64||0.29|-0.34|
90800037|NCT02163577|181478559|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Per GEE model, which included visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and RSS total score at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 160||||< 0.0001
90800038|NCT02163577|181478559|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Per GEE model, which included visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and RSS total score at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 160||||< 0.0001
90800039|NCT02163577|181478560|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||ANCOVA model includes RGI-C as the dependent variable, regimen group as factor, and RSS at baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||||< 0.0001
90800040|NCT02163577|181478560|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||ANCOVA model includes RGI-C as the dependent variable, regimen group as factor, and RSS at baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||||< 0.0001
90800041|NCT02163577|181478560|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||GEE model includes RGI-C as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and RSS total score at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 64||||< 0.0001
90800042|NCT02163577|181478560|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||GEE model includes RGI-C as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and RSS total score at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 64||||< 0.0001
91054125|NCT02912650|181990993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.35|7.12|||ANOVA|||0-12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||7.12|3.35|<0.001
91054126|NCT02912650|181990993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|8.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.62|10.93|||ANOVA|||0-12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||10.93|5.62|<0.001
90800043|NCT02163577|181478560|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||GEE model includes RGI-C as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and RSS total score at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 160||||< 0.0001
90800044|NCT02163577|181478560|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||GEE model includes RGI-C as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and RSS total score at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 160||||< 0.0001
90800045|NCT02163577|181478561|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||ANCOVA model includes RGI-C as the dependent variable, regimen group as factor, and RSS at baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||||< 0.0001
90800046|NCT02163577|181478561|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||ANCOVA model includes RGI-C as the dependent variable, regimen group as factor, and RSS at baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||||< 0.0001
91054127|NCT02912650|181990993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.51|7.86|||ANOVA|||0-12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||7.86|2.51|<0.001
90800047|NCT02163577|181478561|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||GEE model includes RGI-C as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and RSS total score at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 64||||< 0.0001
90800048|NCT02163577|181478561|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||GEE model includes RGI-C as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and RSS total score at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 64||||< 0.0001
90800049|NCT02163577|181478561|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||GEE model includes RGI-C as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and RSS total score at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 160||||< 0.0001
90800050|NCT02163577|181478561|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||GEE model includes RGI-C as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and RSS total score at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 160||||< 0.0001
90800051|NCT02163577|181478562|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0088|||||||one sample t-test|||Week 0 to Week 40||||0.0088
90800052|NCT02163577|181478562|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.465|||||||one sample t-test|||Week 0 to Week 40||||0.4650
90800053|NCT02163577|181478562|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016|||||||one sample t test|||Week 0 to Week 64||||0.0160
90800054|NCT02163577|181478562|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4114|||||||one sample t test|||Week 0 to Week 64||||0.4114
90800055|NCT02163577|181478562|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5335|||||||one sample t test|||Week 64 to Week 112||||0.5335
90800056|NCT02163577|181478562|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8606|||||||one sample t test|||Week 64 to Week 112||||0.8606
90800057|NCT02163577|181478562|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1627|||||||one sample t test|||Week 112 to Week 160||||0.1627
90800058|NCT02163577|181478562|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4096|||||||one sample t test|||Week 112 to Week 160||||0.4096
90800059|NCT02163577|181478563|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||GEE model included change from baseline for standing height Z score as dependent variable; visit, regimen, visit by regimen, and gender as factors; and age and standing height Z score at baseline as covariates, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 40||||< 0.0001
90800060|NCT02163577|181478563|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0569||||||GEE model included change from baseline for standing height Z score as dependent variable; visit, regimen, visit by regimen, and gender as factors; and age and standing height Z score at baseline as covariates, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 40||||0.0569
91054128|NCT02912650|181990993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.1||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|4.97|||ANOVA|||0-12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||4.97|1.22|0.001
91054129|NCT02912650|181990993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.95|3.59|||ANOVA|||6-8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||3.59|1.95|<0.001
90800061|NCT02163577|181478563|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002||||||GEE model included change from baseline for standing height Z score as dependent variable; visit, regimen, visit by regimen, and gender as factors; and age and standing height Z score at baseline as covariates, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 64||||0.0002
90800062|NCT02163577|181478563|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0456||||||GEE model included change from baseline for standing height Z score as dependent variable; visit, regimen, visit by regimen, and gender as factors; and age and standing height Z score at baseline as covariates, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 64||||0.0456
90800063|NCT02163577|181478563|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||GEE model included change from baseline for standing height Z score as dependent variable; visit, regimen, visit by regimen, and gender as factors; and age and standing height Z score at baseline as covariates, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 160||||< 0.0001
90800064|NCT02163577|181478563|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0343||||||GEE model included change from baseline for standing height Z score as dependent variable; visit, regimen, visit by regimen, and gender as factors; and age and standing height Z score at baseline as covariates, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 160||||0.0343
90800065|NCT02163577|181478568|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0771||||||GEE model included change in 6MWT score as the dependent variable; visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors; and 6MWT at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 40||||0.0771
90800066|NCT02163577|181478568|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9098||||||GEE model included change in 6MWT score as the dependent variable; visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors; and 6MWT at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 40||||0.9098
90800067|NCT02163577|181478568|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0007||||||GEE model included change in percent of predicted 6MWT score as the dependent variable; visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors; and 6MWT at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 64||||0.0007
90800068|NCT02163577|181478568|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0327||||||GEE model included change in percent of predicted 6MWT score as the dependent variable; visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors; and 6MWT at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 64||||0.0327
90800069|NCT02163577|181478568|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1865||||||GEE model included change in percent of predicted 6MWT score as the dependent variable; visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors; and 6MWT at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 160||||0.1865
90800070|NCT02163577|181478568|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2654||||||GEE model included change in percent of predicted 6MWT score as the dependent variable; visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors; and 6MWT at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 160||||0.2654
91054130|NCT02912650|181990993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.66||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.24|||ANOVA|||6-8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.24|0.09|0.023
91054131|NCT02912650|181990993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|2.24|||ANOVA|||6-8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||2.24|1.07|<0.001
91054132|NCT02912650|181990993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|2.92|||ANOVA|||6-8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||2.92|1.29|<0.001
90800071|NCT02163577|181478569|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||GEE model includes change in POSNA-PODCI score as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and POSNA-PODCI at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 40||||< 0.0001
90800072|NCT02163577|181478569|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0144||||||GEE model includes change in POSNA-PODCI score as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and POSNA-PODCI at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 40||||0.0144
90800073|NCT02163577|181478569|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0384||||||GEE model includes change in POSNA-PODCI score as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and POSNA-PODCI at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 64||||0.0384
90800074|NCT02163577|181478569|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004||||||GEE model includes change in POSNA-PODCI score as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and POSNA-PODCI at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 64||||0.0004
90800075|NCT02163577|181478569|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9795||||||GEE model includes change in POSNA-PODCI score as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and POSNA-PODCI at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 160||||0.9795
90800076|NCT02163577|181478569|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2082||||||GEE model includes change in POSNA-PODCI score as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and POSNA-PODCI at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 160||||0.2082
90800077|NCT02163577|181478570|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||GEE model includes change in POSNA-PODCI score as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and POSNA-PODCI at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 40||||< 0.0001
90800078|NCT02163577|181478570|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0251||||||GEE model includes change in POSNA-PODCI score as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and POSNA-PODCI at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 40||||0.0251
90800079|NCT02163577|181478570|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9124||||||GEE model includes change in POSNA-PODCI score as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and POSNA-PODCI at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 64||||0.9124
90800080|NCT02163577|181478570|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0016||||||GEE model includes change in POSNA-PODCI score as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and POSNA-PODCI at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 64||||0.0016
90800081|NCT02163577|181478570|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5677||||||GEE model includes change in POSNA-PODCI score as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and POSNA-PODCI at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 160||||0.5677
91054133|NCT02912650|181990993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.11||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.94|||ANOVA|||6-8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.94|0.29|0.008
90800082|NCT02163577|181478570|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||GEE model includes change in POSNA-PODCI score as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and POSNA-PODCI at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 160||||< 0.0001
90800083|NCT02163577|181478571|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||GEE model includes change in POSNA-PODCI score as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and POSNA-PODCI at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 40||||< 0.0001
90800084|NCT02163577|181478571|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||GEE model includes change in POSNA-PODCI score as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and POSNA-PODCI at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 40||||< 0.0001
90800085|NCT02163577|181478571|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0033||||||GEE model includes change in POSNA-PODCI score as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and POSNA-PODCI at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 64||||0.0033
91013039|NCT00598442|181908587|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A non-inferiority margin of -1.0 g/dL was used in the primary efficacy assessments. Non-inferiority was established if the lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% CI for the difference between the means of the primary endpoint (peginesatide minus control ESA) was ≥ -1.0 g/dL.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.101|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.09|0.36|||ANOVA|The ANOVA cell means model was used to estimate primary efficacy endpoint within the specified cells formed by the combination of treatment and strata||The sample size for this study was determined based on a two-group evaluation of non-inferiority in means with a non-inferiority margin (Δ) of -1.0 g/dL (one-sided significance level of 0.0125, or, comparably, a two-sided significance level of 0.025). A sample size of 450 (150 per treatment group) provided power greater than 99% for the evaluation of non-inferiority, assuming an expected treatment difference of 0.0 g/dL and a pooled standard deviation of 1.5 g/dL.||0.36|-0.09|
91013040|NCT00598442|181908587|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A non-inferiority margin of -1.0 g/dL was used in the primary efficacy assessments. Non-inferiority was established if the lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% CI for the difference between the means of the primary endpoint (peginesatide minus control ESA) was ≥ -1.0 g/dL.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.102|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.08|0.54|||ANOVA|The ANOVA cell means model was used to estimate primary efficacy endpoint within the specified cells formed by the combination of treatment and strata||The sample size for this study was determined based on a two-group evaluation of non-inferiority in means with a non-inferiority margin (Δ) of -1.0 g/dL (one-sided significance level of 0.0125, or, comparably, a two-sided significance level of 0.025). A sample size of 450 (150 per treatment group) provided power greater than 99% for the evaluation of non-inferiority, assuming an expected treatment difference of 0.0 g/dL and a pooled standard deviation of 1.5 g/dL.||0.54|0.08|
91013041|NCT00598442|181908588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|5.01|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.01|1.04|
91013042|NCT00598442|181908588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|4.69|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.69|0.94|
91054134|NCT02912650|181990993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.57|||ANOVA|||6-8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.57|0.41|<0.001
91054135|NCT02912650|181990994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.68|3.82|||ANOVA|||0 to 2 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||3.82|2.68|<0.001
90800086|NCT02163577|181478571|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001||||||GEE model includes change in POSNA-PODCI score as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and POSNA-PODCI at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 64||||0.0001
90800087|NCT02163577|181478571|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||GEE model includes change in POSNA-PODCI score as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and POSNA-PODCI at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 160||||< 0.0001
90800088|NCT02163577|181478571|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||GEE model includes change in POSNA-PODCI score as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and POSNA-PODCI at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 160||||< 0.0001
90800089|NCT02163577|181478572|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0014||||||GEE model includes change in POSNA-PODCI score as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and POSNA-PODCI at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 40||||0.0014
90800090|NCT02163577|181478572|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0028||||||GEE model includes change in POSNA-PODCI score as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and POSNA-PODCI at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 40||||0.0028
90800091|NCT02163577|181478572|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0536||||||GEE model includes change in POSNA-PODCI score as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and POSNA-PODCI at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 64||||0.0536
91013043|NCT00598442|181908589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.01|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.01|0.90|
91054136|NCT02912650|181990994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.63||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.03|||ANOVA|||0-2 hour:Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.03|0.23|0.002
91054137|NCT02912650|181990994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.27|||ANOVA|||0-2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.27|0.46|<0.001
90800092|NCT02163577|181478572|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002||||||GEE model includes change in POSNA-PODCI score as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and POSNA-PODCI at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 64||||0.0002
91013044|NCT00598442|181908589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.04|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.04|0.93|
91013045|NCT00398476|181908633|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis for overall product preference||||0.003
91013046|NCT00398476|181908633|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis for Scent/odor||||<0.001
90800093|NCT02163577|181478572|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||GEE model includes change in POSNA-PODCI score as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and POSNA-PODCI at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 160||||< 0.0001
90800094|NCT02163577|181478572|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||GEE model includes change in POSNA-PODCI score as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and POSNA-PODCI at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 160||||< 0.0001
90800095|NCT02163577|181478573|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.223||||||GEE model includes change in POSNA-PODCI score as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and POSNA-PODCI at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 40||||0.2230
90800096|NCT02163577|181478573|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1132||||||GEE model includes change in POSNA-PODCI score as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and POSNA-PODCI at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 40||||0.1132
90800097|NCT02163577|181478573|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2558||||||GEE model includes change in POSNA-PODCI score as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and POSNA-PODCI at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 64||||0.2558
91013047|NCT00398476|181908633|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis for Immediate taste||||<0.001
91013048|NCT00398476|181908633|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis for After-taste||||0.002
91013049|NCT00398476|181908633|OTHER|||||||0.037|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis for Less drip down throat||||0.037
91013050|NCT00398476|181908633|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis for Less run out nose||||<0.001
91013051|NCT00398476|181908633|OTHER|||||||0.408|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis for More soothing||||0.408
91054138|NCT02912650|181990994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.05|3.19|||ANOVA|||0-2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||3.19|2.05|<0.001
90800098|NCT02163577|181478573|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0814||||||GEE model includes change in POSNA-PODCI score as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and POSNA-PODCI at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 64||||0.0814
90800099|NCT02163577|181478573|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0093||||||GEE model includes change in POSNA-PODCI score as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and POSNA-PODCI at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 160||||0.0093
90800100|NCT02163577|181478573|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||GEE model includes change in POSNA-PODCI score as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and POSNA-PODCI at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 160||||< 0.0001
90800101|NCT02163577|181478574|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||GEE model includes change in POSNA-PODCI score as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and POSNA-PODCI at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 40||||< 0.0001
90800102|NCT02163577|181478574|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0006||||||GEE model includes change in POSNA-PODCI score as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and POSNA-PODCI at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 40||||0.0006
91013052|NCT00398476|181908633|OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis for Less irritating||||0.070
91013053|NCT00398476|181908633|OTHER|||||||0.587|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis for Urge to sneeze||||0.587
91013054|NCT00398476|181908634|EQUIVALENCE|Assuming that 65% of participants indicate an overall preference for FF over FP, then a sample size of 125 participants will provide 93% power to show that difference in proportions (i.e., 65% favoring FF vs 35% favoring FP)|Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.0|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of FF 110 µg and FP 200 µg for IAQ items||||<0.001
91013055|NCT00398476|181908634|EQUIVALENCE|Assuming that 65% of participants indicate an overall preference for FF over FP, then a sample size of 125 participants will provide 93% power to show that difference in proportions (i.e., 65% favoring FF vs 35% favoring FP)|Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of FF 110 µg and FP 200 µg for DAQ items||||<0.001
91013056|NCT00398476|181908635|EQUIVALENCE|Assuming that 65% of participants indicate an overall preference for FF over FP, then a sample size of 125 participants will provide 93% power to show that difference in proportions (i.e., 65% favoring FF vs 35% favoring FP)|Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.255||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of FF 110 µg and FP 200 µg in IAQ||||0.255
91013057|NCT00398476|181908636|EQUIVALENCE|Assuming that 65% of participants indicate an overall preference for FF over FP, then a sample size of 125 participants will provide 93% power to show that difference in proportions (i.e., 65% favoring FF vs 35% favoring FP)|Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.056||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of FF 110 µg and FP 200 µg for all DAQ items||||0.056
91013058|NCT00398476|181908637|EQUIVALENCE|Assuming that 65% of participants indicate an overall preference for FF over FP, then a sample size of 125 participants will provide 93% power to show that difference in proportions (i.e., 65% favoring FF vs 35% favoring FP).|Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.845||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of FF 110 µg and FP 200 µg for IAQ Irtems||||0.845
91013059|NCT00398476|181908638|EQUIVALENCE|Assuming that 65% of participants indicate an overall preference for FF over FP, then a sample size of 125 participants will provide 93% power to show that difference in proportions (i.e., 65% favoring FF vs 35% favoring FP).|Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.871||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of FF 110 µg and FP 200 µg for DAQ Items||||0.871
91013060|NCT00398476|181908639|EQUIVALENCE|Assuming that 65% of participants indicate an overall preference for FF over FP, then a sample size of 125 participants will provide 93% power to show that difference in proportions (i.e., 65% favoring FF vs 35% favoring FP).|Median Difference (Net)|0.0|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91013061|NCT00398476|181908640|EQUIVALENCE|Assuming that 65% of participants indicate an overall preference for FF over FP, then a sample size of 125 participants will provide 93% power to show that difference in proportions (i.e., 65% favoring FF vs 35% favoring FP).|Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.592||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.592
91054139|NCT02912650|181990994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.81|2.96|||ANOVA|||0-2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||2.96|1.81|<0.001
90800103|NCT02163577|181478574|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.026||||||GEE model includes change in POSNA-PODCI score as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and POSNA-PODCI at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 64||||0.0260
90800104|NCT02163577|181478574|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||GEE model includes change in POSNA-PODCI score as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and POSNA-PODCI at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 64||||< 0.0001
90800105|NCT02163577|181478574|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||GEE model includes change in POSNA-PODCI score as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and POSNA-PODCI at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 160||||< 0.0001
91013062|NCT00398476|181908641|EQUIVALENCE|Assuming that 65% of participants indicate an overall preference for FF over FP, then a sample size of 125 participants will provide 93% power to show that difference in proportions (i.e., 65% favoring FF vs 35% favoring FP)|Median Difference (Net)|0.0|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91013063|NCT00398476|181908642|EQUIVALENCE|Assuming that 65% of participants indicate an overall preference for FF over FP, then a sample size of 125 participants will provide 93% power to show that difference in proportions (i.e., 65% favoring FF vs 35% favoring FP).|Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.434||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.434
91013064|NCT00398476|181908643|EQUIVALENCE|Assuming that 65% of participants indicate an overall preference for FF over FP, then a sample size of 125 participants will provide 93% power to show that difference in proportions (i.e., 65% favoring FF vs 35% favoring FP).|Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.797|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||This analysis is for IAQ||||0.797
91013065|NCT00398476|181908643|EQUIVALENCE|Assuming that 65% of participants indicate an overall preference for FF over FP, then a sample size of 125 participants will provide 93% power to show that difference in proportions (i.e., 65% favoring FF vs 35% favoring FP).|Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.296|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||This analysis is for DAQ||||0.296
91013066|NCT00398476|181908644|EQUIVALENCE|Assuming that 65% of participants indicate an overall preference for FF over FP, then a sample size of 125 participants will provide 93% power to show that difference in proportions (i.e., 65% favoring FF vs 35% favoring FP).|Median Difference (Net)|0.0|||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of FF 110 µg and FP 200 µg in IAQ||||<0.001
91013067|NCT00398476|181908644|EQUIVALENCE|Assuming that 65% of participants indicate an overall preference for FF over FP, then a sample size of 125 participants will provide 93% power to show that difference in proportions (i.e., 65% favoring FF vs 35% favoring FP).|Median Difference (Net)|0.0|||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of FF 110 µg and FP 200 µg in DAQ||||<0.001
91013068|NCT00398476|181908645|EQUIVALENCE|Assuming that 65% of participants indicate an overall preference for FF over FP, then a sample size of 125 participants will provide 93% power to show that difference in proportions (i.e., 65% favoring FF vs 35% favoring FP).|Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.968|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||This analysis is for IAQ||||0.968
91013069|NCT00398476|181908645|EQUIVALENCE|Assuming that 65% of participants indicate an overall preference for FF over FP, then a sample size of 125 participants will provide 93% power to show that difference in proportions (i.e., 65% favoring FF vs 35% favoring FP).|Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.797|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||This analysis is for DAQ||||0.797
91013070|NCT00398476|181908646|EQUIVALENCE|Assuming that 65% of participants indicate an overall preference for FF over FP, then a sample size of 125 participants will provide 93% power to show that difference in proportions (i.e., 65% favoring FF vs 35% favoring FP).|Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.221|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.221
91054140|NCT02912650|181990994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.23||||0.258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.64|||ANOVA|||0-2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.64|-0.17|0.258
91013071|NCT00398476|181908647|EQUIVALENCE|Assuming that 65% of participants indicate an overall preference for FF over FP, then a sample size of 125 participants will provide 93% power to show that difference in proportions (i.e., 65% favoring FF vs 35% favoring FP).|Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.205|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.205
90800106|NCT02163577|181478574|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||GEE model includes change in POSNA-PODCI score as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and POSNA-PODCI at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 160||||< 0.0001
90800107|NCT02163577|181478578|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||one sample t test|||Week 40||||0.0003
90800108|NCT02163577|181478578|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0021|||||||one sample t test|||Week 40||||0.0021
91013072|NCT00398476|181908648|EQUIVALENCE|Assuming that 65% of participants indicate an overall preference for FF over FP, then a sample size of 125 participants will provide 93% power to show that difference in proportions (i.e., 65% favoring FF vs 35% favoring FP)|Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.108|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.108
91013073|NCT00398476|181908649|EQUIVALENCE|Assuming that 65% of participants indicate an overall preference for FF over FP, then a sample size of 125 participants will provide 93% power to show that difference in proportions (i.e., 65% favoring FF vs 35% favoring FP).|Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.694|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.694
91013074|NCT00398476|181908650|EQUIVALENCE|Assuming that 65% of participants indicate an overall preference for FF over FP, then a sample size of 125 participants will provide 93% power to show that difference in proportions (i.e., 65% favoring FF vs 35% favoring FP).|Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.02|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.020
91013075|NCT03764813|181908665|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Group comparison is carried out among HbF values grouped according to the transfusion regimen (only cord blood transfusions, only adult transfusions, both cord and adult transfusions).||||<0.0001
91013076|NCT03764813|181908666|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.165|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91013077|NCT03764813|181908667|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.537|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91054141|NCT02912650|181990994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|10.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.79|12.74|||ANOVA|||0 to 6 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||12.74|8.79|<0.001
90800109|NCT02163577|181478578|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||one sample t test|||Week 64||||< 0.0001
90800110|NCT02163577|181478578|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||one sample t test|||Week 64||||< 0.0001
90800111|NCT02163577|181478578|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||one sample t test|||Week 160||||< 0.0001
90800112|NCT02163577|181478578|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||one sample t test|||Week 160||||< 0.0001
90800113|NCT01109108|181478592|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
90800114|NCT03420742|181478593|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|0.741|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6|0.915|||||The ratios of geometric mean were calculated on the basis of the within-participant variance. Participant was treated as a random effect in the model.|||0.915|0.600|
90800115|NCT03420742|181478594|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|0.836|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.662|1.06|||||The ratios of geometric mean were calculated on the basis of the within-participant variance. Participant was treated as a random effect in the model.|||1.06|0.662|
90800116|NCT02347605|181478631|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25||||||Adjusted for treatment order, session, room sequence|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.25
90800117|NCT02347605|181478632|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18||||||Adjusted for treatment order, session, room sequence|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.18
90800118|NCT01657305|181478657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||2-sided, significance level = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||"All participants received both treatments and treatments were intra-individually compared.~Hypotheses tested: H0: δ = 0 and H1: δ ≠ 0 with δ being the difference in time to wound closure between treatments.~Negative values for the intra-individual time difference indicate faster healing of the Oleogel-S10-treated wound half.~For right-censored observations (no wound closure observed in blinded photo evaluation), wound closure was conservatively calculated as +1 day after the last photo."||||<0.0001
90800119|NCT01657305|181478661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|11.2||Day 7|t-test, 2 sided||Difference in degree of epithelialization \[%\] (Oleogel-S10 minus standard of care)|||11.2|6.0|<0.0001
90800120|NCT01657305|181478661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|13.4||Day 10|t-test, 2 sided||Difference in degree of epithelialization \[%\] (Oleogel-S10 minus standard of care)|||13.4|6.9|<0.0001
90800121|NCT01657305|181478661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.6|11.1||Day 14|t-test, 2 sided||Difference in degree of epithelialization \[%\] (Oleogel-S10 minus standard of care)|||11.1|4.6|<0.0001
90800122|NCT01657305|181478661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|18.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|10.9||Day 18|t-test, 2 sided||Difference in degree of epithelialization \[%\] (Oleogel-S10 minus standard of care)|||10.9|3.9|<0.0001
91013078|NCT03764813|181908668|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Group comparison is carried out among HbF values grouped according to the transfusion regimen (only cord blood transfusions, only adult transfusions, both cord and adult transfusions).||||<0.0001
91013079|NCT01374516|181908685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Vaccine Efficacy|60.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.0|68.0||||||The statistical methodology was based on the use of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the vaccine efficacy (expressed in %). The CI was calculated using the exact method conditional on the total number of cases in both groups (exact method by Breslow \& Day). The vaccine efficacy of the CYD dengue vaccine was considered significant if the lower bound of its 95% CI was greater than 25%.||68.0|52.0|
90800123|NCT01657305|181478661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|9.1||Day 21|t-test, 2 sided||Difference in degree of epithelialization \[%\] (Oleogel-S10 minus standard of care)|||9.1|3.7|<0.0001
90800124|NCT01657305|181478661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.9|=|0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|6.4||Day 28|t-test, 2 sided||Difference in degree of epithelialization \[%\] (Oleogel-S10 minus standard of care)|||6.4|1.5|=0.0021
90800125|NCT03937479|181478683|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.1242|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03691||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0517|0.1968||The mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) model was used to model the change from baseline FEV1 to peak FEV1 using treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effect, patient as random effect and baseline FEV1 as the covariate.|MMRM||Estimates refer to the Week 4 from treatment by visit interaction.|Comparison was done using a closed testing procedure; testing began at the highest dose of RPL554 compared with placebo. If found statistically significant then the next highest dose was compared with placebo. This continued until a result was found to be non-significant or all RPL554 doses were compared with placebo.||0.1968|0.0517|0.0008
91013080|NCT01374516|181908686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Vaccine Efficacy|64.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.7|69.8||||||The statistical methodology was based on the use of the two-sided 95% CI of the vaccine efficacy (expressed in %) calculated using the exact method conditional on the total number of cases in both groups.||69.8|58.7|
91054142|NCT02912650|181990994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.29||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|3.67|||ANOVA|||0 to 6 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||3.67|0.91|0.001
90800126|NCT03937479|181478683|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.1072|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03703||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0344|0.18||The MMRM model was used to model the change from baseline FEV1 to peak FEV1 using treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effect, patient as random effect and baseline FEV1 as the covariate.|MMRM||Estimates refer to the Week 4 from treatment by visit interaction.|Comparison was done using a closed testing procedure; testing began at the highest dose of RPL554 compared with placebo. If found statistically significant then the next highest dose was compared with placebo. This continued until a result was found to be non-significant or all RPL554 doses were compared with placebo.||0.1800|0.0344|0.0040
90800127|NCT03937479|181478683|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.0912|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03723||0.0148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.018|0.1643||The MMRM model was used to model the change from baseline FEV1 to peak FEV1 using treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effect, patient as random effect and baseline FEV1 as the covariate.|MMRM||Estimates refer to the Week 4 from treatment by visit interaction.|Comparison was done using a closed testing procedure; testing began at the highest dose of RPL554 compared with placebo. If found statistically significant then the next highest dose was compared with placebo. This continued until a result was found to be non-significant or all RPL554 doses were compared with placebo.||0.1643|0.0180|0.0148
91054143|NCT02912650|181990994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.93|6.73|||ANOVA|||0 to 6 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||6.73|3.93|<0.001
90800128|NCT03937479|181478683|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.0775|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03697||0.0368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0048|0.1501||The MMRM model was used to model the change from baseline FEV1 to peak FEV1 using treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effect, patient as random effect and baseline FEV1 as the covariate.|MMRM||Estimates refer to the Week 4 from treatment by visit interaction.|Comparison was done using a closed testing procedure; testing began at the highest dose of RPL554 compared with placebo. If found statistically significant then the next highest dose was compared with placebo. This continued until a result was found to be non-significant or all RPL554 doses were compared with placebo.||0.1501|0.0048|0.0368
90800129|NCT00940602|181478703|OTHER|The study was not designed for confirmatory analyses. Statistical tests were performed in an exploratory sense only.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.636||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.96||Exploratory p-value is one tailed and is based on the stratified log-rank test.|Regression, Cox||95% CI was based on a Wald test from Cox model|||0.96|0.42|0.015
90800130|NCT00940602|181478704|OTHER|100 (1-α)% confidence intervals with α of 0.05 are provided|Wilson score test|12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|25.7||||||||25.7|-1.8|
90800131|NCT00940602|181478705|OTHER|The study was not designed for confirmatory analyses. Statistical tests were performed in an exploratory sense only.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.832||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.28|||Regression, Cox||95% CI was based on a Wald test from Cox model.|||1.28|0.54|0.200
90800132|NCT00940602|181478706|OTHER|100 (1-α)% confidence intervals with α of 0.05 are provided|Wilson score test|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|8.1||||||||8.1|-5.3|
90800133|NCT00940602|181478707|OTHER|100 (1-α)% confidence intervals with α of 0.05 are provided|Wilson score test|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|11.4||||||||11.4|-12.0|
91013081|NCT01374516|181908687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Vaccine Efficacy|64.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.7|69.9||||||The statistical methodology was based on the use of the two-sided 95% CI of the vaccine efficacy (expressed in %) calculated using the exact method conditional on the total number of cases in both groups.||69.9|58.7|
91013082|NCT01374516|181908688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Vaccine Efficacy|61.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.7|68.0||||||The statistical methodology was based on the use of the two-sided 95% CI of the vaccine efficacy (expressed in %) calculated using the exact method conditional on the total number of cases in both groups.||68.0|54.7|
91013083|NCT03602976|181908742|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|190.7||||0.059|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||For GGT||||0.059
91054144|NCT02912650|181990994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|8.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.51|10.44|||ANOVA|||0 to 6 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||10.44|6.51|<0.001
91054145|NCT02912650|181990994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.46|7.42|||ANOVA|||0 to 6 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||7.42|3.46|<0.001
91013084|NCT03602976|181908742|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|55.5||||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||For Alkaline Phosphatase||||0.23
91013085|NCT03602976|181908743|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.06||||0.36|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.36
91054146|NCT02912650|181990994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|4.43|||ANOVA|||0 to 6 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||4.43|1.65|<0.001
90800134|NCT00940602|181478708|OTHER|The study was not designed for confirmatory analyses. Statistical tests were performed in an exploratory sense only.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.725||||0.184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.46|||Regression, Cox||95% CI was based on a Wald test from Cox model.|||1.46|0.36|0.184
91013086|NCT03602976|181908744|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.73|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.73
91054147|NCT02912650|181990994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|14.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.74|18.62|||ANOVA|||0 to 12 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||18.62|10.74|<0.001
90800135|NCT00940602|181478709|OTHER|The study was not designed for confirmatory analyses. Statistical tests were performed in an exploratory sense only.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.195|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.36|||Regression, Cox||95% CI was based on a Wald test from Cox model.|||0.36|0.11|<.001
90800136|NCT00940602|181478710|OTHER|The study was not designed for confirmatory analyses. Statistical tests were performed in an exploratory sense only.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.871||||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.46|||Regression, Cox||95% CI was based on a Wald test from Cox model.|||1.46|0.52|0.303
90800137|NCT00940602|181478711|OTHER|The study was not designed for confirmatory analyses. Statistical tests were performed in an exploratory sense only.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.072||||0.389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.75|||Regression, Cox||95% CI was based on a Wald test from Cox model.|||1.75|0.66|0.389
90800138|NCT00940602|181478713|OTHER|100 (1-α)% confidence intervals with α of 0.05 are provided|Wilson score test|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|8.1||||||||8.1|-5.2|
90800139|NCT00940602|181478714|OTHER|100 (1-α)% confidence intervals with α of 0.05 are provided|Wilson score test|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|3.0||||||||3.0|-1.6|
91013087|NCT03602976|181908745|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.2||||0.094|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.094
91013088|NCT03602976|181908746|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.0||||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.11
91054148|NCT02912650|181990994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.16||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|5.91|||ANOVA|||0 to 12 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||5.91|0.41|0.024
91054149|NCT02912650|181990994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.15|10.73|||ANOVA|||0 to 12 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||10.73|5.15|<0.001
91054150|NCT02912650|181990994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|11.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.59|15.45|||ANOVA|||0 to 12 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||15.45|7.59|<0.001
90800140|NCT00940602|181478715|OTHER|100 (1-α)% confidence intervals with α of 0.05 are provided|Wilson score test|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|14.6||||||||14.6|-11.9|
90800141|NCT00940602|181478716|OTHER|100 (1-α)% confidence intervals with α of 0.05 are provided|Wilson score test|-9.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.8|1.6||||||||1.6|-20.8|
90800142|NCT00940602|181478717|OTHER|The study was not designed for confirmatory analyses. Statistical tests were performed in an exploratory sense only.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.797||||0.232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.46|||Regression, Cox||95% CI was based on a Wald test from Cox model.|||1.46|0.43|0.232
90800143|NCT01374425|181478741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.0555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.01||P-value (relative to Bevacizumab + mFOLFOX6) based on two-sided stratified log rank test and not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio (HR) (relative to Bevacizumab + mFOLFOX6) was estimated by Cox regression.|Analysis stratified by high/low excision repair cross-complementing (ERCC)-1 level and region of enrollment.||1.01|0.61|0.0555
90800144|NCT01374425|181478742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.3944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.26||P-value (relative to Bevacizumab + mFOLFOX6) based on two-sided stratified log rank test and not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank||HR (relative to Bevacizumab + mFOLFOX6) was estimated by Cox regression.|Analysis stratified by region of enrollment.||1.26|0.56|0.3944
90800145|NCT01374425|181478743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.0786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.03||P-value (relative to Bevacizumab + mFOLFOX6) based on two-sided stratified log rank test and not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank||HR (relative to Bevacizumab + mFOLFOX6) was estimated by Cox regression.|Analysis stratified by region of enrollment.||1.03|0.55|0.0786
90800146|NCT01374425|181478744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.9576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.28||P-value (relative to ERCC-1 Low subgroup) based on two-sided stratified log rank test and not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank||HR (relative to ERCC-1 Low subgroup) was estimated by Cox regression.|Analysis stratified by region of enrollment.||1.28|0.77|0.9576
91013089|NCT04837807|181908747|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.8|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|This was a cross-over study, so there is really 30 subjects per group that was analyzed.||"Each participant in the study was asked to complete the IDEEL work at their baseline, week 1 and week 2 visits. The IDEEL work is graded on a scale to 100 with higher numbers being deemed as better scores thus representing more comfort than previous weeks."||||<0.05
91013090|NCT04837807|181908749|SUPERIORITY|OSDI scores were obtained across all three visits, baseline, week 1 and week 2. Lower OSDI scores indicate better eye health.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.3|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|This was a cross-over study, so there is really 30 subjects per group that was analyzed.||||||<0.05
91013091|NCT03319160|181908783|OTHER||Incidence per 100 patient-years|7.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.74|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|8.7|||||"Poisson distribution assumed due to the infrequent nature of the events. Number of appropriate shock events: 19 (17 subjects had one appropriate shock event, one subject had two appropriate shock events).~Length of exposure: 253 patient-years."|||8.7|6.3|
91013092|NCT03319160|181908785|OTHER||Incidence per 100 patient-years|3.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.78|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|4.4|||||||Poisson distribution assumed due to the infrequent nature of the events. Number of inappropriately shocked events: 8. Length of exposure: 253 patient-years.|4.4|1.9|
91013093|NCT04533204|181908800|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.28|24.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||24.67|12.28|<.001
91013094|NCT04533204|181908801|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.33||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|3.91||Performance on cued recall (error scores)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.91|.75|.004
91013095|NCT02260791|181908803|EQUIVALENCE|-12% to +15% equivalence margin using 90% CI around the difference in ACR20 response rate|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.3|3.6||||||The difference and its 90% Confidence Interval (CI) for primary endpoint between FKB327 and Humira were estimated. If the 90% CI fell entirely between pre-specified equivalence margin (-12% to +15%), then FKB327 was considered equivalent to Humira.||3.6|-7.3|
91013096|NCT02260791|181908804|EQUIVALENCE|If the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in DAS28-CRP at Week 24 between FKB327 and Humira fell entirely between -0.6 and +0.6 then FKB327 was considered equivalent to Humira.|Difference in least square mean|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.18||||||The secondary hypothesis involved equivalence of the difference between FKB327 and Humira in DAS28-CRP at Week 24. Based on the repeated measures analysis model, the difference and its 95% CI in the least-squares means (LSMs) for DAS28-CRP at Week 24 between FKB327 and Humira were estimated. If the 95% CI fell entirely between the pre-specified margin (+/- 0.6), then FKB327 was considered equivalent to Humira.||0.18|-0.16|
91054151|NCT02912650|181990994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.75|||<|0.001||95.0|2.79|10.71|||ANOVA|||0 to 12 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||10.71|2.79|<0.001
90800147|NCT01374425|181478745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19||||0.1658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.53||P-value (relative to VEGF-A Low subgroup) based on two-sided stratified log rank test and not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank||HR (relative to VEGF-A Low subgroup) was estimated by Cox regression.|Analysis stratified by high/low ERCC-1 level and region of enrollment.||1.53|0.93|0.1658
90800148|NCT01374425|181478746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.3019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.32||P-value (relative to Bevacizumab + mFOLFOX6) based on two-sided stratified log rank test and not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank||HR (relative to Bevacizumab + mFOLFOX6) was estimated by Cox regression.|Analysis stratified by region of enrollment.||1.32|0.41|0.3019
90800149|NCT01374425|181478747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.6035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.53||P-value (relative to Bevacizumab + mFOLFOX6) based on two-sided stratified log rank test and not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank||HR (relative to Bevacizumab + mFOLFOX6) was estimated by Cox regression.|Analysis stratified by region of enrollment.||1.53|0.48|0.6035
90800150|NCT01374425|181478748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.4032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.28||P-value (relative to Bevacizumab + mFOLFOX6) based on two-sided stratified log rank test and not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank||HR (relative to Bevacizumab + mFOLFOX6) was estimated by Cox regression.|Analysis stratified by region of enrollment.||1.28|0.54|0.4032
90800151|NCT01374425|181478749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||0.0647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.03||P-value (relative to Bevacizumab + mFOLFOX6) based on two-sided stratified log rank test and not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank||HR (relative to Bevacizumab + mFOLFOX6) was estimated by Cox regression.|Analysis stratified by region of enrollment.||1.03|0.41|0.0647
90800152|NCT01374425|181478750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.0861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.04||P-value (relative to Bevacizumab + mFOLFOX6) based on two-sided stratified log rank test and not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank||HR (relative to Bevacizumab + mFOLFOX6) was estimated by Cox regression.|Analysis stratified by high/low ERCC-1 level and region of enrollment.||1.04|0.56|0.0861
90800153|NCT01374425|181478751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.3295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.26||P-value (relative to Bevacizumab + mFOLFOX6) based on two-sided stratified log rank test and not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank||HR (relative to Bevacizumab + mFOLFOX6) was estimated by Cox regression.|Analysis stratified by region of enrollment.||1.26|0.51|0.3295
90800154|NCT01374425|181478752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.1519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.12||P-value (relative to Bevacizumab + mFOLFOX6) based on two-sided stratified log rank test and not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank||HR (relative to Bevacizumab + mFOLFOX6) was estimated by Cox regression.|Analysis stratified by region of enrollment.||1.12|0.49|0.1519
90800155|NCT01374425|181478753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19||||0.2774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.62||P-value (relative to ERCC-1 Low subgroup) based on two-sided stratified log rank test and not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank||HR (relative to ERCC-1 Low subgroup) was estimated by Cox regression.|Analysis stratified by region of enrollment.||1.62|0.87|0.2774
90800156|NCT01374425|181478754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Objective Response Rates|4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|14.0|||||The difference was calculated as the percentage of participants with objective response in the Bevacizumab + FOLFIRI arm minus the Bevacizumab + mFOLFOX6 arm. The 95% CI was computed using normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||14.0|-5.5|
90800157|NCT01374425|181478755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Objective Response Rates|9.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.2|26.1|||||The difference was calculated as the percentage of participants with objective response in the Bevacizumab + FOLFIRI arm minus the Bevacizumab + mFOLFOX6 arm. The 95% CI was computed using normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||26.1|7.2|
91013097|NCT00280059|181908844|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority margin for the proportion of seizure free participants set at 10%; non-inferiority declared if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the difference in seizure-free proportion between pregabalin and lamotrigine was no more than 10% in favor of lamotrigine, but 0 was contained within the lower bound of the CI. Interpretation of superiority required lower bound of CI did not contain 0 in favor of pregabalin.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|-0.09|||Gart and Nam: correction of skewness||95% confidence interval for the true difference in proportions, as well as a one-sided test at α=0.025; confidence interval adjusted for centers clustered within a geographical region, with upper and lower confidence limits.|Analysis of the binary response variable for 6 consecutive months seizure freedom analyzed by comparing the proportions of favorable responders between the two treatment groups after stratifying by clusters and correcting for skewness (Gart and Nam, 1990). Percentage can be obtained by multiplying proportion by 100.||-0.09|-0.24|
91054152|NCT02912650|181990994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|7.56|||ANOVA|||0 to 12 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||7.56|2.0|<0.001
91054153|NCT02912650|181990995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.42|6.32|||ANOVA|||0-2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||6.32|4.42|<0.001
91054154|NCT02912650|181990995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.07||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.74|||ANOVA|||0-2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.74|0.40|0.002
90800158|NCT01374425|181478756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Objective Response Rates|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|14.1|||||The difference was calculated as the percentage of participants with objective response in the Bevacizumab + FOLFIRI arm minus the Bevacizumab + mFOLFOX6 arm. The 95% CI was computed using normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||14.1|-9.9|
90800159|NCT01374425|181478757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Objective Response Rates|-3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|6.6|||||The difference was calculated as the percentage of participants with objective response in the ERCC-1 High subgroup minus the ERCC-1 Low subgroup. The 95% CI was computed using normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||6.6|-14.0|
91054155|NCT02912650|181990995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.13|||ANOVA|||0-2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||2.13|0.77|<0.001
91013098|NCT00280059|181908845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.74||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.9||Nominal value for 2-sided test calculated using Cox proportional hazards model, adjusted for geographic regions.|Regression, Cox|||Risk ratio=hazard ratio estimated from the Cox proportional hazards model for assessing a treatment difference, risk ratio \> 1 is in favor of pregabalin. The 95% confidence interval is for the true risk ratio.||0.90|0.60|0.0034
91054156|NCT02912650|181990995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.35|5.25|||ANOVA|||0-2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||5.25|3.35|<0.001
91054157|NCT02912650|181990995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.96|4.88|||ANOVA|||0-2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||4.88|2.96|<0.001
91054158|NCT02912650|181990995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.38||||0.268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|1.05|||ANOVA|||0-2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.05|-0.29|0.268
90800160|NCT01374425|181478758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Disease Control Rates|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|3.3|||||The difference was calculated as the percentage of participants with disease control in the Bevacizumab + FOLFIRI arm minus the Bevacizumab + mFOLFOX6 arm. The 95% CI was computed using normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||3.3|-7.6|
90800161|NCT01374425|181478759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Disease Control Rates|-8.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.1|1.7|||||The difference was calculated as the percentage of participants with disease control in the Bevacizumab + FOLFIRI arm minus the Bevacizumab + mFOLFOX6 arm. The 95% CI was computed using normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||1.7|-19.1|
91013099|NCT00280059|181908846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.06||||0.8047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.74||Nominal value for 2-sided test calculated using Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for geographical cluster.|Cox proportional hazards model|||Risk ratio=hazard ratio estimated from the Cox proportional hazards model for assessing a treatment difference, risk ratio \< 1 is in favor of pregabalin. The 95% confidence interval is for the true risk ratio.||1.74|0.65|0.8047
90800162|NCT01374425|181478760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Disease Control Rates|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|8.3|||||The difference was calculated as the percentage of participants with disease control in the Bevacizumab + FOLFIRI arm minus the Bevacizumab + mFOLFOX6 arm. The 95% CI was computed using normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||8.3|-3.7|
90800163|NCT01374425|181478761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Disease Control Rates|-4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|1.5|||||The difference was calculated as the percentage of participants with disease control in the ERCC-1 High subgroup minus the ERCC-1 Low subgroup. The 95% CI was computed using normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||1.5|-10.6|
90800164|NCT01374425|181478762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Resection Rates|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.9|7.8|||||The difference was calculated as the percentage of participants with resection in the Bevacizumab + FOLFIRI arm minus the Bevacizumab + mFOLFOX6 arm. The 95% CI was computed using normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||7.8|-15.9|
90800165|NCT01374425|181478763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Complete Resection Rates|-6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|3.3|||||The difference was calculated as the percentage of participants with complete resection in the Bevacizumab + FOLFIRI arm minus the Bevacizumab + mFOLFOX6 arm. The 95% CI was computed using normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||3.3|-16.3|
90800166|NCT01374425|181478764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Resection Rates|-11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.1|11.1|||||The difference was calculated as the percentage of participants with resection in the Bevacizumab + FOLFIRI arm minus the Bevacizumab + mFOLFOX6 arm. The 95% CI was computed using normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||11.1|-33.1|
90800167|NCT01374425|181478765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Complete Resection Rates|-11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.1|11.1|||||The difference was calculated as the percentage of participants with complete resection in the Bevacizumab + FOLFIRI arm minus the Bevacizumab + mFOLFOX6 arm. The 95% CI was computed using normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||11.1|-33.1|
90800168|NCT01374425|181478766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Resection Rates|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|4.2|||||The difference was calculated as the percentage of participants with resection in the Bevacizumab + FOLFIRI arm minus the Bevacizumab + mFOLFOX6 arm. The 95% CI was computed using normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||4.2|-10.1|
90800169|NCT01374425|181478767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Complete Resection Rates|-5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|0.4|||||The difference was calculated as the percentage of participants with complete resection in the Bevacizumab + FOLFIRI arm minus the Bevacizumab + mFOLFOX6 arm. The 95% CI was computed using normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||0.4|-11.5|
90800170|NCT01374425|181478768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Resection Rates|-4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|0.6|||||The difference was calculated as the percentage of participants with resection in the ERCC-1 High subgroup minus the ERCC-1 Low subgroup. The 95% CI was computed using normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||0.6|-9.5|
90800171|NCT01374425|181478769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Complete Resection Rates|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|3.1|||||The difference was calculated as the percentage of participants with complete resection in the ERCC-1 High subgroup minus the ERCC-1 Low subgroup. The 95% CI was computed using normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||3.1|-6.2|
90800172|NCT01374425|181478770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.29||||0.0593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.69||P-value (relative to KRAS Wild-Type subgroup) based on two-sided stratified log rank test and not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank||HR (relative to KRAS Wild-Type subgroup) was estimated by Cox regression.|Analysis stratified by high/low ERCC-1 level and region of enrollment.||1.69|0.99|0.0593
90800173|NCT01374425|181478771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.64||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.24||P-value (relative to VEGF-A Low subgroup) based on two-sided stratified log rank test and not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank||HR (relative to VEGF-A Low subgroup) was estimated by Cox regression.|Analysis stratified by high/low ERCC-1 level and region of enrollment.||2.24|1.20|0.0020
91013100|NCT00280059|181908847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.19||||0.2537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.6||Nominal value for 2-sided test calculated using Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for geographical cluster.|Cox proportional hazards model|||Risk ratio=hazard ratio estimated from the Cox proportional hazards model for assessing a treatment difference, risk ratio \< 1 is in favor of pregabalin. The 95% confidence interval is for the true risk ratio.||1.60|0.88|0.2537
91013101|NCT00280059|181908848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|6.52||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.93|22.04||Nominal value for 2-sided test calculated using Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for geographical cluster.|Cox proportional hazards model|||Risk ratio=hazard ratio estimated from the Cox proportional hazards model for assessing a treatment difference, risk ratio \< 1 is in favor of pregabalin. The 95% confidence interval is for the true risk ratio.||22.04|1.93|0.0025
91013102|NCT00280059|181908849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.36||||0.0744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.91||Nominal value for 2-sided test calculated using Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for geographical cluster.|Cox proportional hazards model|||Risk ratio=hazard ratio estimated from the Cox proportional hazards model for assessing a treatment difference, risk ratio \< 1 is in favor of pregabalin. The 95% confidence interval is for the true risk ratio.||1.91|0.97|0.0744
90800174|NCT01374425|181478772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.34||||0.0955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.88||P-value (relative to KRAS Wild-Type subgroup) based on two-sided stratified log rank test and not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank||HR (relative to KRAS Wild-Type subgroup) was estimated by Cox regression.|Analysis stratified by high/low ERCC-1 level and region of enrollment.||1.88|0.95|0.0955
90800175|NCT01374425|181478773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Objective Response Rates|-5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.7|3.8|||||The difference was calculated as the percentage of participants with objective response in the VEGF-A High subgroup minus the VEGF-A Low subgroup. The 95% CI was computed using normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||3.8|-15.7|
90800176|NCT01374425|181478774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Objective Response Rates|-5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|5.2|||||The difference was calculated as the percentage of participants with objective response in the KRAS Mutant subgroup minus the KRAS Wild-Type subgroup. The 95% CI was computed using normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||5.2|-16.0|
90800177|NCT01374425|181478775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Disease Control Rates|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|4.3|||||The difference was calculated as the percentage of participants with disease control in the VEGF-A High subgroup minus the VEGF-A Low subgroup. The 95% CI was computed using normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||4.3|-6.5|
90800178|NCT01374425|181478776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Resection Rates|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|2.1|||||The difference was calculated as the percentage of participants with resection in the VEGF-A High subgroup minus the VEGF-A Low subgroup. The 95% CI was computed using normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||2.1|-8.6|
90800179|NCT01374425|181478777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Complete Resection Rates|-4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|-0.2|||||The difference was calculated as the percentage of participants with complete resection in the VEGF-A High subgroup minus the VEGF-A Low subgroup. The 95% CI was computed using normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||-0.2|-9.6|
91013103|NCT00280059|181908850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.47||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|1.8||Nominal value for 2-sided test calculated using Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for geographical cluster.|Cox proportional hazards model|||Risk ratio=hazard ratio estimated from the Cox proportional hazards model for assessing a treatment difference, risk ratio \< 1 is in favor of pregabalin. The 95% confidence interval is for the true risk ratio.||1.80|1.19|0.0003
91013104|NCT00280059|181908860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.4|||ANCOVA|||Anxiety; model includes treatment and geographical cluster as fixed effects and respective baseline scores as a continuous covariate.||1.4|0.3|0.0025
91013105|NCT00280059|181908860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.0186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.1|||ANCOVA|||Depression; model includes treatment and geographical cluster as fixed effects and respective baseline scores as a continuous covariate.||1.1|0.1|0.0186
91013106|NCT00280059|181908861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.0683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.93|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8: dichotomized sleep assessment analyzed using a logistic regression model for repeated measures with fixed effects for treatment, geographical region, the average hours per night of sleep at baseline as a continuous covariate, time, and treatment-by-time interaction. The within subject covariance structure assumes an auto-regressive of order one covariance structure.||1.93|0.98|0.0683
91054159|NCT02912650|181990995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|17.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.69|21.28|||ANOVA|||0-6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||21.28|14.69|<0.001
91054160|NCT02912650|181990995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|6.17|||ANOVA|||0-6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||6.17|1.57|<0.001
90800180|NCT02289469|181478778|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.0|31.6|||Chi-squared|||A chi-square test was used to test for differences in proportions between intervention and control groups.||31.6|16.0|<0.0001
90800181|NCT02289469|181478779|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Other|||Descriptive statistics (counts, frequencies) were used to summarize responses.||||<0.01
91013107|NCT00280059|181908861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.5096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.66|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 32: dichotomized sleep assessment analyzed using a logistic regression model for repeated measures with fixed effects for treatment, geographical region, the average hours per night of sleep at baseline as a continuous covariate, time, and treatment-by-time interaction. The within subject covariance structure assumes an auto-regressive of order one covariance structure.||1.66|0.78|0.5096
91054161|NCT02912650|181990995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|8.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.48|11.15|||ANOVA|||0-6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||11.15|6.48|<0.001
91054162|NCT02912650|181990995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|14.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.83|17.4|||ANOVA|||0-6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||17.40|10.83|<0.001
91054163|NCT02912650|181990995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|9.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.86|12.48|||ANOVA|||0-6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||12.48|5.86|<0.001
91054164|NCT02912650|181990995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.62|7.27|||ANOVA|||0-6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||7.27|2.62|<0.001
90800182|NCT01227057|181478780|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were based on the SI-R using effect size estimates from a previous trial comparing individual CBT with a Wait List (WL) control (Steketee2010). In this study, the effect size of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) relative to WL was d = 2.21 on the SI-R. Accounting for a smaller effect size due to having an active control condition, we expected to have 80% power to detect a large (d = .80) effect size. The sample assessed for eligibility (n = 67) was 99% of this target.||||||0.029||||||P value is for the group x time interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for age, years of education, and presence of co-morbid obsessive-compulsive disorder due to group differences at baseline.||Linear mixed models with random intercepts were used to evaluate the change in primary and secondary outcome variables over time, the effect of group, the effect of treatment, and the treatment group by time interaction, both for the treatment phase (0-6 months) and follow up phase (6-12 months). All analyses (0-6 months) were conducted first using observed data only (i.e., completer analysis) and then using an intent to treat (ITT) sample.||||.029
90890317|NCT04313881|181645085|SUPERIORITY|2-sided P-value, odds ratio and its 95% CI were based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method stratified by stratification factors|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.605||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.428|0.857||2-sided P-value, odds ratio and its 95% CI were based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method stratified by stratification factors (geographic region, cytogenetic risk status, and bone marrow blast percentage).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for response rate was based on Clopper-Pearson exact method.|||0.857|0.428|0.0048
90800183|NCT01227057|181478781|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were based on the SI-R using effect size estimates from a previous trial comparing individual CBT with a Wait List (WL) control (Steketee2010). In this study, the effect size of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) relative to WL was d = 2.21 on the SI-R. Accounting for a smaller effect size due to having an active control condition, we expected to have 80% power to detect a large (d = .80) effect size. The sample assessed for eligibility (n = 67) was 99% of this target.||||||0.04||||||P value is for the group x time interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for age, years of education, and presence of co-morbid obsessive-compulsive disorder due to group differences at baseline.||Linear mixed models with random intercepts were used to evaluate the change in primary and secondary outcome variables over time, the effect of group, the effect of treatment, and the treatment group by time interaction, both for the treatment phase (0-6 months) and follow up phase (6-12 months). All analyses (0-6 months) were conducted first using observed data only (i.e., completer analysis) and then using an intent to treat (ITT) sample.||||.04
90800184|NCT01227057|181478782|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were based on the SI-R using effect size estimates from a previous trial comparing individual CBT with a Wait List (WL) control (Steketee2010). In this study, the effect size of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) relative to WL was d = 2.21 on the SI-R. Accounting for a smaller effect size due to having an active control condition, we expected to have 80% power to detect a large (d = .80) effect size. The sample assessed for eligibility (n = 67) was 99% of this target.|||||>|0.1||||||P value is for the group x time interaction.|ANOVA|||||||>.1
90800185|NCT00532844|181478793|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|1.8||The model will constitute the independent variables of treatment regimen, treatment sequence, and period as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. The dependent variable plasma BH4 concentration (AUC0-12 hr) expressed in log transformation.|Mixed Models Analysis|||To determine if administration of saproprterin dihydrochloride administered with Vitamin C results in higher plasma BH4 concentrations when compared with administration of sapropterin dihydrochloride alone in subjects with endothelial dysfunction. The difference in the plasma BH4 concentration (AUC0-12 hr) between the 2 regimens will be compared using a mixed model with a 0.05 level of significance. The difference is represented as the geometric mean ratio.||1.8|1.2|<0.001
90800186|NCT00532844|181478794|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.9||||0.139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.0||The model will constitute the independent variables of treatment regimen, treatment sequence, and period as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. The dependent variable plasma BH2 concentration (AUC0-12 hr) expressed in log transformation.|Mixed Models Analysis|||To determine if administration of saproprterin dihydrochloride administered with Vitamin C results in higher plasma BH2 when compared with administration of sapropterin dihydrochloride alone in subjects with endothelial dysfunction. The difference in the plasma BH2 concentration (AUC0-12 hr) between the 2 regimens will be compared using a mixed model with a 0.05 level of significance. The difference is represented as the geometric mean ratio.||1.0|0.7|0.139
90800187|NCT00532844|181478794|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.96||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.11||The model will constitute independent variables of treatment regimen, treatment sequence, and period as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. The dependent variable Total B concentration (AUC0-12 hr) expressed in log transformation.|Mixed Models Analysis|||To determine if administration of saproprterin dihydrochloride administered with Vitamin C results in Total B (biopterin) when compared with administration of sapropterin dihydrochloride alone in subjects with endothelial dysfunction. The difference in the Total B (biopterin) concentration (AUC0-12 hr) between the 2 regimens will be compared using a mixed model with a 0.05 level of significance. The difference is represented as the geometric mean ratio.||1.11|0.83|0.570
90800188|NCT00532844|181478797|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.593|||||||ANCOVA|The model will have the treatments and the baseline measurement as independent variables and measurement at Day 13 as the dependent variable.||The raw value of PAT obtained from the first period (baseline to Day 13) will be used to compare the two treatments.||||0.593
90800189|NCT01044030|181478851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.6
90800190|NCT02525679|181478903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|1.5968|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1047|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3784|1.8151|||||Based on the estimate for the slope parameter, a two sided 95% confidence interval for the slope was computed. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1. Standard error (SE) of the mean is actually SE of the slope.|Dose proportionality in plasma for Cmax (log-transformed scale) was explored based on the linear regression model.||1.8151|1.3784|
90800191|NCT02525679|181478903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|1.0207|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0261|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9668|1.0747|||||Based on the estimate for the slope parameter, a two sided 95% confidence interval for the slope was computed. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1. Standard error (SE) of the mean is actually SE of the slope.|Dose proportionality in plasma for Cmax (log-transformed scale) was explored based on the linear regression model.||1.0747|0.9668|
90800192|NCT02525679|181478905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|2.7123|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2525|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1856|3.2389|||||Based on the estimate for the slope parameter, a two sided 95% confidence interval for the slope was computed. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1. Standard error (SE) of the mean is actually SE of the slope.|Dose proportionality in plasma for AUC(0-tz) (log-transformed scale) was explored based on the linear regression model.||3.2389|2.1856|
91013108|NCT00280059|181908861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.6804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.63|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 56 (termination): dichotomized sleep assessment analyzed using a logistic regression model for repeated measures with fixed effects for treatment, geographical region, the average hours per night of sleep at baseline as a continuous covariate, time, and treatment-by-time interaction. The within subject covariance structure assumes an auto-regressive of order one covariance structure.||1.63|0.73|0.6804
91054165|NCT02912650|181990995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|21.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.52|26.37|||ANOVA|||0-8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||26.37|17.52|<0.001
90800193|NCT02525679|181478905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|1.0003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0253|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9482|1.0525|||||Based on the estimate for the slope parameter, a two sided 95% confidence interval for the slope was computed. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1. Standard error (SE) of the mean is actually SE of the slope.|Dose proportionality in plasma for AUC(0-tz) (log-transformed scale) was explored based on the linear regression model.||1.0525|0.9482|
90890318|NCT01201629|181645130|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||< 0.05
90800194|NCT00271544|181478906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||One sample proportion|0.955||||||95.0|0.92|0.955|||||1-side 95% confidence limit lower bound|||0.955|0.92|
90800195|NCT00271544|181478907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||One sample proportion|0.96||||||95.0|0.932|0.989||||||||0.989|0.932|
90800196|NCT00271544|181478908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||One sample mean|1.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.9||||95.0|1.1|1.2|||||1-side 95% confidence limit upper bound|||1.2|1.1|
90800197|NCT00271544|181478909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||One sample mean|1.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.0||||97.5|1.9|2.2|||||1-sided 97.5% confidence limit upper bound|||2.2|1.9|
91013109|NCT02777554|181909034|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalent exposure of the QD formulation to the BID tablet was established if the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) of the geometric mean ratio for Day 7 AUC0-24 and Cmax were completely contained within the range of 80% to 125%.|Ratio (%) of Geometric Means|101.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.1|108.5|||||Geometric mean ratio (Apremilast 75 mg XL QD / Apremilast 30 mg IR BID) from an ANOVA model, expressed as a percentage.|To assess the exposure between the extended release apremilast formulation, and Reference IR (30 mg reference IR BID) tablet following multiple oral doses, an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model, with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects, and subject nested within sequence as a random effect, was performed on the natural log-transformed Day 7 Cmax.||108.5|95.1|
91013110|NCT02777554|181909035|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalent exposure of the QD formulation to the BID tablet was established if the 90% CIs of the geometric mean ratio for Day 7 AUC0-24 and Cmax were completely contained within the range of 80% to 125%.|Ratio (%) of Geometric Means|95.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.9|102.2|||||Geometric mean ratio (Apremilast 75 mg XL QD / Apremilast 30 mg IR BID) from an ANOVA model, expressed as a percentage.|To assess the exposure between the extended release apremilast formulation, and Reference IR (30 mg reference IR BID) tablet following multiple oral doses, an ANOVA model, with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects, and subject nested within sequence as a random effect, was performed on the natural log-transformed Day 7 AUC0-24.||102.2|88.9|
91013111|NCT02777554|181909036|OTHER||Ratio (%) of Geometric Means|103.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.6|115.4|||||Geometric mean ratio (Apremilast 75 mg XL / Apremilast 30 mg IR BID) from an ANOVA model, expressed as a percentage.|To estimate the exposure of apremilast following single dose administration of extended release (QD) relative to the Reference IR (BID) tablet under fasted conditions, an ANOVA model with treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects, and subject nested within sequence as a random effect, was performed on the natural log-transformed Cmax of apremilast.||115.4|93.6|
91013112|NCT02777554|181909036|OTHER||Ratio (%) of Geometric Means|90.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.6|101.3|||||Geometric mean ratio (Apremilast 75 mg XL (Fasted) / Apremilast 75 mg XL (Standard Meal)) from an ANOVA model, expressed as a percentage.|To estimate the effect of food on the PK of a single oral dose of extended release apremilast (QD), an ANOVA model with treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects, and subject nested within sequence as a random effect, was performed on the natural log-transformed Cmax of apremilast.||101.3|81.6|
91013113|NCT02777554|181909036|OTHER||Ratio (%) of Geometric Means|115.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.3|128.1|||||Geometric mean ratio (Apremilast 75 mg XL (High Fat) / Apremilast 75 mg XL (Standard Meal)) from an ANOVA model, expressed as a percentage.|To estimate the effect of food on the PK of a single oral dose of extended release apremilast (QD), an ANOVA model with treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects, and subject nested within sequence as a random effect, was performed on the natural log-transformed Cmax of apremilast.||128.1|103.3|
91013114|NCT02777554|181909036|OTHER||Ratio (%) of Geometric Means|126.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|113.7|140.8|||||Geometric mean ratio (Apremilast 75 mg XL (High Fat) / Apremilast 75 mg XL (Fasted)) from an ANOVA model, expressed as a percentage.|To estimate the effect of food on the PK of a single oral dose of extended release apremilast (QD), an ANOVA model with treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects, and subject nested within sequence as a random effect, was performed on the natural log-transformed Cmax of apremilast.||140.8|113.7|
91013115|NCT02777554|181909037|OTHER||Ratio (%) of Geometric Means|92.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.3|106.2|||||Geometric mean ratio (Apremilast 75 mg XL / Apremilast 30 mg IR BID) from an ANOVA model, expressed as a percentage.|To estimate the exposure of apremilast following single dose administration of extended release (QD) relative to the Reference IR (BID) tablet under fasted conditions, an ANOVA model with treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects, and subject nested within sequence as a random effect, was performed on the natural log-transformed AUC0-t of apremilast.||106.2|81.3|
91054166|NCT02912650|181990995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.0||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.91|8.09|||ANOVA|||0-8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||8.09|1.91|0.002
90800198|NCT00271544|181478910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||One sample proportion|0.989||||||95.0|0.974|1.0||||||||1|0.974|
90800199|NCT00271544|181478911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||One sample proportion|0.973||||||95.0|0.95|0.996||||||||0.996|0.950|
90800200|NCT00271544|181478912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||One sample proportion|0.973||||||95.0|0.95|0.996||||||||0.996|0.950|
90800201|NCT00902330|181478934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Spearman correlation coefficients were computed for the biomarkers. P-Values shown are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was P less than 0.05. This information applies to all rows listed in the table.||||<0.05
90800202|NCT03571971|181478972|SUPERIORITY|Based on published data, we conservatively estimated that the standard exercise (SE) group and load modification (LM) group would have a 20% and 50% treatment success rate, respectively. We defined treatment success as either: 1) at least 'moderately better' on the Global Rating of Change scale or 2) ≥2 point decrease on the Numeric Pain Rating Scale. With one-side type I error=0.1, power=80%, and allocation ratio is 1:1, we estimated the need for 22 participants in each group (total N=44).|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|3.35||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||3.35|0.36|0.879
90890319|NCT01201629|181645131|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
90890320|NCT01581281|181645150|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71||||0.2636|TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.34|1.48||A Bonferroni approach was used to control the type I error rate. Because there were three comparisons, the Bonferroni corrected level of significance is 0.017 (= 0.05 / 3).|Regression, Logistic|||"Logistic regression models were used to estimate the odds of successful primary endpoint for amitriptyline relative to placebo. The analyses followed the intention to treat principle, imputing an outcome of failure for any participant who withdrew early for any reason or did not provide week 24 headache diary data (endpoint data). The models, and corresponding odds ratios, were adjusted for the two stratification variables (age and baseline number of headache days)."||1.48|0.34|0.2636
90800203|NCT04067492|181478979|OTHER|"The study was planned to randomize 85 patients: 15 patients in the RPH-104 4 mg group, and 14 patients in the RPH-104 20 mg, 40 mg, 80 mg and 160 mg groups each, a total of 14 patients in the Voltaren® (diclofenac) group.~The sample size was calculated assuming a standard deviation of 26 mm for change in pain intensity at 72 hours."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.63||||0.1331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.21|53.05||p-value, group|ANCOVA||Adjusted mean difference. Comparison with the control group \[RPH-104 - Diclofenac\].|It was assumed that the sample size would allow constructing a 95% CI around the mean change in pain intensity at 72 hours after the start of the investigational product use in each group with an accuracy of 30 mm change in pain intensity and would reveal statistically significant differences between the groups in pairwise comparisons, without control for type I error for multiple comparisons, taking into account the type I error α = 5%, if the difference between the compared groups is ≥ 20 mm.||53.05|4.21|0.1331
90800204|NCT04067492|181478979|OTHER|"The study was planned to randomize 85 patients: 15 patients in the RPH-104 4 mg group, and 14 patients in the RPH-104 20 mg, 40 mg, 80 mg and 160 mg groups each, a total of 14 patients in the Voltaren® (diclofenac) group.~The sample size was calculated assuming a standard deviation of 26 mm for change in pain intensity at 72 hours."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.05||||0.1331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.6|26.5||p-value, group|ANCOVA||Adjusted mean difference. Comparison with the control group \[RPH-104 - Diclofenac\].|It was assumed that the sample size would allow constructing a 95% CI around the mean change in pain intensity at 72 hours after the start of the investigational product use in each group with an accuracy of 30 mm change in pain intensity and would reveal statistically significant differences between the groups in pairwise comparisons, without control for type I error for multiple comparisons, taking into account the type I error α = 5%, if the difference between the compared groups is ≥ 20 mm.||26.50|-30.60|0.1331
90800205|NCT04067492|181478979|OTHER|"The study was planned to randomize 85 patients: 15 patients in the RPH-104 4 mg group, and 14 patients in the RPH-104 20 mg, 40 mg, 80 mg and 160 mg groups each, a total of 14 patients in the Voltaren® (diclofenac) group.~The sample size was calculated assuming a standard deviation of 26 mm for change in pain intensity at 72 hours."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.7||||0.1331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.67|46.08||p-value, group|ANCOVA||Adjusted mean difference. Comparison with the control group \[RPH-104 - Diclofenac\].|It was assumed that the sample size would allow constructing a 95% CI around the mean change in pain intensity at 72 hours after the start of the investigational product use in each group with an accuracy of 30 mm change in pain intensity and would reveal statistically significant differences between the groups in pairwise comparisons, without control for type I error for multiple comparisons, taking into account the type I error α = 5%, if the difference between the compared groups is ≥ 20 mm.||46.08|-12.67|0.1331
90800206|NCT04067492|181478979|OTHER|"The study was planned to randomize 85 patients: 15 patients in the RPH-104 4 mg group, and 14 patients in the RPH-104 20 mg, 40 mg, 80 mg and 160 mg groups each, a total of 14 patients in the Voltaren® (diclofenac) group.~The sample size was calculated assuming a standard deviation of 26 mm for change in pain intensity at 72 hours."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.12||||0.1331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.1|31.33||p-value, group|ANCOVA||Adjusted mean difference. Comparison with the control group \[RPH-104 - Diclofenac\]|It was assumed that the sample size would allow constructing a 95% CI around the mean change in pain intensity at 72 hours after the start of the investigational product use in each group with an accuracy of 30 mm change in pain intensity and would reveal statistically significant differences between the groups in pairwise comparisons, without control for type I error for multiple comparisons, taking into account the type I error α = 5%, if the difference between the compared groups is ≥ 20 mm.||31.33|-25.10|0.1331
90800207|NCT04067492|181478979|OTHER|"The study was planned to randomize 85 patients: 15 patients in the RPH-104 4 mg group, and 14 patients in the RPH-104 20 mg, 40 mg, 80 mg and 160 mg groups each, a total of 14 patients in the Voltaren® (diclofenac) group.~The sample size was calculated assuming a standard deviation of 26 mm for change in pain intensity at 72 hours."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.96||||0.1331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.22|36.14||p-value, group|ANCOVA||Adjusted mean difference. Comparison with the control group \[RPH-104 - Diclofenac\].|It was assumed that the sample size would allow constructing a 95% CI around the mean change in pain intensity at 72 hours after the start of the investigational product use in each group with an accuracy of 30 mm change in pain intensity and would reveal statistically significant differences between the groups in pairwise comparisons, without control for type I error for multiple comparisons, taking into account the type I error α = 5%, if the difference between the compared groups is ≥ 20 mm.||36.14|-24.22|0.1331
90800208|NCT04067492|181478986|OTHER|||||||0.5995|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.5995
90800209|NCT04067492|181478986|OTHER|||||||0.9012|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.9012
90800210|NCT04067492|181478988|OTHER||difference in proportions|63.5||||0.0066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.9|88.6|||Fisher Exact|||||88.6|19.9|0.0066
90800211|NCT04067492|181478988|OTHER||difference in proportions|-5.6|||>|0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.1|45.5|||Fisher Exact|||||45.5|-50.1|>0.9999
90800212|NCT04067492|181478988|OTHER||difference in proportions|27.8||||0.3287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.8|71.8|||Fisher Exact|||||71.8|-26.8|0.3287
91013116|NCT02777554|181909037|OTHER||Ratio (%) of Geometric Means|86.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.9|98.7|||||Geometric mean ratio (Apremilast 75 mg XL (Fasted) / Apremilast 75 mg XL (Standard Meal)) from an ANOVA model, expressed as a percentage.|To estimate the effect of food on the PK of a single oral dose of extended release apremilast (QD), an ANOVA model with treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects, and subject nested within sequence as a random effect, was performed on the natural log-transformed AUC0-t of apremilast.||98.7|74.9|
91013117|NCT02777554|181909037|OTHER||Ratio (%) of Geometric Means|97.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.9|111.6|||||Geometric mean ratio (Apremilast 75 mg XL (High Fat) / Apremilast 75 mg XL (Standard Meal)) from an ANOVA model, expressed as a percentage.|To estimate the effect of food on the PK of a single oral dose of extended release apremilast (QD), an ANOVA model with treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects, and subject nested within sequence as a random effect, was performed on the natural log-transformed AUC0-t of apremilast.||111.6|84.9|
90800213|NCT04067492|181478988|OTHER||difference in proportions|27.8||||0.3287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.8|71.8|||Fisher Exact|||||71.8|-26.8|0.3287
90800214|NCT04067492|181478988|OTHER||difference in proportions|17.8||||0.5804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.7|67.8|||Fisher Exact|||||67.8|-33.7|0.5804
91054167|NCT02912650|181990995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|11.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.29|14.56|||ANOVA|||0-8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||14.56|8.29|<0.001
90800215|NCT00956384|181479012|SUPERIORITY|A minimally clinically important difference of 4 as statistically significant at the 0.05 level (two-sided), with a power equal to 0.85.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.69||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.57|5.19||Threshold for statistical significance was p= 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||For the comparison of mean BREAST-Q subdomain score at each timepoint, Mann-Whitney U test was used for skewed data, while independent t-test was used for not skewed data. We investigated the possibly variable effects of the treatment group differences across multiple time-points, namely 2 weeks after mastectomy, at 6 months and at 12 months following the reconstruction procedure. A linear regression model was used to account for the correlation between the three time-points within each patient||5.19|-10.57|0.05
90800216|NCT00956384|181479013|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||We assessed the effect of the surgical method on the occurrences of any complications versus none via logistic regression, and results were expressed as odds ratios with 95% CIs.||||<0.05
90800217|NCT03950856|181479018|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|1.3||||0.538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|4.8|||Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 Combined Lots minus Prevnar 13™|Injection site erythema: V114 Combined Lots - Prevnar 13™||4.8|-3.3|0.538
90800218|NCT03950856|181479018|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|14.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.9|21.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 Combined Lots minus Prevnar 13™|Injection site pain: V114 Combined Lots - Prevnar 13™||21.4|7.9|<0.001
90800219|NCT03950856|181479018|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|1.0||||0.686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|5.3|||Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 Combined Lots minus Prevnar 13™|Injection site swelling: V114 Combined Lots - Prevnar 13™||5.3|-4.3|0.686
90800220|NCT03950856|181479020|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|2.0||||0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|4.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 Combined Lots minus Prevnar 13™|Arthralgia: V114 Combined Lots - Prevnar 13™||4.7|-1.9|0.272
90800221|NCT03950856|181479020|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-0.7||||0.812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|4.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 Combined Lots minus Prevnar 13™|Fatigue: V114 Combined Lots - Prevnar 13™||4.5|-6.7|0.812
91013118|NCT02777554|181909037|OTHER||Ratio (%) of Geometric Means|113.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.8|129.7|||||Geometric mean ratio (Apremilast 75 mg XL (High Fat) / Apremilast 75 mg XL (Fasted)) from an ANOVA model, expressed as a percentage.|To estimate the effect of food on the PK of a single oral dose of extended release apremilast (QD), an ANOVA model with treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects, and subject nested within sequence as a random effect, was performed on the natural log-transformed AUC0-t of apremilast.||129.7|98.8|
90800222|NCT03950856|181479020|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.2||||0.947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|5.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 Combined Lots minus Prevnar 13™|Headache: V114 Combined Lots - Prevnar 13™||5.0|-5.6|0.947
90800223|NCT03950856|181479020|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|5.2||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|10.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 Combined Lots minus Prevnar 13™|Myalgia: V114 Combined Lots - Prevnar 13™||10.4|-0.9|0.091
91013119|NCT02777554|181909038|OTHER||Ratio (%) of Geometric Means|92.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.1|105.9|||||Geometric mean ratio (Apremilast 75 mg XL / Apremilast 30 mg IR BID) from an ANOVA model, expressed as a percentage.|To estimate the exposure of apremilast following single dose administration of extended release (QD) relative to the Reference IR (BID) tablet under fasted conditions, an ANOVA model with treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects, and subject nested within sequence as a random effect, was performed on the natural log-transformed AUC0-∞ of apremilast.||105.9|81.1|
91054168|NCT02912650|181990995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|16.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.53|21.36|||ANOVA|||0-8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||21.36|12.53|<0.001
90800224|NCT03950856|181479022|OTHER||Miettinen & Nurminen|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.2|||||V114 Combined Lots minus Prevnar 13™|V114 Combined Lots - Prevnar 13™||0.2|-1.6|
90800225|NCT03950856|181479023|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|0.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.18||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 1 divided by Lot 2|Serotype 1: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 2|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.18|0.83|<0.001
90800226|NCT03950856|181479023|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|1.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.24||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 1 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 1: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 3|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.24|0.87|<0.001
90800227|NCT03950856|181479023|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|1.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.25||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 2 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 1: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 2 / V114 Lot 3|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.25|0.88|<0.001
90800228|NCT03950856|181479023|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|0.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|0.97||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 1 divided by Lot 2|Serotype 3: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 2|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|0.97|0.75|<0.001
90800229|NCT03950856|181479023|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|0.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.05||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 1 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 3: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 3|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.05|0.81|<0.001
90800230|NCT03950856|181479023|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|1.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.23||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 2 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 3: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 2 / V114 Lot 3|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.23|0.95|<0.001
90800231|NCT03950856|181479023|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|0.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.97||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 1 divided by Lot 2|Serotype 4: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 2|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|0.97|0.70|<0.001
90800232|NCT03950856|181479023|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.18||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 1 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 4: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 3|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.18|0.85|<0.001
90800233|NCT03950856|181479023|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|1.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.43||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 2 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 4: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 2 / V114 Lot 3|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.43|1.03|<0.001
90800234|NCT03950856|181479023|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|0.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.02||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 1 divided by Lot 2|Serotype 5: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 2|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.02|0.70|<0.001
90800235|NCT03950856|181479023|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.2||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 1 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 5: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 3|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.20|0.83|<0.001
90800236|NCT03950856|181479023|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|1.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.42||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 2 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 5: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 2 / V114 Lot 3|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.42|0.98|<0.001
90800237|NCT03950856|181479023|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|0.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.12||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 1 divided by Lot 2|Serotype 6A: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 2|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.12|0.82|<0.001
90800238|NCT03950856|181479023|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|0.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.12||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 1 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 6A: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 3|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.12|0.82|<0.001
90800239|NCT03950856|181479023|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|0.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.16||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 2 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 6A: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 2 / V114 Lot 3|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.16|0.85|<0.001
90800240|NCT03950856|181479023|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|0.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.12||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 1 divided by Lot 2|Serotype 6B: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 2|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.12|0.82|<0.001
90800241|NCT03950856|181479023|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|1.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.18||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 1 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 6B: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 3|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.18|0.86|<0.001
90800242|NCT03950856|181479023|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|1.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.23||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 2 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 6B: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 2 / V114 Lot 3|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.23|0.90|<0.001
90800243|NCT03950856|181479023|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|0.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.93||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 1 divided by Lot 2|Serotype 7F: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 2|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|0.93|0.72|<0.001
90800244|NCT03950856|181479023|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|0.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.01||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 1 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 7F: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 3|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.01|0.79|<0.001
91054169|NCT02912650|181990995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|10.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.07|14.97|||ANOVA|||0-8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||14.97|6.07|<0.001
90800245|NCT03950856|181479023|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|1.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.24||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 2 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 7F: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 2 / V114 Lot 3|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.24|0.96|<0.001
90800246|NCT03950856|181479023|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|1.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.16||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 1 divided by Lot 2|Serotype 9V: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 2|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.16|0.88|<0.001
90800247|NCT03950856|181479023|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|0.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.12||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 1 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 9V: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 3|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.12|0.85|<0.001
90800248|NCT03950856|181479023|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|0.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.11||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 2 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 9V: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 2 / V114 Lot 3|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.11|0.84|<0.001
90800249|NCT03950856|181479023|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|0.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.1||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 1 divided by Lot 2|Serotype 14: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 2|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.10|0.81|<0.001
90800250|NCT03950856|181479023|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|1.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.34||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 1 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 14: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 3|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.34|0.99|<0.001
90800251|NCT03950856|181479023|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|1.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.43||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 2 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 14: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 2 / V114 Lot 3|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.43|1.05|<0.001
91013120|NCT02777554|181909038|OTHER||Ratio (%) of Geometric Means|86.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.0|98.8|||||Geometric mean ratio (Apremilast 75 mg XL (Fasted) / Apremilast 75 mg XL (Standard Meal)) from an ANOVA model, expressed as a percentage.|To estimate the effect of food on the PK of a single oral dose of extended release apremilast (QD), an ANOVA model with treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects, and subject nested within sequence as a random effect, was performed on the natural log-transformed AUC0-∞ of apremilast.||98.8|75.0|
91013121|NCT02777554|181909038|OTHER||Ratio (%) of Geometric Means|97.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.0|111.8|||||Geometric mean ratio (Apremilast 75 mg XL (High Fat) / Apremilast 75 mg XL (Standard Meal)) from an ANOVA model, expressed as a percentage.|To estimate the effect of food on the PK of a single oral dose of extended release apremilast (QD), an ANOVA model with treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects, and subject nested within sequence as a random effect, was performed on the natural log-transformed AUC0-∞ of apremilast.||111.8|85.0|
90800252|NCT03950856|181479023|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|1.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.26||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 1 divided by Lot 2|Serotype 18C: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 2|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.26|0.96|<0.001
90800253|NCT03950856|181479023|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|1.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.31||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 1 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 18C: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 3|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.31|1.00|<0.001
91013122|NCT02777554|181909038|OTHER||Ratio (%) of Geometric Means|113.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.8|129.7|||||Geometric mean ratio (Apremilast 75 mg XL (High Fat) / Apremilast 75 mg XL (Fasted)) from an ANOVA model, expressed as a percentage.|To estimate the effect of food on the PK of a single oral dose of extended release apremilast (QD), an ANOVA model with treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects, and subject nested within sequence as a random effect, was performed on the natural log-transformed AUC0-∞ of apremilast.||129.7|98.8|
90800254|NCT03950856|181479023|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|1.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.19||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 2 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 18C: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 2 / V114 Lot 3|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.19|0.91|<0.001
90800255|NCT03950856|181479023|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|0.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.02||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 1 divided by Lot 2|Serotype 19A: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 2|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.02|0.79|<0.001
90800256|NCT03950856|181479023|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|0.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.1||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 1 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 19A: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 3|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.10|0.85|<0.001
90800257|NCT03950856|181479023|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|1.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.22||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 2 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 19A: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 2 / V114 Lot 3|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.22|0.95|<0.001
90800258|NCT03950856|181479023|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|0.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.05||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 1 divided by Lot 2|Serotype 19F: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 2|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.05|0.81|<0.001
90800259|NCT03950856|181479023|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|0.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.07||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 1 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 19F: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 3|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.07|0.82|<0.001
90800260|NCT03950856|181479023|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|1.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.15||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 2 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 19F: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 2 / V114 Lot 3|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.15|0.89|<0.001
90800261|NCT03950856|181479023|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|0.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.1||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 1 divided by Lot 2|Serotype 23F: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 2|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.10|0.77|<0.001
90800262|NCT03950856|181479023|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|1.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.24||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 1 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 23F: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 3|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.24|0.87|<0.001
90800263|NCT03950856|181479023|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|1.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.35||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 2 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 23F: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 2 / V114 Lot 3|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.35|0.95|<0.001
90800264|NCT03950856|181479023|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|0.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.11||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 1 divided by Lot 2|Serotype 22F: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 2|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.11|0.81|<0.001
90800265|NCT03950856|181479023|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|0.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.14||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 1 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 22F: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 3|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.14|0.84|<0.001
90800266|NCT03950856|181479023|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|1.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.21||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 2 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 22F: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 2 / V114 Lot 3|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.21|0.88|<0.001
91054170|NCT02912650|181990995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|9.55|||ANOVA|||0-8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||9.55|3.30|<0.001
90800267|NCT03950856|181479023|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.16||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 1 divided by Lot 2|Serotype 33F: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 2|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.16|0.86|<0.001
90800268|NCT03950856|181479023|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|1.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.22||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 1 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 33F: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 3|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.22|0.91|<0.001
90800269|NCT03950856|181479023|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|1.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.22||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 2 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 33F: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 2 / V114 Lot 3|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.22|0.90|<0.001
90800270|NCT03950856|181479024|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.1|||||Lot 1 divided by Lot 2|Serotype 1: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 2|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.10|0.84|
90800271|NCT03950856|181479024|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.17|||||Lot 1 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 1: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 3|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.17|0.89|
90800272|NCT03950856|181479024|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.21|||||Lot 2 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 1: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 2 / V114 Lot 3|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.21|0.92|
90800273|NCT03950856|181479024|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.95|||||Lot 1 divided by Lot 2|Serotype 3: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 2|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|0.95|0.77|
90800274|NCT03950856|181479024|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.13|||||Lot 1 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 3: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 3|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.13|0.91|
90800275|NCT03950856|181479024|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.32|||||Lot 2 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 3: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 2 / V114 Lot 3|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.32|1.06|
91013123|NCT01966458|181909071|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 6% was pre-specified.|Risk Difference (RD)|2.6||||0.1444|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.5|10.7|||Farrington-Manning asymptotic test||Difference = HeartWare® VAS incidence rate - Control incidence rate Two-sided 90% exact binomial confident interval is used.|The primary endpoint is a non-inferiority test comparing HeartWare® VAS to Control.||10.7|-5.5|0.1444
91013124|NCT01966458|181909072|SUPERIORITY||Percent of Participants|19.2||||0.7363|TWO_SIDED|90.0|15.6|23.3|||Exact Binomial Test||Two-sided exact binomial confidence interval used|The first secondary endpoint is the percent of participants with stroke/TIA at 12 months on the originally implanted device. It will be compared to 17.7%, which is the lower bound of a pre-defined margin of superiority based on the Endurance clinical trial.||23.3|15.6|0.7363
91013125|NCT01966458|181909073|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin on the difference in success proportions is 15%.|Difference in Percentages|-9.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.2|-1.1|||Farrington-Manning asymptotic test||Difference = Control success rate - HeartWare® VAS success rate Two-sided 90% exact binomial confidence interval is used|||-1.1|-17.2|<0.0001
90800276|NCT03950856|181479024|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.94|||||Lot 1 divided by Lot 2|Serotype 4: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 2|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|0.94|0.72|
90800277|NCT03950856|181479024|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.23|||||Lot 1 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 4: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 3|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.23|0.94|
90800278|NCT03950856|181479024|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.5||||P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 2 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 4: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 2 / V114 Lot 3|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.50|1.14|
90800279|NCT03950856|181479024|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.95|||||Lot 1 divided by Lot 2|Serotype 5: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 2|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|0.95|0.72|
90800280|NCT03950856|181479024|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.11|||||Lot 1 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 5: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 3|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.11|0.84|
90800281|NCT03950856|181479024|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.35|||||Lot 2 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 5: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 2 / V114 Lot 3|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.35|1.02|
90800282|NCT03950856|181479024|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.07|||||Lot 1 divided by Lot 2|Serotype 6A: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 2|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.07|0.78|
90800283|NCT03950856|181479024|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.16|||||Lot 1 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 6A: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 3|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.16|0.85|
90800284|NCT03950856|181479024|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.27|||||Lot 2 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 6A: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 2 / V114 Lot 3|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.27|0.93|
90800285|NCT03950856|181479024|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.11|||||Lot 1 divided by Lot 2|Serotype 6B: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 2|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.11|0.82|
90800286|NCT03950856|181479024|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.22|||||Lot 1 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 6B: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 3|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.22|0.90|
90800287|NCT03950856|181479024|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.28|||||Lot 2 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 6B: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 2 / V114 Lot 3|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.28|0.94|
90800288|NCT03950856|181479024|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.92|||||Lot 1 divided by Lot 2|Serotype 7F: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 2|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|0.92|0.70|
90800289|NCT03950856|181479024|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.1|||||Lot 1 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 7F: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 3|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.10|0.84|
90800290|NCT03950856|181479024|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.37|||||Lot 2 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 7F: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 2 / V114 Lot 3|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.37|1.04|
90800291|NCT03950856|181479024|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.08|||l||Lot 1 divided by Lot 2|Serotype 9V: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 2|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.08|0.83|
90800292|NCT03950856|181479024|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.13|||||Lot 1 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 9V: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 3|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.13|0.87|
90800293|NCT03950856|181479024|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.19|||||Lot 2 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 9V: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 2 / V114 Lot 3|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.19|0.91|
90800294|NCT03950856|181479024|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.0|||||Lot 1 divided by Lot 2|Serotype 14: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 2|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.00|0.75|
91013126|NCT01966458|181909073|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0354|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0354
91013127|NCT01458535|181909074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.157|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.157
91013128|NCT01458535|181909074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.999|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.999
90800295|NCT03950856|181479024|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.31|||||Lot 1 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 14: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 3|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.31|0.98|
90800296|NCT03950856|181479024|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.52|||||Lot 2 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 14: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 2 / V114 Lot 3|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.52|1.14|
90800297|NCT03950856|181479024|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.36|||||Lot 1 divided by Lot 2|Serotype 18C: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 2|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.36|1.04|
90800298|NCT03950856|181479024|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|1.51|||||Lot 1 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 18C: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 3|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.51|1.15|
90800299|NCT03950856|181479024|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.27|||||Lot 2 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 18C: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 2 / V114 Lot 3|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.27|0.97|
90800300|NCT03950856|181479024|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.02|||||Lot 1 divided by Lot 2|Serotype 19A: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 2|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.02|0.78|
90800301|NCT03950856|181479024|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.11|||||Lot 1 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 19A: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 3|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.11|0.86|
90800302|NCT03950856|181479024|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.25|||||Lot 2 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 19A: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 2 / V114 Lot 3|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.25|0.96|
90800303|NCT03950856|181479024|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.0|||||Lot 1 divided by Lot 2|Serotype 19F: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 2|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.00|0.76|
90800304|NCT03950856|181479024|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.05|||||Lot 1 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 19F: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 3|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.05|0.80|
90800305|NCT03950856|181479024|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.21|||||Lot 2 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 19F: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 2 / V114 Lot 3|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.21|0.92|
90800306|NCT03950856|181479024|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.07|||||Lot 1 divided by Lot 2|Serotype 23F: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 2|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.07|0.80|
90800307|NCT03950856|181479024|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.15|||||Lot 1 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 23F: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 3|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.15|0.86|
90800308|NCT03950856|181479024|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.24|||||Lot 2 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 23F: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 2 / V114 Lot 3|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.24|0.93|
90800309|NCT03950856|181479024|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.08|||||Lot 1 divided by Lot 2|Serotype 22F: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 2|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.08|0.81|
90800310|NCT03950856|181479024|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.26|||||Lot 1 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 22F: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 3|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.26|0.93|
90800311|NCT03950856|181479024|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.35|||||Lot 2 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 22F: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 2 / V114 Lot 3|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.35|1.00|
90800312|NCT03950856|181479024|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.06|||||Lot 1 divided by Lot 2|Serotype 33F: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 2|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.06|0.79|
90800313|NCT03950856|181479024|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.22|||||Lot 1 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 33F: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 3|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.22|0.90|
90800314|NCT03950856|181479024|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.34|||||Lot 2 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 33F: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 2 / V114 Lot 3|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.34|0.99|
90800315|NCT03950856|181479025|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.91|||||V114 Combined Lots divided by Prevnar 13™|Serotype 1: GMC Ratio V114 Combined Lots / Prevnar 13™|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|0.91|0.62|
90800316|NCT03950856|181479025|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|1.61|||||V114 Combined Lots divided by Prevnar 13™|Serotype 3: GMC Ratio V114 Combined Lots / Prevnar 13™|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.61|1.20|
90800317|NCT03950856|181479025|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.94|||||V114 Combined Lots divided by Prevnar 13™|Serotype 4: GMC Ratio V114 Combined Lots / Prevnar 13™|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|0.94|0.66|
90800318|NCT03950856|181479025|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.07|||||V114 Combined Lots divided by Prevnar 13™|Serotype 5: GMC Ratio V114 Combined Lots / Prevnar 13™|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.07|0.74|
90800319|NCT03950856|181479025|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.43|||||V114 Combined Lots divided by Prevnar 13™|Serotype 6A: GMC Ratio V114 Combined Lots / Prevnar 13™|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.43|0.95|
90800320|NCT03950856|181479025|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|1.86|||||V114 Combined Lots divided by Prevnar 13™|Serotype 6B: GMC Ratio V114 Combined Lots / Prevnar 13™|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.86|1.21|
90800321|NCT03950856|181479025|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.04|||||V114 Combined Lots divided by Prevnar 13™|Serotype 7F: GMC Ratio V114 Combined Lots / Prevnar 13™|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.04|0.73|
90800322|NCT03950856|181479025|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.04|||||V114 Combined Lots divided by Prevnar 13™|Serotype 9V: GMC Ratio V114 Combined Lots / Prevnar 13™|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.04|0.72|
90800323|NCT03950856|181479025|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.2|||||V114 Combined Lots divided by Prevnar 13™|Serotype 14: GMC Ratio V114 Combined Lots / Prevnar 13™|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.20|0.82|
90800324|NCT03950856|181479025|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.51|||||V114 Combined Lots divided by Prevnar 13™|Serotype 18C: GMC Ratio V114 Combined Lots / Prevnar 13™|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.51|1.05|
91013129|NCT01458535|181909074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.045|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.045
91013130|NCT00151775|181909081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0008||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Non-weight adjusted dosage||||0.0008
91013131|NCT00151775|181909081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Weight adjusted dosage||||<0.0001
90800325|NCT03950856|181479025|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.15|||||V114 Combined Lots divided by Prevnar 13™|Serotype 19A: GMC Ratio V114 Combined Lots / Prevnar 13™|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.15|0.82|
90800326|NCT03950856|181479025|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.23|||||V114 Combined Lots divided by Prevnar 13™|Serotype 19F: GMC Ratio V114 Combined Lots / Prevnar 13™|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.23|0.86|
90800327|NCT03950856|181479025|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.54|||||V114 Combined Lots divided by Prevnar 13™|Serotype 23F: GMC Ratio V114 Combined Lots / Prevnar 13™|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.54|1.03|
90800328|NCT03950856|181479025|OTHER||GMC Ratio|12.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.11|14.74|||||V114 Combined Lots divided by Prevnar 13™|Serotype 22F: GMC Ratio V114 Combined Lots / Prevnar 13™|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|14.74|10.11|
90800329|NCT03950856|181479025|OTHER||GMC Ratio|9.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.96|11.13|||||V114 Combined Lots divided by Prevnar 13™|Serotype 33F: GMC Ratio V114 Combined Lots / Prevnar 13™|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|11.13|7.96|
90800330|NCT01147302|181479039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean treatment difference|8.89||||0.6498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.65|42.42||The p-value for testing the mean for the treatment difference comparison assessed from ANOVA model analysis for CINRYZE versus placebo.|ANOVA|||Analysis of C4d score||42.42|-24.65|0.6498
90800331|NCT01147302|181479039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean treatment difference|18.56||||0.0768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|35.68||The p-value for testing the mean for the treatment difference comparison assessed from ANOVA model analysis for CINRYZE versus placebo.|ANOVA|||Analysis of margination score||35.68|1.43|0.0768
90800332|NCT01147302|181479039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean treatment difference|-4.0||||0.6928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.36|13.36||The p-value for testing the mean for the treatment difference comparison assessed from ANOVA model analysis for CINRYZE versus placebo.|ANOVA|||Analysis of glomerulitis score||13.36|-21.36|0.6928
90800333|NCT01147302|181479039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean treatment difference|7.11||||0.0508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|12.99||The p-value for testing the mean for the treatment difference comparison assessed from ANOVA model analysis for CINRYZE versus placebo.|ANOVA|||Analysis of vasculitis score||12.99|1.23|0.0508
90800334|NCT01147302|181479039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean treatment difference|-4.89||||0.2042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.34|1.56||The p-value for testing the mean for the treatment difference comparison assessed from ANOVA model analysis for CINRYZE versus placebo.|ANOVA|||Analysis of glomerulosclerosis score||1.56|-11.34|0.2042
90800335|NCT01147302|181479039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean treatment difference|-0.22||||0.3322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.17||The p-value for testing the mean for the treatment difference comparison assessed from ANOVA model analysis for CINRYZE versus placebo.|ANOVA|||Analysis of chronic glomerulopathy score||0.17|-0.61|0.3322
90800336|NCT01147302|181479039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean treatment difference|5.67||||0.4723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.77|9.11||The p-value for testing the mean for the treatment difference comparison assessed from ANOVA model analysis for CINRYZE versus placebo.|ANOVA|||Analysis of interstitial fibrosis score||9.11|-7.77|0.4723
90800337|NCT01147302|181479039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean treatment difference|4.56||||0.5103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.25|16.37||The p-value for testing the mean for the treatment difference comparison assessed from ANOVA model analysis for CINRYZE versus placebo.|ANOVA|||Analysis of chronic vasculitis score||16.37|-7.25|0.5103
90800338|NCT01147302|181479040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean treatment difference|0.08||||0.7591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.51||The p-value for testing the mean for the treatment difference comparison assessed from ANOVA model analysis for CINRYZE versus placebo.|ANOVA|||Analysis of Day 20||0.51|-0.35|0.7591
90800339|NCT01147302|181479040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean treatment difference|-0.01||||0.9533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.41||The p-value for testing the mean for the treatment difference comparison assessed from ANOVA model analysis for CINRYZE versus placebo.|ANOVA|||Analysis of Day 90||0.41|-0.44|0.9533
90800340|NCT01147302|181479041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean treatment difference|1.45||||0.9046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.34|22.24||The p-value for testing the mean for the treatment difference comparison assessed from ANOVA model analysis for CINRYZE versus placebo.|ANOVA|||Analysis of Day 20||22.24|-19.34|0.9046
90800341|NCT01147302|181479041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean treatment difference|4.68||||0.5895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.19|19.55||The p-value for testing the mean for the treatment difference comparison assessed from ANOVA model analysis for CINRYZE versus placebo.|ANOVA|||Analysis of Day 90||19.55|-10.19|0.5895
90800342|NCT01147302|181479042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean treatment difference|1.56||||0.4558|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.0|5.11||The p-value for testing the mean for the treatment difference comparison assessed from ANOVA model analysis for CINRYZE versus placebo.|ANOVA|||Analysis of Day 1 through Day 20||5.11|-2.00|0.4558
90800343|NCT01147302|181479042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean treatment difference|0.24||||0.947|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.05|6.52||The p-value for testing the mean for the treatment difference comparison assessed from ANOVA model analysis for CINRYZE versus placebo.|ANOVA|||Analysis of Day 1 through Day 90||6.52|-6.05|0.9470
90800344|NCT04422431|181479087|OTHER|||||||0.1002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1002
90800345|NCT01174563|181479114|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.83|||Log Rank|||||0.83|0.41|0.005
90800346|NCT00444106|181479125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||One-sided exact test for a single propn.|One-sided exact test for a single proportion.||"One-sided null hypothesis that the incidence rate of ABR Wave III latency changes is greater than or equal to 15%.~Increase in ABR Wave III latency between baseline and Day 7 of greater than 0.3 ms."||||<.0001
90800347|NCT04704193|181479129|OTHER|This arm includes descriptive statistics only.|count with proportion|0.955|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.888|0.987||||||"Descriptive statistics only/proportion reported good or excellent~Q1a. Genetic testing is a blood test that looks for mutations in genes that can increase cancer risk"||.987|.888|
90800348|NCT04704193|181479129|OTHER|This arm includes descriptive statistics only.|count with proportion|0.931|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.856|0.974||||||"Descriptive statistics only/proportion reported good or excellent~Q1b. Genetic test results may help guide my treatment options"||.974|.856|
90800349|NCT04704193|181479129|OTHER|This arm includes descriptive statistics only.|count with proportion|0.943|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.872|0.981||||||"Descriptive statistics only/proportion reported good or excellent~Q1c. Genetic test results may help me understand the future risks of other cancers"||.981|.872|
91013132|NCT00151775|181909081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0032||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Non-weight adjusted dosage||||0.0032
90800350|NCT04704193|181479129|OTHER|This arm includes descriptive statistics only.|count with proportion|0.851|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.758|0.918||||||"Descriptive statistics only/proportion reported good or excellent~Q1d. Genetic test results may increase stress to me and my family members"||.918|.758|
90800351|NCT04704193|181479129|OTHER|This arm includes descriptive statistics only.|count with proportion|0.931|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.856|0.974||||||"Descriptive statistics only/proportion reported good or excellent~Q1e. There are 3 gene panel options that include either a small, medium, or large number of genes"||.974|.856|
90800352|NCT04704193|181479129|OTHER|This arm includes descriptive statistics only.|count with proportion|0.919|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.839|0.967||||||"Descriptive statistics only/proportion reported good or excellent~Q1f. Gene test results may come back as positive, negative or uncertain"||.967|.839|
90800353|NCT04704193|181479130|OTHER|Summary statistics only|Mean|13.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.6|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90800354|NCT05270863|181479131|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<.001
90800355|NCT03384875|181479138|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||0.517|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.517
91013133|NCT00151775|181909081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0265||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Weight adjusted dosage||||0.0265
90800356|NCT03531814|181479164|OTHER|||||||0.006||||||The Greenhouse-Geisser correction was used because Mauchly's test of sphericity was significant. The reported p-value represents the probability of the differences in the averages of adherence assessment methods for cycles 1-4.|ANOVA|||||||0.006
90800357|NCT03531814|181479164|OTHER|||||||0.021||||||The Greenhouse-Geisser correction was used because Mauchly's test of sphericity was significant. The reported p-value represents the probability of the differences in the averages of adherence assessment methods for cycles 5-8.|ANOVA|||||||0.021
90800358|NCT03531814|181479164|OTHER|||||||0.034||||||The Greenhouse-Geisser correction was used because Mauchly's test of sphericity was significant. The reported p-value represents the probability of the differences in the averages of adherence assessment methods for cycles 9-12.|ANOVA|||||||.034
90800359|NCT03531814|181479164|OTHER|||||||0.04||||||The Greenhouse-Geisser correction was used because Mauchly's test of sphericity was significant. The reported p-value represents the probability of the differences in the averages of adherence assessment methods for cycles 13-18.|ANOVA|||||||.040
90800360|NCT03531814|181479165|OTHER||Spearman's correlation|-0.21||||0.536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.729|0.463||The reported p-value represents the probability that the strength of the relationship is due to chance at cycles 1-4.|Spearman correlation (non-parametric)|||||0.463|-0.729|0.536
90800361|NCT03531814|181479165|OTHER||Spearman's correlation|0.134||||0.713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.557|0.715||The reported p-value represents the probability that the strength of the relationship is due to chance at cycles 5-8.|Spearman correlation (non-parametric)|||||0.715|-0.557|.713
90800362|NCT03531814|181479165|OTHER||Spearman's correlation|0.095||||0.823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.668|0.761||The reported p-value represents the probability that the strength of the relationship is due to chance at cycles 9-12.|Spearman correlation (non-parametric)|||||0.761|-0.668|.823
90800363|NCT03531814|181479165|OTHER||Spearman's correlation|0.333||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.505|0.848||The reported p-value represents the probability that the strength of the relationship is due to chance at cycles 13-18.|Spearman correlation (non-parametric)|||||0.848|-0.505|.420
90800364|NCT03531814|181479166|OTHER||Spearman's correlation|-0.333||||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.785|0.352||The reported p-value represents the probability that the strength of the relationship is due to chance at cycles 1-4.|Spearman correlation (non-parametric)|||||0.352|-0.785|0.317
90800365|NCT03531814|181479166|OTHER||Spearman's correlation|-0.309||||0.385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.794|0.416||The reported p-value represents the probability that the strength of the relationship is due to chance at cycles 5-8.|Spearman correlation (non-parametric)|||||0.416|-0.794|.385
90800366|NCT03531814|181479166|OTHER||Spearman's correlation|-0.259||||0.535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.824|0.563||The reported p-value represents the probability that the strength of the relationship is due to chance at cycles 9-12.|Spearman correlation (non-parametric)|||||0.563|-0.824|.535
91013134|NCT00151775|181909081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Non-weight adjusted dosage||||<0.0001
90800367|NCT03531814|181479166|OTHER||Spearman's correlation|-0.222||||0.597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.811|0.589||The reported p-value represents the probability that the strength of the relationship is due to chance at cycles 13-18.|Spearman correlation (non-parametric)|||||0.589|-0.811|.597
90800368|NCT03531814|181479167|OTHER||Spearman's correlation|-0.215||||0.526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.731|0.459||The reported p-value represents the probability that the strength of the relationship is due to chance at cycles 1-4.|Spearman correlation (non-parametric)|||||0.459|-0.731|0.526
90800369|NCT03531814|181479167|OTHER||Spearman's correlation|0.049||||0.894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.613|0.67||The reported p-value represents the probability that the strength of the relationship is due to chance at cycles 5-8.|Spearman correlation (non-parametric)|||||0.670|-0.613|.894
90800370|NCT03531814|181479167|OTHER||Spearman's correlation|-0.048||||0.911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.694||The reported p-value represents the probability that the strength of the relationship is due to chance at cycles 9-12|Spearman correlation (non-parametric)|||||0.694|-0.740|.911
90800371|NCT03531814|181479167|OTHER||Spearman's correlation|-0.167||||0.693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.626||The reported p-value represents the probability that the strength of the relationship is due to chance at cycles 13-18|Spearman correlation (non-parametric)|||||0.626|-0.790|.693
90800372|NCT03531814|181479168|OTHER||Spearman's correlation|-0.607||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.889|0.009||The reported p-value represents the probability that the strength of the relationship is due to chance at cycles 1-4.|Spearman correlation (non-parametric)|||||0.009|-0.889|0.048
91013135|NCT00151775|181909081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Weight adjusted dosage||||<0.0001
91013136|NCT00151775|181909082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.69||||0.0008||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||A linear regression analysis of olmesartan dose (non-weight adjusted) on the change from baseline in seated systolic blood pressure was carried out. The null hypothesis of zero-slope was tested.||||0.0008
91013137|NCT00151775|181909082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.057||||0.0026||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||A linear regression analysis of olmesartan dose (non-weight adjusted) on the change from baseline in seated diastolic blood pressure was carried out. The null hypothesis of zero-slope was tested.||||0.0026
90800373|NCT03531814|181479168|OTHER||Spearman's correlation|-0.658||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.914|-0.027||The reported p-value represents the probability that the strength of the relationship is due to chance at cycles 5-8.|Spearman correlation (non-parametric)|||||-0.027|-0.914|0.038
90800374|NCT03531814|181479168|OTHER||Spearman's correlation|-0.708||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.945|0.02||The reported p-value represents the probability that the strength of the relationship is due to chance at cycles 9-12.|Spearman correlation (non-parametric)|||||0.020|-0.945|0.50
90800375|NCT03531814|181479168|OTHER||Spearman's correlation|-0.878||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.979|-0.435||The reported p-value represents the probability that the strength of the relationship is due to chance at cycles 13-18.|Spearman correlation (non-parametric)|||||-0.435|-0.979|0.004
90800376|NCT03531814|181479169|OTHER||Spearman's correlation|0.293||||0.382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.768||The reported p-value represents the probability that the strength of the relationship is due to chance at cycles 1-4.|Spearman correlation (non-parametric)|||||0.768|-0.390|0.382
90800377|NCT03531814|181479169|OTHER||Spearman's correlation|0.278||||0.436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.444|0.781||The reported p-value represents the probability that the strength of the relationship is due to chance at cycles 5-8.|Spearman correlation (non-parametric)|||||0.781|-0.444|0.436
90800378|NCT03531814|181479169|OTHER||Spearman's correlation|0.229||||0.586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.585|0.813||The reported p-value represents the probability that the strength of the relationship is due to chance at cycles 9-12.|Spearman correlation (non-parametric)|||||0.813|-0.585|0.586
90800379|NCT03531814|181479169|OTHER||Spearman's correlation|0.53||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.302|0.904||The reported p-value represents the probability that the strength of the relationship is due to chance at cycles 13-18.|Spearman correlation (non-parametric)|||||0.904|-0.302|0.177
90800380|NCT03531814|181479171|OTHER||Spearman's correlation|-0.576||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.879|0.056||The reported p-value represents the probability that the strength of the relationship is due to chance at cycles 1-4.|Spearman correlation (non-parametric)|||||0.056|-0.879|0.063
90800381|NCT03531814|181479171|OTHER||Spearman's correlation|-0.68||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|-0.066||The reported p-value represents the probability that the strength of the relationship is due to chance at cycles 5-8.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||-0.066|-0.920|0.031
90800382|NCT03531814|181479171|OTHER||Spearman's correlation|-0.835||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.971|-0.292||The reported p-value represents the strength of the relationship between the variables at cycles 9-12.|Spearman correlation (non-parametric)|||||-0.292|-0.971|0.010
90800383|NCT03531814|181479171|OTHER||Spearman's correlation|-0.933|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.989|-0.652||The reported p-value represents the probability that the strength of the relationship is due to chance at cycles 13-18.|Spearman correlation (non-parametric)|||||-0.652|-0.989|<0.001
90800384|NCT03531814|181479172|OTHER||Spearman's correlation|-0.035||||0.919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.634|0.591||The reported p-value represents the strength of the relationship between the variables for cycles 1-4.|Spearman correlation|||||0.591|-0.634|0.919
90800385|NCT03531814|181479172|OTHER||Spearman's correlation|0.227||||0.528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.487|0.759||The reported p-value represents the strength of the relationship between the variables for cycles 5-8.|Spearman correlation|||||0.759|-0.487|0.528
90800386|NCT03531814|181479172|OTHER||Spearman's correlation|0.179||||0.672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.618|0.794||The reported p-value represents the strength of the relationship between the variables for cycles 9-12.|Spearman correlation|||||0.794|-0.618|0.672
90800387|NCT03531814|181479172|OTHER||Spearman's correlation|0.041||||0.923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.697|0.737||The reported p-value represents the strength of the relationship between the variables for cycles 13-18.|Spearman correlation|||||0.737|-0.697|0.923
90800388|NCT03531814|181479173|OTHER||Spearman's correlation|-0.638||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.899|-0.041||The reported p-value represents the strength of the relationship between the variables for cycles 1-4.|Spearman correlation|||||-0.041|-0.899|0.035
90800389|NCT03531814|181479173|OTHER||Spearman's correlation|-0.361||||0.306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.815|0.367||The reported p-value represents the strength of the relationship between the variables for cycles 5-8.|Spearman correlation|||||0.367|-0.815|0.306
90800390|NCT03531814|181479173|OTHER||Spearman's correlation|-0.407||||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.438||The reported p-value represents the strength of the relationship between the variables for cycles 9-12.|Spearman correlation|||||0.438|-0.870|0.317
90800391|NCT03531814|181479173|OTHER||Spearman's correlation|-0.18||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.795|0.0617||The reported p-value represents the strength of the relationship between the variables for cycles 13-18.|Spearman correlation|||||0.0617|-0.795|0.670
90800392|NCT01415583|181479190|NON_INFERIORITY|Consistent with the noninferiority design, the null hypothesis states that the bleeding rate in patients receiving perioperative dexamethasone differed from the bleeding rate in patients receiving perioperative placebo; the alternative hypothesis states that the bleeding rate with dexamethasone is not greater than placebo by more than the noninferiority margin.||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.05
90800393|NCT01415583|181479190|NON_INFERIORITY|This noninferiority margin was set at 5%, meaning a difference in bleeding rates that did not exceed 5% would be taken as evidence that the bleeding with dexamethasone is not greater than that with placebo by more than 5%.||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.05
90800394|NCT04472650|181479196|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|87.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.273|98.111||||||Sitravatinib Malate Salt Capsule (Test) vs. Sitravatinib Free Base Capsule (Reference). Analysis based on Relative Bioavailability Analysis Set, defined as the subset of participants in the PK Parameters Analysis Set who had at least 1 primary PK parameter (AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax of sitravatinib) in both periods.||98.111|78.273|
90800395|NCT04472650|181479197|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|87.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.12|98.01||||||Sitravatinib Malate Salt Capsule (Test) vs. Sitravatinib Free Base Capsule (Reference). Analysis based on Relative Bioavailability Analysis Set, defined as the subset of participants in the PK Parameters Analysis Set who had at least 1 primary PK parameter (AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax of sitravatinib) in both periods.||98.01|78.12|
90800396|NCT04472650|181479198|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|88.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.41|101.87||||||Sitravatinib Malate Salt Capsule (Test) vs. Sitravatinib Free Base Capsule (Reference). Analysis based on Relative Bioavailability Analysis Set, defined as the subset of participants in the PK Parameters Analysis Set who had at least 1 primary PK parameter (AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax of sitravatinib) in both periods.||101.87|77.41|
90800397|NCT01861665|181479204|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8379||||||Pre Incision vs. Post Incision on Post op day 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.8379
90800398|NCT01861665|181479204|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7263||||||Pre incision vs. Post incision post op day 1.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7263
91013138|NCT00151775|181909082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.85||||0.0032||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||A linear regression analysis of olmesartan dose (non-weight adjusted) on the change from baseline in seated systolic blood pressure was carried out. The null hypothesis of zero-slope was tested.||||0.0032
90800399|NCT01861665|181479204|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5||||||Pre incision vs. Post incision day 2.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5
90800400|NCT03247829|181479205|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Comparative p-values were calculated by two-sided t-tests (paired analysis).||||||0.001
90800401|NCT03247829|181479206|OTHER|||||||0.0931|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0931
90800402|NCT01783444|181479214|NON_INFERIORITY|Hazard ratio obtained from stratified Cox model (stratified by presence/absence of visceral metastasis as per IWRS)|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.57|0.97||||||||0.97|0.57|
91013139|NCT00151775|181909082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.58||||0.0125||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||A linear regression analysis of olmesartan dose (non-weight adjusted) on the change from baseline in seated diastolic blood pressure was carried out. The null hypothesis of zero-slope was tested.||||0.0125
91013140|NCT00151775|181909082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.75|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||A linear regression analysis of olmesartan dose (non-weight adjusted) on the change from baseline in seated systolic blood pressure was carried out. The null hypothesis of zero-slope was tested.||||<0.0001
91054171|NCT02912650|181990995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|25.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.57|31.63|||ANOVA|||0-12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||31.63|18.57|<0.001
91013141|NCT00151775|181909082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.57|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||A linear regression analysis of olmesartan dose (non-weight adjusted) on the change from baseline in seated diastolic blood pressure was carried out. The null hypothesis of zero-slope was tested.||||<0.0001
90800403|NCT01783444|181479215|NON_INFERIORITY|Hazard ratio obtained from stratified Cox model (stratified by presence/absence of visceral metastasis as per IWRS)|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.66||||||||1.66|0.96|
90800404|NCT01783444|181479216|NON_INFERIORITY|Hazard ratio obtained from stratified Cox model (stratified by presence/absence of visceral metastasis as per IWRS)|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|1.7||||||||1.70|0.95|
90800405|NCT01783444|181479216|NON_INFERIORITY|Hazard ratio obtained from stratified Cox model (stratified by presence/absence of visceral metastasis as per IWRS)|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.99|1.79||||||||1.79|0.99|
90800406|NCT01783444|181479219|NON_INFERIORITY|Hazard ratio obtained from stratified Cox model (stratified by presence/absence of visceral metastasis as per IWRS)|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.72|1.66||||||||1.66|0.72|
91054172|NCT02912650|181990995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.3||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|9.86|||ANOVA|||0-12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||9.86|0.74|0.023
91054173|NCT02912650|181990995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|13.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.55|17.8|||ANOVA|||0-12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||17.80|8.55|<0.001
90800407|NCT01783444|181479219|NON_INFERIORITY|Hazard ratio obtained from stratified Cox model (stratified by presence/absence of visceral metastasis as per IWRS)|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.78|1.77||||||||1.77|0.78|
90800408|NCT01783444|181479220|NON_INFERIORITY|Hazard ratio obtained from stratified Cox model (stratified by presence/absence of visceral metastasis as per IWRS)|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.46|0.88||||||||0.88|0.46|
90800409|NCT01783444|181479220|NON_INFERIORITY|Hazard ratio obtained from stratified Cox model (stratified by presence/absence of visceral metastasis as per IWRS)|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|1.91||||||||1.91|0.93|
90800410|NCT01783444|181479221|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.3|11.9||||||Side-effects||11.9|-3.3|
90800411|NCT01783444|181479221|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.9|5.5||||||Side-effects||5.5|-9.9|
90800412|NCT01783444|181479221|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.4|3.8||||||Effectiveness||3.8|-10.4|
90800413|NCT01783444|181479221|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.7|3.0||||||Effectiveness||3.0|-9.7|
90800414|NCT01783444|181479221|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.8|2.5||||||Convenience||2.5|-5.8|
90800415|NCT01783444|181479221|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.5|3.3||||||Convenience||3.3|-5.5|
90800416|NCT01783444|181479221|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.3|2.9||||||Global Satisfaction||2.9|-8.3|
90800417|NCT01783444|181479221|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.4|1.9||||||Global Satisfaction||1.9|-8.4|
90800418|NCT02722408|181479223|OTHER|||||||0.0041||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in LDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0041
90800419|NCT02722408|181479224|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in LDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0010
90800420|NCT02722408|181479225|OTHER|||||||0.0012||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in LDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0012
90800421|NCT02722408|181479226|OTHER|||||||0.056||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with Change in LDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28||||0.0560
90800422|NCT02722408|181479226|OTHER|||||||0.0219||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with Change in LDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56||||0.0219
91013142|NCT00151775|181909082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-8.97|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||A linear regression analysis of olmesartan dose (weight adjusted) on the change from baseline in seated systolic blood pressure was carried out. The null hypothesis of zero-slope was tested.||||<0.0001
90800423|NCT02722408|181479226|OTHER|||||||0.0286||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with Change in LDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84||||0.0286
90800424|NCT02722408|181479227|OTHER|||||||0.0058||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in Non-HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28||||0.0058
90800425|NCT02722408|181479227|OTHER|||||||0.0019||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in Non-HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56||||0.0019
90800426|NCT02722408|181479227|OTHER|||||||0.0024||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in Non-HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84||||0.0024
90800427|NCT02722408|181479228|OTHER|||||||0.0592||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in Non-HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28||||0.0592
90800428|NCT02722408|181479228|OTHER|||||||0.0266||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in Non-HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56||||0.0266
90800429|NCT02722408|181479228|OTHER|||||||0.0336||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in Non-HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84||||0.0336
91013143|NCT00151775|181909082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-8.15|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||A linear regression analysis of olmesartan dose (weight adjusted) on the change from baseline in seated diastolic blood pressure was carried out. The null hypothesis of zero-slope was tested.||||<0.0001
90800430|NCT02722408|181479229|OTHER|||||||0.0057||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in TC as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28||||0.0057
90800431|NCT02722408|181479229|OTHER|||||||0.0017||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in TC as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56||||0.0017
90800432|NCT02722408|181479229|OTHER|||||||0.0017||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in TC as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84||||0.0017
90800433|NCT02722408|181479230|OTHER|||||||0.0057||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in TC as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28||||0.0057
90800434|NCT02722408|181479230|OTHER|||||||0.0255||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in TC as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56||||0.0255
90800435|NCT02722408|181479230|OTHER|||||||0.0312||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in TC as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 86||||0.0312
90800436|NCT02722408|181479231|OTHER|||||||0.4489||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in TG as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28||||0.4489
90800437|NCT02722408|181479231|OTHER|||||||0.5964||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in TG as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 84||||0.5964
90800438|NCT02722408|181479231|OTHER|||||||0.6785||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in TG as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84||||0.6785
90800439|NCT02722408|181479232|OTHER|||||||0.2177||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in TG as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300mg: Day 28||||0.2177
90800440|NCT02722408|181479232|OTHER|||||||0.3209||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in TG as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600mg: Day 56||||0.3209
90800441|NCT02722408|181479232|OTHER|||||||0.3101||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in TG as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900mg: Day 84||||0.3101
91013144|NCT00151775|181909082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-7.17||||0.0265||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||A linear regression analysis of olmesartan dose (weight adjusted) on the change from baseline in seated systolic blood pressure was carried out. The null hypothesis of zero-slope was tested.||||0.0265
91013145|NCT00151775|181909082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-6.85||||0.0084||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||A linear regression analysis of olmesartan dose (weight adjusted) on the change from baseline in seated diastolic blood pressure was carried out. The null hypothesis of zero-slope was tested.||||0.0084
91013146|NCT00151775|181909082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-8.36|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||A linear regression analysis of olmesartan dose (weight adjusted) on the change from baseline in seated systolic blood pressure was carried out. The null hypothesis of zero-slope was tested.||||<0.0001
90800442|NCT02722408|181479233|OTHER|||||||0.0057||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28||||0.0057
90800443|NCT02722408|181479233|OTHER|||||||0.0022||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56||||0.0022
90800444|NCT02722408|181479233|OTHER|||||||0.0029||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84||||0.0029
90800445|NCT02722408|181479234|OTHER|||||||0.0008||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300mg: Day 28||||0.0008
90800446|NCT02722408|181479234|OTHER|||||||0.0005||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600mg: Day 56||||0.0005
90800447|NCT02722408|181479234|OTHER|||||||0.0002||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900mg: Day 84||||0.0002
90800448|NCT02722408|181479235|OTHER|||||||0.4103||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in VLDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28||||0.4103
90800449|NCT02722408|181479235|OTHER|||||||0.6164||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in VLDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56||||0.6164
90800450|NCT02722408|181479235|OTHER|||||||0.6732||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in VLDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84||||0.6732
90800451|NCT02722408|181479236|OTHER|||||||0.2003||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in VLDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300mg: Day 28||||0.2003
90800452|NCT02722408|181479236|OTHER|||||||0.3323||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in VLDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600mg: Day 56||||0.3323
90800453|NCT02722408|181479236|OTHER|||||||0.3047||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in VLDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900mg: Day 84||||0.3047
90800454|NCT02722408|181479237|OTHER|||||||0.3601||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in LDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Negative LDLr)||||0.3601
90800455|NCT02722408|181479237|OTHER|||||||0.192||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in LDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Negative LDLr)||||0.1920
90800456|NCT02722408|181479237|OTHER|||||||0.2912||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in LDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Negative LDLr)||||0.2912
90800457|NCT02722408|181479237|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in LDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Defective LDLr)||||<0.0001
90800458|NCT02722408|181479237|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in LDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Defective LDLr)||||<0.0001
90800459|NCT02722408|181479237|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in LDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Defective LDLr)||||<0.0001
90800460|NCT02722408|181479237|OTHER|||||||0.0444||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in LDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0444
90800461|NCT02722408|181479237|OTHER|||||||0.0159||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in LDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0159
90800462|NCT02722408|181479237|OTHER|||||||0.0235||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in LDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0235
91054174|NCT02912650|181990995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|19.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.28|26.31|||ANOVA|||0-12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||26.31|13.28|<0.001
91013147|NCT00151775|181909082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-7.71|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||A linear regression analysis of olmesartan dose (weight adjusted) on the change from baseline in seated diastolic blood pressure was carried out. The null hypothesis of zero-slope was tested.||||<0.0001
90800463|NCT02722408|181479237|OTHER|||||||0.0005||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in LDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Not Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0005
91013148|NCT00151775|181909083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.58||||0.0093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.27|-0.89|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model used treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline as covariate.||Analysis of systolic blood pressure. Null hypothesis of no treatment difference was tested.||-0.89|-6.27|0.0093
91013149|NCT00151775|181909083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-3.49||||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.92|-1.05|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model used treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline as covariate.||Analysis for diastolic blood pressure. The null hypothesis of no treatment difference was tested.||-1.05|-5.92|0.0052
91013150|NCT00151775|181909083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-2.57||||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.93|0.79|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model used treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline as covariate.||Analysis of systolic blood pressure. Null hypothesis of no treatment difference was tested.||0.79|-5.93|0.1330
90800464|NCT02722408|181479237|OTHER|||||||0.0003||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in LDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Not Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0003
90800465|NCT02722408|181479237|OTHER|||||||0.0003||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in LDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Not Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0003
91013151|NCT00151775|181909083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-1.38||||0.3442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.27|1.5|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model used treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline as covariate.||Analysis for diastolic blood pressure. The null hypothesis of no treatment difference was tested.||1.50|-4.27|0.3442
91013152|NCT00151775|181909083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-3.16||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.24|-1.09|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model used treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline as covariate.||For seated systolic blood pressure the null hypothesis of no treatment difference was tested||-1.09|-5.24|0.0029
91013153|NCT00151775|181909083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-2.8||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.65|-0.95|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model used treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline as covariate.||For seated diastolic blood pressure the null hypothesis of no treatment difference was tested.||-0.95|-4.65|0.0032
91013154|NCT00151775|181909084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-2.82||||0.2113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.29|1.65|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model used treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline as covariate.||For seated systolic blood pressure the null hypothesis of no treatment difference was tested.||1.65|-7.29|0.2113
91054175|NCT02912650|181990995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|11.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.36|18.49|||ANOVA|||0-12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||18.49|5.36|<0.001
90800466|NCT02722408|181479238|OTHER|||||||0.3646||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis: Change in LDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, patient as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Negative LDLr)||||0.3646
91013155|NCT00151775|181909084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-2.92||||0.1496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.92|1.09|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model used treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline as covariate.||For seated diastolic blood pressure the null hypothesis of no treatment difference was tested.||1.09|-6.92|0.1496
91013156|NCT02706327|181909112|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||A post-hoc test was used with Bonferroni correction and adjusted p-value was 0.016.|Kruskal-Wallis|Effect sizes (Cohen's d) were calculated for significant differences.||Normality of the distribution was investigated by skewness-kurtosis, histogram graphics, normality tests and plots before the statistical tests were performed. Group comparisons were tested with One-way analysis of variance when normality was achieved and Kruskal Wallis test when not. A post-hoc test was used with Bonferroni correction.||||<0.001
91054176|NCT02912650|181990995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.27|12.48|||ANOVA|||0-12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||12.48|3.27|<0.001
91054177|NCT02912650|181990995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.61|8.62|||ANOVA|||6-8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||8.62|4.61|<0.001
90800467|NCT02722408|181479238|OTHER|||||||0.1994||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis: Change in LDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, patient as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Negative LDLr)||||0.1994
90800468|NCT02722408|181479238|OTHER|||||||0.2858||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis: Change in LDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, patient as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Negative LDLr)||||0.2858
90800469|NCT02722408|181479238|OTHER|||||||0.0829||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis: Change in LDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, patient as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Defective LDLr)||||0.0829
90800470|NCT02722408|181479238|OTHER|||||||0.0492||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis: Change in LDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, patient as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Defective LDLr)||||0.0492
90800471|NCT02722408|181479238|OTHER|||||||0.0442||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis: Change in LDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, patient as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Defective LDLr)||||0.0442
91013157|NCT02706327|181909113|OTHER|||||||0.547|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Normality of the distribution was investigated by skewness-kurtosis, histogram graphics, normality tests and plots before the statistical tests were performed. Group comparisons were tested with One-way analysis of variance when normality was achieved and Kruskal Wallis test when not.||||0.547
91054178|NCT02912650|181990995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.74||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|3.14|||ANOVA|||6-8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||3.14|0.34|0.015
90800472|NCT02722408|181479238|OTHER|||||||0.736||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis: Change in LDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, patient as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.7360
90800473|NCT02722408|181479238|OTHER|||||||0.6917||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis: Change in LDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, patient as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.6917
90800474|NCT02722408|181479238|OTHER|||||||0.7131||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis: Change in LDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, patient as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.7131
90800475|NCT02722408|181479238|OTHER|||||||0.0014||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis: Change in LDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, patient as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Not Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0014
90800476|NCT02722408|181479238|OTHER|||||||0.0009||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis: Change in LDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, patient as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Not Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0009
90800477|NCT02722408|181479238|OTHER|||||||0.0007||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis: Change in LDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, patient as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Not Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0007
90800478|NCT02722408|181479239|OTHER|||||||0.388||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in Non-HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Negative LDLr)||||0.3880
91054179|NCT02912650|181990995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.92|5.76|||ANOVA|||6-8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||5.76|2.92|<0.001
90800479|NCT02722408|181479239|OTHER|||||||0.2057||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in Non-HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Negative LDLr)||||0.2057
91054180|NCT02912650|181990995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.87|6.88|||ANOVA|||6-8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||6.88|2.87|<0.001
91054181|NCT02912650|181990995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.27||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|4.28|||ANOVA|||6-8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||4.28|0.25|0.028
90800480|NCT02722408|181479239|OTHER|||||||0.2892||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in Non-HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Negative LDLr)||||0.2892
90800481|NCT02722408|181479239|OTHER|||||||0.0052||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in Non-HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Defective LDLr)||||0.0052
90800482|NCT02722408|181479239|OTHER|||||||0.0028||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in Non-HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Negative LDLr)||||0.0028
90800483|NCT02722408|181479239|OTHER|||||||0.0026||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in Non-HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Negative LDLr)||||0.0026
90800484|NCT02722408|181479239|OTHER|||||||0.0493||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in Non-HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0493
90800485|NCT02722408|181479239|OTHER|||||||0.0253||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in Non-HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0253
90800486|NCT02722408|181479239|OTHER|||||||0.0394||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in Non-HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0394
90800487|NCT02722408|181479239|OTHER|||||||0.0003||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in Non-HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Not Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0003
90800488|NCT02722408|181479239|OTHER|||||||0.0002||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in Non-HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Not Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0002
90800489|NCT02722408|181479239|OTHER|||||||0.0002||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in Non-HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Not Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0002
91013158|NCT02706327|181909114|OTHER|||||||0.895|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Normality of the distribution was investigated by skewness-kurtosis, histogram graphics, normality tests and plots before the statistical tests were performed. Group comparisons were tested with One-way analysis of variance when normality was achieved and Kruskal Wallis test when not.||||0.895
90800490|NCT02722408|181479240|OTHER|||||||0.3833||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in Non-HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Negative LDLr)||||0.3833
90800491|NCT02722408|181479240|OTHER|||||||0.2172||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in Non-HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Negative LDLr)||||0.2172
90800492|NCT02722408|181479240|OTHER|||||||0.293||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in Non-HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Negative LDLr)||||0.2930
90800493|NCT02722408|181479240|OTHER|||||||0.1217||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in Non-HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Defective LDLr)||||0.1217
90800494|NCT02722408|181479240|OTHER|||||||0.0901||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in Non-HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Defective LDLr)||||0.0901
90800495|NCT02722408|181479240|OTHER|||||||0.085||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in Non-HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Defective LDLr)||||0.0850
90800496|NCT02722408|181479240|OTHER|||||||0.0747||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in Non-HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0747
90800497|NCT02722408|181479240|OTHER|||||||0.0279||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in Non-HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0279
91013159|NCT02706327|181909115|OTHER|||||||0.842|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Normality of the distribution was investigated by skewness-kurtosis, histogram graphics, normality tests and plots before the statistical tests were performed. Group comparisons were tested with One-way analysis of variance when normality was achieved and Kruskal Wallis test when not.||||0.842
90800498|NCT02722408|181479240|OTHER|||||||0.0492||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in Non-HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0492
90800499|NCT02722408|181479240|OTHER|||||||0.0003||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in Non-HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Not Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0003
90800500|NCT02722408|181479240|OTHER|||||||0.0002||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in Non-HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Not Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0002
90800501|NCT02722408|181479240|OTHER|||||||0.0002||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in Non-HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Not Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0002
90800502|NCT02722408|181479241|OTHER|||||||0.8972||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in VLDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Negative LDLr)||||0.8972
90800503|NCT02722408|181479241|OTHER|||||||0.7867||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in VLDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Negative LDLr)||||0.7867
90800504|NCT02722408|181479241|OTHER|||||||0.4974||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in VLDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Negative LDLr)||||0.4974
90800505|NCT02722408|181479241|OTHER|||||||0.5464||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in VLDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Defective LDLr)||||0.5464
90800506|NCT02722408|181479241|OTHER|||||||0.7668||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in VLDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Defective LDLr)||||0.7668
90800507|NCT02722408|181479241|OTHER|||||||0.9276||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in VLDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Defective LDLr)||||0.9276
90800508|NCT02722408|181479241|OTHER|||||||0.5821||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in VLDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.5821
91054182|NCT02912650|181990995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|4.02|||ANOVA|||6-8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||4.02|1.19|<0.001
90800509|NCT02722408|181479241|OTHER|||||||0.8881||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in VLDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.8881
90800510|NCT02722408|181479241|OTHER|||||||0.8525||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in VLDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.8525
90800511|NCT02722408|181479241|OTHER|||||||0.0112||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in VLDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Not Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0112
90800512|NCT02722408|181479241|OTHER|||||||0.0018||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in VLDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Not Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0018
90800513|NCT02722408|181479241|OTHER|||||||0.0028||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in VLDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Not Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH).||||0.0028
91054183|NCT02912650|181990996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-36.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.41|-23.71|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-23.71|-49.41|<0.001
90800514|NCT02722408|181479242|OTHER|||||||0.8985||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in VLDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Negative LDLr)||||0.8985
90800515|NCT02722408|181479242|OTHER|||||||0.7664||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in VLDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Negative LDLr)||||0.7664
90800516|NCT02722408|181479242|OTHER|||||||0.4755||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in VLDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Negative LDLr)||||0.4755
90800517|NCT02722408|181479242|OTHER|||||||0.2286||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in VLDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Defective LDLr)||||0.2286
90800518|NCT02722408|181479242|OTHER|||||||0.3975||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in VLDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Defective LDLr)||||0.3975
90800519|NCT02722408|181479242|OTHER|||||||0.446||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in VLDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Defective LDLr)||||0.4460
90800520|NCT02722408|181479242|OTHER|||||||0.9414||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in VLDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.9414
90800521|NCT02722408|181479242|OTHER|||||||0.9735||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in VLDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.9735
90800522|NCT02722408|181479242|OTHER|||||||0.9825||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in VLDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.9825
90800523|NCT02722408|181479242|OTHER|||||||0.442||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in VLDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Not Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.4420
90800524|NCT02722408|181479242|OTHER|||||||0.0378||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in VLDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Not Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0378
90800525|NCT02722408|181479242|OTHER|||||||0.0378||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in VLDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Not Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0378
90800526|NCT02722408|181479243|OTHER|||||||0.2305||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Negative LDLr)||||0.2305
90800527|NCT02722408|181479243|OTHER|||||||0.1836||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Negative LDLr)||||0.1836
90800528|NCT02722408|181479243|OTHER|||||||0.6501||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Negative LDLr)||||0.6501
91013160|NCT02706327|181909116|OTHER|||||||0.848|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Normality of the distribution was investigated by skewness-kurtosis, histogram graphics, normality tests and plots before the statistical tests were performed. Group comparisons were tested with One-way analysis of variance when normality was achieved and Kruskal Wallis test when not.||||0.848
91013161|NCT02652793|181909123|SUPERIORITY|Single-arm pilot study to assess BMD improvement after switching therapy. Null hypothesis: no change in lumbar spine BMD at Week 48. Sample size of 45 planned to detect a 2% increase with 90% power (α=0.025). Final analysis included 30 participants.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.03||0.0239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.019||Statistical test applied to lumbar spine BMD only. P-value reflects within-group change from baseline to Week 48.|Regression, Linear|Per-protocol analysis; missing data excluded|Represents mean change in lumbar spine BMD from baseline to Week 48.|Single-arm study; no comparator group||0.019|0.001|0.0239
90800529|NCT02722408|181479243|OTHER|||||||0.0139||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Defective LDLr)||||0.0139
90800530|NCT02722408|181479243|OTHER|||||||0.0077||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Defective LDLr)||||0.0077
90800531|NCT02722408|181479243|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Defective LDLr)||||<0.0001
90800532|NCT02722408|181479243|OTHER|||||||0.0507||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0507
91013162|NCT02652793|181909123|SUPERIORITY|Single-arm pilot study to assess BMD improvement after switching therapy. Null hypothesis: no change in left hip BMD at Week 48. Sample size of 45 planned to detect a 2% increase with 90% power (α=0.025). Final analysis included 30 participants.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.013|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.03||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|0.023||Left hip|Regression, Linear|Statistical test applied to left hip BMD only. P-value reflects within-group change from baseline to Week 48.|Represents mean change in left hip BMD from baseline to Week 48|Single-arm study; no comparator group||0.023|0.004|0.0046
91013163|NCT04579666|181909156|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-3.0||||0.7205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.5|13.5|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used to analyze the ranks of the CAFS score with treatment as a fixed effect, adjusted for baseline ALSFRS-R total score, time from symptom onset, baseline Log neurofilament light chain (NfL), and the randomization stratification factors (location of first muscle weakness and use of riluzole and edaravone).||13.5|-19.5|0.7205
90800533|NCT02722408|181479243|OTHER|||||||0.0118||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0118
90800534|NCT02722408|181479243|OTHER|||||||0.0122||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0122
90800535|NCT02722408|181479243|OTHER|||||||0.0077||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Not Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0077
91054184|NCT02912650|181990996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-3.95||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.45|0.56|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||0.56|-8.45|0.086
90800536|NCT02722408|181479243|OTHER|||||||0.0317||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Not Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0317
90800537|NCT02722408|181479243|OTHER|||||||0.0473||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Not Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH).||||0.0473
90800538|NCT02722408|181479244|OTHER|||||||0.2143||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Negative LDLr)||||0.2143
90800539|NCT02722408|181479244|OTHER|||||||0.1874||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Negative LDLr)||||0.1874
90800540|NCT02722408|181479244|OTHER|||||||0.6731||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Negative LDLr)||||0.6731
90800541|NCT02722408|181479244|OTHER|||||||0.0027||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Defective LDLr)||||0.0027
90800542|NCT02722408|181479244|OTHER|||||||0.002||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Defective LDLr)||||0.0020
90800543|NCT02722408|181479244|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Defective LDLr)||||<0.0001
90800544|NCT02722408|181479244|OTHER|||||||0.0258||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0258
90800545|NCT02722408|181479244|OTHER|||||||0.0044||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0044
90800546|NCT02722408|181479244|OTHER|||||||0.0011||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0011
90800547|NCT02722408|181479244|OTHER|||||||0.0083||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Not Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0083
90800548|NCT02722408|181479244|OTHER|||||||0.0314||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Not Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0314
90800549|NCT02722408|181479244|OTHER|||||||0.0533||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Not Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0533
90800550|NCT02722408|181479245|OTHER|||||||0.3657||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in TC as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Negative LDLr)||||0.3657
90800551|NCT02722408|181479245|OTHER|||||||0.1983||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in TC as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Negative LDLr)||||0.1983
90800552|NCT02722408|181479245|OTHER|||||||0.297||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in TC as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Negative LDLr)||||0.2970
91013164|NCT04579666|181909161|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.7||||0.6447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|2.2|||MMRM|||The mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) included fixed categorical effects for treatment, week, and the week-by-treatment interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariate of the baseline value of the endpoint, and the week-by-baseline interaction, baseline log NfL, time from symptoms onset to the first dose of study drug, and randomization stratification factors location of first muscle weakness and use of riluzole and/or edaravone).||2.2|-3.5|0.6447
91054185|NCT02912650|181990996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-3.71||||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.28|0.86|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||0.86|-8.28|0.112
90800553|NCT02722408|181479245|OTHER|||||||0.0092||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in TC as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Defective LDLr)||||0.0092
90800554|NCT02722408|181479245|OTHER|||||||0.0049||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in TC as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Defective LDLr)||||0.0049
90800555|NCT02722408|181479245|OTHER|||||||0.0033||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in TC as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Defective LDLr)||||0.0033
90800556|NCT02722408|181479245|OTHER|||||||0.0618||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in TC as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0618
90800557|NCT02722408|181479245|OTHER|||||||0.0298||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in TC as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0298
90800558|NCT02722408|181479245|OTHER|||||||0.0352||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in TC as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0352
90800559|NCT02722408|181479245|OTHER|||||||0.0001||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in TC as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Not Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0001
90800560|NCT02722408|181479245|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in TC as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Not Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||<0.0001
91013165|NCT04579666|181909162|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-6.6||||0.0949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|1.2|||MMRM|||The MMRM included fixed categorical effects for treatment, week, and the week-by-treatment interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariate of the baseline value of the endpoint, and the week-by-baseline interaction, baseline log NfL, time from symptoms onset to the first dose of study drug, and randomization stratification factors (location of first muscle weakness and use of riluzole and/or edaravone).||1.2|-14.3|0.0949
91013166|NCT04579666|181909163|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.19||||0.0935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.03|||MMRM|||The MMRM included fixed categorical effects for treatment, week, and the week-by-treatment interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariate of the baseline value of the endpoint, and the week-by-baseline interaction, baseline log NfL, time from symptoms onset to the first dose of study drug, and randomization stratification factors (location of first muscle weakness and use of riluzole and/or edaravone).||0.03|-0.42|0.0935
90800561|NCT02722408|181479245|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in TC as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Not Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||<0.0001
90800562|NCT02722408|181479246|OTHER|||||||0.3672||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in TC as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Negative LDLr||||0.3672
90800563|NCT02722408|181479246|OTHER|||||||0.2101||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in TC as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Negative LDLr)||||0.2101
90800564|NCT02722408|181479246|OTHER|||||||0.3009||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in TC as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Negative LDLr)||||0.3009
90800565|NCT02722408|181479246|OTHER|||||||0.1567||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in TC as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Defective LDLr)||||0.1567
91054186|NCT02912650|181990996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-32.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.86|-19.17|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-19.17|-45.86|<0.001
90800566|NCT02722408|181479246|OTHER|||||||0.1207||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in TC as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Defective LDLr)||||0.1207
90800567|NCT02722408|181479246|OTHER|||||||0.1045||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in TC as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Defective LDLr)||||0.1045
90800568|NCT02722408|181479246|OTHER|||||||0.0631||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in TC as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0631
91013167|NCT04579666|181909165|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|6.5||||0.0069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|11.1|||MMRM|||The MMRM included fixed categorical effects for treatment, week, and the week-by-treatment interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariate of the baseline value of the endpoint, and the week-by-baseline interaction, baseline log NfL, time from symptoms onset to the first dose of study drug, and randomization stratification factors (location of first muscle weakness and use of riluzole and/or edaravone).||11.1|1.8|0.0069
91013168|NCT04550234|181909182|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|57.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|47.07|70.81||||||"Statistical Comparison of Verinurad~Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of log transformed PK parameter with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect"||70.81|47.07|
91054187|NCT02912650|181990996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-32.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.22|-19.55|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-19.55|-46.22|<0.001
91054188|NCT02912650|181990996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|0.11||||0.968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|5.42|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||5.42|-5.20|0.968
90800569|NCT02722408|181479246|OTHER|||||||0.0217||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in TC as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0217
91013169|NCT04550234|181909182|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|145.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|118.66|178.52||||||"Statistical Comparison of Verinurad~Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of log transformed PK parameter with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect"||178.52|118.66|
91054189|NCT02912650|181990996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-47.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.18|-34.58|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-34.58|-61.18|<0.001
90800570|NCT02722408|181479246|OTHER|||||||0.0359||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in TC as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0359
90800571|NCT02722408|181479246|OTHER|||||||0.0001||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in TC as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Not Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0001
90800572|NCT02722408|181479246|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in TC as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Not Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||<0.0001
91013170|NCT04550234|181909182|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|52.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|42.46|63.87||||||"Statistical Comparison of Verinurad~Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of log transformed PK parameter with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect"||63.87|42.46|
91013171|NCT04550234|181909182|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|101.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.48|124.08||||||"Statistical Comparison of Verinurad~Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of log transformed PK parameter with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect"||124.08|82.48|
91013172|NCT04550234|181909182|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|73.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|61.81|87.03||||||"Statistical Comparison of Allopurinol~Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of log transformed PK parameter with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect"||87.03|61.81|
91013173|NCT04550234|181909182|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|66.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|55.9|78.72||||||"Statistical Comparison of Allopurinol~Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of log transformed PK parameter with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect"||78.72|55.90|
90800573|NCT02722408|181479246|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in TC as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Not Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||<0.0001
90800574|NCT02722408|181479247|OTHER|||||||0.9417||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in TG as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Negative LDLr)||||0.9417
90800575|NCT02722408|181479247|OTHER|||||||0.7722||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in TG as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Negative LDLr)||||0.7722
90800576|NCT02722408|181479247|OTHER|||||||0.5283||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in TG as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Negative LDLr)||||0.5283
90800577|NCT02722408|181479247|OTHER|||||||0.5905||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in TG as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Defective LDLr)||||0.5905
90800578|NCT02722408|181479247|OTHER|||||||0.7682||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in TG as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Defective LDLr)||||0.7682
91013174|NCT04550234|181909182|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|106.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.81|126.47||||||"Statistical Comparison of Allopurinol~Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of log transformed PK parameter with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect"||126.47|89.81|
91013175|NCT04550234|181909182|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|86.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.15|90.74||||||"Statistical Comparison of Oxypurinol~Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of log transformed PK parameter with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect"||90.74|83.15|
91013176|NCT04550234|181909182|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|92.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.35|96.42||||||"Statistical Comparison of Oxypurinol~Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of log transformed PK parameter with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect"||96.42|88.35|
91013177|NCT04550234|181909182|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|89.54|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.71|93.54||||||"Statistical Comparison of Oxypurinol~Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of log transformed PK parameter with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect"||93.54|85.71|
91013178|NCT04550234|181909183|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|102.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.12|117.86||||||"Statistical Comparison of Verinurad~Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of log transformed PK parameter with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect"||117.86|89.12|
91013179|NCT04550234|181909183|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|144.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|125.75|166.31||||||"Statistical Comparison of Verinurad~Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of log transformed PK parameter with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect"||166.31|125.75|
90800579|NCT02722408|181479247|OTHER|||||||0.9245||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in TG as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Defective LDLr)||||0.9245
90800580|NCT02722408|181479247|OTHER|||||||0.6325||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in TG as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.6325
91013180|NCT04550234|181909183|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|76.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|66.71|88.23||||||"Statistical Comparison of Verinurad~Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of log transformed PK parameter with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect"||88.23|66.71|
91013181|NCT04550234|181909183|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|96.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.64|110.62||||||"Statistical Comparison of Verinurad~Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of log transformed PK parameter with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect"||110.62|83.64|
91013182|NCT04550234|181909183|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|89.41|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.86|95.34||||||"Statistical Comparison of Allopurinol~Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of log transformed PK parameter with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect"||95.34|83.86|
91013183|NCT04550234|181909183|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|94.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.31|100.4||||||"Statistical Comparison of Allopurinol~Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of log transformed PK parameter with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect"||100.40|88.31|
90800581|NCT02722408|181479247|OTHER|||||||0.9221||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in TG as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.9221
90800582|NCT02722408|181479247|OTHER|||||||0.8387||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in TG as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.8387
90800583|NCT02722408|181479247|OTHER|||||||0.0089||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in TG as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Not Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0089
90800584|NCT02722408|181479247|OTHER|||||||0.0013||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in TG as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Not Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0013
90800585|NCT02722408|181479247|OTHER|||||||0.0019||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in TG as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Not Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0019
90800586|NCT02722408|181479248|OTHER|||||||0.9195||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in TG as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Negative LDLr)||||0.9195
90800587|NCT02722408|181479248|OTHER|||||||0.7497||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in TG as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Negative LDLr)||||0.7497
90800588|NCT02722408|181479248|OTHER|||||||0.5056||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in TG as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Negative LDLr)||||0.5056
90800589|NCT02722408|181479248|OTHER|||||||0.2468||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in TG as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Defective LDLr)||||0.2468
90800590|NCT02722408|181479248|OTHER|||||||0.392||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in TG as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Defective LDLr)||||0.3920
90800591|NCT02722408|181479248|OTHER|||||||0.4456||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in TG as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Defective LDLr)||||0.4456
90800592|NCT02722408|181479248|OTHER|||||||0.9203||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in TG as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.9203
91013184|NCT04550234|181909183|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|91.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.37|97.36||||||"Statistical Comparison of Allopurinol~Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of log transformed PK parameter with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect"||97.36|86.37|
90800593|NCT02722408|181479248|OTHER|||||||0.9704||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in TG as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.9704
90800594|NCT02722408|181479248|OTHER|||||||0.9755||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in TG as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.9755
90800595|NCT02722408|181479248|OTHER|||||||0.4213||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in TG as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Not Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.4213
90800596|NCT02722408|181479248|OTHER|||||||0.03||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in TG as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Not Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0300
90800597|NCT02722408|181479248|OTHER|||||||0.03||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in TG as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Not Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0300
90800598|NCT02722408|181479254|OTHER|||||||0.0294||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in hsCRP as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300mg: Day 28||||0.0294
90800599|NCT02722408|181479254|OTHER|||||||0.3228||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in hsCRP as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56||||0.3228
90800600|NCT02722408|181479254|OTHER|||||||0.5268||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in hsCRP as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84||||0.5268
91013185|NCT04550234|181909183|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|91.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.01|94.56||||||"Statistical Comparison of Oxypurinol~Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of log transformed PK parameter with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect"||94.56|88.01|
90800601|NCT02722408|181479255|OTHER|||||||0.1099||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in hsCRP as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28||||0.1099
90800602|NCT02722408|181479255|OTHER|||||||0.5478||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in hsCRP as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56||||0.5478
90800603|NCT02722408|181479255|OTHER|||||||0.8837||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in hsCRP as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84||||0.8837
90800604|NCT02722408|181479256|OTHER|||||||0.0587||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in fibrinogen as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28||||0.0587
90800605|NCT02722408|181479256|OTHER|||||||0.1491||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in fibrinogen as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56||||0.1491
90800606|NCT02722408|181479256|OTHER|||||||0.2224||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in fibrinogen as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84||||0.2224
90800607|NCT02722408|181479257|OTHER|||||||0.0959||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in fibrinogen as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28||||0.0959
90800608|NCT02722408|181479257|OTHER|||||||0.0923||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in fibrinogen as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56||||0.0923
91013186|NCT04550234|181909183|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|99.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.43|103.61||||||"Statistical Comparison of Oxypurinol~Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of log transformed PK parameter with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect"||103.61|96.43|
90800609|NCT02722408|181479257|OTHER|||||||0.1592||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in fibrinogen as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84||||0.1592
90800610|NCT02722408|181479258|OTHER|||||||0.5856||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in Lipoprotein(a) as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28||||0.5856
90800611|NCT02722408|181479258|OTHER|||||||0.644||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in Lipoprotein(a) as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56||||0.6440
90800612|NCT02722408|181479258|OTHER|||||||0.2269||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in Lipoprotein(a) as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84||||0.2269
90800613|NCT02722408|181479259|OTHER|||||||0.4814||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in Lipoprotein(a) as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28||||0.4814
90800614|NCT02722408|181479259|OTHER|||||||0.5011||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in Lipoprotein(a) as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56||||0.5011
90800615|NCT02722408|181479259|OTHER|||||||0.4356||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in Lipoprotein(a) as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84||||0.4356
90800616|NCT02722408|181479260|OTHER|||||||0.0669||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in Apolipoprotein B as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28||||0.0669
90800617|NCT02722408|181479260|OTHER|||||||0.0189||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in Apolipoprotein B as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56||||0.0189
90800618|NCT02722408|181479260|OTHER|||||||0.0316||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in Apolipoprotein B as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84||||0.0316
90800619|NCT02722408|181479261|OTHER|||||||0.0685||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in Apolipoprotein B as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28||||0.0685
90800620|NCT02722408|181479261|OTHER|||||||0.0114||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in Apolipoprotein B as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56||||0.0114
90800621|NCT02722408|181479261|OTHER|||||||0.0263||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in Apolipoprotein B as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84||||0.0263
91013187|NCT04550234|181909183|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|90.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.95|93.42||||||"Statistical Comparison of Oxypurinol~Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of log transformed PK parameter with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect"||93.42|86.95|
90800622|NCT02722408|181479262|OTHER|||||||0.1466||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in Apolipoprotein A-I as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28||||0.1466
90800623|NCT02722408|181479262|OTHER|||||||0.3598||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in Apolipoprotein A-I as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56||||0.3598
90800624|NCT02722408|181479262|OTHER|||||||0.0685||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in Apolipoprotein A-I as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84||||0.0685
90800625|NCT02722408|181479263|OTHER|||||||0.166||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in Apolipoprotein A-I as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28||||0.1660
90800626|NCT02722408|181479263|OTHER|||||||0.3423||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in Apolipoprotein A-I as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56||||0.3423
91013188|NCT04550234|181909184|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|102.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.04|118.93||||||"Statistical Comparison of Verinurad~Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of log transformed PK parameter with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect"||118.93|89.04|
91013189|NCT04550234|181909184|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|146.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|126.82|169.4||||||"Statistical Comparison of Verinurad~Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of log transformed PK parameter with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect"||169.40|126.82|
91013190|NCT04550234|181909184|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|76.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|66.38|88.67||||||"Statistical Comparison of Verinurad~Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of log transformed PK parameter with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect"||88.67|66.38|
91013191|NCT04550234|181909184|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|95.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.52|110.23||||||"Statistical Comparison of Verinurad~Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of log transformed PK parameter with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect"||110.23|82.52|
91013192|NCT04550234|181909184|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|82.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.38|88.17||||||"Statistical Comparison of Allopurinol~Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of log transformed PK parameter with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect"||88.17|77.38|
91013193|NCT04550234|181909184|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|87.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.63|93.01||||||"Statistical Comparison of Allopurinol~Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of log transformed PK parameter with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect"||93.01|81.63|
90800627|NCT02722408|181479263|OTHER|||||||0.0313||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in Apolipoprotein A-I as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84||||0.0313
90800628|NCT02722408|181479264|OTHER|||||||0.7196||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in Apolipoprotein A-II as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28||||0.7196
90800629|NCT02722408|181479264|OTHER|||||||0.4343||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in Apolipoprotein A-II as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56||||0.4343
90800630|NCT02722408|181479264|OTHER|||||||0.7241||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in Apolipoprotein A-II as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84||||0.7241
90800631|NCT02722408|181479265|OTHER|||||||0.7952||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in Apolipoprotein A-II as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28||||0.7952
90800632|NCT02722408|181479265|OTHER|||||||0.4931||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in Apolipoprotein A-II as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56||||0.4931
90800633|NCT02722408|181479265|OTHER|||||||0.8622||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in Apolipoprotein A-II as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84||||0.8622
90800634|NCT02722408|181479266|OTHER|||||||0.9823||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in Apolipoprotein C-II as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28||||0.9823
90800635|NCT02722408|181479266|OTHER|||||||0.9129||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in Apolipoprotein C-II as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56||||0.9129
91013194|NCT04550234|181909184|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|91.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.67|97.61||||||"Statistical Comparison of Allopurinol~Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of log transformed PK parameter with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect"||97.61|85.67|
91013195|NCT04550234|181909184|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|90.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.98|93.94||||||"Statistical Comparison of Oxypurinol~Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of log transformed PK parameter with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect"||93.94|87.98|
91013196|NCT04550234|181909184|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|99.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.17|102.68||||||"Statistical Comparison of Oxypurinol~Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of log transformed PK parameter with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect"||102.68|96.17|
90800636|NCT02722408|181479266|OTHER|||||||0.7762||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in Apolipoprotein C-II as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 84||||0.7762
90800637|NCT02722408|181479267|OTHER|||||||0.2683||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in Apolipoprotein C-II as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28||||0.2683
90800638|NCT02722408|181479267|OTHER|||||||0.088||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in Apolipoprotein C-II as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56||||0.0880
90800639|NCT02722408|181479267|OTHER|||||||0.0165||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in Apolipoprotein C-II as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84||||0.0165
90800640|NCT02722408|181479268|OTHER|||||||0.4585||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in Apolipoprotein C-III as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28||||0.4585
90800641|NCT02722408|181479268|OTHER|||||||0.3721||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in Apolipoprotein C-III as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56||||0.3721
90800642|NCT02722408|181479268|OTHER|||||||0.5305||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in Apolipoprotein C-III as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84||||0.5305
90800643|NCT02722408|181479269|OTHER|||||||0.2937||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in Apolipoprotein C-III as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28||||0.2937
90800644|NCT02722408|181479269|OTHER|||||||0.2182||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in Apolipoprotein C-III as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56||||0.2182
90800645|NCT02722408|181479269|OTHER|||||||0.2937||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in Apolipoprotein C-III as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84||||0.2937
90800646|NCT02722408|181479270|OTHER|||||||0.0411||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in Apolipoprotein E as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28||||0.0411
91013197|NCT04550234|181909184|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|89.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.3|92.15||||||"Statistical Comparison of Oxypurinol~Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of log transformed PK parameter with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect"||92.15|86.30|
91013198|NCT04550234|181909196|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|108.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.13|124.49||||||"Statistical Comparison of Verinurad~Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of log transformed PK parameter with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect"||124.49|94.13|
91054190|NCT02912650|181990996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-6.23||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.61|-0.84|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-0.84|-11.61|0.023
90800647|NCT02722408|181479270|OTHER|||||||0.0192||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in Apolipoprotein E as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56||||0.0192
90800648|NCT02722408|181479270|OTHER|||||||0.0445||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in Apolipoprotein E as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84||||0.0445
90800649|NCT02722408|181479271|OTHER|||||||0.0465||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in Apolipoprotein E as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28||||0.0465
90800650|NCT02722408|181479271|OTHER|||||||0.0221||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in Apolipoprotein E as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56||||0.0221
90800651|NCT02722408|181479271|OTHER|||||||0.0402||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in Apolipoprotein E as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84||||0.0402
90800652|NCT00552071|181479272|OTHER|||||||0.4||||||A two-sided p value of \<0.05 was considered significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.40
90800653|NCT00552071|181479273|OTHER|||||||0.43||||||A two-sided p value of \<0.05 was considered significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.43
90800654|NCT00272792|181479274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||Compared Week 10 to Baseline.||||<0.001
90800655|NCT00272792|181479274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||Compared Week 10 to Baseline.||||0.027
91013199|NCT04550234|181909196|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|96.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.96|102.53||||||"Statistical Comparison of Allopurinol~Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of log transformed PK parameter with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect"||102.53|90.96|
90800656|NCT00272792|181479275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0|||||Longitudinal Model|Longitudinal model with blood Phe measurements as the response variable and treatment group, visit, and baseline blood Phe level as covariates.||||||0.009
90800657|NCT02628444|181479294|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the ratio of GMTs between groups (Group 2/Group 1) was greater than (\>) 1/2. Overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if all 4 serotypes achieved non-inferiority.|GMT Ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.862|1.39||||||Group 2/Group 1: Serotype 1||1.39|0.862|
90800658|NCT02628444|181479294|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs between groups (Group 2/Group 1) was \>1/2. Overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if all 4 serotypes achieved non-inferiority.|GMT Ratio|0.993|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.2||||||Group 2/Group 1: Serotype 2||1.20|0.820|
90800659|NCT02628444|181479294|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs between groups (Group 2/Group 1) was \>1/2. Overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if all 4 serotypes achieved non-inferiority.|GMT Ratio|0.983|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.816|1.18||||||Group 2/Group 1: Serotype 3||1.18|0.816|
91013200|NCT04550234|181909196|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|98.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.27|102.36||||||"Statistical Comparison of Oxypurinol~Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of log transformed PK parameter with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect"||102.36|95.27|
91013201|NCT04550234|181909197|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|109.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.55|126.29||||||"Statistical Comparison of Verinurad~Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of log transformed PK parameter with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect"||126.29|94.55|
91013202|NCT04550234|181909197|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|96.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.38|102.97||||||"Statistical Comparison of Allopurinol~Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of log transformed PK parameter with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect"||102.97|90.38|
91013203|NCT04550234|181909197|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|97.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.34|100.73||||||"Statistical Comparison of Oxypurinol~Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of log transformed PK parameter with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect"||100.73|94.34|
91013204|NCT04550234|181909198|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|131.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|107.03|161.02||||||"Statistical Comparison of Verinurad~Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of log transformed PK parameter with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect"||161.02|107.03|
91013205|NCT04550234|181909198|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|96.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.23|114.39||||||"Statistical Comparison of Allopurinol~Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of log transformed PK parameter with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect"||114.39|81.23|
90800660|NCT02628444|181479294|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs between groups (Group 2/Group 1) was \>1/2. Overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if all 4 serotypes achieved non-inferiority.|GMT ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.809|1.14||||||Group 2/Group 1: Serotype 4||1.14|0.809|
90800661|NCT02628444|181479295|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs between groups (Group 2/Group 1) was \>1/2. Overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if all 4 serotypes achieved non-inferiority.|GMT Ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.757|1.4||||||Group 2/Group 1: Serotype 1||1.40|0.757|
90800662|NCT02628444|181479295|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs between groups (Group 2/Group 1) was \>1/2. Overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if all 4 serotypes achieved non-inferiority.|GMT Ratio|0.897|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.705|1.14||||||Group 2/Group 1: Serotype 2||1.14|0.705|
91013206|NCT04550234|181909198|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|95.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.08|99.4||||||"Statistical Comparison of Oxypurinol~Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of log transformed PK parameter with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect"||99.40|91.08|
91013207|NCT01982942|181909199|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis states that the BPF rates of change in the treatment and placebo groups are equal, which can be evaluated based on as assessment of parameter estimates from a linear mixed model (LMM).||||0.04
90800663|NCT02628444|181479295|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs between groups (Group 2/Group 1) was \>1/2. Overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if all 4 serotypes achieved non-inferiority.|GMT Ratio|0.917|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.724|1.16||||||Group 2/Group 1: Serotype 3||1.16|0.724|
90800664|NCT02628444|181479295|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs between groups (Group 2/Group 1) was \>1/2. Overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if all 4 serotypes achieved non-inferiority.|GMT Ratio|0.884|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.09||||||Group 2/Group 1: Serotype 4||1.09|0.720|
90800665|NCT02628444|181479296|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs within groups (Group 1a Booster/Group 1) was \>1/2. Overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if all 4 serotypes achieved non-inferiority.|GMT paired ratio|0.567|||||TWO_SIDED|98.75|0.399|0.805||||||Group 1a Booster/Group 1 Post-dose 3: Serotype 1||0.805|0.399|
91013208|NCT01224171|181909208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|3.0||||0.4332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|10.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk Difference = adjusted (for stratification factors) percent vedolizumab - adjusted percent placebo|Clinical remission was tested using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi-square test at a 5% significance level with stratification according to concomitant use of oral corticosteroids and concomitant use of immunomodulators (6-mercaptopurine \[6-MP\], azathioprine, or methotrexate) for the TNFα antagonist failure subpopulation.||10.5|-4.5|0.4332
91013209|NCT01270139|181909235|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The sample size was not defined on the basis of an end-point hypothesis, therefore the present FIM study should be considered as hypothesis-generating.|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Overall comparison was assessed by applying the Friedman test, and pairwise comparisons between post-procedure and follow-up (nano vs ferro, nano vs stenting, and ferro vs stenting) were performed by ANOVA.|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis - Nano group is superior to Ferro group and stenting control||||<0.05
90800666|NCT02628444|181479296|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs within groups (Group 1a Booster/Group 1) was \>1/2. Overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if all 4 serotypes achieved non-inferiority.|GMT paired ratio|0.746|||||TWO_SIDED|98.75|0.55|1.01||||||Group 1a Booster/Group 1 Post-dose 3: Serotype 2||1.01|0.550|
90800667|NCT02628444|181479296|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs within groups (Group 1a Booster/Group 1) was \>1/2. Overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if all 4 serotypes achieved non-inferiority.|GMT paired ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|98.75|0.686|1.57||||||Group 1a Booster/Group 1 Post-dose 3: Serotype 3||1.57|0.686|
90800668|NCT02628444|181479296|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs within groups (Group 1a Booster/Group 1) was \>1/2. Overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if all 4 serotypes achieved non-inferiority.|GMT paired ratio|0.647|||||TWO_SIDED|98.75|0.434|0.963||||||Group 1a Booster/Group 1 Post-dose 3: Serotype 4||0.963|0.434|
90800669|NCT02628444|181479297|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided Bonferroni corrected 95% CI for the ratio of GMTs between groups (Group 2a Booster/Group 1) was \>1/2. Overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if all 4 serotypes achieved non-inferiority.|GMT Ratio|0.627|||||TWO_SIDED|98.75|0.342|1.15||||||Group 2a Booster dose/Group 1 Post-dose 3: Serotype 1||1.15|0.342|
90800670|NCT02628444|181479297|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided Bonferroni corrected 95% CI for the ratio of GMTs between groups (Group 2a Booster/Group 1) was \>1/2. Overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if all 4 serotypes achieved non-inferiority.|GMT Ratio|0.809|||||TWO_SIDED|98.75|0.505|1.3||||||Group 2a Booster/Group 1 Post-dose 3: Serotype 2||1.30|0.505|
91013210|NCT01270139|181909236|OTHER|The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to prove Gaussian distribution allowing for calculation of the mean and standard deviation. Non-Gaussian samples are described by median and range. Discriminant variables are evaluated with the two-sided Fisher's exact test. Differences between three groups were analyzed by means of a repeated-measures oneway ANOVA followed by a Fisher's post hoc test. We used the Cox proportional hazards ratios (HR) and 95% CI for the end points.|||||<|0.05||||||"A p value was calculated for each comparison separately, and indicated as for all comparisons. In case if p value was \>0.05, it was mentioned with a separated info. The threshold for statistical significance was a p value below 0.05."|Kaplan-Meier|||Null hypothesis is Nano group is superior to Ferro group and stenting control.||||<0.05
91013211|NCT01270139|181909237|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The sample size was not defined on the basis of an end-point hypothesis, therefore the present FIM study should be considered as hypothesis-generating.|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Overall comparison was assessed by applying the Friedman test, and pairwise comparisons between post-procedure and follow-up (nano vs ferro, nano vs stenting, and ferro vs stenting) were performed by ANOVA.|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis - Nano group is superior to Ferro group and stenting control||||<0.05
91054191|NCT02912650|181990996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-6.23||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.73|-0.73|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-0.73|-11.73|0.026
90800671|NCT02628444|181479297|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided Bonferroni corrected 95% CI for the ratio of GMTs between groups (Group 2a Booster/Group 1) was \>1/2. Overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if all 4 serotypes achieved non-inferiority.|GMT Ratio|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|98.75|0.732|1.94||||||Group 2a Booster/Group 1 Post-dose 3: Serotype 3||1.94|0.732|
90800672|NCT02628444|181479297|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided Bonferroni corrected 95% CI for the ratio of GMTs between groups (Group 2a Booster/Group 1) was \>1/2. Overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if all 4 serotypes achieved non-inferiority.|GMT Ratio|0.499|||||TWO_SIDED|98.75|0.331|0.754||||||Group 2a Booster/Group 1 Post-dose 3: Serotype 4||0.754|0.331|
90800673|NCT02628444|181479298|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs within groups (Group 1b booster/Group 1) was \>1/2. Overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if all 4 serotypes achieved non-inferiority.|GMT paired ratio|0.688|||||TWO_SIDED|98.75|0.479|0.989||||||Group 1b Booster/Group 1 Post-dose 3: Serotype 1||0.989|0.479|
90800674|NCT02628444|181479298|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs within groups (Group 1b booster/Group 1) was \>1/2. Overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if all 4 serotypes achieved non-inferiority.|GMT paired ratio|0.871|||||TWO_SIDED|98.75|0.673|1.13||||||Group 1b Booster/Group 1 Post-dose 3: Serotype 2||1.13|0.673|
90800675|NCT02628444|181479298|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs within groups (Group 1b booster/Group 1) was \>1/2. Overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if all 4 serotypes achieved non-inferiority.|GMT paired ratio|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|98.75|0.887|1.49||||||Group 1b Booster/Group 1 Post-dose 3: Serotype 3||1.49|0.887|
90800676|NCT02628444|181479298|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs within groups (Group 1b booster/Group 1) was \>1/2. Overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if all 4 serotypes achieved non-inferiority.|GMT paired ratio|0.655|||||TWO_SIDED|98.75|0.471|0.911||||||Group 1b Booster/Group 1 Post-dose 3: Serotype 4||0.911|0.471|
91054192|NCT02912650|181990996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-41.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.51|-27.52|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-27.52|-55.51|<0.001
91054193|NCT02912650|181990996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-41.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.65|-27.89|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-27.89|-55.65|<0.001
90800677|NCT02628444|181479299|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs between groups (Group 2b Booster/Group 1) was \>1/2. Overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if all 4 serotypes achieved non-inferiority.|GMT ratio|0.889|||||TWO_SIDED|98.75|0.462|1.71||||||Group 2b Booster/Group 1 Post-dose 3: Serotype 1||1.71|0.462|
91054194|NCT02912650|181990996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-0.16||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.56|6.23|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||6.23|-6.56|0.960
90800678|NCT02628444|181479299|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs between groups (Group 2b Booster/Group 1) was \>1/2. Overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if all 4 serotypes achieved non-inferiority.|GMT ratio|0.677|||||TWO_SIDED|98.75|0.402|1.14||||||Group 2b Booster/Group 1 Post-dose 3: Serotype 2||1.14|0.402|
90800679|NCT02628444|181479299|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs between groups (Group 2b Booster/Group 1) was \>1/2. Overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if all 4 serotypes achieved non-inferiority.|GMT ratio|0.911|||||TWO_SIDED|98.75|0.573|1.45||||||Group 2b Booster/Group 1 Post-dose 3: Serotype 3||1.45|0.573|
90800680|NCT02628444|181479299|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs between groups (Group 2b Booster/Group 1) was \>1/2. Overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if all 4 serotypes achieved non-inferiority.|GMT ratio|0.702|||||TWO_SIDED|98.75|0.447|1.1||||||Group 2b Booster/Group 1 Post-dose 3: Serotype 4||1.10|0.447|
90800681|NCT02628444|181479300|SUPERIORITY|The superiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI was greater than 1 between groups (Group 2/Group 1). Overall superiority of Group 2 to Group 1 was demonstrated if individual serotype null hypotheses were rejected.|GMT Ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.833|1.33||||||Group2/Group1: Serotype 1 (28 days after last vaccination)||1.33|0.833|
90800682|NCT02628444|181479300|SUPERIORITY|The superiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI was greater than 1 between groups (Group 2/Group 1). Overall superiority of Group 2 to Group 1 was demonstrated if individual serotype null hypotheses were rejected.|GMT Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.821|1.19||||||Group2/Group1: Serotype 2 (28 days after last vaccination)||1.19|0.821|
90800683|NCT02628444|181479300|SUPERIORITY|The superiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI was greater than 1 between groups (Group 2/Group 1). Overall superiority of Group 2 to Group 1 was demonstrated if individual serotype null hypotheses were rejected.|GMT Ratio|0.972|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.17||||||Group2/Group1: Serotype 3 (28 days after last vaccination)||1.17|0.810|
90800684|NCT02628444|181479300|SUPERIORITY|The superiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI was greater than 1 between groups (Group 2/Group 1). Overall superiority of Group 2 to Group 1 was demonstrated if individual serotype null hypotheses were rejected.|GMT Ratio|0.963|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.814|1.14||||||Group2/Group1: Serotype 4 (28 days after last vaccination)||1.14|0.814|
90800685|NCT02628444|181479300|SUPERIORITY|The superiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI was greater than 1 between groups (Group 2/Group 1). Overall superiority of Group 2 to Group 1 was demonstrated if individual serotype null hypotheses were rejected.|GMT Ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.762|1.39||||||Group2/Group1: Serotype 1 (1 year after last vaccination)||1.39|0.762|
90800686|NCT02628444|181479300|SUPERIORITY|The superiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI was greater than 1 between groups (Group 2/Group 1). Overall superiority of Group 2 to Group 1 was demonstrated if individual serotype null hypotheses were rejected.|GMT Ratio|0.917|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.724|1.16||||||Group2/Group1: Serotype 2 (1 year after last vaccination)||1.16|0.724|
90800687|NCT02628444|181479300|SUPERIORITY|The superiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI was greater than 1 between groups (Group 2/Group 1). Overall superiority of Group 2 to Group 1 was demonstrated if individual serotype null hypotheses were rejected.|GMT Ratio|0.933|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.742|1.17||||||Group2/Group1: Serotype 3 (1 year after last vaccination)||1.17|0.742|
90800688|NCT02628444|181479300|SUPERIORITY|The superiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI was greater than 1 between groups (Group 2/Group 1). Overall superiority of Group 2 to Group 1 was demonstrated if individual serotype null hypotheses were rejected.|GMT Ratio|0.916|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.12||||||Group2/Group1: Serotype 4 (1 year after last vaccination)||1.12|0.750|
90800689|NCT00288015|181479318|OTHER|This is a two-stage optimal simon design. If bevacizumab is not effective, there is a 0.050 probability of concluding that it is. If bevacizumab is effective, there is a 0.2000 probability of concluding that it is not.||||||||||||In first stage 12 patients will be entered, if \</=3 patients have PFS time\>3 months p\</=0.22 is likely true. In second stage a total of up to 31 patients data will be analysed. If \>/=10 patients show PFS\</=3 months, it will suggest p\>0.50 is true.|Kaplan-Meier estimate|||This is a two stage optimal simon design testing the Null hypothesis: bevacizumab is not effective with P\<=0.220 and the alternative hypothesis: bevacizumab is effective with P \>=0.450 and has a sample size of 16.96 and a probability of early termination of 0.739. p=probability (progression free survival - PFS time\>/=3 months).|P\<=0.220 is the threshold value of significance that the null hypothesis is true or the alternative hypothesis is true. P Value was not calculated from the data. Median survival time was calculated using a 20% censored Kaplan-Meier table and graph.|||
90800690|NCT00570323|181479377|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6202|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6202
90800691|NCT03856359|181479381|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.60
90800692|NCT03856359|181479383|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.67
90800693|NCT03856359|181479385|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.73
90800694|NCT03856359|181479387|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.38
90800695|NCT03856359|181479388|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.23
90800696|NCT03856359|181479389|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.17
90800697|NCT03856359|181479390|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004
90800698|NCT03856359|181479391|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7
90800699|NCT03856359|181479392|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.09
90800700|NCT03856359|181479393|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.65
90800701|NCT03856359|181479394|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.18
90800702|NCT03856359|181479395|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.44
90800703|NCT03856359|181479396|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.20
90800704|NCT03856359|181479397|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.53
90800705|NCT03856359|181479398|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.07
90800706|NCT03856359|181479399|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.36
90800707|NCT02266147|181479402|OTHER|MTD was not observed because no DLTs occurred at the maximum dose tested. Because this is a safety endpoint, a statistical analysis was not conducted.||||||||||||||||MTD was not observed because no DLTs occurred at the maximum dose tested. Because this is a safety endpoint, a statistical analysis was not conducted.|MTD was not observed because no DLTs occurred at the maximum dose tested. Because this is a safety endpoint, a statistical analysis was not conducted.|||
90800708|NCT00696878|181479476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage with immunogenicity|0.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.4|||||Provided limit is upper 1-sided 95% confidence limit for study population for percentage of participants with clinically relevant immunogenicity, after Cycle 1|During sample size determination, the upper limit of the one-sided 95% confidence interval for the population incidence of immunogenicity, if no immunogenicity is observed, was calculated. If no immunogenicity is observed in the projected 150 participants who receive corifollitropin alfa during 3 COS cycles, then the upper limit for the population is 2%. For the projected 300 participants who receive corifollitropin alfa during 2 COS cycles, the upper limit for the population is 1%.||0.4||
90800709|NCT00696878|181479476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage with immunogenicity|0.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.8|||||Provided limit is upper 1-sided 95% confidence limit for study population for percentage of participants with clinically relevant immunogenicity, after Cycle 2|During sample size determination, the upper limit of the one-sided 95% confidence interval for the population incidence of immunogenicity, if no immunogenicity is observed, was calculated. If no immunogenicity is observed in the projected 150 participants who receive corifollitropin alfa during 3 COS cycles, then the upper limit for the population is 2%. For the projected 300 participants who receive corifollitropin alfa during 2 COS cycles, the upper limit for the population is 1%.||0.8||
91013212|NCT01270139|181909238|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The sample size was not defined on the basis of an end-point hypothesis, therefore the present FIM study should be considered as hypothesis-generating.|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Kaplan-Meier|||Null hypothesis is Nano group is superior to Ferro group and stenting control||||<0.05
91013213|NCT01270139|181909239|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The sample size was not defined on the basis of an end-point hypothesis, therefore the present FIM study should be considered as hypothesis-generating.|||||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||The null hypothesis is Nano group is superior to Ferro group and Stenting control||||<0.05
91013214|NCT01270139|181909240|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The sample size was not defined on the basis of an end-point hypothesis, therefore the present FIM study should be considered as hypothesis-generating.|||||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||The null hypothesis is Nano group is superior to Ferro group and Stenting control||||<0.05
90800710|NCT00696878|181479476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage with immunogenicity|0.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||1.5|||||Provided limit is upper 1-sided 95% confidence limit for study population for percentage of participants with clinically relevant immunogenicity, after Cycle 3|During sample size determination, the upper limit of the one-sided 95% confidence interval for the population incidence of immunogenicity, if no immunogenicity is observed, was calculated. If no immunogenicity is observed in the projected 150 participants who receive corifollitropin alfa during 3 COS cycles, then the upper limit for the population is 2%. For the projected 300 participants who receive corifollitropin alfa during 2 COS cycles, the upper limit for the population is 1%.||1.5||
90800711|NCT01120405|181479562|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of xenon over sevoflurane is accepted if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI around the estimated difference is below the prespecified non-inferiority margin of 10%.|Difference of proportion|0.19||||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|7.07|||Difference of proportion|||"The percentage of patients with MN during the 3 postoperative days in the sevoflurane group and in the xenon group was expected to be 20%. The margin of non-inferiority was 10%. Thus the sample size to prove non-inferiority was 252 patients per group with α = 0.025, a power of 0.80 and the following hypotheses: H0: Px-Pc ≥ 10%; H1: Px-Pc \< 10%.~As it was expected that approximately 15% of patients would be non-evaluable, a total of 600 patients were included."||7.07|-6.70|0.0052
90800712|NCT01120405|181479563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of proportion|0.68||||0.7715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|5.25|||Difference of proportion|||||5.25|-3.90|0.7715
91054195|NCT02912650|181990996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-55.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.81|-42.65|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-42.65|-68.81|<0.001
90800713|NCT01120405|181479564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of proportion|0.68||||0.4763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|2.54|||Difference of proportion|||||2.54|-1.19|0.4763
90800714|NCT01120405|181479565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of proportion|-0.34||||0.6533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|1.14|||Difference of proportion|||||1.14|-1.82|0.6533
90800715|NCT01120405|181479566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of proportion|0.68||||0.1559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|1.61|||Difference of proportion|||||1.61|-0.26|0.1559
90800716|NCT01120405|181479568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of proportion|1.69||||0.6056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.74|8.13|||Difference of proportion|||||8.13|-4.74|0.6056
90800717|NCT05501639|181479581|OTHER|||||||0.758|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.758
90800718|NCT05501639|181479582|OTHER|||||||0.474|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.474
90800719|NCT05501639|181479583|OTHER|||||||0.472|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.472
90800720|NCT05501639|181479584|OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|0.647|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.261|1.604|||||Incidence rate ratio at 6 months|||1.604|0.261|
90800721|NCT05501639|181479584|OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|1.005|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.513|1.969|||||Incidence rate ratio at 12 months|||1.969|0.513|
90800722|NCT05501639|181479585|OTHER|||||||0.222|||||||Chi-squared|||Hospitalisations||||0.222
90800723|NCT05501639|181479585|OTHER|||||||0.553|||||||Chi-squared|||Asthma-related hospitalisations||||0.553
91054196|NCT02912650|181990996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-6.16||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.46|0.13|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||0.13|-12.46|0.055
90800724|NCT05501639|181479585|OTHER|||||||0.192|||||||Chi-squared|||ED visits||||0.192
90800725|NCT05501639|181479585|OTHER|||||||0.383|||||||Chi-squared|||Asthma-related ED visits||||0.383
90800726|NCT05501639|181479585|OTHER|||||||0.338|||||||Chi-squared|||OP visits||||0.338
90800727|NCT05501639|181479585|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||Asthma-related OP visits||||<0.0001
90800728|NCT05501639|181479586|OTHER|||||||0.538|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Hospitalisations||||0.538
90800729|NCT05501639|181479586|OTHER|||||||0.913|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Asthma-related hospitalisations||||0.913
90800730|NCT05501639|181479586|OTHER|||||||0.688|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||ED visits||||0.688
90800731|NCT05501639|181479586|OTHER|||||||0.892|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Asthma-related ED visits||||0.892
91054197|NCT02912650|181990996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-11.7||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.7|-4.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-4.70|-18.70|0.001
91054198|NCT02912650|181990996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-49.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.21|-35.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-35.60|-63.21|<0.001
91054199|NCT02912650|181990996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-44.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.04|-30.55|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-30.55|-58.04|<0.001
91054200|NCT02912650|181990996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-5.69||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.46|2.08|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||2.08|-13.46|0.151
91054201|NCT02912650|181990996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-56.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.96|-43.91|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-43.91|-69.96|<0.001
90800732|NCT05501639|181479586|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||OP visits||||<0.0001
91054202|NCT02912650|181990996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-9.0||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.8|-2.19|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-2.19|-15.80|0.010
90800733|NCT05501639|181479586|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Asthma-related OP visits||||0.002
90800734|NCT05501639|181479587|OTHER|||||||0.378|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.378
90800735|NCT01953211|181479591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.57||0.88|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.88
90800736|NCT01953211|181479591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.63|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.9|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
90800737|NCT01953211|181479591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.83|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.78|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
90800738|NCT03188263|181479592|OTHER|The primary planned analysis was in bright light group only and compared pre-post measurements.||||||0.046||||||A threshold of .05 was selected a priori.|Sign test|A Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-ranks test was estimated to determine if pre-post measures of glucose levels differed significantly.||The primary planned analyses was to examine effect in bright light group. A significance level of .05 was selected a priori.||||.046
90800739|NCT03188263|181479593|OTHER|The primary planned analysis was in bright light group only and compared pre-post measurements.||||||0.35||||||A threshold of .05 was selected a priori.|Sign test|A Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-ranks test was estimated to determine if pre-post measures of glucose levels differed significantly.||The primary planned analyses was to examine effect in bright light group. A significance level of .05 was selected a priori.||||.35
90800740|NCT00251693|181479606|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -10%, noninferiority was concluded. Superiority of primary efficacy endpoint was assessed by comparing the crude healing rate of dexlansoprazole MR 60 mg dose to that of lansoprazole 30 mg using a Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test with baseline LA EE Grade as strata.|Difference in percentage|6.33||||0.004||95.0|2.17|10.48||Unadjusted p-value is presented. The overall 0.05 level of significance for the multiple comparisons of each dexlansoprazole dose to lansoprazole was controlled using Hochberg's method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.48|2.17|0.004
90800741|NCT00251693|181479606|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -10%, noninferiority was concluded. Superiority of primary efficacy endpoint was assessed by comparing the crude healing rate of dexlansoprazole MR 90 mg dose to that of lansoprazole 30 mg using a Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test with baseline LA EE Grade as strata.|Difference in percentage|6.84||||0.001||95.0|2.7|10.98||Unadjusted p-value is presented. The overall 0.05 level of significance for the multiple comparisons of each dexlansoprazole dose to lansoprazole was controlled using Hochberg's method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.98|2.70|0.001
90800742|NCT00251693|181479606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.727||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.727
90800743|NCT00251693|181479607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||Unadjusted p-value is presented. Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level by Hommel-Simes method within treatment and Hochberg method for comparisons of each dexlansoprazole dose to lansoprazole.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.002
90800744|NCT00251693|181479607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.045||95.0||||Unadjusted p-value is presented. Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level by Hommel-Simes method within treatment and Hochberg method for comparisons of each dexlansoprazole dose to lansoprazole.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.045
90800745|NCT00251693|181479607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.245||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.245
90800746|NCT00251693|181479608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011||95.0||||Unadjusted p-value is presented. Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level by Hommel-Simes method within treatment and Hochberg method for comparisons of each dexlansoprazole dose to lansoprazole.|Log Rank|||||||0.011
90800747|NCT00251693|181479608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017||95.0||||Unadjusted p-value is presented. Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level by Hommel-Simes method within treatment and Hochberg method for comparisons of each dexlansoprazole dose to lansoprazole.|Log Rank|||||||0.017
90800748|NCT00251693|181479608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.927||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|||||||0.927
90800749|NCT00251693|181479609|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was supported if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference with lansoprazole 30 mg of the estimated 8-week healing rate was greater than -10%. Superiority was assessed based on log-rank tests comparing treatments for the endpoints.|Difference in percentage|6.2||||0.06||95.0|2.3|10.11||Unadjusted p-value is presented. The overall 0.05 level of significance for the multiple comparisons of each dexlansoprazole dose to lansoprazole was controlled using Hochberg's method.|Log Rank|||||10.11|2.30|0.060
90800750|NCT00251693|181479609|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was supported if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference with lansoprazole 30 mg of the estimated 8-week healing rate was greater than -10%. Superiority was assessed based on log-rank tests comparing treatments for the endpoints.|Difference in percentage|6.08||||0.029||95.0|2.16|10.0||Unadjusted p-value is presented. The overall 0.05 level of significance for the multiple comparisons of each dexlansoprazole dose to lansoprazole was controlled using Hochberg's method.|Log Rank|||||10.00|2.16|0.029
90800751|NCT00251693|181479609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.707||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.707
90800752|NCT00251693|181479610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.705||95.0||||Unadjusted p-value is presented. Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level by Hommel-Simes method within treatment and Hochberg method for comparisons of each dexlansoprazole dose to lansoprazole.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.705
90800753|NCT00251693|181479610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.146||95.0||||Unadjusted p-value is presented. Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level by Hommel-Simes method within treatment and Hochberg method for comparisons of each dexlansoprazole dose to lansoprazole.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.146
90800754|NCT00251693|181479610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.283||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.283
90800755|NCT00251693|181479611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.896||95.0||||Unadjusted p-value is presented. Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level by Hommel-Simes method within treatment and Hochberg method for comparisons of each dexlansoprazole dose to lansoprazole.|Log Rank|||||||0.896
91013215|NCT01270139|181909241|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The sample size was not defined on the basis of an end-point hypothesis, therefore the present FIM study should be considered as hypothesis-generating.|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Overall comparison was assessed by applying the Friedman test, and pairwise comparisons between post-procedure and follow-up (nano vs ferro, nano vs stenting, and ferro vs stenting) were performed by ANOVA.|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis is Nano group is superior to Ferro group and stenting control||||<0.05
91013216|NCT01270139|181909242|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The sample size was not defined on the basis of an end-point hypothesis, therefore the present FIM study should be considered as hypothesis-generating.|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Overall comparison was assessed by applying the Friedman test, and pairwise comparisons between post-procedure and follow-up (nano vs ferro, nano vs stenting, and ferro vs stenting) were performed by ANOVA.|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis is Nanogroup is superior to Ferro group and stenting control||||<0.05
90800756|NCT00251693|181479611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.241||95.0||||Unadjusted p-value is presented. Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level by Hommel-Simes method within treatment and Hochberg method for comparisons of each dexlansoprazole dose to lansoprazole.|Log Rank|||||||0.241
91013217|NCT01270139|181909243|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The sample size was not defined on the basis of an end-point hypothesis, therefore the present FIM study should be considered as hypothesis-generating.|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||The null hypothesis is Nanogroup is superior to Ferro group and stenting control||||<0.05
90800757|NCT00251693|181479611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.211||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|||||||0.211
90800758|NCT04005586|181479612|OTHER|The comparison was made by descriptive statistics.||||||||||||||||Two different historical controls implanted under NCT01496066 were used.|The LAL treatment group had a mean MRCYL of -0.14 (+/- 0.21D) compared to -0.33 (+/- 0.29D) and -0.40 (+/- 0.36D) for the LAL historical control group and the monofocal IOL historical control group in NCT01496066 respectively.|||
90800759|NCT04005586|181479613|OTHER|The comparison was made by descriptive statistics.||||||||||||||||Two different historical controls implanted under NCT01496066 were used.|The LAL treatment group MRCYL change from baseline was 0.36 (+/- 0.21D) compared to 0.17 (+/- 0.29D) and 0.10 (+/- 0.36D) for the LAL historical control group and the monofocal IOL historical control group in NCT01496066, respectively.|||
90800760|NCT01628523|181479635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.05
90800761|NCT00768261|181479636|OTHER|||||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|df= 3,92||||||0.095
90800762|NCT00768261|181479637|OTHER|||||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||"There would be a treatment effect on the changes of hippocampal measures over time.~Repeated measures ANOVA on hippocampal volume slopes with hemisphere as a within-subject repeated factor, and treatment group as the main effect."||||0.066
90800763|NCT00768261|181479637|OTHER|||||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||"There would be a treatment effect on the changes of hippocampal measures over time.~Repeated measures ANOVA on hippocampal volume slopes with hemisphere as a within-subject repeated factor, and treatment group as the main effect."||||0.009
90800764|NCT00768261|181479637|OTHER|||||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||"There would be a treatment effect on the changes of hippocampal measures over time.~Repeated measures ANOVA on hippocampal volume slopes with hemisphere as a within-subject repeated factor, and treatment group as the main effect."||||0.30
90800765|NCT00768261|181479637|OTHER|||||||0.0288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|||RM-ANOVA on hippocampal volume slope||||0.0288
90800766|NCT00120627|181479638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|F (1,144) = 4.12, p \< .05||2 group (treatment vs. control) by 2 time (pre-intervention and post-intervention) one-way ANOVA||||<0.05
90800767|NCT00120627|181479638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
90800768|NCT00120627|181479639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Intent to treat analysis using Expectation-Maximization (EM) algorithm in SPSS, a maximum-likelihood method based on group assignment, demographic variables and clinical variables.||||<0.05
90800769|NCT00120627|181479640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 group (treatment vs control) by 2 time points (pre-intervention and post-intervention)||||<0.0001
90800770|NCT00120627|181479641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90800771|NCT00120627|181479641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mediation using Sobel Test|||||||<0.001
90800772|NCT00120627|181479642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
90800773|NCT00120627|181479643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 group (treatment vs control) by 2 time (pre-intervention and post-intervention) ANOVA||||< 0.05
90800774|NCT00120627|181479644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Depression Subscale||||<0.001
90800775|NCT00120627|181479644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.31|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Anxiety Subscale||||=0.31
91054203|NCT02912650|181990996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-20.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.97|-12.24|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-12.24|-27.97|<0.001
90800776|NCT00120627|181479644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.44|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Somatization Subscale||||=0.44
90800777|NCT00120627|181479645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.66|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Post-hoc analysis||||=0.66
90800778|NCT00120627|181479646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.18|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||= 0.18
90800779|NCT00120627|181479647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||< 0.01
90800780|NCT04021290|181479652|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was be concluded if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the CMH adjusted difference in the proportion of patients with plasma HIV-1 RNA ≥ 50 c/mL between each treatment group (DTG/3TC - CAR) is less than 5%.|Adjusted Difference in Percent (ADP)|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.8|||||ADP was based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel stratified analysis adjusting for Baseline stratification factor:Baseline third agent (protease inhibitor \[PI\], non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor \[NNRTI\], and integrase inhibitor \[INI\]).|||0.8|-2.4|
90800781|NCT04021290|181479653|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower bound of a 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in success rates between the two treatment arms (DTG/3TC-CAR) is greater than -12%.|Adjusted Difference in Percent|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|5.9|||||ADP was based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel stratified analysis adjusting for Baseline stratification factor:Baseline third agent (PI, NNRTI, and INI).|||5.9|-2.8|
90800782|NCT04021290|181479674|OTHER||Adjusted Mean|1.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.2|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||MMRM adjusted for following: Treatment, Visit, Baseline Third Agent Class, Age (continuous), Sex, Race, Baseline Value (continuous), Treatment by Visit interaction, Baseline Value by Visit interaction, with Visit as the repeated factor.|||2.2|0.7|<0.001
90800783|NCT04021290|181479675|OTHER||Adjusted Mean|1.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.2|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||MMRM adjusted for following: Treatment, Visit, Baseline Third Agent Class, Age (continuous), Sex, Race, Baseline Value (continuous), Treatment by Visit interaction, Baseline Value by Visit interaction, with Visit as the repeated factor.|||2.2|0.7|<0.001
90800784|NCT04021290|181479676|OTHER||Adjusted Mean|-1.6||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-0.2|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||MMRM adjusted for following: Treatment, Visit, Baseline Third Agent Class, Age (continuous), Sex, Race, Baseline Value (continuous), Treatment by Visit interaction, Baseline Value by Visit interaction, with Visit as the repeated factor.|||-0.2|-2.9|0.021
90800785|NCT04021290|181479677|OTHER||Adjusted Mean|-0.5||||0.398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.7|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||MMRM adjusted for following: Treatment, Visit, Baseline Third Agent Class, Age (continuous), Sex, Race, Baseline Value (continuous), Treatment by Visit interaction, Baseline Value by Visit interaction, with Visit as the repeated factor.|||0.7|-1.8|0.398
90800786|NCT03391882|181479679|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.722||0.8944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.16|3.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.62|-3.16|0.8944
90800787|NCT03391882|181479680|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.129||||0.7777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.484|2.637|||generalized linear random effects model|||||2.637|0.484|0.7777
90800788|NCT03391882|181479681|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value is from a 1-sample, 2-sided test of the null hypothesis that the true proportion preferring APL is 50% to evaluate if a significantly higher proportion of the subjects prefer APL-130277 or not.|binomial distribution with normal approx|||||||0.0002
90800789|NCT03391882|181479682|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.835||||0.1769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.759|4.438|||generalized linear random effects model|||||4.438|0.759|0.1769
90800790|NCT03391882|181479683|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.3922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|3.53|||generalized linear random effects model|||||3.53|0.61|0.3922
90800791|NCT04683913|181479691|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|alpha=0.05||||||<0.001
90800792|NCT04683913|181479692|OTHER|||||||0.027||||||Week 1\&2 vs Week 3\&4|t-test, 2 sided|alpha corrected with Bonferroni-Dunn procedure (k=10).||The change in foot progression angle magnitude at each sequential time point were compared using paired t-tests (with a Bonferroni-Dunn correction). Results indicate whether the change from baseline were significantly different at each time point. Abbreviations: F=Follow up, R=Retention||||0.027
91054204|NCT02912650|181990996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-47.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.64|-33.83|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-33.83|-61.64|<0.001
90800793|NCT04683913|181479692|OTHER|||||||1||||||Week 3\&4 vs Week 5\&6|t-test, 2 sided|||The change in foot progression angle magnitude at each sequential time point were compared using paired t-tests (with a Bonferroni-Dunn correction). Results indicate whether the change from baseline were significantly different at each time point. Abbreviations: F=Follow up, R=Retention||||1.0
90800794|NCT04683913|181479692|OTHER|||||||0.078||||||Week 5\&6 vs Follow up|t-test, 2 sided|alpha corrected with Bonferroni-Dunn procedure (k=10).||The change in foot progression angle magnitude at each sequential time point were compared using paired t-tests (with a Bonferroni-Dunn correction). Results indicate whether the change from baseline were significantly different at each time point. Abbreviations: F=Follow up, R=Retention||||0.078
90800795|NCT04683913|181479692|OTHER|||||||0.015||||||Follow up vs Retention|t-test, 2 sided|alpha corrected with Bonferroni-Dunn procedure (k=10).||The change in foot progression angle magnitude at each sequential time point were compared using paired t-tests (with a Bonferroni-Dunn correction). Results indicate whether the change from baseline were significantly different at each time point. Abbreviations: F=Follow up, R=Retention||||0.015
90800796|NCT04683913|181479692|OTHER|||||||0.567||||||Week 1\&2 vs Week 5\&6|t-test, 2 sided|alpha corrected with Bonferroni-Dunn procedure (k=10).||The change in foot progression angle magnitude at each sequential time point were compared using paired t-tests (with a Bonferroni-Dunn correction). Results indicate whether the change from baseline were significantly different at each time point. Abbreviations: F=Follow up, R=Retention||||0.567
90800797|NCT04683913|181479692|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||Week 1\&2 vs Follow up|t-test, 2 sided|alpha corrected with Bonferroni-Dunn procedure (k=10).||The change in foot progression angle magnitude at each sequential time point were compared using paired t-tests (with a Bonferroni-Dunn correction). Results indicate whether the change from baseline were significantly different at each time point. Abbreviations: F=Follow up, R=Retention||||0.001
90800798|NCT04683913|181479692|OTHER|||||||1||||||Week 1\&2 vs Retention|t-test, 2 sided|alpha corrected with Bonferroni-Dunn procedure (k=10).||The change in foot progression angle magnitude at each sequential time point were compared using paired t-tests (with a Bonferroni-Dunn correction). Results indicate whether the change from baseline were significantly different at each time point. Abbreviations: F=Follow up, R=Retention||||1.0
90800799|NCT04683913|181479692|OTHER|||||||0.205||||||Week 3\&4 vs Follow up|t-test, 2 sided|alpha corrected with Bonferroni-Dunn procedure (k=10).||The change in foot progression angle magnitude at each sequential time point were compared using paired t-tests (with a Bonferroni-Dunn correction). Results indicate whether the change from baseline were significantly different at each time point. Abbreviations: F=Follow up, R=Retention||||0.205
91013218|NCT01270139|181909244|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The sample size was not defined on the basis of an end-point hypothesis, therefore the present FIM study should be considered as hypothesis-generating.|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Overall comparison was assessed by applying the Friedman test, and pairwise comparisons between post-procedure and follow-up (nano vs ferro, nano vs stenting, and ferro vs stenting) were performed by ANOVA.|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis is Nano group is superior to Ferro group and stenting control||||<0.05
91013219|NCT01270139|181909245|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The sample size was not defined on the basis of an end-point hypothesis, therefore the present FIM study should be considered as hypothesis-generating.|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Overall comparison was assessed by applying the Friedman test, and pairwise comparisons between post-procedure and follow-up (nano vs ferro, nano vs stenting, and ferro vs stenting) were performed by ANOVA.|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis is Nano groups is superior to Ferro group and Stenting control||||<0.05
91054205|NCT02912650|181990996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-37.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.96|-23.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-23.40|-50.96|<0.001
91054206|NCT02912650|181990996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-11.19||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.02|-2.36|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-2.36|-20.02|0.013
91054207|NCT02912650|181990996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-58.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.03|-45.26|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-45.26|-71.03|<0.001
91054208|NCT02912650|181990996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-10.15||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.24|-3.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-3.06|-17.24|0.005
90800800|NCT04683913|181479692|OTHER|||||||0.162||||||Week 3\&4 vs Retention|t-test, 2 sided|alpha corrected with Bonferroni-Dunn procedure (k=10).||The change in foot progression angle magnitude at each sequential time point were compared using paired t-tests (with a Bonferroni-Dunn correction). Results indicate whether the change from baseline were significantly different at each time point. Abbreviations: F=Follow up, R=Retention||||0.162
91013220|NCT01270139|181909246|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The sample size was not defined on the basis of an end-point hypothesis, therefore the present FIM study should be considered as hypothesis-generating.|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Overall comparison was assessed by applying the Friedman test, and pairwise comparisons between post-procedure and follow-up (nano vs ferro, nano vs stenting, and ferro vs stenting) were performed by ANOVA.|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis is Nano group is superior to Ferro group and Stenting control||||<0.05
91054209|NCT02912650|181990996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-26.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.1|-18.44|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-18.44|-35.10|<0.001
91054210|NCT02912650|181990996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-47.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.76|-33.72|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-33.72|-61.76|<0.001
90800801|NCT04683913|181479692|OTHER|||||||0.421||||||Week 5\&6 vs Retention|t-test, 2 sided|alpha corrected with Bonferroni-Dunn procedure (k=10).||The change in foot progression angle magnitude at each sequential time point were compared using paired t-tests (with a Bonferroni-Dunn correction). Results indicate whether the change from baseline were significantly different at each time point. Abbreviations: F=Follow up, R=Retention||||0.421
90800802|NCT04683913|181479697|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||ANCOVA|Controlling for baseline scores, structural severity and sex. alpha=0.05||Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Scale - pain subscale scores were compared between the delayed and immediate groups at week 6 using ANCOVA.||||0.750
90800803|NCT04683913|181479697|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.201|||||||ANCOVA|Controlling for baseline scores, structural severity and sex. alpha=0.05||Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Scale - stiffness subscale scores were compared between the delayed and immediate groups at week 6 using ANCOVA.||||0.201
90800804|NCT04683913|181479697|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.997|||||||ANCOVA|Controlling for baseline scores, structural severity and sex. alpha=0.05||Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Scale - physical function subscale scores were compared between the delayed and immediate groups at week 6 using ANCOVA.||||0.997
90800805|NCT04683913|181479697|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.423|||||||ANCOVA|Controlling for baseline scores, structural severity and sex. alpha=0.05||Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Scale - quality of life subscale scores were compared between the delayed and immediate groups at week 6 using ANCOVA.||||0.423
90800806|NCT04683913|181479698|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.342|||||||ANCOVA|Controlling for body mass, structural severity and sex. alpha=0.05||Knee adduction moment 1 (early stance) was analyzed as raw Nm with body mass entered as as covariate.||||0.342
90800807|NCT04683913|181479698|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.844|||||||ANCOVA|Controlling for body mass, structural severity and sex. alpha=0.05||Knee Adduction Moment 2 (late stance was analyzed as raw Nm with body mass entered as as covariate.||||0.844
90800808|NCT04683913|181479698|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.774|||||||ANCOVA|Controlling for body mass, structural severity and sex. alpha=0.05||Knee Flexion Moments were analyzed as raw Nm with body mass entered as as covariate||||0.774
90800809|NCT04683913|181479699|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.186|||||||ANCOVA|Controlling for body mass, structural severity and sex. alpha=0.05||Knee adduction moment impulses were analyzed as raw Nm\*s with body mass entered as as covariate.||||0.186
90800810|NCT04683913|181479699|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.601|||||||ANCOVA|Controlling for body mass, structural severity and sex. alpha=0.05||Knee flexion moment impulses were analyzed as raw Nm\*s with body mass entered as as covariate.||||0.601
90800811|NCT04046939|181479718|SUPERIORITY||Ratio to PBO of the ratios to baseline|0.2283|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.121|0.431||A closed hierarchical procedure testing dexpramipexole against placebo at Week 12 was used. (1) 150 mg BID for AEC (2) 75 mg BID for AEC (3) pooled 75 mg and 150 mg BID group for pre-bronchodilator FEV1; and (4) 37.5 mg BID for AEC.|Mixed Models Analysis||0.2283 represents the ratio of the 150 mg BID week 12 ratio to baseline (0.2051), compared to the PBO week 12 ratio to baseline (0.8980). This ratio of 0.2283 is equivalent to a -77.17% change compared to placebo at week 12.|The 150 mg BID dexpramipexole group was compared to placebo using a mixed effects model repeated-measures (MMRM).||0.431|0.121|<.0001
91054211|NCT02912650|181990996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-31.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.61|-17.76|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-17.76|-45.61|<0.001
90800812|NCT04046939|181479718|SUPERIORITY||Ratio to PBO of the ratios to baseline|0.3403||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.177|0.653||A closed hierarchical procedure testing dexpramipexole against placebo at Week 12 was used. (1) 150 mg BID for AEC (2) 75 mg BID for AEC (3) pooled 75 mg and 150 mg BID group for pre-bronchodilator FEV1; and (4) 37.5 mg BID for AEC.|Mixed Models Analysis||0.3403 represents the ratio of the 75 mg BID week 12 ratio to baseline (0.3056), compared to the PBO week 12 ratio to baseline (0.8980). This ratio of 0.3403 is equivalent to a -65.97% change compared to placebo at week 12.|The 75 mg BID dexpramipexole group was compared to placebo using a mixed effects model repeated-measures (MMRM).||0.653|0.177|0.0014
90800813|NCT04046939|181479718|SUPERIORITY||Ratio to PBO of the ratios to baseline|0.4489||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.231|0.874||A closed hierarchical statistical testing was used. The previous endpoint in the hierarchy was not statistically significant. Therefore, this endpoint was not formally tested and is not considered statistically significant, despite a p-value \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||0.4489 represents the ratio of the 37.5 mg BID week 12 ratio to baseline (0.4031) compared to the PBO week 12 ratio to baseline (0.8980). This ratio of 0.4489 is equivalent to a -55.11% change compared to placebo at week 12.|The 37.5 mg BID dexpramipexole group was compared to placebo using a mixed effects model repeated-measures (MMRM).||0.874|0.231|0.0190
90800814|NCT04046939|181479719|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0814||||0.4154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.116|0.279||A closed hierarchical procedure testing dexpramipexole against placebo at Week 12 was used. (1) 150 mg BID for AEC (2) 75 mg BID for AEC (3) pooled 75 mg and 150 mg BID group for pre-bronchodilator FEV1; and (4) 37.5 mg BID for AEC.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimate is the difference of the pooled 75 mg and 150 mg BID group from placebo in change in pre-bronchodilator FEV1 in liters from Baseline to Week 12 (end of primary treatment period). A positive value indicates improvement in lung function.|The combined 75 mg and 150 mg BID dexpramipexole group was compared to placebo using a mixed effects model repeated-measures (MMRM).||0.279|-0.116|0.4154
90800815|NCT04046939|181479719|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.177||||0.1174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0456|0.4||For secondary endpoints which were not key secondary endpoints, no adjustment for multiple testing was used and p \<0.05 was used for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimate is the difference of the 150 mg BID group from the placebo group in the change in pre-bronchodilator FEV1 in liters from Baseline to Week 12 (end of primary treatment period). A positive value indicates improvement in lung function.|The 150 mg BID dexpramipexole group was compared to placebo using a mixed effects model repeated-measures (MMRM).||0.400|-0.0456|0.1174
91054212|NCT02912650|181990996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-16.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.1|-7.42|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-7.42|-26.10|<0.001
91054213|NCT02912650|181990996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-57.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.44|-44.72|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-44.72|-70.44|<0.001
90800816|NCT04046939|181479719|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0143||||0.8998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.211||For secondary endpoints which were not key secondary endpoints, no adjustment for multiple testing was used and p \<0.05 was used for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimate is the difference of the 75 mg BID group from the placebo group in the change in pre-bronchodilator FEV1 in liters from Baseline to Week 12 (end of primary treatment period). A positive value indicates improvement in lung function.|The 75 mg BID dexpramipexole group was compared to placebo using a mixed effects model repeated-measures (MMRM).||0.211|-0.240|0.8998
90800817|NCT04046939|181479719|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.138||||0.2425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.095|0.37||For secondary endpoints which were not key secondary endpoints, no adjustment for multiple testing was used and p \<0.05 was used for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimate is the difference of the 37.5 mg BID group from the placebo group in the change in pre-bronchodilator FEV1 in liters from Baseline to Week 12 (end of primary treatment period). A positive value indicates improvement in lung function.|The 37.5 mg BID dexpramipexole group was compared to placebo using a mixed effects model repeated-measures (MMRM).||0.370|-0.0950|0.2425
90800818|NCT04046939|181479720|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.264||||0.3059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.772|0.245||For secondary endpoints which were not key secondary endpoints, no adjustment for multiple testing was used and p \<0.05 was used for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimate is the difference of the 150 mg BID dexpramipexole group compared to the placebo group in change in ACQ-6 score from Baseline to Week 12 (end of primary treatment period). A negative value indicates improvement of asthma symptoms.|The 150 mg BID dexpramipexole group was compared to placebo using a mixed effects model repeated-measures (MMRM).||0.245|-0.772|0.3059
90800819|NCT04046939|181479720|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0457||||0.8642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.575|0.484||For secondary endpoints which were not key secondary endpoints, no adjustment for multiple testing was used and p \<0.05 was used for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimate is the difference of the 75 mg BID dexpramipexole group compared to the placebo group in change in ACQ-6 score from Baseline to Week 12 (end of primary treatment period). A negative value indicates improvement of asthma symptoms.|The 75 mg BID dexpramipexole group was compared to placebo using a mixed effects model repeated-measures (MMRM).||0.484|-0.575|0.8642
90800820|NCT04046939|181479720|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0276||||0.9182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.505||For secondary endpoints which were not key secondary endpoints, no adjustment for multiple testing was used and p \<0.05 was used for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimate is the difference of the 37.5 mg BID dexpramipexole group compared to the placebo group in change in ACQ-6 score from Baseline to Week 12 (end of primary treatment period). A negative value indicates improvement of asthma symptoms.|The 37.5 mg BID dexpramipexole group was compared to placebo using a mixed effects model repeated-measures (MMRM).||0.505|-0.560|0.9182
90800821|NCT04046939|181479721|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.181||||0.0716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0163|0.378||For secondary endpoints which were not key secondary endpoints, no adjustment for multiple testing was used and p \<0.05 was used for statistical significance.|ANCOVA||Estimate the difference of the 150 mg BID Dexpramipexole group from placebo in change in post-bronchodilator FEV1 from Baseline to Week 12 (end of primary treatment period) in liters. A positive value indicates improvement in lung function.|An ANCOVA analysis was performed comparing the 150 mg BID dexpramipexole group to placebo.||0.378|-0.0163|0.0716
90800822|NCT04046939|181479721|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.00474||||0.9619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.192|0.202||For secondary endpoints which were not key secondary endpoints, no adjustment for multiple testing was used and p \<0.05 was used for statistical significance.|ANCOVA||Estimate the difference of the 75 mg BID Dexpramipexole group from placebo in change in post-bronchodilator FEV1 from Baseline to Week 12 (end of primary treatment period) in liters. A positive value indicates improvement in lung function.|An ANCOVA analysis was performed comparing the 75 mg BID dexpramipexole group to placebo.||0.202|-0.192|0.9619
90800823|NCT04046939|181479721|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0987||||0.3368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.105|0.302||For secondary endpoints which were not key secondary endpoints, no adjustment for multiple testing was used and p \<0.05 was used for statistical significance.|ANCOVA||Estimate the difference of the 37.5 mg BID Dexpramipexole group from placebo in change in post-bronchodilator FEV1 from Baseline to Week 12 (end of primary treatment period) in liters. A positive value indicates improvement in lung function.|An ANCOVA analysis was performed comparing the 37.5 mg BID dexpramipexole group to placebo.||0.302|-0.105|0.3368
90800824|NCT04046939|181479722|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.208||||0.4512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.338|0.755||For secondary endpoints which were not key secondary endpoints, no adjustment for multiple testing was used and p \<0.05 was used for statistical significance.|ANCOVA||Estimate the difference in the 150 mg BID dexpramipexole group from the placebo group in the change in AQLQ score from Baseline to Week 12 (end of primary treatment period). A positive value indicates improvement of asthma symptoms.|An ANCOVA analysis was performed comparing the 150 mg BID dexpramipexole group to placebo.||0.755|-0.338|0.4512
90800825|NCT04046939|181479722|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0642||||0.8214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.627|0.499||For secondary endpoints which were not key secondary endpoints, no adjustment for multiple testing was used and p \<0.05 was used for statistical significance.|ANCOVA||Estimate the difference in the 75 mg BID dexpramipexole group from the placebo group in the change in AQLQ score from Baseline to Week 12 (end of primary treatment period). A positive value indicates improvement of asthma symptoms.|An ANCOVA analysis was performed comparing the 75 mg BID dexpramipexole group to placebo.||0.499|-0.627|0.8214
91054214|NCT02912650|181990996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-11.28||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.99|-3.57|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-3.57|-18.99|0.004
90800826|NCT04046939|181479722|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.154||||0.5894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.411|0.72||For secondary endpoints which were not key secondary endpoints, no adjustment for multiple testing was used and p \<0.05 was used for statistical significance.|ANCOVA||Estimate the difference in the 37.5 mg BID dexpramipexole group from the placebo group in the change in AQLQ score from Baseline to Week 12 (end of primary treatment period). A positive value indicates improvement of asthma symptoms.|An ANCOVA analysis was performed comparing the 37.5 mg BID dexpramipexole group to placebo.||0.720|-0.411|0.5894
90800827|NCT04046939|181479728|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0196||||||No adjustment for multiple testing of exploratory endpoints was used.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The 150 mg BID dexpramipexole group was compared to placebo at Week 12 using a Wilcoxon rank sum test.||||0.0196
90800828|NCT04046939|181479728|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0207||||||No adjustment for multiple testing of exploratory endpoints was used.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The 75mg BID dexpramipexole group was compared to placebo at Week 12 using a Wilcoxon rank sum test.||||0.0207
90800829|NCT04046939|181479728|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5399||||||No adjustment for multiple testing of exploratory endpoints was used.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The 37.5 mg BID dexpramipexole group was compared to placebo at Week 12 using a Wilcoxon rank sum test.||||0.5399
90800830|NCT04046939|181479729|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0233||||0.0084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0405|-0.00613||No adjustment for multiple testing of exploratory endpoints was used.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimate is the difference of the 150 mg BID group from the placebo group in the change absolute basophil count (automated differential) from Baseline to Week 12 (end of primary treatment period). A negative value represents fewer basophils.|The 150 mg BID dexpramipexole group was compared to placebo using a mixed effects model repeated-measures (MMRM) with terms for baseline, GINA treatment step, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. An unstructured covariance matrix was used. The response variable was the post-baseline value minus the baseline value.||-0.00613|-0.0405|0.0084
90800831|NCT04046939|181479729|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0206||||0.0237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0384|-0.00281||No adjustment for multiple testing of exploratory endpoints was used.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimate is the difference of the 75 mg BID group from the placebo group in the change absolute basophil count (automated differential) from Baseline to Week 12 (end of primary treatment period). A negative value represents fewer basophils.|The 75 mg BID dexpramipexole group was compared to placebo using a mixed effects model repeated-measures (MMRM) with terms for baseline, GINA treatment step, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. An unstructured covariance matrix was used. The response variable was the post-baseline value minus the baseline value.||-0.00281|-0.0384|0.0237
91013221|NCT01270139|181909247|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The sample size was not defined on the basis of an end-point hypothesis, therefore the present FIM study should be considered as hypothesis-generating.|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Overall comparison was assessed by applying the Friedman test, and pairwise comparisons between post-procedure and follow-up (nano vs ferro, nano vs stenting, and ferro vs stenting) were performed by ANOVA.|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis is Nano groups is superior to Ferro group and Stenting control||||<0.05
91013222|NCT01270139|181909248|OTHER|The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to prove Gaussian distribution allowing for calculation of the mean and standard deviation. Non-Gaussian samples are described by median and range. Discriminant variables are evaluated with the two-sided Fisher's exact test. Differences between three groups were analyzed by means of a repeated-measures oneway ANOVA followed by a Fisher's post hoc test. We used the Cox proportional hazards ratios (HR) and 95% CI for the end points.|||||<|0.05||||||"A p value was calculated for each comparison separately, and indicated as for all comparisons. In case if p value was \>0.05, it was mentioned with a separated info. The threshold for statistical significance was a p value below 0.05."|Kaplan-Meier|||Null hypothesis is Nano group is superior to Ferro group and stenting control.||||<0.05
91013223|NCT01270139|181909249|OTHER|The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to prove Gaussian distribution allowing for calculation of the mean and standard deviation. Non-Gaussian samples are described by median and range. Discriminant variables are evaluated with the two-sided Fisher's exact test. Differences between three groups were analyzed by means of a repeated-measures oneway ANOVA followed by a Fisher's post hoc test. We used the Cox proportional hazards ratios (HR) and 95% CI for the end points.|||||<|0.05||||||"A p value was calculated for each comparison separately, and indicated as for all comparisons. In case if p value was \>0.05, it was mentioned with a separated info. The threshold for statistical significance was a p value below 0.05."|Kaplan-Meier|||Null hypothesis is Nano group is superior to Ferro group and stenting control.||||<0.05
91054215|NCT02912650|181990996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-28.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.77|-19.35|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-19.35|-36.77|<0.001
91054216|NCT02912650|181990996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-46.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.98|-32.04|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-32.04|-59.98|<0.001
91054217|NCT02912650|181990996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-29.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.65|-15.75|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-15.75|-43.65|<0.001
91054218|NCT02912650|181990996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-16.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.59|-7.29|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-7.29|-26.59|<0.001
91054219|NCT02912650|181990996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-52.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.06|-39.75|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-39.75|-66.06|<0.001
90800832|NCT04046939|181479729|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.00215||||0.814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0203|0.016||No adjustment for multiple testing of exploratory endpoints was used.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimate is the difference of the 37.5 mg BID group from the placebo group in the change absolute basophil count (automated differential) from Baseline to Week 12 (end of primary treatment period). A negative value represents fewer basophils.|The 37.5 mg BID dexpramipexole group was compared to placebo using a mixed effects model repeated-measures (MMRM) with terms for baseline, GINA treatment step, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. An unstructured covariance matrix was used. The response variable was the post-baseline value minus the baseline value.||0.0160|-0.0203|0.8140
90800833|NCT04046939|181479730|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.24||||0.1886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.6|4.13||No adjustment for multiple testing of exploratory endpoints was used.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimate is the difference of the 150 mg BID group from the placebo group in the change in FeNO from Baseline to Week 12 in liters. In eosinophilic asthma, a lower FeNO indicates less eosinophilic inflammation of the airway than a higher value.|The 150 mg BID dexpramipexole group was compared to placebo using a mixed effects model repeated-measures (MMRM) with terms for baseline, GINA treatment step, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. An unstructured covariance matrix was used. The response variable was the post-baseline value minus the baseline value.||4.13|-20.6|0.1886
90800834|NCT04046939|181479730|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.53||||0.3061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.1|6.08||No adjustment for multiple testing of exploratory endpoints was used.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimate is the difference of the 75 mg BID group from the placebo group in the change in FeNO from Baseline to Week 12 in liters. In eosinophilic asthma, a lower FeNO indicates less eosinophilic inflammation of the airway than a higher value.|The 75mg BID dexpramipexole group was compared to placebo using a mixed effects model repeated-measures (MMRM) with terms for baseline, GINA treatment step, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. An unstructured covariance matrix was used. The response variable was the post-baseline value minus the baseline value.||6.08|-19.1|0.3061
90800835|NCT04046939|181479730|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.2||||0.1294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.4|3.04||No adjustment for multiple testing of exploratory endpoints was used.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimate is the difference of the 37.5 mg BID group from the placebo group in the change in FeNO from Baseline to Week 12 in liters. In eosinophilic asthma, a lower FeNO indicates less eosinophilic inflammation of the airway than a higher value.|The 37.5 mg BID dexpramipexole group was compared to placebo using a mixed effects model repeated-measures (MMRM) with terms for baseline, GINA treatment step, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. An unstructured covariance matrix was used. The response variable was the post-baseline value minus the baseline value.||3.04|-23.4|0.1294
90800836|NCT00038948|181479731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference|-2.68||||0.575||95.0|-12.27|6.91||Analysis of covariance p-value|ANCOVA||Data was adjusted for baseline and center.|Baseline GFR of 20.0 to 40.0 mL/min||6.91|-12.27|0.575
90800837|NCT00038948|181479731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference|1.31||||0.278||95.0|-1.06|3.69||Analysis of covariance p-value|ANCOVA||Data was adjusted for baseline and center.|Baseline GFR of \>40.0 mL/min||3.69|-1.06|0.278
91013224|NCT01270139|181909250|OTHER|The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to prove Gaussian distribution allowing for calculation of the mean and standard deviation. Non-Gaussian samples are described by median and range. Discriminant variables are evaluated with the two-sided Fisher's exact test. Differences between three groups were analyzed by means of a repeated-measures oneway ANOVA followed by a Fisher's post hoc test. We used the Cox proportional hazards ratios (HR) and 95% CI for the end points.|||||<|0.05||||||"A p value was calculated for each comparison separately, and indicated as for all comparisons. In case if p value was \>0.05, it was mentioned with a separated info. The threshold for statistical significance was a p value below 0.05."|Kaplan-Meier|||Null hypothesis is Nano group is superior to Ferro group and stenting control.||||<0.05
91013225|NCT01270139|181909251|OTHER|The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to prove Gaussian distribution allowing for calculation of the mean and standard deviation. Non-Gaussian samples are described by median and range. Discriminant variables are evaluated with the two-sided Fisher's exact test. Differences between three groups were analyzed by means of a repeated-measures oneway ANOVA followed by a Fisher's post hoc test. We used the Cox proportional hazards ratios (HR) and 95% CI for the end points.|||||<|0.05||||||"A p value was calculated for each comparison separately, and indicated as for all comparisons. In case if p value was \>0.05, it was mentioned with a separated info. The threshold for statistical significance was a p value below 0.05."|Kaplan-Meier|||Null hypothesis is Nano group is superior to Ferro group and stenting control.||||<0.05
91054220|NCT02912650|181990996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-8.93||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.53|-0.34|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-0.34|-17.53|0.042
91054221|NCT02912650|181990996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-27.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.65|-17.86|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-17.86|-36.65|<0.001
90800838|NCT00038948|181479732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.135||||||Tests the equality of rates between treatments across strata at 52 weeks.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||52 weeks statistical analysis across strata||||0.135
90800839|NCT00038948|181479732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.559||||||Tests the equality of rates between treatments across strata at 104 weeks.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||104 weeks statistical analysis across strata||||0.559
90800840|NCT00298389|181479738|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||calculated|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.05
90800841|NCT00298389|181479739|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.05
90800842|NCT02079909|181479760|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.84||||0.3919|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.3919
90800843|NCT02079909|181479761|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.7588|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7588
90800844|NCT02079909|181479762|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.29||||0.3212|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.3212
90800845|NCT02277249|181479763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||No power calculation performed given that this was a pilot study. The null hypothesis was that there would be no difference in pain score with injection between the two study arms. The Wilcoxon rank sum test was selected because of the study's small sample size and the non-normal distribution of pain scores. Intention to treat analyses were used.||||0.36
90800846|NCT01869634|181479781|OTHER|Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Paired samples.||||||0.0025|||||||Sign test|||Comparison between HIV positive naïve to ART before and after ART has been done.||||0.0025
90800847|NCT01869634|181479782|OTHER|Two-sample Wilcoxon rank-sum (Mann-Whitney) test||||||0.032|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.032
91013226|NCT01270139|181909252|OTHER|The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to prove Gaussian distribution allowing for calculation of the mean and standard deviation. Non-Gaussian samples are described by median and range. Discriminant variables are evaluated with the two-sided Fisher's exact test. Differences between three groups were analyzed by means of a repeated-measures oneway ANOVA followed by a Fisher's post hoc test. We used the Cox proportional hazards ratios (HR) and 95% CI for the end points.|||||<|0.05||||||"A p value was calculated for each comparison separately, and indicated as for all comparisons. In case if p value was \>0.05, it was mentioned with a separated info. The threshold for statistical significance was a p value below 0.05."|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis is ex-vivo arm with exposure of nanoparticles is superior to saline control.||||<0.05
91013227|NCT04140942|181909262|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Chi-squared|||6-Month Employment||||.15
91013228|NCT04140942|181909262|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||6-Month Employment||||.001
90800848|NCT01869634|181479782|OTHER|Wilcoxon signed-rank test||||||0.826|||||||Sign test|||Comparison of coronary artery wall thickness before and after ART in the HIV infected participants.||||0.826
91013229|NCT04140942|181909262|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||Chi-squared|||12-Month Employment||||.87
91013230|NCT04140942|181909263|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||ANCOVA|Repeated measures.||||||0.04
91054222|NCT02912650|181990996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-43.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.83|-29.72|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-29.72|-57.83|<0.001
91054223|NCT02912650|181990996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-25.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.93|-11.57|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-11.57|-39.93|<0.001
90800849|NCT01869634|181479783|OTHER|Two-sample Wilcoxon rank-sum (Mann-Whitney) test|||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||comparison between groups (HIV+ vs HIV-)||||<0.001
90800850|NCT01869634|181479783|OTHER|||||||0.807|||||||Sign test|||Changes in systemic immune activation through IL6||||0.807
90800851|NCT03427814|181479803|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1428|||||||Log Rank|The one-sided p-value was based on a stratified log-rank test.||||||= 0.1428
90800852|NCT03846427|181479810|SUPERIORITY|P value was based on the exact binomial test against the null hypothesis of ORR = 30% with alternative of ORR \> 30%|||||<|0.0001|||||||Binomial exact method|||||||<0.0001
90800853|NCT01334554|181479836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Beta coefficient (linear regression)|0.12||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.58||p- value was unadjusted. Primary outcome underwent logarithmic transformation|Regression, Linear|||H0= 4-week treatment with sildenafil citrate does not improve insulin sensitivity in obese African American women.||0.58|-0.33|0.55
90800854|NCT01334554|181479837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Beta coefficient|0.46||||0.649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|2.49||Adjusted for baseline values only|Regression, Linear|||||2.49|-1.58|0.649
90800855|NCT02393859|181479852|SUPERIORITY||Normal score|-11.54|||<|0.001||||||Stratification factors were: age (1 to 9 years vs other \[\< 1 year and \> 9 years\]), and marrow/MRD status (M1 with MRD level \< 10\^-3 vs M1 with MRD level ≥ 10\^-3 vs M2).|Stratified log-rank test||A normal score \< 0 indicates fewer than expected events for blinatumomab relative to HC3 and therefore a longer event-free survival time.|||||< 0.001
90800856|NCT02393859|181479852|SUPERIORITY||Normal score|-11.16||||0.001|||||||Unstratified log-rank test||A normal score \< 0 indicates fewer than expected events for blinatumomab relative to HC3 and therefore a longer event-free survival time.|||||0.001
90800857|NCT02393859|181479852|SUPERIORITY||Stratified hazard ratio (HR)|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.66|||||Cox proportional hazard model. Stratification factors were: age and marrow/MRD status. (HR \< 1.0 indicates a lower average event rate and a longer EFS for blinatumomab relative to HC3.)|||0.66|0.19|
90800858|NCT02393859|181479852|SUPERIORITY||Unstratified HR|0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.7|||||Cox proportional hazard model. (HR \< 1.0 indicates a lower average event rate and a longer EFS for blinatumomab relative to HC3.)|||0.70|0.22|
90800859|NCT02393859|181479852|SUPERIORITY||Stratified HR w/time-dependent covariate|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.64|||||Cox proportional hazard model including time from randomization to allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant. Stratification factors: age and marrow/MRD status. (HR \<1.0=lower average event rate and longer EFS for blinatumomab relative to HC3.)|||0.64|0.20|
91013231|NCT04140942|181909264|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.056|||||||Chi-squared|||12-Month Recidivism Analysis||||.056
91013232|NCT04140942|181909264|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||Chi-squared|||6-Month Recidivism Analysis||||.18
91013233|NCT02918968|181909286|SUPERIORITY|The significance level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.61||P-value is based on a log-rank test stratified disease stages (M0/N0, M0/N1, or M1).|Log Rank||Hazard ratio and P-value calculated using unstratified Cox proportional hazards model with treatment and disease stages (M0/N0, M0/N1, or M1) as covariate.|||0.61|0.29|<0.001
91013234|NCT02918968|181909288|SUPERIORITY|The significance level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Risk Difference (RD)|37.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.2|50.4||P-value is based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel mean score test stratified disease stages (M0/N0, M0/N1, or M1).|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel common risk difference|Difference of response rate.|\>=50% reduction||50.4|25.2|<0.001
90800860|NCT02393859|181479853|SUPERIORITY||Normal score|-13.9|||<|0.001||||||Stratification factors were: age (1 to 9 years vs other \[\< 1 year and \> 9 years\]), and marrow/MRD status (M1 with MRD level \< 10\^-3 vs M1 with MRD level ≥ 10\^-3 vs M2).|Stratified log-rank test||A normal score \< 0 indicates fewer than expected events for blinatumomab relative to HC3 and therefore a longer event-free survival time.|||||< 0.001
90800861|NCT02393859|181479853|SUPERIORITY||Normal score|-13.61|||<|0.001|||||||Unstratified log-rank test||A normal score \< 0 indicates fewer than expected events for Blinatumomab relative to HC3 and therefore a longer event free survival time.|||||< 0.001
90800862|NCT02393859|181479853|SUPERIORITY||Stratified HR|0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.61|||||Cox proportional hazard model. Stratification factors were: age and marrow/MRD status. (HR \< 1.0 indicates a lower average event rate and a longer EFS for blinatumomab relative to HC3.)|||0.61|0.20|
90800863|NCT02393859|181479853|SUPERIORITY||Unstratified HR|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.65|||||Cox proportional hazard model. (HR \< 1.0 indicates a lower average event rate and a longer EFS for blinatumomab relative to HC3.)|||0.65|0.22|
90800864|NCT02393859|181479853|SUPERIORITY||Stratified HR w/time-dependent covariate|0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.59|||||Cox proportional hazard model including time from randomization to allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant. Stratification factors: age and marrow/MRD status. (HR \<1.0=lower average event rate and longer EFS for blinatumomab relative to HC3.)|||0.59|0.20|
90800865|NCT02393859|181479854|SUPERIORITY||Normal score|-10.14||||0.001||||||Stratification factors were: age (1 to 9 years vs other \[\< 1 year and \> 9 years\]), and marrow/MRD status (M1 with MRD level \< 10\^-3 vs M1 with MRD level ≥ 10\^-3 vs M2).|Stratified log-rank test||A normal score \< 0 indicates fewer than expected events for blinatumomab relative to HC3 and therefore a longer event-free survival time.|||||0.001
90800866|NCT02393859|181479854|SUPERIORITY||Normal score|-10.32|||<|0.001|||||||Unstratified log-rank test||A normal score \< 0 indicates fewer than expected events for blinatumomab relative to HC3 and therefore a longer event-free survival time.|||||< 0.001
90800867|NCT02393859|181479854|SUPERIORITY||Stratified HR|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.66|||||Cox proportional hazard model. Stratification factors were: age and marrow/MRD status. (HR \< 1.0 indicates a lower average event rate and a longer survival for blinatumomab relative to HC3.)|||0.66|0.16|
91013235|NCT02918968|181909288|SUPERIORITY|The significance level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Risk Difference (RD)|38.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.3|50.4||P-value is based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel mean score test stratified disease stages (M0/N0, M0/N1, or M1).|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel common risk difference|Difference of response rate|≥ 90% reduction||50.4|26.3|<0.001
91013236|NCT02918968|181909289|SUPERIORITY|The significance level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Risk Difference (RD)|40.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.3|53.1||P-value is based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel mean score test stratified disease stages (M0/N0, M0/N1, or M1).|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel common risk difference|Difference of response rate.|≥ 50% reduction||53.1|28.3|<0.001
91054224|NCT02912650|181990996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-18.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.39|-8.59|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-8.59|-28.39|<0.001
91054225|NCT02912650|181990996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-45.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.96|-31.58|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-31.58|-58.96|<0.001
91054226|NCT02912650|181990996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-8.88||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.27|0.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||0.50|-18.27|0.064
90800868|NCT02393859|181479854|SUPERIORITY||Unstratified HR|0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.65|||||Cox proportional hazard model. (HR \< 1.0 indicates a lower average event rate and a longer survival for blinatumomab relative to HC3.)|||0.65|0.16|
90800869|NCT02393859|181479855|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the stratification factors: age (1 to 9 years vs other \[\< 1 year and \> 9 years\]), and marrow/MRD status (M1 with MRD level \< 10\^-3 vs M1 with MRD level ≥ 10\^-3 vs M2).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||MRD response by PCR||||< 0.001
90800870|NCT02393859|181479855|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the stratification factors: age (1 to 9 years vs other \[\< 1 year and \> 9 years\]), and marrow/MRD status (M1 with MRD level \< 10-3 vs M1 with MRD level ≥ 10-3 vs M2).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||MRD response by flow cytometry||||< 0.001
90800871|NCT02393859|181479856|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.52|||||The subdistribution HR estimates are obtained from the subdistribution Cox model. (HR \< 1.0 indicates a lower average event rate and a longer relapse-free time for blinatumomab relative to HC3.)|||0.52|0.16|
90800872|NCT02393859|181479856|SUPERIORITY||Stratified hazard ratio (HR)|0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.48|||||The subdistribution HR estimates are obtained from the subdistribution Cox model. (HR \< 1.0 indicates a lower average event rate and a longer relapse-free time for blinatumomab relative to HC3.) Stratification factors are age and marrow/MRD status.|||0.48|0.15|
90800873|NCT00954447|181479864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.74|-0.55|||ANCOVA||Linagliptin 5mg - Placebo|||-0.55|-0.74|<0.0001
90800874|NCT00954447|181479865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.935|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.949|4.419|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression of HbA1c \< 7.0 percent at week 52|Linagliptin 5mg vs. Placebo OR adjusted for baseline HbA1c, categorical renal function impairment, concomitant OADs and treatment|FAS with baseline HbA1c \>= 7.0 percent (NCF); there are 593 available values for Placebo and 595 for Linagliptin 5mg||4.419|1.949|<0.0001
90800875|NCT00954447|181479867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.51|-0.39|||ANCOVA||Linagliptin 5mg - Placebo|||-0.39|-0.51|<0.0001
90800876|NCT00954447|181479868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.69|-0.52|||ANCOVA||Linagliptin 5mg - Placebo|||-0.52|-0.69|<0.0001
90800877|NCT00954447|181479869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.76|-0.57|||ANCOVA||Linagliptin 5mg - Placebo|||-0.57|-0.76|<0.0001
90800878|NCT00954447|181479870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.67|-0.47|||ANCOVA||Linagliptin 5mg - Placebo|||-0.47|-0.67|<0.0001
90800879|NCT00954447|181479871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.65|-0.45|||ANCOVA||Linagliptin 5mg - Placebo|||-0.45|-0.65|<0.0001
90800880|NCT00954447|181479872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.64|-0.43|||ANCOVA||Linagliptin 5mg - Placebo|||-0.43|-0.64|<0.0001
90800881|NCT00954447|181479873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.49|<|0.0001||95.0|-16.49|-6.71|||ANCOVA||Linagliptin 5mg - Placebo|||-6.71|-16.49|<0.0001
90800882|NCT00954447|181479876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.0029||95.0|-2.61|-0.54|||ANCOVA||Linagliptin 5mg - Placebo|||-0.54|-2.61|0.0029
90800883|NCT00954447|181479879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.327|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.221|8.43|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression of HbA1c \< 6.5 percent at week 52|Linagliptin 5mg vs. Placebo OR adjusted for baseline HbA1c, categorical renal function impairment, concomitant OADs and treatment|FAS with baseline HbA1c \>= 6.5 percent (NCF); there are 615 available values for Placebo and 616 for Linagliptin 5mg||8.430|2.221|<0.0001
90800884|NCT00457392|181479910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.942||||0.1933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.822|1.079||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|||Differences in OS between treatment arms was analyzed by the 1-sided log rank test, stratified for smoking status (ever versus never), prior bevacizumab therapy (yes versus no) and epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) status (positive, versus negative, versus unknown).||1.079|0.822|0.1933
90800885|NCT00457392|181479911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.807||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.695|0.937||No p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons for PFS.|Log Rank|One-sided log-rank test with alpha=0.025 was used.||Differences in PFS between treatment arms was analyzed by the 1-sided log rank test, stratified for smoking status (ever versus never), prior bevacizumab therapy (yes versus no) and EGFR status (positive, versus negative, versus unknown).||0.937|0.695|0.0023
90800886|NCT00457392|181479912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.514||||0.0471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.002|2.289|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified for smoking status (ever versus never), prior bevacizumab therapy (yes versus no) and EGFR status (positive, versus negative, versus unknown) was used to compare ORR between the 2 treatment arms. The relative risk ratio estimator was used to contrast the treatment effects on response rates. A point estimate of relative risk ratio and 2-sided 95% CI was calculated.||2.289|1.002|0.0471
91013237|NCT02918968|181909289|SUPERIORITY|The significance level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Risk Difference (RD)|33.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.5|45.4||P-value is based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel mean score test stratified disease stages (M0/N0, M0/N1, or M1).|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel common risk difference|Difference of response rate|≥90% reduction||45.4|21.5|<0.001
90800887|NCT00756275|181479916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.33|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|20.56|||Chi-squared|||||20.56|.91|<0.05
91013238|NCT02918968|181909290|SUPERIORITY|The significance level was 0.05 (two-sided).|||||<|0.001||||||P-value is based on a log-rank test stratified disease stages (M0/N0, M0/N1, or M1).|Log Rank|||||||<0.001
91054227|NCT02912650|181990996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-26.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.91|-17.05|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-17.05|-36.91|<0.001
91054228|NCT02912650|181990996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-36.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.45|-22.07|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-22.07|-50.45|<0.001
91054229|NCT02912650|181990996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-18.58||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.64|-4.52|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-4.52|-32.64|0.010
90800888|NCT00756275|181479917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.36||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.29|3.11|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.11|-6.29|.50
90800889|NCT00756275|181479918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.9||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|14.5|||Fisher Exact|||||14.50|.58|.30
90800890|NCT00756275|181479919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.38||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.64|8.68|||t-test, 2 sided|||||8.68|-24.64|.34
90800891|NCT00756275|181479920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.1||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.73|23.52|||t-test, 2 sided|||||23.52|-8.73|.36
90800892|NCT00756275|181479921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.57
90800893|NCT00756275|181479922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.31
90800894|NCT00756275|181479923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.72
90800895|NCT00756275|181479924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.18
90800896|NCT00756275|181479925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.72||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.98|2.87|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.87|-3.98|.75
90890321|NCT01581281|181645150|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.4821|TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.39|1.68||A Bonferroni approach was used to control the type I error rate. Because there were three comparisons of interest, the Bonferroni corrected level of significance is 0.017 ( = 0.05 / 3).|Regression, Logistic|||"Logistic regression models were used to estimate the odds of successful primary endpoint for topiramate relative to placebo. The analyses followed the intention to treat principle, imputing an outcome of failure for any participant who withdrew early for any reason or did not provide week 24 headache diary data (endpoint data). The models, and corresponding odds ratios, were adjusted for the two stratification variables (age and baseline number of headache days)."||1.68|0.39|0.4821
91013239|NCT02918968|181909291|SUPERIORITY|The significance level was 0.05 (two-sided).|||||<|0.001||||||P-value is based on a log-rank test stratified disease stages (M0/N0, M0/N1, or M1).|Log Rank|||||||<0.001
90800897|NCT00980148|181479926|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This noninferiority study tested the null hypothesis that the failure rate of azithromycin is 5% higher than that of doxycycline against the alternative hypothesis that there is no difference between the two treatments. The treatment failure rate was assumed to be 3% for both treatments. To test this hypothesis at the one-sided 0.10 significance level with power of 0.90 required 153 study subjects per arm in the per-protocol population.|Risk Difference (RD)|3.2|||||ONE_SIDED|90.0||5.9|||||The risk difference is the percentage in the azithromycin arm with treatment failure minus the percentage in the doxycycline arm with treatment failure. Noninferiority of azithromycin would be supported if the upper 90% confidence limit is below 5%.|This noninferiority study tested the null hypothesis that the failure rate of azithromycin is 5% higher than that of doxycycline against the alternative hypothesis that there is no difference between the two treatments. The one-sided 90% exact confidence interval was used to estimate the difference between the two failures rates.||5.9||
90800898|NCT03012334|181479932|NON_INFERIORITY|Doses of lasmiditan were considered non-inferior to placebo if the upper 95% confidence limit on the difference in Standard Deviation of Lateral Position (SDLP) between that dose and placebo was less than 4.4 cm and lower doses also did not exceed the non-inferiority (NI) margin.|LS Mean|9.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.39|12.33||P-value is obtained from mixed effect model for testing difference versus placebo equals to zero.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||12.33|7.39|<.001
90800899|NCT03012334|181479932|NON_INFERIORITY|Doses of lasmiditan were considered non-inferior to placebo if the upper 95% confidence limit on the difference in SDLP between that dose and placebo was less than 4.4 cm and lower doses also did not exceed the non-inferiority (NI) margin.|LS Mean|15.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.87|17.82||P-value is obtained from mixed effect model for testing difference versus placebo equals to zero.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||17.82|12.87|<0.001
90800900|NCT03012334|181479932|NON_INFERIORITY|Doses of lasmiditan were considered non-inferior to placebo if the upper 95% confidence limit on the difference in SDLP between that dose and placebo was less than 4.4 cm and lower doses also did not exceed the non-inferiority (NI) margin.|LS Mean|21.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.6|23.52||P-value is obtained from mixed effect model for testing difference versus placebo equals to zero.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||23.52|18.60|<0.001
90800901|NCT03012334|181479932|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|22.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.23|25.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||25.18|20.23|<0.001
90800902|NCT03012334|181479932|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-12.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.32|-10.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-10.38|-15.32|<0.001
90800903|NCT03012334|181479932|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-7.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.84|-4.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.88|-9.84|<0.001
90800904|NCT03012334|181479932|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-1.65||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.11|0.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.82|-4.11|0.19
90800905|NCT03012334|181479933|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|1.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1744|2.0335|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.0335|1.1744|<0.0001
90800906|NCT03012334|181479933|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|2.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8306|2.6926|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.6926|1.8306|<.0001
90800907|NCT03012334|181479933|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|2.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4239|3.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.2800|2.4239|<0.0001
91013240|NCT02918968|181909293|SUPERIORITY|The significance level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.67||P-value is based on a log-rank test stratified disease stages (M0/N0, M0/N1, or M1)|Log Rank||Hazard ratio and P-value calculated using unstratified Cox proportional hazards model with treatment and disease stages (M0/N0, M0/N1, or M1) as covariate.|||1.67|0.45|0.669
91013241|NCT00750061|181909294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.343|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||change light touch score (wk6-d0)||||0.343
91013242|NCT00750061|181909294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||change light touch score (m6-d0)||||0.69
90800908|NCT03012334|181479933|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|3.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9568|3.8193|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.8193|2.9568|<0.0001
90800909|NCT03012334|181479933|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-1.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2137|-1.3546|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.3546|-2.2137|<0.0001
90800910|NCT03012334|181479933|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-1.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5574|-0.6956|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.6956|-1.5574|<0.0001
90800911|NCT03012334|181479933|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.5||||0.0142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9642|-0.1081|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.1081|-0.9642|0.0142
90800912|NCT03012334|181479935|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-12.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.6895|-6.5006|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-6.5006|-18.6895|<.0001
90800913|NCT03012334|181479935|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-24.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.3631|-18.1357|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-18.1357|-30.3631|<.0001
90800914|NCT03012334|181479935|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-28.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.442|-22.2897|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-22.2897|-34.4420|<.0001
90800915|NCT03012334|181479935|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-30.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.5068|-24.277|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-24.2770|-36.5068|<0.0001
90800916|NCT03012334|181479935|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|17.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.7029|23.8908|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||23.8908|11.7029|<.0001
90800917|NCT03012334|181479935|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|6.1||||0.0489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0297|12.2554|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||12.2554|0.0297|0.0489
90800918|NCT03012334|181479935|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|2.0||||0.5123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.05|8.1021|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.1021|-4.0500|0.5123
90800919|NCT03012334|181479935|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-26.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.4956|-20.3628|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-20.3628|-32.4956|<.0001
90800920|NCT03012334|181479935|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-37.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.927|-31.7537|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-31.7537|-43.9270|<.0001
90800921|NCT03012334|181479935|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-46.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.8147|-40.7268|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-40.7268|-52.8147|<.0001
90800922|NCT03012334|181479935|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-52.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.649|-46.4682|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-46.4682|-58.6490|<0.0001
91013243|NCT00750061|181909294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||change pin-prick score (wk6-d0)||||1
91013244|NCT00750061|181909294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||change pin-prick score (m6-d0)||||0.32
91013245|NCT00750061|181909294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||change motor score (wk6-d0)||||1
91013246|NCT00750061|181909294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.582|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||change motor score (m6-d0)||||0.582
90800923|NCT03012334|181479935|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|26.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.0635|32.1953|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||32.1953|20.0635|<.0001
90800924|NCT03012334|181479935|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|14.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.6325|20.804|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||20.8040|8.6325|<.0001
90800925|NCT03012334|181479935|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|5.8||||0.0605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.256|11.8317|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.8317|-0.2560|0.0605
90800926|NCT03012334|181479936|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-4.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.14|-2.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.85|-6.14|<0.001
91013247|NCT00750061|181909295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.257|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||FIM change (Wk6 - D0)||||0.257
91013248|NCT00750061|181909295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.168|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||FIM change (M6 - D0)||||0.168
91013249|NCT00750061|181909295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||VAS change (Wk6 - D0)||||0.013
91013250|NCT00750061|181909295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.137|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||VAS change (M6 - D0)||||0.137
91013251|NCT00612456|181909357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Statistics has been presented for least square means using the LOCF dataset.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.332||0.6241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.05|42.71||If the estimates of change from baseline in CRLT were negative, then the one-sided p-values were the two-sided t-test of each treatment arm from this analysis divided by 2. If the estimates of change from baseline in CRLT were positive, then the one|ANCOVA|||Comparison between Baseline value and Day 29 value.||42.71|-31.05|0.6241
91013252|NCT00612456|181909357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Statistics has been presented for least square means using the LOCF dataset.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.081||0.7315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.52|50.26||If the estimates of change from baseline in CRLT were negative, then the one-sided p-values were the two-sided t-test of each treatment arm from this analysis divided by 2. If the estimates of change from baseline in CRLT were positive, then the one|ANCOVA|||Comparison between Baseline value and Day 29 value.||50.26|-26.52|0.7315
91013253|NCT00612456|181909357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Statistics has been presented for least square means using the OC dataset.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.566||0.6212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.65|43.18||If the estimates of change from baseline in CRLT were negative, then the one-sided p-values were the two-sided t-test of each treatment arm from this analysis divided by 2. If the estimates of change from baseline in CRLT were positive, then the one|ANCOVA|||Comparison between Baseline value and Day 29 value.||43.18|-31.65|0.6212
91054230|NCT02912650|181990996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-18.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.44|-7.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-7.90|-28.44|<0.001
91013254|NCT00612456|181909357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Statistics has been presented for least square means using the OC dataset.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.662||0.5987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.44|46.84||If the estimates of change from baseline in CRLT were negative, then the one-sided p-values were the two-sided t-test of each treatment arm from this analysis divided by 2. If the estimates of change from baseline in CRLT were positive, then the one|ANCOVA|||Comparison between Baseline value and Day 29 value.||46.84|-36.44|0.5987
91013255|NCT00612456|181909357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Statistics has been presented for least square means.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.114||0.482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.28|35.64||If the estimates of change from baseline in CRLT were negative, then the one-sided p-values were the two-sided t-test of each treatment arm from this analysis divided by 2. If the estimates of change from baseline in CRLT were positive, then the one|ANCOVA|||LOCF Data excluding potential one outlier participant. Comparison between Baseline value and Day 29 value.||35.64|-37.28|0.4820
91013256|NCT00612456|181909357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Statistics has been presented for least square means.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.496||0.8562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.33|57.13||If the estimates of change from baseline in CRLT were negative, then the one-sided p-values were the two-sided t-test of each treatment arm from this analysis divided by 2. If the estimates of change from baseline in CRLT were positive, then the one|ANCOVA|||LOCF Data excluding potential one outlier participant. Comparison between Baseline value and Day 29 value.||57.13|-17.33|0.8562
91013257|NCT00612456|181909357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Statistics has been presented for least square means.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.3||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.46|36.35||If the estimates of change from baseline in CRLT were negative, then the one-sided p-values were the two-sided t-test of each treatment arm from this analysis divided by 2. If the estimates of change from baseline in CRLT were positive, then the one|ANCOVA|||OC Data excluding potential one outlier participant. Comparison between Baseline value and Day 29 value.||36.35|-37.46|0.4880
90800927|NCT03012334|181479936|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-6.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.58|-5.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.28|-8.58|<0.001
90800928|NCT03012334|181479936|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-8.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.52|-7.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-7.23|-10.52|<0.001
90800929|NCT03012334|181479936|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-11.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.81|-9.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-9.51|-12.81|<0.001
90800930|NCT03012334|181479936|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|6.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.02|8.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.31|5.02|<0.001
90800931|NCT03012334|181479936|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|4.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.58|5.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.88|2.58|<0.001
90800932|NCT03012334|181479936|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|2.3|||<|0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|3.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.93|0.64|<0.007
90800933|NCT03012334|181479937|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|1.439|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2198|1.6583|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.6583|1.2198|<0.0001
90800934|NCT03012334|181479937|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|2.018|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7981|2.238|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.2380|1.7981|<0.0001
90800935|NCT03012334|181479937|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|2.572|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3536|2.7909|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.7909|2.3536|<0.0001
90800936|NCT03012334|181479937|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|2.553|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3331|2.773|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.7730|2.3331|<0.0001
91013258|NCT00612456|181909357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Statistics has been presented for least square means.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.008||0.7556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.38|54.32||If the estimates of change from baseline in CRLT were negative, then the one-sided p-values were the two-sided t-test of each treatment arm from this analysis divided by 2. If the estimates of change from baseline in CRLT were positive, then the one|ANCOVA|||OC Data excluding potential one outlier participant. Comparison between Baseline value and Day 29 value.||54.32|-26.38|0.7556
91013259|NCT00612456|181909364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Statistics has been presented for least square means based on efficacy population.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.74|6.91|||ANCOVA|||Comparison between Baseline value and Day 29 value.||6.91|1.74|0.0015
90800937|NCT03012334|181479937|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-1.114|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3333|-0.8948|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.8948|-1.3333|<0.0001
90800938|NCT03012334|181479937|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.535|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7549|-0.3151|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.3151|-0.7549|<0.0001
90800939|NCT03012334|181479937|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.019||||0.8629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1995|0.2379|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.2379|-0.1995|0.8629
90800940|NCT03012334|181479939|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.18||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0849|0.2746|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.2746|0.0849|0.0002
90800941|NCT03012334|181479939|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.303|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2082|0.3985|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.3985|0.2082|<.0001
91013260|NCT00612456|181909364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Statistics has been presented for least square means based on efficacy population.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.403||0.5921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|3.57|||ANCOVA|||Comparison between Baseline value and Day 29 value.||3.57|-2.05|0.5921
91013261|NCT00612456|181909364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Statistics has been presented for least square means based on efficacy population.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.988||0.9646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.89|4.07|||ANCOVA|||Comparison between Baseline value and Day 29 value.||4.07|-3.89|0.9646
90800942|NCT03012334|181479939|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.372|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.277|0.4662|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.4662|0.2770|<.0001
91013262|NCT00612456|181909364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Statistics has been presented for least square means based on participants with a 'YES' for RCA NONE field from DARC FA form in study eye at screening.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.75||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.32|7.19|||ANCOVA|||Comparison between Baseline value and Day 29 value.||7.19|2.32|0.0003
90800943|NCT03012334|181479939|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.603|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.508|0.6983|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.6983|0.5080|<.0001
90800944|NCT03012334|181479939|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.423|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5183|-0.3286|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.3286|-0.5183|<.0001
91013263|NCT00612456|181909364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Statistics has been presented for least square means based on participants with a 'YES' for RCA NONE field from DARC FA form in study eye at screening.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.326||0.2208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|4.3|||ANCOVA|||Comparison between Baseline value and Day 29 value.||4.30|-1.02|0.2208
91013264|NCT00612456|181909364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Statistics has been presented for least square means based on participants with a 'YES' for RCA NONE field from DARC FA form in study eye at screening.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.927||0.9847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|3.83|||ANCOVA|||Comparison between Baseline value and Day 29 value.||3.83|-3.90|0.9847
91013265|NCT00612456|181909364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Statistics has been presented for least square means based on participants with a 'YES' for eligible field from DARC FA form in study eye at screening.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.376||0.0142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|6.31|||ANCOVA|||Comparison between Baseline value and Day 29 value.||6.31|0.75|0.0142
90800945|NCT03012334|181479939|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3949|-0.2047|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.2047|-0.3949|<0.0001
90800946|NCT03012334|181479939|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.232|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3261|-0.137|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.1370|-0.3261|<0.0001
90800947|NCT01073293|181479943|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of concomitant versus non-concomitant vaccination is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the fold difference is \>0.5|Fold difference in GMT|0.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.05|||ANOVA|||Anti-HPV 6||1.05|0.86|<0.001
90800948|NCT01073293|181479943|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of concomitant versus non-concomitant vaccination is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the fold difference is \>0.5|Fold difference in GMT|0.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.07|||ANOVA|||Anti-HPV 11||1.07|0.87|<0.001
90800949|NCT01073293|181479943|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of concomitant versus non-concomitant vaccination is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the fold difference is \>0.5|Fold difference in GMT|0.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.04|||ANOVA|||Anti-HPV 16||1.04|0.85|<0.001
90800950|NCT01073293|181479943|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of concomitant versus non-concomitant vaccination is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the fold difference is \>0.5|Fold difference in GMT|0.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.07|||ANOVA|||Anti-HPV 18||1.07|0.84|<0.001
90800951|NCT01073293|181479943|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of concomitant versus non-concomitant vaccination is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the fold difference is \>0.5|Fold difference in GMT|0.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.06|||ANOVA|||Anti-HPV 31||1.06|0.84|<0.001
90800952|NCT01073293|181479943|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of concomitant versus non-concomitant vaccination is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the fold difference is \>0.5|Fold difference in GMT|0.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.0|||ANOVA|||Anti-HPV 33||1.00|0.81|<0.001
90800953|NCT01073293|181479943|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of concomitant versus non-concomitant vaccination is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the fold difference is \>0.5|Fold difference in GMT|0.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.11|||ANOVA|||Anti-HPV 45||1.11|0.86|<0.001
90800954|NCT01073293|181479943|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of concomitant versus non-concomitant vaccination is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the fold difference is \>0.5|Fold difference in GMT|0.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.06|||ANOVA|||Anti-HPV 52||1.06|0.85|<0.001
90800955|NCT01073293|181479943|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of concomitant versus non-concomitant vaccination is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the fold difference is \>0.5|Fold difference in GMT|0.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.99|||ANOVA|||Anti-HPV 58||0.99|0.80|<0.001
90800956|NCT01073293|181479948|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of concomitant versus non-concomitant vaccination is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the percentage difference is greater than -10|Difference in percentage|0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Anti-diphtheria titer \>=0.1 IU/mL||1.4|-0.7|<0.001
90800957|NCT01073293|181479948|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of concomitant versus non-concomitant vaccination is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the percentage difference is greater than -10|Difference in percentage|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Anti-tetanus titer \>=0.1 IU/mL||1.2|-1.1|<0.001
90800958|NCT01073293|181479949|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of concomitant versus non-concomitant vaccination is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the fold difference is \>0.67|Fold difference in GMT|0.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.06|||ANOVA|||Anti-PT||1.06|0.85|<0.001
90800959|NCT01073293|181479949|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of concomitant versus non-concomitant vaccination is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the fold difference is \>0.67|Fold difference in GMT|0.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.08|||ANOVA|||Anti-FHA||1.08|0.90|<0.001
90800960|NCT01073293|181479949|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of concomitant versus non-concomitant vaccination is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the fold difference is \>0.67|Difference in GMT|0.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.09|||ANOVA|||Anti-PRN||1.09|0.80|<0.001
90800961|NCT01073293|181479949|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of concomitant versus non-concomitant vaccination is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the fold difference is \>0.67|Difference in GMT|0.89||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.11|||ANOVA|||Anti-FIM 2/3||1.11|0.72|0.005
90800962|NCT01073293|181479950|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of concomitant versus non-concomitant vaccination is demonstrated if the difference is statistically less than 10 percentage points|Difference in percentage|-0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Poliovirus type 1||0.8|-1.2|<0.001
90800963|NCT01073293|181479950|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of concomitant versus non-concomitant vaccination is demonstrated if the difference is statistically less than 10 percentage points|Difference in percentage|-0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Poliovirus type 2||0.8|-1.2|<0.001
90800964|NCT01073293|181479950|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of concomitant versus non-concomitant vaccination is demonstrated if the difference is statistically less than 10 percentage points|Difference in percentage|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Poliovirus type 3||0.8|-0.8|<0.001
90800965|NCT00328172|181479961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.3271||95.0|-0.41|0.14|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment as a fixed classification effect and baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate.||Linagliptin 0.5 mg versus placebo||0.14|-0.41|0.3271
90800966|NCT00328172|181479961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42||||0.0032||95.0|-0.69|-0.14|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment as a fixed classification effect and baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate.||Linagliptin 2.5 mg versus placebo||-0.14|-0.69|0.0032
90800967|NCT00328172|181479961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46||||0.0012||95.0|-0.74|-0.18|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment as a fixed classification effect and baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate.||Linagliptin 5.0 mg versus placebo||-0.18|-0.74|0.0012
91013266|NCT00612456|181909364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Statistics has been presented for least square means based on participants with a 'YES' for eligible field from DARC FA form in study eye at screening.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.419||0.5547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|3.71|||ANCOVA|||Comparison between Baseline value and Day 29 value.||3.71|-2.02|0.5547
91013267|NCT00612456|181909364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Statistics has been presented for least square means based on participants with a 'YES' for eligible field from DARC FA form in study eye at screening.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.287||0.9114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.37|4.88|||ANCOVA|||Comparison between Baseline value and Day 29 value.||4.88|-4.37|0.9114
90800968|NCT00328172|181479961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85|||<|0.0001||95.0|-1.1|-0.59|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment as a fixed classification effect and baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate.||Metformin versus placebo||-0.59|-1.1|<0.0001
90800969|NCT00328172|181479962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.45||||0.7027||95.0|-10.0|15.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment as a fixed classification effect and baseline FPG as a linear covariate.||Linagliptin 0.5 mg versus placebo||15.1|-10|0.7027
90800970|NCT00328172|181479962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.4||||0.003||95.0|-32.0|-6.6|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment as a fixed classification effect and baseline FPG as a linear covariate.||Linagliptin 2.5 mg versus placebo||-6.6|-32|0.003
90800971|NCT00328172|181479962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.3||||0.0418||95.0|-26.0|-0.5|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment as a fixed classification effect and baseline FPG as a linear covariate.||Linagliptin 5.0 mg versus placebo||-0.5|-26|0.0418
90800972|NCT00328172|181479962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-34.3|||<|0.0001||95.0|-47.0|-22.0|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment as a fixed classification effect and baseline FPG as a linear covariate.||||-22|-47|< 0.0001
90800973|NCT00328172|181479963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.735||||0.413||95.0|0.464|6.492|||Regression, Logistic|||Linagliptin 0.5 mg versus placebo||6.492|0.464|0.413
90800974|NCT00328172|181479963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.157||||0.842||95.0|0.275|4.861|||Regression, Logistic|||Linagliptin 2.5 mg versus placebo||4.861|0.275|0.842
90800975|NCT00328172|181479963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.844||||0.364||95.0|0.492|6.91|||Regression, Logistic|||Linagliptin 5.0 mg versus placebo||6.910|0.492|0.364
90800976|NCT00328172|181479963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.224||||0.005||95.0|1.648|16.562|||Regression, Logistic|||Metformin versus placebo||16.562|1.648|0.005
90800977|NCT00077974|181479964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent|33.0||||||95.0|24.2|42.8|||||Using exact method based on binomial distribution. Percent equals n divided by N times 100.|||42.8|24.2|
90800978|NCT01244035|181480062|OTHER||LS Mean difference|1.1||||0.1325|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.54|2.74|||Linear mixed effects model|Period and treatment were fixed effects and participant was a random effect.||||2.74|-0.54|0.1325
90800979|NCT01244035|181480062|OTHER||LS Mean difference|4.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.53|5.79|||Linear mixed effects model|Period and treatment were fixed effects and participant was a random effect.||||5.79|2.53|<0.001
90800980|NCT01244035|181480062|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-3.06||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.7|-1.42|||Linear mixed effects model|Period and treatment were fixed effects and participant was a random effect.||||-1.42|-4.70|0.0016
91013268|NCT00612456|181909367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Statistics has been presented for least square means.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.383||0.0534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|1.53|||ANCOVA|||Comparison between Baseline value and Day 29 value for FA Leakage Area of measurement.||1.53|-0.01|0.0534
91013269|NCT00612456|181909367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Statistics has been presented for least square means.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.409||0.0508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.64|||ANCOVA|||Comparison between Baseline value and Day 29 value for FA Leakage Area of measurement.||1.64|-0.00|0.0508
91013270|NCT00612456|181909367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Statistics has been presented for least square means.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.61||||0.3141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.83|||ANCOVA|||Comparison between Baseline value and Day 29 value for FA Leakage Area of measurement.||1.83|-0.60|0.3141
91013271|NCT00612456|181909367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Statistics has been presented for least square means.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.395||0.6018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|0.62|||ANCOVA|||Comparison between Baseline value and Day 29 value for FA Blood Area of measurement.||0.62|-1.04|0.6018
91013272|NCT00612456|181909367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.476||0.0509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.0||Statistics has been presented for least square means.|ANCOVA|||Comparison between Baseline value and Day 29 value for FA Blood Area of measurement.||2.00|-0.00|0.0509
91013273|NCT00612456|181909367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Statistics has been presented for least square means.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.566||0.3976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.68|||ANCOVA|||Comparison between Baseline value and Day 29 value for FA Blood Area of measurement.||1.68|-0.70|0.3976
91013274|NCT00612456|181909367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Statistics has been presented for least square means.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.385||0.241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|1.23|||ANCOVA|||Comparison between Baseline value and Day 29 value for Total Lesion size||1.23|-0.32|0.2410
91054231|NCT02912650|181990996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-34.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.21|-20.21|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||9 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-20.21|-48.21|<0.001
91054232|NCT02912650|181990996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-6.97||||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.12|3.19|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||9 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||3.19|-17.12|0.179
91054233|NCT02912650|181990996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-20.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.04|-10.35|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||9 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-10.35|-31.04|<0.001
91013275|NCT00612456|181909367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Statistics has been presented for least square means.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.412||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|2.09|||ANCOVA|||Comparison between Baseline value and Day 29 value for Total Lesion size||2.09|0.44|0.0032
91054234|NCT02912650|181990996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-27.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.44|-12.96|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||9 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-12.96|-41.44|<0.001
90800981|NCT01244035|181480063|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-2.94||||0.0212|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.3|-0.57|||Linear mixed effects model|Period and treatment were fixed effects and participant was a random effect.||||-0.57|-5.30|0.0212
90800982|NCT01244035|181480063|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-2.76||||0.0299|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.16|-0.36|||Linear mixed effects model|Period and treatment were fixed effects and participant was a random effect.||||-0.36|-5.16|0.0299
91013276|NCT00612456|181909367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Statistics has been presented for least square means.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.581||0.3185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|1.75|||ANCOVA|||Comparison between Baseline value and Day 29 value for Total Lesion size||1.75|-0.58|0.3185
90800983|NCT01244035|181480063|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.18||||0.4506|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.54|2.19|||Linear mixed effects model|Period and treatment were fixed effects and participant was a random effect.||||2.19|-2.54|0.4506
90800984|NCT03723980|181480064|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.96||||0.329|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"the calculated p value is for time interval of 4 hours~threshold for statistical significance= \<0.05"|ANOVA|For multiple comparisons between groups, post hoc (LSD) was applied||||||0.329
90800985|NCT03723980|181480064|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.92||||0.764|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"The calculated p value is for time interval of 12 hours~threshold for statistical significance= \<0.05"|ANOVA|||||||0.764
90800986|NCT03723980|181480064|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.57||||0.605|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"The calculated p value is for time interval of day 2~threshold for statistical significance= \<0.05"|ANOVA|||||||0.605
90800987|NCT03723980|181480064|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.82||||0.786|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"The calculated p value is for time interval of day 3~threshold for statistical significance= \<0.05"|ANOVA|||||||0.786
90800988|NCT03723980|181480064|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.72||||0.813|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"The calculated p value is for time interval of day 4~threshold for statistical significance= \<0.05"|ANOVA|||||||0.813
91013277|NCT00612456|181909367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Statistics has been presented for least square means.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.377||0.1074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|1.37|||ANCOVA|||Comparison between Baseline value and Day 29 value for CNV Size||1.37|-0.14|0.1074
91013278|NCT00612456|181909367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Statistics has been presented for least square means.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.402||0.0403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|1.65|||ANCOVA|||Comparison between Baseline value and Day 29 value for CNV Size||1.65|0.04|0.0403
91013279|NCT00612456|181909367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Statistics has been presented for least square means.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.594||0.249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.88|||ANCOVA|||Comparison between Baseline value and Day 29 value for CNV Size||1.88|-0.50|0.2490
91013280|NCT00808665|181909390|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.36
91013281|NCT01830621|181909400|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.46|||Log Rank|||||1.46|0.88|0.337
90800989|NCT03723980|181480066|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0||0.334|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"The calculated p value is for the difference between pre-operative time interval and 4 hours time interval.~Threshold for statistical significance= \<0.05"|ANOVA|||||||0.334
91013282|NCT01830621|181909401|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.26|||Log Rank|||||1.26|0.76|0.837
91013283|NCT01830621|181909402|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|2.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.00|0.48|0.955
91013284|NCT01830621|181909404|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.72
91013285|NCT05146999|181909409|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|83.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|72.81|94.87|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||94.87|72.81|<0.001
91013286|NCT03223649|181909412|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|-0.03||Unadjusted p-value|ANCOVA|Log-transformed value adjusted for: arcsine sqrt transformed % fat mass, pubertal stage (pre, early, or late), and basal analyte log transformed.||||-.03|-.17|0.005
91013287|NCT03223649|181909413|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011||0.349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.033|0.011||Unadjusted P-value|ANCOVA|Log-transformed value adjusted for: arcsine sqrt transformed % fat mass, pubertal stage (pre, early, or late), and basal analyte log transformed.||||0.011|-.033|0.349
91054235|NCT02912650|181990996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-13.9||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.84|0.04|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||9 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||0.04|-27.84|0.051
91054236|NCT02912650|181990996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-13.76||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.21|-3.31|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||9 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-3.31|-24.21|0.010
91013288|NCT03223649|181909414|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.043|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.084|-0.002||Unadjusted p-value|ANCOVA|Log-transformed value adjusted for: arcsine sqrt transformed % fat mass, pubertal stage (pre, early, or late), and basal analyte log transformed.||||-.002|-.084|.045
91013289|NCT03223649|181909415|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016||0.226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.051|0.013||Unadjusted p-value|ANCOVA|Log-transformed value adjusted for: arcsine sqrt transformed % fat mass, pubertal stage (pre, early, or late), and basal analyte log transformed.||||0.013|-0.051|0.226
91013290|NCT03223649|181909416|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.545|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.884|-4.716|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-4.716|-6.884|<0.001
91054237|NCT02912650|181990996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-23.25||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.31|-9.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||10 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-9.20|-37.31|0.001
91054238|NCT02912650|181990996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-2.22||||0.676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.63|8.19|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||10 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||8.19|-12.63|0.676
91013291|NCT03223649|181909417|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.13|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.130|-0.330|0.39
91013292|NCT03223649|181909418|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.046||0.648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.071|0.114|||ANCOVA|Dependent variable in Kcal log transformed, comparison adjusted for: age(y), lean mass(kg), fat mass(kg)||||0.114|-0.071|0.648
91013293|NCT03223649|181909419|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.834|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.354||0.539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.857|3.525|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for age (years)||||3.525|-1.857|0.539
91013294|NCT03223649|181909420|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.766||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.57|2.45|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for age (years)||||2.45|-4.57|0.550
91013295|NCT03223649|181909421|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.226|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.681||0.741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.127|1.579|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for age (years)||||1.579|-1.127|0.741
91013296|NCT03301272|181909437|OTHER||Difference in differences|0.0||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance is 0.05|Regression, Linear|||||||0.5
91013297|NCT05664672|181909442|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|24.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.9|37.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||37.0|15.9|<.0001
91013298|NCT05664672|181909442|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|25.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.1|37.3|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||37.3|17.1|<.0001
90800990|NCT03723980|181480066|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0||0.448|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"The calculated p value is for the difference between time interval of 4 hours and time interval of 12 hours.~Threshold for statistical significance= \<0.05"|ANOVA|||||||0.448
90800991|NCT03723980|181480066|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"The calculated p value is for the difference between time intervals of 12 hours and day 2~Threshold for statistical significance= \<0.05"|ANOVA|||||||0.056
90800992|NCT03723980|181480066|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"The calculated p value is for the difference between time intervals of day 2 and day 3~Threshold for statistical significance= \<0.05"|ANOVA|||||||0.760
90800993|NCT03723980|181480066|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0||0.828|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"The calculated p value is for the difference between time intervals of day 3 and day 4~Threshold for statistical significance= \<0.05"|ANOVA|||||||0.828
90800994|NCT03723980|181480066|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|11.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"The calculated p value is for the difference between pre-operative time interval and 4 hours time interval~Threshold for statistical significance= \<0.05"|ANOVA|||||||0.000
90800995|NCT03723980|181480066|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9||0.605|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"The calculated p value is for the difference between time interval of 4 hours and time interval of 12 hours~Threshold for statistical significance= \<0.05"|ANOVA|||||||0.605
90800996|NCT03723980|181480066|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"The calculated p value is for the difference between time intervals of 12 hours and day 2~Threshold for statistical significance= \<0.05"|ANOVA|||||||0.80
90800997|NCT03723980|181480066|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9||0.574|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"The calculated p value is for the difference between time intervals of day 2 and day 3~Threshold for statistical significance= \<0.05"|ANOVA|||||||0.574
90800998|NCT03723980|181480066|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9||0.796|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"The calculated p value is for the difference between time intervals of day 3 and day 4~Threshold for statistical significance= \<0.05"|ANOVA|||||||0.796
90800999|NCT03723980|181480067|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.412|TWO_SIDED|||||"The p-value calculated is for pain score difference at 4 hours~Threshold for statistical significance= \<0.05"|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.412
91013299|NCT05664672|181909442|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|22.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.9|33.7|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||33.7|14.9|<.0001
91054239|NCT02912650|181990996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-13.15||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.57|-2.74|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||10 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-2.74|-23.57|0.013
91013300|NCT05664672|181909442|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|16.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.8|25.3|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||25.3|10.8|<.0001
90801000|NCT03723980|181480067|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.8||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|||||"The p-value calculated is for pain score difference at 12 hours~Threshold for statistical significance= \<0.05"|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.94
90801001|NCT03723980|181480067|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.5||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|||||"The p-value calculated is for pain score difference at Day 2~Threshold for statistical significance= \<0.05"|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.035
90801002|NCT03723980|181480067|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.4||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|||||"The p-value calculated is for pain score difference at Day 3~Threshold for statistical significance= \<0.05"|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.023
90801003|NCT03723980|181480067|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|4.3||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||"The p-value calculated is for pain score difference at Day 4.~Threshold for statistical significance= \<0.05"|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.020
90801004|NCT03723980|181480068|OTHER|||||||0.15||||||"The p-value calculated is for pain score difference at 4 hours~Threshold for statistical significance= \<0.05"|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.15
91054240|NCT02912650|181990996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-20.94||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.18|-6.69|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||10 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-6.69|-35.18|0.004
90801005|NCT03723980|181480068|OTHER|||||||0.36||||||"The p-value calculated is for pain score difference at 12 hours~Threshold for statistical significance= \<0.05"|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.36
90801006|NCT03723980|181480068|OTHER|||||||0.13||||||"The p-value calculated is for pain score difference at day 2~Threshold for statistical significance= \<0.05"|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.13
90801007|NCT03723980|181480068|OTHER|||||||0.55||||||"The p-value calculated is for pain score difference at day 3~Threshold for statistical significance= \<0.05"|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.55
90801008|NCT03723980|181480068|OTHER|||||||0.17||||||"The p-value calculated is for pain score difference at day 4~Threshold for statistical significance= \<0.05"|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.17
90801009|NCT04512001|181480069|EQUIVALENCE|Margins for results to be considered equivalent: -0.6 to 0.5.|Least squares means difference|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.16|0.18||||||||0.18|-0.16|
90801010|NCT04512001|181480071|EQUIVALENCE|Margins for results to be considered equivalent: -15%, 15%.|Difference in % Response Rate|-3.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.97|2.11||||||||2.11|-9.97|
90801011|NCT02230189|181480104|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.11||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR4521||||0.010
90801012|NCT02230189|181480104|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.56||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR107||||0.010
90801013|NCT02230189|181480104|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.57||||0.018|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR-891a||||0.018
90801014|NCT02230189|181480104|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.88||||0.021|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR363||||0.021
90801015|NCT02230189|181480104|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.028|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR1248||||0.028
90801016|NCT02230189|181480104|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.85||||0.033|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR944||||0.033
90801017|NCT02230189|181480104|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.13||||0.034|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR6806||||0.034
90801018|NCT02230189|181480104|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.39||||0.036|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR103a||||0.036
90801019|NCT02230189|181480104|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.69||||0.037|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR454||||0.037
90801020|NCT02230189|181480104|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.13||||0.041|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR320e||||0.041
91013301|NCT05664672|181909442|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|147.0||||0.1148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.7|230.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||230|93.7|0.1148
91013302|NCT05664672|181909442|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|153.0||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|101.0|233.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||233|101|0.0440
91013303|NCT05664672|181909442|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|136.0||||0.2422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|87.8|210.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||210|87.8|0.2422
91054241|NCT02912650|181990996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-10.39||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.19|3.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||10 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||3.40|-24.19|0.140
91054242|NCT02912650|181990996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-11.06||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.51|-0.61|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||10 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-0.61|-21.51|0.038
91054243|NCT02912650|181990996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-17.9||||0.013||95.0|-32.13|-3.79|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores||-3.79|-32.13|0.013
91054244|NCT02912650|181990996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-3.85||||0.467||95.0|-14.23|6.53|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||6.53|-14.23|0.467
90801021|NCT02230189|181480104|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.55||||0.043|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR181a||||0.043
90801022|NCT02230189|181480104|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.95||||0.044|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR130b||||0.044
90801023|NCT02230189|181480104|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.18||||0.044|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR365a||||0.044
90801024|NCT02230189|181480104|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.06||||0.047|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR135b||||0.047
90801025|NCT02230189|181480104|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.35||||0.048|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR1273h||||0.048
90801026|NCT02230189|181480104|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.31||||0.048|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR3177||||0.048
90801027|NCT02230189|181480105|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.83||||0|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR6510||||0.0
90801028|NCT02230189|181480105|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.09||||0|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR3605||||0
90801029|NCT02230189|181480105|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.75||||0|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR3912||||0
90801030|NCT02230189|181480105|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|1.93||||0|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR15b||||0
90801031|NCT02230189|181480105|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.35||||0|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR127||||0
90801032|NCT02230189|181480105|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.59||||0|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR146a||||0
90801033|NCT02230189|181480105|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.21||||0|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR449b||||0
90801034|NCT02230189|181480105|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.85||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR21-5p||||0.01
90801035|NCT02230189|181480105|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.29||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR6842||||0.01
90801036|NCT02230189|181480105|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.24||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR142-5p||||0.01
90801037|NCT02230189|181480105|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.67||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR21||||0.01
90801038|NCT02230189|181480105|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.24||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR493||||0.01
90801039|NCT02230189|181480105|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.46||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR193a||||0.01
90801040|NCT02230189|181480105|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.89||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR149||||0.01
90801041|NCT02230189|181480105|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.06||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR449a||||0.01
90801042|NCT02230189|181480105|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.1||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR6511a||||0.01
90801043|NCT02230189|181480105|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.59||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR6843||||0.01
90801044|NCT02230189|181480105|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.95||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR671||||0.01
90801045|NCT02230189|181480105|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.65||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR6503||||0.02
90801046|NCT02230189|181480105|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.84||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR450b||||0.02
90801047|NCT02230189|181480105|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.92||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR485||||0.02
90801048|NCT02230189|181480105|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.49||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR6806||||0.02
90801049|NCT02230189|181480105|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.18||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR3182||||0.02
90801050|NCT02230189|181480105|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.28||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR142-3p||||0.02
90801051|NCT02230189|181480105|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.23||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR320d||||0.02
90801052|NCT02230189|181480105|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.73||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR3928||||0.02
90801053|NCT02230189|181480105|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.59||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR744||||0.02
90801054|NCT02230189|181480105|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|3.42||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR206||||0.02
90801055|NCT02230189|181480105|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR30e||||0.03
90801056|NCT02230189|181480105|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.52||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR4500||||0.03
90801057|NCT02230189|181480105|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.98||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR125a||||0.03
90801058|NCT02230189|181480105|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR99b||||0.03
90801059|NCT02230189|181480105|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.67||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR1||||0.03
90801060|NCT02230189|181480105|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.77||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR146b||||0.03
90801061|NCT02230189|181480105|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.17||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR1255a||||0.03
91013304|NCT05664672|181909443|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|49.9||||0.0994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.7|110.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||110|22.7|0.0994
90801062|NCT02230189|181480105|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.02||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR223||||0.03
90801063|NCT02230189|181480105|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.78||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR642a||||0.03
90801064|NCT02230189|181480105|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.17||||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR548ae||||0.4
90801065|NCT02230189|181480105|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.79||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR146b||||0.04
90801066|NCT02230189|181480105|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.52||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR877||||0.04
90801067|NCT02230189|181480105|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.69||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR181a||||0.04
90801068|NCT02230189|181480105|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.4||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR4467||||0.04
90801069|NCT02230189|181480105|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.48||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR1249||||0.04
90801070|NCT02230189|181480105|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.87||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR766||||0.04
90801071|NCT02230189|181480105|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.07||||0.048|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR29c||||0.048
90801072|NCT02230189|181480105|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.75||||-1.75|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR370||||-1.75
90801073|NCT00959907|181480124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.832||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.832
90801074|NCT00959907|181480125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.658||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.658
90801075|NCT00959907|181480125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.739||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.739
90801076|NCT00959907|181480126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.184||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.184
90801077|NCT04290624|181480147|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||||-0.20|-0.40|<0.0001
90801078|NCT04290624|181480148|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-28.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.73|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.1|-19.1|||ANCOVA|||At Week 6||-19.1|-38.1|<0.0001
90801079|NCT04290624|181480148|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.2|-17.7|||ANCOVA|||At Week 12||-17.7|-38.2|<0.0001
90801080|NCT04290624|181480149|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.27|||ANCOVA|||At Week 6||-0.27|-0.52|<0.0001
90801081|NCT04290624|181480149|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.25|||ANCOVA|||At Week 12||-0.25|-0.47|<0.0001
90801082|NCT04290624|181480150|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.142|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|-0.56|||ANCOVA|||At Week 6||-0.56|-1.14|<0.0001
90801083|NCT04290624|181480150|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.139|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|-0.67|||ANCOVA|||At Week 12||-0.67|-1.23|<0.0001
90801084|NCT04290624|181480151|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.151|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|-0.61|||ANCOVA|||At Week 6||-0.61|-1.22|<0.0001
90801085|NCT04290624|181480151|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.154|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|-0.74|||ANCOVA|||At Week 12||-0.74|-1.36|<0.0001
90801086|NCT04290624|181480152|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.23|||ANCOVA|||||-0.23|-0.41|<0.0001
90801087|NCT04290624|181480153|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||At Week 6||-0.2|-0.9|0.0039
90801088|NCT04290624|181480153|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.5|||ANCOVA|||At Week 12||-0.5|-1.1|<0.0001
90801089|NCT04290624|181480154|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.0367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||At Week 6||-0.01|-0.21|0.0367
90801090|NCT04290624|181480154|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033||0.0725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|-0.01|||Van-Elteren test|||At Week 12||-0.01|-0.14|0.0725
90801091|NCT04290624|181480155|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.075||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.13|||ANCOVA|||At Week 6||-0.13|-0.43|0.0006
90801092|NCT04290624|181480155|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.073||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||At Week 12||-0.11|-0.41|0.0009
90801093|NCT04290624|181480156|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.117||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.15|||ANCOVA|||At Week 6||-0.15|-0.62|0.0020
91013305|NCT05664672|181909443|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|65.8||||0.4162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.0|135.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||135|32.0|0.4162
91013306|NCT05664672|181909443|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|101.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.5|215.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||215|47.5|1.0000
91013307|NCT05664672|181909443|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|2.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|4.94|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||4.94|1.01|<.0001
91013308|NCT05664672|181909443|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|2230.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|965.0|5160.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||5160|965|<.0001
91013309|NCT05664672|181909443|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|2940.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1350.0|6400.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||6400|1350|<.0001
91013310|NCT05664672|181909443|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|4530.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2020.0|10200.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||10200|2020|<.0001
91013311|NCT05664672|181909444|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|5.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.29|9.87|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||9.87|3.29|<.0001
91054245|NCT02912650|181990996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-10.38||||0.049||95.0|-20.73|-0.02|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-0.02|-20.73|0.049
91054246|NCT02912650|181990996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-14.1||||0.05||95.0|-28.22|0.02|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||0.02|-28.22|0.050
91054247|NCT02912650|181990996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-7.99||||0.255||95.0|-21.73|5.76|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores||5.76|-21.73|0.255
90801094|NCT04290624|181480156|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.16|||ANCOVA|||At Week 12||-0.16|-0.52|0.0005
91054248|NCT02912650|181990996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-6.57||||0.212||95.0|-16.89|3.75|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||3.75|-16.89|0.212
90801095|NCT00656370|181480175|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.93
90801096|NCT00656370|181480176|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.67
90801097|NCT01646814|181480203|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.019
90801098|NCT01911351|181480218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||kappa statistic|0.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance: p\< or = 0.05|Chi-squared|||A kappa statistic was performed for 75% of the group to assess inter-rater agreement of the perception of the success of the procedure.||||<0.001
90801099|NCT01333436|181480233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|36.8||0.0078||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0078
90801100|NCT01333436|181480234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.9||0.0675||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0675
90801101|NCT01333436|181480235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.8||0.1798||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1798
90801102|NCT03848455|181480236|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||we use the method of RT-PCR to detect the relative expression level of PPP2CA gene in Parkinson's disease group(90 participants), healthy controls group(125 participants) and Parkinson-plus syndrome group(23 participants).This gene expression is relative to a house keeping gene GAPDH.The data were processed using 2-△△Ct. ΔCT(test) = CT(target, test) - CT(ref, test), ΔCT(calibrator) = CT(target, calibrator) - CT(ref, calibrator),ΔΔCT = ΔCT(test) - ΔCT(calibrator).||||<0.001
90801103|NCT03848455|181480236|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||we use the method of RT-PCR to detect the relative expression level of SYNJ1 gene in Parkinson's disease group(90 participants), healthy controls group(125 participants) and Parkinson-plus syndrome group(23 participants).This gene expression is relative to a house keeping gene GAPDH.The data were processed using 2-△△Ct. ΔCT(test) = CT(target, test) - CT(ref, test), ΔCT(calibrator) = CT(target, calibrator) - CT(ref, calibrator),ΔΔCT = ΔCT(test) - ΔCT(calibrator).||||<0.001
90801104|NCT03848455|181480236|OTHER|||||||0.149|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||we use the method of RT-PCR to detect the relative expression level of PPP3CB gene in Parkinson's disease group(90 participants), healthy controls group(125 participants) and Parkinson-plus syndrome group(23 participants).This gene expression is relative to a house keeping gene GAPDH.The data were processed using 2-△△Ct. ΔCT(test) = CT(target, test) - CT(ref, test), ΔCT(calibrator) = CT(target, calibrator) - CT(ref, calibrator),ΔΔCT = ΔCT(test) - ΔCT(calibrator).||||0.149
90801105|NCT03848455|181480236|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||we use the method of RT-PCR to detect the relative expression level of NSF gene in Parkinson's disease group(90 participants), healthy controls group(125 participants) and Parkinson-plus syndrome group(23 participants).This gene expression is relative to a house keeping gene GAPDH.The data were processed using 2-△△Ct. ΔCT(test) = CT(target, test) - CT(ref, test), ΔCT(calibrator) = CT(target, calibrator) - CT(ref, calibrator),ΔΔCT = ΔCT(test) - ΔCT(calibrator).||||<0.001
90801106|NCT01900665|181480239|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||||0.14|-1.73|0.095
90801107|NCT00834197|181480257|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|100.59||||||90.0|95.76|105.65|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||105.65|95.76|
90801108|NCT00834197|181480258|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|98.17||||||90.0|94.82|101.65|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||101.65|94.82|
90801109|NCT00834197|181480259|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|98.25||||||90.0|95.22|101.39|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||101.39|95.22|
91054249|NCT02912650|181990996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-15.68||||0.027||95.0|-29.59|-1.77|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores||-1.77|-29.59|0.027
90801110|NCT04050384|181480271|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|These analyses apply to the Frontal, Central, and Central-Parietal regions.||||||<0.001
91054250|NCT02912650|181990996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-4.39||||0.399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.59|5.82|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||5.82|-14.59|0.399
90801111|NCT04050384|181480272|OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.38
90801112|NCT04776161|181480308|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.12|||Generalized linear models|Adjusted for age, sex, race||||0.12|-0.16|0.78
90801113|NCT04776161|181480308|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.13|||Generalized linear models|Adjusted for age, sex, race||||0.13|-0.10|0.79
90801114|NCT04776161|181480309|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|1.22|||Generalized linear models|Adjusted for age, sex, race and baseline uric acid level.||||1.22|-0.28|0.22
90801115|NCT04776161|181480309|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|1.26|||Generalized linear models|Adjusted for age, sex, race and baseline uric acid level||||1.26|-0.33|0.24
90801116|NCT04551898|181480314|SUPERIORITY||Least square Mean|-0.25||||0.4829|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.84|0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.34|-0.84|0.4829
90801117|NCT04551898|181480314|SUPERIORITY||Least square Mean|-0.51||||0.1739|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.13|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.11|-1.13|0.1739
90801118|NCT04551898|181480314|SUPERIORITY||Least square Mean|0.19||||0.6006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|0.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.77|-0.40|0.6006
90801119|NCT04551898|181480314|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4996||||||H0: there is a flat dose response curve comparing change from baseline to Day 8 in viral load in the Placebo and other BGB-DXP593 dose groups|t-test, 1 sided|MCP Mod was used to test the primary hypothesis and provide 1-sided p-value accordingly.||||||0.4996
90801120|NCT01979614|181480330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standard Error|-0.1116||||0.438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.399|0.176|||ANCOVA|||SAP for Global Myocardial Perfusion Reserve Index (MPRI)||0.176|-0.399|0.438
90801121|NCT04971967|181480365|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Generalized linear regression|||||||0.07
90801122|NCT04971967|181480366|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Generalized linear regression|||||||0.30
90801123|NCT04971967|181480368|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Generalized linear regression|||||||0.28
90801124|NCT04971967|181480370|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Generalized linear regression|||||||0.07
90801125|NCT04971967|181480371|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Generalized linear regression|||||||0.11
90801126|NCT00052910|181480372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.24|||||Adjusted Hazard Ratio, ECF vs 5-FU/LV|||1.24|0.79|
90801127|NCT00052910|181480373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.28|||||Adjusted Hazard Ratio, ECF vs 5-FU/LV|||1.28|0.83|
90801128|NCT03181971|181480437|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of between group change from baseline to 7 months.||2.9|0.2|0.68
90801129|NCT03181971|181480437|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.1||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of between group change from baseline to 15 months||0.7|0.03|0.017
90801130|NCT03181971|181480438|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|2.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of between group change from baseline to 7 months.||2.0|0.07|.24
90801131|NCT03181971|181480438|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|7.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of between group change from baseline to 15 months.||7.0|0.1|.98
90801132|NCT03181971|181480439|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.2||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of between group change from baseline to 7 months.||1.0|-0.6|0.57
90801133|NCT03181971|181480439|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.5||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of between group change from baseline to 15 months.||0.6|-1.5|.40
91054251|NCT02912650|181990996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-7.5||||0.152||95.0|-17.76|2.77|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||2.77|-17.76|0.152
91054252|NCT02912650|181990996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-11.32||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.05|2.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||2.40|-25.05|0.106
91054253|NCT02912650|181990996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-8.59||||0.21||95.0|-22.0|4.83|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||4.83|-22.00|0.210
91054254|NCT02912650|181990996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-3.13||||0.545||95.0|-13.26|7.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||7.00|-13.26|0.545
91054255|NCT02912650|181990997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|20.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.54|30.94|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||30.94|10.54|<0.001
90801134|NCT03181971|181480440|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.04||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of between group change from baseline to 7 months.||0.1|-0.06|.46
90801135|NCT03181971|181480440|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.02||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of between group change from baseline to 15 months.||0.1|-0.2|.80
90801136|NCT03181971|181480441|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.001||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of between group change from baseline to 7 months.||0.03|-0.03|.93
90801137|NCT03181971|181480441|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.02||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of between group change from baseline to 15 months.||0.02|-0.06|.36
90801138|NCT03181971|181480442|SUPERIORITY||Percent difference in change|1.4||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|8.5||Because of skewed distributions, dietary outcomes were log-transformed and regression coefficients were exponentiated to derive the percent change in outcomes by intervention status over time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of between group change in total kcal intake from baseline to 7 months.||8.5|-5.3|0.70
90801139|NCT03181971|181480442|SUPERIORITY||Percent difference in change|3.7||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|12.0||Because of skewed distributions, dietary outcomes were log-transformed and regression coefficients were exponentiated to derive the percent change in outcomes by intervention status over time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of between group change in intake of food kcal from baseline to 7 months.||12.0|-3.9|.35
90801140|NCT03181971|181480442|SUPERIORITY||Percent difference in change|-10.6||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.2|8.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of between group change in intake of beverage kcal from baseline to 7 months.||8.8|-29.2|.35
90801141|NCT03181971|181480442|SUPERIORITY||Percent difference in change|-17.5||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.8|9.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of between group change in SSB kcal from baseline to 7 months.||9.6|-37.8|.18
90801142|NCT03181971|181480443|SUPERIORITY||Percent difference in change|9.1||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.6|49.9||Because of skewed distributions, dietary outcomes were log-transformed and regression coefficients were exponentiated to derive the percent change in outcomes by intervention status over time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of between group change from baseline to 7 months.||49.9|-20.6|.59
91054256|NCT02912650|181990997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|4.52||||0.342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.81|13.86|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||13.86|-4.81|0.342
90801143|NCT03181971|181480444|SUPERIORITY||Percent difference in change|23.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.1|34.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of between group change in water intake from baseline to 7 months.||34.2|13.1|<.001
90801144|NCT03181971|181480444|SUPERIORITY||Percent difference in change|14.7||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|25.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of between group change in water intake from baseline to 15 months.||25.9|4.5|.004
90801145|NCT03181971|181480444|SUPERIORITY||Percent difference in change|-8.0||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.7|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of between group change in SSB intake from baseline to 7 months.||0.4|-15.7|0.063
90801146|NCT03181971|181480444|SUPERIORITY||Percent difference in change|-2.8||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|6.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of between group change in SSB intake from baseline to 15 months.||6.9|-11.7|.56
90801147|NCT03181971|181480444|SUPERIORITY||Percent difference in change|1.2||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|7.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of between group change in juice intake from baseline to 7 months.||7|-4.3|.68
90801148|NCT03181971|181480444|SUPERIORITY||Percent difference in change|-1.4||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|5.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of between group change in juice intake from baseline to 15 months.||5|-7.4|.66
90801149|NCT03181971|181480444|SUPERIORITY||Percent difference in change|-4.0||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of between group change in flavored milk intake from baseline to 7 months.||0.5|-8.3|0.079
90801150|NCT03181971|181480444|SUPERIORITY||Percent difference in change|-3.0||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of between group change in flavored milk intake from baseline to 15 months.||2.3|-8.0|.26
90801151|NCT03181971|181480444|SUPERIORITY||Percent difference in change|4.4||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|11.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of between group change in plain milk intake from baseline to 7 months.||11.5|-2.2|.20
90801152|NCT03181971|181480444|SUPERIORITY||Percent difference in change|2.3||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|9.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of between group change in plain milk intake from baseline to 15 months.||9.6|-4.4|.51
90801153|NCT03181971|181480445|SUPERIORITY||Percent difference in change|31.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.2|42.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of between group change in water intake from water source at lunch from baseline to 7 months.||42.2|21.2|<.001
90801154|NCT03181971|181480445|SUPERIORITY||Percent difference in change|4.9||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|13.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of between group change in water intake from water source during lunch from baseline to 15 months.||13.5|-3.0|.22
90801155|NCT03181971|181480445|SUPERIORITY||Percent difference in change|17.0||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|33.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of between group change in water intake from water source at recess from baseline to 7 months.||33.3|2.6|.02
90801156|NCT03181971|181480445|SUPERIORITY||Percent difference in change|4.7||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|19.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of between group change in water intake from water source at recess from baseline to 15 months.||19.2|-8.0|.48
90801157|NCT03181971|181480445|SUPERIORITY||Percent difference in change|34.6||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|99.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of between group change in water intake from water source at PE from baseline to 7 months.||99.8|-9.4|.14
90801158|NCT03181971|181480445|SUPERIORITY||Percent difference in change|32.1||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|96.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of between group change in water intake from water source at PE from baseline to 15 months.||96.2|-11.0|.16
90801159|NCT04343092|181480448|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.92||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||||Historical control population included: Hydroxychloroquin (HCQ) 400mg BID at admission day then 200mg BID for 5 days plus Azithromycin (AZT) 500mg at admission day then 250mg for 5 days.|||0.05
90801160|NCT00803738|181480449|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|For the primary clinical equivalence analysis, a 90% confidence interval was constructed on the difference in the therapeutic cure rates between the Test Product and Reference Product at the Test-of-Cure visit (Visit 3). The interval was calculated using Wald's method with Yates' continuity correction. Clinical equivalence was established if this 90% confidence interval was contained within the interval -0.20 to +0.20 (-20% to +20%).|proportion of subjects in trtmt groups|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.3|15.02|||Wald's method with Yates' continuity|||||15.02|-4.30|
90801161|NCT00803738|181480450|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|A 90% confidence interval was constructed on the difference in the mycological cure rates between the Test Product and Reference Product at the Test-of-Cure visit (Visit 3). The interval was calculated using Wald's method with Yates' continuity correction. Clinical equivalence was established if this 90% confidence interval was contained within the interval -0.20 to +0.20 (-20% to +20%).|proportion of subjects in trtmt groups|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.66|11.49|||Wald's method with Yates' continuity|||||11.49|-4.66|
90801162|NCT00803738|181480451|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|A 90% confidence interval was constructed on the difference in the clinical cure rates between the Test Product and Reference Product at the Test-of-Cure visit (Visit 3). The interval was calculated using Wald's method with Yates' continuity correction. Clinical equivalence was established if this 90% confidence interval was contained within the interval -0.20 to +0.20 (-20% to +20%).|proportion of subjects in trtmt groups|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.35|16.88|||Wald's method with Yates' continuity|||||16.88|-1.35|
91013312|NCT05664672|181909444|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|8.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.88|13.4|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||13.4|4.88|<.0001
91013313|NCT05664672|181909444|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|6.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.88|11.2|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||11.2|3.88|<.0001
91013314|NCT05664672|181909444|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|6.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.46|10.5|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||10.5|3.46|<.0001
91013315|NCT05664672|181909444|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|94.4||||0.9972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.7|169.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||169|52.7|0.9972
90801163|NCT01127633|181480477|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The noninferiority margin for this hypothesis was specified as 50% of the treatment difference observed at the end of the feeder study. If the lower limit of the confidence interval (CI) was greater than 0, the noninferiority criterion was met, indicating that at least 50% of the treatment difference observed at the end of the feeder studies was maintained at specified time points in the delayed-start period.|Median Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|1.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.11|-1.14|0.974
90801164|NCT00775268|181480511|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||<0.001
90801165|NCT00775268|181480512|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0313|||||||Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test|||||||0.0313
90801166|NCT04263766|181480521|EQUIVALENCE|We tested whether TMS delivered to DLPFC had a difference effect on confidence compared to delivered to Vertex.|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Our null hypothesis is TMS to DLPFC would not lead to a significant change in confidence across all 4 delay conditions compared to TMS to the vertex.||||<.001
90801167|NCT04263766|181480521|EQUIVALENCE|We tested whether TMS to DLPFC leads to equivalent increase in confidence for four delay conditions.||||||0.99|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.99
90801168|NCT04263766|181480521|EQUIVALENCE|We tested whether TMS delivered to Vertex leads to a same effect on confidence regardless of the delay conditions.||||||0.83|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.83
90801169|NCT04263766|181480522|EQUIVALENCE|We used a two-way ANOVA to test whether TMS affected Mratio differently for DLPFC and Vertex and across different delay conditions.|||||>|0.19|||||||ANOVA|||Our null hypothesis is TMS to DLPFC would not lead to a significant change in Mratio across all 4 delay conditions compared to TMS to the vertex.||||>0.19
90801170|NCT04232943|181480528|OTHER|This study was designed to provide at least 96% power to detect ≥ 60% reduction in shedding rate in the IPV+ dmLT group assuming the shedding rate in the IPV alone group is at least 80%.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|2.464|||||RR = Ratio of proportions: (IPV+dmLT) / IPV|Analysis of Shedding of Poliovirus Type 1||2.464|0.560|
90801171|NCT04232943|181480528|OTHER|This study was designed to provide at least 96% power to detect ≥ 60% reduction in shedding rate in the IPV+ dmLT group assuming the shedding rate in the IPV alone group is at least 80%.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.606|1.51|||||RR = Ratio of proportions: (IPV+dmLT) / IPV|Analysis of Shedding of Poliovirus Type 3||1.510|0.606|
90801172|NCT03896477|181480567|OTHER||GMC Ratio|2.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.47|3.44||||||Serotype 1 geometric mean concentration ratio (Pneumosil / Synflorix) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Differences between groups were considered statistically significant if the 95% CI excludes 1.||3.44|2.47|
90801173|NCT03896477|181480567|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|1.69||||||Serotype 1 geometric mean concentration ratio (Pneumosil / Prevenar 13) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Differences between groups were considered statistically significant if the 95% CI excludes 1.||1.69|1.23|
90801174|NCT03896477|181480567|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|2.25||||||Serotype 5 geometric mean concentration ratio (Pneumosil / Synflorix) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Differences between groups were considered statistically significant if the 95% CI excludes 1.||2.25|1.66|
90801175|NCT03896477|181480567|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.88||||||Serotype 5 geometric mean concentration ratio (Pneumosil / Prevenar 13) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Differences between groups were considered statistically significant if the 95% CI excludes 1.||0.88|0.65|
91013316|NCT05664672|181909444|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|134.0||||0.4655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|77.9|230.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||230|77.9|0.4655
91013317|NCT05664672|181909444|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|109.0||||0.9851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.1|192.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||192|62.1|0.9851
91013318|NCT05664672|181909445|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|13.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.72|19.2|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||19.2|9.72|<.0001
90801176|NCT03896477|181480567|OTHER||GMC Ratio|16.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.84|20.03||||||Serotype 6A geometric mean concentration ratio (Pneumosil / Synflorix) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Differences between groups were considered statistically significant if the 95% CI excludes 1.||20.03|12.84|
90801177|NCT03896477|181480567|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.06||||||Serotype 6A geometric mean concentration ratio (Pneumosil / Prevenar 13) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Differences between groups were considered statistically significant if the 95% CI excludes 1.||1.06|0.72|
90801178|NCT03896477|181480567|OTHER||GMC Ratio|2.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.14|2.95||||||Serotype 6B geometric mean concentration ratio (Pneumosil / Synflorix) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Differences between groups were considered statistically significant if the 95% CI excludes 1.||2.95|2.14|
90801179|NCT03896477|181480567|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.95||||||Serotype 6B geometric mean concentration ratio (Pneumosil / Prevenar 13) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Differences between groups were considered statistically significant if the 95% CI excludes 1.||0.95|0.68|
90801180|NCT03896477|181480567|OTHER||GMC Ratio|2.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.83|2.44||||||Serotype 7F geometric mean concentration ratio (Pneumosil / Synflorix) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Differences between groups were considered statistically significant if the 95% CI excludes 1.||2.44|1.83|
90801181|NCT03896477|181480567|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.22||||||Serotype 7F geometric mean concentration ratio (Pneumosil / Prevenar 13) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Differences between groups were considered statistically significant if the 95% CI excludes 1.||1.22|0.91|
90801182|NCT03896477|181480567|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|1.65||||||Serotype 9V geometric mean concentration ratio (Pneumosil / Synflorix) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Differences between groups were considered statistically significant if the 95% CI excludes 1.||1.65|1.21|
90801183|NCT03896477|181480567|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.05||||||Serotype 9V geometric mean concentration ratio (Pneumosil / Prevenar 13) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Differences between groups were considered statistically significant if the 95% CI excludes 1.||1.05|0.76|
90801184|NCT03896477|181480567|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|2.1||||||Serotype 14 geometric mean concentration ratio (Pneumosil / Synflorix) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Differences between groups were considered statistically significant if the 95% CI excludes 1.||2.10|1.29|
90801185|NCT03896477|181480567|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.12||||||Serotype 14 geometric mean concentration ratio (Pneumosil / Prevenar 13) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Differences between groups were considered statistically significant if the 95% CI excludes 1.||1.12|0.73|
90801186|NCT03896477|181480567|OTHER||GMC Ratio|3.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.91|4.67||||||Serotype 19A geometric mean concentration ratio (Pneumosil / Synflorix) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Differences between groups were considered statistically significant if the 95% CI excludes 1.||4.67|2.91|
90801187|NCT03896477|181480567|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.87||||||Serotype 19A geometric mean concentration ratio (Pneumosil / Prevenar 13) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Differences between groups were considered statistically significant if the 95% CI excludes 1.||0.87|0.60|
90801188|NCT03896477|181480567|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.79||||||Serotype 19F geometric mean concentration ratio (Pneumosil / Synflorix) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Differences between groups were considered statistically significant if the 95% CI excludes 1.||0.79|0.52|
90801189|NCT03896477|181480567|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.89||||||Serotype 19F geometric mean concentration ratio (Pneumosil / Prevenar 13) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Differences between groups were considered statistically significant if the 95% CI excludes 1.||0.89|0.62|
90801190|NCT03896477|181480567|OTHER||GMC Ratio|2.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.89|2.76||||||Serotype 23F geometric mean concentration ratio (Pneumosil / Synflorix) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Differences between groups were considered statistically significant if the 95% CI excludes 1.||2.76|1.89|
90801191|NCT03896477|181480567|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.22||||||Serotype 23F geometric mean concentration ratio (Pneumosil / Prevenar 13) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Differences between groups were considered statistically significant if the 95% CI excludes 1.||1.22|0.82|
90801192|NCT01106157|181480585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.277|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.134||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.552|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.552|0.001|0.017
90801193|NCT01106157|181480586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.104||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.13|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.13|-0.30|0.43
90801194|NCT01106157|181480587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|0.63|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.63|-1.64|0.37
90801195|NCT01106157|181480588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.064|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.27|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.27|-0.40|0.69
90801196|NCT01106157|181480589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|11.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|81.3||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-156.8|180.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||180.3|-156.8|0.89
90801197|NCT01106157|181480590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.70|-0.15|0.2
90801198|NCT01106157|181480591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-24.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.61||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.8|16.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||||16.7|-64.8|0.23
90801199|NCT01106157|181480592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.037|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.23|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.23|-0.18|0.79
90801200|NCT01106157|181480593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-7.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.33||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.7|3.35|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.35|-18.7|0.163
91013319|NCT05664672|181909445|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|16.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.1|22.6|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||22.6|12.1|<.0001
91054257|NCT02912650|181990997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|3.62||||0.459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.98|13.22|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||13.22|-5.98|0.459
90801201|NCT01118780|181480595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|4.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.47|5.88|||Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference was calculated by placebo minus duloxetine. Positive values indicated improvement over placebo.|||5.88|2.47|<0.001
90801202|NCT01118780|181480596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|3.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.61|4.85|||Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference was calculated by placebo minus duloxetine. Positive values indicated improvement over placebo.|||4.85|1.61|<0.001
90801203|NCT01118780|181480597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|3.37||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 10 in the HAMA Psychic Anxiety Factor Score.|Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference was calculated by placebo minus duloxetine. Positive values indicated improvement over placebo.|||3.37|1.43|<0.001
90801204|NCT01118780|181480597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|2.65||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 10 in the HAMA Somatic Anxiety Factor Score.|Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference was calculated by placebo minus duloxetine. Positive values indicated improvement over placebo.|||2.65|0.87|<0.001
90801205|NCT01118780|181480597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.74||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 10 in the HAMA Anxious Mood Item Score.|Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference was calculated by placebo minus duloxetine. Positive values indicated improvement over placebo.|||0.74|0.30|<0.001
90801206|NCT01118780|181480597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.53||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 10 in the HAMA Tension Item Score.|Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference was calculated by placebo minus duloxetine. Positive values indicated improvement over placebo.|||0.53|0.09|0.007
90801207|NCT01118780|181480598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|3.18||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 10 in the HADS Anxiety Subscale Score.|Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference was calculated by placebo minus duloxetine. Positive values indicated improvement over placebo.|||3.18|1.20|<0.001
90801208|NCT01118780|181480598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|2.49||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 10 in the HADS Depression Subscale Score.|Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference was calculated by placebo minus duloxetine. Positive values indicated improvement over placebo.|||2.49|0.89|<0.001
90801209|NCT01118780|181480599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.79|||Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference was calculated by placebo minus duloxetine. Positive values indicated improvement over placebo.|||0.79|0.26|<0.001
90801210|NCT01118780|181480600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.91|||Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference was calculated by placebo minus duloxetine. Positive values indicated improvement over placebo.|||0.91|0.33|<0.001
90801211|NCT01118780|181480601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|1.11||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 10 in BPI-SF Worst Pain Score.|Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference was calculated by placebo minus duloxetine. Positive values indicated improvement over placebo.|||1.11|-0.02|0.059
90801212|NCT01118780|181480601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.89||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 10 in BPI-SF Least Pain Score.|Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference was calculated by placebo minus duloxetine. Positive values indicated improvement over placebo.|||0.89|-0.05|0.079
91054258|NCT02912650|181990997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|16.2||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.24|26.17|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||26.17|6.24|0.001
91054259|NCT02912650|181990997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|17.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.42|27.31|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||27.31|7.42|<0.001
91054260|NCT02912650|181990997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-0.91||||0.849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|8.42|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||8.42|-10.2|0.849
91054261|NCT02912650|181990997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|51.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.53|62.62|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||62.62|39.53|<0.001
91054262|NCT02912650|181990997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cumulative Percentage of Participants wi|5.16||||0.318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.97|15.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||15.30|-4.97|0.318
91054263|NCT02912650|181990997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|9.86||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|20.21|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||20.21|-0.49|0.062
90801213|NCT01118780|181480601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.91||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 10 in BPI-SF Average Pain Score.|Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference was calculated by placebo minus duloxetine. Positive values indicated improvement over placebo.|||0.91|-0.06|0.089
90801214|NCT01118780|181480601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.73||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 10 in BPI-SF Pain Right Now Score.|Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference was calculated by placebo minus duloxetine. Positive values indicated improvement over placebo.|||0.73|-0.27|0.371
90801215|NCT01118780|181480601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|1.09||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 10 in BPI-SF General Activity Score.|Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference was calculated by placebo minus duloxetine. Positive values indicated improvement over placebo.|||1.09|-0.04|0.066
90801216|NCT01118780|181480601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.95||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 10 in BPI-SF Mood Score.|Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference was calculated by placebo minus duloxetine. Positive values indicated improvement over placebo.|||0.95|-0.13|0.140
90801217|NCT01118780|181480601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|1.18||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 10 in BPI-SF Walking Ability Score.|Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference was calculated by placebo minus duloxetine. Positive values indicated improvement over placebo.|||1.18|0.03|0.040
90801218|NCT01118780|181480601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.94||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 10 in BPI-SF Normal Work Score.|Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference was calculated by placebo minus duloxetine. Positive values indicated improvement over placebo.|||0.94|-0.19|0.187
91054264|NCT02912650|181990997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|45.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.45|57.76|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||57.76|33.45|<0.001
90801219|NCT01118780|181480601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.68||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 10 in BPI-SF Relations With Other People Score.|Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference was calculated by placebo minus duloxetine. Positive values indicated improvement over placebo.|||0.68|-0.34|0.515
90801220|NCT01118780|181480601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|1.18||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 10 in BPI-SF Sleep Score.|Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference was calculated by placebo minus duloxetine. Positive values indicated improvement over placebo.|||1.18|-0.17|0.141
90801221|NCT01118780|181480601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|1.07||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 10 in BPI-SF Enjoyment of Life Score.|Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference was calculated by placebo minus duloxetine. Positive values indicated improvement over placebo.|||1.07|-0.07|0.088
90801222|NCT01118780|181480602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-5.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.87||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|-2.1|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference was calculated by placebo minus duloxetine. Negative values indicated improvement over placebo.|||-2.1|-9.4|0.002
90801223|NCT01118780|181480604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.98||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 10 in SDS for Work/School Impairment Score.|Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference was calculated by placebo minus duloxetine. Positive values indicated improvement over placebo.|||1.98|0.27|0.010
90801224|NCT01118780|181480604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.48||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 10 in SDS for Social Life/Leisure Activities Impairment Score.|Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference was calculated by placebo minus duloxetine. Positive values indicated improvement over placebo.|||1.48|0.32|0.002
90801225|NCT01118780|181480604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.81||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 10 in SDS for Family/Home Management Impairment Score.|Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference was calculated by placebo minus duloxetine. Positive values indicated improvement over placebo.|||1.81|0.61|<0.001
90801226|NCT01118780|181480605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The p-value is for percentage of participants having HAMA response at Week 10 and was adjusted for pooled investigator.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90801227|NCT01118780|181480605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The p-value is for percentage of participants having remission (HAMA Total Score ≤7) at Week 10 and was adjusted for pooled investigator.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90801228|NCT01118780|181480605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The p-value is for percentage of participants having remission (HAMA Total Score ≤10) at Week 10 and was adjusted for pooled investigator.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90801229|NCT01118780|181480606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The p-value is for the percentage of participants having functional remission (SDS Global Score ≤5) at Week 10 and was adjusted for pooled investigator.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91013320|NCT05664672|181909445|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|13.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.68|18.6|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||18.6|9.68|<.0001
90801230|NCT01118780|181480606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The p-value is for the percentage of participants having functional remission (SDS Global Score ≤6) at Week 10 and was adjusted for pooled investigator.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90801231|NCT01118780|181480607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||The p-value is for the percentage of participants having HAMA sustained improvement overall and was adjusted for pooled investigator.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.001
90801232|NCT01118780|181480607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038||95.0||||The p-value is for the percentage of participants having HAMA sustained improvement from Week 2 and was adjusted for pooled investigator.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.038
90801233|NCT01118780|181480611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||The p-value was adjusted for pooled investigator.|Log Rank|||||||0.005
90801234|NCT01118780|181480612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The p-value is for the time to first remission (HAMA Total Score ≤10) and was adjusted for pooled investigator.|Log Rank|||||||<0.001
90801235|NCT01118780|181480613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||The p-value was adjusted for pooled investigator.|Log Rank|||||||0.001
90801236|NCT01118780|181480614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0||||The p-value is for the time to first functional remission (SDS Global Functional Impairment Score ≤5) and was adjusted for pooled investigator.|Log Rank|||||||0.006
91054265|NCT02912650|181990997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|41.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.76|53.38|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||53.38|28.76|<0.001
90801237|NCT01118780|181480614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||The p-value is for time to first functional remission (SDS Global Functional Impairment Score ≤6) and was adjusted for pooled investigator.|Log Rank|||||||0.003
90801238|NCT01118780|181480615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The p-value was adjusted for pooled investigator.|Log Rank|||||||<0.001
90801239|NCT01824290|181480623|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|29.114|||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-14.25|62.0||||||||62.00|-14.25|
90801240|NCT01490918|181480629|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0036||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|ANCOVA|Baselin HbA1c as covariate||primary outcome efficacy will be evaluated between group 1(placebo + metfromin + sitagliptin) and 2 (sitagliptine + metformin + acarbose)||||0.0036
90801241|NCT01490918|181480630|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|ANCOVA|Baseline HbA1c as covariate||||||<0.0001
90801242|NCT01490918|181480631|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0185||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|ANCOVA|baseline PPG2hr as covariate||||||0.0185
91054266|NCT02912650|181990997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|4.74||||0.374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|15.17|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||15.17|-5.70|0.374
90801243|NCT01490918|181480632|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0356||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|ANCOVA|baseline data as covariate||||||0.0356
90801244|NCT01490918|181480633|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8258||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|ANCOVA|baseline data as covariate||||||0.8258
90801245|NCT01490918|181480634|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9217||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|ANCOVA|baseline data as covariate||||||0.9217
90801246|NCT01490918|181480635|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|ANCOVA|baseline data as covariate||||||0.16
90801247|NCT01490918|181480636|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|ANCOVA|baseline data as covariate||||||0.004
90801248|NCT01490918|181480637|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.292||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|ANCOVA|baseline data as covariate||||||0.292
90801249|NCT01490918|181480638|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.314||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|ANCOVA|baseline data as covariate||||||0.314
91054267|NCT02912650|181990997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|60.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.93|72.26|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||72.26|47.93|<0.001
90801250|NCT01490918|181480639|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7563||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|ANCOVA|baseline data as covariate||||||0.7563
90801251|NCT02099084|181480640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Level of significance = .05||||0.74
90801252|NCT02099084|181480641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between the groups for change between 0- and 2-hours. Level of significance = .05||||0.20
90801253|NCT02099084|181480641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between the groups for change between 0- and 8-hours. Level of significance = .05||||0.17
90801254|NCT02099084|181480642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.075|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Level of significance = .05||||0.075
90801255|NCT02099084|181480645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Level of significance = .05||||0.42
90801256|NCT02099084|181480646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Level of significance = .05||||0.34
90801257|NCT02706925|181480653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|1.2951|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0352|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2242|1.366|||||The model of dose proportionality was power model that describes the functional relationship between the dose and PK endpoints. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1. Standard deviation is actually the standard error of slope.|||1.3660|1.2242|
90801258|NCT02706925|181480653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|1.088|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0843|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9128|1.2633|||||The model of dose proportionality was power model that describes the functional relationship between the dose and PK endpoints. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1. Standard deviation is actually the standard error of slope.|||1.2633|0.9128|
90801259|NCT02706925|181480653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|1.1846|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.3328|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4791|1.89|||||The model of dose proportionality was power model that describes the functional relationship between the dose and PK endpoints. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1. Standard deviation is actually the standard error of slope.|||1.8900|0.4791|
90801260|NCT02706925|181480654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|1.2114|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.035|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1409|1.2818|||||The model of dose proportionality was power model that describes the functional relationship between the dose and PK endpoints. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1. Standard deviation is actually the standard error of slope.|||1.2818|1.1409|
90801261|NCT02706925|181480654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|1.0771|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0524|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9696|1.1845|||||The model of dose proportionality was power model that describes the functional relationship between the dose and PK endpoints. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1. Standard deviation is actually the standard error of slope.|||1.1845|0.9696|
90801262|NCT02706925|181480654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|1.3969|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.3965|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5563|2.2375|||||The model of dose proportionality was power model that describes the functional relationship between the dose and PK endpoints. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1. Standard deviation is actually the standard error of slope.|||2.2375|0.5563|
90801263|NCT02765399|181480655|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
90801264|NCT02765399|181480655|OTHER|||||||0.028|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.028
90801265|NCT02765399|181480656|OTHER|||||||0.011|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.011
90801266|NCT02765399|181480656|OTHER|||||||0.612|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.612
90801267|NCT02765399|181480657|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
90801268|NCT02765399|181480657|OTHER|||||||0.128|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.128
90801269|NCT02765399|181480658|OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.005
90801270|NCT02765399|181480658|OTHER|||||||0.343|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.343
90801271|NCT02765399|181480659|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
90801272|NCT02765399|181480659|OTHER|||||||0.865|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.865
90801273|NCT02765399|181480660|OTHER|||||||0.532|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.532
90801274|NCT02765399|181480660|OTHER|||||||0.735|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.735
90801275|NCT02765399|181480661|OTHER|||||||0.017|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.017
90801276|NCT02765399|181480661|OTHER|||||||0.753|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.753
90801277|NCT02765399|181480662|OTHER|||||||0.047|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.047
90801278|NCT02765399|181480662|OTHER|||||||0.499|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.499
90801279|NCT02765399|181480663|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.004
90801280|NCT02765399|181480663|OTHER|||||||0.128|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.128
90801281|NCT02765399|181480664|OTHER|||||||0.018|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.018
90801282|NCT02765399|181480664|OTHER|||||||0.578|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.578
90801283|NCT02765399|181480665|OTHER|||||||0.152|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.152
90801284|NCT02765399|181480665|OTHER|||||||0.866|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.866
90801285|NCT02765399|181480666|OTHER|||||||0.173|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.173
90801286|NCT02765399|181480666|OTHER|||||||0.018|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.018
90801287|NCT02765399|181480667|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
90801288|NCT02765399|181480667|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1
91013321|NCT05664672|181909445|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|15.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.2|22.2|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||22.2|11.2|<.0001
91013322|NCT05664672|181909445|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|86.8||||0.7167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.6|124.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||124|60.6|0.7167
91013323|NCT05664672|181909445|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|105.0||||0.9864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|75.3|147.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||147|75.3|0.9864
91013324|NCT05664672|181909445|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|85.1||||0.5911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.1|120.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||120|60.1|0.5911
91054268|NCT02912650|181990997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|4.3||||0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.22|12.81|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||12.81|-4.22|0.323
90801289|NCT02765399|181480668|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90801290|NCT02765399|181480668|OTHER|||||||0.79|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.79
90801291|NCT02765399|181480669|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90801292|NCT02765399|181480669|OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.13
90801293|NCT02765399|181480670|OTHER|||||||0.011|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.011
90801294|NCT02765399|181480670|OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.13
90801295|NCT02765399|181480671|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90801296|NCT02765399|181480671|OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.13
90801297|NCT02765399|181480672|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90801298|NCT02765399|181480672|OTHER|||||||0.79|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.79
90801299|NCT02765399|181480673|OTHER|||||||0.017|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.017
90801300|NCT02765399|181480673|OTHER|||||||0.79|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.79
90801301|NCT02765399|181480674|OTHER|||||||0.017|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.017
90801302|NCT02765399|181480674|OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.18
90801303|NCT02765399|181480675|OTHER|||||||0.068|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.068
90801304|NCT02765399|181480675|OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.63
90801305|NCT01722929|181480686|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||p-value is for the main effect for the Treatment, Time, and Treatment\*Time interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed ANOVA was performed with the arms as a between factor and the three times as the within factor.||||<0.0001
90801306|NCT01342094|181480770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.9|||ANCOVA|||||-0.9|-2.2|< 0.001
90801307|NCT02878382|181480791|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||significance level of 5%|Chi-squared|also, Fisher's exact test and Mann-Whtiney were used for comparing the other variables in the study||||||<0.001
90801308|NCT02878382|181480793|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.001||||||significance level of 5%|Fisher Exact|||||||=0.001
90801309|NCT02878382|181480794|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.048|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Student's t-test or the Mann-Whitney test was used according to the assumption of normality of data for PpIX fluorescence intensity||||=0.048
90801310|NCT00543985|181480795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|-0.266|||=|0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Pearson Product correlation was used to determine relationships between resting E/E' and Exercise VO2 max and Stress E/E' and Exercise VO2max.||||=0.14
90801311|NCT01634152|181480799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.035|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032||0.2724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.028|0.099|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Stepwise testing of the null hypothesis was used to test the efficacy of Tio R5 and then Tio R2.5, each over placebo. The analysis was performed in a stepwise manner, firstly for this endpoint, then Trough FEV1. Each step was only considered confirmatory if all previous steps were successful.||0.099|-0.028|0.2724
90801312|NCT01634152|181480799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.139|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.075|0.203|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Stepwise testing of the null hypothesis was used to test the efficacy of Tio R5 and then Tio R2.5, each over placebo. The analysis was performed in a stepwise manner, firstly for this endpoint, then Trough FEV1. Each step was only considered confirmatory if all previous steps were successful.||0.203|0.075|<0.0001
90801313|NCT01634152|181480800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.018|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034||0.5898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.048|0.085|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Stepwise testing of the null hypothesis was used to test the efficacy of Tio R5 and then Tio R2.5, each over placebo. The analysis for this endpoint was performed in a stepwise manner after the analysis of the primary endpoint was performed. Each step was only considered confirmatory if all previous steps were successful.||0.085|-0.048|0.5898
90801314|NCT01634152|181480800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.087|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034||0.0117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.019|0.154|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Stepwise testing of the null hypothesis was used to test the efficacy of Tio R5 and then Tio R2.5, each over placebo. The analysis for this endpoint was performed in a stepwise manner after the analysis of the primary endpoint was performed. Each step was only considered confirmatory if all previous steps were successful.||0.154|0.019|0.0117
90801315|NCT01634152|181480801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.043|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||0.2277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.113|0.027|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||0.027|-0.113|0.2277
90801316|NCT01634152|181480801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||0.3998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.101|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||0.101|-0.040|0.3998
90801317|NCT01634152|181480802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.121|0.026|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||0.026|-0.121|0.2030
90801318|NCT01634152|181480802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.009|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038||0.8194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.066|0.083|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||0.083|-0.066|0.8194
90801319|NCT01634152|181480803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.031|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029||0.2907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.026|0.088|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||0.088|-0.026|0.2907
90801320|NCT01634152|181480803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.126|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.068|0.184|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||0.184|0.068|<0.0001
91054269|NCT02912650|181990997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|9.86||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|18.86|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||18.86|0.86|0.032
91054270|NCT02912650|181990997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|55.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.11|68.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||68.20|43.11|<0.001
90801321|NCT01634152|181480804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.041|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032||0.2008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.103|0.022|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||0.022|-0.103|0.2008
90801322|NCT01634152|181480804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.037|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032||0.2545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.026|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||0.100|-0.026|0.2545
90801323|NCT01634152|181480807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.078||0.798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.133|0.173|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||0.173|-0.133|0.7980
90801324|NCT01634152|181480807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.079|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.079||0.3166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.233|0.076|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||0.076|-0.233|0.3166
90801325|NCT01634152|181480809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.017|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.124||0.8916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.227|0.261|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||0.261|-0.227|0.8916
90801326|NCT01634152|181480809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.089|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.126||0.4789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.336|0.158|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||0.158|-0.336|0.4789
90801327|NCT01634152|181480810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.074||0.8361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.129|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||0.129|-0.160|0.8361
90801328|NCT01634152|181480810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.087|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.075||0.2461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.233|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||0.060|-0.233|0.2461
90801329|NCT01634152|181480811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.035|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067||0.6029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.096|0.165|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||0.165|-0.096|0.6029
90801330|NCT01634152|181480811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.026|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067||0.7034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.158|0.107|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||0.107|-0.158|0.7034
90801331|NCT01634152|181480812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.776|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.686||0.3083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.419|13.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||13.970|-4.419|0.3083
90801332|NCT01634152|181480812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.743|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.747||0.3179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.571|14.057|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||14.057|-4.571|0.3179
90801333|NCT01634152|181480813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.567|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.807||0.9061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.866|10.001|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||10.001|-8.866|0.9061
90801334|NCT01634152|181480813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.107|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.867||0.399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.658|5.444|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||5.444|-13.658|0.3990
90801335|NCT01634152|181480814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.025||0.3542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.959|1.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||1.060|-2.959|0.3542
90801336|NCT01634152|181480814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.502|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.042||0.6298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.545|1.541|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||1.541|-2.545|0.6298
90801337|NCT01634152|181480815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.032|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038||0.4066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.107|0.043|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||0.043|-0.107|0.4066
90801338|NCT01634152|181480815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.049|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.2032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.125|0.027|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||0.027|-0.125|0.2032
90801339|NCT01634152|181480816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.051|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041||0.2064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.131|0.028|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||0.028|-0.131|0.2064
90801340|NCT01634152|181480816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.061|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.142|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||0.020|-0.142|0.1410
91054271|NCT02912650|181990997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|50.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.71|63.05|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||63.05|37.71|<0.001
91054272|NCT02912650|181990997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|5.61||||0.232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.58|14.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||14.80|-3.58|0.232
90801341|NCT01634152|181480817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.042||0.9869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.083|0.082|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||0.082|-0.083|0.9869
90801342|NCT01634152|181480817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.077|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||0.090|-0.077|0.8730
90801343|NCT01634152|181480818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049||0.9043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.103|0.091|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||0.091|-0.103|0.9043
90801344|NCT01634152|181480818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.7708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.112|0.083|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||0.083|-0.112|0.7708
90801345|NCT01634152|181480819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.036|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.4864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.139|0.066|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||0.066|-0.139|0.4864
90801346|NCT01634152|181480819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.013|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053||0.7991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.117|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||0.090|-0.117|0.7991
90801347|NCT01634152|181480820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.8884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.092|0.106|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||0.106|-0.092|0.8884
90801348|NCT01634152|181480820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.051||0.8115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.112|0.088|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||0.088|-0.112|0.8115
90801349|NCT01634152|181480821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.051||0.7498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.084|0.117|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||0.117|-0.084|0.7498
90801350|NCT01634152|181480821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.083|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.1108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.185|0.019|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||0.019|-0.185|0.1108
90801351|NCT01634152|181480822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059||0.8055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.131|0.102|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||0.102|-0.131|0.8055
90801352|NCT01634152|181480822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.071|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.189|0.047|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||0.047|-0.189|0.2360
90801353|NCT01634152|181480823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.017|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041||0.6748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.097|0.063|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||0.063|-0.097|0.6748
90801354|NCT01634152|181480823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.025|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041||0.5497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.056|0.105|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||0.105|-0.056|0.5497
90801355|NCT02481258|181480838|EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were based on a two-sample t-test. A priori calculations to detect an effect size of 0.57 units indicated that that 50 patients per arm were needed to have 80% power. The actual effect size observed in the present study was 0.86.||||||0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||The statistical analysis was done using an ANCOVA analysis adjusting for the baseline aortic valve calcium levels.||||0.05
90801356|NCT02481258|181480840|EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were based on a two-sample t-tests assuming initial recruitment of 50 subjects.|||||>|0.05||||||Our a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
90801357|NCT02481258|181480841|EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were based on a two-sample t-test.|||||>|0.05||||||Our a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|ANCOVA|||The statistical analysis was done using an ANCOVA analysis adjusting for the baseline aortic valve calcium levels.||||>0.05
90801358|NCT02317627|181480847|OTHER|No control group was used. Paired t-testing was used to determine the statistical significance of the mean change in Cohort 400 mg QD PASI from baseline to Week 12.||||||0.0282||||||Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made. Missing data were not imputed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0282
90801359|NCT02317627|181480847|OTHER|No control group was used. Paired t-testing was used to determine the statistical significance of the mean change in Cohort 200 mg BID PASI from baseline to Week 12.||||||0.0035||||||Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made. Missing data were not imputed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0035
90801360|NCT02317627|181480847|OTHER|No control group was used. Paired t-testing was used to determine the statistical significance of the mean change in Cohort 400 mg BID PASI from baseline to Week 12.||||||0.0261||||||Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made. Missing data were not imputed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0261
91013325|NCT05664672|181909446|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|29.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.8|40.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||40.0|21.8|<.0001
91013326|NCT05664672|181909446|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|28.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.5|37.4|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||37.4|21.5|<.0001
91013327|NCT05664672|181909446|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|33.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.8|44.2|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||44.2|24.8|<.0001
91054273|NCT02912650|181990997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|59.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.39|72.46|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||72.46|47.39|<0.001
91054274|NCT02912650|181990997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|5.51||||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|13.53|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||13.53|-2.52|0.179
91054275|NCT02912650|181990997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|13.37||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.65|22.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||22.10|4.65|0.003
90801361|NCT02317627|181480847|OTHER|No control group was used. Paired t-testing was used to determine the statistical significance of the mean change for all subjects' PASI from baseline to Week 12.|||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made. Missing data were not imputed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||< 0.0001
90801362|NCT02317627|181480848|OTHER|No control group was used. Paired t-testing was used to determine the statistical significance of the mean change in Cohort 400 mg QD PASI from baseline to Week 12.||||||0.0282||||||Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made. Missing data were not imputed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0282
90801363|NCT02317627|181480848|OTHER|No control group was used. Paired t-testing was used to determine the statistical significance of the mean change in Cohort 200 mg BID PASI from baseline to Week 12.||||||0.0029||||||Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made. Missing data were not imputed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0029
90801364|NCT02317627|181480848|OTHER|No control group was used. Paired t-testing was used to determine the statistical significance of the mean change in Cohort 400 mg BID PASI from baseline to Week 12.||||||0.0703||||||Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made. Missing data were not imputed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0703
90801365|NCT02317627|181480848|OTHER|No control group was used. Paired t-testing was used to determine the statistical significance of the mean change of all subjects' PASI from baseline to Week 12.||||||0.0002||||||Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made. Missing data were not imputed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0002
90801366|NCT02317627|181480853|OTHER|No control group was used. Paired t-testing was used to determine the statistical significance of the mean change in Cohort 400 mg QD from baseline to Week 4.||||||0.0064||||||Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made. Missing data were not imputed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0064
90801367|NCT02317627|181480853|OTHER|No control group was used. Paired t-testing was used to determine the statistical significance of the mean change in Cohort 200 mg BID from baseline to Week 4.||||||0.0479||||||Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made. Missing data were not imputed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0479
90801368|NCT02317627|181480853|OTHER|No control group was used. Paired t-testing was used to determine the statistical significance of the mean change in Cohort 400 mg BID from baseline to Week 4.||||||0.1513||||||Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made. Missing data were not imputed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1513
90801369|NCT02317627|181480853|OTHER|No control group was used. Paired t-testing was used to determine the statistical significance of the mean change Overall from baseline to Week 4.||||||0.0002||||||Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made. Missing data were not imputed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0002
90801370|NCT02317627|181480854|OTHER|No control group was used. Paired t-testing was used to determine the statistical significance of the mean change in Cohort 400 mg QD from baseline to Week 8.||||||0.0137||||||Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made. Missing data were not imputed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0137
90801371|NCT02317627|181480854|OTHER|No control group was used. Paired t-testing was used to determine the statistical significance of the mean change in Cohort 200 mg BID from baseline to Week 8.||||||0.0017||||||Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made. Missing data were not imputed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0017
90801372|NCT02317627|181480854|OTHER|No control group was used. Paired t-testing was used to determine the statistical significance of the mean change in Cohort 400 mg BID from baseline to Week 8.||||||0.0743||||||Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made. Missing data were not imputed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0743
90801373|NCT02317627|181480854|OTHER|No control group was used. Paired t-testing was used to determine the statistical significance of the mean change Overall from baseline to Week 8.|||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made. Missing data were not imputed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||< 0.0001
90801374|NCT02317627|181480855|OTHER|No control group was used. Paired t-testing was used to determine the statistical significance of the mean change in Cohort 400 mg QD from baseline to 4 weeks.||||||0.014||||||Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made. Missing data were not imputed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0140
90801375|NCT02317627|181480855|OTHER|No control group was used. Paired t-testing was used to determine the statistical significance of the mean change in Cohort 200 mg BID from baseline to 4 weeks.||||||0.062||||||Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made. Missing data were not imputed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0620
91013328|NCT05664672|181909446|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|37.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.7|50.9|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||50.9|27.7|<.0001
91054276|NCT02912650|181990997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|54.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.36|67.29|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||67.29|41.36|<0.001
91013329|NCT05664672|181909446|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|78.8||||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.3|108.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||108|57.3|0.1950
91054277|NCT02912650|181990997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|46.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.5|59.99|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||59.99|33.50|<0.001
90801376|NCT02317627|181480855|OTHER|No control group was used. Paired t-testing was used to determine the statistical significance of the mean change in 400 mg BID from baseline to 4 weeks.||||||0.262||||||Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made. Missing data were not imputed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2620
90801377|NCT02317627|181480855|OTHER|No control group was used. Paired t-testing was used to determine the statistical significance of the mean change of all subjects from baseline to 4 weeks.||||||0.0008||||||Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made. Missing data were not imputed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0008
90801378|NCT02317627|181480855|OTHER|No control group was used. Paired t-testing was used to determine the statistical significance of the mean change in Cohort 400 mg QD from baseline to 8 weeks.||||||0.0137||||||Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made. Missing data were not imputed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0137
90801379|NCT02317627|181480855|OTHER|No control group was used. Paired t-testing was used to determine the statistical significance of the mean change in Cohort 200 mg BID from baseline to 8 weeks.||||||0.0064||||||Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made. Missing data were not imputed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0064
90801380|NCT02317627|181480855|OTHER|No control group was used. Paired t-testing was used to determine the statistical significance of the mean change in Cohort 400 mg BID from baseline to 8 weeks.||||||0.0743||||||Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made. Missing data were not imputed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0743
90801381|NCT02317627|181480855|OTHER|No control group was used. Paired t-testing was used to determine the statistical significance of the mean change of all subjects from baseline to 8 weeks.|||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made. Missing data were not imputed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||< 0.0001
90801382|NCT02317627|181480860|OTHER|No control group was used. Paired t-testing was used to determine the statistical significance of the mean change in Cohort 400 mg QD from baseline to 12 weeks.||||||0.004||||||Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made. Missing data were not imputed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004
90801383|NCT02317627|181480860|OTHER|No control group was used. Paired t-testing was used to determine the statistical significance of the mean change in Cohort 200 mg BID from baseline to 12 weeks.||||||0.007||||||Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made. Missing data were not imputed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.007
90801384|NCT02317627|181480860|OTHER|No control group was used. Paired t-testing was used to determine the statistical significance of the mean change in Cohort 400 mg BID from baseline to 12 weeks.||||||0.09||||||Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made. Missing data were not imputed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.090
90801385|NCT02317627|181480860|OTHER|No control group was used. Paired t-testing was used to determine the statistical significance of the mean change Overall from baseline to 12 weeks.|||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made. Missing data were not imputed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||< 0.001
90801386|NCT02317627|181480861|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made. Missing data were not imputed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004
90801387|NCT02317627|181480861|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029||||||Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made. Missing data were not imputed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.029
90801388|NCT02317627|181480861|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.084||||||Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made. Missing data were not imputed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.084
90801389|NCT02317627|181480861|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made. Missing data were not imputed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||< 0.001
90801390|NCT00279214|181480870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.238||95.0|||||Repeated Measures - propensity adjusted|||24-Hour p-value||||0.238
90801391|NCT00279214|181480870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.281||95.0||||24-Hour Change from Baseline p-value|Repeated Measures - propensity adjusted|||||||0.281
91054278|NCT02912650|181990997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|7.91||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|16.97|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||16.97|-1.15|0.087
91054279|NCT02912650|181990997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|60.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.99|73.03|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||73.03|47.99|<0.001
91054280|NCT02912650|181990997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|6.08||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|14.05|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||14.05|-1.89|0.135
90801392|NCT00279214|181480871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.478||95.0||||P-value for 96 Hour Change from Baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model: Outcome=Therapy + Sedative Indicator + Time + Therapy\*Time + Propensity Score||||||0.478
90801393|NCT00279214|181480872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.442||95.0||||24-Hour p-value|Repeated Measures - propensity adjusted|||||||0.442
90801394|NCT00279214|181480872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.871||95.0||||24-Hour Change from Baseline p-value|Repeated Measures - propensity adjusted|||||||0.871
90801395|NCT00279214|181480873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.704||95.0||||24-Hour p-value|Repeated Measures - propensity adjusted|||||||0.704
90801396|NCT00279214|181480873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.702||95.0||||24-Hour Change from Baseline p-value|Repeated Measures - propensity adjusted|||||||0.702
90801397|NCT00279214|181480874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.061||95.0||||6-Hour p-value|Repeated Measures - propensity adjusted|||||||0.061
90801398|NCT00279214|181480874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027||95.0||||6-Hour Change from Baseline p-value|Repeated Measures - propensity adjusted|||||||0.027
90801399|NCT00279214|181480875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.242||95.0||||Baseline p-value|Repeated Measures - propensity adjusted|||||||0.242
90801400|NCT00279214|181480875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.083||95.0||||12-Hour p-value|Repeated Measures - propensity adjusted|||||||0.083
90801401|NCT00279214|181480875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81||95.0||||24-Hour p-value|Repeated Measures - propensity adjusted|||||||0.810
90801402|NCT00279214|181480875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.623||95.0||||24-Hour Change from Baseline p-value|Repeated Measures - propensity adjusted|||||||0.623
90801403|NCT00279214|181480876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.686||95.0||||Baseline p-value|Repeated Measures - propensity adjusted|||||||0.686
90801404|NCT00279214|181480876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.575||95.0||||24-Hour p-value|Repeated Measures - propensity adjusted|||||||0.575
90801405|NCT00279214|181480877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.165||95.0|||||Repeated Measures - propensity adjusted|||||||0.165
90801406|NCT00279214|181480879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.552||95.0||||Baseline p-value|Repeated Measures - propensity adjusted|||||||0.552
90801407|NCT00279214|181480879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.129||95.0||||12-Hour p-value|Repeated Measures - propensity adjusted|||||||0.129
90801408|NCT00279214|181480879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0||||24-Hour p-value|Repeated Measures - propensity adjusted|||||||0.030
90801409|NCT00279214|181480879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||24-Hour Change from Baseline p-value|Repeated Measures - propensity adjusted|||||||0.002
90801410|NCT00279214|181480881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.128||95.0||||24-Hour p-value|Repeated Measures - propensity adjusted|||||||0.128
90801411|NCT00279214|181480881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.234||95.0||||24-Hour Change from Baseline p-value|Repeated Measures - propensity adjusted|||||||0.234
90801412|NCT00806260|181480890|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|step down test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|||ONE_SIDED|90.0|0.21||||ANCOVA|||at alcohol level 0.10%|||0.21|
90801413|NCT00806260|181480890|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|step down test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|||ONE_SIDED|90.0|0.12||||ANCOVA|||at alcohol level 0.07%|||0.12|
90801414|NCT00806260|181480890|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|step-down test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|||ONE_SIDED|90.0|-0.03||||ANCOVA|||at alcohol level 0.04%|||-0.03|
90801415|NCT00806260|181480891|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|non-inferiority|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.07|||ANCOVA|||at 2 hr timepoint||0.07|-0.17|
90801416|NCT00806260|181480891|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|non inferiority test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.04|||ANCOVA|||at 6 hr timepoint||0.04|-0.18|
90801417|NCT00806260|181480891|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|non inferiority|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.06|||ANCOVA|||at 2 hr timepoint||0.06|-0.08|
90801418|NCT00806260|181480891|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|non inferiority|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.05|||ANCOVA|||at 6 hr timepoint||0.05|-0.13|
90801419|NCT01897532|181480903|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin was chosen as 1.3 (FDA Guidance for Industry - Diabetes Mellitus - Evaluating Cardiovascular Risk in New Antidiabetic Therapies to Treat Type 2 Diabetes).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.17||p-value for Hazard ratio (HR) ≥1.3 (1-sided)|Regression, Cox|Based on a Cox regression model with terms for treatment group and region.||Cox proportional hazard regression model was performed to compare the effect of linagliptin versus placebo. Model included randomised treatment and geographical region as factors. Breslow's method was used for dealing with ties. First hypothesis (non-inferiority of the primary endpoint) was to be tested at the one-sided alpha-level of 2.5%. In case of significance the next set of hypotheses (two separate hypothesis tests) were to be tested with a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure.||1.17|0.89|0.0002
90801420|NCT01897532|181480903|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.6301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.17||p-value for HR ≥1.0 (1-sided).|Regression, Cox|Based on a Cox regression model with terms for treatment group and region.||Cox proportional hazard regression model was performed to compare the effect of linagliptin versus placebo. Model included randomised treatment and geographical region as factors. Breslow's method was used for dealing with ties. First hypothesis (non-inferiority of the primary endpoint) was to be tested at the one-sided alpha-level of 2.5%. In case of significance the next set of hypotheses (two separate hypothesis tests) were to be tested with a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure.||1.17|0.89|0.6301
90801421|NCT01897532|181480904|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.6918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.22||p-value for HR ≥1.0 (1-sided)|Regression, Cox|Based on a Cox regression model with terms for treatment group and region.||Cox proportional hazard regression model was performed to compare the effect of linagliptin versus placebo. Model included randomised treatment and geographical region as factors. Breslow's method was used for dealing with ties. First hypothesis (non-inferiority of the primary endpoint) was to be tested at the one-sided alpha-level of 2.5%. In case of significance the next set of hypotheses (two separate hypothesis tests) were to be tested with a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure.||1.22|0.89|0.6918
90801422|NCT03682965|181480919|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.004
90801423|NCT03682965|181480920|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The Holm-Bonferroni correction for multiple tests was used because the two outcomes are based on correlated data.|Clopper-Pearson binomial exact test|||The secondary efficacy endpoint was the percentage of days during peak pollen season for which the average total combined score was lower in the immunotherapy group than in the placebo group.||||<0.05
90801424|NCT03682965|181480922|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.23
90801425|NCT00953706|181480927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.1509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|4.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The primary analysis for the primary efficacy variable was based on a Mixed-Effects Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM). The model included absolute change from baseline in percent predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) as the dependent variable, treatment (ivacaftor versus placebo) and visit as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect, with adjustment for age and continuous baseline value of percent predicted FEV1.||4.1|-0.6|0.1509
90801426|NCT00953706|181480928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.5408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|5.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis for the respiratory domain score endpoint was similar to that of the primary analysis of the primary efficacy endpoint. Estimates were from Mixed-Effects Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) with the dependent variable being absolute change from baseline, fixed effects for categorical visit and treatment group, and adjustment for for age and baseline value for CFQ-R score, using unstructured covariance matrix||5.6|-2.9|0.5408
90801427|NCT00953706|181480929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.0384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis for this variable was similar to that of the primary analysis of the primary efficacy endpoint. Estimates were from Mixed-Effects Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) with dependent variable being absolute change from baseline, fixed effects for categorical visit and treatment group, and adjustment for continuous age and baseline value for age, sweat chloride, using unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.2|-5.6|0.0384
90801428|NCT00953706|181480930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.7265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The analysis used the linear mixed model with treatment as fixed effects, visit (days on study) and treatment by visit interaction as random effects, with adjustment for age group (\< 18 years and ≥ 18 years) and percent predicted forced expiratory volume (FEV1) severity (\< 70%, ≥ 70% to ≤ 90%, \> 90%) at screening, with random intercept and random slope. Rate of change in the study period is the slope of weight versus time (days) multiplied by the number of days in the study period (112 days).||0.7|-1.1|0.7265
90801429|NCT01214837|181480965|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage of subjects with hSBA titers ≥ 1:8 against N. meningitidis serogroups C, W and Y between the 3-dose series and (minus) the 4-dose series, is greater than -10%.|Vaccine group difference|-7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|-1.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||Non-inferiority of Men ACWY 3-dose series (doses at 2, 4 and 12 months) to 4-dose series (doses at 2, 4, 6 and 12 months of age) against serogroup A at 13 months of age.||-1|-14|
91013330|NCT05664672|181909446|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|75.5||||0.0699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.1|102.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||102|56.1|0.0699
90801430|NCT01214837|181480965|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage of subjects with hSBA titers ≥ 1:8 against N. meningitidis serogroups C, W and Y between the 3-dose series and (minus) the 4-dose series, is greater than -10%.|Vaccine group difference|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|0.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||Non-inferiority of Men ACWY 3-dose series (doses at 2, 4 and 12 months) to 4-dose series (doses at 2, 4, 6 and 12 months of age) against serogroup C at 13 months of age.||0|-8|
90801431|NCT01214837|181480965|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage of subjects with hSBA titers ≥ 1:8 against N. meningitidis serogroups C, W and Y between the 3-dose series and (minus) the 4-dose series, is greater than -10%.|Vaccine group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|3.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||Non-inferiority of Men ACWY 3-dose series (doses at 2, 4 and 12 months) to 4-dose series (doses at 2, 4, 6 and 12 months of age) against serogroup W at 13 months of age.||3|-3|
90801432|NCT01214837|181480965|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage of subjects with hSBA titers ≥ 1:8 against N. meningitidis serogroups C, W and Y between the 3-dose series and (minus) the 4-dose series, is greater than -10%.|Vaccine group difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|4.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||Non-inferiority of Men ACWY 3-dose series (doses at 2, 4 and 12 months) to 4-dose series (doses at 2, 4, 6 and 12 months of age) against serogroup Y at 13 months of age.||4|-2|
90801433|NCT01214837|181480972|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the between group difference (MenACWY3 minus Routine) in percentage of subjects with IgG concentration ≥ 0.35 μg/mL against each pneumococcal anti-capsular polysaccharide is greater than -10%.|Vaccine group difference|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|5.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 2 doses of MenACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 7 months of age for Serotype 1.||5|-6.1|
90801434|NCT01214837|181480972|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the between group difference (MenACWY4 minus Routine) in percentage of subjects with IgG concentration ≥ 0.35 μg/mL against each pneumococcal anti-capsular polysaccharide is greater than -10%.|Vaccine group difference|5.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|10.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 3 doses of Men ACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 7 months of age for Serotype 1.||10.5|3|
90801435|NCT01214837|181480972|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the between group difference (MenACWY3 minus Routine) in percentage of subjects with IgG concentration ≥ 0.35 μg/mL against each pneumococcal anti-capsular polysaccharide is greater than -10%.|Vaccine group difference|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|6.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 2 doses of MenACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 7 months of age for Serotype 3.||6|-11.9|
90801436|NCT01214837|181480972|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the between group difference (MenACWY4 minus Routine) in percentage of subjects with IgG concentration ≥ 0.35 μg/mL against each pneumococcal anti-capsular polysaccharide is greater than -10%.|Vaccine group difference|5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|13.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 3 doses of Men ACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 7 months of age for Serotype 3.||13.7|-3.3|
90801437|NCT01214837|181480972|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the between group difference (MenACWY3 minus Routine) in percentage of subjects with IgG concentration ≥ 0.35 μg/mL against each pneumococcal anti-capsular polysaccharide is greater than -10%.|Vaccine group difference|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|2.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 2 doses of MenACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 7 months of age for Serotype 4.||2.3|-7.5|
90801438|NCT01214837|181480972|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the between group difference (MenACWY4 minus Routine) in percentage of subjects with IgG concentration ≥ 0.35 μg/mL against each pneumococcal anti-capsular polysaccharide is greater than -10%.|Vaccine group difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|4.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 3 doses of Men ACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 7 months of age for Serotype 4.||4.7|-4.4|
91054281|NCT02912650|181990997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|13.97||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|22.64|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||22.64|5.30|0.002
91054282|NCT02912650|181990997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|54.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.36|67.29|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||67.29|41.36|<0.001
90801439|NCT01214837|181480972|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the between group difference (MenACWY3 minus Routine) in percentage of subjects with IgG concentration ≥ 0.35 μg/mL against each pneumococcal anti-capsular polysaccharide is greater than -10%.|Vaccine group difference|-4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|3.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 2 doses of MenACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 7 months of age for Serotype 5.||3.4|-12.1|
91054283|NCT02912650|181990997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|46.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.5|59.99|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||59.99|33.50|<0.001
91054284|NCT02912650|181990997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|7.91||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|16.97|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||16.97|-1.15|0.087
90801440|NCT01214837|181480972|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the between group difference (MenACWY4 minus Routine) in percentage of subjects with IgG concentration ≥ 0.35 μg/mL against each pneumococcal anti-capsular polysaccharide is greater than -10%.|Vaccine group difference|4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|11.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 3 doses of Men ACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 7 months of age for Serotype 5.||11.8|-1.9|
90801441|NCT01214837|181480972|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the between group difference (MenACWY3 minus Routine) in percentage of subjects with IgG concentration ≥ 0.35 μg/mL against each pneumococcal anti-capsular polysaccharide is greater than -10%.|Vaccine group difference|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|3.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 2 doses of MenACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 7 months of age for Serotype 6A.||3.8|-3.7|
90801442|NCT01214837|181480972|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the between group difference (MenACWY4 minus Routine) in percentage of subjects with IgG concentration ≥ 0.35 μg/mL against each pneumococcal anti-capsular polysaccharide is greater than -10%.|Vaccine group difference|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|4.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 3 doses of Men ACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 7 months of age for Serotype 6A.||4.8|-2.2|
90801443|NCT01214837|181480972|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the between group difference (MenACWY3 minus Routine) in percentage of subjects with IgG concentration ≥ 0.35 μg/mL against each pneumococcal anti-capsular polysaccharide is greater than -10%.|Vaccine group difference|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|7.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 2 doses of MenACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 7 months of age for Serotype 6B.||7.7|-8.4|
91054285|NCT02912650|181990997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|58.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.24|71.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||71.00|45.24|<0.001
90801444|NCT01214837|181480972|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the between group difference (MenACWY4 minus Routine) in percentage of subjects with IgG concentration ≥ 0.35 μg/mL against each pneumococcal anti-capsular polysaccharide is greater than -10%.|Vaccine group difference|10.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|17.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 3 doses of Men ACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 7 months of age for Serotype 6B.||17.2|3.4|
90801445|NCT01214837|181480972|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the between group difference (MenACWY3 minus Routine) in percentage of subjects with IgG concentration ≥ 0.35 μg/mL against each pneumococcal anti-capsular polysaccharide is greater than -10%.|Vaccine group difference|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|3.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 2 doses of MenACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 7 months of age for Serotype 7F.||3.5|-1.7|
90801446|NCT01214837|181480972|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the between group difference (MenACWY4 minus Routine) in percentage of subjects with IgG concentration ≥ 0.35 μg/mL against each pneumococcal anti-capsular polysaccharide is greater than -10%.|Vaccine group difference|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|3.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 3 doses of Men ACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 7 months of age for Serotype 7F.||3.5|-2.1|
90801447|NCT01214837|181480972|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the between group difference (MenACWY3 minus Routine) in percentage of subjects with IgG concentration ≥ 0.35 μg/mL against each pneumococcal anti-capsular polysaccharide is greater than -10%.|Vaccine group difference|-3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|3.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 2 doses of MenACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 7 months of age for Serotype 9V.||3.4|-9.7|
91054286|NCT02912650|181990997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|7.23||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|15.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||15.10|-0.63|0.071
91054287|NCT02912650|181990997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|15.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.55|23.69|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||23.69|6.55|<0.001
91013331|NCT05664672|181909446|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|88.3||||0.7041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.7|120.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||120|64.7|0.7041
91054288|NCT02912650|181990997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|50.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.39|64.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||64.09|37.39|<0.001
90801448|NCT01214837|181480972|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the between group difference (MenACWY4 minus Routine) in percentage of subjects with IgG concentration ≥ 0.35 μg/mL against each pneumococcal anti-capsular polysaccharide is greater than -10%.|Vaccine group difference|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|9.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 3 doses of Men ACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 7 months of age for Serotype 9V.||9.7|-1.5|
90801449|NCT01214837|181480972|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the between group difference (MenACWY3 minus Routine) in percentage of subjects with IgG concentration ≥ 0.35 μg/mL against each pneumococcal anti-capsular polysaccharide is greater than -10%.|vaccine group difference|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|5.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 2 doses of MenACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 7 months of age for Serotype 14.||5.7|-1.2|
90801450|NCT01214837|181480972|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the between group difference (MenACWY3 minus Routine) in percentage of subjects with IgG concentration ≥ 0.35 μg/mL against each pneumococcal anti-capsular polysaccharide is greater than -10%.|Vaccine group difference|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|6.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 3 doses of MenACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 7 months of age for Serotype 14.||6.3|-0.2|
90801451|NCT01214837|181480972|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the between group difference (MenACWY3 minus Routine) in percentage of subjects with IgG concentration ≥ 0.35 μg/mL against each pneumococcal anti-capsular polysaccharide is greater than -10%.|Vaccine group difference|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|-0.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 2 doses of MenACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 7 months of age for Serotype 18C.||-0.2|-6.3|
90801452|NCT01214837|181480972|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the between group difference (MenACWY4 minus Routine) in percentage of subjects with IgG concentration ≥ 0.35 μg/mL against each pneumococcal anti-capsular polysaccharide is greater than -10%.|Vaccine group difference|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|0.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 3 doses of Men ACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 7 months of age for Serotype 18C.||0.2|-6.2|
90801453|NCT01214837|181480972|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the between group difference (MenACWY3 minus Routine) in percentage of subjects with IgG concentration ≥ 0.35 μg/mL against each pneumococcal anti-capsular polysaccharide is greater than -10%.|Vaccine group difference|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|1.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 2 doses of MenACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 7 months of age for Serotype 19A.||1.6|-7.1|
90801454|NCT01214837|181480972|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the between group difference (MenACWY4 minus Routine) in percentage of subjects with IgG concentration ≥ 0.35 μg/mL against each pneumococcal anti-capsular polysaccharide is greater than -10%.|Vaccine group difference|-5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|-0.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 3 doses of Men ACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 7 months of age for Serotype 19A.||-0.9|-11.3|
90801455|NCT01214837|181480972|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the between group difference (MenACWY3 minus Routine) in percentage of subjects with IgG concentration ≥ 0.35 μg/mL against each pneumococcal anti-capsular polysaccharide is greater than -10%.|Vaccine group difference|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|3.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 2 doses of MenACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 7 months of age for Serotype 19F.||3.4|-1.7|
90801456|NCT01214837|181480972|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the between group difference (MenACWY4 minus Routine) in percentage of subjects with IgG concentration ≥ 0.35 μg/mL against each pneumococcal anti-capsular polysaccharide is greater than -10%.|Vaccine group difference|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|3.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 3 doses of Men ACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 7 months of age for Serotype 19F.||3.4|-2.1|
91013332|NCT05664672|181909447|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|13.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.57|18.4|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||18.4|9.57|<.0001
90801457|NCT01214837|181480972|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the between group difference (MenACWY3 minus Routine) in percentage of subjects with IgG concentration ≥ 0.35 μg/mL against each pneumococcal anti-capsular polysaccharide is greater than -10%.|Vaccine group difference|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|8.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 2 doses of MenACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 7 months of age for Serotype 23F.||8.2|-4.2|
90801458|NCT01214837|181480972|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the between group difference (MenACWY4 minus Routine) in percentage of subjects with IgG concentration ≥ 0.35 μg/mL against each pneumococcal anti-capsular polysaccharide is greater than -10%.|Vaccine group difference|4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|10.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 3 doses of Men ACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 7 months of age for Serotype 23F.||10.5|-1.4|
90801459|NCT01214837|181480973|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMCs between groups (MenACWY3 to routine vaccines) is greater than 0.5.|GMC ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.13|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 3 doses of Men ACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 13 months of age for Serotype 1.||1.13|0.77|
90801460|NCT01214837|181480973|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMCs between the groups (MenACWY4 to routine vaccines) is greater than 0.5.|GMC ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.25|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 4 doses of Men ACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 13 months of age for Serotype 1.||1.25|0.83|
90801461|NCT01214837|181480973|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMCs between groups (MenACWY3 to routine vaccines) is greater than 0.5.|GMC ratio|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.4|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 3 doses of Men ACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 13 months of age for Serotype 3.||1.4|0.93|
90801462|NCT01214837|181480973|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMCs between the groups (MenACWY4 to routine vaccines) is greater than 0.5.|GMC ratio|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.55|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 4 doses of Men ACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 13 months of age for Serotype 3.||1.55|1.01|
90801463|NCT01214837|181480973|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMCs between groups (MenACWY3 to routine vaccines) is greater than 0.5.|GMC ratio|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.96|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 3 doses of Men ACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 13 months of age for Serotype 4.||0.96|0.62|
90801464|NCT01214837|181480973|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMCs between the groups (MenACWY4 to routine vaccines) is greater than 0.5.|GMC ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.18|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 4 doses of Men ACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 13 months of age for Serotype 4.||1.18|0.75|
90801465|NCT01214837|181480973|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMCs between groups (MenACWY3 to routine vaccines) is greater than 0.5.|GMC ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.21|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 3 doses of Men ACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 13 months of age for Serotype 5.||1.21|0.86|
90801466|NCT01214837|181480973|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMCs between the groups (MenACWY4 to routine vaccines) is greater than 0.5|GMC ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.29|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 4 doses of Men ACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 13 months of age for Serotype 5.||1.29|0.89|
90801467|NCT01214837|181480973|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMCs between groups (MenACWY3 to routine vaccines) is greater than 0.5.|GMC ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.04|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 3 doses of Men ACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 13 months of age for Serotype 6A.||1.04|0.69|
90801468|NCT01214837|181480973|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMCs between the groups (MenACWY4 to routine vaccines) is greater than 0.5.|GMC ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.37|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 4 doses of Men ACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 13 months of age for Serotype 6A.||1.37|0.88|
90801469|NCT01214837|181480973|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMCs between groups (MenACWY3 to routine vaccines) is greater than 0.5.|GMC ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.05|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 3 doses of Men ACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 13 months of age for Serotype 6B.||1.05|0.69|
90801470|NCT01214837|181480973|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMCs between the groups (MenACWY4 to routine vaccines) is greater than 0.5.|GMC ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.3|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 4 doses of Men ACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 13 months of age for Serotype 6B.||1.3|0.83|
90801471|NCT01214837|181480973|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMCs between groups (MenACWY3 to routine vaccines) is greater than 0.5.|GMC ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.95|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 3 doses of Men ACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 13 months of age for Serotype 7F.||0.95|0.67|
90801472|NCT01214837|181480973|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMCs between the groups (MenACWY4 to routine vaccines) is greater than 0.5.|GMC ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.25|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 4 doses of Men ACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 13 months of age for Serotype 7F.||1.25|0.87|
90801473|NCT01214837|181480973|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMCs between groups (MenACWY3 to routine vaccines) is greater than 0.5.|GMC ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.96|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 3 doses of Men ACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 13 months of age for Serotype 9V.||0.96|0.66|
90801474|NCT01214837|181480973|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMCs between the groups (MenACWY4 to routine vaccines) is greater than 0.5.|GMC ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.31|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 4 doses of Men ACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 13 months of age for Serotype 9V.||1.31|0.87|
90801475|NCT01214837|181480973|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMCs between groups (MenACWY3 to routine vaccines) is greater than 0.5.|GMC ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.27|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 3 doses of Men ACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 13 months of age for Serotype 14.||1.27|0.84|
90801476|NCT01214837|181480973|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMCs between the groups (MenACWY4 to routine vaccines) is greater than 0.5.|GMC ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.3|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 4 doses of Men ACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 13 months of age for Serotype 14.||1.3|0.83|
90801477|NCT01214837|181480973|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMCs between groups (MenACWY3 to routine vaccines) is greater than 0.5.|GMC ratio|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.87|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 3 doses of Men ACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 13 months of age for Serotype 18C.||0.87|0.59|
90801478|NCT01214837|181480973|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMCs between the groups (MenACWY4 to routine vaccines) is greater than 0.5.|GMC ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.36|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 4 doses of Men ACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 13 months of age for Serotype 18C.||1.36|0.89|
90801479|NCT01214837|181480973|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMCs between groups (MenACWY3 to routine vaccines) is greater than 0.5.|GMC ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.27|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 3 doses of Men ACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 13 months of age for Serotype 19A.||1.27|0.83|
91054289|NCT02912650|181990997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|43.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.56|56.75|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||56.75|29.56|<0.001
90801480|NCT01214837|181480973|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMCs between the groups (MenACWY4 to routine vaccines) is greater than 0.5.|GMC ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.21|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 4 doses of Men ACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 13 months of age for Serotype 19A.||1.21|0.77|
90801481|NCT01214837|181480973|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMCs between groups (MenACWY3 to routine vaccines) is greater than 0.5.|GMC ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.22|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 3 doses of Men ACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 13 months of age for Serotype 19F.||1.22|0.82|
91054290|NCT02912650|181990997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|7.91||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|16.97|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||16.97|-1.15|0.087
90801482|NCT01214837|181480973|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMCs between the groups (MenACWY4 to routine vaccines) is greater than 0.5.|GMC ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.32|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 4 doses of Men ACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 13 months of age for Serotype 19F.||1.32|0.86|
90801483|NCT01214837|181480973|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMCs between groups (MenACWY3 to routine vaccines) is greater than 0.5.|GMC ratio|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.97|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 3 doses of Men ACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 13 months of age for Serotype 23F.||0.97|0.62|
90801484|NCT01214837|181480973|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMCs between the groups (MenACWY4 to routine vaccines) is greater than 0.5.|GMC ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.13|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 4 doses of Men ACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 13 months of age for Serotype 23F.||1.13|0.7|
90801485|NCT03366454|181480983|OTHER||AUC|0.6692|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05322||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5649|0.7735|||ROC Curve Analysis|||ROC curve analysis was performed to evaluate outcome. The Area Under the Curve (AUC) was calculated along with a 95% confidence interval and statistical significance (p-value)||0.7735|0.5649|0.0048
90801486|NCT03366454|181480983|OTHER||AUC|0.6892|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05213||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.587|0.7914|||ROC Curve Analysis|||ROC curve analysis was performed to evaluate outcome. The Area Under the Curve (AUC) was calculated along with a 95% confidence interval and statistical significance (p-value).||0.7914|0.5870|0.0029
90801487|NCT03366454|181480984|OTHER||AUC|0.644|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05635||0.0233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5335|0.7544|||ROC Curve Analysis||The optimal cutoff value for NLR was determined as 1.335 using the Youden Index.|ROC curve analysis was performed to evaluate outcome. The Area Under the Curve (AUC) was calculated along with a 95% confidence interval and statistical significance (p-value).||0.7544|0.5335|0.0233
90801488|NCT03366454|181480985|OTHER||AUC|0.6884|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04709||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5962|0.7807|||ROC Curve Analysis||The optimal cut-off value for CRP was determined as 5.70 using the Youden Index.|ROC curve analysis was performed to evaluate outcome. The Area Under the Curve (AUC) was calculated along with a 95% confidence interval and statistical significance (p-value)||0.7807|0.5962|0.0018
90801489|NCT03366454|181480986|OTHER||AUC|0.7063|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04857||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6111|0.8015|||ROC Curve Analysis||The optimal cutoff value for PCT was determined as 0.141 using the Youden Index.|ROC curve analysis was performed to evaluate outcome. The Area Under the Curve (AUC) was calculated along with a 95% confidence interval and statistical significance (p-value).||0.8015|0.6111|0.0007
90801490|NCT01187095|181480992|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Estimation parameter|||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
90801491|NCT01187095|181480992|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.05
90801492|NCT01475721|181481011|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority comparison is statistically significant if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI falls below 2, the non-inferiority margin, and the non-inferiority test one-sided p-value \<0.025.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.029||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.638|1.662|||Regression, Cox|||||1.662|0.638|0.003
90801493|NCT01475721|181481012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.834||||0.203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.103|||Regression, Cox||Analysis of time to first exacerbation in efficacy subgroup: Subjects not well-controlled on prior ICS or non-LABA therapy.|The hazard ratio computed is essentially the relative risk of having the event in the treatment group relative to the control group, adjusted for time to the event.||1.103|0.630|0.203
91013333|NCT05664672|181909447|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|13.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.84|17.9|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||17.9|9.84|<.0001
91013334|NCT05664672|181909447|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|13.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.93|18.6|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||18.6|9.93|<.0001
91054291|NCT02912650|181990997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|58.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.24|71.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||71.00|45.24|<0.001
90801494|NCT01475721|181481012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.839||||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.645|1.09|||Regression, Cox||Analysis of time to first exacerbation in efficacy subgroup: Subjects not well-controlled on prior ICS+LABA therapy|The hazard ratio computed is essentially the relative risk of having the event in the treatment group relative to the control group, adjusted for time to the event.||1.090|0.645|0.188
90801495|NCT01475721|181481012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.764||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.645|0.905|||Regression, Cox||Analysis of time to first exacerbation in efficacy subgroup: Subjects controlled on prior ICS+LABA therapy|The hazard ratio computed is essentially the relative risk of having the event in the treatment group relative to the control group, adjusted for time to the event.||0.905|0.645|0.002
90801496|NCT01475721|181481012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.682||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.451|1.034|||Regression, Cox||Analysis of time to first exacerbation in efficacy subgroup: Subjects controlled on prior ICS therapy|The hazard ratio computed is essentially the relative risk of having the event in the treatment group relative to the control group, adjusted for time to the event.||1.034|0.451|0.071
90801497|NCT01475721|181481012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.878||||0.373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.659|1.17|||Regression, Cox||Analysis of number of asthma exacerbations in efficacy subgroup: Subjects not well-controlled on prior ICS or non-LABA therapy|The hazard ratio computed is essentially the relative risk of having the event in the treatment group relative to the control group, adjusted for time to the event.||1.170|0.659|0.373
90801498|NCT01475721|181481012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.864||||0.271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.665|1.122|||Regression, Cox||Analysis of number of asthma exacerbations in efficacy subgroup: Subjects not well-controlled on prior ICS+LABA therapy|The hazard ratio computed is essentially the relative risk of having the event in the treatment group relative to the control group, adjusted for time to the event.||1.122|0.665|0.271
90801499|NCT01475721|181481012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.755||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.637|0.895|||Regression, Cox||Analysis of number of asthma exacerbations in efficacy subgroup: Subjects controlled on prior ICS+LABA therapy|The hazard ratio computed is essentially the relative risk of having the event in the treatment group relative to the control group, adjusted for time to the event.||0.895|0.637|0.001
90801500|NCT01475721|181481012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.687||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.454|1.04|||Regression, Cox||Analysis of number of asthma exacerbations in efficacy subgroup: Subjects controlled on prior ICS therapy|The hazard ratio computed is essentially the relative risk of having the event in the treatment group relative to the control group, adjusted for time to the event.||1.040|0.454|0.075
90801501|NCT01475721|181481014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.776||||0.123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.562|1.071|||Regression, Cox|||||1.071|0.562|0.123
90801502|NCT01475721|181481015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.263|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.385|-0.141|||Regression, Cox||Efficacy subgroup: Subjects not well-controlled on prior ICS or non-LABA therapy|||-0.141|-0.385|<0.001
90801503|NCT01475721|181481015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.222||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.369|-0.076|||Regression, Cox||Efficacy subgroup: Subjects not well-controlled on prior ICS+LABA therapy|||-0.076|-0.369|0.003
91054292|NCT02912650|181990997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|7.23||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|15.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||15.10|-0.63|0.071
90801504|NCT01475721|181481015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.172|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.238|-0.106|||Regression, Cox||Efficacy subgroup: Subjects controlled on prior ICS+LABA therapy|||-0.106|-0.238|<0.001
90801505|NCT01475721|181481015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.216|0.056|||Regression, Cox||Efficacy subgroup: Subjects controlled on prior ICS therapy|||0.056|-0.216|0.251
90801506|NCT01772550|181481022|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A 95% upper confidence bound for the observed difference in percentages of images with acceptable quality between the control catheter and evaluation catheter was calculated using the Score method. The 20 G BD Nexiva™ Diffusics™ can be considered non-inferior for acceptable image quality if this 95% upper confidence bound is smaller than 15% (i.e. C - D \< 15% with 95% confidence). The non-inferiority margin was 15%.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||2.6|||||The difference in percent of acceptable image quality is used as an estimate. The Score method was used to estimate the upper 95% confidence limit.|Only the percent of acceptable image quality from the randomized test and reference catheter groups were considered for this statistical analysis. If C is the percentage of acceptable quality images with the control catheter, and D is the percentage of images of acceptable quality with the evaluation catheter, and the non-inferiority criteria is 15%, the hypotheses to be tested are as follows: H0: C - D \> or = 15%; H1: C - D \< 15%.||2.6||
91054293|NCT02912650|181990997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|15.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.55|23.69|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||23.69|6.55|<0.001
90801507|NCT00559104|181481034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.51||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|3.79|||Regression, Cox||"Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the Parameter Estimate, not of the mean.~Standard Error = 1.02475"|There is no power calculation as this is a phase II study. This is an Event-free Survival, in which an event can be Relapse/Progression, or Death. Censoring can be at the End of follow-up date, or at the End of study date.||3.79|0.07|0.51
90801508|NCT00559104|181481035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.66||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|4.99|||Regression, Cox||"Numerator: Carmustine in the conditioning. Denominator: Irradiation in the conditioning.~Parameter: Hazard ratio. Dispersion: Standard Error of the Hazard Ratio."|Phase II analysis: There was no power calculation.||4.99|0.09|0.69
91054294|NCT02912650|181990997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|50.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.39|64.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||64.09|37.39|<0.001
90801509|NCT01815424|181481037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.03|32.77||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for pooled investigator sites was used for the analysis. Each hypothesis was tested at a significance level of 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For primary endpoint, step-down procedure used to preserve Type I error, sequential order of testing: PGA response for tofacitinib 10 mg vs placebo at Week 16; PASI75 response for tofacitinib 10 mg vs placebo at Week 16; PGA response for tofacitinib 5 mg vs placebo at Week 16; PASI75 response for tofacitinib 5 mg vs placebo at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, only then subsequent comparison was tested at the below specified significance level.||32.77|6.03|<0.0001
90801510|NCT01815424|181481037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.46|11.86||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for pooled investigator sites was used for the analysis. Each hypothesis was tested at a significance level of 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For primary endpoint, step-down procedure used to preserve Type I error, sequential order of testing: PGA response for tofacitinib 10 mg vs placebo at Week 16; PASI75 response for tofacitinib 10 mg vs placebo at Week 16; PGA response for tofacitinib 5 mg vs placebo at Week 16; PASI75 response for tofacitinib 5 mg vs placebo at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, only then subsequent comparison was tested at the below specified significance level.||11.86|2.46|<0.0001
90801511|NCT01815424|181481038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|41.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.84|151.11||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for pooled investigator sites was used for the analysis. Each hypothesis was tested at a significance level of 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For primary endpoint, step-down procedure used to preserve Type I error, sequential order of testing: PGA response for tofacitinib 10 mg vs placebo at Week 16; PASI75 response for tofacitinib 10 mg vs placebo at Week 16; PGA response for tofacitinib 5 mg vs placebo at Week 16; PASI75 response for tofacitinib 5 mg vs placebo at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, only then subsequent comparison was tested at the below specified significance level.||151.11|14.84|<0.0001
90801512|NCT01815424|181481038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.97|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.06|25.17||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for pooled investigator sites was used for the analysis. Each hypothesis was tested at a significance level of 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For primary endpoint, step-down procedure used to preserve Type I error, sequential order of testing: PGA response for tofacitinib 10 mg vs placebo at Week 16; PASI75 response for tofacitinib 10 mg vs placebo at Week 16; PGA response for tofacitinib 5 mg vs placebo at Week 16; PASI75 response for tofacitinib 5 mg vs placebo at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, only then subsequent comparison was tested at the below specified significance level.||25.17|4.06|<0.0001
90801513|NCT01815424|181481039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-71.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.461|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-88.2|-54.87||Mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and a random effect of subject; unstructured covariance matrix was used. Each hypothesis was tested at a significance of 0.025 (2-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|||This is a key secondary endpoint; family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error. Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16, PASI90 response at Week 16, change in DLQI total score at Week 16, PGA response at Week 4, PASI75 at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in NAPSI score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, only then subsequent comparison was tested at the below specified significance level.||-54.87|-88.20|<0.0001
90801514|NCT01815424|181481039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-52.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.416|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.7|-35.55||Mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and a random effect of subject; unstructured covariance matrix was used. Each hypothesis was tested at a significance level of 0.025 (2-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|||This is a key secondary endpoint; family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error. Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16, PASI90 response at Week 16, change in DLQI total score at Week 16, PGA response at Week 4, PASI75 at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in NAPSI score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, only then subsequent comparison was tested at the below specified significance level.||-35.55|-68.70|<0.0001
90801515|NCT01815424|181481040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|70.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.38|267.15||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for pooled investigator sites was used for the analysis. Each hypothesis was tested at significance level of 0.025 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||This is a key secondary endpoint; family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error. Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16, PASI90 response at Week 16, change in DLQI total score at Week 16, PGA response at Week 4, PASI75 at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in NAPSI score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, only then subsequent comparison was tested at the below specified significance level.||267.15|13.38|<0.0001
90801516|NCT01815424|181481040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.31|79.62||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for pooled investigator sites was used for the analysis. Each hypothesis was tested at significance level of 0.025 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||This is a key secondary endpoint; family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error. Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16, PASI90 response at Week 16, change in DLQI total score at Week 16, PGA response at Week 4, PASI75 at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in NAPSI score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, only then subsequent comparison was tested at the below specified significance level.||79.62|4.31|<0.0001
91013335|NCT05664672|181909447|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|9.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.67|12.9|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||12.9|6.67|<.0001
91013336|NCT05664672|181909447|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|143.0||||0.0404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|101.0|202.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||202|101|0.0404
91054295|NCT02912650|181990997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|43.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.56|56.75|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||56.75|29.56|<0.001
91054296|NCT02912650|181990997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|7.91||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|16.97|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||16.97|-1.15|0.087
91054297|NCT02912650|181990997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|58.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.24|71.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||71.00|45.24|<0.001
90801517|NCT01815424|181481041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-7.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.913|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.32|5.72||Mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and a random effect of subject; unstructured covariance matrix was used. Each hypothesis was tested at a significance of 0.025 (2-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16. This is a key secondary endpoint; family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error. Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16, PASI90 response at Week 16, change in DLQI total score at Week 16, PGA response at Week 4, PASI75 at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in NAPSI score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, only then subsequent comparison was tested at the below specified significance level.||5.72|-9.32|<0.0001
90801518|NCT01815424|181481041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-5.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.907|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.24|-3.67||Mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and a random effect of subject; unstructured covariance matrix was used. Each hypothesis was tested at a significance of 0.025 (2-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16. This is a key secondary endpoint; family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error. Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16, PASI90 response at Week 16, change in DLQI total score at Week 16, PGA response at Week 4, PASI75 at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in NAPSI score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, only then subsequent comparison was tested at the below specified significance level.||-3.67|-7.24|<0.0001
90801519|NCT01815424|181481042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|114.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.95|2657.62||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for pooled investigator sites was used for the analysis. Each hypothesis was tested at a significance level of 0.025 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||This is a key secondary endpoint; family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error. Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16, PASI90 response at Week 16, change in DLQI total score at Week 16, PGA response at Week 4, PASI75 at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in NAPSI score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant,only then subsequent comparison was tested at the below specified significance level.||2657.62|8.95|<0.0001
90801520|NCT01815424|181481042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|35.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.47|1084.02||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for pooled investigator sites was used for the analysis. Each hypothesis was tested at a significance level of 0.025 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||This is a key secondary endpoint; family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error. Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16, PASI90 response at Week 16, change in DLQI total score at Week 16, PGA response at Week 4, PASI75 at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in NAPSI score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, only then subsequent comparison was tested at the below specified significance level.||1084.02|3.47|<0.0001
90801521|NCT01815424|181481043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for pooled investigator sites was used for the analysis. Each hypothesis was tested at a significance level of 0.025 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|OR and 95% CI not available due to 0% frequency in placebo group.||This is a key secondary endpoint; family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error. Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16, PASI90 response at Week 16, change in DLQI total score at Week 16, PGA response at Week 4, PASI75 at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in NAPSI score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, only then subsequent comparison was tested at the below specified significance level.||||<0.0001
90801522|NCT01815424|181481043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0386||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for pooled investigator sites was used for the analysis. Each hypothesis was tested at a significance level of 0.025 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|OR and 95% CI not available due to 0% frequency in placebo group.||This is a key secondary endpoint; family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error. Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16, PASI90 response at Week 16, change in DLQI total score at Week 16, PGA response at Week 4, PASI75 at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in NAPSI score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, only then subsequent comparison was tested at the below specified significance level.||||0.0386
90801523|NCT01815424|181481044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-5.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.709|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.49|-3.7||Mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and a random effect of subject; unstructured covariance matrix was used. Each hypothesis was tested at a significance of 0.025 (2-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4. This is a key secondary endpoint; family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error. Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16, PASI90 response at Week 16, change in DLQI total score at Week 16, PGA response at Week 4, PASI75 at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in NAPSI score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, only then subsequent comparison was tested at the below specified significance level.||-3.70|-6.49|<0.0001
91013337|NCT05664672|181909447|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|143.0||||0.0243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|104.0|198.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||198|104|0.0243
91013338|NCT05664672|181909447|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|146.0||||0.0215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|105.0|205.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||205|105|0.0215
91054298|NCT02912650|181990997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|7.23||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|15.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||15.10|-0.63|0.071
90801524|NCT01815424|181481044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.706|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.59|-2.81||Mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and a random effect of subject; unstructured covariance matrix was used. Each hypothesis was tested at a significance of 0.025 (2-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4. This is a key secondary endpoint; family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error. Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16, PASI90 response at Week 16, change in DLQI total score at Week 16, PGA response at Week 4, PASI75 at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in NAPSI score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, only then subsequent comparison was tested at the below specified significance level.||-2.81|-5.59|<0.0001
90801525|NCT01815424|181481045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean of difference|-41.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.977||0.0113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.91|-9.54||Mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and a random effect of subject; unstructured covariance matrix was used. Each hypothesis was tested at a significance level of 0.025 (2-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|||This is a key secondary endpoint; family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error. Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16, PASI90 response at Week 16, change in DLQI total score at Week 16, PGA response at Week 4, PASI75 at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in NAPSI score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, only then subsequent comparison was tested at the below specified significance level.||-9.54|-72.91|0.0113
90801526|NCT01815424|181481045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean of difference|-22.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.01||0.1558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.64|8.86||Mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and a random effect of subject; unstructured covariance matrix was used. Each hypothesis was tested at a significance level of 0.025 (2-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|||This is a key secondary endpoint; family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error. Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16, PASI90 response at Week 16, change in DLQI total score at Week 16, PGA response at Week 4, PASI75 at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in NAPSI score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, only then subsequent comparison was tested at the below specified significance level.||8.86|-54.64|0.1558
90801527|NCT04723355|181481090|NON_INFERIORITY|In the sample size calculations, we assumed that the innovative 3-lead wireless water resistant Holter System would have a concordance in the diagnosis of arrhythmia compared to the conventional Holter device similar to a previous study that compared a patch to the conventional Holter device. With this assumption, a total sample of 182 participants would have 80% power to demonstrate an accuracy of at least 85% with a significance level of 2.5% (the 95% CI lower limit should be above 85%).|Accuracy|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|0.92||||||The comparison of the two Holter monitoring devices was analyzed in terms of the accuracy of the Innovative 3-lead Wireless Water Resistant Holter System in detecting the arrhythmias compared to the Conventional Holter System as the gold standard.||0.92|0.81|
90801528|NCT04723355|181481090|OTHER||Sensitivity|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|0.95||||||Other measures of diagnostic accuracy, including the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were also analyzed.||0.95|0.83|
90801529|NCT04723355|181481090|OTHER||Specificity|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.9||||||Other measures of diagnostic accuracy, including the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were also analyzed.||0.90|0.72|
90801530|NCT04723355|181481090|OTHER||Positive predictive value|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.93||||||Other measures of diagnostic accuracy, including the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were also analyzed.||0.93|0.80|
90801531|NCT04723355|181481090|OTHER||Negative predictive value|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.93||||||Other measures of diagnostic accuracy, including the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were also analyzed.||0.93|0.76|
91054299|NCT02912650|181990997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|15.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.55|23.69|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||23.69|6.55|<0.001
90801532|NCT04723355|181481090|OTHER||Cohen Kappa coefficient|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||We also did an additional analysis to further evaluate the concordance between both Holter monitoring devices using the Cohen´s Kappa coefficient.||||
90801533|NCT04723355|181481090|OTHER||Positive likelihood ratio|5.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.17|8.58||||||Exploratory analyses of positive and negative likelihood ratios were also conducted.||8.58|3.17|
90801534|NCT04723355|181481090|OTHER||Negative likelihood ratio|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.21||||||Exploratory analyses of positive and negative likelihood ratios were also conducted.||0.21|0.06|
90801535|NCT04723355|181481091|OTHER||Accuracy|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.0||||||The comparison of the two Holter monitoring devices was analyzed in terms of the accuracy of the Innovative 3-lead Wireless Water Resistant Holter System in detecting the arrhythmias compared to the Conventional Holter System as the gold standard.||1.00|0.97|
90801536|NCT04723355|181481091|OTHER||Sensitivity|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.0||||||Other measures of diagnostic accuracy, including the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were also analyzed.||1.00|0.85|
90801537|NCT04723355|181481091|OTHER||Specificity|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.0||||||Other measures of diagnostic accuracy, including the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were also analyzed.||1.00|0.97|
91054300|NCT02912650|181990997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|50.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.39|64.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||64.09|37.39|<0.001
91054301|NCT02912650|181990997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|43.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.56|56.75|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||56.75|29.56|<0.001
91054302|NCT02912650|181990997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|7.91||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|16.97|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||16.97|-1.15|0.087
91013339|NCT05664672|181909448|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|5.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.69|7.8|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||7.80|3.69|<.0001
90801538|NCT04723355|181481091|OTHER||Positive predictive value|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.0||||||Other measures of diagnostic accuracy, including the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were also analyzed.||1.00|0.78|
90801539|NCT04723355|181481091|OTHER||Negative predictive value|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.0||||||Other measures of diagnostic accuracy, including the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were also analyzed.||1.00|0.98|
90801540|NCT04723355|181481091|OTHER||Cohen Kappa coefficient|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||We also did an additional analysis to further evaluate the concordance between both Holter monitoring devices using the Cohen´s Kappa coefficient.||||
90801541|NCT04723355|181481091|OTHER||Positive likelihood ratio|157.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.25|1107.61||||||Exploratory analyses of positive and negative likelihood ratios were also conducted.||1107.61|22.25|
90801542|NCT04723355|181481091|OTHER||Negative likelihood ratio|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||||||Exploratory analyses of positive and negative likelihood ratios were also conducted.||0|0|
90801543|NCT04723355|181481092|OTHER||Accuracy|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.9||||||The comparison of the two Holter monitoring devices was analyzed in terms of the accuracy of the Innovative 3-lead Wireless Water Resistant Holter System in detecting the arrhythmias compared to the Conventional Holter System as the gold standard.||0.90|0.79|
90801544|NCT04723355|181481092|OTHER||Sensitivity|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.9||||||Other measures of diagnostic accuracy, including the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were also analyzed.||0.90|0.71|
90801545|NCT04723355|181481092|OTHER||Specificity|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.93||||||Other measures of diagnostic accuracy, including the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were also analyzed.||0.93|0.80|
90801546|NCT04723355|181481092|OTHER||Positive predictive value|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.9||||||Other measures of diagnostic accuracy, including the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were also analyzed.||0.90|0.71|
91054303|NCT02912650|181990997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|58.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.24|71.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||71.00|45.24|<0.001
90801547|NCT04723355|181481092|OTHER||Negative predictive value|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.93||||||Other measures of diagnostic accuracy, including the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were also analyzed.||0.93|0.80|
90801548|NCT04723355|181481092|OTHER||Cohen Kappa coefficient|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||We also did an additional analysis to further evaluate the concordance between both Holter monitoring devices using the Cohen´s Kappa coefficient.||||
90801549|NCT04723355|181481092|OTHER||Positive likelihood ratio|6.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.03|11.43||||||Exploratory analyses of positive and negative likelihood ratios were also conducted.||11.43|4.03|
90801550|NCT04723355|181481092|OTHER||Negative likelihood ratio|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.34||||||Exploratory analyses of positive and negative likelihood ratios were also conducted.||0.34|0.13|
90801551|NCT04723355|181481093|OTHER||Accuracy|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|0.96||||||The comparison of the two Holter monitoring devices was analyzed in terms of the accuracy of the Innovative 3-lead Wireless Water Resistant Holter System in detecting the arrhythmias compared to the Conventional Holter System as the gold standard.||0.96|0.88|
90801552|NCT04723355|181481093|OTHER||Sensitivity|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.93||||||Other measures of diagnostic accuracy, including the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were also analyzed.||0.93|0.56|
90801553|NCT04723355|181481093|OTHER||Specificity|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|0.98||||||Other measures of diagnostic accuracy, including the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were also analyzed.||0.98|0.90|
90801554|NCT04723355|181481093|OTHER||Positive predictive value|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.86||||||Other measures of diagnostic accuracy, including the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were also analyzed.||0.86|0.48|
90801555|NCT04723355|181481093|OTHER||Negative predictive value|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|0.99||||||Other measures of diagnostic accuracy, including the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were also analyzed.||0.99|0.93|
90801556|NCT04723355|181481093|OTHER||Cohen Kappa coefficient|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||We also did an additional analysis to further evaluate the concordance between both Holter monitoring devices using the Cohen´s Kappa coefficient.||||
90801557|NCT04723355|181481093|OTHER||Positive likelihood ratio|15.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.51|30.99||||||Exploratory analyses of positive and negative likelihood ratios were also conducted.||30.99|7.51|
90801558|NCT04723355|181481093|OTHER||Negative likelihood ratio|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.5||||||Exploratory analyses of positive and negative likelihood ratios were also conducted.||0.50|0.11|
90801559|NCT04723355|181481094|OTHER||Accuracy|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|0.96||||||The comparison of the two Holter monitoring devices was analyzed in terms of the accuracy of the Innovative 3-lead Wireless Water Resistant Holter System in detecting the arrhythmias compared to the Conventional Holter System as the gold standard.||0.96|0.89|
90801560|NCT04723355|181481094|OTHER||Sensitivity|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.85||||||Other measures of diagnostic accuracy, including the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were also analyzed.||0.85|0.28|
91013340|NCT05664672|181909448|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|5.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.01|7.96|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||7.96|4.01|<.0001
90801561|NCT04723355|181481094|OTHER||Specificity|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|0.98||||||Other measures of diagnostic accuracy, including the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were also analyzed.||0.98|0.92|
90801562|NCT04723355|181481094|OTHER||Positive predictive value|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.77||||||Other measures of diagnostic accuracy, including the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were also analyzed.||0.77|0.23|
90801563|NCT04723355|181481094|OTHER||Negative predictive value|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|0.99||||||Other measures of diagnostic accuracy, including the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were also analyzed.||0.99|0.93|
90801564|NCT04723355|181481094|OTHER||Cohen Kappa coefficient|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||We also did an additional analysis to further evaluate the concordance between both Holter monitoring devices using the Cohen´s Kappa coefficient.||||
90801565|NCT04723355|181481094|OTHER||Positive likelihood ratio|13.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.84|33.17||||||Exploratory analyses of positive and negative likelihood ratios were also conducted.||33.17|5.84|
90801566|NCT04723355|181481094|OTHER||Negative likelihood ratio|0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.85||||||Exploratory analyses of positive and negative likelihood ratios were also conducted.||0.85|0.22|
90801567|NCT04723355|181481095|OTHER||Accuracy|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.0||||||The comparison of the two Holter monitoring devices was analyzed in terms of the accuracy of the Innovative 3-lead Wireless Water Resistant Holter System in detecting the arrhythmias compared to the Conventional Holter System as the gold standard.||1.00|0.95|
90801568|NCT04723355|181481095|OTHER||Sensitivity|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.99||||||Other measures of diagnostic accuracy, including the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were also analyzed.||0.99|0.19|
90801569|NCT04723355|181481095|OTHER||Specificity|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.0||||||Other measures of diagnostic accuracy, including the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were also analyzed.||1.00|0.96|
91054304|NCT02912650|181990997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|7.23||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|15.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||15.10|-0.63|0.071
91054305|NCT02912650|181990997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|15.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.55|23.69|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||23.69|6.55|<0.001
91054306|NCT02912650|181990997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|50.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.39|64.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||64.09|37.39|<0.001
90801570|NCT04723355|181481095|OTHER||Positive predictive value|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.95||||||Other measures of diagnostic accuracy, including the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were also analyzed.||0.95|0.15|
91054307|NCT02912650|181990997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|43.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.56|56.75|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||56.75|29.56|<0.001
91054308|NCT02912650|181990997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|7.91||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|16.97|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||16.97|-1.15|0.087
90801571|NCT04723355|181481095|OTHER||Negative predictive value|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.0||||||Other measures of diagnostic accuracy, including the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were also analyzed.||1.00|0.97|
90801572|NCT04723355|181481095|OTHER||Cohen Kappa coefficient|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||We also did an additional analysis to further evaluate the concordance between both Holter monitoring devices using the Cohen´s Kappa coefficient.||||
90801573|NCT04723355|181481095|OTHER||Positive likelihood ratio|65.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.8|291.07||||||Exploratory analyses of positive and negative likelihood ratios were also conducted.||291.07|14.80|
90801574|NCT04723355|181481095|OTHER||Negative likelihood ratio|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|1.38||||||Exploratory analyses of positive and negative likelihood ratios were also conducted.||1.38|0.05|
90801575|NCT04723355|181481096|OTHER||Accuracy|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|0.99||||||The comparison of the two Holter monitoring devices was analyzed in terms of the accuracy of the Innovative 3-lead Wireless Water Resistant Holter System in detecting the arrhythmias compared to the Conventional Holter System as the gold standard.||0.99|0.94|
90801576|NCT04723355|181481096|OTHER||Sensitivity|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.89||||||Other measures of diagnostic accuracy, including the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were also analyzed.||0.89|0.31|
90801577|NCT04723355|181481096|OTHER||Specificity|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.0||||||Other measures of diagnostic accuracy, including the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were also analyzed.||1.00|0.98|
90801578|NCT04723355|181481096|OTHER||Positive predictive value|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.0||||||Other measures of diagnostic accuracy, including the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were also analyzed.||1.00|0.59|
90801579|NCT04723355|181481096|OTHER||Negative predictive value|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|0.99||||||Other measures of diagnostic accuracy, including the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were also analyzed.||0.99|0.94|
90801580|NCT04723355|181481096|OTHER||Cohen Kappa coefficient|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||We also did an additional analysis to further evaluate the concordance between both Holter monitoring devices using the Cohen´s Kappa coefficient.||||
90801581|NCT04723355|181481096|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Exploratory analyses of positive and negative likelihood ratios were also conducted.|The positive likelihood ratio could not be calculated due to the value of zero in the denominator|||
90801582|NCT04723355|181481096|OTHER||Negative likelihood ratio|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.79||||||Exploratory analyses of positive and negative likelihood ratios were also conducted.||0.79|0.17|
91013341|NCT05664672|181909448|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|5.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.92|8.03|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||8.03|3.92|<.0001
91013342|NCT05664672|181909448|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|6.09|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.17|8.89|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||8.89|4.17|<.0001
91013343|NCT05664672|181909448|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|88.1||||0.8335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.4|131.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||131|59.4|0.8335
91013344|NCT05664672|181909448|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|92.9||||0.9622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.2|134.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||134|64.2|0.9622
91013345|NCT05664672|181909448|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|92.1||||0.9531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.8|135.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||135|62.8|0.9531
91013346|NCT05664672|181909449|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|18.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.4|22.3|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||22.3|14.4|<.0001
91054309|NCT02912650|181990997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|58.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.24|71.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||71.00|45.24|<0.001
91054310|NCT02912650|181990997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|7.23||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|15.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||15.10|-0.63|0.071
91054311|NCT02912650|181990997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|15.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.55|23.69|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||23.69|6.55|<0.001
91013347|NCT05664672|181909449|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|18.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.8|22.1|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||22.1|14.8|<.0001
91054312|NCT02912650|181990997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|50.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.39|64.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||64.09|37.39|<0.001
91054313|NCT02912650|181990997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|43.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.56|56.75|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||56.75|29.56|<0.001
91054314|NCT02912650|181990997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|7.91||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|16.97|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||16.97|-1.15|0.087
91054315|NCT02912650|181990997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|58.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.24|71.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||71.00|45.24|<0.001
91054316|NCT02912650|181990997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|7.23||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|15.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||15.10|-0.63|0.071
91054317|NCT02912650|181990997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|15.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.55|23.69|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||23.69|6.55|<0.001
90801583|NCT04723355|181481098|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|4.31||||||The quantitative secondary outcomes were analyzed using Bland-Altman graphs as well as the Lin´s concordance correlation coefficient (CCC).||4.31|-6.20|
90801584|NCT04723355|181481098|OTHER||Lin´s concordance correlation coeficient|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|0.98||||||The quantitative secondary outcomes were analyzed using Bland-Altman graphs as well as the Lin´s concordance correlation coefficient (CCC).||0.98|0.96|
90801585|NCT04723355|181481099|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.09|11.67||||||The quantitative secondary outcomes were analyzed using Bland-Altman graphs as well as the Lin´s concordance correlation coefficient (CCC).||11.67|-17.09|
90801586|NCT04723355|181481099|OTHER||Lin´s concordance correlation coeficient|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|0.96||||||The quantitative secondary outcomes were analyzed using Bland-Altman graphs as well as the Lin´s concordance correlation coefficient (CCC).||0.96|0.93|
90801587|NCT04723355|181481100|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.43|6.22||||||The quantitative secondary outcomes were analyzed using Bland-Altman graphs as well as the Lin´s concordance correlation coefficient (CCC).||6.22|-5.43|
90801588|NCT04723355|181481100|OTHER||Lin´s concordance correlation coeficient|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|0.96||||||The quantitative secondary outcomes were analyzed using Bland-Altman graphs as well as the Lin´s concordance correlation coefficient (CCC).||0.96|0.93|
90801589|NCT04723355|181481101|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1391.46|1378.72||||||The quantitative secondary outcomes were analyzed using Bland-Altman graphs as well as the Lin´s concordance correlation coefficient (CCC).||1378.72|-1391.46|
90801590|NCT04723355|181481101|OTHER||Lin´s concordance correlation coeficient|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|0.96||||||The quantitative secondary outcomes were analyzed using Bland-Altman graphs as well as the Lin´s concordance correlation coefficient (CCC).||0.96|0.94|
91013348|NCT05664672|181909449|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|15.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.8|19.4|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||19.4|12.8|<.0001
91054318|NCT02912650|181990997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|50.74|||<|0.001||95.0|37.39|64.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||64.09|37.39|<0.001
90801591|NCT04723355|181481102|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2089.58|2111.65||||||The quantitative secondary outcomes were analyzed using Bland-Altman graphs as well as the Lin´s concordance correlation coefficient (CCC).||2111.65|-2089.58|
91013349|NCT05664672|181909449|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|18.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.6|22.7|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||22.7|14.6|<.0001
91013350|NCT05664672|181909449|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|98.4||||0.9993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.2|124.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||124|78.2|0.9993
91054319|NCT02912650|181990997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|43.16|||<|0.001||95.0|29.56|56.75|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||56.75|29.56|< 0.001
90801592|NCT04723355|181481102|OTHER||Lin´s concordance correlation coeficient|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|0.94||||||The quantitative secondary outcomes were analyzed using Bland-Altman graphs as well as the Lin´s concordance correlation coefficient (CCC).||0.94|0.89|
90801593|NCT04723355|181481103|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.45|5.2||||||The quantitative secondary outcomes were analyzed using Bland-Altman graphs as well as the Lin´s concordance correlation coefficient (CCC).||5.20|-5.45|
90801594|NCT04723355|181481103|OTHER||Lin´s concordance correlation coeficient|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|0.94||||||The quantitative secondary outcomes were analyzed using Bland-Altman graphs as well as the Lin´s concordance correlation coefficient (CCC).||0.94|0.91|
90801595|NCT04723355|181481104|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.38|12.07||||||The quantitative secondary outcomes were analyzed using Bland-Altman graphs as well as the Lin´s concordance correlation coefficient (CCC).||12.07|-13.38|
90801596|NCT04723355|181481104|OTHER||Lin´s concordance correlation coeficient|0.987|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|0.99||||||The quantitative secondary outcomes were analyzed using Bland-Altman graphs as well as the Lin´s concordance correlation coefficient (CCC).||0.99|0.98|
90801597|NCT04723355|181481105|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|1.56||||||The quantitative secondary outcomes were analyzed using Bland-Altman graphs as well as the Lin´s concordance correlation coefficient (CCC).||1.56|-1.75|
90801598|NCT04723355|181481105|OTHER||Lin´s concordance correlation coeficient|0.9976|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.997|0.998||||||The quantitative secondary outcomes were analyzed using Bland-Altman graphs as well as the Lin´s concordance correlation coefficient (CCC).||0.998|0.997|
90801599|NCT04723355|181481106|SUPERIORITY||chi-squared test statistic|23.529|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
90801600|NCT01516632|181481130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|3.21||||||||3.21|.82|
90801601|NCT01516632|181481131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|5.3||||||||5.30|1.22|
90801602|NCT01516632|181481132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|7.45||||||||7.45|1.48|
90801603|NCT00512278|181481135|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assuming a 25% difference in the rate of SVR between the PEG INF/RBV plus infliximab group (70%) and the PEG INF/RBV (45%) group, a power of 0.85 and an alpha level of 0.05, 75 patients for each group was estimated||||||0.718|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.718
90801604|NCT00512278|181481137|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assuming a 25% difference in the rate of SVR between the PEG INF/RBV plus infliximab group (70%) and the PEG INF/RBV (45%) group, a power of 0.85 and an alpha level of 0.05, 75 patients for each group was estimated.||||||0.718|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Univariate and multivariable logistic regression were used for factors associated with an SVR.|t-test, 2 sided|||SVR was the primary outcome to calculate sample size. Assuming a 25% difference in the rate of SVR between the the two groups, a power of 0.85 and an alpha level of 0.05, 75 patients for each group was estimated. This analysis included patients randomized and received at least one dose of study drugs. A 2-sided probability value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Univariate and multivariable logistic regression were used for factors associated with an SVR.||||0.718
90801605|NCT01891396|181481187|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0099|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0099
90801606|NCT01891396|181481188|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0367|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0367
90801607|NCT01891396|181481189|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0289|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0289
90801608|NCT01891396|181481190|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0141|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0141
91013351|NCT05664672|181909449|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|98.9||||0.9998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|79.7|123.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||123|79.7|0.9998
91054320|NCT02912650|181990997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|7.91||||0.087||95.0|-1.15|16.97|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||16.97|-1.15|0.087
90801609|NCT01891396|181481191|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0002
91013352|NCT05664672|181909449|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|86.4||||0.3019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|69.1|108.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||108|69.1|0.3019
91054321|NCT02912650|181990997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|58.12|||<|0.001||95.0|45.24|71.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||9 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores||71.00|45.24|< 0.001
91054322|NCT02912650|181990997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|7.23||||0.071||95.0|-0.63|15.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||9 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||15.10|-0.63|0.071
91054323|NCT02912650|181990997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|15.12|||<|0.001||95.0|6.55|23.69|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||9 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||23.69|6.55|< 0.001
90801610|NCT01891396|181481192|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0533|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0533
90801611|NCT01891396|181481193|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0323|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0323
90801612|NCT01891396|181481194|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0072|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0072
90801613|NCT01891396|181481195|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0030
90801614|NCT01891396|181481196|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.044|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0440
90801615|NCT01891396|181481197|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0579|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0579
90801616|NCT01891396|181481198|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0005
90801617|NCT01891396|181481199|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0046|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0046
90801618|NCT01891396|181481200|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0029|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0029
90801619|NCT01891396|181481201|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0087|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0087
90801620|NCT01891396|181481202|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0154|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0154
90801621|NCT01891396|181481203|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0227|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0227
90801622|NCT01891396|181481204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0002
90801623|NCT01891396|181481205|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0148|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0148
90801624|NCT01891396|181481206|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0113|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0113
90801625|NCT01891396|181481207|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0016|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0016
90801626|NCT01891396|181481208|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0056|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0056
90801627|NCT01891396|181481209|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0095|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0095
90801628|NCT01891396|181481210|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0136|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0136
90801629|NCT01891396|181481211|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0005
90801630|NCT01891396|181481212|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0059|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0059
90801631|NCT01881009|181481239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.004
90801632|NCT01881009|181481240|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
90801633|NCT01718522|181481251|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
90801634|NCT01718522|181481252|OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|||||||0.12
90801635|NCT01718522|181481253|OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|||||||0.30
90801636|NCT01718522|181481254|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
90801637|NCT01718522|181481255|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|||||||0.04
90801638|NCT01718522|181481256|OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|||||||0.35
90801639|NCT01718522|181481257|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|||||||0.001
90801640|NCT01718522|181481258|OTHER|||||||0.61|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|||||||0.61
90801641|NCT01718522|181481259|OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|||||||0.1
90801642|NCT01718522|181481260|OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|||||||0.22
90801643|NCT02831855|181481262|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority (NI) of Tofacitinib 11 mg + Methotrexate Placebo to Tofacitinib 11 mg + continued Methotrexate was concluded if the upper bound of 95% 2-sided confidence interval (CI) for difference between the 2 arms (Tofacitinib 11 mg + Methotrexate Placebo reporting arm - Tofacitinib 11 mg + continued Methotrexate arm) was lower than 0.6.|Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.48||The p-value is one-sided for the test against the NI margin of 0.6.|MMRM|||Linear mixed-effect model of repeated measures (MMRM) was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (bDMARD), and baseline DAS28-4 (ESR) value as a covariate.||0.48|0.12|0.0005
90801644|NCT02831855|181481263|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.41||||||Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD and baseline DAS28-4 (ESR) value as a covariate.||0.41|0.03|
90801645|NCT02831855|181481264|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.43||||||Change at Week 36: Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment -by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD and baseline DAS28-4 (CRP) value as a covariate.||0.43|0.08|
91013353|NCT05664672|181909450|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|18.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.2|25.3|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||25.3|13.2|<.0001
91013354|NCT05664672|181909450|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|23.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.6|31.9|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||31.9|17.6|<.0001
91013355|NCT05664672|181909450|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|19.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.2|26.4|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||26.4|14.2|<.0001
91013356|NCT05664672|181909450|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|24.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.3|33.3|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||33.3|17.3|<.0001
91013357|NCT05664672|181909450|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|76.1||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.0|107.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||107|54.0|0.1530
91013358|NCT05664672|181909450|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|98.6||||0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.7|136.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||136|71.7|0.9999
91054324|NCT02912650|181990997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|50.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.39|64.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||9 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores||64.09|37.39|<0.001
90801646|NCT02831855|181481264|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.45||||||Change at Week 48: Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment -by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD and baseline DAS28-4 (CRP) value as a covariate.||0.45|0.11|
91013359|NCT05664672|181909450|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|80.5||||0.3025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.8|112.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||112|57.8|0.3025
90801647|NCT02831855|181481265|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.07||||||Change at Week 36: Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD and baseline CDAI value as a covariate.||3.07|0.40|
90801648|NCT02831855|181481265|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|3.43||||||Change at Week 48: Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD and baseline CDAI value as a covariate.||3.43|0.83|
90801649|NCT02831855|181481266|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|3.37||||||Change at Week 36: Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD and baseline SDAI value as a covariate.||3.37|0.53|
90801650|NCT02831855|181481266|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|3.59||||||Change at Week 48: Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD and baseline SDAI value as a covariate.||3.59|0.86|
90801651|NCT02831855|181481267|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-5.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.15|2.76||||||Week 36||2.76|-14.15|
90801652|NCT02831855|181481267|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-4.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.04|3.94||||||Week 48||3.94|-13.04|
90801653|NCT02831855|181481268|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-5.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.07|2.77||||||Week 36||2.77|-13.07|
90801654|NCT02831855|181481268|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-8.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.28|-0.76||||||Week 48||-0.76|-16.28|
90801655|NCT02831855|181481269|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-7.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.17|0.38||||||Week 36||0.38|-15.17|
90801656|NCT02831855|181481269|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-11.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.56|-4.26||||||Week 48||-4.26|-19.56|
90801657|NCT02831855|181481270|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-7.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.81|0.77||||||Week 36||0.77|-14.81|
90801658|NCT02831855|181481270|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-10.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.68|-2.37||||||Week 48||-2.37|-17.68|
90801659|NCT02831855|181481271|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-8.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.27|-1.78||||||Week 36||-1.78|-15.27|
91054325|NCT02912650|181990997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|43.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.56|56.75|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||9 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||56.75|29.56|<0.001
90801660|NCT02831855|181481271|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|5.83|||Two Sided|||Week 48||5.83|-8.50|
90801661|NCT02831855|181481272|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-8.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|-0.82||||||Week 36||-0.82|-15.40|
90801662|NCT02831855|181481272|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-6.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.74|1.32||||||Week 48||1.32|-13.74|
90801663|NCT02831855|181481273|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-5.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.12|2.84||||||Week 36||2.84|-14.12|
91054326|NCT02912650|181990997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|7.91||||0.087||95.0|-1.15|16.97|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||9 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores||16.97|-1.15|0.087
90801664|NCT02831855|181481273|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-4.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.62|4.36||||||Week 48||4.36|-12.62|
90801665|NCT02831855|181481274|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-8.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.44|-1.24||||||Week 36||-1.24|-16.44|
90801666|NCT02831855|181481274|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-2.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.18|5.35||||||Week 48||5.35|-10.18|
90801667|NCT02831855|181481275|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-8.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.38|-1.31||||||Week 36||-1.31|-16.38|
90801668|NCT02831855|181481275|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-3.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.99|4.65||||||Week 48||4.65|-10.99|
90801669|NCT02831855|181481276|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-6.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.06|0.14||||||Week 36||0.14|-14.06|
90801670|NCT02831855|181481276|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-6.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|0.61||||||Week 48||0.61|-13.80|
90801671|NCT02831855|181481277|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-12.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.01|-4.48||||||Week 36||-4.48|-21.01|
90801672|NCT02831855|181481277|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-11.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.22|-3.75||||||Week 48||-3.75|-20.22|
90801673|NCT02831855|181481278|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-5.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.63|2.89||||||Week 36||2.89|-13.63|
90801674|NCT02831855|181481278|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-4.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.32|3.36||||||Week 48||3.36|-13.32|
90801675|NCT02831855|181481279|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.16||||||Change at Week 36: Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD and baseline HAQ-DI.||0.16|0.02|
90801676|NCT02831855|181481279|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.09||||||Change at Week 48: Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD and baseline HAQ-DI.||0.09|-0.06|
90801677|NCT02831855|181481280|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.79|0.92||||||Change at Week 36: Physical Functioning- Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD, and baseline SF-36 physical component score as a covariate.||0.92|-1.79|
90801678|NCT02831855|181481280|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|1.85||||||Change at Week 48: Physical Functioning- Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD, and baseline SF-36 physical component score as a covariate.||1.85|-0.82|
90801679|NCT02831855|181481280|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.97|-0.37||||||Change at Week 36: Role Physical Score- Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD, and baseline SF-36 role physical score score as a covariate.||-0.37|-2.97|
90801680|NCT02831855|181481280|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|0.66||||||Change at Week 48: Role Physical Score- Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD, and baseline SF-36 role physical score score as a covariate.||0.66|-2.13|
90801681|NCT02831855|181481280|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.21||||||Change at Week 36: Social functioning- Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD, and baseline SF-36 Social functioning score as a covariate.||1.21|-1.50|
90801682|NCT02831855|181481280|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|0.93||||||Change at Week 48: Social functioning- Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD, and baseline SF-36 Social functioning score as a covariate.||0.93|-1.95|
90801683|NCT02831855|181481280|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-0.01||||||Change at Week 36: Bodily Pain Score- Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD, and baseline SF-36 bodily pain score as a covariate.||-0.01|-2.90|
90801684|NCT02831855|181481280|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|0.73||||||Change at Week 48: Bodily Pain Score- Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD, and baseline SF-36 bodily pain score as a covariate.||0.73|-2.23|
90801685|NCT02831855|181481280|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|0.49||||||Change at Week 36: Mental Health Score- Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD, and baseline SF-36 mental health score as a covariate.||0.49|-2.29|
90801686|NCT02831855|181481280|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|1.02||||||Change at Week 48: Mental Health Score- Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD, and baseline SF-36 mental health score as a covariate.||1.02|-1.94|
90801687|NCT02831855|181481280|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.64|0.43||||||Change at Week 36: Role Emotional Score- Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD, and baseline SF-36 role emotional score as a covariate.||0.43|-2.64|
90801688|NCT02831855|181481280|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|1.01||||||Change at Week 48: Role Emotional Score- Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD, and baseline SF-36 role emotional score as a covariate.||1.01|-1.95|
90801689|NCT02831855|181481280|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|0.22||||||Change at Week 36: Vitality Score- Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD, and baseline SF-36 vitality score as a covariate.||0.22|-2.52|
90801690|NCT02831855|181481280|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|0.91||||||Change at Week 48: Vitality Score- Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD, and baseline SF-36 vitality score as a covariate.||0.91|-1.94|
90801691|NCT02831855|181481280|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.08||||||Change at Week 36: General Health Perception Score- Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD, and baseline SF-36 general health perception score as a covariate.||1.08|-1.30|
91054327|NCT02912650|181990997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|58.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.24|71.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||10 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||71.00|45.24|<0.001
91054328|NCT02912650|181990997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|7.23||||0.071||95.0|-0.63|15.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||10 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||15.10|-0.63|0.071
91054329|NCT02912650|181990997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|15.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.55|23.69|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||10 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||23.69|6.55|<0.001
90801692|NCT02831855|181481280|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.83||||||Change at Week 48: General Health Perception Score- Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD, and baseline SF-36 general health perception score as a covariate.||1.83|-0.60|
90801693|NCT02831855|181481281|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.01|0.37||||||Change at Week 36: Physical Component Score- Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD, and baseline SF-36 physical component score- as a covariate.||0.37|-2.01|
90801694|NCT02831855|181481281|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|1.29||||||Change at Week 48: Physical Component Score- Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (DMARD), and baseline SF-36 physical component score- as a covariate.||1.29|-1.11|
90801695|NCT02831855|181481281|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|0.49||||||Change at Week 36: Mental Component Score- Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD, and baseline SF-36 mental component score as a covariate.||0.49|-2.13|
90801696|NCT02831855|181481281|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|0.7||||||Change at Week 48: Mental Component Score- Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD, and baseline SF-36 mental component score as a covariate.||0.70|-2.06|
90801697|NCT02831855|181481282|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.41|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.14|6.37||||||Change at Week 36: Absenteeism Score- Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD, and baseline WPAI absenteeism score as a covariate.||6.37|-3.14|
90801698|NCT02831855|181481282|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.28|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.01|3.99||||||Change at Week 48: Absenteeism Score- Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD, and baseline WPAI absenteeism score as a covariate.||3.99|-5.01|
90801699|NCT02831855|181481282|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.88|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|6.89||||||Change at Week 36: Daily activity impairment- Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD, and baseline WPAI daily activity impairment score as a covariate.||6.89|-0.51|
91013360|NCT05664672|181909451|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|22.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.0|30.4|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||30.4|17.0|<.0001
90801700|NCT02831855|181481282|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|5.61||||||Change at Week 48: Daily activity impairment- Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD, and baseline WPAI daily activity impairment score as a covariate.||5.61|-2.41|
90801701|NCT02831855|181481282|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.97|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.84|8.87||||||Change at Week 36: Presenteeism- Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD, and baseline WPAI presenteeism score as a covariate.||8.87|-2.84|
90801702|NCT02831855|181481282|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.77|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.34|6.54||||||Change at Week 48: Presenteeism- Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD, and baseline WPAI presenteeism score as a covariate.||6.54|-8.34|
90801703|NCT02831855|181481282|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.45|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.97|9.65||||||Change at Week 36: Work productivity loss- Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD, and baseline WPAI work productivity loss score as a covariate.||9.65|-3.97|
90801704|NCT02831855|181481282|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.19|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.72|5.8||||||Change at Week 48: Work productivity loss- Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD, and baseline WPAI work productivity loss score as a covariate.||5.80|-10.72|
91013361|NCT05664672|181909451|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|28.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.6|36.6|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||36.6|21.6|<.0001
91013362|NCT05664672|181909451|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|27.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.8|36.2|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||36.2|20.8|<.0001
91013363|NCT05664672|181909451|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|28.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.4|38.4|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||38.4|21.4|<.0001
91013364|NCT05664672|181909451|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|79.4||||0.1843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.6|108.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||108|58.6|0.1843
91054330|NCT02912650|181990997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|50.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.39|64.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||10 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||64.09|37.39|<0.001
91054331|NCT02912650|181990997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|43.16|||<|0.001||95.0|29.56|56.75|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||10 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||56.75|29.56|<0.001
91054332|NCT02912650|181990997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|7.91||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|16.97|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||10 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||16.97|-1.15|0.087
90801705|NCT02831855|181481283|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|-0.01||||||Change at Week 36: Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD, and baseline EQ-5D score as a covariate.||-0.01|-0.07|
90801706|NCT02831855|181481283|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.01||||||Change at Week 48: Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD, and baseline EQ-5D score as a covariate.||0.01|-0.06|
90801707|NCT02831855|181481284|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|1.0||||||Change at Week 36: Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD, and baseline FACIT - fatigue scale score as a covariate.||1.00|-1.37|
90801708|NCT02831855|181481284|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|1.44||||||Change at Week 48: Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD, and baseline FACIT - fatigue scale score as a covariate.||1.44|-1.07|
90801709|NCT02831855|181481285|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-10.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.87|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.61|-2.42||||||Week 36||-2.42|-17.61|
90801710|NCT02831855|181481285|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-6.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.89|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.26|1.0||||||Week 48||1.00|-14.26|
90801711|NCT01194245|181481299|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority would be supported if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference between Analog-PH20 and the comparator (insulin lispro) did not exceed 0.40.|LS Means Difference|0.05||||0.2878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Approximately 110 participants were to be enrolled, allowing approximately 88 participants to complete both treatment periods (44 for each investigational drug). Assuming a dropout rate of no more than 20%, intra-participant correlation of 0.80, standard deviation of 1.2, and a true difference of 0, the study would have a greater than 90% power to show that Analog-PH20 was non-inferior to insulin lispro alone with respect to the change from baseline in A1C at the end of each treatment period.||0.15|-0.05|0.2878
90801712|NCT00889707|181481360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||||||Test of superiority computed using an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline total IPSS, and baseline prostate volume. Tested for 2-sided 0.05 level of statistical significance.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline total IPSS, and baseline prostate volume.||||||0.040
90801713|NCT00889707|181481361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047||||||ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline total IPSS, baseline prostate volume, and baseline Qmax.|ANCOVA|Model with terms for treatment group, baseline total IPSS, baseline prostate volume, and baseline Qmax.||||||0.047
90801714|NCT00527618|181481367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA.|Acyclovir was coded as 0 and valacyclovir as 1. The beta-coefficient (slope) indicates the average difference in HIV-1 RNA on valacyclovir and acyclovir; a negative number indicates that plasma HIV-1 RNA was lower on valacyclovir than acyclovir.|We estimated that a sample size of 29 participants, with 4 weeks of weekly plasma HIV-1 RNA levels per treatment arm, would be required to detect a 0.25 log10 copies/ml difference in plasma HIV-1 RNA between the study arms with 80% power, at a two-sided type I error rate of 5%.||-0.14|-0.41|<0.001
90801715|NCT00527618|181481368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.95||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.37|||Random effects poission regression|Adjusted for age.||We estimated that 26 participants would be required to detect a 50% reduction in genital HSV shedding with 80% power, at a two-sided type I error rate of 5%.||1.37|0.66|0.78
90801716|NCT00527618|181481369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.16
90801717|NCT00527618|181481370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.67
90801718|NCT01151020|181481388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Free from major adverse event rate (%)|96.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.0|99.0|||Exact binomial test|||Null hypothesis: The 30-day freedom from MAE for patients treated with the Zenith® TX2® Low Profile TAA Endovascular Graft does not meet the performance goal of 80.6%.||99|91|< 0.001
90801719|NCT01151020|181481389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Device success rate (%)|92.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.2|96.8|||Exact binomial test|||Null Hypothesis: The 12-month device success for patients treated with the Zenith® TX2® Low Profile TAA Endovascular Graft does not meet the performance goal of 80.7%.||96.8|86.2|< 0.001
90801720|NCT02967679|181481414|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.67|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.45||0.7615|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7615
90801721|NCT02967679|181481415|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.89||0.5995|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5995
90801722|NCT02967679|181481416|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.4||0.1641|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1641
90801723|NCT02967679|181481417|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.5||0.0353|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0353
90801724|NCT02967679|181481418|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.4||0.2642|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2642
90801725|NCT02967679|181481419|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.2||0.1777|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1777
90801726|NCT02967679|181481420|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.2||0.0371|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0371
91054333|NCT02912650|181990997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|58.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.24|71.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||71.00|45.24|<0.001
90801727|NCT02967679|181481421|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.9||0.0142|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0142
90801728|NCT02967679|181481423|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.111|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.201||0.1055|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1055
90801729|NCT02967679|181481424|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.84|STANDARD_DEVIATION|28.16||0.213|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2130
90801730|NCT02967679|181481425|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.068|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.112||0.0393|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0393
90801731|NCT02967679|181481426|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.905|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.283||0.0004|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0004
90801732|NCT02967679|181481427|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.28|STANDARD_DEVIATION|32.21||0.3303|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3303
90801733|NCT02967679|181481428|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.092||0.9229|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.9229
90801734|NCT00600067|181481432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||||-0.02|-0.69|0.0381
90801735|NCT00600067|181481433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.18|-4.21|||ANCOVA|||||-4.21|-9.18|<0.0001
90801736|NCT00881894|181481438|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% Confidence Interval for the ratio of geometric LS- Means is included within 0.8- 1.25, the patches are considered bioequivalent.|ratio of geometric LS- Means|0.9864||||||90.0|0.9103|1.0688|||ANOVA|ANOVA for log- transformed values has been used as the basis for calculation of point estimates (LS- Means) and Confidence Intervals (CIs).|Bioequivalence is concluded if the 90% CIs for the ratio Treatment A/ Treatment B are fully included in the acceptance range from 0.8- 1.25 for AUC(0-tz) and Cmax.|Bioequivalence testing by using the 90% Confidence Interval (CI).||1.0688|0.9103|
91054334|NCT02912650|181990997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|7.23||||0.071||95.0|-0.63|15.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||15.10|-0.63|0.071
90801737|NCT00881894|181481439|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% Confidence Interval for the ratio of geometric LS- Means is included within 0.8- 1.25, the patches are considered bioequivalent.|ratio of geometric LS- Means|0.9584||||||90.0|0.8861|1.0367|||ANOVA|ANOVA for log- transformed values has been used as the basis for calculation of point estimates (LS- Means) and Confidence Intervals (CIs).|Bioequivalence is concluded if the 90% CIs for the ratio Treatment A/ Treatment B are fully included in the acceptance range from 0.8- 1.25 for AUC(0-tz) and Cmax.|Bioequivalence testing by using the 90% Confidence Interval (CI).||1.0367|0.8861|
91013365|NCT05664672|181909451|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|98.1||||0.9994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|73.9|130.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||130|73.9|0.9994
91013366|NCT05664672|181909451|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|95.9||||0.9891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.4|129.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||129|71.4|0.9891
91054335|NCT02912650|181990997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|15.12|||<|0.001||95.0|6.55|23.69|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||23.69|6.55|<0.001
90801738|NCT00881894|181481440|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% Confidence Interval for the ratio of geometric LS- Means is included within 0.8- 1.25, the patches are considered bioequivalent.|ratio of geometric LS- Means|0.9896||||||90.0|0.9179|1.0671|||ANOVA|ANOVA for log- transformed values has been used as the basis for calculation of point estimates (LS- Means) and Confidence Intervals (CIs).||Bioequivalence testing by using the 90% Confidence Interval (CI).||1.0671|0.9179|
90801739|NCT03958331|181481498|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.38||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|17.25|||ANCOVA|Model controlled for baseline adherence, resistance to peer influence, dose, active seizures, COVID timing, COVID Impact (3 items), and sex|||We also conducted a longitudinal mixed effects model for adherence over time, estimating a groupXtime interaction with the same covariates listed above and allowing for a non-linear effect.|17.25|4|0.002
90801740|NCT02030821|181481520|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.05
90801741|NCT02030821|181481521|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
90801742|NCT02030821|181481522|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.05
90801743|NCT02030821|181481523|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.05
90801744|NCT03192137|181481525|SUPERIORITY|Statistical hypotheses testing for the primary efficacy endpoint was two-sided and performed using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05.||||||0.0005||||||P-values were from a Chi-Square test (with continuity correction) of differences between treatments in the proportion of participants with anterior chamber cells Grade 0 who did not receive rescue medication versus all other grades combined.|Chi-squared, Corrected|A Fisher's exact test was used if 1 or more of the cells had an expected frequency of ≤ 5.||||||0.0005
90801745|NCT03192137|181481526|SUPERIORITY|Statistical hypotheses testing for the secondary efficacy endpoints were two-sided and performed using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.217|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.823|5.675||P-values were from a Chi-Square test (with continuity correction).|Chi-squared, Corrected|A Fisher's exact test was used if 1 or more of the cells had an expected frequency of ≤ 5.||Statistical analysis of proportion of participants who achieved a pain score of 0 on the VAS on Day 1||5.675|1.823|<0.0001
90801746|NCT03192137|181481526|SUPERIORITY|Statistical hypotheses testing for the secondary efficacy endpoints were two-sided and performed using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05.|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.337|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.305|8.161||P-values were from a Chi-Square test (with continuity correction).|Chi-squared, Corrected|A Fisher's exact test was used if 1 or more of the cells had an expected frequency of ≤ 5.||Statistical analysis of proportion of participants who achieved a pain score of 0 on the VAS on Day 8||8.161|2.305|<0.0001
90801747|NCT03192137|181481526|SUPERIORITY|Statistical hypotheses testing for the secondary efficacy endpoints were two-sided and performed using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05.|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.113|8.033||P-values were from a Chi-Square test (with continuity correction).|Chi-squared, Corrected|A Fisher's exact test was used if 1 or more of the cells had an expected frequency of ≤ 5.||Statistical analysis of proportion of participants who achieved a pain score of 0 on the VAS on Day 15||8.033|2.113|<0.0001
90801748|NCT03192137|181481526|SUPERIORITY|Statistical hypotheses testing for the secondary efficacy endpoints were two-sided and performed using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.58||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|4.822||P-values were from a Chi-Square test (with continuity correction).|Chi-squared, Corrected|A Fisher's exact test was used if 1 or more of the cells had an expected frequency of ≤ 5.||Statistical analysis of proportion of participants who achieved a pain score of 0 on the VAS on Day 18||4.822|1.380|0.0043
90801749|NCT03192137|181481526|SUPERIORITY|Statistical hypotheses testing for the secondary efficacy endpoints were two-sided and performed using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.277||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.695|6.335||P-values were from a Chi-Square test (with continuity correction).|Chi-squared, Corrected|A Fisher's exact test was used if 1 or more of the cells had an expected frequency of ≤ 5.||Statistical analysis of proportion of participants who achieved a pain score of 0 on the VAS on Day 29||6.335|1.695|0.0005
90801750|NCT01328743|181481533|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.04
90801751|NCT01328743|181481534|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<.01
90801752|NCT01328743|181481535|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<.01
90801753|NCT01328743|181481536|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.48
90801754|NCT01328743|181481537|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.25
90801755|NCT01328743|181481538|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
90801756|NCT02848092|181481570|SUPERIORITY||Incidence Risk Ratio|0.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.76|||Generalized Estimating Equation|P value is for the interaction between group (intervention vs. control) and time point (baseline vs. 1 month) using a generalized estimating equation.||||.76|.52|<.0001
91013367|NCT05664672|181909452|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|37.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.4|45.7|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||45.7|30.4|<.0001
91013368|NCT05664672|181909452|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|44.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.5|53.1|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||53.1|36.5|<.0001
91013369|NCT05664672|181909452|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|41.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.4|50.9|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||50.9|34.4|<.0001
91054336|NCT02912650|181990997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|50.74|||<|0.001||95.0|37.39|64.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||64.09|37.39|<0.001
91054337|NCT02912650|181990997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|43.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.56|56.75|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||56.75|29.56|<0.001
91054338|NCT02912650|181990997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|7.91||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|16.97|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||16.97|-1.15|0.087
91054339|NCT02912650|181990997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|58.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.24|71.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||71.00|45.24|<0.001
91054340|NCT02912650|181990997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|7.23||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|15.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||15.10|-0.63|0.071
91054341|NCT02912650|181990997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|15.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.55|23.69|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||23.69|6.55|<0.001
91054342|NCT02912650|181990997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|50.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.39|64.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||64.09|37.39|<0.001
91054343|NCT02912650|181990997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|43.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.56|56.75|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||56.75|29.56|<0.001
91054344|NCT02912650|181990997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|7.91||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|16.97|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||16.97|-1.15|0.087
91054345|NCT02912650|181990998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|1.16||||0.156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|2.75|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||2.75|-0.44|0.156
91054346|NCT02912650|181990998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|1.16||||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|2.76|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||2.76|-0.44|0.155
91054347|NCT02912650|181990998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-0.68||||0.605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.27|1.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||1.90|-3.27|0.605
91054348|NCT02912650|181990998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|1.84||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|3.89|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||3.89|-0.21|0.079
90801757|NCT02848092|181481571|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|-0.13|||Generalized Estimating Equation|P value is for the interaction between group (intervention vs. control) and time point (baseline vs. 1 month) using a generalized estimating equation.||||-.13|-.29|<.0001
90801758|NCT02848092|181481572|SUPERIORITY||Incidence Risk Ratio|0.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.76|||Generalized Estimating Equation|P value is for the interaction between group (intervention vs. control) and time point (baseline vs. 6 month) using a generalized estimating equation.||||.76|.52|<.0001
91013370|NCT05664672|181909452|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|42.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.9|52.7|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||52.7|34.9|<.0001
91013371|NCT05664672|181909452|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|86.9||||0.3027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|70.0|108.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||108|70.0|0.3027
90801759|NCT02848092|181481573|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|-0.13|||Generalized Estimating Equation|P value is for the interaction between group (intervention vs. control) and time point (baseline vs. 6 month) using a generalized estimating equation.||||-.13|-.31|<.0001
90801760|NCT02848092|181481574|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.89||||||||.89|.41|
90801761|NCT02848092|181481575|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.92||||||||.92|.61|
90801762|NCT01665911|181481612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049||||||Non-fluoridated milk, 200 ml vs. 1.5 mg Sodium Fluoride in 100 ml milk|ANOVA|||Based on prior studies using a variety of products in this model, the within-product standard deviation of %SMH recovery is estimated to be 13% and the correlation between products is expected to be approximately 0.5. With a sample size of 28 subjects in a 5-way crossover study, the study will have 80% power to detect a %SMH recovery difference of 8.6%, assuming two-sided tests each conducted at a 5% significance level.||||0.0490
90801763|NCT01665911|181481612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19||||||Non-fluoridated milk, 200 ml vs. 1.5 mg sodium fluoride in 200 ml milk|ANOVA|||||||0.19
90801764|NCT01665911|181481612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0017||||||Non-fluoridated milk, 200 ml vs. 3 mg sodium fluoride in 100 ml milk|ANOVA|||||||0.0017
90801765|NCT01665911|181481612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0092||||||Non-fluoridated milk, 200 ml vs. 3 mg sodium fluoride in 200 ml milk|ANOVA|||||||0.0092
90801766|NCT01665911|181481612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45||||||1.5 mg Sodium Fluoride in 100 ml milk vs. 1.5 mg sodium fluoride in 200 ml milk|ANOVA|||||||0.45
90801767|NCT01665911|181481612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||||||1.5 mg Sodium Fluoride in 100 ml milk vs. 3 mg sodium fluoride in 100 ml milk|ANOVA|||||||0.18
90801768|NCT01665911|181481612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47||||||1.5 mg Sodium Fluoride in 100 ml milk vs. 3 mg sodium fluoride in 200 ml milk|ANOVA|||||||0.47
90801769|NCT01665911|181481612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0423||||||1.5 mg sodium fluoride in 200 ml milk vs. 3 mg sodium fluoride in 100 ml milk|ANOVA|||||||0.0423
90801770|NCT01665911|181481612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15||||||1.5 mg sodium fluoride in 200 ml milk vs. 3 mg sodium fluoride in 200 ml milk|ANOVA|||||||0.15
90801771|NCT01665911|181481612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54||||||3 mg sodium fluoride in 100 ml milk vs. 3 mg sodium fluoride in 200 ml milk|ANOVA|||||||0.54
90801772|NCT01665911|181481613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24||||||Non-fluoridated milk, 200 ml vs. 1.5 mg Sodium Fluoride in 100 ml milk|ANOVA|||||||0.24
90801773|NCT01665911|181481613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17||||||Non-fluoridated milk, 200 ml vs. 1.5 mg sodium fluoride in 200 ml milk|ANOVA|||||||0.17
90801774|NCT01665911|181481613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0008||||||Non-fluoridated milk, 200 ml vs. 3 mg sodium fluoride in 100 ml milk|ANOVA|||||||0.0008
90801775|NCT01665911|181481613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003||||||Non-fluoridated milk, 200 ml vs. 3 mg sodium fluoride in 200 ml milk|ANOVA|||||||0.0003
91054349|NCT02912650|181990998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-1.85||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|0.21|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||0.21|-3.90|0.078
90801776|NCT01665911|181481613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24||||||1.5 mg Sodium Fluoride in 100 ml milk vs. 1.5 mg Sodium Fluoride in 200 ml milk|ANOVA|||||||0.24
90801777|NCT01665911|181481613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26||||||1.5 mg Sodium Fluoride in 100 ml milk vs. 3 mg sodium fluoride in 100 ml milk|ANOVA|||||||0.26
90801778|NCT01665911|181481613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||||||1.5 mg Sodium Fluoride in 100 ml milk vs. 3 mg sodium fluoride in 200 ml milk|ANOVA|||||||0.18
90801779|NCT01665911|181481613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0269||||||1.5 mg sodium fluoride in 200 ml milk vs. 3 mg sodium fluoride in 100 ml milk|ANOVA|||||||0.0269
90801780|NCT01665911|181481613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0142||||||1.5 mg sodium fluoride in 200 ml milk vs. 3 mg sodium fluoride in 200 ml milk|ANOVA|||||||0.0142
90801781|NCT01665911|181481613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81||||||3 mg sodium fluoride in 100 ml milk vs. 3 mg sodium fluoride in 200 ml milk|ANOVA|||||||0.81
90801782|NCT01665911|181481614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0||||||Non-fluoridated milk, 200 ml vs. 1.5 mg Sodium Fluoride in 100 ml milk|ANOVA|||||||0.0000
90801783|NCT01665911|181481614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0||||||Non-fluoridated milk, 200 ml vs. 1.5 mg sodium fluoride in 200 ml milk|ANOVA|||||||0.0000
90801784|NCT01665911|181481614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0||||||Non-fluoridated milk, 200 ml vs. 3 mg sodium fluoride in 100 ml milk|ANOVA|||||||0.0000
90801785|NCT01665911|181481614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0||||||Non-fluoridated milk, 200 ml vs. 3 mg sodium fluoride in 200 ml milk|ANOVA|||||||0.0000
90801786|NCT01665911|181481614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14||||||1.5 mg Sodium Fluoride in 100 ml milk vs. 1.5 mg Sodium Fluoride in 200 ml milk|ANOVA|||||||0.14
90801787|NCT01665911|181481614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0012||||||1.5 mg Sodium Fluoride in 100 ml milk vs. 3 mg sodium fluoride in 100 ml milk|ANOVA|||||||0.0012
90801788|NCT01665911|181481614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19||||||1.5 mg Sodium Fluoride in 100 ml milk vs. 3 mg sodium fluoride in 200 ml milk|ANOVA|||||||0.19
90801789|NCT01665911|181481614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0||||||1.5 mg sodium fluoride in 200 ml milk vs. 3 mg sodium fluoride in 100 ml milk|ANOVA|||||||0.0000
90801790|NCT01665911|181481614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0075||||||1.5 mg sodium fluoride in 200 ml milk vs. 3 mg sodium fluoride in 200 ml milk|ANOVA|||||||0.0075
90801791|NCT01665911|181481614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0444||||||3 mg sodium fluoride in 100 ml milk vs. 3 mg sodium fluoride in 200 ml milk|ANOVA|||||||0.0444
90801792|NCT01484496|181481615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|2.25|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.25|1.25|0.0006
90801793|NCT01484496|181481616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.74|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||0.74|0.35|0.0004
90801794|NCT01484496|181481617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.65||||0.0732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.84|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.84|0.95|0.0732
91013372|NCT05664672|181909452|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|103.0||||0.9926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|83.9|125.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||125|83.9|0.9926
91013373|NCT05664672|181909452|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|97.5||||0.9938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|79.1|120.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||120|79.1|0.9938
90801795|NCT02020590|181481662|OTHER||||||||TWO_SIDED|90.0||||||||"The success of ALLOB® treatment was based on the percentage of responders. A treated patient was considered as responding if, at the end of the study (6 months):~* He/she had not required rescue surgery and~* The GDE score as perceived by the patient had improved by at least 25% or the TUS (tomographic union score) as assessed by CT scan had increased by at least 2 points."|The response rate at Month 6 for the 21 patients in the PP population was 100 % (CI: 86.71 - 100.0%). None of the treated patients required rescue surgery. An improvement of GDE score of at least 25% was reported for 16 (76.2%) patients. An increase in TUS of at least 2 points was reported for 16 (76.2%) patients; all patients met at least one of these two criteria.|||
90801796|NCT03141255|181481668|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
90801797|NCT03141255|181481669|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.47
91054350|NCT02912650|181990998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|21.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.33|27.62|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||27.62|15.33|<0.001
91054351|NCT02912650|181990998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cumulative Percentage of Participants wi|7.79||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|15.77|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||15.77|-0.19|0.056
90801798|NCT03141255|181481670|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
90801799|NCT03141255|181481671|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
90801800|NCT03141255|181481672|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.029
90801801|NCT03141255|181481673|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.091|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.091
90801802|NCT03141255|181481674|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.029
90801803|NCT03141255|181481675|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7
90801804|NCT03141255|181481676|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.516|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.516
90801805|NCT03141255|181481677|OTHER|||||||0.75|||||||Kaplan Meier|||||||0.75
90801806|NCT03141255|181481678|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.43
90801807|NCT03141255|181481679|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.052|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.052
90801808|NCT04419467|181481680|SUPERIORITY||GM % treatment difference (80% CI)|-0.5||||0.485|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-14.8|16.3||One-sided p-value|Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis||Data analyzed are log-transformed values of ACR, using MMRM. Comparisons vs. placebo are back-transformed by exponentiation to obtain geometric mean (GM), then expressed as percent treatment difference.|||16.3|-14.8|0.485
90801809|NCT04419467|181481680|SUPERIORITY||GM % treatment difference (80% CI)|8.6||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-7.2|27.2||One-sided p-value|Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis||Data analyzed are log-transformed values of ACR, using MMRM. Comparisons vs. placebo are back-transformed by exponentiation to obtain geometric mean, then expressed as percent treatment difference|||27.2|-7.2|0.750
90801810|NCT03502915|181481697|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin is the standard error of the estimated difference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.053|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.508||0.943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.402|1.507|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.507|-1.402|0.943
90801811|NCT03502915|181481698|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin is the standard error of the estimated difference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.443|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.867||0.597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.229|2.114|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.114|-1.229|0.597
90801812|NCT03502915|181481699|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin is the standard error of the estimated difference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.28||0.748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.629|0.869|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.869|-0.629|0.748
90801813|NCT03502915|181481700|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin is the standard error of the estimated difference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.634|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.816||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.927|-0.341|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.341|-4.927|0.025
90801814|NCT03502915|181481701|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin is the standard error of the estimated difference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.056|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.742||0.944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.543|1.655|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.655|-1.543|0.944
90801815|NCT04571060|181481724|SUPERIORITY|The stratified percentage difference between zavegepant group and placebo was tested at an alpha level of 0.05.|Stratified Percentage Difference|8.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|13.1||Threshold for significance at 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||13.1|4.5|<0.0001
90801816|NCT04571060|181481725|SUPERIORITY|The stratified percentage difference between zavegepant group and placebo was tested at an alpha level of 0.05.|Stratified Percentage Difference|8.7||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|13.9||Threshold for significance at 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||13.9|3.4|0.0012
90801817|NCT04571060|181481726|SUPERIORITY|The stratified percentage difference between zavegepant group and placebo was tested at an alpha level of 0.05.|Stratified Percentage Difference|9.0||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.6|14.5||Threshold for significance at 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||14.5|3.6|0.0012
90801818|NCT04571060|181481727|SUPERIORITY|The stratified percentage difference between zavegepant group and placebo was tested at an alpha level of 0.05.|Stratified Percentage Difference|10.2||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|15.5||Threshold for significance at 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||15.5|5.0|0.0001
90801819|NCT04571060|181481728|SUPERIORITY|The stratified percentage difference between zavegepant group and placebo was tested at an alpha level of 0.05.|Stratified Percentage Difference|7.6||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|12.9||Threshold for significance at 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||12.9|2.3|0.0048
90801820|NCT04571060|181481729|SUPERIORITY|The stratified percentage difference between zavegepant group and placebo was tested at an alpha level of 0.05.|Stratified Percentage Difference|6.5||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|11.7||Threshold for significance at 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||11.7|1.4|0.0130
90801821|NCT04571060|181481730|SUPERIORITY|The stratified percentage difference between zavegepant group and placebo was tested at an alpha level of 0.05.|Stratified Percentage Difference|4.9||||0.0076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|8.5||Threshold for significance at 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||8.5|1.3|0.0076
90801822|NCT04571060|181481731|SUPERIORITY|The stratified percentage difference between zavegepant group and placebo was tested at an alpha level of 0.05.|Stratified Percentage Difference|3.7||||0.0308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|7.1||Threshold for significance at 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||7.1|0.3|0.0308
90801823|NCT04571060|181481732|SUPERIORITY|The stratified percentage difference between zavegepant group and placebo was tested at an alpha level of 0.05.|Stratified Percentage Difference|8.3||||0.0123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|14.9||Threshold for significance at 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||14.9|1.8|0.0123
90801824|NCT04571060|181481733|SUPERIORITY|The stratified percentage difference between zavegepant group and placebo was tested at an alpha level of 0.05.|Stratified Percentage Difference|8.6||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|14.1||Threshold for significance at 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||14.1|3.2|0.0018
91054352|NCT02912650|181990998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-0.37||||0.934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.18|8.43|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||8.43|-9.18|0.934
90801825|NCT04571060|181481734|SUPERIORITY|The stratified percentage difference between zavegepant group and placebo was tested at an alpha level of 0.05.|Stratified Percentage Difference|6.0||||0.0293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|11.4||Threshold for significance at 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||11.4|0.6|0.0293
90801826|NCT04571060|181481735|SUPERIORITY|The stratified percentage difference between zavegepant group and placebo was tested at an alpha level of 0.05.|Stratified Percentage Difference|4.7||||0.0362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|9.1||Threshold for significance at 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||9.1|0.3|0.0362
90801827|NCT04571060|181481736|SUPERIORITY|The stratified percentage difference between zavegepant group and placebo was tested at an alpha level of 0.05.|Stratified Percentage Difference|10.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.5|15.0||Threshold for significance at 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||15.0|5.5|<0.0001
90801828|NCT04571060|181481737|SUPERIORITY|The stratified percentage difference between zavegepant group and placebo was tested at an alpha level of 0.05.|Stratified Percentage Difference|4.4||||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|7.6||Threshold for significance at 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||7.6|1.3|0.0059
90801829|NCT04571060|181481738|SUPERIORITY|The stratified percentage difference between zavegepant group and placebo was tested at an alpha level of 0.05.|Stratified Percentage Difference|7.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|11.3||Threshold for significance at 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||11.3|4.2|<0.0001
90801830|NCT01361217|181481745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
90801831|NCT01361217|181481745|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
90801832|NCT01361217|181481746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90801833|NCT00361972|181481794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
90801834|NCT00361972|181481795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.17
90801835|NCT00437268|181481819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.431||||||The type 1 error rate was set at 0.20|Log Rank|||||||0.431
90801836|NCT00437268|181481820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.593|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.593
90801837|NCT00437268|181481821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.157|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.157
90801838|NCT00437268|181481822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.539||||||Kaplan-Meier analysis was used for statistical analysis.|Log Rank|||||||0.539
90801839|NCT00437268|181481823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.695|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.695
90801840|NCT00553410|181481825|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.26|||Log Rank|||||1.26|.93|.31
90801841|NCT00553410|181481826|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.06|||Log Rank|||||1.06|.68|.16
90801842|NCT00553410|181481827|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.09|||Log Rank|||||1.09|.71|.25
90801843|NCT00553410|181481828|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.18|||Log Rank|||||1.18|.81|.84
90801844|NCT01482715|181481836|OTHER||RP2D|600.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||||A MTD was not established based on observation of DLTs in Cycle 1 of treatment. The 600 mg BID dose was considered to be the maximum dose with an acceptable toxicity profile that could be continuously administered to patients and was selected as the recommended Phase 2 dose (RP2D).|||
91013374|NCT05664672|181909453|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|46.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.5|54.4|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||54.4|39.5|<.0001
90801845|NCT01152437|181481852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.122||||0.0735|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.018|0.844||The statistical analysis is descriptive and exploratory in nature and performed only to provide a statistical framework from which to view the results and plan further studies.|Regression, Logistic|Wald Chi-square test and Confidence Interval from logistic regression stratified by number of lines of palliative chemotherapy.||Null hypothesis is that the objective response rate (ORR) in KRAS wild-type patients treated with afatinib is less than or equal to the ORR in KRAS wild-type patients treated with cetuximab. Sample size is based on a 'pick the winner' approach assuming ORR for cetuximab of 12%, undesirable ORR for afatinib of 11% and desirable ORR for afatinib of 16%. As per 'pick the winner' approach, afatinib would be considered 'the winner' if the ORR for afatinib was greater than the ORR for cetuximab.||0.844|0.018|0.0735
90801846|NCT01152437|181481853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|12.0||||0.6394|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.9|23.9||The statistical analysis is descriptive and exploratory in nature and performed only to provide a statistical framework from which to view the results and plan further studies.|Exact binomial test|||Null hypothesis is that the disease control rate is 10% in patients with KRAS mutation. Sample size calculation based on a 2-sided exact binomial test at 10% significance level to distinguish between the historical disease control rate of 10% and a desirable disease control rate for afatinib of 25%.||23.9|4.9|0.6394
90801847|NCT01088906|181481871|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|34.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.05
90801848|NCT03137771|181481918|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.4|||Log Rank|Two-sided test|Reference level = systemic therapy. Cox proportional hazards model stratified by histology (non-squamous vs squamous) and systemic therapy (immunotherapy-based regimens vs chemotherapy- only regimens).|Based on expected 6- and 12-month PFS rates of approximately 60% and 39% for the standard arm, assuming approximately exponential distributions, at least 138 PFS events are needed to detect a hazard ratio of 0.6 (a hazard reduction of 40%) with 95% power and a one-sided significance level of 0.15. The Cox proportional hazards model is stratified by histology and systemic therapy type. The hazard ratio estimate must be ≤ 0.83 for the study to proceed to the phase III component.||1.40|0.68|0.66
90801849|NCT00532129|181481942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.029|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||CFB in GHS/QoL statistical analysis at Cycle 5.||||=0.029
90801850|NCT00532129|181481942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.027|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||CFB in GHS/QoL statistical analysis at Cycle 11.||||=0.027
90801851|NCT00532129|181481942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.602|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||CFB in GHS/QoL statistical analysis at end of FU.||||=0.602
90801852|NCT00532129|181481942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.631|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||CFB in physical functioning statistical analysis at Cycle 5.||||=0.631
90801853|NCT00532129|181481942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.339|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||CFB in physical functioning statistical analysis at Cycle 11.||||=0.339
91013375|NCT05664672|181909453|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|55.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.0|64.4|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||64.4|48.0|<.0001
91054353|NCT02912650|181990998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|13.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.58|18.77|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||18.77|8.58|<0.001
91054354|NCT02912650|181990998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|21.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.64|28.28|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||28.28|15.64|<0.001
90801854|NCT00532129|181481942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.44|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||CFB in physical functioning statistical analysis at end of FU.||||=0.440
91054355|NCT02912650|181990998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-8.21||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|-0.01|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-0.01|-16.40|0.050
90801855|NCT00532129|181481942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|1|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||CFB in role functioning statistical analysis at Cycle 5.||||=1.000
90801856|NCT00532129|181481942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.465|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||CFB in role functioning statistical analysis at Cycle 11.||||=0.465
90801857|NCT00532129|181481942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.431|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||CFB in role functioning statistical analysis at end of FU.||||=0.431
91054356|NCT02912650|181990998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|55.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.05|64.73|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||64.73|47.05|<0.001
90801858|NCT00532129|181481942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.65|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||CFB in emotional functioning statistical analysis at Cycle 5.||||=0.650
90801859|NCT00532129|181481942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.98|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||CFB in emotional functioning statistical analysis at Cycle 11.||||=0.980
90801860|NCT00532129|181481942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.906|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||CFB in emotional functioning statistical analysis at end of FU.||||=0.906
90801861|NCT00532129|181481942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.381|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||CFB in cognitive functioning statistical analysis at Cycle 5.||||=0.381
90801862|NCT00532129|181481942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.886|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||CFB in cognitive functioning statistical analysis at Cycle 11.||||=0.886
90801863|NCT00532129|181481942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.264|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||CFB in cognitive functioning statistical analysis at end of FU.||||=0.264
90801864|NCT00532129|181481942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.424|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||CFB in social functioning statistical analysis at Cycle 5.||||=0.424
90801865|NCT00532129|181481942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|1|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||CFB in social functioning statistical analysis at Cycle 11.||||=1.000
90801866|NCT00532129|181481942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.312|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||CFB in social functioning statistical analysis at end of FU.||||=0.312
90801867|NCT00532129|181481942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.664|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||CFB in fatigue statistical analysis at Cycle 5.||||=0.664
90801868|NCT00532129|181481942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.17|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||CFB in fatigue functioning statistical analysis at Cycle 11.||||=0.170
90801869|NCT00532129|181481942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.318|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||CFB in fatigue statistical analysis at end of FU.||||=0.318
90801870|NCT00532129|181481942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.536|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||CFB in Nausea/vomiting statistical analysis at Cycle 5.||||=0.536
91013376|NCT05664672|181909453|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|52.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.2|61.5|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||61.5|45.2|<.0001
91013377|NCT05664672|181909453|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|54.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.7|64.5|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||64.5|46.7|<.0001
91013378|NCT05664672|181909453|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|84.4||||0.0504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.2|100.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||100|71.2|0.0504
91054357|NCT02912650|181990998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|12.99||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|23.49|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||23.49|2.50|0.015
90801871|NCT00532129|181481942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||CFB in nausea/vomiting statistical analysis at Cycle 11.||||=0.900
90801872|NCT00532129|181481942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.188|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||CFB in nausea/vomiting statistical analysis at end of FU.||||=0.188
91013379|NCT05664672|181909453|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|101.0||||0.9988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.4|119.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||119|86.4|0.9988
90801873|NCT00532129|181481942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.37|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||CFB in pain statistical analysis at Cycle 5.||||=0.370
90801874|NCT00532129|181481942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.813|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||CFB in pain statistical analysis at Cycle 11.||||=0.813
91054358|NCT02912650|181990998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|7.16||||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.51|17.82|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||17.82|-3.51|0.188
91054359|NCT02912650|181990998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|42.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.85|51.38|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||51.38|33.85|<0.001
90801875|NCT00532129|181481942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|1|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||CFB in pain statistical analysis at end of FU.||||=1.000
90801876|NCT03052608|181481943|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.191|0.413||The study was to be considered positive if the 1-sided log-rank test for PFS, stratified for baseline stratification factors (ethnicity and brain metastases) was significant at the 0.0081 level at the cutoff date of this report.|one-sided stratified log-rank|Stratified by the presence of brain metastases (Yes/No) and ethnic origin (Asian/Non-Asian) at randomization.|Based on Cox Proportional Hazards model stratified by the presence of brain metastases and ethnic origin at randomization. Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Lorlatinib.|The study was designed to test the null hypothesis H0: λ ≥1 versus the alternative hypothesis HA: λ \<1, where λ is the hazard ratio (HR; Lorlatinib/Crizotinib). Evaluation of 177 PFS events was required to have at least 90% power to detect a HR of 0.611 using a one-sided stratified log-rank test at a significance level of 0.025 (one-sided), and a 2-look group-sequential design with a Lan-DeMets (O'Brien-Fleming) α-spending function to determine the efficacy boundaries.||0.413|0.191|<0.0001
90801877|NCT03052608|181481944|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.414|1.249|||||Based on Cox Proportional Hazards model stratified by the presence of brain metastases and ethnic origin at randomization. Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Lorlatinib.|||1.249|0.414|
90801878|NCT03052608|181481945|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.144|0.307|||one-sided stratified log-rank|Stratified by the presence of brain metastases (Yes/No) and ethnic origin (Asian/Non-Asian) at randomization.|Based on Cox Proportional Hazards model stratified by the presence of brain metastases and ethnic origin at randomization. Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Lorlatinib.|||0.307|0.144|<0.0001
90801879|NCT03052608|181481946|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.254||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.353|3.891|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by the presence of brain metastases (Yes/No) and ethnic origin (Asian/Non-Asian) at randomization.|Odds ratio was estimated using Mantel-Haenszel method. An odds ratio larger than 1 indicates better outcome for Lorlatinib relative to Crizotinib. Exact CI was calculated.|||3.891|1.353|0.0005
90801880|NCT03052608|181481947|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.499||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.484|4.594|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by the presence of brain metastases (Yes/No) and ethnic origin (Asian/Non-Asian) at randomization.|Odds ratio was estimated using Mantel-Haenszel method. An odds ratio larger than 1 indicates better outcome for Lorlatinib relative to Crizotinib. Exact CI was calculated.|||4.594|1.484|0.0002
90801881|NCT03052608|181481948|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.407|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.586|27.233|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by the presence of brain metastases (Yes/No) and ethnic origin (Asian/Non-Asian) at randomization.|Odds ratio was estimated using Mantel-Haenszel method. An odds ratio larger than 1 indicates better outcome for Lorlatinib relative to Crizotinib. Exact CI was calculated.|||27.233|2.586|<0.0001
90801882|NCT03052608|181481949|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.026|0.17|||one-sided stratified log-rank|Stratified by the presence of brain metastases (Yes/No) and ethnic origin (Asian/Non-Asian) at randomization.|Based on Cox Proportional Hazards model stratified by the presence of brain metastases and ethnic origin at randomization. Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Lorlatinib.|||0.170|0.026|<0.0001
90801883|NCT03052608|181481964|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.65||||0.0096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|8.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the analysis for QLQ-C30 Global QOL. Estimated change from baseline was based on random intercept random slope mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time (as a continuous variable), treatment-by-time, baseline and randomization stratification factors as covariates.||8.16|1.14|0.0096
90801884|NCT03052608|181481964|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.02||||0.1897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|5.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the analysis for QLQ-C30 Physical Functioning. Estimated change from baseline was based on random intercept random slope mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time (as a continuous variable), treatment-by-time, baseline and randomization stratification factors as covariates.||5.05|-1.01|0.1897
91013380|NCT05664672|181909453|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|96.0||||0.9238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|81.4|113.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||113|81.4|0.9238
91054360|NCT02912650|181990998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|48.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.63|57.54|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||57.54|39.63|<0.001
91054361|NCT02912650|181990998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-5.98||||0.266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.51|4.55|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||4.55|-16.51|0.266
91054362|NCT02912650|181990998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|59.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.63|69.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||69.90|49.63|<0.001
91054363|NCT02912650|181990998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|8.62||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|18.69|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||18.69|-1.46|0.094
91054364|NCT02912650|181990998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|10.43||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|20.72|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||20.72|0.15|0.047
91054365|NCT02912650|181990998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|50.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.5|61.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||61.40|40.50|<0.001
91013381|NCT05664672|181909454|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|3.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.88|7.31|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||7.31|1.88|<.0001
91054366|NCT02912650|181990998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|49.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.79|59.89|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||59.89|38.79|<0.001
91054367|NCT02912650|181990998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|1.79||||0.734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.56|12.14|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||12.14|-8.56|0.734
91054368|NCT02912650|181990998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|58.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.88|70.03|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||70.03|46.88|<0.001
91054369|NCT02912650|181990998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|7.01||||0.152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.57|16.59|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||16.59|-2.57|0.152
90801885|NCT03052608|181481964|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.09||||0.2999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|6.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the analysis for QLQ-C30 Role Functioning. Estimated change from baseline was based on random intercept random slope mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time (as a continuous variable), treatment-by-time, baseline and randomization stratification factors as covariates.||6.04|-1.87|0.2999
90801886|NCT03052608|181481964|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.58||||0.0553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|5.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the analysis for QLQ-C30 Emotional Functioning. Estimated change from baseline was based on random intercept random slope mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time (as a continuous variable), treatment-by-time, baseline and randomization stratification factors as covariates.||5.22|-0.06|0.0553
90801887|NCT03052608|181481964|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.18||||0.0588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.47|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the analysis for QLQ-C30 Cognitive Functioning. Estimated change from baseline was based on random intercept random slope mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time (as a continuous variable), treatment-by-time, baseline and randomization stratification factors as covariates.||0.12|-6.47|0.0588
90801888|NCT03052608|181481964|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.27||||0.2118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|5.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the analysis for QLQ-C30 Social Functioning. Estimated change from baseline was based on random intercept random slope mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time (as a continuous variable), treatment-by-time, baseline and randomization stratification factors as covariates.||5.85|-1.30|0.2118
90801889|NCT03052608|181481964|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.67||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.42|-1.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the analysis for QLQ-C30 Fatigue. Estimated change from baseline was based on random intercept random slope mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time (as a continuous variable), treatment-by-time, baseline and randomization stratification factors as covariates.||-1.92|-9.42|0.0032
90801890|NCT03052608|181481964|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.86|-5.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the analysis for QLQ-C30 Nausea and Vomiting. Estimated change from baseline was based on random intercept random slope mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time (as a continuous variable), treatment-by-time, baseline and randomization stratification factors as covariates.||-5.86|-9.86|<0.0001
90801891|NCT03052608|181481964|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.16||||0.531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.49|4.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the analysis for QLQ-C30 Pain. Estimated change from baseline was based on random intercept random slope mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time (as a continuous variable), treatment-by-time, baseline and randomization stratification factors as covariates.||4.82|-2.49|0.5310
90801892|NCT03052608|181481964|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.72||||0.3602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|5.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the analysis for QLQ-C30 Dyspnoea. Estimated change from baseline was based on random intercept random slope mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time (as a continuous variable), treatment-by-time, baseline and randomization stratification factors as covariates.||5.43|-1.98|0.3602
90801893|NCT03052608|181481964|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.95|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.25|-4.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the analysis for QLQ-C30 Insomnia. Estimated change from baseline was based on random intercept random slope mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time (as a continuous variable), treatment-by-time, baseline and randomization stratification factors as covariates.||-4.64|-11.25|<0.0001
90801894|NCT03052608|181481964|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|-6.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the analysis for QLQ-C30 Appetite Loss. Estimated change from baseline was based on random intercept random slope mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time (as a continuous variable), treatment-by-time, baseline and randomization stratification factors as covariates.||-6.62|-11.80|<0.0001
90801895|NCT03052608|181481964|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.93||||0.0198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.07|-0.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the analysis for QLQ-C30 Constipation. Estimated change from baseline was based on random intercept random slope mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time (as a continuous variable), treatment-by-time, baseline and randomization stratification factors as covariates.||-0.79|-9.07|0.0198
90801896|NCT03052608|181481964|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.49|-8.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the analysis for QLQ-C30 Diarrhea. Estimated change from baseline was based on random intercept random slope mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time (as a continuous variable), treatment-by-time, baseline and randomization stratification factors as covariates.||-8.58|-15.49|<0.0001
90801897|NCT03052608|181481964|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.04||||0.5947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|2.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the analysis for QLQ-C30 Financial Difficulties. Estimated change from baseline was based on random intercept random slope mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time (as a continuous variable), treatment-by-time, baseline and randomization stratification factors as covariates.||2.82|-4.90|0.5947
91013382|NCT05664672|181909454|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|4.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.28|7.93|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||7.93|2.28|<.0001
90801898|NCT03052608|181481965|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.55||||0.7254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|3.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the analysis for QLQ-LC13 Dyspnoea. Estimated change from baseline was based on random intercept random slope mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time (as a continuous variable), treatment-by-time, baseline and randomization stratification factors as covariates.||3.60|-2.51|0.7254
90801899|NCT03052608|181481965|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.55||||0.0115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.06|-1.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the analysis for QLQ-LC13 Coughing. Estimated change from baseline was based on random intercept random slope mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time (as a continuous variable), treatment-by-time, baseline and randomization stratification factors as covariates.||-1.03|-8.06|0.0115
90801900|NCT03052608|181481965|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12||||0.7824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the analysis for QLQ-LC13 Haemoptysis. Estimated change from baseline was based on random intercept random slope mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time (as a continuous variable), treatment-by-time, baseline and randomization stratification factors as covariates.||0.99|-0.75|0.7824
90801901|NCT03052608|181481965|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.16||||0.2988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|3.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the analysis for QLQ-LC13 Sore Mouth. Estimated change from baseline was based on random intercept random slope mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time (as a continuous variable), treatment-by-time, baseline and randomization stratification factors as covariates.||3.36|-1.04|0.2988
90801902|NCT03052608|181481965|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.51||||0.1916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.79|0.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the analysis for QLQ-LC13 Dysphagia. Estimated change from baseline was based on random intercept random slope mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time (as a continuous variable), treatment-by-time, baseline and randomization stratification factors as covariates.||0.76|-3.79|0.1916
90801903|NCT03052608|181481965|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.37||||0.0279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|10.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the analysis for QLQ-LC13 Peripheral Neuropathy. Estimated change from baseline was based on random intercept random slope mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time (as a continuous variable), treatment-by-time, baseline and randomization stratification factors as covariates.||10.15|0.59|0.0279
90801904|NCT03052608|181481965|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.9162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.89|3.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the analysis for QLQ-LC13 Alopecia. Estimated change from baseline was based on random intercept random slope mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time (as a continuous variable), treatment-by-time, baseline and randomization stratification factors as covariates.||3.49|-3.89|0.9162
90801905|NCT03052608|181481965|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.53||||0.6698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.96|1.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the analysis for QLQ-LC13 Pain in Chest. Estimated change from baseline was based on random intercept random slope mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time (as a continuous variable), treatment-by-time, baseline and randomization stratification factors as covariates.||1.90|-2.96|0.6698
90801906|NCT03052608|181481965|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.45||||0.8035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.13|4.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the analysis for QLQ-LC13 Pain in Arm or Shoulder. Estimated change from baseline was based on random intercept random slope mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time (as a continuous variable), treatment-by-time, baseline and randomization stratification factors as covariates.||4.04|-3.13|0.8035
91013383|NCT05664672|181909454|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|4.24|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|8.14|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||8.14|2.20|<.0001
91013384|NCT05664672|181909454|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|6.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.22|12.7|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||12.7|3.22|<.0001
91013385|NCT05664672|181909454|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|57.9||||0.184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.3|119.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||119|28.3|0.1840
91013386|NCT05664672|181909454|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|66.4||||0.3552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.0|130.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||130|34.0|0.3552
91054370|NCT02912650|181990998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|9.0||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|19.82|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||19.82|-0.83|0.073
90801907|NCT03052608|181481965|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.36||||0.1143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|7.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the analysis for QLQ-LC13 Pain in Other Parts. Estimated change from baseline was based on random intercept random slope mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time (as a continuous variable), treatment-by-time, baseline and randomization stratification factors as covariates.||7.55|-0.82|0.1143
90801908|NCT03052608|181481968|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.7293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.822|1.444|||one-sided stratified log-rank|Stratified by the presence of brain metastases (Yes/No) and ethnic origin (Asian/Non-Asian) at randomization.|Based on Cox Proportional Hazards model stratified by the presence of brain metastases and ethnic origin at randomization. Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Lorlatinib.|||1.444|0.822|0.7293
91013387|NCT05664672|181909454|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|66.2||||0.381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.0|133.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||133|33.0|0.3810
91054371|NCT02912650|181990998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|51.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.38|63.21|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||63.21|39.38|<0.001
90801909|NCT01139411|181481994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||||||Threshold for significance: 0.05|ANCOVA|||"Null hypothesis was that the amount of weight lost by adolescents in Enhanced Parent Involvement and Minimal Parent involvement would not be significantly different. The study was powered at .8 to achieve a medium effect size (f = .26; partial eta sq. = 0.06).~The end-of-treatment BMI value was the dependent variable, with the baseline BMI value entered as a covariate."||||0.06
90801910|NCT01139411|181481995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58||||||Threshold for significance: 0.05|ANCOVA|||The end-of-treatment value was the dependent variable, with the baseline value entered as a covariate.||||0.58
90801911|NCT01139411|181481996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19||||||Threshold for significance: 0.05|ANCOVA|||||||0.19
90801912|NCT01139411|181481997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72||||||Threshold for significance: 0.05|ANCOVA|||||||0.72
90801913|NCT01139411|181481998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.41
90801914|NCT01139411|181481999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||||||Threshold for significance: 0.05|ANCOVA|||||||0.01
90801915|NCT01139411|181482000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61||||||Threshold for significance: 0.05|ANCOVA|||||||0.61
90801916|NCT01639469|181482023|SUPERIORITY||Incidence Rate Ratio|0.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.68|||Negative Binomial Regression|||Testing to see if there is a significant difference in fall rates over 12months between the two groups.||0.68|0.22|<0.001
91013388|NCT05664672|181909455|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|16.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.0|21.8|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||21.8|13.0|<.0001
91013389|NCT05664672|181909455|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|20.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.2|25.9|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||25.9|16.2|<.0001
91054372|NCT02912650|181990998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|49.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.5|61.47|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||61.47|37.50|<0.001
91054373|NCT02912650|181990998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|1.99||||0.694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.91|11.89|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||11.89|-7.91|0.694
90801917|NCT01119443|181482024|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence between pramipexole ER 1.5 mg x 1 tablet q.d. and pramipexole ER 0.375 mg x 4 tablets q.d. in fed condition|Test/Reference Ratio of the mean x 100|104.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.3|110.3|||ANOVA||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||110.3|98.3|
90801918|NCT01119443|181482025|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence between pramipexole ER 1.5 mg x 1 tablet q.d. and pramipexole ER 0.375 mg x 4 tablets q.d. in fed condition|Test/Reference Ratio of the mean x 100|104.8||||||90.0|100.1|109.8|||ANOVA||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||109.8|100.1|
90801919|NCT01119443|181482026|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence between pramipexole ER 1.5 mg x 1 tablet q.d. and pramipexole ER 0.375 mg x 4 tablets q.d. in fed condition|Test/Reference Ratio of the mean x 100|108.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.634|122.676|||ANOVA||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||122.676|95.634|
90801920|NCT01119443|181482027|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence between pramipexole ER 1.5 mg x 1 tablet q.d. and pramipexole ER 0.375 mg x 4 tablets q.d. in fed condition|Test/Reference Ratio of the mean x 100|106.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.189|122.251|||ANOVA||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||122.251|93.189|
90801921|NCT01119443|181482028|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence between pramipexole ER 1.5 mg x 1 tablet q.d. and pramipexole ER 0.375 mg x 4 tablets q.d. in fed condition|Test/Reference Ratio of the mean x 100|98.426|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.276|112.58|||ANOVA||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||112.58|84.276|
90801922|NCT01119443|181482029|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence between pramipexole ER 1.5 mg x 1 tablet q.d. and pramipexole ER 0.375 mg x 4 tablets q.d. in fed condition|Test/Reference Ratio of the mean x 100|95.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.461|109.698|||ANOVA||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||109.698|82.461|
90801923|NCT01119443|181482031|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence between pramipexole ER 1.5 mg x 1 tablet q.d. and pramipexole ER 0.375 mg x 4 tablets q.d. in fed condition|Test/Reference Ratio of the mean x 100|104.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.585|118.263|||ANOVA||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||118.263|91.585|
90801924|NCT01119443|181482032|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence between pramipexole ER 1.5 mg x 1 tablet q.d. and pramipexole ER 0.375 mg x 4 tablets q.d. in fasted condition|Test/Reference Ratio of the mean x 100|93.6||||||90.0|86.9|100.8|||ANOVA||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||100.8|86.9|
90801925|NCT01119443|181482033|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence between pramipexole ER 1.5 mg x 1 tablet q.d. and pramipexole ER 0.375 mg x 4 tablets q.d. in fasted condition|Test/Reference Ratio of the mean x 100|100.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.0|106.7|||ANOVA||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||106.7|94.0|
90801926|NCT01119443|181482034|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence between pramipexole ER 1.5 mg x 1 tablet q.d. and pramipexole ER 0.375 mg x 4 tablets q.d. in fasted condition|Test/Reference Ratio of the mean x 100|86.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|73.583|101.854|||ANOVA||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||101.854|73.583|
90801927|NCT01119443|181482035|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence between pramipexole ER 1.5 mg x 1 tablet q.d. and pramipexole ER 0.375 mg x 4 tablets q.d. in fasted condition|Test/Reference Ratio of the mean x 100|86.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|73.583|101.854|||ANOVA||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||101.854|73.583|
90801928|NCT01119443|181482036|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence between pramipexole ER 1.5 mg x 1 tablet q.d. and pramipexole ER 0.375 mg x 4 tablets q.d. in fasted condition|Test/Reference Ratio of the mean x 100|99.069|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.688|117.45|||ANOVA||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||117.45|80.688|
90801929|NCT01119443|181482037|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence between pramipexole ER 1.5 mg x 1 tablet q.d. and pramipexole ER 0.375 mg x 4 tablets q.d. in fasted condition|Test/Reference Ratio of the mean x 100|109.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.571|133.811|||ANOVA||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||133.811|89.571|
90801930|NCT01119443|181482039|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence between pramipexole ER 1.5 mg x 1 tablet q.d. and pramipexole ER 0.375 mg x 4 tablets q.d. in fasted condition|Test/Reference Ratio of the mean x 100|92.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.871|110.185|||ANOVA||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||110.185|77.871|
90801931|NCT00913510|181482040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.0||||1||||||The p-value is calculated to the fourth decimal place.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"H0 : µt = µc versus H1 : µt ≠ µc µt = Exp. relative change of frequency of micturitions per day in test group µc = Exp. relative change of frequency of micturitions per day in control group.~Plan was to have 44 evaluable subjects (90% power) but power of the study was reduced by early termination. It cannot be concluded that there is no difference between the treatment groups due to insufficient power."||||1.0000
90801932|NCT02820844|181482065|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.14|-1.18||Analysis was performed using mixed-model for repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment, site, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline value, Baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|MMRM||Mean difference (Net) at Week 12 has been presented.|||-1.18|-3.14|<0.001
90801933|NCT02820844|181482066|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|29.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.47|40.91||Analysis performed using MMRM, with treatment, site, visit, Baseline urinary urgency incontinence (UUI) episodes over 3 day diary (\<=9 or \>=10), treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline value, Baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|MMRM||Mean difference (Net) at Week 12 has been presented.|||40.91|18.47|<0.001
90801934|NCT02820844|181482121|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.6||P-value is from log-rank test stratified by Baseline urinary urgency incontinence episodes over 3 day diary (\<=9 versus \>=10).|Log Rank||Hazard ratio and 95% Confidence Interval (CI) are estimated using the Cox proportional hazard model with treatment and Baseline urinary urgency incontinence episodes over 3 day diary (\<=9 versus \>=10) as fixed effect.|||0.60|0.34|<0.001
90801935|NCT02820844|181482122|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.66||P-value is from log-rank test stratified by Baseline urinary urgency incontinence episodes over 3 day diary (\<=9 versus \>=10)|Log Rank||Hazard ratio and 95% CI are estimated using the Cox proportional hazard model with treatment and Baseline urinary urgency incontinence episodes over 3 day diary (\<=9 versus \>=10) as fixed effect.|||0.66|0.38|<0.001
90801936|NCT00589797|181482229|NON_INFERIORITY|The trial was designed as a non-inferiority trial with a margin (delta) of 15%. Additional analyses using a delta of 10% as requested by FDA were also conducted.|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.05
91013390|NCT05664672|181909455|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|18.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.3|23.4|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||23.4|14.3|<.0001
90801937|NCT02141672|181482240|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.03||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|4.05|||Regression, Logistic|||Voclosporin low dose vs. placebo||4.05|1.01|0.045
91013391|NCT05664672|181909455|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|17.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.7|23.1|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||23.1|13.7|<.0001
91013392|NCT05664672|181909455|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|94.5||||0.9589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|72.0|124.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||124|72.0|0.9589
91013393|NCT05664672|181909455|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|115.0||||0.4442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.3|148.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||148|89.3|0.4442
90801938|NCT02141672|181482240|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.59||||0.204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|3.27|||Regression, Logistic|||Voclosporin high dose vs. placebo||3.27|0.78|0.204
90801939|NCT02141672|181482241|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.68|6.13|||Regression, Logistic|||Voclosporin low dose vs. placebo||6.13|1.68|<0.001
90801940|NCT02141672|181482241|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|4.02|||Regression, Logistic|||Voclosporin high dose vs. placebo||4.02|1.09|0.026
90801941|NCT02141672|181482242|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|3.78|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.78|0.96|0.066
90801942|NCT02141672|181482242|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.64||||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|3.28|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.28|0.82|0.162
90801943|NCT02141672|181482243|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|3.51|||Regression, Cox|||Voclosporin low dose vs. placebo||3.51|1.45|<0.001
90801944|NCT02141672|181482243|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|3.47|||Regression, Cox|||Voclosporin high dose vs. placebo||3.47|1.46|<0.001
90801945|NCT02141672|181482244|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|5.29|||Regression, Cox|||||5.29|1.58|<0.001
90801946|NCT02141672|181482244|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.48|||<|0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.86|||Regression, Cox|||Voclosporin high dose vs. placebo||2.86|0.77|<0.248
90801947|NCT02141672|181482246|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.63||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|2.27|||Regression, Cox|||||2.27|1.16|0.005
90801948|NCT02141672|181482246|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.74||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|2.43|||Regression, Cox|||Voclosporin high dose vs. placebo||2.43|1.25|0.002
90801949|NCT02141672|181482248|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.15|||Regression, Cox|||Voclosporin low dose vs. placebo||2.15|0.45|0.980
90801950|NCT02141672|181482248|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.98||||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|4.16|||Regression, Cox|||Voclosporin high dose vs. placebo||4.16|0.95|0.118
90801951|NCT02141672|181482250|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.33||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|4.33|||Regression, Logistic|||week 24||4.33|1.26|0.007
90801952|NCT02141672|181482250|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.03||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|3.76|||Regression, Logistic|||week 24||3.76|1.1|0.024
90801953|NCT02141672|181482250|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.34||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|4.33|||Regression, Logistic|||week 48||4.33|1.27|0.007
90801954|NCT02141672|181482250|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.68||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|5.02|||Regression, Logistic|||week 48||5.02|1.43|0.002
90801955|NCT02141672|181482251|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|3.03|||Regression, Cox|||Voclosporin low dose vs. placebo||3.03|1.36|<0.001
90801956|NCT02141672|181482251|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.81||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|2.69|||Regression, Cox|||Voclosporin high dose vs. placebo||2.69|1.22|0.004
90801957|NCT02141672|181482253|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|3.36|||Regression, Cox|||Voclosporin low dose vs. placebo||3.36|1.45|<0.001
90801958|NCT02141672|181482253|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.87||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|2.84|||Regression, Cox|||Voclosporin high dose vs. placebo||2.84|1.23|0.004
91013394|NCT05664672|181909455|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|103.0||||0.9975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.8|133.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||133|78.8|0.9975
90801959|NCT02688192|181482259|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||ANOVA|df = 33||Effects of the intervention on changes in the General Subscale from baseline to post-intervention (3 months) were evaluated using group x time in a repeated measures analysis of variance performed in SAS using PROC GLM for participants with complete data.||||0.39
90801960|NCT02688192|181482259|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||ANOVA|df = 33||Effects of the intervention on changes in the Sleep/Rest Subscale from baseline to post-intervention (3 months) were evaluated using group x time in a repeated measures analysis of variance performed in SAS using PROC GLM for participants with complete data.||||.49
90801961|NCT02688192|181482259|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||ANOVA|df = 33||Effect of the intervention on changes in the Cognitive Subscale from baseline to post-intervention (3 months) were evaluated using group x time in a repeated measures analysis of variance performed in SAS using PROC GLM for participants with complete data.||||.83
90801962|NCT02688192|181482260|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||ANOVA|df = 33||Effects of the intervention on changes in the PedsQL Physical Summary score were evaluated using group x time in a repeated measures analysis of variance performed in SAS using PROC GLM for participants with complete data.||||.98
90801963|NCT02688192|181482260|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||ANOVA|df = 29||Effects of the intervention on changes in the PedsQL Psychosocial Summary score were evaluated using group x time in a repeated measures analysis of variance performed in SAS using PROC GLM for participants with complete data.||||.85
90801964|NCT02688192|181482261|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||ANOVA|df = 29||||||.29
90801965|NCT02688192|181482262|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019|||||||ANOVA|df = 32||Effect of the intervention on changes in lower body estimated 1-RM was evaluated using group x time in a repeated measures analysis of variance performed in SAS using PROC GLM for participants with complete data||||.019
90801966|NCT02688192|181482262|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||ANOVA|df = 32||Effect of the intervention on changes in upper body estimated 1-RM was evaluated using group x time in a repeated measures analysis of variance performed in SAS using PROC GLM for participants with complete data.||||.34
90801967|NCT01773967|181482269|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.83
90801968|NCT01773967|181482271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Van Elteren's modification Mann-Whitney|||||||0.26
90801969|NCT01299389|181482297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares (LS) means difference|-9.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.19|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|-5.4|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 13 or Early Discontinuation: P value were calculated using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment and country as factors and baseline PANSS total score as a covariate.||-5.4|-14.0|<0.0001
90801970|NCT01299389|181482300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|-1.4|||ANCOVA|||Positive symptoms (change at Week 13 or ED): P value was calculated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and country as factors and baseline PANSS factor scores as covariates.||-1.4|-4.1|<0.0001
90801971|NCT01299389|181482300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-0.8|||ANCOVA|||Negative symptoms (change at Week 13 or ED): P value was calculated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and country as factors and baseline PANSS factor scores as covariates.||-0.8|-3.2|0.0012
90801972|NCT01299389|181482300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-1.1|||ANCOVA|||Disorganized thoughts (change at Week 13 or ED): P value was calculated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and country as factors and baseline PANSS factor scores as covariates.||-1.1|-3.4|<0.0001
90801973|NCT01299389|181482300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.5|||ANCOVA|||Uncontrolled hostility/excitement (change at Week 13 or ED): P value was calculated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and country as factors and baseline PANSS factor scores as covariates.||-0.5|-2.3|0.0023
90801974|NCT01299389|181482300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||Anxiety/depression (change at Week 13 or ED): P value was calculated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and country as factors and baseline PANSS factor scores as covariates.||-0.4|-1.9|0.0025
90801975|NCT01299389|181482301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-1.0|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 13 or Early Discontinuation: P value were calculated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and country as factors and baseline PANSS total score as a covariate.||-1.0|-3.3|0.0003
90801976|NCT01299389|181482302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|-1.5|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 13 or Early Discontinuation: P value were calculated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and country as factors and baseline PANSS total score as a covariate.||-1.5|-4.1|<0.0001
90801977|NCT01299389|181482303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|-2.3|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 13 or Early Discontinuation: P value were calculated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and country as factors and baseline PANSS total score as a covariate.||-2.3|-6.9|<0.0001
90801978|NCT02185534|181482304|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The analysis was conducted using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) including fixed effects for treatment, sequence, period and subject within sequence. All pharmacokinetic parameters were log-transformed prior to analysis. Bioequivalence was concluded, when the 90% confidence interval (CI) for the geometric LS mean ratios were fully contained within the predefined equivalence limits of 0.80 to 1.25|Geometric mean ratio|104.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.27|118.19|||||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as A/B, where A= European clopidogrel and B=Japanese clopidogrel|||118.19|92.27|
90801979|NCT02185534|181482304|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Geometric mean ratio is calculated as A/C, where A= European clopidogrel and C=US clopidogrel|Geometric mean ratio|97.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.12|116.45|||||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as A/C, where A= European clopidogrel and C=US clopidogrel|The analysis was conducted using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) including fixed effects for treatment, sequence, period and subject within sequence. All pharmacokinetic parameters were log-transformed prior to analysis. Bioequivalence was concluded, when the 90% confidence interval (CI) for the geometric LS mean ratios were fully contained within the predefined equivalence limits of 0.80 to 1.25||116.45|81.12|
90801980|NCT02185534|181482305|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The analysis was conducted using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) including fixed effects for treatment, sequence, period and subject within sequence. All pharmacokinetic parameters were log-transformed prior to analysis. Bioequivalence was concluded, when the 90% confidence interval (CI) for the geometric LS mean ratios were fully contained within the predefined equivalence limits of 0.80 to 1.25.|Geometric mean ratio|108.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.46|122.33|||||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as A/B, where A= European clopidogrel and B=Japanese clopidogrel|||122.33|95.46|
90801981|NCT02185534|181482305|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The analysis was conducted using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) including fixed effects for treatment, sequence, period and subject within sequence. All pharmacokinetic parameters were log-transformed prior to analysis. Bioequivalence was concluded, when the 90% confidence interval (CI) for the geometric LS mean ratios were fully contained within the predefined equivalence limits of 0.80 to 1.25.|Geometric mean ratio|105.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.22|117.53|||||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as A/C, where A= European clopidogrel and C=US clopidogrel|||117.53|95.22|
90801982|NCT02185534|181482306|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The analysis was conducted using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) including fixed effects for treatment, sequence, period and subject within sequence. All pharmacokinetic parameters were log-transformed prior to analysis. Bioequivalence was concluded, when the 90% confidence interval (CI) for the geometric LS mean ratios were fully contained within the predefined equivalence limits of 0.80 to 1.25.|Geometric mean ratio|93.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.12|101.29|||||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as A/B, where A= European clopidogrel and B=Japanese clopidogrel|||101.29|87.12|
90801983|NCT02185534|181482306|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The analysis was conducted using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) including fixed effects for treatment, sequence, period and subject within sequence. All pharmacokinetic parameters were log-transformed prior to analysis. Bioequivalence was concluded, when the 90% confidence interval (CI) for the geometric LS mean ratios were fully contained within the predefined equivalence limits of 0.80 to 1.25|Geometric mean ratio|92.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.91|99.75|||||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as A/C, where A= European clopidogrel and C=US clopidogrel|||99.75|84.91|
90801984|NCT00362882|181482338|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.17
90801985|NCT02737501|181482368|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.481|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.66||P-values are from a log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factors (current; presence of intracranial central nervous system (iCNS) metastases at baseline and prior chemotherapy for locally advanced or metastatic disease).|Log Rank||The hazard ratio was obtained using a Cox proportional hazards model with randomization stratification factors (current) as covariates.|||0.66|0.35|<0.0001
90801986|NCT02737501|181482369|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|2.91|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratios and p-values were from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by presence of intracranial central nervous system (iCNS) metastases at Baseline, and prior chemotherapy for locally advanced or metastatic disease (current strata).|||2.91|1.04|0.0330
90801987|NCT02737501|181482370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|39.11|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratios and p-values were from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by presence of prior chemotherapy for Locally advanced or metastatic disease at study entry (current strata).|||39.11|4.70|<0.0001
90801988|NCT02737501|181482371|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.293|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.51||P-values are from a log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factors (current; presence of iCNS metastases at baseline and prior chemotherapy for locally advanced or metastatic disease).|Log Rank||The hazard ratio was obtained using a Cox proportional hazards model with prior chemotherapy for locally advanced or metastatic disease (current strata) as covariate.|||0.51|0.17|<0.0001
90801989|NCT02737501|181482375|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.82|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratios and p-values were from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by presence of iCNS metastases at Baseline, and prior chemotherapy for locally advanced or metastatic disease (current strata).|||1.82|0.47|0.8220
90801990|NCT02737501|181482377|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|5.79||||0.0295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|11.0||p-values were obtained using mixed effects models stratified by presence of iCNS metastases at study entry, prior chemotherapy at Baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed effect model is used with an unstructured covariance matrix.||||11.00|0.58|0.0295
90801991|NCT04417257|181482425|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.9||||0.7377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|9.0||one-sided (right tailed)|Fisher Exact||A positive difference favours LAU-7b, a negative difference favours placebo.|Participants with health status data missing on Day 29 were treated as non-responders, where a non-responder was defined as not reaching a health status of 1-4.||9|-15|0.7377
90801992|NCT04417257|181482425|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|2.8||one-sided (right tailed)|Fisher Exact||A positive difference favours LAU-7b, a negative difference favours placebo.|Participants from Per-Protocol population and with available Day 29 health status data||2.8|-10.0|1.000
90801993|NCT04417257|181482425|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.57||||0.0177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.359|0.907||À priori threshold for statistical significance is set at 0.1|Regression, Logistic|"This P-value is for the baseline factor Health Status at baseline. Other baseline factors not significant."||Multivariable logistic regression was constructed for the proportion of participants alive and free of respiratory failure on Day 29 as the outcome variable by screening baseline covariates using stepwise technique with an alpha of 0.1 as the entry and stay criterion, and treatment group was forced to remain in the model. Health status at baseline was used as a continuous variable||0.907|0.359|0.0177
90801994|NCT04417257|181482425|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.9||||0.3537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|18.2||One-sided (right tailed)|Fisher Exact||A positive difference favours LAU-7b, a negative difference favours placebo.|Participants in the ITT population with baseline Health Status of 3 + 4 grouped together with imputation of failure for missing Day 29 data||18.2|-10.2|0.3537
90801995|NCT04417257|181482425|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.2||||0.959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.6|5.4||one-sided (right tailed)|Fisher Exact||A positive difference favours LAU-7b, a negative difference favours placebo.|Participants in the ITT population with baseline Health Status of 5 and imputation of failure for missing Day 29 data||5.4|-36.6|0.9590
91054374|NCT02912650|181990998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|60.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.37|72.84|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||72.84|48.37|<0.001
90801996|NCT04417257|181482425|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.9||||0.0553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|17.1||one-sided (right tailed)|Fisher Exact||A positive difference favours LAU-7b, a negative difference favours placebo.|Participants in the ITT population with baseline Health Status of 3 + 4 and available Day 29 health status data (no imputation)||17.1|0.4|0.0553
90801997|NCT04417257|181482426|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.7||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|13.9||Two-sided test|Fisher Exact||A negative difference favours LAU-7b, a positive difference favours placebo.|ITT population with Day 60 health status/survival data||13.9|-6.9|0.6600
90801998|NCT04417257|181482426|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|12.6||Two-sided test|Fisher Exact||A negative difference favours LAU-7b, a positive difference favours placebo.|Per-Protocol population with Day 60 health status/survival data||12.6|-10.6|1.000
90801999|NCT04417257|181482429|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5459||||||two-sided test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||ITT population, Day 14. The proportional odds assumption of the ordinal logistic regression was not met (P-value of Score test = 0.0180) and a Wilcoxon two sample test was performed.||||0.5459
90802000|NCT04417257|181482429|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6229||||||two-sided test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||ITT population, Day 29. The proportional odds assumption of the ordinal logistic regression was not met (P-value \<.0001) and a Wilcoxon two sample test was performed.||||0.6229
90802001|NCT04417257|181482430|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8222||||||two-sided test|Fisher Exact|||Total number of participants in the overall ITT population who had the event prior to or with Day 29 assessment available.||||0.8222
90802002|NCT04417257|181482430|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0536||||||two-sided test|Fisher Exact|||Total number of participants with Health Status 3 + 4 at baseline who had the event prior to or with Day 29 assessment available.||||0.0536
90802003|NCT04417257|181482430|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1131||||||two-sided test|Fisher Exact|||Total number of participants with Health Status 5 at baseline who had the event prior to or with Day 29 assessment available.||||0.1131
90802004|NCT04417257|181482432|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6689||||||two-sided test|Fisher Exact|||Total number of participants in the overall ITT population who had the event prior to or with Day 60 assessment available.||||0.6689
90802005|NCT04417257|181482432|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0536||||||two-sided test|Fisher Exact|||Total number of participants with Health Status 3 + 4 at baseline who had the event prior to or with Day 60 assessment available.||||0.0536
90802006|NCT04417257|181482432|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0786||||||two-sided test|Fisher Exact|||Total number of participants with Health Status 5 at baseline who had the event prior to or with Day 60 assessment available.||||0.0786
90802007|NCT04417257|181482434|SUPERIORITY|Two-sided test||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
90802008|NCT04417257|181482435|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||two-sided test|Fisher Exact|||Calculated based on the total number of participants who had the event prior to or with Day 60 assessment available within each group||||1.000
90802009|NCT04417257|181482435|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.068||||||two-sided test|Fisher Exact|||Calculated based on the total number of participants with health status 3 + 4 at baseline who had the event prior to or with Day 60 assessment available within each group.||||0.0680
90802010|NCT04417257|181482435|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0534||||||two-sided test|Fisher Exact|||Calculated based on the total number of participants with health status 5 at baseline who had the event prior to or with Day 60 assessment available within each group.||||0.0534
90802011|NCT04417257|181482436|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7923||||||Two-sided test|Fisher Exact|||Calculated based on the total number of participants who had the event prior to or with Day 60 assessment available within each group||||0.7923
90802012|NCT04417257|181482437|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8886||||||two-sided test|Fisher Exact|||Calculated based on the total number of participants who had the event prior to or with Day 60 assessment available within each group.||||0.8886
90802013|NCT04417257|181482437|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2735||||||two-sided test|Fisher Exact|||Calculated based on the total number of participants with Health Status 3 + 4 at baseline who had the event prior to or with Day 60 assessment available within each group.||||0.2735
90802014|NCT04417257|181482437|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3604||||||two-sided test|Fisher Exact|||Calculated based on the total number of participants with Health Status 5 at baseline who had the event prior to or with Day 60 assessment available within each group.||||0.3604
90802015|NCT04417257|181482438|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||two-sided test|Fisher Exact|||Calculated based on the total number of participants who had the event prior to or with Day 60 assessment available within each group.||||1.000
90802016|NCT04417257|181482438|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0253||||||two-sided test|Fisher Exact|||Calculated based on the total number of participants with Health Status 3 + 4 at baseline who had the event prior to or with Day 60 assessment available within each group.||||0.0253
90802017|NCT04417257|181482438|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2729||||||two-sided test|Fisher Exact|||Calculated based on the total number of participants with Health Status 5 at baseline who had the event prior to or with Day 60 assessment available within each group.||||0.2729
90802018|NCT04417257|181482439|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.646||||||Alpha set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis of no difference||||0.6460
90802019|NCT04417257|181482440|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8722|||||||Log Rank|||If health status was not improved (remains stable or aggravates) by Day 60, it was censored at Day 60. Overall ITT population.||||0.8722
91013395|NCT05664672|181909456|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|36.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.9|55.6|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||55.6|23.9|<.0001
90802020|NCT04417257|181482440|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.539|||||||Log Rank|||If health status was not improved (remains stable or aggravates) by Day 60, it was censored at Day 60. Participants with Health Status 3 + 4 at baseline.||||0.5390
90802021|NCT04417257|181482440|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2319|||||||Log Rank|||If health status was not improved (remains stable or aggravates) by Day 60, it was censored at Day 60. Participants with Health Status 5 at baseline.||||0.2319
90802022|NCT04417257|181482441|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9358|||||||Log Rank|||If health status did not reach categories 2 or 1 by Day 60, it was censored at Day 60. Overall ITT population.||||0.9358
90802023|NCT04417257|181482441|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||Log Rank|||If health status did not reach categories 2 or 1 by Day 60, it was censored at Day 60. Participants with Health Status 3 + 4 at baseline.||||0.6300
90802024|NCT04417257|181482441|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.655|||||||Log Rank|||If health status did not reach categories 2 or 1 by Day 60, it was censored at Day 60. Participants with Health Status 5 at baseline.||||0.6550
90802025|NCT04417257|181482442|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9101||||||Two-sided test|Log Rank|||If health status did not reach categories 2 or 1 by Day 60, it was censored at Day 60. Overall ITT population.||||0.9101
90802026|NCT04417257|181482445|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2706||||||two-sided test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Overall ITT population. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test and visual check indicated the normality assumption was rejected, and two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to obtain the P-value.||||0.2706
90802027|NCT04417257|181482445|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0974||||||two-sided test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Participants with Health Status 3 + 4 at baseline. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test and visual check indicated the normality assumption was rejected, and two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to obtain the P-value.||||0.0974
91013396|NCT05664672|181909456|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|39.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.1|59.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||59.0|27.1|<.0001
90802028|NCT04417257|181482445|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5549||||||two-sided test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Participants with Health Status 5 at baseline. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test and visual check indicated the normality assumption was rejected, and two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to obtain the P-value.||||0.5549
90802029|NCT04417257|181482446|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4787||||||Two-sided test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Overall ITT population. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test and visual check indicated the normality assumption was rejected, and two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to obtain the P-value||||0.4787
90802030|NCT04417257|181482448|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean difference|-0.02||||0.4746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis||A negative difference favours LAU-7b, a positive difference favours placebo.|The data were analyzed using the Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with change from baseline as the outcome variable. Day 14 or end of hospitalization data.||0.03|-0.07|0.4746
90802031|NCT04417257|181482448|SUPERIORITY||Leat Squares Mean difference|-0.01||||0.7445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis||A negative difference favours LAU-7b, a positive difference favours placebo.|The data were analyzed using the Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with change from baseline as the outcome variable. Day 29.||0.05|-0.06|0.7445
90802032|NCT04417257|181482448|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean difference|-0.01||||0.7105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis||A negative difference favours LAU-7b, a positive difference favours placebo.|The data were analyzed using the Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with change from baseline as the outcome variable. Day 45.||0.05|-0.07|0.7105
90802033|NCT04417257|181482448|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean difference|-0.01||||0.6424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis||A negative difference favours LAU-7b, a positive difference favours placebo.|The data were analyzed using the Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with change from baseline as the outcome variable. Day 60.||0.04|-0.07|0.6424
90802034|NCT04417257|181482448|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|0.05||||0.2789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis||A negative difference favours LAU-7b, a positive difference favours placebo.|The data were analyzed using the Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with change from baseline as the outcome variable. Day 14 or end of hospitalization data.||0.14|-0.04|0.2789
90802035|NCT04417257|181482448|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|0.05||||0.2884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis||A negative difference favours LAU-7b, a positive difference favours placebo.|The data were analyzed using the Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with change from baseline as the outcome variable. Day 29||0.14|-0.04|0.2884
90802036|NCT04417257|181482448|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|0.06||||0.2058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis||A negative difference favours LAU-7b, a positive difference favours placebo.|The data were analyzed using the Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with change from baseline as the outcome variable. Day 45||0.15|-0.03|0.2058
90802037|NCT04417257|181482448|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|0.03||||0.516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis||A negative difference favours LAU-7b, a positive difference favours placebo.|The data were analyzed using the Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with change from baseline as the outcome variable. Day 60||0.12|-0.06|0.5160
90802038|NCT04566731|181482497|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<.05
90802039|NCT04267926|181482498|OTHER|||||||0.9489|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||||In our work there are several hypotheses for the group comparison for the change. Therefore multiple estimate values that are not suitable for the questions above.|||0.9489
90802040|NCT00661830|181482519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.281|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.811|2.023|||Regression, Cox|||||2.023|0.811|
90802041|NCT00661830|181482520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.747|1.927|||Regression, Cox|||||1.927|0.747|
91013397|NCT05664672|181909456|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|30.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.1|45.5|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||45.5|20.1|<.0001
90802042|NCT05554146|181482557|SUPERIORITY||Beta|-2.6185||||0.0303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.98|-0.25||A mixed effects model was completed with Arm 2 as the reference.|Mixed Models Analysis|There were no adjustments for any covariates.|Arm 2 was the comparison arm.|The study team hypothesized that participants randomized to coupons for high THC products would have greater reduction in self-reported pain severity than high CBD, equal parts THC and CBD, or placebo.||-0.25|-4.98|0.0303
90802043|NCT05554146|181482557|SUPERIORITY||Beta|-0.8424||||0.4851|TWO_SIDED|||||A mixed effects model was completed with Arm 2 as the reference.|Mixed Models Analysis|There were no adjustments for any covariates.|Arm 2 was the comparison arm.|The study team hypothesized that participants randomized to coupons for high THC products would have greater reduction in self-reported pain severity than high CBD, equal parts THC and CBD, or placebo.||||0.4851
90802044|NCT05554146|181482557|SUPERIORITY||Beta|-0.6038||||0.6165|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||A mixed effects model was completed with Arm 2 as the reference.|Mixed Models Analysis|There were no adjustments for any covariates.|Arm 2 was the comparison arm.|The study team hypothesized that participants randomized to coupons for high THC products would have greater reduction in self-reported pain severity than high CBD, equal parts THC and CBD, or placebo.||||0.6165
90802045|NCT05554146|181482558|SUPERIORITY|An ANOVA test with mean change in NPX values was completed.|F value (F-test)|0.63||||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Three degrees of freedom (3 DoF)||The study team hypothesized that anti-inflammatory cytokines (IL-4 and IL-10) would have greater increase in participants randomized to coupons for high CBD products than the other arms.||||0.6
91013398|NCT05664672|181909456|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|48.9||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.9|75.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||75.0|31.9|0.0002
91013399|NCT05664672|181909456|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|74.5||||0.2938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.6|117.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||117|47.6|0.2938
90802046|NCT05554146|181482559|SUPERIORITY|An ANOVA test with mean change in NPX values was completed.|F value (F-test)|0.83||||0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Three degrees of freedom (3 DoF)||The study team hypothesized that anti-inflammatory cytokines (IL-4 and IL-10) would have greater increase in participants randomized to coupons for high CBD products than the other arms.||||0.49
90802047|NCT05554146|181482560|SUPERIORITY|An ANOVA test with mean change in NPX values was completed.|F value (F-test)|0.53||||0.66|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Three degrees of freedom (3 DoF)||The study team hypothesized that pro-inflammatory cytokines (TNFa and IL-6) would have greater reduction in participants randomized to coupons for high CBD products than the other arms.||||0.66
90802048|NCT05554146|181482561|SUPERIORITY|An ANOVA test with mean change in NPX values was completed.|F value (F-test)|0.21||||0.88|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Three degrees of freedom (3 DoF)||The study team hypothesized that pro-inflammatory cytokines (TNFa and IL-6) would have greater reduction in participants randomized to coupons for high CBD products than the other arms.||||0.88
90802049|NCT05554146|181482562|SUPERIORITY|An ANOVA test with the mean change in adherence score was completed.|F value (F-test)|1.11||||0.39|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Three degrees of freedom (3 DoF)||The study team hypothesized that participants randomized to coupons for high THC products would have poorer Antiretroviral (ARV) medication adherence than those randomized to coupons for high CBD, equal parts THC and CBD, or placebo.||||0.39
90802050|NCT05554146|181482563|SUPERIORITY|An ANOVA test with mean change in HIV viral load was completed.|F value (F-test)|1.25||||0.31|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Three degrees of freedom (3 DoF)||The study team hypothesized that participants randomized to coupons for high THC products would have less suppressed HIV viral load than those randomized to coupons for high CBD, equal parts THC and CBD or placebo.||||0.31
90802051|NCT05554146|181482564|SUPERIORITY|An ANOVA test with the mean change in depression score was completed.|F value (F-test)|2.04||||0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Three degrees of freedom (3 DoF)||The study team hypothesized that participants randomized to coupons for high THC products would have greater depression than those randomized to coupons for high CBD, equal parts THC and CBD, or placebo.||||0.13
90802052|NCT05554146|181482565|SUPERIORITY|An ANOVA test with the mean change in anxiety score was completed.|F value (F-test)|1.58||||0.22|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Three degrees of freedom (3 DoF)||The study team hypothesized that participants randomized to coupons for high THC products would have greater anxiety than those randomized to coupons for high CBD, equal parts THC and CBD, or placebo.||||0.22
90802053|NCT02621476|181482659|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
90802054|NCT03198767|181482660|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of number of events|0.71||||0.202|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.5|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 3||1.00|0.50|0.202
90802055|NCT03198767|181482660|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of number of events|0.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.14|0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 3||0.32|0.14|<0.001
90802056|NCT03198767|181482660|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of number of events|0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.19|0.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 3||0.46|0.19|<0.001
90802057|NCT03198767|181482660|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of number of events|0.79||||0.275|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.6|1.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 3||1.04|0.60|0.275
91013400|NCT05664672|181909456|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|81.6||||0.5552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.7|124.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||124|53.7|0.5552
91054375|NCT02912650|181990998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|6.58||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|15.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||15.20|-2.05|0.135
91054376|NCT02912650|181990998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|14.74||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.5|23.97|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||23.97|5.50|0.002
91054377|NCT02912650|181990998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|53.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.31|66.32|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||66.32|41.31|<0.001
90802058|NCT03198767|181482660|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of number of events|0.78||||0.234|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.59|1.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 3||1.02|0.59|0.234
90802059|NCT03198767|181482660|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of number of events|0.98||||0.921|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.73|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 3||1.30|0.73|0.921
91013401|NCT05664672|181909456|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|61.7||||0.0254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.9|95.5|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||95.5|39.9|0.0254
91013402|NCT05664672|181909457|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|52.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.4|67.1|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||67.1|40.4|<.0001
91054378|NCT02912650|181990998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|45.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.21|58.66|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||58.66|33.21|<0.001
90802060|NCT03198767|181482661|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of number of events|0.68||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.54|0.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.86|0.54|0.040
91054379|NCT02912650|181990998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|8.18||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|17.69|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||17.69|-1.32|0.091
90802061|NCT03198767|181482661|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of number of events|0.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.28|0.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.49|0.28|<0.001
90802062|NCT03198767|181482661|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of number of events|0.54||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.41|0.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.72|0.41|0.008
90802063|NCT03198767|181482661|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of number of events|0.79||||0.141|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.65|0.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.97|0.65|0.141
90802064|NCT03198767|181482661|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of number of events|0.9||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.74|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.10|0.74|0.510
90802065|NCT03198767|181482661|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of number of events|1.14||||0.401|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.93|1.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.41|0.93|0.401
90802066|NCT03198767|181482662|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21||||0.426|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.56|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.13|-0.56|0.426
90802067|NCT03198767|181482662|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.06||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.46|-0.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.67|-1.46|0.001
90802068|NCT03198767|181482662|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.25|-0.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.45|-1.25|0.009
90802069|NCT03198767|181482662|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.68|-0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.05|-0.68|0.135
90802070|NCT03198767|181482662|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.436|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.5|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.12|-0.50|0.436
90802071|NCT03198767|181482662|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.452|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.13|0.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.49|-0.13|0.452
90802072|NCT02651116|181482712|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.7899|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0929||0.0449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6273|0.9947||P-Value less than or equal to (\<=) 0.05 level was considered significantly better and P-Value lying between 0.05 less than (\<) p\<=0.1 level was considered marginally significantly better.|Negative Binomial Regression|||Estimated rate ratio (ratio of rate of cough counts per 24 hours for DXM HBr to placebo), and corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) for DXM HBr versus placebo was obtained from negative binomial model with treatment, study site (pooled), age group, and log-transformed baseline average cough count per hour as factors, with logarithm of the time over which the cough count was evaluated as the offset parameter.||0.9947|0.6273|0.0449
90802073|NCT02651116|181482712|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6293||||||P-value is for interaction term of treatment by age group. P-value \<=0.10 was considered significant for interaction terms.|Negative Binomial Regression|||P-value was obtained from the negative binomial model with treatment, study site (pooled), age group, log-transformed baseline average cough count per hour (based on Baseline Run-in Period) as factors, with interaction term of treatment by age group, and logarithm of the time over which the cough count was evaluated as the offset parameter.||||0.6293
90802074|NCT02651116|181482713|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.8048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0912||0.0552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6446|1.0049||P-Value \<=0.05 level was considered significantly better and P-Value lying between 0.05\<p\<=0.1 level was considered marginally significantly better.|Negative Binomial Regression|||Estimated rate ratio (ratio of rate of cough counts per specified duration for DXM HBr to placebo, used in evaluation of this outcome measure), and corresponding 95% CI for DXM HBr versus placebo was obtained from negative binomial model with treatment, study site (pooled), age group, and log-transformed baseline average cough count per hour as factors, with logarithm of the time over which the cough count was evaluated as the offset parameter.||1.0049|0.6446|0.0552
90802075|NCT02651116|181482714|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.9551|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1491||0.7684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7032|1.2971||P-Value \<=0.05 level was considered significantly better and P-Value lying between 0.05\<p\<=0.1 level was considered marginally significantly better.|Negative Binomial Regression|||Estimated rate ratio (ratio of rate of cough counts per specified duration for DXM HBr to placebo, used in evaluation of this outcome measure), and corresponding 95% CI for DXM HBr versus placebo was obtained from negative binomial model with treatment, study site (pooled), age group, and log-transformed baseline average cough count per hour as factors, with logarithm of the time over which the cough count was evaluated as the offset parameter.||1.2971|0.7032|0.7684
91013403|NCT05664672|181909457|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|49.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.0|62.2|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||62.2|39.0|<.0001
91013404|NCT05664672|181909457|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|40.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.0|52.1|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||52.1|32.0|<.0001
91013405|NCT05664672|181909457|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|45.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.7|59.2|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||59.2|35.7|<.0001
91013406|NCT05664672|181909457|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|113.0||||0.5817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.8|148.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||148|86.8|0.5817
91013407|NCT05664672|181909457|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|107.0||||0.8852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|83.7|138.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||138|83.7|0.8852
91013408|NCT05664672|181909457|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|88.9||||0.607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.7|115.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||115|68.7|0.6070
91013409|NCT05664672|181909458|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|13.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.44|32.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||32.0|5.44|<.0001
91054380|NCT02912650|181990998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|60.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.59|72.42|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||72.42|47.59|<0.001
90802076|NCT02651116|181482715|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.7014|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1086||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5178|0.95||P-Value \<=0.05 level was considered significantly better and P-Value lying between 0.05\<p\<=0.1 level was considered marginally significantly better.|Negative Binomial Regression|||Estimated rate ratio (ratio of rate of cough counts per specified duration for DXM HBr to placebo, used in evaluation of this outcome measure), and corresponding 95% CI for DXM HBr versus placebo was obtained from negative binomial model with treatment, study site (pooled), age group, and log-transformed baseline average cough count per hour as factors, with logarithm of the time over which the cough count was evaluated as the offset parameter.||0.9500|0.5178|0.0220
91013410|NCT05664672|181909458|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|23.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.7|53.3|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||53.3|10.7|<.0001
90802077|NCT02651116|181482716|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.7454|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0848||0.0098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5964|0.9316||P-Value \<=0.05 level was considered significantly better and P-Value lying between 0.05\<p\<=0.1 level was considered marginally significantly better.|Negative Binomial Regression|||Estimated rate ratio (ratio of rate of cough counts per specified duration for DXM HBr to placebo, used in evaluation of this outcome measure), and corresponding 95% CI for DXM HBr versus placebo was obtained from negative binomial model with treatment, study site (pooled), age group, and log-transformed baseline average cough count per hour as factors, with logarithm of the time over which the cough count was evaluated as the offset parameter.||0.9316|0.5964|0.0098
90802078|NCT02651116|181482717|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares mean|-0.221|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1324||0.0977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4831|0.0411||P-Value \<=0.05 level was considered significantly better and P-Value lying between 0.05\<p\<=0.1 level was considered marginally significantly better.|ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model contained treatment, study site (pooled), log-transformed baseline cough time and age group terms as factors.||0.0411|-0.4831|0.0977
90802079|NCT02651116|181482718|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares mean|-0.2881|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1224||0.0191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5287|-0.0475||P-Value \<=0.05 level was considered significantly better and P-Value lying between 0.05\<p\<=0.1 level was considered marginally significantly better.|ANOVA|||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model contained treatment, study site (pooled), the corresponding morning baseline cough frequency by participant, and age group included in the model. The statistical analysis was performed on the composite for all categories.||-0.0475|-0.5287|0.0191
90802080|NCT02651116|181482718|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8355||||||P-value is for interaction term of treatment by age group. P-value \<=0.10 was considered significant for interaction terms.|ANOVA|||ANOVA model contained treatment, study site (pooled), screening assessment by participant, interaction of treatment by age group and age group included in the model.||||0.8355
91013411|NCT05664672|181909458|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|24.7||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.6|57.4|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||57.4|10.6|0.0003
90802081|NCT02651116|181482719|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares mean|-0.3128|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1104||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5299|-0.0956||P-Value \<=0.05 level was considered significantly better and P-Value lying between 0.05\<p\<=0.1 level was considered marginally significantly better.|ANOVA|||ANOVA model contained treatment, study site (pooled), the corresponding morning baseline cough severity by participant, and age group included in the model. The statistical analysis was performed on the composite for all categories.||-0.0956|-0.5299|0.0049
90802082|NCT02651116|181482719|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8413||||||P-value is for interaction term of treatment by age group. P-value \<=0.10 was considered significant for interaction terms.|ANOVA|||ANOVA model contained treatment, study site (pooled), screening assessment by participant, interaction of treatment by age group and age group included in the model.||||0.8413
91054381|NCT02912650|181990998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|6.03||||0.159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.36|14.43|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||14.43|-2.36|0.159
90802083|NCT02651116|181482720|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares mean|-0.1483|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1337||0.2679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4112|0.1146||P-Value \<=0.05 level was considered significantly better and P-Value lying between 0.05\<p\<=0.1 level was considered marginally significantly better.|ANOVA|||ANOVA model contained treatment, study site (pooled), the corresponding morning baseline impact on sleep by participant, and age group included in the model. The statistical analysis was performed on the composite for all categories.||0.1146|-0.4112|0.2679
91013412|NCT05664672|181909458|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|22.3||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.21|54.1|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||54.1|9.21|0.0002
90802084|NCT02651116|181482720|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2882||||||P-value is for interaction term of treatment by age group. P-value \<=0.10 was considered significant for interaction terms.|ANOVA|||ANOVA model contained treatment, study site (pooled), screening assessment by participant, interaction of treatment by age group and age group included in the model.||||0.2882
90802085|NCT02651116|181482721|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares mean|-0.2812|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1242||0.0242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5255|-0.0369||P-Value \<=0.05 level was considered significantly better and P-Value lying between 0.05\<p\<=0.1 level was considered marginally significantly better.|ANOVA|||ANOVA model contained treatment, study site (pooled), the corresponding afternoon baseline cough frequency by participant, and age group included in the model. The statistical analysis was performed on the composite for all categories.||-0.0369|-0.5255|0.0242
90802086|NCT02651116|181482721|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2892||||||P-value is for interaction term of treatment by age group. P-value \<=0.10 was considered significant for interaction terms.|ANOVA|||ANOVA model contained treatment, study site (pooled), afternoon baseline assessment by participant, interaction of treatment by age group and age group included in the model.||||0.2892
90802087|NCT02651116|181482722|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares mean|-0.3014|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1096||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.517|-0.0858||P-Value \<=0.05 level was considered significantly better and P-Value lying between 0.05\<p\<=0.1 level was considered marginally significantly better.|ANOVA|||ANOVA model contained treatment, study site (pooled), the corresponding afternoon baseline cough severity by participant, and age group included in the model. The statistical analysis was performed on the composite for all categories.||-0.0858|-0.5170|0.0063
90802088|NCT02651116|181482722|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3268||||||P-value is for interaction term of treatment by age group. P-value \<=0.10 was considered significant for interaction terms.|ANOVA|||ANOVA model contained treatment, study site (pooled), afternoon baseline assessment by participant, interaction of treatment by age group and age group included in the model.||||0.3268
90802089|NCT02651116|181482723|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares mean|-0.2535|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1124||0.0247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4745|-0.0325||P-Value \<=0.05 level was considered significantly better and P-Value lying between 0.05\<p\<=0.1 level was considered marginally significantly better.|ANOVA|||ANOVA model with treatment, study site (pooled), the baseline assessment in child global question cold assessment by participant and age group included in the model. The statistical analysis was performed on the composite for all categories.||-0.0325|-0.4745|0.0247
90802090|NCT02651116|181482723|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4093||||||P-value is for interaction term of treatment by age group. P-value \<=0.10 was considered significant for interaction terms.|ANOVA|||ANOVA model with treatment, study site (pooled), baseline assessment by participant, interaction of treatment by age group and age group included in the model.||||0.4093
90802091|NCT02651116|181482724|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares mean|0.1266|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2196||0.5652|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3081|0.5614||P-Value \<=0.05 level was considered significantly better and P-Value lying between 0.05\<p\<=0.1 level was considered marginally significantly better.|ANOVA|||Participant: ANOVA model with treatment, study site (pooled), and age group included in the model.||0.5614|-0.3081|0.5652
90802092|NCT02651116|181482724|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares mean|-0.1368|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1982||0.4914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5292|0.2556||P-Value \<=0.05 level was considered significantly better and P-Value lying between 0.05\<p\<=0.1 level was considered marginally significantly better.|ANOVA|||Caregiver: ANOVA model with treatment, study site (pooled), and age group included in the model.||0.2556|-0.5292|0.4914
90802093|NCT02651116|181482724|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1029||||||P-value is for interaction term of treatment by age group. P-value \<=0.10 was considered significant for interaction terms.|ANOVA|||Participant: ANOVA model with treatment, study site (pooled), interaction of treatment by age group and age group included in the model.||||0.1029
90802094|NCT02651116|181482724|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4736||||||P-value is for interaction term of treatment by age group. P-value \<=0.10 was considered significant for interaction terms.|ANOVA|||Caregiver: ANOVA model with treatment, study site (pooled), interaction of treatment by age group and age group included in the model.||||0.4736
90802095|NCT01925768|181482763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|17.7||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.2|29.3||Two-sided p-value is based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for previous DMARD use and baseline Oral Corticosteroids (Prednisone or equivalent) use.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Adjusted difference in proportions is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata by the 2 stratification factors: previous DMARD use and baseline Corticosteroids use using CMH weights. The CI is based on a normal approximation.|||29.3|6.2|0.0040
90802096|NCT01925768|181482764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.103||||0.1677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.251|0.044|||Mixed Models Analysis|Those with a baseline and at least 1 postbaseline value at the PBO controlled phase were counted with mixed effects model for repeated measure (MMRM)|The LS mean (SE) and 2-sided p-value were based on a MMRM analysis for change from baseline, with treatment group, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and previous DMARD and baseline corticosteroids used as factors and baseline value as a covariate|||0.044|-0.251|0.1677
90802097|NCT01925768|181482765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|18.5||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|30.6||Two-sided p-value is based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for previous DMARD use and baseline Oral Corticosteroids (Prednisone or equivalent) use.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Those who withdrew early or who did not have sufficient data at Week 16 were counted as non-responders.|Adjusted difference in proportions is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata by the 2 stratification factors: previous DMARD use and baseline Corticosteroids use using CMH weights. The CI is based on a normal approximation.|||30.6|6.3|0.0040
90802098|NCT01925768|181482766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis||The LS mean (SE) and 2-sided p-value were based on a MMRM analysis for change from baseline, with treatment group, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and previous DMARD and baseline corticosteroids used as factors and baseline value as a covariate.|||-0.15|-0.85|0.0051
91013413|NCT05664672|181909458|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|59.1||||0.428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.3|150.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||150|23.3|0.4280
91013414|NCT05664672|181909458|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|107.0||||0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.8|255.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||255|44.8|0.9990
90802099|NCT01925768|181482767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|2.68||||0.0167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|4.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|Those with a baseline and at least 1 postbaseline value at the PBO controlled phase were counted with mixed effects model for repeated measure (MMRM)|The LS mean (SE) and 2-sided p-value were based on a MMRM analysis for change from baseline, with treatment group, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and previous DMARD and baseline corticosteroids used as factors and baseline value as a covariate|||4.88|0.49|0.0167
90802100|NCT01925768|181482768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|3.4||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|5.7||Based on an MMRM model for the change from baseline, with treatment group, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and previous DMARD use and baseline Oral Corticosteroids use as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||2-sided 95% CI for the difference in LS mean.||5.70|1.10|0.0039
90802101|NCT01925768|181482769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.0||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.5|10.2|||Sign test|p-value based on distribution free signed rank test||||10.2|-21.5|0.012
90802102|NCT01925768|181482770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|19.7||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|31.3||Two-sided p-value is based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for previous DMARD use and baseline oral corticosteroids (prednisone or equivalent) use.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Adjusted difference in proportions is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata by the 2 stratification factors: previous DMARD use and baseline Corticosteroids use using CMH weights. The CI is based on a normal approximation.|||31.3|8.0|0.0016
90802103|NCT01925768|181482771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.15||||0.0229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.279|-0.021|||Mixed Models Analysis||The LS mean (SE) and 2-sided p-value were based on a MMRM analysis for change from baseline, with treatment group, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and previous DMARD and baseline corticosteroids used as factors and baseline value as a covariate|||-0.021|-0.279|0.0229
90802104|NCT01925768|181482772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis||The LS mean (SE) and 2-sided p-value were based on a MMRM analysis for change from baseline, with treatment group, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and previous DMARD and baseline corticosteroids used as factors and baseline value as a covariate|||-0.35|-1.00|<0.0001
90802105|NCT01925768|181482773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|3.46||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|5.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted difference in proportions is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata by the 2 stratification factors: previous DMARD use and baseline Corticosteroids use using CMH weights|||5.80|1.13|0.0039
90802106|NCT01925768|181482774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann|10.0||||0.0168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|20.0|||Stratified Van Elteren test|p-value based on stratified Van Elteren test, using 2 stratification factors: previous DMARD use and baseline Oral Corticosteroids|Location shift and 95% CI based on Hodges-Lehmann for between treatment median estimates.|||20.0|0.0|0.0168
90802107|NCT01925768|181482775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|20.7||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.5|32.8||2 sided-p-value is based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for previous DMARD use and baseline Oral Corticosteroids (Prednisone or equivalent) use.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Adjusted difference in proportions is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata by the 2 stratification factors: previous DMARD use and baseline Corticosteroids use using CMH weights|||32.8|8.5|0.0015
91054382|NCT02912650|181990998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|15.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.23|24.41|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||24.41|6.23|<0.001
91054383|NCT02912650|181990998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|53.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.08|66.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||66.50|41.08|<0.001
90802108|NCT01925768|181482776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|9.7||||0.0252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|17.7||Two-sided p-value is based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for previous DMARD use and baseline Oral Corticosteroids (Prednisone or equivalent) use.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Adjusted difference in proportions is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata by 2 stratification factors: previous DMARD use and baseline Corticosteroids use using CMH weights|Week 2; 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average||17.7|1.6|0.0252
90802109|NCT01925768|181482776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|8.6||||0.1121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|18.9||Two-sided p-value is based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for previous DMARD use and baseline Oral Corticosteroids (Prednisone or equivalent) use.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Adjusted difference in proportions is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata by 2 stratification factors: previous DMARD use and baseline Corticosteroids use using CMH weights|Week 4; 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average||18.9|-1.7|0.1121
90802110|NCT01925768|181482776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|17.8||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.2|29.3||Two-sided p-value is based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for previous DMARD use and baseline Oral Corticosteroids (Prednisone or equivalent) use.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Adjusted difference in proportions is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata by 2 stratification factors: previous DMARD use and baseline Corticosteroids use using CMH weights|Week 6; 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average||29.3|6.2|0.0036
91054384|NCT02912650|181990998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|44.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.72|57.81|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||57.81|31.72|<0.001
90802111|NCT01925768|181482776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|12.7||||0.0392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|24.6||Two-sided p-value is based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for previous DMARD use and baseline Oral Corticosteroids (Prednisone or equivalent) use.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Adjusted difference in proportions is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata by 2 stratification factors: previous DMARD use and baseline Corticosteroids use using CMH weights|Week 8; 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average||24.6|0.8|0.0392
90802112|NCT01925768|181482776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|11.0||||0.0884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|23.2||Two-sided p-value is based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for previous DMARD use and baseline Oral Corticosteroids (Prednisone or equivalent) use.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Adjusted difference in proportions is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata by 2 stratification factors: previous DMARD use and baseline Corticosteroids use using CMH weights|Week 12; 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average||23.2|-1.3|0.0884
90802113|NCT01925768|181482776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|18.6||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|30.7||Two-sided p-value is based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for previous DMARD use and baseline Oral Corticosteroids (Prednisone or equivalent) use.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Adjusted difference in proportions is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata by 2 stratification factors: previous DMARD use and baseline Corticosteroids use using CMH weights|Week 20; 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average||30.7|6.5|0.0040
90802114|NCT03542266|181482816|OTHER||Proportion (percent)|75.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.5|90.3|||||Exact (Clopper-Pearson) 95% confidence interval for complete response rate.|||90.3|46.5|
91054385|NCT02912650|181990998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|9.28||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|18.64|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||18.64|-0.08|0.052
90802115|NCT00149799|181482831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.73||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|8.59|||Regression, Cox|p-value is based on the likelihood ratio Chi-Square statistic.||Cox proportional hazards regression was used to compare relapse rates (accounting for censoring and time from randomization to relapse) in Phase II.||8.59|1.01|0.048
90802116|NCT00149799|181482833|SUPERIORITY||Slope difference|-0.07006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04163||0.093|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance: 0.0167 Model term of interest: treatment by time interaction (i.e., slope difference between treatments over time)|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom=556||"We compared change in depression over time by randomized treatment group (Escitalopram vs. Placebo) using a random coefficient model that included terms for treatment group, time, site, and all their interactions, modeling intercepts and slopes as random effects per person.~Null hypothesis: The rate of change in depression symptom severity in the Escitalopram group will not be significantly different from the placebo group \[to be tested\]."||||0.0930
90802117|NCT00149799|181482834|SUPERIORITY||Slope difference|0.001176|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03991||0.9766|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance: 0.0167 Model term of interest: treatment by time interaction (i.e., slope difference between treatments over time)|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom=43||"We compared change in functional impairment over time during trial phase 2 by treatment group (Escitalopram vs. Placebo) using a random coefficient model that included terms for treatment group, time, site, and all their interactions, modeling intercepts and slopes as random effects per person.~Null hypothesis: The rate of change in functional impairment in the Escitalopram group will not be significantly different from that of the placebo group \[to be tested\]."||||0.9766
90802118|NCT00149799|181482835|SUPERIORITY||Slope difference|0.05723|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1963||0.7724|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance: 0.0167 Model term of interest: treatment by time interaction (i.e., slope difference between treatments over time)|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom=36||"We compared change in Q-LES-Q-SF percent scores over time by randomized treatment group (Escitalopram vs. Placebo) using a random coefficient model that included terms for treatment group, time, site, and all their interactions, modeling intercepts and slopes as random effects per person.~Null hypothesis: The rate of change in Q-LES-Q-SF percent scores in the Escitalopram group will not be significantly different from that of the placebo group \[to be tested\]."||||0.7724
90802119|NCT01072136|181482836|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Under the assumption of a clinical cure proportion of 75% for the Azithromycin/Cefixime group, a 10% non-inferiority margin (i.e., no more than a 10% lower cure rate in the placebo group) at the one-sided 0.05 significance level with 85% power required 270 study participants in each arm (540 total) using an unpooled Z-test (normal approximation). Anticipating that approximately 30% of enrolled participants would not be in the per protocol group, 772 participants were targeted for enrollment.|Risk Difference (RD)|14.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|-12.2||||||Asymptotic one-sided 95% confidence limit for the difference in clinical cure proportions(placebo minus treatment) were computed so that the lower limit could be examined relative to the non-inferiority margin of -10%.|The primary efficacy outcome was MPC clinical cure at 2 months. This was a non-inferiority trial designed to reject the null hypothesis that placebo control is inferior to empiric therapy for MPC.|||-12.2|
90802120|NCT00405288|181482853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|50.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|450.0||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|200.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||"Null hypothesis: Birth weight in pregnancies exposed to Proctofoam-HC will be the same as control pregnancies.~To detect a clinically significant decrease of 200 g in birth weight at a power of 80% and alpha of 5%, 200 women per group were required. Post hoc power analysis of our cohort revealed that, in fact, we had a 91.5% power to detect a 200 g difference in birth weight between the two groups."||200|0|0.17
90802121|NCT00405288|181482854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.0||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||3|0|0.16
90802122|NCT00405288|181482855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||chi square|30.0||||0.003||95.0|||||McNemar|||The null hypothesis is that the proportion of vaginal deliveries in the Proctofoam and Control groups will be the same (ie. there will not be a greater proportion of complicated deliveries in either group).||||0.003
90802123|NCT00405288|181482856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||chi square|5.0||||0.55||95.0|||||McNemar|||The null hypothesis is that the proportion of pre-term births in the Proctofoam and Control groups will be the same.||||0.55
90802124|NCT00405288|181482857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||chi square|10.0||||0.97||95.0|||||McNemar|||Fetal Distress The null hypothesis is that the proportion of fetal distress in the Proctofoam and Control groups will be the same.||||0.97
90802125|NCT00405288|181482858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||binary|3.0||||0.31||95.0|||||McNemar|||Low birth weight \<2,500g; The null hypothesis is that the proportion of low birth weight babies in the Proctofoam and Control groups will be the same.||||0.31
90802126|NCT00405288|181482859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||chi square|10.0||||0.87||95.0|||||McNemar|||The null hypothesis is that the proportion of healthy babies (not requiring NICU (neonatal intensive care unit) or additional medical monitoring) will be the same between the Proctofoam and Control groups.||||0.87
90802127|NCT00405288|181482860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||proportion|4.0||||0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.99
90802128|NCT00405288|181482861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||proportion|3.0||||0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.99
90802129|NCT00405288|181482862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||proportion|2.0||||0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.99
90802130|NCT00405288|181482863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||proportions|2.0||||0.35||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.35
90802131|NCT02012218|181482865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values were calculated according to testing a null hypothesis of zero mean change.|Mixed Models Analysis|This analysis was conducted using a mixed model repeated measures analysis on observed case data.||The null hypothesis of zero in mean change from baseline in MADRS total score at Week 6 was tested for each treatment group at significance level of 0.05 (2-sided).||||<0.0001
90802132|NCT00142792|181482866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||||||Time by group interaction effect, F(2,372) = 1.8, p =0.18)|Mixed Models Analysis|A random intercept for each participant with a first-order antedependent covariance structure. Adjusted for site.||The study was powered to detect differences in FMA scores of a minimum effect size of 0.8 at a significance level of 0.01, the smallest effect size difference anticipated between Cyclic NMES and Cyclic Sensory Stimulation based on prior studies. A significance level of 0.01 in the power-analysis was taken since for each measurement occasion, three post-hoc tests are needed. To account for drop out of 20 % , the minimum number of participants required per group is 63.||||0.18
91013415|NCT05664672|181909458|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|110.0||||0.9958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.9|272.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||272|44.9|0.9958
91013416|NCT05664672|181909459|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means|-50.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.7|-23.9|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric least squares means were calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Est. para. is ratio of geometric LS means for natural-log (expressed as a percentage), natural-log transformed back to the linear scale.|||-23.9|-77.7|<.0001
90802133|NCT00142792|181482866|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||time effect, F(1,109)=87.7, p\<0.001)|Mixed Models Analysis|A random intercept for each participant with a first-order antedependent covariance structure. Adjusted for site.||||||<0.001
91013417|NCT05664672|181909459|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means|-45.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.6|-20.3|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric least squares means were calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Est. para. is ratio of geometric LS means for natural-log (expressed as a percentage), natural-log transformed back to the linear scale.|||-20.3|-69.6|<.0001
91013418|NCT05664672|181909459|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means|-42.3||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.2|-16.5|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric least squares means were calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Est. para. is ratio of geometric LS means for natural-log (expressed as a percentage), natural-log transformed back to the linear scale.|||-16.5|-68.2|0.0003
91013419|NCT05664672|181909459|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means|-44.8||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.6|-17.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric least squares means were calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Est. para. is ratio of geometric LS means for natural-log (expressed as a percentage), natural-log transformed back to the linear scale.|||-17.0|-72.6|0.0004
91013420|NCT05664672|181909459|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means|-6.05||||0.9551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.2|23.1|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric least squares means were calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Est. para. is ratio of geometric LS means for natural-log (expressed as a percentage), natural-log transformed back to the linear scale.|||23.1|-35.2|0.9551
91013421|NCT05664672|181909459|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means|-0.198||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.3|26.9|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric least squares means were calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Est. para. is ratio of geometric LS means for natural-log (expressed as a percentage), natural-log transformed back to the linear scale.|||26.9|-27.3|1.0000
91013422|NCT05664672|181909459|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means|2.48||||0.9981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.6|30.6|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric least squares means were calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Est. para. is ratio of geometric LS means for natural-log (expressed as a percentage), natural-log transformed back to the linear scale.|||30.6|-25.6|0.9981
91013423|NCT05664672|181909460|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|31.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.7|53.9|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||53.9|18.7|<.0001
91013424|NCT05664672|181909460|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|28.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.6|46.2|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||46.2|17.6|<.0001
90802134|NCT00142792|181482867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27||||||time by group interaction effect, F(2,373) = 1.3, p =0.27|Mixed Models Analysis|A random intercept for each participant with a first-order antedependent covariance structure. Adjusted for site.||||||0.27
91013425|NCT05664672|181909460|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|24.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.7|40.2|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||40.2|14.7|<.0001
91013426|NCT05664672|181909460|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|28.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.6|47.7|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||47.7|16.6|<.0001
90802135|NCT00142792|181482867|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||time effect, F(1,109)=91.1, p\<0.001|Mixed Models Analysis|A random intercept for each participant with a first-order antedependent covariance structure. Adjusted for site.||||||<0.001
90802136|NCT00833027|181482868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.85|<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||Student's T-test|Student's T-test for paired samples||||||<0.001
90802137|NCT00444925|181482870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Comparison fesoterodine vs tolterodine ER performed only if statistical significance favoring fesoterodine achieved for fesoterodine vs placebo to preserve overall alpha level at 5%; pairwise comparison also performed for tolterodine ER vs placebo.|Van Elteren's Test|P-value based on Van Elteren's Test (a stratified Wilcoxon-Mann Whitney test) adjusted by baseline UUI quartile.||Treatment Difference Fesoterodine versus (vs) placebo at Week 12. Treatment effects estimated by Winsorized means (5% of the tails were censored, ie, replaced with the value at the fifth (5th) and ninety-fifth (95th) percentile, respectively).||||<0.0001
90802138|NCT00444925|181482870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0107||95.0||||Comparison fesoterodine vs tolterodine ER performed only if statistical significance favoring fesoterodine achieved for fesoterodine vs placebo to preserve overall alpha level at 5%; pairwise comparison also performed for tolterodine ER vs placebo.|Van Elteren's Test|P-value based on Van Elteren's Test (a stratified Wilcoxon-Mann Whitney test) adjusted by baseline UUI quartile.||Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 12. Treatment effects estimated by Winsorized means (5% of the tails were censored, ie, replaced with the value at the 5th and 95th percentile, respectively).||||0.0107
90802139|NCT00444925|181482870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0172||95.0||||Comparison fesoterodine vs tolterodine ER performed only if statistical significance favoring fesoterodine achieved for fesoterodine vs placebo to preserve overall alpha level at 5%; pairwise comparison also performed for tolterodine ER vs placebo.|Van Elteren's Test|P-value based on Van Elteren's Test (a stratified Wilcoxon-Mann Whitney test) adjusted by baseline UUI quartile.||Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 12. Treatment effects estimated by Winsorized means (5% of the tails were censored, ie, replaced with the value at the 5th and 95th percentile, respectively).||||0.0172
90802140|NCT00444925|181482871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Van Elteren's Test|P-value based on Van Elteren's Test adjusted by baseline UUI quartile.||Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 1. Winsorized means (5% of the tails were censored, ie, replaced with the value at the 5th and 95th percentile, respectively).||||<0.0001
90802141|NCT00444925|181482871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Van Elteren's Test|P-value based on Van Elteren's Test adjusted by baseline UUI quartile.||Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 1. Winsorized means (5% of the tails were censored, ie, replaced with the value at the 5th and 95th percentile, respectively).||||<0.0001
90802142|NCT00444925|181482871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.846||95.0|||||Van Elteren's Test|P-value based on Van Elteren's Test adjusted by baseline UUI quartile.||Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 1. Winsorized means (5% of the tails were censored, ie, replaced with the value at the 5th and 95th percentile, respectively).||||0.8460
90802143|NCT00444925|181482871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Van Elteren's Test|P-value based on Van Elteren's Test adjusted by baseline UUI quartile.||Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 4. Winsorized means (5% of the tails were censored, ie, replaced with the value at the 5th and 95th percentile, respectively).||||<0.0001
90802144|NCT00444925|181482871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Van Elteren's Test|P-value based on Van Elteren's Test adjusted by baseline UUI quartile.||Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 4. Winsorized means (5% of the tails were censored, ie, replaced with the value at the 5th and 95th percentile, respectively).||||<0.0001
90802145|NCT00444925|181482871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1937||95.0|||||Van Elteren's Test|P-value based on Van Elteren's Test adjusted by baseline UUI quartile.||Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 4. Winsorized means (5% of the tails were censored, ie, replaced with the value at the 5th and 95th percentile, respectively).||||0.1937
90802146|NCT00444925|181482872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 1. Per closed testing procedure, statistical testing for percent change not performed for Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER Week 1: corresponding numerical change result not statistically significant.||||<0.0001
90802147|NCT00444925|181482872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 1. Per closed testing procedure, statistical testing for percent change not performed for Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER Week 1: corresponding numerical change result not statistically significant.||||<0.0001
90802148|NCT00444925|181482872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 4. Per closed testing procedure, statistical testing for percent change not performed for Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER Week 4: corresponding numerical change result not statistically significant.||||<0.0001
90802149|NCT00444925|181482872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 4. Per closed testing procedure, statistical testing for percent change not performed for Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER Week 4: corresponding numerical change result not statistically significant.||||<0.0001
91013427|NCT05664672|181909460|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|113.0||||0.9511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.7|197.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||197|64.7|0.9511
90802150|NCT00444925|181482872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 12.||||<0.0001
90802151|NCT00444925|181482872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 12.||||<0.0001
90802152|NCT00444925|181482872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022||95.0||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 12.||||0.0220
90802153|NCT00444925|181482873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4||0.0214|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference Least Squares Mean (LSMean) Difference Standard Error (SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 1.||||0.0214
90802154|NCT00444925|181482873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4||0.0149|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 1.||||0.0149
90802155|NCT00444925|181482873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7||0.8659|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 1.||||0.8659
90802156|NCT00444925|181482873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0|<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 4.||||<0.0001
90802157|NCT00444925|181482873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0||0.0036|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 4.||||0.0036
90802158|NCT00444925|181482873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3||0.1484|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 4.||||0.1484
90802159|NCT00444925|181482873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1|<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 12.||||<0.0001
90802160|NCT00444925|181482873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1||0.1029|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 12.||||0.1029
90802161|NCT00444925|181482873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3||0.0048|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 12.||||0.0048
90802162|NCT00444925|181482874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0002|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 1.||||0.0002
90802163|NCT00444925|181482874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0006|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 1.||||0.0006
90802164|NCT00444925|181482874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.7395|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 1.||||0.7395
90802165|NCT00444925|181482874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 4.||||<0.0001
90802166|NCT00444925|181482874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0007|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 4.||||0.0007
90802167|NCT00444925|181482874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.4185|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 4.||||0.4185
90802168|NCT00444925|181482874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 12.||||<0.0001
90802169|NCT00444925|181482874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0005|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 12.||||0.0005
90802170|NCT00444925|181482874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.3798|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 12.||||0.3798
90802171|NCT00444925|181482875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 1. Per closed testing procedure, statistical testing for percent change not performed for Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER Week 1: corresponding numerical change result not statistically significant.||||0.0001
90802172|NCT00444925|181482875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||95.0||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 1. Per closed testing procedure, statistical testing for percent change not performed for Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER Week 1: corresponding numerical change result not statistically significant.||||0.0002
90802173|NCT00444925|181482875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 4. Per closed testing procedure, statistical testing for percent change not performed for Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER Week 4: corresponding numerical change result not statistically significant.||||<0.0001
90802174|NCT00444925|181482875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 4. Per closed testing procedure, statistical testing for percent change not performed for Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER Week 4: corresponding numerical change result not statistically significant.||||<0.0001
90802175|NCT00444925|181482875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 12. Per closed testing procedure, statistical testing for percent change not performed for Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER Week 12: corresponding numerical change result not statistically significant.||||<0.0001
90802176|NCT00444925|181482875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003||95.0||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 12. Per closed testing procedure, statistical testing for percent change not performed for Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER Week 12: corresponding numerical change result not statistically significant.||||0.0003
90802177|NCT00444925|181482876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.273|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 1.||||0.2730
90802178|NCT00444925|181482876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0652|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 1.||||0.0652
90802179|NCT00444925|181482876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.3503|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 1.||||0.3503
90802180|NCT00444925|181482876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.2667|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 4.||||0.2667
90802181|NCT00444925|181482876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.1643|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 4.||||0.1643
90802182|NCT00444925|181482876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.7264|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 4.||||0.7264
90802183|NCT00444925|181482876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.3269|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 12.||||0.3269
90802184|NCT00444925|181482876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.5059|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 12.||||0.5059
90802185|NCT00444925|181482876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.699|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 12.||||0.6990
90802186|NCT00444925|181482878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0008|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 1.||||0.0008
90802187|NCT00444925|181482878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 1.||||<0.0001
90802188|NCT00444925|181482878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.382|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 1.||||0.3820
90802189|NCT00444925|181482878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 4.||||<0.0001
90802190|NCT00444925|181482878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 4.||||<0.0001
90802191|NCT00444925|181482878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.3498|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 4.||||0.3498
90802192|NCT00444925|181482878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 12.||||<0.0001
90802193|NCT00444925|181482878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 12.||||<0.0001
90802194|NCT00444925|181482878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0542|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 12.||||0.0542
91054386|NCT02912650|181990998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|57.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.75|70.39|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||70.39|44.75|<0.001
91054387|NCT02912650|181990998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|6.06||||0.147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|14.25|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||14.25|-2.13|0.147
90802195|NCT00444925|181482879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004||95.0||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 1. Per closed testing procedure, statistical testing for percent change not performed for Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER Week 1: corresponding numerical change result not statistically significant.||||0.0004
90802196|NCT00444925|181482879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 1. Per closed testing procedure, statistical testing for percent change not performed for Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER Week 1: corresponding numerical change result not statistically significant.||||0.0001
90802197|NCT00444925|181482879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 4. Per closed testing procedure, statistical testing for percent change not performed for Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER Week 4: corresponding numerical change result not statistically significant.||||<0.0001
90802198|NCT00444925|181482879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 4. Per closed testing procedure, statistical testing for percent change not performed for Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER Week 4: corresponding numerical change result not statistically significant.||||<0.0001
90802199|NCT00444925|181482879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 12. Per closed testing procedure, statistical testing for percent change not performed for Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER Week 12: corresponding numerical change result not statistically significant.||||<0.0001
90802200|NCT00444925|181482879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 12. Per closed testing procedure, statistical testing for percent change not performed for Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER Week 12: corresponding numerical change result not statistically significant.||||0.0001
90802201|NCT00444925|181482880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 1.||||<0.0001
90802202|NCT00444925|181482880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 1.||||<0.0001
90802203|NCT00444925|181482880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.5581|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 1.||||0.5581
90802204|NCT00444925|181482880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 4.||||<0.0001
91013428|NCT05664672|181909460|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|101.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.4|170.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||170|60.4|1.0000
91054388|NCT02912650|181990998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|15.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.39|24.21|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||24.21|6.39|<0.001
90802205|NCT00444925|181482880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 4.||||<0.0001
90802206|NCT00444925|181482880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.151|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 4.||||0.1510
90802207|NCT00444925|181482880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 12.||||<0.0001
90802208|NCT00444925|181482880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 12.||||0.0001
90802209|NCT00444925|181482880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.1391|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 12.||||0.1391
90802210|NCT00444925|181482881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 1. Per closed testing procedure, statistical testing for percent change not performed for Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER Week 1: corresponding numerical change result not statistically significant.||||<0.0001
90802211|NCT00444925|181482881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 1. Per closed testing procedure, statistical testing for percent change not performed for Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER Week 1: corresponding numerical change result not statistically significant.||||<0.0001
91054389|NCT02912650|181990998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|51.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.16|64.48|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||64.48|38.16|<0.001
90802212|NCT00444925|181482881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 4. Per closed testing procedure, statistical testing for percent change not performed for Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER Week 4: corresponding numerical change result not statistically significant.||||<0.0001
90802213|NCT00444925|181482881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 4. Per closed testing procedure, statistical testing for percent change not performed for Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER Week 4: corresponding numerical change result not statistically significant.||||<0.0001
90802214|NCT00444925|181482881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 12. Per closed testing procedure, statistical testing for percent change not performed for Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER Week 12: corresponding numerical change result not statistically significant.||||<0.0001
90802215|NCT00444925|181482881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 12. Per closed testing procedure, statistical testing for percent change not performed for Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER Week 12: corresponding numerical change result not statistically significant.||||0.0001
90802216|NCT00444925|181482882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0|<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 1.||||<0.0001
90802217|NCT00444925|181482882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0|<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 1.||||<0.0001
90802218|NCT00444925|181482882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0.5972|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 1.||||0.5972
90802219|NCT00444925|181482882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0|<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 4.||||<0.0001
90802220|NCT00444925|181482882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0|<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 4.||||<0.0001
90802221|NCT00444925|181482882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0.1267|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 4.||||0.1267
91013429|NCT05664672|181909460|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|86.5||||0.9003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.6|148.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||148|50.6|0.9003
90802222|NCT00444925|181482882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 12.||||<0.0001
90802223|NCT00444925|181482882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 12.||||<0.0001
90802224|NCT00444925|181482882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0.0289|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 12.||||0.0289
90802225|NCT00444925|181482883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 1.||||<0.0001
91013430|NCT05664672|181909461|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means|46.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.1|58.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric least squares means were calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Est. para. is ratio of geometric LS means for natural-log (expressed as a percentage), natural-log transformed back to the linear scale.|||58.0|37.1|<.0001
91013431|NCT05664672|181909461|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means|43.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.1|52.9|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric least squares means were calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Est. para. is ratio of geometric LS means for natural-log (expressed as a percentage), natural-log transformed back to the linear scale.|||52.9|35.1|<.0001
91013432|NCT05664672|181909461|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means|44.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.5|54.6|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric least squares means were calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Est. para. is ratio of geometric LS means for natural-log (expressed as a percentage), natural-log transformed back to the linear scale.|||54.6|35.5|<.0001
90802226|NCT00444925|181482883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 1.||||<0.0001
90802227|NCT00444925|181482883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.7288|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 1.||||0.7288
90802228|NCT00444925|181482883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 4.||||<0.0001
90802229|NCT00444925|181482883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 4.||||<0.0001
90802230|NCT00444925|181482883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.2473|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 4.||||0.2473
90802231|NCT00444925|181482883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 12.||||<0.0001
90802232|NCT00444925|181482883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 12.||||<0.0001
90802233|NCT00444925|181482883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.1047|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 12.||||0.1047
90802234|NCT00444925|181482884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0143||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|With modified ridit scoring and stratified by country.||Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 1||||0.0143
90802235|NCT00444925|181482884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|With modified ridit scoring and stratified by country.||Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 4||||<0.0001
91054390|NCT02912650|181990998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|42.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.74|55.82|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||55.82|28.74|<0.001
90802236|NCT00444925|181482884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|With modified ridit scoring and stratified by country.||Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 12||||<0.0001
90802237|NCT00444925|181482885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0773||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|With modified ridit scoring and stratified by country.||Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 1||||0.0773
90802238|NCT00444925|181482885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0017||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|With modified ridit scoring and stratified by country.||Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 4||||0.0017
90802239|NCT00444925|181482885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0008||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|With modified ridit scoring and stratified by country.||Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 12||||0.0008
90802240|NCT00444925|181482886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5|<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment difference Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 12||||<0.0001
90802241|NCT00444925|181482887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6|<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo: HRQL concern domain.||||<0.0001
90802242|NCT00444925|181482887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6|<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo: HRQL coping domain.||||<0.0001
90802243|NCT00444925|181482887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.5||0.0008|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo: HRQL sleep domain.||||0.0008
90802244|NCT00444925|181482887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo: HRQL social interaction domain.||||<0.0001
90802245|NCT00444925|181482887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3|<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo: HRQL scale score total.||||<0.0001
90802246|NCT00444925|181482888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0072||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline urgency urinary incontinence quartile.||Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 1.||||0.0072
90802247|NCT00444925|181482888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0116||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline urgency urinary incontinence quartile.||Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 1.||||0.0116
91054391|NCT02912650|181990998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|9.27||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|18.49|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||18.49|0.04|0.049
90802248|NCT00444925|181482888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7828||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline urgency urinary incontinence quartile.||Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 1.||||0.7828
90802249|NCT00444925|181482888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline urgency urinary incontinence quartile.||Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 4.||||<0.0001
90802250|NCT00444925|181482888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline urgency urinary incontinence quartile.||Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 4.||||<0.0001
90802251|NCT00444925|181482888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3104||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline urgency urinary incontinence quartile.||Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 4.||||0.3104
90802252|NCT00444925|181482888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline urgency urinary incontinence quartile.||Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 12.||||<0.0001
90802253|NCT00444925|181482888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline urgency urinary incontinence quartile.||Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 12.||||0.0004
90802254|NCT00444925|181482888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0153||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline urgency urinary incontinence quartile.||Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 12.||||0.0153
90802255|NCT02881775|181482891|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9994||||||The threshold for significance was P \<.05|ANOVA|"Repeated measures ANOVA with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and Kenward-Roger standard errors.~Degrees of freedom (DF) = 34.1"||Comparison of CAR BL Change (treatment by time)||||.9994
90802256|NCT02881775|181482892|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9768||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and Kenward-Roger standard errors. DF = 45||Comparison of MVIC BL Change (treatment by time)||||.9768
90802257|NCT02881775|181482893|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.444||||||threshold for statistical significance is p \< .05|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and Kenward-Roger standard errors. DF = 43.1||Comparison of NPRS BL Change (treatment by time)||||0.4440
90802258|NCT02881775|181482894|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6608||||||Threshold for statistical significance is P \< .05|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and Kenward-Roger standard errors. DF = 45||PPT BL Change (treatment by time)||||.6608
90802259|NCT02881775|181482895|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7706||||||Threshold for statistical significance is P \< .05|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and Kenward-Roger standard errors. DF = 45||Comparison of TUG BL Change (treatment by time)||||.7706
90802260|NCT02881775|181482896|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3665||||||Threshold for statistical significance is P \< .05|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and Kenward-Roger standard errors. DF = 33||Comparison of AMT-MEP BL Change (treatment by time)||||.3665
90802261|NCT02881775|181482897|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3889||||||Threshold for statistical significance is P \< .05|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and Kenward-Roger standard errors. DF = 33||Comparison of SICI BL Change (treatment by time)||||.3889
90802262|NCT02881775|181482898|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2192||||||Threshold for statistical significance is P \< .05|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and Kenward-Roger standard errors. DF = 33||Comparison of ICF BL Change (treatment by time)||||.2192
90802263|NCT00237042|181482922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|Linear regression was used to compare group means at follow up, adjusted for baseline values of the outcome variable.||The null hypothesis was that mean characteristic pain intensity at 6-month follow up is equal across the three groups.||||0.19
90802264|NCT00237042|181482923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline value of the outcome variable||||||0.27
90802265|NCT00237042|181482924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|Group means compared with linear regression adjusted for baseline values. Adjusted difference: -1.0 between SMT and COCT, -1.0 between TSMT and COCT.||The null hypothesis was that mean characteristic pain intensity at 12-month follow up is equal across the three groups.||||0.003
90802266|NCT00237042|181482925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline value of the outcome variable||||||0.016
90802267|NCT00326001|181482934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25||95.0||||P-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.25
90802268|NCT00326001|181482935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.042||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.042
90802269|NCT00326001|181482936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.53
90802270|NCT00326001|181482937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
90802271|NCT00996658|181482965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.83|-0.31|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline HbA1c and centre||||-0.31|-0.83|< 0.0001
90802272|NCT00996658|181482966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.61|-0.21|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline HbA1c and centre||||-0.21|-0.61|< 0.0001
90802273|NCT00996658|181482967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.54|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.79|-0.28|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline HbA1c and centre||||-0.28|-0.79|< 0.0001
90802274|NCT00996658|181482968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.54|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.8|-0.29|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline HbA1c and centre||||-0.29|-0.80|< 0.0001
90802275|NCT00996658|181482969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.939||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.432|6.032|||Regression, Logistic|||Linagliptin vs Placebo||6.032|1.432|0.0033
90802276|NCT00996658|181482970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.902||||0.0074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|10.572|||Regression, Logistic|||Linagliptin vs Placebo||10.572|1.440|0.0074
90802277|NCT00996658|181482971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.059||||0.0071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.216|3.485|||Regression, Logistic|||Linagliptin vs. Placebo||3.485|1.216|0.0071
90802278|NCT00996658|181482972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.4||||0.028||95.0|-19.6|-1.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline HbA1c, baseline FPG, and centre||||-1.1|-19.6|0.0280
90802279|NCT00996658|181482973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.7||||0.0006||95.0|-24.5|-6.8|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline HbA1c, baseline FPG, and centre||||-6.8|-24.5|0.0006
90802280|NCT00996658|181482974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.9||||0.021||95.0|-20.2|-1.7|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline HbA1c, baseline FPG, and centre||||-1.7|-20.2|0.0210
90802281|NCT00996658|181482975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.2||||0.2137||95.0|-16.0|3.6|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline HbA1c, baseline FPG, and centre||||3.6|-16.0|0.2137
90802282|NCT04522167|181482979|EQUIVALENCE|If the confidence interval for difference in LSMeans is completely contained in the interval \]-3.5 letters; 3.5 letters\[, FBY203 and Eylea are considered equivalent.|LS mean difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76|||TWO_SIDED|90.4|-0.3|2.2||||||||2.2|-0.3|
90802283|NCT02197572|181483003|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-2.2|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||2.2||||||Change from Baseline at 0.25 Hours Postdose||2.2||
90802284|NCT02197572|181483003|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-8.3|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||-4.0||||||Change from Baseline at 0.5 Hours Postdose||-4.0||
90802285|NCT02197572|181483003|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-1.8|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||2.6||||||Change from Baseline at 1 Hour Postdose||2.6||
90802286|NCT02197572|181483003|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-2.7|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||1.7||||||Change from Baseline at 1.5 Hours Postdose||1.7||
90802287|NCT02197572|181483003|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-5.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||-0.6||||||Change from Baseline at 2 Hours Postdose||-0.6||
90802288|NCT02197572|181483003|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-7.6|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||-3.2||||||Change from Baseline at 2.5 Hours Postdose||-3.2||
90802289|NCT02197572|181483003|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-9.1|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||-4.6||||||Change from Baseline at 3 Hours Postdose||-4.6||
90802290|NCT02197572|181483003|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-7.2|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||-2.9||||||Change from Baseline at 4 Hours Postdose||-2.9||
90802291|NCT02197572|181483003|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-8.8|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||-4.6||||||Change from Baseline at 6 Hours Postdose||-4.6||
90802292|NCT02197572|181483003|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-2.2|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||2.4||||||Change from Baseline at 8 Hours Postdose||2.4||
90802293|NCT02197572|181483003|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-6.6|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||-0.5||||||Change from Baseline at 10 Hours Postdose||-0.5||
90802294|NCT02197572|181483003|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|7.1|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||11.4||||||Change from Baseline at 24 Hours Postdose||11.4||
90802295|NCT02197572|181483003|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|2.8|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||8.1||||||Change from Baseline at 48 Hours Postdose||8.1||
90802296|NCT02383862|181483020|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|2.64|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.64|-0.45|0.165
90802297|NCT02383862|181483021|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|2.91|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.91|-1.23|0.425
90802298|NCT02383862|181483022|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|2.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.70|-1.41|0.539
90802299|NCT02383862|181483023|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16||0.471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|3.11|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.11|-1.44|0.471
90802300|NCT02383862|181483024|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|3.65|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.65|-0.66|0.174
90802301|NCT02383862|181483025|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36||0.222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|4.35|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.35|-1.00|0.222
90802302|NCT04105868|181483132|OTHER|Within-group pre/post differences were tested using a paired t-test.||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Two-tailed paired samples t-test comparing baseline and post-training SSVEP competition index scores||Null hypothesis: No within-subject change in SSVEP competition index from baseline to post-training.||||.004
90802303|NCT04105868|181483133|OTHER|Within-group pre/post differences were tested using a paired t-test.||||||0.25|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Two-tailed paired samples t-test comparing baseline and post-stressor VAS sadness scores.||Null hypothesis: No within-subject change in VAS Sadness scores from baseline to post-stressor.||||.25
90802304|NCT04105868|181483134|OTHER|Within-group pre/post differences were tested using a paired t-test.||||||0.471|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Two-tailed paired samples t-test comparing baseline and post-stressor VAS anxiety scores.||Null hypothesis: No within-subject change in VAS Anxiety scores from baseline to post-stressor.||||.471
90802305|NCT02661997|181483145|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58||||||Between group differences|ANOVA|||||||0.58
90802306|NCT02661997|181483146|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.88
90802307|NCT02661997|181483147|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.17
90802308|NCT02661997|181483148|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||ANOVA|||This is an analysis of pre to post-treatment changes on the Physical Health subscale of the PROMIS Global Health Scale||||0.88
90802309|NCT02661997|181483149|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.032||||||P-value for group by time interaction|ANOVA|||||||0.032
90802310|NCT02661997|181483150|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44||||||P-value for group by time interaction|ANOVA|||||||0.44
90802311|NCT02661997|181483151|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73||||||P-value for group by time interaction|ANOVA|||||||0.73
90802312|NCT02661997|181483152|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36||||||P-value for group by time interaction|ANOVA|||||||0.36
90802313|NCT02661997|181483153|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.24
90802314|NCT02661997|181483154|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006||||||P-value for group by time interaction|ANOVA|||||||0.006
90802315|NCT02661997|181483155|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55||||||P-value for group by time interaction|ANOVA|||||||0.55
90802316|NCT02661997|181483156|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36||||||P-value for group by time interaction|ANOVA|||||||0.36
90802317|NCT02661997|181483157|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.13
90802318|NCT02661997|181483158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.26
90802319|NCT02661997|181483159|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.04
90802320|NCT02661997|181483160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.35
90802321|NCT02661997|181483163|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.15
90802322|NCT02661997|181483164|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.91
90802323|NCT02661997|181483165|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.42
90802324|NCT02661997|181483166|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.10
90802325|NCT02661997|181483167|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.99
90802326|NCT02661997|181483168|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.09
90802327|NCT02661997|181483169|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.44
90802328|NCT02661997|181483170|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09||||||An adjusted p value was used based on Levene's test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.09
90802329|NCT02661997|181483171|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.75
90802330|NCT02661997|181483172|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.44
91013433|NCT05664672|181909461|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means|39.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.0|49.4|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric least squares means were calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Est. para. is ratio of geometric LS means for natural-log (expressed as a percentage), natural-log transformed back to the linear scale.|||49.4|31.0|<.0001
91013434|NCT05664672|181909461|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means|119.0||||0.2351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.2|151.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric least squares means were calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Est. para. is ratio of geometric LS means for natural-log (expressed as a percentage), natural-log transformed back to the linear scale.|||151|93.2|0.2351
91013435|NCT05664672|181909461|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means|110.0||||0.657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|87.7|138.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric least squares means were calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Est. para. is ratio of geometric LS means for natural-log (expressed as a percentage), natural-log transformed back to the linear scale.|||138|87.7|0.6570
90802331|NCT02661997|181483173|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.67
90802332|NCT02661997|181483174|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.43
91013436|NCT05664672|181909461|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means|113.0||||0.5112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.1|142.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric least squares means were calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Est. para. is ratio of geometric LS means for natural-log (expressed as a percentage), natural-log transformed back to the linear scale.|||142|89.1|0.5112
90802333|NCT02661997|181483175|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.80
90802334|NCT02661997|181483176|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.31
91013437|NCT00643851|181909495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1243|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.62||Primary endpoint was tested at alpha=0.05; significance was claimed only if DAPA 5MG + MET was superior to both controls.|ANCOVA|||||-0.62|-1.11|<0.0001
91013438|NCT00643851|181909495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1245|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.45||Primary endpoint was tested at alpha=0.05; significance was claimed only if DAPA 5MG + MET is superior to both controls.|ANCOVA|||||-0.45|-0.94|<0.0001
90802335|NCT02661997|181483177|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.16
90802336|NCT02661997|181483178|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90802337|NCT02661997|181483179|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.56
90802338|NCT02661997|181483180|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.64
90802339|NCT02933879|181483188|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4615|||||||Z-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4615
90802340|NCT02933879|181483190|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0404|||||||Z-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0404
90802341|NCT02933879|181483190|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2106|||||||Z-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2106
90802342|NCT02933879|181483192|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Z-test, 2 sided|||||||1.0000
90802343|NCT02933879|181483194|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Z-test, 2 sided|||||||1.0000
90802344|NCT02933879|181483197|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2467|||||||Z-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2467
90802345|NCT00075764|181483203|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.94|||Log Rank|Two-sided stratified log-rank test||||0.94|0.68|0.007
90802346|NCT00075764|181483205|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.0|||Log Rank|A log-rank test, stratified according to prior or no prior tamoxifen therapy.||||1.00|0.65|0.049
90802347|NCT01135459|181483224|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7649||||0.3989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.4|||Regression, Logistic|||Analysis was performed using a logistic regression model with treatment and stratification factors as main factors.||1.4|0.4|0.3989
90802348|NCT01803880|181483235|NON_INFERIORITY|"Non-inferiority Margin = 10 points. Non-inferiority of study device was concluded if lower limit of one-sided 97.5% CI for treatment difference \<10.~Superiority of study device was established if LS means of treatment difference and lower limit of one-sided 97.5% CI for treatment difference ≤0."|One-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI)|-7.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.137|>|0.05|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-19.29|||All unscheduled visits were to be included and nominal visits were to be applied using analysis visit windows. Both the assigned analysis visits and the site reported nominal visits were provided in the subject data listings.|ANCOVA|Due to early termination, all inferential analysis was interpreted as descriptive and carried out in an exploratory manner.||An ANCOVA model was used to compare the difference in the devices for change from Baseline in the KOOS at Week 52. KOOS was derived as the average of five subscale scores. LOCF imputation was considered for missing value. One-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for treatment difference (Study-Control) was to be used for determining non-inferiority/superiority of the study device.|||-19.29|>0.05
90802349|NCT03703232|181483249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.092|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.092
90802350|NCT03703232|181483250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.760
90802351|NCT03703232|181483251|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.007
90802352|NCT03703232|181483252|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.003
90802353|NCT03703232|181483253|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.861|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.861
90802354|NCT03703232|181483255|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.405|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.405
90802355|NCT03703232|181483256|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.798|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.798
90802356|NCT03703232|181483257|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.382|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.382
90802357|NCT03703232|181483258|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.179|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.179
90802358|NCT03703232|181483259|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.984|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.984
90802359|NCT01816776|181483260|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|41.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.0|54.0||1-sided. p\<0.025 considered significant.|Fisher Exact||Risk difference = Treatment - Control|||54|25|<0.0001
90802360|NCT01816776|181483262|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-22.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.0|-16.6||1-sided. Secondary endpoints hierarchically tested with p\<0.025 considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Mean difference = Treatment - Control|||-16.6|-29.0|<0.0001
90802361|NCT01816776|181483263|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-25.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.2|-18.7||Secondary endpoints hierarchically tested with p\<0.025 considered significant.|t-test, 1 sided||Mean difference = Treatment - Control|||-18.7|-31.2|<0.0001
91054392|NCT02912650|181990998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|58.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.93|71.49|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||71.49|45.93|<0.001
91054393|NCT02912650|181990998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|6.64||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|14.67|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||14.67|-1.38|0.105
91054394|NCT02912650|181990998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|15.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.08|24.63|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||24.63|7.08|<0.001
91054395|NCT02912650|181990998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|51.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.76|65.04|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||65.04|38.76|<0.001
90802362|NCT01816776|181483264|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-15.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.6|-8.7||Secondary endpoints hierarchically tested with p\<0.025 considered significant.|t-test, 1 sided||Mean difference = Treatment - Control|||-8.7|-21.6|<0.0001
90802363|NCT01816776|181483265|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.4||||0.0244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|5.1||1-sided. Secondary endpoints hierarchically tested with p\<0.025 considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Mean difference = Treatment - Control|||5.1|-0.4|0.0244
90802364|NCT01816776|181483266|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|55.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.0|68.0||1-sided. Secondary endpoints hierarchically tested with p\<0.025 considered significant.|Fisher Exact||Risk difference = Treatment - Control|||68|40|<0.0001
90802365|NCT01816776|181483267|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-22.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.9|-16.5||Secondary endpoints hierarchically tested with p\<0.025 considered significant.|t-test, 1 sided||Mean difference = Treatment - Control|||-16.5|-28.9|<0.0001
90802366|NCT01816776|181483268|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|-2.0||1-sided. Secondary endpoints hierarchically tested with p\<0.025 considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Mean difference = Treatment - Control|||-2.0|-5.5|<0.0001
90802367|NCT04847843|181483273|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.001
90802368|NCT04847843|181483274|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.22
90802369|NCT04847843|181483275|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.62
90802370|NCT04847843|181483277|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.21
90802371|NCT04847843|181483278|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.11
90802372|NCT01061385|181483306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.5||||0.2922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|21.7|||t-test, 1 sided|||||21.7|-6.8|0.2922
90802373|NCT01061385|181483307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.7|38.0|||||The 95% CI range above is calculated for the current estimated value.|||38.0|-37.7|
90802374|NCT00533429|181483308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.469||||||P-value (one-tailed) was calculated based on the un-stratified log-rank test.|Log Rank|||||||0.469
90802375|NCT00533429|181483309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.462||||||95% confidence interval based on normal approximation to the binomial distribution. P-value (2-tailed) calculation based on unadjusted, normal-distribution approximation for the difference in rates.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.462
90802376|NCT00533429|181483310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.492||||||P-value (two-tailed) was calculated based on the un-stratified log-rank test.|Log Rank|||||||0.492
90802377|NCT02655887|181483314|NON_INFERIORITY|PG of 74%, which was set at 10% (non-inferiority margin) below the weighted mean of primary patency (PP2) rate at 12 month at a combination of 55% (PTS) subjects at primary patency rate of 77.1% and 45% (NIVL) subjects at primary patency rate of 93.4%. When taking into consideration both co-primary efficacy and safety endpoints, with 138 BVS subjects, the overall study power is at least 85%\*99%=84%.|Weighted Z-statistics|88.3||||0.0001|ONE_SIDED|90.0|82.4||||Weighted Z-statistics|||"Hypothesis: H0 :Primary patency rate at 12 months post-index procedure from the overall VENOVO Venous Stent (BVS) patients (PTS and NIVL combined) is at most as good as that of the PG.~Ha: Primary patency rate at 12 months post-index procedure from the overall VENOVO Venous Stent (BVS) patients (PTS and NIVL combined) is better than that of PG."|||82.4|0.0001
90802378|NCT02655887|181483315|NON_INFERIORITY|The primary safety endpoint was evaluated against the PG of 89% which was set at 10% (non-inferiority margin) below the literature-derived average freedom from MAE rate at 30 day of 99%. A one-side p-value is derived based on an exact binomial test. When taking into consideration both co-primary efficacy and safety endpoints, with 138 BVS subjects, the overall study power is at least 85%\*99%=84%.|Exact binomial test|93.5||||0.0322|ONE_SIDED|90.0|89.5||||Exact binomial test|||"Hypothesis: H0: The primary safety endpoint absence from event rate in the VENOVO Venous Stent (BVS) through 30 day at most as large as that of the PG.~Ha: The primary safety endpoint absence from event rate in the VENOVO Venous Stent (BVS) through 30 day is better than that of the PG."|||89.5|0.0322
90802379|NCT02655887|181483316|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||this p value is \< 0.001.|t-test, 2 sided|||"H0: The distribution at the 12-month follow-up remains unimproved compared to baseline.~Ha: The distribution shifts toward lower (less pain) classes."||||0.001
90802380|NCT02655887|181483317|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||p value is \< 0.001|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
90802381|NCT02041299|181483342|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the upper limit of the 96.01% confidence interval (CI) is less than or equal to 2 mg/g dw.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.26||||0.0399|TWO_SIDED|96.01|-0.97|1.48|||ANCOVA|||||1.48|-0.97|0.0399
90802382|NCT02041299|181483343|NON_INFERIORITY|Support for non-inferiority is demonstrated if the 96.01% CI contains zero (0)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.000295||||0.0399|TWO_SIDED|96.01|-0.054247|0.053657|||ANCOVA|||Data for this measure were log-transformed.||0.053657|-0.054247|0.0399
90802383|NCT02041299|181483344|NON_INFERIORITY|Support for non-inferiority of deferiprone to deferoxamine in serum ferritin is demonstrated if the 96.01% CI contains zero (0)|Mean Difference (Net)|375.07||||0.0399|TWO_SIDED|96.01|-260.63|1010.76|||ANCOVA|||||1010.76|-260.63|0.0399
90802384|NCT02041299|181483345|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of treatment groups on change in score on SF-36 Physical Summary||||||0.9214|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.9214
90802385|NCT02041299|181483345|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1174|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison of treatment groups on change in score on SF-36 Mental Summary||||0.1174
91013439|NCT00643851|181909496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.883|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.7|-11.4||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05. Significance was claimed only if DAPA 5MG + MET is superior to both controls.|ANCOVA|||||-11.4|-26.7|<0.0001
91013440|NCT00643851|181909496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.897|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.1|-19.8||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05. Significance was claimed only if DAPA 5MG + MET is superior to both controls.|ANCOVA|||||-19.8|-35.1|<0.0001
91013441|NCT00643851|181909497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|29.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.633|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.8|39.0||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05. Significance was claimed only if DAPA 5MG + MET is superior to both controls.|modified logistic regression|||||39.0|20.8|<0.0001
91013442|NCT00643851|181909497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.947||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.1|27.4||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05. Significance was claimed only if DAPA 5MG + MET is superior to both controls.|ANCOVA|||||27.4|8.1|0.0003
91013443|NCT00643851|181909498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1938|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|-0.96||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05. Significance was claimed only if DAPA 5MG + MET is superior to both controls.|ANCOVA|||||-0.96|-1.72|<0.0001
91013444|NCT00643851|181909498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1912|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|-0.82||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05. Significance was claimed only if DAPA 5MG + MET is superior to both controls.|ANCOVA|||||-0.82|-1.57|<0.0001
90802386|NCT02041299|181483345|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6488|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison of treatment groups on change in score on CHQ-PF50 Physical Summary||||0.6488
90802387|NCT02041299|181483345|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5915|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison of treatment groups on change in score on CHQ-PF50 Psychosocial Summary||||0.5915
90802388|NCT02389465|181483346|OTHER|||||||0.44|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||IL6 levels in healthy controls pre- and post-treatment compared using a paired t-test||||.44
90802389|NCT02389465|181483346|OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||IL6 levels in the placebo group pre- and post-treatment compared using a paired t-test||||.11
90802390|NCT02389465|181483346|OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||IL6 levels in the escitalopram group pre- and post-treatment compared using a paired t-test||||.42
90802391|NCT02389465|181483346|OTHER|||||||0.49|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||IL-6 levels in the escitalopram + celecoxib group pre- and post-treatment compared using a paired t-tes||||.49
90802392|NCT02389465|181483346|OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||IL6 levels at completion of study compared between all MDD groups (placebo, escitalopram, and escitalopram + celecoxib) and the healthy control group||||.23
90802393|NCT02389465|181483347|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||MADRS scores at the final visit compared between the healthy control and escitalopram + celecoxib groups||||.003
90802394|NCT02389465|181483347|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||MADRS scores at the final visit compared between the healthy control and escitalopram groups||||<.001
90802395|NCT02389465|181483347|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.034|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||MADRS scores at the final visit compared between the healthy control and placebo groups||||.034
90802396|NCT02389465|181483347|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||ANCOVA|||MADRS scores at the final visit compared between the placebo groups and all groups receiving escitalopram (both with and without celecoxib)||||.03
90802397|NCT02389465|181483348|OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||IL10 levels in healthy controls pre- and post-treatment compared using a paired t-test||||.29
90802398|NCT02389465|181483348|OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||IL10 levels in the placebo group pre- and post-treatment compared using a paired t-test||||.19
90802399|NCT02389465|181483348|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||IL10 levels in the escitalopram group pre- and post-treatment compared using a paired t-test||||.5
90802400|NCT02389465|181483348|OTHER|||||||0.55|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||IL10 levels in the escitalopram + celecoxib group pre- and post-treatment compared using a paired t-test||||.55
90802401|NCT02389465|181483348|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||IL10 levels at completion of study compared between all MDD groups (placebo, escitalopram, and escitalopram + celecoxib) and the healthy control group||||.06
91013445|NCT00643851|181909499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3388||0.8769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.61||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05. Significance was claimed only if DAPA 5MG + MET is superior to both controls.|ANCOVA|||||0.61|-0.72|0.8769
91013446|NCT00643851|181909499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3399|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|-0.71||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05. Significance was claimed only if DAPA 5MG + MET is superior to both controls.|ANCOVA|||||-0.71|-2.04|<0.0001
90802402|NCT01964378|181483353|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of 8 mg. Assuming equal mean values in both the cebranopadol and morphine groups, it was calculated that for the final analysis of the primary endpoint 170 subjects would have been required per treatment arm in the Per Protocol Set using a 2 sample-t-test for 90% power and a 1-sided significance level of α = 0.025.|point-estimate|-7.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.05|-2.918|||MMRM|||The MMRM (mixed model repeated measurement) model includes fixed effects of pooled country, treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, history of opioid intake, baseline pain intensity as covariate \& subject-specific random effects. Dependent variable being the weekly average rescue medication intake.||-2.918|-12.05|< 0.0001
90802403|NCT01964378|181483354|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of 8 mg. Assuming that 65% of the participants are available for the Per Protocol Set, a total of 524 participant would have to be allocated (randomized) to IMP. With 262 participants per group in the Full Analysis Set, the non-inferiority of cebranopadol as compared to morphine sulfate prolonged release could have been demonstrated with at least 98% power and a 1-sided significance level of α = 0.025.|point-estimate|-4.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.245|-0.099||MMRM model: fixed effects of pooled country, treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, opioid intake history, baseline pain intensity as covariate \& subject-specific random effects. Dependent variable: weekly average rescue medication intake.|MMRM (mixed model repeated measurement)|For participants with no data in the Maintenance Phase, the average amount of rescue medication over the last 3 days of titration was imputed.|Non-inferiority of cebranopadol compared with morphine will be established if the upper bound of the resulting 95% confidence interval for the average treatment difference is below the non-inferiority margin of 8mg.|The primary endpoint will be analyzed by means of a mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM), based on observed case weekly averages. Under the assumption of a missing-at-random missing data mechanism, an MMRM does not require an imputation of missing data and can obtain an improved estimate of variance.||-0.099|-9.245|< 0.0001
90802404|NCT02358993|181483367|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of the primary outcome was achieved if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the mean difference was greater than the specified non-inferiority margin of 15%(a clinically relevant margin within the range of those commonly used in non-inferiority and equivalence trials for studies examining antibiotic use for UTI)|Risk Ratio (RR)|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
90802405|NCT00873821|181483383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|40.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.33|55.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference (placebo minus MK-0941) in change from baseline to Day 13||55.32|26.33|<0.001
90802406|NCT00480740|181483390|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of dexmedetomindine plus sevoflurane compared with the baseline (sevoflurane alone) for any given variable was reached when the difference (steady-state \[dexmedetomidine + sevoflurane\]-baseline \[sevoflurane0\]/baseline \[sevoflurane\]0 and its associated 95% confidence interval (CI) fell completely withing the range of +/-20% indicated by the gray column.||||||0.05||95.0||||The original study design was powered to achieve at least 80% power to detect noninferiority with the two-tailed alpha level set at 0.05 for data with two measurements.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
90802407|NCT02891226|181483418|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.75||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.07|7.08|||Regression, Logistic|||||7.08|1.07|0.079
90802408|NCT02891226|181483418|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.92||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.01|12.07|||Regression, Logistic|||||12.07|2.01|0.003
90802409|NCT02891226|181483418|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.81|13.42|||Regression, Logistic|||||13.42|2.81|<0.001
90802410|NCT02891226|181483419|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.31||||0.241|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.55|33.58|||Regression, Logistic|||||33.58|0.55|0.241
90802411|NCT02891226|181483419|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.16||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.76|70.64|||Regression, Logistic|||||70.64|1.76|0.032
90802412|NCT02891226|181483419|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.04||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.82|91.32|||Regression, Logistic|||||91.32|2.82|0.009
90802413|NCT02891226|181483420|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.62|6.45|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.45|0.62|0.330
90802414|NCT02891226|181483420|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.72||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.02|16.21|||Regression, Logistic|||||16.21|2.02|0.006
90802415|NCT02891226|181483420|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.52||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.37|9.07|||Regression, Logistic|||||9.07|1.37|0.029
90802416|NCT02891226|181483421|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.234||0.007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.03|-0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.25|-1.03|0.007
90802417|NCT02891226|181483421|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.21|-0.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.45|-1.21|<0.001
90802418|NCT02891226|181483421|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.188||0.005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.84|-0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.22|-0.84|0.005
90802419|NCT02891226|181483423|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|24.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.358|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|13.53|34.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||34.56|13.53|<0.001
90802420|NCT02891226|181483423|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|29.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.421|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|18.84|40.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||40.08|18.84|<0.001
91054396|NCT02912650|181990998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|42.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.44|56.44|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||56.44|29.44|<0.001
90802421|NCT02891226|181483423|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|25.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.185|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|16.67|33.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||33.82|16.67|<0.001
90802422|NCT02891226|181483424|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|7.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.072|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.48|11.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.34|4.48|<0.001
90802423|NCT02891226|181483424|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|6.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.102||0.004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.72|9.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.67|2.72|0.004
90802424|NCT02891226|181483424|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|6.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.686|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.94|9.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.51|3.94|<0.001
90802425|NCT02891226|181483425|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|5.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.927||0.008|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.95|8.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mental Component Summary (MCS)||8.32|1.95|0.008
90802426|NCT02891226|181483425|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|4.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.951||0.033|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|7.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mental Component Summary (MCS)||7.41|0.96|0.033
90802427|NCT02891226|181483425|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|3.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.589||0.021|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.08|6.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mental Component Summary (MCS)||6.34|1.08|0.021
90802428|NCT02891226|181483425|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|1.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.319||0.229|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.59|3.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Physical Component Summary (PCS)||3.77|-0.59|0.229
90802429|NCT02891226|181483425|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|4.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.349|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.67|7.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Physical Component Summary (PCS)||7.14|2.67|<0.001
90802430|NCT02891226|181483425|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.078||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.81|5.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Physical Component Summary (PCS)||5.38|1.81|0.001
90802431|NCT01445847|181483435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|5.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|9.1|||Comparison of proportions|||We used incidence reported to AIMS study to calculate the sample size of this study. We set the null hypothesis as (percentage point of laryngospasm incidence in placebo group (µ1) - percentage point of laryngospasm incidence in Lidocaine group (µ2) = 0), with alternative hypothesis is (µ1 \> µ2) by 5% was analyzed by comparison of two proportions. A sample size of 380 patients (190 per group) was adequate to detect a 5-percentage point difference in the incidence with 80% power and p = 0.05.||9.1|1.7|<0.05
90802432|NCT01102491|181483491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91013447|NCT00643851|181909500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4191|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.66||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05. Significance was claimed only if DAPA 5MG + MET is superior to both controls.|ANCOVA|||||0.66|-0.98|
91013448|NCT00643851|181909500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4201|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.74||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05. Significance was claimed only if DAPA 5MG + MET is superior to both controls.|ANCOVA|||||-0.74|-2.40|
91013449|NCT02549040|181909550|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|1.09||||||Comparison of Treatment B: MK-1439 150 mg tablet (40% drug loaded granule) vs. Treatment A: MK-1439 100 mg film coated tablet||1.09|0.85|
90802433|NCT02137070|181483520|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||Voxel-size (p-FWE \< 0.01) and voxel-peak (p-unc \< 0.001) were corrected for multiple comparisons.|2x2 Factorial ANOVA in CONN|2x2 Factorial ANOVA in CONN - Group (Bariatric surgery vs. control) \& time (pre-surgery baseline vs. 18-month follow-up)||Analysis of variance comparing change scores from 18 months post-surgery relative to pre-surgical baseline were performed. Change in the surgical group was compared to change for the non-surgical controls. The dependent measures were connectivity strengths seeding from the hippocampus and left dorsal lateral pre-frontal cortex to other cortical areas.||||<0.01
90802434|NCT00620373|181483563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Significant difference p ≤ 0.05||||.016
91013450|NCT02549040|181909550|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.02|1.26||||||Comparison of Treatment C: MK-1439 150 mg tablet (30% drug loaded granule) vs. Treatment A: MK-1439 100 mg film coated tablet||1.26|1.02|
91013451|NCT02549040|181909550|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.11||||||Comparison of Treatment D: MK-1439 150 mg tablet (50% drug loaded granule) vs. Treatment A: MK-1439 100 mg film coated tablet||1.11|0.88|
91013452|NCT02549040|181909550|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|0.99||||||Comparison of Treatment E: MK-1439 100 mg tablet (30% drug loaded granule) vs. Treatment A: MK-1439 100 mg film coated tablet||0.99|0.80|
90802435|NCT00620373|181483563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07||95.0|||||McNemar|||significant difference p ≤ 0.05||||.07
90802436|NCT00620373|181483564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016||95.0|||||McNemar|||For all cancers; significant difference p ≤ 0.05||||.016
90802437|NCT00620373|181483564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07||95.0|||||McNemar|||For all cancers; significant difference p ≤ 0.05||||.07
90802438|NCT00620373|181483564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.063||95.0|||||McNemar|||For invasive cancers; significant difference p ≤ 0.05||||.063
90802439|NCT00620373|181483564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.063||95.0|||||McNemar|||For invasive cancers; significant difference p ≤ 0.05||||.063
90802440|NCT00620373|181483564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5||95.0|||||McNemar|||For ductal carcinoma in situ; significant difference p ≤ 0.05||||.5
90802441|NCT00620373|181483564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||McNemar|||For ductal carcinoma in situ; significant difference p ≤ 0.05||||>.99
90802442|NCT00620373|181483566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||McNemar|||significant difference p ≤ 0.05||||<.001
91013453|NCT02549040|181909551|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.79|0.98||||||Comparison of Treatment B: MK-1439 150 mg tablet (40% drug loaded granule) vs. Treatment A: MK-1439 100 mg film coated tablet||0.98|0.79|
91013454|NCT02549040|181909551|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|1.21||||||Comparison of Treatment C: MK-1439 150 mg tablet (30% drug loaded granule) vs. Treatment A: MK-1439 100 mg film coated tablet||1.21|0.98|
91013455|NCT02549040|181909551|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|1.0||||||Comparison of Treatment D: MK-1439 150 mg tablet (50% drug loaded granule) vs. Treatment A: MK-1439 100 mg film coated tablet||1.00|0.81|
91013456|NCT02549040|181909551|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.79|0.97||||||Comparison of Treatment E: MK-1439 100 mg tablet (30% drug loaded granule) vs. Treatment A: MK-1439 100 mg film coated tablet||0.97|0.79|
90802443|NCT00620373|181483566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.069||95.0|||||McNemar|||significant difference p ≤ 0.05||||.069
90802444|NCT00620373|181483567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||McNemar|||significant difference p ≤ 0.05||||<.001
90802445|NCT00620373|181483567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.218||95.0|||||McNemar|||significant difference p ≤ 0.05||||.218
90802446|NCT02975804|181483594|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||< 0.05
90802447|NCT02975804|181483595|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||< 0.05
90802448|NCT02975804|181483596|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||< 0.05
90802449|NCT02975804|181483597|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||< 0.05
90802450|NCT02975804|181483598|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||< 0.05
90802451|NCT02975804|181483599|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||< 0.05
90802452|NCT02975804|181483603|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||< 0.05
90802453|NCT02975804|181483604|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||< 0.05
91013457|NCT02549040|181909552|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.61|0.82||||||Comparison of Treatment B: MK-1439 150 mg tablet (40% drug loaded granule) vs. Treatment A: MK-1439 100 mg film coated tablet||0.82|0.61|
91013458|NCT02549040|181909552|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.75|1.01||||||Comparison of Treatment C: MK-1439 150 mg tablet (30% drug loaded granule) vs. Treatment A: MK-1439 100 mg film coated tablet||1.01|0.75|
91013459|NCT02549040|181909552|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6|0.81||||||Comparison of Treatment D: MK-1439 150 mg tablet (50% drug loaded granule) vs. Treatment A: MK-1439 100 mg film coated tablet||0.81|0.60|
91013460|NCT02549040|181909552|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.66|0.86||||||Comparison of Treatment E: MK-1439 100 mg tablet (30% drug loaded granule) vs. Treatment A: MK-1439 100 mg film coated tablet||0.86|0.66|
91013461|NCT02549040|181909553|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.72|0.93||||||Comparison of Treatment B: MK-1439 150 mg tablet (40% drug loaded granule) vs. Treatment A: MK-1439 100 mg film coated tablet||0.93|0.72|
91054397|NCT02912650|181990998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|9.23||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|18.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||18.40|0.06|0.048
90802454|NCT02956746|181483612|OTHER|||||||0.4187||||||threshold for significance p-values \< 0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.4187
90802455|NCT02630693|181483630|OTHER|As stated in the protocol, the primary objective of this trial is to estimate the hazard ratio and the corresponding 90% confidence interval. Therefore, we do not conduct any statistical hypothesis test for progression free survival.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.66|1.3|||||Hazard ratio of Palbociclib100mg arm vs 125 mg arm|||1.30|0.66|
90802456|NCT02630693|181483633|OTHER|As stated in the protocol, the objective of this trial is to estimate the hazard ratio and the corresponding 90% confidence interval. Therefore, we do not conduct any statistical hypothesis test for overall survival.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.67|1.69|||||Hazard ratio for Palbociclib 100mg arm vs 125 mg arm|||1.69|0.67|
90802457|NCT02763059|181483636|OTHER|Kruskal-Wallis||||||0.027||||||Kruskal-Wallis test, a non-parametric omnibus test, was used followed by Dunn's multiple comparison test for pairwise group analysis. A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Kruskal-Wallis|||The Kruskal-Wallis test is an omnibus test comparing all three independent groups.||||0.027
90802458|NCT02763059|181483636|OTHER|Kruskal-Wallis|||||<|0.0001||||||Kruskal-Wallis test, a non-parametric omnibus test, was used followed by Dunn's multiple comparison test for pairwise group analysis. A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Kruskal-Wallis|||The Kruskal-Wallis test is an omnibus test comparing all three independent groups on the pain/discomfort outcome.||||<0.0001
90802459|NCT01057693|181483660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.32||||0.1221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.09|||ANCOVA|||P-value was calculated using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), with terms for baseline mean pain score, center and treatment in the model.||0.09|-0.74|0.1221
90802460|NCT02413996|181483690|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.94|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.3||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.62|16.51|||t-test, 2 sided|||Does VRRS rehabilitation is superior to the traditional one?||16.51|-4.62|0.05
90802461|NCT00090779|181483704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.005
91013462|NCT02549040|181909553|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|1.18||||||Comparison of Treatment C: MK-1439 150 mg tablet (30% drug loaded granule) vs. Treatment A: MK-1439 100 mg film coated tablet||1.18|0.94|
91013463|NCT02549040|181909553|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.76|0.96||||||Comparison of Treatment D: MK-1439 150 mg tablet (50% drug loaded granule) vs. Treatment A: MK-1439 100 mg film coated tablet||0.96|0.76|
91013464|NCT02549040|181909553|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.74|0.94||||||Comparison of Treatment E: MK-1439 100 mg tablet (30% drug loaded granule) vs. Treatment A: MK-1439 100 mg film coated tablet||0.94|0.74|
91054398|NCT02912650|181990998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|58.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.93|71.49|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||71.49|45.93|<0.001
91013465|NCT02549040|181909556|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.75|0.94||||||Comparison of Treatment B: MK-1439 150 mg tablet (40% drug loaded granule) vs. Treatment A: MK-1439 100 mg film coated tablet||0.94|0.75|
91013466|NCT02549040|181909556|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|1.18||||||Comparison of Treatment C: MK-1439 150 mg tablet (30% drug loaded granule) vs. Treatment A: MK-1439 100 mg film coated tablet||1.18|0.95|
90802462|NCT00090779|181483705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
90802463|NCT01672879|181483715|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSMeans [SIM - Placebo]|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.5||||||A mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for each participant was used to calculate a point estimate and a 95% confidence interval (CI) for the treatment difference between each treatment arm and placebo in least squares mean (LSMean) change from baseline in HVPG at Week 96. With MMRM setting, all participants with available data from 3 treatment groups with change in HVPG at Week 96 contributed to the overall model.||1.5|-1.2|
90802464|NCT01672879|181483715|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSMeans [SIM - Placebo]|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.4||||||An MMRM with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for each participant was used to calculate a point estimate and a 95% CI for the treatment difference between each treatment arm and placebo in LSMean change from baseline in HVPG at Week 96. With MMRM setting, all participants with available data from 3 treatment groups with change in HVPG at Week 96 contributed to the overall model.||1.4|-1.2|
90802465|NCT01672879|181483716|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||Stratified log-rank test|||Differences in EFS between a given SIM group and placebo were assessed using the log-rank test stratified by HVPG category (\< 10 mmHg vs ≥ 10 mmHg) and presence or absence of diabetes at baseline.||||0.41
90802466|NCT01672879|181483716|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.065|||||||Stratified log-rank test|||Differences in EFS between a given SIM group and placebo were assessed using the log-rank test stratified by HVPG category (\< 10 mmHg vs ≥ 10 mmHg) and presence or absence of diabetes at baseline.||||0.065
90802467|NCT05069649|181483726|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0046|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0046
90802468|NCT05069649|181483727|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2488|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2488
90802469|NCT05069649|181483728|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
90802470|NCT05069649|181483729|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.32
90802471|NCT05069649|181483730|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.02
90802472|NCT05069649|181483731|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.49
90802473|NCT03951766|181483733|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-1.1||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was alpha=.05. We did not adjust for multiple comparisons, because this was a secondary outcome. The p-value is for a planned specific comparison of week 6 to baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|||||-1.1|-1.9|<.0001
90802474|NCT03951766|181483734|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-24.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.7|-17.1||We used hierarchical linear mixed models with maximum likelihood estimation to handle missing data, then used a planned, pairwise comparison to test for within-person changes between baseline and week 6.|t-test, 2 sided|||||-17.1|-32.7|<.0001
90802475|NCT03951766|181483735|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.4||We used hierarchical linear mixed models with maximum likelihood estimation to handle missing data, then used a planned, pairwise comparison to test for within-person changes between baseline and week 6|t-test, 2 sided|||PANAS positive affect||0.4|-0.0|0.06
90802476|NCT03951766|181483735|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1||We used hierarchical linear mixed models with maximum likelihood estimation to handle missing data, then used a planned, pairwise comparison to test for within-person changes between baseline and week 6.|t-test, 2 sided|||PANAS negative affect||0.1|-0.4|0.36
90802477|NCT03951766|181483736|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.1627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.4||We used hierarchical linear mixed models with maximum likelihood estimation to handle missing data, then used a planned, pairwise comparison to test for within-person changes between baseline and week 6.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.4|-0.1|0.1627
90802478|NCT03951766|181483737|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|6.3||We used hierarchical linear mixed models with maximum likelihood estimation to handle missing data, then used a planned, pairwise comparison to test for within-person changes between baseline and week 6.|t-test, 2 sided|||Single-item - past week||6.3|-3.8|0.62
90802479|NCT03951766|181483737|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|4.4||We used hierarchical linear mixed models with maximum likelihood estimation to handle missing data, then used a planned, pairwise comparison to test for within-person changes between baseline and week 6.|t-test, 2 sided|||Single-item - right now||4.4|-5.4|0.83
90802480|NCT03951766|181483738|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.6|18.7||We used hierarchical linear mixed models with maximum likelihood estimation to handle missing data, then used a planned, pairwise comparison to test for within-person changes between baseline and week 6.|t-test, 2 sided|||SEQ-12 - Internal||18.7|7.6|<.0001
90802481|NCT03951766|181483738|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.1|16.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||SEQ-12 - External||16.1|6.1|<.0001
90802482|NCT03951766|181483739|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.5||||0.0126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|9.8||We used hierarchical linear mixed models with maximum likelihood estimation to handle missing data, then used a planned, pairwise comparison to test for within-person changes between baseline and week 6.|t-test, 2 sided|||||9.8|1.2|0.0126
90802483|NCT03951766|181483740|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.6||||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|-2.0||We used hierarchical linear mixed models with maximum likelihood estimation to handle missing data, then used a planned, pairwise comparison to test for within-person changes between baseline and week 6.|t-test, 2 sided|||||-2.0|-11.1|0.0053
90802484|NCT03951766|181483741|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2||We used hierarchical linear mixed models with maximum likelihood estimation to handle missing data, then used a planned, pairwise comparison to test for within-person changes between baseline and week 6.|t-test, 2 sided|||ATS - Adverse Effects||0.2|-0.1|0.76
90802485|NCT03951766|181483741|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.5||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was alpha=.05. We did not adjust for multiple comparisons, because this was a secondary outcome. The p-value is for a planned specific comparison of week 6 to baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|||ATS - Psychoactive Benefits||-0.5|-1.0|<.0001
90802486|NCT03951766|181483741|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.3||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was alpha=.05. We did not adjust for multiple comparisons, because this was a secondary outcome. The p-value is for a planned specific comparison of week 6 to baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|||ATS - Pleasure||-0.3|-0.8|<.0001
90802487|NCT03951766|181483742|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1||We used hierarchical linear mixed models with maximum likelihood estimation to handle missing data, then used a planned, pairwise comparison to test for within-person changes between baseline and week 6.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.1|-0.3|0.25
91013467|NCT02549040|181909556|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.76|0.95||||||Comparison of Treatment D: MK-1439 150 mg tablet (50% drug loaded granule) vs. Treatment A: MK-1439 100 mg film coated tablet||0.95|0.76|
91013468|NCT02549040|181909556|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.77|0.96||||||Comparison of Treatment E: MK-1439 100 mg tablet (30% drug loaded granule) vs. Treatment A: MK-1439 100 mg film coated tablet||0.96|0.77|
91013469|NCT01694849|181909783|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.092||||0.8539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.427|2.795||To deal with multiplicity of comparisons, a step-down approach was adopted to control the type I error to 0.05. The contrast GFT120 mg versus placebo was examined first. If not significant the GFT 80mg versus placebo contrast was not examined.|Regression, Logistic|Baseline NAS, Log transformed baseline aspartate aminotransferase and baseline plasminogen activator inhibitor 1 values|Standard error of the estimate|H\_01: OR\_80 less than or equal to 1 versus H\_11 : OR\_80 greater than 1 H\_02: OR\_120 less than or equal to 1 versus H\_12 : OR\_120 greater than 1||2.795|0.427|0.8539
90802488|NCT03951766|181483743|SUPERIORITY|DBI - Positive Experiences|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.2|-14.3||We used hierarchical linear mixed models with maximum likelihood estimation to handle missing data, then used a planned, pairwise comparison to test for within-person changes between baseline and week 6.|t-test, 2 sided|||||-14.3|-27.2|<.0001
90802489|NCT03951766|181483743|SUPERIORITY|DBI - Negative Experiences|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.9||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|2.3||"We used hierarchical linear mixed models with maximum likelihood estimation to handle missing data, then used a planned, pairwise comparison to test for within-person changes between baseline and week 6."|t-test, 2 sided|||||2.3|-8.1|0.27
90802490|NCT03951766|181483744|SUPERIORITY|Pros of Being Smoke-Free|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.1||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.9|-2.3||We used hierarchical linear mixed models with maximum likelihood estimation to handle missing data, then used a planned, pairwise comparison to test for within-person changes between baseline and week 6.|t-test, 2 sided|||||-2.3|-15.9|0.009
90802491|NCT03951766|181483744|SUPERIORITY|Cons of Quitting|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.1||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|3.6||We used hierarchical linear mixed models with maximum likelihood estimation to handle missing data, then used a planned, pairwise comparison to test for within-person changes between baseline and week 6.|t-test, 2 sided|||||3.6|-13.7|0.25
90802492|NCT03951766|181483745|SUPERIORITY|PSS total scores|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4||||0.0069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|-0.7||We used hierarchical linear mixed models with maximum likelihood estimation to handle missing data, then used a planned, pairwise comparison to test for within-person changes between baseline and week 6.|t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.7|-4.1|0.0069
90802493|NCT03951766|181483745|SUPERIORITY|PSS - Perceived Helplessness|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.1||We used hierarchical linear mixed models with maximum likelihood estimation to handle missing data, then used a planned, pairwise comparison to test for within-person changes between baseline and week 6.|t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.1|-0.5|0.0043
90802494|NCT03951766|181483745|SUPERIORITY|PSS - Perceived Self-Efficacy|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.1953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.4||We used hierarchical linear mixed models with maximum likelihood estimation to handle missing data, then used a planned, pairwise comparison to test for within-person changes between baseline and week 6.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.4|-0.1|0.1953
90802495|NCT03951766|181483746|SUPERIORITY|Brief COPE Self-distraction|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.8||We used hierarchical linear mixed models with maximum likelihood estimation to handle missing data, then used a planned, pairwise comparison to test for within-person changes between baseline and week 6.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.8|-0.1|0.087
90802496|NCT03951766|181483746|SUPERIORITY|Brief COPE active coping|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.209||||0.2866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.2||We used hierarchical linear mixed models with maximum likelihood estimation to handle missing data, then used a planned, pairwise comparison to test for within-person changes between baseline and week 6.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.2|-0.6|0.2866
90802497|NCT03951766|181483746|SUPERIORITY|Brief COPE denial|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.9296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4||We used hierarchical linear mixed models with maximum likelihood estimation to handle missing data, then used a planned, pairwise comparison to test for within-person changes between baseline and week 6|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.4|-0.4|0.9296
90802498|NCT03951766|181483746|SUPERIORITY|Brief COPE substance use|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.6599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.3||We used hierarchical linear mixed models with maximum likelihood estimation to handle missing data, then used a planned, pairwise comparison to test for within-person changes between baseline and week 6|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.3|-0.5|0.6599
90802499|NCT03951766|181483746|SUPERIORITY|Brief COPE use of emotional support|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.2315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.7||We used hierarchical linear mixed models with maximum likelihood estimation to handle missing data, then used a planned, pairwise comparison to test for within-person changes between baseline and week 6|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.7|-0.2|0.2315
90802500|NCT03951766|181483746|SUPERIORITY|Brief COPE use of instrumental support|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.6183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.6||We used hierarchical linear mixed models with maximum likelihood estimation to handle missing data, then used a planned, pairwise comparison to test for within-person changes between baseline and week 6.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.6|-0.3|0.6183
90802501|NCT03951766|181483746|SUPERIORITY|Brief COPE behavioral disengagement|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.2037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.7||We used hierarchical linear mixed models with maximum likelihood estimation to handle missing data, then used a planned, pairwise comparison to test for within-person changes between baseline and week 6.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.7|-0.1|0.2037
90802502|NCT03951766|181483746|SUPERIORITY|Brief COPE venting|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.2||We used hierarchical linear mixed models with maximum likelihood estimation to handle missing data, then used a planned, pairwise comparison to test for within-person changes between baseline and week 6.|t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.2|-0.9|0.0060
90802503|NCT03951766|181483746|SUPERIORITY|Brief COPE positive reframing|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.3045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.2||We used hierarchical linear mixed models with maximum likelihood estimation to handle missing data, then used a planned, pairwise comparison to test for within-person changes between baseline and week 6.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.2|-0.7|0.3045
91013470|NCT01694849|181909783|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.897||||0.816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.361|2.232||To deal with multiplicity of comparisons, a step-down approach was adopted to control the type I error to 0.05. The contrast GFT120 mg versus placebo was examined first. If not significant the GFT 80mg versus placebo contrast was not examined.|Regression, Logistic|Baseline NAS, Log transformed baseline aspartate aminotransferase and baseline plasminogen activator inhibitor 1 values|Standard error of the estimate|H\_01: OR\_80 less than or equal to 1 versus H\_11 : OR\_80 greater than 1 H\_02: OR\_120 less than or equal to 1 versus H\_12 : OR\_120 greater than 1||2.232|0.361|0.8160
91013471|NCT01694849|181909784|SUPERIORITY||difference in least square mean change|-0.27||||0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease Activity Score|Standard error of the least squares mean|"H0: difference in least squares (LS) mean change from baseline equal to 0 H1: difference in LS mean change from baseline not equal to 0~Population with baseline Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease Activity Score greater than or equal to 4"||0.2|-0.75|0.225
90802504|NCT03951766|181483746|SUPERIORITY|Brief COPE planning|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.2||We used hierarchical linear mixed models with maximum likelihood estimation to handle missing data, then used a planned, pairwise comparison to test for within-person changes between baseline and week 6.|t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.2|-1.0|0.0029
90802505|NCT03951766|181483746|SUPERIORITY|Brief COPE humor|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.8274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.4||We used hierarchical linear mixed models with maximum likelihood estimation to handle missing data, then used a planned, pairwise comparison to test for within-person changes between baseline and week 6.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.4|-0.5|0.8274
90802506|NCT03951766|181483746|SUPERIORITY|Brief COPE acceptance|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.0349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.9||We used hierarchical linear mixed models with maximum likelihood estimation to handle missing data, then used a planned, pairwise comparison to test for within-person changes between baseline and week 6.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.9|0.0|0.0349
90802507|NCT03951766|181483746|SUPERIORITY|Brief COPE religion|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.3451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.6||We used hierarchical linear mixed models with maximum likelihood estimation to handle missing data, then used a planned, pairwise comparison to test for within-person changes between baseline and week 6.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.6|-0.2|0.3451
90802508|NCT03951766|181483746|SUPERIORITY|Brief COPE self-blame|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.3||We used hierarchical linear mixed models with maximum likelihood estimation to handle missing data, then used a planned, pairwise comparison to test for within-person changes between baseline and week 6.|t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.3|-1.2|0.0006
90802509|NCT02623972|181483752|OTHER||Pathelogic Complete Response Rate|30.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Simon minimax two-stage design||Decision Rule: If the percentage of participants experiencing pathologic complete response (pCR) is ≤ 10% then the preoperative regimen is considered minimally effective. If the proportion of pCR ≥ 30% then the regimen is worthy of further study.|Null Hypothesis: the proportion of participants experiencing pCR is ≤ 0.10, Alternative hypothesis that proportion pCR ≥ 0.30. Hypothesized False Positive Rate(α)=10%; Hypothesized False Negative Rate(1-β)=10%.||||
90802510|NCT02623972|181483752|OTHER||Pathelogic Complete Response Rate|23.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Simon minimax two-stage design||Decision Rule: If the percentage of participants experiencing pathologic complete response (pCR) is ≤ 2% then the preoperative regimen is considered minimally effective. If the proportion of pCR ≥ 23% then the regimen is worthy of further study.|Null Hypothesis: the proportion of participants experiencing pCR is ≤ 0.02, Alternative hypothesis that proportion pCR ≥ 0.23. Hypothesized False Positive Rate(α)=5%; Hypothesized False Negative Rate(1-β)=10%.||||
90802511|NCT03800030|181483761|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.031|||||||t-test, 2 sided|degrees of freedom = 22 t-statistic = 2.305||||||0.031
90802512|NCT03800030|181483762|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.935|||||||t-test, 2 sided|degrees of freedom = 22 t-statistic = 0.083||||||0.935
90802513|NCT03800030|181483763|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 1 sided|degrees of freedom = 22 t-statistic = 1.833||||||0.040
90802514|NCT03800030|181483764|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 1 sided|degrees of freedom = 22 t-statistic = 2.174||||||0.020
91013472|NCT01694849|181909784|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.28||||0.254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease Activity Score|Standard error of the least squares mean|"H0: difference in least squares (LS) mean change from baseline equal to 0 H1: difference in LS mean change from baseline not equal to 0~Population with baseline Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease Activity Score greater than or equal to 4"||0.2|-0.76|0.254
91054399|NCT02912650|181990998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|6.64||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|14.67|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||14.67|-1.38|0.105
90802515|NCT03800030|181483765|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||t-test, 2 sided|degrees of freedom = 22 t-statistic = -0.623||||||0.540
90802516|NCT03800030|181483766|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|degrees of freedom = 22 t-statistic = 2.989||||||0.007
90802517|NCT02379052|181483776|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-1.7||||0.0304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.22|-0.16|||ANCOVA|A 2-step multiple imputation (MI) method addressed missing values (\[seeds = 12345 \& 54321 in the 2 steps respectively; number of imputations=50\]).|The confidence interval (CI) with p-value is based on treatment difference (dupilumab vs. placebo) of the LS mean using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment as fixed factor.|||-0.16|-3.22|0.0304
90802518|NCT02379052|181483777|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-26.45||||0.0312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.523|-2.387|||ANCOVA|A 2-step multiple imputation (MI) method addressed missing values (\[seeds = 12345 \& 54321 in the 2 steps respectively; number of imputations=50\]).|The confidence interval (CI) with p-value is based on treatment difference (dupilumab vs. placebo) of the LS mean using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment as fixed factor.|||-2.387|-50.523|0.0312
90802519|NCT02379052|181483778|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.8||||0.383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|0.96|||ANCOVA|A 2-step multiple imputation (MI) method addressed missing values (\[seeds = 12345 \& 54321 in the 2 steps respectively; number of imputations=50\]).|The confidence interval (CI) with p-value is based on treatment difference (dupilumab vs. placebo) of the LS mean using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment as fixed factor.|||0.96|-2.48|0.3830
90802520|NCT02379052|181483779|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-11.0||||0.4147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.46|15.467|||ANCOVA|A 2-step multiple imputation (MI) method addressed missing values (\[seeds = 12345 \& 54321 in the 2 steps respectively; number of imputations=50\]).|The confidence interval (CI) with p-value is based on treatment difference (dupilumab vs. placebo) of the LS mean using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment as fixed factor.|||15.467|-37.460|0.4147
90802521|NCT02379052|181483780|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|26.6||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.04|51.05|||Clopper-Pearson Exact||Difference is Dupilumab minus Placebo. CI = Confidence interval calculated using Clopper-Pearson Exact method|||51.05|-3.04|0.0490
90802522|NCT02379052|181483781|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|26.6||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.04|51.05|||Clopper-Pearson Exact||Difference is Dupilumab minus Placebo. CI = Confidence interval calculated using Clopper-Pearson Exact method|||51.05|-3.04|0.0490
90802523|NCT02379052|181483782|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-23.23||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.677|3.212|||ANCOVA|A 2-step multiple imputation (MI) method addressed missing values (\[seeds = 12345 \& 54321 in the 2 steps respectively; number of imputations=50\]).|The confidence interval (CI) with p-value is based on treatment difference (dupilumab vs. placebo) of the LS mean using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment as fixed factor.|||3.212|-49.677|0.0850
90802524|NCT02379052|181483783|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-13.9||||0.0635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.54|0.78|||ANCOVA|A 2-step multiple imputation (MI) method addressed missing values (\[seeds = 12345 \& 54321 in the 2 steps respectively; number of imputations=50\]).|The confidence interval (CI) with p-value is based on treatment difference (dupilumab vs. placebo) of the LS mean using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement and baseline SDI score as covariates and the treatment as fixed factor.|||0.78|-28.54|0.0635
90802525|NCT02379052|181483784|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-33.65||||0.0608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.828|1.536|||ANCOVA|A 2-step multiple imputation (MI) method addressed missing values (\[seeds = 12345 \& 54321 in the 2 steps respectively; number of imputations=50\])|The confidence interval (CI) with p-value is based on treatment difference (dupilumab vs. placebo) of the LS mean using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement and baseline SDI score as covariates and the treatment as fixed factor.|||1.536|-68.828|0.0608
90802526|NCT02379052|181483785|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-21.1||||0.0318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.42|-1.86|||ANCOVA|A 2-step multiple imputation (MI) method addressed missing values (\[seeds = 12345 \& 54321 in the 2 steps respectively; number of imputations=50\]).|The confidence interval (CI) with p-value is based on treatment difference (dupilumab vs. placebo) of the LS mean using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement and baseline SDI score as covariates and the treatment as fixed factor.|||-1.86|-40.42|0.0318
90802527|NCT02379052|181483786|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|17.8||||0.1365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.54|43.55||P-values were derived by Fisher exact test|Clopper-Pearson Exact|CI = Confidence interval calculated using Exact method|Difference is Dupilumab minus Placebo|||43.55|-11.54|0.1365
90802528|NCT02379052|181483787|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|35.0||||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.69|58.34||P-values were derived by Fisher exact test|Clopper-Pearson Exact|CI = Confidence interval calculated using Exact method|Difference is Dupilumab minus Placebo|||58.34|5.69|0.0044
90802529|NCT02379052|181483788|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-107.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-141.215|-73.046|||ANCOVA|A 2-step multiple imputation (MI) method addressed missing values (\[seeds = 12345 \& 54321 in the 2 steps respectively; number of imputations=50\])|The confidence interval (CI) with p-value is based on treatment difference (dupilumab vs. placebo) of the LS mean using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement and baseline SDI score as covariates and the treatment as fixed factor.|||-73.046|-141.215|<0.0001
90802530|NCT02379052|181483789|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.6||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-0.68|||ANCOVA|A 2-step multiple imputation (MI) method addressed missing values (\[seeds = 12345 \& 54321 in the 2 steps respectively; number of imputations=50\])|The confidence interval (CI) with p-value is based on treatment difference (dupilumab vs. placebo) of the LS mean using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement and baseline SDI score as covariates and the treatment as fixed factor.|||-0.68|-2.50|0.0006
90802531|NCT02379052|181483790|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.33||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.053|0.72|||ANCOVA|A 2-step multiple imputation (MI) method addressed missing values (\[seeds = 12345 \& 54321 in the 2 steps respectively; number of imputations=50\]).|The confidence interval (CI) with p-value is based on treatment difference (dupilumab vs. placebo) of the LS mean using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement and baseline SDI score as covariates and the treatment as fixed factor.|||0.720|-0.053|0.0910
90802532|NCT04229888|181483795|NON_INFERIORITY|To establish non-inferiority of the treatment effect on the primary outcome change in DEQ-5 score, the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval on mean difference between the light based (sham) treatment and Lipiflow treatment were compared against a non-inferiority margin M=6 representing the largest clinically acceptable difference based on historical data.||||||0.02|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.02
90802533|NCT04229888|181483796|NON_INFERIORITY|To establish non-inferiority of the treatment effect on the primary outcome change in MG score, the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval on mean difference between the light based (sham) treatment and Lipiflow treatment were compared against a non-inferiority margin M= 1 representing the largest clinically acceptable difference based on historical data.||||||0.07|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.07
90802534|NCT04229888|181483797|NON_INFERIORITY|To establish non-inferiority of the treatment effect on the primary outcome change in TBUT, the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval on mean difference between the light based (sham) treatment and Lipiflow treatment were compared against a non-inferiority margin M=6 representing the largest clinically acceptable difference based on historical data.||||||0.66|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.66
90802535|NCT03328832|181483814|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence means p value \> 0.05||||||0.276|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.276
90802536|NCT03328832|181483815|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence means p value \> 0.05||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1
90802537|NCT03328832|181483816|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence means p value \> 0.05||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1
90802538|NCT04951622|181483824|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-1.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47|=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.38|-0.52|||mixed effects model for repeated measure|||||-0.52|-2.38|=0.002
90802539|NCT04570384|181483859|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.86|||Log Rank|||||2.86|0.45|0.782
90802540|NCT04570384|181483859|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|3.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.40|0.46|0.668
90802541|NCT04570384|181483860|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.58||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|4.22|||Log Rank|||||4.22|0.59|0.360
90802542|NCT04570384|181483861|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.49||||0.285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.83|||Log Rank|||||1.83|0.13|0.285
90802543|NCT04570384|181483861|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|2.41|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.41|0.15|0.471
90802544|NCT04570384|181483867|OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|0.81||||0.668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.2|||Zero-inflated negative binomial analyses|||||2.20|0.30|0.668
90802545|NCT04570384|181483867|OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio|0.66||||0.437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.9|||Zero-inflated negative binomial analyses|||||1.90|0.23|0.437
90802546|NCT04570384|181483868|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.35||||0.232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|1.97|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.97|0.06|0.232
90802547|NCT04570384|181483869|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|2.28|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.28|0.31|0.729
90802548|NCT04570384|181483870|OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|1.22||||0.706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|3.44|||Zero-inflated negative binomial analyses|||||3.44|0.43|0.706
90802549|NCT04570384|181483870|OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio|1.12||||0.788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|2.56|||Zero-inflated negative binomial analyses|||||2.56|0.49|0.788
90802550|NCT04570384|181483871|OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio|1.08||||0.834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|2.25|||Negative binomial analysis|||||2.25|0.52|0.834
90802551|NCT03265145|181483874|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.72|||||"Cox proportional hazards model with baseline ICS prior use as a covariate was used to estimate the hazard ratio (HR) and the two-sided 95% Wald confidence interval (CI).~Ratio: Stiolto Respimat/triple therapy."|||1.72|0.87|
90802552|NCT03265145|181483875|OTHER||adjusted annual rate ratio|1.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|2.04|||||Ratio: Stiolto Respimat/triple therapy|||2.04|0.97|
90802553|NCT03265145|181483876|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.0|||||"Cox proportional hazards model with baseline ICS prior use as a covariate was used to estimate the hazard ratio (HR) and the two-sided 95% Wald confidence interval (CI).~Ratio: Stiolto Respimat/triple therapy."|||2.00|0.62|
91013473|NCT01694849|181909785|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.073||||0.8586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.493|2.339|||Regression, Logistic|Baseline Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease Activity Score.|Standard error of the estimate|Population with baseline Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease Activity Score greater than or equal to 4||2.339|0.493|0.8586
90802554|NCT03265145|181483877|OTHER||adjusted annual rate ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.01|||||Ratio: Stiolto Respimat/triple therapy|||2.01|0.58|
90802555|NCT03265145|181483878|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.64|||||Ratio: Stiolto Respimat/triple therapy|A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model with baseline ICS prior use as stratum was used to estimate the Risk Ratio (RR) (Stiolto Respimat versus triple therapy) of moderate or severe COPD exacerbations along with 95% CI.||1.64|0.89|
90802556|NCT03265145|181483878|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.036|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.022|0.094|||||Ratio: Stiolto Respimat/triple therapy|A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model with baseline ICS prior use as stratum was used to estimate the Risk Difference (Stiolto Respimat versus triple therapy) of moderate or severe COPD exacerbations along with 95% CI.||0.094|-0.022|
90802557|NCT03941483|181483879|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.174||||0.595|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.715|1.927|||Chi-squared|||||1.927|0.715|0.595
90802558|NCT03941483|181483880|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.297||||0.335|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.831|2.026|||Chi-squared|||||2.026|0.831|0.335
90802559|NCT03941483|181483881|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.025||||0.773|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.891|1.179|||Chi-squared|||||1.179|0.891|0.773
90802560|NCT03941483|181483882|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.038||||0.563|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.935|1.152|||Chi-squared|||||1.152|0.935|0.563
90802561|NCT03941483|181483883|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.174||||0.717|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.567|2.429|||Chi-squared|||||2.429|0.567|0.717
90802562|NCT03941483|181483884|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.614||||0.266|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.789|3.3|||Chi-squared|||||3.300|0.789|0.266
90802563|NCT02292537|181483887|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91||1e-07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|6.7|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and age at Screening and baseline HFMSE score as covariates.||||6.7|3.1|0.0000001
90802564|NCT02292537|181483888|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.59||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.09|14.91||Based on multiple imputation and logistic regression with treatment effect and adjustment for each participant's age at screening and HFMSE score at baseline.|Regression, Logistic|||||14.91|2.09|0.0006
90802565|NCT02292537|181483888|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportions|30.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.74|48.31|||||Difference in proportions of Nusinersen minus Sham Procedure are from multiple imputation procedure and are based on binomial proportions.|||48.31|12.74|
90802566|NCT02292537|181483889|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportions|13.8||||0.0811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.64|34.17|||Fisher Exact||Difference in proportions of Nusinersen minus Sham Procedure is based on exact unconditional confidence interval.|||34.17|-6.64|0.0811
90802567|NCT02292537|181483890|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.7|||||Based on ANCOVA with treatment as a fixed effect and adjustment for each participant's age at screening and number of milestones at baseline.|||0.7|0.2|
90802568|NCT02292537|181483891|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Differenec|3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|5.0|||||From multiple imputation procedure, based on ANCOVA with treatment as a fixed effect and adjustment for each participant's age at screening and derived total score at baseline.|||5.0|2.3|
90802569|NCT02292537|181483892|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportions|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.84|19.34|||||Difference in proportions of Nusinersen minus Sham Procedure is based on exact unconditional confidence interval.|||19.34|-21.84|
90802570|NCT02292537|181483893|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportions|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.1|22.1|||||Difference in proportions of Nusinersen minus Sham Procedure is based on exact unconditional confidence interval.|||22.10|-19.10|
90802571|NCT01444430|181483936|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The upper limit of the 95% CI of the hazard ratio will be used to assess statistical non-inferiority (non-inferiority margin=2).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.073|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.698|1.65|||Regression, Cox|||||1.650|0.698|
90802572|NCT01444430|181483937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.835||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.745|0.937|||Regression, Cox|||||0.937|0.745|0.002
90802573|NCT01444430|181483938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|5.4|||ANOVA|||||5.4|3.3|<0.001
90802574|NCT01444430|181483939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.7|||ANOVA|||||1.7|-0.5|0.272
90802575|NCT01444430|181483940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|-0.1|||ANOVA|||||-0.1|-0.2|<0.001
90802576|NCT01444430|181483941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|-0.06|||ANCOVA|||||-0.06|-0.10|<0.001
90802577|NCT01444430|181483942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.2|||ANOVA|||||-0.2|-1.0|0.004
91013474|NCT01694849|181909785|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.601||||0.2265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.747|3.432|||Regression, Logistic|Baseline Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease Activity Score|Standard error of the estimate|Population with baseline Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease Activity Score greater than or equal to 4||3.432|0.747|0.2265
90802578|NCT01444430|181483943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.739||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.518|1.055|||Regression, Cox|||||1.055|0.518|0.095
90802579|NCT01142388|181483948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.85|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|one-sided stratified log rank test, stratifying on: 1) gastroesophageal junction vs. esophagus, 2) squamous cell carcinoma vs. adenocarcinoma.||||||0.85
90802580|NCT01142388|181483949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|one-sided stratified log rank test, stratifying on 1) gastroesophageal junction vs. esophagus, 2) squamous cell carcinoma vs. adenocarcinoma.||||||0.50
90802581|NCT00802997|181483951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.035
90802582|NCT05265728|181484004|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean (LS mean)|0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.76|||||LS mean (95% Confidence Interval \[CI\]) lesions were obtained from a Poisson distribution model with no explanatory variables.|||0.76|0.18|
90802583|NCT05265728|181484005|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean|3.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|13.74|||||LS mean (95% CI) lesions were obtained from a Poisson distribution model with no explanatory variables.|||13.74|0.69|
90802584|NCT03046927|181484035|EQUIVALENCE|p values were obtained using generalized linear model with GEE for repeated measures.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||generalized linear model with dependent||Trend analysis was performed using generalized linear model with GEE for repeated measures.|||||<0.001
91054400|NCT02912650|181990998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|15.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.08|24.63|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||24.63|7.08|<0.001
91054401|NCT02912650|181990998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|51.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.76|65.04|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||65.04|38.76|<0.001
90802585|NCT03046927|181484036|OTHER||trend analysis|0.04|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|generalized linear model|p values were obtained using generalized linear model with GEE for repeated measures.|Trend analysis was performed using generalized linear model with GEE for repeated measures.|||||<0.01
90802586|NCT03046927|181484037|OTHER|p values were derived from trend analysis using generalized linear models|Mean Difference (Net)|0.507||||0.0241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.066|0.947||The p-value was derived from a statistical model adjusted for age, sex, and BMI|General linear models|||||0.947|0.066|0.0241
90802587|NCT03046927|181484038|OTHER|p values were obtained from a generalized linear model with repeated measures|Mean Difference (Net)|10.37||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|27.13||The p-value was derived from a statistical model adjusted for age, sex, and BMI|Regression, Linear|||||27.13|-6.40|0.23
90802588|NCT03046927|181484039|OTHER||trend analysis|0.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||generalized linear model|p values were obtained using generalized linear model with GEE for repeated measures.|||Trend analysis was obtained using generalized linear model GEE.|||<0.001
90802589|NCT01848977|181484045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Unpaired t-test was used to compare the difference between SrO2 and StO2.||||<0.05
90802590|NCT01032954|181484048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05||||||P-value threshold for significance: \<0.05|GLM= GENERAL LINEAR MODELS WITH REPEATED|||||||<0.05
91054402|NCT02912650|181990998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|42.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.44|56.44|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||56.44|29.44|<0.001
90802591|NCT01032954|181484049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05||||||P-value threshold for significance: \<0.05|GLM|||||||<0.05
90802592|NCT01693250|181484059|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.68|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is a feasibility and pilot study. We acknowledge that our sample size will not have adequate power to detect any statistically significant outcomes. We chose a sample size that would be large enough to assess feasibility and effect size and to accommodate recruitment within the study time and budget of this application. We hope to be able to estimate the effect size of the intervention.||||<.001
90802593|NCT01693250|181484060|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.66||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||We hypothesized the intervention group will have significant reduction of systematic blood pressure compared to the control group at 6 month follow up.||||.001
90802594|NCT03783962|181484065|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.003
90802595|NCT03783962|181484066|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.97
90802596|NCT03783962|181484067|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.08
90802597|NCT03783962|181484067|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.001
90802598|NCT03783962|181484067|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.001
90802599|NCT03783962|181484068|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.18
90802600|NCT03783962|181484068|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.40
90802601|NCT03783962|181484068|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.01
90802602|NCT03783962|181484069|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.40
90802603|NCT03783962|181484069|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.001
90802604|NCT03783962|181484069|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.001
90802605|NCT03783962|181484070|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.25
90802606|NCT03783962|181484070|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.001
90802607|NCT03783962|181484070|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.001
90802608|NCT03783962|181484071|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.26
90802609|NCT03783962|181484071|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.41
90802610|NCT03783962|181484071|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.02
90802611|NCT03783962|181484072|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.03
90802612|NCT03783962|181484072|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.02
90802613|NCT03783962|181484072|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.001
90802614|NCT03783962|181484073|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.58
90802615|NCT03783962|181484073|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.05
90802616|NCT03783962|181484073|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.01
91013475|NCT01694849|181909786|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.723||||0.5231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.267|1.958|||Regression, Logistic|Baseline value of the analyzed parameter|Standard error of the estimate|Population with baseline Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease Activity Score greater than or equal to 4||1.958|0.267|0.5231
91013476|NCT01694849|181909786|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.102||||0.8459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.415|2.924|||Regression, Logistic|Baseline value of the analyzed parameter|Standard error of the estimate|Population with baseline Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease Activity Score greater than or equal to 4||2.924|0.415|0.8459
91054403|NCT02912650|181990998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|9.23||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|18.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||18.40|0.06|0.048
91054404|NCT02912650|181990998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|58.71|||<|0.001||95.0|45.93|71.49|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores||71.49|45.93|<0.001
91054405|NCT02912650|181990998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|6.64||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|14.67|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores||14.67|-1.38|0.105
91054406|NCT02912650|181990998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|15.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.48|23.97|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||23.97|6.48|<0.001
90802617|NCT03783962|181484074|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.009
90802618|NCT03783962|181484075|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.12
90802619|NCT03458325|181484076|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The comparator arm was populated with claims data for patients who presented to the emergency department for worsening HF and were admitted to the hospital for ≤ 72 hours for the treatment of HF. The filter was further strengthened by analyzing diagnostic codes and resource utilization during their hospital stay to exclude hospitalizations other than Heart Failure.~Each subject from the Furoscix group was matched to controls in ratios ranging from 1:1 to 4:1."||-11,802.70|-22,187.90|<0.0001
90802620|NCT03458325|181484077|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|-6.4||||0.6765|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The comparator arm was populated with claims data for patients who presented to the emergency department for worsening HF and were admitted to the hospital for ≤ 72 hours for the treatment of HF. The filter was further strengthened by analyzing diagnostic codes and resource utilization during their hospital stay to exclude hospitalizations other than Heart Failure.~Each subject from the Furoscix group was matched to controls in ratios ranging from 1:1 to 4:1."||||0.6765
91054407|NCT02912650|181990998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|51.9|||<|0.001||95.0|38.76|65.04|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||65.04|38.76|<0.001
90802621|NCT03458325|181484078|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.3||||0.5856|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The comparator arm was populated with claims data for patients who presented to the emergency department for worsening HF and were admitted to the hospital for ≤ 72 hours for the treatment of HF. The filter was further strengthened by analyzing diagnostic codes and resource utilization during their hospital stay to exclude hospitalizations other than Heart Failure.~Each subject from the Furoscix group was matched to controls in ratios ranging from 1:1 to 4:1."||||0.5856
90802622|NCT03458325|181484079|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.9||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The comparator arm was populated with claims data for patients who presented to the emergency department for worsening HF and were admitted to the hospital for ≤ 72 hours for the treatment of HF. The filter was further strengthened by analyzing diagnostic codes and resource utilization during their hospital stay to exclude hospitalizations other than Heart Failure.~Each subject from the Furoscix group was matched to controls in ratios ranging from 1:1 to 4:1."||||1.000
90802623|NCT03458325|181484080|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|65.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||"The comparator arm was populated with claims data for patients who presented to the emergency department for worsening HF and were admitted to the hospital for ≤ 72 hours for the treatment of HF. The filter was further strengthened by analyzing diagnostic codes and resource utilization during their hospital stay to exclude hospitalizations other than Heart Failure.~Each subject from the Furoscix group was matched to controls in ratios ranging from 1:1 to 4:1."||||<0.0001
90802624|NCT03458325|181484081|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|12.8||||0.0443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|25.3|||t-test, 2 sided|P-value was obtained from the paired t-test statistic.||Analysis for Summary Score||25.3|0.4|0.0443
90802625|NCT03458325|181484082|SUPERIORITY|Statistical Analysis for the mean change in NT-proBNP over 30 days|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-122.6||||0.5133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-525.8|280.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||280.5|-525.8|0.5133
90802626|NCT03458325|181484082|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-719.9||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1406.5|-33.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical Analysis for mean change in BNP over 30 days||-33.2|-1406.5|0.0420
91013477|NCT01694849|181909787|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.638||||0.5229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.161|2.529|||Regression, Logistic|Baseline value of the analyzed parameter|Standard error of the estimate|Population with baseline Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease Activity Score greater than or equal to 4||2.529|0.161|0.5229
91013478|NCT01694849|181909787|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.433||||0.5646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.421|4.875|||Regression, Logistic|Baseline value of the analyzed parameter|Standard error of the estimate|Population with baseline Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease Activity Score greater than or equal to 4||4.875|.421|0.5646
90802627|NCT05226598|181484105|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.8335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.5||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG, predominant tumor histology, PD-L1 expression, and geographic region|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling; treatment as covariate stratified by ECOG, predominant tumor histology, PD-L1 expression, and geographic region|||1.50|0.87|0.8335
90802628|NCT05226598|181484106|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.5104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.23||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG, predominant tumor histology, PD-L1 expression, and geographic region|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling; treatment as covariate stratified by ECOG, predominant tumor histology, PD-L1 expression, and geographic region|||1.23|0.82|0.5104
90802629|NCT01282866|181484171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90802630|NCT02948582|181484193|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean|0.033||||0.1257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.009|0.075|||least squares mean|||"An analysis of covariance was used with change from baseline in trough FEV1 as the response, with factors for center, treatment, period, sequence, baseline FEV1 as a covariate and a random effect for subject nested within sequence.~A sample size of 34 subjects (42 with dropouts) provides 80% power to detect a 0.14L difference in mean change trough FEV1 between 2 groups at an alpha of 0.05 using a 2-tailed t-test and assuming a common standard deviation for change in trough FEV1 of 0.2."||0.075|-0.009|0.1257
90802631|NCT02948582|181484193|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean|0.072||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.113|||least squares mean|||"An analysis of covariance was used with change from baseline in trough FEV1 as the response, with factors for center, treatment, period, sequence, baseline FEV1 as a covariate and a random effect for subject nested within sequence.~A sample size of 34 subjects (42 with dropouts) provides 80% power to detect a 0.14L difference in mean change trough FEV1 between 2 groups at an alpha of 0.05 using a 2-tailed t-test and assuming a common standard deviation for change in trough FEV1 of 0.2."||0.113|0.030|0.0008
90802632|NCT02948582|181484193|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean|0.102|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.061|0.144|||least squares mean|||"An analysis of covariance was used with change from baseline in trough FEV1 as the response, with factors for center, treatment, period, sequence, baseline FEV1 as a covariate and a random effect for subject nested within sequence.~A sample size of 34 subjects (42 with dropouts) provides 80% power to detect a 0.14L difference in mean change trough FEV1 between 2 groups at an alpha of 0.05 using a 2-tailed t-test and assuming a common standard deviation for change in trough FEV1 of 0.2."||0.144|0.061|<0.0001
90802633|NCT02948582|181484193|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean|0.108|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.066|0.15|||least squares mean|||"An analysis of covariance was used with change from baseline in trough FEV1 as the response, with factors for center, treatment, period, sequence, baseline FEV1 as a covariate and a random effect for subject nested within sequence.~A sample size of 34 subjects (42 with dropouts) provides 80% power to detect a 0.14L difference in mean change trough FEV1 between 2 groups at an alpha of 0.05 using a 2-tailed t-test and assuming a common standard deviation for change in trough FEV1 of 0.2."||0.150|0.066|<0.0001
90802634|NCT02948582|181484193|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean|0.098|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.056|0.14|||least squares mean|||"An analysis of covariance was used with change from baseline in trough FEV1 as the response, with factors for center, treatment, period, sequence, baseline FEV1 as a covariate and a random effect for subject nested within sequence.~A sample size of 34 subjects (42 with dropouts) provides 80% power to detect a 0.14L difference in mean change trough FEV1 between 2 groups at an alpha of 0.05 using a 2-tailed t-test and assuming a common standard deviation for change in trough FEV1 of 0.2."||0.140|0.056|<0.0001
90802635|NCT02948582|181484194|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean|0.086|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.123|||least squares mean|||An analysis of covariance was used with change from baseline in standardized FEV1 AUC0\_12 as the response, with factors for center, treatment, period, sequence, baseline FEV1 as a covariate and a random effect for subject nested within sequence.||0.123|0.050|<0.0001
90802636|NCT02948582|181484194|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean|0.151|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.114|0.187|||least squares mean|||An analysis of covariance was used with change from baseline in standardized FEV1 AUC0\_12 as the response, with factors for center, treatment, period, sequence, baseline FEV1 as a covariate and a random effect for subject nested within sequence.||0.187|0.114|<0.0001
90802637|NCT02948582|181484194|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean|0.156|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.193|||least squares mean|||An analysis of covariance was used with change from baseline in standardized FEV1 AUC0\_12 as the response, with factors for center, treatment, period, sequence, baseline FEV1 as a covariate and a random effect for subject nested within sequence.||0.193|0.120|<0.0001
90802638|NCT02948582|181484194|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean|0.202|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.165|0.239|||least squares mean|||An analysis of covariance was used with change from baseline in standardized FEV1 AUC0\_12 as the response, with factors for center, treatment, period, sequence, baseline FEV1 as a covariate and a random effect for subject nested within sequence.||0.239|0.165|<0.0001
90802639|NCT02948582|181484194|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean|0.199|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.162|0.235|||least squares mean|||An analysis of covariance was used with change from baseline in standardized FEV1 AUC0\_12 as the response, with factors for center, treatment, period, sequence, baseline FEV1 as a covariate and a random effect for subject nested within sequence.||0.235|0.162|<0.0001
91013479|NCT01694849|181909788|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.382||||0.1983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.088|1.656|||Regression, Logistic|Baseline value of the analyzed parameter|Standard error of the estimate|Population with baseline Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease Activity Score greater than or equal to 4||1.656|0.088|0.1983
91013480|NCT01694849|181909788|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.288|3.466|||Regression, Logistic|Baseline value of the analyzed parameter|Standard error of the estimate|Population with baseline Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease Activity Score greater than or equal to 4||3.466|0.288|1.0000
91013481|NCT01694849|181909789|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.653||||0.3543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.265|1.609|||Regression, Logistic|Baseline value of the analyzed parameter|Standard error of the estimate|Population with baseline Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease Activity Score greater than or equal to 4||1.609|0.265|0.3543
91054408|NCT02912650|181990998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|43.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.15|57.07|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||57.07|30.15|<0.001
90802640|NCT02948582|181484195|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean|0.058||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.021|0.095|||least squares mean|||An analysis of covariance was used with change from baseline in standardized FEV1 AUC12\_24 as the response, with factors for center, treatment, period, sequence, baseline FEV1 as a covariate and a random effect for subject nested within sequence.||0.095|0.021|0.0028
90802641|NCT02948582|181484195|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean|0.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.063|0.137|||least squares mena|||An analysis of covariance was used with change from baseline in standardized FEV1 AUC12\_24 as the response, with factors for center, treatment, period, sequence, baseline FEV1 as a covariate and a random effect for subject nested within sequence.||0.137|0.063|<0.0001
90802642|NCT02948582|181484195|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean|0.105|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.068|0.142|||least squares mean|||An analysis of covariance was used with change from baseline in standardized FEV1 AUC12\_24 as the response, with factors for center, treatment, period, sequence, baseline FEV1 as a covariate and a random effect for subject nested within sequence.||0.142|0.068|<0.0001
90802643|NCT02948582|181484195|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean|0.135|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.098|0.173|||least squares mean|||An analysis of covariance was used with change from baseline in standardized FEV1 AUC12\_24 as the response, with factors for center, treatment, period, sequence, baseline FEV1 as a covariate and a random effect for subject nested within sequence.||0.173|0.098|<0.0001
90802644|NCT02948582|181484195|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean|0.128|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.091|0.166|||least squares mean|||An analysis of covariance was used with change from baseline in standardized FEV1 AUC12\_24 as the response, with factors for center, treatment, period, sequence, baseline FEV1 as a covariate and a random effect for subject nested within sequence.||0.166|0.091|<0.0001
90802645|NCT03810014|181484213|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.5||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|98.0|0.2|4.8|||Generalized estimating equations|||(Arm 3 + Arm 4) vs (Arm 1 + Arm 2)||4.80|0.20|0.01
90802646|NCT03810014|181484213|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio, log|1.025||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|98.0|1.002|1.049|||Generalized estimating equations|||(Arm 3 + Arm 4) vs (Arm 1 + Arm 2)||1.049|1.002|0.012
90802647|NCT03810014|181484213|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.6||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|98.0|-2.2|0.9|||Generalized estimating equations|||(Arm 1 + Arm 3) vs (Arm 2 + Arm 4)||0.90|-2.20|0.33
90802648|NCT03810014|181484213|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio, log|0.994||||0.332|TWO_SIDED|98.0|0.979|1.009|||Generalized estimating equations|||(Arm 1 + Arm 3) vs (Arm 2 + Arm 4)||1.009|0.979|0.332
90802649|NCT01107964|181484247|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.61
90802650|NCT01107964|181484248|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.57
90802651|NCT01107964|181484249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.44
90802652|NCT01107964|181484250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.48
90802653|NCT03579693|181484261|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|1.31|||Mixed Models Analysis||Interpretation of mean difference is for a typical participant, i.e. random effect of 0.|||1.31|-0.43|0.33
90802654|NCT03579693|181484261|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.82|||Mixed Models Analysis||Interpretation of mean difference is for a typical participant, i.e. random effect of 0.|||0.82|-0.90|0.93
90802655|NCT03579693|181484262|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.76||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.47|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Interpretation of mean difference is for a typical participant, i.e. random effect of 0.|||0.00|-3.47|0.050
90802656|NCT03579693|181484262|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28|1.05|||Mixed Models Analysis||Interpretation of mean difference is for a typical participant, i.e. random effect of 0.|||1.05|-2.28|0.47
90802657|NCT04970069|181484263|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric means|1.01||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.18|||Regression, Linear||The numerator and denominator for the ratio of geometric means are analgesic education and general preoperative education respectively.|Multiple imputation by chained equations (MICE) was used for imputing missing outcomes and covariates.||1.18|0.86|0.890
90802658|NCT04970069|181484264|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.2|||Regression, Linear|||||0.2|-0.3|0.617
90802659|NCT04970069|181484265|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.2|||Regression, Linear|||||0.2|-0.3|0.611
90802660|NCT00003869|181484291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.54
90802661|NCT00003869|181484292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.18
90802662|NCT00003869|181484293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.50
90802663|NCT00003869|181484294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.04
90802664|NCT00003869|181484295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.18
90802665|NCT01272037|181484302|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.05|||Regression, Cox|A Cox model was used that included treatment arm, recurrence score, menopausal status, and the chemotherapy\*recurrence score interaction term.||This test describes the interaction of the treatment arm with the recurrence score in the analysis of invasive disease-free survival in the overall study population, to determine whether chemotherapy benefit depends on the recurrence score. If the interaction was statistically significant, the interaction term was planned to be included in the Cox model to evaluate the invasive disease-free survival outcome.||1.05|0.98|0.35
90802666|NCT01272037|181484302|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.71||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|2.54|||Regression, Cox|A Cox model was used that included treatment arm, recurrence score, menopausal status, and the chemotherapy\*menopausal status interaction term.||This test describes the interaction of the treatment arm with menopausal status (one of the study stratification factors) in the analysis of invasive disease-free survival in the overall study population, to determine whether chemotherapy benefit depends on menopausal status. If the interaction was statistically significant, separate analyses of IDFS were planned to be conducted by menopausal status.||2.54|1.15|0.008
90802667|NCT01272037|181484302|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.83|||Regression, Cox||To compare the Chemo and Endocrine Therapy arm to the Endocrine Therapy Alone arm, a Cox model was used with adjustment for the continuous recurrence score.|This analysis includes only premenopausal participants.||0.83|0.43|0.002
90802668|NCT01272037|181484302|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.26|||Regression, Cox||To compare the Chemo and Endocrine Therapy arm to the Endocrine Therapy Alone arm, a Cox model was used with adjustment for the continuous recurrence score.|This analysis includes only postmenopausal participants.||1.26|0.82|0.89
90802669|NCT01272037|181484309|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.87|||Regression, Cox|||This analysis includes only premenopausal participants.|To compare DRFS between the Chemo and Endocrine Therapy arm and the Endocrine Therapy Alone arm, a Cox model was used with adjustment for the continuous recurrence score.|0.87|0.39|0.009
90802670|NCT01272037|181484309|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.37|||Regression, Cox||To compare DRFS between the Chemo and Endocrine Therapy arm and the Endocrine Therapy Alone arm, a Cox model was used with adjustment for the continuous recurrence score.|This analysis includes only postmenopausal participants.||1.37|0.81|0.70
90802671|NCT00132301|181484325|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.11||Log rank test stratified by site.|Log Rank|||||1.11|0.58|0.40
90802672|NCT03163134|181484326|OTHER|||||||0.017|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.017
90802673|NCT03163134|181484327|OTHER|||||||0.577|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.577
90802674|NCT01890265|181484328|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|4.33|||=|0.0331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|8.3||The analysis of the change from Baseline to Week 48 in FVC (% predicted) was based on the random coefficient regression model based on observed cases.|Random coefficient regression|||The absolute LS mean treatment difference (pamrevlumab - placebo) for change from Baseline to Week 48 in FVC (% predicted) is presented.||8.3|0.35|= 0.0331
90802675|NCT01890265|181484329|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.8|||=|0.0236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-0.2|||ANCOVA with MI|||The absolute LS mean treatment difference (pamrevlumab - placebo) for change from Baseline to Week 24 in QLF score is presented.||-0.2|-3.3|= 0.0236
91054409|NCT02912650|181990998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|8.61||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|17.76|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||17.76|-0.55|0.065
91054410|NCT02912650|181990998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|58.71|||<|0.001||95.0|45.93|71.49|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||9 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||71.49|45.93|<0.001
90802676|NCT01890265|181484329|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.2|||=|0.0729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|0.3|||ANCOVA with MI|||The absolute LS mean treatment difference (pamrevlumab - placebo) for change from Baseline to Week 48 in QLF score is presented.||0.3|-6.6|= 0.0729
90802677|NCT01890265|181484330|SUPERIORITY||Absolute difference|-21.4|||=|0.0133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.6|-6.2|||Regression, Logistic|||The absolute treatment difference (pamrevlumab - placebo) for percentage of participants with IPF progression at Week 48 is presented.||-6.2|-36.6|= 0.0133
90802678|NCT04271540|181484340|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||Spearman's Rank Correlation|||||||0.35
90802679|NCT02101788|181484349|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.07|||||Estimation of treatment effect; Trametinib vs. SOC among patients with a mutation.|||1.07|0.28|
90802680|NCT02101788|181484349|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.03|||||Estimation of treatment effect; Trametinib vs. SOC among wild-type patients.|||1.03|0.39|
90802681|NCT02101788|181484349|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.0929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.08|||Chi-squared||Estimation of mutation effect; mutant vs. wild-type in the SOC group.|Prognostic effect of the mutation status among patients in the SOC arm.||1.08|0.34|0.0929
90802682|NCT02101788|181484349|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7195|||||||Chi-squared|||Predictive effect biomarker p-value||||0.7195
90802683|NCT04587869|181484351|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.07|||Regression, Logistic|Result was adjusted for HIV status and age (dichotomized at 50+ vs. \<50), as those characteristics were used to stratify sampling|Result is for indicator of assignment to intervention arm (vs. control)|Nonresponse weights were employed to account for potential bias from excluding participants who did not complete any follow-up assessments.||2.07|.73|.44
90802684|NCT04587869|181484352|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.47|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Result was adjusted for HIV status and age (dichotomized at 50+ vs. \<50), as those characteristics were used to stratify sampling|Result is for indicator of assignment to intervention arm (vs. control)|Nonresponse weights were employed to account for potential bias from excluding participants who did not complete any follow-up assessments.||||.47
90802685|NCT04587869|181484353|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Result was adjusted for HIV status and age (dichotomized at 50+ vs. \<50), as those characteristics were used to stratify sampling|Slope is adjusted regression coefficient for indicator of intervention arm (so mean of outcome across follow-ups was 0.19 higher for intervention vs. control)|Unlike the two primary outcomes which have a single value for each participant, for this outcome we employed a repeated measures style structure with one record for each of up to 3 FU observations. A sandwich estimator (SAS Proc Surveyreg) was employed to account for clustering of observations within participant. In addition, nonresponse weights were employed to account for potential bias from excluding participants who did not complete any follow-up assessments.||||.02
90802686|NCT03382912|181484358|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|5.9|||||Odds Ratio stratified based on tumor histology at randomization (interactive web response system (IWRS)), smoking status (IWRS). Confidence intervals were based on the Clopper-Pearson method.|||5.9|0.3|
90802687|NCT03382912|181484359|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.006|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.519|1.951|||||The estimate of the hazard ration (HR) stratified based on tumor histology at randomization (interactive web response system (IWRS)) and smoking status (IWRS).|||1.951|0.519|
90802688|NCT03382912|181484360|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.871|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.772|4.532|||||||The estimate of the hazard ration (HR) stratified based on tumor histology at randomization (IWRS) and smoking status (IWRS).|4.532|0.772|
90802689|NCT03382912|181484361|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|4.1|||||Odds Ratio stratified based on tumor histology at randomization (IWRS) and smoking status (IWRS). Confidence intervals were based on the Clopper-Pearson method.|||4.1|0.4|
91054411|NCT02912650|181990998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|6.64||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|14.67|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||9 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||14.67|-1.38|0.105
90802690|NCT01402869|181484372|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power of 80|||||<|0.001||||||LSD post hoc test was used for multiple group comparisons. P\<.05|ANOVA|LSD post hoc test was used for multiple group comparisons.||Null hypothesis: There is no statistically significant difference in peak methemoglobin blood levels following the administration of prilocaine, lidocaine, or no local anesthetic in pre-cooperative children undergoing comprehensive dental rehabilitation under general anesthesia.||||<.001
90802691|NCT01402869|181484372|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power of 80|||||<|0.001||||||P\<.05|Least significant difference post hoc|||LSD post hoc pairwise comparison||||<.001
90802692|NCT01402869|181484372|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power of 80|||||<|0.001||||||P\<.05|least significant difference post hoc|||LSD post hoc pairwise comparison||||<.001
90802693|NCT01402869|181484372|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power of 80|||||=|0.89||||||P\<.05|Least significant difference post hoc|||LSD post hoc pairwise comparison||||=.89
90802694|NCT01402869|181484373|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power of 80|||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|LSD post hoc test was used for multiple group comparisons.||Null hypothesis: There is no statistically significant difference in the time frame to peak methemoglobin levels following the administration of prilocaine, lidocaine, or no local anesthetic in pre-cooperative children undergoing comprehensive dental rehabilitation under general anesthesia.||||<.001
90802695|NCT01402869|181484373|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power of 80|||||=|0.43||||||P\<.05|Least significant difference post hoc|||LSD post hoc pairwise comparison||||=.43
90802696|NCT01402869|181484373|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power of 80|||||<|0.001||||||P\<.05|Least significant difference post hoc|||LSD post hoc pairwise comparison||||<.001
90802697|NCT01402869|181484373|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power of 80|||||<|0.001||||||P\<.05|Least significant difference post hoc|||LSD post hoc pairwise comparison||||<.001
91054412|NCT02912650|181990998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|13.98||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|22.67|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||9 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||22.67|5.30|0.002
90802698|NCT01402869|181484374|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power of 80|||||<|0.001||95.0||||P\<.05|ANOVA|LSD post hoc test was used for multiple group comparisons.||Null hypothesis: There is no statistically significant difference in delta methemoglobin blood levels following the administration prilocaine, lidocaine, or no local anesthetic in pre-cooperative children undergoing comprehensive dental rehabilitation under general anesthesia.||||<.001
90802699|NCT01402869|181484374|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power of 80|||||<|0.001||||||P\<.05|Least significant difference post hoc|||LSD post hoc pairwise comparison||||<.001
90802700|NCT01402869|181484374|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power of 80|||||<|0.001||||||P\<.05|Least significant difference post hoc|||LSD post hoc pairwise comparison||||<.001
90802701|NCT01402869|181484374|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power of 80|||||=|0.92||||||P\<.05|Least significant difference post hoc|||LSD post hoc pairwise comparison||||=.92
90802702|NCT00125788|181484381|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.076|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.076
90802703|NCT00125788|181484382|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.072|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.072
90802704|NCT00125788|181484383|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.129|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.129
90802705|NCT00707993|181484409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5||0.13|||ANCOVA|Treatment, randomization schedule, and geographic region as class effects; baseline value for the endpoint as a continuous covariate.||Primary null hypothesis: the average Week 52 HbA1c change from Baseline for alogliptin is inferior to that for glipizide (1-sided 97.5% CI \[alpha=0.025\] compared to non-inferiority margin of 0.4%). If the primary null hypothesis was rejected (non-inferiority demonstrated), an additional comparison for statistical superiority of alogliptin was performed. The CI was re-evaluated; statistical superiority declared if the upper limit was \< 0%.||0.13||
90802706|NCT03533660|181484474|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||Applies to SOCRATES subscales recognition, ambivalence, taking steps at 6 weeks|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.05
90802707|NCT03533660|181484474|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Applies to SOCRATES total scores and subscales (recognition, ambivalence, and taking steps) at intake and 3 months|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>.05
90802708|NCT03533660|181484475|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Applies to alcohol self-efficacy scale total score and subscales scores at intake, 6 weeks and 3 months|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>.05
90802709|NCT00600106|181484504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|All tests were two-sided with p values \<0.05.||||||0.36|||||||t-test (nonparametric Wilcoxon test)|||"Data were presented in tables as means and SDs for continuous variables and frequencies for categorical variables. Comparisons between the placebo and 1/10 NA/EE groups were don using Wilcoxon rank sum test for continuous measurement and Fisher's exact test for discrete data. The strategy of analysis was intention to treat with comparing the study groups in term of treatment to which they were randomly allocated."||||0.36
90802710|NCT00600106|181484505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.93
90802711|NCT00600106|181484506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|All tests were two-sided with p values \<0.05.||||||0.77|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||"Data were presented in tables as means and SDs for continuous variables and frequencies for categorical variables. Comparisons between the placebo and 1/10 NA/EE groups were don using Wilcoxon rank sum test for continuous measurement and Fisher's exact test for discrete data. The strategy of analysis was intention to treat with comparing the study groups in term of treatment to which they were randomly allocated."||||0.77
90802712|NCT00600106|181484508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|All tests were two-sided with p values \<0.05.||||||0.38|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||"Data were presented in tables as means and SDs for continuous variables and frequencies for categorical variables. Comparisons between the placebo and 1/10 NA/EE groups were don using Wilcoxon rank sum test for continuous measurement and Fisher's exact test for discrete data. The strategy of analysis was intention to treat with comparing the study groups in term of treatment to which they were randomly allocated."||||0.38
90802713|NCT00600106|181484512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test (nonparametric Wilcoxon test)|||"Data were presented in tables as means and SDs for continuous variables and frequencies for categorical variables. Comparisons between the placebo and 1/10 NA/EE groups were don using Wilcoxon rank sum test for continuous measurement and Fisher's exact test for discrete data. The strategy of analysis was intention to treat with comparing the study groups in term of treatment to which they were randomly allocated. All tests were two-sided with p values \<0.05."||||0.17
90802714|NCT00600106|181484513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.49
90802715|NCT00600106|181484514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.77
90802716|NCT00600106|181484515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.40
90802717|NCT00600106|181484516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.99
90802718|NCT00600106|181484517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.21
90802719|NCT00252512|181484518|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Above is calculated p value, a priori threshold for significance set at \<.05|GEE full factorial modeling|||||||<.001
90802720|NCT00252512|181484519|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015||||||a priori threshold of \<.05|t-test, 2 sided|||8 week analysis||||.015
91054413|NCT02912650|181990998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|51.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.76|65.04|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||9 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||65.04|38.76|<0.001
91054414|NCT02912650|181990998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|44.89|||<|0.001||95.0|31.51|58.26|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||9 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||58.26|31.51|<0.001
90802721|NCT00252512|181484519|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45||||||a priori threshold of \<.05|t-test, 2 sided|||6 month analysis||||0.45
90802722|NCT00252512|181484519|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0497||||||a prior threshold of .05|t-test, 2 sided|||12 month analysis||||.0497
90802723|NCT00252512|181484520|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||a priori threshold \<.05|Estimation Equation mean modeling|||Costs for period between 6 month follow-up and 12 month follow up.||||>.05
90802724|NCT00252512|181484520|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Estimating Equation mean modeling|||Costs for period between 6 month follow up and 12 month follow up.||||>.05
90802725|NCT00252512|181484521|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28||||||a priori threshold \<.05|Chi-squared|||Analysis for 8 week follow up||||.28
90802726|NCT00252512|181484521|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013||||||A priori threshold \<.05|Chi-squared|||Analysis for 6 month follow up||||.013
90802727|NCT00252512|181484521|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76||||||A priori threshold \<.05|Chi-squared|||Analysis for 12 month follow up||||.76
90802728|NCT00252512|181484522|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66||||||A priori threshold \<.05|Chi-squared|||Analysis for 8 week follow-up||||.66
90802729|NCT00252512|181484522|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37||||||A priori threshold \<.05|Chi-squared|||Analysis for 6 month follow up.||||.37
90802730|NCT00252512|181484522|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19||||||a priori threshold \<.05|Chi-squared|||Analysis for 12 month follow up.||||.19
90802731|NCT00252512|181484523|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||A priori threshold of \<.05|Chi-squared|||Analysis for 8 week follow-up||||.05
90802732|NCT00252512|181484523|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8||||||A priori threshold of \<.05|Chi-squared|||Analysis for 6 month follow-up.||||.80
90802733|NCT00252512|181484523|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12||||||A priori threshold of \<.05|Chi-squared|||Analysis for 12 month follow-up.||||.12
90802734|NCT01537315|181484527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4521|TWO_SIDED|||||A paired comparison between baseline CRP values with values obtained after 1, 3, and 6 months of treatment was conducted, with a p-value of 0.05 used as the a priori threshold of statistical significance.|ANOVA|||||||0.4521
90802735|NCT01169337|181484551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005|||||||Log Rank|stratified 1-sided log-rank test||||||0.0005
90802736|NCT05507567|181484563|OTHER|||||||0.0331|||||||Chi-squared|||A priori primary analysis group||||0.0331
90802737|NCT05507567|181484564|OTHER|||||||0.1427||||||Hodges-Lehmann (H-L) estimation|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|1-sided Wilcoxon rank-sum||||||0.1427
90802738|NCT05507567|181484565|OTHER|||||||0.1307||||||H-L estimation|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|1-sided Wilcoxon rank-sum||||||0.1307
90802739|NCT05507567|181484566|OTHER|||||||0.0382||||||H-L estimation|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|1-sided Wilcoxon rank-sum||||||0.0382
90802740|NCT05507567|181484567|OTHER|||||||0.011||||||H-L estimation|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|1-sided Wilcoxon rank-sum||||||0.0110
90802741|NCT04830215|181484587|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||MMRM included fixed effect terms for visit, baseline value, an interaction term of baseline value by visit, and trial center.|MMRM|||||||<0.0001
90802742|NCT04830215|181484588|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||MMRM included fixed effect terms for visit, baseline value, an interaction term of baseline value by visit, and trial center.|MMRM|||||||<0.0001
90802743|NCT01194219|181484601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|27.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.1|32.5|||Chi-squared|||||32.5|23.1|<0.0001
90802744|NCT01194219|181484602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.7|21.9|||Chi-squared|||||21.9|13.7|<0.0001
90802745|NCT01194219|181484603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Mean|-40.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.34|-35.21|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. The estimation and p-value were adjusted by the covariate.||||-35.21|-46.34|<0.0001
90802746|NCT01194219|181484604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Mean|-35.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.9|-30.6|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. The estimation and p-value were adjusted by the covariate.||||-30.6|-39.9|<0.0001
90802747|NCT01194219|181484605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|41.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.7|47.7|||Chi-squared|||||47.7|35.7|<0.0001
90802748|NCT01194219|181484606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Mean|-24.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.7|-19.8|||ANOVA|Based on an analysis of variance model for the change from baseline at Week 16, with treatment group as a factor (an ANOVA model).||||-19.8|-28.7|<0.0001
90802749|NCT01194219|181484607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Mean|-4.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|-3.6|||ANOVA||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 16, with treatment group as a factor, the baseline value, and the treatment by baseline interaction term as covariates.|||-3.6|-5.4|<0.0001
90802750|NCT01194219|181484608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|3.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.81|4.35|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. The estimation and p-value were adjusted by the covariate.||||4.35|1.81|<0.0001
90802751|NCT01194219|181484609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.8|20.7|||Chi-squared|||||20.7|12.8|<0.0001
90802752|NCT01194219|181484610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.649|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.768|3.969|||Log Rank|||||3.969|1.768|<0.0001
90802753|NCT03726658|181484615|EQUIVALENCE|Change from baseline in treated group compared to change from baseline in placebo group on Day 2 (Day 1 post initial dose). Statistical tests were 2-sided hypothesis tests performed at the 5% level of significance.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.24||0.98|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was P\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline in treated group compared to change from baseline in placebo group on Day 2 (Day 1 post initial dose). Since this was a phase 1 study no power calculation was performed.||||0.98
90802754|NCT03726658|181484615|EQUIVALENCE|Change from baseline in treated group compared to change from baseline in placebo group on Day 2 (Day 1 post initial dose). Statistical tests were 2-sided hypothesis tests performed at the 5% level of significance.|Median Difference (Final Values)|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.25||0.25|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was P\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change from baseline in treated group compared to change from baseline in placebo group on Day 2 (Day 1 post initial dose).||Change from baseline in treated group compared to change from baseline in placebo group on Day 2 (Day 1 post initial dose). Since this was a phase 1 study no power calculation was performed.||||0.25
90802755|NCT03726658|181484615|EQUIVALENCE|Change from baseline in treated group compared to change from baseline in placebo group on Day 2 (Day 1 post initial dose).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26||0.93|TWO_SIDED|||||Change from baseline in treated group compared to change from baseline in placebo group on Day 2 (Day 1 post initial dose).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline in treated group compared to change from baseline in placebo group on Day 2 (Day 1 post initial dose).||||0.93
90802756|NCT03726658|181484616|EQUIVALENCE|Change from baseline in treated group compared to change from baseline in placebo group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.02||0.43|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Chane from baseline in treated group compared to change from baseline in placebo group. Since this was a phase 1 study no power calculation was performed. Statistical tests were 2-sided hypothesis tests performed at the 5% level of significance.||||0.43
91054415|NCT02912650|181990998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|7.36||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|16.45|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||9 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||16.45|-1.73|0.113
91054416|NCT02912650|181990998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|56.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.95|69.94|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||10 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||69.94|43.95|<0.001
90802757|NCT03726658|181484616|EQUIVALENCE|Change from baseline in treated group compared to change in baseline in placebo group|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.02||0.84|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was P \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline in treated group compared to change in placebo group. Since this was a phase 1 study no power calculation was performed. Statistical tests were 2-sided hypothesis tests performed at the 5% level of significance.||||0.84
90802758|NCT03726658|181484617|EQUIVALENCE|Change from baseline in treated group compared to change from baseline in placebo group on Day 9|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.65||0.69|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was P\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in MADRS score in treated groups compared to placebo group on Day 9. Since this was a phase 1 study no power calculation was performed. Statistical tests were 2-sided hypothesis tests performed at the 5% level of significance.||||0.69
90802759|NCT03726658|181484617|EQUIVALENCE|Change in MADRS score in treated groups compared to placebo group on Day 9|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.66||0.44|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was P\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in MADRS score in treated groups compared to placebo group on Day 9. Since this was a phase 1 study no power calculation was performed. Statistical tests were 2-sided hypothesis tests performed at the 5% level of significance.||||0.44
90802760|NCT03726658|181484617|EQUIVALENCE|Change in MADRS score in treated groups compared to placebo group on Day 9|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.66||0.43|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was P\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in MADRS score in treated groups compared to placebo group on Day 9. Since this was a phase 1 study no power calculation was performed. Statistical tests were 2-sided hypothesis tests performed at the 5% level of significance.||||0.43
90802761|NCT03726658|181484617|EQUIVALENCE|Change in MADRS score in treated groups compared to placebo group on Day 15|Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.65||0.55|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was P\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in MADRS score in treated groups compared to placebo group on Day 15. Since this was a phase 1 study no power calculaton was performed. Statistical tests were 2-sided hypothesis tests performed at the 5% level of significance.||||0.55
90802762|NCT03726658|181484617|EQUIVALENCE|Change in MADRS score in treated groups compared to placebo group on Day 15.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.66||0.44|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was P\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in MADRS score in treated groups compared to placebo group on Day 15. Since this was a phase 1 study no power calculation was performed. Statistical tests were 2-sided hypothesis tests performed at the 5% level of significance.||||0.44
90802763|NCT03726658|181484617|EQUIVALENCE|Change in MADRS score in treated groups compared to placebo group on Day 15|Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.69||0.56|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was P\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in MADRS score in treated groups compared to placebo group on Day 15. Since this was a phase 1 study no power calculation was performed. Statistical tests were 2-sided hypothesis tests performed at the 5% level of significance.||||0.56
90802764|NCT03726658|181484617|EQUIVALENCE|Change in MADRS score in treated groups compared to placebo group on Day 22.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.74||0.8|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was P\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in MADRS score in treated groups compared to placebo group on Day 22. Since this was a phase 1 study no power calculation was performed. Statistical tests were 2-sided hypothesis tests performed at the 5% level of significance.||||0.80
90802765|NCT03726658|181484617|EQUIVALENCE|Change in MADRS score in treated groups compared to placebo group on Day 22.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.74||0.45|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was P\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in MADRS score in treated groups compared to placebo group on Day 22. Since this was a phase 1 study no power calculation was performed. Statistical tests were 2-sided hypothesis tests performed at the 5% level of significance.||||0.45
90802766|NCT03726658|181484617|EQUIVALENCE|Change in MADRS score in treated groups compared to placebo group on Day 22.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.77||0.67|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was P\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in MADRS score in treated groups compared to placebo group on Day 22. Since this was a phase 1 study no power calculation was performed. Statistical tests were 2-sided hypothesis tests performed at the 5% level of significance.||||0.67
90802767|NCT03726658|181484618|EQUIVALENCE|Change from baseline in treated group compared to change from baseline in placebo group on Day 11|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.36||0.43|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\>0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline in treated group compared to change from baseline in placebo group on Day 11. Since this was a phase 1 study, no power calculation was performed. Statistical tests were 2-sided hypothesis tests performed at the 5% level of significance.||||0.43
90802768|NCT03726658|181484618|EQUIVALENCE|Change from baseline in treated group compared to change from baseline in placebo group on Day 11|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.38||0.59|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was P\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline in treated group compared to change from baseline in placebo group on Day 11. Since this was a phase 1 study, no power calculation was performed. Statistical tests were 2-sided hypothesis tests performed at the 5% level of significance.||||0.59
90802769|NCT03726658|181484618|EQUIVALENCE|Change from baseline in treated group compared to change from baseline in placebo group on Day 14|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.44||0.35|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was P\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline in treated group compared to change from baseline in placebo group on Day 14, Since this was a phase 1 study no power calculation was performed. Statistical tests were 2-sided hypothesis tests performed at the 5% level of significance.||||0.35
90802770|NCT03726658|181484618|EQUIVALENCE|Change from baseline in treated group compared to change from baseline in placebo group on Day 14|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.48||0.82|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was P\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline in treated group compared to change from baseline in placebo group on Day 14. Since this was a phase 1 study, no power calculation was performed. Statistical tests were 2-sided hypothesis tests performed at the 5% level of significance.||||0.82
90802771|NCT03726658|181484618|EQUIVALENCE|Change from baseline in treated group compared to change from baseline in placebo group on Day 18|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.62||0.61|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline in treated group compared to change from baseline in placebo group on Day 18. Since this was a phase 1 study, no power calculation was performed. Statistical tests were 2-sided hypothesis tests performed at the 5% level of significance.||||0.61
90802772|NCT03726658|181484618|EQUIVALENCE|Change from baseline in treated group compared to change from baseline in placebo group on Day 18|Median Difference (Final Values)|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.69||0.47|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was P\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline in treated group compared to change from baseline in placebo group on Day 18. Since this was a phase 1 study no power calculation was performed. Statistical tests were 2-sided hypothesis tests performed at the 5% level of significance.||||0.47
90802773|NCT03726658|181484618|EQUIVALENCE|Change from baseline in treated group compared to change from baseline in placebo group on Day 21|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.48||0.76|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline in treated group compared to change from baseline in placebo group on Day 21. Since this was a phase 1 study, no power calculation was performed. Statistical tests were 2-sided hypothesis tests performed at the 5% level of significance.||||0.76
90802774|NCT03726658|181484618|EQUIVALENCE|Change from baseline in treated group compared to change from baseline in placebo group on Day 21|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.51||0.99|TWO_SIDED|||||Change from baseline in treated group compared to change from baseline in placebo group on Day 21|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline in treated group compared to change from baseline in placebo group on Day 21. Since this was a phase 1 study no power calculation was performed. Statistical tests were 2-sided hypothesis tests performed at the 5% level of significance.||||0.99
90802775|NCT05710640|181484619|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value is from comparing the proportion of JIA ACR 50 Responders between the two device groups using a Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
90802776|NCT05710640|181484620|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.294||||||P-value is from comparing the proportion of JIA ACR 50 Responders between the two device groups using a Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Week 4||||0.294
90802777|NCT05710640|181484620|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.637||||||P-value is from comparing the proportion of JIA ACR 50 Responders between the two device groups using a Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Week 12||||0.637
90802778|NCT05710640|181484620|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value is from comparing the proportion of JIA ACR 50 Responders between the two device groups using a Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Week 16||||1.00
90802779|NCT05710640|181484621|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value is from comparing the proportion of JIA ACR 30 Responders between the two device groups using a Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Week 4||||1.000
90802780|NCT05710640|181484621|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value is from comparing the proportion of JIA ACR 30 Responders between the two device groups using a Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Week 8||||1.000
90802781|NCT05710640|181484621|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62||||||P-value is from comparing the proportion of JIA ACR 30 Responders between the two device groups using a Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Week 12||||0.620
90802782|NCT05710640|181484621|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.576||||||P-value is from comparing the proportion of JIA ACR 30 Responders between the two device groups using a Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Week 16||||0.576
90802783|NCT05710640|181484622|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value is from comparing the proportion of JIA ACR 70 Responders between the two device groups using a Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Week 4||||1.000
91013482|NCT01694849|181909789|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.547|2.953|||Regression, Logistic|Baseline value of the analyzed parameter|Standard error of the estimate|Population with baseline Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease Activity Score greater than or equal to 4||2.953|0.547|0.5780
91013483|NCT01694849|181909790|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|1.24||||0.711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.33|7.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Change in aspartate transaminase (U/L)||7.81|-5.33|0.711
91013484|NCT01694849|181909790|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.94||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.58|5.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Change in aspartate transaminase (U/L)||5.7|-7.58|0.78
91013485|NCT01694849|181909790|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-6.13||||0.221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.97|3.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Change in alanine aminotransferase (U/L)||3.71|-15.97|0.221
91054417|NCT02912650|181990998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|6.07||||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|14.05|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||10 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||14.05|-1.91|0.136
90802784|NCT05710640|181484622|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value is from comparing the proportion of JIA ACR 70 Responders between the two device groups using a Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Week 8||||1.00
90802785|NCT05710640|181484622|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value is from comparing the proportion of JIA ACR 70 Responders between the two device groups using a Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Week 12||||1.000
90802786|NCT05710640|181484622|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.637||||||P-value is from comparing the proportion of JIA ACR 70 Responders between the two device groups using a Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Week 16||||0.637
90802787|NCT05710640|181484623|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.331||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with an outcome of change in JADAS-27 from Baseline and covariates of treatment and Baseline JADAS-27 score.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||||0.331
90802788|NCT05710640|181484623|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with an outcome of change in JADAS-27 from Baseline and covariates of treatment and Baseline JADAS-27 score.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||||0.500
90802789|NCT05710640|181484623|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.285||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with an outcome of change in JADAS-27 from Baseline and covariates of treatment and Baseline JADAS-27 score.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.285
90802790|NCT05710640|181484623|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.148||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with an outcome of change in JADAS-27 from Baseline and covariates of treatment and Baseline JADAS-27 score.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||||0.148
90802791|NCT05710640|181484624|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.294||||||P-value is from comparing the proportion of JIA ACR 50 Responders between the two device groups using a Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Week 12||||0.294
90802792|NCT05710640|181484624|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value is from comparing the proportion of JIA ACR 50 Responders between the two device groups using a Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Week 16||||1.000
90802793|NCT05710640|181484625|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.335||||||P-value is from comparing the proportion of JIA ACR 30 Responders between the two device groups using a Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Week 12||||0.335
90802794|NCT05710640|181484625|SUPERIORITY|P-value is from comparing the proportion of JIA ACR 30 Responders between the two device groups using a Fisher's exact test.||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 16||||1.000
90802795|NCT05710640|181484626|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value is from comparing the proportion of JIA ACR 70 Responders between the two device groups using a Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Week 12||||1.000
90802796|NCT05710640|181484626|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.471||||||P-value is from comparing the proportion of JIA ACR 70 Responders between the two device groups using a Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Week 16||||0.471
90802797|NCT05710640|181484627|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.592||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with an outcome of change in JADAS-27 from Week 8 and covariates of treatment and Week 8 JADAS-27 score.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.592
91013486|NCT01694849|181909790|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-9.45||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|0.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Change in alanine aminotransferase (U/L)||0.49|-19.4|0.062
91013487|NCT01694849|181909790|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-23.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.16|-18.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Change in Alkaline phosphatases (U/L)||-18.88|-27.16|<0.001
91013488|NCT01694849|181909790|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-23.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.04|2.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Change in Alkaline phosphatases (U/L)||2.12|-28.04|<0.001
91013489|NCT01694849|181909790|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-31.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.78|-19.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Change in Gamma-glutamyl transferase (U/L)||-19.05|-43.78|<0.001
90802798|NCT05710640|181484627|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.337||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with an outcome of change in JADAS-27 from Week 8 and covariates of treatment and Week 8 JADAS-27 score.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||||0.337
90802799|NCT00703963|181484692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Statistical significance was defined as p \< 0.05.||||0.20
90802800|NCT00703963|181484693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Statistical significance was defined as p \< 0.05.||||0.05
90802801|NCT00703963|181484694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Statistical significance was defined as p \< 0.05.||||<0.001
90802802|NCT03994211|181484695|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|1.06||||||||1.06|0.83|
90802803|NCT03994211|181484696|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|1.15||||||||1.15|0.95|
91054418|NCT02912650|181990998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|13.98||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|22.67|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||10 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||22.67|5.30|0.002
90802804|NCT03994211|181484697|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.54|0.7||||||||0.70|0.54|
90802805|NCT03994211|181484698|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.09||||||||1.09|0.91|
91054419|NCT02912650|181990998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|50.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.39|64.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||10 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||64.09|37.39|<0.001
90802806|NCT03994211|181484699|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.48|0.69||||||||0.69|0.48|
90802807|NCT03994211|181484700|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.09||||||||1.09|0.90|
90802808|NCT00503425|181484716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Change from baseline in mean DAS28 was analyzed using paired t-test for course 1.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90802809|NCT00503425|181484716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Change from baseline in mean DAS28 was analyzed using paired t-test for course 2.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90802810|NCT00503425|181484716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Change from baseline in mean DAS28 was analyzed using paired t-test for course 3.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90802811|NCT00503425|181484716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Change from baseline in mean DAS28 was analyzed using paired t-test for course 4.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0001
90802812|NCT02148263|181484720|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.83
90802813|NCT02148263|181484721|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.95
90802814|NCT02148263|181484722|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.94
90802815|NCT02148263|181484723|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.96
90802816|NCT02148263|181484724|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.14
90802817|NCT02148263|181484725|SUPERIORITY|This is for the upper eyelid evaluation.||||||0.27|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.27
90802818|NCT02148263|181484725|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||Fisher Exact|||This is for the lower eyelid evaluation.||||.58
90802819|NCT02148263|181484726|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Fisher Exact|||Extent||||.50
90802820|NCT02148263|181484726|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||Fisher Exact|||Type||||.76
90802821|NCT02148263|181484726|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Fisher Exact|||Depth||||.50
90802822|NCT02148263|181484727|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.32
90802823|NCT02148263|181484728|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.47
90802824|NCT00763256|181484734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
90802825|NCT00763256|181484735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
90802826|NCT00763256|181484736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
90802827|NCT00763256|181484737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
90802828|NCT00763256|181484738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
90802829|NCT00906178|181484747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.94||||||||1.94|.57|
90802830|NCT00906178|181484748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.65||||||||1.65|.62|
90802831|NCT00906178|181484749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|2.62||||||||2.62|.93|
90802832|NCT00906178|181484750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.3||||||||1.30|.37|
90802833|NCT02622295|181484754|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90802834|NCT02622295|181484755|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90802835|NCT02622295|181484756|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90802836|NCT02622295|181484757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.467|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.467
90802837|NCT02622295|181484758|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90802838|NCT02622295|181484759|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.932|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.932
90802839|NCT02622295|181484760|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.326|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.326
90802840|NCT02622295|181484761|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.673|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.673
90802841|NCT02622295|181484762|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.539|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.539
90802842|NCT02622295|181484763|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.155|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.155
90802843|NCT02622295|181484764|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.164|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.164
90802844|NCT02622295|181484765|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.493|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.493
90802845|NCT02622295|181484766|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.458|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.458
90802846|NCT01393899|181484767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|1.44|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-12.11|14.99||||||||14.99|-12.11|
90802847|NCT01393899|181484767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|17.72|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|4.07|31.37||||||||31.37|4.07|
90802848|NCT01393899|181484768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-11.57|12.79||||||Week 4||12.79|-11.57|
90802849|NCT01393899|181484768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-12.29|13.84||||||Week 8||13.84|-12.29|
90802850|NCT01393899|181484768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|5.81|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-8.04|19.67||||||Week 12||19.67|-8.04|
91013490|NCT01694849|181909790|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-29.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.84|-16.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Change in Gamma-glutamyl transferase (U/L)||-16.77|-41.84|<0.001
91013491|NCT01694849|181909791|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|0.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||0.21|0.06|<0.001
91013492|NCT01694849|181909791|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|0.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||0.26|0.11|<0.001
91013493|NCT01694849|181909792|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|141.78||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.99|308.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||308.55|-24.99|0.095
90802851|NCT01393899|181484768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-14.56|12.68||||||Week 20||12.68|-14.56|
91013494|NCT01694849|181909792|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-70.57||||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-239.85|98.71||Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Mixed Models Analysis||Standard error of the least square mean|||98.71|-239.85|0.412
91013495|NCT01694849|181909793|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|32.39||||0.592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-86.63|151.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||151.42|-86.63|0.592
91013496|NCT01694849|181909793|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|31.35||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-89.42|152.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||152.12|-89.42|0.61
91013497|NCT01694849|181909794|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|1.67||||0.459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.77|6.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||6.11|-2.77|0.459
90802852|NCT01393899|181484768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|5.26|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.52|17.04||||||Week 4||17.04|-6.52|
91013498|NCT01694849|181909794|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.67||||0.764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.06|3.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||3.72|-5.06|0.764
90802853|NCT01393899|181484768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-8.53|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-21.94|4.88||||||Week 8||4.88|-21.94|
90802854|NCT01393899|181484768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|3.49|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-10.4|17.37||||||Week 12||17.37|-10.40|
90802855|NCT01393899|181484768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|10.69|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.08|24.46||||||Week 20||24.46|-3.08|
90802856|NCT01393899|181484769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-1.72|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-14.06|10.63||||||Week 4||10.63|-14.06|
90802857|NCT01393899|181484769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-3.88|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-17.15|9.4||||||Week 8||9.40|-17.15|
90802858|NCT01393899|181484769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|5.81|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-8.04|19.67||||||Week 12||19.67|-8.04|
90802859|NCT01393899|181484769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|1.44|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-12.11|14.99||||||Week 20||14.99|-12.11|
90802860|NCT01393899|181484769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-11.88|14.87||||||Week 26||14.87|-11.88|
90802861|NCT01393899|181484769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|2.93|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-9.06|14.92||||||Week 4||14.92|-9.06|
90802862|NCT01393899|181484769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-8.53|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-21.94|4.88||||||Week 8||4.88|-21.94|
90802863|NCT01393899|181484769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-12.74|15.06||||||Week 12||15.06|-12.74|
90802864|NCT01393899|181484769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|13.07|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.63|26.77||||||Week 20||26.77|-0.63|
90802865|NCT01393899|181484769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|20.1|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|6.54|33.66||||||Week 26||33.66|6.54|
90802866|NCT01393899|181484770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|3.43|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-10.41|17.28||||||Week 4||17.28|-10.41|
90802867|NCT01393899|181484770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-12.67|15.11||||||Week 8||15.11|-12.67|
90802868|NCT01393899|181484770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|13.18|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.31|26.67||||||Week 12||26.67|-0.31|
90802869|NCT01393899|181484770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|1.61|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-11.33|14.55||||||Week 20||14.55|-11.33|
90802870|NCT01393899|181484770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|8.64|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.36|21.64||||||Week 26||21.64|-4.36|
90802871|NCT01393899|181484770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|5.76|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-8.04|19.56||||||Week 4||19.56|-8.04|
90802872|NCT01393899|181484770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-8.08|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-21.83|5.66||||||Week 8||5.66|-21.83|
90802873|NCT01393899|181484770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|1.55|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-11.63|14.73||||||Week 12||14.73|-11.63|
90802874|NCT01393899|181484770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|8.58|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.64|21.81||||||Week 20||21.81|-4.64|
91013499|NCT01694849|181909795|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-12.92||||0.466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.79|21.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||21.95|-47.79|0.466
91013500|NCT01694849|181909795|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-5.82||||0.745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.07|29.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||29.42|-41.07|0.745
90802875|NCT01393899|181484770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|13.29|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.15|26.43||||||Week 26||26.43|0.15|
90802876|NCT01393899|181484771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|6.57|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-8.63|21.78||||||Week 4||21.78|-8.63|
90802877|NCT01393899|181484771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-16.63|17.2||||||Week 8||17.20|-16.63|
90802878|NCT01393899|181484771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|24.29|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|7.19|41.38||||||Week 12||41.38|7.19|
90802879|NCT01393899|181484771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|6.86|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-10.32|24.03||||||Week 20||24.03|-10.32|
90802880|NCT01393899|181484771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|11.29|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.22|27.79||||||Week 26||27.79|-5.22|
90802881|NCT01393899|181484771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|8.77|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.41|23.95||||||Week 4||23.95|-6.41|
90802882|NCT01393899|181484771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-14.0|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-31.59|3.59||||||Week 8||3.59|-31.59|
90802883|NCT01393899|181484771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|2.31|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-15.35|19.97||||||Week 12||19.97|-15.35|
91013501|NCT01694849|181909796|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-26.57||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.59|-4.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|FG19||-4.54|-48.59|0.018
90802884|NCT01393899|181484771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|10.15|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-7.41|27.71||||||Week 20||27.71|-7.41|
90802885|NCT01393899|181484771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|22.0|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|4.96|39.04||||||Week 26||39.04|4.96|
90802886|NCT01393899|181484772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|1.83|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-9.75|13.4||||||||13.40|-9.75|
90802887|NCT01393899|181484772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|18.11|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|5.57|30.64||||||||30.64|5.57|
90802888|NCT01393899|181484773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-7.75|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-20.39|4.88||||||||4.88|-20.39|
90802889|NCT01393899|181484773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|17.83|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|4.33|31.33||||||||31.33|4.33|
90802890|NCT01393899|181484775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-30.26|||=|0.0637|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-51.1|-9.42|||Linear mixed-effects model||Parameter Type: Adjusted Mean Difference|Week 4||-9.42|-51.10|=0.0637
90802891|NCT01393899|181484775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-21.06|||=|0.3054|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-47.43|5.31|||Linear mixed-effects model||Parameter Type: Adjusted Mean Difference|Week 8||5.31|-47.43|=0.3054
90802892|NCT01393899|181484775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-42.52|||=|0.1316|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-78.57|-6.48|||Linear mixed-effects model||Parameter Type: Adjusted Mean Difference|Week 12||-6.48|-78.57|=0.1316
90802893|NCT01393899|181484775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Dofference|-18.01|||=|0.5704|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-59.01|22.99|||Linear mixed-effects model||Parameter Type: Adjusted Mean Difference|Week 20||22.99|-59.01|=0.5704
90802894|NCT01393899|181484775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-6.0|||=|0.8389|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-44.22|32.21|||Linear mixed-effects model||Parameter Type: Adjusted Mean Difference|Week 26||32.21|-44.22|=0.8389
90802895|NCT01393899|181484775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-23.56|||=|0.1452|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-44.27|-2.85|||Linear mixed-effects model||Parameter Type: Adjusted Mean Difference|Week 4||-2.85|-44.27|=0.1452
90802896|NCT01393899|181484775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-9.61|||=|0.6399|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-36.03|16.81|||Linear mixed-effects model||Parameter Type: Adjusted Mean Difference|Week 8||16.81|-36.03|=0.6399
90802897|NCT01393899|181484775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-37.0|||=|0.1949|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-73.57|-0.42|||Linear mixed-effects model||Parameter Type: Adjusted Mean Difference|Week 12||-0.42|-73.57|=0.1949
90802898|NCT01393899|181484775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-47.74|||=|0.1358|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-88.62|-6.87|||Linear mixed-effects model||Parameter Type: Adjusted Mean Difference|Week 20||-6.87|-88.62|=0.1358
90802899|NCT01393899|181484775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-50.38|||=|0.089|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-88.03|-12.72|||Linear mixed-effects model||Parameter Type: Adjusted Mean Difference|Week 26||-12.72|-88.03|=0.0890
90802900|NCT01393899|181484776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-7.44|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-16.14|1.26||||||Week 4||1.26|-16.14|
90802901|NCT01393899|181484776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-7.43|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-18.27|3.41||||||Week 8||3.41|-18.27|
90802902|NCT01393899|181484776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-12.48|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-25.68|0.72||||||Week 12||0.72|-25.68|
90802903|NCT01393899|181484776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-12.73|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-26.81|1.34||||||Week 20||1.34|-26.81|
90802904|NCT01393899|181484776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-18.9|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-39.52|1.72||||||Week 26||1.72|-39.52|
90802905|NCT01393899|181484776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-2.96|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-12.39|6.48||||||Week 4||6.48|-12.39|
90802906|NCT01393899|181484776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|1.61|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-10.14|13.36||||||Week 8||13.36|-10.14|
90802907|NCT01393899|181484776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-8.09|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-21.54|5.36||||||Week 12||5.36|-21.54|
90802908|NCT01393899|181484776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-12.9|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-26.99|1.19||||||Week 20||1.19|-26.99|
90802909|NCT01393899|181484776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-26.28|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-46.54|-6.02||||||Week 26||-6.02|-46.54|
90802910|NCT01393899|181484777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|10.61|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-11.44|32.66||||||||32.66|-11.44|
90802911|NCT01393899|181484777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|16.67|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.15|37.49||||||||37.49|-4.15|
90802912|NCT01393899|181484779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.93|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|-0.53|||Linear mixed-effects model||Parameter Type: Adjusted Mean Difference|Week 4||-0.53|-1.34|<0.0001
90802913|NCT01393899|181484779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.76|||=|0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|-0.28|||Linear mixed-effects model||Parameter Type: Adjusted Mean Difference|Week 8||-0.28|-1.24|=0.0024
91013502|NCT01694849|181909796|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-40.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.61|-18.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|FG19||-18.17|-62.61|<0.001
91013503|NCT01694849|181909796|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|190.07||||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.38|417.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|FG21||417.52|-37.38|0.101
91013504|NCT01694849|181909796|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|228.33||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|458.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|FG21||458.82|-2.16|0.052
91013505|NCT01694849|181909797|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.14||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|-0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||-0.01|-0.29|0.002
91013506|NCT01694849|181909797|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|-0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||-0.15|-0.34|<0.001
91054420|NCT02912650|181990998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|43.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.56|56.75|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||10 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||56.75|29.56|<0.001
91054421|NCT02912650|181990998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|7.91||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|16.97|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||10 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||16.97|-1.15|0.087
91054422|NCT02912650|181990998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|56.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.95|69.94|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||69.94|43.95|<0.001
91054423|NCT02912650|181990998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|6.07||||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|14.05|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||14.05|-1.91|0.136
91013507|NCT01694849|181909798|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-16.54||||0.203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.07|8.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Hyaluronic acid||8.98|-42.07|0.203
91013508|NCT01694849|181909798|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-6.79||||0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.49|18.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||18.9|-32.49|0.603
91013509|NCT01694849|181909798|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.73||||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|0.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|PIIINP||0.48|-1.95|0.235
91013510|NCT01694849|181909798|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.81||||0.193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|PIIINP||0.41|-2.04|0.193
91013511|NCT01694849|181909798|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|6.21||||0.348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.81|19.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|TIMP-1||19.22|-6.81|0.348
91013512|NCT01694849|181909798|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-14.66||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.81|1.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|TIMP-1||1.51|-27.81|0.029
91013513|NCT01694849|181909799|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||-0.02|-0.07|<0.001
90802914|NCT01393899|181484779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.75|||=|0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|-0.24|||Linear mixed-effects model||Parameter Type: Adjusted Mean Difference|Week 12||-0.24|-1.26|=0.0044
91013514|NCT01694849|181909799|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||-0.02|-0.08|<0.001
91013515|NCT01694849|181909800|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|-0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||-0.07|-0.15|<0.001
91013516|NCT01694849|181909800|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|-0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||-0.07|-0.15|<0.001
91013517|NCT01694849|181909801|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|0.06||||0.471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||0.23|-0.11|0.471
91013518|NCT01694849|181909801|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.25||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||-0.08|-0.42|0.005
91013519|NCT01694849|181909802|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.07||||0.457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||0.12|-0.27|0.457
91054424|NCT02912650|181990998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|13.98||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|22.67|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||22.67|5.30|0.002
91054425|NCT02912650|181990998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|50.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.39|64.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||64.09|37.39|<0.001
91013520|NCT01694849|181909802|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean|-0.08||||0.428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||0.12|-0.28|0.428
90802915|NCT01393899|181484779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.56|||=|0.0582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|0.02|||Linear mixed-effects model||Parameter Type: Adjusted Mean Difference|Week 20||0.02|-1.13|=0.0582
90802916|NCT01393899|181484779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.61|||=|0.0865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|0.09|||Linear mixed-effects model||Parameter Type: Adjusted Mean Difference|Week 26||0.09|-1.31|=0.0865
90802917|NCT01393899|181484779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.92|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|-0.52|||Linear mixed-effects model||Parameter Type: Adjusted Mean Difference|Week 4||-0.52|-1.32|<0.0001
90802918|NCT01393899|181484779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.92|||=|0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.45|||Linear mixed-effects model||Parameter Type: Adjusted Mean Difference|Week 8||-0.45|-1.40|=0.0002
90802919|NCT01393899|181484779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|-0.71|||Linear mixed-effects model||Parameter Type: Adjusted Mean Difference|Week 12||-0.71|-1.75|<0.0001
90802920|NCT01393899|181484779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|-0.74|||Linear mixed-effects model||Parameter Type: Adjusted Mean Difference|Week 20||-0.74|-1.87|<0.0001
91013521|NCT01694849|181909803|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-9.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.19|-5.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||-5.24|-13.19|<0.001
91013522|NCT01694849|181909803|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-9.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.12|-5.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||-5.04|-13.12|<0.001
90802921|NCT01393899|181484779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.95|||Linear mixed-effects model||Parameter Type: Adjusted Mean Difference|Week 26||-0.95|-2.30|<0.0001
91013523|NCT01694849|181909804|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|0.02||||0.531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||0.09|-0.05|0.531
91013524|NCT01694849|181909804|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.02||||0.638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||0.05|-0.08|0.638
91013525|NCT01694849|181909805|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.14||||0.831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|1.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Total bilirubin||1.12|-1.39|0.831
90802922|NCT01393899|181484781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.39|||=|0.0566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.01|||Linear mixed-effects model||Parameter Type: Adjusted Mean Difference|Week 8||0.01|-0.79|=0.0566
90802923|NCT01393899|181484781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.21|||=|0.3144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.2|||Linear mixed-effects model||Parameter Type: Adjusted Mean Difference|Week 12||0.20|-0.61|=0.3144
90802924|NCT01393899|181484781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.56|||=|0.0434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.02|||Linear mixed-effects model||Parameter Type: Adjusted Mean Difference|Week 26||-0.02|-1.10|=0.0434
90802925|NCT01393899|181484781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.57|||=|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.18|||Linear mixed-effects model||Parameter Type: Adjusted Mean Difference|Week 8||-0.18|-0.96|=0.0050
90802926|NCT01393899|181484781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.66|||=|0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.25|||Linear mixed-effects model||Parameter Type: Adjusted Mean Difference|Week 12||-0.25|-1.06|=0.0017
90802927|NCT01393899|181484781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|-0.67|||Linear mixed-effects model||Parameter Type: Adjusted Mean Difference|Week 26||-0.67|-1.72|<0.0001
90802928|NCT01144416|181484795|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The pre-defined non-inferiority margin was -8%|Difference in percentage vital pregnancy|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|1.4|||generalized linear model|The estimated difference in percentage vital pregnancy was adjusted for age class as stratified (≤38 yrs vs. \>38 yrs)||||1.4|-7.4|
90802929|NCT01144416|181484796|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The pre-defined non-inferiority margin was -3 oocytes.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.2|||ANOVA|The estimated difference in number of oocytes retrieved was adjusted for age class as stratified (≤38 yrs vs. \>38 yrs) and center.||||1.2|-0.2|
90802930|NCT01144416|181484797|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The pre-defined non-inferiority margin was -8%|Difference in Live Birth Rates|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|1.9|||generalized linear model|The estimated difference in live birth rate was adjusted for age class as stratified (≤38 yrs vs. \>38 yrs)||||1.9|-6.5|
90802931|NCT01144416|181484798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.30
90802932|NCT01144416|181484799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.999||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
90802933|NCT03674970|181484827|OTHER|||||||0.55|||||||ANOVA|||||||.55
90802934|NCT03674970|181484828|OTHER|||||||0.2146|||||||ANOVA|||||||.2146
90802935|NCT03674970|181484829|OTHER|||||||0.5642|||||||ANOVA|||||||.5642
90802936|NCT03674970|181484830|OTHER|||||||0.4353|||||||ANOVA|||||||.4353
90802937|NCT03674970|181484831|OTHER|||||||0.0348|||||||ANOVA|||||||.0348
90802938|NCT03674970|181484832|OTHER|||||||0.404|||||||ANOVA|||||||.4040
90802939|NCT01342926|181484895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.57|0.43|||||6 months visit|||0.43|-0.57|
91013526|NCT01694849|181909805|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|0.2||||0.754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|1.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Total bilirubin||1.47|-1.07|0.754
91013527|NCT01694849|181909805|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.03||||0.848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Conjugated Bilirubin||0.3|-0.36|0.848
91013528|NCT01694849|181909805|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|0.11||||0.511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Conjugated Bilirubin||0.45|-0.22|0.511
90802940|NCT01342926|181484895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.31|0.71|||||12 months visit|||0.71|-0.31|
90802941|NCT01342926|181484895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.33|0.68|||||18 months visit|||0.68|-0.33|
90802942|NCT01342926|181484895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.71|0.26|||||6 months visit|||0.26|-0.71|
90802943|NCT01342926|181484895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.26|0.72|||||12 months visit|||0.72|-0.26|
90802944|NCT01342926|181484895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.21|0.77|||||18 months visit|||0.77|-0.21|
90802945|NCT01342926|181484895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.66|0.29|||||6 months visit|||0.29|-0.66|
90802946|NCT01342926|181484895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.19|0.75|||||12 months visit|||0.75|-0.19|
91013529|NCT01694849|181909806|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-2.83||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.95|0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||0.29|-5.95|0.075
91013530|NCT01694849|181909806|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-1.11||||0.491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.29|2.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||2.07|-4.29|0.491
91013531|NCT01694849|181909807|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.03||||0.393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||0.04|-0.1|0.393
91013532|NCT01694849|181909807|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.04||||0.289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||0.03|-0.11|0.289
90802947|NCT01342926|181484895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.08|0.86|||||18 months visit|||0.86|-0.08|
90802948|NCT01342926|181484903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.34|0.61|||||6 months visit|||0.61|-0.34|
90802949|NCT01342926|181484903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.07|0.89|||||12 months visit|||0.89|-0.07|
90802950|NCT01342926|181484903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.06|0.89|||||18 months visit|||0.89|-0.06|
90802951|NCT01342926|181484903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.55|0.37|||||6 months visit|||0.37|-0.55|
91013533|NCT01694849|181909808|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Triglycerides||-0.21|-0.73|<0.001
90802952|NCT01342926|181484903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.13|0.8|||||12 months visit|||0.80|-0.13|
90802953|NCT01342926|181484903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|0.63|||||18 months visit|||0.63|-0.30|
90802954|NCT01342926|181484903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.31|0.57|||||6 months visit|||0.57|-0.31|
90802955|NCT01342926|181484903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.1|0.99|||||12 months visit|||0.99|0.10|
90802956|NCT01342926|181484903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.47|1.36|||||18 months visit|||1.36|0.47|
90802957|NCT01342926|181484904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.34|0.55|||||6 months visit|||0.55|-0.34|
90802958|NCT01342926|181484904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.9|||||12 months visit|||0.90|0.00|
90802959|NCT01342926|181484904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.12|0.77|||||18 months visit|||0.77|-0.12|
90802960|NCT01342926|181484904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.51|0.35|||||6 months visit|||0.35|-0.51|
90802961|NCT01342926|181484904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.21|0.66|||||12 months visit|||0.66|-0.21|
90802962|NCT01342926|181484904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.32|0.55|||||18 months visit|||0.55|-0.32|
90802963|NCT01342926|181484904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.48|0.35|||||6 months visit|||0.35|-0.48|
90802964|NCT01342926|181484904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.22|0.62|||||12 months visit|||0.62|-0.22|
90802965|NCT01342926|181484904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.08|0.92|||||18 months visit|||0.92|0.08|
90802966|NCT03008070|181484949|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.52|||=|0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|2.12|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"The primary endpoint was a binary outcome (Yes/No). Responders rates were compared between the placebo and lanifibranor 800 mg at the end of the treatment period (week 24) using a Cochran Mantel Haenzel test stratified on diabetic status at baseline (that was the stratified factors in the randomisation).~The CMH risk ratio is used to estimate the effect size. Patients with missing data are considered as non-responders."||2.12|0.98|=0.061
90802967|NCT03008070|181484949|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.82|||=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|2.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"The primary endpoint was a binary outcome (Yes/No). Responders rates were compared between the placebo and lanifibranor 1200 mg at the end of the treatment period (week 24) using a Cochran Mantel Haenzel test stratified on diabetic status at baseline (that was the stratified factors in the randomisation).~The CMH risk ratio is used to estimate the effect size. Patients with missing data are considered as non-responders."||2.4|1.24|=0.004
91013534|NCT01694849|181909808|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Triglycerides||-0.29|-0.81|<0.001
91013535|NCT01694849|181909808|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.35||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Cholesterol||-0.14|-0.56|0.001
91013536|NCT01694849|181909808|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|-0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Cholesterol||-0.23|-0.64|<0.001
90802968|NCT04409834|181484984|SUPERIORITY|"Stratified Win-Ratio Analysis, 2-sided~* The estimated win ratio is calculated by taking the total number of wins in the FDAC arm divided by the total number of wins in the SDPAC arm. A win ratio greater than 1 was in favor of the FDAC arm.~* The win ratio methodology is explained in the following reference Pocock et al. Eur Heart J 2012;33:176-82 (doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehr352)."|Win Ratio|1.95||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|3.55|||Stratified Win-Ratio Analysis, 2-sided|||FDAC = Full Dose Anticoagulation; SDPAC = Standard Dose Prophylactic Anticoagulation||3.55|1.08|0.028
90802969|NCT04409834|181484985|SUPERIORITY|"Stratified Win-Ratio Analysis, 2-sided~* The estimated win ratio is calculated by taking the total number of wins in the FDAC arm divided by the total number of wins in the SDPAC arm. A win ratio greater than 1 was in favor of the FDAC arm.~* The win ratio methodology is explained in the following reference Pocock et al. Eur Heart J 2012;33:176-82 (doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehr352)."|Win Ratio|1.79||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|3.47|||Stratified Win-Ratio Analysis, 2-sided|||FDAC = Full Dose Anticoagulation; SDPAC = Standard Dose Prophylactic Anticoagulation||3.47|0.92|0.087
90802970|NCT04409834|181484986|SUPERIORITY|"Stratified Win-Ratio Analysis, 2-sided~* The estimated win ratio is calculated by taking the total number of wins in the Anti-platelet arm divided by the total number of wins in the No Anti-platelet arm. A win ratio greater than 1 was in favor of the Anti-platelet arm.~* The win ratio methodology is explained in the following reference Pocock et al. Eur Heart J 2012;33:176-82 (doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehr352)."|Win Ratio|1.04||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|2.01|||Stratified Win-Ratio Analysis, 2-sided|||||2.01|0.54|0.90
90802971|NCT04409834|181484987|SUPERIORITY|"Stratified Win-Ratio Analysis, 2-sided~* The estimated win ratio is calculated by taking the total number of wins in the Anti-platelet arm divided by the total number of wins in the No Anti-platelet arm. A win ratio greater than 1 was in favor of the Anti-platelet arm.~* The win ratio methodology is explained in the following reference Pocock et al. Eur Heart J 2012;33:176-82 (doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehr352)."|Win Ratio|0.79||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.65|||Stratified Win-Ratio Analysis, 2-sided|||||1.65|0.38|0.53
90802972|NCT04446312|181485003|NON_INFERIORITY|The pre-defined non-inferiority margin was 10%.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.97|4.27|||Mantel Haenszel|||||4.27|-3.97|<0.001
90802973|NCT03574610|181485057|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Strong desire to void: L inferior frontal gyrus||||<0.05
90802974|NCT03574610|181485057|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Desire to void: L superior temporal gyrus||||<0.05
90802975|NCT03574610|181485057|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Strong desire to void: L inferior temporal gyrus||||<0.05
91054426|NCT02912650|181990998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|43.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.56|56.75|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||56.75|29.56|<0.001
91054427|NCT02912650|181990998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|7.91||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|16.97|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||16.97|-1.15|0.087
90802976|NCT03574610|181485057|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Strong desire to void: L middle temporal gyrus||||<0.05
90802977|NCT03574610|181485057|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Strong desire to void: R middle temporal gyrus||||<0.05
90802978|NCT03574610|181485057|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Strong desire to void: L inferior parietal lobule||||<0.05
90802979|NCT03574610|181485057|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Strong desire to void: R inferior parietal lobule||||<0.05
90802980|NCT03574610|181485057|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Strong desire to void: R paracentral lobule||||<0.05
90802981|NCT03574610|181485057|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Strong desire to void: R superior parietal lobule||||<0.05
90802982|NCT03574610|181485057|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Strong desire to void: R supplementary motor area||||<0.05
90802983|NCT03574610|181485057|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Strong desire to void: L postcentral gyrus||||<0.05
90802984|NCT03574610|181485057|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Strong desire to void: R postcentral gyrus||||<0.05
90802985|NCT03574610|181485057|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Strong desire to void: L angular gyrus||||<0.05
90802986|NCT03574610|181485057|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Strong desire to void: R supramarginal gyrus||||<0.05
90802987|NCT03574610|181485057|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Strong desire to void: L superior medial gyrus||||<0.05
90802988|NCT03574610|181485057|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Strong desire to void: L inferior occipital gyrus||||<0.05
90802989|NCT03574610|181485057|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Strong desire to void: L middle cingulate cortex||||<0.05
90802990|NCT03574610|181485057|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Strong desire to void: R middle cingulate cortex||||<0.05
90802991|NCT03574610|181485057|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Strong desire to void: R posterior cingulate cortex||||<0.05
90802992|NCT03574610|181485057|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Strong desire to void: L thalamus||||<0.05
90802993|NCT03574610|181485057|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Strong desire to void: R thalamus||||<0.05
90802994|NCT03574610|181485057|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Strong desire to void: L precuneus||||<0.05
90802995|NCT03574610|181485057|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Strong desire to void: R precuneus||||<0.05
90802996|NCT03574610|181485057|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Strong desire to void: L caudate nucleus||||<0.05
90802997|NCT03574610|181485057|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Strong desire void: L hippocampus||||<0.05
90802998|NCT03574610|181485057|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Strong desire to void: L hippocampus||||<0.05
90802999|NCT03574610|181485057|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Strong desire to void: L putamen||||<0.05
90803000|NCT03574610|181485057|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Strong desire to void: L precentral gyrus||||<0.05
91054428|NCT02912650|181990998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|56.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.95|69.94|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||69.94|43.95|<0.001
90803001|NCT03574610|181485057|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Strong desire to void: R precentral gyrus||||<0.05
90803002|NCT03574610|181485057|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Strong desire to void: L insula lobe||||<0.05
90803003|NCT03574610|181485057|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Strong desire to void: L superior frontal gyrus||||<0.05
90803004|NCT03574610|181485057|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Strong desire to void: L middle frontal gyrus||||<0.05
91054429|NCT02912650|181990998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|6.07||||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|14.05|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||14.05|-1.91|0.136
90803005|NCT03574610|181485057|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Strong desire to void: R cerebellum||||<0.05
90803006|NCT03574610|181485057|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Strong desire to void: R fusiform gyrus||||<0.05
90803007|NCT03574610|181485057|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: L postcentral gyrus||||<0.05
90803008|NCT03574610|181485057|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: R postcentral gyrus||||<0.05
91054430|NCT02912650|181990998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|13.98||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|22.67|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||22.67|5.30|0.002
90803009|NCT03574610|181485057|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: L precentral gyrus||||<0.05
90803010|NCT03574610|181485057|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: R precentral gyrus||||<0.05
90803011|NCT03574610|181485057|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: L superior temporal gyrus||||<0.05
90803012|NCT03574610|181485057|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: R superior temporal gyrus||||<0.05
90803013|NCT03574610|181485057|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: L middle temporal gyrus||||<0.05
90803014|NCT03574610|181485057|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: R middle temporal gyrus||||<0.05
90803015|NCT03574610|181485057|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: L inferior temporal gyrus||||<0.05
90803016|NCT03574610|181485057|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: L supramarginal gyrus||||<0.05
90803017|NCT03574610|181485057|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: R supramarginal gyrus||||<0.05
90803018|NCT03574610|181485057|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding Initiation: L inferior occipital gyrus||||<0.05
90803019|NCT03574610|181485057|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: R superior occipital gyrus||||<0.05
90803020|NCT03574610|181485057|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding Initiation: R middle occipital gyrus||||<0.05
90803021|NCT03574610|181485057|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: L inferior frontal gyrus (p. Orbitalis)||||<0.05
90803022|NCT03574610|181485057|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: L inferior frontal gyrus (p. Triangularis)||||<0.05
90803023|NCT03574610|181485057|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: L inferior frontal gyrus (p. Opercularis)||||<0.05
90803024|NCT03574610|181485057|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: R inferior frontal gyrus (p. Orbitalis)||||<0.05
90803025|NCT03574610|181485057|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: R inferior frontal gyrus (p. Triangularis)||||<0.05
90803026|NCT03574610|181485057|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: L cerebellum||||<0.05
90803027|NCT03574610|181485057|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: L rectal gyrus||||<0.05
90803028|NCT03574610|181485057|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: R rectal gyrus||||<0.05
90803029|NCT03574610|181485057|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: L superior medial gyrus||||<0.05
90803030|NCT03574610|181485057|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: R superior medial gyrus||||<0.05
90803031|NCT03574610|181485057|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: L superior frontal gyrus||||<0.05
90803032|NCT03574610|181485057|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: R superior frontal gyrus||||<0.05
90803033|NCT03574610|181485057|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: L middle frontal gyrus||||<0.05
90803034|NCT03574610|181485057|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: R middle frontal gyrus||||<0.05
90803035|NCT03574610|181485057|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: L supplementary motor area (SMA)||||<0.05
90803036|NCT03574610|181485057|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: R SMA||||<0.05
90803037|NCT03574610|181485057|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: L paracentral lobule||||<0.05
90803038|NCT03574610|181485057|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: R paracentral lobule||||<0.05
90803039|NCT03574610|181485057|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: R superior parietal lobule||||<0.05
90803040|NCT03574610|181485057|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: R inferior parietal lobule||||<0.05
90803041|NCT03574610|181485057|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: L superior orbital gyrus||||<0.05
90803042|NCT03574610|181485057|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: L middle orbital gyrus||||<0.05
90803043|NCT03574610|181485057|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: R middle orbital gyrus||||<0.05
90803044|NCT03574610|181485057|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: R calcarine gyrus||||<0.05
90803045|NCT03574610|181485057|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: L calcarine gyrus||||<0.05
90803046|NCT03574610|181485057|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: L anterior cingulate cortex||||<0.05
90803047|NCT03574610|181485057|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: L middle cingulate cortex||||<0.05
91054431|NCT02912650|181990998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|50.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.39|64.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||64.09|37.39|<0.001
90803048|NCT03574610|181485057|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: R middle cingulate cortex||||<0.05
90803049|NCT03574610|181485057|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: R angular gyrus||||<0.05
90803050|NCT03574610|181485057|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: L thalamus||||<0.05
90803051|NCT03574610|181485057|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: R thalamus||||<0.05
90803052|NCT03574610|181485057|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: L precuneus||||<0.05
90803053|NCT03574610|181485057|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: R precuneus||||<0.05
90803054|NCT03574610|181485057|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: R caudate nucleus||||<0.05
90803055|NCT03574610|181485057|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: L putamen||||<0.05
91013537|NCT01694849|181909808|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Non-high Density Lipoproteins Cholesterol||-0.24|-0.67|<0.001
91013538|NCT01694849|181909808|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Non-high Density Lipoproteins Cholesterol||-0.32|-0.75|<0.001
91013539|NCT01694849|181909808|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|0.09||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|High Density Lipoproteins Cholesterol||0.15|0.03|0.005
90803056|NCT03574610|181485057|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: L amygdala||||<0.05
90803057|NCT03574610|181485057|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: R insula lobe||||<0.05
90803058|NCT03574610|181485057|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: L rolandic operculum||||<0.05
90803059|NCT03574610|181485057|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: L hippocampus||||<0.05
90803060|NCT03574610|181485057|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: R hippocampus||||<0.05
90803061|NCT03574610|181485057|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: R fusiform gyrus||||<0.05
90803062|NCT03574610|181485057|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: R rolandic operculum||||<0.05
90803063|NCT03574610|181485058|OTHER|||||||0.45||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Voided volume - baseline vs post-treatment||||0.45
90803064|NCT03574610|181485058|OTHER|||||||0.39||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test. (Only used the 8 participants that had data for baseline and 4 month follow-up for statistical calculations)||Voided volume - baseline vs 4 month follow-up||||0.39
90803065|NCT03574610|181485058|OTHER|||||||0.014||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||PVR - baseline vs post-treatment||||0.014
90803066|NCT03574610|181485058|OTHER|||||||0.66||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test. (Only used the 8 participants that had data for baseline and 4 month follow-up for statistical calculations)||PVR - baseline vs 4 month follow-up||||0.66
90803067|NCT03574610|181485058|OTHER|||||||0.31||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Bladder capacity - baseline vs post-treatment||||0.31
90803068|NCT03574610|181485058|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test. (Only used the 8 participants that had data for baseline and 4 month follow-up for statistical calculations)||Bladder capacity - baseline vs 4 month follow-up||||0.001
90803069|NCT03574610|181485059|OTHER|||||||0.004||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||% PVR/BC - baseline vs post-treatment||||0.004
90803070|NCT03574610|181485059|OTHER|||||||0.038||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test. (Only used the 8 participants that had data for baseline and 4 month follow-up for statistical calculations)||%PVR/BC - baseline vs 4 month follow-up||||0.038
90803071|NCT03574610|181485060|OTHER|||||||0.19||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Qmax - baseline vs post-treatment||||0.19
90803072|NCT03574610|181485060|OTHER|||||||0.91||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test. (Only used the 8 participants that had data for baseline and 4 month follow-up for statistical calculations)||Max - baseline vs 4 month follow-up||||0.91
90803073|NCT03574610|181485061|OTHER|||||||0.13||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Liverpool nomogram percentile - baseline vs post-treatment||||0.13
90803074|NCT03574610|181485061|OTHER|||||||0.26||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test. (Only used the 8 participants that had data for baseline and 4 month follow-up for statistical calculations)||Liverpool nomogram percentile - baseline vs 4 month follow-up||||0.26
90803075|NCT03574610|181485062|OTHER|||||||0.4||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||UDI-6 Q1 - baseline vs post-treatment||||0.40
90803076|NCT03574610|181485062|OTHER|||||||0.086||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test. (Only used the 8 participants that had data for baseline and 4 month follow-up for statistical calculations)||UDI-6 Q1 - baseline vs 4 month follow-up||||0.086
90803077|NCT03574610|181485062|OTHER|||||||0.54||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||UDI-6 Q2 - baseline vs post-treatment||||0.54
90803078|NCT03574610|181485062|OTHER|||||||0.19||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test. (Only used the 8 participants that had data for baseline and 4 month follow-up for statistical calculations)||UDI-6 Q2 - baseline vs 4 month follow-up||||0.19
90803079|NCT03574610|181485062|OTHER|||||||0.04||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||UDI-6 Q5 - baseline vs post-treatment||||0.04
91013540|NCT01694849|181909808|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|0.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|High Density Lipoproteins Cholesterol||0.17|0.05|<0.001
90803080|NCT03574610|181485062|OTHER|||||||0.026||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test. (Only used the 8 participants that had data for baseline and 4 month follow-up for statistical calculations)||UDI-6 5 - baseline vs 4 month follow-up||||0.026
90803081|NCT03574610|181485063|OTHER|||||||0.044||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||AUASS Q3 - baseline vs post-treatment||||0.044
90803082|NCT03574610|181485063|OTHER|||||||0.017||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test. (Only used the 8 participants that had data for baseline and 4 month follow-up for statistical calculations)||AUASS Q3 - baseline vs 4 month follow-up||||0.017
90803083|NCT03574610|181485063|OTHER|||||||0.54||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||AUASS Q5 - baseline vs post-treatment||||0.54
90803084|NCT03574610|181485063|OTHER|||||||0.503||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test. (Only used the 8 participants that had data for baseline and 4 month follow-up for statistical calculations)||AUASS Q5 - baseline vs 4 month follow-up||||0.503
91013541|NCT01694849|181909808|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|-0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Very Low Density Lipoproteins Cholesterol||-0.11|-0.26|<0.001
91013542|NCT01694849|181909808|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|-0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Very Low Density Lipoproteins Cholesterol||-0.09|-0.25|<0.001
91013543|NCT01694849|181909808|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.2||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Low Density Lipoproteins Cholesterol||-0.02|-0.38|0.031
90803085|NCT03574610|181485063|OTHER|||||||0.023||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||AUASS Q7 - baseline vs post-treatment||||0.023
91013544|NCT01694849|181909808|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.24||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Low Density Lipoproteins Cholesterol||-0.06|-0.42|0.009
91013545|NCT01694849|181909809|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|5.73||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|11.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Apo A1||11.14|0.31|0.038
91013546|NCT01694849|181909809|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|7.07||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|12.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Apo A1||12.55|1.59|0.012
90803086|NCT03574610|181485063|OTHER|||||||0.049||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test. (Only used the 8 participants that had data for baseline and 4 month follow-up for statistical calculations)||AUASS Q7 - baseline vs 4 month follow-up||||0.049
90803087|NCT03574610|181485063|OTHER|||||||0.089||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||AUASS Q8 - baseline vs post-treatment||||0.089
90803088|NCT03574610|181485063|OTHER|||||||0.161||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test. (Only used the 8 participants that had data for baseline and 4 month follow-up for statistical calculations)||AUASS Q8 - baseline vs 4 month follow-up||||0.161
90803089|NCT03574610|181485064|OTHER|||||||0.01||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||NBSS (Incontinence) - baseline vs post-treatment||||0.010
90803090|NCT03574610|181485064|OTHER|||||||0.41||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test. (Only used the 8 participants that had data for baseline and 4 month follow-up for statistical calculations)||NBSS (Incontinence) - baseline vs 4 month follow-up||||0.41
90803091|NCT03574610|181485064|OTHER|||||||0.32||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||NBSS (Storage and Voiding) - baseline vs post-treatment||||0.32
90803092|NCT03574610|181485064|OTHER|||||||0.02||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test. (Only used the 8 participants that had data for baseline and 4 month follow-up for statistical calculations)||NBSS (Storage and Voiding) - baseline vs 4 month follow-up||||0.02
90803093|NCT03574610|181485064|OTHER|||||||0.34||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||NBSS (Consequences) - baseline vs post-treatment||||0.34
90803094|NCT03574610|181485064|OTHER|||||||0.61||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test. (Only used the 8 participants that had data for baseline and 4 month follow-up for statistical calculations)||NBSS (Consequences) - baseline vs 4 month follow-up||||0.61
90803095|NCT03574610|181485064|OTHER|||||||0.02||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test. (Only used the 8 participants that had data for baseline and 4 month follow-up for statistical calculations)||NBSS (QoL) - baseline vs post-treatment||||0.02
90803096|NCT03574610|181485064|OTHER|||||||0.07||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test. (Only used the 8 participants that had data for baseline and 4 month follow-up for statistical calculations)||NBSS (QoL) - baseline vs 4 month follow-up||||0.07
90803097|NCT02574078|181485074|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|2.03|||Unstratified log-rank|||||2.03|0.24|0.5050
90803098|NCT02574078|181485074|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.6284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|2.54|||Unstratified log-rank|||||2.54|0.22|0.6284
90803099|NCT02574078|181485074|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.1988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.22|||Unstratified log-rank|||||1.22|0.40|0.1988
91013547|NCT01694849|181909809|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-12.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.56|-7.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Apo B||-7.25|-17.56|<0.001
91013548|NCT01694849|181909809|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-9.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.81|-4.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Apo B||-4.41|-14.81|<0.001
90803100|NCT02574078|181485074|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.2722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.28|||Unstratified log-rank|||||1.28|0.42|0.2722
90803101|NCT02574078|181485074|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.42||||0.0544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.04|||Unstratified log-rank|||||1.04|0.17|0.0544
90803102|NCT02574078|181485074|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.04||||0.0442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|4.16|||Unstratified log-rank|||||4.16|1.00|0.0442
90803103|NCT02574078|181485074|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.5489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.45|||Log Rank|stratified by Disease Status (Recurrent Locally Advanced vs. Metastatic), Performance Status (ECOG 0 vs.1 vs. 2) as entered into the IVRS||||1.45|0.50|0.5489
91013549|NCT01694849|181909809|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|3.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.14|4.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Apo AII||4.96|2.14|<0.001
91013550|NCT01694849|181909809|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|6.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.67|7.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Apo AII||7.53|4.67|<0.001
91054432|NCT02912650|181990998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|43.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.56|56.75|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||56.75|29.56|<0.001
90803104|NCT02574078|181485075|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.9951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|2.91|||Unstratified log-rank|||||2.91|0.35|0.9951
90803105|NCT02574078|181485075|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.8321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|3.1|||Unstratified log-rank|||||3.10|0.25|0.8321
90803106|NCT02574078|181485075|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.2938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.31|||Unstratified log-rank|||||1.31|0.41|0.2938
90803107|NCT02574078|181485075|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.4819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.45|||Unstratified log-rank|||||1.45|0.46|0.4819
90803108|NCT02574078|181485075|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.31||||0.0241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.91|||Unstratified log-rank|||||0.91|0.11|0.0241
90803109|NCT02574078|181485075|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.59||||0.1401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|2.95|||Unstratified log-rank|||||2.95|0.85|0.1401
90803110|NCT02574078|181485079|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.2862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.31|||Log Rank|stratified by Disease Status (Recurrent Locally Advanced vs. Metastatic), Performance Status (ECOG 0 vs.1 vs. 2) as entered into the IVRS||||1.31|0.40|0.2862
91013551|NCT01694849|181909809|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-2.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.29|-1.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Apo CIII||-1.25|-3.29|<0.001
91013552|NCT01694849|181909809|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-1.5||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|-0.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Apo CIII||-0.49|-2.52|0.004
91013553|NCT01694849|181909809|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-1.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.63|-0.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Apo CIII/B||-0.92|-2.63|<0.001
91054433|NCT02912650|181990998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|7.91||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|16.97|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||16.97|-1.15|0.087
91013554|NCT01694849|181909809|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-1.15||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Apo CIII/B||-0.29|-2|0.009
91013555|NCT01694849|181909809|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.46||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Apo CIII/nonB||-0.17|-0.75|0.002
90803111|NCT02709512|181485113|SUPERIORITY|Relative Risk Ratio (ADIPemPlatinum/PlaceboPemPlatinum) is the common relative risk of having a response (CR or PR) based on the Mantel-Haenszel estimator controlling for tumor histology. A relative risk ratio greater than one is favorable to ADIPemPlatinum.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.02||||0.9489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.11|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.11|0.50|0.9489
90803112|NCT02709512|181485114|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.64||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.88|||Log Rank|||||0.88|0.47|0.0078
90803113|NCT02709512|181485115|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.71||||0.0234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.93|||Log Rank|||||0.93|0.55|0.0234
90803114|NCT02709512|181485116|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.65||||0.0193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.9|||Log Rank|||||0.90|0.46|0.0193
90803115|NCT00276406|181485117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Analysis was adjusted for BMI and baseline values and incorporated Bonferroni corrections.||||<0.01
90803116|NCT00276406|181485121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.096||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Analysis was adjusted for BMI and baseline values and incorporated Bonferroni corrections.||||0.096
90803117|NCT00276406|181485122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.02
90803118|NCT00276406|181485123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Bowel diaries were analyzed by computing the mean scores for the 9-day baseline period and separately for the last 7 days of the treatment period (i.e., when the pyridostigmine dose was stable in each subject.) Individual subject treatment period mean bowel function scores were then compared using a similar ANCOVA model, with the corresponding individual subject baseline mean bowel function score and gender as covariates.||||0.005
90803119|NCT00276406|181485124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.04||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Bowel diaries were analyzed by computing the mean scores for the 9-day baseline period and separately for the last 7 days of the treatment period (i.e., when the pyridostigmine dose was stable in each subject.) Individual subject treatment period mean bowel function scores were then compared using a similar ANCOVA model, with the corresponding individual subject baseline mean bowel function score and gender as covariates.||||<0.04
91013556|NCT01694849|181909809|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.39||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Apo CIII/nonB||-0.1|-0.68|0.008
90803120|NCT01734785|181485133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.93|-0.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|The unstructured covariance structure has been used to fit the mixed model.|Mean Difference (Final Values) is actually the Adjusted mean difference calculated as Empagliflozin 25 mg minus Placebo.|Superiority of Empagliflozin 25 mg vs. placebo: change in HbA1c using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)- based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach. Model includes baseline HbA1c as linear covariate(s) \& baseline Estimated glomerula filtration rate (eGFR), geographical region, treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effect(s).||-0.46|-0.93|<0.0001
90803121|NCT01734785|181485133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.02|-0.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|The unstructured covariance structure has been used to fit the mixed model.|Mean Difference (Final Values) is actually the Adjusted mean difference calculated as Empagliflozin 10 mg minus Placebo.|Superiority of Empagliflozin 10 mg vs. placebo: change in HbA1c using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)- based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach. Model includes baseline HbA1c as linear covariate(s) \& baseline Estimated glomerula filtration rate (eGFR), geographical region, treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effect(s).||-0.55|-1.02|<0.0001
90803122|NCT01734785|181485134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.0001||95.0|-2.61|-1.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|The unstructured covariance structure has been used to fit the mixed model.|Mean Difference (Final Values) is actually the Adjusted mean difference calculated as Empagliflozin 25 mg minus Placebo.|Superiority of Empagliflozin 25 mg vs. placebo: change in FPG using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)- based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach. Model includes baseline FPG, baseline HbA1c as linear covariate(s) \& baseline eGFR, geographical region, treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effect(s).||-1.57|-2.61|<0.0001
90803123|NCT01734785|181485134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.0001||95.0|-2.31|-1.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|The unstructured covariance structure has been used to fit the mixed model.|Mean Difference (Final Values) is actually the Adjusted mean difference calculated as Empagliflozin 10 mg minus Placebo.|Superiority of Empagliflozin 10 mg vs. placebo: change in FPG using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)- based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach. Model includes baseline FPG, baseline HbA1c as linear covariate(s) \& baseline eGFR, geographical region, treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effect(s).||-1.28|-2.31|<0.0001
90803124|NCT01734785|181485135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|<|0.0001||95.0|-2.92|-1.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|The unstructured covariance structure has been used to fit the mixed model.|Mean Difference (Final Values) is actually the Adjusted mean difference calculated as Empagliflozin 25 mg minus Placebo.|Superiority of Empagliflozin 25 mg vs. placebo: change in body weight using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)- based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach. Model includes baseline weight, baseline HbA1c as linear covariate(s) \& baseline eGFR, geographical region, treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effect(s).||-1.52|-2.92|<0.0001
90803125|NCT01734785|181485135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|<|0.0001||95.0|-3.47|-2.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|The unstructured covariance structure has been used to fit the mixed model.|Mean Difference (Final Values) is actually the Adjusted mean difference calculated as Empagliflozin 10 mg minus Placebo.|Superiority of Empagliflozin 10 mg vs. placebo:change in body weight using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)- based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach. Model includes baseline weight, baseline HbA1c as linear covariate(s) \& baseline eGFR, geographical region, treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effect(s).||-2.07|-3.47|<0.0001
91013557|NCT01694849|181909809|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-2.35||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.89|0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Small dense Low Density Lipoproteins||0.19|-4.89|0.069
91013558|NCT01694849|181909809|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-3.39||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.95|-0.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Small dense Low Density Lipoproteins||-0.84|-5.95|0.01
90803126|NCT02397915|181485136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Par. preferences were analyzed using Prescott's test, as approximated by a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusted for country and symptomatology. All preference p-values were also adjusted for multiplicity using Hochberg's method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90803127|NCT02397915|181485137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.065||||||Par. preferences were analyzed using Prescott's test, as approximated by a CMH test, adjusted for ctry and sym. All preference p-values were also adjusted for multiplicity using Hochberg's method. P-value is for product attribute scent/odor.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.065
91013559|NCT01694849|181909809|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|0.84||||0.549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|3.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Lp(a)||3.61|-1.93|0.549
91013560|NCT01694849|181909809|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|0.49||||0.728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28|3.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Lp(a)||3.26|-2.28|0.728
91013561|NCT01694849|181909809|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-1.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.14|-0.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Apo E||-0.61|-2.14|<0.001
91054434|NCT02912650|181990999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||p-value was calculated from CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender.||||<0.001
91054435|NCT02912650|181990999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||p-value was calculated from CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender.||||0.004
91054436|NCT02912650|181990999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||p-value was calculated from CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender.||||<0.001
91054437|NCT02912650|181990999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||p-value was calculated from CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender.||||<0.001
90803128|NCT02397915|181485137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.532||||||Par. preferences were analyzed using Prescott's test, as approximated by a CMH test, adjusted for ctry and sym. All preference p-values were also adjusted for multiplicity using Hochberg's method. P-value is for product attribute immediate taste.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.532
90803129|NCT02397915|181485137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.138||||||Par. preferences were analyzed using Prescott's test, as approximated by a CMH test, adjusted for ctry and sym. All preference p-values were also adjusted for multiplicity using Hochberg's method. P-value is for product attribute after taste.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.138
90803130|NCT02397915|181485137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Par. preferences were analyzed using Prescott's test, as approximated by a CMH test, adjusted for ctry and sym. All preference p-values were also adjusted for multiplicity using Hochberg's method. P-value is for product attribute LDTT.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90803131|NCT02397915|181485137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017||||||Par. preferences were analyzed using Prescott's test, as approximated by a CMH test, adjusted for ctry and sym. All preference p-values were also adjusted for multiplicity using Hochberg's method. P-value is for product attribute LRON.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.017
91013562|NCT01694849|181909809|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-1.12||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|-0.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Apo E||-0.36|-1.89|0.004
91013563|NCT01694849|181909809|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-1.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|-0.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Apo E/B||-0.53|-1.82|<0.001
91013564|NCT01694849|181909809|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-1.08||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|-0.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Apo E/B||-0.43|-1.72|0.001
91013565|NCT01694849|181909810|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-2.8||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.79|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Least square mean changes from baseline|||0.18|-5.79|0.066
91013566|NCT01694849|181909810|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|0.77||||0.615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.24|3.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||3.77|-2.24|0.615
91013567|NCT01694849|181909811|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-17.4||||0.307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.88|16.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||16.08|-50.88|0.307
90803132|NCT02397915|181485137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.046||||||Par. preferences were analyzed using Prescott's test, as approximated by a CMH test, adjusted for ctry and sym. All preference p-values were also adjusted for multiplicity using Hochberg's method. P-value is for product attribute more soothing.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.046
90803133|NCT02397915|181485137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Par. preferences were analyzed using Prescott's test, as approximated by a CMH test, adjusted for ctry and sym. All preference p-values were also adjusted for multiplicity using Hochberg's method. P-value is for product attribute less irritating.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91013568|NCT01694849|181909811|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-21.41||||0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.17|12.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||12.34|-55.17|0.213
91013569|NCT01694849|181909812|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.23||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||-0.08|-0.37|0.003
91013570|NCT01694849|181909812|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.14||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||0.01|-0.29|0.068
91013571|NCT01694849|181909813|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.8||||0.448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.86|1.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||1.27|-2.86|0.448
90803134|NCT02397915|181485137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.532||||||Par. preferences were analyzed using Prescott's test, as approximated by a CMH test, adjusted for ctry and sym. All preference p-values were also adjusted for multiplicity using Hochberg's method. P-value is for product attribute UTS.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.532
91013572|NCT01694849|181909813|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-1.17||||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.25|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||0.9|-3.25|0.267
91013573|NCT01694849|181909814|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.05||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||0.01|-0.11|0.095
91013574|NCT01694849|181909814|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.07||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|-0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||-0.01|-0.13|0.022
91013575|NCT01694849|181909815|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.46||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||0.05|-0.96|0.077
91013576|NCT01694849|181909815|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.36||||0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||0.16|-0.87|0.172
91013577|NCT01694849|181909816|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.04||||0.732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||0.17|-0.24|0.732
91054438|NCT02912650|181990999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||p-value was calculated from CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender.||||<0.001
90803135|NCT02397915|181485138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||1||||||Analyzed using an ANOVA mixed model with par. as random effect, ctry, tmt, BL rhinitis sym subgrp, and tmt seq as main effects. P-values for all immediate attribute rating scores adjusted for multiplicity using Hochberg's method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||1.000
90803136|NCT02397915|181485139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||1||||||Analyzed using an ANOVA mixed model with par. as random effect, ctry, tmt, BL rhinitis sym subgrp, and tmt seq as main effects. P-values for all immediate attribute rating scores adjusted for multiplicity using Hochberg's method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||1.00
90803137|NCT02397915|181485140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||1||||||Analyzed using an ANOVA mixed model with par. as random effect, ctry, tmt, BL rhinitis sym subgrp, and tmt seq as main effects. P-values for all immediate attribute rating scores adjusted for multiplicity using Hochberg's method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||1.00
90803138|NCT02397915|181485141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.179||||||Analyzed using an ANOVA mixed model with par. as random effect, ctry, tmt, BL rhinitis sym subgrp, and tmt seq as main effects. P-values for all immediate attribute rating scores adjusted for multiplicity using Hochberg's method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.179
90803139|NCT02397915|181485142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||1||||||Analyzed using an ANOVA mixed model with par. as random effect, ctry, tmt, BL rhinitis sym subgrp, and tmt seq as main effects. P-values for all immediate attribute rating scores adjusted for multiplicity using Hochberg's method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||1.00
90803140|NCT02397915|181485143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||<|0.001||||||Analyzed using an ANOVA mixed model with par. as random effect, ctry, tmt, BL rhinitis sym subgrp, and tmt seq as main effects. P-values for all immediate attribute rating scores adjusted for multiplicity using Hochberg's method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90803141|NCT02397915|181485144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||<|0.001||||||Analyzed using an ANOVA mixed model with par. as random effect, ctry, tmt, BL rhinitis sym subgrp, and tmt seq as main effects. P-values for all immediate attribute rating scores adjusted for multiplicity using Hochberg's method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90803142|NCT02397915|181485145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||1||||||Analyzed using an ANOVA mixed model with par. as random effect, ctry, tmt, BL rhinitis sym subgrp, and tmt seq as main effects. P-values for all immediate attribute rating scores adjusted for multiplicity using Hochberg's method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||1.000
90803143|NCT02397915|181485146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.188||||||Analyzed using an ANOVA mixed model with par. as random effect, ctry, tmt, BL rhinitis sym subgrp, and tmt seq as main effects. P-values for all immediate attribute rating scores adjusted for multiplicity using Hochberg's method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.188
90803144|NCT02397915|181485147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.951||||||Analyzed using an ANOVA mixed model with par. as random effect, ctry, tmt, BL rhinitis sym subgrp, and tmt seq as main effects. P-values for all delayed attribute rating scores adjusted for multiplicity using Hochberg's method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.951
90803145|NCT02397915|181485148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.951||||||Analyzed using an ANOVA mixed model with par. as random effect, ctry, tmt, BL rhinitis sym subgrp, and tmt seq as main effects. P-values for all delayed attribute rating scores adjusted for multiplicity using Hochberg's method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.951
90803146|NCT02397915|181485149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.951||||||Analyzed using an ANOVA mixed model with par. as random effect, ctry, tmt, BL rhinitis sym subgrp, and tmt seq as main effects. P-values for all delayed attribute rating scores adjusted for multiplicity using Hochberg's method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.951
90803147|NCT02397915|181485150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.004||||||Analyzed using an ANOVA mixed model with par. as random effect, ctry, tmt, BL rhinitis sym subgrp, and tmt seq as main effects. P-values for all delayed attribute rating scores adjusted for multiplicity using Hochberg's method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.004
90803148|NCT02397915|181485151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.223||||||Analyzed using an ANOVA mixed model with par. as random effect, ctry, tmt, BL rhinitis sym subgrp, and tmt seq as main effects. P-values for all delayed attribute rating scores adjusted for multiplicity using Hochberg's method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.223
90803149|NCT02397915|181485152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||<|0.001||||||Analyzed using an ANOVA mixed model with par. as random effect, ctry, tmt, BL rhinitis sym subgrp, and tmt seq as main effects. P-values for all delayed attribute rating scores adjusted for multiplicity using Hochberg's method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90803150|NCT02397915|181485153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.008||||||Analyzed using an ANOVA mixed model with par. as random effect, ctry, tmt, BL rhinitis sym subgrp, and tmt seq as main effects. P-values for all delayed attribute rating scores adjusted for multiplicity using Hochberg's method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.008
90803151|NCT02397915|181485154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.831||||||Analyzed using an ANOVA mixed model with par. as random effect, ctry, tmt, BL rhinitis sym subgrp, and tmt seq as main effects. P-values for all delayed attribute rating scores adjusted for multiplicity using Hochberg's method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.831
90803152|NCT02397915|181485155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||<|0.001||||||Analyzed using an ANOVA mixed model with par. as random effect, ctry, tmt, BL rhinitis sym subgrp, and tmt seq as main effects. P-values for all delayed attribute rating scores adjusted for multiplicity using Hochberg's method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90803153|NCT02397915|181485156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.007||||||Analyzed using an ANOVA mixed model with par. as random effect, ctry, tmt, BL rhinitis sym subgrp, and tmt seq as main effects. P-values for all delayed attribute rating scores adjusted for multiplicity using Hochberg's method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.007
90803154|NCT02397915|181485157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.568||||||Analyzed using an ANOVA mixed model with par. as random effect, ctry, tmt, BL rhinitis sym subgrp, and tmt seq as main effects. P-values for all delayed attribute rating scores adjusted for multiplicity using Hochberg's method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.568
90803155|NCT02397915|181485158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.951||||||Analyzed using an ANOVA mixed model with par. as random effect, ctry, tmt, BL rhinitis sym subgrp, and tmt seq as main effects. P-values for all delayed attribute rating scores adjusted for multiplicity using Hochberg's method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.951
91054439|NCT02912650|181990999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||p-value was calculated from CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender.||||0.003
90803156|NCT00368745|181485159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2838||95.0||||significance determined using 2-tailed significance level of 0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) with country as a covariate||Primary objective: evaluate the efficacy of pregabalin in maintaining the benzodiazepine free state in subjects with prior stable alprazolam use.||||0.2838
90803157|NCT00368745|181485160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.0709||95.0|-3.1|0.13||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|Least squares (LS) Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country and baseline as covariate||Alprazolam Taper (AT) Week 1||0.13|-3.10|0.0709
90803158|NCT00368745|181485160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08||0.0006||95.0|-6.04|-1.74||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country and baseline as covariate||AT Week 2||-1.74|-6.04|0.0006
90803159|NCT00368745|181485160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.0718||95.0|-4.98|0.22||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country and baseline as covariate||AT Week 3||0.22|-4.98|0.0718
90803160|NCT00368745|181485160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.92||0.092||95.0|-7.37|0.6||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country and baseline as covariate||AT Week 4||0.60|-7.37|0.0920
90803161|NCT00368745|181485160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.04||0.1371||95.0|-12.67|2.23||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country and baseline as covariate||AT week 5||2.23|-12.67|0.1371
90803162|NCT00368745|181485160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04||0.0882||95.0|-7.96|0.61||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country and baseline as covariate||AT Week 6||0.61|-7.96|0.0882
90803163|NCT00368745|181485160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.0135||95.0|-5.05|-0.61||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country and baseline as covariate||Alprazolam Free (AF) Week 1||-0.61|-5.05|0.0135
90803164|NCT00368745|181485160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18||0.3924||95.0|-3.38|1.35||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country and baseline as covariate||AF Week 2||1.35|-3.38|0.3924
90803165|NCT00368745|181485160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14||0.3868||95.0|-3.29|1.3||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country and baseline as covariate||AF Week 3||1.30|-3.29|0.3868
90803166|NCT00368745|181485160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15||0.9966||95.0|-2.31|2.32||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country and baseline as covariate||AF Week 4||2.32|-2.31|0.9966
90803167|NCT00368745|181485160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26||0.6873||95.0|-3.07|2.05||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country and baseline as covariate||AF Week 5||2.05|-3.07|0.6873
90803168|NCT00368745|181485160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.35||0.5337||95.0|-3.62|1.91||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country and baseline as covariate||AF Week 6||1.91|-3.62|0.5337
90803169|NCT00368745|181485160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.37||0.0008||95.0|-7.51|-2.07||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country and baseline as covariate||Endpoint \[LOCF\]||-2.07|-7.51|0.0008
90803170|NCT00368745|181485163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.122||95.0|-4.97|0.6||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country as covariate||Alprazolam Taper (AT) Week 1||0.60|-4.97|0.1220
91013578|NCT01694849|181909816|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.2||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||0.01|-0.4|0.062
91013579|NCT01694849|181909817|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|3.66||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.89|12.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||12.2|-4.89|0.4
91013580|NCT01694849|181909817|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-16.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.99|-7.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||-7.44|-24.99|<0.001
91013581|NCT01694849|181909818|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Fibrinogen||-0.17|-0.54|<0.001
91013582|NCT01694849|181909818|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.27||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors||Fibrinogen|Standard error of the least square mean|-0.08|-0.46|0.005
91013583|NCT01694849|181909818|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Haptoglobin||-0.15|-0.35|<0.001
91013584|NCT01694849|181909818|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Haptoglobin||-0.17|-0.37|<0.001
90803171|NCT00368745|181485163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26||0.0053||95.0|-6.15|-1.11||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country as covariate||AT Week 2||-1.11|-6.15|0.0053
90803172|NCT00368745|181485163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.73||0.1048||95.0|-6.32|0.62||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country as covariate||AT Week 3||0.62|-6.32|0.1048
90803173|NCT00368745|181485163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52||0.0357||95.0|-6.57|-0.25||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country as covariate||AT Week 4||-0.25|-6.57|0.0357
90803174|NCT00368745|181485163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.67||0.4263||95.0|-8.82|4.26||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country as covariate||AT Week 5||4.26|-8.82|0.4263
90803175|NCT00368745|181485163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.02||0.0104||95.0|-9.96|-1.51||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country as covariate||AT Week 6||-1.51|-9.96|0.0104
90803176|NCT00368745|181485163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.0069||95.0|-6.73|-1.12||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country as covariate||Alprazolam Free (AF) Week 1||-1.12|-6.73|0.0069
90803177|NCT00368745|181485163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.37||0.2185||95.0|-4.47|1.05||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country as covariate||AF Week 2||1.05|-4.47|0.2185
90803178|NCT00368745|181485163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06||0.7832||95.0|-2.41|1.83||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country as covariate||AF Week 3||1.83|-2.41|0.7832
91054440|NCT01674647|181991003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.73|||no statistical test performed||Crude estimate of the cumulative incidence for rivaroxaban (Xarelto, BAY59-7939): 0.51% (0.20% - 1.17%). Crude estimate of the cumulative incidence for Vitamin K antagonist (VKA): 1.02% (0.40% - 2.34%).|Descriptive comparison of crude estimates of the cumulative incidence and estimation of risk ratio, all with 95% confidence intervals||1.73|0.15|
90803179|NCT00368745|181485163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16||0.7062||95.0|-1.9|2.79||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country as covariate||AF Week 4||2.79|-1.90|0.7062
90803180|NCT00368745|181485163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.7161||95.0|-2.49|1.73||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country as covariate||AF Week 5||1.73|-2.49|0.7161
90803181|NCT00368745|181485163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.43||0.0376||95.0|-6.03|-0.19||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country as covariate||AF Week 6||-0.19|-6.03|0.0376
90803182|NCT00368745|181485163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.48||0.0122||95.0|-6.74|-0.85||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country as covariate||Endpoint \[LOCF\]||-0.85|-6.74|0.0122
90803183|NCT00368745|181485165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0052||95.0|-0.76|-0.14||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country and baseline as covariate||Alprazolam Taper (AT) Week 1||-0.14|-0.76|0.0052
90803184|NCT00368745|181485165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0001||95.0|-1.11|-0.38||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country and baseline as covariate||AT Week 2||-0.38|-1.11|0.0001
90803185|NCT00368745|181485165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.0528||95.0|-1.0|0.01||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country and baseline as covariate||AT Week 3||0.01|-1.00|0.0528
90803186|NCT00368745|181485165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.3085||95.0|-1.11|0.37||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country and baseline as covariate||AT Week 4||0.37|-1.11|0.3085
90803187|NCT00368745|181485165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.1807||95.0|-1.92|0.47||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country and baseline as covariate||AT Week 5||0.47|-1.92|0.1807
90803188|NCT00368745|181485165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.1074||95.0|-1.58|0.17||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country and baseline as covariate||AT Week 6||0.17|-1.58|0.1074
90803189|NCT00368745|181485165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0013||95.0|-1.1|-0.28||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country and baseline as covariate||Alprazolam Free (AF) Week 1||-0.28|-1.10|0.0013
90803190|NCT00368745|181485165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.0503||95.0|-0.99|0.0||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country and baseline as covariate||AF Week 2||0.00|-0.99|0.0503
90803191|NCT00368745|181485165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.0364||95.0|-1.09|-0.04||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country and baseline as covariate||AF Week 3||-0.04|-1.09|0.0364
90803192|NCT00368745|181485165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.914||95.0|-0.51|0.46||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country and baseline as covariate||AF Week 4||0.46|-0.51|0.9140
90803193|NCT00368745|181485165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.7789||95.0|-0.62|0.47||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country and baseline as covariate||AF Week 5||0.47|-0.62|0.7789
90803194|NCT00368745|181485165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.3189||95.0|-0.95|0.32||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country and baseline as covariate||AF Week 6||0.32|-0.95|0.3189
90803195|NCT00368745|181485165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.0031||95.0|-1.26|-0.27||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country and baseline as covariate||Endpoint \[LOCF\]||-0.27|-1.26|0.0031
90803196|NCT00368745|181485166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.126||95.0|-0.86|0.11||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country as covariate||Alprazolam Taper (AT) Week 1||0.11|-0.86|0.1260
91013585|NCT01694849|181909819|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|0.57||||0.742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|4.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Tumour Necrosis Factor alpha||4.06|-2.9|0.742
91013586|NCT01694849|181909819|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|2.9||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|6.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Tumour Necrosis Factor alpha||6.43|-0.63|0.107
91013587|NCT01694849|181909819|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|0.5||||0.362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|1.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Interleukine 6||1.59|-0.58|0.362
91013588|NCT01694849|181909819|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|0.07||||0.894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|1.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Interleukine 6||1.18|-1.03|0.894
91013589|NCT01694849|181909820|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.76||||0.229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||0.48|-2|0.229
91013590|NCT01694849|181909820|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.45||||0.463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|0.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||0.76|-1.67|0.463
91013591|NCT01694849|181909821|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.21||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||0.01|-0.42|0.065
91013592|NCT01694849|181909821|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.19||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||0.03|-0.41|0.098
91013593|NCT01694849|181909822|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|0.7||||0.553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|3.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||3.01|-1.61|0.553
91013594|NCT01694849|181909822|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|4.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.97|6.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||6.64|1.97|<0.001
91013595|NCT01694849|181909823|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|0.04||||0.861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||0.44|-0.37|0.861
91013596|NCT01694849|181909823|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.4||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||0|-0.81|0.052
91013597|NCT01694849|181909824|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|0.01||||0.473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||0.02|-0.01|0.473
90803197|NCT00368745|181485166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.0074||95.0|-1.4|-0.22||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country as covariate||AT Week 2||-0.22|-1.40|0.0074
90803198|NCT00368745|181485166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.125||95.0|-1.35|0.17||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country as covariate||AT Week 3||0.17|-1.35|0.1250
90803199|NCT00368745|181485166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.8991||95.0|-1.17|1.32||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country as covariate||AT Week 4||1.32|-1.17|0.8991
90803200|NCT00368745|181485166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.1747||95.0|-2.07|0.46||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country as covariate||AT Week 5||0.46|-2.07|0.1747
90803201|NCT00368745|181485166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.0744||95.0|-1.79|0.09||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country as covariate||AT Week 6||0.09|-1.79|0.0744
90803202|NCT00368745|181485166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.0063||95.0|-1.67|-0.29||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country as covariate||Alprazolam Free (AF) Week 1||-0.29|-1.67|0.0063
90803203|NCT00368745|181485166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.014||95.0|-1.56|-0.18||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country as covariate||AF Week 2||-0.18|-1.56|0.0140
90803204|NCT00368745|181485166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.0267||95.0|-1.46|-0.09||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country as covariate||AF Week 3||-0.09|-1.46|0.0267
90803205|NCT00368745|181485166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.5104||95.0|-1.03|0.52||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country as covariate||AF Week 4||0.52|-1.03|0.5104
90803206|NCT00368745|181485166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.2702||95.0|-1.35|0.39||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country as covariate||AF Week 5||0.39|-1.35|0.2702
90803207|NCT00368745|181485166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.1241||95.0|-1.52|0.19||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country as covariate||AF Week 6||0.19|-1.52|0.1241
90803208|NCT00368745|181485166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.0109||95.0|-1.67|-0.22||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country as covariate||Endpoint \[LOCF\]||-0.22|-1.67|0.0109
90803209|NCT00368745|181485167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.0226||95.0|-1.22|-0.09||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country as covariate||Alprazolam Taper (AT) Week 1||-0.09|-1.22|0.0226
90803210|NCT00368745|181485167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.0099||95.0|-1.58|-0.22||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country as covariate||AT Week 2||-0.22|-1.58|0.0099
90803211|NCT00368745|181485167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.2827||95.0|-1.07|0.32||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country as covariate||AT Week 3||0.32|-1.07|0.2827
90803212|NCT00368745|181485167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.8232||95.0|-1.07|1.34||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country as covariate||AT Week 4||1.34|-1.07|0.8232
90803213|NCT00368745|181485167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.2409||95.0|-2.41|0.72||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country as covariate||AT Week 5||0.72|-2.41|0.2409
90803214|NCT00368745|181485167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.476||95.0|-1.73|0.84||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country as covariate||AT Week 6||0.84|-1.73|0.4760
90803215|NCT00368745|181485167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.1252||95.0|-1.14|0.14||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country as covariate||Alprazolam Free (AF) Week 1||0.14|-1.14|0.1252
90803216|NCT00368745|181485167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.0717||95.0|-1.26|0.06||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country as covariate||AF Week 2||0.06|-1.26|0.0717
90803217|NCT00368745|181485167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.0707||95.0|-1.33|0.06||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country as covariate||AF Week 3||0.06|-1.33|0.0707
91013598|NCT01694849|181909824|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|0.01||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||0.03|0|0.124
90803218|NCT00368745|181485167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.4341||95.0|-1.08|0.47||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country as covariate||AF Week 4||0.47|-1.08|0.4341
90803219|NCT00368745|181485167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.37||95.0|-1.23|0.47||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country as covariate||AF Week 5||0.47|-1.23|0.3700
90803220|NCT00368745|181485167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.0328||95.0|-1.83|-0.08||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country as covariate||AF Week 6||-0.08|-1.83|0.0328
90803221|NCT00368745|181485167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.0096||95.0|-1.8|-0.26||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country as covariate||Endpoint \[LOCF\]||-0.26|-1.80|0.0096
90803222|NCT00368745|181485168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.68||0.8897||95.0|-5.74|4.99||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country and baseline as the covariate||||4.99|-5.74|0.8897
90803223|NCT00368745|181485169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0626||95.0||||p-value is from the log-rank statistic from the tests for equality over treatment as strata and country used as covariate|Log Rank|||||||0.0626
90803224|NCT00368745|181485170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0148||95.0||||p-value is from the log-rank statistic from the tests for equality over treatment as strata and country used as covariate|Log Rank|||||||0.0148
90803225|NCT00368745|181485171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1159||95.0||||p-value is obtained using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel option|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1159
90803226|NCT02476032|181485172|OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0||||P-values for pairwise group comparisons were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Tukey method.|t-test, 2 sided|||Within group comparisons: t-tests comparing the mean change to 0 were utilized. P-values less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant. SAS V9.3 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC) was used for analysis. The sample size of 20 participants per group was based on having 90% power to detect a one standard deviation difference between the DO-strip groups and the placebo group means using ANOVA with a 0.05 level of significance.||||0.05
90803227|NCT02476032|181485173|OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0||||P-values for pairwise group comparisons were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Tukey method.|t-test, 2 sided|||Within group comparisons: t-tests comparing the mean change to 0 were utilized. P-values less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant. SAS V9.3 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC) was used for analysis. The sample size of 20 participants per group was based on having 90% power to detect a one standard deviation difference between the DO-strip groups and the placebo group means using ANOVA with a 0.05 level of significance.||||0.05
90803228|NCT00293813|181485174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.1||||||95.0|2.6|5.7|||ANCOVA|||||5.7|2.6|
90803229|NCT00293813|181485174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||||95.0|-0.6|2.6|||ANCOVA|||||2.6|-.6|
90803230|NCT02553928|181485227|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.69||Based on full analysis set|ANCOVA||The comparison is to BID memantine.|The ADCS-CGIC was analyzed based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) of ADCS-CGIC score at Week 12, with treatment and site as fixed factors, and baseline score as a covariate using observed cases.||0.69|-0.06|0.097
90803231|NCT02440139|181485228|SUPERIORITY||difference in sensitivity|-0.124|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.034|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.186|-0.062|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.062|-0.186|<0.05
90803232|NCT02440139|181485229|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LROC curves|-0.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.039|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.209|-0.071|||ANOVA|||For each study arm, the difference in the least-squares means of the two arms was estimated. A two-sided 95% confidence interval on this difference in study arms (i.e. unaided minus aided by the software) was used to test the hypothesis that the difference in the area under the LROC curve (AUC). The superiority of ClearRead CT will be concluded if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval on the difference is less than zero.||-0.071|-0.209|<0.05
91013599|NCT01694849|181909825|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|0.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||1.15|0.47|<0.001
91013600|NCT01694849|181909825|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|0.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||1.19|0.5|<0.001
91013601|NCT01694849|181909826|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|0.0||||0.842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||0.04|-0.04|0.842
91054441|NCT01674647|181991004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|2.67|||no test performed||Crude estimate of the cumulative incidence for rivaroxaban (Xarelto, BAY59-7939): 0.61% (0.26% - 1.27%). Crude estimate of the cumulative incidence for Vitamin K antagonist (VKA): 0.80% (0.27% - 2.00%).|Descriptive comparison of crude estimates of the cumulative incidence and estimation of risk ratio, all with 95% confidence intervals||2.67|0.21|
90803233|NCT00770562|181485280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.004
90803234|NCT00770562|181485281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.001
90803235|NCT00770562|181485282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.015
91013602|NCT01694849|181909826|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|0.01||||0.589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||0.05|-0.03|0.589
91013603|NCT01694849|181909827|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|48.93||||0.325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.73|146.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||146.6|-8.73|0.325
91013604|NCT01694849|181909827|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|93.21||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.06|192.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||192.49|-6.06|0.066
91013605|NCT01694849|181909828|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|2.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|3.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||3.72|1.1|<0.001
90803236|NCT01081951|181485295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.77||The use of a one-sided 10% significance level test will be used to assess the statistical significance of the analyses of PFS.|Log Rank|Stratified by number of prior platinum treatment lines (1 or \>1) and time to progression following previous platinum therapy (\>6 to ≤12 vs \>12 months)|A hazard ratio of \< 1 favours olaparib.|The null hypothesis for all efficacy analyses in this study is that there is no difference in treatment effects between olaparib in combination with carboplatin/paclitaxel compared with carboplatin/paclitaxel alone.||0.77|0.34|0.0012
90803237|NCT01081951|181485296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.4379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.73||Two sided|Log Rank|Stratified by number of prior platinum treatment lines (1 or \>1) and time to progression following previous platinum therapy (\>6 to ≤12 vs \>12 months)|A hazard ratio \< 1 favours favours olaparib.|The null hypothesis for all efficacy analyses in this study is that there is no difference in treatment effects between olaparib in combination with carboplatin/paclitaxel compared with carboplatin/paclitaxel alone.||1.73|0.79|0.4379
90803238|NCT04503551|181485317|SUPERIORITY||CMH Weighted Percentage Difference|71.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.04|61.0|81.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification was done by baseline ETDRS-DRSS level (47 vs.53) \& baseline intraretinal/subretinal fluid status on SD-OCT (present vs. absent).||||81.2|61.0|<0.0001
90803239|NCT04503551|181485318|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio|0.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.04|0.1|0.3|||Stratified Log-Rank||||A stratified log-rank test was used for hypothesis testing comparing the PDS arm with the comparator arm. A Cox proportional hazards regression model (stratified) was used as a supportive analysis to estimate the Hazard ratio (HR).|0.3|0.1|< 0.0001
90803240|NCT04503551|181485319|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio|0.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.04|0.1|0.1|||Stratified Log-Rank||||A stratified log-rank test was used for hypothesis testing comparing the PDS arm with the comparator arm. A Cox proportional hazards regression model (stratified) was used as a supportive analysis to estimate the HR.|0.1|0.1|< 0.0001
90803241|NCT04503551|181485320|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio|0.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.04|0.1|0.3|||Stratified Log-Rank||||A stratified log-rank test was used for hypothesis testing comparing the PDS arm with the comparator arm. A Cox proportional hazards regression model (stratified) was used as a supportive analysis to estimate the HR.|0.3|0.1|<0.0001
90803242|NCT04503551|181485321|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio|0.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.04|0.1|0.2|||Stratified Log-Rank||||A stratified log-rank test was used for hypothesis testing comparing the PDS arm with the comparator arm. A Cox proportional hazards regression model (stratified) was used as a supportive analysis to estimate the HR.|0.2|0.1|<0.0001
90803243|NCT04503551|181485322|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|15.1||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.04|8.3|21.9|||Fisher Exact|||||21.9|8.3|0.0003
90803244|NCT04503551|181485323|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio|0.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.04|0.1|0.2|||Stratified Log-Rank||||A stratified log-rank test was used for hypothesis testing comparing the PDS arm with the comparator arm. A Cox proportional hazards regression model (stratified) was used as a supportive analysis to estimate the HR.|0.2|0.1|<0.0001
90803245|NCT00412958|181485352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|6.36|||Regression, Logistic|||P-values are from Wald chi-square tests from a logistic regression model with study center and treatment as categorical fixed effects comparing active treatment groups with the placebo group as the reference group.||6.36|0.24|0.796
90803246|NCT00412958|181485352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.81||||0.447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|8.36|||Regression, Logistic|||P-values are from Wald chi-square test from a logistic regression model with study center and treatment as categorical fixed effects comparing active treatment groups with the placebo group as the reference group.||8.36|0.39|0.447
90803247|NCT00412958|181485352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.28||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|13.95|||Regression, Logistic|||P-values are from Wald chi-square test from a logistic regression model with study center and treatment as categorical fixed effects comparing active treatment groups with the placebo group as the reference group.||13.95|0.77|0.107
90803248|NCT01152788|181485445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.01|||Log Rank|||||2.01|0.6|0.76
90803249|NCT01152788|181485446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.7|16.8||||||||16.8|-18.7|
90803250|NCT01152788|181485447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.68|||Log Rank|||||1.68|0.38|0.55
90803251|NCT01152788|181485448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.01
90803252|NCT02720523|181485473|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|32.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.3|51.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factor prior bDMARD use.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||51.0|14.3|<0.001
90803253|NCT02720523|181485473|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|40.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.5|58.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factor prior bDMARD use.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||58.1|23.5|<0.001
90803254|NCT02720523|181485473|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|37.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.4|54.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factor prior bDMARD use.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||54.9|19.4|<0.001
90803255|NCT02720523|181485473|OTHER|Cochran-Armitage test was conducted for demonstrating a dose response relationship.|||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Armitage test|||||||<0.001
90803256|NCT02720523|181485474|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-1.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.693|-0.88|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including treatment as the fixed factor, and baseline value and the stratification factor prior bDMARD use as covariates.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-0.880|-1.693|<0.001
90803257|NCT02720523|181485474|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.005|-1.19|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including treatment as the fixed factor, and baseline value and the stratification factor prior bDMARD use as covariates.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-1.190|-2.005|<0.001
90803258|NCT02720523|181485474|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.027|-1.216|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including treatment as the fixed factor, and baseline value and the stratification factor prior bDMARD use as covariates.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-1.216|-2.027|<0.001
90803259|NCT02720523|181485475|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.465|-0.144|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment as the fixed factor, and the baseline value and stratification factor prior bDMARD use as the covariates.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-0.144|-0.465|<0.001
90803260|NCT02720523|181485475|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.505|-0.184|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment as the fixed factor, and the baseline value and stratification factor prior bDMARD use as the covariates.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-0.184|-0.505|<0.001
91013606|NCT01694849|181909828|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|1.59||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|2.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||2.91|0.26|0.019
91013607|NCT01694849|181909829|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|0.0||||0.447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||0|0|0.447
91013608|NCT01694849|181909829|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|0.0||||0.758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||0|0|0.758
91013609|NCT01694849|181909830|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.04||||0.942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|1.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||1.04|-1.12|0.942
91013610|NCT01694849|181909830|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|0.57||||0.304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|1.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||1.66|-0.52|0.304
90803261|NCT02720523|181485475|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.229|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment as the fixed factor, and the baseline value and stratification factor prior bDMARD use as the covariates.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-0.229|-0.550|<0.001
90803262|NCT02720523|181485476|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|24.5||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.3|41.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factor prior bDMARD use.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||41.7|7.3|0.007
90803263|NCT02720523|181485476|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|49.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.1|65.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factor prior bDMARD use.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||65.9|32.1|<0.001
90803264|NCT02720523|181485476|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|41.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.5|58.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factor prior bDMARD use.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||58.8|24.5|<0.001
91013611|NCT01598831|181909899|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.55||||0.318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.68|8.77||The threshold for statistical significance was a two sided 5%|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test controlled for the stratification factor.|Rates by Arm are 26.8% for ART-123 and 29.4% for Placebo||In a post hoc sensitivity analysis for the primary outcome that accounted for pooled site as a random effect, the adjusted 28-day all-cause mortality rate was 24.8%in the rhsTM group vs 27.5%in the placebo group (P = .31).|8.77|-3.68|0.318
91013612|NCT04095039|181909905|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.077||||||p-value is based on a sample that is less than 10% of the planned sample size (planned n=4,000)|Finkelstein-Schoenfeld method|||Primary outcome is for the individually randomized cohort since DSMB had concerns about selection bias for the cluster-randomized population due to differences in baseline characteristics that leaned towards the arm objectives.||||0.077
91013613|NCT00736840|181909983|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Provided above|Sensitivity|0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0363||0.0924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6607|0.8809|||Exact binomial test|||The null hypothesis was sensitivity lower than 0.8. We assumed a sensitivity of 0.89 and required a power of 90% to test the hypothesis at a 5% level of significance, and calculated that 173 cirrhotic and 241 non-cirrhotic subjects were needed (for a one-sample binomial test of outcome versus constant).||0.8809|0.6607|0.0924
91013614|NCT00736840|181909984|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Sample size was calculated to enable the testing of both study hypotheses (together) with at least 80% power. Our best estimate of sensitivity of the HIS diagnosis in the population, was 0.9 and its specificity 0.79. Requiring a power of 90% for each of the hypotheses and a 5% level of significance, to test the null hypotheses 173 cirrhotic and 241 non-cirrhotic subjects were needed.Therefore a total of at least 414 subjects were required.|AUC ROC|0.785|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0485|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.737|0.834|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.834|0.737|<0.0001
91013615|NCT01728194|181909987|OTHER||||||<|0.025|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.025
90803265|NCT02720523|181485477|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|18.4||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.4|30.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factor prior bDMARD use.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||30.3|6.4|0.004
90803266|NCT02720523|181485477|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|32.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.7|46.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factor prior bDMARD use.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||46.6|18.7|<0.001
90803267|NCT02720523|181485477|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|26.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.9|39.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factor prior bDMARD use.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||39.0|12.9|<0.001
90803268|NCT02720523|181485478|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|6.57|||Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction, prior bDMARD use, and baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||6.57|2.10|<0.001
90803269|NCT02720523|181485478|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.5||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|5.75|||Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction, prior bDMARD use, and baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||5.75|1.25|0.002
90803270|NCT02720523|181485478|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.64|8.22|||Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction, prior bDMARD use, and baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||8.22|3.64|<0.001
90803271|NCT02720523|181485479|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|34.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.0|52.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factor prior bDMARD use.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||52.4|17.0|<0.001
90803272|NCT02720523|181485479|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|51.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.2|67.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factor prior bDMARD use.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||67.9|34.2|<0.001
90803273|NCT02720523|181485479|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|53.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.1|70.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factor prior bDMARD use.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||70.1|37.1|<0.001
90803274|NCT02720523|181485480|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|30.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.5|45.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factor prior bDMARD use.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||45.7|15.5|<0.001
90803275|NCT02720523|181485480|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|51.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.6|66.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factor prior bDMARD use.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||66.4|35.6|<0.001
90803276|NCT02720523|181485480|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|43.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.5|59.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factor prior bDMARD use.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||59.3|28.5|<0.001
90803277|NCT02720523|181485481|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|22.4||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|37.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factor prior bDMARD use.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||37.5|7.4|0.006
91013616|NCT01728194|181909988|OTHER||||||<|0.025|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.025
90803278|NCT02720523|181485481|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|16.3||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|30.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factor prior bDMARD use.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||30.6|2.1|0.026
90803279|NCT02720523|181485481|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|25.8||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.6|41.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factor prior bDMARD use.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||41.0|10.6|0.002
90803280|NCT02720523|181485482|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.66||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|5.2|||Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction, prior bDMARD use, and baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||5.20|0.12|0.040
90803281|NCT02720523|181485482|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.79||||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|4.35|||Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction, prior bDMARD use, and baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||4.35|-0.77|0.169
90803282|NCT02720523|181485482|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.85||||0.516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|3.43|||Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction, prior bDMARD use, and baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||3.43|-1.73|0.516
90803283|NCT02720523|181485483|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.54||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.68|-0.39|||Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction, prior bDMARD use, and baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-0.39|-4.68|0.021
90803284|NCT02720523|181485483|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.06||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.36|0.25|||Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction, prior bDMARD use, and baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||0.25|-4.36|0.080
90803285|NCT02720523|181485483|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.56||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.06|0.94|||Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction, prior bDMARD use, and baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||0.94|-4.06|0.220
90803286|NCT02720523|181485484|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.57|-1.04|||Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction, prior bDMARD use, and baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-1.04|-2.57|<0.001
90803287|NCT02720523|181485484|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.59|-1.05|||Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction, prior bDMARD use, and baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-1.05|-2.59|<0.001
90803288|NCT02720523|181485484|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.73|-1.18|||Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction, prior bDMARD use, and baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-1.18|-2.73|<0.001
90803289|NCT00932035|181485487|SUPERIORITY|To achieve a power of 0.84, a sample size of 72 patients, evenly distributed is required. With 36 patients per group, a Fisher's exact test with a one-sided alpha of 0.05 will have a 84% power to detect the difference between the experimental group (axillary reverse mapping) of 5% or less and a control group (standard dissection) of 30% or more. Response estimates were chosen based on reported lymphedema rates.||||||0.45|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.45
90803290|NCT00932035|181485488|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.50
90803291|NCT00932035|181485489|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.59
90803292|NCT01682356|181485521|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0153|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired||||||0.0153
90803293|NCT01682356|181485522|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0131|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired||||||0.0131
90803294|NCT01682356|181485523|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83||||||P value adjusted for multiplicity|ANOVA|Plasma nitrate values were analyzed using a repeated measures ANOVA followed by Holm-Šídák multiple comparison testing||||||0.83
90803295|NCT01682356|181485524|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-07||||||P values adjusted for multiplicity. Exact P value 6.06 x 10\^-18.|ANOVA|Plasma nitrate values were analyzed using a repeated measures ANOVA followed by Holm-Šídák multiple comparison testing||||||<0.0000001
90803296|NCT01682356|181485525|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-07||||||P values adjusted for multiplicity. Exact P value 1.87 x 10\^-20.|ANOVA|Plasma nitrate values were analyzed using a repeated measures ANOVA followed by Holm-Šídák multiple comparison testing||||||<0.0000001
90803297|NCT01682356|181485526|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-07||||||P values adjusted for multiplicity. Exact P value 8.23 x 10\^-21.|ANOVA|Plasma nitrate values were analyzed using a repeated measures ANOVA followed by Holm-Šídák multiple comparison testing||||||<0.0000001
90803298|NCT01682356|181485527|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6847||||||P values adjusted for multiplicity|ANOVA|Plasma nitrate values were analyzed using a repeated measures ANOVA followed by Holm-Šídák multiple comparison testing||||||0.6847
90803299|NCT01682356|181485528|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6847||||||P values adjusted for multiplicity|ANOVA|Plasma nitrate values were analyzed using a repeated measures ANOVA followed by Holm-Šídák multiple comparison testing||||||0.6847
90803300|NCT01682356|181485529|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4078||||||P values adjusted for multiplicity|ANOVA|Plasma nitrate values were analyzed using a repeated measures ANOVA followed by Holm-Šídák multiple comparison testing||||||0.4078
90803301|NCT01682356|181485530|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4078||||||P values adjusted for multiplicity|ANOVA|Plasma nitrate values were analyzed using a repeated measures ANOVA followed by Holm-Šídák multiple comparison testing||||||0.4078
90803302|NCT01682356|181485531|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3042||||||P value adjusted for multiplicity|ANOVA|Breath nitric oxide values were analyzed using a repeated measures ANOVA followed by Holm-Šídák multiple comparison testing||||||0.3042
90803303|NCT01682356|181485532|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-07||||||P value adjusted for multiplicity. Exact P value 3.469 x 10\^-7.|ANOVA|Breath nitric oxide values were analyzed using a repeated measures ANOVA followed by Holm-Šídák multiple comparison testing||||||<0.0000001
90803304|NCT01682356|181485533|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-07||||||P value adjusted for multiplicity. Exact P value 7.202 x 10\^-8|ANOVA|Breath nitric oxide values were analyzed using a repeated measures ANOVA followed by Holm-Šídák multiple comparison testing||||||<0.0000001
91013617|NCT02309372|181909989|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.76||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28|0.77|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.77|-2.28|0.32
90803305|NCT01682356|181485534|SUPERIORITY|||||||2.13e-06||||||P value adjusted for multiplicity. Exact P value 2.129 x 10\^-6.|ANOVA|Breath nitric oxide values were analyzed using a repeated measures ANOVA followed by Holm-Šídák multiple comparison testing||||||0.00000213
90803306|NCT01682356|181485535|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3918||||||P values adjusted for multiplicity|ANOVA|Values for blood pressure were analyzed using a repeated measures ANOVA followed by Holm-Šídák multiple comparison testing||||||0.3918
90803307|NCT01682356|181485536|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0598||||||P values adjusted for multiplicity|ANOVA|Values for blood pressure were analyzed using a repeated measures ANOVA followed by Holm-Šídák multiple comparison testing||||||0.05980
90803308|NCT01682356|181485537|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3918||||||P values adjusted for multiplicity|ANOVA|Values for blood pressure were analyzed using a repeated measures ANOVA followed by Holm-Šídák multiple comparison testing||||||0.3918
90803309|NCT01682356|181485538|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0987||||||P values adjusted for multiplicity|ANOVA|Values for blood pressure were analyzed using a repeated measures ANOVA followed by Holm-Šídák multiple comparison testing||||||0.09870
90803310|NCT01682356|181485539|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6044||||||P values adjusted for multiplicity|ANOVA|Values for blood pressure were analyzed using a repeated measures ANOVA followed by Holm-Šídák multiple comparison testing||||||0.6044
90803311|NCT01682356|181485540|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6044||||||P values adjusted for multiplicity|ANOVA|Values for blood pressure were analyzed using a repeated measures ANOVA followed by Holm-Šídák multiple comparison testing||||||0.6044
90803312|NCT01682356|181485541|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8819||||||P values adjusted for multiplicity|ANOVA|Values for blood pressure were analyzed using a repeated measures ANOVA followed by Holm-Šídák multiple comparison testing||||||0.8819
90803313|NCT01682356|181485542|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8987||||||P values adjusted for multiplicity|ANOVA|Values for blood pressure were analyzed using a repeated measures ANOVA followed by Holm-Šídák multiple comparison testing||||||0.8987
90803314|NCT03419897|181485606|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Binomial exact test|||Tislelizumab compared with historical ORR rate of 7%||||0.0001
90803315|NCT05112679|181485623|OTHER|See SAP|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.007|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.21||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||All participants were randomized to both groups in a cross over design, if a participant started with proprio after 4 weeks of use they will cross over to Empower ankle or vice versa. the data reflect comparison of the groups.||||0.009
90803316|NCT01530178|181485762|OTHER|Non-specified|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.91||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.7|-11.2|||ANOVA|||||-11.2|-44.7|0.003
90803317|NCT01530178|181485762|OTHER|Non-specified|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.131||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.91|8.652|||ANOVA|||||8.652|-12.91|0.68
90803318|NCT01530178|181485762|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.78||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.39|-13.17|||ANOVA|||||-13.17|-38.39|0.0005
90803319|NCT03980743|181485763|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Time x treatment (week 0 and week 24)||||0.97
90803320|NCT03980743|181485764|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.273|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Time x treatment (week 0 and week 24) for Healthy Eating||||0.273
90803321|NCT03980743|181485765|SUPERIORITY|Time x treatment (week 0 and week 24) with sum score||||||0.691|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.691
90803322|NCT01834287|181485769|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|31.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.6|52.4|||Regression, Linear|||||52.4|9.6|.001
90803323|NCT02297815|181485781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Score difference|-1.4||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|-0.36|||Weighted linear regression|Propensity-score based full matching performed. Average treatment effect weights calculated and applied to a weighted linear regression.|Narrow antibiotics is the reference group. A score difference less than zero indicates that broad spectrum antibiotics are associated with a lower (poorer) health related quality of life score.|Propensity-score based full matching performed using patient and physician-level characteristics. Average treatment effect weights calculated and applied to a weighted linear regression.||-0.36|-2.44|0.008
90803324|NCT02297815|181485782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.4||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|7.9|||Weighted logistic regression|Propensity-score based full matching. Average treatment effect weights calculated and applied to a weighted logistic regression.|Broad spectrum antibiotics are the reference. A risk difference more than 0 indicates that the broad spectrum antibiotics had a higher risk of adverse outcome|Propensity-score based full matching performed using patient and physician-level characteristics. Average treatment effect weights calculated and applied to a weighted logistic regression. Risk difference obtained by marginal standardization.||7.9|-3.1|0.39
90803325|NCT02297815|181485783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|1.5||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|6.8|||Weighted logistic regression|Propensity-score based full matching. Average treatment effect weights calculated and applied to a weighted logistic regression.|Broad spectrum antibiotics are the reference. A risk difference more than 0 indicates that the broad spectrum antibiotics had a higher risk of adverse outcome|Propensity-score based full matching performed using patient and physician-level characteristics. Average treatment effect weights calculated and applied to a weighted logistic regression. Risk difference obtained by marginal standardization.||6.8|-3.9|0.59
90803326|NCT02297815|181485784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|12.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.3|17.2|||Weighted logistic regression|Propensity-score based full matching. Average treatment effect weights calculated and applied to a weighted logistic regression.|Broad spectrum antibiotics are the reference. A risk difference more than 0 indicates that the broad spectrum antibiotics had a higher risk of adverse outcome|Propensity-score based full matching performed using patient and physician-level characteristics. Average treatment effect weights calculated and applied to a weighted logistic regression. Risk difference obtained by marginal standardization.||17.2|7.3|<0.001
90803327|NCT02297815|181485785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|4.9||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|10.6|||Weighted logistic regression|Propensity-score based full matching. Average treatment effect weights calculated and applied to a weighted logistic regression.|Broad spectrum antibiotics are the reference. A risk difference more than 0 indicates that the broad spectrum antibiotics had a higher risk of adverse outcome|Propensity-score based full matching performed using patient and physician-level characteristics. Average treatment effect weights calculated and applied to a weighted logistic regression. Risk difference obtained by marginal standardization.||10.6|-0.8|0.09
91013618|NCT03289676|181910021|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.29
91013619|NCT03289676|181910023|OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|1.12||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.24|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.24|1.00|0.029
90803328|NCT02297815|181485786|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.6||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|9.6|||Weighted logistic regression|Propensity-score based full matching. Average treatment effect weights calculated and applied to a weighted logistic regression.|Broad spectrum antibiotics are the reference. A risk difference more than 0 indicates that the broad spectrum antibiotics had a higher risk of adverse outcome|Propensity-score based full matching performed using patient and physician-level characteristics. Average treatment effect weights calculated and applied to a weighted logistic regression. Risk difference obtained by marginal standardization.||9.6|-0.3|0.07
90803329|NCT02522429|181485804|OTHER|||||||0.05||||||Statistic adjusted at familywise level alpha of 0.05 with a Gaussian Random Field Cluster Correction (Z \> 2.7)|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.05
90803330|NCT02522429|181485805|OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||Statistic adjusted at familywise level alpha of 0.05 with a Gaussian Random Field Cluster Correction (Z \> 2.7). All significant voxels have an associated p-value smaller-or-equal to 0.05 (corrected for multiplicity).|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.05
90803331|NCT02522429|181485807|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Maximum CRS-R prior to LIFUP compared to Maximum CRS-R after LIFUP||||<0.05
90803332|NCT00294671|181485809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Longitudinal analysis of the difference between placebo and diflunisal treatment groups in NIS+7 change from baseline to 2 years.||||<0.001
90803333|NCT00294671|181485809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Longitudinal analysis of the difference between placebo and diflunisal treatment groups in NIS+7 change from baseline to 1years.||||0.02
90803334|NCT00294671|181485810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Longitudinal analysis of the difference between placebo and diflunisal treatment groups in Kumamoto score change from baseline to 2 years.||||0.002
90803335|NCT00294671|181485810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Longitudinal analysis of the difference between placebo and diflunisal treatment groups in Kumamoto score change from baseline to 1 year.||||0.10
90803336|NCT00294671|181485811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Longitudinal analysis of the difference between placebo and diflunisal treatment groups in mBMI change from baseline to 2 years.||||0.21
90803337|NCT00294671|181485811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Longitudinal analysis of the difference between placebo and diflunisal treatment groups in mBMI change from baseline to 1 year.||||0.43
90803338|NCT00294671|181485812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Longitudinal analysis of the difference between placebo and diflunisal treatment groups in SF-36 physical component change from baseline to 2 years.||||0.001
90803339|NCT00294671|181485812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Longitudinal analysis of the difference between placebo and diflunisal treatment groups in SF-36 physical component change from baseline to 1 year.||||0.06
90803340|NCT00294671|181485813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Longitudinal analysis of the difference between placebo and diflunisal treatment groups in SF-36 mental component change from baseline to 2 years.||||0.06
90803341|NCT00294671|181485813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Longitudinal analysis of the difference between placebo and diflunisal treatment groups in SF-36 mental component change from baseline to 1 year.||||0.37
90803342|NCT00958360|181485835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
90803343|NCT00958360|181485836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.13
90803344|NCT00958360|181485837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
90803345|NCT00958360|181485838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.013
90803346|NCT00958360|181485839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.013
91013620|NCT00976521|181910086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The primary endpoint of infarct size at 30 days measured by cardiac MRI, was summarized using the median, IQR, minimum and maximum values, in each infusion group, comparing the pooled active infusion arm to the pooled control non-infusion arm with the Wilcoxon rank sum test in the ITT analysis set. Data was only analyzed in subjects completing the cardiac MRI study and for whom the imaging data was received and deemed analyzable by the core laboratory.||||0.034
90803347|NCT01061723|181485844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.5||Threshold for significance = 0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Sarilumab group was compared to placebo group. Analysis was performed using two-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test. Pairwise comparisons of the response rates between each dose of sarilumab and placebo were derived.||2.5|0.4|0.966
90803348|NCT01061723|181485844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.5||Threshold for significance = 0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.5|0.6|0.467
90803349|NCT01061723|181485844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.9||Threshold for significance = 0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.9|0.3|0.559
90803350|NCT01061723|181485844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.4||Threshold for significance = 0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.4|0.6|0.496
90803351|NCT01061723|181485844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|4.2||Threshold for significance = 0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.2|0.8|0.143
90803352|NCT00500357|181485856|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 95 %confidence interval for the back-transformed GMFR was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion as a basis for comparison).|geometric mean fold rise|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.56|||||Confidence Intervals (CI) for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of titers (Vax 3 minus \[-\] Vax 1).|Serotype 1: Geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 1 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.56|0.28|
90803353|NCT00500357|181485856|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 95 %confidence interval for the back-transformed GMFR was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion as a basis for comparison).|geometric mean fold rise|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.01|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of titers (Vax 3 - Vax 1).|Serotype 3: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 1 and Vax 3 blood draws.||1.01|0.67|
90803354|NCT00500357|181485856|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 95 %confidence interval for the back-transformed GMFR was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion as a basis for comparison).|geometric mean fold rise|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.72|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of titers (Vax 3 - Vax 1).|Serotype 4: Geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 1 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.72|0.44|
90803355|NCT00500357|181485856|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 95 %confidence interval for the back-transformed GMFR was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion as a basis for comparison).|geometric mean fold rise|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.53|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of titers (Vax 3 - Vax 1).|Serotype 5: Geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 1 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.53|0.32|
90803356|NCT00500357|181485856|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 95 %confidence interval for the back-transformed GMFR was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion as a basis for comparison).|geometric mean fold rise|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.91|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of titers (Vax 3 - Vax 1).|Serotype 6A: Geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 1 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.91|0.45|
90803357|NCT00500357|181485856|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 95 %confidence interval for the back-transformed GMFR was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion as a basis for comparison).|geometric mean fold rise|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.01|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of titers (Vax 3 - Vax 1).|Serotype 6B: Geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 1 and Vax 3 blood draws.||1.01|0.56|
90803358|NCT00500357|181485856|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 95 %confidence interval for the back-transformed GMFR was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion as a basis for comparison).|geometric mean fold rise|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.65|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of titers (Vax 3 - Vax 1).|Serotype 7F: Geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 1 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.65|0.25|
90803359|NCT00500357|181485856|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 95 %confidence interval for the back-transformed GMFR was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion as a basis for comparison).|geometric mean fold rise|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.4|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of titers (Vax 3 - Vax 1).|Serotype 9V: Geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 1 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.40|0.16|
91013621|NCT00976521|181910087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The primary endpoint of infarct size at 30 days measured by cardiac MRI, was summarized using the median, IQR, minimum and maximum values, in each infusion group, comparing the pooled active infusion arm to the pooled control non-infusion arm with the Wilcoxon rank sum test in the ITT analysis set. Data was only analyzed in subjects completing the cardiac MRI study and for whom the imaging data was received and deemed analyzable by the core laboratory.||||0.51
91013622|NCT00465894|181910115|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.45
90803360|NCT00500357|181485856|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 95 %confidence interval for the back-transformed GMFR was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion as a basis for comparison).|geometric mean fold rise|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.78|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of titers (Vax 3 - Vax 1).|Serotype 14: Geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 1 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.78|0.40|
90803361|NCT00500357|181485856|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 95 %confidence interval for the back-transformed GMFR was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion as a basis for comparison).|geometric mean fold rise|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.65|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of titers (Vax 3 - Vax 1).|Serotype 18C: Geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 1 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.65|0.40|
90803362|NCT00500357|181485856|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 95 %confidence interval for the back-transformed GMFR was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion as a basis for comparison).|geometric mean fold rise|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.48|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of titers (Vax 3 - Vax 1).|Serotype 19A: Geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 1 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.48|0.30|
91013623|NCT00951912|181910181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7981|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.422|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6569|5.0607|||ANOVA|||"Null hypothesis: There are no difference in the difference of changes in plasma glucose.~Power calculation: The sample size of 55 subjects per group provided about 90% power to detect a significant change in the FG concentration of 8 mg/dL (7%) by using a general assumption of a 2-tailed a level of 0.05 and allowing for a 20% withdrawal rate."||5.0607|-6.6569|<0.05
91013624|NCT00951912|181910181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.0842|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.411|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7486|8.9171|||ANOVA|||||8.9171|-2.7486|<0.05
91013625|NCT00951912|181910181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.8823|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.399|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9234|9.6881|||ANOVA|||||9.6881|-1.9234|<0.05
91013626|NCT00951912|181910182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.7696|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.2|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9308|8.3916|||ANOVA|||||8.3916|-11.9308|<0.05
91013627|NCT00951912|181910182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6929|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1818|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4232|10.8091|||ANOVA|||||10.8091|-9.4232|<0.05
90803363|NCT00500357|181485856|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 95 %confidence interval for the back-transformed GMFR was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion as a basis for comparison).|geometric mean fold rise|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.67|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of titers (Vax 3 - Vax 1).|Serotype 19F: Geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 1 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.67|0.35|
90803364|NCT00500357|181485856|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 95 %confidence interval for the back-transformed GMFR was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion as a basis for comparison).|geometric mean fold rise|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.86|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of titers (Vax 3 - Vax 1).|Serotype 23F: Geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 1 and Vax 3 blood draws.||1.86|0.86|
90803365|NCT00500357|181485859|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 95 %confidence interval for the back-transformed GMFR was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion as a basis for comparison).|geometric mean fold rise|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.57|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of titers (Vax 3 - Vax 2).|Serotype 1: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 2 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.57|0.34|
90803366|NCT00500357|181485859|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 95 %confidence interval for the back-transformed GMFR was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion as a basis for comparison).|geometric mean fold rise|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.95|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of titers (Vax 3 - Vax 2).|Serotype 3: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 2 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.95|0.66|
90803367|NCT00500357|181485859|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 95 %confidence interval for the back-transformed GMFR was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion as a basis for comparison).|geometric mean fold rise|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.22|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of titers (Vax 3 - Vax 2).|Serotype 4: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 2 and Vax 3 blood draws.||1.22|0.76|
90803368|NCT00500357|181485859|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 95 %confidence interval for the back-transformed GMFR was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion as a basis for comparison).|geometric mean fold rise|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.8|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of titers (Vax 3 - Vax 2).|Serotype 5: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 2 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.80|0.57|
90803369|NCT00500357|181485859|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 95 %confidence interval for the back-transformed GMFR was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion as a basis for comparison).|geometric mean fold rise|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|2.84|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of titers (Vax 3 - Vax 2).|Serotype 6A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 2 and Vax 3 blood draws.||2.84|1.39|
91013628|NCT00951912|181910182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.4626|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1624|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6067|12.5318|||ANOVA|||||12.5318|-7.6067|<0.05
90803370|NCT00500357|181485859|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 95 %confidence interval for the back-transformed GMFR was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion as a basis for comparison).|geometric mean fold rise|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|1.63|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of titers (Vax 3 - Vax 2).|Serotype 6B: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 2 and Vax 3 blood draws.||1.63|1.11|
90803371|NCT00500357|181485859|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 95 %confidence interval for the back-transformed GMFR was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion as a basis for comparison).|geometric mean fold rise|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.41|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of titers (Vax 3 - Vax 2).|Serotype 7F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 2 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.41|0.18|
91013629|NCT00951912|181910183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01174|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45967|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5428|3.5194|||ANOVA|||||3.5194|-3.5428|<0.05
91054442|NCT01674647|181991005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|2.0|||no statistical test performed||Crude estimate of the cumulative incidence for rivaroxaban (Xarelto, BAY59-7939): 0.20% (0.04% - 0.71%). Crude estimate of the cumulative incidence for Vitamin K antagonist (VKA): 0.61% (0.17% - 1.72%).|Descriptive comparison of crude estimates of the cumulative incidence and estimation of risk ratio, all with 95% confidence intervals||2.00|0.06|
90803372|NCT00500357|181485859|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 95 %confidence interval for the back-transformed GMFR was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion as a basis for comparison).|geometric mean fold rise|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.68|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of titers (Vax 3 - Vax 2).|Serotype 9V: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 2 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.68|0.27|
91013630|NCT00951912|181910183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.68659|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4532|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.202|0.8288|||ANOVA|||||0.8288|-6.2020|<0.05
91013631|NCT00951912|181910183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.67485|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.44646|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.174|0.8243|||ANOVA|||||0.8243|-6.174|<0.05
91013632|NCT00951912|181910184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.9661|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.14977|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5857|4.6535|||ANOVA|||||4.6535|-10.5857|<0.05
91013633|NCT00951912|181910184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|-0.9972|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.13581|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.583|6.5886|||ANOVA|||||6.5886|-8.5830|<0.05
90803373|NCT00500357|181485859|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 95 %confidence interval for the back-transformed GMFR was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion as a basis for comparison).|geometric mean fold rise|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.83|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of titers (Vax 3 - Vax 2).|Serotype 14: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 2 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.83|0.57|
90803374|NCT00500357|181485859|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 95 %confidence interval for the back-transformed GMFR was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion as a basis for comparison).|geometric mean fold rise|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.03|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of titers (Vax 3 - Vax 2).|Serotype 18C: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 2 and Vax 3 blood draws.||1.03|0.66|
90803375|NCT00500357|181485859|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 95 %confidence interval for the back-transformed GMFR was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion as a basis for comparison).|geometric mean fold rise|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.78|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of titers (Vax 3 - Vax 2).|Serotype 19A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 2 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.78|0.58|
90803376|NCT00500357|181485859|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 95 %confidence interval for the back-transformed GMFR was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion as a basis for comparison).|geometric mean fold rise|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.73|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of titers (Vax 3 - Vax 2).|Serotype 19F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 2 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.73|0.47|
90803377|NCT00500357|181485859|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 95 %confidence interval for the back-transformed GMFR was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion as a basis for comparison).|geometric mean fold rise|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|1.94|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of titers (Vax 3 - Vax 2).|Serotype 23F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 2 and Vax 3 blood draws.||1.94|1.18|
90803378|NCT00500357|181485860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.82|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of concentrations (Vax 3 - Vax 1).|Serotype 1: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 1 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.82|0.52|
90803379|NCT00500357|181485860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.62|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of concentrations (Vax 3 - Vax 1).|Serotype 3: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 1 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.62|0.43|
90803380|NCT00500357|181485860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.76|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of concentrations (Vax 3 - Vax 1).|Serotype 4: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 1 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.76|0.53|
90803381|NCT00500357|181485860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.39|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of concentrations (Vax 3 - Vax 1).|Serotype 5: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 1 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.39|0.27|
90803382|NCT00500357|181485860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.1|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of concentrations (Vax 3 - Vax 1).|Serotype 6A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 1 and Vax 3 blood draws.||1.10|0.74|
90803383|NCT00500357|181485860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.99|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of concentrations (Vax 3 - Vax 1).|Serotype 6B: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 1 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.99|0.63|
90803384|NCT00500357|181485860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.87|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of concentrations (Vax 3 - Vax 1).|Serotype 7F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 1 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.87|0.60|
90803385|NCT00500357|181485860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.6|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of concentrations (Vax 3 - Vax 1).|Serotype 9V: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 1 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.60|0.42|
90803386|NCT00500357|181485860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.98|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of concentrations (Vax 3 - Vax 1).|Serotype 14: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 1 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.98|0.59|
90803387|NCT00500357|181485860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.46|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of concentrations (Vax 3 - Vax 1).|Serotype 18C: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 1 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.46|0.31|
90803388|NCT00500357|181485860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.74|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of concentrations (Vax 3 - Vax 1).|Serotype 19A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 1 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.74|0.49|
90803389|NCT00500357|181485860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.79|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of concentrations (Vax 3 - Vax 1).|Serotype 19F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 1 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.79|0.52|
90803390|NCT00500357|181485860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.93|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of concentrations (Vax 3 - Vax 1).|Serotype 23F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 1 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.93|0.62|
90803391|NCT00500357|181485861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.78|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of titers (Vax 3 - Vax 2).|Serotype 1: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 2 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.78|0.60|
90803392|NCT00500357|181485861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.64|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of titers (Vax 3 - Vax 2).|Serotype 3: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 2 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.64|0.48|
91013634|NCT00951912|181910184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|1.9689|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.12126|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5817|9.5195|||ANOVA|||||9.5195|-5.5817|<0.05
91013635|NCT00951912|181910185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Rank|1.442|||<|0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.05
91013636|NCT00951912|181910186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Ranks|1.895|||<|0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.05
91013637|NCT00951912|181910187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Ranks|2.169|||<|0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.05
91013638|NCT00951912|181910188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.437|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.9113|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.444|15.318|||ANOVA|||||15.318|-8.444|<0.05
91013639|NCT00951912|181910188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.4809|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.8896|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3475|15.3092|||ANOVA|||||15.3092|-8.3475|<0.05
91013640|NCT00951912|181910188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0439|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.8669|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7296|11.8174|||ANOVA|||||11.8174|-11.7296|<0.05
91013641|NCT00951912|181910189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean ranks|1.031|||<|0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.05
91013642|NCT00951912|181910190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.8185|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2343|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0057|9.6426|||ANOVA|||||9.6426|-6.0057|<0.05
91013643|NCT00951912|181910190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0276|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2199|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7619|8.817|||ANOVA|||||8.8170|-6.7619|<0.05
91013644|NCT00951912|181910190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7909|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.205|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5442|6.9624|||ANOVA|||||6.9624|-8.5442|<0.05
91013645|NCT00951912|181910191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.0122|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1686|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0721|12.0964|||ANOVA|||||12.0964|-8.0721|<0.05
91013646|NCT00951912|181910191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7716|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1501|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8111|9.2679|||ANOVA|||||9.2679|-10.8111|<0.05
90803393|NCT00500357|181485861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.87|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of titers (Vax 3 - Vax 2).|Serotype 4: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 2 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.87|0.65|
91013647|NCT00951912|181910191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.7837|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1309|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7767|7.2092|||ANOVA|||||7.2092|-12.7767|<0.05
91013648|NCT00951912|181910192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4437|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1001|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6416|-0.2458|||ANOVA|||||-0.2458|-0.6416|<0.05
91013649|NCT00951912|181910192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1986|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09986|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3956|-0.0016|||ANOVA|||||-0.0016|-0.3956|<0.05
91013650|NCT00951912|181910192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2451|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09648|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0544|0.4358|||ANOVA|||||0.4358|0.0544|<0.05
91013651|NCT00951912|181910193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6353|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1146|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8617|-0.4089|||ANOVA|||||-0.4089|-0.8617|<0.05
91013652|NCT00951912|181910193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0282|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1156||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2003|0.2568|||ANOVA|||||0.2568|-0.2003|0.05
91013653|NCT00951912|181910193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6635|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1121|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4419|0.8851|||ANOVA|||||0.8851|0.4419|<0.05
91013654|NCT00951912|181910194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1557|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.119|<|0.05||95.0|-0.3911|0.0796|||ANOVA|||||0.0796|-0.3911|<0.05
91013655|NCT00951912|181910194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.606|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.119||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8414|-0.3707|||ANOVA|||||-0.3707|-0.8414|0.05
91013656|NCT00951912|181910194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4503|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1163|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6804|-0.2202|||ANOVA|||||-0.2202|-0.6804|<0.05
91013657|NCT00951912|181910195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|102.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|83.4|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-99.3|304.1|||ANOVA|||||304.1|-99.3|<0.05
91013658|NCT00951912|181910195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|82.6||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-203.7|196.1|||ANOVA|||||196.1|-203.7|0.05
91013659|NCT00951912|181910195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-106.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|82.2|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-305.1|92.8|||ANOVA|||||92.8|-305.1|<0.05
91013660|NCT01377194|181910208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-3.303||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.457|-1.148|||mixed-model for repeated measures|||||-1.148|-5.457|0.0027
91013661|NCT01377194|181910208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-3.141||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.293|-0.988|||mixed-model for repeated measures|||||-0.988|-5.293|0.0043
91013662|NCT01377194|181910209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-1.827||||0.0459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.62|-0.033|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures.||||-0.033|-3.620|0.0459
90803394|NCT00500357|181485861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.76|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of titers (Vax 3 - Vax 2).|Serotype 5: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 2 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.76|0.61|
91013663|NCT01377194|181910209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-2.72||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.494|-0.946|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures.||||-0.946|-4.494|0.0028
90803395|NCT00500357|181485861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|1.75|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of titers (Vax 3 - Vax 2).|Serotype 6A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 2 and Vax 3 blood draws.||1.75|1.27|
90803396|NCT00500357|181485861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.21|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of titers (Vax 3 - Vax 2).|Serotype 6B: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 2 and Vax 3 blood draws.||1.21|0.94|
90803397|NCT00500357|181485861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.79|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of titers (Vax 3 - Vax 2).|Serotype 7F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 2 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.79|0.58|
90803398|NCT00500357|181485861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.68|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of titers (Vax 3 - Vax 2).|Serotype 9V: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 2 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.68|0.53|
90803399|NCT00500357|181485861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.67|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of titers (Vax 3 - Vax 2).|Serotype 14: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 2 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.67|0.51|
90803400|NCT00500357|181485861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.74|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of titers (Vax 3 - Vax 2).|Serotype 18C: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 2 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.74|0.60|
90803401|NCT00500357|181485861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.88|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of titers (Vax 3 - Vax 2).|Serotype 19A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 2 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.88|0.69|
90803402|NCT00500357|181485861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.62|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of titers (Vax 3 - Vax 2).|Serotype 19F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 2 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.62|0.47|
90803403|NCT00500357|181485861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.25|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of titers (Vax 3 - Vax 2).|Serotype 23F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 2 and Vax 3 blood draws.||1.25|0.90|
90803404|NCT02263326|181485862|NON_INFERIORITY|We considered DTG/3TC was noninferior to cART if the 90% confidence interval for the difference in proportions, calculated with Miettinen-Nurminen (score) confidence limits, excluded the 12% noninferiority margin.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0015|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.098|0.102||||||A sample size of 41 participants per arm provided 80% power to show noninferiority of DTG/3TC to cART based on a 12% noninferiority margin, assuming an estimated treatment failure rate of 5% per arm by week 24 and 5% 1-sided type I error rate.||0.102|-0.098|
91013664|NCT00422227|181910211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91013665|NCT00422227|181910212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||ACR 20||||<0.001
91013666|NCT00422227|181910212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||ACR 50||||<0.001
90803405|NCT02263326|181485863|NON_INFERIORITY|The difference in virologic outcomes based on the FDA snapshot algorithm at week 48 (HIV RNA \<50 copies/mL) was compared between arms, with 95% confidence intervals.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.126|0.165||||||||0.165|-0.126|
90803406|NCT02263326|181485864|OTHER|||||||0.866|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.866
90803407|NCT02263326|181485865|OTHER|||||||0.613|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.613
90803408|NCT02263326|181485866|OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.420
90803409|NCT02263326|181485867|OTHER|||||||0.074|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.074
90803410|NCT02263326|181485869|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|4.1|||Regression, Linear|||||4.1|-3.0|0.76
90803411|NCT03292874|181485871|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014||||||"Areas under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC) were compared between models with standard and high-resolution MRI variables using the nonparametric method described by DeLong.~DeLong. Biometrics 1988;44(3):837-45."|nonparametric method|||||||0.014
90803412|NCT02482298|181485884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06367|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.061|0.151|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.1510|-0.0610|
91013667|NCT00422227|181910212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||ACR 70||||0.009
91013668|NCT00422227|181910213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Low Disease (DAS28 \<3.2)||||<0.001
91013669|NCT00422227|181910213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.069||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Remission (DAS28 \<2.6)||||0.069
91013670|NCT00422227|181910214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91013671|NCT00422227|181910215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.003
90803413|NCT02482298|181485884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0801|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06192|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.023|0.1832|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.1832|-0.0230|
91013672|NCT00422227|181910216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||≥0.6||||0.003
91013673|NCT00422227|181910216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||≥1.2||||0.001
91013674|NCT00422227|181910217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Painful Joints at Week 16||||0.014
91013675|NCT00422227|181910217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Swollen Joints at Week 16||||<0.001
91013676|NCT00422227|181910218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Physician Global Assessment Week 16||||<0.001
91013677|NCT00422227|181910218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Subject Global Assessment Week 16||||<0.001
91013678|NCT00422227|181910219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Week 16||||<0.001
90803414|NCT02482298|181485886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1192|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05059|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.035|0.2035|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.2035|0.0350|
90803415|NCT02482298|181485886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0975|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04923|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0155|0.1795|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.1795|0.0155|
90803416|NCT00348946|181485921|SUPERIORITY|BOT Visual-motor control||||||0.005|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.005
90803417|NCT00348946|181485921|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||ANCOVA|||BOT upper limb speed||||0.17
90803418|NCT00348946|181485921|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||ANCOVA|||BOT strength||||0.17
90803419|NCT00348946|181485921|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||ANCOVA|||Hand dynamometer||||0.06
90803420|NCT00348946|181485921|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||ANCOVA|||PANESS||||0.87
90803421|NCT00348946|181485922|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||ANCOVA|||DAS: General concept ability||||0.44
90803422|NCT00348946|181485922|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||ANCOVA|||DAS: Verbal Cluster||||0.57
90803423|NCT00348946|181485922|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||ANCOVA|||DAS: Nonverbal Cluster||||0.55
90803424|NCT00348946|181485922|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||ANCOVA|||DAS: Spatial Cluster||||0.65
90803425|NCT00348946|181485923|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||ANCOVA|||Digit Span backward||||0.23
90803426|NCT00348946|181485923|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||ANCOVA|||Phonetic fluency||||0.36
90803427|NCT00348946|181485923|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||ANCOVA|||Semantic fluency||||0.37
90803428|NCT00348946|181485923|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||ANCOVA|||CPT: omissions||||0.41
90803429|NCT00348946|181485923|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||ANCOVA|||CPT: commissions||||0.73
90803430|NCT00348946|181485923|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||ANCOVA|||CPT: hit reaction time||||0.40
90803431|NCT00348946|181485923|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||ANCOVA|||CPT: variability||||0.95
90803432|NCT00348946|181485923|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||ANCOVA|||CPT: preservations||||0.78
90803433|NCT00348946|181485924|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||ANCOVA|||CBCL: Behavior total||||0.16
90803434|NCT00348946|181485924|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||ANCOVA|||CBCL: Internalizing total||||0.10
90803435|NCT00348946|181485924|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||ANCOVA|||CBCL: externalizing total||||0.24
90803436|NCT00348946|181485924|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||ANCOVA|||CDI: Total||||0.50
90803437|NCT00348946|181485925|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.15
90803438|NCT00910910|181485962|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.21||||0.323|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.66|||stratified log rank||Based on stratified Cox proportional hazards model comparing the hazard functions associated with treatment groups.|Stratification factors: Disease stage (Binet A or Binet B or Rai I or Rai II versus (VS) Binet C or Rai III or Rai IV); Presence of at least one of the co-morbidities Asparate transaminase (AST)/Alanine transaminase (ALT) ≥ 3.0 times Upper Limits of Normal (ULN,) Creatinine clearance ≥ 30 to \< 60 mL/min, Yes VS No); Presence of at least one 11q deletion, 17p deletion, unmutated Immunoglobulin Heavy-chain Variable-region (IgVH) or Beta-2 Microglobulin (ß2M )\> 4.0 mg/L (Yes versus No VS Unknown)||1.66|0.88|0.323
90803439|NCT00910910|181485963|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.99||||0.967|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.76|1.29||The p-value is based on a stratified log-rank test|Log Rank||Based on stratified Cox proportional hazards model comparing the hazard functions associated with treatment groups.|Stratification factors: Disease stage (Binet A or Binet B or Rai I or Rai II versus (VS) Binet C or Rai III or Rai IV); Presence of at least one of the co-morbidities Asparate transaminase (AST)/Alanine transaminase (ALT) ≥ 3.0 times Upper Limits of Normal (ULN,) Creatinine clearance ≥ 30 to \< 60 mL/min, Yes VS No); Presence of at least one 11q deletion, 17p deletion, unmutated Immunoglobulin Heavy-chain Variable-region (IgVH) or Beta-2 Microglobulin (ß2M )\> 4.0 mg/L (Yes versus No VS Unknown)||1.29|0.76|0.967
90803440|NCT00910910|181485966|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.96|||Fisher Exact|||||0.96|0.44|0.032
90803441|NCT00910910|181485967|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.66||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.98|||Fisher Exact|||||0.98|0.45|0.047
90803442|NCT00910910|181485968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.826|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.58|1.52|||Log Rank||Based on stratified Cox proportional hazards model comparing the hazard functions associated with treatment groups|||1.52|0.58|0.826
90803443|NCT00910910|181485969|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.71||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.48|1.05|||Log Rank||Based on stratified Cox proportional hazards model comparing the hazard functions associated with treatment groups.|||1.05|0.48|0.149
90803444|NCT00910910|181485972|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.03||||0.883|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.73|1.46|||Log Rank||Based on stratified Cox proportional hazards model comparing the hazard functions associated with treatment groups.|||1.46|0.73|0.883
90803445|NCT00910910|181485973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.06||||0.709|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|1.34|||stratified log rank||Based on stratified Cox proportional hazards model comparing the hazard functions associated with treatment groups|||1.34|0.83|0.709
90803446|NCT01434654|181485996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99||||||P-value for arm\*time interaction fixed effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|49 datapoints included from baseline, 6 months, and 12 months visits (low CNS penetrance n=14; high CNS penetrance n=35)||The primary outcome was analysed using a mixed-effect regression model with arm and time as fixed linear effects, arm\*time interaction as a non-linear fixed effect and participant as a random effect to account for participant attrition.||||0.99
90803447|NCT01434654|181485997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58|||||||ANOVA|||Change in NAA/H20 levels was analysed using repeated-measures ANOVA with arm, time, and arm\*time interaction as fixed effects.||||0.58
90803448|NCT01434654|181485997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44|||||||ANOVA|||Change in Cr/H20 levels was analysed using repeated-measures ANOVA with arm, time, and arm\*time interaction as fixed effects.||||0.44
90803449|NCT01434654|181485997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86|||||||ANOVA|||Change in Cho/H20 levels was analysed using repeated-measures ANOVA with arm, time, and arm\*time interaction as fixed effects.||||0.86
90803450|NCT01434654|181485997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98|||||||ANOVA|||Change in mIo/H20 levels was analysed using repeated-measures ANOVA with arm, time, and arm\*time interaction as fixed effects.||||0.98
90803451|NCT01434654|181485998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||ANOVA|||Change in NAA/H20 levels were analysed using repeated-measures ANOVA with arm, time, and arm\*time interaction as fixed effects.||||0.16
90803452|NCT01434654|181485998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||ANOVA|||Change in Cr/H20 levels were analysed using repeated-measures ANOVA with arm, time, and arm\*time interaction as fixed effects.||||0.09
90803453|NCT01434654|181485998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||ANOVA|||Change in Cho/H20 levels were analysed using repeated-measures ANOVA with arm, time, and arm\*time interaction as fixed effects.||||0.06
90803454|NCT01434654|181485998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||ANOVA|||Change in mIo/H20 levels were analysed using repeated-measures ANOVA with arm, time, and arm\*time interaction as fixed effects.||||0.68
90803455|NCT01434654|181485998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58|||||||ANOVA|||Change in Glx/H20 levels were analysed using repeated-measures ANOVA with arm, time, and arm\*time interaction as fixed effects.||||0.58
90803456|NCT01926444|181486003|OTHER|||||||0.506|||||||ANOVA|||AUC- censorsed (standardized); FAS||||0.506
90803457|NCT01926444|181486003|OTHER|||||||0.299|||||||ANOVA|||AUC LOCF (standardized); FAS||||0.299
90803458|NCT01926444|181486003|OTHER|||||||0.234|||||||ANOVA|||AUC Censored (Standardized)- PP Population||||0.234
90803459|NCT01926444|181486003|OTHER|||||||0.219|||||||ANOVA|||AUC LOCF (Standardized)- PP Population||||0.219
90803460|NCT01926444|181486004|OTHER|||||||0.047|||||||Chi-squared|||Time to Caecum||||0.047
90803461|NCT01926444|181486005|OTHER|||||||0.047|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.047
90803462|NCT00894699|181486016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
90803463|NCT00894699|181486016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90803464|NCT02626156|181486017|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.3|||Chi-squared||Asymptotic standard error was used|||0.3|-0.02|0.091
90803465|NCT00778336|181486048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Alternative hypothesis is change in occlusion \> 0.||||||<0.0001
91013679|NCT00422227|181910220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||General Health Week 16||||<0.001
90803466|NCT00778336|181486048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Alternative hypothesis is change in occlusion \> 0.||||||<0.0001
90803467|NCT00778336|181486048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Alternative hypothesis is change in occlusion \> 0.||||||<0.0001
90803468|NCT00778336|181486048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Alternative hypothesis is change in occlusion \> 0.||||||<0.0001
90803469|NCT04585269|181486051|SUPERIORITY|Testing for a difference between arms|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.93|-1.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.53|-4.93|<0.001
90803470|NCT04585269|181486052|SUPERIORITY|Testing for a difference between arms|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.43||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.05|-0.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.81|-4.05|0.003
90803471|NCT04585269|181486053|SUPERIORITY|Testing for a difference between arms|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.4||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|6.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.45|0.34|0.029
90803472|NCT05111613|181486341|SUPERIORITY||Win Ratio|5.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.68|6.97||||||||6.97|3.68|
90803473|NCT05111613|181486342|SUPERIORITY||Win Ratio|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.35||||||||2.35|0.78|
90803474|NCT04209387|181486361|OTHER|p \< .01||||||0.01||||||p adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Pair-wise comparison of changes in coherency from baseline (before therapy) to the end of therapy.~Pair-wise comparison of changes in coherency from end of therapy to 3-month follow-up"|ANOVA test of means|||0.01
90803475|NCT01166347|181486362|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin was 15%.|Difference in Percentages|3.7||||0.011|ONE_SIDED|95.0||12.56|||Wald test||Difference = Control - HeartWare|Primary endpoint is 2 year survival free from disabling stroke (Modified Rankin Scale \>=4), death, exchange, explant due to device malfunction or urgent transplantation. Subjects who are electively transplanted or explanted due to recovery (no disabling stroke) must survive to 2 years post original implant to be considered a success.||12.56||0.0110
90803476|NCT01166347|181486363|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|1.1||||0.5922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|10.8||If p\<0.05, then the test is statistically significant.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as the only independent variable.|Difference = HeartWare - Control|If non-inferiority is established for the primary endpoint, statistical testing for superiority and p-value estimation for the 3 secondary endpoints (incidence of bleeding, incidence of major infection, overall survival) will be performed in a pre-specified sequence and testing will continue at the nominal alpha level until the first non-significant result. This fixed sequence procedure strongly controls the family-wise error rate for the collection of the 3 secondary endpoints.||10.8|-8.5|0.5922
90803477|NCT03541499|181486393|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.807|||||||Barnard's exact test|||At any time point||||0.807
90803478|NCT03541499|181486393|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.043|||||||Barnard's exact test|||At any time point||||0.043
90803479|NCT03541499|181486394|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Barnard's exact test|||Any time point||||1.000
91013680|NCT00422227|181910220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Pain Week 16||||<0.001
91013681|NCT00422227|181910220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Fatigue Week 16||||0.001
90803480|NCT03541499|181486394|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.301|||||||Barnard's exact test|||Any time point||||0.301
90803481|NCT03541499|181486395|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Barnard's exact test|||Any time point||||1.000
90803482|NCT03541499|181486395|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||Barnard's exact test|||Any time point||||0.009
90803483|NCT03541499|181486397|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.526|||||||Barnard's exact test|||IgA, any time point||||0.526
91013682|NCT03747497|181910221|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|2.8||||||||2.8|-14.0|
91013683|NCT01441882|181910239|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-parametric two-sided Mann-Whitney test was run assuming non-Gaussian distributions. Two-tailed with 95% confidence intervals.||||||0.0106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.||Percent change from baseline in responders compared to non-responders (lymph node size).||||0.0106
91013684|NCT01441882|181910239|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-parametric two-sided Mann-Whitney test was run assuming non-Gaussian distributions. Two-tailed with 95% confidence intervals.||||||0.1986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.||Percent change from baseline in responders compared to non-responders (Absolute Lymphocyte Count (ALC)).||||0.19860
91013685|NCT01441882|181910239|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-parametric two-sided Mann-Whitney test was run assuming non-Gaussian distributions. Two-tailed with 95% confidence intervals.||||||0.5167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.||Percent change from baseline in responders compared to non-responders (spleen size).||||0.5167
90803484|NCT03541499|181486397|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Barnard's exact test|||IgA, any time point||||0.100
91013686|NCT02646566|181910273|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||One-sided p-value. After adjustment for multiplicity using Hommel's method. (Note: unadjusted p value = 0.003) A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.025.|Chi-squared|||The primary efficacy analysis was a comparison of the incidence of the primary efficacy variable between the two groups that received APD421 and the group that received placebo, using Pearson's χ2 test. The threshold for determining statistical significance in the comparison of incidence of success between the active and placebo groups (the primary efficacy analysis) was a p-value of 2.5% one-sided.||||0.003
90803485|NCT03541499|181486397|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.055|||||||Barnard's exact test|||IgG, any time point||||0.055
90803486|NCT03541499|181486397|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.023|||||||Barnard's exact test|||IgG, any time point||||0.023
90803487|NCT03541499|181486398|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.174|||||||Barnard's exact test|||IgA, any time point||||0.174
90803488|NCT03541499|181486398|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||Barnard's exact test|||IgA, any time point||||0.006
90803489|NCT03541499|181486398|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.745|||||||Barnard's exact test|||IgG, any time point||||0.745
90803490|NCT03541499|181486398|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.023|||||||Barnard's exact test|||IgG, any time point||||0.023
90803491|NCT03541499|181486404|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.023|||||||Barnard's exact test|||IgA, any time point||||0.023
90803492|NCT03541499|181486404|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.142|||||||Barnard's exact test|||IgA, any time point||||0.142
90803493|NCT03541499|181486404|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.526|||||||Barnard's exact test|||IgG, any time point||||0.526
90803494|NCT03541499|181486404|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.142|||||||Barnard's exact test|||IgG, any time point||||0.142
90803495|NCT03541499|181486405|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.836|||||||Barnard's exact test|||IgA, any time point||||0.836
91013687|NCT02646566|181910273|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.109||||||One-sided p-value. After adjustment for multiplicity using Hommel's method. (Note: unadjusted p value = 0.109) A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.025.|Chi-squared|||The primary efficacy analysis was a comparison of the incidence of the primary efficacy variable between the two groups that received APD421 and the group that received placebo, using Pearson's χ2 test. The threshold for determining statistical significance in the comparison of incidence of success between the active and placebo groups (the primary efficacy analysis) was a p-value of 2.5% one-sided.||||0.109
91013688|NCT02646566|181910274|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||One-sided p-value. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.025.|Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
90803496|NCT03541499|181486405|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Barnard's exact test|||IgA, any time point||||1.000
90803497|NCT03541499|181486405|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.526|||||||Barnard's exact test|||IgG, any time point||||0.526
90803498|NCT03541499|181486405|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.119|||||||Barnard's exact test|||IgG, any time point||||0.119
90803499|NCT03541499|181486406|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.271|||||||Barnard's exact test|||Any time point||||0.271
90803500|NCT03541499|181486406|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.226|||||||Barnard's exact test|||Any time point||||0.226
90803501|NCT03541499|181486407|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.783|||||||Barnard's exact test|||Any time point||||0.783
90803502|NCT03541499|181486407|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Barnard's exact test|||Any time point||||0.001
90803503|NCT03541499|181486408|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.745|||||||Barnard's exact test|||Any time point||||0.745
90803504|NCT03541499|181486408|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.068|||||||Barnard's exact test|||Any time point||||0.068
90803505|NCT03541499|181486409|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.585|||||||Barnard's exact test|||Any time point||||0.585
90803506|NCT03541499|181486409|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Barnard's exact test|||Any time point||||1.000
90803507|NCT02978157|181486457|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
90803508|NCT00485758|181486458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8|<|0.001||95.0|-21.4|-14.4|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Study times: 4, 8 and 12 weeks. Terms: treatment-by-time, gender-by-time and baseline low-density lipoprotein cholesterol -by-time interaction.||||-14.4|-21.4|<0.001
90803509|NCT00485758|181486459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3|<|0.001||95.0|20.7|25.7|||Repeated Measures Analysis|Study times: 4, 8 and 12 weeks. Terms: treatment-by-time, gender-by-time and baseline high-density lipoprotein cholesterol -by-time interaction.||||25.7|20.7|<0.001
90803510|NCT00485758|181486460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-23.1|||<|0.001||95.0|-27.2|-18.9|||ANCOVA|Nonparametric Analysis of Covariance model based on Tukey's normalized ranks with term for treatment, gender and Tukey's normal score of baseline.|The median difference between treatments is based on the Hodges-Lehmann estimates of shift with a corresponding distribution-free Confidence Interval based on Wilcoxon's rank|||-18.9|-27.2|<0.001
90803511|NCT03332173|181486461|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P value was based on the exact binomial test against the null hypothesis H0: MRR = 0.30 at a significance level of 0.025 (1-sided)|Exact binomial test|||Zanubrutinib versus historical control estimate of 30%||||<0.0001
90803512|NCT00131352|181486470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047||95.0|||||ANCOVA|The repeated measures ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, site, time and time-by-treatment interaction; the baseline score was a covariate.||||||0.047
90803513|NCT00131352|181486471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.064||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.064
90803514|NCT00131352|181486472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.56||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.92|||Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE)|||Estimate of Odds Ratio (Placebo/Synvisc-One) using WOMAC A1 data at Week 26.||0.92|0.35|0.022
90803515|NCT00131352|181486473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.679||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.679
90803516|NCT00131352|181486474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.266||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.266
90803517|NCT00131352|181486475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.51||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.82|||Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE)|||Model-based estimate of Odds Ratio (Placebo/Synvisc-One) using PTGA data at Week 26.||0.82|0.31|0.005
90803518|NCT00131352|181486476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.56||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.93|||Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE)|||Model-based estimate of Odds Ratio (Placebo/Synvisc-One) using COGA data at Week 26.||0.93|0.34|0.025
90803519|NCT00131352|181486477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||0.156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.16|||Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE)|||Estimate of Odds Ratio (Placebo/Synvisc-One) using Responder classification data at Week 26.||1.16|0.41|0.156
90803520|NCT00383331|181486478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||The response rates are separately evaluated for these two treatment arms. For each arm, a sample size of 48 achieves 91% power to detect a difference of 20% between the null hypothesis of 15% response rate and the alternative hypothesis of 35% using a one-sided, binomial hypothesis test with a target significance level of 2.5% (the actual significance level is 2.2%).||||0.48
90803521|NCT00383331|181486483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.56||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.56
90803522|NCT02253433|181486498|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|2.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.07|-.87|0.575
90803523|NCT02253433|181486499|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25||||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||.68|-.18|0.141
90803524|NCT02253433|181486500|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|ED visits over the previous 12 months were positively skewed (skewness 2.95; kurtosis 14.1); the responses were dichotomized (0 vs. 1 or more).||||1.57|.47|0.043
90803525|NCT02229825|181486501|OTHER|||||||0.88||||||p-value for treatment effect|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with stratification factors (country and pretreatment) and baseline score and treatment as the main factor.||The null hypothesis was that the mean change in MADRS total score between week 4 and baseline was the same for the 2 duloxetine treatment groups.||||0.88
90803526|NCT02229825|181486502|OTHER|||||||0.86||||||Treatment effect.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with stratification factors and HAMD6 baseline as covariates and treatment regimen as main factor.||Comparison between treatment regimes at Week 4.||||0.86
90803527|NCT02229825|181486503|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Signed Rank test|||Within-group comparisons, week 8 versus baseline.||||<0.0001
90803528|NCT02229825|181486503|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Singed Rank test|||Within-group comparison, week 8 versus baseline.||||<0.0001
91013689|NCT02646566|181910274|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.059||||||One-sided p-value. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.025.|Chi-squared|||||||0.059
90803529|NCT02229825|181486503|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Singed Rank test|||Within-group comparison, week 8 versus baseline.||||<0.0001
90803530|NCT02229825|181486503|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Signed Rank test|||Within-group comparison, week 8 versus baseline.||||<0.0001
91054443|NCT01674647|181991006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.55|||no statistical test performed||Crude estimate of the cumulative incidence for rivaroxaban (Xarelto, BAY59-7939): 0.61% (0.27% - 1.29%). Crude estimate of the cumulative incidence for Vitamin K antagonist (VKA): 1.22% (0.53% - 2.51%).|Descriptive comparison of crude estimates of the cumulative incidence and estimation of risk ratio, all with 95% confidence intervals||1.55|0.16|
90803531|NCT02229825|181486505|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||McNemar|||Within group comparisons were performed at week 8 versus baseline.||||<0.0001
90803532|NCT02229825|181486505|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||McNemar|||Within group comparisons were performed at week 8 versus baseline.||||<0.0001
90803533|NCT02229825|181486505|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||McNemar|||Within group comparisons were performed at week 8 versus baseline.||||<0.0001
90803534|NCT02229825|181486505|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||McNemar|||Within group comparisons were performed at week 8 versus baseline.||||<0.0001
90803535|NCT02229825|181486506|OTHER|||||||0.32||||||Treatment effect.|Regression, Logistic|||Treatment groups were compared regarding the number of responders and non-responders at week 4, using a logistic regression with stratification factors (country and pretreatment) and baseline scores as covariates and treatment regimen as main factor.||||0.32
90803536|NCT02229825|181486508|OTHER|||||||0.57||||||Treatment effect.|Regression, Logistic|||Treatment groups were compared regarding the number of responders and non-responders at week 4, using a logistic regression with stratification factors (country and pretreatment) and baseline scores as covariates and treatment regimen as main factor.||||0.57
90803537|NCT02229825|181486511|OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by country, 60 mg vs. 120 mg||"At week 4 CGI-S items were pooled to reduce the possible number of classes before formal testing. The 3 classes used (instead of 7 items) were: 1-2: normal, 3-5: moderate, 6-7: severe. Treatment groups were compared using the Cochran Mantel-Haenszel test with stratification by centre."||||0.68
90803538|NCT02229825|181486512|OTHER||Statistic|-528.0|||<|0.0001|||||||Signed Rank test||Difference is value at week 8 minus week 4.|At week 8, within-group comparison versus week 4 was performed.||||<0.0001
90803539|NCT02229825|181486512|OTHER||Statistic|-540.0|||<|0.0001|||||||Signed Rank test||Difference is value at week 8 minus week 4.|At week 8, within-group comparison versus week 4 was performed.||||<0.0001
91013690|NCT02646566|181910275|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||One-sided p-value. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.025.|Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91013691|NCT02646566|181910275|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.053||||||One-sided p-value. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.025.|Chi-squared|||||||0.053
90803540|NCT02229825|181486512|OTHER||Statistic|-1024.5|||<|0.0001|||||||Signed Rank test||Difference is value at week 8 minus week 4.|At week 8, within-group comparison versus week 4 was performed.||||<0.0001
90803541|NCT02229825|181486512|OTHER||Statistic|-279.0|||<|0.0001|||||||Signed Rank test||Difference is value at week 8 minus week 4.|At week 8, within-group comparison versus week 4 was performed.||||<0.0001
90803542|NCT02229825|181486513|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was tested.||||||0.07||||||Stratified by country, 60 mg vs. 120 mg|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"At week 4 CGI-S items were pooled to reduce the possible number of classes before formal testing. The 3 classes used (instead of 7 items) were: 1-2: normal, 3-5: moderate, 6-7: severe. Treatment groups were compared using the Cochran Mantel-Haenszel test with stratification by centre."||||0.07
90803543|NCT02229825|181486515|OTHER||CMH statistic|0.0||||1|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Before testing, PGI-I items were pooled to reduce the possible number of classes. The 3 classes used (instead of 7 items) were: 1-2= improved, 3-5=Stable, 6-7=Worsened. At week 4 treatment groups were compared using the Cochran Mantel-Haenszel test with stratification by centre."||||1.00
90803544|NCT02229825|181486517|OTHER|||||||0.92||||||Treatment effect|ANCOVA|||Comparison between HAMA scores between treatment regimens.||||0.92
91013692|NCT02646566|181910276|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||One-sided p-value. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.025.|Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
90803545|NCT02229825|181486518|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Student statistic t-test|||Within-group comparison, week 8 versus baseline.||||<0.0001
90803546|NCT02229825|181486518|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Student statistic t-test|||Within-group comparison, week 8 versus baseline.||||<0.0001
90803547|NCT02229825|181486518|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Student statistic t-test|||Within-group comparison, week 8 versus baseline.||||<0.0001
90803548|NCT02229825|181486518|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Student statistic t-test|||Within-group comparison, week 8 versus baseline.||||<0.0001
90803549|NCT02229825|181486520|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Student statistic t-test|||Within-group comparison, Week 8 versus baseline.||||<0.0001
90803550|NCT02229825|181486520|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Student statistic t-test|||Within-group comparison, week 8 versus baseline.||||0.001
90803551|NCT02229825|181486520|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Student statistic t-test|||Within-group comparison, week 8 versus baseline.||||<0.0001
90803552|NCT02229825|181486520|OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||Student statistic t-test|||Within-group comparison, week 8 versus baseline.||||0.28
90803553|NCT00363142|181486541|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of FPV/r100 to FPV/r200 would be declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval on the difference in percentage of participants not meeting the virologic failure definition \[FPV/r100 minus FPV/r200\] was -12% or greater.|Difference in the percentages|-2.12||||||95.0|-9.36|5.12|||||Difference in percentages = percentage in Arm 1 minus percentage in Arm 2|||5.12|-9.36|
90803554|NCT01313910|181486554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxin-rank test used to determine decrease in bowel movements/day after 8 weeks of intervention||||0.008
91013693|NCT02646566|181910276|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.021||||||One-sided p-value. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.025.|Chi-squared|||||||0.021
90803555|NCT01313910|181486555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.11
90803556|NCT01313910|181486556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
90803557|NCT01313910|181486558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.016
90803558|NCT01340664|181486569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.098|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.637|-0.251|||ANCOVA|||||-0.251|-0.637|<0.001
90803559|NCT01340664|181486569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.098|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.792|-0.407|||ANCOVA|||||-0.407|-0.792|<0.001
90803560|NCT01340664|181486570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Sqaures Mean Difference|-23.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.673|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.78|-14.38|||ANCOVA|||||-14.38|-32.78|<0.001
90803561|NCT01340664|181486570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Sqaures Mean Difference|-24.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.661|<|0.001||95.0|-33.18|-14.83|||ANCOVA|||||-14.83|-33.18|<0.001
90803562|NCT01340664|181486571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-1.3|||ANCOVA|||||-1.3|-3.1|<0.001
90803563|NCT01340664|181486571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-1.7|||ANCOVA|||||-1.7|-3.5|<0.001
90803564|NCT01340664|181486572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.43||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|4.9|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.90|1.21|0.013
90803565|NCT01340664|181486572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.68|6.81|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.81|1.68|<0.001
91013694|NCT02646566|181910277|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Cox|||||||<0.001
91013695|NCT02646566|181910277|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.084|||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.084
91013696|NCT02646566|181910278|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91013697|NCT02646566|181910278|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.004
90803566|NCT01392573|181486611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment contrast|-1.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|-0.84|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, country and previous antidiabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c value as covariate||||-0.84|-1.25|<0.0001
90803567|NCT03063606|181486633|SUPERIORITY|Analyses used all available data. Analyses to compare treatments were all intent-to-treat.||||||0.0002|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses were performed for all randomized patients who attended the first treatment session.||||||.0002
90803568|NCT03063606|181486634|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83||||||Analyses used all available data. Analyses to compare treatments were all intent-to-treat.|Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses were performed for all randomized patients who attended the first treatment session.||||||.83
90803569|NCT03079531|181486648|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||The null hypothesis is that there would be no difference in papule/pustule count at baseline and after 16 weeks of secukinumab; the alternative hypothesis is that there would be a difference. Using an alpha=0.05 and power=0.80 (two sided test), the sample size needed would be 20. Assuming a dropout rate of 20%, 24 patients would be needed to achieve sufficient sample size.||||0.01
90803570|NCT03079531|181486649|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.02
90803571|NCT03079531|181486650|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.03
90803572|NCT03079531|181486651|OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.2
90803573|NCT03079531|181486652|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.001
90803574|NCT03079531|181486654|OTHER|||||||0.56|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.56
90803575|NCT00841412|181486662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.96|||Mixed Models Analysis||The above results are for just one of multiple feeding assistance care process measures: proportion of meals during which residents received assistance to eat baseline to post intervention.|||0.96|0.59|<0.05
90803576|NCT00325130|181486663|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The difference in seroconversion rates (concomitant group -~nonconcomitant group) must be greater than -5%"|||||<|0.001||95.0||||Since p\<0.05, the hypothesis of noninferiority is accepted for this outcome.|Miettinen & Nurminen|Miettinen \& Nurminen method for difference in proportions, Stat Med 1985;4:213-26||||||<0.001
91013698|NCT02646566|181910279|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91013699|NCT02646566|181910279|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.179|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.179
91013700|NCT02646566|181910280|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.009
91013701|NCT02646566|181910280|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.315|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.315
91013702|NCT02646566|181910281|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.065|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.065
91013703|NCT02646566|181910281|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.520
90803577|NCT00325130|181486665|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The difference in seroconversion rates (concomitant group -~nonconcomitant group) must be greater than -5%"|||||<|0.001||95.0||||Since p\<0.05, the hypothesis of noninferiority is accepted for this outcome.|Miettinen & Nurminen|Miettinen \& Nurminen method for difference in proportions, Stat Med 1985;4:213-26||||||<0.001
90803578|NCT00325130|181486666|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The difference in seroconversion rates (concomitant group -~nonconcomitant group) must be greater than -5%"|||||<|0.001||95.0||||Since p\<0.05, the hypothesis of noninferiority is accepted for this outcome.|Miettinen & Nurminen|Miettinen \& Nurminen method for difference in proportions, Stat Med 1985;4:213-26||||||<0.001
90803579|NCT00325130|181486667|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The difference in seroconversion rates (concomitant group -~nonconcomitant group) must be greater than -5%"|||||<|0.001||95.0||||Since p\<0.05, the hypothesis of noninferiority is accepted for this outcome.|Miettinen & Nurminen|Miettinen \& Nurminen method for difference in proportions, Stat Med 1985;4:213-26||||||<0.001
90803580|NCT00325130|181486668|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The difference in seroconversion rates (concomitant group -~nonconcomitant group) must be greater than -10%"|||||<|0.001||95.0||||Since p\<0.05, the hypothesis of noninferiority is accepted for this outcome.|Miettinen & Nurminen|Miettinen \& Nurminen method for difference in proportions, Stat Med 1985;4:213-26||||||<0.001
90803581|NCT00325130|181486669|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The difference in seroconversion rates (concomitant group -~nonconcomitant group) must be greater than -10%"|||||<|0.001||95.0||||Since p\<0.05, the hypothesis of noninferiority is accepted for this outcome.|Miettinen & Nurminen|Miettinen \& Nurminen method for difference in proportions, Stat Med 1985;4:213-26||||||<0.001
90803582|NCT00325130|181486670|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The difference in seroconversion rates (concomitant group -~nonconcomitant group) must be greater than -10%"|||||<|0.001||95.0||||Since p\<0.05, the hypothesis of noninferiority is accepted for this outcome.|Miettinen & Nurminen|Miettinen \& Nurminen method for difference in proportions, Stat Med 1985;4:213-26||||||<0.001
90803583|NCT00325130|181486671|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The difference in seroconversion rates (concomitant group -~nonconcomitant group) must be greater than -10%"|||||<|0.001||95.0||||Since p\<0.05, the hypothesis of noninferiority is accepted for this outcome.|Miettinen & Nurminen|Miettinen \& Nurminen method for difference in proportions, Stat Med 1985;4:213-26||||||<0.001
90803584|NCT00325130|181486672|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The difference in seroconversion rates (concomitant group -~nonconcomitant group) must be greater than -10%"|||||<|0.001||95.0||||Since p\<0.05, the hypothesis of noninferiority is accepted for this outcome.|Miettinen & Nurminen|Miettinen \& Nurminen method for difference in proportions, Stat Med 1985;4:213-26||||||<0.001
90803585|NCT00325130|181486673|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The difference in seroconversion rates (concomitant group -~nonconcomitant group) must be greater than -10%"|||||<|0.001||95.0||||Since p\<0.05, the hypothesis of noninferiority is accepted for this outcome.|Miettinen & Nurminen|Miettinen \& Nurminen method for difference in proportions, Stat Med 1985;4:213-26||||||<0.001
91013704|NCT02646566|181910282|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.008
90803586|NCT00325130|181486674|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The ratio of GMTs (concomitant group / nonconcomitant group)~must be greater than 0.5."|||||<|0.001||95.0||||Since p\<0.05, the hypothesis of noninferiority is accepted for this outcome.|ANOVA|ANOVA on natural log titer with fixed effects for region, vaccination group and their interaction.||||||<0.001
90803587|NCT00325130|181486675|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The ratio of GMTs (concomitant group / nonconcomitant group)~must be greater than 0.5."|||||<|0.001||95.0||||Since p\<0.05, the hypothesis of noninferiority is accepted for this outcome.|ANOVA|ANOVA on natural log titer with fixed effects for region, vaccination group and their interaction.||||||<0.001
90803588|NCT00325130|181486676|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The ratio of GMTs (concomitant group / nonconcomitant group)~must be greater than 0.5."|||||<|0.001||95.0||||Since p\<0.05, the hypothesis of noninferiority is accepted for this outcome.|ANOVA|ANOVA on natural log titer with fixed effects for region, vaccination group and their interaction.||||||<0.001
90803589|NCT00325130|181486677|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The ratio of GMTs (concomitant group / nonconcomitant group)~must be greater than 0.5."|||||<|0.001||95.0||||Since p\<0.05, the hypothesis of noninferiority is accepted for this outcome.|ANOVA|ANOVA on natural log titer with fixed effects for region, vaccination group and their interaction.||||||<0.001
91013705|NCT02646566|181910282|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.420
90803590|NCT00325130|181486678|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The ratio of GMTs (concomitant group / nonconcomitant group)~must be greater than 0.67."|||||<|0.001||95.0||||Since p\<0.05, the hypothesis of noninferiority is accepted for this outcome.|ANOVA|ANOVA on natural log titer with fixed effects for region, vaccination group and their interaction.||||||<0.001
91013706|NCT02646566|181910283|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91013707|NCT02646566|181910283|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.258|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.258
90803591|NCT00325130|181486679|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The ratio of GMTs (concomitant group / nonconcomitant group)~must be greater than 0.67."|||||<|0.001||95.0||||Since p\<0.05, the hypothesis of noninferiority is accepted for this outcome.|ANOVA|ANOVA on natural log titer with fixed effects for region, vaccination group and their interaction.||||||<0.001
90803592|NCT00325130|181486680|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The ratio of GMTs (concomitant group / nonconcomitant group)~must be greater than 0.67."|||||<|0.001||95.0||||Since p\<0.05, the hypothesis of noninferiority is accepted for this outcome.|ANOVA|ANOVA on natural log titer with fixed effects for region, vaccination group and their interaction.||||||<0.001
90803593|NCT00325130|181486681|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The ratio of GMTs (concomitant group / nonconcomitant group)~must be greater than 0.67."|||||<|0.001||95.0||||Since p\<0.05, the hypothesis of noninferiority is accepted for this outcome.|ANOVA|ANOVA on natural log titer with fixed effects for region, vaccination group and their interaction.||||||<0.001
91013708|NCT01151085|181910308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Gender. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between Male and Female  in the Frequency of Treatment Related Adverse Events."||||=0.030
91013709|NCT01151085|181910309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was Severity of infections. The null hypothesis is there is no difference among mild, moderate and severe in the Frequency of Treatment Related Adverse Events."||||<0.001
90803594|NCT03896750|181486699|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence analysis by 90% confidence interval. If the interval encompasses 1 there is no clinically meaningful difference in pretomanid AUC(0-last). Assuming a 20% coefficient of variation for the AUC(0-last) of both groups, the probability of observing at least a 50% increase in the geometric mean ratio of AUCs given a true 100% increase is \>99%. The probability of the lower bound of the 90% CI for the geometric mean ratio of AUCs being at least 1.5 in this scenario is approximately 70%|Mean Ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.54|1.26|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for site||No formal hypothesis testing was conducted. Assuming a 20% coefficient of variation for the AUC(0-last) of both groups, the probability of observing at least a 50% increase in the geometric mean ratio of AUCs given a true 100% increase is \>99%. The probability of the lower bound of the 90% CI for the geometric mean ratio of AUCs being at least 1.5 in this scenario is approximately 70%.||1.26|0.54|
90803595|NCT03896750|181486699|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence analysis by 90% confidence interval. If the interval encompasses 1 there is no clinically meaningful difference in pretomanid AUC(0-last). Assuming a 20% coefficient of variation for the AUC(0-last) of both groups, the probability of observing at least a 50% increase in the geometric mean ratio of AUCs given a true 100% increase is \>99%. The probability of the lower bound of the 90% CI for the geometric mean ratio of AUCs being at least 1.5 in this scenario is approximately 70%|Mean Ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.67|1.14|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for site||No formal hypothesis testing was conducted. Assuming a 20% coefficient of variation for the AUC(0-last) of both groups, the probability of observing at least a 50% increase in the geometric mean ratio of AUCs given a true 100% increase is \>99%. The probability of the lower bound of the 90% CI for the geometric mean ratio of AUCs being at least 1.5 in this scenario is approximately 70%||1.14|0.67|
90803596|NCT03896750|181486700|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence analysis by 90% confidence interval. If the interval encompasses 1 there is no clinically meaningful difference in pretomanid AUC(0-infinity). Assuming a 20% coefficient of variation for the AUC(0-infinity) of both groups, the probability of observing at least 50% increase in the geometric mean ratio of AUCs given a true 100% increase is \>99%. The probability of the lower bound of the 90% CI for the geometric mean ratio of AUCs being at least 1.5 in this scenario is approximately 70%|Mean Ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.54|1.39|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for site||No formal hypothesis testing was conducted. Assuming a 20% coefficient of variation for the AUC(0-infinity) of both groups, the probability of observing at least a 50% increase in the geometric mean ratio of AUCs given a true 100% increase is \>99%. The probability of the lower bound of the 90% CI for the geometric mean ratio of AUCs being at least 1.5 in this scenario is approximately 70%||1.39|0.54|
90803597|NCT03896750|181486700|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence analysis by 90% confidence interval. If the interval encompasses 1 there is no clinically meaningful difference in pretomanid AUC(0-infinity). Assuming a 20% coefficient of variation for the AUC(0-infinity) of both groups, the probability of observing at least 50% increase in the geometric mean ratio of AUCs given a true 100% increase is \>99%. The probability of the lower bound of the 90% CI for the geometric mean ratio of AUCs being at least 1.5 in this scenario is approximately 70%|Mean Ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.71|1.28|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for site||No formal hypothesis testing was conducted. Assuming a 20% coefficient of variation for the AUC(0-infinity) of both groups, the probability of observing at least a 50% increase in the geometric mean ratio of AUCs given a true 100% increase is \>99%. The probability of the lower bound of the 90% CI for the geometric mean ratio of AUCs being at least 1.5 in this scenario is approximately 70%||1.28|0.71|
90803598|NCT01893411|181486785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean difference|-0.04|||=|0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.14|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||||0.14|-0.23|= 0.65
90803599|NCT01893411|181486785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-Mean difference|-0.04|||=|0.741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.18|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||||0.18|-0.26|= 0.741
91013710|NCT01151085|181910310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.017|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Past History. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without Past History in the Frequency of Treatment Related Adverse Events."||||=0.017
91013711|NCT01151085|181910311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Statistical Analysis for Risk Factors for the Proportion of Responders to Voriconazole treatment -Severity of infections.||||<0.001
91013712|NCT00401726|181910341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.25||||0.218|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.218
91013713|NCT00401726|181910342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.16||||0.76||95.0|-0.92|1.25|||ANCOVA|||||1.25|-0.92|0.76
90803600|NCT01893411|181486786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-Mean difference|0.16|||=|0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.34|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||||0.34|-0.02|= 0.075
90803601|NCT01893411|181486786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-Mean difference|0.06|||=|0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.27|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||||0.27|-0.16|= 0.603
91013714|NCT00401726|181910343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17||||0.148||95.0|-0.41|0.06|||ANCOVA|||||0.06|-0.41|0.148
91013715|NCT00401726|181910344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11||||0.829||95.0|-1.09|0.87|||ANCOVA|||||0.87|-1.09|0.829
91013716|NCT00401726|181910345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.57||||0.728|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.728
91013717|NCT00401726|181910346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.25||||0.805||95.0|-2.24|1.74|||ANCOVA|||||1.74|-2.24|0.805
91013718|NCT00401726|181910347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.123||95.0|-2.27|0.27|||ANCOVA|||||0.27|-2.27|0.123
91013719|NCT00401726|181910348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.961|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p-value based on comparison of mean score differences||CGI-I raw scores (range 1-7) analyzed by generalized Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, stratified by study center using the ridit scoring option.||||0.961
91054444|NCT01674647|181991011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|5.47|||no statistical test performed||Crude estimate of the cumulative incidence for rivaroxaban (Xarelto, BAY59-7939): 0.41% (0.14% - 1.02%). Crude estimate of the cumulative incidence for Vitamin K antagonist (VKA): 0.41% (0.07% - 1.41%).|Descriptive comparison of crude estimates of the cumulative incidence and estimation of risk ratio, all with 95% confidence intervals||5.47|0.18|
91013720|NCT03948646|181910349|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|3.15|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.15|1.27|0.0029
91013721|NCT03948646|181910350|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-21.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.994||0.0296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.37|-2.16|||ANCOVA|||||-2.16|-41.37|0.0296
90803602|NCT03053440|181486826|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.2||||0.0921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|22.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factors per interactive response technology (IRT). p value is 2-sided||||22.0|-1.5|0.0921
90803603|NCT00473889|181486853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.992||95.0||||This is a one sided p-value, which corresponds to the null hypothesis.|Stratified Log Rank|Disease stage and bevacizumab eligibility are the stratification factors in the stratified log rank test.||||||0.992
90803604|NCT00473889|181486854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.862||95.0||||This is a one sided p-value, which corresponds to the null hypothesis.|Finkelstein's Interval Censored Method|Disease stage and bevacizumab eligibility are the stratification factors in the Finkelstein's Interval Censored Method Model.||||||0.862
90803605|NCT00473889|181486855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.899||95.0||||This is a one sided p-value, which corresponds to the null hypothesis.|Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen|Disease stage and bevacizumab eligibility are the stratification factors in the stratified Miettinen and Nurmimen method.||||||0.899
90803606|NCT01498692|181486868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Target Lesion Failure|2.4|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||7.3|||One-group exact binomial test|||A one-group exact binomial test was used to test the hypothesis that the primary endpoint rate in the PROMUS Element cohort is less than the predefined performance goal of 21.1%.||7.3||<0.0001
91013722|NCT01050998|181910382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|4.9||||0.578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|22.0|||Fisher Exact||95 percent (%) unconditional exact confidence interval calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||22.0|-11.5|0.578
91013723|NCT01050998|181910382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|30.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.4|46.3|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact confidence interval calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||46.3|13.4|<0.001
91013724|NCT01050998|181910382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|15.3||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|32.2|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact confidence interval calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||32.2|-1.6|0.099
91013725|NCT01050998|181910382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|35.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.8|50.6|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact confidence interval calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||50.6|17.8|<0.001
90803607|NCT00460655|181486915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.428||||0.006||95.0|-5.841|-1.016|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-1.016|-5.841|0.006
90803608|NCT03782259|181486928|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0125||||||Given that there were 4 separate comparisons of the primary outcomes, the level of significance was adjusted from 0.05 to 0.0125 (.05/4) using the Bonferroni correction.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|There were no adjustments for covariates.||||||< 0 .0125
90803609|NCT03782259|181486929|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0125||||||Given that there were 4 separate comparisons of the primary outcomes, the level of significance was adjusted from 0.05 to 0.0125 (.05/4) using the Bonferroni correction.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|There were no adjustments for covariates.||||||< 0 .0125
90803610|NCT00135330|181486969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.282||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The ratio of the ASI-iAUC at Week 20 to that at baseline was compared between the treatment groups.||||0.282
91054445|NCT01674647|181991012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|3.49|||no statistical test performed||Crude estimate of the cumulative incidence for rivaroxaban (Xarelto, BAY59-7939): 0.51% (0.20% - 1.17%). Crude estimate of the cumulative incidence for Vitamin K antagonist (VKA): 0.61% (0.17% - 1.72%).|Descriptive comparison of crude estimates of the cumulative incidence and estimation of risk ratio, all with 95% confidence intervals||3.49|0.20|
90803611|NCT00135330|181486970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.004
90803612|NCT00135330|181486971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.308||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.308
90803613|NCT00135330|181486972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.079||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.079
90803614|NCT00135330|181486973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.252||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.252
90803615|NCT00135330|181486974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.465||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.465
90803616|NCT00135330|181486975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.348||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.348
90803617|NCT00135330|181486979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.039||95.0|||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||||0.039
90803618|NCT00135330|181486980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.555||95.0|||||MMRM|||||||0.555
90803619|NCT00135330|181486982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.106||95.0|||||MMRM|||||||0.106
90803620|NCT00135330|181486983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.341||95.0|||||MMRM|||||||0.341
90803621|NCT00135330|181486984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||MMRM|||||||<0.001
90803622|NCT00135330|181486985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.276||95.0|||||MMRM|||||||0.276
91054446|NCT03923530|181991019|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline to 8 weeks||||0.12
91054447|NCT03923530|181991020|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline to 8 weeks||||0.49
90803623|NCT00135330|181486986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84||95.0|||||MMRM|||||||0.840
90803624|NCT00135330|181486987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.096||95.0|||||MMRM|||||||0.096
90803625|NCT00135330|181486988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.875||95.0|||||MMRM|||||||0.875
90803626|NCT00135330|181486989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.581||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.581
90803627|NCT00135330|181486990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.631||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.631
90803628|NCT00135330|181486991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.724||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.724
90803629|NCT00135330|181486992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.117||95.0|||||MMRM|||||||0.117
90803630|NCT00135330|181486993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.251||95.0|||||MMRM|||||||0.251
90803631|NCT00135330|181486994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71||95.0|||||MMRM|||||||0.710
90803632|NCT00135330|181486995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.575||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.575
90803633|NCT00135330|181486996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.436||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.436
90803634|NCT00135330|181486997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.168||95.0|||||Generalized Linear Model|||||||0.168
90803635|NCT03024112|181486998|OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.680
90803636|NCT01771991|181487003|SUPERIORITY||sum of scores|453.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|39.6||0.57|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum||Standard Deviation under the Null hypothesis for each group.|||||0.57
91054448|NCT03923530|181991021|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline to 8 weeks||||0.03
90803637|NCT01771991|181487004|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.5||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.95|||t-test, 2 sided|||Looking at the difference in pain change over time. The null hypothesis is there was no difference between the two treatment groups.||0.95|-0.60|0.65
90803638|NCT01771991|181487005|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.63|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.79||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.65|11.91|||t-test, 2 sided|||Looking at the difference in range of motion change over time. The null hypothesis is there was no difference between the two treatment groups.||11.91|-6.65|0.57
90803639|NCT01399229|181487006|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Agreement between SureCALL® and Tocodynamometer Contraction Peak Times~Null hypothesis: The mean peak difference between RMS and TOCO is equal to 0. Alternative hypothesis: The mean peak difference is not equal to 0."|Mean Difference (Net)|0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4086||0.4901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.74|30.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||30.72|-28.74|0.4901
90803640|NCT02526212|181487011|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||Fisher Exact|||Due to the small sample size, planned analyses that assessed for clustering by group assignment or primary care physician could not be conducted. Chi square using fisher's exact test was conducted to investigate differences in abstinence between study arms.||||0.44
90803641|NCT02526212|181487014|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Each of the 17 items were rated on a scale from 1 to 5. For each participant, the scores from these items were summed and divided by 17 for an average satisfaction score. The average satisfaction score was compared between study arms.||||0.20
90803642|NCT00237666|181487016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90803643|NCT00040742|181487024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.566|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145||0.017|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was adjusted using theTukey-Kramer method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model analyses and Type 3 tests of fixed effects using the Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom procedure were used.|The estimation parameter (mean difference) is the difference in mean change from baseline (post-intervention - baseline) between groups (0.5 gm ginger - placebo). Negative values are favorable for the ginger group.|"H0: Mean difference between 0.5g and placebo of change from baseline of Peak Acute Nausea = 0.~Ha: Mean difference between 0.5g and placebo of change from baseline of Peak Acute Nausea \> 0. (Two-sided)"||||.017
91013726|NCT01050998|181910383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|6.4||||0.543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|25.4|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact confidence interval calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|European region: p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||25.4|-11.9|0.543
91054449|NCT03923530|181991022|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline to 8 weeks||||0.27
91054450|NCT03923530|181991023|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline to 8 weeks||||0.18
91054451|NCT03923530|181991024|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline to 8 weeks||||0.8
91054452|NCT03923530|181991025|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline to 8 weeks||||0.76
90803644|NCT00040742|181487024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.506|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141||0.036|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was adjusted using theTukey-Kramer method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model analyses and Type 3 tests of fixed effects using the Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom procedure were used.|The estimation parameter (mean difference) is the difference in mean change from baseline (post-intervention - baseline) between groups (1 gm ginger - placebo). Negative values are favorable for the ginger group.|"H0: Mean difference between 1.0g and placebo of change from baseline of Peak Acute Nausea = 0.~Ha: Mean difference between 1.0g and placebo of change from baseline of Peak Acute Nausea \> 0. (Two-sided)"||||0.036
90803645|NCT00040742|181487024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.269|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.431|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was adjusted using theTukey-Kramer method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model analyses and Type 3 tests of fixed effects using the Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom procedure were used.|The estimation parameter (mean difference) is the difference in mean change from baseline (post-intervention - baseline) between groups (1.5 gm ginger - placebo). Negative values are favorable for the ginger group.|"H0: Mean difference between 1.5g and placebo of change from baseline of Peak Acute Nausea = 0.~Ha: Mean difference between 1.5g and placebo of change from baseline of Peak Acute Nausea \> 0. (Two-sided)"||||0.431
91013727|NCT01050998|181910383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|26.3||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.2|43.6|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact confidence interval calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|European region: p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||43.6|7.2|0.011
91013728|NCT01050998|181910383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|16.6||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|35.5|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact confidence interval calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|European region: p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||35.5|-2.5|0.108
91013729|NCT01050998|181910383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|32.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.5|49.0|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact confidence interval calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|European region: p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||49.0|12.5|0.001
91054453|NCT04135196|181991026|OTHER|||||||0.119|||||||Regression, Linear|||"The power analysis for the overall study was based on 12-month change in UD iBMC. The power calculation, based on pilot data, determined that 20 participants per group would have 80% power to detect a 1.0±1.1% change.~The null hypothesis was that change in UD iBMC was not proportional to strain magnitude. Raw change in iBMC was analyzed as the dependent variable in a linear regression model with coefficients representing contrasts between the two experimental groups and the control group."|"Overall model fit: R\^2=0.101, F=2.244, df1=2, df2=40, p=0.119~Contrast between the low strain magnitude group and the control group: B=0.015, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.007, Beta=0.374, t=2.114, p=0.041, 95% CI of B: \[0.001, 0.030\]~Contrast between the high strain magnitude group and the control group: B=0.009, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.007, Beta=0.221, t=1.247, p=0.220, 95% CI of B: \[-0.005, 0.022\]"|||0.119
91077793|NCT02913105|182041130|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.786|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.444||0.0797|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.524|-0.049|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 42||-0.049|-1.524|0.0797
90803646|NCT00040742|181487024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Parameter estimated using a contrast.|The estimation parameter (mean difference) is the difference in mean change from baseline (post-intervention - baseline) between groups (any ginger - placebo). Negative values are favorable for the ginger group.|"Placebo vs. Any Ginger. H0: Mean difference between \[(0.5g +1.0g +1.5g) / 3\] and placebo of change from baseline of Peak Acute Nausea = 0.~Ha: Mean difference between \[(0.5g +1.0g +1.5g) / 3\] and placebo of change from baseline of Peak Acute Nausea \> 0. (Two-sided)"||||0.003
90803647|NCT00040742|181487025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.441|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.127||0.046|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was adjusted using theTukey-Kramer method|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model analyses and Type 3 tests of fixed effects using the Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom procedure were used.|The estimation parameter (mean difference) is the difference in mean change from baseline (post-intervention - baseline) between groups (0.5 gm ginger - placebo). Negative values are favorable for the ginger group.|"H0: Mean difference between 0.5g and placebo of change from baseline of Average Acute Nausea = 0.~Ha: Mean difference between 0.5g and placebo of change from baseline of Average Acute Nausea \> 0. (Two-sided)"||||0.046
90803648|NCT00040742|181487025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.402|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.124||0.076|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was adjusted using theTukey-Kramer method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model analyses and Type 3 tests of fixed effects using the Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom procedure were used.|The estimation parameter (mean difference) is the difference in mean change from baseline (post-intervention - baseline) between groups (1 gm ginger - placebo). Negative values are favorable for the ginger group.|"H0: Mean difference between 1.0g and placebo of change from baseline of Average Acute Nausea = 0.~Ha: Mean difference between 1.0g and placebo of change from baseline of Average Acute Nausea \> 0. (Two-sided)"||||0.076
90803649|NCT00040742|181487025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.158|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.738|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was adjusted using theTukey-Kramer method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model analyses and Type 3 tests of fixed effects using the Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom procedure were used.|The estimation parameter (mean difference) is the difference in mean change from baseline (post-intervention - baseline) between groups (1.5 gm ginger - placebo). Negative values are favorable for the ginger group.|"H0: Mean difference between 1.5g and placebo of change from baseline of Average Acute Nausea = 0.~Ha: Mean difference between 1.5g and placebo of change from baseline of Average Acute Nausea \> 0. (Two-sided)"||||0.738
90803650|NCT00040742|181487025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.013|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Contrasts used for estimation.|The estimation parameter (mean difference) is the difference in mean change from baseline (post-intervention - baseline) between groups (any ginger - placebo). Negative values are favorable for the ginger group.|"Placebo vs Any Ginger. H0: Mean difference between \[(0.5g +1.0g +1.5g) / 3\] and placebo of change from baseline of Average Acute Nausea = 0.~Ha: Mean difference between \[(0.5g +1.0g +1.5g) / 3\] and placebo of change from baseline of Average Acute Nausea \> 0. (Two-sided)"||||0.013
90803651|NCT04677543|181487053|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|10.4||||0.2819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|29.5|||Standardized Logistic Regression||The percentage difference and confidence intervals are estimated by standardized logistic regression with treatment group and history of MAC lung infection as factors in the model.|||29.5|-8.6|0.2819
90803652|NCT04677543|181487054|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|6.1||||0.508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|24.1|||Standardized Logistic Regression||The percentage difference and confidence intervals are estimated by standardized logistic regression with treatment group and history of MAC lung infection as factors in the model.|||24.1|-11.9|0.5080
90803653|NCT04677543|181487055|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|16.7||||0.0712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|34.9|||Standardized Logistic Regression|||||34.9|-1.4|0.0712
90803654|NCT04677543|181487056|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|4.48||||0.1073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|9.93|||ANCOVA|||||9.93|-0.97|0.1073
90803655|NCT04677543|181487057|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.3|||ANCOVA|||||1.3|-2.2|0.6130
90803656|NCT04677543|181487058|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.23||||0.3542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.92|||Regression, Cox||A Cox regression model was applied to calculate the hazard ratio. The model included effects for treatment and history of MAC lung infection (initial or subsequent).|||1.92|0.79|0.3542
90803657|NCT04677543|181487059|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.35||||0.1583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|2.06|||Regression, Cox||A Cox regression model was applied to calculate the hazard ratio. The model included effects for treatment and history of MAC lung infection (initial or subsequent).|||2.06|0.89|0.1583
90803658|NCT00995436|181487064|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The calculation indicated that for a study with the power of 80% and an alpha of 0.05 we required 21 participants per group. Assumed drop out rate 20%, suggesting 75 patients required.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|0.36|||||Maxillary right molar|||0.36|-1.53|
90803659|NCT00995436|181487064|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The calculation indicated that for a study with the power of 80% and an alpha of 0.05 we required 21 participants per group. Assumed drop out rate 20%, suggesting 75 patients required.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|-0.04|||||Maxillary left molar|||-0.04|-1.89|
90803660|NCT00995436|181487064|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The calculation indicated that for a study with the power of 80% and an alpha of 0.05 we required 21 participants per group. Assumed drop out rate 20%, suggesting 75 patients required.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|1.55|||||Maxillary right molar|||1.55|-0.32|
90803661|NCT00995436|181487064|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The calculation indicated that for a study with the power of 80% and an alpha of 0.05 we required 21 participants per group. Assumed drop out rate 20%, suggesting 75 patients required.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.83|||||Maxillary left molar|||0.83|-1|
90803662|NCT00995436|181487064|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The calculation indicated that for a study with the power of 80% and an alpha of 0.05 we required 21 participants per group. Assumed drop out rate 20%, suggesting 75 patients required.||||||0.05||||||Maxillary right molar. F(2, 67) = 3.10. Overall effect of treatment.|ANCOVA|||||||0.05
90803663|NCT00995436|181487064|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The calculation indicated that for a study with the power of 80% and an alpha of 0.05 we required 21 participants per group. Assumed drop out rate 20%, suggesting 75 patients required.||||||0.08||||||Overall effect of treatment F(2,67) = 2.58.|ANCOVA|||Maxillary left molar.||||0.08
90803664|NCT03035864|181487069|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|-0.11|||=|0.974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.85|6.63|||ANCOVA|||Frequency statistical analysis||6.63|-6.85|=0.974
90803665|NCT03035864|181487069|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square means|2.88|||=|0.399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.85|9.61|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis related to severity||9.61|-3.85|=0.399
90803666|NCT03035864|181487070|SUPERIORITY||difference in least square means|0.04|||=|0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.10|-0.02|=0.214
90803667|NCT03035864|181487074|SUPERIORITY||difference in least square means|-0.43|||=|0.881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.13|5.27|||ANCOVA|||Frequency - week 4||5.27|-6.13|=0.881
90803668|NCT03035864|181487074|SUPERIORITY||difference in least square means|-0.31|||=|0.926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.96|6.33|||ANCOVA|||Frequency - week 8||6.33|-6.96|=0.926
90803669|NCT03035864|181487074|SUPERIORITY||difference in least square means|-2.29|||=|0.426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.97|3.38|||ANCOVA|||Frequency - Week 12||3.38|-7.97|=0.426
90803670|NCT03035864|181487074|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square means|0.62|||=|0.828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.04|6.29|||ANCOVA|||Severity - Week 4||6.29|-5.04|=0.828
90803671|NCT03035864|181487074|SUPERIORITY||difference in least square means|2.86|||=|0.394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.75|9.47|||ANCOVA|||Severity - Week 8||9.47|-3.75|=0.394
90803672|NCT03035864|181487074|SUPERIORITY||difference in least square means|-1.49|||=|0.552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.41|3.44|||ANCOVA|||Severeity - Week 12||3.44|-6.41|=0.552
91013730|NCT01050998|181910383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-1.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.7|35.7|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact confidence interval calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|Japanese region: p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||35.7|-33.7|1.000
91054454|NCT04135196|181991026|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Regression, Linear|||The null hypothesis was that change in UD iBMC was not proportional to strain rate. Raw change in iBMC was analyzed as the dependent variable in a linear regression model with coefficients representing contrasts between the two experimental groups and the control group.|"Overall model fit: R\^2=0.438, F=12.836, df1=2, df2=33, p=\<0.001~Contrast between the low strain rate group and the control group: B=0.036, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.009, Beta=0.599, t=4.050, p=\<0.001, 95% CI of B: \[0.018, 0.055\]~Contrast between the high strain rate group and the control group: B=0.041, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.009, Beta=0.678, t=4.589, p=\<0.001, 95% CI of B: \[0.023, 0.060\]"|||<0.01
90803673|NCT02340169|181487082|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Adrenal suppression rates in the evaluable population were 35% (21 out of 60), 43.3% (13 out of 30) and 20% (2 out of 10) in Cohorts 1, 2 a nd 3, respectively.|||
90803674|NCT01158820|181487098|OTHER|No data available for power analysis|Mean Difference (Net)|0.028|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
90803675|NCT01158820|181487099|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|43.75|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||units are µg|See reference power analysis||||<0.01
90803676|NCT01158820|181487100|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.75||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||units are mg|See reference for power analysis||||0.01
91013731|NCT01050998|181910383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|51.5||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.2|77.0|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact confidence interval calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|Japanese region: p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||77.0|8.2|0.028
90803677|NCT00145626|181487139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cumulative Incidence|0.214|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.114|||TWO_SIDED||||||||The cumulative incidence estimate and its standard error for occurrence of regimen-related mortality by the end of the first 100 days post-transplant was calculated.|||||
90803678|NCT01198574|181487160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||GLM for repeated measures|The Hb concentration at Week 0, Week 6 and Week 12 are analyzed using GLM repeated measures.||"Null Hypothesis~1. Haemoglobin level was not influenced by sub-clinical inflammation during iron supplementation in the anaemic adolescent school girls~2. Vitamin A does not improve the haemoglobin level of the anaemic schoolgirls during iron supplementation in the presence of inflammation."||||<0.05
90803679|NCT01198574|181487161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||GLM for repeated measures ANOVA|||"Null hypothesis~1. Iron status indicator (serum ferritin) was not influenced by sub-clinical inflammation during iron supplementation in the anaemic adolescent school girls~2. Vitamin A does not improve the iron status indicator (serum ferritin) concentration of the anaemic schoolgirls during iron supplementation in the presence of inflammation."||||<0.05
90803680|NCT01198574|181487162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||GLM for repeated measures ANOVA|||"Null Hypothesis~1. iron status indicator (sTfR) was not influenced by sub-clinical inflammation during iron supplementation in the anaemic adolescent school girls~2. Vitamin A does not improve iron status indicator (sTfR) of the anaemic schoolgirls during iron supplementation in the presence of inflammation."||||<0.05
90803681|NCT06875284|181487166|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.06|-6.96|||Mixed Models Analysis||The SCC plus eCHECKUP TO GO arm was the reference group.|||-6.96|-11.06|<0.0001
90803682|NCT06875284|181487166|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.22|-0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis||The SCC plus eCHECKUP TO GO arm was the reference group.|||-0.09|-4.22|0.041
90803683|NCT06875284|181487166|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.76|-6.25|||Mixed Models Analysis||Covariates included cohort and history of peer victimization.||The SCC plus eCHECKUP TO GO arm was the reference group.|-6.25|-10.76|<0.0001
90803684|NCT06875284|181487167|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.27|-0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis||The SCC plus eCHECKUP TO GO arm was the reference group.|||-0.08|-2.27|0.035
90803685|NCT06875284|181487167|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|0.76|||Mixed Models Analysis||The SCC plus eCHECKUP TO GO arm was the reference group.|||0.76|-1.44|0.54
90803686|NCT06875284|181487167|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.19|-2.60|0.023
90803687|NCT06875284|181487168|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.98|-1.34|||Mixed Models Analysis||The SCC plus eCHECKUP TO GO arm was the reference group.|||-1.34|-3.98|<0.0001
90803688|NCT06875284|181487168|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|-0.39|||Mixed Models Analysis||The SCC plus eCHECKUP TO GO arm was the reference group.|||-0.39|-3.09|0.012
90803689|NCT06875284|181487168|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-2.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.88|-1.03|||Mixed Models Analysis||The SCC plus eCHECKUP TO GO arm was the reference group.|||-1.03|-3.88|0.0008
90803690|NCT06875284|181487169|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|1.02|||Mixed Models Analysis||The SCC plus eCHECKUP TO GO arm was the reference group.|||1.02|-0.02|0.058
91013732|NCT01050998|181910383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|9.8||||0.661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.3|46.9|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact confidence interval calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|Japanese region: p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||46.9|-24.3|0.661
91013733|NCT01050998|181910384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|13.0||||0.152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|30.3|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact confidence interval calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||30.3|-4.2|0.152
91013734|NCT01050998|181910384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|24.3||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|40.3|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact confidence interval calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||40.3|7.0|0.008
91013735|NCT01050998|181910384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|21.4||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|37.8|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact confidence interval calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||37.8|3.9|0.020
91013736|NCT01050998|181910384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|29.0||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.3|45.0|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact confidence interval calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||45.0|11.3|0.002
91013737|NCT01050998|181910385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|9.9||||0.328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|29.4|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact confidence interval calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|European region: p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||29.4|-9.3|0.328
91013738|NCT01050998|181910385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|17.2||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|35.6|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact confidence interval calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|European region: p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||35.6|-2.0|0.084
91013739|NCT01050998|181910385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|20.2||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|38.2|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact confidence interval calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|European region: p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||38.2|0.7|0.049
91013740|NCT01050998|181910385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|22.8||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|40.7|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact confidence interval calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|European region: p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||40.7|3.2|0.030
91013741|NCT01050998|181910385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|26.8||||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|60.7|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact confidence interval calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|Japanese region: p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||60.7|-9.3|0.188
91013742|NCT01050998|181910385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|57.4||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.2|81.8|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact confidence interval calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|Japanese region: p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||81.8|15.2|0.010
91013743|NCT01050998|181910406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.205||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.1|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|Analysis reported for change from baseline in DAS28 (CRP) at Day 85.||0.10|-0.71|0.137
91013744|NCT01050998|181910406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.202||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.27|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|Analysis reported for change from baseline in DAS28 (CRP) at Day 85.||-0.27|-1.07|0.001
91013745|NCT01050998|181910406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.201||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.04|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|Analysis reported for change from baseline in DAS28 (CRP) at Day 85.||0.04|-0.75|0.080
91013746|NCT01050998|181910406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.204|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|-0.33|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|Analysis reported for change from baseline in DAS28 (CRP) at Day 85.||-0.33|-1.14|<0.001
91013747|NCT01050998|181910406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.212||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.08|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|Analysis reported for change from baseline in DAS28 (ESR) at Day 85.||0.08|-0.76|0.107
90803691|NCT06875284|181487169|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis||The SCC plus eCHECKUP TO GO arm was the reference group.|||-0.01|-1.07|0.046
90803692|NCT06875284|181487169|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis||The SCC plus eCHECKUP TO GO arm was the reference group.|||0.09|-1.06|0.097
90803693|NCT06875284|181487170|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis||The SCC plus eCHECKUP TO GO arm was the reference group.|||0.26|-0.16|0.64
90803694|NCT06875284|181487170|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis||The SCC plus eCHECKUP TO GO arm was the reference group.|||0.33|-0.09|0.25
90803695|NCT06875284|181487170|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis||The SCC plus eCHECKUP TO GO arm was the reference group.|||-0.02|-0.47|0.033
90803696|NCT06631274|181487173|EQUIVALENCE|A one-way repeated measures ANOVA was conducted to examine the impact of intervention, in which participation in the intervention (treatment vs. control) was used as the between-subject factor and time points (time 1 and time 2) was used as the within-subject factor. The interaction between group and time was the focus and was reported.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.056||||0.646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.296|0.184|||ANOVA|one-way repeated measures ANOVA was conducted for personal adjustment|Hedges' g=-0.14. The mean difference between the two time points (change) was computed as time2 minus time1. Hedges' g was the standardized mean difference between change in the treatment group and change in the control group.|The outcome measure is personal adjustment||0.184|-0.296|0.646
90803697|NCT06631274|181487173|EQUIVALENCE|A one-way repeated measures ANOVA was conducted to examine the impact of intervention, in which participation in the intervention (treatment vs. control) was used as the between-subject factor and time points (time 1 and time 2) was used as the within-subject factor. The interaction between group and time was the focus and was reported.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.188||||0.196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.096|0.473|||ANOVA|one-way repeated measures ANOVA was conducted for internalizing problems|Hedges' g=0.40. The mean difference between the two time points (change) was computed as time2 minus time1. Hedges' g was the standardized mean difference between change in the treatment group and change in the control group.|The outcome measure is internalizing problems||0.473|-0.096|0.196
90803698|NCT06631274|181487174|EQUIVALENCE|A one-way repeated measures ANOVA was conducted to examine the impact of intervention, in which participation in the intervention (treatment vs. control) was used as the between-subject factor and time points (time 1 and time 2) was used as the within-subject factor. The interaction between group and time was the focus and was reported.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.326|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.112|0.539|||ANOVA|one-way repeated ANOVA was conducted|Hedges' g=0.92. The mean difference between the two time points (change) was computed as time2 minus time1. Hedges' g was the standardized mean difference between change in the treatment group and change in the control group.|||0.539|0.112|<0.01
90803699|NCT06631274|181487175|EQUIVALENCE|A one-way repeated measures ANOVA was conducted to examine the impact of intervention, in which participation in the intervention (treatment vs. control) was used as the between-subject factor and time points (time 1 and time 2) was used as the within-subject factor. The interaction between group and time was the focus and was reported.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.681||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.187|1.549|||ANOVA|one-way repeated measures ANOVA was conducted.|Hedges' g=0.51. The mean difference between the two time points (change) was computed as time2 minus time1. Hedges' g was the standardized mean difference between change in the treatment group and change in the control group.|||1.549|-0.187|0.11
90803700|NCT06631274|181487176|EQUIVALENCE|A one-way repeated measures ANOVA was conducted to examine the impact of intervention, in which participation in the intervention (treatment vs. control) was used as the between-subject factor and time points (time 1 and time 2) was used as the within-subject factor. The interaction between group and time was the focus and was reported.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.078||||0.599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.212|0.367|||ANOVA|one-way repeated measures ANOVA was conducted for avoidance coping|Hedges' g=0.16. The mean difference between the two time points (change) was computed as time2 minus time1. Hedges' g was the standardized mean difference between change in the treatment group and change in the control group.|The outcome measure is avoidance coping||0.367|-0.212|0.599
90803701|NCT06631274|181487176|EQUIVALENCE|A one-way repeated measures ANOVA was conducted to examine the impact of intervention, in which participation in the intervention (treatment vs. control) was used as the between-subject factor and time points (time 1 and time 2) was used as the within-subject factor. The interaction between group and time was the focus and was reported.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.316||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.152|0.617|||ANOVA|one-way repeated measures ANOVA was conducted for approach coping|Hedges' g=0.63. The mean difference between the two time points (change) was computed as time2 minus time1. Hedges' g was the standardized mean difference between change in the treatment group and change in the control group.|The outcome measure is approach coping||0.617|0.152|0.044
90803702|NCT06631274|181487177|EQUIVALENCE|A one-way repeated measures ANOVA was conducted to examine the impact of intervention, in which participation in the intervention (treatment vs. control) was used as the between-subject factor and time points (time 1 and time 2) was used as the within-subject factor. The interaction between group and time was the focus and was reported.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.024|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.284|1.764|||ANOVA|one-way repeated measures ANOVA was conducted|Hedges' g=0.85. The mean difference between the two time points (change) was computed as time2 minus time1. Hedges' g was the standardized mean difference between change in the treatment group and change in the control group.|||1.764|0.284|<.01
91013748|NCT01050998|181910406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|-0.35|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|Analysis reported for change from baseline in DAS28 (ESR) at Day 85.||-0.35|-1.17|<0.001
91013749|NCT01050998|181910406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.209||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.01|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|Analysis reported for change from baseline in DAS28 (ESR) at Day 85.||-0.01|-0.83|0.046
91013750|NCT01050998|181910406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.212|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|-0.38|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|Analysis reported for change from baseline in DAS28 (ESR) at Day 85.||-0.38|-1.22|<0.001
91013751|NCT01050998|181910407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.06|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|European region: Analysis reported for change from baseline in DAS28 (CRP) at Day 85.||0.06|-0.85|0.086
90803703|NCT06631274|181487178|EQUIVALENCE|A one-way repeated measures ANOVA was conducted to examine the impact of intervention, in which participation in the intervention (treatment vs. control) was used as the between-subject factor and time points (time 1 and time 2) was used as the within-subject factor. The interaction between group and time was the focus and was reported.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.589||||0.0498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.178|-0.0005|||ANOVA|one-way repeated measures ANOVA was conducted|Hedges' g=-0.61. The mean difference between the two time points (change) was computed as time2 minus time1. Hedges' g was the standardized mean difference between change in the treatment group and change in the control group.|||-0.0005|-1.178|0.0498
90803704|NCT06631274|181487179|EQUIVALENCE|A one-way repeated measures ANOVA was conducted to examine the impact of intervention, in which participation in the intervention (treatment vs. control) was used as the between-subject factor and time points (time 1 and time 2) was used as the within-subject factor. The interaction between group and time was the focus and was reported.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.261||||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.127|0.65|||ANOVA|one-way repeated measures ANOVA was conducted|Hedges' g=0.41. The mean difference between the two time points (change) was computed as time2 minus time1. Hedges' g was the standardized mean difference between change in the treatment group and change in the control group.|||0.650|-0.127|0.182
90803705|NCT06631274|181487180|EQUIVALENCE|A one-way repeated measures ANOVA was conducted to examine the impact of intervention, in which participation in the intervention (treatment vs. control) was used as the between-subject factor and time points (time 1 and time 2) was used as the within-subject factor. The interaction between group and time was the focus and was reported.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.612|0.551|||ANOVA|one-way repeated measures ANOVA was conducted|Hedges' g=-0.04. The mean difference between the two time points (change) was computed as time2 minus time1. Hedges' g was the standardized mean difference between change in the treatment group and change in the control group.|||0.551|-0.612|0.927
90803706|NCT02842086|181487186|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority of DVY to TVD was to be concluded if the upper bound of the 2-sided 95.003% CI of the rate ratio (DVY group over TVD group) in the HIV infection incidence rate was less than 1.62.|Rate Ratio|0.468|||||TWO_SIDED|95.003|0.191|1.149||||||Noninferiority was assessed using a 95.003% confidence interval (CI) constructed using a generalized model associated with a Poisson distribution and logarithmic link with the treatment group being the main effect and with a noninferiority margin of 1.62.||1.149|0.191|
90803707|NCT02842086|181487187|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares mean (LSM)|1.142|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.628|1.655|||ANOVA|||Hip BMD results were compared between the 2 treatment groups using analysis of variance (ANOVA), which included baseline TVD for pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) and treatment as fixed effects.||1.655|0.628|<0.0001
90803708|NCT02842086|181487188|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|1.567|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.913|2.22|||ANOVA|||Spine BMD results were compared between the 2 treatment groups using ANOVA, which included baseline TVD for PrEP and treatment as fixed effects.||2.220|0.913|<0.0001
90803709|NCT02842086|181487189|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-values were from the Van Elteren test stratified by baseline TVD for PrEP.|Van Elteren test|||||||<0.0001
90803710|NCT02842086|181487190|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-values were from the Van Elteren test stratified by baseline TVD for PrEP.|Van Elteren test|||||||<0.0001
90803711|NCT02842086|181487191|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0048||||||P-value for difference between treatment groups in distributions of UPCR ≤ 200 mg/g versus \> 200 mg/g was from the rank analysis of covariance adjusting for baseline category and baseline TVD for PrEP.|Rank analysis of covariance|||||||0.0048
90803712|NCT02842086|181487192|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-0.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||Results were compared between the 2 treatment groups using the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including baseline TVD for PrEP and treatment as fixed effects and baseline serum creatinine as a covariate.||-0.01|-0.02|<0.0001
90803713|NCT02842086|181487193|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority of DVY to TVD was to be concluded if the upper bound of the 2-sided 95.003% CI of the rate ratio (DVY group over TVD group) in the HIV infection incidence rate was less than 1.62.|Rate Ratio|0.536|||||TWO_SIDED|95.003|0.227|1.264||||||Noninferiority was assessed using a 95.003% CI constructed using a generalized model associated with a Poisson distribution and logarithmic link with the treatment group being the main effect and with a noninferiority margin of 1.62.||1.264|0.227|
90803714|NCT02842086|181487194|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|1.567|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.896|2.237|||ANOVA|||Hip BMD results were compared between the 2 treatment groups using ANOVA, which included baseline TVD for PrEP and treatment as fixed effects.||2.237|0.896|<0.0001
91013752|NCT01050998|181910407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.225||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.1|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|European region: Analysis reported for change from baseline in DAS28 (CRP) at Day 85.||-0.10|-0.99|0.016
90803715|NCT02842086|181487195|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|2.253|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.437|3.069|||ANOVA|||Spine BMD results were compared between the 2 treatment groups using ANOVA, which included baseline TVD for PrEP and treatment as fixed effects.||3.069|1.437|<0.0001
90803716|NCT02842086|181487196|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-values were from the Van Elteren test stratified by baseline TVD for PrEP.|Van Elteren test|||||||<0.0001
90803717|NCT02842086|181487197|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-values were from the Van Elteren test stratified by baseline TVD for PrEP.|Van Elteren test|||||||<0.0001
90803718|NCT02842086|181487198|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2163||||||P-value for difference between treatment groups in distributions of UPCR ≤ 200 mg/g versus \> 200 mg/g was from the rank analysis of covariance adjusting for baseline category and baseline TVD for PrEP.|Rank analysis of covariance|||||||0.2163
90803719|NCT02842086|181487199|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-0.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||Results were compared between the 2 treatment groups using the ANCOVA model including baseline TVD for PrEP and treatment as fixed effects and baseline serum creatinine as a covariate.||-0.01|-0.02|<0.0001
90803720|NCT00928187|181487202|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Hypothesizing 80% efficacy at the 50 copies/mL Viral Load (VL) threshold in the control group at W48, we calculated a required sample size of 150 participants per group to show non-inferiority of ABC/ddI and DRV groups compared with control group in ITT analysis, with a non-inferiority margin of 15%, a power of 90% and a two-sided α of 5%.|differences in proportions|5.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|16.4||||||||16.4|-5.1|
90803721|NCT00928187|181487202|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Hypothesizing 80% efficacy at the 50 copies/mL VL threshold in the control group at W48, we calculated a required sample size of 150 participants per group to show non-inferiority of ABC/ddI and DRV groups compared with control group in ITT analysis, with a non-inferiority margin of 15%, a power of 90% and a two-sided α of 5%.|difference in proportions|6.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|16.7||||||||16.7|-4.5|
90803722|NCT00928187|181487207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.001
90803723|NCT00928187|181487208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.26
90803724|NCT00928187|181487209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.13
90803725|NCT05696444|181487215|SUPERIORITY|Test was calculated using an exact test against a null value of 0.85.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Exact test|||||||<0.0001
90803726|NCT05696444|181487216|SUPERIORITY|Test was calculated using an exact test against a null value of 0.2||||||0.0006||||||Holm adjusted at alpha = 0.025|Exact test|||||||0.0006
90803727|NCT05696444|181487216|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0025||||||Holm adjusted at alpha = 0.025|Exact test|||Test was calculated using an exact test against a null value of 0.45||||0.0025
90803728|NCT05696444|181487216|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001||||||Holm adjusted at alpha = 0.025|Exact test|||Test was calculated using an exact test against a null value of 0.2||||0.0001
90803729|NCT03744910|181487229|OTHER||Treatment difference|-2.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.563|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.84|0.35||||||||0.35|-5.84|
90803730|NCT02712983|181487255|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.62|-1.22||||||Day 8 Cohort A: TIP, Pooled PBO||-1.22|-3.62|
91013753|NCT01050998|181910407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.225||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.02|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|European region: Analysis reported for change from baseline in DAS28 (CRP) at Day 85.||0.02|-0.87|0.059
90803731|NCT02712983|181487255|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-0.98||||||Day 8 Cohort A: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||-0.98|-3.30|
90803732|NCT02712983|181487255|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-0.68||||||Day 8 Cohort B: TIP, Pooled PBO||-0.68|-3.20|
90803733|NCT02712983|181487255|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.38|-2.15||||||Day 8 Cohort B: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO|LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-2.15|-4.38|
90803734|NCT02712983|181487255|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.06|-2.88||||||Day 8 Cohort C: TIP, Pooled PBO||-2.88|-5.06|
90803735|NCT02712983|181487255|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.57|-2.14||||||Day 8 Cohort C: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||-2.14|-4.57|
90803736|NCT02712983|181487255|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.66|-1.89||||||Day 8: Pooled TIP, Pooled PBO||-1.89|-3.66|
90803737|NCT02712983|181487255|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.79|-2.05||||||Day 8: Pooled TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||-2.05|-3.79|
90803738|NCT02712983|181487255|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.28|-1.31||||||Day 29 Cohort A: TIP, Pooled PBO||-1.31|-4.28|
90803739|NCT02712983|181487255|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.03|-0.67||||||Day 29 Cohort A: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||-0.67|-4.03|
90803740|NCT02712983|181487255|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.04|-0.52||||||Day 29 Cohort B: TIP, Pooled PBO||-0.52|-4.04|
90803741|NCT02712983|181487255|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.16|-1.85||||||Day 29 Cohort B: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||-1.85|-5.16|
90803742|NCT02712983|181487255|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.13|-3.09||||||Day 29 Cohort C: TIP, Pooled PBO||-3.09|-6.13|
90803743|NCT02712983|181487255|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.68|-1.52||||||Day 29 Cohort C: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||-1.52|-4.68|
90803744|NCT02712983|181487255|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.43|-2.02||||||Day 29: Pooled TIP, Pooled PBO||-2.02|-4.43|
90803745|NCT02712983|181487255|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.19|-1.78||||||Day 29: Pooled TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||-1.78|-4.19|
90803746|NCT02712983|181487256|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.82|-0.36||||||Day 57 Cohort A: TIP, Pooled PBO||-0.36|-3.82|
90803747|NCT02712983|181487256|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|1.29||||||Day 57 Cohort A: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||1.29|-2.21|
90803748|NCT02712983|181487256|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.87|0.08||||||Day 57 Cohort B: TIP, Pooled PBO||0.08|-3.87|
90803749|NCT02712983|181487256|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.34|0.16||||||Day 57 Cohort B: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||0.16|-3.34|
90803750|NCT02712983|181487256|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|-2.22||||||Day 57 Cohort C: TIP, Pooled PBO||-2.22|-5.50|
91013754|NCT01050998|181910407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.227||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|-0.25|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|European region: Analysis reported for change from baseline in DAS28 (CRP) at Day 85.||-0.25|-1.14|0.002
91013755|NCT01050998|181910407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.241||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.09|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|European region: Analysis reported for change from baseline in DAS28 (ESR) at Day 85.||0.09|-0.87|0.107
90803751|NCT02712983|181487256|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.92|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.26|0.41||||||Day 57 Cohort C: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||0.41|-3.26|
90803752|NCT02712983|181487256|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.98|-1.25||||||Day 57: Pooled TIP, Pooled PBO||-1.25|-3.98|
90803753|NCT02712983|181487256|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.19||||||Day 57: Pooled TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||0.19|-2.50|
90803754|NCT02712983|181487256|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-0.38||||||Day 85 Cohort A: TIP, Pooled PBO||-0.38|-4.00|
90803755|NCT02712983|181487256|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.81|0.13||||||Day 85 Cohort A: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||0.13|-3.81|
90803756|NCT02712983|181487256|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.96|-0.53||||||Day 85 Cohort B: TIP, Pooled PBO||-0.53|-4.96|
90803757|NCT02712983|181487256|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.44|-1.73||||||Day 85 Cohort B: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||-1.73|-5.44|
90803758|NCT02712983|181487256|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|-1.07||||||Day 85 Cohort C: TIP, Pooled PBO||-1.07|-4.90|
90803759|NCT02712983|181487256|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.66|-0.53||||||Day 85 Cohort C: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||-0.53|-4.66|
90803760|NCT02712983|181487256|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.11|-1.17||||||Day 85: Pooled TIP, Pooled PBO||-1.17|-4.11|
90803761|NCT02712983|181487256|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.12|-1.23||||||Day 85: Pooled TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||-1.23|-4.12|
90803762|NCT02712983|181487256|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.55|-1.08||||||Day 113 Cohort A: TIP, Pooled PBO||-1.08|-4.55|
90803763|NCT02712983|181487256|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|1.71||||||Day 113 Cohort A: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||1.71|-1.61|
90803764|NCT02712983|181487256|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.93|-0.29||||||Day 113 Cohort B: TIP, Pooled PBO||-0.29|-4.93|
90803765|NCT02712983|181487256|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.62|-0.25||||||Day 113 Cohort B: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||-0.25|-3.62|
90803766|NCT02712983|181487256|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.94|-1.3||||||Day 113 Cohort C: TIP, Pooled PBO||-1.30|-4.94|
90803767|NCT02712983|181487256|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.37|-0.43||||||Day 113 Cohort C: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||-0.43|-4.37|
90803768|NCT02712983|181487256|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.24|-1.45||||||Day 113: Pooled TIP, Pooled PBO||-1.45|-4.24|
90803769|NCT02712983|181487256|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.73|-0.13||||||Day 113: Pooled TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||-0.13|-2.73|
90803770|NCT02712983|181487256|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.64|-0.73||||||EoT Cohort A: TIP, Pooled PBO||-0.73|-3.64|
90803771|NCT02712983|181487256|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|1.43||||||EoT Cohort A: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||1.43|-1.61|
90803772|NCT02712983|181487256|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.81|0.25||||||EoT Cohort B: TIP, Pooled PBO||0.25|-2.81|
90803773|NCT02712983|181487256|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.14|-0.22||||||EoT Cohort B: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||-0.22|-3.14|
90803774|NCT02712983|181487256|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.89|-0.98||||||EoT Cohort C: TIP, Pooled PBO||-0.98|-3.89|
90803775|NCT02712983|181487256|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.12|-0.22||||||EoT Cohort C: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||-0.22|-3.12|
90803776|NCT02712983|181487256|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.08|-0.85||||||EoT: Pooled TIP, Pooled PBO||-0.85|-3.08|
90803777|NCT02712983|181487256|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|-0.04||||||EoT: Pooled TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||-0.04|-2.25|
90803778|NCT02712983|181487256|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.63|0.99||||||Day 141 Cohort A: TIP, Pooled PBO||0.99|-2.63|
90803779|NCT02712983|181487256|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|1.98||||||Day 141 Cohort A: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||1.98|-1.83|
90803780|NCT02712983|181487256|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.03|2.41||||||Day 141 Cohort B: TIP, Pooled PBO||2.41|-2.03|
90803781|NCT02712983|181487256|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.92|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.68|-0.01||||||Day 141 Cohort B: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||-0.01|-3.68|
90803782|NCT02712983|181487256|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|1.07||||||Day 141 Cohort C (4 capsules b.i.d.): TIP, Pooled PBO||1.07|-2.78|
90803783|NCT02712983|181487256|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.36|0.89||||||Day 141 Cohort C: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||0.89|-3.36|
90803784|NCT02712983|181487256|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.97|0.98||||||Day 141: Pooled TIP, Pooled PBO||0.98|-1.97|
90803785|NCT02712983|181487256|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.45|0.45||||||Day 141: Pooled TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||0.45|-2.45|
90803786|NCT02712983|181487256|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.24|0.61||||||Day 169 Cohort A: TIP, Pooled PBO||0.61|-3.24|
90803787|NCT02712983|181487256|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.05|0.91||||||Day 169 Cohort A: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||0.91|-3.05|
90803788|NCT02712983|181487256|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.73|1.62||||||Day 169 Cohort B: TIP, Pooled PBO||1.62|-2.73|
90803789|NCT02712983|181487256|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.22|-0.08||||||Day 169 Cohort B: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||-0.08|-4.22|
90803790|NCT02712983|181487256|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|2.1||||||Day 169 Cohort C: TIP, Pooled PBO||2.10|-2.48|
90803791|NCT02712983|181487256|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|2.13||||||Day 169 Cohort C: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||2.13|-2.33|
90803792|NCT02712983|181487256|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.24|0.86||||||Day 169: Pooled TIP, Pooled PBO||0.86|-2.24|
90803793|NCT02712983|181487256|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|0.4||||||Day 169: Pooled TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||0.40|-2.61|
90803794|NCT02712983|181487257|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|3.18|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Overall Cohort A: TIP, Pooled PBO||3.18|0.14|
90803795|NCT02712983|181487257|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.85|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Overall Cohort A: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||1.85|0.18|
90803796|NCT02712983|181487257|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|3.77|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Overall Cohort B: TIP, Pooled PBO||3.77|0.42|
90803797|NCT02712983|181487257|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.83|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Overall Cohort B: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||1.83|0.20|
90803798|NCT02712983|181487257|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|2.17|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Overall Cohort C: TIP, Pooled PBO||2.17|0.21|
90803799|NCT02712983|181487257|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|3.62|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Overall Cohort C: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||3.62|0.44|
90803800|NCT02712983|181487257|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|2.23|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Overall Pooled TIP, Pooled PBO||2.23|0.44|
90803801|NCT02712983|181487257|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.71|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Overall Pooled TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||1.71|0.34|
90803802|NCT02712983|181487257|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|1.83|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Oral Cohort A: TIP, Pooled PBO||1.83|0.08|
91013756|NCT01050998|181910407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.236||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.18|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|European region: Analysis reported for change from baseline in DAS28 (ESR) at Day 85.||-0.18|-1.11|0.007
90803803|NCT02712983|181487257|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|2.89|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Oral Cohort A: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||2.89|0.25|
90803804|NCT02712983|181487257|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|3.93|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Oral Cohort B: TIP, Pooled PBO||3.93|0.25|
90803805|NCT02712983|181487257|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|2.36|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Oral Cohort B: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||2.36|0.19|
90803806|NCT02712983|181487257|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|1.57|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Oral Cohort C: TIP, Pooled PBO||1.57|0.02|
90803807|NCT02712983|181487257|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|2.41|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Oral Cohort C: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||2.41|0.16|
90803808|NCT02712983|181487257|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.31|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Oral Pooled TIP, Pooled PBO||1.31|0.13|
90803809|NCT02712983|181487257|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.8|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Oral Pooled TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||1.80|0.28|
90803810|NCT02712983|181487257|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|10.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|104.19|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Parenteral Cohort A: TIP, Pooled PBO||104.19|1.10|
90803811|NCT02712983|181487257|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|52.29|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Parenteral Cohort B: TIP, Pooled PBO||52.29|0.41|
90803812|NCT02712983|181487257|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|37.06|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Parenteral Cohort B: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||37.06|0.28|
90803813|NCT02712983|181487257|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|25.94|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Parenteral Cohort C: TIP, Pooled PBO||25.94|0.10|
90803814|NCT02712983|181487257|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|11.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|117.34|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Parenteral Cohort C: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||117.34|1.09|
90803815|NCT02712983|181487257|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|37.32|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Parenteral Pooled TIP, Pooled PBO||37.32|0.50|
90803816|NCT02712983|181487258|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|9.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.15|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.15|46.81|||||ANCOVA model includes treatment as a fixed-effect factor and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate.|Overall Cohort A: TIP, Pooled PBO||46.81|-27.15|
90803817|NCT02712983|181487258|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|19.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.81|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.63|62.14|||||ANCOVA model includes treatment as a fixed-effect factor and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate.|Overall Cohort A: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||62.14|-22.63|
90803818|NCT02712983|181487258|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.29|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.32|47.26|||||ANCOVA model includes treatment as a fixed-effect factor and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate.|Overall Cohort B: TIP, Pooled PBO||47.26|-31.32|
90803819|NCT02712983|181487258|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|12.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.24|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.49|51.89|||||ANCOVA model includes treatment as a fixed-effect factor and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate.|Overall Cohort B: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||51.89|-26.49|
90803820|NCT02712983|181487258|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|46.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.17|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.37|89.61|||||ANCOVA model includes treatment as a fixed-effect factor and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate.|Overall Cohort C: TIP, Pooled PBO||89.61|3.37|
90803821|NCT02712983|181487258|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.37|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.21|40.64|||||ANCOVA model includes treatment as a fixed-effect factor and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate.|Overall Cohort C: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||40.64|-34.21|
90803822|NCT02712983|181487258|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|21.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.46|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.03|50.89|||||ANCOVA model includes treatment as a fixed-effect factor and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate.|Overall Pooled TIP, Pooled PBO||50.89|-8.03|
90803823|NCT02712983|181487258|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|11.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.44|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.52|41.29|||||ANCOVA model includes treatment as a fixed-effect factor and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate.|Overall Pooled TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||41.29|-17.52|
90803824|NCT02712983|181487263|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|3.13|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Overall Cohort A: TIP, Pooled PBO||3.13|0.51|
90803825|NCT02712983|181487263|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.46|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Overall Cohort A: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||1.46|0.15|
90803826|NCT02712983|181487263|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|3.21|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Overall Cohort B: TIP, Pooled PBO||3.21|0.44|
90803827|NCT02712983|181487263|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|2.18|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Overall Cohort B: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||2.18|0.32|
90803828|NCT02712983|181487263|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.27|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Overall Cohort C: TIP, Pooled PBO||1.27|0.10|
90803829|NCT02712983|181487263|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|2.99|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Overall Cohort C: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||2.99|0.43|
90803830|NCT02712983|181487263|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.76|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Overall Pooled TIP, Pooled PBO||1.76|0.37|
90803831|NCT02712983|181487263|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.61|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Overall Pooled TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||1.61|0.36|
90803832|NCT02712983|181487263|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.55|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Oral Cohort A: TIP, Pooled PBO||2.55|0.30|
90803833|NCT02712983|181487263|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.03|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Oral Cohort A: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||2.03|0.20|
90803834|NCT02712983|181487263|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.6|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Oral Cohort B: TIP, Pooled PBO||3.60|0.40|
90803835|NCT02712983|181487263|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|2.55|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Oral Cohort B: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||2.55|0.31|
90803836|NCT02712983|181487263|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|1.27|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Oral Cohort C: TIP, Pooled PBO||1.27|0.06|
90803837|NCT02712983|181487263|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|3.73|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Oral Cohort C: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||3.73|0.45|
90803838|NCT02712983|181487263|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.6|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Oral Pooled TIP, Pooled PBO||1.60|0.27|
90803839|NCT02712983|181487263|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.02|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Oral Pooled TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||2.02|0.40|
90803840|NCT02712983|181487263|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|16.52|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Parenteral Cohort A: TIP, Pooled PBO||16.52|0.84|
90803841|NCT02712983|181487263|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|8.16|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Parenteral Cohort B: TIP, Pooled PBO||8.16|0.22|
90803842|NCT02712983|181487263|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|10.05|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Parenteral Cohort B: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||10.05|0.46|
91013757|NCT01050998|181910407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.236||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.06|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|European region: Analysis reported for change from baseline in DAS28 (ESR) at Day 85.||0.06|-0.88|0.084
91013758|NCT01050998|181910407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.238||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.26|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|European region: Analysis reported for change from baseline in DAS28 (ESR) at Day 85.||-0.26|-1.20|0.002
90803843|NCT02712983|181487263|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|4.87|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Parenteral Cohort C: TIP, Pooled PBO||4.87|0.05|
90803844|NCT02712983|181487263|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|12.49|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Parenteral Cohort C: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||12.49|0.53|
90803845|NCT02712983|181487263|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|5.68|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Paremteral Pooled TIP, Pooled PBO||5.68|0.33|
90803846|NCT02712983|181487268|OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|5.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|38.18|||||Generalized linear model assuming the negative binomial distribution including treatment and baseline macrolide use as class-effect factors. The log exposure to study in years is included as an offset variable in the model.|Cohort A (3 capsules o.d.): TIP, Pooled PBO||38.18|0.83|
91013759|NCT01050998|181910407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.447||0.785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|1.02|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|Japanese region: Analysis reported for change from baseline in DAS28 (CRP) at Day 85.||1.02|-0.78|0.785
91013760|NCT01050998|181910407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.465||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|-0.26|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|Japanese region: Analysis reported for change from baseline in DAS28 (CRP) at Day 85.||-0.26|-2.13|0.014
91013761|NCT01050998|181910407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.448||0.931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.86|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|Japanese region: Analysis reported for change from baseline in DAS28 (CRP) at Day 85.||0.86|-0.94|0.931
90803847|NCT02712983|181487268|OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|19.16|||||Generalized linear model assuming the negative binomial distribution including treatment and baseline macrolide use as class-effect factors. The log exposure to study in years is included as an offset variable in the model.|Cohort B (5 capsules o.d.): TIP, Pooled PBO||19.16|0.21|
90803848|NCT02712983|181487268|OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|3.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|21.8|||||Generalized linear model assuming the negative binomial distribution including treatment and baseline macrolide use as class-effect factors. The log exposure to study in years is included as an offset variable in the model.|Cohort B (5 capsules o.d.): TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||21.80|0.43|
90803849|NCT02712983|181487268|OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|1.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|17.42|||||Generalized linear model assuming the negative binomial distribution including treatment and baseline macrolide use as class-effect factors. The log exposure to study in years is included as an offset variable in the model.|Cohort C (4 capsules b.i.d.): TIP, Pooled PBO||17.42|0.19|
90803850|NCT02712983|181487268|OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|3.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|25.03|||||Generalized linear model assuming the negative binomial distribution including treatment and baseline macrolide use as class-effect factors. The log exposure to study in years is included as an offset variable in the model.|Cohort C (4 capsules b.i.d.): TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||25.03|0.47|
90803851|NCT02712983|181487268|OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|2.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|16.07|||||Generalized linear model assuming the negative binomial distribution including treatment and baseline macrolide use as class-effect factors. The log exposure to study in years is included as an offset variable in the model.|||16.07|0.47|
90803852|NCT02712983|181487269|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|26.42|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Cohort A (3 capsules o.d.): TIP, Pooled PBO||26.42|0.77|
90803853|NCT02712983|181487269|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|14.47|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Cohort B (5 capsules o.d.): TIP, Pooled PBO||14.47|0.28|
90803854|NCT02712983|181487269|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|11.6|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Cohort B (5 capsules o.d.): TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||11.60|0.20|
91013762|NCT01050998|181910407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.465||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.07|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|Japanese region: Analysis reported for change from baseline in DAS28 (CRP) at Day 85.||0.07|-1.80|0.070
91013763|NCT01050998|181910407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.449||0.854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.82|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|Japanese region: Analysis reported for change from baseline in DAS28 (ESR) at Day 85.||0.82|-0.99|0.854
91013764|NCT01050998|181910407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.468||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.19|-0.31|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|Japanese region: Analysis reported for change from baseline in DAS28 (ESR) at Day 85.||-0.31|-2.19|0.011
90803855|NCT02712983|181487269|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|7.49|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Cohort C (4 capsules b.i.d.): TIP, Pooled PBO||7.49|0.06|
90803856|NCT02712983|181487269|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|23.29|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Cohort C (4 capsules b.i.d.): TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||23.29|0.62|
90803857|NCT02712983|181487269|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|9.45|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Pooled TIP, Pooled PBO||9.45|0.35|
90803858|NCT03430843|181487366|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.85|||1-sided, Log Rank Test|||||0.85|0.57|0.0001
90803859|NCT05360966|181487387|OTHER|Difference (2-sided)|Difference in Percentages|38.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.8|46.8||Multiple imputation methodology was implemented in handling missing data, both related to and unrelated to intercurrent events.|Pearson's Chi-squared test||Difference equals 0.003% AR-15512 minus AR-15512 Vehicle|The primary estimand targeted the treatment effect attributable to the randomly assigned treatment, regardless of compliance to study treatment and assuming subjects who discontinued due to lack of efficacy, AEs, or disallowed concurrent treatments followed the behavior of subjects in the reference arm for the duration of the study and subjects who discontinued for other reasons would have followed the behavior of subjects who were still in the study under same randomly assigned treatment.|For binary endpoint, the underlying continuous measurement of unanesthetized Schirmer score was imputed, change score calculated and then dichotomized to ascertain attainment of greater than or equal to 10 millimeter increase from pre-drop baseline.|46.8|30.8|<0.0001
91013765|NCT01050998|181910407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.448||0.271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.4|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|Japanese region: Analysis reported for change from baseline in DAS28 (ESR) at Day 85.||0.40|-1.40|0.271
91079185|NCT03240406|182044045|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.27||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.53||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|ANCOVA|MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|Statistical Analysis results for DHA||0.53|0.01|0.039
90803860|NCT05360966|181487388|OTHER|Difference (2-sided)|Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.08||0.1321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|0.9||Multiple imputation methodology was implemented in handling missing data, both related to and unrelated to intercurrent events.|ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center.|Difference equals 0.003% AR-15512 minus AR-15512 Vehicle|The primary estimand targeted the treatment effect attributable to the randomly assigned treatment, regardless of compliance to study treatment and assuming subjects who discontinued due to lack of efficacy, AEs, or disallowed concurrent treatments followed the behavior of subjects in the reference arm for the duration of the study and subjects who discontinued for other reasons would have followed the behavior of subjects who were still in the study under same randomly assigned treatment.||0.9|-7.2|0.1321
90803861|NCT05360966|181487389|OTHER|Difference (2-sided)|Least Squares Mean Difference|8.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|9.8||Multiple imputation methodology was implemented in handling missing data, both related to and unrelated to intercurrent events.|ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center|Difference equals 0.003% AR-15512 minus AR-15512 Vehicle|The primary estimand targeted the treatment effect attributable to the randomly assigned treatment, regardless of compliance to study treatment and assuming subjects who discontinued due to lack of efficacy, AEs, or disallowed concurrent treatments followed the behavior of subjects in the reference arm for the duration of the study and subjects who discontinued for other reasons would have followed the behavior of subjects who were still in the study under same randomly assigned treatment.||9.8|6.9|<0.0001
90803862|NCT05360966|181487390|OTHER|Difference (2-sided)|Difference in Percentages|40.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.3|47.9||Multiple imputation methodology was implemented in handling missing data, both related to and unrelated to intercurrent events.|Pearson's Chi-squared test||Difference equals 0.003% AR-15512 minus AR-15512 Vehicle|The primary estimand targeted the treatment effect attributable to the randomly assigned treatment, regardless of compliance to study treatment and assuming subjects who discontinued due to lack of efficacy, AEs, or disallowed concurrent treatments followed the behavior of subjects in the reference arm for the duration of the study and subjects who discontinued for other reasons would have followed the behavior of subjects who were still in the study under same randomly assigned treatment.|For binary endpoint, the underlying continuous measurement of unanesthetized Schirmer score was imputed, change score calculated and then dichotomized to ascertain attainment of greater than or equal to 10 millimeter increase from pre-drop baseline.|47.9|32.3|<0.0001
91013766|NCT01050998|181910407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.465||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.97|-0.1|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|Japanese region: Analysis reported for change from baseline in DAS28 (ESR) at Day 85.||-0.10|-1.97|0.031
91013767|NCT01050998|181910408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|7.0||||0.238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|20.5|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|DAS28 (CRP): p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||20.5|-3.3|0.238
91013768|NCT01050998|181910408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|14.8||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|29.7|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|DAS28 (CRP): p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||29.7|2.8|0.017
91013769|NCT01050998|181910408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|11.1||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|25.4|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|DAS28 (CRP): p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||25.4|0.0|0.090
91013770|NCT01050998|181910408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|15.8||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|31.0|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|DAS28 (CRP): p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||31.0|2.9|0.015
91013771|NCT01050998|181910408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|3.0||||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|14.0|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|DAS28 (ESR): p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||14.0|-4.2|0.412
91013772|NCT01050998|181910408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|4.9||||0.237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|16.4|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|DAS28 (ESR): p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||16.4|-2.9|0.237
91013773|NCT01050998|181910408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|5.1||||0.231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|16.8|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|DAS28 (ESR): p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||16.8|-2.8|0.231
91013774|NCT01050998|181910408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|3.1||||0.406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|14.4|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|DAS28 (ESR): p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||14.4|-4.1|0.406
91013775|NCT01050998|181910409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|8.7||||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|24.4|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|European region (DAS28 \[CRP\]): p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||24.4|-2.7|0.182
91013776|NCT01050998|181910409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|10.4||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|25.5|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|European region (DAS28 \[CRP\]): p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||25.5|-1.2|0.110
91013777|NCT01050998|181910409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|11.3||||0.104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|26.9|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|European region (DAS28 \[CRP\]): p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||26.9|-0.6|0.104
91013778|NCT01050998|181910409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|16.4||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|32.7|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|European region (DAS28 \[CRP\]): p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||32.7|3.5|0.016
90803863|NCT05360966|181487391|OTHER|Difference (2-sided)|Least Squares Mean Difference|7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|8.9||Multiple imputation methodology was implemented in handling missing data, both related to and unrelated to intercurrent events.|ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center|Difference equals 0.003% AR-15512 minus AR-15512 Vehicle|The primary estimand targeted the treatment effect attributable to the randomly assigned treatment, regardless of compliance to study treatment and assuming subjects who discontinued due to lack of efficacy, AEs, or disallowed concurrent treatments followed the behavior of subjects in the reference arm for the duration of the study and subjects who discontinued for other reasons would have followed the behavior of subjects who were still in the study under same randomly assigned treatment.||8.9|6.3|<0.0001
90803864|NCT05360966|181487392|OTHER|Difference (2 sided)|Difference in Percentages|37.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.7|45.9||Multiple imputation methodology was implemented in handling missing data, both related to and unrelated to intercurrent events.|Pearson's Chi-squared test||Difference equals 0.003% AR-15512 minus AR-15512 Vehicle|The primary estimand targeted the treatment effect attributable to the randomly assigned treatment, regardless of compliance to study treatment and assuming subjects who discontinued due to lack of efficacy, AEs, or disallowed concurrent treatments followed the behavior of subjects in the reference arm for the duration of the study and subjects who discontinued for other reasons would have followed the behavior of subjects who were still in the study under same randomly assigned treatment.|For binary endpoint, the underlying continuous measurement of unanesthetized Schirmer score was imputed, change score calculated and then dichotomized to ascertain attainment of greater than or equal to 10 millimeter increase from pre-drop baseline.|45.9|28.7|<0.0001
90803865|NCT05360966|181487393|OTHER|Difference (2-sided)|Least Squares Mean Difference|8.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|9.6||Multiple imputation methodology was implemented in handling missing data, both related to and unrelated to intercurrent events.|ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center|Difference equals 0.003% AR-15512 minus AR-15512 Vehicle|The primary estimand targeted the treatment effect attributable to the randomly assigned treatment, regardless of compliance to study treatment and assuming subjects who discontinued due to lack of efficacy, AEs, or disallowed concurrent treatments followed the behavior of subjects in the reference arm for the duration of the study and subjects who discontinued for other reasons would have followed the behavior of subjects who were still in the study under same randomly assigned treatment.||9.6|6.5|<0.0001
90803866|NCT05360966|181487394|OTHER|Difference (2-sided)|Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.5626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|3.3||Multiple imputation methodology was implemented in handling missing data, both related to and unrelated to intercurrent events.|ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center|Difference equals 0.003% AR-15512 minus AR-15512 Vehicle|The primary estimand targeted the treatment effect attributable to the randomly assigned treatment, regardless of compliance to study treatment and assuming subjects who discontinued due to lack of efficacy, AEs, or disallowed concurrent treatments followed the behavior of subjects in the reference arm for the duration of the study and subjects who discontinued for other reasons would have followed the behavior of subjects who were still in the study under same randomly assigned treatment.||3.3|-6.1|0.5626
90803867|NCT05360966|181487395|OTHER|Difference (2-sided)|Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.53||0.5981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|3.6||Multiple imputation methodology was implemented in handling missing data, both related to and unrelated to intercurrent events.|ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center|Difference equals 0.003% AR-15512 minus AR-15512 Vehicle|The primary estimand targeted the treatment effect attributable to the randomly assigned treatment, regardless of compliance to study treatment and assuming subjects who discontinued due to lack of efficacy, AEs, or disallowed concurrent treatments followed the behavior of subjects in the reference arm for the duration of the study and subjects who discontinued for other reasons would have followed the behavior of subjects who were still in the study under same randomly assigned treatment.||3.6|-6.3|0.5981
91013779|NCT01050998|181910409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|6.4||||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|19.3|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|European region (DAS28 \[ESR\]): p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||19.3|-1.0|0.115
91013780|NCT01050998|181910409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|8.4||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|21.6|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|European region (DAS28 \[ESR\]): p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||21.6|0.6|0.052
91013781|NCT01050998|181910409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-0.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.0|34.8|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|Japanese region (DAS28 \[CRP\]): p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||34.8|-27.0|1.000
91013782|NCT01050998|181910409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|38.2||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|71.2|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|Japanese region (DAS28 \[CRP\]): p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||71.2|1.6|0.059
91013783|NCT01050998|181910409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|10.5||||0.591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.2|46.2|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|Japanese region (DAS28 \[CRP\]): p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||46.2|-18.2|0.591
91013784|NCT01050998|181910409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|13.2||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|51.4|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|Japanese region (DAS28 \[CRP\]): p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||51.4|-16.6|0.570
91013785|NCT01050998|181910409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-11.8||||0.529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.0|22.7|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|Japanese region (DAS28 \[ESR\]): p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||22.7|-35.0|0.529
91013786|NCT01050998|181910409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-11.8||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.5|22.6|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|Japanese region (DAS28 \[ESR\]): p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||22.6|-37.5|1.000
90803868|NCT05360966|181487396|OTHER|Difference (2-sided)|Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.44||0.5161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|3.2||Multiple imputation methodology was implemented in handling missing data, both related to and unrelated to intercurrent events.|ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center|Difference equals 0.003% AR-15512 minus AR-15512 Vehicle|The primary estimand targeted the treatment effect attributable to the randomly assigned treatment, regardless of compliance to study treatment and assuming subjects who discontinued due to lack of efficacy, AEs, or disallowed concurrent treatments followed the behavior of subjects in the reference arm for the duration of the study and subjects who discontinued for other reasons would have followed the behavior of subjects who were still in the study under same randomly assigned treatment.||3.2|-6.4|0.5161
90803869|NCT05360966|181487397|OTHER|Difference (2-sided)|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.51||0.8574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|5.4||Multiple imputation methodology was implemented in handling missing data, both related to and unrelated to intercurrent events.|ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center|Difference equals 0.003% AR-15512 minus AR-15512 Vehicle|The primary estimand targeted the treatment effect attributable to the randomly assigned treatment, regardless of compliance to study treatment and assuming subjects who discontinued due to lack of efficacy, AEs, or disallowed concurrent treatments followed the behavior of subjects in the reference arm for the duration of the study and subjects who discontinued for other reasons would have followed the behavior of subjects who were still in the study under same randomly assigned treatment.||5.4|-4.5|0.8574
90803870|NCT05360966|181487398|OTHER|Difference (2-sided)|Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.69||0.698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|4.2||Multiple imputation methodology was implemented in handling missing data, both related to and unrelated to intercurrent events.|ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center|Difference equals 0.003% AR-15512 minus AR-15512 Vehicle|The primary estimand targeted the treatment effect attributable to the randomly assigned treatment, regardless of compliance to study treatment and assuming subjects who discontinued due to lack of efficacy, AEs, or disallowed concurrent treatments followed the behavior of subjects in the reference arm for the duration of the study and subjects who discontinued for other reasons would have followed the behavior of subjects who were still in the study under same randomly assigned treatment.||4.2|-6.3|0.6980
90803871|NCT01477710|181487447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ANOVA F-value|266.39|||<|0.0001||||||This p-value is for the omnibus F-test of between-treatment differences in tidal volume|ANOVA|The p-value for the omnibus F-test was \<0.0001||Using ANOVA, pairwise comparisons of treatment means were made using a Tukey adjustment for multiple comparisons.||||<0.0001
90803872|NCT01477710|181487447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|314.4|||<|0.0001||95.0|264.7|364.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||364.1|264.7|<0.0001
90803873|NCT01477710|181487447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|576.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|25.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|526.9|626.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||626.3|526.9|<0.0001
90803874|NCT01477710|181487447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|262.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|25.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|212.5|312.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||312.0|212.5|<0.0001
90803875|NCT01309997|181487468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.01
91013787|NCT01050998|181910409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-0.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.0|34.8|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|Japanese region (DAS28 \[ESR\]): p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||34.8|-27.0|1.000
91013788|NCT01050998|181910410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|||||0.604|||||||Log Rank|||Analysis reported for DAS28 (CRP) response.||||0.604
90803876|NCT01309997|181487468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.64
90803877|NCT03645096|181487478|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0493|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0554||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0703|0.1689||Statistical significance is evaluated at p (one-tailed) \<= .05.|t-test, 1 sided|Paired samples t-test with corrected standard deviation of the difference.|Mean Difference = placebo - pregnenolone (500 mg)|"Null Hypothesis: Amygdala-PCC functional connectivity (z-score) at 500 mg will be less than or equal to that at placebo.~Alternative Hypothesis: Amygdala-PCC functional connectivity (z-score) at 500 mg will be greater than that at placebo."||0.1689|-0.0703|.195
90803878|NCT03645096|181487478|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0262|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0565||0.325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0943|0.1467||Statistical significance is evaluated at p (one-tailed) \<= .05.|t-test, 1 sided|Paired samples t-test with corrected standard deviation of the difference.|Mean Difference = placebo - pregnenolone (800 mg)|"Null Hypothesis: Amygdala-PCC functional connectivity (z-score) at 800 mg will be less than or equal to that at placebo.~Alternative Hypothesis: Amygdala-PCC functional connectivity (z-score) at 800 mg will be greater than that at placebo."||0.1467|-0.0943|.325
90803879|NCT03645096|181487479|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0071|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0878||0.468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1969|0.1827||Statistical significance is evaluated at p (one-tailed) \<= .05.|t-test, 1 sided|Paired samples t-test with corrected standard deviation of the difference.|Mean Difference = placebo - pregnenolone (500 mg)|"Null Hypothesis: dlPFC-Insula functional connectivity (z-score) at 500 mg will be less than or equal to that at placebo.~Alternative Hypothesis: dlPFC-Insula functional connectivity (z-score) at 500 mg will be greater than that at placebo."||0.1827|-0.1969|.468
91013789|NCT01050998|181910410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||Analysis reported for DAS28 (CRP) response.||||<0.001
91013790|NCT01050998|181910410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.145|||||||Log Rank|||Analysis reported for DAS28 (CRP) response.||||0.145
91013791|NCT01050998|181910410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.282|||||||Log Rank|||Analysis reported for DAS28 (ESR) response.||||0.282
91013792|NCT01050998|181910410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||Analysis reported for DAS28 (ESR) response.||||<0.001
91013793|NCT01050998|181910410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047|||||||Log Rank|||Analysis reported for DAS28 (ESR) response.||||0.047
91013794|NCT01050998|181910411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|||||0.237|||||||Log Rank|||European region: Analysis reported for DAS28 (CRP) response.||||0.237
90803880|NCT03645096|181487479|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0097|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0891||0.458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1803|0.1996||Statistical significance is evaluated at p (one-tailed) \<= .05.|t-test, 1 sided|Paired samples t-test with corrected standard deviation of the difference.|Mean Difference = placebo - pregnenolone (800 mg)|"Null Hypothesis: dlPFC-Insula functional connectivity (z-score) at 800 mg will be less than or equal to that at placebo.~Alternative Hypothesis: dlPFC-Insula functional connectivity (z-score) at 800 mg will be greater than that at placebo."||0.1996|-0.1803|.458
90803881|NCT03645096|181487480|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0038|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0078||0.316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0132|0.0209||Paired samples t-test with corrected standard deviation of the difference.|t-test, 1 sided|Paired samples t-test with corrected standard deviation of the difference.|Mean Difference = placebo - pregnenolone (500 mg)|"Null Hypothesis: GABA concentration (mM) at 500 mg will be less than or equal to that at placebo.~Alternative Hypothesis: GABA concentration (mM) at 500 mg will be greater than that at placebo."||0.0209|-0.0132|.316
90803882|NCT03645096|181487480|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0131|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0084||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|0.0312||Statistical significance is evaluated at p (one-tailed) \<= .05.|t-test, 1 sided|Paired samples t-test with corrected standard deviation of the difference.|Mean Difference = placebo - pregnenolone (800 mg)|"Null Hypothesis: GABA concentration (mM) at 500 mg will be less than or equal to that at placebo.~Alternative Hypothesis: GABA concentration (mM) at 500 mg will be greater than that at placebo."||0.0312|-0.0050|.071
90803883|NCT03645096|181487481|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11322.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3750.52||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19577.27|-3067.62||Statistical significance is evaluated at p (one-tailed) \<= .05.|t-test, 1 sided|Paired samples t-test with corrected standard deviation of the difference.|Mean Difference = placebo - pregnenolone (500 mg)|"Null Hypothesis: Pregnenolone level (pg/mL) at 500 mg will be less than or equal to that at placebo.~Alternative Hypothesis: Pregnenolone level (pg/mL) at 500 mg will be greater than that at placebo."||-3067.62|-19577.27|.006
90803884|NCT03645096|181487481|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11828.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3620.42||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19650.24|-4007.33||Statistical significance is evaluated at p (one-tailed) \<= .05.|t-test, 1 sided|Paired samples t-test with corrected standard deviation of the difference.|Mean Difference = placebo - pregnenolone (800 mg)|"Null Hypothesis: Pregnenolone level (pg/mL) at 800 mg will be less than or equal to that at placebo.~Alternative Hypothesis: Pregnenolone level (pg/mL) at 800 mg will be greater than that at placebo."||-4007.33|-19650.24|.003
90803885|NCT03645096|181487482|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2523.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|545.83||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3724.93|-1322.22||Statistical significance is evaluated at p (one-tailed) \<= .05.|t-test, 1 sided|Paired samples t-test with corrected standard deviation of the difference.|Mean Difference = placebo - pregnenolone (500 mg)|"Null Hypothesis: Allopregnanolone level (pg/mL) at 500 mg will be less than or equal to that at placebo.~Alternative Hypothesis: Allopregnanolone level (pg/mL) at 500 mg will be greater than that at placebo."||-1322.22|-3724.93|.001
90803886|NCT03645096|181487482|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2480.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|582.63||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3739.32|-1221.93||Statistical significance is evaluated at p (one-tailed) \<= .05.|t-test, 1 sided|Paired samples t-test with corrected standard deviation of the difference.|Mean Difference = placebo - pregnenolone (800 mg)|"Null Hypothesis: Allopregnanolone level (pg/mL) at 800 mg will be less than or equal to that at placebo.~Alternative Hypothesis: Allopregnanolone level (pg/mL) at 800 mg will be greater than that at placebo."||-1221.93|-3739.32|.001
90803887|NCT03645096|181487483|NON_INFERIORITY|"Using the two one-sided test (TOST) procedure (Schuirmann, 1987), equivalence is established at the α significance level if a (1-2α) × 100% confidence interval for the difference in efficacies (new - current) is contained within the interval (-δ, δ)~Schuirmann, D. J. (1987). A comparison of the two one-sided tests procedure and the power approach for assessing the equivalence of average bioavailability. Journal of pharmacokinetics and biopharmaceutics, 15, 657-680."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7059|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6377||0.336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7659|4.1777||Statistical significance is evaluated at p (one-tailed) \<= .05.|t-test, 1 sided|Paired samples t-test with corrected standard deviation of the difference.|Mean Difference = placebo - pregnenolone (500 mg)|"Null Hypothesis: SAFTEE (total) scores at 500 mg will be greater than or equal to that at placebo.~Alternative Hypothesis: SAFTEE (total) scores at 500 mg will be less than that at placebo."||4.1777|-2.7659|.336
90803888|NCT03645096|181487483|NON_INFERIORITY|"Using the two one-sided test (TOST) procedure (Schuirmann, 1987), equivalence is established at the α significance level if a (1-2α) × 100% confidence interval for the difference in efficacies (new - current) is contained within the interval (-δ, δ)~Schuirmann, D. J. (1987). A comparison of the two one-sided tests procedure and the power approach for assessing the equivalence of average bioavailability. Journal of pharmacokinetics and biopharmaceutics, 15, 657-680."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4662||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8131|4.8131||Statistical significance is evaluated at p (one-tailed) \<= .05.|t-test, 1 sided|Paired samples t-test with corrected standard deviation of the difference.|Mean Difference = placebo - pregnenolone (800 mg)|"Null Hypothesis: SAFTEE (total) scores at 800 mg will be greater than or equal to that at placebo.~Alternative Hypothesis: SAFTEE (total) scores at 800 mg will be less than that at placebo."||4.8131|-9.8131|.240
91013795|NCT01050998|181910411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Log Rank|||European region: Analysis reported for DAS28 (CRP) response.||||0.005
91013796|NCT01050998|181910411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.134|||||||Log Rank|||European region: Analysis reported for DAS28 (CRP) response.||||0.134
91013797|NCT01050998|181910411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||European region: Analysis reported for DAS28 (CRP) response.||||<0.001
91013798|NCT01050998|181910411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.265|||||||Log Rank|||Japanese region: Analysis reported for DAS28 (CRP) response.||||0.265
91013799|NCT01050998|181910411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013|||||||Log Rank|||Japanese region: Analysis reported for DAS28 (CRP) response.||||0.013
91013800|NCT01050998|181910411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.952|||||||Log Rank|||Japanese region: Analysis reported for DAS28 (CRP) response.||||0.952
91013801|NCT01050998|181910411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Log Rank|||Japanese region: Analysis reported for DAS28 (CRP) response.||||0.004
91013802|NCT01050998|181910411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.246|||||||Log Rank|||European region: Analysis reported for DAS28 (ESR) response.||||0.246
91013803|NCT01050998|181910411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||European region: Analysis reported for DAS28 (ESR) response.||||<0.001
90803889|NCT00066222|181487488|OTHER|||||||||||||||||This study was designed to detect an improvement in the 2-year overall survival rate from 47% to 60%. Using a one-group chi-square test with a one-sided significance level of 0.10, a sample of 67 patients was deemed sufficient to detect the difference between the null hypothesis (H0: P .47) and the alternative hypothesis (HA: P .60) with 80% power.|If the point estimate for two-year survival is less than or equal to 0.54815, the upper bound of the one-sided 90% confidence interval on 47%, then H0 would not be rejected and the conclusion would be that the two-year survival rate did not statistically improve from 47% under the new treatment. If the point estimate is greater than 0.54815, then H0 would be rejected and the conclusion is that the two-year survival rate did improve from 47% to 60% under the new treatment.|||
90803890|NCT00066222|181487491|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The following rule would reject the null hypothesis that the proportion of severe esophagitis was 30% with an overall significance level of 0.05: 27 or more cases of severe esophagitis among the total sample of evaluable patients.|||
90803891|NCT00066222|181487492|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The following rule would reject the null hypothesis that the proportion of treatment-related fatalities was less than or equal to 5% with an overall significance level of 0.05: 6 or more instances of treatment-related fatalities among the total sample of evaluable patients.|||
90803892|NCT00635349|181487494|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower confidence limit interval was less than -1.0 (1-sided , 97.5% confidence interval)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.81||||0.4258|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-6.31||||t-test, 1 sided||||||-6.31|0.4258
90803893|NCT00635349|181487495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68||||0.0628|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-1.41||||t-test, 1 sided||||||-1.41|0.0628
90803894|NCT00635349|181487496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0131||||||Day 29: p-value was calculated by fisher exact test|Fisher Exact|||||||0.0131
90803895|NCT00635349|181487496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9834||||||Day 57; p-value was calculated by Chi-squared test|Chi-squared|||||||0.9834
90803896|NCT00635349|181487496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1131||||||Day 85; p-value was calculated by Chi-squared test|Chi-squared|||||||0.1131
90803897|NCT04904744|181487502|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.06|||Regression, Logistic||Low Tailored Message vs. No Message (reference group)|||2.06|0.88|0.165
90803898|NCT04904744|181487502|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|2.03|||Regression, Logistic||Low tailored message plus COVID-19 vaccine message vs. No Message|||2.03|0.87|0.193
90803899|NCT04904744|181487502|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.52|||Regression, Logistic||Low Tailored Message vs. Low tailored message plus COVID-19 vaccine message|||1.52|0.68|0.930
90803900|NCT04904744|181487503|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.07||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|3.52|||Regression, Logistic||Low Tailored Message vs. No Message|||3.52|1.21|0.008
90803901|NCT04904744|181487503|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.23|||Regression, Logistic||Low tailored message plus COVID-19 vaccine message vs. No Message|||2.23|0.70|0.457
90803902|NCT04904744|181487503|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.66||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.74|||Regression, Logistic||Low Tailored Message vs. Low tailored message plus COVID-19 vaccine message|||2.74|1.00|0.049
90803903|NCT04904744|181487504|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.04||||0.104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|4.82|||Regression, Logistic||Low Tailored Message vs. No Message|||4.82|0.86|0.104
90803904|NCT04904744|181487504|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|3.22|||Regression, Logistic||Low tailored message plus COVID-19 vaccine message vs. No Message|||3.22|0.49|0.631
90803905|NCT04904744|181487504|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.62||||0.238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|3.61|||Regression, Logistic||Low Tailored Message vs. Low tailored message plus COVID-19 vaccine message|||3.61|0.73|0.238
90803906|NCT04283656|181487535|EQUIVALENCE|The no-effect (bioequivalence) boundaries of 80%-125% were used.|Geometric mean ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.76|1.24||A two-sided significance level of 0.05 with a mean ratio of 1 for no effect was assumed.||A post hoc power analysis determined 80% power would be achieved for 6 subjects to detect an effect size of 1.43 or greater at 5% significance level.|Ratio represents Treatment C (Single-dose oral doravirine/lamivudine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate co-administered with estradiol and spironolactone) over Treatment A (Single-dose oral doravirine/lamivudine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate alone)|6 participants completed the study and were included in the pharmacokinetic analysis. As all participants received the same treatment groups but not necessarily in the same order, calculations were done between arms (Sequence E and F). 10 subjects was determined to achieve 80% power to reject the null hypothesis (geometric mean ratio for doravirine AUC falls outside of the no-effect boundaries) with two-sided significance level of 0.05 assuming a mean ratio of 1 for no effect.||1.24|0.76|
90803907|NCT04283656|181487536|EQUIVALENCE|The no-effect (bioequivalence) boundaries of 80%-125% were used.|Geometric mean ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.66|1.32||A two-sided significance level of 0.05 with a mean ratio of 1 for no effect was assumed.||A post hoc power analysis determined 80% power would be achieved for 6 subjects to detect an effect size of 1.43 or greater at 5% significance level.|Ratio represents Treatment C (Single-dose oral doravirine/lamivudine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate co-administered with estradiol and spironolactone) over Treatment A (Single-dose oral doravirine/lamivudine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate alone)|6 participants completed the study and were included in the pharmacokinetic analysis. As all participants received the same treatment groups but not necessarily in the same order, calculations were done between arms (Sequence E and F). 10 subjects was determined to achieve 80% power to reject the null hypothesis (geometric mean ratio for doravirine Cmax falls outside of the no-effect boundaries) with two-sided significance level of 0.05 assuming a mean ratio of 1 for no effect.||1.32|0.66|
90803908|NCT04283656|181487537|EQUIVALENCE|The no-effect (bioequivalence) boundaries of 80%-125% were used.|Geometric mean ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.76|1.24||A two-sided significance level of 0.05 with a mean ratio of 1 for no effect was assumed.||A post hoc power analysis determined 80% power would be achieved for 6 subjects to detect an effect size of 1.43 or greater at 5% significance level.|Ratio represents Treatment C (Single-dose oral doravirine/lamivudine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate co-administered with estradiol and spironolactone) over Treatment A (Single-dose oral doravirine/lamivudine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate alone)|6 participants completed the study and were included in the pharmacokinetic analysis. As all participants received the same treatment groups but not necessarily in the same order, calculations were done between arms (Sequence E and F). 10 subjects was determined to achieve 80% power to reject the null hypothesis (geometric mean ratio for doravirine C24 falls outside of the no-effect boundaries) with two-sided significance level of 0.05 assuming a mean ratio of 1 for no effect.||1.24|0.76|
90803909|NCT04283656|181487538|EQUIVALENCE|The no-effect (bioequivalence) boundaries of 80%-125% were used.|Geometric mean ratio|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.5||A two-sided significance level of 0.05 with a mean ratio of 1 for no effect was assumed.||A post hoc power analysis determined 80% power would be achieved for 6 subjects to detect an effect size of 1.43 or greater at 5% significance level.|Ratio represents Treatment C (Single-dose oral doravirine/lamivudine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate co-administered with estradiol and spironolactone) over Treatment A (Single-dose oral doravirine/lamivudine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate alone)|6 participants completed the study and were included in the pharmacokinetic analysis. As all participants received the same treatment groups but not necessarily in the same order, calculations were done between arms (Sequence E and F). 10 subjects was determined to achieve 80% power to reject the null hypothesis (geometric mean ratio for tenofovir AUC falls outside of the no-effect boundaries) with two-sided significance level of 0.05 assuming a mean ratio of 1 for no effect.||1.50|0.91|
90803910|NCT04283656|181487539|EQUIVALENCE|The no-effect (bioequivalence) boundaries of 80%-125% were used.|Geometric mean ratio|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.73|2.6||A two-sided significance level of 0.05 with a mean ratio of 1 for no effect was assumed.||A post hoc power analysis determined 80% power would be achieved for 6 subjects to detect an effect size of 1.43 or greater at 5% significance level.|Ratio represents Treatment C (Single-dose oral doravirine/lamivudine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate co-administered with estradiol and spironolactone) over Treatment A (Single-dose oral doravirine/lamivudine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate alone)|6 participants completed the study and were included in the pharmacokinetic analysis. As all participants received the same treatment groups but not necessarily in the same order, calculations were done between arms (Sequence E and F). 10 subjects was determined to achieve 80% power to reject the null hypothesis (geometric mean ratio for tenofovir Cmax falls outside of the no-effect boundaries) with two-sided significance level of 0.05 assuming a mean ratio of 1 for no effect.||2.60|0.73|
90803911|NCT04283656|181487540|EQUIVALENCE|The no-effect (bioequivalence) boundaries of 80%-125% were used.|Geometric mean ratio|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|1.4||A two-sided significance level of 0.05 with a mean ratio of 1 for no effect was assumed.||A post hoc power analysis determined 80% power would be achieved for 6 subjects to detect an effect size of 1.43 or greater at 5% significance level.|Ratio represents Treatment C (Single-dose oral doravirine/lamivudine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate co-administered with estradiol and spironolactone) over Treatment A (Single-dose oral doravirine/lamivudine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate alone)|6 participants completed the study and were included in the pharmacokinetic analysis. As all participants received the same treatment groups but not necessarily in the same order, calculations were done between arms (Sequence E and F). 10 subjects was determined to achieve 80% power to reject the null hypothesis (geometric mean ratio for tenofovir C24 falls outside of the no-effect boundaries) with two-sided significance level of 0.05 assuming a mean ratio of 1 for no effect.||1.40|0.93|
90803912|NCT04283656|181487541|EQUIVALENCE|The no-effect (bioequivalence) boundaries of 80%-125% were used.|Geometric mean ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7|1.35||A two-sided significance level of 0.05 with a mean ratio of 1 for no effect was assumed.||A post hoc power analysis determined 80% power would be achieved for 6 subjects to detect an effect size of 1.43 or greater at 5% significance level.|Ratio represents Treatment C (Single-dose oral doravirine/lamivudine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate co-administered with estradiol and spironolactone) over Treatment B (Single-dose estradiol and spironolactone co-administered with placebo)|6 participants completed the study and were included in the pharmacokinetic analysis. As all participants received the same treatment groups but not necessarily in the same order, calculations were done between arms (Sequence E and F). 10 subjects was determined to achieve 80% power to reject the null hypothesis (geometric mean ratio for estradiol AUC falls outside of the no-effect boundaries) with two-sided significance level of 0.05 assuming a mean ratio of 1 for no effect.||1.35|0.70|
91013804|NCT01050998|181910411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.126|||||||Log Rank|||European region: Analysis reported for DAS28 (ESR) response.||||0.126
91013805|NCT01050998|181910411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.831|||||||Log Rank|||Japanese region: Analysis reported for DAS28 (ESR) response.||||0.831
91013806|NCT01050998|181910411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Log Rank|||Japanese region: Analysis reported for DAS28 (ESR) response.||||0.005
91013807|NCT01050998|181910411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.125|||||||Log Rank|||Japanese region: Analysis reported for DAS28 (ESR) response.||||0.125
91013808|NCT01050998|181910411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||Japanese region: Analysis reported for DAS28 (ESR) response.||||<0.001
91013809|NCT01050998|181910412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of expected duration of response|1.15||||0.486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.69|||Exponential,Weibull and Log normal model||Ratio greater than (\>) 1 favored mavrilimumab.|Analysis reported for DAS28 (ESR) response.||1.69|0.78|0.486
91013810|NCT01050998|181910412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of expected duration of response|1.54||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|2.18|||Exponential,Weibull and Log normal model||Ratio \>1 favored mavrilimumab.|Analysis reported for DAS28 (ESR) response.||2.18|1.09|0.015
91013811|NCT01050998|181910412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of expected duration of response|1.65||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|2.36|||Exponential,Weibull and Log normal model||Ratio \>1 favored mavrilimumab.|Analysis reported for DAS28 (ESR) response.||2.36|1.15|0.006
91013812|NCT01050998|181910412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of expected duration of response|2.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.49|2.93|||Exponential,Weibull and Log normal model||Ratio \>1 favored mavrilimumab.|Analysis reported for DAS28 (ESR) response.||2.93|1.49|<0.001
91077794|NCT02913105|182041130|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.116|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.455||0.0159|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.872|-0.36|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 56||-0.360|-1.872|0.0159
91013813|NCT01050998|181910412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of expected duration of response|0.97||||0.906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.55|||Exponential,Weibull and Log normal model||Ratio \>1 favored mavrilimumab.|Analysis reported for DAS28 (CRP) response.||1.55|0.61|0.906
91013814|NCT01050998|181910412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of expected duration of response|1.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|2.71|||Exponential,Weibull and Log normal model||Ratio \>1 favored mavrilimumab.|Analysis reported for DAS28 (CRP) response.||2.71|1.31|<0.001
90803913|NCT04283656|181487542|EQUIVALENCE|The no-effect (bioequivalence) boundaries of 80%-125% were used.|Geometric mean ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.36||A two-sided significance level of 0.05 with a mean ratio of 1 for no effect was assumed.||A post hoc power analysis determined 80% power would be achieved for 6 subjects to detect an effect size of 1.43 or greater at 5% significance level.|Ratio represents Treatment C (Single-dose oral doravirine/lamivudine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate co-administered with estradiol and spironolactone) over Treatment B (Single-dose estradiol and spironolactone co-administered with placebo)|6 participants completed the study and were included in the pharmacokinetic analysis. As all participants received the same treatment groups but not necessarily in the same order, calculations were done between arms (Sequence E and F). 10 subjects was determined to achieve 80% power to reject the null hypothesis (geometric mean ratios for estradiol Cmax falls outside of the no-effect boundaries) with two-sided significance level of 0.05 assuming a mean ratio of 1 for no effect.||1.36|0.92|
90803914|NCT04283656|181487543|EQUIVALENCE|The no-effect (bioequivalence) boundaries of 80%-125% were used.|Geometric mean ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.35||A two-sided significance level of 0.05 with a mean ratio of 1 for no effect was assumed.||A post hoc power analysis determined 80% power would be achieved for 6 subjects to detect an effect size of 1.43 or greater at 5% significance level.|Ratio represents Treatment C (Single-dose oral doravirine/lamivudine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate co-administered with estradiol and spironolactone) over Treatment B (Single-dose estradiol and spironolactone co-administered with placebo)|6 participants completed the study and were included in the pharmacokinetic analysis. As all participants received the same treatment groups but not necessarily in the same order, calculations were done between arms (Sequence E and F). 10 subjects was determined to achieve 80% power to reject the null hypothesis (geometric mean ratios for estradiol C12 falls outside of the no-effect boundaries) with two-sided significance level of 0.05 assuming a mean ratio of 1 for no effect.||1.35|0.88|
90803915|NCT00803361|181487544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.62||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.76|-0.48||p-value is for Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Baseline||||-0.48|-2.76|0.006
90803916|NCT00803361|181487545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.56||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.78|-0.34||p-value is for Change from Baseline|ANCOVA|Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Baseline||||-0.34|-4.78|0.024
90803917|NCT00803361|181487546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.15|||ANOVA|||||-0.15|-0.74|0.004
90803918|NCT00803361|181487547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.11||p-value is for Severity of Worst Pain Change.|ANCOVA|Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Baseline||||0.11|-0.93|0.125
90803919|NCT00803361|181487547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.09||p-value is for Severity of Least Pain Change.|ANCOVA|Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Baseline||||-0.09|-0.75|0.014
90803920|NCT00803361|181487547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|-0.11||p-value is for Severity of Average Pain Change.|ANCOVA|Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Baseline||||-0.11|-0.93|0.012
90803921|NCT00803361|181487547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|-0.25||p-value is for Severity of Pain Right Now Change.|ANCOVA|Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Baseline||||-0.25|-1.14|0.002
90803922|NCT00803361|181487547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.08||p-value is for Interference of Pain, General Activity, Change.|ANCOVA|Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Baseline||||0.08|-0.87|0.101
90803923|NCT00803361|181487547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31||||0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.22||p-value is for Interference of Pain, Mood, Change.|ANCOVA|Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Baseline||||0.22|-0.83|0.252
90803924|NCT00803361|181487547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.11||p-value is for Interference of Pain,Walking Ability, Change.|ANCOVA|Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Baseline||||0.11|-0.72|0.149
90803925|NCT00803361|181487547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22||||0.367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.26||p-value is for Interference of Pain, Normal Work, Change.|ANCOVA|Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Baseline||||0.26|-0.71|0.367
90803926|NCT00803361|181487547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.24||p-value is for Interference of Pain, Relations with Others, Change.|ANCOVA|Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Baseline||||0.24|-0.59|0.395
90803927|NCT00803361|181487547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.44||p-value is for Interference of Pain, Sleep, Change.|ANCOVA|Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Baseline||||0.44|-0.63|0.731
90803928|NCT00803361|181487547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.17||p-value is for Interference of Pain, Enjoyment of Life, Change.|ANCOVA|Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Baseline||||0.17|-0.85|0.186
90803929|NCT00803361|181487547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.16||p-value is for Mean Interference Score, Change.|ANCOVA|Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Baseline||||0.16|-0.67|0.220
90803930|NCT00803361|181487548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|0.06||p-value is for symptoms have disrupted your work/schoolwork - change.|ANCOVA|Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Baseline||||0.06|-1.29|0.076
90803931|NCT00803361|181487548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.17||p-value is for symptoms disrupted social/leisure - change.|ANCOVA|Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Baseline||||0.17|-1.16|0.140
90803932|NCT00803361|181487548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|0.08||p-value is for symptoms disrupted family life - change.|ANCOVA|Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Baseline||||0.08|-1.14|0.087
90803933|NCT00803361|181487548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.62||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.46|0.21||p-value is for Global Functional Impairment Total Score - change|ANCOVA|Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Baseline||||0.21|-3.46|0.083
90803934|NCT00803361|181487549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.32||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.93|0.3||p-value is for Severity of Overall Pain, Past Week, Change|ANCOVA|Model: Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Baseline||||0.30|-10.93|0.063
90803935|NCT00803361|181487549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.21||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.64|4.22||p-value is for Severity of Headaches, Past Week, Change.|ANCOVA|Model: Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Baseline||||4.22|-6.64|0.660
90803936|NCT00803361|181487549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.03||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|-0.76||p-value is for Severity of Back Pain, Past Week, Change.|ANCOVA|Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Baseline||||-0.76|-11.30|0.025
90803937|NCT00803361|181487549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.93||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.06|2.19||p-value is for Severity of Shoulder Pain, Past Week, Change.|ANCOVA|Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Baseline||||2.19|-8.06|0.260
90803938|NCT00803361|181487549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.67||||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.61|1.28||p-value is for Pain Interference, Daily Activities, Change|ANCOVA|Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Baseline||||1.28|-8.61|0.145
90803939|NCT00803361|181487549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.15||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.64|-1.66||p-value is for Pain During Waking Hours, Past Week, Change|ANCOVA|Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Baseline||||-1.66|-12.64|0.011
90803940|NCT00803361|181487550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.83||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|0.06||p-value is for Change from Baseline|ANCOVA|Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Baseline||||0.06|-1.72|0.068
90803941|NCT04445519|181487551|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 95.1% CIs around the difference (NCX 470 minus latanoprost 0.005%) in mean IOP reduction from time-matched baseline in the study eye was greater than or equal to -1.5 mmHg at all time points and was greater than or equal to -1.0 mmHg at a majority of the time points.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.1||||The primary efficacy assessment was the non-inferiority analysis of the difference in the treatment effect between NCX 470 and latanoprost 0.005% for mean IOP reduction from time-matched baseline at the 8AM and 4PM time-points.|||The analysis assumed a true difference of 1.0 mmHg at the Week 2 time points and 1.25 mmHg at the Week 6 and Month 3 time points; a common standard deviation (SD) at each time-point of 3.25 mmHg; and a two-sided significance level of 4.9%.|||||
90803942|NCT00394329|181487555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.96||Hochberg adjustment was applied to the p-value to account for each of three active group comparisons to the placebo group. The unadjusted p-value is 0.033.|Regression, Cox|||||0.96|0.32|0.066
90803943|NCT00418093|181487588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion|0.684|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.87||Exact 95% CI for the partial response rate (13/19 = 0.684): 43.4% \~ 87.4%|Estimation of PR based on Binomial Model|We did not perform a test. Point estimate of PR and its exact 95% CI based on Binomial Model is provided. Thus there is no p-value to report.|Point estimate of PR and its exact 95% CI based on Binomial Model|||0.87|0.43|
91013815|NCT01050998|181910412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of expected duration of response|1.26||||0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.91|||Exponential,Weibull and Log normal model||Ratio \>1 favored mavrilimumab.|Analysis reported for DAS28 (CRP) response.||1.91|0.83|0.272
90803944|NCT00418093|181487588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Single Proportion|0.684|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.434|0.874||We did not perform hypothesis test. We made an estimation for a single proportion (partial response) with its two-sided 95% exact Binomial confidence interval.|Fisher Exact||Estimation of a single proportion (partial response rate) with exact 95% Binomial confidence interval|||0.874|0.434|
90803945|NCT03162796|181487597|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|29.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.6|41.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||41.1|18.6|< 0.001
90803946|NCT03162796|181487597|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|37.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.1|48.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||48.2|26.1|< 0.001
90803947|NCT03162796|181487598|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-0.2483|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.364|-0.1325|||ANCOVA|||||-0.1325|-0.3640|< 0.001
90803948|NCT03162796|181487598|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.3226|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4385|-0.2066|||ANCOVA|||||-0.2066|-0.4385|< 0.001
90803949|NCT03162796|181487599|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|21.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.1|30.7||Nominal|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||30.7|12.1|< 0.001
90803950|NCT03162796|181487599|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|27.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.6|36.8||Nominal|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||36.8|17.6|< 0.001
90803951|NCT03162796|181487600|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|42.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.9|55.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||55.1|28.9|< 0.001
90803952|NCT03162796|181487600|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|60.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.3|71.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||71.8|48.3|< 0.001
90803953|NCT03162796|181487601|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|26.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.3|38.1||Nominal|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||38.1|15.3|< 0.001
90803954|NCT03162796|181487601|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|34.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.5|46.0||Nominal|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||46.0|23.5|< 0.001
90803955|NCT03162796|181487602|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.73|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.98|-0.48||Nominal|ANCOVA|||||-0.48|-0.98|< 0.001
90803956|NCT03162796|181487602|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.91|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.16|-0.66||Nominal|ANCOVA|||||-0.66|-1.16|< 0.001
90803957|NCT03162796|181487603|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|6.4||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|13.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||13.1|-0.3|0.069
90803958|NCT03162796|181487603|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|14.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|22.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||22.7|6.9|< 0.001
90803959|NCT03162796|181487604|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|10.2||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|19.3||Nominal|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||19.3|1.0|0.036
90803960|NCT03162796|181487604|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|13.9||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|23.4||Nominal|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||23.4|4.4|0.006
90803961|NCT03162796|181487605|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|4.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.42|5.85|||ANCOVA|||||5.85|2.42|< 0.001
90803962|NCT03162796|181487605|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|4.91|||<|0.001||95.0|3.19|6.63|||ANCOVA|||||6.63|3.19|< 0.001
91013816|NCT01050998|181910412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of expected duration of response|1.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|2.72|||Exponential,Weibull and Log normal model||Ratio \>1 favored mavrilimumab.|Analysis reported for DAS28 (CRP) response.||2.72|1.34|<0.001
91013817|NCT01050998|181910413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|4.7||||0.589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|22.0|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|ACR20: p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||22.0|-12.1|0.589
91013818|NCT01050998|181910413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|20.2||||0.032||95.0|2.8|36.7|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|ACR20: p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||36.7|2.8|0.032
90803963|NCT03162796|181487606|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|13.0||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|27.5||Nominal|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||27.5|-1.6|0.094
90803964|NCT03162796|181487606|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|19.8||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|34.6||Nominal|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||34.6|4.9|0.013
90803965|NCT03162796|181487607|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.33||||0.185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.16||Nominal|ANCOVA|||||0.16|-0.83|0.185
90803966|NCT03162796|181487607|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.74||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|-0.24||Nominal|ANCOVA|||||-0.24|-1.24|0.004
90803967|NCT03162796|181487608|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|0.83||||0.398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.77||Nominal|ANCOVA|||||2.77|-1.10|0.398
90803968|NCT03162796|181487608|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|1.23||||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|3.16||Nominal|ANCOVA|||||3.16|-0.71|0.214
90803969|NCT03162796|181487609|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|16.6||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|34.8||Nominal|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||34.8|-1.5|0.088
90803970|NCT03162796|181487609|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|13.4||||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|33.7||Nominal|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||33.7|-6.9|0.212
91013819|NCT01050998|181910413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|0.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|18.0|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|ACR20: p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||18.0|-16.0|1.000
90803971|NCT03162796|181487610|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-1.82||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.12|0.49||Nominal|ANCOVA|||||0.49|-4.12|0.121
90803972|NCT03162796|181487610|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-1.53||||0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|0.95||Nominal|ANCOVA|||||0.95|-4.00|0.225
90803973|NCT00289289|181487723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.8||0.629|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.5||P-value is from a paired t-test since each subject had the intervention pacing features turned ON and OFF in this crossover study|t-test, 1 sided|One-sided paired t-test with 221 degrees of freedom|A mean difference greater than zero indicates an average increase in atrial fibrillation/atrial tachycardia symptomatic episodes while the intervention pacing features were programmed ON versus OFF.|Null Hypothesis: rate of symptomatic atrial tachycardia/atrial fibrillation episodes during periods when intervention pacing features ON is greater to or equal to the rate of symptomatic atrial tachycardia/atrial fibrillation episodes during periods where intervention pacing features were programmed OFF Alternative Hypothesis: rate of symptomatic AT/AF during periods of ON programming is less than the rate of symptomatic AT/AF during OFF programming||0.5||0.629
91079186|NCT03240406|182044045|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.03||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|ANCOVA|MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|Mean difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|Statistical Analysis results for n3 DPA||0.03|-0.06|0.619
90803974|NCT00289289|181487724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.165|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-value is from Koch's adaptation to the Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test comparing the within subject ON minus OFF differences to 0|A negative change means an improvement in AF symptom frequency with intervention pacing therapy programmed ON. Total possible improvement while intervention features are programmed ON is -64. Total possible worsening during ON programming is 64.|"The null hypothesis is that the symptom frequency score does not differ between while intervention pacing features were programmed ON versus OFF.~This secondary objective was not powered."||||0.165
90803975|NCT00289289|181487725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.73||P-value is based on a repeated measures Cox proportional hazards model to the rate of AF cardioversion attempts between periods of ON and OFF programming|Regression, Cox||Hazard Ratio compares rate of first attempted cardioversion for AF while the intervention pacing features were programmed ON versus OFF.|"Null Hypothesis: AF Cardioversion attempt rate is the same during periods of ON and OFF programming~Alternative Hypothesis: AF Cardioversion attempt rate is different during periods of ON and OFF programming"||1.73|0.39|0.603
90803976|NCT00289289|181487726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.394||95.0||||Within each randomized subject, the ON minus OFF difference in AT/AF burden was computed. The Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test was used to determine if the ON minus OFF difference in AT/AF burden was different from zero.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||A negative median difference represents an improvement (lessening) of AT/AF burden during periods of ON versus OFF programming. A positive median difference represents an increase in AT/AF burden during ON compared to OFF programming.|Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in AT/AF burden during periods on ON and OFF programming Alternative Hypothesis: AT/AF burden is lower during periods of ON programming compared to periods of OFF programming||||0.394
90890322|NCT01581281|181645150|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.6107|TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.49|1.59||A Bonferroni approach was used to control the type I error rate. Because there were three comparisons of interest, the Bonferroni corrected level of significance is 0.017 ( = 0.05 / 3).|Regression, Logistic|||"Logistic regression models were used to estimate the odds of successful primary endpoint for topiramate relative to amitriptyline. The analyses followed the intention to treat principle, imputing an outcome of failure for any participant who withdrew early for any reason or did not provide week 24 headache diary data (endpoint data). The models, and corresponding odds ratios, were adjusted for the two stratification variables (age and baseline number of headache days)."||1.59|0.49|0.6107
91013820|NCT01050998|181910413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|33.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.6|48.6|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|ACR20: p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||48.6|15.6|<0.001
91013821|NCT01050998|181910413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|8.9||||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|23.6|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|ACR50: p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||23.6|-3.5|0.212
91013822|NCT01050998|181910413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|18.7||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.8|34.0|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|ACR50: p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||34.0|4.8|0.011
90803977|NCT03299244|181487778|NON_INFERIORITY|Etelcalcetide was considered non-inferior if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval of the treatment difference (Cinacalcet - Etelcalcetide) was smaller than 12%, or if the lower bound of (Etelcalcetide - Cinacalcet) greater than -12%. If this criterion was met, the 2 key secondary endpoints were tested sequentially. If both key secondary endpoints were statistically significant, the other secondary endpoints were to be formally tested at an overall significance level of 0.05.|Treatment Difference|4.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.05|12.09|||||Treatment difference (Etelcalcetide - Cinacalcet) stratified by screening iPTH level, screening cCa level, and country/region.|"The analysis was conducted on the full analysis set (637 participants). Imputation under the non-inferiority null method was applied to participants who did not have PTH data during the EAP.~The Mantel-Haenszel estimator was used to calculate the treatment (Cinacalcet - Etelcalcetide), stratified by screening PTH level (\< 900 pg/mL, ≥ 900 pg/mL), screening serum cCa (\< 9.0 mg/dL, ≥ 9.0 mg/dL) measured by the central laboratory, and country (China versus non-China)."||12.09|-3.05|
90803978|NCT03299244|181487779|SUPERIORITY|Testing of this key secondary efficacy endpoint at an overall significance level of 0.05 was to be performed if non-inferiority was demonstrated for the primary endpoint.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|2.77|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by screening iPTH level, screening cCa level, and country/region.|Odds ratio (Etelcalcetide : Cinacalcet) stratified by screening iPTH level, screening cCa level, and country/region.|||2.77|1.47|<0.001
90803979|NCT03299244|181487780|SUPERIORITY|Testing of this key secondary efficacy endpoint at an overall significance level of 0.05 was to be performed if non-inferiority was demonstrated for the primary endpoint, and superiority was demonstrated for the previous key secondary endpoint.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.96|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by screening iPTH level, screening cCa level, and country/region.|Odds ratio (Etelcalcetide : Cinacalcet) stratified by screening iPTH level, screening cCa level, and country/region.|||1.96|1.03|0.033
90803980|NCT03299244|181487781|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-2.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.14|-1.5|||Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures|Model includes treatment group, randomization stratification factors, study week, and study week by treatment as covariates.|Treatment difference (Etelcalcetide - Cinacalcet) stratified by screening iPTH level, screening cCa level, and country/region. Standard error of the mean is the standard error of the least squares means difference.|||-1.50|-4.14|<0.001
90803981|NCT03299244|181487782|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.65|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by screening iPTH level, screening cCa level, and country/region.|Odds ratio (Etelcalcetide : Cinacalcet) stratified by screening iPTH level, screening cCa level, and country/region.|||1.65|0.82|0.41
90803982|NCT01740687|181487802|OTHER||95% upper Bayesian credible interval|1.23|||||||||||||%|predetermined study success threshold of 2.1% at 1 year||||
91013823|NCT01050998|181910413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|4.7||||0.446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|19.1|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|ACR50: p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||19.1|-7.0|0.446
91013824|NCT01050998|181910413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|22.1||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.6|37.8|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|ACR50: p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||37.8|7.6|0.003
91013825|NCT01050998|181910413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-1.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|9.7|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|ACR70: p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||9.7|-8.9|1.000
91013826|NCT01050998|181910413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|4.8||||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|17.5|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|ACR70: p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||17.5|-4.1|0.317
90803983|NCT01740687|181487803|OTHER||95% upper Bayesian credible interval|1.33|||||||||||||%|predetermined study success threshold of 2.8% at 3 years||||
90803984|NCT00200967|181487844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.0||0.99||95.0|-14.0|14.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||The comparison represents the difference between Arg/Arg and Gly/Gly participants based on the change between placebo salmeterol and active salmeterol for AM PEF rate.|A mixed-effects linear model was applied to account for the repeated measurements within each treatment period of the crossover design. A sample size of 40 participants per genotype was required to detect a difference of 25 L/min in AM PEF (and relevant effect sizes for secondary outcomes) with a two-sided, 0.05 significance level test with 90% statistical power and a 15% drop-out rate.||14|-14|0.99
91054455|NCT04135196|181991027|OTHER|||||||0.809|||||||Regression, Linear|||The null hypothesis was that change in UD cBMC was not proportional to strain magnitude. Raw change in cBMC was analyzed as the dependent variable in a linear regression model with coefficients representing contrasts between the two experimental groups and the control group.|"Overall model fit: R\^2=0.011, F=0.213, df1=2, df2=40, p=0.809~Contrast between the low strain magnitude group and the control group: B=0.001, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.006, Beta=0.039, t=0.209, p=0.836, 95% CI of B: \[-0.012, 0.014\]~Contrast between the high strain magnitude group and the control group: B=-0.002, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.006, Beta=-0.077, t=-0.412, p=0.682, 95% CI of B: \[-0.015, 0.010\]"|||0.809
91079187|NCT03240406|182044046|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.18||||0.521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.73||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|ANCOVA|MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|||0.73|-0.37|0.521
91013827|NCT01050998|181910413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|0.8||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|12.1|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|ACR70: p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||12.1|-7.2|1.000
91013828|NCT01050998|181910413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|9.5||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|23.5|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|ACR70: p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||23.5|-0.5|0.106
91013829|NCT01050998|181910414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|20.4|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|European region: ACR20 - p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||20.4|-17.7|1.000
90803985|NCT00200967|181487845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.0||0.82||95.0|-15.0|12.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||The comparison represents the difference between Arg/Arg and Gly/Gly participants based on the change between placebo salmeterol and active salmeterol for PM PEF rate.|A mixed-effects linear model was applied to account for the repeated measurements within each treatment period of the crossover design.||12|-15|0.82
90803986|NCT00200967|181487846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.31||95.0|-1.6|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||The comparison represents the difference between Arg/Arg and Gly/Gly participants based on the change between placebo salmeterol and active salmeterol for PEF variability.|A mixed-effects linear model was applied to account for the repeated measurements within each treatment period of the crossover design.||0.5|-1.6|0.31
90803987|NCT00200967|181487847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.09||95.0|-0.02|0.07|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The comparison represents the difference between Arg/Arg and Gly/Gly participants based on the change between placebo salmeterol and active salmeterol for asthma symptoms.|A mixed-effects linear model was attempted but could not converge because very few symptoms were recorded, so a nonparametric analysis was applied.||0.07|-0.02|0.09
90803988|NCT00200967|181487848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.25||95.0|-0.1|0.2|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The comparison represents the difference between Arg/Arg and Gly/Gly participants based on the change between placebo salmeterol and active salmeterol for rescue medication use.|A mixed-effects linear model was attempted but could not converge because very few usages of rescue medications were recorded, so a nonparametric analysis was applied.||0.2|-0.1|0.25
90803989|NCT00200967|181487849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.34||95.0|-0.1|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis||The comparison represents the difference between Arg/Arg and Gly/Gly participants based on the change between placebo salmeterol and active salmeterol for Spirometry FEV1, pre-bronchodilator.|A mixed-effects linear model was applied to account for the repeated measurements within each treatment period of the crossover design.||0.03|-0.10|0.34
90803990|NCT00200967|181487850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.91||95.0|-0.08|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis||The comparison represents the difference between Arg/Arg and Gly/Gly participants based on the change between placebo salmeterol and active salmeterol for Spirometry FVC, pre-bronchodilator.|A mixed-effects linear model was applied to account for the repeated measurements within each treatment period of the crossover design.||0.07|-0.08|0.91
90803991|NCT00200967|181487851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.0||0.93||95.0|-15.0|14.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||The comparison represents the difference between Arg/Arg and Gly/Gly participants based on the change between placebo salmeterol and active salmeterol for Spirometry PEF rate, pre-bronchodilator.|A mixed-effects linear model was applied to account for the repeated measurements within each treatment period of the crossover design.||14|-15|0.93
90803992|NCT00200967|181487852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.13||95.0|-0.04|0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis||The comparison represents the difference between Arg/Arg and Gly/Gly participants based on the change between placebo salmeterol and active salmeterol for eNO.|A mixed-effects linear model was applied to the natural logarithm of eNO to account for the repeated measurements within each treatment period of the crossover design.||0.31|-0.04|0.13
90803993|NCT00200967|181487853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.79||95.0|-0.56|0.43|||Mixed Models Analysis||The comparison represents the difference between Arg/Arg and Gly/Gly participants based on the change between placebo salmeterol and active salmeterol for EBC.|A mixed-effects linear model was applied to account for the repeated measurements within each treatment period of the crossover design.||0.43|-0.56|0.79
91013830|NCT01050998|181910414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|16.1||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|34.4|||Fisher Exact|p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.|95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|European region: ACR20 - p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||34.4|-3.1|0.120
90803994|NCT00200967|181487854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.004||95.0|0.43|2.21|||Mixed Models Analysis||The comparison represents the difference between Arg/Arg and Gly/Gly participants based on the change between placebo salmeterol and active salmeterol for methacholine PC20.|A mixed-effects linear model was applied to the base-2 logarithm of the methacholine PC20 to account for the repeated measurements within each treatment period of the crossover design.||2.21|0.43|0.004
90803995|NCT00200967|181487855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.89||95.0|-0.23|0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis||The comparison represents the difference between Arg/Arg and Gly/Gly participants based on the change between placebo salmeterol and active salmeterol for ACQ.|A mixed-effects linear model was applied to account for the repeated measurements within each treatment period of the crossover design.||0.26|-0.23|0.89
90803996|NCT03759639|181487858|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Estimator|1.0||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.25|1.75|||1-sided Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||1.75|0.25|0.029
91013831|NCT01050998|181910414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|20.4|||Fisher Exact|p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.|95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|European region: ACR20 - p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||20.4|-17.7|1.000
91013832|NCT01050998|181910414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|29.2||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.7|46.1|||Fisher Exact|p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.|95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|European region: ACR20 - p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||46.1|9.7|0.005
91013833|NCT01050998|181910414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|20.9||||0.382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|55.9|||Fisher Exact|p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.|95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|Japanese region: ACR20 - p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||55.9|-16.4|0.382
90803997|NCT03759639|181487860|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Estimator|0.13||||0.318|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.25|0.5|||1-sided Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.50|-0.25|0.318
90803998|NCT03759639|181487863|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Estimator|0.0854||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0123|0.1777|||1-sided Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Treatment With IB1001||0.1777|-0.0123|0.084
90803999|NCT03759639|181487863|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Estimator|-0.0399||||0.315|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1269|0.1031|||1-sided Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Post-Treatment Washout||0.1031|-0.1269|0.315
90804000|NCT03759639|181487864|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Estimator|-1.25||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.75|-0.5|||1-sided Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Treatment With IB1001||-0.50|-1.75|0.001
90804001|NCT03759639|181487864|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Estimator|1.25||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|2.0|||1-sided Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Post-Treatment Washout||2.00|0.50|0.002
90804002|NCT03759639|181487866|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Estimator|0.0||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.021|0.0|||1-sided Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Treatment with IB1001||0.000|-0.021|0.121
90804003|NCT03759639|181487866|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Estimator|0.021||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.042|||1-sided Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Post-Treatment Washout||0.042|0.000|0.056
90804004|NCT03759639|181487867|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Treatment With IB1001||||<0.001
90804005|NCT03759639|181487867|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.5||||0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Post-Treatment Washout||||0.006
90804006|NCT03759639|181487868|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.4||||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Treatment With IB1001||||0.005
90804007|NCT03759639|181487868|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.4||||0.038|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Treatment With IB1001||||0.038
90804008|NCT03759639|181487869|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.3||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Treatment with IB1001||||0.003
90804009|NCT03759639|181487869|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.4||||0.034|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Post-Treatment Washout||||0.034
90804010|NCT00161616|181487889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0541|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Healed vs Not healed/No outcome for week 13.||||0.0541
90804011|NCT00161616|181487889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7983|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Healed vs Not healed/No outcome for week 20.||||0.7983
90804012|NCT00161616|181487890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8961|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.8961
90804013|NCT00861757|181487891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-0.6|||ANCOVA|||||-0.6|-3.0|0.003
90804014|NCT00861757|181487891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-0.6|||ANCOVA|||||-0.6|-2.9|0.004
90804015|NCT00861757|181487891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|-1.3|||ANCOVA|||||-1.3|-3.7|<0.001
90804016|NCT00861757|181487892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.6||This is the p value for the Voiding (Obstructive) Score.|ANCOVA|||||-0.6|-2.2|<0.001
90804017|NCT00861757|181487892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.3||This is the p value for the Voiding (Obstructive) Score.|ANCOVA|||||-0.3|-1.9|0.005
90804018|NCT00861757|181487892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-1.1||This is the p value for the Voiding (Obstructive) Score.|ANCOVA|||||-1.1|-2.7|<0.001
90804019|NCT00861757|181487892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||This is the p value for the Storage (Irritative) Score.|ANCOVA|||||0.0|-1.0|0.072
90804020|NCT00861757|181487892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.1||This is the p value for the Storage (Irritative) Score.|ANCOVA|||||-0.1|-1.1|0.021
90804021|NCT00861757|181487892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.1||This is the p value for the Storage (Irritative) Score.|ANCOVA|||||-0.1|-1.1|0.023
90804022|NCT00861757|181487893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||-0.0|-0.6|0.031
90804023|NCT00861757|181487893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||||-0.1|-0.6|0.013
90804024|NCT00861757|181487893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||||-0.4|-0.9|<0.001
90804025|NCT00861757|181487894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.2|||ANCOVA|||||0.2|-1.0|0.201
90804026|NCT00861757|181487894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.3|||ANCOVA|||||0.3|-0.8|0.393
90804027|NCT00861757|181487894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||||-0.2|-1.4|0.007
90804028|NCT00861757|181487895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.5|||ANCOVA|||||0.5|-1.6|0.331
90804029|NCT00861757|181487895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.3|||ANCOVA|||||0.3|-1.8|0.140
90804030|NCT00861757|181487895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.0|||ANCOVA|||||1.0|-1.1|0.940
90804031|NCT00861757|181487896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The p-value came from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test to assess if there was any association between treatment (that is, placebo vs 2.5 mg Tadalafil) and 7 categories of the PGI-I.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90804032|NCT00861757|181487896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The p-value came from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test to assess if there was any association between treatment (that is, placebo vs 5.0 mg Tadalafil) and 7 categories of the PGI-I.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90804033|NCT00861757|181487896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The p-value came from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test to assess if there was any association between treatment (placebo vs 0.2 mg Tamsulosin) and 7 categories of the PGI-I.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90804034|NCT00861757|181487897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034||95.0||||The p-value came from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test to assess if there was any association between treatment (that is, placebo vs 2.5 mg Tadalafil) and 7 categories of the CGI-I.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.034
90804035|NCT00861757|181487897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||The p-value came from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test to assess if there was any association between treatment (that is, placebo vs 5.0 mg Tadalafil) and 7 categories of the CGI-I.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.002
90804036|NCT00861757|181487897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||The p-value came from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test to assess if there was any association between treatment (that is, placebo vs 0.2 mg Tamsulosin) and 7 categories of the CGI-I.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.001
90804037|NCT00861757|181487898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.412||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.412
90804038|NCT00861757|181487898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.083||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.083
90804039|NCT00861757|181487898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.456||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.456
90804040|NCT00861757|181487899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.688||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.688
90804041|NCT00861757|181487899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.510
90804042|NCT00861757|181487899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.212||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.212
90804043|NCT00861757|181487900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||This is the p value for systolic blood pressure.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.005
90804044|NCT00861757|181487900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.274||95.0||||This is the p value for systolic blood pressure.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.274
90804045|NCT00861757|181487900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.538||95.0||||This is the p value for systolic blood pressure.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.538
90804046|NCT00861757|181487900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0||||This is the p value for diastolic blood pressure.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.008
90804047|NCT00861757|181487900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.216||95.0||||This is the p value for diastolic blood pressure.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.216
90804048|NCT00861757|181487900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.524||95.0||||This is the p value for diastolic blood pressure.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.524
90804049|NCT00861757|181487901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0||||This is the p value for systolic blood pressure.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.007
90804050|NCT00861757|181487901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.723||95.0||||This is the p value for systolic blood pressure.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.723
90804051|NCT00861757|181487901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.273||95.0||||This is the p value for systolic blood pressure.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.273
90804052|NCT00861757|181487901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||This is the p value for diastolic blood pressure.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.005
90804053|NCT00861757|181487901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.054||95.0||||This is the p value for diastolic blood pressure.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.054
90804054|NCT00861757|181487901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.278||95.0||||This is the p value for diastolic blood pressure.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.278
90804055|NCT00861757|181487902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.330
90804056|NCT00861757|181487902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.838||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.838
90804057|NCT00861757|181487902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.409||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.409
91079188|NCT03240406|182044047|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|145.0||||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.7|317.6||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|ANCOVA|MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|||317.6|-27.7|0.101
90804058|NCT03308968|181487903|OTHER||Least square (LS) mean difference|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.84|-2.42|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) method with treatment, sex, region, special group of treatment failure (yes or no), migraine classification (that is; CM or EM), and treatment-by-migraine classification interaction as fixed effects, and baseline number of migraine days and years since onset of migraines as covariates. The stratification factors (as randomized) were used in the model.||-2.42|-3.84|<0.0001
90804059|NCT03308968|181487903|OTHER||LS mean difference|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.19|-2.78|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA method with treatment, sex, region, special group of treatment failure (yes or no), migraine classification (that is; CM or EM), and treatment-by-migraine classification interaction as fixed effects, and baseline number of migraine days and years since onset of migraines as covariates. The stratification factors (as randomized) were used in the model.||-2.78|-4.19|<0.0001
90804060|NCT01521923|181487934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.719|||=|0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.881|3.354|||Regression, Logistic|||In order to control the overall study-wise Type I error rate at 5 %, hypothesis testing was performed in a hierarchical order beginning with the CZP standard maintenance dosing (200 mg Q2W) + MTX group vs the CZP stopped dosing (PBO) + MTX group. If this analysis was statistically significant at the alpha =0.05 level, then an additional comparison of the CZP reduced frequency dosing (200 mg Q4W) + MTX group vs the CZP stopped dosing + MTX group was performed with testing at the alpha =0.05 level||3.354|0.881|=0.112
90804061|NCT01521923|181487934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.889|||=|0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.026|3.48|||Regression, Logistic|||In order to control the overall study-wise Type I error rate at 5 %, hypothesis testing was performed in a hierarchical order. A hierarchical test procedure was applied to protect the Overall significance level for the multiplicity of endpoints. Hypothesis testing was performed in the following predefined order, each at a 2-sided 95 % alpha level||3.480|1.026|=0.041
90804062|NCT03037476|181487972|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|-0.235||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.446|-0.023|||Mixed Models Analysis|Negative Binomial Regression||Changes from Baseline to 6 Month Follow-up Outcomes reported in this section.||-.023|-.446|0.03
90804063|NCT03037476|181487972|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|-0.149||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.061|||Mixed Models Analysis|Negative Binomial Regression||Changes from Baseline to 12 Month Follow-up reported in this section.||.061|-.360|0.164
90804064|NCT03037476|181487973|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|-0.24||||0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|0.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|Poisson Regression||Change in Medical Misuse of Prescription Stimulant Medication Among those with ADHD Diagnosis from Baseline to 6 Month Followup||.650|-1.120|.603
90804065|NCT03037476|181487973|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|-0.336||||0.465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.238|0.566|||Mixed Models Analysis|Poisson Regression||Change in Medical Misuse of Prescription Stimulant Medication Among those with ADHD Diagnosis from Baseline to 12 Month Followup||.566|-1.238|.465
90804066|NCT03037476|181487974|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|-0.059||||0.486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.227|0.108|||Mixed Models Analysis|Negative Binomial Regression||Change in Past 12 Month Tobacco Use from Baseline to 6 Month Followup||.108|-.227|.486
90804067|NCT03037476|181487974|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|0.006||||0.942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.172|||Mixed Models Analysis|Negative Binomial Regression||Change in Past 12 Month Tobacco Use from Baseline to 12 Month Followup||.172|-.160|.942
90804068|NCT03037476|181487974|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|-0.042||||0.552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.097|||Mixed Models Analysis|Poisson Regression||Change in Past 12 Month Alcohol Use from Baseline to 6 Month Followup||.097|-.180|.552
90804069|NCT03037476|181487974|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|0.037||||0.608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.104|0.177|||Mixed Models Analysis|Poisson Regression||Change in Past 12 Month Alcohol Use from Baseline to 12 Month Followup||.177|-.104|.608
90804070|NCT03037476|181487974|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|0.015||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|Poisson Regression||Change in Past 12 Month Other Drug Use from Baseline to 6 Month Followup||.160|-.130|.840
90804071|NCT03037476|181487974|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|0.007||||0.927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.142|0.155|||Mixed Models Analysis|Poisson Regression||Change in Past 12 Month Other Drug Use from Baseline to 12 Month Followup||.155|-.142|.927
90804072|NCT03037476|181487974|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|-0.01||||0.932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.244|0.223|||Mixed Models Analysis|Poisson Regression||Change in Past 12 Month Nonmedical Prescription Drug Use from Baseline to 6 Month Followup||.223|-.244|.932
90804073|NCT03037476|181487974|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|-0.057||||0.648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.187|||Mixed Models Analysis|Poisson Regression||Change in Past 12 Month Nonmedical Prescription Drug Use from Baseline to 12 Month Followup||0.187|-.300|.648
90804074|NCT03037476|181487974|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|-0.059||||0.702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.363|0.245|||Mixed Models Analysis|Poisson Regression||Change in Past 3 Month Tobacco Use from Baseline to 6 Month Followup||.245|-.363|.702
90804075|NCT03037476|181487974|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|-0.1||||0.524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.408|0.208|||Mixed Models Analysis|Poisson Regression||Change in Past 3 Month Tobacco Use from Baseline to 12 Month Followup||.208|-.408|.524
91079189|NCT03240406|182044048|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-24.63||||0.645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-129.16|79.89||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|ANCOVA|MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|||79.89|-129.16|0.645
90804076|NCT03037476|181487974|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|0.008||||0.913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.137|0.153|||Mixed Models Analysis|Poisson Regression||Change in Past 3 Month Alcohol Use from Baseline to 6 Month Followup||.153|-.137|.913
90804077|NCT03037476|181487974|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|0.032||||0.676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.117|0.181|||Mixed Models Analysis|Poisson Regresision||Change in Past 3 Month Alcohol Use from Baseline to 12 Month Followup||.181|-.117|.676
90804078|NCT03037476|181487974|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|-0.035||||0.712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.223|0.152|||Mixed Models Analysis|Poisson Regression||Change in Past 3 Month Marijuana Use from Baseline to 6 Month Followup||.152|-.223|.712
90804079|NCT03037476|181487974|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|0.005||||0.956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.186|0.197|||Mixed Models Analysis|Poisson Regression||Change in Past 3 Month Marijuana Use from Baseline to 12 Month Followup||0.197|-.186|.956
90804080|NCT03037476|181487974|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|0.149||||0.446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.234|0.531|||Mixed Models Analysis|Poisson Regression||Change in Past 3 Month Stimulant Use from Baseline to 6 Month Followup||.531|-.234|.446
90804081|NCT03037476|181487974|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|0.055||||0.793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.353|0.462|||Mixed Models Analysis|Poisson Regression||Change in Past 3 Month Stimulant Use from Baseline to 12 Month Followup||.462|-.353|.793
90804082|NCT03037476|181487974|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|-0.001||||0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.005|2.003|||Mixed Models Analysis|Negative Binomial Regression||Change in Past 3 Month Heroin Use from Baseline to 6 Month Followup||2.003|-2.005|.999
90804083|NCT03037476|181487974|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|0.999||||0.397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.312|3.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|Negative Binomial Regression||Change in Past 3 Month Heroin Use from Baseline to 12 Month Followup||3.310|-1.312|.397
90804084|NCT03037476|181487974|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|0.465||||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.419|1.349|||Mixed Models Analysis|Negative Binomial Regression||Change in Past 3 Month Nonmedical Prescription Drug Use from Baseline to 6 Month Followup||1.349|-.419|.303
90804085|NCT03037476|181487974|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|0.939|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.128|1.751|||Mixed Models Analysis|Negative Binomial Regression||Change in Past 3 Month Nonmedical Prescription Drug Use from Baseline to 12 Month Followup||1.751|.128|<.05
90804086|NCT03037476|181487975|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|-0.1816||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4295|0.0663|||Mixed Models Analysis|Negative binomial regression||Change in ASSIST Score over time: 6 month follow up||0.0663|-0.4295|0.151
90804087|NCT03037476|181487975|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|-0.0601||||0.642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3133|0.1931|||Mixed Models Analysis|Negative Binomial Regression||Changes in ASSIST scores at 12 month follow up||0.1931|-0.3133|0.642
90804088|NCT03037476|181487976|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|-0.2177||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4566|0.0213|||Mixed Models Analysis|Negative Binomial Regression||Change in consequence score at 6 month follow up||0.0213|-0.4566|0.074
90804089|NCT03037476|181487976|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|-0.1165||||0.351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3612|0.1282|||Mixed Models Analysis|Negative Binomial Regression||Change in consequence score at 12 month follow up||0.1282|-0.3612|0.351
90804090|NCT03037476|181487977|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|0.044||||0.255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.032|0.1197|||Mixed Models Analysis|Negative Binomial Regression||Change in peak alcohol quantity at 6 months (reported by number of standard drinks)||0.1197|-0.032|0.255
90804091|NCT03037476|181487977|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|0.0315||||0.428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0463|0.1092|||Mixed Models Analysis|Negative Binomial Regression||Change in peak alcohol quantity (reported in standard drinks) at 12 month follow-up||0.1092|-0.0463|0.428
90804092|NCT03037476|181487978|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|0.0021||||0.966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0936|0.0978|||Mixed Models Analysis|Negative Binomial Regression||Change in DDQ score at 6 months||0.0978|-0.0936|0.966
90804093|NCT03037476|181487978|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|-0.0559||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1542|0.0424|||Mixed Models Analysis|Negative Binomial Regression||Change in DDQ score at 12 month follow-up||0.0424|-0.1542|0.265
90804094|NCT03037476|181487979|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|-0.0128||||0.868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1633|0.1378|||Mixed Models Analysis|Negative Binomial Regression||Change in RAPI count at 6 month follow-up||0.1378|-0.1633|0.868
90804095|NCT03037476|181487979|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|-0.0445||||0.573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1993|0.1102|||Mixed Models Analysis|Negative Binomial Regression||Change in RAPI count at 12 month follow-up||0.1102|-0.1993|0.573
90804096|NCT03037476|181487980|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|-0.0899||||0.266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2484|0.0685|||Mixed Models Analysis|Negative Binomial Regression||Change in past 12 month marijuana use at 6 month follow-up||0.0685|-0.2484|0.266
90804097|NCT03037476|181487980|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|-0.0197||||0.816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1859|0.1465|||Mixed Models Analysis|Negative Binomial Regression||Past 12 month marijuana use at 12 month follow-up||0.1465|-0.1859|0.816
90804098|NCT03037476|181487980|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|-0.1031||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2639|0.0577|||Mixed Models Analysis|Negative Binomial Regression||Change in past 6 month marijuana use at 6 month follow-up||0.0577|-0.2639|0.209
90804099|NCT03037476|181487980|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|-0.006||||0.944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1729|0.1608|||Mixed Models Analysis|Negative Binomial Regression||Change in past 6 month marijuana use at 12 month follow-up||0.1608|-0.1729|0.944
90804100|NCT03037476|181487980|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|-0.0391||||0.654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2102|0.132|||Mixed Models Analysis|Negative Binomial Regression||Change in past month marijuana use at 6 month follow-up||0.1320|-0.2102|0.654
91013834|NCT01050998|181910414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|39.0||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|69.6|||Fisher Exact|p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.|95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|Japanese region: ACR20 - p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||69.6|-2.7|0.087
91013835|NCT01050998|181910414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-1.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.7|35.7|||Fisher Exact|p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.|95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|Japanese region: ACR20 - p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||35.7|-33.7|1.000
90804101|NCT03037476|181487980|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|-0.0646||||0.481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2444|0.1152|||Mixed Models Analysis|Negative Binomial Regression||Change in past month marijuana use at 12 month follow-up||0.1152|-0.2444|0.481
91013836|NCT01050998|181910414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|51.5||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.2|77.0|||Fisher Exact|p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.|95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|Japanese region: ACR20 - p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||77.0|8.2|0.028
91013837|NCT01050998|181910414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|11.1||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|27.9|||Fisher Exact|p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.|95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|European region: ACR50 - p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||27.9|-2.9|0.175
90804102|NCT03037476|181487981|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|-0.0411||||0.487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1569|0.0747|||Mixed Models Analysis|Negative Binomial Regression||Change in RMPI count at 6 month follow-up||0.0747|-0.1569|0.487
90804103|NCT03037476|181487981|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|0.0177||||0.772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1021|0.1375|||Mixed Models Analysis|Negative Binomial Regression||Change in RMPI count at 12 month follow-up||0.1375|-0.1021|0.772
90804104|NCT03037476|181487982|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|0.1285||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0131|0.2702|||Mixed Models Analysis|Negative Binomial Regression||Change in PBS count at 6 month follow up||0.2702|-0.0131|0.075
90804105|NCT03037476|181487982|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|0.0936||||0.207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0517|0.2388|||Mixed Models Analysis|Negative Binomial Regression||Change in PBS count at 12 month follow up||0.2388|-0.0517|0.207
90804106|NCT03037476|181487983|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|-0.1604|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2525|-0.0683|||Mixed Models Analysis|Negative Binomial Regression||Change in perceived norm (in perceived days of use in past year) at 6 month follow up||-0.0683|-0.2525|<0.001
90804107|NCT03037476|181487983|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|-0.1441|||<|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2404|-0.0478|||Mixed Models Analysis|Negative Binomial Regression||Change in perceived norm (perceived number of days of use in past year) at 12 month follow up||-0.0478|-0.2404|<.003
90804108|NCT03037476|181487984|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|-0.0157||||0.743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1096|0.0782|||Mixed Models Analysis|Poisson regression||Change in MSLQ score at 6 month follow-up||0.0782|-0.1096|0.743
90804109|NCT03037476|181487984|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|0.0133||||0.784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0816|0.1081|||Mixed Models Analysis|Poisson regression||Change in MSLQ score at 12 month follow up||0.1081|-0.0816|0.784
90804110|NCT03037476|181487985|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|-0.0061||||0.914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1161|0.104|||Mixed Models Analysis|Poisson regression||Change in cumulative grade point average at 6 month follow up||0.104|-0.1161|0.914
91079190|NCT03240406|182044049|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.26||||0.245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|8.75||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|ANCOVA|MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|||8.75|-2.23|0.245
90804111|NCT03037476|181487985|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|-0.0092||||0.871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1202|0.1018|||Mixed Models Analysis|General Linear Model||Change in cumulative grade point average at 12 month follow up||0.1018|-0.1202|0.871
90804112|NCT03037476|181487985|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|0.003||||0.957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1063|0.1124|||Mixed Models Analysis|Poisson regression||Change in last term GPA at 6 month follow-up||0.1124|-0.1063|0.957
90804113|NCT03037476|181487985|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|0.0006||||0.992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1098|0.1109|||Mixed Models Analysis|Poisson regression||Change in last term GPA at 12 month follow-up||0.1109|-0.1098|0.992
90804114|NCT03037476|181487986|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|0.039||||0.447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0615|0.1395|||Mixed Models Analysis|Negative Binomial Regression||Change in past month alcohol frequency at 6 month follow-up||0.1395|-.0615|0.447
90804115|NCT03037476|181487986|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|0.0398||||0.443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0619|0.1414|||Mixed Models Analysis|Negative Binomial Regression||Change in past month alcohol frequency at 12 month follow-up||0.1414|-0.0619|0.443
90804116|NCT03037476|181487987|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|0.0002||||0.997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1066|0.107|||Mixed Models Analysis|Negative Binomial Regression||Change in past month alcohol typical quantity at 6 months||0.1070|-0.1066|0.997
90804117|NCT03037476|181487987|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|-0.0136||||0.808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1236|0.0963|||Mixed Models Analysis|Negative Binomial Regression||Change in past month typical alcohol quantity at 12 month follow-up||0.0963|-0.1236|0.808
90804118|NCT02403817|181487992|OTHER|This is a small pilot study with no power calculations required (and no data upon which to base a priori power estimates).||||||5e-05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This analysis compares pre-intervention to post-intervention scores in the eye movement training group on the primary attention outcome measure. The hand movement Control in this pilot was not feasible and the sample is too small for analysis. This is a small pilot study and so power analyses were not computed. The null hypothesis was no difference between pre- and post-training outcome measure (alpha .05).||||0.00005
90804119|NCT02403817|181487993|OTHER|||||||0.018|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This analysis compares pre-intervention to post-intervention scores in the eye movement training group on the primary eye movement outcome measure. The hand movement Control in this pilot was not feasible and the sample is too small for analysis. This is a small pilot study and so power analyses were not computed. The null hypothesis was no difference between pre- and post-training outcome measure (alpha .05).||||0.018
90804120|NCT00501592|181488002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The primary endpoints are calculated as the change (post minus pre treatment) during low dose and high dose insulin infusion periods. These are compared between placebo and INT-747 25 mg using t-tests for independent samples. These tests will be made without correction for multiple comparisons using 0.05 as the alpha criterion for significance. Results will be described with the corresponding means and standard deviations.||||0.040
90804121|NCT00501592|181488002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The primary endpoints are calculated as the change (post minus pre treatment) during low dose and high dose insulin infusion periods. These are compared between placebo and INT-747 50 mg using t-tests for independent samples. These tests will be made without correction for multiple comparisons using 0.05 as the alpha criterion for significance. Results will be described with the corresponding means and standard deviations.||||0.28
90804122|NCT00501592|181488003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0031||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0031
90804123|NCT00501592|181488003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
90804124|NCT00501592|181488003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0001
90804125|NCT00501592|181488003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0005
90804126|NCT01701362|181488050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||least squares mean difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.1823||95.0|-0.54|0.1|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures = MMRM|MMRM analysis includes fixed categorical effects of treatment, country, trauma type, visit week, treatment-by-visit interaction, and fixed continuous effect of baseline value. Missing mean pain scores imputed by multiple imputation method|||0.10|-0.54|0.1823
90804127|NCT01701362|181488051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0012||||||The p-value is derived from CMH test, stratified for pooled center and trauma type and excludes missing values.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0012
90804128|NCT01701362|181488052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||least square mean difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0119||95.0|-0.62|-0.08|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Analyzed for treatment, center, trauma type, week \& treatment-by-week interaction and fixed continuous effect of baseline value on the ITT population.||Week 1||-0.08|-0.62|0.0119
90804129|NCT01701362|181488052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||least square mean difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0135||95.0|-0.62|-0.07|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Analyzed for treatment, center, trauma type, week \& treatment-by-week interaction and fixed continuous effect of baseline value on the ITT population.||Week 2||-0.07|-0.62|0.0135
90804130|NCT01701362|181488052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||least square mean difference|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0028||95.0|-0.69|-0.14|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Analyzed for treatment, center, trauma type, week \& treatment-by-week interaction and fixed continuous effect of baseline value on the ITT population.||Week 3||-0.14|-0.69|0.0028
90804131|NCT01701362|181488052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||least square mean difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0016||95.0|-0.72|-0.17|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Analyzed for treatment, center, trauma type, week \& treatment-by-week interaction and fixed continuous effect of baseline value on the ITT population.||Week 4||-0.17|-0.72|0.0016
90804132|NCT01701362|181488052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||least square mean difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0007||95.0|-0.75|-0.2|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Analyzed for treatment, center, trauma type, week \& treatment-by-week interaction and fixed continuous effect of baseline value on the ITT population.||Week 5||-0.20|-0.75|0.0007
90804133|NCT01701362|181488052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||least square mean difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0006||95.0|-0.76|-0.21|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Analyzed for treatment, center, trauma type, week \& treatment-by-week interaction and fixed continuous effect of baseline value on the ITT population.||Week 6||-0.21|-0.76|0.0006
90804134|NCT01701362|181488052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||least square mean difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0008||95.0|-0.75|-0.2|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Analyzed for treatment, center, trauma type, week \& treatment-by-week interaction and fixed continuous effect of baseline value on the ITT population.||Week 7||-0.20|-0.75|0.0008
90804135|NCT01701362|181488052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||least square mean difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0003||95.0|-0.79|-0.24|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Analyzed for treatment, center, trauma type, week \& treatment-by-week interaction and fixed continuous effect of baseline value on the ITT population.||Week 8||-0.24|-0.79|0.0003
90804136|NCT01701362|181488052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||least square mean difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0001||95.0|-0.82|-0.26|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Analyzed for treatment, center, trauma type, week \& treatment-by-week interaction and fixed continuous effect of baseline value on the ITT population.||Week 9||-0.26|-0.82|0.0001
90804137|NCT01701362|181488052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||least square mean difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0005||95.0|-0.77|-0.22|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Analyzed for treatment, center, trauma type, week \& treatment-by-week interaction and fixed continuous effect of baseline value on the ITT population.||Week 10||-0.22|-0.77|0.0005
90804138|NCT01701362|181488052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||least square mean difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0007||95.0|-0.76|-0.2|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Analyzed for treatment, center, trauma type, week \& treatment-by-week interaction and fixed continuous effect of baseline value on the ITT population.||Week 11||-0.20|-0.76|0.0007
90804139|NCT01701362|181488052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||least square mean difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0001||95.0|-0.82|-0.27|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Analyzed for treatment, center, trauma type, week \& treatment-by-week interaction and fixed continuous effect of baseline value on the ITT population.||Week 12||-0.27|-0.82|0.0001
90804140|NCT01701362|181488052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||least square mean difference|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.84|-0.28|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Analyzed for treatment, center, trauma type, week \& treatment-by-week interaction and fixed continuous effect of baseline value on the ITT population.||Week 13||-0.28|-0.84|<0.0001
90804141|NCT01701362|181488052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||least square mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0005||95.0|-0.78|-0.22|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Analyzed for treatment, center, trauma type, week \& treatment-by-week interaction and fixed continuous effect of baseline value on the ITT population.||Week 14||-0.22|-0.78|0.0005
90804142|NCT01701362|181488052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||least square mean difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0031||95.0|-0.71|-0.14|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Analyzed for treatment, center, trauma type, week \& treatment-by-week interaction and fixed continuous effect of baseline value on the ITT population.||Week 15||-0.14|-0.71|0.0031
91013838|NCT01050998|181910414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|17.3||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|34.1|||Fisher Exact|p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.|95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|European region: ACR50 - p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||34.1|2.4|0.026
91013839|NCT01050998|181910414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|8.5||||0.271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|24.9|||Fisher Exact|p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.|95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|European region: ACR50 - p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||24.9|-5.1|0.271
91054456|NCT04135196|181991027|OTHER|||||||0.155|||||||Regression, Linear|||The null hypothesis was that change in UD cBMC was not proportional to strain rate. Raw change in cBMC was analyzed as the dependent variable in a linear regression model with coefficients representing contrasts between the two experimental groups and the control group.|"Overall model fit: R\^2=0.107, F=1.971, df1=2, df2=33, p=0.155~Contrast between the low strain rate group and the control group: B=0.012, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.008, Beta=0.284, t=1.526, p=0.137, 95% CI of B: \[-0.004, 0.027\]~Contrast between the high strain rate group and the control group: B=0.014, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.008, Beta=0.342, t=1.837, p=0.075, 95% CI of B: \[-0.002, 0.030\]"|||0.155
91054457|NCT04135196|181991028|OTHER|||||||0.991|||||||Regression, Linear|||The null hypothesis was that change in UD ecBMC was not proportional to strain magnitude. Raw change in ecBMC was analyzed as the dependent variable in a linear regression model with coefficients representing contrasts between the two experimental groups and the control group.|"Overall model fit: R\^2=\<0.001, F=0.009, df1=2, df2=40, p=0.991~Contrast between the low strain magnitude group and the control group: B=0.001, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.009, Beta=0.025, t=0.133, p=0.894, 95% CI of B: \[-0.016, 0.018\]~Contrast between the high strain magnitude group and the control group: B=0.001, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.008, Beta=0.012, t=0.063, p=0.950, 95% CI of B: \[-0.016, 0.017\]"|||0.991
91054458|NCT04135196|181991028|OTHER|||||||0.018|||||||Regression, Linear|||The null hypothesis was that change in UD ecBMC was not proportional to strain rate. Raw change in ecBMC was analyzed as the dependent variable in a linear regression model with coefficients representing contrasts between the two experimental groups and the control group.|"Overall model fit: R\^2=0.216, F=4.548, df1=2, df2=33, p=0.018~Contrast between the low strain rate group and the control group: B=0.029, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.011, Beta=0.455, t=2.607, p=0.014, 95% CI of B: \[0.006, 0.052\]~Contrast between the high strain rate group and the control group: B=0.029, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.011, Beta=0.447, t=2.563, p=0.015, 95% CI of B: \[0.006, 0.052\]"|||0.018
90804143|NCT01701362|181488052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||least square mean difference|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0001||95.0|-0.71|-0.23|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Analyzed for treatment, center, trauma type, week \& treatment-by-week interaction and fixed continuous effect of baseline value on the ITT population.||Overall||-0.23|-0.71|0.0001
90804144|NCT01701362|181488053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||least squares mean difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.005||95.0|-0.77|-0.14|||ANCOVA|This secondary endpoint has been analyzed using ANCOVA with model terms of treatment, center, trauma type and baseline value on the ITT population.||||-0.14|-0.77|0.0050
90804145|NCT01701362|181488054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0168||95.0|-0.7|-0.07|||ANCOVA|This secondary endpoint has been analyzed using ANCOVA with model terms of treatment, center, trauma type and baseline value on the ITT population.||||-0.07|-0.70|0.0168
91013840|NCT01050998|181910414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|18.8||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|36.0|||Fisher Exact|p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.|95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|European region: ACR50 - p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||36.0|3.4|0.021
91013841|NCT01050998|181910414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-0.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.0|34.8|||Fisher Exact|p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.|95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|Japanese region: ACR50 - p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||34.8|-27.0|1.000
91013842|NCT01050998|181910414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|25.7||||0.283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|63.2|||Fisher Exact|p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.|95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|Japanese region: ACR50 - p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||63.2|-8.8|0.283
91013843|NCT01050998|181910414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-11.8||||0.529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.0|22.7|||Fisher Exact|p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.|95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|Japanese region: ACR50 - p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||22.7|-35.0|0.529
90804146|NCT01701362|181488055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||least squares mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.6841||95.0|-0.09|0.06|||ANCOVA|This sub-score has been analyzed using ANCOVA with model terms of treatment, center, trauma type and baseline value on the ITT population.||This statistical analysis is for mobility||0.06|-0.09|0.6841
90804147|NCT01701362|181488055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||least squares mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029||0.6564||95.0|-0.07|0.04|||ANCOVA|This sub-score has been analyzed using ANCOVA with model terms of treatment, center, trauma type and baseline value on the ITT population.||This statistical analysis is for self-care||0.04|-0.07|0.6564
90804148|NCT01701362|181488055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||least squares mean difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.859||95.0|-0.08|0.09|||ANCOVA|This sub-score has been analyzed using ANCOVA with model terms of treatment, center, trauma type and baseline value on the ITT population.||This statistical analysis is for usual activities||0.09|-0.08|0.8590
90804149|NCT01701362|181488055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||least squares mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.1628||95.0|-0.14|0.02|||ANCOVA|This sub-score has been analyzed using ANCOVA with model terms of treatment, center, trauma type and baseline value on the ITT population.||This statistical analysis is for pain/discomfort||0.02|-0.14|0.1628
90804150|NCT01701362|181488055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||leaset squares mean difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.4654||95.0|-0.05|0.1|||ANCOVA|This sub-score has been analyzed using ANCOVA with model terms of treatment, center, trauma type and baseline value on the ITT population.||This statistical analysis is for anxiety/depression||0.10|-0.05|0.4654
90804151|NCT01701362|181488055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||least squares mean difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017||0.5||95.0|-0.02|0.04|||ANCOVA|This sub-score has been analyzed using ANCOVA with model terms of treatment, center, trauma type and baseline value on the ITT population.||This statistical analysis is for Dolan 1997 Index score||0.04|-0.02|0.5000
90804152|NCT01701362|181488055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||leaset squares mean difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.5493||95.0|-0.07|0.04|||ANCOVA|This sub-score has been analyzed using ANCOVA with model terms of treatment, center, trauma type and baseline value on the ITT population.||This statistical analysis is for Dolan 2001 Index Score||0.04|-0.07|0.5493
90804153|NCT01701362|181488057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||least square mean difference|3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.0545||95.0|-0.07|7.0|||ANCOVA|This sub-score has been analyzed using ANCOVA with model terms of treatment, center, trauma type and baseline value on the ITT population.||Statistical analysis for Sleep Disturbance Score||7.00|-0.07|0.0545
91013844|NCT01050998|181910414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|38.2||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|71.2|||Fisher Exact|p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.|95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|Japanese region: ACR50 - p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||71.2|1.6|0.059
91013845|NCT01050998|181910414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|1.1||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|14.2|||Fisher Exact|p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.|95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|European region: ACR70 - p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||14.2|-7.0|1.000
90804154|NCT01701362|181488057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||least square mean difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.29||0.3913||95.0|-6.47|2.54|||ANCOVA|This sub-score has been analyzed using ANCOVA with model terms of treatment, center, trauma type and baseline value on the ITT population.||Statistical analysis for Sleep Adequancy Score||2.54|-6.47|0.3913
90804155|NCT01701362|181488057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||least square mean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04||0.6059||95.0|-5.06|2.96|||ANCOVA|This sub-score has been analyzed using ANCOVA with model terms of treatment, center, trauma type and baseline value on the ITT population.||Statistical analysis for Snoring Score||2.96|-5.06|0.6059
90804156|NCT01701362|181488057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||least square mean difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.7317||95.0|-2.76|3.93|||ANCOVA|This sub-score has been analyzed using ANCOVA with model terms of treatment, center, trauma type and baseline value on the ITT population.||Statistical analysis for Awaken Short of Breath Score||3.93|-2.76|0.7317
90804157|NCT01701362|181488057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||least square mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.2663||95.0|-0.45|0.12|||ANCOVA|This sub-score has been analyzed using ANCOVA with model terms of treatment, center, trauma type and baseline value on the ITT population.||Statistical analysis for Quantity of Sleep Score (hours)||0.12|-0.45|0.2663
90804158|NCT01701362|181488057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||least square mean difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.1562||95.0|-5.08|0.82|||ANCOVA|This sub-score has been analyzed using ANCOVA with model terms of treatment, center, trauma type and baseline value on the ITT population.||Statistical analysis for Somnolence Score||0.82|-5.08|0.1562
91013846|NCT01050998|181910414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|5.8||||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|19.4|||Fisher Exact|p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.|95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|European region: ACR70 - p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||19.4|-3.7|0.242
91013847|NCT01050998|181910414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|3.7||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|16.9|||Fisher Exact|p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.|95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|European region: ACR70 - p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||16.9|-5.1|0.410
91013848|NCT01050998|181910414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|13.9||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|29.5|||Fisher Exact|p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.|95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|European region: ACR70 - p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||29.5|2.7|0.030
91013849|NCT01050998|181910414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-11.8||||0.529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.0|22.7|||Fisher Exact|p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.|95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|Japanese region: ACR70 - p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||22.7|-35.0|0.529
91013850|NCT01050998|181910414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|0.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.7|39.5|||Fisher Exact|p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.|95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|Japanese region: ACR70 - p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||39.5|-26.7|1.000
90804159|NCT01701362|181488057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||least square mean difference|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45||0.249||95.0|-1.18|4.53|||ANCOVA|This sub-score has been analyzed using ANCOVA with model terms of treatment, center, trauma type and baseline value on the ITT population.||Statistical analysis for Sleep Problem Index (9) Score||4.53|-1.18|0.2490
90804160|NCT01701362|181488057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||leaet squares mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0609||95.0|-0.15|0.0|||ANCOVA|This sub-score has been analyzed using ANCOVA with model terms of treatment, center, trauma type and baseline value on the ITT population.||Statistical analysis for Optimal Sleep Score||0.00|-0.15|0.0609
90804161|NCT01701362|181488058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7165||||||p-values based on CMH test stratified by pooled center and trauma type, patients with unknown status at baseline or endpoint will not be included in the calculation of p-values.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.7165
90804162|NCT01701362|181488059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.2||||0.0028||95.0|1.5|6.86|||Gen linear model-logistic link function|Model terms include categorical: treatment, center, trauma type, week, and treatment-by-week interaction; and continuous: baselines mean pain score.||Statistical analysis at Week 1||6.86|1.50|0.0028
90804163|NCT01701362|181488059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.66||||0.036||95.0|1.03|2.68|||Gen linear model-logistic link function|Model terms include categorical: treatment, center, trauma type, week, and treatment-by-week interaction; and continuous: baselines mean pain score.||Statistical analysis at Week 2||2.68|1.03|0.0360
91013851|NCT01050998|181910414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-11.8||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.5|22.6|||Fisher Exact|p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.|95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|Japanese region: ACR70 - p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||22.6|-37.5|1.000
91013852|NCT01050998|181910416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean difference|14.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.162||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|28.15|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|||28.15|-0.05|0.051
91013853|NCT01050998|181910416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean difference|21.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.028||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.39|35.07|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|||35.07|7.39|0.003
91013854|NCT01050998|181910416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean difference|7.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.136||0.322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.96|21.14|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|||21.14|-6.96|0.322
91013855|NCT01050998|181910416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean difference|32.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.085|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.08|45.98|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|||45.98|18.08|<0.001
91013856|NCT01050998|181910417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean difference|14.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.981||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|30.22|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|Analysis reported for European region.||30.22|-1.24|0.071
91013857|NCT01050998|181910417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|19.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.798||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.06|34.8|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|Analysis reported for European region.||34.80|4.06|0.013
90804164|NCT01701362|181488059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.62||||0.0235||95.0|1.07|2.45|||Gen linear model-logistic link function|Model terms include categorical: treatment, center, trauma type, week, and treatment-by-week interaction; and continuous: baselines mean pain score.||Statistical analysis at Week 3||2.45|1.07|0.0235
90804165|NCT01701362|181488059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.0619||95.0|0.98|2.24|||Gen linear model-logistic link function|Model terms include categorical: treatment, center, trauma type, week, and treatment-by-week interaction; and continuous: baselines mean pain score.||Statistical analysis at Week 4||2.24|0.98|0.0619
90804166|NCT01701362|181488059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46||||0.0677||95.0|0.97|2.2|||Gen linear model-logistic link function|Model terms include categorical: treatment, center, trauma type, week, and treatment-by-week interaction; and continuous: baselines mean pain score.||Statistical analysis at Week 5||2.20|0.97|0.0677
90804167|NCT01701362|181488059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.0707||95.0|0.97|2.16|||Gen linear model-logistic link function|Model terms include categorical: treatment, center, trauma type, week, and treatment-by-week interaction; and continuous: baselines mean pain score.||Statistical analysis at Week 6||2.16|0.97|0.0707
91013858|NCT01050998|181910417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|7.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.873||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.68|23.36|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|Analysis reported for European region.||23.36|-7.68|0.320
91013859|NCT01050998|181910417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|31.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.873|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.85|46.89|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|Analysis reported for European region.||46.89|15.85|<0.001
91013860|NCT01050998|181910417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|12.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.089||0.483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.41|46.64|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|Analysis reported for Japanese region.||46.64|-22.41|0.483
90804168|NCT01701362|181488059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.1313||95.0|0.91|2.06|||Gen linear model-logistic link function|Model terms include categorical: treatment, center, trauma type, week, and treatment-by-week interaction; and continuous: baselines mean pain score.||Statistical analysis at Week 7||2.06|0.91|0.1313
90804169|NCT01701362|181488059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.3072||95.0|0.82|1.86|||Gen linear model-logistic link function|Model terms include categorical: treatment, center, trauma type, week, and treatment-by-week interaction; and continuous: baselines mean pain score.||Statistical analysis at Week 8||1.86|0.82|0.3072
90804170|NCT01701362|181488059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.3947||95.0|0.79|1.8|||Gen linear model-logistic link function|Model terms include categorical: treatment, center, trauma type, week, and treatment-by-week interaction; and continuous: baselines mean pain score.||Statistical analysis at Week 9||1.80|0.79|0.3947
90804171|NCT01701362|181488059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.1462||95.0|0.9|2.05|||Gen linear model-logistic link function|Model terms include categorical: treatment, center, trauma type, week, and treatment-by-week interaction; and continuous: baselines mean pain score.||Statistical analysis at Week 10||2.05|0.90|0.1462
90804172|NCT01701362|181488059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.6854||95.0|0.72|1.64|||Gen linear model-logistic link function|Model terms include categorical: treatment, center, trauma type, week, and treatment-by-week interaction; and continuous: baselines mean pain score.||Statistical analysis at Week 11||1.64|0.72|0.6854
90804173|NCT01701362|181488059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.5025||95.0|0.76|1.74|||Gen linear model-logistic link function|Model terms include categorical: treatment, center, trauma type, week, and treatment-by-week interaction; and continuous: baselines mean pain score.||Statistical analysis at Week 12||1.74|0.76|0.5025
90804174|NCT01701362|181488059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.4908||95.0|0.76|1.76|||Gen linear model-logistic link function|Model terms include categorical: treatment, center, trauma type, week, and treatment-by-week interaction; and continuous: baselines mean pain score.||Statistical analysis at Week 13||1.76|0.76|0.4908
90804175|NCT01701362|181488059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.4245||95.0|0.78|1.8|||Gen linear model-logistic link function|Model terms include categorical: treatment, center, trauma type, week, and treatment-by-week interaction; and continuous: baselines mean pain score.||Statistical analysis at Week 14||1.80|0.78|0.4245
91079191|NCT03240406|182044050|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.21||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.4||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|ANCOVA|MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|||0.4|0.02|0.032
90804176|NCT01701362|181488059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.8464||95.0|0.61|1.49|||Gen linear model-logistic link function|Model terms include categorical: treatment, center, trauma type, week, and treatment-by-week interaction; and continuous: baselines mean pain score.||Statistical analysis at Week 15||1.49|0.61|0.8464
90804177|NCT01701362|181488060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.11||||0.1633||95.0|0.74|6.0|||Gen linear model-logistic link function|Model terms include categorical: treatment, center, trauma type, week, and treatment-by-week interaction; and continuous: baselines mean pain score.||Statistical analysis at Week 1||6.00|0.74|0.1633
90804178|NCT01701362|181488060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.92||||0.0652||95.0|0.96|3.85|||Gen linear model-logistic link function|Model terms include categorical: treatment, center, trauma type, week, and treatment-by-week interaction; and continuous: baselines mean pain score.||Statistical analysis at Week 2||3.85|0.96|0.0652
90804179|NCT01701362|181488060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2||||0.0039||95.0|1.29|3.77|||Gen linear model-logistic link function|Model terms include categorical: treatment, center, trauma type, week, and treatment-by-week interaction; and continuous: baselines mean pain score.||Statistical analysis at Week 3||3.77|1.29|0.0039
90804180|NCT01701362|181488060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.0382||95.0|1.03|2.83|||Gen linear model-logistic link function|Model terms include categorical: treatment, center, trauma type, week, and treatment-by-week interaction; and continuous: baselines mean pain score.||Statistical analysis at Week 4||2.83|1.03|0.0382
90804181|NCT01701362|181488060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.86||||0.0137||95.0|1.14|3.05|||Gen linear model-logistic link function|Model terms include categorical: treatment, center, trauma type, week, and treatment-by-week interaction; and continuous: baselines mean pain score.||Statistical analysis at Week 5||3.05|1.14|0.0137
90804182|NCT01701362|181488060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.0693||95.0|0.97|2.49|||Gen linear model-logistic link function|Model terms include categorical: treatment, center, trauma type, week, and treatment-by-week interaction; and continuous: baselines mean pain score.||Statistical analysis at Week 6||2.49|0.97|0.0693
90804183|NCT01701362|181488060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68||||0.0349||95.0|1.04|2.73|||Gen linear model-logistic link function|Model terms include categorical: treatment, center, trauma type, week, and treatment-by-week interaction; and continuous: baselines mean pain score.||Statistical analysis at Week 7||2.73|1.04|0.0349
90804184|NCT01701362|181488060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.1227||95.0|0.91|2.29|||Gen linear model-logistic link function|Model terms include categorical: treatment, center, trauma type, week, and treatment-by-week interaction; and continuous: baselines mean pain score.||Statistical analysis at Week 8||2.29|0.91|0.1227
90804185|NCT01701362|181488060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.65||||0.0364||95.0|1.03|2.63|||Gen linear model-logistic link function|Model terms include categorical: treatment, center, trauma type, week, and treatment-by-week interaction; and continuous: baselines mean pain score.||Statistical analysis at Week 9||2.63|1.03|0.0364
90804186|NCT01701362|181488060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.0667||95.0|0.97|2.49|||Gen linear model-logistic link function|Model terms include categorical: treatment, center, trauma type, week, and treatment-by-week interaction; and continuous: baselines mean pain score.||Statistical analysis at Week 10||2.49|0.97|0.0667
90804187|NCT01701362|181488060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77||||0.0176||95.0|1.1|2.84|||Gen linear model-logistic link function|Model terms include categorical: treatment, center, trauma type, week, and treatment-by-week interaction; and continuous: baselines mean pain score.||Statistical analysis at Week 11||2.84|1.10|0.0176
90804188|NCT01701362|181488060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.03||||0.003||95.0|1.27|3.23|||Gen linear model-logistic link function|Model terms include categorical: treatment, center, trauma type, week, and treatment-by-week interaction; and continuous: baselines mean pain score.||Statistical analysis at Week 12||3.23|1.27|0.0030
90804189|NCT01701362|181488060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.0256||95.0|1.07|2.74|||Gen linear model-logistic link function|Model terms include categorical: treatment, center, trauma type, week, and treatment-by-week interaction; and continuous: baselines mean pain score.||Statistical analysis at Week 13||2.74|1.07|0.0256
90804190|NCT01701362|181488060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.66||||0.0314||95.0|1.05|2.64|||Gen linear model-logistic link function|Model terms include categorical: treatment, center, trauma type, week, and treatment-by-week interaction; and continuous: baselines mean pain score.||Statistical analysis at Week 14||2.64|1.05|0.0314
90804191|NCT01701362|181488060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.1889||95.0|0.85|2.21|||Gen linear model-logistic link function|Model terms include categorical: treatment, center, trauma type, week, and treatment-by-week interaction; and continuous: baselines mean pain score.||Statistical analysis at Week 15||2.21|0.85|0.1889
90804192|NCT00443872|181488068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.0|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of mean group scores at baseline and 12 weeks||||<0.01
90804193|NCT00443872|181488069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
90804194|NCT00443872|181488070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided||Comparison of baseline vs. 3 month circumference of the Left and Right lower leg/ankle (change identical for both legs).|Change in pedal edema as measured by change in lower leg/ankle circumference in the left and right legs||||<0.01
90804195|NCT00443872|181488071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
90804196|NCT00443872|181488072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis is for the Activities of Daily Living (ADL) section of the scale||||<0.01
90804197|NCT00443872|181488072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||This analysis is for the motor section of the UPDRS|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
90804198|NCT00443872|181488073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.2|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
90804199|NCT00443872|181488074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
90804200|NCT00443872|181488075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
90804201|NCT00443872|181488076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
90804202|NCT00700622|181488079|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A sample size of 92 subjects in each group was required to complete the trial. Approximately 230 subjects were to be randomized to achieve 184 completers (assuming a 20% dropout rate). This would have provided 80% power for a noninferiority design to test the difference of a 4-month change in HbA1c levels between treatment groups, assuming the upper noninferiority margins Δ of 0.5% with a standard deviation of 1.2 and a 1-sided alpha of 0.025.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.119|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.17|||ANCOVA|||||0.17|-0.31|
90804203|NCT04474197|181488080|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|2.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|3.1|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||3.1|1.5|<0.0001
90804204|NCT04474197|181488080|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|3.1|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||3.1|1.6|<0.0001
91077795|NCT02913105|182041130|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.635||0.0118|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.684|-0.575|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 84||-0.575|-2.684|0.0118
90804205|NCT04474197|181488080|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|2.9|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||2.9|1.5|<0.0001
90804206|NCT04474197|181488082|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|4.6|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||4.6|2.4|<0.0001
90804207|NCT04474197|181488082|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|4.0|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||4.0|1.9|<0.0001
90804208|NCT04474197|181488082|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|3.7|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||3.7|1.8|<0.0001
90804209|NCT00405392|181488108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
90804210|NCT00405392|181488109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
90804211|NCT00405392|181488110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9456|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9456
90804212|NCT02550288|181488111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-36.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.5|-32.2|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-32.2|-40.5|<0.001
90804213|NCT02550288|181488111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-11.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|-8.2|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-8.2|-14.9|<0.001
90804214|NCT02550288|181488111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-39.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.1|-35.8|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-35.8|-44.1|<0.001
90804215|NCT02550288|181488111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-10.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|-6.8|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-6.8|-13.5|<0.001
90804216|NCT00402324|181488235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||All tests of treatment effects will be conducted at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05 unless otherwise stated.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) Change = Therapy PooledINV Visit Baseline Baseline\*Visit Therapy\*Visit. P-value from therapy term in model.||The overall power of the two co-primary analyses-the probability of simultaneously rejecting both co-primary null hypotheses-for this sample size under assumed effect sizes of 0.5 and 0.45 is estimated as approximately 85-87% and 77-80%, respectively.||||<0.001
90804217|NCT00402324|181488236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022||95.0||||All tests of treatment effects will be conducted at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05 unless otherwise stated.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) Change = Therapy PooledINV Visit Baseline Baseline\*Visit Therapy\*Visit. P-value from therapy term in model.||The overall power of the two co-primary analyses-the probability of simultaneously rejecting both co-primary null hypotheses-for this sample size under assumed effect sizes of 0.5 and 0.45 is estimated as approximately 85-87% and 77-80%, respectively.||||0.022
90804218|NCT00402324|181488237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.100
90804219|NCT00402324|181488238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.048
90804220|NCT00402324|181488239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.056||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Type III sums of squares of ANCOVA model: Change= TRT + Pooled Investigator + Baseline.||||||0.056
90804221|NCT00402324|181488241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.657||95.0||||P-value for Total Cholesterol Change from Baseline|ANOVA|Type III sums of squares of ANOVA model: Ranked Change= Treatment + Pooled Investigator||||||0.657
90804222|NCT00402324|181488241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.924||95.0||||P-value for Low Density Lipoprotein Change from Baseline|ANOVA|Type III sums of squares of ANOVA model: Ranked Change= Treatment + Pooled Investigator||||||0.924
90804223|NCT00402324|181488241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.122||95.0||||P-value for High Density Lipoprotein Change from Baseline|ANOVA|Type III sums of squares of ANOVA model: Ranked Change= Treatment + Pooled Investigator||||||0.122
90804224|NCT00402324|181488242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.293||95.0||||P-value for Fasting Triglycerides Change from Baseline|ANOVA|Type III sums of squares of ANOVA model: Ranked Change= Treatment + Pooled Investigator||||||0.293
90804225|NCT00402324|181488243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0||||P-value for Fasting Blood Glucose Change from Baseline|ANOVA|Type III sums of squares of ANOVA model: Ranked Change= Treatment + Pooled Investigator||||||0.007
90804226|NCT00402324|181488244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.046||95.0||||P-value for Bilirubin Total Change from Baseline|ANOVA|Type III sums of squares of ANOVA model: Ranked Change= Treatment + Pooled Investigator||||||0.046
90804227|NCT00402324|181488245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Type III sums of squares of ANCOVA model: Change= Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Baseline||||||<0.001
90804228|NCT00402324|181488246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Type III sums of squares of ANCOVA model: Change= Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Baseline||||||<0.001
90804229|NCT00402324|181488247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
90804230|NCT01277822|181488248|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority margin was 3 mmHg as Korean Food and Drug Administration (KFDA) guidance.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.7||0.1339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|0.4|||t-test, 2 sided|Last observed non-missing, post-baseline value was imputed for missing value. If no such value existed, the value was treated as missing in analysis||||0.4|-3.0|0.1339
90804231|NCT01277822|181488249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4478||||||No imputation for missing data was performed|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4478
90804232|NCT01277822|181488250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0717|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Last observed non-missing, post-baseline value was imputed for missing value. If no such value existed, the value was treated as missing in analysis||||||0.0717
90804233|NCT01277822|181488251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8736|||||||t-test, 2 sided|No imputation for missing data was performed||||||0.8736
90804234|NCT01277822|181488252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2508||||||No imputation for missing data was performed|Chi-squared|||||||0.2508
90804235|NCT01277822|181488253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2508||||||No imputation for missing data was performed|Chi-squared|||||||0.2508
90804236|NCT01277822|181488254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6646|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.6646
90804237|NCT01277822|181488255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7911||||||Left ankle: Last observed non-missing, post-baseline value was imputed for missing value. If no such value existed, the value was treated as missing in analysis|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7911
90804238|NCT01277822|181488255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5933||||||Right ankle: Last observed non-missing, post-baseline value was imputed for missing value. If no such value existed, the value was treated as missing in analysis|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5933
90804239|NCT00997984|181488267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||A hierarchical testing structure was employed. First placebo vs all-active, then placebo vs am and lastly placebo vs pm. Testing was stopped when one comparison was not significant (p\<0.05).|ANCOVA|||Study designed to detect an effect size of 0.4 with 90% at the 0.05 significance level.||||<0.001
90804240|NCT00997984|181488267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||A hierarchical testing structure was employed. First placebo vs all-active, then placebo vs am and lastly placebo vs pm. Testing was stopped when one comparison was not significant (p\<0.05).|ANCOVA|||Study designed to detect an effect size of 0.4 with 90% at the 0.05 significance level.||||<0.001
90804241|NCT00997984|181488267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||A hierarchical testing structure was employed. First placebo vs all-active, then placebo vs am and lastly placebo vs pm. Testing was stopped when one comparison was not significant (p\<0.05).|ANCOVA|||Study designed to detect an effect size of 0.4 with 90% at the 0.05 significance level.||||<0.001
90804242|NCT00997984|181488268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||No formal adjustment for multiplicity was done.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90804243|NCT00997984|181488268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||No formal adjustment for multiplicity was done.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90804244|NCT00997984|181488268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||No formal adjustment for multiplicity was done.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90804245|NCT00997984|181488269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||No formal adjustment for multiplicity was done.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90804246|NCT00997984|181488269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||No formal adjustment for multiplicity was done.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90804247|NCT00997984|181488269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||No formal adjustment for multiplicity was done.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90804248|NCT00997984|181488270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.099||95.0||||No formal adjustment for multiplicity was done.|ANCOVA|||||||0.099
90804249|NCT00997984|181488270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.596||95.0||||No formal adjustment for multiplicity was done.|ANCOVA|||||||0.596
90804250|NCT00997984|181488270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.023||95.0||||No formal adjustment for multiplicity was done.|ANCOVA|||||||0.023
90804251|NCT00997984|181488272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||No formal adjustment for multiplicity was done.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90804252|NCT00997984|181488272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||No formal adjustment for multiplicity was done.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90804253|NCT00997984|181488272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||No formal adjustment for multiplicity was done.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90804254|NCT00997984|181488273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.712||95.0||||No formal adjustment for multiplicity was done.|ANCOVA|||||||0.712
90804255|NCT00997984|181488273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.531||95.0||||No formal adjustment for multiplicity was done.|ANCOVA|||||||0.531
90804256|NCT00997984|181488273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.226||95.0||||No formal adjustment for multiplicity was done.|ANCOVA|||||||0.226
90804257|NCT00997984|181488274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.859||95.0||||No formal adjustment for multiplicity was done.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.859
90804258|NCT00997984|181488274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.527||95.0||||No formal adjustment for multiplicity was done.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.527
91054459|NCT04135196|181991029|OTHER|||||||0.153|||||||Regression, Linear|||The null hypothesis was that change in UD tBMC was not proportional to strain magnitude. Raw change in tBMC was analyzed as the dependent variable in a linear regression model with coefficients representing contrasts between the two experimental groups and the control group.|"Overall model fit: R\^2=0.090, F=1.968, df1=2, df2=40, p=0.153~Contrast between the low strain magnitude group and the control group: B=0.007, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.003, Beta=0.352, t=1.973, p=0.055, 95% CI of B: \[0.000, 0.013\]~Contrast between the high strain magnitude group and the control group: B=0.003, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.003, Beta=0.156, t=0.874, p=0.387, 95% CI of B: \[-0.004, 0.009\]"|||0.153
90804259|NCT00997984|181488274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.739||95.0||||No formal adjustment for multiplicity was done.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.739
90804260|NCT00997984|181488275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||No formal adjustment for multiplicity was done.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90804261|NCT00997984|181488275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004||95.0||||No formal adjustment for multiplicity was done.|ANCOVA|||||||0.004
90804262|NCT00997984|181488275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001||95.0||||No formal adjustment for multiplicity was done.|ANCOVA|||||||0.001
90804263|NCT00295646|181488307|SUPERIORITY|A two-sided significance level of 2.5% was used in this 2x2 factorial design of two primary endpoints according to the Bonferroni-Holm adjustment to control multiplicity.|Cox Proportional Hazard|1.1||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.53||Two-sided significance level of 2.5%, with the application of the Bonferroni-Holm adjustment for multiple comparisons|Log Rank||From the Cox Proportional hazard model with endocrine treatment fitted as a covariate. A hazard ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher average event rate and a shorter disease-free time for arimidex relative to tamoxifen.|To determine the effect of arimidex (AZ and AC) compared to tamoxifen (TZ and TC) in terms of disease-free survival. Disease-free survival (DFS) is defined as the time from randomization to the first occurrence of a local or regional recurrence, cancer in the contralateral breast, distant metastasis, second primary carcinoma, or death from any cause.||1.53|0.78|0.59
90804264|NCT00295646|181488308|SUPERIORITY|A two-sided significance level of 2.5% was used in this 2x2 factorial design of two primary endpoints according to the Bonferroni-Holm adjustment to control multiplicity.|Cox Proportional Hazard|0.64||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.91||Two-sided significance level of 2.5%, with the application of the Bonferroni-Holm adjustment for multiple comparisons|Log Rank||From the Cox Proportional hazard model with Zoledronic Acid treatment fitted as a covariate. A hazard ratio \< 1.0 indicates a lower average event rate and a longer disease-free time for Zoledronic Acid relative to no Zoledronic Acid.|To determine the effect of Zoledronic Acid (AZ and TZ) compared to no Zoledronic Acid (AC and TC) in terms of disease-free survival. Disease-free survival (DFS) is defined as the time from randomization to the first occurrence of a local or regional recurrence, cancer in the contralateral breast, distant metastasis, second primary carcinoma, or death from any cause.||0.91|0.46|0.01
90804265|NCT00295646|181488309|SUPERIORITY|No multiplicity adjustment was applied.|Cox Proportional Hazard|1.11||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.56|||Log Rank||From the Cox Proportional hazard model with endocrine treatment fitted as a covariate. A hazard ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher average event rate and a shorter recurrence-free time for arimidex relative to tamoxifen.|To determine the effect of arimidex (AZ and AC) compared to tamoxifen (TZ and TC) in terms of recurrence-free survival. Recurrence-free survival is defined as the time from randomization to the first occurrence of a local or regional recurrence, cancer in the contralateral breast, distant metastasis, second primary carcinoma, or death related to breast cancer.||1.56|0.80|0.53
90804266|NCT00295646|181488310|SUPERIORITY|No multiplicity adjustment was applied.|Cox Proportional Hazard|0.65||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.92|||Log Rank|||To determine the effect of Zoledronic Acid (AZ and TZ) compared to no Zoledronic Acid (AC and TC) in terms of recurrence-free survival. Recurrence-free survival is defined as the time from randomization to the first occurrence of a local or regional recurrence, cancer in the contralateral breast, distant metastasis, second primary carcinoma, or death related to breast cancer.|From the Cox Proportional hazard model with Zoledronic Acid treatment fitted as a covariate. A hazard ratio \< 1.0 indicates a lower average event rate and a longer recurrence-free time for Zoledronic Acid relative to no Zoledronic Acid.|0.92|0.46|0.01
90804267|NCT00295646|181488311|SUPERIORITY|No multiplicity adjustment was applied.|Cox Proportional Hazard|1.8||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|3.38|||Log Rank||From the Cox Proportional hazard model with endocrine treatment fitted as a covariate. A hazard ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher average event rate and a shorter survival time for arimidex relative to tamoxifen.|To determine the effect of anastrozole (AZ and AC) compared to tamoxifen (TZ and TC) in terms of overall survival. Overall survival is defined as the time from randomization to death from any cause.||3.38|0.96|0.07
90804268|NCT00295646|181488312|SUPERIORITY|No multiplicity adjustment was applied.|Cox Proportional Hazard|0.6||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.11|||Log Rank||From the Cox Proportional hazard model with Zoledronic Acid treatment fitted as a covariate. A hazard ratio \< 1.0 indicates a lower average event rate and a longer survival time for Zoledronic Acid relative to no Zoledronic Acid.|To determine the effect of Zoledronic Acid (AZ and TZ) compared to no Zoledronic Acid (AC and TC) in terms of overall survival. Overall survival is defined as the time from randomization to death from any cause.||1.11|0.32|0.10
90804269|NCT03012828|181488328|OTHER|The model was used for predicting population average and 90% 2-sided bootstrapped CI of the baseline-adjusted difference between active and placebo at each time point bound at clinically relevant concentrations.|Slope|-0.0077||||0.4727|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0255|0.0101|||Mixed Models Analysis||The primary mixed effects model analysis revealed a nearly flat dQTcF - plasma concentration gradient|The primary analysis used a mixed-effects model to explore the relationship between the time-matched, baseline-adjusted QTcF (delta (d)QTcF) and moxidectin concentrations. dQTcF was a dependent variable and treatment, time point, and treatment by time point interaction as the independent variables with baseline QTcF as a covariate and time-matched concentrations of moxidectin as a covariate with random effects of intercept and slope for each subject.Concentrations of zero were used for placebo.||0.0101|-0.0255|0.4727
90804270|NCT01539070|181488362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.3|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|10.8|||Regression, Linear|All Regression models adjusted for clustering by clinic, child age, change in age, BMI z-score, maternal education and occupation, and season|The change in the average vegetable consumption from baseline to 3 months, the intervention group compared with the usual care group|In intent-to-treat analyses, we used unadjusted and adjusted multivariate regression models, to examine differences from baseline to 3 months between the intervention and usual care groups. For continuous outcomes, we used linear regression models, and for dichotomous outcomes, we used logistic regression models. To account for clustering by practices, we performed generalized linear mixed models. The Estimator (Est) and Confidence Interval 95% (95% CI)are reported.||10.8|1.8|<0.05
90804271|NCT01539070|181488362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|10.3|||Regression, Linear||The change in the average fruit consumption from baseline to 3 months, the intervention group compared with the usual care group|In intent-to-treat analyses, we used unadjusted and adjusted multivariate regression models, to examine differences from baseline to 3 months between the intervention and usual care groups. For continuous outcomes, we used linear regression models, and for dichotomous outcomes, we used logistic regression models. To account for clustering by practices, we performed generalized linear mixed models. The Estimator (Est) and Confidence Interval 95% (95% CI)are reported.||10.3|-13.6|<0.05
90804272|NCT01539070|181488362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|6.5|||Regression, Linear||The change in the average water consumption from baseline to 3 months, the intervention group compared with the usual care group|In intent-to-treat analyses, we used unadjusted and adjusted multivariate regression models, to examine differences from baseline to 3 months between the intervention and usual care groups. For continuous outcomes, we used linear regression models, and for dichotomous outcomes, we used logistic regression models. To account for clustering by practices, we performed generalized linear mixed models. The Estimator (Est) and Confidence Interval 95% (95% CI)are reported.||6.5|-5.4|<0.05
90804273|NCT01539070|181488362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.9|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|1.1|||Regression, Linear||The change in the average sweet snacks consumption from baseline to 3 months, the intervention group compared with the usual care group|In intent-to-treat analyses, we used unadjusted and adjusted multivariate regression models, to examine differences from baseline to 3 months between the intervention and usual care groups. For continuous outcomes, we used linear regression models, and for dichotomous outcomes, we used logistic regression models. To account for clustering by practices, we performed generalized linear mixed models. The Estimator (Est) and Confidence Interval 95% (95% CI)are reported.||1.1|-8.9|<0.05
90804274|NCT01539070|181488362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.1|||Regression, Linear||The change in the average fast food consumption from baseline to 3 months, the intervention group compared with the usual care group|In intent-to-treat analyses, we used unadjusted and adjusted multivariate regression models, to examine differences from baseline to 3 months between the intervention and usual care groups. For continuous outcomes, we used linear regression models, and for dichotomous outcomes, we used logistic regression models. To account for clustering by practices, we performed generalized linear mixed models. The Estimator (Est) and Confidence Interval 95% (95% CI)are reported.||1.1|-0.5|<0.05
91013861|NCT01050998|181910417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|31.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.089||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.28|65.77|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|Analysis reported for Japanese region.||65.77|-3.28|0.075
91013862|NCT01050998|181910417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|4.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.872||0.815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.89|40.32|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|Analysis reported for Japanese region.||40.32|-31.89|0.815
90804275|NCT01539070|181488362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.0|||Regression, Linear||The change in the average savory snacks consumption from baseline to 3 months, the intervention group compared with the usual care group|In intent-to-treat analyses, we used unadjusted and adjusted multivariate regression models, to examine differences from baseline to 3 months between the intervention and usual care groups. For continuous outcomes, we used linear regression models, and for dichotomous outcomes, we used logistic regression models. To account for clustering by practices, we performed generalized linear mixed models. The Estimator (Est) and Confidence Interval 95% (95% CI)are reported.||0.0|-0.5|<0.05
91013863|NCT01050998|181910417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|36.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.089||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|70.63|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|Analysis reported for Japanese region.||70.63|1.58|0.041
91013864|NCT00370994|181910447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Comparisons were made between groups and within the group between baseline and different time points.|Repeated measures ANOVA.|||||||<0.001
91013865|NCT00370994|181910448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001||95.0||||There were significant differences in Oswestry Disability Index between both groups|Repeated measures of ANOVA|||||||0.001
90804276|NCT01539070|181488362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|3.4|||Regression, Linear||The change in the average sugar-sweetened beverage consumption from baseline to 3 months, the intervention group compared with the usual care group|In intent-to-treat analyses, we used unadjusted and adjusted multivariate regression models, to examine differences from baseline to 3 months between the intervention and usual care groups. For continuous outcomes, we used linear regression models, and for dichotomous outcomes, we used logistic regression models. To account for clustering by practices, we performed generalized linear mixed models. The Estimator (Est) and Confidence Interval 95% (95% CI)are reported.||3.4|-4.9|<0.05
90804277|NCT01539070|181488362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|4.1|||Regression, Linear||The change in the average added sugar in beverage consumption from baseline to 3 months, the intervention group compared with the usual care group|In intent-to-treat analyses, we used unadjusted and adjusted multivariate regression models, to examine differences from baseline to 3 months between the intervention and usual care groups. For continuous outcomes, we used linear regression models, and for dichotomous outcomes, we used logistic regression models. To account for clustering by practices, we performed generalized linear mixed models. The Estimator (Est) and Confidence Interval 95% (95% CI)are reported.||4.1|-8.4|<0.05
90804278|NCT01539070|181488363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.8|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.1|5.5|||Regression, Linear|All Regression models adjusted for clustering by clinic, child age, change in age, BMI z-score, maternal education and occupation, and season|The change in mean physical activity between the baseline measurement and 3 months, the intervention group compared with the control group|In intent-to-treat analyses, we used unadjusted and adjusted multivariate regression models, to examine differences from baseline to 3 months between the intervention and usual care groups. For continuous outcomes, we used linear regression models, and for dichotomous outcomes, we used logistic regression models. To account for clustering by practices, we performed generalized linear mixed models. The Estimator (Est) and Confidence Interval 95% (95% CI) are reported.||5.5|-29.1|<0.05
91013866|NCT04246593|181910449|OTHER|We used generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) with random intercept to control for clustering within sites. In order to further explore the intervention effect, we fit GLMMs that adjust for (1) baseline dietary intake and (2) race and baseline income.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.84|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value calculated for the mean difference between the user and non-user groups.|GLMM|||||||0.84
91013867|NCT04246593|181910450|OTHER|We used generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) with random intercept to control for clustering within sites.|Median Difference (Net)|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15||0.61|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value calculated for the mean difference between change in BMI for intervention and control groups.|GLMM|||||||0.61
91013868|NCT04246593|181910451|OTHER|We used generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) with random intercept to control for clustering within sites.|Mean Difference (Net)|-28.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|43.31||0.53|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value calculated for the mean difference in change scores between the intervention and control groups.|GLMM|||||||0.53
91013869|NCT04246593|181910452|OTHER|We used generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) with random intercept to control for clustering within sites.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.65||0.75|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value applies to the mean difference in mean self-efficacy change scores between the intervention and control groups.|GLMM|||||||0.75
91013870|NCT04246593|181910453|OTHER|We used generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) with random intercept to control for clustering within sites.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.13||0.63|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value applies to the mean difference in mean total barriers score change between the intervention and control groups.|GLMM|||||||0.63
91013871|NCT04278846|181910454|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.87
91013872|NCT04278846|181910455|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.49
91013873|NCT04278846|181910456|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.57
91013874|NCT04278846|181910457|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.3
91013875|NCT04278846|181910458|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.99
91013876|NCT04278846|181910459|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.33
91013877|NCT04278846|181910460|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.26
91013878|NCT04278846|181910461|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.79
91013879|NCT04278846|181910462|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.62
91013880|NCT04278846|181910463|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.94
91013881|NCT04278846|181910464|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.95
91013882|NCT04278846|181910465|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.54
91013883|NCT04278846|181910466|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.95
91013884|NCT04278846|181910467|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.96
91013885|NCT04278846|181910469|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.088|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.088
91013886|NCT04278846|181910470|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.42
91013887|NCT04278846|181910471|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.88
91013888|NCT04278846|181910473|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.12
91013889|NCT04278846|181910474|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.96
91013890|NCT04278846|181910475|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.76
91013891|NCT04278846|181910476|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.88
91013892|NCT04278846|181910477|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.37
91013893|NCT03457701|181910573|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference.|0.02||||0.9971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.13|10.16|||Mixed Models Analysis||Analysis was based on a mixed effects model fitted with fixed effect terms for treatment, period, and iron isotope type and a random participant effect.|The null hypotheses is defined as the difference in fractional iron absorption between treatment arms (Daprodustat - rhEPO \[i.e., epoetin alfa or darbepoetin alfa\]) is equal to zero.||10.16|-10.13|0.9971
91013894|NCT00796367|181910600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.673|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.39|10.03||Intersection-union method applied in a step-down testing approach|ANCOVA|||No formal calculation of sample size was conducted due to being an extension study of OB-303 (NCT00553787)||10.03|7.39|<0.0001
90804279|NCT01539070|181488363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.5|||Regression, Linear||The change in mean sleep time between the baseline measurement and 3 months, the intervention group compared with the control group|In intent-to-treat analyses, we used unadjusted and adjusted multivariate regression models, to examine differences from baseline to 3 months between the intervention and usual care groups. For continuous outcomes, we used linear regression models, and for dichotomous outcomes, we used logistic regression models. To account for clustering by practices, we performed generalized linear mixed models. The Estimator (Est) and Confidence Interval 95% (95% CI)are reported.||0.5|-0.2|<0.05
90804280|NCT01539070|181488363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|1.1|||Regression, Linear||The change in mean screen time between the baseline measurement and 3 months, the intervention group compared with the control group|In intent-to-treat analyses, we used unadjusted and adjusted multivariate regression models, to examine differences from baseline to 3 months between the intervention and usual care groups. For continuous outcomes, we used linear regression models, and for dichotomous outcomes, we used logistic regression models. To account for clustering by practices, we performed generalized linear mixed models. The Estimator (Est) and Confidence Interval 95% (95% CI)are reported.||1.1|-4.4|<0.05
90804281|NCT01539070|181488365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.35|||Regression, Linear|||In intent-to-treat analyses, we used unadjusted and adjusted multivariate regression models, to examine differences from baseline to 3 months between the intervention and usual care groups. For continuous outcomes, we used linear regression models, and for dichotomous outcomes, we used logistic regression models. To account for clustering by practices, we performed generalized linear mixed models. The Estimator (Est) and Confidence Interval 95% (95% CI)are reported.||0.35|-0.04|<0.05
90804282|NCT02689206|181488366|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|1.45|||||Analysis using a Repeated Measures Model with terms included for baseline, treatment, time and treatment\*time. Model-adjusted treatment difference of dapro 10 mg arm from Placebo along with 95 percent CI are presented.|||1.45|-0.31|
90804283|NCT02689206|181488366|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.42|||||Analysis using a Repeated Measures Model with terms included for baseline, treatment, time and treatment\*time. Model-adjusted treatment difference of dapro 15 mg arm from Placebo along with 95 percent CI are presented.|||1.42|-0.40|
91013895|NCT00796367|181910600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.799|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.95|9.09||Intersection-union method applied in a step-down testing approach|ANCOVA|||No formal calculation of sample size was conducted due to being an extension study of OB-303 (NCT00553787)||9.09|5.95|<0.0001
91013896|NCT00796367|181910600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.1189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|2.68||Intersection-union method applied in a step-down testing approach|ANCOVA|||No formal calculation of sample size was conducted due to being an extension study of OB-303 (NCT00553787)||2.68|-0.31|0.1189
90804284|NCT02689206|181488366|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.35|||||Analysis using a Repeated Measures Model with terms included for baseline, treatment, time and treatment\*time. Model-adjusted treatment difference of dapro 25 mg arm from Placebo along with 95 percent CI are presented.|||2.35|0.59|
90804285|NCT02689206|181488366|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.57|||||Analysis using a Repeated Measures Model with terms included for baseline, treatment, time and treatment\*time. Model-adjusted treatment difference of dapro 30 mg arm from Placebo along with 95 percent CI are presented.|||2.57|0.77|
90804286|NCT02520388|181488406|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.05
90804287|NCT02520388|181488407|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.05
90804288|NCT00282087|181488462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Two year PFS|78.0||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.0|91.0|||Bayesian Posterior Probability|||The primary endpoint is progression-free survival time, with progression defined as a patient having evidence of recurrent LMS on follow-up evaluation and CT scan. Futility monitoring will be based on the accumulating right-censored PFS time data. The monitoring rules will be based on a Bayesian model.||91|67|0.15
90804289|NCT00282087|181488464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|-0.00269|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Cox Proportional Hazards|||Age correlation with progression-free survival for patients on study treatment.||||
90804290|NCT00282087|181488465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Cox Proportional Hazards|||Menopausal status at diagnosis correlation with progression-free survival for patients on study treatment.||||
90804291|NCT00282087|181488466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.101|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Cox Proportional Hazards|||Uterine serosal involvement correlation with progression-free survival for patients on study treatment.||||
90804292|NCT00282087|181488467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|-0.00676|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Cox Proportional Hazards|||Mitotic rate correlation with progression-free survival for patients on study treatment.||||
90804293|NCT00282087|181488468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|-0.708|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Cox Proportional Hazards|||Estrogen receptor (ER) status correlation with progression-free survival for patients on study treatment.||||
90804294|NCT00282087|181488469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|-0.906|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Cox Proportional Hazards|||Progesterone receptor (PR) status correlation with progression-free survival for patients on study treatment.||||
90804295|NCT00282087|181488470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.207|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Cox Proportional Hazards|||1988 FIGO Stage correlation with progression-free survival for patients on study treatment.||||
90804296|NCT00282087|181488471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|-0.564|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Cox Proportional Hazards|||Estrogen receptor (ER) or progesterone receptor (PR) positive correlation with progression-free survival for patients on study treatment.||||
90804297|NCT03938103|181488472|OTHER|||||||0.101|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.101
90804298|NCT03938103|181488473|OTHER|||||||0.383|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.383
90804299|NCT02767869|181488498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.021|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.021
90804300|NCT02767869|181488499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.53|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.530
90804301|NCT02767869|181488500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.034|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.034
90804302|NCT02767869|181488501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.050
90804303|NCT02767869|181488502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.799|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.799
90804304|NCT02767869|181488503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.047|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.047
90804305|NCT02767869|181488504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.878|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.878
91013897|NCT00796367|181910601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.97|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.24|14.16||Intersection-union method applied in a step-down testing approach|Regression, Logistic|||No formal calculation of sample size was conducted due to being an extension study of OB-303 (NCT00553787)||14.16|6.24|<0.0001
91013898|NCT00796367|181910601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.68|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.36|11.19||Intersection-union method applied in a step-down testing approach|Regression, Logistic|||No formal calculation of sample size was conducted due to being an extension study of OB-303 (NCT00553787)||11.19|4.36|<0.0001
91013899|NCT00796367|181910601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.2169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.15|||Regression, Logistic|||No formal calculation of sample size was conducted due to being an extension study of OB-303 (NCT00553787)||2.15|0.84|0.2169
91013900|NCT04604015|181910644|OTHER||absolute difference|41.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.9|50.2|||McNemar|||The study was powered based on the results of a meta-analysis reporting the pooled NeuralBot (TCD) sensitivity for Right to Left Shunt detection, and the pooled TTE sensitivity for Right to Left Shunt detection.||50.2|32.9|<0.001
91013901|NCT01314261|181910645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.336|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, baseline HCV RNA level, HCV subgenotype (1a or 1b), and interleukin 28B genotype (CC or non-CC) were predictors.||Ten participants in an ABT-267 arm and nine participants in the placebo arm would provide 84% power using Fisher's exact test with two-sided significance level of 0.05 to detect a difference of approximately 70% between the two arms.||||0.336
91054460|NCT04135196|181991029|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|||The null hypothesis was that change in UD tBMC was not proportional to strain rate. Raw change in tBMC was analyzed as the dependent variable in a linear regression model with coefficients representing contrasts between the two experimental groups and the control group.|"Overall model fit: R\^2=0.331, F=8.152, df1=2, df2=33, p=0.001~Contrast between the low strain rate group and the control group: B=0.012, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.004, Beta=0.473, t=2.930, p=0.006, 95% CI of B: \[0.004, 0.020\]~Contrast between the high strain rate group and the control group: B=0.016, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.004, Beta=0.617, t=3.828, p=0.001, 95% CI of B: \[0.008, 0.025\]"|||0.001
90804306|NCT02767869|181488505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.919|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.919
90804307|NCT02767869|181488506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.254|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.254
90804308|NCT02767869|181488507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.347|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.347
90804309|NCT02767869|181488508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.227|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.227
90804310|NCT02767869|181488509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.41|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.410
90804311|NCT02767869|181488510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.021|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.021
90804312|NCT04301934|181488512|NON_INFERIORITY|The prevalence of UTI for the LASER group and vaginal estrogen group was calculated. Non-inferiority test using Farrington-Manning method was applied to test the risk difference against the pre-specified non-inferiority margin (20%).||||||0.034|||||||Farrington-Manning|||||||0.034
90804313|NCT03248531|181488544|OTHER||Mean posterior difference|31.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|50.4|||Regression, Logistic|||Results were based on a Bayesian logistic regression model where the number of responders were assumed to follow a binomial distribution. Treatment and Baseline Hurley Stage were included as predictors in the model. 95% credible intervals were presented for the bimekizumab (BKZ) vs placebo (PBO) comparison.||50.4|11.0|
90804314|NCT03248531|181488544|OTHER||Mean posterior difference|-2.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.6|||TWO_SIDED|60.0|-11.2|6.6|||Regression, Logistic|||Results were based on a Bayesian logistic regression model where the number of responders were assumed to follow a binomial distribution. Treatment and Baseline Hurley Stage were included as predictors in the model. 60% credible intervals were presented for the BKZ vs adalimumab (ADA) comparison.||6.6|-11.2|
90804315|NCT03248531|181488544|OTHER||Pr [Diff>0%] (%)|99.8|||||||||||Regression, Logistic|||Results were based on a Bayesian logistic regression model where the number of responders were assumed to follow a binomial distribution. Treatment and Baseline Hurley Stage were included as predictors in the model.||||
90804316|NCT03248531|181488544|OTHER||Pr[Diff > 0%](%)|42.1|||||||||||Regression, Logistic|||Results were based on a Bayesian logistic regression model where the number of responders were assumed to follow a binomial distribution. Treatment and Baseline Hurley Stage were included as predictors in the model.||||
90804317|NCT00842153|181488586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1269||95.0||||P-value for Week 1|Fisher Exact|||||||0.1269
90804318|NCT00842153|181488586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||P-value for Week 2|Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
90804319|NCT00842153|181488586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0015||95.0||||P-value for Week 4|Chi-squared|||||||0.0015
90804320|NCT04660552|181488612|EQUIVALENCE|The post treatment cars scores of active and sham group will be statistically different as measured by independent sample t-test with p\<.05|Mean Difference (Net)|7.23|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.2||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.357|12.107|||t-test, 2 sided|||||12.107|2.357|0.01
90804321|NCT01637584|181488640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Threshold for significance: \<.05|Full Factorial ANOVAs and Paired T-tests|||Wakefulness \> Non-Rapid Eye Movement (NREM): Mean K-cluster voxels (Ke)=15,586: x,y,z= -36, -74, 0. Left Brodmann's Area (BA) 3, 6, 7, 10, 17, 19, 20,21,23, 38||||<0.001
90804322|NCT01637584|181488640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.039||||||Threshold for significance: \<.05|Full Factorial ANOVAs and Paired T-tests|||Wakefulness \< NREM: Ke=7,013: x,y,z= 26, 22, -40. Right BA 4, 10-14, 21, 25, 32, 38, 45;||||0.039
90804323|NCT01637584|181488640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.701||||||Threshold for significance: \<.05|Full Factorial ANOVAs and Paired T-tests|||Wakefulness \> (Rapid Eye Movement (REM): No cluster size, coordinates, or brain regions to report||||0.701
90804324|NCT01637584|181488640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||Threshold for significance: \<.05|Full Factorial ANOVAs and Paired T-tests|||Wakefulness \< REM: No cluster size, coordinates, or brain regions to report||||1.00
90804325|NCT01637584|181488640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||||||Threshold for significance: \<.05|Full Factorial ANOVAs and Paired T-tests|||Within-state decrease in rCMRglc: Ke=6,150: x,y,z= -30, -30, 2. Left BA 40, insula, hippocampus, caudate, and putamen;||||0.03
90804326|NCT01637584|181488640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||||||Threshold for significance: \<.05|Full Factorial ANOVAs and Paired T-tests|||Within-state increase in rCMRglc: Ke=7,049: x,y,z= 66, -18, 26. Right BA 1, 3, 15, 21, 22, 23, 41, 42||||0.01
90804327|NCT02110485|181488697|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
91013902|NCT01314261|181910645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.171|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, baseline HCV RNA level, HCV sub-genotype (1a or 1b), and interleukin 28B genotype (CC or non-CC) were predictors.||Ten participants in an ABT-267 arm and nine participants in the placebo arm would provide 84% power using Fisher's exact test with two-sided significance level of 0.05 to detect a difference of approximately 70% between the two arms.||||0.171
91013903|NCT01314261|181910645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, baseline HCV RNA level, HCV sub-genotype (1a or 1b), and interleukin 28B genotype (CC or non-CC) were predictors.||Ten participants in an ABT-267 arm and nine participants in the placebo arm would provide 84% power using Fisher's exact test with two-sided significance level of 0.05 to detect a difference of approximately 70% between the two arms.||||0.030
91013904|NCT01314261|181910646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlled for interleukin 28B genotype (CC or non-CC), HCV sub-genotype (1a or 1b), and baseline HCV RNA levels (≤ median or \> median).||||||0.102
91013905|NCT01314261|181910646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.362|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlled for interleukin 28B genotype (CC or non-CC), HCV sub-genotype (1a or 1b), and baseline HCV RNA levels (≤ median or \> median).||||||0.362
91013906|NCT01314261|181910646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlled for interleukin 28B genotype (CC or non-CC), HCV sub-genotype (1a or 1b), and baseline HCV RNA levels (≤ median or \> median).||||||0.079
91013907|NCT01314261|181910650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlled for interleukin 28B genotype (CC or non-CC), HCV sub-genotype (1a or 1b), and baseline HCV RNA levels (≤ median or \> median).||||||0.083
91013908|NCT01314261|181910650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.515|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlled for interleukin 28B genotype (CC or non-CC), HCV sub-genotype (1a or 1b), and baseline HCV RNA levels (≤ median or \> median).||||||0.515
91013909|NCT01314261|181910650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.221|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlled for interleukin 28B genotype (CC or non-CC), HCV sub-genotype (1a or 1b), and baseline HCV RNA levels (≤ median or \> median).||||||0.221
91013910|NCT01314261|181910651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.155|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, baseline HCV RNA level, HCV sub-genotype (1a or 1b), and interleukin 28B genotype (CC or non-CC) were predictors.||||||0.155
91079192|NCT03240406|182044051|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.26||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|ANCOVA|MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|||0.26|0.08|<0.001
90804328|NCT02110485|181488698|OTHER|||||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.27
90804329|NCT02110485|181488699|OTHER|||||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.67
90804330|NCT02110485|181488700|OTHER|||||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.17
90804331|NCT02110485|181488701|OTHER|||||||0.84|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.84
90804332|NCT02110485|181488702|OTHER|||||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.99
90804333|NCT00177294|181488734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||We conducted Cox regreassion analyses of time to remission and logistic modeling for rates of remission. We tested group difference in Hamilton depession ratings over time via mixed-effects modeling.||||0.14
90804334|NCT01479764|181488748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.059|||Pearson's Chi-square test|||Sugammadex is the numerator and Neostigmine/Glycopyrrolate is the denominator.||0.059|0.000|<0.0001
90804335|NCT01479764|181488749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Ratio of Geometric Means|0.83||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.97|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for age, American Society of Anesthesiologists class, Body Mass Index, comorbidity index \& length of surgical procedure||Sugammadex is the numerator and neostigmine/glycopyrrolate is the denominator. Used log-transformed time intervals.||0.97|0.71|0.021
90804336|NCT02473471|181488750|OTHER|The sample size was calculated based on a type I error frequency of 5%. According to the power analysis and assuming a large effect size difference between groups (effect size= 0.8), the power analysis yielded 28 subjects per group at a conventional alpha level (p = 0.05) and desired power (1 - β) of 0.90||||||0.77|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.77
90804337|NCT02473471|181488751|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.50
90804338|NCT02473471|181488752|OTHER|||||||0.76|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.76
90804339|NCT02473471|181488753|OTHER|||||||0.56|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.56
90804340|NCT02473471|181488754|OTHER|||||||0.88|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.88
90804341|NCT02473471|181488755|OTHER|||||||0.74||||||There was no significant difference in tooth movement between control and MOP sides from baseline to 1st, 2nd and 3rd months. P Value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.74
90804342|NCT02473471|181488756|OTHER|||||||0.59|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Root length at baseline.||||0.59
91013911|NCT01314261|181910651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.214|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, baseline HCV RNA level, HCV sub-genotype (1a or 1b), and interleukin 28B genotype (CC or non-CC) were predictors.||||||0.214
90804343|NCT02473471|181488756|OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Root length at 3 months||||0.48
90804344|NCT02473471|181488757|OTHER|||||||0.388|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Immediate after intervention||||0.388
91013912|NCT01314261|181910651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.231|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, baseline HCV RNA level, HCV sub-genotype (1a or 1b), and interleukin 28B genotype (CC or non-CC) were predictors.||||||0.231
91013913|NCT01314261|181910652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, baseline HCV RNA level, HCV sub-genotype (1a or 1b), and interleukin 28B genotype (CC or non-CC) were predictors.||||||0.127
91013914|NCT01314261|181910652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.328|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, baseline HCV RNA level, HCV sub-genotype (1a or 1b), and interleukin 28B genotype (CC or non-CC) were predictors.||||||0.328
91013915|NCT01314261|181910652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.166|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, baseline HCV RNA level, HCV sub-genotype (1a or 1b), and interleukin 28B genotype (CC or non-CC) were predictors.||||||0.166
91013916|NCT01314261|181910653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|Log Rank|||||||0.007
91013917|NCT01314261|181910653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|Log Rank|||||||0.029
91013918|NCT01314261|181910653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|Log Rank|||||||0.105
91013919|NCT01314261|181910656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, baseline HCV RNA level, HCV sub-genotype (1a or 1b), and interleukin 28B genotype (CC or non-CC) were predictors.||||||0.028
91013920|NCT01314261|181910656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, baseline HCV RNA level, HCV sub-genotype (1a or 1b), and interleukin 28B genotype (CC or non-CC) were predictors.||||||0.051
91013921|NCT01314261|181910656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, baseline HCV RNA level, HCV sub-genotype (1a or 1b), and interleukin 28B genotype (CC or non-CC) were predictors.||||||0.021
91013922|NCT02129192|181910657|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was established by using the average bioequivalence method and by ensuring that the ratio of Cmax of the two treatments was within the pre-specified acceptance range (80%-125%)|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|95.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.89|103.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|"Model on logarithmic scale included subjects within sequence as random effect and sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects."|Ratio calculated as T80/A5/H12.5 mg FDC divided by T80/H12.5 FDC + A5 mono.|Adjusted by-treatment means on the log-transformed scale for telmisartan 80 mg||103.17|88.89|
91013923|NCT02129192|181910657|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was established by using the average bioequivalence method and by ensuring that the ratio of Cmax of the two treatments was within the pre-specified acceptance range (80%-125%)|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|101.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.7|103.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|"Model on logarithmic scale included subjects within sequence as random effect and sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects."|Ratio calculated as T80/A5/H12.5 mg FDC divided by T80/H12.5 FDC + A5 mono.|Adjusted by-treatment means on the log-transformed scale for amlodipine 5 mg||103.13|99.70|
91078143|NCT00568334|182041663|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower limit (LL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the GMC ratio (derived from ELISA) between Group Varilrix HSA-Free and (divided by) Group Varilrix is equal to or above (≥) the pre-defined clinical limit of 0.67.|GMC Ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.33|||ANOVA|||Non-inferiority of Varilrix™ HSA-Free vaccine as compared to Varilrix™ vaccine in terms of geometric mean concentrations (GMCs) of varicella zoster virus (VZV) antibodies 43-57 days after the first vaccine dose.||1.33|0.93|
90804345|NCT02473471|181488757|OTHER|||||||0.092|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||1 hour after intervention||||0.092
90804346|NCT02473471|181488757|OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||12 hour after intervention||||0.100
90804347|NCT02473471|181488757|OTHER|||||||0.302|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 1 after intervention||||0.302
90804348|NCT02473471|181488757|OTHER|||||||0.582|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 3 after intervention||||0.582
90804349|NCT02473471|181488757|OTHER|||||||0.743|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 5 after intervention||||0.743
90804350|NCT02473471|181488757|OTHER|||||||0.809|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 7 after intervention||||0.809
90804351|NCT02473471|181488758|OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 1||||0.09
90804352|NCT02473471|181488758|OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 3||||0.29
90804353|NCT02473471|181488758|OTHER|||||||0.57|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 5||||0.57
90804354|NCT02473471|181488758|OTHER|||||||0.82|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 7||||0.82
90804355|NCT02473471|181488759|OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 1||||0.27
90804356|NCT02473471|181488759|OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 3||||0.37
90804357|NCT02473471|181488759|OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 5||||0.33
90804358|NCT02473471|181488759|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 7||||> 0.05
90804359|NCT02473471|181488760|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 1||||0.05
90804360|NCT02473471|181488760|OTHER|||||||0.47|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 3||||0.47
90804361|NCT02473471|181488760|OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 5||||0.09
90804362|NCT02473471|181488760|OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.16
90804363|NCT02473471|181488761|OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 1||||0.18
91013924|NCT02129192|181910657|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was established by using the average bioequivalence method and by ensuring that the ratio of Cmax of the two treatments was within the pre-specified acceptance range (80%-125%)|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|101.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.46|105.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|"Model on logarithmic scale included subjects within sequence as random effect and sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects."|Ratio calculated as T80/A5/H12.5 mg FDC divided by T80/H12.5 FDC + A5 mono.|Adjusted by-treatment means on the log-transformed scale for hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg||105.19|98.46|
91013925|NCT02129192|181910658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|30.15||||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|24.99|36.38|||ANOVA|"Model included subject as random effect and feeding condition as fixed effect."|Ratio calculated as T80/A5/H12.5 mg FDC Fed divided by T80/A5/H12.5 mg FDC Fasted.|Adjusted by-treatment geometric means for telmisartan 80 mg. No hypothesis was tested.||36.38|24.99|1.0000
91013926|NCT02129192|181910658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|98.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.63|101.97|||ANOVA|"Model included subject as random effect and feeding condition as fixed effect."|Ratio calculated as T80/A5/H12.5 mg FDC Fed divided by T80/A5/H12.5 mg FDC Fasted.|Adjusted by-treatment geometric means for amlodipine 5 mg. No hypothesis was tested.||101.97|94.63|<0.0001
91013927|NCT02129192|181910658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|79.69||||0.5422|TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.97|84.71|||ANOVA|"Model included subject as random effect and feeding condition as fixed effect."|Ratio calculated as T80/A5/H12.5 mg FDC Fed divided by T80/A5/H12.5 mg FDC Fasted.|Adjusted by-treatment geometric means for hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg. No hypothesis was tested.||84.71|74.97|0.5422
91013928|NCT02129192|181910659|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was established by using the average bioequivalence method and by ensuring that the ratio of AUC 0-tz of the two treatments was within the pre-specified acceptance range (80%-125%)|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|99.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.14|102.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|"Model on logarithmic scale included subjects within sequence as random effect and sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects."|Ratio calculated as T80/A5/H12.5 mg FDC divided by T80/H12.5 FDC + A5 mono.|Adjusted by-treatment means on the log-transformed scale for telmisartan 80 mg||102.38|96.14|
91013929|NCT02129192|181910659|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was established by using the average bioequivalence method and by ensuring that the ratio of AUC 0-tz of the two treatments was within the pre-specified acceptance range (80%-125%)|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|101.43||||||90.0|99.84|103.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|"Model on logarithmic scale included subjects within sequence as random effect and sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects."|Ratio calculated as T80/A5/H12.5 mg FDC divided by T80/H12.5 FDC + A5 mono.|Adjusted by-treatment means on the log-transformed scale for amlodipine 5 mg||103.04|99.84|
91013930|NCT02129192|181910659|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was established by using the average bioequivalence method and by ensuring that the ratio of AUC 0-tz of the two treatments was within the pre-specified acceptance range (80%-125%)|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|100.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.29|102.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|"Model on logarithmic scale included subjects within sequence as random effect and sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects."|Ratio calculated as T80/A5/H12.5 mg FDC divided by T80/H12.5 FDC + A5 mono.|Adjusted by-treatment means on the log-transformed scale for hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg||102.40|98.29|
91013931|NCT02129192|181910660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|63.66||||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|58.98|68.71|||ANOVA|"Model included subject as random effect and feeding condition as fixed effect."|Ratio calculated as T80/A5/H12.5 mg FDC Fed divided by T80/A5/H12.5 mg FDC Fasted.|Adjusted by-treatment geometric means for telmisartan 80 mg. No hypothesis was tested.||68.71|58.98|1.0000
91013932|NCT02129192|181910660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|99.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.08|102.48|||ANOVA|"Model included subject as random effect and feeding condition as fixed effect."|Ratio calculated as T80/A5/H12.5 mg FDC Fed divided by T80/A5/H12.5 mg FDC Fasted.|Adjusted by-treatment geometric means for amlodipine 5 mg. No hypothesis was tested.||102.48|97.08|<0.0001
91013933|NCT02129192|181910660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|89.66||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.8|93.7|||ANOVA|"Model included subject as random effect and feeding condition as fixed effect."|Ratio calculated as T80/A5/H12.5 mg FDC Fed divided by T80/A5/H12.5 mg FDC Fasted.|Adjusted by-treatment geometric means for hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg. No hypothesis was tested.||93.70|85.80|0.0001
91013934|NCT02129192|181910661|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was established by using the average bioequivalence method and by ensuring that the ratio of AUC 0-inf of the two treatments was within the pre-specified acceptance range (80%-125%).|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|99.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.32|103.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|"Model on logarithmic scale included subjects within sequence as random effect and sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects."|Ratio calculated as T80/A5/H12.5 mg FDC divided by T80/H12.5 FDC + A5 mono.|Adjusted by-treatment means on the log-transformed scale for telmisartan 80 mg||103.04|96.32|
91013935|NCT02129192|181910661|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was established by using the average bioequivalence method and by ensuring that the ratio of AUC 0-inf of the two treatments was within the pre-specified acceptance range (80%-125%).|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|101.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.59|102.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|"Model on logarithmic scale included subjects within sequence as random effect and sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects."|Ratio calculated as T80/A5/H12.5 mg FDC divided by T80/H12.5 FDC + A5 mono.|Adjusted by-treatment means on the log-transformed scale for amlodipine 5 mg||102.87|99.59|
91013936|NCT02129192|181910661|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was established by using the average bioequivalence method and by ensuring that the ratio of AUC 0-inf of the two treatments was within the pre-specified acceptance range (80%-125%).|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|100.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.23|102.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|"Model on logarithmic scale included subjects within sequence as random effect and sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects."|Ratio calculated as T80/A5/H12.5 mg FDC divided by T80/H12.5 FDC + A5 mono.|Adjusted by-treatment means on the log-transformed scale for hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg||102.10|98.23|
90804364|NCT02473471|181488761|OTHER|||||||0.57|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 3||||0.57
90804365|NCT02473471|181488761|OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 5||||0.30
90804366|NCT02473471|181488761|OTHER|||||||0.56|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 7||||0.56
90804367|NCT02473471|181488762|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Descriptive statistics|||||||< 0.05
91013937|NCT02129192|181910662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|64.4||||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|59.59|69.59|||ANOVA|"Model included subject as random effect and feeding condition as fixed effect."|Ratio calculated as T80/A5/H12.5 mg FDC Fed divided by T80/A5/H12.5 mg FDC Fasted.|Adjusted by-treatment geometric means for telmisartan 80 mg. No hypothesis was tested.||69.59|59.59|1.0000
91013938|NCT02129192|181910662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|99.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.69|102.29|||ANOVA|"Model included subject as random effect and feeding condition as fixed effect."|Ratio calculated as T80/A5/H12.5 mg FDC Fed divided by T80/A5/H12.5 mg FDC Fasted.|Adjusted by-treatment geometric means for amlodipine 5 mg. No hypothesis was tested.||102.29|96.69|<0.0001
91013939|NCT02129192|181910662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|89.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.02|93.79|||ANOVA|"Model included subject as random effect and feeding condition as fixed effect."|Ratio calculated as T80/A5/H12.5 mg FDC Fed divided by T80/A5/H12.5 mg FDC Fasted.|Adjusted by-treatment geometric means for hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg. No hypothesis was tested.||93.79|86.02|<0.0001
90804368|NCT01181804|181488764|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Comparison of boceprevir tablet versus capsule used a mixed-effects model with fixed effects for formulation, sequence, and period, and a random effect for participant within sequence. The geometric mean ratio (GMR) of boceprevir tablet to boceprevir capsule is presented with two-sided 90% CIs. Equivalence of formulations was signified by the GMR falling within prespecified bioequivalence bounds.|Least Squares Geometric Mean Ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.07|1.15|||ANOVA|||||1.15|1.07|
90804369|NCT01181804|181488765|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Comparison of boceprevir tablet versus capsule used a mixed-effects model with fixed effects for formulation, sequence, and period, and a random effect for participant within sequence. The geometric mean ratio (GMR) of boceprevir tablet to boceprevir capsule is presented with two-sided 90% CIs. Equivalence of formulations was signified by the GMR falling within prespecified bioequivalence bounds.|Least Squares Geometric mean ratio|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.32|1.54|||ANOVA|||||1.54|1.32|
90804370|NCT01181804|181488766|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Comparison of boceprevir tablet versus capsule used a mixed-effects model with fixed effects for formulation, sequence, and period, and a random effect for participant within sequence. The geometric mean ratio (GMR) of boceprevir tablet to boceprevir capsule is presented with two-sided 90% CIs. Equivalence of formulations was signified by the GMR falling within prespecified bioequivalence bounds.|Least Squares Geometric mean ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.14|||ANOVA|||||1.14|1.06|
90804371|NCT01181804|181488767|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Comparison of boceprevir tablet versus capsule used a mixed-effects model with fixed effects for formulation, sequence, and period, and a random effect for participant within sequence. The geometric mean ratio (GMR) of boceprevir tablet to boceprevir capsule is presented with two-sided 90% CIs. Equivalence of formulations was signified by the GMR falling within prespecified bioequivalence bounds.|Least Squares Geometric mean ratio|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.09|1.21|||ANOVA|||||1.21|1.09|
90804372|NCT00191945|181488781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6|<|0.001||95.0|-11.0|-4.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis method: treatment, study site, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline, baseline-by-visit interaction.|Least Squares Mean difference at week 12 (Atomoxetine minus Placebo)|||-4.8|-11.0|<0.001
91013940|NCT01231620|181910663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.73||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.79|0.75|||Wilcoxon rank sum||IV Zanamivir 300 mg versus IV Zanamivir 600 mg|||0.75|-1.79|0.25
90804373|NCT00191945|181488782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5|<|0.001||95.0|-9.5|-3.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis method: treatment, study site, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline, baseline-by-visit interaction.|Least Squares Mean difference at Week 9 (Atomoxetine - Placebo)|A gatekeeper strategy was employed for sequentially testing the secondary hypotheses using a REML-based Mixed-Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) technique as defined for the primary efficacy analyses. If primary hypothesis is significant at 0.05 (2-sided), first secondary hypothesis will be tested at Visit 6 from MMRM. If comparison is significant, subsequent secondary hypotheses will be tested in sequence until first null hypothesis fails to be rejected.||-3.6|-9.5|<0.001
90804374|NCT00191945|181488783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.0009||95.0|-8.2|-2.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis method: treatment, study site, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline, baseline-by-visit interaction.|Least Squares Mean difference at 6 weeks (Atomoxetine - Placebo)|A gatekeeper strategy was employed for sequentially testing the secondary hypotheses using a REML-based Mixed-Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) technique as defined for the primary efficacy analyses. If primary hypothesis is significant at 0.05 (2-sided), first secondary hypothesis will be tested at Visit 6 from MMRM. If comparison is significant, subsequent secondary hypotheses will be tested in sequence until first null hypothesis fails to be rejected.||-2.2|-8.2|0.0009
90804375|NCT00191945|181488784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.0033||95.0|-6.4|-1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis method: treatment, study site, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline, baseline-by-visit interaction.|Least Squares Mean difference at 4 weeks (Atomoxetine - Placebo)|A gatekeeper strategy was employed for sequentially testing the secondary hypotheses using a REML-based Mixed-Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) technique as defined for the primary efficacy analyses. If primary hypothesis is significant at 0.05 (2-sided), first secondary hypothesis will be tested at Visit 6 from MMRM. If comparison is significant, subsequent secondary hypotheses will be tested in sequence until first null hypothesis fails to be rejected.||-1.3|-6.4|0.0033
90804376|NCT00191945|181488785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.013||95.0|-4.9|-0.6||P-value is for the difference between groups in the change from 12 weeks minus 6 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis method: treatment, study site, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline, baseline-by-visit interaction.|Least Squares Mean difference between groups (Atomoxetine - Placebo) in change from 6 weeks to 12 weeks|A gatekeeper strategy was employed for sequentially testing the secondary hypotheses using a REML-based Mixed-Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) technique as defined for the primary efficacy analyses. If primary hypothesis is significant at 0.05 (2-sided), first secondary hypothesis will be tested at Visit 6 from MMRM. If comparison is significant, subsequent secondary hypotheses will be tested in sequence until first null hypothesis fails to be rejected.||-0.6|-4.9|0.013
91013941|NCT01231620|181910663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.48||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|0.97|||Wilcoxon rank sum||Oral oseltamivir 75 mg versus IV Zanamivir 600 mg|||0.97|-2.11|0.39
91013942|NCT01231620|181910664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.506|||||||Wei-Johnson method|||||||0.506
91013943|NCT01231620|181910664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||Wei-Johnson method|||||||0.41
91013944|NCT04557189|181910714|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|0.241|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.031|0.452|||||Adjusted treatment difference between TAK-951, ondansetron, associated confidence intervals: based on CMH method, adjusting for number of Apfel risk factors (3/4), or exact unconditional confidence limits for treatment difference if numerator is ≤5.|||0.452|0.031|
91013945|NCT04557189|181910715|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|0.175|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.044|0.394|||||||Adjusted treatment difference between TAK-951, ondansetron, associated confidence intervals: based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method, adjusting for number of Apfel risk factors (3/4), or exact unconditional confidence limits for treatment difference if numerator is ≤5.|0.394|-0.044|
91013946|NCT04557189|181910716|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|-0.094|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.253|0.059|||||Adjusted treatment difference between TAK-951, ondansetron, associated confidence intervals: based on CMH method, adjusting for number of Apfel risk factors (3/4), or exact unconditional confidence limits for treatment difference if numerator is ≤5.|||0.059|-0.253|
91013947|NCT04557189|181910717|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|-0.141|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.316|0.033|||||Adjusted treatment difference between TAK-951, ondansetron, associated confidence intervals: based on CMH method, adjusting for number of Apfel risk factors (3/4), or exact unconditional confidence limits for treatment difference if numerator is ≤5.|||0.033|-0.316|
91013948|NCT04557189|181910718|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|0.191|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.029|0.41|||||Adjusted treatment difference between TAK-951, ondansetron, associated confidence intervals: based on CMH method, adjusting for number of Apfel risk factors (3/4), or exact unconditional confidence limits for treatment difference if numerator is ≤5.|||0.410|-0.029|
91013949|NCT04557189|181910719|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|0.146|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.073|0.365|||||Adjusted treatment difference between TAK-951, ondansetron, associated confidence intervals: based on CMH method, adjusting for number of Apfel risk factors (3/4), or exact unconditional confidence limits for treatment difference if numerator is ≤5.|||0.365|-0.073|
91013950|NCT04557189|181910720|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|-0.234|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.448|-0.019|||||Adjusted treatment difference between TAK-951, ondansetron, associated confidence intervals: based on CMH method, adjusting for number of Apfel risk factors (3/4), or exact unconditional confidence limits for treatment difference if numerator is ≤5.|||-0.019|-0.448|
91013951|NCT04557189|181910721|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.393|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.122|1.259|||||The hazard ratio is derived from a Cox proportional hazard model with treatment group and the number of Apfel risk factors (3 or 4) as independent variables.|||1.259|0.122|
91013952|NCT04557189|181910722|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM Estimates|0.188|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.402|0.777||||||30 Minutes Post Surgery|From MMRM analysis over all post-randomization timepoints, with the Peak VRS score as the outcome, treatment group, timepoint, number of Apfel risk factors and treatment-by-timepoint interaction as fixed effects and participant as random effect with unstructured covariance structure for observed data up to 24 hours post surgery.|0.777|-0.402|
91013953|NCT04557189|181910722|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM Estimates|0.401|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.258|1.059||||||1 Hour Post Surgery|From MMRM analysis over all post-randomization timepoints, with the Peak VRS score as the outcome, treatment group, timepoint, number of Apfel risk factors and treatment-by-timepoint interaction as fixed effects and participant as random effect with unstructured covariance structure for observed data up to 24 hours post surgery.|1.059|-0.258|
91013954|NCT04557189|181910722|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM Estimates|0.265|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.786||||||2 Hours Post Surgery|From MMRM analysis over all post-randomization timepoints, with the Peak VRS score as the outcome, treatment group, timepoint, number of Apfel risk factors and treatment-by-timepoint interaction as fixed effects and participant as random effect with unstructured covariance structure for observed data up to 24 hours post surgery.|0.786|0|
91013955|NCT04557189|181910722|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM Estimates|0.097|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.093|0.286||||||6 Hours Post Surgery|From MMRM analysis over all post-randomization timepoints, with the Peak VRS score as the outcome, treatment group, timepoint, number of Apfel risk factors and treatment-by-timepoint interaction as fixed effects and participant as random effect with unstructured covariance structure for observed data up to 24 hours post surgery.|0.286|-0.093|
91013956|NCT04557189|181910722|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM Estimates|-0.203|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.575|0.17||||||24 Hours Post Surgery|From MMRM analysis over all post-randomization timepoints, with the Peak VRS score as the outcome, treatment group, timepoint, number of Apfel risk factors and treatment-by-timepoint interaction as fixed effects and participant as random effect with unstructured covariance structure for observed data up to 24 hours post surgery.|0.170|-0.575|
91013957|NCT04557189|181910723|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|0.146|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.073|0.365|||||Adjusted treatment difference between TAK-951, ondansetron, associated confidence intervals: based on CMH method, adjusting for number of Apfel risk factors (3/4), or exact unconditional confidence limits for treatment difference if numerator is ≤5.|||0.365|-0.073|
91013958|NCT00129220|181910775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.87|-2.37|||ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Olanzapine minus Placebo.|||-2.37|-8.87|<0.001
91013959|NCT00129220|181910776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.78||||0.774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.15|4.59|||ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Olazapine minus Haloperidol.|||4.59|-6.15|0.774
91013960|NCT00129220|181910777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|21.0||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|40.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Least Squares Mean Difference = Olanzapine minus Haloperidol.|||40.4|1.6|0.064
91013961|NCT00129220|181910778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.47||||0.171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|0.21|||ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Olanzapine minus Haloperidol.|||0.21|-1.15|0.171
91013962|NCT00129220|181910779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.51||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.15||P-value for 3-Week Change.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Olanzapine minus Placebo.|||-0.15|-0.87|0.006
91013963|NCT00129220|181910779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.13||||0.722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.57||P-value for 6-Week Change.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Olanzapine minus Haloperidol.|||0.57|-0.82|0.722
90804377|NCT00191945|181488788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3|<|0.001||95.0|-15.1|-6.2||P-value is for the difference between groups in the change from 12 weeks minus baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model repeated measures analyis: treatment, visit, patient, and CPRS-R: S Total score at baseline as covariate, with treatment\*visit interaction|Least Squares Mean difference between groups (Atomoxetine - Placebo) in change from baseline to 12 weeks.|||-6.2|-15.1|<0.001
90804378|NCT00191945|181488789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.47||||0.81||95.0|-3.39|4.33||P-value for Parent: Satisfaction difference (Atomoxetine - Placebo) in the change from 12 weeks minus baseline.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model: Dependent variable=standardized mean scores of domain at Visit 7 minus scores at Visit 1; Factors=Treatment, Investigator, Rater; Covariate=standardized mean scores of domain at Visit 1. Both treatment by rater and treatment by covariate interaction terms included in model.||4.33|-3.39|0.810
90804379|NCT00191945|181488789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.96||||0.243||95.0|-1.35|5.29||P-value for Parent: Comfort difference (Atomoxetine - Placebo) in the change from 12 weeks minus baseline.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model: Dependent variable=standardized mean scores of domain at Visit 7 minus scores at Visit 1; Factors=Treatment, Investigator, Rater; Covariate=standardized mean scores of domain at Visit 1. Both treatment by rater and treatment by covariate interaction terms included in model.||5.29|-1.35|0.243
90804380|NCT00191945|181488789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.56||||0.419||95.0|-2.26|5.39||P-value for Parent: Resilience difference (Atomoxetine - Placebo) in the change from 12 weeks minus baseline.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model: Dependent variable=standardized mean scores of domain at Visit 7 minus scores at Visit 1; Factors=Treatment, Investigator, Rater; Covariate=standardized mean scores of domain at Visit 1. Both treatment by rater and treatment by covariate interaction terms included in model.||5.39|-2.26|0.419
90804381|NCT00191945|181488789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.41|||<|0.001||95.0|4.27|12.55||P-value for Parent:Risk Avoidance difference (Atomoxetine - Placebo) in the change from 12 weeks minus baseline.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model: Dependent variable=standardized mean scores of domain at Visit 7 minus scores at Visit 1; Factors=Treatment, Investigator, Rater; Covariate=standardized mean scores of domain at Visit 1. Both treatment by rater and treatment by covariate interaction terms included in model.||12.55|4.27|<0.001
91013964|NCT00129220|181910780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.7||||0.333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|20.1||P-value for 3-Week Response Rate.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||20.1|-6.7|0.333
91013965|NCT00129220|181910780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3||||0.908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|18.4||P-value for 6-Week Response Rate.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||18.4|-21.0|0.908
91013966|NCT00129220|181910781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|5.9||||0.384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|19.2||P-value for 3-Week Remission Rate.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Least Squares Mean Difference = Olanzapine minus Placebo.|||19.2|-7.3|0.384
91013967|NCT00129220|181910781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.3||||0.982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.3|21.8||P-value is for 6-Week Remission Rate|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Least Squares Mean Difference = Olanzapine minus Haloperidol.|||21.8|-21.3|0.982
91013968|NCT00129220|181910782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8||||0.698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|4.9||P-value for 3-Week Symptomatic Depression Rate.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.9|-3.2|0.698
91013969|NCT00129220|181910782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.1||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.7|3.4||P-value for 6-Week Symptomatic Depression Rate.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.4|-31.7|0.014
90804382|NCT00191945|181488789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.39||||0.042||95.0|0.13|6.65||P-value for Parent:Achievement difference (Atomoxetine - Placebo) in the change from 12 weeks minus baseline.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model: Dependent variable=standardized mean scores of domain at Visit 7 minus scores at Visit 1; Factors=Treatment, Investigator, Rater; Covariate=standardized mean scores of domain at Visit 1. Both treatment by rater and treatment by covariate interaction terms included in model.||6.65|0.13|0.042
90804383|NCT00191945|181488789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.36||||0.323||95.0|-4.06|1.35||P-value for Child/Adolescent:Satisfaction difference (Atomoxetine - Placebo) in the change from 12 weeks minus baseline.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model: Dependent variable=standardized mean scores of domain at Visit 7 minus scores at Visit 1; Factors=Treatment, Investigator, Rater; Covariate=standardized mean scores of domain at Visit 1. Both treatment by rater and treatment by covariate interaction terms included in model.||1.35|-4.06|0.323
90804384|NCT00191945|181488789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.92||||0.452||95.0|-1.49|3.34||P-value for Child/Adolescent:Comfort difference (Atomoxetine - Placebo) in the change from 12 weeks minus baseline.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model: Dependent variable=standardized mean scores of domain at Visit 7 minus scores at Visit 1; Factors=Treatment, Investigator, Rater; Covariate=standardized mean scores of domain at Visit 1. Both treatment by rater and treatment by covariate interaction terms included in model.||3.34|-1.49|0.452
90804385|NCT00191945|181488789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.16||||0.91||95.0|-2.59|2.9||P-value for Child/Adolescent:Resilience difference (Atomoxetine - Placebo) in the change from 12 weeks minus baseline.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model: Dependent variable=standardized mean scores of domain at Visit 7 minus scores at Visit 1; Factors=Treatment, Investigator, Rater; Covariate=standardized mean scores of domain at Visit 1. Both treatment by rater and treatment by covariate interaction terms included in model.||2.90|-2.59|0.910
91013970|NCT00129220|181910783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.48||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.71|-0.25||P-value for 3-Week Change.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Olanzapine minus Placebo.|||-0.25|-2.71|0.019
91013971|NCT00129220|181910783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.16||||0.855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|1.62||P-value for 6-Week Change.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Olanzapine minus Haloperidol.|||1.62|-1.95|0.855
91013972|NCT00129220|181910784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.6||||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|5.7||P-value for 6-Week Syndromic Depression Rate.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.7|-14.9|0.136
91013973|NCT00129220|181910785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||P-value for Maximum Change from Baseline.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||||0.003
91013974|NCT00798161|181910879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.79|-0.36||hierarchical testing, no adjustment of p-values|ANCOVA|||Metformin 500mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 500mg||-0.36|-0.79|<0.0001
90804386|NCT00191945|181488789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.56||||0.006||95.0|1.04|6.08||P-value for Child/Adolescent:Risk Avoidance difference (Atomoxetine - Placebo) in the change from 12 weeks minus baseline.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model: Dependent variable=standardized mean scores of domain at Visit 7 minus scores at Visit 1; Factors=Treatment, Investigator, Rater; Covariate=standardized mean scores of domain at Visit 1. Both treatment by rater and treatment by covariate interaction terms included in model.||6.08|1.04|0.006
90804387|NCT00191945|181488789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.99||||0.541||95.0|-2.21|4.19||P-value for Child/Adolescent:Achievement difference (Atomoxetine - Placebo) in the change from 12 weeks minus baseline.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model: Dependent variable=standardized mean scores of domain at Visit 7 minus scores at Visit 1; Factors=Treatment, Investigator, Rater; Covariate=standardized mean scores of domain at Visit 1. Both treatment by rater and treatment by covariate interaction terms included in model.||4.19|-2.21|0.541
90804388|NCT03711370|181488796|OTHER|Repeated measures ANOVA was used to model between-subject effects of group (Clear versus Opaque), within-subjects effects of use of clear versus opaque bottles during the feeding observations, and potential group by bottle type interactions on infant intake during post-test feeding observations.||||||0.76||||||Statistical significance was defined as p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Models controlled for pre-test values, infant sex and age, time since last feeding, and whether the assessment was in-person or remote.||||||0.76
90804389|NCT03711370|181488797|OTHER|Repeated measures ANOVA was used to model between-subject effects of group (Clear versus Opaque), within-subjects effects of use of clear versus opaque bottles during the feeding observations, and potential group by-bottle type interactions on maternal sensitivity during post-test feeding observations.||||||0.64||||||Statistical significance was defined as p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Models controlled for pre-test values, infant sex and age, time since last feeding, and whether the assessment was in-person or remote.||||||0.64
91013975|NCT00798161|181910879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.73|-0.3||hierarchical testing, no adjustment of p-values|ANCOVA|||Metformin 1000mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 1000mg||-0.30|-0.73|<0.0001
91013976|NCT00798161|181910879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.99|-0.55||hierarchical testing, no adjustment of p-values|ANCOVA|||Linagliptin 5mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 500mg||-0.55|-0.99|<0.0001
91013977|NCT00798161|181910879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.36|-0.92||hierarchical testing, no adjustment of p-values|ANCOVA|||Linagliptin 5mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 1000mg||-0.92|-1.36|<0.0001
91013978|NCT00798161|181910880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.56|-0.26|||ANCOVA|||Metformin 500mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 500mg||-0.26|-0.56|<0.0001
91013979|NCT00798161|181910880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.53|-0.23|||ANCOVA|||Metformin 1000mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 1000mg||-0.23|-0.53|<0.0001
91013980|NCT00798161|181910880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.65|-0.35|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin 5mg vs Linagliptin 2.5mg with metformin 500mg||-0.35|-0.65|<0.0001
91013981|NCT00798161|181910880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.79|-0.48|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin 5mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 1000mg||-0.48|-0.79|<0.0001
91013982|NCT00798161|181910881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.72|-0.31|||ANCOVA|||Metformin 500mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 500mg||-0.31|-0.72|<0.0001
91013983|NCT00798161|181910881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.63|-0.22|||ANCOVA|||Metformin 1000mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 1000mg||-0.22|-0.63|<0.0001
91013984|NCT00798161|181910881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.92|-0.51|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin 5mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 500mg||-0.51|-0.92|<0.0001
91013985|NCT00798161|181910881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.16|-0.75|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin 5mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 1000mg||-0.75|-1.16|<0.0001
90804390|NCT03711370|181488798|OTHER|General linear models were used to compare post-test weight-for-length z-scores (WLZ).||||||0.02||||||Statistical significance was defined as p \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|These models controlled for baseline values (i.e., baseline WLZ), infant sex and age, and whether the assessment was in-person or remote.||||||0.02
90804391|NCT03711370|181488799|OTHER|General linear models were used to compare post-test waist circumference for the Clear versus Opaque groups.||||||0.07||||||Statistical significance was defined as p \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Model controlled for baseline values (i.e., waist circumference), infant sex and age, and whether the assessment was in-person or remote.||||||0.07
90804392|NCT03711370|181488800|OTHER|General linear models were used to compare post-test triceps skinfold z-scores for the Clear versus Opaque groups.||||||0.7||||||Statistical significance was defined as p \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Model controlled for baseline values (i.e.,triceps skinfolds z-scores), infant sex and age, and whether the assessment was in-person or remote.||||||0.70
90804393|NCT02063984|181488803|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|1.56|||||Outcome was tested in a zero-inflated negative binomial (ZINB) model|CM+No WMT is the comparison condition||1.56|.11|
90804394|NCT02063984|181488804|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of means|1.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|3.07|||||Outcome was tested in a zero-inflated negative binomial (ZINB) model|CM+No WMT is the comparison condition||3.07|.79|
91013986|NCT00798161|181910882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.73|-0.29|||ANCOVA|||Metformin 500mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 500mg||-0.29|-0.73|<0.0001
91013987|NCT00798161|181910882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.69|-0.26|||ANCOVA|||Metformin 1000mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 1000mg||-0.26|-0.69|<0.0001
91013988|NCT00798161|181910882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.94|-0.49|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin 5mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 500mg||-0.49|-0.94|<0.0001
90804395|NCT02063984|181488805|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|4.82||||||CM+No WMT is the comparison condition||4.82|.18|
90804396|NCT02063984|181488806|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of means|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|2.54|||||Outcome was tested in a zero-inflated negative binomial (ZINB) model|CM+No WMT is the comparison condition||2.54|.33|
90804397|NCT02063984|181488807|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.45||||||Strategy 1 is the comparison condition||2.45|.45|
90804398|NCT02063984|181488807|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|6.2||||||Strategy 1 is the comparison condition||6.20|.84|
90804399|NCT02063984|181488807|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.13||||||Strategy 1 is the comparison condition||1.13|.23|
90804400|NCT02063984|181488808|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of means|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.92||||||Strategy 1 is the comparison condition||1.92|.76|
90804401|NCT02063984|181488808|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of means|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.18||||||Strategy 1 is the comparison condition||1.18|.49|
90804402|NCT02063984|181488808|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of means|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|2.15||||||Strategy 1 is the comparison condition||2.15|.83|
90804403|NCT03583359|181488871|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Responder Rate|66.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.7|75.2|||Fisher's exact test|The Fisher's exact test was utilized to test the superiority of treatment (Radiesse \[+\]) over control group.|Two-sided Newcombe confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for difference in responder rate.|||75.2|53.7|<0.0001
90804404|NCT02131662|181488897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage difference|58.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.55|70.94||||||The placebo-adjusted amenorrhea rate was summarized by dose with unconditional 2-sided 95% confidence intervals for each active treatment group. This unconditional confidence interval was calculated by inverting 2 separate one-sided tests of half the nominal significance level each.||70.94|44.55|
90804405|NCT02131662|181488897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage difference|52.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.8|65.42||||||The placebo-adjusted amenorrhea rate was summarized by dose with unconditional 2-sided 95% confidence intervals for each active treatment group. This unconditional confidence interval was calculated by inverting 2 separate one-sided tests of half the nominal significance level each.||65.42|38.8|
90804406|NCT02131662|181488897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage difference|54.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.41|66.95||||||The placebo-adjusted amenorrhea rate was summarized by dose with unconditional 2-sided 95% confidence intervals for each active treatment group. This unconditional confidence interval was calculated by inverting 2 separate one-sided tests of half the nominal significance level each.||66.95|40.41|
90804407|NCT02131662|181488897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage difference|28.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.92|41.5||||||The placebo-adjusted amenorrhea rate was summarized by dose with unconditional 2-sided 95% confidence intervals for each active treatment group. This unconditional confidence interval was calculated by inverting 2 separate one-sided tests of half the nominal significance level each.||41.5|15.92|
90804408|NCT00336284|181488947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90804409|NCT00336284|181488948|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size of the study is based on the safety endpoint and based on a Blackwelder type test of non inferiority with the standard design criteria: Type I error (one-sided), statistical power of 80%, and 2:1 randomization. The evaluation of the primary safety endpoint was based on an exact binomial non-inferiority test comparing the proportions of patient deaths, strokes or surgical interventions.||||||0.005||95.0|||||Exact binomial test for non-inferiority|1-sided||||||0.005
90804410|NCT00336284|181488949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.016
90804411|NCT01709110|181488957|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4071||||9.4e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.256|0.647|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was adjusted for the antecedent of recent clinical vertebral fractures and recent bisphosphonate use.||||0.647|0.256|0.000094
90804412|NCT01709110|181488957|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.4431||||9.4e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.677|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was adjusted for the antecedent of recent clinical vertebral fractures and recent bisphosphonate use.||||0.677|0.290|0.000094
90804413|NCT01709110|181488958|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4187||||7.5e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.269|0.652|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel was adjusted for the antecedent of recent clinical vertebral fractures and recent bisphosphonate use.||||0.652|0.269|0.000075
90804414|NCT01709110|181488958|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.4561||||7.5e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.305|0.682|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel was adjusted for the antecedent of recent clinical vertebral fractures and recent bisphosphonate use.||||0.682|0.305|0.000075
90804415|NCT01709110|181488959|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.4831||||0.000869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.316|0.739|||Stratified Log Rank|Stratified Log Rank test was adjusted for the antecedent of recent clinical vertebral fractures and recent bisphosphonate use.|The Stratified Hazard Ratio estimate and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the number of observed and expected events as part of the stratified log-rank test calculations.|||0.739|0.316|0.000869
91013989|NCT00798161|181910882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.3|-0.86|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin 5mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 1000mg||-0.86|-1.30|<0.0001
90804416|NCT01709110|181488960|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6553||||0.099023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.101|||Stratified Log Rank|Stratified Log Rank test was adjusted for the antecedent of recent clinical vertebral fractures and recent bisphosphonate use.|The Stratified Hazard Ratio estimate and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the number of observed and expected events as part of the stratified log-rank test calculations.|||1.101|0.390|0.099023
90804417|NCT01709110|181488961|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5786||||0.062432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.318|1.052|||Stratified Log Rank|Stratified Log Rank test was adjusted for the antecedent of recent clinical vertebral fractures and recent bisphosphonate use.|The Stratified Hazard Ratio estimate and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the number of observed and expected events as part of the stratified log-rank test calculations.|||1.052|0.318|0.062432
90804418|NCT01709110|181488962|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.3812|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.237|0.614|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was adjusted for the antecedent of recent clinical vertebral fractures and recent bisphosphonate use.||||0.614|0.237|<0.001
90804419|NCT01709110|181488962|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.4173|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.646|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was adjusted for the antecedent of recent clinical vertebral fractures and recent bisphosphonate use.||||0.646|0.270|<0.001
90804420|NCT01709110|181488963|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.1593||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.035|0.728|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was adjusted for the antecedent of recent clinical vertebral fractures and recent bisphosphonate use.||||0.728|0.035|0.007
90804421|NCT01709110|181488963|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.1643||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.036|0.744|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was adjusted for the antecedent of recent clinical vertebral fractures and recent bisphosphonate use.||||0.744|0.036|0.007
90804422|NCT01709110|181488964|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.696||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.461|1.05|||Stratified Log Rank|Stratified Log Rank test was adjusted for the antecedent of recent clinical vertebral fractures and recent bisphosphonate use.|The Stratified Hazard Ratio estimates and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the number of observed and expected events as part of the stratified log-rank test calculations.|||1.050|0.461|0.078
90804423|NCT01709110|181488965|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.02||Model included the following fixed effects: treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, antecedent of recent clinical vertebral fractures, recent use of bisphosphonate and baseline body height(cm).|Mixed Models Analysis|An unstructured covariance matrix was assumed to account for the correlation between observations of the same participant.|Treatment difference was calculated as Teriparatide - Risedronate.|||0.02|-0.28|0.093
90804424|NCT01709110|181488966|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.24||Model included the following fixed effects: treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, antecedent of recent clinical vertebral fractures, recent use of bisphosphonate and baseline back pain (no pain - worst pain \[0-10\]).|Mixed Models Analysis|An unstructured covariance matrix was assumed to account for the correlation between observations of the same participant.|Treatment difference was calculated as Teriparatide - Risedronate.|||0.24|-0.42|0.585
90804425|NCT01709110|181488967|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.02||Model included the following fixed effects: treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, antecedent of recent clinical vertebral fractures, recent use of bisphosphonate baseline EQ-5D-5L (UK).|Mixed Models Analysis|An unstructured covariance matrix was assumed to account for the correlation between observations of the same participant.|Treatment difference was calculated as Teriparatide - Risedronate.|||0.02|-0.03|0.757
90804426|NCT01709110|181488968|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.01||Model included the following fixed effects: treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, antecedent of recent clinical vertebral fractures, recent use of bisphosphonate baseline EQ-5D-5L (US).|Mixed Models Analysis|An unstructured covariance matrix was assumed to account for the correlation between observations of the same participant.|Treatment difference was calculated as Teriparatide - Risedronate.|||0.01|-0.02|0.694
91013990|NCT00798161|181910883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0||0.0005||95.0|-27.2|-7.6|||ANCOVA|||Metformin 500mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 500mg||-7.6|-27.2|0.0005
90804427|NCT01129765|181488977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.0|||Descriptive|||Proportion responding \>=3 on a 5-point likert scale, with exact 95% confidence interval from the binomial distribution.||1.0|0.83|
90804428|NCT01129765|181488978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.0|||Descriptive|||Descriptive summary of proportion responding \>=3 on 5-point Likert scale, with exact 95% confidnce interval from the binomial distribution.||1.0|0.83|
90804429|NCT01129765|181488979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion|0.97||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.0|||One-sample proportion|||"Null hypothesis: Pr ≤ 0.7 versus HA: Pr \> 0.7; Pr is proportion using device appropriately. Observed rate calculated with exact 95% confidence interval from the binomial distribution. 2-sided p-value from binomial distribution.~With the proposed sample size of 30 subjects, we will reject the primary null hypothesis if at least 27 are observed to use the device properly. We will have 80% power for this to occur provided that the true rate in the population is at least 92%."||1.0|0.83|0.0005
90804430|NCT01129765|181488980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.0|||Descriptive|||Descriptive summary of proportion responding \>=3 on a 5-point Likert scale, with exact 95% confidnce interval from the binomial distribution.||1.0|0.88|
90804431|NCT01129765|181488981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.12|||Descriptive|||Descriptive summary of proportion observed to have a safety issue, with exact 95% confidnce interval from the binomial distribution.||0.12|0|
90804432|NCT01129765|181488982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.12|||Descriptive|||Descriptive summary of proportion found to have injury, with exact 95% confidnce interval from the binomial distribution.||0.12|0|
90804433|NCT03645421|181488996|OTHER||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-42.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.47|-33.75|||ANCOVA|Analysis used treatment group as a factor and baseline as a covariate.|Treatment difference = MEDI0382 100 mcg - Placebo|Pair-wise comparison of MEDI0382 100 mcg versus Placebo.||-33.75|-50.47|<0.0001
90804434|NCT03645421|181488996|OTHER||LS mean difference|-33.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.69|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.04|-24.18|||ANCOVA|Analysis used treatment group as a factor and baseline as a covariate.|Treatment difference = MEDI0382 200 mcg - Placebo|Pair-wise comparison of MEDI0382 200 mcg versus Placebo.||-24.18|-43.04|<0.0001
90804435|NCT03645421|181488996|OTHER||LS mean difference|-40.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.57|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.49|-31.12|||ANCOVA|Analysis used treatment group as a factor and baseline as a covariate.|Treatment difference = MEDI0382 300 mcg - Placebo|Pair-wise comparison of MEDI0382 300 mcg versus Placebo.||-31.12|-49.49|<0.0001
90804436|NCT03645421|181488997|OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89||0.1476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.08|0.47|||ANCOVA|Analysis used treatment group as a factor and baseline as a covariate.|Treatment difference = MEDI0382 100 mcg - Placebo|Pair-wise comparison of MEDI0382 100 mcg versus Placebo.||0.47|-3.08|0.1476
90804437|NCT03645421|181488997|OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.92||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.37|-0.69|||ANCOVA|Analysis used treatment group as a factor and baseline as a covariate.|Treatment difference = MEDI0382 200 mcg - Placebo|Pair-wise comparison of MEDI0382 200 mcg versus Placebo.||-0.69|-4.37|0.0080
90804438|NCT03645421|181488997|OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|-0.74|||ANCOVA|Analysis used treatment group as a factor and baseline as a covariate.|Treatment difference = MEDI0382 300 mcg - Placebo|Pair-wise comparison of MEDI0382 300 mcg versus Placebo.||-0.74|-4.30|0.0063
91013991|NCT00798161|181910883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0||0.0006||95.0|-27.1|-7.3|||ANCOVA|||Metformin 1000mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 1000mg||-7.3|-27.1|0.0006
90804439|NCT03645421|181489000|OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|-0.7|||ANCOVA|Analysis used treatment group as a factor and baseline as a covariate.|Treatment difference = MEDI0382 100 mcg - Placebo|Pair-wise comparison of MEDI0382 100 mcg versus Placebo.||-0.70|-1.48|<0.0001
90804440|NCT03645421|181489000|OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|-0.71|||ANCOVA|Analysis used treatment group as a factor and baseline as a covariate.|Treatment difference = MEDI0382 200 mcg - Placebo|Pair-wise comparison of MEDI0382 200 mcg versus Placebo.||-0.71|-1.49|<0.0001
90804441|NCT03645421|181489000|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|-0.38|||ANCOVA|Analysis used treatment group as a factor and baseline as a covariate.|Treatment difference = MEDI0382 300 mcg - Placebo|Pair-wise comparison of MEDI0382 300 mcg versus Placebo.||-0.38|-1.15|0.0002
91013992|NCT00798161|181910883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0|<|0.0001||95.0|-34.4|-14.8|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin 5mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 500mg||-14.8|-34.4|<0.0001
91013993|NCT00798161|181910883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-40.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0|<|0.0001||95.0|-50.6|-31.0|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin 5mg vs. linagliptin 2.5mg with metformin 1000mg||-31.0|-50.6|<0.0001
91013994|NCT00798161|181910884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1||0.0003||95.0|-22.9|-6.8|||ANCOVA|||Metformin 500mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 500mg||-6.8|-22.9|0.0003
91013995|NCT00798161|181910884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1|<|0.0001||95.0|-24.9|-8.8|||ANCOVA|||Metformin 1000mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 1000mg||-8.8|-24.9|<0.0001
91013996|NCT00798161|181910884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1|<|0.0001||95.0|-29.5|-13.4|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin 5mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 500mg||-13.4|-29.5|<0.0001
91013997|NCT00798161|181910884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1|<|0.0001||95.0|-33.6|-17.6|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin 5mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 1000mg||-17.6|-33.6|<0.0001
91013998|NCT00798161|181910885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5|<|0.0001||95.0|-26.7|-9.1|||ANCOVA|||Metformin 500mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 500mg||-9.1|-26.7|<0.0001
91013999|NCT00798161|181910885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5||0.0002||95.0|-25.6|-7.9|||ANCOVA|||Metformin 1000mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 1000mg||-7.9|-25.6|0.0002
91014000|NCT00798161|181910885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5|<|0.0001||95.0|-36.7|-19.1|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin 5mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 500mg||-19.1|-36.7|<0.0001
91014001|NCT00798161|181910885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-37.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5|<|0.0001||95.0|-46.4|-28.8|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin 5mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 1000mg||-28.8|-46.4|<0.0001
91014002|NCT00798161|181910886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.7||0.0024||95.0|-23.7|-5.1|||ANCOVA|||Metformin 500mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 500mg||-5.1|-23.7|0.0024
91014003|NCT00798161|181910886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.8||0.0002||95.0|-27.4|-8.7|||ANCOVA|||Metformin 1000mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 1000mg||-8.7|-27.4|0.0002
91077796|NCT02913105|182041130|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.909|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.0076|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.072|-0.746|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 112 (EOS)||-0.746|-3.072|0.0076
90804442|NCT03645421|181489001|OTHER||LS mean difference|-56.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.75|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.3|-39.09|||ANCOVA|Analysis used treatment group as a factor and baseline as a covariate.|Treatment difference = MEDI0382 100 mcg - Placebo|Pair-wise comparison of MEDI0382 100 mcg versus Placebo.||-39.09|-74.30|<0.0001
90804443|NCT03645421|181489001|OTHER||LS mean difference|-60.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.92|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.53|-40.63|||ANCOVA|Analysis used treatment group as a factor and baseline as a covariate.|Treatment difference = MEDI0382 200 mcg - Placebo|Pair-wise comparison of MEDI0382 200 mcg versus Placebo.||-40.63|-80.53|<0.0001
90804444|NCT03645421|181489001|OTHER||LS mean difference|-55.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.55|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.28|-35.86|||ANCOVA|Analysis used treatment group as a factor and baseline as a covariate.|Treatment difference = MEDI0382 300 mcg - Placebo|Pair-wise comparison of MEDI0382 300 mcg versus Placebo.||-35.86|-74.28|<0.0001
90804445|NCT03645421|181489002|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.071|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.094|-0.047|||ANCOVA|Analysis used treatment group as a factor and baseline as a covariate.|Treatment difference = MEDI0382 100 mcg - Placebo|Pair-wise comparison of MEDI0382 100 mcg versus Placebo.||-0.047|-0.094|<0.0001
90804446|NCT03645421|181489002|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.053|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.077|-0.03|||ANCOVA|Analysis used treatment group as a factor and baseline as a covariate.|Treatment difference = MEDI0382 200 mcg - Placebo|Pair-wise comparison of MEDI0382 200 mcg versus Placebo.||-0.030|-0.077|<0.0001
90804447|NCT03645421|181489002|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.049|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.074|-0.024|||ANCOVA|Analysis used treatment group as a factor and baseline as a covariate.|Treatment difference = MEDI0382 300 mcg - Placebo|Pair-wise comparison of MEDI0382 300 mcg versus Placebo.||-0.024|-0.074|0.0002
90804448|NCT01204905|181489068|OTHER|This was a pilot study with a small sample population. There were no power calculations performed.|||||||||||||||||The percentage of patients with HIV-1 viral loads less than 50 c/ml at 48 weeks.|||
91014004|NCT00798161|181910886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.7|<|0.0001||95.0|-37.1|-18.5|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin 5mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 500mg||-18.5|-37.1|<0.0001
90804449|NCT01204905|181489069|OTHER|There were no power calculations performed due to the size of the pilot study.|||||||||||||||||Number of weeks to virologic suppression|||
90804450|NCT03462641|181489079|SUPERIORITY||t-value|-2.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.32||0.0407|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was set to 0.05.|Paired-Sample Two-Tailed T-Test|||Null hypothesis was no difference in PIGD score within participants before and after flumazenil infusion.||||0.0407
90804451|NCT03462641|181489079|OTHER||F-value|2.861||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|||||"P value is given for the Drug\*Time term, which represents interaction between time relative to administration (before infusion vs after infusion) and treatment administered (placebo vs flumazenil).~Alpha was set to 0.05."|Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there is no significant interaction between drug and time of administration (pre vs. post infusion).||||0.103
90804452|NCT03462641|181489080|OTHER||Standardized β Coefficient|0.6||||2.9e-07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.07||P value presented is for model comparison between interaction model and random intercept model.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A pair of maximum likelihood mixed linear models were estimated. The first was a random intercept model that merely accounted for individual differences in PIGD score before infusion. The second was an interaction model, that added an interaction term between baseline FMZ PET binding and PIGD score change from pre to post infusion. The interaction model was compared against the random intercept model to determine significance of the interaction using likelihood ratio goodness of fit test.||1.07|0.13|0.00000029
90804453|NCT01804049|181489081|SUPERIORITY|Hypothesis: metformin will reduce loss of total lean mass in insulin-resistant older adults over a three year period. It was determined (prior to the initiation of the study) that a sample size of 60 participants per group will have a 73% power to detect a 0.09 m/s difference in gait speed.||||||0.45||||||For lean total body mass, t(118)=0.744, p=0.45.|t-test, 2 sided|T-test calculation for total lean mass: 0.74.||||||0.45
90804454|NCT01804049|181489081|SUPERIORITY|Hypothesis: metformin will reduce loss of total appendicular lean mass in insulin-resistant older adults over a three year period. It was determined (prior to the initiation of the study) that a sample size of 60 participants per group will have a 73% power to detect a 0.09 m/s difference in gait speed.||||||0.79||||||For lean appendicular body mass, t(118) = 0.264, p=0.79.|t-test, 2 sided|T-test calculation appendicular lean mass: 0.26.||||||0.79
90804455|NCT01804049|181489082|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t(118)=0.703, p=0.48||||||0.48
91014005|NCT00798161|181910886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-41.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.7|<|0.0001||95.0|-50.8|-32.2|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin 5mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 1000mg||-32.2|-50.8|<0.0001
91054461|NCT04135196|181991030|OTHER|||||||0.84|||||||Regression, Linear|||The null hypothesis was that change in UD iBMD was not proportional to strain magnitude. Raw change in iBMD was analyzed as the dependent variable in a linear regression model with coefficients representing contrasts between the two experimental groups and the control group.|"Overall model fit: R\^2=0.009, F=0.176, df1=2, df2=40, p=0.840~Contrast between the low strain magnitude group and the control group: B=0.001, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.001, Beta=0.091, t=0.489, p=0.628, 95% CI of B: \[-0.002, 0.003\]~Contrast between the high strain magnitude group and the control group: B=0.001, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.001, Beta=0.101, t=0.544, p=0.589, 95% CI of B: \[-0.002, 0.003\]"|||0.840
91078144|NCT00625404|182041683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.52||||||Hazard ratio (HR) for HIV infection based on proportional hazards model, stratified on site. Study was designed to have 90% power to reject the null hypothesis that the HR for infection is \> 0.3||1.52|0.59|
90804456|NCT02998671|181489149|SUPERIORITY|Comparison at end of Period 1 (P1): CJM112 versus Placebo.|Ratio of geometric means|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.79|1.81|||Bayesian model for repeated measurements||"Ratio of Geometric Means (CJM112 / Placebo) calculated. A value \> 1 indicates a higher number of lesion counts in the CJM112 group.~Bayesian analysis. The credible interval was calculated and presented under confidence interval."|||1.81|0.79|
90804457|NCT02998671|181489149|SUPERIORITY|Comparison at end of Period 1 (P1): CJM112 versus Placebo.|Ratio of geometric means|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.66|1.8|||Bayesian model for repeated measurements||"Ratio of Geometric Means (CJM112 / Placebo) calculated. A value \> 1 indicates a higher number of lesion counts in the CJM112 group.~Bayesian analysis. The credible interval was calculated and presented under confidence interval."|||1.80|0.66|
90804458|NCT00595881|181489162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in sensitivity|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|0.0||"We calculated the differences between the sensitivities and specificities. The difference in sensitivity between the clinical exam alone vs clinical exam + ultrasound was -1.7% (-3.4%, 0%).~The difference in specificity was -2.8% (-9.7%, 4.1%)."|Mixed effects logistic regression|We used the bootstrap method to obtain valid confidence intervals and compare sensitivity and specificity for the 2 tests.|The clinical exam alone was compared to the clinical exam + ultrasound.|See sample size calculations already entered. Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the sensitivity or specificity of clinical exam alone compared with clinical exam+ultrasound.||0|-3.4|
90804459|NCT00595881|181489162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in specificity|-2.8||||||95.0|-9.7|4.1||Statistical significance was defined as a CI surrounding the difference between groups not including 0.||as previously described for sensitivity||as previously described for sensitivity||4.1|-9.7|
90804460|NCT01625416|181489202|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared|Chi square (2) =5.9, p=0.05|||This chi-square analysis was derived from a mixed repeated measures model comparing intervention results with control results over 4 time points.|||0.05
90804461|NCT01625416|181489203|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Chi-squared|Chi square(2) = 0.74, p = 0.69|||This chi-square analysis was derived from a mixed repeated measures model comparing intervention results with control results over 4 time points.|||0.69
90804462|NCT01625416|181489206|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97||||||Chi square (2) = 0.06, p = 0.97|Chi-squared||||This chi-square analysis was derived from a mixed repeated measures model comparing intervention results with control results over 4 time points.|||0.97
90804463|NCT01625416|181489207|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-Square (2) =0.68, p=0.71|||This chi-square analysis was derived from a mixed repeated measures model comparing intervention results with control results over 4 time points.|||0.71
90804464|NCT01831466|181489209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rates|3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.36||0.5425|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.3|12.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||12.0|-4.3|0.5425
90804465|NCT01831466|181489209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rates|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.87||0.4976|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-11.5|3.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.5|-11.5|0.4976
91014006|NCT00798161|181910887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.8|<|0.0001||95.0|-30.4|-11.4|||ANCOVA|||Metformin 500mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 500mg||-11.4|-30.4|<0.0001
91014007|NCT00798161|181910887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.9||0.0003||95.0|-27.4|-8.3|||ANCOVA|||Metformin 1000mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 1000mg||-8.3|-27.4|0.0003
91054462|NCT04135196|181991030|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|||The null hypothesis was that change in UD iBMD was not proportional to strain rate. Raw change in iBMD was analyzed as the dependent variable in a linear regression model with coefficients representing contrasts between the two experimental groups and the control group.|"Overall model fit: R\^2=0.563, F=21.225, df1=2, df2=33, p=\<0.001~Contrast between the low strain rate group and the control group: B=0.009, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.002, Beta=0.739, t=5.669, p=\<0.001, 95% CI of B: \[0.005, 0.012\]~Contrast between the high strain rate group and the control group: B=0.008, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.002, Beta=0.716, t=5.495, p=\<0.001, 95% CI of B: \[0.005, 0.012\]"|||<0.001
91078145|NCT00625404|182041684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45|||||||Log Rank|||Log-rank test for difference in rate of grade 2 or higher creatinine, based on time to first event.||||0.45
90804466|NCT01831466|181489209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rates|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.36||0.6039|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.9|11.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||11.5|-4.9|0.6039
90804467|NCT01831466|181489209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rate|4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.34||0.5279|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.1|12.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||12.1|-4.1|0.5279
90804468|NCT01831466|181489210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rates|10.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.99||0.071|TWO_SIDED|80.0|3.1|18.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||18.5|3.1|0.0710
90804469|NCT01831466|181489210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rates|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.2||0.8175|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-7.9|5.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.5|-7.9|0.8175
90804470|NCT01831466|181489210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rates|11.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.63||0.0513|TWO_SIDED|80.0|3.8|18.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||18.2|3.8|0.0513
90804471|NCT01831466|181489210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rates|6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.23||0.2021|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.0|13.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||13.4|-0.0|0.2021
90804472|NCT01433042|181489302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage|98.0||||||||||since the study results analysis is purley discriptive no P value and confidence interval was used for the analysis|percentage|percentage of SB3 images graded as superior in image quality to SB2|since the study results analysis is purley discriptive no P value and confidence interval was used for the analysis|"Primary Endpoint~o Physician's subjective assessment questionnaire was evaluated in a quality manner.~The physicians were required to assess the performance of SB3 system as compare to SB2 by answering a short questionnaire.~The physicians were requested to indicate whether capsule SB3 was better as compared to SB2."||||
91078146|NCT00625404|182041686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|||||||Log Rank|||Log-rank test for difference in rates between groups||||0.59
90804473|NCT00556439|181489309|OTHER|Kaplan-Meier curves of relapse free survival were constructed, and differences in treatment arms compared using the logrank test. The analysis of the primary outcome was based upon intent to treat.||||||0.049||||||The p value of 0.049 reflects comparison of relapse free survival of abatacept versus placebo in giant cell arteritis.|Log Rank|||The planned sample size was determined by the minimally clinically meaningful result (i.e., an approximate 30% improvement in relapse-free survival) to be detected utilizing a one-sided alpha of 0.1. Kaplan-Meier curves of RFS were constructed for each stratum, and differences in treatment arms compared using the logrank test. The analysis of the primary outcome was based upon intent to treat.||||0.049
90804474|NCT00556439|181489309|OTHER|Kaplan-Meier curves of relapse free survival were constructed, and differences in treatment arms compared using the logrank test. The analysis of the primary outcome was based upon intent to treat.||||||0.853||||||The p value of 0.853 reflects comparison of relapse free survival of abatacept versus placebo in Takayasu arteritis.|Log Rank|||The planned sample size was determined by the minimally clinically meaningful result (i.e., an approximate 30% improvement in relapse-free survival) to be detected utilizing a one-sided alpha of 0.1. Kaplan-Meier curves of RFS were constructed for each stratum, and differences in treatment arms compared using the logrank test. The analysis of the primary outcome was based upon intent to treat.||||0.853
90804475|NCT02195700|181489327|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.0188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-0.2||5% level of significance (2-sided)|unstructured covariance|||The linear mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM) included fixed effects for treatment, each scheduled time point (5 levels: weeks 2, 4, 6, 9, and 12), the treatment-by-time point interaction, and the DRA status. Baseline AIMS score was a covariate. The unstructured covariance model was used, and the primary analysis compared the SD-809 and placebo groups at week 12. This was based on the F-test using the Satterhwaite method to compute the denominator degrees of freedom.||-0.2|-2.6|0.0188
90804476|NCT02195700|181489328|SUPERIORITY||Differences in %|7.9||||0.4001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|25.2||5% level of significance (2-sided)|Pearson's chi-square test|||The secondary efficacy endpoints were analyzed using a hierarchical testing procedure. If the primary analysis was statistically significant (p\<0.05), then the first key secondary endpoint was to be analyzed. If the first key secondary endpoint was statistically significant, then the second key secondary endpoint was to be similarly analyzed. For any analysis that was not statistically significant, all subsequent analyses of key secondary endpoints were exploratory rather than confirmatory.||25.2|-10.2|0.4001
90804477|NCT01352221|181489341|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|1.81||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA for primary endpoint, Change in Hb concentration from Baseline to Week 12 in double-blind phase, FAS|||1.81|< 0.0001
90804478|NCT01352221|181489345|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|0.82||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA analysis of the change in Hb concentration from Baseline to Week 4 of the double-blind phase - Full Analysis Set, multiple imputation|||0.82|< 0.0001
90804479|NCT01352221|181489346|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|1.43|||ANCOVA analysis of Change in Hb concentration from Baseline to Week 8 of double-blind phase - FAS, multiple imputation|ANCOVA||||||1.43|< 0.0001
90804480|NCT01352221|181489357|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|1.87||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA sensitivity analysis of the Primary efficacy endpoint analysis on the PPAS|||1.87|< 0.0001
90804481|NCT01352221|181489358|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|1.82||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA sensitivity analysis of the Primary efficacy endpoint analysis on the FAS LOCF Change in Haemoglobin Concentration from Baseline to Week 12|||1.82|< 0.0001
91078147|NCT00625404|182041687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79|||||||Log Rank|||Log-rank test for difference in rates between groups||||0.79
90804482|NCT01597908|181489370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.83|||||Hazard ratios are estimated using a Pike estimator.|||0.83|0.58|
90804483|NCT01597908|181489371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.73|||||Hazard ratios are estimated using a Pike estimator.|||0.73|0.52|
90804484|NCT01597908|181489373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.81||||||||0.81|0.51|
90804485|NCT01340625|181489398|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|107.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.91|115.24|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||115.24|100.91|
90804486|NCT01340625|181489399|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|104.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.74|111.88|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||111.88|96.74|
90804487|NCT01340625|181489400|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|101.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.73|108.62|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||108.62|95.73|
90804488|NCT01340625|181489401|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|96.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.04|102.86|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||102.86|90.04|
91014008|NCT00798161|181910887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.9|<|0.0001||95.0|-35.0|-15.9|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin 5mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 500mg||-15.9|-35.0|<0.0001
91014009|NCT00798161|181910887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-39.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.9|<|0.0001||95.0|-48.5|-29.4|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin 5 mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5 mg with Metformin 1000 mg||-29.4|-48.5|<0.0001
91014010|NCT00798161|181910888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.372||||0.0062||95.0|1.278|4.402|||Regression, Logistic|The odds-ratio is based on a logistic regression model including baseline HbA1c and previous antidiabetic medication.||Metformin 500mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 500mg||4.402|1.278|0.0062
91014011|NCT00798161|181910888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.163|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.343|7.397|||Regression, Logistic|The odds-ratio is based on a logistic regression model including baseline HbA1c and previous antidiabetic medication.||Metformin 1000mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 1000mg||7.397|2.343|<0.0001
91014012|NCT00798161|181910888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.854|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.363|9.973|||Regression, Logistic|The odds-ratio is based on a logistic regression model including baseline HbA1c and previous antidiabetic medication.||Linagliptin 5mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 500mg||9.973|2.363|<0.0001
91014013|NCT00798161|181910888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|17.094|||<|0.0001||95.0|8.238|35.471|||Regression, Logistic|The odds-ratio is based on a logistic regression model including baseline HbA1c and previous antidiabetic medication.||Linagliptin 5mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 1000mg||35.471|8.238|<0.0001
90804489|NCT01340625|181489402|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|98.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.89|103.97|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||103.97|93.89|
90804490|NCT01340625|181489403|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|99.59|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.91|104.5|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||104.50|94.91|
90804491|NCT01525862|181489431|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P values \<0.05 are considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90804492|NCT00241176|181489435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.003|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||YGTSS Global Severity score (M=61.8 SD=13.49) declined significantly to end point (M=33.7 SD=15.18; p=0.003).|Group 1 Baseline vs. Endpoint||||<.05
91014014|NCT00798161|181910890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.465||||0.0102||95.0|1.342|8.943|||Regression, Logistic|The odds-ratio is based on a logistic regression model including baseline HbA1c and previous antidiabetic medication.||Metformin 500mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 500mg||8.943|1.342|0.0102
91078148|NCT00625404|182041688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62|||||||Log Rank|||Log-rank test for difference in rates between groups||||0.62
90804493|NCT00241176|181489436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.004|||<|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Mean (SD) CGI-Tic severity scores reduced significantly from (M=4.45 SD=0.52) (moderate-marked) at baseline to (M=3.18 SD =0.60) (mild) at end point ( p=0.004).|Mean scores baseline to endpoint||||<.05
90804494|NCT03206970|181489454|OTHER||Clopper-Pearson|83.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|74.2|90.8|||Binomial Exact Test|||A binomial exact test was performed to test against the null hypothesis H0: ORR=0.40 using the significant level of 0.025 (1-sided)||90.8|74.2|<.0001
90804495|NCT03206970|181489458|SUPERIORITY||Clopper-Pearson|83.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|74.2|90.8|||Binomial Exact Test|||A binomial exact test was performed to test against the null hypothesis H0: ORR=0.40 using the significant level of 0.025 (1-sided)||90.8|74.2|<0.0001
90804496|NCT01951586|181489487|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.5157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.53|||Log Rank|Log rank test stratified by the randomization stratification factors.|"Based on a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by the randomized stratification factors.~Hazard ratio \< 1 favors denosumab."|||1.53|0.81|0.5157
90804497|NCT01951586|181489488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3759|||||||Cox propotional hazard model|||The interaction of RANK expression level measured in the cytoplasm (all intensity) and treatment effect was evaluated using a Cox proportional hazard model that included treatment group, RANK expression level and treatment-by-RANK expression level interaction stratified by the randomization stratification factors.||||0.3759
90804498|NCT01951586|181489488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3666|||||||Cox propotional hazard model|||The interaction of RANK expression level measured in membranes (all intensity) and treatment effect was evaluated using a Cox proportional hazard model that included treatment group, RANK expression level and treatment-by-RANK expression level interaction stratified by the randomization stratification factors.||||0.3666
90804499|NCT01951586|181489488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1917|||||||Cox propotional hazard model|||The interaction of RANK expression level total (cytoplasm + membranes; all intensity) and treatment effect was evaluated using a Cox proportional hazard model that included treatment group, RANK expression level and treatment-by-RANK expression level interaction stratified by the randomization stratification factors.||||0.1917
90804500|NCT01951586|181489488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3353|||||||Cox propotional hazard model|||The interaction of RANK expression level measured in the cytoplasm (H-score) and treatment effect was evaluated using a Cox proportional hazard model that included treatment group, RANK expression level and treatment-by-RANK expression level interaction stratified by the randomization stratification factors.||||0.3353
90804501|NCT01951586|181489488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3179|||||||Cox propotional hazard model|||The interaction of RANK expression level measured in membranes (H-score) and treatment effect was evaluated using a Cox proportional hazard model that included treatment group, RANK expression level and treatment-by-RANK expression level interaction stratified by the randomization stratification factors.||||0.3179
90804502|NCT01951586|181489488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1583|||||||Cox propotional hazard model|||The interaction of RANK expression level total (cytoplasm + membranes; H-score) and treatment effect was evaluated using a Cox proportional hazard model that included treatment group, RANK expression level and treatment-by-RANK expression level interaction stratified by the randomization stratification factors.||||0.1583
90804503|NCT01951586|181489489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3946|||||||Cox propotional hazard model|||The interaction of RANKL expression level measured in the cytoplasm (all intensity) and treatment effect was evaluated using a Cox proportional hazard model that included treatment group, RANKL expression level and treatment-by-RANKL expression level interaction stratified by the randomization stratification factors.||||0.3946
90804504|NCT01951586|181489489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3735|||||||Cox propotional hazard model|||The interaction of RANKL expression level measured in the cytoplasm (H-score) and treatment effect was evaluated using a Cox proportional hazard model that included treatment group, RANKL expression level and treatment-by-RANKL expression level interaction stratified by the randomization stratification factors.||||0.3735
90804505|NCT01951586|181489490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.3491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.35|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model adjusted for the randomization stratification factors.|Based on a logistic regression model adjusted for the randomization stratification factors; an odds ratio ≥ 1 favors denosumab.|||1.35|0.43|0.3491
90804506|NCT01951586|181489491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.476|||||||Regression, Logistic|||The interaction of RANK expression level measured in the cytoplasm (all intensity) and treatment effect was evaluated using a logistic regression model that included treatment group, RANK expression level and treatment-by-RANK expression level interaction stratified by the randomization stratification factors.||||0.4760
90804507|NCT01951586|181489491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2582|||||||Regression, Logistic|||The interaction of RANK expression level measured in the membranes (all intensity) and treatment effect was evaluated using a logistic regression model that included treatment group, RANK expression level and treatment-by-RANK expression level interaction stratified by the randomization stratification factors.||||0.2582
90804508|NCT01951586|181489491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.223|||||||Regression, Logistic|||The interaction of RANK expression level total (cytoplasm + membrane; all intensity) and treatment effect was evaluated using a logistic regression model that included treatment group, RANK expression level and treatment-by-RANK expression level interaction stratified by the randomization stratification factors.||||0.2230
90804509|NCT01951586|181489491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4329|||||||Regression, Logistic|||The interaction of RANK expression level measured in the cytoplasm (H-score) and treatment effect was evaluated using a logistic regression model that included treatment group, RANK expression level and treatment-by-RANK expression level interaction stratified by the randomization stratification factors.||||0.4329
90804510|NCT01951586|181489491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.262|||||||Regression, Logistic|||The interaction of RANK expression level measured in the membranes (H-score) and treatment effect was evaluated using a logistic regression model that included treatment group, RANK expression level and treatment-by-RANK expression level interaction stratified by the randomization stratification factors.||||0.2620
90804511|NCT01951586|181489491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2081|||||||Regression, Logistic|||The interaction of RANK expression level total (cytoplasm + membrane; H-score) and treatment effect was evaluated using a logistic regression model that included treatment group, RANK expression level and treatment-by-RANK expression level interaction stratified by the randomization stratification factors.||||0.2081
90804512|NCT01951586|181489492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4671|||||||Regression, Logistic|||The interaction of RANKL expression level measured in the cytoplasm (all intensity) and treatment effect was evaluated using a logistic regression model that included treatment group, RANKL expression level and treatment-by-RANKL expression level interaction stratified by the randomization stratification factors.||||0.4671
90804513|NCT01951586|181489492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4236|||||||Regression, Logistic|||The interaction of RANKL expression level measured in the cytoplasm (H-score) and treatment effect was evaluated using a logistic regression model that included treatment group, RANKL expression level and treatment-by-RANKL expression level interaction stratified by the randomization stratification factors.||||0.4236
90804514|NCT01951586|181489493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.4654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.43|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model adjusted for the randomization stratification factors.|Based on a logistic regression model adjusted for the randomization stratification factors; an odds ratio ≥ 1 favors denosumab.|||1.43|0.46|0.4654
90804515|NCT01951586|181489494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.7363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.43|||Log Rank|Log rank test stratified by the randomized stratification factors.|"Based on a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by the randomized stratification factors.~Hazard ratio \< 1 favors denosumab."|||1.43|0.78|0.7363
90804516|NCT00104416|181489504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|31.6|||<|0.0001||95.0|15.8|48.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||48.1|15.8|<0.0001
90804517|NCT03629223|181489527|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed with Equivalence acceptance range for 90% confidence interval (CI) as 80.00% - 125.00%. In the below, LS-means = least squares mean.|Percentage of Ratio of Geometric LS-Mean|115.35|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|108.55|122.58||||||||122.58|108.55|
91014015|NCT00798161|181910890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.521||||0.0004||95.0|1.747|7.094|||Regression, Logistic|The odds-ratio is based on a logistic regression model including baseline HbA1c and previous antidiabetic medication.||Metformin 1000mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 1000mg||7.094|1.747|0.0004
91014016|NCT00798161|181910890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.521||||0.0053||95.0|1.564|13.069|||Regression, Logistic|The odds-ratio is based on a logistic regression model including baseline HbA1c and previous antidiabetic medication.||Linagliptin 5mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 500mg||13.069|1.564|0.0053
91078149|NCT00625404|182041689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.89|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test for difference on viral loads||||0.89
90804518|NCT03629223|181489527|OTHER||Percentage of ratio of Geometric LS-Mean|186.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|163.61|212.28||||||||212.28|163.61|
90804519|NCT03629223|181489527|OTHER||Percentage of ratio of Geometric LS-Mean|163.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|146.17|182.1||||||||182.10|146.17|
90804520|NCT03629223|181489528|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed with Equivalence acceptance range for 90% confidence interval (CI) as 80.00% - 125.00%.|Percentage of ratio of Geometric LS-Mean|115.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|108.51|122.6||||||||122.60|108.51|
90804521|NCT03629223|181489528|OTHER||Percentage of ratio of Geometric LS-Mean|186.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|163.78|212.77||||||||212.77|163.78|
90804522|NCT03629223|181489528|OTHER||Percentage of ratio of Geometric LS-Mean|163.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|146.09|182.46||||||||182.46|146.09|
90804523|NCT03629223|181489529|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed with equivalence acceptance range for 90% confidence interval (CI) as 80.00% - 125.00%.|Percentage of ratio of Geometric LS-Mean|113.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|107.62|119.85||||||||119.85|107.62|
90804524|NCT03629223|181489529|OTHER||Percentage of ratio of Geometric LS-Mean|236.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|215.69|259.34||||||||259.34|215.69|
90804525|NCT03629223|181489529|OTHER||Percentage of ratio of Geometric LS-Mean|199.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|176.44|225.82||||||||225.82|176.44|
90804526|NCT00260832|181489626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Kaplan-Meier|||The primary treatment comparison was based on two sided long-rank test stratified by age, cytogenetic risk, ECOG performance status||||0.1079
90804527|NCT00260832|181489627|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.5||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|4.78|||Fisher Exact|||||4.78|1.40|0.0011
90804528|NCT01763333|181489668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.8728|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6942|1.0513|||||Dose proportionality was explored using the power model (ANCOVA). The perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope β of 1. PK endpoints on the log-transformed scale.|This was non confirmatory testing (Single dose). Dose proportionality of tablets for Cmax was analysed. The per protocol set for the evaluation of dose proportionality (PPS-DP) was used. This set included all subjects of the TS-SRD who provided at least one observation for at least one of the endpoints Cmax, AUC0-tz, AUC0-∞, or Aet1-t2, without experiencing emesis at or before 2 times median tmax and without important PVs relevant to the statistical evaluation of PK.||1.0513|0.6942|
90804529|NCT01763333|181489668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.9341|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8277|1.0405|||||Dose proportionality was explored using the power model (ANCOVA). The perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope β of 1. PK endpoints on the log-transformed scale.|This was non confirmatory testing (Single dose). Dose proportionality of solution for Cmax was analysed. The per protocol set for the evaluation of dose proportionality (PPS-DP) was used. This set included all subjects of the TS-SRD who provided at least one observation for at least one of the endpoints Cmax, AUC0-tz, AUC0-∞, or Aet1-t2, without experiencing emesis at or before 2 times median tmax and without important PVs relevant to the statistical evaluation of PK.||1.0405|0.8277|
90804530|NCT01763333|181489668|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The pharmacokinetic parameters were log transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. The difference between the expected means of the 2 treatments of interest for each pairwise comparison were estimated by the difference in the corresponding Least Square Means (point estimate) and two-sided 90% confidence intervals based on the t-distribution were computed. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale to give the point estimator (geometric mean).|gMean ratio|112.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.579|132.993|||||Adjusted gMean ratio.|Relative bioavailability comparison Tab. fed (T1): Tab. fasted (R1) for Cmax. The per protocol set for the evaluation of relative bioavailability of T1 vs R1 (PPS-BA-T1-R1) was used.||132.993|95.579|
90890323|NCT01581281|181645151|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35||||0.9137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.64|5.95|||Regression, Linear|||The mean change from baseline in PedMIDAS score over time for the three groups was assessed using a linear regression model for each of the three pairwise comparisons (Amitriptyline relative to placebo, Topiramate relative to placebo, and Amitriptyline relative to Topiramate), adjusted for the baseline PedMIDAS score. The models, and corresponding odds ratios, were adjusted for the two stratification variables (age and baseline number of headache days).||5.95|-6.64|0.9137
90804531|NCT01763333|181489668|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The pharmacokinetic parameters were log transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. The difference between the expected means of the 2 treatments of interest for each pairwise comparison were estimated by the difference in the corresponding Least Square Means (point estimate) and two-sided 90% confidence intervals based on the t-distribution were computed. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale to give the point estimator (geometric mean).|gMean ratio|52.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|40.488|68.499|||||Adjusted gMean ratio.|Relative bioavailability comparison Sol. fed (T2) : Sol. fasted (R2) for Cmax. The per protocol set for the evaluation of relative bioavailability of T2 vs R2 (PPS-BA-T2-R2) was used.||68.499|40.488|
90804532|NCT01763333|181489668|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The pharmacokinetic parameters were log transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. The difference between the expected means of the 2 treatments of interest for each pairwise comparison were estimated by the difference in the corresponding Least Square Means (point estimate) and two-sided 90% confidence intervals based on the t-distribution were computed. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale to give the point estimator (geometric mean).|gMean ratio|239.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|197.445|290.83|||||Adjusted gMean ratio.|Relative bioavailability comparison Sol. fasted (R2): Tab. fasted (R1) for Cmax. The per protocol set for the evaluation of relative bioavailability of R2 vs R1 (PPS-BA-R2-R1) was used.||290.830|197.445|
90804533|NCT01763333|181489668|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The pharmacokinetic parameters were log transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. The difference between the expected means of the 2 treatments of interest for each pairwise comparison were estimated by the difference in the corresponding Least Square Means (point estimate) and two-sided 90% confidence intervals based on the t-distribution were computed. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale to give the point estimator (geometric mean).|gMean ratio|105.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.427|130.208|||||Adjusted gMean ratio.|Relative bioavailability comparison Sol. fed (T2): Tab. fed (T1) for Cmax. The per protocol set for the evaluation of relative bioavailability of T2 vs T1 (PPS-BA-T2-T1) was used.||130.208|85.427|
90804534|NCT01763333|181489670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.8341|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6485|1.0198|||||Dose proportionality was explored using the power model (ANCOVA). The perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope β of 1. PK endpoints on the log-transformed scale.|This was non confirmatory testing (Single dose).Dose proportionality of tablets for AUC0-inf was analysed.The per protocol set for the evaluation of dose proportionality (PPS-DP) was used. This set included all subjects of the TS-SRD who provided at least one observation for at least one of the endpoints Cmax, AUC0-tz, AUC0-∞, or Aet1-t2, without experiencing emesis at or before 2 times median tmax and without important PVs relevant to the statistical evaluation of PK.||1.0198|0.6485|
90804535|NCT01763333|181489670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.9149|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8059|1.0239|||||Dose proportionality was explored using the power model (ANCOVA). The perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope β of 1. PK endpoints on the log-transformed scale.|This was non confirmatory testing (Single dose).Dose proportionality of solution for AUC0-inf was analysed. The per protocol set for the evaluation of dose proportionality (PPS-DP) was used. This set included all subjects of the TS-SRD who provided at least one observation for at least one of the endpoints Cmax, AUC0-tz, AUC0-∞, or Aet1-t2, without experiencing emesis at or before 2 times median tmax and without important PVs relevant to the statistical evaluation of PK.||1.0239|0.8059|
90804536|NCT01763333|181489670|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The pharmacokinetic parameters were log transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. The difference between the expected means of the 2 treatments of interest for each pairwise comparison were estimated by the difference in the corresponding Least Square Means (point estimate) and two-sided 90% confidence intervals based on the t-distribution were computed. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale to give the point estimator (geometric mean).|gMean Ratio|86.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.529|98.029|||||Adjusted gMean ratio.|Relative bioavailability comparison Tab. fed (T1): Tab. fasted (R1) for AUC0-inf. The per protocol set for the evaluation of relative bioavailability of T1 vs R1 (PPS-BA-T1-R1) was used.||98.029|76.529|
91014017|NCT00798161|181910890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.947|||<|0.0001||95.0|4.314|33.08|||Regression, Logistic|The odds-ratio is based on a logistic regression model including baseline HbA1c and previous antidiabetic medication.||Linagliptin 5mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 1000mg||33.080|4.314|<0.0001
91014018|NCT00798161|181910892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.181|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.903|5.316|||Regression, Logistic|The odds-ratio is based on a logistic regression model including baseline HbA1c and previous antidiabetic medication.||Metformin 500mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 500mg||5.316|1.903|<0.0001
90804537|NCT01763333|181489670|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The pharmacokinetic parameters were log transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. The difference between the expected means of the 2 treatments of interest for each pairwise comparison were estimated by the difference in the corresponding Least Square Means (point estimate) and two-sided 90% confidence intervals based on the t-distribution were computed. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale to give the point estimator (geometric mean).|gMean ratio|74.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|66.322|83.562|||||Adjusted gMean ratio.|Relative bioavailability comparison Sol. fed (T2) : Sol. fasted (R2) for AUC0-inf.The per protocol set for the evaluation of relative bioavailability of T2 vs R2 (PPS-BA-T2-R2) was used.||83.562|66.322|
90804538|NCT01763333|181489670|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The pharmacokinetic parameters were log transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. The difference between the expected means of the 2 treatments of interest for each pairwise comparison were estimated by the difference in the corresponding Least Square Means (point estimate) and two-sided 90% confidence intervals based on the t-distribution were computed. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale to give the point estimator (geometric mean).|gMean ratio|137.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|119.708|157.353|||||Adjusted gMean ratio.|Relative bioavailability comparison Sol. fasted (R2): Tab. fasted (R1) for AUC0-inf.The per protocol set for the evaluation of relative bioavailability of R2 vs R1 (PPS-BA-R2-R1) was used.||157.353|119.708|
90890324|NCT01581281|181645151|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-4.84||||0.1331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.16|1.49|||Regression, Linear|||The mean change from baseline in PedMIDAS score over time for the three groups was assessed using a linear regression model for each of the three pairwise comparisons (Amitriptyline relative to placebo, Topiramate relative to placebo, and Amitriptyline relative to Topiramate), adjusted for the baseline PedMIDAS score. The models, and corresponding odds ratios, were adjusted for the two stratification variables (age and baseline number of headache days).||1.49|-11.16|0.1331
90804539|NCT01763333|181489670|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The pharmacokinetic parameters were log transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. The difference between the expected means of the 2 treatments of interest for each pairwise comparison were estimated by the difference in the corresponding Least Square Means (point estimate) and two-sided 90% confidence intervals based on the t-distribution were computed. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale to give the point estimator (geometric mean).|gMean ratio|116.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|111.462|121.724|||||Adjusted gMean ratio.|Relative bioavailability comparison Sol. fed (T2): Tab. fed (T1) for AUC0-inf.The per protocol set for the evaluation of relative bioavailability of T2 vs T1 (PPS-BA-T2-T1) was used.||121.724|111.462|
90804540|NCT01763333|181489671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.8428|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.658|1.0275|||||Dose proportionality was explored using the power model (ANCOVA). The perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope β of 1. PK endpoints on the log-transformed scale.|This was non confirmatory testing (Single dose). Dose proportionality of tablets for AUC 0- tz was analysed. The per protocol set for the evaluation of dose proportionality (PPS-DP) was used. This set included all subjects of the TS-SRD who provided at least one observation for at least one of the endpoints Cmax, AUC0-tz, AUC0-∞, or Aet1-t2, without experiencing emesis at or before 2 times median tmax and without important PVs relevant to the statistical evaluation of PK.||1.0275|0.6580|
90804541|NCT01763333|181489671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.9307|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8187|1.0426|||||Dose proportionality was explored using the power model (ANCOVA). The perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope β of 1.|This was non confirmatory testing (Single dose). Dose proportionality of solution for AUC0-tz was analysed. The per protocol set for the evaluation of dose proportionality (PPS-DP) was used. This set included all subjects of the TS-SRD who provided at least one observation for at least one of the endpoints Cmax, AUC0-tz, AUC0-∞, or Aet1-t2, without experiencing emesis at or before 2 times median tmax and without important PVs relevant to the statistical evaluation of PK.||1.0426|0.8187|
90804542|NCT01763333|181489671|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The pharmacokinetic parameters were log transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. The difference between the expected means of the 2 treatments of interest for each pairwise comparison were estimated by the difference in the corresponding Least Square Means (point estimate) and two-sided 90% confidence intervals based on the t-distribution were computed. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale to give the point estimator (geometric mean)|gMean Ratio|86.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.735|98.027|||||Adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio.|Relative bioavailability comparison Tab. fed (T1) : Tab. fasted (R1) for AUC 0-tz. The per protocol set for the evaluation of relative bioavailability of T1 vs R1 (PPS-BA-T1-R1) was used.||98.027|75.735|
90804543|NCT01763333|181489671|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The pharmacokinetic parameters were log transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. The difference between the expected means of the 2 treatments of interest for each pairwise comparison were estimated by the difference in the corresponding Least Square Means (point estimate) and two-sided 90% confidence intervals based on the t-distribution were computed. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale to give the point estimator (geometric mean)|gMean ratio|74.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|65.979|83.941|||||Adjusted gMean ratio.|Relative bioavailability comparison Sol. fed (T2) : Sol. fasted (R2) for AUC 0-tz.The per protocol set for the evaluation of relative bioavailability of T2 vs R2 (PPS-BA-T2-R2) was used.||83.941|65.979|
90804544|NCT01763333|181489671|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The pharmacokinetic parameters were log transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. The difference between the expected means of the 2 treatments of interest for each pairwise comparison were estimated by the difference in the corresponding Least Square Means (point estimate) and two-sided 90% confidence intervals based on the t-distribution were computed. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale to give the point estimator (geometric mean).|gMean ratio|137.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|119.611|157.374|||||Adjusted gMean ratio.|Relative bioavailability comparison Sol. fasted (R2): Tab. fasted (R1) for AUC 0-tz.The per protocol set for the evaluation of relative bioavailability of R2 vs R1(PPS-BA-R2-R1) was used.||157.374|119.611|
91014019|NCT00798161|181910892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.382||||0.0027||95.0|1.352|4.196|||Regression, Logistic|The odds-ratio is based on a logistic regression model including baseline HbA1c and previous antidiabetic medication.||Metformin 1000mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 1000mg||4.196|1.352|0.0027
91014020|NCT00798161|181910892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.622|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.153|6.093|||Regression, Logistic|The odds-ratio is based on a logistic regression model including baseline HbA1c and previous antidiabetic medication.||Linagliptin 5mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 500mg||6.093|2.153|<0.0001
91014021|NCT00798161|181910892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.529|||<|0.0001||95.0|3.724|11.445|||Regression, Logistic|The odds-ratio is based on a logistic regression model including baseline HbA1c and previous antidiabetic medication.||Linagliptin 5mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 1000mg||11.445|3.724|<0.0001
91014022|NCT00798161|181910893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.7||0.8893||95.0|-48.5|42.2|||ANCOVA|||Metformin 500mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 500mg||42.2|-48.5|0.8893
90804545|NCT01763333|181489671|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The pharmacokinetic parameters were log transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. The difference between the expected means of the 2 treatments of interest for each pairwise comparison were estimated by the difference in the corresponding Least Square Means (point estimate) and two-sided 90% confidence intervals based on the t-distribution were computed. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale to give the point estimator (geometric mean).|gMean ratio|116.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|111.814|122.079|||||Adjusted gMean ratio.|Relative bioavailability comparison Sol. fed (T2): Tab. fed (T1) for AUC 0-tz.The per protocol set for the evaluation of relative bioavailability of T2 vs T1 (PPS-BA-T2-T1) was used.||122.079|111.814|
90804546|NCT00005947|181489696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.45||||0.052||95.0|0.99|2.11|||Log Rank||Obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment group as the independent variable \[placebo/sipuleucel-T\].|||2.11|0.99|0.052
90804547|NCT00005947|181489696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.01|||Log Rank||Obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment group as the independent variable \[sipuleucel-T/placebo\]|||1.01|0.47|0.052
91014023|NCT00798161|181910893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.1||0.3234||95.0|-66.2|22.2|||ANCOVA|||Metformin 1000mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 1000mg||22.2|-66.2|0.3234
90804548|NCT00005947|181489697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.71||||0.01||95.0|1.13|2.58|||Log Rank||Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as the independent variable \[placebo/sipuleucel-T\].|ITT Population - all randomized participants||2.58|1.13|0.010
90804549|NCT00005947|181489697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.586||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.388|0.884|||Log Rank||Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as the independent variable \[sipuleucel-T/placebo\]|ITT Population - all randomized participants.||0.884|0.388|0.010
90804550|NCT00434993|181489701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|0.3||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline shock.||The trial had a statistical power of 90.7% to detect a 2.25-day increase in VFDs,assuming a SD of 10.5 days. A group sequential design was used.||0.3|-4.7|0.087
90804551|NCT00434993|181489702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.3||||0.302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|14.7||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline shock.||||14.7|-4.0|0.302
90804552|NCT00434993|181489703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.9||||0.261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|15.4||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline shock.||||15.4|-3.7|0.261
90804553|NCT00434993|181489704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|-0.4||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline shock.||||-0.4|-4.9|0.023
91014024|NCT00798161|181910893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-50.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|23.8||0.0373||95.0|-98.5|-3.1|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin 5mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 500mg||-3.1|-98.5|0.0373
91014025|NCT00798161|181910893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-73.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.7||0.0018||95.0|-119.3|-28.6|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin 5mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 1000mg||-28.6|-119.3|0.0018
90804554|NCT00434993|181489705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|0.9||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline shock.||||0.9|-4.3|0.226
90804555|NCT00434993|181489706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|0.6|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline shock.||||0.6|-5.3|0.130
90804556|NCT00434993|181489707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|8.2||||0.176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|19.6|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline shock.||||19.6|-3.1|0.176
90804557|NCT00434993|181489708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.9||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||-0.0|-7.8|0.048
90804558|NCT00434993|181489709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|9.5||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|25.9|||Regression, Logistic|||||25.9|-6.9|0.265
90804559|NCT03335150|181489711|OTHER|Equality|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4856||||0.6662|TWO_SIDED|||||Interaction term|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated Value = Standard Error (SE) of the interaction term.|||||0.6662
90804560|NCT03335150|181489711|OTHER|Equality|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2415||||0.1617|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mean Matrix Reasoning Total (MRT) difference between two visits while controlling for intervention.|estimated value = SE|||||0.1617
90804561|NCT03335150|181489711|OTHER|Equality|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5087||||0.6236|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mean MRT difference between two interventions while controlling for visit.|estimated value = SE|||||0.6236
90804562|NCT03335150|181489712|OTHER|Equality|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.58||||0.0496|TWO_SIDED|||||Interaction term|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated value = SE of interaction term|||||0.0496
90804563|NCT03335150|181489713|OTHER|Equality|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.62||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|||||Interaction term|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated Value = SE of interaction term|||||0.047
90804564|NCT03335150|181489714|OTHER|Equality|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.97||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Interaction Term|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated Value = SE of interaction term|||||0.001
90804565|NCT03335150|181489715|OTHER|Equality|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.25||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||Interaction term|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated Value = SE of interaction term|||||0.020
90804566|NCT03335150|181489716|OTHER|Equality|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.26||||0.444|TWO_SIDED|||||Interaction term|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated Value = SE of interaction term|||||0.444
90804567|NCT03335150|181489716|OTHER|Equality|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.145||||0.0233|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|There is significant difference in MIST between intervention groups controlling for visit and other significant covariates.|estimated value = SE|||||0.0233
90804568|NCT03335150|181489716|OTHER|Equality|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6281|||<|0|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|There is significant difference in MIST between baseline and week 10 controlling for intervention group and other significant covariates|estimated value = SE|||||<0.000
90804569|NCT03335150|181489717|OTHER|Equality|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.205||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|||||Interaction term|Mixed Models Analysis||estimated value = SE of interaction term|||||0.073
90804570|NCT03335150|181489718|OTHER|Equality|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.25||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|||||Interaction Term|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.82
90804571|NCT03335150|181489718|OTHER|Equality|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1172||||0.0257|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mean PDQ-39 difference between baseline and week 10 controlling for intervention and covariates.|estimated value = SE|||||0.0257
90804572|NCT03335150|181489718|OTHER|Equality|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.8649||||0.1101|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Difference in PDQ-39 between two interventions controlling for visit and covariates.|estimated value = SE|||||0.1101
90804573|NCT03335150|181489719|OTHER|Equality|Median Difference (Final Values)|1.784||||0.0263|TWO_SIDED|||||Interaction term|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated Value = SE of the interaction term.|||||0.0263
91014026|NCT00798161|181910896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.326||||0.0445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.109|0.973|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.973|0.109|0.0445
91014027|NCT00798161|181910896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.274||||0.0151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.096|0.779|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.779|0.096|0.0151
91014028|NCT00798161|181910896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.42||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.177|0.996|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.996|0.177|0.0490
91014029|NCT00798161|181910896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.598||||0.2617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.244|1.467|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.467|0.244|0.2617
91014030|NCT00594568|181910897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.134||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.134
91014031|NCT00594568|181910897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.045||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.045
90804574|NCT02218697|181489735|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority criterion (for each of the 4 strains): UL of the 95% CI for the GMT ratio (Control Group / Co-Ad Group) does not exceed 2.0.|Adjusted GMT ratio|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.46|||ANCOVA||The GMTs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMTs, which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMT ratio with 95% confidence interval.|The adjusted GMT of HI antibodies for H1N1 strain at Day 28 post Influsplit™ Tetra vaccination, the GMT ratio of Control group/Co-Ad group and the two sided 95% CI were computed by fitting an ANCOVA model on the logarithm10 transformation of the titers, including the vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination titer as covariate.||1.46|0.88|
90804575|NCT02218697|181489735|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority criterion (for each of the 4 strains): UL of the 95% CI for the GMT ratio (Control Group / Co-Ad Group) does not exceed 2.0.|Adjusted GMT ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.21|||ANCOVA||The GMTs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMTs, which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMT ratio with 95% confidence interval.|The adjusted GMT of HI antibodies for H3N2 strain at Day 28 post Influsplit™ Tetra vaccination, the GMT ratio of Control group/Co-Ad group and the two sided 95% CI were computed by fitting an ANCOVA model on the logarithm10 transformation of the titers, including the vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination titer as covariate.||1.21|0.78|
90804576|NCT02218697|181489735|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority criterion (for each of the 4 strains): UL of the 95% CI for the GMT ratio (Control Group / Co-Ad Group) does not exceed 2.0.|Adjusted GMT ratio|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.4|||ANCOVA||The GMTs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMTs, which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMT ratio with 95% confidence interval.|The adjusted GMT of HI antibodies for Victoria strain at Day 28 post Influsplit™ Tetra vaccination, the GMT ratio of Control group/Co-Ad group and the two sided 95% CI were computed by fitting an ANCOVA model on the logarithm10 transformation of the titers, including the vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination titer as covariate.||1.40|0.98|
90804577|NCT02218697|181489735|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority criterion (for each of the 4 strains): UL of the 95% CI for the GMT ratio (Control Group / Co-Ad Group) does not exceed 2.0.|Adjusted GMT ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.16|||ANCOVA||The GMTs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMTs, which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMT ratio with 95% confidence interval.|The adjusted GMT of HI antibodies for Yamagata strain at Day 28 post Influsplit™ Tetra vaccination, the GMT ratio of Control group/Co-Ad group and the two sided 95% CI were computed by fitting an ANCOVA model on the logarithm10 transformation of the titers, including the vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination titer as covariate.||1.16|0.84|
90804578|NCT02218697|181489736|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority criterion (for each of six pneumococcal serotypes): UL of the 95% CI for the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio (Control group over Co-Ad group) does not exceed 2.0.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.5|||ANCOVA||The GMCs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMCs, which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMC ratio with 95% confidence interval.|Anti-pneumococcal antibody concentrations for Polysaccharide 01 serotype at Day 28 post Pneumovax™ 23 vaccination, the GMC ratio of Control Group/Co-Ad Group and the two sided 95% CI were computed by fitting an ANCOVA model on the logarithm10 transformation of the titres/concentrations, including the vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination titre/concentration as covariate.||1.50|0.86|
90804579|NCT02218697|181489736|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority criterion (for each of six pneumococcal serotypes): UL of the 95% CI for the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio (Control group over Co-Ad group) does not exceed 2.0.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.45|||ANCOVA||The GMCs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMCs, which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMC ratio with 95% confidence interval.|Anti-pneumococcal antibody concentrations for Polysaccharide 03 serotype at Day 28 post Pneumovax™ 23 vaccination, the GMC ratio of Control Group/Co-Ad Group and the two sided 95% CI were computed by fitting an ANCOVA model on the logarithm10 transformation of the titres/concentrations, including the vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination titre/concentration as covariate.||1.45|0.96|
90804580|NCT02218697|181489736|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority criterion (for each of six pneumococcal serotypes): UL of the 95% CI for the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio (Control group over Co-Ad group) does not exceed 2.0.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.62|||ANCOVA||The GMCs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMCs, which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMC ratio with 95% confidence interval.|Anti-pneumococcal antibody concentrations for Polysaccharide 04 serotype at Day 28 post Pneumovax™ 23 vaccination, the GMC ratio of Control Group/Co-Ad Group and the two sided 95% CI were computed by fitting an ANCOVA model on the logarithm10 transformation of the titres/concentrations, including the vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination titre/concentration as covariate.||1.62|0.98|
90804581|NCT02218697|181489736|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority criterion (for each of six pneumococcal serotypes): UL of the 95% CI for the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio (Control group over Co-Ad group) does not exceed 2.0.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.63|||ANCOVA||The GMCs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMCs, which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMC ratio with 95% confidence interval.|Anti-pneumococcal antibody concentrations for Polysaccharide 7F serotype at Day 28 post Pneumovax™ 23 vaccination, the GMC ratio of Control Group/Co-Ad Group and the two sided 95% CI were computed by fitting an ANCOVA model on the logarithm10 transformation of the titres/concentrations, including the vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination titre/concentration as covariate.||1.63|0.95|
91014032|NCT00594568|181910897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.610
91014033|NCT00594568|181910898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.296||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.296
91014034|NCT00594568|181910898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.172||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.172
91014035|NCT00594568|181910898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.746||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.746
91014036|NCT00594568|181910899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.166||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.166
91014037|NCT00594568|181910899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91014038|NCT00594568|181910899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.014
91014039|NCT00594568|181910900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.935||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.935
91014040|NCT00594568|181910900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.068||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.068
91014041|NCT00594568|181910900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.070
90804582|NCT02218697|181489736|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority criterion (for each of six pneumococcal serotypes): UL of the 95% CI for the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio (Control group over Co-Ad group) does not exceed 2.0.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.57|||ANCOVA||The GMCs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMCs, which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMC ratio with 95% confidence interval.|Anti-pneumococcal antibody concentrations for Polysaccharide 14 serotype at Day 28 post Pneumovax™ 23 vaccination, the GMC ratio of Control Group/Co-Ad Group and the two sided 95% CI were computed by fitting an ANCOVA model on the logarithm10 transformation of the titres/concentrations, including the vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination titre/concentration as covariate.||1.57|0.91|
90804583|NCT02218697|181489736|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority criterion (for each of six pneumococcal serotypes): UL of the 95% CI for the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio (Control group over Co-Ad group) does not exceed 2.0.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.7|||ANCOVA||The GMCs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMCs, which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMC ratio with 95% confidence interval.|Anti-pneumococcal antibody concentrations for Polysaccharide 19A serotype at Day 28 post Pneumovax™ 23 vaccination, the GMC ratio of Control Group/Co-Ad Group and the two sided 95% CI were computed by fitting an ANCOVA model on the logarithm10 transformation of the titres/concentrations, including the vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination titre/concentration as covariate.||1.70|1.05|
90804584|NCT00809926|181489785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.6||||0.295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.61|1.4|||ANCOVA|||||1.40|-4.61|0.295
90804585|NCT00809926|181489786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|1.47|||ANCOVA|||||1.47|-1.93|0.790
90804586|NCT00809926|181489787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|8.1||||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|17.67|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||17.67|-1.56|0.101
90804587|NCT00809926|181489788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|11.6||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|21.33|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.33|2.00|0.018
91014042|NCT00594568|181910901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.002
91078150|NCT00625404|182041690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.1||||0.82|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test for difference in mean CD-4 counts||||0.82
90804588|NCT00809926|181489791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.4||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.34|-0.37|||ANCOVA|||||-0.37|-6.34|0.028
90804589|NCT00809926|181489792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.1||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.02|-0.14|||GENMOD|Based on a generalized estimating equations using SAS procedure GENMOD.||||-0.14|-6.02|0.040
90804590|NCT00809926|181489793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-8.7||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.38|-2.93|||ANCOVA|||||-2.93|-14.38|0.004
90804591|NCT00809926|181489794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-4.9||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.37|-1.42|||ANCOVA|||||-1.42|-8.37|0.006
90804592|NCT04776720|181489799|SUPERIORITY||Model based LS mean difference|0.19||||0.743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|1.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for baseline value Repeated measures mixed models, unstructured variance co-variance matrix||||1.34|-0.95|0.743
90804593|NCT04776720|181489800|SUPERIORITY||Model based LS mean difference|0.98||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|1.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for baseline value Repeated measures mixed models, unstructured variance co-variance matrix||||1.93|0.03|0.043
90804594|NCT04776720|181489801|SUPERIORITY||Model based LS mean difference|0.99||||0.689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.87|5.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for baseline value Repeated measures mixed models, with variance co-variance matrix||||5.84|-3.87|0.689
90804595|NCT04776720|181489802|SUPERIORITY||Model based LS mean difference|-0.28||||0.685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|1.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for baseline value Repeated measures mixed models, unstructured variance co-variance matrix||||1.07|-1.63|0.685
90804596|NCT04776720|181489803|SUPERIORITY||Model based LS mean difference|0.3||||0.764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for baseline value Repeated measures mixed models, unstructured variance co-variance matrix||||2.3|-1.69|0.764
90804597|NCT04776720|181489804|SUPERIORITY||Model based LS mean difference|-0.12||||0.883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|1.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for baseline value Repeated measures mixed models, unstructured variance co-variance matrix||||1.53|-1.78|0.883
90804598|NCT04776720|181489805|SUPERIORITY||Model based LS mean difference|-0.11||||0.753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for baseline value Repeated measures mixed models, unstructured variance co-variance matrix||||0.6|-0.83|0.753
90804599|NCT04776720|181489806|SUPERIORITY||Model based LS mean difference|-3.4||||0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.54|2.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline value Repeated measures mixed models, unstructured variance co-variance matrix||||2.74|-9.54|0.276
90804600|NCT04776720|181489807|SUPERIORITY||Model based LS mean difference|-0.29||||0.319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for baseline value Repeated measures mixed models, unstructured variance co-variance matrix||||0.28|-0.86|0.319
90804601|NCT04776720|181489808|SUPERIORITY||Model based LS mean difference|0.1||||0.448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for baseline value Repeated measures mixed models, unstructured variance co-variance matrix||||0.34|-0.15|0.448
90804602|NCT02227810|181489854|OTHER|||||||0.652|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.652
90804603|NCT02227810|181489854|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.123|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.123
90804604|NCT02227810|181489855|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.051|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.051
90804605|NCT02227810|181489855|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
90804606|NCT02227810|181489856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.051|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.051
90804607|NCT02227810|181489857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.792|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.792
91014043|NCT00594568|181910901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91014044|NCT00594568|181910901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91014045|NCT00594568|181910902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.038
91014046|NCT00594568|181910902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.147||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.147
91014047|NCT00594568|181910902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.604||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.604
91014048|NCT00594568|181910903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.143||95.0||||This is the p-value for the Left Hippocampal Volume|ANCOVA|||||||0.143
91078151|NCT00625404|182041694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.73|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test for difference in change in number of sexual partners over time||||0.73
90804608|NCT02311881|181489882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.51||||0.1626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.037|1.016|||ANCOVA||LS treatment means from mixed model analysis of covariance with treatment, target joint and center pools as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.|"H0: There is no significant difference in mean change from baseline through week 12 of WOMAC Pain between twice daily Paracetamol 1000 mg SR tablets and placebo.~H1: There is a significant difference in mean change from baseline through week 12 of WOMAC Pain between twice daily Paracetamol 1000 mg SR tablets and placebo."||1.016|-6.037|0.1626
90804609|NCT02311881|181489882|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Paracetamol 2000mg BID is non-inferior to Paracetamol 1330mg TID if the upper bound of the 95% confidence Interval is less than 5.3.|LS mean difference|-2.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.894|1.166|||ANCOVA||LS treatment means from mixed model analysis of covariance with treatment, target joint and center pools as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.|"H0: Difference in mean change from baseline through week 12 of WOMAC Pain between Paracetamol 1000 mg SR tablet and Paracetamol 665 mg SR tablet is ≤ - 5.3 (inferiority).~H1: Difference in mean change from baseline through week 12 of WOMAC Pain between Paracetamol 1000 mg SR tablet and Paracetamol 665 mg SR tablet is \> - 5.3 (noninferiority)."||1.166|-5.894|
90804610|NCT02311881|181489882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.15||||0.9352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.687|3.394|||ANCOVA||LS treatment means from mixed model analysis of covariance with treatment, target joint and center pools as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.|"H0: There is no significant difference in mean change from baseline through week 12 of WOMAC Pain between Paracetamol 665 mg SR tablets and placebo.~H1: There is a significant difference in mean change from baseline through week 12 of WOMAC Pain between Paracetamol 665 mg SR tablets and placebo."||3.394|-3.687|0.9352
90804611|NCT03306433|181489892|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is that there are no significant paired differences between the groups. The power calculation is based on the observed variation and number of participants|Paired difference t-test|-12.139|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.101||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|||||Paired difference p value comparing UDMA-K18 vs Adhesive Control|Paired difference test, 2 sided||There are 12 participants (pairs) for this comparison|Paired difference test within each participant.||||0.0003
90804612|NCT03306433|181489892|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis was that there were no differences between the groups|Paired difference t-test|-7.412|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.049||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|||||Paired differrnce between UDMA-K18 and UDMA control|Paired difference test, 2 sided||There are 9 participant pairs for this comparison|Paired comparison||||0.0063
91014049|NCT00594568|181910903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.464||95.0||||This is the p-value for the Left Hippocampal Volume|ANCOVA|||||||0.464
91014050|NCT00594568|181910903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025||95.0||||This is the p-value for the Left Hippocampal Volume|ANCOVA|||||||0.025
91078152|NCT02227368|182041805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.3441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference is Ticagrelor - Aspirin. LOCF was used for missing data imputation.|||0.1|-0.4|0.3441
90804613|NCT03306433|181489893|EQUIVALENCE|The Null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between the groups|Chi Square on WSL Index frequency|15.77||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||WSL Index is non-parametric||||0.0033
90804614|NCT03306433|181489893|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was that there would not be any differences between the groups|Chi Square on WSL Index frequency|6.8321||||0.145|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1450
90804615|NCT00819156|181489894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage|61.0||||||95.0|41.0|78.0|||||The estimated value is the percentage of patients with Testosterone \<=0.5 nanograms/milliliter from Day 28 to Day 364. The 95% Confidence Interval was calculated by the Clopper-Pearson method.|||78|41|
90804616|NCT00819156|181489894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage|84.0||||||95.0|64.0|95.0|||||The estimated value is the percentage of patients with Testosterone \<=0.5 nanograms/milliliter from Day 28 to Day 364. The 95% Confidence Interval was calculated by the Clopper-Pearson method.|||95|64|
90804617|NCT00819156|181489894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage|96.0||||||95.0|81.0|100.0|||||The estimated value is the percentage of patients with Testosterone \<=0.5 nanograms/milliliter from Day 28 to Day 364. The 95% Confidence Interval was calculated by the Clopper-Pearson method.|||100|81|
90804618|NCT00819156|181489894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage|90.0||||||95.0|73.0|98.0|||||The estimated value is the percentage of patients with Testosterone \<=0.5 nanograms/milliliter from Day 28 to Day 364. The 95% Confidence Interval was calculated by the Clopper-Pearson method.|||98|73|
90804619|NCT00819156|181489894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage|90.0||||||95.0|73.0|98.0|||||The estimated value is the percentage of patients with Testosterone \<=0.5 nanograms/milliliter from Day 28 to Day 364. The 95% Confidence Interval was calculated by the Clopper-Pearson method.|||98|73|
90804620|NCT00819156|181489894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage|92.0||||||95.0|74.0|99.0|||||The estimated value is the percentage of patients with Testosterone \<=0.5 nanograms/milliliter from Day 28 to Day 364. The 95% Confidence Interval was calculated by the Clopper-Pearson method.|||99|74|
90804621|NCT00819156|181489895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage|92.0||||||95.0|80.0|98.0|||||The estimated value is the percentage of patients with Testosterone (T) \<=0.5 nanograms (ng)/milliliter (mL) from Day 28 to Day 364 for Patients With T \<=0.5 ng/mL at Day 28. The 95% Confidence Interval was calculated by the Clopper-Pearson method.|||98|80|
90804622|NCT00819156|181489895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage|96.0||||||95.0|86.0|100.0|||||The estimated value is the percentage of patients with Testosterone (T) \<=0.5 nanograms (ng)/milliliter (mL) from Day 28 to Day 364 for Patients With T \<=0.5 ng/mL at Day 28. The 95% Confidence Interval was calculated by the Clopper-Pearson method.|||100|86|
91014051|NCT00594568|181910903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.347||95.0||||This is the p-value for the Right Hippocampal Volume|ANCOVA|||||||0.347
91014052|NCT00594568|181910903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82||95.0||||This is the p-value for the Right Hippocampal Volume|ANCOVA|||||||0.820
91014053|NCT00594568|181910903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.243||95.0||||This is the p-value for the Right Hippocampal Volume|ANCOVA|||||||0.243
91014054|NCT00594568|181910904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.784||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.784
91014055|NCT00594568|181910904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.931||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.931
91014056|NCT00594568|181910904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.718||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.718
91014057|NCT00594568|181910905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.634||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.634
91014058|NCT00594568|181910905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.901||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.901
91014059|NCT00594568|181910905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.659||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.659
90804623|NCT00819156|181489895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage|100.0||||||95.0|93.0|100.0|||||The estimated value is the percentage of patients with Testosterone (T) \<=0.5 nanograms (ng)/milliliter (mL) from Day 28 to Day 364 for Patients With T \<=0.5 ng/mL at Day 28. The 95% Confidence Interval was calculated by the Clopper-Pearson method.|||100|93|
90804624|NCT00819156|181489896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage|70.0||||||95.0|51.0|85.0|||||The estimated value is the percentage of patients with Testosterone \<=0.5 nanograms/milliliter at Day 28. The 95% Confidence Interval was calculated with the Clopper-Pearson method.|||85|51|
90804625|NCT00819156|181489896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage|91.0||||||95.0|75.0|98.0|||||The estimated value is the percentage of patients with Testosterone \<=0.5 nanograms/milliliter at Day 28. The 95% Confidence Interval was calculated with the Clopper-Pearson method.|||98|75|
90804626|NCT00819156|181489896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage|97.0||||||95.0|84.0|100.0|||||The estimated value is the percentage of patients with Testosterone \<=0.5 nanograms/milliliter at Day 28. The 95% Confidence Interval was calculated with the Clopper-Pearson method.|||100|84|
90804627|NCT00819156|181489896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage|97.0||||||95.0|83.0|100.0|||||The estimated value is the percentage of patients with Testosterone \<=0.5 nanograms/milliliter at Day 28. The 95% Confidence Interval was calculated with the Clopper-Pearson method.|||100|83|
90804628|NCT00819156|181489896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage|94.0||||||95.0|80.0|99.0|||||The estimated value is the percentage of patients with Testosterone \<=0.5 nanograms/milliliter at Day 28. The 95% Confidence Interval was calculated with the Clopper-Pearson method.|||99|80|
91014060|NCT00594568|181910908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.062||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.062
90804629|NCT00819156|181489896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage|93.0||||||95.0|77.0|99.0|||||The estimated value is the percentage of patients with Testosterone \<=0.5 nanograms/milliliter at Day 28. The 95% Confidence Interval was calculated with the Clopper-Pearson method.|||99|77|
90804630|NCT00819156|181489897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage|83.0||||||95.0|65.0|94.0|||||The estimated value is the percentage of patients with Testosterone \<=0.5 nanograms/milliliter at Day 3. The 95% Confidence Interval was calculated with the Clopper-Pearson method.|||94|65|
90804631|NCT00819156|181489897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage|94.0||||||95.0|79.0|99.0|||||The estimated value is the percentage of patients with Testosterone \<=0.5 nanograms/milliliter at Day 3. The 95% Confidence Interval was calculated with the Clopper-Pearson method.|||99|79|
90804632|NCT00819156|181489897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage|87.0||||||95.0|70.0|96.0|||||The estimated value is the percentage of patients with Testosterone \<=0.5 nanograms/milliliter at Day 3. The 95% Confidence Interval was calculated with the Clopper-Pearson method.|||96|70|
90804633|NCT00819156|181489897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage|93.0||||||95.0|78.0|99.0|||||The estimated value is the percentage of patients with Testosterone \<=0.5 nanograms/milliliter at Day 3. The 95% Confidence Interval was calculated with the Clopper-Pearson method.|||99|78|
90804634|NCT00819156|181489897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage|91.0||||||95.0|76.0|98.0|||||The estimated value is the percentage of patients with Testosterone \<=0.5 nanograms/milliliter at Day 3. The 95% Confidence Interval was calculated with the Clopper-Pearson method.|||98|76|
90804635|NCT00819156|181489897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage|93.0||||||95.0|78.0|99.0|||||The estimated value is the percentage of patients with Testosterone \<=0.5 nanograms/milliliter at Day 3. The 95% Confidence Interval was calculated with the Clopper-Pearson method.|||99|78|
90804636|NCT00819156|181489898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0933||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.0933
90804637|NCT00819156|181489899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.165||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.165
90804638|NCT00819156|181489900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.429||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.429
90804639|NCT00803595|181489910|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A noninferiority margin of 18 hours (h) was set to assure the superiority of laninamivir octanoate over a putative placebo. A meta-analysis using 3 placebo-controlled trials reported that the difference between the median time to illness alleviation in the placebo and oseltamivir groups was 33.1 h and the 95% confidence interval ranged from 19.1 to 47.1 h. From this, a margin that was less than the lower limit of this 95% CI was selected.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|6.9||2-sided p-value without adjustments for multiple testing|Generalized Wilcoxon Test|||This trial was designed to confirm the efficacy of laninamivir octanoate by showing that the median time to illness alleviation in patients treated with laninamivir octanoate was not \>18 hours longer than that in patients treated with oseltamivir. Sample size of 300 patients in each group was determined to achieve a power of at least 80% to show noninferiority at both dose levels of laninamivir octanoate with use of a Monte Carlo simulation.||6.9|-9.9|0.748
90804640|NCT00803595|181489910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-12.8||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.2|-0.4||2-sided p-value without adjustments for multiple testing|Generalized Wilcoxon Test|||Null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the time to illness alleviation||-0.4|-18.2|0.038
90804641|NCT00803595|181489910|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A noninferiority margin of 18 hours was set to assure the superiority of laninamivir octanoate over a putative placebo. A meta-analysis using 3 placebo-controlled trials reported that the difference between the median time to illness alleviation in the placebo and oseltamivir groups was 33.1 h and the 95% confidence interval ranged from 19.1 to 47.1 h. From this, a margin that was less than the lower limit of this 95% CI was selected.|Median Difference (Final Values)|12.2||||0.104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|17.2|||Generalized Wilcoxon test|||This trial was designed to confirm the efficacy of laninamivir octanoate by showing that the median time to illness alleviation in patients treated with laninamivir octanoate was not \>18 hours longer than that in patients treated with oseltamivir. Sample size of 300 patients in each group was determined to achieve a power of at least 80% to show noninferiority at both dose levels of laninamivir octanoate with use of a Monte Carlo simulation.||17.2|-1.5|0.104
91014061|NCT00594568|181910908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.022
91014062|NCT00594568|181910908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.669||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.669
91014063|NCT00594568|181910909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.071||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.071
91014064|NCT00594568|181910909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.018
91014065|NCT00594568|181910909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.571||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.571
91014066|NCT00594568|181910910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.518||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.518
91014067|NCT00594568|181910910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.013
91014068|NCT00594568|181910910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.072||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.072
90804642|NCT00803595|181489911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|3.3||||0.318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|9.1||2-sided P value without adjustments for multiple testing.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|||Null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the time for return to normal axillary temperature.||9.1|-2.8|0.318
90804643|NCT00803595|181489911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|5.7||2-sided P value without adjustments for multiple testing.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|||Null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the time for return to normal axillary temperature.||5.7|-5.8|0.981
90804644|NCT00803595|181489911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.7||||0.344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|3.1||2-sided P value without adjustments for multiple testing.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|||Null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the time for return to normal axillary temperature.||3.1|-9.1|0.344
91014069|NCT00594568|181910911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.069||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.069
90804645|NCT03224403|181489942|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.049 (two-sided). P-values are based on the Wilcoxon test from PROC LIFETEST that compared survival curves.|Wilcoxon test from SAS PROC LIFETEST|||||||<0.001
90804646|NCT03224403|181489942|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.049 (two-sided). P-values are based on the Wilcoxon test from PROC LIFETEST that compared survival curves.|Wilcoxon test from SAS PROC LIFETEST|||||||<0.001
91014070|NCT00594568|181910911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.002
91014071|NCT00594568|181910911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.198||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.198
91014072|NCT00594568|181910912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.127||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.127
91014073|NCT00594568|181910912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.016
91014074|NCT00594568|181910912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.381||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.381
91014075|NCT00594568|181910913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91014076|NCT00594568|181910913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.005
91014077|NCT00594568|181910913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.141||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.141
90804647|NCT03224403|181489942|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.049 (two-sided). P-values are based on the Wilcoxon test from PROC LIFETEST that compared survival curves.|Wilcoxon test from SAS PROC LIFETEST|||||||<0.001
90804648|NCT03224403|181489942|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035||||||The significance threshold level was 0.049 (two-sided). P-values are from the comparison of median survival time using the bootstrap re-sampling method.|bootstrap re-sampling method|||||||0.035
90804649|NCT03224403|181489942|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.049 (two-sided). P-values are from the comparison of median survival time using the bootstrap re-sampling method.|bootstrap re-sampling method|||||||<0.001
90804650|NCT03224403|181489943|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.049 (two-sided). P-values are based on the Wilcoxon test from PROC LIFETEST that compared survival curves.|Wilcoxon test from SAS PROC LIFETEST|||||||<0.001
90804651|NCT03224403|181489943|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.049 (two-sided). P-values are based on the Wilcoxon test from PROC LIFETEST that compared survival curves.|Wilcoxon test from SAS PROC LIFETEST|||||||<0.001
90804652|NCT03224403|181489943|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.049 (two-sided). P-values are based on the Wilcoxon test from PROC LIFETEST that compared survival curves.|Wilcoxon test from SAS PROC LIFETEST|||||||<0.001
90804653|NCT03224403|181489943|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.671||||||The significance threshold level was 0.049 (two-sided). P-values are from the comparison of median survival time using the bootstrap re-sampling method.|bootstrap re-sampling method|||||||0.671
90804654|NCT03224403|181489943|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.487||||||The significance threshold level was 0.049 (two-sided). P-values are from the comparison of median survival time using the bootstrap re-sampling method.|bootstrap re-sampling method|||||||0.487
90804655|NCT03224403|181489944|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
90804656|NCT03224403|181489945|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
91014078|NCT00594568|181910914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.337||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.337
91014079|NCT00594568|181910914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.018
90804657|NCT03224403|181489946|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
90804658|NCT03224403|181489947|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
90804659|NCT03224403|181489948|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
90804660|NCT03224403|181489949|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
90804661|NCT03224403|181489950|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
90804662|NCT03224403|181489951|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
90804663|NCT03224403|181489952|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
90804664|NCT03224403|181489953|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
91014080|NCT00594568|181910914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.157||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.157
91014081|NCT00594568|181910915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.186||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.186
91014082|NCT00594568|181910915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.149||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.149
91014083|NCT00594568|181910915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.889||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.889
91014084|NCT00594568|181910916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.202||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.202
91014085|NCT00594568|181910916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.075||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.075
91014086|NCT00594568|181910916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.616||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.616
91014087|NCT01366846|181910932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of the percentage of subjects with peanut allergy in the Continued Peanut Avoidance Group to that of the Peanut Avoidance After Peanut Consumption Group within the SPT-negative stratum.||||<0.001
91014088|NCT01366846|181910932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of the percentage of subjects with peanut allergy in the Continued Peanut Avoidance Group to that of the Peanut Avoidance After Peanut Consumption Group within the SPT-positive stratum.||||0.004
90804665|NCT03224403|181489954|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
90804666|NCT03224403|181489955|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
90804667|NCT03224403|181489956|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
90804668|NCT03224403|181489957|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
90804669|NCT03224403|181489958|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
90804670|NCT03224403|181489959|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
90804671|NCT03224403|181489960|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
91014089|NCT01366846|181910933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of the percentage of participants with peanut allergy in the Continued Peanut Avoidance Group to that of the Peanut Consumption Group across both the SPT-negative and SPT-positive strata.||||<0.001
91014090|NCT01366846|181910934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of the percentage of subjects with peanut allergy in the Continued Peanut Avoidance Group to that of the Peanut Avoidance After Peanut Consumption Group within the SPT-negative stratum.||||<0.001
91014091|NCT01366846|181910934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of the percentage of subjects with peanut allergy in the Continued Peanut Avoidance Group to that of the Peanut Avoidance After Peanut Consumption Group within the SPT-positive stratum.||||0.027
91014092|NCT01366846|181910935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of the percentage of subjects with peanut allergy in the Continued Peanut Avoidance Group to that of the Peanut Avoidance After Peanut Consumption Group across both the SPT-negative and SPT-positive strata.||||<0.001
91014093|NCT01366846|181910936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Exact McNemar|||Comparison of the percentage of subjects with peanut allergy in the Peanut Avoidance After Peanut Consumption Group at month 60 to that of the Peanut Avoidance After Peanut Consumption Group at month 72 across both the SPT-negative and SPT-positive strata.||||0.250
90804672|NCT03224403|181489961|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.007
90804673|NCT03224403|181489962|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.026|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.026
90804674|NCT03224403|181489963|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.080
90804675|NCT01631747|181489992|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons, and tested at an a priori type I error rate of 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Sample size was based on an independent 2-sample t-test using a two-sided type 1 error rate of 0.05, and 80% power. Assuming a standard deviation (SD) of 15lbs (6.8kg), a clinically meaningful difference of 5lbs (2.4kg) between groups, and 10% attrition, a sample size of 150/group was required.||||0.01
90804676|NCT01631747|181489992|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Regression, Linear|adjusted for actual gestational age of 36 week weight, gestational age, bmi, and maternal age at randomization, maternal race and paternal race.||||||0.02
90804677|NCT01631747|181489993|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.54
90804678|NCT01631747|181489994|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|||||||t-test, 2 sided|T-test performed on change in glucose (log scale), but presented as Median and inter-quartile range for interpretability||||||0.89
90804679|NCT01631747|181489995|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test performed on changes in HDL, but presented as median and IQR for ease of interpretation||||||0.30
90804680|NCT01631747|181489996|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test run on changes between groups. Data presented as median and IQR for ease of interpretation||||||0.69
90804681|NCT01631747|181489997|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test run on change between groups (log scale), but presented as median and IQR for ease of interpretation||||||0.19
90804682|NCT01631747|181489998|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test used to compare changes between groups (log scale). Median and IQR are presented for ease of interpretation.||||||0.27
90804683|NCT01631747|181489999|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test performed on changes between groups (log scale). Median and IQR are presented for ease of interpretation||||||0.003
90804684|NCT01631747|181490000|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test run on change between groups (log scale), but presented as median and IQR for ease of interpretation||||||0.24
91078153|NCT02227368|182041806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.6186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.6|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference is Ticagrelor - Aspirin. LOCF was used for missing data imputation.|||0.6|-0.4|0.6186
90804685|NCT01631747|181490001|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test run on change between groups (log scale), but presented as median and IQR for ease of interpretation||||||0.32
90804686|NCT01631747|181490002|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||t-test, 2 sided|T-test performed on change between groups (log scale). Median and IQR are presented for ease of interpretation||||||0.26
90804687|NCT01631747|181490003|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.62
90804688|NCT01631747|181490004|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.61
90804689|NCT01631747|181490005|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.42
90804690|NCT01631747|181490006|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.25
90804691|NCT01631747|181490007|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.66
90804692|NCT01631747|181490008|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.94
90804693|NCT02908685|181490011|SUPERIORITY|This is the first end point and first family tested in the hierarchical testing. The variables included in the MMRM model are: baseline total score, treatment, age group, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline score-by-visit interaction.|Least Square Mean Difference|1.55||||0.0156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.81|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure Analysis|||||2.81|0.30|0.0156
90804694|NCT02908685|181490012|SUPERIORITY|This is the second end point and second family tested in the hierarchical testing. Logistic Regression Model.The variables included in the logistic regression are: baseline total score, treatment and age group.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.35||||0.0469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|5.44||Adjusted p-Value The adjusted p-values were derived based on all the p-values from end points in order of the hierarchical testing up to the current endpoint.|Wald test|||||5.44|1.01|0.0469
90804695|NCT02908685|181490013|SUPERIORITY|This is the third end point and third family tested in the hierarchical testing. The variables included in the MMRM model are: baseline total score, treatment, age group, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline score-by-visit interaction.|Least Square Mean Difference|1.59||||0.0469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|2.62||Adjusted p-Value The adjusted p-values were derived based on all the p-values from end points in order of the hierarchical testing up to the current endpoint.|Mixed Model Repeated Measure Analysis|||||2.62|0.55|0.0469
90804696|NCT02908685|181490014|SUPERIORITY|This is one of the two end points in family four in the hierarchical testing. The variables included in the MMRM model are: baseline total score, treatment, age group, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline score-by-visit interaction.|Least Square Mean Difference|0.58||||0.3902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|1.69||Adjusted p-Value The adjusted p-values were derived based on all the p-values from end points in order of the hierarchical testing up to the current endpoint.|Mixed Model Repeated Measure Analysis|||||1.69|-0.53|0.3902
90804697|NCT02908685|181490015|SUPERIORITY|This is one of the two end points in family four in the hierarchical testing. The variables included in the MMRM model are: baseline total score, treatment, age group, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline score-by-visit interaction.|Least Square Mean Difference|-2.05||||0.3902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.67|2.56||Adjusted p-Value The adjusted p-values were derived based on all the p-values from end points in order of the hierarchical testing up to the current endpoint.|Mixed Model Repeated Measure Analysis|||||2.56|-6.67|0.3902
90804698|NCT02908685|181490016|SUPERIORITY|This is the sixth endpoint and the fifth family tested in the hierarchical testing. The variables included in the MMRM model are: baseline total score, treatment, age group, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline score-by-visit interaction.|Least Square Mean Difference|2.55||||0.3902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|4.17||Adjusted p-Value The adjusted p-values were derived based on all the p-values from end points in order of the hierarchical testing up to the current endpoint.|Mixed Model Repeated Measure Analysis|||||4.17|0.93|0.3902
90804699|NCT02908685|181490017|SUPERIORITY|This is the seventh endpoint and the sixth family tested in the hierarchical testing. Logistic Regression Model. The variables included in the logistic regression are: baseline total score, treatment and age group.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.3902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.74||Adjusted p-Value The adjusted p-values were derived based on all the p-values from end points in order of the hierarchical testing up to the current endpoint.|Wald-test|||CGI Improved||2.74|0.70|0.3902
90804700|NCT02908685|181490018|SUPERIORITY|Logistic Regression Model. The variables included in the logistic regression are: baseline total score, treatment and age group.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|3.93|||Wald test|||||3.93|1.02|0.0430
91014094|NCT01366846|181910937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Exact McNemar|||Comparison of the percentage of subjects with peanut allergy in the Peanut Avoidance After Peanut Consumption Group at month 60 to that of the Peanut Avoidance After Peanut Consumption Group at month 72 across both the SPT-negative and SPT-positive strata.||||0.250
91014095|NCT01683331|181910949|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.06|||Chi-squared|||||1.06|1.01|0.87
91014096|NCT01683331|181910950|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.8|||Chi-squared|||||2.8|1.2|0.92
91014097|NCT04311411|181910972|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-534.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-668.2|-400.02|||ANCOVA|||||-400.02|-668.20|<.0001
91014098|NCT04311411|181910973|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0439||||0.5437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0994|0.1871|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Insula||0.1871|-0.0994|0.5437
91014099|NCT04311411|181910973|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.093||||0.1806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0441|0.2301|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Insula||0.2301|-0.0441|0.1806
91014100|NCT04311411|181910973|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0491||||0.472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1846|0.0863|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Insula||0.0863|-0.1846|0.4720
91014101|NCT04311411|181910973|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0011||||0.9842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1079|0.1058|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Medial frontal gyrus||0.1058|-0.1079|0.9842
91014102|NCT04311411|181910973|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0077||||0.8822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0949|0.1102|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Medial frontal gyrus||0.1102|-0.0949|0.8822
91014103|NCT04311411|181910973|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0087||||0.8657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1111|0.0937|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Medial frontal gyrus||0.0937|-0.1111|0.8657
91014104|NCT04311411|181910973|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0043||||0.9599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.165|0.1736|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Superior temporal gyrus||0.1736|-0.1650|0.9599
91014105|NCT04311411|181910973|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0489||||0.549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1129|0.2107|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Superior temporal gyrus||0.2107|-0.1129|0.5490
91014106|NCT04311411|181910973|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0446||||0.5854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2068|0.1176|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Superior temporal gyrus||0.1176|-0.2068|0.5854
90804701|NCT02908685|181490020|SUPERIORITY|The variables included in the MMRM model are: baseline total score, treatment, age group, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline score-by-visit interaction.|Least Square Mean Difference|0.64||||0.1328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.47|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure Analysis|||||1.47|-0.20|0.1328
90804702|NCT02908685|181490021|SUPERIORITY|The variables included in the MMRM model are: baseline total score, treatment, age group, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline score-by-visit interaction.|Least Square Mean Difference|1.97||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|4.34|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure Analysis|||||4.34|-0.40|0.1030
90804703|NCT02908685|181490022|SUPERIORITY|The variables included in the MMRM model are: baseline total score, treatment, age group, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline score-by-visit interaction.|Least Square Mean Difference|2.34||||0.0451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|4.62|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure Analysis|||||4.62|0.05|0.0451
91014107|NCT04311411|181910973|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0192||||0.7203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1259|0.0874|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Precentral gyrus||0.0874|-0.1259|0.7203
91014108|NCT04311411|181910973|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0404||||0.433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0617|0.1425|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Precentral gyrus||0.1425|-0.0617|0.4330
91014109|NCT04311411|181910973|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0596||||0.2488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1619|0.0426|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Precentral gyrus||0.0426|-0.1619|0.2488
91014110|NCT04311411|181910973|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.007||||0.8886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1059|0.0919|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cingulate gyrus||0.0919|-0.1059|0.8886
91014111|NCT04311411|181910973|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0684||||0.1563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0267|0.1635|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cingulate gyrus||0.1635|-0.0267|0.1563
91014112|NCT04311411|181910973|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0754||||0.1182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1704|0.0196|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cingulate gyrus||0.0196|-0.1704|0.1182
91014113|NCT04311411|181910974|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.11|29.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Fasting (Pre-lunch)||29.02|12.11|<.0001
91014114|NCT04311411|181910974|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.63||||0.1097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|14.79||Fasting|Mixed Models Analysis|||Fasting (Pre-lunch)||14.79|-1.53|0.1097
90804704|NCT02908685|181490023|SUPERIORITY|The variables included in the MMRM model are: baseline total score, treatment, age group, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline score-by-visit interaction.|Least Square Mean Difference|1.28||||0.0489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|2.56|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure Analysis|||||2.56|0.01|0.0489
90804705|NCT02908685|181490024|SUPERIORITY|The variables included in the MMRM model are: baseline total score, treatment, age group, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline score-by-visit interaction.|Least Square Mean Difference|2.16||||0.0326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|4.14|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure Analysis|||||4.14|0.18|0.0326
90804706|NCT02908685|181490025|SUPERIORITY|The variables included in the MMRM model are: baseline total score, treatment, age group, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline score-by-visit interaction.|Least Square Mean Difference|-2.87||||0.3029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.36|2.62|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure Analysis|||||2.62|-8.36|0.3029
90804707|NCT02908685|181490026|SUPERIORITY|The variables included in the MMRM model are: baseline total score, treatment, age group, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline score-by-visit interaction.|Least Square Mean Difference|1.28||||0.4937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.42|4.99|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure Analysis|||||4.99|-2.42|0.4937
90804708|NCT02908685|181490027|SUPERIORITY|The variables included in the MMRM model are: baseline total score, treatment, age group, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline score-by-visit interaction.|Least Square Mean Difference|2.35||||0.3967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.11|7.8|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure Analysis|||||7.80|-3.11|0.3967
90804709|NCT02908685|181490028|SUPERIORITY|The variables included in the MMRM model are: baseline total score, treatment, age group, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline score-by-visit interaction.|Least Square Mean Difference|2.96||||0.6704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.78|16.7|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure Analysis|||||16.70|-10.78|0.6704
91014115|NCT04311411|181910974|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.94||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.49|22.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Fasting (Pre-lunch)||22.38|5.49|0.0015
90804710|NCT02908685|181490029|SUPERIORITY|The variables included in the MMRM model are: baseline total score, treatment, age group, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline score-by-visit interaction.|Least Square Mean Difference|-0.43||||0.8856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|5.45|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure Analysis|||||5.45|-6.30|0.8856
90804711|NCT02908685|181490030|SUPERIORITY|The variables included in the MMRM model are: baseline total score, treatment, age group, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline score-by-visit interaction.|Least Square Mean Difference|1.45||||0.1778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|3.57|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure Analysis|||||3.57|-0.68|0.1778
90804712|NCT02908685|181490031|SUPERIORITY|Logistic Regression Model. The variables included in the logistic regression are: baseline total score, treatment and age group.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.6636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|2.83|||Wald-test|||CGI No Change or Improved||2.83|0.52|0.6636
90804713|NCT01691014|181490072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||DAS28: Month 3: Continuous variables were compared between treatment groups using one way analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.990
90804714|NCT01691014|181490072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.586|||||||Fisher Exact|||DAS28: Month 6: Continuous variables were compared between treatment groups using one way ANOVA.||||0.586
90804715|NCT01691014|181490072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98|||||||Fisher Exact|||DAS28: Month 12: Continuous variables were compared between treatment groups using one way ANOVA.||||0.980
90804716|NCT01691014|181490073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.945|||||||Fisher Exact|||HAQ: Baseline: Continuous variables were compared between treatment groups using one way ANOVA.||||0.945
90804717|NCT01691014|181490073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.458|||||||Fisher Exact|||HAQ: Month 3: Continuous variables were compared between treatment groups using one way ANOVA.||||0.458
90804718|NCT01691014|181490073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.896|||||||Fisher Exact|||HAQ: Month 6: Continuous variables were compared between treatment groups using one way ANOVA.||||0.896
90804719|NCT01691014|181490073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39|||||||Fisher Exact|||HAQ: Month 12: Continuous variables were compared between treatment groups using one way ANOVA.||||0.390
90804720|NCT03522246|181490079|SUPERIORITY|Rucaparib vs Placebo|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.47||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.72|||Log Rank||The stratified cox proportional hazard model is adjusted for the randomization strata of HRD classification and timing of surgery.|||0.72|0.31|0.0004
90804721|NCT03522246|181490080|SUPERIORITY|Rucaparib vs Placebo|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.68|||Log Rank||The stratified cox proportional hazard model is adjusted for the randomization strata of HRD classification, disease status post-chemotherapy, and timing of surgery.|||0.68|0.40|<0.0001
90804722|NCT03522246|181490081|SUPERIORITY|Rucaparib + Nivolumab vs Rucaparib + Placebo|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.29||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.53|||Log Rank||The stratified cox proportional hazard model is adjusted for the randomization strata of HRD classification, disease status post-chemotherapy, and timing of surgery.|||1.53|1.08|0.0038
90804723|NCT00814580|181490094|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Primary hypothesis test for non-inferiority of tapentadol IR over oxycodone IR required that upper limit of 95% CI for LS mean difference (oxycodone IR minus tapentadol IR) was less than the inferiority margin (\< 72). If the upper limit was less than 0 then tapentadol IR was superior to oxycodone IR for SPID over 3 days at a 5% level of significance.|Least square mean difference|9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.2||0.5265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9|36.9||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model included baseline pain intensity score as the covariate and treatment and pooled center as class variables.|ANCOVA|||Tapentadol IR versus Oxycodone IR||36.9|-18.9|0.5265
90804724|NCT00814580|181490095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7306||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.7306
90804725|NCT00814580|181490096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8524||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.8524
90804726|NCT00814580|181490097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9078||95.0||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (Row Mean Score option) controlling for pooled investigator centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.9078
90804727|NCT00814580|181490098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2633||95.0||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (Row Mean Score option) controlling for pooled investigator centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2633
90804728|NCT00814580|181490099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4498||95.0||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (Row Mean Score option) controlling for pooled investigator centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4498
90804729|NCT00814580|181490100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2158||95.0||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (Row Mean Score option) controlling for pooled investigator centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2158
91014116|NCT04311411|181910974|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.25||||0.4469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|8.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Postprandial (Post-lunch)||8.09|-3.60|0.4469
90804730|NCT00814580|181490101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.34||0.4811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|25.0||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model included baseline pain intensity score as the covariate and treatment and pooled center as class variables.|ANCOVA|||||25.0|-11.8|0.4811
90804731|NCT00814580|181490102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-9.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|28.13||0.7405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.7|46.0||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model included baseline pain intensity score as the covariate and treatment and pooled center as class variables.|ANCOVA|||||46.0|-64.7|0.7405
90804732|NCT00814580|181490103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.53||0.3097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|5.3||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model included baseline pain intensity score as the covariate and treatment and pooled center as class variables.|ANCOVA|||||5.3|-16.5|0.3097
90804733|NCT00814580|181490104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-10.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.34||0.2179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.7|6.1||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model included baseline pain intensity score as the covariate and treatment and pooled center as class variables.|ANCOVA|||||6.1|-26.7|0.2179
91014117|NCT04311411|181910974|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.64||||0.8227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.02|6.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Postprandial (Post-lunch)||6.31|-5.02|0.8227
91014118|NCT04311411|181910974|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.61||||0.5861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.23|7.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Postprandial (Post-lunch)||7.45|-4.23|0.5861
91014119|NCT00933543|181911086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.43||||0.0703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|63.18||Priori threshold for statistical significance was 5%|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by center. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was done||H0: τ (Vehicle PDT) = τ (MAL PDT) versus HA: τ (Vehicle PDT) ≠ τ (MAL PDT)||63.18|0.65|0.0703
91014120|NCT00933543|181911088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.92||||0.2969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.35|3.5||Priori threshold for statistical significance was 5%|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model, including center and baseline lesion count as a covariates||H0: τ (Vehicle PDT) = τ (MAL PDT) versus HA: τ (Vehicle PDT) ≠ τ (MAL PDT)||3.50|-11.35|0.2969
91014121|NCT00933543|181911089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.67||||0.8913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.09|10.43||Priori threshold for statistical significance was 5%|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model, including center and baseline lesion count as a covariates||H0: τ (Vehicle PDT) = τ (MAL PDT) versus HA: τ (Vehicle PDT) ≠ τ (MAL PDT)||10.43|-9.09|0.8913
91014122|NCT00694070|181911112|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The null and alternative hypotheses for these tests will have the form:~Ho: Pr{Success} \< Po vs. Ha: Pr{Success} ≥ Po. Critical values for numbers of successes were computed to give approximately a 90% chance of rejecting Ho in favor of the alternative (non-inferiority) if the true probability of success is at least Po. For Po = 80%, with n=51, critical number is 38. With this critical value and sample size, the power to reject Ho is approximately 87.43%."||||||0.0421|||||||Exact binomial test|||||||0.0421
91014123|NCT00694070|181911113|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The null and alternative hypotheses for these tests will have the form:~Ho: Pr{Success} \< Po vs. Ha: Pr{Success} ≥ Po. Critical values for numbers of successes were computed to give approximately a 90% chance of rejecting Ho in favor of the alternative (non-inferiority) if the true probability of success is at least Po. For Po = 95%, with n=51, critical number is 47. With this critical value and sample size, the power to reject Ho is approximately 88.96%."||||||0.0309|||||||Exact binomial test|||||||0.0309
91078154|NCT03046056|182041811|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference in Proportions|8.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.5|32.1||||||||32.1|-16.5|
91078155|NCT03046056|182041811|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference in Proportions|8.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.9|32.0||||||||32.0|-15.9|
90804734|NCT00814580|181490105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-26.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.16||0.1051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.1|5.5||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model included baseline pain intensity score as the covariate and treatment and pooled center as class variables.|ANCOVA|||||5.5|-58.1|0.1051
90804735|NCT00814580|181490106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.09||0.9367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.8|24.8||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model included baseline pain intensity score as the covariate and treatment and pooled center as class variables.|ANCOVA|||||24.8|-22.8|0.9367
90804736|NCT00814580|181490107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.53||0.9441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.8|35.2||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model included baseline pain intensity score as the covariate and treatment and pooled center as class variables.|ANCOVA|||||35.2|-37.8|0.9441
90804737|NCT00814580|181490108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-35.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|37.45||0.3427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-109.3|38.1||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model included baseline pain intensity score as the covariate and treatment and pooled center as class variables.|ANCOVA|||||38.1|-109.3|0.3427
90804738|NCT00814580|181490109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1618||95.0||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (row mean score option) controlling for pooled investigator centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1618
90804739|NCT00814580|181490110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0481||95.0||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (row mean score option) controlling for pooled investigator centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0481
90804740|NCT00814580|181490111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0109||95.0||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (row mean score option) controlling for pooled investigator centers|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0109
90804741|NCT02482428|181490128|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|p value is provided|Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.07||0.862|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.03|0.2|||Posterior mean|||||0.20|-0.03|0.862
90804742|NCT02482428|181490128|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|p value is provided|Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.07||0.541|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.07|0.19|||posterior mean|||||0.19|-0.07|0.541
90804743|NCT01519791|181490143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.283|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.503|3.468|||Regression, Logistic||The Odds ratio measuring the treatment effect was estimated from a logistic regression model including terms for treatment, region and stratification factor. Nonresponder imputation (NRI) was used.|"In order to control the overall study-wise Type I error rate at 5 %, hypothesis testing was performed in the following hierarchical order (each at a 2-sided 95 % alpha level):~1. Primary: sustained DAS28(ESR) remission at Week 52~2. Key secondary: sustained DAS28(ESR) LDA at Week 52~3. ACR50 response at Week 52 in relation to Baseline~4. Change from Baseline in HAQ-DI at Week 52~5. Change from Baseline in mTSS at Week 52"||3.468|1.503|<0.001
90804744|NCT01519791|181490144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.957|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.384|2.767|||Regression, Logistic||The Odds ratio measuring the treatment effect was estimated from a logistic regression model including terms for treatment, region and stratification factor. Nonresponder imputation (NRI) was used.|"In order to control the overall study-wise Type I error rate at 5 %, hypothesis testing was performed in the following hierarchical order (each at a 2-sided 95 % alpha level):~1. Primary: sustained DAS28(ESR) remission at Week 52~2. Key secondary: sustained DAS28(ESR) LDA at Week 52~3. ACR50 response at Week 52 in relation to Baseline~4. Change from Baseline in HAQ-DI at Week 52~5. Change from Baseline in mTSS at Week 52"||2.767|1.384|<0.001
90804745|NCT01519791|181490145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann point estimate of shift|-0.978|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.005|-0.5|||ANCOVA on ranks||"ANCOVA model on the ranks with the terms for treatment, region, and time since RA diagnosis at Baseline (≤4 months or \>4 months) as factors and rank Baseline value as a covariate.~Confidence Interval is an asymptotic Moses CI."|"In order to control the overall study-wise Type I error rate at 5 %, hypothesis testing was performed in the following hierarchical order (each at a 2-sided 95 % alpha level):~1. Primary: sustained DAS28(ESR) remission at Week 52~2. Key secondary: sustained DAS28(ESR) LDA at Week 52~3. ACR50 response at Week 52 in relation to Baseline~4. Change from Baseline in HAQ-DI at Week 52~5. Change from Baseline in mTSS at Week 52"||-0.500|-1.005|<0.001
90804746|NCT01519791|181490150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.446|||=|0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.052|1.989|||Regression, Logistic||The Odds ratio was estimated from a logistic regression model including terms for treatment, region and stratification factor. Nonresponder imputation (NRI) was used.|"In order to control the overall study-wise Type I error rate at 5 %, hypothesis testing was performed in the following hierarchical order (each at a 2-sided 95 % alpha level):~1. Primary: sustained DAS28(ESR) remission at Week 52~2. Key secondary: sustained DAS28(ESR) LDA at Week 52~3. ACR50 response at Week 52 in relation to Baseline~4. Change from Baseline in HAQ-DI at Week 52~5. Change from Baseline in mTSS at Week 52"||1.989|1.052|=0.023
90804747|NCT01519791|181490162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares (LS) Means|-0.177|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.273|-0.082|||ANCOVA||The CfB in HAQ-DI at Week 52 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, region, and time since Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA) diagnosis at Baseline (≤4 months or \>4 months) as factors and Baseline value as a covariate.|"In order to control the overall study-wise Type I error rate at 5 %, hypothesis testing was performed in the following hierarchical order (each at a 2-sided 95 % alpha level):~1. Primary: sustained DAS28(ESR) remission at Week 52~2. Key secondary: sustained DAS28(ESR) LDA at Week 52~3. ACR50 response at Week 52 in relation to Baseline~4. Change from Baseline in HAQ-DI at Week 52~5. Change from Baseline in mTSS at Week 52"||-0.082|-0.273|<0.001
90804748|NCT05791565|181490179|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.1609|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0221|1.3185|||||Ratio of the Geometric LS means = Geometric LS mean of the Salbutamol HFA-152a MDI to the Geometric LS mean of the Salbutamol HFA-134a MDI.|||1.3185|1.0221|
91014124|NCT00694070|181911114|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The null and alternative hypotheses for these tests will have the form:~Ho: Pr{Success} \< Po vs. Ha: Pr{Success} ≥ Po. Critical values for numbers of successes were computed to give approximately a 90% chance of rejecting Ho in favor of the alternative (non-inferiority) if the true probability of success is at least Po. For Po = 90%, with n=51, critical number is 43. With this critical value and sample size, the power to reject Ho is approximately 93.57%."||||||0.0309|||||||Exact binomial test|||||||0.0309
91014125|NCT04988035|181911115|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.64||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.07|||Proportional odds model||Odds ratio greater than 1 favors Remdesivir plus Danicopan.|Includes all ordinal score categories. Odds ratio of a better clinical status score, confidence interval and p-value estimated from a proportional odds model adjusted for baseline steroid use and baseline ordinal score. Missing data imputed using multiple imputation (MI) for participants lost to follow-up before Day 8 while hospitalized, in hospice, long term acute care, or transferred to other hospital while those participants lost to follow-up after discharge to home are assigned a score of 2.||1.07|0.38|0.090
90804749|NCT05791565|181490180|OTHER||Ratio of the Geometric LS Means|1.4081|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.2998|1.5255|||||Ratio of the Geometric LS means = Geometric LS mean of the Salbutamol HFA-152a MDI to the Geometric LS mean of the Salbutamol HFA-134a MDI.|||1.5255|1.2998|
90804750|NCT05791565|181490181|OTHER||Ratio of the Geometric LS Means|1.3885|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.2793|1.507|||||Ratio of the Geometric LS means = Geometric LS mean of the Salbutamol HFA-152a MDI to the Geometric LS mean of the Salbutamol HFA-134a MDI.|||1.5070|1.2793|
90804751|NCT05791565|181490182|OTHER||Ratio of the Geometric LS Means|1.3141|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1816|1.4614|||||Ratio of the Geometric LS means = Geometric LS mean of the Salbutamol HFA-152a MDI to the Geometric LS mean of the Salbutamol HFA-134a MDI.|||1.4614|1.1816|
90804752|NCT02516982|181490216|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.994|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.994
90804753|NCT02516982|181490217|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7
90804754|NCT02516982|181490218|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.008
90804755|NCT02516982|181490219|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.919|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.919
90804756|NCT02516982|181490220|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001467|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.0001467
90804757|NCT02516982|181490221|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.024
90804758|NCT02516982|181490222|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.869|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.869
90804759|NCT00924612|181490256|OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|130.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0844||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|90.0|113.59|150.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of diets based on full crossover model|ANOVA of a multicenter, 4 sequence, 5 treatment crossover model using ln-transformed data. Normal fat diet compared to fasting, very low fat, low fat, and high fat diets as part of the overall analysis. No adjustments for multiplicity made.|150.70|113.59|0.0025
90804760|NCT00924612|181490256|OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|101.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0954||0.8494|TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.8|119.47|||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of diets based on full crossover model||119.47|86.80|0.8494
90804761|NCT00924612|181490256|OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|73.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0902||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|90.0|63.23|85.55|||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of diets based on full crossover model||85.55|63.23|0.0013
90804762|NCT00924612|181490256|OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|62.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0954|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|53.38|76.46|||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of diets based on full crossover model||76.46|53.38|<0.0001
90804763|NCT03636893|181490265|OTHER|Two-sided log-rank test comparing disease-free survival between treatment groups. No adjustment for multiple comparisons as this was a pre-specified secondary endpoint. Statistical significance set at P \<0.05.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.597|1.884||P-value from two-sided log-rank test. Alpha level set at 0.05.|Log Rank|Kaplan-Meier survival analysis with log-rank test for between-group comparison. Analysis performed using SPSS version 30.0.|Hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazards regression with FLOT as reference group.|Disease-free survival analysis in intention-to-treat population. DFS defined as time from randomization to first occurrence of local recurrence, regional recurrence, distant metastases, or death from any cause.|Kaplan-Meier method used to estimate DFS curves. Cox regression performed to calculate hazard ratios.|1.884|0.597|0.842
90804764|NCT03636893|181490266|OTHER|Two-sided log-rank test comparing overall survival between treatment groups. No adjustment for multiple comparisons as this was a pre-specified secondary endpoint. Statistical significance set at P \<0.05.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.101||||0.759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.595|2.036||P-value from two-sided log-rank test. No adjustment for multiple comparisons as overall survival was a pre-specified secondary endpoint. Alpha level set at 0.05.|Log Rank|Kaplan-Meier survival analysis with log-rank test for between-group comparison. Analysis performed using SPSS version 30.0.|Hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazards regression with FLOT as reference group.|Primary survival analysis comparing overall survival between neoadjuvant FLOT and SOX regimens in intention-to-treat population.|Kaplan-Meier method used to estimate survival curves. Cox regression performed to calculate hazard ratios. Multivariable analysis performed to identify independent predictors.|2.036|0.595|0.759
90804765|NCT00758069|181490278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-squares Mean Difference|-25.9|||<|0.001||95.0|-34.2|-17.5||No multiplicity adjustment among the pairwise comparisons of sitagliptin against placebo|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate was used for pairwise comparison|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate was used to estimate difference of two groups and its 95% confidence interval|||-17.5|-34.2|<0.001
90804766|NCT00758069|181490278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-squares Mean Difference|-19.5|||<|0.001||95.0|-28.0|-11.1||No multiplicity adjustment among the pairwise comparisons of sitagliptin against placebo|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate was used for pairwise comparison|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate was used to estimate difference of two groups and its 95% confidence interval|||-11.1|-28.0|<0.001
90804767|NCT00758069|181490279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-squares Mean Difference|-19.3|||<|0.001||95.0|-26.6|-11.9||No multiplicity adjustment among the pairwise comparisons of sitagliptin against placebo|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate was used for pairwise comparison|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate was used to estimate difference of two groups and its 95% confidence interval|||-11.9|-26.6|<0.001
91014126|NCT04988035|181911116|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||0.358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.53|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio, confidence interval, and p-value estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline dexamethasone use, baseline ordinal score, age, and baseline C-Reactive Protein (CRP).|Odds ratio greater than 1 favors Remdesivir plus Danicopan|1.53|0.31|0.358
91014127|NCT04988035|181911117|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.92|||Regression, Cox||HR greater than 1 favors Remdesivir plus Danicopan.|Hazard ratio, confidence interval, and p-value estimated from a Cox model adjusted for baseline steroid use and baseline ordinal score.||0.92|0.46|0.014
91014128|NCT04988035|181911118|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.17|||Proportional odds model||Odds ratio above 1 favors Remdesivir plus Danicopan.|Includes all ordinal score categories. OR of a better clinical status score, confidence interval, and p-value estimated from a proportional odds model adjusted for baseline steroid use and baseline ordinal score. Missing data imputed using last observation carried forward for participants lost to follow-up before Day 15 while hospitalized, in hospice, long term acute care, or transferred to other hospital. Participants lost to follow-up before Day 15 after discharge are given a score of 2.||1.17|0.42|0.177
90804768|NCT00758069|181490279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-squares Mean Difference|-12.9|||<|0.001||95.0|-20.4|-5.4||No multiplicity adjustment among the pairwise comparisons of sitagliptin against placebo|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate was used for pairwise comparison|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate was used to estimate difference of two groups and its 95% confidence interval|||-5.4|-20.4|<0.001
90804769|NCT02277691|181490300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One sample t-test|||P-value has been estimated for change from baseline in office trough SBP at Week 12 (LOCF).||||<0.0001
90804770|NCT02277691|181490300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One sample t-test|||P-value has been estimated for change from baseline in office trough SBP at Week 52 (LOCF).||||<0.0001
90804771|NCT02277691|181490300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One sample t-test|||P-value has been estimated for change from baseline in office trough sitting DBP at Week 12 (LOCF).||||<0.0001
90804772|NCT02277691|181490300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One sample t-test|||P-value has been estimated for change from baseline in office trough sitting DBP at Week 52 (LOCF).||||<0.0001
90804773|NCT02277691|181490301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One sample t-test|||P-value has been estimated for change from baseline in home SBP, morning at End of Week 12.||||<0.0001
90804774|NCT02277691|181490301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One sample t-test|||P-value has been estimated for change from baseline in home SBP, morning at EOT (Up to Week 52).||||<0.0001
90804775|NCT02277691|181490301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One sample t-test|||P-value has been estimated for change from baseline in home DBP, morning at End of Week 12.||||<0.0001
90804776|NCT02277691|181490301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One sample t-test|||P-value has been estimated for change from baseline in home DBP, morning at EOT (Up to Week 52).||||<0.0001
90804777|NCT04343534|181490308|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.33|||t-test, 2 sided|||"SDM Process score distributions were compared to determine of the scores spanned the range of possible values, were normally distributed, had low rates of missing data, and whether there was indications of floor or ceiling effects.~we conducted independent t-tests to determine if there were differences in SDM Process scores between the two versions."||0.33|-0.02|0.092
90804778|NCT03818607|181490317|NON_INFERIORITY|The clinical similarity of the Week 27 LDH between treatments was assessed by comparing the 1-sided 97.5% upper confidence interval (CI) limit for the geometric mean ratio of LDH at Week 27 between ABP 959 treatment and eculizumab treatment with a non-inferiority margin of 2.873.|Geometric LS mean ratio (GMR)|1.0628|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5||1.1576||||||||1.1576||
90804779|NCT03818607|181490318|OTHER|The clinical similarity of the AUEC between treatments was assessed by comparing 2-sided 90% CI for the GMR of the time-adjusted AUEC of LDH (Week 13 to Week 27, Week 39 to Week 53, and Week 65 to Week 79) between ABP 959 treatment and eculizumab treatment with a similarity margin of (0.77, 1.30).|GMR|0.9812|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9403|1.0239||||||||1.0239|0.9403|
90804780|NCT03818607|181490326|OTHER||GMR|1.0314|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5||1.1201||||||||1.1201||
90804781|NCT03818607|181490329|OTHER||GMR|0.9122|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7586|1.0968||||||Total PK AUC GMR (ABP 959/Eculizumab)||1.0968|0.7586|
90804782|NCT03818607|181490329|OTHER||GMR|0.9508|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7454|1.213||||||Unbound PK AUC GMR (ABP 959/Eculizumab)||1.2130|0.7454|
90804783|NCT01147250|181490343|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of lixisenatide versus placebo was to be claimed if the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the hazard ratio was \<1.3.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.017|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.886|1.168|||||Lixisenatide vs Placebo|Analysis was performed using Cox proportional hazards model with treatment groups, and region (North America, South and Central America, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Africa/Near East, and Asia/Pacific) as covariates, and the associated two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI).||1.168|0.886|
90804784|NCT01147250|181490343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.017||||0.8542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.886|1.168|||Log Rank||Lixisenatide vs Placebo|Analysis was performed using Cox proportional hazards model with treatment groups, and region (North America, South and Central America, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Africa/Near East, and Asia/Pacific) as covariates, and the associated two-sided 95% CI. Superiority of lixisenatide versus placebo was to be claimed if the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the hazard ratio was \<1.0.||1.168|0.886|0.8542
90804785|NCT03588806|181490347|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.218|||||||ANOVA|Univariate repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.218
90804786|NCT03588806|181490348|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.268|||||||ANOVA|Univariate repeated measures||||||0.268
90804787|NCT03588806|181490349|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|Univariate repeated measures ANOVA||||||<0.001
90804788|NCT03588806|181490350|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.228|||||||ANOVA|Univariate repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.228
90804789|NCT03588806|181490351|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.043|||||||ANOVA|Univariate repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.043
90804790|NCT03588806|181490352|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.486|||||||ANOVA|Univariate repeated measures ANOVA||PROMIS Social Roles score||||0.486
90804791|NCT03588806|181490352|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.078|||||||ANOVA|Univariate repeated measures ANOVA||PROMIS Sleep Disturbance T-Scores||||0.078
90804792|NCT03588806|181490352|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.874|||||||ANOVA|Univariate repeated measures ANOVA||PROMIS Depression T-Scores||||0.874
90804793|NCT03588806|181490352|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.389|||||||ANOVA|Univariate repeated measures ANOVA||PROMIS Anxiety T-Score||||0.389
90804794|NCT03588806|181490353|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.676|||||||ANOVA|Univariate repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.676
90804795|NCT03985943|181490363|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|11.5||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|97.5|4.7|18.3||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting randomized stratification variables (IGA severity \[3=moderate, 4=severe\] and PP NRS \[\>=7, \<7\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when the test for the preceding outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 2.5% significance level.||18.3|4.7|0.0003
90804796|NCT03985943|181490364|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|14.3||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|97.5|6.1|22.5||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting randomized stratification variables (IGA severity \[3=moderate, 4=severe\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when the test for the preceding outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 2.5% significance level.||22.5|6.1|0.0002
90804797|NCT03985943|181490365|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|14.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|7.8|22.0||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting randomized stratification variables (IGA severity \[3=moderate, 4=severe\] and PP NRS \[\>=7, \<7\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when the test for the preceding outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 2.5% significance level.||22.0|7.8|<0.0001
90804798|NCT03985943|181490366|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|18.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|9.6|26.6||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting randomized stratification variables (IGA severity \[3=moderate, 4=severe\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when the test for the preceding outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 2.5% significance level.||26.6|9.6|<0.0001
90804799|NCT03985943|181490367|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|24.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|18.4|31.5||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting randomized stratification variables (IGA severity \[3=moderate, 4=severe\] and PP NRS \[\>=7, \<7\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when the test for the preceding outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Participants with missing data were considered non-responders.||31.5|18.4|<0.0001
90804800|NCT03985943|181490367|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|28.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|22.0|34.3||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting randomized stratification variables (IGA severity \[3=moderate, 4=severe\] and PP NRS \[\>=7, \<7\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The estimates are from 50 complete datasets by MI-MAR assumption.|Nemolizumab 30 mg versus Placebo using multiple imputation (MI) with missing at random (MAR) assumption.||34.3|22.0|<0.0001
90804801|NCT03985943|181490368|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|27.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|19.4|35.7||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting randomized stratification variables (IGA severity \[3=moderate, 4=severe\].|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when the test for the preceding outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Participants with missing data were considered non-responders.||35.7|19.4|<0.0001
90804802|NCT03985943|181490368|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|32.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|24.4|39.8||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting randomized stratification variables (IGA severity \[3=moderate, 4=severe\].|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The estimates are from 50 complete datasets by MI-MAR assumption.|Nemolizumab 30 mg versus Placebo using MI-MAR assumption.||39.8|24.4|<0.0001
90804803|NCT03985943|181490369|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|19.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|13.7|25.2||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting randomized stratification variables (IGA severity \[3=moderate, 4=severe\] and PP NRS \[\>=7, \<7\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when the test for the preceding outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 2.5% significance level.||25.2|13.7|<0.0001
90804804|NCT03985943|181490370|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|20.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|13.8|26.8||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting randomized stratification variables (IGA severity \[3=moderate, 4=severe\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when the test for the preceding outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 2.5% significance level.||26.8|13.8|<0.0001
90804805|NCT03985943|181490371|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|17.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|11.3|24.5||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting randomized stratification variables (IGA severity \[3=moderate, 4=severe\] and PP NRS \[\>=7, \<7\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when the test for the preceding outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 2.5% significance level.||24.5|11.3|<0.0001
90804806|NCT03985943|181490372|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|19.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|11.2|28.2||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting randomized stratification variables (IGA severity \[3=moderate, 4=severe\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when the test for the preceding outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 2.5% significance level.||28.2|11.2|<0.0001
90804807|NCT03985943|181490373|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|20.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|15.8|26.0||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting randomized stratification variables (IGA severity \[3=moderate, 4=severe\] and PP NRS \[\>=7, \<7\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when the test for the preceding outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 2.5% significance level.||26|15.8|<0.0001
90804808|NCT03985943|181490374|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|21.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|14.8|27.6||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting randomized stratification variables (IGA severity \[3=moderate, 4=severe\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when the test for the preceding outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 2.5% significance level.||27.6|14.8|<0.0001
90804809|NCT03985943|181490375|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|12.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|8.2|16.3||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting randomized stratification variables (IGA severity \[3=moderate, 4=severe\] and PP NRS \[\>=7, \<7\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when the test for the preceding outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 2.5% significance level.||16.3|8.2|<0.0001
90804810|NCT03985943|181490376|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|9.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|5.2|14.2||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting randomized stratification variables (IGA severity \[3=moderate, 4=severe\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when the test for the preceding outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 2.5% significance level.||14.2|5.2|<0.0001
90804811|NCT03985943|181490377|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|14.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|10.6|18.7||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting randomized stratification variables (IGA severity \[3=moderate, 4=severe\] and PP NRS \[\>=7, \<7\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when the test for the preceding outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 2.5% significance level.||18.7|10.6|<0.0001
90804812|NCT03985943|181490378|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|16.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|11.5|22.3||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting randomized stratification variables (IGA severity \[3=moderate, 4=severe\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when the test for the preceding outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 2.5% significance level.||22.3|11.5|<0.0001
91014129|NCT04988035|181911119|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.36|||Proportional odds model|||Includes all ordinal score categories. OR of a better clinical status score, confidence interval, and p-value estimated from a proportional odds model adjusted for baseline steroid use and baseline ordinal score. Missing data imputed using last observation carried forward for participants lost to follow-up before Day 29 while hospitalized, in hospice, long term acute care, or transferred to other hospital. Participants lost to follow-up before Day 29 after discharge are given a score of 2.|Odds ratio above 1 favors Remdesivir plus Danicopan.|1.36|0.48|0.427
91014130|NCT04988035|181911154|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.06|||Regression, Cox||HR greater than 1 favors Remdesivir plus Danicopan.|||1.06|0.56|0.109
91014131|NCT04988035|181911155|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.98|||Regression, Cox||||HR greater than 1 favors Remdesivir plus Danicopan.|0.98|0.51|0.036
91014132|NCT00674440|181911185|OTHER||Sensitivity|93.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|80.9|98.5||||||||98.5|80.9|
91014133|NCT00674440|181911185|OTHER||Specifity|88.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|76.6|95.6||||||||95.6|76.6|
91014134|NCT00863265|181911193|EQUIVALENCE||Mean Difference (Final Values)|289.0||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA||The estimation parameter is the difference between the placebo group and the ezetimibe group.|Phytosterol Diet compared to Ezetimibe||||0.01
90804813|NCT03985943|181490379|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|3.4||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.1|5.8||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting randomized stratification variables (IGA severity \[3=moderate, 4=severe\] and PP NRS \[\>=7, \<7\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when the test for the preceding outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 2.5% significance level.||5.8|1.1|0.0064
90804814|NCT03985943|181490380|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|4.3||||0.0177|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.9|7.7||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting randomized stratification variables (IGA severity \[3=moderate, 4=severe\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when the test for preceding outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 2.5% significance level.||7.7|0.9|0.0177
91014135|NCT00863265|181911193|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis is that groups are equal.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|457.0|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Placebo vs. Ezetimibe Plus Phytosterols||||<0.01
91014136|NCT00863265|181911193|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis is that groups are equal|Mean Difference (Final Values)|168.0|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Ezetimibe vs. Ezetimibe Plus Phytosterols||||<0.01
91014137|NCT00863265|181911194|EQUIVALENCE|Not applicable in this study.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.8|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||The hypothesis is that groups are equal||||<0.01
91014138|NCT00863265|181911194|EQUIVALENCE||Mean Difference (Final Values)|36.4|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||Placebo vs. Ezetimibe Plus Phytosterols||||<0.01
91014139|NCT00863265|181911194|EQUIVALENCE||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.6|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||The hypothesis is that groups are equal.||||<0.01
91014140|NCT00863265|181911195|EQUIVALENCE||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.0|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||The hypothesis is that groups are equal.||||<0.01
91014141|NCT00863265|181911195|EQUIVALENCE||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.0|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||The hypothesis is that all groups are equal||||<0.01
90804815|NCT04075513|181490382|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was based on a relative margin of 10%. Since higher time in range means better outcome, non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the difference between Toujeo LS mean and 90% of Tresiba LS mean at Week 12 was \> 0.|Least square mean difference|3.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.163||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|5.44||Threshold of significance at \<0.05.|ANCOVA||This estimation parameter corresponds to the difference between Toujeo LS mean and 90% of Tresiba LS mean.|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model including the fixed categorical effect of treatment groups and randomization stratum of screening HbA1c (\<8.0%, \>=8.0%) and the continuous fixed covariate of Baseline percent time in range value.||5.44|0.88|0.0067
91014142|NCT00863265|181911195|EQUIVALENCE||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||The hypothesis is that groups are equal.||||<0.05
91014143|NCT05510297|181911198|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|7.0||||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.007
91014144|NCT05510297|181911199|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2653.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5110.86||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-297.76522|5604.07522||a priori threshold for statistical significance=0.05 for 2-sided t-test; no adjustments for multiple comparisons made; data were checked for normality using the Shapiro-Wilk test where p\>0.05 was interpreted as likely normal distribution.|t-test, 2 sided|||||5604.07522|-297.76522|0.074
91014145|NCT05510297|181911200|SUPERIORITY|a priori threshold for statistical significance=0.05 for 2-sided t-test; no adjustments for multiple comparisons made;|Mean Difference (Net)|4.44067|STANDARD_DEVIATION|41.59009||0.685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.59116|27.47249|||t-test, 2 sided|||||27.47249|-18.59116|0.685
91014146|NCT05510297|181911201|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.51267|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.44656||0.191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31374|0.28841|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.28841|-1.31374|0.191
91014147|NCT05510297|181911202|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.45|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.35026||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19775|0.29775|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.29775|-1.19775|0.218
91014148|NCT05510297|181911203|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.924|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.19396||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13898|0.29098|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.29098|-2.13898|0.125
91014149|NCT05510297|181911204|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.00133|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.10148||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05486|0.5753|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.5753|-0.05486|0.960
91014150|NCT05510297|181911208|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.622|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.6553||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53867|0.29467|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.29467|-1.53867|0.168
91014151|NCT04409262|181911209|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.965||||0.7414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.19|||Log Rank|||||1.19|0.78|0.7414
91014152|NCT04409262|181911210|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.8993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.34|||Log Rank|||||1.34|0.72|0.8993
91014153|NCT04409262|181911211|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.7648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.44|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.44|0.77|0.7648
90804816|NCT04075513|181490383|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was based on a relative margin of 10%. Since lower CV means better outcome, non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI of the difference between Toujeo LS mean and 110% of Tresiba LS mean at Week 12 was \< 0.|Least square mean difference|-5.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.542|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|-4.38||Threshold of significance at \<0.05.|ANCOVA||This estimation parameter corresponds to the difference between Toujeo LS mean and 110% of Tresiba LS mean.|A hierarchical step-down testing procedure was used to control type I error. The hierarchical testing was then performed sequentially only when the primary endpoint demonstrated non-inferiority. Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model including the fixed categorical effect of treatment groups and randomization stratum of screening HbA1c (\<8.0%, \>=8.0%) and the continuous fixed covariate of Baseline percent time in range value.||-4.38|-6.50|<0.0001
90804817|NCT04075513|181490384|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was demonstrated if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI of the adjusted difference estimate of Toujeo and Tresiba at Week 12 was \>0.|Least square mean difference|-2.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.225||0.0548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.75|0.05||Threshold of significance at \<0.05.|ANCOVA|||A hierarchical step-down testing procedure was used to control type I error. The hierarchical testing was then performed sequentially when the primary endpoint and the secondary endpoint of total CV demonstrated non-inferiority. Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model including the fixed categorical effect of treatment groups and randomization stratum of screening HbA1c (\<8.0%, \>=8.0%) and the continuous fixed covariate of Baseline percent time in range value.||0.05|-4.75|0.0548
90804818|NCT03249909|181490397|NON_INFERIORITY|Analysis of the change in exudate status (Decrease, Equal/Unchanged, Increase) from baseline to 4 weeks in the treatment groups with the two-sided Sign test on the Intent To Treat (ITT) population at 95% confidence interval.||||||0.0019|||||||Sign test|||||||0.0019
90804819|NCT03517371|181490407|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|72.35||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-943.34|1088.04|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1088.04|-943.34|.89
90804820|NCT03517371|181490408|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|3.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.10|-3.80|.42
90804821|NCT03517371|181490409|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.17||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.64|24.97|||t-test, 2 sided|Levene's test significant, equal variances not assumed values reported.||||24.97|-20.64|.85
90804822|NCT03517371|181490410|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.008||||0.824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.081|0.065|||t-test, 2 sided|||||.065|-.081|.824
90804823|NCT01345929|181490411|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -10%.|Risk Difference (RD)|8.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.31|14.57||||||||14.57|2.31|
90804824|NCT01345929|181490412|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -10%.|Risk Difference (RD)|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.95|13.97||||||||13.97|1.95|
90804825|NCT02819297|181490413|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90804826|NCT02674464|181490421|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.3||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE)|Assuming an exchangeable correlation structure|CC/SC arm compared to the SCP arm.|||1.30|0.62|0.68
90804827|NCT02674464|181490422|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.49||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|2.3||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Mixed Effects Regression||CC/SC arm was compared to the SCP arm.|||2.30|-1.32|0.60
90804828|NCT02674464|181490423|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.83||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|2.71||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Mixed Effects Regression|||||2.71|-1.04|0.38
90804829|NCT02674464|181490424|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.43|0.01||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Mixed Effects Regression||CC/SC arm compared to SCP arm.|||0.01|-2.43|0.05
90804830|NCT01262638|181490454|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-15.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.8|-9.7|||ANCOVA|||||-9.7|-21.8|<0.0001
90804831|NCT01262638|181490454|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-22.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.9|-16.9|||ANCOVA|||||-16.9|-28.9|<0.0001
90804832|NCT01262638|181490454|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-24.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.5|-18.4|||ANCOVA|||||-18.4|-30.5|<0.0001
90804833|NCT00617097|181490506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|12.6|||Regression, Linear|||expected level of pain during procedure greater number is worse (i.e., more pain) 100-mm Visual Analogue Scale (VAS): minimum: 0 mm (less pain); maximum: 100 mm (more pain)||12.6|-13.7|0.94
90804834|NCT00617097|181490506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.1|13.2|||Regression, Linear|||after speculum insertion greater number is worse (i.e., more pain) 100-mm Visual Analogue Scale (VAS): minimum: 0 mm (less pain); maximum: 100 mm (more pain)||13.2|-15.1|0.9
90804835|NCT00617097|181490506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.8||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.6|9.0|||Regression, Linear|||during paracervical block administration greater number is worse (i.e., more pain) 100-mm Visual Analogue Scale (VAS): minimum: 0 mm (less pain); maximum: 100 mm (more pain)||9|-18.6|0.49
90804836|NCT00617097|181490506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.0||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.3|-1.7|||Regression, Linear|||after cervical dilation greater number is worse (i.e., more pain) 100-mm Visual Analogue Scale (VAS): minimum: 0 mm (less pain); maximum: 100 mm (more pain)||-1.7|-28.3|0.03
90804837|NCT00617097|181490506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|18.0|||Regression, Linear|||immediately after procedure greater number is worse (i.e., more pain) 100-mm Visual Analogue Scale (VAS): minimum: 0 mm (less pain); maximum: 100 mm (more pain)||18|-12.2|0.7
90804838|NCT00617097|181490506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.1||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|8.8|||Regression, Linear|||30 min after procedure greater number is worse (i.e., more pain) 100-mm Visual Analogue Scale (VAS): minimum: 0 mm (less pain); maximum: 100 mm (more pain)||8.8|-17|.52
90804839|NCT00617097|181490507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93|||||||Regression, Linear|||greater number is better (i.e., more satisfaction) 100-mm Visual Analogue Scale (VAS): minimum: 0 mm (less satisfaction); maximum: 100 mm (greater satisfaction) Measured at end of study (i.e., upon clinic discharge)||||0.93
90804840|NCT00617097|181490508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||Chi-squared|||greater number is worse (i.e., more symptoms)||||0.07
90804841|NCT00617097|181490509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||minor complications greater number is worse (i.e., more complications)||||1
90804842|NCT00617097|181490509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||Chi-squared|||serious complications||||0.15
90804843|NCT03745638|181490510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.556|11.923||The unadjusted p-values between each treatment group and vehicle were calculated based on Exact Logistic Regression including treatment and stratification factors to test the treatment difference.|Exact Logistic Regression|||||11.923|3.556|< 0.0001
90804844|NCT03745638|181490510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.178|14.04||The unadjusted p-values between each treatment group and vehicle were calculated based on Exact Logistic Regression including treatment and stratification factors to test the treatment difference.|Exact Logistic Regression|||||14.040|4.178|< 0.0001
90804845|NCT03745638|181490511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.441|6.808||The unadjusted p-values between each treatment group and vehicle were calculated based on Exact Logistic Regression including treatment and stratification factors to test the treatment difference.|Exact Logistic Regression|||||6.808|2.441|< 0.0001
90804846|NCT03745638|181490511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.145|8.831||The unadjusted p-values between each treatment group and vehicle were calculated based on Exact Logistic Regression including treatment and stratification factors to test the treatment difference.|Exact Logistic Regression|||||8.831|3.145|< 0.0001
90804847|NCT03745638|181490512|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.66||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.773|8.083||The unadjusted p-values between each treatment group and vehicle were calculated based on Exact Logistic Regression including treatment and stratification factors to test the treatment difference.|Exact Logistic Regression|||||8.083|1.773|0.0002
90804848|NCT03745638|181490512|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.931|13.22||The unadjusted p-values between each treatment group and vehicle were calculated based on Exact Logistic Regression including treatment and stratification factors to test the treatment difference.|Exact Logistic Regression|||||13.220|2.931|< 0.0001
90804849|NCT03745638|181490513|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.56||||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.242|5.723||The unadjusted p-values between each treatment group and vehicle were calculated based on Exact Logistic Regression including treatment and stratification factors to test the treatment difference.|Exact Logistic Regression|||||5.723|1.242|0.0081
90804850|NCT03745638|181490513|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.74||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.334|6.083||The unadjusted p-values between each treatment group and vehicle were calculated based on Exact Logistic Regression including treatment and stratification factors to test the treatment difference.|Exact Logistic Regression|||||6.083|1.334|0.0039
90804851|NCT03745638|181490514|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67||||0.1421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.862|3.391||The unadjusted p-values between each treatment group and vehicle were calculated based on Exact Logistic Regression including treatment and stratification factors to test the treatment difference.|Exact Logistic Regression|||||3.391|0.862|0.1421
90804852|NCT03745638|181490514|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.82||||0.0746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.949|3.665||The unadjusted p-values between each treatment group and vehicle were calculated based on Exact Logistic Regression including treatment and stratification factors to test the treatment difference.|Exact Logistic Regression|||||3.665|0.949|0.0746
90804853|NCT03745638|181490524|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-35.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.64|-27.32|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Percent change from Baseline in EASI score at Week 2||-27.32|-43.64|< 0.0001
90804854|NCT03745638|181490524|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Method of Mean Difference]|-40.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.44|-32.13|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Percent change from Baseline in EASI score at Week 2||-32.13|-48.44|< 0.0001
90804855|NCT03745638|181490524|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-45.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.72|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.28|-35.74|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Percent change from Baseline in EASI score at Week 4||-35.74|-54.28|< 0.0001
90804856|NCT03745638|181490524|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-48.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.71|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.3|-38.79|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Percent change from Baseline in EASI score at Week 4||-38.79|-57.30|< 0.0001
90804857|NCT03745638|181490524|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-33.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.49|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.95|-24.3||The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.|Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|||Percent change from Baseline in EASI score at Week 8||-24.30|-41.95|< 0.0001
90804858|NCT03745638|181490524|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-39.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.48|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.32|-30.72|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Percent change from Baseline in EASI score at Week 8||-30.72|-48.32|< 0.0001
90804859|NCT03745638|181490525|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-25.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.74|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.62|-17.95|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Percent change from Baseline in SCORAD score at Week 8||-17.95|-32.62|< 0.0001
90804860|NCT03745638|181490525|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-30.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.72|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.68|-23.06|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Percent change from Baseline in SCORAD score at Week 8||-23.06|-37.68|< 0.0001
91014154|NCT04409262|181911212|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.948||||0.7867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.39|||Log Rank|||||1.39|0.65|0.7867
91014155|NCT04409262|181911213|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.882||||0.4602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.23|||Log Rank|||||1.23|0.63|0.4602
91014156|NCT04409262|181911214|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.982||||0.8664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.21|||Log Rank|||||1.21|0.80|0.8664
91014157|NCT04409262|181911215|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.9569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.35|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.35|0.75|0.9569
90804861|NCT03745638|181490526|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|-0.91|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Change from Baseline in Itch NRS score at Week 2||-0.91|-1.87|<0.0001
90804862|NCT03745638|181490526|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|-1.16|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Change from Baseline in Itch NRS score at Week 2||-1.16|-2.11|<0.0001
90804863|NCT03745638|181490526|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|-1.15|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Change from Baseline in Itch NRS score at Week 4||-1.15|-2.25|<0.0001
90804864|NCT03745638|181490526|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.63|-1.53|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Change from Baseline in Itch NRS score at Week 4||-1.53|-2.63|<0.0001
90804865|NCT03745638|181490526|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-1.01|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Change from Baseline in Itch NRS score at Week 8||-1.01|-2.20|<0.0001
90804866|NCT03745638|181490526|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.58|-1.4|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Change from Baseline in Itch NRS score at Week 8||-1.40|-2.58|<0.0001
90804867|NCT03745638|181490528|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|-0.74|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Change from Baseline in Skin Pain NRS score at Week 8||-0.74|-1.74|<0.0001
90804868|NCT03745638|181490528|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|-1.13|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Change from Baseline in Skin Pain NRS score at Week 8||-1.13|-2.11|<0.0001
90804869|NCT03745638|181490531|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-0.47|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Change from Baseline in PROMIS Short Form-Sleep Disturbance (8b) 24-hour recall score at Week 2||-0.47|-2.60|0.0049
90804870|NCT03745638|181490531|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.37|-1.25|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Change from Baseline in PROMIS Short Form-Sleep Disturbance (8b) 24-hour recall score at Week 2||-1.25|-3.37|<0.0001
90804871|NCT03745638|181490531|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.52|-1.15|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Change from Baseline in PROMIS Short Form-Sleep Disturbance (8b) 24-hour recall score at Week 4||-1.15|-3.52|0.0001
90804872|NCT03745638|181490531|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.03|-1.67|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Change from Baseline in PROMIS Short Form-Sleep Disturbance (8b) 24-hour recall score at Week 4||-1.67|-4.03|<0.0001
90804873|NCT03745638|181490531|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.93|-1.14|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Change from Baseline in PROMIS Short Form-Sleep Disturbance (8b) 24-hour recall score at Week 8||-1.14|-3.93|0.0004
90804874|NCT03745638|181490531|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.57|-1.79|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Change from Baseline in PROMIS Short Form-Sleep Disturbance (8b) 24-hour recall score at Week 8||-1.79|-4.57|<0.0001
90804875|NCT03745638|181490532|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.0487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|-0.01|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Change from Baseline in PROMIS Short Form - Sleep-Related Impairment (8a) 24-hour recall score at Week 2||-0.01|-2.35|0.0487
90804876|NCT03745638|181490532|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.84|-0.51|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Change from Baseline in PROMIS Short Form - Sleep-Related Impairment (8a) 24-hour recall score at Week 2||-0.51|-2.84|0.0049
90804877|NCT03745638|181490532|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.0128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.94|-0.35|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Change from Baseline in PROMIS Short Form - Sleep-Related Impairment (8a) 24-hour recall score at Week 4||-0.35|-2.94|0.0128
91014158|NCT04409262|181911216|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.6331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.52|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.52|0.78|0.6331
91014159|NCT04409262|181911217|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.9622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.40|0.70|0.9622
91014160|NCT04409262|181911218|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.64|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.64|0.79|0.4850
91014161|NCT04409262|181911219|SUPERIORITY||Weighted % difference|-2.2||||0.5915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|5.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 28||5.9|-10.2|0.5915
90804878|NCT03745638|181490532|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-0.62|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Change from Baseline in PROMIS Short Form - Sleep-Related Impairment (8a) 24-hour recall score at Week 4||-0.62|-3.20|0.0037
90804879|NCT03745638|181490532|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.58|-0.65|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Change from Baseline in PROMIS Short Form - Sleep-Related Impairment (8a) 24-hour recall score at Week 8||-0.65|-3.58|0.0048
90804880|NCT03745638|181490532|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.75|-0.84|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Change from Baseline in PROMIS Short Form - Sleep-Related Impairment (8a) 24-hour recall score at Week 8||-0.84|-3.75|0.0020
91014162|NCT04409262|181911219|SUPERIORITY||Weighted % difference|-2.5||||0.5494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|5.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 60||5.6|-10.5|0.5494
91014163|NCT04409262|181911220|SUPERIORITY||Weighted % difference|-14.1||||0.259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.4|9.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 28||9.2|-37.4|0.2590
91014164|NCT04409262|181911220|SUPERIORITY||Weighted % difference|-14.6||||0.229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.0|7.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 60||7.8|-37.0|0.2290
91014165|NCT04409262|181911221|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.1125||||0.2434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|8.38|||Regression, Linear|||||8.38|-2.16|0.2434
90804881|NCT03745638|181490535|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.07|-2.18|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Change from Baseline in %BSA at Week 8||-2.18|-4.07|<0.0001
91014166|NCT04409262|181911222|SUPERIORITY||Weighted % difference|0.6||||0.8222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|5.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 14||5.6|-4.4|0.8222
91014167|NCT04409262|181911222|SUPERIORITY||Weighted % difference|-1.3||||0.6944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|5.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 28||5.2|-7.8|0.6944
91014168|NCT04409262|181911222|SUPERIORITY||Weighted % difference|-3.0||||0.3919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|4.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 60||4.0|-10.1|0.3919
91014169|NCT04409262|181911223|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.957||||0.6778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.18|||Log Rank|||||1.18|0.78|0.6778
91014170|NCT04409262|181911224|SUPERIORITY||Weighted % difference|-0.9||||0.7692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|6.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||6.8|-8.7|0.7692
90804882|NCT03745638|181490535|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.67|-2.79|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Change from Baseline in %BSA at Week 8||-2.79|-4.67|<0.0001
90804883|NCT03745638|181490537|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.43|-3.8|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Change from Baseline in POEM score at Week 8||-3.80|-6.43|<0.0001
90804884|NCT03745638|181490537|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.62|-5.0|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Change from Baseline in POEM score at Week 8||-5.00|-7.62|<0.0001
90804885|NCT03745638|181490539|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.85|-2.68|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Change from Baseline in total DLQI score at Week 8||-2.68|-4.85|<0.0001
90804886|NCT03745638|181490539|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.56|-3.42|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Change from Baseline in total DLQI score at Week 8||-3.42|-5.56|<0.0001
90804887|NCT03745638|181490541|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.01||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.29|-1.26|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Change from Baseline in total CDLQI score at Week 8||-1.26|-5.29|0.0018
91014171|NCT04409262|181911225|SUPERIORITY||Weighted % difference|-0.3||||0.9334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|7.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||7.2|-7.8|0.9334
91014172|NCT01738672|181911228|OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.16
91014173|NCT01738672|181911229|OTHER|||||||0.73|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.73
91014174|NCT01738672|181911230|OTHER|||||||0.56|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.56
91014175|NCT00948896|181911251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Negative Binomial Regression|||Null Hypothesis: Within HIV-unexposed participants, there is no difference in the incidence of all grade 3-4 adverse events per PYAR between the control arm and the monthly DP arm.||||<0.0001
91014176|NCT00948896|181911251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||Monthly DP arm compared to No chemoprevention arm|Negative Binomial Regression|||Null Hypothesis: Within HIV-unexposed participants, there is no difference in the incidence of elevated temperature adverse events per PYAR between the control arm and the monthly DP arm.||||<0.01
91014177|NCT00948896|181911251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||Monthly DP arm compared to No chemoprevention arm|Negative Binomial Regression|||Null Hypothesis: Within HIV-unexposed participants, there is no difference in the incidence of anemia adverse events per PYAR between the control arm and the monthly DP arm.||||<0.01
91014178|NCT00948896|181911251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Monthly DP arm compared to No chemoprevention arm|Negative Binomial Regression|||Null Hypothesis: Within HIV-unexposed participants, there is no difference in the incidence of thrombocytopenia adverse events per PYAR between the control arm and the monthly DP arm.||||<0.05
91014179|NCT00948896|181911251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Monthly DP arm compared with no chemoprevention arm.|Negative Binomial Regression|||Null Hypothesis: Within HIV-exposed participants, there is no difference in the incidence of all grade 3-4 adverse events per PYAR between the control arm and the monthly DP arm.||||<0.05
90804888|NCT03745638|181490541|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08||0.0378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.43|-0.13|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Change from Baseline in total CDLQI score at Week 8||-0.13|-4.43|0.0378
90804889|NCT03745638|181490545|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.632|11.018||The unadjusted p-values between each treatment group and vehicle were calculated based on Exact Logistic Regression including treatment and stratification factors to test the treatment difference.|Exact Logistic Regression|||Percentage of participants with a score of either 1 or 2 on the PGIC at Week 8||11.018|3.632|<0.0001
90804890|NCT03745638|181490545|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.755|15.083||The unadjusted p-values between each treatment group and vehicle were calculated based on Exact Logistic Regression including treatment and stratification factors to test the treatment difference.|Exact Logistic Regression|||Percentage of participants with a score of either 1 or 2 on the PGIC at Week 8||15.083|4.755|<0.0001
90804891|NCT03745638|181490546|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.67||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|8.15|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Change from Baseline in EQ VAS score at Week 8||8.15|1.59|0.0037
90804892|NCT03745638|181490546|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.66||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.45|8.96|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Change from Baseline in EQ VAS score at Week 8||8.96|2.45|0.0006
90804893|NCT03745638|181490547|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.34||0.1417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.49|1.65|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Percent work time missed due to AD: Change from Baseline in WPAI-SHP v2.0 at Week 8||1.65|-11.49|0.1417
90804894|NCT03745638|181490547|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.29||0.6037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.19|4.77|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Percent work time missed due to AD: Change from Baseline in WPAI-SHP v2.0 at Week 8||4.77|-8.19|0.6037
91014180|NCT00948896|181911251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Monthly DP arm compared with no chemoprevention arm.|Negative Binomial Regression|||Null Hypothesis: Within HIV-exposed participants, there is no difference in the incidence of anemia adverse events per PYAR between the control arm and the monthly DP arm||||<0.05
91014181|NCT00948896|181911251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Monthly DP arm compared with the no chemoprevention arm.|Negative Binomial Regression|||Null Hypothesis: Within HIV-exposed participants, there is no difference in the incidence of elevated temperature adverse events per PYAR between the control arm and the monthly DP arm||||<0.05
91014182|NCT00948896|181911251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||Daily TS arm compare with the no chemoprevention arm.|Negative Binomial Regression|||Null Hypothesis: Within HIV-exposed participants, there is no difference in the incidence of anemia adverse events per PYAR between the control arm and the daily TS arm||||<0.01
91079193|NCT03240406|182044052|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.36||||0.635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.95|4.24||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|ANCOVA|MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|||4.24|-6.95|0.635
90804895|NCT03745638|181490547|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-11.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.99||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.89|-5.12|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Percent impairment while working due to AD: Change from Baseline in WPAI-SHP v2.0 at Week 8||-5.12|-16.89|0.0003
90804896|NCT03745638|181490547|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-12.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.93|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.98|-6.47|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Percent impairment while working due to AD: Change from Baseline in WPAI-SHP v2.0 at Week 8||-6.47|-17.98|<0.0001
90804897|NCT03745638|181490547|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-15.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.85|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.95|-7.81|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Percent overall work impairment due to AD: Change from Baseline in WPAI-SHP v2.0 at Week 8||-7.81|-22.95|<0.0001
90804898|NCT03745638|181490547|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-12.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.77||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.85|-5.01|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Percent overall work impairment due to AD: Change from Baseline in WPAI-SHP v2.0 at Week 8||-5.01|-19.85|0.0011
90804899|NCT03745638|181490547|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-10.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.64|-6.29|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Percent activity impairment due to AD: Change from Baseline in WPAI-SHP v2.0 at Week 8||-6.29|-14.64|<0.0001
90804900|NCT03745638|181490547|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-12.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|-8.29|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Percent activity impairment due to AD: Change from Baseline in WPAI-SHP v2.0 at Week 8||-8.29|-16.60|<0.0001
90804901|NCT01576939|181490561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.0||||0.9906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.979|1.022|||Regression, Cox|This was a Cox proportional hazards model with dose as the single predictor.||||1.022|0.979|0.9906
90804902|NCT01576939|181490562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.2795||||0.1209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.077|0.634|||Regression, Linear|Linear regression model with dose as the single predictor in the model.||||0.634|-0.077|0.1209
90804903|NCT01576939|181490563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.285||||0.9832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.28|26.71|||Regression, Linear|Linear regression model with dose as the single predictor in the model.||||26.71|-27.28|0.9832
90804904|NCT01576939|181490564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.03795||||0.0263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.00483|0.071|||Mixed Models Analysis|A repeated measures model with dose as the single predictor. QoL values were measured for each patient every week.||||0.071|0.00483|0.0263
90804905|NCT01576939|181490565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.0567||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0199|0.0935|||Mixed Models Analysis|A repeated measures model with dose as the single predictor and QoL values measured each week for each patient.||||0.0935|0.0199|0.0039
90804906|NCT06899737|181490620|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.56||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.64|2.55|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.55|-7.64|0.32
90804907|NCT06899737|181490621|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.08||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|10.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||10.30|-1.94|0.18
90804908|NCT06899737|181490622|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|1.18|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.18|-0.81|0.71
90804909|NCT06899737|181490623|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|1.24|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.24|-0.03|0.32
90804910|NCT06899737|181490624|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.92|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.92|-0.82|0.91
90804911|NCT06899737|181490625|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.69||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|1.42|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.42|-0.03|0.059
90804912|NCT06899737|181490626|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.71|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.71|-0.92|0.79
90804913|NCT06899737|181490627|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|1.15|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.15|-0.16|0.14
90804914|NCT06899737|181490628|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|0.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.50|-1.19|0.42
90804915|NCT06899737|181490629|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.07|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.07|-0.40|0.37
90804916|NCT06899737|181490631|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.42||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|13.51|||t-test, 2 sided|||||13.51|-0.06|0.05
90804917|NCT06899737|181490632|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|1.11|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.11|-0.26|0.23
90804918|NCT06899737|181490633|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|1.39|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.39|-0.09|0.08
90804919|NCT06899737|181490634|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|1.35|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.35|-0.15|0.11
90804920|NCT06899737|181490635|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|1.36|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.36|-0.01|0.05
90804921|NCT01082081|181490636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|4.77||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.15|7.39|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included factors for treatment as a fixed effect and baseline assessment of pain intensity (VAS score) as a covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered no difference in SPRID\^6h between Paracetamol 1000 mg caplet and Paracetamol 500 mg caplet.||7.39|2.15|0.0004
90804922|NCT01082081|181490636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|7.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.04|10.45|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included factors for treatment as a fixed effect and baseline assessment of pain intensity (VAS score) as a covariate.|Difference was first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered no difference in SPRID\^6h between Paracetamol 1000 mg caplet and placebo caplet.||10.45|4.04|<0.0001
90804923|NCT01082081|181490636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|2.48||||0.1307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|5.69|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included factors for treatment as a fixed effect and baseline assessment of pain intensity (VAS score) as a covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered no difference in SPRID\^6h between Paracetamol 500 mg caplet and placebo caplet.||5.69|-0.74|0.1307
90804924|NCT01575808|181490651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage|91.0|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|86.3||||z-test|One-sided z-test||A literature-based Surgical Bypass Efficacy Goal of 65% was compared to the percentage of subjects maintaining primary assisted patency at 12 months. A one-sided z-test using a Type I error of 5% was performed to test the hypotheses that the 12-month primary assisted patency probability of GP1101 is superior to the SBEG of 65%.|||86.3|<0.0001
90804925|NCT01575808|181490652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Hypothesis is that the post-procedure hospital stay duration for GP1101 is superior to the post-procedure hospital stay for the retrospective surgical bypass group.||||<0.0001
90804926|NCT01575808|181490653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage|100.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.5|100.0|||Fisher Exact||Confidence interval calculated with binomial exact method.|The hypothesis is that the rate of avoidance of general anesthesia for GP1101 is superior to the rate of avoidance of general anesthesis for the retrospective surgical bypass group.||100|96.5|<0.0001
90804927|NCT01575808|181490654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.5|100.0|||||Confidence intervals calculated using the binomial exact method.|||100.0|96.5|
90804928|NCT01575808|181490684|OTHER||Percentage|97.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.7|99.4||||||||99.4|91.7|
90804929|NCT01575808|181490704|OTHER||Percentage|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.5|100.0|||||Confidence Interval calculated with binomial exact method.|||100.0|96.5|
90804930|NCT03159468|181490705|OTHER|||||||0.041||||||This p-value is for the main effect of beverage condition.|ANOVA|||||||.041
90804931|NCT03159468|181490705|OTHER|||||||0.16||||||This p-value is for the main effect of intervention condition.|ANOVA|||||||.160
90804932|NCT03159468|181490705|OTHER|||||||0.462||||||This p-value is for the beverage condition by intervention condition interaction.|ANOVA|||||||.462
90804933|NCT00716482|181490729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Specificity of lesion shape|0.694|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"P-value was that to test the null hypothesis that there is no change in specificity with addition of the ShearWave elastographic feature.~Significance threshold P-value = 0.05"|McNemar|||Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two tests.||||<0.001
90804934|NCT00716482|181490729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Lesion homogeneity spec, conservative|0.714|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"P-value was that to test the null hypothesis that there is no change in specificity with addition of the ShearWave elastographic feature.~Significance threshold P-value = 0.05"|McNemar|||"Elastography image specificity of the homogeneity of elasticity with the lesion and surrounding tissue using conservative strategy (BIRADS 3 mass upgraded to BIRADS 4a' if they were not homogeneous on the color overlay SW elastographic image; BIRADS 4a mass downgraded to BIRADS 3' if they were very homogeneous).~Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two tests."||||<0.001
90804935|NCT00716482|181490729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Lesion homogeneity spec, agressive|0.785|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"P-value was that to test the null hypothesis that there is no change in specificity with addition of the ShearWave elastographic feature.~Significance threshold P-value = 0.05"|McNemar|||"Elastography image specificity of the homogeneity of elasticity with the lesion and surrounding tissue using aggressive strategy (BIRADS 3 mass upgraded to BIRADS 4a' if they were not homogeneous on the color overlay SW elastographic image; BIRADS 4a mass downgraded to BIRADS 3' if they were very or reasonably homogeneous).~Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two tests."||||<0.001
90804936|NCT00716482|181490729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Max. elasticity specificity,conservative|0.657||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"P-value was that to test the null hypothesis that there is no change in specificity with addition of the ShearWave elastographic feature.~Significance threshold P-value = 0.05"|McNemar|||"Elastography image specificity of the maximum elasticity using conservative strategy (BIRADS 3 mass upgraded to BIRADS 4a' if maximum elasticity was 160 kiloPascals (kPa) (7.3 m/sec) or more; BIRADS 4a mass downgraded to BIRADS 3' if the maximum elasticity was 30 kPa (3.2 m/sec) or less).~Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two tests."||||0.001
90804937|NCT00716482|181490729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Max. elasticity specificity, aggressive|0.774|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"P-value was that to test the null hypothesis that there is no change in specificity with addition of the ShearWave elastographic feature.~Significance threshold P-value = 0.05"|McNemar|||"Elastography image specificity of the maximum elasticity using aggressive strategy (BIRADS 3 mass upgraded to BIRADS 4a' if maximum elasticity was 160 kPa(7.3 m/sec) or more; BIRADS 4a mass downgraded to BIRADS 3' if the maximum elasticity was 80 kPa (5.2 m/sec) or less).~Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two tests."||||<0.001
90804938|NCT00716482|181490729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||median mean elasticity value specificity|0.626||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"P-value was that to test the null hypothesis that there is no change in specificity with addition of the ShearWave elastographic feature.~Significance threshold P-value = 0.05"|McNemar|||"Elastography image median mean elasticity value.~Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two tests."||||0.18
90804939|NCT00716482|181490729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diameter ratio specificity|0.512||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"P-value was that to test the null hypothesis that there is no change in specificity with addition of the ShearWave elastographic feature.~Significance threshold P-value = 0.05"|McNemar|||"Elastography image diameter ratio.~Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two tests."||||0.006
90804940|NCT00716482|181490729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median elasticity ratio specificity|0.649||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"P-value was that to test the null hypothesis that there is no change in specificity with addition of the ShearWave elastographic feature.~Significance threshold P-value = 0.05"|McNemar|||"Elastography image median elasticity ratio.~Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two tests."||||0.006
91054463|NCT04135196|181991031|OTHER|||||||0.202|||||||Regression, Linear|||The null hypothesis was that change in UD cBMD was not proportional to strain magnitude. Raw change in cBMD was analyzed as the dependent variable in a linear regression model with coefficients representing contrasts between the two experimental groups and the control group.|"Overall model fit: R\^2=0.077, F=1.665, df1=2, df2=40, p=0.202~Contrast between the low strain magnitude group and the control group: B=-0.005, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.003, Beta=-0.303, t=-1.689, p=0.099, 95% CI of B: \[-0.012, 0.001\]~Contrast between the high strain magnitude group and the control group: B=-0.004, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.003, Beta=-0.266, t=-1.484, p=0.146, 95% CI of B: \[-0.010, 0.002\]"|||0.202
90804941|NCT00716482|181490729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Max.color scale specificity,conservative|0.703|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"P-value was that to test the null hypothesis that there is no change in specificity with addition of the ShearWave elastographic feature.~Significance threshold P-value = 0.05"|McNemar|||"Elastography image specificity of color using a six-point color scale of maximum elasticity in the mass and surrounding parenchyma using conservative strategy (BIRADS 3 mass upgraded to BIRADS 4a' if the max stiffness on the color overlay SW elastographic image was red; BIRADS 4a mass downgraded to BIRADS 3' if the max stiffness on the color overlay SW elastographic image was black to dark blue).~Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two tests."||||<0.001
90804942|NCT00716482|181490729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Max. color scale specificity, aggressive|0.785|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"P-value was that to test the null hypothesis that there is no change in specificity with addition of the ShearWave elastographic feature.~Significance threshold P-value = 0.05~Overall specificity = 78.5%"|McNemar|||"Elastography image specificity of color using a six-point color scale of maximum elasticity in the mass and surrounding parenchyma using aggressive strategy (BIRADS 3 mass upgraded to BIRADS 4a' if the max stiffness on the color overlay SW elastographic image was red; BIRADS 4a mass downgraded to BIRADS 3' if the max stiffness on the color overlay SW elastographic image was black to dark blue, or light blue).~Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two tests."||||<0.001
90804943|NCT00716482|181490729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Lesion shape sensitivity|0.979||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"P-value was that to test the null hypothesis that there is no change in sensitivity with addition of the ShearWave elastographic feature.~Significance threshold P-value = 0.05"|McNemar|||"Elastography image lesion shape.~Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two tests."||||0.48
90804944|NCT00716482|181490729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Lesion homogeneity sens, conservative|0.969||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"P-value was that to test the null hypothesis that there is no change in sensitivity with addition of the ShearWave elastographic feature.~Significance threshold P-value = 0.05"|McNemar|||"Elastography image sensitivity of the homogeneity of elasticity with the lesion and surrounding tissue using conservative strategy (BIRADS 3 mass upgraded to BIRADS 4a' if they were not homogeneous on the color overlay SW elastographic image; BIRADS 4a mass downgraded to BIRADS 3' if they were very homogeneous).~Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two tests."||||0.74
90804945|NCT00716482|181490729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||elasticity homogeneity,aggressive,sensit|0.962||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"P-value was that to test the null hypothesis that there is no change in sensitivity with addition of the ShearWave elastographic feature.~Significance threshold P-value = 0.05"|McNemar|||"Elastography image sensitivity of the homogeneity of elasticity with the lesion and surrounding tissue using aggressive strategy (BIRADS 3 mass upgraded to BIRADS 4a' if they were not homogeneous on the color overlay SW elastographic image; BIRADS 4a mass downgraded to BIRADS 3' if they were very or reasonably homogeneous).~Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two tests."||||0.37
90804946|NCT00716482|181490729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||elasticity homegeneity,conservative,sens|0.99||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"P-value was that to test the null hypothesis that there is no change in sensitivity with addition of the ShearWave elastographic feature.~Significance threshold P-value = 0.05~Overall sensitivity = 99.0%"|McNemar|||"Elastography image sensitivity of the maximum elasticity using conservative strategy (BIRADS 3 mass upgraded to BIRADS 4a' if maximum elasticity was 160 kPa(7.3 m/sec) or more; BIRADS 4a mass downgraded to BIRADS 3' if the maximum elasticity was 30 kPa (3.2 m/sec) or less).~Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two tests."||||0.025
90804947|NCT00716482|181490729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||max. elasticity sensitivity,aggressive|0.972|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"P-value was that to test the null hypothesis that there is no change in sensitivity with addition of the ShearWave elastographic feature.~Significance threshold P-value = 0.05"|McNemar|||"Elastography image sensitivity of the maximum elasticity using aggressive strategy (BIRADS 3 mass upgraded to BIRADS 4a' if maximum elasticity was 160 kPa(7.3 m/sec) or more; BIRADS 4a mass downgraded to BIRADS 3' if the maximum elasticity was 80 kPa (5.2 m/sec) or less).~Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two tests."||||>0.99
90804948|NCT00716482|181490729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||median mean elasticity value sensitivity|0.986||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"P-value was that to test the null hypothesis that there is no change in sensitivity with addition of the ShearWave elastographic feature.~Significance threshold P-value = 0.05"|McNemar|||"Elastography image median mean elasticity value.~Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two tests."||||0.046
90804949|NCT00716482|181490729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||diameter ratio sensitivity|0.99||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"P-value was that to test the null hypothesis that there is no change in sensitivity with addition of the ShearWave elastographic feature.~Significance threshold P-value = 0.05"|McNemar|||"Elastography image diameter ratio.~Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two tests."||||0.025
91014183|NCT00948896|181911253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Protective Efficacy (%)|7.0||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|28.0|||Negative Binomial Regression||The no chemoprevention arm is the reference group.|The sample size was calculated to detect at least a 32% lower incidence of malaria in the DP arm compared to that in the TS arm. We assumed that the incidence of malaria would be 1.85 episodes per person-year with TS chemoprevention based on a prior cohort study in the same area, and thus we calculated that we would need to enroll 100 participants in each arm to detect our targeted protective efficacy with 80% power at 95% significance (two-sided), allowing for 10% loss to follow-up.||28|-19|0.57
91014184|NCT00948896|181911253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Protective Efficacy (%)|28.0||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|44.0|||Negative Binomial Regression||The no chemoprevention arm is the reference arm.|The sample size was calculated to detect at least a 32% lower incidence of malaria in the DP arm compared to that in the TS arm. We assumed that the incidence of malaria would be 1.85 episodes per person-year with TS chemoprevention based on a prior cohort study in the same area, and thus we calculated that we would need to enroll 100 participants in each arm to detect our targeted protective efficacy with 80% power at 95% significance (two-sided), allowing for 10% loss to follow-up.||44|7|0.01
91054464|NCT04135196|181991031|OTHER|||||||0.381|||||||Regression, Linear|||The null hypothesis was that change in UD cBMD was not proportional to strain rate. Raw change in cBMD was analyzed as the dependent variable in a linear regression model with coefficients representing contrasts between the two experimental groups and the control group.|"Overall model fit: R\^2=0.057, F=0.995, df1=2, df2=33, p=0.381~Contrast between the low strain rate group and the control group: B=0.004, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.003, Beta=0.254, t=1.327, p=0.194, 95% CI of B: \[-0.002, 0.011\]~Contrast between the high strain rate group and the control group: B=0.001, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.003, Beta=0.038, t=0.200, p=0.843, 95% CI of B: \[-0.006, 0.008\]"|||0.381
90804950|NCT00716482|181490729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||median elasticity ratio sensitivity|0.983||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"P-value was that to test the null hypothesis that there is no change in sensitivity with addition of the ShearWave elastographic feature.~Significance threshold P-value = 0.05"|McNemar|||"Elastography image median elasticity ratio.~Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two tests."||||0.083
90804951|NCT00716482|181490729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Max.color scale sensitivity,conservative|0.997||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"P-value was that to test the null hypothesis that there is no change in sensitivity with addition of the ShearWave elastographic feature.~Significance threshold P-value = 0.05"|McNemar|||"Elastography image sensitivity of color using a six-point color scale of maximum elasticity in the mass and surrounding parenchyma using conservative strategy (BIRADS 3 mass upgraded to BIRADS 4a' if the max stiffness on the color overlay SW elastographic image was red; BIRADS 4a mass downgraded to BIRADS 3' if the max stiffness on the color overlay SW elastographic image was black to dark blue).~Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two tests."||||0.008
90804952|NCT00716482|181490729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Max. color scale sensitivity, aggressive|0.986||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"P-value was that to test the null hypothesis that there is no change in sensitivity with addition of the ShearWave elastographic feature.~Significance threshold P-value = 0.05"|McNemar|||"Elastography image sensitivity of color using a six-point color scale of maximum elasticity in the mass and surrounding parenchyma using aggressive strategy (BIRADS 3 mass upgraded to BIRADS 4a' if the max stiffness on the color overlay SW elastographic image was red; BIRADS 4a mass downgraded to BIRADS 3' if the max stiffness on the color overlay SW elastographic image was black to dark blue, or light blue).~Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two tests."||||0.21
90804953|NCT00716482|181490730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|Kruskal-Wallis one-way ANOVA. Kruskal-Wallis was performed once to get p-values for all of the 9 categories at once.||Null hypothesis: no variance of similarity exists between the three groups||||<0.001
90804954|NCT02565147|181490756|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7505|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.7505
90804955|NCT04855240|181490767|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-10.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.61||0.1683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.4|4.4|||ANOVA|||||4.4|-25.4|0.1683
90804956|NCT04855240|181490767|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.64||0.8356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|16.6|||ANOVA|||||16.6|-13.4|0.8356
90804957|NCT04855240|181490768|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.831||||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.598|1.155|||Log Rank|||||1.155|0.598|0.2280
90804958|NCT04855240|181490768|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.5604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.793|1.527|||Log Rank|||||1.527|0.793|0.5604
90804959|NCT04855240|181490769|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.11||||0.2457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.26|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.26|-0.05|0.2457
90804960|NCT04855240|181490769|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.06||||0.3997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.09|-0.22|0.3997
90804961|NCT04855240|181490770|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.07||||0.4771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.22|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.22|-0.09|0.4771
91014185|NCT00948896|181911253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Protective Efficacy (%)|58.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.0|67.0|||Negative Binomial Regression||The no chemoprevention arm is the reference arm.|The sample size was calculated to detect at least a 32% lower incidence of malaria in the DP arm compared to that in the TS arm. We assumed that the incidence of malaria would be 1.85 episodes per person-year with TS chemoprevention based on a prior cohort study in the same area, and thus we calculated that we would need to enroll 100 participants in each arm to detect our targeted protective efficacy with 80% power at 95% significance (two-sided), allowing for 10% loss to follow-up.||67|45|<0.001
91014186|NCT00948896|181911254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Protective Efficacy (%)|9.0||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.0|38.0|||Negative Binomial Regression||The no chemoprevention arm is the reference arm.|We assumed that the incidence of malaria would be 1.85 episodes per person year with TS based on a prior cohort study in the same area, and thus, that we would need to enroll 50 participants in each arm to detect a reduction in the incidence of malaria in either the monthly SP or DP arms (two-sided significance level 0.05) compared with the daily TS arm of 48% or greater with 80% power at 95% significance (two-sided), allowing for 10% loss to follow-up.||38|-35|0.065
91079194|NCT03240406|182044053|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.52||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.44|0.59||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|ANCOVA|MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|||0.59|-6.44|0.019
90804962|NCT04855240|181490770|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.09||||0.2925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.06|-0.24|0.2925
90804963|NCT04855240|181490771|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.07||||0.4628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.22|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.22|-0.09|0.4628
90804964|NCT04855240|181490771|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.09||||0.309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.06|-0.24|0.3090
90804965|NCT04855240|181490772|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-17.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.36||0.2494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.8|12.4|||ANOVA|||||12.4|-47.8|0.2494
90804966|NCT04855240|181490772|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.42||0.7385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.1|35.4|||ANOVA|||||35.4|-25.1|0.7385
90804967|NCT04855240|181490773|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-22.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.91||0.3238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.5|22.3|||ANOVA|||||22.3|-67.5|0.3238
90804968|NCT04855240|181490773|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|7.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.99||0.7344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.3|52.9|||ANOVA|||||52.9|-37.3|0.7344
90804969|NCT04855240|181490774|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.72||0.8489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|3.0|||ANOVA|||||3.0|-3.7|0.8489
90804970|NCT04855240|181490774|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.72||0.2768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|5.3|||ANOVA|||||5.3|-1.5|0.2768
90804971|NCT04855240|181490775|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.54||0.6291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|3.8|||ANOVA|||||3.8|-6.2|0.6291
90804972|NCT04855240|181490775|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.55||0.3182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.5|||ANOVA|||||7.5|-2.5|0.3182
90804973|NCT04855240|181490776|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.35||0.3299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|4.3|||ANOVA|||||4.3|-12.8|0.3299
90804974|NCT04855240|181490776|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.37||0.8822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|9.2|||ANOVA|||||9.2|-7.9|0.8822
90804975|NCT04855240|181490777|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.62||0.4094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.0|9.8|||ANOVA|||||9.8|-24.0|0.4094
90804976|NCT04855240|181490777|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.65||0.6901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|20.4|||ANOVA|||||20.4|-13.5|0.6901
90804977|NCT04855240|181490778|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.59||0.5536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.9|11.7|||ANOVA|||||11.7|-21.9|0.5536
90804978|NCT04855240|181490778|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.64||0.7811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|19.3|||ANOVA|||||19.3|-14.5|0.7811
90804979|NCT04855240|181490779|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.5267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.4|||ANOVA|||||0.4|-0.8|0.5267
90804980|NCT04855240|181490779|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.3228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.9|||ANOVA|||||0.9|-0.3|0.3228
90804981|NCT04855240|181490780|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.7617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.4|||ANOVA|||||0.4|-0.5|0.7617
90804982|NCT04855240|181490780|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.6241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.6|||ANOVA|||||0.6|-0.4|0.6241
90804983|NCT04855240|181490781|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.3442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.2|||ANOVA|||||0.2|-0.5|0.3442
90804984|NCT04855240|181490781|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.7896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.4|||ANOVA|||||0.4|-0.3|0.7896
90804985|NCT04855240|181490782|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.6003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.7|||ANOVA|||||0.7|-1.2|0.6003
90804986|NCT04855240|181490782|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.4086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.4|||ANOVA|||||1.4|-0.6|0.4086
90804987|NCT04855240|181490783|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.4958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.8|||ANOVA|||||0.8|-1.6|0.4958
90804988|NCT04855240|181490783|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.4595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.7|||ANOVA|||||1.7|-0.8|0.4595
90804989|NCT04855240|181490784|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.08||||0.1686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.19|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.19|-0.04|0.1686
90804990|NCT04855240|181490784|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||0.8333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.11|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.11|-0.10|0.8333
90804991|NCT04855240|181490785|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.09||||0.1939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.20|-0.02|0.1939
90804992|NCT04855240|181490785|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||0.9595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.10|-0.10|0.9595
90804993|NCT04855240|181490786|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.09||||0.1894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.20|-0.02|0.1894
91014187|NCT00948896|181911254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Protective Efficacy (%)|49.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.0|66.0||Adjusted for age at randomization and incidence of malaria prior to randomization.|Negative Binomial Regression||Adjusted for age at randomization and incidence of malaria prior to randomization. The no chemoprevention arm is the reference arm.|We assumed that the incidence of malaria would be 1.85 episodes per person year with TS based on a prior cohort study in the same area, and thus, that we would need to enroll 50 participants in each arm to detect a reduction in the incidence of malaria in either the monthly SP or DP arms (two-sided significance level 0.05) compared with the daily TS arm of 48% or greater with 80% power at 95% significance (two-sided), allowing for 10% loss to follow-up.||66|23|0.001
91014188|NCT00948896|181911254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Protective Efficacy (%)|69.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.0|80.0||Adjusted for age at randomization and incidence of malaria prior to randomization.|Negative Binomial Regression||Adjusted for age at randomization and incidence of malaria prior to randomization. The no chemoprevention arm is the reference arm.|We assumed that the incidence of malaria would be 1.85 episodes per person year with TS based on a prior cohort study in the same area, and thus, that we would need to enroll 50 participants in each arm to detect a reduction in the incidence of malaria in either the monthly SP or DP arms (two-sided significance level 0.05) compared with the daily TS arm of 48% or greater with 80% power at 95% significance (two-sided), allowing for 10% loss to follow-up.||80|53|<0.001
91014189|NCT01590810|181911280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15||0.503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|3.15|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||3.15|-1.59|0.503
91014190|NCT01590810|181911280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.86|-1.55|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-1.55|-2.86|<0.0001
91014191|NCT01590810|181911280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-8.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.92|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.13|-6.34|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-6.34|-10.13|<0.0001
91014192|NCT01590810|181911280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|-4.58|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-4.58|-9.10|<0.0001
91014193|NCT01590810|181911280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-10.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.89|-7.92|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-7.92|-12.89|<0.0001
90804994|NCT04855240|181490786|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||0.9595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.10|-0.10|0.9595
90804995|NCT04855240|181490787|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.09||||0.7117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.24|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.24|-0.06|0.7117
90804996|NCT04855240|181490787|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.04||||0.7599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.10|-0.19|0.7599
90804997|NCT04855240|181490788|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||0.707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.16|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.16|-0.16|0.7070
90804998|NCT04855240|181490788|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.04||||0.6877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.12|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.12|-0.20|0.6877
90804999|NCT04855240|181490789|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.07||||0.869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.07|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.07|-0.22|0.8690
90805000|NCT04855240|181490789|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.04||||0.379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.10|-0.19|0.3790
90805001|NCT04855240|181490790|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.49||0.0897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|12.8|||ANOVA|||||12.8|-0.9|0.0897
90805002|NCT04855240|181490790|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5||0.9434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|6.7|||ANOVA|||||6.7|-7.1|0.9434
90805003|NCT04855240|181490791|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.09||||0.8355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.21|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.21|-0.04|0.8355
90805004|NCT04855240|181490791|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.02||||0.3561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.15|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.15|-0.12|0.3561
90805005|NCT04855240|181490792|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.04||||0.9413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.13|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.13|-0.06|0.9413
90805006|NCT04855240|181490792|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.04||||0.7819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.07|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.07|-0.15|0.7819
90805007|NCT04855240|181490793|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.8461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.4|||ANOVA|||||0.4|-0.5|0.8461
90805008|NCT04855240|181490793|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.1727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.7|||ANOVA|||||0.7|-0.1|0.1727
90805009|NCT04855240|181490794|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.9022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.5|||ANOVA|||||0.5|-0.4|0.9022
90805010|NCT04855240|181490794|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.7|||ANOVA|||||0.7|-0.2|0.2450
90805011|NCT04855240|181490795|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4205||0.4205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.6|||ANOVA|||||0.6|-0.2|0.4205
90805012|NCT04855240|181490795|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.4336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.6|||ANOVA|||||0.6|-0.2|0.4336
90805013|NCT04855240|181490796|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.2718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.7|||ANOVA|||||0.7|-0.2|0.2718
90805014|NCT04855240|181490796|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.1727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.7|||ANOVA|||||0.7|-0.1|0.1727
90805015|NCT00244725|181490798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.45||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.9|||Fisher Exact|||||1.9|1.1|0.012
90805016|NCT00244725|181490798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.42||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.9|||Fisher Exact|||||1.9|1.1|0.017
90805017|NCT00244725|181490798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.32||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.8|||Fisher Exact|||||1.8|1.0|0.080
90805018|NCT04004221|181490810|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Exact Binomial Test|1-sided p-value was based on binomial exact test of Tislelizumab versus historical rate of 0.1||||||< 0.0001
90805019|NCT01104545|181490846|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.0|||||||||||||GMR = Fed/Fasted|||||
90805020|NCT01104545|181490847|OTHER||GMR|0.73|||||||||||||GMR = Fed/fasted|||||
90805021|NCT02993822|181490869|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.14||||0.324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.49|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change from baseline to each visit (Week 2, Week 4 and Week 12) in log transformed awake objective cough frequency was analysed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with restricted maximum likelihood (REML) estimation. The treatment effect at Week 12 was estimated using the ratio of geometric means (i.e. the difference between the treatments least squares means \[adjusted means\] on the log scale, back transformed to the original scale).||1.49|0.88|0.324
90805022|NCT02993822|181490869|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.14||||0.332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.48|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change from baseline to each visit (Week 2, Week 4 and Week 12) in log transformed awake objective cough frequency was analysed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with restricted maximum likelihood (REML) estimation. The treatment effect at Week 12 was estimated using the ratio of geometric means (i.e. the difference between the treatments least squares means \[adjusted means\] on the log scale, back transformed to the original scale).||1.48|0.88|0.332
90805023|NCT02993822|181490869|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.92||||0.531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.2|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change from baseline to each visit (Week 2, Week 4 and Week 12) in log transformed awake objective cough frequency was analysed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with restricted maximum likelihood (REML) estimation. The treatment effect at Week 12 was estimated using the ratio of geometric means (i.e. the difference between the treatments least squares means \[adjusted means\] on the log scale, back transformed to the original scale).||1.20|0.71|0.531
90805024|NCT02993822|181490870|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.93||||0.482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.15|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change from baseline to each visit (Week 2, Week 4 and Week 12) in log transformed awake objective cough frequency was analysed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with restricted maximum likelihood (REML) estimation. The treatment effect at Week 12 was estimated using the ratio of geometric means (i.e. the difference between the treatments least squares means \[adjusted means\] on the log scale, back transformed to the original scale).||1.15|0.75|0.482
90805025|NCT02993822|181490870|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.92||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.14|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change from baseline to each visit (Week 2, Week 4 and Week 12) in log transformed awake objective cough frequency was analysed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with restricted maximum likelihood (REML) estimation. The treatment effect at Week 12 was estimated using the ratio of geometric means (i.e. the difference between the treatments least squares means \[adjusted means\] on the log scale, back transformed to the original scale).||1.14|0.75|0.460
90805026|NCT02993822|181490870|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.86||||0.144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.06|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change from baseline to each visit (Week 2, Week 4 and Week 12) in log transformed awake objective cough frequency was analysed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with restricted maximum likelihood (REML) estimation. The treatment effect at Week 12 was estimated using the ratio of geometric means (i.e. the difference between the treatments least squares means \[adjusted means\] on the log scale, back transformed to the original scale).||1.06|0.69|0.144
90805027|NCT02993822|181490871|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.27|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change from baseline to each visit (Week 2, Week 4 and Week 12) in log transformed awake objective cough frequency was analysed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with restricted maximum likelihood (REML) estimation. The treatment effect at Week 12 was estimated using the ratio of geometric means (i.e. the difference between the treatments least squares means \[adjusted means\] on the log scale, back transformed to the original scale).||1.27|0.78|0.992
90805028|NCT02993822|181490871|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.14|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change from baseline to each visit (Week 2, Week 4 and Week 12) in log transformed awake objective cough frequency was analysed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with restricted maximum likelihood (REML) estimation. The treatment effect at Week 12 was estimated using the ratio of geometric means (i.e. the difference between the treatments least squares means \[adjusted means\] on the log scale, back transformed to the original scale).||1.14|0.71|0.387
90805029|NCT02993822|181490871|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.94||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.19|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change from baseline to each visit (Week 2, Week 4 and Week 12) in log transformed awake objective cough frequency was analysed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with restricted maximum likelihood (REML) estimation. The treatment effect at Week 12 was estimated using the ratio of geometric means (i.e. the difference between the treatments least squares means \[adjusted means\] on the log scale, back transformed to the original scale).||1.19|0.74|0.600
90805030|NCT02993822|181490872|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.0|||Mixed model repeated measures|||"The change from baseline in LCQ total score and the three domain scores was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline.~The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in LCQ total score and the three domain scores was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation."||2.0|0.0|0.042
90805031|NCT02993822|181490872|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.0|||Mixed model repeated measures|||"The change from baseline in LCQ total score and the three domain scores was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline.~The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in LCQ total score and the three domain scores was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation."||2.0|0.1|0.026
91014194|NCT01590810|181911281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.79|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||0.02|-5.79|0.052
90805032|NCT02993822|181490872|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.4|||Mixed model repeated measures|||"The change from baseline in LCQ total score and the three domain scores was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline.~The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in LCQ total score and the three domain scores was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation."||2.4|0.5|0.003
90805033|NCT02993822|181490873|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.7|||Mixed model repeated measures|||"The change from baseline in LCQ total score and the three domain scores was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline.~The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in LCQ total score and the three domain scores was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation."||1.7|-0.4|0.250
90805034|NCT02993822|181490873|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.5|||Mixed model repeated measures|||"The change from baseline in LCQ total score and the three domain scores was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline.~The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in LCQ total score and the three domain scores was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation."||1.5|-0.5|0.325
90805035|NCT02993822|181490873|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.2|||Mixed model repeated measures|||"The change from baseline in LCQ total score and the three domain scores was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline.~The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in LCQ total score and the three domain scores was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation."||2.2|0.1|0.029
90805036|NCT02993822|181490874|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.3|||Mixed model repeated measures|||"The change from baseline in LCQ total score and the three domain scores was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline.~The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in LCQ total score and the three domain scores was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation."||2.3|0.1|0.038
90805037|NCT02993822|181490874|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|2.0|||Mixed model repeated measures|||"The change from baseline in LCQ total score and the three domain scores was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline.~The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in LCQ total score and the three domain scores was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation."||2.0|-0.2|0.118
91014195|NCT01590810|181911281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.95||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.49|-1.43|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-1.43|-9.49|0.010
90805038|NCT02993822|181490874|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.4|||Mixed model repeated measures|||"The change from baseline in LCQ total score and the three domain scores was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline.~The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in LCQ total score and the three domain scores was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation."||2.4|0.2|0.025
91014196|NCT01590810|181911281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-9.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.2|-4.79|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-4.79|-14.20|<0.001
90805039|NCT02993822|181490875|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.9|||Mixed model repeated measures|||"The change from baseline in LCQ total score and the three domain scores was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline.~The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in LCQ total score and the three domain scores was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation."||1.9|-0.5|0.258
91014197|NCT01590810|181911281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-12.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.51|-7.52|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-7.52|-16.51|<0.0001
91014198|NCT01590810|181911281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-9.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.55|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.93|-6.53|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-6.53|-12.93|<0.0001
90805040|NCT02993822|181490875|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.8|||Mixed model repeated measures|||"The change from baseline in LCQ total score and the three domain scores was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline.~The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in LCQ total score and the three domain scores was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation."||1.8|-0.5|0.243
90805041|NCT02993822|181490875|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.8|||Mixed model repeated measures|||"The change from baseline in LCQ total score and the three domain scores was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline.~The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in LCQ total score and the three domain scores was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation."||2.8|0.4|0.009
91014199|NCT01590810|181911282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.61||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.44|8.25|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||8.25|-16.44|0.480
91014200|NCT01590810|181911282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-10.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.72||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.37|1.79|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||1.79|-23.37|0.086
91014201|NCT01590810|181911282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-17.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.15||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.85|-6.18|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-6.18|-28.85|0.006
90805042|NCT02993822|181490876|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.6||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|-2.5|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change in the Cough Severity VAS was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline. The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in Cough Severity VAS was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation.||-2.5|-16.6|0.008
90805043|NCT02993822|181490876|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.5||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|2.4|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change in the Cough Severity VAS was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline. The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in Cough Severity VAS was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation.||2.4|-11.4|0.198
90805044|NCT02993822|181490876|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.8||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|0.1|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change in the Cough Severity VAS was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline. The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in Cough Severity VAS was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation.||0.1|-13.7|0.055
90805045|NCT02993822|181490877|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.7||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|-1.1|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change in the Cough Severity VAS was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline. The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in Cough Severity VAS was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation.||-1.1|-16.3|0.026
90805046|NCT02993822|181490877|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1||||0.571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|5.3|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change in the Cough Severity VAS was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline. The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in Cough Severity VAS was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation.||5.3|-9.6|0.571
90805047|NCT02993822|181490877|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.7||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|-0.3|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change in the Cough Severity VAS was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline. The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in Cough Severity VAS was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation.||-0.3|-15.2|0.043
90805048|NCT02993822|181490878|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.5||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|-3.3|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change in the Cough Severity VAS was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline. The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in Cough Severity VAS was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation.||-3.3|-19.7|0.006
90805049|NCT02993822|181490878|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.1||||0.435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|4.8|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change in the Cough Severity VAS was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline. The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in Cough Severity VAS was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation.||4.8|-11.1|0.435
90805050|NCT02993822|181490878|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.4||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.4|-1.4|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change in the Cough Severity VAS was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline. The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in Cough Severity VAS was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation.||-1.4|-17.4|0.022
91014202|NCT01590810|181911283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-13.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.74|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.84|-9.59|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-9.59|-16.84|<0.0001
90805051|NCT02993822|181490879|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.0||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.3|1.4|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change in the Cough Severity VAS was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline. The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in Cough Severity VAS was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation.||1.4|-15.3|0.103
90805052|NCT02993822|181490879|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5||||0.546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|5.6|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change in the Cough Severity VAS was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline. The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in Cough Severity VAS was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation.||5.6|-10.6|0.546
90805053|NCT02993822|181490879|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.0||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.2|-0.7|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change in the Cough Severity VAS was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline. The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in Cough Severity VAS was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation.||-0.7|-17.2|0.034
90805054|NCT02993822|181490880|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.2||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.8|-3.6|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change in the Cough Severity VAS was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline. The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in Cough Severity VAS was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation.||-3.6|-18.8|0.004
90805055|NCT02993822|181490880|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.1||||0.282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|3.4|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change in the Cough Severity VAS was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline. The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in Cough Severity VAS was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation.||3.4|-11.5|0.282
90805056|NCT02993822|181490880|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.2||||0.398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|4.3|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change in the Cough Severity VAS was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline. The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in Cough Severity VAS was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation.||4.3|-10.7|0.398
90805057|NCT02993822|181490881|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.0||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.3|-1.7|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change in the Cough Severity VAS was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline. The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in Cough Severity VAS was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation.||-1.7|-18.3|0.019
90805058|NCT02993822|181490881|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.6||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|2.4|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change in the Cough Severity VAS was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline. The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in Cough Severity VAS was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation.||2.4|-13.7|0.170
90805059|NCT02993822|181490881|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.6||||0.384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|4.5|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change in the Cough Severity VAS was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline. The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in Cough Severity VAS was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation.||4.5|-11.7|0.384
90805060|NCT02993822|181490882|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.7||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|-3.3|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change in the Cough Severity VAS was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline. The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in Cough Severity VAS was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation.||-3.3|-20.0|0.006
90805061|NCT02993822|181490882|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.0||||0.222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|3.0|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change in the Cough Severity VAS was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline. The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in Cough Severity VAS was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation.||3.0|-13.0|0.222
91014203|NCT01590810|181911283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-10.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.94|-6.45|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-6.45|-13.94|<0.0001
91014204|NCT01590810|181911283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-12.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.74|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.45|-9.19|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-9.19|-16.45|<0.0001
91014205|NCT01590810|181911283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-12.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.75|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.49|-9.19|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-9.19|-16.49|<0.0001
90805062|NCT02993822|181490882|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.9||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|0.3|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change in the Cough Severity VAS was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline. The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in Cough Severity VAS was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation.||0.3|-16.0|0.058
90805063|NCT02993822|181490883|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.0||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9|-1.2|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change in the Cough Severity VAS was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline. The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in Cough Severity VAS was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation.||-1.2|-18.9|0.027
90805064|NCT02993822|181490883|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.4||||0.147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|2.2|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change in the Cough Severity VAS was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline. The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in Cough Severity VAS was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation.||2.2|-14.9|0.147
90805065|NCT02993822|181490883|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.9||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6|-0.1|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change in the Cough Severity VAS was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline. The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in Cough Severity VAS was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation.||-0.1|-17.6|0.046
90805066|NCT02993822|181490884|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.5|-5.5|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change in the urge-to-cough VAS was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline. The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in urge-to cough VAS was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation.||-5.5|-19.5|<0.001
90805067|NCT02993822|181490884|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.5||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|1.3|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change in the urge-to-cough VAS was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline. The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in urge-to cough VAS was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation.||1.3|-12.4|0.114
91014206|NCT01590810|181911284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.73|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||0.11|-4.73|0.061
91014207|NCT01590810|181911284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-0.45|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-0.45|-4.00|0.016
90805068|NCT02993822|181490884|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.8||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|0.2|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change in the urge-to-cough VAS was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline. The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in urge-to cough VAS was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation.||0.2|-13.7|0.056
90805069|NCT02993822|181490885|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.9||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.8|-1.0|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change in the urge-to-cough VAS was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline. The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in urge-to cough VAS was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation.||-1.0|-16.8|0.027
90805070|NCT02993822|181490885|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.6||||0.357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|4.1|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change in the urge-to-cough VAS was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline. The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in urge-to cough VAS was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation.||4.1|-11.3|0.357
90805071|NCT02993822|181490885|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.5||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|-0.8|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change in the urge-to-cough VAS was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline. The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in urge-to cough VAS was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation.||-0.8|-16.2|0.031
90805072|NCT02993822|181490886|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.1||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.2|-2.9|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change in the urge-to-cough VAS was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline. The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in urge-to cough VAS was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation.||-2.9|-19.2|0.008
91014208|NCT01590810|181911284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-11.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.42|-8.82|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-8.82|-14.42|<0.0001
91014209|NCT01590810|181911284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-8.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.55|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.34|-4.96|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-4.96|-11.34|<0.0001
91014210|NCT01590810|181911284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-16.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.96|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.81|-12.75|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-12.75|-20.81|<0.0001
91014211|NCT01590810|181911285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.56|-0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-0.34|-5.56|0.029
90805073|NCT02993822|181490886|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0||||0.321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|3.9|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change in the urge-to-cough VAS was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline. The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in urge-to cough VAS was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation.||3.9|-11.8|0.321
90805074|NCT02993822|181490886|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.1||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|-0.1|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change in the urge-to-cough VAS was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline. The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in urge-to cough VAS was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation.||-0.1|-16.0|0.047
91014212|NCT01590810|181911285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.19||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.29|-2.22|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-2.22|-11.29|0.005
91014213|NCT01590810|181911285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-13.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.16|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.03|-6.93|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-6.93|-20.03|<0.001
91014214|NCT01590810|181911285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-18.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.76|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.98|-14.68|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-14.68|-21.98|<0.0001
91014215|NCT01590810|181911285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-16.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.96|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.29|-12.19|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-12.19|-20.29|<0.0001
90805075|NCT02993822|181490887|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.1||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.4|-1.8|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change in the urge-to-cough VAS was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline. The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in urge-to cough VAS was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation.||-1.8|-18.4|0.018
91014216|NCT01590810|181911286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.51||0.539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.12|3.93|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||3.93|-7.12|0.539
91014217|NCT01590810|181911286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.12||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.23|1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||1.50|-12.23|0.113
91014218|NCT01590810|181911286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-14.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.45|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.69|-8.91|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-8.91|-19.69|<0.001
91014219|NCT01590810|181911287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-12.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.56|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.62|-9.11|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-9.11|-15.62|<0.0001
91014220|NCT01590810|181911287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-10.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.51|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.74|-7.42|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-7.42|-13.74|<0.0001
91014221|NCT01590810|181911287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-13.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.12|-11.13|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-11.13|-16.12|<0.0001
90805076|NCT02993822|181490887|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|6.4|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change in the urge-to-cough VAS was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline. The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in urge-to cough VAS was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation.||6.4|-9.8|0.682
90805077|NCT02993822|181490887|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.8||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|-3.6|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change in the urge-to-cough VAS was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline. The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in urge-to cough VAS was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation.||-3.6|-20.0|0.005
90805078|NCT02993822|181490888|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"The Global Rating of Change responses were summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) as categorical endpoints (worse, about the same and better). Pairwise comparisons were performed using the Cochran Mantel Haenszel test stratified by region using modified ridit scores (row mean scores differ)."||||0.004
90805079|NCT02993822|181490888|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.134|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"The Global Rating of Change responses were summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) as categorical endpoints (worse, about the same and better). Pairwise comparisons were performed using the Cochran Mantel Haenszel test stratified by region using modified ridit scores (row mean scores differ)."||||0.134
91014222|NCT01590810|181911287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-12.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.85|-10.08|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-10.08|-15.85|<0.0001
91014223|NCT01590810|181911288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|2.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||2.60|-0.50|0.175
91014224|NCT01590810|181911288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|4.61|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||4.61|-0.25|0.076
91054465|NCT04135196|181991032|OTHER|||||||0.697|||||||Regression, Linear|||The null hypothesis was that change in UD ecBMD was not proportional to strain magnitude. Raw change in ecBMD was analyzed as the dependent variable in a linear regression model with coefficients representing contrasts between the two experimental groups and the control group.|"Overall model fit: R\^2=0.018, F=0.365, df1=2, df2=40, p=0.697~Contrast between the low strain magnitude group and the control group: B=-0.004, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.004, Beta=-0.158, t=-0.854, p=0.398, 95% CI of B: \[-0.012, 0.005\]~Contrast between the high strain magnitude group and the control group: B=-0.002, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.004, Beta=-0.078, t=-0.423, p=0.675, 95% CI of B: \[-0.010, 0.006\]"|||0.697
91014225|NCT01590810|181911288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|3.32|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||3.32|1.04|0.001
91054466|NCT04135196|181991032|OTHER|||||||0.018|||||||Regression, Linear|||The null hypothesis was that change in UD ecBMD was not proportional to strain rate. Raw change in ecBMD was analyzed as the dependent variable in a linear regression model with coefficients representing contrasts between the two experimental groups and the control group.|"Overall model fit: R\^2=0.215, F=4.516, df1=2, df2=33, p=0.018~Contrast between the low strain rate group and the control group: B=0.014, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.005, Beta=0.484, t=2.773, p=0.009, 95% CI of B: \[0.004, 0.0524\]~Contrast between the high strain rate group and the control group: B=0.012, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.005, Beta=0.406, t=2.325, p=0.026, 95% CI of B: \[0.001, 0.022\]"|||0.018
90805080|NCT02993822|181490888|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"The Global Rating of Change responses were summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) as categorical endpoints (worse, about the same and better). Pairwise comparisons were performed using the Cochran Mantel Haenszel test stratified by region using modified ridit scores (row mean scores differ)."||||0.003
90805081|NCT02993822|181490889|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.401|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"The Global Rating of Change responses were summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) as categorical endpoints (worse, about the same and better). Pairwise comparisons were performed using the Cochran Mantel Haenszel test stratified by region using modified ridit scores (row mean scores differ)."||||0.401
90805082|NCT02993822|181490889|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.175|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"The Global Rating of Change responses were summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) as categorical endpoints (worse, about the same and better). Pairwise comparisons were performed using the Cochran Mantel Haenszel test stratified by region using modified ridit scores (row mean scores differ)."||||0.175
90805083|NCT02993822|181490889|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.126|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"The Global Rating of Change responses were summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) as categorical endpoints (worse, about the same and better). Pairwise comparisons were performed using the Cochran Mantel Haenszel test stratified by region using modified ridit scores (row mean scores differ)."||||0.126
90805084|NCT02993822|181490890|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"The Global Rating of Change responses were summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) as categorical endpoints (worse, about the same and better). Pairwise comparisons were performed using the Cochran Mantel Haenszel test stratified by region using modified ridit scores (row mean scores differ)."||||0.002
90805085|NCT02993822|181490890|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.144|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"The Global Rating of Change responses were summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) as categorical endpoints (worse, about the same and better). Pairwise comparisons were performed using the Cochran Mantel Haenszel test stratified by region using modified ridit scores (row mean scores differ)."||||0.144
91014226|NCT01590810|181911288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.22|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.14|8.15|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||8.15|3.14|<0.0001
91014227|NCT01590810|181911288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|3.67|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||3.67|0.63|0.008
91014228|NCT01590810|181911289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.39||0.557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|2.05|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||2.05|-3.70|0.557
90805086|NCT02993822|181490890|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.025|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"The Global Rating of Change responses were summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) as categorical endpoints (worse, about the same and better). Pairwise comparisons were performed using the Cochran Mantel Haenszel test stratified by region using modified ridit scores (row mean scores differ)."||||0.025
90805087|NCT02993822|181490891|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.158|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"The Global Rating of Change responses were summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) as categorical endpoints (worse, about the same and better). Pairwise comparisons were performed using the Cochran Mantel Haenszel test stratified by region using modified ridit scores (row mean scores differ)."||||0.158
90805088|NCT02993822|181490891|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.597|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"The Global Rating of Change responses were summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) as categorical endpoints (worse, about the same and better). Pairwise comparisons were performed using the Cochran Mantel Haenszel test stratified by region using modified ridit scores (row mean scores differ)."||||0.597
90805089|NCT02993822|181490891|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.124|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"The Global Rating of Change responses were summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) as categorical endpoints (worse, about the same and better). Pairwise comparisons were performed using the Cochran Mantel Haenszel test stratified by region using modified ridit scores (row mean scores differ)."||||0.124
90805090|NCT02993822|181490892|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"The Global Rating of Change responses were summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) as categorical endpoints (worse, about the same and better). Pairwise comparisons were performed using the Cochran Mantel Haenszel test stratified by region using modified ridit scores (row mean scores differ)."||||0.01
91014229|NCT01590810|181911289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.65|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||0.70|-3.65|0.175
91014230|NCT01590810|181911289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52||0.951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.04|3.23|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||3.23|-3.04|0.951
91014231|NCT01590810|181911289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|3.88|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||3.88|1.34|<0.001
91054467|NCT04135196|181991033|OTHER|||||||0.073|||||||Regression, Linear|||The null hypothesis was that change in UD tBMD was not proportional to strain magnitude. Raw change in tBMD was analyzed as the dependent variable in a linear regression model with coefficients representing contrasts between the two experimental groups and the control group.|"Overall model fit: R\^2=0.123, F=2.799, df1=2, df2=40, p=0.073~Contrast between the low strain magnitude group and the control group: B=0.003, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.001, Beta=0.413, t=2.361, p=0.023, 95% CI of B: \[0.000, 0.006\]~Contrast between the high strain magnitude group and the control group: B=0.002, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.001, Beta=0.198, t=1.129, p=0.265, 95% CI of B: \[-0.001, 0.004\]"|||0.073
90805091|NCT02993822|181490892|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.049|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"The Global Rating of Change responses were summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) as categorical endpoints (worse, about the same and better). Pairwise comparisons were performed using the Cochran Mantel Haenszel test stratified by region using modified ridit scores (row mean scores differ)."||||0.049
90805092|NCT02993822|181490892|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"The Global Rating of Change responses were summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) as categorical endpoints (worse, about the same and better). Pairwise comparisons were performed using the Cochran Mantel Haenszel test stratified by region using modified ridit scores (row mean scores differ)."||||0.001
90805093|NCT02993822|181490893|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.309|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"The Global Rating of Change responses were summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) as categorical endpoints (worse, about the same and better). Pairwise comparisons were performed using the Cochran Mantel Haenszel test stratified by region using modified ridit scores (row mean scores differ)."||||0.309
90805094|NCT02993822|181490893|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.387|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"The Global Rating of Change responses were summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) as categorical endpoints (worse, about the same and better). Pairwise comparisons were performed using the Cochran Mantel Haenszel test stratified by region using modified ridit scores (row mean scores differ)."||||0.387
90805095|NCT02993822|181490893|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.025|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"The Global Rating of Change responses were summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) as categorical endpoints (worse, about the same and better). Pairwise comparisons were performed using the Cochran Mantel Haenszel test stratified by region using modified ridit scores (row mean scores differ)."||||0.025
90805096|NCT02993822|181490894|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"The Global Rating of Change responses were summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) as categorical endpoints (worse, about the same and better). Pairwise comparisons were performed using the Cochran Mantel Haenszel test stratified by region using modified ridit scores (row mean scores differ)."||||0.003
90805097|NCT02993822|181490894|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.152|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"The Global Rating of Change responses were summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) as categorical endpoints (worse, about the same and better). Pairwise comparisons were performed using the Cochran Mantel Haenszel test stratified by region using modified ridit scores (row mean scores differ)."||||0.152
90805098|NCT02993822|181490894|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"The Global Rating of Change responses were summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) as categorical endpoints (worse, about the same and better). Pairwise comparisons were performed using the Cochran Mantel Haenszel test stratified by region using modified ridit scores (row mean scores differ)."||||0.004
91014232|NCT01590810|181911289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|6.24|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||6.24|3.00|<0.0001
91014233|NCT01590810|181911290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16||0.241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.01|1.12|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||1.12|-4.01|0.241
90805099|NCT02993822|181490895|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"The Global Rating of Change responses were summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) as categorical endpoints (worse, about the same and better). Pairwise comparisons were performed using the Cochran Mantel Haenszel test stratified by region using modified ridit scores (row mean scores differ)."||||0.100
90805100|NCT02993822|181490895|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.557|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"The Global Rating of Change responses were summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) as categorical endpoints (worse, about the same and better). Pairwise comparisons were performed using the Cochran Mantel Haenszel test stratified by region using modified ridit scores (row mean scores differ)."||||0.557
90805101|NCT02993822|181490895|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.054|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"The Global Rating of Change responses were summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) as categorical endpoints (worse, about the same and better). Pairwise comparisons were performed using the Cochran Mantel Haenszel test stratified by region using modified ridit scores (row mean scores differ)."||||0.054
91014234|NCT01590810|181911290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.07||0.664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.63|5.48|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||5.48|-3.63|0.664
91014235|NCT01590810|181911290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.13||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|8.33|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||8.33|-1.03|0.114
91014236|NCT01590810|181911291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.98||0.385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.96|14.81|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||14.81|-5.96|0.385
91014237|NCT01590810|181911291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.15||0.385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.16|15.32|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||15.32|-6.16|0.385
91014238|NCT01590810|181911291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.6||0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.44|14.74|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||14.74|-4.44|0.276
91014239|NCT01590810|181911291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|9.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.94||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|19.81|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||19.81|-0.81|0.069
91014240|NCT01590810|181911292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09||0.383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|3.22|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||3.22|-1.28|0.383
91014241|NCT01590810|181911292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.79|-0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-0.70|-2.79|0.002
91014242|NCT01590810|181911292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-8.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.08|-6.14|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-6.14|-10.08|<0.0001
90805102|NCT01939977|181490901|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0083|||||||Chi-squared|||"Taking per protocol population, the percentage of patients with iPTH\> 110 pg / ml at 6 months post-transplant treated with Paricalcitol was statistically lower than in patients treated with Calcifediol"||||0.0083
90805103|NCT03641716|181490923|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.67|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.08|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90805104|NCT03641716|181490924|OTHER||Effect Size - Cohen's d|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.65||||||Due to limited size of sub-sample, we calculated a Cohen's d effect size for raw total score on the PSI from baseline to the 3-month follow-up, with a 95% confidence interval.||.65|-.66|
90805105|NCT03641716|181490925|OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||a prior threshold for statistical significance set at p\<.05|t-test, 2 sided|We ran a paired samples t-test with pre/post intervention data (from baseline and 3-month assessments).||After examining the data to ensure it met the statistical assumptions (e.g. normality, no outliers), we ran a paired-sample pre-post t-test to examine the difference in scores from baseline to 3 months on the NutriSTEP (Screening Tool for Every Preschooler) assessment.||||<.01
90805106|NCT01696981|181490931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.0|||Poisson regression|||||1.00|0.95|
90805107|NCT01696981|181490933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.85|||Poisson regression|||||0.85|0.72|
90805108|NCT01696981|181490935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.87|||Poisson regression|||||0.87|0.63|
90805109|NCT02285023|181490958|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Principal component analysis with varimax rotation was employed. An eigenvalue ≥ 1 was chosen as the criterion to retain domains. Each item was classified into the domain when loading with a domain loading ≥ 0.5.|||||<|0.01||||||An eigenvalue ≥ 1 was chosen as the criterion to retain domains. Each item was classified into the domain when loading with a domain loading ≥ 0.5|exploratory factor analysis|An eigenvalue ≥ 1 was chosen as the criterion to retain domains. Each item was classified into the domain when loading with a domain loading ≥ 0.5||Exploratory factor analysis||||<0.01
90805110|NCT02285023|181490959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cronbach's alpha|0.94|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Crohbach's alpha|||||||<0.05
90805111|NCT01108731|181490964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||General Linear Model (GLM)|||||||<0.05
91014243|NCT01590810|181911292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.58|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.74|-3.25|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-3.25|-9.74|<0.001
91014244|NCT01590810|181911292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-10.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.23|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.84|-7.78|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-7.78|-12.84|<0.0001
91014245|NCT01590810|181911293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.62||0.216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.43|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||1.30|-5.43|0.216
91014246|NCT01590810|181911293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.27||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.51|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-0.10|-9.51|0.046
91014247|NCT01590810|181911293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-8.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|-3.76|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-3.76|-14.10|0.002
91014248|NCT01590810|181911293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-11.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.65|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.64|-5.68|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-5.68|-16.64|<0.001
90805112|NCT01108731|181490965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||General Linear Model (GLM)|||||||<0.05
90805113|NCT01108731|181490966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
90805114|NCT00851890|181490972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|The treatment group was the factor and log10 baseline HCV RNA level was the covariate.||Eight participants per ABT-333 group and 12 participants in the placebo group provided \>95% power to detect a 1.4 log10 difference with a common standard deviation of 0.7 log10 using a two-sided, non-paired t-test with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.012
90805115|NCT00851890|181490972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|The treatment group was the factor and log10 baseline HCV RNA level was the covariate.||Eight participants per ABT-333 group and 12 participants in the placebo group provided \>95% power to detect a 1.4 log10 difference with a common standard deviation of 0.7 log10 using a two-sided, non-paired t-test with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.071
90805116|NCT00851890|181490972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|The treatment group was the factor and log10 baseline HCV RNA level was the covariate.||Eight participants per ABT-333 group and 12 participants in the placebo group provided \>95% power to detect a 1.4 log10 difference with a common standard deviation of 0.7 log10 using a two-sided, non-paired t-test with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.140
91014249|NCT01590810|181911293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-9.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.67|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|-5.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-5.80|-12.70|<0.0001
90805117|NCT00851890|181490973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|The treatment group was the factor and log10 baseline HCV RNA level was the covariate.||Eight participants per ABT-333 group and 12 participants in the placebo group provided \>95% power to detect a 1.4 log10 difference with a common standard deviation of 0.7 log10 using a two-sided, non-paired t-test with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.008
90805118|NCT00851890|181490973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|The treatment group was the factor and log10 baseline HCV RNA level was the covariate.||Eight participants per ABT-333 group and 12 participants in the placebo group provided \>95% power to detect a 1.4 log10 difference with a common standard deviation of 0.7 log10 using a two-sided, non-paired t-test with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.003
90805119|NCT00851890|181490973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|The treatment group was the factor and log10 baseline HCV RNA level was the covariate.||Eight participants per ABT-333 group and 12 participants in the placebo group provided \>95% power to detect a 1.4 log10 difference with a common standard deviation of 0.7 log10 using a two-sided, non-paired t-test with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.009
91014250|NCT01590810|181911294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.65||0.635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|7.96|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||7.96|-12.50|0.635
91014251|NCT01590810|181911294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-8.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.18||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.58|3.22|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||3.22|-19.58|0.143
90805120|NCT00851890|181490980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|The treatment group was the factor and log10 baseline HCV RNA level was the covariate.||The statistical analysis represents the Day 28 time point.||||0.018
90805121|NCT00851890|181490980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|The treatment group was the factor and log10 baseline HCV RNA level was the covariate.||The statistical analysis represents the Day 28 time point.||||0.020
90805122|NCT00851890|181490980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|The treatment group was the factor and log10 baseline HCV RNA level was the covariate.||The statistical analysis represents the Day 28 time point.||||0.054
90805123|NCT00851890|181490980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|The treatment group was the factor and log10 baseline HCV RNA level was the covariate.||The statistical analysis represents the Final Visit time point.||||0.010
90805124|NCT00851890|181490980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|The treatment group was the factor and log10 baseline HCV RNA level was the covariate.||The statistical analysis represents the Final Visit time point.||||0.005
90805125|NCT00851890|181490980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|The treatment group was the factor and log10 baseline HCV RNA level was the covariate.||The statistical analysis represents the Final Visit time point.||||0.014
90805126|NCT00851890|181490981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.026
90805127|NCT00851890|181490981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.026
90805128|NCT00851890|181490981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.138|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.138
91014252|NCT01590810|181911294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-15.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.32||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.01|-6.01|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-6.01|-25.01|0.004
91014253|NCT01590810|181911295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-10.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.42|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.79|-7.89|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-7.89|-13.79|<0.0001
90805129|NCT00851890|181490982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.209
90805130|NCT00851890|181490982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.473|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.473
90805131|NCT00851890|181490982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.031
90805132|NCT00851890|181490983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.209
90805133|NCT00851890|181490983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
90805134|NCT03135431|181490986|NON_INFERIORITY|\<=.5g/dl difference in the decrease in hemoglobin was considered equivalent as 1 unit of blood typically raises the hemoglobin by 1g/dl and would be a clinical significant difference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04121||||0.08|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.0712|||t-test, 1 sided|||Assuming that a difference of 0.5 g/dl in the drop in hemoglobin between study arms would be considered as equivalent, and assuming a common standard deviation of 1.1 based on previous studies of cesarean deliveries deliveries , the study would have 80% power to test for non-inferiority with 60 participants in each arm (120 total).|Based on new data from a retrospective study preformed at Mayo Clinic sites an additional power calculation was preformed. Based on the new information, our study was well powered (84%) to assess our primary aim with 38 participants (18 salpingectomy, 20 BTL); therefore, we discontinued recruitment and completed the study with the accrued subjects.|.0712||0.08
90805135|NCT03135431|181490987|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|-8.3|||||Evidence to suggest salpingecotomy procedure had a longer operation time than a tubal ligation.|||-8.3|-14.1|
91014254|NCT01590810|181911295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-8.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.18|-5.91|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-5.91|-11.18|<0.0001
91014255|NCT01590810|181911295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-10.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.34|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.44|-7.84|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-7.84|-13.44|<0.0001
91014256|NCT01590810|181911295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-11.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.97|-8.29|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-8.29|-13.97|<0.0001
91014257|NCT01590810|181911296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.19||0.547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.19|1.73|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||1.73|-3.19|0.547
90805136|NCT03135431|181490988|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.17||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.5|54.17|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis preformed as categorical and categorical variable. Both analyzes had the same conclusion.||54.17|-72.5|0.77
90805137|NCT00943098|181491018|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size calculation was based on a hypothesis of non-inferiority of Diclofenac HPBCD 75mg/ml s.c. versus Voltarol® 75mg/3ml i.m. with regard to the primary efficacy variable (PID at 1.5 hours after study drug administration). The clinically significant difference (delta) between groups was defined in 15 mm of pain intensity difference (a 30% decline from starting levels of pain intensity of 50 mm or greater on a 0 to 100 VAS).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71||||0.813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.62|5.2|||ANCOVA|||Assuming a difference in means of 0 mm, a common standard deviation of 22.5 mm, a sample size of 60 subjects in each group had 95% power to reject the null hypothesis.||5.20|-6.62|0.813
91014258|NCT01590810|181911296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.79|-0.62|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-0.62|-2.79|0.004
90805138|NCT00943098|181491031|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size calculation was based on a hypothesis of non-inferiority of Diclofenac HPBCD 75mg/ml s.c. versus Voltarol® 75mg/3ml i.m. with regard to the primary efficacy variable (PID at 1.5 hours after study drug administration). The clinically significant difference (delta) between groups was defined in 15 mm of pain intensity difference (a 30% decline from starting levels of pain intensity of 50 mm or greater on a 0 to 100 VAS).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51||||0.862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.23|5.22|||ANCOVA|||Assuming a difference in means of 0 mm, a common standard deviation of 22.5 mm, a sample size of 60 subjects in each group had 95% power to reject the null hypothesis.||5.22|-6.23|0.862
90805139|NCT03122145|181491034|SUPERIORITY|Mann whitney U between groups comparison for voluntary cough parameters between healthy controls and individuals with ALS outcomes: peak expiratory cough flow and cough volume acceleration||||||0.0005|||||||ANOVA|||Hypothesis that voluntary cough \> reflex cough strength and effectiveness in healthy volunteers||||0.0005
90805140|NCT02016716|181491038|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was claimed if the lower bound of the 1-sided 97.5% CI (or the lower bound of 2-sided 95% CI) of the mean difference between the 2 romosozumab groups was \> -2.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.7|||||Based on ANCOVA model adjusting for treatment, and baseline lumbar spine BMD T-score.|The primary hypothesis was that the mean percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at month 6 in participants receiving romosozumab 210 mg QM using the 90 mg/mL concentration would not be inferior to that in participants receiving romosozumab 210 mg QM using the 70 mg/mL concentration.||0.7|-1.5|
91014259|NCT01590810|181911296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.23|-2.94|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-2.94|-6.23|<0.0001
91014260|NCT01590810|181911296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.98|-1.76|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-1.76|-4.98|<0.001
91014261|NCT01590810|181911296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.24|-3.59|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-3.59|-8.24|<0.0001
91014262|NCT01590810|181911297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.33||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.19|-0.67|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-0.67|-6.19|0.017
91014263|NCT01590810|181911297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.35|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.43|-2.84|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-2.84|-8.43|<0.001
90805141|NCT00281099|181491049|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A non-inferiority analysis was performed, with the hazard ratio as the parameter of interest and the non-inferiority threshold of 1.21. The one-sided upper confidence bound for the hazard ratio had to be less than 1.21 for the null hypothesis to be rejected. The threshold of 1.21 was derived by using a noninferiority threshold of a 5 percentage point difference in 24 month event-free rates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.139||||||96.3|1.139|1.59||There were 167 events by 90 subjects in the VVI 40 arm, compared to 188 events among 104 subjects in the MVP arm.|Andersen-Gill Model|An Andersen-Gill model was used to account for multiple primary endpoints per subject.|4 interim analyses were performed \& the O'Brien-Fleming alpha-spending function required a 96.3% confidence interval.|"This is a multiple events survival analysis, with time to first primary endpoint, time between successive endpoints, and time from last endpoint to last follow-up visit determined for each subject. The null hypothesis is that the mortality/ heart failure (HF) urgent care/HF hospitalization hazard rate for patients with no Class I pacing indication and MVP is greater than that of similar patients with VVI 40."||1.590|1.139|
90805142|NCT00281099|181491050|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A non-inferiority analysis was performed, with the hazard ratio as the parameter of interest and the non-inferiority threshold of 1.241. The one-sided upper confidence bound for the hazard ratio had to be less than 1.241 for the null hypothesis to be rejected. The threshold of 1.241 was derived by using a non-inferiority threshold of a 5 percentage point difference in 24 month HF event-free rates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.029||||||95.0|1.029|1.381|||Andersen-Gill Model|An Andersen-Gill model was utilized to account for multiple HF events per subject.||This is a multiple events survival analysis, and so the time from randomization to first HF event, time between successive HF events, and time from last HF event to last follow-up visit was determined for each subject. Since non-inferiority analysis is intended to prove that one therapy is equivalent or superior to another therapy, the null hypothesis being tested is that the worsening HF hazard rate for patients with MVP programming is greater than that of patients with VVI 40 programming.||1.381|1.029|
90805143|NCT00281099|181491051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0||||The a priori alpha level for each covariate was 0.05. The p-value outcome provided is for the randomization arm main effect and all interactions between randomization arm and time.|Cumulative Logits Model|The analysis included data for all four time points (baseline, 12, 24, and 36 months) and all NYHA levels.||A model with covariates for time and randomization arm was fit to test the null hypothesis that the risk of worsening NYHA status over time among patients with MVP programming was equal to that of patients with VVI 40 programming. This analysis combined NYHA IV and Death into one category. The model included interaction terms for time and randomization arm.||||> 0.05
90805144|NCT00281099|181491051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0||||The a priori alpha level for each covariate was 0.05. The p-value outcome provided is for the randomization arm main effect and all interaction terms between randomization arm and time.|Cumulative Logit Model|The analysis included data for all four time points (baseline, 12, 24, and 36 months) and all NYHA levels.||The null hypothesis for this analysis was the same as for the prior analysis: that the risk of worsening NYHA status over time among patients with MVP programming was equal to that of patients with VVI 40 programming. In this analysis, however, death was considered a 5th category in addition to NYHA I-IV. An interaction term for time and randomization arm was also included.||||> 0.05
90805145|NCT00281099|181491052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.1||95.0||||In each case the a priori threshold for significance for Arm was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model fit with time and arm as covariates, the interaction between them included. Interaction shown to not be significant and model refit without it.||A linear mixed model was fit for each of the followoing: LVEDD, LVESD, Septal Wall Thickness, and Posterior Wall Thickness; the purpose was to test whether patients with MVP and no pacing indication over time had a different average value for that measure than patients with VVI and no pacing indication. Data were also collected from the 36 month visits but were excluded due to the trial being stopped early and only a subset of patients having data for those visits.||||> 0.10
90805146|NCT00281099|181491053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.1||95.0||||The a priori threshold for significance for Arm was 0.05, with no adjustment for multiple analyses.|Mixed Models Analysis|Models were fit with time and arm as covariates.||A linear mixed model was fit for each of the following: LV Ejection Fraction and LV Fractional Shortening; the purpose was to test whether patients with MVP and no pacing indication over time had a different average value for that measure than patients with VVI and no pacing indication. Two-sided tests were used. Data were also collected from the 36 month visits but were excluded due to the trial being stopped early and only a subset of patients having data for those visits.||||> 0.10
90805147|NCT00281099|181491054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0424||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance for Arm was 0.05, with no correction for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|The model was fit with time and arm as covariates.||"A linear mixed model was fit to test whether patients with MVP and no pacing indication had a different values for left ventricular end diastolic volume (LVEDV) over time than similar patients with VVI 40. A two-sided test was used. Data were collected from the 36 month visits but were excluded due to the trial being stopped early and only a subset of patients having data for those visits."||||0.0424
90805148|NCT00281099|181491054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.1||95.0||||In each case the a priori threshold for significance for Arm was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Models were fit with time and arm as covariates.||"Similar models were fit for left ventricle (LV) End Systolic Volume and Left Atrial Volume."||||>0.10
90805149|NCT00281099|181491055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0418||95.0||||The a priori threshold for significance for Arm was 0.05, with no adjustment for multiple analyses.|Mixed Models Analysis|The model fit with time and arm as covariates.||A linear mixed model was fit to test whether patients with MVP and no pacing indication had a different values of Left Ventricular Sphericity Index over time than similar patients with VVI 40. A two-sided test was used. Data were collected from the 36 month visits but were excluded due to the trial being stopped early and only a subset of patients having data for those visits.||||0.0418
91014264|NCT01590810|181911297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.94|-2.04|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-2.04|-9.94|0.005
91014265|NCT01590810|181911297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.73|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|-3.76|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-3.76|-10.90|<0.001
91014266|NCT01590810|181911297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.22|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.76|-2.69|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-2.69|-7.76|<0.001
90805150|NCT00281099|181491056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.1||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance for Arm was 0.05, with no correction for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Models were fit with time and arm as covariates.||A linear mixed model was fit for each of the following: TR Velocity, Mitral Inflow-peak E and Mitral Inflow-peak A; the purpose was to test whether patients with MVP and no pacing indication over time had a different average value for that measure than patients with VVI and no pacing indication. Two-sided tests were used. Data were collected from the 36 month visits but were excluded due to the trial being stopped early and only a subset of patients having data for those visits.||||> 0.10
90805151|NCT00281099|181491057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.949||95.0||||The a priori threshold for significance for Arm was 0.05, with no adjustment for multiple analyses.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model fit with time and arm as covariates.||A linear mixed model was fit for Mitral Inflow - Deceleration time; the purpose was to test whether patients with MVP and no pacing indication over time had a different average value for that measure than patients with VVI and no pacing indication. A two-sided test was used. Data were collected from the 36 month visits but were excluded due to the trial being stopped early and only a subset of patients having data for those visits.||||0.9490
90805152|NCT00281099|181491058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.1||95.0||||The a priori threshold for significance for Arm was 0.05, with no adjustment for multiple analyses.|Mixed Models Analysis|Models fit with time and arm as covariates.||A linear mixed model was fit for each of the following: Left Atrial Area and Mitral Regurgitation Area; the purpose was to test whether patients with MVP and no pacing indication over time had a different average value for that measure than patients with VVI and no pacing indication. Two-sided tests were used. Data were collected from the 36 month visits but were excluded due to the trial being stopped early and only a subset of patients having data for those visits.||||> 0.10
90805153|NCT00281099|181491059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8403||95.0||||The a priori threshold for significance for Arm was 0.05.|Cumulative Logits Model|Because Composite Mitral Regurgitation Score was measured on the ordinal scale, a GEE cumulative logits model was fit.||"A General Estimating Equation (GEE) Cumulative Logits model was fit with Arm, Time, and their interaction as covariates in the model to test the hypothesis that patients with no pacing indication and MVP programming have different Mitral Regurgation over time than similar patients with VVI 40 programming. A two-sided test was used. Data were collected from the 36 month visits but were excluded due to the trial being stopped early and only a subset of patients having data for those visits."||||0.8403
90805154|NCT00281099|181491060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.949||||||95.0|0.949|1.209|||Andersen-Gill model|This model was fit to account for multiple events (i.e. days in which true VT/VF occurred) within subject.|Because of the possible correlation within subject of days with episodes, a subsequent analysis was done using a bootstrap confidence interval for the annualized rate of episodes per patient month.|The pre-specified analysis called for a comparison of the hazard rates of true VT/VF between the two arms by way of a one-sided 95% confidence interval on the hazard ratio (values less than one favor MVP) after fitting a model. The unit of time was days, not episodes, so the analysis did not account for multiple episodes on the same day. If the upper bound was less than 1, the null hypothesis of equal hazard rates would be rejected.||1.209|0.949|
90805155|NCT00281099|181491060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Annualized Rates|-0.015||||||95.0|-0.015|0.033|||Bootstrap Confidence Interval|||A 95% one-sided bootstrap confidence interval was generated for the MVP - VVI 40 difference in annualized rates of true VT/VF per patient month. If the interval upper bound was less than 0, the null hypothesis of equal rates would be rejected.||0.033|-0.015|
90805156|NCT00281099|181491060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.31||||||95.0|1.31|1.858|||Andersen-Gill model|This model was fit to account for multiple events (i.e. days in which non-VT/VF detected by device as VT/VF) within subject.|Because of the possible correlation within a subject for days with episodes, a subsequent analysis was done using a bootstrap confidence interval for the annualized rate of episodes per patient month.|The pre-specified analysis called for a comparison of the hazard rates of inappropriately detected non-VT/VF between the two arms by way of a one-sided 95% confidence interval on the hazard ratio (MVP in numerator) after fitting a model. The unit of time was days, not episodes, so the analysis did not account for multiple episodes on the same day. If the upper bound was less than 1, the null hypothesis of equal hazard rates would be rejected.||1.858|1.310|
90805157|NCT00281099|181491060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Annualized Rates|0.017||||||95.0|0.017|0.036|||Bootstrap Confidence Interval|||A 95% one-sided bootstrap confidence interval was generated for the MVP - VVI 40 difference in annualized rates of inappropriately detected non-VT/VF per patient month. If the interval upper bound was less than 0, the null hypothesis of equal rates would be rejected.||0.036|0.017|
91014267|NCT01590810|181911298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.52||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.27|7.42|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||7.42|-21.27|0.311
91014268|NCT01590810|181911298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-12.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.62||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.44|1.69|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||1.69|-27.44|0.078
90805158|NCT00281099|181491061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.22||||0.7166||95.0|1.22|3.0||The threshold for significance was the one-sided upper confidence bound being less than 1.|Andersen-Gill model|||This analysis compared the hazard rates for clinically important AF (defined as a calendar day with \>20 hour of AT/AF as measured by the device). The null hypothesis was that this hazard rate for patients with MVP was equal to or greater than that of patients with VVI 40. The pre-specified model had Arm as a covariate, and accounted for time to first event and time between successive events per subject.||3.0|1.22|0.7166
91014269|NCT01590810|181911298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-16.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.29||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.87|-2.19|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-2.19|-29.87|0.027
91014270|NCT01590810|181911299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-9.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|-6.65|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-6.65|-12.90|<0.0001
91014271|NCT01590810|181911299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.57|-2.81|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-2.81|-11.57|0.003
90805159|NCT00281099|181491061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|0.8||The threshold for significance was defined as the upper one-sided confidence bound being less than 0.|Bootstrap Confidence Interval|||This analysis compared the percentage of days with \>20 hours of AT/AF as measured by the device(definition of clinically important AF) between arms. The null hypothesis was that this percentage of days for patients with MVP was equal or greater to that of patients with VVI 40.||0.8|-100|
90805160|NCT00281099|181491061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.325||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Log Rank|A one-sided test was used.||This analysis tested the null hypothesis that the hazard rate for development of persistent AF(defined as 2 consecutive visits presenting with AT/AF, 7 consecutive days of 22 or more hours per day of AT/AF, or \< 7 such days due to a cardioversion) in patients with MVP and no pacing indication was equal to or greater than that of similar patients with VVI 40.||||0.325
90805161|NCT00281099|181491061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||||95.0|0.0|0.145||The a priori threshold for significance was defined as the one-sided upper 95% confidence bound for the MVP - VVI 40 difference in average AT/AF through 6 months being less than 0.|Bootstrap Confidence Interval|||This analysis tested the hypothesis that the average AT/AF burden (hours per day of AT/AF) through 6 months post-implant in patients with no Class I pacing indication and MVP is equal to or greater than that of similar patients with VVI 40. Only subjects with complete AT/AF data for this time interval were included in the analysis.||0.145|0|
90805162|NCT00281099|181491061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||||95.0|0.0|0.227||The a priori threshold for significance was defined as the one-sided upper 95% confidence bound for the MVP - VVI 40 difference in average AT/AF burden from 6 to 12 months being less than 0.|Bootstrap Confidence Interval|||This analysis tested the hypothesis that the average AT/AF burden (hours per day of AT/AF) from 6 to 12 months post-implant in patients with no Class I pacing indication and MVP is equal to or greater than that of similar patients with VVI 40. Only subjects with complete AT/AF data for this time interval were included in the analysis.||0.227|0|
90805163|NCT00281099|181491061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||||95.0|0.0|0.261||The a priori threshold for significance was defined as the one-sided upper 95% confidence bound for the MVP - VVI 40 difference in average AT/AF burden from 12 to 24 months being less than 0.|Bootstrap Confidence Interval|||This analysis tested the hypothesis that the average AT/AF burden (hours per day of AT/AF) from 12 to 24 months post-implant in patients with no Class I pacing indication and MVP is equal to or greater than that of similar patients with VVI 40. Only subjects with complete AT/AF data for this time interval were included in the analysis.||0.261|0|
90805164|NCT00281099|181491061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||||95.0|-0.1|0.11||The a priori threshold for significance was defined as the one-sided upper 95% confidence bound for the MVP - VVI 40 difference in average AT/AF burden from 24 to 36 months being less than 0.|Bootstrap Confidence Interval|||This analysis tested the hypothesis that the average AT/AF burden (hours per day of AT/AF) from 24 to 36 months post-implant in patients with no Class I pacing indication and MVP is equal to or greater than that of similar patients with VVI 40. Only subjects with complete AT/AF data for this time interval were included in the analysis.||0.110|-0.1|
90805165|NCT00281099|181491062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0053||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. The threshold was met, and the null hypothesis rejected.|Log Rank|||Physicians recorded at each scheduled and unscheduled follow-up whether the subject had developed a Class I indication since their last visit. The time from randomization to Class I indication development or last visit if censored was determined for each subject. The null hypothesis was that the hazard rate for time to development of a Class I pacing indication among patients with MVP programming was equal to or greater than that of patients with VVI 40 programming.||||0.0053
90805166|NCT00281099|181491064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9791||95.0||||The one-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum test yielded a p-value greater than 0.05, which was the a priori threshold for significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||All subjects from the analysis cohort with available data for the time period of interest were included in the corresponding analysis. The null hypothesis was that the average percent ventricular pacing through 6 months post-implant for patients with MVP programming and was greater than or equal to that of patients with VVI 40 programming.||||0.9791
90805167|NCT00281099|181491064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8984||95.0||||The one-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum test yielded a p-value greater than 0.05, which was the a priori threshold for significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Alternative hypothesis:patients with MVP \& no pacing indication have less mean ventricular pacing through 12 months than similar patients with VVI 40.||All subjects from the analysis cohort with available data for the time period of interest were included in the corresponding analysis. The null hypothesis was that the average percent ventricular pacing through 12 months post-implant for patients with MVP programming was greater than or equal to that of patients with VVI 40 programming.||||0.8984
90805168|NCT00281099|181491064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7144||95.0||||The one-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum test yielded a p-value greater than 0.05, which was the a priori threshold for significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Alternative hypothesis:patients with MVP \& no pacing indication have less mean ventricular pacing through 24 months than similar patients with VVI 40.||All subjects from the analysis cohort with available data for the time period of interest were included in the corresponding analysis. The null hypothesis was that the average percent ventricular pacing through 24 months post-implant for patients with MVP programming and no pacing indication was greater than or equal to that of patients with VVI 40 programming and no pacing indication.||||0.7144
90805169|NCT00281099|181491064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5165||95.0||||The one-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum test yielded a p-value greater than 0.05, which was the a priori threshold for significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Alternative hypothesis:patients with MVP \& no pacing indication have less mean ventricular pacing through 36 months than similar patients with VVI 40.||All subjects from the analysis cohort with available data for the time period of interest were included in the corresponding analysis. The null hypothesis was that the average percent ventricular pacing through 36 months post-implant for patients with MVP programming and no pacing indication was greater than or equal to that of patients with VVI 40 programming and no pacing indication.||||0.5165
90805170|NCT00281099|181491065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0073||95.0||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the KCCQ Physical Limitation Score, the change from baseline to 12 months was compared between the two arms, using a two-sided test. If a subject died prior to the time point, a score of 0 was imputed for their 12 month score.||||0.0073
90805171|NCT00281099|181491065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2493||95.0||||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons, and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the KCCQ Symptom Stability Score, the change from baseline to 12 months was compared between the two arms, using a two-sided test. If a subject died prior to the time point, a score of 0 was imputed for their 12 month score.||||0.2493
90805172|NCT00281099|181491065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7728||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05, and no adjustment was made for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the KCCQ Symptom Frequency Score, the change from baseline to 12 months was compared between the two arms, using a two-sided test. If a subject died prior to the time point, a score of 0 was imputed for their 12 month score.||||0.7728
90805173|NCT00281099|181491065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3082||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05, and no adjustment was made for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the KCCQ Symptom Burden Score, the change from baseline to 12 months was compared between the two arms, using a two-sided test. If a subject died prior to the time point, a score of 0 was imputed for their 12 month score.||||0.3082
90805174|NCT00281099|181491065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5422||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05, and no adjustment was made for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the KCCQ Total Symptom Score, the change from baseline to 12 months was compared between the two arms, using a two-sided test. If a subject died prior to the time point, a score of 0 was imputed for their 12 month score.||||0.5422
90805175|NCT00281099|181491065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0851||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05, and no adjustment was made for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the KCCQ Self-Efficacy Score, the change from baseline to 12 months was compared between the two arms, using a two-sided test. If a subject died prior to the time point, a score of 0 was imputed for their 12 month score.||||0.0851
90805176|NCT00281099|181491065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0502||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05, and no adjustment was made for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the KCCQ Quality of Life Score, the change from baseline to 12 months was compared between the two arms, using a two-sided test. If a subject died prior to the time point, a score of 0 was imputed for their 12 month score.||||0.0502
90805177|NCT00281099|181491065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0463||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05, and no adjustment was made for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the KCCQ Social Limitation Score, the change from baseline to 12 months was compared between the two arms, using a two-sided test. If a subject died prior to the time point, a score of 0 was imputed for their 12 month score.||||0.0463
90805178|NCT00281099|181491065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0227||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05, and no adjustment was made for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the KCCQ Overall Summary Score, the change from baseline to 12 months was compared between the two arms, using a two-sided test. If a subject died prior to the time point, a score of 0 was imputed for their 12 month score.||||0.0227
90805179|NCT00281099|181491065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0582||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05, and no adjustment was made for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the KCCQ Overall Clinical Summary Score, the change from baseline to 12 months was compared between the two arms, using a two-sided test. If a subject died prior to the time point, a score of 0 was imputed for their 12 month score.||||0.0582
90805180|NCT00281099|181491065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.15||95.0||||Tests for all ten KCCQ subscores yielded p-values greater than 0.15 (the a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The 10 KCCQ analyses were repeated comparing changes from baseline to 24 months between arms. Again if a subject died prior to their 24 month visit, a value of 0 was imputed for their 24 month score.||||> 0.15
90805181|NCT00281099|181491065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.15||95.0||||Tests for all 10 KCCQ subscores yielded p-values greater than 0.15 (the a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Because the trial was stopped early, only 178 subjects were included in these analyses.||The 10 KCCQ analyses were repeated comparing changes from baseline to 36 months between arms. Again if a subject died prior to their 36 month visit, a value of 0 was imputed for their 36 month score.||||> 0.15
91014272|NCT01590810|181911299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-8.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.02||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|-3.98|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-3.98|-12.40|0.001
91014273|NCT01590810|181911299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.02||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.69|-3.25|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-3.25|-11.69|0.001
90805182|NCT00281099|181491065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1399||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05, and no adjustment was made for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The change in Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire score from baseline to 12 months was compared using a two-sided test. If a subject died before their 12 month visit, a value of 105 (worst possible MLWHF score) was imputed for their 12 month score.||||0.1399
90805183|NCT00281099|181491065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3573||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05, and no adjustment was made for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The change in Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire score from baseline to 24 months was compared using a two-sided test. If a subject died before their 24 month visit, a value of 105 (worst possible MLWHF score) was imputed for their 24 month score.||||0.3573
90805184|NCT00281099|181491065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5183||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05, with no adjustment made for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Because the trial was stopped early, only 178 subjects were included in this analysis.||The change in Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire score from baseline to 36 months was compared using a two-sided test. If a subject died before their 36 month visit, a value of 105 (worst possible MLWHF score) was imputed for their 36 month score.||||0.5183
91014274|NCT01590810|181911300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|2.45|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||2.45|-1.82|0.765
91014275|NCT01590810|181911300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.49|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-0.20|-2.49|0.023
90805185|NCT00281099|181491066|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A non-inferiority analysis was performed, with the hazard ratio as the parameter of interest and the non-inferiority threshold of 1.44. The one-sided upper confidence bound for the hazard ratio had to be less than 1.44 for the null hypothesis to be rejected. The threshold of 1.44 was derived by using a noninferiority threshold of a 5 percentage point difference in 24 month survival rates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.26||||||95.0|1.26|1.75|||||This was a non-inferiority analysis, and so a one-sided 95% confidence interval was performed comparing the MVP arm to the VVI 40 arm.|The time from randomization to all cause mortality or last follow-up visit was determined for each subject. The null hypothesis was that the mortality hazard rate for patients with MVP programming was greater than that of patients with VVI40 programming.||1.75|1.26|
90805186|NCT02931838|181491068|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4873||||||Nominal p-value|Chi-squared|P-value is from the Fishers Exact if at least one cell count is \<5. Otherwise, p-value is from the Chi-Square test.||||||0.4873
90805187|NCT02931838|181491068|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003||||||Nominal p-value|Chi-squared|P-value is from the Fishers Exact if at least one cell count is \<5. Otherwise, p-value is from the Chi-Square test.||||||0.0003
90805188|NCT02931838|181491068|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Nominal p-value|Chi-squared|P-value is from the Fishers Exact if at least one cell count is \<5. Otherwise, p-value is from the Chi-Square test.||||||<0.0001
90805189|NCT02931838|181491068|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Nominal p-value|Chi-squared|P-value is from the Fishers Exact if at least one cell count is \<5. Otherwise, p-value is from the Chi-Square test.||||||< 0.0001
90805190|NCT02931838|181491068|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Nominal p-value|Chi-squared|P-value is from the Fishers Exact if at least one cell count is \<5. Otherwise, p-value is from the Chi-Square test.||||||<0.0001
90805191|NCT01963767|181491078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||ANCOVA|||Ancovas were conducted with group as the between subjects factor and performance at baseline as the covariate.||||.03
90805192|NCT01659996|181491079|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the difference between the two proportions was \< δ for serogroup A and assuming the difference between the two proportions was normally distributed, the inferiority assumption was to be rejected.|Difference between 2 percentages|-0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.11|2.93||||||Meningococcal serogroup A: The null hypothesis (H0: pm - ppm \> δ) was tested against the alternative hypothesis (H1: pm - ppm ≤ δ), where pm and ppm were the proportions of subjects in Group 1 and in Group 2, respectively, who achieved a Menactra vaccine response for meningococcal serogroups A, C, Y and W-135, with δ = 0.10.||2.93|-3.11|
90805193|NCT01659996|181491079|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the difference between the two proportions was \< δ for serogroup C and assuming the difference between the two proportions was normally distributed, the inferiority assumption was to be rejected.|Difference between 2 percentages|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|3.64||||||Meningococcal serogroup C: The null hypothesis (H0: pm - ppm \> δ) was tested against the alternative hypothesis (H1: pm - ppm ≤ δ), where pm and ppm were the proportions of subjects in Group 1 and in Group 2, respectively, who achieved a Menactra vaccine response for meningococcal serogroups A, C, Y and W-135, with δ = 0.10.||3.64|-0.84|
90805194|NCT01659996|181491079|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the difference between the two proportions was \< δ for serogroup Y and assuming the difference between the two proportions was normally distributed, the inferiority assumption was to be rejected.|Difference between 2 percentages|2.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|5.14||||||Meningococcal serogroup Y: The null hypothesis (H0: pm - ppm \> δ) was tested against the alternative hypothesis (H1: pm - ppm ≤ δ), where pm and ppm were the proportions of subjects in Group 1 and in Group 2, respectively, who achieved a Menactra vaccine response for meningococcal serogroups A, C, Y and W-135, with δ = 0.10.||5.14|0.14|
90805195|NCT01659996|181491079|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the difference between the two proportions was \< δ for serogroup W-135 and assuming the difference between the two proportions was normally distributed, the inferiority assumption was to be rejected.|Difference between 2 percentages|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|3.67||||||Meningococcal serogroup W-135: The null hypothesis (H0: pm - ppm \> δ) was tested against the alternative hypothesis (H1: pm - ppm ≤ δ), where pm and ppm were the proportions of subjects in Group 1 and in Group 2, respectively, who achieved a Menactra vaccine response for meningococcal serogroups A, C, Y and W-135, with δ = 0.10.||3.67|-0.84|
90805196|NCT01659996|181491084|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assuming that the antibodies concentration was log normally distributed, if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of the two GMCs is ≤ 1.5 for each antigen, the inferiority assumption was to be rejected.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.949|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.852|1.06||||||Pertussis toxoid (PT): The null hypothesis (H0: GMCp / GMCpm \> 1.5) was tested against the alternative hypothesis (H1: GMCp / GMCpm ≤ 1.5), where GMCp and GMCpm were the GMCs of antibodies against the pertussis antigen (PT) in Group 3 and in Group 2, respectively||1.06|0.852|
90805197|NCT01659996|181491084|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assuming that the antibodies concentration was log normally distributed, if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of the two GMCs is ≤ 1.5 for each antigen, the inferiority assumption was to be rejected.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.968|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.866|1.08||||||Filamentous hemagglutinin (FHA): The null hypothesis (H0: GMCp / GMCpm \> 1.5) was tested against the alternative hypothesis (H1: GMCp / GMCpm ≤ 1.5), where GMCp and GMCpm were the GMCs of antibodies against the pertussis antigen (FHA) in Group 3 and in Group 2, respectively||1.08|0.866|
90805198|NCT01659996|181491084|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assuming that the antibodies concentration was log normally distributed, if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of the two GMCs is ≤ 1.5 for each antigen, the inferiority assumption was to be rejected.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.937|1.31||||||Pertactin (PRN): The null hypothesis (H0: GMCp / GMCpm \> 1.5) was tested against the alternative hypothesis (H1: GMCp / GMCpm ≤ 1.5), where GMCp and GMCpm were the GMCs of antibodies against the pertussis antigen (PRN) in Group 3 and in Group 2, respectively||1.31|0.937|
91014276|NCT01590810|181911300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.18|-4.36|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-4.36|-9.18|<0.0001
91014277|NCT01590810|181911300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.95||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.46|-1.44|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-1.44|-9.46|0.010
90805199|NCT01659996|181491085|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the difference between the two proportions was \< δ for each antibody and assuming the difference between the two proportions was normally distributed, the inferiority assumption was to be rejected.|Difference between 2 percentages|-1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.44|3.19||||||Pertussis toxoid (PT) antigen: The null hypothesis (H0: pp - ppm \> δ) was tested against the alternative hypothesis (H1: pp - ppm ≤ δ), where pp and ppm were the proportions of subjects in Group 3 and Group 2, respectively, who achieved a pertussis vaccine response in antibodies against the pertussis antigen (PT), with δ = 0.10.||3.19|-5.44|
90805200|NCT01659996|181491085|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the difference between the two proportions was \< δ for each antibody and assuming the difference between the two proportions was normally distributed, the inferiority assumption was to be rejected.|Difference between 2 percentages|0.867|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|4.53||||||Filamentous hemagglutinin (FHA) antigen: The null hypothesis (H0: pp - ppm \> δ) was tested against the alternative hypothesis (H1: pp - ppm ≤ δ), where pp and ppm were the proportions of subjects in Group 3 and Group 2, respectively, who achieved a pertussis vaccine response in antibodies against the pertussis antigen (FHA), with δ = 0.10.||4.53|-2.54|
90805201|NCT01659996|181491085|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the difference between the two proportions was \< δ for each antibody and assuming the difference between the two proportions was normally distributed, the inferiority assumption was to be rejected.|Difference between 2 percentages|-0.092|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.62|3.66||||||Pertactin (PRN) antigen: The null hypothesis (H0: pp - ppm \> δ) was tested against the alternative hypothesis (H1: pp - ppm ≤ δ), where pp and ppm were the proportions of subjects in Group 3 and Group 2, respectively, who achieved a pertussis vaccine response in antibodies against the pertussis antigen (PRN), with δ = 0.10.||3.66|-3.62|
90805202|NCT03206918|181491088|SUPERIORITY||2-side Clopper-Pearson|87.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|79.4|93.81|||Exact Binomial Test|The null hypothesis is ORR = 32%||||93.81|79.40|<0.0001
90805203|NCT00475085|181491104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.013||||0.718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.225|0.2||Response skewed. P-value determined after Box-Cox transformation (lambda=-1.6). Significance level set to 0.017 to account for three tested hypotheses.|ANOVA|Testing and estimation performed using contrasts in the context of an omnibus ANOVA.||Group 1 - Group 2 (palonosetron vs. granisetron)||0.200|-0.225|0.718
90805204|NCT00475085|181491104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.195||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.017|0.407||Response skewed. P-value determined after Box-Cox transformation (lambda=-1.6). Significance level set to 0.017 to account for three tested hypotheses.|ANOVA|Testing and estimation performed using contrasts in the context of an omnibus ANOVA.||Group 1 - Group 4 (adding dexamethasone)||0.407|-0.017|0.010
91014278|NCT01590810|181911300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-8.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.28|-5.94|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-5.94|-11.28|<0.0001
90805205|NCT00475085|181491104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.025||||0.557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.236|0.186||Response skewed. P-value determined after Box-Cox transformation (lambda=-1.6). Significance level set to 0.017 to account for three tested hypotheses.|ANOVA|Testing and estimation performed using contrasts in the context of an omnibus ANOVA.||Group 3 - Group 4 (aprepitant vs. prochlorperazine)||0.186|-0.236|0.557
90805206|NCT00375674|181491105|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.761||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.594|0.975|||Cox Proportional hazards model|Based on the Cox Proportional hazards model stratified by UISS High-Risk Group.||Superiority analysis||0.975|0.594|0.030
90805207|NCT00375674|181491106|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.811||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.643|1.023|||Cox Proportional hazards model|Based on the Cox Proportional hazards model stratified by UISS High-Risk Group||Superiority analysis||1.023|0.643|0.077
90805208|NCT00375674|181491107|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.929||||0.661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.289|||Log-rank test|||Hazard ratio was based on the Cox Proportional hazards model stratified by UISS High-Risk Group.||1.289|0.670|0.661
90805209|NCT00301262|181491157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.405|<|0.0001||95.0|11.4|24.86||Since there was only one primary endpoint no multiple comparison adjustments were made for primary analysis. Final stat. model included centre, treatment, smoking status and history of ED as factors, and age, duration of ED (baseline) as covariates.|ANCOVA||Mean difference between the sidenafil group compared to the placebo group was calculated along with 95% confidence intervals for these differences.|The primary analysis population was the FAS. The sample size was estimated based on an expected difference of 16.5 with a standard deviation of 28.4, based on previously observed data.||24.86|11.40|<0.0001
90805210|NCT00301262|181491158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.761||0.0028||95.0|1.8|8.37|||paired t-test||A paired t-test was used to examine the within treatment difference between week 8 and week 14 (open label phase).|||8.370|1.800|0.0028
90805211|NCT00301262|181491158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|26.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.294|<|0.0001||95.0|20.58|31.455|||paired t-test||A paired t-test was used to examine the within treatment difference between week 8 and week 14 (open label phase).|||31.455|20.580|<0.0001
90805212|NCT00301262|181491159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.656||0.008||95.0|0.47|3.06|||ANCOVA||Mean difference between the sidenafil group compared to the placebo group was calculated along with 95% confidence intervals for these differences.|||3.06|0.47|0.0080
90805213|NCT00301262|181491160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.94|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.909||0.0051||95.0|0.29|1.585|||paired t-test||A paired t-test was used to examine the within treatment difference between week 8 and week 14 (open label phase).|||1.585|0.290|0.0051
90805214|NCT00301262|181491160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.79|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.013|<|0.0001||95.0|1.812|3.77|||paired t-test||A paired t-test was used to examine the within treatment difference between week 8 and week 14 (open label phase).|||3.770|1.812|<0.0001
91014279|NCT01590810|181911301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.39||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.89|0.86|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||0.86|-4.89|0.160
91014280|NCT01590810|181911301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.97||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|-0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-0.24|-8.40|0.039
90805215|NCT00301262|181491161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.922||0.0054||95.0|0.78|4.43|||ANCOVA||Mean difference between the sidenafil group compared to the placebo group was calculated along with 95% confidence intervals for these differences.|||4.43|0.78|0.0054
90805216|NCT00301262|181491162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.368||0.4232||95.0|-0.43|1.02|||ANCOVA||Mean difference between the sidenafil group compared to the placebo group was calculated along with 95% confidence intervals for these differences.|||1.02|-0.43|0.4232
90805217|NCT00301262|181491163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.277||0.0156||95.0|0.13|1.22|||ANCOVA||Mean difference between the sidenafil group compared to the placebo group was calculated along with 95% confidence intervals for these differences.|||1.22|0.13|0.0156
90805218|NCT00301262|181491164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.458||0.0096||95.0|0.3|2.11|||ANCOVA||Mean difference between the sidenafil group compared to the placebo group was calculated along with 95% confidence intervals for these differences.|||2.11|0.30|0.0096
90805219|NCT00301262|181491165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.359||0.0135||95.0|0.19|1.61|||ANCOVA||Mean difference between the sidenafil group compared to the placebo group was calculated along with 95% confidence intervals for these differences.|||1.61|0.19|0.0135
90805220|NCT00301262|181491166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.49|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.392||0.0033||95.0|0.051|2.465|||paired t-test||A paired t-test was used to examine the within treatment difference between week 8 and week 14 (open label phase).|||2.465|0.0510|0.0033
90805221|NCT00301262|181491166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.22|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.346|<|0.0001||95.0|3.676|6.772|||paired t-test||A paired t-test was used to examine the within treatment difference between week 8 and week 14 (open label phase).|||6.772|3.676|<0.0001
90805222|NCT00301262|181491167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.57||0.2581||95.0|-0.149|0.549|||paired t-test||A paired t-test was used to examine the within treatment difference between week 8 and week 14 (open label phase).|||0.549|-0.149|0.2581
90805223|NCT00301262|181491167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.39|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.582|<|0.0001||95.0|0.758|2.018|||paired t-test||A paired t-test was used to examine the within treatment difference between week 8 and week 14 (open label phase).|||2.018|0.758|<0.0001
90805224|NCT00301262|181491168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.18|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.456||0.2857||95.0|-0.149|0.499|||paired t-test||A paired t-test was used to examine the within treatment difference between week 8 and week 14 (open label phase).|||0.499|-0.149|0.2857
90805225|NCT00301262|181491168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.76|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.706||0.0005||95.0|0.345|1.177|||paired t-test||A paired t-test was used to examine the within treatment difference between week 8 and week 14 (open label phase).|||1.177|0.345|0.0005
90805226|NCT00301262|181491169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.548||0.0102||95.0|0.183|1.317|||paired t-test||A paired t-test was used to examine the within treatment difference between week 8 and week 14 (open label phase).|||1.317|0.183|0.0102
90805227|NCT00301262|181491169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.28|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.979|<|0.0001||95.0|1.557|3.01|||paired t-test||A paired t-test was used to examine the within treatment difference between week 8 and week 14 (open label phase).|||3.010|1.557|<0.0001
90805228|NCT00301262|181491170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.68|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.847||0.0016||95.0|0.264|1.086|||paired t-test||A paired t-test was used to examine the within treatment difference between week 8 and week 14 (open label phase).|||1.086|0.264|0.0016
90805229|NCT00301262|181491170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.297|<|0.0001||95.0|1.335|2.456|||paired t-test||A paired t-test was used to examine the within treatment difference between week 8 and week 14 (open label phase).|||2.456|1.335|<0.0001
90805230|NCT00301262|181491171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.038||0.0083||95.0|0.73|4.83|||ANCOVA||Mean difference between the sidenafil group compared to the placebo group was calculated along with 95% confidence intervals for these differences.|||4.83|0.73|0.0083
90805231|NCT00301262|181491172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.193||0.9146||95.0|-1.218|1.093|||paired t-test||A paired t-test was used to examine the within treatment difference between week 8 and week 14 (open label phase).|||1.093|-1.218|0.9146
90805232|NCT00301262|181491172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.54|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.463|<|0.0001||95.0|3.961|7.114|||paired t-test||A paired t-test was used to examine the within treatment difference between week 8 and week 14 (open label phase).|||7.114|3.961|<0.0001
90805233|NCT00301262|181491173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.826||0.0002||95.0|8.88|27.96|||ANCOVA||Mean difference between the sidenafil group compared to the placebo group was calculated along with 95% confidence intervals for these differences.|||27.96|8.88|0.0002
90805234|NCT00301262|181491174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.41|STANDARD_DEVIATION|20.444||0.0064||95.0|1.857|10.956|||paired t-test||A paired t-test was used to examine the within treatment difference between week 8 and week 14 (open label phase).|||10.956|1.857|0.0064
90805235|NCT00301262|181491174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|26.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|29.384|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.636|33.971|||paired t-test||A paired t-test was used to examine the within treatment difference between week 8 and week 14 (open label phase).|||33.971|19.636|<0.0001
90805236|NCT00301262|181491175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.491||||0.0001||95.0|3.042|13.851|||Regression, Logistic|||||13.851|3.042|0.0001
90805237|NCT00301262|181491176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.915|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.396|10.08|||Regression, Logistic|||||10.080|2.396|<0.0001
90805238|NCT00301262|181491177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.676||||0.0187||95.0|1.242|10.875|||Regression, Logistic|||||10.875|1.242|0.0187
90805239|NCT00301262|181491178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|13.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.716||0.0037||95.0|4.59|23.22|||independent-samples t-test||Independent-samples t-test was used to test mean difference of zero between treatment groups (Viagra - Placebo) at each visit interval.|||23.22|4.59|0.0037
90805240|NCT00301262|181491179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|9.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.496||0.0321||95.0|0.84|18.6|||independent-samples t-test||Mean Difference = Week 8 - Baseline|||18.60|0.84|0.0321
90805241|NCT00301262|181491180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.901||0.0427||95.0|-15.68|-0.27|||independent-samples t-test||Independent-samples t-test was used to test mean difference of zero between treatment groups (Viagra - Placebo) at each visit interval.|||-0.27|-15.68|0.0427
90805242|NCT00301262|181491181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.903||0.0533||95.0|-15.32|0.11|||independent-samples t-test||Independent-samples t-test was used to test mean difference of zero between treatment groups (Viagra - Placebo) at each visit interval.|||0.11|-15.32|0.0533
90805243|NCT00301262|181491182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.167|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3041||0.0002||95.0|0.566|1.768|||2-sample independent t-test||A 2-sample independent t-test was used to test the difference between treatment for the change between baseline and Week 8 (change = Week 8 - baseline).|||1.768|0.566|0.0002
90805244|NCT00301262|181491183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.4454|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3638||0.0001||95.0|0.727|2.164|||2-sample independent t-test||A 2-sample independent t-test was used to test the difference between treatment for the change between baseline and Week 8 (change = Week 8 - baseline).|||2.164|0.727|0.0001
90805245|NCT00301262|181491184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.1821|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3946||0.0032||95.0|0.403|1.961|||2-sample independent t-test||A 2-sample independent t-test was used to test the difference between treatment for the change between baseline and Week 8 (change = Week 8 - baseline).|||1.961|0.403|0.0032
91014281|NCT01590810|181911301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.34||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.58|-2.92|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-2.92|-12.58|0.003
91014282|NCT01590810|181911301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-9.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.49|-5.09|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-5.09|-14.49|<0.001
91014283|NCT01590810|181911301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-8.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|-5.31|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-5.31|-11.30|<0.0001
91014284|NCT01590810|181911302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0||0.675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.54|7.09|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||7.09|-10.54|0.675
91014285|NCT01590810|181911302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.64||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.98|3.46|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||3.46|-16.98|0.174
91054468|NCT04135196|181991033|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|||The null hypothesis was that change in UD tBMD was not proportional to strain rate. Raw change in tBMD was analyzed as the dependent variable in a linear regression model with coefficients representing contrasts between the two experimental groups and the control group.|"Overall model fit: R\^2=0.480, F=15.256, df1=2, df2=33, p=\<0.001~Contrast between the low strain rate group and the control group: B=0.008, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.002, Beta=0.590, t=4.153, p=\<0.001, 95% CI of B: \[0.004, 0.012\]~Contrast between the high strain rate group and the control group: B=0.001, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.002, Beta=0.734, t=5.164, p=\<0.001, 95% CI of B: \[0.006, 0.014\]"|||<0.001
91077797|NCT02913105|182041131|OTHER|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.033|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.8127|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.26|0.195|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 28||0.195|-0.260|0.8127
90805246|NCT00301262|181491185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.2123|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3549||0.0008||95.0|0.511|1.913|||2-sample independent t-test||A 2-sample independent t-test was used to test the difference between treatment for the change between baseline and Week 8 (change = Week 8 - baseline).|||1.913|0.511|0.0008
90805247|NCT00301262|181491186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.39|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.454||0.0195||95.0|0.064|0.711|||paired t-test||A paired t-test was used to examine the within treatment difference between week 8 and week 14 (open label phase).|||0.711|0.064|0.0195
90805248|NCT00301262|181491186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.207|<|0.0001||95.0|1.551|2.628|||paired t-test||A paired t-test was used to examine the within treatment difference between week 8 and week 14 (open label phase).|||2.628|1.551|<0.0001
90805249|NCT00301262|181491187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.489||0.0186||95.0|0.069|0.731|||paired t-test||A paired t-test was used to examine the within treatment difference between week 8 and week 14 (open label phase).|||0.731|0.069|0.0186
90805250|NCT00301262|181491187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.67|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.573|<|0.0001||95.0|2.044|3.299|||paired t-test||A paired t-test was used to examine the within treatment difference between week 8 and week 14 (open label phase).|||3.299|2.044|<0.0001
90805251|NCT00301262|181491188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.65|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.917||0.0033||95.0|0.223|1.077|||paired t-test||A paired t-test was used to examine the within treatment difference between week 8 and week 14 (open label phase).|||1.077|0.223|0.0033
90805252|NCT00301262|181491188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.61|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.335|<|0.0001||95.0|2.042|3.182|||paired t-test||A paired t-test was used to examine the within treatment difference between week 8 and week 14 (open label phase).|||3.182|2.042|<0.0001
90805253|NCT00301262|181491189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.45|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.606||0.0143||95.0|0.093|0.807|||paired t-test||A paired t-test was used to examine the within treatment difference between week 8 and week 14 (open label phase).|||0.807|0.093|0.0143
91014286|NCT01590810|181911302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-13.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.03||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.55|-4.81|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-4.81|-22.55|0.006
91014287|NCT01590810|181911303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-9.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.49|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.22|-6.03|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-6.03|-12.22|<0.0001
91014288|NCT01590810|181911303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.73|-3.99|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-3.99|-9.73|<0.0001
90805254|NCT00301262|181491189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.99|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.178|<|0.0001||95.0|1.454|2.516|||paired t-test||A paired t-test was used to examine the within treatment difference between week 8 and week 14 (open label phase).|||2.516|1.454|<0.0001
90805255|NCT00301262|181491190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0325||95.0|||||McNemar|||Exact p-values calculated using McNemar's test for difference between Week 8 and Week 14.||||0.0325
90805256|NCT00301262|181491190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||McNemar|||Exact p-values calculated using McNemar's test for difference between Week 8 and Week 14.||||<0.0001
90805257|NCT00301262|181491191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0196||95.0|||||McNemar|||Exact p-values calculated using McNemar's test for difference between Week 8 and Week 14.||||0.0196
90805258|NCT00301262|181491191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||McNemar|||Exact p-values calculated using McNemar's test for difference between Week 8 and Week 14.||||<0.0001
91014289|NCT01590810|181911303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-8.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.41|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.51|-5.64|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-5.64|-11.51|<0.0001
91014290|NCT01590810|181911303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-9.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.55|-6.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-6.50|-12.55|<0.0001
91014291|NCT01731600|181911316|OTHER||Incidence rate|0.0|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5||0.067|||||The incidence of inhibitory antibodies was calculated as number of patients with inhibitors during the main phase of the trial divided by number of patients in the main phase of the trial.|A one-sided, upper 97.5% confidence limit was provided based on an exact calculation in the binomial distribution.||0.067||
90805259|NCT00301262|181491192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3173||95.0|||||McNemar|||Exact p-values calculated using McNemar's test for difference between Week 8 and Week 14.||||0.3173
90805260|NCT00301262|181491192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0016||95.0|||||McNemar|||Exact p-values calculated using McNemar's test for difference between Week 8 and Week 14.||||0.0016
91014292|NCT01883362|181911345|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.46||||0.2655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|1.86|||Log Rank|||||1.86|0.12|0.2655
91014293|NCT01883362|181911346|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.4297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|2.14|||Log Rank|||||2.14|0.17|0.4297
90805261|NCT00301262|181491193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.958||0.0624||95.0|-11.39|0.29|||Independent-samples t-test||Independent-samples t-test was used to test mean difference of zero between treatment groups (Viagra - Placebo) at each visit interval.|||0.29|-11.39|0.0624
90805262|NCT00301262|181491193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.835||0.4523||95.0|-2.24|5.01|||Independent-samples t-test||Independent-samples t-test was used to test mean difference of zero between treatment groups (Viagra - Placebo) at each visit interval.|||5.01|-2.24|0.4523
90805263|NCT00301262|181491194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.962||0.2081||95.0|-6.35|1.4|||Independent-samples t-test||Independent-samples t-test was used to test mean difference of zero between treatment groups (Viagra - Placebo) at each visit interval.|||1.40|-6.35|0.2081
90805264|NCT00301262|181491194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.958||0.4131||95.0|-2.26|5.48|||Independent-samples t-test||Independent-samples t-test was used to test mean difference of zero between treatment groups (Viagra - Placebo) at each visit interval.|||5.48|-2.26|0.4131
90805265|NCT00301262|181491195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.126||0.4069||95.0|-5.97|2.43|||Independent-samples t-test||Independent-samples t-test was used to test mean difference of zero between treatment groups (Viagra - Placebo) at each visit interval.|||2.43|-5.97|0.4069
90805266|NCT00301262|181491195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.489||0.1137||95.0|-0.57|5.31|||Independent-samples t-test||Independent-samples t-test was used to test mean difference of zero between treatment groups (Viagra - Placebo) at each visit interval.|||5.31|-0.57|0.1137
90805267|NCT00301262|181491196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.829||0.0123||95.0|-21.77|-2.7|||Independent-samples t-test||Independent-samples t-test was used to test mean difference of zero between treatment groups (Viagra - Placebo) at each visit interval.|||-2.70|-21.77|0.0123
90805268|NCT00301262|181491196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.883||0.8993||95.0|-10.27|9.03|||Independent-samples t-test||Independent-samples t-test was used to test mean difference of zero between treatment groups (Viagra - Placebo) at each visit interval.|||9.03|-10.27|0.8993
90805269|NCT00301262|181491197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|22.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.458|<|0.0001||95.0|11.25|32.81|||Independent-samples t-test||Independent-samples t-test was used to test mean difference of zero between treatment groups (Viagra - Placebo) at each visit interval.|||32.81|11.25|<0.0001
91014294|NCT01883362|181911347|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.55||||0.2424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.52|||Log Rank|||||1.52|0.20|0.2424
91014295|NCT01883362|181911348|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.4297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|2.14|||Log Rank|||||2.14|0.17|0.4297
91014296|NCT01883362|181911349|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58||||0.3418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.79|||Log Rank|||||1.79|0.19|0.3418
91014297|NCT01883362|181911350|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5||||0.4169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|2.74|||Log Rank|||||2.74|0.09|0.4169
91014298|NCT02451137|181911397|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.0308|TWO_SIDED|95.4|1.01|1.39||Threshold for significance at 0.046 level.|Regression, Logistic|||A logistic regression model was used with treatment arm as a fixed effect and adjusted for: randomization strata of HbA1c target (\<8%,\<7%), sulfonylurea (SU) use (yes/no), glucagon like peptide1-receptor agonists (GLP-1 RA) use (yes/no) and baseline HbA1c (as continuous).||1.39|1.01|0.0308
91014299|NCT02389621|181911434|SUPERIORITY||Difference|36.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.9|48.5||Statistical tests were performed at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted using the stratification factors of platelet count at randomization and the planned primary invasive procedure.||||48.5|24.9|<0.0001
91078156|NCT03046056|182041812|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.81|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.3|0.7||||||Difference in least squared means (Diff in LSM), and its 90% confidence interval (CI) were from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model adjusted by baseline segmental MaRIA score, concomitant use of oral, systemically absorbed corticosteroids at baseline, concomitant use of immunomodulators at baseline, prior exposure to biologics, and treatment group.||0.7|-5.3|
90805270|NCT00301262|181491197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.818||0.4165||95.0|-16.24|6.76|||Independent-samples t-test||Independent-samples t-test was used to test mean difference of zero between treatment groups (Viagra - Placebo) at each visit interval.|||6.76|-16.24|0.4165
90805271|NCT00301262|181491198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|9.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.351||0.0257||95.0|1.21|18.39|||Independent-samples t-test||Independent-samples t-test was used to test mean difference of zero between treatment groups (Viagra - Placebo) at each visit interval.|||18.39|1.21|0.0257
90805272|NCT00301262|181491198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.209||0.0971||95.0|-11.7|0.98|||Independent-samples t-test||Independent-samples t-test was used to test mean difference of zero between treatment groups (Viagra - Placebo) at each visit interval.|||0.98|-11.70|0.0971
90805273|NCT00301262|181491199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.754||0.0726||95.0|-6.66|0.3|||Independent-samples t-test||Independent-samples t-test was used to test mean difference of zero between treatment groups (Viagra - Placebo) at each visit interval.|||0.30|-6.66|0.0726
90805274|NCT00301262|181491199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.798||0.2581||95.0|-5.61|1.52|||Independent-samples t-test||Independent-samples t-test was used to test mean difference of zero between treatment groups (Viagra - Placebo) at each visit interval.|||1.52|-5.61|0.2581
90805275|NCT00301262|181491200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.45||0.8158||95.0|-9.86|7.78|||Independent-samples t-test||Independent-samples t-test was used to test mean difference of zero between treatment groups (Viagra - Placebo) at each visit interval.|||7.78|-9.86|0.8158
90805276|NCT00301262|181491200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.692||0.8464||95.0|-3.68|3.02|||Independent-samples t-test||Independent-samples t-test was used to test mean difference of zero between treatment groups (Viagra - Placebo) at each visit interval.|||3.02|-3.68|0.8464
90805277|NCT00301262|181491201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.789||0.9529||95.0|-11.82|11.13|||Independent-samples t-test||Independent-samples t-test was used to test mean difference of zero between treatment groups (Viagra - Placebo) at each visit interval.|||11.13|-11.82|0.9529
91077798|NCT02913105|182041131|OTHER|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.023|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.166||0.8901|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.298|0.252|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 42||0.252|-0.298|0.8901
90805278|NCT00301262|181491201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.994||0.8899||95.0|-10.59|9.2|||Independent-samples t-test||Independent-samples t-test was used to test mean difference of zero between treatment groups (Viagra - Placebo) at each visit interval.|||9.20|-10.59|0.8899
90805279|NCT00301262|181491202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.897||0.2001||95.0|-25.83|5.47|||Independent-samples t-test||Independent-samples t-test was used to test mean difference of zero between treatment groups (Viagra - Placebo) at each visit interval.|||5.47|-25.83|0.2001
90805280|NCT00301262|181491202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|9.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.724||0.1527||95.0|-3.64|23.01|||Independent-samples t-test||Independent-samples t-test was used to test mean difference of zero between treatment groups (Viagra - Placebo) at each visit interval.|||23.01|-3.64|0.1527
90805281|NCT00301262|181491203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|14.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.774||0.0606||95.0|-0.67|30.15|||Independent-samples t-test||Independent-samples t-test was used to test mean difference of zero between treatment groups (Viagra - Placebo) at each visit interval.|||30.15|-0.67|0.0606
90805282|NCT00301262|181491203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.318||0.3678||95.0|-21.12|7.88|||Independent-samples t-test||Independent-samples t-test was used to test mean difference of zero between treatment groups (Viagra - Placebo) at each visit interval.|||7.88|-21.12|0.3678
90805283|NCT00301262|181491204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.474||0.5429||95.0|-10.25|19.37|||Independent-samples t-test||Independent-samples t-test was used to test mean difference of zero between treatment groups (Viagra - Placebo) at each visit interval.|||19.37|-10.25|0.5429
90805284|NCT00301262|181491204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.595||0.5849||95.0|-8.02|14.15|||Independent-samples t-test||Independent-samples t-test was used to test mean difference of zero between treatment groups (Viagra - Placebo) at each visit interval.|||14.15|-8.02|0.5849
90805285|NCT00301262|181491205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|18.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.952||0.0002||95.0|9.08|28.64|||Independent-samples t-test||Independent-samples t-test was used to test mean difference of zero between treatment groups (Viagra - Placebo) at each visit interval.|||28.64|9.08|0.0002
90805286|NCT00301262|181491205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.212||0.429||95.0|-7.35|17.2|||Independent-samples t-test||Independent-samples t-test was used to test mean difference of zero between treatment groups (Viagra - Placebo) at each visit interval.|||17.20|-7.35|0.4290
90805287|NCT01668628|181491207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Student's t-test: Comparison of baseline physical health score between Normohydration group and Overhydration group.||||0.008
90805288|NCT01668628|181491207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Student's t test: Comparison of baseline mental health score between Normohydration group and Overhydration group.||||0.008
90805289|NCT01668628|181491207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Student's t test: Comparison of baseline kidney disease component score between Normohydration group and Overhydration group||||0.008
90805290|NCT01668628|181491207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.157|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Student's t test: Comparison of baseline BDI score between Normohydration group and Overhydration group.||||0.157
90805291|NCT01716039|181491214|OTHER|Comparing the change in the modified Baron score from baseline to week 18 between the treatment groups||||||0.758|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.758
90805292|NCT01716039|181491214|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.00
90805293|NCT01716039|181491215|OTHER|||||||0.908||||||p-value for the overall treatment difference is based on an analysis of covariance adjusting for baseline UCEIS|ANCOVA|||||||0.908
90805294|NCT02150057|181491355|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
90805295|NCT00335283|181491356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|3.12||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|7.59|||Regression, Logistic|||This applies to the 8 week treatment effect. A sample size of 33 patients in treated arm was considered sufficient to detect a difference of 35% between groups, assuming a lansoprazole treatment response of 70% and a placebo response of 35% with an alpha level of .05 and 90% power. A total of 75 patienst was considered an adequate sample size to allow for a 10% dropout rate.||7.59|1.28|.01
90805296|NCT00335283|181491356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|3.5||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|8.67|||Regression, Logistic|||This applies to the 16 week treatment affect. A sample size of 33 patients in treated arm was considered sufficient to detect a difference of 35% between groups, assuming a lansoprazole treatment response of 70% and a placebo response of 35% with an alpha level of .05 and 90% power. A total of 75 patienst was considered an adequate sample size to allow for a 10% dropout rate.||8.67|1.41|.006
90805297|NCT00335283|181491357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|1.01||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|2.7|||Regression, Logistic|||This applies to the 8 week treatment effect. A sample size of 33 patients in treated arm was considered sufficient to detect a difference of 35% between groups, assuming a lansoprazole treatment response of 70% and a placebo response of 35% with an alpha level of .05 and 90% power. A total of 75 patienst was considered an adequate sample size to allow for a 10% dropout rate.||2.70|0.38|.97
90805298|NCT00335283|181491357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|1.11||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.06|||Regression, Logistic|||This applies to the 16 week treatment effect. A sample size of 33 patients in treated arm was considered sufficient to detect a difference of 35% between groups, assuming a lansoprazole treatment response of 70% and a placebo response of 35% with an alpha level of .05 and 90% power. A total of 75 patienst was considered an adequate sample size to allow for a 10% dropout rate.||3.06|0.40|.84
90805299|NCT00335283|181491358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|2.44||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|6.31|||Regression, Logistic|||This applies to the 8 week treatment effect. A sample size of 33 patients in treated arm was considered sufficient to detect a difference of 35% between groups, assuming a lansoprazole treatment response of 70% and a placebo response of 35% with an alpha level of .05 and 90% power. A total of 75 patienst was considered an adequate sample size to allow for a 10% dropout rate.||6.31|.95|.06
90805300|NCT00335283|181491358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|4.51||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|13.6|||Regression, Logistic|||This applies to the 16 week treatment effect. A sample size of 33 patients in treated arm was considered sufficient to detect a difference of 35% between groups, assuming a lansoprazole treatment response of 70% and a placebo response of 35% with an alpha level of .05 and 90% power. A total of 75 patienst was considered an adequate sample size to allow for a 10% dropout rate.||13.6|1.5|.007
90805301|NCT00335283|181491359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|5.17||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|13.2|||Regression, Logistic|||This applies to the 8 week treatment effect. A sample size of 33 patients in treated arm was considered sufficient to detect a difference of 35% between groups, assuming a lansoprazole treatment response of 70% and a placebo response of 35% with an alpha level of .05 and 90% power. A total of 75 patienst was considered an adequate sample size to allow for a 10% dropout rate.||13.2|2.02|.006
91054469|NCT04135196|181991034|OTHER|||||||0.101|||||||Regression, Linear|||The null hypothesis was that change in UD iBV was not proportional to strain magnitude. Raw change in iBV was analyzed as the dependent variable in a linear regression model with coefficients representing contrasts between the two experimental groups and the control group.|"Overall model fit: R\^2=0.108, F=2.428, df1=2, df2=40, p=0.101~Contrast between the low strain magnitude group and the control group: B=0.053, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.024, Beta=0.388, t=2.200, p=0.034, 95% CI of B: \[0.004, 0.101\]~Contrast between the high strain magnitude group and the control group: B=0.029, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.022, Beta=0.226, t=1.280, p=0.208, 95% CI of B: \[-0.017, 0.074\]"|||0.101
90805302|NCT00335283|181491359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|5.31||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.97|14.3|||Regression, Logistic|||This applies to the 16 week treatment effect. A sample size of 33 patients in treated arm was considered sufficient to detect a difference of 35% between groups, assuming a lansoprazole treatment response of 70% and a placebo response of 35% with an alpha level of .05 and 90% power. A total of 75 patienst was considered an adequate sample size to allow for a 10% dropout rate.||14.3|1.97|.001
90805303|NCT02516098|181491415|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence of the test and reference product (for Stage 1) was assessed on the basis of the point estimate of the geometric mean ratio for Cmax in relation to the bioequivalence range of 80.00% to 125.00%.|Geometric mean ratio (%): T/REF|87.52|||||TWO_SIDED|92.46|77.18|99.24|||||ANOVA model was used with 'sequence', 'treatment' and 'period' as fixed effects and 'subject within sequence' as a random effect after logarithmic transformation of the data.|The study design is a two-stage Pocock-like group sequential design according to the alpha spending function approach. The alpha level for Stage 1 was 0.0377 (one-sided).||99.24|77.18|
90805304|NCT02516098|181491416|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence of the test and reference products for Stage 1 was assessed on the basis of the 92.46% confidence intervals for the geometric mean (test/reference) ratio for the AUC0-t in relation to the bioequivalence range of 80.00% to 125.00%, with a one-sided alpha of 0.0377.|Geometric mean ratio (%): T/REF|91.74|||||TWO_SIDED|92.46|83.51|100.78|||||ANOVA model was used with 'sequence', 'treatment' and 'period' as fixed effects and 'subject within sequence' as a random effect after logarithmic transformation of the data.|The study design is a two-stage Pocock-like group sequential design according to the alpha spending function approach. The alpha level for Stage 1 was 0.0377 (one-sided).||100.78|83.51|
90805305|NCT02516098|181491417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (%): T/REF|91.66|||||TWO_SIDED|92.46|83.59|100.51|||||ANOVA model was used with 'sequence', 'treatment' and 'period' as fixed effects and 'subject within sequence' as a random effect after logarithmic transformation of the data.|The test product was compared to the reference product by means of statistical analysis.||100.51|83.59|
90805306|NCT02516098|181491418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (%): T/REF|92.96|||||TWO_SIDED|92.46|81.94|105.47|||||ANOVA model was used with 'sequence', 'treatment' and 'period' as fixed effects and 'subject within sequence' as a random effect after logarithmic transformation of the data.|The test product was compared to the reference product by means of statistical analysis.||105.47|81.94|
90805307|NCT01734395|181491419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.19|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.56|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4262|-0.9467|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.9467|-1.4262|<.0001
90805308|NCT01734395|181491420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.48|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.69|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9188|2.0438|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.0438|0.9188|<.0001
90805309|NCT01734395|181491421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.43|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.814|-0.5586|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.5586|-0.814|<.0001
90805310|NCT01092780|181491422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|8.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.11|10.2||||||Difference in least squares (LS) means||10.20|6.11|
90805311|NCT01092780|181491422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|8.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.07|10.15||||||Difference in LS means||10.15|6.07|
90805312|NCT01092780|181491423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|-0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|-0.05||||||Difference in LS means||-0.05|-0.10|
90805313|NCT01092780|181491423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|-0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|-0.05||||||Difference in LS means||-0.05|-0.09|
90805314|NCT01092780|181491425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|-2.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.76|-0.35||||||Difference in LS means||-0.35|-3.76|
90805315|NCT01092780|181491425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.79|-0.4||||||Difference in LS means||-0.40|-3.79|
90805316|NCT01092780|181491426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|10.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.49|11.92||||||||11.92|8.49|
91014300|NCT02389621|181911435|SUPERIORITY|A gatekeeping procedure was employed for sequentially testing the prespecified important secondary endpoints, identified as the most clinically relevant endpoints. If the primary endpoint was statistically significant, the secondary endpoints were tested at the 0.05 level (2-sided) in sequence.|Difference|34.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.8|46.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for the stratification factors of platelet count at randomization and the planned primary invasive procedure.||||46.8|22.8|<0.0001
90805317|NCT01092780|181491427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|-0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.08|-0.05||||||Difference in LS means||-0.05|-0.08|
91014301|NCT02389621|181911436|SUPERIORITY|A gatekeeping procedure was employed for sequentially testing the prespecified important secondary endpoints, identified as the most clinically relevant endpoints. If the primary endpoint was statistically significant, the secondary endpoints were tested at the 0.05 level (2-sided) in sequence.|Difference|52.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.0|62.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for the stratification factors of platelet count at randomization and the planned primary invasive procedure.||||62.9|42.0|<0.0001
90805318|NCT01257230|181491428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.134|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.051||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.034|0.234|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||0.234|0.034|0.0085
90805319|NCT01257230|181491428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.174|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.076|0.272|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||0.272|0.076|0.0005
90805320|NCT01257230|181491429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.084|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056||0.1307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.025|0.194|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||0.194|-0.025|0.1307
90805321|NCT01257230|181491429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.117|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.223|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||0.223|0.010|0.0320
90805322|NCT01257230|181491430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.088|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057||0.1231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.024|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||0.200|-0.024|0.1231
90805323|NCT01257230|181491430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.072|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.037|0.182|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||0.182|-0.037|0.1950
90805324|NCT01257230|181491431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.063|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.2921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.055|0.181|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||0.181|-0.055|0.2921
90805325|NCT01257230|181491431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.035|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059||0.5495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||0.150|-0.080|0.5495
90805326|NCT01257230|181491432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049||0.0079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.034|0.225|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||0.225|0.034|0.0079
90805327|NCT01257230|181491432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.181|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.088|0.275|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||0.275|0.088|0.0002
90805328|NCT01257230|181491433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054||0.0945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.016|0.196|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||0.196|-0.016|0.0945
90805329|NCT01257230|181491433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.071|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053||0.1755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.032|0.175|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||0.175|-0.032|0.1755
90805330|NCT01257230|181491435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.092||0.976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.184|0.178|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||0.178|-0.184|0.9760
90805331|NCT01257230|181491435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.009|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.9224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.186|0.168|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||0.168|-0.186|0.9224
90805332|NCT01257230|181491436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.023|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.083||0.7852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.185|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||0.185|-0.140|0.7852
90805333|NCT01257230|181491436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.112|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.081||0.1649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.046|0.271|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||0.271|-0.046|0.1649
90805334|NCT01257230|181491437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.032|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.143||0.8253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.312|0.249|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||0.249|-0.312|0.8253
90805335|NCT01257230|181491437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.044|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.7559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.232|0.319|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||0.319|-0.232|0.7559
90805336|NCT01257230|181491438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.087||0.0653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||0.010|-0.330|0.0653
90805337|NCT01257230|181491438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.097|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.084||0.2516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.263|0.069|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||0.069|-0.263|0.2516
90805338|NCT01257230|181491440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.147|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.095||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.333|0.038|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||0.038|-0.333|0.1200
90805339|NCT01257230|181491440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.054|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.092||0.5589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.235|0.127|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||0.127|-0.235|0.5589
90805340|NCT01257230|181491442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63||||0.4023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.87|||Regression, Cox|||||1.87|0.21|0.4023
90805341|NCT01257230|181491442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.23||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|1.08|||Regression, Cox|||||1.08|0.05|0.0620
90805342|NCT01257230|181491443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.66|||Regression, Cox|||||1.66|0.65|0.8700
90805343|NCT01257230|181491443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.4198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.33|||Regression, Cox|||||1.33|0.51|0.4198
90805344|NCT02300558|181491455|OTHER|||||||0.0087|||||||paired t- test|||Based on a 2-sided, paired t-test ( α = 0.05), and a standard deviation (SD) of 30 msec, a sample size of 40 participants provided greater than 95% power assuming a difference in mean daytime QTcF interval (AUC0-6/6) as measured by standard 12-lead ECG between baseline and Week 24 of 20 msec. The null hypothesis was that the mean difference between the baseline and Week 24 mean daytime QTcF interval was zero.||||0.0087
90805345|NCT01471028|181491459|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.027||||0.904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.689|1.53|||Log Rank|||The primary endpoint was assessed using a Kaplan-Meier survival analysis of the Intent-to-treat (ITT) population utilizing a log-rank test.||1.53|0.689|0.904
90805346|NCT01471028|181491460|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.737|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.737
90805347|NCT01471028|181491461|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.315||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.886|1.952|||Log Rank|||||1.952|0.886|0.168
90805348|NCT01471028|181491462|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.283||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.109|0.732|||Log Rank|||||0.732|0.109|0.007
90805349|NCT01407952|181491463|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.32||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|3.97|||Regression, Logistic|||A intent to treat analysis was performed, using multiple imputation methods.||3.97|1.36|0.002
90805350|NCT01407952|181491463|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.97|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.99|7.92||Chi-squared test statistic with one degree of freedom=17.37|Chi-squared|||||7.92|1.99|<0.01
90805351|NCT01407952|181491464|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
91078157|NCT03046056|182041812|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.72|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.7|3.1||||||Diff in LSM, and its 90% CI were from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline segmental MaRIA score, concomitant use of oral, systemically absorbed corticosteroids at baseline, concomitant use of immunomodulators at baseline, prior exposure to biologics, and treatment group.||3.1|-2.7|
90805352|NCT01407952|181491465|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.578|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.578
90805353|NCT01407952|181491466|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.352|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared test statistic with one degree of freedom = 0.865||||||0.352
90805354|NCT01407952|181491467|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.769|||||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||||||0.769
90805355|NCT01407952|181491468|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.641|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-square test statistic with one degree of freedom=0.217||||||0.641
90805356|NCT01407952|181491469|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Chi-squared|chi-square test statistic with one degree of freedom=8.82||||||0.003
90805357|NCT01407952|181491470|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.162|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared test statistic with one degree of freedom=1.955||||||0.162
90805358|NCT01407952|181491471|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.245|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.245
90805359|NCT01407952|181491472|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared test statistic with one degree of freedom=14.743||||||<0.01
90805360|NCT01407952|181491473|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.01
90805361|NCT00935493|181491474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.06
90805362|NCT00935493|181491474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.47
90805363|NCT00935493|181491475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.67
90805364|NCT00935493|181491475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.46
90805365|NCT00935493|181491476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.65
90805366|NCT00935493|181491476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.46
90805367|NCT00286091|181491480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.0284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.98|||Wald test||Based on the Cox proportional hazards model stratified by PSA ≥ 8.0 ng/mL, PSA doubling time ≤ 10 months and previous or current chemotherapy for prostate cancer. A hazard ratio \< 1 favors denosumab.|Primary and secondary endpoint analyses were conducted hierarchically. To preserve an overall type I error rate of 0.05, a 0.0488 2-sided test of bone metastasis-free survival was performed. If superiority of denosumab over placebo was established, time to first bone metastasis was tested with a 2-sided significance level of 0.050. If superiority of denosumab over placebo was also established, overall survival time was tested at a 2-sided significance level of 0.050.||0.98|0.73|0.0284
90805368|NCT00286091|181491481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.0317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.98|||Wald test||Based on the Cox proportional hazards model stratified by PSA ≥ 8.0 ng/mL, PSA doubling time ≤ 10 months and previous or current chemotherapy for prostate cancer. A hazard ratio \< 1 favors denosumab.|||0.98|0.71|0.0317
90805369|NCT00286091|181491482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.9125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.2|||Wald test||Based on the Cox proportional hazards model stratified by PSA ≥ 8.0 ng/mL, PSA doubling time ≤ 10 months and previous or current chemotherapy for prostate cancer. A hazard ratio \< 1 favors denosumab.|||1.20|0.85|0.9125
90805370|NCT03423238|181491524|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.388|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline||||0.388
90805371|NCT03423238|181491525|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017|||||||ANCOVA|||Month 3||||0.017
90805372|NCT03423238|181491525|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||ANCOVA|||Month 6||||0.002
90805373|NCT03423238|181491526|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.653|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline||||0.653
90805374|NCT03423238|181491527|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.684|||||||ANCOVA|||Month 3||||0.684
91014302|NCT02389621|181911437|SUPERIORITY|A gatekeeping procedure was employed for sequentially testing the prespecified important secondary endpoints, identified as the most clinically relevant endpoints. If the primary endpoint was statistically significant, the secondary endpoints were tested at the 0.05 level (2-sided) in sequence.||||||0.0002|||||||van Elteren test|van Elteren test stratified by platelet transfusion during the study.||||||0.0002
91014303|NCT02389621|181911438|SUPERIORITY|A gatekeeping procedure was employed for sequentially testing the prespecified important secondary endpoints, identified as the most clinically relevant endpoints. If the primary endpoint was statistically significant, the secondary endpoints were tested at the 0.05 level (2-sided) in sequence.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||<0.0001
91014304|NCT03413618|181911516|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
91054470|NCT04135196|181991034|OTHER|||||||0.344|||||||Regression, Linear|||The null hypothesis was that change in UD iBV was not proportional to strain rate. Raw change in iBV was analyzed as the dependent variable in a linear regression model with coefficients representing contrasts between the two experimental groups and the control group.|"Overall model fit: R\^2=0.063, F=01.103, df1=2, df2=33, p=0.344~Contrast between the low strain rate group and the control group: B=0.015, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.025, Beta=0.113, t=0.595, p=0.556, 95% CI of B: \[-0.036, 0.065\]~Contrast between the high strain rate group and the control group: B=0.038, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.025, Beta=0.283, t=1.481, p=0.148, 95% CI of B: \[-0.014, 0.089\]"|||0.344
91054471|NCT04135196|181991035|OTHER|||||||0.676|||||||Regression, Linear|||The null hypothesis was that change in UD cBV was not proportional to strain magnitude. Raw change in cBV was analyzed as the dependent variable in a linear regression model with coefficients representing contrasts between the two experimental groups and the control group.|"Overall model fit: R\^2=0.019, F=0.395, df1=2, df2=40, p=0.676~Contrast between the low strain magnitude group and the control group: B=0.012, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.015, Beta=0.146, t=0.787, p=0.436, 95% CI of B: \[-0.019, 0.042\]~Contrast between the high strain magnitude group and the control group: B=0.001, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.014, Beta=0.013, t=0.070, p=0.945, 95% CI of B: \[-0.028, 0.029\]"|||0.676
91077799|NCT02913105|182041131|OTHER|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.088|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.177||0.6209|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.381|0.205|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 56||0.205|-0.381|0.6209
90805375|NCT03423238|181491527|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.458|||||||ANCOVA|||Month 6||||0.458
90805376|NCT03423238|181491528|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline||||0.550
90805377|NCT03423238|181491529|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.973|||||||ANCOVA|||Month 3||||0.973
90805378|NCT03423238|181491529|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.432|||||||ANCOVA|||Month 6||||0.432
90805379|NCT03423238|181491530|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23063|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline||||0.23063
90805380|NCT03423238|181491531|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.854|||||||ANCOVA|||Month 3||||0.854
90805381|NCT03423238|181491531|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.874|||||||ANCOVA|||Month 6||||0.874
90805382|NCT03423238|181491532|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.563|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline||||0.563
90805383|NCT03423238|181491533|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||ANCOVA|||Month 3||||0.008
90805384|NCT03423238|181491533|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.922|||||||ANCOVA|||Month 6||||0.922
90805385|NCT03423238|181491534|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.667|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline||||0.667
90805386|NCT03423238|181491535|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.692|||||||ANCOVA|||Month 3||||0.692
90805387|NCT03423238|181491535|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||ANCOVA|||Month 6||||0.590
90805388|NCT03423238|181491536|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.844|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline||||0.844
90805389|NCT03423238|181491537|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.721|||||||ANCOVA|||Month 3||||0.721
90805390|NCT03423238|181491537|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.851|||||||ANCOVA|||Month 6||||0.851
90805391|NCT03423238|181491538|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.815|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline||||0.815
90805392|NCT03423238|181491539|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.488|||||||ANCOVA|||Month 3||||0.488
90805393|NCT03423238|181491539|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.237|||||||ANCOVA|||Month 6||||0.237
90805394|NCT03423238|181491540|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.506|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.506
90805395|NCT03423238|181491541|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.549|||||||ANCOVA|||Month 3||||0.549
90805396|NCT03423238|181491541|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.303|||||||ANCOVA|||Month 6||||0.303
90805397|NCT03423238|181491542|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.934|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline||||0.934
90805398|NCT03423238|181491543|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.792|||||||ANCOVA|||Month 3||||0.792
90805399|NCT03423238|181491543|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.417|||||||ANCOVA|||Month 6||||0.417
90805400|NCT03423238|181491544|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.685|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline||||0.685
90805401|NCT03423238|181491545|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.854|||||||ANCOVA|||Month 3||||0.854
90805402|NCT03423238|181491545|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.903|||||||ANCOVA|||Month 6||||0.903
90805403|NCT03423238|181491546|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.569|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline||||0.569
90805404|NCT03423238|181491547|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.824|||||||ANCOVA|||Month 3||||0.824
90805405|NCT03423238|181491547|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.401|||||||ANCOVA|||Month 6||||0.401
90805406|NCT03423238|181491548|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.188|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline||||0.188
90805407|NCT03423238|181491549|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.338|||||||ANCOVA|||Month 3||||0.338
91014305|NCT03413618|181911517|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.049|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.049
91014306|NCT03413618|181911519|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
91014307|NCT03413618|181911520|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
90805408|NCT03423238|181491549|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.484|||||||ANCOVA|||Month 6||||0.484
90805409|NCT03423238|181491550|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.533|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline||||0.533
90805410|NCT03423238|181491551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.992|||||||ANCOVA|||Month 3||||0.992
90805411|NCT03423238|181491551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.639|||||||ANCOVA|||Month 6||||0.639
90805412|NCT03823287|181491570|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of a two-sided 95.03% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in adjusted means of the two treatments (faricimab minus aflibercept) is greater than -4 letters (the non-inferiority margin), then faricimab is considered non-inferior to aflibercept.|Adjusted mean difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.5|||||The treatment difference in adjusted means of change from baseline BCVA is the calculated difference of Arm A: Faricimab and Arm B: Aflibercept. MMRM adjustments are listed in the outcome measure description.|The null hypothesis, H0: μ(faricimab) - μ(aflibercept) ≤-4 letters; the alternative hypothesis, Ha: μ(faricimab) - μ(aflibercept) \>-4 letters. A sample size of approximately 320 participants in each arm provided greater than 90% power to show non-inferiority of faricimab to aflibercept in the change from baseline BCVA averaged over Weeks 40, 44, and 48 in the ITT population, using a non-inferiority margin of 4 letters at the one-sided 0.02485 significance level.||2.5|-1.1|
90805413|NCT03823287|181491571|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|2.7|||||The treatment difference in adjusted means of change from baseline BCVA is the calculated difference of Arm A: Faricimab and Arm B: Aflibercept. MMRM adjustments are listed in the outcome measure description.|Treatment Difference in Adjusted Means at Weeks 52-60||2.7|-1.2|
90805414|NCT03823287|181491573|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|10.1|||||The treatment difference in CMH weighted percentage of participants gaining ≥15 letters is the calculated difference of Arm A: Faricimab and Arm B: Aflibercept.|Gaining ≥15 Letters: Treatment Difference at Weeks 40-48||10.1|-1.6|
90805415|NCT03823287|181491573|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|12.7|||||The treatment difference in CMH weighted percentage of participants gaining ≥10 letters is the calculated difference of Arm A: Faricimab and Arm B: Aflibercept.|Gaining ≥10 Letters: Treatment Difference at Weeks 40-48||12.7|-2.0|
90805416|NCT03823287|181491573|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|8.9|||||The treatment difference in CMH weighted percentage of participants gaining ≥5 letters is the calculated difference of Arm A: Faricimab and Arm B: Aflibercept.|Gaining ≥5 Letters: Treatment Difference at Weeks 40-48||8.9|-6.6|
91014308|NCT03413618|181911522|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.001
90805417|NCT03823287|181491573|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|5.4|||||The treatment difference in CMH weighted percentage of participants gaining ≥0 letters is the calculated difference of Arm A: Faricimab and Arm B: Aflibercept.|Gaining ≥0 Letters: Treatment Difference at Weeks 40-48||5.4|-7.9|
90805418|NCT03823287|181491574|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|8.5|||||The treatment difference in CMH weighted percentage of participants gaining ≥15 letters is the calculated difference of Arm A: Faricimab and Arm B: Aflibercept.|Treatment Difference in CMH Weighted Percentages at Weeks 52-60||8.5|-3.2|
90805419|NCT03823287|181491579|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|4.8|||||The treatment difference in CMH weighted percentage of participants avoiding a loss of ≥15 letters is the calculated difference of Arm A: Faricimab and Arm B: Aflibercept.|Avoiding a Loss of ≥15 Letters: Treatment Difference at Weeks 40-48||4.8|-2.2|
90805420|NCT03823287|181491579|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|3.9|||||The treatment difference in CMH weighted percentage of participants avoiding a loss of ≥10 letters is the calculated difference of Arm A: Faricimab and Arm B: Aflibercept.|Avoiding a Loss of ≥10 Letters: Treatment Difference at Weeks 40-48||3.9|-4.6|
90805421|NCT03823287|181491579|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|6.4|||||The treatment difference in CMH weighted percentage of participants avoiding a loss of ≥5 letters is the calculated difference of Arm A: Faricimab and Arm B: Aflibercept.|Avoiding a Loss of ≥5 Letters: Treatment Difference at Weeks 40-48||6.4|-4.0|
90805422|NCT03823287|181491580|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|3.6|||||The treatment difference in CMH weighted percentage of participants avoiding a loss of ≥15 letters is the calculated difference of Arm A: Faricimab and Arm B: Aflibercept.|Treatment Difference in CMH Weighted Percentages at Weeks 52-60||3.6|-3.9|
90805423|NCT03823287|181491584|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|9.5|||||The treatment difference in CMH weighted percentage of participants gaining ≥15 letters or achieving BCVA ≥84 letters is the calculated difference of Arm A: Faricimab and Arm B: Aflibercept.|Treatment Difference in CMH Weighted Percentages at Weeks 40-48||9.5|-3.6|
90805424|NCT03823287|181491586|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|6.6|||||The treatment difference in CMH weighted percentage of participants achieving BCVA ≥69 letters is the calculated difference of Arm A: Faricimab and Arm B: Aflibercept.|Treatment Difference in CMH Weighted Percentages at Weeks 40-48||6.6|-7.7|
91014309|NCT03413618|181911523|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
90805425|NCT03823287|181491588|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|3.3|||||The treatment difference in CMH weighted percentage of participants with BCVA ≤38 letters is the calculated difference of Arm A: Faricimab and Arm B: Aflibercept.|Treatment Difference in CMH Weighted Percentages at Weeks 40-48||3.3|-4.2|
91014310|NCT03246152|181911529|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||Correlation between change in BCVA and the pre treatment, post treatment, and change in vascular density following 3-6 injections was performed.||||>0.05
91014311|NCT00423137|181911530|OTHER||Difference of least square means|-1.385|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.181||0.5305|||||||ANCOVA|The adjusted least squares mean is estimated based on the ANCOVA model with treatment, centre, and baseline.||||||0.5305
91014312|NCT00423137|181911531|OTHER||Difference of least square means|-0.049|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033||0.1498|||||||ANCOVA|The adjusted least squares mean is estimated based on the ANCOVA model with treatment, centre, and baseline.|Difference to Placebo \[Treatment-Placebo\]|||||0.1498
91014313|NCT00423137|181911534|OTHER||Difference of least square means|0.335|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.434||0.4472|||||||ANCOVA|The adjusted least squares mean is estimated based on the ANCOVA model with treatment, centre, and baseline.|Difference to Placebo \[Treatment-Placebo\]|||||0.4472
90805426|NCT03823287|181491596|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-7.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.19|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.7|0.8|||||The treatment difference in adjusted means of change from baseline CST is the calculated difference of Arm A: Faricimab and Arm B: Aflibercept. MMRM adjustments are listed in the outcome measure description.|Treatment Difference in Adjusted Means at Weeks 40-48||0.8|-15.7|
90805427|NCT03823287|181491597|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.26|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|9.4|||||The treatment difference in adjusted means of change from baseline CST is the calculated difference of Arm A: Faricimab and Arm B: Aflibercept. MMRM adjustments are listed in the outcome measure description.|Treatment Difference in Adjusted Means at Weeks 52-60||9.4|-7.4|
90805428|NCT01456195|181491695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.122|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.24||MMRM model with treatment, country, visit and visit by treatment interaction as fixed factors and with baseline value and baseline value by visit interaction as covariates with an unstructured covariance structure.|Mixed model for repeated measurements|||||-0.24|-0.72|<0.001
90805429|NCT01456195|181491695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.122|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.52||MMRM model with treatment, country, visit and visit by treatment interaction as fixed factors and with baseline value and baseline value by visit interaction as covariates with an unstructured covariance structure.|Mixed model for repeated measurements|||||-0.52|-1.00|<0.001
90805430|NCT01456195|181491696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.13||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|3.79||P-Value used a logistic model with treatment, country and baseline HbA1c as explanatory variables.|Regression, Logistic|||||3.79|1.20|0.010
90805431|NCT01456195|181491696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.48|7.82||P-Value used a logistic model with treatment, country and baseline HbA1c as explanatory variables.|Regression, Logistic|||||7.82|2.48|<0.001
90805432|NCT01456195|181491697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-13.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.59||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.7|-4.6||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) model with treatment, country, visit and visit by treatment interaction as fixed factors and with baseline value and baseline value by visit interaction as covariates with an unstructured covariance structure.|Mixed model for repeated measurements|||||-4.6|-22.7|0.003
90805433|NCT01456195|181491697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-22.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.4|-13.2||MMRM model with treatment, country, visit and visit by treatment interaction as fixed factors and with baseline value and baseline value by visit interaction as covariates with an unstructured covariance structure.|Mixed model for repeated measurements|||||-13.2|-31.4|<0.001
90805434|NCT01456195|181491698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-28.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.17||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.2|5.7||ANCOVA model with treatment and country as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||5.7|-63.2|0.100
90805435|NCT01456195|181491698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-30.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.7||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.5|5.5||ANCOVA model with treatment and country as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||5.5|-65.5|0.096
90805436|NCT03304054|181491700|OTHER|||||||0.2196||||||P-value for Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney Test of Equality of change from baseline distributions between the amifampridine phosphate and placebo treatment groups.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney Rank Sum Test of equality of change from baseline distributions between subjects diagnosed with MuSK-MG treated with amifampridine and placebo was conducted.||||0.2196
90805437|NCT03304054|181491701|OTHER|||||||0.3736||||||P-value for Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney Test of Equality of change from baseline distributions between the amifampridine phosphate and placebo treatment groups.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney Rank Sum Test of equality of change from baseline distributions between subjects diagnosed with MuSK-MG treated with amifampridine and placebo was conducted.||||0.3736
90805438|NCT04683029|181491720|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-12.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-13.8|-11.4|||MMRM model|||||-11.4|-13.8|< 0.001
90805439|NCT04683029|181491721|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-13.3|-10.7||||||||-10.7|-13.3|
90805440|NCT04683029|181491722|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.0|0.3||||||Week 24||0.3|0.0|
91014314|NCT00423137|181911535|OTHER||Difference of least square means|-0.141|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.342||0.6829|||||||ANCOVA|The adjusted least squares mean is estimated based on the ANCOVA model with treatment, centre, and baseline.|Difference to Placebo \[Treatment-Placebo\]|||||0.6829
91014315|NCT00423137|181911536|OTHER||Difference of least square means|0.571|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.391||0.1565|||||||ANCOVA|The adjusted least squares mean is estimated based on the ANCOVA model with treatment, centre, and baseline.|Difference to Placebo \[Treatment-Placebo\]|||||0.1565
90805441|NCT04683029|181491722|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.0|0.2||||||Week 52||0.2|0.0|
90805442|NCT04683029|181491723|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|203.2|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|42.1|980.6||||||Week 24||980.6|42.1|
90805443|NCT04683029|181491723|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|130.3|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|28.2|601.9||||||Week 52||601.9|28.2|
90805444|NCT04683029|181491724|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-47.2|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-96.8|2.4||||||Week 24||2.4|-96.8|
90805445|NCT04683029|181491724|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-14.2|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-57.2|28.8||||||Week 52||28.8|-57.2|
90805446|NCT04683029|181491725|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.7|1.6||||||Week 24||1.6|-1.7|
90805447|NCT04683029|181491725|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.4|1.7||||||Week 52||1.7|-1.4|
90805448|NCT04683029|181491726|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.44|0.27||||||Week 24||0.27|-0.44|
90805449|NCT04683029|181491726|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.29|0.71||||||Week 52||0.71|-0.29|
90805450|NCT04683029|181491727|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.08|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.81|-0.34||||||Week 24||-0.34|-3.81|
90805451|NCT04683029|181491727|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.13|2.42||||||Week 52||2.42|-2.13|
90805452|NCT04683029|181491728|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.7|-4.0||||||Week 24||-4.0|-5.7|
91014316|NCT00423137|181911537|OTHER||Difference of least square means|1.081|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.185||0.3709|||||||ANCOVA|The adjusted least squares mean is estimated based on the ANCOVA model with treatment, centre, and baseline.|Difference to Placebo \[Treatment-Placebo\]|||||0.3709
90805453|NCT04683029|181491728|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.1|-3.5||||||Week 52||-3.5|-5.1|
90805454|NCT04683029|181491729|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4006|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.5344|-0.2668||||||Week 24||-0.2668|-0.5344|
90805455|NCT04683029|181491729|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2355|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.373|-0.098||||||Week 52||-0.0980|-0.3730|
90805456|NCT01696968|181491758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.07|||Poisson regression|||||1.07|0.91|
90805457|NCT01696968|181491760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.0|||Poisson regression|||||1.00|0.95|
90805458|NCT01696968|181491762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.12|||Poisson regression|||||1.12|0.98|
90805459|NCT01696968|181491766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.07|||Poisson regression|||||1.07|0.91|
90805460|NCT02388165|181491789|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine Efficacy (VE)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-126.3|55.81|||||VE was calculated as 1-(P/\[1-P\]\*100), where P is the number of SA4Ag cases divided by the total number of cases. The confidence interval (CI) was calculated using the Clopper-Pearson method.|||55.81|-126.30|
90805461|NCT02388165|181491790|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|8.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|9.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Redness: Any||9.8|6.9|<0.001
91014317|NCT00423137|181911538|OTHER||Difference of least square means|-52.083|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.48||0.0044|||||||ANCOVA|The adjusted least squares mean is estimated based on the one way ANOVA model with Treatment.|Difference to Placebo \[Treatment-Placebo\]|||||0.0044
90805462|NCT02388165|181491790|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|5.6||||||Redness: Mild||5.6|3.3|
90805463|NCT02388165|181491790|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|4.0||||||Redness: Moderate||4.0|2.3|
90805464|NCT02388165|181491790|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.4||||||Redness: Severe||1.4|0.5|
90805465|NCT02388165|181491790|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|7.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|8.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Swelling: Any||8.4|5.7|<0.001
90805466|NCT02388165|181491790|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|5.0||||||Swelling: Mild||5.0|2.8|
90805467|NCT02388165|181491790|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|3.3||||||Swelling: Moderate||3.3|1.7|
90805468|NCT02388165|181491790|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.2||||||Swelling: Severe||1.2|0.4|
90805469|NCT02388165|181491790|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|15.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.3|18.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Pain at the injection site: Any||18.1|13.3|<0.001
90805470|NCT02388165|181491790|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|12.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|14.5||||||Pain at the injection site: Mild||14.5|10.0|
91014318|NCT00423137|181911539|OTHER||Difference of least square means|-67.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.29||0.0056|||||||ANCOVA|The adjusted least squares mean is estimated based on the one way ANOVA model with Treatment.|Difference to Placebo \[Treatment-Placebo\]|||||0.0056
90805471|NCT02388165|181491790|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|4.2||||||Pain at the injection site: Moderate||4.2|1.9|
90805472|NCT02388165|181491790|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.0||||||Pain at the injection site: Severe||1.0|0.1|
91014319|NCT00423137|181911540|OTHER||Difference of least square means|-62.571|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.42||0.0025|||||||ANCOVA|The adjusted least squares mean is estimated based on the one way ANOVA model with Treatment.|Difference to Placebo \[Treatment-Placebo\]|||||0.0025
90805473|NCT02388165|181491791|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|0.6||||0.146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Fever: Any||1.6|-0.2|0.146
90805474|NCT02388165|181491791|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.2||||||Fever: 38.0 degree C to 38.4 degree C||1.2|-0.3|
90805475|NCT02388165|181491791|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.6||||||Fever: 38.5 degree C to 38.9 degree C||0.6|-0.4|
90805476|NCT02388165|181491791|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.5||||||Fever: 39.0 degree C to 40.0 degree C||0.5|-0.2|
90805477|NCT02388165|181491791|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.3||||||Fever: \>40.0 degree C||0.3|-0.2|
90805478|NCT02388165|181491791|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|2.9||||0.093||95.0|-0.5|6.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Fatigue: Any||6.2|-0.5|0.093
90805479|NCT02388165|181491791|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|3.7||||||Fatigue: Mild||3.7|-0.9|
90805480|NCT02388165|181491791|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|4.2||||||Fatigue: Moderate||4.2|-1.6|
90805481|NCT02388165|181491791|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.6||||||Fatigue: Severe||1.6|-1.2|
90805482|NCT02388165|181491791|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|1.2||||0.443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|4.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Headache: Any||4.4|-1.9|0.443
90805483|NCT02388165|181491791|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|2.3||||||Headache: Mild||2.3|-2.9|
90805484|NCT02388165|181491791|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|3.8||||||Headache: Moderate||3.8|-0.7|
90805485|NCT02388165|181491791|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.8||||||Headache: Severe||0.8|-0.8|
90805486|NCT02388165|181491791|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|1.0||||0.462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|3.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Diarrhea: Any||3.4|-1.6|0.462
90805487|NCT02388165|181491791|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|3.0||||||Diarrhea: Mild||3.0|-1.5|
90805488|NCT02388165|181491791|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|0.5||||||95.0|-0.7|1.7||||||Diarrhea: Moderate||1.7|-0.7|
90805489|NCT02388165|181491791|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.2||||||Diarrhea: Severe||0.2|-1.0|
91014320|NCT00423137|181911541|OTHER||Difference of least square means|-40.067|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.8||0.0439|||||||ANCOVA|The adjusted least squares mean is estimated based on the one way ANOVA model with Treatment.|Difference to Placebo \[Treatment-Placebo\]|||||0.0439
90805490|NCT02388165|181491791|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-0.6||||0.3||95.0|-1.8|0.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Vomiting: Any||0.5|-1.8|0.300
90805491|NCT02388165|181491791|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.8||||||Vomiting: Mild||0.8|-1.3|
90805492|NCT02388165|181491791|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-0.4||||||95.0|-0.9|0.1||||||Vomiting: Moderate||0.1|-0.9|
90805493|NCT02388165|181491791|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|1.7||||0.276||95.0|-1.3|4.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Muscle pain: Any||4.7|-1.3|0.276
90805494|NCT02388165|181491791|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|2.8||||||Muscle pain: Mild||2.8|-1.2|
90805495|NCT02388165|181491791|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|3.5||||||Muscle pain: Moderate||3.5|-1.4|
90805496|NCT02388165|181491791|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-0.2||||||95.0|-1.2|0.8||||||Muscle pain: Severe||0.8|-1.2|
90805497|NCT02388165|181491791|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|1.7||||0.273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|4.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Joint pain: Any||4.6|-1.3|0.273
90805498|NCT02388165|181491791|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|3.6||||||Joint pain: Mild||3.6|-0.2|
90805499|NCT02388165|181491791|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|2.4||||||Joint pain: Moderate||2.4|-2.6|
90805500|NCT02388165|181491791|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|0.1||||||95.0|-0.9|1.0||||||Joint pain: Severe||1.0|-0.9|
90805501|NCT02388165|181491799|SUPERIORITY||VE|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-126.3|55.81|||||VE was calculated as 1-(P/\[1-P\]\*100), where P is the number of SA4Ag cases divided by the total number of cases. The CI was calculated using the Clopper-Pearson method.|||55.81|-126.30|
90805502|NCT02388165|181491800|SUPERIORITY||VE|-9.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-104.06|41.41|||||VE was calculated as 1-(P/\[1-P\]\*100), where P is the number of SA4Ag cases divided by the total number of cases. The CI was calculated using the Clopper-Pearson method.|||41.41|-104.06|
90805503|NCT02388165|181491801|SUPERIORITY||VE|-8.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.42|40.8|||||VE was calculated as 1-(P/\[1-P\]\*100), where P is the number of SA4Ag cases divided by the total number of cases. The CI was calculated using the Clopper-Pearson method.|||40.80|-100.42|
90805504|NCT00654745|181491934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-19.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.5|-18.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-18.4|-21.5|<0.0001
90805505|NCT00654745|181491935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|-10.3||24-hour mean DBP change from baseline to week 12.|t-test, 2 sided|standard 1-sample confidence interval construction using t-distribution with 164 degrees of freedom||Primary null hypothesis is change from baseline to week12 in ABPM is 0. Change from baseline to week12 is primary efficacy variable and used all ABPM subjects. Null hypothesis used 1-sample t-test on change. Sample size of 200 expected to provide 99% power at significance level of 0.05%.||-10.3|-12.2|<0.0001
90805506|NCT00654745|181491935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|-10.5||daytime mean DBP change from baseline to week 12.|t-test, 2 sided|standard 1-sample confidence interval construction using t-distribution with 164 degrees of freedom||Primary null hypothesis is change from baseline to week12 in ABPM is 0. Change from baseline to week12 is primary efficacy variable and used all ABPM subjects. Null hypothesis used 1-sample t-test on change. Sample size of 200 expected to provide 99% power at significance level of 0.05%.||-10.5|-12.9|<0.0001
90805507|NCT00654745|181491935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|-9.0||nighttime mean DBP change from baseline to week 12.|t-test, 2 sided|standard 1-sample confidence interval construction using t-distribution with 164 degrees of freedom||Primary null hypothesis is change from baseline to week12 in ABPM is 0. Change from baseline to week12 is primary efficacy variable and used all ABPM subjects. Null hypothesis used 1-sample t-test on change. Sample size of 200 expected to provide 99% power at significance level of 0.05%.||-9.0|-11.7|<0.0001
90805508|NCT00654745|181491935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|-9.7||last 6 hours mean DBP change from baseline to week 12.|t-test, 2 sided|standard 1-sample confidence interval construction using t-distribution with 164 degrees of freedom||Primary null hypothesis is change from baseline to week12 in ABPM is 0. Change from baseline to week12 is primary efficacy variable and used all ABPM subjects. Null hypothesis used 1-sample t-test on change. Sample size of 200 expected to provide 99% power at significance level of 0.05%.||-9.7|-12.2|<0.0001
91014321|NCT00423137|181911542|OTHER||Difference of least square means|-57.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.3||0.0129|||||||ANCOVA|The adjusted least squares mean is estimated based on the one way ANOVA model with Treatment.|Difference to Placebo \[Treatment-Placebo\]|||||0.0129
90805509|NCT00654745|181491935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|-9.8||last 4 hours mean DBP change from baseline to week 12.|t-test, 2 sided|standard 1-sample confidence interval construction using t-distribution with 164 degrees of freedom||Primary null hypothesis is change from baseline to week12 in ABPM is 0. Change from baseline to week12 is primary efficacy variable and used all ABPM subjects. Null hypothesis used 1-sample t-test on change. Sample size of 200 expected to provide 99% power at significance level of 0.05%.||-9.8|-12.4|<0.0001
90805510|NCT00654745|181491935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|-10.0||last 2 hours mean DBP change from baseline to week 12.|t-test, 2 sided|standard 1-sample confidence interval construction using t-distribution with 164 degrees of freedom||Primary null hypothesis is change from baseline to week12 in ABPM is 0. Change from baseline to week12 is primary efficacy variable and used all ABPM subjects. Null hypothesis used 1-sample t-test on change. Sample size of 200 expected to provide 99% power at significance level of 0.05%.||-10.0|-13.1|<0.0001
90805511|NCT00654745|181491936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-20.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.6|-18.9||daytime mean SBP change from baseline to week 12.|t-test, 2 sided|standard 1-sample confidence interval construction using t-distribution with 164 degrees of freedom||Primary null hypothesis is change from baseline to week12 in ABPM is 0. Change from baseline to week12 is primary efficacy variable and used all ABPM subjects. Null hypothesis used 1-sample t-test on change. Sample size of 200 expected to provide 99% power at significance level of 0.05%.||-18.9|-22.6|<0.0001
91014322|NCT00423137|181911543|OTHER||Difference of least square means|-55.332|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.11||0.0037|||||||ANCOVA|The adjusted least squares mean is estimated based on the one way ANOVA model with Treatment.|Difference to Placebo \[Treatment-Placebo\]|||||0.0037
90805512|NCT00654745|181491936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-18.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.4|-16.6||nighttime mean SBP change from baseline to week 12.|t-test, 2 sided|standard 1-sample confidence interval construction using t-distribution with 164 degrees of freedom||Primary null hypothesis is change from baseline to week12 in ABPM is 0. Change from baseline to week12 is primary efficacy variable and used all ABPM subjects. Null hypothesis used 1-sample t-test on change. Sample size of 200 expected to provide 99% power at significance level of 0.05%.||-16.6|-20.4|<0.0001
90805513|NCT00654745|181491936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-18.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.7|-17.0||last 6 hours mean SBP change from baseline to week 12.|t-test, 2 sided|standard 1-sample confidence interval construction using t-distribution with 164 degrees of freedom||Primary null hypothesis is change from baseline to week12 in ABPM is 0. Change from baseline to week12 is primary efficacy variable and used all ABPM subjects. Null hypothesis used 1-sample t-test on change. Sample size of 200 expected to provide 99% power at significance level of 0.05%.||-17.0|-20.7|<0.0001
90805514|NCT00654745|181491936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-19.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.1|-17.1||last 4 hours mean SBP change from baseline to week 12.|t-test, 2 sided|standard 1-sample confidence interval construction using t-distribution with 164 degrees of freedom||Primary null hypothesis is change from baseline to week12 in ABPM is 0. Change from baseline to week12 is primary efficacy variable and used all ABPM subjects. Null hypothesis used 1-sample t-test on change. Sample size of 200 expected to provide 99% power at significance level of 0.05%.||-17.1|-21.1|<0.0001
90805515|NCT00654745|181491936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-19.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.7|-17.4||last 2 hours mean SBP change from baseline to week 12.|t-test, 2 sided|standard 1-sample confidence interval construction using t-distribution with 164 degrees of freedom||Primary null hypothesis is change from baseline to week12 in ABPM is 0. Change from baseline to week12 is primary efficacy variable and used all ABPM subjects. Null hypothesis used 1-sample t-test on change. Sample size of 200 expected to provide 99% power at significance level of 0.05%.||-17.4|-21.7|<0.0001
90805516|NCT00654745|181491937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|-8.6||Change in mean seated systolic blood pressure from baseline to week 3.|t-test, 2 sided|standard 1-sample confidence interval construction using t-distribution with n-1 degrees of freedom||Primary null hypothesis is change from baseline is 0. Null hypothesis used 1-sample t-test on change. Sample size of 200 expected to provide 99% power at significance level of 0.05%.||-8.6|-12.0|<0.0001
90805517|NCT00654745|181491937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-17.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.8|-16.1||Change in mean seated systolic blood pressure from baseline to week 6.|t-test, 2 sided|standard 1-sample confidence interval construction using t-distribution with n-1 degrees of freedom||Primary null hypothesis is change from baseline is 0. Null hypothesis used 1-sample t-test on change. Sample size of 200 expected to provide 99% power at significance level of 0.05%.||-16.1|-19.8|<0.0001
90805518|NCT00654745|181491937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-20.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.2|-17.8||Change in mean seated systolic blood pressure from baseline to week 9|t-test, 2 sided|standard 1-sample confidence interval construction using t-distribution with n-1 degrees of freedom||Primary null hypothesis is change from baseline is 0. Null hypothesis used 1-sample t-test on change. Sample size of 200 expected to provide 99% power at significance level of 0.05%.||-17.8|-22.2|<0.0001
90805519|NCT00654745|181491937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-23.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.7|-21.7||Change in mean seated systolic blood pressure from baseline to week 12|t-test, 2 sided|standard 1-sample confidence interval construction using t-distribution with n-1 degrees of freedom||Primary null hypothesis is change from baseline is 0. Null hypothesis used 1-sample t-test on change. Sample size of 200 expected to provide 99% power at significance level of 0.05%.||-21.7|-25.7|<0.0001
91014323|NCT00423137|181911544|OTHER||Difference of least square means|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001||0.9076|||||||ANCOVA|The adjusted least squares mean is estimated based on the ANCOVA model with treatment, centre, and baseline.|Difference to Placebo \[Treatment-Placebo\]|||||0.9076
91014324|NCT00423137|181911545|OTHER||Difference of least square means|-13453.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16118.0||0.4121|||||||ANCOVA|The adjusted least squares mean is estimated based on the ANCOVA model with treatment, centre, and baseline.|Difference to Placebo \[Treatment-Placebo\]|||||0.4121
91014325|NCT00423137|181911546|OTHER||Difference of least square means|-78.619|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|298.91||0.7948|||||||ANCOVA|The adjusted least squares mean is estimated based on the ANCOVA model with treatment, centre, and baseline.|Difference to Placebo \[Treatment-Placebo\]|||||0.7948
91014326|NCT00423137|181911547|OTHER||Difference of least square means|0.195|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.101||0.064|||||||ANCOVA|The adjusted least squares mean is estimated based on the ANCOVA model with treatment, centre, and baseline.|Difference to Placebo \[Treatment-Placebo\]|||||0.0640
91014327|NCT00423137|181911548|OTHER||Difference of least square means|0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.004||0.0587|||||||ANCOVA|The adjusted least squares mean is estimated based on the ANCOVA model with treatment, centre, and baseline.|Difference to Placebo \[Treatment-Placebo\]|||||0.0587
91014328|NCT01005810|181911566|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.35||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|5.24|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.24|1.05|0.029
91014329|NCT04196023|181911567|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2||||||p-value was calculated using GLM. Statistical significance was determined using an alpha level of 0.05.|general linear model|adjusted for age, sex, education and baseline overall MoCA score||||||0.20
91014330|NCT04196023|181911568|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9||||||p-value was calculated using GLM model. Statistical significance was determined using an alpha level of 0.05.|general linear model|GLM model additionally adjusting for age, sex, education and baseline level.||||||0.90
91014331|NCT04196023|181911569|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||p-value was calculated using GLM model. Statistical significance was determined using an alpha level of 0.05.|general linear model|GLM model additionally adjusting for age, sex, education and baseline level.||||||0.01
91014332|NCT04196023|181911570|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||p-value was calculated using GLM model and false discovery rate (FDR)-adjustment. Statistical significance was determined using an alpha level of 0.05.|general linear model|GLM model additionally adjusting for age, sex, education and baseline level.||||||0.05
91014333|NCT04359758|181911580|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||Chi-squared|||The study was powered assuming 10% genetic testing uptake UC compared to 35% in ST. assuming these uptake rates and a two-tailed alpha of 0.05, a sample size of n=50 per arm would yield greater than 80% power.||||0.14
90805520|NCT00654745|181491937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-28.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.8|-26.2||Change in mean seated systolic blood pressure from baseline to week 15|t-test, 2 sided|standard 1-sample confidence interval construction using t-distribution with n-1 degrees of freedom||Primary null hypothesis is change from baseline is 0. Null hypothesis used 1-sample t-test on change. Sample size of 200 expected to provide 99% power at significance level of 0.05%.||-26.2|-30.8|<0.0001
90805521|NCT00654745|181491937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-31.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.3|-28.8||Change in mean seated systolic blood pressure from baseline to week 18|t-test, 2 sided|standard 1-sample confidence interval construction using t-distribution with n-1 degrees of freedom||Primary null hypothesis is change from baseline is 0. Null hypothesis used 1-sample t-test on change. Sample size of 200 expected to provide 99% power at significance level of 0.05%.||-28.8|-33.3|<0.0001
90805522|NCT00654745|181491938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|-3.1||Change in mean seated diastolic blood pressure from baseline to week 3.|t-test, 2 sided|standard 1-sample confidence interval construction using t-distribution with n-1 degrees of freedom||Primary null hypothesis is change from baseline is 0. Null hypothesis used 1-sample t-test on change. Sample size of 200 expected to provide 99% power at significance level of 0.05%.||-3.1|-5.1|<0.0001
90805523|NCT00654745|181491938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|-7.1||Change in mean seated diastolic blood pressure from baseline to week 6|t-test, 2 sided|standard 1-sample confidence interval construction using t-distribution with n-1 degrees of freedom||Primary null hypothesis is change from baseline is 0. Null hypothesis used 1-sample t-test on change. Sample size of 200 expected to provide 99% power at significance level of 0.05%.||-7.1|-9.4|<0.0001
90805524|NCT00654745|181491938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|-8.4||Change in mean seated diastolic blood pressure from baseline to week 9|t-test, 2 sided|standard 1-sample confidence interval construction using t-distribution with n-1 degrees of freedom||Primary null hypothesis is change from baseline is 0. Null hypothesis used 1-sample t-test on change. Sample size of 200 expected to provide 99% power at significance level of 0.05%.||-8.4|-10.9|<0.0001
90805525|NCT00654745|181491938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|-9.9||Change in mean seated diastolic blood pressure from baseline to week 12|t-test, 2 sided|standard 1-sample confidence interval construction using t-distribution with n-1 degrees of freedom||Primary null hypothesis is change from baseline is 0. Null hypothesis used 1-sample t-test on change. Sample size of 200 expected to provide 99% power at significance level of 0.05%.||-9.9|-12.5|<0.0001
90805526|NCT00654745|181491938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.7|-13.1||Change in mean seated diastolic blood pressure from baseline to week 15|t-test, 2 sided|standard 1-sample confidence interval construction using t-distribution with n-1 degrees of freedom||Primary null hypothesis is change from baseline is 0. Null hypothesis used 1-sample t-test on change. Sample size of 200 expected to provide 99% power at significance level of 0.05%.||-13.1|-15.7|<0.0001
90805527|NCT00654745|181491938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-15.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|-13.6||Change in mean seated diastolic blood pressure from baseline to week 18|t-test, 2 sided|standard 1-sample confidence interval construction using t-distribution with n-1 degrees of freedom||Primary null hypothesis is change from baseline is 0. Null hypothesis used 1-sample t-test on change. Sample size of 200 expected to provide 99% power at significance level of 0.05%.||-13.6|-16.5|<0.0001
90805528|NCT04551963|181491963|EQUIVALENCE|Two one sided tests procedure by estimation of ratio of geometric means and 90% CI; exponential transformation from estimated difference in natural logarithm scale obtained from linear mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect.|Ratio of geometric least squares mean|0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.42|0.56||||||Arm A: Zanubrutinib alone vs. Zanubrutinib + fluconazole||0.56|0.42|
90805529|NCT04551963|181491963|EQUIVALENCE|Two one sided tests procedure by estimation of ratio of geometric means and 90% CI; exponential transformation from estimated difference in natural logarithm scale obtained from linear mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect.|Ratio of geometric least squares mean|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.34|0.51||||||Arm a: Zanubrutinib alone vs. Zanubrutinib + diltiazem||0.51|0.34|
90805530|NCT04551963|181491964|EQUIVALENCE|Two one sided tests procedure by estimation of ratio of geometric means and 90% CI; exponential transformation from estimated difference in natural logarithm scale obtained from linear mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect.|Ratio of geometric least squares mean|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.66|0.99||||||Arm B: Zanubrutinib alone vs. zanubrutinib + voriconazole||0.99|0.66|
90805531|NCT04551963|181491964|EQUIVALENCE|Two one sided tests procedure by estimation of ratio of geometric means and 90% CI; exponential transformation from estimated difference in natural logarithm scale obtained from linear mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect.|Ratio of geometric least squares mean|0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.41|0.58||||||Arm B: Zanubrutinib alone vs zanubrutinib + clarithromycin||0.58|0.41|
90805532|NCT04551963|181491965|EQUIVALENCE|Two one sided tests procedure by estimation of ratio of geometric means and 90% CI; exponential transformation from estimated difference in natural logarithm scale obtained from linear mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect.|Ratio of geometric least squares mean|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.82|1.08||||||Arm A: Zanubrutinib alone vs. zanubrutinib + fluconazole||1.08|0.82|
90805533|NCT04551963|181491965|EQUIVALENCE|Two one sided tests procedure by estimation of ratio of geometric means and 90% CI; exponential transformation from estimated difference in natural logarithm scale obtained from linear mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect.|Ratio of geometric least squares mean|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.66|0.99||||||Arm A: Zanubrutinib alone vs. zanubrutinib + diltiazem||0.99|0.66|
90805534|NCT04551963|181491966|EQUIVALENCE|Two one sided tests procedure by estimation of ratio of geometric means and 90% CI; exponential transformation from estimated difference in natural logarithm scale obtained from linear mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect.|Ratio of geometric least squares mean|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.65|1.06||||||Arm B: Zanubrutinib alone vs. zanubrutinib + voriconazole||1.06|0.65|
91014334|NCT04359758|181911580|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.57||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|6.29|||Regression, Logistic|||Because education and marital status have been associated with genetic testing participation in prior research, we conducted a follow-up analysis in which we adjusted for education and marital status.||6.29|1.05|0.039
90805535|NCT04551963|181491966|EQUIVALENCE|Two one sided tests procedure by estimation of ratio of geometric means and 90% CI; exponential transformation from estimated difference in natural logarithm scale obtained from linear mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect.|Ratio of geometric least squares mean|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|0.58||||||Arm B: Zanubrutinib alone vs zanubrutinib + clarithromycin||0.58|0.40|
90805536|NCT04551963|181491967|EQUIVALENCE|Two one sided tests procedure by estimation of ratio of geometric means and 90% CI; exponential transformation from estimated difference in natural logarithm scale obtained from linear mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect.|Ratio of geometric least squares mean|0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.35|0.58||||||Arm A: Zanubrutinib alone vs. zanubrutinib + fluconazole||0.58|0.35|
90805537|NCT04551963|181491967|EQUIVALENCE|Two one sided tests procedure by estimation of ratio of geometric means and 90% CI; exponential transformation from estimated difference in natural logarithm scale obtained from linear mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect.|Ratio of geometric least squares mean|0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.32|0.51||||||Arm A: Zanubrutinib alone vs. zanubrutinib + diltiazem||0.51|0.32|
90805538|NCT04551963|181491968|EQUIVALENCE|Two one sided tests procedure by estimation of ratio of geometric means and 90% CI; exponential transformation from estimated difference in natural logarithm scale obtained from linear mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect.|Ratio of geometric least squares mean|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.68|1.0||||||Arm B: Zanubrutinib alone vs. zanubrutinib + voriconazole||1.00|0.68|
90805539|NCT04551963|181491968|EQUIVALENCE|Two one sided tests procedure by estimation of ratio of geometric means and 90% CI; exponential transformation from estimated difference in natural logarithm scale obtained from linear mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect.|Ratio of geometric least squares mean|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.39|0.64||||||Arm B: Zanubrutinib alone vs. zanubrutinib + clarithromycin||0.64|0.39|
90805540|NCT02974855|181491989|SUPERIORITY|Prophylactic treatment with PF-06741086 will be considered superior to On Demand treatment with respect to ABR reduction if 1) the upper limit of the 2-sided 80%CI of the ratio of ABR in PF/historical On Demand is \<1 and 2) the estimate of the ratio of ABR in PF/historical On Demand ≤0.3. Drug will be considered not superior to On Demand treatment if the lower limit of the 2-sided 80%CI of the ratio of PF/historical On Demand \>0.3.|ratio|0.15||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.08|0.29|||Negative Binomial Model|||The comparator was the Historical on Demand Group||0.29|0.08|0.0002
90805541|NCT02974855|181491989|SUPERIORITY|Prophylactic treatment with PF-06741086 will be considered superior to On Demand treatment with respect to ABR reduction if 1) the upper limit of the 2-sided 80%CI of the ratio of ABR in PF/historical On Demand is \<1 and 2) the estimate of the ratio of ABR in PF/historical On Demand ≤0.3. Drug will be considered not superior to On Demand treatment if the lower limit of the 2-sided 80%CI of the ratio of PF/historical On Demand \>0.3.|ratio|0.05||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.02|0.14|||Negative Binomial Model|||The comparator was the Historical on Demand Group||0.14|0.02|0.0001
90805542|NCT02974855|181491989|SUPERIORITY|Prophylactic treatment with PF-06741086 will be considered superior to On Demand treatment with respect to ABR reduction if 1) the upper limit of the 2-sided 80%CI of the ratio of ABR in PF/historical On Demand is \<1 and 2) the estimate of the ratio of ABR in PF/historical On Demand ≤0.3. Drug will be considered not superior to On Demand treatment if the lower limit of the 2-sided 80%CI of the ratio of PF/historical On Demand \>0.3.|ratio|0.15||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.08|0.29|||Negative Binomial Model|||The comparator was the Historical on Demand Group||0.29|0.08|0.0002
90805543|NCT02974855|181491989|SUPERIORITY|Prophylactic treatment with PF-06741086 will be considered superior to On Demand treatment with respect to ABR reduction if 1) the upper limit of the 2-sided 80%CI of the ratio of ABR in PF/historical On Demand is \<1 and 2) the estimate of the ratio of ABR in PF/historical On Demand ≤0.3. Drug will be considered not superior to On Demand treatment if the lower limit of the 2-sided 80%CI of the ratio of PF/historical On Demand \>0.3.|ratio|0.03||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.01|0.1|||Negative Binomial Model|||The comparator was the Historical on Demand Group||0.10|0.01|0.0005
90805544|NCT02974855|181491989|SUPERIORITY|Prophylactic treatment with PF-06741086 will be considered superior to On Demand treatment with respect to ABR reduction if 1) the upper limit of the 2-sided 80%CI of the ratio of ABR in PF/historical On Demand is \<1 and 2) the estimate of the ratio of ABR in PF/historical On Demand ≤0.3. Drug will be considered not superior to On Demand treatment if the lower limit of the 2-sided 80%CI of the ratio of PF/historical On Demand \>0.3.|ratio|0.09|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.05|0.16|||Negative Binomial Model|||The comparator was the Historical on Demand Group||0.16|0.05|<0.0001
90805545|NCT02974855|181491989|SUPERIORITY||ratio|0.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.11|0.31|||Negative Binomial Model|||On-Study versus Pre-Treatment||0.31|0.11|<0.0001
90805546|NCT02974855|181491989|SUPERIORITY||ratio|0.1||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.04|0.22|||Negative Binomial Model|||On-Study versus Pre-Treatment||0.22|0.04|0.0002
90805547|NCT02974855|181491989|SUPERIORITY||ratio|0.2||||0.0154|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.09|0.47|||Negative Binomial Model|||On-Study versus Pre-Treatment||0.47|0.09|0.0154
90805548|NCT02974855|181491989|SUPERIORITY||ratio|0.04||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.01|0.14|||Negative Binomial Model|||On-Study versus Pre-Treatment||0.14|0.01|0.0005
90805549|NCT02974855|181491989|SUPERIORITY||ratio|0.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.08|0.2|||Negative Binomial Model|||On-Study versus Pre-Treatment||0.20|0.08|<0.0001
90805550|NCT01474772|181492006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.01||Primary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. The study was considered positive only if both co-primary endpoints had p-values that were less than 0.05, hence there was no need for multiplicity adjustment.|Linear mixed effects model|||Analysis was done using a linear mixed effects model including baseline pain, sequence, period, center, and treatment as fixed effect factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors. Last observation carried forward (LOCF) approach was applied.||0.01|-0.46|0.0659
91014335|NCT04359758|181911581|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||t-test, 2 sided|101 degrees of freedom.||||||0.13
91014336|NCT04359758|181911582|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df=102||||||0.78
91014337|NCT04359758|181911583|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||ANCOVA|df = 1, 101||Analysis of PROMIS anxiety||||0.97
91014338|NCT04359758|181911583|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||ANCOVA|df = 1, 101||Analysis of PROMIS Depression||||0.34
90805551|NCT01474772|181492007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.291|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.128||0.0242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.543|-0.038||Primary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. Unstructured covariance structure was used to estimate the within-participant errors.|Repeated measure mixed effects model|The Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||This longitudinal analysis was a sensitivity analysis of the primary endpoint. P-value was based on a repeated measure mixed effects model including pooled center, time point, treatment, an indicator variable for Week 6 as well as interaction terms as fixed effect factors. For analysis purpose, it is assumed that participants were on placebo at Baseline, took the same treatment as in Period 1 during Week 1 of washout, and were on placebo in Week 2 of washout.||-0.038|-0.543|0.0242
90805552|NCT01474772|181492008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.18||Primary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. The study was considered positive only if both co-primary endpoints have p-values that are less than 0.05, hence there was no need for multiplicity adjustment.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measures|Satterthwaite's approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||Analysis was done using a repeated measure linear mixed effects model including baseline pain, sequence, period, center, time, treatment, and treatment by time interaction as fixed effect factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors. The model term 'time' may take 2 values corresponding to Week 3 and Week 6 in each period.||0.18|-0.44|0.4120
90805553|NCT01474772|181492009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.0847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|2.55||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Generalized linear mixed model|||Analysis was done overall (period 1 and period 2) using a generalized linear mixed model which included response as the dependent variable, sequence, period, pooled center, treatment as fixed effects, and subject within treatment as random effect. LOCF approach was applied.||2.55|0.94|0.0847
90805554|NCT01474772|181492010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.2459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.39||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Generalized linear mixed model|||Analysis was done overall (period 1 and period 2) using a generalized linear mixed model which included response as the dependent variable, sequence, period, pooled center, treatment as fixed effects, and subject within treatment as random effect. LOCF approach was applied.||2.39|0.80|0.2459
90805555|NCT01474772|181492011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.0889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|0.12||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Linear mixed effects model|||Analysis was done using a linear mixed effects model including baseline pain, sequence, period, center, and treatment as fixed effect factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors.||0.12|-1.71|0.0889
90805556|NCT01474772|181492012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86||0.1781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.86|0.53||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Linear mixed effects model|||Analysis was done using a linear mixed effects model including baseline pain, sequence, period, center, and treatment as fixed effect factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors.||0.53|-2.86|0.1781
90805557|NCT01474772|181492013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.2719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.15||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Linear mixed effects model|||Analysis was done using a linear mixed effects model including baseline pain, sequence, period, center, and treatment as fixed effect factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors.||0.15|-0.53|0.2719
90805558|NCT01474772|181492014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|563.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4098.74||0.8909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7549.82|8676.6||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Linear mixed effects model|||Analysis was done using a linear mixed effects model including baseline value, sequence, period, center, and treatment as fixed effect factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors. LOCF approach was applied.||8676.60|-7549.82|0.8909
90805559|NCT01474772|181492015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|206.37||0.9899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-411.26|406.01||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Linear mixed effects model|||Analysis was done using a linear mixed effects model including baseline value, sequence, period, center, and treatment as fixed effect factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors. LOCF approach was applied.||406.01|-411.26|0.9899
90805560|NCT01474772|181492016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.27||0.2854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.88|1.15||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Linear mixed effects model|||Analysis was done using a linear mixed effects model including baseline value, sequence, period, center, and treatment as fixed effect factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors.||1.15|-3.88|0.2854
91014339|NCT01797458|181911584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.02||||||Twenty-five teeth experienced at least one 'Minor' failure (reversible pulpitis, caries progression, and secondary caries): NRCT 9 (6.4%), CR 14 (10%), HT 2 (1.4%).|Kruskal-Wallis|||The null hypothesis was no difference at 2 yrs among any of the 3 arms for the primary outcome of success or minor failure.||||0.02
91014340|NCT04753606|181911686|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-32.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.943|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.03|-21.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-21.90|-44.03|<.0001
90805561|NCT01474772|181492017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09||0.1805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|0.68||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Linear mixed effects model|||Analysis was done using a linear mixed effects model including baseline value, sequence, period, center, and treatment as fixed effect factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors.||0.68|-3.60|0.1805
90805562|NCT01474772|181492018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.3028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.31||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Linear mixed effects model|||Analysis was done using a linear mixed effects model including baseline value, sequence, period, center, and treatment as fixed effect factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors.||0.31|-0.99|0.3028
90805563|NCT01474772|181492019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.7542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.3||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Linear mixed effects model|||Analysis was done using a linear mixed effects model including baseline value, sequence, period, center, and treatment as fixed effect factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors.||0.30|-0.41|0.7542
90805564|NCT01474772|181492020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.0634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.62|0.07||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Linear mixed effects model|||Analysis was done using a linear mixed effects model including baseline value, sequence, period, center, and treatment as fixed effect factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors.||0.07|-2.62|0.0634
90805565|NCT01474772|181492021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.1985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.62||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Linear mixed effects model|||Analysis was done using a linear mixed effects model including baseline value, sequence, period, center, and treatment as fixed effect factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors.||0.62|-0.13|0.1985
90805566|NCT01474772|181492022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.9686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.2||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Linear mixed effects model|||Analysis was done using a linear mixed effects model including baseline value, sequence, period, center, and treatment as fixed effect factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors.||0.20|-0.21|0.9686
90805567|NCT01474772|181492023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.54||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|4.95|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio is based on the binary response for any improvement while p-value is from the comparison of the original scale of 7 possible outcomes. P-value was calculated by using Cochran Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test. PGIC values at the end of Period 1 data was compared between treatment groups.||4.95|1.30|0.0020
90805568|NCT01474772|181492024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.09||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Linear mixed effects model|||Analysis was done using a linear mixed effects model including baseline value, sequence, period, center, and treatment as fixed effect factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors. LOCF approach was applied.||-0.09|-0.68|0.0105
90805569|NCT01474772|181492025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.1178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.07||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Linear mixed effects model|||Analysis was done using a linear mixed effects model including baseline value, sequence, period, center, and treatment as fixed effect factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors.||0.07|-0.63|0.1178
90805570|NCT01474772|181492026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.13||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Linear mixed effects model|||Analysis was done using a linear mixed effects model including baseline value, sequence, period, center, and treatment as fixed effect factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors.||0.13|-0.60|0.1990
90890325|NCT01581281|181645151|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.49||||0.1011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|9.87|||Regression, Linear|||The mean change from baseline in PedMIDAS score over time for the three groups was assessed using a linear regression model for each of the three pairwise comparisons (Amitriptyline relative to placebo, Topiramate relative to placebo, and Amitriptyline relative to Topiramate), adjusted for the baseline PedMIDAS score. The models, and corresponding odds ratios, were adjusted for the two stratification variables (age and baseline number of headache days).||9.87|-0.88|0.1011
91014341|NCT04753606|181911686|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-39.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.927|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.21|-28.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-28.15|-50.21|<.0001
91014342|NCT04753606|181911687|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-32.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.943|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.03|-21.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-21.90|-44.03|<.0001
91014343|NCT04753606|181911687|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-39.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.927|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.21|-28.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-28.15|-50.21|<.0001
91014344|NCT04753606|181911688|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-32.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.943|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.03|-21.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-21.90|-44.03|<.0001
90805571|NCT01474772|181492027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.71107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.025|0.037||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Linear mixed effects model|||Statistical analysis presented above is for the Index score Dolan 1997. Analysis was done using a linear mixed effects model including baseline value, sequence, period, center, and treatment as fixed effect factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors.||0.037|-0.025|0.71107
90805572|NCT01474772|181492027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.009|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.53965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.021|0.039||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Linear mixed effects model|||Statistical analysis presented above is for the Index score Dolan 2001. Analysis was done using a linear mixed effects model including baseline value, sequence, period, center, and treatment as fixed effect factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors.||0.039|-0.021|0.53965
90805573|NCT00365105|181492040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.54|||Log Rank|||Assuming an exponential distribution, the weighted yearly SRE hazard rate for patients treated with bisphosphonates only is 0.7991 which translates to a median time to SRE of 10.4 months. The study was designed to show a 33% relative reduction in the yearly SRE hazard rate, i.e. 15.6 months median time to SRE. Using a two-sided log-rank test assuming a type I error of 0.05, one planned interim analysis with 90% statistical power, 257 SREs are required with a total of 316 patients.||1.54|0.70|0.844
90805574|NCT00365105|181492041|SUPERIORITY|The power of detecting an improvement from 55% in the control arm to 41% in the experimental arm with a two-sided Fisher's exact test at alpha 0.05 is 66%.||||||0.26|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.26
90805575|NCT00365105|181492042|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.52|||Log Rank|||Assuming the disease site distribution is 40%, 40%, and 20% from prostate, breast, and lung cancer populations, respectively, the weighted yearly death rate for patients treated with bisphosphonates only is 0.4390, translating to a median overall survival time of 18.9 months assuming an exponential distribution. Statistical power to detect a relative difference of 33% in the yearly death rate is 70% using a two-sided log-rank test at a 0.05 significance level and 87% to detect 50% difference.||1.52|0.86|0.37
90805576|NCT00365105|181492043|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96||||||Two-sided significance level of 0.01|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||FACT-G Total||||0.96
91014345|NCT04753606|181911688|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-39.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.927|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.21|-28.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-28.15|-50.21|<.0001
91014346|NCT04753606|181911689|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-28.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.643|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.14|-19.74|||ANCOVA|||||-19.74|-38.14|<.0001
90805577|NCT00365105|181492043|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97||||||Two-sided significance level of 0.01|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Physical Well-Being||||0.97
90805578|NCT00365105|181492043|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57||||||Two-sided significance level of 0.01|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Social/Family Well-Being||||0.57
90805579|NCT00365105|181492043|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7||||||Two-sided significance level of 0.01|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Emotional Well-Being||||0.70
90805580|NCT00365105|181492043|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46||||||Two-sided significance level of 0.01|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Functional Well-Being||||0.46
90805581|NCT00365105|181492044|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99||||||2-sided significance level of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.99
90805582|NCT00365105|181492045|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43||||||Significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Index Score||||0.43
90805583|NCT00365105|181492045|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15||||||Significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||VAS Score||||0.15
90805584|NCT03086408|181492170|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|1.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.00|-9.00|0.09
90805585|NCT03086408|181492171|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.89|4.69|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.69|-2.89|0.61
90805586|NCT03086408|181492172|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.47|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.47|-0.61|0.78
90805587|NCT03086408|181492173|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.50|-1.30|0.30
90805588|NCT03086408|181492174|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.62|8.82|||t-test, 2 sided|||||8.82|-8.62|0.98
90805589|NCT03086408|181492175|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|2.84|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.84|-1.64|0.61
90805590|NCT03086408|181492176|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.7||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|26.77|||t-test, 2 sided|||||26.77|0.63|0.04
90805591|NCT03086408|181492177|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|2.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.80|-2.80|1
90805592|NCT03086408|181492178|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.38|1.98|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.98|-2.38|0.82
90805593|NCT03086408|181492179|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.29|2.29|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.29|-5.29|0.37
90805594|NCT03367403|181492180|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.56||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|6.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.27|0.12|0.042
90805595|NCT03367403|181492181|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.898||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.63|-0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.09|-3.63|0.040
90805596|NCT03367403|181492182|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.239||0.139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.12|-0.83|0.139
91014347|NCT04753606|181911689|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-40.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.591|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.16|-30.97|||ANCOVA|||||-30.97|-49.16|<.0001
91014348|NCT04753606|181911690|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-28.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.643|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.14|-19.74|||ANCOVA|||||-19.74|-38.14|<.0001
90805597|NCT03367403|181492183|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.525||0.227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.67|-0.40|0.227
90805598|NCT03367403|181492184|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.009||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|3.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.20|-0.77|0.230
90805599|NCT03367403|181492185|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-85.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.867|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-92.68|-77.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-77.43|-92.68|<0.001
90805600|NCT03367403|181492186|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Tau-IQ||0.03|-0.01|0.560
90805601|NCT03367403|181492186|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.035||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.007|0.062|||ANCOVA|||MUBADA-Cerebellum||0.062|0.007|0.012
90805602|NCT03367403|181492187|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.631|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.92|-1.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral Cortical||-1.43|-3.92|< 0.001
90805603|NCT03367403|181492187|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011||0.916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral Entorhinal Cortex||0.02|-0.02|0.916
90805604|NCT03367403|181492187|SUPERIORITY|Bilateral Hippocampus|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.04|-0.03|0.771
91014349|NCT04753606|181911690|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-40.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.591|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.16|-30.97|||ANCOVA|||||-30.97|-49.16|<.0001
91014350|NCT04753606|181911691|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-28.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.643|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.14|-19.74|||ANCOVA|||||-19.74|-38.14|<.0001
91014351|NCT04753606|181911691|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-40.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.591|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.16|-30.97|||ANCOVA|||||-30.97|-49.16|<.0001
91014352|NCT04753606|181911692|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-18.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.657|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.51|-11.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-11.02|-25.51|<.0001
90805605|NCT03367403|181492187|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral Inferior Parietal Lobe||0.01|-0.17|0.094
90805606|NCT03367403|181492187|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral Isthmuscingulate||0.00|-0.04|0.052
90805607|NCT03367403|181492187|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.118||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral Lateral Parietal Lobe||-0.11|-0.57|0.005
90805608|NCT03367403|181492187|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||0.731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral Medial Temporal Lobe||0.06|-0.08|0.731
90805609|NCT03367403|181492187|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.046|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|-0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral Precuneus||-0.07|-0.25|<0.001
90805610|NCT03367403|181492187|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.114|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral Prefrontal Lobe||-0.17|-0.62|<0.001
90805611|NCT03367403|181492187|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral Superior Temporal Lobe||-0.12|-0.30|<0.001
90805612|NCT03367403|181492187|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.581|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|3.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral Ventricles||3.43|1.14|< 0.001
90805613|NCT03367403|181492187|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.519||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.58|-1.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral Whole Brain||-1.59|-7.58|0.003
90805614|NCT03367403|181492187|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.178|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral Whole Temporal Lobe||-0.33|-1.03|<0.001
90805615|NCT03367403|181492187|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.987||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.23|-0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral White Matter||-0.33|-4.23|0.022
90805616|NCT03470194|181492196|OTHER||||||=|0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||=0.002
90805617|NCT01822899|181492197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.046|0.113|||ANCOVA|||||0.113|0.046|<0.001
90805618|NCT01450696|181492243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.24||||0.2401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.78|||Log Rank|||Stratified analysis included stratum of creatinine clearance (45 to 59 milliliters per minute \[mL/min\] and greater than or equal to \[≥\] 60 mL/min). Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression.||1.78|0.86|0.2401
90805619|NCT01450696|181492243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.32||||0.1285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.88|||Log Rank|||Unstratified analysis. Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression.||1.88|0.92|0.1285
90805620|NCT01450696|181492245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.9931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|2.04|||Log Rank|||Stratified analysis included stratum of creatinine clearance (45 to 59 mL/min and ≥60 mL/min). Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression.||2.04|0.49|0.9931
90805621|NCT01450696|181492245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.9458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|2.02|||Log Rank|||Unstratified analysis. Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression.||2.02|0.52|0.9458
90805622|NCT01450696|181492247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.6759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.02|||Log Rank|||Stratified analysis included stratum of creatinine clearance (45 to 59 mL/min and ≥60 mL/min). Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression.||2.02|0.63|0.6759
91014353|NCT04753606|181911692|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-23.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.65|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.22|-16.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-16.76|-31.22|<.0001
91014354|NCT04753606|181911693|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-18.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.657|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.51|-11.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-11.02|-25.51|<.0001
91014355|NCT04753606|181911693|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-23.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.65|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.22|-16.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-16.76|-31.22|<.0001
91014356|NCT04753606|181911694|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-18.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.657|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.51|-11.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-11.02|-25.51|<.0001
90805623|NCT01450696|181492247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.5764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|2.05|||Log Rank|||Unstratified analysis. Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression.||2.05|0.67|0.5764
90805624|NCT01450696|181492248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rates|-7.58||||0.5402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.75|16.6|||Chi-squared|||The 95% CI for difference in response rates was constructed using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.||16.60|-31.75|0.5402
90805625|NCT01450696|181492248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.96||||||||1.96|0.28|
90805626|NCT00853242|181492282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0249|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Tests|||Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||||0.0249
90805627|NCT00853242|181492282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Tests|||Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||||0.0001
90805628|NCT00853242|181492282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Tests|||Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||||<0.0001
90805629|NCT00853242|181492283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2647|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Tests|||Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||||0.2647
90805630|NCT00853242|181492283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7944|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Tests|||Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||||0.7944
90805631|NCT00853242|181492283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3724|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Tests|||Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||||0.3724
90805632|NCT03497975|181492287|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1||||0.0309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|4.13||Logistic regression model includes WI-NRS baseline score as a covariate, treatment and the study site (with pooling) as a fixed effect.|Regression, Logistic|||||4.13|1.07|0.0309
90805633|NCT03497975|181492288|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-7.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.82|-3.3||Repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline ItchyQoL value. An unstructured covariance matrix is used.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measurements|||||-3.30|-10.82|0.0002
90805634|NCT03497975|181492289|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.85||||0.0179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|3.07||Logistic regression model includes PAS (Item 5a) baseline score as a covariate, treatment as a fixed effect and the study site (with pooling) as a fixed effect.|Regression, Logistic|||||3.07|1.11|0.0179
90805635|NCT03497975|181492290|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-4.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.55|-2.31||Repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline PROMIS value. An unstructured covariance matrix is used.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measurements|||||-2.31|-6.55|<0.0001
90805636|NCT03115827|181492333|OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6
90805637|NCT02027311|181492338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||For two-sided tests, p \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model used to identify the factors related to the presence of intervention (frequency of intervention = 0, vs. ≥ 1).||If the true difference in the experimental and control means is 4, total 26 experimental subjects and 26 control subjects was required to reject the null hypothesis that the means of the primary outcome values of experimental and control groups are equal with probability (power) 0.8. The Type I error probability associated with this test of this null hypothesis is 0.05.||||0.05
91014357|NCT04753606|181911694|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-23.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.65|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.22|-16.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-16.76|-31.22|<.0001
90805638|NCT02027311|181492339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.09||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.41|50.94||Logistic regression model were used in univariate and corrected multivariate analyses to identify the factors related to the primary outcome variables, such as, presence of intervention (frequency of intervention = 0, vs. ≥ 1).|Regression, Logistic|||All the continuous variables were compared using the Mann-Whitney U test and dichotomous categorical variables was used and the Pearson chi-square with Fisher exact test. We used the linear mixed model to compare the differences of paired data, such as mean values of RR, SpO2, MAP, HR, and RSS at different time points of the two different sedation groups. For two-sided tests, p \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||50.94|2.41|0.002
90805639|NCT01825512|181492364|NON_INFERIORITY|Deferiprone was declared non inferior to Deferasirox if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportion of successful chelation in the two groups is above -12.5%.|Treatment success rate|-12.5|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|-12.5||||||||||-12.5|
90805640|NCT01825512|181492365|OTHER|GLM model|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.128|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.213|4.468|||ANCOVA|||||4.468|-0.213|0.074
90805641|NCT01825512|181492366|OTHER|GLM Analysis|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.633|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.741||0.717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.085|2.819|||ANCOVA|||||2.819|-4.085|0.717
90805642|NCT01825512|181492367|NON_INFERIORITY|Non inferiority of Deferiprone to Deferasirox is tested considering a non-inferiority margin of 400 ng/mL.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.601|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|164.734||0.997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-323.58|324.781|||GLM|||||324.781|-323.580|0.997
90805643|NCT02091362|181492368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|3.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.40|1.11|<.001
90805644|NCT02091362|181492369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.37|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.08|0.66|<0.01
90805645|NCT01032603|181492387|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|9.0||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|23.0|||Z test||Proportion of participants meeting criteria was obtained by Kaplan-Meier method. BLR group=46%, RR group=37%. Probability was compared b/w groups using Z test. A group difference and 95% CI were calculated. Positive differences favor the RR group.|||23|-6|0.24
90805646|NCT01032603|181492388|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|8.0||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|21.0|||Z test||Proportion of participants meeting criteria was obtained by Kaplan-Meier method. BLR group=34%, RR group=26%. Probability was compared b/w groups using Z test. A group difference and 95% CI were calculated. Positive differences favor the RR group.|||21|-6|0.25
91014358|NCT04753606|181911695|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-30.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.503|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.46|-21.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-21.62|-39.46|<.0001
90805647|NCT01032603|181492389|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-7.0||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|0.23|||Z test||Proportion of participants meeting criteria was obtained by Kaplan-Meier method. BLR group=3%, RR group=10%. Probability was compared b/w groups using Z test. A group difference and 95% CI were calculated. Positive differences favor the RR group.|||0.23|-14|0.06
90805648|NCT01032603|181492390|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|4.0||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|14.0|||Z test||Proportion of participants meeting criteria by 3 yrs was obtained by KM method. BLR group=14%, RR group=10%. Probability was compared b/w groups using Z test. A group difference and 95% CI were calculated. Positive differences favor the RR group.|||14|-5|0.36
90805649|NCT01032603|181492392|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||ANOVA|||3-year control outcomes were analyzed as continuous variables and compared between treatment groups using analysis of covariance (ANOVA) models that adjust for the corresponding baseline value (e.g. ANCOVA model of 3-year distance control will adjust for baseline distance control).||||0.44
90805650|NCT01032603|181492395|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||ANOVA|||3-year control outcomes were analyzed as continuous variables and compared between treatment groups using analysis of covariance (ANOVA) models that adjust for the corresponding baseline value (e.g. ANCOVA model of 3-year near control will adjust for baseline near control).||||0.64
90805651|NCT01032603|181492398|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||ANOVA|||3-year PACT outcomes were analyzed as continuous variables and compared between treatment groups using analysis of covariance (ANOVA) models that adjust for the corresponding baseline value.||||0.21
91014359|NCT04753606|181911695|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-36.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.488|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.92|-27.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-27.14|-44.92|<.0001
91014360|NCT04753606|181911696|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-30.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.503|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.46|-21.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-21.62|-39.46|<.0001
91014361|NCT04753606|181911696|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-36.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.488|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.92|-27.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-27.14|-44.92|<.0001
91054472|NCT04135196|181991035|OTHER|||||||0.289|||||||Regression, Linear|||The null hypothesis was that change in UD cBV was not proportional to strain rate. Raw change in cBV was analyzed as the dependent variable in a linear regression model with coefficients representing contrasts between the two experimental groups and the control group.|Overall model fit: R\^2=0.072, F=1.288, df1=2, df2=33, p=0.289 Contrast between the low strain rate group and the control group: B=0.014, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.018, Beta=0.154, t=0.814, p=0.422, 95% CI of B: \[-0.022, 0.051\] Contrast between the high strain rate group and the control group: B=0.029, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.018, Beta=0.304, t=1.604, p=0.118, 95% CI of B: \[-0.008, 0.066\]|||0.289
90805652|NCT01032603|181492401|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||ANOVA|||3-year PACT outcomes were analyzed as continuous variables and compared between treatment groups using analysis of covariance (ANOVA) models that adjust for the corresponding baseline value.||||0.38
90805653|NCT01032603|181492404|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93|||||||ANOVA|||3-year stereoacuity outcomes were analyzed as continuous variables and compared between treatment groups using analysis of covariance (ANOVA) models that adjust for the corresponding baseline value.||||0.93
90805654|NCT01032603|181492407|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||ANOVA|||3-year stereoacuity outcomes were analyzed as continuous variables and compared between treatment groups using analysis of covariance (ANOVA) models that adjust for the corresponding baseline value.||||0.82
90805655|NCT01032603|181492409|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3||||||Child 5 to 7 years old|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the each of the two age-specific versions of the child IXTQ, the proxy questionnaire, and for each of the three parent questionnaire subscales, mean Rasch-based HRQOL scores at 3 years were compared between treatment groups using the Wilcoxon rank sum test.||||0.30
90805656|NCT01032603|181492409|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77||||||Child 8 to 13 years old|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the each of the two age-specific versions of the child IXTQ, the proxy questionnaire, and for each of the three parent questionnaire subscales, mean Rasch-based HRQOL scores9, 10 at 3 years were compared between treatment groups using the Wilcoxon rank sum test.||||0.77
90805657|NCT01032603|181492409|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51||||||Parent Proxy IXTQ|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the each of the two age-specific versions of the child IXTQ, the proxy questionnaire, and for each of the three parent questionnaire subscales, mean Rasch-based HRQOL scores9, 10 at 3 years were compared between treatment groups using the Wilcoxon rank sum test.||||0.51
91014362|NCT04753606|181911697|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-30.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.503|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.46|-21.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-21.62|-39.46|<.0001
91014363|NCT04753606|181911697|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-36.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.488|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.92|-27.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-27.14|-44.92|<.0001
91077800|NCT02913105|182041131|OTHER|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.238||0.8398|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.444|0.347|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 84||0.347|-0.444|0.8398
90805658|NCT01032603|181492409|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42||||||Parent Psychosocial|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the each of the two age-specific versions of the child IXTQ, the proxy questionnaire, and for each of the three parent questionnaire subscales, mean Rasch-based HRQOL scores9, 10 at 3 years were compared between treatment groups using the Wilcoxon rank sum test.||||0.42
91014364|NCT04753606|181911698|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|129.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.337|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|110.78|147.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||147.77|110.78|<.0001
91014365|NCT04753606|181911698|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|164.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.306|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|145.9|182.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||182.76|145.90|<.0001
91014366|NCT04753606|181911699|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|129.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.337|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|110.78|147.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||147.77|110.78|<.0001
90805659|NCT01032603|181492409|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68||||||Parent Function|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the each of the two age-specific versions of the child IXTQ, the proxy questionnaire, and for each of the three parent questionnaire subscales, mean Rasch-based HRQOL scores9, 10 at 3 years were compared between treatment groups using the Wilcoxon rank sum test.||||0.68
90805660|NCT01032603|181492409|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64||||||Parent Surgical|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the each of the two age-specific versions of the child IXTQ, the proxy questionnaire, and for each of the three parent questionnaire subscales, mean Rasch-based HRQOL scores9, 10 at 3 years were compared between treatment groups using the Wilcoxon rank sum test.||||0.64
90805661|NCT01032603|181492410|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|13.0||||||"The cumulative proportion of participants with re-operation by 3 years was obtained using the Kaplan-Meier (K-M) method.~A treatment-group difference and a corresponding 95% confidence interval were calculated.~Treatment-group differences were calculated as BLR minus RR."||13|-2|
90805662|NCT01032603|181492411|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.0|-0.0003||||||All treatment-group differences were calculated as the BLRc group minus the R\&R group. A treatment-group difference and a corresponding 95% confidence interval were calculated.||-.0003|-30|
90805663|NCT01032603|181492412|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|25.0||||||The proportion of participants with suboptimal surgical outcome at 3 years was compared between treatment groups using Barnard's exact test, and an exact 95% CI on the treatment-group difference was calculated using Farrington-Manning scores.||25|-1|
90805664|NCT01813058|181492422|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|195.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
90805665|NCT00923351|181492451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.043|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.043
90805666|NCT00940290|181492454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||After reading the clinical practice guideline, the median response from the four groups were compared using the Kruskal-Wallis statistic||||0.007
90805667|NCT00066703|181492489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.717||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.602|0.855|||Log Rank||T+OFS is the reference group in the estimation of the hazard ratio.|||0.855|0.602|.0002
90805668|NCT00066703|181492490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.664|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.548|0.804|||Log Rank||T+OFS is the reference group for the estimation of the hazard ratio.|||.804|.548|<.0001
90805669|NCT00066703|181492491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.777||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.624|0.967|||Log Rank||T+OFS was the reference group in the estimation of the hazard ratio|||0.967|0.624|0.02
90805670|NCT00066703|181492492|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.22|||Log Rank||T+OFS was the reference group in the estimation of the hazard ratio|||1.22|0.79|0.84
90805671|NCT00734604|181492493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.19||p-value is for difference in LS Means change from baseline between tadalafil OaD and Sildenafil PRN.|t-test|Kenward-Roger approximation was used for denominator degrees of freedom in the mixed model.||||0.19|0.04|0.001
91014367|NCT04753606|181911699|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|164.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.306|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|145.9|182.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||182.76|145.90|<.0001
90805672|NCT00734604|181492494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.08||p-value is for difference in Pairs Sexual Self-Confidence Domain Score LS Mean and Change from Baseline between Tadalafil OaD and Tadalafil PRN Population|t-test|Kenward-Roger approximation was used for denominator degrees of freedom in the mixed model.|LS Mean difference = Tadalafil OaD-Tadalafil PRN|||0.08|-0.06|0.872
91014368|NCT04753606|181911700|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|129.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.337|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|110.78|147.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||147.77|110.78|<.0001
91014369|NCT04753606|181911700|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|164.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.306|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|145.9|182.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||182.76|145.90|<.0001
90805673|NCT00734604|181492495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.2||p-value is for difference between Tadalafil OaD and Sildenafil PRN change from baseline in LS Mean.|t-test|Kenward-Roger approximation was used for denominator degrees of freedom in the mixed model.||||0.20|0.10|<0.001
90805674|NCT00734604|181492495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.07||p-value is for difference between Tadalafil OaD and Tadalafil PRN in change from baseline in LS Mean.|t-test|Kenward-Roger approximation was used for denominator degrees of freedom in the mixed model.||||0.07|-0.03|0.395
90805675|NCT00734604|181492496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.25||p-value is for the difference between Tadalafil OaD and Sildenafil PRN in Change from Baseline in LS Mean.|t-test|Kenward-Roger approximation was used for denominator degrees of freedom in the mixed model.||||-0.25|-0.36|<0.001
90805676|NCT00734604|181492496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|-0.08||p-value is for the difference between Tadalafil OaD and Tadalafil PRN in Change from Baseline in LS Mean.|t-test|Kenward-Roger approximation was used for denominator degrees of freedom in the mixed model.||||-0.08|-0.20|<0.001
90805677|NCT00734604|181492497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|-0.27||p-value is for the difference between Tadalafil OaD and Sildenafil PRN Change from Baseline in LS Means.|t-test|Kenward-Roger approximation was used for denominator degrees of freedom in the mixed model.||||-0.27|-1.43|0.004
91014370|NCT00489411|181911701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|0.73||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.2|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.20|0.26|0.003
91014371|NCT00489411|181911702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|7.88||||||||7.88|0.93|
91014372|NCT00489411|181911703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|1.58||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|3.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||3.00|0.15|0.03
91054473|NCT04135196|181991036|OTHER|||||||0.096|||||||Regression, Linear|||The null hypothesis was that change in UD ecBV was not proportional to strain magnitude. Raw change in ecBV was analyzed as the dependent variable in a linear regression model with coefficients representing contrasts between the two experimental groups and the control group.|"Overall model fit: R\^2=0.111, F=2.491, df1=2, df2=40, p=0.096~Contrast between the low strain magnitude group and the control group: B=0.026, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.012, Beta=0.391, t=2.222, p=0.032, 95% CI of B: \[0.032, 0.049\]~Contrast between the high strain magnitude group and the control group: B=0.015, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.011, Beta=0.240, t=1.362, p=0.181, 95% CI of B: \[-0.007, 0.037\]"|||0.096
91054474|NCT04135196|181991036|OTHER|||||||0.344|||||||Regression, Linear|||The null hypothesis was that change in UD ecBV was not proportional to strain rate. Raw change in ecBV was analyzed as the dependent variable in a linear regression model with coefficients representing contrasts between the two experimental groups and the control group.|"Overall model fit: R\^2=0.063, F=1.103, df1=2, df2=33, p=0.344~Contrast between the low strain rate group and the control group: B=0.014, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.015, Beta=0.113, t=0.595, p=0.556, 95% CI of B: \[-0.036, 0.065\]~Contrast between the high strain rate group and the control group: B=0.038, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.025, Beta=0.283, t=1.481, p=0.148, 95% CI of B: \[-0.014, 0.089\]"|||0.344
91054475|NCT04135196|181991037|OTHER|||||||0.332|||||||Regression, Linear|||The null hypothesis was that change in UD tBV was not proportional to strain magnitude. Raw change in tBV was analyzed as the dependent variable in a linear regression model with coefficients representing contrasts between the two experimental groups and the control group.|"Overall model fit: R\^2=0.054, F=1.132, df1=2, df2=40, p=0.332~Contrast between the low strain magnitude group and the control group: B=0.016, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.011, Beta=0.271, t=1.493, p=0.143, 95% CI of B: \[-0.006, 0.039\]~Contrast between the high strain magnitude group and the control group: B=0.007, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.010, Beta=0.115, t=635, p=0.529, 95% CI of B: \[-0.014, 0.028\]"|||0.332
91054476|NCT04135196|181991037|OTHER|||||||0.399|||||||Regression, Linear|||The null hypothesis was that change in UD tBV was not proportional to strain rate. Raw change in tBV was analyzed as the dependent variable in a linear regression model with coefficients representing contrasts between the two experimental groups and the control group.|"Overall model fit: R\^2=0.054, F=0.946, df1=2, df2=33, p=0.399~Contrast between the low strain rate group and the control group: B=0.008, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.012, Beta=0.119, t=0.619, p=0.540, 95% CI of B: \[-0.017, 0.032\]~Contrast between the high strain rate group and the control group: B=0.017, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.012, Beta=0.264, t=1.375, p=0.178, 95% CI of B: \[-0.008, 0.042\]"|||0.399
91054477|NCT04135196|181991038|OTHER|||||||||||||||||The null hypothesis was that change in cortical thickness was not proportional to strain magnitude. At each time point, raw change relative to baseline was analyzed as the dependent variable in a linear regression model with coefficients representing contrasts between the two experimental groups and the control group.|"At each time point, the overall fit of the linear regression model was assessed with an F-test of overall significance. Additionally, the significance of each coefficient representing contrasts between each experimental group and the control group was assessed using t-tests.~There were no significant relationships found between change in cortical thickness and strain magnitude group at any time point (p\>0.05)."|||
90805678|NCT00734604|181492497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|-0.22||p-value is for the difference between Tadalafil OaD and Tadalafil PRN Change from Baseline in LS Means.|t-test|Kenward-Roger approximation was used for denominator degrees of freedom in the mixed model.||||-0.22|-1.37|0.007
90805679|NCT00734604|181492498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.09||p-value is for difference between Tadalafil OaD and Tadalafil PRN Change from Baseline in LS Means.|t-test|Kenward-Roger approximation was used for denominator degrees of freedom in the mixed model.||||0.09|0.03|<0.001
90805680|NCT00734604|181492498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.12||p-value is for difference between Tadalafil OaD and Sildenafil PRN Change from Baseline in LS Means.|t-test|Kenward-Roger approximation was used for denominator degrees of freedom in the mixed model.||||0.12|0.06|<0.001
90805681|NCT00734604|181492499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.36||p-value is for difference between Tadalafil OaD and Sildenafil PRN Change from Baseline in LS Means.|t-test|Kenward-Roger approximation was used for denominator degrees of freedom in the mixed model.||||-0.36|-0.91|<0.001
90805682|NCT00734604|181492499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.23||p-value is for difference between Tadalafil OaD and Tadalafil PRN Change from Baseline in LS Means.|t-test|||||-0.23|-0.78|<0.001
90805683|NCT00734604|181492500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.0||p-value is for the difference between Tadalafil OaD and Sildenafil PRN Change from Baseline in LS Means.|t-test|Kenward-Roger approximation was used for denominator degrees of freedom in the mixed model.||||0.00|-0.44|0.055
90805684|NCT00734604|181492500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.0||p-value is for the difference between Tadalafil OaD and Tadalafil PRN Change from Baseline in LS Means.|t-test|Kenward-Roger approximation was used for denominator degrees of freedom in the mixed model.||||0.00|-0.44|0.046
90805685|NCT00734604|181492501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.27||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|6.17||p-value is for the difference between Tadalafil PRN and Sildenafil PRN change in LS Means.|t-test|Kenward-Roger approximation was used for denominator degrees of freedom in the mixed model.||||6.17|1.16|0.004
90805686|NCT00734604|181492501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.27||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.05|-1.04||p-value is for the difference between Tadalafil OaD and Tadalafil PRN change in LS Means.|t-test|Kenward-Roger approximation was used for denominator degrees of freedom in the mixed model.||||-1.04|-6.05|0.006
90805687|NCT00734604|181492503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|2.17||p-value is for the difference between Tadalafil OaD and Sildenafil PRN Change from Baseline in LS Means.|t-test|Kenward-Roger approximation was used for denominator degrees of freedom in the mixed model.||||2.17|-1.95|0.915
90805688|NCT00734604|181492503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.35|0.74||p-value is for the difference between Tadalafil OaD and Tadalafil PRN Change from Baseline in LS Means.|t-test|Kenward-Roger approximation was used for denominator degrees of freedom in the mixed model.||||0.74|-3.35|0.212
90805689|NCT00734604|181492504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.22||p-value is for the difference between Tadalafil OaD and Sildenafil PRN in LS Means.|Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||||0.22|-0.09|0.403
90805690|NCT00734604|181492504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.23||p-value is for the difference between Tadalafil OaD and Tadalafil PRN in LS Means.|Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||||0.23|-0.08|0.367
90805691|NCT00734604|181492505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.32||p-value is for the difference between Tadalafil OaD and Sildenafil PRN in LS Means.|Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||||0.32|0.07|0.002
91014373|NCT00489411|181911704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.65||||||||1.65|0.36|
91014374|NCT03841331|181911723|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-1.4||||0.5861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|11.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% Wald confidence intervals for the treatment difference was used|At Week 10||11.1|-13.9|0.5861
91014375|NCT03841331|181911724|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-0.7||||0.5651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|8.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% Wald confidence intervals for the treatment difference was used.|At Week 2||8.7|-10.1|0.5651
91014376|NCT03841331|181911724|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-4.1||||0.7769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|6.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At Week 4|95% Wald confidence intervals for the treatment difference was used.|6.7|-14.8|0.7769
90805692|NCT00734604|181492505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.1||p-value is for the difference between Tadalafil OaD and Tadalafil PRN in LS Means.|Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||||0.10|-0.15|0.722
91014377|NCT03841331|181911724|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|2.8||||0.3285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|14.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% Wald confidence intervals for the treatment difference was used.|At Week 6||14.8|-9.1|0.3285
91014378|NCT03841331|181911724|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-2.3||||0.6525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|9.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% Wald confidence intervals for the treatment difference was used.|At Week 8||9.8|-14.4|0.6525
91014379|NCT03841331|181911725|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|0.0||||0.4952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|5.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% Wald confidence intervals for the treatment difference was used.|At Week 2||5.7|-5.6|0.4952
91014380|NCT03841331|181911725|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|5.2||||0.0891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|12.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% Wald confidence intervals for the treatment difference was used.|At Week 4||12.7|-2.3|0.0891
91014381|NCT03841331|181911725|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|-4.2||||0.8447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|3.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% Wald confidence intervals for the treatment difference was used.|At Week 6||3.7|-12.1|0.8447
90805693|NCT00734604|181492506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.37||p-value is for the difference between Tadalafil OaD and Sildenafil PRN in LS Means.|Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||||-0.37|-0.65|<0.001
90805694|NCT00734604|181492506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.16||p-value is for the difference between Tadalafil OaD and Tadalafil PRN in LS Means.|Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||||-0.16|-0.43|<0.001
90805695|NCT00734604|181492507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.22||p-value is for the difference between Tadalafil OaD and Sildenafil PRN in LS Means.|Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||||0.22|-0.01|0.070
90805696|NCT00734604|181492507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.09||p-value is for the difference between Tadalafil OaD and Tadalafil PRN in LS Means.|Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||||0.09|-0.14|0.637
90890326|NCT01581281|181645152|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.72||||0.3553|TWO_SIDED|98.3|-2.59|1.15||Each comparison was tested using a Bonferroni corrected significance level of 0.017 (0.05/3).|Regression, Linear|||Another major secondary objective was to determine if the change in absolute headache days from baseline to week 24 differed between treatment groups. This objective was assessed using linear regression models, with three pairwise comparisons between treatment groups (Amitriptyline vs. Placebo, Topiramate vs. Placebo, and Amitriptyline vs. Topiramate). The models, and corresponding odds ratios, were adjusted for the two stratification variables (age and baseline number of headache days).||1.15|-2.59|0.3553
91014382|NCT03841331|181911725|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|1.0||||0.4174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|9.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% Wald confidence intervals for the treatment difference was used.|At Week 8||9.4|-7.5|0.4174
91014383|NCT03841331|181911725|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|2.7||||0.2756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|11.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% Wald confidence intervals for the treatment difference was used.|At Week 10||11.2|-5.8|0.2756
91014384|NCT03841331|181911726|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.4409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.57|||ANOVA|||At Week 2||0.57|-0.49|0.4409
91014385|NCT03841331|181911726|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.5496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.57||At week 4|ANOVA|||At Week 4||0.57|-0.65|0.5496
91014386|NCT03841331|181911726|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11||||0.6311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.55|||ANOVA|||At Week 6||0.55|-0.78|0.6311
91014387|NCT03841331|181911726|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4738||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.69|||ANOVA|||At Week 8||0.69|-0.65|0.02
91014388|NCT03841331|181911726|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.3948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.78|||ANOVA|||At Week 10||0.78|-0.60|0.3948
91014389|NCT03841331|181911728|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.44||||0.244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.98|9.87|||ANOVA|||At Week 2||9.87|-4.98|0.2440
91014390|NCT03841331|181911728|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.27||||0.6349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|6.65|||ANOVA|||At Week 4||6.65|-9.20|0.6349
91014391|NCT03841331|181911728|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3407||||1.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|10.23|||ANOVA|||At Week 6||10.23|-6.40|1.91
90805697|NCT02222909|181492509|OTHER|The significance of the difference-in-differences statistic was assessed using randomization inference, a non-parametric permutation test. Confidence intervals were determined by inversion of the test statistic.|Difference in differences|0.0182||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.11||We calculated the proportion of permuted statistics with values higher in magnitude than that of the observed adjusted difference in differences (the p-value). We inverted the test statistic to determine confidence intervals.|Randomization inference||The estimation parameter is the difference between the average adjusted change in the monthly ED visits and hospital days from the pre- to post- intervention periods for the patients assigned to the iCBOs as compared to the cCBOs.|The difference between the average sum of the number of days spent in the hospital and ED visits in the past month, pre- and post-intervention, adjusted for pre- intervention variables, was calculated for each patients. The average change scores among patients assigned to each CBO defined the CBO-level outcomes. We calculated a weighted average of the CBO outcomes separately for the iCBOs and cCBOs, defining the difference-in-differences statistic as the difference between the two averages.||0.11|-0.12|0.63
90805698|NCT00117715|181492511|OTHER|||||||0.035||||||Post-hoc analysis performed using Tukey's Honestly Significant Difference test.|ANOVA|||Univariate analysis (ANOVA) of the change in log(DM/DX) over time||||0.035
90805699|NCT00117715|181492512|OTHER|||||||0.194||||||Post-hoc analysis performed using Tukey's Honestly Significant Difference test.|ANOVA|||Univariate analysis (ANOVA) of the change in log(3HM/DX) over time||||0.194
90805700|NCT00117715|181492513|OTHER|||||||0.831||||||Post-hoc analysis performed using Tukey's Honestly Significant Difference test.|ANOVA|||Univariate analysis (ANOVA) of the change in log ((AAMU+1MX+1MU)/1,7,U) over time||||0.831
90805701|NCT01460875|181492532|NON_INFERIORITY|The method to be developed will allow us to declare that a response at a lower dose is not inferior to that at the standard dose for a particular patient, using a patient specific inferiority test.||||||0.22|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.22
90805702|NCT00394251|181492582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.641|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of percentage of participants with at least one taxane-emergent toxicity||||0.641
90805703|NCT00394251|181492588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.323||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of percentage of participants with at least one taxane-emergent toxicity||||0.323
90805704|NCT01696994|181492622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.04|||Poisson regression|Two-sided. Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A-priori threshold for significance 0.05.||||1.04|0.95|
90805705|NCT01696994|181492624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.48|||Poisson regression|||||1.48|0.99|
90805706|NCT01696994|181492634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.54||Two-sided. Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A-priori threshold for significance 0.05.|Poisson regression|||||1.54|.91|
90805707|NCT04644276|181492639|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-37.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|102.0||0.8125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-112.6|140.7|||Wilcoxon Signed-Ranks test||Unit is percent change.|Percent change in leak 100% x (\[Mask with mask adhesive\] - \[Mask without mask adhesive\])/ \[Mask without mask adhesive\]. The comparison between the two arms is captured in the reported percentage change.||140.7|-112.6|0.8125
90805708|NCT01667224|181492664|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Data are present as the mean±S.E. to detect a 0.3kg(S.D.=0.6kg) difference in body weight between groups with 80% power and a two-tailed α-value of 0.05.|||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Data are present as the mean±S.E. to detect a 0.3kg(S.D.=0.6kg) difference in body weight between groups with 80% power and a two-tailed α-value of 0.05.||||<0.05
90805709|NCT01667224|181492665|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Data are present as the mean±S.D. to detect a 0.3kg(S.E.=0.6kg) difference in body weight between groups with 80% power and a two-tailed α-value of 0.05.|||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Data are present as the mean±S.D. to detect a 0.3kg(S.E.=0.6kg) difference in body weight between groups with 80% power and a two-tailed α-value of 0.05.||||<0.05
90805710|NCT01667224|181492666|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Data are present as the mean±S.D. to detect a 0.3kg(S.E.=0.6kg) difference in body weight between groups with 80% power and a two-tailed α-value of 0.05.|||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Data are present as the mean±S.D. to detect a 0.3kg(S.E.=0.6kg) difference in body weight between groups with 80% power and a two-tailed α-value of 0.05.||||<0.05
90805711|NCT01667224|181492667|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Data are present as the mean±S.E. to detect a 0.3kg(S.D.=0.60kg) difference in body weight between groups with 80% power and a two-tailed α-value of 0.05.|||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Data are present as the mean±S.E. to detect a 0.3kg(S.D.=0.60kg) difference in body weight between groups with 80% power and a two-tailed α-value of 0.05.||||<0.05
90805712|NCT01814878|181492674|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Study drug treatment group was considered non-inferior to comparator treatment group, if lower limit of the confidence interval was larger than -2.0|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.68||||0.1648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.29|1.93||Hour 48: P-value was calculated using Student's t-test|Student's t-test|||Non-inferiority comparison for Tramadol Hydrochloride/Acetaminophen ER to Tramadol HCl/Acetaminophen IR was performed.||1.93|-11.29|0.1648
90805713|NCT01814878|181492675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32||||0.4082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.45||Hour 6: P-value was calculated using Student's t-test|Student's t-test|||||0.45|-1.10|0.4082
91014392|NCT03841331|181911728|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23||||0.496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.52|8.97|||ANOVA|||At Week 10||8.97|-8.52|0.4960
91014393|NCT02067728|181911738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0029
91014394|NCT02067728|181911739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3875|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3875
91014395|NCT02067728|181911740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.42|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91014396|NCT02067728|181911741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
91014397|NCT02067728|181911742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.000
91014398|NCT02067728|181911743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|3.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|4.9|||Chi-squared|||||4.9|2.2|<0.0001
91014399|NCT02067728|181911744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|4.5|||Chi-squared|||||4.5|2.0|<0.0001
91014400|NCT02067728|181911747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4835|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4835
91014401|NCT02067728|181911748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.588|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5880
90805714|NCT01814878|181492675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.68|0.48||Hour 12: P-value was calculated using Student's t-test|Student's t-test|||||0.48|-2.68|0.1720
90805715|NCT01814878|181492675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.99||||0.0589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.09|0.11||Hour 24: P-value was calculated using Student's t-test|Student's t-test|||||0.11|-6.09|0.0589
90805716|NCT01814878|181492676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1542||||||Hour 6: P-value was calculated using Student's t-test|Student's t-test|||||||0.1542
90805717|NCT01814878|181492676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0714||||||Hour 12: P-value was calculated using Student's t-test|Student's t-test|||||||0.0714
90805718|NCT01814878|181492676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1147||||||Hour 24: P-value was calculated using Student's t-test|Student's t-test|||||||0.1147
90805719|NCT01814878|181492676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2209||||||Hour 48: P-value was calculated using Student's t-test|Student's t-test|||||||0.2209
90805720|NCT01814878|181492677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1498||||||Hour 6: P-value was calculated using Student's t-test|Student's t-test|||||||0.1498
90805721|NCT01814878|181492677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0485||||||Hour 12: P-value was calculated using Student's t-test|Student's t-test|||||||0.0485
90805722|NCT01814878|181492677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0404||||||Hour 24: P-value was calculated using Student's t-test|Student's t-test|||||||0.0404
90805723|NCT01814878|181492677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.121||||||Hour 48: P-value was calculated using Student's t-test|Student's t-test|||||||0.1210
90805724|NCT01814878|181492678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4216||||||P-value was calculated using Mann-Whitney's U test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4216
91014402|NCT01828164|181911795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Change|29.0||||0.0164|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided||Percent change in tooth movement rate on the treatment side as compared to the control side.|||||0.0164
91014403|NCT01828164|181911796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent change|220.8||||0.0423|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided||Percent change in root resorption rate on the control side as compared to the treatment side.|||||0.0423
91014404|NCT01828164|181911797|NON_INFERIORITY|1 point on the 10-point pain scale was used as the non-inferiority margin.|||||<|0.001|||||||Bootstrapped mean difference|This test bootstrapped the mean difference (Treatment Arm - Control Arm) less 1, the non-inferiority margin, 1000 times.||||||<0.001
91014405|NCT03557775|181911798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.041||||||Result for time by group interaction (threshold for statistical significance set at 0.05).|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: there will be no significant time by group interaction effect for this variable.||||0.041
91014406|NCT03557775|181911799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.887||||||Result for time by group interaction. Statistical threshold set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: there will be no significant time by group interaction effect for this variable.||||0.887
90805725|NCT01814878|181492679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1||||||P-value was calculated using Mann-Whitney's U test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1000
90805726|NCT01814878|181492680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3255||||||P-value was calculated using Mann-Whitney's U test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3255
90805727|NCT01814878|181492681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2848||||||Day 3: P-value was calculated using student's t-test|Student's t-test|||||||0.2848
90805728|NCT01843673|181492689|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Statistical significance testing at 5% level of significance, p-value being larger than 0.05 . The p-values for pairwise comparison.||||||1||||||Statistical significance testing at 5% level of significance, p-value being larger than 0.05. The p-values for pairwise comparison lateral and vertical, for OBI and CBCT was 1.00.|t-test, 2 sided|||Pairwise comparison for each direction between each pair of technologies were done using a t test to check if the difference in the recommended shift is more than 2 mm. Clinical significance is based on a 2 mm difference. Statistical significance is determined based on 5% level of significance.||||1.00
90805729|NCT01843673|181492689|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Statistical significance testing at 5% level of significance, p-value being larger than 0.05. Those are the p-values for pairwise comparison.||||||1||||||Statistical significance testing at 5% level of significance, p-value being larger than 0.05. The p-values for pairwise comparison lateral and vertical, for OBI and ExacTrac was 1.00.|t-test, 2 sided|||Pairwise comparison for each direction between each pair of technologies were done using a t test to check if the difference in the recommended shift is more than 2 mm. Clinical significance is based on a 2 mm difference. Statistical significance is determined based on 5% level of significance.||||1.00
90805730|NCT00425698|181492692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: Erythopoietin significantly improves kidney graft function. Power calculation: with a difference of at least 4 mL/min in mean eGFR between groups the number of patients enrolled per group (at least 41) would allowed the detection of a significant difference between groups at a 5% level (p\<0.05)||||<0.05
90805731|NCT01988662|181492725|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"H0: There is no difference in the percent change in VEGF level after 3 months for patients with nAMD treated with ranibizumab compared to aflibercept.~HA: There is a difference in the percent change in VEGF level after 3 months for patients with nAMD treated with ranibizumab compared to aflibercept."|Mean Difference (Net)|62.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|24.639||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.96|111.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||H0: μR = μA versus HA: μR ≠ μA||111.17|13.96|0.012
90805732|NCT03928418|181492781|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|4.9||p-value comparing live call booster to SOC arm: p \< 0.001 (calculated)|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model; random effects for participants; fixed effects for sex, baseline # of drinking days, visit, arm, interaction btwn visit and arm|SOC arm minus live call booster arm reported here.|||4.9|2.1|<0.001
91014407|NCT03557775|181911800|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.733||||||Result for time by group interaction effect. Threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: there will be no significant time by group interaction effect for this variable.||||0.733
91014408|NCT03557775|181911801|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.702||||||Result for time by group interaction effect. Threshold for statistical significance set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: there will be no significant time by group interaction effect for this variable.||||0.702
91014409|NCT03557775|181911802|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.198||||||Result for time by group interaction effect. Threshold for statistical significance set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: there will be no significant time by group interaction effect for this variable.||||0.198
90805733|NCT03928418|181492781|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|5.1||p-value comparing technology booster to SOC arm: p \< 0.001 (calculated)|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model; random effects for participants; fixed effects for sex, baseline # of drinking days, visit, arm, interaction btwn visit and arm|SOC arm minus technology booster arm reported here.|||5.1|2.2|<0.001
90805734|NCT03928418|181492782|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|36.4||||0.643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-117.5|190.3||p-value comparing live call booster arm to SOC arm: p = 0.643|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model; random effects for participants; fixed effects for sex, baseline PEth level, visit, arm, interaction btwn visit and arm|SOC arm minus live call booster arm reported here.|||190.3|-117.5|0.643
90805735|NCT03928418|181492782|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-30.9||||0.711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-194.8|132.9||p-value comparing technology booster arm to SOC arm: p = 0.711|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model; random effects for participants; fixed effects for sex, baseline PEth level, visit, arm, interaction btwn visit and arm|SOC arm minus technology booster arm reported here.|||132.9|-194.8|0.711
90805736|NCT03928418|181492783|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.3||||0.515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|4.7||p-value comparing live call booster arm to SOC: p = 0.515|Regression, Logistic||SOC minus live call booster arm presented here.|||4.7|-9.3|0.515
90805737|NCT03928418|181492783|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9||||0.801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|6.4||p-value comparing technology booster arm to SOC: p = 0.801|Regression, Logistic||SOC minus technology booster arm presented here.|||6.4|-8.3|0.801
90805738|NCT03928418|181492784|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|28.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.0|40.7||p-value comparing live call booster arm to SOC: p \< 0.001 (calculated)|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model; random effects for participants; fixed effects for sex, baseline alcohol use, visit, arm, interaction btwn visit and arm|SOC minus live call booster arm presented here.|||40.7|17.0|<0.001
90805739|NCT03928418|181492784|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|24.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.0|36.8||p-value comparing technology booster arm to SOC: p \< 0.001 (calculated)|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model; random effects for participants; fixed effects for sex, baseline alcohol use, visit, arm, interaction btwn visit and arm|SOC minus technology booster arm presented here.|||36.8|13.0|<0.001
90805740|NCT03928418|181492785|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.4||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|7.3||p-value comparing live call booster arm to SOC: p = 0.002|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model; random effects for participants; fixed effects for sex, baseline alcohol use, visit, arm, interaction btwn visit and arm|SOC arm minus live call booster arm presented here.|||7.3|1.6|0.002
90805741|NCT03928418|181492785|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.3||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|7.2||p-value comparing technology booster arm to SOC: p = 0.003|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model; random effects for participants; fixed effects for sex, baseline alcohol use, visit, arm, interaction btwn visit and arm|SOC arm minus technology booster arm presented here.|||7.2|1.5|0.003
90805742|NCT03928418|181492787|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|2.2||p-value comparing live call booster arm to SOC arm: p = 0.610.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model; random effects for participants; fixed effects for sex, baseline ART adherence, visit, arm, interaction btwn visit and arm|SOC minus live call booster arm presented here.|||2.2|-3.8|0.610
90805743|NCT03928418|181492787|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1||||0.474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|1.9||p-value comparing technology booster arm to SOC arm: p = 0.474.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model; random effects for participants; fixed effects for sex, baseline ART adherence, visit, arm, interaction btwn visit and arm|SOC minus technology booster arm presented here.|||1.9|-4.1|0.474
90805744|NCT02466425|181492832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-9.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.59|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|-6.8|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure||Between treatment groups|||-6.8|-13.0|<0.001
91014410|NCT03557775|181911803|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.388||||||Result for time by group interaction effect. Threshold for statistical significance set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: there will be no significant time by group interaction effect for this variable.||||0.388
91014411|NCT03557775|181911804|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.296||||||Result for time by group interaction effect. Threshold for statistical significance set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: there will be no significant time by group interaction effect for this variable.||||0.296
91014412|NCT03557775|181911805|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||Result for time by group interaction effect. Threshold for statistical significance set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: there will be no significant time by group interaction effect for this variable.||||0.040
91014413|NCT03557775|181911806|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.887||||||Result for time by group interaction effect. Threshold for statistical significance set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: there will be no significant time by group interaction effect for this variable.||||0.887
91014414|NCT03557775|181911807|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.663||||||Result for time by group interaction effect. Threshold for statistical significance was set 0.05.|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: there will be no significant time by group interaction effect for this variable.||||0.663
90805745|NCT05319899|181492842|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|140.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|118.94|166.26||||||Analysis was performed using analysis of variance (ANOVA).||166.26|118.94|
90805746|NCT05319899|181492842|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|77.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|65.67|91.8||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA.||91.80|65.67|
90805747|NCT05319899|181492843|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|128.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|112.99|145.52||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA.||145.52|112.99|
90805748|NCT05319899|181492843|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|95.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.54|108.88||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA.||108.88|84.54|
90805749|NCT03231917|181492847|OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.48
91014415|NCT03557775|181911808|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.026||||||Result for time by group interaction effect. Threshold for statistical significance set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: there will be no significant time by group interaction effect for this variable.||||0.026
91014416|NCT03557775|181911809|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.721||||||Result for time by group interaction effect. Threshold for statistical significance set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: there will be no significant time by group interaction effect for this variable.||||0.721
91014417|NCT03557775|181911810|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.408||||||Result for time by group interaction effect. Threshold for statistical significance set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: there will be no significant time by group interaction effect for this variable.||||0.408
90805750|NCT03587428|181492852|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3252||||0.1787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8101|0.1596|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA for treatment and period as fixed effects and subject as random effect and two baseline terms as covariates.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment; a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|||0.1596|-0.8101|0.1787
90805751|NCT03587428|181492852|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7037||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1886|-0.2187|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA for treatment and period as fixed effects and subject as random effect and two baseline terms as covariates.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment; a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|||-0.2187|-1.1886|0.0063
90805752|NCT00344318|181492881|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference \[Synflorix™ minus Prevenar™\] in terms of percentages of subjects reporting rectal fever \>39.0°C after Dose 1 was computed.|Difference in percentage|2.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|4.88||||||Analysis aimed to demonstrate that Synflorix™ vaccine administered as a 3-dose primary vaccination course (either at 6-10-14 weeks or at 2-4-6 months of age), is non-inferior to Prevenar™ in terms of the incidence of post-immunization rectal fever \>39.0°C, when co-administered with Tritanrix™-HepB/Hiberix™ and Polio Sabin™ or Poliorix™ vaccines.||4.88|-1.51|
90805753|NCT00344318|181492881|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Towards this, standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference \[Synflorix™ minus Prevenar™\] in terms of percentages of subjects reporting rectal fever \>39.0°C after Dose 2 was computed|Difference in percentage|-1.48||||||95.0|-6.05|1.92||||||Analysis aimed to demonstrate that Synflorix™ vaccine administered as a 3-dose primary vaccination course (either at 6-10-14 weeks or at 2-4-6 months of age), is non-inferior to Prevenar™ in terms of the incidence of post-immunization rectal fever \>39.0°C, when co-administered with Tritanrix™-HepB/Hiberix™ and Polio Sabin™ or Poliorix™ vaccines.||1.92|-6.05|
90805754|NCT00344318|181492881|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Towards this, standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference \[Synflorix™ minus Prevenar™\] in terms of percentages of subjects reporting rectal fever \>39.0°C after Dose 3 was computed.|Difference in percentage|3.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|6.19||||||Analysis aimed to demonstrate that Synflorix™ vaccine administered as a 3-dose primary vaccination course (either at 6-10-14 weeks or at 2-4-6 months of age), is non-inferior to Prevenar™ in terms of the incidence of post-immunization rectal fever \>39.0°C, when co-administered with Tritanrix™-HepB/Hiberix™ and Polio Sabin™ or Poliorix™ vaccines.||6.19|-1.02|
90805755|NCT00344318|181492881|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference \[Synflorix™ minus Prevenar™\] in terms of percentages of subjects reporting rectal fever \>39.0°C across doses was computed.|Difference in percentage|3.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.65|8.01||||||Analysis aimed to demonstrate that Synflorix™ vaccine administered as a 3-dose primary vaccination course (either at 6-10-14 weeks or at 2-4-6 months of age), is non-inferior to Prevenar™ in terms of the incidence of post-immunization rectal fever \>39.0°C, when co-administered with Tritanrix™-HepB/Hiberix™ and Polio Sabin™ or Poliorix™ vaccines.||8.01|-2.65|
90805756|NCT00182078|181492910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.4|=|0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.017
90805757|NCT00182078|181492911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90805758|NCT00182078|181492912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.4|=|0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.65
91078158|NCT03046056|182041813|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.9|0.7||||||Diff in LSM, and its 90% CI were from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline segmental MaRIA score, concomitant use of oral, systemically absorbed corticosteroids at baseline, concomitant use of immunomodulators at baseline, prior exposure to biologics, and treatment group.||0.7|-3.9|
90805759|NCT00361231|181492937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Kaplan-Meier|||||||<0.05
91014418|NCT03557775|181911811|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.638||||||Result for time by group interaction effect. Threshold for statistical significance set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: there will be no significant time by group interaction effect for this variable.||||0.638
90805760|NCT00361231|181492938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Kaplan-Meier|||||||0.05
90805761|NCT01732510|181492941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.82||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.87|-2.77|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||The reduction from baseline in EASI at week 12 for participants receiving MK-8226 3 mg/kg was compared to placebo (MK-8226 3 mg - Placebo). The constrained longitudinal data analysis model used variance component covariance matrix to model correlation among repeated visits, without adjustment for interaction of treatment group by visit.||-2.77|-16.87|0.015
91014419|NCT03557775|181911812|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.715||||||Result for time by group interaction effect. Threshold for statistical significance set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: there will be no significant time by group interaction effect for this variable.||||0.715
91014420|NCT03557775|181911813|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.708||||||Result for time by group interaction effect. Threshold for statistical significance set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: there will be no significant time by group interaction effect for this variable.||||0.708
90805762|NCT02487654|181492963|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.05
90805763|NCT00744380|181492966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8
90805764|NCT00744380|181492967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For open label midazolam||||0.25
90805765|NCT00744380|181492967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For all midazolam||||0.048
90805766|NCT00744380|181492967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For fentanyl||||0.88
90805767|NCT00744380|181492968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||For Riker scores||||0.75
90805768|NCT00744380|181492968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||Chi-squared|||For pain scores||||0.17
90805769|NCT00744380|181492969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.1|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||For hypotension||||>0.1
90805770|NCT00744380|181492969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.1|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||For bradycardia||||>0.1
90805771|NCT00744380|181492969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.1|||||||Fisher Exact|||For tachycardia||||>0.1
91014421|NCT03557775|181911814|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.988||||||Result for time by group interaction effect. Threshold for statistical significance set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: there will be no significant time by group interaction effect for this variable.||||0.988
90805772|NCT00744380|181492969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||Fisher Exact|||For delirium, new onset||||0.07
90805773|NCT00744380|181492970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Median number of experiences remembered||||0.015
90805774|NCT00744380|181492971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5
90805775|NCT00744380|181492972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.029
90805776|NCT00744380|181492973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||For anxiety||||>0.1
90805777|NCT00744380|181492973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||For depression||||>0.1
90805778|NCT02443116|181492974|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-8.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.37|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|96.0|-12.09|-5.59||p-values are adjusted using a stepdown-Bonferroni method to adjust for multiple testing.|t-test, 2 sided|||The absolute change in liver fat content from baseline to Week 12 was compared between treatment groups using an ANCOVA model with treatment group and diabetic status as cofactors and baseline endpoint and baseline alanine aminotransferase (ALT) as covariates.||-5.59|-12.09|<0.001
90805779|NCT02443116|181492974|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-11.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|96.0|-14.39|-7.74||p-values are adjusted using a stepdown-Bonferroni method to adjust for multiple testing.|t-test, 2 sided|||The absolute change in liver fat content from baseline to Week 12 was compared between treatment groups using an ANCOVA model with treatment group and diabetic status as cofactors and baseline endpoint and baseline alanine aminotransferase (ALT) as covariates.||-7.74|-14.39|<0.001
91014422|NCT00276458|181911818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7|<|0.001||95.0|-25.2|-14.5|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment and baseline LDL-C value|(Atorva + EZ minus Atorva)|||-14.5|-25.2|<0.001
91054478|NCT04135196|181991038|OTHER|||||||||||||||||The null hypothesis was that change in cortical thickness was not proportional to strain rate. At each time point, raw change relative to baseline was analyzed as the dependent variable in a linear regression model with coefficients representing contrasts between the two experimental groups and the control group.|"At each time point, the overall fit of the linear regression model was assessed with an F-test of overall significance. Additionally, the significance of each coefficient representing contrasts between each experimental group and the control group was assessed using t-tests.~At 3 months, there was a significant overall linear relationship between change in cortical thickness and strain rate group. Additionally, the coefficient representing the contrast between the control group and the high strain rate group was also significant. All other comparisons were not statistically significant (p\>0.05).~Stats for 3 months:~Overall model fit: R\^2=0.258, F=4.519, df1=2, df2=26, p=0.021~Contrast between the high strain rate group and the control group: B=0.036, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.012, Beta=0.574, t=2.967, p=0.006, 95% CI of B: \[0.011, 0.061\]"|||
90805780|NCT02443116|181492974|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-2.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38||0.112|TWO_SIDED|96.0|-5.11|0.67|||t-test, 2 sided|||The absolute change in liver fat content from baseline to Week 12 was compared between treatment groups using an ANCOVA model with treatment group and diabetic status as cofactors and baseline endpoint and baseline alanine aminotransferase (ALT) as covariates.||0.67|-5.11|0.112
90805781|NCT02443116|181492975|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-5.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.48|-2.99|||t-test, 2 sided|||The absolute change in liver fat content from baseline to Week 12 was compared between treatment groups using an ANCOVA model with treatment group and diabetic status as cofactors and baseline endpoint and baseline alanine aminotransferase (ALT) as covariates.||-2.99|-8.48|<0.0001
91014423|NCT00276458|181911819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.273||95.0|-1.9|6.6|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment and baseline HDL-C value|(Atorva + EZ minus Atorva)|||6.6|-1.9|0.273
90805782|NCT02443116|181492975|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.41|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.41|-3.79|||t-test, 2 sided|||The absolute change in liver fat content from baseline to Week 12 was compared between treatment groups using an ANCOVA model with treatment group and diabetic status as cofactors and baseline endpoint and baseline alanine aminotransferase (ALT) as covariates.||-3.79|-9.41|<0.0001
90805783|NCT02443116|181492975|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.43||0.5467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.71|1.98|||t-test, 2 sided|||The absolute change in liver fat content from baseline to Week 12 was compared between treatment groups using an ANCOVA model with treatment group and diabetic status as cofactors and baseline endpoint and baseline alanine aminotransferase (ALT) as covariates.||1.98|-3.71|0.5467
90805784|NCT02443116|181492975|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.33|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.55|-3.25|||t-test, 2 sided|||The absolute change in liver fat content from baseline to Week 12 was compared between treatment groups using an ANCOVA model with treatment group and diabetic status as cofactors and baseline endpoint and baseline alanine aminotransferase (ALT) as covariates.||-3.25|-8.55|<0.0001
90805785|NCT02443116|181492975|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.37||0.9037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.89|2.55|||t-test, 2 sided|||The absolute change in liver fat content from baseline to Week 12 was compared between treatment groups using an ANCOVA model with treatment group and diabetic status as cofactors and baseline endpoint and baseline alanine aminotransferase (ALT) as covariates.||2.55|-2.89|0.9037
90805786|NCT02443116|181492975|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38||0.6134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|3.45|||t-test, 2 sided|||The absolute change in liver fat content from baseline to Week 12 was compared between treatment groups using an ANCOVA model with treatment group and diabetic status as cofactors and baseline endpoint and baseline alanine aminotransferase (ALT) as covariates.||3.45|-2.05|0.6134
91014424|NCT00276458|181911820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4|<|0.001||95.0|-21.2|-11.7|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment and baseline non-HDL-C value|(Atorva + EZ minus Atorva)|||-11.7|-21.2|<0.001
91014425|NCT00276458|181911821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8|<|0.001||95.0|-15.8|-8.6|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment and baseline Total-C value|(Atorva + EZ minus Atorva)|||-8.6|-15.8|<0.001
90805787|NCT02443116|181492976|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-4.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.53||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.03|-1.91|||t-test, 2 sided|||The absolute change in liver fat content from baseline to Week 12 was compared between treatment groups using an ANCOVA model with treatment group and diabetic status as cofactors and baseline endpoint and baseline alanine aminotransferase (ALT) as covariates.||-1.91|-8.03|0.0018
90805788|NCT00349349|181492994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of responders|0.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.3|0.39|0.6||The p value is testing the hypothesis that the response rate is equal to 15% versus the response rate is not equal to 15%.|Two-sided exact binomial test||Two-sided 95.3% exact confidence intervals were calculated based on the binomial distribution.|||0.60|0.39|<0.0001
90805789|NCT00349349|181492994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of responders|0.43|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.3|0.33|0.53||The p value is testing the hypothesis that the response rate is equal to 15% versus the response rate is not equal to 15%.|Two-sided exact binomial test||Two sided 95.3% exact confidence intervals were calculated based on the binomial distribution.|||0.53|0.33|<0.0001
90805790|NCT00349349|181492994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of responders|0.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.3|0.35|0.85||The p value is testing the hypothesis that the response rate is equal to 15% versus the response rate is not equal to 15%.|Two-sided exact binomial test||Two-sided 95.3% exact confidence intervals were calculated based on the binomial distribution.|||0.85|0.35|<0.001
90805791|NCT03479541|181493049|OTHER|Linear mixed effect model containing fixed effects for group (earlier or later), time since injury, and group x time since injury interaction with random intercepts, covariates (age, gender, and Initial SCAT symptom severity total score), and inverse probability weights. Later Physical Therapy Group served as the reference.|Slope|-0.097||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.173|-0.02||a priori threshold p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||The slope estimate is the group difference (Early Physical Therapy Group - Later Physical Therapy Group) in change per day per day (the interaction effect of the mixed model analysis).|||-0.020|-0.173|0.013
90805792|NCT03479541|181493050|OTHER|Linear mixed effect model containing fixed effects for group (earlier or later), time since injury, and group x time since injury interaction with random intercepts, covariates (age, gender, and Initial SCAT symptom severity total score), and inverse probability weights. Later Physical Therapy Group served as the reference.|Slope|-0.073||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|-0.016||a priori threshold p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||The slope estimate is the group difference (Early Physical Therapy Group - Later Physical Therapy Group) in change per day per day (the interaction effect of the mixed model analysis).|||-0.016|-0.130|0.013
90805793|NCT03479541|181493051|OTHER|Linear mixed effect model containing fixed effects for group (earlier or later), time since injury, and group x time since injury interaction with random intercepts, covariates (age, gender, and Initial SCAT symptom severity total score), and inverse probability weights. Later Physical Therapy Group served as the reference.|Slope|0.098||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.024|0.173||a priori threshold p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||The slope estimate is the group difference (Early Physical Therapy Group - Later Physical Therapy Group) in change per day per day (the interaction effect of the mixed model analysis).|||0.173|0.024|0.010
90805794|NCT03479541|181493052|OTHER|||||||0.5158|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5158
90805795|NCT03479541|181493053|OTHER|Linear mixed effect model containing fixed effects for group (earlier or later), time since injury, and group x time since injury interaction with random intercepts, covariates (age, gender, and Initial SCAT symptom severity total score), and inverse probability weights. Later Physical Therapy Group served as the reference.|Slope|0.0404||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0648|0.146||a priori threshold p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||The slope estimate is the group difference (Early Physical Therapy Group - Later Physical Therapy Group) in change per day per day (the interaction effect of the mixed model analysis).|||0.146|-0.0648|0.450
90805796|NCT03479541|181493054|OTHER|Linear mixed effect model containing fixed effects for group (earlier or later), time point (pre-physical therapy and post-physical therapy), and group x time point injury interaction with random intercepts, covariates (age, gender, Initial SCAT symptom severity total score, and days since injury before physical therapy), and inverse probability weights. Later Physical Therapy Group and pre-physical therapy time point served as the reference. Values were log-transformed for model assumptions.|Slope|0.05353||||0.6039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1503|0.2574||a priori threshold p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||The slope estimate is the group difference (Early Physical Therapy Group - Later Physical Therapy Group) in change from pre-physical therapy to post-physical therapy time points (the interaction effect of the mixed model analysis).|Analysis for Horizontal DVA Lines Lost||0.2574|-0.1503|0.6039
90805797|NCT03479541|181493054|OTHER|Linear mixed effect model containing fixed effects for group (earlier or later), time point (pre-physical therapy and post-physical therapy), and group x time point injury interaction with random intercepts, covariates (age, gender, Initial SCAT symptom severity total score, and days since injury before physical therapy), and inverse probability weights. Later Physical Therapy Group and pre-physical therapy time point served as the references. Values were log-transformed for model assumptions.|Slope|-0.235||||0.0414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.461|-0.0093||a priori threshold p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||The slope estimate is the group difference (Early Physical Therapy Group - Later Physical Therapy Group) in change from pre-physical therapy to post-physical therapy time points (the interaction effect of the mixed model analysis).|Analysis for Vertical DVA Lines Lost||-0.0093|-0.461|0.0414
91014426|NCT00276458|181911822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-8.9||||0.159||95.0|-17.7|-0.4||ANCOVA using ranks based on normal scores (Tukey method) with model terms for treatment and baseline triglycerides value|Nonparametric ANCOVA|ANCOVA using ranks based on normal scores (Tukey method) with model terms for treatment and baseline triglycerides value.|"The median difference is based on the Hodges-Lehmann estimates of shift; The distribution-free 95% CI is based on Wilcoxon's rank sum test statistic.~(Atorva + EZ minus Atorva)"|||-0.4|-17.7|0.159
91014427|NCT00276458|181911823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1|<|0.001||95.0|-17.8|-9.6|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment and baseline Apo B value|(Atorva + EZ minus Atorva)|||-9.6|-17.8|<0.001
91014428|NCT00276458|181911824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.681||95.0|-3.9|2.6|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment and baseline Apo A-I value|(Atorva + EZ minus Atorva)|||2.6|-3.9|0.681
91014429|NCT00276458|181911825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2|<|0.001||95.0|-17.5|-8.7|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment and baseline Total-C:HDL-C value|(Atorva + EZ minus Atorva)|||-8.7|-17.5|<0.001
90805798|NCT03479541|181493055|OTHER|Linear mixed effect model containing fixed effects for group (earlier or later), time since injury, and group x time since injury interaction with random intercepts, covariates (age, gender, and Initial SCAT symptom severity total score), and inverse probability weights. Later Physical Therapy Group served as the reference.|Slope|-0.028||||0.387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.035||a priori threshold p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||The slope estimate is the group difference (Early Physical Therapy Group - Later Physical Therapy Group) in change per day per day (the interaction effect of the mixed model analysis).|||0.035|-0.090|0.387
90805799|NCT03479541|181493056|OTHER|Linear mixed effect model containing fixed effects for group (earlier or later), time since injury, and group x time since injury interaction with random intercepts, covariates (age, gender, and Initial SCAT symptom severity total score), and inverse probability weights. Later Physical Therapy Group served as the reference.|Slope|0.008||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.003|0.019||a priori threshold p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||The slope estimate is the group difference (Early Physical Therapy Group - Later Physical Therapy Group) in change per day per day (the interaction effect of the mixed model analysis).|||0.019|-0.003|0.135
90805800|NCT03479541|181493057|OTHER|Linear mixed effect model containing fixed effects for group (earlier or later), time since injury, and group x time since injury interaction with random intercepts, covariates (age, gender, and Initial SCAT symptom severity total score), and inverse probability weights. Later Physical Therapy Group served as the reference.|Slope|-0.0107||||0.406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.036|0.0146||a priori threshold p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||||The slope estimate is the group difference (Early Physical Therapy Group - Later Physical Therapy Group) in change per day per day (the interaction effect of the mixed model analysis).|0.0146|-0.0360|0.406
90805801|NCT03479541|181493058|OTHER|Linear mixed effect model containing fixed effects for group (earlier or later), time since injury, and group x time since injury interaction with random intercepts, covariates (age, gender, and Initial SCAT symptom severity total score), and inverse probability weights. Later Physical Therapy Group served as the reference.|Slope|0.00391||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00052|0.00835||a priori threshold p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||The slope estimate is the group difference (Early Physical Therapy Group - Later Physical Therapy Group) in change per day per day (the interaction effect of the mixed model analysis).|||0.00835|-0.00052|0.083
90805802|NCT03479541|181493059|OTHER|Linear mixed effect model containing fixed effects for group (earlier or later), time since injury, and group x time since injury interaction with random intercepts, covariates (age, gender, and Initial SCAT symptom severity total score), and inverse probability weights. Later Physical Therapy Group served as the reference.|Slope|-0.003||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.007|0.002||a priori threshold p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||The slope estimate is the group difference (Early Physical Therapy Group - Later Physical Therapy Group) in change per day per day (the interaction effect of the mixed model analysis).|Analysis for EcFi condition||0.002|-0.007|0.240
91014430|NCT00276458|181911826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8|<|0.001||95.0|-26.5|-15.3|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment and baseline LDL-C:HDL-C value|(Atorva + EZ minus Atorva)|||-15.3|-26.5|<0.001
91014431|NCT00276458|181911827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4|<|0.001||95.0|-17.9|-8.3|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment and baseline Apo B:Apo A-I value|(Atorva + EZ minus Atorva)|||-8.3|-17.9|<0.001
91014432|NCT00276458|181911828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0|<|0.001||95.0|-23.2|-11.4|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment and baseline non-HDL-C:HDL-C value|(Atorva + EZ minus Atorva)|||-11.4|-23.2|<0.001
91077801|NCT02913105|182041131|OTHER|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.073|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.266||0.7839|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.515|0.369|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 112 (EOS)||0.369|-0.515|0.7839
91078159|NCT03046056|182041813|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.2|1.2||||||Diff in LSM, and its 90% CI were from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline segmental MaRIA score, concomitant use of oral, systemically absorbed corticosteroids at baseline, concomitant use of immunomodulators at baseline, prior exposure to biologics, and treatment group.||1.2|-3.2|
90805803|NCT03479541|181493059|OTHER|Linear mixed effect model containing fixed effects for group (earlier or later), time since injury, and group x time since injury interaction with random intercepts, covariates (age, gender, and Initial SCAT symptom severity total score), and inverse probability weights. Later Physical Therapy Group served as the reference.|Slope|-0.005||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.009|-0.002||a priori threshold p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||The slope estimate is the group difference (Early Physical Therapy Group - Later Physical Therapy Group) in change per day per day (the interaction effect of the mixed model analysis).|Analysis for EcFo condition||-0.002|-0.009|0.003
90805804|NCT03479541|181493060|OTHER|Linear mixed effect model containing fixed effects for group (earlier or later), time since injury, and group x time since injury interaction with random intercepts, covariates (age, gender, and Initial SCAT symptom severity total score), and inverse probability weights. Later Physical Therapy Group served as the reference.|Slope|-0.0112||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0219|-0.0004||a priori threshold p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||The slope estimate is the group difference (Early Physical Therapy Group - Later Physical Therapy Group) in change per day per day (the interaction effect of the mixed model analysis).|Analysis for Single Task Average Lap Time||-0.0004|-0.0219|0.042
91014433|NCT00276458|181911829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5||||0.841||95.0|-23.8|28.8|||Longitudinal Data Analysis (LDA)|LDA method of Liang and Zeger with model terms: treatment, time, and the interaction of time by treatment|"Data for analysis was transformed by the natural log and the difference in geometric mean % change from BL calculated based on the difference in the back-transformed least squares means.~(Atorva + EZ minus Atorva)"|||28.8|-23.8|0.841
91014434|NCT00276458|181911830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.3||||0.839||95.0|-26.1|8.3|||Nonparametric ANCOVA|ANCOVA using ranks based on normal scores (Tukey method) with model terms for treatment and baseline CRP value|"The median difference is based on the Hodges-Lehmann estimates of shift; The distribution-free 95% CI is based on Wilcoxon's rank sum test statistic.~(Atorva + EZ minus Atorva)"|||8.3|-26.1|0.839
91014435|NCT00276458|181911831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.6|||<|0.001||95.0|3.8|19.47|||Regression, Logistic|Model terms: treatment and baseline LDL-C value|Estimated ratio is the predictive odds of attaining LDL-C target on Atorva + EZ versus Atorva.|||19.47|3.80|<0.001
91014436|NCT04259905|181911832|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91014437|NCT04259905|181911833|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91054479|NCT04135196|181991039|OTHER|||||||||||||||||The null hypothesis was that change in bone volume fraction (BV/TV) was not proportional to strain magnitude. At each time point, raw change relative to baseline was analyzed as the dependent variable in a linear regression model with coefficients representing contrasts between the two experimental groups and the control group.|"At each time point, the overall fit of the linear regression model was assessed with an F-test of overall significance. Additionally, the significance of each coefficient representing contrasts between each experimental group and the control group was assessed using t-tests.~At 9 months, there was a significant overall linear relationship between change in BV/TV and strain magnitude group. Additionally, the coefficient representing the contrast between the control group and the low strain magnitude group was also significant. All other comparisons were not statistically significant (p\>0.05).~Stats for 9 months:~Overall model fit: R\^2=0.240, F=5.057, df1=2, df2=32, p=0.012~Contrast between the low strain magnitude group and the control group: B=0.003, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.001, Beta=0.562, t=3.180, p=0.003, 95% CI of B: \[0.001, 0.006\]"|||
91054480|NCT04135196|181991039|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||The null hypothesis was that change in bone volume fraction (BV/TV) was not proportional to strain rate. At each time point, raw change relative to baseline was analyzed as the dependent variable in a linear regression model with coefficients representing contrasts between the two experimental groups and the control group.|At each time point, the overall fit of the linear regression model was assessed with an F-test of overall significance. Additionally, the significance of each coefficient representing contrasts between each experimental group and the control group was assessed using t-tests.|||>0.05
91054481|NCT00444457|181991050|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots were considered equivalent if the maximum difference between any 2 lots is less than 0.693 and greater than -0.693 using the equivalence testing procedure for 3 vaccine groups given by Wiens and Iglewicz, for all 13 serotypes.|difference in log-transformed GM|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.09|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 4||0.09|-0.11|
91054482|NCT00444457|181991050|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots were considered equivalent if the maximum difference between any 2 lots is less than 0.693 and greater than -0.693 using the equivalence testing procedure for 3 vaccine groups given by Wiens and Iglewicz, for all 13 serotypes.|Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.17|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 4||-0.17|-0.38|
91014438|NCT04259905|181911834|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91054483|NCT00444457|181991050|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots were considered equivalent if the maximum difference between any 2 lots is less than 0.693 and greater than -0.693 using the equivalence testing procedure for 3 vaccine groups given by Wiens and Iglewicz, for all 13 serotypes.|Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.16|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 4||-0.16|-0.37|
91054484|NCT00444457|181991050|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots were considered equivalent if the maximum difference between any 2 lots is less than 0.693 and greater than -0.693 using the equivalence testing procedure for 3 vaccine groups given by Wiens and Iglewicz, for all 13 serotypes.|Difference in log-transformed GM|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.46|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 6B||0.46|0.13|
91054485|NCT00444457|181991050|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots were considered equivalent if the maximum difference between any 2 lots is less than 0.693 and greater than -0.693 using the equivalence testing procedure for 3 vaccine groups given by Wiens and Iglewicz, for all 13 serotypes.|Difference in log-transformed GM|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.29|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 6B||0.29|-0.04|
91054486|NCT00444457|181991050|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots were considered equivalent if the maximum difference between any 2 lots is less than 0.693 and greater than -0.693 using the equivalence testing procedure for 3 vaccine groups given by Wiens and Iglewicz, for all 13 serotypes.|Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|-0.01|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 6B||-0.01|-0.33|
91014439|NCT00635362|181911886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.35|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.35
91014440|NCT00635362|181911887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.04
91014441|NCT00635362|181911888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|0.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
91014442|NCT00635362|181911889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|0.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.37
91014443|NCT00635362|181911890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1||0.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
91014444|NCT00620191|181911891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.92||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||The difference is the value for the metformin arm minus the value for the placebo arm.|||||0.05
91014445|NCT00620191|181911891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.36||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|adjusted for baseline ADAS-Cog value|The difference is the value for the metformin arm minus the value for the placebo arm.|||||0.05
91014446|NCT00620191|181911892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.98|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.01||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||The difference is the value for the metformin arm minus the value for the placebo arm.|||||0.06
90805805|NCT03479541|181493060|OTHER|Linear mixed effect model containing fixed effects for group (earlier or later), time since injury, and group x time since injury interaction with random intercepts, covariates (age, gender, and Initial SCAT symptom severity total score), and inverse probability weights. Later Physical Therapy Group served as the reference.|Slope|-0.0111||||0.0311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0211|-0.001||a priori threshold p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||The slope estimate is the group difference (Early Physical Therapy Group - Later Physical Therapy Group) in change per day per day (the interaction effect of the mixed model analysis).|Analysis for Auditory Stroop Average Lap Time||-0.0010|-0.0211|0.0311
90805806|NCT03479541|181493061|OTHER|Linear mixed effect model containing fixed effects for group (earlier or later), time since injury, and group x time since injury interaction with random intercepts, covariates (age, gender, and Initial SCAT symptom severity total score), and inverse probability weights. Later Physical Therapy Group served as the reference.|Slope|0.00029||||0.3226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0003|0.00087||a priori threshold p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||The slope estimate is the group difference (Early Physical Therapy Group - Later Physical Therapy Group) in change per day per day (the interaction effect of the mixed model analysis).|Analysis for Single Task Gait Speed||0.00087|-0.0003|0.3226
90805807|NCT03479541|181493061|OTHER|Linear mixed effect model containing fixed effects for group (earlier or later), time since injury, and group x time since injury interaction with random intercepts, covariates (age, gender, and Initial SCAT symptom severity total score), and inverse probability weights. Later Physical Therapy Group served as the reference.|Slope|0.00035||||0.2218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0002|0.0009||a priori threshold p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis for Auditory Stroop Gait Speed|The slope estimate is the group difference (Early Physical Therapy Group - Later Physical Therapy Group) in change per day per day (the interaction effect of the mixed model analysis).|0.00090|-0.0002|0.2218
90805808|NCT03479541|181493062|OTHER|Linear mixed effect model containing fixed effects for group (earlier or later), time since injury, and group x time since injury interaction with random intercepts, covariates (age, gender, and Initial SCAT symptom severity total score), and inverse probability weights. Later Physical Therapy Group served as the reference.|Slope|0.161||||0.0742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0159|0.338||a priori threshold p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||The slope estimate is the group difference (Early Physical Therapy Group - Later Physical Therapy Group) in change per day per day (the interaction effect of the mixed model analysis).|Analysis for Single Task 180 Degree Turn Velocity||0.338|-0.0159|0.0742
90805809|NCT03479541|181493062|OTHER|Linear mixed effect model containing fixed effects for group (earlier or later), time since injury, and group x time since injury interaction with random intercepts, covariates (age, gender, and Initial SCAT symptom severity total score), and inverse probability weights. Later Physical Therapy Group served as the reference.|Slope|0.217||||0.0121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.048|0.385||a priori threshold p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||The slope estimate is the group difference (Early Physical Therapy Group - Later Physical Therapy Group) in change per day per day (the interaction effect of the mixed model analysis).|Analysis for Auditory Stroop 180 Degree Turn Velocity||0.385|0.0480|0.0121
91014447|NCT00620191|181911892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.91||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|adjusted for baseline ADAS-Cog score.|The difference is the value for the metformin arm minus the value for the placebo arm.|||||0.34
91014448|NCT00620191|181911893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.14||0.36|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||The difference is the value for the metformin arm minus the value for the placebo arm.|||||0.36
91054487|NCT00444457|181991050|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots were considered equivalent if the maximum difference between any 2 lots is less than 0.693 and greater than -0.693 using the equivalence testing procedure for 3 vaccine groups given by Wiens and Iglewicz, for all 13 serotypes.|Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.04|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 9V||0.04|-0.16|
90805810|NCT03479541|181493063|OTHER|Linear mixed effect model containing fixed effects for group (earlier or later), time since injury, and group x time since injury interaction with random intercepts, covariates (age, gender, and Initial SCAT symptom severity total score), and inverse probability weights. Later Physical Therapy Group served as the reference.|Slope|0.00063||||0.8906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0084|0.00961||a priori threshold p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||The slope estimate is the group difference (Early Physical Therapy Group - Later Physical Therapy Group) in change per day per day (the interaction effect of the mixed model analysis).|Analysis for Single Task Percentage of Double Support Time of Gait Cycle||0.00961|-0.0084|0.8906
90805811|NCT03479541|181493063|OTHER|Linear mixed effect model containing fixed effects for group (earlier or later), time since injury, and group x time since injury interaction with random intercepts, covariates (age, gender, and Initial SCAT symptom severity total score), and inverse probability weights. Later Physical Therapy Group served as the reference.|Slope|-0.001||||0.8447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0107|0.00874||a priori threshold p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||The slope estimate is the group difference (Early Physical Therapy Group - Later Physical Therapy Group) in change per day per day (the interaction effect of the mixed model analysis).|Analysis for Auditory Stroop Percentage of Double Support Time of Gait Cycle||0.00874|-0.0107|0.8447
91014449|NCT00620191|181911894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.73||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||The difference is the value for the metformin arm minus the value for the placebo arm.|||||0.34
91014450|NCT00234533|181911908|OTHER|An one-way Analysis of Covariance (ANOVA) was used to calculate the between patient variation and within patient variation and then the ICC and its confidence limitations.|ICC|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|0.92|||||An ICC ≥ 0.8 was considered satisfactory and indicative that a single sample would be representative of the overall IGF-I status.|An Intra-class Correlation Coefficient (ICC) for the evening series (defined as 12:00 to 24:00) was determined for the overall ITT population to confirm whether only one measurement would be sufficient to accurately represent the IGF-I measurement over Weeks 21, 22 and 23. The ICC expresses the relative magnitude of the 2 components of the total variability, i.e. the biological variability and random error, in a series of measurements on different patients.||0.92|0.88|
91078160|NCT03046056|182041814|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.24|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.2|2.0||||||Diff in LSM, and its 90% CI were from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline segmental MaRIA score, concomitant use of oral, systemically absorbed corticosteroids at baseline, concomitant use of immunomodulators at baseline, prior exposure to biologics, and treatment group.||2.0|-2.2|
90805812|NCT03479541|181493064|OTHER|Linear mixed effect model containing fixed effects for group (earlier or later), time since injury, and group x time since injury interaction with random intercepts, covariates (age, gender, and Initial SCAT symptom severity total score), and inverse probability weights. Later Physical Therapy Group served as the reference.|Slope|-0.0003||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0005|-0.0001||a priori threshold p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||The slope estimate is the group difference (Early Physical Therapy Group - Later Physical Therapy Group) in change per day per day (the interaction effect of the mixed model analysis).|Analysis for CSMI Outcome - Visual Weight (VS/EO)||-0.0001|-0.0005|0.013
90805813|NCT03479541|181493064|OTHER|Linear mixed effect model containing fixed effects for group (earlier or later), time since injury, and group x time since injury interaction with random intercepts, covariates (age, gender, and Initial SCAT symptom severity total score), and inverse probability weights. Later Physical Therapy Group served as the reference.|Slope|0.0001||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0003|0.0004||a priori threshold p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||The slope estimate is the group difference (Early Physical Therapy Group - Later Physical Therapy Group) in change per day per day (the interaction effect of the mixed model analysis).|Analysis for CSMI Outcome - Vestibular Weight (SS+VS/EO)||0.0004|-0.0003|0.780
90805814|NCT03479541|181493065|OTHER|Linear mixed effect model containing fixed effects for group (earlier or later), time since injury, and group x time since injury interaction with random intercepts, covariates (age, gender, and Initial SCAT symptom severity total score), and inverse probability weights. Later Physical Therapy Group served as the reference.|Slope|-0.235|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.361|-0.11||a priori threshold p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||The slope estimate is the group difference (Early Physical Therapy Group - Later Physical Therapy Group) in change per day per day (the interaction effect of the mixed model analysis).|Analysis for CSMI Outcome - Time Delay (VS/EO)||-0.110|-0.361|<0.001
90805815|NCT03479541|181493065|OTHER|Linear mixed effect model containing fixed effects for group (earlier or later), time since injury, and group x time since injury interaction with random intercepts, covariates (age, gender, and Initial SCAT symptom severity total score), and inverse probability weights. Later Physical Therapy Group served as the reference.|Slope|-0.142||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.233|-0.052||a priori threshold p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||The slope estimate is the group difference (Early Physical Therapy Group - Later Physical Therapy Group) in change per day per day (the interaction effect of the mixed model analysis).|Analysis for CSMI Outcome - Time Delay (SS+VS/EO)||-0.052|-0.233|0.002
90805816|NCT03479541|181493066|OTHER|Linear mixed effect model containing fixed effects for group (earlier or later), time since injury, and group x time since injury interaction with random intercepts, covariates (age, gender, and Initial SCAT symptom severity total score), and inverse probability weights. Later Physical Therapy Group served as the reference.|Slope|0.0003||||0.237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0002|0.0007||a priori threshold p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||The slope estimate is the group difference (Early Physical Therapy Group - Later Physical Therapy Group) in change per day per day (the interaction effect of the mixed model analysis).|Analysis for CSMI Outcome - Normalized Stiffness (VS/EO)||0.0007|-0.0002|0.237
90805817|NCT03479541|181493066|OTHER|Linear mixed effect model containing fixed effects for group (earlier or later), time since injury, and group x time since injury interaction with random intercepts, covariates (age, gender, and Initial SCAT symptom severity total score), and inverse probability weights. Later Physical Therapy Group served as the reference.|Slope|0.0008||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0003|0.001||a priori threshold p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||The slope estimate is the group difference (Early Physical Therapy Group - Later Physical Therapy Group) in change per day per day (the interaction effect of the mixed model analysis).|Analysis for CSMI Outcome - Normalized Stiffness (SS+VS/EO)||0.001|0.0003|0.002
90805818|NCT03479541|181493067|OTHER|Linear mixed effect model containing fixed effects for group (earlier or later), time since injury, and group x time since injury interaction with random intercepts, covariates (age, gender, and Initial SCAT symptom severity total score), and inverse probability weights. Later Physical Therapy Group served as the reference.|Slope|0.0001||||0.247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0001|0.0004||a priori threshold p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||The slope estimate is the group difference (Early Physical Therapy Group - Later Physical Therapy Group) in change per day per day (the interaction effect of the mixed model analysis).|Analysis for CSMI Outcome - Normalized Damping (VS/EO)||0.0004|-0.0001|0.247
90805819|NCT03479541|181493067|OTHER|Linear mixed effect model containing fixed effects for group (earlier or later), time since injury, and group x time since injury interaction with random intercepts, covariates (age, gender, and Initial SCAT symptom severity total score), and inverse probability weights. Later Physical Therapy Group served as the reference.|Slope|0.0004||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0001|0.0007||a priori threshold p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||The slope estimate is the group difference (Early Physical Therapy Group - Later Physical Therapy Group) in change per day per day (the interaction effect of the mixed model analysis).|Analysis for CSMI Outcome - Normalized Damping (SS+VSEO)||0.0007|0.0001|0.008
90805820|NCT03479541|181493068|OTHER|Linear mixed effect model containing fixed effects for group (earlier or later), time since injury, and group x time since injury interaction with random intercepts, covariates (age, gender, and Initial SCAT symptom severity total score), and inverse probability weights. Later Physical Therapy Group served as the reference.|Slope|-0.004||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.006|-0.001||a priori threshold p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||The slope estimate is the group difference (Early Physical Therapy Group - Later Physical Therapy Group) in change per day per day (the interaction effect of the mixed model analysis).|Analysis for CSMI Outcome - Evoked Center of Mass (CoM) Sway (VS/EO)||-0.001|-0.006|0.003
90805821|NCT03479541|181493068|OTHER|Linear mixed effect model containing fixed effects for group (earlier or later), time since injury, and group x time since injury interaction with random intercepts, covariates (age, gender, and Initial SCAT symptom severity total score), and inverse probability weights. Later Physical Therapy Group served as the reference.|Slope|-0.001||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.003|-0.0005||a priori threshold p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||The slope estimate is the group difference (Early Physical Therapy Group - Later Physical Therapy Group) in change per day per day (the interaction effect of the mixed model analysis).|Analysis for CSMI Outcome - Evoked CoM Sway (SS+VS/EO)||-0.0005|-0.003|0.004
91078161|NCT03046056|182041814|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.9|2.0||||||Diff in LSM, and its 90% CI were from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline segmental MaRIA score, concomitant use of oral, systemically absorbed corticosteroids at baseline, concomitant use of immunomodulators at baseline, prior exposure to biologics, and treatment group.||2.0|-1.9|
90805822|NCT03479541|181493069|OTHER|Linear mixed effect model containing fixed effects for group (earlier or later), time since injury, and group x time since injury interaction with random intercepts, covariates (age, gender, and Initial SCAT symptom severity total score), and inverse probability weights. Later Physical Therapy Group served as the reference.|Slope|-0.004||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.007|-0.0003||a priori threshold p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||The slope estimate is the group difference (Early Physical Therapy Group - Later Physical Therapy Group) in change per day per day (the interaction effect of the mixed model analysis).|Analysis for CSMI Outcome - Internal Sensory Noise (VS/EO)||-0.0003|-0.007|0.031
90805823|NCT03479541|181493069|OTHER|Linear mixed effect model containing fixed effects for group (earlier or later), time since injury, and group x time since injury interaction with random intercepts, covariates (age, gender, and Initial SCAT symptom severity total score), and inverse probability weights. Later Physical Therapy Group served as the reference.|Slope|-0.003||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|-0.0003||a priori threshold p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||The slope estimate is the group difference (Early Physical Therapy Group - Later Physical Therapy Group) in change per day per day (the interaction effect of the mixed model analysis).|Analysis for CSMI Outcome - Internal Sensory Noise (SS+VS/EO)||-0.0003|-0.005|0.003
90805824|NCT03479541|181493070|OTHER|Linear mixed effect model containing fixed effects for group (earlier or later), time since injury, and group x time since injury interaction with random intercepts, covariates (age and gender), and inverse probability weights. Later Physical Therapy Group served as the reference.|Slope|-0.0321||||0.3221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0957|0.0315||a priori threshold p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||The slope estimate is the group difference (Early Physical Therapy Group - Later Physical Therapy Group) in change per day per day (the interaction effect of the mixed model analysis).|||0.0315|-0.0957|0.3221
90805825|NCT03479541|181493071|OTHER|Linear mixed effect model containing fixed effects for group (earlier or later), time since injury, and group x time since injury interaction with random intercepts, covariates (age, gender, and Initial SCAT symptom severity total score), and inverse probability weights. Later Physical Therapy Group served as the reference.|Slope|-0.0136||||0.336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0413|0.0142||a priori threshold p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||The slope estimate is the group difference (Early Physical Therapy Group - Later Physical Therapy Group) in change per day per day (the interaction effect of the mixed model analysis).|||0.0142|-0.0413|0.336
90805826|NCT03479541|181493072|OTHER|Linear mixed effect model containing fixed effects for group (earlier or later), time since injury, and group x time since injury interaction with random intercepts, covariates (age, gender, and Initial SCAT symptom severity total score), and inverse probability weights. Later Physical Therapy Group served as the reference.|Slope|-0.0406||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0779|-0.0032||a priori threshold p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||The slope estimate is the group difference (Early Physical Therapy Group - Later Physical Therapy Group) in change per day per day (the interaction effect of the mixed model analysis).|||-0.0032|-0.0779|0.033
91014451|NCT00234533|181911908|OTHER|An one-way ANOVA was used to calculate the between patient variation and within patient variation and then the ICC and its confidence limitations.|ICC|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|0.93|||||An ICC ≥ 0.8 was considered satisfactory and indicative that a single sample would be representative of the overall IGF-I status.|An ICC for the morning series (defined as 06:00 to 12:00) was determined for the overall ITT population to confirm whether only one measurement would be sufficient to accurately represent the IGF-I measurement over Weeks 21, 22 and 23. The ICC expresses the relative magnitude of the 2 components of the total variability, i.e. the biological variability and random error, in a series of measurements on different patients.||0.93|0.90|
91014452|NCT00234533|181911909|OTHER||Fisher's F statistic (F) value|1.79|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Analysis of the weekly timing effect (Week 21 versus Week 22 versus Week 23) on the IGF-I value as measured by capillary blood spot method.|For the effect of the weekly timing on the IGF-I levels; F value = 1.79 and the significance probability value, PR\>F = 0.1678.|||
91014453|NCT00234533|181911909|OTHER||F value|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Analysis of the daily timing effect (morning versus evening) on the IGF-I value as measured by capillary blood spot method.|For the effect of the daily timing on the IGF-I levels; F value = 1.06 and the significance probability value, PR\>F = 0.3035|||
91014454|NCT00234533|181911910|OTHER||F value|83.97|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Analysis of the effect of the patient's sex (male versus female) on the IGF-I value as measured by capillary blood spot method.|For the effect of the patient's sex on the IGF-I levels; F value = 83.97 and the significance probability value, PR\>F = \<0.0001.|||
91014455|NCT00234533|181911910|OTHER||F value|68.35|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Analysis of the effect of the patient's pubertal status (pubertal versus prepubertal) on the IGF-I value as measured by capillary blood spot method.|For the effect of the patient's pubertal status on the IGF-I levels; F value = 68.35 and the significance probability value, PR\>F = \<0.0001.|||
91014456|NCT00234533|181911911|OTHER||F value|10.73|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Analysis of the disease condition (GHD versus TS) on the IGF-I value as measured by capillary blood spot method.|For the effect of the disease condition on the IGF-I levels; F value = 10.73 and the significance probability value, PR\>F = 0.0012.|||
91054488|NCT00444457|181991050|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots were considered equivalent if the maximum difference between any 2 lots is less than 0.693 and greater than -0.693 using the equivalence testing procedure for 3 vaccine groups given by Wiens and Iglewicz, for all 13 serotypes.|Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.04|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 9V||0.04|-0.16|
90805827|NCT02374060|181493098|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of the proportion of BL|0.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.87|0.65|0.96||Two sided type I error threshold was 0.00132 since recruitment was halted after the single pre-planned interim analysis|mixed effects model||Ratio of intravitreal over periocular|||.96|.65|<0.0001
90805828|NCT02374060|181493098|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of the proportion of BL|0.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.87|0.56|0.86||the 2 sided type 1 error threshold was 0.000132 since recruitment was halted after the single preplanned interim analysis|mixed effects model||ratio of dexamethasone over periocular|||0.86|0.56|<0.0001
91014457|NCT00234533|181911911|OTHER||F value|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Analysis of the country cluster on the IGF-I value as measured by capillary blood spot method.|For the effect of the country cluster on the IGF-I levels; F value = 2.20 and the significance probability value, PR\>F = 0.0701.|||
91078162|NCT03046056|182041815|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference in Proportions|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-28.6|25.5||||||||25.5|-28.6|
91054489|NCT00444457|181991050|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots were considered equivalent if the maximum difference between any 2 lots is less than 0.693 and greater than -0.693 using the equivalence testing procedure for 3 vaccine groups given by Wiens and Iglewicz, for all 13 serotypes.|Difference in log-transformed GM|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 9V||0.10|-0.10|
90805829|NCT02374060|181493098|NON_INFERIORITY|The non inferiority margin was 1.16|Ratio of the proportion of BL|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|99.87|0.71|1.08|||||A mixed effects model was used to create the confidence interval for testing non-inferiority. The direction is the ratio of dexamethasone over intravitreal|||1.08|.71|
90805830|NCT02374060|181493099|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of the proportion of BL|0.95||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|99.87|0.77|1.16||Two sided type I error threshold was 0.00132 since recruitment was halted after the single Two sided type I error threshold was 0.00132 since recruitment was halted after the single preplanned interim analysis|mixed effects model||Ratio of intravitreal over periocular|||1.16|0.77|0.35
90805831|NCT02374060|181493099|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of the proportion of BL|0.89||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|99.87|0.72|1.1||the 2 sided type 1 error threshold was 0.000132 since recruitment was halted after the single preplanned interim analysis|mixed effects model||ratio of dexamethasone over periocular|||1.10|0.72|0.07
90805832|NCT02374060|181493099|NON_INFERIORITY|The non inferiority margin was 1.16|Ratio of the proportion of BL|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|99.87|0.77|1.16|||||A mixed effects model was used to create the confidence interval for testing non-inferiority. The direction is the ratio of dexamethasone over intravitreal|||1.16|0.77|
90805833|NCT02374060|181493100|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|0.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.53|||mixed effects model||Intravitreal - periocular|||0.53|0.24|<0.0001
90805834|NCT02374060|181493100|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|0.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.59|||mixed effects model||Dexamethasone - periocular|||0.59|0.29|<0.0001
90805835|NCT02374060|181493100|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|0.05||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.19|||mixed effects model||Dexamethasone - intravitreal|||0.19|-0.09|0.45
90805836|NCT02374060|181493101|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|0.12||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.27|||mixed effects model||Intravitreal - Periocular|||0.27|-0.03|0.10
90805837|NCT02374060|181493101|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|0.12||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.28|||mixed effects model||Dexamethasone - Periocular|||0.28|-0.03|0.11
90805838|NCT02374060|181493101|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|0.002||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.16|||mixed effects model||Dexamethasone - Intravitreal|||0.16|-0.16|0.98
90805839|NCT02374060|181493102|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|0.27||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.43|||mixed effects model||Intravitreal - periocular|||0.43|0.11|0.0005
90805840|NCT02374060|181493102|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|0.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.56|||mixed effects model||Dexamethasone - periocular|||0.56|0.25|<0.0001
90805841|NCT02374060|181493102|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|0.13||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.3|||mixed effects model||Dexamethasone - intravitreal|||0.30|-0.04|0.12
90805842|NCT02374060|181493103|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|0.004||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.17|||mixed effects model||Intravitreal - periocular|||0.17|-0.16|0.96
90805843|NCT02374060|181493103|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|0.06||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.23|||mixed effects model||Dexamethasone - periocular|||0.23|-0.11|0.51
90805844|NCT02374060|181493103|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|0.05||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.22|||mixed effects model||Dexamethasone - intravitreal|||0.22|-0.12|0.54
90805845|NCT02374060|181493104|SUPERIORITY||Difference in mean change from BL|5.32||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.82|8.82|||mixed effects model||Intravitreal - periocular|||8.82|1.82|0.003
90805846|NCT02374060|181493104|SUPERIORITY||Difference in mean change from BL|5.16||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|8.72|||mixed effects model||Dexamethasone - periocular|||8.72|1.60|0.004
90805847|NCT02374060|181493104|SUPERIORITY||Difference in mean change from BL|-0.16||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.67|3.34|||mixed effects model||Dexamethasone - intravitreal|||3.34|-3.67|0.93
90805848|NCT02374060|181493105|SUPERIORITY||Difference in mean change from BL|5.53||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|9.92|||mixed effects model||Intravitreal - periocular|||9.92|1.14|0.013
90805849|NCT02374060|181493105|SUPERIORITY||Difference in mean change from BL|5.14||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|9.44|||mixed effects model||Dexamethasone - periocular|||9.44|0.84|0.019
90805850|NCT02374060|181493105|SUPERIORITY||Difference in mean change from BL|-0.4||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.16|3.37|||mixed effects model||Dexamethasone-intravitreal|||3.37|-4.16|0.84
90805851|NCT02374060|181493109|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.33||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.24|||Regression, Cox||Intravitreal/Periocular|||1.24|0.09|0.10
90805852|NCT02374060|181493109|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.46||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|1.5|||Regression, Cox||Dexamethasone/Periocular|||1.50|0.14|0.20
90805853|NCT02374060|181493109|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.45||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|6.26|||Regression, Cox||Dexamethasone/Intravitreal|||6.26|0.34|0.62
90805854|NCT02374060|181493110|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.92||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|4.29|||Regression, Cox||Intravitreal/Periocular|||4.29|0.86|0.11
90805855|NCT02374060|181493110|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.85||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|6.28|||Regression, Cox||Dexamethasone/Intravitreal|||6.28|1.30|0.009
90805856|NCT02374060|181493110|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.43||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.81|||Regression, Cox||Dexamethasone/intravitreal|||2.81|0.72|0.30
90805857|NCT02374060|181493111|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.83||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|3.65|||Regression, Cox||Intravitreal/periocular|||3.65|0.91|0.09
90805858|NCT02374060|181493111|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.52||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|4.91|||Regression, Cox||Dexamethasone/periocular|||4.91|1.29|0.007
90805859|NCT02374060|181493111|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.32||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.43|||Regression, Cox||Dexamethasone/intravitreal|||2.43|0.72|0.37
90805860|NCT02374060|181493112|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|4.01|||Regression, Cox||Intravitreal/Periocular|||4.01|0.28|0.92
90805861|NCT02374060|181493112|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|3.11|||Regression, Cox||Dexamethasone/Periocular|||3.11|0.16|0.65
90805862|NCT02374060|181493112|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|2.59|||Regression, Cox||Dexamthasone/Intravitreal|||2.59|0.16|0.53
90805863|NCT01579565|181493114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049||0.0001||95.0|0.494|0.686||p-value based on the generalized Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH-weighted mean difference (OMS302 - Placebo) is adjusted for the randomization strata.||||0.686|0.494|0.0001
90805864|NCT01579565|181493115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.192||0.0002||95.0|-6.917|-2.244||p-value is based on the generalized CMH test stratified by the randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH-weighted mean difference (OMS302 - Placebo) is adjusted for the randomization strata.||||-2.244|-6.917|0.0002
90805865|NCT01579565|181493116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||||||Chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||||||0.0001
90805866|NCT01579565|181493117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||||||Chi-square test|Chi-squared|||||||0.0001
90805867|NCT01579565|181493118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.076||||||Chi-square test|Chi-squared|||||||0.0760
90805868|NCT01579565|181493119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0806||||||Chi-square test|Chi-squared|||||||0.0806
90805869|NCT01579565|181493120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||||||Generalized CMH test stratified by randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0002
91014458|NCT00234533|181911912|OTHER||F value|3.65|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Analysis of the time of the year on the IGF-I value as measured by capillary blood spot method.|For the effect of the time of the year on the IGF-I levels; F value = 3.65 and the significance probability value, PR\>F = 0.0139.|||
90805870|NCT01579565|181493121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3923||||||Treatment comparisons are based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3923
90805871|NCT01579565|181493122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||||||Treatment comparisons are based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0060
90805872|NCT01579565|181493123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3286||||||Treatment comparisons are based on generalized CMH test stratified by randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3286
90805873|NCT01579565|181493124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2361||||||Treatment comparisons based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test stratified by randomization strata.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.2361
90805874|NCT01380535|181493126|OTHER|||||||0.373|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.373
91014459|NCT00234533|181911912|OTHER||F value|7.38|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Analysis of the effect of the calculated age at enrolment on the IGF-I value as measured by capillary blood spot method.|For the effect of the calculated age at enrolment on the IGF-I levels; F value = 7.38 and the significance probability value, PR\>F = 0.0073.|||
90805875|NCT05425732|181493129|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in Percent|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|96.0|-2.8|1.1|||||V116 minus PCV20|Injection site erythema: estimated difference in percent||1.1|-2.8|
91054490|NCT00444457|181991050|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots were considered equivalent if the maximum difference between any 2 lots is less than 0.693 and greater than -0.693 using the equivalence testing procedure for 3 vaccine groups given by Wiens and Iglewicz, for all 13 serotypes.|Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.09|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 14||0.09|-0.15|
90805876|NCT05425732|181493129|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in Percent|-12.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|-8.2|||||V116 minus PCV20|Injection site pain: estimated difference in percent||-8.2|-16.2|
90805877|NCT05425732|181493129|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in Percent|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|-0.2|||||V116 minus PCV20|Injection site swelling: estimated difference in percent||-0.2|-4.4|
90805878|NCT05425732|181493129|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in Percent|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|10.3|||||V116 minus PCV20|Injection site erythema: estimated difference in percent||10.3|-6.6|
90805879|NCT05425732|181493129|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in Percent|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|8.6|||||V116 minus PCV20|Injection site pain: estimated difference in percent||8.6|-12.7|
90805880|NCT05425732|181493129|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in Percent|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|7.9|||||V116 minus PCV20|Injection site swelling: estimated difference in percent||7.9|-9.2|
90805881|NCT05425732|181493130|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in Percent|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|3.8|||||V116 minus PCV20|Fatigue: estimated difference in percent||3.8|-2.7|
90805882|NCT05425732|181493130|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in Percent|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|1.2|||||V116 minus PCV20|Headache: estimated difference in percent||1.2|-4.1|
90805883|NCT05425732|181493130|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in Percent|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|96.0|-2.8|1.2|||||V116 minus PCV20|Myalgia: estimated difference in percent||1.2|-2.8|
90805884|NCT05425732|181493130|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in Percent|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.0|||||V116 minus PCV20|Pyrexia: estimated difference in percent||1.0|-1.0|
90805885|NCT05425732|181493130|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in Percent|6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|17.6|||||V116 minus PCV20|Fatigue: estimated difference in percent||17.6|-5.3|
90805886|NCT05425732|181493130|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in Percent|5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|5.0|-5.5|15.5|||||V116 minus PCV20|Headache: estimated difference in percent||15.5|-5.5|
90805887|NCT05425732|181493130|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in Percent|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|10.6|||||V116 minus PCV20|Myalgia: estimated difference in percent||10.6|-6.8|
90805888|NCT05425732|181493130|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in Percent|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|6.2|||||V116 minus PCV20|Pyrexia: estimated difference in percent||6.2|-2.2|
90805889|NCT05425732|181493132|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT Ratio (V116/PCV20) being \> 0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|1.72||1-sided|cLDA model||V116/PCV20|Serotype 3: V116/PCV20 GMT Ratio||1.72|1.40|<0.001
91014460|NCT00234533|181911912|OTHER||F value|3.86|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Analysis of the effect of the disease condition on the IGF-I value as measured by capillary blood spot method.|For the effect of the disease condition on the IGF-I levels; F value = 3.86 and the significance probability value, PR\>F = 0.0511|||
91014461|NCT00234533|181911913|OTHER||Mean difference|-164.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|159.28|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-483.35|-153.77||||||The Bland and Altman method was used to compare the results of each of the three simultaneous random capillary and serum measurements were compared. The difference between the capillary blood spot method and the serum IGF-I measurements is presented||-153.77|-483.35|
90805890|NCT05425732|181493132|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT Ratio (V116/PCV20) being \> 0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|0.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.88|||cLDA model||V116/PCV20|Serotype 6A: V116/PCV20 GMT Ratio||0.88|0.68|<0.001
90805891|NCT05425732|181493132|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT Ratio (V116/PCV20) being \> 0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.18|||cLDA model||V116/PCV20|Serotype 7F: V116/PCV20 GMT Ratio||1.18|0.95|<0.001
90805892|NCT05425732|181493132|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT Ratio (V116/PCV20) being \> 0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|1.53|||cLDA model||V116/PCV20|Serotype 8: V116/PCV20 GMT Ratio||1.53|1.25|<0.001
90805893|NCT05425732|181493132|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT Ratio (V116/PCV20) being \> 0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|0.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|0.93|||cLDA model||V116/PCV20|Serotype 10A: V116/PCV20 GMT Ratio||0.93|0.75|<0.001
90805894|NCT05425732|181493132|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT Ratio (V116/PCV20) being \> 0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|1.72|||cLDA model||V116/PCV20|Serotype 11A: V116/PCV20 GMT Ratio||1.72|1.39|<0.001
91014462|NCT00570492|181911927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.06|||||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was performed to estimate the mean treatment difference in growth velocity over the treatment period, adjusting for baseline growth velocity, age, gender, and country.|||-0.06|-0.48|
91014463|NCT00908375|181911956|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size was determined based on the primary outcome variable, the VAS pain score at three weeks. Based on the results of the study of Siddall et al., group sample sizes of 19 and 19 achieve 82% power to detect a difference of 2.00 between the null hypothesis that both group means are 6.50 and the alternative hypothesis that the mean of pregabalin group is 4.50 with estimated group standard deviations of 2.10 and 2.10 and with a significance level of 0.05 using a two-sided two-sample t-test.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.279|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-6.0|3.0||The criterion for rejection of the null hypothesis (P \< 0.05) was adjusted for multiple application of the test to the same data set using the Bonferroni correction.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||3|-6|0.279
91054491|NCT00444457|181991050|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots were considered equivalent if the maximum difference between any 2 lots is less than 0.693 and greater than -0.693 using the equivalence testing procedure for 3 vaccine groups given by Wiens and Iglewicz, for all 13 serotypes.|Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.08|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 14||0.08|-0.16|
91054492|NCT00444457|181991050|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots were considered equivalent if the maximum difference between any 2 lots is less than 0.693 and greater than -0.693 using the equivalence testing procedure for 3 vaccine groups given by Wiens and Iglewicz, for all 13 serotypes.|Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.11|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 14||0.11|-0.13|
91054493|NCT00444457|181991050|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots were considered equivalent if the maximum difference between any 2 lots is less than 0.693 and greater than -0.693 using the equivalence testing procedure for 3 vaccine groups given by Wiens and Iglewicz, for all 13 serotypes.|Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.07|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 18C||0.07|-0.13|
90805895|NCT05425732|181493132|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT Ratio (V116/PCV20) being \> 0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.21|||cLDA model||V116/PCV20|Serotype 12F: V116/PCV20 GMT Ratio||1.21|0.92|<0.001
90805896|NCT05425732|181493132|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT Ratio (V116/PCV20) being \> 0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|0.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.84|||cLDA model||V116/PCV20|Serotype 19A: V116/PCV20 GMT Ratio||0.84|0.69|<0.001
90805897|NCT05425732|181493132|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT Ratio (V116/PCV20) being \> 0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|0.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.92|||cLDA model||V116/PCV20|Serotype 22F: V116/PCV20 GMT Ratio||0.92|0.72|<0.001
90805898|NCT05425732|181493132|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT Ratio (V116/PCV20) being \> 0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.32|||cLDA model||V116/PCV20|Serotype 33F: V116/PCV20 GMT Ratio||1.32|1.01|<0.001
90805899|NCT05425732|181493132|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PCV20) being \> 2.0 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|4.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.12|5.04|||cLDA model||V116/PCV20|Serotype 9N: V116/PCV20 GMT Ratio||5.04|4.12|<0.001
90805900|NCT05425732|181493132|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PCV20) being \> 2.0 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|3.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.91|3.74|||cLDA model||V116/PCV20|Serotype 15A: V116/PCV20 GMT Ratio||3.74|2.91|<0.001
90805901|NCT05425732|181493132|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PCV20) being \> 2.0 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|2.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|2.34|||cLDA model||V116/PCV20|Serotype 15C: V116/PCV20 GMT Ratio||2.34|1.77|<0.001
90805902|NCT05425732|181493132|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PCV20) being \> 2.0 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|5.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.16|6.41|||cLDA model||V116/PCV20|Serotype 16F: V116/PCV20 GMT Ratio||6.41|5.16|<0.001
90805903|NCT05425732|181493132|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PCV20) being \> 2.0 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|16.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.9|19.09|||cLDA model||V116/PCV20|Serotype 17F: V116/PCV20 GMT Ratio||19.09|14.90|<0.001
90805904|NCT05425732|181493132|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PCV20) being \> 2.0 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|9.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.66|10.79|||cLDA model||V116/PCV20|Serotype 20A: V116/PCV20 GMT Ratio||10.79|8.66|<0.001
90805905|NCT05425732|181493132|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PCV20) being \> 2.0 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|8.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.86|9.55|||cLDA model||V116/PCV20|Serotype 23A: V116/PCV20 GMT Ratio||9.55|6.86|<0.001
90805906|NCT05425732|181493132|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PCV20) being \> 2.0 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|10.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.48|12.0|||cLDA model||V116/PCV20|Serotype 23B: V116/PCV20 GMT Ratio||12.00|8.48|<0.001
90805907|NCT05425732|181493132|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PCV20) being \> 2.0 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|38.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.87|44.25|||cLDA model||V116/PCV20|Serotype 24F: V116/PCV20 GMT Ratio||44.25|33.87|<0.001
90805908|NCT05425732|181493132|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PCV20) being \> 2.0 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|21.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.68|25.18|||cLDA model||V116/PCV20|Serotype 31: V116/PCV20 GMT Ratio||25.18|18.68|<0.001
90805909|NCT05425732|181493132|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PCV20) being \> 2.0 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|6.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.59|6.8|||cLDA model||V116/PCV20|Serotype 35B: V116/PCV20 GMT Ratio||6.80|5.59|<0.001
90805910|NCT05425732|181493133|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference \[V116 - PCV20\] between the percentages of participants with a ≥4-fold rise from baseline being \>10 percentage points (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|Percent Difference|44.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.7|48.6||1-sided|Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen||V116 minus PCV20|Serotype 9N: V116-PCV20 Percentage Difference||48.6|40.7|<0.001
91014464|NCT00908375|181911957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.282|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-2.0|1.0||The criterion for rejection of the null hypothesis (P \< 0.05) was adjusted for multiple applications of the test to the same data using the Bonferroni correction.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.0|-2.0|0.282
91054494|NCT00444457|181991050|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots were considered equivalent if the maximum difference between any 2 lots is less than 0.693 and greater than -0.693 using the equivalence testing procedure for 3 vaccine groups given by Wiens and Iglewicz, for all 13 serotypes.|Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|-0.03|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 18C||-0.03|-0.23|
90805911|NCT05425732|181493133|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference \[V116 - PCV20\] between the percentages of participants with a ≥4-fold rise from baseline being \>10 percentage points (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|Percent Difference|30.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.8|35.8||1-sided|Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen||V116 minus PCV20|Serotype 15A: V116-PCV20 Percentage Difference||35.8|25.8|<0.001
90805912|NCT05425732|181493133|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference \[V116 - PCV20\] between the percentages of participants with a ≥4-fold rise from baseline being \>10 percentage points (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|Percent Difference|9.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.6|12.9||1-sided|Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen||V116 minus PCV20|Serotype 15C: V116-PCV20 Percentage Difference||12.9|5.6|<0.001
90805913|NCT05425732|181493133|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference \[V116 - PCV20\] between the percentages of participants with a ≥4-fold rise from baseline being \>10 percentage points (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|Percent Difference|51.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.1|54.9||1-sided|Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen||V116 minus PCV20|Serotype 16F: V116-PCV20 Percentage Difference||54.9|47.1|<0.001
90805914|NCT05425732|181493133|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference \[V116 - PCV20\] between the percentages of participants with a ≥4-fold rise from baseline being \>10 percentage points (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|Percent Difference|66.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.8|69.6||1-sided|Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen||V116 minus PCV20|Serotype 17F: V116-PCV20 Percentage Difference||69.6|62.8|<0.001
91014465|NCT00908375|181911958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-16.0||||0.139|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-42.0|16.0||The criterion for rejection of the null hypothesis (P \< 0.05) was adjusted for multiple applications of the test to the same data using the Bonferroni correction.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||16|-42|0.139
91078163|NCT03046056|182041815|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference in Proportions|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-24.5|26.2||||||||26.2|-24.5|
90805915|NCT05425732|181493133|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference \[V116 - PCV20\] between the percentages of participants with a ≥4-fold rise from baseline being \>10 percentage points (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|Percent Difference|57.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.2|61.1||1-sided|Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen||V116 minus PCV20|Serotype 20A: V116-PCV20 Percentage Difference||61.1|54.2|<0.001
91014466|NCT02279888|181911974|OTHER|the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval on the freedom from DSRC rate at 24 months is greater than 80%|Kaplan Meier|0.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91014467|NCT02279888|181911976|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.43|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.47|||Andersen-Gill||This analysis applies to Primary Outcome: HFH Rate|||0.47|0.39|<0.0001
91078164|NCT03046056|182041816|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference in Proportions|-6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-47.3|37.0||||||||37.0|-47.3|
91078165|NCT03046056|182041816|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference in Proportions|-16.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-58.2|30.0||||||||30.0|-58.2|
90805916|NCT05425732|181493133|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference \[V116 - PCV20\] between the percentages of participants with a ≥4-fold rise from baseline being \>10 percentage points (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|Percent Difference|42.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.6|46.6||1-sided|Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen||V116 minus PCV20|Serotype 23A: V116-PCV20 Percentage Difference||46.6|37.6|<0.001
91014468|NCT02279888|181911978|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.62|||Andersen-Gill|||||0.62|0.52|<0.0001
90805917|NCT05425732|181493133|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference \[V116 - PCV20\] between the percentages of participants with a ≥4-fold rise from baseline being \>10 percentage points (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|Percent Difference|35.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.1|39.6||1-sided|Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen||V116 minus PCV20|Serotype 23B: V116-PCV20 Percentage Difference||39.6|32.1|<0.001
90805918|NCT05425732|181493133|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference \[V116 - PCV20\] between the percentages of participants with a ≥4-fold rise from baseline being \>10 percentage points (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|Percent Difference|74.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.1|77.1||1-sided|Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen||V116 minus PCV20|Serotype24F: V116-PCV20 Percentage Difference||77.1|71.1|<0.001
90805919|NCT05425732|181493133|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference \[V116 - PCV20\] between the percentages of participants with a ≥4-fold rise from baseline being \>10 percentage points (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|Percent Difference|58.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.8|62.1||1-sided|Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen||V116 minus PCV20|Serotype 31: V116-PCV20 Percentage Difference||62.1|54.8|<0.001
90805920|NCT05425732|181493133|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference \[V116 - PCV20\] between the percentages of participants with a ≥4-fold rise from baseline being \>10 percentage points (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|Percent Difference|53.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.6|56.6||1-sided|Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen||V116 minus PCV20|Serotype35B: V116-PCV20 Percentage Difference||56.6|49.6|<0.001
90805921|NCT05425732|181493134|OTHER|A conclusion of immunobridging is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116 18-49 Years/V116 50-64 Years) being \> 0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.33||1-sided|LDA model||V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years|Serotype 3: V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years GMT Ratio||1.33|0.90|<0.001
90805922|NCT05425732|181493134|OTHER|A conclusion of immunobridging is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116 18-49 Years/V116 50-64 Years) being \> 0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|2.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.61|2.62||1-sided|LDA model||V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years|Serotype 6A: V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years GMT Ratio||2.62|1.61|<0.001
90805923|NCT05425732|181493134|OTHER|A conclusion of immunobridging is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116 18-49 Years/V116 50-64 Years) being \> 0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|5.0|1.23|1.84||1-sided|LDA model||V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years|Serotype 7F: V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years GMT Ratio||1.84|1.23|<0.001
90805924|NCT05425732|181493134|OTHER|A conclusion of immunobridging is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116 18-49 Years/V116 50-64 Years) being \> 0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|1.79||1-sided|LDA model||V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years|Serotype 8: V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years GMT Ratio||1.79|1.26|<0.001
90805925|NCT05425732|181493134|OTHER|A conclusion of immunobridging is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116 18-49 Years/V116 50-64 Years) being \> 0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|2.43||1-sided|LDA model||V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years|Serotype 9N: V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years GMT Ratio||2.43|1.59|<0.001
90805926|NCT05425732|181493134|OTHER|A conclusion of immunobridging is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116 18-49 Years/V116 50-64 Years) being \> 0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|1.92||1-sided|LDA model||V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years|Serotype 10A: V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years GMT Ratio||1.92|1.26|<0.001
90805927|NCT05425732|181493134|OTHER|A conclusion of immunobridging is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116 18-49 Years/V116 50-64 Years) being \> 0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|1.91||1-sided|LDA model||V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years|Serotype 11A: V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years GMT Ratio||1.91|1.26|<0.001
90805928|NCT05425732|181493134|OTHER|A conclusion of immunobridging is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116 18-49 Years/V116 50-64 Years) being \> 0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|2.17||1-sided|LDA model||V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years|Serotype 12F: V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years GMT Ratio||2.17|1.37|<0.001
90805929|NCT05425732|181493134|OTHER|A conclusion of immunobridging is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116 18-49 Years/V116 50-64 Years) being \> 0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|2.37||1-sided|LDA model||V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years|Serotype 15A: V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years GMT Ratio||2.37|1.55|<0.001
90805930|NCT05425732|181493134|OTHER|A conclusion of immunobridging is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116 18-49 Years/V116 50-64 Years) being \> 0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|2.35||1-sided|LDA model||V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years|Serotype 15C: V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years GMT Ratio||2.35|1.36|<0.001
90805931|NCT05425732|181493134|OTHER|A conclusion of immunobridging is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116 18-49 Years/V116 50-64 Years) being \> 0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|1.91||1-sided|LDA model||V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years|Serotype 16F: V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years GMT Ratio||1.91|1.26|<0.001
90805932|NCT05425732|181493134|OTHER|A conclusion of immunobridging is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116 18-49 Years/V116 50-64 Years) being \> 0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|2.02||1-sided|LDA model||V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years|Serotype 17F: V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years GMT Ratio||2.02|1.26|<0.001
90805933|NCT05425732|181493134|OTHER|A conclusion of immunobridging is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116 18-49 Years/V116 50-64 Years) being \> 0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.4||1-sided|LDA model||V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years|Serotype 19A: V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years GMT Ratio||1.40|0.97|<0.001
90805934|NCT05425732|181493134|OTHER|A conclusion of immunobridging is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116 18-49 Years/V116 50-64 Years) being \> 0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|2.18||1-sided|LDA model||V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years|Serotype 20A: V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years GMT Ratio||2.18|1.39|<0.001
90805935|NCT05425732|181493134|OTHER|A conclusion of immunobridging is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116 18-49 Years/V116 50-64 Years) being \> 0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|2.49||1-sided|LDA model||V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years|Serotype 22F: V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years GMT Ratio||2.49|1.58|<0.001
90805936|NCT05425732|181493134|OTHER|A conclusion of immunobridging is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116 18-49 Years/V116 50-64 Years) being \> 0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|2.44||1-sided|LDA model||V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years|Serotype 23A: V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years GMT Ratio||2.44|1.43|<0.001
90805937|NCT05425732|181493134|OTHER|A conclusion of immunobridging is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116 18-49 Years/V116 50-64 Years) being \> 0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|2.04||1-sided|LDA model||V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years|Serotype 23B: V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years GMT Ratio||2.04|1.11|<0.001
90805938|NCT05425732|181493134|OTHER|A conclusion of immunobridging is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116 18-49 Years/V116 50-64 Years) being \> 0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.67||1-sided|LDA model||V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years|Serotype 24F: V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years GMT Ratio||1.67|1.10|<0.001
90805939|NCT05425732|181493134|OTHER|A conclusion of immunobridging is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116 18-49 Years/V116 50-64 Years) being \> 0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|2.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.63|2.69||1-sided|LDA model||V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years|Serotype 31: V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years GMT Ratio||2.69|1.63|<0.001
90805940|NCT05425732|181493134|OTHER|A conclusion of immunobridging is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116 18-49 Years/V116 50-64 Years) being \> 0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|2.57||1-sided|LDA model||V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years|Serotype 33F: V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years GMT Ratio||2.57|1.52|<0.001
90805941|NCT05425732|181493134|OTHER|A conclusion of immunobridging is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116 18-49 Years/V116 50-64 Years) being \> 0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|1.87||1-sided|LDA model||V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years|Serotype 35B: V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years GMT Ratio||1.87|1.26|<0.001
90805942|NCT05425732|181493135|OTHER|"A conclusion of acceptability is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI of the percentages of participants with a~≥4-fold rise from baseline to 30 days postvaccination being \> 50 percentage points (one-sided p-value \< 0.025)."||||||0.667||||||1-sided|Clopper-Pearson method.|||Serotype 6C||||0.667
90805943|NCT05425732|181493135|OTHER|"A conclusion of acceptability is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI of the percentages of participants with a~≥4-fold rise from baseline to 30 days postvaccination being \> 50 percentage points (one-sided p-value \< 0.025)."|||||<|0.001||||||1-sided|Clopper-Pearson method.|||Serotype 15B||||<0.001
91014469|NCT01484691|181911990|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.04||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate (FDR) approach and a p value \<0.05 is taken for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||mir1||||0.32
91014470|NCT01484691|181911990|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.91||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate (FDR) approach and a p value \<0.05 is taken for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||mir107||||0.38
91078166|NCT03046056|182041817|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference in Proportions|33.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-32.4|86.5||||||||86.5|-32.4|
90805944|NCT05425732|181493136|OTHER|A conclusion of immunobridging is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116 18-49 Years/V116 50-64 Years) being \> 0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|2.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|2.77|||||V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years|Serotype 6C: V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years GMT Ratio||2.77|1.52|
90805945|NCT05425732|181493136|OTHER|A conclusion of immunobridging is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116 18-49 Years/V116 50-64 Years) being \> 0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT|2.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|2.6||1-sided|LDA model||V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years|Serotype 15B: V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years GMT ratio||2.60|1.57|<0.001
90805946|NCT05425732|181493137|OTHER|cLDA model|GMC Ratio|1.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|1.6|||||V116/PCV20|Serotype 3: V116/PCV20 GMC Ratio||1.60|1.35|
90805947|NCT05425732|181493137|OTHER|cLDA model|GMC Ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.89|||||V116/PCV20|Serotype 6A: V116/PCV20 GMC Ratio||0.89|0.70|
90805948|NCT05425732|181493137|OTHER|cLDA model|GMC Ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.18|||||V116/PCV20|Serotype 7F: V116/PCV20 GMC Ratio||1.18|0.95|
90805949|NCT05425732|181493137|OTHER|cLDA model|GMC Ratio|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|1.59|||||V116/PCV20|Serotype 8: V116/PCV20 GMC Ratio||1.59|1.29|
90805950|NCT05425732|181493137|OTHER|cLDA model|GMC Ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.92|||||V116/PCV20|Serotype 10A: V116/PCV20 GMC Ratio||0.92|0.72|
90805951|NCT05425732|181493137|OTHER|cLDA model|GMC Ratio|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|1.36|||||V116/PCV20|Serotype 11A: V116/PCV20 GMC Ratio||1.36|1.11|
90805952|NCT05425732|181493137|OTHER|cLDA model|GMC Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.26|||||V116/PCV20|Serotype 12F: V116/PCV20 GMC Ratio||1.26|0.96|
90805953|NCT05425732|181493137|OTHER|cLDA model|GMC Ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.77|||||V116/PCV20|Serotype 19A: V116/PCV20 GMC Ratio||0.77|0.63|
90805954|NCT05425732|181493137|OTHER|cLDA model|GMC Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.9|||||V116/PCV20|Serotype 22F: V116/PCV20 GMC Ratio||0.90|0.72|
90805955|NCT05425732|181493137|OTHER|cLDA model|GMC Ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.18|||||V116/PCV20|Serotype 33F: V116/PCV20 GMC Ratio||1.18|0.95|
90805956|NCT05425732|181493137|OTHER|cLDA model|GMC Ratio|5.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.82|6.06|||||V116/PCV20|Serotype 9N: V116/PCV20 GMC Ratio||6.06|4.82|
90805957|NCT05425732|181493137|OTHER|cLDA model|GMC Ratio|6.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.03|7.64|||||V116/PCV20|Serotype 15A: V116/PCV20 GMC Ratio||7.64|6.03|
90805958|NCT05425732|181493137|OTHER|cLDA model|GMC Ratio|2.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.17|2.79|||||V116/PCV20|Serotype 15C: V116/PCV20 GMC Ratio||2.79|2.17|
90805959|NCT05425732|181493137|OTHER|cLDA model|GMC Ratio|8.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.95|9.64|||||V116/PCV20|Serotype 16F: V116/PCV20 GMC Ratio||9.64|7.95|
90805960|NCT05425732|181493137|OTHER|cLDA model|GMC Ratio|16.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.25|18.41|||||V116/PCV20|Serotype 17F: V116/PCV20 GMC Ratio||18.41|15.25|
91078167|NCT03046056|182041818|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference in Proportions|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-28.6|24.3||||||||24.3|-28.6|
90805961|NCT05425732|181493137|OTHER|cLDA model|GMC Ratio|12.92|||||TWO_SIDED|5.0|11.81|14.13|||||V116/PCV20|Serotype 20A: V116/PCV20 GMC Ratio||14.13|11.81|
90805962|NCT05425732|181493137|OTHER|cLDA model|GMC Ratio|6.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.69|7.24|||||V116/PCV20|Serotype 23A: V116/PCV20 GMC Ratio||7.24|5.69|
90805963|NCT05425732|181493137|OTHER|cLDA model|GMC Ratio|3.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.91|3.64|||||V116/PCV20|Serotype 23B: V116/PCV20 GMC Ratio||3.64|2.91|
90805964|NCT05425732|181493137|OTHER|cLDA model|GMC Ratio|21.08|||||TWO_SIDED|85.0|18.97|23.43|||||V116/PCV20|Serotype 24F: V116/PCV20 GMC Ratio||23.43|18.97|
90805965|NCT05425732|181493137|OTHER|cLDA model|GMC Ratio|11.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.36|12.34|||||V116/PCV20|Serotype 31: V116/PCV20 GMC Ratio||12.34|10.36|
90805966|NCT05425732|181493137|OTHER|cLDA model|GMC Ratio|14.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.97|15.4|||||V116/PCV20|Serotype 35B: V116/PCV20 GMC Ratio||15.40|12.97|
91014471|NCT01484691|181911990|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.47||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate (FDR) approach and a p value \<0.05 is taken for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||mir128||||0.83
91014472|NCT01484691|181911990|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.27||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate (FDR) approach and a p value \<0.05 is taken for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||mir141||||0.42
91014473|NCT01484691|181911990|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.55||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate (FDR) approach and a p value \<0.05 is taken for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||mir148b||||0.32
90805967|NCT00306293|181493160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent change from Placebo|-78.0|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test||Percent change in days with Subclinical HSV-2 Viral Shedding after VALTREX 1g treatment from the placebo|||||<0.001
91014474|NCT01484691|181911990|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.68||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate (FDR) approach and a p value \<0.05 is taken for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||mir181b||||0.83
91014475|NCT01484691|181911990|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.94||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate (FDR) approach and a p value \<0.05 is taken for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||mir185||||0.38
91014476|NCT01484691|181911990|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.77||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate (FDR) approach and a p value \<0.05 is taken for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||mir194||||0.38
90805968|NCT00306293|181493161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent change from Baseline|-77.0||||0.014||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum||Percent change in 'percentage of days with clinical HSV-2 viral shedding', after VALTREX 1g treatment from the placebo|||||0.014
90805969|NCT02242435|181493166|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26||||||Adjusted for baseline WOMAC score.|ANCOVA|||||||0.26
91014477|NCT01484691|181911990|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.38||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate (FDR) approach and a p value \<0.05 is taken for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||mir19a||||0.32
91078168|NCT03046056|182041818|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference in Proportions|-15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-39.4|11.3||||||||11.3|-39.4|
90805970|NCT02242435|181493167|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3||||||Adjustment for baseline WOMAC score.|ANCOVA|||||||0.30
90805971|NCT04925076|181493168|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||ANOVA|F(1,108)=.01||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain threshold. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history X sex interaction.||||.92
90805972|NCT04925076|181493168|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||ANOVA|F(1,108) = .01||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain threshold. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X sex interaction.||||.92
90805973|NCT04925076|181493168|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||Chi-squared|F(1,108) = 0.27||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain threshold. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history interaction.||||.61
90805974|NCT04925076|181493168|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|F(1,108) = 6.75||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain threshold. Here we report the results of the analysis of the family history X sex interaction.||||.01
90805975|NCT04925076|181493168|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|F(1,108) = 3.83||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain threshold. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of condition.||||.05
90805976|NCT04925076|181493168|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||ANOVA|F(1,108) = 9.53||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain threshold. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of family history.||||.003
90805977|NCT04925076|181493168|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||ANOVA|F(1,108) = 2.41||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain threshold. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of sex.||||.12
90805978|NCT04925076|181493169|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||ANOVA|F(1,107) = 0.78||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain tolerance. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history X sex interaction.||||.38
90805979|NCT04925076|181493169|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||ANOVA|F(1,107) = 0.27||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain tolerance. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X sex interaction.||||.27
90805980|NCT04925076|181493169|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||ANOVA|F(1,107) = 0.15||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain tolerance. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history interaction.||||.70
90805981|NCT04925076|181493169|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|F(1,107) = 3.87||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain tolerance. Here we report the results of the analysis of the family history X sex interaction.||||.05
90805982|NCT04925076|181493169|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||ANOVA|F(1,107) = 5.18||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain tolerance. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of condition.||||.03
90805983|NCT04925076|181493169|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||ANOVA|F(1,107) = 2.24||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain tolerance. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of family history.||||.14
90805984|NCT04925076|181493169|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|F(1,107) = 17.25||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain tolerance. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of sex.||||<.001
90805985|NCT04925076|181493170|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||ANOVA|F(1,107) = 0.05||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain intensity. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history X sex interaction.||||.83
90805986|NCT04925076|181493170|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||ANOVA|F(1,107) = 2.43||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain intensity. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X sex interaction.||||.12
90805987|NCT04925076|181493170|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||ANOVA|F(1,107) = 1.36||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain intensity. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history interaction.||||.25
91014478|NCT01484691|181911990|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate (FDR) approach and a p value \<0.05 is taken for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||mir200a||||0.99
91054495|NCT00444457|181991050|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots were considered equivalent if the maximum difference between any 2 lots is less than 0.693 and greater than -0.693 using the equivalence testing procedure for 3 vaccine groups given by Wiens and Iglewicz, for all 13 serotypes.|Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.0|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 18C||-0.00|-0.20|
90805988|NCT04925076|181493170|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||ANOVA|F(1,107) = 0.31||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain intensity. Here we report the results of the analysis of the family history X sex interaction.||||.58
91014479|NCT01484691|181911990|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.92||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate (FDR) approach and a p value \<0.05 is taken for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||mir22||||0.38
91078169|NCT03046056|182041819|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference in Proportions|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-38.9|45.7||||||||45.7|-38.9|
91078170|NCT03046056|182041819|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference in Proportions|-4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-47.5|40.8||||||||40.8|-47.5|
90805989|NCT04925076|181493170|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||ANOVA|F(1,107) = 0.02||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain intensity. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of condition.||||.90
90805990|NCT04925076|181493170|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||ANOVA|F(1,107) = .004||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain intensity. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of family history.||||.95
91014480|NCT01484691|181911990|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.57||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate (FDR) approach and a p value \<0.05 is taken for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||mir223||||0.38
91014481|NCT01484691|181911990|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.52||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate (FDR) approach and a p value \<0.05 is taken for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||mir23a||||0.83
91078171|NCT03046056|182041820|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference in Proportions|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.8|89.5||||||||89.5|-16.8|
91078172|NCT03046056|182041820|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference in Proportions|12.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-46.1|63.3||||||||63.3|-46.1|
90805991|NCT04925076|181493170|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||ANOVA|F(1,107) = 0.17||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain intensity. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of sex.||||.68
90805992|NCT04925076|181493171|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||ANOVA|F(1,107) = 0.83||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain relief. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history X sex interaction.||||.36
90805993|NCT04925076|181493171|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||ANOVA|F(1,108) = 1.41||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain relief. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X sex interaction.||||.24
90805994|NCT04925076|181493171|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||ANOVA|F(1,108) = 0.28||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain relief. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history interaction.||||.60
90805995|NCT04925076|181493171|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||ANOVA|F(1,108) = 0.00||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain relief. Here we report the results of the analysis of the family history X sex interaction.||||.99
90805996|NCT04925076|181493171|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|F(1,108) = 139.63||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain relief. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of condition.||||<.001
90805997|NCT04925076|181493171|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||ANOVA|F(1,108) = 0.04||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain relief. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of family history.||||.84
90805998|NCT04925076|181493171|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||ANOVA|F(1,108) = 0.30||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain relief. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of sex.||||.59
90805999|NCT04925076|181493172|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.19||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on dorsolateral prefrontal cortex activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history X sex interaction.||||.66
90806000|NCT04925076|181493172|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.69||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on dorsolateral prefrontal cortex activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X sex interaction.||||.41
90806001|NCT04925076|181493172|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.74||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on dorsolateral prefrontal cortex activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history interaction.||||.39
90806002|NCT04925076|181493172|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=1.54||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on dorsolateral prefrontal cortex activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the family history X sex interaction.||||.22
91078173|NCT03046056|182041821|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference in Proportions|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.2|32.6||||||||32.6|-17.2|
90806003|NCT04925076|181493172|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=3.64||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on dorsolateral prefrontal cortex activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of condition.||||.06
90806004|NCT04925076|181493172|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.000||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on dorsolateral prefrontal cortex activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of family history.||||.99
90806005|NCT04925076|181493172|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=2.88||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on dorsolateral prefrontal cortex activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of sex.||||.09
90806006|NCT04925076|181493173|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.36||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on hypothalamus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history X sex interaction.||||.55
90806007|NCT04925076|181493173|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.84||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on hypothalamus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X sex interaction.||||.36
90806008|NCT04925076|181493173|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.84||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on hypothalamus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history interaction.||||.36
90806009|NCT04925076|181493173|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=1.93||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on hypothalamus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the family history X sex interaction.||||.17
91014482|NCT01484691|181911990|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.81||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate (FDR) approach and a p value \<0.05 is taken for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||mir26a||||0.83
91014483|NCT01484691|181911990|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.39||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate (FDR) approach and a p value \<0.05 is taken for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||mir320b||||0.38
91014484|NCT01484691|181911990|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.92||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate (FDR) approach and a p value \<0.05 is taken for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||mir598||||0.38
91014485|NCT01484691|181911990|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.55||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate (FDR) approach and a p value \<0.05 is taken for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||mir720||||0.83
91014486|NCT01484691|181911990|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.12||||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||mir1915||||0.30
91014487|NCT01484691|181911990|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.35||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate (FDR) approach and a p value \<0.05 is taken for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||mir1978||||0.38
90806010|NCT04925076|181493173|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.36||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on hypothalamus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of condition.||||.55
90806011|NCT04925076|181493173|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.63||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on hypothalamus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of family history.||||.43
91014488|NCT01484691|181911991|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.53||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate (FDR) approach and a p value \<0.05 is taken for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||mir1||||0.26
91014489|NCT01484691|181911991|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.52||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate (FDR) approach and a p value \<0.05 is taken for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||mir107||||0.26
91014490|NCT01484691|181911991|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.57||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate (FDR) approach and a p value \<0.05 is taken for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||mir128||||0.26
91078174|NCT03046056|182041821|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference in Proportions|6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.1|30.2||||||||30.2|-18.1|
90806012|NCT04925076|181493173|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.96||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain threshold. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of sex.||||.33
90806013|NCT04925076|181493174|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.34||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on medial prefrontal cortex activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history X sex interaction.||||.34
90806014|NCT04925076|181493174|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.02||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on medial prefrontal cortex activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X sex interaction.||||.88
90806015|NCT04925076|181493174|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.34||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on medial prefrontal cortex activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history interaction.||||.56
90806016|NCT04925076|181493174|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.02||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on medial prefrontal cortex activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the family history X sex interaction.||||.90
90806017|NCT04925076|181493174|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.59||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on medial prefrontal cortex activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of condition.||||.45
90806018|NCT04925076|181493174|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.04||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on medial prefrontal cortex activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of family history.||||.85
91078175|NCT03046056|182041822|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference in Proportions|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.1|28.1||||||||28.1|-22.1|
90806019|NCT04925076|181493174|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.22||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on medial prefrontal cortex. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of sex.||||.64
91014491|NCT01484691|181911991|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.58||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate (FDR) approach and a p value \<0.05 is taken for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||mir141||||0.87
90806020|NCT04925076|181493175|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=1.07||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on nucleus accumbens activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history X sex interaction.||||.30
90806021|NCT04925076|181493175|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=2.62||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on nucleus accumbens activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X sex interaction.||||.11
90806022|NCT04925076|181493175|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.76||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on nucleus accumbens activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history interaction.||||.39
91014492|NCT01484691|181911991|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.57||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate (FDR) approach and a p value \<0.05 is taken for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||mir148b||||0.29
91014493|NCT01484691|181911991|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.56||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate (FDR) approach and a p value \<0.05 is taken for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||mir181b||||0.75
90806023|NCT04925076|181493175|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.02||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on nucleus accumbens activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the family history X sex interaction.||||.89
90806024|NCT04925076|181493175|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=6.72||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on nucleus accumbens activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of condition.||||.01
90806025|NCT04925076|181493175|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=3.15||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on nucleus accumbens activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of family history.||||.08
90806026|NCT04925076|181493175|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=3.71||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on nucleus accumbens activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of sex.||||.06
90806027|NCT04925076|181493176|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=1.14||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on periaqueductal gray activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history X sex interaction.||||.29
91014494|NCT01484691|181911991|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.9||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate (FDR) approach and a p value \<0.05 is taken for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||mir185||||0.36
91014495|NCT01484691|181911991|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.36||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate (FDR) approach and a p value \<0.05 is taken for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||mir194||||0.89
91014496|NCT01484691|181911991|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.48||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate (FDR) approach and a p value \<0.05 is taken for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||mir19a||||0.48
91078176|NCT03046056|182041822|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference in Proportions|-4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-28.1|20.3||||||||20.3|-28.1|
90806028|NCT04925076|181493176|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=2.84||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on nucleus accumbens activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X sex interaction.||||.10
90806029|NCT04925076|181493176|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.47||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on periaqueductal gray activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history interaction.||||.49
90806030|NCT04925076|181493176|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.000||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on periaqueductal gray activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the family history X sex interaction.||||.99
90806031|NCT04925076|181493176|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=2.29||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on periaqueductal gray activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of condition.||||.13
90806032|NCT04925076|181493176|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.05||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on periaqueductal gray activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of family history.||||.82
90806033|NCT04925076|181493176|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=6.09||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on periaqueductal gray activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of sex.||||0.02
91014497|NCT01484691|181911991|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.75||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate (FDR) approach and a p value \<0.05 is taken for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||mir200a||||0.87
91014498|NCT01484691|181911991|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.78||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate (FDR) approach and a p value \<0.05 is taken for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||mir22||||0.53
91078177|NCT03046056|182041823|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference in Proportions|17.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.6|40.4||||||||40.4|-7.6|
90806034|NCT04925076|181493177|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=1.01||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on anterior cingulate cortex activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history X sex interaction.||||.32
90806035|NCT04925076|181493177|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.000||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on anterior cingulate cortex activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X sex interaction.||||.99
90806036|NCT04925076|181493177|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.05||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on anterior cingulate cortex activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history interaction.||||.83
90806037|NCT04925076|181493177|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.10||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on anterior cingulate cortex activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the family history X sex interaction.||||.75
91014499|NCT01484691|181911991|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.91||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate (FDR) approach and a p value \<0.05 is taken for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||mir223||||0.57
91014500|NCT01484691|181911991|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.27||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate (FDR) approach and a p value \<0.05 is taken for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||mir23a||||0.26
91078178|NCT03046056|182041823|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference in Proportions|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.2|26.5||||||||26.5|-21.2|
90806038|NCT04925076|181493177|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.25||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on anterior cingulate cortex activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of condition.||||.62
90806039|NCT04925076|181493177|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.01||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on anterior cingulate cortex activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of family history.||||.92
90806040|NCT04925076|181493177|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.76||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on anterior cingulate cortex activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of sex.||||.39
91014501|NCT01484691|181911991|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.66||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate (FDR) approach and a p value \<0.05 is taken for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||mir26a||||0.75
91014502|NCT01484691|181911991|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.91||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate (FDR) approach and a p value \<0.05 is taken for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||mir320b||||0.89
91014503|NCT01484691|181911991|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.32||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate (FDR) approach and a p value \<0.05 is taken for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||mir598||||0.26
91014504|NCT01484691|181911991|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.99||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate (FDR) approach and a p value \<0.05 is taken for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||mir720||||0.87
91014505|NCT01484691|181911991|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.75||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate (FDR) approach and a p value \<0.05 is taken for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||mir1915||||0.74
90806041|NCT04925076|181493178|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.45||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on amygdala activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history X sex interaction.||||.50
90806042|NCT04925076|181493178|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=1.20||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on amygdala activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X sex interaction.||||.28
90806043|NCT04925076|181493178|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.28||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on amygdala activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history interaction.||||.60
90806044|NCT04925076|181493178|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=4.48||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on amygdala activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the family history X sex interaction.||||.04
90806045|NCT04925076|181493178|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=1.37||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on amygdala activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of condition.||||.25
90806046|NCT04925076|181493178|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.01||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on amygdala activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of family history.||||.89
90806047|NCT04925076|181493178|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=1.28||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on amygdala activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of sex.||||.26
90806048|NCT04925076|181493179|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.09||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on hippocampus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history X sex interaction.||||.76
90806049|NCT04925076|181493179|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=3.00||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on hippocampus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X sex interaction.||||.09
90806050|NCT04925076|181493179|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.10||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on hippocampus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history interaction.||||.76
90806051|NCT04925076|181493179|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.09||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on hippocampus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the family history X sex interaction.||||.77
90806052|NCT04925076|181493179|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.41||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on hippocampus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of condition.||||.52
90806053|NCT04925076|181493179|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.007||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain hippocampus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of family history.||||.93
90806054|NCT04925076|181493179|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.64||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on hippocampus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of sex.||||.42
90806055|NCT04925076|181493180|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.62||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on insula activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history X sex interaction.||||.44
90806056|NCT04925076|181493180|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=1.23||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on insula activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X sex interaction.||||.27
90806057|NCT04925076|181493180|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=3.66||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on insula activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history interaction.||||.06
90806058|NCT04925076|181493180|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.13||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on insula activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the family history X sex interaction.||||.73
90806059|NCT04925076|181493180|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.047|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=4.04||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on insula activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of condition.||||.047
90806060|NCT04925076|181493180|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.001||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on insula activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of family history.||||.97
90806061|NCT04925076|181493180|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.05||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on insula activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of sex.||||.82
91014506|NCT01484691|181911991|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.77||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate (FDR) approach and a p value \<0.05 is taken for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||mir1978||||0.36
91014507|NCT03480243|181911994|OTHER||Cmax Estimate Ratio|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.59|2.27|||ANOVA|||The analysis of variance model included the fixed effects period (1, 2 or 3b) and participant as a random effect.||2.27|1.59|
90806062|NCT04925076|181493181|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.57||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on postcentral gyrus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history X sex interaction.||||0.45
90806063|NCT04925076|181493181|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.29||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on postcentral gyrus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X sex interaction.||||.59
90806064|NCT04925076|181493181|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=3.41||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on postcentral gyrus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history interaction.||||.07
90806065|NCT04925076|181493181|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.26||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on postcentral gyrus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the family history X sex interaction.||||.61
90806066|NCT04925076|181493181|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.05||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on postcentral gyrus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of condition.||||.82
90806067|NCT04925076|181493181|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.23||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on postcentral gyrus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of family history.||||.63
90806068|NCT04925076|181493181|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.36||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on postcentral gyrus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of sex.||||.55
90806069|NCT04925076|181493182|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.32||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on thalamus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history X sex interaction.||||.57
90806070|NCT04925076|181493182|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=2.17||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on thalamus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X sex interaction.||||.14
90806071|NCT04925076|181493182|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.32||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on thalamus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history interaction.||||.69
90806072|NCT04925076|181493182|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.92||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on thalamus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the family history X sex interaction.||||.34
90806073|NCT04925076|181493182|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=1.16||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on thalamus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of condition.||||0.29
90806074|NCT04925076|181493182|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.004||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on thalamus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of family history.||||.95
90806075|NCT04925076|181493182|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=2.65||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on thalamus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of sex.||||.11
90806076|NCT01089413|181493215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.8579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.54|||Regression, Cox|||||1.54|0.70|0.8579
90806077|NCT01089413|181493216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.1555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.21|||Regression, Cox|||||1.21|0.30|0.1555
90806078|NCT01971463|181493221|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank|||Change in oCBF from baseline to post-bolus, ipsilesional hemisphere||||<0.05
90806079|NCT01971463|181493221|SUPERIORITY|Mixed effects regression, modeling the interaction term for time x normal saline bolus in the ipsilesional hemisphere|Slope|0.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.07|0.03|<0.001
90806080|NCT01610557|181493225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|2.5|||Linear mixed-effects model||The difference represents the estimated difference between ranibizumab and bevacizumab, adjusted for baseline visual acuity, study period, and clinical site and a subject effect for eyes nested within subject.|||2.5|0.07|0.039
90806081|NCT01610557|181493226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-48.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.0|-31.0|||Linear mixed-effects model||The difference represents the estimated difference between ranibizumab and bevacizumab, adjusted for baseline visual acuity, study period, and clinical site and a subject effect for eyes nested within subject.|||-31|-65|<0.001
90806082|NCT01200407|181493234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-35.8||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.2|-34.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||SBP with LOCF (Week 12)||-34.4|-37.2|0.000
90806083|NCT01200407|181493234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-19.4||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.3|-18.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||DBP with LOCF (Week 12)||-18.6|-20.3|0.000
90806084|NCT01200407|181493235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-24.7||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.1|-23.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||SBP w/o LOCF (Week 4)||-23.4|-26.1|0.000
90806085|NCT01200407|181493235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-33.0||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.4|-31.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||SBP w/o LOCF (Week 8)||-31.6|-34.4|0.000
90806086|NCT01200407|181493235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-36.3||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.9|-34.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||SBP w/o LOCF (Week 12)||-34.7|-37.9|0.000
90806087|NCT01200407|181493235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.2||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|-12.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||DBP w/o LOCF (Week 4)||-12.4|-14.0|0.000
90806088|NCT01200407|181493235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-17.6||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.4|-16.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||DBP w/o LOCF (Week 8)||-16.7|-18.4|0.000
90806089|NCT01200407|181493235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-19.9||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.8|-18.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||DBP w/o LOCF (Week 12)||-18.9|-20.8|0.000
91054496|NCT00444457|181991050|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots were considered equivalent if the maximum difference between any 2 lots is less than 0.693 and greater than -0.693 using the equivalence testing procedure for 3 vaccine groups given by Wiens and Iglewicz, for all 13 serotypes.|Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|-0.01|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 19F||-0.01|-0.22|
91054497|NCT00444457|181991050|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots were considered equivalent if the maximum difference between any 2 lots is less than 0.693 and greater than -0.693 using the equivalence testing procedure for 3 vaccine groups given by Wiens and Iglewicz, for all 13 serotypes.|Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.23|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 19F||-0.23|-0.44|
91054498|NCT00444457|181991050|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots were considered equivalent if the maximum difference between any 2 lots is less than 0.693 and greater than -0.693 using the equivalence testing procedure for 3 vaccine groups given by Wiens and Iglewicz, for all 13 serotypes.|Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|-0.11|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 19F||-0.11|-0.33|
90806090|NCT03831191|181493241|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.55||||0.638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|6.81|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.81|0.04|0.638
90806091|NCT03831191|181493241|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||0.773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|8.76|||Regression, Logistic|||||8.76|0.05|0.773
90806092|NCT03831191|181493241|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.58||||0.671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|7.26|||Regression, Logistic|||||7.26|0.05|0.671
90806093|NCT03831191|181493242|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.2|19.9|||Fisher Exact|||||19.9|-27.2|>0.999
90806094|NCT03831191|181493242|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.5|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.7|30.8|||Fisher Exact|||||30.8|-20.7|>0.999
90806095|NCT03831191|181493242|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-19.0||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.0|0.2|||Fisher Exact|||||0.2|-40.0|0.107
90806096|NCT03831191|181493243|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.2|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.1|19.3|||Fisher Exact|||||19.3|-18.1|>0.999
90806097|NCT03831191|181493243|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.8|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.7|14.1|||Fisher Exact|||||14.1|-22.7|>0.999
90806098|NCT03831191|181493243|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.8|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.7|11.2|||Fisher Exact|||||11.2|-22.7|>0.999
90806099|NCT03831191|181493244|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||||||||0.0|0.0|
90806100|NCT03831191|181493244|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||||||||0.0|0.0|
90806101|NCT03831191|181493244|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||||||||0.0|0.0|
90806102|NCT03831191|181493245|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|6.55||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.36|19.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||19.45|-6.36|0.310
90806103|NCT03831191|181493245|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.56||||0.393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|18.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||18.63|-7.50|0.393
90806104|NCT03831191|181493245|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.59||||0.564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.91|16.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||16.08|-8.91|0.564
90806105|NCT03831191|181493246|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|7.61||||0.356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.82|24.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||24.05|-8.82|0.356
90806106|NCT03831191|181493246|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.33||||0.783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.64|19.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||19.30|-14.64|0.783
90806107|NCT03831191|181493246|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.52||||0.414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|22.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||22.43|-9.40|0.414
90806108|NCT01864148|181493249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.9584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|2.07|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios, 95% CI and p-values are based on logistic regression adjusted for MS type, region and baseline component assessments.||||2.07|0.46|0.9584
90806109|NCT01864148|181493249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.79||||0.0636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|3.31|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios, 95% CI and p-values are based on logistic regression adjusted for MS type, region and baseline component assessments.||||3.31|0.97|0.0636
90806110|NCT01864148|181493249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.06||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|3.84|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios, 95% CI and p-values are based on logistic regression adjusted for MS type, region and baseline component assessments.||||3.84|1.11|0.0220
90806111|NCT01864148|181493249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.66||||0.1771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.21|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios, 95% CI and p-values are based on logistic regression adjusted for MS type, region and baseline component assessments.||||1.21|0.36|0.1771
90806112|NCT01864148|181493249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8931|||||||Trend test|Trend test p-value is based on a linear contrast in logistic regression.||||||0.8931
90806113|NCT01864148|181493250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65||||0.3058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.49|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios, 95% CI and p-values are based on logistic regression adjusted for MS type, region and baseline component assessments.||||1.49|0.28|0.3058
90806114|NCT01864148|181493250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53||||0.1873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.89|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios, 95% CI and p-values are based on logistic regression adjusted for MS type, region and baseline component assessments.||||2.89|0.81|0.1873
90806115|NCT01864148|181493250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.2766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.65|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios, 95% CI and p-values are based on logistic regression adjusted for MS type, region and baseline component assessments.||||2.65|0.76|0.2766
90806116|NCT01864148|181493250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.6578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.65|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios, 95% CI and p-values are based on logistic regression adjusted for MS type, region and baseline component assessments.||||1.65|0.45|0.6578
91054499|NCT00444457|181991050|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots were considered equivalent if the maximum difference between any 2 lots is less than 0.693 and greater than -0.693 using the equivalence testing procedure for 3 vaccine groups given by Wiens and Iglewicz, for all 13 serotypes.|Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.11|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 23F||0.11|-0.16|
91054500|NCT00444457|181991050|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots were considered equivalent if the maximum difference between any 2 lots is less than 0.693 and greater than -0.693 using the equivalence testing procedure for 3 vaccine groups given by Wiens and Iglewicz, for all 13 serotypes.|Difference in log-transformed GM|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.31|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 23F||0.31|0.04|
91054501|NCT00444457|181991050|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots were considered equivalent if the maximum difference between any 2 lots is less than 0.693 and greater than -0.693 using the equivalence testing procedure for 3 vaccine groups given by Wiens and Iglewicz, for all 13 serotypes.|Difference in log-transformed GM|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.34|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 23F||0.34|0.07|
91054502|NCT00444457|181991050|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots were considered equivalent if the maximum difference between any 2 lots is less than 0.693 and greater than -0.693 using the equivalence testing procedure for 3 vaccine groups given by Wiens and Iglewicz, for all 13 serotypes.|Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.01|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Additional serotypes - serotype 1||0.01|-0.23|
91054503|NCT00444457|181991050|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots were considered equivalent if the maximum difference between any 2 lots is less than 0.693 and greater than -0.693 using the equivalence testing procedure for 3 vaccine groups given by Wiens and Iglewicz, for all 13 serotypes.|Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|-0.04|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Additional serotypes - serotype 1||-0.04|-0.28|
91054504|NCT00444457|181991050|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots were considered equivalent if the maximum difference between any 2 lots is less than 0.693 and greater than -0.693 using the equivalence testing procedure for 3 vaccine groups given by Wiens and Iglewicz, for all 13 serotypes.|Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.06|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Additional serotypes - serotype 1||0.06|-0.17|
91054505|NCT00444457|181991050|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots were considered equivalent if the maximum difference between any 2 lots is less than 0.693 and greater than -0.693 using the equivalence testing procedure for 3 vaccine groups given by Wiens and Iglewicz, for all 13 serotypes.|Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.02|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Additional serotypes - serotype 3||0.02|-0.19|
91054506|NCT00444457|181991050|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots were considered equivalent if the maximum difference between any 2 lots is less than 0.693 and greater than -0.693 using the equivalence testing procedure for 3 vaccine groups given by Wiens and Iglewicz, for all 13 serotypes.|Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|-0.07|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Additional serotypes - serotype 3||-0.07|-0.28|
91054507|NCT00444457|181991050|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots were considered equivalent if the maximum difference between any 2 lots is less than 0.693 and greater than -0.693 using the equivalence testing procedure for 3 vaccine groups given by Wiens and Iglewicz, for all 13 serotypes.|Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.02|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Additional serotypes - serotype 3||0.02|-0.19|
91054508|NCT00444457|181991050|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots were considered equivalent if the maximum difference between any 2 lots is less than 0.693 and greater than -0.693 using the equivalence testing procedure for 3 vaccine groups given by Wiens and Iglewicz, for all 13 serotypes.|Difference in log-transformed GM|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.37|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Additional serotypes - serotype 5||0.37|0.13|
90806117|NCT01864148|181493250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5255|||||||Trend test|Trend test p-value is based on a linear contrast in logistic regression.||||||0.5255
91054509|NCT00444457|181991050|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots were considered equivalent if the maximum difference between any 2 lots is less than 0.693 and greater than -0.693 using the equivalence testing procedure for 3 vaccine groups given by Wiens and Iglewicz, for all 13 serotypes.|Difference in log-transformed GM|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.12|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Additional serotypes - serotype 5||0.12|-0.12|
90806118|NCT05319600|181493281|SUPERIORITY|treatment group as predictor baseline-residualized week 12 scores in linear regression|Slope|129.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|73.96|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.52|280.98|||Regression, Linear||Control coded as 0 and treatment as 1|||280.98|-22.52|<0.05
90806119|NCT00904670|181493282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|-12.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.75|-10.17|||ANOVA|||Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using linear models with sequence (Placebo/NWP06 and NWP06/Placebo), period, and treatment (NWP06 and Placebo) as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a repeated effect with a compound symmetry correlation structure. A negative point difference indicated a positive effect of NWP06 over Placebo.||-10.17|-14.75|<0.0001
91054510|NCT00444457|181991050|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots were considered equivalent if the maximum difference between any 2 lots is less than 0.693 and greater than -0.693 using the equivalence testing procedure for 3 vaccine groups given by Wiens and Iglewicz, for all 13 serotypes.|Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.13|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Additional serotypes - serotype 5||-0.13|-0.37|
91054511|NCT00444457|181991050|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots were considered equivalent if the maximum difference between any 2 lots is less than 0.693 and greater than -0.693 using the equivalence testing procedure for 3 vaccine groups given by Wiens and Iglewicz, for all 13 serotypes.|Difference in log-transformed GM|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.25|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Additional serotypes - serotype 6A||0.25|0.02|
91054512|NCT00444457|181991050|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots were considered equivalent if the maximum difference between any 2 lots is less than 0.693 and greater than -0.693 using the equivalence testing procedure for 3 vaccine groups given by Wiens and Iglewicz, for all 13 serotypes.|Difference in log-transformed GM|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.24|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Additional serotypes - serotype 6A||0.24|0.01|
91054513|NCT00444457|181991050|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots were considered equivalent if the maximum difference between any 2 lots is less than 0.693 and greater than -0.693 using the equivalence testing procedure for 3 vaccine groups given by Wiens and Iglewicz, for all 13 serotypes.|Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.11|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Additional serotypes - serotype 6A||0.11|-0.13|
91054514|NCT00444457|181991050|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots were considered equivalent if the maximum difference between any 2 lots is less than 0.693 and greater than -0.693 using the equivalence testing procedure for 3 vaccine groups given by Wiens and Iglewicz, for all 13 serotypes.|Difference in log-transformed GM|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.1|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Additional serotypes - serotype 7F||0.10|-0.09|
91054515|NCT00444457|181991050|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots were considered equivalent if the maximum difference between any 2 lots is less than 0.693 and greater than -0.693 using the equivalence testing procedure for 3 vaccine groups given by Wiens and Iglewicz, for all 13 serotypes.|Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.04|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Additional serotypes - serotype 7F||0.04|-0.14|
91054516|NCT00444457|181991050|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots were considered equivalent if the maximum difference between any 2 lots is less than 0.693 and greater than -0.693 using the equivalence testing procedure for 3 vaccine groups given by Wiens and Iglewicz, for all 13 serotypes.|Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.04|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Additional serotypes - serotype 7F||0.04|-0.15|
91054517|NCT00444457|181991050|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots were considered equivalent if the maximum difference between any 2 lots is less than 0.693 and greater than -0.693 using the equivalence testing procedure for 3 vaccine groups given by Wiens and Iglewicz, for all 13 serotypes.|Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.03|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Additional serotypes - serotype 19A||0.03|-0.19|
91054518|NCT00444457|181991050|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots were considered equivalent if the maximum difference between any 2 lots is less than 0.693 and greater than -0.693 using the equivalence testing procedure for 3 vaccine groups given by Wiens and Iglewicz, for all 13 serotypes.|Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.09|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Additional serotypes - serotype 19A||0.09|-0.12|
91054519|NCT00444457|181991050|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots were considered equivalent if the maximum difference between any 2 lots is less than 0.693 and greater than -0.693 using the equivalence testing procedure for 3 vaccine groups given by Wiens and Iglewicz, for all 13 serotypes.|Difference in log-transformed GM|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.17|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Additional serotypes - serotype 19A||0.17|-0.05|
91054520|NCT00444457|181991051|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For each of the 5 concomitant antigens (tetanus toxoid, poliovirus Type 1, 2, and 3, and hepatitis b antibodies), non-inferiority was shown if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI, computed using the Chan and Zhang procedure for the difference in proportions, is greater than -10%.|Difference|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|3.0|||||Exact 2-sided CI for difference in proportions (combined 13vPnC, 7vPnC) expressed as a percentage.|Tetanus toxoid: Difference in proportions (combined 13vPnC, 7vPnC) expressed as a percentage.||3.0|-3.3|
91014508|NCT03480243|181911994|OTHER||Cmax Estimate Ratio|1.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.51|2.16|||ANOVA|||The analysis of variance model included the fixed effects period (1, 2 or 3b) and participant as a random effect.||2.16|1.51|
91014509|NCT03480243|181911995|OTHER||AUC Estimate Ratio|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.5|2.17|||ANOVA|||The analysis of variance model included the fixed effects period (1, 2 or 3b) and participant as a random effect.||2.17|1.50|
91014510|NCT03480243|181911995|OTHER||AUC Estimate Ratio|1.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.36|1.97|||ANOVA|||The analysis of variance model included the fixed effects period (1, 2 or 3b) and participant as a random effect.||1.97|1.36|
91014511|NCT03480243|181911996|OTHER||Cmax,ss Estimate Ratio|2.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.77|2.55|||ANOVA|||The analysis of variance model included the fixed effects period (1, 2 or 3b) and participant as a random effect.||2.55|1.77|
91078179|NCT03046056|182041824|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-48.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|28.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-95.0|-1.0||||||Diff in LSM, and its 90% CI were from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline segmental MaRIA score, concomitant use of oral, systemically absorbed corticosteroids at baseline, concomitant use of immunomodulators at baseline, prior exposure to biologics, and treatment group.||-1|-95|
90806120|NCT00904670|181493283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-6.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.53|-4.11|||ANOVA|||Hour 0.75: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using linear models with sequence (Placebo/NWP06 and NWP06/Placebo), period, and treatment (NWP06 and Placebo) as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a repeated effect with a compound symmetry correlation structure. A negative point difference indicated a positive effect of NWP06 over Placebo.||-4.11|-8.53|<0.0001
90806121|NCT00904670|181493283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-9.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.04|-7.91|||ANOVA|||Hour 2: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using linear models with sequence (Placebo/NWP06 and NWP06/Placebo), period, and treatment (NWP06 and Placebo) as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a repeated effect with a compound symmetry correlation structure. A negative point difference indicated a positive effect of NWP06 over Placebo.||-7.91|-12.04|<0.0001
90806122|NCT00904670|181493283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-9.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.28|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.92|-6.75|||ANOVA|||Hour 8: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using linear models with sequence (Placebo/NWP06 and NWP06/Placebo), period, and treatment (NWP06 and Placebo) as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a repeated effect with a compound symmetry correlation structure. A negative point difference indicated a positive effect of NWP06 over Placebo.||-6.75|-11.92|<0.0001
90806123|NCT00904670|181493283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-3.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.04|-1.54|||ANOVA|||Hour 10: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using linear models with sequence (Placebo/NWP06 and NWP06/Placebo), period, and treatment (NWP06 and Placebo) as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a repeated effect with a compound symmetry correlation structure. A negative point difference indicated a positive effect of NWP06 over Placebo.||-1.54|-6.04|0.0016
90806124|NCT00904670|181493283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-4.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.61|-1.94|||ANOVA|||Hour 12: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using linear models with sequence (Placebo/NWP06 and NWP06/Placebo), period, and treatment (NWP06 and Placebo) as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a repeated effect with a compound symmetry correlation structure. A negative point difference indicated a positive effect of NWP06 over Placebo.||-1.94|-7.61|0.0016
91014512|NCT03480243|181911996|OTHER||Cmax,ss Estimate Ratio|2.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.78|2.56|||ANOVA|||The analysis of variance model included the fixed effects period (1, 2 or 3b) and participant as a random effect.||2.56|1.78|
91014513|NCT03480243|181911997|OTHER||AUCtau Estimate Ratio|2.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.02|3.03|||ANOVA|||The analysis of variance model included the fixed effects period (1, 2 or 3b) and participant as a random effect.||3.03|2.02|
91014514|NCT03480243|181911997|OTHER||AUCtau Estimate Ratio|2.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.82|2.73|||ANOVA|||The analysis of variance model included the fixed effects period (1, 2 or 3b) and participant as a random effect.||2.73|1.82|
91014515|NCT04365387|181912022|OTHER||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.3|14.5|||||Risk Difference (90% CI) were estimated using weighted average of stratum-specific proportion using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH).|||14.5|-10.3|
91014516|NCT04365387|181912023|OTHER||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|-4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.9|5.7|||||Risk Difference (90% CI) were estimated using weighted average of stratum-specific proportion using CMH.|||5.7|-14.9|
91014517|NCT04365387|181912025|OTHER||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.2|5.9|||||Risk Difference (90% CI) were estimated using weighted average of stratum-specific proportion using CMH.|||5.9|-3.2|
91014518|NCT04365387|181912026|OTHER||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|13.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.1|26.4|||||Risk Difference (90% CI) were estimated using weighted average of stratum-specific proportion using CMH for non-Imputed values|||26.4|0.1|
91014519|NCT04365387|181912027|OTHER||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.3|11.9|||||Risk Difference (90% CI) were estimated using weighted average of stratum-specific proportion using CMH.|||11.9|-9.3|
91014520|NCT01683565|181912033|OTHER|Analyses compared the change in Pervasive Developmental Disorders Screening Test-II scores between groups, controlling for baseline scores, using mixed effects regression. This method leverages maximum likelihood to account for missing data. Treatment-by-time interaction terms were included as fixed effects and served as estimates of treatment effect. Group mean differences divided by the standard deviation were also calculated as effect sizes.||||||0.67||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05)|Mixed Models Analysis|||The sample size was determined based on the goal of confirming trial feasibility and estimating effect sizes for a full-scale trial, not for a definitive test of efficacy. The enrollment goal was 40, which would have provided an indication of an expected effect size for a larger full-scale trial (e.g., 53% power to detect a 2-point decrease (approximately 0.7-SD based on a prior study) in Pervasive Developmental Disorders Screening Test-II score). Funding limitations capped enrollment at 31.||||0.67
91014521|NCT01683565|181912034|OTHER|Analyses compared the change in BITSEA outcome scores between groups, controlling for baseline scores, using mixed effects regression. This method leverages maximum likelihood to account for missing data. Treatment-by-time interaction terms were included as fixed effects and served as estimates of treatment effect; no participant characteristics were included as covariates in the models. Group mean differences divided by the standard deviation were also calculated as effect sizes.||||||0.22||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis|||The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in Competence scores between groups (LCPUFA vs. Placebo).||||0.22
91014522|NCT01683565|181912034|OTHER|Analyses compared the change in the BITSEA outcome scores between groups, controlling for baseline scores, using mixed effects regression. This method leverages maximum likelihood to account for missing data. Treatment-by-time interaction terms were included as fixed effects and served as estimates of treatment effect; no participant characteristics were included as covariates in the models. Group mean differences divided by the standard deviation were also calculated as effect sizes||||||0.92||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis|||The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in Problem scores between groups (LCPUFA vs. Placebo).||||0.92
91054521|NCT00444457|181991052|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For each of the 5 concomitant antigens (tetanus toxoid, poliovirus Type 1, 2, and 3, and hepatitis b antibodies), non-inferiority was shown if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI, computed using the Chan and Zhang procedure for the difference in proportions, is greater than -10%.|Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.0|||||Exact 2-sided CI for difference in proportions (combined 13vPnC, 7vPnC) expressed as a percentage.|Poliovirus type 1: Difference in proportions (combined 13vPnC, 7vPnC) expressed as a percentage.||2.0|-2.1|
91054522|NCT00444457|181991052|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For each of the 5 concomitant antigens (tetanus toxoid, poliovirus Type 1, 2, and 3, and hepatitis b antibodies), non-inferiority was shown if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI, computed using the Chan and Zhang procedure for the difference in proportions, is greater than -10%.|Difference|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|2.0|||||Exact 2-sided CI for difference in proportions (combined 13vPnC, 7vPnC) expressed as a percentage.|Poliovirus type 2: Difference in proportions (combined 13vPnC, 7vPnC) expressed as a percentage.||2.0|-3.4|
91054523|NCT00444457|181991052|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For each of the 5 concomitant antigens (tetanus toxoid, poliovirus Type 1, 2, and 3, and hepatitis b antibodies), non-inferiority was shown if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI, computed using the Chan and Zhang procedure for the difference in proportions, is greater than -10%.|Difference|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|3.0|||||Exact 2-sided CI for difference in proportions (combined 13vPnC, 7vPnC) expressed as a percentage.|Poliovirus type 3: Difference in proportions (combined 13vPnC, 7vPnC) expressed as a percentage.||3.0|-1.5|
91054524|NCT00444457|181991053|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For each of the 5 concomitant antigens (tetanus toxoid, poliovirus Type 1, 2, and 3, and hepatitis b antibodies), non-inferiority was shown if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI, computed using the Chan and Zhang procedure for the difference in proportions, is greater than -10%.|Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|2.2|||||Exact 2-sided CI for difference in proportions (combined 13vPnC, 7vPnC) expressed as a percentage.|Hepatitis B: Difference in proportions (combined 13vPnC, 7vPnC) expressed as a percentage.||2.2|-2.4|
91054525|NCT00444457|181991054|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exact, unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|4.75||||||Common serotypes - serotype 4||4.75|-0.51|
90806125|NCT00904670|181493284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|-0.36|||ANOVA|||Hour 0.75: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using linear models with sequence (Placebo/NWP06 and NWP06/Placebo), period, and treatment (NWP06 and Placebo) as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a repeated effect with a compound symmetry correlation structure. A negative point difference indicated a positive effect of NWP06 over Placebo.||-0.36|-1.88|0.0051
90806126|NCT00904670|181493284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|-0.95|||ANOVA|||Hour 2: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using linear models with sequence (Placebo/NWP06 and NWP06/Placebo), period, and treatment (NWP06 and Placebo) as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a repeated effect with a compound symmetry correlation structure. A negative point difference indicated a positive effect of NWP06 over Placebo.||-0.95|-2.23|<0.0001
90806127|NCT00904670|181493284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.37|-1.2|||ANOVA|||Hour 4: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using linear models with sequence (Placebo/NWP06 and NWP06/Placebo), period, and treatment (NWP06 and Placebo) as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a repeated effect with a compound symmetry correlation structure. A negative point difference indicated a positive effect of NWP06 over Placebo.||-1.20|-3.37|0.0001
90806128|NCT00904670|181493284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|-0.47|||ANOVA|||Hour 8: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using linear models with sequence (Placebo/NWP06 and NWP06/Placebo), period, and treatment (NWP06 and Placebo) as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a repeated effect with a compound symmetry correlation structure. A negative point difference indicated a positive effect of NWP06 over Placebo.||-0.47|-2.52|0.0055
90806129|NCT00904670|181493284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.1977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|0.29|||ANOVA|||Hour 10: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using linear models with sequence (Placebo/NWP06 and NWP06/Placebo), period, and treatment (NWP06 and Placebo) as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a repeated effect with a compound symmetry correlation structure. A negative point difference indicated a positive effect of NWP06 over Placebo.||0.29|-1.38|0.1977
90806130|NCT00904670|181493284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.0491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|0.0|||ANOVA|||Hour 12: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using linear models with sequence (Placebo/NWP06 and NWP06/Placebo), period, and treatment (NWP06 and Placebo) as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a repeated effect with a compound symmetry correlation structure. A negative point difference indicated a positive effect of NWP06 over Placebo.||0.00|-1.76|0.0491
90806131|NCT00904670|181493285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.36|-1.02|||ANOVA|||Hour 0.75: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using linear models with sequence (Placebo/NWP06 and NWP06/Placebo), period, and treatment (NWP06 and Placebo) as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a repeated effect with a compound symmetry correlation structure. A negative point difference indicated a positive effect of NWP06 over Placebo.||-1.02|-2.36|<0.0001
90806132|NCT00904670|181493285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-1.82|||ANOVA|||Hour 2: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using linear models with sequence (Placebo/NWP06 and NWP06/Placebo), period, and treatment (NWP06 and Placebo) as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a repeated effect with a compound symmetry correlation structure. A negative point difference indicated a positive effect of NWP06 over Placebo.||-1.82|-3.50|<0.0001
91054526|NCT00444457|181991054|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exact, unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|1.1||||||Common serotypes - serotype 4||1.10|-3.09|
90806133|NCT00904670|181493285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.77|-2.13|||ANOVA|||Hour 4: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using linear models with sequence (Placebo/NWP06 and NWP06/Placebo), period, and treatment (NWP06 and Placebo) as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a repeated effect with a compound symmetry correlation structure. A negative point difference indicated a positive effect of NWP06 over Placebo.||-2.13|-3.77|<0.0001
90806134|NCT00904670|181493285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.33|-1.66|||ANOVA|||Hour 8: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using linear models with sequence (Placebo/NWP06 and NWP06/Placebo), period, and treatment (NWP06 and Placebo) as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a repeated effect with a compound symmetry correlation structure. A negative point difference indicated a positive effect of NWP06 over Placebo.||-1.66|-3.33|<0.0001
90806135|NCT00904670|181493285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|-0.44|||ANOVA|||Hour 10: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using linear models with sequence (Placebo/NWP06 and NWP06/Placebo), period, and treatment (NWP06 and Placebo) as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a repeated effect with a compound symmetry correlation structure. A negative point difference indicated a positive effect of NWP06 over Placebo.||-0.44|-2.07|0.0035
90806136|NCT00904670|181493285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.0109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|-0.35|||ANOVA|||Hour 12: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using linear models with sequence (Placebo/NWP06 and NWP06/Placebo), period, and treatment (NWP06 and Placebo) as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a repeated effect with a compound symmetry correlation structure. A negative point difference indicated a positive effect of NWP06 over Placebo.||-0.35|-2.51|0.0109
90806137|NCT00904670|181493286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|25.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.61|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.26|34.96|||ANOVA|||Hour 0.75: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using linear models with sequence (Placebo/NWP06 and NWP06/Placebo), period, and treatment (NWP06 and Placebo) as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a repeated effect with a compound symmetry correlation structure. A negative point difference indicated a positive effect of NWP06 over Placebo.||34.96|16.26|<0.0001
90806138|NCT00904670|181493286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|37.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.21|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.54|47.66|||ANOVA|||Hour 2: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using linear models with sequence (Placebo/NWP06 and NWP06/Placebo), period, and treatment (NWP06 and Placebo) as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a repeated effect with a compound symmetry correlation structure. A negative point difference indicated a positive effect of NWP06 over Placebo.||47.66|26.54|<0.0001
90806139|NCT00904670|181493286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|45.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.35|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.89|60.65|||ANOVA|||Hour 4: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using linear models with sequence (Placebo/NWP06 and NWP06/Placebo), period, and treatment (NWP06 and Placebo) as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a repeated effect with a compound symmetry correlation structure. A negative point difference indicated a positive effect of NWP06 over Placebo.||60.65|30.89|<0.0001
90806140|NCT00904670|181493286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|35.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.57|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.14|48.78|||ANOVA|||Hour 8: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using linear models with sequence (Placebo/NWP06 and NWP06/Placebo), period, and treatment (NWP06 and Placebo) as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a repeated effect with a compound symmetry correlation structure. A negative point difference indicated a positive effect of NWP06 over Placebo.||48.78|22.14|<0.0001
90806141|NCT00904670|181493286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|14.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.86||0.0155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|26.73|||ANOVA|||Hour 10: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using linear models with sequence (Placebo/NWP06 and NWP06/Placebo), period, and treatment (NWP06 and Placebo) as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a repeated effect with a compound symmetry correlation structure. A negative point difference indicated a positive effect of NWP06 over Placebo.||26.73|3.00|0.0155
90806142|NCT00904670|181493286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|20.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.18||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.17|33.22|||ANOVA|||Hour 12: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using linear models with sequence (Placebo/NWP06 and NWP06/Placebo), period, and treatment (NWP06 and Placebo) as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a repeated effect with a compound symmetry correlation structure. A negative point difference indicated a positive effect of NWP06 over Placebo.||33.22|8.17|0.0019
90806143|NCT00904670|181493288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.85|-0.74|||ANOVA|||Hour 0.75: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using linear models with sequence (Placebo/NWP06 and NWP06/Placebo), period, and treatment (NWP06 and Placebo) as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a repeated effect with a compound symmetry correlation structure. A negative point difference indicated a positive effect of NWP06 over Placebo.||-0.74|-2.85|0.0014
91014523|NCT01683565|181912034|OTHER|Analyses compared the change in BITSEA outcome scores between groups, controlling for baseline scores, using mixed effects regression. This method leverages maximum likelihood to account for missing data. Treatment-by-time interaction terms were included as fixed effects and served as estimates of treatment effect; no participant characteristics were included as covariates in the models. Group mean differences divided by the standard deviation were also calculated as effect sizes.||||||0.88|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in Dysregulation scores between groups (LCPUFA vs. Placebo).||||0.88
91014524|NCT01683565|181912034|OTHER|Analyses compared the change in BITSEA outcome scores between groups, controlling for baseline scores, using mixed effects regression. This method leverages maximum likelihood to account for missing data. Treatment-by-time interaction terms were included as fixed effects and served as estimates of treatment effect; no participant characteristics were included as covariates in the models. Group mean differences divided by the standard deviation were also calculated as effect sizes.||||||0.23|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in Externalizing scores between groups (LCPUFA vs. Placebo).||||0.23
90806144|NCT00904670|181493288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.76|-1.82|||ANOVA|||Hour 2: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using linear models with sequence (Placebo/NWP06 and NWP06/Placebo), period, and treatment (NWP06 and Placebo) as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a repeated effect with a compound symmetry correlation structure. A negative point difference indicated a positive effect of NWP06 over Placebo.||-1.82|-3.76|<0.0001
90806145|NCT00904670|181493288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-3.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.12|-2.67|||ANOVA|||Hour 4: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using linear models with sequence (Placebo/NWP06 and NWP06/Placebo), period, and treatment (NWP06 and Placebo) as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a repeated effect with a compound symmetry correlation structure. A negative point difference indicated a positive effect of NWP06 over Placebo.||-2.67|-5.12|<0.0001
90806146|NCT00904670|181493288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.97|-1.33|||ANOVA|||Hour 8: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using linear models with sequence (Placebo/NWP06 and NWP06/Placebo), period, and treatment (NWP06 and Placebo) as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a repeated effect with a compound symmetry correlation structure. A negative point difference indicated a positive effect of NWP06 over Placebo.||-1.33|-3.97|0.0002
90806147|NCT00904670|181493288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.3492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|0.49|||ANOVA|||Hour 10: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using linear models with sequence (Placebo/NWP06 and NWP06/Placebo), period, and treatment (NWP06 and Placebo) as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a repeated effect with a compound symmetry correlation structure. A negative point difference indicated a positive effect of NWP06 over Placebo.||0.49|-1.34|0.3492
90806148|NCT00904670|181493288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.0105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|-0.33|||ANOVA|||Hour 12: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using linear models with sequence (Placebo/NWP06 and NWP06/Placebo), period, and treatment (NWP06 and Placebo) as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a repeated effect with a compound symmetry correlation structure. A negative point difference indicated a positive effect of NWP06 over Placebo.||-0.33|-2.34|0.0105
90806149|NCT00904670|181493289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.43|-1.0|||ANOVA|||Hour 0.75: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using linear models with sequence (Placebo/NWP06 and NWP06/Placebo), period, and treatment (NWP06 and Placebo) as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a repeated effect with a compound symmetry correlation structure. A negative point difference indicated a positive effect of NWP06 over Placebo.||-1.00|-2.43|<0.0001
90806150|NCT00904670|181493289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.78|-2.1|||ANOVA|||Hour 2: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using linear models with sequence (Placebo/NWP06 and NWP06/Placebo), period, and treatment (NWP06 and Placebo) as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a repeated effect with a compound symmetry correlation structure. A negative point difference indicated a positive effect of NWP06 over Placebo.||-2.10|-3.78|<0.0001
90806151|NCT00904670|181493289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-3.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.11|-2.57|||ANOVA|||Hour 4: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using linear models with sequence (Placebo/NWP06 and NWP06/Placebo), period, and treatment (NWP06 and Placebo) as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a repeated effect with a compound symmetry correlation structure. A negative point difference indicated a positive effect of NWP06 over Placebo.||-2.57|-4.11|<0.0001
90806152|NCT00904670|181493289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.64|-1.76|||ANOVA|||Hour 8: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using linear models with sequence (Placebo/NWP06 and NWP06/Placebo), period, and treatment (NWP06 and Placebo) as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a repeated effect with a compound symmetry correlation structure. A negative point difference indicated a positive effect of NWP06 over Placebo.||-1.76|-3.64|<0.0001
90806153|NCT00904670|181493289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.73|||ANOVA|||Hour 10: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using linear models with sequence (Placebo/NWP06 and NWP06/Placebo), period, and treatment (NWP06 and Placebo) as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a repeated effect with a compound symmetry correlation structure. A negative point difference indicated a positive effect of NWP06 over Placebo.||-0.73|-2.40|0.0006
90806154|NCT00904670|181493289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.0087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|-0.3|||ANOVA|||Hour 12: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using linear models with sequence (Placebo/NWP06 and NWP06/Placebo), period, and treatment (NWP06 and Placebo) as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a repeated effect with a compound symmetry correlation structure. A negative point difference indicated a positive effect of NWP06 over Placebo.||-0.30|-1.94|0.0087
90806155|NCT01106651|181493290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.069|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.708|-0.436|||ANCOVA|||||-0.436|-0.708|<0.001
90806156|NCT01106651|181493290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.841|-0.566|||ANCOVA|||||-0.566|-0.841|<0.001
90806157|NCT01106651|181493291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.96|||<|0.001||95.0|1.93|4.56|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.56|1.93|<0.001
90806158|NCT01106651|181493291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.48|||<|0.001||95.0|2.89|6.95|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.95|2.89|<0.001
90806159|NCT01106651|181493292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-25.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.147|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.68|-19.32|||ANCOVA|||||-19.32|-31.68|<0.001
90806160|NCT01106651|181493292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-27.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.179|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.97|-21.49|||ANCOVA|||||-21.49|-33.97|<0.001
90806161|NCT01106651|181493293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-1.7|||ANCOVA|||||-1.7|-2.8|<0.001
90806162|NCT01106651|181493293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-2.4|||ANCOVA|||||-2.4|-3.5|<0.001
90806163|NCT01106651|181493294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-1.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.379|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.339|-0.842|||ANCOVA|||||-0.842|-2.339|<0.001
90806164|NCT01106651|181493294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.371|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.833|-1.368|||ANCOVA|||||-1.368|-2.833|<0.001
90806165|NCT01106651|181493295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.305|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.633|-0.428|||ANCOVA|||Region percent total fat||-0.428|-1.633|<0.001
90806166|NCT01106651|181493295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.772|-0.587|||ANCOVA|||Region percent total fat||-0.587|-1.772|<0.001
90806167|NCT01106651|181493296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.316||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.677|-0.43|||ANCOVA|||||-0.430|-1.677|0.001
90806168|NCT01106651|181493296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.311|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.812|-0.584|||ANCOVA|||||-0.584|-1.812|<0.001
90806169|NCT01106651|181493297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-4.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.134|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.854|-2.401|||ANCOVA|||||-2.401|-6.854|<0.001
90806170|NCT01106651|181493297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-7.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.147|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.14|-5.641|||ANCOVA|||||-5.641|-10.14|<0.001
90806171|NCT01106651|181493298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7||0.194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|2.5|||ANCOVA|||||2.5|-12.1|0.194
90806172|NCT01106651|181493298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7||0.846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|8.1|||ANCOVA|||||8.1|-6.6|0.846
90806173|NCT01106651|181493299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|7.9|||ANCOVA|||||7.9|2.6|<0.001
90806174|NCT01106651|181493299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|7.4|||ANCOVA|||||7.4|2.0|<0.001
90806175|NCT01106651|181493300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.8|||ANCOVA|||||0.8|-0.4|
90806176|NCT01106651|181493300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.3|||ANCOVA|||||0.3|-0.9|
90806177|NCT01106651|181493301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.4|||ANCOVA|||||0.4|-0.9|
90806178|NCT01106651|181493301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.3|||ANCOVA|||||0.3|-1.0|
90806179|NCT01106651|181493302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.0|||ANCOVA|||||1.0|-0.3|
90806180|NCT01106651|181493302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.1|||ANCOVA|||||1.1|-0.3|
90806181|NCT01106651|181493303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||-0.0|-0.8|
90806182|NCT01106651|181493303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||||-0.1|-0.9|
90806183|NCT02168062|181493336|OTHER|||||||0.109|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.109
90806184|NCT02168062|181493338|OTHER|||||||0.85|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Systolic Blood Pressure measurement comparison||||0.85
90806185|NCT02168062|181493338|OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Diastolic Blood Pressure measurement comparison||||0.10
90806186|NCT02168062|181493339|OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Weight measurement comparison||||0.70
90806187|NCT02168062|181493340|OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Percentage body fat measurement comparison||||0.11
90806188|NCT02168062|181493341|OTHER|||||||0.32|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Waist measurement comparison||||0.32
90806189|NCT02168062|181493342|OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Hemoglobin A1C measurement comparison||||0.70
90806190|NCT02168062|181493343|OTHER|||||||0.46|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Insulin resistance score comparison||||0.46
90806191|NCT02168062|181493344|OTHER|||||||0.44|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Total Cholesterol measurement comparison||||0.44
90806192|NCT02168062|181493344|OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Total low density lipid measurement comparison||||0.52
90806193|NCT02168062|181493344|OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Total high density lipid measurement comparison||||0.40
90806194|NCT02168062|181493344|OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Total triglyceride measurement comparison||||0.53
90806195|NCT02168062|181493345|OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Non-vigorous physical activity comparison||||0.38
90806196|NCT02168062|181493345|OTHER|||||||0.979|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Moderate physical activity comparison||||0.979
90806197|NCT02168062|181493345|OTHER|||||||0.884|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Moderate-Vigorous physical activity comparison||||0.884
90806198|NCT02168062|181493345|OTHER|||||||0.678|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Vigorous physical activity comparison||||0.678
90806199|NCT02168062|181493345|OTHER|||||||0.464|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Total physical activity comparison||||0.464
90806200|NCT02168062|181493346|OTHER|||||||0.838|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Average MVPA Minutes per Day Comparison||||0.838
90806201|NCT02168062|181493347|OTHER|||||||0.677|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Bone Density at the lumbar spine comparison||||0.677
90806202|NCT02168062|181493347|OTHER|||||||0.493|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Bone Density at the femoral neck comparison||||0.493
90806203|NCT02168062|181493347|OTHER|||||||0.807|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Bone Density of the total hip comparison||||0.807
90806204|NCT02168062|181493348|OTHER|||||||0.403|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Serum 25-(OH) vitamin D level comparison||||0.403
90806205|NCT02168062|181493349|OTHER|||||||0.385|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.385
90806206|NCT02168062|181493350|OTHER|||||||0.148|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Attention Function Index (AFI) Score Comparison||||.148
90806207|NCT02168062|181493351|OTHER|||||||0.077|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mental Composite Score Comparison||||.077
90806208|NCT02168062|181493351|OTHER|||||||0.401|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Physical Composite Score Comparison||||0.401
90806209|NCT02168062|181493352|OTHER|||||||0.085|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.085
90806210|NCT02168062|181493353|OTHER|||||||0.676|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.676
90806211|NCT02168062|181493354|OTHER|||||||0.183|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.183
90806212|NCT02168062|181493355|OTHER|||||||0.66|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EPIC-26 Total Score Comparison||||0.66
90806213|NCT02168062|181493355|OTHER|||||||0.844|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EPIC-26 Urinary Incontinence Score Comparison||||0.844
90806214|NCT02168062|181493355|OTHER|||||||0.175|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EPIC-26 Urinary Irriation Score Comparison||||0.175
90806215|NCT02168062|181493355|OTHER|||||||0.472|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EPIC-26 Bowel Function Score Comparison||||0.472
90806216|NCT02168062|181493355|OTHER|||||||0.405|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EPIC-26 Sexual Function Score Comparison||||0.405
90806217|NCT02168062|181493355|OTHER|||||||0.749|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EPIC-26 Hormonal Function Score Comparison||||0.749
90806218|NCT02168062|181493356|OTHER|||||||0.907|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Fatigue Scale Score Comparison||||0.907
90806219|NCT02168062|181493356|OTHER|||||||0.792|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Energy Scale Score Comparison||||0.792
90806220|NCT00313144|181493387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.044||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.044
91014525|NCT01683565|181912034|OTHER|Analyses compared the change in BITSEA outcome scores between groups, controlling for baseline scores, using mixed effects regression. This method leverages maximum likelihood to account for missing data. Treatment-by-time interaction terms were included as fixed effects and served as estimates of treatment effect; no participant characteristics were included as covariates in the models. Group mean differences divided by the standard deviation were also calculated as effect sizes.||||||0.91|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in Internalizing scores between groups (LCPUFA vs. Placebo).||||0.91
90806221|NCT00313144|181493389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.009||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.009
90806222|NCT00313144|181493390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.005||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.005
90806223|NCT00313144|181493392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.006||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.006
90806224|NCT00313144|181493393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.044||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.044
90806225|NCT00313144|181493394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.046||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.046
90806226|NCT01208961|181493472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Means|400.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|326.87|490.36|||ANOVA|ANOVA on log-trans baseline-adj PK values using sequence, period, and treatments as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect||Results for the analyses of the High-Fat Periods were not posted because the critical comparison was the response of Lovaza versus Epanova to the clinically relevant low-fat diet to be used as adjunct in hypertriglyceridemia.||490.36|326.87|<0.001
90806227|NCT01208961|181493473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Mans|649.66|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|90.0|511.75|824.75||ANOVA model with baseline value as covariate, and treatment and user/non-user of lipid-altering drugs as factors. LSM estimate performed on log-scale|ANOVA|||Results for the analyses of the High-Fat Periods were not posted because the critical comparison was the response of Lovaza versus Epanova to the clinically relevant low-fat diet to be used as adjunct in hypertriglyceridemia.||824.75|511.75|<0.01
90806228|NCT01208961|181493474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Means|369.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|301.74|452.86|||ANOVA|||Results for the analyses of the High-Fat Periods were not posted because the critical comparison was the response of Lovaza versus Epanova to the clinically relevant low-fat diet to be used as adjunct in hypertriglyceridemia.||452.86|301.74|<0.001
90806229|NCT01262560|181493475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92||||||Due to the skewed nature of the data, median was reported instead of mean.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Each arm had less than the designed sample size. Therefore the statistical power was reduced (76% instead of 80%).||Null hypothesis: Manuka honey in liquid form is/not effective at reducing esophagitis-related pain, measured by mean change score from 0 to 4 weeks. A 2-sample t-test for difference of means with alpha 0.05 after adjusting for multiple comparisons (1-sided with overall alpha 0.1 before the Bonferroni adjustment) and 80% statistical power for each hypothesis test requires 45 patients per arm to detect \>= 15% relative reduction (absolute difference of mean change score of 3.1; effect size=0.53).||||0.92
90806230|NCT01262560|181493475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93||||||Due to the skewed nature of the data, median was reported instead of mean.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Each arm had less than the designed sample size. Therefore the statistical power was reduced (76% instead of 80%)||Null hypothesis: Manuka honey in lozenge form is/not effective at reducing esophagitis-related pain, measured by mean change score from 0 to 4 weeks. A 2-sample t-test for difference of means with alpha 0.05 after adjusting for multiple comparisons (1-sided with overall alpha 0.1 before the Bonferroni adjustment) and 80% statistical power for each hypothesis test requires 45 patients per arm to detect \>= 15% relative reduction (absolute difference of mean change score of 3.1; effect size=0.53).||||0.93
90806231|NCT01262560|181493476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Explanatory variables are reported separately.||"A linear fixed effects model using maximum likelihood estimation was run with NRPS score (baseline, weekly during treatment and 12 weeks from the end of treatment) as the outcome of interest. Percentage of esophagus (V60\>=30% as reference level), opioid use (yes as reference level), time, and treatment arm were factors in the model. The results for each explanatory variable are reported separately. Treatment (Liquid Honey vs. Supportive Care) is reported here."||||0.87
90806232|NCT01262560|181493476|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately.||"A linear fixed effects model using maximum likelihood estimation was run with NRPS score (baseline, weekly during treatment and 12 weeks from the end of treatment) as the outcome of interest. Percentage of esophagus (V60\>=30% as reference level), opioid use (yes as reference level), time, and treatment arm were factors in the model. The results for each explanatory variable are reported separately. Treatment (Lozenge Honey vs. Supportive Care) is reported here."||||0.46
90806233|NCT01262560|181493476|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0023|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately.||"A linear fixed effects model using maximum likelihood estimation was run with NRPS score (baseline, weekly during treatment and 12 weeks from the end of treatment) as the outcome of interest. Percentage of esophagus (V60\>=30% as reference level), opioid use (yes as reference level), time, and treatment arm were factors in the model. The results for each explanatory variable are reported separately. Percentage of esophagus is reported here."||||0.0023
90806234|NCT01262560|181493476|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0025|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately.||"A linear fixed effects model using maximum likelihood estimation was run with NRPS score (baseline, weekly during treatment and 12 weeks from the end of treatment) as the outcome of interest. Percentage of esophagus (V60\>=30% as reference level), opioid use (yes as reference level), time, and treatment arm were factors in the model. The results for each explanatory variable are reported separately. Opioid use is reported here."||||0.0025
90806235|NCT01262560|181493476|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Each explanatory variable is reported separately.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"A linear fixed effects model using maximum likelihood estimation was run with NRPS score (baseline, weekly during treatment and 12 weeks from the end of treatment) as the outcome of interest. Percentage of esophagus (V60\>=30% as reference level), opioid use (yes as reference level), time, and treatment arm were factors in the model. The results for each explanatory variable are reported separately. Time is reported here."||||<0.0001
90806236|NCT01262560|181493477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Explanatory variables are reported separately.||"A linear fixed effects model using maximum likelihood estimation was run with dysphagia score (baseline, weekly during treatment and 12 weeks from the end of treatment) as the outcome of interest. Percentage of esophagus (V60\>=30% as reference level), opioid use (yes as reference level), time, and treatment arm were factors in the model. Treatment (Liquid Honey vs. Supportive Care) is reported here."||||0.70
90806237|NCT01262560|181493477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Explanatory variables are reported separately.||"A linear fixed effects model using maximum likelihood estimation was run with dysphagia score (baseline, weekly during treatment and 12 weeks from the end of treatment) as the outcome of interest. Percentage of esophagus (V60\>=30% as reference level), opioid use (yes as reference level), time, and treatment arm were factors in the model. The results for each explanatory variable are reported separately. Treatment (Lozenge Honey vs. Supportive Care) is reported here."||||0.71
90806238|NCT01262560|181493477|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately.||"A linear fixed effects model using maximum likelihood estimation was run with dysphagia score (baseline, weekly during treatment and 12 weeks from the end of treatment) as the outcome of interest. Percentage of esophagus (V60\>=30% as reference level), opioid use (yes as reference level), time, and treatment arm were factors in the model. The results for each explanatory variable are reported separately. Percentage of esophagus is reported here."||||0.0002
90806239|NCT01262560|181493477|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0051|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately.||"A linear fixed effects model using maximum likelihood estimation was run with dysphagia score (baseline, weekly during treatment and 12 weeks from the end of treatment) as the outcome of interest. Percentage of esophagus (V60\>=30% as reference level), opioid use (yes as reference level), time, and treatment arm were factors in the model. The results for each explanatory variable are reported separately. Opioid use is reported here."||||0.0051
90806240|NCT01262560|181493477|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately.||"A linear fixed effects model using maximum likelihood estimation was run with dysphagia score (baseline, weekly during treatment and 12 weeks from the end of treatment) as the outcome of interest. Percentage of esophagus (V60\>=30% as reference level), opioid use (yes as reference level), time, and treatment arm were factors in the model. The results for each explanatory variable are reported separately. Time is reported here."||||<0.0001
90806241|NCT01262560|181493478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.086|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Explanatory variables are reported separately.||"A linear fixed effects model using maximum likelihood estimation was run with EORTC global health status (baseline, weekly during treatment and 12 weeks from the end of treatment) as the outcome of interest. Percentage of esophagus (V60\>=30% as reference level), opioid use (yes as reference level), time, and treatment arm were factors in the model. The results for each explanatory variable are reported separately. Treatment (Liquid Honey vs. Supportive Care) is reported here."||||0.086
90806242|NCT01262560|181493478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately.||"A linear fixed effects model using maximum likelihood estimation was run with EORTC global health status (baseline, weekly during treatment and 12 weeks from the end of treatment) as the outcome of interest. Percentage of esophagus (V60\>=30% as reference level), opioid use (yes as reference level), time, and treatment arm were factors in the model. The results for each explanatory variable are reported separately. Treatment (Lozenge Honey vs. Supportive Care) is reported here."||||0.20
90806243|NCT01262560|181493478|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately.||"A linear fixed effects model using maximum likelihood estimation was run with EORTC global health status (baseline, weekly during treatment and 12 weeks from the end of treatment) as the outcome of interest. Percentage of esophagus (V60\>=30% as reference level), opioid use (yes as reference level), time, and treatment arm were factors in the model. The results for each explanatory variable are reported separately. Percentage of esophagus is reported here."||||0.44
90806244|NCT01262560|181493478|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0066|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately.||"A linear fixed effects model using maximum likelihood estimation was run with EORTC global health status (baseline, weekly during treatment and 12 weeks from the end of treatment) as the outcome of interest. Percentage of esophagus (V60\>=30% as reference level), opioid use (yes as reference level), time, and treatment arm were factors in the model. The results for each explanatory variable are reported separately. Opioid use is reported here."||||0.0066
91014526|NCT01683565|181912034|OTHER|Analyses compared the change in BITSEA outcome scores between groups, controlling for baseline scores, using mixed effects regression. This method leverages maximum likelihood to account for missing data. Treatment-by-time interaction terms were included as fixed effects and served as estimates of treatment effect; no participant characteristics were included as covariates in the models. Group mean differences divided by the standard deviation were also calculated as effect sizes.||||||0.03|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in Austism Spectrum Disorder scores between groups (LCPUFA vs. Placebo).||||0.03
91054527|NCT00444457|181991054|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exact, unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|-2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.58|-0.58||||||Common serotypes - serotype 4||-0.58|-5.58|
90806245|NCT01262560|181493478|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately.||"A linear fixed effects model using maximum likelihood estimation was run with EORTC global health status (baseline, weekly during treatment and 12 weeks from the end of treatment) as the outcome of interest. Percentage of esophagus (V60\>=30% as reference level), opioid use (yes as reference level), time, and treatment arm were factors in the model. The results for each explanatory variable are reported separately. Time is reported here."||||0.36
90806246|NCT01262560|181493478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.94|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Explanatory variables are reported separately.||"A linear fixed effects model using maximum likelihood estimation was run with EORTC pain score (baseline, weekly during treatment and 12 weeks from the end of treatment) as the outcome of interest. Percentage of esophagus (V60\>=30% as reference level), opioid use (yes as reference level), time, and treatment arm were factors in the model. The results for each explanatory variable are reported separately. Treatment (Liquid Honey vs. Supportive Care) is reported here."||||0.94
90806247|NCT01262560|181493478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately.||"A linear fixed effects model using maximum likelihood estimation was run with EORTC pain score (baseline, weekly during treatment and 12 weeks from the end of treatment) as the outcome of interest. Percentage of esophagus (V60\>=30% as reference level), opioid use (yes as reference level), time, and treatment arm were factors in the model. The results for each explanatory variable are reported separately. Treatment (Lozenge Honey vs. Supportive Care) is reported here."||||0.58
90806248|NCT01262560|181493478|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately.||"A linear fixed effects model using maximum likelihood estimation was run with EORTC pain score (baseline, weekly during treatment and 12 weeks from the end of treatment) as the outcome of interest. Percentage of esophagus (V60\>=30% as reference level), opioid use (yes as reference level), time, and treatment arm were factors in the model. The results for each explanatory variable are reported separately. Percentage of esophagus is reported here."||||0.28
90806249|NCT01262560|181493478|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each exploratory variable is reported separately.||"A linear fixed effects model using maximum likelihood estimation was run with EORTC pain score (baseline, weekly during treatment and 12 weeks from the end of treatment) as the outcome of interest. Percentage of esophagus (V60\>=30% as reference level), opioid use (yes as reference level), time, and treatment arm were factors in the model. The results for each explanatory variable are reported separately. Opioid use is reported here."||||<0.0001
90806250|NCT01262560|181493478|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately.||"A linear fixed effects model using maximum likelihood estimation was run with EORTC pain score (baseline, weekly during treatment and 12 weeks from the end of treatment) as the outcome of interest. Percentage of esophagus (V60\>=30% as reference level), opioid use (yes as reference level), time, and treatment arm were factors in the model. The results for each explanatory variable are reported separately. Time is reported here."||||0.28
90806251|NCT01262560|181493479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||||||Significance level = 0.05|Fisher Exact|||||||0.06
90806252|NCT01262560|181493479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31||||||Significance level = 0.05|Fisher Exact|||||||0.31
90806253|NCT01262560|181493480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53||||||significance level = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.53
90806254|NCT01262560|181493480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88||||||significance level = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.88
90806255|NCT01262560|181493481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.20
91054528|NCT00444457|181991054|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exact, unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|9.19||||||Common serotypes - serotype 6B||9.19|1.55|
90806256|NCT01262560|181493481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.28
90806257|NCT01262560|181493484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Because data was not normally distributed, this test was used instead of the t-test.||Each experimental arm was compared to the control arm (i.e. 2 comparisons) using two-sample t-tests. Forty-five patients with data in each arm, provides 80% power to detect an effect size (in standard deviation units) of 0.60 and 90% power to detect an effect size of 0.69 using a two-sided T-test with a Bonferroni adjusted significance level of 0.05 for each comparison (overall alpha 0.10). Due to the lack of prior data on the PRO-CTCAE, moderate effect sizes were used.||||0.39
90806258|NCT01262560|181493484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Because data was not normally distributed, this test was used instead of the t-test.||Each experimental arm was compared to the control arm (i.e. 2 comparisons) using two-sample t-tests. Forty-five patients with data in each arm, provides 80% power to detect an effect size (in standard deviation units) of 0.60 and 90% power to detect an effect size of 0.69 using a two-sided T-test with a Bonferroni adjusted significance level of 0.05 for each comparison (overall alpha 0.10). Due to the lack of prior data on the PRO-CTCAE, moderate effect sizes were used.||||0.69
90806259|NCT01932372|181493489|OTHER||Incidence rate ratio (unadjusted)|4.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.34|7.03||||||||7.03|3.34|
90806260|NCT01932372|181493489|OTHER||Hazard ratio (unadjusted)|4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.31|6.96||||||||6.96|3.31|
90806261|NCT01932372|181493489|OTHER||Hazard ratio (adjusted 1)|2.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|4.51||||||||4.51|0.95|
90806262|NCT01932372|181493489|OTHER||Hazard ratio (adjusted 2)|3.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.24|6.47||||||||6.47|2.24|
90806263|NCT01932372|181493489|OTHER||Hazard ratio (adjusted 3)|3.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.08|6.09||||||||6.09|2.08|
90806264|NCT01932372|181493489|OTHER||Hazard ratio (adjusted 4)|3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.31|6.25||||||||6.25|2.31|
90806265|NCT01932372|181493490|OTHER||Incidence rate ratio (unadjusted)|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|2.19||||||||2.19|1.16|
90806266|NCT01932372|181493490|OTHER||Hazard ratio (unadjusted)|1.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|2.13||||||||2.13|1.12|
90806267|NCT01932372|181493490|OTHER||Hazard ratio (adjusted 1)|1.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|2.99||||||||2.99|1.16|
90806268|NCT01932372|181493490|OTHER||Hazard ratio (adjusted 2)|1.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.43||||||||2.43|1.06|
90806269|NCT01932372|181493490|OTHER||Hazard ratio (adjusted 3)|1.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.35||||||||2.35|1.00|
90806270|NCT01932372|181493490|OTHER||Hazard ratio (adjusted 4)|1.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.22||||||||2.22|1.03|
90806271|NCT01932372|181493491|OTHER||Mortality rate ratio (unadjusted)|3.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.99|5.78||||||||5.78|1.99|
90806272|NCT01932372|181493491|OTHER||Hazard ratio (unadjusted)|3.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.93|5.61||||||||5.61|1.93|
90806273|NCT05352412|181493494|OTHER|Mann-Whitney U|Mann-Whitney U|0.32||||0.32|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.32
90806274|NCT05352412|181493494|OTHER|Mann-Whitney U|Mann-Whitney U|0.39||||0.39|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline survey compared with immediate follow-up survey||||0.39
90806275|NCT05352412|181493494|OTHER|Mann-Whitney U|Mann-Whitney U|0.21||||0.21|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||2 weeks post-discharge compared with baseline survey||||0.21
90806276|NCT05352412|181493494|OTHER||Mann-Whitney U|0.19||||0.19|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||90 days post-discharge compared with baseline survey||||0.19
90806277|NCT05352412|181493494|OTHER||Mann-Whitney U|0.38||||0.38|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline survey versus immediate follow-up||||0.38
90806278|NCT05352412|181493494|OTHER||Mann-Whitney U|0.25||||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||2 weeks post-discharge compared with baseline survey||||0.25
90806279|NCT05352412|181493494|OTHER||Mann-Whitney U|0.07||||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||90 days post-discharge compared with baseline survey||||0.07
90806280|NCT05352412|181493494|OTHER||Mann-Whitney U|0.03||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Immediate follow-up between the two arms||||0.03
90806281|NCT05352412|181493494|OTHER||Mann-Whitney U|0.65||||0.65|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||2 weeks post-discharge comparison between the 2 arms||||0.65
91054529|NCT00444457|181991054|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exact, unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.77|3.66||||||Common serotypes - serotype 6B||3.66|-2.77|
91054530|NCT00444457|181991054|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exact, unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|-4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.82|-1.1||||||Common serotypes - serotype 6B||-1.10|-8.82|
90806282|NCT05352412|181493494|OTHER||Mann-Whitney U|0.97||||0.97|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||90-days post discharge compared between the 2 arms||||0.97
90806283|NCT05352412|181493495|OTHER||Mann-Whitney U|0.77||||0.77|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline comparison between the 2 arms||||0.77
90806284|NCT05352412|181493495|OTHER||Mann-Whitney U|0.85||||0.85|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Immediate follow-up compared with baseline survey||||0.85
90806285|NCT05352412|181493495|OTHER||Mann-Whitney U|0.38||||0.38|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||2-week post-discharge compared with baseline survey||||0.38
90806286|NCT05352412|181493495|OTHER||Mann-Whitney U|0.21||||0.21|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||90-day post discharge compared with baseline survey||||0.21
90806287|NCT05352412|181493495|OTHER||Mann-Whitney U|0.32||||0.32|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Immediate follow-up compared with baseline survey||||0.32
90806288|NCT05352412|181493495|OTHER||Mann-Whitney U|0.09||||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||2 week post-discharge compared with baseline survey||||0.09
90806289|NCT05352412|181493495|OTHER||Mann-Whitney U|0.07||||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||90-day post-discharge compared with baseline survey||||0.07
90806290|NCT05352412|181493495|OTHER||Mann-Whitney U|0.26||||0.26|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||2 weeks post-discharge compared between the 2 arms||||0.26
90806291|NCT05352412|181493495|OTHER||Mann-Whitney U|0.69||||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Immediate follow-up compared between the 2 arms||||0.69
90806292|NCT05352412|181493495|OTHER||Mann-Whitney U|0.32||||0.32|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||90-day post-discharge compared between the 2 arms||||0.32
90806293|NCT05352412|181493499|OTHER|Mann-Whitney U|Mann-Whitney U|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.00
90806294|NCT05352412|181493499|OTHER|Mann-Whitney U|Mann-Whitney U|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.00
90806295|NCT05352412|181493499|OTHER|Mann-Whitney U|Mann-Whitney U|0.12||||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.12
90806296|NCT05352412|181493499|OTHER|Mann-Whitney U|Mann-Whitney U|0.12||||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Immediate follow-up||||0.12
90806297|NCT05352412|181493500|OTHER|Mann-Whitney U|Mann-Whitney U|0.48||||0.48|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.48
90806298|NCT05352412|181493500|OTHER|Mann-Whitney U|Mann-Whitney U|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.00
90806299|NCT05352412|181493500|OTHER|Mann-Whitney U|Mann-Whitney U|0.17||||0.17|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.17
90806300|NCT05352412|181493500|OTHER|Mann-Whitney U|Mann-Whitney U|0.42||||0.42|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Immediate follow-up||||0.42
90806301|NCT05352412|181493501|OTHER|Mann-Whitney U|Mann-Whitney U|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline||||1.00
90806302|NCT05352412|181493501|OTHER|Mann-Whitney U|Mann-Whitney U|0.11||||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline versus immediate follow-up||||0.11
90806303|NCT05352412|181493501|OTHER|Mann-Whitney U|Mann-Whitney U|0.89||||0.89|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline versus immediate follow-up||||0.89
90806304|NCT05352412|181493501|OTHER|Mann-Whitney U|Mann-Whitney U|0.55||||0.55|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Immediate follow-up||||0.55
90806305|NCT05352412|181493502|OTHER|Mann-Whitney U|Mann-Whitney U|0.66||||0.66|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline||||0.66
90806306|NCT05352412|181493502|OTHER|Mann-Whitney U|Mann-Whitney U|0.2||||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline versus immediate follow-up post randomization||||0.20
90806307|NCT05352412|181493502|OTHER|Mann-Whitney U|Mann-Whitney U|0.85||||0.85|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline versus immediate follow-up post randomization||||0.85
90806308|NCT05352412|181493502|OTHER|Mann-Whitney U|Mann-Whitney U|0.07||||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Immediate follow-up post randomization||||0.07
91054531|NCT00444457|181991054|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exact, unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.13|2.83||||||Common serotypes - serotype 9V||2.83|-3.13|
90806309|NCT03594747|181493503|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.74|||One-sided stratified log-rank test|||||0.74|0.37|0.0001
90806310|NCT03594747|181493503|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.67|||One-sided stratified log-rank test|||||0.67|0.33|<0.0001
90806311|NCT03594747|181493504|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.61||||||||0.61|0.32|
90806312|NCT03594747|181493504|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.59||||||||0.59|0.30|
90806313|NCT04382586|181493515|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.61||||0.4099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.349|7.391|||Unstratified 1-sided Fisher's exact test|||||7.391|0.349|0.4099
90806314|NCT04382586|181493516|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.918||||0.7619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.511|1.648|||Log Rank|||||1.648|0.511|0.7619
90806315|NCT02907216|181493541|NON_INFERIORITY|Criteria for non-inferiority: The Lower Limit (LL) of the standardised asymptotic 95% Confidence Interval (CI) on the difference (Co-administration Group minus Staggered Group) in the percentage of subjects with seroprotective concentrations ≥ 0.1 IU/mL for anti-D antibodies should be ≥ -10%.|Difference-Seroprotective concentration|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.66|2.74|||||The 2-sided asymptotic standardised 95% CIs for the difference between groups in terms of percentage of subjects with antibody concentration ≥ to the pre-defined cut-off.|Difference between Co-administration Group minus Staggered Group in terms of percentage of subjects with anti-D antibody concentration ≥ 0.1 IU/mL.||2.74|-2.66|
90806316|NCT02907216|181493541|NON_INFERIORITY|Criteria for non-inferiority: The LL of the standardised asymptotic 95% CI on the difference (Co-administration Group minus Staggered Group) in the percentage of subjects with seroprotective concentrations ≥ 0.1 IU/mL for anti-T antibodies should be ≥ -10%.|Difference-Seroprotective concentration|-0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.39|2.71|||||The 2-sided asymptotic standardised 95% CIs for the difference between groups in terms of percentage of subjects with antibody concentration ≥ to the pre-defined cut-off.|Difference between Co-administration Group minus Staggered Group in terms of percentage of subjects with anti-T antibody concentration ≥ 0.1 IU/mL.||2.71|-4.39|
90806317|NCT02907216|181493542|NON_INFERIORITY|Criteria for non-inferiority: The LL of the standardised asymptotic 95% CI on the difference (Co-administration Group minus Staggered Group) in the percentage of subjects with seroprotective concentrations ≥ 10 IU/mL for anti-PT antibodies should be ≥ -10%.|Difference-Seroprotective concentration|2.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|9.12|||||The 2-sided asymptotic standardised 95% CIs for the difference between groups in terms of percentage of subjects with antibody concentration ≥ to the pre-defined cut-off.|Difference between Co-administration Group minus Staggered Group in terms of percentage of subjects with anti-PT antibody concentration ≥ 10 IU/mL.||9.12|-2.7|
90806318|NCT02907216|181493542|NON_INFERIORITY|Criteria for non-inferiority: The LL of the standardised asymptotic 95% CI on the difference (Co-administration Group minus Staggered Group) in the percentage of subjects with seroprotective concentrations ≥ 10 IU/mL for anti-FHA antibodies should be ≥ -10%.|Difference-Seroprotective concentration|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.66|2.72|||||The 2-sided asymptotic standardised 95% CIs for the difference between groups in terms of percentage of subjects with antibody concentration ≥ to the pre-defined cut-off.|Difference between Co-administration Group minus Staggered Group in terms of percentage of subjects with anti-FHA antibody concentration ≥ 10 IU/mL.||2.72|-2.66|
90806319|NCT02907216|181493543|NON_INFERIORITY|Criteria for non-inferiority: The LL of the standardised asymptotic 95% CI on the difference (Co-administration Group minus Staggered Group) in the percentage of subjects with seroprotective titers ≥ 8 ED50 for anti-polio 1 antibodies should be ≥ -10%.|Difference in seroprotective titer|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.68|2.74|||||The 2-sided asymptotic standardised 95% CIs for the difference between groups in terms of percentage of subjects with antibody concentration ≥ to the pre-defined cut-off.|Difference between Co-administration Group minus Staggered Group in terms of percentage of subjects with anti-polio 1 seroprotective titres ≥ 8 ED50.||2.74|-2.68|
90806320|NCT02907216|181493543|NON_INFERIORITY|Criteria for non-inferiority: The LL of the standardised asymptotic 95% CI on the difference (Co-administration Group minus Staggered Group) in the percentage of subjects with seroprotective titers ≥ 8 ED50 for anti-polio 2 antibodies should be ≥ -10%.|Difference in seroprotective titer|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.92|2.95|||||The 2-sided asymptotic standardised 95% CIs for the difference between groups in terms of percentage of subjects with antibody concentration ≥ to the pre-defined cut-off.|Difference between Co-administration Group minus Staggered Group in terms of percentage of subjects with anti-polio 2 seroprotective titres ≥ 8 ED50.||2.95|-2.92|
91014527|NCT01683565|181912034|OTHER|Analyses compared the change in BITSEA outcome scores between groups, controlling for baseline scores, using mixed effects regression. This method leverages maximum likelihood to account for missing data. Treatment-by-time interaction terms were included as fixed effects and served as estimates of treatment effect; no participant characteristics were included as covariates in the models. Group mean differences divided by the standard deviation were also calculated as effect sizes.||||||0.07|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in Red Flag scores between groups (LCPUFA vs. Placebo).||||0.07
91014528|NCT01683565|181912035|OTHER|Differences in mean changes in erythrocyte fatty acid composition were examined using t-tests.||||||0.31||||||P-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in erythrocyte fatty acid composition (10:0 nmol/mL) between groups (LCPUFA vs. Placebo).||||0.31
90806321|NCT02907216|181493543|NON_INFERIORITY|Criteria for non-inferiority: The LL of the standardised asymptotic 95% CI on the difference (Co-administration Group minus Staggered Group) in the percentage of subjects with seroprotective titers ≥ 8 ED50 for anti-polio 3 antibodies should be ≥ -10%.|Difference in seroprotective titer|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|4.47|||||The 2-sided asymptotic standardised 95% CIs for the difference between groups in terms of percentage of subjects with antibody concentration ≥ to the pre-defined cut-off.|Difference between Co-administration Group minus Staggered Group in terms of percentage of subjects with anti-polio 3 seroprotective titres ≥ 8 ED50.||4.47|-2.04|
90806322|NCT03040011|181493668|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.39
90806323|NCT03040011|181493669|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.25
90806324|NCT03040011|181493670|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.17
90806325|NCT03040011|181493671|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.45
90806326|NCT03040011|181493672|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.54
90806327|NCT03040011|181493673|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.80
90806328|NCT03040011|181493674|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.72
90806329|NCT03040011|181493675|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.64
90806330|NCT03040011|181493676|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.41
90806331|NCT03040011|181493678|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.96
90806332|NCT03040011|181493679|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.90
90806333|NCT03040011|181493680|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.49
90806334|NCT03040011|181493681|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.19
90806335|NCT03040011|181493682|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.35
91014529|NCT01683565|181912035|OTHER|Differences in mean changes in erythrocyte fatty acid composition were examined using t-tests.||||||0.47||||||P-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in erythrocyte fatty acid composition (12:0 nmol/mL) between groups (LCPUFA vs. Placebo).||||0.47
90806336|NCT03040011|181493683|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.32
90806337|NCT03040011|181493684|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.18
90806338|NCT03040011|181493685|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.68
90806339|NCT03040011|181493686|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.40
90806340|NCT03040011|181493687|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.44
91014530|NCT01683565|181912035|OTHER|Differences in mean changes in erythrocyte fatty acid composition were examined using t-tests.||||||0.38||||||P-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in erythrocyte fatty acid composition (14:0 nmol/mL) between groups (LCPUFA vs. Placebo).||||0.38
90806341|NCT02370537|181493692|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The exposure of a single dose of EPANOVA® 4 g (reference) relative to OMACOR® 4 g (test) was estimated by degree of pancreatic exocrine function using level of FEC. Natural log estimates of least-square means (LSmeans) for each treatment and differences of the LSmeans (OMACOR®-EPANOVA®) along with 90% Confidence Intervals (CIs) by degree of pancreatic exocrine function using level of FEC were exponentiated.|Geometric least-squares (GLS) Mean Ratio|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.52|1.1|||||OMACOR®/EPANOVA®|Back transformed results are based on the analysis of natural log-transformed data with a Linear Mixed Model containing the terms of FEC classification, treatment, FEC x treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and patient nested within sequence as random effect.||1.10|0.52|
90806342|NCT02370537|181493692|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The exposure of a single dose of EPANOVA® 4 g (reference) relative to OMACOR® 4 g (test) was estimated by degree of pancreatic exocrine function using level of FEC. Natural log estimates of LSmeans for each treatment and differences of the LSmeans (OMACOR®-EPANOVA®) along with 90% CIs by degree of pancreatic exocrine function using level of FEC were exponentiated.|GLS Mean ratio|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.32|0.72|||||OMACOR®/EPANOVA®|Back transformed results are based on the analysis of natural log-transformed data with a Linear Mixed Model containing the terms of FEC classification, treatment, FEC x treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and patient nested within sequence as random effect.||0.72|0.32|
90806343|NCT02370537|181493692|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The exposure of a single dose of EPANOVA® 4 g (reference) relative to OMACOR® 4 g (test) was estimated by degree of pancreatic exocrine function using level of FEC. Natural log estimates of LSmeans for each treatment and differences of the LSmeans (OMACOR®-EPANOVA®) along with 90% CIs by degree of pancreatic exocrine function using level of FEC were exponentiated.|GLS Mean Ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.44|0.82|||||OMACOR®/EPANOVA®|Back transformed results are based on the analysis of natural log-transformed data with a Linear Mixed Model containing the terms of FEC classification, treatment, FEC x treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and patient nested within sequence as random effect.||0.82|0.44|
90806344|NCT02370537|181493693|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The exposure of a single dose of EPANOVA® 4 g (reference) relative to OMACOR® 4 g (test) was estimated by degree of pancreatic exocrine function using level of FEC. Natural log estimates of LSmeans for each treatment and differences of the LSmeans (OMACOR®-EPANOVA®) along with 90% CIs by degree of pancreatic exocrine function using level of FEC were exponentiated.|GLS Mean Ratio|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|1.93|||||OMACOR®/EPANOVA®|Back transformed results are based on the analysis of natural log-transformed data with a Linear Mixed Model containing the terms of FEC classification, treatment, FEC x treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and patient nested within sequence as random effect.||1.93|0.84|
90806345|NCT02370537|181493693|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The exposure of a single dose of EPANOVA® 4 g (reference) relative to OMACOR® 4 g (test) was estimated by degree of pancreatic exocrine function using level of FEC. Natural log estimates of LSmeans for each treatment and differences of the LSmeans (OMACOR®-EPANOVA®) along with 90% CIs by degree of pancreatic exocrine function using level of FEC were exponentiated.|GLS Mean Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.51|1.25|||||OMACOR®/EPANOVA®|Back transformed results are based on the analysis of natural log-transformed data with a Linear Mixed Model containing the terms of FEC classification, treatment, FEC x treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and patient nested within sequence as random effect.||1.25|0.51|
90806346|NCT02370537|181493693|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The exposure of a single dose of EPANOVA® 4 g (reference) relative to OMACOR® 4 g (test) was estimated by degree of pancreatic exocrine function using level of FEC. Natural log estimates of LSmeans for each treatment and differences of the LSmeans (OMACOR®-EPANOVA®) along with 90% CIs by degree of pancreatic exocrine function using level of FEC were exponentiated.|GLS Mean Ratio|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.82|||||OMACOR®/EPANOVA®|Back transformed results are based on the analysis of natural log-transformed data with a Linear Mixed Model containing the terms of FEC classification, treatment, FEC x treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and patient nested within sequence as random effect.||1.82|0.92|
91014531|NCT01683565|181912035|OTHER|Differences in mean changes in erythrocyte fatty acid composition were examined using t-tests.||||||0.02||||||P-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in erythrocyte fatty acid composition (16:0 nmol/mL) between groups (LCPUFA vs. Placebo).||||0.02
91014532|NCT01683565|181912035|OTHER|Differences in mean changes in erythrocyte fatty acid composition were examined using t-tests.||||||0.16||||||P-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in erythrocyte fatty acid composition (16:1n-7 nmol/mL) between groups (LCPUFA vs. Placebo).||||0.16
91014533|NCT01683565|181912035|OTHER|Differences in mean changes in erythrocyte fatty acid composition were examined using t-tests.||||||0.02||||||P-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in erythrocyte fatty acid composition (18:0 nmol/mL) between groups (LCPUFA vs. Placebo).||||0.02
90806347|NCT02370537|181493694|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The exposure of a single dose of EPANOVA® 4 g (reference) relative to OMACOR® 4 g (test) was estimated by degree of pancreatic exocrine function using level of FEC. Natural log estimates of LSmeans for each treatment and differences of the LSmeans (OMACOR®-EPANOVA®) along with 90% CIs by degree of pancreatic exocrine function using level of FEC were exponentiated.|GLS Mean Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.63|1.28|||||OMACOR®/EPANOVA®|Back transformed results are based on the analysis of natural log-transformed data with a Linear Mixed Model containing the terms of FEC classification, treatment, FEC x treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and patient nested within sequence as random effect.||1.28|0.63|
90806348|NCT02370537|181493694|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The exposure of a single dose of EPANOVA® 4 g (reference) relative to OMACOR® 4 g (test) was estimated by degree of pancreatic exocrine function using level of FEC. Natural log estimates of LSmeans for each treatment and differences of the LSmeans (OMACOR®-EPANOVA®) along with 90% CIs by degree of pancreatic exocrine function using level of FEC were exponentiated.|GLS Mean Ratio|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.39|0.85|||||OMACOR®/EPANOVA®|Back transformed results are based on the analysis of natural log-transformed data with a Linear Mixed Model containing the terms of FEC classification, treatment, FEC x treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and patient nested within sequence as random effect.||0.85|0.39|
90806349|NCT02370537|181493694|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The exposure of a single dose of EPANOVA® 4 g (reference) relative to OMACOR® 4 g (test) was estimated by degree of pancreatic exocrine function using level of FEC. Natural log estimates of LSmeans for each treatment and differences of the LSmeans (OMACOR®-EPANOVA®) along with 90% CIs by degree of pancreatic exocrine function using level of FEC were exponentiated.|GLS Mean Ratio|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.55|1.0|||||OMACOR®/EPANOVA®|Back transformed results are based on the analysis of natural log-transformed data with a Linear Mixed Model containing the terms of FEC classification, treatment, FEC x treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and patient nested within sequence as random effect.||1.00|0.55|
90806350|NCT02370537|181493695|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The exposure of a single dose of EPANOVA® 4 g (reference) relative to OMACOR® 4 g (test) was estimated by degree of pancreatic exocrine function using level of FEC. Natural log estimates of LSmeans for each treatment and differences of the LSmeans (OMACOR®-EPANOVA®) along with 90% CIs by degree of pancreatic exocrine function using level of FEC were exponentiated.|GLS Mean Ratio|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.37|0.73|||||OMACOR®/EPANOVA®|Back transformed results are based on the analysis of natural log-transformed data with a Linear Mixed Model containing the terms of FEC classification, treatment, FEC x treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and patient nested within sequence as random effect.||0.73|0.37|
90806351|NCT02370537|181493695|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The exposure of a single dose of EPANOVA® 4 g (reference) relative to OMACOR® 4 g (test) was estimated by degree of pancreatic exocrine function using level of FEC. Natural log estimates of LSmeans for each treatment and differences of the LSmeans (OMACOR®-EPANOVA®) along with 90% CIs by degree of pancreatic exocrine function using level of FEC were exponentiated.|GLS Mean Ratio|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.32|0.67|||||OMACOR®/EPANOVA®|Back transformed results are based on the analysis of natural log-transformed data with a Linear Mixed Model containing the terms of FEC classification, treatment, FEC x treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and patient nested within sequence as random effect.||0.67|0.32|
90806352|NCT02370537|181493695|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The exposure of a single dose of EPANOVA® 4 g (reference) relative to OMACOR® 4 g (test) was estimated by degree of pancreatic exocrine function using level of FEC. Natural log estimates of LSmeans for each treatment and differences of the LSmeans (OMACOR®-EPANOVA®) along with 90% CIs by degree of pancreatic exocrine function using level of FEC were exponentiated.|GLS Mean Ratio|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|0.7|||||OMACOR®/EPANOVA®|Back transformed results are based on the analysis of natural log-transformed data with a Linear Mixed Model containing the terms of FEC classification, treatment, FEC x treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and patient nested within sequence as random effect.||0.70|0.40|
91014534|NCT01683565|181912035|OTHER|Differences in mean changes in erythrocyte fatty acid composition were examined using t-tests.||||||0.02||||||P-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in erythrocyte fatty acid composition (18:1n-9 nmol/mL) between groups (LCPUFA vs. Placebo).||||0.02
91014535|NCT01683565|181912035|OTHER|Differences in mean changes in erythrocyte fatty acid composition were examined using t-tests.||||||0.21||||||P-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in erythrocyte fatty acid composition (18:2n-6 nmol/mL) between groups (LCPUFA vs. Placebo).||||0.21
91014536|NCT01683565|181912035|OTHER|Differences in mean changes in erythrocyte fatty acid composition were examined using t-tests.||||||0.34||||||P-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in erythrocyte fatty acid composition (18:3n-6 nmol/mL) between groups (LCPUFA vs. Placebo).||||0.34
91014537|NCT01683565|181912035|OTHER|Differences in mean changes in erythrocyte fatty acid composition were examined using t-tests.||||||0.24||||||P-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in erythrocyte fatty acid composition (18:3n-3 nmol/mL) between groups (LCPUFA vs. Placebo).||||0.24
91014538|NCT01683565|181912035|OTHER|Differences in mean changes in erythrocyte fatty acid composition were examined using t-tests.||||||0.5||||||P-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in erythrocyte fatty acid composition (18:4n-3 nmol/mL ) between groups (LCPUFA vs. Placebo).||||0.50
91014539|NCT01683565|181912035|OTHER|Differences in mean changes in erythrocyte fatty acid composition were examined using t-tests.||||||0.07||||||P-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in erythrocyte fatty acid composition (20:3n-6 nmol/mL) between groups (LCPUFA vs. Placebo).||||0.07
90806353|NCT02370537|181493696|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The exposure of a single dose of EPANOVA® 4 g (reference) relative to OMACOR® 4 g (test) was estimated by degree of pancreatic exocrine function using level of FEC. Natural log estimates of least-squares LSmeans for each treatment and differences of the LSmeans (OMACOR®-EPANOVA®) along with 90% CIs by degree of pancreatic exocrine function using level of FEC were exponentiated.|GLS Mean Ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.77|1.36|||||OMACOR®/EPANOVA®|Back transformed results are based on the analysis of natural log-transformed data with a Linear Mixed Model containing the terms of FEC classification, treatment, FEC x treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and patient nested within sequence as random effect.||1.36|0.77|
90806354|NCT02370537|181493696|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The exposure of a single dose of EPANOVA® 4 g (reference) relative to OMACOR® 4 g (test) was estimated by degree of pancreatic exocrine function using level of FEC. Natural log estimates of LSmeans for each treatment and differences of the LSmeans (OMACOR®-EPANOVA®) along with 90% CIs by degree of pancreatic exocrine function using level of FEC were exponentiated.|GLS mean Ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.67|1.25|||||OMACOR®/EPANOVA®|Back transformed results are based on the analysis of natural log-transformed data with a Linear Mixed Model containing the terms of FEC classification, treatment, FEC x treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and patient nested within sequence as random effect.||1.25|0.67|
90806355|NCT02370537|181493696|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The exposure of a single dose of EPANOVA® 4 g (reference) relative to OMACOR® 4 g (test) was estimated by degree of pancreatic exocrine function using level of FEC. Natural log estimates of LSmeans for each treatment and differences of the LSmeans (OMACOR®-EPANOVA®) along with 90% CIs by degree of pancreatic exocrine function using level of FEC were exponentiated.|GLS Mean Ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.4|||||OMACOR®/EPANOVA®|Back transformed results are based on the analysis of natural log-transformed data with a Linear Mixed Model containing the terms of FEC classification, treatment, FEC x treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and patient nested within sequence as random effect.||1.40|0.88|
90806356|NCT02370537|181493697|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The exposure of a single dose of EPANOVA® 4 g (reference) relative to OMACOR® 4 g (test) was estimated by degree of pancreatic exocrine function using level of FEC. Natural log estimates of LSmeans for each treatment and differences of the LSmeans (OMACOR®-EPANOVA®) along with 90% CIs by degree of pancreatic exocrine function using level of FEC were exponentiated.|GLS Mean|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.49|0.92|||||OMACOR®/EPANOVA®|Back transformed results are based on the analysis of natural log-transformed data with a Linear Mixed Model containing the terms of FEC classification, treatment, FEC x treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and patient nested within sequence as random effect.||0.92|0.49|
90806357|NCT02370537|181493697|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The exposure of a single dose of EPANOVA® 4 g (reference) relative to OMACOR® 4 g (test) was estimated by degree of pancreatic exocrine function using level of FEC. Natural log estimates of LSmeans for each treatment and differences of the LSmeans (OMACOR®-EPANOVA®) along with 90% CIs by degree of pancreatic exocrine function using level of FEC were exponentiated.|GLS Mean Ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.42|0.84|||||OMACOR®/EPANOVA®|Back transformed results are based on the analysis of natural log-transformed data with a Linear Mixed Model containing the terms of FEC classification, treatment, FEC x treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and patient nested within sequence as random effect.||0.84|0.42|
90806358|NCT02370537|181493697|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The exposure of a single dose of EPANOVA® 4 g (reference) relative to OMACOR® 4 g (test) was estimated by degree of pancreatic exocrine function using level of FEC. Natural log estimates of LSmeans for each treatment and differences of the LSmeans (OMACOR®-EPANOVA®) along with 90% CIs by degree of pancreatic exocrine function using level of FEC were exponentiated.|GLS Mean Ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.54|0.9|||||OMACOR®/EPANOVA®|Back transformed results are based on the analysis of natural log-transformed data with a Linear Mixed Model containing the terms of FEC classification, treatment, FEC x treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and patient nested within sequence as random effect.||0.90|0.54|
90806359|NCT02578680|181493734|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.64|||Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by PD-L1 status (≥1% vs. \<1%), platinum chemotherapy (cisplatin vs. carboplatin) \& smoking status (never vs. former/current). Pembrolizumab=numerator; Control=denominator.|||0.64|0.43|<0.00001
90806360|NCT02578680|181493735|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.49|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.64|||Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by PD-L1 status (≥1% vs. \<1%), platinum chemotherapy (cisplatin vs. carboplatin) \& smoking status (never vs. former/current). Pembrolizumab=numerator; Control=denominator.|||0.64|0.38|<0.00001
90806361|NCT02578680|181493736|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage vs. Control|28.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.1|35.4||H0:Difference in percentages=0 vs H1:Difference in percentages\>0|Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen||Miettinen and Nurminen method with treatment as a covariate stratified by PD-L1 status (≥1% vs. \<1%), platinum chemotherapy (cisplatin vs. carboplatin) \& smoking status (never vs. former/current). Pembrolizumab=numerator; Control=denominator.|||35.4|21.1|<0.0001
91014540|NCT01683565|181912035|OTHER|Differences in mean changes in erythrocyte fatty acid composition were examined using t-tests.||||||0.1||||||P-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in erythrocyte fatty acid composition (20:4n-6 nmol/mL) between groups (LCPUFA vs. Placebo).||||0.10
91014541|NCT01683565|181912035|OTHER|Differences in mean changes in erythrocyte fatty acid composition were examined using t-tests.||||||0.001||||||P-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in erythrocyte fatty acid composition (20:5n-3 nmol/mL) between groups (LCPUFA vs. Placebo).||||0.001
91014542|NCT01683565|181912035|OTHER|Differences in mean changes in erythrocyte fatty acid composition were examined using t-tests.||||||0.71||||||P-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in erythrocyte fatty acid composition (22:5n-3 nmol/mL) between groups (LCPUFA vs. Placebo).||||0.71
91014543|NCT01683565|181912035|OTHER|Differences in mean changes in erythrocyte fatty acid composition were examined using t-tests.||||||0.001||||||P-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in erythrocyte fatty acid composition (22:6n-3 nmol/mL) between groups (LCPUFA vs. Placebo).||||0.001
90806362|NCT02578680|181493740|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.49|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.59|||Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by PD-L1 status (≥1% vs. \<1%), platinum chemotherapy (cisplatin vs. carboplatin) \& smoking status (never vs. former/current). Pembrolizumab=numerator; Control=denominator.|||0.59|0.41|<0.00001
90806363|NCT01559259|181493753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square (LS) Mean difference|26.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.33|32.22|||ANOVA|||Treatment difference and 95 percent (%) Confidence interval (CI) were based on Least square mean (LSM) from analysis of variance (ANOVA) with treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating (PSR), gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||32.22|20.33|<0.001
90806364|NCT01559259|181493753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|24.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.44|30.29|||ANOVA|||Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||30.29|18.44|<0.001
90806365|NCT01559259|181493753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|27.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.53|33.42|||ANOVA|||Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||33.42|21.53|<0.001
90806366|NCT01559259|181493753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|24.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.93|30.78|||ANOVA|||Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||30.78|18.93|<0.001
90806367|NCT01559259|181493753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.42||||0.501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.73|5.58|||ANOVA|||Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||5.58|-2.73|0.501
90806368|NCT01559259|181493753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.49||||0.817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.61|3.64|||ANOVA|||Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||3.64|-4.61|0.817
90806369|NCT01559259|181493753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.62||||0.216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|6.78|||ANOVA|||Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||6.78|-1.53|0.216
90806370|NCT01559259|181493754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|12.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.52|29.19|||Proportional hazards model|||Hazard ratio (HR) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the proportional hazards (PH) model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates.||29.19|5.52|<0.001
90806371|NCT01559259|181493754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|10.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.36|23.02|||Proportional hazards model|||Hazard ratio (HR) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the proportional hazards (PH) model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates.||23.02|4.36|<0.001
90806372|NCT01559259|181493754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|11.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.07|26.83|||Proportional hazards model|||Hazard ratio (HR) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the proportional hazards (PH) model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates.||26.83|5.07|<0.001
90806373|NCT01559259|181493754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|8.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.74|19.77|||Proportional hazards model|||Hazard ratio (HR) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the proportional hazards (PH) model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates.||19.77|3.74|<0.001
90806374|NCT01559259|181493754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.48||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|2.02|||Proportional hazards model|||Hazard ratio (HR) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the proportional hazards (PH) model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates.||2.02|1.08|0.014
90806375|NCT01559259|181493754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.59|||Proportional hazards model|||Hazard ratio (HR) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the proportional hazards (PH) model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates.||1.59|0.86|0.332
90806376|NCT01559259|181493754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.36||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.85|||Proportional hazards model|||Hazard ratio (HR) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the proportional hazards (PH) model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates.||1.85|0.99|0.056
90806377|NCT01559259|181493755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|12.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.24|27.91|||Proportional hazards model|||HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates.||27.91|5.24|<0.001
90806378|NCT01559259|181493755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|8.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.86|20.44|||Proportional hazards model|||HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates.||20.44|3.86|<0.001
90806379|NCT01559259|181493755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|11.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.98|26.42|||Proportional hazards model|||HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates.||26.42|4.98|<0.001
90806380|NCT01559259|181493755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|8.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.52|18.68|||Proportional hazards model|||HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates.||18.68|3.52|<0.001
90806381|NCT01559259|181493755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.49||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|2.04|||Proportional hazards model|||HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates.||2.04|1.09|0.012
90806382|NCT01559259|181493755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.49|||Proportional hazards model|||HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates.||1.49|0.80|0.570
90806383|NCT01559259|181493755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.41||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.93|||Proportional hazards model|||HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates.||1.93|1.03|0.030
90806384|NCT01559259|181493756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.39||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.71|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.71|0.08|0.014
90806385|NCT01559259|181493756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.33||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.64|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.64|0.02|0.038
90806386|NCT01559259|181493756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.48||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.79|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.79|0.17|0.003
90806387|NCT01559259|181493756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.23||||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.54|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.54|-0.09|0.155
90806388|NCT01559259|181493756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.17||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.39|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.39|-0.05|0.135
90806389|NCT01559259|181493756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.1||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.32|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.32|-0.11|0.350
90806390|NCT01559259|181493756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.25||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.47|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.47|0.03|0.024
90806391|NCT01559259|181493756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.77|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.77|0.90|<0.001
90806392|NCT01559259|181493756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.7|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.70|0.83|<0.001
90806393|NCT01559259|181493756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.35||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.78|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.78|0.91|0.001
90806394|NCT01559259|181493756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.3|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.30|0.43|<0.001
90806395|NCT01559259|181493756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.47||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.77|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.77|0.16|0.003
90806396|NCT01559259|181493756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.4||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.7|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.70|0.10|0.010
90806397|NCT01559259|181493756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.48||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.79|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.79|0.18|0.002
90806398|NCT01559259|181493756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|2.58|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.58|1.66|<0.001
90806399|NCT01559259|181493756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|2.42|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.42|1.50|<0.001
90806400|NCT01559259|181493756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.67|2.6|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.60|1.67|<0.001
90806401|NCT01559259|181493756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|2.2|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.20|1.28|<0.001
90806402|NCT01559259|181493756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.38||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.7|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.70|0.05|0.022
90806403|NCT01559259|181493756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.22||||0.181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.54|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.54|-0.10|0.181
90806404|NCT01559259|181493756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.4||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.72|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.72|0.07|0.016
90806405|NCT01559259|181493756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.98|2.88|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.88|1.98|<0.001
91054532|NCT00444457|181991054|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exact, unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.97|1.73||||||Common serotypes - serotype 9V||1.73|-3.97|
91054533|NCT00444457|181991054|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exact, unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.81|1.88||||||Common serotypes - serotype 9V||1.88|-3.81|
91054534|NCT00444457|181991054|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exact, unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|1.95||||||Common serotypes - serotype 14||1.95|-1.27|
91054535|NCT00444457|181991054|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exact, unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|3.01||||||Common serotypes - serotype 14||3.01|-0.60|
90806406|NCT01559259|181493756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|2.62|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.62|1.72|<0.001
90806407|NCT01559259|181493756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.01|2.91|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.91|2.01|<0.001
90806408|NCT01559259|181493756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.68|2.58|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.58|1.68|<0.001
91054536|NCT00444457|181991054|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exact, unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|2.76||||||Common serotypes - serotype 14||2.76|-1.04|
91054537|NCT00444457|181991054|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exact, unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|4.74||||||Common serotypes - serotype 18C||4.74|-0.38|
90806409|NCT01559259|181493756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.3||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.61|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.61|-0.02|0.065
91054538|NCT00444457|181991054|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exact, unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|1.99||||||Common serotypes - serotype 18C||1.99|-2.33|
91054539|NCT00444457|181991054|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exact, unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.89|0.23||||||Common serotypes - serotype 18C||0.23|-4.89|
91054540|NCT00444457|181991054|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exact, unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|2.6||||||Common serotypes - serotype 19F||2.60|-1.93|
90806410|NCT01559259|181493756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.04||||0.817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.35|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.35|-0.28|0.817
90806411|NCT01559259|181493756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.33||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.64|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.64|0.01|0.043
90806412|NCT01559259|181493756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.06|3.01|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||3.01|2.06|<0.001
90806413|NCT01559259|181493756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.87|2.82|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.82|1.87|<0.001
90806414|NCT01559259|181493756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.15|3.11|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||3.11|2.15|<0.001
91054541|NCT00444457|181991054|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exact, unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.46|0.28||||||Common serotypes - serotype 19F||0.28|-3.46|
90806415|NCT01559259|181493756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.89|2.84|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.84|1.89|<0.001
90806416|NCT01559259|181493756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.17||||0.312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.51|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.51|-0.16|0.312
90806417|NCT01559259|181493756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.02||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.31|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.31|-0.35|0.910
90806418|NCT01559259|181493756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.27||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.6|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.60|-0.06|0.113
90806419|NCT01559259|181493756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.98|2.97|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.97|1.98|<0.001
90806420|NCT01559259|181493756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.76|2.75|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.75|1.76|<0.001
90806421|NCT01559259|181493756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|3.01|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||3.01|2.02|<0.001
90806422|NCT01559259|181493756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.86|2.85|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.85|1.86|<0.001
90806423|NCT01559259|181493756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.12||||0.482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.47|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.47|-0.22|0.482
90806424|NCT01559259|181493756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.1||||0.573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.24|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.24|-0.44|0.573
91014544|NCT01683565|181912035|OTHER|Differences in mean changes in erythrocyte fatty acid composition were examined using t-tests.||||||0.1||||||P-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in erythrocyte fatty acid composition (Total Omega-6) between groups (LCPUFA vs. Placebo).||||0.10
90806425|NCT01559259|181493756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.16||||0.368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.5|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.50|-0.19|0.368
91014545|NCT01683565|181912035|OTHER|Differences in mean changes in erythrocyte fatty acid composition were examined using t-tests.||||||0.1||||||P-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in erythrocyte fatty acid composition (total omega-3) between groups (LCPUFA vs. Placebo).||||0.10
91014546|NCT01195662|181912042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1485||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.54|-2.02||Endpoint was tested at alpha=0.05. Hierarchical closed testing procedure used.|Longitudinal repeated measures|Data from all weeks during the double-blind treatment period were included.||Longitudinal repeated measures analysis using 'direct likelihood', with fixed categorical effects of treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and randomization strata, as well as continuous fixed covariates of baseline SBP value and baseline SBP value-by-week interaction. Unstructured matrix for within-subject error variance-covariance used. 80% power to detect a difference of 4 mmHg in mean change from baseline, 75% power to meet both co-primary endpoints with overall Type I error.||-2.02|-6.54|0.0002
91014547|NCT01195662|181912043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0773|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.46|||Longitudinal repeated measures|Endpoint was tested at alpha=0.05. Hierarchical closed testing procedure was used.||A longitudinal repeated measures analysis used, with fixed categorical effects of treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and randomization strata, continuous fixed covariates of baseline HbA1c value and baseline HbA1c value-by-week interaction. Only data up to Week 12 included. All data used in the model even if participants discontinued prior to Week 12. A heirarchical closed testing procedure (sequential) was used and testing performed since first primary endpoint was significant.||-0.46|-0.76|<0.0001
91054542|NCT00444457|181991054|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exact, unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.87|0.02||||||Common serotypes - serotype 19F||0.02|-3.87|
90806426|NCT01559259|181493756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.88|2.91|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.91|1.88|<0.001
90806427|NCT01559259|181493756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|2.68|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.68|1.66|<0.001
90806428|NCT01559259|181493756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.93|2.96|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.96|1.93|<0.001
90806429|NCT01559259|181493756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|2.74|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.74|1.72|<0.001
90806430|NCT01559259|181493756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.17||||0.352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.53|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.53|-0.19|0.352
90806431|NCT01559259|181493756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.05||||0.771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.3|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.30|-0.41|0.771
90806432|NCT01559259|181493756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.22||||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.58|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.58|-0.14|0.235
90806433|NCT01559259|181493756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.79|2.86|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.86|1.79|<0.001
90806434|NCT01559259|181493756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|2.58|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.58|1.52|<0.001
90806435|NCT01559259|181493756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.83|2.9|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.90|1.83|<0.001
90806436|NCT01559259|181493756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|2.73|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.73|1.66|<0.001
90806437|NCT01559259|181493756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.13||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.5|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.50|-0.25|0.510
90806438|NCT01559259|181493756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.15||||0.442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.23|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.23|-0.52|0.442
90806439|NCT01559259|181493756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.17||||0.372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.54|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.54|-0.20|0.372
90806440|NCT01559259|181493756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|2.55|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.55|1.39|<0.001
90806441|NCT01559259|181493756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|2.4|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.40|1.25|<0.001
90806442|NCT01559259|181493756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|2.72|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.72|1.57|<0.001
91014548|NCT01195662|181912044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.368||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.14|-1.76||Endpoint tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with treatment group as an effect and baseline value and randomization strata as a covariate was used. By applying sequential testing procedure, the testing was performed since the prior endpoint was significant.||-1.76|-7.14|0.0012
90806443|NCT01559259|181493756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.45|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.45|1.30|<0.001
90806444|NCT01559259|181493756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.1||||0.639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.5|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.50|-0.31|0.639
90806445|NCT01559259|181493756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.05||||0.803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.35|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.35|-0.45|0.803
90806446|NCT01559259|181493756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.27||||0.184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.67|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.67|-0.13|0.184
90806447|NCT01559259|181493756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|2.26|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.26|1.07|<0.001
90806448|NCT01559259|181493756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|2.17|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.17|0.99|<0.001
90806449|NCT01559259|181493756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|2.43|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.43|1.25|<0.001
90806450|NCT01559259|181493756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.28|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.28|1.10|<0.001
90806451|NCT01559259|181493756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.02||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.39|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.39|-0.44|0.910
90806452|NCT01559259|181493756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.11||||0.607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.3|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.30|-0.52|0.607
90806453|NCT01559259|181493756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.15||||0.484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.56|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.56|-0.27|0.484
90806454|NCT01559259|181493756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.86|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.86|0.64|<0.001
90806455|NCT01559259|181493756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.97|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.97|0.75|<0.001
91054543|NCT00444457|181991054|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exact, unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|7.46||||||Common serotypes - serotype 23F||7.46|-1.03|
91054544|NCT00444457|181991054|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exact, unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|8.39||||||Common serotypes - serotype 23F||8.39|-0.27|
90806456|NCT01559259|181493756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.99|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.99|0.77|<0.001
90806457|NCT01559259|181493756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|2.1|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.10|0.89|<0.001
90806458|NCT01559259|181493756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.25||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.18|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.18|-0.67|0.256
90806459|NCT01559259|181493756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.14||||0.526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.29|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.29|-0.56|0.526
90806460|NCT01559259|181493756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.11||||0.602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.31|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.31|-0.54|0.602
90806461|NCT01559259|181493756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.95||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.56|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.56|0.34|0.002
90806462|NCT01559259|181493756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.98||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.59|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.59|0.38|0.001
90806463|NCT01559259|181493756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.86|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.86|0.65|<0.001
90806464|NCT01559259|181493756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.82|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.82|0.61|<0.001
90806465|NCT01559259|181493756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.26||||0.224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.16|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.16|-0.69|0.224
90806466|NCT01559259|181493756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.23||||0.283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.19|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.19|-0.65|0.283
90806467|NCT01559259|181493756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.04||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.46|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.46|-0.39|0.860
91054545|NCT00444457|181991054|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exact, unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.75|5.46||||||Common serotypes - serotype 23F||5.46|-3.75|
91014549|NCT01195662|181912045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.1619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.32|0.39||Endpoint tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05.|Longitudinal repeated measures|||Longitudinal repeated measures analysis using direct likelihood with fixed categorical effects of treatment, week, treatment-by week interaction, and randomization strata and continuous fixed covariates of baseline seated diastolic BP value and baseline seated diastolic BP value by week interaction.||0.39|-2.32|0.1619
91014550|NCT01195662|181912046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8635|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.68|-0.29|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with treatment group as an effect and baseline value and randomization strata as a covariate. A hierarchical closed testing procedure was implemented to control the family-wise type I error rate related to the co-primary and secondary endpoints at the 2-sided 0.05 level. Statistical testing of this endpoint was not performed since the prior secondary endpoint was not statistically significant.||-0.29|-3.68|
90806468|NCT01559259|181493756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.63||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|1.22|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.22|0.03|0.038
90806469|NCT01559259|181493756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.65||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|1.24|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.24|0.06|0.031
90806470|NCT01559259|181493756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.62|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.62|0.43|<0.001
90806471|NCT01559259|181493756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.95||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.54|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.54|0.36|0.002
90806472|NCT01559259|181493756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.32||||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.09|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.09|-0.74|0.129
90806473|NCT01559259|181493756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.3||||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.11|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.11|-0.71|0.154
91014551|NCT01195662|181912047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0858|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.23|||lLongitudinal repeated measures|||Longitudinal repeated measures analysis using direct likelihood with fixed categorical effects of treatment, week, treatment-by week interaction, and randomization strata and continuous fixed covariates of baseline serum uric acid value and baseline seated serum uric acid value by week interaction. By applying sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05, no testing was performed since the prior secondary endpoint was not significant.||-0.23|-0.57|
91014552|NCT03039699|181912066|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004
91014553|NCT03039699|181912067|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0675||||||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons using Holm method|Fisher Exact|||48 hours timepoint comparison||||0.0675
91014554|NCT03039699|181912067|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0675||||||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons using Holm method|Fisher Exact|||72 hours timepoint comparison||||0.0675
90806474|NCT01559259|181493756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.08||||0.714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.49|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.49|-0.34|0.714
90806475|NCT01559259|181493756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.37||||0.217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.96|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.96|-0.22|0.217
90806476|NCT01559259|181493756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.45||||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|1.03|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.03|-0.14|0.136
90806477|NCT01559259|181493756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.78||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.37|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.37|0.19|0.010
90806478|NCT01559259|181493756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.83||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|1.41|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.41|0.24|0.006
90806479|NCT01559259|181493756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.45||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.04|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||-0.04|-0.87|0.031
91014555|NCT03039699|181912067|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5569||||||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons using Holm method|Fisher Exact|||96 hours timepoint comparison||||0.5569
91014556|NCT03039699|181912068|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0696||||||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons using Holm method|Fisher Exact|||48 hours timepoint comparison||||0.0696
91014557|NCT03039699|181912068|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0696||||||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons using Holm method|Fisher Exact|||72 hours timepoint comparison||||0.0696
91014558|NCT03039699|181912068|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1998||||||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons using Holm method|Fisher Exact|||96 hours timepoint comparison||||0.1998
91014559|NCT03039699|181912069|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0039|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0039
91014560|NCT03039699|181912070|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89||||||"The p-value associated with treatment\*visit interaction of total CDS score from 24 hours to 48 and 72 hours of treatment between Ergoferon and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.89
90806480|NCT01559259|181493756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.38||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.03|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.03|-0.79|0.070
90806481|NCT01559259|181493756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.05||||0.822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.37|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.37|-0.46|0.822
90806482|NCT01559259|181493756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.28||||0.327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.83|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.83|-0.28|0.327
90806483|NCT01559259|181493756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.34||||0.224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.89|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.89|-0.21|0.224
90806484|NCT01559259|181493756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.63||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|1.19|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.19|0.08|0.025
90806485|NCT01559259|181493756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.7||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.25|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.25|0.15|0.012
90806486|NCT01559259|181493756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.43||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.04|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||-0.04|-0.81|0.030
90806487|NCT01559259|181493756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.36||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.02|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.02|-0.75|0.064
90806488|NCT01559259|181493756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.07||||0.721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.32|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.32|-0.46|0.721
90806489|NCT01559259|181493757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.22||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.42|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.42|0.02|0.033
90806490|NCT01559259|181493757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.13||||0.224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.33|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.33|-0.08|0.224
90806491|NCT01559259|181493757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.23||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.44|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.44|0.03|0.024
90806492|NCT01559259|181493757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.07||||0.501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.27|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.27|-0.13|0.501
90806493|NCT01559259|181493757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.15||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.29|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.29|0.01|0.036
90806494|NCT01559259|181493757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.06||||0.435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.2|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.20|-0.08|0.435
90806495|NCT01559259|181493757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.16||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.31|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.31|0.02|0.023
90806496|NCT01559259|181493757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.12|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.12|0.52|<0.001
90806497|NCT01559259|181493757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.97|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.97|0.37|<0.001
90806498|NCT01559259|181493757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.04|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.04|0.45|<0.001
90806499|NCT01559259|181493757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.45||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.75|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.75|0.16|0.003
91014561|NCT03039699|181912071|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0044|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0044
91014562|NCT03039699|181912072|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5488||||||nonadjusted p-value|Fisher Exact|||Day 3 comparison||||0.5488
91014563|NCT03039699|181912072|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.814||||||nonadjusted p-value|Fisher Exact|||Day 4 comparison||||0.8140
91014564|NCT03039699|181912072|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1248||||||nonadjusted p-value|Fisher Exact|||Day 6 comparison||||0.1248
91014565|NCT03039699|181912072|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3889||||||nonadjusted p-value|Fisher Exact|||Day 10 comparison||||0.3889
91014566|NCT03039699|181912073|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3593|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.3593
90806500|NCT01559259|181493757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.58|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.58|0.16|<0.001
90806501|NCT01559259|181493757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.22||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.42|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.42|0.01|0.039
90806502|NCT01559259|181493757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.29||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.5|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.50|0.08|0.006
90806503|NCT01559259|181493757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.65|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.65|1.01|<0.001
90806504|NCT01559259|181493757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.49|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.49|0.85|<0.001
91014567|NCT01740297|181912085|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.9||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|5.5|||Chi-squared, Corrected||Obtained from the unstratified logistic regression model.|||5.5|1.5|0.002
91054546|NCT00444457|181991054|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exact, unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|3.18||||||Additional serotypes - serotype 1||3.18|-1.48|
90806505|NCT01559259|181493757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.67|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.67|1.03|<0.001
90806506|NCT01559259|181493757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.36|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.36|0.72|<0.001
90806507|NCT01559259|181493757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.29||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.52|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.52|0.07|0.011
90806508|NCT01559259|181493757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.13||||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.35|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.35|-0.10|0.267
90806509|NCT01559259|181493757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.31||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.53|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.53|0.09|0.007
90806510|NCT01559259|181493757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|1.89|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.89|1.24|<0.001
90806511|NCT01559259|181493757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.7|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.70|1.06|<0.001
90806512|NCT01559259|181493757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|1.9|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.90|1.25|<0.001
90806513|NCT01559259|181493757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.67|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.67|1.02|<0.001
91014568|NCT01740297|181912088|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|3.4||P-value is descriptive|Chi-squared, Corrected||Obtained from the unstratified logistic regression model.|||3.4|1.1|0.033
91014569|NCT01740297|181912089|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.8||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|5.8||P-value is descriptive.|Chi-squared, Corrected||Obtained from the unstratified logistic regression model.|||5.8|1.4|0.007
91014570|NCT01740297|181912090|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.41||||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.49||P-value is descriptive|Log Rank||Obtained from unstratified Cox Proportional Hazard Model.|||2.49|0.80|0.228
91014571|NCT01740297|181912092|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.23|||Log Rank||Obtained from unstratified Cox Proportional Hazard Model|||1.23|0.56|0.348
91054547|NCT00444457|181991054|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exact, unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|1.34||||||Additional serotypes - serotype 1||1.34|-2.78|
91014572|NCT01740297|181912093|OTHER|||||||0.696|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.696
91014573|NCT01740297|181912094|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.46|||Log Rank||Obtained from unstratified Cox Proportional Hazard Model|||1.46|0.44|0.474
91014574|NCT01740297|181912096|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.09|||Log Rank||Obtained from unstratified Cox Proportional Hazard Model|||1.09|0.55|0.14
91014575|NCT01740297|181912097|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.24|||Log Rank||Obtained from unstratified Cox Proportional Hazard Model|||1.24|0.56|0.37
90806514|NCT01559259|181493757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.22||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.45|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.45|-0.01|0.056
90806515|NCT01559259|181493757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.04||||0.759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.26|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.26|-0.19|0.759
90806516|NCT01559259|181493757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.23||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.45|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.45|-0.00|0.051
90806517|NCT01559259|181493757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|1.98|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.98|1.30|<0.001
90806518|NCT01559259|181493757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|1.85|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.85|1.18|<0.001
90806519|NCT01559259|181493757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|2.05|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.05|1.37|<0.001
90806520|NCT01559259|181493757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|1.86|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.86|1.19|<0.001
90806521|NCT01559259|181493757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.11||||0.342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.35|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.35|-0.12|0.342
91014576|NCT02163759|181912121|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Remission Rates|12.3||||0.0173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|20.6||The threshold for statistical significance was a p-value \<0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL.|Difference in remission rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis (H0): the percentage of participants achieving remission at Week 10 was the same in both the placebo and etrolizumab arms. The alternative hypothesis (H1): the percentage of participants achieving remission at Week 10 was not the same in the placebo and etrolizumab arms.||20.60|1.59|0.0173
91014577|NCT02163759|181912122|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Remission Rates|-3.1||||0.5055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.61|6.37||Nominal p-value; it has not been adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL.|Difference in remission rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the adalimumab arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. Please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details. This comparison was not considered a key secondary outcome measure and was not part of the multiple testing procedure for statistical significance.||6.37|-12.61|0.5055
91014578|NCT02163759|181912123|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Remission Rates|-5.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.66|1.75||p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL.|Difference in remission rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the adalimumab arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. This comparison was part of Family 3 of the testing procedure; please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details.||1.75|-11.66|1
90806522|NCT01559259|181493757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.01||||0.943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.23|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.23|-0.24|0.943
90806523|NCT01559259|181493757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.18||||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.42|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.42|-0.05|0.126
90806524|NCT01559259|181493757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|1.98|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.98|1.27|<0.001
90806525|NCT01559259|181493757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|1.86|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.86|1.15|<0.001
90806526|NCT01559259|181493757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|2.0|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.00|1.29|<0.001
90806527|NCT01559259|181493757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|1.89|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.89|1.18|<0.001
90806528|NCT01559259|181493757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.1||||0.453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.34|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.34|-0.15|0.453
90806529|NCT01559259|181493757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.03||||0.816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.22|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.22|-0.28|0.816
90806530|NCT01559259|181493757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.11||||0.384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.36|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.36|-0.14|0.384
91014579|NCT02163759|181912124|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|6.9||||0.4434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.03|20.62||p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL.|Difference in response rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the placebo arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. This comparison was part of Family 1 of the testing procedure; please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details.||20.62|-7.03|0.4434
91014580|NCT02163759|181912124|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|4.8||||0.4122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.72|16.07||Nominal p-value; it has not been adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL.|Difference in response rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the adalimumab arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. Please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details. This comparison was not considered a key secondary outcome measure and was not part of the multiple testing procedure for statistical significance.||16.07|-6.72|0.4122
91014581|NCT02163759|181912125|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|1.2||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.98|9.26||p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL.|Difference in response rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the adalimumab arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. This comparison was part of Family 3 of the testing procedure; please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details.||9.26|-6.98|1
91014582|NCT02163759|181912126|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|17.9||||0.0173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.49|29.5||p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL.|Difference in response rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the placebo arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. This comparison was part of Family 1 of the testing procedure; please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details.||29.50|4.49|0.0173
91054548|NCT00444457|181991054|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exact, unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.77|0.67||||||Additional serotypes - serotype 1||0.67|-3.77|
91054549|NCT00444457|181991054|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exact, unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|-3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.27|2.45||||||Additional serotypes - serotype 3||2.45|-10.27|
91054550|NCT00444457|181991054|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exact, unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|-10.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.8|-4.57||||||Additional serotypes - serotype 3||-4.57|-16.80|
91054551|NCT00444457|181991054|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exact, unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|-6.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.76|-0.74||||||Additional serotypes - serotype 3||-0.74|-12.76|
91054552|NCT00444457|181991054|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exact, unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|7.69||||||Additional serotypes - serotype 5||7.69|0.15|
91054553|NCT00444457|181991054|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exact, unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.52|3.09||||||Additional serotypes - serotype 5||3.09|-3.52|
91054554|NCT00444457|181991054|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exact, unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|-4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.92|-0.36||||||Additional serotypes - serotype 5||-0.36|-7.92|
91054555|NCT00444457|181991054|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exact, unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|5.23||||||Additional serotypes - serotype 6A||5.23|0.12|
90806531|NCT01559259|181493757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|1.91|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.91|1.19|<0.001
90806532|NCT01559259|181493757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.82|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.82|1.10|<0.001
90806533|NCT01559259|181493757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|1.97|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.97|1.25|<0.001
90806534|NCT01559259|181493757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.82|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.82|1.10|<0.001
90806535|NCT01559259|181493757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.09||||0.483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.34|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.34|-0.16|0.483
90806536|NCT01559259|181493757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.0||||0.991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.25|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.25|-0.25|0.991
90806537|NCT01559259|181493757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.16||||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.41|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.41|-0.10|0.228
90806538|NCT01559259|181493757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.85|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.85|1.10|<0.001
90806539|NCT01559259|181493757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.69|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.69|0.94|<0.001
90806540|NCT01559259|181493757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|1.9|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.90|1.15|<0.001
90806541|NCT01559259|181493757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.78|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.78|1.03|<0.001
90806542|NCT01559259|181493757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.07||||0.587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.33|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.33|-0.19|0.587
91054556|NCT00444457|181991054|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exact, unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|1.86||||||Additional serotypes - serotype 6A||1.86|-2.22|
90806543|NCT01559259|181493757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.09||||0.517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.17|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.17|-0.35|0.517
90806544|NCT01559259|181493757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.12||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.38|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.38|-0.14|0.360
90806545|NCT01559259|181493757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.6|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.60|0.81|<0.001
90806546|NCT01559259|181493757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.57|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.57|0.78|<0.001
90806547|NCT01559259|181493757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.76|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.76|0.97|<0.001
90806548|NCT01559259|181493757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.56|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.56|0.77|<0.001
90806549|NCT01559259|181493757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.03||||0.811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.31|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.31|-0.24|0.811
90806550|NCT01559259|181493757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.0||||0.977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.28|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.28|-0.27|0.977
90806551|NCT01559259|181493757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.2||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.47|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.47|-0.08|0.164
90806552|NCT01559259|181493757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.43|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.43|0.63|<0.001
90806553|NCT01559259|181493757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.4|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.40|0.60|<0.001
91054557|NCT00444457|181991054|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exact, unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.39|-0.27||||||Additional serotypes - serotype 6A||-0.27|-5.39|
90806554|NCT01559259|181493757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.56|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.56|0.75|<0.001
90806555|NCT01559259|181493757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.46|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.46|0.66|<0.001
90806556|NCT01559259|181493757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.03||||0.846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.25|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.25|-0.31|0.846
90806557|NCT01559259|181493757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.05||||0.702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.23|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.23|-0.33|0.702
90806558|NCT01559259|181493757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.1||||0.496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.38|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.38|-0.18|0.496
90806559|NCT01559259|181493757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.22|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.22|0.41|<0.001
90806560|NCT01559259|181493757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.21|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.21|0.40|<0.001
90806561|NCT01559259|181493757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.26|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.26|0.46|<0.001
91014583|NCT02163759|181912126|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|7.4||||0.1886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.77|18.32||Nominal p-value; it has not been adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL.|Difference in response rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the adalimumab arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. Please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details. This comparison was not considered a key secondary outcome measure and was not part of the multiple testing procedure for statistical significance.||18.32|-3.77|0.1886
91054558|NCT00444457|181991054|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exact, unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|2.3||||||Additional serotypes - serotype 7F||2.30|-0.47|
90806562|NCT01559259|181493757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.33|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.33|0.52|<0.001
90806563|NCT01559259|181493757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.11||||0.441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.17|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.17|-0.39|0.441
90806564|NCT01559259|181493757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.12||||0.408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.16|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.16|-0.40|0.408
90806565|NCT01559259|181493757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.06||||0.652|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.22|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.22|-0.35|0.652
90806566|NCT01559259|181493757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.61||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.02|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.02|0.21|0.003
90806567|NCT01559259|181493757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.55||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.95|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.95|0.15|0.007
90806568|NCT01559259|181493757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.1|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.10|0.29|<0.001
90806569|NCT01559259|181493757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.1|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.10|0.29|<0.001
90806570|NCT01559259|181493757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.08||||0.567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.2|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.20|-0.36|0.567
90806571|NCT01559259|181493757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.14||||0.315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.14|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.14|-0.42|0.315
90806572|NCT01559259|181493757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.0||||0.997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.28|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.28|-0.28|0.997
90806573|NCT01559259|181493757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.38||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.77|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.77|-0.01|0.056
90806574|NCT01559259|181493757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.39||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.78|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.78|0.01|0.047
90806575|NCT01559259|181493757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.56||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.95|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.95|0.17|0.005
90806576|NCT01559259|181493757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.53||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.92|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.92|0.14|0.007
90806577|NCT01559259|181493757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.15||||0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.12|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.12|-0.42|0.276
90806578|NCT01559259|181493757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.14||||0.318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.13|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.13|-0.41|0.318
90806579|NCT01559259|181493757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.03||||0.849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.3|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.30|-0.25|0.849
90806580|NCT01559259|181493757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.29||||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.66|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.66|-0.09|0.138
90806581|NCT01559259|181493757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.31||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.68|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.68|-0.07|0.111
90806582|NCT01559259|181493757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.42||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.79|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.79|0.04|0.031
90806583|NCT01559259|181493757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.49||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.87|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.87|0.11|0.011
90806584|NCT01559259|181493757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.2||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.06|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.06|-0.47|0.135
90806585|NCT01559259|181493757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.18||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.08|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.08|-0.44|0.175
90806586|NCT01559259|181493757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.07||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.19|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.19|-0.34|0.590
90806587|NCT01559259|181493757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.15||||0.402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.49|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.49|-0.20|0.402
90806588|NCT01559259|181493757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.2||||0.261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.54|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.54|-0.15|0.261
90806589|NCT01559259|181493757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.26||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.61|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.61|-0.08|0.134
90806590|NCT01559259|181493757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.38||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.72|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.72|0.03|0.031
90806591|NCT01559259|181493757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.23||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.01|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.01|-0.47|0.061
90806592|NCT01559259|181493757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.18||||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.06|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.06|-0.42|0.138
90806593|NCT01559259|181493757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.11||||0.353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.13|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.13|-0.35|0.353
90806594|NCT01559259|181493758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.88||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.51|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.51|0.25|0.006
90806595|NCT01559259|181493758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.69||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.31|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.31|0.07|0.030
90806596|NCT01559259|181493758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.81||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.44|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.44|0.17|0.012
90806597|NCT01559259|181493758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.38||||0.237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|1.01|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.01|-0.25|0.237
90806598|NCT01559259|181493758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.5||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.93|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.93|0.07|0.024
90806599|NCT01559259|181493758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.31||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.73|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.73|-0.11|0.150
90806600|NCT01559259|181493758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.43||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.86|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.86|-0.01|0.054
90806601|NCT01559259|181493758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.92|3.85|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||3.85|1.92|<0.001
90806602|NCT01559259|181493758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|3.47|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||3.47|1.56|<0.001
90806603|NCT01559259|181493758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|3.47|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||3.47|1.54|<0.001
91014584|NCT02163759|181912127|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|1.9||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.04|9.88||p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL.|Difference in response rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the adalimumab arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. This comparison was part of Family 3 of the testing procedure; please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details.||9.88|-6.04|1
90806604|NCT01559259|181493758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.72|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.72|0.79|<0.001
90806605|NCT01559259|181493758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.79|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.79|0.47|<0.001
90806606|NCT01559259|181493758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.76||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|1.41|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.41|0.11|0.021
90806607|NCT01559259|181493758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.75||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.41|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.41|0.09|0.027
90806608|NCT01559259|181493758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|4.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.65|5.84|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||5.84|3.65|<0.001
90806609|NCT01559259|181493758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|4.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.13|5.29|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||5.29|3.13|<0.001
90806610|NCT01559259|181493758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|4.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.37|5.56|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||5.56|3.37|<0.001
90806611|NCT01559259|181493758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|3.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.83|5.02|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||5.02|2.83|<0.001
90806612|NCT01559259|181493758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.83||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|1.58|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.58|0.08|0.031
90806613|NCT01559259|181493758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.29||||0.442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|1.02|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.02|-0.44|0.442
90806614|NCT01559259|181493758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.55||||0.152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.3|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.30|-0.20|0.152
90806615|NCT01559259|181493758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|5.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.52|6.72|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||6.72|4.52|<0.001
90806616|NCT01559259|181493758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|5.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.96|6.13|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||6.13|3.96|<0.001
90806617|NCT01559259|181493758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|5.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|6.5|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||6.50|4.30|<0.001
90806618|NCT01559259|181493758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|4.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.78|5.98|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||5.98|3.78|<0.001
91054559|NCT00444457|181991054|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exact, unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|1.18||||||Additional serotypes - serotype 7F||1.18|-1.12|
90806619|NCT01559259|181493758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.74||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|1.49|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.49|-0.01|0.055
91054560|NCT00444457|181991054|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exact, unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.52||||||Additional serotypes - serotype 7F||0.52|-2.30|
90806620|NCT01559259|181493758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.16||||0.666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.9|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.90|-0.57|0.666
90806621|NCT01559259|181493758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.51||||0.181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|1.27|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.27|-0.24|0.181
90806622|NCT01559259|181493758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|5.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.71|7.01|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||7.01|4.71|<0.001
90806623|NCT01559259|181493758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|5.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.29|6.57|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||6.57|4.29|<0.001
90806624|NCT01559259|181493758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|5.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.64|6.94|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||6.94|4.64|<0.001
90806625|NCT01559259|181493758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|5.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.19|6.5|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||6.50|4.19|<0.001
90806626|NCT01559259|181493758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.52||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|1.31|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.31|-0.27|0.200
90806627|NCT01559259|181493758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.08||||0.831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.85|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.85|-0.69|0.831
90806628|NCT01559259|181493758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.45||||0.268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|1.24|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.24|-0.34|0.268
90806629|NCT01559259|181493758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|5.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.54|6.91|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||6.91|4.54|<0.001
90806630|NCT01559259|181493758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|5.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.13|6.48|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||6.48|4.13|<0.001
90806631|NCT01559259|181493758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|5.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.41|6.78|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||6.78|4.41|<0.001
90806632|NCT01559259|181493758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|5.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.17|6.54|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||6.54|4.17|<0.001
90806633|NCT01559259|181493758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.37||||0.367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|1.19|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.19|-0.44|0.367
90806634|NCT01559259|181493758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.05||||0.908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.75|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.75|-0.84|0.908
90806635|NCT01559259|181493758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.25||||0.553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|1.06|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.06|-0.57|0.553
90806636|NCT01559259|181493758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|5.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.22|6.68|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||6.68|4.22|<0.001
91054561|NCT00444457|181991054|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exact, unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.91|0.8||||||Additional serotypes - serotype 19A||0.80|-2.91|
90806637|NCT01559259|181493758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|5.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.88|6.31|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||6.31|3.88|<0.001
90806638|NCT01559259|181493758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|5.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.19|6.66|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||6.66|4.19|<0.001
90806639|NCT01559259|181493758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|5.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.94|6.4|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||6.40|3.94|<0.001
90806640|NCT01559259|181493758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.28||||0.518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|1.12|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.12|-0.57|0.518
90806641|NCT01559259|181493758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.07||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.75|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.75|-0.90|0.860
90806642|NCT01559259|181493758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.25||||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|1.1|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.10|-0.59|0.556
90806643|NCT01559259|181493758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|5.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.17|6.71|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||6.71|4.17|<0.001
90806644|NCT01559259|181493758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|4.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.68|6.19|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||6.19|3.68|<0.001
90806645|NCT01559259|181493758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|5.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|6.54|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||6.54|4.00|<0.001
90806646|NCT01559259|181493758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|5.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.79|6.34|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||6.34|3.79|<0.001
90806647|NCT01559259|181493758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.38||||0.392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|1.25|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.25|-0.49|0.392
90806648|NCT01559259|181493758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.13||||0.762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.72|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.72|-0.98|0.762
90806649|NCT01559259|181493758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.21||||0.638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|1.08|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.08|-0.66|0.638
90806650|NCT01559259|181493758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|4.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|5.9|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||5.90|3.20|<0.001
90806651|NCT01559259|181493758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|4.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.11|5.78|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||5.78|3.11|<0.001
90806652|NCT01559259|181493758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|4.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.56|6.26|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||6.26|3.56|<0.001
90806653|NCT01559259|181493758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|4.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.04|5.74|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||5.74|3.04|<0.001
90806654|NCT01559259|181493758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.16||||0.741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|1.08|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.08|-0.77|0.741
90806655|NCT01559259|181493758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.05||||0.907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.95|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.95|-0.85|0.907
90806656|NCT01559259|181493758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.51||||0.274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|1.44|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.44|-0.41|0.274
90806657|NCT01559259|181493758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|3.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|5.13|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||5.13|2.40|<0.001
90806658|NCT01559259|181493758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|3.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.56|5.26|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||5.26|2.56|<0.001
90806659|NCT01559259|181493758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|4.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.75|5.48|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||5.48|2.75|<0.001
90806660|NCT01559259|181493758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|4.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.64|5.38|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||5.38|2.64|<0.001
90806661|NCT01559259|181493758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.25||||0.607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|0.69|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.69|-1.18|0.607
90806662|NCT01559259|181493758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.1||||0.824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|0.81|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.81|-1.02|0.824
90806663|NCT01559259|181493758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.1||||0.827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|1.04|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.04|-0.83|0.827
90806664|NCT01559259|181493758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|4.39|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||4.39|1.58|<0.001
90806665|NCT01559259|181493758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|3.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.88|4.65|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||4.65|1.88|<0.001
90806666|NCT01559259|181493758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|3.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.71|4.52|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||4.52|1.71|<0.001
90806667|NCT01559259|181493758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|3.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.16|4.98|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||4.98|2.16|<0.001
90806668|NCT01559259|181493758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.59||||0.232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|0.38|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.38|-1.55|0.232
90806669|NCT01559259|181493758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.31||||0.522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|0.63|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.63|-1.24|0.522
90806670|NCT01559259|181493758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.45||||0.356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|0.51|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.51|-1.41|0.356
90806671|NCT01559259|181493758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.31||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|3.69|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||3.69|0.92|0.001
90806672|NCT01559259|181493758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|3.82|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||3.82|1.08|<0.001
91014585|NCT02163759|181912128|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Remission Rates|13.8||||0.1347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.97|22.15||p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL.|Difference in remission rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the placebo arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. This comparison was part of Family 2 of the testing procedure; please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details.||22.15|2.97|0.1347
91014586|NCT02163759|181912128|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Remission Rates|0.5||||0.9138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.95|9.92||Nominal p-value; it has not been adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL.|Difference in remission rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the adalimumab arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. Please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details. This comparison was not considered a key secondary outcome measure and was not part of the multiple testing procedure for statistical significance.||9.92|-8.95|0.9138
90806673|NCT01559259|181493758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|4.08|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||4.08|1.31|<0.001
91014587|NCT02163759|181912129|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Remission Rates|-3.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.27|3.3||p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL.|Difference in remission rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the adalimumab arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. This comparison was part of Family 5 of the testing procedure; please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details.||3.30|-10.27|1
91054562|NCT00444457|181991054|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exact, unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.69|1.19||||||Additional serotypes - serotype 19A||1.19|-2.69|
90806674|NCT01559259|181493758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|4.23|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||4.23|1.46|<0.001
90806675|NCT01559259|181493758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.54||||0.264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|0.41|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.41|-1.49|0.264
90806676|NCT01559259|181493758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.4||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|0.53|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.53|-1.32|0.400
90806677|NCT01559259|181493758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.15||||0.758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.8|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.80|-1.10|0.758
90806678|NCT01559259|181493758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.62||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|2.97|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.97|0.27|0.018
90806679|NCT01559259|181493758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.88||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|3.21|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||3.21|0.55|0.006
90806680|NCT01559259|181493758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|3.63|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||3.63|0.94|<0.001
90806681|NCT01559259|181493758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|3.75|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||3.75|1.05|<0.001
90806682|NCT01559259|181493758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.78||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.14|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.14|-1.70|0.097
90806683|NCT01559259|181493758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.52||||0.254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|0.38|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.38|-1.42|0.254
90806684|NCT01559259|181493758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.11||||0.812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|0.81|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.81|-1.03|0.812
90806685|NCT01559259|181493758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.32||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|2.61|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.61|0.03|0.045
90806686|NCT01559259|181493758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.59||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|2.87|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.87|0.31|0.015
90806687|NCT01559259|181493758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.73||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|3.02|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||3.02|0.43|0.009
90806688|NCT01559259|181493758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.08||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|3.37|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||3.37|0.78|0.002
90806689|NCT01559259|181493758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.76||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|0.13|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.13|-1.64|0.094
90806690|NCT01559259|181493758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.49||||0.269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|0.38|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.38|-1.35|0.269
90806691|NCT01559259|181493758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.35||||0.437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|0.53|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.53|-1.23|0.437
90806692|NCT01559259|181493758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.74||||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|1.92|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.92|-0.44|0.218
90806693|NCT01559259|181493758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.19||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|2.35|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.35|0.02|0.046
90806694|NCT01559259|181493758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.31||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|2.49|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.49|0.13|0.030
90806695|NCT01559259|181493758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.75||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|2.93|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.93|0.57|0.004
90806696|NCT01559259|181493758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-1.01||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|-0.2|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||-0.20|-1.82|0.014
90806697|NCT01559259|181493758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.56||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|0.22|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.22|-1.35|0.160
90806698|NCT01559259|181493758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.44||||0.284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|0.37|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.37|-1.25|0.284
90806699|NCT01559259|181493759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.62||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.1|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.10|0.13|0.014
90806700|NCT01559259|181493759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.46||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.94|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.94|-0.03|0.066
90806701|NCT01559259|181493759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.71||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.2|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.20|0.22|0.004
90806702|NCT01559259|181493759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.3||||0.232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.78|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.78|-0.19|0.232
90806703|NCT01559259|181493759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.32||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.66|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.66|-0.02|0.067
90806704|NCT01559259|181493759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.16||||0.354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.5|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.50|-0.18|0.354
90806705|NCT01559259|181493759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.42||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.76|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.76|0.08|0.017
90806706|NCT01559259|181493759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|2.86|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.86|1.45|<0.001
90806707|NCT01559259|181493759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|2.64|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.64|1.23|<0.001
90806708|NCT01559259|181493759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|2.8|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.80|1.39|<0.001
90806709|NCT01559259|181493759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|2.02|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.02|0.61|<0.001
90806710|NCT01559259|181493759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.33|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.33|0.34|<0.001
90806711|NCT01559259|181493759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.62||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|1.11|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.11|0.12|0.014
90806712|NCT01559259|181493759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.77||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.27|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.27|0.28|0.002
90806713|NCT01559259|181493759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|3.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.69|4.22|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||4.22|2.69|<0.001
90806714|NCT01559259|181493759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|3.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.36|3.89|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||3.89|2.36|<0.001
90806715|NCT01559259|181493759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|3.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.72|4.26|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||4.26|2.72|<0.001
90806716|NCT01559259|181493759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|3.54|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||3.54|2.02|<0.001
90806717|NCT01559259|181493759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.67||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|1.21|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.21|0.14|0.014
90806718|NCT01559259|181493759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.35||||0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.88|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.88|-0.19|0.202
90806719|NCT01559259|181493759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.71||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.24|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.24|0.17|0.010
91014588|NCT02163759|181912130|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Remission Rates|26.3||||0.0173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.1|37.86||p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL.|Difference in remission rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the placebo arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. This comparison was part of Family 2 of the testing procedure; please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details.||37.86|12.10|0.0173
91054563|NCT00444457|181991054|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exact, unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|2.04||||||Additional serotypes - serotype 19A||2.04|-1.40|
90806720|NCT01559259|181493759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|4.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.24|4.76|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||4.76|3.24|<0.001
90806721|NCT01559259|181493759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|3.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.79|4.31|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||4.31|2.79|<0.001
90806722|NCT01559259|181493759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|4.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.27|4.79|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||4.79|3.27|<0.001
90806723|NCT01559259|181493759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|3.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.72|4.24|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||4.24|2.72|<0.001
90806724|NCT01559259|181493759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.52||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|1.05|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.05|-0.01|0.056
90806725|NCT01559259|181493759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.07||||0.789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.6|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.60|-0.46|0.789
90806726|NCT01559259|181493759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.55||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|1.08|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.08|0.02|0.042
91054564|NCT00444457|181991055|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|1.81|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 4||1.81|-1.61|
90806727|NCT01559259|181493759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|4.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.37|4.98|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||4.98|3.37|<0.001
90806728|NCT01559259|181493759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|3.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.06|4.66|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||4.66|3.06|<0.001
90806729|NCT01559259|181493759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|4.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.54|5.14|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||5.14|3.54|<0.001
90806730|NCT01559259|181493759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|3.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.09|4.69|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||4.69|3.09|<0.001
90806731|NCT01559259|181493759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.29||||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.85|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.85|-0.28|0.317
90806732|NCT01559259|181493759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.03||||0.922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.53|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.53|-0.59|0.922
90806733|NCT01559259|181493759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.45||||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|1.02|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.02|-0.11|0.112
90806734|NCT01559259|181493759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|4.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.27|4.94|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||4.94|3.27|<0.001
90806735|NCT01559259|181493759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|3.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.92|4.59|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||4.59|2.92|<0.001
90806736|NCT01559259|181493759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|4.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.32|4.99|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||4.99|3.32|<0.001
90806737|NCT01559259|181493759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|3.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.05|4.72|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||4.72|3.05|<0.001
90806738|NCT01559259|181493759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.22||||0.464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.81|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.81|-0.37|0.464
90806739|NCT01559259|181493759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.13||||0.667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.45|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.45|-0.71|0.667
90806740|NCT01559259|181493759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.27||||0.368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.86|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.86|-0.32|0.368
90806741|NCT01559259|181493759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|3.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.08|4.81|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||4.81|3.08|<0.001
90806742|NCT01559259|181493759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|3.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.77|4.49|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||4.49|2.77|<0.001
90806743|NCT01559259|181493759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|4.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.19|4.92|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||4.92|3.19|<0.001
90806744|NCT01559259|181493759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|3.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.82|4.54|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||4.54|2.82|<0.001
90806745|NCT01559259|181493759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.26||||0.397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.86|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.86|-0.34|0.397
90806746|NCT01559259|181493759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.05||||0.866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.55|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.55|-0.65|0.866
90806747|NCT01559259|181493759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.37||||0.226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.97|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.97|-0.23|0.226
91054565|NCT00444457|181991055|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.39|0.23|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 4||0.23|-2.39|
91054566|NCT00444457|181991055|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|0.2|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 4||0.20|-2.54|
91054567|NCT00444457|181991055|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|1.11|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 6B||1.11|-1.02|
90806748|NCT01559259|181493759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|3.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|4.7|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||4.70|2.90|<0.001
90806749|NCT01559259|181493759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|3.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.47|4.26|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||4.26|2.47|<0.001
90806750|NCT01559259|181493759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|3.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.99|4.79|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||4.79|2.99|<0.001
90806751|NCT01559259|181493759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|3.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|4.5|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||4.50|2.70|<0.001
90806752|NCT01559259|181493759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.2||||0.536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.83|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.83|-0.43|0.536
90806753|NCT01559259|181493759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.23||||0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.39|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.39|-0.86|0.467
90806754|NCT01559259|181493759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.29||||0.361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.92|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.92|-0.34|0.361
90806755|NCT01559259|181493759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|3.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.21|4.13|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||4.13|2.21|<0.001
90806756|NCT01559259|181493759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.04|3.95|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||3.95|2.04|<0.001
90806757|NCT01559259|181493759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|3.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.55|4.47|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||4.47|2.55|<0.001
90806758|NCT01559259|181493759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|3.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.09|4.0|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||4.00|2.09|<0.001
90806759|NCT01559259|181493759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.13||||0.704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.8|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.80|-0.54|0.704
90806760|NCT01559259|181493759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.05||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.62|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.62|-0.71|0.890
90806761|NCT01559259|181493759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.47||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.14|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.14|-0.20|0.170
90806762|NCT01559259|181493759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|3.67|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||3.67|1.72|<0.001
90806763|NCT01559259|181493759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.61|3.56|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||3.56|1.61|<0.001
90806764|NCT01559259|181493759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.01|3.97|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||3.97|2.01|<0.001
90806765|NCT01559259|181493759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|3.72|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||3.72|1.77|<0.001
91014589|NCT02163759|181912130|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Remission Rates|13.2||||0.0313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|24.94||Nominal p-value; it has not been adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL.|Difference in remission rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the adalimumab arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. Please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details. This comparison was not considered a key secondary outcome measure and was not part of the multiple testing procedure for statistical significance.||24.94|0.93|0.0313
91054568|NCT00444457|181991055|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|1.04|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 6B||1.04|-1.03|
91054569|NCT00444457|181991055|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|1.06|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 6B||1.06|-1.13|
90806766|NCT01559259|181493759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.05||||0.882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.63|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.63|-0.74|0.882
90806767|NCT01559259|181493759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.16||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.52|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.52|-0.84|0.640
90806768|NCT01559259|181493759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.24||||0.482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.93|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.93|-0.44|0.482
90806769|NCT01559259|181493759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|3.06|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||3.06|1.07|<0.001
90806770|NCT01559259|181493759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|3.16|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||3.16|1.17|<0.001
90806771|NCT01559259|181493759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|3.24|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||3.24|1.25|<0.001
90806772|NCT01559259|181493759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|3.41|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||3.41|1.43|<0.001
90806773|NCT01559259|181493759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.36||||0.314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|0.34|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.34|-1.05|0.314
90806774|NCT01559259|181493759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.25||||0.469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.44|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.44|-0.95|0.469
90806775|NCT01559259|181493759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.18||||0.616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.52|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.52|-0.87|0.616
90806776|NCT01559259|181493759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.57||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|2.56|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.56|0.57|0.002
90806777|NCT01559259|181493759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.54||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|2.53|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.53|0.55|0.002
90806778|NCT01559259|181493759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.94|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.94|0.95|<0.001
90806779|NCT01559259|181493759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.9|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.90|0.92|<0.001
90806780|NCT01559259|181493759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.34||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|0.35|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.35|-1.04|0.330
90806781|NCT01559259|181493759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.37||||0.288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|0.32|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.32|-1.06|0.288
90806782|NCT01559259|181493759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.04||||0.916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.73|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.73|-0.66|0.916
90806783|NCT01559259|181493759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.01||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|1.98|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.98|0.04|0.041
90806784|NCT01559259|181493759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.05||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|2.01|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.01|0.08|0.034
90806785|NCT01559259|181493759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.59||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.56|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.56|0.62|0.001
91014590|NCT02163759|181912131|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Remission Rates|-0.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.13|8.45||p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL.|Difference in remission rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the adalimumab arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. This comparison was part of Family 5 of the testing procedure; please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details.||8.45|-9.13|1
91014591|NCT02163759|181912132|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4434||||||p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.|Rank ANCOVA|Model adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL), MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL, and RB score at BL.||Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. This comparison was part of Family 2 of the testing procedure; please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details.||||0.4434
90806786|NCT01559259|181493759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.48||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|2.45|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.45|0.52|0.003
90806787|NCT01559259|181493759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.47||||0.171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|0.2|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.20|-1.15|0.171
90806788|NCT01559259|181493759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.44||||0.201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|0.23|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.23|-1.11|0.201
90806789|NCT01559259|181493759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.1||||0.763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.78|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.78|-0.57|0.763
90806790|NCT01559259|181493759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.66||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.61|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.61|-0.30|0.175
90806791|NCT01559259|181493759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.75||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.7|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.70|-0.20|0.120
90806792|NCT01559259|181493759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.19||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|2.15|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.15|0.24|0.014
90806793|NCT01559259|181493759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.31||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|2.26|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.26|0.36|0.007
90806794|NCT01559259|181493759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.66||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|0.01|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.01|-1.32|0.054
90806795|NCT01559259|181493759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.56||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|0.1|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.10|-1.22|0.096
90806796|NCT01559259|181493759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.12||||0.724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.55|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.55|-0.79|0.724
90806797|NCT01559259|181493759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.42||||0.345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|1.3|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.30|-0.46|0.345
90806798|NCT01559259|181493759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.54||||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|1.41|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.41|-0.34|0.228
90806799|NCT01559259|181493759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.9||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|1.78|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.78|0.02|0.045
90806800|NCT01559259|181493759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.08||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.96|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.96|0.21|0.016
90806801|NCT01559259|181493759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.66||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|-0.04|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||-0.04|-1.27|0.036
90806802|NCT01559259|181493759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.54||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|0.07|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.07|-1.15|0.081
90806803|NCT01559259|181493759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.18||||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.43|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.43|-0.80|0.556
91054570|NCT00444457|181991055|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|1.37|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 9V||1.37|-1.25|
90806804|NCT01559259|181493760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.01|3.05||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||3.05|2.01|<0.001
90806805|NCT01559259|181493760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|2.75||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||2.75|1.72|<0.001
90806806|NCT01559259|181493760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.04|3.08||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||3.08|2.04|<0.001
90806807|NCT01559259|181493760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|2.6||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||2.60|1.57|<0.001
90806808|NCT01559259|181493760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.44||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.81||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||0.81|0.08|0.016
90806809|NCT01559259|181493760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.14||||0.428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.5||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||0.50|-0.21|0.428
90806810|NCT01559259|181493760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.47||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.84||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||0.84|0.11|0.010
91054571|NCT00444457|181991055|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|2.18|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 9V||2.18|-0.76|
91014592|NCT02163759|181912132|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3374||||||Nominal p-value; it has not been adjusted for multiplicity.|Rank ANCOVA|Model adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL), MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL, and RB score at BL.||Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. Please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details. This comparison was not considered a key secondary outcome measure and was not part of the multiple testing procedure for statistical significance.||||0.3374
91014593|NCT02163759|181912133|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.|Rank ANCOVA|Model adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL), MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL, and RB score at BL.||Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. This comparison was part of Family 5 of the testing procedure; please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details.||||1
91014594|NCT02163759|181912134|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4434||||||p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.|Rank ANCOVA|Model adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL), MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL, and SF score at BL.||Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. This comparison was part of Family 2 of the testing procedure; please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details.||||0.4434
91014595|NCT02163759|181912134|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6367||||||Nominal p-value; it has not been adjusted for multiplicity.|Rank ANCOVA|Model adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL), MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL, and SF score at BL.||Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. Please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details. This comparison was not considered a key secondary outcome measure and was not part of the multiple testing procedure for statistical significance.||||0.6367
91014596|NCT02163759|181912135|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.|Rank ANCOVA|Model adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL), MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL, and SF score at BL.||Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. This comparison was part of Family 5 of the testing procedure; please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details.||||1
91014597|NCT02163759|181912136|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.3708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.9||Nominal p-value; it has not been adjusted for multiplicity.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Model adjusted for treatment, visit, stratification factors, treatment-by-visit, baseline UC-PRO/SS domain, and baseline UC-PRO/SS domain-by-visit.|Mean difference was calculated as etrolizumab arm minus placebo arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. Please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details. This comparison was not considered a key secondary outcome measure and was not part of the multiple testing procedure for statistical significance.||0.9|-2.4|0.3708
91054572|NCT00444457|181991055|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|2.18|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 9V||2.18|-0.87|
90806811|NCT01559259|181493760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|8.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.59|10.18||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||10.18|6.59|<0.001
91014598|NCT02163759|181912136|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.4477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.8||Nominal p-value; it has not been adjusted for multiplicity.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Model adjusted for treatment, visit, stratification factors, treatment-by-visit, baseline UC-PRO/SS domain, and baseline UC-PRO/SS domain-by-visit.|Mean difference was calculated as etrolizumab arm minus adalimumab arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. Please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details. This comparison was not considered a key secondary outcome measure and was not part of the multiple testing procedure for statistical significance.||0.8|-1.8|0.4477
91014599|NCT02163759|181912137|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.2||p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Model adjusted for treatment, visit, stratification factors, treatment-by-visit, baseline UC-PRO/SS domain, and baseline UC-PRO/SS domain-by-visit.|Mean difference was calculated as etrolizumab arm minus placebo arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. This comparison was part of Family 4 of the testing procedure; please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details.||0.2|-2.1|1
91014600|NCT02163759|181912137|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.7||p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Model adjusted for treatment, visit, stratification factors, treatment-by-visit, baseline UC-PRO/SS domain, and baseline UC-PRO/SS domain-by-visit.|Mean difference was calculated as etrolizumab arm minus adalimumab arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. This comparison was part of Family 6 of the testing procedure; please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details.||0.7|-1.2|1
91054573|NCT00444457|181991055|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|1.62|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 14||1.62|-0.74|
91054574|NCT00444457|181991055|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|1.04|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 14||1.04|-1.03|
90806812|NCT01559259|181493760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|7.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.89|9.47||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||9.47|5.89|<0.001
90806813|NCT01559259|181493760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|8.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.91|10.5||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||10.50|6.91|<0.001
90806814|NCT01559259|181493760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|7.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.86|9.44||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||9.44|5.86|<0.001
90806815|NCT01559259|181493760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.74||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|1.99||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||1.99|-0.52|0.250
90806816|NCT01559259|181493760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.04||||0.956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|1.28||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||1.28|-1.21|0.956
90806817|NCT01559259|181493760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.06||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|2.31||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||2.31|-0.20|0.099
91014601|NCT02163759|181912138|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.6356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.5||Nominal p-value; it has not been adjusted for multiplicity.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Model adjusted for treatment, visit, stratification factors, treatment-by-visit, baseline UC-PRO/SS domain, and baseline UC-PRO/SS domain-by-visit.|Mean difference was calculated as etrolizumab arm minus placebo arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. Please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details. This comparison was not considered a key secondary outcome measure and was not part of the multiple testing procedure for statistical significance.||0.5|-0.9|0.6356
91054575|NCT00444457|181991055|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|0.76|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 14||0.76|-1.61|
91054576|NCT00444457|181991055|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|2.39|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 18C||2.39|-1.52|
91054577|NCT00444457|181991055|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.04|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 18C||1.04|-2.30|
90806818|NCT01559259|181493760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|10.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.78|12.66||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||12.66|7.78|<0.001
90806819|NCT01559259|181493760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|9.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.06|11.92||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||11.92|7.06|<0.001
90806820|NCT01559259|181493760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|10.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.28|13.15||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||13.15|8.28|<0.001
91054578|NCT00444457|181991055|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.87|0.74|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 18C||0.74|-2.87|
91054579|NCT00444457|181991055|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.55|1.5|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 19F||1.50|-2.55|
90806821|NCT01559259|181493760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|9.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.19|12.06||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||12.06|7.19|<0.001
90806822|NCT01559259|181493760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.6||||0.492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|2.3||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||2.30|-1.11|0.492
90806823|NCT01559259|181493760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.14||||0.873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|1.56||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||1.56|-1.83|0.873
90806824|NCT01559259|181493760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.09||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|2.79||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||2.79|-0.62|0.210
90806825|NCT01559259|181493760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|11.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.1|15.2||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||15.20|8.10|<0.001
90806826|NCT01559259|181493760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|10.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|14.48||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||14.48|7.40|<0.001
90806827|NCT01559259|181493760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|12.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.1|16.2||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||16.20|9.10|<0.001
90806828|NCT01559259|181493760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|11.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.18|15.26||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||15.26|8.18|<0.001
90806829|NCT01559259|181493760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.07||||0.957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.55|2.42||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||2.42|-2.55|0.957
90806830|NCT01559259|181493760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.78||||0.534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.25|1.69||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||1.69|-3.25|0.534
91014602|NCT02163759|181912138|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.1253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.1||Nominal p-value; it has not been adjusted for multiplicity.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Model adjusted for treatment, visit, stratification factors, treatment-by-visit, baseline UC-PRO/SS domain, and baseline UC-PRO/SS domain-by-visit.|Mean difference was calculated as etrolizumab arm minus adalimumab arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. Please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details. This comparison was not considered a key secondary outcome measure and was not part of the multiple testing procedure for statistical significance.||0.1|-1.0|0.1253
90806831|NCT01559259|181493760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.93||||0.462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|3.41||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||3.41|-1.55|0.462
91054580|NCT00444457|181991055|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.06|0.57|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 19F||0.57|-3.06|
91054581|NCT00444457|181991055|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|1.0|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 19F||1.00|-2.44|
90806832|NCT01559259|181493761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|9.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.23|10.89||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||10.89|7.23|<0.001
90806833|NCT01559259|181493761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|8.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.33|9.95||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||9.95|6.33|<0.001
90806834|NCT01559259|181493761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|8.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.83|10.49||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||10.49|6.83|<0.001
90806835|NCT01559259|181493761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|7.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.78|9.44||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||9.44|5.78|<0.001
90806836|NCT01559259|181493761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.45||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|2.7||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||2.70|0.19|0.024
90806837|NCT01559259|181493761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.53||||0.392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|1.76||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||1.76|-0.69|0.392
90806838|NCT01559259|181493761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.05||||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|2.3||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||2.30|-0.21|0.101
90806839|NCT01559259|181493761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|30.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.97|36.48||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||36.48|23.97|<0.001
90806840|NCT01559259|181493761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|27.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.74|34.11||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||34.11|21.74|<0.001
90806841|NCT01559259|181493761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|29.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.6|36.12||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||36.12|23.60|<0.001
90806842|NCT01559259|181493761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|27.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.33|33.86||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||33.86|21.33|<0.001
90806843|NCT01559259|181493761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.63||||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|6.92||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||6.92|-1.65|0.228
90806844|NCT01559259|181493761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.33||||0.875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.84|4.51||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||4.51|-3.84|0.875
91054582|NCT00444457|181991055|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|2.05|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 23F||2.05|-1.21|
90806845|NCT01559259|181493761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.27||||0.299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|6.55||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||6.55|-2.02|0.299
90806846|NCT01559259|181493761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|36.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.48|45.47||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||45.47|28.48|<0.001
90806847|NCT01559259|181493761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|35.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.7|43.5||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||43.50|26.70|<0.001
90806848|NCT01559259|181493761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|37.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.6|45.59||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||45.59|28.60|<0.001
90806849|NCT01559259|181493761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|35.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.67|43.68||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||43.68|26.67|<0.001
90806850|NCT01559259|181493761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.8||||0.543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.02|7.63||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||7.63|-4.02|0.543
90806851|NCT01559259|181493761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.07||||0.979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.75|5.6||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||5.60|-5.75|0.979
90806852|NCT01559259|181493761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.92||||0.517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|7.74||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||7.74|-3.90|0.517
90806853|NCT01559259|181493761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|42.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.51|55.41||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||55.41|30.51|<0.001
90806854|NCT01559259|181493761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|42.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.9|54.51||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||54.51|29.90|<0.001
90806855|NCT01559259|181493761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|45.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.67|57.57||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||57.57|32.67|<0.001
90806856|NCT01559259|181493761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|44.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.79|56.71||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||56.71|31.79|<0.001
91014603|NCT02163759|181912139|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Model adjusted for treatment, visit, stratification factors, treatment-by-visit, baseline UC-PRO/SS domain, and baseline UC-PRO/SS domain-by-visit.|Mean difference was calculated as etrolizumab arm minus placebo arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. This comparison was part of Family 4 of the testing procedure; please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details.||0.0|-1.0|1
91054583|NCT00444457|181991055|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|3.16|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 23F||3.16|-0.52|
90806857|NCT01559259|181493761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-1.29||||0.767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.82|7.25||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||7.25|-9.82|0.767
90806858|NCT01559259|181493761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-2.04||||0.629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.36|6.27||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||6.27|-10.36|0.629
90806859|NCT01559259|181493761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.87||||0.841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.66|9.39||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||9.39|-7.66|0.841
90806860|NCT01559259|181493762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|3.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.22|4.73||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||4.73|3.22|<0.001
90806861|NCT01559259|181493762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|3.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.88|4.39||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||4.39|2.88|<0.001
90806862|NCT01559259|181493762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|4.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.32|4.83||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||4.83|3.32|<0.001
90806863|NCT01559259|181493762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|3.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.64|4.14||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||4.14|2.64|<0.001
91014604|NCT02163759|181912139|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.1||p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Model adjusted for treatment, visit, stratification factors, treatment-by-visit, baseline UC-PRO/SS domain, and baseline UC-PRO/SS domain-by-visit.|Mean difference was calculated as etrolizumab arm minus adalimumab arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. This comparison was part of Family 6 of the testing procedure; please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details.||0.1|-0.7|1
91014605|NCT02163759|181912140|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Remission Rates|10.9||||0.0364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|19.48||Nominal p-value; it has not been adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL.|Difference in remission rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the placebo arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. Please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details. This comparison was not considered a key secondary outcome measure and was not part of the multiple testing procedure for statistical significance.||19.48|-0.08|0.0364
90806864|NCT01559259|181493762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.58||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|1.11||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||1.11|0.05|0.031
90806865|NCT01559259|181493762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.24||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.77||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||0.77|-0.28|0.360
91014606|NCT02163759|181912140|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Remission Rates|-4.5||||0.3383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|5.07||Nominal p-value; it has not been adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL.|Difference in remission rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the adalimumab arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. Please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details. This comparison was not considered a key secondary outcome measure and was not part of the multiple testing procedure for statistical significance.||5.07|-14.10|0.3383
91054584|NCT00444457|181991055|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|2.87|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 23F||2.87|-1.05|
91054585|NCT00444457|181991055|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|2.53|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Additional serotypes - serotype 1||2.53|-0.17|
90806866|NCT01559259|181493762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.68||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.21||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||1.21|0.15|0.011
90806867|NCT01559259|181493762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|13.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.54|15.73||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||15.73|10.54|<0.001
90806868|NCT01559259|181493762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|11.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.35|14.52||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||14.52|9.35|<0.001
90806869|NCT01559259|181493762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|13.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.95|16.13||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||16.13|10.95|<0.001
90806870|NCT01559259|181493762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|12.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.45|14.63||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||14.63|9.45|<0.001
90806871|NCT01559259|181493762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.1||||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|2.91||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||2.91|-0.72|0.235
90806872|NCT01559259|181493762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.1||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|1.7||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||1.70|-1.91|0.910
90806873|NCT01559259|181493762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.5||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|3.31||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||3.31|-0.32|0.105
90806874|NCT01559259|181493762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|16.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.49|19.61||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||19.61|12.49|<0.001
90806875|NCT01559259|181493762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|14.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.33|18.43||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||18.43|11.33|<0.001
90806876|NCT01559259|181493762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|16.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.2|20.32||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||20.32|13.20|<0.001
90806877|NCT01559259|181493762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|15.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.68|18.78||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||18.78|11.68|<0.001
90806878|NCT01559259|181493762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.83||||0.514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|3.32||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||3.32|-1.66|0.514
91054586|NCT00444457|181991055|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|2.44|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Additional serotypes - serotype 1||2.44|-0.20|
90806879|NCT01559259|181493762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.35||||0.783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.82|2.13||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||2.13|-2.82|0.783
90806880|NCT01559259|181493762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.53||||0.227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|4.02||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||4.02|-0.96|0.227
90806881|NCT01559259|181493762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|18.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.95|23.61||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||23.61|12.95|<0.001
90806882|NCT01559259|181493762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|17.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.99|22.61||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||22.61|11.99|<0.001
90806883|NCT01559259|181493762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|20.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.13|25.78||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||25.78|15.13|<0.001
90806884|NCT01559259|181493762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|18.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.61|24.24||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||24.24|13.61|<0.001
90806885|NCT01559259|181493762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.64||||0.736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.37|3.09||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||3.09|-4.37|0.736
90806886|NCT01559259|181493762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-1.62||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.32|2.08||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||2.08|-5.32|0.390
90806887|NCT01559259|181493762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.53||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.19|5.26||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||5.26|-2.19|0.420
91014607|NCT02163759|181912141|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Remission Rates|6.2||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.33|12.3||Nominal p-value; it has not been adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL.|Difference in remission rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the placebo arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. Please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details. This comparison was not considered a key secondary outcome measure and was not part of the multiple testing procedure for statistical significance.||12.30|-3.33|0.0900
91054587|NCT00444457|181991055|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.79|1.66|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Additional serotypes - serotype 1||1.66|-1.79|
90806888|NCT01559259|181493763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|6.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.25|7.76||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||7.76|5.25|<0.001
90806889|NCT01559259|181493763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|5.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.62|7.11||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||7.11|4.62|<0.001
91054588|NCT00444457|181991055|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.85|8.55|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Additional serotypes - serotype 3||8.55|-2.85|
90806890|NCT01559259|181493763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|6.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.38|7.88||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||7.88|5.38|<0.001
90806891|NCT01559259|181493763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|5.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.23|6.73||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||6.73|4.23|<0.001
90806892|NCT01559259|181493763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.03||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.9||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||1.90|0.15|0.022
90806893|NCT01559259|181493763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.39||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|1.26||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||1.26|-0.48|0.380
90806894|NCT01559259|181493763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.15||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|2.03||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||2.03|0.28|0.010
90806895|NCT01559259|181493763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|21.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.17|25.87||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||25.87|17.17|<0.001
90806896|NCT01559259|181493763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|19.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.29|23.95||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||23.95|15.29|<0.001
91054589|NCT00444457|181991055|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|-4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.99|0.21|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Additional serotypes - serotype 3||0.21|-9.99|
91054590|NCT00444457|181991055|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|-7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.14|-2.37|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Additional serotypes - serotype 3||-2.37|-13.14|
91054591|NCT00444457|181991055|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.84|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Additional serotypes - serotype 5||1.84|-1.00|
90806897|NCT01559259|181493763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|22.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.89|26.59||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||26.59|17.89|<0.001
90806898|NCT01559259|181493763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|19.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.35|24.02||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||24.02|15.35|<0.001
90806899|NCT01559259|181493763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.83||||0.237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|4.88||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||4.88|-1.21|0.237
90806900|NCT01559259|181493763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.07||||0.965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|2.95||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||2.95|-3.09|0.965
90806901|NCT01559259|181493763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.56||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|5.6||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||5.60|-0.48|0.099
90806902|NCT01559259|181493763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|29.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.14|38.73||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||38.73|21.14|<0.001
90806903|NCT01559259|181493763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|28.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.48|37.0||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||37.00|19.48|<0.001
90806904|NCT01559259|181493763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|33.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.31|41.89||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||41.89|24.31|<0.001
90806905|NCT01559259|181493763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|30.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.87|39.41||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||39.41|21.87|<0.001
90806906|NCT01559259|181493763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.71||||0.821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.86|5.44||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||5.44|-6.86|0.821
90806907|NCT01559259|181493763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-2.4||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.51|3.71||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||3.71|-8.51|0.440
90806908|NCT01559259|181493763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.46||||0.432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.69|8.61||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||8.61|-3.69|0.432
90806909|NCT01559259|181493764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|1.08||||0.571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|3.2||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.25 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||3.20|-1.04|0.571
90806910|NCT01559259|181493764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|0.98||||0.593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|2.9||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.25 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||2.90|-0.94|0.593
90806911|NCT01559259|181493764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|3.65||||0.282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|7.68||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.25 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||7.68|-0.39|0.282
90806912|NCT01559259|181493764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|1.16||||0.552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|3.42||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.25 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||3.42|-1.11|0.552
90806913|NCT01559259|181493764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-0.01||||0.994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.13|3.11||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.25 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||3.11|-3.13|0.994
90806914|NCT01559259|181493764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-0.23||||0.879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.26|2.8||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.25 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||2.80|-3.26|0.879
90806915|NCT01559259|181493764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|2.33||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|6.64||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.25 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||6.64|-1.98|0.280
90806916|NCT01559259|181493764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|33.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.54|42.81||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||42.81|24.54|<0.001
90806917|NCT01559259|181493764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|23.34||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.93|31.75||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||31.75|14.93|0.003
90806918|NCT01559259|181493764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|22.28||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.55|31.0||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||31.00|13.55|0.005
90806919|NCT01559259|181493764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|13.39||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.28|20.5||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||20.50|6.28|0.035
90806920|NCT01559259|181493764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|20.14||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.67|31.62||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||31.62|8.67|0.001
90806921|NCT01559259|181493764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|9.56||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|20.51||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||20.51|-1.39|0.088
90806922|NCT01559259|181493764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|9.36||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|20.45||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||20.45|-1.73|0.100
90806923|NCT01559259|181493764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|62.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.93|74.15||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||74.15|50.93|<0.001
90806924|NCT01559259|181493764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|51.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.5|63.82||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||63.82|39.50|<0.001
90806925|NCT01559259|181493764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|64.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.92|76.43||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||76.43|52.92|<0.001
90806926|NCT01559259|181493764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|52.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.43|63.63||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||63.63|40.43|<0.001
90806927|NCT01559259|181493764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|10.66||||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.04|24.35||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||24.35|-3.04|0.138
91014608|NCT02163759|181912141|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Remission Rates|-3.6||||0.3217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.07|3.78||Nominal p-value; it has not been adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL.|Difference in remission rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the adalimumab arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. Please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details. This comparison was not considered a key secondary outcome measure and was not part of the multiple testing procedure for statistical significance.||3.78|-11.07|0.3217
91054592|NCT00444457|181991055|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|1.3|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Additional serotypes - serotype 5||1.30|-1.27|
90806928|NCT01559259|181493764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-0.59||||0.935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.71|13.52||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||13.52|-14.71|0.935
90806929|NCT01559259|181493764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|13.3||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|27.17||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||27.17|-0.57|0.063
90806930|NCT01559259|181493764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|74.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.82|86.53||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||86.53|62.82|<0.001
90806931|NCT01559259|181493764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|63.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.42|75.95||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||75.95|50.42|<0.001
90806932|NCT01559259|181493764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|71.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.21|83.57||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||83.57|59.21|<0.001
90806933|NCT01559259|181493764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|60.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.89|73.11||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||73.11|47.89|<0.001
90806934|NCT01559259|181493764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|14.43||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.97|26.89||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||26.89|1.97|0.027
90806935|NCT01559259|181493764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|2.35||||0.729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.91|15.61||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||15.61|-10.91|0.729
90806936|NCT01559259|181493764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|11.33||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|24.21||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||24.21|-1.55|0.087
90806937|NCT01559259|181493764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|75.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.5|88.7||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||88.70|62.50|<0.001
90806938|NCT01559259|181493764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|67.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.65|81.24||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||81.24|53.65|<0.001
90806939|NCT01559259|181493764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|74.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.21|87.7||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||87.70|61.21|<0.001
90806940|NCT01559259|181493764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|64.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.3|78.17||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||78.17|50.30|<0.001
90806941|NCT01559259|181493764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|11.59||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|23.06||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||23.06|0.12|0.052
90806942|NCT01559259|181493764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|2.84||||0.652|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.49|15.16||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||15.16|-9.49|0.652
91054593|NCT00444457|181991055|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|1.02|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Additional serotypes - serotype 5||1.02|-1.84|
91054594|NCT00444457|181991055|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|1.08|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Additional serotypes - serotype 6A||1.08|-1.04|
91054595|NCT00444457|181991055|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|1.56|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Additional serotypes - serotype 6A||1.56|-0.76|
90806943|NCT01559259|181493764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|10.28||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|22.03||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||22.03|-1.47|0.090
90806944|NCT01559259|181493764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|79.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.41|92.46||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||92.46|67.41|<0.001
90806945|NCT01559259|181493764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|71.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.25|85.05||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||85.05|58.25|<0.001
90806946|NCT01559259|181493764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|78.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|66.29|91.56||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||91.56|66.29|<0.001
90806947|NCT01559259|181493764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|70.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.04|84.07||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||84.07|57.04|<0.001
90806948|NCT01559259|181493764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|9.61||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|19.8||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||19.80|-0.59|0.069
90806949|NCT01559259|181493764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|0.65||||0.911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.73|12.03||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||12.03|-10.73|0.911
90806950|NCT01559259|181493764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|8.27||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|18.77||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||18.77|-2.23|0.127
90806951|NCT01559259|181493764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|76.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.37|90.72||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||90.72|62.37|<0.001
90806952|NCT01559259|181493764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|70.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.93|85.28||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||85.28|55.93|<0.001
91054596|NCT00444457|181991055|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|1.56|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Additional serotypes - serotype 6A||1.56|-0.83|
91054597|NCT00444457|181991055|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|2.09|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Additional serotypes - serotype 7F||2.09|-0.47|
91014609|NCT02163759|181912142|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|1.3||||0.7919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|10.8||Nominal p-value; it has not been adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Model adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL), MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL, and IBDQ score at BL.|Mean difference was calculated as etrolizumab arm minus placebo arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. Please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details. This comparison was not considered a key secondary outcome measure and was not part of the multiple testing procedure for statistical significance.||10.8|-8.3|0.7919
90806953|NCT01559259|181493764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|76.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.22|90.79||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||90.79|62.22|<0.001
90806954|NCT01559259|181493764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|68.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.02|83.09||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||83.09|53.02|<0.001
90806955|NCT01559259|181493764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|8.57||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|18.61||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||18.61|-1.47|0.098
90806956|NCT01559259|181493764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|2.01||||0.721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.02|13.04||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||13.04|-9.02|0.721
90806957|NCT01559259|181493764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|8.28||||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|18.41||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||18.41|-1.85|0.115
90806958|NCT01559259|181493764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|77.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.63|91.69||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||91.69|63.63|<0.001
91054598|NCT00444457|181991055|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|2.0|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Additional serotypes - serotype 7F||2.00|-0.48|
90806959|NCT01559259|181493764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|71.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.07|86.22||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||86.22|57.07|<0.001
90806960|NCT01559259|181493764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|76.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.22|90.79||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||90.79|62.22|<0.001
90806961|NCT01559259|181493764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|69.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.14|84.06||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||84.06|54.14|<0.001
90806962|NCT01559259|181493764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|8.56||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|18.27||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||18.27|-1.15|0.086
90806963|NCT01559259|181493764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|2.01||||0.714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.76|12.77||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||12.77|-8.76|0.714
91054599|NCT00444457|181991055|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|1.49|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Additional serotypes - serotype 7F||1.49|-1.59|
91054600|NCT00444457|181991055|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|1.09|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Additional serotypes - serotype 19A||1.09|-1.04|
90806964|NCT01559259|181493764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|7.21||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|17.22||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||17.22|-2.80|0.164
90806965|NCT01559259|181493764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|74.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.56|89.2||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||89.20|59.56|<0.001
90806966|NCT01559259|181493764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|69.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.29|84.7||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||84.70|54.29|<0.001
90806967|NCT01559259|181493764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|73.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.18|88.3||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||88.30|58.18|<0.001
90806968|NCT01559259|181493764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|67.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.4|82.61||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||82.61|51.40|<0.001
90806969|NCT01559259|181493764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|7.46||||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|17.04||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||17.04|-2.12|0.129
90806970|NCT01559259|181493764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|1.97||||0.712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|12.43||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||12.43|-8.50|0.712
90806971|NCT01559259|181493764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|6.12||||0.229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.76|16.0||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||16.00|-3.76|0.229
90806972|NCT01559259|181493764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|74.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.56|89.2||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||89.20|59.56|<0.001
90806973|NCT01559259|181493764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|70.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.45|85.64||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||85.64|55.45|<0.001
90806974|NCT01559259|181493764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|73.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.18|88.3||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||88.30|58.18|<0.001
90806975|NCT01559259|181493764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|68.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.53|83.57||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||83.57|52.53|<0.001
91014610|NCT02163759|181912142|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.8||||0.8327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|7.0||Nominal p-value; it has not been adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Model adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL), MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL, and IBDQ score at BL.|Mean difference was calculated as etrolizumab arm minus adalimumab arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. Please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details. This comparison was not considered a key secondary outcome measure and was not part of the multiple testing procedure for statistical significance.||7.0|-8.7|0.8327
91014611|NCT02883400|181912148|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.0||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0001
91054601|NCT00444457|181991055|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|1.04|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Additional serotypes - serotype 19A||1.04|-1.05|
90806976|NCT01559259|181493764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|6.38||||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.05|15.81||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||15.81|-3.05|0.186
90806977|NCT01559259|181493764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|1.97||||0.703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.18|12.12||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||12.12|-8.18|0.703
90806978|NCT01559259|181493764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|5.06||||0.312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.68|14.79||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||14.79|-4.68|0.312
90806979|NCT01559259|181493764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|74.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.56|89.2||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||89.20|59.56|<0.001
90806980|NCT01559259|181493764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|71.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.61|86.57||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||86.57|56.61|<0.001
91014612|NCT02748096|181912150|OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||A p value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant for all the radiographic parameters .|t-test, 2 sided|This test applies to comparison between the two treatment arms and assesses all the radiographic parameters||The sample size was calculated from a previous study that used similar radiological assessments to compare OUKAs performed using conventional instrumentation and computer navigation. In this study, the standard deviation of the tibia varus/valgus angle for the control group was 3.6°. Assuming a minimum clinically important difference of 3°, the SMD would be 0.8. Hence with a power of 0.8 and significance level of 0.05, a total sample size of 44 patients (22 in each group) was required.||||<0.05
91014613|NCT02748096|181912151|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91014614|NCT02748096|181912152|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91014615|NCT00451191|181912164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Simon's optimal two-stage design|||Simon's optimal two-stage design was applied to determine whether there was sufficient activity at either of the two dose levels to warrant further investigation. Each patient was considered either a successful or failed response. The response rate or proportion of patients treated successfully was examined in two stages. At both stages, the two dose levels were compared to pre-determined critical cut-off values. Sample size was based on significance level α=0.05 and power 90%.||||<0.05
91054602|NCT00444457|181991055|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|1.07|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Additional serotypes - serotype 19A||1.07|-1.09|
90806981|NCT01559259|181493764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|73.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.18|88.3||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||88.30|58.18|<0.001
90806982|NCT01559259|181493764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|69.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.86|84.56||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||84.56|53.86|<0.001
90806983|NCT01559259|181493764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|5.25||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.92|14.41||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||14.41|-3.92|0.265
90806984|NCT01559259|181493764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|1.85||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.82|11.53||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||11.53|-7.82|0.710
91014616|NCT00656669|181912173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|This is a paired t-test to compare baseline IFP to IFP after completion of sunitinib monotherapy||From Taghian et al., we used a mean IFP of 6.5 at baseline and a standard deviation of 6.1. We would like to detect a 50% reduction of IFP (to 3.25 mmHg) with sunitinib monotherapy, so the effect size would be 3.25/6.1=0.53. A two-sided paired t-test has 80% power to detect an effect size of .53 and level of significance .05 when the sample size is 30 patients.||||0.0001
91014617|NCT00656669|181912174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7963||||||a priori threshold of \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|This is a paired t-test to compare baseline IFP to IFP after completion of paxlitaxel+sunitinib treatment||||||0.7963
90806985|NCT01559259|181493764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|3.99||||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.52|13.49||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||13.49|-5.52|0.416
90806986|NCT01559259|181493764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|74.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.56|89.2||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||9 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||89.20|59.56|<0.001
90806987|NCT01559259|181493764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|71.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.61|86.57||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||9 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||86.57|56.61|<0.001
90806988|NCT01559259|181493764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|73.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.18|88.3||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||9 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||88.30|58.18|<0.001
90806989|NCT01559259|181493764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|69.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.86|84.56||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||9 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||84.56|53.86|<0.001
90806990|NCT01559259|181493764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|5.25||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.92|14.41||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||9 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||14.41|-3.92|0.265
90806991|NCT01559259|181493764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|1.85||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.82|11.53||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||9 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||11.53|-7.82|0.710
90806992|NCT01559259|181493764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|3.99||||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.52|13.49||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||9 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||13.49|-5.52|0.416
90806993|NCT01559259|181493764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|71.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.82|86.38||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||10 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||86.38|55.82|<0.001
90806994|NCT01559259|181493764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|68.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.88|83.74||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||10 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||83.74|52.88|<0.001
90806995|NCT01559259|181493764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|69.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.47|85.48||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||10 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||85.48|54.47|<0.001
90806996|NCT01559259|181493764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|65.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.16|81.74||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||10 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||81.74|50.16|<0.001
90806997|NCT01559259|181493764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|5.25||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.92|14.41||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||10 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||14.41|-3.92|0.265
90806998|NCT01559259|181493764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|1.85||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.82|11.53||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||10 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||11.53|-7.82|0.710
90806999|NCT01559259|181493764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|3.99||||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.52|13.49||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||10 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||13.49|-5.52|0.416
90807000|NCT01559259|181493764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|71.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.82|86.38||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||86.38|55.82|<0.001
90807001|NCT01559259|181493764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|68.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.88|83.74||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||83.74|52.88|<0.001
90807002|NCT01559259|181493764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|69.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.47|85.48||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||85.48|54.47|<0.001
90807003|NCT01559259|181493764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|65.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.16|81.74||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||81.74|50.16|<0.001
90807004|NCT01559259|181493764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|5.25||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.92|14.41||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||14.41|-3.92|0.265
91054603|NCT00444457|181991057|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.52|3.63|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 4||3.63|-6.52|
91054604|NCT00444457|181991057|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|-6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|-2.15|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 4||-2.15|-11.30|
90807005|NCT01559259|181493764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|1.85||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.82|11.53||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||11.53|-7.82|0.710
90807006|NCT01559259|181493764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|3.99||||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.52|13.49||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||13.49|-5.52|0.416
90807007|NCT01559259|181493764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|71.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.82|86.38||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||86.38|55.82|<0.001
90807008|NCT01559259|181493764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|68.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.88|83.74||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||83.74|52.88|<0.001
90807009|NCT01559259|181493764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|69.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.47|85.48||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||85.48|54.47|<0.001
91054605|NCT00444457|181991057|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|-5.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.85|-0.79|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 4||-0.79|-9.85|
91054606|NCT00444457|181991057|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|2.07|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 6B||2.07|-1.19|
91054607|NCT00444457|181991057|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|1.06|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 6B||1.06|-1.69|
90807010|NCT01559259|181493764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|65.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.16|81.74||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||81.74|50.16|<0.001
90807011|NCT01559259|181493764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|5.25||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.92|14.41||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||14.41|-3.92|0.265
90807012|NCT01559259|181493764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|1.85||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.82|11.53||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||11.53|-7.82|0.710
90807013|NCT01559259|181493764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|3.99||||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.52|13.49||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||13.49|-5.52|0.416
90807014|NCT01559259|181493765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|23.99||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.32|34.67||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.25 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||34.67|13.32|0.003
90807015|NCT01559259|181493765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|14.83||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.59|25.07||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.25 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||25.07|4.59|0.048
90807016|NCT01559259|181493765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|24.98||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.43|36.53||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.25 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||36.53|13.43|0.005
90807017|NCT01559259|181493765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|16.57||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.25|26.88||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.25 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||26.88|6.25|0.030
90807018|NCT01559259|181493765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|6.86||||0.269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|18.53||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.25 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||18.53|-4.80|0.269
90807019|NCT01559259|181493765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-1.95||||0.735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.34|9.43||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.25 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||9.43|-13.34|0.735
90807020|NCT01559259|181493765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|8.58||||0.176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.88|21.04||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.25 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||21.04|-3.88|0.176
90807021|NCT01559259|181493765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|63.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.07|77.52||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||77.52|49.07|<0.001
91014618|NCT01241591|181912197|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The a priori threshold for non-inferiority was -15% and a step-down approach was used to adjust for multiple comparisons. Non-inferiority of CP-690,550 5 mg to etanercept was concluded if the 95% lower confidence intervals (LCIs) of the difference for PGA and Psoriasis Area and Severity Index 75 (PASI75) responses at Week 12 were greater than -15%, and CP-690,550 10 mg was superior to placebo for PGA response and PASI75 at Week 12.|Mean Difference|-19.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.77|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.55|-11.76||||||Difference from Etanercept (Active-Etanercept)||-11.76|-26.55|
91014619|NCT01241591|181912197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|32.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.41|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.51|40.81||||||Difference from Placebo (Active-Placebo); the a priori threshold for superiority was 0 and a step-down approach was used to adjust for multiple comparisons. Superiority of CP-690,550 5 mg to placebo was concluded if the lower bounds of the 95% LCIs of the difference for PGA and PASI75 responses at Week 12 were greater than 0, and non-inferiority of CP-690,550 5 mg was concluded to be non-inferior to etanercept.||40.81|23.51|
90807022|NCT01559259|181493765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|56.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.28|71.34||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||71.34|42.28|<0.001
90807023|NCT01559259|181493765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|67.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.58|81.55||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||81.55|53.58|<0.001
90807024|NCT01559259|181493765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|53.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.62|67.99||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||67.99|38.62|<0.001
90807025|NCT01559259|181493765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|10.28||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.26|23.82||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||23.82|-3.26|0.140
90807026|NCT01559259|181493765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|2.98||||0.674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.94|16.89||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||16.89|-10.94|0.674
91014620|NCT01241591|181912197|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The a priori threshold for non-inferiority was -15% and a step-down approach was used to adjust for multiple comparisons. Non-inferiority of CP-690,550 10 mg to etanercept was concluded if the 95% LCIs of the difference for PGA and PASI75 responses at Week 12 were greater than -15%.|Mean Difference|1.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.64|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.22|9.05||||||Difference from Etanercept (Active-Etanercept)||9.05|-5.22|
91014621|NCT01241591|181912197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|53.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.81|61.65||||||Difference from Placebo (Active-Placebo); the a priori threshold for superiority was 0 and a step-down approach was used to adjust for multiple comparisons. Superiority of CP-690,550 10 mg to placebo was concluded if the 95% LCIs of the difference for PGA and PASI75 responses at Week 12 were greater than 0, and non-inferiority of CP-690,550 10 mg was concluded to be non-inferior to etanercept.||61.65|44.81|
91054608|NCT00444457|181991057|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.27|0.75|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 6B||0.75|-2.27|
91054609|NCT00444457|181991057|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|-3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.46|1.82|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 9V||1.82|-9.46|
91014622|NCT01241591|181912198|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The a priori threshold for non-inferiority was -15% and a step-down approach was used to adjust for multiple comparisons. Non-inferiority of CP-690,550 5 mg to etanercept was concluded if the 95% LCIs of the difference for PGA and PASI75 responses at Week 12 were greater than -15%, and CP-690,550 10 mg was superior to placebo for PGA and PASI75 response at Week 12.|Mean Difference|-19.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.81|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.75|-11.83||||||Difference from Etanercept (Active-Etanercept)||-11.83|-26.75|
91054610|NCT00444457|181991057|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|-4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.24|0.76|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 9V||0.76|-10.24|
90807027|NCT01559259|181493765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|14.58||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|27.93||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||27.93|1.22|0.034
90807028|NCT01559259|181493765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|72.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.25|86.39||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||86.39|58.25|<0.001
90807029|NCT01559259|181493765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|67.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.63|81.78||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||81.78|52.63|<0.001
91014623|NCT01241591|181912198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|33.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.49|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.06|40.76||||||Difference from Placebo (Active-Placebo); the a priori threshold for superiority was 0 and a step-down approach was used to adjust for multiple comparisons. Superiority of CP-690,550 5 mg to placebo was concluded if the 95% LCIs of the difference for PGA and PASI75 responses at Week 12 were greater than 0, and non-inferiority of CP-690,550 5 mg was concluded to be non-inferior to etanercept.||40.76|27.06|
90807030|NCT01559259|181493765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|72.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.4|86.4||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||86.40|58.40|<0.001
90807031|NCT01559259|181493765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|64.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.32|78.91||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||78.91|49.32|<0.001
90807032|NCT01559259|181493765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|8.4||||0.119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|18.85||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||18.85|-2.06|0.119
90807033|NCT01559259|181493765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|2.84||||0.616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|13.98||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||13.98|-8.30|0.616
90807034|NCT01559259|181493765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|8.34||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|18.87||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||18.87|-2.20|0.125
90807035|NCT01559259|181493765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|74.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.73|88.25||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||88.25|60.73|<0.001
90807036|NCT01559259|181493765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|69.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.05|83.71||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||83.71|55.05|<0.001
91014624|NCT01241591|181912198|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The a priori threshold for non-inferiority was -15% and a step-down approach was used to adjust for multiple comparisons. Non-inferiority of CP-690,550 10 mg to etanercept was concluded if the 95% LCIs of the difference for PGA and PASI75 responses at Week 12 were greater than -15%.|Mean Difference|4.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.77|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.57|12.23||||||Difference from Etanercept (Active-Etanercept)||12.23|-2.57|
90807037|NCT01559259|181493765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|73.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.65|87.38||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||87.38|59.65|<0.001
91014625|NCT01241591|181912198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|58.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.46|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.25|64.81||||||Difference from Placebo (Active-Placebo); the a priori threshold for superiority was 0 and a step-down approach was used to adjust for multiple comparisons. Superiority of CP-690,550 10 mg to placebo was concluded if the 95% LCIs of the difference for PGA and PASI75 responses at Week 12 were greater than 0, and non-inferiority of CP-690,550 10 mg was concluded to be non-inferior to etanercept.||64.81|51.25|
91054611|NCT00444457|181991057|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|4.41|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 9V||4.41|-6.30|
90807038|NCT01559259|181493765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|68.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.01|82.71||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||82.71|54.01|<0.001
90807039|NCT01559259|181493765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|6.33||||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.99|15.65||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||15.65|-2.99|0.187
90807040|NCT01559259|181493765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|0.79||||0.881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.42|10.99||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||10.99|-9.42|0.881
91014626|NCT01945034|181912243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|23.0||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.49|57.56||p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects|ANOVA|||The analysis of variance (ANOVA) model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site blocks, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||57.56|-11.49|0.190
90807041|NCT01559259|181493765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|5.05||||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|14.71||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||14.71|-4.60|0.311
90807042|NCT01559259|181493765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|71.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.82|86.38||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||86.38|55.82|<0.001
90807043|NCT01559259|181493765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|68.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.88|83.74||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||83.74|52.88|<0.001
90807044|NCT01559259|181493765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|69.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.47|85.48||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||85.48|54.47|<0.001
90807045|NCT01559259|181493765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|65.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.16|81.74||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||81.74|50.16|<0.001
90807046|NCT01559259|181493765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|5.25||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.92|14.41||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||14.41|-3.92|0.265
90807047|NCT01559259|181493765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|1.85||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.82|11.53||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||11.53|-7.82|0.710
90807048|NCT01559259|181493765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|3.99||||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.52|13.49||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||13.49|-5.52|0.416
90807049|NCT01559259|181493765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|71.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.82|86.38||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||86.38|55.82|<0.001
90807050|NCT01559259|181493765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|68.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.88|83.74||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||83.74|52.88|<0.001
91014627|NCT01945034|181912243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.8||||0.633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.2|39.7||p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects|ANOVA|||The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site blocks, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||39.70|-24.20|0.633
91014628|NCT01945034|181912243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-15.3||||0.436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.87|23.3||p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects|ANOVA|||The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site blocks, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms.||23.30|-53.87|0.436
91014629|NCT01945034|181912244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|4.8||||0.426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.98|16.49||p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects|ANOVA|||The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating (BLPSR), pooled site blocks, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing (BLPIWB) terms. 95% CI not includes 0 for treatment effect. Upper limit of 95% CI\< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo. Comparison: tested at the 0.05 level of significance (2-sided). A comparison was eligible for being declared significant only if preceding comparison was significant.||16.49|-6.98|0.426
91014630|NCT01945034|181912244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.0||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|9.82||p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects|ANOVA|||The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, BLPSR, pooled site blocks, and BLPIWB terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo. Comparison: tested at the 0.05 level of significance (2-sided). A comparison was eligible for being declared significant only if preceding comparison was significant.||9.82|-11.90|0.850
91014631|NCT01945034|181912244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.8||||0.385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.91|7.32||p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects|ANOVA|||The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, BLPSR, pooled site blocks, and BLPIWB terms. A comparison was eligible for being declared significant only if preceding comparison was significant.||7.32|-18.91|0.385
90807051|NCT01559259|181493765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|69.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.47|85.48||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||85.48|54.47|<0.001
90807052|NCT01559259|181493765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|65.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.16|81.74||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||81.74|50.16|<0.001
90807053|NCT01559259|181493765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|5.25||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.92|14.41||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||14.41|-3.92|0.265
90807054|NCT01559259|181493765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|1.85||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.82|11.53||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||11.53|-7.82|0.710
90807055|NCT01559259|181493765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|3.99||||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.52|13.49||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||13.49|-5.52|0.416
90807056|NCT01559259|181493765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|71.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.82|86.38||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||86.38|55.82|<0.001
90807057|NCT01559259|181493765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|68.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.88|83.74||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||83.74|52.88|<0.001
90807058|NCT01559259|181493765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|69.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.47|85.48||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||85.48|54.47|<0.001
91014632|NCT01945034|181912245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|10.0||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|20.91||p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects|ANOVA|||The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site blocks, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||20.91|-0.92|0.072
91014633|NCT01945034|181912245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.3||||0.296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|4.7||p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects|ANOVA|||The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site blocks, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||4.70|-15.40|0.296
90807059|NCT01559259|181493765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|65.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.16|81.74||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||81.74|50.16|<0.001
90807060|NCT01559259|181493765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|5.25||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.92|14.41||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||14.41|-3.92|0.265
90807061|NCT01559259|181493765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|1.85||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.82|11.53||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||11.53|-7.82|0.710
90807062|NCT01559259|181493765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|3.99||||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.52|13.49||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||13.49|-5.52|0.416
91014634|NCT01945034|181912245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-15.3||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.53|-3.16||p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects|ANOVA|||The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site blocks, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms.||-3.16|-27.53|0.014
90807063|NCT01559259|181493765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|71.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.82|86.38||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||86.38|55.82|<0.001
90807064|NCT01559259|181493765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|68.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.88|83.74||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||83.74|52.88|<0.001
90807065|NCT01559259|181493765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|69.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.47|85.48||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||85.48|54.47|<0.001
90807066|NCT01559259|181493765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|65.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.16|81.74||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||81.74|50.16|<0.001
90807067|NCT01559259|181493765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|5.25||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.92|14.41||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||14.41|-3.92|0.265
90807068|NCT01559259|181493765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|1.85||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.82|11.53||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||11.53|-7.82|0.710
90807069|NCT01559259|181493765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|3.99||||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.52|13.49||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||13.49|-5.52|0.416
90807070|NCT01559259|181493765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|71.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.82|86.38||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||86.38|55.82|<0.001
90807071|NCT01559259|181493765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|68.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.88|83.74||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||83.74|52.88|<0.001
91014635|NCT01945034|181912246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.3||p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects|ANOVA|||Day 3: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline participant global assessment terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo||0.30|-0.10|0.305
91014636|NCT01945034|181912246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.29||p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects|ANOVA|||Day 3: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline participant global assessment terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.29|-0.08|0.261
90807072|NCT01559259|181493765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|69.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.47|85.48||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||85.48|54.47|<0.001
90807073|NCT01559259|181493765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|65.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.16|81.74||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||81.74|50.16|<0.001
90807074|NCT01559259|181493765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|5.25||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.92|14.41||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||14.41|-3.92|0.265
91014637|NCT01945034|181912246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.22||p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects|ANOVA|||Day 3: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline participant global assessment terms.||0.22|-0.22|0.996
90807075|NCT01559259|181493765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|1.85||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.82|11.53||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||11.53|-7.82|0.710
90807076|NCT01559259|181493765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|3.99||||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.52|13.49||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||13.49|-5.52|0.416
90807077|NCT01559259|181493765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|71.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.82|86.38||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||86.38|55.82|<0.001
90807078|NCT01559259|181493765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|68.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.88|83.74||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||83.74|52.88|<0.001
90807079|NCT01559259|181493765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|69.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.47|85.48||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||85.48|54.47|<0.001
90807080|NCT01559259|181493765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|65.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.16|81.74||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||81.74|50.16|<0.001
90807081|NCT01559259|181493765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|5.25||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.92|14.41||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||14.41|-3.92|0.265
91054612|NCT00444457|181991057|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.14|1.73|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 14||1.73|-2.14|
90807082|NCT01559259|181493765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|1.85||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.82|11.53||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||11.53|-7.82|0.710
91054613|NCT00444457|181991057|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|2.39|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 14||2.39|-1.69|
91054614|NCT00444457|181991057|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|2.59|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 14||2.59|-1.46|
90807083|NCT01559259|181493765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|3.99||||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.52|13.49||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||13.49|-5.52|0.416
90807084|NCT01559259|181493765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|71.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.82|86.38||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||86.38|55.82|<0.001
90807085|NCT01559259|181493765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|68.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.88|83.74||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||83.74|52.88|<0.001
91054615|NCT00444457|181991057|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|-5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.17|0.2|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 18C||0.20|-11.17|
91054616|NCT00444457|181991057|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|-10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.31|-4.7|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 18C||-4.70|-15.31|
90807086|NCT01559259|181493765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|69.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.47|85.48||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||85.48|54.47|<0.001
90807087|NCT01559259|181493765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|65.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.16|81.74||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||81.74|50.16|<0.001
90807088|NCT01559259|181493765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|5.25||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.92|14.41||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||14.41|-3.92|0.265
90807089|NCT01559259|181493765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|1.85||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.82|11.53||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||11.53|-7.82|0.710
90807090|NCT01559259|181493765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|3.99||||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.52|13.49||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||13.49|-5.52|0.416
91014638|NCT01945034|181912246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.36||p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects|ANOVA|||Day 10: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline participant global assessment terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.36|-0.08|0.210
90807091|NCT01559259|181493765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|71.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.82|86.38||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||9 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||86.38|55.82|<0.001
90807092|NCT01559259|181493765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|68.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.88|83.74||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||9 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||83.74|52.88|<0.001
90807093|NCT01559259|181493765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|69.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.47|85.48||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||9 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||85.48|54.47|<0.001
90807094|NCT01559259|181493765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|65.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.16|81.74||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||9 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||81.74|50.16|<0.001
90807095|NCT01559259|181493765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|5.25||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.92|14.41||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||9 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||14.41|-3.92|0.265
91014639|NCT01945034|181912246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.27||p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects|ANOVA|||Day 10: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline participant global assessment terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.27|-0.14|0.556
91014640|NCT01945034|181912246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.17||p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects|ANOVA|||Day 10: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline participant global assessment terms.||0.17|-0.33|0.534
91014641|NCT01945034|181912247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.1||p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects|ANOVA|||Day 3: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline physician global assessment terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.10|-0.27|0.354
91014642|NCT01945034|181912247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.07||p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects|ANOVA|||Day 3: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.07|-0.28|0.237
90807096|NCT01559259|181493765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|1.85||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.82|11.53||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||9 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||11.53|-7.82|0.710
90807097|NCT01559259|181493765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|3.99||||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.52|13.49||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||9 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||13.49|-5.52|0.416
90807098|NCT01559259|181493765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|71.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.82|86.38||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||10 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||86.38|55.82|<0.001
90807099|NCT01559259|181493765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|68.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.88|83.74||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||10 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||83.74|52.88|<0.001
90807100|NCT01559259|181493765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|69.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.47|85.48||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||10 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||85.48|54.47|<0.001
90807101|NCT01559259|181493765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|65.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.16|81.74||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||10 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||81.74|50.16|<0.001
90807102|NCT01559259|181493765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|5.25||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.92|14.41||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||10 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||14.41|-3.92|0.265
91054617|NCT00444457|181991057|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|-4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.55|0.46|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 18C||0.46|-9.55|
91054618|NCT00444457|181991057|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.23|2.52|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 19F||2.52|-4.23|
91054619|NCT00444457|181991057|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|-3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.35|-0.4|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 19F||-0.40|-6.35|
91054620|NCT00444457|181991057|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.44|0.33|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 19F||0.33|-5.44|
91054621|NCT00444457|181991057|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.67|4.8|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 23F||4.80|-3.67|
90807103|NCT01559259|181493765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|1.85||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.82|11.53||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||10 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||11.53|-7.82|0.710
90807104|NCT01559259|181493765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|3.99||||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.52|13.49||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||10 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||13.49|-5.52|0.416
90807105|NCT01559259|181493765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|71.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.82|86.38||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||86.38|55.82|<0.001
91054622|NCT00444457|181991057|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.38|6.28|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 23F||6.28|-2.38|
90807106|NCT01559259|181493765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|68.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.88|83.74||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||83.74|52.88|<0.001
90807107|NCT01559259|181493765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|69.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.47|85.48||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||85.48|54.47|<0.001
90807108|NCT01559259|181493765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|65.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.16|81.74||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||81.74|50.16|<0.001
90807109|NCT01559259|181493765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|5.25||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.92|14.41||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||14.41|-3.92|0.265
90807110|NCT01559259|181493765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|1.85||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.82|11.53||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||11.53|-7.82|0.710
91014643|NCT01945034|181912247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.19||p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects|ANOVA|||Day 3: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline physician global assessment terms.||0.19|-0.23|0.871
91014644|NCT01945034|181912247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.0||p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects|ANOVA|||Day 10: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline physician global assessment terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||-0.00|-0.43|0.050
91014645|NCT01945034|181912247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.15||p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects|ANOVA|||Day 10: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline physician global assessment terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.15|-0.25|0.640
91014646|NCT01945034|181912247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.41||p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects|ANOVA|||Day 10: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline physician global assessment terms.||0.41|-0.08|0.180
91054623|NCT00444457|181991057|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.06|5.82|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 23F||5.82|-3.06|
90807111|NCT01559259|181493765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|3.99||||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.52|13.49||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||13.49|-5.52|0.416
90807112|NCT01559259|181493765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|71.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.82|86.38||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||86.38|55.82|<0.001
90807113|NCT01559259|181493765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|68.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.88|83.74||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||83.74|52.88|<0.001
90807114|NCT01559259|181493765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|69.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.47|85.48||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||85.48|54.47|<0.001
91014647|NCT01945034|181912248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.51|||ANOVA|||At Rest 1 hour Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.51|-0.38|0.771
91014648|NCT01945034|181912248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.07|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest 1 hour Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||-0.07|-0.88|0.022
90807115|NCT01559259|181493765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|65.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.16|81.74||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||81.74|50.16|<0.001
90807116|NCT01559259|181493765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|5.25||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.92|14.41||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||14.41|-3.92|0.265
90807117|NCT01559259|181493765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|1.85||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.82|11.53||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||11.53|-7.82|0.710
90807118|NCT01559259|181493765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|3.99||||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.52|13.49||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||13.49|-5.52|0.416
90807119|NCT01559259|181493766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.45||p-value was calculated using PH model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Proportional hazards model|||Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo), p-value, HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model with treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating and gender terms used as covariates.||0.45|0.17|<0.001
90807120|NCT01559259|181493766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.39||p-value was calculated using PH model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Proportional hazards model|||Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo), p-value, HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model with treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating and gender terms used as covariates.||0.39|0.15|<0.001
91014649|NCT01945034|181912248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.05|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest 1 hour Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms.||-0.05|-1.03|0.032
91014650|NCT01945034|181912248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.55|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing 1 hour Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.55|-0.38|0.720
91014651|NCT01945034|181912248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.15|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing 1 hour Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.15|-0.71|0.194
91014652|NCT01945034|181912248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.15|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing 1 hour Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms.||0.15|-0.89|0.163
90807121|NCT01559259|181493766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.35||p-value was calculated using PH model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Proportional hazards model|||Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo), p-value, HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model with treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating and gender terms used as covariates.||0.35|0.13|<0.001
90807122|NCT01559259|181493766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.41||p-value was calculated using PH model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Proportional hazards model|||Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo), p-value, HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model with treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating and gender terms used as covariates.||0.41|0.15|<0.001
90807123|NCT01559259|181493766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.12||||0.549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.63||p-value was calculated using PH model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Proportional hazards model|||Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg), p-value, HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model with treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating and gender terms used as covariates.||1.63|0.77|0.549
91014653|NCT01945034|181912248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.64|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest 2 hour Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.64|-0.40|0.644
91014654|NCT01945034|181912248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.11|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest 2 hour Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.11|-0.85|0.129
90807124|NCT01559259|181493766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.97||||0.863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.42||p-value was calculated using PH model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Proportional hazards model|||Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg), p-value, HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model with treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating and gender terms used as covariates.||1.42|0.66|0.863
90807125|NCT01559259|181493766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.86||||0.454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.28||p-value was calculated using PH model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Proportional hazards model|||Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg), p-value, HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model with treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating and gender terms used as covariates.||1.28|0.57|0.454
90807126|NCT01559259|181493767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-41.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.56|-22.58||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-22.58|-59.56|<0.001
90807127|NCT01559259|181493767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-40.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.41|-22.56||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-22.56|-59.41|<0.001
90807128|NCT01559259|181493767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-38.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.49|-19.79||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-19.79|-57.49|<0.001
90807129|NCT01559259|181493767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-38.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.94|-19.28||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-19.28|-56.94|<0.001
90807130|NCT01559259|181493767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-3.13||||0.274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.67|2.4||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||2.40|-8.67|0.274
91014655|NCT01945034|181912248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|0.09|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest 2 hour Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms.||0.09|-1.07|0.096
91054624|NCT00444457|181991057|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.34|5.08|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Additional serotypes - serotype 1||5.08|-3.34|
90807131|NCT01559259|181493767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-2.89||||0.304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|2.62||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||2.62|-8.40|0.304
90807132|NCT01559259|181493767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-0.96||||0.769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.41|5.49||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||5.49|-7.41|0.769
90807133|NCT01559259|181493767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-71.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-88.0|-54.38||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-54.38|-88.00|<0.001
90807134|NCT01559259|181493767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-66.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.26|-49.72||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-49.72|-84.26|<0.001
90807135|NCT01559259|181493767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-67.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.75|-50.19||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-50.19|-84.75|<0.001
91014656|NCT01945034|181912248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.57|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing 2 hour Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.57|-0.50|0.905
91014657|NCT01945034|181912248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.22|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing 2 hour Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.22|-0.77|0.279
91014658|NCT01945034|181912248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.29|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing 2 hour Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms.||0.29|-0.90|0.315
91014659|NCT01945034|181912248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.91|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest 3 hour Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.91|-0.19|0.203
91014660|NCT01945034|181912248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.18|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest 3 hour Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.18|-0.83|0.207
91014661|NCT01945034|181912248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.7||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.07|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest 3 hour Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms.||-0.07|-1.30|0.030
91014662|NCT01945034|181912248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.84|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing 3 hour Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.84|-0.32|0.372
91014663|NCT01945034|181912248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.36|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing 3 hour Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.36|-0.70|0.532
91014664|NCT01945034|181912248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|0.21|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing 3 hour Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms.||0.21|-1.08|0.189
91014665|NCT01945034|181912248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.87|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest 4 hour Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.87|-0.24|0.264
91014666|NCT01945034|181912248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.22|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest 4 hour Day 1:The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.22|-0.81|0.260
91014667|NCT01945034|181912248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|0.01|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest 4 hour Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms.||0.01|-1.23|0.054
91014668|NCT01945034|181912248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.81|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing 4 hour Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.81|-0.37|0.456
91054625|NCT00444457|181991057|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.39|1.18|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Additional serotypes - serotype 1||1.18|-6.39|
91014669|NCT01945034|181912248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.68|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing 4 hour Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.68|-0.42|0.639
91014670|NCT01945034|181912248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.57|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing 4 hour Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms.||0.57|-0.75|0.780
91014671|NCT01945034|181912248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.5||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|1.07|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest 5 hour Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||1.07|-0.04|0.071
91014672|NCT01945034|181912248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.32|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest 5 hour Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.32|-0.70|0.468
90807136|NCT01559259|181493767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-62.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.45|-45.07||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-45.07|-80.45|<0.001
90807137|NCT01559259|181493767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-8.53||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.55|-1.5||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-1.50|-15.55|0.021
90807138|NCT01559259|181493767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-3.99||||0.337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.05|4.07||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||4.07|-12.05|0.337
90807139|NCT01559259|181493767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-5.26||||0.204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.28|2.76||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||2.76|-13.28|0.204
90807140|NCT01559259|181493767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-77.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-92.29|-63.49||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-63.49|-92.29|<0.001
90807141|NCT01559259|181493767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-71.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-86.71|-56.58||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-56.58|-86.71|<0.001
90807142|NCT01559259|181493767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-72.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-88.06|-57.68||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-57.68|-88.06|<0.001
90807143|NCT01559259|181493767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-67.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-82.87|-51.52||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-51.52|-82.87|<0.001
91014673|NCT01945034|181912248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.7||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.08|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest 5 hour Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms.||-0.08|-1.33|0.027
91054626|NCT00444457|181991057|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|-3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.45|0.46|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Additional serotypes - serotype 1||0.46|-7.45|
90807144|NCT01559259|181493767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-10.71||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.2|-3.21||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-3.21|-18.20|0.007
90807145|NCT01559259|181493767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-3.99||||0.385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.86|4.88||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||4.88|-12.86|0.385
91014674|NCT01945034|181912248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.5||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|1.09|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing 5 hour Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||1.09|-0.11|0.107
90807146|NCT01559259|181493767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-6.29||||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.97|2.4||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||2.40|-14.97|0.162
91014675|NCT01945034|181912248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.53|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing 5 hour Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.53|-0.57|0.947
90807147|NCT01559259|181493767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-76.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-91.35|-62.27||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-62.27|-91.35|<0.001
90807148|NCT01559259|181493767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-70.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-85.79|-55.41||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-55.41|-85.79|<0.001
90807149|NCT01559259|181493767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-71.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-87.0|-56.31||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-56.31|-87.00|<0.001
90807150|NCT01559259|181493767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-65.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-81.03|-49.34||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-49.34|-81.03|<0.001
90807151|NCT01559259|181493767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-11.7||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.86|-3.55||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-3.55|-19.86|0.007
90807152|NCT01559259|181493767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-4.94||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.34|4.46||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||4.46|-14.34|0.310
90807153|NCT01559259|181493767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-7.36||||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.63|1.9||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||1.90|-16.63|0.126
90807154|NCT01559259|181493767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-75.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-90.35|-60.93||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-60.93|-90.35|<0.001
91054627|NCT00444457|181991057|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|8.55|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Additional serotypes - serotype 3||8.55|-5.20|
90807155|NCT01559259|181493767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-66.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-81.99|-50.88||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-50.88|-81.99|<0.001
90807156|NCT01559259|181493767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-69.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.96|-53.71||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-53.71|-84.96|<0.001
90807157|NCT01559259|181493767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-65.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-81.03|-49.34||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-49.34|-81.03|<0.001
90807158|NCT01559259|181493767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-10.61||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.02|-2.19||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-2.19|-19.02|0.016
90807159|NCT01559259|181493767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-0.69||||0.895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.69|9.32||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||9.32|-10.69|0.895
91014676|NCT01945034|181912248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|0.16|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing 5 hour Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms.||0.16|-1.18|0.134
90807160|NCT01559259|181493767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-5.09||||0.308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|4.62||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||4.62|-14.80|0.308
90807161|NCT01559259|181493767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-71.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-86.58|-56.13||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-56.13|-86.58|<0.001
90807162|NCT01559259|181493767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-62.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.04|-46.19||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-46.19|-78.04|<0.001
90807163|NCT01559259|181493767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-64.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.64|-48.5||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-48.50|-80.64|<0.001
90807164|NCT01559259|181493767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-59.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.12|-43.55||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-43.55|-76.12|<0.001
90807165|NCT01559259|181493767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-11.49||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.63|-1.35||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-1.35|-21.63|0.028
90807166|NCT01559259|181493767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-1.88||||0.747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.15|9.38||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||9.38|-13.15|0.747
90807167|NCT01559259|181493767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-5.88||||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.88|5.12||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||5.12|-16.88|0.303
90807168|NCT01559259|181493767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-62.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.64|-46.34||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-46.34|-78.64|<0.001
90807169|NCT01559259|181493767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-60.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.15|-44.02||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-44.02|-76.15|<0.001
90807170|NCT01559259|181493767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-63.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-79.64|-47.27||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-47.27|-79.64|<0.001
90807171|NCT01559259|181493767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-53.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.1|-36.72||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-36.72|-70.10|<0.001
91014677|NCT01945034|181912248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.7||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|1.23|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest 6 hour Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||1.23|0.12|0.017
91014678|NCT01945034|181912248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.41|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest 6 hour Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.41|-0.60|0.715
91014679|NCT01945034|181912248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.8||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|-0.15|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest 6 hour Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms.||-0.15|-1.39|0.015
90807172|NCT01559259|181493767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-9.14||||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.18|2.9||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||2.90|-21.18|0.137
90807173|NCT01559259|181493767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-6.34||||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.39|5.71||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||5.71|-18.39|0.311
90807174|NCT01559259|181493767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-11.23||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.97|0.52||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||0.52|-22.97|0.067
90807175|NCT01559259|181493767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-51.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.42|-34.66||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-34.66|-68.42|<0.001
90807176|NCT01559259|181493767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-57.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.27|-40.76||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-40.76|-73.27|<0.001
90807177|NCT01559259|181493767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-53.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.16|-36.26||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-36.26|-70.16|<0.001
90807178|NCT01559259|181493767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-47.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.81|-30.83||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-30.83|-64.81|<0.001
90807179|NCT01559259|181493767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-3.52||||0.604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.89|9.85||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||9.85|-16.89|0.604
90807180|NCT01559259|181493767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-8.78||||0.184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.5|3.94||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||3.94|-21.50|0.184
90807181|NCT01559259|181493767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-6.43||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.56|6.7||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||6.70|-19.56|0.340
91014680|NCT01945034|181912248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.7||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.23|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing 6 hour Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||1.23|0.07|0.027
91014681|NCT01945034|181912248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.65|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing 6 hour Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.65|-0.42|0.660
91014682|NCT01945034|181912248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|0.11|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing 6 hour Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms.||0.11|-1.18|0.107
90807182|NCT01559259|181493767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-40.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.67|-22.88||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||9 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-22.88|-57.67|<0.001
91014683|NCT01945034|181912248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.6||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.13|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 1(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||1.13|0.10|0.020
90807183|NCT01559259|181493767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-47.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.21|-30.27||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||9 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-30.27|-64.21|<0.001
90807184|NCT01559259|181493767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-43.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.57|-25.72||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||9 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-25.72|-60.57|<0.001
90807185|NCT01559259|181493767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-44.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.55|-27.34||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||9 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-27.34|-61.55|<0.001
90807186|NCT01559259|181493767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|4.29||||0.548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|18.38||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||9 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||18.38|-9.80|0.548
90807187|NCT01559259|181493767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-2.51||||0.721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|11.18||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||9 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||11.18|-16.20|0.721
90807188|NCT01559259|181493767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|0.44||||0.951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.47|14.35||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||9 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||14.35|-13.47|0.951
90807189|NCT01559259|181493767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-29.13||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.66|-11.59||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||10 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-11.59|-46.66|0.005
90807190|NCT01559259|181493767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-34.3||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.62|-16.97||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||10 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-16.97|-51.62|0.001
90807191|NCT01559259|181493767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-36.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.8|-18.73||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||10 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-18.73|-53.80|<0.001
90807192|NCT01559259|181493767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-34.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.77|-17.35||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||10 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-17.35|-51.77|<0.001
90807193|NCT01559259|181493767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|5.45||||0.455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.89|19.79||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||10 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||19.79|-8.89|0.455
90807194|NCT01559259|181493767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|0.43||||0.953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|14.65||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||10 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||14.65|-13.80|0.953
90807195|NCT01559259|181493767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-2.48||||0.731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.63|11.66||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||10 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||11.66|-16.63|0.731
90807196|NCT01559259|181493767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-22.63||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.97|-5.29||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-5.29|-39.97|0.024
90807197|NCT01559259|181493767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-26.87||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.12|-9.62||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-9.62|-44.12|0.009
90807198|NCT01559259|181493767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-30.76||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.36|-13.16||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-13.16|-48.36|0.003
90807199|NCT01559259|181493767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-27.26||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.51|-10.0||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-10.00|-44.51|0.007
90807200|NCT01559259|181493767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|4.66||||0.516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|18.82||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||18.82|-9.50|0.516
90807201|NCT01559259|181493767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|0.55||||0.939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.63|14.72||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||14.72|-13.63|0.939
90807202|NCT01559259|181493767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-4.53||||0.536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.86|9.8||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||9.80|-18.86|0.536
90807203|NCT01559259|181493767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-15.81||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.02|1.41||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||1.41|-33.02|0.107
90807204|NCT01559259|181493767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-23.71||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.91|-6.51||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-6.51|-40.91|0.019
90807205|NCT01559259|181493767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-28.44||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.99|-10.88||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-10.88|-45.99|0.006
90807206|NCT01559259|181493767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-25.04||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.23|-7.85||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-7.85|-42.23|0.012
90807207|NCT01559259|181493767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|9.16||||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.75|23.08||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||23.08|-4.75|0.195
90807208|NCT01559259|181493767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|1.48||||0.835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.54|15.5||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||15.50|-12.54|0.835
90807209|NCT01559259|181493767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-4.41||||0.542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.61|9.79||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||9.79|-18.61|0.542
90807210|NCT01559259|181493768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.01||p-value was calculated using CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on the weighted Gamma statistic.||1.01|0.79|<0.001
90807211|NCT01559259|181493768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.01||p-value was calculated using CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on the weighted Gamma statistic.||1.01|0.79|< 0.001
90807212|NCT01559259|181493768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.99||p-value was calculated using CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on the weighted Gamma statistic.||0.99|0.73|< 0.001
90807213|NCT01559259|181493768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.95||p-value was calculated using CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on the weighted Gamma statistic.||0.95|0.65|< 0.001
90807214|NCT01559259|181493768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.37||p-value was calculated using CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on the weighted Gamma statistic.||0.37|-0.07|0.174
90807215|NCT01559259|181493768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.26||p-value was calculated using CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on the weighted Gamma statistic.||0.26|-0.18|0.722
90807216|NCT01559259|181493768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.11||p-value was calculated using CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on the weighted Gamma statistic.||0.11|-0.32|0.365
90807217|NCT00218634|181493792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||HLM|||We used HLM with weekly visit data for the acute outcome. There were, therefore, 11 time points used.||||<.05
90807218|NCT00218634|181493793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0||||GLM - CBT-AD would be superior to ETAU at post. HLM - CBT-AD would be superior to CBT-AD at follow ups.|GLM and HLM|||||||<.05
90807219|NCT00218634|181493795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0||||CD4 would be more improved in the treatment condition|HLM|||follow up analysis revealed that CD4, over time, significantly improved over control when covarying out baseline levels.||||<.05
90807220|NCT01120236|181493800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.24||||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact||Arm I (Androgen Deprivation and Cixutumumab) represents the numerator and Arm II (Androgen Deprivation Therapy) represents the denominator for relative risk.|An intention-to-treat approach was used in analysis of the primary endpoint. A 45% undetectable PSA \<= 0.2 ng/mL rate at 28 weeks was assumed for (control) arm II , based on data from SWOG 9346. Using a one-sided type I error rate of 0.10, we had 90% statistical power to detect an absolute difference of 20% in the undetectable PSA rate with the addition of cixutumumab using Fisher's exact test.||||0.16
90807221|NCT01120236|181493802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.82||||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact||Arm I (Androgen Deprivation and Cixutumumab) represents the numerator and Arm II (Androgen Deprivation Therapy) represents the denominator for relative risk.|Proportion of patients in each arm with PSA \> 4 ng/mL after seven cycles of protocol treatment were compared.||||0.11
90807222|NCT01942668|181493816|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.29|-6.32||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Mixed Models Analysis|Each co-primary endpt in each dose group tested at alpha=0.05;multiple dose groups vs. PBO comparisons are conducted using gatekeeping procedure|Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-6.32|-19.29|<0.001
90807223|NCT01942668|181493816|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.25||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.46|-1.68||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Mixed Models Analysis|Each co-primary endpt in each dose group tested at alpha=0.05;multiple dose groups vs. PBO comparisons are conducted using gatekeeping procedure|Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-1.68|-14.46|0.013
90807224|NCT01942668|181493816|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.26||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.21|1.59||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Mixed Models Analysis|Each co-primary endpt in each dose group tested at alpha=0.05;multiple dose groups vs. PBO comparisons are conducted using gatekeeping procedure|Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||1.59|-11.21|0.141
90807225|NCT01942668|181493816|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.22||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.73|-4.08||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Mixed Models Analysis|Each co-primary endpt in each dose group tested at alpha=0.05;multiple dose groups vs. PBO comparisons are conducted using gatekeeping procedure|Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-4.08|-16.73|0.001
90807226|NCT01942668|181493817|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.44|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.33|-9.82||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|Each co-primary endpt in each dose group tested at alpha=0.05;multiple dose groups vs. PBO comparisons are conducted using gatekeeping procedure|Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-9.82|-23.33|<0.001
91054628|NCT00444457|181991057|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|-4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.79|2.16|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Additional serotypes - serotype 3||2.16|-11.79|
91054629|NCT00444457|181991057|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|-6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.51|0.54|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Additional serotypes - serotype 3||0.54|-13.51|
90807227|NCT01942668|181493817|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.39|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.72|-8.42||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|Each co-primary endpt in each dose group tested at alpha=0.05;multiple dose groups vs. PBO comparisons are conducted using gatekeeping procedure|Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-8.42|-21.72|<0.001
90807228|NCT01942668|181493817|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.41||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.48|-4.1||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|Each co-primary endpt in each dose group tested at alpha=0.05;multiple dose groups vs. PBO comparisons are conducted using gatekeeping procedure|Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-4.10|-17.48|0.002
90807229|NCT01942668|181493817|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.36|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.31|-5.11||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|Each co-primary endpt in each dose group tested at alpha=0.05;multiple dose groups vs. PBO comparisons are conducted using gatekeeping procedure|Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-5.11|-18.31|<0.001
90807230|NCT01942668|181493818|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|-0.01||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Mixed Models Analysis|Each co-primary endpt in each dose group tested at alpha=0.05;multiple dose groups vs. PBO comparisons are conducted using gatekeeping procedure|Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.01|-0.25|0.031
90807231|NCT01942668|181493818|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|-0.05||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Mixed Models Analysis|Each co-primary endpt in each dose group tested at alpha=0.05;multiple dose groups vs. PBO comparisons are conducted using gatekeeping procedure|Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.05|-0.28|0.005
90807232|NCT01942668|181493818|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.07||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Mixed Models Analysis|Each co-primary endpt in each dose group tested at alpha=0.05;multiple dose groups vs. PBO comparisons are conducted using gatekeeping procedure|Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.07|-0.17|0.401
90807233|NCT01942668|181493818|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.02||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Mixed Models Analysis|Each co-primary endpt in each dose group tested at alpha=0.05;multiple dose groups vs. PBO comparisons are conducted using gatekeeping procedure|Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.02|-0.21|0.100
90807234|NCT01942668|181493819|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.38||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|Each co-primary endpt in each dose group tested at alpha=0.05;multiple dose groups vs. PBO comparisons are conducted using gatekeeping procedure|Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.38|-0.77|<0.001
90807235|NCT01942668|181493819|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.2||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|Each co-primary endpt in each dose group tested at alpha=0.05;multiple dose groups vs. PBO comparisons are conducted using gatekeeping procedure|Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.20|-0.59|<0.001
90807236|NCT01942668|181493819|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.04||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|Each co-primary endpt in each dose group tested at alpha=0.05;multiple dose groups vs. PBO comparisons are conducted using gatekeeping procedure|Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.04|-0.43|0.018
90807237|NCT01942668|181493819|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.098||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.03||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|Each co-primary endpt in each dose group tested at alpha=0.05;multiple dose groups vs. PBO comparisons are conducted using gatekeeping procedure|Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.03|-0.36|0.096
90807238|NCT01942668|181493820|OTHER|Per FDA guidance hyperplasia proportion must be \<=1% with an upper bound of the one-sided 95% confidence interval \<=4%.|incidence rate|0.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||1.06||Between group comparison was not performed.|||This calculation is based on a binomial distribution.|Between group comparison is not intended. The purpose of the analysis is to calculate the incidence rate and the 95% CI of endometrial hyperplasia per FDA published guidance for Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg.||1.06||
90807239|NCT01942668|181493820|OTHER|Per FDA guidance hyperplasia proportion must be \<=1% with an upper bound of the one-sided 95% confidence interval \<=4%.|incidence rate|0.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.98||Between group comparison was not performed.|||This calculation is based on a binomial distribution.|Between group comparison is not intended. The purpose of the analysis is to calculate the incidence rate and the 95% CI of endometrial hyperplasia per FDA published guidance for Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg.||0.98||
90807240|NCT01942668|181493820|OTHER|Per FDA guidance hyperplasia proportion must be \<=1% with an upper bound of the one-sided 95% confidence interval \<=4%.|incidence rate|0.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.97||Between group comparison was not performed.|||This calculation is based on a binomial distribution.|Between group comparison is not intended. The purpose of the analysis is to calculate the incidence rate and the 95% CI of endometrial hyperplasia per FDA published guidance for Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg.||0.97||
90807241|NCT01942668|181493820|OTHER|Per FDA guidance hyperplasia proportion must be \<=1% with an upper bound of the one-sided 95% confidence interval \<=4%.|incidence rate|0.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||1.09||Between group comparison was not performed.|||This calculation is based on a binomial distribution.|Between group comparison is not intended. The purpose of the analysis is to calculate the incidence rate and the 95% CI of endometrial hyperplasia per FDA published guidance for Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg.||1.09||
90807242|NCT01942668|181493820|OTHER|Per FDA guidance hyperplasia proportion must be \<=1% with an upper bound of the one-sided 95% confidence interval \<=4%.|incidence rate|0.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||3.2||Between group comparison was not performed.|||This calculation is based on a binomial distribution.|Between group comparison is not intended. The purpose of the analysis is to calculate the incidence rate and the 95% CI of endometrial hyperplasia per FDA published guidance for Placebo.||3.20||
90807243|NCT01942668|181493821|OTHER|Per FDA guidance hyperplasia proportion must be \<=1% with an upper bound of the one-sided 95% confidence interval \<=4%.|incidence rate|0.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||1.06||Between group comparison was not performed.|||This calculation is based on a binomial distribution.|Between group comparison is not intended. The purpose of the analysis is to calculate the incidence rate and the 95% CI of endometrial hyperplasia per FDA published guidance for Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg.||1.06||
90807244|NCT01942668|181493821|OTHER|Per FDA guidance hyperplasia proportion must be \<=1% with an upper bound of the one-sided 95% confidence interval \<=4%.|incidence rate|0.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.98||Between group comparison was not performed.|||This calculation is based on a binomial distribution.|Between group comparison is not intended. The purpose of the analysis is to calculate the incidence rate and the 95% CI of endometrial hyperplasia per FDA published guidance for Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg.||0.98||
90807245|NCT01942668|181493821|OTHER|Per FDA guidance hyperplasia proportion must be \<=1% with an upper bound of the one-sided 95% confidence interval \<=4%.|incidence rate|0.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.97||Between group comparison was not performed.|||This calculation is based on a binomial distribution.|Between group comparison is not intended. The purpose of the analysis is to calculate the incidence rate and the 95% CI of endometrial hyperplasia per FDA published guidance for Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg.||0.97||
90807246|NCT01942668|181493821|OTHER|Per FDA guidance hyperplasia proportion must be \<=1% with an upper bound of the one-sided 95% confidence interval \<=4%.|incidence rate|0.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||1.09||Between group comparison was not performed.|||This calculation is based on a binomial distribution.|Between group comparison is not intended. The purpose of the analysis is to calculate the incidence rate and the 95% CI of endometrial hyperplasia per FDA published guidance for Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg.||1.09||
90807247|NCT01942668|181493821|OTHER|Per FDA guidance hyperplasia proportion must be \<=1% with an upper bound of the one-sided 95% confidence interval \<=4%.|incidence rate|0.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||3.2||Between group comparison was not performed.|||This calculation is based on a binomial distribution.|Between group comparison is not intended. The purpose of the analysis is to calculate the incidence rate and the 95% CI of endometrial hyperplasia per FDA published guidance for Placebo.||3.20||
90807248|NCT01942668|181493822|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.51||0.588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.57|6.3||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 1|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||6.30|-3.57|0.588
90807249|NCT01942668|181493822|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.47||0.601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.56|6.15||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 1|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||6.15|-3.56|0.601
90807250|NCT01942668|181493822|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.49||0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|8.06||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 1|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||8.06|-1.71|0.202
91054630|NCT00444457|181991057|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|7.13|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Additional serotypes - serotype 5||7.13|-0.84|
90807251|NCT01942668|181493822|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.46||0.431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.76|2.89||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 1|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||2.89|-6.76|0.431
90807252|NCT01942668|181493823|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.05||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.34|1.64||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 2|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||1.64|-10.34|0.154
90807253|NCT01942668|181493823|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0||0.956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.06|5.73||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 2|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||5.73|-6.06|0.956
90807254|NCT01942668|181493823|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.01||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.37|9.46||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 2|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||9.46|-2.37|0.240
90807255|NCT01942668|181493823|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.98||0.353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.62|3.08||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 2|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||3.08|-8.62|0.353
90807256|NCT01942668|181493824|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.16||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.75|-2.36||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 3|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-2.36|-14.75|0.007
90807257|NCT01942668|181493824|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.11||0.227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.86|2.35||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 3|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||2.35|-9.86|0.227
90807258|NCT01942668|181493824|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.12||0.597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.77|4.47||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 3|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||4.47|-7.77|0.597
90807259|NCT01942668|181493824|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.08||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.28|-1.19||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 3|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-1.19|-13.28|0.019
90807260|NCT01942668|181493825|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.29|-6.32||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-6.32|-19.29|<0.001
90807261|NCT01942668|181493825|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.25||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.46|-1.68||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-1.68|-14.46|0.013
90807262|NCT01942668|181493825|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.26||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.21|1.59||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||1.59|-11.21|0.141
90807263|NCT01942668|181493825|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.22||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.73|-4.08||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-4.08|-16.73|0.001
90807264|NCT01942668|181493826|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.35|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.16|-9.02||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 5|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-9.02|-22.16|<0.001
90807265|NCT01942668|181493826|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.29||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.34|-3.41||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 5|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-3.41|-16.34|0.003
90807266|NCT01942668|181493826|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.31||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|0.59||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 5|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.59|-12.40|0.075
90807267|NCT01942668|181493826|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.47|-5.64||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 5|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-5.64|-18.47|<0.001
90807268|NCT01942668|181493827|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.44|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.57|-11.05||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 6|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-11.05|-24.57|<0.001
90807269|NCT01942668|181493827|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.39|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|-4.7||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 6|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-4.70|-18.00|<0.001
90807270|NCT01942668|181493827|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|-1.14||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 6|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-1.14|-14.50|0.022
90807271|NCT01942668|181493827|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.36|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.11|-5.91||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 6|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-5.91|-19.11|<0.001
90807272|NCT01942668|181493828|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.41|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.45|-11.06||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 7|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-11.06|-24.45|<0.001
90807273|NCT01942668|181493828|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.36|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.88|-6.7||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 7|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-6.70|-19.88|<0.001
90807274|NCT01942668|181493828|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.37||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.83|-3.6||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 7|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-3.60|-16.83|0.003
90807275|NCT01942668|181493828|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.33|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.15|-7.07||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 7|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-7.07|-20.15|<0.001
90807276|NCT01942668|181493829|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.42|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.35|-9.91||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 8|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-9.91|-23.35|<0.001
90807277|NCT01942668|181493829|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.37|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.58|-6.36||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 8|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-6.36|-19.58|<0.001
90807278|NCT01942668|181493829|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.38||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.27|-2.99||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 8|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-2.99|-16.27|0.005
90807279|NCT01942668|181493829|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.34|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.53|-5.41||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 8|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-5.41|-18.53|<0.001
90807280|NCT01942668|181493830|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.79|-10.44||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 9|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-10.44|-23.79|<0.001
90807281|NCT01942668|181493830|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.34|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.15|-9.01||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 9|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-9.01|-22.15|<0.001
90807282|NCT01942668|181493830|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.36||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.65|-4.44||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 9|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-4.44|-17.65|0.001
90807283|NCT01942668|181493830|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.32|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.54|-6.5||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 9|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-6.50|-19.54|<0.001
90807284|NCT01942668|181493831|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.45|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.58|-10.03||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 10|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-10.03|-23.58|<0.001
90807285|NCT01942668|181493831|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.32|-8.99||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 10|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-8.99|-22.32|<0.001
90807286|NCT01942668|181493831|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.41||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.9|-4.49||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 10|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-4.49|-17.90|0.001
90807287|NCT01942668|181493831|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.37|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.78|-5.55||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 10|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-5.55|-18.78|<0.001
90807288|NCT01942668|181493832|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.47|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.92|-11.29||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 11|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-11.29|-24.92|<0.001
90807289|NCT01942668|181493832|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.42|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.17|-9.74||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 11|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-9.74|-23.17|<0.001
90807290|NCT01942668|181493832|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.44|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.15|-5.66||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 11|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-5.66|-19.15|<0.001
90807291|NCT01942668|181493832|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.39|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.26|-6.93||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 11|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-6.93|-20.26|<0.001
90807292|NCT01942668|181493833|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.44|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.33|-9.82||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-9.82|-23.33|<0.001
90807293|NCT01942668|181493833|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.39|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.72|-8.42||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-8.42|-21.72|<0.001
90807294|NCT01942668|181493833|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.41||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.48|-4.1||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-4.10|-17.48|0.002
90807295|NCT01942668|181493833|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.36|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.31|-5.11||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-5.11|-18.31|<0.001
90807296|NCT01942668|181493834|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034||0.801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.08||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 1|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.08|-0.06|0.801
90807297|NCT01942668|181493834|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034||0.991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.07||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 1|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.07|-0.07|0.991
90807298|NCT01942668|181493834|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034||0.642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.08||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 1|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.08|-0.05|0.642
90807299|NCT01942668|181493834|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034||0.928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.06||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 1|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.06|-0.07|0.928
91014684|NCT01945034|181912248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.4|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 1(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.40|-0.55|0.749
91014685|NCT01945034|181912248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.7||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|-0.12|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 1(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms.||-0.12|-1.27|0.019
90807300|NCT01942668|181493835|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.03||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 2|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.03|-0.14|0.231
90807301|NCT01942668|181493835|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.042||0.173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.03||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 2|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.03|-0.14|0.173
90807302|NCT01942668|181493835|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.042||0.717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.1||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 2|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.10|-0.07|0.717
90807303|NCT01942668|181493835|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.042||0.849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.07||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 2|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.07|-0.09|0.849
90807304|NCT01942668|181493836|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|-0.01||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 3|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.01|-0.21|0.039
90807305|NCT01942668|181493836|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|-0.01||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 3|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.01|-0.21|0.030
90807306|NCT01942668|181493836|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 3|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.10|-0.10|0.946
90807307|NCT01942668|181493836|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.051||0.309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.05||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 3|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.05|-0.15|0.309
90807308|NCT01942668|181493837|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|-0.01||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.01|-0.25|0.031
90807309|NCT01942668|181493837|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|-0.05||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.05|-0.28|0.005
90807310|NCT01942668|181493837|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.07||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.07|-0.17|0.401
90807311|NCT01942668|181493837|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.02||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.02|-0.21|0.100
90807312|NCT01942668|181493838|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.071||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.09||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 5|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.09|-0.37|0.001
90807313|NCT01942668|181493838|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|-0.01||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 5|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.01|-0.28|0.034
90807314|NCT01942668|181493838|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.12||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 5|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.12|-0.16|0.790
90807315|NCT01942668|181493838|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.069||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.02||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 5|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.02|-0.25|0.086
90807316|NCT01942668|181493839|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.084|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.2||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 6|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.20|-0.53|<0.001
90807317|NCT01942668|181493839|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.083||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|-0.02||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 6|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.02|-0.34|0.030
90807318|NCT01942668|181493839|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.083||0.247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.07||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 6|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.07|-0.26|0.247
90807319|NCT01942668|181493839|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.082||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.03||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 6|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.03|-0.35|0.022
90807320|NCT01942668|181493840|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.085|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.2||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 7|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.20|-0.54|<0.001
90807321|NCT01942668|181493840|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.083||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.09||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 7|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.09|-0.42|0.002
90807322|NCT01942668|181493840|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.084||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|-0.02||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 7|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.02|-0.34|0.031
90807323|NCT01942668|181493840|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.083||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.04||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 7|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.04|-0.36|0.016
90807324|NCT01942668|181493841|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.087|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.21||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 8|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.21|-0.55|<0.001
90807325|NCT01942668|181493841|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.086||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.06||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 8|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.06|-0.40|0.008
90807326|NCT01942668|181493841|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.086||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.02||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 8|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.02|-0.32|0.087
90807327|NCT01942668|181493841|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.085||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.02||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 8|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.02|-0.31|0.092
90807328|NCT01942668|181493842|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.092|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.3||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 9|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.30|-0.66|<0.001
90807329|NCT01942668|181493842|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.12||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 9|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.12|-0.47|0.001
90807330|NCT01942668|181493842|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.091||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.06||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 9|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.06|-0.42|0.009
90807331|NCT01942668|181493842|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.07||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 9|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.07|-0.42|0.007
90807332|NCT01942668|181493843|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.096|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.33||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 10|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.33|-0.71|<0.001
90807333|NCT01942668|181493843|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.09||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 10|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.09|-0.46|0.003
90807334|NCT01942668|181493843|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.095||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.04||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 10|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.04|-0.41|0.016
90807335|NCT01942668|181493843|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.09||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 10|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.09|-0.28|0.310
90807336|NCT01942668|181493844|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.098|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.34||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 11|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.34|-0.72|<0.001
90807337|NCT01942668|181493844|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.096|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.19||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 11|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.19|-0.56|<0.001
90807338|NCT01942668|181493844|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.097||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.06||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 11|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.06|-0.44|0.011
90807339|NCT01942668|181493844|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.096||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.02||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 11|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.02|-0.36|0.076
90807340|NCT01942668|181493845|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.38||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.38|-0.77|<0.001
90807341|NCT01942668|181493845|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.2||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.20|-0.59|<0.001
90807342|NCT01942668|181493845|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.04||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.04|-0.43|0.018
90807343|NCT01942668|181493845|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.098||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.03||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.03|-0.36|0.096
90807344|NCT01942668|181493846|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.88||0.865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.16|6.14||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 1|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||6.14|-5.16|0.865
90807345|NCT01942668|181493846|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.83||0.847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.01|6.1||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 1|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||6.10|-5.01|0.847
90807346|NCT01942668|181493846|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.85||0.463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|7.68||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 1|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||7.68|-3.50|0.463
90807347|NCT01942668|181493846|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.81||0.207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.07|1.97||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 1|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||1.97|-9.07|0.207
90807348|NCT01942668|181493847|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.43||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|1.67||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 2|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||1.67|-11.80|0.140
90807349|NCT01942668|181493847|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.38||0.982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|6.55||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 2|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||6.55|-6.70|0.982
90807350|NCT01942668|181493847|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.39||0.492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.32|8.98||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 2|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||8.98|-4.32|0.492
90807351|NCT01942668|181493847|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.35||0.216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.72|2.43||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 2|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||2.43|-10.72|0.216
90807352|NCT01942668|181493848|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.26|-3.5||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 3|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-3.50|-17.26|0.003
90807353|NCT01942668|181493848|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.45||0.277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.53|3.02||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 3|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||3.02|-10.53|0.277
90807354|NCT01942668|181493848|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.46||0.394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.75|3.84||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 3|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||3.84|-9.75|0.394
90807355|NCT01942668|181493848|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.42||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.58|-1.15||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 3|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-1.15|-14.58|0.022
90807356|NCT01942668|181493849|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.78|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.75|-7.89||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-7.89|-22.75|<0.001
90807357|NCT01942668|181493849|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.73||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.24|-1.6||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-1.60|-16.24|0.017
90807358|NCT01942668|181493849|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.74||0.223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|2.78||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||2.78|-11.90|0.223
90807359|NCT01942668|181493849|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.69||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.57|-4.07||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-4.07|-18.57|0.002
90807360|NCT01942668|181493850|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.66|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.65|-10.28||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 5|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-10.28|-24.65|<0.001
90807361|NCT01942668|181493850|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.33|-3.18||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 5|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-3.18|-17.33|0.005
90807362|NCT01942668|181493850|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.62||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.31|0.89||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 5|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.89|-13.31|0.087
90807363|NCT01942668|181493850|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.57|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.68|-5.65||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 5|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-5.65|-19.68|<0.001
90807364|NCT01942668|181493851|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.77|-12.87||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 6|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-12.87|-27.77|<0.001
90807365|NCT01942668|181493851|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.73|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.95|-5.28||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 6|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-5.28|-19.95|<0.001
90807366|NCT01942668|181493851|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.75||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.7|-0.96||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 6|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.96|-15.70|0.027
90807367|NCT01942668|181493851|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.71|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.13|-6.58||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 6|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-6.58|-21.13|<0.001
90807368|NCT01942668|181493852|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.78|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.87|-14.04||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 7|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-14.04|-28.87|<0.001
90807369|NCT01942668|181493852|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.71|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.39|-8.8||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 7|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-8.80|-23.39|<0.001
90807370|NCT01942668|181493852|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.73||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.34|-4.68||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 7|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-4.68|-19.34|0.001
90807371|NCT01942668|181493852|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.69|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.97|-8.49||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 7|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-8.49|-22.97|<0.001
90807372|NCT01942668|181493853|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.84|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.06|-12.97||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 8|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-12.97|-28.06|<0.001
90807373|NCT01942668|181493853|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.78|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.8|-7.95||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 8|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-7.95|-22.80|<0.001
91054631|NCT00444457|181991057|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.14|4.11|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Additional serotypes - serotype 5||4.11|-3.14|
91054632|NCT00444457|181991057|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.72|1.4|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Additional serotypes - serotype 5||1.40|-6.72|
90807374|NCT01942668|181493853|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.95|-4.03||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 8|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-4.03|-18.95|0.003
90807375|NCT01942668|181493853|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.75|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.19|-6.46||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 8|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-6.46|-21.19|<0.001
90807376|NCT01942668|181493854|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.87|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.93|-12.74||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 9|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-12.74|-27.93|<0.001
90807377|NCT01942668|181493854|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.39|-10.45||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 9|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-10.45|-25.39|<0.001
90807378|NCT01942668|181493854|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.82|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.49|-5.46||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 9|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-5.46|-20.49|<0.001
90807379|NCT01942668|181493854|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.78|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.7|-6.87||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 9|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-6.87|-21.70|<0.001
90807380|NCT01942668|181493855|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.93|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.72|-13.29||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 10|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-13.29|-28.72|<0.001
90807381|NCT01942668|181493855|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.87|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.96|-10.78||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 10|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-10.78|-25.96|<0.001
90807382|NCT01942668|181493855|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.89|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.66|-5.39||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 10|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-5.39|-20.66|<0.001
90807383|NCT01942668|181493855|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.84|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.19|-7.12||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 10|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-7.12|-22.19|<0.001
90807384|NCT01942668|181493856|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.94|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.57|-14.08||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 11|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-14.08|-29.57|<0.001
90807385|NCT01942668|181493856|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.88|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.02|-11.77||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 11|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-11.77|-27.02|<0.001
90807386|NCT01942668|181493856|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.65|-6.32||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 11|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-6.32|-21.65|<0.001
90807387|NCT01942668|181493856|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.85|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.23|-8.1||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 11|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-8.10|-23.23|<0.001
90807388|NCT01942668|181493857|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.93|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.32|-12.89||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-12.89|-28.32|<0.001
90807389|NCT01942668|181493857|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.87|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.84|-10.65||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-10.65|-25.84|<0.001
90807390|NCT01942668|181493857|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.89||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.26|-4.98||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-4.98|-20.26|0.001
90807391|NCT01942668|181493857|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.84|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.51|-6.43||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-6.43|-21.51|<0.001
90807392|NCT01942668|181493858|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.07||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 1|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.07|-0.04|0.676
90807393|NCT01942668|181493858|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.07||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 1|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.07|-0.03|0.436
90807394|NCT01942668|181493858|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.1||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 1|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.10|-0.01|0.106
91014686|NCT01945034|181912248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.96|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 1(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.96|-0.16|0.163
91014687|NCT01945034|181912248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.61|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 1(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.61|-0.43|0.727
91054633|NCT00444457|181991057|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|3.02|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Additional serotypes - serotype 6A||3.02|-0.87|
90807395|NCT01942668|181493858|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.04||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 1|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.04|-0.06|0.752
90807396|NCT01942668|181493859|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038||0.193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.02||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 2|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.02|-0.12|0.193
90807397|NCT01942668|181493859|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.04||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 2|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.04|-0.11|0.319
90807398|NCT01942668|181493859|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.12||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 2|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.12|-0.03|0.239
90807399|NCT01942668|181493859|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.06||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 2|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.06|-0.09|0.720
90807400|NCT01942668|181493860|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|-0.01||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 3|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.01|-0.20|0.030
90807401|NCT01942668|181493860|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.0||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 3|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.00|-0.19|0.060
91014688|NCT01945034|181912248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.32|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 1(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms.||0.32|-0.94|0.336
91054634|NCT00444457|181991057|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|1.71|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Additional serotypes - serotype 6A||1.71|-1.62|
90807402|NCT01942668|181493860|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.13||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 3|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.13|-0.06|0.506
90807403|NCT01942668|181493860|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.04||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 3|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.04|-0.15|0.232
90807404|NCT01942668|181493861|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.058||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|-0.01||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.01|-0.24|0.027
90807405|NCT01942668|181493861|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|-0.03||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.03|-0.26|0.011
91054635|NCT00444457|181991057|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|0.92|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Additional serotypes - serotype 6A||0.92|-3.00|
90807406|NCT01942668|181493861|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.09||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.09|-0.13|0.710
90807407|NCT01942668|181493861|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.01||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.01|-0.21|0.072
90807408|NCT01942668|181493862|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.069|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.09||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 5|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.09|-0.36|<0.001
90807409|NCT01942668|181493862|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.01||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 5|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.01|-0.26|0.062
91054636|NCT00444457|181991057|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|4.67|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Additional serotypes - serotype 7F||4.67|-0.62|
90807410|NCT01942668|181493862|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068||0.886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.14||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 5|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.14|-0.12|0.886
90807411|NCT01942668|181493862|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.01||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 5|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.01|-0.26|0.067
90807412|NCT01942668|181493863|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.084|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.2||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 6|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.20|-0.53|<0.001
90807413|NCT01942668|181493863|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.082||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.0||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 6|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.00|-0.32|0.053
90807414|NCT01942668|181493863|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.083||0.413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.09||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 6|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.09|-0.23|0.413
90807415|NCT01942668|181493863|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.082||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.03||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 6|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.03|-0.35|0.018
90807416|NCT01942668|181493864|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.085|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.2||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 7|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.20|-0.54|<0.001
90807417|NCT01942668|181493864|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.083||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.07||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 7|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.07|-0.40|0.006
90807418|NCT01942668|181493864|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.084||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.01||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 7|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.01|-0.32|0.072
90807419|NCT01942668|181493864|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.083||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.04||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 7|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.04|-0.37|0.014
91054637|NCT00444457|181991057|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.67|1.55|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Additional serotypes - serotype 7F||1.55|-2.67|
90807420|NCT01942668|181493865|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.087|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.21||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 8|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.21|-0.55|<0.001
90807421|NCT01942668|181493865|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.085||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.04||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 8|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.04|-0.37|0.016
90807422|NCT01942668|181493865|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.086||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.05||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 8|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.05|-0.29|0.169
90807423|NCT01942668|181493865|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.085||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.02||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 8|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.02|-0.31|0.081
90807424|NCT01942668|181493866|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.092|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.3||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 9|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.30|-0.66|<0.001
90807425|NCT01942668|181493866|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.091||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.1||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 9|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.10|-0.45|0.003
90807426|NCT01942668|181493866|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.091||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|-0.03||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 9|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.03|-0.39|0.022
90807427|NCT01942668|181493866|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.07||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 9|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.07|-0.43|0.006
90807428|NCT01942668|181493867|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.096|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.33||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 10|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.33|-0.71|<0.001
90807429|NCT01942668|181493867|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.095||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.07||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 10|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.07|-0.44|0.007
90807430|NCT01942668|181493867|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.095||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|-0.01||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 10|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.01|-0.39|0.038
90807431|NCT01942668|181493867|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094||0.283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.08||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 10|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.08|-0.29|0.283
90807432|NCT01942668|181493868|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.34||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 11|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.34|-0.72|<0.001
90807433|NCT01942668|181493868|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.097|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.16||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 11|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.16|-0.54|<0.001
90807434|NCT01942668|181493868|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.098||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.02||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 11|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.02|-0.41|0.027
90807435|NCT01942668|181493868|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.096||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.01||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 11|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.01|-0.36|0.071
90807436|NCT01942668|181493869|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.101|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.37||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.37|-0.77|<0.001
90807437|NCT01942668|181493869|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.18||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.18|-0.57|<0.001
90807438|NCT01942668|181493869|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.01||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.01|-0.40|0.039
90807439|NCT01942668|181493869|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.03||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.03|-0.36|0.088
90807440|NCT01942668|181493870|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 1|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.850
90807441|NCT01942668|181493870|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.622||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 1|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.622
91054638|NCT00444457|181991057|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.11|-0.01|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Additional serotypes - serotype 7F||-0.01|-5.11|
90807442|NCT01942668|181493870|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 1|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||1.000
90807443|NCT01942668|181493870|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.374||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 1|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.374
90807444|NCT01942668|181493870|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.706||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 1|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.706
90807445|NCT01942668|181493870|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.372||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 1|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.372
90807446|NCT01942668|181493870|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.316||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 1|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.316
90807447|NCT01942668|181493870|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.221||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 1|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.221
90807448|NCT01942668|181493871|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.283||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 2|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.283
90807449|NCT01942668|181493871|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 2|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.004
90807450|NCT01942668|181493871|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 2|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.680
90807451|NCT01942668|181493871|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.232||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 2|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.232
90807452|NCT01942668|181493871|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.677||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 2|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.677
90807453|NCT01942668|181493871|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.073||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 2|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.073
90807454|NCT01942668|181493871|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.301||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 2|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.301
90807455|NCT01942668|181493871|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 2|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.013
90807456|NCT01942668|181493872|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 3|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.003
90807457|NCT01942668|181493872|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 3|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
90807458|NCT01942668|181493872|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.135||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 3|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.135
90807459|NCT01942668|181493872|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.231||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 3|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.231
90807460|NCT01942668|181493872|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.377||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 3|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.377
90807461|NCT01942668|181493872|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.478||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 3|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.478
90807462|NCT01942668|181493872|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 3|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.015
90807463|NCT01942668|181493872|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 3|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.100
90807464|NCT01942668|181493873|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||<0.001
90807465|NCT01942668|181493873|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
90807466|NCT01942668|181493873|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.009
90807467|NCT01942668|181493873|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.017
90807468|NCT01942668|181493873|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Fisher Exact|||||||0.001
90807469|NCT01942668|181493873|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.025||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.025
90807470|NCT01942668|181493873|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||<0.001
90807471|NCT01942668|181493873|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
90807472|NCT01942668|181493874|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 5|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||<0.001
90807473|NCT01942668|181493874|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 5|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
90807474|NCT01942668|181493874|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.066||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 5|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.066
90807475|NCT01942668|181493874|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.055||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 5|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.055
90807476|NCT01942668|181493874|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.174||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 5|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.174
90807477|NCT01942668|181493874|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.319||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 5|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.319
90807478|NCT01942668|181493874|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 5|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.007
90807479|NCT01942668|181493874|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 5|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.008
90807480|NCT01942668|181493875|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 6|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||<0.001
90807481|NCT01942668|181493875|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 6|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
90807482|NCT01942668|181493875|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 6|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.019
90807483|NCT01942668|181493875|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.061||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 6|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.061
91054639|NCT00444457|181991057|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|2.1|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Additional serotypes - serotype 19A||2.10|-0.45|
90807484|NCT01942668|181493875|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.026||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 6|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.026
90807485|NCT01942668|181493875|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.104||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 6|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.104
90807486|NCT01942668|181493875|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 6|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||<0.001
90807487|NCT01942668|181493875|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 6|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.018
90807488|NCT01942668|181493876|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 7|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||<0.001
90807489|NCT01942668|181493876|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 7|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
90807490|NCT01942668|181493876|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 7|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.006
90807491|NCT01942668|181493876|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 7|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.003
90807492|NCT01942668|181493876|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 7|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.017
90807493|NCT01942668|181493876|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.025||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 7|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.025
90807494|NCT01942668|181493876|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 7|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.001
90807495|NCT01942668|181493876|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.037||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 7|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.037
90807496|NCT01942668|181493877|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 8|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||<0.001
90807497|NCT01942668|181493877|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 8|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
90807498|NCT01942668|181493877|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 8|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.001
90807499|NCT01942668|181493877|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 8|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.016
90807500|NCT01942668|181493877|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 8|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.012
90807501|NCT01942668|181493877|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.053||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 8|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.053
90807502|NCT01942668|181493877|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 8|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.004
90807503|NCT01942668|181493877|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.074||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 8|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.074
90807504|NCT01942668|181493878|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 9|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||<0.001
90807505|NCT01942668|181493878|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 9|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
91054640|NCT00444457|181991057|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|1.58|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Additional serotypes - serotype 19A||1.58|-0.75|
90807506|NCT01942668|181493878|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 9|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||<0.001
90807507|NCT01942668|181493878|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 9|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
90807508|NCT01942668|181493878|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 9|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.009
90807509|NCT01942668|181493878|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 9|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.004
90807510|NCT01942668|181493878|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 9|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.002
90807511|NCT01942668|181493878|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 9|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.015
90807512|NCT01942668|181493879|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 10|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.004
91054641|NCT00444457|181991057|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|1.05|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Additional serotypes - serotype 19A||1.05|-1.86|
90807513|NCT01942668|181493879|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 10|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
90807514|NCT01942668|181493879|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 10|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.002
90807515|NCT01942668|181493879|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 10|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.001
90807516|NCT01942668|181493879|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 10|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.001
90807517|NCT01942668|181493879|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 10|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.009
90807518|NCT01942668|181493879|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 10|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.018
90807519|NCT01942668|181493879|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.021||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 10|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.021
90807520|NCT01942668|181493880|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 11|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||<0.001
90807521|NCT01942668|181493880|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 11|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
90807522|NCT01942668|181493880|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 11|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||<0.001
90807523|NCT01942668|181493880|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 11|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
90807524|NCT01942668|181493880|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 11|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||<0.001
90807525|NCT01942668|181493880|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 11|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
90807526|NCT01942668|181493880|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 11|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||<0.001
90807527|NCT01942668|181493880|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 11|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
90807528|NCT01942668|181493881|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||<0.001
90807529|NCT01942668|181493881|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
90807530|NCT01942668|181493881|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||<0.001
90807531|NCT01942668|181493881|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
90807532|NCT01942668|181493881|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.006
90807533|NCT01942668|181493881|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.001
90807534|NCT01942668|181493881|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.015
91054642|NCT00444457|181991058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log-transformed GM|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.13|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 4||0.13|-0.10|
91054643|NCT00444457|181991058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.17|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 4||-0.17|-0.41|
90807535|NCT01942668|181493881|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.005
90807536|NCT01942668|181493882|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.523||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 1|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.523
90807537|NCT01942668|181493882|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 1|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||1.000
90807538|NCT01942668|181493882|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.821||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 1|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.821
90807539|NCT01942668|181493882|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 1|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||1.000
90807540|NCT01942668|181493882|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.828||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 1|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.828
90807541|NCT01942668|181493882|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 1|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||1.000
90807542|NCT01942668|181493882|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.239||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 1|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.239
90807543|NCT01942668|181493882|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.377||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 1|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.377
90807544|NCT01942668|181493883|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 2|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.036
91014689|NCT01945034|181912248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.87|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 2(AM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.87|-0.16|0.174
91014690|NCT01945034|181912248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.21|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 2(AM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.21|-0.73|0.277
91054644|NCT00444457|181991058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.19|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 4||-0.19|-0.43|
90807545|NCT01942668|181493883|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 2|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.015
90807546|NCT01942668|181493883|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 2|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||1.000
90807547|NCT01942668|181493883|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.546||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 2|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.546
90807548|NCT01942668|181493883|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.352||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 2|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.352
90807549|NCT01942668|181493883|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.261||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 2|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.261
90807550|NCT01942668|181493883|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.058||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 2|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.058
90807551|NCT01942668|181493883|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 2|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.011
90807552|NCT01942668|181493884|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 3|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||<0.001
90807553|NCT01942668|181493884|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 3|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
90807554|NCT01942668|181493884|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.115||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 3|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.115
90807555|NCT01942668|181493884|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 3|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.110
90807556|NCT01942668|181493884|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.089||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 3|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.089
90807557|NCT01942668|181493884|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.074||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 3|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.074
90807558|NCT01942668|181493884|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 3|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.011
90807559|NCT01942668|181493884|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 3|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.008
90807560|NCT01942668|181493885|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||<0.001
90807561|NCT01942668|181493885|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
90807562|NCT01942668|181493885|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.011
90807563|NCT01942668|181493885|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
90807564|NCT01942668|181493885|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.002
90807565|NCT01942668|181493885|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.002
90807566|NCT01942668|181493885|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||<0.001
90807567|NCT01942668|181493885|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
90807568|NCT01942668|181493886|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 5|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||<0.001
90807569|NCT01942668|181493886|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 5|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
90807570|NCT01942668|181493886|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.048||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 5|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.048
90807571|NCT01942668|181493886|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 5|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.006
90807572|NCT01942668|181493886|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.063||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 5|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.063
90807573|NCT01942668|181493886|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.058||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 5|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.058
90807574|NCT01942668|181493886|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 5|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.004
90807575|NCT01942668|181493886|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 5|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.003
90807576|NCT01942668|181493887|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 6|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||<0.001
90807577|NCT01942668|181493887|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 6|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
90807578|NCT01942668|181493887|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 6|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.050
90807579|NCT01942668|181493887|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 6|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.006
90807580|NCT01942668|181493887|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.048||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 6|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.048
90807581|NCT01942668|181493887|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 6|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.004
90807582|NCT01942668|181493887|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 6|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.020
90807583|NCT01942668|181493887|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 6|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.001
90807584|NCT01942668|181493888|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 7|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||<0.001
90807585|NCT01942668|181493888|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 7|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
90807586|NCT01942668|181493888|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 7|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.001
90807587|NCT01942668|181493888|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 7|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
90807588|NCT01942668|181493888|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 7|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.006
90807589|NCT01942668|181493888|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 7|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
90807590|NCT01942668|181493888|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 7|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||<0.001
90807591|NCT01942668|181493888|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 7|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
90807592|NCT01942668|181493889|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 8|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||<0.001
90807593|NCT01942668|181493889|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 8|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
90807594|NCT01942668|181493889|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 8|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.013
90807595|NCT01942668|181493889|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 8|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
90807596|NCT01942668|181493889|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 8|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.001
90807597|NCT01942668|181493889|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 8|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.004
90807598|NCT01942668|181493889|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 8|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.003
90807599|NCT01942668|181493889|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 8|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.001
90807600|NCT01942668|181493890|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 9|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||<0.001
90807601|NCT01942668|181493890|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 9|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
90807602|NCT01942668|181493890|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 9|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||<0.001
90807603|NCT01942668|181493890|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 9|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
90807604|NCT01942668|181493890|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 9|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.001
90807605|NCT01942668|181493890|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 9|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
90807606|NCT01942668|181493890|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 9|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.004
90807607|NCT01942668|181493890|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 9|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
90807608|NCT01942668|181493891|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 10|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||<0.001
90807609|NCT01942668|181493891|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 10|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
90807610|NCT01942668|181493891|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 10|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||<0.001
90807611|NCT01942668|181493891|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 10|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
90807612|NCT01942668|181493891|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 10|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||<0.001
90807613|NCT01942668|181493891|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 10|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
90807614|NCT01942668|181493891|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 10|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.001
90807615|NCT01942668|181493891|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 10|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
90807616|NCT01942668|181493892|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 11|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||<0.001
90807617|NCT01942668|181493892|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 11|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
90807618|NCT01942668|181493892|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 11|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||<0.001
90807619|NCT01942668|181493892|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 11|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
90807620|NCT01942668|181493892|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 11|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||<0.001
90807621|NCT01942668|181493892|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 11|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.003
90807622|NCT01942668|181493892|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 11|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||<0.001
90807623|NCT01942668|181493892|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 11|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
90807624|NCT01942668|181493893|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||<0.001
90807625|NCT01942668|181493893|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
90807626|NCT01942668|181493893|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||<0.001
90807627|NCT01942668|181493893|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
90807628|NCT01942668|181493893|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||<0.001
90807629|NCT01942668|181493893|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.056||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.056
90807630|NCT01942668|181493893|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||<0.001
90807631|NCT01942668|181493893|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.017
90807632|NCT01942668|181493894|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value is derived from comparing % Very Much Improved+Much Improved between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
90807633|NCT01942668|181493894|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||P-value is derived from comparing % Very Much Improved+Much Improved between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Fisher Exact|||||||0.005
90807634|NCT01942668|181493894|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007||||||P-value is derived from comparing % Very Much Improved+Much Improved between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Fisher Exact|||||||0.007
90807635|NCT01942668|181493894|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||P-value is derived from comparing % Very Much Improved+Much Improved between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Fisher Exact|||||||0.004
90807636|NCT01942668|181493896|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value is derived from comparing % Very Much Improved+Much Improved between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 8|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
90807637|NCT01942668|181493896|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value is derived from comparing % Very Much Improved+Much Improved between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 8|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
90807638|NCT01942668|181493896|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||P-value is derived from comparing % Very Much Improved+Much Improved between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 8|Fisher Exact|||||||0.001
90807639|NCT01942668|181493896|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||P-value is derived from comparing % Very Much Improved+Much Improved between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 8|Fisher Exact|||||||0.002
90807640|NCT01942668|181493898|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value is derived from comparing % Very Much Improved+Much Improved between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
90807641|NCT01942668|181493898|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value is derived from comparing % Very Much Improved+Much Improved between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
90807642|NCT01942668|181493898|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value is derived from comparing % Very Much Improved+Much Improved between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
90807643|NCT01942668|181493898|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||P-value is derived from comparing % Very Much Improved+Much Improved between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Fisher Exact|||||||0.002
90807644|NCT01942668|181493900|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.000
90807645|NCT01942668|181493900|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.122|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.122
90807646|NCT01942668|181493900|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.280
90807647|NCT01942668|181493900|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.692|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.692
90807648|NCT01942668|181493901|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.000
90807649|NCT01942668|181493901|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.069|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.069
90807650|NCT01942668|181493901|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.131|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.131
90807651|NCT01942668|181493901|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.661|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.661
90807652|NCT01942668|181493902|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.000
91014691|NCT01945034|181912248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|-0.04|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 2(AM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms.||-0.04|-1.19|0.035
91014692|NCT01945034|181912248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.6|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 2(AM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.60|-0.50|0.858
90807653|NCT01942668|181493902|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.040
90807654|NCT01942668|181493902|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.082|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.082
90807655|NCT01942668|181493902|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.495|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.495
90807656|NCT01942668|181493903|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.000
90807657|NCT01942668|181493903|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.032|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.032
90807658|NCT01942668|181493903|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.137|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.137
90807659|NCT01942668|181493903|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.792|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.792
90807660|NCT01942668|181493904|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.000
90807661|NCT01942668|181493904|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.067|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.067
90807662|NCT01942668|181493904|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.260
90807663|NCT01942668|181493904|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.792|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.792
90807664|NCT01942668|181493905|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.001
90807665|NCT01942668|181493905|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.095|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.095
90807666|NCT01942668|181493905|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.352|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.352
90807667|NCT01942668|181493905|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
90807668|NCT01942668|181493906|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.002
90807669|NCT01942668|181493906|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.075|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.075
90807670|NCT01942668|181493906|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.225|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.225
90807671|NCT01942668|181493906|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.769|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.769
90807672|NCT01942668|181493907|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.002
90807673|NCT01942668|181493907|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.084|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.084
91054645|NCT00444457|181991058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log-transformed GM|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.3|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 6B||0.30|0.06|
90807674|NCT01942668|181493907|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.183|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.183
90807675|NCT01942668|181493907|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.738|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.738
90807676|NCT01942668|181493908|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.006
90807677|NCT01942668|181493908|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.125|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.125
90807678|NCT01942668|181493908|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.386|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.386
90807679|NCT01942668|181493908|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.737|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.737
90807680|NCT01942668|181493909|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.009
90807681|NCT01942668|181493909|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.183|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.183
91054646|NCT00444457|181991058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log-transformed GM|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.23|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 6B||0.23|-0.00|
91054647|NCT00444457|181991058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.06|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 6B||0.06|-0.18|
91054648|NCT00444457|181991058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.09|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 9V||0.09|-0.13|
90807682|NCT01942668|181493909|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.745|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.745
90807683|NCT01942668|181493909|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
90807684|NCT01942668|181493910|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.035
90807685|NCT01942668|181493910|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.536|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.536
90807686|NCT01942668|181493910|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
90807687|NCT01942668|181493910|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
90807688|NCT01942668|181493911|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.261|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.261
90807689|NCT01942668|181493911|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.536|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.536
90807690|NCT01942668|181493911|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
90807691|NCT01942668|181493911|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
90807692|NCT01942668|181493912|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.463|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.463
90807693|NCT01942668|181493912|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.687|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.687
90807694|NCT01942668|181493912|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
90807695|NCT01942668|181493912|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
90807696|NCT01942668|181493913|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
90807697|NCT01942668|181493913|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.048|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.048
90807698|NCT01942668|181493913|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.049|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.049
90807699|NCT01942668|181493913|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.328|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.328
90807700|NCT01942668|181493914|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
90807701|NCT01942668|181493914|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.123|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.123
90807702|NCT01942668|181493914|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.030
90807703|NCT01942668|181493914|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.649|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.649
90807704|NCT01942668|181493915|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
90807705|NCT01942668|181493915|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.059|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.059
90807706|NCT01942668|181493915|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.023|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.023
90807707|NCT01942668|181493915|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.426|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.426
90807708|NCT01942668|181493916|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
90807709|NCT01942668|181493916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.044|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.044
90807710|NCT01942668|181493916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.011
90807711|NCT01942668|181493916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.481|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.481
90807712|NCT01942668|181493917|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
90807713|NCT01942668|181493917|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.110
90807714|NCT01942668|181493917|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.045|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.045
90807715|NCT01942668|181493917|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.853|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.853
90807716|NCT01942668|181493918|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
90807717|NCT01942668|181493918|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.245|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.245
90807718|NCT01942668|181493918|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.145|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.145
90807719|NCT01942668|181493918|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
90807720|NCT01942668|181493919|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
90807721|NCT01942668|181493919|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.163|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.163
90807722|NCT01942668|181493919|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.091|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.091
90807723|NCT01942668|181493919|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.693|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.693
90807724|NCT01942668|181493920|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
90807725|NCT01942668|181493920|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.178|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.178
90807726|NCT01942668|181493920|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.097|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.097
90807727|NCT01942668|181493920|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.522|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.522
90807728|NCT01942668|181493921|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
90807729|NCT01942668|181493921|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.315|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.315
90807730|NCT01942668|181493921|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.181|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.181
90807731|NCT01942668|181493921|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.821|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.821
90807732|NCT01942668|181493922|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
90807733|NCT01942668|181493922|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.387|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.387
90807734|NCT01942668|181493922|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.215|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.215
91054649|NCT00444457|181991058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.07|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 9V||0.07|-0.15|
90807735|NCT01942668|181493922|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.639|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.639
90807736|NCT01942668|181493923|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.008
90807737|NCT01942668|181493923|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.643|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.643
90807738|NCT01942668|181493923|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.501|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.501
90807739|NCT01942668|181493923|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
90807740|NCT01942668|181493924|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.013
90807741|NCT01942668|181493924|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.616|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.616
90807742|NCT01942668|181493924|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.352|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.352
90807743|NCT01942668|181493924|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
91054650|NCT00444457|181991058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.09|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 9V||0.09|-0.13|
90807744|NCT01942668|181493925|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.023|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.023
90807745|NCT01942668|181493925|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.535|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.535
90807746|NCT01942668|181493925|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.183|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.183
90807747|NCT01942668|181493925|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.738|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.738
90807748|NCT01942668|181493926|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo during Trimester 1|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
90807749|NCT01942668|181493926|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo during Trimester 1|Fisher Exact|||||||0.004
90807750|NCT01942668|181493926|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo during Trimester 1|Fisher Exact|||||||0.012
90807751|NCT01942668|181493926|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.032||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo during Trimester 1|Fisher Exact|||||||0.032
90807752|NCT01942668|181493927|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo during Trimester 2|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
90807753|NCT01942668|181493927|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo during Trimester 2|Fisher Exact|||||||0.022
91054651|NCT00444457|181991058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.06|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 14||0.06|-0.19|
90807754|NCT01942668|181493927|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo during Trimester 2|Fisher Exact|||||||0.004
90807755|NCT01942668|181493927|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.256||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo during Trimester 2|Fisher Exact|||||||0.256
90807756|NCT01942668|181493928|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo during Trimester 3|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
90807757|NCT01942668|181493928|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo during Trimester 3|Fisher Exact|||||||0.006
90807758|NCT01942668|181493928|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.025||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo during Trimester 3|Fisher Exact|||||||0.025
90807759|NCT01942668|181493928|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.182||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo during Trimester 3|Fisher Exact|||||||0.182
90807760|NCT01942668|181493929|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo during Trimester 4|Fisher Exact|||||||0.002
90807761|NCT01942668|181493929|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.469||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo during Trimester 4|Fisher Exact|||||||0.469
90807762|NCT01942668|181493929|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.188||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo during Trimester 4|Fisher Exact|||||||0.188
90807763|NCT01942668|181493929|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.613||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo during Trimester 4|Fisher Exact|||||||0.613
90807764|NCT01942668|181493934|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo during Trimester 1|Fisher Exact|||||||0.002
90807765|NCT01942668|181493934|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.135||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo during Trimester 1|Fisher Exact|||||||0.135
90807766|NCT01942668|181493934|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo during Trimester 1|Fisher Exact|||||||0.260
90807767|NCT01942668|181493934|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.257||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo during Trimester 1|Fisher Exact|||||||0.257
90807768|NCT01942668|181493935|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo during Trimester 2|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
90807769|NCT01942668|181493935|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.085||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo during Trimester 2|Fisher Exact|||||||0.085
90807770|NCT01942668|181493935|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.184||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo during Trimester 2|Fisher Exact|||||||0.184
90807771|NCT01942668|181493935|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.681||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo during Trimester 2|Fisher Exact|||||||0.681
90807772|NCT01942668|181493936|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo during Trimester 3|Fisher Exact|||||||0.008
90807773|NCT01942668|181493936|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo during Trimester 3|Fisher Exact|||||||0.036
90807774|NCT01942668|181493936|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.138||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo during Trimester 3|Fisher Exact|||||||0.138
90807775|NCT01942668|181493936|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.685||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo during Trimester 3|Fisher Exact|||||||0.685
90807776|NCT01942668|181493937|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.023||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo during Trimester 4|Fisher Exact|||||||0.023
90807777|NCT01942668|181493937|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.265||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo during Trimester 4|Fisher Exact|||||||0.265
90807778|NCT01942668|181493937|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo during Trimester 4|Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
90807779|NCT01942668|181493937|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo during Trimester 4|Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
90807780|NCT01942668|181493942|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.246|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|-1.17||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.17|-2.13|<0.001
90807781|NCT01942668|181493942|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.242|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.79|-0.84||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.84|-1.79|<0.001
90807782|NCT01942668|181493942|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.242|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|-0.69||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.69|-1.64|<0.001
90807783|NCT01942668|181493942|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.238|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|-0.58||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.58|-1.51|<0.001
90807784|NCT01942668|181493943|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.258|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|-0.89||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.89|-1.91|<0.001
90807785|NCT01942668|181493943|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.253|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|-0.82||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.82|-1.81|<0.001
90807786|NCT01942668|181493943|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.257|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|-0.62||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.62|-1.63|<0.001
90807787|NCT01942668|181493943|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.254||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|-0.19||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.19|-1.19|0.007
90807788|NCT01942668|181493944|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.276|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|-0.66||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.66|-1.75|<0.001
90807789|NCT01942668|181493944|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.265|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|-0.94||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.94|-1.98|<0.001
90807790|NCT01942668|181493944|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.272|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|-0.69||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.69|-1.76|<0.001
90807791|NCT01942668|181493944|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.272||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|-0.19||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.19|-1.26|0.008
90807792|NCT01942668|181493945|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.161||0.284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.14||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.14|-0.49|0.284
90807793|NCT01942668|181493945|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.158||0.732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.26||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.26|-0.36|0.732
91054652|NCT00444457|181991058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.08|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 14||0.08|-0.17|
90807794|NCT01942668|181493945|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.159||0.437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.19||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.19|-0.44|0.437
90807795|NCT01942668|181493945|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.156||0.439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.19||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.19|-0.43|0.439
90807796|NCT01942668|181493946|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.169||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.02||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.02|-0.68|0.040
90807797|NCT01942668|181493946|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.165||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.02||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.02|-0.63|0.066
90807798|NCT01942668|181493946|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.168||0.469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.21||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.21|-0.45|0.469
90807799|NCT01942668|181493946|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.166||0.616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.24||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.24|-0.41|0.616
90807800|NCT01942668|181493947|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.183||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.15||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.15|-0.57|0.250
90807801|NCT01942668|181493947|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.175||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.2||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.20|-0.88|0.002
90807802|NCT01942668|181493947|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.179||0.796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.31||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.31|-0.40|0.796
90807803|NCT01942668|181493947|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.179||0.955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.34||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.34|-0.36|0.955
90807804|NCT01942668|181493948|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.143||0.474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.18||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.18|-0.38|0.474
90807805|NCT01942668|181493948|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.15||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.15|-0.40|0.378
90807806|NCT01942668|181493948|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.06||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.06|-0.61|0.018
90807807|NCT01942668|181493948|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.138||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.22||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.22|-0.32|0.730
90807808|NCT01942668|181493949|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.152||0.197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.1||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.10|-0.49|0.197
90807809|NCT01942668|181493949|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.148||0.308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.14||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.14|-0.44|0.308
90807810|NCT01942668|181493949|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.152||0.117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.06||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.06|-0.54|0.117
90807811|NCT01942668|181493949|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.149||0.739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.24||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.24|-0.34|0.739
90807812|NCT01942668|181493950|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.171||0.635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.26||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.26|-0.42|0.635
90807813|NCT01942668|181493950|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.164||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.1||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.10|-0.75|0.010
90807814|NCT01942668|181493950|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.169||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.05||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.05|-0.62|0.092
90807815|NCT01942668|181493950|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.168||0.243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.13||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.13|-0.53|0.243
90807816|NCT01942668|181493951|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.0||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.00|-0.83|0.049
90807817|NCT01942668|181493951|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.206||0.773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.46||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.46|-0.34|0.773
90807818|NCT01942668|181493951|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.208||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.05||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.05|-0.77|0.081
90807819|NCT01942668|181493951|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.204||0.625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.3||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.30|-0.50|0.625
90807820|NCT01942668|181493952|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.221||0.221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.16||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.16|-0.70|0.221
90807821|NCT01942668|181493952|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.214||0.992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.42||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.42|-0.42|0.992
90807822|NCT01942668|181493952|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.219||0.181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.14||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.14|-0.72|0.181
90807823|NCT01942668|181493952|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.216||0.846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.38||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.38|-0.47|0.846
90807824|NCT01942668|181493953|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.257||0.421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.3||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.30|-0.71|0.421
90807825|NCT01942668|181493953|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.244||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.01||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.01|-0.97|0.044
90807826|NCT01942668|181493953|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.252||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.07||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.07|-0.92|0.093
90807827|NCT01942668|181493953|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.252||0.247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.2||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.20|-0.79|0.247
90807828|NCT01942668|181493954|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.29||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.29|-0.87|<0.001
90807829|NCT01942668|181493954|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.143||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.06||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.06|-0.62|0.016
90807830|NCT01942668|181493954|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.143|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.2||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.20|-0.76|<0.001
90807831|NCT01942668|181493954|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.05||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.05|-0.60|0.023
90807832|NCT01942668|181493955|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.25||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.25|-0.84|<0.001
90807833|NCT01942668|181493955|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.146||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.13||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.13|-0.71|0.004
90807834|NCT01942668|181493955|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.149||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.14||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.14|-0.73|0.003
90807835|NCT01942668|181493955|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.147||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.09||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.09|-0.49|0.179
90807836|NCT01942668|181493956|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.169||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.1||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.10|-0.76|0.012
90807837|NCT01942668|181493956|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.162|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.41||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.41|-1.05|<0.001
90807838|NCT01942668|181493956|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.166||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.16||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.16|-0.81|0.004
90807839|NCT01942668|181493956|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.166||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.03||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.03|-0.63|0.070
90807840|NCT01942668|181493957|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.059||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.44|-0.35||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.35|-8.44|0.033
90807841|NCT01942668|181493957|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.015||0.207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|1.41||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.41|-6.50|0.207
90807842|NCT01942668|181493957|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.03||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.58|-0.61||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.61|-8.58|0.024
90807843|NCT01942668|181493957|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.007||0.207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.47|1.41||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.41|-6.47|0.207
90807844|NCT01942668|181493958|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.138||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.68|-1.28||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.28|-9.68|0.011
90807845|NCT01942668|181493958|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.093||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.36|-1.14||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.14|-9.36|0.012
91054653|NCT00444457|181991058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log-transformed GM|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.15|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 14||0.15|-0.11|
91014693|NCT01945034|181912248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.42|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 2(AM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.42|-0.60|0.724
91014694|NCT01945034|181912248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.48|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 2(AM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms.||0.48|-0.76|0.651
91054654|NCT00444457|181991058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.0|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 18C||0.00|-0.25|
90807846|NCT01942668|181493958|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.122||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.75|-1.41||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.41|-9.75|0.009
90807847|NCT01942668|181493958|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.096||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.11|-0.87||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.87|-9.11|0.018
90807848|NCT01942668|181493959|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.427||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.38|0.16||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.16|-9.38|0.058
90807849|NCT01942668|181493959|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.322||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.04|-2.92||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.92|-12.04|0.001
90807850|NCT01942668|181493959|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.397|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.67|-3.25||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.25|-12.67|<0.001
90807851|NCT01942668|181493959|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.404||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|-2.06||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.06|-11.50|0.005
90807852|NCT01942668|181493960|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.77||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.92|-1.04||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.04|-11.92|0.020
90807853|NCT01942668|181493960|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.715||0.216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.69|1.97||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.97|-8.69|0.216
90807854|NCT01942668|181493960|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.734||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.22|-0.48||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.48|-11.22|0.033
90807855|NCT01942668|181493960|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.685||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.27|2.28||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.28|-8.27|0.265
90807856|NCT01942668|181493961|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.854||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.14|-1.93||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.93|-13.14|0.008
90807857|NCT01942668|181493961|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.781||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.18|-1.26||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.26|-12.18|0.016
90807858|NCT01942668|181493961|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.847||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.28|-3.1||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.10|-14.28|0.002
90807859|NCT01942668|181493961|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.68|-0.68||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.68|-11.68|0.028
90807860|NCT01942668|181493962|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.18||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|-0.31||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.31|-12.80|0.040
91014695|NCT01945034|181912248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.5||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|1.05|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 2 Mid-day: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||1.05|-0.02|0.059
91014696|NCT01945034|181912248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.42|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 2 Mid-day: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.42|-0.57|0.766
91014697|NCT01945034|181912248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|0.01|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 2 Mid-day: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms.||0.01|-1.19|0.053
91054655|NCT00444457|181991058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.12|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 18C||-0.12|-0.37|
90807861|NCT01942668|181493962|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.04||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.99|-4.04||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.04|-15.99|0.001
90807862|NCT01942668|181493962|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.129||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.11|-3.81||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.81|-16.11|0.002
90807863|NCT01942668|181493962|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.127||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.99|-0.7||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.70|-12.99|0.029
90807864|NCT01942668|181493963|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.003||0.294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.75|9.05||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.05|-2.75|0.294
90807865|NCT01942668|181493963|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.922||0.327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.87|8.6||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.60|-2.87|0.327
90807866|NCT01942668|181493963|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.947||0.637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.18|4.39||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.39|-7.18|0.637
91054656|NCT00444457|181991058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.01|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 18C||0.01|-0.25|
91054657|NCT00444457|181991058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.11|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 19F||0.11|-0.18|
90807867|NCT01942668|181493963|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.893||0.952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.51|5.86||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.86|-5.51|0.952
90807868|NCT01942668|181493964|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.219||0.573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.51|8.14||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.14|-4.51|0.573
90807869|NCT01942668|181493964|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.107||0.769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.01|5.19||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.19|-7.01|0.769
90807870|NCT01942668|181493964|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.176||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.56|-0.09||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.09|-12.56|0.047
90807871|NCT01942668|181493964|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.133||0.409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.74|3.56||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.56|-8.74|0.409
90807872|NCT01942668|181493965|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.443||0.579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.85|8.67||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.67|-4.85|0.579
90807873|NCT01942668|181493965|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.275||0.223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.43|2.44||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.44|-10.43|0.223
90807874|NCT01942668|181493965|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.367||0.542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.67|4.56||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.56|-8.67|0.542
90807875|NCT01942668|181493965|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.376||0.476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.04|4.23||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.23|-9.04|0.476
90807876|NCT01942668|181493966|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.593||0.631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.34|3.84||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.84|-6.34|0.631
90807877|NCT01942668|181493966|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.54||0.651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.84|6.14||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.14|-3.84|0.651
90807878|NCT01942668|181493966|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.578||0.813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.67|4.45||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.45|-5.67|0.813
90807879|NCT01942668|181493966|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.515||0.869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.35|4.52||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.52|-5.35|0.869
90807880|NCT01942668|181493967|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.79||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.48|0.48||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.48|-10.48|0.074
91054658|NCT00444457|181991058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.22|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 19F||-0.22|-0.51|
90807881|NCT01942668|181493967|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.722||0.748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.22|4.47||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.47|-6.22|0.748
90807882|NCT01942668|181493967|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.805||0.987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.46|5.56||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.56|-5.46|0.987
90807883|NCT01942668|181493967|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.741||0.709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.41|4.36||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.36|-6.41|0.709
90807884|NCT01942668|181493968|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.968||0.379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.44|3.22||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.22|-8.44|0.379
90807885|NCT01942668|181493968|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.832||0.279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.64|2.49||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.49|-8.64|0.279
90807886|NCT01942668|181493968|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.949||0.894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.19|5.4||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.40|-6.19|0.894
90807887|NCT01942668|181493968|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.923||0.308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.72|2.76||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.76|-8.72|0.308
90807888|NCT01942668|181493969|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.081||0.558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.24|7.86||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.86|-4.24|0.558
90807889|NCT01942668|181493969|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.031||0.233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|9.57||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.57|-2.34|0.233
91054659|NCT00444457|181991058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.2|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 19F||-0.20|-0.47|
90807890|NCT01942668|181493969|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.036||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|12.13||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||12.13|0.20|0.043
90807891|NCT01942668|181493969|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.99||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|7.95||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.95|-3.80|0.488
90807892|NCT01942668|181493970|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.206||0.205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|10.37||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||10.37|-2.23|0.205
90807893|NCT01942668|181493970|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.133||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.43|15.74||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||15.74|3.43|0.002
90807894|NCT01942668|181493970|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.193||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|11.32||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.32|-1.23|0.115
90807895|NCT01942668|181493970|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.152||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.75|15.13||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||15.13|2.75|0.005
90807896|NCT01942668|181493971|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.719||0.796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.34|8.27||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.27|-6.34|0.796
90807897|NCT01942668|181493971|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.568||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|12.15||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||12.15|-1.87|0.150
90807898|NCT01942668|181493971|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.657||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|15.77||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||15.77|1.39|0.019
90807899|NCT01942668|181493971|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.667||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|14.71||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||14.71|0.30|0.041
90807900|NCT01942668|181493972|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.197||0.221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|1.62||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.62|-7.00|0.221
90807901|NCT01942668|181493972|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.154||0.511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.65|2.81||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.81|-5.65|0.511
90807902|NCT01942668|181493972|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.168||0.761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|4.92||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.92|-3.60|0.761
90807903|NCT01942668|181493972|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.128||0.332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.25|2.11||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.11|-6.25|0.332
90807904|NCT01942668|181493973|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.474||0.687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.86|3.86||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.86|-5.86|0.687
90807905|NCT01942668|181493973|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.411||0.373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.88|2.58||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.58|-6.88|0.373
90807906|NCT01942668|181493973|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.466||0.714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.75|3.94||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.94|-5.75|0.714
90807907|NCT01942668|181493973|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.427||0.711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.67|3.87||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.87|-5.67|0.711
90807908|NCT01942668|181493974|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.682||0.415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.46|3.08||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.08|-7.46|0.415
90807909|NCT01942668|181493974|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.564||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.04|-0.97||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.97|-11.04|0.019
90807910|NCT01942668|181493974|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.639||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|0.46||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.46|-9.90|0.074
90807911|NCT01942668|181493974|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.637||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.94|-0.57||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.57|-10.94|0.030
90807912|NCT01942668|181493975|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.109||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.13|0.16||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.16|-8.13|0.059
90807913|NCT01942668|181493975|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.067||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.63|1.49||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.49|-6.63|0.215
90807914|NCT01942668|181493975|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.084||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.19|-1.0||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.00|-9.19|0.015
90807915|NCT01942668|181493975|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.042||0.122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.17|0.85||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.85|-7.17|0.122
90807916|NCT01942668|181493976|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.135||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.52|-1.13||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.13|-9.52|0.013
90807917|NCT01942668|181493976|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.08||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.85|-1.68||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.68|-9.85|0.006
90807918|NCT01942668|181493976|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.132||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.77|-1.4||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.40|-9.77|0.009
90807919|NCT01942668|181493976|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.093||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.79|-1.57||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.57|-9.79|0.007
90807920|NCT01942668|181493977|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.47||0.171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.24|1.47||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.47|-8.24|0.171
90807921|NCT01942668|181493977|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.364||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.14|-1.85||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.85|-11.14|0.006
90807922|NCT01942668|181493977|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.434||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.17|-2.61||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.61|-12.17|0.003
90807923|NCT01942668|181493977|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.429||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.46|-1.92||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.92|-11.46|0.006
90807924|NCT01942668|181493978|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.037||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.21|-0.21||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.21|-8.21|0.039
90807925|NCT01942668|181493978|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.997||0.232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.31|1.53||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.53|-6.31|0.232
90807926|NCT01942668|181493978|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.012||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.32|-0.42||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.42|-8.32|0.030
90807927|NCT01942668|181493978|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.973||0.262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.09|1.66||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.66|-6.09|0.262
90807928|NCT01942668|181493979|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.119||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.57|-1.25||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.25|-9.57|0.011
90807929|NCT01942668|181493979|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.065||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|-1.48||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.48|-9.60|0.008
90807930|NCT01942668|181493979|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.115||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|-1.59||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.59|-9.90|0.007
90807931|NCT01942668|181493979|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.078||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|-1.24||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.24|-9.40|0.011
90807932|NCT01942668|181493980|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.421||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.96|0.55||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.55|-8.96|0.083
90807933|NCT01942668|181493980|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.317||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.91|-2.81||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.81|-11.91|0.002
90807934|NCT01942668|181493980|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.384|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|-3.23||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.23|-12.60|<0.001
90807935|NCT01942668|181493980|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.381||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.46|-2.1||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.10|-11.46|0.005
90807936|NCT01942668|181493981|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.11||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.11|-0.12|0.938
90807937|NCT01942668|181493981|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059||0.779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.13||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.13|-0.10|0.779
90807938|NCT01942668|181493981|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059||0.646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.09||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.09|-0.14|0.646
90807939|NCT01942668|181493981|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.058||0.421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.16||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.16|-0.07|0.421
90807940|NCT01942668|181493982|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.24||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.24|-0.01|0.075
90807941|NCT01942668|181493982|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.23||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.23|-0.01|0.074
90807942|NCT01942668|181493982|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.18||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.18|-0.07|0.370
90807943|NCT01942668|181493982|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062||0.851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.13||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.13|-0.11|0.851
90807944|NCT01942668|181493983|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067||0.452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.08||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.08|-0.18|0.452
90807945|NCT01942668|181493983|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.064||0.244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.2||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.20|-0.05|0.244
90807946|NCT01942668|181493983|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.065||0.354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.07||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.07|-0.19|0.354
90807947|NCT01942668|181493983|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.065||0.527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.09||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.09|-0.17|0.527
90807948|NCT01942668|181493984|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|-1.55||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.55|-2.29|<0.001
90807949|NCT01942668|181493984|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.189|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|-1.07||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.07|-1.81|<0.001
90807950|NCT01942668|181493984|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.189|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|-1.07||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.07|-1.81|<0.001
90807951|NCT01942668|181493984|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.188|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|-0.88||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.88|-1.62|<0.001
90807952|NCT01942668|181493985|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.199|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|-1.34||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.34|-2.12|<0.001
90807953|NCT01942668|181493985|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.197|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|-0.91||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.91|-1.68|<0.001
90807954|NCT01942668|181493985|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.197|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|-0.81||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.81|-1.58|<0.001
90807955|NCT01942668|181493985|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.198|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|-0.57||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.57|-1.34|<0.001
90807956|NCT01942668|181493986|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.207|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|-1.25||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.25|-2.06|<0.001
90807957|NCT01942668|181493986|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.204|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|-1.07||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.07|-1.87|<0.001
90807958|NCT01942668|181493986|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.205|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.9||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.90|-1.70|<0.001
90807959|NCT01942668|181493986|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.207|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|-0.67||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.67|-1.48|<0.001
90807960|NCT01942668|181493987|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.131||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.06||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.06|-0.46|0.126
90807961|NCT01942668|181493987|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.09||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.09|-0.42|0.200
90807962|NCT01942668|181493987|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.1||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.10|-0.41|0.222
90807963|NCT01942668|181493987|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.14||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.14|-0.37|0.358
90807964|NCT01942668|181493988|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.138||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.04||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.04|-0.59|0.023
90807965|NCT01942668|181493988|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.138||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.01||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.01|-0.55|0.045
90807966|NCT01942668|181493988|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.15||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.15|-0.39|0.384
90807967|NCT01942668|181493988|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.138||0.424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.16||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.16|-0.38|0.424
90807968|NCT01942668|181493989|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.152||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.08||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.08|-0.52|0.153
90807969|NCT01942668|181493989|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.151||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.01||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.01|-0.58|0.058
90807970|NCT01942668|181493989|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.151||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.21||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.21|-0.39|0.550
90807971|NCT01942668|181493989|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.153||0.854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.27||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.27|-0.33|0.854
90807972|NCT01942668|181493990|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116||0.181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.07||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.07|-0.38|0.181
90807973|NCT01942668|181493990|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.04||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.04|-0.41|0.108
90807974|NCT01942668|181493990|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.115||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.06||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.06|-0.51|0.014
90807975|NCT01942668|181493990|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.115||0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.11||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.11|-0.34|0.323
90807976|NCT01942668|181493991|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.124||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.01||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.01|-0.48|0.056
90807977|NCT01942668|181493991|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.124||0.279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.11||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.11|-0.38|0.279
90807978|NCT01942668|181493991|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.123||0.435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.15||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.15|-0.34|0.435
90807979|NCT01942668|181493991|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.124||0.607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.18||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.18|-0.31|0.607
90807980|NCT01942668|181493992|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.138||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.01||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.01|-0.53|0.060
90807981|NCT01942668|181493992|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.04||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.04|-0.57|0.026
90807982|NCT01942668|181493992|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.04||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.04|-0.49|0.097
90807983|NCT01942668|181493992|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.138||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.1||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.10|-0.44|0.230
90807984|NCT01942668|181493993|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.06||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.06|-0.61|0.107
90807985|NCT01942668|181493993|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.169||0.302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.16||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.16|-0.51|0.302
90807986|NCT01942668|181493993|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.169||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.06||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.06|-0.60|0.106
90807987|NCT01942668|181493993|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.169||0.156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.09||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.09|-0.57|0.156
90807988|NCT01942668|181493994|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.177||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.04||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.04|-0.65|0.081
90807989|NCT01942668|181493994|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.175||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.12||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.12|-0.56|0.212
90807990|NCT01942668|181493994|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.175||0.345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.18||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.18|-0.51|0.345
90807991|NCT01942668|181493994|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.176||0.829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.31||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.31|-0.38|0.829
90807992|NCT01942668|181493995|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.201||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.05||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.05|-0.84|0.029
90807993|NCT01942668|181493995|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.199||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.05||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.05|-0.84|0.026
90807994|NCT01942668|181493995|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.199||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.06||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.06|-0.72|0.093
90807995|NCT01942668|181493995|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.202||0.223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.15||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.15|-0.64|0.223
90807996|NCT01942668|181493996|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.4||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.40|-0.85|<0.001
90807997|NCT01942668|181493996|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.26||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.26|-0.71|<0.001
90807998|NCT01942668|181493996|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.3||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.30|-0.75|<0.001
90807999|NCT01942668|181493996|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|-0.2||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.20|-0.64|<0.001
90808000|NCT01942668|181493997|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.38||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.38|-0.85|<0.001
90808001|NCT01942668|181493997|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.22||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.22|-0.69|<0.001
90808002|NCT01942668|181493997|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.12||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.12|-0.59|0.003
90808003|NCT01942668|181493997|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.03||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.03|-0.50|0.030
90808004|NCT01942668|181493998|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.36||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.36|-0.89|<0.001
90808005|NCT01942668|181493998|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.36||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.36|-0.88|<0.001
90808006|NCT01942668|181493998|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.21||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.21|-0.73|<0.001
90808007|NCT01942668|181493998|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.1||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.10|-0.63|0.006
90808008|NCT01942668|181493999|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.629||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.08|-1.69||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.69|-8.08|0.003
91054660|NCT00444457|181991058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.11|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 23F||0.11|-0.17|
90808009|NCT01942668|181493999|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.626||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|-0.42||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.42|-6.80|0.027
90808010|NCT01942668|181493999|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.618||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.61|-0.26||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.26|-6.61|0.034
90808011|NCT01942668|181493999|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.621||0.119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.71|0.65||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.65|-5.71|0.119
90808012|NCT01942668|181494000|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.73|-2.05||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.05|-8.73|0.002
90808013|NCT01942668|181494000|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.696||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.72|-2.06||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.06|-8.72|0.002
90808014|NCT01942668|181494000|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.685||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.19|-1.58||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.58|-8.19|0.004
90808015|NCT01942668|181494000|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.698||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.75|-1.09||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.09|-7.75|0.009
91054661|NCT00444457|181991058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log-transformed GM|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.22|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 23F||0.22|-0.07|
90808016|NCT01942668|181494001|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.855|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.18|-2.9||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.90|-10.18|<0.001
90808017|NCT01942668|181494001|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.843|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.23|-4.0||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.00|-11.23|<0.001
90808018|NCT01942668|181494001|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.835|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.04|-3.84||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.84|-11.04|<0.001
90808019|NCT01942668|181494001|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.863|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.41|-3.1||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.10|-10.41|<0.001
91054662|NCT00444457|181991058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log-transformed GM|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.25|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 23F||0.25|-0.03|
90808020|NCT01942668|181494002|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.146|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.55|-3.13||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.13|-11.55|<0.001
90808021|NCT01942668|181494002|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.139||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|-1.4||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.40|-9.80|0.009
90808022|NCT01942668|181494002|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.132||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.31|-0.95||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.95|-9.31|0.016
91054663|NCT00444457|181991058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.06|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Additional serotypes - serotype 1||0.06|-0.20|
91054664|NCT00444457|181991058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.03|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Additional serotypes - serotype 1||0.03|-0.21|
90808023|NCT01942668|181494002|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.13||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.22|1.14||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.14|-7.22|0.154
90808024|NCT01942668|181494003|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.213|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.72|-4.04||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.04|-12.72|<0.001
90808025|NCT01942668|181494003|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.201|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.83|-3.2||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.20|-11.83|<0.001
90808026|NCT01942668|181494003|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.193|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.63|-3.02||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.02|-11.63|<0.001
90808027|NCT01942668|181494003|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.207||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.93|-1.27||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.27|-9.93|0.011
90808028|NCT01942668|181494004|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.439|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.76|-4.19||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.19|-13.76|<0.001
90808029|NCT01942668|181494004|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.42|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.34|-4.85||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.85|-14.34|<0.001
90808030|NCT01942668|181494004|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.412|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.03|-4.56||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.56|-14.03|<0.001
90808031|NCT01942668|181494004|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.442||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.51|-2.93||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.93|-12.51|0.002
90808032|NCT01942668|181494005|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.576||0.434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.03|7.07||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.07|-3.03|0.434
90808033|NCT01942668|181494005|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.564||0.442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.06|7.0||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.00|-3.06|0.442
90808034|NCT01942668|181494005|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.558||0.558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.52|6.51||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.51|-3.52|0.558
90808035|NCT01942668|181494005|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.555||0.534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.42|6.6||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.60|-3.42|0.534
90808036|NCT01942668|181494006|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.719||0.927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.08|5.58||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.58|-5.08|0.927
90808037|NCT01942668|181494006|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.699||0.541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.95|3.64||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.64|-6.95|0.541
90808038|NCT01942668|181494006|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.691||0.171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.96|1.6||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.60|-8.96|0.171
91054665|NCT00444457|181991058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.11|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Additional serotypes - serotype 1||0.11|-0.15|
91054666|NCT00444457|181991058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log-transformed GM|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.18|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Additional serotypes - serotype 3||0.18|-0.06|
91054667|NCT00444457|181991058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.04|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Additional serotypes - serotype 3||0.04|-0.18|
91054668|NCT00444457|181991058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|-0.01|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Additional serotypes - serotype 3||-0.01|-0.25|
91054669|NCT00444457|181991058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log-transformed GM|0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.28|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Additional serotypes - serotype 5||0.28|0.05|
90808039|NCT01942668|181494006|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.708||0.667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.48|4.15||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.15|-6.48|0.667
90808040|NCT01942668|181494007|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.863||0.662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.36|6.87||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.87|-4.36|0.662
90808041|NCT01942668|181494007|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.834||0.635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.91|4.21||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.21|-6.91|0.635
90808042|NCT01942668|181494007|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.827||0.877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.98|5.11||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.11|-5.98|0.877
91054670|NCT00444457|181991058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log-transformed GM|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.21|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Additional serotypes - serotype 5||0.21|-0.00|
90808043|NCT01942668|181494007|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.867||0.893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.01|5.24||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.24|-6.01|0.893
90808044|NCT01942668|181494008|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.058||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.48|3.59||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.59|-4.48|0.830
90808045|NCT01942668|181494008|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.05||0.755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.66|3.38||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.38|-4.66|0.755
90808046|NCT01942668|181494008|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.046||0.802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|4.53||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.53|-3.50|0.802
90808047|NCT01942668|181494008|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.043||0.823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.46|3.55||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.55|-4.46|0.823
90808048|NCT01942668|181494009|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.166||0.255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.71|1.78||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.78|-6.71|0.255
90808049|NCT01942668|181494009|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.154||0.293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.49|1.96||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.96|-6.49|0.293
90808050|NCT01942668|181494009|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.148||0.502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.66|2.77||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.77|-5.66|0.502
91054671|NCT00444457|181991058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.05|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Additional serotypes - serotype 5||0.05|-0.17|
91054672|NCT00444457|181991058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log-transformed GM|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.19|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Additional serotypes - serotype 6A||0.19|-0.04|
91054673|NCT00444457|181991058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log-transformed GM|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.21|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Additional serotypes - serotype 6A||0.21|-0.02|
91054674|NCT00444457|181991058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log-transformed GM|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.14|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Additional serotypes - serotype 6A||0.14|-0.10|
91054675|NCT00444457|181991058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log-transformed GM|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.15|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Additional serotypes - serotype 7F||0.15|-0.10|
91054676|NCT00444457|181991058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.07|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Additional serotypes - serotype 7F||0.07|-0.17|
91054677|NCT00444457|181991058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.05|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Additional serotypes - serotype 7F||0.05|-0.20|
90808051|NCT01942668|181494009|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.161||0.495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.71|2.76||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.76|-5.71|0.495
90808052|NCT01942668|181494010|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.274||0.389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.42|2.5||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.50|-6.42|0.389
90808053|NCT01942668|181494010|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.253||0.281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.85|1.99||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.99|-6.85|0.281
90808054|NCT01942668|181494010|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.25||0.504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.92|2.91||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.91|-5.92|0.504
90808055|NCT01942668|181494010|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.277||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.15|2.78||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.78|-6.15|0.460
90808056|NCT01942668|181494011|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.513||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|9.28||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.28|-0.58|0.084
91054678|NCT00444457|181991058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log-transformed GM|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.13|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Additional serotypes - serotype 19A||0.13|-0.11|
91054679|NCT00444457|181991058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.1|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Additional serotypes - serotype 19A||0.10|-0.14|
90808057|NCT01942668|181494011|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.506||0.298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|7.53||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.53|-2.30|0.298
91054680|NCT00444457|181991058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.08|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Additional serotypes - serotype 19A||0.08|-0.15|
90808058|NCT01942668|181494011|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.496||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|8.62||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.62|-1.17|0.136
90808059|NCT01942668|181494011|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.492||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|8.37||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.37|-1.41|0.163
90808060|NCT01942668|181494012|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.647||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|10.31||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||10.31|-0.08|0.054
90808061|NCT01942668|181494012|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.634||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.93|12.26||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||12.26|1.93|0.007
90808062|NCT01942668|181494012|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.623||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|11.04||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.04|0.75|0.025
90808063|NCT01942668|181494012|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.638||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|13.55||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||13.55|3.20|0.002
90808064|NCT01942668|181494013|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.945||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|10.8||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||10.80|-0.76|0.089
90808065|NCT01942668|181494013|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.92||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.83|13.29||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||13.29|1.83|0.010
91054681|NCT06378749|181991094|OTHER|||||||0.029|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.029
91054682|NCT06378749|181991095|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91054683|NCT06378749|181991096|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91054684|NCT06378749|181991097|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91054685|NCT06378749|181991098|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91054686|NCT00759902|181991126|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 90% confidence intervals for the ratios (test/reference) of the least squares means of the non-transformed parameters Cmax, AUClast, AUCinf, Tmax, λz, and T1/2, were calculated.|mean ratio|123.0||||||90.0|112.9|134.1|||ANOVA|log-transformation||||134.1|112.9|
91054687|NCT00759902|181991128|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 90% confidence intervals for the ratios (test/reference) of the least squares means of the non-transformed parameters Cmax, AUClast, AUCinf, Tmax, λz, and T1/2, were calculated.|mean ratio|101.7||||||90.0|98.5|104.9|||ANOVA|log-transformation||||104.9|98.5|
91054688|NCT00759902|181991129|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 90% confidence intervals for the ratios (test/reference) of the least squares means of the non-transformed parameters Cmax, AUClast, AUCinf, Tmax, λz, and T1/2, were calculated.|mean ratio|102.9||||||90.0|99.3|106.5|||ANOVA|log-transformation||||106.5|99.3|
91054689|NCT03954834|181991241|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|-1.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.63|-2.18|<0.001
91054690|NCT03954834|181991241|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|-1.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.65|-2.21|<0.001
90808066|NCT01942668|181494013|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.911||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.94|13.36||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||13.36|1.94|0.009
90808067|NCT01942668|181494013|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.944||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.11|13.67||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||13.67|2.11|0.007
90808068|NCT01942668|181494014|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.749||0.349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.07|1.79||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.79|-5.07|0.349
90808069|NCT01942668|181494014|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.743||0.499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|2.24||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.24|-4.60|0.499
90808070|NCT01942668|181494014|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.737||0.936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.27|3.55||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.55|-3.27|0.936
90808071|NCT01942668|181494014|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.736||0.696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.08|2.72||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.72|-4.08|0.696
91014698|NCT01945034|181912248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.92|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 2 Mid-day: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.92|-0.21|0.212
91014699|NCT01945034|181912248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.55|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 2 Mid-day: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.55|-0.49|0.911
91014700|NCT01945034|181912248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.3|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 2 Mid-day: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms.||0.30|-0.96|0.305
90808072|NCT01942668|181494015|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.924||0.572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.86|2.69||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.69|-4.86|0.572
90808073|NCT01942668|181494015|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.914||0.553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.89|2.62||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.62|-4.89|0.553
90808074|NCT01942668|181494015|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.907||0.456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.16|2.32||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.32|-5.16|0.456
90808075|NCT01942668|181494015|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.919||0.949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.89|3.64||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.64|-3.89|0.949
91014701|NCT01945034|181912248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.5||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|1.02|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 2(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||1.02|-0.05|0.075
91014702|NCT01945034|181912248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.6|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 2(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.60|-0.39|0.684
90808076|NCT01942668|181494016|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.026||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.34|0.61||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.61|-7.34|0.097
90808077|NCT01942668|181494016|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.01||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.28|-1.4||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.40|-9.28|0.008
90808078|NCT01942668|181494016|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.003||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.87|-1.01||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.01|-8.87|0.014
90808079|NCT01942668|181494016|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.029||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.86|0.1||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.10|-7.86|0.056
91014703|NCT01945034|181912248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.21|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 2(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms.||0.21|-0.98|0.208
91014704|NCT01945034|181912248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.85|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 2(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.85|-0.27|0.304
90808080|NCT01942668|181494017|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.665||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.18|-1.65||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.65|-8.18|0.003
90808081|NCT01942668|181494017|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.66||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.05|-0.53||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.53|-7.05|0.023
90808082|NCT01942668|181494017|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.653||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.52|-0.04||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.04|-6.52|0.047
90808083|NCT01942668|181494017|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.652||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.65|-0.17||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.17|-6.65|0.039
90808084|NCT01942668|181494018|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.713|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.05|-2.33||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.33|-9.05|<0.001
90808085|NCT01942668|181494018|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.704||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.93|-2.24||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.24|-8.93|0.001
90808086|NCT01942668|181494018|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.697||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.45|-1.79||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.79|-8.45|0.003
90808087|NCT01942668|181494018|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.708||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.46|-1.76||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.76|-8.46|0.003
90808088|NCT01942668|181494019|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.885||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.71|-2.32||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.32|-9.71|0.001
90808089|NCT01942668|181494019|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.871|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.89|-3.55||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.55|-10.89|<0.001
90808090|NCT01942668|181494019|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.863|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.58|-3.27||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.27|-10.58|<0.001
90808091|NCT01942668|181494019|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.886|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.12|-2.72||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.72|-10.12|<0.001
90808092|NCT01942668|181494020|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.609||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.75|-1.44||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.44|-7.75|0.004
90808093|NCT01942668|181494020|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.605||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.64|-0.34||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.34|-6.64|0.030
90808094|NCT01942668|181494020|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.598||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.29|-0.02||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.02|-6.29|0.049
90808095|NCT01942668|181494020|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.597||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.61|0.65||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.65|-5.61|0.121
90808096|NCT01942668|181494021|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.682||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.74|-2.14||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.14|-8.74|0.001
90808097|NCT01942668|181494021|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.674|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.81|-2.25||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.25|-8.81|<0.001
90808098|NCT01942668|181494021|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.667||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.39|-1.85||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.85|-8.39|0.002
90808099|NCT01942668|181494021|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.677||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.93|-1.35||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.35|-7.93|0.006
90808100|NCT01942668|181494022|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.849|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.91|-2.65||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.65|-9.91|<0.001
90808101|NCT01942668|181494022|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.835|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.18|-3.98||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.98|-11.18|<0.001
90808102|NCT01942668|181494022|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.828|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.02|-3.84||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.84|-11.02|<0.001
90808103|NCT01942668|181494022|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.851|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.17|-2.91||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.91|-10.17|<0.001
90808104|NCT01942668|181494023|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049||0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.16||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.16|-0.04|0.225
90808105|NCT01942668|181494023|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049||0.741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.11||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.11|-0.08|0.741
90808106|NCT01942668|181494023|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049||0.414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.14||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.14|-0.06|0.414
90808107|NCT01942668|181494023|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.08||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.08|-0.11|0.690
90808108|NCT01942668|181494024|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.21||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.21|0.00|0.045
90808109|NCT01942668|181494024|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.2||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.20|-0.01|0.069
91054691|NCT03954834|181991241|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.39|-1.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.83|-2.39|<0.001
90808110|NCT01942668|181494024|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.18||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.18|-0.02|0.126
90808111|NCT01942668|181494024|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.11||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.11|-0.10|0.907
90808112|NCT01942668|181494025|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055||0.992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.11||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.11|-0.11|0.992
90808113|NCT01942668|181494025|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.15||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.15|-0.07|0.450
90808114|NCT01942668|181494025|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054||0.663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.08||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.08|-0.13|0.663
90808115|NCT01942668|181494025|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055||0.309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.05||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.05|-0.16|0.309
90808116|NCT04115748|181494027|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|32.1||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|61.6||The stratification factors (Geographic Region, Concurrent Use of conventional synthetic (cs) DMARD(s) and/or Apremilast at Randomization, Prior Use of biologic (bio) DMARD(s)) and treatment groups were included in the imputation model as covariates.|Multiple imputation method|||||61.6|2.6|0.048
91054692|NCT03954834|181991242|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|-4.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.7|-7.8|<0.001
90808117|NCT04115748|181494027|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|18.4||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|49.2||The stratification factors (geographic region, concurrent use of csDMARD(s) and/or apremilast at randomization, prior use of bioDMARD(s)) and treatment groups were included in the imputation model as covariates.|Multiple imputation method|||||49.2|-12.4|0.23
90808118|NCT04115748|181494029|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|16.1||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|41.9||P-value was calculated by logistic regression with treatment group and stratification factors (geographic region and concurrent use of csDMARDs and/or apremilast at randomization) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% confidence interval (CI) for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||41.9|-9.7|0.17
90808119|NCT04115748|181494029|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|11.7||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|36.6||P-value was calculated by logistic regression with treatment group and stratification factors (geographic region and concurrent use of csDMARDs and/or apremilast at randomization) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||36.6|-13.3|0.27
90808120|NCT04115748|181494029|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|10.5||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.4|41.5||P-value was calculated by logistic regression with treatment group and stratification factors (geographic region and concurrent use of csDMARDs and/or apremilast at randomization) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||41.5|-20.4|0.42
90808121|NCT04115748|181494029|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|15.8||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|47.6||P-value was calculated by logistic regression with treatment group and stratification factors (geographic region and concurrent use of csDMARDs and/or apremilast at randomization) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||47.6|-16.0|0.26
91054693|NCT03954834|181991242|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|-5.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.5|-8.6|<0.001
91054694|NCT03954834|181991242|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-8.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|-7.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-7.2|-10.3|<0.001
91054695|NCT03954834|181991243|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|49.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.12|113.67|||Regression, Logistic|||||113.67|21.12|<0.001
91054696|NCT03954834|181991243|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|80.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.8|203.19|||Regression, Logistic|||||203.19|31.80|<0.001
91054697|NCT03954834|181991243|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|52.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.3|125.73|||Regression, Logistic|||||125.73|22.30|<0.001
90808122|NCT04115748|181494029|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|28.7||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|62.3||P-value was calculated by logistic regression with treatment group and stratification factors (geographic region and concurrent use of csDMARDs and/or apremilast at randomization) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||62.3|-5.0|0.062
90808123|NCT04115748|181494029|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|31.6||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|64.6||P-value was calculated by logistic regression with treatment group and stratification factors (geographic region and concurrent use of csDMARDs and/or apremilast at randomization) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||64.6|-1.5|0.047
90808124|NCT04115748|181494029|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|7.8||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.6|40.2||P-value was calculated by logistic regression with treatment group and stratification factors (geographic region and concurrent use of csDMARDs and/or apremilast at randomization) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||40.2|-24.6|0.58
90808125|NCT04115748|181494029|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|16.8||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|49.9||P-value was calculated by logistic regression with treatment group and stratification factors (geographic region and concurrent use of csDMARDs and/or apremilast at randomization) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||49.9|-16.2|0.27
90808126|NCT04115748|181494030|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|20.4|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||20.4|-9.9|
90808127|NCT04115748|181494030|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|5.3|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||5.3|-5.3|
90808128|NCT04115748|181494030|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.6|17.1|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||17.1|-27.6|
90808129|NCT04115748|181494030|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-10.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.6|8.5|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||8.5|-29.6|
90808130|NCT04115748|181494030|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|5.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.2|28.9|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||28.9|-17.2|
90808131|NCT04115748|181494030|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.5|19.5|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||19.5|-19.5|
90808132|NCT04115748|181494030|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|5.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|21.4|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||21.4|-10.3|
90808133|NCT04115748|181494030|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|10.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|29.5|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||29.5|-8.4|
90808134|NCT04115748|181494036|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|16.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|41.9|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||41.9|-9.7|
90808135|NCT04115748|181494036|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|6.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|28.8|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||28.8|-16.5|
90808136|NCT04115748|181494036|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|23.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|56.6|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||56.6|-8.8|
90808137|NCT04115748|181494036|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|27.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|59.4|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||59.4|-5.2|
90808138|NCT04115748|181494037|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|5.1|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||5.1|-5.1|
91014705|NCT01945034|181912248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.76|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 2(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.76|-0.27|0.356
90808139|NCT04115748|181494037|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|5.3|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||5.3|-5.3|
90808140|NCT04115748|181494037|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|11.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|36.6|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||36.6|-13.3|
90808141|NCT04115748|181494037|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|27.4|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||27.4|-16.4|
90808142|NCT04115748|181494038|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|15.8||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|45.2||P-value was calculated by logistic regression with treatment group and stratification factors (geographic region and concurrent use of csDMARDs and/or apremilast at randomization) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 2||45.2|-13.6|0.20
90808143|NCT04115748|181494038|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-5.0||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.8|17.8||P-value was calculated by logistic regression with treatment group and stratification factors (geographic region and concurrent use of csDMARDs and/or apremilast at randomization) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 2||17.8|-27.8|0.60
91054698|NCT03954834|181991244|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.5||||0.776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|8.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.9|-11.9|0.776
91054699|NCT03954834|181991244|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.6||||0.622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|7.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.8|-13.0|0.622
90808144|NCT04115748|181494038|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|42.6||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.5|73.8||P-value was calculated by logistic regression with treatment group and stratification factors (geographic region and concurrent use of csDMARDs and/or apremilast at randomization) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||73.8|11.5|0.008
90808145|NCT04115748|181494038|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|17.8||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|47.6||P-value was calculated by logistic regression with treatment group and stratification factors (geographic region and concurrent use of csDMARDs and/or apremilast at randomization) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||47.6|-12.0|0.17
90808146|NCT04115748|181494038|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|42.1||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.1|76.2||P-value was calculated by logistic regression with treatment group and stratification factors (geographic region and concurrent use of csDMARDs and/or apremilast at randomization) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||76.2|8.1|0.011
90808147|NCT04115748|181494038|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|5.3||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.1|40.6||P-value was calculated by logistic regression with treatment group and stratification factors (geographic region and concurrent use of csDMARDs and/or apremilast at randomization) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||40.6|-30.1|0.69
90808148|NCT04115748|181494038|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|35.7||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|70.4||P-value was calculated by logistic regression with treatment group and stratification factors (geographic region and concurrent use of csDMARDs and/or apremilast at randomization) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||70.4|0.9|0.033
90808149|NCT04115748|181494038|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|21.1||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|57.4||P-value was calculated by logistic regression with treatment group and stratification factors (geographic region and concurrent use of csDMARDs and/or apremilast at randomization) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||57.4|-15.2|0.19
90808150|NCT04115748|181494038|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|43.9||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.4|75.4||P-value was calculated by logistic regression with treatment group and stratification factors (geographic region and concurrent use of csDMARDs and/or apremilast at randomization) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||75.4|12.4|0.007
90808151|NCT04115748|181494038|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|7.6||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.8|44.1||P-value was calculated by logistic regression with treatment group and stratification factors (geographic region and concurrent use of csDMARDs and/or apremilast at randomization) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||44.1|-28.8|0.63
90808152|NCT04115748|181494039|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.0||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.5|19.5||P-value was calculated by logistic regression with treatment group and stratification factors (geographic region and concurrent use of csDMARDs and/or apremilast at randomization) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 2||19.5|-19.5|0.98
90808153|NCT04115748|181494039|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-5.3||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.7|10.2||P-value was calculated by logistic regression with treatment group and stratification factors (geographic region and concurrent use of csDMARDs and/or apremilast at randomization) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 2||10.2|-20.7|0.50
90808154|NCT04115748|181494039|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|5.5||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|27.4||P-value was calculated by logistic regression with treatment group and stratification factors (geographic region and concurrent use of csDMARDs and/or apremilast at randomization) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||27.4|-16.4|0.54
90808155|NCT04115748|181494039|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.6||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|20.1||P-value was calculated by logistic regression with treatment group and stratification factors (geographic region and concurrent use of csDMARDs and/or apremilast at randomization) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||20.1|-19.0|0.92
90808156|NCT04115748|181494039|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|21.1||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|51.4||P-value was calculated by logistic regression with treatment group and stratification factors (geographic region and concurrent use of csDMARDs and/or apremilast at randomization) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||51.4|-9.3|0.13
90808157|NCT04115748|181494039|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|15.8||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|45.2||P-value was calculated by logistic regression with treatment group and stratification factors (geographic region and concurrent use of csDMARDs and/or apremilast at randomization) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||45.2|-13.6|0.22
90808158|NCT04115748|181494039|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|45.0||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.8|77.2||P-value was calculated by logistic regression with treatment group and stratification factors (geographic region and concurrent use of csDMARDs and/or apremilast at randomization) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||77.2|12.8|0.007
90808159|NCT04115748|181494039|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|31.6||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|63.0||P-value was calculated by logistic regression with treatment group and stratification factors (geographic region and concurrent use of csDMARDs and/or apremilast at randomization) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||63.0|0.2|0.039
90808160|NCT04115748|181494039|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|12.8||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.4|44.0||P-value was calculated by logistic regression with treatment group and stratification factors (geographic region and concurrent use of csDMARDs and/or apremilast at randomization) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||44.0|-18.4|0.34
90808161|NCT04115748|181494039|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|32.4||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|64.9||P-value was calculated by logistic regression with treatment group and stratification factors (geographic region and concurrent use of csDMARDs and/or apremilast at randomization) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||64.9|-0.1|0.040
90808162|NCT04115748|181494040|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|20.6|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 2||20.6|-10.0|
90808163|NCT04115748|181494040|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|5.4|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 2||5.4|-5.4|
90808164|NCT04115748|181494040|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|20.4|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||20.4|-9.9|
90808165|NCT04115748|181494040|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|5.3|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||5.3|-5.3|
90808166|NCT04115748|181494040|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|10.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|35.0|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||35.0|-14.0|
90808167|NCT04115748|181494040|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|27.6|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||27.6|-17.1|
90808168|NCT04115748|181494040|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|27.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|53.9|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||53.9|1.7|
90808169|NCT04115748|181494040|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|26.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|51.4|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||51.4|1.3|
90808170|NCT04115748|181494040|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|12.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|40.8|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||40.8|-16.3|
90808171|NCT04115748|181494040|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|21.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|51.4|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||51.4|-8.2|
90808172|NCT04115748|181494048|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-10.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.3|25.2|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 2||25.2|-46.3|
90808173|NCT04115748|181494048|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-8.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.3|27.7|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 2||27.7|-45.3|
90808174|NCT04115748|181494048|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|11.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.1|45.8|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||45.8|-22.1|
90808175|NCT04115748|181494048|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|19.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.6|54.5|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||54.5|-15.6|
90808176|NCT04115748|181494048|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|10.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.0|47.0|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||47.0|-26.0|
90808177|NCT04115748|181494048|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|10.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.0|47.0|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||47.0|-26.0|
90808178|NCT04115748|181494048|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|29.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|66.0|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||66.0|-6.3|
90808179|NCT04115748|181494048|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|31.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|67.0|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||67.0|-3.8|
90808180|NCT04115748|181494048|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.0|42.0|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||42.0|-32.0|
90808181|NCT04115748|181494048|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|39.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|71.6|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||71.6|6.8|
90808182|NCT04115748|181494049|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.8|24.8|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 2||24.8|-24.8|
90808183|NCT04115748|181494049|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.9|26.0|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 2||26.0|-24.9|
90808184|NCT04115748|181494049|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.5|21.5|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||21.5|-30.5|
90808185|NCT04115748|181494049|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|12.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.4|44.0|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||44.0|-18.4|
90808186|NCT04115748|181494049|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|21.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|56.3|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||56.3|-14.1|
90808187|NCT04115748|181494049|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.3|33.3|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||33.3|-33.3|
90808188|NCT04115748|181494049|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|34.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|69.3|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||69.3|-0.3|
90808189|NCT04115748|181494049|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|21.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|55.1|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||55.1|-13.0|
90808190|NCT04115748|181494049|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|24.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|58.6|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||58.6|-9.7|
90808191|NCT04115748|181494049|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|32.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|66.2|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||66.2|-1.0|
90808192|NCT04115748|181494051|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-15.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.6|16.0|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 2||16.0|-47.6|
90808193|NCT04115748|181494051|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-20.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.3|10.4|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 2||10.4|-51.3|
90808194|NCT04115748|181494051|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|6.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.8|39.9|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||39.9|-26.8|
90808195|NCT04115748|181494051|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|13.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.8|48.6|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||48.6|-20.8|
90808196|NCT04115748|181494051|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|15.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.7|52.3|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||52.3|-20.7|
90808197|NCT04115748|181494051|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.0|41.6|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||41.6|-31.0|
90808198|NCT04115748|181494051|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|24.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|60.9|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||60.9|-12.4|
90808199|NCT04115748|181494051|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|21.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|57.4|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||57.4|-15.2|
90808200|NCT04115748|181494051|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.3|41.2|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||41.2|-32.3|
90808201|NCT04115748|181494051|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|23.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|58.8|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||58.8|-12.5|
90808202|NCT04115748|181494052|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.5|19.5|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 2||19.5|-19.5|
90808203|NCT04115748|181494052|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.7|10.2|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 2||10.2|-20.7|
90808204|NCT04115748|181494052|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.7|19.3|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||19.3|-18.7|
90808205|NCT04115748|181494052|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|20.1|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||20.1|-19.0|
90808206|NCT04115748|181494052|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.8|24.8|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||24.8|-24.8|
90808207|NCT04115748|181494052|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.6|17.1|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||17.1|-27.6|
90808208|NCT04115748|181494052|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|17.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|44.0|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||44.0|-10.1|
90808209|NCT04115748|181494052|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|26.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|54.8|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||54.8|-2.1|
90808210|NCT04115748|181494052|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.3|33.6|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||33.6|-20.3|
90808211|NCT04115748|181494052|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|11.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|38.7|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||38.7|-16.6|
90808212|NCT04115748|181494054|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.8|34.8|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 2||34.8|-34.8|
90808213|NCT04115748|181494054|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-14.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.4|17.6|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 2||17.6|-47.4|
90808214|NCT04115748|181494054|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|27.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|63.0|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||63.0|-7.2|
90808215|NCT04115748|181494054|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|8.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.6|44.3|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||44.3|-26.6|
90808216|NCT04115748|181494054|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|21.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|55.1|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||55.1|-13.0|
90808217|NCT04115748|181494054|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-10.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.4|26.3|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||26.3|-47.4|
90808218|NCT04115748|181494054|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|24.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|60.8|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||60.8|-11.1|
90808219|NCT04115748|181494054|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|21.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|57.0|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||57.0|-14.9|
90808220|NCT04115748|181494054|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|43.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.4|75.4|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||75.4|12.4|
90808221|NCT04115748|181494054|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|12.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.4|49.1|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||49.1|-23.4|
90808222|NCT04115748|181494056|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|37.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|89.8|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||89.8|-14.8|
90808223|NCT04115748|181494056|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|40.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.4|100.0|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||100.0|-25.4|
91014706|NCT01945034|181912248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.58|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 2(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms.||0.58|-0.67|0.876
90808224|NCT04115748|181494056|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|51.2|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||51.2|-100.0|
90808225|NCT04115748|181494056|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-97.7|77.7|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||77.7|-97.7|
90808226|NCT04115748|181494056|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.7|88.0|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||88.0|-73.7|
90808227|NCT04115748|181494056|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-97.7|77.7|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||77.7|-97.7|
90808228|NCT04115748|181494056|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|37.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.3|100.0|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||100.0|-35.3|
90808229|NCT04115748|181494056|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.9|97.9|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||97.9|-67.9|
90808230|NCT04115748|181494057|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|12.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.2|54.2|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||54.2|-29.2|
90808231|NCT04115748|181494057|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.6|77.6|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||77.6|-37.6|
90808232|NCT04115748|181494057|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.8|73.8|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||73.8|-23.8|
90808233|NCT04115748|181494057|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|40.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.4|100.0|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||100.0|-25.4|
91014707|NCT01945034|181912248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.6||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.15|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 3(AM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||1.15|0.10|0.020
90808234|NCT04115748|181494057|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|42.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|99.2|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||99.2|-13.4|
90808235|NCT04115748|181494057|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|40.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.4|100.0|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||100.0|-25.4|
90808236|NCT04115748|181494057|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|37.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.3|100.0|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||100.0|-35.3|
90808237|NCT04115748|181494057|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-82.5|72.5|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||72.5|-82.5|
90808238|NCT04115748|181494058|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.8|18.8|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||18.8|-18.8|
90808239|NCT04115748|181494058|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.5|22.5|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||22.5|-22.5|
90808240|NCT04115748|181494058|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|12.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.2|54.2|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||54.2|-29.2|
90808241|NCT04115748|181494058|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.5|22.5|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||22.5|-22.5|
90808242|NCT04115748|181494058|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|14.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.3|59.9|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||59.9|-31.3|
90808243|NCT04115748|181494058|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.6|77.6|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||77.6|-37.6|
91014708|NCT01945034|181912248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.47|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 3(AM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.47|-0.50|0.940
90808244|NCT04115748|181494058|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.8|73.8|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||73.8|-23.8|
90808245|NCT04115748|181494058|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.6|77.6|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||77.6|-37.6|
90808246|NCT04115748|181494059|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.8|18.8|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||18.8|-18.8|
90808247|NCT04115748|181494059|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.5|22.5|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||22.5|-22.5|
90808248|NCT04115748|181494059|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.8|18.8|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||18.8|-18.8|
90808249|NCT04115748|181494059|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.5|22.5|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||22.5|-22.5|
90808250|NCT04115748|181494059|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|14.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.3|59.9|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||59.9|-31.3|
90808251|NCT04115748|181494059|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.5|22.5|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||22.5|-22.5|
90808252|NCT04115748|181494059|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|12.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.2|54.2|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||54.2|-29.2|
90808253|NCT04115748|181494059|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.6|77.6|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||77.6|-37.6|
90808254|NCT04115748|181494063|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.104||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.2||P-value was calculated from mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) including treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 2||0.20|-0.22|0.94
90808255|NCT04115748|181494063|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.105||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.24||P-value was calculated from MMRM including treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 2||0.24|-0.18|0.81
90808256|NCT04115748|181494063|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.112||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.05||P-value was calculated from MMRM including treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 4||0.05|-0.39|0.13
90808257|NCT04115748|181494063|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.113||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.02||P-value was calculated from MMRM including treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 4||0.02|-0.43|0.073
91054700|NCT03954834|181991244|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|9.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.8|-11.1|0.908
90808258|NCT04115748|181494063|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.124||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.03||P-value was calculated from MMRM including treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 8||0.03|-0.46|0.083
90808259|NCT04115748|181494063|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.124||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.11||P-value was calculated from MMRM including treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 8||0.11|-0.38|0.28
90808260|NCT04115748|181494063|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.02||P-value was calculated from MMRM including treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 12||-0.02|-0.54|0.038
90808261|NCT04115748|181494063|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.11||P-value was calculated from MMRM including treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 12||0.11|-0.41|0.25
90808262|NCT04115748|181494063|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.139||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.16||P-value was calculated from MMRM including treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 16||0.16|-0.39|0.41
90808263|NCT04115748|181494063|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.138||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.12||P-value was calculated from MMRM including treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 16||0.12|-0.43|0.26
90808264|NCT04115748|181494064|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|7.9||P-value was calculated from MMRM including treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 4||7.9|-1.1|0.14
90808265|NCT04115748|181494064|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|7.7||P-value was calculated from MMRM including treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 4||7.7|-1.5|0.18
91054701|NCT03954834|181991245|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|40.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.74|209.71|||Regression, Logistic|||||209.71|7.74|<0.001
91054702|NCT03954834|181991245|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|34.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.53|178.19|||Regression, Logistic|||||178.19|6.53|<0.001
90808266|NCT04115748|181494064|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.53||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|8.7||P-value was calculated from MMRM including treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 16||8.7|-1.4|0.15
90808267|NCT04115748|181494064|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.54||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|9.9||P-value was calculated from MMRM including treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 16||9.9|-0.3|0.062
90808268|NCT04115748|181494066|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.68||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|8.6||P-value was calculated from MMRM including treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 4||8.6|1.9|0.003
90808269|NCT04115748|181494066|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.71||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|8.3||P-value was calculated from MMRM including treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 4||8.3|1.5|0.006
90808270|NCT04115748|181494066|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.09||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|8.0||P-value was calculated from MMRM including treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 16||8.0|-0.4|0.076
91014709|NCT01945034|181912248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|-0.06|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 3(AM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms.||-0.06|-1.23|0.032
91014710|NCT01945034|181912248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.95|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 3(AM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.95|-0.21|0.206
91014711|NCT01945034|181912248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.81|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 3(AM):The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.81|-0.26|0.310
90808271|NCT04115748|181494066|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|7.7||P-value was calculated from MMRM including treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 16||7.7|-0.7|0.10
90808272|NCT02752633|181494068|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Data are presented as the urinary DHA excretion (mg/24 hr) and as the DHA-to-creatinine ratio (mg/mmol) in first morning void urine samples. Data are presented as a median (range). Differences in the median urinary DHA excretion and the urinary DHA-to-creatinine ratio between periods off pharmacotherapy and on the two study drugs, febuxostat and allopurinol, were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test.||||<.05
91014712|NCT01945034|181912248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.55|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 3(AM):The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms.||0.55|-0.74|0.771
91054703|NCT03954834|181991245|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|85.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.36|443.13|||Regression, Logistic|||||443.13|16.36|<0.001
90808273|NCT01467037|181494157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted OR|0.088|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.384|||||Conditional logistic regression was used. Adjusted VE = (1 - adjusted OR) \*100|||0.384|0.020|
90808274|NCT01467037|181494157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted OR|0.075|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.018|0.307|||||Conditional logistic regression was used. Adjusted VE = (1 - adjusted OR) \*100|||0.307|0.018|
90808275|NCT01194089|181494162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.828|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between arms for the postoperative opioid use during the postanesthesia care unit (PACU) stay, using a one tailed P value.||||0.828
90808276|NCT01194089|181494162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.752|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between the arms for the first 24 hours postoperatively, using a one tailed P value.||||0.752
90808277|NCT01194089|181494163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison between the arms for antiemetic medication use in the PACU.||||0.002
90808278|NCT01194089|181494164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.354|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The arms were compared for numeric pain score on admission.||||0.354
90808279|NCT01194089|181494164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.492|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The arms were compared for numeric pain score at 30 minutes.||||0.492
90808280|NCT01194089|181494164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.809|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The arms were compared for numeric pain score at 60 minutes.||||0.809
90808281|NCT01194089|181494164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.381|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The arms were compared for numeric pain score at discharge.||||0.381
91014713|NCT01945034|181912248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.7||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.24|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 3(AM + 2 hours): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||1.24|0.13|0.016
91014714|NCT01945034|181912248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.54|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 3(AM + 2 hours): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.54|-0.48|0.905
91054704|NCT03954834|181991246|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-37.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.1|-31.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning Premeal - Fasting||-31.2|-44.1|<0.001
90808282|NCT03070171|181494165|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was established by ensuring that the T/R ratio of AUC0-tz of free dabigatran was within the pre-specified acceptance range (80%-125%).|T/R Ratio|108.46909|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.44605|115.97833|||ANOVA||Confidence intervals were calculated based on the residual error from ANOVA. Ratio calculated as Dabigatran Etexilate Tablet (T) divided by Dabigatran Etexilate capsule (R).|The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects nested within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'.||115.97833|101.44605|
90808283|NCT03070171|181494166|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was established by ensuring that the T/R ratio of Cmax of free dabigatran was within the pre-specified acceptance range (80%-125%).|T/R Ratio|108.9587|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.78627|116.63654|||ANOVA||Confidence intervals were calculated based on the residual error from ANOVA. Ratio calculated as Dabigatran Etexilate Tablet (T) divided by Dabigatran Etexilate capsule (R).|The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects nested within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'.||116.63654|101.78627|
90808284|NCT03070171|181494167|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was established by ensuring that the T/R ratio of Cmax of free dabigatran was within the pre-specified acceptance range (80%-125%).|T/R Ratio|107.61507|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.61938|115.09714|||ANOVA||Confidence intervals were calculated based on the residual error from ANOVA. Ratio calculated as Dabigatran Etexilate Tablet (T) divided by Dabigatran Etexilate capsule (R).|The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects nested within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'.||115.09714|100.61938|
90808285|NCT03070171|181494168|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was established by ensuring that the T/R ratio of Cmax of total dabigatran was within the pre-specified acceptance range (80%-125%).|T/R Ratio|106.69566|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.50139|114.4101|||ANOVA||Confidence intervals were calculated based on the residual error from ANOVA. Ratio calculated as Dabigatran Etexilate Tablet (T) divided by Dabigatran Etexilate capsule (R).|The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects nested within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'.||114.41010|99.50139|
90808286|NCT03070171|181494169|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was established by ensuring that the T/R ratio of AUC0-∞ of total dabigatran was within the pre-specified acceptance range (80%-125%).|T/R Ratio|107.83324|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.25584|114.8379|||ANOVA||Confidence intervals were calculated based on the residual error from ANOVA. Ratio calculated as Dabigatran Etexilate Tablet (T) divided by Dabigatran Etexilate capsule (R).|The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects nested within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'.||114.83790|101.25584|
90808287|NCT03070171|181494170|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was established by ensuring that the T/R ratio of AUC0-∞ of free dabigatran was within the pre-specified acceptance range (80%-125%).|T/R Ratio|108.43158|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.87254|115.41292|||ANOVA||Confidence intervals were calculated based on the residual error from ANOVA. Ratio calculated as Dabigatran Etexilate Tablet (T) divided by Dabigatran Etexilate capsule (R).|The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects nested within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'.||115.41292|101.87254|
90808288|NCT01626118|181494186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|317.612|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|149.6694||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.297|611.926|||ANCOVA|||The p value was obtained from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model that included treatment effect as the factor and baseline pain intensity as the covariate. This was the primary analysis of the primary efficacy parameter.||611.926|23.297|0.034
90808289|NCT01626118|181494186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|342.132|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|150.0397||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.09|637.175|||ANCOVA|||The p value was obtained from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model that included treatment effect as the factor and baseline pain intensity as the covariate. This was the primary analysis of the primary efficacy parameter.||637.175|47.090|0.023
90808290|NCT01626118|181494186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|61.972|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|150.2717||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-233.527|357.471|||ANCOVA|||The p value was obtained from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model that included treatment effect as the factor and baseline pain intensity as the covariate. This was the primary analysis of the primary efficacy parameter.||357.471|-233.527|0.680
90808291|NCT01626118|181494186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|503.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|102.3149|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|301.93|704.086|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"The p value was obtained from a mixed-model repeated-measure (MMRM) model that used all available data from all subjects to derive an estimate of pain intensity scores for subjects following study withdrawal, rather than imputing a score for individual subjects. The MMRM analysis was a sensitivity analysis of the primary efficacy parameter."||704.086|301.930|<0.001
90808292|NCT01626118|181494186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|511.357|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|102.5851|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|309.749|712.965|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"The p value was obtained from a mixed-model repeated-measure (MMRM) model that used all available data from all subjects to derive an estimate of pain intensity scores for subjects following study withdrawal, rather than imputing a score for individual subjects. The MMRM analysis was a sensitivity analysis of the primary efficacy parameter."||712.965|309.749|<0.001
91014715|NCT01945034|181912248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.7||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|-0.03|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 3(AM + 2 hours): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms.||-0.03|-1.28|0.039
90808293|NCT01626118|181494186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|341.232|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|102.7761|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|139.249|543.215|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"The p value was obtained from a mixed-model repeated-measure (MMRM) model that used all available data from all subjects to derive an estimate of pain intensity scores for subjects following study withdrawal, rather than imputing a score for individual subjects. The MMRM analysis was a sensitivity analysis of the primary efficacy parameter."||543.215|139.249|<0.001
90808294|NCT01626118|181494187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.191|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.191
90808295|NCT01626118|181494187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.108|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.108
90808296|NCT01626118|181494187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.461|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.461
91054705|NCT03954834|181991246|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-38.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.1|-32.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning Premeal - Fasting||-32.2|-45.1|<0.001
90808297|NCT01626118|181494188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.079|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.079
90808298|NCT01626118|181494188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.041|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.041
90808299|NCT01626118|181494188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.458|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.458
90808300|NCT01626118|181494189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.020
90808301|NCT01626118|181494189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.021
90808302|NCT01626118|181494189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.441|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.441
90808303|NCT01626118|181494190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.141|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.141
91014716|NCT01945034|181912248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.93|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 3(AM + 2 hours): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.93|-0.27|0.276
91014717|NCT01945034|181912248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.82|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 3(AM + 2 hours): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.82|-0.29|0.343
91014718|NCT01945034|181912248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.6|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 3(AM + 2 hours): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms.||0.60|-0.73|0.849
90808304|NCT01626118|181494190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.071|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.071
91014719|NCT01945034|181912248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.7||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.29|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 3 Mid-day: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||1.29|0.19|0.009
91014720|NCT01945034|181912248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.43|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 3 Mid-day: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.43|-0.58|0.763
91014721|NCT01945034|181912248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.8||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|-0.2|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 3 Mid-day: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms.||-0.20|-1.43|0.010
90808305|NCT01626118|181494190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.716|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.716
90808306|NCT01626118|181494191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.049
90808307|NCT01626118|181494191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.020
90808308|NCT01626118|181494191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.593|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.593
90808309|NCT01626118|181494192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.021
90808310|NCT01626118|181494192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.012
90808311|NCT01626118|181494192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.447|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.447
90808312|NCT01626118|181494193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.036
90808313|NCT01626118|181494193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.017
90808314|NCT01626118|181494193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.577|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.577
90808315|NCT00002540|181494194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.36||Two-sided. Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A-priori threshold for significance 0.05.|Poisson regression|||||1.36|0.87|
90808316|NCT00002540|181494196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.0|||Poisson regression|Two-sided. Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A-priori threshold for significance 0.05.||||1.00|0.93|
90808317|NCT00002540|181494198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.17|||Poisson regression|Two-sided. Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A-priori threshold for significance 0.05.||||1.17|1.07|
90808318|NCT00002540|181494208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.36|||Poisson regression|||||1.36|0.87|
90808319|NCT01500252|181494230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.59||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.59
90808320|NCT01500252|181494231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.83||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.83
90808321|NCT01500252|181494233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.10
90808322|NCT01500252|181494234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.39||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.39
90808323|NCT01500252|181494235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.43||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.43
90808324|NCT01500252|181494236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.71||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.71
90808325|NCT01500252|181494237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.98||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.98
90808326|NCT01500252|181494238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.35||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.35
90808327|NCT01500252|181494239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.31||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.31
91014722|NCT01945034|181912248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.5||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.09|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 3 Mid-day: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||1.09|-0.10|0.105
91014723|NCT01945034|181912248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.73|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 3 Mid-day: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.73|-0.38|0.533
90808328|NCT00323960|181494254|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0228||||||For multiple hypothesis testing, we used Bonferroni's correction (with n=3 posterior comparisons).|Chi-squared|To assess proportions we used the χ² test or Fisher's exact test||We calculated that a sample size of 40 patients would be needed in each study group (total 120 patients) to have 80% power for comparison of combination treatments (prednisone plus methotrexate or prednisone plus ciclosporin) with the reference treatment (prednisone alone).||||0.0228
90808329|NCT00323960|181494255|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk|2.45||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|5.0|||Log Rank||RR related to prednisone plus methotrexate arm (group 3) versus prednisone alone (group 1) and prednisone plus ciclosporin (group 2).|We used the Kaplan-Meier method to produce survival curves (groups 1 and 2 versus group 3) and compared them with the Log-Rank test. We judged a p value less than 0·05 significant. We reported in the table the incidence rates with 95% confidence intervals of the 3 groups.||5.0|1.2|0.012
90808330|NCT00323960|181494256|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk|1.95||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|3.15|||Log Rank||RR related to prednisone alone (group 1) versus prednisone plus ciclosporin (group 2) and prednisone plus methotrexate arm (group 3).|We used the Kaplan-Meier method to produce survival curves (group 1 versus groups 2 and 3) and compared them with the Log-Rank test. We judged a p value less than 0·05 significant. We reported in the table the incidence rates with 95% confidence intervals of the 3 groups.||3.15|1.2|0.009
90808331|NCT00323960|181494257|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk|1.65||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|2.14|||Log Rank||RR related to prednisone+methotrexate arm or prednisone+ciclosporin versus prednisone alone.|We used the Kaplan-Meier method to produce survival curves (groups 2 and 3 versus group 1) and compared them with the Log-Rank test. We judged a p value less than 0·05 significant. We reported in the table the incidence rates with 95% confidence intervals of the 3 groups.||2.14|1.24|0.002
90808332|NCT00323960|181494257|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk|1.65||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|2.14|||Log Rank||RR related to prednisone alone (group 1) versus prednisone plus ciclosporin (group 2) and prednisone plus methotrexate arm (group 3).|We used the Kaplan-Meier method to produce survival curves (groups 1 versus groups 2 and 3) and compared them with the Log-Rank test. We judged a p value less than 0·05 significant. We reported in the table the incidence rates with 95% confidence intervals of the 3 groups.||2.14|1.24|0.002
90808333|NCT00712725|181494258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value constructed from trend test of dose response, by testing the slope of the MK3207 dose covariate (all dose groups included) in a generalized linear regression model with PF at 2 hours postdose as the dependent variable.|Generalized linear regression model|Model adjusted for geographic region (US, ex-US), baseline severity (moderate, severe), treatment and age (continuous), using identity link function.||||||<0.001
90808334|NCT00712725|181494259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value constructed from trend test of dose response, by testing the slope of the MK3207 dose covariate (all dose groups included) in a generalized linear regression model with binary response PR at 2 hours postdose as the dependent variable.|Generalized linear regression model|Model adjusted for geographic region (US, ex-US), baseline severity (moderate, severe), treatment and age (continuous), using identity link function.||||||<0.001
91014724|NCT01945034|181912248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.35|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 3 Mid-day: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms.||0.35|-0.99|0.348
91014725|NCT01945034|181912248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.7||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.23|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 3(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||1.23|0.13|0.016
90808335|NCT00712725|181494260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value constructed from trend test of dose response, by testing the slope of the MK3207 dose covariate (all dose groups included) in a generalized linear regression model with Absence of Photophobia at 2 hours postdose as the dependent variable.|Generalized linear regression model|Model adjusted for geographic region (US, ex-US), baseline severity (moderate, severe), treatment and age (continuous), using identity link function.||||||<0.001
90808336|NCT00712725|181494261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value constructed from trend test of dose response, by testing the slope of the MK3207 dose covariate (all dose groups included) in a generalized linear regression model with Absence of Phonophobia at 2 hours postdose as the dependent variable.|Generalized linear regression model|Model adjusted for geographic region (US, ex-US), baseline severity (moderate, severe), treatment and age (continuous), using identity link function.||||||<0.001
91014726|NCT01945034|181912248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.33|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 3(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.33|-0.69|0.483
91014727|NCT01945034|181912248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.9||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|-0.25|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 3(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms.||-0.25|-1.47|0.006
91014728|NCT01945034|181912248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|1.0|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 3(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||1.00|-0.19|0.177
91054706|NCT03954834|181991246|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-36.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.1|-29.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning Premeal - Fasting||-29.8|-43.1|<0.001
91054707|NCT03954834|181991246|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-57.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.4|-47.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning 2-hour Postmeal||-47.4|-68.4|<0.001
91054708|NCT03954834|181991246|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-49.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.3|-39.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning 2-hour Postmeal||-39.2|-60.3|<0.001
91054709|NCT03954834|181991246|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-57.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.1|-46.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning 2-hour Postmeal||-46.4|-68.1|<0.001
90808337|NCT00712725|181494262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0||||p-value constructed from trend test of dose response, by testing the slope of the MK3207 dose covariate (all dose groups included) in a generalized linear regression model with Absence of Nausea at 2 hours postdose as the dependent variable.|Generalized linear regression model|Model adjusted for geographic region (US, ex-US), baseline severity (moderate, severe), treatment and age (continuous), using identity link function.||||||0.007
90808338|NCT00712725|181494263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value constructed from trend test of dose response, by testing the slope of the MK3207 dose covariate (all dose groups included) in a generalized linear regression model with binary response SPF 2-24 hours postdose as the dependent variable.|Generalized linear regression model|Model adjusted for geographic region (US, ex-US), baseline severity (moderate, severe), treatment and age (continuous), using identity link function.||||||<0.001
90808339|NCT01901289|181494264|OTHER||Cumulative Probability|0.927|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.881|0.956|||||The estimate of the variance of the Kaplan-Meier estimate used the methods described by Peto et al.|||0.956|0.881|
90808340|NCT00889603|181494265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|2.2|||||Change from baseline in MMSE at LOCF analyzed using single-sample t-test; a 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated for mean change at LOCF.|||2.20|1.65|
90808341|NCT00889603|181494266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.08|||||LS Mean and 95% CI for change from baseline in MMSE Total to Week 8 from repeated-measures mixed model including terms for baseline MMSE and Week.|||1.08|0.75|
90808342|NCT00889603|181494266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|1.8|||||LS Mean and 95% CI for change from baseline in MMSE Total to Week 16 from a repeated-measures mixed model including terms for baseline MMSE and Week.|||1.80|1.32|
90808343|NCT00889603|181494266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.69|2.25|||||LS Mean and 95% CI for change from baseline in MMSE Total to Week 24 from a repeated-measures mixed model including terms for baseline MMSE and Week.|||2.25|1.69|
90808344|NCT03525600|181494275|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2296||||0.0615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4703|0.0111|||MMRM model|||Model included treatment + baseline GA lesion area (\<7.5 mm\^2 or ≥7.5 mm\^2) + analysis visit + presence of choroidal neovascularization (CNV) in the fellow eye (yes or no) + analysis visit × treatment + baseline GA lesion area × analysis visit.||0.0111|-0.4703|0.0615
90808345|NCT03525600|181494275|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2077||||0.0854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4444|0.029|||MMRM model|||Model included treatment + baseline GA lesion area (\<7.5 mm\^2 or ≥7.5 mm\^2) + analysis visit + presence of CNV in the fellow eye (yes or no) + analysis visit × treatment + baseline GA lesion area × analysis visit.||0.0290|-0.4444|0.0854
90808346|NCT03525600|181494276|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7451||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1539|-0.3362|||MMRM model|||Model included treatment + baseline GA lesion area (\<7.5 mm\^2 or ≥7.5 mm\^2) + analysis visit + baseline presence of CNV in the fellow eye (yes or no) + analysis visit × treatment + baseline GA lesion area (\<7.5 mm\^2 or ≥7.5 mm\^2) × analysis visit.||-0.3362|-1.1539|0.0004
90808347|NCT03525600|181494276|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6331||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0508|-0.2153|||MMRM model|||Model included treatment + baseline GA lesion area (\<7.5 mm\^2 or ≥7.5 mm\^2) + analysis visit + baseline presence of CNV in the fellow eye (yes or no) + analysis visit × treatment + baseline GA lesion area (\<7.5 mm\^2 or ≥7.5 mm\^2) × analysis visit.||-0.2153|-1.0508|0.0030
90808348|NCT03525600|181494277|SUPERIORITY|Baseline GA lesion area x Time (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous). A heterogeneous autoregressive covariance matrix was used to model within-subject errors.|Mean Difference|-0.0547||||0.4282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1899|0.0806|||MMRM model|||Estimates for Baseline to Month 6: Model included Treatment + Baseline GA lesion area (\< 7.5 mm\^2 or \>= 7.5 mm\^2) + Time (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) + Presence of CNV in the fellow eye (Yes or No) + Time (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) x Treatment +||0.0806|-0.1899|0.4282
90808349|NCT03525600|181494277|SUPERIORITY|Baseline GA lesion area x Time (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous). A heterogeneous autoregressive covariance matrix was used to model within-subject errors.|Mean Difference|-0.0793||||0.2457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2131|0.0546|||MMRM model|||Estimates for Baseline to Month 6: Model included Treatment + Baseline GA lesion area (\< 7.5 mm\^2 or \>= 7.5 mm\^2) + Time (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) + Presence of CNV in the fellow eye (Yes or No) + Time (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) x Treatment +||0.0546|-0.2131|0.2457
91014729|NCT01945034|181912248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.7|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 3(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.70|-0.40|0.586
91014730|NCT01945034|181912248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.41|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 3(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms.||0.41|-0.92|0.448
91054710|NCT03954834|181991246|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-40.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.6|-32.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Midday Premeal||-32.2|-49.6|<0.001
91054711|NCT03954834|181991246|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-39.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.6|-31.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Midday Premeal||-31.2|-48.6|<0.001
91054712|NCT03954834|181991246|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-40.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.0|-31.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Midday Premeal||-31.1|-49.0|<0.001
91054713|NCT03954834|181991246|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-51.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.5|-40.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Midday 2-hour Postmeal||-40.4|-62.5|<0.001
91054714|NCT03954834|181991246|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-47.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.4|-36.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Midday 2-hour Postmeal||-36.2|-58.4|<0.001
90808350|NCT03525600|181494277|SUPERIORITY|Baseline GA lesion area x Time (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous). A heterogeneous autoregressive covariance matrix was used to model within-subject errors.|Mean Difference|-0.1722||||0.0292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.327|-0.0174|||MMRM model|||Estimates for Month 6 to Month 12: Model included Treatment + Baseline GA lesion area (\< 7.5 mm\^2 or \>= 7.5 mm\^2) + Time (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) + Presence of CNV in the fellow eye (Yes or No) + Time (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) x Treatment +||-0.0174|-0.3270|0.0292
90808351|NCT03525600|181494277|SUPERIORITY|Baseline GA lesion area x Time (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous). A heterogeneous autoregressive covariance matrix was used to model within-subject errors.|Mean Difference|-0.1659||||0.0352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3202|-0.0115|||MMRM model|||Estimates for Month 6 to Month 12: Model included Treatment + Baseline GA lesion area (\< 7.5 mm\^2 or \>= 7.5 mm\^2) + Time (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) + Presence of CNV in the fellow eye (Yes or No) + Time (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) x Treatment +||-0.0115|-0.3202|0.0352
90808352|NCT03525600|181494277|SUPERIORITY|Baseline GA lesion area x Time (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous). A heterogeneous autoregressive covariance matrix was used to model within-subject errors.|Mean Difference|-0.145||||0.0514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2909|0.0009|||MMRM model|||Estimates for Month 12 to Month 18: Model included Treatment + Baseline GA lesion area (\< 7.5 mm\^2 or \>= 7.5 mm\^2) + Time (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) + Presence of CNV in the fellow eye (Yes or No) + Time (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) x Treatment +||0.0009|-0.2909|0.0514
90808353|NCT03525600|181494277|SUPERIORITY|Baseline GA lesion area x Time (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous). A heterogeneous autoregressive covariance matrix was used to model within-subject errors.|Mean Difference|-0.168||||0.0265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3164|-0.0196|||MMRM model|||Estimates for Month 12 to Month 18: Model included Treatment + Baseline GA lesion area (\< 7.5 mm\^2 or \>= 7.5 mm\^2) + Time (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) + Presence of CNV in the fellow eye (Yes or No) + Time (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) x Treatment +||-0.0196|-0.3164|0.0265
90808354|NCT03525600|181494277|SUPERIORITY|Baseline GA lesion area x Time (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous). A heterogeneous autoregressive covariance matrix was used to model within-subject errors.|Mean Difference|-0.3532|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5245|-0.1819|||MMRM model|||Estimates for Month 18 to Month 24: Model included Treatment + Baseline GA lesion area (\< 7.5 mm\^2 or \>= 7.5 mm\^2) + Time (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) + Presence of CNV in the fellow eye (Yes or No) + Time (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) x Treatment +||-0.1819|-0.5245|<0.0001
90808355|NCT03525600|181494277|SUPERIORITY|Baseline GA lesion area x Time (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous). A heterogeneous autoregressive covariance matrix was used to model within-subject errors.|Mean Difference|-0.2848||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4336|-0.1361|||MMRM model|||Estimates for Month 18 to Month 24: Model included Treatment + Baseline GA lesion area (\< 7.5 mm\^2 or \>= 7.5 mm\^2) + Time (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) + Presence of CNV in the fellow eye (Yes or No) + Time (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) x Treatment +||-0.1361|-0.4336|0.0002
90808356|NCT03525600|181494277|SUPERIORITY|Baseline GA lesion area x Time (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous). A heterogeneous autoregressive covariance matrix was used to model within-subject errors.|Mean Difference|-0.7251||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1373|-0.3129|||MMRM model|||Estimates for Baseline to Month 24: Model included Treatment + Baseline GA lesion area (\< 7.5 mm\^2 or \>= 7.5 mm\^2) + Time (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) + Presence of CNV in the fellow eye (Yes or No) + Time (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) x Treatment +||-0.3129|-1.1373|0.0006
90808357|NCT03525600|181494277|SUPERIORITY|Baseline GA lesion area x Time (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous). A heterogeneous autoregressive covariance matrix was used to model within-subject errors.|Mean Difference|-0.698||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1142|-0.2817|||MMRM model|||Estimates for Baseline to Month 24: Model included Treatment + Baseline GA lesion area (\< 7.5 mm\^2 or \>= 7.5 mm\^2) + Time (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) + Presence of CNV in the fellow eye (Yes or No) + Time (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) x Treatment +||-0.2817|-1.1142|0.0010
90808358|NCT00683930|181494285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference in response rate|5.1||||0.6558||97.5|-17.4|27.6|||Fisher Exact|Alpha = 0.025||||27.6|-17.4|0.6558
90808359|NCT00893152|181494312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
90808360|NCT02791516|181494317|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|9.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.6|11.5|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusting for treatment, baseline DXA BMD value, machine type, and machine type-by-baseline DXA BMD value.||||11.5|7.6|<0.001
90808361|NCT02791516|181494318|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|3.7|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusting for treatment, baseline DXA BMD value, machine type, and machine type-by-baseline DXA BMD value.||||3.7|1.4|<0.001
90808362|NCT02791516|181494319|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|3.6|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusting for treatment, baseline DXA BMD value, machine type, and machine type-by-baseline DXA BMD value.||||3.6|0.7|0.004
90808363|NCT04114071|181494367|EQUIVALENCE|An independent sample t tests was used to examine the difference score for each of the four outcome measures of interest (steps, WC, weight, and HbA1c) between intervention and control groups.|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
90808364|NCT00107900|181494372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.238|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.238
91014731|NCT01945034|181912248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.6||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|1.09|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 4(AM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||1.09|0.02|0.043
90808365|NCT03088930|181494377|OTHER||Summary statistics|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Three subjects enrolled. No statistical analysis completed due to low accrual.|Three subjects enrolled. No statistical analysis completed due to low accrual.|||
90808366|NCT03724981|181494384|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Prescott test|||||||<0.0001
90808367|NCT03724981|181494385|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Prescott test|||||||<0.0001
91054715|NCT03954834|181991246|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-50.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.1|-39.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Midday 2-hour Postmeal||-39.3|-62.1|<0.001
90808368|NCT02791191|181494403|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.418|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.418
90808369|NCT02791191|181494403|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.231|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.231
90808370|NCT02791191|181494404|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||White Matter Disease||||1.000
90808371|NCT02791191|181494404|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||White Matter Disease||||1.000
90808372|NCT02791191|181494404|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.404|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.404
90808373|NCT02791191|181494404|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Cortical Superficial Siderous||||1.000
91054716|NCT03954834|181991246|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-39.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.6|-30.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening Premeal||-30.4|-47.6|<0.001
90808374|NCT02791191|181494404|SUPERIORITY|Lacunar Infarct||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
90808375|NCT02791191|181494404|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.457|||||||Fisher Exact|||Lacunar Infarct||||0.457
90808376|NCT02791191|181494404|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Other Infarct||||1.000
90808377|NCT02791191|181494404|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.457|||||||Fisher Exact|||Other Infarct||||0.457
90808378|NCT02791191|181494405|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Vasogenic Edema||||1.000
90808379|NCT02791191|181494405|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.457|||||||Fisher Exact|||Vasogenic Edema||||0.457
90808380|NCT02791191|181494405|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.703|||||||Fisher Exact|||Increase in Microhemorrhage||||0.703
90808381|NCT02791191|181494405|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Increase in Microhemorrhage||||1.000
90808382|NCT02791191|181494406|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.452|||||||Fisher Exact|||Treatment Emergent Suicidal Ideation||||0.452
90808383|NCT02791191|181494406|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.279||||||TE Suicidal Ideation|Fisher Exact|||||||0.279
90808384|NCT02791191|181494406|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.293|||||||Fisher Exact|||Emergence of Suicidal Behavior||||0.293
90808385|NCT02791191|181494406|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.486|||||||Fisher Exact|||Emergence of Suicidal Behavior||||0.486
90808386|NCT02791191|181494408|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||Amyloid Beta||||<.001
90808387|NCT02791191|181494408|SUPERIORITY|Amyloid Beta|||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<.001
90808388|NCT02791191|181494408|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||Amyloid Beta 1-40||||<.001
90808389|NCT02791191|181494408|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||Amyloid Beta 1-40||||<.001
90808390|NCT02791191|181494408|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||Amyloid Beta 1-42||||<.001
90808391|NCT02791191|181494408|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||Amyloid Beta 1-42||||<.001
90808392|NCT02791191|181494409|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||||0.970
90808393|NCT02791191|181494409|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.586|||||||Mixed Model Repeated Meausres|||||||0.586
90808394|NCT02791191|181494410|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.088|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.088
90808395|NCT02791191|181494410|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.150
90808396|NCT02791191|181494411|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.153|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.153
90808397|NCT02791191|181494411|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.176|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.176
90808398|NCT00678535|181494484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.091||||0.3158||95.0|0.92|1.292|||Stratified log rank||Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate median PFS time. HR was calculated using Cox proportional hazards model stratified by randomization strata.|Primary efficacy analysis: To test equality of progression free survival time between treatment groups, applying the two-sided stratified log-rank test (randomization strata: disease stage, previous oesophagectomy/gastrectomy and prior(neo-) adjuvant(radio) chemotherapy, α=5%).||1.292|0.920|0.3158
91014732|NCT01945034|181912248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.39|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 4(AM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.39|-0.59|0.688
91054717|NCT03954834|181991246|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-39.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.9|-30.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening Premeal||-30.6|-47.9|<0.001
91054718|NCT03954834|181991246|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-36.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.3|-27.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening Premeal||-27.5|-45.3|<0.001
91054719|NCT03954834|181991246|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-51.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.2|-40.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening 2-hour Postmeal||-40.1|-63.2|<0.001
91014733|NCT01945034|181912248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.7||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|-0.06|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 4(AM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms.||-0.06|-1.25|0.032
90808399|NCT00678535|181494485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.004||||0.9547||95.0|0.866|1.165|||Stratified log rank||Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate median OS time. HR was calculated using Cox proportional hazards model stratified by randomization strata.|To test equality of OS time between treatment groups, applying the two-sided stratified log-rank test (randomization strata: disease stage, previous oesophagectomy/gastrectomy and prior (neo-) adjuvant(radio) chemotherapy, α=5%)||1.165|0.866|0.9547
90808400|NCT00678535|181494486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0435||||0.7696||95.0|0.7844|1.3882|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The best overall response rate was compared with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (strata: disease stage, previous oesophagectomy/gastrectomy and prior(neo-) adjuvant(radio) chemotherapy, two-sided with α=5%).||1.3882|0.7844|0.7696
90808401|NCT03817463|181494497|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.7|||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.83|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables at baseline.||HHF-(broad+specific)||0.83|0.60|<0.005
90808402|NCT03817463|181494497|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.66|||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.78|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables at baseline||HHF-(broad + specific).||0.78|0.57|<0.005
90808403|NCT03817463|181494498|OTHER||Ajusted hazard ratio|0.75|||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.81|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables at baseline.||HHF-broad.||0.81|0.69|<0.005
90808404|NCT03817463|181494498|OTHER||Ajusted hazard ratio|0.78|||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.88|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables at baseline.||HHF-broad.||0.88|0.69|<0.005
90808405|NCT03817463|181494499|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.68|||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.83|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables at baseline.||HHF-specific. Hazards ratios reported include data from all countries with non-missing values.||0.83|0.56|<0.005
90808406|NCT03817463|181494499|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.64|||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.81|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables at baseline.||HHF-specific. Hazards ratios reported include data from all countries with non-missing values.||0.81|0.51|<0.005
90808407|NCT03817463|181494500|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.55|||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.63|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables at baseline.||||0.63|0.48|<0.005
90808408|NCT03817463|181494500|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.59|||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.65|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables at baseline.||||0.65|0.54|<0.005
91014734|NCT01945034|181912248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.99|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 4(AM):The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.99|-0.19|0.179
90808409|NCT03817463|181494501|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.65|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.76|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables at baseline.||||0.76|0.56|<0.05
90808410|NCT03817463|181494501|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.66|||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.72|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables at baseline.||||0.72|0.61|<0.005
90808411|NCT03817463|181494502|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.72|||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.82|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables at baseline.||||0.82|0.64|<0.005
90808412|NCT03817463|181494502|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.72|||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.78|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables at baseline.||||0.78|0.66|<0.005
90808413|NCT03817463|181494503|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|1.02||||0.816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.18|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables at baseline.||||1.18|0.88|0.816
90808414|NCT03817463|181494503|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.87||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|0.97|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables at baseline.||||0.97|0.78|0.013
90808415|NCT03817463|181494504|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.82|||<|0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.96|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables at baseline.||Hazards ratios reported include data from all countries with non-missing values.||0.96|0.71|<0.011
90808416|NCT03817463|181494504|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.84||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.01|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables at baseline.||Hazards ratios reported include data from all countries with non-missing values.||1.01|0.69|0.064
90808417|NCT03817463|181494505|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.59|||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.84|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables at baseline.||Hazards ratios reported include data from all countries with non-missing values.||0.84|0.42|<0.005
90808418|NCT03817463|181494505|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.6|||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.72|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables at baseline.||Hazards ratios reported include data from all countries with non-missing values.||0.72|0.49|<0.005
90808419|NCT03817463|181494506|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.54|||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.64|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables at baseline.||||0.64|0.46|<0.005
91014735|NCT01945034|181912248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.69|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 4(AM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.69|-0.40|0.609
90808420|NCT03817463|181494506|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.56|||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.66|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables at baseline.||||0.66|0.47|<0.005
90808421|NCT03817463|181494507|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.95||||0.545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.11|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables at baseline.||||1.11|0.81|0.545
90808422|NCT03817463|181494507|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.91||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|0.99|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables at baseline.||||0.99|0.83|0.036
90808423|NCT03817463|181494508|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.93||||0.353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.09|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables at baseline.||Hazards ratios reported include data from all countries with non-missing values.||1.09|0.79|0.353
90808424|NCT03817463|181494508|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.9||||0.197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.05|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables at baseline.||Hazards ratios reported include data from all countries with non-missing values.||1.05|0.78|0.197
90808425|NCT03817463|181494509|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.43|||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.63|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables at baseline.||Hazards ratios reported include data from all countries with non-missing values.||0.63|0.30|<0.005
90808426|NCT03817463|181494509|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.27|||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.44|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables at baseline.||Hazards ratios reported include data from all countries with non-missing values.||0.44|0.16|<0.005
90808427|NCT03817463|181494510|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|1.05||||0.535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.25|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables at baseline.||||1.25|0.89|0.535
90808428|NCT03817463|181494510|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.98||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.15|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables at baseline.||||1.15|0.84|0.850
90808429|NCT03817463|181494511|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|1.03||||0.828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.31|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables at baseline.||Hazards ratios reported include data from all countries with non-missing values.||1.31|0.81|0.828
90808430|NCT03817463|181494511|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|1.01||||0.944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.42|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables at baseline.||Hazards ratios reported include data from all countries with non-missing values.||1.42|0.72|0.944
90808431|NCT03817463|181494512|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.94||||0.642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.22|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables at baseline.||||1.22|0.73|0.642
90808432|NCT03817463|181494512|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.89||||0.417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.19|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables at baseline.||||1.19|0.66|0.417
90808433|NCT03817463|181494513|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.89||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.02|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables at baseline.||Hazards ratios reported include data from all countries with non-missing values.||1.02|0.77|0.091
90808434|NCT03817463|181494514|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|1.97|||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|3.03|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables at baseline.||Hazards ratios reported include data from all countries with non-missing values.||3.03|1.28|<0.005
90808435|NCT03817463|181494515|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.95||||0.654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.2|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables at baseline.||Hazards ratios reported include data from all countries with non-missing values.||1.20|0.75|0.654
90808436|NCT03817463|181494516|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.78||||0.233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.17|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables at baseline.||Hazards ratios reported include data from all countries with non-missing values.||1.17|0.52|0.233
90808437|NCT03817463|181494517|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.56|||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.82|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables at baseline.||Hazards ratios reported include data from all countries with non-missing values.||0.82|0.38|<0.005
90808438|NCT03817463|181494518|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.8|||||Poisson regression model was used.|Emergency room visits - Finland||0.80|0.69|
90808439|NCT03817463|181494518|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.38|||||Poisson regression model was used.|Emergency room visits - Japan||1.38|0.59|
90808440|NCT03817463|181494518|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.0|||||Poisson regression model was used.|Emergency room visits - South Korea||1.00|0.82|
90808441|NCT03817463|181494518|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.87|||||Poisson regression model was used.|Emergency room visit - Spain||0.87|0.59|
90808442|NCT03817463|181494518|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.01|||||Poisson regression model was used.|Emergency room visit - Sweden||1.01|0.87|
90808443|NCT03817463|181494518|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.93|||||Poisson regression model was used.|Emergency room visit - Taiwan||0.93|0.80|
90808444|NCT03817463|181494518|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|0.85|||||HR and confidence interval were estimated using a cox proportional hazard model, comparing treatment groups and adjusting for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables.|First impatient stay - Finland||0.85|0.75|
90808445|NCT03817463|181494518|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.84|||||HR and confidence interval were estimated using a cox proportional hazard model, comparing treatment groups and adjusting for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables.|First impatient stay - Japan||0.84|0.68|
90808446|NCT03817463|181494518|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.82|||||HR and confidence interval were estimated using a cox proportional hazard model, comparing treatment groups and adjusting for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables.|First impatient stay - South Korea||0.82|0.69|
91054720|NCT03954834|181991246|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-52.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.1|-40.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening 2-hour Postmeal||-40.9|-64.1|<0.001
90808447|NCT03817463|181494518|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|0.94|||||HR and confidence interval were estimated using a cox proportional hazard model, comparing treatment groups and adjusting for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables.|First impatient stay - Norway||0.94|0.78|
90808448|NCT03817463|181494518|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.89|||||HR and confidence interval were estimated using a cox proportional hazard model, comparing treatment groups and adjusting for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables.|First impatient stay - Spain||0.89|0.66|
90808449|NCT03817463|181494518|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|0.93|||||HR and confidence interval were estimated using a cox proportional hazard model, comparing treatment groups and adjusting for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables.|First impatient stay - Sweden||0.93|0.81|
90808450|NCT03817463|181494518|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.86|||||HR and confidence interval were estimated using a cox proportional hazard model, comparing treatment groups and adjusting for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables.|First impatient stay - Taiwan||0.86|0.74|
90808451|NCT03817463|181494518|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.71|||||Poisson regression model was used.|All-cause hospital admissions||0.71|0.64|
90808452|NCT03817463|181494518|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.76|||||Poisson regression model was used.|For all-cause hospital admissions - Japan||0.76|0.63|
91014736|NCT01945034|181912248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.4|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 4(AM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms.||0.40|-0.92|0.435
91054721|NCT03954834|181991246|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-53.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.1|-41.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening 2-hour Postmeal||-41.3|-65.1|<0.001
90808453|NCT03817463|181494518|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.75|||||Poisson regression model was used.|All-cause hospital admissions - South Korea||0.75|0.66|
90808454|NCT03817463|181494518|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.85|||||Poisson regression model was used.|All-cause hospital admissions - Norway||0.85|0.77|
91054722|NCT03954834|181991246|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-48.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.6|-37.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Bedtime||-37.4|-58.6|<0.001
90808455|NCT03817463|181494518|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.77|||||Poisson regression model was used.|All-cause hospital admissions - Spain||0.77|0.60|
90808456|NCT03817463|181494518|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.89|||||Poisson regression model was used.|All-cause hospital admissions - Sweden||0.89|0.80|
90808457|NCT03817463|181494518|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.87||||||All-cause hospital admissions - Taiwan||0.87|0.72|
90808458|NCT03817463|181494518|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.79|||||Poisson regression model was used.|Outpatient healthcare visits - Finland||0.79|0.77|
90808459|NCT03817463|181494518|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|0.97|||||Poisson regression model was used.|Outpatient healthcare visits - Japan||0.97|0.94|
90808460|NCT03817463|181494518|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|0.97|||||Poisson regression model was used.|Outpatient healthcare visits - South Korea||0.97|0.96|
90808461|NCT03817463|181494518|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|0.97||||||Outpatient healthcare visits - Norway||0.97|0.94|
90808462|NCT03817463|181494518|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|0.91|||||Poisson regression model was used.|Outpatient healthcare visit - Spain||0.91|0.85|
90808463|NCT03817463|181494518|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|0.98|||||Poisson regression model was used.|Outpatient healthcare visits - Sweden||0.98|0.94|
90808464|NCT03817463|181494518|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.0|||||Poisson regression model was used.|Outpatient healthcare visits - Taiwan||1.00|0.94|
90808465|NCT03817463|181494519|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|0.94|||||Poisson regression model was used.|Pharmacy dispensations/prescriptions based on different antidiabetic drugs - Japan||0.94|0.89|
90808466|NCT03817463|181494519|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|0.93|||||Poisson regression model was used.|Pharmacy dispensations/prescriptions based on different antidiabetic drugs - South Korea||0.93|0.81|
90808467|NCT03817463|181494519|OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.11|||||Poisson regression model was used.|Pharmacy dispensations/prescriptions based on different antidiabetic drugs - Taiwan||1.11|1.08|
90808468|NCT03817463|181494519|OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.12|||||Poisson regression model was used.|Pharmacy dispensations/prescriptions based on different drugs - Finland||1.12|1.10|
90808469|NCT03817463|181494519|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|0.83|||||Poisson regression model was used.|Pharmacy dispensations/prescriptions based on different drugs - Japan||0.83|0.81|
90808470|NCT03817463|181494519|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.0|||||Poisson regression model was used.|Pharmacy dispensations/prescriptions based on different drugs - South Korea||1.00|0.99|
90808471|NCT03817463|181494519|OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|1.14|||||Poisson regression model was used.|Pharmacy dispensations/prescriptions based on different drugs - Norway||1.14|1.11|
90808472|NCT03817463|181494519|OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|1.27|||||Poisson regression model was used.|Pharmacy dispensations/prescriptions based on different drugs - Sweden||1.27|1.25|
90808473|NCT03817463|181494519|OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.02|||||Poisson regression model was used.|Pharmacy dispensations/prescriptions based on different drugs - Taiwan||1.02|0.98|
91014737|NCT01945034|181912248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.7||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.26|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 4 Mid-day: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||1.26|0.10|0.023
91014738|NCT01945034|181912248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.53|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 4 Mid-day: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.53|-0.54|0.987
91014739|NCT01945034|181912248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.7||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.03|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 4 Mid-day: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms.||-0.03|-1.33|0.040
90808474|NCT03817463|181494519|OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.02|||||Poisson regression model was used.|Pharmacy dispensations/prescriptions based on prescriptions - Finland||1.02|1.01|
90808475|NCT03817463|181494519|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|0.84|||||Poisson regression model was used.|Pharmacy dispensations/prescriptions based on prescriptions - Japan||0.84|0.82|
90808476|NCT03817463|181494519|OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.01|||||Poisson regression model was used.|Pharmacy dispensations/prescriptions based on prescriptions - South Korea||1.01|0.99|
90808477|NCT03817463|181494519|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|0.93|||||Poisson regression model was used.|Pharmacy dispensations/prescriptions based on prescriptions - Norway||0.93|0.92|
90808478|NCT03817463|181494519|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|0.87|||||Poisson regression model was used.|Pharmacy dispensations/prescriptions based on prescriptions - Spain||0.87|0.84|
90808479|NCT03817463|181494519|OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.0|||||Poisson regression model was used.|Pharmacy dispensations/prescriptions based on prescriptions - Sweden||1.00|1.00|
90808480|NCT03817463|181494520|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|0.94|||||Poisson regression model was used.|Total cost - Finland||0.94|0.83|
90808481|NCT03817463|181494520|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.12|||||Poisson regression model was used.|Total costs - Norway||1.12|0.86|
90808482|NCT03817463|181494520|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.05|||||Poisson regression model was used.|Total costs - Sweden||1.05|0.92|
91014740|NCT01945034|181912248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.94|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 4 Mid-day: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.94|-0.31|0.319
90808483|NCT03817463|181494521|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.88|||||Poisson regression model was used.|||0.88|0.80|
90808484|NCT03817463|181494522|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.68|||||Poisson regression model was used.|Total costs - South Korea||1.68|0.34|
90808485|NCT03817463|181494523|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.03|||||Poisson regression model was used.|Total costs - Taiwan||1.03|0.92|
90808486|NCT02589665|181494573|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|12.27||||||||12.27|0.70|
90808487|NCT02589665|181494573|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.88|27.65||||||||27.65|1.88|
90808488|NCT02589665|181494573|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|14.17||||||||14.17|0.92|
90808489|NCT02589665|181494574|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.73|8.98||||||||8.98|1.73|
90808490|NCT02589665|181494574|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.94|15.63||||||||15.63|2.94|
90808491|NCT02589665|181494574|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|6.29||||||||6.29|1.23|
90808492|NCT02589665|181494575|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.986|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.986
90808493|NCT02589665|181494575|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.553|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.553
90808494|NCT02589665|181494575|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.560
90808495|NCT02589665|181494576|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|6.55||||||||6.55|0.80|
90808496|NCT02589665|181494577|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|34.9||||||||34.9|11.0|
90808497|NCT02589665|181494577|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.7|32.3||||||||32.3|8.7|
90808498|NCT02589665|181494577|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|22.5||||||||22.5|-1.0|
90808499|NCT02589665|181494579|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|-0.41||||||||-0.41|-1.39|
90808500|NCT02589665|181494579|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|-0.59||||||||-0.59|-1.54|
90808501|NCT02589665|181494579|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.11||||||||-0.11|-1.07|
90808502|NCT02589665|181494582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.61||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|8.31|||Regression, Logistic|||||8.31|1.57|0.003
90808503|NCT02589665|181494582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.81|15.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||15.20|2.81|<0.001
90808504|NCT02589665|181494582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.27||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|5.22|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.22|0.98|0.054
90808505|NCT02589665|181494583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.48||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.24|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.24|0.19|0.131
90808506|NCT02589665|181494584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.25||||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|8.07|||Regression, Logistic|||||8.07|0.63|0.215
90808507|NCT02589665|181494584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.37|25.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||25.00|2.37|<0.001
90808508|NCT02589665|181494584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.62||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|15.14|||Regression, Logistic|||||15.14|1.41|0.012
90808509|NCT02589665|181494585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71||||0.428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.65|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.65|0.31|0.428
90808510|NCT01018134|181494615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4261|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.4261
90808511|NCT01018134|181494615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4219|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.4219
90808512|NCT01018134|181494615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1826|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.1826
90808513|NCT01018134|181494615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||||||Statistically significant difference between treatment groups|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0090
90808514|NCT01018134|181494615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3421|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.3421
90808515|NCT01018134|181494615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||||||Statistically significant difference between treatment groups|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0100
90808516|NCT01018134|181494615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2103|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.2103
90808517|NCT01018134|181494615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.1200
90808518|NCT01018134|181494616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2631|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.2631
90808519|NCT01018134|181494616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2968|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.2968
90808520|NCT01018134|181494616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0186||||||statistically significant difference between treatment groups|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0186
90808521|NCT01018134|181494616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0361||||||statistically significant difference between treatment groups|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0361
90808522|NCT01018134|181494616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||||||statistically significant difference between treatment groups|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0070
90808523|NCT01018134|181494616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1583|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.1583
90808524|NCT01018134|181494616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2078|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.2078
90808525|NCT01018134|181494616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2878|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.2878
90808526|NCT01018134|181494617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2713|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2713
90808527|NCT01018134|181494617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2689|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2689
90808528|NCT01018134|181494617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0419|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0419
90808529|NCT01018134|181494617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0309|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0309
90808530|NCT01018134|181494617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1126|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1126
90808531|NCT01018134|181494617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0033|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0033
90808532|NCT01018134|181494617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4967|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4967
90808533|NCT01018134|181494617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0749|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0749
90808534|NCT01018134|181494618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2442|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2442
90808535|NCT01018134|181494618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2664|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2664
90808536|NCT01018134|181494618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1328|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1328
90808537|NCT01018134|181494618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0528|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0528
90808538|NCT01018134|181494618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0297|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0297
90808539|NCT01018134|181494618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0093|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0093
90808540|NCT01018134|181494618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.223|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2230
90808541|NCT01018134|181494618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1924|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1924
90808542|NCT01018134|181494619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2397|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2397
90808543|NCT01018134|181494619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3794|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3794
90808544|NCT01018134|181494619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0383|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0383
90808545|NCT01018134|181494619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0154|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0154
90808546|NCT01018134|181494619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1892|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1892
90808547|NCT01018134|181494619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0010
90808548|NCT01018134|181494619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0363|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0363
90808549|NCT01018134|181494619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2162|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2162
90808550|NCT01751906|181494621|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9256|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.9256
90808551|NCT01751906|181494622|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.504|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.5040
90808552|NCT01751906|181494623|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2126|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2126
90808553|NCT01751906|181494650|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0665|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0665
90808554|NCT01981863|181494678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.21
90808555|NCT02383420|181494688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.415|TWO_SIDED|||||Level of significance (alpha) = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.415
90808556|NCT02383420|181494689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED|||||Level of significance (alpha) = 0.05|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0000
90808557|NCT00420004|181494697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.494|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.494
90808558|NCT03002818|181494717|SUPERIORITY||mean change|-108266.0||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-235037.0|18504.0|||one-sample t-test|||sdITT (n=26): Change at Day 168 minus Baseline||18504|-235037|0.091
90808559|NCT03002818|181494717|SUPERIORITY||mean change|-98373.0||||0.152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-235667.0|38921.0|||one-sample t-test|||mITT (n=24): Change at Day 168 minus Baseline||38921|-235667|0.152
90808560|NCT03002818|181494717|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.091|||||||paired t-test|||sdITT (n=26): Baseline vs. Day 168||||0.091
90808561|NCT03002818|181494717|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.152|||||||paired t-test|||mITT (n=24): Baseline vs. Day 168||||0.152
90808562|NCT03002818|181494718|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.461|||||||paired t-test|||sdITT (n=34): Baseline vs. Day 28||||0.461
90808563|NCT03002818|181494718|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||paired t-test|||mITT (n=24): Baseline vs. Day 28||||0.630
90808564|NCT03002818|181494718|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.855|||||||paired t-test|||sdITT (n=32): Baseline vs. Day 84||||0.855
90808565|NCT03002818|181494718|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||paired t-test|||mITT (n=24): Baseline vs. Day 84||||0.750
90808566|NCT03002818|181494719|SUPERIORITY||mean change|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.063|3.137||||||sdITT: mean change Baseline minus Day 168||3.137|2.063|
90808567|NCT03002818|181494719|SUPERIORITY||mean change|2.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.212|3.428||||||mITT: mean change Baseline minus Day 168||3.428|2.212|
90808568|NCT03002818|181494719|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Paired Wilcoxon Test|||sdITT (n=37): Baseline vs. Day 168||||<0.001
90808569|NCT03002818|181494719|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Paired Wilcoxon Test|||mITT (n=24): Baseline vs. Day 168||||<0.001
90808570|NCT03002818|181494719|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Paired Wilcoxon Test|||sdITT (n=35): Baseline vs. Day 28||||<0.001
90808571|NCT03002818|181494719|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Paired Wilcoxon Test|||mITT (n=22): Baseline vs. Day 28||||<0.001
90808572|NCT03002818|181494719|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Paired Wilcoxon Test|||sdITT (n=36): Baseline vs. Day 84||||<0.001
90808573|NCT03002818|181494719|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Paired Wilcoxon Test|||mITT (n=23): Baseline vs. Day 84||||<0.001
90808574|NCT03002818|181494720|SUPERIORITY||mean change|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.651|1.871||||||sdITT: mean change Baseline minus Day 168||1.871|-0.651|
90808575|NCT03002818|181494720|SUPERIORITY||mean change|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.608|2.088||||||mITT: mean change Baseline minus Day 168||2.088|-0.608|
90808576|NCT03002818|181494720|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.381|||||||Paired Wilcoxon Test|||sdITT (n=37): Baseline vs. Day 168||||0.381
90808577|NCT03002818|181494720|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.304|||||||Paired Wilcoxon Test|||mITT (n=24): Baseline vs. Day 168||||0.304
90808578|NCT03002818|181494720|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||Paired Wilcoxon Test|||sdITT (n=35): Baseline vs. Day 28||||0.014
90808579|NCT03002818|181494720|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.278|||||||Paired Wilcoxon Test|||mITT (n=22): Baseline vs. Day 28||||0.278
90808580|NCT03002818|181494720|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.881|||||||Paired Wilcoxon Test|||sdITT (n=36): Baseline vs. Day 84||||0.881
90808581|NCT03002818|181494720|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.775|||||||Paired Wilcoxon Test|||sdITT (n=23): Baseline vs. Day 84||||0.775
90808582|NCT00608023|181494729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90808583|NCT00608023|181494730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
90808584|NCT00608023|181494731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
90808585|NCT00608023|181494732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
90808586|NCT00608023|181494733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
90808587|NCT06053541|181494749|OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the evaluation of statistical significance, considering that the data do not follow a normal distribution and that the two samples are independent and not paired, the Mann-Whitney test was applied and a p value \< 0.05 was considered.||||0.24
90808588|NCT06053541|181494750|OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the evaluation of statistical significance, considering that the data do not follow a normal distribution and that the two samples are independent and not paired, the Mann-Whitney test was applied and a p value \< 0.05 was considered.||||0.37
90808589|NCT06053541|181494751|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the evaluation of statistical significance, considering that the data do not follow a normal distribution and that the two samples are independent and not paired, the Mann-Whitney test was applied and a p value \< 0.05 was considered.||||0.03
90808590|NCT06053541|181494752|OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Beds in the general practice and Pulmonology: For the evaluation of statistical significance, considering that the data do not follow a normal distribution and that the two samples are independent and not paired, the Mann-Whitney test was applied and a p value \< 0.05 was considered.||||0.11
90808591|NCT06053541|181494752|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Beds in Adults ICU: For the evaluation of statistical significance, considering that the data do not follow a normal distribution and that the two samples are independent and not paired, the Mann-Whitney test was applied and a p value \< 0.05 was considered.||||<0.01
90808592|NCT06053541|181494753|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the evaluation of statistical significance, considering that the data do not follow a normal distribution and that the two samples are independent and not paired, the Mann-Whitney test was applied and a p value \< 0.05 was considered.||||0.01
91014741|NCT01945034|181912248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.69|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 4 Mid-day: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.69|-0.47|0.712
90808593|NCT06053541|181494754|OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the evaluation of statistical significance, considering that the data do not follow a normal distribution and that the two samples are independent and not paired, the Mann-Whitney test was applied and a p value \< 0.05 was considered.||||0.07
90808594|NCT00245050|181494771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.07|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.536|2.16|||Chi-squared|||Based on published literature, it is estimated that the incidence of HFS for all grades is 49%. A decrease of 50% or more in the incidence of HFS in patients receiving pyridoxine would be of clinical significance. A sample size of 27 patients per group was chosen as this would allow us to detect a difference between HFS incidence of 49% and 11.5% (alpha=0.05, two-sided, power=0.80). Interim analysis was conducted after 30 patients were enrolled and had evaluable HFS assessment data.||2.16|0.536|<0.05
90808595|NCT00245050|181494772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.916||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.916
90808596|NCT00152477|181494776|SUPERIORITY||Difference of response rate|6.4|||=|0.384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|20.5||Two-sided Chi-square test. Fisher's Exact test presented when number of responders in a treatment group is \<5.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||20.5|-7.7|=0.384
90808597|NCT00152477|181494776|SUPERIORITY||Difference of response rate|6.4|||=|0.409||95.0|-7.7|20.5||CMH test stratified by country and disease stage (3 levels: Stage IIIb without malignant pleural effusion versus Stage IIIb with malignant pleural effusion or Stage IV or recurrent).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||20.5|-7.7|=0.409
90808598|NCT00152477|181494776|SUPERIORITY||Difference of response rate|2.6|||=|0.744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|18.8||Two-sided Chi-square test. Fisher's Exact test presented when number of responders in a treatment group is \< 5.|Chi-squared|||||18.8|-13.5|=0.744
90808599|NCT00152477|181494776|SUPERIORITY||Difference of response rate|2.6|||=|0.783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|18.8||CMH test stratified by country and disease stage (3 levels: Stage IIIb without malignant pleural effusion versus Stage IIIb with malignant pleural effusion or Stage IV or recurrent).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||18.8|-13.5|=0.783
90808600|NCT00152477|181494776|SUPERIORITY||Difference of response rate|10.2|||=|0.234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|27.2||Two-sided Chi-square test. Fisher's Exact test presented when number of responders in a treatment group is \< 5.|Chi-squared|||||27.2|-6.8|=0.234
90808601|NCT00152477|181494776|SUPERIORITY||Difference of response rate|10.2|||=|0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|27.2||CMH test stratified by country and disease stage (3 levels: Stage IIIb without malignant pleural effusion versus Stage IIIb with malignant pleural effusion or Stage IV or recurrent).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||27.2|-6.8|=0.228
90808602|NCT00123162|181494782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|7.6|||ANCOVA|adjusted for baseline pain intensity (Visual Analog Scale (VAS) score).||With 26 subjects per treatment group and an assumed within-group standard deviation of 7 units, the study was designed to have 90% statistical power for a two-sided, 0.05 significance level test to detect a difference of 6.5 units in TOPAR4 between a single dose of 100 mg of sildenafil and placebo. However, we anticipated subject drop-out as high as 15%; therefore, we planned to recruit 31 subjects per treatment group.||7.6|2.9|<0.001
90808603|NCT00123162|181494783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-42.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.3|-26.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||Comparison of the VAS score at hour 4 (Sildenafil Citrate - Placebo)|||-26.8|-58.3|<.001
90808604|NCT02301546|181494797|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.01
91014742|NCT01945034|181912248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.49|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 4 Mid-day: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms.||0.49|-0.91|0.557
91014743|NCT01945034|181912248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.7||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|1.28|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 4(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||1.28|0.14|0.015
91014744|NCT01945034|181912248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.79|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 4(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.79|-0.26|0.326
91014745|NCT01945034|181912248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|0.19|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 4(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms.||0.19|-1.08|0.167
91014746|NCT01945034|181912248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.93|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 4(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.93|-0.33|0.350
90808605|NCT05059301|181494805|EQUIVALENCE|Clinical equivalence is demonstrated if the 2 sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the GMC ratios (RSV OA\_Lot 1 divided by RSV OA\_Lot 2) is within the pre defined limit of \[0.67, 1.5\].|Adjusted group GMC ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.21||||||To demonstrate the clinical equivalence of RSV OA\_Lot 1 versus RSV OA\_Lot 2 in terms of RSV PreF3 IgG concentrations expressed as group GMC ratio at one month post vaccination. The 2-sided 95% CI for group GMC ratio was derived from an ANCOVA model on log10 transformed RSV PreF3 IgG antibody titers. The ANCOVA model included the treatment group and the age category (age at vaccination: 60-69, 70-79 or \>=80 years) and the center as fixed effects and the pre-dose log10 titer as covariate.||1.21|0.94|
90808606|NCT05059301|181494805|EQUIVALENCE|Clinical equivalence is demonstrated if the 2 sided 95% CI of the GMC ratios (RSV OA\_Lot 1 divided by RSV OA\_Lot 3) is within the pre defined limit of \[0.67, 1.5\].|Adjusted group GMC ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.04||||||To demonstrate the clinical equivalence of RSV OA\_Lot 1 versus RSV OA\_Lot 3 in terms of RSV PreF3 IgG concentrations expressed as group GMC ratio at one month post vaccination. The 2-sided 95% CI for group GMC ratio was derived from an ANCOVA model on log10 transformed RSV PreF3 IgG antibody titers. The ANCOVA model included the treatment group and the age category (age at vaccination: 60-69, 70-79 or \>=80 years) and the center as fixed effects and the pre-dose log10 titer as covariate.||1.04|0.81|
90808607|NCT05059301|181494805|EQUIVALENCE|Clinical equivalence is demonstrated if the 2 sided 95% CI of the GMC ratios (RSV OA\_Lot 2 divided by RSV OA\_Lot 3) is within the pre defined limit of \[0.67, 1.5\].|Adjusted group GMC ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.99||||||To demonstrate the clinical equivalence of RSV OA\_Lot 2 versus RSV OA\_Lot 3 in terms of RSV PreF3 IgG concentrations expressed as group GMC ratio at one month post vaccination. The 2-sided 95% CI for group GMC ratio was derived from an ANCOVA model on log10 transformed RSV PreF3 IgG antibody titers. The ANCOVA model included the treatment group and the age category (age at vaccination: 60-69, 70-79 or \>=80 years) and the center as fixed effects and the pre-dose log10 titer as covariate.||0.99|0.77|
90808608|NCT01709422|181494836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.2||||0.05||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.05
90808609|NCT01709422|181494837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
91014747|NCT01945034|181912248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.93|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 4(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.93|-0.23|0.235
91014748|NCT01945034|181912248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.76|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 4(PM):The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms.||0.76|-0.65|0.881
91014749|NCT01945034|181912248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.6||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|1.16|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 5(AM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||1.16|0.04|0.036
91014750|NCT01945034|181912248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.63|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 5(AM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.63|-0.40|0.656
90808610|NCT01005316|181494838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.258|||||||Fisher Exact|||The p-value compares Cohort A: Non-Sensitized with Cohort B: Sensitized, Crossmatch Positive.||||0.2580
91014751|NCT01945034|181912248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|0.14|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 5(AM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms.||0.14|-1.11|0.130
91014752|NCT01945034|181912248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.95|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 5(AM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.95|-0.30|0.304
91014753|NCT01945034|181912248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.78|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 5(AM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms.||0.78|-0.37|0.491
91014754|NCT01945034|181912248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.57|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 5(AM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms.||0.57|-0.82|0.726
91014755|NCT01945034|181912248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.6||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.23|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 5 Mid-day: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||1.23|0.07|0.029
91014756|NCT01945034|181912248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.68|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 5 Mid-day: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.68|-0.39|0.585
91014757|NCT01945034|181912248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|0.15|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 5 Mid-day: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms.||0.15|-1.15|0.131
91014758|NCT01945034|181912248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|1.04|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 5 Mid-day: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||1.04|-0.24|0.215
91014759|NCT01945034|181912248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.94|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 5 Mid-day: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.94|-0.24|0.244
91014760|NCT01945034|181912248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.66|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 5 Mid-day: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms.||0.66|-0.76|0.885
91014761|NCT01945034|181912248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.5||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|1.13|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 5(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||1.13|-0.04|0.067
91014762|NCT01945034|181912248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.73|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 5(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.73|-0.35|0.500
91014763|NCT01945034|181912248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|0.29|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 5(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms.||0.29|-1.02|0.276
91014764|NCT01945034|181912248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.92|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 5(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.92|-0.38|0.413
91014765|NCT01945034|181912248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.83|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 5(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.83|-0.37|0.448
91054723|NCT03954834|181991246|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-50.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.3|-40.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Bedtime||-40.1|-61.3|<0.001
91054724|NCT03954834|181991246|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-51.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.6|-40.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-40.9|-62.6|<0.001
90808611|NCT01606176|181494927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.39||||0.332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|0.4|||ANCOVA|||"The change was compared between treatment groups using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). The significance of the treatment effect, after adjusting for baseline pain score, was assessed using the F-test from the ANCOVA. The model was as follows:~Change in Box Scale-11 Pain Score = Baseline Pain Score + Treatment"||0.40|-1.18|0.332
90808612|NCT01606176|181494928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-29.55||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.08|-11.02|||ANOVA|||The proportions were compared between treatment groups using analysis of variance (ANOVA) with treatment as a factor.||-11.02|-48.08|0.002
90808613|NCT01606176|181494929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.34||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.0|||ANCOVA|||"The change was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The significance of the treatment effect, after adjusting for baseline sleep disturbance score, was assessed using the F-test from the ANCOVA. The model was as follows:~Change in Sleep Disturbance Score = Baseline Sleep Disturbance Score + Treatment"||0.00|-0.68|0.052
90808614|NCT01606176|181494930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.79||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.14|2.56|||ANCOVA|||"The change was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The significance of the treatment effect, after adjusting for baseline Pain Disability Index score, was assessed using the F-test from the ANCOVA. The model was as follows:~Change in Pain Disability Index Score = Baseline Pain Disability Index Score + Treatment"||2.56|-8.14|0.300
90808615|NCT01606176|181494931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-1.66||||0.233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.42|1.1|||ANCOVA|||"The change was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The significance of the treatment effect, after adjusting for baseline Total Brief Pain Inventory (Short Form) score, was assessed using the F-test from the ANCOVA. The model was as follows:~Change in Total Brief Pain Inventory (Short Form) Score = Baseline Total Brief Pain Inventory (Short Form) Score + Treatment"||1.10|-4.42|0.233
90808616|NCT01606176|181494932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|0.28||||0.387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.91|||ANCOVA|||"The change was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The significance of the treatment effect, after adjusting for baseline Total Spitzer Quality of Life Index score, was assessed using the F-test from the ANCOVA. The model was as follows:~Change in Total Spitzer Quality of Life Index Score = Baseline Total Spitzer Quality of Life Index Score + Treatment"||0.91|-0.36|0.387
90808617|NCT01606176|181494933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-1.47||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.56|18.51|||Fisher Exact|||"The proportion of patients who considered their condition Very Much Improved or Much Improved was compared between treatment groups using a Fisher's Exact Test."||18.51|-21.56|1.000
90808618|NCT01606176|181494934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.86||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.97|0.26|||ANCOVA|||"The change was compared between treatment groups using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). The significance of the treatment effect, after adjusting for baseline pain score, was assessed using the F-test from the ANCOVA. The model was as follows:~Change in Box Scale-11 Pain Score = Baseline Pain Score + Treatment"||0.26|-1.97|0.128
90808619|NCT01606176|181494935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-31.77||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.07|-8.47|||ANOVA|||The proportions were compared between treatment groups using ANOVA with treatment as a factor.||-8.47|-55.07|0.009
90808620|NCT01606176|181494936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.32||||0.184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.16|||ANCOVA|||"The change was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The significance of the treatment effect, after adjusting for baseline sleep disturbance score, was assessed using the F-test from the ANCOVA. The model was as follows:~Change in Sleep Disturbance Score = Baseline Sleep Disturbance Score + Treatment"||0.16|-0.80|0.184
90808621|NCT01606176|181494937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-5.18||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.05|1.68|||ANCOVA|||"The change was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The significance of the treatment effect, after adjusting for baseline Pain Disability Index score, was assessed using the F-test from the ANCOVA. The model was as follows:~Change in Pain Disability Index Score = Baseline Pain Disability Index Score + Treatment"||1.68|-12.05|0.134
90808622|NCT01606176|181494938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-3.77||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.17|-0.36|||ANCOVA|||"The change was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The significance of the treatment effect, after adjusting for baseline Total Brief Pain Inventory (Short Form) score, was assessed using the F-test from the ANCOVA. The model was as follows:~Change in Total Brief Pain Inventory (Short Form) Score = Baseline Total Brief Pain Inventory (Short Form) Score + Treatment"||-0.36|-7.17|0.031
90808623|NCT01606176|181494939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|0.04||||0.915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.88|||ANCOVA|||"The change was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The significance of the treatment effect, after adjusting for baseline Total Spitzer Quality of Life Index score, was assessed using the F-test from the ANCOVA. The model was as follows:~Change in Total Spitzer Quality of Life Index Score = Baseline Total Spitzer Quality of Life Index Score + Treatment"||0.88|-0.79|0.915
90808624|NCT01606176|181494940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|3.95||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.85|27.47|||Fisher Exact|||"The proportion of patients who considered their condition Very Much Improved or Much Improved was compared between treatment groups using a Fisher's Exact Test."||27.47|-21.85|1.00
90808625|NCT01153711|181494942|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Relative bioavailability|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|168.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.4||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|155.5|182.4||P-value for ratio outside interval 0.8-1.25|ANOVA|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|Ratio Olodaterol plus Ketoconazole and Olodaterol||182.4|155.5|1.0000
90808626|NCT01153711|181494943|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Relative bioavailability|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|166.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.8||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|153.6|179.6||P-value for ratio outside 0.8-1.25|ANOVA|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|Ratio Olodaterol plus Ketoconazole and Olodaterol for the category Olodaterol||179.6|153.6|1.0000
90808627|NCT01153711|181494943|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Relative bioavailability|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|106.63|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.7||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.211|113.463||P-value for ratio outside 0.8-1.25|ANOVA|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|Ratio Olodaterol plus Ketoconazole and Olodaterol for the category Olodaterol glucuronide||113.463|100.211|0.0001
90808628|NCT01153711|181494946|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Relative bioavailability|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|144.23|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.8||0.9986|TWO_SIDED|90.0|133.853|155.417||P-value for ratio outside 0.8-1.25|ANOVA|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|Ratio Olodaterol plus Ketoconazole and Olodaterol for the category Olodaterol||155.417|133.853|0.9986
90808629|NCT01153711|181494946|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Relative bioavailability|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|132.87|STANDARD_DEVIATION|18.9||0.8991|TWO_SIDED|90.0|122.732|143.843||P-value for ratio outside 0.8-1.25|ANOVA|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|Ratio Olodaterol plus Ketoconazole and Olodaterol for the category Olodaterol glucuronide||143.843|122.732|0.8991
90808630|NCT01153711|181494947|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Relative bioavailability|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|100.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.9||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.534|109.692||P-value for ratio outside interval 0.8-1.25|ANOVA|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|Ratio Olodaterol plus Ketoconazole and Olodaterol||109.692|92.534|0.0001
90808631|NCT03703817|181494951|SUPERIORITY|Effectiveness: Multivariate analysis was used to control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (demographic and clinical characteristics).||||||0.3648|||||||Linear mixed model|||||||0.3648
90808632|NCT03703817|181494951|SUPERIORITY|Side effect: Multivariate analysis was used to control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (demographic and clinical characteristics).||||||0.1395|||||||Conditional logistic regression|||||||0.1395
90808633|NCT03703817|181494951|SUPERIORITY|Convenience: Multivariate analysis was used to control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (demographic and clinical characteristics).||||||0.0349|||||||Linear mixed model|||||||0.0349
90808634|NCT03703817|181494951|SUPERIORITY|Global satisfaction: Multivariate analysis was used to control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (demographic and clinical characteristics).||||||0.1546|||||||Linear mixed model|||||||0.1546
90808635|NCT03703817|181494952|SUPERIORITY|Multivariate analysis was used to control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (demographic and clinical characteristics).||||||0.1602|||||||Conditional logistic regression model|||||||0.1602
90808636|NCT03703817|181494953|SUPERIORITY|Multivariate analysis was used to control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (demographic and clinical characteristics).||||||0.9921|||||||Linear mixed model|||||||0.9921
90808637|NCT01179217|181494956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|0.5||||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|||||"1. The primary analysis was analyzed using a CMH analysis of the number of SCCs using modified ridit scores.~2. P-value (controlling for region and HU use)~3. The null hypothesis of the final analysis was performed at the 0.045 significance level."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0052
90808638|NCT01179217|181494957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0045|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0045
90808639|NCT01179217|181494958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0888|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0888
90808640|NCT02152371|181494992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Means Diff|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.56|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||-0.56|-0.97|<.001
90808641|NCT02152371|181494993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Diff|-16.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.72|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.02|-7.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-7.44|-26.02|<.001
90808642|NCT02152371|181494994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Diff|-8.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.95||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.87|-2.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pre-Morning Meal||-2.25|-13.87|.007
90808643|NCT02152371|181494994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Diff|-17.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.45|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.96|-8.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning Meal 2-Hour Postprandial||-8.40|-25.96|<.001
90808644|NCT02152371|181494994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Diff|-15.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.58|-7.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pre-Midday Meal||-7.52|-23.58|<.001
90808645|NCT02152371|181494994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Diff|-18.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.58|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.18|-9.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Midday Meal 2-Hour Postprandial||-9.12|-27.18|<.001
90808646|NCT02152371|181494994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Diff|-14.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.55||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.93|-5.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pre-Evening Meal||-5.99|-23.93|.001
90808647|NCT02152371|181494994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Diff|-21.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.68|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.46|-10.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening Meal 2-Hour Postprandial||-10.10|-32.46|<.001
90808648|NCT02152371|181494994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Diff|-19.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.72|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.77|-10.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3:00AM (Morning)||-10.18|-28.77|<.001
90808649|NCT02152371|181494995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Means Difference|-2.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.19|-1.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.64|-3.19|<.001
90808650|NCT02152371|181494996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Means Diff|-13.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.21|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.55|-6.84|||MMRM|||||-6.84|-19.55|<.001
90808651|NCT02152371|181495003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|12.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||12.00|3.70|<.001
90808652|NCT02152371|181495003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio, log|5.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.35|9.73|||Regression, Logistic|||||9.73|3.35|<.001
90808653|NCT02152371|181495004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.32|7.47|||Regression, Logistic|||||7.47|2.32|<.001
90808654|NCT02152371|181495005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.09|6.23|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.23|2.09|<.001
90808655|NCT02152371|181495006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.26|9.62|||Regression, Logistic|||||9.62|3.26|<.001
90808656|NCT01818258|181495021|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison for number who experienced at least one grade 3 or higher adverse event. Null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||||0.40
90808657|NCT01818258|181495022|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison for number who experienced at least one grade 3 or higher adverse event related to study treatment. Null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||||>0.999
91054725|NCT03954834|181991247|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.43|23.94|||Regression, Logistic|||||23.94|6.43|<0.001
90808658|NCT01818258|181495023|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.77||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.6|||t-test, 2 sided||Week 1 Geometric Mean Ratio of Severe Malnutrition/Normal Nutrition/Mild Malnutrition|Week 1 Comparison of LPV AUC between cohorts. Null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||1.6|0.4|0.49
90808659|NCT01818258|181495023|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.64||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.4|||t-test, 2 sided||Week 12 Geometric Mean Ratio of Severe Malnutrition/Normal Nutrition/Mild Malnutrition|Week 12 Comparison of LPV AUC between cohorts. Null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||1.4|0.3|0.23
90808660|NCT01818258|181495023|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.81||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.0|||t-test, 2 sided||Week 24 Geometric Mean Ratio of Severe Malnutrition/Normal Nutrition/Mild Malnutrition|Week 24 Comparison of LPV AUC between cohorts. Null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||2.0|0.3|0.63
90808661|NCT01818258|181495024|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.06||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.3|||t-test, 2 sided||Week 1 Geometric Mean Ratio of Severe Malnutrition/Normal Nutrition/Mild Malnutrition|Week 1 Comparison of LPV Clearance between cohorts. Null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||2.3|0.5|0.89
90808662|NCT01818258|181495024|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.42||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|3.1|||t-test, 2 sided||Week 12 Geometric Mean Ratio of Severe Malnutrition/Normal Nutrition/Mild Malnutrition|Week 12 Comparison of LPV clearance between cohorts. Null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||3.1|0.7|0.37
91014766|NCT01945034|181912248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.69|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 5(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms.||0.69|-0.76|0.917
90808663|NCT01818258|181495024|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.23||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.9|||t-test, 2 sided||Week 24 Geometric Mean Ratio of Severe Malnutrition/Normal Nutrition/Mild Malnutrition|Week 24 Comparison of LPV clearance between cohorts. Null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||2.9|0.5|0.63
90808664|NCT01818258|181495025|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.76||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.5|||t-test, 2 sided||Week 1 Geometric Mean Ratio of Severe Malnutrition/Normal Nutrition/Mild Malnutrition|Week 1 Comparison of RTV AUC between cohorts. Null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||1.5|0.4|0.42
90808665|NCT01818258|181495025|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.58||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.1|||t-test, 2 sided||Week 12 Geometric Mean Ratio of Severe Malnutrition/Normal Nutrition/Mild Malnutrition|Week 12 comparison of RTV AUC between cohorts. Null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||1.1|0.3|0.11
90808666|NCT01818258|181495025|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.77||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.5|||t-test, 2 sided||Week 24 Geometric Mean Ratio of Severe Malnutrition/Normal Nutrition/Mild Malnutrition|Week 24 comparison of RTV AUC between cohorts. Null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||1.5|0.4|0.44
90808667|NCT01818258|181495026|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.07||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.2|||t-test, 2 sided||Week 1 Geometric Mean Ratio of Severe Malnutrition/Normal Nutrition/Mild Malnutrition|Week 1 comparison of RTV clearance between cohorts. Null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||2.2|0.5|0.84
90808668|NCT01818258|181495026|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.54||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|3.1|||t-test, 2 sided||Week 12 Geometric Mean Ratio of Severe Malnutrition/Normal Nutrition/Mild Malnutrition|Week 12 comparison of RTV clearance between cohorts. Null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||3.1|0.8|0.21
90808669|NCT01818258|181495026|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.29||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.5|||t-test, 2 sided||Week 24 Geometric Mean Ratio of Severe Malnutrition/Normal Nutrition/Mild Malnutrition|Week 24 comparison of RTV clearance between cohorts. Null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||2.5|0.7|0.44
90808670|NCT01818258|181495027|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.77||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.2|||t-test, 2 sided||Week 1 Geometric Mean Ratio of Severe Malnutrition/Normal Nutrition/Mild Malnutrition|Week 1 comparison of 3TC AUC between cohorts. Null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||1.2|0.5|0.27
90808671|NCT01818258|181495027|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.6||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.0|||t-test, 2 sided||Week 12 Geometric Mean Ratio of Severe Malnutrition/Normal Nutrition/Mild Malnutrition|Week 12 comparison of 3TC AUC between cohorts. Null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||1.0|0.4|0.047
90808672|NCT01818258|181495027|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.09||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.9|||t-test, 2 sided||Week 24 Geometric Mean Ratio of Severe Malnutrition/Normal Nutrition/Mild Malnutrition|Week 24 comparison of 3TC AUC between cohorts. Null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||1.9|0.6|0.76
90808673|NCT01818258|181495028|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.0||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.5|||t-test, 2 sided||Week 1 Geometric Mean Ratio of Severe Malnutrition/Normal Nutrition/Mild Malnutrition|Week 1 comparison of 3TC clearance between cohorts. Null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||0.5|-0.4|0.89
90808674|NCT01818258|181495028|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.4||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.3|||t-test, 2 sided||Week 12 Geometric Mean Ratio of Severe Malnutrition/Normal Nutrition/Mild Malnutrition|Week 12 comparison of 3TC clearance between cohorts. Null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||2.3|0.8|0.18
90808675|NCT01818258|181495028|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.85||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.4|||t-test, 2 sided||Week 24 Geometric Mean Ratio of Severe Malnutrition/Normal Nutrition/Mild Malnutrition|Week 24 comparison of 3TC clearance between cohorts. Null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||1.4|0.5|0.53
90808676|NCT01818258|181495029|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.27||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.2|||t-test, 2 sided||Week 1 Geometric Mean Ratio of Severe Malnutrition/Normal Nutrition/Mild Malnutrition|Week 1 comparison of ZDV AUC between cohorts. Null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||2.2|0.7|0.39
90808677|NCT01818258|181495029|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.37||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.0|||t-test, 2 sided||Week 12 Geometric Mean Ratio of Severe Malnutrition/Normal Nutrition/Mild Malnutrition|Week 12 comparison of ZDV AUC between cohorts. Null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||3.0|0.6|0.43
90808678|NCT01818258|181495029|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.52||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.0|||t-test, 2 sided||Week 24 Geometric Mean Ratio of Severe Malnutrition/Normal Nutrition/Mild Malnutrition|Week 24 comparison of ZDV AUC between cohorts. Null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||2.0|1.2|0.003
91054726|NCT03954834|181991247|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|21.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.59|42.18|||Regression, Logistic|||||42.18|10.59|<0.001
91054727|NCT03954834|181991247|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|20.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.09|40.04|||Regression, Logistic|||||40.04|10.09|<0.001
91014767|NCT01945034|181912248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|1.03|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 6(AM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||1.03|-0.13|0.132
91054728|NCT01404923|181991250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.4||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0008
91054729|NCT00642694|181991259|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.05
91014768|NCT01945034|181912248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.72|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 6(AM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.72|-0.35|0.505
91014769|NCT01945034|181912248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.38|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 6(AM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms.||0.38|-0.92|0.422
91014770|NCT01945034|181912248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.76|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 6(AM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.76|-0.54|0.747
91014771|NCT01945034|181912248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.87|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 6(AM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.87|-0.34|0.386
91054730|NCT04492020|181991281|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.09|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.63|2.69|||generalized linear mixed model (GLMM)|||||2.69|1.63|<.0001
91054731|NCT04492020|181991282|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.63|2.78|||generalized linear mixed model (GLMM)|||||2.78|1.63|<.0001
91014772|NCT01945034|181912248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.89|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 6(AM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms.||0.89|-0.57|0.668
91054732|NCT04492020|181991283|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Odds Ratio|1.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|1.96|||generalized estimating equation (GEE)|||||1.96|1.40|<.0001
90808679|NCT01818258|181495030|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.6||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.1|||t-test, 2 sided||Week 1 Geometric Mean Ratio of Severe Malnutrition/Normal Nutrition/Mild Malnutrition|Week 1 comparison of ZDV clearance between cohorts. Null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||1.1|0.3|0.090
90808680|NCT01818258|181495030|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.6||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.4|||t-test, 2 sided||Week 12 Geometric Mean Ratio of Severe Malnutrition/Normal Nutrition/Mild Malnutrition|Week 12 comparison of ZDV clearance between cohorts. Null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||1.4|0.3|0.23
90808681|NCT01818258|181495030|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.64||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.8|||t-test, 2 sided||Week 24 Geometric Mean Ratio of Severe Malnutrition/Normal Nutrition/Mild Malnutrition|Week 24 comparison of ZDV clearance between cohorts. Null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||0.8|0.5|0.0003
90808682|NCT01818258|181495031|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.54||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.29|||Mixed Models Analysis||Odds Ratio (SAM/non-SAM) for Lopinavir Ctrough \>= 1 ug/mL through 48 weeks|Odds ratio (SAM/non-SAM) of Ctrough \>=1 ug/mL from entry through 48 weeks from repeated measures mixed model, with the null hypothesis that the odds ratio is equal to zero (no difference between cohorts in odds of Ctrough \>=1 ug/mL).||1.29|0.22|0.17
90808683|NCT01818258|181495032|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|-0.9|||t-test, 2 sided||Severe Malnutrition Cohort - Normal Nutrition/Mild Malnutrition for Week 1 Free Fraction (%) of LPV|Week 1 comparison of LPV free faction. Null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||-0.9|-3.9|0.003
90808684|NCT01818258|181495032|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.8||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|-1.1|||t-test, 2 sided||Severe Malnutrition - Normal Nutrition/Mild Malnutrition for Week 12 Free Fraction (%) of LPV|Week 12 comparison of LPV free faction. Null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||-1.1|-6.6|0.011
91014773|NCT01945034|181912248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.5||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|1.08|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 6 Mid-day: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||1.08|-0.09|0.099
90808685|NCT01818258|181495032|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|4.4|||t-test, 2 sided||Severe Malnutrition - Normal Nutrition/Mild Malnutrition for Week 24 Free Fraction (%) of LPV|Week 24 comparison of LPV free faction. Null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||4.4|-2.4|0.46
90808686|NCT01818258|181495033|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.7|||t-test, 2 sided||Direction of comparison: Severe Malnutrition - Normal Nutrition/Mild Malnutrition|Difference in cohorts of change in log10 plasma HIV viral load from baseline to week 12. Null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||1.7|-0.3|0.15
90808687|NCT01818258|181495033|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.8|||t-test, 2 sided||Direction of comparison: Severe Malnutrition - Normal Nutrition/Mild Malnutrition|Difference in cohorts of change in log10 plasma HIV viral load from baseline to week 24. Null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||1.8|-0.4|0.20
90808688|NCT01818258|181495033|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.8|||t-test, 2 sided||Direction of comparison: Severe Malnutrition - Normal Nutrition/Mild Malnutrition|Difference in cohorts of change in log10 plasma HIV viral load from baseline to week 36. Null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||1.8|-0.2|0.13
91014774|NCT01945034|181912248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.79|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 6 Mid-day: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.79|-0.29|0.365
91014775|NCT01945034|181912248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.41|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 6 Mid-day: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms.||0.41|-0.90|0.463
90808689|NCT01818258|181495033|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.8|||t-test, 2 sided||Direction of comparison: Severe Malnutrition - Normal Nutrition/Mild Malnutrition|Difference in cohorts of change in log10 plasma HIV viral load from baseline to week 48. Null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||1.8|-0.1|0.089
90808690|NCT01818258|181495034|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||Baseline Comparison, with null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||||>0.999
90808691|NCT01818258|181495034|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 12 Comparison, with null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||||0.15
90808692|NCT01818258|181495034|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.065|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 24 Comparison, with null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||||0.065
90808693|NCT01818258|181495034|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.065|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 48 Comparison, with null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||||0.065
90808694|NCT01818258|181495035|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|4.4|||t-test, 2 sided||Direction of comparison: Severe Malnutrition - Normal Nutrition/Mild Malnutrition|Difference in cohorts of change in CD4 percent from baseline to week 12. Null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||4.4|-3.9|0.89
90808695|NCT01818258|181495035|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.6|||t-test, 2 sided||Direction of comparison: Severe Malnutrition - Normal Nutrition/Mild Malnutrition|Difference in cohorts of change in CD4 percent from baseline to week 24. Null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||7.6|-2.5|0.31
90808696|NCT01818258|181495035|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.1||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|7.8|||t-test, 2 sided||Direction of comparison: Severe Malnutrition - Normal Nutrition/Mild Malnutrition|Difference in cohorts of change in CD4 percent from baseline to week 36. Null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||7.8|-1.5|0.18
91014776|NCT01945034|181912248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.73|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 6 Mid-day: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.73|-0.60|0.845
91014777|NCT01945034|181912248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|1.02|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 6 Mid-day: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||1.02|-0.21|0.199
91014778|NCT01945034|181912248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|1.08|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 6 Mid-day: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms.||1.08|-0.41|0.375
90808697|NCT01818258|181495035|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.1||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|11.0|||t-test, 2 sided||Direction of comparison: Severe Malnutrition - Normal Nutrition/Mild Malnutrition|Difference between cohorts of change in CD4 percent from baseline to week 48. Null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||11.0|1.1|0.018
90808698|NCT01818258|181495036|SUPERIORITY||Mean|2.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|2.91|||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: change in WHO weight-for-height Z-score from entry to week 24 equal to 0||2.91|1.77|<0.0001
90808699|NCT01818258|181495036|SUPERIORITY||Mean|2.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.09|3.37|||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: change in WHO weight-for-height Z-score from entry to week 48 equal to 0||3.37|2.09|<0.0001
90808700|NCT01818258|181495037|SUPERIORITY||Mean|2.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.96|3.28|||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: change in MUAC from entry to week 24 equal to 0||3.28|1.96|<0.0001
90808701|NCT01818258|181495037|SUPERIORITY||Mean|3.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.83|4.24|||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: change in MUAC from entry to week 48 equal to 0||4.24|2.83|<0.0001
90808702|NCT00349921|181495043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the groups in proportion of patients meeting the success criterion of \>30% reduction in visual analog scale pain 120 min after intrathecal injection||||>0.05
90808703|NCT05285644|181495069|OTHER|Difference (2-sided)|Difference in Percentages|34.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.9|42.0||Multiple imputation methodology was implemented in handling missing data, both related to and unrelated to intercurrent events.|Pearson's Chi-squared test||Difference equals 0.003% AR-15512 minus AR-15512 Vehicle|The primary estimand targeted the treatment effect attributable to the randomly assigned treatment, regardless of compliance to study treatment and assuming subjects who discontinued due to lack of efficacy, AEs, or disallowed concurrent treatments followed the behavior of subjects in the reference arm for the duration of the study and subjects who discontinued for other reasons would have followed the behavior of subjects who were still in the study under same randomly assigned treatment.|For binary endpoint, the underlying continuous measurement of unanesthetized Schirmer score was imputed, change score calculated and then dichotomized to ascertain attainment of greater than or equal to 10 millimeter increase from pre-drop baseline.|42.0|26.9|<0.0001
90808704|NCT05285644|181495070|OTHER|Difference (2-sided)|Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.06||0.0138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|-1.0||Multiple imputation methodology was implemented in handling missing data, both related to and unrelated to intercurrent events.|ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center.|Difference equals 0.003% AR-15512 minus AR-15512 Vehicle|The primary estimand targeted the treatment effect attributable to the randomly assigned treatment, regardless of compliance to study treatment and assuming subjects who discontinued due to lack of efficacy, AEs, or disallowed concurrent treatments followed the behavior of subjects in the reference arm for the duration of the study and subjects who discontinued for other reasons would have followed the behavior of subjects who were still in the study under same randomly assigned treatment.||-1.0|-9.1|0.0138
90808705|NCT05285644|181495071|OTHER|Difference (2-sided)|Least Squares Mean Difference|7.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.8|8.6||Multiple imputation methodology was implemented in handling missing data, both related to and unrelated to intercurrent events.|ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||The primary estimand targeted the treatment effect attributable to the randomly assigned treatment, regardless of compliance to study treatment and assuming subjects who discontinued due to lack of efficacy, AEs, or disallowed concurrent treatments followed the behavior of subjects in the reference arm for the duration of the study and subjects who discontinued for other reasons would have followed the behavior of subjects who were still in the study under same randomly assigned treatment.|Difference equals 0.003% AR-15512 minus AR-15512 Vehicle|8.6|5.8|<0.0001
90808706|NCT05285644|181495072|OTHER|Difference (2-sided)|Difference in Percentages|26.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.5|34.0||Multiple imputation methodology was implemented in handling missing data, both related to and unrelated to intercurrent events.|Pearson's Chi-squared test||Difference equals 0.003% AR-15512 minus AR-15512 Vehicle|The primary estimand targeted the treatment effect attributable to the randomly assigned treatment, regardless of compliance to study treatment and assuming subjects who discontinued due to lack of efficacy, AEs, or disallowed concurrent treatments followed the behavior of subjects in the reference arm for the duration of the study and subjects who discontinued for other reasons would have followed the behavior of subjects who were still in the study under same randomly assigned treatment.|For binary endpoint, the underlying continuous measurement of unanesthetized Schirmer score was imputed, change score calculated and then dichotomized to ascertain attainment of greater than or equal to 10 millimeter increase from pre-drop baseline.|34.0|19.5|<0.0001
90808707|NCT05285644|181495073|OTHER|Difference (2-sided)|Least Squares Mean Difference|6.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|7.5||Multiple imputation methodology was implemented in handling missing data, both related to and unrelated to intercurrent events.|ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center|Difference equals 0.003% AR-15512 minus AR-15512 Vehicle|The primary estimand targeted the treatment effect attributable to the randomly assigned treatment, regardless of compliance to study treatment and assuming subjects who discontinued due to lack of efficacy, AEs, or disallowed concurrent treatments followed the behavior of subjects in the reference arm for the duration of the study and subjects who discontinued for other reasons would have followed the behavior of subjects who were still in the study under same randomly assigned treatment.||7.5|4.9|<0.0001
90808708|NCT05285644|181495074|OTHER|Difference (2 sided)|Difference in Percentages|33.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.8|41.4||Multiple imputation methodology was implemented in handling missing data, both related to and unrelated to intercurrent events.|Pearson's Chi-squared test||Difference equals 0.003% AR-15512 minus AR-15512 Vehicle|The primary estimand targeted the treatment effect attributable to the randomly assigned treatment, regardless of compliance to study treatment and assuming subjects who discontinued due to lack of efficacy, AEs, or disallowed concurrent treatments followed the behavior of subjects in the reference arm for the duration of the study and subjects who discontinued for other reasons would have followed the behavior of subjects who were still in the study under same randomly assigned treatment.|For binary endpoint, the underlying continuous measurement of unanesthetized Schirmer score was imputed, change score calculated and then dichotomized to ascertain attainment of greater than or equal to 10 millimeter increase from pre-drop baseline.|41.4|24.8|<0.0001
90808709|NCT05285644|181495075|OTHER|Difference (2-sided)|Least Squares Mean Difference|7.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|9.0||Multiple imputation methodology was implemented in handling missing data, both related to and unrelated to intercurrent events.|ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center|Difference equals 0.003% AR-15512 minus AR-15512 Vehicle|The primary estimand targeted the treatment effect attributable to the randomly assigned treatment, regardless of compliance to study treatment and assuming subjects who discontinued due to lack of efficacy, AEs, or disallowed concurrent treatments followed the behavior of subjects in the reference arm for the duration of the study and subjects who discontinued for other reasons would have followed the behavior of subjects who were still in the study under same randomly assigned treatment.||9.0|6.0|<0.0001
90808710|NCT05285644|181495076|OTHER|Difference (2-sided)|Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.28||0.2184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|1.7||Multiple imputation methodology was implemented in handling missing data, both related to and unrelated to intercurrent events.|ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center|Difference equals 0.003% AR-15512 minus AR-15512 Vehicle|The primary estimand targeted the treatment effect attributable to the randomly assigned treatment, regardless of compliance to study treatment and assuming subjects who discontinued due to lack of efficacy, AEs, or disallowed concurrent treatments followed the behavior of subjects in the reference arm for the duration of the study and subjects who discontinued for other reasons would have followed the behavior of subjects who were still in the study under same randomly assigned treatment.||1.7|-7.3|0.2184
90808711|NCT05285644|181495077|OTHER|Difference (2-sided)|Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.43||0.266|TWO_SIDED|94.0|-7.5|2.1||Multiple imputation methodology was implemented in handling missing data, both related to and unrelated to intercurrent events.|ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center|Difference equals 0.003% AR-15512 minus AR-15512 Vehicle|The primary estimand targeted the treatment effect attributable to the randomly assigned treatment, regardless of compliance to study treatment and assuming subjects who discontinued due to lack of efficacy, AEs, or disallowed concurrent treatments followed the behavior of subjects in the reference arm for the duration of the study and subjects who discontinued for other reasons would have followed the behavior of subjects who were still in the study under same randomly assigned treatment.||2.1|-7.5|0.2660
90808712|NCT05285644|181495078|OTHER|Difference (2-sided)|Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.37||0.2741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|2.0||Multiple imputation methodology was implemented in handling missing data, both related to and unrelated to intercurrent events.|ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center|Difference equals 0.003% AR-15512 minus AR-15512 Vehicle|The primary estimand targeted the treatment effect attributable to the randomly assigned treatment, regardless of compliance to study treatment and assuming subjects who discontinued due to lack of efficacy, AEs, or disallowed concurrent treatments followed the behavior of subjects in the reference arm for the duration of the study and subjects who discontinued for other reasons would have followed the behavior of subjects who were still in the study under same randomly assigned treatment.||2.0|-7.2|0.2741
90808713|NCT05285644|181495079|OTHER|Difference (2-sided)|Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.43||0.159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|1.3||Multiple imputation methodology was implemented in handling missing data, both related to and unrelated to intercurrent events.|ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center|Difference equals 0.003% AR-15512 minus AR-15512 Vehicle|The primary estimand targeted the treatment effect attributable to the randomly assigned treatment, regardless of compliance to study treatment and assuming subjects who discontinued due to lack of efficacy, AEs, or disallowed concurrent treatments followed the behavior of subjects in the reference arm for the duration of the study and subjects who discontinued for other reasons would have followed the behavior of subjects who were still in the study under same randomly assigned treatment.||1.3|-8.2|0.1590
90808714|NCT05285644|181495080|OTHER|Difference (2-sided)|Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.67||0.1369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|1.3||Multiple imputation methodology was implemented in handling missing data, both related to and unrelated to intercurrent events.|ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center|Difference equals 0.003% AR-15512 minus AR-15512 Vehicle|The primary estimand targeted the treatment effect attributable to the randomly assigned treatment, regardless of compliance to study treatment and assuming subjects who discontinued due to lack of efficacy, AEs, or disallowed concurrent treatments followed the behavior of subjects in the reference arm for the duration of the study and subjects who discontinued for other reasons would have followed the behavior of subjects who were still in the study under same randomly assigned treatment.||1.3|-9.2|0.1369
90808715|NCT00810771|181495085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.873|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.873
90808716|NCT00810771|181495086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.671|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.671
91014779|NCT01945034|181912248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.7||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.27|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 6(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||1.27|0.07|0.028
90808717|NCT00810771|181495087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.002
90808718|NCT00810771|181495088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.186|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.186
90808719|NCT00810771|181495089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.576|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.576
90808720|NCT00810771|181495090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.35
90808721|NCT00473668|181495179|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if upper limit (UL) of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the differences between the two groups in terms of anti-PRP seroprotection (SPR) rates was below (\<) 10%.|Difference in anti-PRP SPR rate|-1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.39|2.84||||||Demonstration of the non-inferiority of Tritanrix™-HepB/Hiberix™ Kft. vaccine compared to Tritanrix™-HepB/Hiberix™ vaccine with respect to the anti-PRP antibody response, after a three-dose primary vaccination course.||2.84|-6.39|
91054733|NCT04492020|181991284|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.93|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|2.66|||generalized linear mixed model (GLMM)|||||2.66|1.39|<.0001
90808722|NCT00473668|181495179|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if upper limit (UL) of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the differences between the two groups in terms of anti-PRP seroprotection (SPR) rates was below (\<) 10%.|Difference in anti-PRP SPR rate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.16|3.99||||||Demonstration of the non-inferiority of Tritanrix™-HepB/Hiberix™ Kft. vaccine compared to Tritanrix™-HepB/Hiberix™ vaccine with respect to the anti-PRP antibody response, after a three-dose primary vaccination course.||3.99|-4.16|
91014780|NCT01945034|181912248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.92|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 6(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.92|-0.18|0.188
91014781|NCT01945034|181912248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|0.37|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 6(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms.||0.37|-0.97|0.375
91014782|NCT01945034|181912248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.89|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 6(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.89|-0.47|0.552
91014783|NCT01945034|181912248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.5||||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|1.12|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 6(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||1.12|-0.14|0.126
91014784|NCT01945034|181912248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|1.05|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 6(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms.||1.05|-0.47|0.460
91014785|NCT01945034|181912248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.5||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|1.09|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 7(AM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||1.09|-0.09|0.095
91014786|NCT01945034|181912248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.94|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 7(AM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.94|-0.14|0.146
91014787|NCT01945034|181912248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.56|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 7(AM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms.||0.56|-0.75|0.769
91014788|NCT01945034|181912248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.96|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 7(AM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.96|-0.39|0.405
91054734|NCT00325195|181991285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91014789|NCT01945034|181912248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.6||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|1.2|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 7(AM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||1.20|-0.05|0.073
91014790|NCT01945034|181912248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|1.04|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 7(AM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms.||1.04|-0.47|0.458
91014791|NCT01945034|181912248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.8||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.39|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 7 Mid-day: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||1.39|0.20|0.009
91014792|NCT01945034|181912248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.9|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 7 Mid-day: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.90|-0.20|0.209
91014793|NCT01945034|181912248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|0.22|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 7 Mid-day: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms.||0.22|-1.11|0.193
91054735|NCT00325195|181991285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91054736|NCT00325195|181991286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.002||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.002
91054737|NCT00325195|181991286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.200
91054738|NCT00325195|181991287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||% of pegloticase q2 participants reporting flares compared to placebo pts during Months 4-6 treatment period||||0.007
91054739|NCT00325195|181991287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.321||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||% of pegloticase q4 participants reporting flares compared to placebo pts during Months 4-6 treatment period||||0.321
91054740|NCT00325195|181991288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.166||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.166
90808723|NCT02039219|181495194|SUPERIORITY|The type of statistical test is superiority.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.4||0.1758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided||Two-sample t-test compared MELD score between OCA and placebo arms at baseline OCA arms had a mean (SD) of 14.9(2.4), Placebo arms had a mean (SD) of 16.4 (2.2).|Baseline||||0.1758
90808724|NCT02039219|181495194|SUPERIORITY|The type of statistical test is superiority.|Mean Difference (Net)|2.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.8||0.3839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided||Two-sample t-test compared MELD score between OCA and placebo arms at day 42 OCA arms had a mean (SD) of 11.5 (6.8), Placebo arms had a mean (SD) of 13.9(4.6).|Day 42||||0.3839
90808725|NCT02039219|181495202|SUPERIORITY|The type of statistical test is superiority.|Survival Anaylsis|0.0||||0.3938|ONE_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Day 42||||.3938
90808726|NCT02039219|181495202|SUPERIORITY|The type of statistical test is superiority.|Survival Anaylsis|0.0||||0.3938|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Day 90||||.3938
90808727|NCT02039219|181495202|SUPERIORITY|The type of statistical test is superiority.|Survival Anaylsis|0.0||||0.3938|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Day 180||||.3938
90808728|NCT02039219|181495202|SUPERIORITY|The type of statistical test is superiority.|Survival Analysis|0.09||||0.3938|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Day 42||||.3938
90808729|NCT02039219|181495202|SUPERIORITY|The type of statistical test is superiority.|Survival Analysis|0.09||||0.3938|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Day 90||||.3938
90808730|NCT02039219|181495202|SUPERIORITY|The type of statistical test is superiority.|Survival Analysis|0.09||||0.3938|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Day 180||||.3938
90808731|NCT02039219|181495206|SUPERIORITY|The type of statistical test is superiority.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.5||0.8094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.8094
90808732|NCT02226562|181495226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|-0.92||The P-value was less than 0.0001|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor for treatment and baseline as covariate||||-0.92|-1.28|0.0001
90808733|NCT00129701|181495248|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.064|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.064
90808734|NCT03576066|181495251|OTHER|||||||0.6855|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares (LS) mean difference in HBeAg-positive participants: ABI-H0731 + SOC NUC minus placebo + SOC NUC at Week 24||||0.6855
90808735|NCT03576066|181495251|OTHER|||||||0.175|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||LS mean difference in HBeAg-negative participants: ABI-H0731 + SOC NUC minus placebo + SOC NUC at Week 24||||0.1750
90808736|NCT03576066|181495252|OTHER|||||||0.2916|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares (LS) mean difference in HBeAg-positive participants: ABI-H0731 + SOC NUC minus placebo + SOC NUC at Week 24||||0.2916
90808737|NCT01466660|181495265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.822||||0.0891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.655|1.032||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Log Rank|Stratified by Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor (EGFR) mutation group and presence of brain metastases at baseline|A Cox proportional hazards model, stratified by EGFR mutation group and presence of baseline brain metastases was used to estimate the hazard ratio calculated as Afatinib divided by Gefitinib.|Exploratory trial, no formal hypotheses were tested.||1.032|0.655|0.0891
90808738|NCT01466660|181495266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.0136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.595|0.944||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Log Rank|Stratified by EGFR mutation group and presence of brain metastases at baseline|Ratio calculated as Afatinib divided by Gefitinib|Exploratory trial, no formal hypotheses were tested.||0.944|0.595|0.0136
91014794|NCT01945034|181912248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.5||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|1.18|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 7 Mid-day: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||1.18|-0.18|0.149
91014795|NCT01945034|181912248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|1.06|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 7 Mid-day: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||1.06|-0.21|0.186
91054741|NCT00325195|181991288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.170
91054742|NCT00325195|181991289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.008
90808739|NCT01466660|181495267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.862||||0.2343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.674|1.101||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Log Rank|Stratified by EGFR mutation group and presence of brain metastases at baseline|A Cox proportional hazards model, stratified by EGFR mutation group and presence of baseline brain metastases was used to estimate the hazard ratio calculated as Afatinib divided by Gefitinib.|Exploratory trial, no formal hypotheses were tested.||1.101|0.674|0.2343
90808740|NCT01466660|181495268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.307||||0.3235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.768|2.223||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Logistic|Stratified for EGFR mutation group and presence of brain metastases at baseline|Ratio calculated as Afatinib divided by Gefitinib|Exploratory trial, no formal hypotheses were tested.||2.223|0.768|0.3235
90808741|NCT01466660|181495271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.138||||0.7856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.447|2.896||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Logistic|Stratified for EGFR mutation group and presence of brain metastases at baseline|Ratio calculated as Afatinib divided by Gefitinib|Exploratory trial, no formal hypotheses were tested.||2.896|0.447|0.7856
90808742|NCT01466660|181495273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.87||0.0657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.13|0.23||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline sum of diameters, EGFR mutation group and presence of brain metastases at baseline|Difference calculated as Afatinib minus Gefitinib|Exploratory trial, no formal hypotheses were tested.||0.23|-7.13|0.0657
91014796|NCT01945034|181912248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.69|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 7 Mid-day: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms.||0.69|-0.84|0.845
91054743|NCT00325195|181991289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.024
91054744|NCT01175811|181991305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSmean difference|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.16||||||||0.16|-0.14|
91054745|NCT01175811|181991306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSmean Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.16||||||||0.16|-0.15|
90808743|NCT01466660|181495274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017||0.1422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.01||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for EGFR mutation group and presence of brain metastases at baseline|Difference calculated as Afatinib minus Gefitinib|"EQ-5D UK utility score.~Exploratory trial, no formal hypotheses were tested."||0.01|-0.06|0.1422
90808744|NCT01466660|181495274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.0||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for EGFR mutation group and presence of brain metastases at baseline|Difference calculated as Afatinib divided by Gefitinib|"EQ-5D Belgium utility score.~Exploratory trial, no formal hypotheses were tested."||0.00|-0.06|0.0540
90808745|NCT01466660|181495274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21||0.2032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|0.8||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for EGFR mutation group and presence of brain metastases at baseline|Difference calculated as Afatinib divided by Gefitinib|"EQ-VAS utility score.~Exploratory trial, no formal hypotheses were tested."||0.8|-3.9|0.2032
90808746|NCT00191724|181495304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.528||95.0||||P-value for effect of drotrecogin alfa (activated) dose in right ventricular function at Day 6|Regression, Linear|||||||0.528
90808747|NCT00191724|181495304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23||95.0||||P-value for effect of drotrecogin alfa (activated) dose on right ventricular function at Day 90|Regression, Linear|||||||0.230
90808748|NCT00191724|181495305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018||95.0||||P-value for Dyspnea 90-Day Follow-Up.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.018
90808749|NCT00191724|181495305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72||95.0||||P-value for Emotional 90 Day Follow-up.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.720
90808750|NCT00191724|181495305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.481||95.0||||P-value for Fatigue 90 Day Follow-Up.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.481
90808751|NCT00191724|181495305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.161||95.0||||P-value for Mastery 90 Day Follow-Up.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.161
90808752|NCT00191724|181495305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.068||95.0||||P-value for Dyspnea 90 Day Follow-Up.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.068
90808753|NCT00191724|181495305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.985||95.0||||P-value for Emotional 90 Day Follow-Up.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.985
91014797|NCT01945034|181912248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.5||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|1.14|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 7(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||1.14|-0.04|0.067
90808754|NCT00191724|181495305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.281||95.0||||P-value for Fatigue 90 Day Follow-Up|Regression, Linear|||||||0.281
90808755|NCT00191724|181495305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.273||95.0||||P-value for Mastery 90 Day Follow-Up|Regression, Linear|||||||0.273
90808756|NCT00191724|181495305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.848||95.0||||P-value for Dyspnea 90 Day Follow-Up.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.848
90808757|NCT00191724|181495305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.841||95.0||||P-value for Emotional 90 Day Follow-Up.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.841
91014798|NCT01945034|181912248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.87|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 7(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.87|-0.22|0.242
90808758|NCT00191724|181495305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.797||95.0||||P-value for Fatigue 90 Day Follow-Up.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.797
90808759|NCT00191724|181495305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.963||95.0||||P-value for Mastery 90 Day Follow-Up.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.963
90808760|NCT00191724|181495305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.149||95.0||||P-value for Dyspnea 90 Day Follow-Up.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.149
90808761|NCT00191724|181495305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.141||95.0||||P-value for Emotional 90 Day Follow-Up.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.141
90808762|NCT00191724|181495305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.774||95.0||||P-value for Fatigue 90 Day Follow-Up.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.774
90808763|NCT00191724|181495305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.394||95.0||||P-value for Mastery 90 Day Follow-Up.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.394
90808764|NCT00489736|181495309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.59|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.28|1.98||Cumulative incidence functions in each treatment group were calculated using time-to-event non-parametric Kaplan-Meier estimate. The primary comparison was performed at the 5% level using a 2-sided Log rank test.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio was estimated by a Cox's proportional hazard model with treatment arm factor. It provides the relative hazard of treatment failure for the dronedarone group compared with the amiodarone group.|||1.98|1.28|<0.0001
90808765|NCT00489736|181495310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.13||95.0|0.6|1.07||Cumulative incidence functions in each treatment group were calculated using time-to-event non-parametric Kaplan-Meier estimate. The comparison was performed at the 5% level using a 2-sided Log rank test.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio was estimated by a Cox's proportional hazard model with treatment arm factor. It provides the relative hazard of main safety event occurrence for the dronedarone group compared with the amiodarone group.|||1.07|0.60|0.13
90808766|NCT00489736|181495311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61||||0.002||95.0|0.44|0.84||Cumulative incidence functions in each treatment group were calculated using time-to-event non-parametric Kaplan-Meier estimate. The comparison was performed at the 5% level using a 2-sided Log rank test.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio was estimated by a Cox's proportional hazard model with treatment arm factor. It provides the relative hazard of MSE occurrence excluding gastrointestinal events, for the dronedarone group compared with the amiodarone group.|||0.84|0.44|0.002
90808767|NCT03458910|181495319|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.782|||||||ANOVA|||A 2 (time: pre, post) X 2 (condition: HRV-increase, HRV-decrease) ANOVA was performed.||||0.782
91014799|NCT01945034|181912248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.43|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 7(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms.||0.43|-0.88|0.498
90808768|NCT03458910|181495320|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||ANOVA|||A 2 (time: pre, post) X 2 (condition: HRV-increase, HRV-decrease) ANOVA was performed.||||0.480
90808769|NCT03458910|181495321|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||An independent t-test was performed to compare the two groups.||||0.410
90808770|NCT03458910|181495322|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||An independent t-test was performed to compare the two groups.||||0.480
90808771|NCT03458910|181495323|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||ANOVA|||time x condition x regulation goal interaction in behavioral emotional intensity rating for younger adults||||0.170
90808772|NCT03458910|181495324|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.478|||||||ANOVA|||time x condition x regulation goal interaction in behavioral emotional intensity rating for older adults||||0.478
90808773|NCT03458910|181495325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.441|||||||ANOVA|||time x condition x regulation goal (2 x 2 x 3) interaction effect in the left amygdala for younger adults||||0.441
90808774|NCT03458910|181495326|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.621|||||||ANOVA|||time x condition x regulation goal (2 x 2 x 3) interaction effect in the left amygdala for older adults||||0.621
90808775|NCT03458910|181495327|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||ANOVA|||time x condition x regulation goal (2 x 2 x 3) interaction effect in the right amygdala activity for younger adults||||0.190
90808776|NCT03458910|181495328|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.864|||||||ANOVA|||time x condition x regulation goal (2 x 2 x 3) interaction effect in the right amygdala activity for older adults||||0.864
90808777|NCT03458910|181495329|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparing acceptance rate of fair offers||||1.000
90808778|NCT03458910|181495329|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.716|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparing acceptance rate of unfair offers||||0.716
90808779|NCT03458910|181495330|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||An independent t-test was performed to compare the two groups for dorsal anterior cingulate cortex activation.||||0.014
90808780|NCT03458910|181495330|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.059|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||An independent t-test was performed to compare the two groups for anterior insula activation.||||0.059
90808781|NCT03458910|181495331|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.144|||||||ANOVA|p-value reflects effect of interest, a time x condition interaction on scores||||||.144
90808782|NCT03458910|181495331|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.653||||||Linear mixed effects model with random factors (intercepts) for participants; F- and p-values determined using Satterthwaite's method|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.653
90808783|NCT03458910|181495332|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.288|||||||ANOVA|p-value reflects effect of interest, a time x condition interaction on scores||||||.288
90808784|NCT03458910|181495332|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.191||||||Linear mixed effects model with random factors (intercepts) for participants; F- and p-values determined using Satterthwaite's method|Mixed Models Analysis|p-value reflects effect of interest, a time x condition interaction on scores||||||0.191
90808785|NCT03458910|181495333|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.894|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.894
90808786|NCT03458910|181495333|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.425||||||Linear mixed effects model with random factors (intercepts) for participants; F- and p-values determined using Satterthwaite's method|Mixed Models Analysis|p-value reflects effect of interest, a time x condition interaction on scores||||||0.425
90808787|NCT03458910|181495334|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.916|||||||ANOVA|p-value reflects effect of interest, a time x condition interaction on scores||||||0.916
90808788|NCT03458910|181495334|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.235||||||Linear mixed effects model with random factors (intercepts) for participants; F- and p-values determined using Satterthwaite's method|Mixed Models Analysis|p-value reflects effect of interest, a time x condition interaction on scores||||||0.235
90808789|NCT03458910|181495335|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.462|||||||ANOVA|p-value reflects effect of interest, a time x condition interaction on scores||||||0.462
90808790|NCT03458910|181495335|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.468||||||Linear mixed effects model with random factors (intercepts) for participants; F- and p-values determined using Satterthwaite's method|Mixed Models Analysis|p-value reflects effect of interest, a time x condition interaction on scores||||||0.468
90808791|NCT03458910|181495336|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.481|||||||ANOVA|p-value reflects effect of interest, a time x condition interaction on scores||||||0.481
90808792|NCT03458910|181495336|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.159||||||Linear mixed effects model with random factors (intercepts) for participants; F- and p-values determined using Satterthwaite's method|Mixed Models Analysis|p-value reflects effect of interest, a time x condition interaction on scores||||||0.159
90808793|NCT03458910|181495337|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.602|||||||ANOVA|p-value reflects effect of interest, a time x condition interaction on scores||||||0.602
90808794|NCT03458910|181495337|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.562||||||Linear mixed effects model with random factors (intercepts) for participants; F- and p-values determined using Satterthwaite's method|Mixed Models Analysis|p-value reflects effect of interest, a time x condition interaction on scores||||||0.562
90808795|NCT03458910|181495338|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.697|||||||ANOVA|p-value reflects effect of interest, a time x condition interaction on scores||||||0.697
90808796|NCT03458910|181495338|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.901||||||Linear mixed effects model with random factors (intercepts) for participants; F- and p-values determined using Satterthwaite's method|Mixed Models Analysis|p-value reflects effect of interest, a time x condition interaction on scores||||||0.901
90808797|NCT03458910|181495339|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.516|||||||ANOVA|p-value reflects effect of interest, a time x condition interaction||||||0.516
90808798|NCT03458910|181495340|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.944|||||||ANOVA|p-value reflects effect of interest, a time x condition interaction||||||0.944
90808799|NCT03458910|181495341|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.285|||||||ANOVA|p-value reflects effect of interest, a time x condition interaction||||||0.285
90808800|NCT03458910|181495342|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.807|||||||ANOVA|p-value reflects effect of interest, a time x condition interaction||||||0.807
90808801|NCT03458910|181495343|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|p-value reflects effect of interest, a time x condition interaction||||||<0.001
90808802|NCT03458910|181495344|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||ANOVA|p-value reflects effect of interest, a time x condition interaction||||||0.740
90808803|NCT03458910|181495345|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.083|||||||ANOVA|p-value reflects effect of interest, a time x condition interaction on scores||||||0.083
90808804|NCT03458910|181495346|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.176|||||||ANOVA|p-value reflects effect of interest, a time x condition interaction on scores||||||0.176
90808805|NCT03458910|181495347|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.325|||||||ANOVA|p-value reflects effect of interest, a time x condition interaction on scores||||||0.325
90808806|NCT03458910|181495348|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.751|||||||ANOVA|p-value reflects effect of interest, a time x condition interaction on scores||||||0.751
90808807|NCT03458910|181495349|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||ANOVA|p-value reflects effect of interest, a time x condition interaction on scores||||||0.011
90808808|NCT03458910|181495350|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.885|||||||ANOVA|p-value reflects effect of interest, a time x condition interaction on scores||||||0.885
90808809|NCT03458910|181495351|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.259||||||p-value reflects time x condition interaction|ANOVA|||2 (time) x 2 (condition) ANOVA to test effects of time, condition, and time x condition interaction||||0.259
90808810|NCT03458910|181495352|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.000146||||||p-value reflects time x condition interaction|ANOVA|||2 (time) x 2 (condition) ANOVA to test effects of time, condition, and time x condition interaction||||0.000146
90808811|NCT03458910|181495353|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.463||||||time point x group (2 way) interaction|ANOVA|||||||0.463
90808812|NCT03458910|181495354|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99||||||time point x group (2 way) interaction|ANOVA|||||||0.990
90808813|NCT03458910|181495355|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.034||||||time point x group (2 way) interaction|ANOVA|||||||0.034
90808814|NCT03458910|181495356|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.398||||||time point x group (2 way) interaction|ANOVA|||||||0.398
90808815|NCT03458910|181495357|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.113||||||time point x group (2 way) interaction|ANOVA|||||||0.113
90808816|NCT03458910|181495358|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.637||||||time point x group (2 way) interaction|ANOVA|||||||0.637
90808817|NCT03458910|181495359|SUPERIORITY|time x condition interaction in CRP for younger adults||||||0.133|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.133
90808818|NCT03458910|181495360|SUPERIORITY|time x condition interaction in CRP for older adults||||||0.402|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.402
90808819|NCT03458910|181495361|SUPERIORITY|time x condition interaction in cytokine IL-1b for younger adults||||||0.236||||||p value for time x condition interaction effect|ANOVA|||||||0.236
90808820|NCT03458910|181495362|SUPERIORITY|time x condition interaction in cytokine IL-1b for older adults||||||0.6||||||p value for time x condition interaction effect|ANOVA|||||||0.600
90808821|NCT03458910|181495363|SUPERIORITY|time x condition interaction in cytokine IL-6 for younger adults||||||0.788||||||p value for time x condition interaction effect|ANOVA|||||||0.788
90808822|NCT03458910|181495364|SUPERIORITY|time x condition interaction in cytokine IL-6 for older adults||||||0.917||||||p value for time x condition interaction effect|ANOVA|||||||0.917
90808823|NCT03458910|181495365|SUPERIORITY|time x condition interaction in cytokine IL-8 for younger adults||||||0.844||||||p value for time x condition interaction effect|ANOVA|||||||0.844
90808824|NCT03458910|181495366|SUPERIORITY|time x condition interaction in cytokine IL-8 for older adults||||||0.75||||||p value for time x condition interaction effect|ANOVA|||||||0.750
90808825|NCT03458910|181495367|SUPERIORITY|time x condition interaction in cytokine TNF-a for younger adults||||||0.074||||||p value for time x condition interaction effect|ANOVA|||||||0.074
90808826|NCT03458910|181495368|SUPERIORITY|time x condition interaction in cytokine TNF-a for older adults||||||0.0505||||||p value for time x condition interaction effect|ANOVA|||||||0.0505
90808827|NCT03458910|181495383|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||An independent t-test was performed to compare the two groups.||||0.022
90808828|NCT03458910|181495384|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.455|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||An independent t-test was performed to compare the two groups.||||0.455
90808829|NCT03458910|181495385|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022|||||||ANOVA|||A 2 (time: pre, post) X 2 (condition: HRV-increase, HRV-decrease) ANOVA was performed.||||0.022
90808830|NCT03458910|181495386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.455|||||||ANOVA|||A 2 (time: pre, post) X 2 (condition: HRV-increase, HRV-decrease) ANOVA was performed.||||0.455
90808831|NCT03458910|181495387|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.462||||||time point x group (2 way) interaction|ANOVA|||||||0.462
90808832|NCT03458910|181495388|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.305||||||time point x group (2 way) interaction|ANOVA|||||||0.305
90808833|NCT03458910|181495389|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.804||||||time point x group (2 way) interaction|ANOVA|||||||0.804
90808834|NCT03458910|181495390|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.141||||||time point x group (2 way) interaction|ANOVA|||||||0.141
90808835|NCT03458910|181495391|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.292||||||time point x group(2 way) interaction|ANOVA|||||||0.292
90808836|NCT03458910|181495392|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.905||||||time point x group (2 way) interaction|ANOVA|||||||0.905
90808837|NCT03458910|181495393|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.641||||||p value for time x condition x error type interaction effect|ANOVA|||time x condition x error type interaction in Sustained Attention to Response Task (SART) for younger adults||||0.641
90808838|NCT03458910|181495394|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.813||||||p value for time x condition x error type interaction effect|ANOVA|||time x condition x error type interaction in Sustained Attention to Response Task (SART) for older adults||||0.813
90808839|NCT03458910|181495395|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.695|||||||ANOVA|||Hits during recognition task for younger adults||||.695
90808840|NCT03458910|181495396|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||ANOVA|||Hits during recognition task for older adults||||.270
90808841|NCT03458910|181495397|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.102|||||||ANOVA|||False alarms during recognition task for younger adults||||.102
90808842|NCT03458910|181495398|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.257|||||||ANOVA|||False alarms during recognition task for older adults||||.257
90808843|NCT03458910|181495399|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.067|||||||ANOVA|||Group difference for recall for younger adults||||.067
90808844|NCT03458910|181495400|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.117|||||||ANOVA|||Group difference for recall for older adults||||.117
90808845|NCT03458910|181495401|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.558||||||p value for time x condition interaction effect|ANOVA|||time x condition x collection interaction in cortisol levels for younger adults||||0.558
90808846|NCT05275010|181495402|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis will be rejected and bioequivalence will be concluded if the bounds of the 90% CI for the geometric mean ratio of the AUC0-62 values for pertuzumab by administration using OBDS (Arm 2) relative to the handheld syringe (Arm 1) are entirely contained within standard bioequivalence margins (0.8 to 1.25).|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|1.08|||||GMR of test treatment group (Arm 2: PH FDC SC using OBDS) to reference treatment group (Arm 1: PH FDC SC using handheld syringe).|||1.08|0.93|
90808847|NCT05275010|181495403|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis will be rejected and bioequivalence will be concluded if the bounds of the 90% CI for the geometric mean ratio of the AUC0-62 values for trastuzumab by administration using OBDS (Arm 2) relative to the handheld syringe (Arm 1) are entirely contained within standard bioequivalence margins (0.8 to 1.25).|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|1.09|||||GMR of test treatment group (Arm 2: PH FDC SC using OBDS) to reference treatment group (Arm 1: PH FDC SC using handheld syringe).|||1.09|0.93|
91014800|NCT01945034|181912248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|1.02|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 7(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||1.02|-0.34|0.330
91014801|NCT01945034|181912248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.5||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|1.13|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 7(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||1.13|-0.14|0.124
91014802|NCT01945034|181912248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.92|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 7(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms.||0.92|-0.61|0.687
91014803|NCT01945034|181912249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.0||||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|4.95|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest over 6 Hours on Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||4.95|-0.85|0.166
91014804|NCT01945034|181912249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.7||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.42|0.93|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest over 6 Hours on Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.93|-4.42|0.199
91014805|NCT01945034|181912249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.8||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.04|-0.56|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest over 6 Hours on Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms.||-0.56|-7.04|0.022
91014806|NCT01945034|181912249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.7||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|4.79|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Weight Bearing over 6 Hours on Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||4.79|-1.30|0.260
91014807|NCT01945034|181912249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.31|2.32|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Weight Bearing over 6 Hours on Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||2.32|-3.31|0.729
91014808|NCT01945034|181912249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.2||||0.196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.64|1.16|||ANOVA|||Weight Bearing over 6 Hours on Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms.||1.16|-5.64|0.196
91014809|NCT01945034|181912249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|24.9||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.49|47.28|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest over 2 Hours on Day 3: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||47.28|2.49|0.030
91014810|NCT01945034|181912249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-30.2||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.24|-5.23|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest over 2 Hours on Day 3: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||-5.23|-55.24|0.018
91014811|NCT01945034|181912249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.3||||0.611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.98|15.29|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest over 2 Hours on Day 3: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms.||15.29|-25.98|0.611
91014812|NCT01945034|181912249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|13.8||||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|37.36|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Weight Bearing over 2 Hours on Day 3: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||37.36|-9.80|0.251
91014813|NCT01945034|181912249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.4||||0.689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.37|26.26|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Weight Bearing over 2 Hours on Day 3: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||26.26|-17.37|0.689
91014814|NCT01945034|181912249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-9.3||||0.486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.69|17.01|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Weight Bearing over 2 Hours on Day 3: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms.||17.01|-35.69|0.486
91014815|NCT01945034|181912250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|38.5||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.9|71.18|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Over 3 Days: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||71.18|5.90|0.021
91014816|NCT01945034|181912250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.9||||0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.02|22.12|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Over 3 Days: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||22.12|-38.02|0.603
90808848|NCT05275010|181495404|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis will be rejected and bioequivalence will be concluded if the bounds of the 90% CI for the geometric mean ratio of the Cmax values for pertuzumab by administration using OBDS (Arm 2) relative to the handheld syringe (Arm 1) are entirely contained within standard bioequivalence margins (0.8 to 1.25).|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.12|||||GMR of test treatment group (Arm 2: PH FDC SC using OBDS) to reference treatment group (Arm 1: PH FDC SC using handheld syringe).|||1.12|0.96|
90808849|NCT05275010|181495405|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis will be rejected and bioequivalence will be concluded if the bounds of the 90% CI for the geometric mean ratio of the Cmax values for trastuzumab by administration using OBDS (Arm 2) relative to the handheld syringe (Arm 1) are entirely contained within standard bioequivalence margins (0.8 to 1.25).|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|1.13|||||GMR of test treatment group (Arm 2: PH FDC SC using OBDS) to reference treatment group (Arm 1: PH FDC SC using handheld syringe).|||1.13|0.95|
90808850|NCT04478071|181495465|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.036|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.084|0.009|||||"Risk difference of Vadadustat relative to Placebo. Values under confidence interval reflect Bayesian 95% credible interval rather than frequentist confidence interval."|Trial used Bayesian analysis for superiority. Hypothesis Testing for Primary Outcome: Among adult hospital admissions with lab-confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19, vadadustat 900 mg will demonstrate superiority to placebo as defined by a lower probability, at treatment day 14, of death (8) or hospitalization, on invasive mechanical ventilation or ECMO (7) or hospitalization, on non-invasive ventilation or high flow oxygen devices (6) on the NIAID-OS. See Statistical Analysis Plan for more details.||0.009|-0.084|
90808851|NCT04478071|181495465|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Probability|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Posterior probability of the risk difference of Vadadustat relative to Placebo.|||||
90808852|NCT04478071|181495466|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.1|||||"Risk ratio of Vadadustat relative to Placebo. Values under confidence interval reflect Bayesian 95% credible interval rather than frequentist confidence interval."|Trial used Bayesian analysis for superiority. Hypothesis Testing for Secondary Outcome: Among adult hospital admissions with lab-confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19, vadadustat 900 mg will demonstrate superiority to placebo as defined by a higher probability, at treatment day 14, of recovery on the MSOFA scale (MSOFA = 0).||1.1|0.92|
90808853|NCT04478071|181495466|SUPERIORITY||Posterior probability|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Posterior probability of the risk ratio of Vadadustat relative to Placebo.|||||
90808854|NCT00967694|181495478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A linear mixed effects model was used to assess change in IOP over time using time-points as the primary independent variable with significance set at p \< 0.05. Power calculations showed that 20 subjects would allow detection of a 2.8-mmHg difference in IOP between any two time-points with 80% power assuming a standard deviation of 3.5 mmHg for IOP and a correlation between two time- points of 0.25||||>0.05
90808855|NCT00758264|181495498|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit (LL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio between the Nimenrix +Synflorix Group and the Synflorix Group (Nimenrix + Synflorix Group over Synflorix Group) is above (\>) 0.5.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.05||||||Demonstration of non-inferiority of Synflorix vaccine when co-administered with Nimenrix conjugate vaccine versus Synflorix vaccine given alone (Nimenrix conjugate vaccine was administered 1 month later) in terms of anti-pneumococcal serotype 1 antibody concentrations.||1.05|0.72|
90808856|NCT00758264|181495498|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit (LL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio between the Nimenrix +Synflorix Group and the Synflorix Group (Nimenrix + Synflorix Group over Synflorix Group) is above (\>) 0.5.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.26||||||Demonstration of non-inferiority of Synflorix vaccine when co-administered with Nimenrix conjugate vaccine versus Synflorix vaccine given alone (Nimenrix conjugate vaccine was administered 1 month later) in terms of anti-pneumococcal serotype 4 antibody concentrations.||1.26|0.84|
90808857|NCT00758264|181495498|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit (LL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio between the Nimenrix +Synflorix Group and the Synflorix Group (Nimenrix + Synflorix Group over Synflorix Group) is above (\>) 0.5.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.1||||||Demonstration of non-inferiority of Synflorix vaccine when co-administered with Nimenrix conjugate vaccine versus Synflorix vaccine given alone (Nimenrix conjugate vaccine was administered 1 month later) in terms of anti-pneumococcal serotype 5 antibody concentrations.||1.10|0.74|
91014817|NCT01945034|181912250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-46.5||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-82.93|-10.05|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Over 3 Days: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms.||-10.05|-82.93|0.013
91014818|NCT01945034|181912251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|87.7||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.48|161.85|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Over 7 days: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||161.85|13.48|0.021
91014819|NCT01945034|181912251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|11.8||||0.735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.59|80.11|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Over 7 days: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||80.11|-56.59|0.735
91014820|NCT01945034|181912251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-75.9||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-158.73|6.93|||ANOVA|||At Rest Over 7 days: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms.||6.93|-158.73|0.072
91014821|NCT01945034|181912251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|46.0||||0.261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.43|126.52|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Weight Bearing Over 7 Days: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||126.52|-34.43|0.261
91054746|NCT01175811|181991307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.344||95.0||||P-value is for the comparison of participants achieving \<=6.5% HbA1c at 12 weeks. P-value was not adjusted for multiplicity and should be interpreted as nominal.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.344
90808858|NCT00758264|181495498|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit (LL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio between the Nimenrix +Synflorix Group and the Synflorix Group (Nimenrix + Synflorix Group over Synflorix Group) is above (\>) 0.5.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.07||||||Demonstration of non-inferiority of Synflorix vaccine when co-administered with Nimenrix conjugate vaccine versus Synflorix vaccine given alone (Nimenrix conjugate vaccine was administered 1 month later) in terms of anti-pneumococcal serotype 6B antibody concentrations.||1.07|0.66|
90808859|NCT00758264|181495498|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit (LL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio between the Nimenrix +Synflorix Group and the Synflorix Group (Nimenrix + Synflorix Group over Synflorix Group) is above (\>) 0.5.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.2||||||Demonstration of non-inferiority of Synflorix vaccine when co-administered with Nimenrix conjugate vaccine versus Synflorix vaccine given alone (Nimenrix conjugate vaccine was administered 1 month later) in terms of anti-pneumococcal serotype 7F antibody concentrations.||1.20|0.84|
90808860|NCT00758264|181495498|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit (LL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio between the Nimenrix +Synflorix Group and the Synflorix Group (Nimenrix + Synflorix Group over Synflorix Group) is above (\>) 0.5.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.14||||||Demonstration of non-inferiority of Synflorix vaccine when co-administered with Nimenrix conjugate vaccine versus Synflorix vaccine given alone (Nimenrix conjugate vaccine was administered 1 month later) in terms of anti-pneumococcal serotype 9V antibody concentrations.||1.14|0.78|
90808861|NCT00758264|181495498|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit (LL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio between the Nimenrix +Synflorix Group and the Synflorix Group (Nimenrix + Synflorix Group over Synflorix Group) is above (\>) 0.5.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.23||||||Demonstration of non-inferiority of Synflorix vaccine when co-administered with Nimenrix conjugate vaccine versus Synflorix vaccine given alone (Nimenrix conjugate vaccine was administered 1 month later) in terms of anti-pneumococcal serotype 14 antibody concentrations.||1.23|0.78|
90808862|NCT00758264|181495498|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit (LL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio between the Nimenrix +Synflorix Group and the Synflorix Group (Nimenrix + Synflorix Group over Synflorix Group) is above (\>) 0.5.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.67||||||Demonstration of non-inferiority of Synflorix vaccine when co-administered with Nimenrix conjugate vaccine versus Synflorix vaccine given alone (Nimenrix conjugate vaccine was administered 1 month later) in terms of anti-pneumococcal serotype 18C antibody concentrations.||0.67|0.41|
90808863|NCT00758264|181495498|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit (LL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio between the Nimenrix +Synflorix Group and the Synflorix Group (Nimenrix + Synflorix Group over Synflorix Group) is above (\>) 0.5.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.08||||||Demonstration of non-inferiority of Synflorix vaccine when co-administered with Nimenrix conjugate vaccine versus Synflorix vaccine given alone (Nimenrix conjugate vaccine was administered 1 month later) in terms of anti-pneumococcal serotype 19F antibody concentrations.||1.08|0.68|
90808864|NCT00758264|181495498|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit (LL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio between the Nimenrix +Synflorix Group and the Synflorix Group (Nimenrix + Synflorix Group over Synflorix Group) is above (\>) 0.5.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.38||||||Demonstration of non-inferiority of Synflorix vaccine when co-administered with Nimenrix conjugate vaccine versus Synflorix vaccine given alone (Nimenrix conjugate vaccine was administered 1 month later) in terms of anti-pneumococcal serotype 23F antibody concentrations.||1.38|0.83|
90808865|NCT00758264|181495499|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit (LL) of the 2-sided standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for the group difference in percentage of subjects with serum bactericidal antibody using baby rabbit complement against Neisseria meningitides serogroup A (rSBA-MenA) titer ≥ 1:8 (Nimenrix + Synflorix Group minus Nimenrix Group) is ≥ -10%.|Difference in percentage|1.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|8.15||||||Demonstration of non-inferiority of Nimenrix conjugate vaccine when co-administered with Synflorix vaccine versus Nimenrix conjugate vaccine given alone (Synflorix vaccine was administered 1 month later) in terms of serum bactericidal assay using rabbit complement against Neisseria meningitides serogroup A (rSBA-MenA).||8.15|-1.09|
91014822|NCT01945034|181912251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|37.3||||0.325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.13|111.8|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Weight Bearing Over 7 Days: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||111.80|-37.13|0.325
90808866|NCT00758264|181495499|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit (LL) of the 2-sided standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for the group difference in percentage of subjects with serum bactericidal antibody using baby rabbit complement against Neisseria meningitides serogroup C (rSBA-MenC) titer ≥ 1:8 (Nimenrix + Synflorix Group minus Nimenrix Group) is ≥ -10%.|Difference in percentage|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|6.22||||||Demonstration of non-inferiority of Nimenrix conjugate vaccine when co-administered with Synflorix vaccine versus Nimenrix conjugate vaccine given alone (Synflorix vaccine was administered 1 month later) in terms of serum bactericidal assay using rabbit complement against Neisseria meningitides serogroup C (rSBA-MenC).||6.22|-2.11|
91014823|NCT01945034|181912251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-8.7||||0.849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-98.64|81.22|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Weight Bearing Over 7 Days: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms.||81.22|-98.64|0.849
91014824|NCT01945034|181912252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.49|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Day 3: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline participant assessment of Normal Function/Activity terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.49|0.0|0.042
90808867|NCT00758264|181495499|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit (LL) of the 2-sided standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for the group difference in percentage of subjects with serum bactericidal antibody using baby rabbit complement against Neisseria meningitides serogroup W-135 (rSBA-MenW-135) titer ≥ 1:8 (Nimenrix + Synflorix Group minus Nimenrix Group) is ≥ -10%.|Difference in percentage|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|6.76||||||Demonstration of non-inferiority of Nimenrix conjugate vaccine when co-administered with Synflorix vaccine versus Nimenrix conjugate vaccine given alone (Synflorix vaccine was administered 1 month later) in terms of serum bactericidal assay using rabbit complement against Neisseria meningitides serogroup W-135 (rSBA-MenW-135).||6.76|-0.94|
90808868|NCT00758264|181495499|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit (LL) of the 2-sided standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for the group difference in percentage of subjects with serum bactericidal antibody using baby rabbit complement against Neisseria meningitides serogroup Y (rSBA-MenY) titer ≥ 1:8 (Nimenrix + Synflorix Group minus Nimenrix Group) is ≥ -10%.|Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|4.6||||||Demonstration of non-inferiority of Nimenrix conjugate vaccine when co-administered with Synflorix vaccine versus Nimenrix conjugate vaccine given alone (Synflorix vaccine was administered 1 month later) in terms of serum bactericidal assay using rabbit complement against Neisseria meningitides serogroup Y (rSBA-MenY).||4.6|-2.18|
90808869|NCT06359028|181495556|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.113|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|-1.72|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||||-1.72|-2.16|<0.0001
90808870|NCT06359028|181495557|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|57.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.599|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.23|64.51|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||||64.51|50.23|<0.0001
90808871|NCT06359028|181495558|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|-1.41|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||||-1.41|-1.89|<0.0001
90808872|NCT06359028|181495559|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|35.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.28|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.88|43.86|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||||43.86|26.88|<0.0001
90808873|NCT06359028|181495560|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.296||0.1268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|0.13|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Q7, Day 28||0.13|-1.04|0.1268
90808874|NCT06359028|181495560|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.316|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.38|-1.13|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Q7, Day 56||-1.13|-2.38|<0.0001
90808875|NCT06359028|181495560|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.315||0.0245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|-0.09|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Q8, Day 28||-0.09|-1.35|0.0245
90808876|NCT06359028|181495560|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.318|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|-1.18|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Q8, Day 56||-1.18|-2.44|<0.0001
90808877|NCT06359028|181495560|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.337||0.3851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.37|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Q9, Day 28||0.37|-0.96|0.3851
90808878|NCT06359028|181495560|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.375||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|-0.73|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Q9, Day 56||-0.73|-2.22|0.0002
90808879|NCT06359028|181495561|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-6.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.674||0.1884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.46|3.08|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Day 28||3.08|-15.46|0.1884
90808880|NCT06359028|181495561|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-24.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.308||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.0|-11.97|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Day 56||-11.97|-37.00|0.0002
90808881|NCT06359028|181495562|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.774||0.3003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|0.73|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Day 28||0.73|-2.34|0.3003
90808882|NCT06359028|181495562|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.903||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.56|-0.97|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Day 56||-0.97|-4.56|0.0028
90808883|NCT06359028|181495563|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-3.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.127||0.0784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|0.44|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Day 28||0.44|-8.00|0.0784
90808884|NCT06359028|181495563|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-8.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.074||0.0092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.27|-2.07|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Day 56||-2.07|-14.27|0.0092
91054747|NCT01175811|181991307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.822||95.0||||P-value is for the comparison of participants achieving \<=7.0% HbA1c at 12 weeks. P-value was not adjusted for multiplicity and should be interpreted as nominal.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.822
90808885|NCT06359028|181495564|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.846||0.8686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|1.54|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Day 28||1.54|-1.82|0.8686
90808886|NCT06359028|181495564|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-3.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.976||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.18|-1.31|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Day 56||-1.31|-5.18|0.0012
90808887|NCT06359028|181495565|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.444||0.9047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.04|2.69|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Day 28||2.69|-3.04|0.9047
90808888|NCT06359028|181495565|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-6.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.656||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.95|-3.38|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Day 56||-3.38|-9.95|0.0001
90808889|NCT06359028|181495566|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.5733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.14|1.19|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Day 28||1.19|-2.14|0.5733
90808890|NCT06359028|181495566|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.026||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.92|-0.84|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Day 56||-0.84|-4.92|0.0060
90808891|NCT06359028|181495567|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.127||0.2768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.11|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Day 28||0.11|-0.39|0.2768
90808892|NCT06359028|181495567|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.113||0.0232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.04|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Day 56||-0.04|-0.48|0.0232
90808893|NCT06359028|181495568|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.403||0.8996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.85|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Day 28||0.85|-0.75|0.8996
90808894|NCT06359028|181495568|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.383||0.0204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|-0.14|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Day 56||-0.14|-1.66|0.0204
90808895|NCT05248997|181495569|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean|-0.09||||0.7782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.53||LM included baseline value as covariate,\& fixed effects for treatment group,stratification factor,scheduled time point(TP),TP by treatment group interaction.Repeated measures:modelled by unstructured covariance structure for within participant error.|Linear model (LM)|||||0.53|-0.71|0.7782
90808896|NCT05248997|181495570|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean|-0.29||||0.7079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|1.24||LM included baseline value as covariate, and fixed effects for treatment group,stratification factor,scheduled TP, TP by treatment group interaction.Repeated measures:modelled by unstructured covariance structure for within participant error.|Linear model (LM)|||||1.24|-1.83|0.7079
90808897|NCT05248997|181495571|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean|-0.23||||0.4398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.36||LM included baseline value as covariate, and fixed effects for treatment group,stratification factor,scheduled TP, TP by treatment group interaction.Repeated measures:modelled by unstructured covariance structure for within participant error.|Linear model (LM)|||||0.36|-0.81|0.4398
90808898|NCT05248997|181495572|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean|0.04||||0.889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.59||LM included baseline value as covariate, and fixed effects for treatment group,stratification factor,scheduled TP, TP by treatment group interaction.Repeated measures:modelled by unstructured covariance structure for within participant error.|Linear model (LM)|||||0.59|-0.51|0.8890
90808899|NCT05248997|181495573|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|3.8||||0.6412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|19.7|||Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by presence of nasal polyps at randomization with Mantel-Haenszel risk estimation.||||19.7|-12.1|0.6412
90808900|NCT05248997|181495574|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|-2.7||||0.5001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|5.2|||Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by presence of nasal polyps at randomization with Mantel-Haenszel risk estimation.||||5.2|-10.6|0.5001
90808901|NCT00673231|181495589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0726|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.31||significant at alpha=0.019 (2-sided) applying Dunnett's adjustment. A hierarchical closed testing procedure was used to control the Type I error rate across the primary and key secondary endpoints.|ANCOVA|with treatment group (all treatment groups included) and stratum (other oral anti-diabetic med use) as effect and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0 (with alpha = 0.019 applying Dunnett's adjustment, two-sided)||-0.31|-0.59|<0.0001
90808902|NCT00673231|181495589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0718|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.38||significant at alpha=0.019 (2-sided) applying Dunnett's adjustment. A hierarchical closed testing procedure was used to control the Type I error rate across the primary and key secondary endpoints.|ANCOVA|with treatment group (all treatment groups included) and stratum (other oral anti-diabetic med use) as effect and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0 (with alpha = 0.019 applying Dunnett's adjustment, two-sided)||-0.38|-0.66|<0.0001
90808903|NCT00673231|181495589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0733|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.45||significant at alpha=0.019 (2-sided) applying Dunnett's adjustment. A hierarchical closed testing procedure was used to control the Type I error rate across the primary and key secondary endpoints.|ANCOVA|with treatment group (all treatment groups included) and stratum (other oral anti-diabetic med use) as effect and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0 (with alpha = 0.019 applying Dunnett's adjustment, two-sided)||-0.45|-0.74|<0.0001
90808904|NCT00673231|181495590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.256||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.49||significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure within treatment group.|ANCOVA|with treatment group (all treatment groups included) and stratum (other oral anti-diabetic med use) as effect and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-0.49|-1.50|0.0001
90808905|NCT00673231|181495590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2523|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.5||significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure within treatment group.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-0.50|-1.50|<0.0001
91014825|NCT01945034|181912252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.4|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Day 3: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline participant assessment of Normal Function/Activity terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.40|-0.04|0.114
91014826|NCT01945034|181912252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.2|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Day 3: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline participant assessment of Normal Function/Activity terms.||0.20|-0.34|0.598
91014827|NCT01945034|181912252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.19|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Day 10: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline participant assessment of Normal Function/Activity terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.19|-0.24|0.833
91054748|NCT01175811|181991307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.417||95.0||||P-value is for the comparison of participants achieving \<=6.5% HbA1c at 24 weeks. P-value was not adjusted for multiplicity and should be interpreted as nominal.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.417
91054749|NCT01175811|181991307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.392||95.0||||P-value is for the comparison of participants achieving \<=7.0% HbA1c at 24 weeks. P-value was not adjusted for multiplicity and should be interpreted as nominal.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.392
91054750|NCT02109419|181991315|OTHER||Pearson Test-retest reliability coeff.|0.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Test-retest reliability coeff.|||HHT-D reliability was evaluated via test-retest reliability coefficients. The dataset included participants from all groups.||||<0.0001
90808906|NCT00673231|181495590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2578|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.19|-1.18||significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure within treatment group.|ANCOVA|with treatment group (all treatment groups included) and stratum (other oral anti-diabetic med use) as effect and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-1.18|-2.19|<0.0001
90808907|NCT00673231|181495591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3195|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.46|-4.28||significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure within treatment group.|ANCOVA|with treatment group (all treatment groups included) and stratum (other oral anti-diabetic med use) as effect and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-4.28|-9.46|<0.0001
90808908|NCT00673231|181495591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3045|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.25|-3.13||significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure within treatment group.|ANCOVA|with treatment group (all treatment groups included) and stratum (other oral anti-diabetic med use) as effect and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-3.13|-8.25|<0.0001
90808909|NCT00673231|181495591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3286|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.84|-3.63||significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure within treatment group.|ANCOVA|with treatment group (all treatment groups included) and stratum (other oral anti-diabetic med use) as effect and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-3.63|-8.84|<0.0001
90808910|NCT00673231|181495592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|7.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.536||0.0427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|14.1||significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure within treatment group.|Regression, Logistic|Methodology of Zhang, Tsiatis \& Davidian and Davidian, Tsiatis, Zhang \& Lu, adjustment for stratum (other oral anti-diab med use) and baseline value.||H0: proportion(treat) minus proportion(placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: proportion(treat) minus proportion(placebo) =/= 0||14.1|0.2|0.0427
90808911|NCT00673231|181495592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.434||0.0903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|12.5||not significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure within treatment group.|Regression, Logistic|Methodology of Zhang, Tsiatis \& Davidian and Davidian, Tsiatis, Zhang \& Lu, adjustment for stratum (other oral anti-diab med use) and baseline value.||H0: proportion(treat) minus proportion(placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: proportion(treat) minus proportion(placebo) =/= 0||12.5|-0.9|0.0903
91014828|NCT01945034|181912252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.22|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Day 10: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline participant assessment of Normal Function/Activity terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.22|-0.18|0.853
91014829|NCT01945034|181912252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.29|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Day 10: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline participant assessment of Normal Function/Activity terms.||0.29|-0.20|0.733
91014830|NCT01945034|181912254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.45||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.97|||Proportional Hazards Model|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Time to First Perceptible Relief: Hazard Ratio and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the Proportional Hazards (PH) model with treatment, BLPSR, and pooled site blocks.||1.97|1.07|0.016
90808912|NCT00673231|181495592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|8.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.634||0.0166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|15.8||significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure within treatment group.|Regression, Logistic|Methodology of Zhang, Tsiatis \& Davidian and Davidian, Tsiatis, Zhang \& Lu, adjustment for stratum (other oral anti-diab med use) and baseline value.||H0: proportion(treat) minus proportion(placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: proportion(treat) minus proportion(placebo) =/= 0||15.8|1.6|0.0166
91014831|NCT01945034|181912254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.95|||Proportional Hazards Model|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Time to First Perceptible Relief: Hazard Ratio and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model with treatment, BLPSR, and pooled site blocks.||0.95|0.53|0.022
91014832|NCT01945034|181912254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.69|||Proportional Hazards Model|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Time to First Perceptible Relief: Hazard Ratio and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model with treatment, BLPSR, and pooled site blocks.||0.69|0.34|< 0.001
91014833|NCT01945034|181912254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|2.51|||Proportional Hazards Model|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Time to Meaningful Relief: Hazard Ratio and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model with treatment, BLPSR, and pooled site blocks.||2.51|1.27|< 0.001
91014834|NCT01945034|181912254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.88|||Proportional Hazards Model|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Time to Meaningful Relief: Hazard Ratio and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model with treatment, BLPSR, and pooled site blocks.||0.88|0.41|0.009
91054751|NCT02109419|181991315|OTHER||Pearson test-retest reliability coeff|0.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson test-retest reliability coeff|||HHT-G reliability was evaluated via test-retest reliability coefficients. The dataset included participants from all groups.||||<0.0001
90808913|NCT00673231|181495593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.684||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.0|-6.6||significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure within treatment group.|ANCOVA|with treatment group (all treatment groups included) and stratum (other oral anti-diabetic med use) as effect and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-6.6|-25.0|0.0008
90808914|NCT00673231|181495593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.616|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.2|-13.1||Not significant. Hierarchical closed testing procedure within treatment group stopped at previous endpoint.|ANCOVA|with treatment group (all treatment groups included) and stratum (other oral anti-diabetic med use) as effect and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-13.1|-31.2|
90808915|NCT00673231|181495593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.718|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.3|-15.8||significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure within treatment group.|ANCOVA|with treatment group (all treatment groups included) and stratum (other oral anti-diabetic med use) as effect and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-15.8|-34.3|<0.0001
90808916|NCT02470585|181495614|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity considerations included 3 treatment arms, (2 pairwise comparisons), 3 sequentially inclusive populations (BRCA-mutation population, HRD population, and ITT population), and multiple endpoints. A fixed-sequence testing procedure was used to control the Type I error rate at 0.05 from the primary efficacy endpoints sequentially through the secondary efficacy endpoints.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.435|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.277|0.683||A 2-sided p-value of ≤ 0.05 was considered statistically significant in the following hierarchical testing sequence: PFS was to be compared first in the BRCA-mutation cohort, then in the HRD cohort, and then in the ITT population.|Log Rank|Stratified according to residual disease status and disease stage.|Cox proportional hazards model stratified according to the same factors as those used in the log-rank test above.|The primary efficacy analyses compared investigator-assessed PFS in the Veliparib + Carboplatin + Paclitaxel -\> Veliparib group (Arm 3) vs. the Placebo + Carboplatin + Paclitaxel -\> Placebo group (Arm 1).||0.683|0.277|<0.001
90808917|NCT02470585|181495615|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity considerations included 3 treatment arms, (2 pairwise comparisons), 3 sequentially inclusive populations (BRCA-mutation population, HRD population, and ITT population), and multiple endpoints. A fixed-sequence testing procedure was used to control the Type I error rate at 0.05 from the primary efficacy endpoints sequentially through the secondary efficacy endpoints.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.572|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.433|0.756||A 2-sided p-value of ≤ 0.05 was considered statistically significant in the following hierarchical testing sequence: PFS was to be compared first in the BRCA-mutation cohort, then in the HRD cohort, and then in the ITT population.|Log Rank|Stratified according to residual disease status and disease stage.|Cox proportional hazards model stratified according to the same factors as those used in the log-rank test above.|The primary efficacy analyses compared investigator-assessed PFS in the Veliparib + Carboplatin + Paclitaxel -\> Veliparib group (Arm 3) vs. the Placebo + Carboplatin + Paclitaxel -\> Placebo group (Arm 1).||0.756|0.433|<0.001
90808918|NCT02470585|181495616|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity considerations included 3 treatment arms, (2 pairwise comparisons), 3 sequentially inclusive populations (BRCA-mutation population, HRD population, and ITT population), and multiple endpoints. A fixed-sequence testing procedure was used to control the Type I error rate at 0.05 from the primary efficacy endpoints sequentially through the secondary efficacy endpoints.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.683|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.562|0.831||A 2-sided p-value of ≤ 0.05 was considered statistically significant in the following hierarchical testing sequence: PFS was to be compared first in the BRCA-mutation cohort, then in the HRD cohort, and then in the ITT population.|Log Rank|Stratified according to residual disease status and disease stage, choice of the paclitaxel regimen, and BRCA-mutation status|Cox proportional hazards model stratified according to the same factors as those used in the log-rank test above.|The primary efficacy analyses compared investigator-assessed PFS in the Veliparib + Carboplatin + Paclitaxel -\> Veliparib group (Arm 3) vs. the Placebo + Carboplatin + Paclitaxel -\> Placebo group (Arm 1).||0.831|0.562|<0.001
91014835|NCT01945034|181912254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.52|||Proportional Hazards Model|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Time to Meaningful Relief: Hazard Ratio and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model with treatment, BLPSR, and pooled site blocks.||0.52|0.22|< 0.001
91014836|NCT01945034|181912256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.479|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p-values from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with modified ridit scores, controlling for BLPSR and site block.||||||0.479
91014837|NCT01945034|181912256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.279|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p-values from the CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for BLPSR and site block.||||||0.279
91054752|NCT02109419|181991315|OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson correlation coefficient|||Validity of the HHT-D was tested by Pearson correlation coefficients between HHT-D and Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS) scores. The dataset included participants from all groups.||||<.0001
91014838|NCT01945034|181912256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.129|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p-values from the CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for BLPSR and site block.||||||0.129
91014839|NCT02277665|181912269|SUPERIORITY|Chi-square|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.56|||=|0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.82|||Chi-squared|||||1.82|.17|= 0.33
91014840|NCT02277665|181912270|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.32||||0.57|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.57
91014841|NCT02277665|181912271|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.45|||=|0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.35|||Chi-squared|||||1.35|0.15|= 0.16
91054753|NCT02109419|181991315|OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.71||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson correlation coefficient|||Validity of the HHT-G was tested by Pearson correlation coefficients between HHT-G and Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) scores. The dataset included participants from all groups.||||0.0001
91014842|NCT02277665|181912272|SUPERIORITY||Means Ratio|0.97||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.42|||Chi-squared|||||1.42|0.66|0.87
91014843|NCT02277665|181912273|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.46
90808919|NCT02470585|181495617|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity considerations included 3 treatment arms, (2 pairwise comparisons), 3 sequentially inclusive populations (BRCA-mutation population, HRD population, and ITT population), and multiple endpoints. A fixed-sequence testing procedure was used to control the Type I error rate at 0.05 from the primary efficacy endpoints sequentially through the secondary efficacy endpoints.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.215||||0.335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.821|1.799|||Log Rank|Stratified according to residual disease status and disease stage.|Cox proportional hazards model stratified according to the same factors as those used in the log-rank test above.|The secondary efficacy analyses compared investigator-assessed PFS in the Veliparib + Carboplatin + Paclitaxel -\> Placebo group (Arm 2) vs. the Placebo + Carboplatin + Paclitaxel -\> Placebo group (Arm 1).||1.799|0.821|0.335
90808920|NCT02470585|181495618|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity considerations included 3 treatment arms, (2 pairwise comparisons), 3 sequentially inclusive populations (BRCA-mutation population, HRD population, and ITT population), and multiple endpoints. A fixed-sequence testing procedure was used to control the Type I error rate at 0.05 from the primary efficacy endpoints sequentially through the secondary efficacy endpoints.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.855|1.414|||Log Rank|Stratified according to residual disease status and disease stage.|Cox proportional hazards model stratified according to the same factors as those used in the log-rank test above.|The secondary efficacy analyses compared investigator-assessed PFS in the Veliparib + Carboplatin + Paclitaxel -\> Placebo group (Arm 2) vs. the Placebo + Carboplatin + Paclitaxel -\> Placebo group (Arm 1).||1.414|0.855|0.462
90808921|NCT02470585|181495619|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity considerations included 3 treatment arms, (2 pairwise comparisons), 3 sequentially inclusive populations (BRCA-mutation population, HRD population, and ITT population), and multiple endpoints. A fixed-sequence testing procedure was used to control the Type I error rate at 0.05 from the primary efficacy endpoints sequentially through the secondary efficacy endpoints.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.073||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.895|1.287|||Log Rank|Stratified according to residual disease status and disease stage, choice of the paclitaxel regimen, and BRCA-mutation status|Cox proportional hazards model stratified according to the same factors as those used in the log-rank test above.|The secondary efficacy analyses compared investigator-assessed PFS in the Veliparib + Carboplatin + Paclitaxel -\> Placebo group (Arm 2) vs. the Placebo + Carboplatin + Paclitaxel -\> Placebo group (Arm 1).||1.287|0.895|0.450
90808922|NCT02470585|181495620|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.567|1.429||Stratified by residual disease (no residual disease after primary surgery versus any residual disease after primary surgery or interval surgery) and stage of disease (stage III versus stage IV)|Log Rank||Cox proportional hazards model stratified according to the same factors as those used in the log-rank test above|Veliparib + Carboplatin + Paclitaxel -\> Veliparib (Arm 3) versus Placebo + Carboplatin + Paclitaxel -\> Placebo (Arm 1)||1.429|0.567|0.328
90808923|NCT02470585|181495620|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.218||||0.808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.903||Stratified by residual disease (no residual disease after primary surgery versus any residual disease after primary surgery or interval surgery) and stage of disease (stage III versus stage IV)|Log Rank||Cox proportional hazards model stratified according to the same factors as those used in the log-rank test above.|Veliparib + Carboplatin + Paclitaxel -\> Placebo (Arm 2) versus Placebo + Carboplatin + Paclitaxel -\> Placebo (Arm 1)||1.903|0.780|0.808
91014844|NCT02277665|181912274|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.04
91014845|NCT00463385|181912295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.092||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.092
91014846|NCT00463385|181912295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.048||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.048
91014847|NCT00463385|181912295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.758||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.758
91014848|NCT02354352|181912352|NON_INFERIORITY|Using a Type I error rate of 5%, we conducted a power calculation using a non-inferiority test on 12-month change in Ecc. If there is truly no difference in the 12-month Ecc change between the spironolactone and eplerenone groups, 46 patients (23 in each group) would result in at least 80% power to ensure that the lower limit of a one-sided 95% confidence interval for the true difference between the spironolactone and eplerenone groups to be above the non-inferiority limit of -1.75.||||||0.5867|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5867
91014849|NCT04436497|181912362|SUPERIORITY||Disease Rate Ratio|1.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.874|1.307||Posterior probability that the disease rate ratio (DRR) is less than 1 (i.e. zilucoplan slowed progression) was 0.2418. NOTE: p-value is not provided for Bayesian model.|Bayesian shared-parameter model|A Bayesian shared-parameter model of change in disease severity as measured by ALSFRS-R total score and mortality.|"DDR \<1 imply slowing of disease progression by zilucoplan relative to placebo. Note: reported Confidence Interval is actually a Bayesian credible interval."||The DRR parameter for active treatment represents the relative change to the rate of decline of ALSFRS-R and the rate of mortality of treated participant relative to a placebo participant. The estimated DRR can also be interpreted as the average rate of decline in function and mortality. The model includes covariates for baseline use of edaravone, baseline use of riluzole, months since onset of symptoms, and pre-baseline slope of ALSFRS-R, and random effects for regimen and participant-specific slopes.|1.307|0.874|
91014850|NCT04436497|181912364|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.819||0.5495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.66|2.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates include baseline use of edaravone and riluzole, months since symptom onset, and pre-baseline ALSFRS-R slope.|Zilucoplan 24-week change from baseline relative to placebo 24-week change from baseline.|||2.48|-4.66|0.5495
91014851|NCT04436497|181912365|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.409||0.7602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.73|5.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates include baseline use of edaravone and riluzole, months since symptom onset, and pre-baseline ALSFRS-R slope.|Zilucoplan 24-week change from baseline relative to placebo 24-week change from baseline.|||5.65|-7.73|0.7602
91014852|NCT04436497|181912366|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6891|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.6891
91014853|NCT01335620|181912370|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Compare baseline to 24 weeks||||0.018
91014854|NCT02743117|181912371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Difference|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|1.3||||||||1.3|-8.1|
91054754|NCT02109419|181991315|OTHER||Chronbach's alpha|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Internal consistency reliability of the HHT-D was assessed with Chronbach's alpha. The dataset included participants from all groups.||||
91014855|NCT02743117|181912372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Difference|-8.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.2|4.6||||||Up to Day 8||4.6|-22.2|
91014856|NCT02743117|181912372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Difference|-7.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.6|5.9||||||Up to Day 15||5.9|-21.6|
90808924|NCT02470585|181495621|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.844||||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.114||Stratified by residual disease (no residual disease after primary surgery versus any residual disease after primary surgery or interval surgery) and stage of disease (stage III versus stage IV)|Log Rank||Cox proportional hazards model stratified according to the same factors as those used in the log-rank test above.|Veliparib + Carboplatin + Paclitaxel -\> Veliparib (Arm 3) versus Placebo + Carboplatin + Paclitaxel -\> Placebo (Arm 1)||1.114|0.640|0.116
90808925|NCT02470585|181495621|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.949||||0.352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.726|1.242||Stratified by residual disease (no residual disease after primary surgery versus any residual disease after primary surgery or interval surgery) and stage of disease (stage III versus stage IV)|Log Rank||Cox proportional hazards model stratified according to the same factors as those used in the log-rank test above.|Veliparib + Carboplatin + Paclitaxel -\> Placebo (Arm 2) versus Placebo + Carboplatin + Paclitaxel -\> Placebo (Arm 1)||1.242|0.726|0.352
90808926|NCT02470585|181495622|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.946||||0.283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.782|1.144||Stratified by residual disease (none after primary surgery vs any residual disease after primary/interval surgery); disease stage (III vs IV); paclitaxel dosing (Q-weekly vs Q3-weekly); BRCA-Deficient status (Deficient vs wildtype or unknown/missing)|Log Rank|||Veliparib + Carboplatin + Paclitaxel -\> Veliparib (Arm 3) versus Placebo + Carboplatin + Paclitaxel -\> Placebo (Arm 1)||1.144|0.782|0.283
90808927|NCT02470585|181495622|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.034||||0.638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.859|1.244||Stratified by residual disease (none after primary surgery vs any residual disease after primary/interval surgery); disease stage (III vs IV); paclitaxel dosing (Q-weekly vs Q3-weekly); BRCA-Deficient status (Deficient vs wildtype or unknown/missing)|Log Rank||Cox proportional hazards model stratified according to the same factors as those used in the log-rank test above|Veliparib + Carboplatin + Paclitaxel -\> Placebo (Arm 2) versus Placebo + Carboplatin + Paclitaxel -\> Placebo (Arm 1)||1.244|0.859|0.638
90808928|NCT02602275|181495626|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||Significance level is 0.05, corrected for multiple comparisons in the search volume which is anatomically defined by the Automated Anatomical Labelling Atlas (AAL) coordinates.|Paired t-test|||||||0.004
90808929|NCT02602275|181495627|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Significance level is 0.05, corrected for multiple comparisons in the search volume which is anatomically defined by the Automated Anatomical Labelling Atlas (AAL) coordinates.|Paired t-test|||||||>0.05
90808930|NCT02602275|181495628|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Significance level was 0.05.|Paired t-test|The outcome was deemed exploratory, as multiplicity was controlled using a priori ordered hypotheses, but the preceding endpoint was not met.||||||<0.001
90808931|NCT02602275|181495629|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Significance level is 0.05, corrected for multiple comparisons in the search volume which is anatomically defined by the Automated Anatomical Labelling Atlas (AAL) coordinates.|Paired t-test|||||||>0.05
90808932|NCT02602275|181495630|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||Significance level is 0.05, corrected for multiple comparisons in the search volume which is anatomically defined by the AAL (Automated Anatomical Labelling Atlas) coordinates.|Paired t-test|The outcome was deemed exploratory, as multiplicity was controlled using a priori ordered hypotheses, but a preceding endpoint was not met.||||||<0.05
90808933|NCT01866111|181495650|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||A step down procedure was used for the primary efficacy analyses to ensure the type one error rate for multiple comparisons was controlled at the 5% level using the following hierarchy: 200 mg vs placebo, 400 mg vs placebo, 100 mg vs placebo, in which a statistically significant difference had to be detected in this order for each subsequent comparison to occur.||||<0.001
90808934|NCT01866111|181495650|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90808935|NCT01866111|181495650|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.007
90808936|NCT01866111|181495651|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91054755|NCT02109419|181991315|OTHER||Chronbach's alpha|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Internal consistency reliability of the HHT-G was assessed with Chronbach's alpha. The dataset included participants from all groups.||||
90808937|NCT01866111|181495651|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
90808938|NCT01866111|181495651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.003
90808939|NCT04113018|181495668|SUPERIORITY||Response rate|0.5385||||0.375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3718|0.6991|||Fisher Exact||Confidence interval estimated using the Clopper Pearson method.|A minimax 2-stage design was used to test the hypothesis that the CR+ rate less than or equal to 50%. Twenty-three evaluable subjects were enrolled in the first stage, followed by an additional 16 subjects for a total of 39 subjects. This design provided 90% power to detect a difference of 20% under the alternative hypothesis, assuming a one-sided alpha=0.10 significance level. If at least 24 of 39 participants had achieved CR or better to induction, the null hypothesis would have been rejected.||0.6991|0.3718|0.375
90808940|NCT04113018|181495675|OTHER|Estimation only|Rate|0.0513|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0063|0.1732|||||Confidence interval estimated using the Clopper Pearson method.|||0.1732|0.0063|
90808941|NCT04113018|181495676|OTHER|Estimation only.|Rate|0.0256|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0006|0.1348|||||Confidence interval estimated using the Clopper Pearson method.|||0.1348|0.0006|
90808942|NCT04283994|181495697|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.114||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.197||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Risk difference = clinician-facing intervention - usual care. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|A total sample size of 600 (200 per arm) would give 80% power to detect a difference in proportions of 0.16 for each of the 3 pairwise comparisons assuming an overall 0.5 significance threshold, a Bonferroni adjustment for the 3 comparisons, and variance based on a proportion of 0.54.||0.197|0.030|0.023
90808943|NCT04283994|181495697|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.068||||0.294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.013|0.15||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Risk difference = bidirectional intervention - usual care. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|A total sample size of 600 (200 per arm) would give 80% power to detect a difference in proportions of 0.16 for each of the 3 pairwise comparisons assuming an overall 0.5 significance threshold, a Bonferroni adjustment for the 3 comparisons, and variance based on a proportion of 0.54.||0.150|-0.013|0.294
90808944|NCT04283994|181495697|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.045||||0.952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.134|0.044||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Risk difference = bidirectional intervention - clinician-facing intervention. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|A total sample size of 600 (200 per arm) would give 80% power to detect a difference in proportions of 0.16 for each of the 3 pairwise comparisons assuming an overall 0.5 significance threshold, a Bonferroni adjustment for the 3 comparisons, and variance based on a proportion of 0.54.||0.044|-0.134|0.952
90808945|NCT04283994|181495704|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||1.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.7||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis|Mean difference = bi-directional intervention - usual care. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|||0.7|-1.3|1.650
90808946|NCT04283994|181495704|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.5||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Mean difference = clinician-facing intervention - usual care. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|||0.5|-1.6|0.985
90808947|NCT04283994|181495704|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||2.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.4||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Mean difference = bi-directional intervention - clinician-facing intervention. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|||1.4|-1.0|2.155
90808948|NCT04283994|181495705|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||2.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|4.4||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis,|Mean difference = bi-directional intervention - usual care. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|||4.4|-3.1|2.169
91014857|NCT04640168|181912378|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.909|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.909
91014858|NCT04640168|181912395|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|13.4||||||||13.4|1.8|
90808949|NCT04283994|181495705|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.3||||0.391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|1.0||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Mean difference = clinician-facing intervention - usual care. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|||1.0|-7.5|0.391
90808950|NCT04283994|181495705|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.0||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|8.2||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Mean difference = bi-directional intervention - clinician-facing intervention. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|||8.2|-0.3|0.210
90808951|NCT04283994|181495706|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||1.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|2.4||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Mean difference = bi-directional intervention - usual care. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|||2.4|-0.8|1.010
91014859|NCT04640168|181912396|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|5.5||||||||5.5|-4.3|
91014860|NCT04640168|181912414|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.27||||||||1.27|0.80|
91014861|NCT04640168|181912415|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.02||||||||0.02|-0.09|
91014862|NCT04640168|181912416|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.23||||||||1.23|0.94|
91014863|NCT04640168|181912417|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.23||||||||1.23|0.94|
91014864|NCT04640168|181912418|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.19||||||||1.19|0.91|
91014865|NCT00978120|181912443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.014
91014866|NCT00978120|181912444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.05
91014867|NCT00978120|181912447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.470
91014868|NCT00978120|181912448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.120
91014869|NCT00978120|181912449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.284|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.284
91014870|NCT00978120|181912450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.004
91014871|NCT00978120|181912451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.341|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.341
91014872|NCT00978120|181912452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.020
91014873|NCT00978120|181912453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.245|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.245
91014874|NCT00978120|181912454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.173|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.173
91014875|NCT00978120|181912455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.362|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.362
91014876|NCT00978120|181912456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.006
91014877|NCT00978120|181912457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.016
91014878|NCT00978120|181912458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.032|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.032
91014879|NCT00634933|181912476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.061|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (CMH), stratified by prior anti-tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) use and geographic region, was used.||||0.061
90808952|NCT04283994|181495706|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||2.923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.7||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Mean difference = clinician-facing intervention - usual care. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|||1.7|-1.7|2.923
90808953|NCT04283994|181495706|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||1.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|2.5||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Mean difference = bi-directional intervention - clinician-facing intervention. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|||2.5|-0.9|1.034
90808954|NCT04283994|181495707|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.5||||0.384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|7.9||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Mean difference = bi-directional intervention - usual care. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|||7.9|-1.0|0.384
90808955|NCT04283994|181495707|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||1.923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|3.7||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Mean difference = clinician-facing intervention - usual care. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|||3.7|-6.1|1.923
90808956|NCT04283994|181495707|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.6||||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|9.4||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Mean difference = bi-directional intervention - clinician-facing intervention. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|||9.4|-0.1|0.166
91014880|NCT00634933|181912476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.120
90808957|NCT04283994|181495708|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.11||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.0||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Risk difference = bi-directional intervention - usual care. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|"Complete case analysis. Unsure responses counted as non-events."||0.00|-0.23|0.160
90808958|NCT04283994|181495708|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.07||||0.652|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.04||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Risk difference = clinician-facing intervention - usual care. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|"Complete case analysis. Unsure responses counted as non-events."||0.04|-0.18|0.652
90808959|NCT04283994|181495708|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.04||||1.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.07||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Risk difference = bi-directional intervention - clinician-facing intervention. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|"Complete case analysis. Unsure responses counted as non-events."||0.07|-0.16|1.390
90808960|NCT04283994|181495709|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.05||||1.192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.16||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Risk difference = bi-directional intervention - usual care. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|"Complete case analysis. Unsure responses counted as non-events."||0.16|-0.06|1.192
90808961|NCT04283994|181495709|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.01||||2.698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.12||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Risk difference = clinician-facing intervention - usual care. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|"Complete case analysis. Unsure responses counted as non-events."||0.12|-0.11|2.698
91014881|NCT00634933|181912477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.570
91014882|NCT00634933|181912477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.200
91014883|NCT00634933|181912477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.616|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.616
91014884|NCT00634933|181912477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.671|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.671
91014885|NCT00634933|181912477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.108|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.108
91014886|NCT00634933|181912477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.174|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.174
91014887|NCT00634933|181912477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.010
90808962|NCT04283994|181495709|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.04||||1.477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.16||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Risk difference = bi-directional intervention - clinician-facing intervention. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|"Complete case analysis. Unsure responses counted as non-events."||0.16|-0.08|1.477
90808963|NCT04283994|181495710|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57||||2.293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|3.16||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Mean difference = bi-directional intervention - usual care. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|Complete case analysis.||3.16|-4.30|2.293
90808964|NCT04283994|181495710|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48||||2.381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.11|3.14||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Mean difference = clinician-facing intervention - usual care. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|||3.14|-4.11|2.381
90808965|NCT04283994|181495710|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||2.893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.86|3.69||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Mean difference = bi-directional intervention - clinician-facing intervention. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|||3.69|-3.86|2.893
90808966|NCT04283994|181495711|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||2.829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.12||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Risk difference = bi-directional intervention - usual care. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|"Complete case analysis. Unsure responses counted as non-events."||0.12|-0.13|2.829
90808967|NCT04283994|181495711|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.11||||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.24||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Risk difference = clinician-facing intervention - usual care. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|"Complete case analysis. Unsure responses counted as non-events."||0.24|-0.01|0.188
90808968|NCT04283994|181495711|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.12||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.01||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Risk difference = bi-directional intervention - clinician-facing intervention. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|"Complete case analysis. Unsure responses counted as non-events."||0.01|-0.24|0.190
90808969|NCT04283994|181495712|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.03||||1.994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.14||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Risk difference = bi-directional intervention - usual care. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|"Complete case analysis. Unsure responses counted as non-events."||0.14|-0.09|1.994
90808970|NCT04283994|181495712|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.07||||0.771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.19||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Risk difference = clinician-facing intervention - usual care. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|"Complete case analysis. Unsure responses counted as non-events."||0.19|-0.05|0.771
91014888|NCT00634933|181912477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.029
91014889|NCT00634933|181912477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.006
91054756|NCT04715932|181991337|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.3849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression).||||3.69|0.60|0.3849
91014890|NCT00634933|181912477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.021
91014891|NCT00634933|181912477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.062|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.062
91014892|NCT00634933|181912477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.049
91054757|NCT04715932|181991338|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.3139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||2.88|0.71|0.3139
91054758|NCT04715932|181991339|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.5886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|2.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||2.14|0.65|0.5886
91054759|NCT04715932|181991340|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||0.2328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||1.27|0.38|0.2328
91054760|NCT04715932|181991341|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|1.14||||0.156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated poisson regression).||||1.37|0.95|0.1560
90808971|NCT04283994|181495712|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.04||||1.447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.08||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Risk difference = bi-directional intervention - clinician-facing intervention. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|"Complete case analysis. Unsure responses counted as non-events."||0.08|-0.17|1.447
90808972|NCT04283994|181495715|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.012||||1.836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.058|0.034||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Risk difference = bi-directional intervention - usual care. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|||0.034|-0.058|1.836
90808973|NCT04283994|181495715|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.021||||1.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.073||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Risk difference = clinician-facing intervention - usual care. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|||0.073|-0.030|1.250
90808974|NCT04283994|181495715|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.033||||0.581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.084|0.017||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Risk difference = bi-directional intervention - clinician-facing intervention. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|||0.017|-0.084|0.581
90808975|NCT04283994|181495716|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.039||||0.692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.102|0.025||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Risk difference = bi-directional intervention - usual care. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|||0.025|-0.102|0.692
90808976|NCT04283994|181495716|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.038||||0.887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.033|0.109||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Risk difference = clinician-facing intervention - usual care. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|||0.109|-0.033|0.887
90808977|NCT04283994|181495716|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.077||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.145|-0.009||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Risk difference = bi-directional intervention - clinician-facing intervention. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|||-0.009|-0.145|0.080
90808978|NCT04283994|181495717|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.4||||0.293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.1||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Cox|Wald test adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Hazard ratio = bi-directional intervention / usual care. Estimated via cox proportional hazards regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Exponentiated Wald confidence intervals.|Censoring by death.||2.1|0.9|0.293
90808979|NCT04283994|181495717|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.7||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.5||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Cox|Wald test adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis|Hazard ratio = clinician-facing intervention / usual care. Estimated via cox proportional hazards regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Exponentiated Wald confidence intervals.|Censoring by death.||2.5|1.1|0.027
90808980|NCT04283994|181495717|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||1.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.2||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Cox|Wald test adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Hazard ratio = bi-directional intervention / clinician-facing intervention. Estimated via cox proportional hazards regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Exponentiated Wald confidence intervals.|Censoring by death.||1.2|0.6|1.009
90808981|NCT04283994|181495718|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43||||1.366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|0.7||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Mean difference = bi-directional intervention - usual care. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|Complete case analysis.||0.70|-1.55|1.366
90808982|NCT04283994|181495718|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.58||||0.978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|0.58||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Mean difference = clinician-facing intervention - usual care. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|Complete case analysis.||0.58|-1.73|0.978
91014893|NCT00634933|181912477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.030
91014894|NCT00634933|181912477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.005
91014895|NCT00634933|181912478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.014
91014896|NCT00634933|181912478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.025
90808983|NCT04283994|181495718|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||2.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|1.3||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Mean difference = bi-directional intervention - clinician-facing intervention. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|Complete case analysis.||1.30|-0.99|2.390
90808984|NCT04283994|181495719|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47||||1.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|1.51||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Mean difference = bi-directional intervention - usual care. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|Complete case analysis.||1.51|-0.57|1.125
90808985|NCT04283994|181495719|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.91||||0.258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|1.94||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Mean difference = clinician-facing intervention - usual care. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|Complete case analysis.||1.94|-0.13|0.258
90808986|NCT04283994|181495719|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44||||1.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.63||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Mean difference = bi-directional intervention - clinician-facing intervention. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|Complete case analysis.||0.63|-1.5|1.267
90808987|NCT04283994|181495720|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32||||1.594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|1.32||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Mean difference = bi-directional intervention - usual care. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|Complete case analysis.||1.32|-0.68|1.594
90808988|NCT04283994|181495720|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29||||1.803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|1.36||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Mean difference = clinician-facing intervention - usual care. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|Complete case analysis.||1.36|-0.79|1.803
90808989|NCT04283994|181495720|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||2.851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|1.07||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Mean difference = bi-directional intervention - clinician-facing intervention. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|Complete case analysis.||1.07|-1.01|2.851
90808990|NCT04283994|181495721|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28||||1.243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|0.4||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Mean difference = bi-directional intervention - usual care. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|Complete case analysis.||0.40|-0.97|1.243
91014897|NCT00634933|181912478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.794|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.794
90808991|NCT04283994|181495721|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33||||1.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.35||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Mean difference = clinician-facing intervention - usual care. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|Complete case analysis.||0.35|-1.00|1.032
91014898|NCT00634933|181912478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.966|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.966
91014899|NCT00634933|181912478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.770
91014900|NCT00634933|181912478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.456|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.456
91014901|NCT00634933|181912478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.880
91014902|NCT00634933|181912478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.814|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.814
91014903|NCT00634933|181912478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.042|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.042
91054761|NCT04715932|181991342|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|1.06||||0.6233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated poisson regression)||||1.33|0.84|0.6233
91014904|NCT00634933|181912478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.035
91014905|NCT00634933|181912478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.086|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.086
91014906|NCT00634933|181912478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.082|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.082
90808992|NCT04283994|181495721|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||2.742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.78||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Mean difference = bi-directional intervention - clinician-facing intervention. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|Complete case analysis.||0.78|-0.70|2.742
90808993|NCT04283994|181495722|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||2.658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.22||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Mean difference = bi-directional intervention - usual care. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|Complete case analysis.||0.22|-0.26|2.658
90808994|NCT04283994|181495722|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||1.523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.29||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Mean difference = clinician-facing intervention - usual care. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|Complete case analysis.||0.29|-0.14|1.523
90808995|NCT04283994|181495722|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||1.381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.15||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Mean difference = bi-directional intervention - clinician-facing intervention. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|||0.15|-0.33|1.381
90808996|NCT04283994|181495723|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||2.191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.25||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Mean difference = bi-directional intervention - usual care. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|Complete case analysis.||0.25|-0.18|2.191
90808997|NCT04283994|181495723|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||2.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.27||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Mean difference = clinician-facing intervention - usual care. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|Complete case analysis.||0.27|-0.19|2.138
90808998|NCT04283994|181495723|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||2.879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|22.0||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Mean difference = bi-directional intervention - clinician-facing intervention. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|Complete case analysis.||022|-0.23|2.879
90808999|NCT03315793|181495727|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.39||||0.5587|TWO_SIDED|98.0|-3.3|6.08|||mixed-effects model repeated measures|||||6.08|-3.30|0.5587
91014907|NCT00634933|181912479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.325|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.325
90809000|NCT03315793|181495728|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.4||||0.5111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|21.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by age||||21.5|-10.7|0.5111
90809001|NCT03315793|181495729|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|13.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by age||||13.5|-13.5|1.0000
90809002|NCT03315793|181495730|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.1||||0.4423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|6.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by age||||6.3|-14.4|0.4423
90809003|NCT03315793|181495731|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.14||||0.3836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.46|||mixed-effects model repeated measures|||||0.46|-0.18|0.3836
90809004|NCT01448824|181495757|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Up to 12 participants were enrolled in order for 8 to complete the study. The estimated variability in area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) was 20% coefficient of variation following a single dose of 100 mg LY2484595. Assuming that 70% of the total variability is contributed by intra-participant variability, a sample size of 8 participants provides a precision of \~15% for the geometric means ratio in AUC and Cmax of LY2484595 + ketoconazole to LY2484595 alone in log scale.|Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.39|2.72||||||||2.72|1.39|
91014908|NCT00634933|181912479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.338|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.338
91014909|NCT00634933|181912479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.983|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.983
90809005|NCT01448824|181495758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|0.5|||Wilcoxon signed rank|||||0.50|-0.50|1.0000
91014910|NCT00634933|181912479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.296|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.296
91014911|NCT00634933|181912479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.575|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.575
91014912|NCT00634933|181912479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||1.000
91014913|NCT00634933|181912479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.573|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.573
91014914|NCT00634933|181912479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.563|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.563
90809006|NCT01448824|181495759|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Up to 12 participants were enrolled in order for 8 to complete the study. The estimated variability in area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) was 20% coefficient of variation following a single dose of 100 mg LY2484595. Assuming that 70% of the total variability is contributed by intra-participant variability, a sample size of 8 participants provides a precision of \~15% for the geometric means ratio in AUC and Cmax of LY2484595 + ketoconazole to LY2484595 alone in log scale.|Ratio of Geometric LS means|2.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.77|3.18||||||||3.18|1.77|
90809007|NCT02526524|181495781|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.184||0.1449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|Included treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and HbA1c value at Baseline as a covariate.||||0.09|-0.63|0.1449
90809008|NCT02526524|181495781|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|Included treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and HbA1c value at Baseline as a covariate.||||0.02|-0.69|0.0643
90809009|NCT02526524|181495781|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.184||0.0214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|Included treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and HbA1c value at Baseline as a covariate.||||-0.06|-0.79|0.0214
90809010|NCT02526524|181495781|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Included treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and HbA1c value at Baseline as a covariate.||||-0.20|-0.91|0.0022
90809011|NCT02526524|181495781|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.184|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|-0.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|Included treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and HbA1c value at Baseline as a covariate.||||-0.67|-1.39|<0.0001
90809012|NCT00100230|181495786|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence analysis: standard power calculation of 20%; used 2-sided t-test||||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for significance: p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.30
90809013|NCT00100230|181495787|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence analysis: standard power calculation of 20%; used 2-sided t-test||||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for significance: p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.27
90809014|NCT00100230|181495787|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence analysis: standard power calculation of 20%; used 2-sided t-test||||||0.27|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.27
91014915|NCT00634933|181912479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.768|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.768
91014916|NCT00634933|181912479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.977|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.977
91014917|NCT00634933|181912479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.249|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.249
91054762|NCT04715932|181991343|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|1.03||||0.829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated poisson regression)||||1.37|0.78|0.8290
90809015|NCT00100230|181495788|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence analysis: standard power calculation of 20%; used 2-sided t-test||||||8e-06|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for significance: p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.000008
90809016|NCT03130439|181495828|OTHER||Objective Response Rate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.247||||||||0.247|0.000|
91014918|NCT00634933|181912479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.268|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.268
91054763|NCT04715932|181991344|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.98||||0.9222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated poisson regression)||||1.40|0.69|0.9222
90809017|NCT03130439|181495831|OTHER||Disease Control Rate|0.222|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.086|0.423||||||||0.423|0.086|
90809018|NCT03130439|181495832|OTHER||Clinical Benefit Rate|0.148|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.042|0.337||||||||0.337|0.042|
90809019|NCT02731820|181495843|OTHER|||||||0.172|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired analysis within the group to evaluate the effect of Potassium Citrate: T3 vs T0||||0.172
90809020|NCT02731820|181495843|OTHER|||||||0.027|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired analysis within the group to evaluate the effect of Potassium Citrate: T6 vs T0||||0.027
90809021|NCT02731820|181495843|OTHER|||||||0.053|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired analysis within the group to evaluate the effect of Potassium Citrate: T6 vs T3||||0.053
90809022|NCT02731820|181495843|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired analysis within the group to evaluate the effect of Placebo: T3 vs T0||||0.002
90809023|NCT02731820|181495843|OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired analysis within the group to evaluate the effect of Placebo: T6 vs T0||||0.006
90809024|NCT02731820|181495843|OTHER|||||||0.139|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired analysis within the group to evaluate the effect of Placebo: T6 vs T3||||0.139
90809025|NCT02731820|181495843|OTHER|||||||0.967|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Independent comparison (unpaired analysis) between Potassium Citrate and Placebo at T0||||0.967
91014919|NCT00634933|181912479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.089|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.089
91014920|NCT00634933|181912479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.079|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.079
91014921|NCT00634933|181912494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.106|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: Good response- A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.106
91014922|NCT00634933|181912494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.322|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: Good response- A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.322
91014923|NCT00634933|181912494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.059|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4 Good response- A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.059
91014924|NCT00634933|181912494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: Good response- A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.250
91014925|NCT00634933|181912494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.255|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: Good response- A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.255
91054764|NCT04715932|181991345|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8834|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.8834
90809026|NCT02731820|181495843|OTHER|||||||0.446|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Independent comparison (unpaired analysis) between Potassium Citrate and Placebo at T3||||0.446
90809027|NCT02731820|181495843|OTHER|||||||0.869|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Independent comparison (unpaired analysis) between Potassium Citrate and Placebo at T6||||0.869
90809028|NCT02731820|181495844|OTHER|||||||0.954|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired analysis within the group to evaluate the effect of Potassium Citrate: T3 vs T0||||0.954
90809029|NCT02731820|181495844|OTHER|||||||0.798|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired analysis within the group to evaluate the effect of Potassium Citrate: T6 vs T0||||0.798
90809030|NCT02731820|181495844|OTHER|||||||0.377|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired analysis within the group to evaluate the effect of Potassium Citrate: T6 vs T3||||0.377
90809031|NCT02731820|181495844|OTHER|||||||0.886|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired analysis within the group to evaluate the effect of Placebo: T3 vs T0||||0.886
90809032|NCT02731820|181495844|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired analysis within the group to evaluate the effect of Placebo: T6 vs T0||||0.040
91014926|NCT00634933|181912494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.105|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: Good response- A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.105
91014927|NCT00634933|181912494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: Good response- A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.001
91054765|NCT04715932|181991346|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.9416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||1.77|0.59|0.9416
90809033|NCT02731820|181495844|OTHER|||||||0.017|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired analysis within the group to evaluate the effect of Placebo: T6 vs T3||||0.017
90809034|NCT02731820|181495844|OTHER|||||||0.343|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Independent comparison (unpaired analysis) between Potassium Citrate and Placebo at T0||||0.343
90809035|NCT02731820|181495844|OTHER|||||||0.859|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Independent comparison (unpaired analysis) between Potassium Citrate and Placebo at T3||||0.859
90809036|NCT02731820|181495844|OTHER|||||||0.172|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Independent comparison (unpaired analysis) between Potassium Citrate and Placebo at T6||||0.172
90809037|NCT02731820|181495845|OTHER|||||||0.213|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired analysis within the group to evaluate the effect of Potassium Citrate: T3 vs T0||||0.213
90809038|NCT02731820|181495845|OTHER|||||||0.191|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired analysis within the group to evaluate the effect of Potassium Citrate: T6 vs T0||||0.191
90809039|NCT02731820|181495845|OTHER|||||||0.234|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired analysis within the group to evaluate the effect of Potassium Citrate: T6 vs T3||||0.234
90809040|NCT02731820|181495845|OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired analysis within the group to evaluate the effect of Placebo: T3 vs T0||||0.370
90809041|NCT02731820|181495845|OTHER|||||||0.176|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired analysis within the group to evaluate the effect of Placebo: T6 vs T0||||0.176
90809042|NCT02731820|181495845|OTHER|||||||0.139|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired analysis within the group to evaluate the effect of Placebo: T6 vs T3||||0.139
90809043|NCT02731820|181495845|OTHER|||||||0.551|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Independent comparison (unpaired analysis) between Potassium Citrate and Placebo at T0||||0.551
90809044|NCT02731820|181495845|OTHER|||||||0.371|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Independent comparison (unpaired analysis) between Potassium Citrate and Placebo at T3||||0.371
90809045|NCT02731820|181495845|OTHER|||||||0.466|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Independent comparison (unpaired analysis) between Potassium Citrate and Placebo at T6||||0.466
90809046|NCT02731820|181495846|OTHER|||||||0.094|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired analysis within the group to evaluate the effect of Potassium Citrate: T3 vs T0||||0.094
90809047|NCT02731820|181495846|OTHER|||||||0.0004|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired analysis within the group to evaluate the effect of Potassium Citrate: T6 vs T0||||0.0004
90809048|NCT02731820|181495846|OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired analysis within the group to evaluate the effect of Potassium Citrate: T6 vs T3||||0.008
90809049|NCT02731820|181495846|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired analysis within the group to evaluate the effect of Placebo: T3 vs T0||||0.002
90809050|NCT02731820|181495846|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired analysis within the group to evaluate the effect of Potassium Citrate: T6 vs T0||||<0.0001
90809051|NCT02731820|181495846|OTHER|||||||0.0007|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired analysis within the group to evaluate the effect of Potassium Citrate: T6 vs T3||||0.0007
90809052|NCT02731820|181495846|OTHER|||||||0.458|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Independent comparison (unpaired analysis) between Potassium Citrate and Placebo at T0||||0.458
90809053|NCT02731820|181495846|OTHER|||||||0.434|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Independent comparison (unpaired analysis) between Potassium Citrate and Placebo at T3||||0.434
90809054|NCT02731820|181495846|OTHER|||||||0.555|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Independent comparison (unpaired analysis) between Potassium Citrate and Placebo at T6||||0.555
90809055|NCT04838054|181495850|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.27||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values \<0.05 means statistically significant|ANCOVA|||||||0.28
90809056|NCT04838054|181495851|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.41||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.05 means statistically significant|ANCOVA|||||||0.011
90809057|NCT04838054|181495852|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90809058|NCT00729677|181495853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||.05
90809059|NCT02447250|181495904|OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||Chi-squared|||comparison of mean birth weights between responders and non-responders||||0.14
90809060|NCT02447250|181495905|OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.16
90809061|NCT02447250|181495906|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
90809062|NCT02447250|181495908|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.0
90809063|NCT02447250|181495909|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.50
91014928|NCT00634933|181912494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: Good response- A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.019
91014929|NCT00634933|181912494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: Good response- A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.011
91014930|NCT00634933|181912494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.113|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: Good response- A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.113
90809064|NCT02743949|181495910|SUPERIORITY||Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney odds estimator|1.0584||||0.748|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.71|1.5778||P-values were obtained using a Pearson chi-square test for each Vonoprazan treatment compared with Esomeprazole.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||1.5778|0.7100|0.7480
90809065|NCT02743949|181495910|SUPERIORITY||Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney odds estimator|1.0975||||0.5985|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.7368|1.6349||P-values were obtained using a Pearson chi-square test for each Vonoprazan treatment compared with Esomeprazole.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||1.6349|0.7368|0.5985
90809066|NCT02743949|181495911|SUPERIORITY||Miettinen-Nurminen|0.91||||0.782|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.44|1.91||P-values were obtained using a Pearson chi-square test for each Vonoprazan treatment compared with Esomeprazole.|Pearson chi-square|||||1.91|0.44|0.782
90809067|NCT02743949|181495911|SUPERIORITY||Miettinen-Nurminen|0.96||||0.912|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.46|2.01||P-values were obtained using a Pearson chi-square test for each Vonoprazan treatment compared with Esomeprazole.|Pearson chi-square|||||2.01|0.46|0.912
90809068|NCT03389555|181495917|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin: if confidence interval for mean difference between SOFA scores at 72 hour time-point for two groups overlaps 0 (p-value \> 0.05) scores considered to be equivalent. Note: The model estimates the mean difference in SOFA score at 72 hours between treatment and control groups, for those patient for whom a SOFA score could be calculated at the 72 hour time point (i.e patients that were alive at the 72 hour time point, 90 patients in the treatment and 88 patients in the control).|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.2||A priori threshold for significance, p-value \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||The primary outcome was analyzed using a linear mixed-effects model where the correlation of within-patient repeated SOFA score measures was accounted for via the use of an unstructured variance-covariance matrix and linear contrasts. Covariates included age, sex, treatment group, time, and the interaction between treatment group and time. Study site was included as a random intercept. The model estimates the mean difference in SOFA score at 72 hours between treatment and control groups.||0.2|-1.7|0.12
90809069|NCT03389555|181495918|EQUIVALENCE|For the key secondary outcome of kidney failure, 200 patients were estimated to provide 94% power, assuming that 30% of participants in the treatment group and 55% in the placebo group would develop kidney failure. If the adjusted risk difference from the logistic regression analysis overlaps 0, there was considered to be no difference between groups|Risk Difference (RD)|3.0||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|20.0|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression analysis evaluating the key secondary outcome of kidney failure in treatment group (intervention versus placebo) controlling for treatment site.||20.0|-10.0|0.58
90809070|NCT03389555|181495919|EQUIVALENCE|If confidence interval for hazard ratio crosses 0, hazard of death assumed to be equivalent in the two groups.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.2|||Regression, Cox|||Cox Regression controlling for site used to identify hazard ratio for outcome of death for treatment versus intervention group. Null hypothesis is that hazard ratio is 1.||2.2|0.8|0.05
90809071|NCT03389555|181495920|EQUIVALENCE|If the confidence interval for the median difference in ventilator free days between groups crosses 0, the two groups are considered equivalent.|Median Difference (Net)|0.0|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.9|||Quantile Regression|||Quantile regression controlling for site performed to compare treatment and control group's ventilator free days.||1.9|-1.9|>0.99
91054766|NCT04715932|181991347|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.6296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||1.55|0.49|0.6296
91054767|NCT04715932|181991348|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.3711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||1.40|0.41|0.3711
91054768|NCT04715932|181991349|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.5696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||1.61|0.42|0.5696
90809072|NCT03389555|181495921|EQUIVALENCE|If the confidence interval for the median difference in shock free days between groups crosses 0, the two groups are considered equivalent.|Median Difference (Net)|1.0||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.8|||Quantile Regression|||Quantile regression controlling for site performed to compare treatment and control group's shock free days.||1.8|0.2|0.02
90809073|NCT03389555|181495922|EQUIVALENCE|If the confidence interval for the median difference in ICU free days between groups crosses 0, the two groups are considered equivalent.|Median Difference (Net)|1.0||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|6.0|||Quantile Regression|||Quantile regression controlling for site performed to compare treatment and control group's ICU free days.||6.0|-3.0|0.69
90809074|NCT03389555|181495923|EQUIVALENCE|If the adjusted risk difference from the logistic regression analysis overlaps 0, there was considered to be no difference between groups|Risk Difference (RD)|3.0||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|20.0|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression analysis evaluating the key secondary outcome of hospital mortality in treatment group (intervention versus placebo) controlling for treatment site..||20.0|-10.0|0.55
90809075|NCT03389555|181495924|EQUIVALENCE|If the adjusted risk difference from the logistic regression analysis overlaps 0, there was considered to be no difference between groups|Risk Difference (RD)|2.0||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|10.0|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression analysis evaluating the key secondary outcome of ICU mortality in treatment group (intervention versus placebo) controlling for treatment site.||10.0|-10.0|0.80
90809076|NCT03389555|181495925|EQUIVALENCE|If the adjusted risk difference from the logistic regression analysis overlaps 0, there was considered to be no difference between groups|Risk Difference (RD)|-12.0||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.0|4.0|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression analysis evaluating the key secondary outcome of occurrence of delirium in treatment group (intervention versus placebo) controlling for treatment site.||4|-25|0.16
90809077|NCT03389555|181495926|EQUIVALENCE|If the adjusted risk difference from the logistic regression analysis overlaps 0, there was considered to be no difference between groups|Risk Difference (RD)|-1.8||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|14.0|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression analysis evaluating home hospital disposition in survivors to hospital discharge in intervention versus placebo group controlling for treatment site.||14|-18|0.82
90809078|NCT01885208|181495927|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was concluded if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the estimated treatment difference between semaglutide 1.0 mg and exenatide ER 2.0 mg was below the pre-specified non-inferiority margin (0.3 %).|Treatment difference|-0.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The post-baseline responses were analysed using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment and country as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||-0.44|-0.8|< 0.0001
90809079|NCT01885208|181495927|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the estimated treatment difference between semaglutide 1.0 mg and exenatide ER 2.0 mg was below the pre-specified superiority margin (0 %).|Treatment difference|-0.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The post-baseline responses were analysed using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment and country as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||-0.44|-0.8|< 0.0001
90809080|NCT00920218|181495945|SUPERIORITY|Criterion for superiority: The Lower Limit (LL) of the Confidence Interval (CI) of the ratio of geometric means, in terms of ceellular immune (CMI) response for GSK 1437173A F1 Group as compared to Placebo Group, is above (\>) 2.|Fold increase over Control|32.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|76.16|20.65|50.54|||Dunnett for multiple comparisons|||The null hypothesis was H0: GSK 1437173A F1 Group/Placebo Group below (\<) 1.||50.54|20.65|<0.0001
90809081|NCT00920218|181495945|SUPERIORITY|Criterion for superiority: The Lower Limit (LL) of the Confidence Interval (CI) of the ratio of geometric means, in terms of CMI response for Placebo-GSK 1437173A F1 Group as compared to Placebo Group, is above (\>) 2.|Fold increase over Control|9.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|76.16|6.07|14.9|||Dunnett for multiple comparisons|||The null hypothesis was H0: Placebo-GSK 1437173A F1 Group/Placebo Group \< 2.||14.9|6.07|<0.0001
90809082|NCT00920218|181495946|SUPERIORITY|Criterion for superiority: The Lower Limit (LL) of the Confidence Interval (CI) of the ratio of geometric means, in terms of humoral response for GSK 1437173A F1 Group as compared to Placebo Group, is above (\>) 3.|Fold increase over Control|74.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|76.16|33.12|167.17|||Dunnett for multiple comparisons|||The null hypothesis was H0: GSK 1437173A 1 Group/Placebo Group \< 1.||167.17|33.12|<0.0001
90809083|NCT00920218|181495946|SUPERIORITY|Criterion for superiority: The Lower Limit (LL) of the Confidence Interval (CI) of the ratio of geometric means, in terms of humoral response for Placebo-GSK 1437173A F1 Group as compared to Placebo Group, is above (\>) 3.|Fold increase over Control|42.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|76.16|20.2|88.13|||Dunnett for multiple comparisons|||The null hypothesis was H0: Placebo-GSK 1437173A 1 Group/Placebo Group \< 1.||88.13|20.20|<0.0001
90809084|NCT01074463|181496007|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|109.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.25|120.12|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||120.12|99.25|
90809085|NCT01074463|181496008|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|104.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.73|109.68|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||109.68|98.73|
90809086|NCT01074463|181496009|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|102.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.78|107.11|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||107.11|97.78|
90809087|NCT02449889|181496010|NON_INFERIORITY|Treatment comparisons were done in a sequential manner. First non-inferiority (NI) was tested for HP-hCG IM compared to rhCG SC (lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) \> -3.0). If NI was demonstrated, NI was also to be tested for HP-hCG SC compared to rhCG SC.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.8|||||ANOVA with treatment, stratum (\<10 or ≥10 follicles with a diameter ≥12 mm), and site as fixed factors.|Mean number of oocytes retrieved for the treatment comparison of HP-hCG IM versus rhCG SC||1.8|-0.6|
90809088|NCT02449889|181496010|NON_INFERIORITY|As step 2 in the pre-specified sequential testing, NI was tested for HP-hCG SC compared to rhCG SC.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|2.0|||||ANOVA with treatment, stratum (\<10 or ≥10 follicles with a diameter ≥12 mm), and site as fixed factors.|Mean number of oocytes retrieved for the treatment comparison of HP-hCG SC versus rhCG SC||2.0|-0.5|
91014931|NCT00634933|181912494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20: Good response- A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.002
90809089|NCT02449889|181496011|NON_INFERIORITY|Pre-specified supportive endpoint analyzed in a similar manner as the primary endpoint.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.5|||||ANOVA with treatment, stratum (\<10 or ≥10 follicles with a diameter ≥12 mm), and site as fixed factors.|Number of MII oocytes retrieved for the treatment comparison of HP-hCG IM versus rhCG SC||1.5|-0.6|
90809090|NCT02449889|181496011|NON_INFERIORITY|Pre-specified supportive endpoint analyzed in a similar manner as the primary endpoint.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.6|||||ANOVA with treatment, stratum (\<10 or ≥10 follicles with a diameter ≥12 mm), and site as fixed factors.|Number of Mll oocytes retrieved for the treatment comparison of HP-hCG SC versus rhCG SC||1.6|-0.4|
90809091|NCT02449889|181496012|NON_INFERIORITY|Pre-specified supportive endpoint analyzed in a similar manner as the primary endpoint.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.3|||||ANOVA with treatment, stratum (\<10 or ≥10 follicles with a diameter ≥12 mm), and site as fixed factors.|Number of fertilized (2 pronuclei (2PN)) oocytes for the treatment comparison of HP-hCG IM versus rhCG SC||1.3|-0.6|
91014932|NCT00634933|181912494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20: Good response- A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.006
91014933|NCT00634933|181912494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24: Good response- A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.034
91014934|NCT00634933|181912494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24: Good response- A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.003
91054769|NCT04715932|181991350|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.7583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|2.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||2.67|0.26|0.7583
91054770|NCT04715932|181991351|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.8091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|3.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||3.58|0.20|0.8091
90809092|NCT02449889|181496012|NON_INFERIORITY|Pre-specified supportive endpoint analyzed in a similar manner as the primary endpoint.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.4|||||ANOVA with treatment, stratum (\<10 or ≥10 follicles with a diameter ≥12 mm), and site as fixed factors.|Number of fertilized (2 pronuclei (2PN)) oocytes for the treatment comparison of HP-hCG SC versus rhCG SC.||1.4|-0.5|
90809093|NCT02163967|181496029|OTHER||||||<|0.02||||||Mixed effects regression model, a nested (within subject) random intercept for dose, fixed effects for age, dose, time and dose x time interaction. Significance level p=.05, Bonferonni correction was used for post-hoc tests.|Regression, Linear|Post-hoc comparisons using least-square means. Kenward-Roger adjustments to denominator degrees of freedom.Increase in HRV at 2Amp compared to sham.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in High frequency HRV after 20 minutes of stimulation or 15 minutes after cessation of stimulation at the low (1mAmp) or high (2mAmp) dose compared to sham stimulation||||<.02
90809094|NCT02163967|181496030|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||The null hypothesis is that there will be no difference in the number of side effects reported during either dose of stimulation compared to sham stimulation. Statistical differences were examined for light flickering in peripheral vision . Other side effects were reported by too few subjects to be analyzed statistically.||||<.001
90809095|NCT02163967|181496031|OTHER|||||||0.81||||||Mixed effects regression model, a nested (within subject) random intercept for dose, fixed effects for age, dose, time and dose x time interaction. Significance level p=.05, Bonferonni correction was used for post-hoc tests.|Regression, Linear|Post-hoc comparisons were made using least-square means. Kenward-Roger adjustments to denominator degrees of freedom.||||||0.81
90809096|NCT02163967|181496032|OTHER|||||||0.47||||||Mixed effects regression model, a nested (within subject) random intercept for dose, fixed effects for age, dose, time and dose x time interaction. Significance level p=.05, Bonferonni correction was used for post-hoc tests.|Regression, Linear|Post-hoc comparisons were made using least-square means. Kenward-Roger adjustments to denominator degrees of freedom.||||||0.47
90809097|NCT03272828|181496033|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.63
90809098|NCT03272828|181496034|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Unequal-variance 2-sample t-test|||||||0.06
90809099|NCT03272828|181496035|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||Unequal-variance 2-sample t-test|||||||0.45
91054771|NCT04715932|181991352|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67||||0.5591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|9.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||9.42|0.30|0.5591
90809100|NCT03888235|181496043|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The null hypothesis assumes that after one month, there is no difference in Oswestry low back pain and disability score improvement between the three treatment groups.||||0.003
90809101|NCT03888235|181496043|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||SI Exercise versus usual care. Bonferroni alpha correction p\< 0.0167|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
90809102|NCT03888235|181496043|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.314|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in Oswestry low back pain and disability score between those using a pelvic support belt and those using usual treatment||||0.314
90809103|NCT03888235|181496044|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Oswestry low back pain and disability (ODI) score change over two months for all participants. This compares the score at initial visit and the score 2 months later after all participants have been using the corrective exercise and sacroiliac stabilization belt for one month. =(ODI time 0 - ODI 2 months). The greater the difference, the better the recovery of back function.||||< 0.001
90809104|NCT03888235|181496045|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The null hypothesis assumes that after one month, there is no difference in brief pain inventory score improvement between the three treatment groups.||||0.17
90809105|NCT03888235|181496045|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.089||||||Bonferroni alpha correction of p\<0.0167.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The brief pain inventory score at the one month visit, is used to compare the pain levels of those having done one month of corrective exercises to those who continued with conventional treatments for their low back pain.||||0.089
90809106|NCT03888235|181496045|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.092|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The brief pain inventory score is used to compare those using a pelvic support belt for one month and those with delayed treatment||||0.092
90809107|NCT03888235|181496046|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||All participants are assessed as a single group as they receive the same two treatments for one month. Brief pain inventory (BPI) score change over two months for all participants. This compares BPI score at baseline visit and BPI score 2 months later, after all participants have been using the corrective exercise and sacroiliac stabilization belt for one month. The score is between 0 and 10. The higher the change in score the greater the pain relief.||||< 0.001
90809108|NCT03888235|181496047|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016||||||The Bonferroni alpha correction is used p\<0.0167|Kruskal-Wallis|||The null hypothesis assumes there is no improvement after one month in posterior superior iliac spine levels (PSISL) measured using the sacroiliac forward flexion test (SIFFT) between the three treatment groups.||||0.016
90809109|NCT03888235|181496047|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009||||||The Bonferroni alpha correction is used p\<0.0167|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the distance between the posterior sacroiliac spine levels (PSISL) between those who use their usual low back pain treatments and those who are given the corrective exercises (SIFFTE) and use them as needed for one month.||||0.009
91014935|NCT03522506|181912497|SUPERIORITY|The effect of TAK-925 was evaluated with a linear mixed effects model appropriate for a 4-period crossover study. The least squares mean (LSM) sleep latency for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% confidence interval (CI) was estimated from the model at each time, along with differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|Least square mean difference|20.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.35|26.77|||Linear mixed effect model|||||26.77|13.35|<0.001
91054772|NCT04715932|181991353|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9983|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||||0.9983
90809110|NCT03888235|181496047|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.034||||||Bonferroni correction p\< 0.0167|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis is that that using a pelvic support belt will not help correct sacroiliac joint asymmetry as measured using the distance between the posterior superior iliac spine levels (PSISL), baseline and one month later better than conventional treatment for low back pain.||||0.034
91054773|NCT04715932|181991354|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6||||0.1068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||2.82|0.90|0.1068
91014936|NCT03522506|181912497|SUPERIORITY|The effect of TAK-925 was evaluated with a linear mixed effects model appropriate for a 4-period crossover study. The LSM sleep latency for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI was estimated from the model at each time, along with differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|24.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.64|31.06|||Linear mixed effect model|||||31.06|17.64|<0.001
90809111|NCT03888235|181496048|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Since all participants have received the same 2 treatment for one month, we will treat them as a single group. We will measure the distance between their posterior superior iliac spine levels (PSISL) when they enter the study and two months later after they have used the corrective exercise and the sacroiliac belt for one month. Corona prevented some participants from returning for examination, which this test requires. Only 11 participants were present in each group: 33 participants tested.||||< 0.0001
90809112|NCT03888235|181496048|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||< 0.001
90809113|NCT03888235|181496049|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||the null hypothesis is that all participants were as satisfied with the physiotherapy as they were with using the corrective exercises and the pelvic stabilization belt||||<0.00001
90809114|NCT03888235|181496050|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||the null hypothesis is that all participants were as satisfied with the acupuncture as they were with using the corrective exercises and the pelvic stabilization belt||||<0.00001
90809115|NCT03888235|181496051|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that all participants were as satisfied with the yoga exercises as they were with using the corrective exercises and the pelvic stabilization belt||||<0.00001
90809116|NCT03888235|181496052|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||the null hypothesis is that all participants were as satisfied with the core exercises as they were with using the corrective exercise and the pelvic stabilization belt||||<0.00001
90809117|NCT03888235|181496053|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||the null hypothesis is that all participants were as satisfied with treatments by a chiropractor as they were with using the corrective exercise and the pelvic stabilization belt||||<0.00001
90809118|NCT03888235|181496054|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that all participants were as satisfied with massage therapy as they were with using the corrective exercise and the pelvic stabilization belt.||||<0.00001
90809119|NCT01178944|181496070|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.08||||0.585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.38|||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison is CR+PR vs stable disease/progression||1.38|0.78|0.585
90809120|NCT02063867|181496092|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Assessed if hazard ratio between intervention vs baseline periods differs between study groups, accounting for clustering within hospitals||||||0.17
90809121|NCT02063867|181496093|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Assessed if hazard ratio between intervention vs baseline periods differs between study groups, accounting for clustering within hospitals||||||0.16
90809122|NCT02063867|181496094|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Assessed if hazard ratio between intervention vs baseline periods differs between study groups, accounting for clustering within hospitals||||||0.43
90809123|NCT02063867|181496101|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Assessed if hazard ratio between intervention vs baseline periods differs between study groups, accounting for clustering within hospitals||||||<0.001
90809124|NCT02063867|181496102|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0126||||||Remains significant after adjusting for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Assessed if hazard ratio between intervention vs baseline periods differs between study groups, accounting for clustering within hospitals||||||0.0126
90809125|NCT02063867|181496103|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||Remained significant after adjusting for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Assessed if hazard ratio between intervention vs baseline periods differs between study groups, accounting for clustering within hospitals||||||0.002
90809126|NCT02063867|181496104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0032||||||Remained significant after adjusting for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Assessed if hazard ratio between intervention vs baseline periods differs between study groups, accounting for clustering within hospitals||||||0.0032
90809127|NCT04470908|181496107|OTHER|Estimate the geometric least square mean ratio of Zanubrutinib vs Zanubrutinib + Rifabutin|Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|0.566|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.525|0.61||||||||0.610|0.525|
90809128|NCT04470908|181496108|OTHER|Estimate the geometric least square mean ratio of Zanubrutinib vs Zanubrutinib + Rifabutin|Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.532|0.589||||||||0.589|0.532|
90809129|NCT04470908|181496109|OTHER|Estimate the geometric least square mean ratio of Zanubrutinib vs Zanubrutinib + Rifabutin|Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|0.518|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.441|0.608||||||||0.608|0.441|
90809130|NCT02241733|181496116|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||An independent t-test was completed.||||0.94
90809131|NCT02241733|181496117|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.078|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.078
90809132|NCT02241733|181496118|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.80
90809133|NCT02241733|181496119|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.76
90809134|NCT06099223|181496126|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90809135|NCT06099223|181496127|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.029
90809136|NCT06099223|181496129|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90809137|NCT06099223|181496130|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.38
90809138|NCT06099223|181496131|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.61
90809139|NCT06099223|181496132|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.37
90809140|NCT06099223|181496133|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.11
90809141|NCT06099223|181496134|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.37
90809142|NCT06099223|181496135|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.38
90809143|NCT06099223|181496136|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.087|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.087
90809144|NCT06099223|181496137|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.147|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.147
90809145|NCT06099223|181496138|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.098|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.098
90809146|NCT06099223|181496139|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.41
90809147|NCT06099223|181496140|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.79
90809148|NCT06099223|181496141|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.58
90809149|NCT06099223|181496143|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.00
90809150|NCT06099223|181496144|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.919|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.919
90809151|NCT01221623|181496145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0059|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.0059
90809152|NCT01221623|181496146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0496|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.0496
90809153|NCT01221623|181496147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<.0001
90809154|NCT01221623|181496148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.0340
90809155|NCT01221623|181496149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1168|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.1168
90809156|NCT01221623|181496150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0144|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.0144
90809157|NCT01221623|181496151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0248|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.0248
90809158|NCT01221623|181496152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6949|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.6949
91014937|NCT03522506|181912497|SUPERIORITY|The effect of TAK-925 was evaluated with a linear mixed effects model appropriate for a 4-period crossover study. The LSM sleep latency for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI was estimated from the model at each time, along with differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM Difference|19.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.3|26.49|||Linear mixed effects model|||||26.49|13.30|<0.001
91014938|NCT03522506|181912507|SUPERIORITY|14 hours pre-infusion: A linear mixed effect models was performed for all observed KSS parameters at scheduled time points. The LSM sleepless scale for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI was estimated from the model at each time point, along with the differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|-0.2||||0.664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|0.73|||Linear mixed effect model|||||0.73|-1.13|0.664
91014939|NCT03522506|181912507|SUPERIORITY|14 hours pre-infusion: A linear mixed effect models was performed for all observed KSS parameters at scheduled time points. The LSM sleepless scale for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI was estimated from the model at each time point, along with the differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|0.24||||0.605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|1.17|||Linear mixed effect model|||||1.17|-0.69|0.605
90809159|NCT01221623|181496153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0249|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||.0249
90809160|NCT00661726|181496154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression after adjusting for time duration was used to test the mean difference between baseline and follow-up values.||||<0.01
90809161|NCT00661726|181496156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.045||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression after adjusting for time duration was used to test the mean difference between baseline and follow-up values.||||0.045
90809162|NCT00661726|181496157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.083||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression after adjusting for time duration was used to test the mean difference between baseline and follow-up values.||||0.083
90809163|NCT00661726|181496158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.039||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression after adjusting for time duration was used to test the mean difference between baseline and follow-up values.||||0.039
90809164|NCT00661726|181496159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression after adjusting for time duration was used to test the mean difference between baseline and follow-up values.||||0.18
90809165|NCT00661726|181496160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression after adjusting for time duration was used to test the mean difference between baseline and follow-up values.||||<0.01
91014940|NCT03522506|181912507|SUPERIORITY|14 hours pre-infusion: A linear mixed effect models was performed for all observed KSS parameters at scheduled time points. The LSM sleepless scale for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI was estimated from the model at each time point, along with the differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|-0.26||||0.574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|0.66|||Linear mixed effect model|||||0.66|-1.17|0.574
91014941|NCT03522506|181912507|SUPERIORITY|10 hours pre-infusion: A linear mixed effect models was performed for all observed KSS parameters at scheduled time points. The LSM sleepless scale for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI was estimated from the model at each time point, along with the differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|0.29||||0.483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|1.11|||Linear mixed effect model|||||1.11|-0.53|0.483
90809166|NCT00661726|181496161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.069||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression after adjusting for time duration was used to test the mean difference between baseline and follow-up values.||||0.069
90809167|NCT00661726|181496162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression after adjusting for time duration was used to test the mean difference between baseline and follow-up values.||||0.18
90809168|NCT00661726|181496163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression after adjusting for time duration was used to test the mean difference between baseline and follow-up values.||||0.022
90809169|NCT00661726|181496164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression after adjusting for time duration was used to test the mean difference between baseline and follow-up values.||||0.11
90809170|NCT00661726|181496165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression after adjusting for time duration was used to test the mean difference between baseline and follow-up values.||||<0.01
90809171|NCT02644096|181496166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||Changes in physical function after 3 months|unpaired t-test|||"Power calculation in this study was based on findings in a previous cross-sectional study.~The physical dimensions in health status was the primary outcome variable. The mean physical score was 49.4, SD was 26.1; alpha in this study was set to 5% and β to 20%. We considered that the intervention could lead to an improvement of 50% in the physical health score and were willing to overlook a difference in score of 12. When the sample size was calculated, 68 patients were needed in both groups."||||<0.05
90809172|NCT04091581|181496194|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.002
90809173|NCT04091581|181496194|OTHER|||||||0.022|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of the baseline tear evaporation rate of the non-dry eye and dry eye group.||||0.022
91014942|NCT03522506|181912507|SUPERIORITY|10 hours pre-infusion: A linear mixed effect models was performed for all observed KSS parameters at scheduled time points. The LSM sleepless scale for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI was estimated from the model at each time point, along with the differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|0.01||||0.972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.84|||Linear mixed effect model|||||0.84|-0.81|0.972
91054774|NCT04715932|181991355|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.8382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||1.98|0.57|0.8382
90809174|NCT01331837|181496197|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|In order to reject the null hypothesis and claim non-inferiority of TCZ compared to ETA, a HR point estimate of ≤ 1.278 and upper limit of 95% CI \<1.8 was required.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.43||||||"The analysis assessed in the ITT population the hazard ratio of the primary endpoint in TCZ compared to ETA patients. This was done through a comparison of the hazard functions between TCZ and ETA patients.~A stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model was used in evaluating the relative CV event rate of TCZ over ETA, with the following randomization factors used as strata:~* Previous exposure to anti-TNF (Yes/No)~* History of CV events (Yes/No)"||1.43|0.77|
90809175|NCT01331837|181496199|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was only formally tested for the primary ITT analysis'|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.62||||||"The analysis assessed in the OT population the hazard ratio of the primary endpoint in TCZ compared to ETA patients. This was done through a comparison of the hazard functions between TCZ and ETA patients.~A stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model was used in evaluating the relative CV event rate of TCZ over ETA, with the following randomization factors used as strata:~* Previous exposure to anti-TNF (Yes/No)~* History of CV events (Yes/No)"||1.62|0.76|
90809176|NCT01331837|181496201|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was only formally tested for the primary ITT analysis and not for the sensitivity analysis.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.4||||||"The analysis assessed in the ITT population the hazard ratio of the primary endpoint in TCZ compared to ETA patients. This was done through a comparison of the hazard functions between TCZ and ETA patients.~A stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model was used in evaluating the relative CV event rate of TCZ over ETA, with the following randomization factors used as strata:~* Previous exposure to anti-TNF (Yes/No)~* History of CV events (Yes/No)"||1.40|0.73|
90809177|NCT01331837|181496203|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was only formally tested for the primary ITT analysis and not for the sensitivity analysis.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.56||||||"The analysis assessed in the ITT population the hazard ratio of the primary endpoint in TCZ compared to ETA patients. This was done through a comparison of the hazard functions between TCZ and ETA patients.~A stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model was used in evaluating the relative CV event rate of TCZ over ETA, with the following randomization factors used as strata:~* Previous exposure to anti-TNF (Yes/No)~* History of CV events (Yes/No)"||1.56|0.70|
91014943|NCT03522506|181912507|SUPERIORITY|10 hours pre-infusion: A linear mixed effect models was performed for all observed KSS parameters at scheduled time points. The LSM sleepless scale for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI was estimated from the model at each time point, along with the differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|-0.18||||0.654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.63|||Linear mixed effect model|||||0.63|-0.99|0.654
91014944|NCT03522506|181912507|SUPERIORITY|6 hours pre-infusion: A linear mixed effect models was performed for all observed KSS parameters at scheduled time points. The LSM sleepless scale for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI was estimated from the model at each time point, along with the differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|-0.01||||0.984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.85|||Linear mixed effect model|||||0.85|-0.86|0.984
91014945|NCT03522506|181912507|SUPERIORITY|6 hours pre-infusion: A linear mixed effect models was performed for all observed KSS parameters at scheduled time points. The LSM sleepless scale for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI was estimated from the model at each time point, along with the differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|-0.29||||0.508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|0.57|||Linear mixed effect model|||||0.57|-1.14|0.508
91054775|NCT04715932|181991356|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.5912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||2.51|0.59|0.5912
90809178|NCT01331837|181496205|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was only formally tested for the primary ITT analysis.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.34||||||"The analysis assessed in the ITT population the hazard ratio of the secondary endpoint in TCZ compared to ETA patients. This was done through a comparison of the hazard functions between TCZ and ETA patients.~A stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model was used in evaluating the relative CV event rate of TCZ over ETA, with the following randomization factors used as strata:~* Previous exposure to anti-TNF (Yes/No)~* History of CV events (Yes/No)"||1.34|0.73|
90809179|NCT01331837|181496207|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|'The non-inferiority margin was only formally tested for the primary ITT analysis'|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.49||||||"The analysis assessed in the ITT population the hazard ratio of the secondary endpoint in TCZ compared to ETA patients. This was done through a comparison of the hazard functions between TCZ and ETA patients.~A stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model was used in evaluating the relative CV event rate of TCZ over ETA, with the following randomization factors used as strata:~* Previous exposure to anti-TNF (Yes/No)~* History of CV events (Yes/No)"||1.49|0.54|
90809180|NCT01331837|181496209|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was only formally tested for the primary ITT analysis.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.63||||||"The analysis assessed in the ITT population the hazard ratio of the secondary endpoint in TCZ compared to ETA patients. This was done through a comparison of the hazard functions between TCZ and ETA patients.~A stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model was used in evaluating the relative CV event rate of TCZ over ETA, with the following randomization factors used as strata:~* Previous exposure to anti-TNF (Yes/No)~* History of CV events (Yes/No)"||1.63|0.64|
91054776|NCT04715932|181991358|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78||||0.3686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||1.35|0.45|0.3686
91054777|NCT04715932|181991359|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.8711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||1.86|0.59|0.8711
91054778|NCT04715932|181991360|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.9124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||1.87|0.57|0.9124
91054779|NCT04715932|181991361|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.2952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||1.37|0.36|0.2952
91054780|NCT04715932|181991362|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.5894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||2.34|0.62|0.5894
91014946|NCT03522506|181912507|SUPERIORITY|6 hours pre-infusion: A linear mixed effect models was performed for all observed KSS parameters at scheduled time points. The LSM sleepless scale for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI was estimated from the model at each time point, along with the differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|-0.22||||0.605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|0.62|||Linear mixed effect model|||||0.62|-1.06|0.605
91014947|NCT03522506|181912507|SUPERIORITY|2 hours pre-infusion: A linear mixed effect models was performed for all observed KSS parameters at scheduled time points. The LSM sleepless scale for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI was estimated from the model at each time point, along with the differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|0.11||||0.847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|1.29|||Linear mixed effect model|||||1.29|-1.06|0.847
91014948|NCT03522506|181912507|SUPERIORITY|2 hours pre-infusion: A linear mixed effect models was performed for all observed KSS parameters at scheduled time points. The LSM sleepless scale for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI was estimated from the model at each time point, along with the differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|-0.44||||0.455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|0.73|||Linear mixed effect model|||||0.73|-1.61|0.455
91054781|NCT04715932|181991363|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.7887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||2.89|0.45|0.7887
91054782|NCT04715932|181991364|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73||||0.6348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||2.70|0.20|0.6348
90809181|NCT01331837|181496211|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was only formally tested for the primary ITT analysis.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.92||||||"The analysis assessed in the ITT population the hazard ratio of the secondary endpoint in TCZ compared to ETA patients. This was done through a comparison of the hazard functions between TCZ and ETA patients.~A stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model was used in evaluating the relative CV event rate of TCZ over ETA, with the following randomization factors used as strata:~* Previous exposure to anti-TNF (Yes/No)~* History of CV events (Yes/No)"||2.92|0.80|
90809182|NCT01331837|181496213|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was only formally tested for the primary ITT analysis.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.41||||||"The analysis assessed in the ITT population the hazard ratio of the secondary endpoint in TCZ compared to ETA patients. This was done through a comparison of the hazard functions between TCZ and ETA patients.~A stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model was used in evaluating the relative CV event rate of TCZ over ETA, with the following randomization factors used as strata:~* Previous exposure to anti-TNF (Yes/No)~* History of CV events (Yes/No)"||1.41|0.70|
90809183|NCT01461928|181496217|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76|||=|0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.53||Power at time of final analysis was less than 40%. Final analysis was not able to address its primary objective.|Stratified Long-rank|||The stratified log rank test p-value was derived using the following randomization stratification strata : Follicular Lymphoma International Prognostic Index (FLIPI) risk category (low, intermediate, high) and indolent NHL subtype (follicular lymphoma, non-follicular lymphoma). Power at time of final analysis was less than 40%. Final analysis was not able to address it's primary objective.||1.53|0.37|= 0.410
90809184|NCT02456636|181496246|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.87||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.51|-0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||PCMH (in clinic group counseling) versus FFS (in clinic individual counseling)||-0.23|-3.51|.025
90809185|NCT02456636|181496246|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.36||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.0|0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||DM (phone group counseling) versus FFS (in clinic individual counseling)||0.29|-3.00|0.25
90809186|NCT02456636|181496246|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.51||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.15|1.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||PCMH (in clinic group visits) versus DM (phone group visits)||1.13|-2.15|.025
91014949|NCT03522506|181912507|SUPERIORITY|2 hours pre-infusion: A linear mixed effect models was performed for all observed KSS parameters at scheduled time points. The LSM sleepless scale for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI was estimated from the model at each time point, along with the differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|-0.58||||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|0.57|||Linear mixed effect model|||||0.57|-1.74|0.317
90809187|NCT02456636|181496247|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-1.84||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.5|-0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||PCMH (in clinic group counseling) versus FFS (in clinic individual counseling).||-0.18|-3.50|.025
90809188|NCT02456636|181496247|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-1.34||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.99|0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||DM (phone group counseling) versus FFS (in clinic individual counseling)||0.32|-2.99|.025
90809189|NCT02456636|181496247|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.15|1.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||PCMH (in clinic group counseling) versus DM (phone group counseling)||1.15|-2.15|.025
91014950|NCT03522506|181912507|SUPERIORITY|2.75 hours post-infusion start: A linear mixed effect models was performed for all observed KSS parameters at scheduled time points. The LSM sleepless scale for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI was estimated from the model at each time point, along with the differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|-2.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.18|-0.83|||Linear mixed effect model|||||-0.83|-3.18|0.001
91054783|NCT04715932|181991365|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.39||||0.4257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|3.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||3.92|0.04|0.4257
90809190|NCT01220973|181496281|OTHER||Slope|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90809191|NCT04392141|181496305|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence of odds of death between both groups|Odds Ratio (OR)|9.87||||0.0318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|83.89|||Fisher Exact|||||83.89|1.16|0.0318
90809192|NCT04392141|181496306|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence of SpO2 percentage between admission and discharge phases|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.5||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.03|-3.96|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired T-test||Statistical comparison of SpO2 (%) between admission and discharge times in standard treatment group||-3.96|-7.03|0.0001
90809193|NCT04392141|181496306|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence of SpO2 percentage between admission and discharge phases|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.55||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.28|-1.81|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired T-test||Statistical comparison of SpO2 % between admission and discharge times in the Colchicine and Herbal Phenolic Monoterpene Fractions treatment||-1.81|-3.28|0.0001
90809194|NCT04392141|181496307|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence of means of the length of hospitalization between both groups|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.22||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.63|2.8|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||2.80|1.63|0.0001
90809195|NCT04392141|181496308|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence of mean of lymphocytes count between admission and discharge phases|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.136|0.176|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired T-test||Statistical comparison of lymphocytes count between admission and discharge times in standard treatment||0.176|-0.136|0.80
90809196|NCT04392141|181496308|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence of mean of lymphocytes count between admission and discharge phases|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.23|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired T-test||Statistical comparison of lymphocytes count between admission and discharge times in Colchicine and Herbal Phenolic Monoterpene Fractions treatment||-0.23|-0.63|0.0001
90809197|NCT04392141|181496309|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence of mean of LDH between admission and discharge phases|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.06||||0.602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-124.76|72.64|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired T-test||Statistical comparison of LDH between admission and discharge times in standard treatment||72.64|-124.76|0.602
91054784|NCT04715932|181991366|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.66||||0.1113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|3.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||3.11|0.89|0.1113
91054785|NCT04715932|181991367|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.57||||0.2613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|3.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||3.47|0.71|0.2613
91014951|NCT03522506|181912507|SUPERIORITY|2.75 hours post-infusion start: A linear mixed effect models was performed for all observed KSS parameters at scheduled time points. The LSM sleepless scale for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI was estimated from the model at each time point, along with the differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|-3.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.79|-2.44|||Linear mixed effect model|||||-2.44|-4.79|<0.001
90809198|NCT04392141|181496309|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence of mean of LDH between admission and discharge phases|Mean Difference (Final Values)|137.33||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.19|236.46|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired T-test||Statistical comparison of LDH between admission and discharge times in Colchicine and Herbal Phenolic Monoterpene Fractions treatment||236.46|38.19|0.006
90809199|NCT04295681|181496310|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.09||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.7|||t-test, 2 sided||"Estimated value is calculated as MMH-MAP minus Placebo difference in mean MoCA scores changes."|Mean changes of MoCA scores (90th day of treatment minus baseline) were compared.||1.70|0.47|0.0006
90809200|NCT04295681|181496311|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.37|||t-test, 2 sided||"Estimated value is calculated as MMH-MAP minus Placebo difference in mean MoCA scores changes."|Mean changes of NIHSS scores (baseline minus 12th day of treatment) were compared.||0.37|-0.58|0.67
90809201|NCT04295681|181496311|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.5|||t-test, 2 sided||"Estimated value is calculated as MMH-MAP minus Placebo difference in mean MoCA scores changes."|Mean changes of NIHSS scores (baseline minus 90th day of treatment) were compared.||0.50|-0.47|0.94
90809202|NCT04295681|181496312|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|||||||Fisher Exact|||Test for comparison percentage of patients with no significant disabilities after 90 days of treatment .||||0.89
90809203|NCT04295681|181496313|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.067|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Therapeutic effect score comparison on 90th day of treatment.||||0.067
90809204|NCT04295681|181496313|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Side effects score comparison on 90th day of treatment.||||0.81
90809205|NCT04295681|181496313|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Efficacy index score comparison on 90th day of treatment.||||0.17
90809206|NCT04295681|181496314|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.656|||||||Fisher Exact|||The percentage of participants having at least one adverse event were compared.||||0.656
90809207|NCT04295681|181496315|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
90809208|NCT04295681|181496317|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||ANOVA|"P-value for interaction between factors Treatment and Visit is demonstrated."||"Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for repeated measures has been used. Factors are Treatment, Visit and interaction Treatment-Visit. Significance of interaction as a factor representing difference in outcome value dynamics has been tested."||||0.96
90809209|NCT04295681|181496318|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||ANOVA|"P-value for interaction between factors Treatment and Visit is demonstrated."||"Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for repeated measures has been used. Factors are Treatment, Visit and interaction Treatment-Visit. Significance of interaction as a factor representing difference in outcome value dynamics has been tested."||||0.96
90809210|NCT04295681|181496319|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.438|||||||ANOVA|"P-value for interaction between factors Treatment and Visit is demonstrated."||"Systolic blood pressure. Analysis of varience (ANOVA) for repeated measures has been used. Factors are Treatment, Visit and interaction Treatment-Visit. Significance of interaction as a factor representing difference in outcome value dynamics has been tested."||||0.438
90809211|NCT04295681|181496319|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||ANOVA|"P-value for interaction between factors Treatment and Visit is demonstrated."||"Diastolic blood pressure. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for repeated measures has been used. Factors are Treatment, Visit and interaction Treatment-Visit. Significance of interaction as a factor representing difference in outcome value dynamics has been tested."||||0.56
90809212|NCT04295681|181496320|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison at the baseline.||||0.72
90809213|NCT04295681|181496320|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison on 90th day of treatment.||||1
90809214|NCT04295681|181496321|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
90809215|NCT02357472|181496322|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Sample Size to Achieve 0.80 Power to Test Equivalency at the α = 0.05 Significance Level for True Proportions|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.31||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6216|2.002|||t-test, 2 sided|||It was caculated that 60 paticipants randomized in a 1:1between 2 arms would would have at least 85% power to detect a difference of 1.32 oocytes between the high dose group and standard dose group after 12 weeks.Sample size was determined using 2 sided 2 sample t-test (α = 0.05).Assumptions included a common standard deviation of 1.72.||2.002|0.6216|0.0003
90809216|NCT00803400|181496337|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||A p-value less than 0.05 (≤ 0.05) is statistically significant. It indicates strong evidence against the null hypothesis, as there is less than a 5% probability the null is correct (and the results are random)||||<0.001
90809217|NCT01453205|181496381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5543|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.5543
90809218|NCT01453205|181496382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8567|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.8567
90809219|NCT01453205|181496383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7412|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.7412
90809220|NCT01453205|181496384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9996|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.9996
90809221|NCT01453205|181496385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1686|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.1686
90809222|NCT04376684|181496400|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.0456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.82||p-value is from a one-sided test.|Regression, Logistic||Analysis performed using logistic regression adjusted for treatment, and both clinical status at Baseline and age group as randomized. Missing data was imputed with monotone discriminant multiple imputation assuming data is missing at random.|||1.82|0.96|0.0456
90809223|NCT04376684|181496401|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.8574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.61||p-value is generated from a two-sided test.|Regression, Logistic||Analysis performed using logistic regression adjusted for treatment, age, and both clinical status at Baseline and sex as randomized. Missing data was imputed with monotone logistic multiple imputation assuming data is missing at random.|||1.61|0.67|0.8574
91054786|NCT04715932|181991368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.7273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|2.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||2.49|0.27|0.7273
90809224|NCT04376684|181496402|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.2057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.22||p-value is from a one-sided test.|Regression, Logistic||Analysis performed using logistic regression adjusted for treatment, and both clinical status at Baseline and age group as randomized. Missing data was imputed with monotone discriminant multiple imputation assuming data is missing at random.|||1.22|0.61|0.2057
90809225|NCT04376684|181496403|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.3061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.24||p-value is generated from a two-sided test.|Regression, Logistic||Analysis performed using logistic regression adjusted for treatment, age, and both clinical status at Baseline and sex as randomized. Missing data was imputed with monotone logistic multiple imputation assuming data is missing at random.|||1.24|0.50|0.3061
90809226|NCT04376684|181496404|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.6665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.41||p-value is generated from a two-sided test.|Regression, Logistic||Analysis performed using logistic regression adjusted for treatment, age, and both clinical status at Baseline and sex as randomized. Missing data was imputed with monotone logistic multiple imputation assuming data is missing at random.|||1.41|0.59|0.6665
90809227|NCT04376684|181496405|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.1942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.18||p-value is from a one-sided test.|Regression, Cox||Model adjusted analysis performed using a Cox proportional hazards model adjusted by treatment, clinical status at Baseline as randomized and age group as randomized.|||1.18|0.65|0.1942
90809228|NCT04376684|181496406|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.5324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.24||p-value is generated from a two-sided test|Regression, Cox||Model adjusted analysis performed using a Cox proportional hazards model adjusted by treatment, clinical status at Baseline as randomized, sex as randomized and age.|||1.24|0.65|0.5324
90809229|NCT04376684|181496407|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.2871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.49||p-value is from a one-sided test.|Regression, Logistic||Analysis performed using logistic regression adjusted for treatment, and both clinical status at Baseline and age group as randomized. Missing data was imputed with monotone discriminant multiple imputation assuming data is missing at random.|||1.49|0.80|0.2871
90809230|NCT04376684|181496408|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.1754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.58||p-value is from a one-sided test.|Regression, Logistic||Analysis performed using logistic regression adjusted for treatment, and both clinical status at Baseline and age group as randomized. Missing data was imputed with monotone discriminant multiple imputation assuming data is missing at random.|||1.58|0.85|0.1754
90809231|NCT04376684|181496409|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.0616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.79||p-value is from a one-sided test.|Regression, Logistic||Analysis performed using logistic regression adjusted for treatment, and both clinical status at Baseline and age group as randomized. Missing data was imputed with monotone discriminant multiple imputation assuming data is missing at random.|||1.79|0.93|0.0616
90809232|NCT04376684|181496410|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.63||p-value is from a one-sided test.|Regression, Logistic||Analysis performed using logistic regression adjusted for treatment, and both clinical status at Baseline and age group as randomized. Missing data was imputed with monotone discriminant multiple imputation assuming data is missing at random.|||1.63|0.84|0.1830
90809233|NCT04376684|181496411|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.0831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.39||p-value is generated from a two-sided test.|Regression, Logistic||Analysis performed using logistic regression adjusted for treatment, age, and both clinical status at Baseline and sex as randomized. Missing data was imputed with monotone logistic multiple imputation assuming data is missing at random.|||2.39|0.95|0.0831
90809234|NCT04376684|181496412|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.2557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|2.0||p-value is generated from a two-sided test.|Regression, Logistic||Analysis performed using logistic regression adjusted for treatment, age, and both clinical status at Baseline and sex as randomized. Missing data was imputed with monotone logistic multiple imputation assuming data is missing at random.|||2.00|0.83|0.2557
90809235|NCT04376684|181496413|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.61||p-value is generated from a two-sided test.|Regression, Logistic||Analysis performed using logistic regression adjusted for treatment, age, and both clinical status at Baseline and sex as randomized. Missing data was imputed with monotone logistic multiple imputation assuming data is missing at random.|||1.61|0.67|0.8560
90809236|NCT04376684|181496414|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.7533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.66||p-value is generated from a two-sided test.|Regression, Logistic||Analysis performed using logistic regression adjusted for treatment, age, and both clinical status at Baseline and sex as randomized. Missing data was imputed with monotone logistic multiple imputation assuming data is missing at random.|||1.66|0.69|0.7533
90809237|NCT04376684|181496415|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.0959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.32||p-value is from a one-sided test.|Regression, Cox||Model adjusted analysis performed using a Cox proportional hazards model adjusted by treatment, clinical status at Baseline as randomized and age group as randomized.|||1.32|0.95|0.0959
90809238|NCT04376684|181496416|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.4421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.5||p-value is generated from a two-sided test.|Regression, Cox||Model adjusted analysis performed using a Cox proportional hazards model adjusted by treatment, clinical status at Baseline as randomized, sex as randomized and age.|||1.50|0.84|0.4421
90809239|NCT04376684|181496417|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.2814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.8||p-value is from a one-sided test.|Regression, Logistic||Analysis performed using logistic regression adjusted for treatment, and both clinical status at Baseline and age group as randomized. Missing data was imputed with monotone discriminant multiple imputation assuming data is missing at random.|||1.80|0.73|0.2814
90809240|NCT04376684|181496418|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.3901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.42||p-value is from a one-sided test.|Regression, Logistic||Analysis performed using logistic regression adjusted for treatment, and both clinical status at Baseline and age group as randomized. Missing data was imputed with monotone discriminant multiple imputation assuming data is missing at random.|||1.42|0.77|0.3901
91054787|NCT04715932|181991369|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.8909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|4.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||4.19|0.19|0.8909
91054788|NCT04715932|181991370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.52||||0.1438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|2.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||2.67|0.87|0.1438
91054789|NCT04715932|181991371|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||2.68|0.71|0.3440
90809241|NCT04376684|181496419|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.4763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.36||p-value is from a one-sided test.|Regression, Logistic||Analysis performed using logistic regression adjusted for treatment, and both clinical status at Baseline and age group as randomized. Missing data was imputed with monotone discriminant multiple imputation assuming data is missing at random.|||1.36|0.75|0.4763
90809242|NCT04376684|181496420|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.1973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.56||p-value is from a one-sided test.|Regression, Logistic||Analysis performed using logistic regression adjusted for treatment, and both clinical status at Baseline and age group as randomized. Missing data was imputed with monotone discriminant multiple imputation assuming data is missing at random.|||1.56|0.84|0.1973
90809243|NCT04376684|181496421|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.1173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.67||p-value is from a one-sided test.|Regression, Logistic||Analysis performed using logistic regression adjusted for treatment, and both clinical status at Baseline and age group as randomized. Missing data was imputed with monotone discriminant multiple imputation assuming data is missing at random.|||1.67|0.88|0.1173
90809244|NCT04376684|181496422|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.98||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|10.13||p-value is generated from a two-sided test.|Regression, Logistic||Analysis performed using logistic regression adjusted for treatment, age, and both clinical status at Baseline and sex as randomized. Missing data was imputed with monotone logistic multiple imputation assuming data is missing at random.|||10.13|1.57|0.0037
90809245|NCT04376684|181496423|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.3581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.06||p-value is generated from a two-sided test.|Regression, Logistic||Analysis performed using logistic regression adjusted for treatment, age, and both clinical status at Baseline and sex as randomized. Missing data was imputed with monotone logistic multiple imputation assuming data is missing at random.|||2.06|0.77|0.3581
90809246|NCT04376684|181496424|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.9621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.54||p-value is generated from a two-sided test.|Regression, Logistic||Analysis performed using logistic regression adjusted for treatment, age, and both clinical status at Baseline and sex as randomized. Missing data was imputed with monotone logistic multiple imputation assuming data is missing at random.|||1.54|0.63|0.9621
90809247|NCT04376684|181496425|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.4167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.29||p-value is generated from a two-sided test.|Regression, Logistic||Analysis performed using logistic regression adjusted for treatment, age, and both clinical status at Baseline and sex as randomized. Missing data was imputed with monotone logistic multiple imputation assuming data is missing at random.|||1.29|0.54|0.4167
90809248|NCT04376684|181496426|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.3408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.25||p-value is generated from a two-sided test.|Regression, Logistic||Analysis performed using logistic regression adjusted for treatment, age, and both clinical status at Baseline and sex as randomized. Missing data was imputed with monotone logistic multiple imputation assuming data is missing at random.|||1.25|0.53|0.3408
90809249|NCT04376684|181496427|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.23||p-value is from a one-sided test.|Regression, Cox||Model adjusted analysis performed using a Cox proportional hazards model adjusted by treatment, clinical status at Baseline as randomized and age group as randomized.|||1.23|0.85|0.4250
90809250|NCT04376684|181496428|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.4774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.59||p-value is generated from a two-sided test.|Regression, Cox||Model adjusted analysis performed using a Cox proportional hazards model adjusted by treatment, clinical status at Baseline as randomized, sex as randomized and age.|||1.59|0.81|0.4774
90809251|NCT04376684|181496429|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4||||0.0119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.89||p-value is from a one-sided test.|Regression, Logistic||Analysis performed using logistic regression adjusted for treatment, age, and both clinical status at Baseline and sex as randomized. Missing data was imputed with monotone logistic multiple imputation assuming data is missing at random.|||0.89|0.18|0.0119
90809252|NCT04376684|181496430|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.4404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.24||p-value is from a one-sided test.|Regression, Cox||Model adjusted analysis performed using a Cox proportional hazards model adjusted by treatment, clinical status at Baseline as randomized and age group as randomized.|||1.24|0.83|0.4404
90809253|NCT04376684|181496431|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.6253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.72||p-value is generated from a two-sided test.|Regression, Cox||Model adjusted analysis performed using a Cox proportional hazards model adjusted by treatment, clinical status at Baseline as randomized, sex as randomized and age.|||1.72|0.72|0.6253
90809254|NCT04376684|181496432|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.1078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.3||p-value is from a one-sided test.|Regression, Cox||Model adjusted analysis performed using a Cox proportional hazards model adjusted by treatment, clinical status at Baseline as randomized and age group as randomized.|||1.30|0.94|0.1078
90809255|NCT04376684|181496433|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.31||p-value is from a one-sided test.|Regression, Cox||Model adjusted analysis performed using a Cox proportional hazards model adjusted by treatment, clinical status at Baseline as randomized and age group as randomized.|||1.31|0.94|0.1140
90809256|NCT04376684|181496434|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.7084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.4||p-value is generated from a two-sided test.|Regression, Cox||Model adjusted analysis performed using a Cox proportional hazards model adjusted by treatment, clinical status at Baseline as randomized, sex as randomized and age.|||1.40|0.80|0.7084
90809257|NCT04376684|181496435|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.4085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.52||p-value is generated from a two-sided test.|Regression, Cox||Model adjusted analysis performed using a Cox proportional hazards model adjusted by treatment, clinical status at Baseline as randomized, sex as randomized and age.|||1.52|0.84|0.4085
90809258|NCT01974206|181496510|OTHER||Common Odds Ratio|0.79||||0.307|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.43|1.47||P-value (1-sided) of the Exact Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method adjusted odds ratio stratified by randomization group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) estimate of the common odds ratio (ASP0113 vs placebo) stratified by randomization strata, and the 90% CIs of the CMH odds ratio stratified by randomization group.||1.47|0.43|0.307
90809259|NCT01974206|181496511|OTHER||Common Odds Ratio|0.99||||0.576|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.46|2.15||P-value (1-sided) of the Exact Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method adjusted odds ratio stratified by randomization group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The exact Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) estimate of the common odds ratio (ASP0113 vs placebo) stratified by randomization group, and the 90% CI of the exact CMH odds ratio stratified by randomization group.||2.15|0.46|0.576
90809260|NCT01974206|181496512|OTHER||Common Odds Ratio|0.88||||0.408|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.48|1.59||P-value (1-sided) of the Exact Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method adjusted odds ratio stratified by randomization group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The exact Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) estimate of the common odds ratio (ASP0113 vs placebo) stratified by randomization group, and the 90% CI of the exact CMH odds ratio stratified by randomization group.||1.59|0.48|0.408
90809261|NCT01974206|181496513|OTHER||Common Odds Ratio|0.88||||0.419|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.48|1.61||P-value (1-sided) of the Exact Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method adjusted odds ratio stratified by randomization group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The exact Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) estimate of the common odds ratio (ASP0113 vs placebo) stratified by randomization group, and the 90% CI of the exact CMH odds ratio stratified by randomization group.||1.61|0.48|0.419
90809262|NCT01974206|181496514|OTHER|||||||0.5||||||P-value (1-sided) of the Exact Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method adjusted odds ratio stratified by randomization group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Exact Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the common odds ratio could not be calculated as 100% of ASP0113 group showed graft survival, and this leads to having a value of 0 for the denominator for the ratio thus odds ratio is not estimable. The 90% CI (2-sided) values for the odds ratio are 0.11 to NA, where NA is an infinity value.||||0.5
90809263|NCT03802630|181496516|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was considered established if the lower limit of the corresponding 95% CI for the estimated between group difference (brolucizumab vs. aflibercept) on change from baseline in BCVA at Week 24 is greater than -4 letters.|Least Square Mean Difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.01||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|0.1|||ANOVA|||||0.1|-3.9|0.018
90809264|NCT02684058|181496538|SUPERIORITY|one-sided p-value at 2.5% level of significance|Odds Ratio (OR)|7.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|22.4|||Chi-squared|||||22.4|2.3|<0.001
90809265|NCT02684058|181496543|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.55||Log-rank test at an overall one-sided 2.5% level of significance|Log Rank|||Up to approx. 3 years||0.55|0.17|<0.001
91054790|NCT04715932|181991372|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.5968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||2.56|0.58|0.5968
90809266|NCT01252186|181496587|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A conclusion of non-inferiority was reached if the lower limit of the confidence interval for the comparison (active control minus 91-day Levonorgestrel) was greater than -0.13 nmol/L (130 pmol/L).|Treatment Difference|-11.54||||0.958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-440.1|417.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Levonorgestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The primary endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||417.0|-440.1|0.958
90809267|NCT01252186|181496587|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A conclusion of non-inferiority was reached if the lower limit of the confidence interval for the comparison (active control minus 91-day Levonorgestrel) was greater than -0.13 nmol/L (130 pmol/L).|Treatment Difference|422.76||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.3|863.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Desogestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The primary endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||863.8|-18.3|0.060
90809268|NCT01252186|181496588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|-14.31||||0.745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.8|72.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Levonorgestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||72.2|-100.8|0.745
90809269|NCT01252186|181496588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|71.31||||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|160.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Desogestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||160.1|-17.5|0.115
90809270|NCT01252186|181496589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|-17.14||||0.782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-139.4|105.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Levonorgestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||105.1|-139.4|0.782
90809271|NCT01252186|181496589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|97.09||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.2|223.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Desogestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||223.4|-29.2|0.131
90809272|NCT01252186|181496590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|-0.04||||0.428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Levonorgestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||0.1|-0.1|0.428
91014952|NCT03522506|181912507|SUPERIORITY|2.75 hours post-infusion start: A linear mixed effect models was performed for all observed KSS parameters at scheduled time points. The LSM sleepless scale for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI was estimated from the model at each time point, along with the differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|-3.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.32|-2.01|||Linear mixed effect model|||||-2.01|-4.32|<0.001
91054791|NCT04715932|181991373|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.52||||0.362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|3.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||3.76|0.62|0.3620
91054792|NCT04715932|181991374|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.97||||0.0875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|4.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||4.27|0.91|0.0875
91054793|NCT04715932|181991375|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.8397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|2.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||2.32|0.36|0.8397
91014953|NCT03522506|181912507|SUPERIORITY|4.75 hours post-infusion start: A linear mixed effect models was performed for all observed KSS parameters at scheduled time points. The LSM sleepless scale for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI was estimated from the model at each time point, along with the differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|-1.69||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|-0.6|||Linear mixed effect model|||||-0.60|-2.78|0.003
90809273|NCT01252186|181496590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|-0.16||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Desogestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||-0.1|-0.3|0.002
90809274|NCT01252186|181496591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|-0.01||||0.868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Levonorgestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||0.1|-0.2|0.868
90809275|NCT01252186|181496591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|0.2||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Desogestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||0.3|0.0|0.012
90809276|NCT01252186|181496592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|0.09||||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Levonorgestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||0.3|-0.1|0.317
91014954|NCT03522506|181912507|SUPERIORITY|4.75 hours post-infusion start: A linear mixed effect models was performed for all observed KSS parameters at scheduled time points. The LSM sleepless scale for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI was estimated from the model at each time point, along with the differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|-4.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.39|-3.21|||Linear mixed effect model|||||-3.21|-5.39|<0.001
91014955|NCT03522506|181912507|SUPERIORITY|4.75 hours post-infusion start: A linear mixed effect models was performed for all observed KSS parameters at scheduled time points. The LSM sleepless scale for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI was estimated from the model at each time point, along with the differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|-3.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.91|-2.76|||Linear mixed effect model|||||-2.76|-4.91|<0.001
91054794|NCT04715932|181991376|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.6265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|4.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||4.65|0.40|0.6265
91014956|NCT03522506|181912507|SUPERIORITY|6.75 hours post-infusion start: A linear mixed effect models was performed for all observed KSS parameters at scheduled time points. The LSM sleepless scale for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI was estimated from the model at each time point, along with the differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|-0.71||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|0.21|||Linear mixed effect model|||||0.21|-1.63|0.130
90809277|NCT01252186|181496592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|-0.16||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Desogestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||0.0|-0.4|0.081
90809278|NCT01252186|181496593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|-0.004||||0.331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.013|0.004|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Levonorgestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||0.004|-0.013|0.331
90809279|NCT01252186|181496593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|-0.006||||0.173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.015|0.003|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Desogestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||0.003|-0.015|0.173
90809280|NCT01252186|181496594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|-0.57||||0.194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Levonorgestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||0.3|-1.4|0.194
91014957|NCT03522506|181912507|SUPERIORITY|6.75 hours post-infusion start: A linear mixed effect models was performed for all observed KSS parameters at scheduled time points. The LSM sleepless scale for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI was estimated from the model at each time point, along with the differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|-3.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.24|-2.4|||Linear mixed effect model|||||-2.40|-4.24|<0.001
91014958|NCT03522506|181912507|SUPERIORITY|6.75 hours post-infusion start: A linear mixed effect models was performed for all observed KSS parameters at scheduled time points. The LSM sleepless scale for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI was estimated from the model at each time point, along with the differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|-2.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.62|-1.8|||Linear mixed effect model|||||-1.80|-3.62|<0.001
91054795|NCT04715932|181991377|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.8528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|8.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||8.91|0.16|0.8528
91054796|NCT04715932|181991378|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.2983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||2.35|0.77|0.2983
90809281|NCT01252186|181496594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|-0.02||||0.967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Desogestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||0.9|-0.9|0.967
90809282|NCT01252186|181496595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|1.09||||0.648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|5.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Levonorgestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||5.8|-3.6|0.648
90809283|NCT01252186|181496595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|1.68||||0.496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|6.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Desogestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||6.6|-3.2|0.496
90809284|NCT01252186|181496596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|8.71||||0.405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|29.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Levonorgestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||29.3|-11.9|0.405
90809285|NCT01252186|181496596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|28.95||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|50.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Desogestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||50.2|7.7|0.008
90809286|NCT01252186|181496597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|3.3||||0.425|TWO_SIDED|195.0|-4.9|11.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Levonorgestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||11.5|-4.9|0.425
91014959|NCT03522506|181912507|SUPERIORITY|8.75 hours post-infusion start: A linear mixed effect models was performed for all observed KSS parameters at scheduled time points. The LSM sleepless scale for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI was estimated from the model at each time point, along with the differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|-0.26||||0.577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.68|||Linear mixed effect model|||||0.68|-1.20|0.577
90809287|NCT01252186|181496597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|8.76||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|17.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Desogestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||17.2|0.3|0.041
90809288|NCT01252186|181496598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|-2.4||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Levonorgestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||0.4|-5.2|0.088
90809289|NCT01252186|181496598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|-3.19||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Desogestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||-0.3|-6.0|0.028
90809290|NCT01252186|181496599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|1.75||||0.631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|8.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Levonorgestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||8.9|-5.4|0.631
90809291|NCT01252186|181496599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|3.73||||0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|11.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Desogestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||11.2|-3.7|0.323
90809292|NCT01252186|181496600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|-0.86||||0.783|TWO_SIDED|595.0|-7.0|5.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Levonorgestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||5.3|-7.0|0.783
90809293|NCT01252186|181496600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|-2.83||||0.384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|3.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Desogestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||3.6|-9.2|0.384
90809294|NCT01252186|181496601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|1.66||||0.572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|7.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Levonorgestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||7.5|-4.1|0.572
90809295|NCT01252186|181496601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|-20.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.0|-15.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Desogestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||-15.0|-27.0|<0.001
90809296|NCT01252186|181496602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|-0.42||||0.841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|3.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Levonorgestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||3.7|-4.6|0.841
90809297|NCT01252186|181496602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|-10.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|-6.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Desogestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||-6.3|-14.8|<0.001
90809298|NCT01252186|181496603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|-2.11||||0.227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Levonorgestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||1.3|-5.6|0.227
90809299|NCT01252186|181496603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|-5.99||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|-2.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Desogestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||-2.4|-9.6|0.001
90809300|NCT01252186|181496604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|0.33||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Levonorgestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||0.7|-0.0|0.076
90809301|NCT01252186|181496604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|0.44||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Desogestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||0.8|0.1|0.021
90809302|NCT01252186|181496605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|44.46||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.3|111.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Levonorgestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||111.2|-22.3|0.190
90809303|NCT01252186|181496605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|9.74||||0.781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.4|78.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Desogestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||78.9|-59.4|0.781
91014960|NCT03522506|181912507|SUPERIORITY|8.75 hours post-infusion start: A linear mixed effect models was performed for all observed KSS parameters at scheduled time points. The LSM sleepless scale for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI was estimated from the model at each time point, along with the differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|-2.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-1.32|||Linear mixed effect model|||||-1.32|-3.20|<0.001
91054797|NCT04715932|181991379|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.5611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||2.16|0.66|0.5611
90809304|NCT01252186|181496606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|-12.49||||0.843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-136.4|111.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Levonorgestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||111.4|-136.4|0.843
90809305|NCT01252186|181496606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|58.3||||0.376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.3|187.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Desogestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||187.9|-71.3|0.376
90809306|NCT01252186|181496607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|-4.01||||0.731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.0|19.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Levonorgestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||19.0|-27.0|0.731
91014961|NCT03522506|181912507|SUPERIORITY|8.75 hours post-infusion start: A linear mixed effect models was performed for all observed KSS parameters at scheduled time points. The LSM sleepless scale for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI was estimated from the model at each time point, along with the differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|-1.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.57|-0.72|||Linear mixed effect model|||||-0.72|-2.57|<0.001
91054798|NCT04715932|181991380|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.4643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|2.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||2.58|0.65|0.4643
91054799|NCT04715932|181991381|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.5063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|3.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||3.62|0.53|0.5063
91054800|NCT04715932|181991382|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.2292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||2.47|0.80|0.2292
91054801|NCT04715932|181991383|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.6097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|2.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||2.07|0.65|0.6097
91054802|NCT04715932|181991384|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.8389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|2.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||2.16|0.54|0.8389
90809307|NCT01252186|181496607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|130.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|106.2|154.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Desogestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||154.1|106.2|<0.001
90809308|NCT01457014|181496642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p values have undergone Bonferroni adjustment for Central Apnea Index (CAI), Obstructive Apnea Index (OAI) and Hypopnea Index (HI)||||||<0.001
90809309|NCT01457014|181496643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.627|TWO_SIDED|||||p value has undergone Bonferroni adjustment. P-Value applies to Av. 02 saturation|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p value has undergone Bonferroni adjustment||||||0.627
90809310|NCT01457014|181496644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.161|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.161
90809311|NCT02438384|181496646|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.1||||||||2.1|1.2|
90809312|NCT02438384|181496646|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.6||||||||1.6|0.6|
90809313|NCT03319953|181496650|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2079||||||Bayesian method was used to calculate the posterior probability. High posterior probability of a difference between TAK-041 and placebo \>2.0.|Bayesian Normal Linear Model|||||||0.2079
90809314|NCT03319953|181496650|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0633||||||Bayesian method was used to calculate the posterior probability. High posterior probability of a difference between TAK-041 and placebo \>2.0.|Bayesian Normal Linear Model|||||||0.0633
91054803|NCT04715932|181991385|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.9764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||2.17|0.45|0.9764
90809315|NCT03319953|181496651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1706||||||Bayesian method was used to calculate the posterior probability. High posterior probability of a difference between TAK-041 and placebo \>0.09.|Bayesian Normal Linear Model|||||||0.1706
90809316|NCT03319953|181496651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0373||||||Bayesian method was used to calculate the posterior probability. High posterior probability of a difference between TAK-041 and placebo \>0.09.|Bayesian Normal Linear Model|||||||0.0373
90809317|NCT01159171|181496697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0047||0.0||||One-sided p-value|One sample exact binomial test|||||||0.0047
90809318|NCT00664560|181496735|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-Inferiority (NI) margin of 10mm between Arm 1 and Arm 2 (NI design uses confidence intervals, not p-values)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.76|4.32|||ANCOVA|||||4.32|-4.76|
90809319|NCT00664560|181496736|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|10 mm Non-Inferiority (NI) margin between Arm 1 and Arm 2 (NI design uses confidence intervals, not p-values)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.57|4.38|||ANCOVA|||||4.38|-4.57|
90809320|NCT00664560|181496737|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-Inferiority (NI) margin 10 mm between Arm 1 and Arm 2 (NI design uses confidence intervals, not p-values)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.08|4.14|||ANCOVA|||||4.14|-5.08|
90809321|NCT01328041|181496747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||T distribution|-1.432|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|-1.343||The P value was derived by the null hypothesis testing of no change from Baseline in HIV-1 RNA at Day 8 at the two-sided 5% significance level using a single sample t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||-1.343|-1.520|<0.001
91054804|NCT04715932|181991386|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.4403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||1.40|0.46|0.4403
90809322|NCT01328041|181496748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|69.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.0|76.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA less than 50 copies/mL at Week 24.|||76|62|
90809323|NCT01328041|181496749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|63.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.0|70.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA less than 50 copies/mL at Week 48.|||70|56|
90809324|NCT05312632|181496774|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.001
90809325|NCT05312632|181496775|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.001
90809326|NCT05312632|181496776|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.001
90809327|NCT05312632|181496777|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.001
90809328|NCT05312632|181496778|OTHER|||||||0.013|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.013
90809329|NCT05312632|181496779|OTHER|||||||0.053|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.053
90809330|NCT05312632|181496780|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.001
90809331|NCT02688088|181496815|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.965|1.06||||||||1.06|0.965|
90809332|NCT02688088|181496816|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|0.935|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.871|1.0||||||||1.00|0.871|
90809333|NCT02688088|181496817|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.898|1.22||||||||1.22|0.898|
90809334|NCT02688088|181496818|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|0.845|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.76|0.94||||||||0.940|0.760|
90809335|NCT02688088|181496819|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.35|1.81||||||||1.81|1.35|
90809336|NCT02688088|181496820|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.956|1.13||||||||1.13|0.956|
90809337|NCT02688088|181496821|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.976|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.805|1.18||||||||1.18|0.805|
90809338|NCT02688088|181496822|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|0.867|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.775|0.972||||||||0.972|0.775|
90809339|NCT01973387|181496863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.178|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.109|0.291|||Log Rank|||||0.291|0.109|<0.0001
91014962|NCT03522506|181912507|SUPERIORITY|1.75 hours post-infusion end: A linear mixed effect models was performed for all observed KSS parameters at scheduled time points. The LSM sleepless scale for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI was estimated from the model at each time point, along with the differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|0.31||||0.475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|1.16|||Linear mixed effect model|||||1.16|-0.55|0.475
91014963|NCT03522506|181912507|SUPERIORITY|1.75 hours post-infusion end: A linear mixed effect models was performed for all observed KSS parameters at scheduled time points. The LSM sleepless scale for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI was estimated from the model at each time point, along with the differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|-0.14||||0.753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.72|||Linear mixed effect model|||||0.72|-0.99|0.753
91014964|NCT03522506|181912507|SUPERIORITY|1.75 hours post-infusion end: A linear mixed effect models was performed for all observed KSS parameters at scheduled time points. The LSM sleepless scale for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI was estimated from the model at each time point, along with the differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|-0.99||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|-0.15|||Linear mixed effect model|||||-0.15|-1.83|0.022
90809340|NCT01126437|181496878|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Three tests were conducted in hierarchical order. Non-inferiority of time to death from any cause was tested on the two Respimat doses: Tio R 5 vs. Tio HH18, then if non-inferiority was achieved Tio R 2.5 vs Tio HH18. If successful, a test of superiority of Tio R5 over Tio HH18 for time to first COPD exacerbation was conducted. The non-inferiority delta for time to death was 1.25. Non-inferiority tests were performed at one-sided α=0.025 level. Superiority test was performed at two sided α=0.05.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.957|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.837|1.094|||Regression, Cox|||H0: Hazard Ratio for Respimat/HandiHaler \>= 1.25 Ha: Hazard Ratio for Respimat/HandiHaler \< 1.25||1.094|0.837|
90809341|NCT01126437|181496878|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Three tests were conducted in hierarchical order. Non-inferiority of time to death from any cause was tested on the two Respimat doses: Tio R 5 vs. Tio HH18, then if non-inferiority was achieved Tio R 2.5 vs Tio HH18. If successful, a test of superiority of Tio R5 over Tio HH18 for time to first COPD exacerbation was conducted. The non-inferiority delta for time to death was 1.25. Non-inferiority tests were performed at one-sided α=0.025 level. Superiority test was performed at two sided α=0.05.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.996|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.872|1.136|||Regression, Cox|||H0: Hazard Ratio for Respimat/HandiHaler \>= 1.25 Ha: Hazard Ratio for Respimat/HandiHaler \< 1.25||1.136|0.872|
90809342|NCT01126437|181496879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.978||||0.4194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.928|1.032|||Regression, Cox|||"H0: Hazard Ratio for Respimat/HandiHaler = 1 Ha: Hazard Ratio for Respimat/HandiHaler ≠ 1~at alpha = 0.05"||1.032|0.928|0.4194
90809343|NCT01126437|181496879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.016||||0.5593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.964|1.07|||Regression, Cox|||"H0: Hazard Ratio for Respimat/HandiHaler = 1 Ha: Hazard Ratio for Respimat/HandiHaler ≠ 1~at alpha = 0.05"||1.070|0.964|0.5593
90809344|NCT01126437|181496879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.038||||0.1639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.985|1.094|||Regression, Cox|||"H0: Hazard Ratio for Respimat/HandiHaler = 1 Ha: Hazard Ratio for Respimat/HandiHaler ≠ 1~at alpha = 0.05"||1.094|0.985|0.1639
91014965|NCT03522506|181912508|SUPERIORITY|The effect of TAK-925 was evaluated with a linear mixed effects model appropriate for a 4-period crossover study. The LSM sleep latency for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI was estimated from the model at each time, along with differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|22.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.58|29.3|||Linear mixed effect model|||||29.30|16.58|<0.001
91014966|NCT03522506|181912508|SUPERIORITY|The effect of TAK-925 was evaluated with a linear mixed effects model appropriate for a 4-period crossover study. The LSM sleep latency for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI was estimated from the model at each time, along with differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|30.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.59|37.31|||Linear mixed effects model|||||37.31|24.59|<0.001
90809345|NCT01126437|181496880|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The first test performed was to test the main effect for treatment in the mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) model, specifically the 95% CI for the contrast between Tio R 5ug and Tio HH 18ug was compared to the non-inferiority delta of 50 mL. If that test was successful, the second test in the hierarchy was to test the main effect for treatment in the MMRM model, specifically the 95% CI for the contrast between Tio R 2.5 ug and Tio HH 18 ug was compared to the non-inferiority delta of 50 mL.|Adjusted mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.038|0.018||An autoregression-1 covariance structure modeled the within-subject errors because visits were equally spaced. The Kenward-Roger approximation estimated denominator degrees of freedom.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, investigative site, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, and continuous, fixed covariates of baseline and baseline-by-visit interaction, and a random term of patient.|"FEV1 was analyzed through Week 120 using REML-based repeated measures.~H0: Adjusted mean difference for Respimat/HandiHaler ≥ 50ml Ha: Adjusted mean difference for Respimat/HandiHaler \< 50 ml"||0.018|-.038|
90809346|NCT01126437|181496880|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The first test performed was to test the main effect for treatment in the mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) model, specifically the 95% CI for the contrast between Tio R 5ug and Tio HH 18ug was compared to the non-inferiority delta of 50 mL. If that test was successful, the second test in the hierarchy was to test the main effect for treatment in the MMRM model, specifically the 95% CI for the contrast between Tio R 2.5 ug and Tio HH 18 ug was compared to the non-inferiority delta of 50 mL.|Adjusted mean difference|-0.037|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.065|-0.009||An autoregression-1 covariance structure modeled the within-subject errors because visits were equally spaced. The Kenward-Roger approximation estimated denominator degrees of freedom.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, investigative site, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, and continuous, fixed covariates of baseline and baseline-by-visit interaction, and a random term of patient.|"FEV1 was analyzed through Week 120 using REML-based repeated measures.~H0: Adjusted mean difference for Respimat/HandiHaler ≥ 50ml Ha: Adjusted mean difference for Respimat/HandiHaler \< 50 ml"||-.009|-.065|
90809347|NCT01126437|181496881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio of events|1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.06|||Negative binomial regression|||||1.06|0.95|0.8330
91054805|NCT04715932|181991387|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.5112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||1.60|0.39|0.5112
91054806|NCT04715932|181991388|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.9306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|2.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||2.36|0.46|0.9306
91054807|NCT04715932|181991389|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73||||0.6046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|2.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||2.36|0.23|0.6046
91054808|NCT04715932|181991390|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.6963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|2.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||2.34|0.57|0.6963
90809348|NCT01126437|181496881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio of events|0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.8047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.05|||Negative binomial regression|||||1.05|0.94|0.8047
90809349|NCT01126437|181496881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio of events|1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.6468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.07|||Negative binomial regression|||||1.07|0.96|0.6468
90809350|NCT01126437|181496882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.068||||0.1762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.971|1.176|||Regression, Cox|||||1.176|0.971|0.1762
90809351|NCT01126437|181496882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.024||||0.6384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.929|1.128|||Regression, Cox|||||1.128|0.929|0.6384
90809352|NCT01126437|181496882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.044||||0.3784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.949|1.148|||Regression, Cox|||||1.148|0.949|0.3784
91014967|NCT03522506|181912508|SUPERIORITY|The effect of TAK-925 was evaluated with a linear mixed effects model appropriate for a 4-period crossover study. The LSM sleep latency for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI was estimated from the model at each time, along with differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|26.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.24|32.75|||Linear mixed effect model|||||32.75|20.24|<0.001
91054809|NCT04715932|181991391|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65||||0.425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||1.88|0.22|0.4250
91054810|NCT04715932|181991392|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.8797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|4.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||4.65|0.27|0.8797
91054811|NCT04715932|181991393|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.71||||0.2634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|37.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||37.03|0.37|0.2634
90809353|NCT01126437|181496883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio of events|1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.1255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.22||p-value from negative binomial regression.|Negative binomial regression|||||1.22|0.98|0.1255
90809354|NCT01126437|181496883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio of events|1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.3441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.18||p-value from negative binomial regression.|Negative binomial regression|||||1.18|0.94|0.3441
90809355|NCT01126437|181496883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio of events|1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.5573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.16||p-value from negative binomial regression.|Negative binomial regression|||||1.16|0.92|0.5573
90809356|NCT01126437|181496884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.011||||0.6823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.959|1.066|||Regression, Cox|||||1.066|0.959|0.6823
90809357|NCT01126437|181496884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.983||||0.5377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.932|1.037|||Regression, Cox|||||1.037|0.932|0.5377
90809358|NCT01126437|181496884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.028||||0.3048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.975|1.084|||Regression, Cox|||||1.084|0.975|0.3048
91014968|NCT03522506|181912509|SUPERIORITY|The effect of TAK-925 was evaluated with a linear mixed effects model appropriate for a 4-period crossover study. The LSM sleep latency for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI was estimated from the model at each time, along with differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|14.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.04|22.08|||Linear mixed effect model|||||22.08|7.04|<0.001
91054812|NCT04715932|181991394|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|3.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||3.06|0.73|0.2710
91054813|NCT04715932|181991395|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.82||||0.1748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|4.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||4.30|0.77|0.1748
91054814|NCT04715932|181991396|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.8513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|3.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||3.63|0.34|0.8513
91054815|NCT04715932|181991397|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.7906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|5.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||5.07|0.29|0.7906
90809359|NCT01126437|181496885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.105||||0.3043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.913|1.336|||Regression, Cox|||Causes of death from MACE were determined by adjudication.||1.336|0.913|0.3043
90809360|NCT01126437|181496885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.3263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.909|1.331|||Regression, Cox|||Causes of death from MACE were determined by adjudication.||1.331|0.909|0.3263
90809361|NCT01126437|181496885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.004||||0.9644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.834|1.209|||Regression, Cox|||Causes of death from MACE were determined by adjudication.||1.209|0.834|0.9644
90809362|NCT01126437|181496886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.171||||0.2439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.898|1.526|||Regression, Cox|||Time to death from MACE was analyzed using the full study duration including vital status follow-up.||1.526|0.898|0.2439
90809363|NCT01126437|181496886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.111||||0.4413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.453|||Regression, Cox|||Time to death from MACE was analyzed using the full study duration including vital status follow-up.||1.453|0.850|0.4413
90809364|NCT01126437|181496886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.054||||0.691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.814|1.363|||Regression, Cox|||Time to death from MACE was analyzed using the full study duration including vital status follow-up.||1.363|0.814|0.6910
90809365|NCT03622112|181496938|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.036||||0.437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.126|0.054|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.054|-0.126|0.437
90809366|NCT03622112|181496938|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.054||||0.236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.143|0.035|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.035|-0.143|0.236
90809367|NCT03622112|181496938|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.039||||0.389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.128|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.128|-0.050|0.389
90809368|NCT03622112|181496938|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.076||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.013|0.165|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.165|-0.013|0.094
90809369|NCT03622112|181496938|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.082||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.003|0.167|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.167|-0.003|0.060
90809370|NCT03622112|181496938|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.111||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.023|0.199|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.199|0.023|0.014
90809371|NCT03622112|181496939|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.029||||0.463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.048|0.105|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2||0.105|-0.048|0.463
90809372|NCT03622112|181496939|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.022||||0.576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.055|0.098|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2||0.098|-0.055|0.576
90809373|NCT03622112|181496939|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.078||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.154|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2||0.154|0.001|0.047
90809374|NCT03622112|181496939|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.102||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.025|0.179|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2||0.179|0.025|0.009
90809375|NCT03622112|181496939|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.104||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.031|0.178|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2||0.178|0.031|0.006
90809376|NCT03622112|181496939|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.118||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.041|0.194|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2||0.194|0.041|0.003
90809377|NCT03622112|181496939|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.018||||0.685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.068|0.103|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4||0.103|-0.068|0.685
90809378|NCT03622112|181496939|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.059||||0.176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.026|0.144|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4||0.144|-0.026|0.176
90809379|NCT03622112|181496939|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.098||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.013|0.183|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4||0.183|0.013|0.024
90809380|NCT03622112|181496939|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.106||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.021|0.191|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4||0.191|0.021|0.014
90809381|NCT03622112|181496939|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.114||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.032|0.196|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4||0.196|0.032|0.006
90809382|NCT03622112|181496939|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.165|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.081|0.249|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4||0.249|0.081|< 0.001
90809383|NCT03622112|181496939|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.017||||0.707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.072|0.106|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8||0.106|-0.072|0.707
90809384|NCT03622112|181496939|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.005||||0.904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.083|0.094|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8||0.094|-0.083|0.904
90809385|NCT03622112|181496939|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.018|0.157|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8||0.157|-0.018|0.121
90809386|NCT03622112|181496939|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.012|0.188|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8||0.188|0.012|0.026
90809387|NCT03622112|181496939|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.139||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.055|0.224|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8||0.224|0.055|0.001
90809388|NCT03622112|181496939|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.122||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.035|0.209|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8||0.209|0.035|0.006
90809389|NCT03622112|181496939|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.007||||0.856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.068|0.081|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||0.081|-0.068|0.856
90809390|NCT03622112|181496939|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.008||||0.832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.066|0.082|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||0.082|-0.066|0.832
90809391|NCT03622112|181496939|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.071||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.003|0.145|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||0.145|-0.003|0.060
90809392|NCT03622112|181496939|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.096||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.022|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||0.170|0.022|0.011
90809393|NCT03622112|181496939|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.039|0.181|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||0.181|0.039|0.003
90809394|NCT03622112|181496939|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.129|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.055|0.202|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||0.202|0.055|<0.001
90809395|NCT03622112|181496940|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.936||||0.322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.822|1.067|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2||1.067|0.822|0.322
90809396|NCT03622112|181496940|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.876||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.768|0.999|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2||0.999|0.768|0.047
90809397|NCT03622112|181496940|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.842||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.739|0.959|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2||0.959|0.739|0.010
90809398|NCT03622112|181496940|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.825||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.724|0.941|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2||0.941|0.724|0.004
90809399|NCT03622112|181496940|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.687|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.606|0.779|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2||0.779|0.606|<0.001
90809400|NCT03622112|181496940|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.553|0.719|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2||0.719|0.553|<0.001
90809401|NCT03622112|181496940|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.931||||0.329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.805|1.076|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4||1.076|0.805|0.329
90809402|NCT03622112|181496940|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.911||||0.203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.789|1.052|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4||1.052|0.789|0.203
90809403|NCT03622112|181496940|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.923||||0.273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.065|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4||1.065|0.800|0.273
90809404|NCT03622112|181496940|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.846||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.734|0.977|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4||0.977|0.734|0.023
90809405|NCT03622112|181496940|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.742|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.646|0.852|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4||0.852|0.646|<0.001
90809406|NCT03622112|181496940|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.703|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.609|0.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4||0.810|0.609|<0.001
90809407|NCT03622112|181496940|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.917||||0.283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.783|1.074|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8||1.074|0.783|0.283
90809408|NCT03622112|181496940|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.933||||0.386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.797|1.092|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8||1.092|0.797|0.386
90809409|NCT03622112|181496940|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.886||||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.758|1.035|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8||1.035|0.758|0.126
90809410|NCT03622112|181496940|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.855||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.731|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8||1.000|0.731|0.050
90809411|NCT03622112|181496940|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.723|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.623|0.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8||0.840|0.623|<0.001
90809412|NCT03622112|181496940|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.642|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.749|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8||0.749|0.550|<0.001
91054816|NCT03560986|181991398|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.372||0.2522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|1.17||2-sided p-value for testing superiority of neridronic acid 400 mg compared to placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|The degrees of freedom of the denominator are estimated using the Kenward-Roger approximation.|The primary endpoint estimate was the least squares mean differences of change from baseline in pain NRS (electronic diary) at Week 12 between neridronate and Placebo.|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) defined with baseline pain intensity as covariate, the factors geographic region, week, treatment and treatment-by-week as fixed effects, and an unstructured covariance matrix to model the covariance structure of the repeated measurements.||1.17|-0.31|0.2522
90809413|NCT03622112|181496940|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.927||||0.359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.789|1.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12||1.090|0.789|0.359
90809414|NCT03622112|181496940|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.953||||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.813|1.118|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12||1.118|0.813|0.556
90809415|NCT03622112|181496940|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.869||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.742|1.019|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12||1.019|0.742|0.084
90809416|NCT03622112|181496940|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.813||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.693|0.953|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12||0.953|0.693|0.011
90809417|NCT03622112|181496940|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.559|0.757|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12||0.757|0.559|<0.001
91054817|NCT00699374|181991422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.31||||0.9993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.5||One-sided p-value based on stratified log-rank test controlling the effects of geographic region, prior transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) and tumor invasion condition.|Log Rank|||||1.50|1.14|0.9993
91054818|NCT00699374|181991423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.8857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.3||One-sided p-value based on stratified log-rank test controlling the effects of geographic region, prior TACE, and tumor invasion condition|Log Rank|||||1.30|0.99|0.8857
90809418|NCT03622112|181496940|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.623|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.533|0.729|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12||0.729|0.533|<0.001
90809419|NCT03622112|181496940|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.928||||0.231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.821|1.049|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||1.049|0.821|0.231
90809420|NCT03622112|181496940|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.918||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.812|1.037|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||1.037|0.812|0.170
91054819|NCT00699374|181991424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.8459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.31||One-sided p-value based on stratified log-rank test controlling the effects of geographic region, prior TACE and tumor invasion condition|Log Rank|||||1.31|0.98|0.8459
90809421|NCT03622112|181496940|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.879||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.778|0.994|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||0.994|0.778|0.039
90809422|NCT03622112|181496940|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.835||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.739|0.943|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||0.943|0.739|0.004
90809423|NCT03622112|181496940|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.622|0.787|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||0.787|0.622|<0.001
90809424|NCT03622112|181496940|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.649|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.575|0.732|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||0.732|0.575|<0.001
90809425|NCT03622112|181496941|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.034||||0.519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.139|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12||0.070|-0.139|0.519
90809426|NCT03622112|181496941|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.078||||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.181|0.026|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12||0.026|-0.181|0.141
90809427|NCT03622112|181496941|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.015||||0.772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.088|0.119|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12||0.119|-0.088|0.772
90809428|NCT03622112|181496941|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.058||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.045|0.162|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12||0.162|-0.045|0.270
90809429|NCT03622112|181496941|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.027||||0.592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.072|0.126|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12||0.126|-0.072|0.592
90809430|NCT03622112|181496941|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.057||||0.275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.045|0.158|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12||0.158|-0.045|0.275
90809431|NCT03622112|181496941|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.002||||0.963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.087|0.083|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||0.083|-0.087|0.963
90809432|NCT03622112|181496941|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.027||||0.533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.112|0.058|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||0.058|-0.112|0.533
90809433|NCT03622112|181496941|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.041||||0.342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.044|0.126|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||0.126|-0.044|0.342
90809434|NCT03622112|181496941|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.081||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.165|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||0.165|-0.004|0.061
90809435|NCT03622112|181496941|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.045||||0.278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.037|0.127|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||0.127|-0.037|0.278
90809436|NCT03622112|181496941|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.075||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.009|0.159|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||0.159|-0.009|0.079
90809437|NCT03622112|181496942|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.153||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.328|0.023|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12||0.023|-0.328|0.088
90809438|NCT03622112|181496942|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.257||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.084|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12||-0.084|-0.430|0.004
90809439|NCT03622112|181496942|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.221||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.393|-0.049|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12||-0.049|-0.393|0.012
90809440|NCT03622112|181496942|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.193||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.366|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12||-0.020|-0.366|0.029
90809441|NCT03622112|181496942|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.269||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.434|-0.104|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12||-0.104|-0.434|0.001
90809442|NCT03622112|181496942|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.223||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.393|-0.054|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12||-0.054|-0.393|0.010
90809443|NCT03622112|181496942|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.125||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.253|0.003|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||0.003|-0.253|0.055
90809444|NCT03622112|181496942|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.141||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.268|-0.014|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||-0.014|-0.268|0.029
90809445|NCT03622112|181496942|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.257|-0.003|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||-0.003|-0.257|0.044
90809446|NCT03622112|181496942|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.201||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.328|-0.074|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||-0.074|-0.328|0.002
90809447|NCT03622112|181496942|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.217|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.339|-0.094|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||-0.094|-0.339|<0.001
90809448|NCT03622112|181496942|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.179||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.305|-0.053|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||-0.053|-0.305|0.005
90809449|NCT03622112|181496943|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.664||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.403|16.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||16.730|-1.403|0.097
90809450|NCT03622112|181496943|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.981||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.98|14.941|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||14.941|-2.980|0.190
91077802|NCT02913105|182041131|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.241|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141||0.0911|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.476|-0.006|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 28||-0.006|-0.476|0.0911
90809451|NCT03622112|181496943|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.123||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.195|18.052|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||18.052|0.195|0.045
90809452|NCT03622112|181496943|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.444|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.443|24.445|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||24.445|6.443|<0.001
90809453|NCT03622112|181496943|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.599|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.031|25.167|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||25.167|8.031|<0.001
90809454|NCT03622112|181496943|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.491||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.726|19.256|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||19.256|1.726|0.019
90809455|NCT03622112|181496944|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.398||||0.597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.494|11.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||11.290|-6.494|0.597
90809456|NCT03622112|181496944|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.162||||0.629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.623|10.948|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||10.948|-6.623|0.629
90809457|NCT03622112|181496944|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.833||||0.389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.907|12.573|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||12.573|-4.907|0.389
90809458|NCT03622112|181496944|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.258||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.456|19.059|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||19.059|1.456|0.022
90809459|NCT03622112|181496944|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.994||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.571|20.417|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||20.417|3.571|0.005
90809460|NCT03622112|181496944|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.129||||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.479|14.737|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||14.737|-2.479|0.163
90809461|NCT03622112|181496945|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.243||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.431|-0.054|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||-0.054|-0.431|0.012
90809462|NCT03622112|181496945|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.155||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.344|0.034|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||0.034|-0.344|0.108
90809463|NCT03622112|181496945|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.099||||0.295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.286|0.087|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||0.087|-0.286|0.295
90809464|NCT03622112|181496945|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.308||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.116|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||-0.116|-0.500|0.002
90809465|NCT03622112|181496945|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.308|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.489|-0.126|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||-0.126|-0.489|<0.001
90809466|NCT03622112|181496945|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.177||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.362|0.009|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||0.009|-0.362|0.062
90809467|NCT03622112|181496946|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.993|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.795|-4.191|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||-4.191|-15.795|<0.001
90809468|NCT03622112|181496946|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.972||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.694|-2.251|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||-2.251|-13.694|0.006
90809469|NCT03622112|181496946|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.361||||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.051|1.329|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||1.329|-10.051|0.133
90809470|NCT03622112|181496946|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.797||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.555|-2.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||-2.040|-13.555|0.008
90809471|NCT03622112|181496946|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.729||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.195|-3.264|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||-3.264|-14.195|0.002
90809472|NCT03622112|181496946|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.622|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.211|-6.034|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||-6.034|-17.211|<0.001
90809473|NCT03622112|181496947|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.212|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.329|-0.094|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||-0.094|-0.329|<0.001
90809474|NCT03622112|181496947|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.228|0.007|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||0.007|-0.228|0.066
90809475|NCT03622112|181496947|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.139||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.255|-0.022|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||-0.022|-0.255|0.020
90809476|NCT03622112|181496947|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||-0.110|-0.350|<0.001
90809477|NCT03622112|181496947|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.185||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.298|-0.071|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||-0.071|-0.298|0.001
90809478|NCT03622112|181496947|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.206|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.321|-0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||-0.090|-0.321|<0.001
90809479|NCT03622112|181496948|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.611||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|18.042|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||18.042|1.180|0.026
90809480|NCT03622112|181496948|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.503||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.927|13.933|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||13.933|-2.927|0.200
90809481|NCT03622112|181496948|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.787||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.546|15.119|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||15.119|-1.546|0.110
90809482|NCT03622112|181496948|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.066||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.461|18.672|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||18.672|1.461|0.022
90809483|NCT03622112|181496948|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.62||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.489|16.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||16.750|0.489|0.038
90809484|NCT03622112|181496948|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.178||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.112|15.467|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||15.467|-1.112|0.090
91054820|NCT01783548|181991434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM treatment difference from placebo|-0.66||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.24||a priori statistical significance is \<0.05.|mixed-model for repeated measures (MMRM)|The MMRM included covariate adjustment for baseline, day, treatment, and the treatment by day interaction.||Based on other studies, the standard deviation for the change from baseline over the first 6 weeks of treatment in the average of AM and PM rTNSS is assumed to be 2.0. Using this standard deviation, 450 subjects aged 6 to 11 years (300 on active treatment of BDP and 150 on placebo) provide approximately 90% power to detect a difference of 0.65 in rTNSS change from baseline between treatment groups with a two-sided alpha level of 0.05.||-0.24|-1.08|0.002
90809485|NCT03622112|181496949|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.936||||0.123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|18.031|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||18.031|-2.160|0.123
90809486|NCT03622112|181496949|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.977||||0.849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.112|11.065|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||11.065|-9.112|0.849
90809487|NCT03622112|181496949|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.242||||0.807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.233|8.748|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||8.748|-11.233|0.807
90809488|NCT03622112|181496949|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.789||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.488|22.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||22.090|1.488|0.025
90809489|NCT03622112|181496949|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.574||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|17.307|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||17.307|-2.160|0.127
90809490|NCT03622112|181496949|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.058||||0.318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.874|14.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||14.990|-4.874|0.318
90809491|NCT03622112|181496950|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.45||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.046|18.855|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||18.855|2.046|0.015
90809492|NCT03622112|181496950|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.192||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.208|15.592|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||15.592|-1.208|0.093
90809493|NCT03622112|181496950|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.606||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.298|16.913|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||16.913|0.298|0.042
90809494|NCT03622112|181496950|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.344||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.773|19.914|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||19.914|2.773|0.010
90809495|NCT03622112|181496950|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.122||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.021|18.222|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||18.222|2.021|0.014
90809496|NCT03622112|181496950|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.689||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.424|18.953|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||18.953|2.424|0.011
90809497|NCT03622112|181496961|SUPERIORITY||geometric LSMean ratio|1.01||||0.909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.851|1.199|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.199|0.851|0.909
90809498|NCT03622112|181496961|SUPERIORITY||geometric LSMean ratio|1.118||||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.935|1.336|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.336|0.935|0.218
90809499|NCT03622112|181496961|SUPERIORITY||geometric LSMean ratio|1.129||||0.181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.944|1.349|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.349|0.944|0.181
90809500|NCT03622112|181496961|SUPERIORITY||geometric LSMean ratio|0.984||||0.859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.825|1.174|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.174|0.825|0.859
90809501|NCT03622112|181496961|SUPERIORITY||geometric LSMean ratio|0.916||||0.285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.077|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.077|0.780|0.285
90809502|NCT03622112|181496961|SUPERIORITY||geometric LSMean ratio|0.991||||0.923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.831|1.182|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.182|0.831|0.923
90809503|NCT01155466|181496963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.53|||Mixed Models Analysis||"The estimated parameter is the difference in the estimated mean change from baseline in mean off time for preladenant 10 mg - placebo."|||0.53|-0.62|0.8700
90809504|NCT01155466|181496965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.6||||0.899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|1.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen||The estimated parameter is the difference in the percentage of participants with diastolic blood pressure \>=105 mm Hg for preladenant 2 mg - placebo|||1.6|-7.3|0.899
90809505|NCT01155466|181496965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.9||||0.815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|2.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen||The estimated parameter is the difference in the percentage of participants with diastolic blood pressure \>=105 mm Hg for preladenant 5 mg - placebo|||2.6|-6.8|0.815
90809506|NCT01155466|181496965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|1.4||||0.295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|6.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen||The estimated parameter is the difference in the percentage of participants with diastolic blood pressure \>=105 mm Hg for preladenant 10 mg - placebo|||6.9|-3.9|0.295
90809507|NCT01155466|181496968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.6||||0.629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|3.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen||The estimated parameter is the difference in the percentage of participants with suicidality for preladenant 2 mg - placebo|||3.7|-5.1|0.629
90809508|NCT01155466|181496968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.6||||0.625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|3.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen||The estimated parameter is the difference in the percentage of participants with suicidality for preladenant 5 mg - placebo|||3.7|-5.1|0.625
90809509|NCT01155466|181496968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.6||||0.948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|0.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen||The estimated parameter is the difference in the percentage of participants with suicidality for preladenant 10 mg - placebo|||0.7|-6.8|0.948
90809510|NCT01155466|181496969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.1||||0.7044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.9|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis||The estimated parameter is the difference in the change from baseline in mean ESS score for preladenant 2 mg - placebo|||0.90|-0.61|0.7044
90809511|NCT01155466|181496969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.4||||0.3439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.14|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis||The estimated parameter is the difference in the change from baseline in mean ESS score for preladenant 5 mg - placebo|||1.14|-0.4|0.3439
90809512|NCT01155466|181496969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.3||||0.3941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|1.08|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis||The estimated parameter is the difference in the change from baseline in mean ESS score for preladenant 10 mg - placebo|||1.08|-0.43|0.3941
90809513|NCT01155466|181496970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.994||||0.983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.597|1.657|||Mixed Models Analysis|Odds ratio was calculated for all randomized and treated participants with at least 1 post treatment value.|"Confidence intervals and P-values were based on a generalized linear mixed model with baseline average off time as a covariate and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effect and participant as random effect."|||1.657|0.597|0.983
90809514|NCT01155466|181496971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.6405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||"The estimated parameter is the difference in the estimated change from baseline in on time without troublesome dyskinesias for preladenant 10 mg - placebo."|||0.80|-0.49|0.6405
90809515|NCT03552536|181497026|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted by Placebo data pooled from historical placebo data from recent monotherapy studies in HIV-1 infected participants (NCT00100048, NCT01466985, NCT01152255, and NCT01353898) and fitted with a longitudinal data analysis (LDA) model containing fixed effects for study and time, and a random effect for participants. Least squares (LS) mean (95% confidence interval) for change from baseline at 168 hours post dose of pooled historical placebo was -0.03 log10 copies/mL (-0.14, 0.09).|Posterior Mean Difference|-0.6|||||||||||||Posterior Probability (PP) of true mean difference in the plasma HIV-1 RNA change from baseline between MK-8583 and placebo at least 0.5 log10 copies/mL was 64%.|||||
90809516|NCT03639623|181497045|OTHER|||||||0.053|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.053
90809517|NCT03639623|181497046|OTHER|||||||0.958|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.958
90809518|NCT03639623|181497047|OTHER|||||||0.011|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.011
90809519|NCT03639623|181497048|OTHER|||||||0.454|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.454
90809520|NCT03639623|181497049|OTHER|||||||0.154|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.154
90809521|NCT03639623|181497050|OTHER|||||||0.125|||||||paired t-test|||Outcome Variable: ALT||||0.125
91014969|NCT03522506|181912509|SUPERIORITY|The effect of TAK-925 was evaluated with a linear mixed effects model appropriate for a 4-period crossover study. The LSM sleep latency for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI was estimated from the model at each time, along with differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|32.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.68|39.73|||Linear mixed effect model|||||39.73|24.68|<0.001
91014970|NCT03522506|181912509|SUPERIORITY|The effect of TAK-925 was evaluated with a linear mixed effects model appropriate for a 4-period crossover study. The LSM sleep latency for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI was estimated from the model at each time, along with differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|25.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.33|33.14|||Linear mixed effect model|||||33.14|18.33|<0.001
91014971|NCT03522506|181912510|SUPERIORITY|The effect of TAK-925 was evaluated with a linear mixed effects model appropriate for a 4-period crossover study. The LSM sleep latency for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI was estimated from the model at each time, along with differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|9.6||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.35|15.85|||Linear mixed effect model|||||15.85|3.35|0.003
91054821|NCT01783548|181991435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM treatment difference from placebo|-0.58||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.18||a priori statistical significance is \<0.05.|mixed-model for repeated measures (MMRM)|The MMRM included covariate adjustment for baseline, day, treatment, and the treatment by day interaction.||||-0.18|-0.99|0.004
90809522|NCT03639623|181497050|OTHER|||||||0.375|||||||paired t-test|||Outcome Variable: AST||||0.375
90809523|NCT03639623|181497050|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||paired t-test|||Outcome Variable: ALP||||<0.001
90809524|NCT03639623|181497051|OTHER|||||||0.054|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.054
90809525|NCT03639623|181497052|OTHER|||||||0.378|||||||paired t-test|||Outcome variable: Total Cholesterol||||0.378
90809526|NCT03639623|181497052|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||paired t-test|||Outcome Variable: Triglyceride||||0.010
90809527|NCT03639623|181497052|OTHER|||||||0.264|||||||paired t-test|||Outcome Variable: Non-HDL-C||||0.264
90809528|NCT03639623|181497052|OTHER|||||||0.954|||||||paired t-test|||Outcome Variable: HDL-C||||0.954
90809529|NCT03639623|181497052|OTHER|||||||0.127|||||||paired t-test|||Outcome Variable: HDL-C Subclass 2||||0.127
90809530|NCT03639623|181497052|OTHER|||||||0.029|||||||paired t-test|||Outcome Variable: HDL-C Subclass 3||||0.029
90809531|NCT03639623|181497052|OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||paired t-test|||Outcome variable: LDL-C||||0.630
90809532|NCT03639623|181497052|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||paired t-test|||Outcome Variable: VLDL-C||||0.010
90809533|NCT03639623|181497052|OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||paired t-test|||Outcome Variable: VLDL concentration||||0.160
90809534|NCT03639623|181497052|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||paired t-test|||Small dense LDL-C||||0.020
90809535|NCT03639623|181497053|OTHER|||||||0.529|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.529
90809536|NCT03639623|181497054|OTHER|||||||0.403|||||||paired t-test|||Outcome Variable: LDL Size||||0.403
90809537|NCT03639623|181497055|OTHER|||||||0.669|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.669
90809538|NCT03639623|181497056|OTHER|||||||0.021|||||||paired t-test|||Outcome Variable: VLDL chylomicron particles||||0.021
90809539|NCT03639623|181497056|OTHER|||||||0.011|||||||paired t-test|||Outcome Variable: Large VLDL chylomicron particles||||0.011
91054822|NCT01783548|181991436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM treatment difference from placebo|-0.62||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.23||a priori statistical significance is \<0.05.|mixed-model for repeated measures (MMRM)|The MMRM included covariate adjustment for baseline, day, treatment, and the treatment by day interaction.||||-0.23|-1.00|0.002
91014972|NCT03522506|181912510|SUPERIORITY|The effect of TAK-925 was evaluated with a linear mixed effects model appropriate for a 4-period crossover study. The LSM sleep latency for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI was estimated from the model at each time, along with differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|33.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.08|39.58|||Linear mixed effect model|||||39.58|27.08|<0.001
90809540|NCT03639623|181497056|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||paired t-test|||Outcome Variable: Medium VLDL particles||||0.060
90809541|NCT03639623|181497056|OTHER|||||||0.324|||||||paired t-test|||Outcome Variable: Small VLDL particles||||0.324
90809542|NCT03639623|181497057|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.010
90809543|NCT03639623|181497058|OTHER|||||||0.249|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.249
90809544|NCT03639623|181497059|OTHER|||||||0.0193|||||||paired t-test|||Time to peak RQ||||0.0193
91014973|NCT03522506|181912510|SUPERIORITY|The effect of TAK-925 was evaluated with a linear mixed effects model appropriate for a 4-period crossover study. The LSM sleep latency for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI was estimated from the model at each time, along with differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|16.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.77|23.06|||Linear mixed effect model|||||23.06|10.77|<0.001
90809545|NCT03639623|181497060|OTHER|||||||0.96|||||||paired t-test|||Outcome Variable: Physical component score||||0.960
90809546|NCT03639623|181497060|OTHER|||||||0.249|||||||paired t-test|||Outcome Variable: Mental component score||||0.249
90809547|NCT01229254|181497078|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% confidence interval was within the pre-specified bounds of \[0.66, 1.50\], the hypothesis of similarity between lower weight and higher weight groups was supported.|Ratio of geometric least-squares means|0.748|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.591|0.948||||||Compared to Betrixaban 90 mg (≥80 kg)||0.948|0.591|
90809548|NCT02333396|181497142|SUPERIORITY||Beta Estimate|3.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.53||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.77|12.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||12.9|-5.77|0.44
90809549|NCT02333396|181497143|SUPERIORITY||Beta Estimate|3.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.05||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|7.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.84|-0.61|0.09
90809550|NCT02333396|181497144|SUPERIORITY||Beta Estimate|4.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.05||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|8.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.36|-0.09|0.05
90809551|NCT02333396|181497145|SUPERIORITY||Beta Estimare|3.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|7.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.67|-1.63|0.19
90809552|NCT02333396|181497146|SUPERIORITY||Beta Estimate|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.47||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.33|4.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.88|-5.33|0.93
91014974|NCT03522506|181912511|SUPERIORITY|An analysis of variance (ANOVA) model was used to evaluate the 1 hour post the end of infusion MWT. The LSM sleep latency for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI were estimated from the model, along with the differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|-2.16||||0.436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.68|3.36|||ANOVA|||||3.36|-7.68|0.436
90809553|NCT02333396|181497147|SUPERIORITY||Beta Estimate|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.02|2.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.31|-3.02|0.79
91054823|NCT01783548|181991437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM treatment difference from placebo|-0.54||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.17||a priori statistical significance is \<0.05.|mixed-model for repeated measures (MMRM)|The MMRM included covariate adjustment for baseline, day, treatment, and the treatment by day interaction.||||-0.17|-0.91|0.004
91054824|NCT00552578|181991474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.17||||0.523||95.0|0.0098|2.8215|||Fisher Exact|||Intent to treat||2.8215|0.0098|0.523
90809554|NCT02333396|181497150|SUPERIORITY||Beta Estimate|0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.62|1.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.64|-2.62|0.64
90809555|NCT02333396|181497151|SUPERIORITY||Beta Estimate|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.02|1.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.22|-3.02|0.39
90809556|NCT02333396|181497153|SUPERIORITY||Beta Estiamte|1.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|3.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.98|-0.55|0.13
90809557|NCT02333396|181497154|SUPERIORITY||Beta Estimate|1.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|3.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.98|-0.55|0.13
90809558|NCT02118766|181497156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.038
90809559|NCT02059499|181497168|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1877||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1877
90809560|NCT02059499|181497169|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1068||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1068
90809561|NCT02059499|181497170|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8071||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.8071
90809562|NCT02059499|181497171|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6562||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.6562
90809563|NCT02059499|181497172|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0141||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0141
90809564|NCT02059499|181497173|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0141||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0141
90809565|NCT02059499|181497177|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1409||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1409
90809566|NCT02059499|181497178|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0805||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0805
90809567|NCT02059499|181497180|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5726|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.5726
90809568|NCT02059499|181497181|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6184||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.6184
90809569|NCT02059499|181497183|EQUIVALENCE|Comparison of mean between count of hrHPV genotypes observed at baseline vs at week 20 in imiquimod arm||||||0.3||||||A priori threshold for interpreting significance : 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of number of hrHPV genotypes in each arm observed at baseline vs at week 20 in imiquimod arm||||0.3
91014975|NCT03522506|181912511|SUPERIORITY|ANOVA model was used to evaluate the 1 hour post the end of infusion MWT. The LSM sleep latency for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI were estimated from the model, along with the differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|-2.29||||0.409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.81|3.23|||ANOVA|||||3.23|-7.81|0.409
90809570|NCT02059499|181497183|EQUIVALENCE|Comparison of mean number of hrHPV genotypes observed at baseline vs at week 20 in 5FU arm||||||0.3||||||A priori threshold to interpret significance: 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the count of hrHPV genotypes observed at baseline vs at week 20 in 5FU arm||||0.3
90809571|NCT02059499|181497183|EQUIVALENCE|Comparison of mean number of hrHPV genotypes observed at baseline vs at week 20 in observation arm||||||0.26||||||A priori cutoff of significance: 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the count of hrHPV genotypes observed at baseline vs at week 20 in observation arm||||0.26
90809572|NCT03989349|181497186|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|12.2||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|97.5|4.6|19.8||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting randomized stratification variables (IGA severity \[3=moderate, 4=severe\] and PP NRS \[\>=7, \<7\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when the test for the preceding outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 2.5% significance level.||19.8|4.6|0.0006
90809573|NCT03989349|181497187|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|14.9||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|97.5|5.6|24.3||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting randomized stratification variables (IGA severity \[3=moderate, 4=severe\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when the test for the preceding outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 2.5% significance level.||24.3|5.6|0.0008
90809574|NCT03989349|181497188|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|12.5||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|97.5|4.6|20.3||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting randomized stratification variables (IGA severity \[3=moderate, 4=severe\] and PP NRS \[\>=7, \<7\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when the test for the preceding outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 2.5% significance level.||20.3|4.6|0.0006
90809575|NCT03989349|181497189|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|16.3||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|97.5|6.6|26.0||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting randomized stratification variables (IGA severity \[3=moderate, 4=severe\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when the test for the preceding outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 2.5% significance level.||26.0|6.6|0.0004
90809576|NCT03989349|181497190|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|23.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|16.1|30.3||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting randomized stratification variables (IGA severity \[3=moderate, 4=severe\] and PP NRS \[\>=7, \<7\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when the test for the preceding outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Participants with missing data were considered non-responders.||30.3|16.1|<0.0001
90809577|NCT03989349|181497190|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|27.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|21.2|34.5||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting randomized stratification variables (IGA severity \[3=moderate, 4=severe\] and PP NRS \[\>=7, \<7\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The estimates are from 50 complete datasets by MI-MAR assumption.|Nemolizumab 30 mg versus Placebo using multiple imputation (MI) with missing at random (MAR) assumption.||34.5|21.2|<0.0001
91014976|NCT03522506|181912511|SUPERIORITY|ANOVA model was used to evaluate the 1 hour post the end of infusion MWT. The LSM sleep latency for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI were estimated from the model, along with the differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|16.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.37|22.18|||ANOVA|||||22.18|11.37|<0.001
91014977|NCT05770401|181912512|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.227||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|5.76|||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was there would be no significant difference in LCQ total score change from baseline to one-week post-treatment between groups.||5.76|.72|.014
91014978|NCT05770401|181912513|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.804||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.7|0.46|||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was there would be no significant difference in Cough Severity VAS Scores from baseline to one-week post-treatment between groups.||0.46|-32.7|.056
91054825|NCT00552578|181991476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015||95.0||||No adjustment|Fisher Exact|||Fisher exact test was used and tested the hypothesis that neither group would be more likely to complete the study protocol.||||0.015
91054826|NCT02695537|181991505|OTHER|Single group.|||||<|0.0001||||||P-value reported above is the global test for change in seizure frequency over a 12-month period.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed rank test with Bonferonni multiple comparison correction was used as a post-hoc analysis to indicate direction of change.||Null hypothesis is that there was no change in seizure frequency between any two assessment time points during this period of analysis. Alternative hypothesis is that there were two or more assessment time points for which change in seizure frequency was different from zero.|Generalized least squares statistical techniques were used for modeling longitudinal data after normality of seizure frequency outcome measures were achieved through log-transformations methods. The following baseline clinical variables were adjusted for: AEDs, AEDs tried, epileptic surgery, and gender. Reported results were geometric least squares mean and its associated 95% Confidence Interval. Percentage reduction in seizure frequency relative to baseline were obtained by subtracting from 1 and then multiplying by 100 at all post-baseline timepoints.|||<0.0001
91077803|NCT02913105|182041131|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.338|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.172||0.052|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.623|-0.053|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 42||-0.053|-0.623|0.0520
90809578|NCT03989349|181497191|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|27.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|17.5|36.6||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting randomized stratification variables (IGA severity \[3=moderate, 4=severe\].|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when the test for the preceding outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Participants with missing data were considered non-responders.||36.6|17.5|<0.0001
90809579|NCT03989349|181497191|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|33.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|24.5|42.3||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting randomized stratification variables (IGA severity \[3=moderate, 4=severe\].|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The estimates are from 50 complete datasets by MI-MAR assumption.|Nemolizumab 30 mg versus Placebo using MI-MAR assumption.||42.3|24.5|<0.0001
90809580|NCT03989349|181497192|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|17.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|10.9|23.3||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting randomized stratification variables (IGA severity \[3=moderate, 4=severe\] and PP NRS \[\>=7, \<7\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when the test for the preceding outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 2.5% significance level.||23.3|10.9|<0.0001
90809581|NCT03989349|181497193|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|18.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|11.0|25.8||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting randomized stratification variables (IGA severity \[3=moderate, 4=severe\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when the test for the preceding outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 2.5% significance level.||25.8|11.0|<0.0001
90809582|NCT03989349|181497194|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|17.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|10.8|24.3||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting randomized stratification variables (IGA severity \[3=moderate, 4=severe\] and PP NRS \[\>=7, \<7\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when the test for the preceding outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 2.5% significance level.||24.3|10.8|< 0.0001
90809583|NCT03989349|181497195|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|21.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|12.5|31.4||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting randomized stratification variables (IGA severity \[3=moderate, 4=severe\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when the test for the preceding outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 2.5% significance level.||31.4|12.5|<0.0001
90809584|NCT03989349|181497196|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|20.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|15.6|26.1||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting the randomized stratification variables (IGA severity and PP NRS).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when the test for the preceding outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 2.5% significance level.||26.1|15.6|< 0.0001
90809585|NCT03989349|181497197|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|22.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|15.0|29.9||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting randomized stratification variables (IGA severity \[3=moderate, 4=severe\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when the test for the preceding outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 2.5% significance level.||29.9|15.0|<0.0001
90809586|NCT03989349|181497198|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|13.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|9.0|17.4||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting randomized stratification variables (IGA severity \[3=moderate, 4=severe\] and PP NRS \[\>=7, \<7\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when the test for the preceding outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 2.5% significance level.||17.4|9|< 0.0001
90809587|NCT03989349|181497199|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|9.9||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|5.5|14.3||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting randomized stratification variables (IGA severity \[3=moderate, 4=severe\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when the test for the preceding outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 2.5% significance level.||14.3|5.5|0.0001
90809588|NCT03989349|181497200|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|15.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|11.0|19.2||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting randomized stratification variables (IGA severity \[3=moderate, 4=severe\] and PP NRS \[\>=7, \<7\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when the test for the preceding outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 2.5% significance level||19.2|11|< 0.0001
90809589|NCT03989349|181497201|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|16.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|10.5|22.1||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting randomized stratification variables (IGA severity \[3=moderate, 4=severe\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when the test for the preceding outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 2.5% significance level.||22.1|10.5|<0.0001
91014979|NCT01298323|181912524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||t-Statistic|1.29||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.44|16.37||Statistical significance threshold at this analysis was 10%|t-test, 2 sided|||||16.37|-3.44|0.199
90809590|NCT03989349|181497202|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|6.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|3.8|9.1||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting randomized stratification variables (IGA severity \[3=moderate, 4=severe\] and PP NRS \[\>=7, \<7\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when the test for the preceding outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 2.5% significance level.||9.1|3.8|<0.0001
90809591|NCT03989349|181497203|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|8.0||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|97.5|4.2|11.8||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting randomized stratification variables (IGA severity \[3=moderate, 4=severe\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when the test for preceding outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 2.5% significance level.||11.8|4.2|0.0004
90809592|NCT02248649|181497204|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|covariates: baseline age and years of education||||||0.2
90809593|NCT02248649|181497205|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.04
90809594|NCT02248649|181497206|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.02
90809595|NCT02488135|181497207|NON_INFERIORITY|An a priori sample size was calculated using a non-inferiority limit (d) set at 25%, significance level (α) of 5% and power of 80%. We assumed that success in each group would be 93% based on the literature examining anterior nasal packing in ideal conditions and considering our selection criteria in the Floseal® (Baxter, USA) population. Attrition was assumed to be 0% due to the short duration of treatment. This yielded 26 participants with 13 patients in each study arm.||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
91054827|NCT02695537|181991506|OTHER|Single group.|||||<|0.0001||||||P-value reported above is the global test for change in seizure severity scores over a 12-month period.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed rank test with Bonferonni multiple comparison correction was used as a post-hoc analysis to indicate direction of change.||Null hypothesis is that there was no change in seizure severity scores between any two assessment time points during this period of analysis. Alternative hypothesis is that there were two or more assessment time points for which change in seizure severity scores was different from zero.|Generalized least squares statistical techniques were used for modeling longitudinal data after normality of seizure severity score outcome measures were achieved through log-transformations methods. The following baseline clinical variables were adjusted for: AEDs, AEDs tried, epileptic surgery, and gender. Reported results were geometric least squares mean and its associated 95% Confidence Interval. Percentage reduction in seizure severity relative to baseline were obtained by subtracting from 1 and then multiplying by 100 at all post-baseline timepoints.|||<0.0001
90809596|NCT02488135|181497208|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0022|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between groups for pain during placement.||||0.0022
90809597|NCT02488135|181497208|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0007|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between groups for pain during treatment.||||0.0007
90809598|NCT02488135|181497208|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0021|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between scores for pain during removal.||||0.0021
90809599|NCT03172884|181497260|OTHER||LS means|1.385|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.921|2.081||||||Moderate Hepatic Impairment vs Healthy Subjects||2.081|0.921|
90809600|NCT03172884|181497260|OTHER||LS means|1.445|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.998|2.093||||||Severe hepatic impairment group vs Healthy Subjects||2.093|0.998|
90809601|NCT03172884|181497260|OTHER||LS means|0.646|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.486|0.858||||||Severe renal impairment group vs Healthy Subjects||0.858|0.486|
90809602|NCT03172884|181497261|OTHER||LS Means|1.711|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.148|2.55||||||Moderate Hepatic Impairment group vs Healthy Subjects||2.550|1.148|
90809603|NCT03172884|181497261|OTHER||LS Means|2.705|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.115|3.46||||||Severe hepatic impairment group vs Healthy Subjects||3.460|2.115|
90809604|NCT03172884|181497261|OTHER||LS Means|1.075|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.696|1.659||||||Severe renal impairment group vs Healthy Subjects||1.659|0.696|
90809605|NCT03172884|181497262|OTHER||LS Means|1.768|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.251|2.498||||||Moderate Hepatic Impairment group vs Healthy Subjects||2.498|1.251|
90809606|NCT03172884|181497262|OTHER||LS Means|2.735|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.163|3.459||||||Severe hepatic impairment group vs Healthy Subjects||3.459|2.163|
90809607|NCT03172884|181497262|OTHER||LS Means|1.124|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.815|1.549||||||Severe renal impairment group vs Healthy Subjects||1.549|0.815|
90809608|NCT00778258|181497267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|0.77||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.93|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.93|0.31|0.58
90809609|NCT00778258|181497268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|1.13||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|2.68|||Chi-squared|||Progression comparison at 12 Months||2.68|0.48|0.78
90809610|NCT00778258|181497268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|0.81||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.91|||Chi-squared|||Progression comparison at 24 Months||1.91|0.34|0.62
90809611|NCT00778258|181497269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison at 12 Months||||0.14
90809612|NCT00778258|181497269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison at 24 Months||||0.17
90809613|NCT00778258|181497269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison at 36 Months||||0.33
90809614|NCT00778258|181497270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.41
90809615|NCT00778258|181497271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.09
90809616|NCT00778258|181497271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||||||Null hypothesis is that correlation = 0|Spearman's Correlation|||||||0.01
90809617|NCT00778258|181497272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Analysis on Betalactoglobulin||||<0.01
90809618|NCT00778258|181497272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||Null hypothesis is that correlation = 0|Spearman Correlation|||Analysis on Betalactoglobulin IgE||||<0.01
90809619|NCT00778258|181497272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Analysis on Casein IgE||||<0.01
90809620|NCT00778258|181497272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||Null hypothesis is that correlation = 0|Spearman Correlation|||Analysis on Casein IgE||||<0.01
90809621|NCT00778258|181497272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Analysis on Cow's Milk IgE||||<0.01
90809622|NCT00778258|181497272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||Null hypothesis is that correlation = 0|Spearman Correlation|||Analysis on Cow's Milk IgE||||<0.01
90809623|NCT00778258|181497273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Analysis on Max Basophil Assessment||||0.01
90809624|NCT00778258|181497273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22||||||Null hypothesis is that correlation = 0|Spearman Correlation|||Analysis on Max Basophil Assessment||||0.22
90809625|NCT00778258|181497273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Analysis on Tregs||||0.59
90809626|NCT00778258|181497273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32||||||Null hypothesis is that correlation = 0|Spearman Correlation|||Analysis on Tregs||||0.32
90809627|NCT00778258|181497274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.50
90809628|NCT00778258|181497275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033||||||Correlation = -0.18|Spearman Correlation|||Baseline Comparison||||0.033
90809629|NCT00778258|181497275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||||||Correlation = -0.34|Spearman Correlation|||Month 12 Comparison||||0.002
90809630|NCT00778258|181497275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.156||||||Correlation = -0.20|Spearman Correlation|||Month 24 Comparison||||0.156
90809631|NCT00778258|181497275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.077||||||Correlation = -0.27|Spearman Correlation|||Month 36 Comparison||||0.077
90809632|NCT00778258|181497276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||36 Month Comparison||||<0.01
90809633|NCT04621240|181497283|SUPERIORITY|Mean level change from pre- to post-testing|Mean Difference (Net)|10.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90809634|NCT04621240|181497283|OTHER|Regression of the change in BrainHealth Index on age|Slope|0.03||||0.55|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.55
90809635|NCT01263015|181497291|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority could be concluded if the lower bound of a two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference (DTG + ABC/3TC minus EFV/TDF/FTC) in percentages between the two treatment arms was \> -10%.|Difference in percentage|7.3||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|12.2||P-value is for the test of superiority.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The estimated value reflects the percentage on DTG + ABC/3TC minus the percentage on EFV/TDF/FTC.|||12.2|2.3|0.003
90809636|NCT01263015|181497293|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority could be concluded if the lower bound of a two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference (DTG + ABC/3TC minus EFV/TDF/FTC) in percentages between the two treatment arms was \> -10%.|Difference in percentage|7.1||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|13.1||P-value is for the test of superiority.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Week 96:The estimated value reflects the percentage on DTG + ABC/3TC minus the percentage on EFV/TDF/FTC.|||13.1|1.2|0.016
90809637|NCT01263015|181497293|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority could be concluded if the lower bound of a two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference (DTG + ABC/3TC minus EFV/TDF/FTC) in percentages between the two treatment arms was \>-10%.|Difference in percentage|8.3||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|14.6||P-value is for the test of superiority.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Week 144:Estimated value reflects the percentage on DTG + ABC/3TC minus the percentage on EFV/TDF/FTC.|||14.6|1.9|0.010
90809638|NCT01263015|181497296|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Adjusted mean is the estimated mean change from baseline (BL) in CD4 + Cell Count at Week 144 in each arm calculated from a repeated measures model including the following covariates: treatment, visit, BL plasma HIV-1 RNA, BL CD4 cell count, treatment\*visit interaction, BL HIV-1 RNA\*visit interaction and BL CD4 cell count\*visit interaction. No assumptions were made about the correlations between a par.'s readings of CD4 i.e. the correlation matrix for within-subject errors is unstructured.||||||0.003||95.0||||P-value is for the test of superiority.|Repeated Measure Mixed Model|||||||0.003
91054828|NCT02792699|181991511|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean|152371.4|||||||||||||Estimated using an analysis of covariance model adjusted for weight and geographic region.|||||
91054829|NCT02792699|181991511|OTHER||LS Geometric Mean|159236.0|||||||||||||Estimated using an analysis of covariance model adjusted for weight and geographic region.|||||
90809639|NCT00303446|181497313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28||95.0|||||Generalized estimating equation model|The analysis includes percent change from baseline at 12 and 24 months.||||||0.28
90809640|NCT00303446|181497314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86||95.0|||||Generalized estimating equation model|The analysis includes change from baseline at 12 and 24 months.||||||0.86
90809641|NCT00303446|181497315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47||95.0|||||Generalized estimating equation model|The analysis includes change from baseline at 12 and 24 months.||Comparison of changes from baseline in manual muscle testing results.||||0.47
90809642|NCT00303446|181497316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13||95.0|||||Generalized estimating equation model|The analysis includes change from baseline at 12 and 24 months.||||||0.13
90809643|NCT00303446|181497317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46||95.0|||||Generalized estimating equation model|The analysis includes change from baseline at 12 and 24 months.||||||0.46
90809644|NCT00303446|181497318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11||95.0|||||Generalized estimating equation model|The analysis includes change from baseline at 12 and 24 months.||||||0.11
90809645|NCT00303446|181497319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08||95.0|||||Generalized estimating equation model|The analysis includes change from baseline at 12 and 24 months.||||||0.08
90809646|NCT00303446|181497320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73||95.0|||||Generalized estimating equation model|The analysis includes change from baseline at 12 and 24 months.||||||0.73
90809647|NCT00303446|181497321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37||95.0|||||Generalized estimating equation model|The analysis includes change from baseline at 12 and 24 months.||||||0.37
90809648|NCT00303446|181497322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65||95.0|||||Generalized estimating equation model|The analysis includes change from baseline at 12 and 24 months.||||||0.65
90809649|NCT00303446|181497323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99||95.0|||||Generalized estimating equation model|The analysis includes change from baseline at 12 and 24 months.||||||0.99
90809650|NCT00303446|181497324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Generalized estimating equation model|The analysis includes change from baseline at 12 and 24 months.||||||1.0
90809651|NCT00303446|181497325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014||95.0|||||Generalized estimating equation model|The analysis includes change from baseline at 12 and 24 months.||||||0.014
90809652|NCT00303446|181497326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033||95.0||||Generalized estimating equation model showed a significant interaction between time and treatment; therefore a two sample t-test was used at each time point. P-value is given for comparison at 24 months.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.033
90809653|NCT00303446|181497327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61||95.0|||||Generalized estimating equation model|The analysis includes change from baseline at 12 and 24 months.||||||0.61
91054830|NCT02792699|181991511|OTHER||LS Geometric Mean|172213.2|||||||||||||Estimated using an analysis of covariance model adjusted for weight and geographic region.|||||
91014980|NCT03655951|181912540|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing post-intervention scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.2|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.20
91014981|NCT03655951|181912541|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing post-intervention scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.69|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.69
90809654|NCT00450294|181497336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||That the means at the different timepoints would not all be equal.|ANOVA|||Repeated measures anova with post hoc t-tests using tukey's correction.||||<0.001
90809655|NCT00450294|181497337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||That the means at the different timepoints would not all be equal.|ANOVA|||Repeated measures anova with post hoc t-tests using tukey's correction.||||<0.001
90809656|NCT05243745|181497357|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136||0.499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.18|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product as a factor and baseline Schiff sensitivity score as a covariate.|Adjusted Mean Difference was calculated as Test value minus Comparator 1 value.|Change from Baseline at Day 3||0.18|-0.36|0.4990
90809657|NCT05243745|181497357|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.135|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.29|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product as a factor and baseline Schiff sensitivity score as a covariate.|Adjusted Mean Difference was calculated as Test value minus Comparator 2 value.|Change from Baseline at Day 3||-0.29|-0.83|<0.0001
90809658|NCT05243745|181497357|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.56|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product as a factor and baseline Schiff sensitivity score as a covariate.|Adjusted Mean Difference is calculated as Test value minus Negative Control value.|Change from Baseline at Day 3||-0.56|-1.10|<0.0001
90809659|NCT05243745|181497357|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.112||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.08|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product as a factor and baseline Schiff sensitivity score as a covariate.|Adjusted Mean Difference was calculated as Test value minus Comparator 1 value.|Change from Baseline at Day 14||-0.08|-0.52|0.0090
90809660|NCT05243745|181497357|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.111|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.45|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product as a factor and baseline Schiff sensitivity score as a covariate.|Adjusted Mean Difference was calculated as Test value minus Comparator 2 value.|Change from Baseline at Day 14||-0.45|-0.89|<0.0001
90809661|NCT05243745|181497357|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.112|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|-1.22|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product as a factor and baseline Schiff sensitivity score as a covariate.|Adjusted Mean Difference was calculated as Test value minus Negative Control value.|Change from Baseline at Day 14||-1.22|-1.66|<0.0001
90809662|NCT05243745|181497357|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.17|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product as a factor and baseline Schiff sensitivity score as a covariate.|Adjusted Mean Difference was calculated as Test value minus Comparator 1 value.|Change from Baseline at Day 28||-0.17|-0.63|0.0007
90809663|NCT05243745|181497357|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.39|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product as a factor and baseline Schiff sensitivity score as a covariate.|Adjusted Mean Difference was calculated as Test value minus Comparator 2 value.|Change from Baseline at Day 28||-0.39|-0.85|<0.0001
90809664|NCT05243745|181497357|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|-1.38|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product as a factor and baseline Schiff sensitivity score as a covariate.|Adjusted Mean Difference was calculated as Test value minus Negative Control value.|Change from Baseline at Day 28||-1.38|-1.85|<0.0001
91014982|NCT03655951|181912542|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.48|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.48
91077804|NCT02913105|182041131|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.183||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.793|-0.187|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 56||-0.187|-0.793|0.0085
90809665|NCT05243745|181497357|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.112||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.14|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product as a factor and baseline Schiff sensitivity score as a covariate.|Adjusted Mean Difference was calculated as Test value minus Comparator 1 value.|Change from Baseline at Day 56||-0.14|-0.59|0.0015
90809666|NCT05243745|181497357|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.113|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.61|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product as a factor and baseline Schiff sensitivity score as a covariate.|Adjusted Mean Difference was calculated as Test value minus Comparator 2 value.|Change from Baseline at Day 56||-0.61|-1.05|<0.0001
90809667|NCT05243745|181497357|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.115|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|-1.49|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product as a factor and baseline Schiff sensitivity score as a covariate.|Adjusted Mean Difference was calculated as Test value minus Negative Control.|Change from Baseline at Day 56||-1.49|-1.95|<0.0001
91014983|NCT03655951|181912543|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.36|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.36
91014984|NCT03655951|181912544|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing post-intervention scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.48|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.48
90809668|NCT05243745|181497358|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|5.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.572||0.0231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|11.02|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product, baseline Schiff stratification as a factor and baseline tactile threshold as covariate.|Adjusted Mean Difference was calculated as Test value minus Comparator 1 value.|Change from Baseline at Day 3||11.02|0.83|0.0231
90809669|NCT05243745|181497358|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|18.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.549|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.37|23.47|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product, baseline Schiff stratification as a factor and baseline tactile threshold as covariate.|Adjusted Mean Difference was calculated as Test value minus Comparator 2 value.|Change from Baseline at Day 3||23.47|13.37|<0.0001
90809670|NCT05243745|181497358|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|23.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.571|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.83|29.02|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product, baseline Schiff stratification as a factor and baseline tactile threshold as covariate.|Adjusted Mean Difference was calculated as Test value minus Negative Control.|Change from Baseline at Day 3||29.02|18.83|<0.0001
90809671|NCT05243745|181497358|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|8.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.293||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.43|13.51|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product, baseline Schiff stratification as a factor and baseline tactile threshold as covariate.|Adjusted Mean Difference was calculated as Test value minus Comparator 1 value.|Change from Baseline at Day 14||13.51|4.43|0.0002
90809672|NCT05243745|181497358|SUPERIORITY||Slope|17.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.265|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.22|22.2|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product, baseline Schiff stratification as a factor and baseline tactile threshold as covariate.|Adjusted Mean Difference was calculated as Test value minus Comparator 2 value.|Change from Baseline at Day 14||22.20|13.22|<0.0001
90809673|NCT05243745|181497358|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|32.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.288|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.27|37.34|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product, baseline Schiff stratification as a factor and baseline tactile threshold as covariate.|Adjusted Mean Difference was calculated as Test value minus Negative Control.|Change from Baseline at Day 14||37.34|28.27|<0.0001
90809674|NCT05243745|181497358|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|10.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.485|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.28|15.13|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product, baseline Schiff stratification as a factor and baseline tactile threshold as covariate.|Adjusted Mean Difference was calculated as Test value minus Comparator 1 value.|Change from Baseline at Day 28||15.13|5.28|<0.0001
90809675|NCT05243745|181497358|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|13.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.46|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.05|18.8|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product, baseline Schiff stratification as a factor and baseline tactile threshold as covariate.|Adjusted Mean Difference was calculated as Test value minus Comparator 2 value.|Change from Baseline at Day 28||18.80|9.05|<0.0001
90809676|NCT05243745|181497358|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|36.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.568|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.42|41.6|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product, baseline Schiff stratification as a factor and baseline tactile threshold as covariate.|Adjusted Mean Difference was calculated as Test value minus Negative Control.|Change from Baseline at Day 28||41.60|31.42|<0.0001
90809677|NCT05243745|181497358|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|9.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.761||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.26|15.2|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product, baseline Schiff stratification as a factor and baseline tactile threshold as covariate.|Adjusted Mean Difference was calculated as Test value minus Comparator 1 value.|Change from Baseline at Day 56||15.20|4.26|0.0006
90809678|NCT05243745|181497358|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|19.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.772|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.57|24.55|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product, baseline Schiff stratification as a factor and baseline tactile threshold as covariate.|Adjusted Mean Difference was calculated as Test value minus Comparator 2 value.|Change from Baseline at Day 56||24.55|13.57|<0.0001
90809679|NCT05243745|181497358|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|39.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.829|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.73|44.94|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product, baseline Schiff stratification as a factor and baseline tactile threshold as covariate.|Adjusted Mean Difference was calculated as Test value minus Negative Control value.|Change from Baseline at Day 56||44.94|33.73|<0.0001
90809680|NCT02998203|181497368|OTHER|One-sample t-test|||||<|0.001|||||||One-sample t-test|||A one-sample t-test was used to assess whether the percent change was different than zero.||||<0.001
90809681|NCT02998203|181497369|OTHER|non-parametric Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||The overall differences in the medians of biomarkers between the conventional and the organic periods were assessed with the non-parametric Wilcoxon rank sum test||||<0.001
90809682|NCT02998203|181497370|OTHER|Linear mixed-effect regression model|||||<|0.001||||||Multiple testing was accounted for using the Benjamini-Hochberg method, considering 58 regression parameter tests of the aforementioned models. Q-value\<0.05 were considered statistically significant (controlling the false discovery rate at 5%).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
90809683|NCT02998203|181497371|OTHER|Wilcoxon rank sum test||||||0.017|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||The overall differences in the medians of biomarkers between the conventional and the organic periods were assessed with the non-parametric Wilcoxon rank sum test||||0.017
90809684|NCT02998203|181497372|OTHER|Logistic mixed-effect model||||||0.014||||||Multiple testing was accounted for using the Benjamini-Hochberg method, considering 58 regression parameter tests of the aforementioned models. Q-value\<0.05 were considered statistically significant (controlling the false discovery rate at 5%).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.014
90809685|NCT02998203|181497373|OTHER|One-sample t-test||||||0.167|||||||One-sample t-test|||A one-sample t-test was used to assess whether the percent change was different than zero.||||0.167
90809686|NCT02998203|181497374|OTHER|Wilcoxon rank sum test||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||The overall differences in the medians of biomarkers between the conventional and the organic periods were assessed with the non-parametric Wilcoxon rank sum test||||0.07
90809687|NCT02998203|181497375|OTHER|Linear mixed-effect regression model||||||0.014||||||Multiple testing was accounted for using the Benjamini-Hochberg method, considering 58 regression parameter tests of the aforementioned models. Q-value\<0.05 were considered statistically significant (controlling the false discovery rate at 5%).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.014
90809688|NCT02998203|181497376|OTHER|One-sample t-test||||||0.023|||||||One-sample t-test|||A one-sample t-test was used to assess whether the percent change was different than zero.||||0.023
90809689|NCT02998203|181497377|OTHER|Wilcoxon rank sum test||||||0.259|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||The overall differences in the medians of biomarkers between the conventional and the organic periods were assessed with the non-parametric Wilcoxon rank sum test||||0.259
90809690|NCT02998203|181497378|OTHER|Linear mixed-effect regression model|||||<|0.001||||||Multiple testing was accounted for using the Benjamini-Hochberg method, considering 58 regression parameter tests of the aforementioned models. Q-value\<0.05 were considered statistically significant (controlling the false discovery rate at 5%).|Mixed Models Analysis|||The interaction term for time and treatment was included in the models since it met the threshold of p-value\<0. 05. Specifically, for the interaction term of time and organic treatment b=-0.016, 95% CI=\[-0.023,-0.010\], p-value=\<0.001.||||<0.001
90809691|NCT02998203|181497379|OTHER|One-sample t-test||||||0.913|||||||One-sample t-test|||A one-sample t-test was used to assess whether the percent change was different than zero.||||0.913
90809692|NCT02998203|181497380|OTHER|Wilcoxon rank sum test||||||0.338|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||The overall differences in the medians of biomarkers between the conventional and the organic periods were assessed with the non-parametric Wilcoxon rank sum test||||0.338
91014985|NCT03655951|181912545|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing post-intervention scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.41|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.41
91014986|NCT03655951|181912546|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing post-intervention scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.87|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.87
91054831|NCT02792699|181991511|EQUIVALENCE|PK similarity between the test (ABP 798) and reference (rituximab \[US\]) for AUCinf was demonstrated if the 90% CI for the GMR following the second infusion of the first dose was within the bioequivalence criteria of 0.8 to 1.25.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.9569|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.887|1.0323||||||The geometric mean ratio (GMR) and confidence interval (CI) was estimated from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model adjusted for weight and geographic region. The GMR was obtained by exponentiating the difference of the means on the natural log scale. The CI was obtained by exponentiating the CI for the difference between the means on the log scale.||1.0323|0.8870|
90809693|NCT02998203|181497381|OTHER|Linear mixed-effect regression model||||||0.001||||||Multiple testing was accounted for using the Benjamini-Hochberg method, considering 58 regression parameter tests of the aforementioned models. Q-value\<0.05 were considered statistically significant (controlling the false discovery rate at 5%).|Mixed Models Analysis|||The interaction term for time and treatment was included in the models since it met the threshold of p-value\<0. 05. Specifically, for the interaction term of time and organic treatment b=-0.016, 95% CI=\[-0.023,-0.010\], p-value=0.01.||||0.001
90809694|NCT04187144|181497421|NON_INFERIORITY|The difference in success rate between treatment groups (gepotidacin - nitrofurantoin) was calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen Summary Score Method adjusted for age group and acute cystitis recurrence strata combinations. Criteria for non-inferiority is if the Z-statistic for non-inferiority is greater than the 2.098 Z-statistic boundary.|Adjusted Difference in Percent|14.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.4|22.8|||||||Observed Z statistic value for Noninferiority was 5.8838.|22.8|6.4|
90809695|NCT04187144|181497421|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in Percent|14.6||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.4|22.8|||1-sided p-value for Test of Superiority|||The difference in success rate between treatment groups (gepotidacin - nitrofurantoin) was calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen Summary Score Method adjusted for age group and acute cystitis recurrence strata combinations. Criteria for superiority is if the one-sided p-value is less than the 0.018 p-value boundary||22.8|6.4|0.0003
91014987|NCT03655951|181912547|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing post-intervention scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.8|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.8
91054832|NCT02792699|181991511|EQUIVALENCE|PK similarity between the test (ABP 798) and reference (rituximab \[EU\]) for AUCinf was demonstrated if the 90% CI for the GMR following the second infusion of the first dose was within the bioequivalence criteria of 0.8 to 1.25.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.8848|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8204|0.9542||||||The geometric mean ratio (GMR) and confidence interval (CI) was estimated from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model adjusted for weight and geographic region. The GMR was obtained by exponentiating the difference of the means on the natural log scale. The CI was obtained by exponentiating the CI for the difference between the means on the log scale.||0.9542|0.8204|
90809696|NCT01962987|181497464|EQUIVALENCE|90% confidence interval of the difference in the percentage of patients between Test and Reference to be contained within -20%, + 20%, using the Per-Protocol Population.|(Test-Ref) Difference|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.06|9.42|||||Applicable to Percentage of Subjects with Cure (100% complete AK clearance at day 90)|||9.42|-8.06|
90809697|NCT01962987|181497464|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0010
90809698|NCT01468207|181497465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted mean difference|15.9|||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|26.5||P-value adjusted for baseline Hurley Stage.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||26.5|5.3|=0.003
90809699|NCT01468207|181497465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.8|||=|0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|29.3|||Chi-squared|||||29.3|0.3|=0.048
90809700|NCT01468207|181497465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.1|||=|0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|32.1|||Chi-squared|||||32.1|2.2|=0.027
91014988|NCT03655951|181912548|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing post-intervention scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.32|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.32
91014989|NCT03655951|181912549|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing post-intervention scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.03|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.03
91014990|NCT03655951|181912550|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing post-intervention scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.05
90809701|NCT01468207|181497466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|||=|0.961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|14.1|||Chi-squared|||Secondary end points 1 (AN 0/1/2 counts), 2 (NRS30), and 3 (modified Sartorius score) were ranked analyses.||14.1|-13.4|=0.961
90809702|NCT01468207|181497467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted mean difference|2.8|||=|0.628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|14.2||P-value adjusted for baseline Hurley Stage.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Secondary end points 1 (AN 0/1/2 counts), 2 (NRS30), and 3 (modified Sartorius score) were ranked analyses.||14.2|-8.6|=0.628
90809703|NCT01468207|181497468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-8.7|||=|0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|2.4|||ANCOVA|P-value calculated from ANCOVA with stratum, baseline, and treatment as covariates.||Secondary end points 1 (AN 0/1/2 counts), 2 (NRS30), and 3 (modified Sartorius score) were ranked analyses.||2.4|-19.7|=0.124
90809704|NCT02019108|181497564|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.5||a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05|ANCOVA|Controlling for baseline values.||This is the comparison between Gait Modification Group and Walking Only Group at 17 weeks.||0.5|-1.1|0.495
90809705|NCT02019108|181497564|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.1||a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05|ANCOVA|Controlling for baseline values.||This is the comparison between Gait Modification Group and Walking Only Group at 21 weeks.||0.1|-1.6|0.079
90809706|NCT02019108|181497565|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.3||a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05|ANCOVA|Controlling for baseline values.||This is the comparison between Gait Modification Group and Walking Only Group at 17 weeks.||0.3|-2.6|0.117
91014991|NCT03655951|181912551|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing post-intervention scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.04|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.04
90809707|NCT02019108|181497565|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.3||a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05|ANCOVA|Controlling for baseline values.||This is the comparison between Gait Modification Group and Walking Only Group at 21 weeks.||0.3|-2.5|0.133
90809708|NCT02019108|181497566|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.04||a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05|ANCOVA|Controlling for baseline values and walking speed.||This is the comparison between Gait Modification Group and Walking Only Group at 17 weeks||0.04|-0.31|0.125
90809709|NCT02019108|181497566|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.03||a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05|ANCOVA|Controlling for baseline values and walking speed.||This is the comparison between Gait Modification Group and Walking Only Group at 21 weeks||0.03|-0.37|0.103
90809710|NCT02019108|181497567|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|-0.12||a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05|ANCOVA|Controlling for baseline values and walking speed.||This is the comparison between Gait Modification Group and Walking Only Group at 17 weeks.||-0.12|-0.39|<0.001
90809711|NCT02019108|181497567|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.01||a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05|ANCOVA|Controlling for baseline values and walking speed.||This is the comparison between Gait Modification Group and Walking Only Group at 21 weeks.||0.01|-0.40|0.056
90809712|NCT02019108|181497568|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|-0.01||a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05|ANCOVA|Controlling for baseline values and walking speed.||This is the comparison between Gait Modification Group and Walking Only Group at 17 weeks.||-0.01|-0.11|0.031
90809713|NCT02019108|181497568|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.0||a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05|ANCOVA|Controlling for baseline values and walking speed.||This is the comparison between Gait Modification Group and Walking Only Group at 21 weeks.||0.00|-0.12|0.058
90809714|NCT02019108|181497569|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.22|-6.86||a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05.|ANCOVA|Controlling for baseline values and walking speed.||This is the comparison between Gait Modification Group and Walking Only Group at 17 weeks.||-6.86|-11.22|<0.001
90809715|NCT02019108|181497569|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.82|-4.75||a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05.|ANCOVA|Controlling for baseline values and walking speed.||This is the comparison between Gait Modification Group and Walking Only Group at 21 weeks.||-4.75|-8.82|<0.001
90809716|NCT02019108|181497570|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.7||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|0.9||a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05.|ANCOVA|Controlling for baseline values.||This is the comparison between Gait Modification Group and Walking Only Group at 17 weeks.||0.9|-8.3|0.111
91014992|NCT03655951|181912552|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing post-intervention scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.42|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.42
91014993|NCT03655951|181912553|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing post-intervention scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.11|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.11
91014994|NCT03655951|181912554|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing post-intervention scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.0003|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.0003
91014995|NCT03655951|181912555|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing post-intervention scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.97|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.97
91014996|NCT03655951|181912556|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing post-intervention scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.08|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.08
91014997|NCT03655951|181912557|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing post-intervention scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.7|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.70
90809717|NCT02019108|181497570|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7||||0.232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|1.8||a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05.|ANCOVA|Controlling for baseline values.||This is the comparison between Gait Modification Group and Walking Only Group at 21 weeks.||1.8|-7.3|0.232
90809718|NCT02019108|181497571|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||0.462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.78||a priori threshold for significance \<0.05.|ANCOVA|Controlling for baseline values.||This is the comparison between Gait Modification Group and Walking Only Group at 17 weeks.||0.78|-0.36|0.462
90809719|NCT02019108|181497571|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11||||0.737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.54||a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05.|ANCOVA|Controlling for baseline values.||This is the comparison between Gait Modification Group and Walking Only Group at 21 weeks.||0.54|-0.76|0.737
90809720|NCT02019108|181497572|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.43||a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05|ANCOVA|Controlling for baseline values and walking speed.||This is the comparison between Gait Modification Group and Walking Only Group at 17 weeks.||0.43|-0.50|0.876
90809721|NCT02019108|181497572|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.49||a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05|ANCOVA|Controlling for baseline values and walking speed.||This is the comparison between Gait Modification Group and Walking Only Group at 21 weeks.||0.49|-0.43|0.897
90809722|NCT03392883|181497576|OTHER|Paired version (T-test for paired sample, Friedman and McNemar tests) was used for contrasting the equality among the variables at different moments of time. In order to adjust our results by potential confounders, ANCOVA analyses was performed. Symmetric 95% confidence intervals will be provided for relevant parameters. All p-values were referred to two-sided hypotheses. P-values below 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||p\<0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||We analyzed changes over time for every subscale. This Statistical Analysis describes the Adoption subscale results.||||<0.001
90809723|NCT03392883|181497576|OTHER|||||||0.552||||||p\<0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||We analyzed changes over time for every subscale in this instrument. This Statistical Analysis describes the Acceptability subscale results.||||0.552
91014998|NCT03655951|181912558|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing post-intervention scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.03|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.03
90809724|NCT03392883|181497576|OTHER|||||||0.32||||||p\<0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||We analyzed changes over time for every subscale in this instrument. This Statistical Analysis describes the Appropriateness subscale results.||||0.320
90809725|NCT03392883|181497576|OTHER|||||||0.879||||||p\<0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||We analyzed changes over time for every subscale in this instrument. This Statistical Analysis describes the Feasibility subscale results.||||0.879
90809726|NCT03392883|181497576|OTHER|||||||0.242||||||p\<0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||We analyzed changes over time for every subscale in this instrument. This Statistical Analysis describes the Reach/Access subscale results.||||0.242
90809727|NCT03392883|181497577|OTHER|||||||0.237||||||p\<0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance.|Regression, Linear|||We analyzed changes over time in this data for every sub-scale. This Statistical Analysis describes the Adoption subscale results.||||0.237
90809728|NCT03392883|181497577|OTHER|||||||0.492||||||p\<0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance.|Regression, Linear|||We analyzed changes over time in this data for every sub-scale. This Statistical Analysis describes the Accessibility subscale results.||||0.492
90809729|NCT03392883|181497577|OTHER|||||||0.285||||||p\<0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance.|Regression, Linear|||We analyzed changes over time in this data for every sub-scale. This Statistical Analysis describes the Appropriateness subscale results.||||0.285
90809730|NCT03392883|181497577|OTHER|||||||0.964||||||p\<0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance.|Regression, Linear|||We analyzed changes over time in this data for every sub-scale. This Statistical Analysis describes the Feasibility subscale results.||||0.964
90809731|NCT03392883|181497577|OTHER|||||||0.942||||||p\<0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance.|Regression, Linear|||We analyzed changes over time in this data for every sub-scale. This Statistical Analysis describes the Resources subscale results.||||0.942
90809732|NCT03392883|181497577|OTHER|||||||0.366||||||p\<0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance.|Regression, Linear|||We analyzed changes over time in this data for every sub-scale. This Statistical Analysis describes the Scope subscale results.||||0.366
90809733|NCT03392883|181497577|OTHER|||||||0.021||||||p\<0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance.|Regression, Linear|||We analyzed changes over time in this data for every sub-scale. This Statistical Analysis describes the Organizational Climate subscale results.||||0.021
90809734|NCT03392883|181497577|OTHER|||||||0.832||||||p\<0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance.|Regression, Linear|||We analyzed changes over time in this data for every sub-scale. This Statistical Analysis describes the Leadership in Implementing subscale results.||||0.832
91014999|NCT03655951|181912559|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing post-intervention scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.29|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.29
90809735|NCT03392883|181497577|OTHER|||||||0.827||||||p\<0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance.|Regression, Linear|||We analyzed changes over time in this data for every sub-scale. This Statistical Analysis describes the General Leadership Skills subscale results.||||0.827
91015000|NCT03655951|181912560|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing post-intervention scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.36|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.36
91015001|NCT03655951|181912561|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing post-intervention scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.61|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.61
91054833|NCT02792699|181991511|EQUIVALENCE|PK similarity between the test (rituximab \[US\]) and reference (rituximab \[EU\]) for AUCinf was demonstrated if the 90% CI for the GMR following the second infusion of the first dose was within the bioequivalence criteria of 0.8 to 1.25.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.9246|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8575|0.997||||||The geometric mean ratio (GMR) and confidence interval (CI) was estimated from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model adjusted for weight and geographic region. The GMR was obtained by exponentiating the difference of the means on the natural log scale. The CI was obtained by exponentiating the CI for the difference between the means on the log scale.||0.9970|0.8575|
90809736|NCT03392883|181497578|OTHER|||||||0.118||||||p\<0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance.|Regression, Linear|||We analyzed changes over time in this data for every sub-scale. This Statistical Analysis describes the Adoption subscale results.||||0.118
90809737|NCT03392883|181497578|OTHER|||||||0.896||||||p\<0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance.|Regression, Linear|||We analyzed changes over time in this data for every sub-scale. This Statistical Analysis describes the Accessibility subscale results.||||0.896
90809738|NCT03392883|181497578|OTHER|||||||0.739||||||p\<0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance.|Regression, Linear|||We analyzed changes over time in this data for every sub-scale. This Statistical Analysis describes the Appropriateness subscale results.||||0.739
91015002|NCT03655951|181912562|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing post-intervention scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.72|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.72
91015003|NCT03655951|181912563|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing post-intervention scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.05
91015004|NCT03655951|181912564|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing post-intervention scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.09|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.09
91015005|NCT03655951|181912565|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing post-intervention scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.69|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.69
91015006|NCT03655951|181912566|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing post-intervention scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.11|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.11
91054834|NCT02792699|181991512|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean|368.43|||||||||||||Estimated using an analysis of covariance model adjusted for weight and geographic region.|||||
91054835|NCT02792699|181991512|OTHER||LS Geometric Mean|374.44|||||||||||||Estimated using an analysis of covariance model adjusted for weight and geographic region.|||||
90809739|NCT03392883|181497578|OTHER|||||||0.724||||||p\<0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance.|Regression, Linear|||We analyzed changes over time in this data for every sub-scale. This Statistical Analysis describes the Feasibility subscale results.||||0.724
90809740|NCT03392883|181497578|OTHER|||||||0.301||||||p\<0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance.|Regression, Linear|||We analyzed changes over time in this data for every sub-scale. This Statistical Analysis describes the Adoption subscale results.||||0.301
90809741|NCT03392883|181497578|OTHER|||||||0.034||||||p\<0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance.|Regression, Linear|||We analyzed changes over time in this data for every sub-scale. This Statistical Analysis describes the Organizational Climate subscale results.||||0.034
90809742|NCT03392883|181497578|OTHER|||||||0.015||||||p\<0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance.|Regression, Linear|||We analyzed changes over time in this data for every sub-scale. This Statistical Analysis describes the Leadership in Implementing subscale results.||||0.015
90809743|NCT03392883|181497578|OTHER|||||||0.081||||||p\<0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance.|Regression, Linear|||We analyzed changes over time in this data for every sub-scale. This Statistical Analysis describes the General Leadership Skills subscale results.||||0.081
91015007|NCT03655951|181912567|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing post-intervention scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.27|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.27
91054836|NCT02792699|181991512|OTHER||LS Geometric Mean|393.29|||||||||||||Estimated using an analysis of covariance model adjusted for weight and geographic region.|||||
91077805|NCT02913105|182041131|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.657|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.247||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.067|-0.247|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 84||-0.247|-1.067|0.0091
91015008|NCT03655951|181912568|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing post-intervention scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.83|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.83
91015009|NCT03655951|181912569|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing post-intervention scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.0001|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.0001
91015010|NCT03655951|181912570|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing post-intervention scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.2|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.20
91015011|NCT03655951|181912571|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing post-intervention scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.09|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.09
91015012|NCT03655951|181912572|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing post-intervention scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.62|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.62
90809744|NCT03392883|181497578|OTHER|||||||0.79||||||p\<0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance.|Regression, Linear|||We analyzed changes over time in this data for every sub-scale. This Statistical Analysis describes the Knowledge subscale results.||||0.790
90809745|NCT03392883|181497579|OTHER|||||||0.023||||||p\<0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance.|Regression, Linear|||We analyzed changes in the overall scores over time.||||0.023
90809746|NCT03392883|181497580|OTHER|||||||0.589||||||p\<0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance.|Regression, Linear|||We analyzed changes in the overall scores over time in this data.||||0.589
91015013|NCT03655951|181912573|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing post-intervention scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.29|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.29
91015014|NCT03655951|181912574|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing post-intervention scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.14|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.14
91015015|NCT03655951|181912575|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing post-intervention scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.008|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.008
90809747|NCT03392883|181497581|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.65|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||We analyzed changes over time by calculating the mean difference of the scores at baseline assessment and at 12-month follow-up assessment.||||
90809748|NCT03392883|181497582|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.48|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||We analyzed changes over time by calculating the mean difference of the total scores (sum of 12 items) at baseline assessment and at 12-month follow-up assessment.||||
90809749|NCT03392883|181497583|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.77|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||We analyzed changes over time by calculating the mean difference of the scores at baseline assessment and at 12-month follow-up assessment.||||
91078180|NCT03046056|182041824|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-31.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|27.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-76.0|15.0||||||Diff in LSM, and its 90% CI were from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline segmental MaRIA score, concomitant use of oral, systemically absorbed corticosteroids at baseline, concomitant use of immunomodulators at baseline, prior exposure to biologics, and treatment group.||15|-76|
90809750|NCT03392883|181497584|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.59|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||We analyzed changes over time by calculating the mean difference of the number of standard drinks per week at baseline assessment and at 12-month follow-up assessment.||||
90809751|NCT02642393|181497600|OTHER||Slope|1.256|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.943||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.594|3.106|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.106|-0.594|0.183
90809752|NCT02642393|181497601|OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.08||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.979|1.192|||Poisson Regression|||||1.192|0.979|0.124
90809753|NCT02642393|181497602|OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.154||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.046|1.273|||Poisson Regression|||||1.273|1.046|0.004
91015016|NCT03655951|181912576|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing post-intervention scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.02|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.02
90809754|NCT02642393|181497603|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.002
90809755|NCT02642393|181497604|OTHER|||||||0.497|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.497
90809756|NCT02642393|181497605|OTHER||Slope|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.385||0.856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.825|0.685|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.685|-0.825|0.856
90809757|NCT02642393|181497606|OTHER||Slope|0.076|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.226||0.736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.368|0.521|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Anxiety||0.521|-0.368|0.736
90809758|NCT02642393|181497606|OTHER||Slope|0.295|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.213||0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.124|0.714|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cognitive Function||0.714|-0.124|0.167
90809759|NCT02642393|181497606|OTHER||Slope|0.256|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.111||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.038|0.474|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Communication||0.474|0.038|0.022
90809760|NCT02642393|181497606|OTHER||Slope|0.095|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.173||0.584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.245|0.435|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Emotional and Behavioral Dyscontrol||0.435|-0.245|0.584
90809761|NCT02642393|181497606|OTHER||Slope|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.541|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Fatigue||0.541|-0.560|0.973
90809762|NCT02642393|181497606|OTHER||Slope|0.169|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.098|0.437|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Lower Extremity Function||0.437|-0.098|0.214
90809763|NCT02642393|181497606|OTHER||Slope|-0.334|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.304||0.271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.931|0.262|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Positive Affect and Well-Being||0.262|-0.931|0.271
90809764|NCT02642393|181497606|OTHER||Slope|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.355|0.194|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Stigma||0.194|-0.355|0.566
90809765|NCT02642393|181497606|OTHER||Slope|0.212|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.063|0.487|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Upper Extremity Function||0.487|-0.063|0.130
91015017|NCT03655951|181912577|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing post-intervention scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.03|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.03
91015018|NCT03655951|181912578|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing post-intervention scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.69|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.69
91015019|NCT03655951|181912579|EQUIVALENCE|Binary outcomes were assessed with logistic regression.||||||0.4|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||.4
91015020|NCT03655951|181912580|EQUIVALENCE|Binary outcomes were assessed with logistic regression.||||||0.02|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||.02
91015021|NCT03655951|181912581|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.27|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.27
91015022|NCT03655951|181912582|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.31|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.31
90809766|NCT02642393|181497606|OTHER||Slope|0.072|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.202||0.723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.325|0.468|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sleep Disturbance||0.468|-0.325|0.723
90809767|NCT02642393|181497606|OTHER||Slope|-0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.298||0.984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.592|0.579|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Satisfaction with Social Roles and Activities||0.579|-0.592|0.984
90809768|NCT02642393|181497606|OTHER||Slope|-0.253|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.317||0.426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.877|0.371|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Participation in Social Roles and Activities||0.371|-0.877|0.426
90809769|NCT02642393|181497607|OTHER||Slope|-0.106|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141||0.454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.382|0.171|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.171|-0.382|0.454
90809770|NCT02642393|181497608|OTHER||Slope|0.047|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.413||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.764|0.858|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.858|-0.764|0.910
90809771|NCT02642393|181497609|OTHER||Slope|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.295|0.215|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.215|-0.295|0.758
91054837|NCT02792699|181991512|EQUIVALENCE|PK similarity between the test (ABP 798) and reference (rituximab \[US\]) for Cmax was demonstrated if the 90% CI for the GMR following the second infusion of the first dose was within the bioequivalence criteria of 0.8 to 1.25.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.984|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9356|1.0348||||||The geometric mean ratio (GMR) and confidence interval (CI) was estimated from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model adjusted for weight and geographic region. The GMR was obtained by exponentiating the difference of the means on the natural log scale. The CI was obtained by exponentiating the CI for the difference between the means on the log scale.||1.0348|0.9356|
90809772|NCT02642393|181497610|OTHER||Slope|-0.208|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.803||0.796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.783|1.367|||Mixed Models Analysis|||BL to V01||1.367|-1.783|0.796
90809773|NCT02642393|181497610|OTHER||Slope|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.443||0.486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.156|4.355|||Mixed Models Analysis|||V10 to SV||4.355|-9.156|0.486
90809774|NCT00396006|181497630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0195|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0195
90809775|NCT00396006|181497634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-tests|||||||<0.0001
90809776|NCT00396006|181497635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-tests|||||||<0.0001
90809777|NCT00396006|181497637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1875|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.1875
90809778|NCT00396006|181497638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4375|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank|||||||0.4375
90809779|NCT02075047|181497666|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square (LS) mean|-4.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.47||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.14|-1.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: Results were obtained from a mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model treatment, visit, visit-by-treatment interaction, and weight category as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate along with participant as a random effect.||-1.32|-7.14|0.005
90809780|NCT02075047|181497667|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 1: Results were obtained from a mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model treatment, visit, visit-by-treatment interaction, and weight category as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate along with participant as a random effect.||-0.20|-0.69|<0.001
90809781|NCT02075047|181497667|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: Results were obtained from a mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model treatment, visit, visit-by-treatment interaction, and weight category as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate along with participant as a random effect.||0.10|-0.53|0.174
90809782|NCT02075047|181497667|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 3: Results were obtained from a mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model treatment, visit, visit-by-treatment interaction, and weight category as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate along with participant as a random effect.||-0.05|-0.71|0.024
90809783|NCT02075047|181497667|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: Results were obtained from a mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model treatment, visit, visit-by-treatment interaction, and weight category as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate along with participant as a random effect.||0.09|-0.64|0.138
90809784|NCT02075047|181497668|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-5.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.16|-3.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 1: Results were obtained from a mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model treatment, visit, visit-by-treatment interaction, and weight category as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate along with participant as a random effect.||-3.54|-8.16|<0.001
90809785|NCT02075047|181497668|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-4.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.74|-1.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: Results were obtained from a mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model treatment, visit, visit-by-treatment interaction, and weight category as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate along with participant as a random effect.||-1.59|-6.74|0.002
90809786|NCT02075047|181497668|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-5.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.31|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.21|-3.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 3: Results were obtained from a mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model treatment, visit, visit-by-treatment interaction, and weight category as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate along with participant as a random effect.||-3.04|-8.21|<0.001
90809787|NCT02075047|181497669|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 1: Results were obtained from a mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model treatment, visit, visit-by-treatment interaction, and weight category as fixed effects along with participant as a random effect.||-0.26|-0.78|0.001
90809788|NCT02075047|181497669|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: Results were obtained from a mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model treatment, visit, visit-by-treatment interaction, and weight category as fixed effects along with participant as a random effect.||0.16|-0.45|0.349
90809789|NCT02075047|181497669|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 3: Results were obtained from a mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model treatment, visit, visit-by-treatment interaction, and weight category as fixed effects along with participant as a random effect.||0.05|-0.57|0.103
90809790|NCT02075047|181497669|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: Results were obtained from a mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model treatment, visit, visit-by-treatment interaction, and weight category as fixed effects along with participant as a random effect.||-0.01|-0.68|0.044
90809791|NCT02075047|181497683|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 1: Results were obtained from a mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model treatment, visit, visit-by-treatment interaction, and weight category as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate along with participant as a random effect.||0.20|0.00|0.050
90809792|NCT02075047|181497683|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: Results were obtained from a mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model treatment, visit, visit-by-treatment interaction, and weight category as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate along with participant as a random effect.||0.25|-0.03|0.124
91015023|NCT03655951|181912583|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.11|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.11
90809793|NCT02075047|181497683|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 3: Results were obtained from a mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model treatment, visit, visit-by-treatment interaction, and weight category as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate along with participant as a random effect.||0.23|-0.01|0.084
90809794|NCT02075047|181497683|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: Results were obtained from a mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model treatment, visit, visit-by-treatment interaction, and weight category as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate along with participant as a random effect.||0.20|-0.02|0.104
90809795|NCT02075047|181497684|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 1: Results were obtained from a mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model treatment, visit, visit-by-treatment interaction, and weight category as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate along with participant as a random effect.||0.01|-0.06|0.169
90809796|NCT02075047|181497684|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: Results were obtained from a mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model treatment, visit, visit-by-treatment interaction, and weight category as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate along with participant as a random effect.||0.08|-0.10|0.893
90809797|NCT02075047|181497684|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 3: Results were obtained from a mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model treatment, visit, visit-by-treatment interaction, and weight category as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate along with participant as a random effect.||0.04|-0.04|0.915
90809798|NCT02075047|181497684|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: Results were obtained from a mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model treatment, visit, visit-by-treatment interaction, and weight category as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate along with participant as a random effect.||0.04|-0.01|0.289
90809799|NCT02075047|181497685|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 1: Results were obtained from a mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model treatment, visit, visit-by-treatment interaction, and weight category as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate along with participant as a random effect.||0.06|-0.01|0.145
91015024|NCT03655951|181912584|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.89|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.89
91015025|NCT03655951|181912585|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.41|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.41
91015026|NCT03655951|181912586|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.93|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.93
91015027|NCT03655951|181912587|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.83|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.83
91015028|NCT03655951|181912588|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.04|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.04
91015029|NCT03655951|181912589|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.13|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.13
91015030|NCT03655951|181912590|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.56|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.56
91015031|NCT03655951|181912591|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.96|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.96
90809800|NCT02075047|181497685|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: Results were obtained from a mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model treatment, visit, visit-by-treatment interaction, and weight category as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate along with participant as a random effect.||0.07|-0.01|0.148
90809801|NCT02075047|181497685|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 3: Results were obtained from a mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model treatment, visit, visit-by-treatment interaction, and weight category as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate along with participant as a random effect.||0.15|-0.01|0.082
90809802|NCT02075047|181497685|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: Results were obtained from a mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model treatment, visit, visit-by-treatment interaction, and weight category as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate along with participant as a random effect.||0.09|-0.00|0.070
90809803|NCT00075946|181497686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.88|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio is for Rituximab Retreatment Arm/Rituximab Scheduled Arm in follicular patients.|The primary analysis is to compare the time to rituximab failure (TTRF) between the retreatment arm and the scheduled arm in follicular patients.||1.88|0.90|0.33
90809804|NCT00075946|181497686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.75||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|6.19|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio is for Rituximab Retreatment Arm/Rituximab Scheduled Arm in non-follicular patients.|||6.19|1.22|0.012
91054838|NCT02792699|181991512|EQUIVALENCE|PK similarity between the test (ABP 798) and reference (rituximab \[EU\]) for Cmax was demonstrated if the 90% CI for the GMR following the second infusion of the first dose was within the bioequivalence criteria of 0.8 to 1.25.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.9368|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8912|0.9848||||||The geometric mean ratio (GMR) and confidence interval (CI) was estimated from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model adjusted for weight and geographic region. The GMR was obtained by exponentiating the difference of the means on the natural log scale. The CI was obtained by exponentiating the CI for the difference between the means on the log scale.||0.9848|0.8912|
91054839|NCT02792699|181991512|EQUIVALENCE|PK similarity between the test (rituximab \[US\]) and reference (rituximab \[EU\]) for Cmax was demonstrated if the 90% CI for the GMR following the second infusion of the first dose was within the bioequivalence criteria of 0.8 to 1.25.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.9521|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9055|1.001||||||The geometric mean ratio (GMR) and confidence interval (CI) was estimated from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model adjusted for weight and geographic region. The GMR was obtained by exponentiating the difference of the means on the natural log scale. The CI was obtained by exponentiating the CI for the difference between the means on the log scale.||1.0010|0.9055|
91054840|NCT02792699|181991513|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean|42203.8|||||||||||||Estimated using an analysis of covariance model adjusted for weight and geographic region.|||||
91054841|NCT02792699|181991513|OTHER||LS Geometric Mean|43378.8|||||||||||||Estimated using an analysis of covariance model adjusted for weight and geographic region.|||||
90809805|NCT00075946|181497687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.21||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|7.13|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio is for Rituximab Retreatment Arm/Rituximab Scheduled Arm in follicular patients.|||7.13|1.45|0.002
90809806|NCT00075946|181497687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0002
90809807|NCT00075946|181497688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.27|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.270
90809808|NCT03709277|181497689|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
90809809|NCT03709277|181497690|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.003
90809810|NCT03709277|181497692|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90809811|NCT01191736|181497699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|Null hypothesis: the medians for all seven arms are equal.||Kruskal-Wallis test for multiple comparisons||||.05
90809812|NCT01191736|181497700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|Null hypothesis: the proportions within the seven arms are equal.||Comparison of proportions of subjects who assessed responsiveness||||.05
90809813|NCT03655301|181497738|OTHER||Least squares mean|0.9405|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8093|1.0931||||||Day 8 (with copanlisib) to Day 1 (without copanlisib) ratio of Cmax||1.0931|0.8093|
90809814|NCT03655301|181497739|OTHER||Least squares mean|1.1205|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.2555||||||Day 8 (with copanlisib) to Day 1 (without copanlisib) ratio of AUC(0-24)||1.2555|1.0000|
91054842|NCT02792699|181991513|OTHER||LS Geometric Mean|44925.3|||||||||||||Estimated using an analysis of covariance model adjusted for weight and geographic region.|||||
91078181|NCT03046056|182041825|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-20.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|28.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-68.0|28.0||||||Diff in LSM, and its 90% CI were from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline segmental MaRIA score, concomitant use of oral, systemically absorbed corticosteroids at baseline, concomitant use of immunomodulators at baseline, prior exposure to biologics, and treatment group.||28|-68|
90809815|NCT03655301|181497740|OTHER||Least squares mean|1.1147|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9772|1.2714||||||Day 8 (with copanlisib) to Day 1 (without copanlisib) ratio of AUC||1.2714|0.9772|
90809816|NCT02950155|181497782|SUPERIORITY||probability ratio|2.48||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|5.11|||Fisher Exact|||The primary end-point was analyzed as an intention-to-treat analysis, with Fisher's exact test of the difference in proportion, with α=0·05 to indicate statistically significant difference||5.11|1.20|0.007
90809817|NCT02950155|181497783|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|2.1|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Subjects receiving rescue treatment before evaluation being censored (per-protocol analysis)||2.1|-4.4|0.79
90809818|NCT02950155|181497784|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|0.8|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Subjects receiving rescue treatment before evaluation being censored (per-protocol analysis)||0.8|-3.3|0.34
90809819|NCT02950155|181497785|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|3.8|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Subjects receiving rescue treatment before evaluation being censored (per-protocol analysis)||3.8|-8.2|0.47
90809820|NCT02950155|181497786|SUPERIORITY||probability ratio|1.89||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|3.44|||Fisher Exact|||||3.44|1.04|0.036
90809821|NCT03569748|181497793|NON_INFERIORITY|Margin=0.04|Proportion Difference|0.1342||||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0014|0.2671|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||H0: P1-P2 ≤ -Margin||0.2671|0.0014|0.0051
90809822|NCT03569748|181497794|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0003
90809823|NCT03569748|181497795|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|14.2||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.0003
90809824|NCT03219034|181497811|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|3.8||||0.152|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Cross-over design: Median differences between oral appliances at the end of the first 4-week leg of the study (T2). The hypothesis tested was that REI would be lowered more with Appliance A than B.||||0.152
91015032|NCT03655951|181912592|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.35|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.35
91054843|NCT02792699|181991513|EQUIVALENCE|PK similarity between the test (ABP 798) and reference (rituximab \[US\]) for AUC0-14day was demonstrated if the 90% CI for the GMR following the second infusion of the first dose was within the bioequivalence criteria of 0.8 to 1.25.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.9729|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9174|1.0318||||||The geometric mean ratio (GMR) and confidence interval (CI) was estimated from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model adjusted for weight and geographic region. The GMR was obtained by exponentiating the difference of the means on the natural log scale. The CI was obtained by exponentiating the CI for the difference between the means on the log scale.||1.0318|0.9174|
90809825|NCT02438683|181497814|OTHER||Slope|0.0029|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0012|0.0046||||The covariance structure is No diagonal Factor Analytic FA0(2).||The regression model with response variable placebo-corrected HR change from baseline (ddHR) and independent variable Plasma concentration includes a fixed slope effect as well as random intercept and slope estimates for each subject. (Primary analysis).||0.0046|0.0012|
91015033|NCT03655951|181912593|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.24|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.24
91015034|NCT03655951|181912594|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.2|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.2
91054844|NCT02792699|181991513|EQUIVALENCE|PK similarity between the test (ABP 798) and reference (rituximab \[EU\]) for AUC0-14day was demonstrated if the 90% CI for the GMR following the second infusion of the first dose was within the bioequivalence criteria of 0.8 to 1.25.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.9394|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8863|0.9958||||||The geometric mean ratio (GMR) and confidence interval (CI) was estimated from an analysis of covariance ANCOVA model adjusted for weight and geographic region. The GMR was obtained by exponentiating the difference of the means on the natural log scale. The CI was obtained by exponentiating the CI for the difference between the means on the log scale.||0.9958|0.8863|
90809826|NCT02438683|181497815|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.75|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.73|6.97||||For the repeated effect 'time', the covariance structure was chosen to be unstructured.|Mean Difference (Net) is actually the adjusted mean difference calculated as BI 409306 50 mg minus Placebo.|The a repeated measures model included 'period baseline', 'subject baseline' (defined as the arithmetic mean of the 2 period baselines), 'treatment', 'baseline\*time' interaction, 'treatment\*time' interaction and 'time' as fixed effects and subject as random effect (Primary analysis).||6.97|0.73|
90809827|NCT02438683|181497816|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.69|8.16||||For the repeated effect 'time', the covariance structure was chosen to be unstructured.|Mean Difference (Net) is actually the adjusted mean difference calculated as BI 409306 200 mg minus Placebo.|The a repeated measures model included 'period baseline', 'subject baseline' (defined as the arithmetic mean of the 2 period baselines), 'treatment', 'baseline\*time' interaction, 'treatment\*time' interaction and 'time' as fixed effects and subject as random effect (Primary analysis).||8.16|1.69|
91015035|NCT03655951|181912595|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.18|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.18
90809828|NCT02438683|181497817|OTHER||Slope|0.0011|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0009|0.003||||The covariance structure is No diagonal Factor Analytic FA0(2).||The regression model with response variable placebo-corrected QTcF change from baseline (ddQTcF) and independent variable. Plasma concentration includes a fixed slope effect as well as random intercept and slope estimates for each subject (Primary analysis). The covariance structure is No diagonal Factor Analytic FA0(2).||0.0030|-0.0009|
91015036|NCT03655951|181912596|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.67|||||||Regression, Linear|||To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||.67
91015037|NCT03655951|181912597|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.57|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.57
91054845|NCT02792699|181991513|EQUIVALENCE|PK similarity between the test (rituximab \[US\]) and reference (rituximab \[EU\]) for AUC0-14day was demonstrated if the 90% CI for the GMR following the second infusion of the first dose was within the bioequivalence criteria of 0.8 to 1.25.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.9656|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9104|1.024||||||The geometric mean ratio (GMR) and confidence interval (CI) was estimated from an ANCOVA model adjusted for weight and geographic region. The GMR was obtained by exponentiating the difference of the means on the natural log scale. The CI was obtained by exponentiating the CI for the difference between the means on the log scale.||1.0240|0.9104|
91054846|NCT02792699|181991514|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean|149590.5|||||||||||||Estimated using an analysis of covariance model adjusted for weight and geographic region.|||||
91015038|NCT03655951|181912598|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.65|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.65
91015039|NCT03655951|181912599|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.84|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.84
91054847|NCT02792699|181991514|OTHER||LS Geometric Mean|155778.7|||||||||||||Estimated using an analysis of covariance model adjusted for weight and geographic region.|||||
91054848|NCT02792699|181991514|OTHER||LS Geometric Mean|166811.0|||||||||||||Estimated using an analysis of covariance model adjusted for weight and geographic region.|||||
91054849|NCT02792699|181991514|EQUIVALENCE|PK similarity between the test (ABP 798) and reference (rituximab \[US\]) for AUC0-12wk was demonstrated if the 90% CI for the GMR following the second infusion of the first dose was within the bioequivalence criteria of 0.8 to 1.25.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.9603|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.895|1.0303||||||The geometric mean ratio (GMR) and confidence interval (CI) was estimated from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model adjusted for weight and geographic region. The GMR was obtained by exponentiating the difference of the means on the natural log scale. The CI was obtained by exponentiating the CI for the difference between the means on the log scale.||1.0303|0.8950|
90809829|NCT02438683|181497818|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.39|5.7||||For the repeated effect 'time', the covariance structure was chosen to be unstructured.|Mean Difference (Net) is actually the adjusted mean difference calculated as BI 409306 50 mg minus Placebo.|The a repeated measures model included 'period baseline', 'subject baseline' (defined as the arithmetic mean of the 2 period baselines), 'treatment', 'baseline\*time' interaction, 'treatment\*time' interaction and 'time' as fixed effects and subject as random effect (Primary analysis).||5.70|3.39|
90809830|NCT02438683|181497819|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.99|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.34|8.13||||For the repeated effect 'time', the covariance structure was chosen to be unstructured.|Mean Difference (Net) is actually the adjusted mean difference calculated as BI 409306 200 mg minus Placebo.|The a repeated measures model included 'period baseline', 'subject baseline' (defined as the arithmetic mean of the 2 period baselines), 'treatment', 'baseline\*time' interaction, 'treatment\*time' interaction and 'time' as fixed effects and subject as random effect (Primary analysis).||8.13|1.34|
90809831|NCT02438683|181497820|OTHER||Slope|0.0054|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0032|0.0076||||The covariance structure is Unstructured.||The regression model with response variable placebo-corrected max HR (dHR) and independent variable Plasma concentration includes a fixed slope effect as well as random intercept and slope estimates for each subject. (Primary analysis)||0.0076|0.0032|
90809832|NCT02438683|181497821|OTHER||Slope|-0.0014|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0036|0.0008||||The covariance structure is Unstructured.||The regression model with response variable placebo-corrected change from max HR to recovery HR (ddHR) and independent variable Plasma concentration includes a fixed slope effect as well as random intercept estimates for each subject (Primary analysis).||0.0008|-0.0036|
90809833|NCT02438683|181497821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|-0.0029|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0052|-0.0007||||The covariance structure is Unstructured.||The regression model with response variable placebo-corrected change from max HR to recovery HR (ddHR) and independent variable Plasma concentration includes a fixed slope effect as well as random intercept estimates for each subject (Primary analysis).||-0.0007|-0.0052|
90809834|NCT01926041|181497831|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.84||Statistical significance levels were determined by two-tailed tests (P \< 0.05).|Regression, Cox|||||0.84|0.48|0.008
90809835|NCT01926041|181497832|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.85||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|3.04||Statistical significance levels were determined by two-tailed tests (P \< 0.05).|Regression, Cox|||||3.04|1.13|0.023
90809836|NCT01926041|181497838|OTHER||Beta Coefficient|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
90809837|NCT00147017|181497852|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||calculated|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.05
90809838|NCT00147017|181497853|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||calculated|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.05
90809839|NCT00147017|181497854|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||calculated|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.05
90809840|NCT02226198|181497867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative difference in geometric LSM|-22.3||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.5|-9.1||statistical significance set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Rosuvastatin treatment gives on average a 22.3% lower geometric LS mean than placebo.|cross-over, null hypothesis is no difference between ros and plc. Powered for 90% detection of 15% delta||-9.1|-33.5|0.005
90809841|NCT02226198|181497868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative difference in geometric LSM|-22.3||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.5|-9.1||statistical significance set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Rosuvastatin treatment gives on average a 22.3% lower geometric LS mean than placebo.|cross-over, null hypothesis is no difference between ros and plc. Powered for 90% detection of 15% delta||-9.1|-33.5|0.005
90809842|NCT02226198|181497869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative difference in geometric LSM|-20.1||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.7|-9.1||statistical significance set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||cross-over, null hypothesis is no difference between ros and plc.||-9.1|-29.7|0.003
90809843|NCT02226198|181497870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative difference in geometric LSM|-20.1||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.7|-9.1||statistical significance set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||cross-over, null hypothesis is no difference between ros and plc.||-9.1|-29.7|0.003
90809844|NCT02226198|181497871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative difference in geometric LSM|-22.9||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.7|-10.3||statistical significance set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||cross-over, null hypothesis is no difference between ros and plc.||-10.3|-33.7|0.003
90809845|NCT02226198|181497872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative difference in geometric LSM|-22.9||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.7|-10.3||statistical significance set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||cross-over, null hypothesis is no difference between ros and plc.||-10.3|-33.7|0.003
90809846|NCT02226198|181497873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative difference in geometric LSM|-17.1||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.2|-2.9||statistical significance set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||cross-over, null hypothesis is no difference between ros and plc.||-2.9|-29.2|0.024
90809847|NCT02226198|181497874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative difference in geometric LSM|-17.1||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.2|-2.9||statistical significance set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||cross-over, null hypothesis is no difference between ros and plc.||-2.9|-29.2|0.024
90809848|NCT02226198|181497875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative difference in geometric LSM|7.4||||0.314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|24.5||statistical significance set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||cross-over, null hypothesis is no difference between ros and plc.||24.5|-7.4|0.314
91078182|NCT03046056|182041825|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|28.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-52.0|42.0||||||Diff in LSM, and its 90% CI were from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline segmental MaRIA score, concomitant use of oral, systemically absorbed corticosteroids at baseline, concomitant use of immunomodulators at baseline, prior exposure to biologics, and treatment group.||42|-52|
90809849|NCT02226198|181497876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative difference in geometric LSM|7.4||||0.314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|24.5||statistical significance set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||cross-over, null hypothesis is no difference between ros and plc.||24.5|-7.4|0.314
90809850|NCT02226198|181497877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative difference in geometric LSM|-26.3||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.7|6.0||statistical significance set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||cross-over, null hypothesis is no difference between ros and plc.||6.0|-48.7|0.080
90809851|NCT02226198|181497878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative difference in geometric LSM|-26.3||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.7|6.0||statistical significance set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||cross-over, null hypothesis is no difference between ros and plc.||6.0|-48.7|0.080
90809852|NCT02226198|181497889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative difference in geometric LSM|-30.4||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.2|-13.3||statistical significance set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||cross-over, null hypothesis is no difference between ros and plc.||-13.3|-44.2|0.004
90809853|NCT02226198|181497890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative difference in geometric LSM|-30.4||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.2|-13.3||statistical significance set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||cross-over, null hypothesis is no difference between ros and plc.||-13.3|-44.2|0.004
90809854|NCT02226198|181497891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative difference in geometric LSM|-27.6||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.2|-11.0||statistical significance set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||cross-over, null hypothesis is no difference between ros and plc.||-11.0|-41.2|0.006
90809855|NCT02226198|181497892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative difference in geometric LSM|-25.6||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.1|-10.5||statistical significance set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||cross-over, null hypothesis is no difference between ros and plc.||-10.5|-38.1|0.005
90809856|NCT02226198|181497893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative difference in geometric LSM|-28.2||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.7|-11.4||statistical significance set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||cross-over, null hypothesis is no difference between ros and plc.||-11.4|-41.7|0.005
90809857|NCT02226198|181497894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative difference in geometric LSM|-20.4||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.8|-5.6||statistical significance set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||cross-over, null hypothesis is no difference between ros and plc.||-5.6|-32.8|0.013
90809858|NCT03895632|181497899|OTHER|A linear mixed-effects model was fit to assess the association between α (the slope of the Power Spectral Density (PSD) plot) and signal segment.|||||<|0.0001||||||p-value obtained form the Wald statistics of the linear mixed-effects model. The threshold for statistical signifiance was p=0.01.|Linear mixed-effects model|||The null hypothesis was that α (the slope of the Power Spectral Density (PSD) plot) is not related to signal segment (off-, approaching- and on-target).||||<0.0001
90809859|NCT04545047|181497904|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|3.6||||||The investigators estimated the 30-day mortality risk difference comparing patients assigned to each group. Adjustment for covariates would be carried out via inverse probability weighting.||3.60|-2.30|
90809860|NCT04545047|181497904|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.62||||||The investigators estimated the 30-day mortality hazard ratio comparing patients assigned to each group. The hazard ratio was estimated from pooled logistic models with inverse probability weighting to adjust for confounding.||1.62|0.64|
90809861|NCT01288612|181497907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.25
90809862|NCT01288612|181497907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.42
90809863|NCT01288612|181497907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.27
90809864|NCT01288612|181497907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.82
90809865|NCT01288612|181497908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.06
90809866|NCT01288612|181497909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.08
90809867|NCT01288612|181497910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.001
90809868|NCT01288612|181497911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
90809869|NCT01288612|181497912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
90809870|NCT01288612|181497913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison between the arms for pain scale||||<0.001
90809871|NCT01288612|181497913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison between the arms for choking scale||||<0.001
90809872|NCT01288612|181497913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison between the arms for gagging scale||||<0.001
90809873|NCT01288612|181497913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison between the arms for anxiety scale||||<0.001
90809874|NCT01288612|181497913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison between arms for overall tolerance scale||||<0.001
90809875|NCT01288612|181497914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.001
90809876|NCT03571672|181497936|SUPERIORITY|Difference between Echo Enhanced and Echo Unenhanced|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.98||0.868|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.868
90809877|NCT03571672|181497936|SUPERIORITY|Difference between Echo Enhanced and Echo Unenhanced|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.445||0.606|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.606
90809878|NCT03571672|181497936|SUPERIORITY|Difference between Echo Enhanced and Echo Unenhanced|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.212||0.224|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.224
90809879|NCT03571672|181497937|SUPERIORITY|Difference between Echo Enhanced and Echo Unenhanced|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.682||0.715|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.715
90809880|NCT03571672|181497937|SUPERIORITY|Difference between Echo Enhanced and Echo Unenhanced|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.526||0.956|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.956
90809881|NCT03571672|181497937|SUPERIORITY|Difference between Echo Enhanced and Echo Unenhanced|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.584||0.771|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.771
90809882|NCT03571672|181497938|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.959|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.944|0.97||||||Inter-Reader Variability Echo Enhanced||0.970|0.944|
90809883|NCT03571672|181497938|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.931|0.964||||||Inter-Reader Variability Echo Unenhanced||0.964|0.931|
90809884|NCT03571672|181497938|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.957|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.941|0.969||||||Inter-Reader Variability Echo Enhanced||0.969|0.941|
90809885|NCT03571672|181497938|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.934|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.909|0.952||||||Inter-Reader Variability Echo Unenhanced||0.952|0.909|
90809886|NCT03571672|181497938|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.961|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.946|0.972||||||Inter-Reader Variability Echo Enhanced||0.972|0.946|
90809887|NCT03571672|181497938|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.937|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.913|0.954||||||Inter-Reader Variability Echo Unenhanced||0.954|0.913|
90809888|NCT03571672|181497939|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.988|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.984|0.992||||||Inter-reader Variability End Diastolic Echo Enhanced||0.992|0.984|
90809889|NCT03571672|181497939|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.986|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.981|0.99||||||Inter-reader Variability End Diastolic Echo Unenhanced||0.990|0.981|
90809890|NCT03571672|181497939|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.945|0.971||||||Inter-reader Variability End Diastolic Echo Enhanced||0.971|0.945|
90809891|NCT03571672|181497939|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.925|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.897|0.945||||||Inter-reader Variability End Diastolic Echo Unenhanced||0.945|0.897|
90809892|NCT03571672|181497939|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.958|0.978||||||Inter-reader Variability End Diastolic Echo Enhanced||0.978|0.958|
90809893|NCT03571672|181497939|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.909|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.876|0.934||||||Inter-reader Variability End Diastolic Echo Unenhanced||0.934|0.876|
90809894|NCT03571672|181497939|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.989|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.984|0.992||||||Inter-reader Variability End Systolic Echo Enhanced||0.992|0.984|
90809895|NCT03571672|181497939|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.985|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.979|0.989||||||Inter-reader Variability End Systolic Echo Unenhanced||0.989|0.979|
90809896|NCT03571672|181497939|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.973|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.962|0.98||||||Inter-reader Variability End Systolic Echo Enhanced||0.980|0.962|
90809897|NCT03571672|181497939|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.947|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.927|0.961||||||Inter-reader Variability End Systolic Echo Unenhanced||0.961|0.927|
90809898|NCT03571672|181497939|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.977|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.969|0.984||||||Inter-reader Variability End Systolic Echo Enhanced||0.984|0.969|
90809899|NCT03571672|181497939|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.937|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.914|0.954||||||Inter-reader Variability End Systolic Echo Unenhanced||0.954|0.914|
90809900|NCT03571672|181497940|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.945|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.909|0.967||||||Inter-Reader Variability Echo Enhanced Sub-Optimal Echocardiograms||0.967|0.909|
90809901|NCT03571672|181497940|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.917|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.864|0.95||||||Inter-Reader Variability Echo Unenhanced Sub-Optimal Echocardiograms||0.950|0.864|
90809902|NCT03571672|181497940|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.939|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|0.963||||||Inter-Reader Variability Echo Enhanced Sub-Optimal Echocardiograms||0.963|0.900|
90809903|NCT03571672|181497940|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.894|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.827|0.935||||||Inter-Reader Variability Echo Unenhanced Sub-Optimal Echocardiograms||0.935|0.827|
90809904|NCT03571672|181497940|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.952|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|0.971||||||Inter-Reader Variability Echo Enhanced Sub-Optimal Echocardiograms||0.971|0.920|
90809905|NCT03571672|181497940|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.838|0.939||||||Inter-Reader Variability Echo Unenhanced Sub-Optimal Echocardiograms||0.939|0.838|
90809906|NCT03571672|181497941|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.976|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.961|0.986||||||Inter-reader Variability End Diastolic Echo Enhanced||0.986|0.961|
90809907|NCT03571672|181497941|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.984|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.974|0.991||||||Inter-reader Variability End Diastolic Echo Unenhanced||0.991|0.974|
90809908|NCT03571672|181497941|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.933|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|0.96||||||Inter-reader Variability End Diastolic Echo Enhanced||0.960|0.890|
90809909|NCT03571672|181497941|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.857|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.912||||||Inter-reader Variability End Diastolic Echo Unenhanced||0.912|0.770|
90809910|NCT03571672|181497941|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.948|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.914|0.969||||||Inter-reader Variability End Diastolic Echo Enhanced||0.969|0.914|
90809911|NCT03571672|181497941|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.824|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.721|0.892||||||Inter-reader Variability End Diastolic Echo Unenhanced||0.892|0.721|
90809912|NCT03571672|181497941|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.982|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|0.989||||||Inter-reader Variability End Systolic Echo Enhanced||0.989|0.970|
90809913|NCT03571672|181497941|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.974|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.957|0.985||||||Inter-reader Variability End Systolic Echo Unenhanced||0.985|0.957|
90809914|NCT03571672|181497941|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.948|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.915|0.969||||||Inter-reader Variability End Systolic Echo Enhanced||0.969|0.915|
90809915|NCT03571672|181497941|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.822|0.933||||||Inter-reader Variability End Systolic Echo Unenhanced||0.933|0.822|
90809916|NCT03571672|181497941|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.959|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.932|0.975||||||Inter-reader Variability End Systolic Echo Enhanced||0.975|0.932|
90809917|NCT03571672|181497941|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.872|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.794|0.922||||||Inter-reader Variability End Systolic Echo Unenhanced||0.922|0.794|
90809918|NCT00378599|181497991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Binomial Approximation|0.288|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.38||||||||0.38|0.21|
90809919|NCT02851797|181498015|SUPERIORITY|LS Means, CIs, and p-values are obtained from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on change from baseline in 4SC at Month 18 with baseline values for: 4SC, time to rise from floor, time to run/walk 10 metres, distance walked in 6 minutes and re-derived age at first dose fitted as covariates, with concomitant steroid use and treatment group as independent classification factors.|generalised least square mean ratio|0.86|||=|0.0345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.745|0.989||LS Means, CIs, and p-values are obtained from ANCOVA model on change from baseline in 4SC at Month 18 with baseline values for: the above mentioned parameters as covariates, with steroid use and treatment group as independent classificat factors.|ANCOVA||LS Means, CIs, and p-values are obtained from ANCOVA model on change from baseline in 4SC at Month 18 with baseline values for: the above mentioned parameters as covariates, with steroid use and treatment group as independent classificat factors.|Log transformation applied||0.989|0.745|=0.0345
91015040|NCT03655951|181912600|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.02|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.02
90809920|NCT02851797|181498016|SUPERIORITY|LS Means, CIs, and p-values are obtained from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on change from baseline in time to rise from the Floor at Month 18 with baseline values for: 4SC, time to rise from floor, time to run/walk 10 m, distance walked in 6 minutes and re-derived age at first dose fitted as covariates, with concomitant steroid use and treatment group as independent classification factors.|difference in least square means|-3.28|||=|0.3044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.573|3.018||See comment above|ANCOVA||See comment above|||3.018|-9.573|=0.3044
90809921|NCT02851797|181498017|SUPERIORITY|LS Means, CIs, and p-values are obtained from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on change from baseline in distance walked at the end of the 6-minute walking test (6MWT) at Month 18 with baseline values for: 4SC, time to rise from floor, time to run/walk 10 metres, distance walked in 6 minutes and re-derived age at first dose fitted as covariates, with concomitant steroid use and treatment group as independent classification factors.|Difference in least square means|9.96|||=|0.3723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.071|31.983||See comment above|ANCOVA|LS means, CIs, p-values were obtained from analysis of covariance model on change from baseline in distance walked at the end of the 6MWT at Month18.|See comment above|||31.983|-12.071|=0.3723
90809922|NCT02851797|181498018|SUPERIORITY|LS Means, CIs, and p-values are obtained from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on change from baseline in total NSAA score at Month 18 with baseline values for: total NSAA score, 4SC, time to rise from floor, time to run/walk 10 metres, distance walked in 6 minutes and re-derived age at first dose fitted as covariates, with concomitant steroid use and treatment group as independent classification factors.|Difference in least square means|1.91|||=|0.0209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.295|3.533||Same comment as above|ANCOVA||Same comment as above.|||3.533|0.295|=0.0209
90809923|NCT02851797|181498019|SUPERIORITY|Estimated cumulative failures, ratio of cumulative failures, CIs, and p-values are obtained from a negative binomial regression on the subject cumulative number of failures across all post-baseline visits. Total failed items at baseline, baseline values for: 4SC, time to rise from floor, time to run/walk 10 metres, distance walked in 6 minutes and re-derived age at first dose were included as independent covariates, with treatment group and steroid use included as indep classification factors.|Ratio of cumulative failures|0.61|||=|0.0202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.408|0.927||same comment as above|negative binomial regression model|Estimated cumulative failures, their ratio were obtained from a negative binomial regression on the cumulative N of failures across all visits.|"A lower ratio indicates a greater reduction in cumulative loss of function across 18 months for givinostat compared with placebo.~See also comment above."|||0.927|0.408|=0.0202
90809924|NCT02851797|181498020|SUPERIORITY|LS Means, CIs, and p-values are obtained from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on change from baseline in normalised muscle strength at Month 18 with baseline normalised muscle strength and re-derived age at first dose fitted as covariates, with concomitant steroid use and treatment group as independent classification factors.|Difference in least square means|0.19|||=|0.0902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.401||same comment as above|ANCOVA||same comment as above|Overall knee extension||0.401|-0.030|=0.0902
90809925|NCT02851797|181498020|SUPERIORITY|LS Means, CIs, and p-values are obtained from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on change from baseline in normalised muscle strength at Month 18 with baseline normalised muscle strength and re-derived age at first dose fitted as covariates, with concomitant steroid use and treatment group as independent classification factors.|Difference in least square means|0.09|||=|0.1818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.041|0.213||same comment as above|ANCOVA||same comment as above|Overall elbow flexion||0.213|-0.041|=0.1818
90809926|NCT02851797|181498021|SUPERIORITY|LS Means, CIs, and p-values are obtained from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on change from baseline in VL MFF at Month 18 with baseline VL MFF and re-derived age at first dose fitted as covariates, with concomitant steroid use and treatment group as independent classification factors.|Difference in least square means|-2.92|||=|0.0354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.641|-0.204||Same comment as above|ANCOVA||Same comment as above|||-0.204|-5.641|=0.0354
90809927|NCT03077438|181498024|NON_INFERIORITY|95% confidence interval (CI) of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between the 2 percentages was \>-10%.|Percentage Difference|7.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|14.0||||||Serogroup A||14|1.1|
90809928|NCT03077438|181498024|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between the 2 percentages was \>-10%.|Percentage Difference|47.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.2|52.2||||||Serogroup C||52.2|42.2|
90809929|NCT03077438|181498024|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between the 2 percentages was \>-10%.|Percentage Difference|12.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|16.7||||||Serogroup Y||16.7|7.7|
90809930|NCT03077438|181498024|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between the 2 percentages was \>-10%.|Percentage Difference|14.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.9|20.5||||||Serogroup W||20.5|8.9|
90809931|NCT03077438|181498025|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.32||||||Serogroup A||1.32|0.91|
90809932|NCT03077438|181498025|OTHER||GMT Ratio|14.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.3|17.3||||||Serogroup C||17.3|11.3|
90809933|NCT03077438|181498025|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|1.9||||||Serogroup Y||1.9|1.31|
90809934|NCT03077438|181498025|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|1.69||||||Serogroup W||1.69|1.21|
90809935|NCT03077438|181498026|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.883|1.47||||||Serogroup A||1.47|0.883|
90809936|NCT03077438|181498026|OTHER||GMT Ratio|17.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.4|22.6||||||Serogroup C||22.6|13.4|
90809937|NCT03077438|181498026|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.78||||||Serogroup Y||1.78|1.07|
90809938|NCT03077438|181498026|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.83||||||Serogroup W||1.83|1.12|
90809939|NCT03077438|181498027|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.816|1.38||||||Serogroup A||1.38|0.816|
90809940|NCT03077438|181498027|OTHER||GMT Ratio|11.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.24|16.0||||||Serogroup C||16|8.24|
90809941|NCT03077438|181498027|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|2.38||||||Serogroup Y||2.38|1.41|
90809942|NCT03077438|181498027|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|1.82||||||Serogroup W||1.82|1.16|
90809943|NCT03077438|181498028|OTHER||Percentage Difference|7.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|16.7||||||Serogroup A||16.7|-1.6|
91054850|NCT02792699|181991514|EQUIVALENCE|PK similarity between the test (ABP 798) and reference (rituximab \[EU\]) for AUC0-12wk was demonstrated if the 90% CI for the GMR following the second infusion of the first dose was within the bioequivalence criteria of 0.8 to 1.25.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.8968|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8363|0.9616||||||The geometric mean ratio (GMR) and confidence interval (CI) was estimated from an analysis of covariance ANCOVA model adjusted for weight and geographic region. The GMR was obtained by exponentiating the difference of the means on the natural log scale. The CI was obtained by exponentiating the CI for the difference between the means on the log scale.||0.9616|0.8363|
91054851|NCT02792699|181991514|EQUIVALENCE|PK similarity between the test (rituximab \[US\]) and reference (rituximab \[EU\]) for AUC0-12wk was demonstrated if the 90% CI for the GMR following the second infusion of the first dose was within the bioequivalence criteria of 0.8 to 1.25.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.9339|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8707|1.0016||||||The geometric mean ratio (GMR) and confidence interval (CI) was estimated from an ANCOVA model adjusted for weight and geographic region. The GMR was obtained by exponentiating the difference of the means on the natural log scale. The CI was obtained by exponentiating the CI for the difference between the means on the log scale.||1.0016|0.8707|
91054852|NCT02792699|181991515|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean|304.04|||||||||||||Estimated using an analysis of covariance model adjusted for weight and geographic region.|||||
91015041|NCT03655951|181912601|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.65|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.65
91015042|NCT03655951|181912602|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.09|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.09
91015043|NCT03655951|181912603|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.95|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.95
91054853|NCT02792699|181991515|OTHER||LS Geometric Mean|305.8|||||||||||||Estimated using an analysis of covariance model adjusted for weight and geographic region.|||||
91054854|NCT02792699|181991515|OTHER||LS Geometric Mean|320.87|||||||||||||Estimated using an analysis of covariance model adjusted for weight and geographic region.|||||
91054855|NCT02792699|181991515|EQUIVALENCE|PK similarity between the test (ABP 798) and reference (rituximab \[US\]) for Cmax was demonstrated if the 90% CI for the GMR following the second infusion of the first dose was within the bioequivalence criteria of 0.8 to 1.25.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.9942|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9461|1.0448||||||The geometric mean ratio (GMR) and confidence interval (CI) was estimated from an ANCOVA model adjusted for weight and geographic region. The GMR was obtained by exponentiating the difference of the means on the natural log scale. The CI was obtained by exponentiating the CI for the difference between the means on the log scale.||1.0448|0.9461|
91054856|NCT02792699|181991515|EQUIVALENCE|PK similarity between the test (ABP 798) and reference (rituximab \[EU\]) for Cmax was demonstrated if the 90% CI for the GMR following the second infusion of the first dose was within the bioequivalence criteria of 0.8 to 1.25.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.9475|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9021|0.9953||||||The geometric mean ratio (GMR) and confidence interval (CI) was estimated from an ANCOVA model adjusted for weight and geographic region. The GMR was obtained by exponentiating the difference of the means on the natural log scale. The CI was obtained by exponentiating the CI for the difference between the means on the log scale.||0.9953|0.9021|
91054857|NCT02792699|181991515|EQUIVALENCE|PK similarity between the test (rituximab \[US\]) and reference (rituximab \[EU\]) for Cmax was demonstrated if the 90% CI for the GMR following the second infusion of the first dose was within the bioequivalence criteria of 0.8 to 1.25.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.9531|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.907|1.0015||||||The geometric mean ratio (GMR) and confidence interval (CI) was estimated from an ANCOVA model adjusted for weight and geographic region. The GMR was obtained by exponentiating the difference of the means on the natural log scale. The CI was obtained by exponentiating the CI for the difference between the means on the log scale.||1.0015|0.9070|
91054858|NCT02792699|181991524|EQUIVALENCE|Clinical equivalence was tested by comparing the 2-sided 90% CI of the change from baseline at week 24 of DAS28-CRP between ABP 798 and rituximab with an equivalence margin of (-0.6, 0.6).|LS Mean Difference|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.225|0.264||||||If PK similarity was established between rituximab (US) and rituximab (EU), the 2 rituximab arms were to be combined into a single reference group for the primary assessment of clinical equivalence of DAS28-CRP change from baseline at week 24 using a repeated measures analysis with DAS28-CRP change from baseline as the response and the stratification variables, visit, treatment, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline DAS28-CRP as predictors, and unstructured covariance matrix in the model.||0.264|-0.225|
91054859|NCT02792699|181991524|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.353|0.213||||||||0.213|-0.353|
91054860|NCT02792699|181991524|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.171|0.392||||||||0.392|-0.171|
91015044|NCT03655951|181912604|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.47|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.47
91015045|NCT03655951|181912605|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.003|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.003
91015046|NCT03655951|181912606|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.77|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.77
91054861|NCT02792699|181991525|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.064|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.203|0.33||||||Analysis of change from baseline at week 8, based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline DAS28-CRP and the stratification variables geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA.||0.330|-0.203|
91054862|NCT02792699|181991525|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.147|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.411|0.117||||||Analysis of change from baseline at week 8, based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline DAS28-CRP and the stratification variables geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA.||0.117|-0.411|
90809944|NCT03077438|181498028|OTHER||Percentage Difference|51.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.5|57.8||||||Serogroup C||57.8|43.5|
90809945|NCT03077438|181498028|OTHER||Percentage Difference|11.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|18.1||||||Serogroup Y||18.1|4.2|
90809946|NCT03077438|181498028|OTHER||Percentage Difference|12.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|20.9||||||Serogroup W||20.9|3.9|
90809947|NCT03077438|181498029|OTHER||Percentage Difference|7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|16.6||||||Serogroup A||16.6|-1.3|
90809948|NCT03077438|181498029|OTHER||Percentage Difference|44.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.8|50.6||||||Serogroup C||50.6|36.8|
90809949|NCT03077438|181498029|OTHER||Percentage Difference|13.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.6|19.2||||||Serogroup Y||19.2|7.6|
90809950|NCT03077438|181498029|OTHER||Percentage Difference|17.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.4|24.7||||||Serogroup W||24.7|9.4|
90809951|NCT02512874|181498033|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.62
90809952|NCT04686084|181498070|OTHER|Bland-Altman analysis|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91015047|NCT03655951|181912607|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.|||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<.001
90809953|NCT01425359|181498113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|||||Angina frequency was compared by fitting a generalized linear model with log link and negative binomial distribution response.|Generalized linear model|||||||0.008
90809954|NCT01425359|181498114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|||||Sublingual nitroglycerin use frequency was compared by fitting a generalized linear model with log link and negative binomial distribution response.|Generalized linear model|||||||0.003
90809955|NCT02135029|181498123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-54.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.82|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.1|-49.0|||MMRM|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|LS-mean differences,associated 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit,treatment group\*visit interaction,baseline value, baseline value\*visit\*group interaction, country.|||-49.0|-60.1|<0.001
90809956|NCT02135029|181498124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-38.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.13|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.6|-34.2|||MMRM||LS-mean differences, associated 95% CI, and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\* visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\* visit\* group interaction, country.|Week 12||-34.2|-42.6|<0.001
90809957|NCT02135029|181498124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-31.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.47|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.9|-26.2|||||LS-mean differences, associated 95% CI, for treatment group, visit, treatment group\* visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\* visit\* group interaction, country.|Week 24||-26.2|-35.9|
90809958|NCT02135029|181498125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-46.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.72|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.9|-41.1|||MMRM||LS-mean differences, associated 95% CI, and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\* visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\* visit\* group interaction, country.|Week 12||-41.1|-51.9|<0.001
90809959|NCT02135029|181498125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-39.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.4|-33.2|||||LS-mean differences, associated 95% CI, for treatment group, visit, treatment group\* visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\* visit\* group interaction, country.|Week 24||-33.2|-45.4|
90809960|NCT02135029|181498126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-51.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.61|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.3|-46.0|||MMRM||LS-mean differences, associated 95% CI, and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\* visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\* visit\* group interaction, country.|Week 12||-46.0|-56.3|<0.001
90809961|NCT02135029|181498126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-41.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.7|-35.8|||||LS-mean differences, associated 95% CI, for treatment group, visit, treatment group\* visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\* visit\* group interaction, country.|Week 24||-35.8|-47.7|
90809962|NCT02135029|181498127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-23.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.32|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.7|-10.8|||MMRM||LS-mean differences, associated 95% CI, and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\* visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\* visit\* group interaction, country.|Week 12||-10.8|-35.7|<0.001
90809963|NCT02135029|181498127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-17.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.21|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.6|-5.1|||||LS-mean differences, associated 95% CI, for treatment group, visit, treatment group\* visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\* visit\* group interaction, country.|Week 24||-5.1|-29.6|
90809964|NCT02135029|181498128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|12.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.34|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.8|17.0|||MMRM||LS-mean differences, associated 95% CI, and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\* visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\* visit\* group interaction, country.|Week 12||17.0|7.8|<0.001
90809965|NCT02135029|181498128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|11.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.47|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.7|16.4|||||LS-mean differences, associated 95% CI, for treatment group, visit, treatment group\* visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\* visit\* group interaction, country.|Week 24||16.4|6.7|
90809966|NCT02135029|181498129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-44.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.33|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.3|-38.2|||||LS-mean differences, associated 95% CI, for treatment group, visit, treatment group\* visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\* visit\* group interaction, country.|Week 24||-38.2|-51.3|
90809967|NCT02135029|181498130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-14.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.67|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.5|-5.2|||||LS-mean differences, associated 95% CI, for treatment group, visit, treatment group\* visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\* visit\* group interaction, country.|Week 12||-5.2|-23.5|
90809968|NCT02135029|181498130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-9.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.8|0.4|||||LS-mean differences, associated 95% CI, for treatment group, visit, treatment group\* visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\* visit\* group interaction, country.|Week 24||0.4|-19.8|
91054863|NCT02792699|181991525|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.502|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.233|0.772||||||Analysis of change from baseline at week 12, based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline DAS28-CRP and the stratification variables geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA.||0.772|0.233|
91054864|NCT02792699|181991525|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.539||||||Analysis of change from baseline at week 12, based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline DAS28-CRP and the stratification variables geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA.||0.539|0.000|
90809969|NCT02135029|181498131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|10.1|||||LS-mean differences, associated 95% CI, for treatment group, visit, treatment group\* visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\* visit\* group interaction, country.|Week 12||10.1|2.2|
90809970|NCT02135029|181498131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.09|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|9.7|||||LS-mean differences, associated 95% CI, for treatment group, visit, treatment group\* visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\* visit\* group interaction, country.|Week 24||9.7|1.5|
90809971|NCT02135029|181498132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|8.7|||||LS-mean differences, associated 95% CI, for treatment group, visit, treatment group\* visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\* visit\* group interaction, country.|Week 12||8.7|0.8|
90809972|NCT02135029|181498132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.07|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|10.5|||||LS-mean differences, associated 95% CI, for treatment group, visit, treatment group\* visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\* visit\* group interaction, country.|Week 24||10.5|2.4|
90809973|NCT02135029|181498133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-14.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.67|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.5|-5.2|||||LS-mean differences, associated 95% CI, for treatment group, visit, treatment group\* visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\* visit\* group interaction, country.|Week 12||-5.2|-23.5|
90809974|NCT02135029|181498133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-9.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.8|0.4|||||LS-mean differences, associated 95% CI, for treatment group, visit, treatment group\* visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\* visit\* group interaction, country.|Week 24||0.4|-19.8|
90809975|NCT02135029|181498134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-93.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.93|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-103.5|-84.1|||||LS-mean differences, associated 95% CI, for treatment group, visit, treatment group\* visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\* visit\* group interaction, country.|Week 12||-84.1|-103.5|
90809976|NCT02135029|181498135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-98.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.67|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-109.9|-87.5|||||LS-mean differences, associated 95% CI, for treatment group, visit, treatment group\* visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\* visit\* group interaction, country.|Week 12||-87.5|-109.9|
90809977|NCT02135029|181498136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|8.0|||||LS-mean differences, associated 95% CI, for treatment group, visit, treatment group\* visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\* visit\* group interaction, country.|Week 12||8.0|3.7|
90809978|NCT02135029|181498137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-103.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.56|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-114.6|-92.7|||||LS-mean differences, associated 95% CI, for treatment group, visit, treatment group\* visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\* visit\* group interaction, country.|Week 12||-92.7|-114.6|
90809979|NCT02135029|181498139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-59.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.46|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.0|-52.4|||||LS-mean differences, associated 95% CI, for treatment group, visit, treatment group\* visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\* visit\* group interaction, country.|Week 12||-52.4|-66.0|
90809980|NCT02135029|181498140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|-4.5|||||LS-mean differences, associated 95% CI, for treatment group, visit, treatment group\* visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\* visit\* group interaction, country.|Week 12||-4.5|-8.7|
90809981|NCT02135029|181498141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-2.1|||||LS-mean differences, associated 95% CI, for treatment group, visit, treatment group\* visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\* visit\* group interaction, country.|Week 12||-2.1|-2.7|
90809982|NCT02135029|181498141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-1.7|||||LS-mean differences, associated 95% CI, for treatment group, visit, treatment group\* visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\* visit\* group interaction, country.|Week 24||-1.7|-2.4|
90809983|NCT02135029|181498142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.4|||||LS-mean differences, associated 95% CI, for treatment group, visit, treatment group\* visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\* visit\* group interaction, country.|Week 12||-0.4|-0.5|
90809984|NCT02135029|181498142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.3|||||LS-mean differences, associated 95% CI, for treatment group, visit, treatment group\* visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\* visit\* group interaction, country.|Week 24||-0.3|-0.4|
90809985|NCT03520348|181498161|NON_INFERIORITY|It is considered less than 20% of differences between groups to consider non-inferiority||||||0.285|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.285
90809986|NCT03520348|181498162|NON_INFERIORITY|it is considered noninferiority if there are no differences in the 20% between the research drug and the reference medicine||||||0.68|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.680
90809987|NCT03520348|181498163|NON_INFERIORITY|it is considered noninferiority if there are no differences in the 20% between the research drug and the reference medicine||||||0.839|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.839
90809988|NCT03520348|181498164|NON_INFERIORITY|it is considered noninferiority if there are no differences in the 20% between the research drug and the reference medicine||||||0.137|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.137
91054865|NCT02792699|181991525|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.255|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.04|0.55||||||Analysis of change from baseline at week 40, based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline DAS28-CRP and the stratification variables geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA.||0.550|-0.040|
91054866|NCT02792699|181991525|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.135|0.455||||||Analysis of change from baseline at week 40, based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline DAS28-CRP and the stratification variables geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA.||0.455|-0.135|
90809989|NCT03520348|181498166|NON_INFERIORITY|it is considered noninferiority if there are no differences in the 20% between the research drug and the reference medicine||||||0.667|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.667
90809990|NCT03520348|181498167|NON_INFERIORITY|it is considered noninferiority if there are no differences in the 20% between the research drug and the reference medicine||||||0.561|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.561
90809991|NCT03520348|181498168|NON_INFERIORITY|it is considered noninferiority if there are no differences in the 20% between the research drug and the reference medicine||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.000
90809992|NCT03520348|181498169|NON_INFERIORITY|it is considered noninferiority if there are no differences in the 20% between the research drug and the reference medicine||||||0.317|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.317
90809993|NCT03520348|181498170|NON_INFERIORITY|it is considered noninferiority if there are no differences in the 20% between the research drug and the reference medicine||||||0.414|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.414
90809994|NCT00744978|181498180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42||||0.3873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|0.53||ANCOVA model using unstructured covariance structure; Type I error rate for primary hypothesis was 5%; no adjustments made for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Difference from placebo. Analyzed using a mixed effects longitudinal linear model with subject (nested within sequence) as a random effect and fixed effects stratum, site, period, sequence, treatment, week, and treatment by week.||0.53|-1.37|0.3873
90809995|NCT00744978|181498181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.55||||0.2465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|1.49||ANCOVA model using unstructured covariance structure; tested using a nominal 5% Type I error rate; no adjustments made for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Difference from placebo. Analyzed using a mixed effects longitudinal linear model with subject (nested within sequence) as a random effect and fixed effects stratum, site, period, sequence, treatment, week, and treatment by week.||1.49|-0.39|0.2465
90809996|NCT00744978|181498182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.59||||0.2092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|1.5||ANCOVA model using unstructured covariance structure; tested using a nominal 5% Type I error rate; no adjustments made for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Difference from placebo analyzed using a mixed effects longitudinal linear model with subject (nested within sequence) as a random effect and fixed effects stratum, site, period, sequence, treatment, week, and treatment by week.||1.50|-0.33|0.2092
90809997|NCT00744978|181498183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37||||0.4339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.56||ANCOVA model using unstructured covariance structure; tested using a nominal 5% Type I error rate; no adjustments made for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Difference from placebo analyzed using a mixed effects longitudinal linear model with subject (nested within sequence) as a random effect and fixed effects stratum, site, period, sequence, treatment, week, and treatment by week.||0.56|-1.30|0.4339
90809998|NCT00744978|181498184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.9745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.27|||ANCOVA|||Difference from placebo analyzed using a mixed effects linear model with subject (nested within sequence) as a random effect, and stratum, site, period, sequence, and treatment as fixed effects.||0.27|-0.26|0.9745
90809999|NCT00744978|181498185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.68||||0.2852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|1.92||ANCOVA model using unstructured covariance structure; tested using a nominal 5% Type I error rate; no adjustments made for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Difference from placebo analyzed using a mixed effects longitudinal linear model with subject (nested within sequence) as a random effect and fixed effects stratum, site, period, sequence, treatment, week, and treatment by week.||1.92|-0.57|0.2852
90810000|NCT00744978|181498186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.28||||0.0468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|2.53||ANCOVA model using unstructured covariance structure; tested using a nominal 5% Type I error rate; no adjustments made for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Difference from placebo analyzed using a mixed effects longitudinal linear model with subject (nested within sequence) as a random effect and fixed effects stratum, site, period, sequence, treatment, week, and treatment by week.||2.53|0.02|0.0468
90810001|NCT00744978|181498187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.8811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.03||ANCOVA model using unstructured covariance structure; tested using a nominal 5% Type I error rate; no adjustments made for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Difference from placebo analyzed using a mixed effects longitudinal linear model with subject (nested within sequence) as a random effect and fixed effects stratum, site, period, sequence, treatment, week, and treatment by week.||0.03|-0.02|0.8811
90810002|NCT00744978|181498188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.05||ANCOVA model using unstructured covariance structure; tested using a nominal 5% Type I error rate; no adjustments made for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Difference from placebo analyzed using a mixed effects longitudinal linear model with subject (nested within sequence) as a random effect and fixed effects stratum, site, period, sequence, treatment, week, and treatment by week.||0.05|-0.00|0.0830
90810003|NCT00744978|181498189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.7226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.02||ANCOVA model using unstructured covariance structure; tested using a nominal 5% Type I error rate; no adjustments made for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Difference from placebo analyzed using a mixed effects longitudinal linear model with subject (nested within sequence) as a random effect and fixed effects stratum, site, period, sequence, treatment, week, and treatment by week.||0.02|-0.03|0.7226
90810004|NCT00744978|181498190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.53||||0.5588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.68|3.62||ANCOVA model using unstructured covariance structure; tested using a nominal 5% Type I error rate; no adjustments made for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Week 1: difference from placebo. Analyzed using a mixed effects longitudinal linear model with subject (nested within sequence) as a random effect and fixed effects stratum, site, period, sequence, treatment, week, and treatment by week.||3.62|-6.68|0.5588
90810005|NCT00744978|181498191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.15||||0.1173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.34|1.05||ANCOVA model using unstructured covariance structure; tested using a nominal 5% Type I error rate; no adjustments made for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Difference from placebo analyzed using a mixed effects longitudinal linear model with subject (nested within sequence) as a random effect and fixed effects stratum, site, period, sequence, treatment, week, and treatment by week.||1.05|-9.34|0.1173
91015048|NCT03655951|181912608|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.06|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.06
90810006|NCT00744978|181498192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.31||||0.6251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.58|3.96||ANCOVA model using unstructured covariance structure; tested using a nominal 5% Type I error rate; no adjustments made for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Difference from placebo analyzed using a mixed effects longitudinal linear model with subject (nested within sequence) as a random effect and fixed effects stratum, site, period, sequence, treatment, week, and treatment by week.||3.96|-6.58|0.6251
90810007|NCT00744978|181498193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.9109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.05||ANCOVA model using unstructured covariance structure; tested using a nominal 5% Type I error rate; no adjustments made for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Difference from placebo analyzed using a mixed effects longitudinal linear model with subject (nested within sequence) as a random effect and fixed effects stratum, site, period, sequence, treatment, week, and treatment by week.||0.05|-0.05|0.9109
90810008|NCT00744978|181498194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.6632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.04||ANCOVA model using unstructured covariance structure; tested using a nominal 5% Type I error rate; no adjustments made for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Difference from placebo analyzed using a mixed effects longitudinal linear model with subject (nested within sequence) as a random effect and fixed effects stratum, site, period, sequence, treatment, week, and treatment by week.||0.04|-0.06|0.6632
90810009|NCT00744978|181498195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.04||ANCOVA model using unstructured covariance structure; tested using a nominal 5% Type I error rate; no adjustments made for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Difference from placebo analyzed using a mixed effects longitudinal linear model with subject (nested within sequence) as a random effect and fixed effects stratum, site, period, sequence, treatment, week, and treatment by week.||0.04|-0.07|0.5450
90810010|NCT00744978|181498196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.2799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.05||ANCOVA model using unstructured covariance structure; tested using a nominal 5% Type I error rate; no adjustments made for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Difference from placebo analyzed using a mixed effects longitudinal linear model with subject (nested within sequence) as a random effect and fixed effects stratum, site, period, sequence, treatment, week, and treatment by week.||0.05|-0.02|0.2799
90810011|NCT00744978|181498197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.9675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.04||ANCOVA model using unstructured covariance structure; tested using a nominal 5% Type I error rate; no adjustments made for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Difference from placebo aAnalyzed using a mixed effects longitudinal linear model with subject (nested within sequence) as a random effect and fixed effects stratum, site, period, sequence, treatment, week, and treatment by week.||0.04|-0.03|0.9675
90810012|NCT00744978|181498198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.5008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.02||ANCOVA model using unstructured covariance structure; tested using a nominal 5% Type I error rate; no adjustments made for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Difference from placebo analyzed using a mixed effects longitudinal linear model with subject (nested within sequence) as a random effect and fixed effects stratum, site, period, sequence, treatment, week, and treatment by week.||0.02|-0.05|0.5008
90810013|NCT00744978|181498199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.2245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.01||ANCOVA model using unstructured covariance structure; tested using a nominal 5% Type I error rate; no adjustments made for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Difference from placebo analyzed using a mixed effects longitudinal linear model with subject (nested within sequence) as a random effect and fixed effects stratum, site, period, sequence, treatment, week, and treatment by week.||0.01|-0.03|0.2245
90810014|NCT00744978|181498200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.4974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.01||ANCOVA model using unstructured covariance structure; tested using a nominal 5% Type I error rate; no adjustments made for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Difference from placebo analyzed using a mixed effects longitudinal linear model with subject (nested within sequence) as a random effect and fixed effects stratum, site, period, sequence, treatment, week, and treatment by week.||0.01|-0.03|0.4974
90810015|NCT00744978|181498201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.8525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.02||ANCOVA model using unstructured covariance structure; tested using a nominal 5% Type I error rate; no adjustments made for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Difference from placebo analyzed using a mixed effects longitudinal linear model with subject (nested within sequence) as a random effect and fixed effects stratum, site, period, sequence, treatment, week, and treatment by week.||0.02|-0.02|0.8525
90810016|NCT03119181|181498206|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0097|||||||one-sided permutation test|||one-sided permutation test at 2.5% significance||||0.0097
91054867|NCT02792699|181991525|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.262|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.04|0.564||||||Analysis of change from baseline at week 48, based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline DAS28-CRP and the stratification variables geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA.||0.564|-0.040|
90810017|NCT02780856|181498233|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||exact binomial|An exact binomial test was used and an exact 97.5% Confidence Level using the Clopper-Pearson method was calculated||The null and alternative hypothesis for each tooth population was of chance agreement (50%) and was tested against an exact binomial one-sided 97.5% confidence interval||||<0.0001
90810018|NCT02780856|181498233|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||exact binomial|An exact binomial test was used and an exact 97.5% Confidence Level using the Clopper-Pearson method was calculated||The null and alternative hypothesis for each tooth population was of chance agreement (50%) and was tested against an exact binomial one-sided 97.5% confidence interval||||<0.0001
90810019|NCT03894969|181498256|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is concluded if the lower limit of the two sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio for anti-PD is \> 0.667. The anti-PD GMC ratio is presented in this test with its 95% CI.|GMC ratio|0.942|||||TWO_SIDED|0.95|0.765|1.159|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group, age category, smoking status and center as fixed effects and pre-Dose 1 log-concentration as a covariate.||To demonstrate the non-inferiority (NI) of the humoral immune response 1 month after Dose 2 of GSK Biologicals' NTHi-Mcat investigational vaccine when administered 1 after Shingrix vaccine versus the humoral immune response 1 month after Dose 2 of GSKBiologicals' NTHi-Mcat investigational vaccine alone.||1.159|0.765|
91015049|NCT03655951|181912609|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.91|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.91
90810020|NCT03894969|181498256|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is concluded if the lower limit of the two sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio for anti-PE is \> 0.667. The anti-PE GMC ratio is presented in this test with its 95% CI.|GMC ratio|0.887|||||TWO_SIDED|0.95|0.719|1.093|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group, age category, smoking status and center as fixed effects and pre-Dose 1 log-concentration as a covariate.||To demonstrate the non-inferiority (NI) of the humoral immune response 1 month after Dose 2 of GSK Biologicals' NTHi-Mcat investigational vaccine when administered 1 after Shingrix vaccine versus the humoral immune response 1 month after Dose 2 of GSKBiologicals' NTHi-Mcat investigational vaccine alone.||1.093|0.719|
90810021|NCT03894969|181498256|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is concluded if the lower limit of the two sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio for anti-PilA is \> 0.667. The anti-PilA GMC ratio is presented in this test with its 95% CI.|GMC ratio|1.142|||||TWO_SIDED|0.95|0.884|1.474|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group, age category, smoking status and center as fixed effects and pre-Dose 1 log-concentration as a covariate.||To demonstrate the non-inferiority (NI) of the humoral immune response 1 month after Dose 2 of GSK Biologicals' NTHi-Mcat investigational vaccine when administered 1 after Shingrix vaccine versus the humoral immune response 1 month after Dose 2 of GSKBiologicals' NTHi-Mcat investigational vaccine alone.||1.474|0.884|
90810022|NCT03894969|181498256|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is concluded if the lower limit of the two sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio for anti-UspA2 is \> 0.667. The anti-UspA2 GMC ratio is presented in this test with its 95% CI.|GMC ratio|1.087|||||TWO_SIDED|0.95|0.948|1.245|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group, age category, smoking status and center as fixed effects and pre-Dose 1 log-concentration as a covariate.||To demonstrate the non-inferiority (NI) of the humoral immune response 1 month after Dose 2 of GSK Biologicals' NTHi-Mcat investigational vaccine when administered 1 after Shingrix vaccine versus the humoral immune response 1 month after Dose 2 of GSKBiologicals' NTHi-Mcat investigational vaccine alone.||1.245|0.948|
90810023|NCT00468676|181498270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||scaled marginal model parameter|-1.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|-1.02||Significance of the four outcome composite|Scaled Marginal Model||Intervention group had significantly lower scaled marginal mean scores than usual care|||-1.02|-2.12|.001
90810024|NCT00468676|181498271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.01|||<|0.01||95.0|||||general estimating equations|||Disability outcomes were measured at six and 12 months after randomization using linear regression models adjusted for baseline values. The disability models combined information across time points and were estimated using general estimating equations to account for correlation. All analyses were based on intent to treat principles||||<0.01
90810025|NCT00468676|181498273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Between Group Difference|-0.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.26|||Generalized-Estimating-Equation Model||Between Group Difference is the difference in the change from Baseline to 12 month data calculated from a generalized-estimating-equation model predicting a 6- and 12-month outcome.|||-0.26|-0.56|<0.001
90810026|NCT00468676|181498274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Between Group Difference|-3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|0.1|||Generalized-Estimating-Equation Model||Between Group Difference is the difference in the change from Baseline to 12 month data calculated from a generalized-estimating-equation model predicting a 6- and 12-month outcome.|||0.1|-6.9|
90810027|NCT00468676|181498275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Between Group Difference|-9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|-0.8|||Regression, Linear||Between Group Difference is the difference in the change from Baseline to 12 month data calculated from a linear-regression model predicting a 12-month outcome.|||-0.8|-17.5|
90810028|NCT00468676|181498276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Between Group Difference|-0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.27|||Generalized-Estimating-Equation Model||Between Group Difference is the difference in the change from Baseline to 12 month data calculated from a generalized-estimating-equation model predicting a 6- and 12-month outcome.|||-0.27|-0.85|
90810029|NCT02979093|181498277|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1697|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1025||0.106|TWO_SIDED|||||Unadjusted|Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis is for Striatum: Happy Own vs. Happy Unknown||||0.106
90810030|NCT02979093|181498277|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.20458|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1101||0.0709|TWO_SIDED|||||Unadjusted|Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis is for the Amygdala: Happy Own vs. Happy Unknown infant faces.||||0.0709
90810031|NCT02979093|181498277|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14559|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08546||0.0964|TWO_SIDED|||||Unadjusted|Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis is for Striatum: Sad Own vs. Sad Unknown infant faces.||||0.0964
90810032|NCT02979093|181498277|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15755|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07914||0.0538|TWO_SIDED|||||Unadjusted|Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis is for Amygdala: Sad Own vs. Sad Unknown infant faces.||||0.0538
90810033|NCT02979093|181498278|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09778|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09687||0.319|TWO_SIDED|||||unadjusted|Mixed Models Analysis|||"This is a mixed effects model with group (Addiction vs. Control) and condition (Oxytocin \[OT\] vs Placebo).~Both variables were included in the model. The interaction effect was tested but not included in the model. This result focuses on OT vs. placebo for Ventromedial prefrontal cortex (vmPFC) for happy own vs. happy unknown infant faces."||||0.319
90810034|NCT02979093|181498278|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15289|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.10968||0.171|TWO_SIDED|||||unadjusted|Mixed Models Analysis|||"This is a mixed effects model with group (addiction vs. control) and condition (OT vs Placebo).~Both variables were included in the model. The interaction effect was tested but not included in the model. This result focuses on addiction vs. control for vmPFC for Happy Own vs. Happy Unknown infant faces."||||0.171
91015050|NCT03655951|181912610|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.95|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.95
91015051|NCT03655951|181912611|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.12|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.12
91015052|NCT03655951|181912612|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.98|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.98
91015053|NCT03655951|181912613|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.57|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.57
90810035|NCT02979093|181498278|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.20839|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08405||0.0179|TWO_SIDED|||||Unadjusted|Mixed Models Analysis|||"This is a mixed effects model with group (addiction vs. control) and condition (OT vs Placebo).~Both variables were included in the model. The interaction effect was tested but not included in the model. This result focuses on OT vs placebo for Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex (dlPFC) for Sad Own vs. Sad Unknown infant faces."||||0.0179
90810036|NCT02979093|181498278|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04315|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11827||0.7171|TWO_SIDED|||||unadjusted|Mixed Models Analysis|||"This is a mixed effects model with group (addiction vs. control) and condition (OT vs Placebo).~Both variables were included in the model. The interaction effect was tested but not included in the model. This result focuses on addiction vs. control for dlPFC for Sad Own vs. Sad Unknown infant faces."||||0.7171
90810037|NCT05032690|181498283|EQUIVALENCE|The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. The ratio of adjusted geometric means and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|ratio of adjusted geometric means|99.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.72|104.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"For comparison of Bosutinib 4\*25 mg Capsule Fed vs. Bosutinib 1\*100 mg Capsule Fed, the model is a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.~The reference treatment of Bosutinib 4\*25 mg Capsule Fed is Bosutinib 1\*100 mg Capsule Fed."||104.93|93.72|
90810038|NCT05032690|181498283|EQUIVALENCE|The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. The ratio of adjusted geometric means and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|ratio of adjusted geometric means|135.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|109.28|169.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"For comparison of Bosutinib 1\*100 mg Capsule Fed vs. Bosutinib 1\*100 mg Capsule Fasted, the model is a mixed effect model with sequence and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.~The reference treatment of Bosutinib 1\*100 mg Capsule Fed is Bosutinib 1\*100 mg Capsule Fasted."||169.01|109.28|
90810039|NCT05032690|181498284|EQUIVALENCE|The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. The ratio of adjusted geometric means and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|ratio of adjusted geometric means|93.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.08|97.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"For comparison of Bosutinib 4\*25 mg Capsule Fed vs. Bosutinib 1\*100 mg Capsule Fed, the model is a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.~The reference treatment of Bosutinib 4\*25 mg Capsule Fed is Bosutinib 1\*100 mg Capsule Fed."||97.61|90.08|
90810040|NCT05032690|181498284|EQUIVALENCE|The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. The ratio of adjusted geometric means and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|ratio of adjusted geometric means|162.54|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|130.25|202.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"For comparison of Bosutinib 1\*100 mg Capsule Fed vs. Bosutinib 1\*100 mg Capsule Fasted, the model is a mixed effect model with sequence and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.~The reference treatment of Bosutinib 1\*100 mg Capsule Fed is Bosutinib 1\*100 mg Capsule Fasted"||202.84|130.25|
90810041|NCT05032690|181498285|EQUIVALENCE|The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. The ratio of adjusted geometric means and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|ratio of adjusted geometric means|98.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.83|102.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"For comparison of Bosutinib 4\*25 mg Capsule Fed vs. Bosutinib 1\*100 mg Capsule Fed, the model is a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.~The reference treatment of Bosutinib 4\*25 mg Capsule Fed is Bosutinib 1\*100 mg Capsule Fed."||102.80|93.83|
90810042|NCT05032690|181498285|EQUIVALENCE|The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. The ratio of adjusted geometric means and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|ratio of adjusted geometric means|146.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|117.88|182.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"For comparison of Bosutinib 1\*100 mg Capsule Fed vs. Bosutinib 1\*100 mg Capsule Fasted, the model is a mixed effect model with sequence and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.~The reference treatment of Bosutinib 1\*100 mg Capsule Fed is Bosutinib 1\*100 mg Capsule Fasted."||182.58|117.88|
90810043|NCT00487942|181498292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.73||Inferential statistics were not performed.|ANCOVA|||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.73|-0.81|
90810044|NCT00487942|181498292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.86||Inferential statistics were not performed|ANCOVA|||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.86|-0.68|
90810045|NCT00487942|181498292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.95||Inferential statistics were not performed.|ANCOVA|||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.95|-0.66|
90810046|NCT00487942|181498293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.83||Inferential statistics were not performed||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.83|-0.80|
90810047|NCT00487942|181498293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|1.14||Inferential statistics were not performed||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||1.14|-0.51|
90810048|NCT00487942|181498293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.98||Inferential statistics were not performed||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.98|-0.66|
90810049|NCT00487942|181498294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|1.01||Inferential statistics were not performed||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||1.01|-0.51|
90810050|NCT00487942|181498294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.66||Inferential statistics were not performed||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.66|-0.86|
90810051|NCT00487942|181498294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|1.28||Inferential statistics were not performed||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||1.28|-0.31|
90810052|NCT00487942|181498295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|-0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|0.48||Inferential statistics were not performed||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.48|-1.03|
90810053|NCT00487942|181498295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.88||Inferential Statistics were not performed||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.88|-0.65|
90810054|NCT00487942|181498295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|-0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|0.6||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.60|-0.97|
90810055|NCT00487942|181498296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|-0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|0.44||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.44|-1.08|
90810056|NCT00487942|181498296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.74||Inferential Statistics were not performed||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.74|-0.77|
91054868|NCT02792699|181991525|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.216|0.376||||||Analysis of change from baseline at week 48, based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline DAS28-CRP and the stratification variables geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA.||0.376|-0.216|
90810057|NCT00487942|181498296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.68||Inferential statistics were not performed||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.68|-0.89|
90810058|NCT00487942|181498297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.9||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.90|-0.61|
90810059|NCT00487942|181498297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.01||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||1.01|-0.50|
90810060|NCT00487942|181498297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|1.25||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||1.25|-0.34|
90810061|NCT00487942|181498298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|1.23||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||1.23|-0.33|
91015054|NCT03655951|181912614|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.98|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.98
90810062|NCT00487942|181498298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|1.1||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||1.10|-0.42|
90810063|NCT00487942|181498298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.93||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.93|-0.68|
91015055|NCT03655951|181912615|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.07|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.07
90810064|NCT00487942|181498299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|1.15||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||1.15|-0.37|
91015056|NCT03655951|181912616|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.02|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.02
91015057|NCT03655951|181912617|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.15|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.15
91015058|NCT02486263|181912633|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28||||||The threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.28
91054869|NCT02792699|181991526|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9339|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7696|1.1332||||||Risk ratio (ABP 798/ABP 798 versus Rituximab \[EU\]/Rituximab \[EU\]) at week 8, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||1.1332|0.7696|
91015059|NCT02486263|181912634|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.6||Used Bonferroni adjustment for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Generalized Estimation Equation||Data presented as OR (95% CI) using Generalized Estimation Equation (GEE) model with Conventional as reference.|Generalized Estimation Equation (GEE) model was used for the comparison of differences between intervention groups from week 0 to week 5 for peristaltic response frequency.||1.6|0.4|0.99
90810065|NCT00487942|181498299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|-0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.7||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.70|-0.81|
90810066|NCT00487942|181498299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.77||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.77|-0.80|
90810067|NCT00487942|181498300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|-0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.79|-0.19||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||-0.19|-1.79|
90810068|NCT00487942|181498300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|-0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|0.11||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.11|-1.44|
90810069|NCT00487942|181498300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.75||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.75|-0.82|
90810070|NCT00487942|181498301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.23||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||1.23|-0.30|
90810071|NCT00487942|181498301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.83||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.83|-0.68|
90810072|NCT00487942|181498301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.63||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||1.63|-0.00|
90810073|NCT00487942|181498302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|-0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.37||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.37|-1.16|
90810074|NCT00487942|181498302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|-0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|0.31||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.31|-1.21|
90810075|NCT00487942|181498302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.58||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.58|-0.99|
91015060|NCT02486263|181912635|SUPERIORITY|Weight velocity in grams/day||||||0.64|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.64
91015061|NCT02486263|181912636|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.11
91015062|NCT02486263|181912637|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49||||||Threshold for statistical significance \<0.05|Chi-squared|||||||0.49
90810076|NCT00487942|181498303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.23||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||1.23|-0.30|
90810077|NCT00487942|181498303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|1.04||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||1.04|-0.48|
91015063|NCT00333437|181912688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Change from Baseline|0.1786|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.1613||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0294|0.3277||Not adjusted|t-test, 2 sided|||H(0): post-pre FVC (liters) = 0||0.3277|0.0294|0.026
91015064|NCT00333437|181912689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.1035||0.3652|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.49|4.4945||significant p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||H(0): Post-pre neutrophil count = 0||4.4945|-10.49|0.3652
91015065|NCT00333437|181912689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.286|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.358||0.3485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.41|8.8426||significant p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||H(0): post-pre eosinophil count = 0||8.8426|-21.41|0.3485
91015066|NCT00333437|181912691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|264.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|194.66||0.0115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|84.256|444.32||Significant p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Not adjusted||H(0): post-pre walk distance = 0||444.32|84.256|0.0115
91015067|NCT00333437|181912692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.8643|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.5013||0.0167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4758|3.2527||significant p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||H(0): Post-pre DLCO = 0||3.2527|0.4758|0.0167
90810078|NCT00487942|181498303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.93||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.93|-0.64|
91015068|NCT03022526|181912693|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7463|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7463
91015069|NCT03022526|181912694|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5764|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5764
91015070|NCT03022526|181912695|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7169|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7169
91015071|NCT03022526|181912696|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4226|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4226
91054870|NCT02792699|181991526|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.036|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1495|0.0775||||||Risk difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[EU\]/Rituximab \[EU\]) at week 8, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||0.0775|-0.1495|
91015072|NCT03022526|181912697|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6873|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6873
91015073|NCT03022526|181912698|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0452|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0452
91015074|NCT03022526|181912699|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0899|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0899
91015075|NCT03022526|181912700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1265|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1265
91015076|NCT03022526|181912701|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0328|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0328
91015077|NCT03022526|181912702|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6824|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6824
91015078|NCT03022526|181912703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.449|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.449
91015079|NCT03022526|181912704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5996|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5996
91015080|NCT03022526|181912705|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8009|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.8009
91015081|NCT03022526|181912706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5422|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5422
91015082|NCT03022526|181912707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7374|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7374
91015083|NCT03315780|181912708|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-254.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-337.76|-170.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-170.28|-337.76|< 0.0001
91015084|NCT03315780|181912711|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.46||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.05|46.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||46.87|8.05|0.0100
91015085|NCT03315780|181912712|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.72||||0.0263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|6.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.81|0.63|0.0263
91015086|NCT03315780|181912713|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.36||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.16|1.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.43|-20.16|0.0800
91015087|NCT03315780|181912714|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.39||||0.7475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-118.35|87.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||87.57|-118.35|0.7475
91015088|NCT01361308|181912717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 4 frequency|Rank transformed ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91015089|NCT01361308|181912717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||||||Week 12 frequency|Rank transformed ANCOVA|||||||0.0090
91015090|NCT01361308|181912718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||||||Clinical meaningfulness at week 4|Logit model|||||||0.001
91015091|NCT01361308|181912718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.055||||||Clinical meaningfulness at week 12|Logit model|||||||0.055
91015092|NCT01361308|181912734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0017||||||Week 4 severity|Rank transformed ANCOVA|||||||0.0017
91015093|NCT01361308|181912734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1658||||||Week 12 severity|Rank transformed ANCOVA|||||||0.1658
91015094|NCT00066573|181912775|SUPERIORITY|To detect a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.80 between exemestane and anastrozole (ie, an improvement in 5-year EFS from 87.5% to 89.9%, with a two-sided 5% level test and 80% power, 6,840 patients and 630 events were needed for final analysis.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.18|||Log Rank|||||1.18|0.87|0.85
91015095|NCT00066573|181912776|SUPERIORITY|No power calculation for secondary analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.13|||Log Rank|||||1.13|0.77|0.46
90810079|NCT00487942|181498304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.52||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.52|-0.99|
90810080|NCT00487942|181498304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|1.1||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||1.10|-0.42|
90810081|NCT00487942|181498304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.85||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.85|-0.72|
90810082|NCT00487942|181498305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.56||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.56|-0.95|
91054871|NCT02792699|181991526|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0392|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8436|1.2801||||||Risk ratio (ABP 798/ABP 798 versus Rituximab \[US\]/ABP 798\]) at week 8, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||1.2801|0.8436|
90810083|NCT00487942|181498305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|0.41||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.41|-1.11|
90810084|NCT00487942|181498305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.62||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.62|-0.95|
90810085|NCT00487942|181498306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.27||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.27|-1.30|
90810086|NCT00487942|181498306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|1.35||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||1.35|-0.25|
90810087|NCT00487942|181498306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.82||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.82|-0.78|
90810088|NCT00487942|181498307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|0.15||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.15|-1.43|
91054872|NCT02792699|181991526|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0246|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.091|0.1402||||||Risk difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[US\]/ABP 798) at week 8, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||0.1402|-0.0910|
91054873|NCT02792699|181991526|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.878|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7573|1.0179||||||Risk ratio (ABP 798/ABP 798 versus Rituximab \[EU\]/Rituximab \[EU\]) at week 12, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||1.0179|0.7573|
90810089|NCT00487942|181498307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|-0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|0.53||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.53|-1.05|
90810090|NCT00487942|181498307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.7||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.70|-0.90|
90810091|NCT00487942|181498308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.63||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.63|-0.92|
90810092|NCT00487942|181498308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|1.04||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||1.04|-0.54|
90810093|NCT00487942|181498308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|0.49||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.49|-1.12|
90810094|NCT00487942|181498309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|0.33||Inferential statistics not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the Trails B Test score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.33|-1.22|
90810095|NCT00487942|181498309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|-0.08||Inferential statistics not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the Trails B Test score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||-0.08|-1.69|
90810096|NCT00487942|181498309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.7||Inferential statistics not performed||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the Trails B Test score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.70|-0.95|
90810097|NCT00487942|181498355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|1.0||Inferential statistics were not performed||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the SCoRS Total score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||1.0|-0.76|
90810098|NCT00487942|181498355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|0.48||Inferential statistics were not performed||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the SCoRS Total score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.48|-1.15|
90810099|NCT00487942|181498355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|1.15||Inferential statistics were not performed||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the SCoRS Total score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||1.15|-0.61|
90810100|NCT00487942|181498356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|1.24||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||1.24|-0.58|
90810101|NCT00487942|181498356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.81||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.81|-0.91|
90810102|NCT00487942|181498356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|0.45||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.45|-1.33|
90810103|NCT00487942|181498357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|1.1||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||1.10|-0.75|
90810104|NCT00487942|181498357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.78||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.78|-0.98|
90810105|NCT00487942|181498357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|1.27||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||1.27|-0.54|
90810106|NCT00487942|181498358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|0.38||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.38|-1.14|
90810107|NCT00487942|181498358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.63||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.63|-0.89|
91015096|NCT01646268|181912783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means|-4.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.18|-2.45|||ANCOVA||Value describes the difference value of the mean change from baseline between Rotigotine and Placebo groups. The Value for this outcome was -4.6.|The null hypothesis (H0) is that there is no difference in the change in the sum of the score from the ADL and motor examination in the UPDRS (Parts II+II) between the active treatment and the placebo groups (i.e., the change from Baseline in the sum of the score from the ADL and motor examination in the UPDRS (Parts II+III) is the same for both groups).||-2.45|-7.18|<0.0001
91015097|NCT02222246|181912787|NON_INFERIORITY|Change in pain scores from arrival to discharge||||||0.0311|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis for pain change was conducted using Hierarchical Linear Mixed Effects Model (HLM), adjusting for nested patient and site effects (N=126)||||||0.0311
91054874|NCT02792699|181991526|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.0794|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1834|0.0247||||||Risk difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[EU\]/Rituximab \[EU\]) at week 12, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||0.0247|-0.1834|
90810108|NCT00487942|181498358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.73||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.73|-0.84|
91015098|NCT02222246|181912788|NON_INFERIORITY|Trajectory of pain across time (arrival to discharge)||||||0.0049||||||p-value for the protocol by time interaction|Mixed Models Analysis|||The trajectory of change in pain score was evaluated every 30 minutes over 120 hours (2 hours) rather than 6 hours because of expected missing data after 120 minutes due to discharge from the ED.||||0.0049
91015099|NCT02222246|181912788|NON_INFERIORITY|Emergency Department Arrival||||||0.9393|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9393
91015100|NCT02222246|181912788|NON_INFERIORITY|Post-placement 30 minutes||||||0.7259|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7259
91015101|NCT02222246|181912788|NON_INFERIORITY|Post-placement 60 minutes||||||0.53|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5300
91054875|NCT02792699|181991526|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0426|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.877|1.2394||||||Risk ratio (ABP 798/ABP 798 versus Rituximab \[US\]/ABP 798\]) at week 12, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||1.2394|0.8770|
90810109|NCT00487942|181498359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|0.4||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.40|-1.21|
90810110|NCT00487942|181498359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|0.52||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.52|-1.09|
90810111|NCT00487942|181498359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|0.14||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.14|-1.51|
90810112|NCT00487942|181498360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|0.58||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.58|-1.06|
90810113|NCT00487942|181498360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.75||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.75|-0.85|
91015102|NCT02222246|181912788|NON_INFERIORITY|Post-placement 90 minutes||||||0.3678|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3678
90810114|NCT00487942|181498360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.7||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.70|-0.90|
90810115|NCT00487942|181498363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.71||Inferential statistics were not performed||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the SANS Total score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.71|-0.80|
90810116|NCT00487942|181498363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|0.45||Inferential statistics were not performed||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the SANS Total score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.45|-1.06|
91015103|NCT02222246|181912788|NON_INFERIORITY|Post-placement 120 minutes||||||0.2457|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2457
91015104|NCT02222246|181912788|NON_INFERIORITY|Emergency Department Discharge||||||0.0007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0007
91015105|NCT02222246|181912789|NON_INFERIORITY|Incidence of nausea during Emergency Department Visit - YES||||||0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0001
91015106|NCT02222246|181912790|NON_INFERIORITY|Incidence of vomiting (YES) during Emergency Department visit||||||0.6625|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.6625
91015107|NCT02222246|181912791|NON_INFERIORITY|Decrease in systolic BP (\>= 20% of baseline)||||||0.4473|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.4473
91015108|NCT02222246|181912792|NON_INFERIORITY|Decrease in diastolic blood pressure (\>= 20% baseline)||||||0.5372|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5372
91015109|NCT02222246|181912793|NON_INFERIORITY|Incidence of oxygen desaturation (\<95%) YES during Emergency Department visit||||||0.2891|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2891
91015110|NCT02222246|181912795|NON_INFERIORITY|Incidence of sedation during Emergency Department visit.||||||0.3915|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3915
91015111|NCT02222246|181912796|NON_INFERIORITY|Incidence of the need for supplemental oxygen during Emergency Department visit||||||0.0726|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0726
91015112|NCT02544607|181912819|OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
91015113|NCT02544607|181912820|OTHER|||||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.048
91015114|NCT02544607|181912821|OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
91015115|NCT02544607|181912822|OTHER|||||||0.0499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.0499
91015116|NCT02544607|181912823|OTHER|||||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.038
91015117|NCT01969201|181912858|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was evaluated by calculating the 95% CI for the differences in pregnancy rates between the two treatment groups. If the lower bound of the 95% CI of the difference between the two proportions was greater than -0.10 (i.e. 10%), then Fostimon was to be considered not inferior to the control treatment.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.73||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.88|4.42|||Fisher Exact|||||4.42|-9.88|0.49
90810117|NCT00487942|181498363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.89||Inferential statistics were not performed||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the SANS Total score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.89|-0.68|
90810118|NCT00487942|181498364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.63||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.63|-0.88|
90810119|NCT00487942|181498364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.82||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.82|-0.72|
90810120|NCT00487942|181498364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.81||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.81|-0.80|
90810121|NCT00487942|181498365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|0.2||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.20|-1.44|
90810122|NCT00487942|181498365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.62||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.62|-0.98|
90810123|NCT00487942|181498365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|0.63||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.63|-0.97|
90810124|NCT00487942|181498366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.72||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.72|-0.88|
90810125|NCT00487942|181498366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.72||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.72|-0.88|
91054876|NCT02792699|181991526|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0348|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0758|0.1454||||||Risk difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[US\]/ABP 798) at week 12, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||0.1454|-0.0758|
90810126|NCT00487942|181498366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.89||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.89|-0.72|
91015118|NCT01969201|181912859|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.003
91015119|NCT01969201|181912860|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.02
91015120|NCT01969201|181912861|OTHER|||||||0.32|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.32
91015121|NCT01969201|181912862|OTHER|||||||0.89|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.89
91015122|NCT01969201|181912863|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.5
91015123|NCT01969201|181912864|OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.53
91015124|NCT01969201|181912865|OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.07
90810127|NCT00487942|181498367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.87||Inferential statistics were not performed||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the PANSS Negative Scale score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.87|-0.65|
90810128|NCT00487942|181498367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.88||Inferential statistics were not performed||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the PANSS Negative Scale score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.88|-0.63|
90810129|NCT00487942|181498367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|1.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.6||Inferential statistics were not performed||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the PANSS Negative Scale score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||2.60|0.78|
90810130|NCT00487942|181498368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|0.46||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.46|-1.06|
90810131|NCT00487942|181498368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.67||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.67|-0.87|
90810132|NCT00487942|181498368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|1.74||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||1.74|0.05|
90810133|NCT00487942|181498369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|0.55||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.55|-1.05|
90810134|NCT00487942|181498369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|1.09||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||1.09|-0.52|
90810135|NCT00487942|181498369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|1.58||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||1.58|-0.08|
90810136|NCT00487942|181498370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.82||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.82|-0.78|
90810137|NCT00487942|181498370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|1.36||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||1.36|-0.27|
90810138|NCT00487942|181498370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|1.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.55||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||2.55|0.70|
90810139|NCT00487942|181498371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.87||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the PANSS Total score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.87|-0.64|
90810140|NCT00487942|181498371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.64||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the PANSS Negative Scale score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.64|-0.87|
90810141|NCT00487942|181498371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|1.54||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the PANSS Negative Scale score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||1.54|-0.08|
90810142|NCT00487942|181498372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|0.27||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.27|-1.27|
90810143|NCT00487942|181498372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|0.5||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.50|-1.05|
90810144|NCT00487942|181498372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|1.11||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||1.11|-0.51|
90810145|NCT00487942|181498373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.68||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.68|-0.92|
90810146|NCT00487942|181498373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.87||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.87|-0.73|
90810147|NCT00487942|181498373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.83||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.83|-0.77|
90810148|NCT00487942|181498374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.8||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.80|-0.80|
91015125|NCT01422876|181912869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.41|||ANCOVA|||Model for Week 24 includes baseline HbA1c (p\<0.0001) as linear covariate(s) and baseline eGFR (MDRD) (p=0.0038), geographical region (p\<0.0001), treatment (p\<0.0001) as fixed effect(s).||-0.41|-0.75|<0.0001
91015126|NCT01422876|181912869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.32|||ANCOVA|||Model for Week 24 includes baseline HbA1c (p\<0.0001) as linear covariate(s) and baseline eGFR (MDRD) (p=0.0038), geographical region (p\<0.0001), treatment (p\<0.0001) as fixed effect(s).||-0.32|-0.67|<0.0001
91015127|NCT01422876|181912869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.25|||ANCOVA|||Model for Week 24 includes baseline HbA1c (p\<0.0001) as linear covariate(s) and baseline eGFR (MDRD) (p=0.0038), geographical region (p\<0.0001), treatment (p\<0.0001) as fixed effect(s).||-0.25|-0.59|<0.0001
90810149|NCT00487942|181498374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.98||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.98|-0.62|
90810150|NCT00487942|181498374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|1.49||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||1.49|-0.16|
90810151|NCT00487942|181498375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|1.01||Inferential statistics were not performed||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the ESS Total score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||1.01|-0.51|
90810152|NCT00487942|181498375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.78||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the ESS Total score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.78|-0.73|
90810153|NCT00487942|181498375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|0.56||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the ESS Total score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.56|-1.01|
90810154|NCT00487942|181498376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.87||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.87|-0.64|
90810155|NCT00487942|181498376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.74||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.74|-0.79|
90810156|NCT00487942|181498376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|0.5||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.50|-1.11|
90810157|NCT00487942|181498377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.65||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.65|-0.95|
90810158|NCT00487942|181498377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.73||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.73|-0.87|
90810159|NCT00487942|181498377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|0.38||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.38|-1.24|
90810160|NCT00487942|181498378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.86||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.86|-0.75|
90810161|NCT00487942|181498378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.62||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.62|-0.99|
90810162|NCT00487942|181498378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|0.34||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.34|-1.28|
90810163|NCT05151445|181498392|OTHER||95% CI|-3.56||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.65|-1.46|||McNemar|||Week 4 vs. Baseline||-1.46|-5.65|0.002
90810164|NCT05151445|181498392|OTHER||95% CI|-3.11||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.07|-1.15|||McNemar|||Week 8 vs. Baseline||-1.15|-5.07|0.004
90810165|NCT05151445|181498392|OTHER||95% CI|-2.53||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|0.16|||McNemar|||Week 12 vs. Baseline||0.16|-4.90|0.038
90810166|NCT05151445|181498393|OTHER||95% CI|9.61||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|19.77|||McNemar|||Week 4 vs. Baseline||19.77|-0.55|0.062
91015128|NCT01422876|181912869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.21|||ANCOVA|||Model for Week 24 includes baseline HbA1c (p\<0.0001) as linear covariate(s) and baseline eGFR (MDRD) (p=0.0038), geographical region (p\<0.0001), treatment (p\<0.0001) as fixed effect(s).||-0.21|-0.56|<0.0001
90810167|NCT05151445|181498393|OTHER||95% CI|9.78||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.01|21.56|||McNemar|||Week 8 vs. Baseline||21.56|-2.01|0.098
90810168|NCT05151445|181498393|OTHER||95% CI|17.06||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.51|27.6|||McNemar|||Week 12 vs. Baseline||27.60|6.51|0.003
90810169|NCT05151445|181498394|OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||McNemar|||Week 4 vs. Baseline||||0.37
90810170|NCT05151445|181498394|OTHER|||||||0.724|||||||McNemar|||Week 8 vs. Baseline||||0.724
90810171|NCT05151445|181498394|OTHER|||||||0.289|||||||McNemar|||Week 12 vs. Baseline||||0.289
90810172|NCT05151445|181498395|OTHER|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||Week 4 vs. Baseline||||1.000
90810173|NCT05151445|181498395|OTHER|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||Week 8 vs. Baseline||||1.000
90810174|NCT05151445|181498395|OTHER|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||Weel 12 vs. Baseline||||1.000
90810175|NCT05151445|181498396|OTHER||95% CI|-1.1||||0.696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.96|4.76|||McNemar|||Week 4 vs. Baseline||4.76|-6.96|0.696
90810176|NCT05151445|181498396|OTHER||95% CI|-1.08||||0.734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.72|5.56|||McNemar|||Week 8 vs. Baseline||5.56|-7.72|0.734
90810177|NCT05151445|181498396|OTHER||95% CI|-4.15||||0.249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.53|3.23|||McNemar|||Week 12 vs. Baseline||3.23|-11.53|0.249
90810178|NCT05151445|181498397|OTHER||95% CI|-0.04||||0.989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.25|5.18|||McNemar|||Week 4 vs. Baseline||5.18|-5.25|0.989
90810179|NCT05151445|181498397|OTHER||95% CI|3.43||||0.263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.83|9.69|||McNemar|||Week 8 vs. Baseline||9.69|-2.83|0.263
90810180|NCT05151445|181498397|OTHER||Slope|0.44||||0.882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|6.68|||McNemar|||Week 12 vs. Baseline||6.68|-5.80|0.882
90810181|NCT05151445|181498398|OTHER||95% CI|-0.62||||0.425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|0.98|||McNemar|||Week 4 vs. Baseline||0.98|-2.23|0.425
90810182|NCT05151445|181498398|OTHER||95% CI|-4.98||||0.205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.08|-0.88|||McNemar|||Week 8 vs. Baseline||-0.88|-9.08|0.205
90810183|NCT05151445|181498398|OTHER||95% CI|-4.98||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.08|-0.8|||McNemar|||Week 12 vs. Baseline||-0.8|-9.08|0.020
90810184|NCT05151445|181498399|OTHER||95% CI|0.429||||0.429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|11.01|||McNemar|||Week 4 vs. Baseline||11.01|-4.90|0.429
91015129|NCT01422876|181912870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.54|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.37|-9.48|||ANCOVA|||Model for Week 24 includes baseline fasting plasma glucose (p\<0.0001), baseline HbA1c (p=0.6082) as linear covariate(s) and baseline eGFR (MDRD) (p=0.3685), geographical region (p=0.0104), treatment (p\<0.0001) as fixed effect(s).||-9.48|-23.37|<0.0001
91015130|NCT01422876|181912870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-22.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.62|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.3|-15.1|||ANCOVA|||Model for Week 24 includes baseline fasting plasma glucose (p\<0.0001), baseline HbA1c (p=0.6082) as linear covariate(s) and baseline eGFR (MDRD) (p=0.3685), geographical region (p=0.0104), treatment (p\<0.0001) as fixed effect(s).||-15.10|-29.30|<0.0001
91015131|NCT01422876|181912870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.55||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.31|-4.37|||ANCOVA|||Model for Week 24 includes baseline fasting plasma glucose (p\<0.0001), baseline HbA1c (p=0.6082) as linear covariate(s) and baseline eGFR (MDRD) (p=0.3685), geographical region (p=0.0104), treatment (p\<0.0001) as fixed effect(s).||-4.37|-18.31|0.0015
91015132|NCT01422876|181912870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-19.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.61|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.21|-12.03|||ANCOVA|||Model for Week 24 includes baseline fasting plasma glucose (p\<0.0001), baseline HbA1c (p=0.6082) as linear covariate(s) and baseline eGFR (MDRD) (p=0.3685), geographical region (p=0.0104), treatment (p\<0.0001) as fixed effect(s).||-12.03|-26.21|<0.0001
91015133|NCT01422876|181912871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.78||0.1605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.74|2.11|||ANCOVA|||Model for Week 24 includes baseline fasting plasma glucose (p\<0.0001), baseline HbA1c (p=0.4591) as linear covariate(s) and baseline eGFR (MDRD) (p=0.7413), geographical region (p=0.1504), treatment (p\<0.0001) as fixed effect(s).||2.11|-12.74|0.1605
91015134|NCT01422876|181912871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.78||0.1246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.25|1.61|||ANCOVA|||Model for Week 24 includes baseline fasting plasma glucose (p\<0.0001), baseline HbA1c (p=0.4591) as linear covariate(s) and baseline eGFR (MDRD) (p=0.7413), geographical region (p=0.1504), treatment (p\<0.0001) as fixed effect(s).||1.61|-13.25|0.1246
90810185|NCT05151445|181498399|OTHER||95% CI|-4.39||||0.255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.24|3.46|||McNemar|||Week 8 vs. Baseline||3.46|-12.24|0.255
90810186|NCT05151445|181498399|OTHER||95% CI|-7.0||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.55|1.55|||McNemar|||Week 12 vs. Baseline||1.55|-15.55|0.102
90810187|NCT05151445|181498400|OTHER||95% CI|-1.94||||0.568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.99|5.1|||McNemar|||Week 4 vs. Baseline||5.10|-8.99|0.568
90810188|NCT05151445|181498400|OTHER||95% CI|-4.11||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.59|2.37|||McNemar|||Week 8 vs. Baseline||2.37|-10.59|0.198
90810189|NCT05151445|181498400|OTHER||95% CI|-3.76||||0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.08|2.55|||McNemar|||Week 12 vs. Baseline||2.55|-10.08|.225
90810190|NCT02825420|181498425|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.007
91015135|NCT01422876|181912871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-23.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.78|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.06|-16.21|||ANCOVA|||Model for Week 24 includes baseline fasting plasma glucose (p\<0.0001), baseline HbA1c (p=0.4591) as linear covariate(s) and baseline eGFR (MDRD) (p=0.7413), geographical region (p=0.1504), treatment (p\<0.0001) as fixed effect(s).||-16.21|-31.06|<0.0001
91015136|NCT01422876|181912871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-22.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.77|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.71|-14.88|||ANCOVA|||Model for Week 24 includes baseline fasting plasma glucose (p\<0.0001), baseline HbA1c (p=0.4591) as linear covariate(s) and baseline eGFR (MDRD) (p=0.7413), geographical region (p=0.1504), treatment (p\<0.0001) as fixed effect(s).||-14.88|-29.71|<0.0001
90810191|NCT02825420|181498426|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.58
90810192|NCT02825420|181498427|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.62
91015137|NCT01422876|181912872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.6604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|1.03||Not an alpha protected test.|ANCOVA|||Model for Week 24 includes baseline weight (p\<0.0001), baseline HbA1c (p=0.1610) as linear covariate(s) and baseline eGFR (MDRD) (p=0.3685), geographical region (p=0.0162), treatment (p\<0.0001) as fixed effect(s).||1.03|-0.65|0.6604
90810193|NCT02825420|181498429|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.010
90810194|NCT02825420|181498431|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.048|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.048
90810195|NCT02825420|181498432|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.51
91015138|NCT01422876|181912872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.15|-1.44|||ANCOVA|||Model for Week 24 includes baseline weight (p\<0.0001), baseline HbA1c (p=0.1610) as linear covariate(s) and baseline eGFR (MDRD) (p=0.3685), geographical region (p=0.0162), treatment (p\<0.0001) as fixed effect(s).||-1.44|-3.15|<0.0001
91054877|NCT02792699|181991526|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0102|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8743|1.1671||||||Risk ratio (ABP 798/ABP 798 versus Rituximab \[EU\]/Rituximab \[EU\]) at week 24, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||1.1671|0.8743|
91015139|NCT01422876|181912872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.8757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.77||Not an alpha protected test.|ANCOVA|||Model for Week 24 includes baseline weight (p\<0.0001), baseline HbA1c (p=0.1610) as linear covariate(s) and baseline eGFR (MDRD) (p=0.3685), geographical region (p=0.0162), treatment (p\<0.0001) as fixed effect(s).||0.77|-0.91|0.8757
90810196|NCT00322023|181498504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|These are paired t test baseline vs final for the 30 mg/kg dose||||||<0.0001
90810197|NCT00322023|181498504|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|These are paired t test baseline vs final for the 60 mg/kg dose||||||<0.05
90810198|NCT00322023|181498504|SUPERIORITY|These are paired t test baseline vs final for the 120 mg/kg dose|||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
90810199|NCT00322023|181498505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||These are paired t test baseline vs final for 30mg/kg|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.39
90810200|NCT00322023|181498505|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||These are paired t test baseline vs final for 60mg/kg|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90810201|NCT00322023|181498505|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||These are paired t test baseline vs final for 120mg/kg|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
90810202|NCT03327220|181498506|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Means|1.3||||0.0841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|3.2||p-value was calculated from a one-sided, two-sample t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||Testing null hypothesis that true iovera° mean was greater than or equal to the true standard of care mean versus the alternative hypothesis that true iovera° mean was less than true standard of care mean.||3.2|-0.6|0.0841
90810203|NCT03327220|181498507|NON_INFERIORITY|The objective met if the t-test for non-inferiority was statistically significant using a one-sided α = 0.025 level of statistical significance.|Difference in Means|1.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|6.1||p-value was calculated from a one-sided, two-sample t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||Testing null hypothesis that Standard of Care mean minus the iovera° mean was greater than or equal to non-inferiority margin of 14 versus alternative hypothesis that difference in means was less than 14.||6.1|-2.3|<0.0001
90810204|NCT03327220|181498508|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Means|0.5||||0.0946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.2||p-value was calculated from a one-sided, two-sample t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||Pain in the Past 7 days - Testing the null hypothesis that the iovera° mean was less than or equal to the Standard of Care mean versus the alternative hypothesis that the iovera° mean was greater than the Standard of Care mean.||1.2|-0.2|0.0946
91015140|NCT01422876|181912872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.77|-1.05|||ANCOVA|||Model for Week 24 includes baseline weight (p\<0.0001), baseline HbA1c (p=0.1610) as linear covariate(s) and baseline eGFR (MDRD) (p=0.3685), geographical region (p=0.0162), treatment (p\<0.0001) as fixed effect(s).||-1.05|-2.77|<0.0001
91015141|NCT01422876|181912873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.1785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Model for Week 24 includes baseline HbA1c (p\<0.0001) as linear covariate(s) and baseline eGFR (MDRD) (p=0.8627), geographical region (p=0.0008), treatment (p\<0.0001) as fixed effect(s).||0.06|-0.33|0.1785
91015142|NCT01422876|181912873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.21|||ANCOVA|||Model for Week 24 includes baseline HbA1c (p\<0.0001) as linear covariate(s) and baseline eGFR (MDRD) (p=0.8627), geographical region (p=0.0008), treatment (p\<0.0001) as fixed effect(s).||-0.21|-0.61|<0.0001
90810205|NCT03327220|181498508|SUPERIORITY|Pain Right Now - Testing the null hypothesis that the iovera° mean was less than or equal to the Standard of Care mean versus the alternative hypothesis that the iovera° mean was greater than the Standard of Care mean.|Difference in Means|0.4||||0.2204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.3||p-value was calculated from a one-sided, two-sample t-test,|t-test, 1 sided|||||1.3|-0.6|0.2204
90810206|NCT03327220|181498509|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Means|-0.8||||0.3231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|2.5||p-value was calculated from a one-sided, two-sample t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||Testing the null hypothesis that the iovera° mean was less than or equal to the Standard of Care mean versus the alternative hypothesis that the iovera° mean was greater than the Standard of Care mean.||2.5|-4.0|0.3231
90810207|NCT03920293|181498510|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49|=|0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-0.7||Statistical significance was tested at α=0.05.|MMRM|||||-0.7|-2.6|=0.0009
90810208|NCT00523705|181498516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.86||0.467|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||estimate of main effect of treatment in a linear mixed effects model.|Pilot data were examined at treatment endpoint for change from baseline. Statistical power was very low due to the small sample size.||||0.467
90810209|NCT01691885|181498533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.74|8.91|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model with covariates of treatment, baseline, period and subject as a random effect.||||8.91|2.74|<0.001
90810210|NCT01972308|181498568|SUPERIORITY||Group differences in expected 12 month c|-0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.04||||||||0.04|-0.64|
90810211|NCT01972308|181498569|SUPERIORITY||Group differences in expected 12 month c|-0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|-0.01||||||||-0.01|-1.38|
90810212|NCT01972308|181498570|SUPERIORITY||Group differences in expected 12 month c|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.43||||||||0.43|-0.33|
90810213|NCT01972308|181498571|SUPERIORITY||Group differences in expected 12 month c|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.48||||||||0.48|-0.42|
90810214|NCT01972308|181498572|SUPERIORITY||Group differences in expected 12 month c|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.19||||||||0.19|-0.10|
91015143|NCT01422876|181912873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.22|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Model for Week 24 includes baseline HbA1c (p\<0.0001) as linear covariate(s) and baseline eGFR (MDRD) (p=0.8627), geographical region (p=0.0008), treatment (p\<0.0001) as fixed effect(s).||-0.22|-0.61|<0.0001
90810215|NCT01972308|181498573|SUPERIORITY||Group differences in expected 12 month c|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.6||||||||0.60|-0.24|
90810216|NCT04035564|181498576|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.2||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.026|1.533|||Chi-squared|||||1.533|0.026|0.71
90810217|NCT04035564|181498577|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.21||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.081|18.09|||Chi-squared|||||18.09|0.081|0.89
90810218|NCT04035564|181498578|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.861|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.286||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.461|-0.261|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.261|-5.461|0.032
90810219|NCT04035564|181498578|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.286||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.461|-0.261|||ANOVA|||||-0.261|-5.461|0.032
90810220|NCT04035564|181498579|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.788|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.299||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.43|0.858|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.858|-8.43|0.107
90810221|NCT04035564|181498579|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.299||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.43|0.85|||ANOVA|||||0.85|-8.43|0.107
90810222|NCT04035564|181498580|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-39.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.22||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.18|-4.57|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-4.57|-74.18|0.028
90810223|NCT04035564|181498580|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-39.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.22||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.18|-4.57|||ANOVA|||||-4.57|-74.18|0.028
91015144|NCT01422876|181912873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.37|||ANCOVA|||Model for Week 24 includes baseline HbA1c (p\<0.0001) as linear covariate(s) and baseline eGFR (MDRD) (p=0.8627), geographical region (p=0.0008), treatment (p\<0.0001) as fixed effect(s).||-0.37|-0.76|<0.0001
91054878|NCT02792699|181991526|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0199|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0835|0.1234||||||Risk difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[EU\]/Rituximab \[EU\]) at week 24, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||0.1234|-0.0835|
91054879|NCT02792699|181991526|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0793|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9244|1.2601||||||Risk ratio (ABP 798/ABP 798 versus Rituximab \[US\]/ABP 798\]) at week 24, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||1.2601|0.9244|
90810224|NCT04035564|181498581|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.75||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.296|1.932|||Chi-squared|||||1.932|0.296|0.55
90810225|NCT04035564|181498582|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.09||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.169|7.096|||Chi-squared|||||7.096|0.169|0.84
90810226|NCT04035564|181498583|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.8||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.266|2.448|||Chi-squared|||||2.448|0.266|0.70
90810227|NCT04035564|181498584|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.33
90810228|NCT04035564|181498584|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.57|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.57
90810229|NCT01562314|181498585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.821||||0.7532|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.292|2.309|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.309|0.292|0.7532
90810230|NCT01562314|181498586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.7032|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.419|4.04|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.040|0.419|0.7032
90810231|NCT01180036|181498605|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|40.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.6|55.4|||Chi-squared|||||55.4|24.6|0.001
90810232|NCT01180036|181498606|NON_INFERIORITY|With a non-inferiority margin of 15%. enrollment of 63 evaluable patients per study are is required to achieve 80% power to show that RTX is not inferior.||||||0.009|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.009
91015145|NCT01422876|181912874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|1.14||Not an alpha protected test.|ANCOVA|||Model for Week 24 includes baseline weight (p\<0.0001), baseline HbA1c (p=0.0023) as linear covariate(s) and baseline eGFR (MDRD) (p=0.0316), geographical region (p=0.0134), treatment (p=0.0031) as fixed effect(s).||1.14|-0.88|0.8010
90810233|NCT04243577|181498607|EQUIVALENCE|Margins for this test were calculated as plus or minus half a standard deviation using preliminary data acquired with the conventional electrodes, which were considered as the current gold standard and were ± 3.1.|||||<|0.025||||||Alpha level based on Bonferroni correction was set to .025 to correct for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||For Iteration 1 testing, we hypothesized that normalized amplitude during swallow trials obtained using the conventional sensors and the experimental sensors will be equivalent. Alpha level was set to .025 to correct for multiple comparisons.||||<0.025
90810234|NCT04243577|181498607|EQUIVALENCE|Margins for this test were based on the absolute value of the effect size (Cohen's d) being smaller than 0.5.|||||<|0.025||||||Alpha level based on Bonferroni correction was set to .025 to correct for multiple comparisons.|Bootstrapping CIs|In this 2nd iteration testing, we are accounting for variance uncertainty, and thus bootstrapping a Confidence Interval for Cohen's d.||For Iteration 2 testing again, we hypothesized that normalized amplitude during swallow trials obtained using the conventional sensors and the experimental sensors will be equivalent. Alpha level was set to .025 to correct for multiple comparisons.||||<0.025
90810235|NCT04243577|181498608|NON_INFERIORITY|Margin for this test was calculated as minus half a standard deviation using preliminary data acquired with the conventional electrodes, which were considered as the current gold standard and was -.99.|||||<|0.025||||||Alpha level based on Bonferroni correction was set to .025 to correct for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 1 sided|||For Iteration 1 testing, we hypothesized that Signal to Noise Ratio (SNR) obtained using the experimental sensors will not be inferior to the Signal to Noise Ratio (SNR) obtained using the conventional sensors. Alpha level was set to .025 to correct for multiple comparisons.||||<0.025
90810236|NCT04243577|181498608|NON_INFERIORITY|Margin for this test was based on the effect size (Cohen's d) being larger than -0.5.|||||<|0.025||||||Alpha level based on Bonferroni correction was set to .025 to correct for multiple comparisons.|Bootstrapping CIs|In this 2nd iteration testing, we are accounting for variance uncertainty, and thus bootstrapping a one-sided confidence bound for Cohen's d.||For Iteration 2 testing, we again hypothesized that Signal to Noise Ratio (SNR) obtained using the newer version of the experimental sensors will not be inferior to the Signal to Noise Ratio (SNR) obtained using the conventional sensors. Alpha level was set to .025 to correct for multiple comparisons.||||<0.025
90810237|NCT04243577|181498609|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Paired t-test||For Iteration 1 testing, we hypothesized that ease of use/comfort expressed after using the experimental patch will be higher than the one reported using the conventional electrodes. Alpha level was set to .05.||||<0.05
90810238|NCT04243577|181498609|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Paired t-test||For Iteration 2 testing, again we hypothesized that ease of use/comfort expressed after using the experimental patch will be higher than the one reported using the conventional electrodes. Alpha level was set to .05.||||<0.05
90810239|NCT03777709|181498628|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.45|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||unadjusted p-value|Regression, Linear||A recruitment aim of 40 participants per church (16 churches, 8 per arm, mean of 5 participants per church) provides 80% power to detect a difference of 1.45 in mean LS7 score change between groups (effect size 0.73).|Effect size of 1-unit difference in mean LS7 score was based on meta-analysis indicating each unit increase in mean LS7 metrics equates to a 19% and 11% reduction in CVD and all-cause mortality, respectively. Power calculations to estimate sample size: church goal of 16 churches (8/arm), with mean 5 participants/church (40/arm) to provide 80% power to detect 1.45 difference in average LS7 score change between groups (.01 intracluster correlation, and .5 coefficient of variation of church sizes).||||<0.0001
91015146|NCT01422876|181912874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.3616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|0.54||Not an alpha protected test.|ANCOVA|||Model for Week 24 includes baseline weight (p\<0.0001), baseline HbA1c (p=0.0023) as linear covariate(s) and baseline eGFR (MDRD) (p=0.0316), geographical region (p=0.0134), treatment (p=0.0031) as fixed effect(s).||0.54|-1.48|0.3616
90810240|NCT03575065|181498679|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.021||||||p-value was based on an exact binomial test with historic control ORR=0.25|Exact Binomial Test|||||||0.0210
90810241|NCT00939029|181498718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.7||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|7.5||1 tailed p-value|Regression, Logistic|||||7.5|1.0|0.05
90810242|NCT00939029|181498719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.1||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.4|11.6||1 tailed|Regression, Logistic|||||11.6|1.4|0.014
91015147|NCT01422876|181912874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.0178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|-0.21|||ANCOVA|||Model for Week 24 includes baseline weight (p\<0.0001), baseline HbA1c (p=0.0023) as linear covariate(s) and baseline eGFR (MDRD) (p=0.0316), geographical region (p=0.0134), treatment (p=0.0031) as fixed effect(s).||-0.21|-2.23|0.0178
91054880|NCT02792699|181991526|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0561|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0493|0.1615||||||Risk difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[US\]/ABP 798) at week 24, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||0.1615|-0.0493|
91054881|NCT02792699|181991526|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.8848|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7759|1.0091||||||Risk ratio (ABP 798/ABP 798 versus Rituximab \[EU\]/Rituximab \[EU\]) at week 40, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||1.0091|0.7759|
90810243|NCT00939029|181498720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|6.0||1 tailed|Regression, Logistic|||||6.0|0.8|0.087
90810244|NCT01528891|181498784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||"P\<0.01 for the following time points, 1 minute, 2 minutes, 3 minutes, 4 minutes, 5 minutes, and PACU.~P-values are adjusted for multiple comparisons."|t-test, 2 sided|||Heart rate values at each time point were compared between groups.||||<0.01
90810245|NCT01528891|181498784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||"P\<0.01 for the following time points, as compared to the baseline value: 1 minute, 2 minutes, 3 minutes, 4 minutes, 5 minutes, and PACU.~P-values are adjusted for multiple comparisons."|ANOVA|||Heart rate values were compared over time against the baseline value.||||<0.01
91015148|NCT01422876|181912874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.97|-0.95|||ANCOVA|||Model for Week 24 includes baseline weight (p\<0.0001), baseline HbA1c (p=0.0023) as linear covariate(s) and baseline eGFR (MDRD) (p=0.0316), geographical region (p=0.0134), treatment (p=0.0031) as fixed effect(s).||-0.95|-2.97|0.0001
90810246|NCT01528891|181498784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||"P\<0.01 for the following time points, as compared to the baseline value: 4 minutes, 5 minutes, and PACU.~P-values are adjusted for multiple comparisons."|ANOVA|||Heart rate values were compared over time against the baseline value.||||<0.01
90810247|NCT01528891|181498785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P\<0.0001 was calculated for both groups.|Fisher Exact|||The incidence of agitated patients in each group was compared.||||<0.0001
90810248|NCT01528891|181498786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||"P\<0.01 for the following time points: 1 minute, 4 minutes, 5 minutes, and PACU.~P-values are adjusted for multiple comparisons."|t-test, 2 sided|||Systolic blood pressure values were compared between groups at each time point.||||<0.01
90810249|NCT01528891|181498786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||"P\<0.01 for the following time points, as compared to the baseline value: 1 minute, 3 minutes, 4 minutes, and 5 minutes.~P-values are adjusted for multiple comparisons."|ANOVA|||SBP values were compared against the baseline value within each group over time.||||<0.01
90810250|NCT01528891|181498786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||"P\<0.01 for the following time points, as compared to the baseline value: 5 minutes and PACU.~P-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons."|ANOVA|||SBP values were compared against the baseline within each group over time.||||<0.01
90810251|NCT01528891|181498787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||"P\<0.01 for the following time points: 1 minute and PACU.~P-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons."|t-test, 2 sided|||DBP values were compared between groups at each time point.||||<0.01
91015149|NCT01422876|181912875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.191|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.319|7.573|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression includes treatment, baseline eGFR (MDRD), geographical region and baseline HbA1c.||7.573|2.319|<0.0001
91015150|NCT01422876|181912875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.474|8.184|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression includes treatment, baseline eGFR (MDRD), geographical region and baseline HbA1c.||8.184|2.474|<0.0001
90810252|NCT01528891|181498787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||"P\<0.01 for the following time points, as compared to baseline: 1 minute, 3 minutes, 4 minutes, 5 minutes, PACU.~P-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons."|ANOVA|||DBP values were compared within each group against the baseline value.||||<0.01
90810253|NCT01528891|181498787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||"P\<0.01 for the following time points, as compared to baseline: 4 minutes, 5 minutes, PACU.~P-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons."|ANOVA|||DBP values were compared against the baseline value within each group over time.||||<0.01
91015151|NCT01422876|181912875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.495|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.92|6.363|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression includes treatment, baseline eGFR (MDRD), geographical region and baseline HbA1c.||6.363|1.920|<0.0001
91015152|NCT01422876|181912875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.795||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.562|5.001|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression includes treatment, baseline eGFR (MDRD), geographical region and baseline HbA1c.||5.001|1.562|0.0005
91054882|NCT02792699|181991526|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.0776|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1789|0.0237||||||Risk difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[EU\]/Rituximab \[EU\]) at week 40, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||0.0237|-0.1789|
91015153|NCT01422876|181912876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.893||||0.0224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.095|3.274|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression includes treatment, baseline eGFR (MDRD), geographical region and baseline HbA1c.||3.274|1.095|0.0224
90810254|NCT04452435|181498788|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was that the treatments were equivalent and was to be rejected in favour of the alternative hypothesis that a treatment difference existed, if the probability of the null hypothesis being true was less than 10%.|||||=|0.4891|||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.4891
90810255|NCT04452435|181498788|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was that the treatments were equivalent and was to be rejected in favour of the alternative hypothesis that a treatment difference existed, if the probability of the null hypothesis being true was less than 10%.|||||=|0.0881|||||||ANCOVA|||A subgroup analyses was performed in subjects with supplemental oxygen use at baseline. A total of 26 subjects in the C21 group and 27 in the placebo group were included in the analysis of change in CRP from baseline to the mean of the last 2 non-missing scheduled assessments during the treatment period by baseline supplemental oxygen use.||||=0.0881
90810256|NCT04452435|181498789|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was that the treatments were equivalent and was to be rejected in favour of the alternative hypothesis that a treatment difference existed, if the probability of the null hypothesis being true was less than 10%.|||||=|0.0492|||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.0492
91015154|NCT01422876|181912876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.961||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.697|5.169|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression includes treatment, baseline eGFR (MDRD), geographical region and baseline HbA1c.||5.169|1.697|0.0001
91015155|NCT01422876|181912876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.065|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.768|5.314|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression includes treatment, baseline eGFR (MDRD), geographical region and baseline HbA1c.||5.314|1.768|<0.0001
91015156|NCT01422876|181912876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.303|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.462|7.522|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression includes treatment, baseline eGFR (MDRD), geographical region and baseline HbA1c.||7.522|2.462|<0.0001
91015157|NCT01491737|181912900|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.89||Test was performed at 2-sided alpha of 5%.|Log Rank|Stratified log-rank test based upon Kaplan-Meier including induction chemotherapy and prior adjuvant hormone therapy stratification factors.|Hazard ratio comparing Arm A vs. B from stratified Cox proportional hazards model including stratification factors.|Primary Analysis. Log Rank tested the following: Null Hypothesis (H0): the distribution of the PFS time was the same in Arms A \& B; The Alternative Hypothesis (H1): the distribution of the PFS time was different in Arms A \& B. A Cox proportional hazards model tested the HR. If the HR of investigational arm (Arm A) compared with control arm (Arm B) with respect to PFS was assumed to be constant over time (λ) then the null (H0) and alternative hypotheses (H1) were: H0: λ =1; H1: λ ≠1.||0.89|0.48|0.0070
91054883|NCT02792699|181991526|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9982|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8585|1.1605||||||Risk ratio (ABP 798/ABP 798 versus Rituximab \[US\]/ABP 798\]) at week 40, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||1.1605|0.8585|
90810257|NCT04452435|181498790|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was that the treatments were equivalent and was to be rejected in favour of the alternative hypothesis that a treatment difference existed, if the probability of the null hypothesis being true was less than 10%.|||||=|0.9923|||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.9923
90810258|NCT04452435|181498791|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was that the treatments were equivalent and was to be rejected in favour of the alternative hypothesis that a treatment difference existed, if the probability of the null hypothesis being true was less than 10%.|||||=|0.5355|||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.5355
90810259|NCT04452435|181498792|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was that the treatments were equivalent and was to be rejected in favour of the alternative hypothesis that a treatment difference existed, if the probability of the null hypothesis being true was less than 10%.|||||=|0.4738|||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.4738
90810260|NCT04452435|181498793|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was that the treatments were equivalent and was to be rejected in favour of the alternative hypothesis that a treatment difference existed, if the probability of the null hypothesis being true was less than 10%.|||||=|0.9418|||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.9418
90810261|NCT04452435|181498794|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was that the treatments were equivalent and was to be rejected in favour of the alternative hypothesis that a treatment difference existed, if the probability of the null hypothesis being true was less than 10%.|||||=|0.9733|||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.9733
90810262|NCT04452435|181498795|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was that the treatments were equivalent and was to be rejected in favour of the alternative hypothesis that a treatment difference existed, if the probability of the null hypothesis being true was less than 10%.|||||=|0.0568|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||=0.0568
91054884|NCT02792699|181991526|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0008|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1038|0.1054||||||Risk difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[US\]/ABP 798) at week 40, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||0.1054|-0.1038|
90810263|NCT04452435|181498796|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was that the treatments were equivalent and was to be rejected in favour of the alternative hypothesis that a treatment difference existed, if the probability of the null hypothesis being true was less than 10%.|||||=|0.6088|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||=0.6088
90810264|NCT04452435|181498797|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was that the treatments were equivalent and was to be rejected in favour of the alternative hypothesis that a treatment difference existed, if the probability of the null hypothesis being true was less than 10%.|||||=|0.5757|||||||Log Rank|||||||=0.5757
90810265|NCT04452435|181498798|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was that the treatments were equivalent and was to be rejected in favour of the alternative hypothesis that a treatment difference existed, if the probability of the null hypothesis being true was less than 10%.|||||=|0.8588|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||=0.8588
91054885|NCT02792699|181991526|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.7862|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6722|0.9196||||||Risk ratio (ABP 798/ABP 798 versus Rituximab \[EU\]/Rituximab \[EU\]) at week 48, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||0.9196|0.6722|
91054886|NCT02792699|181991526|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.2004|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3066|-0.0941||||||Risk difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[EU\]/Rituximab \[EU\]) at week 48, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||-0.0941|-0.3066|
91054887|NCT02792699|181991526|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.8804|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7587|1.0215||||||Risk ratio (ABP 798/ABP 798 versus Rituximab \[US\]/ABP 798\]) at week 48, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||1.0215|0.7587|
90810266|NCT04452435|181498800|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was that the treatments were equivalent and was to be rejected in favour of the alternative hypothesis that a treatment difference existed, if the probability of the null hypothesis being true was less than 10%.|||||=|0.003|||||||Chi-squared|||||||=0.003
91054888|NCT02792699|181991526|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1037|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2066|-0.0007||||||Risk difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[US\]/ABP 798) at week 48, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||-0.0007|-0.2066|
91054889|NCT02792699|181991527|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9256|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.64|1.3388||||||Risk ratio (ABP 798/ABP 798 versus Rituximab \[EU\]/Rituximab \[EU\]) at week 8, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||1.3388|0.6400|
90810267|NCT02292758|181498806|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.912||||0.7609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.431|1.93|||Log Rank||Unadjusted HR; Model stratified by: prior bevacizumab (Y vs N) and prior lines of chemotherapy (1 vs 2+)|||1.930|0.431|0.7609
90810268|NCT02292758|181498806|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.642|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.249|1.656|||||Adjusted HR; Model adjusted by: age, gender, race (white vs others), number of metastatic sites (1 vs 2 vs 3+), ECOG PS (0 vs 1), tumor site (colon, rectum/rectosigmoid, multiple)|||1.656|0.249|
90810269|NCT02292758|181498809|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.471||||0.0446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.209|1.062|||Log Rank||Unadjusted HR; Model stratified by: prior bevacizumab (Y vs N) and prior lines of chemotherapy (1 vs 2+)|||1.062|0.209|0.0446
90810270|NCT02292758|181498809|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.406|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.151|1.089|||||Adjusted HR; Model adjusted by: age, gender, race (white vs others), number of metastatic sites (1 vs 2 vs 3+), ECOG PS (0 vs 1), tumor site (colon, rectum/rectosigmoid, multiple)|||1.089|0.151|
90810271|NCT02292758|181498811|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3415|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3415
90810272|NCT02292758|181498812|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1279|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1279
91054890|NCT02792699|181991527|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.0181|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1209|0.0847||||||Risk difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[EU\]/Rituximab \[EU\]) at week 8, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||0.0847|-0.1209|
91054891|NCT02792699|181991527|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0868|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7328|1.6119||||||Risk ratio (ABP 798/ABP 798 versus Rituximab \[US\]/ABP 798\]) at week 8, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||1.6119|0.7328|
90810273|NCT02292758|181498813|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.447|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.447
90810274|NCT02292758|181498814|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.755||||0.3738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.345|1.655|||Log Rank||Unadjusted HR; Model stratified by: prior bevacizumab (Y vs N) and prior lines of chemotherapy (1 vs 2+)|||1.655|0.345|0.3738
90810275|NCT02292758|181498815|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4283|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Cetuximab comparison||||0.4283
90810276|NCT02292758|181498815|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5262|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Irinotecan comparison||||0.5262
90810277|NCT00385944|181498819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.02|-8.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.81|-17.02|<0.001
90810278|NCT00385944|181498820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.96|-4.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.65|-10.96|<0.001
90810279|NCT00385944|181498821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.06|-6.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-6.90|-17.06|<0.001
90810280|NCT00385944|181498822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.3||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.84|-1.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.76|-6.84|0.001
90810281|NCT00385944|181498823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|15.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.05|23.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||23.26|7.05|<0.001
90810282|NCT00385944|181498824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|12.69||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.56|19.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||19.81|5.56|0.001
90810283|NCT00385944|181498825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|10.26||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.17|18.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||18.34|2.17|0.015
90810284|NCT00385944|181498826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.85||||0.123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|8.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.84|-1.13|0.123
90810285|NCT00385944|181498827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.05|-10.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-10.62|-23.05|<0.001
91054892|NCT02792699|181991527|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0201|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0803|0.1205||||||Risk difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[US\]/ABP 798) at week 8, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||0.1205|-0.0803|
91054893|NCT02792699|181991527|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.7095|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5387|0.9346||||||Risk ratio (ABP 798/ABP 798 versus Rituximab \[EU\]/Rituximab \[EU\]) at week 12, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||0.9346|0.5387|
91054894|NCT02792699|181991527|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1109|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2231|0.0013||||||Risk difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[EU\]/Rituximab \[EU\]) at week 12, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||0.0013|-0.2231|
90810286|NCT00385944|181498828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-54.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.87|-38.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-38.01|-70.87|<0.001
90810287|NCT00385944|181498830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-35.5|||<|0.001||95.0|||||two-sided paired t-test|||||||<.001
90810288|NCT00385944|181498831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.0||||0.011||95.0|||||two-sided paired t-test|||Paired t-test for each arm separately||||0.011
90810289|NCT00385944|181498831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.847||95.0|||||two-sided paired t-test|||Paired t-test for each arm separately||||0.847
90810290|NCT00385944|181498832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.24||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.99|-2.49|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-2.49|-15.99|0.008
90810291|NCT00385944|181498833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|17.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.22|25.83|||t-test, 2 sided|||||25.83|9.22|<0.001
90810292|NCT05898672|181498853|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|131.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|115.89|148.48||||||Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio of adjusted geometric means of test to reference was reported; where test treatment is Rosuvastatin 10 mg + Nirmatrelvir 300 mg/ Ritonavir 100 mg and reference treatment is Rosuvastatin 10 mg. Ratio and associated 90% CIs were reported in percentage.||148.48|115.89|
90810293|NCT05898672|181498854|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|212.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|174.31|258.9||||||Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio of adjusted geometric means of test to reference was reported; where test treatment is Rosuvastatin 10 mg + Nirmatrelvir 300 mg/ Ritonavir 100 mg and reference treatment is Rosuvastatin 10 mg. Ratio and associated 90% CIs were reported in percentage.||258.90|174.31|
90810294|NCT01778049|181498877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0013||95.0|-0.52|-0.13|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure (MMRM)|The unstructured covariance structure has been used to fit the mixed model.|Mean Difference (Final Values) is actually the adjusted mean difference calculated as lina5 (E10) minus Plc (E10) value.|Superiority of lina5 (E10) vs. Plc (E10): change in HbA1c using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)- based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach. The model includes baseline HbA1c as linear covariates \& baseline estimated glomerula filtration rate (eGFR), geographical region, treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects.||-0.13|-0.52|0.0013
90810295|NCT01778049|181498877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.66|-0.28|||MMRM|The unstructured covariance structure has been used to fit the mixed model.|Mean Difference (Final Values) is actually the adjusted mean difference value calculated as lina5 (E25) minus Plc (E25).|Superiority of lina5 (E25) vs. Plc (E25): change in HbA1c using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)- based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach. The model includes baseline HbA1c as linear covariates \& baseline eGFR, geographical region, treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects.||-0.28|-0.66|<0.0001
90810296|NCT01778049|181498878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.0103||95.0|-1.15|-0.16|||MMRM|The unstructured covariance structure has been used to fit the mixed model.|Mean Difference (Final Values) is actually the adjusted mean difference value calculated as lina5 (E10) minus Plc (E10).|Superiority of lina5 (E10) vs. Plc (E10): change in FPG using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)- based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach. The model includes baseline HbA1c \& baseline eGFR as linear covariates, geographical region, treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects.||-0.16|-1.15|0.0103
90810297|NCT01778049|181498878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0452||95.0|-0.87|-0.01|||MMRM|The unstructured covariance structure has been used to fit the mixed model.|Mean Difference (Final Values) is actually the adjusted mean difference value calculated as lina5 (E25) minus Plc (E25).|Superiority of lina5 (E25) vs. Plc (E25): change in FPG using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)- based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach. The model includes baseline HbA1c \& baseline eGFR as linear covariates, geographical region, treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects.||-0.01|-0.87|0.0452
90810298|NCT01218958|181498889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.751||||0.0245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.94||The Hochberg method was used to adjust P-value for multiple comparisons (ie, 380 mg dose vs. placebo and 190 mg dose vs. placebo).|Andersen-Gill recurrent-event Cox|||"The event rate (percentage) is represented by the number of heavy drinking days divided by number of days at risk. For each day, the active groups' results were contrasted with placebo to form the event rate ratio. Thus, a hazard ratio of 0.75 for the 380 mg group indicates a 25% reduction in heavy drinking compared with that of placebo.~The method of analysis estimates the average ratio over time and accounts for discontinuation. Point/interval estimates for pairwise ratios were derived."||0.940|0.600|0.0245
90810299|NCT01218958|181498889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.0744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.677|1.018|||Andersen-Gill recurrent-event Cox model|||||1.018|0.677|0.0744
90810300|NCT02379988|181498903|EQUIVALENCE|The wilcoxon paired signed rank test was used as the primary analysis because of the non-normal distributions|||||=|0.0063||||||P-value for Free breathing and Breath Holding Heart Mean|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||=0.0063
90810301|NCT02379988|181498903|EQUIVALENCE|The wilcoxon paired signed rank test was used as the primary analysis because of the non-normal distributions.|||||=|0.011||||||P-value for Free breathing and Breath Holding Lung Mean|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||=0 .0110
90810302|NCT02379988|181498903|EQUIVALENCE|The wilcoxon paired signed rank test was used as the primary analysis because of the non-normal distributions.|||||=|0.5098||||||P-value for Free breathing and Breath Holding LAD Mean|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||=0.5098
90810303|NCT02379988|181498904|EQUIVALENCE|The wilcoxon paired signed rank test was used as the primary analysis because of the non-normal distributions|||||=|0.001||||||P-value for Heart Max Free breathing and Breath Hold|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||=0.0010
90810304|NCT02379988|181498904|EQUIVALENCE|The wilcoxon paired signed rank test was used as the primary analysis because of the non-normal distributions.|||||=|0.011||||||P-value for Lung Max Free breathing and Breath Hold|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||=0.0110
91054895|NCT02792699|181991527|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0882|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7829|1.5127||||||Risk ratio (ABP 798/ABP 798 versus Rituximab \[US\]/ABP 798\]) at week 12, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||1.5127|0.7829|
90810305|NCT02379988|181498905|EQUIVALENCE|Paired T-test|||||=|0.01||||||P-value for Large breast volume group|Paired T-test|||||||=0.01
90810306|NCT02379988|181498905|EQUIVALENCE|Paired T-test|||||=|0.1||||||P-value for Small breast volume group|Paired T-test|||||||=0.10
90810307|NCT02379988|181498906|EQUIVALENCE|Wilcoxon test was used due to the non-normal distribution of the data|||||=|0.7776|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||=0.7776
90810308|NCT01849575|181498916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.001
90810309|NCT02089464|181498966|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.76
90810310|NCT02089464|181498967|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.80
90810311|NCT02089464|181498968|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.55
91054896|NCT02792699|181991527|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0441|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0626|0.1508||||||Risk difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[US\]/ABP 798) at week 12, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||0.1508|-0.0626|
90810312|NCT02089464|181498969|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.14
90810313|NCT02089464|181498970|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.14
90810314|NCT02089464|181498972|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.95
90810315|NCT02089464|181498973|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.96
90810316|NCT02089464|181498974|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.63
91054897|NCT02792699|181991527|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9612|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7273|1.2705||||||Risk ratio (ABP 798/ABP 798 versus Rituximab \[EU\]/Rituximab \[EU\]) at week 24, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||1.2705|0.7273|
90810317|NCT03359785|181498990|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.278|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.376||0.2401|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-0.246||||ANOVA||||||-0.246|0.2401
90810318|NCT03359785|181498990|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.766|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.547||0.9053|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-1.513||||ANOVA||||||-1.513|0.9053
90810319|NCT00367744|181499012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Treatment groups were compared for change in limb fat using a two-sided signed rank test||The primary outcome measure was the change in limb fat at 48 weeks between the rosiglitazone and placebo group.||||0.02
90810320|NCT03664674|181499015|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.221|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.218||0.312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.648|0.207||Generalized Linear Model - Negative Binomial Regression Model with count data by subject transformed using the log-link function.|Regression, Linear|The parameter estimate + conf. int. results back-transform to the ratio of adjusted mean DVDs (OTO-104/Placebo) to be 0.802 (0.523, 1.230).||||0.207|-0.648|0.312
90810321|NCT04262882|181499112|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|3.64|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for age and religion. Analysis in GEE to account for dependence in repeated, dyadic data.|Reference group is the comparator arm|||3.64|0.77|0.20
90810322|NCT04262882|181499115|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi-Square|35.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Models control for age and religion. Models run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, dyadic data.|Wald Chi-Square tests the overall arm\*time intervention effect across the timepoints.|||||<0.001
90810323|NCT04262882|181499115|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is for the 7-month follow-up|Regression, Linear|Models control for age and religion. Models run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, dyadic data.||||||<0.001
90810324|NCT04262882|181499115|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is for the 10-month follow-up|Regression, Linear|Models control for age and religion. Models run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, dyadic data.||||||<0.001
90810325|NCT04262882|181499116|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi-Square|64.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Models control for age and religion. Models run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, dyadic data.|Regression, Linear||Wald Chi-Square tests the overall arm\*time intervention effect across the timepoints.||"Tests of significance for each follow-up time point:~7-months: unstandardized beta=1.08, standard error=0.14, p \< 0.001; 10-months: unstandardized beta=0.79, standard error=0.14, p \< 0.001"|||<0.001
90810326|NCT04262882|181499116|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is for the 7-month follow-up|Regression, Linear|Models control for age and religion. Models run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, dyadic data.||||||<0.001
90810327|NCT04262882|181499116|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is for the 10-month follow-up|Regression, Linear|Models control for age and religion. Models run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, dyadic data.||||||<0.001
90810328|NCT04262882|181499117|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi-Square|23.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Models control for age and religion. Models run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, dyadic data.||||||<0.001
90810329|NCT04262882|181499117|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is for the 7-month follow-up|Regression, Linear|Models control for age and religion. Models run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, dyadic data.||||||<0.001
90810330|NCT04262882|181499117|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is for the 10-month follow-up|Regression, Linear|Models control for age and religion. Models run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, dyadic data.||||||<0.001
90810331|NCT04262882|181499118|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi-Square|48.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Models control for age and religion. Models were run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, dyadic data.||||||<0.001
90810332|NCT04262882|181499118|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is for the 7-month follow-up|Regression, Cox|Models control for age and religion. Models run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, dyadic data.||||||<0.001
90810333|NCT04262882|181499118|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is for the 10-month follow-up|Regression, Linear|Models control for age and religion. Models run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, dyadic data.||||||0.04
90810334|NCT04262882|181499119|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi-Square|9.87||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|||||Arm\*Time p value for 10-months follow up overall.|Regression, Linear|Model controls for age and religion. Model was run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, dyadic data.||||||0.007
90810335|NCT04262882|181499119|SUPERIORITY|Models control for age and religion. Models run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, dyadic data.|unstandardized beta|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.6|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is for the 7-month follow-up|Regression, Linear|||||||0.60
90810336|NCT04262882|181499119|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.07|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is for the 10-month follow-up|Regression, Linear|Models control for age and religion. Models run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, dyadic data.||||||0.07
90810337|NCT04262882|181499120|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi-Square|10.42||||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|Model controls for age and religion. Model was run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, dyadic data.||||||0.005
91054898|NCT02792699|181991527|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.002|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1081|0.1122||||||Risk difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[EU\]/Rituximab \[EU\]) at week 24, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||0.1122|-0.1081|
91054899|NCT02792699|181991527|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0029|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.756|1.3305||||||Risk ratio (ABP 798/ABP 798 versus Rituximab \[US\]/ABP 798\]) at week 24, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||1.3305|0.7560|
91054900|NCT02792699|181991527|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0039|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1056|0.1135||||||Risk difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[US\]/ABP 798) at week 24, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||0.1135|-0.1056|
91054901|NCT02792699|181991527|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.8373|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6797|1.0316||||||Risk ratio (ABP 798/ABP 798 versus Rituximab \[EU\]/Rituximab \[EU\]) at week 40, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||1.0316|0.6797|
90810338|NCT04262882|181499120|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.85||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is for the 7-month follow-up|Regression, Logistic|Models control for age and religion. Models run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, dyadic data.||||1.85|0.99|0.05
90810339|NCT04262882|181499120|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.22||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is for the 10-month follow-up|Regression, Logistic|Models control for age and religion. Models run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, dyadic data.||||1.22|0.75|0.71
90810340|NCT04262882|181499121|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi-Square|13.4||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Model controls for age and religion. Model was run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, dyadic data.||||||0.001
90810341|NCT04262882|181499121|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.07|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is for the 7-month follow-up|Regression, Linear|Models control for age and religion. Models run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, dyadic data.||||||0.07
90810342|NCT04262882|181499121|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is for the 10-month follow-up|Regression, Linear|Models control for age and religion. Models run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, dyadic data.||||||<0.001
90810343|NCT04262882|181499122|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi-Square|78.81||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Model controls for age and religion. Model was run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, dyadic data.||||||0.001
90810344|NCT04262882|181499122|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is for the 7-month follow-up|Regression, Linear|Models control for age and religion. Models run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, dyadic data.||||||<0.001
90810345|NCT04262882|181499122|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|1.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is for the 10-month follow-up|Regression, Linear|Models control for age and religion. Models run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, dyadic data.||||||0.001
90810346|NCT04262882|181499123|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi-Square|19.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Model controls for age and religion. Model was run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, dyadic data.||||||<0.001
90810347|NCT04262882|181499123|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.008|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is for the 7-month follow-up|Regression, Linear|Models control for age and religion. Models run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, dyadic data.||||||0.008
90810348|NCT04262882|181499123|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is for the 10-month follow-up|Regression, Linear|Models control for age and religion. Models run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, dyadic data.||||||<0.001
90810349|NCT04730635|181499127|OTHER||Posterior Probability|46.3||||||||||||||There was a threshold of ≥2 percentage points. A posterior probability value \>55% was required to satisfy the primary hypothesis.||||
90810350|NCT04730635|181499128|OTHER||Posterior Probability|80.67||||||||||||||There was a threshold of ≤ 0.1 for this standard deviation change. A posterior probability value \>70% was required to satisfy this secondary hypothesis.||||
90810351|NCT04730635|181499129|OTHER||Posterior Probability|98.8||||||||||||||||||
90810352|NCT03070223|181499130|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|P-value is from the time and treatment group interaction.|Treatment effect was estimated as the difference in annualized rate of change (slope) with randomized pitavastatin compared to placebo from linear mixed effects models (0 reflects no difference between treatment groups).|||0.10|-0.30|0.31
90810353|NCT03070223|181499132|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.58||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|2.88|||Regression, Linear||Treatment group difference was estimated using baseline-adjusted linear regression model.|Comparison of Month 24 values||2.88|-1.72|0.62
90810354|NCT03070223|181499133|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.001||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.007|0.004|||Mixed Models Analysis|P-value is from the time and treatment group interaction.|Treatment effect was estimated as the difference in annualized rate of change (slope) with randomized pitavastatin compared to placebo from linear mixed effects models (0 reflects no difference between treatment groups).|||0.004|-0.007|0.61
90810355|NCT03070223|181499134|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.028||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|P-value is from the time and treatment group interaction.|Treatment effect was estimated as the difference in annualized rate of change (slope) with randomized pitavastatin compared to placebo from linear mixed effects models (0 reflects no difference between treatment groups).|||0.19|-0.25|0.80
90810356|NCT03070223|181499135|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.02||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.06|||Log-binomial regression using GEE|P-value is from the time and treatment group interaction.|Treatment effect is shown as relative annualized risk of impairment in the pitavastatin group compared to placebo (1 reflects no difference between treatment groups).|||1.06|0.98|0.33
90810357|NCT03070223|181499136|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.005||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.013|0.002|||Mixed Models Analysis|P-value is from the time and treatment group interaction.|Treatment effect was estimated as the difference in annualized rate of change (slope) with randomized pitavastatin compared to placebo from linear mixed effects models (0 reflects no difference between treatment groups).|||0.002|-0.013|0.18
91054902|NCT02792699|181991527|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.0863|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2029|0.0302||||||Risk difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[EU\]/Rituximab \[EU\]) at week 40, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||0.0302|-0.2029|
90810358|NCT03070223|181499137|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.06||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.24|||Log-binomial regression using GEE|P-value is from the time (before vs. after study treatment initiation) and treatment group interaction.|Treatment effect is shown as relative average risk of impairment over follow-up time in the pitavastatin group compared to placebo (1 reflects no difference between treatment groups).|||1.24|0.91|0.47
90810359|NCT03070223|181499142|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|1.4|||Regression, Linear||Treatment group difference at Month 24 (pitavastatin minus placebo) was estimated using baseline-adjusted linear regression model (0 reflects no difference between treatment groups).|Comparison of Month 24 values||1.4|-2.7|0.55
90810360|NCT03070223|181499143|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|1.8|||Regression, Linear||Treatment group difference at Month 24 (pitavastatin minus placebo) was estimated using baseline-adjusted linear regression model (0 reflects no difference between treatment groups).|Comparison of Month 24 values||1.8|-2.8|0.67
90810361|NCT03070223|181499144|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.52|||Regression, Linear||Treatment group difference (pitavastatin minus placebo) at Month 24 was estimated using baseline-adjusted linear regression model (0 reflects no difference between treatment groups).|Comparison of Month 24 values||0.52|-0.50|0.98
90810362|NCT03070223|181499145|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.3|||Regression, Linear||Treatment group difference at Month 24 (pitavastatin minus placebo) was estimated using baseline-adjusted linear regression model (0 reflects no difference between treatment groups).|Comparison of Month 24 values||0.3|-0.8|0.31
90810363|NCT03070223|181499146|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.9|||Regression, Linear||Treatment group difference at Month 24 (pitavastatin minus placebo) was estimated using baseline-adjusted linear regression model (0 reflects no difference between treatment groups).|Comparison of Month 24 values||0.9|-0.2|0.21
90810364|NCT00443053|181499150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.26|||Fisher Exact|||||0.26|0.08|<0.001
90810365|NCT00443053|181499151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.32|||Fisher Exact|||||0.32|0.12|<0.001
90810366|NCT00522418|181499162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||F Test|||||||.01
90810367|NCT00522418|181499165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|TWO_SIDED||||||F-Test|||||||0.17
90810368|NCT00522418|181499168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|TWO_SIDED||||||F-Test|||||||0.17
90810369|NCT00522418|181499169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|TWO_SIDED||||||F-Test|||||||0.28
91015158|NCT01491737|181912900|OTHER|Exploratory|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.89|||Log Rank|Stratified log-rank test based upon Kaplan-Meier including induction chemotherapy and prior adjuvant hormone therapy stratification factors.|Hazard ratio comparing Arm A vs. B from stratified Cox proportional hazards model including stratification factors.|Final Analysis||0.89|0.50|0.0059
91054903|NCT02792699|181991527|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1191|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.878|1.4264||||||Risk ratio (ABP 798/ABP 798 versus Rituximab \[US\]/ABP 798\]) at week 40, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||1.4264|0.8780|
90810370|NCT00522418|181499170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||F-Test|||||||0.03
90810371|NCT00522418|181499171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26|TWO_SIDED||||||F-Test|||||||0.26
90810372|NCT00642174|181499219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Net)|61.6|||<|0.0001||95.0|53.83|69.31||P-value is for 4 Hours After Loading Dose.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with treatment, sequence and treatment by sequence (i.e. period) as fixed effects and subject as random effect.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel minus Clopidogrel.|Null hypothesis: there is no difference between prasugrel and clopidogrel in IPA assessed by Accumetrics VerifyNow™ P2Y12 4 hours after administration of loading dose. Assuming 90% power, 2-sided alpha of 0.05, and a 17.5% difference in IPA between treatment groups with a standard deviation of 20, a total of 15 completed subjects per sequence group (i.e., 15 subject who receive prasugrel first, then clopidogrel; and 15 subjects who receive clopidogrel first, then prasugrel) was determined.||69.31|53.83|<0.0001
90810373|NCT00642174|181499220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|36.5|||<|0.0001||95.0|27.43|45.52||P-value for 1 Hour After Loading Dose. A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with treatment, sequence and treatment by sequence (ie. period) as fixed effects and subject as random effect.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel minus Clopidogrel.|Null hypothesis: there was no difference between prasugrel and clopidogrel in IPA assessed by Accumetrics VerifyNow™ P2Y12 1 hour after administration of the loading dose.||45.52|27.43|<0.0001
90810374|NCT00642174|181499220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|57.9|||<|0.0001||95.0|49.56|66.19||P-value for 24 Hour After Loading Dose. A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with treatment, sequence and treatment by sequence (ie. period) as fixed effects and subject as random effect.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel minus Clopidogrel.|Null hypothesis: there was no difference between prasugrel and clopidogrel in IPA assessed by Accumetrics VerifyNow™ P2Y12 24 hours after administration of the loading dose.||66.19|49.56|<0.0001
91015159|NCT01491737|181912901|OTHER|Exploratory|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||0.585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.91|||Log Rank|Stratified log-rank test based upon Kaplan-Meier including induction chemotherapy and prior adjuvant hormone therapy stratification factors.|Hazard ratio comparing Arm A vs. B from stratified Cox proportional hazards model including stratification factors.|Primary Analysis. This study was not powered for overall survival (OS), so adequately powered statistical testing for this outcome measure was not possible.||1.91|0.69|0.5850
90810375|NCT00642174|181499220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|17.7|||<|0.0001||95.0|10.27|25.04||P-value for 24 Hours After Last Maintenance Dose. A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with treatment, sequence and treatment by sequence (ie. period) as fixed effects and subject as random effect.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel minus Clopidogrel.|Null hypothesis: there was no difference between prasugrel and clopidogrel in IPA assessed by Accumetrics VerifyNow™ P2Y12 24 hours post-Last Maintenance Dose (LMD).||25.04|10.27|<0.0001
91054904|NCT02792699|181991527|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0288|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0827|0.1402||||||Risk difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[US\]/ABP 798) at week 40, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||0.1402|-0.0827|
91054905|NCT02792699|181991527|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.8376|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6807|1.0307||||||Risk ratio (ABP 798/ABP 798 versus Rituximab \[EU\]/Rituximab \[EU\]) at week 48, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||1.0307|0.6807|
90810376|NCT00642174|181499221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8||||0.5466||95.0|-3.66|1.97||P-value for Baseline (5 uM ADP). A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with treatment, sequence and treatment by sequence (ie. period) as fixed effects and subject as random effect.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel minus Clopidogrel.|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between prasugrel and clopidogrel in MPA assessed by Light Transmittance Aggregometry (LTA).||1.97|-3.66|0.5466
90810377|NCT00642174|181499221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-23.0|||<|0.0001||95.0|-28.45|-17.55||P-value for 1 After Post Loading Dose (5 uM ADP). A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with treatment, sequence and treatment by sequence (ie. period) as fixed effects and subject as random effect.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel minus Clopidogrel.|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between prasugrel and clopidogrel in MPA assessed by Light Transmittance Aggregometry (LTA).||-17.55|-28.45|<0.0001
90810378|NCT00642174|181499221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-26.6|||<|0.0001||95.0|-31.18|-22.02||P-value for 4 Hour After Loading Dose (5 uM ADP). A priori threshold for statisitical significance was set at p=0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with treatment, sequence and treatment by sequence (ie. period) as fixed effects and subject as random effect.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel minus Clopidogrel.|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between prasugrel and clopidogrel in MPA assessed by Light Transmittance Aggregometry (LTA).||-22.02|-31.18|<0.0001
90810379|NCT00642174|181499221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-23.3|||<|0.0001||95.0|-27.42|-19.17||P-value for 24 Hour After Loading Dose (5 uM ADP). A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with treatment, sequence and treatment by sequence (ie. period) as fixed effects and subject as random effect.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel minus Clopidogrel.|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between prasugrel and clopidogrel in MPA assessed by Light Transmittance Aggregometry (LTA).||-19.17|-27.42|<0.0001
90810380|NCT00642174|181499221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.7||||0.0001||95.0|-12.78|-4.58||P-value for 24 Hour After Last Maintenance Dose (5 uM ADP). A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with treatment, sequence and treatment by sequence (ie. period) as fixed effects and subject as random effect.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel minus Clopidogrel.|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between prasugrel and clopidogrel in MPA assessed by Light Transmittance Aggregometry (LTA).||-4.58|-12.78|0.0001
90810381|NCT00642174|181499221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.8779||95.0|-2.8|3.26||P-value for Baseline (20 uM ADP). A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with treatment, sequence and treatment by sequence (ie. period) as fixed effects and subject as random effect.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel minus Clopidogrel.|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between prasugrel and clopidogrel in MPA assessed by Light Transmittance Aggregometry (LTA).||3.26|-2.80|0.8779
90810382|NCT00642174|181499221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-25.2|||<|0.0001||95.0|-32.43|-17.87||P-value for 1 Hour After Loading Dose (20 uM ADP). A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with treatment, sequence and treatment by sequence (ie. period) as fixed effects and subject as random effect.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel minus Clopidogrel.|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between prasugrel and clopidogrel in MPA assessed by Light Transmittance Aggregometry (LTA).||-17.87|-32.43|<0.0001
90810383|NCT00642174|181499221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-35.1|||<|0.0001||95.0|-40.32|-29.78||P-value for 4 Hour After Loading Dose (20 uM ADP). A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with treatment, sequence and treatment by sequence (ie. period) as fixed effects and subject as random effect.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel minus Clopidogrel.|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between prasugrel and clopidogrel in MPA assessed by Light Transmittance Aggregometry (LTA).||-29.78|-40.32|<0.0001
90810384|NCT00642174|181499221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-31.0|||<|0.0001||95.0|-36.32|-25.66||P-value for 24 Hour After Loading Dose (20 uM ADP). A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with treatment, sequence and treatment by sequence (ie. period) as fixed effects and subject as random effect.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel minus Clopidogrel.|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between prasugrel and clopidogrel in MPA assessed by Light Transmittance Aggregometry (LTA).||-25.66|-36.32|<0.0001
90810385|NCT00642174|181499221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.4|||<|0.0001||95.0|-17.19|-7.58||P-value for 24 Hour After Last Maintenance Dose (20 uM ADP). A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with treatment, sequence and treatment by sequence (ie. period) as fixed effects and subject as random effect.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel minus Clopidogrel.|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between prasugrel and clopidogrel in MPA assessed by Light Transmittance Aggregometry (LTA).||-7.58|-17.19|<0.0001
90810386|NCT00642174|181499222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.9||||0.3692||95.0|-3.6|9.44||P-value for Baseline. A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with treatment, sequence and treatment by sequence (ie. period) as fixed effects and subject as random effect.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel minus Clopidogrel.|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between prasugrel and clopidogrel in Inhibition of Platelet Function as assessed by VASP.||9.44|-3.60|0.3692
91015160|NCT01491737|181912901|OTHER|Exploratory|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.7833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.52|||Log Rank|Stratified log-rank test based upon Kaplan-Meier including induction chemotherapy and prior adjuvant hormone therapy stratification factors.|Hazard ratio comparing Arm A vs. B from stratified Cox proportional hazards model including stratification factors.|Final Analysis. This study was not powered for overall survival (OS), so adequately powered statistical testing for this outcome measure was not possible.||1.52|0.73|0.7833
91015161|NCT01491737|181912902|SUPERIORITY||Difference in ORR|7.6||||0.2537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|21.3||Test was performed at 2-sided alpha of 5%. There was no multiplicity adjustment.|Chi-squared|||ORR for Arm A vs Arm B||21.3|-6.0|0.2537
91015162|NCT01491737|181912903|SUPERIORITY||Difference in CBR|1.8||||0.7743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|14.8||Test was performed at 2-sided alpha of 5%. There was no multiplicity adjustment.|Chi-squared|||CBR for Arm A vs. Arm B||14.8|-11.2|0.7743
91054906|NCT02792699|181991527|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.0781|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2014|0.0452||||||Risk difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[EU\]/Rituximab \[EU\]) at week 48, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||0.0452|-0.2014|
91015163|NCT01491737|181912904|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57||||0.0181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.91||Test was performed at 2-sided alpha of 5%.|Log Rank|Log-rank test from unstratified analysis based upon Kaplan-Meier approach. There was no multiplicity adjustment.|Hazard ratio from stratified Cox proportional hazards model including stratification factors of induction chemotherapy and prior adjuvant hormone therapy.|Primary Analysis. Log Rank tested the following: Null Hypothesis (H0): the distribution of the DOR time was the same in Arms A \& B; The Alternative Hypothesis (H1): the distribution of the DOR time was different in Arms A \& B. A Cox proportional hazards model tested the HR. If the HR of investigational arm (Arm A) compared with control arm (Arm B) with respect to DOR was assumed to be constant over time (λ) then the null (H0) and alternative hypotheses (H1) were: H0: λ =1; H1: λ ≠1.||0.91|0.36|0.0181
91015164|NCT01491737|181912904|OTHER|Exploratory|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.0205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.93|||Log Rank|Log-rank test from unstratified analysis based upon Kaplan-Meier approach. There was no multiplicity adjustment.|Hazard ratio from stratified Cox proportional hazards model including stratification factors of induction chemotherapy and prior adjuvant hormone therapy.|Final Analysis.||0.93|0.41|0.0205
91015165|NCT01491737|181912905|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.5597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.57||Test was performed at 2-sided alpha of 5%.|Log Rank|The log-rank test from unstratified analysis was based upon Kaplan-Meier approach. There was no multiplicity adjustment.|Hazard ratio from stratified Cox proportional hazards model including the induction chemotherapy and prior adjuvant hormone therapy stratification factors.|Log Rank tested the following: Null Hypothesis (H0): the distribution of the TTR time was the same in Arms A \& B; The Alternative Hypothesis (H1): the distribution of the TTR time was different in Arms A \& B. A Cox proportional hazards model tested the HR. If the HR of investigational arm (Arm A) compared with control arm (Arm B) with respect to TTR was assumed to be constant over time (λ) then the null (H0) and alternative hypotheses (H1) were: H0: λ =1; H1: λ ≠1.||1.57|0.78|0.5597
91015166|NCT00617175|181912927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Negative binomial regression|||||||<0.001
91015167|NCT00761969|181912982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Survival, major-event-free survival and event-free survival of patients with PAD and control subjects was estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method and compared by the log-rank test. The numbers of non-fatal events and revascularization procedures (which could be more than one per person) were compared using the Poisson regression - the outcome being the number of events per person-year.||||<0.001
91015168|NCT00585468|181912991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0163|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0163
91054907|NCT02792699|181991527|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0548|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8351|1.3321||||||Risk ratio (ABP 798/ABP 798 versus Rituximab \[US\]/ABP 798\]) at week 48, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||1.3321|0.8351|
91015169|NCT00585468|181912992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.039|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.039
91054908|NCT02792699|181991527|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0141|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1021|0.1303||||||Risk difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[US\]/ABP 798) at week 48, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||0.1303|-0.1021|
91054909|NCT02792699|181991528|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.5926|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.2818|1.2462||||||Risk ratio (ABP 798/ABP 798 versus Rituximab \[EU\]/Rituximab \[EU\]) at week 8, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||1.2462|0.2818|
91015170|NCT00585468|181912994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.146|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.146
91015171|NCT00585468|181912995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4937|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4937
91015172|NCT00585468|181912996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9669|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9669
91054910|NCT02792699|181991528|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.0574|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1285|0.0136||||||Risk difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[EU\]/Rituximab \[EU\]) at week 8, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||0.0136|-0.1285|
91054911|NCT02792699|181991528|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.7476|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.3383|1.6519||||||Risk ratio (ABP 798/ABP 798 versus Rituximab \[US\]/ABP 798\]) at week 8, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||1.6519|0.3383|
91015173|NCT00585468|181912998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9607|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9607
91015174|NCT00762073|181913016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.239||||0.5282|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values comparing each active treatment group to placebo were determined by a logistic regression analysis with treatment (all four groups) and age as main effects.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.5282
91015175|NCT00762073|181913016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|18.86||||0.0092|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values comparing each active treatment group to placebo were determined by a logistic regression analysis with treatment (all four groups) and age as main effects.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.0092
91015176|NCT00762073|181913016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|15.009||||0.0174|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values comparing each active treatment group to placebo were determined by a logistic regression analysis with treatment (all four groups) and age as main effects.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.0174
91015177|NCT00762073|181913017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1786|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were determined by a logistic regression analysis with treatment (all four groups) and age group as main effects.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.1786
91015178|NCT00762073|181913017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were determined by a logistic regression analysis with treatment (all four groups) and age group as main effects.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.0090
91015179|NCT00762073|181913017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were determined by a logistic regression analysis with treatment (all four groups) and age group as main effects.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.0001
91015180|NCT00762073|181913018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4959|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were determined by a logistic regression analysis with treatment (all four groups) and age group as main effects.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.4959
91015181|NCT00762073|181913018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were determined by a logistic regression analysis with treatment (all four groups) and age group as main effects.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.0040
90810387|NCT00642174|181499222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-36.2|||<|0.0001||95.0|-47.43|-24.98||P-value for 1 Hour After Loading Dose. A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with treatment, sequence and treatment by sequence (ie. period) as fixed effects and subject as random effect.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel minus Clopidogrel.|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between prasugrel and clopidogrel in Inhibition of Platelet Function as assessed by VASP.||-24.98|-47.43|<0.0001
90810388|NCT00642174|181499222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-53.0|||<|0.0001||95.0|-61.89|-44.02||P-value for 4 Hours After Loading Dose. A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with treatment, sequence and treatment by sequence (ie. period) as fixed effects and subject as random effect.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel minus Clopidogrel.|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between prasugrel and clopidogrel in Inhibition of Platelet Function as assessed by VASP.||-44.02|-61.89|<0.0001
90810389|NCT00642174|181499222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-42.8|||<|0.0001||95.0|-50.03|-35.55||P-value for 24 Hours After Loading Dose. A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with treatment, sequence and treatment by sequence (ie. period) as fixed effects and subject as random effect.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel minus Clopidogrel.|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between prasugrel and clopidogrel in Inhibition of Platelet Function as assessed by VASP.||-35.55|-50.03|<0.0001
90810390|NCT00642174|181499222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.9||||0.0012||95.0|-23.42|-6.37||P-value for 24 Hours After Last Maintenance Dose. A priori threshold for statistical significance was set to p=0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with treatment, sequence and treatment by sequence (ie. period) as fixed effects and subject as random effect.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel minus Clopidogrel.|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between prasugrel and clopidogrel in Inhibition of Platelet Function as assessed by VASP.||-6.37|-23.42|0.0012
90810391|NCT00642174|181499223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3||||0.5238||95.0|-5.35|2.78||P-value for Baseline. A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with treatment, sequence and treatment by sequence (ie. period) as fixed effects and subject as random effect.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel minus Clopidogrel.|Null hypothesis: no difference between prasugrel and clopidogrel in Inhibition of Platelet Function as measured by Thromboelastography (TEG)-Platelet Mapping Maximum Amplitude - Adenosine Diphosphate (ADP).||2.78|-5.35|0.5238
90810392|NCT00642174|181499223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.2|||<|0.0001||95.0|-21.15|-11.33||P-value for 1 Hour After Loading Dose. A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with treatment, sequence and treatment by sequence (ie. period) as fixed effects and subject as random effect.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel minus Clopidogrel.|Null hypothesis: no difference between prasugrel and clopidogrel in Inhibition of Platelet Function as measured by Thromboelastography (TEG)-Platelet Mapping Maximum Amplitude - Adenosine Diphosphate (ADP).||-11.33|-21.15|<0.0001
90810393|NCT00642174|181499223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-23.9|||<|0.0001||95.0|-29.67|-18.11||P-value for 4 Hours After Loading Dose. A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with treatment, sequence and treatment by sequence (ie. period) as fixed effects and subject as random effect.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel minus Clopidogrel.|Null hypothesis: no difference between prasugrel and clopidogrel in Inhibition of Platelet Function as measured by Thromboelastography (TEG)-Platelet Mapping Maximum Amplitude - Adenosine Diphosphate (ADP).||-18.11|-29.67|<0.0001
90810394|NCT00642174|181499223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-19.9|||<|0.0001||95.0|-24.97|-14.9||P-value for 24 Hours After Loading Dose. A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with treatment, sequence and treatment by sequence (ie. period) as fixed effects and subject as random effect.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel minus Clopidogrel.|Null hypothesis: no difference between prasugrel and clopidogrel in Inhibition of Platelet Function as measured by Thromboelastography (TEG)-Platelet Mapping Maximum Amplitude - Adenosine Diphosphate (ADP).||-14.90|-24.97|<0.0001
90810395|NCT00642174|181499223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.6||||0.3725||95.0|-8.46|3.26||P-value for 24 Hours After Last Maintenance Dose. A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with treatment, sequence and treatment by sequence (ie. period) as fixed effects and subject as random effect.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel minus Clopidogrel.|Null hypothesis: no difference between prasugrel and clopidogrel in Inhibition of Platelet Function as measured by Thromboelastography (TEG)-Platelet Mapping Maximum Amplitude - Adenosine Diphosphate (ADP).||3.26|-8.46|0.3725
91015182|NCT00762073|181913018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were determined by a logistic regression analysis with treatment (all four groups) and age group as main effects.|Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.0001
91015183|NCT00762073|181913019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0108|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values comparing percent change from baseline for each active treatment group to placebo were determined by an ANCOVA model with treatment and age strata as main effects and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.0108
91015184|NCT00762073|181913019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0208|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values comparing percent change from baseline for each active treatment group to placebo were determined by an ANCOVA model with treatment and age strata as main effects and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.0208
91015185|NCT00762073|181913019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values comparing percent change from baseline for each active treatment group to placebo were determined by an ANCOVA model with treatment and age strata as main effects and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91015186|NCT00762073|181913020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1095|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values comparing each active treatment group to placebo were determined by an ANCOVA model with treatment and age strata as main effects and baseline as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.1095
91054912|NCT02792699|181991528|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.0327|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0962|0.0308||||||Risk difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[US\]/ABP 798) at week 8, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||0.0308|-0.0962|
90810396|NCT01730339|181499224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.0219|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.19|1.16|||Repeated measures model|Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||A total sample size of 100 (accounting for approximately 10% drop rate) that is approximately 50 per group at one sided 0.05 level with delta of 1.5 points with standard deviation of 2 provided at least 80% power to detect a difference from placebo using a paired test. Statistical significance was tested at the two-sided significance level of 0.1, without adjusting for multiplicity.||1.16|0.19|0.0219
90810397|NCT01730339|181499224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.4038|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.24|0.72|||Repeated measures model|Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||A total sample size of 100 (accounting for approximately 10% drop rate) that is approximately 50 per group at one sided 0.05 level with delta of 1.5 points with standard deviation of 2 provided at least 80% power to detect a difference from placebo using a paired test. Statistical significance was tested at the two-sided significance level of 0.1, without adjusting for multiplicity.||0.72|-0.24|0.4038
90810398|NCT01730339|181499225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.43|0.2||||||Vascularity: Week 8: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.20|-0.43|
90810399|NCT01730339|181499225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.43|0.11||||||Vascularity: Week 8: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.11|-0.43|
90810400|NCT01730339|181499225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.15|0.52||||||Vascularity: Week 11: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.52|-0.15|
90810401|NCT01730339|181499225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.22|0.36||||||Vascularity: Week 11: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.36|-0.22|
90810402|NCT01730339|181499225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.07|0.77||||||Vascularity: Week 18: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.77|0.07|
90810403|NCT01730339|181499225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.05|0.65||||||Vascularity: Week 18: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.65|0.05|
90810404|NCT01730339|181499225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.03|0.68||||||Vascularity: Week 24: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.68|-0.03|
90810405|NCT01730339|181499225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.09|0.52||||||Vascularity: Week 24: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.52|-0.09|
90810406|NCT01730339|181499225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.18|0.42||||||Pigmentation: Week 8: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.42|-0.18|
91054913|NCT02792699|181991528|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.6346|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.3704|1.0872||||||Risk ratio (ABP 798/ABP 798 versus Rituximab \[EU\]/Rituximab \[EU\]) at week 12, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||1.0872|0.3704|
90810407|NCT01730339|181499225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.35|0.22||||||Pigmentation: Week 8: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.22|-0.35|
90810408|NCT01730339|181499225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.47|0.24||||||Pigmentation: Week 11: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.24|-0.47|
90810409|NCT01730339|181499225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|0.06||||||Pigmentation: Week 11: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.06|-0.60|
90810410|NCT01730339|181499225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.35|0.41||||||Pigmentation: Week 18: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.41|-0.35|
90810411|NCT01730339|181499225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.33|0.37||||||Pigmentation: Week 18: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.37|-0.33|
91054914|NCT02792699|181991528|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.0569|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1448|0.031||||||Risk difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[EU\]/Rituximab \[EU\]) at week 12, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||0.0310|-0.1448|
90810412|NCT01730339|181499225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.24|0.53||||||Pigmentation: Week 24: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.53|-0.24|
90810413|NCT01730339|181499225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.39|0.32||||||Pigmentation: Week 24: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.32|-0.39|
90810414|NCT01730339|181499225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.22|0.58||||||Thickness: Week 8: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.58|-0.22|
90810415|NCT01730339|181499225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.42|0.35||||||Thickness: Week 8: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.35|-0.42|
90810416|NCT01730339|181499225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.05|0.84||||||Thickness: Week 11: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.84|-0.05|
90810417|NCT01730339|181499225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.62|0.23||||||Thickness: Week 11: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.23|-0.62|
90810418|NCT01730339|181499225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|1.49||||||Thickness: Week 18: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||1.49|0.40|
90810419|NCT01730339|181499225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|0.72||||||Thickness: Week 18: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.72|-0.30|
90810420|NCT01730339|181499225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.13|1.24||||||Thickness: Week 24: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||1.24|0.13|
90810421|NCT01730339|181499225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.38|0.67||||||Thickness: Week 24: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.67|-0.38|
90810422|NCT01730339|181499225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.01|0.78||||||Relief: Week 8: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.78|-0.01|
90810423|NCT01730339|181499225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|0.28||||||Relief: Week 8: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.28|-0.50|
90810424|NCT01730339|181499225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.23|0.67||||||Relief: Week 11: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.67|-0.23|
90810425|NCT01730339|181499225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.63|0.24||||||Relief: Week 11: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.24|-0.63|
90810426|NCT01730339|181499225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.21|1.26||||||Relief: Week 18: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||1.26|0.21|
90810427|NCT01730339|181499225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.41|0.59||||||Relief: Week 18: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.59|-0.41|
90810428|NCT01730339|181499225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.02|1.02||||||Relief: Week 24: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||1.02|0.02|
90810429|NCT01730339|181499225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.33|0.63||||||Relief: Week 24: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.63|-0.33|
91015187|NCT00762073|181913020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0264|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values comparing each active treatment group to placebo were determined by an ANCOVA model with treatment and age strata as main effects and baseline as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.0264
91015188|NCT00762073|181913020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values comparing each active treatment group to placebo were determined by an ANCOVA model with treatment and age strata as main effects and baseline as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.0010
91054915|NCT02792699|181991528|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.7857|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.445|1.3874||||||Risk ratio (ABP 798/ABP 798 versus Rituximab \[US\]/ABP 798\]) at week 12, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||1.3874|0.4450|
90810430|NCT01730339|181499225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.09|0.67||||||Pliability: Week 8: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.67|-0.09|
90810431|NCT01730339|181499225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.39|0.34||||||Pliability: Week 8: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.34|-0.39|
90810432|NCT01730339|181499225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.12|0.74||||||Pliability: Week 11: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.74|-0.12|
90810433|NCT01730339|181499225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.76|0.05||||||Pliability: Week 11: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.05|-0.76|
90810434|NCT01730339|181499225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.25|1.2||||||Pliability: Week 18: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||1.20|0.25|
90810435|NCT01730339|181499225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.46|0.42||||||Pliability: Week 18: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.42|-0.46|
90810436|NCT01730339|181499225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.01|1.05||||||Pliability: Week 24: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||1.05|0.01|
90810437|NCT01730339|181499225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.98||||||Pliability: Week 24: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.98|0.00|
90810438|NCT01730339|181499225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.29|0.62||||||Surface Area: Week 8: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.62|-0.29|
91015189|NCT00762073|181913021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3769|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values comparing each active treatment group to placebo were determined by a logistic regression analysis with treatment (all four groups) and age as main effects.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.3769
91015190|NCT00762073|181913021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9363|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values comparing each active treatment group to placebo were determined by a logistic regression analysis with treatment (all four groups) and age as main effects.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.9363
90810439|NCT01730339|181499225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.28|0.43||||||Surface Area: Week 8: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.43|-0.28|
90810440|NCT01730339|181499225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.02|1.0||||||Surface Area: Week 11: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||1.00|0.02|
90810441|NCT01730339|181499225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.53|0.23||||||Surface Area: Week 11: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.23|-0.53|
90810442|NCT01730339|181499225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.08|1.2||||||Surface Area: Week 18: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||1.20|0.08|
90810443|NCT01730339|181499225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.44|0.42||||||Surface Area : Week 18: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.42|-0.44|
90810444|NCT01730339|181499225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.09|1.28||||||Surface Area: Week 24: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||1.28|0.09|
90810445|NCT01730339|181499225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.23|0.69||||||Surface Area: week 24: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.69|-0.23|
90810446|NCT01730339|181499225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.2778|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.12|0.6|||Repeated measures model|Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||Overall Opinion: Week 8 A total sample size of 100 (accounting for approximately 10% drop rate) that is approximately 50 per group at one sided 0.05 level with delta of 1.5 points with standard deviation of 2 provided at least 80% power to detect a difference from placebo using a paired test. Statistical significance was tested at the two-sided significance level of 0.1, without adjusting for multiplicity.||0.60|-0.12|0.2778
90810447|NCT01730339|181499225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.6888|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.28|0.45|||Repeated measures model|Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||Overall Opinion: Weekl 8 A total sample size of 100 (accounting for approximately 10% drop rate) that is approximately 50 per group at one sided 0.05 level with delta of 1.5 points with standard deviation of 2 provided at least 80% power to detect a difference from placebo using a paired test. Statistical significance was tested at the two-sided significance level of 0.1, without adjusting for multiplicity.||0.45|-0.28|0.6888
90810448|NCT01730339|181499225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.3515|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.18|0.65|||Repeated measures model|Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||Overall Opinion: Weekl 11 A total sample size of 100 (accounting for approximately 10% drop rate) that is approximately 50 per group at one sided 0.05 level with delta of 1.5 points with standard deviation of 2 provided at least 80% power to detect a difference from placebo using a paired test. Statistical significance was tested at the two-sided significance level of 0.1, without adjusting for multiplicity.||0.65|-0.18|0.3515
90810449|NCT01730339|181499225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.3788|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.64|0.19|||Repeated measures model|Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||Overall Opinion: Weekl 11 A total sample size of 100 (accounting for approximately 10% drop rate) that is approximately 50 per group at one sided 0.05 level with delta of 1.5 points with standard deviation of 2 provided at least 80% power to detect a difference from placebo using a paired test. Statistical significance was tested at the two-sided significance level of 0.1, without adjusting for multiplicity.||0.19|-0.64|0.3788
90810450|NCT01730339|181499225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.35|1.29|||Repeated measures model|||Overall Opinion: Weekl 18 A total sample size of 100 (accounting for approximately 10% drop rate) that is approximately 50 per group at one sided 0.05 level with delta of 1.5 points with standard deviation of 2 provided at least 80% power to detect a difference from placebo using a paired test. Statistical significance was tested at the two-sided significance level of 0.1, without adjusting for multiplicity.||1.29|0.35|0.0044
90810451|NCT01730339|181499225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.6848|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.35|0.58|||Repeated measures model|||Overall Opinion: Weekl 18 A total sample size of 100 (accounting for approximately 10% drop rate) that is approximately 50 per group at one sided 0.05 level with delta of 1.5 points with standard deviation of 2 provided at least 80% power to detect a difference from placebo using a paired test. Statistical significance was tested at the two-sided significance level of 0.1, without adjusting for multiplicity.||0.58|-0.35|0.6848
90810452|NCT01730339|181499226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.7552|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.44|0.64|||Repeated measures model|||Week 8: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.64|-0.44|0.7552
90810453|NCT01730339|181499226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.6605|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|0.52|||Repeated measures model|||Week 8: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.52|-0.30|0.6605
90810454|NCT01730339|181499226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.9842|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.55|0.56|||Repeated measures model|||Week 11: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.56|-0.55|0.9842
91054916|NCT02792699|181991528|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.0417|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1237.0|0.0403||||||Risk difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[US\]/ABP 798) at week 12, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||0.0403|-1237|
91054917|NCT02792699|181991528|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9254|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5772|1.4838||||||Risk ratio (ABP 798/ABP 798 versus Rituximab \[EU\]/Rituximab \[EU\]) at week 24, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||1.4838|0.5772|
91015191|NCT00762073|181913021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1235|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values comparing each active treatment group to placebo were determined by a logistic regression analysis with treatment (all four groups) and age as main effects.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.1235
90810455|NCT01730339|181499226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.401|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.21|0.63|||Repeated measures model|||Week 11: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.63|-0.21|0.4010
90810456|NCT01730339|181499226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.2491|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.19|1.07|||Repeated measures model|||Week 18: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||1.07|-0.19|0.2491
90810457|NCT01730339|181499226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.998|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.47|0.47|||Repeated measures model|||Week 18: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.47|-0.47|0.9980
90810458|NCT01730339|181499226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.473|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.37|0.93|||Repeated measures model|||Week 24: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.93|-0.37|0.4730
90810459|NCT01730339|181499226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.5413|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.67|0.31|||Repeated measures model|||Week 24: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.31|-0.67|0.5413
91015192|NCT00762073|181913022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3444|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values comparing each active treatment group to placebo were determined by a logistic regression analysis with treatment (all four groups) and age as main effects.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.3444
91015193|NCT00762073|181913022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9258|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values comparing each active treatment group to placebo were determined by a logistic regression analysis with treatment (all four groups) and age as main effects.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.9258
91015194|NCT00762073|181913022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3215|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values comparing each active treatment group to placebo were determined by a logistic regression analysis with treatment (all four groups) and age as main effects.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.3215
90810460|NCT01730339|181499227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|1.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.76|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.28|5.92||||||Appearance: Week 8: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||5.92|-3.28|
90810461|NCT01730339|181499227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.97|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.63|2.91||||||Appearance: Week 8: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||2.91|-3.63|
91015195|NCT00762073|181913023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6729|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values comparing percent change from Baseline for each active treatment group to placebo were determined by an ANCOVA model with treatment and age strata as main effects and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.6729
91015196|NCT00762073|181913023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8894|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values comparing percent change from Baseline for each active treatment group to placebo were determined by an ANCOVA model with treatment and age strata as main effects and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.8894
91015197|NCT00762073|181913023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1532|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values comparing percent change from Baseline for each active treatment group to placebo were determined by an ANCOVA model with treatment and age strata as main effects and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.1532
91054918|NCT02792699|181991528|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0156|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.078|0.1092||||||Risk difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[EU\]/Rituximab \[EU\]) at week 24, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||0.1092|-0.0780|
90810462|NCT01730339|181499227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|3.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.85|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.6|10.24||||||Appearance: Week 24: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||10.24|-2.60|
90810463|NCT01730339|181499227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.72|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.37|4.68||||||Appearance: Week 24: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||4.68|-4.37|
90810464|NCT01730339|181499227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.19|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.34|2.95||||||Symptoms: Week 8: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||2.95|-4.34|
91015198|NCT00762073|181913024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4197|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values comparing each active treatment group to placebo were determined by an ANCOVA model with treatment and age strata as main effects and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.4197
91015199|NCT00762073|181913024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9787|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values comparing each active treatment group to placebo were determined by an ANCOVA model with treatment and age strata as main effects and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.9787
91015200|NCT00762073|181913024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8987|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values comparing each active treatment group to placebo were determined by an ANCOVA model with treatment and age strata as main effects and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.8987
91015201|NCT01068418|181913032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||Threshold for significance was P\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A repeated measures regression analysis model was used to examine the effect of vitamin D3 therapy on the mean arterial pressure (mean of five measurements at each time point) before and during angiotensin II infusions, before and after vitamin D3 therapy.||||<0.05
91015202|NCT01068418|181913033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||threshold for significance was P\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A repeated measures regression analysis model was used to examine the effect of vitamin D3 therapy on the renal plasma flow (mean of three measurements at each time point) before and during angiotensin II infusions, before and after vitamin D3 therapy.||||<0.01
91015203|NCT01265875|181913041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline to day 4.||||.25
91015204|NCT01265875|181913041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline to day 7.||||.19
91015205|NCT01265875|181913041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline to Day 30.||||.27
91015206|NCT01265875|181913043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline to Day 4.||||.52
91015207|NCT01265875|181913043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline to Day 30.||||.34
91015208|NCT00830310|181913046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Sign test|||The null hypothesis is that the median difference between 3 months and baseline equals zero.||||<0.001
91015209|NCT00830310|181913047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Sign test|||The null hypothesis is that the median difference between 3 months and baseline equals zero.||||0.002
91015210|NCT00830310|181913048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the mean difference between 3 months and baseline equals zero.||||0.001
91015211|NCT00830310|181913049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the mean difference between 3 months and baseline equals zero.||||0.001
91015212|NCT00830310|181913050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Sign test|||The null hypothesis is that the median difference between 3 months and baseline equals zero.||||0.001
91015213|NCT00830310|181913051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the mean difference between 3 months and baseline equals zero.||||0.011
91015214|NCT00830310|181913052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the mean difference between 3 months and baseline equals zero.||||0.038
91015215|NCT00830310|181913053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Sign test|||The null hypothesis is that the median difference between 3 months and baseline equals zero.||||0.002
91015216|NCT00830310|181913054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the mean difference between 3 months and baseline equals zero.||||<0.001
91015217|NCT00145795|181913060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.81||||||The significance level is 5%.|t-test, 2 sided|This is a two-sample t-test assuming equal variances.||Two-sample Student's t-test was used to examine the significance of the difference in mean absolute increase in CD4+ count at 3 months. Under the null hypothesis, CD4+ increase is similar for both treatment groups.||||0.81
91054919|NCT02792699|181991528|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.112|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6722|1.8398||||||Risk ratio (ABP 798/ABP 798 versus Rituximab \[US\]/ABP 798\]) at week 24, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||1.8398|0.6722|
91015218|NCT00145795|181913061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.03||||||Significance level is 5%.|t-test, 2 sided|This is a two-sample t-test assuming equal variances.||Two-sample Student's t-test was used to examine the significance of the difference in mean absolute increase in CD4+ count at 6 months. Under the null hypothesis, CD4+ increase is similar for both treatment groups.||||0.03
91015219|NCT00145795|181913062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.08||||||The significance level is 5%.|t-test, 2 sided|This is a two-sample t-test assuming equal variances.||Two-sample Student's t-test was used to assess the difference in mean percent apoptosis for the CD4+ memory cell population at 3 months. Under the null hypothesis, percent CD4+ memory cell apoptosis is similar for both treatment groups.||||0.08
91015220|NCT00145795|181913063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.29||||||The significance level is 5%.|t-test, 2 sided|This is a two-sample t-test assuming equal variances.||Two-sample Student's t-test was used to assess the difference in mean percent apoptosis for the CD4+ naïve cell population at 3 months. Under the null hypothesis, percent CD4+ naïve cell apoptosis is similar for both treatment groups.||||0.29
91015221|NCT00145795|181913064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.29||||||The significance level is 5%.|t-test, 2 sided|This is a two-sample t-test assuming equal variances.||Two-sample Student's t-test was used to assess the difference in mean percent apoptosis for the CD4+ memory cell population at 6 months. Under the null hypothesis, percent CD4+ memory cell apoptosis is similar for both treatment groups.||||0.29
91015222|NCT00145795|181913065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.04||||||The significance level is 5%.|t-test, 2 sided|This is a two-sample t-test assuming equal variances.||Two-sample Student's t-test was used to assess the difference in mean percent apoptosis for the CD4+ naïve cell population at 6 months. Under the null hypothesis, percent CD4+ naïve cell apoptosis is similar for both treatment groups.||||0.04
91015223|NCT00145795|181913066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.21||||||The significance level is 5%.|t-test, 2 sided|This is a two-sample t-test assuming equal variances.||Two-sample Student's t-test was used to assess the difference in mean percent apoptosis for the CD8+ cell population at 3 months. Under the null hypothesis, percent CD8+ cell apoptosis is similar for both treatment groups.||||0.21
91015224|NCT00145795|181913067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.61||||||The significance level is 5%.|t-test, 2 sided|This is a two-sample t-test assuming equal variances.||Two-sample Student's t-test was used to assess the difference in mean percent apoptosis for the CD8+ cell population at 6 months. Under the null hypothesis, percent CD8+ cell apoptosis is similar for both treatment groups.||||0.61
91015225|NCT04419558|181913070|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.077||0.6579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.19|-0.12|0.6579
91015226|NCT01539512|181913077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.32|||Log Rank|P-value is from stratified log-rank test, adjusted for randomization stratification factors.||||0.32|0.10|< 0.0001
91015227|NCT01539512|181913080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.69||||||||0.69|0.11|
91015228|NCT01015118|181913082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.0239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.98|||Log Rank|Breslow method was used for handling ties.|If hazard ratio is below 1 then favours nintedanib.|Hazard ratio (HR), Confidence Interval (CI) and P-value obtained from a proportional-hazards model stratified by Macroscopic residual postoperative tumour (Yes vs. no), the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) Stage (IIB-III vs. IV) and carboplatin level Area under curve 5 (AUC5) vs. Area under curve 6 (AUC6).||0.98|0.72|0.0239
91015229|NCT01015118|181913083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.0286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|0.98|||Log Rank|Breslow method was used for handling ties.|If hazard ratio is below 1 then favours nintedanib.|Hazard ratio (HR), Confidence Interval (CI) and P-value obtained from a proportional-hazards model stratified by Macroscopic residual postoperative tumour (Yes vs. no), the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) Stage (IIB-III vs. IV) and carboplatin level (AUC5 vs. AUC6).||0.98|0.75|0.0286
90810465|NCT01730339|181499227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|-1.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.53|1.45||||||Symptoms: Week 8: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||1.45|-4.53|
90810466|NCT01730339|181499227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|1.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.07|5.58||||||Symptoms: Week 24: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||5.58|-2.07|
90810467|NCT01730339|181499227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|-1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.87|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.24|1.99||||||Symptoms: Week 24: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||1.99|-4.24|
90810468|NCT01730339|181499228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.15|0.35||||||Physician: Week 8: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.35|-0.15|
90810469|NCT01730339|181499228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.22|0.29||||||Physician: Week 8: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.29|-0.22|
90810470|NCT01730339|181499228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.04|0.54||||||Physician: Week 11: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.54|0.04|
90810471|NCT01730339|181499228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.36|0.15||||||Physician: Week 11: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.15|-0.36|
90810472|NCT01730339|181499228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.32|0.82||||||Physician: Week 18: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.82|0.32|
90810473|NCT01730339|181499228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.21|0.3||||||Physician: Week 18: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.30|-0.21|
90810474|NCT01730339|181499228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.18|0.68||||||Physician: Week 24: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.68|0.18|
90810475|NCT01730339|181499228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.18|0.32||||||Physician: Week 24: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.32|-0.18|
91015230|NCT01015118|181913084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.0186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.97|||Log Rank|Breslow method was used for handling ties.|If hazard ratio is below 1 then favours nintedanib.|HR, CI and P-value obtained from a proportional-hazards model stratified by Macroscopic residual postoperative tumour (Yes vs. no), the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) Stage (IIB-III vs. IV) and carboplatin level (AUC5 vs. AUC6).||0.97|0.72|0.0186
90810476|NCT01730339|181499228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|0.39||||||Participant: Week 8: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.39|-0.20|
90810477|NCT01730339|181499228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.28|0.23||||||Participant: Week 8: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.23|-0.28|
90810478|NCT01730339|181499228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.29|0.3||||||Participant: Week 11: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.30|-0.29|
91054920|NCT02792699|181991528|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0244|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.063|0.1119||||||Risk difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[US\]/ABP 798) at week 24, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||0.1119|-0.0630|
91054921|NCT02792699|181991528|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9798|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6675|1.4384||||||Risk ratio (ABP 798/ABP 798 versus Rituximab \[EU\]/Rituximab \[EU\]) at week 40, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||1.4384|0.6675|
91054922|NCT02792699|181991528|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0375|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0707|0.1456||||||Risk difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[EU\]/Rituximab \[EU\]) at week 40, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||0.1456|-0.0707|
91054923|NCT02792699|181991528|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1831|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7833|1.787||||||Risk ratio (ABP 798/ABP 798 versus Rituximab \[US\]/ABP 798\]) at week 40, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||1.7870|0.7833|
90810479|NCT01730339|181499228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.18|0.33||||||Participant: Week 11: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.33|-0.18|
90810480|NCT01730339|181499228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.12|0.72||||||Participant: Week 18: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.72|0.12|
90810481|NCT01730339|181499228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.27|0.24||||||Participant: Week 18: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.24|-0.27|
90810482|NCT01730339|181499228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.09|0.5||||||Participant: Week 24: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.50|-0.09|
90810483|NCT01730339|181499228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.11|0.4||||||Participant: Week 24: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.40|-0.11|
90810484|NCT00896363|181499234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.62|3.32|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of HAMD17|Comparison of placebo and GSK163090 1 mg on Day 14||3.32|-1.62|
90810485|NCT00896363|181499234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.12|2.78|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of HAMD17|Comparison of placebo and GSK163090 3 mg on Day 14||2.78|-2.12|
90810486|NCT00896363|181499234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.01|5.14|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of HAMD17|Comparison of placebo and GSK163090 1 mg on Day 42||5.14|-2.01|
90810487|NCT00896363|181499234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.81|5.13|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of HAMD17|Comparison of placebo and GSK163090 3 mg on Day 42||5.13|-1.81|
90810488|NCT00896363|181499235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.93|1.56|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of BECH 6 scale|Comparison of placebo and GSK163090 1 mg on Day 14||1.56|-0.93|
91015231|NCT01015118|181913085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.0256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.98|||Log Rank|Breslow method was used for handling ties.|If hazard ratio is below 1 then favours nintedanib.|HR, CI and P-value obtained from a proportional-hazards model stratified by Macroscopic residual postoperative tumour (Yes vs. no), the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) Stage (IIB-III vs. IV) and carboplatin level (AUC5 vs. AUC6).||0.98|0.74|0.0256
91015232|NCT01015118|181913086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.8653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.17|||Log Rank|Breslow method was used for handling ties.|If hazard ratio is below 1 then favours nintedanib.|HR, CI and P-value obtained from a proportional-hazards model stratified by Macroscopic residual postoperative tumour (Yes vs. no), the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) Stage (IIB-III vs. IV) and carboplatin level (AUC5 vs. AUC6).||1.17|0.83|0.8653
91015233|NCT01015118|181913087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.0749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.01|||Log Rank|Breslow method was used for handling ties.|If hazard ratio is below 1 then favours nintedanib.|HR, CI and P-value obtained from a proportional-hazards model stratified by Macroscopic residual postoperative tumour (Yes vs. no), the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) Stage (IIB-III vs. IV) and carboplatin level (AUC5 vs. AUC6).||1.01|0.77|0.0749
91015234|NCT01015118|181913088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.82|||Regression, Logistic||An odds ratio \>1 favours nintedanib.|Odds ratio and p-value are obtained from logistic regression model adjusting for, macroscopic residual postoperative tumour (yes vs. no), the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage (IIB-III vs. IV) and carboplatin level (AUC5 vs. AUC6).||1.82|0.81|0.3490
90810489|NCT00896363|181499235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.73|1.75|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of BECH 6 scale|Comparison of placebo and GSK163090 3 mg on Day 14||1.75|-0.73|
91015235|NCT01015118|181913089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.88|6.69|||Mixed effect growth curve model|Mixed-effects growth curve models (longitudinal models) with the average profile over time for each endpoint described by a piecewise linear model.|Mean difference presented is the Adjusted mean difference. Difference calculated as nintedanib minus placebo. High values represent a worse level of symptoms.|Adjusted for the stratification factors macroscopic residual postoperative tumour at baseline (yes vs. no), the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage (IIB-III vs IV), and carboplatin level (AUC5 vs. AUC6).||6.69|3.88|<0.0001
91015236|NCT01015118|181913090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.0124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.35|-0.41|||Mixed effect growth curve model|Mixed-effects growth curve models (longitudinal models) with the average profile over time for each endpoint described by a piecewise linear model.|Mean difference calculated is the Adjusted mean. High values represent a better level of functioning. Difference calculated as nintedanib minus placebo.|Adjusted for the stratification factors macroscopic residual postoperative tumour at baseline (yes vs. no), the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage (IIB-III vs IV), and carboplatin level (AUC5 vs. AUC6).||-0.41|-3.35|0.0124
91015237|NCT02388906|181913091|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.86|||Log Rank|Stratified log rank||||0.86|0.60|0.0003
91015238|NCT02388906|181913092|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.03|0.69|1.11|||Log Rank||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|||1.11|0.69|
91054924|NCT02792699|181991528|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0752|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0297|0.1802||||||Risk difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[US\]/ABP 798) at week 40, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||0.1802|-0.0297|
90810490|NCT00896363|181499235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.1|2.42|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of BECH 6 scale|Comparison of placebo and GSK163090 1 mg on Day 42||2.42|-1.10|
90810491|NCT00896363|181499235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.93|2.48|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of BECH 6 scale|Comparison of placebo and GSK163090 3 mg on Day 42||2.48|-0.93|
91015239|NCT02388906|181913099|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.9|||Log Rank|Stratified log rank||||0.90|0.63|
91015240|NCT00412360|181913107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17||||||Testing was performed at a significance level of 0.05|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in overall survival at one year post-randomization between participants receiving single- and double-unit cord blood transplant. The targeted sample size of 110 participants per treatment group was sufficient to maintain a type I error rate of 5% and provide more than 86% power to detect an increase in overall survival from 57% among participants receiving a single unit graft to 77% for those receiving a double-unit graft.||||0.17
91015241|NCT00412360|181913108|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11||||||Testing was performed at a significance level of 0.05|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in disease-free survival at one year post-randomization between participants receiving single- and double-unit cord blood transplant.||||0.11
90810492|NCT00896363|181499236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.94|2.37|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of QIDS-SR scale|Comparison of placebo and GSK163090 1 mg on Day 14||2.37|-0.94|
90810493|NCT00896363|181499236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.1|1.21|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of QIDS-SR scale|Comparison of placebo and GSK163090 3 mg on Day 14||1.21|-2.10|
90810494|NCT00896363|181499236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.22|2.9|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of QIDS-SR scale|Comparison of placebo and GSK163090 1 mg on Day 42||2.90|-1.22|
90810495|NCT00896363|181499236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.22|2.85|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of QIDS-SR scale|Comparison of placebo and GSK163090 3 mg on Day 42||2.85|-1.22|
90810496|NCT04098367|181499299|SUPERIORITY|Superiority is concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% confidence interval exceeds zero.|Difference in percentage|30.6|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|13.34|46.79|||Miettinen-Nurminen||VIVITY minus SYMFONY|||46.79|13.34|
90810497|NCT04098367|181499299|SUPERIORITY|Superiority is concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% confidence interval exceeds zero.|Difference in percentage|30.1|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|12.54|46.68|||Miettinen-Nurminen||VIVITY minus AT LARA|||46.68|12.54|
90810498|NCT04098367|181499300|SUPERIORITY|Superiority is concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% confidence interval exceeds zero.|Difference in percentage|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-21.91|17.42|||Miettinen-Nurminen||VIVITY minus SYMFONY|||17.42|-21.91|
90810499|NCT04098367|181499300|SUPERIORITY|Superiority is concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% confidence interval exceeds zero.|Difference in percentage|8.2|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-12.0|27.8|||Miettinen-Nurminen||VIVITY minus AT LARA|||27.80|-12.00|
90810500|NCT04098367|181499301|SUPERIORITY|Superiority is concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% confidence interval exceeds zero.|Difference in percentage|23.5|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|4.66|40.86|||Miettinen-Nurminen||VIVITY minus SYMFONY|||40.86|4.66|
90810501|NCT04098367|181499301|SUPERIORITY|Superiority is concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% confidence interval exceeds zero.|Difference in percentage|40.7|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|21.16|57.22|||Miettinen-Nurminen||VIVITY minus AT LARA|||57.22|21.16|
91015242|NCT00412360|181913109|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29||||||Testing was performed at a significance level of 0.05|Gray's test|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the cumulative incidence of neutrophil engraftment between participants receiving single- and double-unit cord blood transplant.||||0.29
91015243|NCT00412360|181913109|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||Testing was performed at a significance level of 0.05|Gray's test|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the cumulative incidence of platelet engraftment between participants receiving single- and double-unit cord blood transplant.||||0.04
90810502|NCT01545232|181499302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Relative Risk|0.75||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.08|||Mantel Haenszel|The critical level for significance (p\<0.044) was adjusted for two interim analyses, and all tests were conducted using two-sided tests.||Initial sample size (580) planned to detect a clinically meaningful 10% difference in 24-hour mortality (11% vs. 21%) supported by prior data. Data Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) increased sample size to 680 according to trial's adaptive design. With 680 pts. \& given the final observed mortality proportions in 1:1:1 group, PROPPR had 95% power to detect the pre-specified 10% difference at 24 hours if such differences existed.||1.08|0.52|0.12
90810503|NCT01545232|181499303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Relative Risk|0.86||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.12|||Mantel Haenszel|The critical level for significance (p\<0.044) was adjusted for two interim analyses, and all tests were conducted using two-sided tests.||Initial sample size of 580 planned to detect clinically meaningful a 12% difference in 30-day mortality (23% vs. 35%),supported by prior data. DSMB increased sample size to 680 according to trial's adaptive design. With 680 patients \& given final observed mortality proportions in the 1:1:1 group, PROPPR had 92% power to detect the pre-specified 12% difference at 30 days, if such differences existed.||1.12|0.65|0.26
90810504|NCT01545232|181499305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83|TWO_SIDED||||||van Elteren's test for medians|||||||0.83
91015244|NCT00412360|181913111|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78||||||Testing was performed at a significance level of 0.05|Gray's test|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the cumulative incidence of Grade II-IV acute GVHD between participants receiving single- and double-unit cord blood transplant.||||0.78
91054925|NCT02792699|181991528|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.7027|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.493|1.0017||||||Risk ratio (ABP 798/ABP 798 versus Rituximab \[EU\]/Rituximab \[EU\]) at week 48, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||1.0017|0.4930|
90810505|NCT01545232|181499306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44|TWO_SIDED||||||van Elteren's test for medians|||||||0.44
90810506|NCT01545232|181499308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||van Elteren's test for medians|||||||0.11
90810507|NCT01545232|181499309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|8.3||||||||8.3|-2.8|
90810508|NCT01545232|181499310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.7||||||||1.7|-0.8|
90810509|NCT01545232|181499311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37|TWO_SIDED||||||generalized logit model regression|||||||0.37
90810510|NCT01545232|181499312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|TWO_SIDED||||||van Elteren's test for medians|||||||0.14
90810511|NCT01545232|181499313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||van Elteren's test for medians|||||||0.10
91015245|NCT00412360|181913111|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||Testing was performed at a significance level of 0.05|Gray's test|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the cumulative incidence of Grade III-IV acute GVHD between participants receiving single- and double-unit cord blood transplant.||||0.02
91015246|NCT00412360|181913112|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51||||||Testing was performed at a significance level of 0.05|Gray's test|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the cumulative incidence of chronic GVHD between participants receiving single- and double-unit cord blood transplant.||||0.51
91015247|NCT00412360|181913112|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||Testing was performed at a significance level of 0.05|Gray's test|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the cumulative incidence of extensive chronic GVHD between participants receiving single- and double-unit cord blood transplant.||||0.05
91015248|NCT00412360|181913114|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12||||||Testing was performed at a significance level of 0.05|Gray's test|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the cumulative incidence of relapse between participants receiving single- and double-unit cord blood transplant.||||0.12
91015249|NCT00412360|181913115|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43||||||Testing was performed at a significance level of 0.05|Gray's test|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the cumulative incidence of treatment-related mortality between participants receiving single- and double-unit cord blood transplant.||||0.43
90810512|NCT01106859|181499343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.0174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.5||No p-value adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|The degrees of freedom are 114 for the p-value testing the difference between treatment groups.||P-value is based on ANOVA model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, a random effect for subject within sequence, and assuming compound symmetry covariance structure; the p-value is reported from LS Mean difference between Treatment Groups: LS mean of SDLP (Zolpidem 4 Hours) - LS mean of SDLP (Placebo).||1.5|0.1|0.0174
90810513|NCT01106859|181499343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.1||No p-value adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|The degrees of freedom are 114 for the p-value testing the difference between treatment groups||P-value is based on ANOVA model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, a random effect for subject within sequence, and assuming compound symmetry covariance structure; the p-value is reported from LS Mean difference between Treatment Groups: LS mean of SDLP (Zolpidem 3 Hours) - LS mean of SDLP (Placebo).||2.1|0.8|<0.0001
90810514|NCT01106859|181499343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|3.1||No p-value adjustment for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|The degrees of freedom are 114 for the p-value testing the difference between treatment groups||P-value is based on ANOVA model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, a random effect for subject within sequence, and assuming compound symmetry covariance structure; the p-value is reported from LS Mean difference between Treatment Groups: LS mean of SDLP (Zopiclone) - LS mean of SDLP (Placebo).||3.1|1.8|<0.0001
90810515|NCT01106859|181499344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.0145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.27||No p-value adjustment for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|The degrees of freedom are 113 for the p-value testing the difference between treatment groups||P-value is based on ANOVA model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, a random effect for subject within sequence, and assuming compound symmetry covariance structure; the p-value is reported from LS Mean difference between Treatment Groups: LS mean of SDS (Zolpidem 4 hours prior) - LS mean of SDS (Placebo).||0.27|0.03|0.0145
90810516|NCT01106859|181499344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.2179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.2||No p-value adjustment for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|The degrees of freedom are 113 for the p-value testing the difference between treatment groups||P-value is based on ANOVA model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, a random effect for subject within sequence, and assuming compound symmetry covariance structure; the p-value is reported from LS Mean difference between Treatment Groups: LS mean of SDS (Zolpidem 3 Hours) - LS mean of SDS (Placebo).||0.20|-0.05|0.2179
90810517|NCT01106859|181499344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16||||0.0096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.29||No p-value adjustment for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|The degrees of freedom are 113 for the p-value testing the difference between treatment groups||P-value is based on ANOVA model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, a random effect for subject within sequence, and assuming compound symmetry covariance structure; the p-value is reported from LS Mean difference between Treatment Groups: LS mean of SDS (Zopiclone) - LS mean of SDS (Placebo).||0.29|0.04|0.0096
90810518|NCT01106859|181499347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2188||95.0||||No adjustments. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|McNemar|McNemar's exact test with one degree of freedom is used.||Symmetry analysis was performed for the probability of difference from placebo falling above and below the threshold of +/-2.5 cm in Standard Deviation of Lateral Position (SDLP) following administration of zolpidem tartrate sublingual tablet 4 hours prior to driving. Statistically significant asymmetries indicate a decrement in driving performance. Lack of statistical significance indicates symmetry which shows a lack of treatment effect on driving performance.||||0.2188
91015250|NCT01790633|181913119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value adjustments for multiple comparisons were not necessary. Significance was determined using P \< 0.05|Chi-squared|||We approached our analysis as a pilot study with the aim of addressing feasibility. 70% of patients seen at the MDM clinic obtain a test result with standard serology. Assuming a 20% increase in infection awareness and type 1 error of 0.05, and power of at least 0.9, a minimum of 82 participants per group would be needed.||||<0.001
91015251|NCT01790633|181913120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7||||||P-value adjustments for multiple comparisons were not necessary. Significance was determined using P \< 0.05|Chi-squared|||||||0.7
91054926|NCT02792699|181991528|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.0908|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.211|0.0294||||||Risk difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[EU\]/Rituximab \[EU\]) at week 48, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||0.0294|-0.2110|
91015252|NCT05436067|181913126|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Difference in head angle pitch - left between the arms|paired t-test|||This statistical analysis tests the difference between the different arms (with and without app) using a paired t-test||||<0.001
91015253|NCT05436067|181913126|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Difference in head angle pitch - right between the arms|paired t-test|||This statistical analysis tests the difference between the different arms (with and without app) using a paired t-test||||<0.001
91015254|NCT05436067|181913126|OTHER|||||||0.042||||||Difference in head angle yaw - extension between the arms|paired t-test|||This statistical analysis tests the difference between the different arms (with and without app) using a paired t-test||||0.042
91015255|NCT05436067|181913126|OTHER|||||||0.111||||||Difference in head angle yaw - flexion between the arms|paired t-test|||This statistical analysis tests the difference between the different arms (with and without app) using a paired t-test||||0.111
91015256|NCT05436067|181913127|OTHER|||||||0.023||||||Difference in pitch range of motion between the arms|paired t-test|||This statistical analysis tests the difference between the different arms (with and without app) using a paired t-test||||0.023
91015257|NCT05436067|181913127|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||paired t-test|||This statistical analysis tests the difference between the different arms (with and without app) using a paired t-test||||<0.001
91015258|NCT05436067|181913128|OTHER|||||||0.057||||||Difference in pitch velocity between the arms|paired t-test|||This statistical analysis tests the difference between the different arms (with and without app) using a paired t-test||||0.057
90810519|NCT01106859|181499347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0117||95.0||||No adjustments. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|McNemar|McNemar's exact test with one degree of freedom is used.||Symmetry analysis was performed for the probability of difference from placebo falling above and below the threshold of +/-2.5 cm in Standard Deviation of Lateral Position (SDLP) following administration of zolpidem tartrate sublingual tablet 3 hours prior to driving. Statistically significant asymmetries indicate a decrement in driving performance. Lack of statistical significance indicates symmetry which shows a lack of treatment effect on driving performance.||||0.0117
90810520|NCT01106859|181499347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||No adjustments. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|McNemar|McNemar's exact test with one degree of freedom is used.||Symmetry analysis was performed for the probability of difference from placebo falling above and below the threshold of +/-2.5 cm in Standard Deviation of Lateral Position (SDLP) following administration of zopiclone 9 hours prior to driving. Statistically significant asymmetries indicate a decrement in driving performance. Lack of statistical significance indicates symmetry which shows a lack of treatment effect on driving performance.||||<0.0001
90810521|NCT01106859|181499349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.125||95.0||||No adjustments. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|McNemar|McNemar's exact test with one degree of freedom is used.||Symmetry analysis was performed for the probability of difference from placebo falling above and below the threshold of +/-2.0 cm in Standard Deviation of Lateral Position (SDLP) following administration of zolpidem tartrate sublingual tablet 4 hours prior to driving. Statistically significant asymmetries indicate a decrement in driving performance. Lack of statistical significance indicates symmetry which shows a lack of treatment effect on driving performance.||||0.1250
90810522|NCT01106859|181499349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0074||95.0||||No adjustments. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|McNemar|McNemar's exact test with one degree of freedom is used.||Symmetry analysis was performed for the probability of difference from placebo falling above and below the threshold of +/-2.0 cm in Standard Deviation of Lateral Position (SDLP) following administration of zolpidem tartrate sublingual tablet 3 hours prior to driving. Statistically significant asymmetries indicate a decrement in driving performance. Lack of statistical significance indicates symmetry which shows a lack of treatment effect on driving performance.||||0.0074
91015259|NCT05436067|181913128|OTHER|||||||0.003||||||Difference in yaw velocity between the arms|paired t-test|||This statistical analysis tests the difference between the different arms (with and without app) using a paired t-test||||0.003
91015260|NCT05436067|181913129|OTHER|||||||0.035||||||Weight shift exercise - mediolateral range of motion|paired t-test|||||||0.035
91015261|NCT05436067|181913129|OTHER|||||||0.006||||||Weight shift balance exercise anteroposterior range of motion|paired t-test|||||||0.006
91015262|NCT05436067|181913129|OTHER|||||||0.024||||||Single leg balance range of motion|paired t-test|||||||0.024
91054927|NCT02792699|181991528|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1449|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7601|1.7246||||||Risk ratio (ABP 798/ABP 798 versus Rituximab \[US\]/ABP 798\]) at week 48, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||1.7246|0.7601|
91054928|NCT02792699|181991528|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0277|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0804|0.1357||||||Risk difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[US\]/ABP 798) at week 48, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||0.1357|-0.0804|
91054929|NCT02792699|181991529|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.999|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.673|3.675||||||Analysis of the LS mean difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[EU\]/Rituximab \[EU\]) at week 8, based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for the stratification variables geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA.||3.675|-7.673|
91015263|NCT05436067|181913129|OTHER|||||||0.257||||||Single leg balance fluency|Shapiro Wilcoxon test|Data was not normally distributed.||||||0.257
91015264|NCT01678794|181913140|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.26
91015265|NCT01678794|181913141|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.67
91054930|NCT02792699|181991529|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.544|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.185|6.274||||||Analysis of the LS mean difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[US\]/ABP 798) at week 8, based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for the stratification variables geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA.||6.274|-5.185|
91015266|NCT00563706|181913152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-12.3||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.24|-0.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects model was used to assess the treatment effects with change in PANSS total score from baseline as response variable, treatment, visit, and treatment by visit as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.37|-24.24|0.043
91054931|NCT02792699|181991529|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-8.224|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.102|-2.346||||||Analysis of the LS mean difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[EU\]/Rituximab \[EU\]) at week 12, based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for the stratification variables geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA.||-2.346|-14.102|
91015267|NCT00563706|181913152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.77||||0.457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.7|11.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects model was used to assess the treatment effects with change in PANSS total score from baseline as response variable, treatment, visit, and treatment by visit as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||11.16|-24.70|0.457
91015268|NCT00563706|181913152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-11.61||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.03|0.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects model was used to assess the treatment effects with change in PANSS total score from baseline as response variable, treatment, visit, and treatment by visit as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.81|-24.03|0.067
91015269|NCT00563706|181913152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.61||||0.567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.02|8.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects model was used to assess the treatment effects with change in PANSS total score from baseline as response variable, treatment, visit, and treatment by visit as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||8.80|-16.02|0.567
90810523|NCT01106859|181499349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||No adjustments. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|McNemar|McNemar's exact test with one degree of freedom is used.||Symmetry analysis was performed for the probability of difference from placebo falling above and below the threshold of +/-2.0 cm in Standard Deviation of Lateral Position (SDLP) following administration of Zopiclone 9 hours prior to driving. Statistically significant asymmetries indicate a decrement in driving performance. Lack of statistical significance indicates symmetry which shows a lack of treatment effect on driving performance.||||<0.0001
90810524|NCT01106859|181499351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5||95.0||||No adjustments. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|McNemar|McNemar's exact test with one degree of freedom is used.||Symmetry analysis was performed for the probability of difference from placebo falling above and below the threshold of +/-3.5 cm in Standard Deviation of Lateral Position (SDLP) following administration of zolpidem tartrate sublingual tablet 4 hours prior to driving. Statistically significant asymmetries indicate a decrement in driving performance. Lack of statistical significance indicates symmetry which shows a lack of treatment effect on driving performance.||||0.5000
90810525|NCT01106859|181499351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0156||95.0||||No adjustments. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|McNemar|McNemar's exact test with one degree of freedom is used.||Symmetry analysis was performed for the probability of difference from placebo falling above and below the threshold of +/-3.5 cm in Standard Deviation of Lateral Position (SDLP) following administration of zolpidem tartrate sublingual tablet 3 hours prior to driving. Statistically significant asymmetries indicate a decrement in driving performance. Lack of statistical significance indicates symmetry which shows a lack of treatment effect on driving performance.||||0.0156
90810526|NCT01106859|181499351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0||||No adjustments. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|McNemar|McNemar's exact test with one degree of freedom is used.||Symmetry analysis was performed for the probability of difference from placebo falling above and below the threshold of +/-3.5 cm in Standard Deviation of Lateral Position (SDLP) following administration of zopiclone 9 hours prior to driving. Statistically significant asymmetries indicate a decrement in driving performance. Lack of statistical significance indicates symmetry which shows a lack of treatment effect on driving performance.||||0.0001
90810527|NCT01007435|181499388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.77|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.19|7.14||A hierarchy of statistical testing was implemented in order to control the type I error rate for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Logistic|The stratification factors, region and serologic status, were included in the model.|"Last observation carried forward was used for TJC and SJC. No imputation was used for ESR and GH. Patients who withdrew prematurely or where a DAS28 could not be calculated were set to non-responder."|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the DAS28 remission response at Week 24 between the placebo to tocilizumab + methotrexate and the tocilizumab 8 mg/kg + methotrexate treatment groups.||7.14|3.19|<0.0001
90810528|NCT01007435|181499388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.47|5.55||A hierarchy of statistical testing was implemented in order to control the type I error rate for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Logistic|The stratification factors, region and serologic status, were included in the model.|"Last observation carried forward was used for TJC and SJC. No imputation was used for ESR and GH. Patients who withdrew prematurely or where a DAS28 could not be calculated were set to non-responder."|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the DAS28 remission response at Week 24 between the placebo to tocilizumab + methotrexate and the tocilizumab 8 mg/kg + placebo to methotrexate treatment groups.||5.55|2.47|<0.0001
90810529|NCT01007435|181499388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|4.11||A hierarchy of statistical testing was implemented in order to control the type I error rate for multiple comparisons. This comparison came after the break in statistical hierarchy.|Regression, Logistic|The stratification factors, region and serologic status, were included in the model.|"Last observation carried forward was used for TJC and SJC. No imputation was used for ESR and GH. Patients who withdrew prematurely or where a DAS28 could not be calculated were set to non-responder."|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the DAS28 remission response at Week 24 between the placebo to tocilizumab + methotrexate and the tocilizumab 4 mg/kg + methotrexate treatment groups.||4.11|1.80|<0.0001
90810530|NCT03989427|181499447|EQUIVALENCE|The two treatment sequence could be called equivalent if the observed difference and its 95% CI are completely inside the interval of clinical equivalence. A significant result (p \< 0.05) means that the two treatments are equivalent, according the definition of equivalence as defined clinically.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.424||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.221|2.628||The threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05|ANOVA|Three-way mixed ANOVA was done to determine the effect of Intervention on BPI scores .||"Null hypothesis is that the sequence of brushing first and flossing later has no effect on gingival inflammation.~No previous studies with Mean and SD were available. Hence, a pilot study was done. 30 participants were randomly assigned to Brush first and floss later (BF) group ; and Floss first brush later(FB) group. After 1 week there was cross-over. 80% power is required to detect mean difference in BPI scores."||2.628|0.221|0.022
90810531|NCT03989427|181499448|EQUIVALENCE|The two treatment sequence could be called equivalent if the observed difference and its 95% CI are completely inside the interval of clinical equivalence. A significant result (p \< 0.05) means that the two treatments are equivalent, according the definition of equivalence as defined clinically.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.058||||0.971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.335|3.219|||ANOVA|Three-way mixed ANOVA was done to determine the effect of Intervention on RMNPI index scores||"Null hypothesis:~The sequence of brushing and flossing has no effect on plaque scores~There were no previous studies with Mean and SD to calculate sample. So a pilot study was conducted. 30 participants were randomly assigned in 1:1 fashion to Brush-floss (GroupA) and Floss brush group (group B). Then after 1 week there was cross-over among the groups.2 groups would have at least 80% power to detect the mean difference in BPI scores."||3.219|-3.335|0.971
90810532|NCT00521599|181499449|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|assume n=240 per group and standard deviation (STD) = 45 L/min for AM Peak Flow Rate at Week 8. If the two actives are the same, 95% CI of their mean difference has 90% probability to be completely within +/- 15 L/min.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.62|STANDARD_DEVIATION|37.0||0.654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.74|5.49|||ANOVA|||Week 8 End scores||5.49|-8.74|0.654
90810533|NCT00521599|181499449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.003||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Week 8 End scores||||0.003
90810534|NCT00521599|181499449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Week 8 End scores||||0.001
90810535|NCT00791479|181499450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of log linear dose response with placebo.||||<0.001
90810536|NCT00791479|181499450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of log linear dose response without placebo.||||<0.001
90810537|NCT00791479|181499450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37||||0.069||||||An adjustment for multiplicity was performed when comparing the individual doses to placebo using a Dunnett's test.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.069
91015270|NCT00563706|181913152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-10.9||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.71|0.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects model was used to assess the treatment effects with change in PANSS total score from baseline as response variable, treatment, visit, and treatment by visit as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.92|-22.71|0.070
91015271|NCT00563706|181913152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.18||||0.647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.87|10.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects model was used to assess the treatment effects with change in PANSS total score from baseline as response variable, treatment, visit, and treatment by visit as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||10.50|-16.87|0.647
91015272|NCT00563706|181913152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-9.73||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.46|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects model was used to assess the treatment effects with change in PANSS total score from baseline as response variable, treatment, visit, and treatment by visit as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||1.00|-20.46|0.075
91015273|NCT00563706|181913152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.44||||0.765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.92|8.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects model was used to assess the treatment effects with change in PANSS total score from baseline as response variable, treatment, visit, and treatment by visit as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||8.04|-10.92|0.765
91015274|NCT04074109|181913161|OTHER|This is a feasibility study which is not powered for efficacy. Therefore no formal statistical tests are used.||||||||||||This is a feasibility study which is not powered for efficacy. Therefore no formal statistical tests are used.|||||This is a feasibility study which is not powered for efficacy. Therefore no formal statistical tests are used.|||
90810538|NCT00791479|181499450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.89|||<|0.001||||||An adjustment for multiplicity was performed when comparing the individual doses to placebo using a Dunnett's test.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91015275|NCT04074109|181913161|OTHER|||||||||||||||||This is a feasibility study which is not powered for efficacy. Therefore no formal statistical tests are used. We report percentages and frequencies to show feasibility|This is a feasibility study which is not powered for efficacy. Therefore no formal statistical tests are used.|||
91015276|NCT02985541|181913177|OTHER||3-year probability of getting pregnant|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|2.71||||||Cumulative failure rate (Kaplan-Meier) during Years 6-8||2.71|0.17|
91054932|NCT02792699|181991529|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.052|3.933||||||Analysis of the LS mean difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[US\]/ABP 798) at week 12, based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for the stratification variables geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA.||3.933|-8.052|
90810539|NCT00791479|181499450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.04|||<|0.001||||||An adjustment for multiplicity was performed when comparing the individual doses to placebo using a Dunnett's test.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
90810540|NCT00791479|181499450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.04|||<|0.001||||||An adjustment for multiplicity was performed when comparing the individual doses to placebo using a Dunnett's test.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
90810541|NCT00791479|181499451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison at Week 4. A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of log linear dose response with placebo.||||<0.001
90810542|NCT00791479|181499451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023||||||Treatment comparison at Week 4. A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of log linear dose response without placebo.||||0.023
90810543|NCT00791479|181499451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison at Week 8. A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of log linear dose response with placebo.||||<0.001
90810544|NCT00791479|181499451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison at Week 8. A priori threshold for statistical significance was P\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of log linear dose response without placebo.||||<0.001
91015277|NCT02383966|181913183|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.566|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.803||||||||0.803|0.400|
91015278|NCT02383966|181913184|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.568|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.406|0.795||||||||0.795|0.406|
91015279|NCT02383966|181913185|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.705|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.502|0.991||||||||0.991|0.502|
91015280|NCT02383966|181913186|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|5.45||||||||5.45|1.52|
91015281|NCT02383966|181913187|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|3.95||||||||3.95|1.15|
91015282|NCT03965754|181913193|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|9.18||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05.|Regression, Logistic|||We conducted a logistic regression with the three email conditions as dummy variables with no email as the reference group (among employees who previously enrolled in the program).||9.18|4.00|<.001
91015283|NCT03965754|181913193|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.36|7.76||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05.|Regression, Logistic|||We conducted a logistic regression with the three email conditions as dummy variables with no email as the reference group (among employees who previously enrolled in the program).||7.76|3.36|<.001
91015284|NCT03965754|181913193|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.17|5.17||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05.|Regression, Logistic|||We conducted a logistic regression with the three email conditions as dummy variables with no email as the reference group (among employees who previously enrolled in the program).||5.17|2.17|<.001
91054933|NCT02792699|181991529|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.62|4.979||||||Analysis of the LS mean difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[EU\]/Rituximab \[EU\]) at week 24, based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for the stratification variables geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA.||4.979|-7.620|
90810545|NCT00791479|181499452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of log linear dose response with placebo.||||<0.001
90810546|NCT00791479|181499452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of log linear dose response without placebo.||||<0.001
90810547|NCT00791479|181499452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.81||||0.456||||||An adjustment for multiplicity was performed when comparing the individual doses to placebo using a Dunnett's test.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.456
90810548|NCT00791479|181499452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.53|||<|0.001||||||An adjustment for multiplicity was performed when comparing the individual doses to placebo using a Dunnett's test.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
90810549|NCT00791479|181499452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.96|||<|0.001||||||An adjustment for multiplicity was performed when comparing the individual doses to placebo using a Dunnett's test.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
90810550|NCT00791479|181499452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-33.71|||<|0.001||||||An adjustment for multiplicity was performed when comparing the individual doses to placebo using a Dunnett's test.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
90810551|NCT00791479|181499453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison of glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels \<7.0%.|Cochran-Armitage trend test|The Cochran-Armitage trend test included the placebo arm.||||||<0.001
90810552|NCT00791479|181499453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison of glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels ≤6.5%.|Cochran-Armitage trend test|The Cochran-Armitage trend test included the placebo arm.||||||<0.001
90810553|NCT00791479|181499454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of log linear dose response with placebo.||||<0.001
90810554|NCT00791479|181499454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of log linear dose response without placebo.||||<0.001
90810555|NCT00791479|181499454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.65||||0.378||||||An adjustment for multiplicity was performed when comparing the individual doses to placebo using a Dunnett's test.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.378
90810556|NCT00791479|181499454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.09|||<|0.001||||||An adjustment for multiplicity was performed when comparing the individual doses to placebo using a Dunnett's test.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
90810557|NCT00791479|181499454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-36.34|||<|0.001||||||An adjustment for multiplicity was performed when comparing the individual doses to placebo using a Dunnett's test.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
90810558|NCT00791479|181499454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-38.67|||<|0.001||||||An adjustment for multiplicity was performed when comparing the individual doses to placebo using a Dunnett's test.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
90810559|NCT00791479|181499455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of log linear dose response with placebo.||||<0.001
90810560|NCT00791479|181499455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of log linear dose response without placebo.||||0.036
90810561|NCT00791479|181499456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of log linear dose response with placebo.||||0.450
90810562|NCT00791479|181499456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.329||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of log linear dose response without placebo.||||0.329
90810563|NCT00791479|181499464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.969||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of log linear dose response with placebo.||||0.969
90810564|NCT00791479|181499464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of log linear dose response without placebo.||||0.009
90810565|NCT00791479|181499464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.19||||0.14||||||An adjustment for multiplicity was performed when comparing the individual doses to placebo using a Dunnett's test.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.140
90810566|NCT00791479|181499464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.04||||0.247||||||An adjustment for multiplicity was performed when comparing the individual doses to placebo using a Dunnett's test.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.247
90810567|NCT00791479|181499464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27||||0.975||||||An adjustment for multiplicity was performed when comparing the individual doses to placebo using a Dunnett's test.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.975
90810568|NCT00791479|181499464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11||||1||||||An adjustment for multiplicity was performed when comparing the individual doses to placebo using a Dunnett's test.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||1.00
90810569|NCT00496197|181499467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|83.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.7|88.8|||||95% Confidence interval based on normal approximation to the binomial. Percentages based on the number of participants in analysis.|Global response of Success (cure or improvement) at EOT||88.8|78.7|
90810570|NCT00496197|181499468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|93.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.4|96.7|||||95% Confidence interval based on normal approximation to the binomial. Percentages based on the number of participants in analysis.|Clinical response of Success (cure or improvement) at EOT||96.7|89.4|
90810571|NCT00496197|181499469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|95.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|92.3|98.3|||||95% Confidence interval based on normal approximation to the binomial. Percentages based on the number of participants in analysis.|Microbiological response of Success (eradication or presumed eradication) at EOT||98.3|92.3|
90810572|NCT00496197|181499470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|88.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|84.4|92.6|||||95% Confidence interval based on normal approximation to the binomial. Percentages based on the number of participants in analysis.|Global response of Success (cure or improvement) at EOIV||92.6|84.4|
90810573|NCT00496197|181499471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|93.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.8|96.4|||||95% Confidence interval based on normal approximation to the binomial. Percentages based on the number of participants in analysis.|Clinical response of Success (cure or improvement) at EOIV||96.4|89.8|
90810574|NCT00496197|181499472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|92.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.3|95.9|||||95% Confidence interval based on normal approximation to the binomial. Percentages based on the number of participants in analysis.|Microbiological response of Success (eradication or presumed eradication) at EOIV||95.9|89.3|
90810575|NCT00496197|181499473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|76.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|70.3|82.3|||||95% Confidence interval based on normal approximation to the binomial. Percentages based on the number of participants in analysis.|Global response of Success (cure or improvement) at Week 2 Follow-up||82.3|70.3|
90810576|NCT00496197|181499474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|94.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.5|98.1|||||95% Confidence interval based on normal approximation to the binomial. Percentages based on the number of participants in analysis.|Clinical response of Success (cure or improvement) at Week 2 Follow-up||98.1|91.5|
90810577|NCT00496197|181499475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|95.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|92.2|98.5|||||95% Confidence interval based on normal approximation to the binomial. Percentages based on the number of participants in analysis.|Microbiological response of Success (eradication or presumed eradication) at Week 2 Follow-up||98.5|92.2|
90810578|NCT00496197|181499476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|70.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.5|76.6|||||95% Confidence interval based on normal approximation to the binomial. Percentages based on the number of participants in analysis.|Global response of Success (cure or improvement) at Week 6 Follow-up (EOS)||76.6|63.5|
90810579|NCT00496197|181499477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|93.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.7|97.4|||||95% Confidence interval based on normal approximation to the binomial. Percentages based on the number of participants in analysis.|Clinical response of Success (cure or improvement) at Week 6 Follow-up (EOS)||97.4|89.7|
90810580|NCT00496197|181499478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|93.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.7|97.4|||||95% Confidence interval based on normal approximation to the binomial. Percentages based on the number of participants in analysis.|Microbiological response of Success (eradication or presumed eradication) at Week 6 Follow-up (EOS)||97.4|89.7|
90810581|NCT00496197|181499479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|82.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|75.7|89.3|||||95% Confidence interval based on normal approximation to the binomial. Percentages based on the number of participants in analysis.|Global response of Success (cure or improvement) at EOT||89.3|75.7|
90810582|NCT00496197|181499480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|85.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|79.8|91.4|||||95% Confidence interval based on normal approximation to the binomial. Percentages based on the number of participants in analysis.|Global response of Success (cure or improvement) at EOIV||91.4|79.8|
91015285|NCT03965754|181913193|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.28||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|11.71||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05.|Regression, Logistic|||We conducted a logistic regression with the three email conditions as dummy variables with no email as the reference group (among employees who never enrolled in the program).||11.71|1.16|.038
90810583|NCT00496197|181499481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|76.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|69.0|84.4|||||95% Confidence interval based on normal approximation to the binomial. Percentages based on the number of participants in analysis.|Global response of Success (cure or improvement) at Week 2 Follow-up||84.4|69.0|
90810584|NCT00496197|181499482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|67.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.9|76.3|||||95% Confidence interval based on normal approximation to the binomial. Percentages based on the number of participants in analysis.|Global response of Success (cure or improvement) at Week 6 Follow-up (EOS)||76.3|58.9|
90810585|NCT01907321|181499533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.78|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.98||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||repeated measures ANOVA|||||||.001
90810586|NCT01907321|181499534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.519|||||||ANOVA|||||||.519
90810587|NCT04077996|181499538|NON_INFERIORITY|The margin of non inferiority analysis was established at 30%.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|95.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.3|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Summary statistics were computed, and a significance level (α) of 5% has been established.||1.3|0.91|<0.05
90810588|NCT04077996|181499538|NON_INFERIORITY|margin 30%|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|95.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
90810589|NCT04077996|181499539|NON_INFERIORITY|The margin was established at 30%.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|95.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|1.0|0.14|6.6|||Fisher Exact|||||6.6|0.14|<0.05
90810590|NCT03650803|181499540|OTHER|Significance (alpha) set to 0.05||||||0.046|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||MRF T1 Changes||||0.046
90810591|NCT03650803|181499540|OTHER|Significance (alpha) set to 0.05||||||0.064|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||MRF T2 Changes||||0.064
90810592|NCT03650803|181499541|OTHER|Significance (alpha) set to 0.05||||||0.82|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||MRF T1 relaxation time||||0.820
90810593|NCT03650803|181499541|OTHER|Significance (alpha) set to 0.05||||||0.605|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||MRF T2 relaxation time||||0.605
90810594|NCT04270682|181499545|EQUIVALENCE|The null (H0) hypothesis and the alternative (Ha) hypothesis to be tested for the primary efficacy endpoint are that H0: Δ = 0 versus Ha: Δ ≠ 0 where Δ is the true paired treatment difference between CDCA and placebo for the change from baseline in loge-transformed urine 23S-pentol in the adult cohort.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.332|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.794|-2.331|||paired t-test|||||-2.331|-3.794|<0.0001
90810595|NCT04270682|181499546|EQUIVALENCE|The null (H0) hypothesis and the alternative (Ha) hypothesis to be tested for the primary efficacy endpoint are that H0: Δ = 0 versus Ha: Δ ≠ 0 where Δ is the true paired treatment difference between CDCA and placebo for the change from baseline in loge-transformed plasma cholestanol in the adult cohort.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.241||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|-0.399|||paired t-test|||||-0.399|-1.640|0.0083
90810596|NCT04270682|181499547|EQUIVALENCE|The null (H0) hypothesis and the alternative (Ha) hypothesis to be tested for the primary efficacy endpoint are that H0: Δ = 0 versus Ha: Δ ≠ 0 where Δ is the true paired treatment difference between CDCA and placebo for the change from baseline in loge-transformed Plasma 7αC4 in the adult cohort.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.224|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.193|-3.207|||paired t-test|||||-3.207|-4.193|<0.0001
91015286|NCT03965754|181913193|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.01||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|7.54||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05.|Regression, Logistic|||We conducted a logistic regression with the three email conditions as dummy variables with no email as the reference group (among employees who never enrolled in the program).||7.54|0.63|.256
90810597|NCT04270682|181499548|EQUIVALENCE|Exact 2 sided p-value for observing contingency tables of rescue data with equal or more extreme values is calculated using Prescott's method. Rejection of the null hypothesis for no association suggests there is a difference between two treatments.|proportion|0.077||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.36|||Prescott's|||||0.36|0.00|0.0006
90810598|NCT04270682|181499548|EQUIVALENCE|Exact 2 sided p-value for observing contingency tables of rescue data with equal or more extreme values is calculated using Prescott's method. Rejection of the null hypothesis for no association suggests there is a difference between two treatments.|proportion|0.62||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.86|||Prescott's|||||0.86|0.32|0.0006
90810599|NCT04762043|181499571|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|56.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.64|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.33|59.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|Effect size used for mixed effects model is partial eta-squared (ηp2).||||59.76|53.33|<.001
90810600|NCT02308163|181499572|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.76|5.58||Closed testing procedure was used for multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Wald's chi-squared test||Based on logistic regression model: ACR20-CRP response (responder, non-responder) = Treatment + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||5.58|1.76|<0.001
90810601|NCT02308163|181499572|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.56|12.2||Closed testing procedure was used for multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Wald's chi-squared test||Based on logistic regression model: ACR20-CRP response (responder, non-responder) = Treatment + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||12.20|3.56|<0.001
90810602|NCT02308163|181499574|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.14|10.75||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Wald's chi-squared test||Based on logistic regression model: ACR50-CRP response (responder, non-responder) = Treatment + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||10.75|2.14|<0.001
90810603|NCT02308163|181499574|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.53|17.5||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Wald's chi-squared test||Based on logistic regression model: ACR50-CRP response (responder, non-responder) = Treatment + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||17.50|3.53|<0.001
90810604|NCT02308163|181499576|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|39.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.29|301.61||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Wald's chi-squared test||Based on logistic regression model: ACR70-CRP response (responder, non-responder) = Treatment + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo. Difference vs. Peficitinib 100mg was not estimable.||301.61|5.29|<0.001
90810605|NCT02308163|181499578|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|-1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|-0.71||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Covariance model||Based on analysis of covariance model: DAS28 Change = Treatment + Baseline DAS28 + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-0.71|-1.41|<0.001
90810606|NCT02308163|181499578|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|-1.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|-1.24||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Covariance model||Based on analysis of covariance model: DAS28 Change = Treatment + Baseline DAS28 + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-1.24|-1.86|<0.001
91015287|NCT03965754|181913193|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|5.89||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05.|Regression, Logistic|||We conducted a logistic regression with the three email conditions as dummy variables with no email as the reference group (among employees who never enrolled in the program).||5.89|0.43|.531
91054934|NCT02792699|181991529|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.691|7.15||||||Analysis of the LS mean difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[US\]/ABP 798) at week 24, based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for the stratification variables geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA.||7.150|-5.691|
90810607|NCT02308163|181499580|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|-1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|-0.67||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Covariance model||Based on analysis of covariance model: DAS28 Change = Treatment + Baseline DAS28 + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-0.67|-1.38|<0.001
90810608|NCT02308163|181499580|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|-1.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|-1.31||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Covariance model||Based on analysis of covariance model: DAS28 Change = Treatment + Baseline DAS28 + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-1.31|-1.96|<0.001
91015288|NCT03965754|181913193|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.54||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05.|Regression, Logistic|||We conducted a logistic regression with the two experimental conditions as dummy variables with the standard email as the reference group (among employees who previously enrolled in the program).||1.54|0.91|.202
91015289|NCT03965754|181913193|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.66||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.88||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05.|Regression, Logistic|||We conducted a logistic regression with the two experimental conditions as dummy variables with the standard email as the reference group (among employees who previously enrolled in the program).||0.88|0.49|.005
91015290|NCT03965754|181913193|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|4.16||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05.|Regression, Logistic|||We conducted a logistic regression with the two experimental conditions as dummy variables with the standard email as the reference group (among employees who never enrolled in the program).||4.16|0.69|.276
90810609|NCT02308163|181499582|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|-2.4||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Covariance model||Based on analysis of covariance model: TJC68 Change = Treatment + Baseline TJC68 + the prior biologic - DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-2.4|-6.8|<0.001
90810610|NCT02308163|181499582|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|-6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|-4.0||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Covariance model||Based on analysis of covariance model: TJC68 Change = Treatment + Baseline TJC68 + the prior biologic - DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-4.0|-8.1|<0.001
90810611|NCT02308163|181499584|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|-1.4||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Covariance model||Based on analysis of covariance model: TJC68 Change = Treatment + Baseline TJC68 + the prior biologic - DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-1.4|-4.6|<0.001
90810612|NCT02308163|181499584|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|-3.9||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Covariance model||Based on analysis of covariance model: TJC68 Change = Treatment + Baseline TJC68 + the prior biologic - DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-3.9|-6.8|<0.001
90810613|NCT02308163|181499586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.31|17.67||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Wald's chi-squared test||Based on logistic regression model: DAS28-CRP score \< 2.6 (responder, non-responder) = Treatment + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||17.67|2.31|<0.001
90810614|NCT02308163|181499586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.76|27.27||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Wald's chi-squared test||Based on logistic regression model: DAS28-CRP score \< 2.6 (responder, non-responder) = Treatment + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||27.27|3.76|<0.001
90810615|NCT02308163|181499588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|21.72||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.83|166.66||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Wald's chi-squared test||Based on logistic regression model: DAS28-ESR score \< 2.6 (responder, non-responder) = Treatment + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo. Difference vs. Peficitinib 100mg was not estimable.||166.66|2.83|0.003
90810616|NCT02308163|181499590|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.74|12.29||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Wald's chi-squared test||Based on logistic regression model: DAS28-CRP score ≤ 3.2 (responder, non-responder) = Treatment + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||12.29|2.74|<0.001
90810617|NCT02308163|181499590|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.57|20.41||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Wald's chi-squared test||Based on logistic regression model: DAS28-CRP score ≤ 3.2 (responder, non-responder) = Treatment + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||20.41|4.57|<0.001
90810618|NCT02308163|181499592|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.24||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|8.12||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Wald's chi-squared test||Based on logistic regression model: DAS28-ESR score ≤ 3.2 (responder, non-responder) = Treatment + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||8.12|1.29|0.012
91015291|NCT03965754|181913193|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|2.16||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05.|Regression, Logistic|||We conducted a logistic regression with the two experimental conditions as dummy variables with the standard email as the reference group (among employees who never enrolled in the program).||2.16|0.25|.592
91015292|NCT03965754|181913194|SUPERIORITY|We conducted a logistic regression with the two experimental conditions as dummy variables with the standard email as the reference group (among employees who previously enrolled).|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.65||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.65|1.04|.020
91015293|NCT03965754|181913194|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.75||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05.|Regression, Logistic|||We conducted a logistic regression with the two experimental conditions as dummy variables with the standard email as the reference group (among employees who previously enrolled).||0.75|0.44|<.001
90810619|NCT02308163|181499592|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|96.0|3.42|19.63||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Wald's chi-squared test||Based on logistic regression model: DAS28-ESR score ≤ 3.2 (responder, non-responder) = Treatment + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||19.63|3.42|<0.001
91015294|NCT03965754|181913194|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.38||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05.|Regression, Logistic|||We conducted a logistic regression with the two experimental conditions as dummy variables with the standard email as the reference group (among employees who never enrolled).||1.38|0.41|.359
91015295|NCT03965754|181913194|SUPERIORITY|We conducted a logistic regression with the two experimental conditions as dummy variables with the standard email as the reference group (among employees who never enrolled).|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|2.9|||Regression, Logistic|We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05.||||2.90|1.05|.035
91054935|NCT02792699|181991529|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.207|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.562|1.417||||||Analysis of the LS mean difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[EU\]/Rituximab \[EU\]) at week 40, based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for the stratification variables geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA.||1.417|-8.562|
90810620|NCT02308163|181499594|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-1.112|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.546|-0.679||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test|Covariance model||Based on analysis of covariance model: CRP Change = Treatment + Baseline CRP + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-0.679|-1.546|<0.001
90810621|NCT02308163|181499594|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|-1.677|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.221|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.114|-1.241||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Covariance model||Based on analysis of covariance model: CRP Change = Treatment + Baseline CRP + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-1.241|-2.114|<0.001
90810622|NCT02308163|181499596|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|-10.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.56|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.95|-5.84||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Covariance model||Based on analysis of covariance model: ESR Change = Treatment + Baseline ESR + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-5.84|-15.95|<0.001
90810623|NCT02308163|181499596|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|-21.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.47|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.01|-16.27||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Covariance model||Based on analysis of covariance model: ESR Change = Treatment + Baseline ESR + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-16.27|-26.01|<0.001
90810624|NCT02308163|181499598|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.98|14.83||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Wald's chi-squared test||Based on logistic regression model: Good Response (responder, non-responder) = Treatment + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||14.83|2.98|<0.001
90810625|NCT02308163|181499598|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.91|24.03||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Wald's chi-squared test||Based on logistic regression model: Good Response (responder, non-responder) = Treatment + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||24.03|4.91|<0.001
90810626|NCT02308163|181499600|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.38|8.04||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Wald's chi-squared test||Based on logistic regression model: Good or Moderate Response (responder, non-responder) = Treatment + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||8.04|2.38|<0.001
90810627|NCT02308163|181499600|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.31|38.51||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Wald's chi-squared test||Based on logistic regression model: Good or Moderate Response (responder, non-responder) = Treatment + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||38.51|7.31|<0.001
90810628|NCT02308163|181499602|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.29||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|12.08||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Wald's chi-squared test||Based on logistic regression model: Good Response (responder, non-responder) = Treatment + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||12.08|1.52|0.006
90810629|NCT02308163|181499602|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|11.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.07|29.74||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Wald's chi-squared test||Based on logistic regression model: Good Response (responder, non-responder) = Treatment + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||29.74|4.07|<0.001
91015296|NCT02983305|181913195|EQUIVALENCE|Mann-Whitney U test was used to test equivalence of this outcome measure for the two study arms at baseline.||||||0.0001||||||P \< .05 was considered a priori to be statistically significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test of equivalence of visual field area at baseline.||||.0001
91015297|NCT02983305|181913195|EQUIVALENCE|Mann-Whitney U test was used to test equivalence of this outcome measure for the two study arms under intervention conditions.||||||0.0001||||||P \< .05 was considered a priori to be statistically significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test of equivalence of visual field area under intervention conditions.||||0.0001
91015298|NCT02983305|181913195|EQUIVALENCE|Mann-Whitney U test was used to test non-equivalence of this outcome measure for the two study arms under intervention conditions.||||||0.003||||||P \< .05 was considered a priori to be statistically significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between study arms of the change in the visual field area (average of both eyes) detected between baseline and intervention.||||.003
91015299|NCT02983305|181913196|EQUIVALENCE|Mann-Whitney U test was used to test equivalence of this outcome measure for the two study arms at baseline.||||||0.38||||||P \< .05 was considered a priori to be statistically significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test of equivalence of gait speed at baseline.||||0.38
91054936|NCT02792699|181991529|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.036|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.497|6.424||||||Analysis of the LS mean difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[US\]/ABP 798) at week 40, based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for the stratification variables geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA.||6.424|-6.497|
91054937|NCT02792699|181991529|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.629|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.455|0.197||||||Analysis of the LS mean difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[EU\]/Rituximab \[EU\]) at week 48, based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for the stratification variables geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA.||0.197|-13.455|
91015300|NCT02983305|181913196|EQUIVALENCE|Mann-Whitney U test was used to test equivalence of this outcome measure for the two study arms under intervention conditions.||||||0.27||||||P \< .05 was considered a priori to be statistically significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test of equivalence of gait speed under intervention conditions.||||0.27
91015301|NCT02983305|181913196|EQUIVALENCE|Mann-Whitney U test was used to test non-equivalence of this outcome measure for the two study arms under intervention conditions.||||||0.79||||||P \< .05 was considered a priori to be statistically significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between study arms of the change in the gait speed detected between baseline and intervention.||||0.79
91015302|NCT00706901|181913197|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Zero-inflated Poisson model with random intercept to account for correlation between repeated measurements of the responses within subjects was conducted.|||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Zero inflated Poisson model|||||||<0.01
91015303|NCT00706901|181913197|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Zero-hurdle Poisson model with random intercept to account for correlation between repeated measurements of the responses within subjects was conducted.||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||zero-hurdle Poisson model|||||||0.02
91015304|NCT00706901|181913198|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A Zero-inflated Poisson model with random intercept to account for correlation between repeated measurements of the responses within subjects was conducted.|||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Zero inflated Poisson model|||||||<0.01
91015305|NCT00706901|181913198|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Zero-hurdle Poisson model with random intercept to account for correlation between repeated measurements of the responses within subjects was conducted.||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED||||||Zero-hurdle Poisson model|||||||.0002
91015306|NCT00706901|181913199|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To examine differences between GMI and TCC on SECs, a two-component Weibull mixture model for effectively dealing with zero-heavy continuous data was conducted.||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Weibull mixture model|||||||0.04
91015307|NCT00706901|181913199|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A generalized linear mixed model with correlated errors to account for correlation between repeated measurements of the response within subjects was conducted.||||||0.47|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.47
91015308|NCT00706901|181913200|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Zero inflated Poisson model with random intercept to account for correlation between repeated measurement of the responses within subjects was conducted.|||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Zero inflated Poisson model|||||||<0.01
91015309|NCT00706901|181913200|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Zero-hurdle Poisson model with random intercept to account for correlation between repeated measurements of the responses within subjects was conducted.|||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Zero-hurdle Poisson model|||||||<.0001
90810630|NCT02308163|181499604|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.82|||<|0.001||95.0|2.11|6.93||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Wald's chi-squared test||Based on logistic regression model: Good or Moderate Response (responder, non-responder) = Treatment + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||6.93|2.11|<0.001
90810631|NCT02308163|181499604|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.39|29.17||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Wald's chi-squared test||Based on logistic regression model: Good or Moderate Response (responder, non-responder) = Treatment + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||29.17|6.39|<0.001
90810632|NCT02308163|181499610|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-9.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.89|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.66|-6.22||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Covariance model||Based on analysis of covariance model: SDAI Change = Treatment + Baseline SDAI + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-6.22|-13.66|<0.001
91015310|NCT00706901|181913201|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Zero inflated Poisson model with random intercept to account for correlation between repeated measurement of the responses within subjects was conducted.|||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Zero inflated Poisson model|||||||<.0001
91015311|NCT00706901|181913201|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Zero-hurdle Poisson model with random intercept to account for correlation between repeated measurements of the responses within subjects was conducted.||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Zero-hurdle Poisson model|||||||0.02
91015312|NCT00706901|181913202|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Zero inflated Poisson model with random intercept to account for correlation between repeated measurement of the responses within subjects was conducted.||||||0.17|TWO_SIDED||||||Zero inflated Poisson model|||||||0.17
91015313|NCT00706901|181913202|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Zero-hurdle Poisson model with random intercept to account for correlation between repeated measurements of the responses within subjects was conducted.||||||0.67|TWO_SIDED||||||Zero-hurdle Poisson model|||||||0.67
91015314|NCT03433482|181913204|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is concluded if the lower limit of the two sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the hSBA GMT ratio for serogroup A between the MenACWY liquid vaccine aged for approximately 24 months and the licensed MenACWY vaccine is \> 0.5.|GMT ratio|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.57|||ANCOVA|Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) including pre-vaccination titer (Day 1) as a covariate and with vaccine group and country as factors.||To demonstrate non-inferiority of the MenACWY liquid vaccine aged for approximately 24 months to that of currently licensed MenACWY vaccine, as measured by the adjusted hSBA GMTs directed against N. meningitidis serogroup A at Day 29 after a single dose vaccination||1.57|0.94|
91015315|NCT03433482|181913204|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is concluded if the lower limit of the two sided 95% CI for the hSBA GMT ratios for serogroup A between the MenACWY liquid vaccine aged for approximately 30 months and the licensed MenACWY vaccine is \> 0.5. Non-inferiority hypotheses testing will be conducted sequentially, starting from MenACWY liquid vaccine aged for approximately 24 months and subsequently with MenACWY liquid vaccine aged for approximately 30 months.|GMT ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.42|||ANCOVA|Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) including pre-vaccination titer (Day 1) as a covariate and with vaccine group and country as factors.||To demonstrate non-inferiority of the MenACWY liquid vaccine aged for approximately 30 months to that of currently licensed MenACWY vaccine, as measured by the adjusted hSBA GMTs directed against N. meningitidis serogroup A at Day 29 after a single dose vaccination.||1.42|0.87|
90810633|NCT02308163|181499610|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-14.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.66|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.71|-11.15||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Covariance model||Based on analysis of covariance model: SDAI Change = Treatment + Baseline SDAI + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-11.15|-17.71|<0.001
90810634|NCT02308163|181499614|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|-8.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.77|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.19|-5.2||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|ANCOVA||Based on ANCOVA Model: CDAI Change = Treatment + Baseline CDAI + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-5.20|-12.19|<0.001
90810635|NCT02308163|181499614|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|-12.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.58|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.96|-9.71||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|ANCOVA||Based on ANCOVA Model: CDAI Change = Treatment + Baseline CDAI + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-9.71|-15.96|<0.001
90810636|NCT02308163|181499616|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|-15.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.4|-9.0||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Covariance model||Based on analysis of covariance model: PGA (100 mm VAS) Change = Treatment + Baseline PGA (100 mm VAS) + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-9.00|-21.40|<0.001
90810637|NCT02308163|181499616|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|-23.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.86|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.78|-17.51||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Covariance model||Based on analysis of covariance model: PGA (100 mm VAS) Change = Treatment + Baseline PGA (100 mm VAS) + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-17.51|-28.78|<0.001
90810638|NCT02308163|181499618|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|-16.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.51|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.81|-9.95||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Covariance model||Based on analysis of covariance model: SGA (100 mm VAS) Change = Treatment + Baseline SGA (100 mm VAS) + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-9.95|-23.81|<0.001
90810639|NCT02308163|181499618|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|-23.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.83|-17.28||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Covariance model||Based on analysis of covariance model: SGA (100 mm VAS) Change = Treatment + Baseline SGA (100 mm VAS) + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-17.28|-29.83|<0.001
90810640|NCT02308163|181499620|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|-17.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.44|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.36|-10.81||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Covariance model||Based on analysis of covariance model: SGA of pain (100 mm VAS) Change = Treatment + Baseline SGA of pain (100 mm VAS) + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-10.81|-24.36|<0.001
90810641|NCT02308163|181499620|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|-23.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.21|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.24|-17.57||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Covariance model||Based on analysis of covariance model: SGA of pain (100 mm VAS) Change = Treatment + Baseline SGA of pain (100 mm VAS) + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-17.57|-30.24|<0.001
90810642|NCT02308163|181499622|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.033||||||No Multiplicity Adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Fisher Exact|||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||||0.033
90810643|NCT02308163|181499622|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035||||||No Multiplicity Adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Fisher Exact|||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||||0.035
90810644|NCT02308163|181499623|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.2||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Covariance model||Based on analysis of covariance model: HAQ-DI Change = Treatment + Baseline HAQ-DI + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea., and Taiwan)|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-0.20|-0.48|<0.001
90810645|NCT02308163|181499623|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.26||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Covariance model||Based on analysis of covariance model: HAQ-DI Change = Treatment + Baseline HAQ-DI + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea., and Taiwan)|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-0.26|-0.53|<0.001
91015316|NCT03433482|181913205|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.19|||ANCOVA|Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) including pre-vaccination titer (Day 1) as a covariate and with vaccine group and center (if applicable) as factors.||Between-groups ratio of adjusted hSBA GMTs and its 95% CI, between vaccine groups GSK3536820A ACWY\_Liq24 and ACWY\_1, at Day 29 against serogroup C||1.19|0.58|
91015317|NCT03433482|181913205|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.24|||ANCOVA|Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) including pre-vaccination titer (Day 1) as a covariate and with vaccine group and center (if applicable) as factors.||Between-groups ratio of adjusted hSBA GMTs and its 95% CI, between vaccine groups GSK3536820A ACWY\_Liq24 and ACWY\_1, at Day 29 against serogroup W||1.24|0.72|
91054938|NCT02792699|181991529|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.096|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.883|3.691||||||Analysis of the LS mean difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[US\]/ABP 798) at week 48, based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for the stratification variables geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA.||3.691|-9.883|
91054939|NCT02792699|181991530|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.0245|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1083|0.0593|||||Based on a generalized linear model adjusted for geographic region, seropositivity and prior biologic use as covariates in the model.|||0.0593|-0.1083|
90810646|NCT02308163|181499625|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|6.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.61|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.69|10.05||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Covariance model||Based on analysis of covariance model: SF-36v2 Change = Treatment + Baseline SF-36v2 + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||10.05|3.69|<0.001
90810647|NCT02308163|181499625|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|6.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.11|9.85||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Covariance model||Based on analysis of covariance model: SF-36v2 Change = Treatment + Baseline SF-36v2 + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||9.85|4.11|<0.001
90810648|NCT02308163|181499627|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|2.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|4.87||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Covariance model||Based on analysis of covariance model: SF-36v2 Change = Treatment + Baseline SF-36v2 + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||4.87|0.91|0.004
90810649|NCT02308163|181499627|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|3.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|5.19||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test|Covariance model||Based on analysis of covariance model: SF-36v2 Change = Treatment + Baseline SF-36v2 + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||5.19|1.30|0.001
90810650|NCT02308163|181499629|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|2.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|5.83||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Covariance model||Based on analysis of covariance model: SF-36v2 Change = Treatment + Baseline SF-36v2 + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||5.83|-1.29|0.210
90810651|NCT02308163|181499629|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|6.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.77|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.74|9.71||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Covariance model||Based on analysis of covariance model: SF-36v2 Change = Treatment + Baseline SF-36v2 + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||9.71|2.74|<0.001
90810652|NCT02308163|181499631|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|-8.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.81||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.11|-1.0||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Covariance model||Based on analysis of covariance model: WPAI Change = Treatment + Baseline WPAI + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-1.00|-16.11|0.027
90810653|NCT02308163|181499631|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|-10.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.88||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.88|-2.47||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Covariance model||Based on analysis of covariance model: WPAI Change = Treatment + Baseline WPAI + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-2.47|-17.88|0.010
90810654|NCT02308163|181499633|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|-20.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.92|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.44|-10.89||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Covariance model||Based on analysis of covariance model: WPAI Change = Treatment + Baseline WPAI + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-10.89|-30.44|<0.001
91015318|NCT03433482|181913205|OTHER||GMT ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.44|||ANCOVA|Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) including pre-vaccination titer (Day 1) as a covariate and with vaccine group and center (if applicable) as factors.||Between-groups ratio of adjusted hSBA GMTs and its 95% CI, between vaccine groups GSK3536820A ACWY\_Liq24 and ACWY\_1, at Day 29 against serogroup Y||1.44|0.82|
90810655|NCT02308163|181499633|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|-22.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.06|-11.97||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Covariance model||Based on analysis of covariance model: WPAI Change = Treatment + Baseline WPAI + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-11.97|-32.06|<0.001
90810656|NCT02308163|181499635|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|-20.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.38|-10.06||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test|Covariance model||Based on analysis of covariance model: WPAI Change = Treatment + Baseline WPAI + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-10.06|-30.38|<0.001
90810657|NCT02308163|181499635|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|-23.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.16|-13.17|||Covariance model|No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Based on analysis of covariance model: WPAI Change = Treatment + Baseline WPAI + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-13.17|-34.16|<0.001
91015319|NCT03433482|181913205|OTHER||GMT ratio|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.64|||ANCOVA|Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) including pre-vaccination titer (Day 1) as a covariate and with vaccine group and center (if applicable) as factors.||Between-groups ratio of adjusted hSBA GMTs and its 95% CI, between vaccine groups GSK3536820A ACWY\_Liq30 and ACWY\_2, at Day 29 against serogroup C||1.64|0.79|
91015320|NCT03433482|181913205|OTHER||GMT ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.45|||ANCOVA|Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) including pre-vaccination titer (Day 1) as a covariate and with vaccine group and center (if applicable) as factors.||Between-groups ratio of adjusted hSBA GMTs and its 95% CI, between vaccine groups GSK3536820A ACWY\_Liq30 and ACWY\_2, at Day 29 against serogroup W||1.45|0.84|
91054940|NCT02792699|181991530|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0187|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.061|0.0984|||||Based on a generalized linear model adjusted for geographic region, seropositivity and prior biologic use as covariates in the model.|||0.0984|-0.0610|
90810658|NCT02308163|181499637|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|-17.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.39|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.0|-10.61||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Covariance model||Based on analysis of covariance model: WPAI Change = Treatment + Baseline WPAI + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-10.61|-24.00|<0.001
90810659|NCT02308163|181499637|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|-20.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.13|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.59|-14.24||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Covariance model||Based on analysis of covariance model: WPAI Change = Treatment + Baseline WPAI + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-14.24|-26.59|<0.001
90810660|NCT00118846|181499665|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.91||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.86|1.05|||Mixed Models Analysis||Slope = Mean difference in annualized rate of change|||1.05|-2.86|0.35
90810661|NCT00118846|181499666|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.11||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.35|||ANCOVA|||||0.35|-0.13|0.36
90810662|NCT01468233|181499671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted mean difference|31.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.7|42.2||P-value adjusted for baseline Hurley Stage and for baseline antibiotic use (Y/N).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||42.2|20.7|<0.001
90810663|NCT01468233|181499671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted mean difference|25.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.5|40.5||P-value adjusted for baseline antibiotic use (Y/N).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||40.5|10.5|<0.001
90810664|NCT01468233|181499671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted mean difference|38.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.8|53.3||P-value adjusted for baseline antibiotic use (Y/N).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||53.3|22.8|<0.001
90810665|NCT01468233|181499672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted mean difference|19.5|||=|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|34.2||P-value adjusted for baseline antibiotics use (Y/N).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Secondary end points 1 (AN 0/1/2 counts), 2 (NRS30), and 3 (modified Sartorius score) were ranked analyses.||34.2|4.7|=0.01
90810666|NCT01468233|181499673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted mean difference|25.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.7|37.6||P-value adjusted for baseline Hurley Stage and antibiotics use (Y/N).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Secondary end points 1 (AN 0/1/2 counts), 2 (NRS30), and 3 (modified Sartorius score) were ranked analyses.||37.6|12.7|<0.001
90810667|NCT01468233|181499674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-19.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.6|-10.1||P-value calculated from ANCOVA with stratum (baseline Hurley Stage and antibiotics use), baseline value, and treatment as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Secondary end points 1 (AN 0/1/2 counts), 2 (NRS30), and 3 (modified Sartorius score) were ranked analyses.||-10.1|-28.6|<0.001
90810668|NCT01574157|181499675|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|40.1||||||The primary analysis compared the mean change from baseline in the sodium bicarbonate group to the mean change from baseline in the placebo group.||40.1|-9.6|
90810669|NCT01574157|181499676|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.2|30.8||||||The main analytic strategy for this secondary outcome was a comparison of the mean change from baseline in the sodium bicarbonate group to the mean change from baseline in the placebo group.||30.8|-38.2|
90810670|NCT01574157|181499677|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-32.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.3|4.2||||||The main analytic strategy for this secondary outcome was a comparison of the mean change from baseline in the sodium bicarbonate group to the mean change from baseline in the placebo group.||4.2|-56.3|
90810671|NCT01574157|181499678|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.1|36.5||||||The main analytic strategy for this secondary outcome was a comparison of the mean change from baseline in the sodium bicarbonate group to the mean change from baseline in the placebo group.||36.5|-15.1|
90810672|NCT01574157|181499679|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.6|35.9||||||The main analytic strategy for this secondary outcome was a comparison of the mean change from baseline in the sodium bicarbonate group to the mean change from baseline in the placebo group.||35.9|-24.6|
91015321|NCT03433482|181913205|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.26|||ANCOVA|Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) including pre-vaccination titer (Day 1) as a covariate and with vaccine group and center (if applicable) as factors.||Between-groups ratio of adjusted hSBA GMTs and its 95% CI, between vaccine groups GSK3536820A ACWY\_Liq30 and ACWY\_2, at Day 29 against serogroup Y||1.26|0.72|
91054941|NCT02737748|181991546|OTHER|||||||0.2217|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2217
90810673|NCT01574157|181499680|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|6.79||||||The main analytic strategy for this secondary outcome was a comparison of the mean change from baseline in the sodium bicarbonate group to the mean change from baseline in the placebo group.||6.79|-0.05|
90810674|NCT02136680|181499687|SUPERIORITY||Regression Coefficient|0.046||||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Change in Self-Esteem from Baseline to First Follow-up: Intervention Group vs. Control Group||||0.400
90810675|NCT02136680|181499687|SUPERIORITY||Regression Coefficient|0.119||||0.022|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Change in Self-Esteem from Baseline to Second Follow-up: Intervention Group vs. Control Group||||0.022
90810676|NCT02136680|181499687|SUPERIORITY||Regression Coefficient|-0.003||||0.347|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Change in Self-Esteem from First Follow-up to Second Follow-up: Intervention Group vs. Control Group||||0.347
90810677|NCT02136680|181499688|SUPERIORITY||Regression Coefficient|-0.003||||0.959|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Change in Global QOL from Baseline to First Follow-up: Intervention Group vs. Control Group||||0.959
90810678|NCT02136680|181499688|SUPERIORITY||Regression Coefficient|0.143||||0.021|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Change in Global QOL from Baseline to Second Follow-up: Intervention Group vs. Control Group||||0.021
90810679|NCT02136680|181499688|SUPERIORITY||Regression Coefficient|0.048||||0.454|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Change in Global QOL from First Follow-up to Second Follow-up: Intervention Group vs. Control Group||||0.454
90810680|NCT02136680|181499688|SUPERIORITY||Regression Coefficient|-0.015||||0.774|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Change in Summary QOL from Baseline to First Follow-up||||0.774
91054942|NCT02737748|181991547|OTHER|||||||0.0324|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0324
91054943|NCT02737748|181991548|OTHER|||||||0.3975|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.3975
90810681|NCT02136680|181499688|SUPERIORITY||Regression Coefficient|0.137||||0.018|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Change in Summary QOL from Baseline to Second Follow-up: Intervention Group vs. Control Group||||0.018
90810682|NCT02136680|181499688|SUPERIORITY||Regression Coefficient|0.051||||0.362|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Change in Summary QOL from First Follow-up to Second Follow-up: Intervention Group vs. Control Group||||0.362
90810683|NCT02136680|181499689|SUPERIORITY||Regression Coefficient|-0.072||||0.213|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Change in Palliative Outcomes from Baseline to First Follow-up: Intervention Group vs. Control Group||||0.213
90810684|NCT02136680|181499689|SUPERIORITY||Regression Coefficient|0.037||||0.561|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Change in Palliative Outcomes from Baseline to Second Follow-up: Intervention Group vs. Control Group||||0.561
90810685|NCT02136680|181499689|SUPERIORITY|Change in Palliative Outcomes from First Follow-up to Second Follow-up: Intervention Group vs. Control Group|Regression Coefficient|0.165||||0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.008
90810686|NCT01632241|181499692|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.1068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|2.11|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.11|0.93|0.1068
90810687|NCT01632241|181499701|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.0937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|2.15||Nominal p-value due to step-down sequential testing procedure.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.15|0.94|0.0937
90810688|NCT01632241|181499703|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.2264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.17||Nominal p-value due to step-down sequential testing procedure.|Cox proportional hazards model|||||1.17|0.51|0.2264
90810689|NCT01632241|181499705|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.4996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|2.8||Nominal p-value due to step-down sequential testing procedure.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.80|0.61|0.4996
91015322|NCT03433482|181913207|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|2.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|6.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentage of subjects with a ≥ 4-fold rise in post-vaccination hSBA for N. meningitidis serogroup A at Day 29.||6.40|-1.94|
91054944|NCT06354998|181991620|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.908|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.662|1.245|||||GMR was a secondary endpoint.|GMR (mRNA-1273.815 versus licensed Spikevax) at Day 15 and its 95% CI was calculated based on the t-distribution for the mean difference of log-transformed antibody values and then back transformed to the original scale for presentation.||1.245|0.662|
90810690|NCT03111550|181499714|SUPERIORITY|Compare if study AE rate is significantly higher than ISO SPE rate (0.3% for corneal edema)||||||0.02041|ONE_SIDED||||||Exact test on binomial distribution|||||||0.02041
90810691|NCT03111550|181499715|SUPERIORITY|Compare if study AE rate is significantly higher than ISO SPE rate (0.3% for retinal detachment)||||||0.1969|ONE_SIDED|||||For ZQR00 retinal detachment|Exact test on binomial distribution|||||||0.1969
90810692|NCT03111550|181499715|SUPERIORITY|Compare if study AE rate is significantly higher than ISO SPE rate (0.8% for secondary surgical intervention)||||||0.4655|ONE_SIDED|||||For ZHR00 secondary surgical intervention|Exact test of binomial distribution|||||||0.4655
90810693|NCT03111550|181499715|SUPERIORITY|Compare if study AE rate is significantly higher than ISO SPE rate (0.8% for secondary surgical intervention)||||||0.021|ONE_SIDED|||||For ZQR00 secondary surgical intention|Exact test on binomial distribution|||||||0.0210
90810694|NCT03111550|181499715|SUPERIORITY|Compare if study AE rate is significantly higher than ISO SPE rate (0.8% for secondary surgical intervention)||||||0.4698|ONE_SIDED|||||For ZXR00 secondary surgical intervention|Exact test on binomial distribution|||||||0.4698
90810695|NCT01846299|181499746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.203||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|5.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.16|0.40|0.0111
90810696|NCT01686750|181499772|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.31||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.81|||Prevalence ratio||Therefore, the exponentiated coefficients for intervention status represent the prevalence ratio with 95% confidence interval (CI) and are interpreted as the relative percentage difference in the outcome associated with the intervention.|We compared the sampling-weighted prevalence of outcomes at Integrated Care Centers (ICCs) and usual care from the evaluation survey. We used linear regression models that had terms for intervention status (integrated care vs usual care), stratum (PWID and MSM), and the baseline proportion of the outcome being assessed. Site-level proportions from both evaluation and baseline respondent-driven sampling were log transformed before being entered into the regression model.||1.81|0.95|0.09
90810697|NCT01686750|181499773|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.5||||||||1.50|0.80|
90810698|NCT01686750|181499774|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.81||||||||1.81|0.61|
90810699|NCT01686750|181499775|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.41||||||||2.41|0.77|
90810700|NCT01686750|181499777|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.28||||||||1.28|0.65|
91054945|NCT01584843|181991696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.83||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.81|2.14||LSD=Least Significant Difference|Fisher LSD method|||||2.14|-21.81|0.091
90810701|NCT01686750|181499779|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio, log|1.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|4.93||||||||4.93|0.42|
90810702|NCT01686750|181499780|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio, log|1.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|7.16||||||||7.16|0.49|
90810703|NCT01686750|181499781|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.56||||||||1.56|0.53|
90810704|NCT01686750|181499782|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|4.2||||||||4.2|-4.2|
90810705|NCT01686750|181499784|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.52||||||||1.52|0.47|
90810706|NCT01686750|181499786|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-0.6||||||||-0.6|-3.0|
90810707|NCT01686750|181499787|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.36||||||||1.36|0.64|
90810708|NCT02956044|181499790|EQUIVALENCE|The acceptance range for bioequivalence is 80.0 - 125.00%|Ratio of Geometric LSM|108.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.35|125.3|||||Confidence interval from ANOVA with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect|Geometric Least Square (LS) Mean was used as PK parameters||125.30|94.35|
91015323|NCT03433482|181913207|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|-2.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.94|4.72|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentage of subjects with a ≥ 4-fold rise in post-vaccination hSBA for N. meningitidis serogroup C at Day 29.||4.72|-8.94|
91054946|NCT01584843|181991696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.08||||0.338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.39|8.23|||Fisher LSD method|||||8.23|-20.39|0.338
91054947|NCT01584843|181991696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.75||||0.524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.83|17.33|||Fisher LSD method|||||17.33|-9.83|0.524
90810709|NCT02956044|181499790|EQUIVALENCE|The acceptance range for bioequivalence is 80.0 - 125.00%|Ratio of Geometric LSM|95.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.73|106.63|||||Confidence interval from ANOVA with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect|Geometric LS Mean was used as PK parameters||106.63|84.73|
90810710|NCT02956044|181499790|EQUIVALENCE|The acceptance range for bioequivalence is 80.0 - 125.00%|Ratio of Geometric LSM|89.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.39|113.65|||||Confidence interval from ANOVA with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect|Geometric LS Mean was used as PK parameters||113.65|70.39|
90810711|NCT02956044|181499790|EQUIVALENCE|The acceptance range for bioequivalence is 80.0 - 125.00%|Ratio of Geometric LSM|111.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.02|129.19|||||Confidence interval from ANOVA with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect|Geometric LS Mean was used as PK parameters||129.19|97.02|
90810712|NCT02956044|181499790|EQUIVALENCE|The acceptance range for bioequivalence is 80.0 - 125.00%|Ratio of Geometric LSM|126.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|112.08|143.17|||||Confidence interval from ANOVA with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect|Geometric LS Mean was used as PK parameters||143.17|112.08|
90810713|NCT02956044|181499790|EQUIVALENCE|The acceptance range for bioequivalence is 80.0 - 125.00%|Ratio of Geometric LSM|98.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.9|114.23|||||Confidence interval from ANOVA with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect|Geometric LS Mean was used as PK parameters||114.23|84.90|
90810714|NCT02956044|181499793|EQUIVALENCE|The acceptance range for bioequivalence is 80.0 - 125.00%|Ratio of Geometric LSM|87.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.02|95.38|||||Confidence interval from ANOVA with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect|Geometric LS Mean was used as PK parameters||95.38|80.02|
90810715|NCT02956044|181499793|EQUIVALENCE|The acceptance range for bioequivalence is 80.0 - 125.00%|Ratio of Geometric LSM|103.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.59|112.68|||||Confidence interval from ANOVA with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect|Geometric LS Mean was used as PK parameters||112.68|94.59|
90810716|NCT02956044|181499793|EQUIVALENCE|The acceptance range for bioequivalence is 80.0 - 125.00%|Ratio of Geometric LSM|94.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.34|111.06|||||Confidence interval from ANOVA with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect|Geometric LS Mean was used as PK parameters||111.06|80.34|
91054948|NCT01584843|181991696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.85||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.46|-1.24|||Fisher LSD method|||||-1.24|-24.46|0.031
90810717|NCT02956044|181499793|EQUIVALENCE|The acceptance range for bioequivalence is 80.0 - 125.00%.|[Ratio of Geometric LSM]|127.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|110.33|146.62|||||Confidence interval from ANOVA with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect|Geometric LS Mean was used as PK parameters||146.62|110.33|
90810718|NCT02956044|181499793|EQUIVALENCE|The acceptance range for bioequivalence is 80.0 - 125.00%|[Ratio of Geometric LSM]|113.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|107.61|118.86|||||Confidence interval from ANOVA with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect|Geometric LS Mean was used as PK parameters||118.86|107.61|
90810719|NCT02956044|181499793|EQUIVALENCE|The acceptance range for bioequivalence is 80.0 - 125.00%|[Ratio of Geometric LSM]|103.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.3|107.17||||||Geometric LS Mean was used as PK parameters|Confidence interval from ANOVA with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect|107.17|99.30|
90810720|NCT03832114|181499795|OTHER|Log Ratio to Baseline|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.55||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.46|0.65|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||0.65|0.46|0.0003
90810721|NCT03832114|181499796|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.5||||0.0313|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.75|-0.75|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||-0.75|-3.75|0.0313
91054949|NCT01584843|181991696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.72||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.06|-5.38|||Fisher LSD method|||||-5.38|-28.06|0.005
90810722|NCT03832114|181499797|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.55||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.46|0.65|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Day 84||0.65|0.46|0.0003
90810723|NCT03832114|181499797|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.79||||0.4766|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.49|1.28|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Day 84||1.28|0.49|0.4766
90810724|NCT03832114|181499797|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.59||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.51|0.69|||Mixed Model of Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Overall- Day 84||0.69|0.51|0.0002
90810725|NCT03832114|181499798|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.57||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.47|0.68|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM|||Day 84||0.68|0.47|0.0011
90810726|NCT03832114|181499798|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.9998|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.75|1.33|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Day 84||1.33|0.75|0.9998
90810727|NCT03832114|181499798|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.66||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.56|0.77|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Overall- Day 84||0.77|0.56|0.0016
90810728|NCT03832114|181499799|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.47|0.64|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MRM)|||Day 84||0.64|0.47|<0.0001
90810729|NCT03832114|181499799|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.61||||0.3707|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.3|1.27|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Day 84||1.27|0.30|0.3707
90810730|NCT03832114|181499799|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.51|0.71|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Overall- Day 84||0.71|0.51|0.0002
90810731|NCT03832114|181499800|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.57||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.47|0.7|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Day 84||0.70|0.47|0.0018
90810732|NCT03832114|181499800|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.81||||0.1632|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.67|0.98|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Day 84||0.98|0.67|0.1632
90810733|NCT03832114|181499800|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.67||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.57|0.79|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure (MMRM)|||Overall- Day 84||0.79|0.57|0.0040
90810734|NCT03832114|181499801|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.59||||0.1795|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.12|5.06|||Mixed Model of Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Day 84||5.06|0.12|0.1795
90810735|NCT03832114|181499801|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61||||0.7763|TWO_SIDED|0.7763|-3.36|2.15|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Day 84||2.15|-3.36|0.7763
90810736|NCT03832114|181499801|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.32||||0.3754|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.59|3.22|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Overall- Day 84||3.22|-0.59|0.3754
91054950|NCT01584843|181991696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.87||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.21|7.47|||Fisher LSD method|||||7.47|-15.21|0.490
91015324|NCT03433482|181913207|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|-1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.11|5.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentage of subjects with a ≥ 4-fold rise in post-vaccination hSBA for N. meningitidis serogroup W at Day 29.||5.80|-8.11|
90810737|NCT03832114|181499802|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.04||||0.1364|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-9.36|-0.72|||Mixed Model Repeated Measuers (MMRM)|||Day 84||-0.72|-9.36|0.1364
90810738|NCT03832114|181499802|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.17||||0.3038|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.79|16.13|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Day 84||16.13|-1.79|0.3038
90810739|NCT03832114|181499802|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.77||||0.8352|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.56|4.01|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Overall- Day 84||4.01|-5.56|0.8352
90810740|NCT03832114|181499803|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.07||||0.2752|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.99|1.17|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Day 84||1.17|0.99|0.2752
90810741|NCT03832114|181499803|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2||||0.476|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.83|1.72|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Day 84||1.72|0.83|0.476
90810742|NCT03832114|181499803|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.1963|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.0|1.2|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Overall- Day 84||1.20|1.00|0.1963
90810743|NCT03832114|181499805|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.48|0.65|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Day 64||0.65|0.48|<0.0001
90810744|NCT03832114|181499805|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.99||||0.9544|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.76|1.28|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Day 64||1.28|0.76|0.9544
91015325|NCT03433482|181913207|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|-1.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.88|4.74|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentage of subjects with a ≥ 4-fold rise in post-vaccination hSBA for N. meningitidis serogroup Y at Day 29.||4.74|-7.88|
90810745|NCT03832114|181499805|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.56|0.72|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Overall- Day 64||0.72|0.56|<.0001
90810746|NCT03832114|181499806|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.5|0.69|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Day 64||0.69|0.50|<.0001
90810747|NCT03832114|181499806|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.87||||0.6209|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.6|1.26|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Day 64||1.26|0.60|0.6209
90810748|NCT03832114|181499806|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.63||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.54|0.73|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Overall- Day 64||0.73|0.54|0.0002
90810749|NCT01939002|181499826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||1-sample Chi-square test comparing to Null hypotheses at 25%.|Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
91015326|NCT03433482|181913207|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|-0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.29|4.07|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentage of subjects with a ≥ 4-fold rise in post-vaccination hSBA for N. meningitidis serogroup A at Day 29.||4.07|-4.29|
90810750|NCT01939002|181499827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2037||||||Chi-square test between 2 treatment arms.|Chi-squared|||||||0.2037
90810751|NCT01939002|181499829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||McNemar|McNemar tests the null hypothesis of no difference in FLS between 4WRI and F8W.||||||1.00
90810752|NCT01939002|181499829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5078|||||||McNemar|||||||0.5078
90810753|NCT01939002|181499829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5811|||||||McNemar|||||||0.5811
90810754|NCT01939002|181499830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0525|||||||McNemar|||||||0.0525
90810755|NCT01939002|181499830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0654|||||||McNemar|||||||0.0654
90810756|NCT01939002|181499830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5488|||||||McNemar|||||||0.5488
90810757|NCT01939002|181499831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0945|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||||||0.0945
90810758|NCT01939002|181499831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8246|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||||||0.8246
90810759|NCT01939002|181499831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2533|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||||||0.2533
90810760|NCT01939002|181499831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1631|||||||2-sample t-test between 2 arms|||||||0.1631
90810761|NCT01939002|181499832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3189|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||||||0.3189
90810762|NCT01939002|181499832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3582|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||||||0.3582
90810763|NCT01939002|181499832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8484|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||||||0.8484
90810764|NCT01939002|181499832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1771|||||||2-sample t-test between 2 arms|||||||0.1771
90810765|NCT01939002|181499833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0009|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||||||0.0009
90810766|NCT01939002|181499833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||||||<0.0001
90810767|NCT01939002|181499833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||||||<0.0001
90810768|NCT01939002|181499833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3792|||||||2-sample t-test between 2 arms|||||||0.3792
90810769|NCT01939002|181499834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0019|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||||||0.0019
90810770|NCT01939002|181499834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0009|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||||||0.0009
90810771|NCT01939002|181499834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||||||<0.0001
90810772|NCT01939002|181499835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0105|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||||||0.0105
90810773|NCT01939002|181499835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0789|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||||||0.0789
90810774|NCT01939002|181499835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0027|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||||||0.0027
90810775|NCT01939002|181499835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.838|||||||2-sample t-test between 2 arms|||||||0.8380
90810776|NCT01939002|181499836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1407|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||||||0.1407
91015327|NCT03433482|181913207|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|2.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.63|9.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentage of subjects with a ≥ 4-fold rise in post-vaccination hSBA for N. meningitidis serogroup C at Day 29.||9.30|-3.63|
91015328|NCT03433482|181913207|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|4.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.89|10.88|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentage of subjects with a ≥ 4-fold rise in post-vaccination hSBA for N. meningitidis serogroup W at Day 29.||10.88|-2.89|
91015329|NCT03433482|181913207|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|-2.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.91|3.26|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentage of subjects with a ≥ 4-fold rise in post-vaccination hSBA for N. meningitidis serogroup Y at Day 29.||3.26|-8.91|
90810777|NCT01939002|181499836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7805|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||||||0.7805
90810778|NCT01939002|181499836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2186|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||||||0.2186
90810779|NCT01939002|181499836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4234|||||||2-sample t-test between 2 arms|||||||0.4234
90810780|NCT01939002|181499837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||||||0.0090
90810781|NCT01939002|181499837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0075|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||||||0.0075
90810782|NCT01939002|181499837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||||||0.0002
90810783|NCT01939002|181499837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7497|||||||2-sample t-test between 2 arms|||||||0.7497
90810784|NCT01939002|181499838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0545|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||||||0.0545
90810785|NCT01939002|181499838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3377|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||||||0.3377
90810786|NCT01939002|181499838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0391|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||||||0.0391
90810787|NCT01939002|181499838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4861|||||||2-sample t-test between 2 arms|||||||0.4861
90810788|NCT01939002|181499839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0834|||||||Fisher Exact|||first 8 weeks||||0.0834
90810789|NCT01939002|181499839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0767|||||||Fisher Exact|||Weeks 0-2||||0.0767
90810790|NCT01939002|181499839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.732|||||||Fisher Exact|||Weeks 3-4||||0.7320
90810791|NCT01939002|181499839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5008|||||||Fisher Exact|||Weeks 5-6||||0.5008
90810792|NCT01939002|181499839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6422|||||||Fisher Exact|||Weeks 7-8||||0.6422
90810793|NCT01939002|181499840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2123|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 4||||0.2123
90810794|NCT01939002|181499840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5834|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 12||||0.5834
90810795|NCT01939002|181499840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8723|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 24||||0.8723
90810796|NCT01939002|181499840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4173|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 36||||0.4173
90810797|NCT01939002|181499840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2267|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 48||||0.2267
90810798|NCT01939002|181499840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0171|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Early Term||||0.0171
90810799|NCT01939002|181499841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 4||||0.0001
90810800|NCT01939002|181499841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0007|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 12||||0.0007
90810801|NCT01939002|181499841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0365|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 24||||0.0365
90810802|NCT01939002|181499841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0197|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 36||||0.0197
90810803|NCT01939002|181499841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4031|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 48||||0.4031
90810804|NCT01939002|181499841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Early Termination||||0.0060
90810805|NCT01939002|181499842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 4||||<0.0001
90810806|NCT01939002|181499842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 12||||<0.0001
90810807|NCT01939002|181499842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 24||||<0.0001
90810808|NCT01939002|181499842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 36||||<0.0001
90810809|NCT01939002|181499842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 48||||<0.0001
90810810|NCT01939002|181499842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1789|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Early Termination||||0.1789
90810811|NCT01939002|181499842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2248||||||p-value on slope is based on general linear model with repeat measures over all visits.|general linear model|||||||0.2248
90810812|NCT01939002|181499843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 4||||<0.0001
90810813|NCT01939002|181499843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 12||||<0.0001
90810814|NCT01939002|181499843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 24||||<0.0001
90810815|NCT01939002|181499843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 36||||<0.0001
90810816|NCT01939002|181499843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 48||||<0.0001
90810817|NCT01939002|181499843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Early Termination||||<0.0001
90810818|NCT01939002|181499843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||p-value on slope is based on general linear model with repeat measures over all visits.|general linear model|||||||<0.0001
90810819|NCT01939002|181499844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7012|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 4||||0.7012
90810820|NCT01939002|181499844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0548|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 4||||0.0548
90810821|NCT01939002|181499844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0782|||||||2-sample t-test between 2 arms|||change at Week 4||||0.0782
90810822|NCT01939002|181499845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 4||||0.0006
90810823|NCT01939002|181499845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0792|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 4||||0.0792
90810824|NCT01939002|181499845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0961|||||||2-sample t-test between 2 arms|||change at Week 4||||0.0961
90810825|NCT01939002|181499846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 4||||<0.0001
90810826|NCT01939002|181499846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 4||||<0.0001
90810827|NCT01939002|181499846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4973|||||||2-sample t-test between 2 arms|||change at Week 4||||0.4973
90810828|NCT01939002|181499847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 4||||<0.0001
90810829|NCT01939002|181499847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0464|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 4||||0.0464
90810830|NCT01939002|181499847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1905|||||||2-sample t-test between 2 arms|||change at Week 4||||0.1905
90810831|NCT01939002|181499848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6569|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 12||||0.6569
90810832|NCT01939002|181499848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1584|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 24||||0.1584
91015330|NCT03433482|181913208|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|1.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.69|6.32|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥8 for the N. meningitidis serogroup A on Day 1.||6.32|-2.69|
91015331|NCT03433482|181913208|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|6.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|13.84|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥8 for the N. meningitidis serogroup C on Day 1.||13.84|0.01|
91015332|NCT03433482|181913208|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|3.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.33|9.58|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥8 for the N. meningitidis serogroup W on Day 1.||9.58|-3.33|
91015333|NCT03433482|181913208|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.86|6.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥8 for the N. meningitidis serogroup Y on Day 1.||6.80|-4.86|
91015334|NCT03433482|181913208|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|1.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.24|5.22|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥8 for the N. meningitidis serogroup A on Day 29.||5.22|-2.24|
91015335|NCT03433482|181913208|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|-0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.32|5.46|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥8 for the N. meningitidis serogroup C on Day 29.||5.46|-6.32|
91015336|NCT03433482|181913208|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|-1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.05|4.18|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥8 for the N. meningitidis serogroup W on Day 29.||4.18|-7.05|
91015337|NCT03433482|181913208|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|2.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.81|6.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥8 for the N. meningitidis serogroup Y on Day 29.||6.90|-2.81|
91015338|NCT03433482|181913208|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.32|6.33|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥8 for the N. meningitidis serogroup A on Day 1.||6.33|-3.32|
91015339|NCT03433482|181913208|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|7.35|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥8 for the N. meningitidis serogroup C on Day 1.||7.35|-6.60|
91015340|NCT03433482|181913208|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|-1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.75|5.23|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥8 for the N. meningitidis serogroup W on Day 1.||5.23|-7.75|
91015341|NCT03433482|181913208|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|-0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.69|4.98|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥8 for the N. meningitidis serogroup Y on Day 1.||4.98|-6.69|
90810833|NCT01939002|181499848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5106|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 36||||0.5106
90810834|NCT01939002|181499848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5927|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 48||||0.5927
90810835|NCT01939002|181499848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.384|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Early Termination||||0.3840
91015342|NCT03433482|181913208|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|-0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.24|2.96|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥8 for the N. meningitidis serogroup A on Day 29.||2.96|-4.24|
91015343|NCT03433482|181913208|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.99|6.64|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥8 for the N. meningitidis serogroup C on Day 29.||6.64|-3.99|
91015344|NCT03433482|181913208|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|4.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|9.33|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥8 the N. meningitidis serogroup W on Day 29.||9.33|-1.11|
91015345|NCT03433482|181913208|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.16|5.13|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥8 for the N. meningitidis serogroup Y on Day 29.||5.13|-4.16|
91015346|NCT03433482|181913209|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.37|5.99|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥LLOQ for the N. meningitidis serogroup A at Day 1||5.99|-3.37|
91015347|NCT03433482|181913209|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|7.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|14.13|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥LLOQ for the N. meningitidis serogroup C at Day 1||14.13|0.25|
91015348|NCT03433482|181913209|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|3.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.57|10.39|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥LLOQ for the N. meningitidis serogroup W at Day 1||10.39|-2.57|
91015349|NCT03433482|181913209|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.44|7.44|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥LLOQ for the N. meningitidis serogroup Y at Day 1||7.44|-4.44|
91015350|NCT03433482|181913209|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|1.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|5.46|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥LLOQ for the N. meningitidis serogroup A at Day 29||5.46|-1.94|
91015351|NCT03433482|181913209|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|-0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.66|4.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥LLOQ for the N. meningitidis serogroup C at Day 29||4.70|-6.66|
91015352|NCT03433482|181913209|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|-1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.05|4.18|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥LLOQ for the N. meningitidis serogroup W at Day 29||4.18|-7.05|
91015353|NCT03433482|181913209|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|2.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.67|6.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥LLOQ for the N. meningitidis serogroup Y at Day 29||6.80|-2.67|
91015354|NCT03433482|181913209|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|1.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.32|6.83|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥LLOQ for the N. meningitidis serogroup A at Day 1||6.83|-3.32|
90810836|NCT01939002|181499848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4182||||||p-value on slope is based on general linear model with repeat measures over all visits.|general linear model|||||||0.4182
90810837|NCT01939002|181499849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2588|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 12||||0.2588
90810838|NCT01939002|181499849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1092|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 24||||0.1092
90810839|NCT01939002|181499849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 36||||1.0000
90810840|NCT01939002|181499849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.219|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 48||||0.2190
90810841|NCT01939002|181499849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6402||||||p-value on slope is based on general linear model with repeat measures over all visits.|general linear model|||||||0.6402
90810842|NCT01939002|181499850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4821|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 12||||0.4821
90810843|NCT01939002|181499850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5298|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 24||||0.5298
90810844|NCT01939002|181499850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1584|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 36||||0.1584
90810845|NCT01939002|181499850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2547|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 48||||0.2547
90810846|NCT01939002|181499850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0824|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Early Termination||||0.0824
90810847|NCT01939002|181499850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3148||||||p-value on slope is based GLM with repeat measures over all visits.|general linear model|||||||0.3148
90810848|NCT01939002|181499851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6508|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 12||||0.6508
90810849|NCT01939002|181499851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0315|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 48||||0.0315
91054951|NCT00643565|181991718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.7189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.41|||Log Rank|||The HR was calculated based on a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, with stratification factors of age and histology/disease risk.||1.41|0.61|0.7189
90810850|NCT01939002|181499851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.119|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Early Termination||||0.1190
90810851|NCT01939002|181499851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.152||||||p-value on slope is based GLM with repeat measures over all visits.|general linear model|||||||0.1520
90810852|NCT01939002|181499853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0049|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||Change from 4WRI to L4W||||0.0049
90810853|NCT01939002|181499853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.223|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||Change from 4WRI to L4W||||0.2230
90810854|NCT01939002|181499853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0031|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||Change from 4WRI to L4W||||0.0031
90810855|NCT01939002|181499853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1624|||||||2-sample t-test between 2 arms|||Change from 4WRI to L4W||||0.1624
90810856|NCT00098748|181499865|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For hypothesis of superiority, if upper bound of 97.5% confidence interval (CI) of TX difference was \<0 log10 copies/mL, it was concluded that MVC regimen was superior to PBO meaning that MVC added to Optimized Background Therapy (OBT) provides an additional reduction in plasma HIV-1 RNA compared to OBT alone. If superiority could not be concluded, then a hypothesis of noninferiority was tested. If upper bound of CI is \<0.25 log10 copies/mL, noninferiority of MVC regimen to placebo was claimed.|Least squares mean|0.055|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2575|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.528|0.638|||ANCOVA|TX difference adjusted for randomization strata. Bonferroni adjustment for multiple comparisons by use of 2-sided 97.5% CI to maintain alpha=0.05.|Negative values for change from baseline=benefit of TX; negative values for MVC versus (vs) PBO=advantage of MVC.|Maraviroc (MVC) QD versus placebo (PBO) treatment (TX) difference at Week 24. If upper bound of 97.5% confidence interval is \<0, it is concluded that dose is superior to PBO. If upper bound is \<0.25, it is concluded that MVC is non-inferior to PBO. Assumption: 79% of subjects are dual-tropic; total N=192 needed to be randomized to get N=150 dual-tropic. Standard deviation=0.8 with 2-sided p-value=0.025: 80% power for TX difference of 0.5 for change from baseline in log10-transformed viral load.||0.638|-0.528|
90810857|NCT00098748|181499865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|-0.232|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2637|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.829|0.364|||ANCOVA|TX difference adjusted for randomization strata. Bonferroni adjustment for multiple comparisons by use of 2-sided 97.5% CI to maintain alpha=0.05.|Negative values for change from baseline=benefit of TX; negative values for MVC vs PBO=advantage of MVC.|MVC BID vs PBO treatment difference at Week 24.||0.364|-0.829|
90810858|NCT00098748|181499865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|0.229|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2567|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.351|0.81|||ANCOVA|TX difference adjusted for randomization strata. Bonferroni adjustment for multiple comparisons by use of 2-sided 97.5% CI to maintain alpha=0.05.|Negative values for change from baseline=benefit of TX; negative values for MVC vs PBO=advantage of MVC.|MVC QD vs PBO treatment difference at Week 48.||0.810|-0.351|
90810859|NCT00098748|181499865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|-0.261|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2628|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.856|0.333|||ANCOVA|TX difference adjusted for randomization strata. Bonferroni adjustment for multiple comparisons by use of 2-sided 97.5% CI to maintain alpha=0.05.|Negative values for change from baseline=benefit of TX; negative values for MVC vs PBO=advantage of MVC.|MVC BID vs PBO treatment difference at Week 48.||0.333|-0.856|
90810860|NCT00098748|181499866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.18|||||The TX difference is weighted (by inverse of the variance) difference in proportions adjusted for randomization strata. Positive values for TX difference favor MVC. CI estimated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|MVC QD vs PBO treatment difference in proportions at Week 24.||0.18|-0.12|
90810861|NCT00098748|181499866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.23|||||The TX difference is weighted (by inverse of the variance) difference in proportions adjusted for randomization strata. Positive values for TX difference favor MVC. CI estimated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|MVC BID vs PBO treatment difference in proportions at Week 24.||0.23|-0.08|
90810862|NCT00098748|181499866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.17|||||The TX difference is weighted (by inverse of the variance) difference in proportions adjusted for randomization strata. Positive values for TX difference favor MVC. CI estimated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|MVC QD vs PBO treatment difference in proportions at Week 48.||0.17|-0.12|
91015355|NCT03433482|181913209|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|3.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|10.71|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥LLOQ for the N. meningitidis serogroup C at Day 1||10.71|-3.00|
90810863|NCT00098748|181499866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.25|||||The TX difference is weighted (by inverse of the variance) difference in proportions adjusted for randomization strata. Positive values for TX difference favor MVC. CI estimated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|MVC BID vs PBO treatment difference in proportions at Week 48.||0.25|-0.07|
90810864|NCT00098748|181499867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.2|||||The TX difference is weighted (by inverse of the variance) difference in proportions adjusted for randomization strata. Positive values for TX difference favor MVC. CI estimated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|MVC QD vs PBO treatment difference in proportions at Week 24.||0.20|-0.15|
90810865|NCT00098748|181499867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.26|||||The TX difference is weighted (by inverse of the variance) difference in proportions adjusted for randomization strata. Positive values for TX difference favor MVC. CI estimated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|MVC BID vs PBO treatment difference in proportions at Week 24.||0.26|-0.10|
90810866|NCT00098748|181499867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.1|||||The TX difference is weighted (by inverse of the variance) difference in proportions adjusted for randomization strata. Positive values for TX difference favor MVC. CI estimated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|MVC QD vs PBO treatment difference in proportions at Week 48.||0.10|-0.22|
90810867|NCT00098748|181499867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.28|||||The TX difference is weighted (by inverse of the variance) difference in proportions adjusted for randomization strata. Positive values for TX difference favor MVC. CI estimated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|MVC BID vs PBO treatment difference in proportions at Week 48.||0.28|-0.07|
90810868|NCT00098748|181499868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.12|||||The TX difference is weighted (by inverse of the variance) difference in proportions adjusted for randomization strata. Positive values for TX difference favor MVC. CI estimated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|MVC QD vs PBO treatment difference in proportions at Week 24.||0.12|-0.21|
90810869|NCT00098748|181499868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.26|||||The TX difference is weighted (by inverse of the variance) difference in proportions adjusted for randomization strata. Positive values for TX difference favor MVC. CI estimated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|MVC BID vs PBO treatment difference in proportions at Week 24.||0.26|-0.10|
90810870|NCT00098748|181499868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.13|||||The TX difference is weighted (by inverse of the variance) difference in proportions adjusted for randomization strata. Positive values for TX difference favor MVC. CI estimated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|MVC QD vs PBO treatment difference in proportions at Week 48.||0.13|-0.18|
91015356|NCT03433482|181913209|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|-0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.24|5.77|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥LLOQ for the N. meningitidis serogroup W at Day 1||5.77|-7.24|
90810871|NCT00098748|181499868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.29|||||The TX difference is weighted (by inverse of the variance) difference in proportions adjusted for randomization strata. Positive values for TX difference favor MVC. CI estimated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|MVC BID vs PBO treatment difference in proportions at Week 48.||0.29|-0.04|
90810872|NCT00098748|181499869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.2|||||The TX difference is weighted (by inverse of the variance) difference in proportions adjusted for randomization strata. Positive values for TX difference favor MVC. CI estimated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|MVC QD vs PBO treatment difference in proportions at Week 24.||0.20|-0.07|
90810873|NCT00098748|181499869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.26|||||The TX difference is weighted (by inverse of the variance) difference in proportions adjusted for randomization strata. Positive values for TX difference favor MVC. CI estimated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|MVC BID vs PBO difference in proportions at Week 24.||0.26|-0.03|
90810874|NCT00098748|181499869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.1|||||The TX difference is weighted (by inverse of the variance) difference in proportions adjusted for randomization strata. Positive values for TX difference favor MVC. CI estimated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|MVC QD vs PBO treatment difference in proportions at Week 48.||0.10|-0.18|
91015357|NCT03433482|181913209|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|-1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.99|4.75|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥LLOQ for the N. meningitidis serogroup Y at Day 1||4.75|-6.99|
90810875|NCT00098748|181499869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.21|||||The TX difference is weighted (by inverse of the variance) difference in proportions adjusted for randomization strata. Positive values for TX difference favor MVC. CI estimated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|MVC BID vs PBO treatment difference in proportions at Week 48.||0.21|-0.10|
91015358|NCT03433482|181913209|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|-0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.24|2.96|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥LLOQ for the N. meningitidis serogroup A at Day 29||2.96|-4.24|
90810876|NCT00098748|181499870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|23.927|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.8025|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.359|49.213|||ANCOVA|TX difference adjusted for randomization strata.|Negative values for change from baseline=benefit of TX; negative values for MVC vs PBO=advantage of MVC.|MVC QD vs PBO treatment difference at Week 24.||49.213|-1.359|
91015359|NCT03433482|181913209|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.16|5.16|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥LLOQ for the N. meningitidis serogroup C at Day 29||5.16|-5.16|
91015360|NCT03433482|181913209|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|4.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|9.33|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥LLOQ for the N. meningitidis serogroup W at Day 29||9.33|-1.11|
91015361|NCT03433482|181913209|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.88|5.37|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥LLOQ for the N. meningitidis serogroup Y at Day 29||5.37|-3.88|
90810877|NCT00098748|181499870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|26.679|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.0678|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.869|52.49|||ANCOVA|TX difference adjusted for randomization strata.|Negative values for change from baseline=benefit of TX; negative values for MVC vs PBO=advantage of MVC.|MVC BID vs PBO treatment difference at Week 24.||52.490|0.869|
90810878|NCT00098748|181499870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|14.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.412|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|47.03|||ANCOVA|TX difference adjusted for randomization strata.|Negative values for change from baseline=benefit of TX; negative values for MVC vs PBO=advantage of MVC.|MVC QD vs PBO treatment difference at Week 48.||47.03|-17.80|
90810879|NCT00098748|181499870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|27.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.754|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.38|60.8|||ANCOVA|TX difference adjusted for randomization strata.|Negative values for change from baseline=benefit of TX; negative values for MVC vs PBO=advantage of MVC.|MVC BID vs PBO treatment difference at Week 48.||60.80|-5.38|
90810880|NCT00098748|181499871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|234.499|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|80.799|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|74.913|394.084|||ANCOVA|TX difference adjusted for randomization strata.|Negative values for change from baseline=benefit of TX; negative values for MVC vs PBO=advantage of MVC.|MVC QD vs PBO treatment difference at Week 24.||394.084|74.913|
90810881|NCT00098748|181499871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|188.817|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|83.4484|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.999|353.635|||ANCOVA|TX difference adjusted for randomization strata.|Negative values for change from baseline=benefit of TX; negative values for MVC vs PBO=advantage of MVC.|MVC BID vs PBO treatment difference at Week 24.||353.635|23.999|
90810882|NCT00098748|181499871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|155.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|87.304|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.49|328.37|||ANCOVA|TX difference adjusted for randomization strata.|Negative values for change from baseline=benefit of TX; negative values for MVC vs PBO=advantage of MVC.|MVC QD vs PBO treatment difference at Week 48.||328.37|-16.49|
90810883|NCT00098748|181499871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|182.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|90.174|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.81|361.02|||ANCOVA|TX difference adjusted for randomization strata.|Negative values for change from baseline=benefit of TX; negative values for MVC vs PBO=advantage of MVC.|MVC BID vs PBO treatment difference at Week 48.||361.02|4.81|
90810884|NCT00098748|181499872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7524||95.0|||||Log Rank|||MVC QD vs PBO at Week 24. Kaplan-Meier survival estimates. TX difference evaluated by log-rank test.||||0.7524
90810885|NCT00098748|181499872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.254||95.0|||||Log Rank|||MVC BID vs PBO at Week 24. Kaplan-Meier survival estimates. TX difference evaluated by log-rank test.||||0.2540
90810886|NCT00098748|181499872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8243||95.0|||||Log Rank|||MVC QD vs PBO at Week 48. Kaplan-Meier survival estimates. TX difference evaluated by log-rank test.||||0.8243
90810887|NCT00098748|181499872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6657||95.0|||||Log Rank|||MVC BID vs PBO at Week 48. Kaplan-Meier survival estimates. TX difference evaluated by log-rank test.||||0.6657
90810888|NCT00098748|181499873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|0.069|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2356|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.396|0.535|||ANCOVA|TX difference adjusted for randomization strata.||MVC QD vs PBO treatment difference at Week 24.||0.535|-0.396|
90810889|NCT00098748|181499873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|-0.218|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2413|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.694|0.258|||ANCOVA|TX difference adjusted for randomization strata.||MVC BID vs PBO treatment difference at Week 24.||0.258|-0.694|
90810890|NCT00098748|181499873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|0.209|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2388|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.262|0.681|||ANCOVA|TX difference adjusted for randomization strata.||MVC QD vs PBO treatment difference at Week 48.||0.681|-0.262|
90810891|NCT00098748|181499873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|-0.284|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2445|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.767|0.199|||ANCOVA|TX difference adjusted for randomization strata.||MVC BID vs PBO treatment difference at Week 48.||0.199|-0.767|
90810892|NCT03095027|181499881|NON_INFERIORITY|The pre-specified non-inferiority margin is 0.05. With a sample size of 10, there was approximately 80% power to reject the null hypothesis of inferiority in visual acuity with assumed standard deviation of 0.0474 (one-sided alpha=0.05)|LSM Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0|||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.01||||||||0.01||
90810893|NCT00132691|181499925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.03||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|6.68||unadjusted|Generalized estimating equations, linear||The treatment effect is a model-based comparison of within group treatment change from enrollment to 24 months (the difference of the differences - implant minus systemic).|"Null hypothesis: There will be no difference in change in visual acuity between treatment groups.~Assuming 67% bilateral disease, between eye correlation of 0.4, SD of 16 letters' change over 2 years and two-sided type 1 error rate of .05, a sample size of 250 provided 91% power (assuming 10% crossover) to detect a treatment difference of 7.5 standard ETDRS letters' change in visual acuity from baseline to 24 months."||6.68|-1.16|0.16
91054952|NCT00643565|181991719|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.3211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.25|||Log Rank|||The HR was calculated based on a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, with stratification factors of age and histology/disease risk.||1.25|0.51|0.3211
91054953|NCT02283983|181991724|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
90810894|NCT00132691|181499926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of odds ratios|0.61||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.03||unadjusted|GEE, logistic||For each treatment group the odds of macular edema at 2 yrs as compared to baseline was computed. The treatment effect is the ratio of these odds (implant divided by systemic).|||1.03|0.34|0.071
90810895|NCT00132691|181499927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of odds ratios|0.29||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.6||unadjusted|GEE, logistic||For each treatment group the odds of uveitis activity at 2 years as compared to baseline was computed. The treatment effect represents the ratio of these odds (implant divided by systemic).|||.60|.13|0.001
90810896|NCT00132691|181499928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|6.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.32|11.15||unadjusted|Cox proportional hazards w/ RE||A Cox proportional hazards model with a random effect to account for between-eye correlation was used to estimate the relative hazard of experiencing an IOP of 30 mmHg or greater. The systemic arm was the reference group.|||11.15|3.32|<.0001
91015362|NCT00437294|181913215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.237||||||The 1-sided significance level was 0.20.|Log Rank|||||||0.237
91015363|NCT00437294|181913220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1||||||1-sided significance level was 0.20.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
91054954|NCT03275064|181991725|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-30.73|31.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16||31.69|-30.73|
90810897|NCT00132691|181499929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.34|5.5||unadjusted|Cox proportional hazards w/ RE||A Cox proportional hazards model with a random effect to account for between-eye correlation was used to estimate the relative hazard of experiencing an IOP of 24 mmHg or greater. The systemic arm was the reference group|||5.50|2.34|<.0001
90810898|NCT00132691|181499930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.78|6.58||unadjusted|Cox proportional hazards with RE||A Cox proportional hazards model with a random effect to account for between-eye correlation was used to estimate the relative hazard of experiencing an IOP that was 10mmHg or greater than the baseline value. The systemic arm was the reference group.|||6.58|2.78|<.0001
90810899|NCT00132691|181499931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.19||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.82|9.63||unadjusted|Cox proportional hazards w/ RE||A Cox proportional hazards model with a random effect to account for between-eye correlation was used to estimate the relative hazard of developing glaucoma. The systemic arm was the reference group.|||9.63|1.82|0.0008
90810900|NCT00132691|181499932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.67|6.47||unadjusted|Cox proportional hazards w/ RE||A Cox proportional hazards model with a random effect to account for between-eye correlation was used to estimate the relative hazard of using an IOP-lowering therapy. The systemic arm was the reference group.|||6.47|2.67|<.0001
90810901|NCT00132691|181499933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|8.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.39|20.82||unadjusted|Cox proportional hazards w/ RE||A Cox proportional hazards model with a random effect to account for between-eye correlation was used to estimate the relative hazard of having surgery to lower IOP. The systemic arm was the reference group.|||20.82|3.39|<0.0001
90810902|NCT00132691|181499934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.21|7.67||unadjusted|Cox proportional hazards w/ RE||A Cox proportional hazards model with a random effect to account for between-eye correlation was used to estimate the relative hazard of developing a cataract. The systemic arm was the reference group.|||7.67|2.21|<0.0001
90810903|NCT00132691|181499935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|9.15||unadjusted|GEE, linear||The treatment effect is a model-based comparison of within group treatment change from enrollment to 24 months (the difference of the differences - implant minus systemic).|||9.15|0.14|0.043
90810904|NCT00132691|181499936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|6.76||unadjusted|GEE, linear||The treatment effect is a model-based comparison of within group treatment change from enrollment to 24 months (the difference of the differences - implant minus systemic)|||6.76|0.49|0.023
90810905|NCT00132691|181499937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.23||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|5.36||unadjusted|Generalized Estimating Equations||The treatment effect is a model-based comparison of within group treatment change from enrollment to 24 months (the difference of the differences - implant minus systemic).|||5.36|0.54|0.016
91054955|NCT03275064|181991725|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.04|34.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 28||34.40|-27.04|
90810906|NCT00132691|181499938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|2.15||unadjusted|Regression, Cox||A Cox proportional hazards model was used to evaluate the relative hazard of hyperlipidemia for the implant and systemic treatments. The systemic treatment is the reference group.|||2.15|0.39|0.84
90810907|NCT00132691|181499939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.4||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.29||unadjusted|Regression, Cox||A Cox proportional hazards model was used to evaluate the relative hazard of hypertension for the implant and systemic treatments. The systemic treatment is the reference group.|||1.29|0.13|0.13
90810908|NCT00132691|181499940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.26||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|2.44||unadjusted|Regression, Cox||A Cox proportional hazards model was used to evaluate the relative hazard of diabetes mellitus for the implant and systemic treatments. The systemic treatment is the reference group.|||2.44|0.03|0.24
90810909|NCT03344549|181499947|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.76|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.8||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The threshoid for statistical significance was p \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||U Mann Whitney was used for inter-group comparison||||0.37
90810910|NCT03344549|181499948|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.76|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.8||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|U Mann Whitney was used for inter-group comparison||||||0.46
90810911|NCT03344549|181499949|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.16
90810912|NCT01774097|181499965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|2.5||Threshold 0.05; no adjustment for multiple comparisons per protocol.|t-test, 2 sided|||||2.5|-0.6|0.238
90810913|NCT01774097|181499966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|2.1||Threshold 0.05; no adjustment for multiple comparisons per protocol.|t-test, 2 sided|||||2.1|-0.2|0.116
91054956|NCT03275064|181991726|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.7|31.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16||31.08|-27.70|
90810914|NCT01774097|181499967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.8||Threshold 0.05; no adjustment for multiple comparisons per protocol.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.8|-0.8|0.978
90810915|NCT01774097|181499968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|0.91||Threshold 0.05; no adjustment for multiple comparisons per protocol.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.91|-1.26|0.752
90810916|NCT01774097|181499969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||interaction term|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.03||Threshold 0.05; no adjustment for multiple comparisons per protocol.|Regression, Linear|||||0.03|-0.02|0.871
90810917|NCT01774097|181499970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||interaction term|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.02||Threshold 0.05; no adjustment for multiple comparisons per protocol.|Regression, Linear|||||0.02|-0.06|0.256
90810918|NCT01774097|181499971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||interaction term|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.6|||Regression, Linear|||||0.6|-0.2|0.241
91054957|NCT03275064|181991726|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.03|34.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 28||34.97|-23.03|
91054958|NCT03275064|181991727|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-47.27|49.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16||49.04|-47.27|
90810919|NCT01774097|181499973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|4.8||Threshold 0.05; no adjustment for multiple comparisons per protocol.|Regression, Linear|||||4.8|-0.6|0.131
90810920|NCT01774097|181499974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|4.2||Threshold 0.05; no adjustment for multiple comparisons per protocol.|Regression, Linear|||||4.2|-2.6|0.626
90810921|NCT01774097|181499975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|2.3||Threshold 0.05; no adjustment for multiple comparisons per protocol.|Regression, Linear|||||2.3|-4.1|0.591
90810922|NCT01774097|181499976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|4.7||Threshold 0.05; no adjustment for multiple comparisons per protocol.|Regression, Linear|||||4.7|-3.3|0.722
90810923|NCT00934947|181499988|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.36
90810924|NCT00934947|181499989|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.32
90810925|NCT00934947|181499990|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.48
90810926|NCT03061721|181500023|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0002
90810927|NCT03061721|181500023|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0001
90810928|NCT03061721|181500023|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91054959|NCT03275064|181991727|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-43.11|47.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 28||47.65|-43.11|
90810929|NCT03061721|181500024|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5681|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.5681
90810930|NCT03061721|181500024|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4487|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.4487
91054960|NCT03275064|181991728|SUPERIORITY|Week 29|Mean Difference (Net)|200.18||||0.0131|TWO_SIDED|90.0|54.53|345.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||345.83|54.53|0.0131
90810931|NCT03061721|181500024|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0021|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0021
90810932|NCT03061721|181500025|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0070
90810933|NCT03061721|181500025|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0031|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0031
90810934|NCT03061721|181500025|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0001
90810935|NCT03061721|181500026|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2241|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2241
90810936|NCT03061721|181500026|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0304|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0304
90810937|NCT03061721|181500026|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0595|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0595
90810938|NCT03061721|181500027|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0449|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0449
90810939|NCT03061721|181500027|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0053|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0053
90810940|NCT03061721|181500027|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0036|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0036
90810941|NCT03061721|181500028|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0045|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0045
90810942|NCT03061721|181500028|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0026|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0026
90810943|NCT03061721|181500028|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0004
90810944|NCT03061721|181500037|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2387|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2387
90810945|NCT03061721|181500037|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1496|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1496
90810946|NCT03061721|181500037|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0445|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0445
90810947|NCT01920568|181500096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.316|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.192|||ANCOVA||Primary analysis evaluated the log transformed chg from BL, i.e. log\[(Wk 13 uNTx/Cr) / (BL uNTx/Cr)\] by ANCOVA model with trt group as main effect and the stratification factor (breast cancer, yes or no) and log transformed BL value as covariates.|||-0.192|-0.440|<0.0001
90810948|NCT01920568|181500097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.316|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.444|-0.188|||ANCOVA||Secondary analysis evaluated the log transformed chg from BL, ie log\[(Wk 13 uNTx/Cr)/(BL uNTx/Cr)\] by ANCOVA model with trt group as main effect and the stratification factor (Chinese participants, yes or no) and log transformed BL value|||-0.188|-0.444|<0.0001
90810949|NCT01920568|181500098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.366|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.539|-0.193|||ANCOVA||Secondary analysis evaluated the log transformed chg from BL, i.e. log\[(Wk 13 uNTx/Cr) / (BL uNTx/Cr)\] by ANCOVA model with trt group as main effect, stratification factor (Breast cancer, yes or no) and log transformed BL value as covariates.|||-0.193|-0.539|<0.0001
90810950|NCT04049266|181500112|NON_INFERIORITY|The maximum clinically acceptable true difference between KSI-301 and aflibercept participants to be considered non-inferior is 4 ETDRS letters, i.e. the non-inferiority margin (NI) is 4 letters.|Adjusted mean difference|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.01|>|0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.03|-8.0|-4.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM model with treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, categories for baseline BCVA, BCVA-low luminance VA baseline, geographical location.||||-4|-8|> 0.9999
90810951|NCT01703208|181500120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.29|||||Based on the proportional hazards model that includes treatment as an explanatory factor.|||1.29|0.77|
90810952|NCT01703208|181500121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.37||||||||-0.37|-0.48|
90810953|NCT01703208|181500122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the LS Means vs Placebo|-0.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.27|||Longitudinal data analysis|Longitudinal data analysis model including terms for treatment, time and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-0.27|-0.50|<0.001
90810954|NCT01703208|181500123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent vs. Placebo|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|4.9|||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method. The 95% CI was computed only for those endpoints with at least 4 participants having events in one or more treatment groups.|||4.9|-7.2|
90810955|NCT01703208|181500124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage vs. Placebo|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.7|||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method. The 95% CI was computed only for those endpoints with at least 4 participants having events in one or more treatment groups.|||1.7|-1.0|
90810956|NCT01703208|181500126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.68|||||Based on the proportional hazards model that includes treatment as an explanatory factor.|||1.68|0.66|
90810957|NCT01703208|181500128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.26|||||Based on the proportional hazards model that includes treatment as an explanatory factor.|||1.26|0.60|
90810958|NCT01703208|181500130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.52|||||Based on the proportional hazards model that includes treatment as an explanatory factor.|||1.52|0.58|
91054961|NCT03275064|181991728|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|141.87||||0.0544|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.83|287.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 29||287.56|-3.83|0.0544
91015364|NCT00437294|181913221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.812|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.812
90810959|NCT01703208|181500132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.85|||||Based on the proportional hazards model that includes treatment as an explanatory factor.|||1.85|0.88|
90810960|NCT01703208|181500133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.14|||||Longitudinal Data Analysis (LDA) model including terms for treatment, time, and the interaction of time by treatment.|||-0.14|-0.46|
90810961|NCT01703208|181500139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-3.1||||0.421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|4.5|||Longitudinal constrained data analysis||Based on a LDA model including terms for treatment, time and the interaction of time by treatment.|||4.5|-10.8|0.421
90810962|NCT01703208|181500140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Between group rate difference|11.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|16.8||Estimated using standard multiple imputation techniques.|Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||16.8|6.9|<0.001
90810963|NCT01703208|181500142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.05|||||Based on the proportional hazards model that includes treatment as an explanatory factor.|||1.05|0.35|
90810964|NCT00252694|181500155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.1994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.704|1.076|||Log Rank|Generalized||||1.076|0.704|0.1994
90810965|NCT03549871|181500266|SUPERIORITY||ABR ratio|0.389|||=|0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.224|0.675||The threshold for significance was \<0.05.|Repeated measures NB regression model|||Analyzed using repeated measures NB model with fixed effect of treatment period (fitusiran efficacy period or factor/BPA prophylaxis period) and robust sandwich covariance matrix was constructed to account for within participant dependence, logarithm of duration (in years) that each participant spends in each study period matching BE data being analyzed as an offset variable.||0.675|0.224|=0.0008
91015365|NCT00437294|181913222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.181|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.181
91054962|NCT03275064|181991728|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|228.27||||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.87|375.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 53||375.67|80.87|0.0067
90810966|NCT03549871|181500268|SUPERIORITY||ABR ratio|0.444|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.234|0.842||||||||0.842|0.234|
91015366|NCT00461591|181913226|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.1068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.06|0.54|0.1068
91054963|NCT03275064|181991728|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|116.21||||0.0931|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-29.52|261.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 53||261.94|-29.52|0.0931
90810967|NCT03549871|181500270|SUPERIORITY||ABR ratio|0.485|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.259|0.91||||||||0.910|0.259|
90810968|NCT01133626|181500281|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority would be demonstrated if the lower limit of a two-sided 95% CI for the geometric mean ratio of BDP HFA 320 mcg/day to placebo was greater than 0.80.|geometric mean ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.06|||ANCOVA|||||1.06|0.87|
90810969|NCT01960998|181500282|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22||||||P value not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Log Rank||||Data were not collected beyond the 12-month follow up, at which point fewer than 50% of participants in both groups had achieved continence. Thus, their time to continence could not be determined and the medians could not be calculated.|||0.22
90810970|NCT01960998|181500283|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7||||||P values were not corrected for multiple testing|ANCOVA|Baseline score was included as a covariate in analysis.|||Mean values for the telehealth and no telehealth groups on the ICIQ-SF are presented above. Multiple imputation was performed to account for missing data, using the Multiple Imputation via Chained Equations (MICE) package in R. Across 10 imputations, the mean ICIQ-SF score in the no telehealth group at 6 months was 7.0 (standard deviation 4.4) and in the telehealth group was 7.1 (SD 4.3). Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was performed with each of the 10 imputations, adjusting for baseline ICIQ-SF score, and p values were combined using the Rubin-Licht method.|||0.70
91015367|NCT00461591|181913227|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.0412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.99|||Log Rank|||||0.99|0.59|0.0412
91015368|NCT00518531|181913254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.5||||0.0259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|19.7||All statistical hypothesis tests were conducted at the 0.05 significance level. No adjustment was employed for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by center and prior osteoporotic fracture|Positive values for absolute risk reduction favor denosumab.|||19.7|1.3|0.0259
91015369|NCT00518531|181913255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|30.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.6|41.3||All statistical hypothesis tests were conducted at the 0.05 significance level. No adjustment was employed for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by center and prior osteoporotic fracture|Positive values for absolute risk reduction favor denosumab.|||41.3|20.6|<0.0001
91015370|NCT00518531|181913256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.0||||0.0138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|19.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by center and prior osteoporotic fracture.|Positive values for absolute risk reduction favor denosumab.|||19.7|2.2|0.0138
91015371|NCT00518531|181913257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|27.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.6|37.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by center and prior osteoporotic fracture.|Positive values for absolute risk reduction favor denosumab.|||37.7|17.6|<0.0001
91015372|NCT00518531|181913258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.8||||0.0291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|18.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by center and prior osteoporotic fracture.|Positive values for absolute risk reduction favor denosumab.|||18.5|1.1|0.0291
91054964|NCT03275064|181991729|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.0574|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 29||0.10|-0.00|0.0574
91054965|NCT03275064|181991729|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.06||||0.0248|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.01|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 29||0.11|0.01|0.0248
91054966|NCT03275064|181991729|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.3864|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.05|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 53||0.07|-0.05|0.3864
91054967|NCT03275064|181991729|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02||||0.329|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.05|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 53||0.08|-0.05|0.3290
91054968|NCT03275064|181991730|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.75||||0.6184|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.36|30.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16||30.85|-21.36|0.6184
91054969|NCT03275064|181991730|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.32||||0.3194|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-33.16|18.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 28||18.53|-33.16|0.3194
91054970|NCT03275064|181991731|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.72|8.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 29||8.47|-1.72|
91054971|NCT03275064|181991731|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.22|5.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 29||5.01|-5.22|
91015373|NCT00518531|181913259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|27.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.1|36.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by center and prior osteoporotic fracture.|Positive values for absolute risk reduction favor denosumab.|||36.7|18.1|<0.0001
91015374|NCT04621227|181913278|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|202.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|167.14|246.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison for AUClast (PF-06882961 120mg BID + rosuvastatin 10mg \[Period 4\] vs Rosuvastatin 10mg \[Period 1\])||246.41|167.14|
91015375|NCT04621227|181913278|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|283.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|233.68|344.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison for AUClast (PF-06882961 200mg BID + rosuvastatin 10mg \[Period 7\] vs Rosuvastatin 10mg \[Period 1\])||344.51|233.68|
91015376|NCT04621227|181913279|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|50.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|42.27|60.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison for AUClast (PF-06882961 120mg BID + midazolam 2mg \[Period 5\] vs Midazolam 2mg \[Period 2\])||60.50|42.27|
91015377|NCT04621227|181913279|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|50.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|42.06|60.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison for AUClast (PF-06882961 200mg BID + midazolam 2mg \[Period 8\] vs Midazolam 2mg \[Period 2\])||60.78|42.06|
90810971|NCT01960998|181500284|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7||||||P values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||||Mean values for the telehealth and no telehealth groups on the EPIC-UI are presented above. Multiple imputation was performed to account for missing data, using the Multiple Imputation via Chained Equations (MICE) package in R. Across 10 imputations, the mean EPIC-UI score in the no telehealth group at 6 months was 63.5 (standard deviation 24.1) and in the telehealth group was 63.9 (SD 22.1). Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was performed with each of the 10 imputations, adjusting for baseline EPIC-UI score, and p values were combined using the Rubin-Licht method.|||0.70
90810972|NCT01960998|181500285|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46||||||P values not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided||||Mean values for the telehealth and no telehealth groups on the IIQ are presented above. Multiple imputation was performed to account for missing data, using the Multiple Imputation via Chained Equations (MICE) package in R. Across 10 imputations, the mean IIQ score in the no telehealth group at 6 months was 22.3 (standard deviation 24.1) and in the telehealth group was 19.4 (SD 22.4). Two-sample t-tests were performed with each of the 10 imputations, and p values were combined using the Rubin-Licht method.|||0.46
90810973|NCT01960998|181500286|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63||||||P values were not corrected for multiple comparisons|Chi-squared, Corrected||||Frequencies for the telehealth and no telehealth groups on the Quality of Life question are presented above. Multiple imputation was performed to account for missing data, using the Multiple Imputation via Chained Equations (MICE) package in R. Across 10 imputations, the mean frequencies for the no telehealth group at 6 months were 31.4% (Delighted/Pleased), 22.8% (Mostly Satisfied), 19.4% (Mixed), 12.0% (Mostly Dissatisfied), and 14.4% (Unhappy/Terrible) and in the telehealth group were 20.8%, 26.3%, 26.3%, 12.6%, and 14.0%, respectively. Chi-squared analysis with continuity correction was used to determine if there were differences in the observed frequencies between groups (telehealth versus no telehealth) across the 5 levels of the IPSS Quality of Life question relative to the expected frequencies with each of the imputations, and p values were combined using the Enders (2001) method.|||0.63
90810974|NCT01960998|181500287|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||P values were not corrected for multiple comparisons|Chi-squared, Corrected||||Frequencies for the telehealth and no telehealth groups on the Patient Satisfaction question are presented above. Multiple imputation was performed to account for missing data, using the Multiple Imputation via Chained Equations (MICE) package in R. Across 10 imputations, the mean frequencies for the no telehealth group at 6 months were 51.0% (Completely Satisfied), 40.2% (Somewhat Satisfied), and 8.7% (Not at All Satisfied) and in the telehealth group were 34.8%, 59.9%, and 5.3%, respectively (frequencies to not add to exactly 100% due to rounding). Chi-squared analysis with continuity correction was used to determine if there were differences in the observed frequencies between groups (telehealth versus no telehealth) across the 3 levels of the Patient Satisfaction question relative to the expected frequencies with each of the imputations, and p values were combined using the Enders (2001) method.|||0.04
90810975|NCT01960998|181500288|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67||||||P values not adjusted for multiple comparisons|t-test, 2 sided||||Mean values for the telehealth and no telehealth groups on the Estimated Percent Improvement (EPI) are presented above. Multiple imputation was performed to account for missing data, using the Multiple Imputation via Chained Equations (MICE) package in R. Across 10 imputations, the mean EPI score in the no telehealth group at 6 months was 65.1 (standard deviation 34.5) and in the telehealth group was 69.6 (SD 29.6). Two-sample t-tests were performed with each of the 10 imputations, and p values were combined using the Rubin-Licht method.|||0.67
91015378|NCT00124709|181913288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0046||||0.7901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.029|0.0381|||ANCOVA|Treatment, Center, gender, baseline age (months), baseline EASI score, and baseline TBSA as explanatory variables||"A disease-free day in Step 2 or less was defined as a diary day with variable No or almost no eczema?=yes and medication used variable=no except emollients, yellow label medication 2X day, or medication deviation of yellow label medication 1x day."||0.0381|-0.0290|0.7901
91015379|NCT01728376|181913300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (%)|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.3|25.3|||||Daptomycin minus Comparator 95% Confidence Interval (CI) by Wilson score method|Difference in satisfactory response between treatment groups. Satisfactory response = cured + improved||25.3|-30.3|
91015380|NCT01728376|181913300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (%)|16.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|45.7|||||Daptomycin minus Comparator 95% CI by Wilson score method|Difference in satisfactory response between treatment groups. Satisfactory response = cured + improved||45.7|-13.0|
91015381|NCT01728376|181913300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (%)|25.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|72.4|||||Daptomycin minus Comparator 95% CI by Wilson score method|Difference in satisfactory response between treatment groups. Satisfactory response = cured + improved||72.4|-21.0|
91015382|NCT01728376|181913301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (%)|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.8|39.8|||||Daptomycin minus Comparator 95% CI by Wilson score method|Difference in success response between treatment arms||39.8|-29.8|
91015383|NCT01728376|181913301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (%)|37.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|75.1|||||Daptomycin minus Comparator 95% CI by Wilson score method|Difference in success response between treatment arms||75.1|0.7|
91054972|NCT03275064|181991731|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.42|4.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 53||4.15|-6.42|
90810976|NCT01960998|181500289|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected||||Frequencies for the telehealth and no telehealth groups on the Global Perception of Improvement (GPI) question are presented above. Multiple imputation was performed to account for missing data, using the Multiple Imputation via Chained Equations (MICE) package in R. Across 10 imputations, the mean frequencies for the no telehealth group at 6 months were 46.3% (Much Better), 30.7% (Better), 16.7% (About the Same), 2.3% (Worse), and 3.9% (Much Worse) and in the telehealth group were 38.3%, 41.1%, 15.3%, 2.9%, and 2.5%, respectively (frequencies to not add to exactly 100% due to rounding). Chi-squared analysis with continuity correction was used to determine if there were differences in the observed frequencies between groups (telehealth versus no telehealth) across the 5 levels of the Global Perception of Improvement question relative to the expected frequencies with each of the imputations, and p values were combined using the Enders (2001) method.|||0.65
90810977|NCT01960998|181500290|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37||||||P values were not corrected for multiple comparisons|Chi-squared, Corrected||||"Frequencies for the telehealth and no telehealth groups on the How Disturbing is the Urine Leakage? question are presented above. Multiple imputation was performed to account for missing data, using the Multiple Imputation via Chained Equations (MICE) package in R. Across 10 imputations, the mean frequencies for the no telehealth group at 6 months were 43.5% (Not at All), 44.4% (Somewhat), and 12.1% (Extremely) and in the telehealth group were 38.9%, 53.2%, and 7.9% respectively. Chi-squared analysis with continuity correction was used to determine if there were differences in the observed frequencies between groups (telehealth versus no telehealth) across the 3 levels of the How Disturbing is the Urine Leakage? question relative to the expected frequencies with each of the imputations, and p values were combined using the Enders (2001) method."|||0.37
90810978|NCT01960998|181500291|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63||||||P values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Chi-squared, Corrected||||Frequencies for the telehealth and no telehealth groups on the Activity Restriction question relative to the expected frequencies question are presented above. Multiple imputation was performed to account for missing data, using the Multiple Imputation via Chained Equations (MICE) package in R. Across 10 imputations, the mean frequencies for the no telehealth group at 6 months were 51.0% (Not at all), 36.5% (Some of the time), 7.2% (Most of the time), and 5.3% (All of the time) and in the telehealth group were 56.5%, 33.5%, 4.2%, and 5.8% respectively (frequencies to not add to exactly 100% due to rounding). Chi-squared analysis with continuity correction was used to determine if there were differences in the observed frequencies between groups (telehealth versus no telehealth) across the 4 levels of the Activity Restriction question relative to the expected frequencies with each of the imputations, and p values were combined using the Enders (2001) method.|||0.63
90810979|NCT01960998|181500292|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71||||||P values not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Chi-squared, Corrected||||Frequencies for the telehealth and no telehealth groups on the Return to Work question relative to the expected frequencies question are presented above. Multiple imputation was performed to account for missing data, using the Multiple Imputation via Chained Equations (MICE) package in R. Across 10 imputations, the mean frequencies for the no telehealth group at 6 months were 52.3% (Yes), 5.0% (No, not yet recovered from surgery), 1.9% (No, other reason), and 40.7% (Retired or disabled) and in the telehealth group were 62.3%, 3.5%, 0.8%, and 33.5% respectively (frequencies to not add to exactly 100% due to rounding). Chi-squared analysis with continuity correction was used to determine if there were differences in the observed frequencies between groups (telehealth versus no telehealth) across the 4 levels of the Return to Work question relative to the expected frequencies with each of the imputations, and p values were combined using the Enders (2001) method.|||0.71
90810980|NCT01960998|181500293|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41||||||P values not corrected for multiple comparisons|Chi-squared, Corrected||||Frequencies for the telehealth and no telehealth groups on the Resumption of Normal Activities question relative to the expected frequencies question are presented above. Multiple imputation was performed to account for missing data, using the Multiple Imputation via Chained Equations (MICE) package in R. Across 10 imputations, the mean frequencies for the no telehealth group at 6 months were 7.4% (None), 29.8% (Some), 62.8% (All) and in the telehealth group were 4.9%, 23.0%, and 72.2% respectively (frequencies to not add to exactly 100% due to rounding). Chi-squared analysis with continuity correction was used to determine if there were differences in the observed frequencies between groups (telehealth versus no telehealth) across the 3 levels of the Resumption of Normal Activities question relative to the expected frequencies with each of the imputations, and p values were combined using the Enders (2001) method.|||0.41
90810981|NCT00871117|181500334|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit of the standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for the between-group differences in booster response to diphtheria was greater than or equal to (≥)-10%.|Difference in booster response rates|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|2.58||||||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of DTaP-IPV vaccine co-administered with Varicella and MMR vaccines compared to DTaP-IPV vaccine co-administered with MMR only in terms of diphtheria (D) booster response one month after vaccination with DTaP-IPV vaccine.||2.58|-2.54|
90810982|NCT00871117|181500334|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit of the standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the between-group differences in booster response to tetanus was ≥ -10%.|Difference in booster response rates|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|4.26||||||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of DTaP-IPV vaccine co-administered with Varicella and MMR vaccines compared to DTaP-IPV vaccine co-administered with MMR only in terms of tetanus (T) booster response one month after vaccination with DTaP-IPV vaccine.||4.26|-1.99|
90810983|NCT00871117|181500335|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit of the standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the between-group differences in booster response to PT was ≥ -10%|Difference in booster response rates|-0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.07|3.51||||||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of DTaP-IPV vaccine co-administered with Varicella and MMR vaccines compared to DTaP-IPV vaccine co-administered with MMR only in terms of pertussis toxoid (PT) booster response one month after vaccination with DTaP-IPV vaccine.||3.51|-5.07|
91015384|NCT01728376|181913301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (%)|-10.0||||||95.0|-60.3|40.3|||||Daptomycin minus Comparator 95% CI by Wilson score method|Difference in success response between treatment arms||40.3|-60.3|
91054973|NCT03275064|181991731|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.68|-2.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 53||-2.20|-12.68|
91054974|NCT03275064|181991732|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.49|7.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 29||7.66|-3.49|
91054975|NCT03275064|181991732|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.82|6.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 29||6.45|-4.82|
91054976|NCT03275064|181991732|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.54|8.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 53||8.11|-3.54|
90810984|NCT00871117|181500335|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit of the standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the between-group differences in booster response to FHA was ≥ -10%.|Difference in booster response rates|-0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.59|1.39||||||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of DTaP-IPV vaccine co-administered with Varicella and MMR vaccines compared to DTaP-IPV vaccine co-administered with MMR only in terms of filamentous hemagglutinin (FHA) booster response one month after vaccination with DTaP-IPV vaccine.||1.39|-3.59|
90810985|NCT00871117|181500335|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit of the standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the between-group differences in booster response to PRN, was ≥ -10%.|Difference in booster response rates|1.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|4.08||||||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of DTaP-IPV vaccine co-administered with Varicella and MMR vaccines compared to DTaP-IPV vaccine co-administered with MMR only in terms of pertactin (PRN) booster response one month after vaccination with DTaP-IPV vaccine.||4.08|-0.32|
90810986|NCT00871117|181500336|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit of the 95% CI for the GMT ratios for poliovirus type 1 antigens was ≥ 0.67.|Adjusted GMT ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.1||||||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of DTaP-IPV vaccine co-administered with Varicella and MMR vaccines compared to DTaP-IPV vaccine co-administered with MMR only in terms of poliovirus type 1 geometric mean titers (GMTs), one month after vaccination with DTaP-IPV vaccine.||1.1|0.76|
90810987|NCT00871117|181500336|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit of the 95% CI for the GMT ratios of poliovirus type 2 antigens was ≥ 0.67.|Adjusted GMT ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.99||||||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of DTaP-IPV vaccine co-administered with Varicella and MMR vaccines compared to DTaP-IPV vaccine co-administered with MMR only in terms of poliovirus type 2 geometric mean titers (GMTs), one month after vaccination with DTaP-IPV vaccine.||0.99|0.7|
90810988|NCT00871117|181500336|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit of the 95% CI for the GMT ratios of poliovirus type 3 antigens was ≥ 0.67.|Adjusted GMT ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.01||||||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of DTaP-IPV vaccine co-administered with Varicella and MMR vaccines compared to DTaP-IPV vaccine co-administered with MMR only in terms of poliovirus type 3 geometric mean titers (GMTs), one month after vaccination with DTaP-IPV vaccine.||1.01|0.71|
90810989|NCT02080481|181500348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric means|0.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.76|||Regression, Linear|intraoperative management strategy was imbalanced between randomized groups and was adjusted for in the linear regression model.||||0.76|0.61|< 0.001
90810990|NCT02080481|181500349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.25|9.6|||Regression, Logistic|intraoperative management strategy was imbalanced between randomized groups and was adjusted for in the logistic regression model.|Odds ratio for Infiniti Plus versus conventional needle patients|||9.6|0.25|0.56
90810991|NCT02080481|181500350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.13||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.01|1.78||Intraoperative management strategy was imbalanced between groups and adjusted for in the logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.78|0.01|0.06
90810992|NCT02080481|181500351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.4||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|98.3|-7.7|14.6|||Regression, Linear|Intraoperative management strategy was imbalanced between randomized groups and adjusted for in the linear regression model.||||14.6|-7.7|0.74
90810993|NCT02436668|181500387|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.525|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.241|1.873||P-value is from log-rank test stratified by the three randomization stratification factors \[KPS (70-80 vs. 90-100), liver metastasis (present vs. absent), and age (≤65 vs. \>65)\].|Log Rank|||The treatment effect was tested with an stratified log rank test. Hazard ratio is estimated using Cox regression model stratified by the three randomization stratification factors \[KPS (70 80 vs. 90-100), liver metastasis (present vs. absent), and age (≤65 vs. \>65)\] and with treatment as the only covariate.||1.873|1.241|<0.0001
90810994|NCT02436668|181500388|SUPERIORITY|P-value is based on log-rank test stratified by the three randomization stratification factors \[KPS (70-80 vs. 90-100), liver metastasis (present vs. absent), and age (≤65 vs. \>65)\].|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.109||||0.3225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.903|1.363|||Log Rank|||The treatment effect was tested with an stratified log rank test. Hazard ratio is estimated using Cox regression model stratified by the three randomization stratification factors \[KPS (70 80 vs. 90-100), liver metastasis (present vs. absent), and age (≤65 vs. \>65)\] and with treatment as the only covariate.||1.363|0.903|0.3225
91054977|NCT03275064|181991732|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.81|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 53||-0.10|-11.81|
90810995|NCT02436668|181500390|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.695||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.535|0.903|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For rate ratio, numerator is Ibr+Gem/Abr arm and denominator is Pbo + Gem/Abr arm. P-value for rate ratio is based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the three randomization stratification factors. Two-sided 95% confidence interval for rate ratio is based on Mantel-Haenszel method.||0.903|0.535|0.0058
90810996|NCT02436668|181500392|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.85||||0.0488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.722|1.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||This 0.85 (0.722 to 1.0) with CI is referring to risk ratio not proportional/percentage of patients.|For rate ratio, numerator is Ibr+Gem/Abr arm and denominator is Pbo+Gem/Abr arm. P-value for rate ratio is based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the three randomization stratification factors. Two-sided 95% confidence interval for rate ratio is based on Mantel-Haenszel method.||1.0|0.722|0.0488
90810997|NCT02436668|181500393|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.265||||0.0782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.975|1.642||P-value is from log-rank test stratified by the three randomization stratification factors.|Log Rank|||\[1\] Hazard ratio is based on a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by the three randomization stratification factors for time until definitive deterioration (TUDD1), a hazard ratio \< 1 favors Ibr + Gem/Abr. TUDD1 is defined as the time interval between randomization and the first occurrence of a decrease in score by \>= 10 points without any further improvement in score by \>= 10 points or any further available QoL data due to dropout after deterioration.||1.642|0.975|0.0782
90810998|NCT02436668|181500394|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3343|||||||Chi-squared|||"For rate of VTEs, denominator is number of subjects in the Intent-to-Treat population and numerator is number of Intent-to-Treat subjects with at least one VTE observed any time on study. Confidence interval for rate of VTEs is based on Clopper-Pearson method.~\[1\] P value is based on Chi-square test."||||0.3343
90810999|NCT03551665|181500395|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.029||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.002|0.056|||Regression, Linear|||These data are the immediate improvements (base 2 - post 1) in the MS group.||0.056|.002|0.036
91054978|NCT03275064|181991733|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.21|9.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 29||9.15|-2.21|
90811000|NCT03551665|181500396|OTHER||Spearman's Rho|0.019||||0.92|||||||Spearman Correlation|||We correlated cognition (SDMT; above) to the improvement in performance (margin of stability) to to determine whether cognition predicted improvement in stepping outcomes.||||.92
90811001|NCT03551665|181500397|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.026||||0.119||95.0|-0.007|0.059|||Regression, Linear|||We assessed the change in reactive step length before (Baseline 2) to immediately after (post 1) training in the MS group||0.059|-0.007|0.119
90811002|NCT03551665|181500398|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.041||||0.012||95.0|-0.073|-0.009|||Regression, Linear|||We assessed the change in reactive step latency before (Baseline 2) to immediately after (post 1) training in the MS group||-0.009|-0.073|0.012
90811003|NCT05538312|181500399|OTHER|Mixed Model|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|168.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|157.66|180.94|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|ARV-471 administered alone as Reference, ARV-471 administered after multiple doses of itraconazole as Test. Natural log transformed AUCinf was analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% CIs were obtained from the model and were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||180.94|157.66|
90811004|NCT05538312|181500400|OTHER|Mixed Model|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|152.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|136.9|169.18|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|ARV-471 administered alone as Reference, ARV-471 administered after multiple doses of itraconazole as Test. Natural log transformed Cmax was analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% CIs were obtained from the model and were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||169.18|136.90|
90811005|NCT05538312|181500401|OTHER|Mixed Model|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|161.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|148.7|176.47|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|ARV-471 administered alone as Reference, ARV-471 administered after multiple doses of itraconazole as Test. Natural log transformed AUC120 was analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% CIs were obtained from the model and were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||176.47|148.70|
90811006|NCT05538312|181500402|OTHER|Mixed Model|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|153.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|138.51|169.3|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|ARV-471 administered alone as Reference, ARV-471 administered after multiple doses of itraconazole as Test. Natural log transformed Cmax was analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% CIs were obtained from the model and were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||169.30|138.51|
90811007|NCT05538312|181500403|OTHER|Mixed Model|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|171.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|159.96|184.15|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|ARV-471 administered alone as Reference, ARV-471 administered after multiple doses of itraconazole as Test. Natural log transformed AUClast was analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% CIs were obtained from the model and were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||184.15|159.96|
90811008|NCT05538312|181500404|OTHER|Mixed Model|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|157.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|146.51|169.95|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|ARV-471 administered alone as Reference, ARV-471 administered after multiple doses of itraconazole as Test. Natural log transformed AUC120 was analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% CIs were obtained from the model and were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||169.95|146.51|
90811009|NCT05538312|181500409|OTHER|Mixed Model|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|192.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|178.86|207.94|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|ARV-471 administered alone as Reference, ARV-471 administered after multiple doses of itraconazole as Test. Natural log transformed AUClast was analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% CIs were obtained from the model and were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||207.94|178.86|
90811010|NCT00798317|181500415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.97|17.0||Comparing placebo and ocriplasmin|Fisher Exact|||||17.00|1.97|<0.001
90811011|NCT01679600|181500441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53|TWO_SIDED||||||F1-LD-F1 model by Brunner and Langer|||||||0.53
90811012|NCT00108303|181500442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Log (odd ratio)|5.2|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90811013|NCT00108303|181500442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||This parameter was estimated by simulating 1000 samples with random genotypes and finding no value equal to or greater than 5.2.|Simulation|||||||<0.001
90811014|NCT00108303|181500443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Firsher's transform r to Z|||The coefficient of segregation versus no segregation of the P50 sensory gating percent in families with schizophrenia.||||0.001
90811015|NCT01685801|181500445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior Mean|2.251|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.961|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.383|4.144|||||The posterior distribution of overall treatment difference was obtained using the Bayesian hierarchical model and 95% credible interval of the treatment effect (posterior mean) was calculated.|"This statistical analysis is for Overall category."||4.144|0.383|
91054979|NCT03275064|181991733|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.31|5.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 29||5.04|-6.31|
90811016|NCT01437098|181500477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion of IF Implanted Subjects|91.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|77.5|98.2|||Exact binomial|||||98.2|77.5|<0.001
91015385|NCT02411110|181913322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.34||||0.505|||||||ANCOVA|Baseline value as a covariate; treatment group and stratification (age: \< 40 or ≥ 40 years and baseline bladder pain NRS: ≤ 6 or \> 6) as factors.|LiRIS® - Placebo|||||0.505
91054980|NCT03275064|181991733|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.07|2.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 53||2.82|-8.07|
90811017|NCT00823212|181500535|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A 2-group Farrington-Manning test was used to test the 1-sided hypothesis of non-inferiority in differences with a non-inferiority margin of 3.5%. A p value \<0.05 would indicate non-inferiority and correspond to the upper limit of the 1-sided 95% confidence interval of the difference not exceeding 3.5%.|Difference in percent of participants|0.5||||0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||2.13|||Farrington-Manning test||The standard error for the difference was estimated according to the Farrington-Manning test.|Study had 89% statistical power to demonstrate non-inferiority for target lesion failure (TLF, accounting for an expected 1-year attrition rate of 5%), assuming a 1-year TLF rate of 5.5% for both stents.||2.13||0.001
90811018|NCT00834990|181500574|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The pharmacokinetic parameters were evaluated statistically by an analysis of variance (ANOVA) appropriate for the experimental design of this study.|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|103.41||||||90.0|97.13|110.08|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||110.08|97.13|
90811019|NCT00834990|181500575|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The pharmacokinetic parameters were evaluated statistically by an analysis of variance (ANOVA) appropriate for the experimental design of this study.|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|101.68||||||90.0|96.79|106.83|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||106.83|96.79|
90811020|NCT00834990|181500576|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The pharmacokinetic parameters were evaluated statistically by an analysis of variance (ANOVA) appropriate for the experimental design of this study.|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|103.17||||||90.0|98.5|108.05|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||108.05|98.5|
90811021|NCT03397134|181500579|SUPERIORITY|All statistical tests will be 2-sided hypothesis tests performed at the 5% level of significance. All confidence intervals will be 2-sided 95% confidence intervals||||||0.043||||||The p-values must be ≤0.025 to allow for rejecting the null hypothesis for the representative dose.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation will be used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||To evaluate the efficacy of 2 fixed doses (32 mg and 64 mg) of MIN-101 compared to placebo in improving the negative symptoms of schizophrenia as measured by the change from Baseline in the PANSS Marder negative symptoms factor score (NSFS) over 12 weeks of double-blind treatment. Approximation 501 eligible patients will be randomized in a 2:2:1:1 ratio at baseline to 1 of 4 treatment arms.||||0.043
90811022|NCT03397134|181500580|SUPERIORITY|All statistical tests will be 2-sided hypothesis tests performed at the 5% level of significance. All confidence intervals will be 2-sided 95% confidence intervals.||||||0.016||||||The p-values must be ≤0.025 to allow for rejecting the null hypothesis for the representative dose.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation will be used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||The PSP involves four subscale domains: (a) socially useful activities, (b) personal and social relationships, (c) self-care, and (d) disturbing and aggressive behaviors. After each of these four areas is scored on an anchored Likert-type scale (0-5), raters are instructed to select a 10-point range within a 100-point scale, guided by the area scores assigned during assessment.||||0.016
90811023|NCT00557310|181500625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.363||95.0|||||Mixed Model Repeated Measurements|||||||0.363
90811024|NCT00557310|181500626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.837||95.0|||||Mixed Model Repeated Measurements|||||||0.837
90811025|NCT00557310|181500627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.816||95.0||||P-value is for the percent change from baseline at 18 months.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurements|||||||0.816
90811026|NCT00557310|181500627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.934||95.0||||P-value is for the percent change from baseline at 24 months.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurements|||||||0.934
90811027|NCT00557310|181500628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.324||95.0||||P-value is for the percent change from baseline at 18 months.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||||0.324
90811028|NCT00557310|181500628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.089||95.0||||P-value is for the percent change from baseline at 24 months.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||||0.089
90811029|NCT00557310|181500629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.847||95.0|||||Mixed Model Repeated Measurements|P-value is for the percent change from baseline at 18 months.||||||0.847
90811030|NCT00557310|181500629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.212||95.0||||P-value is for the percent change from baseline at 24 months.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurements|||||||0.212
90811031|NCT00557310|181500630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.335||95.0|||||Mixed Model Repeated Measurements|P-value is for the percent change from baseline at 3 months.||||||0.335
90811032|NCT00557310|181500630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.916||95.0||||P-value is for the percent change from baseline at 6 months.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurements|||||||0.916
90811033|NCT00557310|181500630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61||95.0||||P-value is for the percent change from baseline at 12 months.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurements|||||||0.610
90811034|NCT00557310|181500630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.363||95.0|||||Mixed Model Repeated Measurements|P-value is for the percent change from baseline at 18 months.||||||0.363
90811035|NCT00557310|181500630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.837||95.0||||P-value is for the percent change from baseline at 24 months.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurements|||||||0.837
90811036|NCT00557310|181500631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90811037|NCT00557310|181500632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.021
90811038|NCT00557310|181500633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90811039|NCT00557310|181500634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.045||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.045
90811040|NCT00557310|181500635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for the percent change from baseline at 18 months.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90811041|NCT00557310|181500635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for the percent change from baseline at 24 months.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90811042|NCT00557310|181500636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011||95.0||||P-value is for the percent change from baseline at 18 months.|ANOVA|||||||0.011
90811043|NCT00557310|181500636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049||95.0||||P-value is for the percent change from baseline at 24 months.|ANOVA|||||||0.049
90811044|NCT00557310|181500637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7||95.0||||P-value is for the percent change from baseline at 18 months.|ANOVA|||||||0.700
90811045|NCT00557310|181500637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.092||95.0||||P-value is for the percent change from baseline at 24 months.|ANOVA|||||||0.092
90811046|NCT00557310|181500638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013||95.0||||P-value is for the percent change from baseline at 18 months.|ANOVA|||||||0.013
90811047|NCT00557310|181500638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||P-value is for the percent change from baseline at 24 months.|ANOVA|||||||0.005
90811048|NCT00557310|181500639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.106||95.0||||P-value is for the percent change from baseline at 18 months.|ANOVA|||||||0.106
90811049|NCT00557310|181500639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.436||95.0||||P-value is for the percent change from baseline at 24 months.|ANOVA|||||||0.436
90811050|NCT00557310|181500640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for the percent change from baseline at 3 months.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurements|||||||<0.001
90811051|NCT00557310|181500640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for the percent change from baseline at 6 months.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurements|||||||<0.001
90811052|NCT00557310|181500640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for the percent change from baseline at 24 months.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurements|||||||<0.001
90811053|NCT00557310|181500641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||95.0||||P-value is for the percent change from baseline at 3 months.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurements|||||||0.012
91015386|NCT03478982|181913343|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|23.3|||=|0.0392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|44.8|||Chi-squared|||||44.8|1.8|=0.0392
91015387|NCT03478982|181913343|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|23.3|||=|0.0392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|44.8|||Chi-squared|||||44.8|1.8|=0.0392
90811054|NCT00557310|181500641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||95.0||||P-value is for the percent change from baseline at 6 months.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurements|||||||0.012
90811055|NCT00557310|181500641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016||95.0||||P-value is for the percent change from baseline at 24 months.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurements|||||||0.016
90811056|NCT01639339|181500651|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.0311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|2.32||P-value was calculated using logistic regression model. Test 1 of 5 in a step-down sequential testing procedure.|Regression, Logistic||Treatment comparison between Belimumab 10 mg/kg and placebo using odds ratio and its corresponding 95% confidence interval has been presented.|||2.32|1.04|0.0311
90811057|NCT01639339|181500652|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74||||0.0167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|2.74||P-value was calculated using logistic regression model. Test 2 of 5 in a step-down sequential testing procedure.|Regression, Logistic||Treatment comparison between Belimumab 10 mg/kg and placebo using odds ratio and its corresponding 95% confidence interval has been presented.|||2.74|1.11|0.0167
90811058|NCT01639339|181500653|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.59||||0.0245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.38||P-value was calculated using logistic regression model. Test 3 of 5 in a step-down sequential testing procedure.|Regression, Logistic||Treatment comparison between Belimumab 10 mg/kg and placebo using odds ratio and its corresponding 95% confidence interval has been presented.|||2.38|1.06|0.0245
90811059|NCT01639339|181500654|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.51||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.77||P-value was calculated using Cox proportional hazards model. Test 4 of 5 in a step-down sequential testing procedure.|Cox proportional hazards model||Treatment comparison between Belimumab 10 mg/kg and placebo using Cox proportional hazards ratio and its corresponding 95% confidence interval has been presented.|||0.77|0.34|0.0014
90811060|NCT01639339|181500655|OTHER|||||||0.0096||||||P-value is rank analysis of covariance model comparing Belimumab and Placebo with covariates for treatment group, induction regimen(CYC vs MMF),race(Black vs Non-black), Baseline uPCR, and eGFR. Test 5 of 5 in step-down sequential testing procedure.|Rank ANCOVA|||||||0.0096
90811061|NCT01271712|181500673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|1e-06|||||||Log Rank|stratified||The two treatment groups were compared using a stratified log rank test with a one-sided alpha of 0.01 stratified by (3rd vs 4th-line; and geographical region). The null hypothesis that both treatment arms have the same PFS distribution was tested against the alternative hypothesis that the distribution of PFS in the regorafenib arm is different from the control arm according to a proportional hazards relation between the treatment arms.||||<0.000001
91015388|NCT00505765|181913350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.5||0.21|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.21
91054981|NCT03275064|181991733|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.61|-2.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 53||-2.72|-13.61|
90811062|NCT01271712|181500673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.268|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.185|0.388|||Regression, Cox|stratified|regorafenib over placebo|Hazard ratio and its 95% CI (Confidence Interval) was based on stratified Cox Regression Model||0.388|0.185|
90811063|NCT01271712|181500674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.285777|||||||Log Rank|stratified||||||0.285777
90811064|NCT01271712|181500674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.909|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.653|1.265|||Regression, Cox|stratified|regorafenib over control. 58 (87.9%) patients in placebo group and 91 (68.4%) patients in regorafenib had started open-label treatment with regorafenib before time of final database cutoff 08 Jun 2015.|Hazard ratio and its 95% CI was based on stratified Cox Regression Model||1.265|0.653|
90811065|NCT01271712|181500675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|1e-06|||||||Log Rank|stratified||||||<0.000001
90811066|NCT01271712|181500675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.248|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.364|||Regression, Cox|stratified||||0.364|0.170|
90811067|NCT01431014|181500680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91015389|NCT00505765|181913350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.5||0.44|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.44
91015390|NCT01207219|181913363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value for statistical significance in these analyses was 0.01 adjusted for multiple comparisons .|Mixed Models Analysis|mixed-model analysis with a repeated-measures approach including an unstructured variance matrix||Data analysis was based on the Intention-to-Treatment (ITT) method. Differences between the three intervention groups over time (baseline and 12 weeks) were assessed with a Group x Time interaction term. A priori comparisons of the active intervention groups with the waitlist group were carried out with the same strategy if analyses including all the three groups meet the criterion of statistical significance (P\<0.01).||||<0.01
91015391|NCT01453296|181913390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|5.7|||||Day 1 maximum HR (0-2 hr). The estimated value represents the treatment difference: VI 25 µg minus placebo.|||5.7|-0.8|
91054982|NCT03055650|181991748|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Statistical significance is set at α = 0.05.||Change from Baseline in Meibomian Gland Secretion Total Score at Week 1||||<0.0001
91015392|NCT01453296|181913390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|3.7|||||Day 14 maximum HR (0-2 hr). The estimated value represents the treatment difference: VI 25 µg minus placebo.|||3.7|-2.4|
91015393|NCT01453296|181913390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|3.6|||||Day 14 maximum HR (0-8 hr). The estimated value represents the treatment difference: VI 25 µg minus placebo.|||3.6|-2.6|
91054983|NCT03055650|181991748|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Statistical significance is set at α = 0.05.||Change from Baseline in Meibomian Gland Secretion Total Score at Month 1||||<0.0001
90811068|NCT02685748|181500681|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.077|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.444||0.863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.969|0.815|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.815|-0.969|0.863
90811069|NCT02685748|181500682|OTHER|T test for independent samples|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.616|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.364||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.147|8.379|||t-test, 2 sided|||||8.379|-1.147|0.133
90811070|NCT02685748|181500683|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.114|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||1.607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1553|0.172|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.172|-1.1553|1.607
90811071|NCT02685748|181500684|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.282|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.754||0.468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.807|2.241|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.241|-4.807|0.468
90811072|NCT02685748|181500685|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.051|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.406||0.899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.869|0.765|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.765|-0.869|0.899
90811073|NCT02685748|181500686|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.797||0.305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.602|20.703|||t-test, 2 sided|||||20.703|-6.602|0.305
90811074|NCT02685748|181500687|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|160.298|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|159.525||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-160.118|480.714|||t-test, 2 sided|||||480.714|-160.118|0.320
90811075|NCT02685748|181500688|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.495|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.558||0.676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.642|5.651|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.651|-8.642|0.676
90811076|NCT00737568|181500726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value for the two-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was controlled for strata (HBeAg status and ALT level).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the FTC/TDF and TDF treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis is that there is a difference between the FTC/TDF and TDF treatment groups. These hypotheses were evaluated using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, controlling for randomization strata, with the missing = failure method in which participants with missing data were considered to have failed to achieve the endpoint.||||0.43
90811077|NCT00855933|181500739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.24||a priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05|ANCOVA||2-sided with the significance level set at 5%|||0.24|-0.03|0.126
90811078|NCT05463744|181500741|NON_INFERIORITY|0.4% noninferiority margin (NIM)|LS Mean Difference|0.052|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.077|0.181|||ANCOVA|||||0.181|-0.077|
90811079|NCT05463744|181500742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.052||||0.432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.077|0.181|||ANCOVA|||||0.181|-0.077|0.432
90811080|NCT05463744|181500743|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.31||||0.751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|1.6|||ANCOVA|||||1.60|-2.22|0.751
90811081|NCT05463744|181500744|SUPERIORITY||Relative Rate|1.02||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.31|||Negative binomial model|||||1.31|0.79|0.900
90811082|NCT05463744|181500745|NON_INFERIORITY|0.4% noninferiority margin (NIM)|LS Mean Difference|0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0682|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.157|||ANCOVA|||||0.157|-0.110|
90811083|NCT05463744|181500746|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.22||||0.697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.38|4.93|||ANCOVA|||Week 26||4.93|-7.38|0.697
90811084|NCT05463744|181500746|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.84||||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.64|1.96|||ANCOVA|||Week 52||1.96|-11.64|0.163
90811085|NCT05463744|181500747|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.02||||0.939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 23 to Week 26||0.66|-0.61|0.939
90811086|NCT05463744|181500747|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.52||||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|1.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 49 to Week 52||1.17|-0.13|0.116
90811087|NCT05463744|181500748|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.54||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|2.62|||ANCOVA|||||2.62|-1.54|0.610
90811088|NCT05463744|181500749|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-8.96||||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.3|3.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 26||3.38|-21.30|0.155
90811089|NCT05463744|181500749|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.88||||0.278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.31|5.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52||5.55|-19.31|0.278
90811090|NCT05463744|181500750|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.52|-2.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 26||-2.03|-5.52|<0.001
90811091|NCT05463744|181500750|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.26|-1.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52||-1.71|-5.26|<0.001
90811092|NCT05463744|181500751|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-39.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.59|-20.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 26||-20.98|-57.59|<0.001
90811093|NCT05463744|181500751|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-35.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.44|-17.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52||-17.43|-54.44|<0.001
90811094|NCT05463744|181500752|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|5.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 26||5.06|1.32|<0.001
90811095|NCT05463744|181500752|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.8||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|4.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52||4.70|0.91|0.004
90811096|NCT05463744|181500753|SUPERIORITY||Relative Rate|1.21||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.41|||Negative binomial model|||||1.41|1.04|0.016
90811097|NCT05463744|181500754|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.086||||0.702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 26||0.53|-0.35|0.702
90811098|NCT05463744|181500754|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.12||||0.609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52||0.56|-0.33|0.609
91015394|NCT01453296|181913391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|5.7|||||Day 1 weighted HR (0-2 hr). The estimated value represents the treatment difference: VI 25 µg minus placebo.|||5.7|-0.8|
91015395|NCT01453296|181913391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|3.7|||||Day 14 weighted HR (0-2 hr). The estimated value represents the treatment difference: VI 25 µg minus placebo.|||3.7|-2.4|
91015396|NCT01453296|181913391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|3.6|||||Day 14 weighted HR (0-8 hr). The estimated value represents the treatment difference: VI 25 µg minus placebo.|||3.6|-2.6|
91054984|NCT03055650|181991749|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Statistical significance is set at α = 0.05.||Change From Baseline in Tear Break-Up Time (TBUT) at Week 1||||<0.0001
90811099|NCT05463744|181500755|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.03||||0.681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Week 23 to Week 26||0.19|-0.13|0.681
90811100|NCT05463744|181500755|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.24|||ANCOVA|||Week 49 to Week 52||0.24|-0.05|0.182
90811101|NCT05463744|181500756|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|2.05|||ANCOVA|||Week 23 to Week 26||2.05|-2.06|0.999
90811102|NCT05463744|181500757|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.83||||0.468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.06|1.41|||ANCOVA|||||1.41|-3.06|0.468
90811103|NCT05463744|181500758|OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.008
90811104|NCT05463744|181500759|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90811105|NCT05463744|181500760|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.43||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|1.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Physical Component Score: Week 26||1.19|-0.33|0.270
90811106|NCT05463744|181500760|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.73||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Physical Component Score: Week 52||1.45|0.000|0.050
90811107|NCT05463744|181500760|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.22||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|1.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mental Component Score: Week 26||1.38|-0.94|0.710
90811108|NCT05463744|181500760|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.45||||0.447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|1.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mental Component Score: Week 52||1.61|-0.71|0.447
90811109|NCT01357161|181500767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.45|0.89|||Cox proportional hazards model|||A stratified \[number of prior platinum based regimens (1 vs. 2 and 3), time since last platinum based therapy (\<12 months vs. ≥12 months)\] Cox proportional hazards model, with Efron method of tie handling, was used to assess the magnitude of the treatment difference between the treatment arms. The p-value from the score test was used in the significance test and the hazard ratio (MK-1775 versus Placebo) and its 95% confidence interval from the same Cox model was reported.||0.89|0.45|0.080
90811110|NCT01357161|181500769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.55||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.39|0.79|||Cox proportional hazards model|||A stratified \[number of prior platinum based regimens (1 vs. 2 and 3), time since last platinum based therapy (\<12 months vs. ≥12 months)\] Cox proportional hazards model, with Efron method of tie handling, was used to assess the magnitude of the treatment difference between the treatment arms. The p-value from the score test was used in the significance test and the hazard ratio (MK-1775 versus Placebo) and its 95% confidence interval from the same Cox model was reported.||0.79|0.39|0.030
90811111|NCT01357161|181500771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|11.4||||||P-values and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen method for between-treatment differences (MK-1775 vs. placebo) in the percentage of participants with events.||11.4|-2.9|
90811112|NCT01357161|181500772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|13.6||||||P-values and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen method for between-treatment differences (MK-1775 vs. placebo) in the percentage of participants with events.||13.6|-16.2|
90811113|NCT01357161|181500773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Response Rat|5.2||||0.5247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|21.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen's Method|||Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen's method with a two-sided p-Value for testing was used for comparison of the ORRs between the treatment groups in Part 2 portion of the study. A 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in response rates was provided.||21.1|-10.9|0.5247
90811114|NCT01357161|181500774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.34|||Cox proportional hazards model|||A stratified \[number of prior platinum based regimens (1 vs. 2 and 3), time since last platinum based therapy (\<12 months vs. ≥12 months)\] Cox proportional hazards model, with Efron method of tie handling, was used to assess the magnitude of the treatment difference between the treatment arms. The p-value from the score test was used in the significance test and the hazard ratio (MK-1775 versus Placebo) and its 95% confidence interval from the same Cox model was reported.||3.34|0.40|0.800
90811115|NCT03955250|181500794|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
90811116|NCT03955250|181500795|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|time||||||<0.05
90811117|NCT03955250|181500795|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|condition||||||>0.05
90811118|NCT03955250|181500796|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|time||||||>0.05
90811119|NCT03955250|181500796|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|condition||||||>0.05
90811120|NCT03955250|181500797|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|time||||||<0.05
90811121|NCT03955250|181500797|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|condition||||||>0.05
90811122|NCT00433160|181500798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Percent Change to Last Measurement Point. No adjustments for multiplicity was performed.|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the percent change in bone mineral density at lumbar spine (L2-L4) after 52-week treatment between the two treatment groups.||||<0.001
90811123|NCT00433160|181500802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Percent Change to Week 4. No adjustment for multiplicity was performed.|Wilcoxon's Rank Sum Test|||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the percent change in PINP after 4-week treatment between the two treatment groups.||||<0.001
90811124|NCT00433160|181500802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Percent Change to Week 12. No adjustment for multiplicity was performed.|Wilcoxon's Rank Sum Test|||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the percent change in PINP after 12-week treatment between the two treatment groups.||||<0.001
90811125|NCT00433160|181500802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Percent Change to Week 24. No adjustment for multiplicity was performed.|Wilcoxon's Rank Sum Test|||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the percent change in PINP after 24-week treatment between the two treatment groups.||||<0.001
91054985|NCT03055650|181991749|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Statistical significance is set at α = 0.05.||Change From Baseline in Tear Break-Up Time (TBUT) at Month 1||||<0.0001
91054986|NCT03055650|181991750|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Statistical significance is set at α = 0.025.||Change From Baseline in Standard Patient Evaluation of Eye Dryness (SPEED) Total Score at Week 1||||<0.0001
90811126|NCT00433160|181500802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Percent Change to Week 52. No adjustment for multiplicity was performed.|Wilcoxon's Rank Sum Test|||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the percent change in PINP after 52-week treatment between the two treatment groups.||||<0.001
90811127|NCT00433160|181500802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Percent Change to Last Measurement. No adjustment for multiplicity was performed.|Wilcoxon's Rank Sum Test|||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the percent change in PINP from baseline to the last measurement point between the two treatment groups.||||<0.001
90811128|NCT00433160|181500803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Percent Change to Week 4. No adjustment for multiplicity was performed.|Wilcoxon's Rank Sum Test|||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the percent change in BAP after 4-week treatment between the two treatment groups.||||<0.001
90811129|NCT00433160|181500803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Percent Change to Week 12. No adjustment for multiplicity was performed.|Wilcoxon's Rank Sum Test|||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the percent change in BAP after 12-week treatment between the two treatment groups.||||<0.001
90811130|NCT00433160|181500803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Percent Change to Week 24. No adjustment for multiplicity was performed.|Wilcoxon's Rank Sum Test|||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the percent change in BAP after 24-week treatment between the two treatment groups.||||<0.001
90811131|NCT00433160|181500803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0||||P-value for Percent Change to Week 52. No adjustment for multiplicity was performed.|Wicoxon's Rank Sum Test|||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the percent change in BAP after 52-week treatment between the two treatment groups.||||0.060
90811132|NCT00433160|181500803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13||95.0||||P-value for Percent Change to Last Measurement. No adjustment for multiplicity was performed.|Wilcoxon's Rank Sum Test|||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the percent change in BAP from baseline to the last measurement point between the two treatment groups.||||0.130
90811133|NCT00433160|181500804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.976||95.0||||P-value for Percent Change to Week 4. No adjustment for multiplicity was performed.|Wilcoxon's Rank Sum Test|||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the percent change in CTX after 4-week treatment between the two treatment groups.||||0.976
90811134|NCT00433160|181500804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Percent Change to Week 12. No adjustment for multiplicity was performed.|Wilcoxon's Rank Sum Test|||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the percent change in CTX after 12-week treatment between the two treatment groups.||||<0.001
90811135|NCT00433160|181500804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Percent Change to Week 24. No adjustment for multiplicity was performed.|Wilcoxon's Rank Sum Test|||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the percent change in CTX after 24-week treatment between the two treatment groups.||||<0.001
90811136|NCT00433160|181500804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Percent Change to Week 52. No adjustment for multiplicity was performed.|Wilcoxon's Rank Sum Test|||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the percent change in CTX after 52-week treatment between the two treatment groups.||||<0.001
90811137|NCT00433160|181500804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Percent Change to Last Measurement. No adjustment for multiplicity was performed.|Wilcoxon's Rank Sum Test|||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the percent change in CTX from baseline to the last measurement point between the two treatment groups.||||<0.001
90811138|NCT02240368|181500818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||bootstrap|||||||<0.01
90811139|NCT02240368|181500819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||bootstrap|||||||<0.01
90811140|NCT02240368|181500820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.01
90811141|NCT02240368|181500821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
90811142|NCT02793817|181500830|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of responders|8.3||||0.0105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|14.7||To account for multiplicity, a step-down testing procedure was applied, whereby inference for a test in the pre-defined hierarchy was dependent upon statistical significance having been demonstrated for the previous test in the hierarchy.|Chi-squared|Without adjustment for any covariates|Estimated Value is the between-group difference for % of responders and is expressed as a percentage.|P-values were based on 2-sided chi-squared tests (unadjusted) wherein the a priori significance level was 0.05.||14.7|2.0|0.0105
90811143|NCT02793817|181500831|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of responders|20.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.6|28.4||To account for multiplicity, a step-down closed testing procedure was applied, whereby inference for a test in the pre-defined hierarchy was dependent upon statistical significance having been demonstrated for the previous test in the hierarchy.|Chi-squared|Without adjustment for any covariates|Estimated Value is the between-group difference for % of responders and is expressed as a percentage.|P-values were based on 2-sided chi-squared test (unadjusted), wherein a priori significance level was 0.05||28.4|11.6|<0.0001
90811144|NCT02793817|181500832|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of responders|17.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.1|25.0||P-value was based on a 2-sided chi-squared test (unadjusted) wherein the a priori significance level was 0.0167 for each secondary endpoint. Overall alpha for all secondary endpoints was controlled at 0.05.|Chi-squared|Without adjustment for any covariates|Estimated Value is the between-group difference for % of responders and is expressed as a percentage.|||25.0|9.1|<0.0001
90811145|NCT02793817|181500833|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of responders|19.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|26.9||P-value was based on a 2-sided chi-squared test (unadjusted) wherein the a priori significance level was 0.0167 for each secondary endpoint. Overall alpha for all secondary endpoints was controlled at 0.05.|Chi-squared|Without adjustment for any covariates|Estimated Value is the between-group difference for % of responders and is expressed as a percentage.|||26.9|11.0|<0.0001
90811146|NCT02793817|181500834|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|-0.05|||Chi-squared|Without adjustment for any covariates|Estimated Value is the between-group difference for change from BL.|P-value was based on a 2-sided chi-squared test (unadjusted) wherein the a priori significance level was 0.0167 for each secondary endpoint. Overall alpha for all secondary endpoints was controlled at 0.05.||-0.05|-0.31|0.0078
90811147|NCT02793817|181500835|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.11||P-values have no inferential value for post hoc evaluations.|Chi-squared|Without any adjustment for covariates|Estimated Value is the between-group difference in change from BL|||-0.11|-0.38|0.0005
90811148|NCT02793817|181500836|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.0169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|-0.03||P-values have no inferential value for post hoc evaluations.|Chi-squared|Without adjustments for any covariates.|Estimated Value is the between-group difference for change from BL|||-0.03|-0.28|0.0169
90811149|NCT03995680|181500848|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Egg Reduction Rate (%)|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|12.6|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for age, sex, weight and baseline hookworm infection intensity (light or moderate/heavy)||The 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for ERRs and the difference between ERRs were estimated via bootstrap resampling. Superiority was claimed if the 95% confidence interval of the difference in ERRs did not include unity. Logistic regression models were used to assess efficacy in terms of CRs. In a subsequent analysis an adjusted logistic regression (adjustment for age, sex, weight and baseline infection intensity) was performed.||12.6|-7.8|
90811150|NCT03222973|181500855|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.15||||0.1479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.35||P-values are based on the Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) adjusted for background DMT group, baseline magnetization transfer ratio (MTR)/diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) category and baseline component assessments.|MMRM|||Over 72 weeks: Overall Response Score||0.35|-0.05|0.1479
90811151|NCT03222973|181500857|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.7682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.79||Odds ratio (active vs. placebo), 95% CI and p-value are based on logistic regression adjusted for background DMT group, baseline MTR/DTI category and baseline component assessments.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.79|0.65|0.7682
90811152|NCT03222973|181500858|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71||||0.2131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.22||Odds ratio (active vs. placebo), 95% CI and p-value are based on logistic regression adjusted for background DMT group, baseline MTR/DTI category and baseline component assessments.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.22|0.41|0.2131
90811153|NCT03222973|181500859|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.4654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.41||Odds ratio (active vs. placebo), 95% CI and p-value are based on logistic regression adjusted for background DMT group, baseline MTR/DTI category and baseline component assessments.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.41|0.47|0.4654
90811154|NCT03222973|181500860|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.78||||0.0417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|3.11||Odds ratio (active vs. placebo), 95% CI and p-value are based on logistic regression adjusted for background DMT group, baseline MTR/DTI category and baseline component assessments.|Regression, Logistic|||||3.11|1.02|0.0417
90811155|NCT03222973|181500861|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.2908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.33||Odds ratio (active vs. placebo), 95% CI and p-value are based on logistic regression adjusted for background DMT group, baseline MTR/DTI category and baseline component assessments.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.33|0.78|0.2908
90811156|NCT01103063|181500879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0647||0.12237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.25||Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the common relative risk is presented, adjusting for randomization strata. A relative risk less than 1 favors Azithromycin + Chloroquine treatment group (reduction in risk for the endpoint)|Mantel Haenszel||The estimated risk ratio is presented along with its standard error (SE), with the SE on the log(e) scale.|The 2-sided P-value tests the null hypothesis that the relative risk equals 1 (treatment group equality) versus not equal 1.||1.25|0.97|0.12237
90811157|NCT01103063|181500880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.1243||0.84117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.31||Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the common relative risk is presented, adjusting for randomization strata. A relative risk less than 1 favors Azithromycin + Chloroquine treatment group (reduction in risk for the endpoint)|Mantel Haenszel||The estimated risk ratio is presented along with its SE, with the SE on the log(e) scale.|The 2-sided P-value tests the null hypothesis that the relative risk equals 1 (treatment group equality) versus not equal 1.||1.31|0.80|0.84117
90811158|NCT01103063|181500881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.87|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.1745||0.4428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.23||Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the common relative risk is presented, adjusting for randomization strata. A relative risk less than 1 favors Azithromycin + Chloroquine treatment group (reduction in risk for the endpoint).|Mantel Haenszel||The estimated risk ratio is presented along with its standard error (SE), with the SE on the log(e) scale.|The 2-sided P-value tests the null hypothesis that the relative risk equals 1 (treatment group equality) versus not equal 1.||1.23|0.62|0.4428
90811159|NCT01103063|181500882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.91|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.1882||0.6086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.31||Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the common relative risk is presented, adjusting for randomization strata. A relative risk less than 1 favors Azithromycin + Chloroquine treatment group (reduction in risk for the endpoint).|Mantel Haenszel||The estimated risk ratio is presented along with its standard error (SE), with the SE on the log(e) scale.|The 2-sided P-value tests the null hypothesis that the relative risk equals 1 (treatment group equality) versus not equal 1.||1.31|0.63|0.6086
90811160|NCT01103063|181500883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.2866||0.7035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.57||Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the common relative risk is presented, adjusting for randomization strata. A relative risk less than 1 favors Azithromycin + Chloroquine treatment group (reduction in risk for the endpoint).|Mantel Haenszel||The estimated risk ratio is presented along with its standard error (SE), with the SE on the log(e) scale.|The 2-sided P-value tests the null hypothesis that the relative risk equals 1 (treatment group equality) versus not equal 1.||1.57|0.51|0.7035
90811161|NCT01103063|181500884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.04||0.4605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.11||Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the common relative risk is presented, adjusting for randomization strata. A relative risk less than 1 favors Azithromycin + Chloroquine treatment group (reduction in risk for the endpoint).|Mantel Haenszel||The estimated risk ratio is presented along with its standard error (SE), with the SE on the log(e) scale.|The 2-sided P-value tests the null hypothesis that the relative risk equals 1 (treatment group equality) versus not equal 1.||1.11|0.95|0.4605
90811162|NCT01103063|181500885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.93|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.1817||0.7105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.33||Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the common relative risk is presented, adjusting for randomization strata. A relative risk less than 1 favors Azithromycin + Chloroquine treatment group (reduction in risk for the endpoint).|Mantel Haenszel||The estimated risk ratio is presented along with its standard error (SE), with the SE on the log(e) scale.|The 2-sided P-value tests the null hypothesis that the relative risk equals 1 (treatment group equality) versus not equal 1.||1.33|0.65|0.7105
91015397|NCT01453296|181913392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|6.6|||||Day 1 maximum QTcF (0-2 hr). The estimated value represents the treatment difference: VI 25 µg minus placebo.|||6.6|-4.5|
91054987|NCT03055650|181991750|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Statistical significance is set at α = 0.025.||Change From Baseline in Standard Patient Evaluation of Eye Dryness (SPEED) Total Score at Month 1||||<0.0001
90811163|NCT01103063|181500886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.84|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.1842||0.3468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.21||Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the common relative risk is presented, adjusting for randomization strata. A relative risk less than 1 favors Azithromycin + Chloroquine treatment group (reduction in risk for the endpoint).|Mantel Haenszel||The estimated risk ratio is presented along with its standard error (SE), with the SE on the log(e) scale.|The 2-sided P-value tests the null hypothesis that the relative risk equals 1 (treatment group equality) versus not equal 1.||1.21|0.59|0.3468
91054988|NCT03055650|181991751|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Statistical significance is set at α = 0.025.||||||<0.0001
91054989|NCT04305496|181991784|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.71|||Stratified log rank test|||||0.71|0.51|<0.001
91054990|NCT04305496|181991785|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.71|||Stratified log rank test|||||0.71|0.51|<0.001
90811164|NCT01103063|181500887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|-0.02||Analysis based on an ANOVA model with model terms for treatment group and randomization stratification variable. A negative mean difference between treatment groups favors Azithromycin + Chloroquine (reduction in number of STIs).|ANOVA|||The 2-sided P-value tests the null hypothesis that the mean difference is 0 (treatment group equality) versus not equal 0.||-0.02|-0.08|0.0011
90811165|NCT01103063|181500888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0604||0.2265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.21||Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the common relative risk is presented, adjusting for randomization strata. A relative risk less than 1 favors Azithromycin + Chloroquine treatment group (reduction in risk for the endpoint).|Mantel Haenszel||The estimated risk ratio is presented along with its standard error (SE), with the SE on the log(e) scale.|The 2-sided P-value tests the null hypothesis that the relative risk equals 1 (treatment group equality) versus not equal 1.||1.21|0.96|0.2265
90811166|NCT01103063|181500889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.0131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|-0.03||Analysis based on an ANCOVA model with model terms for baseline value, treatment group and randomization stratification variable.|ANCOVA|||The 2-sided P-value tests the null hypothesis that the mean difference is 0 (treatment group equality) versus not equal 0.||-0.03|-0.24|0.0131
90811167|NCT01103063|181500890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.2694||0.6978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.53||Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the common relative risk is presented, adjusting for randomization strata. A relative risk less than 1 favors Azithromycin + Chloroquine treatment group (reduction in risk for the endpoint).|Mantel Haenszel||The estimated risk ratio is presented along with its SE, with the SE on the log(e) scale.|The 2-sided P-value tests the null hypothesis that the relative risk equals 1 (treatment group equality) versus not equal 1.||1.53|0.53|0.6978
90811168|NCT01103063|181500891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.2908||0.6542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|2.01||Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the common relative risk is presented, adjusting for randomization strata. A relative risk less than 1 favors Azithromycin + Chloroquine treatment group (reduction in risk for the endpoint).|Mantel Haenszel||The estimated risk ratio is presented along with its SE, with the SE on the log(e) scale.|The 2-sided P-value tests the null hypothesis that the relative risk equals 1 (treatment group equality) versus not equal 1.||2.01|0.64|0.6542
90811169|NCT01103063|181500892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.71||0.9145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.5|40.8||Analysis based on an ANOVA model with model terms for treatment group and randomization stratification variable.|ANOVA|||The 2-sided P-value tests the null hypothesis that the mean difference is 0 (treatment group equality) versus not equal 0.||40.8|-36.5|0.9145
90811170|NCT01103063|181500893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|-0.04||Analysis based on an ANOVA model with model terms for treatment group and randomization stratification variable. A negative mean difference between treatment groups favors Azithromycin + Chloroquine (reduction in number of symptomatic malaria).|ANOVA|||The 2-sided P-value tests the null hypothesis that the mean difference is 0 (treatment group equality) versus not equal 0.||-0.04|-0.09|<0.0001
90811171|NCT01103063|181500894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.49|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.1221|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.62||Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the common relative risk is presented, adjusting for randomization strata. A relative risk less than 1 favors Azithromycin + Chloroquine treatment group (reduction in risk for the endpoint).|Mantel Haenszel||The estimated risk ratio is presented along with its standard error (SE), with the SE on the log(e) scale.|The 2-sided P-value tests the null hypothesis that the relative risk equals 1 (treatment group equality) versus not equal 1.||0.62|0.38|<0.0001
91054991|NCT04305496|181991786|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.65|||Stratified log-rank test|||||0.65|0.38|<0.001
91054992|NCT04305496|181991787|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.65|||Stratified log-rank test|||||0.65|0.38|<0.001
91054993|NCT04305496|181991788|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.76|||Stratified log rank test|||||0.76|0.34|<0.001
91054994|NCT04305496|181991789|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.76|||Stratified log rank test|||||0.76|0.34|<0.001
91054995|NCT04305496|181991790|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.41||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.85|||Stratified log rank test|||||0.85|0.19|0.016
91054996|NCT04305496|181991791|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.41||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.85|||Stratified log rank test|||||0.85|0.19|0.016
91054997|NCT01791153|181991815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Response Rates|42.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.5|18.0|66.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The treatment groups were compared using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel model adjusted for the stratification factor of starting prednisone dose (less than or equal to \[\</=\] 30 mg/day, greater than \[\>\] 30 mg/day).||66.00|18.00|<0.0001
91054998|NCT01791153|181991815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Response Rates|39.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.5|12.46|65.66|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The treatment groups were compared using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel model adjusted for the stratification factor of starting prednisone dose (\</=30 mg/day, \>30 mg/day).||65.66|12.46|< 0.0001
90811172|NCT01103063|181500895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.62|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.2295||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.97||Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the common relative risk is presented, adjusting for randomization strata. A relative risk less than 1 favors Azithromycin + Chloroquine treatment group (reduction in risk for the endpoint).|Mantel Haenszel||The estimated risk ratio is presented along with its SE, with the SE on the log(e) scale.|The 2-sided P-value tests the null hypothesis that the relative risk equals 1 (treatment group equality) versus not equal 1.||0.97|0.39|0.0360
90811173|NCT01103063|181500896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.81|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.163||0.1975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.12||Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the common relative risk is presented, adjusting for randomization strata. A relative risk less than 1 favors Azithromycin + Chloroquine treatment group (reduction in risk for the endpoint).|Mantel Haenszel||The estimated risk ratio is presented along with its standard error (SE), with the SE on the log(e) scale.|The 2-sided P-value tests the null hypothesis that the relative risk equals 1 (treatment group equality) versus not equal 1.||1.12|0.59|0.1975
90811174|NCT01103063|181500897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.66|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.5675||0.4655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|2.01||Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the common relative risk is presented, adjusting for randomization strata. A relative risk less than 1 favors Azithromycin + Chloroquine treatment group (reduction in risk for the endpoint).|Mantel Haenszel||The estimated risk ratio is presented along with its SE, with the SE on the log(e) scale.|The 2-sided P-value tests the null hypothesis that the relative risk equals 1 (treatment group equality) versus not equal 1.||2.01|0.22|0.4655
90811175|NCT01103063|181500898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0918||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.9||Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the common relative risk is presented, adjusting for randomization strata. A relative risk less than 1 favors Azithromycin + Chloroquine treatment group (reduction in risk for the endpoint).|Mantel Haenszel||The estimated risk ratio is presented along with its standard error (SE), with the SE on the log(e) scale.|The 2-sided P-value tests the null hypothesis that the relative risk equals 1 (treatment group equality) versus not equal 1.||0.90|0.62|0.0016
90811176|NCT01103063|181500899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.34|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.5338||0.1113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|6.66||Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the common relative risk is presented, adjusting for randomization strata. A relative risk less than 1 favors Azithromycin + Chloroquine treatment group (reduction in risk for the endpoint).|Mantel Haenszel||The estimated risk ratio is presented along with its standard error (SE), with the SE on the log(e) scale.|The 2-sided P-value tests the null hypothesis that the relative risk equals 1 (treatment group equality) versus not equal 1.||6.66|0.82|0.1113
91015398|NCT01453296|181913392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|6.3|||||Day 14 maximum QTcF (0-2 hr). The estimated value represents the treatment difference: VI 25 µg minus placebo.|||6.3|-3.2|
90811177|NCT01103063|181500900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.25|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.6386||0.0284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.86||Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the common relative risk is presented, adjusting for randomization strata. A relative risk less than 1 favors Azithromycin + Chloroquine treatment group (reduction in risk for the endpoint).|Mantel Haenszel||The estimated risk ratio is presented along with its standard error (SE), with the SE on the log(e) scale.|The 2-sided P-value tests the null hypothesis that the relative risk equals 1 (treatment group equality) versus not equal 1.||0.86|0.07|0.0284
90811178|NCT01103063|181500901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.46|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.3291||0.0188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.88||Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the common relative risk is presented, adjusting for randomization strata. A relative risk less than 1 favors Azithromycin + Chloroquine treatment group (reduction in risk for the endpoint).|Mantel Haenszel||The estimated risk ratio is presented along with its standard error (SE), with the SE on the log(e) scale.|The 2-sided P-value tests the null hypothesis that the relative risk equals 1 (treatment group equality) versus not equal 1.||0.88|0.24|0.0188
90811179|NCT01103063|181500902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.77|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.1336||0.0527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.0||Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the common relative risk is presented, adjusting for randomization strata. A relative risk less than 1 favors Azithromycin + Chloroquine treatment group (reduction in risk for the endpoint).|Mantel Haenszel||The estimated risk ratio is presented along with its standard error (SE), with the SE on the log(e) scale.|The 2-sided P-value tests the null hypothesis that the relative risk equals 1 (treatment group equality) versus not equal 1.||1.00|0.59|0.0527
90811180|NCT01103063|181500903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.73|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.1536||0.0384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.98||Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the common relative risk is presented, adjusting for randomization strata. A relative risk less than 1 favors Azithromycin + Chloroquine treatment group (reduction in risk for the endpoint).|Mantel Haenszel||The estimated risk ratio is presented along with its standard error (SE), with the SE on the log(e) scale.|The 2-sided P-value tests the null hypothesis that the relative risk equals 1 (treatment group equality) versus not equal 1.||0.98|0.54|0.0384
90811181|NCT01103063|181500904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.8648||0.3942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|11.38||Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the common relative risk is presented, adjusting for randomization strata. A relative risk less than 1 favors Azithromycin + Chloroquine treatment group (reduction in risk for the endpoint).|Mantel Haenszel||The estimated risk ratio is presented along with its standard error (SE), with the SE on the log(e) scale.|The 2-sided P-value tests the null hypothesis that the relative risk equals 1 (treatment group equality) versus not equal 1.||11.38|0.38|0.3942
91015399|NCT01453296|181913392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|5.7|||||Day 14 maximum QTcF (0-8 hr). The estimated value represents the treatment difference: VI 25 µg minus placebo.|||5.7|-3.0|
91015400|NCT01453296|181913406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.59|6.61|||||Day 1 weighted QTcF (0-2 hr). The estimated value represents the treatment difference: VI 25 µg minus placebo.|||6.61|-2.59|
91015401|NCT01453296|181913406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|7.81|||||Day 14 weighted QTcF (0-2 hr). The estimated value represents the treatment difference: VI 25 µg minus placebo.|||7.81|-1.93|
91015402|NCT01453296|181913406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|7.08|||||Day 14 weighted QTcF (0-8 hr). The estimated value represents the treatment difference: VI 25 µg minus placebo.|||7.08|-0.70|
90811182|NCT01103063|181500905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.39|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.4439||0.0332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.93||Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the common relative risk is presented, adjusting for randomization strata. A relative risk less than 1 favors Azithromycin + Chloroquine treatment group (reduction in risk for the endpoint).|Mantel Haenszel||The estimated risk ratio is presented along with its standard error (SE), with the SE on the log(e) scale.|The 2-sided P-value tests the null hypothesis that the relative risk equals 1 (treatment group equality) versus not equal 1.||0.93|0.16|0.0332
90811183|NCT01103063|181500906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.61|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.4195||0.2321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.38||Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the common relative risk is presented, adjusting for randomization strata. A relative risk less than 1 favors Azithromycin + Chloroquine treatment group (reduction in risk for the endpoint).|Mantel Haenszel||The estimated risk ratio is presented along with its standard error (SE), with the SE on the log(e) scale.|The 2-sided P-value tests the null hypothesis that the relative risk equals 1 (treatment group equality) versus not equal 1.||1.38|0.27|0.2321
90811184|NCT01103063|181500907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.76||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for Visit 6 presented above.||||1.0000
90811185|NCT01103063|181500907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for Visit 7 presented above.||||1.0000
90811186|NCT01103063|181500908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for Visit 6 presented above.||||1.0000
90811187|NCT01103063|181500908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for Visit 7 presented above.||||1.0000
90811188|NCT02351349|181500962|OTHER|paired t test pre compared to post readings||||||0.0143|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0143
90811189|NCT02351349|181500963|OTHER|as above||||||0.1416|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||pre and post comparison of time up and go in intervention group||||0.1416
90811190|NCT02351349|181500964|OTHER|||||||0.9013|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||pre and post value comparison with paired t test was carried out||||0.9013
90811191|NCT02868034|181501010|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.26|0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|Consistent with the randomized design, mean values for the Phase II baseline were constrained to be equal to a common overall mean.|A negative value indicates greater reduction in stiffness when the component was used|SMT Component Main Effects at 4 weeks||0.22|-0.26|0.025
90811192|NCT02868034|181501010|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.43|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|Consistent with the randomized design, mean values for the Phase II baseline were constrained to be equal to a common overall mean.|A negative value indicates greater reduction in stiffness when the component was used|SMT Component Main Effects after 12 weeks||0.09|-0.43|0.025
90811193|NCT02868034|181501010|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.11|0.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|Consistent with the randomized design, mean values for the Phase II baseline were constrained to be equal to a common overall mean.|A negative value indicates greater reduction in stiffness when the component was used|Mobilizing Exercise Treatment Component Main Effects at 4 weeks||0.38|-0.11|0.025
90811194|NCT02868034|181501010|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.23|0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|Consistent with the randomized design, mean values for the Phase II baseline were constrained to be equal to a common overall mean.|A negative value indicates greater reduction in stiffness when the component was used|Mobilizing Exercise Component Main Effects at 12 weeks||0.29|-0.23|0.025
90811195|NCT02868034|181501010|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.45|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|Consistent with the randomized design, mean values for the Phase II baseline were constrained to be equal to a common overall mean.|A negative value indicates greater reduction in stiffness when the component was used|Activating Exercise Component Main Effect at 4 weeks||0.04|-0.45|0.025
91054999|NCT01791153|181991816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The treatment groups were compared using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel model adjusted for the stratification factor of starting prednisone dose (\</=30 mg/day, \>30 mg/day).||||< 0.0001
91055000|NCT01791153|181991816|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The tocilizumab group was to be considered as non-inferior to the placebo group if the lower limit of the two-sided 99.5% confidence interval was \>/= -22.5%.|Difference in Response Rates|38.35|||||TWO_SIDED|99.5|17.89|58.81||||||The treatment groups were compared using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel model adjusted for the stratification factor of starting prednisone dose (\</=30 mg/day, \>30 mg/day).||58.81|17.89|
90811196|NCT02868034|181501010|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.45|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|Consistent with the randomized design, mean values for the Phase II baseline were constrained to be equal to a common overall mean.|A negative value indicates greater change when the component was used|Activating Exercise Component Main Effect at 12 weeks||0.07|-0.45|0.025
90811197|NCT02868034|181501010|SUPERIORITY||interaction relative mean difference|-0.17||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.66|0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise interaction effect of mobilizing and activating exercise components after 4 weeks||0.32|-0.66|0.025
90811198|NCT02868034|181501010|SUPERIORITY||interaction relative mean difference|-0.1||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.62|0.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise interaction effect of mobilizing and activating exercise components after 12 weeks||0.42|-0.62|0.025
90811199|NCT02868034|181501010|SUPERIORITY||interaction relative mean difference|0.13||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.36|0.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise interaction effect of SMT and activating exercise components after 4 weeks||0.62|-0.36|0.025
90811200|NCT02868034|181501010|SUPERIORITY||interaction relative mean difference|0.5||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.02|1.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.02|-0.02|0.025
90811201|NCT02868034|181501010|SUPERIORITY||interaction relative mean difference|-0.17||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.66|0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise interaction effect of SMT and mobilizing exercise components after 4 weeks||0.32|-0.66|0.025
90811202|NCT02868034|181501010|SUPERIORITY||interaction relative mean difference|0.39||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.13|0.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise interaction effect of SMT and mobilizing exercise components after 12 weeks||0.91|-0.13|0.025
91055001|NCT01791153|181991816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0002|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The treatment groups were compared using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel model adjusted for the stratification factor of starting prednisone dose (\</=30 mg/day, \>30 mg/day).||||0.0002
90811203|NCT02868034|181501010|SUPERIORITY||3-way interaction relative mean dif.|0.25||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.24|0.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Three-way interaction effect of SMT, activating exercise and mobilizing exercise components after 4 weeks||0.74|-0.24|0.025
90811204|NCT02868034|181501010|SUPERIORITY||3-way interaction relative mean dif.|0.4||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.12|0.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Three-way interaction effect of SMT, activating exercise and mobilizing exercise components after 12 weeks||0.92|-0.12|0.025
90811205|NCT02868034|181501011|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.67|1.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|Consistent with the randomized design, mean values for the Phase II baseline were constrained to be equal to a common overall mean.||SMT Component Main Effects at 4 weeks|A positive value indicates greater improvement in muscle activation when the component was used|1.52|-2.67|0.025
90811206|NCT02868034|181501011|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.76|2.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|Consistent with the randomized design, mean values for the Phase II baseline were constrained to be equal to a common overall mean.|A positive value indicates greater improvement in muscle activation when the component was used|SMT Component Main Effects at 12 weeks||2.02|-2.76|0.025
90811207|NCT02868034|181501011|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.03|2.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|Consistent with the randomized design, mean values for the Phase II baseline were constrained to be equal to a common overall mean.|A positive value indicates greater improvement in muscle activation when the component was used|Mobilizing Component Main Effects at 4 weeks||2.16|-2.03|0.025
91015403|NCT00620776|181913407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed model analysis (differential slopes over time) comparing the 26 patients who received combined treatment with at least one CBT session to the 35 patients randomized to venlafaxine XR alone (and received at least one dose) on HAM-A total scores. Only available scores were used (no imputation for missing data). Because the HAM-A demonstrated a relatively rapid improvement early in treatment and then a leveling off, a shifted log-transformation of time of assessment was implemented.||||.17
91055002|NCT01791153|181991816|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The tocilizumab group was to be considered as non-inferior to the placebo group if the lower limit of the two-sided 99.5% confidence interval was \>/= -22.5%.|Difference in Response Rates|35.41|||||TWO_SIDED|99.5|10.41|60.41||||||The treatment groups were compared using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel model adjusted for the stratification factor of starting prednisone dose (\</=30 mg/day, \>30 mg/day).||60.41|10.41|
91055003|NCT01791153|181991817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.11|0.46|||Cox proportional hazards model|||The treatment groups were compared using a Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for the stratification factor of starting prednisone dose (\</=30 mg/day, \>30 mg/day).||0.46|0.11|<0.0001
90811208|NCT02868034|181501011|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.71||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.68|3.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|Consistent with the randomized design, mean values for the Phase II baseline were constrained to be equal to a common overall mean.|A positive value indicates greater improvement in muscle activation when the component was used|Mobilizing Component Main Effects at 12 weeks||3.11|-1.68|0.025
90811209|NCT02868034|181501011|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.94|1.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|Consistent with the randomized design, mean values for the Phase II baseline were constrained to be equal to a common overall mean.|A positive value indicates greater improvement in muscle activation when the component was used|Activating Exercise Component at 4 weeks||1.25|-2.94|0.025
90811210|NCT02868034|181501011|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.97|1.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|Consistent with the randomized design, mean values for the Phase II baseline were constrained to be equal to a common overall mean.|A positive value indicates greater improvement in muscle activation when the component was used|Activating Exercise Component at 12 weeks||1.82|-2.97|0.025
90811211|NCT02868034|181501011|SUPERIORITY||interaction relative mean difference|0.8||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.39|4.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise interaction effect of mobilizing and activating exercise components after 4 weeks||4.99|-3.39|0.025
90811212|NCT02868034|181501011|SUPERIORITY||interaction relative mean difference|-0.68||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-5.47|4.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise interaction effect of mobilizing and activating exercise components after 12 weeks||4.11|-5.47|0.025
91015404|NCT00620776|181913408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analyses were conducted using mixed effects models that tested for differential slopes over time between the CBT plus venlafaxine XR and venlafaxine XR alone groups using only available scores (no imputation for missing data).||||.54
90811213|NCT02868034|181501011|SUPERIORITY||interaction relative mean difference|-1.56||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-5.75|2.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise interaction effect of SMT and activating exercise components after 4 weeks||2.63|-5.75|0.025
90811214|NCT02868034|181501011|SUPERIORITY||interaction relative mean difference|1.42||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.37|6.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise interaction effect of SMT and activating exercise components after 12 weeks||6.21|-3.37|0.025
90811215|NCT02868034|181501011|SUPERIORITY||interaction relative mean difference|-0.44||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-4.63|3.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise interaction effect of SMT and mobilizing exercise components after 4 weeks||3.75|-4.63|0.025
90811216|NCT02868034|181501011|SUPERIORITY||interaction relative mean difference|2.01||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.77|6.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise interaction effect of SMT and mobilizing exercise components after 12 weeks||6.80|-2.77|0.025
90811217|NCT02868034|181501011|SUPERIORITY||3-way interaction relative mean dif.|-0.18||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-4.37|4.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Three-way interaction effect of SMT, activating exercise and mobilizing exercise components after 4 weeks||4.01|-4.37|0.025
91055004|NCT01791153|181991817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.39||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.18|0.82|||Cox proportional hazards model|||The treatment groups were compared using a Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for the stratification factor of starting prednisone dose (\</=30 mg/day, \>30 mg/day).||0.82|0.18|0.0011
91055005|NCT01791153|181991817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.28||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.12|0.66|||Cox proportional hazards model|||The treatment groups were compared using a Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for the stratification factor of starting prednisone dose (\</=30 mg/day, \>30 mg/day).||0.66|0.12|0.0001
90811218|NCT02868034|181501011|SUPERIORITY||3-way interaction relative mean dif.|0.56||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-4.22|5.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Three-way interaction effect of SMT, activating exercise and mobilizing exercise components after 12 weeks||5.35|-4.22|0.025
90811219|NCT02868034|181501012|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.16||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-4.0|1.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|Consistent with the randomized design, mean values for the Phase II baseline were constrained to be equal to a common overall mean.|A negative value indicates greater improvement in disability when the component was used|SMT Treatment Component Main Effect at 4-weeks||1.68|-4.0|0.025
90811220|NCT02868034|181501012|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.46|3.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|Consistent with the randomized design, mean values for the Phase II baseline were constrained to be equal to a common overall mean.|A negative value indicates greater improvement in disability when the component was used|SMT Treatment Component Main Effect at 12-weeks||3.07|-3.46|0.025
90811221|NCT02868034|181501012|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.36||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-4.2|1.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|Consistent with the randomized design, mean values for the Phase II baseline were constrained to be equal to a common overall mean.|A negative value indicates greater improvement in disability when the component was used|Mobilizing Exercise Treatment Component main effect after 4-weeks||1.48|-4.2|0.025
90811222|NCT02868034|181501012|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.72||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-4.99|1.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|Consistent with the randomized design, mean values for the Phase II baseline were constrained to be equal to a common overall mean.|A negative value indicates greater improvement in disability when the component was used|Mobilizing Exercise Treatment Component main effect after 12-weeks||1.55|-4.99|0.025
90811223|NCT02868034|181501012|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.34||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-5.18|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Consistent with the randomized design, mean values for the Phase II baseline were constrained to be equal to a common overall mean.|A negative value indicates greater improvement in disability when the component was used|Activating Exercise Treatment Component main effect after 4-weeks||0.50|-5.18|0.025
90811224|NCT02868034|181501012|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.62||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-6.89|-0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|Consistent with the randomized design, mean values for the Phase II baseline were constrained to be equal to a common overall mean.|A negative value indicates greater improvement in disability when the component was used|Activating Treatment Component Main Effect after 12-weeks||-0.35|-6.89|0.025
90811225|NCT02868034|181501012|SUPERIORITY||interaction relative mean difference|3.24||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.45|8.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise interaction effect of mobilizing and activating exercise components after 4 weeks||8.92|-2.45|0.025
90811226|NCT02868034|181501012|SUPERIORITY||interaction relative mean difference|4.34||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.19|10.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise interaction effect of mobilizing and activating exercise components after 12 weeks||10.87|-2.19|0.025
90811227|NCT02868034|181501012|SUPERIORITY||interaction relative mean difference|0.57||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-5.12|6.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise interaction effect of SMT and activating exercise components after 4 weeks||6.25|-5.12|0.025
90811228|NCT02868034|181501012|SUPERIORITY||interaction relative mean difference|-0.67||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-7.2|5.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise interaction effect of SMT and activating exercise components after 12 weeks||5.87|-7.20|0.025
90811229|NCT02868034|181501012|SUPERIORITY||interaction relative mean difference|4.64||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.04|10.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise interaction effect of SMT and mobilizing exercise components after 4 weeks||10.32|-1.04|0.025
90811230|NCT02868034|181501012|SUPERIORITY||interaction relative mean difference|1.49||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-5.04|8.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise interaction effect of SMT and mobilizing exercise components after 12 weeks||8.02|-5.04|0.025
90811231|NCT02868034|181501012|SUPERIORITY||3-way interaction relative mean dif.|-0.86||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-6.54|4.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3-way interaction effect of SMT, activating exercise and mobilizing exercise components after 4 weeks||4.82|-6.54|0.025
90811232|NCT02868034|181501012|SUPERIORITY||3-way interaction relative mean dif.|0.04||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-6.5|6.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3-way interaction effect of SMT, activating exercise and mobilizing exercise components after 12 weeks||6.57|-6.50|0.025
90811233|NCT02868034|181501013|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.6|0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|Consistent with the randomized design, mean values for the Phase II baseline were constrained to be equal to a common overall mean.|A negative value indicates greater reduction in pain intensity when the component was used|SMT Treatment Component Main Effect at 4-weeks||0.32|-0.60|0.025
91015405|NCT00620776|181913409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analyses were conducted using mixed effects models that tested for differential slopes over time between the CBT plus venlafaxine XR and venlafaxine XR alone groups using only available scores (no imputation for missing data).||||.86
91015406|NCT00620776|181913410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.051|||||||ANCOVA|||Data collected at week 24 were analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with the baseline score as the covariate.||||.051
91015407|NCT00620776|181913411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||ANCOVA|||Analyses were conducted using mixed effects models that tested for differential slopes over time between the CBT plus venlafaxine XR and venlafaxine XR alone groups using only available scores (no imputation for missing data).||||.06
91015408|NCT00620776|181913412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analyses were conducted using mixed effects models that tested for differential slopes over time between the CBT plus venlafaxine XR and venlafaxine XR alone groups using only available scores (no imputation for missing data).||||.95
91015409|NCT00620776|181913413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||ANCOVA|||Data collected at week 24 were analyzed using ANCOVA with the baseline score as the covariate.||||.17
91015410|NCT00620776|181913414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||ANCOVA|||Data collected at week 24 were analyzed using ANCOVA with the baseline score as the covariate.||||.53
91015411|NCT00620776|181913415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||ANCOVA|||Data collected at week 24 were analyzed with ANCOVA with baseline data as covariate.||||.23
90811234|NCT02868034|181501013|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.44|0.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|Consistent with the randomized design, mean values for the Phase II baseline were constrained to be equal to a common overall mean.|A negative value indicates greater reduction in pain intensity when the component was used|SMT Treatment Component Main Effects at 12 weeks||0.61|-0.44|0.025
90811235|NCT02868034|181501013|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.92|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Consistent with the randomized design, mean values for the Phase II baseline were constrained to be equal to a common overall mean.|A negative value indicates greater reduction in pain intensity when the component was used|Mobilizing Exercise Component Main Effects at 4 weeks||0.0|-0.92|0.025
90811236|NCT02868034|181501013|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.7|0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|Consistent with the randomized design, mean values for the Phase II baseline were constrained to be equal to a common overall mean.|A negative value indicates greater reduction in pain intensity when the component was used|Mobilizing Exercise Component Main Effects at 12 weeks||0.34|-0.70|0.025
90811237|NCT02868034|181501013|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.62|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Consistent with the randomized design, mean values for the Phase II baseline were constrained to be equal to a common overall mean.|A negative value indicates greater reduction in pain intensity when the component was used|Activating Exercise Component Main Effects at 4 weeks||0.30|-0.62|0.025
90811238|NCT02868034|181501013|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.71|0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|Consistent with the randomized design, mean values for the Phase II baseline were constrained to be equal to a common overall mean.|A negative value indicates greater reduction in pain intensity when the component was used|Activating Exercise Component Main Effects at 12 weeks||0.33|-0.71|0.025
90811239|NCT02868034|181501013|SUPERIORITY||interaction relative mean difference|0.38||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.54|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise interaction effect of mobilizing and activating exercise components after 4 weeks||1.30|-0.54|0.025
90811240|NCT02868034|181501013|SUPERIORITY||interaction relative mean difference|0.45||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.6|1.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise interaction effect of mobilizing and activating exercise components after 12 weeks||1.49|-0.60|0.025
90811241|NCT02868034|181501013|SUPERIORITY||interaction relative mean difference|0.12||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.8|1.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise interaction effect of SMT and activating exercise components after 4 weeks||1.04|-0.80|0.025
90811242|NCT02868034|181501013|SUPERIORITY||interaction relative mean difference|0.23||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.81|1.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise interaction effect of SMT and activating exercise components after 12 weeks||1.28|-0.81|0.025
90811243|NCT02868034|181501013|SUPERIORITY||interaction relative mean difference|0.89||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.03|1.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.81|-0.03|0.025
90811244|NCT02868034|181501013|SUPERIORITY||interaction relative mean difference|-0.02||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.07|1.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise interaction effect of SMT and mobilizing exercise components after 12 weeks||1.02|-1.07|0.025
90811245|NCT02868034|181501013|SUPERIORITY||3-way interaction relative mean dif.|0.71||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.21|1.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3-way interaction effect of SMT, activating exercise and mobilizing exercise components after 4 weeks||1.63|-0.21|0.025
90811246|NCT02868034|181501013|SUPERIORITY||3-way interaction relative mean dif.|0.0||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.05|1.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3-way interaction effect of SMT, activating exercise and mobilizing exercise components after 12 weeks||1.04|-1.05|0.025
90811247|NCT01509677|181501015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7922||||||"This is p-value testing significance of treatment effect"|Poisson regression model|||2-sided test at 5% significant level||||0.7922
90811248|NCT01509677|181501015|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.7917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.3|||Poisson regression model|||||1.30|0.82|0.7917
90811249|NCT01509677|181501016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7145||||||"This is p-value testing significance of treatment effect"|Poisson regression model|||2-sided, 5% test||||0.7145
90811250|NCT01509677|181501017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.119||0.7136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.3|||Poisson regression model|||2-sided 5% test||1.30|0.83|0.7136
90811251|NCT01509677|181501018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.45||0.4606||95.0|-19.2|42.1|||ANCOVA|||2-sided 5% test||42.1|-19.2|0.4606
90811252|NCT01509677|181501019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.194||0.2744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.64|||Poisson regression model|||2-sided 5% test||1.64|0.87|0.2744
90811253|NCT01509677|181501020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.086||0.1128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.04|||Poisson regression model|||2-sided 5% test||1.04|0.70|0.1128
90811254|NCT01509677|181501021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.164||0.674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.31|||Regression, Linear|Poisson regression model||2-sided 5% test||1.31|0.66|0.6740
90811255|NCT01509677|181501022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.082||0.0677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.01|||Poisson regression model|||2-sided 5% test||1.01|0.69|0.0677
90811256|NCT01509677|181501023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.177||0.3566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.25|||Poisson regression model|||2-sided 5% test||1.25|0.54|0.3566
90811257|NCT01509677|181501024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6354|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.30185||0.4794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9429|6.2137|||ANCOVA|||2 sided 5% test||6.2137|-2.9429|0.4794
90811258|NCT01509677|181501025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4727|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32866||0.1541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.181|1.1264|||ANCOVA|||2 sided 5% test||1.1264|-0.1810|0.1541
90811259|NCT01509677|181501026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0626|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03681||0.0927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1358|0.0106|||ANCOVA|||2 sided 5% test||0.0106|-0.1358|0.0927
90811260|NCT01509677|181501027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0107|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01647||0.5175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0435|0.022|||ANCOVA|||2 sided 5% test||0.0220|-0.0435|0.5175
90811261|NCT01509677|181501028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.146|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3253||0.5205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.466|8.757|||ANCOVA|||2-sided 5 % test||8.757|-4.466|0.5205
90811262|NCT01509677|181501029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.141|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0057||0.7052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.835|7.117|||ANCOVA|||2-sided 5 % test||7.117|-4.835|0.7052
90811263|NCT01509677|181501030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.867|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7331||0.0127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.324|-0.409|||ANCOVA|||2-sided 5 % test||-0.409|-3.324|0.0127
90811264|NCT01509677|181501031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.051|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1871||0.7862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.423|0.321|||ANCOVA|||2-sided 5 % test||0.321|-0.423|0.7862
90811265|NCT01509677|181501032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.005||0.8769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|2.15|||ANCOVA|||2-sided 5% test||2.15|-1.84|0.8769
90811266|NCT01509677|181501033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|711.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2768.79||0.7978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4778.3|6200.5|||ANCOVA|||2-sided 5% test||6200.5|-4778.3|0.7978
90811267|NCT01509677|181501034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|88.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|79.26||0.2669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.6|245.6|||ANCOVA|||2-sided 5% test||245.6|-68.6|0.2669
90811268|NCT01509677|181501035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|67.78||0.7033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-160.3|108.5|||ANCOVA|||2-sided 5% test||108.5|-160.3|0.7033
90811269|NCT01509677|181501036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.039||0.1264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.97|63.55|||ANCOVA|||2-sided 5% test||63.55|-7.97|0.1264
90811270|NCT01509677|181501037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|296.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|124.07||0.0185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.9|542.7|||ANCOVA|||2-sided 5% test||542.7|50.9|0.0185
90811271|NCT01509677|181501038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.086||0.9989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.17|||ANCOVA|||2-sided 5% test||0.17|-0.17|0.9989
90811272|NCT01509677|181501039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.309||0.6701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.15|2.03|||ANCOVA|||2-sided 5% test||2.03|-3.15|0.6701
90811273|NCT01509677|181501040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.1105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|3.9|||ANCOVA|||2-sided 5% test||3.9|-0.4|0.1105
90811274|NCT01509677|181501041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.62||0.9261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.4|29.5|||ANCOVA|||2-sided 5% test||29.5|-32.4|0.9261
90811275|NCT01509677|181501042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.49||0.0257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|19.0|||ANCOVA|||2-sided 5% test||19.0|1.2|0.0257
90811276|NCT01509677|181501043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.11||0.0728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|168.6|||ANCOVA|||2-sided 5% test||168.6|-3.0|0.0728
90811277|NCT01509677|181501044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.063|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|0.122|||ANCOVA|||2-sided 5% test||0.122|0.004|0.0380
90811278|NCT01509677|181501045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.064|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0552||0.2482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.045|0.173|||ANCOVA|||2-sided 5% test||0.173|-0.045|0.2482
90811279|NCT01509677|181501046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.2629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Between treatment difference||2 sided 5 % test||1.00|-2.00|0.2629
90811280|NCT03640052|181501074|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.6|||>|0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||mean difference vs Placebo||||>0.5
90811281|NCT03640052|181501074|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.0|||>|0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||mean difference vs Placebo||||>0.5
90811282|NCT03640052|181501074|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.8|||>|0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||mean difference vs Placebo||||>0.5
90811283|NCT03640052|181501074|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.7||||0.33|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||mean difference vs Placebo||||0.33
90811284|NCT03640052|181501075|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.12
90811285|NCT05479097|181501112|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-7.5||||0.03232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|-1.0||A priori threshold for statistical significance was P \<0.05.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|Systolic blood pressure was not normally distributed in the study sample, so nonparametric analysis was used.||The null hypothesis was that there was no change in systolic blood pressure.||-1.0|-12.0|0.03232
90811286|NCT05479097|181501113|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.1||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|-0.1||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was P \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|As diastolic blood pressure was normally distributed in our sample, we used a paired t-test to evaluate the mean difference in measurements.||The null hypothesis was that there was no change in diastolic blood pressure.||-0.1|-6.1|0.045
90811287|NCT05479097|181501114|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7237||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was P \<0.05|McNemar|||The null hypothesis was no change in the proportion of patients with systolic blood pressure well-controlled (\<=140 mmHg) from baseline to 6 months.||||0.7237
90811288|NCT05479097|181501115|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7237||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was P \<0.05|McNemar|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the proportion of patients with systolic blood pressure less than or equal to their personalized goal from baseline to 6 months.||||0.7237
90811289|NCT01035346|181501123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-squares (LS) mean difference|8.33||||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.94|24.6||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment and baseline temperature terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium-Placebo) and corresponding 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) were calculated based on Least-squares (LS) means from the Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model.||24.60|-7.94|0.228
90811290|NCT01035346|181501124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|5.99||||0.171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.99|15.97||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment and baseline temperature terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||STEMPD 0-4: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium-Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||15.97|-3.99|0.171
90811291|NCT01035346|181501124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|8.96||||0.354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.78|32.69||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment and baseline temperature terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||STEMPD 0-8: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium-Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||32.69|-14.78|0.354
90811292|NCT01035346|181501125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.15||||0.576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.54||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment and baseline temperature terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||0.25 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium-Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.54|-0.84|0.576
90811293|NCT01035346|181501125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.18||||0.502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.87||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment and baseline temperature terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium-Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.87|-0.50|0.502
90811294|NCT01035346|181501125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.31||||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|3.12||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment and baseline temperature terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium-Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||3.12|-0.51|0.116
90811295|NCT01035346|181501125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.58||||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|4.14||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment and baseline temperature terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium-Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||4.14|-0.98|0.161
90811296|NCT01035346|181501125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.87||||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|5.41||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment and baseline temperature terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium-Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||5.41|-1.66|0.215
90811297|NCT01035346|181501125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.17||||0.388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|4.52||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment and baseline temperature terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium-Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||4.52|-2.18|0.388
90811298|NCT01035346|181501125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.31||||0.849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.98|4.61||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment and baseline temperature terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium-Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||4.61|-3.98|0.849
90811299|NCT01035346|181501127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportion|11.11||||0.378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.67|32.89||p-value was calculated using CMH general association test using table scores. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium-Placebo) and its associated CI were calculated based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) adjusted proportion and the corresponding standard errors.||32.89|-10.67|0.378
90811300|NCT01035346|181501128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.48||||0.324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.27||p-value was calculated using CMH test with modified ridit scores. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium-Placebo) and the associated CI were calculated based on the weighted Gamma statistic.||1.27|-0.30|0.324
90811301|NCT01035346|181501129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.53||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|1.18||p-value was calculated using CMH test with modified ridit scores. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium-Placebo) and the associated CI were calculated based on the weighted Gamma statistic.||1.18|-0.12|0.210
90811302|NCT01459653|181501135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.884||||0.3038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6989|1.1182|||Chi-squared|||||1.1182|0.6989|0.3038
90811303|NCT01459653|181501136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1897||||0.1432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9428|1.5012|||Chi-squared|||||1.5012|0.9428|0.1432
90811304|NCT01459653|181501137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8794||||0.6483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5063|1.5276|||Chi-squared|||||1.5276|0.5063|0.6483
90811305|NCT01459653|181501147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2989|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8113|2.9177|||Chi-squared|||||2.9177|1.8113|<0.0001
91015412|NCT00620776|181913416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||ANCOVA|||Data collected at week 24 were analyzed with ANCOVA including baseline data as covariate.||||.07
90811306|NCT01459653|181501148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4963|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.373|0.6605|||Chi-squared|||||0.6605|0.3730|<0.0001
90811307|NCT01459653|181501149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9451||||0.7509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6671|1.3391|||Chi-squared|||||1.3391|0.6671|0.7509
90811308|NCT01459653|181501150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2683||||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.068|1.5061|||Chi-squared|||||1.5061|1.0680|0.0067
90811309|NCT01459653|181501158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.0628|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6382|1.4874|||ANOVA|degrees of freedom: 4507||||1.4874|0.6382|<0.0001
90811310|NCT01459653|181501159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.2739||||0.0103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4832|-0.0646|||ANOVA|degrees of freedom: 4507||||-0.0646|-0.4832|0.0103
90811311|NCT01459653|181501160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.3812|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.233|0.5295|||ANOVA|degrees of freedom: 4495||||0.5295|0.2330|<0.0001
91015413|NCT00620776|181913417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.63
90811312|NCT01459653|181501168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.1031||||0.0677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0075|0.2136|||ANOVA|degrees of freedom: 4516||||0.2136|-0.0075|0.0677
90811313|NCT01459653|181501169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.0018||||0.8968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0259|0.0295|||ANOVA|degrees of freedom: 4516||||0.0295|-0.0259|0.8968
90811314|NCT01459653|181501170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.0741|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0452|0.1029|||ANOVA|degrees of freedom: 4505||||0.1029|-0.0452|<0.0001
90811315|NCT01459653|181501178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.735||||0.2698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4255|1.2698|||Chi-squared|||||1.2698|0.4255|0.2698
91015414|NCT00620776|181913418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.52
91015415|NCT04983589|181913422|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|27.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.3|37.4||Analysis was done using chi-square test.|Chi-squared||The 95% confidence interval for the proportion differences was calculated using the normal approximation based on pooled variance without continuity correction.|||37.4|17.3|<0.0001
90811316|NCT01459653|181501179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
90811317|NCT01459653|181501196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5977|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.5977
90811318|NCT01459653|181501197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2435|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.2435
90811319|NCT01459653|181501198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.763|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.7630
90811320|NCT01459653|181501199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.383|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.3830
90811321|NCT01459653|181501200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0002
90811322|NCT01459653|181501201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0301|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0301
90811323|NCT01459653|181501202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.92||||0.0683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.01|||Regression, Logistic|degrees of freedom: 3181||GCSF treatment decision (under vs correct) as predictor for ANC||1.01|0.84|0.0683
90811324|NCT01459653|181501202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.89||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|0.96|||Regression, Logistic|degrees of freedom: 3181||GCSF decision (Over vs correct) as predictor for ANC||0.96|0.82|0.0019
90811325|NCT01459653|181501202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.04||||0.4469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.15|||Regression, Logistic|degrees of freedom: 3181||GCSF decision (Under vs over) as predictor for ANC||1.15|0.94|0.4469
90811326|NCT01459653|181501202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.11||||0.0079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.19|||Regression, Logistic|||Study drug dose (higher vs lower) as predictor for ANC||1.19|1.03|0.0079
90811327|NCT01459653|181501202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.81||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.91|||Regression, Logistic|||Tumor type (hematological vs solid) as predictor for ANC||0.91|0.72|0.0004
90811328|NCT01459653|181501202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.92|||Regression, Logistic|||Patient gender (female vs male) as predictor for ANC||0.92|0.80|<0.0001
90811329|NCT01459653|181501202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.04||||0.0235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.08|||Regression, Linear|||ECOG (per 1 point) as predictor for ANC||1.08|1.01|0.0235
90811330|NCT01459653|181501202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.05|||Regression, Linear|||Hb (per g/dL) as predictor for ANC||1.05|1.02|<0.0001
90811331|NCT01459653|181501203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Intra-class correlation coefficient|0.09||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA||The intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) was computed to quantify the variability in patient outcome attributable to within-center variability before any patient-level determinants are considered.|ANCOVA model was used taking into account center, patient within center-level and within-patient level (over time). This appendix describes the center-level.||||0.0003
90811332|NCT01459653|181501203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Intra-class correlation coefficient|0.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model was used taking into account center, patient within center-level and within-patient level (over time). This appendix describes the patient within center-level.||||<0.0001
90811333|NCT01459653|181501203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Intra-class correlation coefficient|0.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model was used taking into account center, patient within center-level and within-patient level (over time). This appendix describes the within-patient level.||||<0.0001
90811334|NCT01459653|181501208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.544||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.365|0.812|||Regression, Logistic|||GIS (1 vs. 0) as cycle-level predictor for CIN grade 4 episode||0.812|0.365|0.003
90811335|NCT01459653|181501208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.795|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.242|7.092|||Regression, Logistic|||Concomitant antibiotic prophylaxis as cycle-level predictor for CIN grade 4 episode||7.092|3.242|<0.001
90811336|NCT01459653|181501208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.083|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.242|7.092|||Regression, Logistic|||CIN1/4 in previous cycle as cycle-level predictor for CIN grade 4 episode||7.092|3.242|<0.001
90811337|NCT01459653|181501208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.542|3.925|||Regression, Logistic|||History of CIN Grade 4 at enrollment as patient-level predictor for CIN grade 4 episode||3.925|1.542|<0.001
90811338|NCT01459653|181501208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.452||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.267|0.766|||Regression, Logistic|||Over- vs. correctly prophylacted as patient-level predictor for CIN grade 4 episode||0.766|0.267|0.003
90811339|NCT01459653|181501209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.925||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.592|5.374|||Regression, Logistic|||History of CIN Grade 4 at enrollment as patient-level predictor for CIN grade 4 episode||5.374|1.592|0.001
90811340|NCT01459653|181501209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.572||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.331|4.969|||Regression, Logistic|||Concomitant antibiotic prophylaxis as patient-level predictor for CIN grade 4 episode||4.969|1.331|0.005
90811341|NCT01459653|181501209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.328|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.193|0.557|||Regression, Logistic|||Over- vs. correctly prophylacted as patient-level predictor for CIN grade 4 episode||0.557|0.193|<0.001
90811342|NCT01459653|181501210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.673|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.284|2.179|||Regression, Logistic|||ECOG score (per 1 point) as cycle-level predictor for FN episode||2.179|1.284|<0.001
90811343|NCT01459653|181501210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.704|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.777|7.968|||Regression, Logistic|||Concomitant antibiotic prophylaxis as cycle-level predictor for FN episode||7.968|2.777|<0.001
90811344|NCT01459653|181501210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.19||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.342|3.574|||Regression, Logistic|||CIN1/4 in previous cycle as cycle-level predictor for FN episode||3.574|1.342|0.002
90811345|NCT01459653|181501210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.215||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.067|0.687|||Regression, Logistic|||History of anaemia at enrollment as patient-level predictor for FN episode||0.687|0.067|0.010
90811346|NCT01459653|181501210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.501||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.169|10.487|||Regression, Logistic|||Under- vs. over-prophylacted as patient-level predictor for FN episode||10.487|1.169|0.025
90811347|NCT01459653|181501211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.975||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.958|0.991|||Regression, Logistic|||Patient age (per 1 year) as patient-level predictor for FN episode||0.991|0.958|0.003
90811348|NCT01459653|181501211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.398|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.61|3.57|||Regression, Logistic|||ECOG ≥2 during study as patient-level predictor for FN episode||3.570|1.610|<0.001
91015416|NCT04983589|181913423|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|26.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.8|36.0||Analysis was done using chi-square test.|Chi-squared||The 95% confidence interval for the proportion differences was calculated using the normal approximation based on pooled variance without continuity correction.|||36.0|16.8|<0.0001
91015417|NCT04983589|181913424|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|34.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.7|46.7||Analysis was done using chi-square test.|Chi-squared||The 95% confidence interval for the proportion differences was calculated based on the normal approximation using pooled variance without continuity correction.|||46.7|22.7|<0.0001
91015418|NCT04983589|181913425|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|20.6||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.6|32.6||Analysis was done using chi-square test.|Chi-squared||The 95% confidence interval for the proportion differences was calculated using the normal approximation using pooled variance without continuity correction.|||32.6|8.6|0.001
91015419|NCT01049360|181913433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.156|0.245||Treatment and period were fixed effects, subjects was random effect, and baseline values at each period were a covariate|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.245|0.156|<0.0001
91015420|NCT01049360|181913433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.202|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.158|0.245|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment and period were fixed effects, subjects was random effect, and baseline values at each period were a covariate||||0.245|0.158|<0.0001
91015421|NCT01049360|181913434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.132|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.083|0.181|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment and period were fixed effects, subjects was random effect, and baseline values at each period were a covariate||||0.181|0.083|<0.0001
91015422|NCT01049360|181913434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.137|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.088|0.185|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment and period were fixed effects, subjects was random effect, and baseline values at each period were a covariate||||0.185|0.088|<0.0001
91015423|NCT01049360|181913435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.281|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.333|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment and period were fixed effects, subjects was random effect, and baseline values at each period were a covariate||||0.333|0.230|<0.0001
90811349|NCT01459653|181501211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.562||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|4.527|||Regression, Logistic|||Concomitant antibiotic prophylaxis as patient-level predictor for FN episode||4.527|1.450|0.001
91015424|NCT01049360|181913435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.275|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.224|0.325|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment and period were fixed effects, subjects was random effect, and baseline values at each period were a covariate||||0.325|0.224|<0.0001
91015425|NCT02276274|181913436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.0164|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0592|0.0264|||||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on log-transformed values of AUC (0-72) with regimen, treatment group (treatment sequence), and treatment period as fixed effects.|||0.0264|-0.0592|
91015426|NCT02276274|181913437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.0164|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0592|0.0264|||||ANOVA was performed on log-transformed values of AUC (0-tlqc) with regimen, treatment group (treatment sequence), and treatment period as fixed effects.|||0.0264|-0.0592|
91015427|NCT02276274|181913438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.1182|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0405|0.2769|||||ANOVA was performed on log-transformed values of Cmax with regimen, treatment group (treatment sequence), and treatment period as fixed effects.|||0.2769|-0.0405|
91015428|NCT02276274|181913440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.0139|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0598|0.032|||||ANOVA was performed on log-transformed values of AUC (0-inf) with regimen, treatment group (treatment sequence), and treatment period as fixed effects.|||0.0320|-0.0598|
90811350|NCT01459653|181501211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.232|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.108|0.499|||Regression, Logistic|||Over- vs. correctly prophylacted as patient-level predictor for FN episode||0.499|0.108|<0.001
91015429|NCT02276274|181913455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.014|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0918|0.0638|||||ANOVA was performed on log-transformed values of AUC (0-48) with regimen, treatment group (treatment sequence), and treatment period as fixed effects.|||0.0638|-0.0918|
91015430|NCT02276274|181913456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.0164|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0934|0.0605|||||ANOVA was performed on log-transformed values of AUC (0-tlqc) with regimen, treatment group (treatment sequence), and treatment period as fixed effects.|||0.0605|-0.0934|
91015431|NCT02276274|181913458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1518|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2356|-0.068|||||ANOVA was performed on log-transformed values of Cmax with regimen, treatment group (treatment sequence), and treatment period as fixed effects.|||-0.0680|-0.2356|
91015432|NCT02276274|181913460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.0179|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.095|0.0591|||||ANOVA was performed on log-transformed values of AUC (0-inf) with regimen, treatment group (treatment sequence), and treatment period as fixed effects.|||0.0591|-0.0950|
91015433|NCT01522755|181913505|OTHER|t-test|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91015434|NCT01522755|181913506|OTHER|t-test|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91015435|NCT01522755|181913507|OTHER|t-test|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91015436|NCT03414658|181913508|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.35|0.81|||Log Rank|||||0.81|0.35|0.025
91015437|NCT03414658|181913508|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.8|1.64|||Log Rank|||||1.64|0.8|0.32
91015438|NCT00480077|181913516|SUPERIORITY|The primary end point of the study, all-cause death or hospitalization for heart failure, was analyzed on a time-to-first-event basis with the log-rank test. The hazard ratio (HR) associated with allocation to the access arm relative to control was estimated with corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) by fitting a Cox proportional hazards model containing the treatment group as a categorical factor.||||||0.063|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.063
91015439|NCT01215968|181913558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|2.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.83|2.62|||Mixed Linear effects model analyses|Ratio is the Geometric LS Means of Day 10 over Day 3.||||2.62|1.83|
91015440|NCT01215968|181913558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.61|2.33|||Mixed Linear effects model analyses|Ratio is the Geometric LS Means of Day 17 over Day 3.||||2.33|1.61|
91015441|NCT01215968|181913558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.59|2.29|||Mixed Linear effects model analyses|Ratio is the Geometric LS Means of Day 24 over Day 3.||||2.29|1.59|
90811351|NCT01459653|181501211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.261||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.315|8.084|||Regression, Logistic|||Under- vs. over-prophylacted as patient-level predictor for FN episode||8.084|1.315|0.011
90811352|NCT01459653|181501212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.814|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.397|2.355|||Regression, Logistic|||ECOG score (per 1 point) as cycle-level predictor for CIN/FN-related hospitalization||2.355|1.397|<0.001
90811353|NCT01459653|181501212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.296|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.791|6.065|||Regression, Logistic|||Concomitant antibiotic prophylaxis as cycle-level predictor for CIN/FN-related hospitalization||6.065|1.791|<0.001
90811354|NCT01459653|181501212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.205||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|3.524|||Regression, Logistic|||CIN1/4 in previous cycles as cycle-level predictor for CIN/FN-related hospitalization||3.524|1.380|0.001
90811355|NCT01459653|181501212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.863||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.054|3.293|||Regression, Logistic|||Under- vs. correctly prophylacted as patient-level predictor for CIN/FN-related hospitalization||3.293|1.054|0.032
90811356|NCT01459653|181501212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.385||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.168|0.879|||Regression, Logistic|||Over- vs. correctly prophylacted as patient-level predictor for CIN/FN-related hospitalization||0.879|0.168|0.024
90811357|NCT01459653|181501212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.843||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.964|11.942|||Regression, Logistic|||Under- vs. over-prophylacted as patient-level predictor for CIN/FN-related hospitalization||11.942|1.964|0.001
90811358|NCT01459653|181501213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.473|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|3.946|||Regression, Logistic|||ECOG ≥2 during study as patient-level predictor for CIN/FN-related hospitalization||3.946|1.550|<0.001
90811359|NCT01459653|181501213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.382||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.695|||Regression, Logistic|||Over- vs. correctly prophylacted as patient-level predictor for CIN/FN-related hospitalization||0.695|0.210|0.002
90811360|NCT01459653|181501213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.108||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|6.192|||Regression, Logistic|||Under- vs. over-prophylacted as patient-level predictor for CIN/FN-related hospitalization||6.192|1.560|0.001
90811361|NCT01459653|181501214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.931|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.426|14.699|||Regression, Logistic|||CIN1/4 in previous cycle as cycle-level predictor for CIN/FN-related chemotherapy disturbance||14.699|5.426|<0.001
91055006|NCT01791153|181991817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.48||||0.0316|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.2|1.16|||Cox proportional hazards model|||The treatment groups were compared using a Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for the stratification factor of starting prednisone dose (\</=30 mg/day, \>30 mg/day).||1.16|0.20|0.0316
91055007|NCT01791153|181991818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Van Elteren's test|||The treatment groups were compared using a Van Elteren's test stratified by starting prednisone dose (\<=30 mg/day, \> 30 mg/day).||||<0.0001
91055008|NCT01791153|181991818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Van Elteren's test|||The treatment groups were compared using a Van Elteren's test stratified by starting prednisone dose (\<=30 mg/day, \> 30 mg/day).||||<0.0001
90811362|NCT01459653|181501214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.336||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.152|0.74|||Regression, Logistic|||Hematological cancer (vs. oncologic) as patient-level predictor for CIN/FN-related chemotherapy disturbance||0.740|0.152|0.007
90811363|NCT01459653|181501214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.999||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.999|1.0|||Regression, Logistic|||Cancer patients seen in 2009 (per 1 patient) as center-level predictor for CIN/FN-related chemotherapy disturbance||1.000|0.999|0.006
90811364|NCT01459653|181501214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.001|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.001|||Regression, Logistic|||Chemotherapy-treated cancer patients in 2009 (per 1 patient) as center-level predictor for CIN/FN-related chemotherapy disturbance||1.001|1.000|<0.001
90811365|NCT01459653|181501214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.456||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.127|5.353|||Regression, Logistic|||Center type: academic vs non-academic as center-level predictor for CIN/FN-related chemotherapy disturbance||5.353|1.127|0.024
90811366|NCT01459653|181501214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.344||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.342|8.331|||Regression, Logistic|||Center type: academic-affiliated vs non-academic as center-level predictor for CIN/FN-related chemotherapy disturbance||8.331|1.342|0.010
90811367|NCT01459653|181501215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.965||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.218|3.172|||Regression, Logistic|||Female gender as patient-level predictor for CIN/FN-related chemotherapy disturbance||3.172|1.218|0.006
90811368|NCT01459653|181501215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.594||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.469|4.581|||Regression, Logistic|||History of CIN4 at enrollment as patient-level predictor for CIN/FN-related chemotherapy disturbance||4.581|1.469|0.001
90811369|NCT01459653|181501216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.424|0.821|||Regression, Logistic|||GIS (1 vs. 0) as cycle-level predictor for composite outcome (any of CIN Grade 4, FN, CIN/FN-related hospitalization, CIN/FN-related chemotherapy disturbance)||0.821|0.424|0.002
90811370|NCT01459653|181501216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.644||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.489|0.859|||Regression, Logistic|||Zarzio duration: 4-5 days vs. 6 or more as cycle-level predictor for composite outcome (any of CIN Grade 4, FN, CIN/FN-related hospitalization, CIN/FN-related chemotherapy disturbance)||0.859|0.489|0.003
90811371|NCT01459653|181501216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.579||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.398|0.842|||Regression, Logistic|||Zarzio duration: 1-3 days vs. 6 or more as cycle-level predictor for composite outcome (any of CIN Grade 4, FN, CIN/FN-related hospitalization, CIN/FN-related chemotherapy disturbance)||0.842|0.398|0.004
90811372|NCT01459653|181501216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.369||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.643|||Regression, Logistic|||ECOG score (per 1 point) as cycle-level predictor for composite outcome (any of CIN Grade 4, FN, CIN/FN-related hospitalization, CIN/FN-related chemotherapy disturbance)||1.643|1.140|0.001
90811373|NCT01459653|181501216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.499|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.456|4.985|||Regression, Logistic|||Concomitant antibiotic prophylaxis as cycle-level predictor for composite outcome (any of CIN Grade 4, FN, CIN/FN-related hospitalization, CIN/FN-related chemotherapy disturbance)||4.985|2.456|<0.001
91055009|NCT01791153|181991818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0003|||||||Van Elteren's test|||The treatment groups were compared using a Van Elteren's test stratified by starting prednisone dose (\<=30mg/day, \>30mg/day).||||0.0003
91015442|NCT01215968|181913558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.52|2.22|||Mixed Linear effects model analyses|Ratio is the Geometric LS Means of Day 31 over Day 3.||||2.22|1.52|
91015443|NCT05966129|181913563|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8||||0.7957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.3|23.8|||t-test, 2 sided||||Confidence Interval Width = 42.1|23.8|-18.3|0.7957
91015444|NCT05966129|181913564|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.8255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.5|||t-test, 2 sided||||Confidence Interval Width = 0.9|0.5|-0.4|0.8255
91015445|NCT05966129|181913565|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9054|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.9054
91015446|NCT05966129|181913566|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.5|||t-test, 2 sided||||Confidence Interval Width = 2.4|0.5|-1.9|0.248
91015447|NCT05966129|181913567|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.6012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|4.7|||t-test, 2 sided||||Confidence Interval Width = 7.4|4.7|-2.7|0.6012
91015448|NCT05966129|181913568|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7528|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7528
91015449|NCT05966129|181913569|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
91015450|NCT05182840|181913570|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.168||||0.0499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.337|0.0|||MMRM||"Least Squares Mean of 3 mg BI 690517 - Least Squares Mean of Placebo to BI 690517."|The difference of adjusted means and 95 % confidence interval were estimated by restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed models for repeated measures ((REML)-based MMRM) which included the fixed effects of treatment at each visit, baseline (continuous) at each visit, and baseline, visit, treatment, background medication (empagliflozin or placebo matching empagliflozin) and randomisation stratum as main effects, as well as random effects of patient.||-0.000|-0.337|0.0499
91015451|NCT05182840|181913570|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.486|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.313|||MMRM||"Least Squares Mean of 10 mg BI 690517 - Least Squares Mean of Placebo to BI 690517."|The difference of adjusted means and 95 % confidence interval were estimated by restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed models for repeated measures ((REML)-based MMRM) which included the fixed effects of treatment at each visit, baseline (continuous) at each visit, and baseline, visit, treatment, background medication (empagliflozin or placebo matching empagliflozin) and randomisation stratum as main effects, as well as random effects of patient.||-0.313|-0.660|<.0001
91015452|NCT05182840|181913570|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.421|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.596|-0.246|||MMRM||"Least Squares Mean of 20 mg BI 690517 - Least Squares Mean of Placebo to BI 690517."|The difference of adjusted means and 95 % confidence interval were estimated by restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed models for repeated measures ((REML)-based MMRM) which included the fixed effects of treatment at each visit, baseline (continuous) at each visit, and baseline, visit, treatment, background medication (empagliflozin or placebo matching empagliflozin) and randomisation stratum as main effects, as well as random effects of patient.||-0.246|-0.596|<.0001
91015453|NCT05182840|181913570|OTHER|Null hypothesis: The dose-response curve is flat across the 3 BI 690517 doses and the placebo.||||||0||||||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|MCPMod Emax model fit|Emax model fit assumption: 80% of the maximum effect is achieved at 10 mg.||"A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of BI 690517 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod).~MMRM estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included the fixed effects of treatment at each visit, baseline (continuous) at each visit, and baseline, visit, treatment, background medication (empagliflozin or placebo matching empagliflozin) and randomisation stratum as main effects, as well as random effects of patient."||||0.0000
90811374|NCT01459653|181501216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.064|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.096|5.336|||Regression, Logistic|||CIN1/4 in previous cycle as cycle-level predictor for composite outcome (any of CIN Grade 4, FN, CIN/FN-related hospitalization, CIN/FN-related chemotherapy disturbance)||5.336|3.096|<0.001
91015454|NCT05182840|181913570|OTHER|Null hypothesis: The dose-response curve is flat across the 3 BI 690517 doses and the placebo.||||||0||||||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|MCPMod linear model fit|Linear model fit assumption: No assumption is needed.||"A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of BI 690517 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod).~MMRM estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included the fixed effects of treatment at each visit, baseline (continuous) at each visit, and baseline, visit, treatment, background medication (empagliflozin or placebo matching empagliflozin) and randomisation stratum as main effects, as well as random effects of patient."||||0.0000
91015455|NCT05182840|181913570|OTHER|Null hypothesis: The dose-response curve is flat across the 3 BI 690517 doses and the placebo.||||||0.0003|||||||MCPMod exponential model fit|Exponential model fit assumption: 15% of the maximum effect is achieved at 10 mg.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of BI 690517 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod). MMRM estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included the fixed effects of treatment at each visit, baseline (continuous) at each visit, and baseline, visit, treatment, background medication (empagliflozin or placebo matching empagliflozin) and randomisation stratum as main effects, as well as random effects of patient.||||0.0003
91015456|NCT05182840|181913571|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-15.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.6|0.0|||||"Median of 3 mg BI 690517 - Median of Placebo to BI 690517."|||-0.0|-28.6|
91015457|NCT05182840|181913571|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-38.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.3|-26.8|||||"Median of 10 mg BI 690517 - Median of Placebo to BI 690517."|||-26.8|-48.3|
91015458|NCT05182840|181913571|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-34.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.9|-21.8|||||"Median of 20 mg BI 690517 - Median of Placebo to BI 690517."|||-21.8|-44.9|
91055010|NCT01791153|181991818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Van Elteren's test|||The treatment groups were compared using a Van Elteren's test stratified by starting prednisone dose (\<=30 mg/day, \> 30 mg/day).||||<0.0001
91055011|NCT01791153|181991819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Square Means|0.61||||0.8067|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-5.86|7.07|||Repeated measures model|||MCS: Change at Week 52: Repeated measures model used for analysis included the following covariates and interactions: treatment, starting prednisone dose (\<=30mg/day, \>30mg/day), visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, starting dose-by-visit interaction, baseline score and baseline score-by-visit interaction.||7.07|-5.86|0.8067
90811375|NCT01459653|181501216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.545||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.175|2.033|||Regression, Logistic|||Female gender as patient-level predictor for composite outcome (any of CIN Grade 4, FN, CIN/FN-related hospitalization, CIN/FN-related chemotherapy disturbance)||2.033|1.175|0.002
90811376|NCT01459653|181501216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.596||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.088|2.34|||Regression, Logistic|||History of CIN Grade 4 at enrollment as patient-level predictor for composite outcome (any of CIN Grade 4, FN, CIN/FN-related hospitalization, CIN/FN-related chemotherapy disturbance)||2.340|1.088|0.017
90811377|NCT01459653|181501217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.621||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.152|2.281|||Regression, Logistic|||Female gender as patient-level predictor for composite outcome (any of CIN Grade 4, FN, CIN/FN-related hospitalization, CIN/FN-related chemotherapy disturbance)||2.281|1.152|0.006
90811378|NCT01459653|181501217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.898||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.209|2.979|||Regression, Logistic|||History of CIN4 at enrollment as patient-level predictor for composite outcome (any of CIN Grade 4, FN, CIN/FN-related hospitalization, CIN/FN-related chemotherapy disturbance)||2.979|1.209|0.005
90811379|NCT01459653|181501217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.68||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|5.984|||Regression, Logistic|||History of repeated infections at enrollment as patient-level predictor for composite outcome (any of CIN Grade 4, FN, CIN/FN-related hospitalization, CIN/FN-related chemotherapy disturbance)||5.984|1.200|0.016
90811380|NCT01459653|181501217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.438|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.291|0.66|||Regression, Logistic|||Over- vs. correctly prophylacted as patient-level predictor for composite outcome (any of CIN Grade 4, FN, CIN/FN-related hospitalization, CIN/FN-related chemotherapy disturbance)||0.660|0.291|<0.001
90811381|NCT01459653|181501217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.053||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.295|3.256|||Regression, Logistic|||Under- vs. over-prophylacted as patient-level predictor for composite outcome (any of CIN Grade 4, FN, CIN/FN-related hospitalization, CIN/FN-related chemotherapy disturbance)||3.256|1.295|0.002
90811382|NCT01459653|181501217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.558||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.332|0.939|||Regression, Logistic|||GIS at enrollment (1 vs. 0) as patient-level predictor for composite outcome (any of CIN Grade 4, FN, CIN/FN-related hospitalization, CIN/FN-related chemotherapy disturbance)||0.939|0.332|0.028
90811383|NCT01459653|181501218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2064||||0.0116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1931|4.0803|||Regression, Logistic|||Patient level predictor: History of anemia at enrollment||4.0803|1.1931|0.0116
90811384|NCT01459653|181501218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3049||||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2754|4.1656|||Regression, Logistic|||Liver/renal/cardiac comorbidity as patient level predictor||4.1656|1.2754|0.0057
90811385|NCT01459653|181501218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|17.535|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.2159|37.4243|||Regression, Logistic|||Poor performance (ECOG \>=2) during study as patient level predictor||37.4243|8.2159|<0.0001
90811386|NCT01459653|181501222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.8703|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.9567|37.1225|||Regression, Logistic|||Female gender as patient-level predictor for cancer-related mortality||37.1225|5.9567|<0.0001
90811387|NCT01459653|181501222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.8703|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.9567|37.1225|||Regression, Logistic|||Poor performance (ECOG \>=2) during study as patient-level predictor||37.1225|5.9567|<0.0001
91055012|NCT01791153|181991819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Square Means|4.44||||0.0252|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-0.69|9.56|||Repeated measures model|||MCS: Change at Week 52: Repeated measures model used for analysis included the following covariates and interactions: treatment, starting prednisone dose (\<=30mg/day, \>30mg/day), visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, starting dose-by-visit interaction, baseline score and baseline score-by-visit interaction.||9.56|-0.69|0.0252
91055013|NCT01791153|181991819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Square Means|-0.56||||0.8374|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-7.64|6.53|||Repeated measures model|||MCS: Change at Week 52: Repeated measures model used for analysis included the following covariates and interactions: treatment, starting prednisone dose (\<=30mg/day, \>30mg/day), visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, starting dose-by-visit interaction, baseline score and baseline score-by-visit interaction.||6.53|-7.64|0.8374
90811388|NCT00457821|181501233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0||||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Within-dose group and between-dose group analyses were performed, using a linear mixed effect model with baseline, dose, and period as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||||<0.05
90811389|NCT00457821|181501234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0||||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Within-dose group and between-dose group analyses were performed, using a linear mixed effect model with baseline, dose, and period as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||||<0.05
90811390|NCT00457821|181501236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0||||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Within-dose group and between-dose group analyses were performed, using a linear mixed effect model with baseline, dose, and period as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||||<0.05
90811391|NCT00027378|181501264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.39|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.702||0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|repeated measures||Repeated measures ANOVA||||.05
90811392|NCT00835640|181501333|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|81.33||||||90.0|||||||To establish bioequivalence, the ratio of the mean must fall within 80-125.|||||
90811393|NCT00835640|181501334|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|87.87||||||90.0|||||||To establish bioequivalence, the ratio of the mean must fall within 80-125.|||||
90811394|NCT00835640|181501335|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|88.45||||||90.0|||||||To establish bioequivalence, the ratio of the mean must fall within 80-125.|||||
90811395|NCT00350272|181501336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.2|8.2||||||The difference in proportions between the group of participants who received lamivudine 300 mg/day (in combination with efavirenz and tenofovir) over 12 weeks and the group of participants who received elvucitabine 10 mg/day (in combination with efavirenz and tenofovir) over 12 weeks along with corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence interval for risk difference using asymptotic normal theory.||8.2|-35.2|
90811396|NCT00068250|181501338|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Dose escalation followed the standard 3+3 design, although up to six patients could be accrued per dose level before suspending accrual for toxicity evaluation. If none of the first three patients (0/3), or one of the first three and none of the second three (1/3 and 0/3), experience a DLT, then the current dose level would be considered acceptable, and the next dose opened. Otherwise, the current dose level would be considered too toxic. The highest dose achieved with an acceptable level of toxicity was to considered the Maximum Tolerable Dose (MTD). If at any time a grade 5 toxicity was observed, accrual will be suspended, and the Study Chair would review the event. Furthermore, if the cumulative incidence (obtained by time to event analysis), at any time, of combined acute/late DLTs estimated the toxicity rate to be greater than 30% at any dose level, then the Executive Committee will be notified, and the committee would determine whether to stop accrual.|||
90811397|NCT00068250|181501339|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||One-sample z-test|||Null hypothesis: Two-year survival rate \<= 64%; Alternative hypothesis: Two-year survival rate \> 64%. The fixed survival rate for comparison comes from Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) trial 9310. (RTOG 9310 does not fall within ClinicalTrials.gov registration/reporting requirements.)||||0.006
90811398|NCT00068250|181501340|OTHER|||||||0.82|||||||Chi-squared|One-sample test of proportions||RTOG 93-10 reported a pre-irradiation chemotherapy complete response rate of 59%. A chi-square test with a 0.20 one-sided significance level provides 81% power to detect the difference between a null hypothesis complete response rate of 59% and the alternative rate of 71% (a 20% increase) for the planned sample size of 52 patients.||||0.82
90811399|NCT00812006|181501342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|An unstructured covariance matrix was used to model the correlation among repeated measurements within a patient.||||||<0.001
90811400|NCT00812006|181501343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Nominal p-value was adjusted under Benjamini and Hochberg's false discovery rate procedure for the multiple secondary endpoints at α=0.1 significance level.|Generalized Linear Mixed Model|A compound-symmetry covariance matrix was used to model the correlation among repeated measurements within a patient, due to a convergence issue.||||||<0.001
91015459|NCT05182840|181913572|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.227||||0.0867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.488|0.033|||MMRM||"Least Squares Mean of Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + 3 mg BI 690517 - Least Squares Mean of Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + Placebo to BI 690517."|The difference of adjusted means and 95 % confidence interval were estimated by restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed models for repeated measures ((REML)-based MMRM) which included the fixed effects of treatment at each visit, baseline (continuous) at each visit, and baseline, visit, treatment, background medication (empagliflozin or placebo matching empagliflozin) and randomisation stratum as main effects, as well as random effects of patient.||0.033|-0.488|0.0867
91055014|NCT01791153|181991819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Square Means|3.27||||0.1468|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-2.59|9.14|||Repeated measures model|||MCS: Change at Week 52: Repeated measures model used for analysis included the following covariates and interactions: treatment, starting prednisone dose (\<=30mg/day, \>30mg/day), visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, starting dose-by-visit interaction, baseline score and baseline score-by-visit interaction.||9.14|-2.59|0.1468
90811401|NCT00812006|181501344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Nominal p-value was adjusted under Benjamini and Hochberg's false discovery rate procedure for the multiple secondary endpoints at α=0.1 significance level.|Generalized Linear Mixed Model|An unstructured covariance matrix was used to model the correlation among repeated measurements within a patient.||||||<0.001
90811402|NCT00812006|181501345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Nominal p-value was adjusted under Benjamini and Hochberg's falsediscovery rate procedure for the multiple secondary endpoints at α=0.1 significance level.|Generalized Linear Mixed Model|An unstructured covariance matrix was used to model the correlation among repeated measurements within a patient.||||||<0.001
90811403|NCT00812006|181501346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Nominal p-value was adjusted under Benjamini and Hochberg's false discovery rate procedure for the multiple secondary endpoints at α=0.1 significance level.|Generalized Linear Mixed Model|A compound-symmetry covariance matrix was used to model the correlation among repeated measurements within a patient, due to a convergence issue.||||||<0.001
90811404|NCT03242772|181501386|OTHER|||||||0.2664||||||Significance at \<0.05|95% confidence interval|confidence interval (CI) = -3.5729 - 11.6929|||Presentation of results will include p-values and 95% confidence intervals for the least mean square values at weeks 0, 10, 24 (week 24 is exploratory).|||0.2664
90811405|NCT03242772|181501387|OTHER|||||||0.3721||||||Significance at \<0.05|95% confidence interval|confidence interval (CI) = -17.7698 - 7.2698|||Presentation of results will include p-values and 95% confidence intervals for the least mean square values at weeks 0, 10, 24 (week 24 is exploratory).|||0.3721
90811406|NCT02499900|181501389|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.321|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1615|0.4814||0.05 level of significance|Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Estimates and p-value are obtained from baseline-adjusted repeated measures ANCOVA model with visit as a repeated effect: MSQ=baseline MSQ score+treatment+visit+treatment by visit interaction. Treatment-naïve patients are not included in this analysis as MSQ is not measured at baseline for these patients.||0.4814|0.1615|<0.001
90811407|NCT02499900|181501390|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.448|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9538|11.9429||0.05 level of significance|Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Estimates and p-value are obtained from baseline-adjusted repeated measures ANCOVA model with visit as a repeated effect: TSQM-9 convenience score=baseline TSQM-9 convenience score+treatment+CGR+treatment by visit interaction. Treatment-naïve patients are not included in this analysis as TSQM-9 is not measured at baseline for these patients.||11.9429|6.9538|<0.001
90811408|NCT02499900|181501391|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.802||||0.208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|0.4461||0.05 level of significance|Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||MFIS Total Score Estimates and p-values are obtained from baseline-adjusted repeated measures ANCOVA model with visit as a repeated effect: change from baseline MFIS score=baseline MFIS score+treatment+visit +CGR+treatment by visit interaction.||0.4461|-2.0500|0.208
90811409|NCT02499900|181501391|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.231||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8588|0.3962||0.05 level of significance|Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||MFIS Physical Subscale Estimates and p-values are obtained from baseline-adjusted repeated measures ANCOVA model with visit as a repeated effect: change from baseline MFIS score=baseline MFIS score+treatment+visit +CGR+treatment by visit interaction.||0.3962|-0.8588|0.470
91015460|NCT05182840|181913572|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.469||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.737|-0.201|||MMRM||"Least Squares Mean of Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + 10 mg BI 690517 - Least Squares Mean of Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + Placebo to BI 690517."|The difference of adjusted means and 95 % confidence interval were estimated by restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed models for repeated measures ((REML)-based MMRM) which included the fixed effects of treatment at each visit, baseline (continuous) at each visit, and baseline, visit, treatment, background medication (empagliflozin or placebo matching empagliflozin) and randomisation stratum as main effects, as well as random effects of patient.||-0.201|-0.737|0.0007
91015461|NCT05182840|181913572|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.429||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.707|-0.151|||MMRM||"Least Squares Mean of Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + 20 mg BI 6905177 - Least Squares Mean of Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + Placebo to BI 690517."|The difference of adjusted means and 95 % confidence interval were estimated by restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed models for repeated measures ((REML)-based MMRM) which included the fixed effects of treatment at each visit, baseline (continuous) at each visit, and baseline, visit, treatment, background medication (empagliflozin or placebo matching empagliflozin) and randomisation stratum as main effects, as well as random effects of patient.||-0.151|-0.707|0.0027
91015462|NCT05182840|181913573|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-20.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.6|3.4|||||"Median of Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + 3 mg BI 690517 - median of Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + Placebo to BI 690517."|||3.4|-38.6|
91015463|NCT05182840|181913573|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-37.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.2|-18.2|||||"Median of Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + 10 mg BI 690517 - median of Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + Placebo to BI 690517"|||-18.2|-52.2|
91015464|NCT05182840|181913573|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-34.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.7|-14.0|||||"Median of Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + 20 mg BI 6905177 - median of Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + Placebo to BI 690517."|||-14.0|-50.7|
91015465|NCT05182840|181913574|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.098||||0.3737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.316|0.119|||MMRM||"Least Squares Mean of Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + 3 mg BI 690517 - Least Squares Mean of Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + Placebo to BI 690517."|The difference of adjusted means and 95 % confidence interval were estimated by restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed models for repeated measures ((REML)-based MMRM) which included the fixed effects of treatment at each visit, baseline (continuous) at each visit, and baseline, visit, treatment, background medication (empagliflozin or placebo matching empagliflozin) and randomisation stratum as main effects, as well as random effects of patient.||0.119|-0.316|0.3737
91015466|NCT05182840|181913574|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.502|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.275|||MMRM||"Least Squares Mean of Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + 10 mg BI 690517 - Least Squares Mean of Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + Placebo to BI 690517."|The difference of adjusted means and 95 % confidence interval were estimated by restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed models for repeated measures ((REML)-based MMRM) which included the fixed effects of treatment at each visit, baseline (continuous) at each visit, and baseline, visit, treatment, background medication (empagliflozin or placebo matching empagliflozin) and randomisation stratum as main effects, as well as random effects of patient.||-0.275|-0.730|<.0001
91015467|NCT05182840|181913574|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.404||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.625|-0.184|||MMRM||"Least Squares Mean of Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + 20 mg BI 690517 - Least Squares Mean of Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + Placebo to BI 690517."|The difference of adjusted means and 95 % confidence interval were estimated by restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed models for repeated measures ((REML)-based MMRM) which included the fixed effects of treatment at each visit, baseline (continuous) at each visit, and baseline, visit, treatment, background medication (empagliflozin or placebo matching empagliflozin) and randomisation stratum as main effects, as well as random effects of patient.||-0.184|-0.625|0.0004
91015468|NCT05182840|181913575|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-9.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.1|12.7|||||"Median of Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + 3 mg BI 690517 - median of Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + Placebo to BI 690517."|||12.7|-27.1|
91015469|NCT05182840|181913575|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-39.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.8|-24.0|||||"Median of Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + 10 mg BI 690517 - median of Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + Placebo to BI 690517."|||-24.0|-51.8|
91015470|NCT05182840|181913575|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-33.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.5|-16.8|||||"Median of Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + 20 mg BI 690517 - median of Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + Placebo to BI 690517."|||-16.8|-46.5|
91055015|NCT01791153|181991819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Square Means|4.38||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-1.58|10.34|||Repeated measures model|||PCS: Change at Week 52: Repeated measures model used for analysis included the following covariates and interactions: treatment, starting prednisone dose (\<=30mg/day, \>30mg/day), visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, starting dose-by-visit interaction, baseline score and baseline score-by-visit interaction.||10.34|-1.58|0.0570
91055016|NCT01791153|181991819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Square Means|5.59||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.86|10.32|||Repeated measures model|||PCS: Change at Week 52: Repeated measures model used for analysis included the following covariates and interactions: treatment, starting prednisone dose (\<=30mg/day, \>30mg/day), visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, starting dose-by-visit interaction, baseline score and baseline score-by-visit interaction.||10.32|0.86|0.0024
90811410|NCT02499900|181501391|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.639||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2564|-0.0214||0.05 level of significance|Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||MFIS Cognitive Subscale Estimates and p-values are obtained from baseline-adjusted repeated measures ANCOVA model with visit as a repeated effect: change from baseline MFIS score=baseline MFIS score+treatment+visit +CGR+treatment by visit interaction.||-0.0214|-1.2564|0.043
91055017|NCT01791153|181991819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Square Means|3.04||||0.2218|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-3.43|9.51|||Repeated measures model|||PCS: Change at Week 52: Repeated measures model used for analysis included the following covariates and interactions: treatment, starting prednisone dose (\<=30mg/day, \>30mg/day), visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, starting dose-by-visit interaction, baseline score and baseline score-by-visit interaction.||9.51|-3.43|0.2218
90811411|NCT02499900|181501391|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.102||||0.237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0672|0.2711||0.05 level of significance|Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||MFIS Psychosocial Subscale Estimates and p-values are obtained from baseline-adjusted repeated measures ANCOVA model with visit as a repeated effect: change from baseline MFIS score=baseline MFIS score+treatment+visit +CGR+treatment by visit interaction.||0.2711|-0.0672|0.237
90811412|NCT02499900|181501392|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.706||||0.287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5947|1.0074||0.05 level of significance|Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Total Score Estimates and p-values are obtained from baseline-adjusted repeated measures ANCOVA model with visit as a repeated effect: change from baseline MHI score=baseline MHI Total Score +treatment +visit +country/geographic region +treatment by visit interaction.||1.0074|-0.5947|0.287
90811413|NCT02499900|181501392|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.141||||0.868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5179|1.7991||0.05 level of significance|Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Anxiety subscale Estimates and p-values are obtained from baseline-adjusted repeated measures ANCOVA model with visit as a repeated effect: change from baseline MHI score=baseline MHI Total Score +treatment +visit +country/geographic region +treatment by visit interaction.||1.7991|-1.5179|0.868
90811414|NCT02499900|181501392|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.481||||0.544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0734|2.0348||0.05 level of significance|Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Depression subscale estimates and p-values are obtained from baseline-adjusted repeated measures ANCOVA model with visit as a repeated effect: change from baseline MHI score=baseline MHI Total Score +treatment +visit +country/geographic region +treatment by visit interaction.||2.0348|-1.0734|0.544
90811415|NCT02499900|181501392|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.867||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3843|3.3487||0.05 level of significance|Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Behavioral Control subscale Estimates and p-values are obtained from baseline-adjusted repeated measures ANCOVA model with visit as a repeated effect: change from baseline MHI score=baseline MHI Total Score +treatment +visit +country/geographic region +treatment by visit interaction.||3.3487|0.3843|0.014
90811416|NCT02499900|181501392|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.092||||0.919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8565|1.6728||0.05 level of significance|Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||MHI Positive Affect subscale Estimates and p-values are obtained from baseline-adjusted repeated measures ANCOVA model with visit as a repeated effect: change from baseline MHI score=baseline MHI Total Score +treatment +visit +country/geographic region +treatment by visit interaction.||1.6728|-1.8565|0.919
91015471|NCT05182840|181913576|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.08||||0.0136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|3.72||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of 3 mg BI 690517 vs. Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||3.72|1.16|0.0136
90811417|NCT02499900|181501393|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.059||||0.851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6777|0.5592||0.05 level of significance|Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Estimates and p-values are obtained from baseline-adjusted repeated measures ANCOVA model with visit as a repeated effect: change from baseline BDI-II total score=baseline BDI-II total score+treatment+visit+country/geographic region +treatment by visit interaction.||0.5592|-0.6777|0.851
90811418|NCT03998670|181501399|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.1|||||Difference in mean control and 95% confidence interval (CI) are from ANCOVA model adjusting for corresponding baseline control score. Prism group minus Non-Prism group (positive difference indicates Prism group worse than Non-Prism group).|The primary analysis was the treatment group difference (and 95% CI) in mean distance control at the 8-week outcome visit using an ANCOVA adjusted for baseline distance control. The planned convenience sample size of 64 was expected to provide outcome data for at least 60 participants (30 per group).||1.1|-0.5|
90811419|NCT03998670|181501400|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|32.0|||||Difference between Prism minus Non-Prism group (positive difference indicates Prism group better than Non-Prism group).|||32|-17|
90811420|NCT03998670|181501401|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.0|19.0|||||Difference between Prism minus Non-Prism group (positive difference indicates Prism group better than Non-Prism group).|||19|-27|
90811421|NCT03998670|181501403|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.7|||||Difference in mean control and 95% confidence interval (CI) are from ANCOVA model adjusting for corresponding baseline control score. Prism group minus Non-Prism group (positive difference indicates Prism group worse than Non-Prism group).|The secondary analysis was the treatment group difference (and 95% CI) in mean near control at the 8-week outcome visit using an ANCOVA adjusted for baseline near control.||0.7|-0.7|
90811422|NCT03730961|181501426|SUPERIORITY|Drug - placebo|Mean Difference (Net)|-448.0||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-714.0|-183.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-183|-714|0.0021
90811423|NCT03730961|181501426|SUPERIORITY|Percent change Drug - placebo|Mean Difference (Net)|-22.1||||0.0222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.7|-3.51|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-3.51|-40.7|0.0222
90811424|NCT03730961|181501427|SUPERIORITY|Drug - placebo, 0-4 hours after furosemide|Mean Difference (Net)|-4.25||||0.0163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.63|-0.876|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.876|-7.63|0.0163
90811425|NCT03730961|181501427|SUPERIORITY|Percent change Drug - placebo, 0-4 hours after furosemide|Mean Difference (Net)|-15.0||||0.2018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.8|8.77|||t-test, 2 sided|||||8.77|-38.8|0.2018
90811426|NCT03730961|181501427|SUPERIORITY|Drug - placebo, 0-8 hours after start of infusion|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.61||||0.0526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.27|0.0446|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.0446|-7.27|0.0526
90811427|NCT03730961|181501427|SUPERIORITY|Percent change Drug - placebo, 0-8 hours after start of infusion|Mean Difference (Net)|-14.9||||0.2076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.8|9.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||9|-38.8|0.2076
90811428|NCT03730961|181501428|SUPERIORITY|Drug - placebo, 0-4 hours after furosemide|Mean Difference (Net)|0.431||||0.1621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.189|1.05|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.05|-0.189|0.1621
90811429|NCT03730961|181501428|SUPERIORITY|Percent change Drug - placebo, 0-4 hours after furosemide|Mean Difference (Net)|32.0||||0.0338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.72|61.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||61.3|2.72|0.0338
90811430|NCT03730961|181501428|SUPERIORITY|Drug - placebo, 0-8 hours after start of infusion|Mean Difference (Net)|0.766||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0353|1.57|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.57|-0.0353|0.0600
90811431|NCT03730961|181501428|SUPERIORITY|Percent change Drug - placebo, 0-8 hours after start of infusion|Mean Difference (Net)|33.5||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.02|63.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||63|4.02|0.0280
90811432|NCT03730961|181501431|SUPERIORITY||Difference between drug and placebo|-4.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.74||||||||||||||||
90811433|NCT00901511|181501469|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|12.0||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Calculated as the median time to rescue WLL in the GM-CSF Group minus the median the time to rescue WLL in the Control Group|||||0.0078
90811434|NCT00901511|181501470|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|7.0||||0.0152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|39.9|||Fisher Exact||Calculated as risk ratio of rescue WLL in the Control Group compared to the risk ratio of rescue WLL in the GM-CSF Group|||39.9|1.60|0.0152
90811435|NCT00901511|181501471|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|13.3|||Repeated measures ANOVA|Data was evaluated via repeated measures ANOVA after adjustment for baseline values, gender, age, and number of patients at risk at each time point.|Calculated as the between group difference in the mean PaO2 in the GM-CSF Group minus the between group difference in mean PaO2 in the Control Group|||13.3|5.7|<0.0001
90811436|NCT00901511|181501471|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.16||0.0261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.04|28.16|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the pre-WLL visit in the mean PaO2 in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean PaO2 in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean PaO2 between groups at the pre-WLL visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||28.16|2.04|0.0261
91015472|NCT05182840|181913576|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.02||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.94|12.49||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of 10 mg BI 690517 vs. Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||12.49|3.94|0.0000
91015473|NCT05182840|181913576|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.48||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.09|9.71||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of 20 mg BI 690517 vs. Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||9.71|3.09|0.0000
91015474|NCT05182840|181913577|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.15||||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|3.88||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of 3 mg BI 690517 vs. Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||3.88|1.19|0.0111
90811437|NCT00901511|181501471|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.36||0.1521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.92|23.03|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the baseline visit in the mean PaO2 in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean PaO2 in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean PaO2 between groups at the baseline visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||23.03|3.92|0.1521
90811438|NCT00901511|181501471|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.56||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.26|29.82|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 1-month visit in the mean PaO2 in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean PaO2 in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean PaO2 between groups at the 1-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||29.82|6.26|0.0051
90811439|NCT00901511|181501471|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.54||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.63|29.88|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 3-month visit in the mean PaO2 in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean PaO2 in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean PaO2 between groups at the 3-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||29.88|10.63|0.0004
91015475|NCT05182840|181913577|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.33||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.49|11.49||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of 10 mg BI 690517 vs. Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||11.49|3.49|0.0000
91015476|NCT05182840|181913577|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.21||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.88|9.44||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of 20 mg BI 690517 vs. Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||9.44|2.88|0.0000
91015477|NCT05182840|181913578|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.0348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|3.09||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of 3 mg BI 690517 vs. Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||3.09|1.04|0.0348
90811440|NCT00901511|181501471|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.89||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.43|32.4|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 6-month visit in the mean PaO2 in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean PaO2 in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean PaO2 between groups at the 6-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||32.40|7.43|0.0038
91015478|NCT05182840|181913578|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.12||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|7.08||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of 10 mg BI 690517 vs. Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||7.08|2.40|0.0000
91015479|NCT05182840|181913578|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.02||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.91|8.67||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of 20 mg BI 690517 vs. Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||8.67|2.91|0.0000
91015480|NCT05182840|181913579|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.15||||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|3.88||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of 3 mg BI 690517 vs. Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||3.88|1.19|0.0111
91015481|NCT05182840|181913579|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.33||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.49|11.49||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of 10 mg BI 690517 vs. Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||11.49|3.49|0.0000
91015482|NCT05182840|181913579|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.21||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.88|9.44||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of 20 mg BI 690517 vs. Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||9.44|2.88|0.0000
91015483|NCT05182840|181913580|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.44||||0.0419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|5.74||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + 3 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||5.74|1.03|0.0419
91015484|NCT05182840|181913580|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.09||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.64|14.08||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + 10 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||14.08|2.64|0.0000
91015485|NCT05182840|181913580|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.13||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.64|14.25||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + 20 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||14.25|2.64|0.0000
91015486|NCT05182840|181913581|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.88||||0.0195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|7.02||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + 3 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||7.02|1.19|0.0195
91015487|NCT05182840|181913581|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.38||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.65|15.35||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + 10 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||15.35|2.65|0.0000
91055018|NCT01791153|181991819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Square Means|4.25||||0.0412|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-1.14|9.64|||Repeated measures model|||PCS: Change at Week 52: Repeated measures model used for analysis included the following covariates and interactions: treatment, starting prednisone dose (\<=30mg/day, \>30mg/day), visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, starting dose-by-visit interaction, baseline score and baseline score-by-visit interaction.||9.64|-1.14|0.0412
91055019|NCT01791153|181991820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Square Means|-15.6||||0.0312|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-34.3|3.1|||Repeated measures model|||Change at Week 52: Repeated measures model used for analysis included the following covariates and interactions: treatment, starting prednisone dose (\<=30mg/day, \>30mg/day), visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, starting dose-by-visit interaction, baseline score and baseline score-by-visit interaction.||3.1|-34.3|0.0312
91015488|NCT05182840|181913581|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.39||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|15.67||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + 20 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||15.67|2.60|0.0001
91055020|NCT01791153|181991820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Square Means|-11.8||||0.0476|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-27.2|3.6|||Repeated measures model|||Change at Week 52: Repeated measures model used for analysis included the following covariates and interactions: treatment, starting prednisone dose (\<=30mg/day, \>30mg/day), visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, starting dose-by-visit interaction, baseline score and baseline score-by-visit interaction.||3.6|-27.2|0.0476
91055021|NCT01791153|181991820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Square Means|-21.9||||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-42.4|-1.4|||Repeated measures model|||Change at Week 52: Repeated measures model used for analysis included the following covariates and interactions: treatment, starting prednisone dose (\<=30mg/day, \>30mg/day), visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, starting dose-by-visit interaction, baseline score and baseline score-by-visit interaction.||-1.4|-42.4|0.0059
91055022|NCT01791153|181991820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Square Means|-18.2||||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-35.8|-0.5|||Repeated measures model|||Change at Week 52: Repeated measures model used for analysis included the following covariates and interactions: treatment, starting prednisone dose (\<=30mg/day, \>30mg/day), visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, starting dose-by-visit interaction, baseline score and baseline score-by-visit interaction.||-0.5|-35.8|0.0081
91055023|NCT03970837|181991897|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.87|3.53|||Regression, Logistic|OR and corresponding 95% CI for OR are generated from the logistic regression model adjusted for Baseline TJC68, Baseline SJC66 and Treatment Group.||The null hypothesis is defined as there is no difference between the 90mg dose of GSK3196165 and placebo in the proportion of participants achieving ACR20 response at Week 12, versus the alternative hypothesis that the 90mg dose of GSK3196165 differs from placebo in the proportion of participants achieving ACR20 response at Week 12.||3.53|1.87|<0.0001
91055024|NCT03970837|181991897|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.85|3.5|||Regression, Logistic|OR and corresponding 95% CI for OR are generated from the logistic regression model adjusted for Baseline TJC68, Baseline SJC66 and Treatment Group.||The null hypothesis is defined as there is no difference between the 150mg dose of GSK3196165 and placebo in the proportion of participants achieving ACR20 response at Week 12, versus the alternative hypothesis that the 150mg dose of GSK3196165 differs from placebo in the proportion of participants achieving ACR20 response at Week 12.||3.50|1.85|<0.0001
91055025|NCT03970837|181991897|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.66|7.9|||Regression, Logistic|OR and corresponding 95% CI for OR are generated from the logistic regression model adjusted for Baseline TJC68, Baseline SJC66 and Treatment Group.||The null hypothesis is defined as there is no difference between the 05mg dose of Tofacitinib and placebo in the proportion of participants achieving ACR20 response at Week 12, versus the alternative hypothesis that the 05mg dose of Tofacitinib differs from placebo in the proportion of participants achieving ACR20 response at Week 12.||7.90|3.66|<0.0001
90811441|NCT00901511|181501471|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.15||0.0149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.81|30.03|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 10-month visit in the mean PaO2 in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean PaO2 in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean PaO2 between groups at the 10-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||30.03|3.81|0.0149
90811442|NCT00901511|181501471|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.97||0.0148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.26|33.79|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 18-month visit in the mean PaO2 in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean PaO2 in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean PaO2 between groups at the 18-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||33.79|4.26|0.0148
90811443|NCT00901511|181501471|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.62||0.1158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.02|25.02|||t-test, 2 sided|||The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean PaO2 between groups at the 30-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.|Calculated as the difference at the 30-month visit in the mean PaO2 in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean PaO2 in the Control Group|25.02|-3.02|0.1158
91055026|NCT03970837|181991897|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.48|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.66|||Regression, Logistic|OR and corresponding 95% CI for OR are generated from the logistic regression model adjusted for Baseline TJC68, Baseline SJC66 and Treatment Group.||The null hypothesis is defined as there is no difference between the 90 mg dose of GSK3196165 and 05mg dose of Tofacitinib in the proportion of participants achieving ACR20 response at Week 12, versus the alternative hypothesis that the 90 mg dose of GSK3196165 differs from 05mg dose of Tofacitinib in the proportion of participants achieving ACR20 response at Week 12.||0.66|0.34|<0.0001
91055027|NCT03970837|181991897|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.66|||Regression, Logistic|OR and corresponding 95% CI for OR are generated from the logistic regression model adjusted for Baseline TJC68, Baseline SJC66 and Treatment Group.||The null hypothesis is defined as there is no difference between the 150mg dose of GSK3196165 and 05mg dose of Tofacitinib in the proportion of participants achieving ACR20 response at Week 12, versus the alternative hypothesis that the 150mg dose of GSK3196165 differs from 05mg dose of Tofacitinib in the proportion of participants achieving ACR20 response at Week 12.||0.66|0.34|<0.0001
90811444|NCT00901511|181501472|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|-5.4|||Repeated measures ANOVA|Data was evaluated via repeated measures ANOVA after adjustment for baseline values, gender, age, and number of patients at risk at each time point.|Calculated as the between group difference in the mean value of A-aDO2 in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean value of A-aDO2 in the Control Group|Primary analysis||-5.4|-14.8|<0.0001
90811445|NCT00901511|181501472|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.0||0.0545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.19|0.27|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the pre-WLL visit in the mean A-aDO2 in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean A-aDO2 in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean A-aDO2 between groups at the pre-WLL visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||0.27|-25.19|0.0545
90811446|NCT00901511|181501472|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.34||0.2802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.52|6.35|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the baseline visit in the mean A-aDO2 in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean A-aDO2 in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean A-aDO2 between groups at the baseline visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||6.35|-20.52|0.2802
90811447|NCT00901511|181501472|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.16||0.0148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.85|-3.76|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 1-month visit in the mean A-aDO2 in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean A-aDO2 in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean A-aDO2 between groups at the 1-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||-3.76|-29.85|0.0148
90811448|NCT00901511|181501472|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.91||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.18|-8.36|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 3-month visit in the mean A-aDO2 in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean A-aDO2 in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean A-aDO2 between groups at the 3 -month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||-8.36|-29.18|0.0015
90811449|NCT00901511|181501472|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.85||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.49|-6.7|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 6-month visit in the mean A-aDO2 in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean A-aDO2 in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean A-aDO2 between groups at the 6-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||-6.70|-31.49|0.0049
90811450|NCT00901511|181501472|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.84||0.0152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.23|-3.48|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 10-month visit in the mean A-aDO2 in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean A-aDO2 in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean A-aDO2 between groups at the 10-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||-3.48|-28.23|0.0152
90811451|NCT00901511|181501472|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.27||0.0154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.31|-3.71|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 18-month visit in the mean A-aDO2 in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean A-aDO2 in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean A-aDO2 between groups at the 18-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||-3.71|-30.31|0.0154
90811452|NCT00901511|181501472|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.15||0.0921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.05|2.02|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 30-month visit in the mean A-aDO2 in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean A-aDO2 in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean A-aDO2 between groups at the 30-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||2.02|-24.05|0.0921
90811453|NCT00901511|181501473|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.6||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|21.3|||Repeated measures ANOVA|Data was evaluated via repeated measures ANOVA after adjustment for baseline values, gender, age, and number of patients at risk at each time point.|Calculated as the between group difference in the mean value of the DLCO in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean value of the DLCO in the Control Group|Primary Analysis||21.3|1.9|0.0220
90811454|NCT00901511|181501473|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.96||0.3186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.06|25.63|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the Pre-WLL visit in the mean DLCO in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean DLCO in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean DLCO between groups at the Pre-WLL visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||25.63|-9.06|0.3186
90811455|NCT00901511|181501473|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.58||0.4111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|19.51|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the baseline visit in the mean DLCO in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean DLCO in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean DLCO between groups at the baseline visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||19.51|-8.40|0.4111
90811456|NCT00901511|181501473|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.53||0.0658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|26.73|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 1-month visit in the mean DLCO in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean DLCO in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean DLCO between groups at the 1-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||26.73|-0.95|0.0658
90811457|NCT00901511|181501473|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.81||0.2287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.78|26.34|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 3-month visit in the mean DLCO in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean DLCO in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean DLCO between groups at the 3-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||26.34|-6.78|0.2287
90811458|NCT00901511|181501473|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.37||0.1432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.86|30.64|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 6-month visit in the mean DLCO in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean DLCO in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean DLCO between groups at the 6-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||30.64|-4.86|0.1432
91078183|NCT04114656|182041870|OTHER||Posterior Ratio to placebo|0.993|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.968|1.02|||||Treatment comparison ratio of GSK3858279 and placebo using posterior median ratio and 95% credible interval is presented. Analysis was performed using Bayesian Mixed Repeated measures Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model.|||1.020|0.968|
90811459|NCT00901511|181501473|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.47||0.1833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.17|29.73|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 10-month visit in the mean DLCO in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean DLCO in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean DLCO between groups at the 10-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||29.73|-6.17|0.1833
90811460|NCT00901511|181501473|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.23||0.1888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|32.23|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 18-month visit in the mean DLCO in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean DLCO in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean DLCO between groups at the 18-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||32.23|-6.90|0.1888
90811461|NCT00901511|181501473|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.79||0.6374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.41|22.85|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 30-month visit in the mean DLCO in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean DLCO in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean DLCO between groups at the 30-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||22.85|-14.41|0.6374
90811462|NCT00901511|181501474|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|9.9|||Repeated measures ANOVA|Data was evaluated via repeated measures ANOVA after adjustment for baseline values, gender, age, and number of patients at risk at each time point.|Calculated as the between group difference in the mean value of VC in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean value of VC in the Control Group|Primary Analysis||9.90|-5.30|0.5320
90811463|NCT00901511|181501474|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.55||0.6772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.09|19.52|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the Pre-WLL visit in the mean VC in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean VC in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean VC between groups at the Pre-WLL visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||19.52|-13.09|0.6772
90811464|NCT00901511|181501474|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.7||0.832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.52|15.64|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the baseline visit in the mean VC in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean VC in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean VC between groups at the baseline visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||15.64|-12.52|0.8320
90811465|NCT00901511|181501474|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.82||0.8532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.19|18.14|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 1-month visit in the mean VC in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean VC in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean VC between groups at the 1-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||18.14|-15.19|0.8532
90811466|NCT00901511|181501474|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.66||0.7752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|18.44|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 3-month visit in the mean VC in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean VC in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean VC between groups at the 3-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||18.44|-14.00|0.7752
90811467|NCT00901511|181501474|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.65||0.5174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|24.18|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 6-month visit in the mean value of VC in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean value of VC in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean VC between groups at the 6-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||24.18|-12.70|0.5174
90811468|NCT00901511|181501474|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.68||0.6393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.61|19.94|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 10-month visit in the mean VC in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean VC in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean VC between groups at the 10-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||19.94|-12.61|0.6393
90811469|NCT00901511|181501474|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.26||0.5361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.28|22.73|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 18-month visit in the mean VC in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean VC in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean VC between groups at the 18-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||22.73|-12.28|0.5361
91015489|NCT05182840|181913582|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.03||||0.0767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|4.42||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + 3 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||4.42|0.93|0.0767
91015490|NCT05182840|181913582|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.11||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.89|8.91||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + 10 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||8.91|1.89|0.0003
91055028|NCT03970837|181991901|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority over tofacitinib on ACR20 was concluded if the lower limit of the multiplicity corrected 95% Confidence Interval (CI) in the difference in proportions (GSK3196165 minus tofacitinib) was greater than -12%|Difference in Percentage|-14.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.3|-8.1|||Regression, Logistic|Difference in proportion and 95% CI are generated from logistic regression model adjusted for Baseline TJC68, Baseline SJC66 and Treatment Group.||||-8.1|-21.3|
90811470|NCT00901511|181501474|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.04||0.8159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.26|16.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean VC between groups at the 30-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.|Calculated as the difference at the 30-month visit in the mean VC in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean VC in the Control Group|16.60|-13.26|0.8159
90811471|NCT00901511|181501475|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.822||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.01|||Repeated measures ANOVA|Data was evaluated via repeated measures ANOVA after adjustment for baseline values, gender, age, and number of patients at risk at each time point.|Calculated as the between group difference in the median value of the GGO Score in the GM-CSF Group minus the median value of the GGO Score in the Control Group|Primary Analysis||0.01|-1.70|0.0530
90811472|NCT00901511|181501475|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||>|0.9999|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Calculated as the difference at the Pre-WLL visit in the median GGO Score in the GM-CSF Group minus the median GGO Score in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in median GGO Score between groups at the Pre-WLL visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||||>0.9999
90811473|NCT00901511|181501475|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.0332|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Calculated as the difference at the 3-month visit in the median GGO Score in the GM-CSF Group minus the median GGO Score in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in median GGO Score between groups at the 3-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||||0.0332
90811474|NCT00901511|181501475|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.0676|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Calculated as the difference at the 10-month visit in the median GGO Score in the GM-CSF Group minus the median GGO Score in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in median GGO Score between groups at the 10-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||||0.0676
90811475|NCT00901511|181501475|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.0629|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Calculated as the difference at the 18-month visit in the median GGO Score in the GM-CSF Group minus the median GGO Score in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in median GGO Score between groups at the 18-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||||0.0629
91055029|NCT03970837|181991901|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority over tofacitinib on ACR20 was concluded if the lower limit of the multiplicity corrected 95% Confidence Interval (CI) in the difference in proportions (GSK3196165 minus tofacitinib) was greater than -12%|Difference in Percentage|-17.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.9|-10.6|||Regression, Logistic|Difference in proportion and 95% CI are generated from logistic regression model adjusted for Baseline TJC68, Baseline SJC66 and Treatment Group.||||-10.6|-23.9|
90811476|NCT00901511|181501475|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||>|0.9999|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Calculated as the difference at the 30-month visit in the median GGO Score in the GM-CSF Group minus the median GGO Score in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in median GGO Score between groups at the 30-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||||>0.9999
90811477|NCT00901511|181501476|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.22|||Repeated measures ANOVA|Data was evaluated via repeated measures ANOVA after adjustment for baseline values, gender, age, and number of patients at risk at each time point.|Calculated as the between group difference in the CEA levels in the GM-CSF Group minus the CEA levels in the Control Group|Primary Analysis||-0.22|-0.71|0.0010
90811478|NCT00901511|181501476|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-12.0||||0.0059|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Calculated as the difference at the Pre-WLL visit in the median serum CEA levels in the GM-CSF Group minus the median serum CEA levels in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in median serum CEA levels between groups at the Pre-WLL visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||||0.0059
90811479|NCT00901511|181501476|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-3.45||||0.0382|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Calculated as the difference at the baseline visit in the median serum CEA levels in the GM-CSF Group minus the median serum CEA levels in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in median serum CEA levels between groups at the baseline visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||||0.0382
90811480|NCT00901511|181501476|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-3.2||||0.077|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Calculated as the difference at the 1-month visit in the median serum CEA levels in the GM-CSF Group minus the median serum CEA levels in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in median serum CEA levels between groups at the 1-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||||0.0770
90811481|NCT00901511|181501476|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-4.0||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Calculated as the difference at the 3-month visit in the median serum CEA levels in the GM-CSF Group minus the median serum CEA levels in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in median serum CEA levels between groups at the 3-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||||0.0400
90811482|NCT00901511|181501476|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-7.9||||0.0142|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Calculated as the difference at the 6-month visit in the median serum CEA levels in the GM-CSF Group minus the median serum CEA levels in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in median serum CEA levels between groups at the 6-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||||0.0142
90811483|NCT00901511|181501476|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-6.5||||0.0071|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Calculated as the difference at the 10-month visit in the median serum CEA levels in the GM-CSF Group minus the median serum CEA levels in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in median serum CEA levels between groups at the 10-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||||0.0071
91055030|NCT02081209|181992096|OTHER||sucess percentage|82.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|76.4|87.3||||||||87.3|76.4|
91055031|NCT02081209|181992096|OTHER||sucess percentage|77.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.1|85.1||||||||85.1|68.1|
90811484|NCT00901511|181501476|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-5.6||||0.0137|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Calculated as the difference at the 18-month visit in the median serum CEA levels in the GM-CSF Group minus the median serum CEA levels in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in median serum CEA levels between groups at the 18-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||||0.0137
90811485|NCT00901511|181501476|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-3.2||||0.0315|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Calculated as the difference at the 30-month visit in the median serum CEA levels in the GM-CSF Group minus the median serum CEA levels in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in median serum CEA levels between groups at the 30-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||||0.0315
90811486|NCT00901511|181501477|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3689.0||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6972.0|-406.0|||Repeated measures ANOVA|Data was evaluated via repeated measures ANOVA after adjustment for baseline values, gender, age, and number of patients at risk at each time point.|Calculated as the between group difference in the KL-6 levels in the GM-CSF Group minus the KL-6 levels in the Control Group|Primary Analysis||-406|-6972|0.0300
90811487|NCT00901511|181501477|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-3265.0||||0.077|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Calculated as the difference at the Pre-WLL visit in the median serum KL-6 levels in the GM-CSF Group minus the median KL-6 levels in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in median serum KL-6 levels between groups at the Pre-WLL visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||||0.0770
90811488|NCT00901511|181501477|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-5018.0||||0.0745|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Calculated as the difference at the baseline visit in the median serum KL-6 levels in the GM-CSF Group minus the median KL-6 levels in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in median serum KL-6 levels between groups at the baseline visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||||0.0745
90811489|NCT00901511|181501477|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-6343.0||||0.2581|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Calculated as the difference at the 1-month visit in the median serum KL-6 levels in the GM-CSF Group minus the median KL-6 levels in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in median serum KL-6 levels between groups at the 1-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||||0.2581
91015491|NCT05182840|181913582|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.69||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.15|10.24||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + 20 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||10.24|2.15|0.0001
91015492|NCT05182840|181913583|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.88||||0.0195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|7.02||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + 3 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||7.02|1.19|0.0195
91015493|NCT05182840|181913583|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.38||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.65|15.35||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + 10 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||15.35|2.65|0.0000
91055032|NCT02081209|181992096|OTHER||sucess percentage|79.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.0|89.5||||||||89.5|65.0|
90811490|NCT00901511|181501477|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-4102.0||||0.4894|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Calculated as the difference at the 3-month visit in the median serum KL-6 levels in the GM-CSF Group minus the median KL-6 levels in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in median serum KL-6 levels between groups at the 3-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||||0.4894
90811491|NCT00901511|181501477|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-6818.0|||>|0.9999|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Calculated as the difference at the 6-month visit in the median serum KL-6 levels in the GM-CSF Group minus the median KL-6 levels in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in median serum KL-6 levels between groups at the 6-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||||>0.9999
90811492|NCT00901511|181501477|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1570.0||||0.8633|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Calculated as the difference at the 10-month visit in the median serum KL-6 levels in the GM-CSF Group minus the median KL-6 levels in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in median serum KL-6 levels between groups at the 10-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||||0.8633
90811493|NCT00901511|181501477|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-4200.0||||0.3401|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Calculated as the difference at the 18-month visit in the median serum KL-6 levels in the GM-CSF Group minus the median KL-6 levels in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in median serum KL-6 levels between groups at the 18-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||||0.3401
91055033|NCT02081209|181992096|OTHER||sucess percentage|94.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|84.6|98.8||||||||98.8|84.6|
91055034|NCT02081209|181992097|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91055035|NCT02081209|181992097|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.1||||||||2.1|0.5|
90811494|NCT00901511|181501477|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-4307.0||||0.2973|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Calculated as the difference at the 30-month visit in the median serum KL-6 levels in the GM-CSF Group minus the median KL-6 levels in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in median serum KL-6 levels between groups at the 30-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||||0.2973
90811495|NCT00901511|181501478|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.04|||Repeated measures ANOVA||Calculated as the between group difference in the serum Cyfra21.1 levels in the GM-CSF Group minus the serum Cyfra21.1 levels in the Control Group|Primary Analysis||-0.04|-0.44|0.220
90811496|NCT00901511|181501478|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.76||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.8|0.42|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the Pre-WLL visit in the mean serum Cyfra21.1 levels in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean serum Cyfra21.1 levels in the Control Group|•The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean serum Cyfra21.1 levels between groups at the Pre-WLL visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||0.42|-28.80|0.0560
90811497|NCT00901511|181501478|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.15||0.0648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|0.29|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the baseline visit in the mean serum Cyfra21.1 levels in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean serum Cyfra21.1 levels in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean serum Cyfra21.1 levels between groups at the baseline visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||0.29|-8.80|0.0648
90811498|NCT00901511|181501478|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.36||0.0175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.28|-1.25|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 1-month visit in the mean serum Cyfra21.1 levels in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean serum Cyfra21.1 levels in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean serum Cyfra21.1 levels between groups at the 1-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||-1.25|-11.28|0.0175
90811499|NCT00901511|181501478|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.16||0.0148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.85|-3.76|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 3-month visit in the mean serum Cyfra21.1 levels in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean serum Cyfra21.1 levels in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean serum Cyfra21.1 levels between groups at the 3-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||-3.76|-29.85|0.0148
90811500|NCT00901511|181501478|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.82||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.27|-1.56|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 6-month visit in the mean serum Cyfra21.1 levels in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean serum Cyfra21.1 levels in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean serum Cyfra21.1 levels between groups at the 6-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||-1.56|-9.27|0.0089
90811501|NCT00901511|181501478|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.24||0.0343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.92|-0.43|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 10-month visit in the mean serum Cyfra21.1 levels in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean serum Cyfra21.1 levels in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean serum Cyfra21.1 levels between groups at the 10-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||-0.43|-9.92|0.0343
90811502|NCT00901511|181501478|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.33||0.0871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.21|0.69|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 18-month visit in the mean serum Cyfra21.1 levels in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean serum Cyfra21.1 levels in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean serum Cyfra21.1 levels between groups at the 18-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||0.69|-9.21|0.0871
90811503|NCT00901511|181501478|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.2265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.09|2.06|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 30-month visit in the mean serum Cyfra21.1 levels in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean serum Cyfra21.1 levels in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean serum Cyfra21.1 levels between groups at the 30-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||2.06|-8.09|0.2265
90811504|NCT00901511|181501479|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|8.78||||0.3865|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Calculated as the difference at the Pre-WLL visit in the median serum GMAb levels in the GM-CSF Group minus the median serum GMAb levels in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in median serum GMAb levels between groups at the Pre-WLL visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||||0.3865
90811505|NCT00901511|181501479|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|7.82||||0.1672|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Calculated as the difference at the baseline visit in the median serum GMAb levels in the GM-CSF Group minus the median serum GMAb levels in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in median serum GMAb levels between groups at the baseline visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||||0.1672
90811506|NCT00901511|181501479|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|4.24||||0.4363|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Calculated as the difference at the 1-month visit in the median serum GMAb levels in the GM-CSF Group minus the median serum GMAb levels in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in median serum GMAb levels between groups at the 1-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||||0.4363
90811507|NCT00901511|181501479|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|7.34||||0.1615|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Calculated as the difference at the 3-month visit in the median serum GMAb levels in the GM-CSF Group minus the median serum GMAb levels in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in median serum GMAb levels between groups at the 3-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||||0.1615
91055036|NCT02081209|181992097|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|4.1||||||||4.1|2.0|
90811508|NCT00901511|181501479|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|13.71||||0.1615|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Calculated as the difference at the 6-month visit in the median serum GMAb levels in the GM-CSF Group minus the median serum GMAb levels in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in median serum GMAb levels between groups at the 6-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||||0.1615
90811509|NCT00901511|181501479|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|11.1||||0.3865|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Calculated as the difference at the 10-month visit in the median serum GMAb levels in the GM-CSF Group minus the median serum GMAb levels in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in median serum GMAb levels between groups at the 10-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||||0.3865
90811510|NCT00901511|181501479|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|5.4||||0.6475|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||• Calculated as the difference at the 18-month visit in the median serum GMAb levels in the GM-CSF Group minus the median serum GMAb levels in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in median serum GMAb levels between groups at the 18-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||||0.6475
90811511|NCT00901511|181501479|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-7.0||||0.6481|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Calculated as the difference at the 30-month visit in the median serum GMAb levels in the GM-CSF Group minus the median serum GMAb levels in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in median serum GMAb levels between groups at the 30-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||||0.6481
90811512|NCT00901511|181501480|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.0582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.17|0.06|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the Pre-WLL visit in the mean WBC count in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean WBC count in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean WBC counts between groups at the Pre-WLL visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||0.06|-3.17|0.0582
90811513|NCT00901511|181501480|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09||0.3068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|3.48|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the baseline visit in the mean WBC count in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean WBC count in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean WBC counts between groups at the baseline visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||3.48|-1.17|0.3068
91015494|NCT05182840|181913583|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.39||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|15.67||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + 20 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||15.67|2.60|0.0001
90811514|NCT00901511|181501480|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.5647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|1.15|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 1-month visit in the mean WBC count in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean WBC count in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean WBC counts between groups at the 1-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||1.15|-2.04|0.5647
90811515|NCT00901511|181501480|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.1669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|0.4|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 3-month visit in the mean WBC count in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean WBC count in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean WBC counts between groups at the 3-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||0.40|-2.11|0.1669
91015495|NCT05182840|181913584|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.82||||0.1398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|4.04||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + 3 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||4.04|0.82|0.1398
91015496|NCT05182840|181913584|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.42||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.73|19.02||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + 10 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||19.02|3.73|0.0000
91015497|NCT05182840|181913584|OTHER|P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.98||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.28|10.9|||Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + 20 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||10.90|2.28|0.0001
91055037|NCT02081209|181992098|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Data from the 16-week follow-up questionnaire were tabulated for all subjects with completed questionnaires.. All confidence intervals were calculated at 95%. Alpha was calculated to be 0.05, critical probability (p\*) was calculated to be 0.975. Assuming normal distribution of survey recipients, a standard deviation of 1.96 is used to calculate the standard margin of error.|||
91055038|NCT02022748|181992103|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Means|151.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|112.03|203.86|||||Treatment H is the reference treatment.|||203.86|112.03|
91055039|NCT02022748|181992103|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Means|161.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|122.52|212.58|||||Treatment H is the reference treatment.|||212.58|122.52|
90811516|NCT00901511|181501480|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.69||0.453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|0.93|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 6-month visit in the mean WBC count in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean WBC count in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean WBC counts between groups at the 6-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||0.93|-1.99|0.4530
90811517|NCT00901511|181501480|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.4594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|0.97|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 10-month visit in the mean WBC count in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean WBC count in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean WBC counts between groups at the 10-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||0.97|-2.04|0.4594
90811518|NCT00901511|181501480|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.6302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|1.0|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 18-month visit in the mean WBC count in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean WBC count in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean WBC counts between groups at the 18-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||1.00|-1.61|0.6302
90811519|NCT00901511|181501480|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.24|0.8|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 30-month visit in the mean WBC count in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean WBC count in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean WBC counts between groups at the 30-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||0.80|-2.24|0.3300
90811520|NCT00901511|181501481|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-53.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|38.79||0.1864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-136.4|28.96|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the Pre-WLL visit in the mean platelet count in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean platelet count in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean platelet counts between groups at the Pre-WLL visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||28.96|-136.4|0.1864
90811521|NCT00901511|181501481|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|46.3||0.6541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-119.8|77.51|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the baseline visit in the mean platelet count in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean platelet count in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean platelet counts between groups at the baseline visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||77.51|-119.8|0.6541
90811522|NCT00901511|181501481|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|24.58||0.456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.89|33.33|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 1-month visit in the mean platelet count in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean platelet count in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean platelet counts between groups at the 1-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||33.33|-70.89|0.4560
90811523|NCT00901511|181501481|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-28.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|30.98||0.3721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-94.12|37.23|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 3-month visit in the mean platelet count in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean platelet count in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean platelet counts between groups at the 3-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||37.23|-94.12|0.3721
90811524|NCT00901511|181501481|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-28.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.58||0.1812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.41|14.86|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 6-month visit in the mean platelet count in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean platelet count in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean platelet counts between groups at the 6-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||14.86|-72.41|0.1812
90811525|NCT00901511|181501481|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|23.38||0.2805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.67|23.44|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 10-month visit in the mean platelet count in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean platelet count in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean platelet counts between groups at the 10-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||23.44|-75.67|0.2805
90811526|NCT00901511|181501481|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.75||0.247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.56|20.89|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 18-month visit in the mean platelet count in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean platelet count in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean platelet counts between groups at the 18-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||20.89|-75.56|0.2470
90811527|NCT00901511|181501481|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-31.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|23.57||0.207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.97|18.97|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 30-month visit in the mean platelet count in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean platelet count in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean platelet counts between groups at the 30-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||18.97|-80.97|0.2070
90811528|NCT00901511|181501482|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.72||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|11.33|||Repeated measures ANOVA|Data was evaluated via repeated measures ANOVA after adjustment for baseline values, gender, age, and number of patients at risk at each time point.|Calculated as the difference in the mean value of the SF-36 General Health Score in the GM-CSF Group minus the Control Group|Primary analysis||11.33|-1.88|0.1490
91055040|NCT02022748|181992103|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Means|90.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.07|103.98|||||A linear mixed model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects, and subject-within-sequence as a random effect, was used to analyze the natural log-transformed values of the PK parameters. Treatment B is the reference treatment.|||103.98|78.07|
91055041|NCT02022748|181992104|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Means|117.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.51|162.22|||||Treatment H is the reference treatment.|||162.22|84.51|
91055042|NCT02022748|181992104|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Means|136.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.38|194.7|||||Treatment H is the reference treatment.|||194.70|95.38|
90811529|NCT00901511|181501482|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.07||0.7263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.04|21.43|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the Pre-WLL visit in the mean SF-36 General Health Score in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean SF-36 General Health Score in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean SF-36 General Health Score between groups at the Pre-WLL visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||21.43|-30.04|0.7263
90811530|NCT00901511|181501482|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.29||0.3298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.24|25.91|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 1-month visit in the mean SF-36 General Health Score in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean SF-36 General Health Score in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in SF-36 General Health Score between groups at the 1-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||25.91|-9.24|0.3298
90811531|NCT00901511|181501482|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.48||0.0478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|27.62|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 3-month visit in the mean SF-36 General Health Score in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean SF-36 General Health Score in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in SF-36 General Health Score between groups at the 3-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||27.62|-0.15|0.0478
90811532|NCT00901511|181501482|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.37||0.0281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.16|33.39|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 6-month visit in the mean SF-36 General Health Score in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean SF-36 General Health Score in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean SF-36 General Health Score between groups at the 6-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||33.39|2.16|0.0281
90811533|NCT00901511|181501482|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.07||0.2634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.67|33.0|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 10-month visit in the mean SF-36 General Health Score in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean SF-36 General Health Score in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean SF-36 General Health Score between groups at the 10-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||33.00|-9.67|0.2634
90811534|NCT00901511|181501482|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.49||0.3548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.24|32.24|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 18-month visit in the mean SF-36 General Health Score in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean SF-36 General Health Score in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean SF-36 General Health Score between groups at the 18-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||32.24|-12.24|0.3548
90811535|NCT00901511|181501482|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.68||0.1043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.85|37.18|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 30-month visit in the mean SF-36 General Health Score in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean SF-36 General Health Score in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean SF-36 General Health Score between groups at the 30-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||37.18|-3.85|0.1043
90811536|NCT02880514|181501483|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0391||||||P-value not adjusted for multiplicity.|McNemar|McNemar's exact binomial test was employed to obtain the two-sided p-value at alpha level of 0.05.||||||0.0391
90811537|NCT02880514|181501484|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.68
90811538|NCT01444027|181501508|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||Bonferroni adjusted p-value for 3 pairwise comparisons|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline value of the measure, hospice agency, and bereaved status||||||0.002
90811539|NCT01444027|181501508|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9||||||Bonferroni adjusted p-value for 3 pairwise comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.90
90811540|NCT01444027|181501508|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||Bonferroni adjusted p-value for 3 pairwise comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline value of the measure, hospice agency, and bereaved status.||||||0.002
90811541|NCT01444027|181501509|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||Bonferroni adjusted p-value for 3 pairwise comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for the baseline value of the measure, hospice agency, and bereaved status.||||||0.001
90811542|NCT01444027|181501509|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48||||||Bonferroni adjusted p-value for 3 pairwise comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline value of the measure, hospice agency, and bereaved status.||||||0.48
90811543|NCT01444027|181501509|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||Bonferroni adjusted p-value for 3 pairwise comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline value of the measure, hospice agency, and bereaved status.||||||.01
91055043|NCT02022748|181992104|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Means|82.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|68.43|98.96|||||A linear mixed model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects, and subject-within-sequence as a random effect, was used to analyze the natural log-transformed values of the PK parameters. Treatment B is the reference treatment.|||98.96|68.43|
90811544|NCT01444027|181501510|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||Bonferroni adjusted p-value for 3 pairwise comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline value of the measure, hospice agency, and bereaved status.||||||0.001
90811545|NCT01444027|181501510|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline value of the measure, hospice agency, and bereaved status.||||||0.83
90811546|NCT01444027|181501510|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||Bonferroni adjusted p-value for 3 pairwise comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline value of the measure, hospice agency, and bereaved status.||||||0.001
90811547|NCT01444027|181501511|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||Bonferroni adjusted p-value for 3 pairwise comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline value of the measure, hospice agency, and bereaved status.||||||0.003
90811548|NCT01444027|181501511|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16||||||Bonferroni adjusted p-value for 3 pairwise comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline value of the measure, hospice agency, and bereaved status.||||||0.16
90811549|NCT01444027|181501511|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17||||||Bonferroni adjusted p-value for 3 pairwise comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline value of the measure, hospice agency, and bereaved status.||||||0.17
90811550|NCT01444027|181501512|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||Bonferroni adjusted p-value for 3 pairwise comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline value of the measure, hospice agency, and bereaved status.||||||0.001
91015498|NCT05182840|181913585|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.1884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|3.79||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + 3 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||3.79|0.77|0.1884
90811551|NCT01444027|181501512|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78||||||Bonferroni adjusted p-value for 3 pairwise comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline value of the measure, hospice agency, and bereaved status.||||||0.78
90811552|NCT01444027|181501512|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||Bonferroni adjusted p-value for 3 pairwise comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline value of the measure, hospice agency, and bereaved status.||||||0.004
90890327|NCT01581281|181645152|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.64||||0.4143|TWO_SIDED|98.3|-2.52|1.24||Each comparison was tested using a Bonferroni corrected significance level of 0.017 (0.05/3).|Regression, Linear|||Another major secondary objective was to determine if the change in absolute headache days from baseline to week 24 differed between treatment groups. This objective was assessed using linear regression models, with three pairwise comparisons between treatment groups (Amitriptyline vs. Placebo, Topiramate vs. Placebo, and Amitriptyline vs. Topiramate). The models, and corresponding odds ratios, were adjusted for the two stratification variables (age and baseline number of headache days).||1.24|-2.52|0.4143
90890328|NCT01581281|181645152|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.9038|TWO_SIDED|98.3|-1.68|1.52||Each comparison was tested using a Bonferroni corrected significance level of 0.017 (0.05/3).|Regression, Linear|||Another major secondary objective was to determine if the change in absolute headache days from baseline to week 24 differed between treatment groups. This objective was assessed using linear regression models, with three pairwise comparisons between treatment groups (Amitriptyline vs. Placebo, Topiramate vs. Placebo, and Amitriptyline vs. Topiramate). The models, and corresponding odds ratios, were adjusted for the two stratification variables (age and baseline number of headache days).||1.52|-1.68|0.9038
90890329|NCT01581281|181645153|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.07||||0.1557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|5.05|||Fisher Exact|||Tolerability was assessed by calculating the percent of subjects who completed the entire 24 week treatment period and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals for each treatment group. Concerns regarding tolerability would be raised if the upper bound of a confidence interval was less than 65% or if the percent of subjects who completed the entire 24 week treatment period in either of the active treatment groups was significantly less than the placebo group.||5.05|0.85|0.1557
91015499|NCT05182840|181913585|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.8||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.94|15.72||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + 10 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||15.72|2.94|0.0000
90890330|NCT01581281|181645153|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.31||||0.0754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|5.62|||Fisher Exact|||Tolerability was assessed by calculating the percent of subjects who completed the entire 24 week treatment period and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals for each treatment group. Concerns regarding tolerability would be raised if the upper bound of a confidence interval was less than 65% or if the percent of subjects who completed the entire 24 week treatment period in either of the active treatment groups was significantly less than the placebo group.||5.62|0.95|0.0754
91015500|NCT05182840|181913585|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.46||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|9.94||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + 20 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||9.94|2.00|0.0003
90890331|NCT01581281|181645153|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.7611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.62|||Fisher Exact|||Tolerability was assessed by calculating the percent of subjects who completed the entire 24 week treatment period and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals for each treatment group. Concerns regarding tolerability would be raised if the upper bound of a confidence interval was less than 65% or if the percent of subjects who completed the entire 24 week treatment period in either of the active treatment groups was significantly less than the placebo group.||1.62|0.49|0.7611
90890332|NCT01581281|181645154|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3038|||||||Fisher Exact|||The occurrence of treatment-related SAE's was assessed in two ways: 1) percentage of subjects who experience any treatment-related SAE in each of the three groups was compared using Fishers exact test; 2) rates of treatment-emergent SAS's across the three groups were compared using a Poisson regression model. However, due to the small number of SAEs that were deemed treatment-emergent (4 in AMI, 1 in TPM, 0 in PBO), the parameter estimates did not converge for the Poisson regression model.||||0.3038
90890333|NCT01581281|181645154|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||The occurrence of treatment-related SAE's was assessed in two ways: 1) percentage of subjects who experience any treatment-related SAE in each of the three groups was compared using Fishers exact test; 2) rates of treatment-emergent SAS's across the three groups were compared using a Poisson regression model. However, due to the small number of SAEs that were deemed treatment-emergent (4 in AMI, 1 in TPM, 0 in PBO), the parameter estimates did not converge for the Poisson regression model.||||1.000
91055044|NCT02022748|181992105|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Means|137.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|105.7|179.52|||||Treatment H is the reference treatment.|||179.52|105.70|
90890334|NCT01581281|181645154|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2139|||||||Fisher Exact|||The occurrence of treatment-related SAE's was assessed in two ways: 1) percentage of subjects who experience any treatment-related SAE in each of the three groups was compared using Fishers exact test; 2) rates of treatment-emergent SAS's across the three groups were compared using a Poisson regression model. However, due to the small number of SAEs that were deemed treatment-emergent (4 in AMI, 1 in TPM, 0 in PBO), the parameter estimates did not converge for the Poisson regression model.||||0.2139
90811553|NCT01514240|181501518|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A 2-sided 90% CI for the observed difference in the primary outcome measure (remission rate) between the D9421-C 9mg group and the Mesalazine 3 g group was calculated at week 8 using the Newcombe-Wilson score method without continuity correction. Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 90% CI was higher than -10% in FAS Population.|Difference of proportion|5.4||||0.526|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.49|18.94|||Chi-squared|||The primary objective of this study was to determine non-inferiority in the differences in remission rates at Week 8 for D9421-C 9 mg as compared to Mesalazine 3 g.||18.94|-8.49|0.526
90811554|NCT01514240|181501519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of proportion|1.8||||0.768|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.54|12.15|||Chi-squared||Differences in remission rate at Week 2 between D9421-C 9 mg and Mesalazine 3 g along with their 2-sided 90% CIs calculated by the Newcombe-Wilson score method without continuity correction|||12.15|-8.54|0.768
90811555|NCT01514240|181501520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of proportion|8.9||||0.208|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.87|20.58|||Chi-squared||Differences in remission rate at Week 4 between D9421-C 9 mg and Mesalazine 3 g along with their 2-sided 90% CIs calculated by the Newcombe-Wilson score method without continuity correction|||20.58|-2.87|0.208
90811556|NCT01514240|181501521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference between group|-22.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.89||0.058|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-42.55|-3.09|||Mixed Models Analysis||The analysis using a MMRM analysis including a covariate of the corresponding score at baseline,fixed effects of time (as a categorical factor) and treatment and interaction between time and treatment group.|||-3.09|-42.55|0.058
90811557|NCT01514240|181501522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference between group|-30.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.05||0.014|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-49.95|-9.96|||Mixed Models Analysis||The analysis using a MMRM analysis including a covariate of the corresponding score at baseline,fixed effects of time (as a categorical factor) and treatment and interaction between time and treatment group.|||-9.96|-49.95|0.014
90811558|NCT01514240|181501523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference between group|-21.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.53||0.144|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-45.47|2.74|||Mixed Models Analysis||The analysis using a MMRM analysis including a covariate of the corresponding score at baseline,fixed effects of time (as a categorical factor) and treatment and interaction between time and treatment group.|||2.74|-45.47|0.144
90811559|NCT01514240|181501527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of proportions|14.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|27.4|||||90% CI calculated using the Newcombe-Wilson score method without continuity corrections.|||27.40|0.50|
90811560|NCT01514240|181501528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of proportions|16.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.66|29.61|||||90% CI calculated using the Newcombe-Wilson score method without continuity corrections.|||29.61|1.66|
90811561|NCT01514240|181501529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of proportions|16.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|30.29|||||90% CI calculated using the Newcombe-Wilson score method without continuity corrections.|||30.29|0.85|
90811562|NCT01514240|181501530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of proportions|7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.67|19.71|||||90% CI calculated using the Newcombe-Wilson score method without continuity corrections.|||19.71|-5.67|
90811563|NCT01514240|181501531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of proportions|14.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|27.4|||||90% CI calculated using the Newcombe-Wilson score method without continuity corrections.|||27.40|0.50|
90811564|NCT01514240|181501532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of proportions|12.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.44|26.68|||||90% CI calculated using the Newcombe-Wilson score method without continuity corrections.|||26.68|-2.44|
91015501|NCT05182840|181913586|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.62||||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|3.46||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + 3 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||3.46|0.76|0.2140
91015502|NCT05182840|181913586|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.13||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.93|8.85||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + 10 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||8.85|1.93|0.0003
91055045|NCT02022748|181992105|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Means|148.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|115.07|192.32|||||Treatment H is the reference treatment.|||192.32|115.07|
90811565|NCT01514240|181501533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference between group|10.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.86|16.14|||||The analysis using a MMRM analysis including a covariate of the corresponding score at baseline,fixed effects of time (as a categorical factor) and treatment and interaction between time and treatment group.|||16.14|4.86|
90811566|NCT01514240|181501534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference between group|12.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.93|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.07|19.11|||||The analysis using a MMRM analysis including a covariate of the corresponding score at baseline,fixed effects of time (as a categorical factor) and treatment and interaction between time and treatment group.|||19.11|6.07|
90811567|NCT01514240|181501535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference between group|12.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.31|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.4|19.72|||||The analysis using a MMRM analysis including a covariate of the corresponding score at baseline,fixed effects of time (as a categorical factor) and treatment and interaction between time and treatment group.|||19.72|5.40|
90811568|NCT01514240|181501536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference between group|14.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.32|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.9|21.23|||||The analysis using a MMRM analysis including a covariate of the corresponding score at baseline,fixed effects of time (as a categorical factor) and treatment and interaction between time and treatment group.|||21.23|6.90|
90811569|NCT01514240|181501537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference between group|3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.49|5.29|||||The analysis using a MMRM analysis including a covariate of the corresponding score at baseline,fixed effects of time (as a categorical factor) and treatment and interaction between time and treatment group.|||5.29|1.49|
90811570|NCT01514240|181501538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference between group|3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.31|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.64|5.97|||||The analysis using a MMRM analysis including a covariate of the corresponding score at baseline,fixed effects of time (as a categorical factor) and treatment and interaction between time and treatment group.|||5.97|1.64|
90811571|NCT01514240|181501539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference between group|4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.53|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.58|6.64|||||The analysis using a MMRM analysis including a covariate of the corresponding score at baseline,fixed effects of time (as a categorical factor) and treatment and interaction between time and treatment group.|||6.64|1.58|
90811572|NCT01514240|181501540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference between group|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.47|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|5.76|||||The analysis using a MMRM analysis including a covariate of the corresponding score at baseline,fixed effects of time (as a categorical factor) and treatment and interaction between time and treatment group.|||5.76|0.90|
90811573|NCT01514240|181501541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference between group|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.89|3.17|||||The analysis using a MMRM analysis including a covariate of the corresponding score at baseline,fixed effects of time (as a categorical factor) and treatment and interaction between time and treatment group.|||3.17|0.89|
90811574|NCT01514240|181501542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference between group|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.73|3.19|||||The analysis using a MMRM analysis including a covariate of the corresponding score at baseline,fixed effects of time (as a categorical factor) and treatment and interaction between time and treatment group.|||3.19|0.73|
90811575|NCT01514240|181501543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference between group|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|3.76|||||The analysis using a MMRM analysis including a covariate of the corresponding score at baseline,fixed effects of time (as a categorical factor) and treatment and interaction between time and treatment group.|||3.76|0.96|
90811576|NCT01514240|181501544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference between group|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.15|4.09|||||The analysis using a MMRM analysis including a covariate of the corresponding score at baseline,fixed effects of time (as a categorical factor) and treatment and interaction between time and treatment group.|||4.09|1.15|
91055046|NCT02022748|181992105|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Means|90.35|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.55|105.27|||||A linear mixed model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects, and subject-within-sequence as a random effect, was used to analyze the natural log-transformed values of the PK parameters. Treatment B is the reference treatment.|||105.27|77.55|
90811577|NCT01514240|181501545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference between group|3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.43|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.44|6.19|||||The analysis using a MMRM analysis including a covariate of the corresponding score at baseline,fixed effects of time (as a categorical factor) and treatment and interaction between time and treatment group.|||6.19|1.44|
90811578|NCT01514240|181501546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference between group|4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.66|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.14|7.65|||||The analysis using a MMRM analysis including a covariate of the corresponding score at baseline,fixed effects of time (as a categorical factor) and treatment and interaction between time and treatment group.|||7.65|2.14|
90811579|NCT01514240|181501547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference between group|4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.76|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.4|7.25|||||The analysis using a MMRM analysis including a covariate of the corresponding score at baseline,fixed effects of time (as a categorical factor) and treatment and interaction between time and treatment group.|||7.25|1.40|
90811580|NCT01514240|181501548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference between group|6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.56|9.72|||||The analysis using a MMRM analysis including a covariate of the corresponding score at baseline,fixed effects of time (as a categorical factor) and treatment and interaction between time and treatment group.|||9.72|3.56|
90811581|NCT01514240|181501549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference between group|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.01|2.43|||||The analysis using a MMRM analysis including a covariate of the corresponding score at baseline,fixed effects of time (as a categorical factor) and treatment and interaction between time and treatment group.|||2.43|0.01|
90811582|NCT01514240|181501550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference between group|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.42|3.12|||||The analysis using a MMRM analysis including a covariate of the corresponding score at baseline,fixed effects of time (as a categorical factor) and treatment and interaction between time and treatment group.|||3.12|0.42|
90811583|NCT01514240|181501551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference between group|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.19|3.04|||||The analysis using a MMRM analysis including a covariate of the corresponding score at baseline,fixed effects of time (as a categorical factor) and treatment and interaction between time and treatment group.|||3.04|0.19|
91055047|NCT02022748|181992106|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Means|112.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.61|143.42|||||Treatment H is the reference treatment.|||143.42|88.61|
90811584|NCT01514240|181501552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference between group|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.15|2.76|||||The analysis using a MMRM analysis including a covariate of the corresponding score at baseline,fixed effects of time (as a categorical factor) and treatment and interaction between time and treatment group.|||2.76|-0.15|
90811585|NCT05858450|181501560|OTHER||Weighted Hazard Ratio|1.108|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.018|1.205||||||To account for imbalance in participant characteristics between the vaccine exposure groups, an inverse probability of treatment weights (IPTW) was applied. Analysis performed using IPTW method.||1.205|1.018|
90811586|NCT05858450|181501560|OTHER||Weighted Hazard Ratio|0.634|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.606|0.664||||||To account for imbalance in participant characteristics between the vaccine exposure groups, an IPTW was applied. Analysis performed using IPTW method.||0.664|0.606|
90811587|NCT05858450|181501561|OTHER||Weighted Hazard Ratio|1.061|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.016|1.107||||||To account for imbalance in participant characteristics between the vaccine exposure groups, an IPTW was applied. Analysis performed using IPTW method.||1.107|1.016|
90811588|NCT05858450|181501561|OTHER||Weighted Hazard Ratio|0.897|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.875|0.919||||||To account for imbalance in participant characteristics between the vaccine exposure groups, an IPTW was applied. Analysis performed using IPTW method.||0.919|0.875|
90811589|NCT05858450|181501562|OTHER||Weighted Hazard Ratio|1.543|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.133|2.1||||||To account for imbalance in participant characteristics between the vaccine exposure groups, an IPTW was applied. Analysis performed using IPTW method.||2.1|1.133|
91015503|NCT05182840|181913586|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.43||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.52|11.71||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + 20 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||11.71|2.52|0.0000
90811590|NCT05858450|181501562|OTHER||Weighted Hazard Ratio|1.106|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.014|1.206||||||To account for imbalance in participant characteristics between the vaccine exposure groups, an IPTW was applied. Analysis performed using IPTW method.||1.206|1.014|
90811591|NCT05858450|181501563|OTHER||Weighted Hazard Ratio|1.048|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.903|1.217||||||To account for imbalance in participant characteristics between the vaccine exposure groups, an IPTW was applied. Analysis performed using IPTW method.||1.217|0.903|
90811592|NCT05858450|181501563|OTHER||Weighted Hazard Ratio|0.908|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.846|0.973||||||To account for imbalance in participant characteristics between the vaccine exposure groups, an IPTW was applied. Analysis performed using IPTW method.||0.973|0.846|
90811593|NCT05858450|181501564|OTHER||Weighted Hazard Ratio|1.137|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.068|1.211||||||To account for imbalance in participant characteristics between the vaccine exposure groups, an IPTW was applied. Analysis performed using IPTW method.||1.211|1.068|
91015504|NCT05182840|181913587|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.1884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|3.79||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + 3 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||3.79|0.77|0.1884
91015505|NCT05182840|181913587|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.8||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.94|15.72||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + 10 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||15.72|2.94|0.0000
91015506|NCT05182840|181913587|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.46||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|9.94||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + 20 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||9.94|2.00|0.0003
91015507|NCT05182840|181913588|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.18||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|3.61||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of 3 mg BI 690517 vs. Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||3.61|1.32|0.0024
90811594|NCT05858450|181501564|OTHER||Weighted Hazard Ratio|1.057|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.007|1.11||||||To account for imbalance in participant characteristics between the vaccine exposure groups, an IPTW was applied. Analysis performed using IPTW method.||1.11|1.007|
91055048|NCT02022748|181992106|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Means|114.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.19|143.45|||||Treatment H is the reference treatment.|||143.45|91.19|
90811595|NCT05858450|181501565|OTHER||Weighted Hazard Ratio|0.761|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.718|0.807||||||To account for imbalance in participant characteristics between the vaccine exposure groups, an IPTW was applied. Analysis performed using IPTW method.||0.807|0.718|
90811596|NCT05858450|181501565|OTHER||Weighted Hazard Ratio|0.858|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.811|0.907||||||To account for imbalance in participant characteristics between the vaccine exposure groups, an IPTW was applied. Analysis performed using IPTW method.||0.907|0.811|
91055049|NCT02022748|181992106|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Means|93.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.31|108.0|||||A linear mixed model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects, and subject-within-sequence as a random effect, was used to analyze the natural log-transformed values of the PK parameters. Treatment B is the reference treatment.|||108.00|80.31|
90811597|NCT05858450|181501566|OTHER||Weighted Hazard Ratio|1.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.731||||||To account for imbalance in participant characteristics between the vaccine exposure groups, an IPTW was applied. Analysis performed using IPTW method.||2.731|0.88|
90811598|NCT05858450|181501566|OTHER||Weighted Hazard Ratio|1.035|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.865|1.238||||||To account for imbalance in participant characteristics between the vaccine exposure groups, an IPTW was applied. Analysis performed using IPTW method.||1.238|0.865|
90811599|NCT05858450|181501567|OTHER||Weighted Hazard Ratio|0.921|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.687|1.233||||||To account for imbalance in participant characteristics between the vaccine exposure groups, an IPTW was applied. Analysis performed using IPTW method.||1.233|0.687|
90811600|NCT05858450|181501567|OTHER||Weighted Hazard Ratio|0.826|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.722|0.945||||||To account for imbalance in participant characteristics between the vaccine exposure groups, an IPTW was applied. Analysis performed using IPTW method.||0.945|0.722|
90811601|NCT05858450|181501568|OTHER||Weighted Hazard Ratio|1.569|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.088|2.264||||||To account for imbalance in participant characteristics between the vaccine exposure groups, an IPTW was applied. Analysis performed using IPTW method.||2.264|1.088|
90811602|NCT05858450|181501568|OTHER||Weighted Hazard Ratio|1.118|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.015|1.233||||||To account for imbalance in participant characteristics between the vaccine exposure groups, an IPTW was applied. Analysis performed using IPTW method.||1.233|1.015|
90811603|NCT05858450|181501569|OTHER||Weighted Hazard Ratio|1.082|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.911|1.286||||||To account for imbalance in participant characteristics between the vaccine exposure groups, an IPTW was applied. Analysis performed using IPTW method.||1.286|0.911|
91015508|NCT05182840|181913588|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.05||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.39|6.86||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of 10 mg BI 690517 vs. Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||6.86|2.39|0.0000
91015509|NCT05182840|181913588|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.87||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.29|6.55||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of 20 mg BI 690517 vs. Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||6.55|2.29|0.0000
91015510|NCT05182840|181913589|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.26||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|3.77||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of 3 mg BI 690517 vs. Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||3.77|1.35|0.0019
91015511|NCT05182840|181913589|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.81||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|6.59||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of 10 mg BI 690517 vs. Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||6.59|2.20|0.0000
91015512|NCT05182840|181913589|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.67||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.12|6.35||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of 20 mg BI 690517 vs. Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||6.35|2.12|0.0000
91015513|NCT05182840|181913590|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67||||0.0418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|2.74||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of 3 mg BI 690517 vs. Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||2.74|1.02|0.0418
91015514|NCT05182840|181913590|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.91||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|6.65||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of 10 mg BI 690517 vs. Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||6.65|2.30|0.0000
91015515|NCT05182840|181913590|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.58||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.11|6.05||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of 20 mg BI 690517 vs. Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||6.05|2.11|0.0000
91015516|NCT05182840|181913591|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.26||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|3.77||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of 3 mg BI 690517 vs. Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||3.77|1.35|0.0019
91015517|NCT05182840|181913591|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.81||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|6.59||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of 10 mg BI 690517 vs. Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||6.59|2.20|0.0000
91015518|NCT05182840|181913591|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.67||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.12|6.35||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of 20 mg BI 690517 vs. Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||6.35|2.12|0.0000
91055050|NCT02022748|181992107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.97|0.75|||||Treatment A - Treatment H.|||0.75|-0.97|
90811604|NCT05858450|181501569|OTHER||Weighted Hazard Ratio|0.932|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.859|1.01||||||To account for imbalance in participant characteristics between the vaccine exposure groups, an IPTW was applied. Analysis performed using IPTW method.||1.01|0.859|
91055051|NCT02022748|181992107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.96|1.52|||||Treatment B - Treatment H.|||1.52|-0.96|
91055052|NCT02022748|181992107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of Least Square Means|-0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.73|1.02|||||A linear mixed model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects, and subject-within-sequence as a random effect, was used to analyze the natural log-transformed values of the PK parameters. Treatment A - Treatment B.|||1.02|-1.73|
91055053|NCT02022748|181992108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.62|0.48|||||Treatment A - Treatment H.|||0.48|-2.62|
90811605|NCT00395291|181501604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The IGF-1 data were analyzed on the natural logarithmic scale via a linear mixed model in correspondence to a 2-period crossover design ANCOVA.|ANCOVA|||"Null hypothesis: the intra-subject pre-intervention to post-intervention change in IGF-1 is the same for both the MK-0677 and placebo interventions.~Power calculation: We assumed that the IGF-I data will be lognormally distributed and thus the parameter of interest will be the IGF-1 geometric mean. If n=22 individuals complete the study and the intervention effect is 48% greater for one intervention than the other we will have at least 0.80 power to reject the null hypothesis."||||<0.001
90811606|NCT00395291|181501605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.169|||||||ANCOVA|The Acyl-Ghrelin data were analyzed on the natural logarithmic scale via a linear mixed model in correspondence to a 2-period crossover design ANCOVA.||"Null hypothesis: the intra-subject pre-intervention to post-intervention change in Acyl-Ghrelin is the same for both the MK-0677 and placebo interventions.~Because Acyl-Ghrelin is considered as a secondary outcome, no power analysis was conducted."||||0.169
90811607|NCT00395291|181501606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.063|||||||ANCOVA|The Leptin data were analyzed on the natural logarithmic scale via a linear mixed model in correspondence to a 2-period crossover design ANCOVA.||"Null hypothesis: the intra-subject pre-intervention to post-intervention change in leptin is the same for both the MK-0677 and placebo interventions.~Because Leptin is considered a secondary outcome, no power analysis was conducted."||||0.063
90811608|NCT00395291|181501607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.075|||||||ANCOVA|The insulin data were analyzed on the natural logarithmic scale via a linear mixed model in correspondence to a 2-period crossover design ANCOVA.||"Null hypothesis: the intra-subject pre-intervention to post-intervention change in serum-insulin is the same for both the MK-0677 and placebo interventions.~Because serum-insulin is considered a secondary outcome, no power analysis was conducted."||||0.075
90811609|NCT00395291|181501608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.782||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.782
90811610|NCT00395291|181501609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.385|||||||ANCOVA|The TNF-a data were analyzed on the natural logarithmic scale via a linear mixed model in correspondence to a 2-period crossover design ANCOVA.||"Null hypothesis: the intra-subject pre-intervention to post-intervention change in TNF-a is the same for both the MK-0677 and placebo interventions.~Because Acyl-Ghrelin is considered as a secondary outcome, no power analysis was conducted."||||0.385
90811611|NCT00395291|181501610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.929|||||||ANCOVA|The CRPs data were analyzed on the natural logarithmic scale via a linear mixed model in correspondence to a 2-period crossover design ANCOVA.||"Null hypothesis: the intra-subject pre-intervention to post-intervention change in CRPs is the same for both the MK-0677 and placebo interventions.~Because CRPs is considered as a secondary outcome, no power analysis was conducted."||||0.929
90811612|NCT00395291|181501611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.905|||||||ANCOVA|The IL-1 data were analyzed on the natural logarithmic scale via a linear mixed model in correspondence to a 2-period crossover design ANCOVA.||"Null hypothesis: the intra-subject pre-intervention to post-intervention change in IL-1 is the same for both the MK-0677 and placebo interventions.~Because IL-1 is considered as a secondary outcome, no power analysis was conducted"||||0.905
90811613|NCT00395291|181501612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.233||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.233
90811614|NCT00395291|181501613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.277|||||||ANCOVA|The IL-10 data were analyzed on the natural logarithmic scale via a linear mixed model in correspondence to a 2-period crossover design ANCOVA.||"Null hypothesis: the intra-subject pre-intervention to post-intervention change in IL-10 is the same for both the MK-0677 and placebo interventions.~Because IL-10 is considered as a secondary outcome, no power analysis was conducted."||||0.277
90811615|NCT00395291|181501614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.875|||||||ANCOVA|The esterase data were analyzed on the natural logarithmic scale via a linear mixed model in correspondence to a 2-period crossover design ANCOVA.||"Null hypothesis: the intra-subject pre-intervention to post-intervention change in esterase is the same for both the MK-0677 and placebo interventions.~Because Acyl-Ghrelin is considered as a secondary outcome, no power analysis was conducted."||||0.875
90811616|NCT00395291|181501615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.545|||||||ANCOVA|The adiponectin data were analyzed on the natural logarithmic scale via a linear mixed model in correspondence to a 2-period crossover design ANCOVA.||"Null hypothesis: the intra-subject pre-intervention to post-intervention change in adiponectin is the same for both the MK-0677 and placebo interventions.~Because Acyl-Ghrelin is considered as a secondary outcome, no power analysis was conducted."||||0.545
90811617|NCT00395291|181501616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||ANCOVA|Total ghrelin data were analyzed on the natural logarithmic scale via a linear mixed model in correspondence to a 2-period crossover design ANCOVA.||"Null hypothesis: the intra-subject pre-intervention to post-intervention change in Total-Ghrelin is the same for both the MK-0677 and placebo interventions.~Because Acyl-Ghrelin is considered as a secondary outcome, no power analysis was conducted."||||0.900
90811618|NCT03710876|181501623|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.59||1-sided|Log Rank|||||1.59|0.43|0.2840
91055054|NCT02022748|181992108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.46|0.37|||||Treatment B - Treatment H.|||0.37|-2.46|
90811619|NCT03710876|181501625|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.9||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|24.3||2-sided|Fisher Exact||Risk difference is proportion achieving objective response in r+C+G group minus the proportion achieving objective response in C+ G group. The confidence interval was calculated by the exact conditional method of Chan and Zhang.|||24.3|-17.3|1.0000
90811620|NCT03710876|181501626|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.2||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.2|29.2|||Fisher Exact||Risk difference is proportion achieving response in r+C+G group minus the proportion achieving response in C+ G group. The confidence interval was calculated by the exact conditional method of Chan and Zhang.|||29.2|-25.2|1.0000
90811621|NCT03710876|181501627|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.6||||0.7665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.9|20.3|||Fisher Exact||Risk difference is proportion achieving response in r+C+G group minus the proportion achieving response in C+ G group. The confidence interval was calculated by the exact conditional method of Chan and Zhang.|||20.3|-34.9|0.7665
90811622|NCT03710876|181501628|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.4||||0.7537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.7|23.0||2-sided.|Chi-squared|Variance calculated by Greenwood's method.|Risk difference is estimated probability of survival in r+C+G minus the estimated probability of survival in C+G group.|Percentage proportion calculated by Kaplan-Meier method.||23.0|-31.7|0.7537
90811623|NCT03710876|181501629|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.4||||0.1855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|45.6||2-sided|Chi-squared|Variance calculated by Greenwood's method|Risk difference is estimated probability of survival in r+C+G minus the estimated probability of survival in C+G group.|Percentage proportion calculated by Kaplan-Meier method.||45.6|-8.8|0.1855
90811624|NCT03710876|181501630|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.2||||0.357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|38.3||2-sided|Chi-squared|Variance calculated by Greenwood's method|Risk difference is estimated probability of survival in r+C+G minus the estimated probability of survival in C+G group.|Percentage proportion calculated by Kaplan-Meier method.||38.3|-13.8|0.3570
90811625|NCT03710876|181501631|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.5||||0.2856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|38.3||2-sided|Chi-squared|Variance calculated by Greenwood's method.|Risk difference is estimated probability of survival in r+C+G minus the estimated probability of survival in C+G group.|Percentage proportion calculated by Kaplan-Meier method.||38.3|-11.3|0.2856
90811626|NCT03710876|181501632|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.1||||0.6173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|30.0||2-sided|Chi-squared|Variance calculated by Greenwood's method.|Risk difference is estimated probability of survival in r+C+G minus the estimated probability of survival in C+G group.|Percentage proportion calculated by Kaplan-Meier method.||30.0|-17.8|0.6173
90811627|NCT03710876|181501633|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.1||||0.6173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|30.0||2-sided|Chi-squared|Variance calculated by Greenwood's method.|Risk difference is estimated probability of survival in r+C+G minus the estimated probability of survival in C+G group.|Percentage proportion calculated by Kaplan-Meier method.||30.0|-17.8|0.6173
91015519|NCT05182840|181913592|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2||||0.0285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|4.45||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + 3 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||4.45|1.09|0.0285
91015520|NCT05182840|181913592|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.9||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|5.96||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + 10 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||5.96|1.41|0.0038
90811628|NCT01460719|181501635|OTHER|The statistical criterion for significance requires that the lower bound of the 2-sided 90% confidence interval of the GMFR is \>1.0.|||||<|0.001|||||||Single longitudinal regression model|Adjustments made for pre-vaccination values||||||<0.001
90811629|NCT01151761|181501642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||months|8.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|10.0|||||There were only two patients in the study. Both died without having any local failure. One patient died at 10 months, the other at 7 months. The range for the 95%CI is both the full range and the 95%CI.|The median Progression Free Survival (PFS) time as calculated using Kaplan Meier methodology. For PFS both death and progression are counted as events.||10|7|
90811630|NCT01151761|181501647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||proportion of participants|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||None of the two patients who participated had a local recurrence before they died.|||||
90811631|NCT04699032|181501717|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare the natural log transformed Cmax for apraglutide between normal renal function group (Reference) and the severe impaired renal group (Test). Estimates of the mean differences and corresponding 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were obtained from the model. The mean differences and 90% CIs for the mean differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the geometric least-square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.|Geometric least-square mean ratio|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.423|0.909||||||||0.909|0.423|
90811632|NCT04699032|181501718|OTHER|ANOVA was used to compare the natural log transformed AUCinf for apraglutide between normal renal function group (Reference) and the severe impaired renal group (Test). Estimates of the mean differences and corresponding 90% CIs were obtained from the model. The mean differences and 90% CIs for the mean differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the geometric least-square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.|Geometric least-square mean ratio|0.694|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.458|1.05||||||||1.050|0.458|
91055055|NCT02022748|181992108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of Least Square Means|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.27|0.27|||||A linear mixed model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects, and subject-within-sequence as a random effect, was used to analyze the natural log-transformed values of the PK parameters. Treatment A - Treatment B.|||0.27|-1.27|
91055056|NCT04663295|181992124|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|7.9||One-sided test at significant level of 0.025.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Signed rank test comparing baseline and study period.||||7.9|3.3|<0.001
90811633|NCT03022097|181501721|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.092|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.124||Pre-specified hierarchical sequence of testing used to adjust for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|Screening pre- and post-bronchodilator FEV1, age, baseline FEV1 as covariates; treatment, country, smoking, visit and group-by-visit as factors.||||0.124|0.060|<0.001
90811634|NCT03022097|181501722|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.085|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.053|0.117||Pre-specified hierarchical sequence of testing used to adjust for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|Screening pre- and post-bronchodilator FEV1, age, baseline FEV1 as covariates; treatment, country, smoking, visit and group-by-visit as factors.||||0.117|0.053|<0.001
90811635|NCT03022097|181501723|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.134|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.103|0.166||Pre-specified hierarchical sequence of testing used to adjust for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|Screening pre- and post-bronchodilator FEV1, age, baseline FEV1 as covariates; treatment, country, smoking, visit and group-by-visit as factors.||||0.166|0.103|<0.001
90811636|NCT03022097|181501724|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.217|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.184|0.25||Pre-specified hierarchical sequence of testing used to adjust for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|Screening pre- and post-bronchodilator FEV1, age, baseline FEV1 as covariates; treatment, country, smoking, visit and group-by-visit as factors.||||0.250|0.184|<0.001
90811637|NCT03022097|181501725|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.3||Pre-specified hierarchical sequence of testing used to adjust for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|BDI, age as covariates; treatment, country, smoking, visit and group-by-visit as factors.||||1.3|0.2|0.005
90811638|NCT03022097|181501725|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.0||Pre-specified hierarchical sequence of testing used to adjust for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|BDI, age as covariates; treatment, country, smoking, visit and group-by-visit as factors.||||1.0|-0.1|0.132
90811639|NCT03022097|181501726|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|-1.4||Pre-specified hierarchical sequence of testing used to adjust for multiplicity. P-value is nominal.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline SGRQ, age as covariates; treatment, country, smoking, visit and group-by-visit as factors.||||-1.4|-6.7|0.003
90811640|NCT03022097|181501726|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|-0.3||Pre-specified hierarchical sequence of testing used to adjust for multiplicity. P-value is nominal.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline SGRQ, age as covariates; treatment, country, smoking, visit and group-by-visit as factors.||||-0.3|-5.5|0.031
90811641|NCT00623545|181501727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|185.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|240.0||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The a prior threshold for statistical significance was p\< 0.05|ANOVA||units are kcal/d|Previously published literature showed an average weight loss of 1.8 kg at 12 weeks of exenatide treatment. This was converted to differ- ence in TEE, estimating an average imbalance of 2 kg × 7800 kcal·kg-1 divided by 84 days or 185 kcal·day-1.We demonstrated an average reproducibility of the DLW method of 6% or 240 kcal·day-1. For a 5% probability of finding this difference with a power of 80%, we determined a need for 14 subjects to complete the study.||||0.001
90811642|NCT00623545|181501727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
90811643|NCT00623545|181501728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis was that energy intake was unchanged between the period before treatment and at the end of treatment.||||< 0.05
90811644|NCT00623545|181501728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
90811645|NCT04239222|181501729|SUPERIORITY|A sample size of 22 subjects was required to provide 80% power to detect a difference of 5 points on the PLUS-M scale using Wilcoxon's matched pairs signed ranks test and alpha of 0.05. A standard deviation of 7.7 was used to calculate the sample size.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.17||0.286|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Difference represents Revo-M - Everyday Foot,|HO: μRevo-M ≤ μEveryday, μRevo-M is the mean PLUS-M score using the Revo-M and μEveryday is the mean PLUS-M score using the Everyday foot at baseline.|2-sided Wilcoxon matched pairs signed ranks test, n=23 (11 negative, 8 positive and 4 null), Z=-1.066.|||0.286
91055057|NCT00945100|181992145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk difference (unadjusted)|22.0||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|35.0|||Regression, Logistic|The logistic regression model included amblyopic eye visual acuity at randomization as an adjustment covariate.||||35|8|0.003
90811646|NCT04239222|181501730|SUPERIORITY|A sample size of 21 subjects was required to provide 80% power to detect a difference of 0.2 points in the TAPES-AR score using Wilcoxon's matched pairs signed ranks test and alpha of 0.05. A standard deviation of 0.3 was used to calculate the sample size.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.094|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.212||0.031|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Difference represents Revo-M - Everyday Foot.|HO: μRevo-M ≥ μEveryday, μRevo-M is the mean TAPES-AR score using the Revo-M and μEveryday is the mean TAPES-AR score using the Everyday foot at baseline.|2-sided Wilcoxon matched pairs signed ranks test, n=23 (5 negative, 13 positive and 5 null), Z=-2.156|||0.031
90811647|NCT04239222|181501732|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.331|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.29||0.421|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Difference represents Revo-M - Everyday Foot.|HO: μRevo-M ≤ μEveryday, μRevo-M is the mean ABC score using the Revo-M and μEveryday is the mean ABC score using the Everyday foot at baseline.|2-sided Wilcoxon matched pairs signed ranks test, n=23 (12 negative, 7 positive and 4 null), Z=-0.805.|||0.421
90811648|NCT04239222|181501733|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.087|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.844||0.443|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Difference represents Revo-M - Everyday Foot.|HO: μRevo-M ≤ μEveryday, μRevo-M is the mean TAPES-FUN score using the Revo-M and μEveryday is the mean TAPES-FUN score using the Everyday foot at baseline.|2-sided Wilcoxon matched pairs signed ranks test, n=23 (6 negative, 9 positive and 8 null), Z=-0.767.|||0.443
90811649|NCT02139878|181501749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.088|||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.088
90811650|NCT02139878|181501750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.98|||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.980
90811651|NCT01089023|181501763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||p-value measures the significance between each visit using analysis of variance|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
90811652|NCT01089023|181501764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||p-value measures the significance between each visit using analysis of variance|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
90811653|NCT03410797|181501773|OTHER|Due to small sample size, nonparametric Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were used to compare VHI-10 before and after therapy.|Median Difference (Net)|7.0||||0.0076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Descriptive statistics characterized this patient perception measurement.||||.0076
90811654|NCT03410797|181501774|OTHER|Descriptive statistics characterized acoustic and aerodynamic measures, and patient perception measurements.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.53||||0.0329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.0329
90811655|NCT03410797|181501775|OTHER|Descriptive statistics characterized acoustic and aerodynamic measures, and patient perception measurements.|Median Difference (Net)|15.39||||0.0164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.0164
90811656|NCT03410797|181501776|OTHER|Descriptive statistics characterized acoustic and aerodynamic measures, and patient perception measurements.|Median Difference (Net)|-52.0||||0.1141|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1141
90811657|NCT03410797|181501777|OTHER|Descriptive statistics characterized acoustic and aerodynamic measures, and patient perception measurements.|Median Difference (Net)|-1.7||||0.3329|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.3329
90811658|NCT01185964|181501779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.672||||0.0615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.442|1.021|||Log Rank|||||1.021|0.442|0.0615
90811659|NCT01185964|181501782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.463||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.301|0.71|||Log Rank|||||0.710|0.301|0.0003
90811660|NCT05894538|181501790|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.12|||||The interval is a highest-density credible interval. Adjustment variables: randomization, age, sex, duration of symptoms prior to study drug, calendar time, vaccination status, geographic region, call center indicator, and baseline symptom severity.|||1.12|0.92|
90811661|NCT05894538|181501791|SUPERIORITY|Due to the low event rate, a posterior probability was not estimated.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|17.18|||||Low event rate precluded covariate adjustment.|||17.18|0.74|
90811662|NCT05894538|181501794|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.45|||||The interval is a highest-density credible interval. Adjustment variables: randomization, age, sex, duration of symptoms prior to study drug, calendar time, vaccination status, geographic region, call center indicator, and baseline symptom severity.|||1.45|0.60|
90811663|NCT05894538|181501798|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.96|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||0.96|0.61|
90811664|NCT05894538|181501798|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.85|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||0.85|0.49|
90811665|NCT05894538|181501798|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.92|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||0.92|0.52|
90811666|NCT05894538|181501798|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.36|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.36|0.72|
90811667|NCT05894538|181501799|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.56|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||1.56|1.03|
90811668|NCT05894538|181501799|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.51|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.51|1.00|
90811669|NCT05894538|181501799|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.35|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||1.35|0.87|
90811670|NCT05894538|181501799|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.32|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.32|0.86|
90811671|NCT05894538|181501800|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.26|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||1.26|0.81|
90811672|NCT05894538|181501800|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.66|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.66|1.00|
90811673|NCT05894538|181501800|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|2.02|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||2.02|1.15|
91055058|NCT00945100|181992146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.0|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included interocular difference at randomization as an adjustment covariate.||||1.0|0.1|0.01
90811674|NCT05894538|181501800|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.47|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.47|0.86|
90811675|NCT05894538|181501801|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.24|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||1.24|0.76|
90811676|NCT05894538|181501801|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.3|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.30|0.75|
90811677|NCT05894538|181501801|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.25|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||1.25|0.72|
90811678|NCT05894538|181501801|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.28|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.28|0.75|
90811679|NCT05894538|181501802|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.33|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||1.33|0.84|
91015521|NCT05182840|181913592|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.15||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.97|8.72||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + 20 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||8.72|1.97|0.0002
91015522|NCT05182840|181913593|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.56||||0.0116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|5.31||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + 3 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||5.31|1.23|0.0116
91015523|NCT05182840|181913593|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.08||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|6.52||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + 10 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||6.52|1.46|0.0032
91015524|NCT05182840|181913593|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.07||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.86|8.91||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + 20 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||8.91|1.86|0.0004
91015525|NCT05182840|181913594|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.4092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|2.69||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + 3 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||2.69|0.67|0.4092
91015526|NCT05182840|181913594|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.66||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|7.58||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + 10 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||7.58|1.77|0.0005
91015527|NCT05182840|181913594|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.04||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.92|8.49||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + 20 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||8.49|1.92|0.0002
91015528|NCT05182840|181913595|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.16||||0.0348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|4.43||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + 3 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||4.43|1.06|0.0348
91015529|NCT05182840|181913595|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.08||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.73|13.57||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + 10 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||13.57|2.73|0.0000
91055059|NCT00945100|181992148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.0|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included amblyopic eye visual acuity at randomization as an adjustment covariate.||The primary analysis was a treatment group comparison of the masked 10-week amblyopic eye visual acuity using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model, adjusting for visual acuity at randomization. The analysis was a 2-sided test for efficacy to test the null hypothesis of no treatment difference, assuming 90% power and a type I error rate of 5%.||1.0|0.3|0.002
90811680|NCT05894538|181501802|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.43|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.43|0.87|
90811681|NCT05894538|181501802|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.55|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||1.55|0.91|
91015530|NCT05182840|181913595|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.58||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.71|7.52||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + 20 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||7.52|1.71|0.0007
91015531|NCT05182840|181913596|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.01||||0.0578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|4.14||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + 3 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||4.14|0.98|0.0578
91015532|NCT05182840|181913596|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.12||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.23|11.78||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + 10 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||11.78|2.23|0.0001
91015533|NCT05182840|181913596|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.32||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|7.16||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + 20 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||7.16|1.54|0.0022
91015534|NCT05182840|181913597|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.17||||0.0342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|4.44||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + 3 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||4.44|1.06|0.0342
91015535|NCT05182840|181913597|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.23||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.93|9.24||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + 10 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||9.24|1.93|0.0003
91015536|NCT05182840|181913597|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.19||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|6.73||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + 20 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||6.73|1.52|0.0023
91015537|NCT05182840|181913598|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.56||||0.0116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|5.31||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + 3 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||5.31|1.23|0.0116
91015538|NCT05182840|181913598|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.08||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|6.52||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + 10 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||6.52|1.46|0.0032
91015539|NCT05182840|181913598|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.07||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.86|8.91||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + 20 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||8.91|1.86|0.0004
91015540|NCT05182840|181913599|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.01||||0.0578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|4.14||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + 3 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||4.14|0.98|0.0578
91015541|NCT05182840|181913599|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.12||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.23|11.78||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + 10 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||11.78|2.23|0.0001
91015542|NCT05182840|181913599|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.32||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|7.16||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + 20 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||7.16|1.54|0.0022
91015543|NCT01375491|181913654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05||95.0||||See published paper.|ANOVA|See published paper.||See published paper.||||<0.05
91015544|NCT05689554|181913657|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.944|1.306|||Log Rank|||||1.306|.944|0.11
91015545|NCT05689554|181913658|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.24||||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.7|||Regression, modified Poisson|||||1.7|.9|0.183
91015546|NCT00157157|181913670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.95||||||95.0|1.29|19.06||||||||19.06|1.29|
91015547|NCT00157157|181913671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.18||||||95.0|1.18|14.82||||||||14.82|1.18|
91015548|NCT00157157|181913672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.5||||||95.0|1.05|19.25||||||||19.25|1.05|
91015549|NCT02260804|181913673|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin of ±17% was predefined.|Difference in proportion|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.43|10.2||||||||10.2|-6.43|
91015550|NCT04888377|181913685|NON_INFERIORITY|The primary hypothesis of non-inferiority was tested by calculating the mean difference between treatment arms and its associated 90% confidence interval for the primary outcome. If the lower bound of the 90% confidence interval was greater than -4, then LDA was assumed to be non-inferior to placebo. If non-inferiority were assumed, a one-sided t-test would test the benefit of LDA compared to placebo. All models controlled for site as the original randomization stratification factor.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.6||For each outcome, the adjusted mean difference between treatment groups and the associated 95% confidence interval based on an ANCOVA model is presented.|ANCOVA||Mean difference is Aspirin-Placebo.|Assuming a non-inferiority margin of 4 points in the BSID-III cognitive score as clinically significant, and a true effect of LDA of not more than a 1 point decrease, a total sample size of 620 was determined to provide 80% power for a one-sided test for non-inferiority with a type I error of 5%. To test this secondary hypothesis, the sample size also provided over 90% power, at a two-sided type I error of 5%, to detect a difference of 4 points between LDA and placebo based on a two-sided test.||0.6|-2.2|0.25
91055060|NCT00945100|181992152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included amblyopic eye visual acuity at randomization as an adjustment covariate.||The treatment effect within gender was assessed by including an interaction term between treatment group and gender in the ANCOVA model, adjusting for amblyopic eye visual acuity at randomization and main effects corresponding to the interaction term.||||0.04
91055061|NCT00945100|181992152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89||95.0|||||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included amblyopic eye visual acuity at randomization as an adjustment covariate.||The treatment effect within race/ethnicity was assessed by including an interaction term between treatment group and race/ethnicity in the ANCOVA model, adjusting for amblyopic eye visual acuity at randomization and main effects corresponding to the interaction term.||||0.89
90811682|NCT05894538|181501802|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.26|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.26|0.75|
90811683|NCT05894538|181501803|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.2|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||1.20|0.79|
90811684|NCT05894538|181501803|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.02|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.02|0.63|
90811685|NCT05894538|181501803|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.14|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||1.14|0.69|
90811686|NCT05894538|181501803|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.35|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.35|0.84|
91015551|NCT00526162|181913704|OTHER||percentage|0.0|||<|0.03|ONE_SIDED|97.0||||Using a confidence interval of 97%, the exact binomial upper confidence bound was 9.5% which is lower than the 10% set for the primary safety objective. Therefore, the actual p-value has not been calculated further.|One proportion binomial exact||The confidence interval was calculated based on 35 patients who completed 1-month follow-up at interim analysis.|||||<0.03
90811687|NCT05894538|181501804|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.19|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||1.19|0.78|
90811688|NCT05894538|181501804|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.39|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.39|0.92|
91015552|NCT05279807|181913709|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference pre vs post treatment|-13.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|-12.5|||Paired Samples T-Test|||Primary endpoint, verified on the single cohort of patients who completed the monotherapy run-in period, is calculated as the mean difference in sitting diastolic blood pressure between Visit 2 (Week 0, Baseline Visit of the combination therapy) and Visit 4 (Week 8, End of Study Visit). This is not a comparison of two different arms, but a comparison of two measurements taken from the same patient treated with combination therapy (single arm paired pre- vs. post-combination therapy comparison)||-12.5|-14.5|< 0.001
91015553|NCT01169259|181913710|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.06|||Regression, Cox|||||1.06|0.88|0.47
91015554|NCT01169259|181913710|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.13|||Regression, Cox|||||1.13|0.93|0.56
91015555|NCT01169259|181913711|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.12|||Regression, Cox|||||1.12|0.85|0.69
91015556|NCT01169259|181913711|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.06|||Regression, Cox|||||1.06|0.80|0.24
91015557|NCT01169259|181913712|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.02|||Regression, Cox|||||1.02|0.67|0.08
91015558|NCT01169259|181913712|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.2|||Regression, Cox|||||1.20|0.79|0.79
91015559|NCT01169259|181913713|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.31|||Regression, Cox|||||1.31|0.79|0.90
91015560|NCT01169259|181913713|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.16|||Regression, Cox|||||1.16|0.70|0.43
91015561|NCT01169259|181913714|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.07|||Regression, Cox|||||1.07|0.72|0.19
91015562|NCT01169259|181913714|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.39|||Regression, Cox|||||1.39|0.94|0.17
91015563|NCT01169259|181913715|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.62|||Regression, Cox|||||1.62|0.73|0.67
91015564|NCT01169259|181913715|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.23||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.83|||Regression, Cox|||||1.83|0.83|0.31
91015565|NCT01169259|181913716|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.08|||Regression, Cox|||||1.08|0.86|0.53
91015566|NCT01169259|181913716|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.04|||Regression, Cox|||||1.04|0.82|0.21
91015567|NCT01169259|181913717|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.19|||Regression, Cox|||||1.19|0.78|0.73
91015568|NCT01169259|181913717|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.9|||Regression, Cox|||||0.90|0.59|0.003
91015569|NCT01169259|181913718|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.2|||Regression, Cox|||||1.20|0.76|0.68
91015570|NCT01169259|181913718|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.31|||Regression, Cox|||||1.31|0.83|0.72
91015571|NCT01169259|181913719|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.4|||Regression, Cox|||||1.40|0.88|0.38
91015572|NCT01169259|181913719|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.21|||Regression, Cox|||||1.21|0.76|0.73
91055062|NCT00945100|181992152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49||95.0|||||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included amblyopic eye visual acuity at randomization as an adjustment covariate.||The treatment effect within age at randomization was assessed by including an interaction term between treatment group and age in the ANCOVA model, adjusting for amblyopic eye visual acuity at randomization and main effects corresponding to the interaction term.||||0.49
91015573|NCT01169259|181913720|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.12|||Regression, Cox|||||1.12|0.87|0.87
91015574|NCT01169259|181913720|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.15|||Regression, Cox|||||1.15|0.90|0.79
91015575|NCT01169259|181913721|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.06|||Regression, Cox|||||1.06|0.83|0.33
91015576|NCT01169259|181913721|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.28|||Regression, Cox|||||1.28|1.00|0.056
91015577|NCT01169259|181913722|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.09|||Regression, Cox|||||1.09|0.79|0.38
91015578|NCT01169259|181913722|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.05|||Regression, Cox|||||1.05|0.76|0.18
91015579|NCT01169259|181913723|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.96|||Regression, Cox|||||0.96|0.59|0.024
91015580|NCT01169259|181913723|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.19|||Regression, Cox|||||1.19|0.73|0.58
91015581|NCT01169259|181913724|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.11|||Regression, Cox|||||1.11|0.84|0.62
91015582|NCT01169259|181913724|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.12|||Regression, Cox|||||1.12|0.84|0.72
91015583|NCT01169259|181913725|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.19|||Regression, Cox|||||1.19|0.79|0.78
91015584|NCT01169259|181913725|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.95|||Regression, Cox|||||0.95|0.63|0.016
91015585|NCT01169259|181913726|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.01|||Regression, Cox|||||1.01|0.55|0.058
91015586|NCT01169259|181913726|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.33|||Regression, Cox|||||1.33|0.73|0.94
91015587|NCT01169259|181913727|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.12|||Regression, Cox|||||1.12|0.83|0.61
91015588|NCT01169259|181913727|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.97|||Regression, Cox|||||0.97|0.71|0.016
91015589|NCT01169259|181913728|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.39|||Regression, Cox|||||1.39|0.83|0.61
91015590|NCT01169259|181913728|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.24|||Regression, Cox|||||1.24|0.74|0.74
91015591|NCT01169259|181913729|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.38|||Regression, Cox|||||1.38|0.42|0.37
91015592|NCT01169259|181913729|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.32||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.39|||Regression, Cox|||||2.39|0.72|0.37
91015593|NCT01169259|181913730|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.6||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|3.06|||Regression, Cox|||||3.06|0.84|0.15
91015594|NCT01169259|181913730|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.97|||Regression, Cox|||||0.97|0.26|0.04
90811689|NCT05894538|181501804|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.36|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||1.36|0.91|
90811690|NCT05894538|181501804|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.21|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.21|0.82|
90811691|NCT05894538|181501805|SUPERIORITY||Difference in model estimate time unwell|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.32|||||The interval is a highest-density credible interval.|||0.32|-0.39|
90811692|NCT04962230|181501813|OTHER|PF-07321332/ritonavir administered alone was the Reference treatment and PF-07321332/ritonavir coadministered with carbamazepine was the Test treatment.|specify in comments|56.82||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|47.04|68.62|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Mixed Model was fitted to obtain:~1.Ratio of adjusted geometric means 2.90% CI for the ratios"|||68.62|47.04|0.05
90811693|NCT04962230|181501814|OTHER|PF-07321332/ritonavir administered alone was the Reference treatment and PF-07321332/ritonavir coadministered with carbamazepine was the Test treatment.|Specified in comments|44.5||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|33.77|58.65|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Mixed Model was fitted to obtain:~1.Ratio of adjusted geometric means 2.90% CI for the ratios"|||58.65|33.77|0.05
90811694|NCT04962230|181501815|OTHER|PF-07321332/ritonavir administered alone was the Reference treatment and PF-07321332/ritonavir coadministered with carbamazepine was the Test treatment.|Specified in comments|25.59||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|18.76|34.91|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Mixed Model was fitted to obtain:~1.Ratio of adjusted geometric means 2.90% CI for the ratios"|||34.91|18.76|0.05
90811695|NCT04962230|181501816|OTHER|PF-07321332/ritonavir administered alone was the Reference treatment and PF-07321332/ritonavir coadministered with carbamazepine was the Test treatment.|Specified in comments|16.57||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|13.32|20.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Mixed Model was fitted to obtain:~1.Ratio of adjusted geometric means 2.90% CI for the ratios"|||20.60|13.32|0.05
90811696|NCT04962230|181501822|OTHER|PF-07321332/ritonavir administered alone was the Reference treatment and PF-07321332/ritonavir coadministered with carbamazepine was the Test treatment.|Specified in comments|44.59||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|33.99|58.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Mixed Model was fitted to obtain:~1.Ratio of adjusted geometric means 2.90% CI for the ratios"|||58.50|33.99|0.05
90811697|NCT04962230|181501827|OTHER|PF-07321332/ritonavir administered alone was the Reference treatment and PF-07321332/ritonavir coadministered with carbamazepine was the Test treatment.|Specified in comments|12.92||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.28|17.99|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Mixed Model was fitted to obtain:~1.Ratio of adjusted geometric means 2.90% CI for the ratios"|||17.99|9.28|0.05
90811698|NCT02275117|181501831|SUPERIORITY|75% Migraine Responder Rate - Week 1-12 (Modified Full Analysis Population)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.6||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|24.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||24.0|1.3|0.0330
90811699|NCT02275117|181501831|SUPERIORITY|75% Migraine Responder Rate - Week 1-12 (Modified Full Analysis Population)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.7||||0.0715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|21.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.8|-0.5|0.0715
90811700|NCT02275117|181501831|SUPERIORITY|75% Migraine Responder Rate - Week 1-12 (Modified Full Analysis Population)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.5||||0.2013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|18.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||18.5|-3.5|0.2013
90811701|NCT02275117|181501831|SUPERIORITY|75% Migraine Responder Rate - Week 1-12 (Modified Full Analysis Population)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.1||||0.2938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|16.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||16.9|-4.6|0.2938
90811702|NCT01327274|181501853|OTHER|Pre-treatment and post-treatment Pectus Severity Indices were compared using the Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test.||||||0.486|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.486
90811703|NCT00386477|181501855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.55||||0.11||95.0|0.26|1.11|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||1.11|0.26|0.11
90811704|NCT01081301|181501856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0||||The p-value were not adjusted for multiple comparisons and a p-value of 0.05 was used for statistical significance.|ANOVA|Modified version of ANOVA as it overcomes the shortcoming of the ANOVA model by taking into account unbalanced data and repeated measures.||Generalized estimating equations were used to determine change in patterns of the Herth Hope Index over time (Day 7, 14 and 3, 6, and 12 months) compared to baseline. The advantage of utilizing general estimating equations was that it effectively increases the sample size (increasing power) and estimated more robust standard errors by taking into account the repeated measures and adjusting for covariates.||||<0.05
90811705|NCT01081301|181501857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0||||The p-value were not adjusted for multiple comparisons and a p-value of 0.05 was used for statistical significance.|ANOVA|Modified version of ANOVA as it overcomes the shortcoming of the ANOVA model by taking into account unbalanced data and repeated measures.||Generalized estimating equations were used to determine change in patterns of SF-12v2 Mental health scores over time (Day 7, 14 and 3, 6, and 12 months) compared to baseline. The advantage of utilizing general estimating equations was that it effectively increases the sample size (increasing power) and estimated more robust standard errors by taking into account the repeated measures and adjusting for covariates.||||<0.05
90811706|NCT01081301|181501858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0||||The p-value were not adjusted for multiple comparisons and a p-value of 0.05 was used for statistical significance.|ANOVA|Modified version of ANOVA as it overcomes the shortcoming of the ANOVA model by taking into account unbalanced data and repeated measures||Generalized estimating equations were used to determine change in patterns of General Self Efficacy Scale scores over time (Day 7, 14 and 3, 6, and 12 months) compared to baseline. The advantage of utilizing general estimating equations was that it effectively increases the sample size (increasing power) and estimated more robust standard errors by taking into account the repeated measures and adjusting for covariates.||||<0.05
90890335|NCT01392560|181645160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change from baseline|-19.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.6||0.0011|||||||Paired t-test||Estimated value = mean of end of treatment - baseline|Test of the difference between baseline and end of treatment under euglycaemia condition for all patients||||0.0011
90890336|NCT01392560|181645160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change from baseline|-30.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.2|<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test||Estimated value = mean of end of treatment - baseline|Test the difference between baseline and end of treatment under hyperglycaemia condition for all patients||||<0.0001
90811707|NCT01081301|181501859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0||||The p-value were not adjusted for multiple comparisons and a p-value of 0.05 was used for statistical significance.|ANOVA|Modified version of ANOVA as it overcomes the shortcoming of the ANOVA model by taking into account unbalanced data and repeated measures.||Generalized estimating equations were used to determine change in patterns of Non Death Revised Grief Experience Inventory scores over time (Day 7, 14 and 3, 6, and 12 months) compared to baseline. The advantage of utilizing general estimating equations was that it effectively increases the sample size (increasing power) and estimated more robust standard errors by taking into account the repeated measures and adjusting for covariates.||||>0.05
90811708|NCT01081301|181501860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0||||The p-value were not adjusted for multiple comparisons and a p-value of 0.05 was used for statistical significance.|ANOVA|Modified version of ANOVA as it overcomes the shortcoming of the ANOVA model by taking into account unbalanced data and repeated measures.||Generalized estimating equations were used to determine change in patterns of SF-12v2 Physical health scores over time (Day 7, 14 and 3, 6, and 12 months) compared to baseline. The advantage of utilizing general estimating equations was that it effectively increases the sample size (increasing power) and estimated more robust standard errors by taking into account the repeated measures and adjusting for covariates.||||<0.05
90811709|NCT02014480|181501861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.108|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.065|0.151||Analysis was performed using an Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with covariates of treatment, period, mean Baseline, period Baseline, response type and treatment by response type interaction.|ANCOVA||Responders to UMEC=responders to UMEC or to both monotherapies, as defined by a participant with an increase from Baseline of \>=12% and 200 milliliters (mL) at \>=1 time point over 0-6 hours post-dose in FEV1 on Day 1.|||0.151|0.065|<0.001
90811710|NCT02014480|181501861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.107|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.064|0.149||Analysis was performed using an Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with covariates of treatment, period, mean Baseline, period Baseline, response type and treatment by response type interaction.|ANCOVA||Responders to UMEC=responders to UMEC or to both monotherapies, as defined by a participant with an increase from Baseline of \>=12% and 200 mL at \>=1 time point over 0-6 hours post-dose in FEV1 on Day 1.|||0.149|0.064|<0.001
90811711|NCT02014480|181501861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.129|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.086|0.171||Analysis was performed using an Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with covariates of treatment, period, mean Baseline, period Baseline, response type and treatment by response type interaction.|ANCOVA||Responders to VI=responders to VI or to both monotherapies, as defined by a participant with an increase from Baseline of \>=12% and 200 mL at \>=1 time point over 0-6 hours post-dose in FEV1 on Day 1.|||0.171|0.086|<0.001
90811712|NCT02014480|181501861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.082|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.125||Analysis was performed using an Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with covariates of treatment, period, mean Baseline, period Baseline, response type and treatment by response type interaction.|ANCOVA||Responders to VI=responders to VI or to both monotherapies, as defined by a participant with an increase from Baseline of \>=12% and 200 mL at \>=1 time point over 0-6 hours post-dose in FEV1 on Day 1.|||0.125|0.040|<0.001
90811713|NCT02014480|181501861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.078|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.036|0.12||Analysis was performed using an Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with covariates of treatment, period, mean Baseline, period Baseline, response type and treatment by response type interaction.|ANCOVA||Responders to Neither=responders to neither UMEC nor VI, as defined by a participant with at least one FEV1 assessment over 0-6 hours post-dose on Day 1 but no increase from Baseline of \>=12% and 200 mL at any assessment(s).|||0.120|0.036|<0.001
90811714|NCT02014480|181501861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.057||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.015|0.099||Analysis was performed using an Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with covariates of treatment, period, mean Baseline, period Baseline, response type and treatment by response type interaction.|ANCOVA||Responders to Neither=responders to neither UMEC nor VI, as defined by a participant with at least one FEV1 assessment over 0-6 hours post-dose on Day 1 but no increase from Baseline of \>=12% and 200 mL at any assessment(s).|||0.099|0.015|0.008
90811715|NCT01865812|181501865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.24||||||||-0.24|-0.51|
90811716|NCT01865812|181501866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.25||||||||-0.25|-0.63|
90811717|NCT01865812|181501867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|1.46||||||||1.46|-1.58|
90811718|NCT01865812|181501918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.852|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.852
90811719|NCT01865812|181501919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.549|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.549
90811720|NCT01865812|181501920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.912|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.912
91015595|NCT01169259|181913731|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.27||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.95|||Regression, Cox|||||1.95|0.83|0.27
91015596|NCT01169259|181913731|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.16|||Regression, Cox|||||1.16|0.49|0.198
90811721|NCT01095653|181501929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0975|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.56||Primary endpoints were tested at alpha=0.027 applying Dunnett's adjustment|ANCOVA|||||-0.56|-0.94|<0.0001
90811722|NCT01095653|181501929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0962|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.63||Primary endpoints were tested at alpha=0.027 applying Dunnett's adjustment|ANCOVA|||||-0.63|-1.01|<0.0001
90811723|NCT01095653|181501930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.203|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.0|-21.4||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||||-21.4|-34.0|<0.0001
90811724|NCT01095653|181501930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-34.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.174|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.4|-27.9||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||||-27.9|-40.4|<0.0001
90811725|NCT01095653|181501931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-47.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.5667|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.8|-34.96||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||||-34.96|-60.80|<0.0001
91015597|NCT01169259|181913732|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.54|||Regression, Cox|||||1.54|0.46|0.58
91015598|NCT01169259|181913732|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.01|||Regression, Cox|||||2.01|0.60|0.76
90811726|NCT01095653|181501931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-56.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.4489|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.66|-43.28||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||||-43.28|-68.66|<0.0001
90811727|NCT01095653|181501932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3259|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.01|-0.73||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||||-0.73|-2.01|<0.0001
90811728|NCT01095653|181501932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3242|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.62|-1.34||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||||-1.34|-2.62|<0.0001
90811729|NCT01095653|181501933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.238|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.1|31.6||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05|Modified logistic regression|||||31.6|11.1|<0.0001
90811730|NCT01095653|181501933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.022|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.6|38.3||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05|Modified logistic regression|||||38.3|18.6|<0.0001
90811731|NCT01819129|181501960|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment was done by comparing the difference of faster aspart vs. NovoRapid®/NovoLog® in change from baseline in HbA1c after 26 weeks of randomized treatment to a non-inferiority limit of 0.4%.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.1|||||The estimated parameter i.e mean difference is the estimated treatment difference for Faster aspart vs. NovoRapid (Faster aspart - NovoRapid).|Change from baseline in HbA1c is analysed using a mixed-effect model for repeated measurements including changes from baseline in HbA1c at visit 14, 18, 22, 26, 30 and 36. The model includes treatment, region and continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) strata as fixed effects, subject as random effect, HbA1c at baseline as covariate and interaction between all fixed effects and visit, and between the covariate and visit.||0.10|-0.15|
90811732|NCT02825966|181501964|EQUIVALENCE|The two one-sided t-test (TOST) was used to test equivalence. Using TOST, equivalence was established at α = 0.05 significance level if a (1-2α)\*100% confidence interval for the average difference in EMAT (WCD-AUDICOR) was contained within the interval \[-12, 12\].|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.89|4.69|||two one-sided test (TOST)|||First, the difference in EMAT between the LifeVest and AUDICOR device (first wear) was calculated for each subject. Then the mean and standard deviation of the differences in EMAT were calculated. The 2 devices were considered equivalent if the 90% confidence interval for mean difference in EMAT was within the pre-specified margin of \[-12, 12\] ms.||4.69|-2.89|< 0.001
90811733|NCT02752958|181501965|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.89||||0.0944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.018|12.8|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus Week 4 score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 (Baseline ) versus (vs.) Week 4||12.80|-1.018|0.0944
91015599|NCT01169259|181913733|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.2|||Regression, Cox|||||1.20|0.71|0.56
90811734|NCT02752958|181501966|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.128|23.849|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 (baseline) vs. Week 8||23.849|10.128|<0.0001
90811735|NCT02752958|181501967|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.87|29.539|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and participant as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 (baseline) vs. Week 12||29.539|15.870|<0.0001
90811736|NCT02752958|181501968|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.245|34.165|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and participant as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 (baseline) vs. Week 16||34.165|20.245|<0.0001
90811737|NCT02752958|181501969|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|31.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.464|38.385|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and participant as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.||Week 0 Vs Week 20||38.385|24.464|<.0001
90811738|NCT02752958|181501970|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.585|39.506|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and participant as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 (baseline) vs. Week 24||39.506|25.585|<.0001
91015600|NCT01169259|181913733|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.93|||Regression, Cox|||||0.93|0.55|0.014
90811739|NCT02752958|181501971|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.18||||0.0312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.108|2.262|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 Vs. Week 4||2.262|0.108|0.0312
90890337|NCT01392560|181645160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Change from baseline|-33.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.2|<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test||Estimated value = mean of end of treatment - baseline|Test of the difference between baseline and end of treatment under euglycaemia condition for hyperfilterers||||<0.0001
91015601|NCT01169259|181913734|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.27||||||||1.27|0.92|
91015602|NCT01169259|181913734|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.15||||||||1.15|0.83|
91015603|NCT01169259|181913735|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.26||||||||1.26|0.82|
91015604|NCT01169259|181913735|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.29||||||||1.29|0.84|
91015605|NCT05299359|181913736|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower limit of the 95% CI is \>= 0.67, then the immune response to a single heterologous booster vaccination of TAK-019 is considered to be non-inferior of that to the primary series of TAK-019.|LS Mean Difference|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.47||||||GMT ratio was calculated GMT of TAK-019-3001 on Day 15 divided by GMT of TAK-019-1501 study on Day 36.||1.47|0.95|
90811740|NCT02752958|181501972|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.728|3.866|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|"Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice.~Week 0 = Baseline Value"|Week 0 Vs Week 8||3.866|1.728|<.0001
90811741|NCT02752958|181501973|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.192|4.322|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 Vs. Week 12||4.322|2.192|<.0001
90811742|NCT02752958|181501974|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.93|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.844|5.012|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|||5.012|2.844|<.0001
90811743|NCT02752958|181501975|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.063|5.232|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 Vs. Week 20||5.232|3.063|<.0001
90811744|NCT02752958|181501976|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.654|5.823|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 Vs Week 24||5.823|3.654|<.0001
90811745|NCT02752958|181501977|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.11||||0.4185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.592|3.821|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline|Week 0 Vs Week 4||3.821|-1.592|0.4185
90811746|NCT02752958|181501978|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.391|9.764|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 Vs Week 8||9.764|4.391|<.0001
90811747|NCT02752958|181501979|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.674|11.026|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Valu|Week 0 Vs Week 12||11.026|5.674|<.0001
90811748|NCT02752958|181501980|OTHER|Week 0 Vs Week 16|Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.43|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.708|13.158|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 Vs Week 16||13.158|7.708|<.0001
90811749|NCT02752958|181501981|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.008|14.459|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 Vs Week 20||14.459|9.008|<.0001
90811750|NCT02752958|181501982|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.96|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.235|14.686|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 Vs Week 24||14.686|9.235|<.0001
90811751|NCT02752958|181501983|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.57||||0.3415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.604|1.738|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|"Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice.~Week 0 = Baseline Value"|Week 0 vs Week 4||1.738|-0.604|0.3415
90811752|NCT02752958|181501984|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.77||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|2.935|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline|Week 0 Vs Week 8||2.935|0.610|0.0029
90811753|NCT02752958|181501985|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.266|3.582|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 Vs Week 12||3.582|1.266|<0.0001
90890338|NCT01392560|181645160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change from baseline|-44.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.1|<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test||Estimated value = mean of end of treatment - baseline|Test of the difference between baseline and end of treatment under hyperglycaemia condition for hyperfilterers||||<0.0001
91015606|NCT04242446|181913775|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.979|4.089|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.089|0.979|0.030
91015607|NCT04242446|181913775|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.234||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.159|4.307|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.307|1.159|0.006
90811754|NCT02752958|181501986|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.371|4.729|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|"Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice.~Week 0 = Baseline Value"|Week 0 vs Week 16||4.729|2.371|<.0001
90811755|NCT02752958|181501987|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.21|5.568|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 Vs Week 20||5.568|3.210|<0.0001
90811756|NCT02752958|181501988|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.119|5.477|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 Vs Week 24||5.477|3.119|<0.0001
90811757|NCT02752958|181501989|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.42||||0.0145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.483|4.352|||ANOVA||Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 Vs Week 4||4.352|0.483|0.0145
90811758|NCT02752958|181501990|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.498|6.339|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 Vs Week 8||6.339|2.498|<0.0001
90811759|NCT02752958|181501991|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.933|8.759|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 Vs Week 12||8.759|4.933|<0.0001
90811760|NCT02752958|181501992|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.219|9.115|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 Vs Week 16||9.115|5.219|<.0001
90811761|NCT02752958|181501993|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.438|10.335|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 Vs Week 20||10.335|6.438|<0.0001
91015608|NCT04242446|181913776|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.416||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.615|3.26||Nominal p-value only due to the testing hierarchy failing on the HISCR50 outcome.|Regression, Logistic|||||3.260|0.615|0.350
90811762|NCT02752958|181501994|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.67|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.726|10.623|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 Vs. Week 24||10.623|6.726|<0.0001
90811763|NCT02752958|181501995|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.63||||0.3676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.738|1.989|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 Vs Week 4||1.989|-0.738|0.3676
90811764|NCT02752958|181501996|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.1907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.451|2.255|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|"Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice.~Week 0 = Baseline Value"|Week 0 Vs Week 8||2.255|-0.451|0.1907
90811765|NCT02752958|181501997|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.81||||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.467|3.162|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 Vs. Week 12||3.162|0.467|0.0085
90811766|NCT02752958|181501998|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.12||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.744|3.489|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|"Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice.~Week 0 = Baseline Value"|Week 0 Vs Week 16||3.489|0.744|0.0026
90811767|NCT02752958|181501999|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.74||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.371|4.116|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.||Week 0 Vs Week 20||4.116|1.371|0.0001
90811768|NCT02752958|181502000|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.477|4.222|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|"Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice.~Week 0 = Baseline Value"|Week 0 vs Week 24||4.222|1.477|<.0001
91015609|NCT04242446|181913776|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.175||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.021|4.635|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.635|1.021|0.021
91015610|NCT04242446|181913777|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.574||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-4.472|-0.675||Nominal p-value only due to the testing hierarchy failing on the HISCR50 outcome.|ANCOVA|||||-0.675|-4.472|0.002
91015611|NCT04242446|181913777|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.682|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-4.394|-0.97|||ANCOVA|||||-0.970|-4.394|<0.001
91015612|NCT04242446|181913778|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.551||||0.201|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.521|0.418||Nominal p-value only due to the testing hierarchy failing on the HISCR50 outcome.|ANCOVA|||||0.418|-1.521|0.201
91015613|NCT04242446|181913778|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.186||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.05|-0.322|||ANCOVA|||||-0.322|-2.050|0.002
91015614|NCT04242446|181913779|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.618||||0.367|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.489|5.352||Nominal p-value only due to the testing hierarchy failing on the HISCR50 outcome.|Regression, Logistic|||||5.352|0.489|0.367
91015615|NCT04242446|181913779|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.757||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.909|8.364|||Regression, Logistic|||||8.364|0.909|0.041
91015616|NCT05644756|181913836|OTHER|The primary analysis examined changes in measurement-based care (MBC) collection over time using ANOVA. The study was not designed as a superiority, non-inferiority, or equivalence trial.|||||>|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||>.01
91015617|NCT04058990|181913860|NON_INFERIORITY|13.2% non-inferiority margin||||||0.0012|||||||Farrington-Manning|||\[Not Specified\]||||0.0012
91015618|NCT03985982|181913862|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||This outcome measure is the first to be assessed in a hierarchical testing sequence using a one-sided alpha of 0.025.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91015619|NCT03985982|181913863|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The statistical significance is set to 0.025. This is the second test in a hierarchical testing sequence. Statistical significance will only be assessed if the previous test shows statistical significance at the 1-sided alpha level of 0.025.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test performed for Modified Skindex-16 (GL-QoL) Emotional domain - Change from Baseline at Week 4||||<0.001
91015620|NCT03985982|181913863|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The statistical significance is set to 0.025. This is the third test in a hierarchical testing sequence. Statistical significance will only be assessed if the previous two tests show statistical significance at the alpha level of 0.025.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test performed for Modified Skindex-16 (GL-QoL) Social Functioning domain - Change from Baseline at Week 4||||<0.001
91015621|NCT03985982|181913863|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The statistical significance is set to 0.025. This is the forth test in a hierarchical testing sequence. Statistical significance will only be assessed if the previous three tests show statistical significance at the 1-sided alpha level of 0.025.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test performed for Modified Skindex-16 (GL-QoL) Overall score - Change from Baseline at Week 4.||||<0.001
91015622|NCT03985982|181913863|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The statistical significance is set to 0.025. This is the fifth test in a hierarchical testing sequence. Statistical significance will only be assessed if the previous four tests show statistical significance at the 1-sided alpha level of 0.025.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test performed for FACE-Q Appraisal of Lines Between Eyebrows - Change from Baseline at Week 4||||<0.001
91015623|NCT03985982|181913863|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The statistical significance is set to 0.025. This is the sixth test in a hierarchical testing sequence. Statistical significance will only be assessed if the previous five tests show statistical significance at the 1-sided alpha level of 0.025.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test performed for FACE-Q Age Appraisal VAS score||||<0.001
91015624|NCT05981365|181913906|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.2629|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1673|1.3663||||||Analysis was performed using linear mixed model, with treatment as fixed effect and participant as random effect.||1.3663|1.1673|
91015625|NCT05981365|181913906|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.1845|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0758|1.3042||||||Analysis was performed using linear mixed model, with treatment as fixed effect and participant as random effect.||1.3042|1.0758|
91015626|NCT05981365|181913907|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.1929|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0215|1.393||||||Analysis was performed using linear mixed model, with treatment as fixed effect and participant as random effect.||1.3930|1.0215|
91015627|NCT05981365|181913908|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.1311|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0496|1.2189||||||Analysis was performed using linear mixed model, with treatment as fixed effect and participant as random effect.||1.2189|1.0496|
91015628|NCT05981365|181913909|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|0.8228||||||90.0|0.6992|0.9683||||||Analysis was performed using linear mixed model, with treatment as fixed effect and participant as random effect.||0.9683|0.6992|
91015629|NCT05981365|181913910|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.5738|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.4523|1.7054||||||Analysis was performed using linear mixed model, with treatment as fixed effect and participant as random effect.||1.7054|1.4523|
91015630|NCT05981365|181913911|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.1491|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0807|1.222||||||Analysis was performed using linear mixed model, with treatment as fixed effect and participant as random effect.||1.2220|1.0807|
91015631|NCT05981365|181913911|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|0.9494|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8759|1.0291||||||Analysis was performed using linear mixed model, with treatment as fixed effect and participant as random effect.||1.0291|0.8759|
91015632|NCT05981365|181913912|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.3316|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.2558|1.4121||||||Analysis was performed using linear mixed model, with treatment as fixed effect and participant as random effect.||1.4121|1.2558|
91015633|NCT05981365|181913913|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.1282|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.07|1.1896||||||Analysis was performed using linear mixed model, with treatment as fixed effect and participant as random effect.||1.1896|1.0700|
91015634|NCT05981365|181913914|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|0.8047|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7173|0.9027||||||Analysis was performed using linear mixed model, with treatment as fixed effect and participant as random effect.||0.9027|0.7173|
91015635|NCT05981365|181913915|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|2.0611|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.8789|2.2609||||||Analysis was performed using linear mixed model, with treatment as fixed effect and participant as random effect.||2.2609|1.8789|
91015636|NCT05981365|181913916|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.1374|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0672|1.2122||||||Analysis was performed using linear mixed model, with treatment as fixed effect and participant as random effect.||1.2122|1.0672|
91015637|NCT05981365|181913916|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|0.9371|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8643|1.0162||||||Analysis was performed using linear mixed model, with treatment as fixed effect and participant as random effect.||1.0162|0.8643|
91015638|NCT05981365|181913917|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.2713|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1939|1.3538||||||Analysis was performed using linear mixed model, with treatment as fixed effect and participant as random effect.||1.3538|1.1939|
91015639|NCT05981365|181913918|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.127|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0688|1.1883||||||Analysis was performed using linear mixed model, with treatment as fixed effect and participant as random effect.||1.1883|1.0688|
91015640|NCT05981365|181913919|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|0.7973|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7039|0.9031||||||Analysis was performed using linear mixed model, with treatment as fixed effect and participant as random effect.||0.9031|0.7039|
90811769|NCT02752958|181502001|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.2326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.059|0.243|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Valu|Week 0 Vs Week 4||0.243|-0.059|0.2326
90811770|NCT02752958|181502002|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.3934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.085|0.216||From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|ANOVA||Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 vs Week 8||0.216|-0.085|0.3934
90811771|NCT02752958|181502003|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.0795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.016|0.284|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 Vs Week 12||0.284|-0.016|0.0795
90811772|NCT02752958|181502004|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.0682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.011|0.294|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|"Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice.~Week 0 = Baseline Value"|Week 0 vs Week 16||0.294|-0.011|0.0682
90811773|NCT02752958|181502005|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.0844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.018|0.287|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 vs Week 20||0.287|-0.018|0.0844
90811774|NCT02752958|181502006|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.0211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.027|0.332|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|"Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice.~Week 0 = Baseline Value"|Week 0 Vs Week 24||0.332|0.027|0.0211
90811775|NCT02752958|181502007|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.0493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.002|1.194|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 vs Week 4||1.194|0.002|0.0493
90811776|NCT02752958|181502008|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|2.013|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 vs Week 8||2.013|0.830|<0.0001
90811777|NCT02752958|181502009|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.278|2.457||From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|ANOVA||Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 Vs Week 12||2.457|1.278|<0.0001
90811778|NCT02752958|181502010|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.429|2.629|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|"Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice.~Week 0 = Baseline Value"|Week 0 Vs Week 16||2.629|1.429|<.0001
90811779|NCT02752958|181502011|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.743|2.943|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 Vs Week 20||2.943|1.743|<.0001
90811780|NCT02752958|181502012|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.743|2.943|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 Vs Week 24||2.943|1.743|<.0001
90811781|NCT02752958|181502013|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.88|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.474|1.295|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 Vs Week 4||1.295|0.474|<.0001
90811782|NCT02752958|181502014|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.875|1.69|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 Vs Week 8||1.690|0.875|<.0001
90811783|NCT02752958|181502015|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.333|2.145|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 Vs Week 12||2.145|1.333|<.0001
90811784|NCT02752958|181502016|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.96|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.545|2.371|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 Vs Week 16||2.371|1.545|<.0001
90890339|NCT01392560|181645160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change from baseline|9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.9||0.1524|||||||Paired t-test||Estimated value = mean of end of treatment - baseline|Test of the difference between baseline and end of treatment under euglycaemia condition for non-hyperfilterers||||0.1524
90811785|NCT02752958|181502017|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.643|2.469|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 Vs. Week 20||2.469|1.643|<.0001
90811786|NCT02752958|181502018|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.794|2.62||From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|ANOVA||Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 Vs Week 24||2.620|1.794|<.0001
90811787|NCT02752958|181502019|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.703|1.66|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 Vs Week 4||1.660|0.703|<0.0001
90811788|NCT02752958|181502020|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.977|1.926|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 Vs Week 8||1.926|0.977|<.0001
90811789|NCT02752958|181502021|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.95|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.473|2.418|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|"Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice.~Week 0 = Baseline Value"|Week 0 Vs Week 12||2.418|1.473|<.0001
90811790|NCT02752958|181502022|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.848|2.81|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 Vs Week16||2.810|1.848|<.0001
91015641|NCT05981365|181913920|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|2.026|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.8496|2.2193||||||Analysis was performed using linear mixed model, with treatment as fixed effect and participant as random effect.||2.2193|1.8496|
90811791|NCT02752958|181502023|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.732|2.694|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 Vs. Week 20||2.694|1.732|<.0001
90811792|NCT02752958|181502024|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|2.982|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 Vs Week 24||2.982|2.020|<.0001
90811793|NCT02752958|181502025|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.43||||0.0786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.919|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 vs Week 4||0.919|-0.050|0.0786
90811794|NCT02752958|181502026|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.69||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.171|||ANOVA|\[1\] From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 vs Week 8||1.171|0.210|0.0050
90811795|NCT02752958|181502027|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.918|1.875|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 vs Week 12||1.875|0.918|<.0001
90811796|NCT02752958|181502028|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.951|1.926|||ANOVA|\[From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|||1.926|0.951|<.0001
90811797|NCT02752958|181502029|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.678|1.653||From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|ANOVA||Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 vs Week 20||1.653|0.678|<.0001
90811798|NCT02752958|181502030|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.072|2.047|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|||2.047|1.072|<.0001
91015642|NCT05981365|181913921|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|0.7909|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.716|0.8737||||||Analysis was performed using linear mixed model, with treatment as fixed effect and participant as random effect.||0.8737|0.7160|
91015643|NCT05981365|181913922|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.0831|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9723|1.2065||||||Analysis was performed using linear mixed model, with treatment as fixed effect and participant as random effect.||1.2065|0.9723|
91015644|NCT05981365|181913923|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.3138|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1871|1.4541||||||Analysis was performed using linear mixed model, with treatment as fixed effect and participant as random effect.||1.4541|1.1871|
90811799|NCT02836873|181502034|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.28||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.1|||Mixed-effects repeated measures|Region, screening anti-diabetic treatment, baseline eGFR, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline HbA1c value as fixed effect covariates.||This is a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis including region, screening anti-diabetic treatment regimen, baseline eGFR, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline HbA1c as a fixed effect covariate. Data from Weeks 6, 12, and 24 are used in the model.||-0.10|-0.46|0.0026
90811800|NCT02836873|181502035|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-1.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-1.03|||Mixed-effects repeated measures|Region, screening anti-diabetic treatment, baseline eGFR, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline HbA1c value as fixed effect covariates.||||-1.03|-2.50|< 0.0001
90811801|NCT02836873|181502036|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-2.63||||0.2035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|1.44|||Mixed-effects repeated measures|Region, screening anti-diabetic treatment, baseline eGFR, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline HbA1c value as fixed effect covariates.||||1.44|-6.70|0.2035
90811802|NCT02836873|181502037|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.2||||0.1156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.05|||Mixed-effects repeated measures|Region, screening anti-diabetic treatment, baseline eGFR, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline HbA1c value as fixed effect covariates.||||0.05|-0.44|0.1156
90811803|NCT02836873|181502038|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.37||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.1|||Mixed-effects repeated measures|Region, screening anti-diabetic treatment, baseline eGFR, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline HbA1c value as fixed effect covariates.||||-0.10|-0.65|0.0078
91015645|NCT05981365|181913924|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|0.7958|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.742|0.8534||||||Analysis was performed using linear mixed model, with treatment as fixed effect and participant as random effect.||0.8534|0.7420|
91015646|NCT05981365|181913925|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.0322|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9531|1.1179||||||Analysis was performed using linear mixed model, with treatment as fixed effect and participant as random effect.||1.1179|0.9531|
90811804|NCT02266277|181502039|SUPERIORITY|"We calculated frequencies and performed intention-to-treat bivariate analyses. We then performed multivariate logistic regression analyses.~With our proposed sample size and using a factorial design, power calculations based on estimates of baseline vaccination rates indicated that 4286 participants per arm would give 80% power to detect a 3% improvement in influenza vaccination rates between groups (α=.05; 2-sided)."|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|1.47||Adjusted for age, sex, race and utilization|Regression, Logistic|||||1.47|1.15|0.0001
90811805|NCT02266277|181502039|SUPERIORITY|"We calculated frequencies and performed intention-to-treat bivariate analyses. We then performed multivariate logistic regression analyses.~With our proposed sample size and using a factorial design, power calculations based on estimates of baseline vaccination rates indicated that 4286 participants per arm would give 80% power to detect a 3% improvement in influenza vaccination rates between groups (α=.05; 2-sided)."|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.36|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.36|1.07|.0026
91015647|NCT05981365|181913926|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.1975|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0972|1.3069||||||Analysis was performed using linear mixed model, with treatment as fixed effect and participant as random effect.||1.3069|1.0972|
90811806|NCT02266277|181502039|SUPERIORITY|"We calculated frequencies and performed intention-to-treat bivariate analyses. We then performed multivariate logistic regression analyses.~With our proposed sample size and using a factorial design, power calculations based on estimates of baseline vaccination rates indicated that 4286 participants per arm would give 80% power to detect a 3% improvement in influenza vaccination rates between groups (α=.05; 2-sided)."|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.0206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.31|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.31|1.02|.0206
90811807|NCT02266277|181502039|SUPERIORITY|"We calculated frequencies and performed intention-to-treat bivariate analyses. We then performed multivariate logistic regression analyses.~With our proposed sample size and using a factorial design, power calculations based on estimates of baseline vaccination rates indicated that 4286 participants per arm would give 80% power to detect a 3% improvement in influenza vaccination rates between groups (α=.05; 2-sided)."|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.21|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.21|.96|.2330
90811808|NCT02266277|181502039|SUPERIORITY|"We calculated frequencies and performed intention-to-treat bivariate analyses. We then performed multivariate logistic regression analyses.~With our proposed sample size and using a factorial design, power calculations based on estimates of baseline vaccination rates indicated that 4286 participants per arm would give 80% power to detect a 3% improvement in influenza vaccination rates between groups (α=.05; 2-sided)."|Odds Ratio, log|1.12||||0.0579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.996|1.26|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.26|.996|.0579
90811809|NCT02266277|181502039|SUPERIORITY|"We calculated frequencies and performed intention-to-treat bivariate analyses. We then performed multivariate logistic regression analyses.~With our proposed sample size and using a factorial design, power calculations based on estimates of baseline vaccination rates indicated that 4286 participants per arm would give 80% power to detect a 3% improvement in influenza vaccination rates between groups (α=.05; 2-sided)."|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.14|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.14|.86|.87
91015648|NCT05981365|181913927|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|0.8018|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7472|0.8604||||||Analysis was performed using linear mixed model, with treatment as fixed effect and participant as random effect.||0.8604|0.7472|
91015649|NCT05981365|181913928|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.063|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9888|1.1427||||||Analysis was performed using linear mixed model, with treatment as fixed effect and participant as random effect.||1.1427|0.9888|
91015650|NCT05981365|181913929|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.2197|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1114|1.3385||||||Analysis was performed using linear mixed model, with treatment as fixed effect and participant as random effect.||1.3385|1.1114|
91015651|NCT00766727|181914014|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-31.88|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.25|||TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||
91055063|NCT00945100|181992152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The treatment effect within amblyopic eye visual acuity at randomization was assessed by including an interaction term between treatment group and visual acuity in the ANCOVA model, adjusting for the main effects corresponding to the interaction term.||||0.37
91078184|NCT04114656|182041871|OTHER||Posterior ratio to placebo|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.12|||||Treatment comparison ratio of GSK3858279 and placebo using posterior median ratio and 95% credible interval is presented. Analysis was performed using Bayesian Mixed Repeated measures Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model.|||1.12|0.89|
91055064|NCT00945100|181992152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5||95.0|||||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included amblyopic eye visual acuity at randomization as an adjustment covariate.||The treatment effect within cause of amblyopia was assessed by including an interaction term between treatment group and amblyopia cause in the ANCOVA model, adjusting for amblyopic eye visual acuity at randomization and main effects corresponding to the interaction term.||||0.50
90811810|NCT02266277|181502040|SUPERIORITY|Using as a denominator those patients identified as being overdue for pneumococcal vaccine at the time of randomization, we calculated frequencies and performed bivariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses, examining the association between randomization group and completion of pneumococcal vaccine. We analyzed portal users and non-portal users separately.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.31|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.31|.81|.82
90811811|NCT02266277|181502040|SUPERIORITY|Using as a denominator those patients identified as being overdue for pneumococcal vaccine at the time of randomization, we calculated frequencies and performed bivariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses, examining the association between randomization group and completion of pneumococcal vaccine. We analyzed portal users and non-portal users separately.|Odds Ratio, log|0.9||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.13|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.13|.71|.36
90811812|NCT02266277|181502040|SUPERIORITY|Using as a denominator those patients identified as being overdue for pneumococcal vaccine at the time of randomization, we calculated frequencies and performed bivariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses, examining the association between randomization group and completion of pneumococcal vaccine. We analyzed portal users and non-portal users separately.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.13|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.13|.71|.33
90811813|NCT02266277|181502040|SUPERIORITY|Using as a denominator those patients identified as being overdue for pneumococcal vaccine at the time of randomization, we calculated frequencies and performed bivariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses, examining the association between randomization group and completion of pneumococcal vaccine. We analyzed portal users and non-portal users separately.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.09|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.09|.69|.23
90811814|NCT02266277|181502040|SUPERIORITY|Using as a denominator those patients identified as being overdue for pneumococcal vaccine at the time of randomization, we calculated frequencies and performed bivariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses, examining the association between randomization group and completion of pneumococcal vaccine. We analyzed portal users and non-portal users separately.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.25|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.25|.79|.96
90811815|NCT02266277|181502040|SUPERIORITY|Using as a denominator those patients identified as being overdue for pneumococcal vaccine at the time of randomization, we calculated frequencies and performed bivariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses, examining the association between randomization group and completion of pneumococcal vaccine. We analyzed portal users and non-portal users separately.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.31|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.31|.82|.76
91055065|NCT00945100|181992154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|1.0|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included amblyopic eye visual acuity at randomization as an adjustment covariate.||||1.0|0.04|
91055066|NCT00945100|181992162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to compare the proportion of participants in each treatment group with a loss of 2 or more lines in the better of the initial test and retest (if indicated) fellow eye visual acuities at the 10-week exam.||||>0.99
91055067|NCT00945100|181992164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to compare the proportion of participants in each treatment group with a loss of 2 or more lines in the better of the initial test and retest (if indicated) fellow eye visual acuities at the final exam.||||0.12
90811816|NCT00884039|181502085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.57
90811817|NCT01300819|181502087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.58||||0.147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.43|1.26||Two-sided p-value is presented. No multiplicity adjustment is performed.|ANCOVA|Analysing was performed with ANCOVA model, adjusted for several terms.||Null hypothesis: mean change in the total Nonmotor Symptoms Scale (NMSS) score is the same for rotigotine- and placebo-treated group.||1.26|-8.43|0.147
90811818|NCT01300819|181502088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.6||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.27|-0.92||Two-sided p-value is presented. No multiplicity adjustment is performed.|ANCOVA|Analysis was performed with ANCOVA model, adjusted for several terms.||||-0.92|-4.27|0.002
90811819|NCT01300819|181502089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.79||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.21|-0.37||Two-sided p-values are presented.|ANCOVA|Testing was performed using an ANCOVA model, adjusted for several terms.||||-0.37|-5.21|0.024
91055068|NCT00945100|181992168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||An Exact Wilcoxon rank sum test was used for the difference between treatment groups in the distribution of levels of change in Randot Preschool Stereoacuity from randomization to 10 weeks.||||0.28
91055069|NCT00945100|181992171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||An Exact Wilcoxon rank sum test was used for the difference between treatment groups in the distribution of levels of change in Randot Preschool Stereoacuity from randomization to 10 weeks.||||0.45
91055070|NCT05958888|181992172|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Text vs. Control||||<0.001
91055071|NCT05958888|181992172|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome.The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Icon vs. Control||||<0.001
90811820|NCT01300819|181502090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.5||Two-sided p-value is presented. No multiplicity adjustment is performed.|ANCOVA|Analysis was performed with ANCOVA model, adjusted for several terms.||||0.50|-0.67|0.773
90811821|NCT01300819|181502091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.06||||0.122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|0.29||Two-sided p-value is presented. No multiplicity adjustment is performed.|ANCOVA|Analysis was performed with ANCOVA model, adjusted for several terms.||||0.29|-2.41|0.122
90811822|NCT01300819|181502092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.81||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.59|-0.02||Two-sided p-value is presented. No multiplicity adjustment is performed.|ANCOVA|Analysis was performed with ANCOVA model, adjusted for several terms.||||-0.02|-3.59|0.047
90811823|NCT01300819|181502093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.37||Two-sided p-value is presented. No multiplicity adjustment is performed.|ANCOVA|Analysis was performed with ANCOVA model, adjusted for several terms.||||0.37|-0.22|0.601
90811824|NCT01300819|181502094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.99||Two-sided p-value is presented. No multiplicity adjustment is performed.|ANCOVA|Analysis was performed with ANCOVA model, adjusted for several terms.||||0.99|-0.99|0.997
90811825|NCT01300819|181502095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.49||Two-sided p-value is presented. No multiplicity adjustment is performed.|ANCOVA|Analysis was performed with ANCOVA model, adjusted for several terms.||||0.49|-0.87|0.584
90811826|NCT01300819|181502096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38||||0.536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|1.6||Two-sided p-value is presented. No multiplicity adjustment is performed.|ANCOVA|Analysis was performed with ANCOVA model, adjusted for several terms.||||1.60|-0.84|0.536
90811827|NCT01300819|181502097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.94||Two-sided p-value is presented. No multiplicity adjustment is performed.|ANCOVA|Analysis was performed with ANCOVA model, adjusted for several terms.||||0.94|-0.81|0.889
90811828|NCT01300819|181502098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.04||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|-0.03||Two-sided p-value is presented. No multiplicity adjustment is performed.|ANCOVA|Analysis was performed with ANCOVA model, adjusted for several terms.||||-0.03|-2.06|0.043
90811829|NCT00438854|181502100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimating proportion of responders|0.2||||||||||||||The primary measures of efficacy of tumor response were: complete remission (CR), nodular partial remission (nPR), or partial remission (PR), as per NCI-WG criteria. The true ORR is reported as percentage and 90% CI calculated using the binomial exact test. Time to treatment failure (TTF) was defined from the date on study to date of progression, death in remission, initiation of non-protocol therapy in the absence of progression, or censored on the last visit.||||
90811830|NCT02210832|181502107|SUPERIORITY|38.27% vs. 9.09%|||||<|0.001||||||p value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for significance was P \< 0.05.|Chi-squared|chi square test statistic = 20.23, df = 1||Hypothesized that women assigned to Best practices plus financial incentives would achieve greater abstinence than women assigned to Best practices only.||||<0.001
90811831|NCT02210832|181502108|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|Used generalized estimating equation utilizing a logistic link function with treatment condition and assessment time adjusting for covariates.||||||<0.05
91055072|NCT05958888|181992172|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Graphic vs. Control||||<.001
90811832|NCT02210832|181502108|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||chi square test statistic = 21.93, df=7|Mixed Models Analysis|Conducted a generalized estimating equation utilizing a logistic link function with treatment condition and assessment time adjusting for covariates.||Trial condition by assessment time interaction||||0.003
90811833|NCT02210832|181502109|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48||||||chi square test statistic = 9.52, df = 10|Mixed Models Analysis|Conducted a generalized estimating equation utilizing a logistic link function with treatment condition and assessment time adjusting for covariates.||Interaction of trial condition and time||||0.48
90811834|NCT02210832|181502110|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||chi square test statistic = 33.51, df = 2|Mixed Models Analysis|Conducted a generalized estimating equation utilizing a logistic link function with treatment condition and assessment time adjusting for covariates.||Examining main effect of treatment condition.||||<0.0001
90811835|NCT02210832|181502110|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89||||||chi square test statistic = 5.00, df = 10.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing interaction of treatment condition and assessment time||||0.89
90811836|NCT02210832|181502111|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Method was mixed model repeated measures analysis of covariance.||||||<0.001
90811837|NCT02210832|181502112|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||F\[7,922\]=3.62|ANCOVA|Repeated measures analysis of covariance was conducted with Bonferroni corrections for post-doc tests and across repeated assessments.||Examine interaction of treatment condition and assessment time.||||<0.001
90811838|NCT02210832|181502112|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Method was mixed model repeated measures analysis of covariance.||||||<0.001
90811839|NCT02210832|181502113|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Method was mixed model repeated measures analysis of covariance.||||||0.009
90811840|NCT02210832|181502114|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Regression, Logistic|Method is logistic regression adjusted for covariates.||||||0.01
90811841|NCT02210832|181502115|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
90811842|NCT02210832|181502116|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
90811843|NCT02210832|181502118|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
90811844|NCT02210832|181502122|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||ANCOVA|All comparisons adjusted for infant gestational age at time of delivery.||||||0.006
90811845|NCT01007123|181502203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.2|TWO_SIDED|0.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.2
90811846|NCT01007123|181502203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|0.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.002
90811847|NCT01007123|181502203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|0.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90811848|NCT01007123|181502204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|0.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.03
90811849|NCT01007123|181502204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|0.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.008
90811850|NCT01007123|181502204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|0.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
90811851|NCT01007123|181502205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|0.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.06
90811852|NCT01007123|181502205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|0.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.03
90811853|NCT01007123|181502205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|0.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.04
90811854|NCT01007123|181502206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|0.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.44
90811855|NCT01007123|181502206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|0.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90811856|NCT01007123|181502206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|0.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90811857|NCT01007123|181502207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|0.0|||||ANCOVA|||Comparison vs placebo||||0.01
90811858|NCT01007123|181502207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|0.0|||||ANCOVA|||Comparison vs placebo||||<0.05
90811859|NCT01007123|181502208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|0.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.17
90811860|NCT01007123|181502208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|0.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90811861|NCT01007123|181502208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|0.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90811862|NCT02838901|181502209|OTHER|This was a descriptive analysis, and was based on the overall assessment of feasibility of the intervention.||||||0.058||||||The p value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis was used, and the assumption was there would be no difference in adherence between the Active Juice and the Placebo Juice, and therefore a two-sided t approximation was reported. Since this was a pilot study, power calculations were not performed. The adherence in the two groups was compared using the Wilcoxon two-sample test.||||0.058
90811863|NCT02838901|181502210|OTHER|This was a descriptive analysis and was under the goal of assessing safety of the intervention.||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis was assumed, no power calculation was done since this was a pilot study.||||1.00
90811864|NCT02838901|181502211|OTHER|||||||0.0003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis was assumed, and no power calculation was performed since this was a pilot study.||||0.0003
91055073|NCT05958888|181992172|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.1|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Icon vs. Text||||.10
90811865|NCT02838901|181502212|OTHER|This was a descriptive analysis for a pilot study, and no power calculations were performed.||||||0.1023|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1023
90811866|NCT02838901|181502213|OTHER|This was a descriptive analysis for a pilot study to gather preliminary data for a larger trial. No power calculations were performed for this outcome.||||||0.9581|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.9581
90811867|NCT02838901|181502213|OTHER|||||||0.6678|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis was assumed, and no power calculation was performed since this was a pilot study and the purpose was to collect preliminary data for a larger trial.||||.6678
90811868|NCT02838901|181502215|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.000
90811869|NCT02838901|181502215|OTHER|||||||0.876|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.876
90811870|NCT02838901|181502216|OTHER|||||||0.889|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.889
90811871|NCT02838901|181502216|OTHER|||||||0.532|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.532
90811872|NCT02838901|181502217|OTHER|||||||0.888|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.888
90811873|NCT02838901|181502218|OTHER|||||||0.475|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.475
90811874|NCT02838901|181502219|OTHER|||||||0.135|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.135
90811875|NCT02838901|181502220|OTHER|||||||0.185|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.185
90811876|NCT00090233|181502277|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Relative Risk ≤10.0 (non-inferiority margin).|relative risk|1.6||||0.006||95.0|0.4|6.4||"p≤ 10/11, where p is proportion of participants with intussusception in vaccine group relative to total number of participants with intussusception. Based on conditional binomial approach.~Adjusted for group-sequential design."|Exact binomial test|Exact binomial test adjusted for group-sequential design.||||6.4|0.4|0.006
90811877|NCT00090233|181502278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion|81.2|||<|0.001||95.0|72.9|87.8||p≥42%, where p is proportion of participants with ≥3-fold rise in antibody titer from Predose 1 to Postdose 3 in vaccine group. Based on binomial approach.|Exact binomial test|||||87.8|72.9|<0.001
90811878|NCT00090233|181502279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Efficacy=1-Relative Risk|74.0|||<|0.001||95.0|66.8|79.9||"Efficacy≥35%. Based on p≤.65/(.65+k), where p is proportion of participants with outcome in vaccine group relative to total number of participants with outcome, k is ratio of follow-up time; placebo/vaccine.~Based on conditional binomial approach."|Exact binomial test|Exact binomial test.|Efficacy = 1-RR, expressed as a percentage; the RR is the incidence in the vaccine group / the incidence in the placebo group.|||79.9|66.8|<0.001
90811879|NCT00090233|181502280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|94.5|||<|0.001||95.0|91.2|96.6||Rate Reduction\>0%|Poisson regression|"Poisson regression with generalized estimating equations.~Validated with Van Elteren's extension of Wilcoxon Rank Sum test."|Risk ratio of rate of hospitalizations and emergency department visits between treatment groups. Reported here are results after 12 additional emergency department visits were identified among placebo recipients and data were re-analyzed.|||96.6|91.2|<0.001
90811880|NCT00090233|181502281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Efficacy=1-Relative Risk|81.5|||<|0.001||95.0|74.9|86.7||Efficacy\>0%. Based on p\< 1/(1+k), where p is proportion of participants with outcome in vaccine group relative to total number of participants with outcome, and k is ratio of follow-up time; placebo / vaccine. Based on conditional binomial approach.|Exact binomial test||Estimated value is based on the worst episode scores.|||86.7|74.9|<0.001
90811881|NCT00090233|181502282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Efficacy=1-Relative Risk|98.0|||<|0.001||95.0|88.3|100.0||Efficacy\>0%. Based on p\< 1/(1+k), where p is proportion of participants with outcome in vaccine group relative to total number of participants with outcome, and k is ratio of follow-up time; placebo/vaccine. Based on conditional binomial approach.|Exact binomial test|||||100|88.3|<0.001
90811882|NCT00090233|181502283|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Difference (vaccine-placebo) in seroprotection rates was greater than -.10 (non-inferiority margin).|||||<|0.001||95.0||||p\<0.001 was obtained for all comparisons. pv - pp ≥-.10, where p is proportion of participants who achieved seroprotection in the vaccine and placebo groups, respectively.|Miettenen and Nurminen|||||||<0.001
90811883|NCT00090233|181502284|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|GMTR was greater than 0.5 (non-inferiority margin).|GMTR for Pertussis PT|0.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.1|||t-test, 1 sided|t-test on natural log of titers||The GMT Ratio between RotaTeq™ and Placebo (GMTR) for Pertussis PT was used for analysis.||1.1|0.7|<0.001
90811884|NCT00090233|181502284|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|GMTR was greater than 0.5 (non-inferiority margin).|GMTR for Pertussis FHA|0.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.1|||t-test, 1 sided|t-test on natural log of titers||The GMT Ratio between RotaTeq™ and Placebo (GMTR) for Pertussis FHA was used for analysis.||1.1|0.7|<0.001
90811885|NCT00090233|181502284|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|GMTR was greater than 0.5 (non-inferiority margin).|GMTR for Pertussis Pertactin|0.6||||0.193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.8|||t-test, 1 sided|t-test on natural log of titers||The GMT Ratio between RotaTeq™ and Placebo (GMTR) for Pertussis Pertactin was used for analysis.||0.8|0.4|0.193
90811886|NCT00090233|181502285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|GMTR was greater than 0.5 (non-inferiority margin).|GMTR for pneumococcal serotype 4|1.2|||<|0.001||95.0|1.0|1.4|||t-test, 1 sided|t-test on natural log of titers||The GMT Ratio between RotaTeq™ and Placebo (GMTR) for pneumococcal serotype 4 was used for analysis.||1.4|1.0|<0.001
90811887|NCT00090233|181502285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|GMTR was greater than 0.5 (non-inferiority margin).|GMTR for pneumococcal serotype 6B|1.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.9|||t-test, 1 sided|t-test on natural log of titers||The GMT Ratio between RotaTeq™ and Placebo (GMTR) for pneumococcal serotype 6B was used for analysis.||1.9|1.0|<0.001
90811888|NCT00090233|181502285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|GMTR was greater than 0.5 (non-inferiority margin).|GMTR for pneumococcal serotype 9V|1.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.3|||t-test, 1 sided|t-test on natural log of titers||The GMT Ratio between RotaTeq™ and Placebo (GMTR) for pneumococcal serotype 9V was used for analysis.||1.3|0.9|<0.001
90811889|NCT00090233|181502285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|GMTR was greater than 0.5 (non-inferiority margin).|GMTR for pneumococcal serotype 14|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.3|||t-test, 1 sided|t-test on natural log of titers||The GMT Ratio between RotaTeq™ and Placebo (GMTR) for pneumococcal serotype 14 was used for analysis.||1.3|0.7|<0.001
90811890|NCT00090233|181502285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|GMTR was greater than 0.5 (non-inferiority margin).|GMTR for pneumococcal serotype 18C|1.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.6|||t-test, 1 sided|t-test on natural log of titers||The GMT Ratio between RotaTeq™ and Placebo (GMTR) for pneumococcal serotype 18C was used for analysis.||1.6|1.1|<0.001
90811891|NCT00090233|181502285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|GMTR was greater than 0.5 (non-inferiority margin).|GMTR for pneumococcal serotype 19F|1.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.4|||t-test, 1 sided|t-test on natural log of titers||The GMT Ratio between RotaTeq™ and Placebo (GMTR) for pneumococcal serotype 19F was used for analysis.||1.4|0.8|<0.001
90811892|NCT00090233|181502285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|GMTR was greater than 0.5 (non-inferiority margin).|GMTR for pneumococcal serotype 23F|1.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.5|||t-test, 1 sided|t-test on natural log of titers||The GMT Ratio between RotaTeq™ and Placebo (GMTR) for pneumococcal serotype 23F was used for analysis.||1.5|0.9|<0.001
90811893|NCT01779869|181502298|SUPERIORITY|Accuracy was assessed compared to an imaging reference standard.||||||0.35|||||||Chi-squared|||Significance testing between the diagnostic accuracy of SPECT and PET, and SPECT and MR, and SPECT and PET/MR was performed by using chi square test. A P value \< 0.05 was considered significant.||||0.35
91015652|NCT01353586|181914016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion of events|71.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.3|79.8|||||The above supplemental analysis is to estimate the rate of subjects without documented symptomatic AF at Day 240 using the Kaplan-Meier time-to-event analysis method to accommodate the censored information from the two withdrawn subjects.|||79.8|63.3|
90811894|NCT04754230|181502332|OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||two sided Z-test|This estimate uses two sided Z-test while assuming type I error=0.05||Comparison of bleeding at day 1||||0.8
90811895|NCT00957944|181502362|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% Confidence Interval for the ratio of geometric LS- Means is included within 0.8- 1.25, the patches are considered bioequivalent.|ratio of geometric LS- Means|1.0302||||||90.0|0.9693|1.0951|||ANOVA|ANOVA for log- transformed values has been used as the basis for calculation of point estimates (LS- Means) and Confidence Intervals (CIs).|Bioequivalence is concluded if the 90% CIs for the ratio Treatment A/ Treatment B are fully included in the acceptance range from 0.8- 1.25 for AUC(0-tz), AUC(0-inf) and Cmax.|Bioequivalence testing by using the 90% Confidence Interval (CI).||1.0951|0.9693|
90811896|NCT00957944|181502363|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% Confidence Interval for the ratio of geometric LS- Means is included within 0.8- 1.25, the patches are considered bioequivalent.|ratio of geometric LS- Means|1.0571||||||90.0|0.9903|1.1284|||ANOVA|ANOVA for log- transformed values has been used as the basis for calculation of point estimates (LS- Means) and Confidence Intervals (CIs).|Bioequivalence is concluded if the 90% CIs for the ratio Treatment A/ Treatment B are fully included in the acceptance range from 0.8- 1.25 for AUC(0-tz), AUC(0-inf) and Cmax.|Bioequivalence testing by using the 90% Confidence Interval (CI).||1.1284|0.9903|
90811897|NCT00957944|181502364|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% Confidence Interval for the ratio of geometric LS- Means is included within 0.8- 1.25, the patches are considered bioequivalent.|ratio of geometric LS- Means|1.0289||||||90.0|0.9714|1.0899|||ANOVA|ANOVA for log- transformed values has been used as the basis for calculation of point estimates (LS- Means) and Confidence Intervals (CIs).|Bioequivalence is concluded if the 90% CIs for the ratio Treatment A/ Treatment B are fully included in the acceptance range from 0.8- 1.25 for AUC(0-tz), AUC(0-inf) and Cmax.|Bioequivalence testing by using the 90% Confidence Interval (CI).||1.0899|0.9714|
90811898|NCT00445848|181502387|OTHER||proportion of participants|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.85||||||The overall survival rate at year 1 was estimated using Kaplan-Meier.||0.85|0.67|
90811899|NCT00445848|181502387|OTHER||proportion of participants|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.67||||||The overall survival rate at year 2 was estimated using Kaplan-Meier.||0.67|0.46|
90811900|NCT00445848|181502387|OTHER||proportion of participants|0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.53||||||The overall survival rate at year 3 was estimated using Kaplan-Meier.||0.53|0.32|
90811901|NCT01030874|181502433|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.99|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for whether patient had orthostatic hypotension at baseline.|Arm 2 is in the numerator of OR calculation.|||1.99|0.67|0.6
90811902|NCT01030874|181502434|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|3.24|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for whether patient had orthostatic hypotension at discharge.|Arm 2 is in the numerator of OR calculation.|||3.24|0.74|0.3
91015653|NCT03992456|181914024|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5126|||||||Un-Stratified Log-rank|||||||0.5126
91015654|NCT03992456|181914025|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1512|||||||Un-Stratified Log-rank|||||||0.1512
91015655|NCT03992456|181914026|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2506|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2506
91015656|NCT03992456|181914027|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8865|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.8865
90811903|NCT05257148|181502446|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90811904|NCT03541187|181502447|SUPERIORITY|The comparison between arms will be conducted using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model, in which the change from the baseline to the 12-month TNSS mean serves as the outcome. The ANCOVA model will incorporate factors for treatment while adjusting for both the baseline TNSS mean and site.|Least Square Mean Difference|-0.23||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|0.7|||ANCOVA|||||0.70|-1.15|0.63
90811905|NCT03541187|181502449|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means Difference|-0.17||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.66|||ANCOVA|||||0.66|-0.99|0.69
90811906|NCT03541187|181502450|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.54|||Regression, Cox||At the reactive dose of 15.4 mcg/mL after 12 months, there were 11 participants who were right-censored in the Cockroach SCIT arm and 8 participants who were right-censored in the Placebo arm.|||1.54|0.42|.51
90811907|NCT03541187|181502451|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means Difference|-0.03||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.49|||ANCOVA|||||0.49|-0.54|0.91
90811908|NCT03541187|181502452|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means Difference|5.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.77|5.87|||ANCOVA|||||5.87|4.77|<0.001
90811909|NCT03385265|181502520|SUPERIORITY||partial eta squared|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED||||||repeated measures ANOVA|||||||
90811910|NCT03385265|181502521|SUPERIORITY||partial eta squared|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED||||||repeated measures ANOVA|CESD-R = within subject variable; group = between subject variable||||||
90811911|NCT03385265|181502522|SUPERIORITY||partial eta squared|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED||||||repeated measures ANOVA|||||||
90811912|NCT03385265|181502523|SUPERIORITY||partial eta squared|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED||||||repeated measures ANOVA|||||||
91015657|NCT03992456|181914028|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5455|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.5455
91055074|NCT05958888|181992172|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Graphic vs. Text||||.01
90811913|NCT03385265|181502524|SUPERIORITY||partial eta squared|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED||||||repeated measures ANOVA|||||||
90811914|NCT03385265|181502525|SUPERIORITY||partial eta squared|0.04|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||repeated measures ANOVA|||||||<0.05
90811915|NCT03385265|181502526|SUPERIORITY||partial eta squared|0.24|||||TWO_SIDED||||||repeated measures ANOVA|||||||
90811916|NCT03385265|181502527|SUPERIORITY||partial eta squared|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED||||||repeated measures ANOVA|||||||
90811917|NCT03385265|181502528|SUPERIORITY||partial eta squared|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED||||||repeated measures ANOVA|||||||
90811918|NCT04465877|181502541|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.12||||0.956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-79.67|75.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference between change from baseline in PPG (AUEC0-4) value for JTT-662 5 mg and placebo on Day 1||75.42|-79.67|0.956
90811919|NCT04465877|181502541|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33||||0.995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-105.41|106.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference between change from baseline in PPG (AUEC0-4) value for JTT-662 5 mg and placebo on Day 14||106.07|-105.41|0.995
90811920|NCT04465877|181502541|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-59.35||||0.366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-191.15|72.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference between change from baseline in PPG (AUEC0-4) value for JTT-662 5 mg and placebo on Day 28||72.45|-191.15|0.366
90811921|NCT04465877|181502541|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-100.02||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-179.96|-20.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference between change from baseline in PPG (AUEC0-4) value for JTT-662 10 mg and placebo on Day 1||-20.08|-179.96|0.016
90811922|NCT04465877|181502541|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-137.85||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-245.28|-30.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference between change from baseline in PPG (AUEC0-4) value for JTT-662 10 mg and placebo on Day 14||-30.43|-245.28|0.014
90811923|NCT04465877|181502541|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-229.04||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-362.17|-95.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference between change from baseline in PPG (AUEC0-4) value for JTT-662 10 mg and placebo on Day 28||-95.91|-362.17|0.001
90811924|NCT04465877|181502541|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-89.98||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-167.62|-12.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference between change from baseline in PPG (AUEC0-4) value for JTT-662 20 mg and placebo on Day 1||-12.33|-167.62|0.025
90811925|NCT04465877|181502541|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-222.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-326.54|-117.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference between change from baseline in PPG (AUEC0-4) value for JTT-662 20 mg and placebo on Day 14||-117.51|-326.54|<0.001
90811926|NCT04465877|181502541|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-248.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-379.35|-118.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference between change from baseline in PPG (AUEC0-4) value for JTT-662 20 mg and placebo on Day 28||-118.28|-379.35|<0.001
90811927|NCT00395135|181502547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|4.2|||ANCOVA|||||4.2|3.0|<0.0001
90811928|NCT00395135|181502549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion (%)|-3.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.09|-3.25|||ANCOVA|||||-3.25|-4.09|<0.001
90811929|NCT00395135|181502550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion (%)|-2.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.29|-1.88|||ANCOVA|||||-1.88|-3.29|<0.001
90811930|NCT00395135|181502550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion (%)|1.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.19|||ANCOVA|||||2.19|1.10|<0.001
91015658|NCT03155269|181914033|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0423||||0.1324|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.1057|0.0211||The setting of the two-sided significance level of 0.025 was used for the 2 co-primary endpoints to ensure that the overall significance level for the primary endpoint was less than or equal to 0.05.|ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with product group and strata as fixed effects, and the corresponding baseline value as covariate.|Difference is test product minus reference product such that a negative difference favors the test product.|||0.0211|-0.1057|0.1324
91015659|NCT03155269|181914034|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.229||||0.0469|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.03|0.489||The setting of the two-sided significance level of 0.025 was used for the 2 co-primary endpoints to ensure that the overall significance level for the primary endpoint was less than or equal to 0.05.|ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with product group and strata as fixed effects, and the corresponding baseline value as covariate.|Difference is test product minus reference product such that a negative difference favors the test product.|||0.489|-0.030|0.0469
90811931|NCT02323204|181502551|OTHER|||||||0.6298|||||||Wald 2-sided t-test|||"A Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLMM) with log link and gamma distribution was fit to five imputed data sets. Obtained estimates and standard errors were adjusted accordingly.~A comparison of intervention efficacy was made through the intervention-time interaction effect included in the model. Statistical significance of the interaction effect is indicative of a difference in effect between interventions over time."||||0.6298
90811932|NCT02323204|181502551|OTHER|||||||0.2341|||||||Wald 2-sided t-test|||"A Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLMM) with log link and gamma distribution was fit to five imputed data sets. Obtained estimates and standard errors were adjusted accordingly.~A comparison of intervention efficacy was made through the intervention-time interaction effect included in the model. Statistical significance of the interaction effect is indicative of a difference in effect between interventions over time."||||0.2341
90811933|NCT02323204|181502552|OTHER|||||||0.7893|||||||Wald 2-sided t-test|||"A Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLMM) with log link and gamma distribution was fit to five imputed data sets. Obtained estimates and standard errors were adjusted accordingly.~A comparison of intervention efficacy was made through the intervention-time interaction effect included in the model. Statistical significance of the interaction effect is indicative of a difference in effect between interventions over time."||||0.7893
90811934|NCT02323204|181502552|OTHER|||||||0.2951|||||||Wald 2-sided t-test|||"A Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLMM) with log link and gamma distribution was fit to five imputed data sets. Obtained estimates and standard errors were adjusted accordingly.~A comparison of intervention efficacy was made through the intervention-time interaction effect included in the model. Statistical significance of the interaction effect is indicative of a difference in effect between interventions over time."||||0.2951
91015660|NCT04637815|181914061|EQUIVALENCE|t-tests for continuous variables and chi-squared tests for categorical variables|||||||TWO_SIDED|0.0||||Statistical threshold of significance is .05.|t-test, 2 sided||||We also conducted difference in differences (DID) analysis by first constructing measures of difference between follow-up and baseline for each participant for each measure and then comparing the means of these difference measures for each arm.|||
90811935|NCT02323204|181502553|OTHER|||||||0.7166|||||||Wald 2-sided t-test|||"A Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLMM) with log link and gamma distribution was fit to five imputed data sets. Obtained estimates and standard errors were adjusted accordingly.~A comparison of intervention efficacy was made through the intervention-time interaction effect included in the model. Statistical significance of the interaction effect is indicative of a difference in effect between interventions over time."||||0.7166
90811936|NCT02323204|181502553|OTHER|||||||0.4501|||||||Wald 2-sided t-test|||"A Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLMM) with log link and gamma distribution was fit to five imputed data sets. Obtained estimates and standard errors were adjusted accordingly.~A comparison of intervention efficacy was made through the intervention-time interaction effect included in the model. Statistical significance of the interaction effect is indicative of a difference in effect between interventions over time."||||0.4501
90811937|NCT02323204|181502554|OTHER|||||||0.6756|||||||Wald 2-sided t-test|||"A Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLMM) with log link and gamma distribution was fit to five imputed data sets. Obtained estimates and standard errors were adjusted accordingly.~A comparison of intervention efficacy was made through the intervention-time interaction effect included in the model. Statistical significance of the interaction effect is indicative of a difference in effect between interventions over time."||||0.6756
90811938|NCT02323204|181502554|OTHER|||||||0.5381|||||||Wald 2-sided t-test|||"A Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLMM) with log link and gamma distribution was fit to five imputed data sets. Obtained estimates and standard errors were adjusted accordingly.~A comparison of intervention efficacy was made through the intervention-time interaction effect included in the model. Statistical significance of the interaction effect is indicative of a difference in effect between interventions over time."||||0.5381
90811939|NCT02323204|181502555|OTHER|||||||0.1507|||||||Wald 2-sided t-test|||"A Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLMM) with log link and gamma distribution was fit to five imputed data sets. Obtained estimates and standard errors were adjusted accordingly.~A comparison of intervention efficacy was made through the intervention-time interaction effect included in the model. Statistical significance of the interaction effect is indicative of a difference in effect between interventions over time."||||0.1507
90811940|NCT02323204|181502555|OTHER|||||||0.0769|||||||Wald 2-sided t-test|||"A Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLMM) with log link and gamma distribution was fit to five imputed data sets. Obtained estimates and standard errors were adjusted accordingly.~A comparison of intervention efficacy was made through the intervention-time interaction effect included in the model. Statistical significance of the interaction effect is indicative of a difference in effect between interventions over time."||||0.0769
90811941|NCT02323204|181502556|OTHER|||||||0.0654|||||||Wald 2-sided t-test|||"A Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLMM) with log link and gamma distribution was fit to five imputed data sets. Obtained estimates and standard errors were adjusted accordingly.~A comparison of intervention efficacy was made through the intervention-time interaction effect included in the model. Statistical significance of the interaction effect is indicative of a difference in effect between interventions over time."||||0.0654
90811942|NCT02323204|181502556|OTHER|||||||0.7957|||||||Wald 2-sided t-test|||"A Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLMM) with log link and gamma distribution was fit to five imputed data sets. Obtained estimates and standard errors were adjusted accordingly.~A comparison of intervention efficacy was made through the intervention-time interaction effect included in the model. Statistical significance of the interaction effect is indicative of a difference in effect between interventions over time."||||0.7957
90811943|NCT02323204|181502557|OTHER|||||||0.0286|||||||Wald 2-sided t-test|||"A Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLMM) with log link and gamma distribution was fit to five imputed data sets. Obtained estimates and standard errors were adjusted accordingly.~A comparison of intervention efficacy was made through the intervention-time interaction effect included in the model. Statistical significance of the interaction effect is indicative of a difference in effect between interventions over time."||||0.0286
90890340|NCT01392560|181645160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change from baseline|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.7||0.7585|||||||Paired t-test||Estimated value = mean of end of treatment - baseline|Test of the difference between baseline and end of treatment under hyperglycaemia condition for non-filterers||||0.7585
91055075|NCT05958888|181992172|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.25|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Graphic vs. Icon||||.25
90811944|NCT02323204|181502557|OTHER|||||||0.0201|||||||Wald 2-sided t-test|||"A Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLMM) with log link and gamma distribution was fit to five imputed data sets. Obtained estimates and standard errors were adjusted accordingly.~A comparison of intervention efficacy was made through the intervention-time interaction effect included in the model. Statistical significance of the interaction effect is indicative of a difference in effect between interventions over time."||||0.0201
90811945|NCT02323204|181502558|OTHER|||||||0.9928|||||||Wald 2-sided t-test|||"A Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLMM) with log link and gamma distribution was fit to five imputed data sets. Obtained estimates and standard errors were adjusted accordingly.~A comparison of intervention efficacy was made through the intervention-time interaction effect included in the model. Statistical significance of the interaction effect is indicative of a difference in effect between interventions over time."||||0.9928
90811946|NCT02323204|181502558|OTHER|||||||0.0982|||||||Wald 2-sided t-test|||"A Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLMM) with log link and gamma distribution was fit to five imputed data sets. Obtained estimates and standard errors were adjusted accordingly.~A comparison of intervention efficacy was made through the intervention-time interaction effect included in the model. Statistical significance of the interaction effect is indicative of a difference in effect between interventions over time."||||0.0982
90811947|NCT02323204|181502559|OTHER|||||||0.0325|||||||Wald 2-sided t-test|||"A Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLMM) with log link and gamma distribution was fit to five imputed data sets. Obtained estimates and standard errors were adjusted accordingly.~A comparison of intervention efficacy was made through the intervention-time interaction effect included in the model. Statistical significance of the interaction effect is indicative of a difference in effect between interventions over time."||||0.0325
90811948|NCT02323204|181502559|OTHER|||||||0.2568|||||||Wald 2-sided t-test|||"A Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLMM) with log link and gamma distribution was fit to five imputed data sets. Obtained estimates and standard errors were adjusted accordingly.~A comparison of intervention efficacy was made through the intervention-time interaction effect included in the model. Statistical significance of the interaction effect is indicative of a difference in effect between interventions over time."||||0.2568
90811949|NCT02323204|181502560|OTHER|||||||0.5824|||||||Wald 2-sided t-test|||"A Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLMM) with log link and gamma distribution was fit to five imputed data sets. Obtained estimates and standard errors were adjusted accordingly.~A comparison of intervention efficacy was made through the intervention-time interaction effect included in the model. Statistical significance of the interaction effect is indicative of a difference in effect between interventions over time."||||0.5824
90811950|NCT02323204|181502560|OTHER|||||||0.4635|||||||Wald 2-sided t-test|||"A Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLMM) with log link and gamma distribution was fit to five imputed data sets. Obtained estimates and standard errors were adjusted accordingly.~A comparison of intervention efficacy was made through the intervention-time interaction effect included in the model. Statistical significance of the interaction effect is indicative of a difference in effect between interventions over time."||||0.4635
90811951|NCT02323204|181502561|OTHER|||||||0.7949|||||||Wald 2-sided t-test|||A Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLMM) with cumulative logit link and multinomial distribution was fit to the data. A comparison of implementation over time between interventions was made through the intervention-time interaction effect included in the model. Significance in the interaction effect is indicative of a difference in the rate of change in implementation between interventions over time.||||0.7949
91015661|NCT04637815|181914062|EQUIVALENCE|t-tests for continuous variables and chi-squared tests for categorical variables||||||||||||Statistical threshold of significance is .05.|t-test, 2 sided||||We also conducted difference in differences (DID) analysis by first constructing measures of difference between follow-up and baseline for each participant for each measure and then comparing the means of these difference measures for each arm.|||
91055076|NCT05958888|181992173|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Text vs. Control||||<.001
90811952|NCT02323204|181502561|OTHER|||||||0.0003|||||||Wald 2-sided t-test|||A Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLMM) with cumulative logit link and multinomial distribution was fit to the data. A comparison of implementation between interventions was made through the intervention main effect included in the model. The model at hand does not contain an interaction between intervention and time. Significance in the main intervention effect is indicative of a difference in implementation between intervention groups.||||0.0003
90811953|NCT04346108|181502594|SUPERIORITY||Poisson Estimate|1.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|3.15||||||||3.15|0.73|
90811954|NCT04346108|181502594|SUPERIORITY||Poisson Estimate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||||||||0.00|0.00|
90811955|NCT04346108|181502594|SUPERIORITY||Poisson Estimate|2.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|4.13||||||||4.13|1.34|
90811956|NCT04346108|181502595|SUPERIORITY||Poisson Estimate|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|5.3||||||||5.30|1.02|
90811957|NCT04346108|181502595|SUPERIORITY||Poisson Estimate|9.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.82|23.82||||||||23.82|2.82|
90811958|NCT04346108|181502595|SUPERIORITY||Poisson Estimate|2.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|5.18||||||||5.18|1.37|
90811959|NCT04346108|181502596|SUPERIORITY||Poisson Estimate|4.01||||||95.0|1.46|8.54||||||||8.54|1.46|
90811960|NCT04346108|181502596|SUPERIORITY||Poisson Estimate|3.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|10.74||||||||10.74|0.37|
90811961|NCT04346108|181502596|SUPERIORITY||Poisson Estimate|5.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.32|11.93||||||||11.93|2.32|
90811962|NCT04346108|181502597|SUPERIORITY||Poisson Estimate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||||||||0.0|0.0|
90811963|NCT04346108|181502597|SUPERIORITY||Poisson Estimate|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.35||||||||0.35|0.03|
90811964|NCT04346108|181502597|SUPERIORITY||Poisson Estimate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||||||||0.00|0.00|
90811965|NCT04346108|181502598|SUPERIORITY||Poisson Estimate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||||||||0.00|0.00|
90811966|NCT04346108|181502598|SUPERIORITY||Poisson Estimate|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|2.76||||||||2.76|0.25|
91055077|NCT05958888|181992173|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Icon vs. Control||||<.001
90811967|NCT04346108|181502599|SUPERIORITY||Poisson Estimate|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|2.68||||||||2.68|0.38|
90811968|NCT04346108|181502599|SUPERIORITY||Poisson Estimate|2.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|4.82||||||||4.82|0.91|
90811969|NCT04346108|181502599|SUPERIORITY||Poisson Estimate|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|2.15||||||||2.15|0.07|
90811970|NCT00747344|181502705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The study was designed to maintain a Type I error of 0.05 or less for the primary analysis.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline weight (≤ 65 kg vs \> 65 kg).||Null Hypothesis: No difference between ustekinumab 45 mg and placebo for the primary endpoint at a significance level of 0.05. With 120 subjects (60 in each treatment group), simulation studies were conducted to calculate the power to detect a treatment difference in the primary endpoint between ustekinumab 45 mg group and placebo using a CMH test stratified by baseline weight (\<=65kg vs \> 65 kg). For all the scenarios evaluated, the power was \> 99% at a significance level of 0.05.||||<0.001
90811971|NCT00747344|181502706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||No multiplicity adjustment was made and nominal p-value was reported.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline weight (≤ 65 kg vs \> 65 kg).||Null Hypothesis: No difference between ustekinumab 45 mg and placebo at a significance level of 0.05.||||<0.001
90811972|NCT00747344|181502707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||No multiplicity adjustment was made and nominal p-value was reported.|ANOVA|Analysis of variance on van der Waerden normal scores (Conover, 1980) with treatment and baseline weight (≤ 65kg vs \> 65 kg) as factors in the model.||Null Hypothesis: No difference between ustekinumab 45 mg and placebo at a significance level of 0.05.||||<0.001
90811973|NCT02847858|181502733|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.16||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|2.07||Arm by Time interaction; a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for age, purpose of visit, and whether sexually active prior 3 months; random intercepts and slopes over time; clustering by recruitment site|Arm comparison is Arm 1 (Intervention) minus Arm2 (Control); Time comparison is Post-visit Follow-up minus Baseline|Null hypothesis: No difference between study arms in change in mean self-efficacy from Baseline to Post-visit Follow-up||2.07|0.26|0.011
90811974|NCT02847858|181502733|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|2.07||Post hoc comparison pursuant to significant Arm by Time interaction; a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for age, purpose of visit, and whether sexually active prior 3 months; random intercepts and slopes over time; clustering by recruitment site|Time comparison is Post-visit Follow-up minus Baseline|Null hypothesis: No Time difference (Post-visit Follow-up vs. Baseline) in outcome||2.07|1.01|<0.001
90811975|NCT02847858|181502733|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.48||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.05||Post hoc comparison pursuant to significant Arm by Time interaction; a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for age, purpose of visit, and whether sexually active prior 3 months; random intercepts and slopes over time; clustering by recruitment site|Time comparison is Post-visit Follow-up minus Baseline|Null hypothesis: No Time difference (Post-visit Follow-up vs. Baseline) in outcome||1.05|-0.10|0.108
90811976|NCT02847858|181502734|SUPERIORITY||F statistic:Time X Arm Interaction|3.23||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||Arm by Time interaction; a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for age, purpose of visit, and whether sexually active prior 3 months; random intercepts and slopes over time; clustering by recruitment site|df=2,1611; Arm comparison is Intervention - Control; Time comparisons are 3 months - Baseline and 6 months - Baseline and 6 months - 3 months|Null hypothesis: No difference between study arms in change in mean self-efficacy from Baseline to 3 months or from Baseline to 6 months||||0.04
90811977|NCT02847858|181502734|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.82||||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|2.11||Post hoc comparison pursuant to significant Arm by Time interaction; a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for age, purpose of visit, and whether sexually active prior 3 months; random intercepts and slopes over time; clustering by recruitment site||Null hypothesis: No difference between study arms in change in mean self-efficacy from Baseline to 3 months|Arm comparison is Intervention - Control; Time comparison is 3 months - Baseline|2.11|-0.48|.218
91015662|NCT04637815|181914063|EQUIVALENCE|t-tests for continuous variables and chi-squared tests for categorical variables||||||||||||Statistical threshold of significance is .05.|t-test, 2 sided||||We also conducted difference in differences (DID) analysis by first constructing measures of difference between follow-up and baseline for each participant for each measure and then comparing the means of these difference measures for each arm.|||
90811978|NCT02847858|181502734|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.58||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|2.77||Post hoc comparison pursuant to significant Arm by Time interaction; a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for age, purpose of visit, and whether sexually active prior 3 months; random intercepts and slopes over time; clustering by recruitment site|Arm comparison is Intervention - Control; Time comparison is 6 months - Baseline|Null hypothesis: No difference between study arms in change in mean self-efficacy from Baseline to 6 months||2.77|0.38|0.008
90811979|NCT02847858|181502735|SUPERIORITY||F statistic:Time X Arm Interaction|3.72||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|||||Arm by Time Interaction; a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for age, purpose of visit, and whether sexually active prior 3 months; random intercepts and slopes over time; clustering by recruitment site|df=2, 1007; Arm comparison is Intervention/Control; Time comparisons are 3 months/Baseline and 6 months/Baseline and 6 months/3 months|Null hypothesis: No difference between arms in change in percentage of participants using non-barrier method from Baseline to 3 months or to 6 months||||0.025
90811980|NCT02847858|181502735|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.29||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|10.36||Post hoc comparison pursuant to significant Arm by Time Interaction; a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for age, purpose of visit, and whether sexually active prior 3 months; random intercepts and slopes over time; clustering by recruitment site|Arm comparison is Intervention / Control; Time comparison is 3 months / Baseline|Null hypothesis: No difference between arms in change in percentage of participants using non-barrier method from Baseline to 3 months||10.36|1.04|0.042
90890341|NCT02558010|181645169|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The p-value was calculated, and does not indicate the threshold for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
91055078|NCT05958888|181992173|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Graphic vs. Control||||<.001
90811981|NCT02847858|181502735|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.54||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|18.06||Post hoc comparison pursuant to significant Arm by Time Interaction; a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for age, purpose of visit, and whether sexually active prior 3 months; random intercepts and slopes over time; clustering by recruitment site|Arm comparison is Intervention / Control; Time comparison is 6 months / Baseline|Null hypothesis: No difference between arms in change in percentage of participants using non-barrier method from Baseline to 6 months||18.06|1.7|0.005
90811982|NCT02847858|181502736|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|1.82||Time main effect; a priori threshold for statistical significance p \<.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for age, purpose of visit, and whether sexually active prior 3 months; random intercepts and slopes over time; clustering by recruitment site|Time comparison is post-app minus pre-app|Null hypothesis: No change in contraception knowledge from immediate pre-app to immediate post-app among Intervention group participants||1.82|1.43|<0.001
90811983|NCT02847858|181502737|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.22||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|5.01||Arm main effect; a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<.05|Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for age, purpose of visit, and whether sexually active prior 3 months; clustering by recruitment site|Arm comparison is Arm 1 (Intervention) / Arm2 (Control)|Null hypothesis: No difference between study arms in percentage of participants who discussed birth control with health care provider at visit||5.01|0.98|0.055
90811984|NCT02847858|181502738|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.66||||0.227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|3.78||Arm main effect; a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<.05|Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for age, purpose of visit, and whether sexually active prior 3 months; clustering by recruitment site|Arm comparison is Arm 1 (Intervention) / Arm2 (Control)|Null hypothesis: No difference between study arms in percentage of participants who receive/make appointment/get prescription for a non-barrier method||3.78|0.73|0.227
90811985|NCT02210221|181502864|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin = 0|||||<|0.0001||||||No corrections for multiple comparisons were done|ANOVA|||null hypothesis: no difference between ER stratum, Admission stratum and ICU stratum in 6-month mortality||||<0.0001
90811986|NCT02210221|181502864|OTHER||observed to expected ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.76|||||numerator: 6-month mortality observed denominator: 6-month mortality expected 95% CIs estimated according to a Poisson distribution|||0.76|0.62|
90811987|NCT02210221|181502865|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin = 0|||||<|0.0001||||||No corrections for multiple comparisons were done|ANOVA|||null hypothesis: no difference between ER stratum, Admission stratum and ICU stratum in SF-12v2 mental component summary||||<0.0001
90811988|NCT02210221|181502865|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin = 0|||||<|0.0001||||||No corrections for multiple comparisons were done|ANOVA|||null hypothesis: no difference between ER stratum, Admission stratum and ICU stratum in SF-12v2 physical component summary||||<0.0001
91055079|NCT05958888|181992173|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.12|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Icon vs. Text||||.12
90811989|NCT02210221|181502866|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin = 0|||||<|0.0001||||||No corrections for multiple comparisons were done|ANOVA|||null hypothesis: no difference between ER stratum, Admission stratum and ICU stratum in Qolibri Overall Scale||||<0.0001
90811990|NCT02210221|181502867|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin = 0|||||<|0.0001||||||No correlations for multiple comparisons were done|ANOVA|||null hypothesis: no difference between ER stratum, Admission stratum and ICU stratum||||<0.0001
90811991|NCT02210221|181502868|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin = 0|||||<|0.0001||||||No correlations for multiple comparisons were done|ANOVA|||null hypothesis: no difference between ER stratum, Admission stratum and ICU stratum||||<0.0001
90811992|NCT02210221|181502869|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin = 0|||||<|0.0001||||||No correlations for multiple comparisons were done|ANOVA|||null hypothesis: no difference between ER stratum, Admission stratum and ICU stratum||||<0.0001
90811993|NCT02210221|181502870|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin = 0|||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||null hypothesis: no difference between ER stratum, Admission stratum and ICU stratum||||<0.0001
90811994|NCT02210221|181502871|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin = 0||||||0.169|||||||ANOVA|||null hypothesis: no difference between ER stratum, Admission stratum and ICU stratum||||0.169
90811995|NCT02210221|181502872|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin = 0|||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||null hypothesis: no difference between ER stratum, Admission stratum and ICU stratum||||<0.0001
90811996|NCT02210221|181502873|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin = 0|||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||null hypothesis: no difference between ER stratum, Admission stratum and ICU stratum||||<0.0001
90811997|NCT02210221|181502874|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin = 0|||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||null hypothesis: no difference between ER stratum, Admission stratum and ICU stratum||||<0.0001
90811998|NCT02210221|181502875|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin = 0||||||0.637|||||||ANOVA|||null hypothesis: no difference between ER stratum, Admission stratum and ICU stratum||||0.637
90811999|NCT02210221|181502876|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin = 0|||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||null hypothesis: no difference between ER stratum, Admission stratum and ICU stratum||||<0.0001
90812000|NCT02210221|181502877|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin = 0||||||0.48|||||||ANOVA|||null hypothesis: no difference between ER stratum, Admission stratum and ICU stratum||||0.480
90812001|NCT02210221|181502878|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin = 0|||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||null hypothesis: no difference between ER stratum, Admission stratum and ICU stratum||||<0.0001
90812002|NCT02210221|181502879|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin = 0||||||0.024|||||||ANOVA|||null hypothesis: no difference between ER stratum, Admission stratum and ICU stratum||||0.024
90812003|NCT02210221|181502880|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin = 0||||||0.064|||||||ANOVA|||null hypothesis: no difference between ER stratum, Admission stratum and ICU stratum||||0.064
90812004|NCT02210221|181502881|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin = 0|||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||null hypothesis: no difference between ER stratum, Admission stratum and ICU stratum||||<0.0001
91055080|NCT05958888|181992173|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Graphic vs. Text||||<.001
90812005|NCT04411420|181502890|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59||||0.169|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.55|0.37||Threshold for significance is 0.025 due to dual primary outcomes.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hierarchical linear model fit included random effects for clinic and clinic by time and pre-specified clinic- and patient-level covariates.|Difference is calculated as Integrated Sequenced Care Pathway 3-month change minus Coordinated Care Management Pathway 3-month change.|||0.37|-1.55|0.169
90812006|NCT04411420|181502891|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.59||||0.139|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.33|1.52||Threshold for significance is 0.025 due to dual primary outcomes.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hierarchical linear model fit included random effects for clinic and clinic by time and pre-specified clinic- and patient-level covariates.|Difference is calculated as Integrated Sequenced Care Pathway 3-month change minus Coordinated Care Management Pathway 3-month change.|||1.52|-0.33|0.139
90812007|NCT04411420|181502892|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48||||0.417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|0.72||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for significance is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hierarchical linear model fit included random effects for clinic and clinic by time and pre-specified clinic- and patient-level covariates.||||0.72|-1.69|0.417
90812008|NCT04411420|181502893|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|0.57||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for significance is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hierarchical linear model fit included random effects for clinic and clinic by time and pre-specified clinic- and patient-level covariates.|Difference is calculated as Integrated Sequenced Care Pathway change minus Coordinated Care Management Pathway change.|Baseline to 3 months||0.57|-1.37|0.409
90812009|NCT04411420|181502893|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|0.91||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for significance is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hierarchical linear model fit included random effects for clinic and clinic by time and pre-specified clinic- and patient-level covariates.|Difference is calculated as Integrated Sequenced Care Pathway change minus Coordinated Care Management Pathway change.|Baseline to 6 months||0.91|-1.04|0.899
90812010|NCT04411420|181502893|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|1.08||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for significance is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hierarchical linear model fit included random effects for clinic and clinic by time and pre-specified clinic- and patient-level covariates.|Difference is calculated as Integrated Sequenced Care Pathway change minus Coordinated Care Management Pathway change.|Baseline to 12 months||1.08|-1.01|0.946
90812011|NCT04411420|181502894|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|-0.004||||0.992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.62|4.61||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for significance is 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Hierarchical linear model fit included random effects for clinic and clinic by time and pre-specified clinic- and patient-level covariates.|Odds Ratio calculated for Integrated Sequenced Care Pathway relative to Coordinated Care Management Pathway.|||4.61|-4.62|0.992
90812012|NCT04411420|181502895|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.67||||0.262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.52|2.18||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for significance is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hierarchical linear model fit included random effects for clinic and clinic by time and pre-specified clinic- and patient-level covariates.|Difference is calculated as Integrated Sequenced Care Pathway change minus Coordinated Care Management Pathway change.|||2.18|-7.52|0.262
90812013|NCT04411420|181502896|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.31|0.5||Threshold for significance is 0.025 due to dual primary outcomes.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hierarchical linear model fit included random effects for clinic and clinic by time and pre-specified clinic- and patient-level covariates.|Difference is calculated as Integrated Sequenced Care Pathway change minus Coordinated Care Management Pathway change.|Baseline to 3 months||0.50|-1.31|0.37
90812014|NCT04411420|181502896|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.54|0.39||Threshold for significance is 0.025 due to dual primary outcomes.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hierarchical linear model fit included random effects for clinic and clinic by time and pre-specified clinic- and patient-level covariates.|Difference is calculated as Integrated Sequenced Care Pathway change minus Coordinated Care Management Pathway change.|Baseline to 6 months||0.39|-1.54|0.24
90812015|NCT04411420|181502896|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.43|0.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|Hierarchical linear model fit included random effects for clinic and clinic by time and pre-specified clinic- and patient-level covariates.|Difference is calculated as Integrated Sequenced Care Pathway change minus Coordinated Care Management Pathway change.|Baseline to 12 months||0.54|-1.43|0.37
90812016|NCT04411420|181502897|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.727|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.51|0.72||Threshold for significance is 0.025 due to dual primary outcomes.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hierarchical linear model fit included random effects for clinic and clinic by time and pre-specified clinic- and patient-level covariates.|Difference is calculated as Integrated Sequenced Care Pathway change minus Coordinated Care Management Pathway change.|Baseline to 3 months||0.72|-0.51|0.727
90812017|NCT04411420|181502897|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24||||0.478|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.43|0.91||Threshold for significance is 0.025 due to dual primary outcomes.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hierarchical linear model fit included random effects for clinic and clinic by time and pre-specified clinic- and patient-level covariates.|Difference is calculated as Integrated Sequenced Care Pathway change minus Coordinated Care Management Pathway change.|Baseline to 6 months||0.91|-0.43|0.478
90812018|NCT04411420|181502897|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.894|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.75|0.66||Threshold for significance is 0.025 due to dual primary outcomes.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hierarchical linear model fit included random effects for clinic and clinic by time and pre-specified clinic- and patient-level covariates.|Difference is calculated as Integrated Sequenced Care Pathway change minus Coordinated Care Management Pathway change.|Baseline to 12 months||0.66|-0.75|0.894
90812019|NCT04411420|181502898|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.04||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for significance is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hierarchical linear model fit included random effects for clinic and clinic by time and pre-specified clinic- and patient-level covariates.|Difference is calculated as Integrated Sequenced Care Pathway change minus Coordinated Care Management Pathway change.|Baseline to 3 months||0.04|-0.15|0.222
90812020|NCT04411420|181502898|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.09||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for significance is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hierarchical linear model fit included random effects for clinic and clinic by time and pre-specified clinic- and patient-level covariates.|Difference is calculated as Integrated Sequenced Care Pathway change minus Coordinated Care Management Pathway change.|Baseline to 6 months||0.09|-0.10|0.988
90812021|NCT04411420|181502898|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.05||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for significance is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hierarchical linear model fit included random effects for clinic and clinic by time and pre-specified clinic- and patient-level covariates.|Difference is calculated as Integrated Sequenced Care Pathway change minus Coordinated Care Management Pathway change.|Baseline to 12 months||0.05|-0.16|0.269
90812022|NCT04411420|181502899|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.1||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for significance is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hierarchical linear model fit included random effects for clinic and clinic by time and pre-specified clinic- and patient-level covariates.|Difference is calculated as Integrated Sequenced Care Pathway change minus Coordinated Care Management Pathway change.|Baseline to 3 months||0.10|-0.22|0.477
90812023|NCT04411420|181502899|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.17||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for significance is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hierarchical linear model fit included random effects for clinic and clinic by time and pre-specified clinic- and patient-level covariates.|Difference is calculated as Integrated Sequenced Care Pathway change minus Coordinated Care Management Pathway change.|Baseline to 6 months||0.17|-0.19|0.877
90812024|NCT04411420|181502899|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|Hierarchical linear model fit included random effects for clinic and clinic by time and pre-specified clinic- and patient-level covariates.|Difference is calculated as Integrated Sequenced Care Pathway change minus Coordinated Care Management Pathway change.|Baseline to 12 months||0.11|-0.29|0.360
90812025|NCT04411420|181502900|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.28||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for significance is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hierarchical linear model fit included random effects for clinic and clinic by time and pre-specified clinic- and patient-level covariates.|Difference is calculated as Integrated Sequenced Care Pathway change minus Coordinated Care Management Pathway change.|Baseline to 3 months||0.28|-0.23|0.858
90812026|NCT04411420|181502900|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.21||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for significance is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hierarchical linear model fit included random effects for clinic and clinic by time and pre-specified clinic- and patient-level covariates.|Difference is calculated as Integrated Sequenced Care Pathway change minus Coordinated Care Management Pathway change.|Baseline to 6 months||0.21|-0.32|0.688
90812027|NCT04411420|181502900|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.26||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for significance is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hierarchical linear model fit included random effects for clinic and clinic by time and pre-specified clinic- and patient-level covariates.|Difference is calculated as Integrated Sequenced Care Pathway change minus Coordinated Care Management Pathway change.|Baseline to 12 months||0.26|-0.32|0.833
90812028|NCT04411420|181502901|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23||||0.259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.64||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for significance is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hierarchical linear model fit included random effects for clinic and clinic by time and pre-specified clinic- and patient-level covariates.|Difference is calculated as Integrated Sequenced Care Pathway change minus Coordinated Care Management Pathway change.|Baseline to 3 months||0.64|-0.18|0.259
90812029|NCT04411420|181502901|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.39||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.81||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for significance is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hierarchical linear model fit included random effects for clinic and clinic by time and pre-specified clinic- and patient-level covariates.|Difference is calculated as Integrated Sequenced Care Pathway change minus Coordinated Care Management Pathway change.|Baseline to 6 months||0.81|-0.03|0.068
90812030|NCT04411420|181502901|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.57||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for significance is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hierarchical linear model fit included random effects for clinic and clinic by time and pre-specified clinic- and patient-level covariates.|Difference is calculated as Integrated Sequenced Care Pathway change minus Coordinated Care Management Pathway change.|Baseline to 12 months||0.57|-0.29|0.514
90812031|NCT04411420|181502902|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.2||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for significance is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hierarchical linear model fit included random effects for clinic and clinic by time and pre-specified clinic- and patient-level covariates.|Difference is calculated as Integrated Sequenced Care Pathway change minus Coordinated Care Management Pathway change.|Baseline to 3 months||0.20|-0.22|0.895
90812032|NCT04411420|181502902|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.3||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for significance is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hierarchical linear model fit included random effects for clinic and clinic by time and pre-specified clinic- and patient-level covariates.|Difference is calculated as Integrated Sequenced Care Pathway change minus Coordinated Care Management Pathway change.|Baseline to 6 months||0.30|-0.13|0.438
91055081|NCT05958888|181992173|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Graphic vs. Icon||||.04
91055082|NCT05958888|181992174|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Text vs. Control||||.01
90812033|NCT04411420|181502902|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.21||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for significance is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hierarchical linear model fit included random effects for clinic and clinic by time and pre-specified clinic- and patient-level covariates.|Difference is calculated as Integrated Sequenced Care Pathway change minus Coordinated Care Management Pathway change.|Baseline to 12 months||0.21|-0.24|0.890
90812034|NCT04411420|181502903|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.02||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for significance is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hierarchical linear model fit included random effects for clinic and clinic by time and pre-specified clinic- and patient-level covariates.|Difference is calculated as Integrated Sequenced Care Pathway change minus Coordinated Care Management Pathway change.|Baseline to 3 months||0.02|-0.04|0.508
90812035|NCT04411420|181502903|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.03||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for significance is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hierarchical linear model fit included random effects for clinic and clinic by time and pre-specified clinic- and patient-level covariates.|Difference is calculated as Integrated Sequenced Care Pathway change minus Coordinated Care Management Pathway change.|Baseline to 6 months||0.03|-0.03|0.992
90812036|NCT04411420|181502903|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.02||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for significance is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hierarchical linear model fit included random effects for clinic and clinic by time and pre-specified clinic- and patient-level covariates.|Difference is calculated as Integrated Sequenced Care Pathway change minus Coordinated Care Management Pathway change.|Baseline to 12 months||0.02|-0.05|0.389
90812037|NCT05693922|181502910|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.34
90812038|NCT05693922|181502911|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.54
90812039|NCT05693922|181502912|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.865|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.865
90812040|NCT03559699|181502932|OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||1-sided P-value|Binomial exact test|||||||0.0002
90812041|NCT02209948|181502949|OTHER|Log Rank (Mantel-Cox)||||||0.943||||||Threshold P-value of 0.05|Log Rank|||||||0.943
90812042|NCT02209948|181502950|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.88||Threshold of significance P-value 0.05|Regression, Cox|||||1.88|0.90|0.16
90812043|NCT02209948|181502951|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.5||Threshold for significance P-value 0.05|Regression, Cox|||||1.5|0.65|0.99
90812044|NCT02209948|181502952|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.45||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|2.33||threshold for significance 0.05|Regression, Cox|||||2.33|0.89|0.13
90812045|NCT01344538|181502983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
90812046|NCT00297102|181502984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|39.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.0||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.0|60.0||No adjustment of the significance level was done as a hierarchical approach for hypotheses testing was used.|ANCOVA|Repeated measurements analysis (change from baseline over 52 weeks of treatment taking all post-randomization measurements into account).||||60|18|0.0003
90812047|NCT00297102|181502985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.851|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062||0.0278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.737|0.982||No adjustment of the significance level was done as a hierarchical approach for hypotheses testing was used.|Poisson regression|||||0.982|0.737|0.0278
90812048|NCT00297102|181502986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|49.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.0|71.0||No adjustment of the significance level was done as a hierarchical approach for hypotheses testing was used.|ANCOVA|Repeated measurements analysis (change from baseline over 52 weeks of treatment taking all post-randomization measurements into account).||||71|26|<0.0001
90812049|NCT00297102|181502987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.035|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.357||0.9212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.526|2.034||No adjustment of the significance level was done as a hierarchical approach for hypotheses testing was used.|Cox proportional hazards regression||The statistical analysis is based on the ITT Analysis Set (n= 765 in the roflumilast group, n= 758 in the placebo group).|||2.034|0.526|0.9212
90812050|NCT00297102|181502988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference calculated as ratio|0.9521||||0.4089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8472|1.0699||No adjustment of the significance level was done as a hierarchical approach for hypotheses testing was used.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including last observation carried forward (LOCF) method||||1.0699|0.8472|0.4089
90812051|NCT00297102|181502989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.233|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.111||0.0356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.016|0.449||No adjustment of the significance level was done as a hierarchical approach for hypotheses testing was used.|ANCOVA|Repeated measurements analysis (change from baseline over 52 weeks of treatment taking all post-randomization measurements into account).||||0.449|0.016|0.0356
90812052|NCT00929773|181502997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
90812053|NCT00929773|181502998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.0001
90812054|NCT00929773|181502999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90812055|NCT00929773|181503000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90812056|NCT00929773|181503001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90812057|NCT00929773|181503002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90812058|NCT00328653|181503004|SUPERIORITY|Comparisons of NOVA22007 0.05% to vehicle|M-H Chi-square|1.2187||||0.2699|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2699
90812059|NCT00328653|181503004|SUPERIORITY|Comparisons of NOVA22007 0.1% to vehicle|M-H Chi-square|1.2359||||0.2719|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2719
91055083|NCT05958888|181992174|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.23|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Icon vs. Control||||.23
90812060|NCT00328653|181503007|SUPERIORITY|Comparisons of NOVA22007 0.05% to vehicle|M-H-Chi-square|4.2925||||0.0386|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0386
90812061|NCT00328653|181503007|SUPERIORITY|Comparisons of NOVA22007 0.1% to vehicle|M-H-Chi-square|5.3007||||0.0208|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0208
90812062|NCT03199053|181503036|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.274|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|-0.49|||ANCOVA|||||-0.49|-1.57|< 0.001
90812063|NCT03199053|181503037|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.251||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.05|||ANCOVA|||||0.05|-0.93|0.078
90812064|NCT03199053|181503038|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|-0.27|||ANCOVA|||||-0.27|-1.44|0.004
90812065|NCT03199053|181503039|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.277||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|0.04|||ANCOVA|||||0.04|-1.05|0.067
90812066|NCT03199053|181503040|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|-0.62|||ANCOVA|||||-0.62|-1.76|< 0.001
90812067|NCT03199053|181503041|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.14|||ANCOVA|||||0.14|-0.92|0.146
90812068|NCT03199053|181503042|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.479||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|-0.14|||ANCOVA|||||-0.14|-2.02|0.024
90812069|NCT03199053|181503043|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.528||0.833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|0.92|||ANCOVA|||||0.92|-1.15|0.833
90812070|NCT03199053|181503044|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.525||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||||-0.01|-2.07|0.047
90812071|NCT03199053|181503045|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.42|||ANCOVA|||||0.42|-1.50|0.268
90812072|NCT03199053|181503046|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.505||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|-0.13|||ANCOVA|||||-0.13|-2.11|0.026
90812073|NCT03199053|181503047|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.618||0.644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|1.5|||ANCOVA|||||1.50|-0.92|0.644
90812074|NCT03199053|181503048|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Odds Ratio|3.8||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|11.7|||Regression, Logistic|||||11.7|1.2|0.019
90812075|NCT03199053|181503048|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Odds Ratio|2.6||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|8.6|||Regression, Logistic|||||8.6|0.8|0.114
91055084|NCT05958888|181992174|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Graphic vs. Control||||.01
90812076|NCT03199053|181503049|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Odds Ratio|3.5||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|11.4|||Weighted Logistic Regression|||||11.4|1.0|0.042
90812077|NCT03199053|181503049|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Odds Ratio|2.3||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|7.4|||Weighted Logistic Regression|||||7.4|0.7|0.175
90812078|NCT03199053|181503050|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Odds Ratio|4.4||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|13.2|||Weighted Logistic Regression|||||13.2|1.4|0.009
91055085|NCT05958888|181992174|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.58|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Icon vs. Text||||.58
90812079|NCT03199053|181503050|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Odds Ratio|3.8||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|13.5|||Weighted Logistic Regression|||||13.5|1.1|0.042
90812080|NCT03199053|181503051|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.496||0.955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.94|||ANCOVA|||||0.94|-1.00|0.955
90812081|NCT03199053|181503051|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.495||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.74|||ANCOVA|||||0.74|-1.20|0.640
90812082|NCT03199053|181503052|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.896||0.476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.39|1.12|||ANCOVA|||||1.12|-2.39|0.476
90812083|NCT03199053|181503052|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-1.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.017||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.81|0.18|||ANCOVA|||||0.18|-3.81|0.075
90812084|NCT03199053|181503053|SUPERIORITY||Unadjusted Difference in Percentage|-19.7||||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.5|5.7|||Fisher Exact|||||5.7|-44.5|0.182
90812085|NCT03199053|181503054|SUPERIORITY||Unadjusted Difference in Percentage|-6.3||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.8|16.5|||Fisher Exact|||||16.5|-29.8|0.650
90812086|NCT01323270|181503061|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The non-inferiority criteria margin was 10%.|Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.5||||||Diphtheria: Exact 2-sided confidence interval (based on Chan and Zhang) was reported for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage.||1.5|-1.6|
90812087|NCT01323270|181503061|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The non-inferiority criteria margin was 10%.|Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.1||||||Tetanus: Exact 2-sided confidence interval (based on Chan and Zhang) was reported for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage.||1.1|-1.1|
90812088|NCT01323270|181503061|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The non-inferiority criteria margin was 10%.|Percent difference|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|1.9||||||Pertussis toxoid: Exact 2-sided confidence interval (based on Chan and Zhang) was reported for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage.||1.9|-4.7|
90812089|NCT01323270|181503061|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The non-inferiority criteria margin was 10%.|Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.1||||||Pertussis filamentous hemagglutinin: Exact 2-sided confidence interval (based on Chan and Zhang) was reported for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage.||1.1|-1.1|
90812090|NCT01323270|181503061|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The non-inferiority criteria margin was 10%.|Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.1||||||Pertussis pertactin: Exact 2-sided confidence interval (based on Chan and Zhang) was reported for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage.||1.1|-1.1|
90812091|NCT01323270|181503061|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The non-inferiority criteria margin was 10%.|Percent difference|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|0.8||||||Pertussis fimbrial agglutinogens types 2+3: Exact 2-sided confidence interval (based on Chan and Zhang) was reported for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage.||0.8|-3.6|
90812092|NCT01323270|181503061|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The non-inferiority criteria margin was 10%.|Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.1||||||Poliovirus type 1: Exact 2-sided confidence interval (based on Chan and Zhang) was reported for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage.||1.1|-1.1|
91078185|NCT04114656|182041872|OTHER||Posterior ratio to placebo|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.05|||||Treatment comparison ratio of GSK3858279 and placebo using posterior median ratio and 95% credible interval is presented. Analysis was performed using Bayesian Mixed Repeated measures Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model.|||1.05|0.91|
90812093|NCT01323270|181503061|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The non-inferiority criteria margin was 10%.|Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.1||||||Poliovirus type 2: Exact 2-sided confidence interval (based on Chan and Zhang) was reported for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage.||1.1|-1.1|
90812094|NCT01323270|181503061|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The non-inferiority criteria margin was 10%.|Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.1||||||Poliovirus type 3: Exact 2-sided confidence interval (based on Chan and Zhang) was reported for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage.||1.1|-1.1|
90812095|NCT01118520|181503069|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.78
90812096|NCT01118520|181503069|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.89
90812097|NCT01071200|181503083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07||95.0|||||Wilcoxon two sample test|||Change at hCG day : Wilcoxon two sample test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.07
91015663|NCT04637815|181914064|EQUIVALENCE|t-tests for continuous variables and chi-squared tests for categorical variables||||||||||||Statistical threshold of significance is .05.|t-test, 2 sided||||We also conducted difference in differences (DID) analysis by first constructing measures of difference between follow-up and baseline for each participant for each measure and then comparing the means of these difference measures for each arm.|||
91015664|NCT04637815|181914065|EQUIVALENCE|t-tests for continuous variables and chi-squared tests for categorical variables||||||||||||Statistical threshold of significance is .05.|t-test, 2 sided||||We also conducted difference in differences (DID) analysis by first constructing measures of difference between follow-up and baseline for each participant for each measure and then comparing the means of these difference measures for each arm.|||
90812098|NCT01527513|181503094|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"A 121ms non-inferiority margin was selected based on a previous study with Cognitive Drug Research (CDR) system comparing newly diagnosed patients to a healthy normative sample.~Assuming a Standard Deviation (SD) of 202.3 for the Power of Attention score, a total of 102 patients in the PP population would provide 80% power to reject the null hypothesis that the mean increase from baseline Power of Attention was at least 121 ms smaller in the placebo group."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.2001||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-137.593|203.993|||95% CI lower bound vs non-inf margin|||||203.993|-137.593|0.700
90812099|NCT01527513|181503095|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"A 121ms non-inferiority margin was selected based on a previous study with Cognitive Drug Research (CDR) system comparing newly diagnosed patients to a healthy normative sample.~Assuming a Standard Deviation (SD) of 202.3 for the Power of Attention score, a total of 102 patients in the PP population would provide 80% power to reject the null hypothesis that the mean increase from baseline Power of Attention was at least 121 ms smaller in the placebo group."|95% CI lower bound vs non-inf margin|33.2001|||<|0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-137.593|203.993|||ANCOVA||The predefined non-inferiority margin was -121ms.|||203.993|-137.593|<0.700
90812100|NCT03883113|181503097|OTHER|||||||0.1711|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1711
90812101|NCT03883113|181503097|OTHER|||||||0.1654|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1654
90812102|NCT03883113|181503097|OTHER|||||||0.1711|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1711
90812103|NCT03883113|181503098|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||The statistical analysis applies to participants with Virologically confirmed Influenza-like Illness versus participants without Virologically confirmed Influenza-like Illness||||1.000
90812104|NCT03883113|181503099|OTHER|||||||0.143|||||||Fisher Exact|||This statistical analysis applies to participants with qPCR confirmed Influenza versus participants with no qPCR confirmed Influenza||||0.143
90812105|NCT03883113|181503100|OTHER|||||||0.3504|||||||Fisher Exact|||This statistical analysis applies to participants with qCulture confirmed Influenza versus participants without qCulture confirmed Influenza||||0.3504
90812106|NCT03883113|181503101|OTHER|||||||0.5558|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.5558
90812107|NCT03883113|181503102|OTHER|||||||0.6534|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.6534
90812108|NCT03883113|181503103|OTHER|||||||0.5485|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5485
90812109|NCT03883113|181503104|OTHER|||||||0.6753|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6753
90812110|NCT03883113|181503105|OTHER|||||||0.711|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.711
90812111|NCT03883113|181503106|OTHER|||||||0.4689|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.4689
90812112|NCT03883113|181503109|OTHER|||||||0.5001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5001
90812113|NCT03883113|181503110|OTHER|||||||0.6799|||||||zero-inflated poisson model|||||||0.6799
91015665|NCT02369874|181914080|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.7624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.26|||Log Rank|||||1.26|0.85|0.7624
90812114|NCT03883113|181503111|OTHER|||||||0.5911|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5911
90812115|NCT01396265|181503119|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Relative bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio|66.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.815|72.057|||ANOVA|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|||72.057|60.815|
90812116|NCT01396265|181503120|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Relative bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio|66.18|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.656|72.213|||ANOVA|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|||72.213|60.656|
90812117|NCT01396265|181503121|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Relative bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio|78.41|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|72.363|84.968|||ANOVA|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|||84.968|72.363|
90890342|NCT03301051|181645189|OTHER|Vaccine Efficacy (VE) of VLP vaccine versus placebo = (1 - attack rate in vaccinated participants \[ARV\]/attack rate in unvaccinated participants \[ARU\]) x 100%.|Vaccine Efficacy|34.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.6|48.6|||||The VE success criterion is defined as a \>40% lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI).|||48.6|17.6|
90890343|NCT03301051|181645190|OTHER|VE of VLP vaccine versus placebo = (1 - ARV/ARU) x 100%.|Vaccine Efficacy|38.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.6|48.0|||||The VE success criterion is defined as a \>40% lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI.|||48.0|27.6|
91015666|NCT02369874|181914080|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.1993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.08|||Log Rank|||||1.08|0.72|0.1993
91015667|NCT02369874|181914081|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.17|||Log Rank|||||1.17|0.73|0.4590
91015668|NCT02369874|181914081|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.36||||||||1.36|0.85|
91015669|NCT02369874|181914082|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.39||||||||1.39|0.63|
91015670|NCT02369874|181914083|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.33||||||||1.33|0.90|
91015671|NCT02369874|181914083|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.25||||||||1.25|0.84|
91015672|NCT02369874|181914084|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.7||||||||1.70|0.67|
91015673|NCT02369874|181914084|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.68||||||||1.68|0.66|
91015674|NCT02369874|181914086|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.52||||||6 Month analysis||1.52|0.67|
91055086|NCT05958888|181992174|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.85|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Graphic vs. Text||||.85
91055087|NCT05958888|181992174|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.58|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Graphic vs. Icon||||.58
90812118|NCT00977938|181503139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.85||P-value was stratified according to geographic region (NA, EU, or AU and NZ), thienopyridine received at the time of randomization, and presence or absence of risk factors for ST; P-value was adjudsted using the Benjamini Hochberg approach.|Log Rank||30-month DAPT vs. 12-month DAPT; HR was stratified according to geographic region (NA, EU, or AU and NZ), thienopyridine drug received at the time of randomization, and presence or absence of risk factors for stent thrombosis.|The primary efficacy analysis was a superiority analysis. We controlled the two-sided family-wise error rate of 0.05 across the two coprimary end points using the Hochberg-Benjamini method. With this method, the null hypothesis of randomized treatment equivalence is rejected if significance is achieved for both end points at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05 or for one end point at a two-sided alpha level of 0.025.||0.85|0.59|<0.001
90812119|NCT00977938|181503140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.48||P-value was stratified according to geographic region (NA, EU, or AU and NZ), thienopyridine received at the time of randomization, and presence or absence of risk factors for ST; P-value was adjudsted using the Benjamini Hochberg approach.|Log Rank||30-month DAPT vs. 12-month DAPT; HR was stratified according to geographic region (NA, EU, or AU and NZ), thienopyridine drug received at the time of randomization, and presence or absence of risk factors for stent thrombosis.|The primary efficacy analysis was a superiority analysis. We controlled the two-sided family-wise error rate of 0.05 across the two coprimary end points using the Hochberg-Benjamini method. With this method, the null hypothesis of randomized treatment equivalence is rejected if significance is achieved for both end points at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05 or for one end point at a two-sided alpha level of 0.025.||0.48|0.17|<0.001
90812120|NCT00977938|181503141|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The primary safety analysis was a noninferiority analysis performed with the use of the Farrington-Manning risk-difference approach. Assuming an annualized rate for moderate or severe bleeding of 1.9% and an absolute noninferiority margin of 0.8%, at a one-sided alpha level of significance of 0.025, we calculated that a sample size of 9960 patients would give the study 80% power to detect noninferiority.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.96||||0.704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.53||One-sided P-value for non-inferiority|Farrington-Manning||30-month DAPT vs. 12-month DAPT|||1.53|0.38|0.704
90812121|NCT00977938|181503142|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin of 2.28% (0.0228)|Risk Difference (RD)|-1.82|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5||0.03||One-sided P-value for non-inferiority|Nam and Kwon|P-value was computed for clustered matched pairs based on Nam and Kwon (2009).|Weighted RD and 1-sided 97.5% upper CL were computed for clustered matched pairs based on Nam and Kwon (2009).|The null hypothesis was that DAPT patients treated with DES would have MACCE rate between 0 and 33 months post-index procedure that exceeds that of the control arm (patients treated with BMS) by at least a pre-specified absolute margin of δ.||0.03||<0.001
90812122|NCT00977938|181503143|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin of 0.97% (0.0097)|Risk Difference (RD)|-1.05|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5||-0.27||One-sided P-value for non-inferiority|Nam and Kwon|P-value was computed for clustered matched pairs based on Nam and Kwon (2009).|Weighted RD and 1-sided 95% upper CL were computed for clustered matched pairs based on Nam and Kwon (2009).|The null hypothesis was that DAPT patients treated with DES would have stent thrombosis rate between 0 and 33 months post-index procedure that exceeds that of the control arm (patients treated with BMS) by at least a pre-specified absolute margin of δ.||-0.27||<0.001
90812123|NCT00977938|181503144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.97|||||30-month DAPT vs. 12-month DAPT; HR was stratified according to geographic region (NA, EU, or AU and NZ), thienopyridine drug received at the time of randomization, and presence or absence of risk factors for stent thrombosis|||0.97|0.70|
91015675|NCT02369874|181914086|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.46||||||6 Month analysis||1.46|0.64|
91015676|NCT02369874|181914086|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.75||||||12 Month analysis||1.75|0.72|
91015677|NCT02369874|181914086|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.57||||||12 Month analysis||1.57|0.63|
91015678|NCT02369874|181914089|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.21||||||||1.21|0.76|
91015679|NCT02369874|181914090|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|2.39||||||||2.39|0.74|
91015680|NCT00761085|181914190|OTHER|No statistical comparisons||||||||||||||||"No statistical comparisons of methadone concentration in patients receiving methadone vs not receiving methadone (children or adults).~No statistical comparisons of methadone concentration in children vs adults"|No statistical comparisons|||
91015681|NCT00761085|181914191|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91015682|NCT05261126|181914204|SUPERIORITY|One-sided p-value and difference in least squares means based on a cLDA model including terms for treatment, time, baseline statin intensity, baseline renal function, and the interaction of treatment by time.|Difference in Least Squares Means|-41.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.8|-34.7|||cLDA||MK-0616 6 mg minus Placebo|||-34.7|-47.8|<0.001
91015683|NCT05261126|181914204|SUPERIORITY|One-sided p-value and difference in least squares means based on a cLDA model including terms for treatment, time, baseline statin intensity, baseline renal function, and the interaction of treatment by time.|Difference in Least Squares Means|-55.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.3|-49.1|||cLDA||MK-0616 12 mg minus Placebo|||-49.1|-62.3|<0.001
90812124|NCT00977938|181503145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.69|||||30-month DAPT vs. 12-month DAPT; HR was stratified according to geographic region (NA, EU, or AU and NZ), thienopyridine drug received at the time of randomization, and presence or absence of risk factors for stent thrombosis|||0.69|0.29|
90812125|NCT00977938|181503146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|1.48|||||30-month DAPT vs. 12-month DAPT|||1.48|0.24|
90812126|NCT00977938|181503147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.47||This analysis was not powered. P-value was stratified according to geographic region, thienopyridine received at the time of randomization, and presence or absence of risk factors for ST; P-value was adjudsted using the Benjamini Hochberg approach.|Log Rank||30-month DAPT vs. 12-month DAPT; HR was stratified according to geographic region (NA, EU, or AU and NZ), thienopyridine drug received at the time of randomization, and presence or absence of risk factors for stent thrombosis.|This analysis was not powered.||1.47|0.57|0.722
90812127|NCT00977938|181503148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.49||||0.478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.64||This analysis was not powered. P-value was stratified according to geographic region, thienopyridine received at the time of randomization, and presence or absence of risk factors for ST; P-value was adjudsted using the Benjamini Hochberg approach.|Log Rank||30-month DAPT vs. 12-month DAPT; HR was stratified according to geographic region (NA, EU, or AU and NZ), thienopyridine drug received at the time of randomization, and presence or absence of risk factors for stent thrombosis.|This analysis was not powered.||1.64|0.15|0.478
90812128|NCT00977938|181503149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|1.12||||0.706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|2.31|||Farrington-Manning|No formal hypothesis testing was done.|30-month DAPT vs. 12-month DAPT|||2.31|-0.06|0.706
90812129|NCT00977938|181503150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.4|||||30-month DAPT vs. 12-month DAPT; HR was stratified according to geographic region (NA, EU, or AU and NZ), thienopyridine drug received at the time of randomization, and presence or absence of risk factors for stent thrombosis|||1.40|0.58|
90812130|NCT00977938|181503151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.64|||||30-month DAPT vs. 12-month DAPT; HR was stratified according to geographic region (NA, EU, or AU and NZ), thienopyridine drug received at the time of randomization, and presence or absence of risk factors for stent thrombosis.|||1.64|0.15|
90812131|NCT00977938|181503152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|2.28|||||30-month DAPT vs. 12-month DAPT|||2.28|-0.21|
90812132|NCT02648022|181503170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.91||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|9.27|||Regression, Linear|Multivariable Regression Analysis||||9.27|0.92|0.07
90812133|NCT02182440|181503179|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS means|-16.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.243||0.949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.57|29.5|||ANOVA|||Analysis for Part 1||29.50|-62.57|0.949
91015684|NCT05261126|181914204|SUPERIORITY|One-sided p-value and difference in least squares means based on a cLDA model including terms for treatment, time, baseline statin intensity, baseline renal function, and the interaction of treatment by time.|Difference in Least Squares Means|-59.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.7|-52.5|||cLDA||MK-0616 18 mg minus Placebo|||-52.5|-65.7|<0.001
91015685|NCT05261126|181914204|SUPERIORITY|One-sided p-value and difference in least squares means based on a cLDA model including terms for treatment, time, baseline statin intensity, baseline renal function, and the interaction of treatment by time.|Difference in Least Squares Means|-60.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.6|-54.3|||cLDA||MK-0616 30 mg minus Placebo|||-54.3|-67.6|<0.001
90812134|NCT02182440|181503179|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS means|-4.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.305||0.691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.09|13.8|||ANOVA|||Analysis for Part 2||13.80|-23.09|0.691
90812135|NCT02182440|181503179|SUPERIORITY||Combined p-value|0.896||||0.896|TWO_SIDED||||||Inverse normal method||The p-values from Part 1 (see Statistical Analysis 1) and Part 2 (see Statistical Analysis 2) were combined to an overall p-value using the inverse normal method.|Combination of analysis results from Part 1 (see statistical Analysis 1) and Part 2 (see Statistical analysis 2)||||0.896
90812136|NCT02182440|181503180|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.4|||Chi-squared|||||2.4|0.8|0.28
90812137|NCT02182440|181503181|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.23|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.23|0.02|0.02
90812138|NCT02182440|181503182|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.23|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.23|0.01|0.03
90812139|NCT02182440|181503183|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.77||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|3.1|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.1|1.0|0.045
90812140|NCT02182440|181503184|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.85||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|3.26|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.26|1.06|0.03
90812141|NCT00072293|181503185|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|As originally designed, target accrual was 1960 patients with analysis planned after 558 events. These targets were based on having 90% power to detect non-inferiority of no axillary dissection with a one-sided statistical signifi cance level of 10% (ie, α=0·10) under the assumption that 5-year disease-free survival with axillary dissection was 70% and defining non-inferiority as a hazard ratio (HR) of less than 1·25 (no axillary dissection relative to axillary dissection).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.11||Test for non-inferiority of no axillary dissection. Stratified logrank test compared groups. HR (no-AD vs AD) estimated from test statistic and variance as HR=exp(\[O-E\]/V), compared to 1.25 in 1-sided test of non-inferiority.|1-sided non-inferiority test||Hazard Ratio is no axillary dissection/axillary dissection.|||1.11|0.55|0.004
90812142|NCT00072293|181503186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.52|1.54|||Log Rank||Hazard Ratio is no axillary dissection/axillary dissection.|||1.54|0.52|0.73
90812143|NCT01605227|181503188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.9||||0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.06|||Log Rank|The Log-Rank test was stratified by prior cabazitaxel, baseline pain severity and baseline ECOG performance status.||||1.06|0.76|0.213
90812144|NCT01605227|181503189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) Test was stratified by prior cabazitaxel, baseline pain severity and baseline ECOG performance status.||||||<0.001
91015686|NCT05261126|181914205|OTHER|Difference in percentage based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in Percentage|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5|15.8|||||MK-0616 6 mg minus Placebo|||15.8|-15.5|
91015687|NCT05261126|181914205|OTHER|Difference in percentage based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in Percentage|-4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|11.2|||||MK-0616 12 mg vs Placebo|||11.2|-20.0|
90812145|NCT01605227|181503190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.57|||Log Rank|The Log-Rank Test was stratified by prior cabazitaxel, baseline pain severity, and baseline Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status.||||0.57|0.40|<0.001
90812146|NCT02230761|181503215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.020
90812147|NCT02230761|181503216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
90812148|NCT02230761|181503217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.002
90812149|NCT03093974|181503220|SUPERIORITY|The number of NCFB pulmonary exacerbations was compared between treatment groups using a negative binomial model including treatment, pooled site (country) and baseline use of stable concomitant therapy with oral macrolides as fixed effects and log-time on treatment as an offset.|LS Mean rate ratio|0.612||||0.00101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.457|0.82|||two-sided Wald chi-square test|||||0.820|0.457|0.00101
90812150|NCT00405964|181503249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Determined for site. P-value of \<.001 for treatment as well.|ANOVA|||||||<.001
90812151|NCT00405964|181503250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.035||95.0||||Determined for site. Treatment p-value \<.001|ANOVA|||||||0.035
90812152|NCT00405964|181503251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Same p-value for treatment and site.|ANOVA|||||||<.001
90812153|NCT02863523|181503262|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91055088|NCT05958888|181992175|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Text vs. Control||||>.99
90812154|NCT02863523|181503263|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.03
90812155|NCT02863523|181503264|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
90812156|NCT02084238|181503331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparing the data between baseline and week 10.||||<0.01
90812157|NCT04030247|181503357|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference between baseline and month 3||||0.03
91055089|NCT05958888|181992175|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Icon vs. Control||||>.99
90812158|NCT04030247|181503358|OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference between baseline and month 3||||0.16
90812159|NCT04030247|181503359|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference between baseline and month 3||||0.03
90812160|NCT04030247|181503360|OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference between baseline and month 3||||0.9
90812161|NCT04030247|181503361|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference between baseline and month 3||||0.5
90812162|NCT04030247|181503362|OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference between baseline and month 3||||0.4
90812163|NCT04030247|181503364|OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference between baseline and month 3||||0.6
90812164|NCT03809910|181503373|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|-0.04||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with product, sequence as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and two baseline terms as covariates;1-participant-level baseline score,2-period level baseline minus the participant-level baseline.|ANCOVA|||||-0.04|-0.09|<.0001
90812165|NCT03809910|181503374|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|-0.07||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with product, sequence as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and two baseline terms as covariates;1-participant-level baseline score,2-period level baseline minus the participant-level baseline.|ANCOVA|||||-0.07|-0.17|<0.0001
90812166|NCT03809910|181503375|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|-0.06||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with product, sequence as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and two baseline terms as covariates;1-participant-level baseline score,2-period level baseline minus the participant-level baseline.|ANCOVA|||||-0.06|-0.16|<0.0001
90812167|NCT03809910|181503376|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|-0.19||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with product, sequence as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and two baseline terms as covariates;1-participant-level baseline score,2-period level baseline minus the participant-level baseline.|ANCOVA|||||-0.19|-0.25|<0.0001
90812168|NCT03809910|181503377|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.33||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with product, sequence as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and two baseline terms as covariates;1-participant-level baseline score,2-period level baseline minus the participant-level baseline.|ANCOVA|||||-0.33|-0.43|<0.0001
90812169|NCT03809910|181503378|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|-0.29||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with product, sequence as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and two baseline terms as covariates;1-participant-level baseline score,2-period level baseline minus the participant-level baseline.|ANCOVA|||||-0.29|-0.39|<0.0001
90812170|NCT03809910|181503379|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.18||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with product, sequence as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and two baseline terms as covariates;1-participant-level baseline score,2-period level baseline minus the participant-level baseline.|ANCOVA|||||0.18|0.13|<0.0001
90812171|NCT03809910|181503380|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.31||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with product, sequence as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and two baseline terms as covariates;1-participant-level baseline score,2-period level baseline minus the participant-level baseline.|ANCOVA|||||0.31|0.21|<0.0001
90890344|NCT03301051|181645191|OTHER|VE of VLP vaccine versus placebo = (1 - ARV/ARU) x 100%.|Vaccine Efficacy|33.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.9|48.5|||||The VE success criterion is defined as a \>40% lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI.|||48.5|14.9|
90812172|NCT03809910|181503381|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.28||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with product, sequence as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and two baseline terms as covariates;1-participant-level baseline score,2-period level baseline minus the participant-level baseline.|ANCOVA|||||0.28|0.18|<0.0001
90812173|NCT03809910|181503382|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.15||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with product, sequence as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and two baseline terms as covariates;1-participant-level baseline score,2-period level baseline minus the participant-level baseline.|ANCOVA|||||0.15|0.09|<0.0001
90812174|NCT03809910|181503382|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014||0.0214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.0||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with product, sequence as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and two baseline terms as covariates;1-participant-level baseline score,2-period level baseline minus the participant-level baseline.|ANCOVA|||||-0.00|-0.06|0.0214
90812175|NCT03809910|181503383|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.23||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with product, sequence as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and two baseline terms as covariates;1-participant-level baseline score,2-period level baseline minus the participant-level baseline.|ANCOVA|||||0.23|0.13|<0.0001
90812176|NCT03809910|181503383|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|-0.04||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with product, sequence as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and two baseline terms as covariates;1-participant-level baseline score,2-period level baseline minus the participant-level baseline.|ANCOVA|||||-0.04|-0.14|0.0010
90812177|NCT03809910|181503384|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.25||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with product, sequence as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and two baseline terms as covariates;1-participant-level baseline score,2-period level baseline minus the participant-level baseline.|ANCOVA|||||0.25|0.15|<0.0001
90812178|NCT03809910|181503384|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.1652|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.01||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with product, sequence as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and two baseline terms as covariates;1-participant-level baseline score,2-period level baseline minus the participant-level baseline.|ANCOVA|||||0.01|-0.09|0.1652
90812179|NCT03880838|181503396|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.391|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||In this contrast, letter was compared against all other conditions (coded into one category and set as the reference group). The key outcome is the interaction between conditions and time (2019 as the reference group).||||.391
90812180|NCT03880838|181503396|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.861|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||In this contrast, no contact control was compared against all other conditions (coded into one category and set as the reference group). The key outcome is the interaction between conditions and time (2019 as the reference group).||||.861
90812181|NCT03880838|181503396|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.01||0.835|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||In this contrast, prevention conditions (coded into one category) were compared against no nudge conditions (coded into one category and set as the reference group).||||.835
90812182|NCT03880838|181503396|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.877|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||In this contrast, commitment conditions (coded into one category) were compared against no nudge conditions (coded into one category and set as the reference group).||||.877
90812183|NCT03880838|181503396|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.969|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||In this contrast, both nudge conditions (coded into one category) were compared against no nudge conditions (coded into one category and set as the reference group).||||.969
90812184|NCT03880838|181503396|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.893|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||In this contrast, no nudge conditions (coded into one category) were compared against the letter condition (set as the reference group).||||.893
90812185|NCT03880838|181503396|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.689|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||In this contrast, In this contrast, prevention conditions (coded into one category) were compared against the letter condition (set as the reference group).||||.689
91055090|NCT05958888|181992175|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.47|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Graphic vs. Control||||.47
90812186|NCT03880838|181503396|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.427|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||In this contrast, commitment conditions (coded into one category) were compared against the letter condition (set as the reference group).||||.427
90812187|NCT03880838|181503396|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.504|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||In this contrast, both nudge conditions (coded into one category) were compared against the letter condition (set as the reference group).||||.504
90812188|NCT03880838|181503396|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.893|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||In this contrast, no nudge conditions (coded into one category) were compared against the no contact condition (set as the reference group).||||.893
90812189|NCT03880838|181503396|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.918|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||In this contrast, prevention conditions (coded into one category) were compared against the no contact condition (set as the reference group).||||.918
90812190|NCT03880838|181503396|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.755|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||In this contrast, commitment conditions (coded into one category) were compared against the no contact condition (set as the reference group).||||.755
90812191|NCT03880838|181503396|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.858|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||In this contrast, both nudge conditions (coded into one category) were compared against the no contact condition (set as the reference group).||||.858
91055091|NCT05958888|181992175|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Icon vs. Text||||>.99
90812192|NCT03880838|181503397|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.436|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||In this contrast, letter was compared against all other conditions (coded into one category and set as the reference group). The key outcome is the interaction between conditions and time (2019 as the reference group).||||.436
90812193|NCT03880838|181503397|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.539|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||In this contrast, no contact control was compared against all other conditions (coded into one category and set as the reference group). The key outcome is the interaction between conditions and time (2019 as the reference group).||||.539
90812194|NCT03880838|181503397|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.994|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||In this contrast, prevention conditions (coded into one category) were compared against no nudge conditions (coded into one category and set as the reference group).||||.994
90812195|NCT03880838|181503397|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.7|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||In this contrast, commitment conditions (coded into one category) were compared against no nudge conditions (coded into one category and set as the reference group).||||.700
90812196|NCT03880838|181503397|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.258|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||In this contrast, both nudge conditions (coded into one category) were compared against no nudge conditions (coded into one category and set as the reference group).||||.258
90812197|NCT03880838|181503397|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.428|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||In this contrast, no nudge conditions (coded into one category) were compared against the letter condition (set as the reference group).||||.428
90812198|NCT03880838|181503397|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.434|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||In this contrast, prevention conditions (coded into one category) were compared against the letter condition (set as the reference group).||||.434
90812199|NCT03880838|181503397|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.228|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||In this contrast, commitment conditions (coded into one category) were compared against the letter condition (set as the reference group).||||.228
90812200|NCT03880838|181503397|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.674|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||In this contrast, both nudge conditions (coded into one category) were compared against the letter condition (set as the reference group).||||.674
90812201|NCT03880838|181503397|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.799|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||In this contrast, no nudge conditions (coded into one category) were compared against the no contact condition (set as the reference group).||||.799
90812202|NCT03880838|181503397|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.794|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||In this contrast, prevention conditions (coded into one category) were compared against the no contact condition (set as the reference group).||||.794
90812203|NCT03880838|181503397|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.871|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||In this contrast, commitment conditions (coded into one category) were compared against the no contact condition (set as the reference group).||||.871
90812204|NCT03880838|181503397|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.139|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||In this contrast, both nudge conditions (coded into one category) were compared against the no contact condition (set as the reference group).||||.139
90812205|NCT03880838|181503398|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.357|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||In this contrast, letter was compared against all other conditions (coded into one category and set as the reference group). The key outcome is the interaction between conditions and time (2019 as the reference group).||||.357
90812206|NCT03880838|181503398|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.294|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||In this contrast, no contact control was compared against all other conditions (coded into one category and set as the reference group). The key outcome is the interaction between conditions and time (2019 as the reference group).||||.294
90812207|NCT03880838|181503398|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.496|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||In this contrast, prevention conditions (coded into one category) were compared against no nudge conditions (coded into one category and set as the reference group).||||.496
90812208|NCT03880838|181503398|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.722|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||In this contrast, commitment conditions (coded into one category) were compared against no nudge conditions (coded into one category and set as the reference group).||||.722
90812209|NCT03880838|181503398|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.445|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||In this contrast, both nudge conditions (coded into one category) were compared against no nudge conditions (coded into one category and set as the reference group).||||.445
90812210|NCT03880838|181503398|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.531|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||In this contrast, no nudge conditions (coded into one category) were compared against the letter condition (set as the reference group).||||.531
90812211|NCT03880838|181503398|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.177|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||In this contrast, prevention conditions (coded into one category) were compared against the letter condition (set as the reference group).||||.177
90812212|NCT03880838|181503398|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.314|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||In this contrast, commitment conditions (coded into one category) were compared against the letter condition (set as the reference group).||||.314
90812213|NCT03880838|181503398|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.85|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||In this contrast, both nudge conditions (coded into one category) were compared against the letter condition (set as the reference group).||||.850
90812214|NCT03880838|181503398|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.391|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||In this contrast, no nudge conditions (coded into one category) were compared against the no contact condition (set as the reference group).||||.391
90812215|NCT03880838|181503398|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.906|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||In this contrast, prevention conditions (coded into one category) were compared against the no contact condition (set as the reference group).||||.906
90812216|NCT03880838|181503398|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.635|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||In this contrast, commitment conditions (coded into one category) were compared against the no contact condition (set as the reference group).||||.635
90812217|NCT03880838|181503398|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.093|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||In this contrast, both nudge conditions (coded into one category) were compared against the no contact condition (set as the reference group).||||0.093
90812218|NCT04948307|181503468|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7326|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7326
90812219|NCT04948307|181503469|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7396|||||||Kolmogorov-Smirnoff|||||||0.7396
90812220|NCT04948307|181503470|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.871|||||||Kolmogorov-Smirnoff|||||||0.8710
90812221|NCT04948307|181503471|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8816|||||||Kolmogorov-Smirnoff|||||||0.8816
91055092|NCT05958888|181992175|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.45|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Graphic vs. Text||||.45
90812222|NCT04948307|181503472|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5281|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5281
90812223|NCT04948307|181503473|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2996|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2996
90812224|NCT04948307|181503477|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7201|||||||Kolmogorov-Smirnoff|||||||0.7201
90812225|NCT04948307|181503479|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Summary statistics are presented.|Summary statistics are presented|||
90812226|NCT04948307|181503481|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Summary statistics are presented.|||
90812227|NCT03131596|181503487|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012||||||The p-value is not adjusted and a p-value of \< 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Chi-squared|||200 patients were eligible and randomised in a 1:1 fashion. 9 patients did not complete the full protocol, resulting in 94 cases in the balloon group and 97 cases in the control group included in the final analysis. Intention-to-treat analysis was conducted.The null hypothesis is the percentage of the patients with reformed uterine adhesion in balloon group will less than the percentage of the patients with reformed uterine adhesion in control group. A Chi-squared analysis was used.||||0.012
90812228|NCT03131596|181503488|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90812229|NCT03131596|181503489|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90812230|NCT03131596|181503490|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
90812231|NCT00734071|181503497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.911||0.518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|2.38||Pre-specified sequential statistical testing procedure indicates that when p-value \>0.05, hierarchical testing stops and for subsequent endpoints in the sequence a nominal p-value is provided.|Mixed model for repeated measurements|||P-values were tested at the 5% level of significance (ie, statistical significance if P\<0.05). To control for multiplicity, a pre-specified sequential testing procedure was applied to compare 5 mg vortioxetine to placebo; as soon as an endpoint was non-significant at 0.05, the testing procedure stopped for all subsequent endpoints.||2.38|-1.20|0.518
90812232|NCT00734071|181503498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.542||0.685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|0.85||Hierarchical testing stopped at the primary endpoint in the testing sequence, a nominal p-value is provided.|Mixed model for repeated measurements|||Statistical tests were 2-sided and results were presented with 95% confidence intervals with the estimated P-values at the 5% level of significance (ie, statistical significance if P\<0.05).||0.85|-1.29|0.685
90812233|NCT00734071|181503499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141||0.984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.28||Statistical tests were 2-sided and results were presented with 95% confidence intervals with the estimated P-values at the 5% level of significance (ie, statistical significance if P\<0.05). No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|Mixed model for repeated measurements|||||0.28|-0.27|0.984
90812234|NCT00734071|181503500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.866||0.703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|2.04||Statistical tests were 2-sided and results were presented with 95% confidence intervals with the estimated P-values at the 5% level of significance (ie, statistical significance if P\<0.05). No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|Mixed model for repeated measurements|||||2.04|-1.38|0.703
90812235|NCT00734071|181503501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.131||||0.602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.713|1.795|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with explanatory variables for treatment and Baseline HAM-A score.||||1.795|0.713|0.602
90812236|NCT00734071|181503502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.558||0.995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|3.07||Statistical tests were 2-sided and results were presented with 95% confidence intervals with the estimated P-values at the 5% level of significance (ie, statistical significance if P\<0.05). No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|Mixed model for repeated measurements|||||3.07|-3.09|0.995
90812237|NCT00734071|181503503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.951||0.731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.79|6.83||Statistical tests were 2-sided and results were presented with 95% confidence intervals with the estimated P-values at the 5% level of significance (ie, statistical significance if P\<0.05). No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|Mixed model for repeated measurements|||||6.83|-4.79|0.731
90812238|NCT03654885|181503522|NON_INFERIORITY|By assuming the margin of non-inferiority at 24%, the null hypothesis for this non-inferiority testing was to be set up as XEN implanted group (P1)-Trabeculectomy group (P2) ≤-0.24 versus the alternative hypothesis as P1-P2 \>-0.24. Equivalently, non-inferiority of P1 to P2 was to be declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided confidence interval (CI) of the difference of the above endpoint between the two treatment groups computed using normal approximation was found to be greater than -24%.|Percentage Difference|-6.1||||0.487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.9|10.8|||Chi-squared|||||10.8|-22.9|0.487
90812239|NCT03654885|181503524|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|-5.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.155|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.074|-3.538||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) model with treatment and time as the factors, treatment by time interaction and Baseline as the covariate variables were used for analysis.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change From Baseline in Mean IOP Over Time: Day 1||-3.538|-8.074|<0.001
90890345|NCT03301051|181645192|OTHER|VE of VLP vaccine versus placebo = (1 - ARV/ARU) x 100%.|Vaccine Efficacy|37.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.1|48.0|||||The VE success criterion is defined as a \>40% lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI.|||48.0|25.1|
91055093|NCT05958888|181992175|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.7|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Graphic vs. Icon||||.70
90812240|NCT03654885|181503524|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.163||0.851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.503|2.066||MMRM model with treatment and time as the factors, treatment by time interaction and Baseline as the covariate variables were used for analysis.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change From Baseline in Mean IOP Over Time: Week 1||2.066|-2.503|0.851
90812241|NCT03654885|181503524|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|2.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.162||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.253|4.309||MMRM model with treatment and time as the factors, treatment by time interaction and Baseline as the covariate variables were used for analysis.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change From Baseline in Mean IOP Over Time: Week 2||4.309|-0.253|0.081
90812242|NCT03654885|181503524|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|2.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.157||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.059|4.484||MMRM model with treatment and time as the factors, treatment by time interaction and Baseline as the covariate variables were used for analysis.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change From Baseline in Mean IOP Over Time: Month 1||4.484|-0.059|0.056
90812243|NCT03654885|181503524|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|4.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.181|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.416|7.054||MMRM model with treatment and time as the factors, treatment by time interaction and Baseline as the covariate variables were used for analysis.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change From Baseline in Mean IOP Over Time: Month 3||7.054|2.416|<0.001
90812244|NCT03654885|181503524|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|3.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.197||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.657|5.358||MMRM model with treatment and time as the factors, treatment by time interaction and Baseline as the covariate variables were used for analysis.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change From Baseline in Mean IOP Over Time: Month 6||5.358|0.657|0.012
90812245|NCT03654885|181503524|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|3.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.197||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.182|5.883||MMRM model with treatment and time as the factors, treatment by time interaction and Baseline as the covariate variables were used for analysis.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change From Baseline in Mean IOP Over Time: Month 9||5.883|1.182|0.003
90812246|NCT03654885|181503524|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|2.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.229||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.358|5.183||MMRM model with treatment and time as the factors, treatment by time interaction and Baseline as the covariate variables were used for analysis.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change From Baseline in Mean IOP Over Time: Month 12||5.183|0.358|0.024
91055094|NCT05958888|181992176|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Text vs. Control||||<.001
90812247|NCT03654885|181503526|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.18||MMRM model with treatment and time as the factors, treatment by time interaction and baseline as the covariate variables were used for analysis.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in Mean Number of Topical IOP-Lowering Medications Over Time: Day 1||0.18|-0.36|0.505
90812248|NCT03654885|181503526|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.26||MMRM model with treatment and time as the factors, treatment by time interaction and baseline as the covariate variables were used for analysis.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in Mean Number of Topical IOP-Lowering Medications Over Time: Week 1||0.26|-0.28|0.949
90812249|NCT03654885|181503526|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.34||MMRM model with treatment and time as the factors, treatment by time interaction and baseline as the covariate variables were used for analysis.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in Mean Number of Topical IOP-Lowering Medications Over Time: Week 2||0.34|-0.19|0.581
90812250|NCT03654885|181503526|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.41||MMRM model with treatment and time as the factors, treatment by time interaction and baseline as the covariate variables were used for analysis.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in Mean Number of Topical IOP-Lowering Medications Over Time: Month 1||0.41|-0.13|0.302
90812251|NCT03654885|181503526|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.66||MMRM model with treatment and time as the factors, treatment by time interaction and baseline as the covariate variables were used for analysis.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in Mean Number of Topical IOP-Lowering Medications Over Time: Month 3||0.66|0.12|0.005
90812252|NCT03654885|181503526|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.59||MMRM model with treatment and time as the factors, treatment by time interaction and baseline as the covariate variables were used for analysis.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in Mean Number of Topical IOP-Lowering Medications Over Time: Month 6||0.59|0.04|0.026
90812253|NCT03654885|181503526|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.64||MMRM model with treatment and time as the factors, treatment by time interaction and baseline as the covariate variables were used for analysis.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in Mean Number of Topical IOP-Lowering Medications Over Time: Month 9||0.64|0.09|0.010
90812254|NCT03654885|181503526|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.54||MMRM model with treatment and time as the factors, treatment by time interaction and baseline as the covariate variables were used for analysis.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in Mean Number of Topical IOP-Lowering Medications Over Time: Month 12||0.54|0.00|0.052
90812255|NCT03654885|181503527|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Least Square Mean Difference|2.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.229||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.358|5.183||MMRM model with treatment and time as the factors, treatment by time interaction and baseline as the covariate variables was used for analysis.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||5.183|0.358|0.024
90812256|NCT03654885|181503528|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Least Square Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.54||MMRM model with treatment and time as the factors, treatment by time interaction and baseline as the covariate variables was used for analysis.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.54|0.00|0.052
90812257|NCT03654885|181503529|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Least Square Mean Difference|1.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.214||0.421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.579|6.151||MMRM model with treatment and time as the factors, treatment by time interaction and baseline as the covariate variables was used for analysis.|Mixed model repeated measures|||||6.151|-2.579|0.421
90812258|NCT03654885|181503530|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Least Square Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.84||MMRM model with treatment and time as the factors, treatment by time interaction and baseline as the covariate variables was used for analysis.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.84|-0.16|0.180
90812259|NCT03654885|181503531|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|-15.7||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.0|2.3|||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of Participants Achieving Specific IOP Targets at Month 12: IOP Value of ≤18 mmHg||2.3|-33.0|0.064
90812260|NCT03654885|181503531|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|-15.3||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.7|2.5|||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of Participants Achieving Specific IOP Targets at Month 12: IOP Value of ≤17 mmHg||2.5|-32.7|0.078
90812261|NCT03654885|181503531|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|-17.4||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.7|0.4|||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of Participants Achieving Specific IOP Targets at Month 12: IOP Value of ≤16 mmHg||0.4|-34.7|0.051
90812262|NCT03654885|181503531|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|-16.9||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.1|1.0|||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of Participants Achieving Specific IOP Targets at Month 12: IOP Value of ≤15 mmHg||1.0|-34.1|0.064
90812263|NCT03654885|181503531|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|-13.1||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.5|4.8|||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of Participants Achieving Specific IOP Targets at Month 12: IOP Value of ≤14 mm Hg||4.8|-30.5|0.200
90812264|NCT03654885|181503531|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|-20.0||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.1|-2.0|||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of Participants Achieving Specific IOP Targets at Month 12: IOP Value of ≤13 mm Hg||-2.0|-37.1|0.042
90812265|NCT03654885|181503531|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|-12.7||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.1|5.2|||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of Participants Achieving Specific IOP Targets at Month 12: IOP Value of ≤12 mm Hg||5.2|-30.1|0.180
90812266|NCT03654885|181503532|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|-3.6||||0.712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.3|14.2|||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of Participants Achieving Specific Percentage IOP Lower Targets From Baseline at Month 12: ≥25% IOP Reduction||14.2|-21.3|0.712
90812267|NCT03654885|181503532|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|-12.9||||0.201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.3|5.0|||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of Participants Achieving Specific Percentage IOP Lower Targets From Baseline at Month 12: ≥30% IOP Reduction||5.0|-30.3|0.201
90812268|NCT03654885|181503532|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|-20.3||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.3|-2.3|||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of Participants Achieving Specific Percentage IOP Lower Targets From Baseline at Month 12: ≥35% IOP Reduction||-2.3|-37.3|0.030
90812269|NCT03654885|181503532|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|-18.8||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.0|-0.8|||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of Participants Achieving Specific Percentage IOP Lower Targets From Baseline at Month 12: ≥40% IOP Reduction||-0.8|-36.0|0.043
91055095|NCT05958888|181992176|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Icon vs. Control||||<.001
90812270|NCT03654885|181503532|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|-17.9||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.1|0.0|||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of Participants Achieving Specific Percentage IOP Lower Targets From Baseline at Month 12: ≥45% IOP Reduction||0.0|-35.1|0.048
90812271|NCT03654885|181503532|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|-21.1||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.1|-3.2|||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of Participants Achieving Specific Percentage IOP Lower Targets From Baseline at Month 12: ≥50% IOP Reduction||-3.2|-38.1|0.015
90890346|NCT03301051|181645193|OTHER|VE of VLP vaccine versus placebo = (1 - ARV/ARU) x 100%.|Vaccine Efficacy|6.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|11.3|||||The VE success criterion is defined as a \>40% lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI.|||11.3|0.8|
90812272|NCT03654885|181503533|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|-11.7||||0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.0|6.3|||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of Participants Achieving at Least a 20% IOP Reductions and Specific IOP Targets on Same or Lower Number of Topical IOP-Lowering Medications at Month 12- IOP Target ≤18 mm Hg||6.3|-29.0|0.252
90812273|NCT03654885|181503533|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|-11.5||||0.258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.9|6.5|||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of Participants Achieving at Least a 20% IOP Reductions and Specific IOP Targets on Same or Lower Number of Topical IOP-Lowering Medications at Month 12- IOP Target ≤17 mmHg||6.5|-28.9|0.258
90812274|NCT03654885|181503533|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|-13.6||||0.139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.9|4.4|||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of Participants Achieving at Least a 20% IOP Reductions and Specific IOP Targets on Same or Lower Number of Topical IOP-Lowering Medications at Month 12- IOP Target ≤16 mm Hg||4.4|-30.9|0.139
90812275|NCT03654885|181503533|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|-14.7||||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.0|3.3|||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of Participants Achieving at Least a 20% IOP Reductions and Specific IOP Targets on Same or Lower Number of Topical IOP-Lowering Medications at Month 12- IOP Target ≤15 mm Hg||3.3|-32.0|0.136
90812276|NCT03654885|181503533|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.%.|Percentage Difference|-10.8||||0.274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.2|7.1|||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of Participants Achieving at Least a 20% IOP Reductions and Specific IOP Targets on Same or Lower Number of Topical IOP-Lowering Medications at Month 12- IOP Target ≤14 mm Hg||7.1|-28.2|0.274
91055096|NCT05958888|181992176|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Graphic vs. Control||||<.001
90812277|NCT03654885|181503533|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|-17.7||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.0|0.3|||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of Participants Achieving at Least a 20% IOP Reductions and Specific IOP Targets on Same or Lower Number of Topical IOP-Lowering Medications at Month 12- IOP Target ≤13 mm Hg||0.3|-35.0|0.065
90812278|NCT03654885|181503533|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|-12.7||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.1|5.2|||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of Participants Achieving at Least a 20% IOP Reductions and Specific IOP Targets on Same or Lower Number of Topical IOP-Lowering Medications at Month 12- IOP Target ≤12 mmHg||5.2|-30.1|0.180
90812279|NCT03654885|181503536|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|1.8||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.6|44.1|||Fisher Exact|||||44.1|-41.6|1.000
90812280|NCT03654885|181503537|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|-32.1||||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.8|10.0|||Fisher Exact|||||10.0|-66.8|0.215
90812281|NCT03654885|181503539|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|-14.9||||0.144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.2|3.1|||Fisher Exact|||||3.1|-32.2|0.144
90812282|NCT03654885|181503540|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|-10.6||||0.254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.0|7.3|||Fisher Exact|||||7.3|-28.0|0.254
90812283|NCT03654885|181503541|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|-7.4||||0.563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.6|14.2|||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of Participants Achieving Specific IOP Targets at Month 12 in Medication-free Eye- IOP Target ≤18 mm Hg||14.2|-28.6|0.563
90812284|NCT03654885|181503541|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|-12.5||||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.5|9.1|||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of Participants Achieving Specific IOP Targets at Month 12 in Medication-free Eye- IOP Target ≤17 mm Hg||9.1|-33.5|0.188
90812285|NCT03654885|181503541|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|-15.9||||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.7|5.6|||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of Participants Achieving Specific IOP Targets at Month 12 in Medication-free Eye- IOP Target ≤16 mmHg||5.6|-36.7|0.118
90812286|NCT03654885|181503541|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|-19.5||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.2|2.1|||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of Participants Achieving Specific IOP Targets at Month 12 in Medication-free Eye- IOP Target ≤15 mm Hg||2.1|-40.2|0.085
90812287|NCT03654885|181503541|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|-21.3||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.0|0.4|||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of Participants Achieving Specific IOP Targets at Month 12 in Medication-free Eye- IOP Target ≤14 mm Hg||0.4|-42.0|0.059
90812288|NCT03654885|181503541|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|-23.5||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.9|-1.4|||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of Participants Achieving Specific IOP Targets at Month 12 in Medication-free Eye- IOP Target ≤13 mm Hg||-1.4|-43.9|0.045
90812289|NCT03654885|181503541|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|-20.8||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.3|1.1|||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of Participants Achieving Specific IOP Targets at Month 12 in Medication-free Eye- IOP Target ≤12 mm Hg||1.1|-41.3|0.076
90890347|NCT01359735|181645245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.263|TWO_SIDED|||||Week 04|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.263
90890348|NCT01359735|181645245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|||||Week 13|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.500
91055097|NCT05958888|181992176|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Icon vs. Text||||<.001
91055098|NCT05958888|181992176|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Graphic vs. Text||||<.001
90812290|NCT03654885|181503542|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|-9.6||||0.464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.0|12.1|||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of Participants Achieving Specific Percentage IOP Lower Targets From Baseline at Month 12 With Medication-free Eyes: ≥ 25% IOP Reduction||12.1|-31.0|0.464
90812291|NCT03654885|181503542|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|-19.8||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.6|2.1|||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of Participants Achieving Specific Percentage IOP Lower Targets From Baseline at Month 12 With Medication-free Eyes: ≥30% IOP Reduction||2.1|-40.6|0.069
90812292|NCT03654885|181503542|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|-26.6||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.9|-4.7|||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of Participants Achieving Specific Percentage IOP Lower Targets From Baseline at Month 12 With Medication-free Eyes: ≥35% IOP Reduction||-4.7|-46.9|0.023
90812293|NCT03654885|181503542|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|-23.7||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.9|-1.6|||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of Participants Achieving Specific Percentage IOP Lower Targets From Baseline at Month 12 With Medication-free Eyes: ≥40% IOP Reduction||-1.6|-43.9|0.046
90812294|NCT03654885|181503542|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|-27.6||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.6|-5.9|||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of Participants Achieving Specific Percentage IOP Lower Targets From Baseline at Month 12 With Medication-free Eyes: ≥45% IOP Reduction||-5.9|-47.6|0.014
90812295|NCT03654885|181503542|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|-30.9||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.8|-9.5|||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of Participants Achieving Specific Percentage IOP Lower Targets From Baseline at Month 12 With Medication-free Eyes: ≥50% IOP Reduction||-9.5|-50.8|0.006
90812296|NCT03654885|181503549|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Least Square Mean Difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.72|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|MMRM model with treatment and time as the factors, treatment by time interaction and baseline as the covariate variables were used for analysis||Mean Change From Baseline in Best Corrected Visual Acuity (BCVA) With Current Glasses: Day 1||1.72|0.33|0.004
90812297|NCT03654885|181503549|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Least Square Mean Difference|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.88||MMRM model with treatment and time as the factors, treatment by time interaction and baseline as the covariate variables were used for analysis|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Mean Change From Baseline in Best Corrected Visual Acuity (BCVA) With Current Glasses:Week 1||1.88|0.47|0.001
90812298|NCT03654885|181503549|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Least Square Mean Difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.2||MMRM model with treatment and time as the factors, treatment by time interaction and baseline as the covariate variables were used for analysis|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Mean Change From Baseline in Best Corrected Visual Acuity (BCVA) With Current Glasses:Week 2||1.20|-0.20|0.162
90812299|NCT03654885|181503549|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Least Square Mean Difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|1.19||MMRM model with treatment and time as the factors, treatment by time interaction and baseline as the covariate variables were used for analysis|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Mean Change From Baseline in Best Corrected Visual Acuity (BCVA) With Current Glasses:Month 1||1.19|-0.23|0.185
90812300|NCT03654885|181503549|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Least Square Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.79||MMRM model with treatment and time as the factors, treatment by time interaction and baseline as the covariate variables were used for analysis|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Mean Change From Baseline in Best Corrected Visual Acuity (BCVA) With Current Glasses:Month 3||0.79|-0.64|0.846
90812301|NCT03654885|181503549|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Least Square Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.7||MMRM model with treatment and time as the factors, treatment by time interaction and baseline as the covariate variables were used for analysis|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Mean Change From Baseline in Best Corrected Visual Acuity (BCVA) With Current Glasses:Month 6||0.70|-0.73|0.965
90812302|NCT03654885|181503549|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Least Square Mean Difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|1.33||MMRM model with treatment and time as the factors, treatment by time interaction and baseline as the covariate variables were used for analysis|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Mean Change From Baseline in Best Corrected Visual Acuity (BCVA) With Current Glasses:Month 9||1.33|-0.11|0.096
90812303|NCT03654885|181503549|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Least Square Mean Difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|1.43||MMRM model with treatment and time as the factors, treatment by time interaction and baseline as the covariate variables were used for analysis|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Mean Change From Baseline in Best Corrected Visual Acuity (BCVA) With Current Glasses:Month 12||1.43|-0.04|0.063
90812304|NCT03654885|181503550|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Least Square Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.105|0.0|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Mean Change From Baseline in Manifest Refraction - Mean Visual Acuity Using Snellen in LogMAR Scale: Month 1||0.000|-0.105|0.048
91055099|NCT05958888|181992176|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.72|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Graphic vs. Icon||||.72
90812305|NCT03654885|181503550|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Least Square Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.062|0.045|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Mean Change From Baseline in Manifest Refraction - Mean Visual Acuity Using Snellen in LogMAR Scale: Month 3||0.045|-0.062|0.742
90812306|NCT03654885|181503550|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Least Square Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.056|0.051|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Mean Change From Baseline in Manifest Refraction - Mean Visual Acuity Using Snellen in LogMAR Scale: Month 6||0.051|-0.056|0.925
90812307|NCT03654885|181503550|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Least Square Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.118|-0.01|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Mean Change From Baseline in Manifest Refraction - Mean Visual Acuity Using Snellen in LogMAR Scale: Month 12||-0.010|-0.118|0.021
90812308|NCT03654885|181503553|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Least Square Mean Difference|-0.562|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3231||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2082|0.0851|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Mean Change from Baseline in Surgically Induced Astigmatism - Topography at Selected Sites at Week 1||0.0851|-1.2082|0.087
90812309|NCT03654885|181503553|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Least Square Mean Difference|-0.138|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3355||0.682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.809|0.5324|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Mean Change from Baseline in Surgically Induced Astigmatism - Topography at Selected Sites at Month 1||0.5324|-0.8090|0.682
90812310|NCT03654885|181503553|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Least Square Mean Difference|-0.452|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3484||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1483|0.2434|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Mean Change from Baseline in Surgically Induced Astigmatism - Topography at Selected Sites at Month 12||0.2434|-1.1483|0.199
90812311|NCT03654885|181503554|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Least Square Mean Difference|-0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2026||0.997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4103|0.4086|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Mean Change in Optical Biometry - Anterior Chamber Depth at Day 1||0.4086|-0.4103|0.997
90812312|NCT03654885|181503554|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Least Square Mean Difference|0.222|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2124||0.302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2068|0.6506|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Mean Change in Optical Biometry - Anterior Chamber Depth at Week 2||0.6506|-0.2068|0.302
90812313|NCT03654885|181503555|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Least Square Mean Difference|0.343|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3336||0.309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3289|1.0154|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Mean Change in from Baseline Optical Biometry - K1 at Day 1||1.0154|-0.3289|0.309
90812314|NCT03654885|181503555|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Least Square Mean Difference|0.261|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3278||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3993|0.922|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Mean Change in from Baseline Optical Biometry - K1 at Week 2||0.9220|-0.3993|0.430
90812315|NCT03654885|181503555|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Least Square Mean Difference|-0.409|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4457||0.363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3071|0.4882|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Mean Change in from Baseline Optical Biometry - K2 at Day 1||0.4882|-1.3071|0.363
90812316|NCT03654885|181503555|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Least Square Mean Difference|-0.488|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4383||0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3709|0.3954|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Mean Change in from Baseline Optical Biometry - K2 at Week 2||0.3954|-1.3709|0.272
90812317|NCT03654885|181503555|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Least Square Mean Difference|-0.765|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4502||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6722|0.142|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Mean Change in from Baseline Optical Biometry - Delta D at Day 1||0.1420|-1.6722|0.096
90812318|NCT03654885|181503555|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Least Square Mean Difference|-0.576|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4411||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4655|0.3129|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Mean Change in from Baseline Optical Biometry - Delta D at Week 2||0.3129|-1.4655|0.198
90812319|NCT03654885|181503566|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Least Square Mean Difference|-3.031|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3331||0.485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5597|5.4973|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||PRO: Change From Baseline in Symptom and Health Problem Checklist (SHPC-18)- Local Eye Symptoms Score||5.4973|-11.5597|0.485
90812320|NCT03654885|181503566|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Least Square Mean Difference|-10.507|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5666||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.5|-1.5144|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||PRO: Change From Baseline in Symptom and Health Problem Checklist (SHPC-18)- Vision Function Problem Score||-1.5144|-19.5000|0.022
90812321|NCT03654885|181503566|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Least Square Mean Difference|-7.528|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0382||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4841|0.4275|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||PRO: Change From Baseline in Symptom and Health Problem Checklist (SHPC-18)- Total Bothersome Score||0.4275|-15.4841|0.064
90812322|NCT03654885|181503566|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Least Square Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|0.37|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||PRO: Change From Baseline in Symptom and Health Problem Checklist (SHPC-18)- Local Eye Symptoms Frequency Score||0.37|-1.28|0.278
90812323|NCT03654885|181503566|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Least Square Mean Difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.96|-0.47|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||PRO: Change From Baseline in Symptom and Health Problem Checklist (SHPC-18)- Vision Function Problem Frequency Score||-0.47|-2.96|0.007
90812324|NCT03654885|181503567|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.||||||0.534|||||||Fisher Exact|||PRO: Percentage of Participants With Post-Surgical Resumption of Activities and Daily Routine- Not at all||||0.534
90812325|NCT03654885|181503567|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.||||||0.263|||||||Fisher Exact|||PRO: Percentage of Participants With Post-Surgical Resumption of Activities and Daily Routine- Somewhat||||0.263
90812326|NCT03654885|181503567|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||PRO: Percentage of Participants With Post-Surgical Resumption of Activities and Daily Routine- Moderately so||||1.000
90812327|NCT03654885|181503567|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.||||||0.018|||||||Fisher Exact|||PRO: Percentage of Participants With Post-Surgical Resumption of Activities and Daily Routine- Mostly||||0.018
90812328|NCT03654885|181503567|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.||||||0.35|||||||Fisher Exact|||PRO: Percentage of Participants With Post-Surgical Resumption of Activities and Daily Routine- Completely||||0.350
90812329|NCT03654885|181503567|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.||||||0.264|||||||Fisher Exact|||PRO: Percentage of Participants With Post-Surgical Resumption of Activities and Daily Routine- Missing||||0.264
90812330|NCT03654885|181503568|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Least Square Mean Difference|-8.303|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.1445||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.8681|24.2624|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||PRO: Percent Change From Baseline in Work Productivity and Activity Impairment- Percent Overall Work Impairment Due to Health||24.2624|-40.8681|0.610
90812331|NCT03654885|181503569|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Least Square Mean Difference|-13.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.33||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.32|2.52|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||PRO: Percent Change From Baseline in Work Productivity and Activity Impairment-Percent Activity Impairment Due to Health||2.52|-30.32|0.097
90812332|NCT05320393|181503598|OTHER|This study was not powered for formal hypothesis testing; analyses were intended for interpretation purposes only. Analysis was performed using the modified Intent-to-Treat population and regardless of responder status.||||||0.0109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||The primary effectiveness endpoint was a measure of duration of effect, described by Kaplan-Meier curves and the median times, with associated 2-sided 95% confidence intervals for each treatment group.||||0.0109
90812333|NCT02091284|181503600|OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||Two-way ANOVA with repeated measures followed by Bonferroni's multiple comparisons as post-hoc test and linear regression analyses. Additional comparisons between initial and final OCDS scores were done by paired t tests for each group.|ANOVA|||||||< 0.01
90812334|NCT02091284|181503600|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Additional comparisons between initial and final OCDS scores were done by paired t tests for each group, and differences between final and initial scores were compared between sham-tDCS and tDCS groups with unpaired t tests.||||<0.05
90812335|NCT00759356|181503627|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 90% confidence intervals for the ratios (test/reference) of the least squares means of the non-transformed parameters Cmax, AUClast, AUCinf, Tmax, λz, and T1/2, were calculated.|Mean ratio|109.8||||||90.0|95.3|126.5|||ANOVA|||||126.5|95.3|
91055100|NCT05958888|181992177|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Text vs. Control||||<.001
91055101|NCT05958888|181992177|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Icon vs. Control||||<.001
90812336|NCT00759356|181503629|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 90% confidence intervals for the ratios (test/reference) of the least squares means of the non-transformed parameters Cmax, AUClast, AUCinf, Tmax, λz, and T1/2, were calculated.|mean ratio|101.5||||||90.0|95.6|107.9|||ANOVA|||||107.9|95.6|
90812337|NCT00759356|181503630|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 90% confidence intervals for the ratios (test/reference) of the least squares means of the non-transformed parameters Cmax, AUClast, AUCinf, Tmax, λz, and T1/2, were calculated.|mean ratio|101.7||||||90.0|95.9|107.9|||ANOVA|log-transformation||||107.9|95.9|
90812338|NCT01057225|181503640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Dose Level|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Using a cohort of 3 design, it was determined the maximum tolerated dose of carfilzomib is Dose Level 1: 20 mg/m\^2 for the first cycle and 36 mg/m\^2 for subsequent cycles.|||||
90812339|NCT00246025|181503659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-16.8||||0.0155||95.0|-30.2|-3.4||Multiplicity was not adjusted because of hierarchical testing from highest to lowest dose.|normal approximation method|Statistical inference was made on the basis of the normal approximation of two independent binomial distributions.|The risk differences are calculated as risk in the dabigatran groups minus risk in the placebo group.|Superiority of dabigatran etexilate to placebo was tested by means of hierarchical tests. Statistical inference was made on the basis of the normal approximation of two independent binomial distributions.||-3.4|-30.2|0.0155
90812340|NCT00246025|181503659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-23.7||||0.0006||95.0|-37.0|-10.5||Multiplicity was not adjusted because of hierarchical testing from highest to lowest dose.|normal approximation method|Statistical inference was made on the basis of the normal approximation of two independent binomial distributions.|The risk differences are calculated as risk in the dabigatran groups minus risk in the placebo group.|Superiority of dabigatran etexilate to placebo was tested by means of hierarchical tests. Statistical inference was made on the basis of the normal approximation of two independent binomial distributions.||-10.5|-37.0|0.0006
90812341|NCT00246025|181503659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-32.5|||<|0.0001||95.0|-45.4|-19.6||Multiplicity was not adjusted because of hierarchical testing from highest to lowest dose.|normal approximation method|Statistical inference was made on the basis of the normal approximation of two independent binomial distributions.|The risk differences are calculated as risk in the dabigatran groups minus risk in the placebo group.|Superiority of dabigatran etexilate to placebo was tested by means of hierarchical tests. Statistical inference was made on the basis of the normal approximation of two independent binomial distributions.||-19.6|-45.4|<0.0001
90890349|NCT01359735|181645246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|||||Over weeks 1 through 4 or Week 4?|Fisher Exact|||||||0.5
91015688|NCT05261126|181914205|OTHER|Difference in percentage based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in Percentage|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|15.1|||||MK-0616 18 mg vs Placebo|||15.1|-16.3|
91015689|NCT05261126|181914205|OTHER|Difference in percentage based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in Percentage|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|13.8|||||MK-0616 30 mg minus Placebo|||13.8|-17.5|
91015690|NCT05261126|181914207|SUPERIORITY|One-sided p-value and difference in least squares means based on a cLDA model including terms for treatment, time, baseline statin intensity, baseline renal function, and the interaction of treatment by time.|Difference in Least Squares Means|-32.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.6|-26.9|||cLDA||MK-0616 6 mg minus Placebo|||-26.9|-38.6|<0.001
91015691|NCT05261126|181914207|SUPERIORITY|One-sided p-value and difference in least squares means based on a cLDA model including terms for treatment, time, baseline statin intensity, baseline renal function, and the interaction of treatment by time.|Difference in Least Squares Means|-45.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.7|-39.9|||cLDA||MK-0616 12 mg minus Placebo|||-39.9|-51.7|<0.001
91015692|NCT05261126|181914207|SUPERIORITY|One-sided p-value and difference in least squares means based on a cLDA model including terms for treatment, time, baseline statin intensity, baseline renal function, and the interaction of treatment by time.|Difference in Least Squares Means|-48.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.6|-42.8|||cLDA||MK-0616 18 mg minus Placebo|||-42.8|-54.6|<0.001
91015693|NCT05261126|181914207|SUPERIORITY|One-sided p-value and difference in least squares means based on a cLDA model including terms for treatment, time, baseline statin intensity, baseline renal function, and the interaction of treatment by time.|Difference in Least Square Means|-51.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.7|-45.9|||cLDA||MK-0616 30 mg minus Placebo|||-45.9|-57.7|<0.001
91015694|NCT05261126|181914208|SUPERIORITY|One-sided p-value and difference in least squares means based on a cLDA model including terms for treatment, time, baseline statin intensity, baseline renal function, and the interaction of treatment by time.|Difference in Least Squares Means|-35.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.4|-29.4|||cLDA||MK-0616 6 mg minus Placebo|||-29.4|-42.4|<0.001
90812342|NCT00246025|181503660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.0||||0.1124||95.0|-9.1|1.0||Multiplicity was not adjusted.|normal approximation method|Statistical inference was made on the basis of the normal approximation of two independent binomial distributions.||Superiority of dabigatran etexilate to placebo was tested. Statistical inference was made on the basis of the normal approximation of two independent binomial distributions.||1.0|-9.1|0.1124
91015695|NCT05261126|181914208|SUPERIORITY|One-sided p-value and difference in least squares means based on a cLDA model including terms for treatment, time, baseline statin intensity, baseline renal function, and the interaction of treatment by time.|Difference in Least Squares Means|-50.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.0|-44.0|||cLDA||MK-0616 12 mg minus Placebo|||-44.0|-57.0|<0.001
91015696|NCT05261126|181914208|SUPERIORITY|One-sided p-value and difference in least squares means based on a cLDA model including terms for treatment, time, baseline statin intensity, baseline renal function, and the interaction of treatment by time.|Difference in Least Squares Means|-53.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.7|-46.7|||cLDA||MK-0616 18 mg minus Placebo|||-46.7|-59.7|<0.001
91015697|NCT05261126|181914208|SUPERIORITY|One-sided p-value and difference in least squares means based on a cLDA model including terms for treatment, time, baseline statin intensity, baseline renal function, and the interaction of treatment by time.|Difference in Least Squares Means|-55.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.3|-49.3|||cLDA||MK-0616 30 mg minus Placebo|||-49.3|-62.3|<0.001
91055102|NCT05958888|181992177|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Graphic vs. Control||||<.001
91055103|NCT05958888|181992177|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Icon vs. Text||||<.001
91055104|NCT05958888|181992177|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Graphic vs. Text||||.01
90890350|NCT01359735|181645247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0594|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0594
91015698|NCT05261126|181914209|SUPERIORITY|One-sided p-value and difference in percentage based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method, with sample size weighting, stratified by background statin intensity.|Difference in Percentage|69.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.2|79.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen||MK-0616 6 mg minus Placebo|||79.0|56.2|<0.001
91015699|NCT05261126|181914209|SUPERIORITY|One-sided p-value and difference in percentage based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method, with sample size weighting, stratified by background statin intensity.|Difference in Percentage|75.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.9|84.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen method||MK-0616 12 mg minus Placebo|||84.0|62.9|<0.001
91015700|NCT05261126|181914209|SUPERIORITY|One-sided p-value and difference in percentage based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method, with sample size weighting, stratified by background statin intensity.|Difference in Percentage|79.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.1|87.1|||Miettinen & Nurminen method||MK-0616 18 mg minus Placebo|||87.1|67.1|<0.001
91015701|NCT05261126|181914209|SUPERIORITY|One-sided p-value and difference in percentage based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method, with sample size weighting, stratified by background statin intensity.|Difference in Percentage|79.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.9|87.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen method||MK-0616 30 mg minus Placebo|||87.4|67.9|<0.001
90890351|NCT01359735|181645248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1354|ONE_SIDED|||||3 Weeks|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.1354
90890352|NCT01359735|181645248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|||||12 Weeks|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.5000
91015702|NCT03901274|181914224|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.42|||||Parameter estimated with full information maximum likelihood|Intent-to-treat on three month outcomes with intake (i.e. Pretest covariate)||0.42|-0.74|
91015703|NCT03901274|181914224|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.09|||||Parameter estimated with full information maximum likelihood|Intent-to-treat on six month outcomes with intake (i.e. Pretest covariate)||-0.09|-1.20|
90812343|NCT00246025|181503660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.0||||0.1183||95.0|-9.1|1.1||Multiplicity was not adjusted.|normal approximation method|Statistical inference was made on the basis of the normal approximation of two independent binomial distributions.||Superiority of dabigatran etexilate to placebo was tested. Statistical inference was made on the basis of the normal approximation of two independent binomial distributions.||1.1|-9.1|0.1183
90812344|NCT00246025|181503660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.8||||0.0138||95.0|-10.3|-1.3||Multiplicity was not adjusted.|normal approximation method|Statistical inference was made on the basis of the normal approximation of two independent binomial distributions.||Superiority of dabigatran etexilate to placebo was tested. Statistical inference was made on the basis of the normal approximation of two independent binomial distributions.||-1.3|-10.3|0.0138
90812345|NCT00246025|181503661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.0||||0.1124||95.0|-9.1|1.0||Multiplicity was not adjusted.|normal approximation method|Statistical inference was made on the basis of the normal approximation of two independent binomial distributions.||"Superiority of dabigatran etexilate to placebo was tested. Statistical inference was made on the basis of the normal approximation of two independent binomial distributions.~The dabigatran groups were compared to the placebo group.. The null hypotheses are Ho: placebo = 220mg, Ho: placebo = 150mg and Ho: placebo = 110mg. ,All comparisons were two-sided with a significance level of 5%. Confidence intervals were two-sided with a level of 95%."||1.0|-9.1|0.1124
90812346|NCT00246025|181503661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.0||||0.1183||95.0|-9.1|1.1||Multiplicity was not adjusted.|normal approximation method|Statistical inference was made on the basis of the normal approximation of two independent binomial distributions.||"Superiority of dabigatran etexilate to placebo was tested. Statistical inference was made on the basis of the normal approximation of two independent binomial distributions.~The dabigatran groups were compared to the placebo group.. The null hypotheses are Ho: placebo = 220mg, Ho: placebo = 150mg and Ho: placebo = 110mg. ,All comparisons were two-sided with a significance level of 5%. Confidence intervals were two-sided with a level of 95%."||1.1|-9.1|0.1183
90812347|NCT00246025|181503661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.8||||0.0138||95.0|-10.3|-1.3||Multiplicity was not adjusted.|normal approximation method|Statistical inference was made on the basis of the normal approximation of two independent binomial distributions.||"Superiority of dabigatran etexilate to placebo was tested. Statistical inference was made on the basis of the normal approximation of two independent binomial distributions.~The dabigatran groups were compared to the placebo group.. The null hypotheses are Ho: placebo = 220mg, Ho: placebo = 150mg and Ho: placebo = 110mg. ,All comparisons were two-sided with a significance level of 5%. Confidence intervals were two-sided with a level of 95%."||-1.3|-10.3|0.0138
90812348|NCT00246025|181503662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6107||95.0||||Multiplicity was not adjusted.|Fisher Exact|||"Superiority of dabigatran etexilate to placebo was tested based on Fisher's exact test.~The dabigatran groups were compared to the placebo group.. The null hypotheses are Ho: placebo = 220mg, Ho: placebo = 150mg and Ho: placebo = 110mg. ,All comparisons were two-sided with a significance level of 5%. Confidence intervals were two-sided with a level of 95%."||||0.6107
90812349|NCT00246025|181503662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||Multiplicity was not adjusted.|Fisher Exact|||"Superiority of dabigatran etexilate to placebo was tested based on Fisher's exact test.~The dabigatran groups were compared to the placebo group.. The null hypotheses are Ho: placebo = 220mg, Ho: placebo = 150mg and Ho: placebo = 110mg. ,All comparisons were two-sided with a significance level of 5%. Confidence intervals were two-sided with a level of 95%."||||1.0000
90812350|NCT00246025|181503662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6162||95.0||||Multiplicity was not adjusted.|Fisher Exact|||"Superiority of dabigatran etexilate to placebo was tested based on Fisher's exact test.~The dabigatran groups were compared to the placebo group.. The null hypotheses are Ho: placebo = 220mg, Ho: placebo = 150mg and Ho: placebo = 110mg. ,All comparisons were two-sided with a significance level of 5%. Confidence intervals were two-sided with a level of 95%."||||0.6162
90812351|NCT00246025|181503663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-16.8||||0.0155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.2|-3.4||Multiplicity was not adjusted.|normal approximation method|Statistical inference was made on the basis of the normal approximation of two independent binomial distributions.||"Superiority of dabigatran etexilate to placebo was tested. Statistical inference was made on the basis of the normal approximation of two independent binomial distributions.~The dabigatran groups were compared to the placebo group.. The null hypotheses are Ho: placebo = 220mg, Ho: placebo = 150mg and Ho: placebo = 110mg. ,All comparisons were two-sided with a significance level of 5%. Confidence intervals were two-sided with a level of 95%."||-3.4|-30.2|0.0155
90812352|NCT00246025|181503663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-23.7||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.0|-10.5||Multiplicity was not adjusted.|normal approximation method|Statistical inference was made on the basis of the normal approximation of two independent binomial distributions.||"Superiority of dabigatran etexilate to placebo was tested. Statistical inference was made on the basis of the normal approximation of two independent binomial distributions.~The dabigatran groups were compared to the placebo group.. The null hypotheses are Ho: placebo = 220mg, Ho: placebo = 150mg and Ho: placebo = 110mg. ,All comparisons were two-sided with a significance level of 5%. Confidence intervals were two-sided with a level of 95%."||-10.5|-37.0|0.0006
90812353|NCT00246025|181503663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-32.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.4|-19.6||Multiplicity was not adjusted.|normal approximation method|Statistical inference was made on the basis of the normal approximation of two independent binomial distributions.||"Superiority of dabigatran etexilate to placebo was tested. Statistical inference was made on the basis of the normal approximation of two independent binomial distributions.~The dabigatran groups were compared to the placebo group.. The null hypotheses are Ho: placebo = 220mg, Ho: placebo = 150mg and Ho: placebo = 110mg. ,All comparisons were two-sided with a significance level of 5%. Confidence intervals were two-sided with a level of 95%."||-19.6|-45.4|<.0001
90812354|NCT00246025|181503666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison versus Placebo for the category major bleeding events||||1.0000
91055105|NCT05958888|181992177|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Graphic vs. Icon||||.04
90812355|NCT00246025|181503666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.496||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison versus Placebo for the category major bleeding events||||0.4960
90812356|NCT00246025|181503666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6223||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison versus Placebo for the category major bleeding events||||0.6223
90812357|NCT00246025|181503666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Absolute Difference (Percentage)|-2.5||||0.1513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|1.0|||normal approximation method|Statistical inference was made on the basis of the normal approximation of two independent binomial distributions.||Absolute difference versus Placebo for the category major and clinically relevant bleeding events||1.0|-5.9|0.1513
90812358|NCT00246025|181503666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Absolute Difference (Percentage)|-2.4||||0.1696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|1.0|||normal approximation method|Statistical inference was made on the basis of the normal approximation of two independent binomial distributions.||Absolute difference versus Placebo for the category major and clinically relevant bleeding events||1.0|-5.9|0.1696
90812359|NCT00246025|181503666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Absolute Difference (Percentage)|0.7||||0.7802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|5.2|||normal approximation method|Statistical inference was made on the basis of the normal approximation of two independent binomial distributions.||Absolute difference versus Placebo for the category major and clinically relevant bleeding events||5.2|-3.9|0.7802
90812360|NCT00246025|181503666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Absolute Difference (Percentage)|1.7||||0.6313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|8.7|||normal approximation method|Statistical inference was made on the basis of the normal approximation of two independent binomial distributions.||Absolute difference versus Placebo for the category any bleeding events||8.7|-5.3|0.6313
90812361|NCT00246025|181503666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Absolute Difference (Percentage)|2.3||||0.5377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|9.4|||normal approximation method|Statistical inference was made on the basis of the normal approximation of two independent binomial distributions.||Absolute difference versus Placebo for the category any bleeding events||9.4|-4.9|0.5377
90812362|NCT00246025|181503666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Absolute Difference (Percentage)|2.8||||0.4493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|10.0|||normal approximation method|Statistical inference was made on the basis of the normal approximation of two independent binomial distributions.||Absolute difference versus Placebo for the category any bleeding events||10.0|-4.4|0.4493
90812363|NCT04600505|181503677|OTHER|Results based on linear mixed-effects analysis of variance model|Geometric mean Ratio (%)|111.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.01|137.1||||||Statistical Comparison of Budesonide PK Parameters for Treatment A (test) versus Treatment C (reference)||137.1|91.01|
90812364|NCT04600505|181503677|OTHER|Results based on linear mixed-effects analysis of variance model|Geometric mean Ratio (%)|98.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.67|124.0||||||Statistical Comparison of Budesonide PK Parameters for Treatment B (test) versus Treatment C (reference)||124.0|78.67|
90812365|NCT04600505|181503677|OTHER|Results based on linear mixed-effects analysis of variance model|Geometric mean Ratio (%)|108.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.5|137.3||||||Statistical Comparison of Glycopyrronium PK Parameters for Treatment A (test) versus Treatment C (reference)||137.3|85.50|
90812366|NCT04600505|181503677|OTHER|Results based on linear mixed-effects analysis of variance model|Geometric mean Ratio (%)|94.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.69|120.5||||||Statistical Comparison of Glycopyrronium PK Parameters for Treatment B (test) versus Treatment C (reference)||120.5|74.69|
90812367|NCT04600505|181503677|OTHER|Results based on linear mixed-effects analysis of variance model|Geometric mean Ratio (%)|109.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.02|122.7||||||Statistical Comparison of Formoterol PK Parameters for Treatment A (test) versus Treatment C (reference)||122.7|97.02|
90812368|NCT04600505|181503677|OTHER|Results based on linear mixed-effects analysis of variance model|Geometric mean Ratio (%)|100.1||||||90.0|83.78|119.5||||||Statistical Comparison of Formoterol PK Parameters for Treatment B (test) versus Treatment C (reference)||119.5|83.78|
91015704|NCT04957979|181914291|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.6||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|0.1||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for patient demographics, comorbidities, clinic characteristics, and includes random effect for clustering within clinic.|Negative value represents smaller change in Medical/Social clinics as compared to Medical/Nursing.|Null hypothesis: Average change in composite care quality outcome is not different between patients receiving care in Medical/Nursing Model clinics and those receiving care in Medical/Social Model clinics.||0.1|-4.1|0.19
90812369|NCT04600505|181503678|OTHER|Results based on linear mixed-effects analysis of variance model|Geometric mean Ratio (%)|104.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.95|119.2||||||Statistical Comparison of Budesonide PK Parameters for Treatment A (test) versus Treatment C (reference)||119.2|91.95|
90812370|NCT04600505|181503678|OTHER|Results based on linear mixed-effects analysis of variance model|Geometric mean Ratio (%)|98.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.33|115.3||||||Statistical Comparison of Budesonide PK Parameters for Treatment B (test) versus Treatment C (reference)||115.3|83.33|
90812371|NCT04600505|181503678|OTHER|Results based on linear mixed-effects analysis of variance model|Geometric mean Ratio (%)|96.0||||||90.0|70.33|131.0||||||Statistical Comparison of Formoterol PK Parameters for Treatment A (test) versus Treatment C (reference)||131.0|70.33|
90812372|NCT04600505|181503678|OTHER|Results based on linear mixed-effects analysis of variance model|Geometric mean Ratio (%)|116.7||||||90.0|86.31|157.8||||||Statistical Comparison of Formoterol PK Parameters for Treatment B (test) versus Treatment C (reference)||157.8|86.31|
90812373|NCT04600505|181503679|OTHER|Results based on linear mixed-effects analysis of variance model|Geometric mean Ratio (%)|107.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.53|121.9||||||Statistical Comparison of Budesonide PK Parameters for Treatment A (test) versus Treatment C (reference)||121.9|94.53|
90812374|NCT04600505|181503679|OTHER|Results based on linear mixed-effects analysis of variance model|Geometric mean Ratio (%)|98.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.59|115.4||||||Statistical Comparison of Budesonide PK Parameters for Treatment B (test) versus Treatment C (reference)||115.4|84.59|
90812375|NCT04600505|181503679|OTHER|Results based on linear mixed-effects analysis of variance model|Geometric mean Ratio (%)|106.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.18|130.6||||||Statistical Comparison of Glycopyrronium PK Parameters for Treatment A (test) versus Treatment C (reference)||130.6|86.18|
90812376|NCT04600505|181503679|OTHER|Results based on linear mixed-effects analysis of variance model|Geometric mean Ratio (%)|99.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.84|123.0||||||Statistical Comparison of Glycopyrronium PK Parameters for Treatment B (test) versus Treatment C (reference)||123.0|80.84|
90812377|NCT04600505|181503679|OTHER|Results based on linear mixed-effects analysis of variance model|Geometric mean Ratio (%)|98.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.44|111.4||||||Statistical Comparison of Formoterol PK Parameters for Treatment A (test) versus Treatment C (reference)||111.4|86.44|
90812378|NCT04600505|181503679|OTHER|Results based on linear mixed-effects analysis of variance model|Geometric mean Ratio (%)|107.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.82|128.9||||||Statistical Comparison of Formoterol PK Parameters for Treatment B (test) versus Treatment C (reference)||128.9|88.82|
90812379|NCT00241631|181503687|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.012
90812380|NCT00241631|181503688|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
90812381|NCT00241631|181503689|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
90812382|NCT02437305|181503692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048||||||P-value compares the increase in skin self-exams from pre-intervention to 2-months follow-up between the 2 groups.|McNemar|||||||0.048
90812383|NCT02437305|181503693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.5||||||P-value compares the increase in knowledge from pre-intervention to 2-months follow-up between the 2 groups.|McNemar|||||||>0.50
90812384|NCT00904618|181503703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0087||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||The test applies to the number of participants improved.||||0.0087
90812385|NCT03220581|181503706|SUPERIORITY||F|9.026||||0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Baseline number of days of game play in the past week was included as a covariate.||||||.004
90812386|NCT03220581|181503707|SUPERIORITY||F|7.922||||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Covariate = number of days of gaming in the past week at baseline, reported by the parent.||||||.007
90812387|NCT03220581|181503708|SUPERIORITY||F|3.73||||0.059|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Controlled for number of symptoms of Internet gaming disorder at baseline - assessed through clinical interview with child||||||.059
91015705|NCT04957979|181914291|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.3||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|-1.0||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for patient demographics, comorbidities, clinic characteristics, and includes random effect for clustering within clinic.|Negative value represents smaller change in Medical/Social clinics as compared to Medical/Nursing.|Null hypothesis: Average change in composite care quality outcome is not different between patients receiving care in Medical/Nursing Model clinics and those receiving care in Medical/Social Model clinics.||-1.0|-5.6|0.005
91015706|NCT04957979|181914292|SUPERIORITY||Incidence Rate Ratio|1.28||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.58||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for patient demographics, comorbidities, clinic characteristics, and includes random effect for clustering within clinic.|Values \> 1.0 represents higher rates post-care coordination in Medical/Social clinics as compared to Medical/Nursing.|Generalized Linear Mixed Models with Poisson link function. Pre-care coordination measures were included as an independent variable when modeling post-measures to capture change related to care coordination initiation.||1.58|1.04|0.02
91055106|NCT05958888|181992178|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Text vs. Control||||<.001
90812388|NCT03220581|181503709|SUPERIORITY||F|2.91||||0.095|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Controlled for baseline number of symptoms of Internet gaming disorder, assessed through clinical interview with the parent||||||.095
90812389|NCT01920893|181503710|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) mean difference|-1.55||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.43|-0.67||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab 300 mg QW vs Placebo|Analysis was performed by a mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) model.||-0.67|-2.43|0.0009
90812390|NCT02446418|181503725|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of fixed combination FF/VI to usual ICS/LABA in inhalation powder was assessed assuming a non-inferiority margin of -1.5.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.8||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.5|||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)||||The analysis method was an MMRM adjusted for randomized treatment, visit (Week 6 and Week 12), Baseline ACT total score, randomized treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline ACT total score-by-visit interaction, gender, age, country and participant fitted as a random factor. The Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML) estimation approach was used with a default covariance structure of unstructured.|1.5|0.1|0.033
90812391|NCT02446418|181503726|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of fixed combination FF/VI to usual ICS/LABA in inhalation powder was assessed assuming a non-inferiority margin of -1.5.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.4||||0.224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.1|||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)||||The analysis method was an MMRM adjusted for randomized treatment, visit (Week 6, Week 12, Week 18 and Week 24), Baseline ACT total score, randomized treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline ACT total score-by visit interaction, gender, age, country and participant fitted as a random factor. The REML estimation approach was used with a default covariance structure of unstructured.|1.1|-0.3|0.224
90812392|NCT02446418|181503727|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.11||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|2.62|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12|The analysis method was logistic regression adjusted for randomized treatment, correct use of inhaler device at Baseline, gender, age and country.|2.62|0.47|0.820
90812393|NCT02446418|181503727|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.41||||0.566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|4.6|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24|The analysis method was logistic regression adjusted for randomized treatment, correct use of inhaler device at Baseline, gender, age and country.|4.60|0.43|0.566
90812394|NCT00435162|181503749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-1.05||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.31|0.2|||Regression, Linear|||Slope change across all 3 active treatment groups.||0.20|-2.31|0.0990
90812395|NCT03373890|181503772|OTHER|Independent samples Mann Whitney U||||||0.39|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.39
90812396|NCT03373890|181503773|OTHER|Independent samples Mann Whitney U||||||0.39|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.39
90812397|NCT03373890|181503774|OTHER|Independent samples Mann Whitney U||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.03
90812398|NCT03373890|181503775|OTHER|Independent samples Mann Whitney U||||||0.39|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.39
90812399|NCT03373890|181503776|OTHER|Independent samples Mann Whitney U||||||0.06|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.06
90812400|NCT03373890|181503777|OTHER|Independent samples Mann Whitney U||||||0.99|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.99
90812401|NCT03373890|181503778|OTHER|LInear mixed model||||||0.008|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||.008
90812402|NCT03373890|181503779|OTHER|Linear mixed model regression||||||0.34|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.34
91015707|NCT04957979|181914292|SUPERIORITY||Incidence Rate Ratio|1.09||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.868|1.38||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for patient demographics, comorbidities, clinic characteristics, and includes random effect for clustering within clinic.|Values \> 1.0 represents higher rates post-care coordination in Medical/Social clinics as compared to Medical/Nursing.|Generalized Linear Mixed Models with Poisson link function. Pre-care coordination measures were included as an independent variable when modeling post-measures to capture change related to care coordination initiation.||1.38|0.868|0.45
91015708|NCT04957979|181914293|SUPERIORITY||Incidence Rate Ratio|1.35||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.69||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for patient demographics, comorbidities, clinic characteristics, and includes random effect for clustering within clinic.|Values \> 1.0 represents higher rates post-care coordination in Medical/Social clinics as compared to Medical/Nursing.|Generalized Linear Mixed Models with Poisson link function. Pre-care coordination measures were included as an independent variable when modeling post-measures to capture change related to care coordination initiation.||1.69|1.08|0.01
91015709|NCT04957979|181914293|SUPERIORITY||Incidence Rate Ratio|1.33||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.969|1.81||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for patient demographics, comorbidities, clinic characteristics, and includes random effect for clustering within clinic.|Values \> 1.0 represents higher rates post-care coordination in Medical/Social clinics as compared to Medical/Nursing.|Generalized Linear Mixed Models with Poisson link function. Pre-care coordination measures were included as an independent variable when modeling post-measures to capture change related to care coordination initiation.||1.81|0.969|0.08
91015710|NCT04957979|181914294|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.64||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.81||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for patient demographics, comorbidities, clinic characteristics, and includes random effect for clustering within clinic.|Values \> 1.0 represents higher likelihood of positive rating in Medical/Social clinics as compared to Medical/Nursing.|Generalized Linear Mixed Models with Binomial link function.||0.81|0.51|0.0001
91015711|NCT04957979|181914294|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.72||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for patient demographics, comorbidities, clinic characteristics, and includes random effect for clustering within clinic.|Values \> 1.0 represents higher likelihood of positive rating in Medical/Social clinics as compared to Medical/Nursing.|Generalized Linear Mixed Models with Binomial link function.||1.72|0.84|0.32
91015712|NCT04957979|181914295|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.05||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for patient demographics, comorbidities, clinic characteristics, and includes random effect for clustering within clinic.|Values \> 1.0 represents higher likelihood of positive rating in Medical/Social clinics as compared to Medical/Nursing.|Generalized Linear Mixed Models with Binomial link function.||1.05|0.69|0.14
91015713|NCT04957979|181914295|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.08||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for patient demographics, comorbidities, clinic characteristics, and includes random effect for clustering within clinic.|Values \> 1.0 represents higher likelihood of positive rating in Medical/Social clinics as compared to Medical/Nursing.|Generalized Linear Mixed Models with Binomial link function.||1.08|0.51|0.12
91015714|NCT04957979|181914296|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.086||||0.914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.243|4.861||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Mixed Models Analysis|Binomial link function. Estimation parameter is the interaction between Time (post vs pre) and Care Model (Medical/Social vs Medical Nursing).|Values \> 1.0 represents larger improvement pre to post-care coordination in likelihood of specific care quality outcome for patients in Medical/Social clinics as compared to those in Medical/Nursing.|||4.861|0.243|0.914
91015715|NCT04957979|181914296|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.009||||0.987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.327|3.114||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Mixed Models Analysis|Binomial link function. Estimation parameter is the interaction between Time (post vs pre) and Care Model (Medical/Social vs Medical Nursing).|Values \> 1.0 represents larger improvement pre to post-care coordination in likelihood of specific care quality outcome for patients in Medical/Social clinics as compared to those in Medical/Nursing.|||3.114|0.327|0.987
91015716|NCT04957979|181914297|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.257||||0.204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.883|1.79||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Mixed Models Analysis|Binomial link function. Estimation parameter is the interaction between Time (post vs pre) and Care Model (Medical/Social vs Medical Nursing).|Values \> 1.0 represents larger improvement pre to post-care coordination in likelihood of specific care quality outcome for patients in Medical/Social clinics as compared to those in Medical/Nursing.|||1.79|0.883|0.204
91015717|NCT04957979|181914297|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.399||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.166|0.958|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.958|0.166|0.04
91015718|NCT04957979|181914298|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.257||||0.302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.814|1.939||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Mixed Models Analysis|Binomial link function. Estimation parameter is the interaction between Time (post vs pre) and Care Model (Medical/Social vs Medical Nursing).|Values \> 1.0 represents larger improvement pre to post-care coordination in likelihood of specific care quality outcome for patients in Medical/Social clinics as compared to those in Medical/Nursing.|||1.939|0.814|0.302
91015719|NCT04957979|181914298|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.647|1.092||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Mixed Models Analysis|Binomial link function. Estimation parameter is the interaction between Time (post vs pre) and Care Model (Medical/Social vs Medical Nursing).|Values \> 1.0 represents larger improvement pre to post-care coordination in likelihood of specific care quality outcome for patients in Medical/Social clinics as compared to those in Medical/Nursing.|||1.092|0.647|0.192
91055107|NCT05958888|181992178|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Icon vs. Control||||<.001
90812403|NCT02680574|181503781|NON_INFERIORITY|Establishment of non-inferiority was based on a margin of -0.75 g/dL applied to the difference in mean change of hemoglobin: Vadadustat minus Darbepoetin alfa|Least squares mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.042|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.07||||||Treatment comparison: Vadadustat minus Darbepoetin Alfa||0.07|-0.09|
90812404|NCT02680574|181503782|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per Food and Drug Administration \[FDA\]) and 1.3 (per European Medicines Agency \[EMA\]).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16|||=|0.2015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.446|||Log Rank|Based on non-parametric analysis.||Statistical analysis from study AKB-6548-CI-0015 has been reported in this section.||1.446|0.930|=0.2015
90812405|NCT02680574|181503782|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per FDA) and 1.3 (per EMA).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17|||=|0.0725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.012|1.355|||Log Rank|Based on non-parametric analysis.||MACE analysis was performed on pooled data from studies AKB-6548-CI-0014 (NCT02648347) and AKB-6548-CI-0015 (NCT02680574). Time to first MACE for the Vadadustat and Darbepoetin alfa treatment groups was as follows: participants with events = 382 and 344 respectively; median time to first event (Q1, Q3) = 50.07 (23.00, 82.86) weeks versus 51.93 (27.79, 91.00) weeks, respectively. Statistical analysis from the pooled data has been reported in this section.||1.355|1.012|=0.0725
90812406|NCT02680574|181503783|NON_INFERIORITY|Establishment of non-inferiority was based on a margin of -0.75 g/dL applied to the difference in mean change: Vadadustat minus Darbepoetin alfa.|Least squares mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.09||||||Treatment comparison: Vadadustat minus Darbepoetin Alfa||0.09|-0.10|
90812407|NCT02680574|181503784|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per FDA) and 1.3 (per EMA).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04|||=|0.777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.851|1.268|||Log Rank|Based on non-parametric analysis.||Statistical analysis from study AKB-6548-CI-0015 has been reported in this section.||1.268|0.851|=0.7770
90812408|NCT02680574|181503784|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per FDA) and 1.3 (per EMA).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11|||=|0.2305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.972|1.267|||Log Rank|Based on non-parametric analysis.||MACE analysis was performed on pooled data from studies AKB-6548-CI-0014 (NCT02648347) and AKB-6548-CI-0015 (NCT02680574). Time to first MACE plus hospitalization for heart failure or thromboembolic events excluding vascular access thrombosis for the Vadadustat and Darbepoetin alfa treatment groups was as follows: participants with events = 451 and 424 respectively; median time to first event (Q1, Q3) = 42.86 (19.71, 73.43) weeks versus 43.86 (21.36, 80.43) weeks, respectively.||1.267|0.972|=0.2305
90812409|NCT02680574|181503785|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per FDA) and 1.3 (per EMA).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11|||=|0.5509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.817|1.501|||Gray's Test|Based on non-parametric analysis.||Statistical analysis from study AKB-6548-CI-0015 has been reported in this section.||1.501|0.817|=0.5509
90812410|NCT02680574|181503785|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per FDA) and 1.3 (per EMA).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16|||=|0.2531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.947|1.42|||Gray's Test|Based on non-parametric analysis.||MACE analysis was performed on pooled data from studies AKB-6548-CI-0014 (NCT02648347) and AKB-6548-CI-0015 (NCT02680574). Time to first cardiovascular MACE for the Vadadustat and Darbepoetin alfa treatment groups was as follows: participants with events = 198 and 178 respectively; median time to first event (Q1, Q3) = 45.57 (21.71, 73.29) weeks versus 47.36 (20.00, 88.43) weeks, respectively. Statistical analysis from the pooled data has been reported in this section.||1.420|0.947|=0.2531
90812411|NCT02680574|181503786|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per FDA) and 1.3 (per EMA).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88|||=|0.4184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.258|||Gray's test|Based on non-parametric analysis.||Statistical analysis from study AKB-6548-CI-0015 has been reported in this section.||1.258|0.610|=0.4184
91015720|NCT04957979|181914299|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.438||||0.318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.086|2.22||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Mixed Models Analysis|Binomial link function. Estimation parameter is the interaction between Time (post vs pre) and Care Model (Medical/Social vs Medical Nursing).|Values \> 1.0 represents larger improvement pre to post-care coordination in likelihood of specific care quality outcome for patients in Medical/Social clinics as compared to those in Medical/Nursing.|||2.22|0.086|0.318
91055108|NCT05958888|181992178|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Graphic vs. Control||||<.001
90812412|NCT02680574|181503786|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per FDA) and 1.3 (per EMA).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01|||=|0.8613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.792|1.293|||Gray's test|Based on non-parametric analysis.||MACE analysis was performed on pooled data from studies AKB-6548-CI-0014 (NCT02648347) and AKB-6548-CI-0015 (NCT02680574). Time to first cardiovascular death for the Vadadustat and Darbepoetin alfa treatment groups was as follows: participants with events = 127 and 131 respectively; median time to first event (Q1, Q3) = 48.29 (28.86, 76.14) weeks versus 48.43 (21.29, 92.29) weeks, respectively. Statistical analysis from the pooled data has been reported in this section.||1.293|0.792|=0.8613
90812413|NCT02680574|181503787|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per FDA) and 1.3 (per EMA).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04|||=|0.8041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.315|||Log Rank|Based on non-parametric analysis.||Statistical analysis from study AKB-6548-CI-0015 has been reported in this section.||1.315|0.820|=0.8041
90812414|NCT02680574|181503787|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per FDA) and 1.3 (per EMA).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09|||=|0.4577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.274|||Log Rank|||MACE analysis was performed on pooled data from studies AKB-6548-CI-0014 (NCT02648347) and AKB-6548-CI-0015 (NCT02680574). Time to first all-cause mortality for the Vadadustat and Darbepoetin alfa treatment groups was as follows: participants with events = 319 and 307 respectively; median time to first event (Q1, Q3) = 52.14 (28.71, 84.71) weeks versus 53.00 (30.71, 94.14) weeks, respectively. Statistical analysis from the pooled data has been reported in this section.||1.274|0.930|=0.4577
90812415|NCT02042534|181503812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6765|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.6765
90812416|NCT02042534|181503813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3753|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3753
90812417|NCT02042534|181503814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test||||||<.0001
90812418|NCT02042534|181503815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3301|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3301
90890353|NCT01359735|181645249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0841|TWO_SIDED|||||Week 3 Post-surgery|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0841
90812419|NCT02133664|181503864|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.57||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.03|4.32|||t-test, 2 sided|||With the initial sample size plan of 53 subjects, we expect an 80% power to detect a significant difference in PASAT score with a mean difference of 8.3 points between the treatment and placebo group.||4.32|-2.03|0.05
90812420|NCT00882908|181503870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions of SVRW72|13.0||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.9|28.0|||Regression, Logistic||Difference in percentages of participants in the TMC435 75mg and placebo groups with undetectable plasma Hepatitis C virus ribonucleic acid levels at end of treatment (EOT) and at Week 72 estimated from the logistic regression model.|TMC435 75 mg 12 and 24 week treatment groups were pooled and the percentage of participants acheiving SVRW72 were compared with the percentage of participants acheiving SVRW72 in the placebo treatment group.||28.0|-1.9|0.051
90812421|NCT00882908|181503870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions of SVRW72|18.9||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|97.5|4.4|33.5|||Regression, Logistic||Difference in percentages of participants in the TMC435 150mg and placebo groups with undetectable plasma Hepatitis C virus ribonucleic acid levels at end of treatment (EOT) and at Week 72 estimated from the logistic regression model.|TMC/PR 150 mg 12 and 24 week treatment groups were pooled and the percentage of participants achieving SVRW72 was compared the percentage of participants achieving SVRW72 in the placebo treatment group.||33.5|4.4|0.004
90812422|NCT01038713|181503891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22||||||Analysis comparing the number of patients who had stent occlusion|Chi-squared|3 x 2 contingency table comparing all three groups||||||0.22
91015721|NCT04957979|181914299|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.793||||0.421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.433|7.426||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Mixed Models Analysis|Binomial link function. Estimation parameter is the interaction between Time (post vs pre) and Care Model (Medical/Social vs Medical Nursing).|Values \> 1.0 represents larger improvement pre to post-care coordination in likelihood of specific care quality outcome for patients in Medical/Social clinics as compared to those in Medical/Nursing.|||7.426|0.433|0.421
91015722|NCT04957979|181914300|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.906||||0.632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.606|1.356||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Mixed Models Analysis|Binomial link function. Estimation parameter is the interaction between Time (post vs pre) and Care Model (Medical/Social vs Medical Nursing).|Values \> 1.0 represents larger improvement pre to post-care coordination in likelihood of specific care quality outcome for patients in Medical/Social clinics as compared to those in Medical/Nursing.|||1.356|0.606|0.632
90812423|NCT01038713|181503891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||Chi-squared|3 x 2 contingency table comparing all three groups||Analysis comparing the rate of attempted surgical resection||||0.14
90812424|NCT01038713|181503891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96|||||||Chi-squared|3 x 2 contingency table comparing all three groups||Analysis comparing the rate of death between groups||||0.96
91055109|NCT05958888|181992178|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.43|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Icon vs. Text||||.43
91055110|NCT05958888|181992178|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.81|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Graphic vs. Text||||.81
91055111|NCT05958888|181992178|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.81|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Graphic vs. Icon||||.81
91077806|NCT02913105|182041131|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.759|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.275||0.007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.216|-0.302|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 112 (EOS)||-0.302|-1.216|0.0070
90812425|NCT01038713|181503892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||ANOVA|||||||1.00
90812426|NCT02818036|181503896|OTHER|difference in neural activity to social task when taking naltrexone as compared to placebo|||||<|0.01||||||a priori threshold for significance was p\<.05|t-test, 1 sided|degrees of freedom = 75||||||<.01
90812427|NCT02818036|181503897|OTHER|differences in feelings of social connection between those who took naltrexone and those who took placebo||||||0.338||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.338
90812428|NCT03777917|181503898|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|72.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.5|83.5|||Fisher Exact|The Fisher's exact test was used to test for the superiority of treatment (Belotero Balance®) over control.|Two-sided Newcombe confidence interval (CI) for the difference in response rates.|||83.5|47.5|< 0.0001
90812429|NCT00320372|181503908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||MMRM Least Squares Mean|38.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.3|39.9|||||Mixed Model Repeated Measure analysis on MADRS responders (binary variable with 1=yes, 0=no) as the response variable in the model. The covariates are treatment, visit and propensity quintile. This analysis of covariance produced least square means.|Null Hypothesis: Percentage of responders across groups is the same. Alternate Hypothesis: Percentage of responders across groups is different.||39.9|36.3|
90812430|NCT00320372|181503908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||MMRM Least Squares Mean|17.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.2|19.0|||||Mixed Model Repeated Measure analysis on MADRS responders (binary variable with 1=yes, 0=no) as the response variable in the model. The covariates are treatment, visit and propensity quintile. This analysis of covariance produced least square means.|Null Hypothesis: Percentage of responders across groups is the same. Alternate Hypothesis: Percentage of responders across groups is different.||19.0|15.2|
90812431|NCT00320372|181503908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Null Hypothesis: Percentage of responders across groups is the same. Alternate Hypothesis: Percentage of responders across groups is different.||||<.0001
90812432|NCT00320372|181503909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1015|TWO_SIDED|||||Comparison for Kaplan Meier Median Time until recurrence|Log Rank|Null hypothesis: median TUR between 2 groups is not different. Alternate hypothesis: median TUR between 2 groups is different.||||||0.1015
90812433|NCT00320372|181503910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||MMRM Least Squares Mean|19.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.4|21.3|||||Mixed Model Repeated Measure analysis on MADRS remitters (binary variable with 1=yes, 0=no) as the response variable in the model. The covariates are treatment, visit and propensity quintile. This analysis of covariance produced least square means.|Null Hypothesis: Percentage of remitters across groups is the same. Alternate Hypothesis: Percentage of remitters across groups is different.||21.3|18.4|
90812434|NCT00320372|181503910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||MMRM Least Squares Mean|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|9.5|||||Mixed Model Repeated Measure analysis on MADRS remitters (binary variable with 1=yes, 0=no) as the response variable in the model. The covariates are treatment, visit and propensity quintile. This analysis of covariance produced least square means.|Null Hypothesis: Percentage of remitters across groups is the same. Alternate Hypothesis: Percentage of remitters across groups is different.||9.5|6.9|
90812435|NCT00320372|181503910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Null Hypothesis: Percentage of responders across groups is the same. Alternate Hypothesis: Percentage of responders across groups is different.||||<.0001
90812436|NCT00320372|181503916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson Correlation Coefficients|0.34997|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||"Null hypothesis: There is a correlation between MADRS follow-up suicidal thoughts and baseline suicidal thoughts.~Alternate hypothesis: There is no correlation between MADRS follow-up suicidal thoughts and baseline suicidal thoughts."|Pearson Correlation Coefficients|||The statistical modeling of predictors of suicide attempts and suicidal ideations considered 15 variables, defined in the protocol a priori to determine which ones were predictive of suicide attempts and suicidal ideations. Four variables representing the baseline disease and patient factors were considered predictors of suicidality. This outcome measure presents the underlying data collected and the corresponding correlation coefficient for one of the 4 variables identified.||||<0.0001
90812437|NCT00320372|181503917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||"Null Hypothesis: Difference between change from baseline value of two treatment groups equals zero.~Alternate Hypothesis: Difference between change from baseline value of two treatment groups is not equal to zero."|F-Test|||3 Month Time point||||<.0001
91015723|NCT04957979|181914300|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.845||||0.492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.523|1.366||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Mixed Models Analysis|Binomial link function. Estimation parameter is the interaction between Time (post vs pre) and Care Model (Medical/Social vs Medical Nursing).|Values \> 1.0 represents larger improvement pre to post-care coordination in likelihood of specific care quality outcome for patients in Medical/Social clinics as compared to those in Medical/Nursing.|||1.366|0.523|0.492
91078186|NCT00703326|182041873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.01|||Stratified Log Rank (SLR)|SLR used Interactive Web Response System (IWRS) factors: prior taxane therapy, visceral metastasis, hormone receptor status and geographical regions.|HR with 95% confidence interval (CI) was estimated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model using the IWRS stratification factors.|||1.01|0.75|0.077
90812438|NCT00320372|181503917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0068|TWO_SIDED|||||"Null Hypothesis: Difference between change from baseline value of two treatment groups equals zero.~Alternate Hypothesis: Difference between change from baseline value of two treatment groups is not equal to zero."|F-Test|||6 Month Time point||||.0068
91015724|NCT04957979|181914301|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.856||||0.405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.594|1.234||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Mixed Models Analysis|Binomial link function. Estimation parameter is the interaction between Time (post vs pre) and Care Model (Medical/Social vs Medical Nursing).|Values \> 1.0 represents larger improvement pre to post-care coordination in likelihood of specific care quality outcome for patients in Medical/Social clinics as compared to those in Medical/Nursing.|||1.234|0.594|0.405
91015725|NCT04957979|181914301|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.559||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.374|0.834|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.834|0.374|0.004
90812439|NCT00320372|181503917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|||||"Null Hypothesis: Difference between change from baseline value of two treatment groups equals zero.~Alternate Hypothesis: Difference between change from baseline value of two treatment groups is not equal to zero."|F-Test|||9 Month Time point||||.0008
90812440|NCT00320372|181503917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|||||"Null Hypothesis: Difference between change from baseline value of two treatment groups equals zero.~Alternate Hypothesis: Difference between change from baseline value of two treatment groups is not equal to zero."|F-Test|||12 Month Time point||||.0003
90812441|NCT00320372|181503917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||"Null Hypothesis: Difference between change from baseline value of two treatment groups equals zero.~Alternate Hypothesis: Difference between change from baseline value of two treatment groups is not equal to zero."|F-Test|||18 Month Time point||||<.0001
90812442|NCT00320372|181503917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|||||"Null Hypothesis: Difference between change from baseline value of two treatment groups equals zero.~Alternate Hypothesis: Difference between change from baseline value of two treatment groups is not equal to zero."|F-Test|||24 Month Time point||||.0059
90812443|NCT00320372|181503917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|||||"Null Hypothesis: Difference between change from baseline value of two treatment groups equals zero.~Alternate Hypothesis: Difference between change from baseline value of two treatment groups is not equal to zero."|F-Test|||30 Month Time point||||.0028
90812444|NCT00320372|181503917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|||||"Null Hypothesis: Difference between change from baseline value of two treatment groups equals zero.~Alternate Hypothesis: Difference between change from baseline value of two treatment groups is not equal to zero."|F-Test|||36 Month Time point||||.0002
90812445|NCT00320372|181503917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|||||"Null Hypothesis: Difference between change from baseline value of two treatment groups equals zero.~Alternate Hypothesis: Difference between change from baseline value of two treatment groups is not equal to zero."|F-Test|||42 Month Time point||||.0051
90812446|NCT00320372|181503917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0363|TWO_SIDED|||||"Null Hypothesis: Difference between change from baseline value of two treatment groups equals zero.~Alternate Hypothesis: Difference between change from baseline value of two treatment groups is not equal to zero."|F-Test|||48 Month Time point||||.0363
90812447|NCT00320372|181503917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|||||"Null Hypothesis: Difference between change from baseline value of two treatment groups equals zero.~Alternate Hypothesis: Difference between change from baseline value of two treatment groups is not equal to zero."|F-Test|||54 Month Time point||||.0048
91055112|NCT02684630|181992184|OTHER|A procedure is a success if the donor's post-procedure platelet count is ≥ 100,000 platelets/μL, lower one-sided 95% confidence interval for the procedure success rate is at least 95%.|Simple sample proportion|1.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0|||ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.951||||||Estimated proportion is 100%. Hence standard deviation is estimated as 0.|"Sample Size Determination:~Up to 160 participants were to be enrolled in this study to ensure 60 evaluable single platelet product collections and 60 evaluable double platelet product collections. This number was chosen to meet the FDA requirements of 95% of postprocedure participant platelet count of ≥ 100,000 platelets/μL with 95% confidence."|||0.951|
90812448|NCT00320372|181503917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|||||"Null Hypothesis: Difference between change from baseline value of two treatment groups equals zero.~Alternate Hypothesis: Difference between change from baseline value of two treatment groups is not equal to zero."|F-Test|||60 Month Time point||||.0009
90812449|NCT00320372|181503917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||MMRM Least Squares Mean|12.1009|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.8979|13.3039|||||Mixed Model Repeated Measure analysis on Q-LES-Q change from baseline score (continuous var) as the response variable in the model. The covariates are treatment, visit and propensity quintile. This analysis of covariance produced least square means.|"Null Hypothesis: Difference between change from baseline value of two treatment groups equals zero.~Alternate Hypothesis: Difference between change from baseline value of two treatment groups is not equal to zero."||13.3039|10.8979|
90812450|NCT00320372|181503917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||MMRM Least Squares Mean|7.5964|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.1327|9.0602|||||Mixed Model Repeated Measure analysis on Q-LES-Q change from baseline score (continuous var) as the response variable in the model. The covariates are treatment, visit and propensity quintile. This analysis of covariance produced least square means.|"Null Hypothesis: Difference between change from baseline value of two treatment groups equals zero.~Alternate Hypothesis: Difference between change from baseline value of two treatment groups is not equal to zero."||9.0602|6.1327|
90812451|NCT00320372|181503917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||"Null Hypothesis: Difference between change from baseline value of two treatment groups equals zero.~Alternate Hypothesis: Difference between change from baseline value of two treatment groups is not equal to zero."||||<.0001
90812452|NCT00320372|181503918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson Correlation Coefficients|0.14837|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||"Null hypothesis: There is a correlation between MADRS follow-up suicidal thoughts and baseline medical threat to life.~Alternate hypothesis: There is no correlation between MADRS follow-up suicidal thoughts and baseline medical threat to life."|Pearson Correlation Coefficients|||The statistical modeling of predictors of suicide attempts and suicidal ideations considered 15 variables, defined in the protocol a priori to determine which ones were predictive of suicide attempts and suicidal ideations. Four variables representing the baseline disease and patient factors were considered predictors of suicidality. This outcome measure presents the underlying data collected and the corresponding correlation coefficient for one of the 4 variables identified.||||<.0001
91078219|NCT04591015|182041978|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4435|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4435
90812453|NCT00320372|181503919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson Correlation Coefficients|0.14819|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||"Null hypothesis: There is a correlation between MADRS f/u suicidal thoughts and baseline intent of suicidal gesture.~Alternate hypothesis: There is no correlation between MADRS f/u suicidal thoughts and baseline intent of suicidal gesture."|Pearson Correlation Coefficients|||The statistical modeling of predictors of suicide attempts and suicidal ideations considered 15 variables, defined in the protocol a priori to determine which ones were predictive of suicide attempts and suicidal ideations. Four variables representing the baseline disease and patient factors were considered predictors of suicidality. This outcome measure presents the underlying data collected and the corresponding correlation coefficient for one of the 4 variables identified.||||<.0001
90812454|NCT00320372|181503920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson Correlation Coefficients|0.04625||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|||||"Null hypothesis: There is a correlation between MADRS follow-up suicidal thoughts and baseline primary diagnosis of MDE.~Alternate hypothesis: There is no correlation between MADRS follow-up suicidal thoughts and baseline primary diagnosis of MDE."|Pearson Correlation Coefficients|||The statistical modeling of predictors of suicide attempts and suicidal ideations considered 15 variables, defined in the protocol a priori to determine which ones were predictive of suicide attempts and suicidal ideations. Four variables representing the baseline disease and patient factors were considered predictors of suicidality. This outcome measure presents the underlying data collected and the corresponding correlation coefficient for one of the 4 variables identified.||||.0012
90812455|NCT04063787|181503921|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is the difference is zero. Thus the equivalence margin equals zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.408|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.05||0.012|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Compare before and after use of Fist Assist||||0.012
90812456|NCT04883528|181503968|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.29
90812457|NCT04883528|181503969|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.88
90812458|NCT04883528|181503970|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.76
90812459|NCT04883528|181503971|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.85
90812460|NCT04883528|181503972|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.80
90812461|NCT04883528|181503973|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.01
90812462|NCT04883528|181503974|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.23
90812463|NCT04883528|181503975|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.95
90812464|NCT04883528|181503976|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.03
90812465|NCT04883528|181503980|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.01||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.04|-0.07|0.64
90812466|NCT04883528|181503981|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-7.55||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.59|0.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.52|-14.59|0.04
90812467|NCT02583230|181504027|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was used to evaluate the change in PHQ-9 total scores over the eight-week study period.||||||.0005
90812468|NCT02583230|181504028|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0008|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was used to evaluate the change in QIDS total scores over the eight-week study period.||||||.0008
91078220|NCT04591015|182041979|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7417|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.7417
91078221|NCT04591015|182041980|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5779|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5779
91078222|NCT04591015|182041981|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0493|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0493
90812469|NCT01340937|181504029|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% confidence intervals of the Geometric Mean Concentration (GMC) ratio are within the margin 0.67 to 1.5|GMC Ratio (Lot A/Lot B)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.08|||||GMC ratio was adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||1.08|0.77|
90812470|NCT01340937|181504029|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% confidence intervals of the GMC ratio are within the margin 0.67 to 1.5|GMC Ratio (Lot A/Lot C)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.02|||||GMC ratio was adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||1.02|0.72|
90812471|NCT01340937|181504029|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% confidence intervals of the GMC ratio are within the margin 0.67 to 1.5|GMC Ratio (Lot B/Lot C)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.12|||||GMC ratio was adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||1.12|0.79|
90812472|NCT01340937|181504029|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio is \>=0.67|GMC Ratio (Combined/Control)|1.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|1.98|||ANCOVA|GMC, GMC ratio, and p-value were adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||1.98|1.35|<0.001
90812473|NCT01340937|181504030|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% Confidence Intervals of the response rate difference are between -10% and 10%|Response Rate Difference (Lot A - Lot B)|-0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.31|3.35|||||Response rate difference was stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|Equivalence for titer \>=1 µg/mL||3.35|-4.31|
90812474|NCT01340937|181504030|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% Confidence Intervals of the response rate difference are between -10% and 10%|Response Rate Difference (Lot A - Lot C)|-1.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.38|2.12|||||Response rate difference was stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|Equivalence for titer \>=1 µg/mL||2.12|-5.38|
90812475|NCT01340937|181504030|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% Confidence Intervals of the response rate difference are between -10% and 10%|Response Rate Difference (Lot B - Lot C)|-1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.89|2.58|||||Response rate difference was stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|Equivalence for titer \>=1 µg/mL||2.58|-4.89|
90812476|NCT01340937|181504030|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 95% CI of the response rate difference is \>= -10%|Response Rate Difference (Comb - Ctrl)|7.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.38|13.17|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Response rate, response rate difference and p-value were stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||Non-inferiority for titer \>=1 µg/mL||13.17|3.38|<0.001
90812477|NCT01340937|181504030|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 95% CI of the response rate difference is \>= -5%|Response Rate Difference (Comb - Ctrl)|2.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|5.12|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Response rate, response rate difference and p-value were stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||Non-inferiority for titer \>=0.15 µg/mL||5.12|0.39|<0.001
90812478|NCT01340937|181504031|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% confidence intervals of the GMC ratio are within the margin 0.67 to 1.5|GMC Ratio (Lot A/Lot B)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.98|||||GMC ratio was adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||0.98|0.76|
90812479|NCT01340937|181504031|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% confidence intervals of the GMC ratio are within the margin 0.67 to 1.5|GMC Ratio (Lot A/Lot C)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.96|||||GMC ratio was adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||0.96|0.74|
90812480|NCT01340937|181504031|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% confidence intervals of the GMC ratio are within the margin 0.67 to 1.5|GMC Ratio (Lot B/Lot C)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.11|||||GMC ratio was adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||1.11|0.86|
91055113|NCT02684630|181992185|OTHER|A procedure is a success if the donor's post-procedure platelet count is ≥ 100,000 platelets/μL, lower one-sided 95% confidence interval for the procedure success rate is at least 95%.|Simple sample proportion|1.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0|||ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.951||||||Estimated proportion is 100%. Hence standard deviation is estimated as 0.|"Sample Size Determination:~Up to 160 participants were to be enrolled in this study to ensure 60 evaluable single platelet product collections and 60 evaluable double platelet product collections. This number was chosen to meet the FDA requirements of 95% of postprocedure participant platelet count of ≥ 100,000 platelets/μL with 95% confidence."|||0.951|
90812481|NCT01340937|181504032|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% confidence intervals of the GMC ratio are within the margin 0.67 to 1.5|GMC Ratio (Lot A/Lot B)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.07|||||GMC ratio was adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||1.07|0.84|
90812482|NCT01340937|181504032|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% confidence intervals of the GMC ratio are within the margin 0.67 to 1.5|GMC Ratio (Lot A/Lot C)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.09|||||GMC ratio was adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||1.09|0.86|
90812483|NCT01340937|181504032|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% confidence intervals of the GMC ratio are within the margin 0.67 to 1.5|GMC Ratio (Lot B/Lot C)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.14|||||GMC ratio was adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||1.14|0.90|
90812484|NCT01340937|181504033|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% confidence intervals of the GMC ratio are within the margin 0.67 to 1.5|GMC Ratio (Lot A/Lot B)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.04|||||GMC ratio was adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||1.04|0.91|
90890354|NCT01359735|181645249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.178|TWO_SIDED|||||Week 12 Post-surgery|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.1780
91055114|NCT00000378|181992192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||actual calculation|Regression, Logistic|||logistic regression and mixed effects model||||<0.05
91055115|NCT01284361|181992206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion|91.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|84.5|97.5|||||Seventy five of the 82 subjects (91.5%) preferred the longer commercially available catheter over the experimental 30 cm catheter.|The sample size of 81 subjects provides a 10.8% margin of error.||97.5|84.5|
91055116|NCT00505375|181992247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0014|||||||ANCOVA|||"The calculation for the concentration of c-peptide is a weighted average of the 6 timed measurements of c-peptide in nano-moles/Liter. We try to distinguish this calculation from the AUC by referring to it as the AUC mean and may be expressed algebraically as the AUC/(120 min.); thus, the units are the same as the y-axis."||||0.0014
91055117|NCT02906930|181992248|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the in-trial observation period. The estimated treatment effect includes the effect of any additional anti-diabetic medication for all randomised subjects regardless of premature trial product discontinuation (treatment policy estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-1.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.9||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0.|Pattern mixed model||Oral Semaglutide 14 mg - Placebo|The analysis was based on a pattern mixture model using multiple imputation to impute missing data for week 26, assuming that the missing data mechanism was missing at random within the groups used for the imputation. The imputed data sets were analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c value as covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete data sets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||-0.9|-1.3|<0.0001
91077807|NCT02913105|182041131|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.208|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129||0.1092|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.423|0.006|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 28||0.006|-0.423|0.1092
91015726|NCT04957979|181914302|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.151||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|1.173||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Mixed Models Analysis|Binomial link function. Estimation parameter is the interaction between Time (post vs pre) and Care Model (Medical/Social vs Medical Nursing).|Values \> 1.0 represents larger improvement pre to post-care coordination in likelihood of specific care quality outcome for patients in Medical/Social clinics as compared to those in Medical/Nursing.|||1.173|0.02|0.071
90812485|NCT01340937|181504033|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% confidence intervals of the GMC ratio are within the margin 0.67 to 1.5|GMC Ratio (Lot A/Lot C)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.09|||||GMC ratio was adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||1.09|0.95|
90812486|NCT01340937|181504033|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% confidence intervals of the GMC ratio are within the margin 0.67 to 1.5|GMC Ratio (Lot B/Lot C)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.13|||||GMC ratio was adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||1.13|0.98|
90812487|NCT01340937|181504034|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% confidence intervals of the GMC ratio are within the margin 0.67 to 1.5|GMC Ratio (Lot A/Lot B)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.1|||||GMC ratio was adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||1.10|0.96|
90812488|NCT01340937|181504034|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% confidence intervals of the GMC ratio are within the margin 0.67 to 1.5|GMC Ratio (Lot A/Lot C)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.09|||||GMC ratio was adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||1.09|0.95|
90812489|NCT01340937|181504034|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% confidence intervals of the GMC ratio are within the margin 0.67 to 1.5|GMC Ratio (Lot B/Lot C)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.06|||||GMC ratio was adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||1.06|0.92|
91015727|NCT04957979|181914302|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.023||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.002|0.268||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Mixed Models Analysis|Binomial link function. Estimation parameter is the interaction between Time (post vs pre) and Care Model (Medical/Social vs Medical Nursing).|Values \> 1.0 represents larger improvement pre to post-care coordination in likelihood of specific care quality outcome for patients in Medical/Social clinics as compared to those in Medical/Nursing.|||0.268|0.002|0.003
91015728|NCT04957979|181914303|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.884||||0.557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.587|1.333||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Mixed Models Analysis|Binomial link function. Estimation parameter is the interaction between Time (post vs pre) and Care Model (Medical/Social vs Medical Nursing).|Values \> 1.0 represents larger improvement pre to post-care coordination in likelihood of specific care quality outcome for patients in Medical/Social clinics as compared to those in Medical/Nursing.|||1.333|0.587|0.557
91015729|NCT04957979|181914303|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.624||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.376|1.037||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Mixed Models Analysis|Binomial link function. Estimation parameter is the interaction between Time (post vs pre) and Care Model (Medical/Social vs Medical Nursing).|Values \> 1.0 represents larger improvement pre to post-care coordination in likelihood of specific care quality outcome for patients in Medical/Social clinics as compared to those in Medical/Nursing.|||1.037|0.376|0.069
90812490|NCT01340937|181504034|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio is \>=0.67|GMC Ratio (Combined/Control)|1.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|1.29|||ANCOVA|GMC, GMC ratio, and p-value were adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||Secondary analysis||1.29|1.11|<0.001
90812491|NCT01340937|181504035|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% confidence intervals of the GMC ratio are within the margin 0.67 to 1.5|GMC Ratio (Lot A/Lot B)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|0.96|||||GMC ratio was adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||0.96|0.83|
90812492|NCT01340937|181504035|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% confidence intervals of the GMC ratio are within the margin 0.67 to 1.5|GMC Ratio (Lot A/Lot C)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.83|||||GMC ratio was adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||0.83|0.72|
90812493|NCT01340937|181504035|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% confidence intervals of the GMC ratio are within the margin 0.67 to 1.5|GMC Ratio (Lot B/Lot C)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|0.94|||||GMC ratio was adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||0.94|0.81|
91078223|NCT04591015|182041982|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0773|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0773
91078224|NCT04591015|182041983|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0921|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0921
90812494|NCT01340937|181504035|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio is \>=0.67|GMC Ratio (Combined/Control)|0.67||||0.419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.73|||ANCOVA|GMC, GMC ratio, and p-value were adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||Secondary analysis||0.73|0.62|0.419
90812495|NCT01340937|181504036|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% confidence intervals of the GMC ratio are within the margin 0.67 to 1.5|GMC Ratio (Lot A/Lot B)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.09|||||GMC ratio was adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||1.09|0.87|
90812496|NCT01340937|181504036|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% confidence intervals of the GMC ratio are within the margin 0.67 to 1.5|GMC Ratio (Lot A/Lot C)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.05|||||GMC ratio was adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||1.05|0.83|
90812497|NCT01340937|181504036|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% confidence intervals of the GMC ratio are within the margin 0.67 to 1.5|GMC Ratio (Lot B/Lot C)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.08|||||GMC ratio was adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||1.08|0.85|
91078225|NCT04591015|182041984|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2404|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2404
91078226|NCT04591015|182041985|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8955|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.8955
90812498|NCT01340937|181504036|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio is \>=0.67|GMC Ratio (Combined/Control)|1.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.17|||ANCOVA|GMC, GMC ratio, and p-value were adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||Secondary analysis||1.17|0.90|<0.001
90812499|NCT01340937|181504037|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% confidence intervals of the GMC ratio are within the margin 0.67 to 1.5|GMC Ratio (Lot A/Lot B)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.85|||||GMC ratio was adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||0.85|0.72|
90812500|NCT01340937|181504037|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% confidence intervals of the GMC ratio are within the margin 0.67 to 1.5|GMC Ratio (Lot A/Lot C)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.87|||||GMC ratio was adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||0.87|0.73|
90812501|NCT01340937|181504037|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% confidence intervals of the GMC ratio are within the margin 0.67 to 1.5|GMC Ratio (Lot B/Lot C)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.11|||||GMC ratio was adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||1.11|0.93|
90812502|NCT01340937|181504037|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio is \>=0.67|GMC Ratio (Combined/Control)|1.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|1.66|||ANCOVA|GMC, GMC ratio, and p-value were adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||Secondary analysis||1.66|1.37|<0.001
90812503|NCT01340937|181504038|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% confidence intervals of the Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) ratio are within the margin 0.67 to 1.5|GMT Ratio (Lot A/Lot B)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.96|||||GMT ratio was adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||0.96|0.76|
90812504|NCT01340937|181504038|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% confidence intervals of the GMT ratio are within the margin 0.67 to 1.5|GMT Ratio (Lot A/Lot C)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.99|||||GMT ratio was adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||0.99|0.79|
90812505|NCT01340937|181504038|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% confidence intervals of the GMT ratio are within the margin 0.67 to 1.5|GMT Ratio (Lot B/Lot C)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.15|||||GMT ratio was adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||1.15|0.92|
91015730|NCT04957979|181914304|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.539||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.185|1.565||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Mixed Models Analysis|Binomial link function. Estimation parameter is the interaction between Time (post vs pre) and Care Model (Medical/Social vs Medical Nursing).|Values \> 1.0 represents larger improvement pre to post-care coordination in likelihood of specific care quality outcome for patients in Medical/Social clinics as compared to those in Medical/Nursing.|||1.565|0.185|0.256
90812506|NCT01340937|181504039|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% confidence intervals of the GMT ratio are within the margin 0.67 to 1.5|GMT Ratio (Lot A/Lot B)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.05|||||GMT ratio was adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||1.05|0.84|
90812507|NCT01340937|181504039|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% confidence intervals of the GMT ratio are within the margin 0.67 to 1.5|GMT Ratio (Lot A/Lot C)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.02|||||GMT ratio was adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||1.02|0.82|
90812508|NCT01340937|181504039|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% confidence intervals of the GMT ratio are within the margin 0.67 to 1.5|GMT Ratio (Lot B/Lot C)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.09|||||GMT ratio was adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||1.09|0.87|
91015731|NCT04957979|181914304|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.117||||0.866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.308|4.047||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Mixed Models Analysis|Binomial link function. Estimation parameter is the interaction between Time (post vs pre) and Care Model (Medical/Social vs Medical Nursing).|Values \> 1.0 represents larger improvement pre to post-care coordination in likelihood of specific care quality outcome for patients in Medical/Social clinics as compared to those in Medical/Nursing.|||4.047|0.308|0.866
90812509|NCT01340937|181504040|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% confidence intervals of the GMT ratio are within the margin 0.67 to 1.5|GMT Ratio (Lot A/Lot B)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.22|||||GMT ratio was adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||1.22|0.92|
90812510|NCT01340937|181504040|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% confidence intervals of the GMT ratio are within the margin 0.67 to 1.5|GMT Ratio (Lot A/Lot C)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.26|||||GMT ratio was adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||1.26|0.95|
90812511|NCT01340937|181504040|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% confidence intervals of the GMT ratio are within the margin 0.67 to 1.5|GMT Ratio (Lot B/Lot C)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.19|||||GMT ratio was adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||1.19|0.90|
90812512|NCT01340937|181504041|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% Confidence Intervals of the response rate difference are between -10% and 10%|Response Rate Difference (Lot A - Lot B)|-0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|0.3|||||Response rate difference was stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||0.30|-1.23|
90812513|NCT01340937|181504041|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% Confidence Intervals of the response rate difference are between -10% and 10%|Response Rate Difference (Lot A - Lot C)|-0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|0.32|||||Response rate difference was stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||0.32|-1.23|
90812514|NCT01340937|181504041|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% Confidence Intervals of the response rate difference are between -10% and 10%|Response Rate Difference (Lot B - Lot C)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.66|||||Response rate difference was stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||0.66|-0.64|
91015732|NCT04957979|181914305|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.797||||0.641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.307|2.069||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Mixed Models Analysis|Binomial link function. Estimation parameter is the interaction between Time (post vs pre) and Care Model (Medical/Social vs Medical Nursing).|Values \> 1.0 represents larger improvement pre to post-care coordination in likelihood of specific care quality outcome for patients in Medical/Social clinics as compared to those in Medical/Nursing.|||2.069|0.307|0.641
91078227|NCT02509078|182041986|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.3||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|5.9|||Wald test for the difference of two prop||Estimated value is a percentage|||5.9|-6.4|0.93
90812515|NCT01340937|181504041|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 95% CI of the response rate difference is \>= -10%|Response Rate Difference (Comb - Ctrl)|0.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Response rate, response rate difference and p-value were stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||2.90|0.20|<0.001
90812516|NCT01340937|181504042|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% Confidence Intervals of the response rate difference are between -10% and 10%|Response Rate Difference (Lot A - Lot B)|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.74|4.24|||||Response rate difference was stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||4.24|-3.74|
90812517|NCT01340937|181504042|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% Confidence Intervals of the response rate difference are between -10% and 10%|Response Rate Difference (Lot A - Lot C)|-1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.26|2.57|||||Response rate difference was stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||2.57|-5.26|
90812518|NCT01340937|181504042|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% Confidence Intervals of the response rate difference are between -10% and 10%|Response Rate Difference (Lot B - Lot C)|-1.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.56|2.28|||||Response rate difference was stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||2.28|-5.56|
90812519|NCT01340937|181504042|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 95% CI of the response rate difference is \>= -10%|Response Rate Difference (Comb - Ctrl)|-2.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.02|2.09|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Response rate, response rate difference and p-value were stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||2.09|-6.02|<0.001
90812520|NCT01340937|181504043|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% Confidence Intervals of the response rate difference are between -5% and 5%|Response Rate Difference (Lot A - Lot B)|-0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.47|||||Response rate difference was stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||0.47|-0.91|
91015733|NCT04957979|181914305|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.569||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.187|1.729||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Mixed Models Analysis|Binomial link function. Estimation parameter is the interaction between Time (post vs pre) and Care Model (Medical/Social vs Medical Nursing).|Values \> 1.0 represents larger improvement pre to post-care coordination in likelihood of specific care quality outcome for patients in Medical/Social clinics as compared to those in Medical/Nursing.|||1.729|0.187|0.32
90812521|NCT01340937|181504043|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% Confidence Intervals of the response rate difference are between -5% and 5%|Response Rate Difference (Lot A - Lot C)|-0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.47|||||Response rate difference was stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||0.47|-0.90|
90812522|NCT01340937|181504043|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% Confidence Intervals of the response rate difference are between -5% and 5%|Response Rate Difference (Lot B - Lot C)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.62|||||Response rate difference was stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||0.62|-0.63|
90812523|NCT01340937|181504043|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 95% CI of the response rate difference is \>= -5%|Response Rate Difference (Comb - Ctrl)|1.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|3.33|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Response rate, response rate difference and p-value were stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||3.33|0.46|<0.001
90812524|NCT01340937|181504044|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% Confidence Intervals of the response rate difference are between -10% and 10%|Response Rate Difference (Lot A - Lot B)|1.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|3.4|||||Response rate difference was stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||3.40|0.37|
90812525|NCT01340937|181504044|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% Confidence Intervals of the response rate difference are between -10% and 10%|Response Rate Difference (Lot A - Lot C)|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|1.63|||||Response rate difference was stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||1.63|-0.77|
90812526|NCT01340937|181504044|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% Confidence Intervals of the response rate difference are between -10% and 10%|Response Rate Difference (Lot B - Lot C)|-1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.03|0.15|||||Response rate difference was stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||0.15|-3.03|
90812527|NCT01340937|181504044|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 95% CI of the response rate difference is \>= -10%|Response Rate Difference (Comb - Ctrl)|0.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|3.14|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Response rate, response rate difference and p-value were stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||3.14|-0.59|<0.001
91015734|NCT04957979|181914306|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.6|13.0||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Chi-squared||Positive values reflect higher percentage of responders in Medical/Nursing clinics as compared to Medical/Social.|||13|5.6|<.001
90812528|NCT01340937|181504045|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% Confidence Intervals of the response rate difference are between -10% and 10%|Response Rate Difference (Lot A - Lot B)|-1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.17|2.47|||||Response rate difference was stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||2.47|-5.17|
90812529|NCT01340937|181504045|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% Confidence Intervals of the response rate difference are between -10% and 10%|Response Rate Difference (Lot A - Lot C)|-3.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.79|0.67|||||Response rate difference was stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||0.67|-6.79|
91015735|NCT04957979|181914306|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.0||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|18.0||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Chi-squared||Positive values reflect higher proportion of responders in Medical/Nursing clinics as compared to Medical/Social.|||18|4.2|0.002
90812530|NCT01340937|181504045|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% Confidence Intervals of the response rate difference are between -10% and 10%|Response Rate Difference (Lot B - Lot C)|-1.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.37|1.94|||||Response rate difference was stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||1.94|-5.37|
91015736|NCT04957979|181914307|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.0||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|11.0||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Chi-squared||Positive values reflect higher percentage of responders in Medical/Nursing clinics as compared to Medical/Social.|||11.0|0.86|0.023
91078273|NCT00388297|182042071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.24
90812531|NCT01340937|181504045|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 95% CI of the response rate difference is \>= -10%|Response Rate Difference (Comb - Ctrl)|-4.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.73|-0.86|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Response rate, response rate difference and p-value were stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||-0.86|-7.73|<0.001
90812532|NCT01340937|181504046|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% Confidence Intervals of the response rate difference are between -10% and 10%|Response Rate Difference (Lot A - Lot B)|2.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|7.39|||||Response rate difference was stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||7.39|-1.83|
90812533|NCT01340937|181504046|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% Confidence Intervals of the response rate difference are between -10% and 10%|Response Rate Difference (Lot A - Lot C)|2.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|7.06|||||Response rate difference was stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||7.06|-2.21|
90812534|NCT01340937|181504046|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% Confidence Intervals of the response rate difference are between -10% and 10%|Response Rate Difference (Lot B - Lot C)|-0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.14|4.42|||||Response rate difference was stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||4.42|-5.14|
90812535|NCT01340937|181504046|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 95% CI of the response rate difference is \>= -10%|Response Rate Difference (Comb - Ctrl)|3.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|8.85|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Response rate, response rate difference and p-value were stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||8.85|-1.70|<0.001
90812536|NCT01340937|181504047|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% Confidence Intervals of the response rate difference are between -10% and 10%|Response Rate Difference (Lot A - Lot B)|-4.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.69|-0.63|||||Response rate difference was stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||-0.63|-7.69|
90812537|NCT01340937|181504047|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% Confidence Intervals of the response rate difference are between -10% and 10%|Response Rate Difference (Lot A - Lot C)|-4.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.75|-0.66|||||Response rate difference was stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||-0.66|-7.75|
91015737|NCT04957979|181914307|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.7||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|7.0||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Chi-squared||Positive values reflect higher proportion of responders in Medical/Nursing clinics as compared to Medical/Social.|||7.0|-14.0|0.5
91015738|NCT04957979|181914308|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.19||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|t-test, 2 sided||Positive values reflect higher/better scores of responders in Medical/Nursing clinics as compared to Medical/Social.|||0.19|0.06|<0.001
91015739|NCT04957979|181914308|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.32||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|t-test, 2 sided||Positive values reflect higher/better scores of responders in Medical/Nursing clinics as compared to Medical/Social.|||0.32|0.06|<0.001
90812538|NCT01340937|181504047|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% Confidence Intervals of the response rate difference are between -10% and 10%|Response Rate Difference (Lot B - Lot C)|-0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.32|3.2|||||Response rate difference was stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||3.20|-3.32|
90812539|NCT01340937|181504047|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 95% CI of the response rate difference is \>= -10%|Response Rate Difference (Comb - Ctrl)|2.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|7.36|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Response rate, response rate difference and p-value were stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||7.36|-0.85|<0.001
90812540|NCT01340937|181504048|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% Confidence Intervals of the response rate difference are between -5% and 5%|Response Rate Difference (Lot A - Lot B)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.61|||||Response rate difference was stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||0.61|-0.61|
90812541|NCT01340937|181504048|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% Confidence Intervals of the response rate difference are between -5% and 5%|Response Rate Difference (Lot A - Lot C)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.61|||||Response rate difference was stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||0.61|-0.61|
90812542|NCT01340937|181504048|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% Confidence Intervals of the response rate difference are between -5% and 5%|Response Rate Difference (Lot B - Lot C)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.61|||||Response rate difference was stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||0.61|-0.61|
91015740|NCT04957979|181914309|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|-0.06|||t-test, 2 sided|No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Negative values reflect lower/better scores of responders in Medical/Nursing clinics as compared to Medical/Social.|||-0.06|-0.16|<0.001
91015741|NCT04957979|181914309|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|-0.03|||t-test, 2 sided||Negative values reflect lower/better scores of responders in Medical/Nursing clinics as compared to Medical/Social.|||-0.03|-0.2|0.006
90812543|NCT01340937|181504048|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 95% CI of the response rate difference is \>= -5%|Response Rate Difference (Comb - Ctrl)|0.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|2.36|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Response rate, response rate difference and p-value were stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||2.36|0.18|<0.001
90812544|NCT01340937|181504049|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% Confidence Intervals of the response rate difference are between -5% and 5%|Response Rate Difference (Lot A - Lot B)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.61|||||Response rate difference was stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||0.61|-0.61|
91015742|NCT04957979|181914310|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.4||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|0.0||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Chi-squared|||||0.00|-4.9|0.059
91015743|NCT04957979|181914310|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.7||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|-1.3||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Chi-squared||Positive values reflect higher percentage of responders in Medical/Nursing clinics as compared to Medical/Social.|||-1.3|-10.0|0.014
91015744|NCT04957979|181914311|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|15.0||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Chi-squared|||||15.0|6.8|<0.001
90812545|NCT01340937|181504049|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% Confidence Intervals of the response rate difference are between -5% and 5%|Response Rate Difference (Lot A - Lot C)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.6|||||Response rate difference was stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||0.60|-0.61|
90812546|NCT01340937|181504049|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% Confidence Intervals of the response rate difference are between -5% and 5%|Response Rate Difference (Lot B - Lot C)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.6|||||Response rate difference was stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||0.60|-0.61|
90812547|NCT01340937|181504049|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 95% CI of the response rate difference is \>= -5%|Response Rate Difference (Comb - Ctrl)|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.24|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Response rate, response rate difference and p-value were stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||1.24|-0.20|<0.001
90812548|NCT01340937|181504050|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% Confidence Intervals of the response rate difference are between -5% and 5%|Response Rate Difference (Lot A - Lot B)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.61|||||Response rate difference was stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||0.61|-0.61|
90812549|NCT01340937|181504050|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% Confidence Intervals of the response rate difference are between -5% and 5%|Response Rate Difference (Lot A - Lot C)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.61|||||Response rate difference was stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||0.61|-0.61|
90812550|NCT01340937|181504050|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% Confidence Intervals of the response rate difference are between -5% and 5%|Response Rate Difference (Lot B - Lot C)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.61|||||Response rate difference was stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||0.61|-0.61|
91015745|NCT04957979|181914311|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|20.0||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Chi-squared||Positive values reflect higher percentage of responders in Medical/Nursing clinics as compared to Medical/Social.|||20.0|4.7|0.001
91077808|NCT02913105|182041131|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.315|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.156||0.0457|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.574|-0.056|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 42||-0.056|-0.574|0.0457
90812551|NCT01340937|181504050|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 95% CI of the response rate difference is \>= -5%|Response Rate Difference (Comb - Ctrl)|0.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|1.85|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Response rate, response rate difference and p-value were stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||1.85|0.05|<0.001
90812552|NCT01340937|181504051|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio is \>=0.67|GMC Ratio (Combined/Control)|1.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.17|||Analysis of Covariance|GMC, GMC ratio, and p-value were adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||1.17|0.98|<0.001
91015746|NCT04957979|181914312|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|-5.0||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|t-test, 2 sided||Negative values reflect lower/better scores of responders in Medical/Nursing clinics as compared to Medical/Social.|||-5|-10|<.001
90812553|NCT01340937|181504052|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio is \>=0.67|GMC Ratio (Combined/Control)|0.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.95|||ANCOVA|GMC, GMC ratio, and p-value were adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||0.95|0.79|<0.001
90812554|NCT01340937|181504053|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio is \>=0.67|GMC Ratio (Combined/Control)|0.74||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.83|||ANCOVA|GMC, GMC ratio, and p-value were adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||0.83|0.66|0.035
91015747|NCT04957979|181914312|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.0||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|-2.0|||t-test, 2 sided||Negative values reflect lower/better scores of responders in Medical/Nursing clinics as compared to Medical/Social.|||-2|-10|0.007
91015748|NCT04957979|181914313|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.5||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|-0.14||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Chi-squared||Positive values reflect higher percentage of responders in Medical/Nursing clinics as compared to Medical/Social.|||-0.14|-4.8|0.046
91078274|NCT00388297|182042071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.55
91078275|NCT00388297|182042072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.36
91078276|NCT00388297|182042072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.28
90812555|NCT01340937|181504054|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio is \>=0.67|GMC Ratio (Combined/Control)|1.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|1.46|||ANCOVA|GMC, GMC ratio, and p-value were adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||1.46|1.17|<0.001
90812556|NCT01340937|181504055|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 95% CI of the response rate difference is \>= -10%|Response Rate Difference (Comb - Ctrl)|0.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|2.58|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Response rate, response rate difference and p-value were stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||2.58|-1.11|<0.001
90812557|NCT01340937|181504056|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 95% CI of the response rate difference is \>= -10%|Response Rate Difference (Comb - Ctrl)|-0.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|3.22|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Response rate, response rate difference and p-value were stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||3.22|-2.41|<0.001
90812558|NCT01340937|181504057|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 95% CI of the response rate difference is \>= -10%|Response Rate Difference (Comb - Ctrl)|1.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|5.47|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Response rate, response rate difference and p-value were stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||5.47|-2.13|<0.001
90812559|NCT01340937|181504058|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 95% CI of the response rate difference is \>= -10%|Response Rate Difference (Comb - Ctrl)|3.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|7.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Response rate, response rate difference and p-value were stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||7.40|-0.39|<0.001
90812560|NCT01340937|181504059|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio is \>=0.67|GMC Ratio (Combined/Control)|0.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.04|||ANCOVA|GMC, GMC ratio, and p-value were adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||Pneumococcal Serotype 1||1.04|0.82|<0.001
90812561|NCT01340937|181504059|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio is \>=0.67|GMC Ratio (Combined/Control)|0.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.06|||ANCOVA|GMC, GMC ratio, and p-value were adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||Pneumococcal Serotype 3||1.06|0.84|<0.001
90812562|NCT01340937|181504059|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio is \>=0.67|GMC Ratio (Combined/Control)|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.12|||ANCOVA|GMC, GMC ratio, and p-value were adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||Pneumococcal Serotype 4||1.12|0.89|<0.001
90812563|NCT01340937|181504059|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio is \>=0.67|GMC Ratio (Combined/Control)|0.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.07|||ANCOVA|GMC, GMC ratio, and p-value were adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||Pneumococcal Serotype 5||1.07|0.80|<0.001
90812564|NCT01340937|181504059|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio is \>=0.67|GMC Ratio (Combined/Control)|0.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.99|||ANCOVA|GMC, GMC ratio, and p-value were adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||Pneumococcal Serotype 6A||0.99|0.77|<0.001
90812565|NCT01340937|181504059|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio is \>=0.67|GMC Ratio (Combined/Control)|0.79||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.96|||ANCOVA|GMC, GMC ratio, and p-value were adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||Pneumococcal Serotype 6B||0.96|0.64|0.055
90812566|NCT01340937|181504059|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio is \>=0.67|GMC Ratio (Combined/Control)|0.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.99|||ANCOVA|GMC, GMC ratio, and p-value were adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||Pneumococcal Serotype 7F||0.99|0.80|<0.001
90812567|NCT01340937|181504059|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio is \>=0.67|GMC Ratio (Combined/Control)|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.13|||ANCOVA|GMC, GMC ratio, and p-value were adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||Pneumococcal Serotype 9V||1.13|0.88|<0.001
90812568|NCT01340937|181504059|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio is \>=0.67|GMC Ratio (Combined/Control)|0.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.1|||ANCOVA|GMC, GMC ratio, and p-value were adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||Pneumococcal Serotype 14||1.10|0.82|<0.001
90812569|NCT01340937|181504059|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio is \>=0.67|GMC Ratio (Combined/Control)|0.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.0|||ANCOVA|GMC, GMC ratio, and p-value were adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||Pneumococcal Serotype 18C||1.00|0.79|<0.001
90812570|NCT01340937|181504059|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio is \>=0.67|GMC Ratio (Combined/Control)|0.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.03|||ANCOVA|GMC, GMC ratio, and p-value were adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||Pneumococcal Serotype 19A||1.03|0.80|<0.001
90812571|NCT01340937|181504059|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio is \>=0.67|GMC Ratio (Combined/Control)|0.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.08|||ANCOVA|GMC, GMC ratio, and p-value were adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||Pneumococcal Serotype 19F||1.08|0.87|<0.001
91015749|NCT04957979|181914313|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.5||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|-0.52||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Chi-squared||Positive values reflect higher percentage of responders in Medical/Nursing clinics as compared to Medical/Social.|||-0.52|-8.4|0.033
91078277|NCT00388297|182042073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.50
90812572|NCT01340937|181504059|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio is \>=0.67|GMC Ratio (Combined/Control)|0.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.06|||ANCOVA|GMC, GMC ratio, and p-value were adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||Pneumococcal Serotype 23F||1.06|0.77|<0.001
90812573|NCT01340937|181504061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.8|-8.4|||||Mean Difference is V419 - Control. The 95% confidence interval is based on the unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Estimated Difference, all routes \<38.0°C||-8.4|-18.8|
90812574|NCT01340937|181504061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|8.3|||||Mean Difference is V419 - Control. The 95% confidence interval is based on the unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Estimated Difference, all routes \>=38°C and \<38.5°||8.3|-0.9|
90812575|NCT01340937|181504061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.8|11.9|||||Mean Difference is V419 - Control. The 95% confidence interval is based on the unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Estimated Difference, all routes \>=38.5°C and \<39.5°||11.9|4.8|
90812576|NCT01340937|181504061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|2.2|||||Mean Difference is V419 - Control. The 95% confidence interval is based on the unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Estimated Difference, all routes \>=39.5°C||2.2|-0.7|
90812577|NCT01340937|181504061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|-5.9|||||Mean Difference is V419 - Control. The 95% confidence interval is based on the unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Estimated Difference; rectal \<38.0°C||-5.9|-16.6|
90812578|NCT01340937|181504061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|7.8|||||Mean Difference is V419 - Control. The 95% confidence interval is based on the unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Estimated Difference; rectal \>=38.0°C and \<38.5°C||7.8|-1.4|
90812579|NCT01340937|181504061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.6|11.6|||||Mean Difference is V419 - Control. The 95% confidence interval is based on the unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Estimated Difference, rectal \>=38.5°C and \<39.5°C||11.6|4.6|
90812580|NCT01340937|181504061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|2.1|||||Mean Difference is V419 - Control. The 95% confidence interval is based on the unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Estimated Difference, rectal \>=39.5°C||2.1|-0.7|
90812581|NCT03315104|181504085|SUPERIORITY|A median estimated value of 0.000 indicates no difference between groups.|Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.0||No adjustment for multiple comparisons, two-sided significance level of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Exact test|FLU-IGIV High Dose (450 mL) - Placebo|Pairwise Wilcoxon rank-sum test for a location shift||1.000|0.000|0.174
90812582|NCT03315104|181504085|SUPERIORITY|A median estimated value of 0.000 indicates no difference between groups.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.0||No adjustment for multiple comparisons, two-sided significance level of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Exact test||Pairwise Wilcoxon rank-sum test for a location shift||1.000|0.000|0.572
90812583|NCT03315104|181504085|SUPERIORITY|A median estimated value of 0.000 indicates no difference between groups.|Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.0||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. two-sided significance level of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Exact test||Pairwise Wilcoxon rank-sum test for a location shift||1.000|0.000|0.534
90812584|NCT03315104|181504085|SUPERIORITY|A median estimated value of 0.000 indicates no difference between groups.|Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.0||No adjustment for multiple comparisons, two-sided significance level of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Exact test|FLU-IGIV pooled (450 mL + 250 mL) - Placebo|Pairwise Wilcoxon rank-sum test for a location shift where the two active dose groups were pooled and compared to placebo.||1.000|0.000|0.534
90812585|NCT05074888|181504097|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0016|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis applies to ∆ between baseline and 4 weeks later row.||||0.0016
90812586|NCT05074888|181504098|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3183|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis applies to ∆ between baseline and 4 weeks later row.||||0.3183
90812587|NCT05074888|181504099|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5805|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis applies to ∆ between baseline and 4 weeks later row.||||0.5805
90812588|NCT05074888|181504100|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2143|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis applies to ∆ between baseline and 4 weeks later row.||||0.2143
90812589|NCT05074888|181504101|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8156|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis applies to ∆ between value after 4 weeks and after 8 weeks row.||||0.8156
91078278|NCT00388297|182042073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.00
90812590|NCT05074888|181504102|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1049|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis applies to ∆ between value after 4 weeks and after 8 weeks row.||||0.1049
90812591|NCT05074888|181504103|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.726|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis applies to ∆ between value after 4 weeks and after 8 weeks row.||||0.7260
90812592|NCT05074888|181504104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6808|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis applies to ∆ between value after 4 weeks and after 8 weeks row.||||0.6808
90812593|NCT05074888|181504105|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54||||||"The p-value associated with treatment\*visit interaction of pulse rate (heart rate) from Visit 1 to 3 between Prospekta and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.54
90812594|NCT05074888|181504106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49||||||"The p-value associated with treatment\*visit interaction of respiration rate (breathing rate) from Visit 1 to 3 between Prospekta and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.49
90812595|NCT05074888|181504107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87||||||"The p-value associated with treatment\*visit interaction of systolic blood pressure from Visit 1 to 3 between Prospekta and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis applies to SBP/Visit1, SBP/Visit2 and SBP/Visit3 rows.||||0.87
90812596|NCT05074888|181504107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22||||||"The p-value associated with treatment\*visit interaction of diastolic blood pressure from Visit 1 to 3 between Prospekta and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis applies to DBP/Visit1, DBP/Visit2 and DBP/Visit3 rows.||||0.22
90812597|NCT05074888|181504108|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
90812598|NCT05074888|181504109|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
90812599|NCT05074888|181504110|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.17
90812600|NCT05074888|181504111|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.004
90812601|NCT03554772|181504146|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||p-value for each dose group vs placebo comparison|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect , baseline NPRS and basline BMI as covariates P-value is Dunnett adjusted (individual treatment arms)||||||<0.0001
90812602|NCT03054350|181504229|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.314||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.82|||ANCOVA|The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model includes treatment assignment (3 dosed groups; 1 placebo group) and pre-treatment Hb value as a covariate.||||1.82|0.56|0.0004
90812603|NCT03054350|181504229|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.315|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|2.19|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment assignment (3 dosed groups; 1 placebo group) and pre-treatment Hb value as a covariate.||||2.19|0.93|<0.0001
90812604|NCT03054350|181504229|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.326|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|2.54|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment assignment (3 dosed groups; 1 placebo group) and pre-treatment Hb value as a covariate.||||2.54|1.23|<0.0001
90812605|NCT03054350|181504235|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.122||0.0232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.54|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model will include treatment assignment (3 dosed groups;1 placebo group) and pre-treatment Hb value as a covariate.||RBC Count||0.54|0.04|0.0232
90812606|NCT03054350|181504235|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.62|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model will include treatment assignment (3 dosed groups; 1 placebo group) and pre-treatment Hb value as a covariate.||RBC Count||0.62|0.13|0.0033
90812607|NCT03054350|181504235|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.74|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model will include treatment assignment (3 dosed groups; 1 placebo group) and pre-treatment Hb value as a covariate.||RBC Count||0.74|0.26|0.0002
90812608|NCT03054350|181504235|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.008||0.3289|TWO_SIDED|94.0|-0.01|0.02|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model will include treatment assignment (3 dosed groups; 1 placebo group) and pre-treatment Hb value as a covariate.||Absolute Reticulocyte Count||0.02|-0.01|0.3289
90812609|NCT03054350|181504235|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.007||0.2607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.02|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model will include treatment assignment (3 dosed groups; 1 placebo group) and pre-treatment Hb value as a covariate.||Absolute Reticulocyte Count||0.02|-0.01|0.2607
90812610|NCT03054350|181504235|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.007||0.0252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.03|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model will include treatment assignment (3 dosed groups; 1 placebo group) and pre-treatment Hb value as a covariate.||Absolute Reticulocyte Count||0.03|0.00|0.0252
90812611|NCT03054350|181504237|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|3.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.303||0.0154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|5.94|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model will include treatment assignment (3 dosed groups; 1 placebo group) and pre-treatment Hb value as a covariate.||Hematocrit||5.94|0.67|0.0154
90812612|NCT03054350|181504237|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|4.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.261||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.06|7.16|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model will include treatment assignment (3 dosed groups; 1 placebo group) and pre-treatment Hb value as a covariate.||Hematocrit||7.16|2.06|0.0008
91015750|NCT04957979|181914314|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|-6.8||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Chi-squared||Positive values reflect higher percentage of responders in Medical/Nursing clinics as compared to Medical/Social.|||-6.8|-13.0|<0.001
91078279|NCT00388297|182042074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76|||||||Chi-squared|||Apgar at 1 min \< 4||||0.76
91078280|NCT00388297|182042074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76|||||||Chi-squared|||Apgar \> 4 at 1 minute||||0.76
90812613|NCT03054350|181504237|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|5.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.296|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.31|8.56|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model will include treatment assignment (3 dosed groups; 1 placebo group) and pre-treatment Hb value as a covariate.||Hematocrit||8.56|3.31|<0.0001
90812614|NCT03054350|181504237|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.273||0.3572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.81|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model will include treatment assignment (3 dosed groups; 1 placebo group) and pre-treatment Hb value as a covariate.||Reticulocytes||0.81|-0.30|0.3572
90812615|NCT03054350|181504237|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.252||0.4758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.69|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model will include treatment assignment (3 dosed groups; 1 placebo group) and pre-treatment Hb value as a covariate.||Reticulocytes||0.69|-0.33|0.4758
90812616|NCT03054350|181504237|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.254||0.2048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.84|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model will include treatment assignment (3 dosed groups; 1 placebo group) and pre-treatment Hb value as a covariate.||Reticulocytes||0.84|-0.19|0.2048
90812617|NCT03054350|181504239|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9373|||||||ANCOVA|test of treatment group difference based on ANCOVA model||Iron||||0.9373
90812618|NCT03054350|181504239|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6623|||||||ANCOVA|test of treatment group difference based on ANCOVA model||Iron||||0.6623
90812619|NCT03054350|181504239|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9374|||||||ANCOVA|test of treatment group difference based on ANCOVA model||Iron||||0.9374
90812620|NCT03054350|181504239|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2085|||||||ANCOVA|test of treatment group difference based on ANCOVA model||TIBC||||0.2085
90812621|NCT03054350|181504239|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0016|||||||ANCOVA|test of treatment group difference based on ANCOVA model||TIBC||||0.0016
90812622|NCT03054350|181504239|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|test of treatment group difference based on ANCOVA model||TIBC||||0.0001
90812623|NCT03054350|181504241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2708|||||||ANCOVA|test of treatment group difference based on ANCOVA model||||||0.2708
90812624|NCT03054350|181504241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0966|||||||ANCOVA|test of treatment group difference based on ANCOVA model||||||0.0966
90812625|NCT03054350|181504241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0424|||||||ANCOVA|test of treatment group difference based on ANCOVA model||||||0.0424
90812626|NCT03054350|181504243|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0207|||||||ANCOVA|test of treatment group difference based on ANCOVA model||Ferritin||||0.0207
90812627|NCT03054350|181504243|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0022|||||||ANCOVA|test of treatment group difference based on ANCOVA model||Ferritin||||0.0022
90812628|NCT03054350|181504243|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|test of treatment group difference based on ANCOVA model||Ferritin||||<0.0001
90812629|NCT03054350|181504243|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0062|||||||ANCOVA|test of treatment group difference based on ANCOVA model||Hepcidin||||0.0062
90812630|NCT03054350|181504243|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||ANCOVA|test of treatment group difference based on ANCOVA model||Hepcidin||||0.0002
90812631|NCT03054350|181504243|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||test of treatment group difference based on ANCOVA model|ANCOVA|||Hepcidin||||<0.0001
90812632|NCT01643850|181504254|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.98||||0.915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.36|||ANCOVA|||||1.36|0.71|0.915
91015751|NCT04957979|181914314|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-11.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|-5.6||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Chi-squared||Positive values reflect higher percentage of responders in Medical/Nursing clinics as compared to Medical/Social.|||-5.6|-17.0|<0.001
90812633|NCT01643850|181504254|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.78||||0.117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.07|||ANCOVA|||||1.07|0.57|0.117
90812634|NCT01643850|181504254|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.69||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.91|||ANCOVA|||||0.91|0.52|0.010
90812635|NCT00681564|181504344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98||||||A P value of 0.05 was used as a cut-off for statistical significance.|Kruskal-Wallis|Non-parametric test appropriate for the analysis of non-normally distributed data.||Analyzed variable: Brachial Artery Flow-mediated Dilation (baseline). Note: data analysis of patients who completed the study protocol (n=86). Intention-to-treat analysis analysis was not used because its application for the evaluation of continuous data would imply imputing missing data for patients lost to follow-up. Mean and standard deviation of flow-mediated dilatation, including data from all patients randomized in this study, is reported in the field of baseline characteristics.||||0.98
90812636|NCT00681564|181504344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||||||A P value of 0.05 was used as a cut-off for statistical significance.|Kruskal-Wallis|Non-parametric test appropriate for the analysis of non-normally distributed data.||Analyzed variable: Brachial Artery Flow-mediated Dilation (24 hours).||||0.005
90812637|NCT00681564|181504344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43||||||A P value of 0.05 was used as a cut-off for statistical significance.|Kruskal-Wallis|Non-parametric test appropriate for the analysis of non-normally distributed data.||"Statistical analysis: Brachial Artery Flow-mediated Dilation (12 weeks). Intention-to-treat analysis was not used because input of values for patients lost at follow-up will artificially amplify the precision of outcome measures.~Higgins JPT, Deeks JJ, Altman DG (editors). Chapter 16: Special topics in statistics. In: Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 5.0.1. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2008. www.cochrane-handbook.org."||||0.43
91015752|NCT04957979|181914315|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|-4.1||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Chi-squared||Positive values reflect higher percentage of responders in Medical/Nursing clinics as compared to Medical/Social.|||-4.1|-10.0|<0.001
91015753|NCT04957979|181914315|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.2||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|-3.2||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Chi-squared||Positive values reflect higher percentage of responders in Medical/Nursing clinics as compared to Medical/Social|||-3.2|-13.0|0.002
90812638|NCT02370641|181504356|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.05 is defined as significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison was made to week 4 minus baseline change of phylum Firmicutes abundance between urolithin excretors and non excretors||||0.012
90812639|NCT02370641|181504356|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.6||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.05 was defined as significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison was made to week 4 minus baseline change of phylum Proteobacteria abundance between urolithin excretors and non excretors||||0.009
90812640|NCT03906656|181504357|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.1||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted p-values based on Holm-Bonferroni method. P-values \< 0.05 used as threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference is for paired data (n=73). This explains the discrepancy between the mean difference and the difference between the KAFO and C-Brace means (n=86 and n=77, respectively).|H0: the mean difference (C-Brace - KAFO) \<= 0.||||0.0002
90812641|NCT03906656|181504357|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.7|<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted p-values based on Holm-Bonferroni method. P-values \< 0.05 used as threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference is for paired data (n=77). This explains the discrepancy between the mean difference and the difference between the KAFO and C-Brace means (n=86 and n=77, respectively).|H0: the mean difference (C-Brace - Baseline) \<= 0.||||<0.00001
90812642|NCT03906656|181504357|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.3|<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference is for paired data (n=86). This explains the discrepancy between the mean difference and the difference between the Baseline and KAFO means (n=102 and n=86, respectively).|KAFO vs. Baseline -- H0: the mean difference (KAFO - Baseline) \<= 0.||||<0.00001
90812643|NCT03906656|181504358|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|26.3||0.005|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. P-values \< 0.05 used as threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|63.6 degrees of freedom.||H0: the mean difference (C-Brace - KAFO) \<= 0||||0.005
90812644|NCT03906656|181504359|SUPERIORITY|P-values not adjusted for multiple comparisons. P-values \< 0.05 used as threshold for statistical significance.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.7||0.005|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values not adjusted for multiple comparisons. P-values \< 0.05 used as threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|74.4 degrees of freedom||H0: the mean difference (C-Brace - KAFO) \<= 0.||||0.005
91015754|NCT04957979|181914316|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.4||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|-1.4||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Chi-squared||Positive values reflect higher percentage of responders in Medical/Nursing clinics as compared to Medical/Social.|||-1.4|-5.5|0.002
91015755|NCT04957979|181914316|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.4||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|1.4||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Chi-squared||Positive values reflect higher percentage of responders in Medical/Nursing clinics as compared to Medical/Social.|||1.4|-6.1|0.3
91078281|NCT00388297|182042074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69|||||||Chi-squared|||Apgar \< 7 at 5 minutes||||0.69
91078282|NCT00388297|182042074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45|||||||Chi-squared|||Apgar \< 7 at 5 minutes||||0.45
90812645|NCT03906656|181504360|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.185|STANDARD_DEVIATION|53.6||0.583|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values not adjusted for multiple comparisons. P-values \< 0.05 used as threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||H0: the median of the population differences (C-Brace - KAFO) \<= 0.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test. V=1207.5, effect size r = 0.026, p=0.583.|||0.583
90812646|NCT03906656|181504361|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.28|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.37||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values not adjusted for multiple comparisons. P-values \< 0.05 used as threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||H0: the median of the population differences (C-Brace - KAFO) \<= 0. (SAI - Down)|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test V=438, effect size r = 0.21, p=0.008|||0.0078
90812647|NCT03906656|181504362|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.41|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.0||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values not adjusted for multiple comparisons. P-values \< 0.05 used as threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test V=267, effect size r = 0.32, p=0.002|||0.0020
90812648|NCT03906656|181504363|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.178||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values not adjusted for multiple comparisons. P-values \< 0.05 used as threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||H0: the median of the population differences (C-Brace - KAFO) \<= 0. (Fear of falling - indoors)|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test V=433, effect size r = 0.33, p=0.002|||0.0023
90812649|NCT03906656|181504363|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.973|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.43||0.0066|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values not adjusted for multiple comparisons. P-values \< 0.05 used as threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test V=557.5, effect size r = 0.265, p=0.0066|||0.0066
90812650|NCT03906656|181504364|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006||||||P-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons|McNemar|||Paired dataset. H0: The probability of fallers wearing C-Brace becoming non-fallers wearing KAFO is the same as the probability of non-fallers wearing C-Brace becoming fallers wearing KAFO.||||0.006
90812651|NCT03906656|181504365|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.82|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.4||0.08|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values not adjusted for multiple comparisons. P-values \< 0.05 used as threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||H0: the median of the population differences (C-Brace - KAFO) \<= 0.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test. V=1325.5, effect size r = 0.181, p=0.08.|||0.08
90812652|NCT03906656|181504366|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.009|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.184||0.151|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values not adjusted for multiple comparisons. P-values \< 0.05 used as threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test V=1124.5, effect size r = 0.125 p=0.151|H0: the median of the population differences (C-Brace - KAFO) \<= 0||||0.151
91015756|NCT03671746|181914317|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.5|=|0.275|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|A Kenward-Roger adjustment was used to correct for negative bias in the standard errors and degrees of freedom calculations.||Sample size calculations were performed using Length of Stay (LOS) as this was the primary outcome. Using a significance level of 0.05 and assumed standard deviation of 1.5 days, a sample size of 42 patients/group (84 total) would yield 80% power to detect a difference of 0.928 days in average LOS between groups. Allowing for a dropout rate of up to 25%, recruitment was planned for 56 patients/group. Power calculations were performed using nQuery 8.5 (Statistical Solutions Ltd; Cork, Ireland).||||=0.275
90812653|NCT03906656|181504367|SUPERIORITY|H0: the mean of the population differences (C-Brace - KAFO) \>= 0|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|21.5||0.281|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values not adjusted for multiple comparisons. P-values \< 0.05 used as threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|16.7 degrees of freedom||WLQ-25 - Physical||||0.281
90812654|NCT03906656|181504368|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.99|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.18||0.00019|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values not adjusted for multiple comparisons. P-values \< 0.05 used as threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|48.4 degrees of freedom||OPUS - Low Extremity Functional Status. H0: the mean difference (C-Brace - KAFO) \<= 0||||0.00019
90812655|NCT03906656|181504369|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.19|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.0||0.0226|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values not adjusted for multiple comparisons. P-values \< 0.05 used as threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|22.1 degrees of freedom||Emotional well-being. H0: the mean difference (C-Brace - KAFO) \<= 0.||||0.0226
90812656|NCT03906656|181504369|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.79|STANDARD_DEVIATION|21.1||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values not adjusted for multiple comparisons. P-values \< 0.05 used as threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||Energy/Fatigue. H0: the mean difference (C-Brace - KAFO) \<= 0.||||0.0020
90812657|NCT03906656|181504369|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|29.528||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values not adjusted for multiple comparisons. P-values \< 0.05 used as threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Health change. H0: the median of the population differences (C-Brace - KAFO) \<= 0.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test. V=649, effect size r = 0.285, p=0.00493|||0.0049
90812658|NCT03906656|181504369|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|29.2||6.47e-05|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values not adjusted for multiple comparisons. P-values \< 0.05 used as threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|37.35 degrees of freedom||Physical Functioning Score. H0: the mean difference (C-Brace - KAFO) \<= 0||||0.0000647
91078283|NCT00388297|182042075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.24
90812659|NCT03906656|181504370|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.843||0.301|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values not adjusted for multiple comparisons. P-values \< 0.05 used as threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Device. H0: the median of the population differences (C-Brace - KAFO) \<= 0|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test V=1018.5, effect size r = 0.056, p=0.301|||0.301
90812660|NCT01719003|181504391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|'Baseline HbA1c':linear covariate;'treatment','baseline renal function','region','visit' \& 'visit by treatment interaction':fixed effects.|Empagliflozin 12.5 mg bid+ Metformin 1000 mg bid minus Metformin 1000 mg bid|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach comparing the change from baseline of HbA1c (in units of %) after 24 weeks of double-blind treatment.||-0.10|-0.56|0.0056
91078284|NCT00388297|182042075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.97
91078285|NCT00388297|182042076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.45
91078286|NCT00388297|182042076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.68
90812661|NCT01719003|181504391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|'Baseline HbA1c':linear covariate;'treatment','baseline renal function','region','visit' \& 'visit by treatment interaction':fixed effects.|Empagliflozin 12.5 mg bid+ Metformin 1000 mg bid minus Empagliflozin 25 mg qd|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach comparing the change from baseline of HbA1c (in units of %) after 24 weeks of double-blind treatment.||-0.48|-0.95|<0.0001
90812662|NCT01719003|181504391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|-0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|'Baseline HbA1c':linear covariate;'treatment','baseline renal function','region','visit' \& 'visit by treatment interaction':fixed effects.|Empagliflozin 12.5 mg bid+ Metformin 500 mg bid minus Metformin 500 mg bid|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach comparing the change from baseline of HbA1c (in units of %) after 24 weeks of double-blind treatment.||-0.51|-0.98|<0.0001
90812663|NCT01719003|181504391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|'Baseline HbA1c':linear covariate;'treatment','baseline renal function','region','visit' \& 'visit by treatment interaction':fixed effects.|Empagliflozin 12.5 mg bid+ Metformin 500 mg bid minus Empagliflozin 25 mg qd|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach comparing the change from baseline of HbA1c (in units of %) after 24 weeks of double-blind treatment.||-0.34|-0.81|<0.0001
90812664|NCT01719003|181504391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|'Baseline HbA1c':linear covariate;'treatment','baseline renal function','region','visit' \& 'visit by treatment interaction':fixed effects.|Empagliflozin 5 mg bid + Metformin 1000 mg bid minus Metformin 1000 mg bid|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach comparing the change from baseline of HbA1c (in units of %) after 24 weeks of double-blind treatment||-0.09|-0.56|0.0062
90812665|NCT01719003|181504391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|'Baseline HbA1c':linear covariate;'treatment','baseline renal function','region','visit' \& 'visit by treatment interaction':fixed effects.|Empagliflozin 5 mg bid + Metformin 1000 mg bid minus Empagliflozin 10 mg qd|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach comparing the change from baseline of HbA1c (in units of %) after 24 weeks of double-blind treatment.||-0.49|-0.95|<0.0001
90812666|NCT01719003|181504391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|'Baseline HbA1c':linear covariate;'treatment','baseline renal function','region','visit' \& 'visit by treatment interaction':fixed effects.|Empagliflozin 5 mg bid + Metformin 500 mg bid minus Metformin 500 mg bid|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach comparing the change from baseline of HbA1c (in units of %) after 24 weeks of double-blind treatment.||-0.56|-1.03|<0.0001
90812667|NCT01719003|181504391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|'Baseline HbA1c':linear covariate;'treatment','baseline renal function','region','visit' \& 'visit by treatment interaction':fixed effects.|Empagliflozin 5 mg bid + Metformin 500 mg bid minus Empagliflozin 10 mg qd|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach comparing the change from baseline of HbA1c (in units of %) after 24 weeks of double-blind treatment.||-0.40|-0.86|<0.0001
90812668|NCT01719003|181504391|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The noninferiority of empagliflozin 10 mg qd against metformin 1000 mg bid were to be tested for HbA1c change from baseline to Week 24 at the level of α=0.025 (one-sided), through application of a non-inferiority margin of 0.35%.|Adjusted mean|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.6246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|'Baseline HbA1c':linear covariate;'treatment','baseline renal function','region','visit' \& 'visit by treatment interaction':fixed effects.|Empagliflozin 25 mg qd minus Metformin 1000 mg bid|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach comparing the change from baseline of HbA1c (in units of %) after 24 weeks of double-blind treatment.||0.62|0.15|0.6246
90812669|NCT01719003|181504391|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The noninferiority of empagliflozin 10 mg qd against metformin 1000 mg bid were to be tested for HbA1c change from baseline to Week 24 at the level of α=0.025 (one-sided), through application of a non-inferiority margin of 0.35%.|Adjusted mean|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.6558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|'Baseline HbA1c':linear covariate;'treatment','baseline renal function','region','visit' \& 'visit by treatment interaction':fixed effects.|Empagliflozin 10 mg qd minus Metformin 1000 mg bid|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach comparing the change from baseline of HbA1c (in units of %) after 24 weeks of double-blind treatment.||0.63|0.16|0.6558
90812670|NCT01719003|181504392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean|-18.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.5|-12.2||Since previous step in the hierarchical testing failed (primary measure analyses 9 and 10), the analyses for secondary measures of FPG and body weight are considered exploratory and not confirmatory|Mixed Models Analysis|'Baseline HbA1c':linear covariate;'treatment','baseline renal function','region','visit' \& 'visit by treatment interaction':fixed effects.|Empagliflozin 12.5 mg bid+ Metformin 1000 mg bid minus Metformin 1000 mg bid|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach comparing the change from baseline of FPG after 24 weeks of double-blind treatment.||-12.2|-25.5|<0.0001
90812671|NCT01719003|181504392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean|-23.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.7|-16.3||Since previous step in the hierarchical testing failed (primary measure analyses 9 and 10), the analyses for secondary measures of FPG and body weight are considered exploratory and not confirmatory|Mixed Models Analysis|'Baseline HbA1c':linear covariate;'treatment','baseline renal function','region','visit' \& 'visit by treatment interaction':fixed effects.|Empagliflozin 12.5 mg bid+ Metformin 1000 mg bid minus Empagliflozin 25 mg qd|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach comparing the change from baseline of FPG after 24 weeks of double-blind treatment.||-16.3|-29.7|<0.0001
91078287|NCT00388297|182042077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.46
91078288|NCT00388297|182042077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.19
91078289|NCT00388297|182042078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.45
90812672|NCT01719003|181504392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|-26.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.5|-20.0||Since previous step in the hierarchical testing failed (primary measure analyses 9 and 10), the analyses for secondary measures of FPG and body weight are considered exploratory and not confirmatory|Mixed Models Analysis|'Baseline HbA1c':linear covariate;'treatment','baseline renal function','region','visit' \& 'visit by treatment interaction':fixed effects.|Empagliflozin 12.5 mg bid+ Metformin 500 mg bid minus Metformin 500 mg bid|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach comparing the change from baseline of FPG after 24 weeks of double-blind treatment.||-20.0|-33.5|<0.0001
90812673|NCT01719003|181504392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean|-16.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.8|-9.2||Since previous step in the hierarchical testing failed (primary measure analyses 9 and 10), the analyses for secondary measures of FPG and body weight are considered exploratory and not confirmatory|Mixed Models Analysis|'Baseline HbA1c':linear covariate;'treatment','baseline renal function','region','visit' \& 'visit by treatment interaction':fixed effects.|Empagliflozin 12.5 mg bid+ Metformin 500 mg bid minus Empagliflozin 25 mg qd|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach comparing the change from baseline of FPG after 24 weeks of double-blind treatment.||-9.2|-22.8|<0.0001
90812674|NCT01719003|181504392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean|-15.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.3|-8.9||Since previous step in the hierarchical testing failed (primary measure analyses 9 and 10), the analyses for secondary measures of FPG and body weight are considered exploratory and not confirmatory|Mixed Models Analysis|'Baseline HbA1c':linear covariate;'treatment','baseline renal function','region','visit' \& 'visit by treatment interaction':fixed effects.|Empagliflozin 5 mg bid + Metformin 1000 mg bid minus Metformin 1000 mg bid|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach comparing the change from baseline of FPG of double-blind treatment||-8.9|-22.3|<0.0001
90812675|NCT01719003|181504392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|-14.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.4|-8.2||Since previous step in the hierarchical testing failed (primary measure analyses 9 and 10), the analyses for secondary measures of FPG and body weight are considered exploratory and not confirmatory|Mixed Models Analysis|'Baseline HbA1c':linear covariate;'treatment','baseline renal function','region','visit' \& 'visit by treatment interaction':fixed effects.|Empagliflozin 5 mg bid + Metformin 1000 mg bid minus Empagliflozin 10 mg qd|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach comparing the change from baseline of FPG after 24 weeks of double-blind treatment.||-8.2|-21.4|<0.0001
90812676|NCT01719003|181504392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|-28.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.0|-21.5||Since previous step in the hierarchical testing failed (primary measure analyses 9 and 10), the analyses for secondary measures of FPG and body weight are considered exploratory and not confirmatory|Mixed Models Analysis|'Baseline HbA1c':linear covariate;'treatment','baseline renal function','region','visit' \& 'visit by treatment interaction':fixed effects.|Empagliflozin 5 mg bid + Metformin 500 mg bid minus Metformin 500 mg bid|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach comparing the change from baseline of FPG after 24 weeks of double-blind treatment.||-21.5|-35.0|<0.0001
90812677|NCT01719003|181504392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean|-12.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.1|-6.0||Since previous step in the hierarchical testing failed (primary measure analyses 9 and 10), the analyses for secondary measures of FPG and body weight are considered exploratory and not confirmatory|Mixed Models Analysis|'Baseline HbA1c':linear covariate;'treatment','baseline renal function','region','visit' \& 'visit by treatment interaction':fixed effects.|Empagliflozin 5 mg bid + Metformin 500 mg bid minus Empagliflozin 10 mg qd|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach comparing the change from baseline of FPG after 24 weeks of double-blind treatment.||-6.0|-19.1|0.0002
90812678|NCT01719003|181504393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.33|-1.68||Since previous step in the hierarchical testing failed (primary measure analyses 9 and 10), the analyses for secondary measures of FPG and body weight are considered exploratory and not confirmatory|Mixed Models Analysis|'Baseline HbA1c':linear covariate;'treatment','baseline renal function','region','visit' \& 'visit by treatment interaction':fixed effects.|Empagliflozin 12.5 mg bid+ Metformin 1000 mg bid minus Metformin 1000 mg bid|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach comparing the change from baseline of body weight after 24 weeks of double-blind treatment.||-1.68|-3.33|<0.0001
90812679|NCT01719003|181504393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|-2.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.35|-1.69||Since previous step in the hierarchical testing failed (primary measure analyses 9 and 10), the analyses for secondary measures of FPG and body weight are considered exploratory and not confirmatory|Mixed Models Analysis|'Baseline HbA1c':linear covariate;'treatment','baseline renal function','region','visit' \& 'visit by treatment interaction':fixed effects.|Empagliflozin 12.5 mg bid+ Metformin 500 mg bid minus Metformin 500 mg bid|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach comparing the change from baseline of body weight after 24 weeks of double-blind treatment.||-1.69|-3.35|<0.0001
90812680|NCT01719003|181504393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.03|-1.37||Since previous step in the hierarchical testing failed (primary measure analyses 9 and 10), the analyses for secondary measures of FPG and body weight are considered exploratory and not confirmatory|Mixed Models Analysis|'Baseline HbA1c':linear covariate;'treatment','baseline renal function','region','visit' \& 'visit by treatment interaction':fixed effects.|Empagliflozin 5 mg bid + Metformin 1000 mg bid minus Metformin 1000 mg bid|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach comparing the change from baseline of body weight after 24 weeks of double-blind treatment||-1.37|-3.03|<0.0001
91077809|NCT02913105|182041131|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.402|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.165||0.0162|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.676|-0.129|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 56||-0.129|-0.676|0.0162
91078290|NCT00388297|182042078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.75
91078291|NCT00388297|182042079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
90812681|NCT01719003|181504393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|-2.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|-1.43||Since previous step in the hierarchical testing failed (primary measure analyses 9 and 10), the analyses for secondary measures of FPG and body weight are considered exploratory and not confirmatory|Mixed Models Analysis|'Baseline HbA1c':linear covariate;'treatment','baseline renal function','region','visit' \& 'visit by treatment interaction':fixed effects.|Empagliflozin 5 mg bid + Metformin 500 mg bid minus Metformin 500 mg bid|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach comparing the change from baseline of body weight after 24 weeks of double-blind treatment.||-1.43|-3.09|<0.0001
90812682|NCT00700102|181504394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.94|||Log Rank|||||0.94|0.69|0.0062
90812683|NCT00700102|181504395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.1713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.05|||Log Rank|||Kaplan Meier Estimate||1.05|0.77|0.1713
90812684|NCT00700102|181504397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.78|||Log Rank|||||0.78|0.59|<.0001
90812685|NCT00700102|181504398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5||||0.3113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|4.5|||Chi-squared|||||4.5|-1.5|0.3113
90812686|NCT00700102|181504398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4315|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4315
90812687|NCT02525939|181504400|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.03||The estimated HR was presented with a 95% CI and a p-value. The primary analysis was conducted at the 0.05 significance level.|Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|||A stratified Cox proportional hazards model was used to analyze the primary endpoint. This model included treatment as a main effect, and region and acute coronary syndrome (ACS) index event type as stratification factors. The null and alternative hypotheses tested with the above Cox model were: H0: λ = 1 vs HA: λ ≠ 1, where λ is the, assumed constant, hazard ratio (HR) for the time to occurrence of the composite events of the primary endpoint for the dalcetrapib and placebo treated groups.||1.03|0.75|0.12
90812688|NCT02525939|181504401|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.13|||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|||Secondary endpoints were expressed as time to event and an analysis similar to that for the primary endpoint was conducted. In order to control the family-wise Type I error that results from the multiplicity of endpoints, the secondary endpoints were formally tested using the Hochberg's step-up procedure only if the primary analysis results in significant treatment effect at p\<0.05. Otherwise, statistical tests for the secondary endpoints were presented solely for illustrative purposes.||1.13|0.88|0.95
91015757|NCT03671746|181914318|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|A Kenward-Roger adjustment was used to correct for negative bias in the standard errors and degrees of freedom calculations.||Sample size calculations were performed using LOS as this was the primary outcome. Using a significance level of 0.05 and an assumed standard deviation of 1.5 days, a sample size of 42 patients/group (84 total) would yield 80% power to detect a difference of 0.928 days in average LOS between groups. Allowing for a dropout rate of up to 25%, recruitment was originally planned for 56 patients/group. Power calculations were performed using nQuery 8.5 (Statistical Solutions Ltd; Cork, Ireland).||||<0.05
91077810|NCT02913105|182041131|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.608|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.221||0.007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.975|-0.242|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 84||-0.242|-0.975|0.0070
90812689|NCT02525939|181504402|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.07|||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|||Secondary endpoints were expressed as time to event and an analysis similar to that for the primary endpoint was conducted. In order to control the family-wise Type I error that results from the multiplicity of endpoints, the secondary endpoints were formally tested using the Hochberg's step-up procedure only if the primary analysis results in significant treatment effect at p\<0.05. Otherwise, statistical tests for the secondary endpoints were presented solely for illustrative purposes.||1.07|0.79|0.27
90812690|NCT02130986|181504421|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05||||0.87|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.87
90812691|NCT02130986|181504422|NON_INFERIORITY|Procalcitonin algorithm implementation increases or does not change the proportion of subjects who experience a composite endpoint of adverse outcomes by Day 30. The prespecified noninferiority margin is 4.5 percentage.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.015|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
90812692|NCT02130986|181504423|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|30.0||||||||30|-12.2|
90812693|NCT00762996|181504433|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"margin +/- 0.5 logMar lines~The range of non-inferiority for this value is 0.50 thus +/- 0.50 is considered non-inferior to the 0.0 mark.~logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMar) ideal is 0.0 and represents 20/20 Snellen acuity. logMar values \> 0.00 indicate vision poorer than the ideal and values \<0.00 indicate vision greater than the ideal."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.005287|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00976||||95.0|-0.01389|0.2447|||Mixed Models Analysis||logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMar) ideal is 0.0 and represents 20/20 Snellen acuity. logMar values \> 0.00 indicate vision poorer than the ideal and values \<0.00 indicate vision greater than the ideal.|Null Hypothesis: etafilcon A is greater than or equal to omafilcon A.||0.2447|-0.01389|
90812694|NCT00762996|181504434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4757|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2505||||95.0|0.05563|0.4757|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference is etafilcon A minus omafilcon A.|||0.4757|0.05563|
90812695|NCT01853072|181504438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|3.0|||Regression, Logistic||Parameter dispersion is the standard error for the odds ratio.|This endpoint was considered primary for United States (US) registration and secondary for European Union (EU) registration.||3.0|1.5|<0.001
90812696|NCT01853072|181504439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.3|||Regression, Logistic||Parameter dispersion is the standard error for the odds ratio.|This endpoint was considered primary for EU registration and secondary for US registration.||0.3|0.1|<0.001
90812697|NCT01287221|181504449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Given that there were no imbalances identified between the two groups at baseline and the slope estimates for the two treatment arms did not support assumption of normality, the analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||||0.82
91015758|NCT03671746|181914319|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The VAS model was adjusted for baseline levels as a covariate, which differed significantly between groups.||Sample size calculations were performed regarding LOS as this was the primary outcome measure. Using a significance level of 0.05 and an assumed SD of 1.5 days, a sample size of 42 patients per group (84 total) would yield 80% power to detect a difference of 0.928 days in average LOS between groups. Allowing for a dropout rate of up to 25%, recruitment was originally planned for 56 patients per group. Power calculations were performed using nQuery 8.5 (Statistical Solutions Ltd; Cork, Ireland).||||<0.05
91077811|NCT02913105|182041131|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.686|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.244||0.006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.091|-0.281|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 112 (EOS)||-0.281|-1.091|0.0060
91078292|NCT00388297|182042080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
91078293|NCT00388297|182042080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.50
90812698|NCT01287221|181504450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Given that there were no imbalances identified between the two groups at baseline and the slope estimates for the two treatment arms did not support assumption of normality, the analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||||0.62
90812699|NCT01287221|181504451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Given that there were no imbalances identified between the two groups at baseline and the slope estimates for the two treatment arms did not support assumption of normality, the analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||||0.23
90812700|NCT01287221|181504452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Given that there were no imbalances identified between the two groups at baseline and the slope estimates for the two treatment arms did not support assumption of normality, the analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||||0.31
90812701|NCT01287221|181504453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Given that there were no imbalances identified between the two groups at baseline and the slope estimates for the two treatment arms did not support assumption of normality, the analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||||0.65
90812702|NCT01287221|181504454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Given that there were no imbalances identified between the two groups at baseline and the slope estimates for the two treatment arms did not support assumption of normality, the analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||||0.61
90812703|NCT01287221|181504455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Given that there were no imbalances identified between the two groups at baseline and the slope estimates for the two treatment arms did not support assumption of normality, the analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||||0.22
90812704|NCT00657150|181504456|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority Analysis with NI margin 7.7%|Risk Difference (Percentage)|-1.08|||<|0.0001||95.0|-3.79|1.64||Superiority p-value = 0.4367|Normal approximation|Normal approximation of independent binomial distribution without stratification||Risk difference versus Enoxaparin||1.64|-3.79|< 0.0001
90812705|NCT00657150|181504457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.91||||0.029||95.0|-3.64|-0.19|||Normal approximation|Normal approximation of independent binomial distribution without stratification||||-0.19|-3.64|0.029
90812706|NCT00657150|181504458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (Percentage)|-1.79||||0.0358||95.0|-3.47|-0.12|||Normal approximation|Normal approximation of independent binomial distribution without stratification||Risk difference versus Enoxaparin||-0.12|-3.47|0.0358
91078294|NCT00388297|182042081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.50
91078295|NCT00388297|182042081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.49
90812707|NCT00657150|181504459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (Percentage)|-0.96||||0.4839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.65|1.73|||Normal approximation|Normal approximation of independent binomial distribution without stratification||Risk difference versus Enoxaparin||1.73|-3.65|0.4839
90812708|NCT00657150|181504460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0612||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison versus Enoxaparin||||0.0612
90812709|NCT00657150|181504461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6231||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison versus Enoxaparin||||0.6231
90812710|NCT00657150|181504462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4977||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison versus Enoxaparin||||0.4977
90812711|NCT00657150|181504463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.687||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison versus Enoxaparin||||0.6870
90812712|NCT00657150|181504464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4022||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison versus Enoxaparin for the category major bleeding events||||0.4022
90812713|NCT00657150|181504464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Absolute Difference (Percentage)|0.8||||0.3305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|2.3|||Normal approximation|Normal approximation of independent binomial distribution||Absolute difference versus Enoxaparin for the category major and clinically relevant bleeding events||2.3|-0.8|0.3305
90812714|NCT00657150|181504464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Absolute Difference (Percentage)|1.4||||0.2626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|3.9|||Normal approximation|Normal approximation of independent binomial distribution||Absolute difference versus Enoxaparin for the category any bleeding events||3.9|-1.1|0.2626
90812715|NCT00432744|181504471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Kendall's Tau B|0.015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.48||Two-sided Test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Positive value of Tau-B would favor CoQ.|Study intended to accrue 40 subjects, but only obtained 14 evaluable on this endpoint.||0.48|-0.44|0.95
90812716|NCT00432744|181504472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Kendall's Tau B|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.72|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||A positive value would favor CoQ.|Study intended to accrue 40 subjects, but only obtained 14 evaluable on this endpoint.||0.72|-0.12|0.18
90812717|NCT00432744|181504473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42||||||The Hotelling T-sq=1.74 and 42% of the rerandomizations to groups of 7 and 8 had Hotelling T-sq of at least 1.74. This is the standard method for permutation tests. The large sample null is chi-sq with 2 df, which has a mean=2.|Non-parametric Hotelling T-square|||The actual study was powered to have 40 participants but only 24 participated and of these only 15 had outcome data.||||0.42
90812718|NCT02649192|181504475|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: No difference between intervention and placebo groups in the ratio of IgA/IgG1 at day 56 in 2015-16 season||||0.90
90812719|NCT02649192|181504475|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: No difference between intervention and placebo groups in the ratio of IgA/IgG1 at day 56 in 2016-17 season||||0.49
90812720|NCT02649192|181504475|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: No difference between intervention and placebo groups in the ratio of IgA/IgG1 at day 56 in 2017-18 season||||0.50
90812721|NCT02649192|181504475|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: No difference between intervention and placebo groups in the ratio of IgA/IgG2 at day 56 in 2015-16 season||||0.90
90812722|NCT02649192|181504475|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: No difference between intervention and placebo groups in the ratio of IgA/IgG2 at day 56 in 2016-17 season||||0.76
90812723|NCT02649192|181504475|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: No difference between intervention and placebo groups in the ratio of IgA/IgG2 at day 56 in 2017-18 season||||0.65
90812724|NCT02649192|181504475|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: No difference between intervention and placebo groups in the ratio of IgA/IgG3 at day 56 in 2015-16 season||||0.90
90812725|NCT02649192|181504475|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: No difference between intervention and placebo groups in the ratio of IgA/IgG3 at day 56 in 2016-17 season||||0.76
90812726|NCT02649192|181504475|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: No difference between intervention and placebo groups in the ratio of IgA/IgG3 at day 56 in 2017-18 season||||0.54
90812727|NCT02649192|181504475|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: No difference between intervention and placebo groups in the ratio of IgA/IgM at day 56 in 2015-16 season||||0.90
91015759|NCT03671746|181914320|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.564|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|A Kenward-Roger adjustment was used to correct for negative bias in the standard errors and degrees of freedom calculations.||Sample size calculations were performed regarding LOS as this was the primary outcome measure. Using a significance level of 0.05 and an assumed SD of 1.5 days, a sample size of 42 patients per group (84 total) would yield 80% power to detect a difference of 0.928 days in average LOS between groups. Allowing for a dropout rate of up to 25%, recruitment was originally planned for 56 patients per group. Power calculations were performed using nQuery 8.5 (Statistical Solutions Ltd; Cork, Ireland).|Group-level summary statistics were calculated for demographic and clinical variables, and differences between groups were evaluated using two-sample t-tests for quantitative measures and Fisher's exact tests for categorical measures, as appropriate. Time and group comparisons for each cytokine were made using linear mixed models, with and without adjusting for selected covariates. Patient demographic variables and clinical outcomes of interest were considered for inclusion as covariates in each model but were only retained if they significantly improved the model. Linear mixed models were log-transformed, double-log-transformed, or square-root-transformed to correct for right skewness, as appropriate. Likelihood ratio testing and Akaike information criterion were used to select appropriate covariance structures in each case. All analyses were completed in SAS 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc.; Cary, NC, USA).|||=0.564
91077812|NCT02913105|182041132|OTHER|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.009||0.9927|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.015|0.014|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 28||0.014|-0.015|0.9927
91078296|NCT00388297|182042082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.99
90812728|NCT02649192|181504475|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: No difference between intervention and placebo groups in the ratio of IgA/IgM at day 56 in 2016-17 season||||0.95
90812729|NCT02649192|181504475|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: No difference between intervention and placebo groups in the ratio of IgA/IgM at day 56 in 2017-18 season||||0.34
90812730|NCT02649192|181504476|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference in Seroconversion R|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||||Treatment group minus placebo|H1N1||0|0|
90812731|NCT02649192|181504476|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference in Seroconversion R|-23.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.7|6.2|||||Treatment group minus placebo|H1N1||6.2|-51.7|
90812732|NCT02649192|181504476|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference in Seroconversion R|-13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.4|26.5|||||Treatment group minus placebo|H1N1||26.5|-49.4|
90812733|NCT02649192|181504476|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference in Seroconversion R|-10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.1|56.1|||||Treatment group minus placebo|H3N2||56.1|-70.1|
90812734|NCT02649192|181504476|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference in Seroconversion R|-8.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.8|20.6|||||Treatment group minus placebo|H3N2||20.6|-38.8|
90812735|NCT02649192|181504476|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference in Seroconversion R|22.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|57.9|||||Treatment group minus placebo|H3N2||57.9|-17.5|
90812736|NCT02649192|181504476|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference in Seroconversion R|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||||Treatment group minus placebo|B/Phuket||0|0|
90812737|NCT02649192|181504476|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference in Seroconversion R|-26.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.1|5.8|||||Treatment group minus placebo|B/Phuket||5.8|-54.1|
90812738|NCT02649192|181504476|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference in Seroconversion R|16.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.1|53.3|||||Treatment group minus placebo|B/Phuket||53.3|-23.1|
90812739|NCT02649192|181504476|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference in Seroconversion R|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||||Treatment group minus placebo|B/Brisbane||0|0|
90812740|NCT02649192|181504476|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference in Seroconversion R|-26.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.1|5.8|||||Treatment group minus placebo|B/Brisbane||5.8|-54.1|
90812741|NCT02649192|181504476|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference in Seroconversion R|-8.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.4|30.5|||||Treatment group minus placebo|B/Brisbane||30.5|-45.4|
90812742|NCT03849690|181504480|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) performed on natural log(ln)-transformed TAK-906 Cmax which exponentiated to provide estimates on original scale. ANOVA model included treatment as fixed effect and participant as random effect. Each ANOVA included calculation of least-squares means(LSM) and difference between treatment LSM. Geometric mean ratios and 90% confidence interval (CI) were determined by exponentiation of appropriate estimates for difference between treatments in log-transformed parameters.|Geometric mean ratio|0.87||||0.3011|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7|1.09|||ANOVA|||||1.09|0.70|0.3011
90812743|NCT03849690|181504481|OTHER|ANOVA was performed on ln-transformed TAK-906 AUClast which were exponentiated to provide estimates on original scale. ANOVA model included treatment as fixed effect and participant as a random effect. Each ANOVA included calculation of LSM and difference between treatment LSM. Geometric mean ratios and 90 percent (%) CI were determined by exponentiation of appropriate estimates for difference between treatments in log-transformed parameters.|Geometric mean ratio|0.88||||0.0865|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.77|0.99|||ANOVA|||||0.99|0.77|0.0865
90812744|NCT03849690|181504482|OTHER|ANOVA was performed on ln-transformed TAK-906 AUC∞ which were exponentiated to provide estimates on original scale. ANOVA model included treatment as fixed effect and participant as a random effect. Each ANOVA included calculation of LSM and difference between treatment LSM. Geometric mean ratios and 90% CI were determined by exponentiation of appropriate estimates for difference between treatments in log-transformed parameters.|Geometric mean ratio|0.88||||0.3011|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.78|1.0|||ANOVA|||||1.00|0.78|0.3011
90812745|NCT01319721|181504487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
90812746|NCT01319721|181504488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
90812747|NCT01319721|181504489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
90812748|NCT01319721|181504490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
90812749|NCT01319721|181504491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
90812750|NCT00468845|181504497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1378||95.0||||Weighted Z-score test method of Fisher (1998) and Cui et al (1999)applied to maintain alpha level. A step down procedure for multiple comparisons to control the maximum experiment wise type I error rate at 0.05 level. 300mg tested prior to 150mg.|ANOVA|||||||0.1378
91078297|NCT00388297|182042082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.85
90812751|NCT00468845|181504497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.471||95.0||||Weighted Z-score test method of Fisher (1998) and Cui et al (1999)applied to maintain alpha level. A step down procedure for multiple comparisons to control the maximum experiment wise type I error rate at 0.05 level. 300mg tested prior to 150mg.|ANOVA|||||||0.4710
90812752|NCT00468845|181504498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7752||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||24 hours PS||||0.7752
90812753|NCT00468845|181504498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3375||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||24 hours PS||||0.3375
90812754|NCT00468845|181504498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7029||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||48 hours PS||||0.7029
90812755|NCT00468845|181504498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8618||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||48 hours PS||||0.8618
90812756|NCT00468845|181504498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2117||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||72 hours PS||||0.2117
91078298|NCT00388297|182042083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.43
91078299|NCT00388297|182042083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.39
90812757|NCT00468845|181504498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6255||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||72 hours PS||||0.6255
90812758|NCT00468845|181504498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0942||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||96 hours PS||||0.0942
90812759|NCT00468845|181504498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9907||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||96 hours PS||||0.9907
90812760|NCT00468845|181504498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4678||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||120 hours PS||||0.4678
90812761|NCT00468845|181504498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.55||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||120 hours PS||||0.5500
90812762|NCT00468845|181504498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9333||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||144 hours PS||||0.9333
90812763|NCT00468845|181504498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7396||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||144 hours PS||||0.7396
90812764|NCT00468845|181504498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2932||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Discharge||||0.2932
90812765|NCT00468845|181504498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0164||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Discharge||||0.0164
90812766|NCT00468845|181504498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2468||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 14||||0.2468
90812767|NCT00468845|181504498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7022||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 14||||0.7022
90812768|NCT00468845|181504498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7257||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 28||||0.7257
90812769|NCT00468845|181504498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3854||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 28||||0.3854
90812770|NCT00468845|181504499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5997||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||24 hours PS||||0.5997
90812771|NCT00468845|181504499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8582||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||24 hours PS||||0.8582
90812772|NCT00468845|181504499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3704||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||48 hours PS||||0.3704
90812773|NCT00468845|181504499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9747||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||48 hours PS||||0.9747
90812774|NCT00468845|181504499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2033||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||72 hours PS||||0.2033
90812775|NCT00468845|181504499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2752||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||72 hours PS||||0.2752
90812776|NCT00468845|181504499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0183||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||96 hours PS||||0.0183
90812777|NCT00468845|181504499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6906||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||96 hours PS||||0.6906
91015760|NCT03671746|181914321|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.118|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|A Kenward-Roger adjustment was used to correct for negative bias in the standard errors and degrees of freedom calculations.||Sample size calculations were performed regarding LOS as this was the primary outcome measure. Using a significance level of 0.05 and an assumed SD of 1.5 days, a sample size of 42 patients per group (84 total) would yield 80% power to detect a difference of 0.928 days in average LOS between groups. Allowing for a dropout rate of up to 25%, recruitment was originally planned for 56 patients per group. Power calculations were performed using nQuery 8.5 (Statistical Solutions Ltd; Cork, Ireland).|Group-level summary statistics were calculated for demographic and clinical variables, and differences between groups were evaluated using two-sample t-tests for quantitative measures and Fisher's exact tests for categorical measures, as appropriate. Time and group comparisons for each cytokine were made using linear mixed models, with and without adjusting for selected covariates. Patient demographic variables and clinical outcomes of interest were considered for inclusion as covariates in each model but were only retained if they significantly improved the model. Linear mixed models were log-transformed, double-log-transformed, or square-root-transformed to correct for right skewness, as appropriate. Likelihood ratio testing and Akaike information criterion were used to select appropriate covariance structures in each case. All analyses were completed in SAS 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc.; Cary, NC, USA).|||=0.118
91015761|NCT03671746|181914322|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.215|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|A Kenward-Roger adjustment was used to correct for negative bias in the standard errors and degrees of freedom calculations.||Sample size calculations were performed regarding LOS as this was the primary outcome measure. Using a significance level of 0.05 and an assumed SD of 1.5 days, a sample size of 42 patients per group (84 total) would yield 80% power to detect a difference of 0.928 days in average LOS between groups. Allowing for a dropout rate of up to 25%, recruitment was originally planned for 56 patients per group. Power calculations were performed using nQuery 8.5 (Statistical Solutions Ltd; Cork, Ireland).|Group-level summary statistics were calculated for demographic and clinical variables, and differences between groups were evaluated using two-sample t-tests for quantitative measures and Fisher's exact tests for categorical measures, as appropriate. Time and group comparisons for each cytokine were made using linear mixed models, with and without adjusting for selected covariates. Patient demographic variables and clinical outcomes of interest were considered for inclusion as covariates in each model but were only retained if they significantly improved the model. Linear mixed models were log-transformed, double-log-transformed, or square-root-transformed to correct for right skewness, as appropriate. Likelihood ratio testing and Akaike information criterion were used to select appropriate covariance structures in each case. All analyses were completed in SAS 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc.; Cary, NC, USA).|||0.215
91077813|NCT02913105|182041132|OTHER|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.014|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.2794|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.007|0.035|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 42||0.035|-0.007|0.2794
90812778|NCT00468845|181504499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5446||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||120 hours PS||||0.5446
90812779|NCT00468845|181504499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4852||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||120 hours PS||||0.4852
90812780|NCT00468845|181504499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5879||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||144 hours PS||||0.5879
90812781|NCT00468845|181504499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7699||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||144 hours PS||||0.7699
90812782|NCT00468845|181504500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9676||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||||||0.9676
90812783|NCT00468845|181504500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4944||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||||||0.4944
90812784|NCT00468845|181504501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4801||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||||||0.4801
90812785|NCT00468845|181504501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8832||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||||||0.8832
90812786|NCT00468845|181504502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2125||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||8 Hours PS||||0.2125
90812787|NCT00468845|181504502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7602||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||8 Hour PS||||0.7602
90812788|NCT00468845|181504502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4053||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||16 Hours PS||||0.4053
90812789|NCT00468845|181504502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4147||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||16 Hours PS||||0.4147
90812790|NCT00468845|181504502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5556||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||24 Hours PS||||0.5556
90812791|NCT00468845|181504502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.482||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||24 Hours PS||||0.4820
90812792|NCT00468845|181504502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5088||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||32 Hours PS||||0.5088
90812793|NCT00468845|181504502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.39||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||32 Hours PS||||0.3900
90812794|NCT00468845|181504502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9659||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||40 Hours PS||||0.9659
90812795|NCT00468845|181504502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3968||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||40 Hours PS||||0.3968
90812796|NCT00468845|181504502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8308||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||48 Hours PS||||0.8308
90812797|NCT00468845|181504502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0902||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||48 Hours PS||||0.0902
90812798|NCT00468845|181504503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4388||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||||||0.4388
90812799|NCT00468845|181504503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3364||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||||||0.3364
90812800|NCT00468845|181504504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2409||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||24 hours PS||||0.2409
90812801|NCT00468845|181504504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1654||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||24 hours PS||||0.1654
90812802|NCT00468845|181504504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.111||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||48 hours PS||||0.1110
91055118|NCT02906930|181992248|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the in-trial observation period. The estimated treatment effect includes the effect of any additional anti-diabetic medication for all randomised subjects regardless of premature trial product discontinuation (treatment policy estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-0.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.6||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0.|Pattern mixed model||Oral Semaglutide 7 mg - Placebo|The analysis was based on a pattern mixture model using multiple imputation to impute missing data for week 26, assuming that the missing data mechanism was missing at random within the groups used for the imputation. The imputed data sets were analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c value as covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete data sets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||-0.6|-1.1|<0.0001
90812803|NCT00468845|181504504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0598||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||48 hours PS||||0.0598
90812804|NCT00468845|181504504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0398||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Till Discharge||||0.0398
90812805|NCT00468845|181504504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0623||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Till Discharge||||0.0623
90812806|NCT00468845|181504505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.273||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||0-24 Hours PS||||0.2730
90812807|NCT00468845|181504505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1015||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||0-24 Hours PS||||0.1015
90812808|NCT00468845|181504505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2438||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||24-48 Hours PS||||0.2438
90812809|NCT00468845|181504505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0102||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||24-48 Hours PS||||0.0102
90812810|NCT00468845|181504505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2063||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||48-72 Hours PS||||0.2063
90812811|NCT00468845|181504505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0387||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||48-72 Hours PS||||0.0387
90812812|NCT00468845|181504506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5995||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||24 hours PS||||0.5995
90812813|NCT00468845|181504506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9104||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||24 Hours PS||||0.9104
90812814|NCT00468845|181504506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2177||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||48 Hours PS||||0.2177
90812815|NCT00468845|181504506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.177||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||48 hours PS||||0.1770
90812816|NCT00468845|181504506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1229||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||72 hours PS||||0.1229
90812817|NCT00468845|181504506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1274||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||72 hours PS||||0.1274
90812818|NCT00468845|181504506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0568||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||1st Week PS||||0.0568
90812819|NCT00468845|181504506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0354||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||1st Week PS||||0.0354
90812820|NCT00468845|181504506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4269||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||2nd Week PS||||0.4269
91055119|NCT02906930|181992248|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the in-trial observation period. The estimated treatment effect includes the effect of any additional anti-diabetic medication for all randomised subjects regardless of premature trial product discontinuation (treatment policy estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-0.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.4||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0.|Pattern mixed model||Oral Semaglutide 3 mg - Placebo|The analysis was based on a pattern mixture model using multiple imputation to impute missing data for week 26, assuming that the missing data mechanism was missing at random within the groups used for the imputation. The imputed data sets were analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c value as covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete data sets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||-0.4|-0.8|<0.0001
91077814|NCT02913105|182041132|OTHER|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.007||0.9032|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.012|0.013|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 56||0.013|-0.012|0.9032
90812821|NCT00468845|181504506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2058||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||2nd Week PS||||0.2058
90812822|NCT00468845|181504506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8215||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||3rd Week PS||||0.8215
90812823|NCT00468845|181504506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5331||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||3rd Week PS||||0.5331
90812824|NCT00468845|181504506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7365||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||4th Week PS||||0.7365
90812825|NCT00468845|181504506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9989||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||4th Week PS||||0.9989
90812826|NCT00468845|181504506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2501||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Till Discharge||||0.2501
90812827|NCT00468845|181504506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6021||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Till Discharge||||0.6021
90812828|NCT00468845|181504507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6613||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Surgery day (prior to first dose)||||0.6613
90812829|NCT00468845|181504507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1311||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Surgery day (prior to first dose)||||0.1311
90812830|NCT00468845|181504507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6574||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Surgery day (1 hour after dosing)||||0.6574
90812831|NCT00468845|181504507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6949||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Surgery day (1 hour after dosing)||||0.6949
90812832|NCT00468845|181504507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2008||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 1 PS||||0.2008
90812833|NCT00468845|181504507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3022||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 1 PS||||0.3022
90812834|NCT00468845|181504507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6382||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 2 PS||||0.6382
90812835|NCT00468845|181504507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8624||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 2 PS||||0.8624
90812836|NCT00468845|181504507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3858||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 3 PS||||0.3858
90812837|NCT00468845|181504507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4814||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 3 PS||||0.4814
90812838|NCT00468845|181504507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.952||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 4 PS||||0.9520
90812839|NCT00468845|181504507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2315||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 4 PS||||0.2315
90812840|NCT00468845|181504507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7061||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 5 PS||||0.7061
90812841|NCT00468845|181504507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2908||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 5 PS||||0.2908
90812842|NCT00468845|181504507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4782||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Discharge||||0.4782
90812843|NCT00468845|181504507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.813||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Discharge||||0.8130
90812844|NCT00468845|181504508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.894||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||24 hours PS||||0.8940
90812845|NCT00468845|181504508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5938||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||24 hours PS||||0.5938
90812846|NCT00468845|181504508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4306||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||48 hours PS||||0.4306
90812847|NCT00468845|181504508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5899||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||48 hours PS||||0.5899
90812848|NCT00468845|181504508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2209||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||72 hours PS||||0.2209
90812849|NCT00468845|181504508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7145||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||72 hours PS||||0.7145
90812850|NCT00468845|181504508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1022||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||1st Week PS||||0.1022
90812851|NCT00468845|181504508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7243||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||1st Week PS||||0.7243
90812852|NCT00468845|181504508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.231||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||2nd Week PS||||0.2310
90812853|NCT00468845|181504508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9192||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||2nd Week PS||||0.9192
90812854|NCT00468845|181504508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3214||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||3rd Week PS||||0.3214
90812855|NCT00468845|181504508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8641||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||3rd Week PS||||0.8641
90812856|NCT00468845|181504508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3024||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||4th Week PS||||0.3024
90812857|NCT00468845|181504508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7359||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||4th Week PS||||0.7359
90812858|NCT00468845|181504508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4303||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Till Discharge||||0.4303
90812859|NCT00468845|181504508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2133||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Till Discharge||||0.2133
90812860|NCT00468845|181504509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5682||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||8 hours PS||||0.5682
90812861|NCT00468845|181504509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1005||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||8 hours PS||||0.1005
90812862|NCT00468845|181504509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8261||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||16 hours PS||||0.8261
91055120|NCT02906930|181992248|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The estimated treatment effect excludes the effect of any rescue medication (hypothetical estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-0.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.5||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0.|MMRM||Oral Semaglutide 3 mg - placebo|The analysis was based on a mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM) that assumed data to be missing at random. As dependent variables, the MMRM model included all post-baseline values collected at scheduled visits up to and including week 26. The independent effects were treatment and region as categorical fixed effects and the baseline HbA1c value as a covariate, all nested within visit, and an unstructured residual covariance matrix.||-0.5|-0.9|<0.0001
90812863|NCT00468845|181504509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9981||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||16 hours PS||||0.9981
90812864|NCT00468845|181504509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8884||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||24 hours PS||||0.8884
90812865|NCT00468845|181504509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4507||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||24 hours PS||||0.4507
90812866|NCT00468845|181504509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2994||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||32 hours PS||||0.2994
90812867|NCT00468845|181504509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4371||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||32 hours PS||||0.4371
90812868|NCT00468845|181504509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8295||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||40 hours PS||||0.8295
90812869|NCT00468845|181504509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8783||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||40 hours PS||||0.8783
90812870|NCT00468845|181504509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2161||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||48 hours PS||||0.2161
90812871|NCT00468845|181504509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.044||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||48 hours PS||||0.0440
90812872|NCT00468845|181504509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3855||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||56 hours PS||||0.3855
90812873|NCT00468845|181504509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.201||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||56 hours PS||||0.2010
90812874|NCT00468845|181504509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7104||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||64 hours PS||||0.7104
90812875|NCT00468845|181504509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6107||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||64 hours PS||||0.6107
90812876|NCT00468845|181504509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6705||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||72 hours PS||||0.6705
90812877|NCT00468845|181504509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2083||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||72 hours PS||||0.2083
90812878|NCT00468845|181504509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3234||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||80 hours PS||||0.3234
90812879|NCT00468845|181504509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5938||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||80 hours PS||||0.5938
90812880|NCT00468845|181504509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9711||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||88 hours PS||||0.9711
90812881|NCT00468845|181504509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4869||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||88 hours PS||||0.4869
90812882|NCT00468845|181504509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7439||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||96 hours PS||||0.7439
90812883|NCT00468845|181504509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8045||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||96 hours PS||||0.8045
90812884|NCT00468845|181504509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5925||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||104 hours PS||||0.5925
90812885|NCT00468845|181504509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.683||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||104 hours PS||||0.6830
91078300|NCT00316914|182042085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038||95.0||||A priori threshold for the p-value is 0.05 and there was no adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Chi-squared|||Comparison in Percentage of Patients With Oxaliplatin-induced Grade 2+ Chronic Neuropathic Adverse Event between Arms||||0.038
90812886|NCT00468845|181504509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8266||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||112 hours PS||||0.8266
90812887|NCT00468845|181504509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1929||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||112 hours PS||||0.1929
90812888|NCT00468845|181504509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7071||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||120 hours PS||||0.7071
90812889|NCT00468845|181504509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9367||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||120 hours PS||||0.9367
90812890|NCT00468845|181504509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6046||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||128 hours PS||||0.6046
90812891|NCT00468845|181504509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5119||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||128 hours PS||||0.5119
90812892|NCT00468845|181504510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6966||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 1 PS||||0.6966
90812893|NCT00468845|181504510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1808||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 1 PS||||0.1808
90812894|NCT00468845|181504510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2616||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 2 PS||||0.2616
90812895|NCT00468845|181504510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1014||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 2 PS||||0.1014
90812896|NCT00468845|181504510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4401||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 3 PS||||0.4401
90812897|NCT00468845|181504510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5615||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 3 PS||||0.5615
90812898|NCT00468845|181504510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7615||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 4 PS||||0.7615
90812899|NCT00468845|181504510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6204||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 4 PS||||0.6204
90812900|NCT00468845|181504510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8766||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 5 PS||||0.8766
90812901|NCT00468845|181504510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1717||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 5 PS||||0.1717
90812902|NCT00468845|181504510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4065||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Discharge||||0.4065
90812903|NCT00468845|181504510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0746||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Discharge||||0.0746
90812904|NCT00468845|181504511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2201||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 2 PS||||0.2201
90812905|NCT00468845|181504511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0606||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 2 PS||||0.0606
90812906|NCT00468845|181504511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5303||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 3 PS||||0.5303
90812907|NCT00468845|181504511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2227||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 3 PS||||0.2227
90812908|NCT00468845|181504511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8237||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 4 PS||||0.8237
90812909|NCT00468845|181504511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7476||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 4 PS||||0.7476
91078301|NCT00316914|182042086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0503||95.0|||||Log Rank|||Comparison of time to Onset of Grade 2+ Chronic Neurotoxicity between Arms||||0.0503
90812910|NCT00468845|181504511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6882||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 5 PS||||0.6882
90812911|NCT00468845|181504511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9689||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 5 PS||||0.9689
90812912|NCT00468845|181504511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.501||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 6 PS||||0.5010
90812913|NCT00468845|181504511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9143||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 6 PS||||0.9143
90812914|NCT00468845|181504511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7381||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 7 PS||||0.7381
90812915|NCT00468845|181504511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5336||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 7 PS||||0.5336
90812916|NCT00468845|181504511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6479||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||2nd Week PS (Average)||||0.6479
90812917|NCT00468845|181504511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1133||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||2nd Week PS (Average)||||0.1133
90812918|NCT00468845|181504511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7637||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||3rd Week PS (Average)||||0.7637
91077815|NCT02913105|182041132|OTHER|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.009|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011||0.4163|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.009|0.027|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 84||0.027|-0.009|0.4163
90812919|NCT00468845|181504511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1056||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||3rd Week PS (Average)||||0.1056
90812920|NCT00468845|181504511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8079||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||4th Week PS (Average)||||0.8079
90812921|NCT00468845|181504511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0917||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||4th Week PS (Average)||||0.0917
90812922|NCT00468845|181504512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7511||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Discharge||||0.7511
90812923|NCT00468845|181504512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6742||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Discharge||||0.6742
90812924|NCT00468845|181504512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3808||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 7||||0.3808
90812925|NCT00468845|181504512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7021||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 7||||0.7021
90812926|NCT00468845|181504512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0045||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 14||||0.0045
90812927|NCT00468845|181504512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7916||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 14||||0.7916
90812928|NCT00468845|181504512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3682||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 28||||0.3682
90812929|NCT00468845|181504512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1419||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 28||||0.1419
90812930|NCT00468845|181504513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3323||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 2 PS||||0.3323
90812931|NCT00468845|181504513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5662||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 2 PS||||0.5662
90812932|NCT00468845|181504513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9538||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 3 PS||||0.9538
90812933|NCT00468845|181504513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4592||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 3 PS||||0.4592
90812934|NCT00468845|181504513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4793||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 4 PS||||0.4793
90812935|NCT00468845|181504513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8517||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 4 PS||||0.8517
90812936|NCT00468845|181504513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1829||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 5 PS||||0.1829
90812937|NCT00468845|181504513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3544||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 5 PS||||0.3544
90812938|NCT00468845|181504513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1718||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 6 PS||||0.1718
90812939|NCT00468845|181504513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5078||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 6 PS||||0.5078
90812940|NCT00468845|181504513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2443||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 7 PS||||0.2443
90812941|NCT00468845|181504513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8296||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 7 PS||||0.8296
90812942|NCT00468845|181504513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3243||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||2nd Week PS (Average)||||0.3243
90812943|NCT00468845|181504513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3755||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||2nd Week PS (Average)||||0.3755
90812944|NCT00468845|181504513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9584||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||3rd Week PS (Average)||||0.9584
90812945|NCT00468845|181504513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1187||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||3rd Week PS (Average)||||0.1187
90812946|NCT00468845|181504513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7915||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||4th Week PS (Average)||||0.7915
90812947|NCT00468845|181504513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0703||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||4th Week PS (Average)||||0.0703
90812948|NCT00468845|181504514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1975||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Discharge;||||0.1975
90812949|NCT00468845|181504514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2784||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Discharge;||||0.2784
91078302|NCT00316914|182042087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4048||95.0|||||Log Rank|||Comparison of Time to Onset of Grade 3+ Chronic Neurotoxicity between Arms||||0.4048
90812950|NCT00468845|181504514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0271||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 7||||0.0271
90812951|NCT00468845|181504514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0881||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 7||||0.0881
90812952|NCT00468845|181504514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0159||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 14||||0.0159
90812953|NCT00468845|181504514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.187||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 14||||0.1870
90812954|NCT00468845|181504514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1752||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 28||||0.1752
90812955|NCT00468845|181504514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6923||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 28||||0.6923
90812956|NCT00468845|181504517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6295||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Discharge||||0.6295
90812957|NCT00468845|181504517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.689||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Discharge||||0.6890
90812958|NCT00468845|181504517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5094||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 7||||0.5094
90812959|NCT00468845|181504517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8741||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 7||||0.8741
90812960|NCT00468845|181504517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0214||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 14||||0.0214
90812961|NCT00468845|181504517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9366||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 14||||0.9366
90812962|NCT00468845|181504517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7833||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 28||||0.7833
90812963|NCT00468845|181504517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2983||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 28||||0.2983
90812964|NCT00468845|181504520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6861||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for pooled centers and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Surgery Day||||0.6861
90812965|NCT00468845|181504520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9905||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test adjusted for pooled centers and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Surgery Day||||0.9905
90812966|NCT00468845|181504521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4264||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test adjusted for pooled centers and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 1 PS||||0.4264
90812967|NCT00468845|181504521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3045||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test adjusted for pooled centers and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 1 PS||||0.3045
90812968|NCT00468845|181504522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0714||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test adjusted for pooled centers and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 2 PS||||0.0714
90812969|NCT00468845|181504522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4455||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test adjusted for pooled centers and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 2 PS||||0.4455
90812970|NCT00468845|181504523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7418||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test adjusted for pooled centers and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 3 PS||||0.7418
90812971|NCT00468845|181504523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5154||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test adjusted for pooled centers and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 3 PS||||0.5154
90812972|NCT00468845|181504524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6715||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test adjusted for pooled centers and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 4 PS||||0.6715
90812973|NCT00468845|181504524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9013||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test adjusted for pooled centers and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 4 PS||||0.9013
90812974|NCT00468845|181504525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9126||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test adjusted for pooled centers and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 5 PS||||0.9126
91078303|NCT00316914|182042088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6556||95.0|||||Log Rank|||Comparison of Average Duration of Chronic Neuropathic Toxicity between Arms||||0.6556
91078304|NCT00316914|182042089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3238||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of Percentage of patients discontinuing therapy for chronic neurotoxicity between Arms||||0.3238
90812975|NCT00468845|181504525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test adjusted for pooled centers and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 5 PS||||1.0000
90812976|NCT00468845|181504526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1233||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test adjusted for pooled centers and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Discharge||||0.1233
90812977|NCT00468845|181504526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1666||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test adjusted for pooled centers and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Discharge||||0.1666
90812978|NCT00468845|181504527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0361||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test adjusted for pooled centers and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 7||||0.0361
90812979|NCT00468845|181504527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0797||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test adjusted for pooled centers and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 7||||0.0797
90812980|NCT00468845|181504528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0206||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test adjusted for pooled centers and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 14||||0.0206
90812981|NCT00468845|181504528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0011||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test adjusted for pooled centers and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 14||||0.0011
90812982|NCT00468845|181504530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3506||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||24 hours||||0.3506
90812983|NCT00468845|181504531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0287||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test adjusted for pooled centers and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 28||||0.0287
91077816|NCT02913105|182041132|OTHER|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011||0.7001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.022|0.014|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 112 (EOS)||0.014|-0.022|0.7001
90812984|NCT00468845|181504531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.227||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test adjusted for pooled centers and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 28||||0.2270
90812985|NCT00468845|181504532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1872||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Medication Subscale at Discharge||||0.1872
90812986|NCT00468845|181504532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3994||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Medication Subscale at Discharge||||0.3994
90812987|NCT00468845|181504532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0422||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Medication Subscale at Day 28||||0.0422
90812988|NCT00468845|181504532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3647||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Medication Subscale at Day 28||||0.3647
90812989|NCT00468845|181504532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1729||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Characteristics at Discharge||||0.1729
90812990|NCT00468845|181504532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2234||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Characteristics at Discharge||||0.2234
90812991|NCT00468845|181504532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.095||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Characteristics at Day 28||||0.0950
90812992|NCT00468845|181504532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4345||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Characteristics at Day 28||||0.4345
90812993|NCT00468845|181504532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.284||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Efficacy at Discharge||||0.2840
90812994|NCT00468845|181504532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6404||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Efficacy at Discharge||||0.6404
90812995|NCT00468845|181504532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.055||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Efficacy at Day 28||||0.0550
90812996|NCT00468845|181504532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4531||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Efficacy at Day 28||||0.4531
90812997|NCT00468845|181504533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9712||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Discharge||||0.9712
90812998|NCT00468845|181504533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0112||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Discharge||||0.0112
90812999|NCT00468845|181504533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.009||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 28||||0.0090
90813000|NCT00468845|181504533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.865||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 28||||0.8650
90813001|NCT00468845|181504534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8914||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||EQ-5D 1997 Discharge||||0.8914
90813002|NCT00468845|181504534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2214||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||EQ-5D 1997 Discharge||||0.2214
90813003|NCT00468845|181504534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1008||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||EQ-5D 1997 Day 28||||0.1008
90813004|NCT00468845|181504534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9135||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||EQ-5D 1997 Day 28||||0.9135
90813005|NCT00468845|181504534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5609||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||EQ-5D 2001 Discharge||||0.5609
90813006|NCT00468845|181504534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4047||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||EQ-5D 2001 Discharge||||0.4047
90813007|NCT00468845|181504534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1663||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||EQ-5D 2001 Day 28||||0.1663
90813008|NCT00468845|181504534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8364||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||EQ-5D 2001 Day 28||||0.8364
90813009|NCT00468845|181504535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7218||95.0|||||Log Rank|||Kaplan-Meier method was used for survival distribution estimation;||||0.7218
90813010|NCT00468845|181504535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4425||95.0|||||Log Rank|||Kaplan-Meier method was used for survival distribution estimation;||||0.4425
90813011|NCT00468845|181504536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7889||95.0|||||Log Rank|||Kaplan-Meier method was used for survival distribution estimation;||||0.7889
90813012|NCT00468845|181504536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1565||95.0|||||Log Rank|||Kaplan-Meier method was used for survival distribution estimation;||||0.1565
90813013|NCT00468845|181504537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6211||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Total subscale||||0.6211
90813014|NCT00468845|181504537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3687||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Total subscale||||0.3687
90813015|NCT00468845|181504537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7078||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Burning Spontaneous subscale||||0.7078
90813016|NCT00468845|181504537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8696||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Burning Spontaneous subscale||||0.8696
90813017|NCT00468845|181504537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.432||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Pressing Spontaneous subscale||||0.4320
90813018|NCT00468845|181504537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8843||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Pressing Spontaneous subscale||||0.8843
90813019|NCT00468845|181504537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6215||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Paroxysmal pain subscale||||0.6215
90813020|NCT00468845|181504537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2722||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Paroxysmal pain subscale||||0.2722
90813021|NCT00468845|181504537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.55||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Evoked Pain subscale||||0.5500
90813022|NCT00468845|181504537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9942||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Evoked Pain subscale||||0.9942
90813023|NCT00468845|181504537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0075||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Paresthesia/dysesthesia||||0.0075
90813024|NCT00468845|181504537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1464||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Paresthesia/dysesthesia||||0.1464
90813025|NCT00468845|181504538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9877||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers and salpingo-oophorectomy strata||Incidence of chronic PS pain at Month 3 PS.||||0.9877
91015762|NCT03671746|181914323|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.043|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|A Kenward-Roger adjustment was used to correct for negative bias in the standard errors and degrees of freedom calculations||Sample size calculations were performed regarding LOS as this was the primary outcome measure. Using a significance level of 0.05 and an assumed SD of 1.5 days, a sample size of 42 patients per group (84 total) would yield 80% power to detect a difference of 0.928 days in average LOS between groups. Allowing for a dropout rate of up to 25%, recruitment was originally planned for 56 patients per group. Power calculations were performed using nQuery 8.5 (Statistical Solutions Ltd; Cork, Ireland).|Group-level summary statistics were calculated for demographic and clinical variables, and differences between groups were evaluated using two-sample t-tests for quantitative measures and Fisher's exact tests for categorical measures, as appropriate. Time and group comparisons for each cytokine were made using linear mixed models, with and without adjusting for selected covariates. Patient demographic variables and clinical outcomes of interest were considered for inclusion as covariates in each model but were only retained if they significantly improved the model. Linear mixed models were log-transformed, double-log-transformed, or square-root-transformed to correct for right skewness, as appropriate. Likelihood ratio testing and Akaike information criterion were used to select appropriate covariance structures in each case. All analyses were completed in SAS 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc.; Cary, NC, USA).|||=0.043
91077817|NCT02913105|182041132|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.009||0.5367|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.009|0.021|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 28||0.021|-0.009|0.5367
90813026|NCT00468845|181504538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1334||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers and salpingo-oophorectomy strata||Incidence of chronic PS pain at Month 3 PS.||||0.1334
90813027|NCT00468845|181504538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3566||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers and salpingo-oophorectomy strata||Incidence of chronic PS pain at Month 6 PS.||||0.3566
90813028|NCT00468845|181504538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6262||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers and salpingo-oophorectomy strata||Incidence of chronic PS pain at Month 6 PS.||||0.6262
90813029|NCT00468845|181504539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9463||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Surgery day;||||0.9463
91078305|NCT00316914|182042092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7498||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of Percentage of Patients With Acute Neuropathic Adverse Event between Arms||||0.7498
90813030|NCT00468845|181504539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7347||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Surgery day;||||0.7347
90813031|NCT00468845|181504539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4132||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 1 PS;||||0.4132
90813032|NCT00468845|181504539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4929||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 1 PS;||||0.4929
90813033|NCT00468845|181504539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6003||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 2 PS;||||0.6003
90813034|NCT00468845|181504539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9343||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 2 PS;||||0.9343
90813035|NCT00468845|181504539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3838||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 3 PS;||||0.3838
90813036|NCT00468845|181504539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1351||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 3 PS;||||0.1351
90813037|NCT00468845|181504539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3343||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 4 PS;||||0.3343
90813038|NCT00468845|181504539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7948||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 4 PS;||||0.7948
90813039|NCT00468845|181504539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.809||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 5 PS;||||0.8090
90813040|NCT00468845|181504539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4035||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 5 PS;||||0.4035
90813041|NCT00468845|181504539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6009||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Discharge||||0.6009
90813042|NCT00468845|181504539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7597||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Discharge||||0.7597
90813043|NCT00468845|181504539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7804||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 7||||0.7804
90813044|NCT00468845|181504539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0463||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 7||||0.0463
90813045|NCT00468845|181504539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4951||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 14||||0.4951
90813046|NCT00468845|181504539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.303||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 14||||0.3030
90813047|NCT00468845|181504539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0104||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 28||||0.0104
90813048|NCT00468845|181504539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6978||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 28||||0.6978
90813049|NCT03840525|181504540|EQUIVALENCE|To estimate precision, 95%CI will be calculated using Wilson's score method, which uses asymptotic variance and is appropriate for small sample sizes100. The formula is as follows: (2np + z2 ± √(z2 + 4npq)) / 2(n+ z2). If the proportion of participants who rate the intervention as acceptable is 80% or greater, we will consider the intervention acceptable.|||||||||||||||||Descriptive statistics were conducted. No group comparisons were done due to the fact that this was a feasibility trial and not an efficacy trial. 80% was used as the benchmark for acceptability.|||
90813050|NCT03840525|181504541|EQUIVALENCE|To estimate precision, 95%CI will be calculated using Wilson's score method, which uses asymptotic variance and is appropriate for small sample sizes100. The formula is as follows: (2np + z2 ± √(z2 + 4npq)) / 2(n+ z2). If the proportion of participants who rate the intervention as acceptable is 80% or greater, we will consider the intervention acceptable.|||||||||||||||||Descriptive statistics was conducted to determine acceptability for both the qigong and sham qigong group. No between group comparisons were conducted. A benchmark of 80% was used to determine acceptability.|||
90813051|NCT03840525|181504542|EQUIVALENCE|To estimate precision, 95%CI will be calculated using Wilson's score method, which uses asymptotic variance and is appropriate for small sample sizes100. The formula is as follows: (2np + z2 ± √(z2 + 4npq)) / 2(n+ z2). If the proportion of participants who rate the intervention as acceptable is 80% or greater, we will consider the intervention acceptable.|||||||||||||||||Descriptive statistics were conducted to determine acceptability. Benchmark for acceptability was set at 80% of participant attending at least 70% of the classes.|||
91015763|NCT03671746|181914324|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.617|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|A Kenward-Roger adjustment was used to correct for negative bias in the standard errors and degrees of freedom calculations.||Sample size calculations were performed regarding LOS as this was the primary outcome measure. Using a significance level of 0.05 and an assumed SD of 1.5 days, a sample size of 42 patients per group (84 total) would yield 80% power to detect a difference of 0.928 days in average LOS between groups. Allowing for a dropout rate of up to 25%, recruitment was originally planned for 56 patients per group. Power calculations were performed using nQuery 8.5 (Statistical Solutions Ltd; Cork, Ireland).|Group-level summary statistics were calculated for demographic and clinical variables, and differences between groups were evaluated using two-sample t-tests for quantitative measures and Fisher's exact tests for categorical measures, as appropriate. Time and group comparisons for each cytokine were made using linear mixed models, with and without adjusting for selected covariates. Patient demographic variables and clinical outcomes of interest were considered for inclusion as covariates in each model but were only retained if they significantly improved the model. Linear mixed models were log-transformed, double-log-transformed, or square-root-transformed to correct for right skewness, as appropriate. Likelihood ratio testing and Akaike information criterion were used to select appropriate covariance structures in each case. All analyses were completed in SAS 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc.; Cary, NC, USA).|||=0.617
91055121|NCT02906930|181992248|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The estimated treatment effect excludes the effect of any rescue medication (hypothetical estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-1.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-1.0||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0.|MMRM||Oral Semaglutide 7 mg - placebo|The analysis was based on a mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM) that assumed data to be missing at random. As dependent variables, the MMRM model included all post-baseline values collected at scheduled visits up to and including week 26. The independent effects were treatment and region as categorical fixed effects and the baseline HbA1c value as a covariate, all nested within visit, and an unstructured residual covariance matrix.||-1.0|-1.5|<0.0001
90813052|NCT01294462|181504604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|2.53||No P-value provided since the objective was not to perform formal statistical comparison.|Regression, Cox|Analyzed based on proportional hazards model including treatment group only.|Ticagrelor/Placebo|No formal statistical comparison.||2.53|0.94|
90813053|NCT01294462|181504605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.44||No P-value provided since the objective was not to perform formal statistical comparison.|Regression, Cox|Analyzed based on proportional hazards model including treatment group only.|Ticagrelor/Placebo|No formal statistical comparison based on hypothesis test.||2.44|0.88|
90813054|NCT01294462|181504606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|2.4||No P-value provided since the objective was not to perform formal statistical comparison.|Regression, Cox|Analyzed based on proportional hazards model including treatment group only.|Ticagrelor/Placebo|No formal statistical comparison.||2.40|1.23|
90813055|NCT01294462|181504607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|2.5||No P-value provided since the objective was not to perform formal statistical comparison.|Regression, Cox|Analyzed based on proportional hazards model including treatment group only.|Ticagrelor/Placebo|No formal statistical comparison based on hypothesis test.||2.50|0.91|
91078306|NCT00316914|182042095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.234||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison of Fatigue NOW between two arms||||0.2340
90813056|NCT01460407|181504612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS mean|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.16|1.42|||||Ratio of LY2216684 and Clarithromycin to LY2216684|||1.42|1.16|
90813057|NCT01460407|181504613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS mean|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.12|1.31|||||Ratio of LY2216684 and Clarithromycin to LY2216684|||1.31|1.12|
91015764|NCT03671746|181914326|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|A Kenward-Roger adjustment was used to correct for negative bias in the standard errors and degrees of freedom calculations.||Sample size calculations were performed regarding LOS as this was the primary outcome measure. Using a significance level of 0.05 and an assumed SD of 1.5 days, a sample size of 42 patients per group (84 total) would yield 80% power to detect a difference of 0.928 days in average LOS between groups. Allowing for a dropout rate of up to 25%, recruitment was originally planned for 56 patients per group. Power calculations were performed using nQuery 8.5 (Statistical Solutions Ltd; Cork, Ireland).|Group-level summary statistics were calculated for demographic and clinical variables, and differences between groups were evaluated using two-sample t-tests for quantitative measures and Fisher's exact tests for categorical measures, as appropriate. Time and group comparisons for each cytokine were made using linear mixed models, with and without adjusting for selected covariates. Patient demographic variables and clinical outcomes of interest were considered for inclusion as covariates in each model but were only retained if they significantly improved the model. Linear mixed models were log-transformed, double-log-transformed, or square-root-transformed to correct for right skewness, as appropriate. Likelihood ratio testing and Akaike information criterion were used to select appropriate covariance structures in each case. All analyses were completed in SAS 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc.; Cary, NC, USA).|||<0.05
91015765|NCT03810417|181914383|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
90813058|NCT01460407|181504614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median of paired differences|0.0||||0.7656|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|0.5|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||LY2216684 and Clarithromycin minus (-) LY2216684|||0.50|-0.50|0.7656
90813059|NCT01400243|181504622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||.05
90813060|NCT01400243|181504623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
90813061|NCT00953680|181504627|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Equivalence Bounds of (0.80, 1.25).|Least-Squares Mean Ratio|0.993||||||90.0|0.95|1.039||||||Least-Squares Mean Ratio (A/B); A= Single dose losartan 100 mg-HCTZ 12.5 mg combination tablet; B= Single dose losartan 100 mg tablet + HCTZ 12.5 mg capsule||1.039|0.950|
90813062|NCT00953680|181504628|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Equivalence Bounds of (0.80, 1.25).|Least-Squares Mean Ratio|0.835||||||90.0|0.749|0.931||||||Least-Squares Mean Ratio (A/B); A= Single dose losartan 100 mg-HCTZ 12.5 mg combination tablet; B= Single dose losartan 100-mg tablet + HCTZ 12.5 mg capsule||0.931|0.749|
90813063|NCT00953680|181504629|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Equivalence Bounds of (0.80, 1.25).|Least-Squares Mean Ratio|0.924||||||90.0|0.825|1.035||||||Least-Squares Mean Ratio (A/B); A= Single dose losartan 100 mg-HCTZ 12.5 mg combination tablet; B= Single dose losartan 100 mg tablet + HCTZ 12.5 mg capsule||1.035|0.825|
90813064|NCT00953680|181504630|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Equivalence Bounds of (0.80, 1.25).|Least-Squares Mean Ratio|0.931||||||90.0|0.836|1.037||||||Least-Squares Mean Ratio (A/B); A= Single dose losartan 100 mg-HCTZ 12.5 mg combination tablet; B= Single dose losartan 100 mg tablet + HCTZ 12.5 mg capsule||1.037|0.836|
90813065|NCT02080260|181504641|SUPERIORITY||16-week PFS Rate|0.1||||0.824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.012|0.317||This p-value is only based on partial enrollment of the study. The study enrollment was stopped early due to futility.|Fisher Exact||Confidence interval estimated using the Clopper Pearson method.|The null hypothesis assumes a median PFS of 6 weeks, corresponding to a 16-week PFS rate of approximately 0.15. A single-stage design will be used to test that the 16-week PFS rate is less than or equal to 0.15. If at least 8 of the 32 subjects are alive and progression free at 16 weeks, the null hypothesis will be rejected. Assuming a one-sided alpha = 0.10 significance level, this will provide at least 90% power to reject the null hypothesis, assuming the true 16-week PFS rate is 0.35.||0.317|0.012|0.824
90813066|NCT02080260|181504642|OTHER|Estimation only.|Median|6.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|7.1|||||The Kaplan Meier method was used to estimate the median PFS(in weeks) for the population. The Greenwood method was used to estimate the confidence limits of the median progression free survival.|||7.1|2.9|
90813067|NCT02080260|181504643|OTHER|Estimation only.|Median|9.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.1|17.0|||||The Kaplan Meier method was used to estimate the median OS(in weeks) for the population. The Greenwood method was used to estimate the confidence limits of the median progression free survival.|||17.0|8.1|
91015766|NCT03810417|181914383|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.05
90813068|NCT02080260|181504644|OTHER|Estimation only|Overall Response Rate|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.249|||||Confidence interval estimated using the Clopper Pearson method.|||0.249|0.001|
90813069|NCT02080260|181504645|OTHER|Estimation only.|Disease Control Rate|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.119|0.543|||||Confidence interval estimated using the Clopper Pearson method.|||0.543|0.119|
90813070|NCT02853435|181504665|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.0417|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9809|1.1063|||||A mixed effects model with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and participant within sequence as random effect was performed on the natural log-transformed parameters AUC(0-inf).|||1.1063|0.9809|
90813071|NCT02853435|181504665|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.1108|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0459|1.1797|||||A mixed effects model with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and participant within sequence as random effect was performed on the natural log-transformed parameters AUC(0-inf).|||1.1797|1.0459|
90813072|NCT02853435|181504666|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.0408|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9792|1.1062|||||A mixed effects model with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and participant within sequence as random effect was performed on the natural log-transformed parameters AUC(0-t).|||1.1062|0.9792|
90813073|NCT02853435|181504666|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.1138|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0479|1.1838|||||A mixed effects model with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and participant within sequence as random effect was performed on the natural log-transformed parameters AUC(0-t).|||1.1838|1.0479|
90813074|NCT02853435|181504668|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|0.9586|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.844|1.0888|||||A mixed effects model with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and participant within sequence as random effect was performed on the natural log-transformed parameters Cmax.|||1.0888|0.8440|
90813075|NCT02853435|181504668|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.1487|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0113|1.3047|||||A mixed effects model with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and participant within sequence as random effect was performed on the natural log-transformed parameters Cmax.|||1.3047|1.0113|
91078307|NCT00316914|182042095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.201||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison of Fatigue USUAL between two arms||||0.2010
91078308|NCT00316914|182042095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9364||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison of Fatigue WORST between two arms||||0.9364
90813076|NCT02853435|181504669|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.233||||0.309|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.267|0.0||The p-value is from Wilcoxon signed-rank test.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||The median, median difference and 90% CI of the median difference are from Hodge-Lehmann estimate.|||0.000|-0.267|0.309
90813077|NCT02853435|181504669|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.492|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|-0.25||The p-value is from Wilcoxon signed-rank test.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||The median, median difference and 90% CI of the median difference are from Hodge-Lehmann estimate.|||-0.250|-0.500|<0.001
90813078|NCT00046930|181504820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.28||95.0|||||Log Rank|Stratified on age (\< 70 vs. \>=70) and type of leukemia (de novo AML, secondary RAEB-t, or secondary RAEB AML)||The study was designed to have 80% power to detect a non-proportional hazards difference in OS at the one-sided 0.025 significance level of 30.2% vs 39.6%, 12.8% vs 27.1% and 7.0% vs 14.0% at 1 years, 2 years, and full information for zosuquidar and placebo, respectively.||||0.28
90813079|NCT00046930|181504821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.16||95.0|||||Log Rank|Stratified on age and type of leukemia||||||0.16
90813080|NCT00046930|181504822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.65||Test was stratified on age and type of leukemia.|Mantel Haenszel||Zosuquidar/Placebo|Test of difference in the CR (complete remission) rate between the arms.||1.65|0.77|0.617
90813081|NCT01657760|181504824|EQUIVALENCE|80% power to detect difference p\<0.05 two tailed|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.03||0.87|TWO_SIDED|||||ANOVA, uncorrected for MC.|ANOVA|||||||0.87
90813082|NCT02317809|181504831|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bio-equivalence Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90% Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.00% - 125.00%|Geometric least squares (LS) mean ratio|114.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|110.87|118.15|||||Percentage of geometric LS mean ratio was presented.|Mixed model analysis was used.||118.15|110.87|
90813083|NCT02317809|181504832|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bio-equivalence Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90% Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.00% - 125.00%.|Geometric least squares (LS) mean ratio|106.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.42|112.86|||||Percentage of geometric LS mean ratio was presented.|Mixed model analysis was used.||112.86|101.42|
90813084|NCT02317809|181504833|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bio-equivalence Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90% Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.00% - 125.00%.|Geometric least squares (LS) mean ratio|112.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|106.44|119.27|||||Percentage of geometric LS mean ratio was presented.|Mixed model analysis was used.||119.27|106.44|
90813085|NCT02317809|181504834|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bio-equivalence Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90% Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.00% - 125.00%|Geometric least squares (LS) mean ratio|103.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.16|114.47|||||Percentage of geometric LS mean ratio was presented.|Mixed model analysis was used.||114.47|93.16|
91077818|NCT02913105|182041132|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.5496|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.014|0.03|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 42||0.030|-0.014|0.5496
90813086|NCT00294645|181504863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Modified Peto-Peto|A one-sided test was used.||Null hypothesis: control rate = remote rate||||<0.0001
90813087|NCT00909545|181504926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.03||0.9834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.99|4.07||P-values for efficacy outcomes will be one-sided test with alpha = 0.05|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance is used, with terms representing assigned treatment group and baseline value of the measure in the model.|Least square mean(standard error) and 95% confidence intervals of the difference between Isradipine CR 5mg and placebo groups is estimated.|Change in UPDRS total score of Isradipine CR 5mg/day arm is compared to placebo group.||4.07|-3.99|0.9834
90813088|NCT00909545|181504926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.97||0.5761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.01|2.8||P-values for efficacy outcomes will be one-sided test with alpha = 0.05|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance is used, with terms representing assigned treatment group and baseline value of the measure in the model.|Least square mean(standard error) and 95% confidence intervals of the difference between Isradipine CR 10mg and placebo groups is estimated.|Change in UPDRS total score of Isradipine CR 10mg/day arm is compared to placebo group.||2.80|-5.01|0.5761
90813089|NCT00909545|181504926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.01||0.322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.98|1.99||P-values for efficacy outcomes will be one-sided test with alpha = 0.05|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance is used, with terms representing assigned treatment group and baseline value of the measure in the model|Least square mean(standard error) and 95% confidence intervals of the difference between Isradipine CR 20mg and placebo groups is estimated.|Change in UPDRS total score of Isradipine CR 20mg/day arm is compared to placebo group.||1.99|-5.98|0.322
90813090|NCT00909545|181504927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1587||0.1383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0196|1.8411|||Fisher Exact|||The tolerability of 5mg/day dosage of isradipine CR will be compared with that of the placebo group using one-sided Fisher's exact tests. No adjustment will be made for multiple comparisons in these analyses.||1.8411|0.0196|0.1383
90813091|NCT00909545|181504927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.1086|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1114||0.0248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0123|0.9591|||Fisher Exact|||The tolerability of 10mg/day dosage of isradipine CR will be compared with that of the placebo group using one-sided Fisher's exact tests. No adjustment will be made for multiple comparisons in these analyses.||0.9591|0.0123|0.0248
90813092|NCT00909545|181504927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1035|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0028|0.2087|||Fisher Exact|||The tolerability of 20mg/day dosage of isradipine CR will be compared with that of the placebo group using one-sided Fisher's exact tests. No adjustment will be made for multiple comparisons in these analyses.||0.2087|0.0028|<0.0001
90813093|NCT00909545|181504928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.2324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.22|||ANCOVA|||Change in Mental UPDRS subscale of Isradipine CR 5mg/day arm is compared to placebo group.||1.22|-0.30|0.2324
90813094|NCT00909545|181504928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.73|||ANCOVA|||Change in Mental UPDRS subscale of Isradipine CR 10mg/day arm is compared to placebo group.||0.73|-0.73|1
90813095|NCT00909545|181504928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.4675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|0.47|||ANCOVA|||Change in Mental UPDRS subscale of Isradipine CR 20mg/day arm is compared to placebo group.||0.47|-1.02|0.4675
90813096|NCT00909545|181504929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.4648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|2.23|||ANCOVA|||Change in ADL UPDRS subscale of Isradipine CR 5mg/day arm is compared to placebo group.||2.23|-1.03|0.4648
90813097|NCT00909545|181504929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|1.07|||ANCOVA|||Change in ADL UPDRS subscale of Isradipine CR 10mg/day arm is compared to placebo group.||1.07|-2.09|0.525
90813098|NCT00909545|181504929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.3674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.36|0.88|||ANCOVA|||Change in ADL UPDRS subscale of Isradipine CR 20mg/day arm is compared to placebo group.||0.88|-2.36|0.3674
90813099|NCT00909545|181504930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|2.14|||ANCOVA|||Change in Motor UPDRS subscale of Isradipine CR 5mg/day arm is compared to placebo group.||2.14|-3.80|0.579
90813100|NCT00909545|181504930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.46||0.7778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|2.48|||ANCOVA|||Change in Motor UPDRS subscale of Isradipine CR 10mg/day arm is compared to placebo group.||2.48|-3.30|0.7778
90813101|NCT00909545|181504930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.48||0.669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.58|2.31|||ANCOVA|||Change in Motor UPDRS subscale of Isradipine CR 20mg/day arm is compared to placebo group.||2.31|-3.58|0.669
90813102|NCT00909545|181504931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.6677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Change in Modified Hoehn \& Yahr Scale of Isradipine CR 5mg/day arm is compared to placebo group.||0.17|-0.27|0.6677
90813103|NCT00909545|181504931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.1755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Change in Modified Hoehn \& Yahr Scale of Isradipine CR 10mg/day arm is compared to placebo group.||0.07|-0.36|0.1755
90813104|NCT00909545|181504931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.1463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Change in Modified Hoehn \& Yahr Scale of Isradipine CR 20mg/day arm is compared to placebo group.||0.06|-0.38|0.1463
91015767|NCT04410991|181914385|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error.|Relative risk|0.996||||0.9758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.754|1.315||Threshold for significance at 2-sided 0.05 level.|Chi-squared|||Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with number of adjudicated relapses onset between randomization date and EOS date as the response variable, treatment group, Gadolinium (Gd)-enhancing T1 lesions at baseline (presence, absence), expanded disability status scale (EDSS) strata (\<4, \>=4) and geographic region (United States \[US\], non-US) as covariates, and log transformed observation duration as the offset variable.||1.315|0.754|0.9758
91015768|NCT04410991|181914386|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.582||||0.0114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.891||Derived from log-rank test with stratification of EDSS strata (\<4, \>=4), geographic region (US, non-US).|Log Rank|||Analysis was performed using Cox proportional-hazards model with robust variance estimation. Covariates were treatment group, Gd-enhancing T1 lesions at baseline (presence, absence), EDSS strata (\<4, \>=4), geographic region (US, non-US).||0.891|0.380|0.0114
91078309|NCT00316914|182042096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9364||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Fatigue WORST||||0.9364
91078310|NCT00316914|182042096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6275||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Walking||||0.6275
91078311|NCT00316914|182042096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6988||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Buttoning Shirt or Tying Laces||||0.6988
90813105|NCT00909545|181504932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.7111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|2.26|||ANCOVA|||Change in Modified Schwab \& England Independence Scale of Isradipine CR 5mg/day arm is compared to placebo group.||2.26|-3.30|0.7111
90813106|NCT00909545|181504932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36||0.3237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|4.04|||ANCOVA|||Change in Modified Schwab \& England Independence Scale of Isradipine CR 10mg/day arm is compared to placebo group.||4.04|-1.35|0.3237
90813107|NCT00909545|181504932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.3658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|4.05|||ANCOVA|||Change in Modified Schwab \& England Independence Scale of Isradipine CR 20mg/day arm is compared to placebo group.||4.05|-1.51|0.3658
90813108|NCT00909545|181504933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32||0.0608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|5.13|||ANCOVA|||Change in BDI-II of Isradipine CR 5mg/day arm is compared to placebo group.||5.13|-0.12|0.0608
90813109|NCT00909545|181504933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36||0.6445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|3.33|||ANCOVA|||Change in BDI-II of Isradipine CR 10mg/day arm is compared to placebo group.||3.33|-2.07|0.6445
90813110|NCT00909545|181504933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52||0.1336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|4.67|||ANCOVA|||Change in BDI-II of Isradipine CR 20mg/day arm is compared to placebo group.||4.67|-0.63|0.1336
90813111|NCT00909545|181504934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.3533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|0.59|||ANCOVA|||Change in Montreal Cognitive Assessment of Isradipine CR 5mg/day arm is compared to placebo group.||0.59|-1.64|0.3533
90813112|NCT00909545|181504934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.4045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|0.65|||ANCOVA|||Change in Montreal Cognitive Assessment of Isradipine CR 10mg/day arm is compared to placebo group.||0.65|-1.59|0.4045
90813113|NCT00909545|181504934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.7049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|0.92|||ANCOVA|||Change in Montreal Cognitive Assessment of Isradipine CR 20mg/day arm is compared to placebo group.||0.92|-1.36|0.7049
90813114|NCT00909545|181504935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.2278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|5.79|||ANCOVA|||Change in PDQ-39 of Isradipine CR 5mg/day arm is compared to placebo group.||5.79|-1.40|0.2278
90813115|NCT00909545|181504935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86||0.356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.97|5.42|||ANCOVA|||Change in PDQ-39 of Isradipine CR 5mg/day arm is compared to placebo group.||5.42|-1.97|0.356
91078312|NCT00316914|182042096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5124||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Diarrhea||||0.5124
90813116|NCT00909545|181504935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.83||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|5.71|||ANCOVA|||Change in PDQ-39 of Isradipine CR 20mg/day arm is compared to placebo group.||5.71|-1.56|0.2600
90813117|NCT00909545|181504942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.2632|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.159||0.1384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5432|50.9977||The analysis of common AE of each active dosage of isradipine CR will be compared with that of the placebo group using one-sided Fisher's exact tests. No adjustment will be made for multiple comparisons in these analyses.|Fisher Exact|||The analyses is to compare Isradipine CR 5mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Oedema Peripheral.||50.9977|0.5432|0.1384
90813118|NCT00909545|181504942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|15.625|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.097||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8214|134.0403||The analysis of common AE of each active dosage of isradipine CR will be compared with that of the placebo group using one-sided Fisher's exact tests. No adjustment will be made for multiple comparisons in these analyses.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 10mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Oedema Peripheral.||134.0403|1.8214|0.0024
90813119|NCT00909545|181504942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|50.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.108|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7004|438.5694||The analysis of common AE of each active dosage of isradipine CR will be compared with that of the placebo group using one-sided Fisher's exact tests. No adjustment will be made for multiple comparisons in these analyses.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 20mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Oedema Peripheral.||438.5694|5.7004|<.0001
90813120|NCT00909545|181504943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.754|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6715||0.7735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2022|2.812|||Fisher Exact|||one-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 5mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Dizziness.||2.8120|0.2022|0.7735
90813121|NCT00909545|181504943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8143|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6419||0.7385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2314|2.8658|||Fisher Exact|||one-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 10mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Dizziness.||2.8658|0.2314|0.7385
90813122|NCT00909545|181504943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6463||0.6823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2549|3.2112|||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 20mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Dizziness.||3.2112|0.2549|0.6823
90813123|NCT00909545|181504944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.5263|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9188||0.2756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4172|15.2975|||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 5mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Nasopharyngitis.||15.2975|0.4172|0.2756
90813124|NCT00909545|181504944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.4211|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8584||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8217|23.7875|||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 10mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Nasopharyngitis.||23.7875|0.8217|0.07
91015769|NCT04410991|181914387|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.641||||0.0181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.444|0.925||Derived from log-rank test with stratification of EDSS strata (\<4, \>=4), geographic region (US, non-US).|Log Rank|||Analysis was performed using Cox proportional-hazards model with robust variance estimation. Covariates were treatment group, Gd-enhancing T1 lesions at baseline (presence, absence), EDSS strata (\<4, \>=4), geographic region (US, non-US).||0.925|0.444|0.0181
90813125|NCT00909545|181504944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9174||0.2953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3975|14.4919|||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 20mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Nasopharyngitis.||14.4919|0.3975|0.2953
91077819|NCT02913105|182041132|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.008||0.6844|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.01|0.016|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 56||0.016|-0.010|0.6844
90813126|NCT00909545|181504945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8719||0.6049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2082|6.3508|||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 5mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Headache.||6.3508|0.2082|0.6049
90813127|NCT00909545|181504945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7704||0.2327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5081|10.4105|||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 10mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Headache.||10.4105|0.5081|0.2327
90813128|NCT00909545|181504945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5333|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8227||0.4534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3057|7.6897|||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 20mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Headache.||7.6897|0.3057|0.4534
90813129|NCT00909545|181504946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7302|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9616||0.7852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1109|4.8065|||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 5mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Constipation.||4.8065|0.1109|0.7852
90813130|NCT00909545|181504946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8681||0.666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1824|5.482|||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 10mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Constipation.||5.4820|0.1824|0.666
90813131|NCT00909545|181504946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5333|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8227||0.4534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3057|7.6897|||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 20mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Constipation.||7.6897|0.3057|0.4534
90813132|NCT00909545|181504947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5455|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2596||0.8589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0462|6.4433|||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 5mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Fatigue.||6.4433|0.0462|0.8589
90813133|NCT00909545|181504947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5652|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9584||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2392|10.241|||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 10mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Fatigue.||10.2410|0.2392|0.5000
90813134|NCT00909545|181504947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7143|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9605||0.4609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2609|11.2639|||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 20mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Fatigue.||11.2639|0.2609|0.4609
90813135|NCT00909545|181504948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7302|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9616||0.7852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1109|4.8065|||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 5mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Nausea.||4.8065|0.1109|0.7852
90813136|NCT00909545|181504948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.3067|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1912||0.9448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0297|3.1612|||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 10mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Nausea.||3.1612|0.0297|0.9448
90813137|NCT00909545|181504948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.697|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9604||0.7996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1061|4.5779|||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 20mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Nausea.||4.5779|0.1061|0.7996
90813138|NCT00909545|181504949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.381|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2599||0.4532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2015|28.1366|||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 5mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Tract Infection.||28.1366|0.2015|0.4532
90813139|NCT00909545|181504949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.9524|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1347||0.0953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6439|55.0272|||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 10mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Tract Infection.||55.0272|0.6439|0.0953
90813140|NCT00909545|181504950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9617||0.4402||95.0|0.2733|11.8558|||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 5mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Depression.||11.8558|0.2733|0.4402
91015770|NCT04410991|181914388|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error.|Relative risk|1.165||||0.2362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.905|1.502|||Chi-squared|||Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with the number of new and/or enlarging T2-hyperintense lesions between randomization date and EOS date as the response variable, treatment group, baseline T2-hyperintense lesion count, EDSS strata (\<4, \>=4) and geographic region (US, non-US) as covariates, and log transformed observation duration as the offset variable.||1.502|0.905|0.2362
90813141|NCT00909545|181504950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2577||0.8824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0408|5.6461|||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 10mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Depression.||5.6461|0.0408|0.8824
90813142|NCT00909545|181504950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0909|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0428||0.6641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1413|8.4197|||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 20mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Depression.||8.4197|0.1413|0.6641
90813143|NCT00909545|181504951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9617||0.4402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2733|11.8558|||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 5mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Somnolence.||11.8558|0.2733|0.4402
90813144|NCT00909545|181504951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0409||0.6951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|7.6906|||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 10mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Somnolence.||7.6906|0.1300|0.6951
90813145|NCT00909545|181504952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9617||0.4402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2733|11.8558|||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 5mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Insomnia .||11.8558|0.2733|0.4402
90813146|NCT00909545|181504952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2577||0.8824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0408|5.6461|||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 10mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Insomnia .||5.6461|0.0408|0.8824
90813147|NCT00909545|181504952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5217|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2594||0.8673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0442|6.1537|||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 20mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Insomnia .||6.1537|0.0442|0.8673
90813148|NCT00909545|181504953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.3485|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1919||0.9294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0337|3.6084|||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 5mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Dyspepsia .||3.6084|0.0337|0.9294
90813149|NCT00909545|181504953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.3067|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1912||0.9448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0297|3.1612|||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 10mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Dyspepsia .||3.1612|0.0297|0.9448
91078313|NCT00316914|182042096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3103||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Constipation||||0.3103
91078314|NCT00316914|182042096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8601||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Abdominal Cramping||||0.8601
91078315|NCT00316914|182042096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2439||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Bowel Problems with Normal Activity||||0.2439
90813150|NCT00909545|181504953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.3333|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1924||0.9351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0322|3.4459|||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 20mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Dyspepsia .||3.4459|0.0322|0.9351
90813151|NCT00909545|181504954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5455|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2596||0.8589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0462|6.4433|||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 5mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Diarrhoea.||6.4433|0.0462|0.8589
90813152|NCT00909545|181504954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0409||0.6951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|7.6906|||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 10mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Diarrhoea.||7.6906|0.1300|0.6951
90813153|NCT00909545|181504954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5217|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2594||0.8673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0442|6.1537|||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 20mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Diarrhoea.||6.1537|0.0442|0.8673
90813154|NCT00909545|181504955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7302|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9616||0.7852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1109|4.8065|||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 5mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Sinusitis.||4.8065|0.1109|0.7852
90813155|NCT00909545|181504955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.3067|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1912||0.9448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0297|3.1612|||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 10mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Sinusitis.||3.1612|0.0297|0.9448
90813156|NCT00909545|181504956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0833|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2576||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1771|24.5057|||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 10mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Back Pain.||24.5057|0.1771|0.5000
90813157|NCT00909545|181504956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.5714|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.192||0.2746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3453|36.9408|||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 20mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Back Pain.||36.9408|0.3453|0.2746
90813158|NCT00909545|181504957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1364|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4444||0.7236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.067|19.264|||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 5mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Hypotension.||19.2640|0.0670|0.7236
90813159|NCT00909545|181504957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0833|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2576||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1771|24.5057|||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 10mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Hypotension.||24.5057|0.1771|0.5000
90813160|NCT00909545|181504957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2727|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2592||0.4694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1926|26.8124|||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 20mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Hypotension.||26.8124|0.1926|0.4694
90813161|NCT04612842|181504958|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
90813162|NCT02419131|181504969|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of the experimental arms (CBTH and CPT) compared to usual care (TAU)|Aggregated contrast CBTH to TAU|-3.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|-1.4||p-value represents an aggregate of post-treatment outcomes (i.e., post-treatment, 3-month, and 6-month outcomes entered simultaneously into the GLMM to represent a single metric of all post-treatment assessment intervals into one estimate).|Mixed Models Analysis|Outcome observations at posttreatment, 3-month and 6-month follow-ups were entered simultaneously into the mixed model to provide a single inference.|Contrast of aggregated post-treatment outcomes of HIT-6 total score for CBTH compared to TAU|Sample size based on 2-tailed specified joint superiority testing of 2 primary outcomes at α = .025 and power of 0.80 to detect an effect size (d) of 0.52 for both primary outcomes (representing a clinically significant change of 2.8 points on the HIT-6). The primary analysis set was intention to treat (ITT). multiple imputation accounted for missing data in ITT. Missing outcome scores at posttreatment, 3-month, and 6-month follow-ups were multiply imputed (m = 100) using multilevel models.||-1.4|-5.4|<0.001
90813163|NCT02419131|181504969|SUPERIORITY|See previous section for analysis|Aggregated contrast CPT to TAU|-1.4||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|0.8||For comparison of post-treatment HIT-6 total score between CPT and TAU|Mixed Models Analysis|See above for details.|See above.|See previous section for power||0.8|-3.7|0.21
90813164|NCT02419131|181504970|SUPERIORITY|Key parameters and details the same as HIT-6 described above.|Aggregated contrast CBTH to TAU|-6.5||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|-0.3||Contrast of aggregate post-treatment outcomes between CBTH and TAU|Mixed Models Analysis|Contrast of aggregate post-treatment outcomes between CBTH and TAU||Same sample size calculation as HIT-6 analyses, powered to detect a difference of 8.2 points on the PCL-5 total score.||-0.3|-12.7|0.04
90813165|NCT02419131|181504970|SUPERIORITY|Contrast of aggregate post-treatment outcomes between CPT and TAU|Aggregated contrast CPT to TAU|-8.9||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.9|-1.9||Contrast of aggregate post-treatment outcomes between CPT and TAU|Mixed Models Analysis|Contrast of aggregate post-treatment outcomes between CPT and TAU||See above.||-1.9|-15.9|0.01
90813166|NCT03060512|181504977|OTHER|||||||0.9239|||||||Prescott's test|||Assessment of the difference in preference for the two treatments (Prefer Movantik, No Preference, Prefer PEG 3350) in subjects who completed the entire treatment sequence.||||0.9239
90813167|NCT03060512|181504977|OTHER|||||||0.8874|||||||Prescott's test|||Assessment of the difference between preference for treatment in Period 1, preference for treatment in Period 2, no preference||||0.8874
90813168|NCT03060512|181504980|OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Means difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3||||||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model assessing treatment difference in PGIC at Visits 3 and 5 between Movantik and PEG 3350 treatment. Adjustments were performed for treatment, period and sequence.||0.3|-0.3|
91078316|NCT00316914|182042096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9283||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Shortness of Breath (Week 2 - Baseline)||||0.9283
91015771|NCT04410991|181914389|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error.|Relative risk|2.118|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.502|2.987|||Chi-squared|||Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with the number of new Gd-enhancing T1-hyperintense lesions between randomization date and EOS date as the response variable, treatment group, Gd-enhancing T1 lesions at baseline (presence, absence), EDSS strata (\<4, \>=4) and geographic region (US, non-US) as covariates, and log transformed number of MRI scans as the offset variable.||2.987|1.502|<0.0001
91015772|NCT04410991|181914390|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error.|Least square (LS) mean difference|-0.053||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.156|0.05|||MMRM|||Covariates in the mixed-effect model with repeated measures (MMRM) were treatment group, EDSS strata (\<4, \>=4), geographic region (US, non-US), visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline value-by-visit interaction.||0.050|-0.156|0.3100
91015773|NCT04410991|181914391|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error.|LS mean difference|-0.612||||0.5235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.493|1.269|||MMRM|||Covariates in the MMRM were treatment group, EDSS strata (\<4, \>=4), geographic region (US, non-US), visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline value-by-visit interaction.||1.269|-2.493|0.5235
91015774|NCT04410991|181914392|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.652||||0.0079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.145|2.383||Derived from log-rank test with stratification of EDSS strata (\<4, \>=4), geographic region (US, non-US).|Log Rank|||Analysis was performed using Cox proportional-hazards model with robust variance estimation. Covariates were treatment group, Gd-enhancing T1 lesions at baseline (presence, absence), EDSS strata (\<4, \>=4), geographic region (US, non-US).||2.383|1.145|0.0079
91015775|NCT04410991|181914393|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error.|LS mean difference|0.044||||0.4266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.065|0.153|||MMRM|||Covariates in the MMRM were treatment group, EDSS strata (\<4, \>=4), geographic region (US, non-US), visit, treatment by visit interaction, cube root transformed Month 6 brain volume, and cube root transformed Month 6 brain volume-by-visit interaction.||0.153|-0.065|0.4266
91015776|NCT04242498|181914423|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.422||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.221|4.804|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.804|1.221|0.004
91015777|NCT04242498|181914423|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.287||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.22|4.291|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.291|1.220|0.003
91015778|NCT04242498|181914424|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.722||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.182|6.267|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.267|1.182|0.007
91015779|NCT04242498|181914424|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.007||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.374|6.581|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.581|1.374|0.002
91015780|NCT04242498|181914425|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.798||||0.497|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.378|1.683|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.683|0.378|0.497
91015781|NCT04242498|181914425|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.868|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.541|2.041|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.041|0.541|0.868
91015782|NCT04242498|181914426|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.393|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.92|-0.867||Nominal p-value only due to the testing hierarchy failing on the flare outcome.|ANCOVA|||||-0.867|-3.920|<0.001
91015783|NCT04242498|181914426|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.309|||<|0.001||97.5|-3.705|-0.914||Nominal p-value only due to the testing hierarchy failing on the flare outcome.|ANCOVA|||||-0.914|-3.705|<0.001
91015784|NCT04242498|181914427|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.898||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.684|-0.113||Nominal p-value only due to the testing hierarchy failing on the flare outcome.|ANCOVA|||||-0.113|-1.684|0.010
91015785|NCT04242498|181914427|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.265|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.978|-0.552||Nominal p-value only due to the testing hierarchy failing on the flare outcome.|ANCOVA|||||-0.552|-1.978|<0.001
91015786|NCT04242498|181914428|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.273||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.974|10.997||Nominal p-value only due to the testing hierarchy failing on the flare outcome.|Regression, Logistic|||||10.997|0.974|0.028
91015787|NCT04242498|181914428|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.756||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.189|11.867||Nominal p-value only due to the testing hierarchy failing on the flare outcome.|Regression, Logistic|||||11.867|1.189|0.010
91015788|NCT00931515|181914436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
91015789|NCT01054443|181914437|OTHER||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test Statistic|0.173||||0.431|||||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||The primary efficacy evaluation was to test if there was a linear relationship existing such that the higher the dose level, the larger the percentage of responders. The Cochran-Armitage trend test was employed by assigning the score 0, 0.5, 0.75, and 1 to placebo, lusutrombopag 0.5, 0.75, and 1.0 mg group, respectively, at the 0.025 level of significance (1-sided) to determine the test statistic for detecting a dose-response in the percentage of responders.||||0.431
91015790|NCT01054443|181914438|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|25544.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6202.8|44885.3|||||The difference of least squares means (LSMeans) between each of the lusutrombopag treatment groups and placebo was estimated after adjusting for the Baseline platelet count using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA).|||44885.3|6202.8|
91015791|NCT01054443|181914438|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|11801.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8809.3|32411.9|||||The difference of least squares means (LSMeans) between each of the lusutrombopag treatment groups and placebo was estimated after adjusting for the Baseline platelet count using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA).|||32411.9|-8809.3|
91015792|NCT01054443|181914438|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|756.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18794.3|20307.5|||||The difference of least squares means (LSMeans) between each of the lusutrombopag treatment groups and placebo was estimated after adjusting for the Baseline platelet count using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA).|||20307.5|-18794.3|
91015793|NCT00296192|181914511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.91||||95.0|-2.9|8.7|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance modeling change from baseline at 24 minutes post-dose in UPDRS Part III, controlling for treatment group and baseline value.||8.7|-2.9|
91015794|NCT00296192|181914511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.93||||95.0|-5.7|6.0|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance modeling change from baseline at 24 minutes post-dose in UPDRS Part III, controlling for treatment group and baseline value.||6.0|-5.7|
91015795|NCT00296192|181914511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.86||||95.0|-2.8|8.6|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance modeling change from baseline at 24 minutes post-dose in UPDRS Part III, controlling for treatment group and baseline value.||8.6|-2.8|
91078317|NCT00316914|182042096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4715||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Swallowing (Week 2 - Baseline)||||0.4715
90813169|NCT03060512|181504982|OTHER||LS Means difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.95|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|3.0||||||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model assessing treatment difference in BFI change from baseline at Visits 3/5 between Movantik and PEG 3350. Adjustments were performed for for baseline BFI score, treatment, period and sequence.||3.0|-4.7|
90813170|NCT00089986|181504983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate difference|1.1||||0.329|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-2.1||||Chi-squared||||||-2.1|0.329
90813171|NCT00089986|181504983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Difference|-4.4||||0.879|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-9.4||||Chi-squared||||||-9.4|0.879
90813172|NCT01310400|181504987|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This study evaluated the non-inferiority of 0.5 mL Inflexal V and 0.25 mL Inflexal V in comparison to 0.25 mL Agrippal. Seroconversion rate was the primary endpoint. The difference in seroconversion rates between each Inflexal V and the control group was used for the evaluation of non-inferiority. If the lower limit of the 95% CI of this difference was greater than -10% for all 3 strains, the Inflexal V group was considered non-inferior to the control group.|Difference in seroconversion rates|4.5||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|7.5||The significance level α = 0.05 (one-sided) was adjusted to α = 0.025 (one-sided) for the primary endpoint|Chi-squared|||This statistical anaylsis evaluated the non-inferiority of 0.5 mL Inflexal V vs. 0.25 mL Agrippal for the A/H1N1 strain.||7.5|1.4|0.0036
90813173|NCT01310400|181504987|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This study evaluated the non-inferiority of 0.5 mL Inflexal V and 0.25 mL Inflexal V in comparison to 0.25 mL Agrippal. Seroconversion rate was the primary endpoint. The difference in seroconversion rates between each Inflexal V and the control group was used for the evaluation of non-inferiority. If the lower limit of the 95% CI of this difference was greater than -10% for all 3 strains, the Inflexal V group was considered non-inferior to the control group.|Difference in seroconversion rates|-3.0||||0.1465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|1.0||The significance level α = 0.05 (one-sided) was adjusted to α = 0.025 (one-sided) for the primary endpoint|Chi-squared|||This statistical anaylsis evaluated the non-inferiority of 0.25 mL Inflexal V vs. 0.25 mL Agrippal for the A/H1N1 strain.||1.0|-7.0|0.1465
90813174|NCT01310400|181504987|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This study evaluated the non-inferiority of 0.5 mL Inflexal V and 0.25 mL Inflexal V in comparison to 0.25 mL Agrippal. Seroconversion rate was the primary endpoint. The difference in seroconversion rates between each Inflexal V and the control group was used for the evaluation of non-inferiority. If the lower limit of the 95% CI of this difference was greater than -10% for all 3 strains, the Inflexal V group was considered non-inferior to the control group.|Difference in seroconversion rates|8.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|12.7||The significance level α = 0.05 (one-sided) was adjusted to α = 0.025 (one-sided) for the primary endpoint|Chi-squared|||This statistical anaylsis evaluated the non-inferiority of 0.5 mL Inflexal V vs. 0.25 mL Agrippal for the A/H3N2 strain.||12.7|3.3|<0.001
90813175|NCT01310400|181504987|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This study evaluated the non-inferiority of 0.5 mL Inflexal V and 0.25 mL Inflexal V in comparison to 0.25 mL Agrippal. Seroconversion rate was the primary endpoint. The difference in seroconversion rates between each Inflexal V and the control group was used for the evaluation of non-inferiority. If the lower limit of the 95% CI of this difference was greater than -10% for all 3 strains, the Inflexal V group was considered non-inferior to the control group.|Difference in seroconversion rates|0.9||||0.7493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|6.2||The significance level α = 0.05 (one-sided) was adjusted to α = 0.025 (one-sided) for the primary endpoint|Chi-squared|||This statistical anaylsis evaluated the non-inferiority of 0.25 mL Inflexal V vs. 0.25 mL Agrippal for the A/H3N2 strain.||6.2|-4.5|0.7493
90890355|NCT01358526|181645255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.163||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.77||A gate-keeping strategy and a Bonferroni-Holm method was used to control the family-wise (primary and secondary efficacy analysis) error rate at the 5% level.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-model repeated measures analysis of pain data using a pattern mixture model framework||||0.77|0.13|0.0055
91015796|NCT00296192|181914511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.02||||95.0|-7.4|4.6|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance modeling change from baseline at 24 minutes post-dose in UPDRS Part III, controlling for treatment group and baseline value.||4.6|-7.4|
91055122|NCT02906930|181992248|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The estimated treatment effect excludes the effect of any rescue medication (hypothetical estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-1.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-1.2||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0.|MMRM||Oral Semaglutide 14 mg - placebo|The analysis was based on a mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM) that assumed data to be missing at random. As dependent variables, the MMRM model included all post-baseline values collected at scheduled visits up to and including week 26. The independent effects were treatment and region as categorical fixed effects and the baseline HbA1c value as a covariate, all nested within visit, and an unstructured residual covariance matrix.||-1.2|-1.7|<0.0001
91055123|NCT02906930|181992249|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the in-trial observation period. The estimated treatment effect includes the effect of any additional anti-diabetic medication for all randomised subjects regardless of premature trial product discontinuation (treatment policy estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-2.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-1.5||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0.|Pattern mixed model||Oral Semaglutide 14 mg - Placebo|The analysis was based on a pattern mixture model using multiple imputation to impute missing data for week 26, assuming that the missing data mechanism was missing at random within the groups used for the imputation. The imputed data sets were analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline body weight value as covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete data sets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||-1.5|-3.1|<0.0001
91015797|NCT00296192|181914512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.58||||95.0|-25.7|8.5|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance modeling change from baseline to 34 minutes post-dose in tapping rate, controlling for treatment group and baseline value.||8.5|-25.7|
91015798|NCT00296192|181914512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.63||||95.0|-34.0|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance modeling change from baseline to 34 minutes post-dose in tapping rate, controlling for treatment group and baseline value.||0.4|-34.0|
91015799|NCT00296192|181914512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.45||||95.0|-18.2|15.4|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance modeling change from baseline to 34 minutes post-dose in tapping rate, controlling for treatment group and baseline value.||15.4|-18.2|
90813176|NCT01310400|181504987|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This study evaluated the non-inferiority of 0.5 mL Inflexal V and 0.25 mL Inflexal V in comparison to 0.25 mL Agrippal. Seroconversion rate was the primary endpoint. The difference in seroconversion rates between each Inflexal V and the control group was used for the evaluation of non-inferiority. If the lower limit of the 95% CI of this difference was greater than -10% for all 3 strains, the Inflexal V group was considered non-inferior to the control group.|Difference in seroconversion rates|20.2||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.5|27.0||The significance level α = 0.05 (one-sided) was adjusted to α = 0.025 (one-sided) for the primary endpoint|Chi-squared|||This statistical anaylsis evaluated the non-inferiority of 0.5 mL Inflexal V vs. 0.25 mL Agrippal for the B-strain.||27.0|13.5|0.0000
90813177|NCT01310400|181504987|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This study evaluated the non-inferiority of 0.5 mL Inflexal V and 0.25 mL Inflexal V in comparison to 0.25 mL Agrippal. Seroconversion rate was the primary endpoint. The difference in seroconversion rates between each Inflexal V and the control group was used for the evaluation of non-inferiority. If the lower limit of the 95% CI of this difference was greater than -10% for all 3 strains, the Inflexal V group was considered non-inferior to the control group.|Difference in seroconversion rates|10.7||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|17.6||The significance level α = 0.05 (one-sided) was adjusted to α = 0.025 (one-sided) for the primary endpoint|Chi-squared|||This statistical anaylsis evaluated the non-inferiority of 0.25 mL Inflexal V vs. 0.25 mL Agrippal for the B-strain.||17.6|3.7|0.0029
90813178|NCT04065074|181504991|OTHER|Proportion of Successful Administrations|Proportion of Successful Administrations|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.51|0.9||||||||0.90|0.51|
90813179|NCT01062841|181504995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.77|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.94||The model was adjusted for participant-specific covariates (participant-level baseline colonization with the specific MDRO, age, sex, race, and length of stay before enrollment), and NH quality ratings.|Regression, Poisson|||A mixed-effects multilevel Poisson regression model was used to predict MDRO prevalence density as a function of the intervention (primary outcome), including facility as a random effect and offset by the number of anatomic sites sampled. Because we expected participants colonized at baseline to have a greater likelihood of subsequent colonization, we included participant-level baseline MDRO colonization as a fixed effect.||0.94|0.62|<0.05
90813180|NCT01062841|181504996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.54||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.97|||Regression, Cox|||A Cox proportional hazards model using the cluster option with robust standard errors was used to predict time to the first and recurrent infections, adjusting for participant-level and facility-level covariates.||0.97|0.30|0.04
90813181|NCT01062841|181504997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.78|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.96||The model was adjusted for participant-specific covariates (participant-level baseline colonization with the specific MDRO, age, sex, race, and length of stay before enrollment), and NH quality ratings.|Regression, Poisson|||A mixed-effects multilevel Poisson regression model was used to predict MDRO prevalence density as a function of the intervention (primary outcome), including facility as a random effect and offset by the number of anatomic sites sampled. Because we expected participants colonized at baseline to have a greater likelihood of subsequent colonization, we included participant-level baseline MDRO colonization as a fixed effect.||0.96|0.64|<0.05
90813182|NCT01062841|181504998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.2|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.75||The model was adjusted for participant-specific covariates (participant-level baseline colonization with the specific MDRO, age, sex, race, and length of stay before enrollment), and NH quality ratings.|Regression, Poisson|||A mixed-effects multilevel Poisson regression model was used to predict MDRO prevalence density as a function of the intervention (primary outcome), including facility as a random effect and offset by the number of anatomic sites sampled. Because we expected participants colonized at baseline to have a greater likelihood of subsequent colonization, we included participant-level baseline MDRO colonization as a fixed effect.||1.75|0.82|>0.05
90813183|NCT01062841|181504999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.94|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.44||The model was adjusted for participant-specific covariates (participant-level baseline colonization with the specific MDRO, age, sex, race, and length of stay before enrollment), and NH quality ratings.|Regression, Poisson|||A mixed-effects multilevel Poisson regression model was used to predict MDRO prevalence density as a function of the intervention (primary outcome), including facility as a random effect and offset by the number of anatomic sites sampled. Because we expected participants colonized at baseline to have a greater likelihood of subsequent colonization, we included participant-level baseline MDRO colonization as a fixed effect.||1.44|0.61|>0.05
90813184|NCT01062841|181505000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.75|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.97||The model was adjusted for participant-specific covariates (participant-level baseline colonization with the specific MDRO, age, sex, race, and length of stay before enrollment), and NH quality ratings.|Regression, Poisson|||A mixed-effects multilevel Poisson regression model was used to predict MDRO prevalence density as a function of the intervention (primary outcome), including facility as a random effect and offset by the number of anatomic sites sampled. Because we expected participants colonized at baseline to have a greater likelihood of subsequent colonization, we included participant-level baseline MDRO colonization as a fixed effect.||0.97|0.58|<0.05
90813185|NCT01062841|181505002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.09||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|5.45|||Regression, Cox|||A Cox proportional hazards model using the cluster option with robust standard errors was used to predict time to the first and recurrent infections, adjusting for participant-level and facility-level covariates.||5.45|0.22|0.92
90813186|NCT01062841|181505003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.83||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|6.31|||Regression, Cox|||A Cox proportional hazards model using the cluster option with robust standard errors was used to predict time to the first and recurrent infections, adjusting for participant-level and facility-level covariates.||6.31|0.53|0.34
91077820|NCT02913105|182041132|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011||0.5695|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.025|0.012|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 84||0.012|-0.025|0.5695
91078318|NCT00316914|182042096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5105||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Numbness in Fingers, Toes (Week 2 - Baseline)||||0.5105
90813187|NCT01062841|181505004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.78||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.95|||Regression, Cox|||A Cox proportional hazards model was used to evaluate the effect of this intervention on an individual's risk of new MDRO acquisition, defined as the number of residents with new acquisitions per 1000 device-days at risk after adjusting for resident-level and facility-level covariates, as well as clustering by facility. Residents colonized with the specific MDRO at baseline were excluded from these analyses.||0.95|0.65|0.01
90813188|NCT01062841|181505005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.85||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.6|||Regression, Cox|||A Cox proportional hazards model was used to evaluate the effect of this intervention on an individual's risk of new MDRO acquisition, defined as the number of residents with new acquisitions per 1000 device-days at risk after adjusting for resident-level and facility-level covariates, as well as clustering by facility. Residents colonized with the specific MDRO at baseline were excluded from these analyses.||1.60|0.45|0.61
90813189|NCT01062841|181505006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.9||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.33|||Regression, Cox|||||1.33|0.60|0.59
90813190|NCT03831880|181505010|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.71|-11.27||95% CI: Model-based difference in means. Results were based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-11.27|-19.71|<0.0001
90813191|NCT03831880|181505012|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.39||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.69|-2.09||95% CI: Model-based difference in means. Results were based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.09|-8.69|0.0017
90813192|NCT03831880|181505014|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.74|-7.45||95% CI: Model-based difference in means. Results were based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-7.45|-19.74|<0.0001
90813193|NCT03831880|181505016|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.1|-18.57||95% CI: Model-based difference in means. Results were based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-18.57|-30.10|<0.0001
90813194|NCT03831880|181505018|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.83||||0.0739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.42|0.77||95% CI: Model-based difference in means. Results were based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.77|-16.42|0.0739
90813195|NCT03831880|181505020|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.15|-10.06||95% CI: Model-based difference in means. Results were based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-10.06|-25.15|<0.0001
91015800|NCT00296192|181914512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.9||||95.0|-23.3|12.2|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance modeling change from baseline to 34 minutes post-dose in tapping rate, controlling for treatment group and baseline value.||12.2|-23.3|
91015801|NCT00296192|181914513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|-20.6||||||95.0|-53.3|12.1|||Confidence interval|||95% confidence interval in difference in success rate||12.1|-53.3|
90813196|NCT03831880|181505022|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.71||||0.6137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|3.51||95% CI: Model-based difference in means. Results were based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.51|-2.09|0.6137
90813197|NCT03831880|181505024|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.56||||0.8404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.29|6.41||95% CI: Model-based difference in means. Results were based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.41|-5.29|0.8404
90813198|NCT03831880|181505026|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.59|-9.35||95% CI: Model-based difference in means. Results were based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-9.35|-17.59|<0.0001
91015802|NCT00296192|181914513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|4.4||||||95.0|-25.9|34.7|||95% confidence interval|||95% confidence interval in difference in success rate||34.7|-25.9|
91015803|NCT00296192|181914513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.0||||||95.0|-30.6|30.6|||95% confidence interval|||95% confidence interval in difference in success rate||30.6|-30.6|
91078319|NCT00316914|182042096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2181||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Tingling in Fingers, Toes (Week 2 - Baseline)||||0.2181
91015804|NCT00296192|181914513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|4.4||||||95.0|-25.9|34.7|||95% confidence interval|||95% confidence interval in difference in success rate||34.7|-25.9|
91015805|NCT03504839|181914516|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
91015806|NCT03491800|181914549|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|7.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.30
91015807|NCT03491800|181914550|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.90
91015808|NCT03491800|181914550|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.30
91015809|NCT03491800|181914551|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|-0.28||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.40
91015810|NCT03491800|181914551|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.85|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.85
91015811|NCT03491800|181914552|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|-0.25||0.21|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.21
90813199|NCT03831880|181505028|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.76||||0.0245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.16|-0.36||95% CI: Model-based difference in means. Results were based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.36|-5.16|0.0245
90813200|NCT03831880|181505040|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.72|-10.44||95% CI: Model-based difference in means. Results were based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-10.44|-18.72|<0.0001
90813201|NCT02081638|181505058|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Threshold for statistical significance was a priori set to \<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to compare the change of sCD14 from baseline and month 12 measurement within each arm.||||>0.05
90813202|NCT02081638|181505058|OTHER|||||||0.022|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to compare the change of sCD14 from baseline and month 12 measurement within each arm.||||0.022
91015812|NCT03491800|181914553|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.95|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.95
91015813|NCT03491800|181914554|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|-0.2||0.52|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.52
91055124|NCT02906930|181992249|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the in-trial observation period. The estimated treatment effect includes the effect of any additional anti-diabetic medication for all randomised subjects regardless of premature trial product discontinuation (treatment policy estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-0.9||||0.0866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.1||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0.|Pattern mixed model||Oral Semaglutide 7 mg - Placebo|The analysis was based on a pattern mixture model using multiple imputation to impute missing data for week 26, assuming that the missing data mechanism was missing at random within the groups used for the imputation. The imputed data sets were analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline body weight value as covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete data sets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||0.1|-1.9|0.0866
90813203|NCT02081638|181505059|OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to compare the change of sCD14 from baseline and month 12 measurement within each arm.||||0.13
90813204|NCT02081638|181505059|OTHER|||||||0.097|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to compare the change of sCD14 from baseline and month 12 measurement within each arm.||||0.097
90813205|NCT02081638|181505059|OTHER|||||||0.0269|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to compare the change of sCD14 from baseline and month 12 measurement within each arm.||||0.0269
90813206|NCT02081638|181505059|OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.25
90813207|NCT02081638|181505059|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Plasma biomarkers (CRP, sCD14, TF, IL-6) were log(e) transformed and a linear mixed effect model with the biomarker as outcome and with random slope per participant was used to calculate the percentage of change from baseline.|||
90813208|NCT01414205|181505077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (Hauck-Anderson)|17.89||||0.0779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.95|40.72|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-values based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test by the randomization stratification factors as supportive analyses.||||40.72|-4.95|0.0779
90813209|NCT02498067|181505116|OTHER|||||||0.177||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired samples t-test comparison of whether participants' mean reported scores for frequency of dual method use differ between baseline (pre-rPlan) and 3-month follow-up (post-rPlan)||||.177
90813210|NCT02498067|181505117|OTHER|||||||0.318||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance: p\<.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired samples t-test comparison of whether participants' mean reported scores for frequency of condom use alone (without another method) differ between baseline (pre-rPlan) and 3-month follow-up (post-rPlan)||||.318
90813211|NCT02498067|181505118|OTHER|||||||0||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance: p\<.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired samples t-test comparison of whether participants reported more consistent contraceptive use (i.e., using contraception every time they had sex) between baseline (pre-rPlan) and 3-month follow-up (post-rPlan)||||.000
90813212|NCT02498067|181505120|OTHER|||||||0.03||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance: p\<.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired samples t-test comparison of participants' reported likelihood to use an IUD in the future (on a scale ranging from 1- very unlikely, to 5- very likely) before and directly after using the rPlan app||||.030
90813213|NCT02498067|181505121|OTHER|||||||0.14||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance: p\<.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired samples t-test comparison of participants' reported likelihood to use an implant in the future (on a scale ranging from 1- very unlikely, to 5- very likely) before and directly after using the rPlan app||||.140
90813214|NCT02498067|181505122|OTHER|||||||0.315||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance: p\<.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired samples t-test comparison of participants' reported likelihood to use condoms in the future (on a scale ranging from 1- very unlikely, to 5- very likely) before and directly after using the rPlan app||||.315
90813215|NCT02498067|181505123|OTHER|||||||0.028||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance: p\<.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired samples t-test comparison of participants' reported contraceptive self-efficacy (on a scale ranging from 1- not at all confident, to 5- extremely confident) before and 3 months after engaging in rPlan||||.028
90813216|NCT02498067|181505124|OTHER|||||||0.918||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance: p\<.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired samples t-test comparison of participants' reported condom use self-efficacy (on a scale ranging from 1- not at all confident, to 5- extremely confident) before and 3 months after engaging in rPlan||||.918
91015814|NCT03491800|181914555|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-38.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|-38.25||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.23
91015815|NCT03491800|181914555|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.0||0.67|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.67
91015816|NCT03491800|181914555|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.62||0.054|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.054
91015817|NCT03491800|181914556|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.60
90813217|NCT02498067|181505126|OTHER|||||||0.209||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance: p\<.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired samples t-test comparison of participants' self-reported number of sexual partners in the past 3 months (for those were sexually active) between baseline and 3-month follow-up||||.209
90813218|NCT02498067|181505127|OTHER|||||||0.652||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance: p\<.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired samples t-test comparison of participants' reported degree to which they endorse negative condom attitudes (on a scale ranging from 1- strongly disagree, to 5- strongly agree) before and 3 months after engaging in rPlan||||.652
90813219|NCT02498067|181505128|OTHER|||||||0.498||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance: p\<.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired samples t-test comparison of participants' reported degree to which they endorse positive motivators for condom use (on a scale ranging from 1- strongly disagree, to 5- strongly agree) before and 3 months after engaging in rPlan||||.498
90813220|NCT02498067|181505129|OTHER|||||||0.977||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance: p\<.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired samples t-test comparison of participants' rated importance of negative contraceptive attitudes on their decision to use contraception (on a scale ranging from 1- not at all important, to 5- extremely important) before and 3 months after engaging in rPlan||||.977
90813221|NCT02498067|181505130|OTHER|||||||0.673||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance: p\<.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired samples t-test comparison of participants' rated importance of positive motivators for contraceptive use on their decision to use contraception (on a scale ranging from 1- not at all important, to 5- extremely important) before and 3 months after engaging in rPlan||||.673
91015818|NCT03491800|181914556|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.29||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.40
90813222|NCT02498067|181505131|OTHER|||||||0.049||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance: p\<.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired samples t-test comparison of proportion of participants who provided correct answers to whether pills or condoms are more effective at preventing pregnancy, before and 3 months after engaging in rPlan||||.049
90813223|NCT02498067|181505131|OTHER|||||||0.265||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance: p\<.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired samples t-test comparison of proportion of participants who provided correct answers to whether the IUD or shot is more effective at preventing pregnancy, before and 3 months after engaging in rPlan||||.265
90813224|NCT01874275|181505134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2413|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2413
90813225|NCT02214225|181505140|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority criterion for the GMT ratio was that the upper bound of two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of Pooled TIV (for A strains) or TIV-1 (B Yamagata) or TIV-2 (B Victoria)/ bioCSL QIV should not exceed 1.5.|GMT ratio (A/H1N1)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|0.98||||||For A/H1N1 strain. The GMT ratio (defined as the geometric mean of postvaccination (day 21) HI titer for TIV divided by the geometric mean of the postvaccination HI titer for QIV) for each virus strain included in the vaccines was determined: bioCSL TIV-1 and bioCSL TIV-2 GMTs were pooled for analysis of the A strains.||0.98|0.87|
90813226|NCT02214225|181505140|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority criterion for the GMT ratio was that the upper bound of two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of Pooled TIV (for A strains) or TIV-1 (B Yamagata) or TIV-2 (B Victoria)/ bioCSL QIV should not exceed 1.5.|GMT ratio (A/H3N2)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|0.98||||||For A/H3N2 strain. The GMT ratio (defined as the geometric mean of postvaccination (day 21) HI titer for TIV divided by the geometric mean of the postvaccination HI titer for QIV) for each virus strain included in the vaccines was determined: bioCSL TIV-1 and bioCSL TIV-2 GMTs were pooled for analysis of the A strains.||0.98|0.88|
90813227|NCT02214225|181505140|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority criterion for the GMT ratio was that the upper bound of two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of Pooled TIV (for A strains) or TIV-1 (B Yamagata) or TIV-2 (B Victoria)/ bioCSL QIV should not exceed 1.5.|GMT ratio (B/YAM)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|0.93||||||For B/Yamagata strain. The GMT ratio (defined as the geometric mean of postvaccination (day 21) HI titer for TIV divided by the geometric mean of the postvaccination HI titer for QIV) for each virus strain included in the vaccines was determined: bioCSL TIV-1 and bioCSL TIV-2 GMTs were pooled for analysis of the A strains.||0.93|0.81|
91015819|NCT05604521|181914559|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3944|||||||Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis: There is no statistically significant difference between the vaccine and control groups in the proportion of participants experiencing any local solicited AEs after any vaccination.||||0.3944
91015820|NCT05604521|181914559|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3717|||||||Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis: There is no statistically significant difference between the vaccine and control groups in the proportion of participants experiencing any systemic solicited AEs after any vaccination.||||0.3717
91015821|NCT05604521|181914559|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis: There is no statistically significant difference between the vaccine and control groups in the proportion of participants experiencing any related unsolicited AEs after any vaccination.||||1.0
91015822|NCT03681769|181914568|EQUIVALENCE|Non-equivalence determined by p\<.05.||||||0.83||||||No site X time interaction (F12,270 = 0.614, p = 0.830).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.83
91055125|NCT02906930|181992249|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the in-trial observation period. The estimated treatment effect includes the effect of any additional anti-diabetic medication for all randomised subjects regardless of premature trial product discontinuation (treatment policy estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-0.1||||0.8692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.8||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0.|Pattern mixed model||Oral Semaglutide 3 mg - Placebo|The analysis was based on a pattern mixture model using multiple imputation to impute missing data for week 26, assuming that the missing data mechanism was missing at random within the groups used for the imputation. The imputed data sets were analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline body weight value as covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete data sets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||0.8|-0.9|0.8692
91015823|NCT03681769|181914569|OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.53
91015824|NCT02203305|181914581|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Percent correct converted to rationalized arcsine units (RAU) prior to analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|Main effects: interval (p\<0.001) and condition (p\<0.001). Interaction: Interval and condition (p\<0.001).||Recorded 50-word consonant-nucleus-consonant (CNC) words were evaluated for the poorer hearing ear 1) unaided and 2) with the cochlear implant (CI) over the post-activation study period. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the main effects of interval (1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation), condition (unaided or with the CI), and their interaction. Percent correct converted to RAU.||||<0.001
90813228|NCT02214225|181505140|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority criterion for the GMT ratio was that the upper bound of two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of Pooled TIV (for A strains) or TIV-1 (B Yamagata) or TIV-2 (B Victoria)/ bioCSL QIV should not exceed 1.5.|GMT ratio (B/VIC)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.01||||||For B/Victoria strain. The GMT ratio (defined as the geometric mean of postvaccination (day 21) HI titer for TIV divided by the geometric mean of the postvaccination HI titer for QIV) for each virus strain included in the vaccines was determined: bioCSL TIV-1 and bioCSL TIV-2 GMTs were pooled for analysis of the A strains.||1.01|0.86|
90813229|NCT02214225|181505141|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For A/H1N1. The non-inferiority criterion was that the upper bound of the two sided 95% CI on the difference between SCRs (Pooled TIV or TIV-1 (B Yamagata) or TIV-2 (B Victoria) minus bioCSL QIV) should not exceed 10%.|Difference in SCR (A/H1N1)|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|2.2||||||||2.2|-4.4|
90813230|NCT02214225|181505141|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For A/H3N2. The non-inferiority criterion was that the upper bound of the two sided 95% CI on the difference between SCRs (Pooled TIV or TIV-1 (B Yamagata) or TIV-2 (B Victoria) minus bioCSL QIV) should not exceed 10%.|Difference in SCR (A/H3N2)|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|1.6||||||||1.6|-5.0|
90813231|NCT02214225|181505141|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For B/Yamagata. The non-inferiority criterion was that the upper bound of the two sided 95% CI on the difference between SCRs (Pooled TIV or TIV-1 (B Yamagata) or TIV-2 (B Victoria) minus bioCSL QIV) should not exceed 10%.|Difference in SCR (B/YAM)|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|0.5||||||||0.5|-7.0|
90813232|NCT02214225|181505141|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For B/Victoria. The non-inferiority criterion was that the upper bound of the two sided 95% CI on the difference between SCRs (Pooled TIV or TIV-1 (B Yamagata) or TIV-2 (B Victoria) minus bioCSL QIV) should not exceed 10%.|Difference in SCR (B/VIC)|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|2.4||||||||2.4|-5.6|
90813233|NCT02214225|181505142|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority criterion for the GMT ratio was that the upper bound of two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of Pooled TIV (for A strains) or TIV-1 (B Yamagata) or TIV-2 (B Victoria)/ bioCSL QIV should not exceed 1.5.|GMT ratio (A/H1N1)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.02||||||For A/H1N1 strain. The GMT ratio (defined as the geometric mean of postvaccination (day 21) HI titer for TIV divided by the geometric mean of the postvaccination HI titer for QIV) for each virus strain included in the vaccines was determined: bioCSL TIV-1 and bioCSL TIV-2 GMTs were pooled for analysis of the A strains.||1.02|0.85|
90813234|NCT02214225|181505142|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority criterion for the GMT ratio was that the upper bound of two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of Pooled TIV (for A strains) or TIV-1 (B Yamagata) or TIV-2 (B Victoria)/ bioCSL QIV should not exceed 1.5.|GMT ratio (A/H3N2)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|0.99||||||For A/H3N2 strain. The GMT ratio (defined as the geometric mean of postvaccination (day 21) HI titer for TIV divided by the geometric mean of the postvaccination HI titer for QIV) for each virus strain included in the vaccines was determined: bioCSL TIV-1 and bioCSL TIV-2 GMTs were pooled for analysis of the A strains.||0.99|0.83|
90813235|NCT02214225|181505142|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority criterion for the GMT ratio was that the upper bound of two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of Pooled TIV (for A strains) or TIV-1 (B Yamagata) or TIV-2 (B Victoria)/ bioCSL QIV should not exceed 1.5.|GMT ratio (B/YAM)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.97||||||For B/YAM strain. The GMT ratio (defined as the geometric mean of postvaccination (day 21) HI titer for TIV divided by the geometric mean of the postvaccination HI titer for QIV) for each virus strain included in the vaccines was determined: bioCSL TIV-1 and bioCSL TIV-2 GMTs were pooled for analysis of the A strains.||0.97|0.76|
90813236|NCT02214225|181505142|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority criterion for the GMT ratio was that the upper bound of two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of Pooled TIV (for A strains) or TIV-1 (B Yamagata) or TIV-2 (B Victoria)/ bioCSL QIV should not exceed 1.5.|GMT ratio (B/VIC)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.98||||||For B/VIC strain. The GMT ratio (defined as the geometric mean of postvaccination (day 21) HI titer for TIV divided by the geometric mean of the postvaccination HI titer for QIV) for each virus strain included in the vaccines was determined: bioCSL TIV-1 and bioCSL TIV-2 GMTs were pooled for analysis of the A strains.||0.98|0.76|
90813237|NCT02214225|181505142|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority criterion for the GMT ratio was that the upper bound of two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of Pooled TIV (for A strains) or TIV-1 (B Yamagata) or TIV-2 (B Victoria)/ bioCSL QIV should not exceed 1.5.|GMT ratio (A/H1N1)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.02||||||For A/H1N1 strain. The GMT ratio (defined as the geometric mean of postvaccination (day 21) HI titer for TIV divided by the geometric mean of the postvaccination HI titer for QIV) for each virus strain included in the vaccines was determined: bioCSL TIV-1 and bioCSL TIV-2 GMTs were pooled for analysis of the A strains.||1.02|0.88|
90813238|NCT02214225|181505142|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority criterion for the GMT ratio was that the upper bound of two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of Pooled TIV (for A strains) or TIV-1 (B Yamagata) or TIV-2 (B Victoria)/ bioCSL QIV should not exceed 1.5.|GMT ratio (A/H3N2)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.02||||||For A/H3N2 strain. The GMT ratio (defined as the geometric mean of postvaccination (day 21) HI titer for TIV divided by the geometric mean of the postvaccination HI titer for QIV) for each virus strain included in the vaccines was determined: bioCSL TIV-1 and bioCSL TIV-2 GMTs were pooled for analysis of the A strains.||1.02|0.89|
90813239|NCT02214225|181505142|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority criterion for the GMT ratio was that the upper bound of two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of Pooled TIV (for A strains) or TIV-1 (B Yamagata) or TIV-2 (B Victoria)/ bioCSL QIV should not exceed 1.5.|GMT ratio (B/YAM)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|0.97||||||For B/YAM strain. The GMT ratio (defined as the geometric mean of postvaccination (day 21) HI titer for TIV divided by the geometric mean of the postvaccination HI titer for QIV) for each virus strain included in the vaccines was determined: bioCSL TIV-1 and bioCSL TIV-2 GMTs were pooled for analysis of the A strains.||0.97|0.84|
90813240|NCT02214225|181505142|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority criterion for the GMT ratio was that the upper bound of two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of Pooled TIV (for A strains) or TIV-1 (B Yamagata) or TIV-2 (B Victoria)/ bioCSL QIV should not exceed 1.5.|GMT ratio (B/VIC)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.14||||||For B/VIC strain. The GMT ratio (defined as the geometric mean of postvaccination (day 21) HI titer for TIV divided by the geometric mean of the postvaccination HI titer for QIV) for each virus strain included in the vaccines was determined: bioCSL TIV-1 and bioCSL TIV-2 GMTs were pooled for analysis of the A strains.||1.14|0.94|
90813241|NCT02214225|181505143|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For A/H1N1. The non-inferiority criterion was that the upper bound of the two sided 95% CI on the difference between SCRs (Pooled TIV or TIV-1 (B Yamagata) or TIV-2 (B Victoria) minus bioCSL QIV) should not exceed 10%.|Difference in SCR (A/H1N1)|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|2.6||||||The SCR difference was defined as the SCR percentage for bioCSL Pooled TIV or TIV-1 (B Yamagata) or TIV-2 (B Victoria) minus the SCR percentage for bioCSL QIV.||2.6|-6.9|
90813242|NCT02214225|181505143|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For A/H3N2. The non-inferiority criterion was that the upper bound of the two sided 95% CI on the difference between SCRs (Pooled TIV or TIV-1 (B Yamagata) or TIV-2 (B Victoria) minus bioCSL QIV) should not exceed 10%.|Difference in SCR (A/H3N2)|-4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|0.2||||||The SCR difference was defined as the SCR percentage for bioCSL Pooled TIV or TIV-1 (B Yamagata) or TIV-2 (B Victoria) minus the SCR percentage for bioCSL QIV.||0.2|-9.3|
90813243|NCT02214225|181505143|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For B/YAM. The non-inferiority criterion was that the upper bound of the two sided 95% CI on the difference between SCRs (Pooled TIV or TIV-1 (B Yamagata) or TIV-2 (B Victoria) minus bioCSL QIV) should not exceed 10%.|Difference in SCR (B/YAM)|-4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|1.3||||||The SCR difference was defined as the SCR percentage for bioCSL Pooled TIV or TIV-1 (B Yamagata) or TIV-2 (B Victoria) minus the SCR percentage for bioCSL QIV.||1.3|-10.3|
90813244|NCT02214225|181505143|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For B/VIC. The non-inferiority criterion was that the upper bound of the two sided 95% CI on the difference between SCRs (Pooled TIV or TIV-1 (B Yamagata) or TIV-2 (B Victoria) minus bioCSL QIV) should not exceed 10%.|Difference in SCR (B/VIC)|-4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|1.2||||||The SCR difference was defined as the SCR percentage for bioCSL Pooled TIV or TIV-1 (B Yamagata) or TIV-2 (B Victoria) minus the SCR percentage for bioCSL QIV.||1.2|-10.5|
90813245|NCT02214225|181505143|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For A/H1N1. The non-inferiority criterion was that the upper bound of the two sided 95% CI on the difference between SCRs (Pooled TIV or TIV-1 (B Yamagata) or TIV-2 (B Victoria) minus bioCSL QIV) should not exceed 10%.|Difference in SCR (A/H1N1)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|4.0||||||The SCR difference was defined as the SCR percentage for bioCSL Pooled TIV or TIV-1 (B Yamagata) or TIV-2 (B Victoria) minus the SCR percentage for bioCSL QIV.||4.0|-4.4|
90813246|NCT02214225|181505143|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For A/H3N2. The non-inferiority criterion was that the upper bound of the two sided 95% CI on the difference between SCRs (Pooled TIV or TIV-1 (B Yamagata) or TIV-2 (B Victoria) minus bioCSL QIV) should not exceed 10%.|Difference in SCR (A/H3N2)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|5.2||||||The SCR difference was defined as the SCR percentage for bioCSL Pooled TIV or TIV-1 (B Yamagata) or TIV-2 (B Victoria) minus the SCR percentage for bioCSL QIV.||5.2|-3.1|
90813247|NCT02214225|181505143|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For B/YAM. The non-inferiority criterion was that the upper bound of the two sided 95% CI on the difference between SCRs (Pooled TIV or TIV-1 (B Yamagata) or TIV-2 (B Victoria) minus bioCSL QIV) should not exceed 10%.|Difference in SCR (B/YAM)|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|2.0||||||The SCR difference was defined as the SCR percentage for bioCSL Pooled TIV or TIV-1 (B Yamagata) or TIV-2 (B Victoria) minus the SCR percentage for bioCSL QIV.||2.0|-6.3|
90813248|NCT02214225|181505143|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For B/VIC. The non-inferiority criterion was that the upper bound of the two sided 95% CI on the difference between SCRs (Pooled TIV or TIV-1 (B Yamagata) or TIV-2 (B Victoria) minus bioCSL QIV) should not exceed 10%.|Difference in SCR (B/VIC)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|6.2||||||The SCR difference was defined as the SCR percentage for bioCSL Pooled TIV or TIV-1 (B Yamagata) or TIV-2 (B Victoria) minus the SCR percentage for bioCSL QIV.||6.2|-3.7|
90813249|NCT02214225|181505144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio (B/YAM) overall|1.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|1.57|||||Immunologic superiority of the alternate B strain (eg, the influenza B strain included in the bioCSL QIV but not in the bioCSL TIV formulation) in bioCSL QIV was demonstrated if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI on GMT ratio was greater than 1.|Immunologic superiority of the alternate B strain (ie, the influenza B strain included in the QIV but not in the TIV formulation) in bioCSL QIV was assessed separately within each age group (18 to \< 65 years and ≥ 65 years of age), and overall. The GMT ratio was calculated as bioCSL QIV GMT/bioCSL TIV GMT for the superiority analyses, which is the reverse of how it was calculated for the non-inferiority analyses.||1.57|1.38|
90813250|NCT02214225|181505144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio (B/VIC) overall|1.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|1.7|||||Immunologic superiority of the alternate B strain (eg, the influenza B strain included in the bioCSL QIV but not in the bioCSL TIV formulation) in bioCSL QIV was demonstrated if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI on GMT ratio was greater than 1.|Immunologic superiority of the alternate B strain (ie, the influenza B strain included in the QIV but not in the TIV formulation) in bioCSL QIV was assessed separately within each age group (18 to \< 65 years and ≥ 65 years of age), and overall. The GMT ratio was calculated as bioCSL QIV GMT/bioCSL TIV GMT for the superiority analyses, which is the reverse of how it was calculated for the non-inferiority analyses.||1.70|1.45|
90813251|NCT02214225|181505144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio (B/YAM) 18 through 64 years|1.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|1.87|||||Immunologic superiority of the alternate B strain (eg, the influenza B strain included in the bioCSL QIV but not in the bioCSL TIV formulation) in bioCSL QIV was demonstrated if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI on GMT was greater than 1|Immunologic superiority of the alternate B strain (ie, the influenza B strain included in the QIV but not in the TIV formulation) in bioCSL QIV was assessed separately within each age group (18 to \< 65 years and ≥ 65 years of age), and overall. The GMT ratio was calculated as bioCSL QIV GMT/bioCSL TIV GMT for the superiority analyses, which is the reverse of how it was calculated for the non-inferiority analyses.||1.87|1.50|
90813252|NCT02214225|181505144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio (B/VIC) 18 through 64 years|1.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|2.01|||||Immunologic superiority of the alternate B strain (eg, the influenza B strain included in the bioCSL QIV but not in the bioCSL TIV formulation) in bioCSL QIV was demonstrated if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI on GMT was greater than 1|Immunologic superiority of the alternate B strain (ie, the influenza B strain included in the QIV but not in the TIV formulation) in bioCSL QIV was assessed separately within each age group (18 to \< 65 years and ≥ 65 years of age), and overall. The GMT ratio was calculated as bioCSL QIV GMT/bioCSL TIV GMT for the superiority analyses, which is the reverse of how it was calculated for the non-inferiority analyses.||2.01|1.55|
90813253|NCT02214225|181505144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio (B/YAM) ≥ 65 years|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|1.4|||||Immunologic superiority of the alternate B strain (eg, the influenza B strain included in the bioCSL QIV but not in the bioCSL TIV formulation) in bioCSL QIV was demonstrated if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI on GMT was greater than 1|Immunologic superiority of the alternate B strain (ie, the influenza B strain included in the QIV but not in the TIV formulation) in bioCSL QIV was assessed separately within each age group (18 to \< 65 years and ≥ 65 years of age), and overall. The GMT ratio was calculated as bioCSL QIV GMT/bioCSL TIV GMT for the superiority analyses, which is the reverse of how it was calculated for the non-inferiority analyses.||1.40|1.21|
90813254|NCT02214225|181505144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio (B/VIC) ≥ 65 years|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|1.51|||||Immunologic superiority of the alternate B strain (eg, the influenza B strain included in the bioCSL QIV but not in the bioCSL TIV formulation) in bioCSL QIV was demonstrated if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI on GMT was greater than 1|Immunologic superiority of the alternate B strain (ie, the influenza B strain included in the QIV but not in the TIV formulation) in bioCSL QIV was assessed separately within each age group (18 to \< 65 years and ≥ 65 years of age), and overall. The GMT ratio was calculated as bioCSL QIV GMT/bioCSL TIV GMT for the superiority analyses, which is the reverse of how it was calculated for the non-inferiority analyses.||1.51|1.27|
90813255|NCT02214225|181505145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in SCR (B/YAM) overall|15.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.1|18.6|||||Immunologic superiority of the alternate B strain (eg, the influenza B strain included in bioCSL QIV but not in the TIV formulation) in bioCSL QIV was demonstrated if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in SCRs was \> 0.|Immunologic superiority of the alternate B strain (ie, the influenza B strain included in the QIV but not in the TIV formulation) in bioCSL QIV was assessed separately within each age group (18 to \< 65 years and ≥ 65 years of age), and overall. Seroconversion rate difference = bioCSL QIV SCR percentage - bioCSL TIV-1 or TIV-2 SCR percentage||18.6|12.1|
90813256|NCT02214225|181505145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in SCR (B/VIC) overall|20.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.5|23.6|||||Immunologic superiority of the alternate B strain (eg, the influenza B strain included in bioCSL QIV but not in the TIV formulation) in bioCSL QIV was demonstrated if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in SCRs was \> 0.|Seroconversion rate difference = bioCSL QIV SCR percentage - bioCSL TIV-1 or TIV-2 SCR percentage||23.6|16.5|
90813257|NCT02214225|181505145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in SCR (B/YAM) 18 through 64y|22.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.7|28.2|||||Immunologic superiority of the alternate B strain (eg, the influenza B strain included in bioCSL QIV but not in the TIV formulation) in bioCSL QIV was demonstrated if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in SCRs was \> 0.|Immunologic superiority of the alternate B strain (ie, the influenza B strain included in the QIV but not in the TIV formulation) in bioCSL QIV was assessed separately within each age group (18 to \< 65 years and ≥ 65 years of age), and overall. Seroconversion rate difference = bioCSL QIV SCR percentage - bioCSL TIV-1 or TIV-2 SCR percentage||28.2|17.7|
90813258|NCT02214225|181505145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in SCR (B/VIC) 18 through 64y|28.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.1|34.1|||||Immunologic superiority of the alternate B strain (eg, the influenza B strain included in bioCSL QIV but not in the TIV formulation) in bioCSL QIV was demonstrated if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in SCRs was \> 0.|Immunologic superiority of the alternate B strain (ie, the influenza B strain included in the QIV but not in the TIV formulation) in bioCSL QIV was assessed separately within each age group (18 to \< 65 years and ≥ 65 years of age), and overall. Seroconversion rate difference = bioCSL QIV SCR percentage - bioCSL TIV-1 or TIV-2 SCR percentage||34.1|23.1|
90813259|NCT02214225|181505145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in SCR (B/YAM) ≥ 65 years|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|11.6|||||Immunologic superiority of the alternate B strain (eg, the influenza B strain included in bioCSL QIV but not in the TIV formulation) in bioCSL QIV was demonstrated if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in SCRs was \> 0.|Immunologic superiority of the alternate B strain (ie, the influenza B strain included in the QIV but not in the TIV formulation) in bioCSL QIV was assessed separately within each age group (18 to \< 65 years and ≥ 65 years of age), and overall. Seroconversion rate difference = bioCSL QIV SCR percentage - bioCSL TIV-1 or TIV-2 SCR percentage||11.6|4.3|
90813260|NCT02214225|181505145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in SCR (B/VIC) ≥ 65 years|11.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|16.0|||||Immunologic superiority of the alternate B strain (eg, the influenza B strain included in bioCSL QIV but not in the TIV formulation) in bioCSL QIV was demonstrated if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in SCRs was \> 0.|Immunologic superiority of the alternate B strain (ie, the influenza B strain included in the QIV but not in the TIV formulation) in bioCSL QIV was assessed separately within each age group (18 to \< 65 years and ≥ 65 years of age), and overall. Seroconversion rate difference = bioCSL QIV SCR percentage - bioCSL TIV-1 or TIV-2 SCR percentage.||16.0|7.7|
90813261|NCT01669421|181505166|OTHER|Data was analyzed with multiple repeat ANOVA for all visits and paired samples were also evaluated.|||||<|0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||IL-2||||<0.05
90813262|NCT01669421|181505166|OTHER|Kruskal-Wallis||||||0.035|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||IL-4||||0.035
90813263|NCT01669421|181505166|OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||IL-8||||0.33
91079195|NCT03240406|182044054|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.13||||0.639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.18|9.92||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|ANCOVA|MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|||9.92|-16.18|0.639
90813264|NCT01669421|181505166|OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||IL-9||||0.68
90813265|NCT01669421|181505166|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||IL-17||||0.020
90813266|NCT01669421|181505166|OTHER|||||||0.021|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||FGF||||0.021
90813267|NCT01669421|181505166|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Eotaxin||||0.02
90813268|NCT01669421|181505166|OTHER|||||||0.045|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||GM-CSF||||0.045
90813269|NCT01669421|181505166|OTHER|||||||0.47|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||IL15||||0.47
90813270|NCT01669421|181505166|OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||IL-1a||||0.90
90813271|NCT01669421|181505166|OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||IL18||||0.80
90813272|NCT01669421|181505166|OTHER|||||||0.027|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||M-CSF||||0.027
90813273|NCT01669421|181505167|OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||No power calculation and this is an exploratory pilot analysis We expected cytokines to decrease after subjects receive double dose and a rebound after administering standard dose.||||0.07
91055126|NCT02906930|181992249|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The estimated treatment effect excludes the effect of any rescue medication (hypothetical estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-0.2||||0.7075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.6|||MMRM||Oral Semaglutide 3 mg - Placebo|The analysis was based on a MMRM that assumed data to be missing at random. As dependent variables, the MMRM model included all post-baseline values collected at scheduled visits up to and including week 26. The independent effects were treatment and region as categorical fixed effects and the baseline body weight value as a covariate, all nested within visit, and an unstructured residual covariance matrix.||0.6|-1.0|0.7075
90813274|NCT01669421|181505169|OTHER|between Week 4 and Week 8||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Desmosine (DES) and isodesmosine (IDES) are used as indicator of elastin degradation. Levels of DES/IDES were measured using high-performance liquid chromatography and tandem mass spectrometry.||||0.03
90813275|NCT01669421|181505169|OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||between Week 8 and Week 12||||0.33
90813276|NCT01669421|181505169|OTHER|||||||0.029|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||between Week 4 and Week 12||||0.029
90813277|NCT02961790|181505185|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0041|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0041
90813278|NCT02961790|181505185|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0001
90813279|NCT02961790|181505186|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for effects specified in outcome measure description.||||||<0.0001
90813280|NCT02961790|181505187|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for effects specified in outcome measure description.||||||<0.0001
90813281|NCT02961790|181505188|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0174|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0174
90813282|NCT02961790|181505188|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0279|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0279
90813283|NCT02961790|181505189|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0011|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0011
90813284|NCT02961790|181505189|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0025|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0025
91077821|NCT02913105|182041132|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011||0.8015|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.021|0.016|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 112 (EOS)||0.016|-0.021|0.8015
90813285|NCT00300482|181505214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||alpha = 0.05, all 3 primary endpoints had to show superiority of combo therapy in order to declare combo therapy successful at a given statin dose, Hochberg method for multiple comparison adjustment for 2 statin doses|ANCOVA|||An n = 205 per arm would provide \>99% power to detect a 17% decrease in triglycerides relative to statin monotherapy for each combo therapy dose, assuming an SD of 30%||||<0.001
90813286|NCT00300482|181505214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||alpha = 0.05, all 3 primary endpoints had to show superiority of combo therapy in order to declare combo therapy successful at a given statin dose, Hochberg method for multiple comparison adjustment for 2 statin doses|ANCOVA|||An n = 205 per arm would provide \>99% power to detect a 17% decrease in triglycerides relative to statin monotherapy for each combo therapy dose, assuming an SD of 30%||||<0.001
90813287|NCT00300482|181505215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||alpha = 0.05, all 3 primary endpoints had to show superiority of combo therapy in order to declare combo therapy successful at a given statin dose, Hochberg method for multiple comparison adjustment for 2 statin doses|ANCOVA|||An n = 205 per arm would provide 92% power to detect a 5% increase in HDL-C relative to statin monotherapy for each combo therapy dose, assuming an SD of 15%||||<0.001
90813288|NCT00300482|181505215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||alpha = 0.05, all 3 primary endpoints had to show superiority of combo therapy in order to declare combo therapy successful at a given statin dose, Hochberg method for multiple comparison adjustment for 2 statin doses|ANCOVA|||An n = 205 per arm would provide 92% power to detect a 5% increase in HDL-C relative to statin monotherapy for each combo therapy dose, assuming an SD of 15%||||<0.001
90813289|NCT00300482|181505216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||alpha = 0.05, all 3 primary endpoints had to show superiority of combo therapy in order to declare combo therapy successful at a given statin dose, Hochberg method for multiple comparison adjustment for 2 statin doses|ANCOVA|||An n = 205 per arm would provide 99% power to detect a 43% decrease in LDL-C relative to ABT-335 monotherapy for each combo therapy dose, assuming an SD of 15%||||<0.001
90813290|NCT00300482|181505216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||alpha = 0.05, all 3 primary endpoints had to show superiority of combo therapy in order to declare combo therapy successful at a given statin dose, Hochberg method for multiple comparison adjustment for 2 statin doses|ANCOVA|||An n = 205 per arm would provide 99% power to detect a 43% decrease in LDL-C relative to ABT-335 monotherapy for each combo therapy dose, assuming an SD of 15%||||<0.001
90813291|NCT02370095|181505239|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2416|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Only one placebo subject had data to allow for change from baseline to be calculated||||0.2416
90813292|NCT02370095|181505240|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The change in S/F ratio over time was evaluated using a mixed model for repeated measures||||||0.06
90813293|NCT02370095|181505241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0679|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0679
90813294|NCT02370095|181505246|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.567|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Measurement of MAP were evaluated from baseline to end of treatment||||||0.567
90813295|NCT02370095|181505247|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2507||||||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|Fisher Exact|||||||0.2507
90813296|NCT02370095|181505249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5055|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.5055
90813297|NCT00434759|181505252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.82|||<|0.05||95.0||||priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05 p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|We report the interaction effect.|The reported interaction effect is significant (p\< .05) in favour of standard therapy.|||||<0.05
90813298|NCT00434759|181505253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.24|||<|0.05||95.0||||priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05 p-value ist not adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|we report the interaction effect|The reported interaction effect is not significant.|||||<0.05
90813299|NCT00434759|181505254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.99|||<|0.05||95.0||||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|we report the interaction effect|The reported interaction effect is not significant.|||||<0.05
90813300|NCT00434759|181505255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.43|||<|0.05||95.0||||priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05 p-value ist not adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|we report the interaction effect|The reported interaction is not significant.|||||<0.05
90813301|NCT00434759|181505256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.86|||<|0.05||95.0||||priori threshold for statistical significance ist 0.05 p-value ist nor adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|we report the interaction effect|The reported interaction effect is significant (p \< .05) in favour of standard therapy|||||<0.05
90813302|NCT00787930|181505258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||a priori threshold for significance was 0.05|Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
90813303|NCT00787930|181505259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|df=1||||||1.00
90813304|NCT00787930|181505260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6056||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons|Chi-squared|df=1||||||0.6056
90813305|NCT00787930|181505261|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exploratory hypothesis|t-stat estimated value|1.52|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.2||0.081|ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.0||||t-test, 1 sided|missing values: 6 df=7|||||0|0.081
90813306|NCT00787930|181505262|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exploratory analyses|t-stat estimated value|1.47|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.56||0.091|ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.0|||no adjustment for multiple analyses|t-test, 1 sided|missing values: 5 df=7|||||0|0.091
90813307|NCT00628589|181505298|SUPERIORITY|LS mean was used in the primary efficacy analysis||||||0.0004|||||||ANCOVA|p-values (adjusted) using Dunnett's t-test in main effects ANCOVA model||||||0.0004
90813308|NCT00628589|181505298|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|p-values (adjusted) using Dunnett's t-test in main effects ANCOVA model||||||<0.0001
90813309|NCT00628589|181505299|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0015|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0015
90813310|NCT00628589|181505299|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
90813311|NCT00628589|181505300|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0015|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0015
90813312|NCT00628589|181505300|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
90813313|NCT01688739|181505319|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Means|1.1||||0.7595|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|1.4|||ANCOVA||Migraine participants / Healthy Participants|||1.4|0.8|0.7595
90813314|NCT01688739|181505321|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Means|1.1||||0.5481|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.4|||ANCOVA||Migraine participants / Healthy participants|||1.4|0.9|0.5481
90813315|NCT01688739|181505322|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Means|1.1||||0.5506|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.4|||ANCOVA||Migraine participants / Healthy participants|||1.4|0.9|0.5506
90813316|NCT02406443|181505324|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|46.0|||=|0.012|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||=0.012
90813317|NCT02406443|181505325|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|5.7||||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.40
90813318|NCT02406443|181505326|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.0||||0.15|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.15
90813319|NCT02406443|181505327|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.001
90813320|NCT02406443|181505328|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.001
90813321|NCT02406443|181505329|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.7||||0.42|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.42
90813322|NCT06276881|181505339|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||t-test, 1 sided||||Multiple regression analysis|||.37
90813323|NCT06276881|181505340|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||ANOVA|||||||.07
90813324|NCT01694108|181505364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Mann-Whitney-test comparing the decisional conflict scores of participating mothers vs. declining mothers.||||||<0.001
90813325|NCT02124512|181505373|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The p-value was calculated to be \>0.05.|ANOVA|||Comparison of the pre- and post-treatment timecourse between untreated and rifaximin-treated participants.||||>0.05
90813326|NCT02124512|181505374|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12||||||unpaired Student's t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||Treatment difference (change in placebo pre- and post-treatment versus change in rifaximin pre- and post-treatment).||||0.12
90813327|NCT01974752|181505406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.3195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.27|||Log Rank|Factor for treatment and liver metastases|A hazard ratio \< 1 favours Selumetinib in combination with Dacarbazine|||1.27|0.48|0.3195
90813328|NCT01974752|181505408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS mean ratio|0.94||||0.1284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.02|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA of log (W6/BL) tumour assessments with a factor for trt, and covariates for liver mets, log BL tumour size, and time from BL scan to rand.|A geometric least squares mean ratio \< 1 favours Selumetinib in combination with Dacarbazine|||1.02|0.88|0.1284
90813329|NCT01974752|181505409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.4011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.46|||Log Rank|||||1.46|0.39|0.4011
90813330|NCT02370004|181505513|OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired T-tests were used to evaluate changes in spirometry results||||.10
90813331|NCT01187004|181505517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|significant level for inclusion at the univariate analysis was p\<0.05.||Our hypothesis was that mechanical ventilation with large tidal volume might represent a risk factor for acute lung injury in patients undergoing cardiopulmonary bypass.||||<0.05
90813332|NCT01187004|181505518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.199|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.129|1.272|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.272|1.129|<0.001
90813333|NCT01891344|181505534|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.273|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.437||||||||0.437|0.170|
90813334|NCT01891344|181505534|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.428|0.871||||||||0.871|0.428|
90813335|NCT01852825|181505542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|2.355||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.515|3.661|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis||MK-8237 treatment divided by Placebo treatment|The hypothesis is supported if the lower bound of the two-sided 90% confidence interval for the Week 12 geometric mean fold difference is \>1.0.||3.661|1.515|0.003
90813336|NCT01852825|181505543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|2.182||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.364|3.49|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis||MK-8237 treatment divided by Placebo treatment|The hypothesis is supported if the lower bound of the two-sided 90% confidence interval for the Week 12 geometric mean fold difference is \>1.0.||3.490|1.364|0.010
90813337|NCT01852825|181505544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.238||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.066|0.41|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis||MK-8237 treatment minus Placebo treatment|The hypothesis is supported if the lower bound of the 1-tailed 95% CI around the mean difference in change from baseline excludes zero||0.410|0.066|0.027
90813338|NCT01852825|181505545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.068||||0.935|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.272|4.19|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis||MK-8237 treatment divided by Placebo treatment|||4.190|0.272|0.935
90813339|NCT01852825|181505546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|2.21||||0.296|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.605|8.066|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis||MK-8237 treatment divided by Placebo treatment|||8.066|0.605|0.296
90813340|NCT01852825|181505547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-61.115||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-100.185|-22.045|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis||MK-8237 treatment minus Placebo treatment|||-22.045|-100.185|0.014
90813341|NCT01394614|181505548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence-rate difference|0.41|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Difference between the incidence rate of exposed-to-vaccine cases (0.52) and that of unexposed cases (0.11) is 0.41 per 100,000 persons-years|||||
90813342|NCT01394614|181505548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|4.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|11.12|||||Risk of developing narcolepsy if exposed to H1N1 vaccination (using the 16-week post-vaccination period as reference).|||11.12|1.5|
90813343|NCT02120365|181505580|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.729|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.986||0.867|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Representing the high dose 10mg compared to the placebo 0mg dose.|Medication dose was a within-subjects factor (crossover design)||||0.867
90813344|NCT02120365|181505581|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.514|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.038||0.071|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Representing the high dose 10mg compared to the placebo 0mg dose.|mixed models, medication was a within-subjects factor||||0.071
90813345|NCT02120365|181505582|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.729|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.905||0.667|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Representing the high dose 10mg compared to the placebo 0mg dose.|mixed models||||0.667
90813346|NCT02120365|181505583|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.242|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.393||0.285|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Representing the high dose 10mg compared to the placebo 0mg dose.|||||0.285
90813347|NCT02120365|181505584|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.235|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.408||0.843|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Representing the high dose 10mg compared to the placebo 0mg dose.|Mixed Models||||.843
91077822|NCT02913105|182041132|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.008||0.4923|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.008|0.02|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 28||0.020|-0.008|0.4923
90813348|NCT02120365|181505585|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.369|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.07||0.691|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Representing the high dose 10mg compared to the placebo 0mg dose.|We report the main effect of dose on the outcome measure||||.691
90813349|NCT02305849|181505586|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|36.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.7|47.0||Closed testing procedure was used for multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||CI was based on normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||47.0|26.7|<0.001
90813350|NCT02305849|181505586|SUPERIORITY||Percent difference|42.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.6|52.6||Closed testing procedure was used for multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||CI was based on normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||52.6|32.6|<0.001
90813351|NCT02305849|181505587|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Closed testing procedure was used for multiplicity adjustment.|RANCOVA|Based on Rank Analysis of Covariance (RANCOVA) Model: Rank of mTSS Change = Treatment + Baseline Rank of mTSS.||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||||<0.001
90813352|NCT02305849|181505587|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Closed testing procedure was used for multiplicity adjustment.|RANCOVA|Based on RANCOVA Model: Rank of mTSS Change = Treatment + Baseline Rank of mTSS.||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||||<0.001
90813353|NCT02305849|181505589|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|22.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.8|30.7||No multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||C.I. was based on normal approximation to the binomial distribution (continuity corrected).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||30.7|13.8|<0.001
90813354|NCT02305849|181505589|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|38.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.3|47.3||No multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||C.I. was based on normal approximation to the binomial distribution (continuity corrected).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||47.3|29.3|<0.001
90813355|NCT02305849|181505591|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|9.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|15.6||No multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||C.I. was based on normal approximation to the binomial distribution (continuity corrected).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||15.6|3.8|<0.001
90813356|NCT02305849|181505591|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|21.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.9|28.5||No multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||C.I. was based on normal approximation to the binomial distribution (continuity corrected).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||28.5|13.9|<0.001
90813357|NCT02305849|181505593|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Based on RANCOVA Model: Rank of mTSS Change = Treatment + Baseline Rank of mTSS.|RANCOVA|||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||||<0.001
90813358|NCT02305849|181505593|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Based on RANCOVA Model: Rank of mTSS Change = Treatment + Baseline Rank of mTSS.|RANCOVA|||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||||<0.001
90813359|NCT02305849|181505594|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018|||||||RANCOVA|Based on RANCOVA Model: Rank of JSN Score Change = Treatment + Baseline Rank of JSN score.||Week 28/ET: Treatment Difference vs Placebo||||0.018
90813360|NCT02305849|181505594|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||RANCOVA|Based on RANCOVA Model: Rank of JSN Score Change = Treatment + Baseline Rank of JSN score.||Week 28/ET: Treatment Difference vs Placebo||||0.002
90813361|NCT02305849|181505594|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.039|||||||RANCOVA|Based on RANCOVA Model: Rank of JSN Score Change = Treatment + Baseline Rank of JSN Score.||Week 52/ET: Treatment Difference vs Placebo||||0.039
90813362|NCT02305849|181505594|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||RANCOVA|Based on RANCOVA Model: Rank of JSN Score Change = Treatment + Baseline Rank of JSN Score.||Week 52/ET: Treatment Difference vs Placebo||||0.006
90813363|NCT02305849|181505595|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036|||||||RANCOVA|Based on RANCOVA Model: Rank of Erosion Score Change = Treatment + Baseline Rank of Erosion Score.||Week 28/ET: Treatment Difference vs Placebo||||0.036
90813364|NCT02305849|181505595|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||RANCOVA|Based on RANCOVA Model: Rank of Erosion Score Change = Treatment + Baseline Rank of Erosion Score.||Week 28/ET: Treatment Difference vs Placebo||||<0.001
90813365|NCT02305849|181505595|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013|||||||RANCOVA|Based on RANCOVA Model: Rank of Erosion Score Change = Treatment + Baseline Rank of Erosion Score.||Week 52/ET: Treatment Difference vs Placebo||||0.013
90813366|NCT02305849|181505595|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||RANCOVA|Based on RANCOVA Model: Rank of Erosion Score Change = Treatment + Baseline Rank of Erosion Score.||Week 52/ET: Treatment Difference vs Placebo||||<0.001
90813367|NCT02305849|181505596|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|21.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|32.6||No multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||CI was based on normal approximation to the binomial distribution (continuity corrected).|Week 28/ET: Treatment Difference vs Placebo||32.6|10.0|<0.001
90813368|NCT02305849|181505596|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|26.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.7|37.9||No multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||CI was based on normal approximation to the binomial distribution (continuity corrected).|Week 28/ET: Treatment Difference vs Placebo||37.9|15.7|<0.001
90813369|NCT02305849|181505596|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|21.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.2|32.9||No multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||CI was based on normal approximation to the binomial distribution (continuity corrected).|Week 52/ET: Treatment Difference vs Placebo||32.9|10.2|<0.001
90813370|NCT02305849|181505596|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|26.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.2|37.6||No multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||CI was based on normal approximation to the binomial distribution (continuity corrected).|Week 52/ET: Treatment Difference vs Placebo||37.6|15.2|<0.001
90813371|NCT02305849|181505597|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|-0.97||No multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) Model: DAS28 Change = Treatment + Baseline DAS28.||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-0.97|-1.46|<0.001
90813372|NCT02305849|181505597|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-1.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|-1.33||No multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA Model: DAS28 Change = Treatment + Baseline DAS28.||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-1.33|-1.85|<0.001
90813373|NCT02305849|181505599|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|-0.94||No multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA Model: DAS28 Change = Treatment + Baseline DAS28.||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-0.94|-1.44|<0.001
91015825|NCT02203305|181914581|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Percent correct converted to rationalized arcsine units (RAU) prior to analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|Main effects: interval (p\<0.001) and condition (p\<0.001). Interaction: interval and condition (p\<0.001).||Recorded 50-word CNC words were evaluated for the poorer hearing ear 1) unaided and 2) with the cochlear implant (CI) over the post-activation study period. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the main effects of interval (1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation), condition (unaided or with the CI), and their interaction. Percent correct converted to RAU.||||<0.001
90813374|NCT02305849|181505599|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-1.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|-1.36||No multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA Model: DAS28 Change = Treatment + Baseline DAS28.||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-1.36|-1.89|<0.001
90813375|NCT02305849|181505601|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|<|0.001||95.0|-6.9|-3.5||No multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA Model: TJC68 Change = Treatment + Baseline TJC68.||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-3.5|-6.9|<0.001
90813376|NCT02305849|181505601|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-7.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|-5.6||No multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA Model: TJC68 Change = Treatment + Baseline TJC68.||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-5.6|-8.9|<0.001
90813377|NCT02305849|181505603|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|-2.6||No multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA Model: SJC66 Change = Treatment + Baseline SJC66.||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-2.6|-5.3|<0.001
90813378|NCT02305849|181505603|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|-4.3||No multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA Model: SJC66 Change = Treatment + Baseline SJC66.||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-4.3|-6.9|<0.001
90813379|NCT02305849|181505605|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|23.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.1|32.3||No multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||C.I. was based on normal approximation to the binomial distribution (continuity corrected).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||32.3|15.1|<0.001
90813380|NCT02305849|181505605|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|27.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.6|36.2||No multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||C.I. was based on normal approximation to the binomial distribution (continuity corrected).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||36.2|18.6|<0.001
90813381|NCT02305849|181505607|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|10.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|16.5||No multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||C.I. was based on normal approximation to the binomial distribution (continuity corrected)|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||16.5|4.3|<0.001
91015826|NCT02203305|181914581|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Percent correct data were converted to rationalized arcsine units (RAU) prior to data analysis.|ANOVA|A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.||Recorded 50-word CNC words were evaluated in an unaided condition for the poorer hearing ear pre-operatively and with the cochlear implant (CI) over the study period. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the main effect of interval (before surgery, and 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation). Percent correct converted to RAU.||||<0.001
90813382|NCT02305849|181505607|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|16.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|23.9||No multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||C.I. was based on normal approximation to the binomial distribution (continuity corrected)|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||23.9|10.0|<0.001
90813383|NCT02305849|181505609|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|34.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.1|44.2||No multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||C.I. was based on normal approximation to the binomial distribution (continuity corrected).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||44.2|25.1|<0.001
91077823|NCT02913105|182041132|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.62|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.025|0.014|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 42||0.014|-0.025|0.6200
90813384|NCT02305849|181505609|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|45.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.0|55.0||No multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||C.I. was based on normal approximation to the binomial distribution (continuity corrected).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||55.0|36.0|<0.001
90813385|NCT02305849|181505611|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|20.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.5|28.1||No multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||C.I. was based on normal approximation to the binomial distribution (continuity corrected).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||28.1|12.5|<0.001
90813386|NCT02305849|181505611|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|31.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.1|40.0||No multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||C.I. was based on normal approximation to the binomial distribution (continuity corrected).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||40.0|23.1|<0.001
90813387|NCT02305849|181505613|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.597|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.178|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.948|-1.247||No multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA Model: CRP Change = Treatment + Baseline CRP.||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-1.247|-1.948|<0.001
90813388|NCT02305849|181505613|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.458|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.852|-1.065||No multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-1.065|-1.852|<0.001
90813389|NCT02305849|181505615|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-17.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.89|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.61|-14.17||No multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA Model: ESR Change = Treatment + Baseline ESR.||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-14.17|-21.61|<0.001
90813390|NCT02305849|181505615|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-20.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.67|-16.56||No multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA Model: ESR Change = Treatment + Baseline ESR.||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-16.56|-24.67|<0.001
90813391|NCT02305849|181505617|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|33.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.7|42.2||No multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||CI was based on normal approximation to the binomial distribution (continuity corrected).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||42.2|23.7|<0.001
90813392|NCT02305849|181505617|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|45.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.2|54.8||No multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||CI was based on normal approximation to the binomial distribution (continuity corrected).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||54.8|36.2|<0.001
90813393|NCT02305849|181505619|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|42.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.3|52.5||No multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||CI was based on normal approximation to the binomial distribution (continuity corrected|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||52.5|32.3|<0.001
90813394|NCT02305849|181505619|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|49.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.7|58.9||No multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||CI was based on normal approximation to the binomial distribution (continuity corrected|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||58.9|39.7|<0.001
90813395|NCT02305849|181505621|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|19.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.1|27.3|||Fisher Exact|No multiplicity adjustment.|CI was based on normal approximation to the binomial distribution (continuity corrected).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||27.3|12.1|<0.001
90813396|NCT02305849|181505621|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|30.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.0|38.7||No multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||CI was based on normal approximation to the binomial distribution (continuity corrected).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||38.7|22.0|<0.001
90813397|NCT02305849|181505623|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|42.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.3|52.6||No multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||CI was based on normal approximation to the binomial distribution (continuity corrected).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||52.6|32.3|<0.001
90813398|NCT02305849|181505623|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|47.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.1|56.9||No multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||CI was based on normal approximation to the binomial distribution (continuity corrected).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||56.9|37.1|<0.001
90813399|NCT02305849|181505625|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|5.2||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|9.5||No multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||CI was based on normal approximation to the binomial distribution (continuity corrected).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||9.5|1.0|0.011
90813400|NCT02305849|181505625|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|9.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|14.6||No multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||CI was based on normal approximation to the binomial distribution (continuity corrected).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||14.6|4.1|<0.001
90813401|NCT02305849|181505627|SUPERIORITY|No multiplicity adjustment.|Percent Difference|6.4||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|11.0|||Fisher Exact||CI was based on normal approximation to the binomial distribution (continuity corrected).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||11.0|1.8|0.003
90813402|NCT02305849|181505627|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|13.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.5|19.4||No multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||CI was based on normal approximation to the binomial distribution (continuity corrected).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||19.4|7.5|<0.001
90813403|NCT02305849|181505629|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-11.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.33|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.84|-8.6||No multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA Model: SDAI Change = Treatment + Baseline SDAI.||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-8.60|-13.84|<0.001
90813404|NCT02305849|181505629|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-14.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.35|-11.98||No multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA Model: SDAI Change = Treatment + Baseline SDAI.||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-11.98|-17.35|<0.001
90813405|NCT02305849|181505631|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-17.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.11|-13.22||No multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA Model: PGA (100 mm VAS) Change = Treatment + Baseline PGA (100 mm VAS).||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-13.22|-22.11|<0.001
90813406|NCT02305849|181505631|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-24.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.33|<|0.001||95.0|-28.66|-19.51||No multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA Model: PGA (100 mm VAS) Change = Treatment + Baseline PGA (100 mm VAS).||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-19.51|-28.66|<0.001
90813407|NCT02305849|181505633|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-16.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.09|-12.19||No multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA Model: SGA (100 mm VAS) Change = Treatment + Baseline SGA (100 mm VAS)||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-12.19|-21.09|<0.001
90813408|NCT02305849|181505633|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-20.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.07|-15.61||No multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA Model: SGA (100 mm VAS) Change = Treatment + Baseline SGA (100 mm VAS).||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-15.61|-25.07|<0.001
90813409|NCT02305849|181505635|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-17.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.44|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|-12.38||No multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA Model: SGAP (100 mm VAS) Change = Treatment + Baseline SGAP (100 mm VAS).||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-12.38|-22.00|<0.001
90813410|NCT02305849|181505635|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-20.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.8|-15.98||No multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA Model: SGAP (100 mm VAS) Change = Treatment + Baseline SGAP (100 mm VAS).||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-15.98|-25.80|<0.001
90813411|NCT02305849|181505638|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.17||No multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA Model: HAQ-DI Change = Treatment + Baseline HAQ-DI.||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-0.17|-0.36|<0.001
90813412|NCT02305849|181505638|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.29||No multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA Model: HAQ-DI Change = Treatment + Baseline HAQ-DI.||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-0.29|-0.48|<0.001
90813413|NCT02305849|181505640|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|6.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.09|8.74||No multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA Model: SF36-v2 Change = Treatment + Baseline SF36-v2.||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||8.74|4.09|<0.001
90813414|NCT02305849|181505640|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|8.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.36|10.86||No multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA Model: SF36-v2 Change = Treatment + Baseline SF36-v2.||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||10.86|6.36|<0.001
90813415|NCT02305849|181505642|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|4.18||No multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA Model: SF36-v2 Change = Treatment + Baseline SF36-v2.||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||4.18|1.21|<0.001
90813416|NCT02305849|181505642|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|3.19||No multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA Model: SF36-v2 Change = Treatment + Baseline SF36-v2.||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||3.19|0.11|0.036
90813417|NCT02305849|181505644|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.39||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|5.02||No multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA Model: SF36-v2 Change = Treatment + Baseline SF36-v2.||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||5.02|-0.44|0.099
90813418|NCT02305849|181505644|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.37||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|6.91||No multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA Model: SF36-v2 Change = Treatment + Baseline SF36-v2.||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||6.91|1.53|0.002
90813419|NCT02305849|181505646|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.43||0.879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.16|4.42||No multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA Model: WPAI Change = Treatment + Baseline WPAI.||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||4.42|-5.16|0.879
90813420|NCT02305849|181505646|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.05||0.377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.86|2.23||No multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA Model: WPAI Change = Treatment + Baseline WPAI.||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||2.23|-5.86|0.377
91077824|NCT02913105|182041132|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.007||0.7423|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.009|0.014|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 56||0.014|-0.009|0.7423
90813421|NCT02305849|181505648|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.54|-2.73||No multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA Model: WPAI Change = Treatment + Baseline WPAI.||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-2.73|-16.54|0.007
90813422|NCT02305849|181505648|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-14.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.58|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.24|-7.1||No multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA Model: WPAI Change = Treatment + Baseline WPAI.||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-7.10|-21.24|<0.001
90813423|NCT02305849|181505650|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.63||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|-2.25||No multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA Model: WPAI Change = Treatment + Baseline WPAI.||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-2.25|-16.60|0.010
90813424|NCT02305849|181505650|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-14.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.92|-7.31||No multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA Model: WPAI Change = Treatment + Baseline WPAI.||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-7.31|-21.92|<0.001
90813425|NCT02305849|181505652|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-13.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.56|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.23|-8.16||No multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA Model: WPAI Change = Treatment + Baseline WPAI.||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-8.16|-18.23|<0.001
90813426|NCT02305849|181505652|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-17.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.52|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.57|-12.66||No multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA Model: WPAI Change = Treatment + Baseline WPAI.||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-12.66|-22.57|<0.001
90890356|NCT01358526|181645256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26||0.0191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|9.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-model repeated measures analysis|Mean difference (final values) is the treatment comparison estimated using mixed model repeated measures analysis with effect for treatment, time (weeks 4, 8, 12), treatment by time interaction, and prerandomization value. Subject is a random effect.|||9.8|0.9|0.0191
90890357|NCT01358526|181645257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||||||"The proportion of subjects responding much improved and very much improved was summarized by treatment group and compared between groups using an exact test"|Fisher Exact|||||||0.0002
90813427|NCT00355342|181505657|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis for the primary measure is that the difference between the effects of fluticasone propionate/salmeterol combination product 250/50mcg BID and salmeterol 50mcg BID on the change in BMD assessed at the L1-L4 region of the spine is greater than 1 %/year.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|1.49|||||Analysis Model: Percent change from baseline BMD = treatment + time (years) + treatment\*time + baseline BMD + sex + investigator + age + BMI + FEV1 severity + b/l activity level + b/l calcium supp. use + smoking status.|The analysis is presented for slope estimate calculated for the percent change from Baseline values at Week 26, 52, 78, 104, 130, and 156.|Age split by category (40-64 years old, 65 or older). FEV1 severity based on GOLD Stage (Mild/Moderate, Severe/Very Severe). Activity based on 0-10 Physical Activity Scale (split by median, \<7, \>=7). Slope estimates based on treatment\*time via repeated measures model with unstructured covariance.|1.49|0.06|
90813428|NCT00355342|181505658|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis for the primary measure is that the difference between the effects of fluticasone propionate/salmeterol combination product 250/50mcg BID and salmeterol 50mcg BID on the change in BMD assessed at the L1-L4 region of the spine is greater than 1 %/year.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.24|||||Analysis Model: Percent change from baseline BMD = treatment + time (years) + treatment\*time + baseline BMD + sex + investigator + age + BMI + FEV1 severity + b/l activity level + b/l calcium supp. use + smoking status|The analysis is presented for slope estimate calculated for the percent change from Baseline values at Week 26, 52, 78, 104, 130, and 156.|Age split by category (40-64 years old, 65 or older). FEV1 severity based on GOLD Stage (Mild/Moderate, Severe/Very Severe). Activity based on 0-10 Physical Activity Scale (split by median, \<7, \>=7). Slope estimates based on treatment\*time via repeated measures model with unstructured covariance.|0.24|-0.78|
90813429|NCT01527383|181505685|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Longitudinal regression|Visit and stratification factor (biologic or non-biologic autoimmune therapy) were covariates|||The statistical criterion for significance requires that the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the geometric mean fold rise in vaccine recipients is \>1.0.|||<0.0001
90813430|NCT01527383|181505686|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Longitudinal regression|Visit and stratification factor (biologic or non-biologic autoimmune therapy) were covariates|||The statistical criterion for significance requires that the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the geometric mean fold rise in vaccine recipients is \>1.0.|||<0.0001
90813431|NCT00461305|181505729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence on one treatment arm|13.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.73|17.77|||Binominal parameter by exact method||No group comparison were planned. Binomial parameter on each treatment arm was estimated by exact method.|Exact 95% confident intervals were calculated using F-distribution by treatment group. If the upper confidence limit is lower than 27.56% (threshold incidence), the treatment arm will be concluded to be acceptable. No group comparison was planned.||17.77|9.73|
90813432|NCT00461305|181505729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence on one treatment arm|7.1||||||95.0|1.98|17.29|||Binominal parameter by exact method|||Exact 95% confident intervals were calculated using F-distribution by treatment group.||17.29|1.98|
90813433|NCT00085254|181505770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.3|||Regression, Cox|||||1.3|0.5|0.4
90813434|NCT00085254|181505772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.39||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.5||adjusted for age: p=.0003, kps: p=.004; and surgical procedure: p=.003|Log Rank|||Primary endpoint death - defined from histological diagnosis to death. we assume pt in the study will have overall failure rate of 0.56 per person-year of f/up, a 30% reduction compared to hazard rate of 0.8 per person-year in historical NABTT database. Expected hazard ratio is 0.7 and cohort will produce 63 events among total of 94 pt planned f/up. One-sided test, have 95% power to detect observed ratio of 0.7 at alpha level of 0.1, or we have 88% power at alpha of 0.5 statistical significant||0.5|0.3|0.0001
90813435|NCT04342689|181505773|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.99
90813436|NCT04342689|181505774|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.52
90813437|NCT04342689|181505775|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.24
90813438|NCT02818114|181505777|OTHER|Assessment of number of PE sessions attended, review of direction of change in PTSD Checklist scores||||||||||||||||This is a single-arm feasibility study. With N=8, formal hypothesis testing is not possible. We were assessing the extent to which veterans would be willing to engage in the intervention, and if the direction of change in symptoms is still in the expected direction when peer support services are added. Outcomes are reported more qualitatively.|As a feasibility trial, tests of statistical significance are not appropriate.|||
90813439|NCT00844805|181505785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|14.9|||=|0.0884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|31.5|||Fisher Exact||The 95% CI for treatment differences were computed using Wilson's Method.|||31.5|-1.7|=0.0884
90813440|NCT00844805|181505786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|21.7|||=|0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|32.5|||Fisher Exact||The 95% CI for treatment differences were computed using Wilson's Method.|||32.5|11.0|=0.0013
90813441|NCT00844805|181505787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|18.1|||=|0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.7|25.5|||Fisher Exact||The 95% CI for treatment differences were computed using Wilson's Method.|||25.5|10.7|=0.0004
90813442|NCT00844805|181505788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|10.0|||=|0.5005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|31.7|||Fisher Exact||The 95% CI for treatment differences were computed using Wilson's Method.|||31.7|-11.7|=0.5005
90813443|NCT00844805|181505789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-2.5|||=|1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|9.9|||Fisher Exact||The 95% CI for treatment differences were computed using Wilson's Method.|||9.9|-14.9|=1.0000
90813444|NCT00844805|181505790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||=|1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|6.8|||Fisher Exact||The 95% CI for treatment differences were computed using Wilson's Method.|||6.8|-6.8|=1.0000
90813445|NCT00844805|181505791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.3802||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||=0.3802
90813446|NCT00844805|181505792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-5.0|||=|0.6153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|4.5|||Fisher Exact||The 95% CI for treatment differences were computed using Wilson's Method.|||4.5|-14.5|=0.6153
90813447|NCT00844805|181505793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|18.4|||=|0.0263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|34.3|||Fisher Exact||The 95% CI for treatment differences were computed using Wilson's Method.|||34.3|2.5|=0.0263
90813448|NCT00844805|181505794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|8.4|||=|0.3011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|22.8|||Fisher Exact||The 95% CI for treatment differences were computed using Wilson's Method.|||22.8|-6.0|=0.3011
90813449|NCT00259298|181505797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0078||95.0||||p-value is for skull, baseline to 3 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal plasma clearance of 99m Tc-MDP in the skull from baseline to 3 months.||||0.0078
90813450|NCT00259298|181505797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0078||95.0||||p-value is for skull, baseline to 18 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal plasma clearance of 99m Tc-MDP in the skull from baseline to 18 months.||||0.0078
90813451|NCT00259298|181505797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0313||95.0||||p-value is for skull, baseline to 24 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no change in skeletal plasma clearance of 99m Tc-MDP in the skull from baseline to 24 months.||||0.0313
90813452|NCT00259298|181505797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0078||95.0||||p-value is for skull, 3 months to 18 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal plasma clearance of 99m Tc-MDP in the skull from 3 months to 18 months.||||0.0078
90813453|NCT00259298|181505797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0156||95.0||||p-value is for skull, 18 months to 24 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no decrease in skeletal plasma clearance of 99m Tc-MDP in the skull from 18 months to 24 months.||||0.0156
90813454|NCT00259298|181505797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0156||95.0||||p-value is for mandible, baseline to 3 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal plasma clearance of 99m Tc-MDP in the mandible from baseline to 3 months.||||0.0156
90813455|NCT00259298|181505797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0078||95.0||||p-value is for mandible, baseline to 18 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal plasma clearance of 99m Tc-MDP in the mandible from baseline to 18 months.||||0.0078
90813456|NCT00259298|181505797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1563||95.0||||p-value is for mandible, baseline to 24 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no change in skeletal plasma clearance of 99m Tc-MDP in the mandible from baseline to 24 months.||||0.1563
90813457|NCT00259298|181505797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4375||95.0||||p-value is for mandible, 3 months to 18 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal plasma clearance of 99m Tc-MDP in the mandible from 3 months to 18 months.||||0.4375
90813458|NCT00259298|181505797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0781||95.0||||p-value is for mandible, 18 months to 24 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no decrease in skeletal plasma clearance of 99m Tc-MDP in the mandible from 18 months to 24 months.||||0.0781
90813459|NCT00259298|181505797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0371||95.0||||p-value is for spine, baseline to 3 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal plasma clearance of 99m Tc-MDP in the spine from baseline to 3 months.||||0.0371
91015827|NCT02203305|181914581|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Percent correct data were converted to rationalized arcsine units (RAU) prior to data analysis.|ANOVA|||Recorded 50-word CNC words were evaluated in an unaided condition for the poorer hearing ear pre-operatively and with the cochlear implant (CI) over the study period. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the main effect of interval (before surgery, and 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation). Percent correct converted to RAU.||||<0.001
91055127|NCT02906930|181992249|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The estimated treatment effect excludes the effect of any rescue medication (hypothetical estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-1.0||||0.0138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.2||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0.|MMRM||Oral Semaglutide 7 mg - Placebo|The analysis was based on a MMRM that assumed data to be missing at random. As dependent variables, the MMRM model included all post-baseline values collected at scheduled visits up to and including week 26. The independent effects were treatment and region as categorical fixed effects and the baseline body weight value as a covariate, all nested within visit, and an unstructured residual covariance matrix.||-0.2|-1.8|0.0138
90813460|NCT00259298|181505797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0137||95.0||||p-value is for spine, baseline to 18 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal plasma clearance of 99m Tc-MDP in the spine from baseline to 18 months.||||0.0137
90813461|NCT00259298|181505797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0547||95.0||||p-value is for spine, baseline to 24 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no change in skeletal plasma clearance of 99m Tc-MDP in the spine from baseline to 24 months.||||0.0547
91079196|NCT03240406|182044055|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|41.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.47|61.96||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|ANCOVA|MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|||61.96|21.47|<0.001
90813462|NCT00259298|181505797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0488||95.0||||p-value is for spine, 3 months to 18 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal plasma clearance of 99m Tc-MDP in the spine from 3 months to 18 months.||||0.0488
90813463|NCT00259298|181505797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3594||95.0||||p-value is for spine, 18 months to 24 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no decrease in skeletal plasma clearance of 99m Tc-MDP in the spine from 18 months to 24 months.||||0.3594
90813464|NCT00259298|181505797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0488||95.0||||p-value is for pelvis, baseline to 3 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal plasma clearance of 99m Tc-MDP in the pelvis from baseline to 3 months.||||0.0488
90813465|NCT00259298|181505797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1055||95.0||||p-value is for pelvis, baseline to 18 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal plasma clearance of 99m Tc-MDP in the pelvis from baseline to 18 months.||||0.1055
90813466|NCT00259298|181505797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9102||95.0||||p-value is for pelvis, baseline to 24 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no change in skeletal plasma clearance of 99m Tc-MDP in the pelvis from baseline to 24 months.||||0.9102
90813467|NCT00259298|181505797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1934||95.0||||p-value is for pelvis, 3 months to 18 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal plasma clearance of 99m Tc-MDP in the pelvis from 3 months to 18 months.||||0.1934
91015828|NCT02203305|181914581|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.429||||||A logit transformation was applied to proportion correct data prior to analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|Main effects: interval (p\<0.001) and group (p=0.429). Interaction: group and interval (p=0.387).||Comparison of word recognition between groups (UHL/SSD and AHL) over the post-activation intervals (1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months).||||<0.429
90813468|NCT00259298|181505797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1641||95.0||||p-value is for pelvis, 18 months to 24 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no decrease in skeletal plasma clearance of 99m Tc-MDP in the pelvis from 18 months to 24 months.||||0.1641
90813469|NCT00259298|181505797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0137||95.0||||p-value is for upper extremities, baseline to 3 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal plasma clearance of 99m Tc-MDP in the upper extremities from baseline to 3 months.||||0.0137
90813470|NCT00259298|181505797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||p-value is for upper extremities, baseline to 18 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal plasma clearance of 99m Tc-MDP in the upper extremities from baseline to 18 months.||||0.0020
90813471|NCT00259298|181505797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0039||95.0||||p-value is for upper extremities, baseline to 24 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no change in skeletal plasma clearance of 99m Tc-MDP in the upper extremities from baseline to 24 months.||||0.0039
91015829|NCT02203305|181914582|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.019||||||The Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.|Mixed Models Analysis|Main effects: interval (p=0.19) and condition (p\<0.001). Interaction: interval and condition (p\<0.019).||Soundfield localization of 200-ms speech-shaped noise, presented from 11 speakers at 60, 70, or 80 decibel (dB) sound pressure level (SPL) in a sound treated room. Overall root-mean-square (RMS) error is the difference between the sound source azimuth and the response azimuth and a lower score indicates more accurate localization of the sound source. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the effects of interval, condition (unaided or with the cochlear implant), and their interaction.||||<0.019
91015830|NCT02203305|181914582|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.012||||||A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.|Mixed Models Analysis|Main effects: interval (p=0.012) and condition (p\<0.001). Interaction: interval and condition (p=0.004).||Soundfield localization of 200-ms speech-shaped noise, presented from 11 speakers at 60, 70, or 80 decibel (dB) sound pressure level (SPL) in a sound treated room. Overall root-mean-square (RMS) error is the difference between the sound source azimuth and the response azimuth and a lower score indicates more accurate localization of the sound source. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the effects of interval, condition (unaided or with the cochlear implant), and their interaction.||||<0.012
90813472|NCT00259298|181505797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0273||95.0||||p-value is for upper extremities, 3 months to 18 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal plasma clearance of 99m Tc-MDP in the upper extremities from 3 months to 18 months.||||0.0273
90813473|NCT00259298|181505797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0547||95.0||||p-value is for upper extremities, 18 months to 24 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no decrease in skeletal plasma clearance of 99m Tc-MDP in the upper extremities from 18 months to 24 months.||||0.0547
90813474|NCT00259298|181505797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0195||95.0||||p-value is for lower extremities, baseline to 3 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal plasma clearance of 99m Tc-MDP in the lower extremities from baseline to 3 months.||||0.0195
91015831|NCT02203305|181914582|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.|ANOVA|||Soundfield localization of 200-ms speech-shaped noise, presented from 11 speakers at 60, 70, or 80 decibel (dB) sound pressure level (SPL) in a sound treated room. Overall root-mean-square (RMS) error is the difference between the sound source azimuth and the response azimuth and a lower score indicates more accurate localization of the sound source. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the effect of interval (pre-operatively, 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post). Pre-op: unaided, Post: bilateral.||||<0.001
91015832|NCT02203305|181914582|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.|ANOVA|||Soundfield localization of 200-ms speech-shaped noise, presented from 11 speakers at 60, 70, or 80 decibel (dB) sound pressure level (SPL) in a sound treated room. Overall root-mean-square (RMS) error is the difference between the sound source azimuth and the response azimuth and a lower score indicates more accurate localization of the sound source. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the effects of interval (pre-operatively, 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post). Pre-op: unaided, Post: bilateral.||||<0.001
91015833|NCT02203305|181914582|OTHER|correlation|bivariate pearson correlation|0.42|||=|0.033|TWO_SIDED||||||bivariate pearson correlation|||Association of age at implantation and sound source localization (RMS) at the 12-month interval with the cochlear implant, analyzed with a Bivariate Pearson correlation (one-tailed).||||=0.033
90813475|NCT00259298|181505797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0059||95.0||||p-value is for lower extremities, baseline to 18 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal plasma clearance of 99m Tc-MDP in the lower extremities from baseline to 18 months.||||0.0059
90813476|NCT00259298|181505797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5703||95.0||||p-value is for lower extremities, baseline to 24 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no change in skeletal plasma clearance of 99m Tc-MDP in the lower extremities from baseline to 24 months.||||0.5703
90813477|NCT00259298|181505797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1934||95.0||||p-value is for lower extremities, 3 months to 18 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal plasma clearance of 99m Tc-MDP in the lower extremities from 3 months to 18 months.||||0.1934
90813478|NCT00259298|181505797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0039||95.0||||p-value is for lower extremities, 18 months to 24 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no decrease in skeletal plasma clearance of 99m Tc-MDP in the lower extremities from 18 months to 24 months.||||0.0039
90813479|NCT00259298|181505797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0039||95.0||||p-value is for whole body, baseline to 3 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal plasma clearance of 99m Tc-MDP in the whole body from baseline to 3 months.||||0.0039
90813480|NCT00259298|181505797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5703||95.0||||p-value is for whole body, baseline to 24 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no change in skeletal plasma clearance of 99m Tc-MDP in the whole body from baseline to 24 months.||||0.5703
90813481|NCT00259298|181505797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0273||95.0||||p-value is for whole body, 3 months to 18 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal plasma clearance of 99m Tc-MDP in the whole body from 3 months to 18 months.||||0.0273
90813482|NCT00259298|181505797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0039||95.0||||p-value if for whole body, 18 months to 24 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no decrease in skeletal plasma clearance of 99m Tc-MDP in the whole body from 18 months to 24 months.||||0.0039
90813483|NCT00259298|181505798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0098||95.0||||p-value is for whole skeleton, baseline to 3 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal uptake of 99m Tc-MDP in the whole skeleton from baseline to 3 months.||||0.0098
90813484|NCT00259298|181505798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0039||95.0||||p-value is for whole skeleton, baseline to 18 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal uptake of 99m Tc-MDP in the whole skeleton from baseline to 18 months.||||0.0039
90813485|NCT00259298|181505798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6523||95.0||||p-value is for whole skeleton, baseline to 24 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal uptake of 99m Tc-MDP in the whole skeleton from baseline to 24 months.||||0.6523
90813486|NCT00259298|181505798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1641||95.0||||p-value is for whole skeleton, 3 months to 18 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal uptake of 99m Tc-MDP in the whole skeleton from 3 months to 18 months.||||0.1641
90813487|NCT00259298|181505798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0078||95.0||||p-value is for whole skeleton, 18 months to 24 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal uptake of 99m Tc-MDP in the whole skeleton from 18 months to 24 months.||||0.0078
90813488|NCT00259298|181505798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0078||95.0||||p-value is for skull, baseline to 3 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal uptake of 99m Tc-MDP in the skull from baseline to 3 months.||||0.0078
90813489|NCT00259298|181505798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0078||95.0||||p-value is for skull, baseline to 18 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal uptake of 99m Tc-MDP in the skull from baseline to 18 months.||||0.0078
90813490|NCT00259298|181505798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0781||95.0||||p-value is for skull, baseline to 24 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no change in skeletal uptake of 99m Tc-MDP in the skull from baseline to 24 months.||||0.0781
90813491|NCT00259298|181505798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0078||95.0||||p-value is for skull, 3 months to 18 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal uptake of 99m Tc-MDP in the skull from 3 months to 18 months.||||0.0078
90813492|NCT00259298|181505798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0156||95.0||||p-value is for skull, 18 months to 24 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no decrease in skeletal uptake of 99m Tc-MDP in the skull from 18 months to 24 months.||||0.0156
90813493|NCT00259298|181505798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0391||95.0||||p-value is for mandible, baseline to 3 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal uptake of 99m Tc-MDP in the mandible from baseline to 3 months.||||0.0391
90813494|NCT00259298|181505798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0313||95.0||||p-value is for mandible, baseline to 18 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal uptake of 99m Tc-MDP in the mandible from baseline to 18 months.||||0.0313
90813495|NCT00259298|181505798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2969||95.0||||p-value is for mandible, baseline to 24 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal uptake of 99m Tc-MDP in the mandible from baseline to 24 months.||||0.2969
90813496|NCT00259298|181505798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5625||95.0||||p-value is for mandible, 3 months to 18 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal uptake of 99m Tc-MDP in the mandible from 3 months to 18 months.||||0.5625
90813497|NCT00259298|181505798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0469||95.0||||p-value is for mandible, 18 months to 24 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no decrease in skeletal uptake of 99m Tc-MDP in the mandible from 18 months to 24 months.||||0.0469
90813498|NCT00259298|181505798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1934||95.0||||p-value is for spine, 3 months to 18 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal uptake of 99m Tc-MDP in the spine from 3 months to 18 months.||||0.1934
90813499|NCT00259298|181505798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2324||95.0||||p-value is for spine, baseline to 3 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal uptake of 99m Tc-MDP in the spine from baseline to 3 months.||||0.2324
90813500|NCT00259298|181505798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0645||95.0||||p-value is for spine, baseline to 18 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal uptake of 99m Tc-MDP in the spine from baseline to 18 months.||||0.0645
90813501|NCT00259298|181505798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0273||95.0||||p-value is for spine, baseline to 24 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no change in skeletal uptake of 99m Tc-MDP in the spine from baseline to 24 months.||||0.0273
90813502|NCT00259298|181505798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7344||95.0||||p-value is for spine, 18 months to 24 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no decrease in skeletal uptake of 99m Tc-MDP in the spine from 18 months to 24 months.||||0.7344
90813503|NCT00259298|181505798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1934||95.0||||p-value is for pelvis, baseline to 3 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal uptake of 99m Tc-MDP in the pelvis from baseline to 3 months.||||0.1934
90813504|NCT00259298|181505798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7695||95.0||||p-value is for pelvis, baseline to 18 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal uptake of 99m Tc-MDP in the pelvis from baseline to 18 months.||||0.7695
90813505|NCT00259298|181505798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6523||95.0||||p-value is for pelvis, baseline to 24 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal uptake of 99m Tc-MDP in the pelvis from baseline to 24 months.||||0.6523
90813506|NCT00259298|181505798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2324||95.0||||p-value is for pelvis, 3 months to 18 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal uptake of 99m Tc-MDP in the pelvis from 3 months to 18 months.||||0.2324
90813507|NCT00259298|181505798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6523||95.0||||p-value is for pelvis, 18 months to 24 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no decrease in skeletal uptake of 99m Tc-MDP in the pelvis from 18 months to 24 months.||||0.6523
90813508|NCT00259298|181505798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0098||95.0||||p-value is for upper extremities, baseline to 3 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal uptake of 99m Tc-MDP in the upper extremities from baseline to 3 months.||||0.0098
90813509|NCT00259298|181505798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||p-value is for upper extremities, baseline to 18 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal uptake of 99m Tc-MDP in the upper extremities from baseline to 18 months.||||0.0020
90813510|NCT00259298|181505798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0039||95.0||||p-value is for upper extremities, baseline to 24 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal uptake of 99m Tc-MDP in the upper extremities from baseline to 24 months.||||0.0039
90813511|NCT00259298|181505798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0273||95.0||||p-value is for upper extremities, 3 months to 18 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal uptake of 99m Tc-MDP in the upper extremities from 3 months to 18 months.||||0.0273
90813512|NCT00259298|181505798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3594||95.0||||p-value is for upper extremities, 18 months to 24 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no decrease in skeletal uptake of 99m Tc-MDP in the upper extremities from 18 months to 24 months.||||0.3594
90813513|NCT00259298|181505798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0371||95.0||||p-value is for lower extremities, baseline to 3 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal uptake of 99m Tc-MDP in the lower extremities from baseline to 3 months.||||0.0371
90813514|NCT00259298|181505798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0098||95.0||||p-value is for lower extremities, baseline to 18 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal uptake of 99m Tc-MDP in the lower extremities from baseline to 18 months.||||0.0098
91015834|NCT02203305|181914582|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.249||||||There were significant main effects of group (p\<0.001) and interval (p\<0.001). There was a non-significant interaction between group and interval (p=0.249).|Mixed Models Analysis|Main effects: group (p\<0.001) and interval (p\<0.001). Interaction: group and interval (p=0.249).||Comparison of sound source localization between groups (UHL/SSD and AHL) over the post-activation intervals (1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months).||||<0.249
91015835|NCT02203305|181914583|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.|ANOVA|||Responses on the Speech, Spatial, \& Qualities of hearing scale (SSQ) as measured with the total score were compared over the post-activation period (i.e., 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months).||||<0.001
90813515|NCT00259298|181505798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4609||95.0||||p-value is for lower extremities, baseline to 24 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal uptake of 99m Tc-MDP in the lower extremities from baseline to 24 months.||||0.4609
90813516|NCT00259298|181505798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1934||95.0||||p-value is for lower extremities, 3 months to 18 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal uptake of 99m Tc-MDP in the lower extremities from 3 months to 18 months.||||0.1934
90813517|NCT00259298|181505798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0273||95.0||||p-value is for lower extremities, 18 months to 24 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no decrease in skeletal uptake of 99m Tc-MDP in the lower extremities from 18 months to 24 months.||||0.0273
90813518|NCT00259298|181505799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||p-value is for focal change, baseline to 3 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in focal skeletal uptake of 99m Tc-MDP from baseline to 3 months.||||1.0
90813519|NCT00259298|181505799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||p-value is for focal change, baseline to 18 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in focal skeletal uptake of 99m Tc-MDP from baseline to 18 months.||||1.0
90813520|NCT00259298|181505801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||p-value is for change at 18 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in whole skeletal plasma clearance of 99m Tc-MDP from baseline to 18 months.||||0.0020
90813521|NCT02726880|181505824|SUPERIORITY||F|1.13||||0.296|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Number of days of gaming in the past week, measured at baseline, is included as a covariate in the model.||||||.296
90813522|NCT01710527|181505870|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence of Treatment T-Metformin 500 mg with Treatment R- Glucophage 500 mg was concluded if the 90% confidence intervals for the ratio of log transformed Cmax fell within the acceptance range of 80 to 125%.|Ratio (%)|96.85||||0.3125|TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.86|102.11|||ANOVA||Analysis was performed on log transformed geometric least square means.|||102.11|91.86|0.3125
90813523|NCT01710527|181505871|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence of Treatment T-Metformin 500 mg with Treatment R- Glucophage 500 mg was concluded if the 90% confidence intervals for the ratio of log transformed AUC0-t fell within the acceptance range of 80 to 125%.|Ratio (%)|102.52||||0.2701|TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.74|106.45|||ANOVA|||Comparison of Treatment T-Metformin 500 mg and Treatment R- Glucophage 500 mg for AUC0-t||106.45|98.74|0.2701
90890358|NCT01358526|181645258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test: responder as dependent variable, treatment as explanatory variable, dose at time of randomization as stratifying factor||Proportion of subjects with a response to treatment that is ≥ 30%||||0.0006
91015836|NCT02203305|181914583|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.056||||||A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.|ANOVA|||Responses on the SSQ as measured with the total score were compared over the post-activation period (i.e., 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months).||||=0.056
90813524|NCT01710527|181505871|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence of Treatment T-Metformin 500 mg with Treatment R- Glucophage 500 mg was concluded if the 90% confidence intervals for the ratio of log transformed AUC0-infinity fell within the acceptance range of 80 to 125%.|Ratio (%)|102.44||||0.2702|TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.78|106.23|||ANOVA||Analysis was performed on log transformed geometric least square means.|Comparison of Treatment T-Metformin 500 mg and Treatment R- Glucophage 500 mg for AUC0-infinity.||106.23|98.78|0.2702
90813525|NCT01822535|181505880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Between-group differences in percent changes in core body temperature from baseline values to after cool exposure were analyzed. Because individuals with tetraplegia have impaired thermoregulatory mechanisms, we hypothesized that their percent change in core body temperature would be significantly larger than that of able-bodied controls.||||<0.01
90813526|NCT01822535|181505881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||"Between-group comparisons of percent changes in Stroop Interference T-scores from baseline values to after cool exposure were analyzed.~We hypothesized that subjects with tetraplegia would have greater declines in cognitive performance after cool exposure than able-bodied controls."||||0.018
90813527|NCT01822535|181505882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0431|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||"Between-group comparisons of percent changes in Delayed Recall from baseline values to after cool exposure were analyzed.~We hypothesized that subjects with tetraplegia would have greater declines in cognitive performance after cool exposure than able-bodied controls."||||0.0431
90813528|NCT01822535|181505883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||"We hypothesized that administration of midodrine would attenuate the fall in core body temperature.~Within-group percent changes in core body temperature were analyzed to compare data from visit 1 (no drug) to visit 2 (drug)."||||0.30
90813529|NCT01071356|181505884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Time averaged post-bline diff in diff|-0.006||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.023|0.011|||Random Effects modeling||Stat Mixed Model: MI9 (Post - Bline) - MI1 (Post - Bline) taken across 2, 4, and 6 month follow-ups adjusted for gender, age, and # sessions attended.|Stat Mixed Model Estimated was: MI9 (Post - Bline) - MI1 (Post - Bline) taken across 2, 4, and 6 month follow-ups adjusted for gender, age, and # sessions attended. This was done because a statistical test of trend of the post-baseline effect across the 3 post interviews indicated a homogeneous post-baseline treatment effect across time for both MI1 and MI9 conditions.||.011|-.023|.47
90813530|NCT01071356|181505885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Time averaged post-bline diff in diff|0.007||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.013|||Random effects model||Stat Mixed Model: MI9 (Post - Bline) - MI1 (Post - Bline) taken across 2, 4, and 6 month follow-ups adjusted for gender, age, and # sessions attended.|Stat Mixed Model Estimated was: MI9 (Post - Bline) - MI1 (Post - Bline) taken across 2, 4, and 6 month follow-ups adjusted for gender, age, and # sessions attended. This was done because a statistical test of trend of the post-baseline effect across the 3 post interviews indicated a homogeneous post-baseline treatment effect across time for both MI1 and MI9 conditions.||.013|.001|.034
90813531|NCT02278614|181505886|OTHER|The change from baseline in mean IOP on Day 84 for the contralateral eye,|Adjusted mean difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.43|-0.57|
90813532|NCT02278614|181505886|OTHER|The change from baseline in mean IOP on D42 for the worse eye|Adjusted mean difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.31|-0.69|
90813533|NCT00737711|181505894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Paired t-test was used to estimation of p-value.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90813534|NCT02739321|181505922|NON_INFERIORITY|Hypothesized benchmark of 30%|Risk Difference (RD)|25.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
91015837|NCT02203305|181914583|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.448||||||A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.|Mixed Models Analysis|Main effects: interval (p\<0.001) and subscale (p\<0.001). Interaction: interval and subscale (p=0.488).||Responses on the SSQ over the post-activation period (i.e., 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months). Subscales include: speech, spatial, and qualities of hearing. A repeated-measures ANOVA compared the main effects of interval and subscale and their interaction over time with the cochlear implant (1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation).||||<0.448
90813535|NCT02739321|181505923|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.001
90813536|NCT02739321|181505924|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.001
90813537|NCT02739321|181505925|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|4.09||||0.268|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.268
90813538|NCT02739321|181505926|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.94||||0.058|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.058
90813539|NCT02739321|181505927|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.82||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.001
90813540|NCT02739321|181505928|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.232|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.232
90813541|NCT02739321|181505929|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.100
90813542|NCT02739321|181505930|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.285|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.285
90813543|NCT02739321|181505931|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.089|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.089
90813544|NCT02739321|181505932|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.040
90813545|NCT02739321|181505933|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.471|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.471
90813546|NCT02739321|181505934|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.015
90813547|NCT02739321|181505935|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.001
90813548|NCT02739321|181505936|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority compared to the median rating of four on the seven point scale (1 = extremely poor, 7 = exceptional) that was used to rate tolerance.|||||||||||||||||The mean rating of parent reported tolerance of mattress technology was 5.61 (SE = 0.25).|||
90813549|NCT02739321|181505937|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority compared to the median rating of four on the seven point scale (1 = extremely poor, 7 = exceptional) that was used to rate tolerance.|||||||||||||||||The mean rating of parent reported tolerance of actigraph watch was 5.51 (SE = 0.13).|||
90813550|NCT02739321|181505938|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority compared to the median rating of four on the seven point scale (1 = extremely difficult, 7 = extremely easy) that was used to rate ease of use.|||||||||||||||||The mean rating of parent reported ease of us of the mattress technology was 6.04 (SE = 0.15).|||
90813551|NCT02739321|181505939|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.51||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.001
90813552|NCT02558400|181505940|SUPERIORITY|To claim superiority PG324 had to be statistically superior to netarsudil and to latanoprost at all 9 of 9 primary efficacy timepoints|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|PG324 vs. netarsudil||||||<0.0001
90813553|NCT02558400|181505940|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|PG324 vs. latanoprost||||||<0.0001
90813554|NCT02230683|181505948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||within group change|-1.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.57||0.257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.16|0.89|||Paired t-test||within group change|Statistical Analysis for the mean change of the Hepatic Venous Pressure Gradient from Baseline to Day 28/EOT for the overall evaluable population treated with IDN-6556 25 mg twice daily||0.89|-3.16|0.257
90813555|NCT02230683|181505948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||within group change|1.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.15||0.1174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|4.32|||ANCOVA||within group change|Statistical Analysis for the mean change of the Hepatic Venous Pressure Gradient from Baseline to Day 28/EOT in the HVPG \< 12 mmHg subgroup||4.32|-0.52|0.1174
90813556|NCT02230683|181505948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||within group change|-3.67|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.05||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.88|-1.46|||ANCOVA||within group change|Statistical Analysis for the mean change of the Hepatic Venous Pressure Gradient from Baseline to Day 28/EOT in the HVPG ≥ 12 mmHg subgroup||-1.46|-5.88|0.0025
90813557|NCT02230683|181505949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||within group change|-0.22||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||Statistical Analysis for the mean change in log-transformed caspase-cleaved cytokeratin serum levels from Baseline to Day 28/EOT for the overall evaluable population treated with IDN-6556 25 mg twice daily||-0.03|-0.42|0.026
90813558|NCT02230683|181505949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||within group change|-0.46||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.21|||ANCOVA|||Statistical Analysis for the mean change in log-transformed caspase-cleaved cytokeratin serum levels from Baseline to Day 28/EOT in the HVPG \< 12 mmHg subgroup population treated with IDN-6556 25 mg twice daily||-0.21|-0.72|0.001
90813559|NCT02230683|181505949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||within group change|-0.04||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.18|||ANCOVA|||Statistical Analysis for the median change in log-transformed caspase-cleaved cytokeratin serum levels from Baseline to Day 28/EOT in the HVPG ≥ 12 mmHg subgroup population treated with IDN-6556 25 mg twice daily||0.18|-0.26|0.72
90813560|NCT02230683|181505950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann|-21.0||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.0|13.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Statistical Analysis for the median change of caspase-cleaved cytokeratin serum levels from Baseline to Day 28/EOT for the overall evaluable population treated with IDN-6556 25 mg twice daily||13|-60|0.105
90813561|NCT02230683|181505950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann|-52.5||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-109.0|-6.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Statistical Analysis for the median change of caspase-cleaved cytokeratin serum levels from Baseline to Day 28/EOT in the HVPG \< 12 mmHg subgroup population treated with IDN-6556 25 mg twice daily||-6|-109|0.016
90813562|NCT02230683|181505950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann|12.0||||0.839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.0|13.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Statistical Analysis for the median change of caspase-cleaved cytokeratin serum levels from Baseline to Day 28/EOT in the HVPG ≥ 12 mmHg subgroup population treated with IDN-6556 25 mg twice daily||13|-60|0.839
90813563|NCT02230683|181505951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann|-4.0||||0.0084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Statistical Analysis for the median change in Alanine Aminotransferase (ALT) from Baseline to Day 28/EOT||0|-7|0.0084
90813564|NCT02230683|181505952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann|-4.0||||0.0131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|-1.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Statistical Analysis for the median change in Aspartate Aminotransferase (AST) from Baseline to Day 28/EOT||-1|-7|0.0131
91015838|NCT02203305|181914583|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.299||||||A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.|Mixed Models Analysis|Main effects: subscale (p\<0.001) and interval (p=0.072). Interaction: subscale and interval (p=0.299).||Responses on the SSQ over the post-activation period (i.e., 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months). Subscales include: speech, spatial, and qualities of hearing. A repeated-measures ANOVA compared the main effects of interval and subscale and their interaction over time with the cochlear implant (1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation).||||<0.299
90813565|NCT02230683|181505953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann|-772.0||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1188.0|-19.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The estimated value is the ratio for the difference from baseline.|Statistical Analysis for the median change in concentration of Caspase 3/7 Relative Light Units from baseline to Day 28/EOT||-19|-1188|0.003
91077825|NCT02913105|182041132|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.1272|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.032|0.001|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 84||0.001|-0.032|0.1272
90813566|NCT00131456|181506046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression was used to analyze all dichotomous outcomes. The dichotomous primary outcome marijuana abstinence was modeled using independent predictors: treatment(Venlafaxine vs. Placebo) and baseline urine THC level. The initial analysis included an interaction between treatment and baseline urine THC levels which was deemed not significant and omitted from the final logistic model.||||<0.01
90813567|NCT02936284|181506047|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.196||||0.016|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed effect regression model including covariates: child sex, child birth weight, breastfeeding duration, percent class attendance and covid grouping|difference between music and play group change|||||0.016
90813568|NCT02936284|181506048|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|29.9||||0.7|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||music group vs. play group baseline to 24 months|mixed effect regression analysis, unstructured covariance, no covariates. Reporting group x time interaction||||0.70
90813569|NCT02936284|181506049|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.073||||0.54|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||increase in weight for length z-score for music group|mixed-effect regression analysis with covariates: child sex, birth weight, breastfeeding duration, percent class attendance and covid categories||||0.540
90813570|NCT01610596|181506052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
90813571|NCT00733135|181506097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||GEE|||||||<0.05
90890359|NCT01358526|181645259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0018|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test: responder as dependent variable, treatment as explanatory variable, dose at time of randomization as stratifying factor||Proportion of subjects with a response to treatment that is ≥ 50%||||0.0018
90813572|NCT01149486|181506138|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|93.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.2|108.88|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||108.88|80.20|
90813573|NCT01149486|181506139|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|99.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.15|106.18|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||106.18|93.15|
90813574|NCT01149486|181506140|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|99.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.1|106.12|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||106.12|93.10|
90813575|NCT01149486|181506141|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|111.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.47|122.79|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||122.79|101.47|
90813576|NCT01149486|181506142|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|105.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.58|112.41|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||112.41|99.58|
90813577|NCT01149486|181506143|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|105.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.64|111.82|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||111.82|99.64|
90813578|NCT01149486|181506144|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|106.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.96|115.23|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||115.23|98.96|
90813579|NCT01149486|181506145|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|102.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.75|106.14|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||106.14|98.75|
90813580|NCT01149486|181506146|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|102.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.72|106.01|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||106.01|98.72|
91015839|NCT02203305|181914583|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.018||||||There were significant main effects of interval (p\<0.001) and pragmatic subscale (p\<0.001), and their interaction (p\<0.018).|Mixed Models Analysis|Main effects: interval (p\<0.001) and pragmatic subscale (p\<0.001). Interaction: interval and pragmatic subscale (p\<0.018).||Responses on the SSQ Speech pragmatic subscale over the post-activation period (i.e., 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months). A repeated-measures ANOVA compared the main effects of interval and pragmatic subscale and their interaction over time with the cochlear implant (1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation).||||<0.018
90813581|NCT00598078|181506156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.013
90813582|NCT00598078|181506156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.713||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.713
91015840|NCT02203305|181914583|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.767|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Main effects: interval (p\<0.001) and pragmatic subscale (p=0.767). Interaction: interval and pragmatic subscale (p=0.542).||Responses on the SSQ Spatial pragmatic subscale over the post-activation period (i.e., 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months). A repeated-measures ANOVA compared the main effects of interval and pragmatic subscale and their interaction over time with the cochlear implant (1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation).||||<0.767
90813583|NCT00598078|181506156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.038
90813584|NCT01479595|181506160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.514||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.811|-0.217|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.217|-0.811|0.005
90813585|NCT01726673|181506183|EQUIVALENCE|Statistical analysis of median change from baseline to DC immediately following 12 weeks of training was assessed with the upper extremity fugl meyer score in the active vs. sham tDCS conditions. Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in median change in upper extremity fugl meyer score between the active and sham tDCS conditions. A significance level of 0.05 was used (two-tailed).|U value|302.0||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|||||The Mann-Whitney U test was performed to compare median change in upper extremity fugl meyer score from baseline to 12 weeks (discharge) across two separate study conditions (active vs. sham tDCS).|Mann-Whitney U test|||||||0.256
90813586|NCT01726673|181506183|EQUIVALENCE|Statistical analysis of median change from baseline to week 36 (6 month follow-up) was assessed with upper extremity fugl meyer score for the active vs. sham tDCS conditions. Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in median change in upper extremity fugl meyer score between the active and sham tDCS conditions. A significance level of 0.05 was used (two-tailed).|U value|222.0||||0.222|TWO_SIDED|||||The Mann-Whitney U test was performed to compare median change in upper extremity fugl meyer score from baseline to 36 weeks (follow-up) across two separate study conditions (active vs. sham tDCS).|Mann-Whitney U test|||||||0.222
90813587|NCT01726673|181506184|EQUIVALENCE|Statistical analysis of median change from baseline to DC immediately following 12 weeks of training was assessed with the WOLF Motor Function test time score (out of 1800 seconds) in the active vs. sham tDCS conditions. Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in median change in WMFT time score between the active and sham tDCS conditions. A significance level of 0.05 was used (two-tailed).|U Value|251.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||The Mann-Whitney U test was performed to compare median change in the WMFT time score from baseline to 12 weeks (discharge) across two separate study conditions (active vs. sham tDCS).|Mann-Whitney U Test|||||||1.0
90813588|NCT01726673|181506184|EQUIVALENCE|Statistical analysis of median change from baseline to week 36 (6 month follow-up) was assessed with the WOLF Motor Function test time score (out of 1800 seconds) in the active vs. sham tDCS conditions. Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in median change in WMFT time score between the active and sham tDCS conditions. A significance level of 0.05 was used (two-tailed).|U value|208.5||||0.592|TWO_SIDED|||||The Mann-Whitney U test was performed to compare median change in the WMFT time score from baseline to 36 weeks ( 6 month follow-up) across two separate study conditions (active vs. sham tDCS).|Mann-Whitney U Test|||||||0.592
90813589|NCT01726673|181506185|EQUIVALENCE|Statistical analysis of median change from baseline to DC immediately following 12 weeks of training was assessed with the Motor Power Manual Muscle Test Score for the upper extremity (out of 100 points) in the active vs. sham tDCS conditions. Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in median change in MRC score between the active and sham tDCS conditions. A significance level of 0.05 was used (two-tailed).|U value|270.5||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|||||The Mann-Whitney U test was performed to compare median change in the MRC score from baseline to 12 weeks (discharge) across two separate study conditions (active vs. sham tDCS).|Mann-Whitney U test|||||||0.680
90813590|NCT01726673|181506185|EQUIVALENCE|Statistical analysis of median change from baseline to week 36 (6 month FU) was assessed with the Motor Power Manual Muscle Test Score for the upper extremity (out of 100 points) in the active vs. sham tDCS conditions. Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in median change in MRC score between the active and sham tDCS conditions. A significance level of 0.05 was used (two-tailed).|U value|187.5||||0.837|TWO_SIDED|||||The Mann-Whitney U test was performed to compare median change in the MRC score from baseline to 6 month FU across two separate study conditions (active vs. sham tDCS).|Mann-Whitney U Test|||||||0.837
90813591|NCT01344629|181506186|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence between T80/A 5mg FDC tablet and T80mg / A5 mg tablet in concomitant use|Test/Reference Ratio of the mean x 100|100.9||||||90.0|97.7|104.2||No statistical test|ANOVA|||||104.2|97.7|
90813592|NCT01344629|181506187|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence between T80/A 5mg FDC tablet and T80mg / A5 mg tablet in concomitant use|Test/Reference Ratio of the mean x 100|97.2||||||90.0|87.2|108.3||No statistical test|ANOVA|||||108.3|87.2|
90813593|NCT01344629|181506188|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence between T80/A 5mg FDC tablet and T80mg / A5 mg tablet in concomitant use|Test/Reference Ratio of the mean x 100|101.7||||||90.0|98.3|105.2||No statistical test|ANOVA|||||105.2|98.3|
90813594|NCT01344629|181506189|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence between T80/A 5mg FDC tablet and T80mg / A5 mg tablet in concomitant use|Test/Reference Ratio of the mean x 100|110.1||||||90.0|95.8|124.4||No statistical test|ANOVA|||||124.4|95.8|
91015841|NCT02203305|181914583|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.242|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Main effects: interval (p=0.003) and pragmatic subscale (p\<0.001). Interaction: interval and pragmatic subscale (p=0.242).||Responses on the SSQ Qualities of Hearing pragmatic subscale over the post-activation period (i.e., 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months). A repeated-measures ANOVA compared the main effects of interval and pragmatic subscale and their interaction over time with the cochlear implant (1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation).||||<0.242
90813595|NCT01344629|181506190|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence between T80/A 5mg FDC tablet and T80mg / A5 mg tablet in concomitant use|Test/Reference Ratio of the mean x 100|91.4||||||90.0|85.6|97.6||No statistical test|ANOVA|||||97.6|85.6|
90813596|NCT01344629|181506191|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence between T80/A 5mg FDC tablet and T80mg / A5 mg tablet in concomitant use|Test/Reference Ratio of the mean x 100|109.4||||||90.0|102.4|116.8||No statistical test|ANOVA|||||116.8|102.4|
90813597|NCT01344629|181506192|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence between T80/A 5mg FDC tablet and T80mg / A5 mg tablet in concomitant use|Test/Reference Ratio of the mean x 100|109.0||||||90.0|101.5|117.1||No statistical test|ANOVA|||||117.1|101.5|
90813598|NCT00997425|181506235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|||||values above 0.05 are considered statistically not significant in this study|paired t-test|statistical analysis applies to door approach behavior||||||0.098
90813599|NCT00997425|181506235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|||||P values above 0.05 are considered statistically not significant in this study|paired t-test|statistical analysis applies to door pass through behavior||||||0.045
90813600|NCT01318070|181506242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.179|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.224|-0.135||||||||-0.135|-0.224|
90813601|NCT01318070|181506242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.225|-0.135||||||||-0.135|-0.225|
90813602|NCT01318070|181506243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.363|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.434|-0.292||||||||-0.292|-0.434|
90813603|NCT01318070|181506243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.359|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.432|-0.287||||||||-0.287|-0.432|
90813604|NCT01318070|181506244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.588|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.692|-0.484||||||||-0.484|-0.692|
90813605|NCT01318070|181506244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.635|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.743|-0.526||||||||-0.526|-0.743|
90813606|NCT01318070|181506245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|-4.47||||||||-4.47|-13.20|
90813607|NCT01318070|181506245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.86|-8.26||||||||-8.26|-17.86|
91015842|NCT02203305|181914583|OTHER|Bivariate pearson correlation||||||0.37|||||||bivariate pearson correlation|||Association of subjective benefit (Speech Subscale) at the preoperative interval and speech recognition with AzBio sentences when the target is from the front and the masker is towards the acoustic ear.||||0.370
90813608|NCT01318070|181506246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.22|-6.25||||||||-6.25|-16.22|
90813609|NCT01318070|181506246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|-9.63||||||||-9.63|-20.00|
90813610|NCT01318070|181506247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.09|-7.68||||||||-7.68|-18.09|
90813611|NCT01318070|181506247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.64|-11.53||||||||-11.53|-22.64|
90813612|NCT01318070|181506248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.51|-6.4||||||||-6.40|-18.51|
90813613|NCT01318070|181506248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.78|-10.19||||||||-10.19|-22.78|
90813614|NCT01318070|181506249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.51|-3.1||||||||-3.10|-21.51|
90813615|NCT01318070|181506249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.43|-11.95||||||||-11.95|-30.43|
90813616|NCT01318070|181506250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.717|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.848|-0.586||||||||-0.586|-0.848|
90813617|NCT01318070|181506250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.773|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.913|-0.634||||||||-0.634|-0.913|
90813618|NCT02312765|181506251|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.72
90813619|NCT02481713|181506252|NON_INFERIORITY|All analyses were two-tailed with alpha set at 0.05||||||0.24|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.24
90813620|NCT02481713|181506253|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.46||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|1.69|||Regression, zero-inflated Poisson|||||1.69|1.25|.0001
90813621|NCT00042432|181506254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.67||||0.006||95.0|1.6|20.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for baseline glomenular filtration rate (GFR) strata|Logit estimates|||20.06|1.60|0.006
90813622|NCT00042432|181506255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|Adusted for baseline glomerular filtration rate (GFR) strata||||||<0.001
90813623|NCT02575118|181506279|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||linear mixed-effects regression models|All available data, and hence data for participants with missing observations at some time points, were included in the model.||In one saliva sample collected before treatment, the BPA concentration was more than 100 times higher (11.6 ng/ml) than the mean value and more than 100 SD from the mean of the remaining 19 samples. This saliva sample was excluded from the statistical analysis because it was probably contaminated. One participant had breakfast before the sample time point 1 wk after treatment, and thus the samples collected from this participant at this time point were not included in the statistical analysis.|We used mixed effects models and all available data (also data for participants with missing observations at some time points) were included in the model. Using mixed effects models is a recognized method when there are missing data. Thus, data from all 20 individuals were used for estimations at all time points (see: Rabe-Hesketh and Skrondal. Multilevel and Longitudinal Modeling Using Stata, Volume I, Third Edition. 2012, page 279).|||<0.05
90813624|NCT02575118|181506280|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||linear mixed-effects regression models|All available data, and hence data for participants with missing observations at some time points, were included in the model.||One participant had breakfast before the sample time point 1 wk after treatment, and thus the samples collected from this participant at this time point were not included in the statistical analysis.|We used mixed effects models and all available data (also data for participants with missing observations at some time points), were included in the model. Using mixed effects models is a recognized method when there are missing data. Thus, data from all 20 individuals were used for estimations at all time points (see: Rabe-Hesketh and Skrondal. Multilevel and Longitudinal Modeling Using Stata, Volume I, Third Edition. 2012, page 279).|||<0.05
90813625|NCT01735708|181506281|SUPERIORITY|ITT analysis using multiple imputation by chained equation with 50 fully populated data sets.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.493||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28|-0.34||A priori threshold for significance was two-tailed p = .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Standard errors were based on robust Huber-White variance estimator.|standard error of difference in means|||-0.34|-2.28|0.008
90813626|NCT01735708|181506282|SUPERIORITY|Intent to treat analysis using multiple imputation by chained equations with 50 fully populated data sets.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.495||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|0.4||A priori threshold for significance was two-tailed p = .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Standard errors were based on robust Huber-White variance estimator.||||0.40|-1.53|0.251
90813627|NCT01735708|181506283|SUPERIORITY|Intent to treat analysis using multiple imputation by chained equations with 50 fully populated data sets.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|1.61||A priori threshold for significance was two-tailed p = .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Standard errors were based on robust Huber-White variance estimator.|Standard error of difference in means.|||1.61|-1.32|0.844
90813628|NCT01735708|181506284|SUPERIORITY|Intent to treat analysis using multiple imputation by chained equations with 50 fully populated data sets.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.836||0.545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|1.15||A priori threshold for significance was two-tailed p = .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Standard errors were based on robust Huber-White variance estimator.|Standard error of difference in means.|||1.15|-2.18|0.545
90813629|NCT00334282|181506285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.46||||1e-07||95.0|0.34|0.62||stratified log-rank test|Log Rank||The estimated value is the hazard ratio comparing pazopanib to placebo.|||0.62|0.34|.0000001
90813630|NCT01689350|181506311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.99|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.76|14.14|||Chi-squared|||Null hypothesis: there is no difference between the control group and experimental group in terms of frequency of leucopenia.(α=0.05） Chi-square test was applied to test the difference. The Chi-square value was 10.08 and the P-value was 0.0015, which indicated that the null hypothesis could be rejected.||14.14|1.76|<0.01
90813631|NCT01689350|181506312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.69|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|7.13|||Chi-squared|||||7.13|1.01|<0.05
90813632|NCT00554099|181506325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference vs. Placebo|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.69||0.3781|ONE_SIDED|90.0||-0.809|||ANCOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, number of diverticulitis attacks and baseline value as covariate.||It was assumed that the placebo treatment group and mesalamine treatment group would have an average composite score of 8.4 and 5.88 at Week 12, respectively. The common standard deviation was set to 4.5 based on the 2 standard deviation rule. Based on these assumptions, 60 patients per treatment group required to detect 30% treatment difference at 1-sided, 0.1 level of significance, with 80% power.||-0.809||0.3781
90813633|NCT00554099|181506325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference vs. Placebo|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.74||0.6285|ONE_SIDED|90.0||0.815|||ANCOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, number of diverticulitis attacks and baseline value as covariate.||It was assumed that the placebo treatment group and mesalamine treatment group would have an average composite score of 8.4 and 5.88 at Week 12, respectively. The common standard deviation was set to 4.5 based on the 2 standard deviation rule. Based on these assumptions, 60 patients per treatment group required to detect 30% treatment difference at 1-sided, 0.1 level of significance, with 80% power.||0.815||0.6285
90813634|NCT00554099|181506325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference vs. Asacol|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.58||0.4365|ONE_SIDED|90.0||3.573|||ANCOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, number of diverticulitis attacks and baseline value as covariate.||It was assumed that the placebo treatment group and mesalamine treatment group would have an average composite score of 8.4 and 5.88 at Week 12, respectively. The common standard deviation was set to 4.5 based on the 2 standard deviation rule. Based on these assumptions, 60 patients per treatment group required to detect 30% treatment difference at 1-sided, 0.1 level of significance, with 80% power.||3.573||0.4365
90813635|NCT00554099|181506326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference vs. Placebo|21.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.53||0.0576|ONE_SIDED|90.0|5.1||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by number of diverticulitis attacks.|||||5.1|0.0576
90813636|NCT00554099|181506326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference vs. Placebo|6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.27||0.3248|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-10.2||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by number of diverticulitis attacks.|||||-10.2|0.3248
90813637|NCT00554099|181506326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference vs. Mesalamine|-14.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.87||0.8596|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-30.8||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by number of diverticulitis attacks.|||||-30.8|0.8596
90813638|NCT00554099|181506327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference vs. Placebo|16.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.0||0.1266|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-1.3||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by number of diverticulitis attacks.|||||-1.3|0.1266
90813639|NCT00554099|181506327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference vs. Placebo|-20.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.13||0.9288|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-38.9||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by number of diverticulitis attacks.|||||-38.9|0.9288
90813640|NCT00554099|181506327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference vs. Placebo|-37.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.98||0.9962|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-54.1||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by number of diverticulitis attacks.|||||-54.1|0.9962
90813641|NCT00554099|181506328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference vs. Placebo|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.784||0.3082|ONE_SIDED|90.0||2.196|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and number of diverticulitis attacks.||||2.196||0.3082
91077826|NCT02913105|182041132|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.8883|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.015|0.017|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 112 (EOS)||0.017|-0.015|0.8883
90813642|NCT00554099|181506328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference vs. Placebo|0.083|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.903||0.5113|ONE_SIDED|90.0||3.832|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and number of diverticulitis attacks.||||3.832||0.5113
90813643|NCT00554099|181506328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference vs. Mesalamine|1.483|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.836||0.6988|ONE_SIDED|90.0||5.145|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and number of diverticulitis attacks.||||5.145||0.6988
90813644|NCT00554099|181506329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference vs. Placebo|-0.428|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.067||0.4448|ONE_SIDED|90.0||3.541|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and number of diverticulitis attacks.||||3.541||0.4448
90813645|NCT00554099|181506329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference vs. Placebo|0.825|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.151||0.6029|ONE_SIDED|90.0||4.903|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and number of diverticulitis attacks.||||4.903||0.6029
90813646|NCT00554099|181506329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference vs. Mesalamine|1.253|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.996||0.6615|ONE_SIDED|90.0||5.129|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and number of diverticulitis attacks.||||5.129||0.6615
90813647|NCT00554099|181506330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference vs. Placebo|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.2||0.7165|ONE_SIDED|90.0||7.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by number of diverticulitis attacks.||||7.9||0.7165
90813648|NCT00554099|181506330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference vs. Placebo|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.41||0.1708|ONE_SIDED|90.0||0.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by number of diverticulitis attacks.||||0.6||0.1708
90813649|NCT00554099|181506330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference vs. Mesalamine|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.45||0.1039|ONE_SIDED|90.0||-0.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by number of diverticulitis attacks.||||-0.6||0.1039
90813650|NCT00554099|181506331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference vs. Placebo|-7.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.21||0.1907|ONE_SIDED|90.0||3.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by number of diverticulitis attacks.||||3.0||0.1907
90813651|NCT00554099|181506331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference vs. Placebo|-8.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4||0.173|ONE_SIDED|90.0||2.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by number of diverticulitis attacks.||||2.5||0.1730
90813652|NCT00554099|181506331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference vs. Mesalamine|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.61||0.4613|ONE_SIDED|90.0||9.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by number of diverticulitis attacks.||||9.0||0.4613
90813653|NCT00554099|181506332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference vs. Placebo|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.7||0.3983|ONE_SIDED|90.0||12.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by number of diverticulitis attacks.||||12.1||0.3983
90813654|NCT00554099|181506332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference vs. Placebo|6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.66||0.6721|ONE_SIDED|90.0||22.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by number of diverticulitis attacks.||||22.2||0.6721
90813655|NCT00554099|181506332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference vs. Mesalamine|8.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.23||0.7703|ONE_SIDED|90.0||24.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by number of diverticulitis attacks.||||24.6||0.7703
90813656|NCT01370837|181506336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Arm||||0.84
91015843|NCT02203305|181914583|OTHER|bivariate pearson correlation|||||=|0.865||||||Percent correct data were converted to rationalized arcsine units (RAU) prior to data analysis.|bivariate pearson correlation|||Association of subjective benefit (Speech Subscale) at the preoperative interval and speech recognition with AzBio sentences when the target is from the front and the masker is towards the acoustic ear.||||=0.865
91015844|NCT02203305|181914583|OTHER|bivariate pearson correlation|bivariate pearson correlation|0.6|||=|0.005|TWO_SIDED|||||Percent correct data were converted to rationalized arcsine units (RAU) prior to data analysis.|bivariate pearson correlation|||Association of subjective benefit (Speech Subscale) at the 12-month interval and speech recognition with AzBio sentences when the target is from the front and the masker is towards the acoustic ear.||||=0.005
90813657|NCT01370837|181506336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Foot||||0.76
90813658|NCT01370837|181506336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Arm||||0.53
90813659|NCT01370837|181506336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Foot||||0.07
90813660|NCT01370837|181506336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Arm vs foot||||0.25
90813661|NCT01370837|181506336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Arm vs foot||||0.27
90813662|NCT01370837|181506336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Arm vs foot||||< 0.01
90813663|NCT04240093|181506337|SUPERIORITY|This is a pilot intervention trial and was not powered to detect statistical significance.|Beta coefficient|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|0.2||a priori alpha p\<0.05|Generalized estimating equations (GEE)|Generalized estimating equations (GEE) with a poisson distribution controlling for baseline values.||Hypothesis: The CoMBAT intervention arm would be superior to the Standard of Care control arm with regard to reductions in missed medication doses in the past 30 days at follow-up.||0.20|-1.11|0.17
90813664|NCT04240093|181506338|SUPERIORITY|This pilot feasibility and acceptability study was not powered to detect a statistically significant effect.|Beta coefficient|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.48||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|2.72||a priori alpha p\<0.05|Generalized estimating equation (GEE)|Generalized estimating equations (GEE) with a Poisson distribution controlling for baseline values.||Hypothesis: The CoMBAT intervention arm would be superior to the Standard of Care control arm with regard to reductions in missed medication-related visits in the past 30 days at follow-up.||2.72|-3.09|0.90
90813665|NCT04240093|181506339|SUPERIORITY|As a pilot feasibility and acceptability trial, this study was not powered to detect a statistically significant effect.|Beta coefficient|-4.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.05||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.72|-0.7||A priori alpha p\<0.05|Generalized estimating equations (GEE)|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) modeling with a binomial distribution, controlling for baseline values.||Hypothesis: Fewer participants in the CoMBAT experimental arm will have a positive opioid toxicology screen at the 6-month follow-up compared to participants in the SOC control arm.||-0.70|-8.72|0.02
90813666|NCT02839902|181506340|OTHER|Least square (LS) mean difference|Least square (LS) mean difference|-17.147||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.344|-7.95|||ANCOVA||TAK-085 4 g - Control Group|The least square (LS) mean percentage change was compared between treatment groups with cholesterol concentration in sd LDL fraction at Week 8 using an ANCOVA model.||-7.950|-26.344|0.0004
90813667|NCT02839902|181506340|OTHER|Least square (LS) mean difference|Least square (LS) mean difference|-9.774||||0.1141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.986|2.439|||ANCOVA||TAK-085 4 g - Control Group|The least square (LS) mean percentage change was compared between treatment groups with triglycerides concentration in sd LDL fraction at Week 8 using an ANCOVA model.||2.439|-21.986|0.1141
90813668|NCT02839902|181506340|OTHER|Least square (LS) mean difference|Least square (LS) mean difference|-10.246||||0.0248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.143|-1.349|||ANCOVA||TAK-085 4 g - Control Group|The least square (LS) mean percentage change was compared between treatment groups with free cholesterol concentration in sd LDL fraction at Week 8 using an ANCOVA model.||-1.349|-19.143|0.0248
90813669|NCT02839902|181506340|OTHER|Least square (LS) mean difference|Least square (LS) mean difference|-11.511||||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.34|-3.682|||ANCOVA||TAK-085 4 g - Control Group|The least square (LS) mean percentage change was compared between treatment groups with phospholipid concentration in sd LDL fraction at Week 8 using an ANCOVA model.||-3.682|-19.340|0.0047
90813670|NCT02839902|181506341|OTHER|Least square (LS) mean difference|Least square (LS) mean difference|9.499||||0.1826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.623|23.622|||ANCOVA||TAK-085 4 g - Control Group|The least square (LS) mean percentage change was compared between treatment groups with TG to cholesterol ratio in sd LDL fraction at Week 8 using an ANCOVA model.||23.622|-4.623|0.1826
91015845|NCT02203305|181914583|OTHER|bivariate pearson correlation|bivariate pearson correlation|0.67|||=|0.006|TWO_SIDED|||||Percent correct data were converted to rationalized arcsine units (RAU) prior to data analysis.|bivariate pearson correlation|||Association of subjective benefit (Speech Subscale) at the 12-month interval and speech recognition with AzBio sentences when the target is from the front and the masker is towards the acoustic ear.||||=0.006
90813671|NCT02839902|181506342|OTHER|Least square (LS) mean difference|Least square (LS) mean difference|1.066||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.356|1.776|||ANCOVA||TAK-085 4 g - Control Group|The least square (LS) mean percentage change was compared between treatment groups with particle size (nm) of LDL at Week 8 monitored by cholesterol using an ANCOVA model.||1.776|0.356|0.0040
91015846|NCT02203305|181914583|OTHER|bivariate pearson correlation|bivariate pearson correlation|-0.33|||=|0.152|TWO_SIDED||||||bivariate pearson correlation|||Association of subjective benefit (Spatial Subscale) at the preoperative interval and sound source localization (RMS error).||||=0.152
90813672|NCT02839902|181506342|OTHER|Least square (LS) mean difference|Least square (LS) mean difference|1.553||||0.4428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.884|5.991|||ANCOVA||TAK-085 4 g - Control Group|The least square (LS) mean percentage change was compared between treatment groups with particle size (nm) of LDL at Week 8 monitored by triglycerides using an ANCOVA model.||5.991|-2.884|0.4428
90813673|NCT02839902|181506342|OTHER|Least square (LS) mean difference|Least square (LS) mean difference|0.76||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.024|1.544|||ANCOVA||TAK-085 4 g - Control Group|The least square (LS) mean percentage change was compared between treatment groups with particle size (nm) of LDL at Week 8 monitored by free cholesterol using an ANCOVA model.||1.544|-0.024|0.0570
90813674|NCT02839902|181506342|OTHER|Least square (LS) mean difference|Least square (LS) mean difference|0.838||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.057|1.62|||ANCOVA||TAK-085 4 g - Control Group|The least square (LS) mean percentage change was compared between treatment groups with particle size (nm) of LDL at Week 8 monitored by phospholipid using an ANCOVA model.||1.620|0.057|0.0360
90813675|NCT00740714|181506362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85|>|0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.33|2.51||The primary analysis compares each active treatment arm to the placebo arm. P-values for efficacy outcomes will be 2-sided, with a Bonferroni-adjusted significance level of .025 used to preserve the overall alpha level for the 2 comparisons at .05.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA is used with the change in total UPDRS of Coenzyme Q10 1200 mg/day arm compared to placebo group.||2.51|-1.33|>0.025
90813676|NCT00740714|181506362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86|>|0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|3.03||The primary analysis compares each active treatment arm to the placebo arm. P-values for efficacy outcomes will be 2-sided, with a Bonferroni-adjusted significance level of .025 used to preserve the overall alpha level for the 2 comparisons at .05.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA is used with the change in total UPDRS of Coenzyme Q10 2400 mg/day arm compared to placebo group.||3.03|-0.85|>0.025
90813677|NCT00740714|181506363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.7943|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.12|1.68||The primary analysis compares each active treatment arm to the placebo arm. P-Values for efficacy outcomes are 2-sided, with a Bonferroni-adjusted significance level of .025 used to preserve the overall alpha level for the 2 comparisons at .05.|ANCOVA|COCF is used for missing data and those lost to follow up. Outliers and non-compliant patients are assessed with scatter and residual plots and ITT.||Change from Baseline Visit to 16-month visit on Modified Schwab \& England will be analyzed using ANCOVA in the same way as for the primary outcome variable.||1.68|-2.12|0.7943
90813678|NCT00740714|181506363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.306||95.0|-2.79|1.04||The primary analysis compares each active treatment arm to the placebo arm. P-Values for efficacy outcomes are 2-sided, with a Bonferroni-adjusted significance level of .025 used to preserve the overall alpha level for the 2 comparisons at .05|ANCOVA|COCF is used for missing data and those lost to follow up. Outliers and non-compliant patients are assessed with scatter and residual plots and ITT.||Change from Baseline Visit to 16-month on Modified Schwab \& England will be analyzed using ANCOVA in the same way as for the primary outcome variable.||1.04|-2.79|0.306
90813679|NCT00740714|181506364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.1615|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.25|0.06||The primary analysis compares each active treatment arm to the placebo arm. P-Values for efficacy outcomes are 2-sided, with a Bonferroni-adjusted significance level of .025 used to preserve the overall alpha level for the 2 comparisons at .05.|ANCOVA|COCF is used for missing data and those lost to follow up. Outliers and non-compliant patients are assessed with scatter and residual plots and ITT.||Change from Baseline Visit to 16-month visit on Modified Rankin Scale will be analyzed using ANCOVA in the same way as for the primary outcome variable.||0.06|-0.25|<0.1615
90813680|NCT00740714|181506364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.7627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.13||The primary analysis compares each active treatment arm to the placebo arm. P-Values for efficacy outcomes are 2-sided, with a Bonferroni-Adjusted significance level of .025 used to preserve the overall alpha level for the 2 comparisons at .05.|ANCOVA|COCF is used for missing data and those lost to follow up. Outliers and non-compliant patients are assessed with scatter and residual plats and ITT.||Change from Baseline Visit to 16-month visit on Modified Rankin will be analyzed using ANCOVA in the same way as for the primary outcome variable.||0.13|-0.17|0.7627
90813681|NCT00740714|181506365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6383|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18||0.6383|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.1|3.21||The primary analysis compares each active treatment arm to the placebo arm. P-Values for efficacy outcomes are 2-sided, with a Bonferroni-adjusted significance level of .025 used to preserve the overall alpha level for the 2 comparisons at .05.|ANCOVA|COCF is used for missing data and those lost to follow up. Outliers and non-compliant patients are assessed with scatter and residual plots and ITT.||Change from Baseline Visit to 16-month visit on PD Quality of Life Scale will be analyzed using ANCOVA in the same way as for the primary outcome variable.||3.21|-2.10|0.6383
90813682|NCT00740714|181506365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.19||0.667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|2.17||The primary analysis compares each active treatment arm to the placebo arm. P-Values for efficacy outcomes are 2-sided, with a Bonferroni-adjusted significance level of .025 used to preserve the overall alpha level for the 2 comparisons at .05.|ANCOVA|COCF is used for missing data and those lost to follow up. Outliers and non-compliant patients are assessed with scatter and residual plots and ITT.||Change from Baseline Visit to 16-month visit on PD Quality of Life Scale will be analyzed using ANCOVA in the same way as for the primary outcome variable.||2.17|-3.20|0.667
90890360|NCT00360529|181645260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0454||95.0||||Hierarchical ordering used for multiple endpoints, and Hochberg used for multiple dose comparisons. P-values ordered (p1≤p2). If p2≤0.05 then all doses significant. If p1≤0.025 then reject null for p1|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Flibanserin 50 mg qhs versus placebo||||0.0454
91015847|NCT02203305|181914583|OTHER|bivariate pearson correlation|||||=|0.761|||||||bivariate pearson correlation|||Association of subjective benefit (Spatial Subscale) at the preoperative interval and sound source localization (RMS error).||||=0.761
91015848|NCT02203305|181914583|OTHER|bivariate pearson correlation|||||=|0.315|||||||bivariate pearson correlation|||Association of subjective benefit (Spatial Subscale) at the 12-month interval and sound source localization (RMS error).||||=0.315
91015849|NCT02203305|181914583|OTHER|bivariate pearson correlation|||||=|0.666|||||||bivariate pearson correlation|||Association of subjective benefit (Spatial Subscale) at the 12-month interval and sound source localization (RMS error).||||=0.666
91015850|NCT02203305|181914583|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.175|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Main effects: cohort (p=0.912), interval (p=0.463), and subscale (p=0.483). Interactions: 2-way or 3-way (p\>0.175).||Comparison of subjective benefit between groups (UHL/SSD and AHL) on the speech, spatial, and qualities of hearing subscales during the post-activation intervals (1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months).||||>0.175
91015851|NCT02203305|181914584|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.161||||||"Significant effect of interval (p=0.046) and of condition (p\<0.001) and a non-significant interaction (p=0.161).~Percent correct data were converted to rationalized arcsine units (RAU) prior to data analysis."|Mixed Models Analysis|Main effects: interval (p=0.046) and condition (p\<0.001). Interaction: interval and condition (p=0.161).||Recorded AzBio sentences in a 10-talker masker were evaluated in 2 conditions: 1) unaided and 2) with the cochlear implant (CI) over the post-activation study period. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the main effects of interval (1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation), condition (unaided or with the CI), and their interaction.||||<0.161
91015852|NCT02203305|181914584|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.107||||||"Significant effect of condition (p\<0.001) and the interaction (p\<0.001). Non-significant effect of interval (p=0.107).~Percent correct data were converted to rationalized arcsine units (RAU) prior to data analysis."|Mixed Models Analysis|Main effects: condition (p\<0.001) and interval p=0.107). Interaction of condition and interval (p\<0.001).||Recorded AzBio sentences in a 10-talker masker were evaluated in 2 conditions: 1) unaided and 2) with the cochlear implant (CI) over the post-activation study period. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the main effects of interval (1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation), condition (unaided or with the CI), and their interaction.||||>0.107
91015853|NCT02203305|181914584|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Percent correct data were converted to rationalized arcsine units (RAU) prior to data analysis.|ANOVA|||Recorded AzBio sentences in a 10-talker masker were evaluated in an unaided condition for the poorer hearing ear pre-operatively and with the cochlear implant (CI) over the study period. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the main effect of interval (before surgery, and 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation). Percent correct converted to RAU.||||<0.001
91015854|NCT02203305|181914584|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Percent correct data were converted to rationalized arcsine units (RAU) prior to data analysis.|ANOVA|||Recorded AzBio sentences in a 10-talker masker were evaluated in an unaided condition for the poorer hearing ear pre-operatively and with the cochlear implant (CI) over the study period. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the main effect of interval (before surgery, and 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation). Percent correct converted to RAU.||||<0.001
91015855|NCT02203305|181914584|OTHER|bivariate pearson correlation|||||=|0.58||||||Percent correct data were converted to rationalized arcsine units (RAU) prior to data analysis.|bivariate pearson correlation|||Association of age at implantation and speech recognition in noise at the 12-month interval with the cochlear implant, analyzed with a Bivariate Pearson correlation.||||=0.580
91015856|NCT02203305|181914584|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.743||||||A logit transformation was applied to proportion correct data prior to analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|Effects: SNR (p=0.026) \& masker condition (p\<0.001). Interactions: cohort \& condition (p\<0.001), interval \& condition (p=0.015). Others (p\>0.140).||Comparison of speech recognition between groups (UHL/SSD and AHL) for the three masker configurations (noise towards the better hearing ear, noise towards the poorer hearing ear, and noise from the front) and signal-to-noise ratio (SNR; 0, 5, or 10 dB SNR) over the post-activation intervals (1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months).||||<0.743
91015857|NCT02203305|181914584|OTHER|pearson correlation|||||=|0.036||||||Percent correct converted to rationalized arcsine units (RAU) prior to analysis.|bivariate pearson correlation|||Association of word recognition and speech recognition in noise, analyzed with a Bivariate Pearson correlation. Scores were averaged between 3 and 12 months post-activation as an estimate of asymptotic performance.||||=0.036
91015858|NCT02203305|181914585|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.183||||||A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.|Mixed Models Analysis|Main effect: interval (p=0.183) and condition (p=0.012). Interaction: interval and condition (p=0.081).||Soundfield localization of 200-ms speech-shaped noise, presented from 11 speakers at 60, 70, or 80 decibel (dB) sound pressure level (SPL) in a sound treated room. Variable error is the average of the standard deviation of the responses for each source and a lower score reflects a more consistently accurate response. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the effects of interval, condition (unaided or with the cochlear implant), and their interaction.||||<0.183
91015859|NCT02203305|181914585|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.196||||||A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.|Mixed Models Analysis|Main effect: interval (p=0.010) and condition (p=0.100). Interaction: interval and condition (p=0.196).||Soundfield localization of 200-ms speech-shaped noise, presented from 11 speakers at 60, 70, or 80 decibel (dB) sound pressure level (SPL) in a sound treated room. Variable error is the average of the standard deviation of the responses for each source and a lower score reflects a more consistently accurate response. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the effects of interval, condition (unaided or with the cochlear implant), and their interaction.||||<0.196
91055128|NCT02906930|181992249|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The estimated treatment effect excludes the effect of any rescue medication (hypothetical estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-2.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-1.8||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0.|MMRM||Oral Semaglutide 14 mg - Placebo|The analysis was based on a MMRM that assumed data to be missing at random. As dependent variables, the MMRM model included all post-baseline values collected at scheduled visits up to and including week 26. The independent effects were treatment and region as categorical fixed effects and the baseline body weight value as a covariate, all nested within visit, and an unstructured residual covariance matrix.||-1.8|-3.4|<0.0001
90890361|NCT00360529|181645260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0024||95.0||||Hierarchical ordering used for multiple endpoints, and Hochberg used for multiple dose comparisons. P-values ordered (p1≤p2). If p2≤0.05 then all doses significant. If p1≤0.025 then reject null for p1|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Flibanserin 100 mg qhs versus placebo||||0.0024
91015860|NCT02203305|181914585|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.056||||||A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.|ANOVA|||Soundfield localization of 200-ms speech-shaped noise, presented from 11 speakers at 60, 70, or 80 decibel (dB) sound pressure level (SPL) in a sound treated room. Variable error is the average of the standard deviation of the responses for each source and a lower score reflects a more consistently accurate response. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the effect of interval (pre-operatively, 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post). Pre-op: unaided, Post: bilateral.||||0.056
91015861|NCT02203305|181914585|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.21||||||A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.|ANOVA|||Soundfield localization of 200-ms speech-shaped noise, presented from 11 speakers at 60, 70, or 80 decibel (dB) sound pressure level (SPL) in a sound treated room. Variable error is the average of the standard deviation of the responses for each source and a lower score reflects a more consistently accurate response. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the effects of interval (pre-operatively, 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post). Pre-op: unaided, Post: bilateral.||||=0.210
90813683|NCT00740714|181506366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14||0.671|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.09|3.06||The primary analysis compares each active treatment arm to the placebo arm. P-Values for efficacy outcomes are 2-sided, with a Bonferroni-adjusted significance level of .025 used to preserve the overall alpha level for the 2 comparisons at .05.|ANCOVA|COCF is used for missing data and those lost to follow up. Outliers and non-compliant patients are assessed with scatter and residual plots and ITT.||Change from Baseline Visit to 16-month visit on Symbol Digit Modalities Test will be analyzed using ANCOVA in the same way as for the primary outcome variable.||3.06|-2.09|0.671
90813684|NCT00740714|181506366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16||0.671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.34|1.87||The primary analysis compares each active treatment arm to the placebo arm. P-Values for efficacy outcomes are 2-sided, with a Bonferroni-adjusted significance level of .025 used to preserve the overall alpha level for the 2 comparisons at .05|ANCOVA|COCF is used for missing data and those lost to follow up. Outliers and non-compliant patients are assessed with scatter and residual plots and ITT.||Change from Baseline Visit to 16-month visit on Symbol Digit Modalities Test will be analyzed using ANCOVA in the same way as for the primary outcome variable||1.87|-3.34|0.671
90813685|NCT00740714|181506367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.3445|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.04|0.13||The primary analysis compares each active treatment arm to the placebo arm. P-Values for efficacy outcomes are 2-sided, with a Bonferroni-adjusted significance level of .025 used to preserve the overall alpha level for the 2 comparisons at .05.|ANCOVA|COCF is used for missing data and those lost to follow up. Outliers and non-compliant patients are assessed with scatter and residual plots and ITT.||Change from Baseline Visit to 16-month visit on Hoehn \& Yahr Score will be analyzed using ANCOVA in the same way as for the primary outcome variable.||0.13|-0.04|0.3445
91015862|NCT02203305|181914586|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.071||||||A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.|Mixed Models Analysis|Main effects: interval (p\<0.071) and condition (p\<0.001). Interaction: interval and condition (p\<0.051)||Soundfield localization of 200-ms speech-shaped noise, presented from 11 speakers at 60, 70, or 80 decibel (dB) sound pressure level (SPL) in a sound treated room. Constant error is a measure of side bias, and a lower score indicates less response bias to either side. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the effects of interval, condition (unaided or with the cochlear implant), and their interaction.||||<0.071
90813686|NCT00740714|181506367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.239||95.0|-0.04|0.14||The primary analysis compares each active treatment arm to the placebo arm. P-Values for efficacy outcomes are 2-sided. with a Bonferroni-adjustd significance level of .025 used to preserve the overall alpha level for the 2 comparisons at .05.|ANCOVA|COCF is used for missing data and those lost to follow up. Outliers and non-compliant patients are assess with scatter and residual plots and ITT.||Change from Baseline visit to 16-month visit on Hoehn \& Yahr will be analyzed using ANCOVA in the same way as for the primary outcome variable.||0.14|-0.04|.239
90813687|NCT00740714|181506368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.536|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.282||0.0577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.018|1.091|||ANOVA|The ANOVA is using UPDRS worsening as outcome, Change of CoQ10 level as predictor, adjusting for site and baseline UPDRS score.||The analysis will be using the actual change of plasma levels of CoQ10(from final visit to baseline) as predictors of UPDRS worsening. Correlation of UPDRS worsening with plasma levels of CoQ10 will be calculated for all treatment groups.||1.091|-0.018|0.0577
90813688|NCT00740714|181506368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.245|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.451||0.5889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.647|1.136|||ANOVA|The ANOVA is using UPDRS worsening as outcome, Change of CoQ10 level as predictor, adjusting for site and baseline UPDRS score.||The analysis will be using the actual change of plasma levels of CoQ10(from final to baseline) as predictors of UPDRS worsening. Correlation of UPDRS worsening with plasma levels of CoQ10 will be calculated for the treatment group of Coenzyme Q10 2400 mg/day.||1.136|-0.647|0.5889
91015863|NCT02203305|181914586|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.109||||||A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.|Mixed Models Analysis|Main effects: interval (p=0.109) and condition (p\<0.001). Interaction: interval and condition (p=0.052).||Soundfield localization of 200-ms speech-shaped noise, presented from 11 speakers at 60, 70, or 80 decibel (dB) sound pressure level (SPL) in a sound treated room. Constant error is a measure of side bias, and a lower score indicates less response bias to either side. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the effects of interval, condition (unaided or with the cochlear implant), and their interaction.||||<0.109
91015864|NCT02203305|181914586|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.|ANOVA|||Soundfield localization of 200-ms speech-shaped noise, presented from 11 speakers at 60, 70, or 80 decibel (dB) sound pressure level (SPL) in a sound treated room. Constant error is a measure of side bias, and a lower score indicates less response bias to either side. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the effect of interval (pre-operatively, 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post). Pre-op: unaided, Post: bilateral.||||<0.001
91077827|NCT02913105|182041133|OTHER|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using an ANCOVA model which included effects for treatment, log-transformed baseline and stratification factor (BMI group). BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian =30 and Non-Asian=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.01||||0.9514|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|1.21|||ANCOVA|||||1.21|0.84|0.9514
90813689|NCT00740714|181506368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.631|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.608||0.3006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.569|1.831|||ANOVA|The ANOVA is using UPDRS worsening as outcome, Change of CoQ10 level as predictor, adjusting for site and baseline UPDRS score.||The analysis will be using the actual change of plasma levels of CoQ10(from final to baseline) as predictors of UPDRS worsening. Correlation of UPDRS worsening with plasma levels of CoQ10 will be calculated for the treatment group of Coenzyme Q10 1200 mg/day.||1.831|-0.569|0.3006
90813690|NCT00740714|181506368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|2.126|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.269||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.382|4.633|||ANOVA|The ANOVA is using UPDRS worsening as outcome, Change of CoQ10 level as predictor, adjusting for site and baseline UPDRS score.||The analysis will be using the actual change of plasma levels of CoQ10(from final to baseline) as predictors of UPDRS worsening. Correlation of UPDRS worsening with plasma levels of CoQ10 will be calculated for the placebo group.||4.633|-0.382|0.096
90813691|NCT00740714|181506369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0199|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|2.8|||Fisher Exact||Odds ratio \>1 indicates a higher frequency in active treatment group.|All adverse experiences were tabulated by treatment group, severity and perceived relationship to study medication. Fisher's exact test was used to compare active treatment arms to the placebo arm with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing a particular adverse experience.||2.80|0.57|<0.05
90813692|NCT00740714|181506370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0198|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|3.57|||Fisher Exact||Odds ratio \>1 indicates a higher frequency in active treatment group.|All adverse experiences were tabulated by treatment group, severity and perceived relationship to study medication. Fisher's exact test was used to compare active treatment arms to the placebo arm with regard to the proportion of subject experiencing a particular adverse experience||3.57|0.62|<0.05
90813693|NCT00740714|181506371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0198|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|4.2|||Fisher Exact||Odds ratio \>1 indicates a higher frequency in active treatment group.|All adverse experiences were tabulated by treatment group, severity and perceived relationship to study medication. Fisher's exact test was used to compare active treatment arms to the placebo arm with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing a particular adverse experience.||4.20|0.65|<0.05
91015865|NCT02203305|181914586|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.|ANOVA|||Soundfield localization of 200-ms speech-shaped noise, presented from 11 speakers at 60, 70, or 80 decibel (dB) sound pressure level (SPL) in a sound treated room. Constant error is a measure of side bias, and a lower score indicates less response bias to either side. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the effects of interval (pre-operatively, 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post). Pre-op: unaided, Post: bilateral.||||<0.001
91055129|NCT02906930|181992272|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.45||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.78||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1|Regression, Cox||Oral Semaglutide 3 mg / Placebo|Time to initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Withdrawal for any reason or lost to follow-up contributed to the analysis as events (initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication). Censoring time was one day before planned end of treatment.||0.78|0.26|0.0043
91055130|NCT02906930|181992272|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.33||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.59||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1|Regression, Cox||Oral Semaglutide 7 mg / Placebo|Time to initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Withdrawal for any reason or lost to follow-up contributed to the analysis as events (initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication). Censoring time was one day before planned end of treatment.||0.59|0.18|0.0002
90813694|NCT00740714|181506372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.79|||ANCOVA||Odds ratio \>1 indicates a higher frequency in active treatment group.|All adverse experiences were tabulated by treatment group, severity and perceived relationship to study medication. Fisher's exact test was used to compare active treatment arms to the placebo arm with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing a particular adverse experience.||1.79|0.46|<0.05
90813695|NCT00740714|181506373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0199|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|3.41|||Fisher Exact||Odds ratio \>1 indicates a higher frequency in active treatment group.|All adverse experiences were tabulated by treatment group, severity and perceived relationship to study medication. Fisher's exact test was used to compare active treatment arms to the placebo arm with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing a particular adverse experience.||3.41|0.66|<0.05
90813696|NCT00740714|181506374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0197|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|9.72|||Fisher Exact||Odds ratio \>1 indicates a higher frequency in active treatment group.|All adverse experiences were tabulated by treatment group, severity and perceived relationship to study medication. Fisher's exact test was used to compare active treatment arms to the placebo arm with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing a particular adverse experience.||9.72|0.81|<0.05
90813697|NCT00740714|181506375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0197|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.52|||Fisher Exact||Odds ratio \>1 indicates a higher frequency in active treatment group.|All adverse experiences were tabulated by treatment group, severity and perceived relationship to study medication. Fisher's exact test was used to compare active treatment arms to the placebo arm with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing a particular adverse experience.||1.52|0.31|<0.05
90813698|NCT00740714|181506376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0197|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.7|||Fisher Exact||Odds ratio \>1 indicates a higher frequency in active treatment group.|All adverse experiences were tabulated by treatment group, severity and perceived relationship to study medication. Fisher's exact test was used to compare active treatment arms to the placebo arm with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing a particular adverse experience.||1.70|0.36|<0.05
90890362|NCT00360529|181645261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.2606||95.0|-1.0|3.7||Hierarchical ordering used for multiple endpoints, and Hochberg used for multiple dose comparisons. P-values ordered (p1≤p2). If p2≤0.05 then all doses significant. If p1≤0.025 then reject null for p1|ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, centre and baseline as a covariate||Flibanserin 50 mg qhs versus placebo||3.7|-1.0|0.2606
90813699|NCT00740714|181506377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0197|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|8.58|||Fisher Exact||Odds ratio \>1 indicates a higher frequency in active treatment group.|All adverse experiences were tabulated by treatment group, severity and perceived relationship to study medication. Fisher's exact test was used to compare active treatment arms to the placebo arm with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing a particular adverse experience.||8.58|0.69|<0.05
90813700|NCT00740714|181506378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0197|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.62|||Fisher Exact||Odds ratio \>1 indicates a higher frequency in active treatment group.|All adverse experiences were tabulated by treatment group, severity and perceived relationship to study medication. Fisher's exact test was used to compare active treatment arms to the placebo arm with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing a particular adverse experience.||1.62|0.31|<0.05
90813701|NCT00740714|181506379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|9999.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0196|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.77|9999.99|||Fisher Exact||Odds ratio \>1 indicates a higher frequency in active treatment group.|All adverse experiences were tabulated by treatment group, severity and perceived relationship to study medication. Fisher's exact test was used to compare active treatment arms to the placebo arm with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing a particular adverse experience.||9999.99|2.77|<0.05
90813702|NCT00740714|181506380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0197|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.12|||Fisher Exact||Odds ration \>1 indicates a higher frequency in active treatment group.|All adverse experiences were tabulated by treatment group, severity and perceived relationship to study medication. Fisher's exact test was used to compare active treatment arms to the placebo arm with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing a particular adverse experience.||1.12|0.25|<0.05
90813703|NCT00740714|181506381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0196|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|8.01|||Fisher Exact||Odds ratio \>1 indicates a higher frequency in active treatment group.|All adverse experiences were tabulated by treatment group, severity and perceived relationship to study medication. Fisher's exact test was used to compare active treatment arms to the placebo arm with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing a particular adverse experience.||8.01|0.64|<0.05
90813704|NCT00740714|181506382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0198|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|3.24|||Fisher Exact||Odds ratio of \>1 indicates a higher frequency in active treatment group.|All adverse experiences were tabulated by treatment group, severity and perceived relationship to study medication. Fisher's exact test was used to compare active treatment arms to the placebo arm with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing a particular adverse experience.||3.24|0.55|<0.05
90813705|NCT00740714|181506383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|9999.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0197|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|9999.99|||Fisher Exact||Odds ratio \>1 indicates a higher frequency in active treatment group.|All adverse experiences were tabulated by treatment group, severity and perceived relationship to study medication. Fisher's exact test was used to compare active treatment arms to the placebo arm with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing a particular adverse experience.||9999.99|0.48|<0.05
90813706|NCT00740714|181506384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|9999.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0196|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.51|9999.99|||Fisher Exact||Odds ratio \>1 indicates a higher frequency in active treatment group.|All adverse experiences were tabulated by treatment group, severity and perceived relationship to study medication. Fisher's exact test was used to compare active treatment arms to the placebo arm with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing a particular adverse experience.||9999.99|2.51|<0.05
90813707|NCT03688555|181506385|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.301|=|0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|1.59||All Nasal Polyp Score (NPS) values observed between baseline and Week 12 were included in the analysis. Changes from baseline to post-baseline visits in NPS were analyzed using a Mixed Model for Repeated Measurement (MMRM).|Mixed model for repeated measurements|||||1.59|-0.06|= 0.062
90813708|NCT03688555|181506386|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|-3.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.316|=|0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.41|2.45|||ANCOVA|||||2.45|-10.41|= 0.161
90813709|NCT00394901|181506416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31||||0.262||95.0|-0.85|0.23|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||0.23|-0.85|0.262
91055131|NCT02906930|181992272|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.33||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.6||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1|Regression, Cox||Oral Semaglutide 14 mg / Placebo|Time to initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Withdrawal for any reason or lost to follow-up contributed to the analysis as events (initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication). Censoring time was one day before planned end of treatment.||0.60|0.19|0.0002
90813710|NCT00394901|181506416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.86||||0.002||95.0|-1.39|-0.32|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.32|-1.39|0.002
91055132|NCT02906930|181992273|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.48||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.93||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox||Oral Semaglutide 3 mg / Placebo|Time to initiation of rescue medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Censoring time was one day before last day on trial product.||0.93|0.25|0.0300
90813711|NCT00394901|181506416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.63||||0.019||95.0|-1.15|-0.1|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.10|-1.15|0.019
90813712|NCT00394901|181506417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.64||||0.016||95.0|-1.16|-0.12|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment group modified based on the expected pregabalin exposure as a factor, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.12|-1.16|0.016
90813713|NCT00394901|181506417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66||||0.008||95.0|-1.14|-0.17|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment group modified based on the expected pregabalin exposure as a factor, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.17|-1.14|0.008
90813714|NCT00394901|181506418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.116||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|stratified by CLcr stratum||Proportion of responders were used for the statistical analyses. Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||||0.1160
90813715|NCT00394901|181506418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0015||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|stratified by CLcr stratum||Proportion of responders were used for the statistical analyses. Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||||0.0015
90813716|NCT00394901|181506418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0107||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|stratified by CLcr stratum||Proportion of responders were used for the statistical analyses. Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||||0.0107
90813717|NCT00394901|181506419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51||||0.038||95.0|-0.99|-0.03|||repeated measures analysis|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.03|-0.99|0.038
90813718|NCT00394901|181506419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.75||||0.002||95.0|-1.22|-0.27|||repeated measures analysis|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.27|-1.22|0.002
90813719|NCT00394901|181506419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.72||||0.002||95.0|-1.19|-0.26|||repeated measures analysis|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.26|-1.19|0.002
90813720|NCT00394901|181506420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48||||0.048||95.0|-0.97|0.0|||repeated measures analysis|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||0.00|-0.97|0.048
90813721|NCT00394901|181506420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.99|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.47|-0.52|||repeated measures analysis|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.52|-1.47|<0.001
91077828|NCT02913105|182041133|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using an ANCOVA model which included effects for treatment, log-transformed baseline and stratification factor (BMI group). BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian =30 and Non-Asian=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.93||||0.5168|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.78|1.12|||ANCOVA|||||1.12|0.78|0.5168
90813722|NCT00394901|181506420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.03|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.49|-0.56|||repeated measures analysis|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.56|-1.49|<0.001
90813723|NCT00394901|181506421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41||||0.096||95.0|-0.89|0.07|||repeated measures analysis|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||0.07|-0.89|0.096
90813724|NCT00394901|181506421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.96|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.44|-0.48|||repeated measures analysis|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.48|-1.44|<0.001
90813725|NCT00394901|181506421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.99|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.46|-0.52|||repeated measures analysis|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.52|-1.46|<0.001
90813726|NCT00394901|181506422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55||||0.505||95.0|-2.16|1.06|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||1.06|-2.16|0.505
90813727|NCT00394901|181506422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.86||||0.023||95.0|-3.46|-0.26|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.26|-3.46|0.023
90813728|NCT00394901|181506422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.012||95.0|-3.56|-0.44|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.44|-3.56|0.012
90813729|NCT00394901|181506423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29||||0.349||95.0|-0.91|0.32|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||0.32|-0.91|0.349
90813730|NCT00394901|181506423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71||||0.024||95.0|-1.32|-0.1|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.10|-1.32|0.024
90813731|NCT00394901|181506423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61||||0.045||95.0|-1.21|-0.01|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.01|-1.21|0.045
90813732|NCT00394901|181506424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.83||||0.441||95.0|-2.93|1.28|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||1.28|-2.93|0.441
90813733|NCT00394901|181506424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.55||||0.017||95.0|-4.64|-0.46|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.46|-4.64|0.017
90813734|NCT00394901|181506424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.61||||0.012||95.0|-4.65|-0.56|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.56|-4.65|0.012
90813735|NCT00394901|181506425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.23||||0.47||95.0|-8.28|3.83|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||3.83|-8.28|0.470
90813736|NCT00394901|181506425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.04||||0.008||95.0|-14.0|-2.06|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-2.06|-14.0|0.008
90813737|NCT00394901|181506425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.43||||0.013||95.0|-13.3|-1.59|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-1.59|-13.3|0.013
90813738|NCT00394901|181506426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.178||95.0|-0.48|0.09|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||0.09|-0.48|0.178
90813739|NCT00394901|181506426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43||||0.003||95.0|-0.72|-0.15|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.15|-0.72|0.003
90813740|NCT00394901|181506426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31||||0.03||95.0|-0.59|-0.03|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.03|-0.59|0.030
91055133|NCT02906930|181992273|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.13||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.36||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox||Oral Semaglutide 7 mg / Placebo|Time to initiation of rescue medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Censoring time was one day before last day on trial product.||0.36|0.04|0.0001
90813741|NCT00394901|181506427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.76||||0.001||95.0|-1.23|-0.3|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.30|-1.23|0.001
90813742|NCT00394901|181506427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.81||||0.001||95.0|-1.27|-0.34|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.34|-1.27|0.001
90813743|NCT00394901|181506427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.94|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.4|-0.49|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.49|-1.40|<0.001
90813744|NCT00394901|181506428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.9||||0.001||95.0|-14.2|-3.61|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-3.61|-14.2|0.001
90813745|NCT00394901|181506428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.24||||0.002||95.0|-13.5|-2.99|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-2.99|-13.5|0.002
90813746|NCT00394901|181506428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.3|||<|0.001||95.0|-16.5|-6.22|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-6.22|-16.5|<0.001
90813747|NCT00394901|181506429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.29||||0.245||95.0|-2.95|11.54|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||11.54|-2.95|0.245
90813748|NCT00394901|181506429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.95||||0.417||95.0|-4.2|10.11|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||10.11|-4.20|0.417
90813749|NCT00394901|181506429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.7||||0.007||95.0|2.67|16.74|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||16.74|2.67|0.007
90813750|NCT00394901|181506430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.71||||0.76||95.0|-3.83|5.24|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||5.24|-3.83|0.760
90813751|NCT00394901|181506430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.71||||0.754||95.0|-3.75|5.18|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||5.18|-3.75|0.754
90813752|NCT00394901|181506430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.04||||0.641||95.0|-5.43|3.35|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||3.35|-5.43|0.641
90813753|NCT00394901|181506431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.955||95.0|-0.3|0.32|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||0.32|-0.30|0.955
90813754|NCT00394901|181506431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27||||0.084||95.0|-0.04|0.58|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||0.58|-0.04|0.084
90813755|NCT00394901|181506431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||0.17||95.0|-0.09|0.52|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||0.52|-0.09|0.170
90813756|NCT00394901|181506432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.01||||0.296||95.0|-3.52|11.55|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||11.55|-3.52|0.296
90813757|NCT00394901|181506432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.3||||0.007||95.0|2.87|17.73|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||17.73|2.87|0.007
90813758|NCT00394901|181506432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.0||||0.106||95.0|-1.29|13.3|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||13.30|-1.29|0.106
90813759|NCT00394901|181506433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.93||||0.191||95.0|-1.97|9.83|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||9.83|-1.97|0.191
90813760|NCT00394901|181506433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.21|||<|0.001||95.0|5.41|17.02|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||17.02|5.41|<0.001
90813761|NCT00394901|181506433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.23|||<|0.001||95.0|8.5|19.95|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||19.95|8.50|<0.001
90813762|NCT00394901|181506434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.03||||0.061||95.0|-8.25|0.18|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||0.18|-8.25|0.061
90813763|NCT00394901|181506434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.2||||0.133||95.0|-7.37|0.98|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||0.98|-7.37|0.133
90813764|NCT00394901|181506434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.44||||0.24||95.0|-6.52|1.64|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||1.64|-6.52|0.240
90813765|NCT00394901|181506435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.68||||0.2842||95.0|0.34|1.37|||Regression, Logistic|treatment, CLcr stratum, and the optimal sleep score at baseline as covariate||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||1.37|0.34|0.2842
90813766|NCT00394901|181506435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.89||||0.0577||95.0|0.98|3.66|||Regression, Logistic|treatment, CLcr stratum, and the optimal sleep score at baseline as covariate||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||3.66|0.98|0.0577
90813767|NCT00394901|181506435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.54||||0.1893||95.0|0.81|2.95|||Regression, Logistic|treatment, CLcr stratum, and the optimal sleep score at baseline as covariate||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||2.95|0.81|0.1893
91055134|NCT02906930|181992273|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.06||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.26||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox||Oral Semaglutide 14 mg /Placebo|Time to initiation of rescue medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Censoring time was one day before last day on trial product.||0.26|0.01|0.0001
90813768|NCT00394901|181506436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0466||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|stratified by CLcr stratum||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||||0.0466
90813769|NCT00394901|181506436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|stratified by CLcr stratum||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||||<0.001
90813770|NCT00394901|181506436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|stratified by CLcr stratum||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||||<0.001
90813771|NCT00394901|181506437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.344||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|stratified by CLcr stratum||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||||0.3440
90813772|NCT00394901|181506437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|stratified by CLcr stratum||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||||<0.001
90813773|NCT00394901|181506437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|stratified by CLcr stratum||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||||<0.001
90813774|NCT00394901|181506438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.51||||0.057||95.0|-0.1|7.13|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||7.13|-0.10|0.057
90813775|NCT00394901|181506438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.77||||0.67||95.0|-2.78|4.32|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||4.32|-2.78|0.670
90813776|NCT00394901|181506438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.04||||0.559||95.0|-2.45|4.53|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||4.53|-2.45|0.559
91077829|NCT02913105|182041133|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using an ANCOVA model which included effects for treatment, log-transformed baseline and stratification factor (BMI group). BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian =30 and Non-Asian=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.93||||0.374|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|1.07|||ANCOVA|||||1.07|0.80|0.3740
90813777|NCT00394901|181506439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.4||||0.004||95.0|3.01|15.78|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||15.78|3.01|0.004
90813778|NCT00394901|181506439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.67||||0.037||95.0|0.39|12.95|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||12.95|0.39|0.037
90813779|NCT00394901|181506439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.46||||0.643||95.0|-4.74|7.66|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||7.66|-4.74|0.643
90813780|NCT00394901|181506440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.62||||0.811||95.0|-4.5|5.75|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||5.75|-4.50|0.811
90813781|NCT00394901|181506440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.07||||0.006||95.0|2.03|12.12|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||12.12|2.03|0.006
90813782|NCT00394901|181506440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.03||||0.047||95.0|0.06|10.0|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||10.00|0.06|0.047
90813783|NCT00394901|181506441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.3||||0.013||95.0|1.1|9.5|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||9.50|1.10|0.013
91055135|NCT03469336|181992365|OTHER|Ratio|Mean Ratio (Test/Reference)|1.0109|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.732||0.9883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2364|4.3226|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The efficacy assessment of PF-06763809 was performed for the change from baseline in log of the psoriatic skin infiltrate thickness/EPB on Day 19 using a longitudinal analysis of covariance model, with treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction as main effects and the log of the psoriatic skin infiltrate thickness/EPB at baseline as covariate.||4.3226|0.2364|0.9883
91055136|NCT03469336|181992365|OTHER|Ratio|Mean Ratio (Test/Reference)|0.9979|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.732||0.9977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2334|4.2671|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The efficacy assessment of PF-06763809 was performed for the change from baseline in log of the psoriatic skin infiltrate thickness/EPB on Day 19 using a longitudinal analysis of covariance model, with treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction as main effects and the log of the psoriatic skin infiltrate thickness/EPB at baseline as covariate.||4.2671|0.2334|0.9977
90813784|NCT00394901|181506441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.82||||0.07||95.0|-0.31|7.96|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||7.96|-0.31|0.070
90813785|NCT00394901|181506441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.93||||0.058||95.0|-0.13|8.0|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||8.00|-0.13|0.058
90813786|NCT00394901|181506442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.43||||0.443||95.0|-3.79|8.65|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||8.65|-3.79|0.443
90813787|NCT00394901|181506442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.41||||0.018||95.0|1.28|13.54|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||13.54|1.28|0.018
90813788|NCT00394901|181506442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.83||||0.549||95.0|-4.18|7.85|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||7.85|-4.18|0.549
90813789|NCT00394901|181506443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.15||||0.075||95.0|-0.63|12.92|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||12.92|-0.63|0.075
90813790|NCT00394901|181506443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.41||||0.111||95.0|-1.25|12.08|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||12.08|-1.25|0.111
90813791|NCT00394901|181506443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.02||||0.366||95.0|-3.55|9.6|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||9.60|-3.55|0.366
90813792|NCT00394901|181506444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.64||||0.039||95.0|0.29|11.0|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||11.00|0.29|0.039
90813793|NCT00394901|181506444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.42||||0.006||95.0|2.14|12.69|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||12.69|2.14|0.006
91055137|NCT03469336|181992365|OTHER|Ratio|Mean Ratio (Test/Reference)|1.1382|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.732||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2662|4.867|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The efficacy assessment of PF-06763809 was performed for the change from baseline in log of the psoriatic skin infiltrate thickness/EPB on Day 19 using a longitudinal analysis of covariance model, with treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction as main effects and the log of the psoriatic skin infiltrate thickness/EPB at baseline as covariate.||4.8670|0.2662|0.8600
91055138|NCT03469336|181992370|OTHER|Ratio|Mean Ratio (Test/Reference)|0.9979|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.071||0.9763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8588|1.1594|||Mixed Models Analysis|||To evaluate the AUC of psoriatic skin infiltrate thickness/EPB for PF-06763809 compared to vehicle.||1.1594|0.8588|0.9763
90813794|NCT00394901|181506444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.15||||0.117||95.0|-1.05|9.34|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||9.34|-1.05|0.117
90813795|NCT00394901|181506445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.99||||0.154||95.0|-1.5|9.49|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05||9.49|-1.50|0.154
90813796|NCT00394901|181506445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.99||||0.012||95.0|1.58|12.4|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||12.40|1.58|0.012
90813797|NCT00394901|181506445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.76||||0.079||95.0|-0.56|10.08|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||10.08|-0.56|0.079
90813798|NCT00394901|181506446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28||||0.6451||95.0|0.45|3.59|||Regression, Logistic|treatment, CLcr stratum, and the presence of symptom at baseline as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||3.59|0.45|0.6451
90813799|NCT00394901|181506446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.56||||0.0745||95.0|0.91|7.19|||Regression, Logistic|treatment, CLcr stratum, and the presence of symptom at baseline as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||7.19|0.91|0.0745
90813800|NCT00394901|181506446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.01||||0.1787||95.0|0.73|5.58|||Regression, Logistic|treatment, CLcr stratum, and the presence of symptom at baseline as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||5.58|0.73|0.1787
90813801|NCT00394901|181506447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.26||||0.0732||95.0|0.93|5.52|||Regression, Logistic|treatment, CLcr stratum, and the presence of symptom at baseline as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||5.52|0.93|0.0732
91055139|NCT03469336|181992370|OTHER|Ratio|Mean Ratio (Test/Reference)|0.9664|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.051||0.5081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8686|1.0752|||Mixed Models Analysis|||To evaluate the AUC of psoriatic skin infiltrate thickness/EPB for PF-06763809 compared to vehicle.||1.0752|0.8686|0.5081
90813802|NCT00394901|181506447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.64||||0.0353||95.0|1.07|6.53|||Regression, Logistic|treatment, CLcr stratum, and the presence of symptom at baseline as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||6.53|1.07|0.0353
90813803|NCT00394901|181506447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.5||||0.0393||95.0|1.05|5.96|||Regression, Logistic|treatment, CLcr stratum, and the presence of symptom at baseline as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||5.96|1.05|0.0393
90813804|NCT00394901|181506448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.227||95.0|-0.78|0.18|||repeated measures analysis|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||0.18|-0.78|0.227
90813805|NCT00394901|181506448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.86|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.34|-0.38|||repeated measures analysis|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.38|-1.34|<0.001
90813806|NCT00394901|181506448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.93|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.4|-0.46|||repeated measures analysis|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.46|-1.40|<0.001
90813807|NCT00394901|181506449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.577||95.0|-0.62|0.35|||repeated measures analysis|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||0.35|-0.62|0.577
90813808|NCT00394901|181506449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.87|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.35|-0.39|||repeated measures analysis|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.39|-1.35|<0.001
90813809|NCT00394901|181506449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.74||||0.002||95.0|-1.22|-0.27|||repeated measures analysis|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.27|-1.22|0.002
90813810|NCT00394901|181506450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27||||0.275||95.0|-0.75|0.21|||repeated measures analysis|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||0.21|-0.75|0.275
90813811|NCT00394901|181506450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.98|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.46|-0.5|||repeated measures analysis|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.50|-1.46|<0.001
90813812|NCT00394901|181506450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.75||||0.002||95.0|-1.22|-0.28|||repeated measures analysis|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.28|-1.22|0.002
91055140|NCT03469336|181992370|OTHER|Ratio|Mean Ratio (Test/Reference)|1.1155|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044||0.0249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0157|1.2252|||Mixed Models Analysis|||To evaluate the AUC of psoriatic skin infiltrate thickness/EPB for PF-06763809 compared to vehicle.||1.2252|1.0157|0.0249
91055141|NCT03469336|181992371|OTHER|Ratio|Mean Ratio (Test/Reference)|0.7946|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.732||0.754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1858|3.3977|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The effect of PF-06763809 compared to calcipotriene/calcipotriol solution in the change of psoriatic skin infiltrate thickness/EPB on Day 19.||3.3977|0.1858|0.7540
90813813|NCT00394901|181506451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.334||95.0|-0.72|0.25|||repeated measures analysis|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||0.25|-0.72|0.334
90813814|NCT00394901|181506451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.38|-0.42|||repeated measures analysis|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.42|-1.38|<0.001
90813815|NCT00394901|181506451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66||||0.006||95.0|-1.14|-0.19|||repeated measures analysis|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.19|-1.14|0.006
90813816|NCT00394901|181506452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.53||95.0|-0.64|0.33|||repeated measures analysis|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||0.33|-0.64|0.530
90813817|NCT00394901|181506452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.82||||0.001||95.0|-1.3|-0.33|||repeated measures analysis|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.33|-1.30|0.001
90813818|NCT00394901|181506452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.58||||0.017||95.0|-1.05|-0.1|||repeated measures analysis|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.10|-1.05|0.017
90813819|NCT00394901|181506453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21||||0.392||95.0|-0.7|0.27|||repeated measures analysis|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||0.27|-0.70|0.392
90813820|NCT00394901|181506453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.87|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.35|-0.38|||repeated measures analysis|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.38|-1.35|<0.001
91015866|NCT02203305|181914587|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.024||||||A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.|Mixed Models Analysis|Main effects: interval (p=0.018) and condition (p\<0.001). Interaction: interval and condition (p=0.024).||Soundfield localization of 200-ms speech-shaped noise, presented from 11 speakers at 60, 70, or 80 decibel (dB) sound pressure level (SPL) in a sound treated room. Adjusted constant error is a measure of reliability in the response taking side bias into account, and a lower score indicates a more reliable response. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the effects of interval, condition (unaided or with the cochlear implant), and their interaction.||||<0.024
91055142|NCT03469336|181992371|OTHER|Ratio|Mean Ratio (Test/Reference)|0.7844|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.732||0.7407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1834|3.354|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The effect of PF-06763809 compared to calcipotriene/calcipotriol solution in the change of psoriatic skin infiltrate thickness/EPB on Day 19.||3.3540|0.1834|0.7407
91055143|NCT03469336|181992371|OTHER|Ratio|Mean Ratio (Test/Reference)|0.8946|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.732||0.8793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2092|3.8256|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The effect of PF-06763809 compared to calcipotriene/calcipotriol solution in the change of psoriatic skin infiltrate thickness/EPB on Day 19.||3.8256|0.2092|0.8793
91055144|NCT03469336|181992372|OTHER|Ratio|Mean Ratio (Test/Reference)|1.081321|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.732|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25287|4.623941|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The effect of PF-06763809 compared to betamethasone solution in the change of psoriatic skin infiltrate thickness/EPB on Day 19.||4.623941|0.25287|<0.0001
90813821|NCT00394901|181506453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.58||||0.016||95.0|-1.06|-0.11|||repeated measures analysis|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.11|-1.06|0.016
90813822|NCT00394901|181506454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22||||0.364||95.0|-0.71|0.26|||repeated measures analysis|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||0.26|-0.71|0.364
90813823|NCT00394901|181506454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.91|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.39|-0.42|||repeated measures analysis|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.42|-1.39|<0.001
90813824|NCT00394901|181506454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52||||0.031||95.0|-1.0|-0.05|||repeated measures analysis|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.05|-1.00|0.031
90813825|NCT00394901|181506455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.326||95.0|-0.73|0.24|||repeated measures analysis|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||0.24|-0.73|0.326
90813826|NCT00394901|181506455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.94|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.43|-0.46|||repeated measures analysis|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.46|-1.43|<0.001
90813827|NCT00394901|181506455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.65||||0.007||95.0|-1.13|-0.18|||repeated measures analysis|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.18|-1.13|0.007
90813828|NCT00394901|181506456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29||||0.241||95.0|-0.78|0.2|||repeated measures analysis|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||0.20|-0.78|0.241
91015867|NCT02203305|181914587|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.219|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Main effects: interval (p=0.187) and condition (p\<0.001). Interaction: interval and condition (p=0.219).||Soundfield localization of 200-ms speech-shaped noise, presented from 11 speakers at 60, 70, or 80 decibel (dB) sound pressure level (SPL) in a sound treated room. Adjusted constant error is a measure of reliability in the response taking side bias into account, and a lower score indicates a more reliable response. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the effects of interval, condition (unaided or with the cochlear implant), and their interaction.||||<0.219
91015868|NCT02203305|181914587|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.|ANOVA|||Soundfield localization of 200-ms speech-shaped noise, presented from 11 speakers at 60, 70, or 80 decibel (dB) sound pressure level (SPL) in a sound treated room. Adjusted constant error is a measure of reliability in the response taking side bias into account, and a lower score indicates a more reliable response. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the effect of interval (pre-operatively, 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post). Pre-op: unaided, Post: bilateral.||||<0.001
91015869|NCT02203305|181914587|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.|ANOVA|||Soundfield localization of 200-ms speech-shaped noise, presented from 11 speakers at 60, 70, or 80 decibel (dB) sound pressure level (SPL) in a sound treated room. Adjusted constant error is a measure of reliability in the response taking side bias into account, and a lower score indicates a more reliable response. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the effects of interval (pre-operatively, 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post). Pre-op: unaided, Post: bilateral.||||<0.001
91015870|NCT02203305|181914588|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.011||||||A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.|ANOVA|||Responses on the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) as measured with the global score were compared over the post-activation period (i.e., 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months).||||=0.011
91015871|NCT02203305|181914588|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.264||||||A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.|ANOVA|||The Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit, participants rank their perceived difficulty on a scale of 1-99, with lower values indicate less perceived difficulty. The global score is calculated from the responses on the ease of communication, reverberation, and effectiveness in background noise subscales. Responses were compared to responses over the post-activation period (1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months) with the cochlear implant using a repeated-measures ANOVA.||||=0.264
91055145|NCT03469336|181992372|OTHER|Ratio|Mean Ratio (Test/Reference)|1.067453|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.732|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.249631|4.564555|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The effect of PF-06763809 compared to betamethasone solution in the change of psoriatic skin infiltrate thickness/EPB on Day 19.||4.564555|0.249631|<0.0001
91055146|NCT03469336|181992372|OTHER|Ratio|Mean Ratio (Test/Reference)|1.217483|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.732|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.284708|5.206258|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The effect of PF-06763809 compared to betamethasone solution in the change of psoriatic skin infiltrate thickness/EPB on Day 19.||5.206258|0.284708|<0.0001
91055147|NCT02740699|181992377|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0256|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Tests|||||||0.0256
90813829|NCT00394901|181506456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85||||0.001||95.0|-1.34|-0.37|||repeated measures analysis|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.37|-1.34|0.001
91055148|NCT02740699|181992378|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0254|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Tests|||||||0.0254
91055149|NCT02740699|181992379|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.58
91055150|NCT02740699|181992380|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.06
91055151|NCT02740699|181992381|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.69
91015872|NCT02203305|181914588|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.023||||||A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.|Mixed Models Analysis|Main effects: interval (p=0.005) and subscales (p=0.001). Interaction: interval and subscales (p=0.023).||The Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit, participants rank their perceived difficulty on a scale of 1-99, with lower values indicate less perceived difficulty. Subscales include: ease of communication, reverberation, effectiveness in background noise, and reverberation. A repeated-measures ANOVA compared the main effects of interval and subscale and their interaction over time with the cochlear implant (1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation).||||<0.023
91015873|NCT02203305|181914588|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.643|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Main effects: interval (p=0.643) and subscale (p=0.005). Interaction: interval and subscale (p=0.480).||The Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit, participants rank their perceived difficulty on a scale of 1-99, with lower values indicate less perceived difficulty. Subscales include: ease of communication, reverberation, effectiveness in background noise, and reverberation. A repeated-measures ANOVA compared the main effects of interval and subscale and their interaction over time with the cochlear implant (1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation).||||<0.643
91015874|NCT02203305|181914588|OTHER|bivariate pearson correlation (one-tailed)|||||=|0.947||||||Percent correct data were converted to rationalized arcsine units (RAU) prior to data analysis.|bivariate pearson correlation|||Association of subjective benefit (Noise Subscale) at the preoperative interval and speech recognition with AzBio sentences when the target is from the front and the masker is towards the acoustic ear.||||=0.947
91055152|NCT02740699|181992382|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.006
91055153|NCT02393248|181992395|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2841|||||||ANOVA|1-factor ANOVA of log-transformed, dose-normalized data (factor = dose)||||||0.2841
91055154|NCT02393248|181992395|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3042|||||||ANOVA|1-factor ANOVA of log-transformed, dose-normalized data (factor = dose)||||||0.3042
91055155|NCT02393248|181992395|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1259|||||||ANOVA|1-factor ANOVA of log-transformed, dose-normalized data (factor = dose)||||||0.1259
91055156|NCT02393248|181992395|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8214|||||||ANOVA|1-factor ANOVA of log-transformed, dose-normalized data (factor = dose)||||||0.8214
91055157|NCT02393248|181992395|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4315|||||||ANOVA|1-factor ANOVA of log-transformed, dose-normalized data (factor = dose)||||||0.4315
91055158|NCT02393248|181992395|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2595|||||||ANOVA|1-factor ANOVA of log-transformed, dose-normalized data (factor = dose)||||||0.2595
91055159|NCT02393248|181992399|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8577|||||||ANOVA|1-factor ANOVA of log-transformed, dose-normalized data (factor = dose)||||||0.8577
91055160|NCT02393248|181992399|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7238|||||||ANOVA|1-factor ANOVA of log-transformed, dose-normalized data (factor = dose)||||||0.7238
90813830|NCT00394901|181506456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.63||||0.01||95.0|-1.1|-0.15|||repeated measures analysis|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.15|-1.10|0.010
90813831|NCT00394901|181506457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27||||0.281||95.0|-0.76|0.22|||repeated measures analysis|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||0.22|-0.76|0.281
90813832|NCT00394901|181506457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.82||||0.001||95.0|-1.3|-0.33|||repeated measures analysis|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.33|-1.30|0.001
90813833|NCT00394901|181506457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62||||0.012||95.0|-1.09|-0.14|||repeated measures analysis|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.14|-1.09|0.012
90813834|NCT02076399|181506471|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.6||||0.0261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.2|28.1|||Fisher Exact|||||28.1|7.2|0.0261
90813835|NCT02076399|181506476|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.01||||0.6642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.0||P-value from a two-sided two-sample t-test, testing for a difference in means between fostamatinib and placebo.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.0|-0.01|0.6642
91055161|NCT02393248|181992399|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5923|||||||ANOVA|1-factor ANOVA of log-transformed, dose-normalized data (factor = dose)||||||0.5923
90813836|NCT02076399|181506477|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.15||||0.3365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.5||P-value from a two-sided two-sample t-test, testing for a difference in means between fostamatinib and placebo.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.5|-0.2|0.3365
90813837|NCT05260333|181506478|OTHER||correlation coefficient|0.81||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.0001
90813838|NCT02032641|181506487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.05
90813839|NCT02032641|181506487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.1||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05|t-test, 1 sided|||||||>0.10
91055162|NCT02393248|181992399|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7634|||||||ANOVA|1-factor ANOVA of log-transformed, dose-normalized data (factor = dose)||||||0.7634
91055163|NCT02393248|181992399|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5749|||||||ANOVA|1-factor ANOVA of log-transformed, dose-normalized data (factor = dose)||||||0.5749
90813840|NCT01688921|181506513|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was defined as the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio (GMT with NS / GMT with PJ Stratis) for each antigen did not exceed 1.5 fold.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.12||||||For a sample size of 550 per group each test has an individual power of \> 99% to rule out the 1.5-fold difference using a two-sided α = 0.05, assuming equal GMTs between the two treatment groups. The overall power for the study to demonstrate the non-inferiority for the 6 co-primary endpoints is \> 80%, computed as product of 6 individual powers.||1.12|0.88|
90813841|NCT01688921|181506514|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was defined as the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio (GMT with NS / GMT with PJ Stratis) for each antigen did not exceed 1.5 fold.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.21||||||For a sample size of 550 per group each test has an individual power of \> 99% to rule out the 1.5-fold difference using a two-sided α = 0.05, assuming equal GMTs between the two treatment groups. The overall power for the study to demonstrate the non-inferiority for the 6 co-primary endpoints is \> 80%, computed as product of 6 individual powers.||1.21|0.96|
90813842|NCT01688921|181506515|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was defined as the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio (GMT with NS / GMT with PJ Stratis) for each antigen did not exceed 1.5 fold.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.06||||||For a sample size of 550 per group each test has an individual power of \> 99% to rule out the 1.5-fold difference using a two-sided α = 0.05, assuming equal GMTs between the two treatment groups. The overall power for the study to demonstrate the non-inferiority for the 6 co-primary endpoints is \> 80%, computed as product of 6 individual powers.||1.06|0.83|
91055164|NCT02393248|181992399|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6877|||||||ANOVA|1-factor ANOVA of log-transformed, dose-normalized data (factor = dose)||||||0.6877
91055165|NCT02393248|181992403|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.143|||||||ANOVA|crossover ANOVA of log-transformed data||||||0.143
91055166|NCT02393248|181992404|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0013|||||||ANOVA|crossover ANOVA of log-transformed data||||||0.0013
91055167|NCT02393248|181992405|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.319|||||||ANOVA|crossover ANOVA of log-transformed data||||||0.319
90813843|NCT01688921|181506516|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Seroconversion rate defined as the proportion of subjects with either a pre-vaccination titer of \<10 achieving a post-vaccination antibody of HI titer of ≥ 40 or with a pre-vaccination HI titer of ≥ 10 achieving a four-fold or greater increase in post-vaccination HI titer. The non-inferiority margin was defined as the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI on the difference between the seroconversion rates (rate with NS - with PJ Stratis) for each vaccine strain did not exceed 10 percentage points.|Seroconversion Rate Difference|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|6.5||||||For a sample size of 550 per group each test has an individual power of \> 95% to rule out the 10 percentage points difference using a one-sided α = 0.025, assuming equal seroconversion rates between the two treatment groups. The overall power for the study to demonstrate the non-inferiority for the 6 co-primary endpoints is \> 80%, computed as product of 6 individual powers.||6.5|-4.8|
90890363|NCT00360529|181645261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2||||0.066||95.0|-0.1|4.6|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, centre and baseline as a covariate||Flibanserin 100 mg qhs versus placebo||4.6|-0.1|0.066
90890364|NCT00360529|181645262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.1601||95.0|-2.9|0.5||Hierarchical ordering used for multiple endpoints, and Hochberg used for multiple dose comparisons. P-values ordered (p1≤p2). If p2≤0.05 then all doses significant. If p1≤0.025 then reject null for p1|ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, centre and baseline as a covariate||Flibanserin 50 mg qhs versus placebo||0.5|-2.9|0.1601
91055168|NCT02393248|181992406|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.128|||||||ANOVA|crossover ANOVA of log-transformed data||||||0.128
91055169|NCT02393248|181992407|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.305|||||||ANOVA|crossover ANOVA of log-transformed data||||||0.305
91055170|NCT02393248|181992408|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.305|||||||ANOVA|crossover ANOVA of log-transformed data||||||0.305
91055171|NCT02393248|181992409|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.772|||||||ANOVA|crossover ANOVA of log-transformed data||||||0.772
90813844|NCT01688921|181506517|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Seroconversion rate defined as the proportion of subjects with either a pre-vaccination titer of \<10 achieving a post-vaccination antibody of HI titer of ≥ 40 or with a pre-vaccination HI titer of ≥ 10 achieving a four-fold or greater increase in post-vaccination HI titer. The non-inferiority margin was defined as the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI on the difference between the seroconversion rates(rate with NS - with PJ Stratis) for each vaccine strain did not exceed 10 percentage points|Seroconversion Rate Difference|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|7.1||||||For a sample size of 550 per group each test has an individual power of \> 95% to rule out the 10 percentage points difference using a one-sided α = 0.025, assuming equal seroconversion rates between the two treatment groups. The overall power for the study to demonstrate the non-inferiority for the 6 co-primary endpoints is \> 80%, computed as product of 6 individual powers.||7.1|-4.5|
90813845|NCT01688921|181506518|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Seroconversion rate was defined as the proportion of subjects with either a pre-vaccination titer of \<10 achieving a post-vaccination antibody of HI titer of ≥ 40 or with a pre-vaccination HI titer of ≥ 10 achieving a four-fold or greater increase in post-vaccination HI titer.~The upper-bound of the two-sided 95% CI on the difference in seroconversion rates for the A/H1N1, A/H3N2, and B strains did not exceed 10 percentage points (6.5, 7.1, and 5.9 respectively)."|Seroconversion Rate Difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|5.9||||||For a sample size of 550 per group each test has an individual power of \> 91% to rule out the 10 percentage points difference using a one-sided α = 0.025, assuming equal seroconversion rates between the two treatment groups. The overall power for the study to demonstrate the non-inferiority for the 6 co-primary endpoints is \> 80%, computed as product of 6 individual powers.||5.9|-5.2|
90813846|NCT01688921|181506519|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Immediate adverse events were reported within 30 minutes of receiving the vaccination; therefore, they are all considered related to study treatment.|||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
90813847|NCT01688921|181506520|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The safety population included subjects who received the vaccination and for whom follow-up data were available for a specific safety analysis. Therefore, the denominators for different safety tables vary, depending on the availability of the data.|||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
90813848|NCT01800318|181506532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|||||RM Anova of effects of treatment groups on PIPP scores: .|ANOVA|||||||0.07
90813849|NCT01800318|181506532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Bonferroni correction||t test comparing baseline PIPP score with heel stick PIPP scores in group with 24% sucrose and sham NESAP.||||<0.05
90813850|NCT01800318|181506532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Bonferroni correction||t test comparing baseline PIPP score with heel stick PIPP scores in group with NESAP and oral water.||||<0.01
90813851|NCT01800318|181506532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Bonferroni correction||t test comparing baseline PIPP score with heel stick PIPP scores in group with 24% sucrose and NESAp combined.||||<0.05
90813852|NCT01800318|181506532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Bonferroni||t test comparing baseline PIPP score with heel stick PIPP scores in standard care group (Sham NESAP with oral water).||||<0.01
90813853|NCT01800318|181506533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.9
91055172|NCT02585934|181992422|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|-0.36||||0.2249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.22||the threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical Method: Mixed model for repeated measures||||0.22|-0.95|0.2249
91055173|NCT02585934|181992423|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|-0.09||||0.826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.72||the threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical Method: Mixed model for repeated measures||||0.72|-0.90|0.8260
91055174|NCT02585934|181992424|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|-0.12||||0.0234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|-0.02||the threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical Method: Mixed model for repeated measures||||-0.02|-0.22|0.0234
91055175|NCT02585934|181992425|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|0.12||||0.2096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.32||the threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical Method: Mixed model for repeated measures||||0.32|-0.07|0.2096
90813854|NCT01800318|181506534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.9
90813855|NCT01800318|181506536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|F4.048||||||0.008
90813856|NCT00262847|181506553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.954||||0.448||95.0|0.844|1.078|||Regression, Cox|Proportional Hazards model stratified by stage of disease and size of residual disease following initial staging surgery.||||1.078|0.844|0.448
90813857|NCT00262847|181506553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.765|||<|0.001||95.0|0.676|0.866|||Regression, Cox|Proportional Hazards model stratified by stage of disease and size of residual disease following initial staging surgery.||||0.866|0.676|<0.001
90813858|NCT00262847|181506554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.069||||0.41||95.0|0.912|1.255|||Regression, Cox|Proportional Hazards model stratified by stage of disease and size of residual disease following initial staging surgery.||||1.255|0.912|0.410
90813859|NCT00262847|181506554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.131||95.0|0.746|1.039|||Regression, Cox|Proportional Hazards model stratified by stage of disease and size of residual disease following initial staging surgery.||||1.039|0.746|0.131
90813860|NCT05160766|181506561|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|12.557|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.661||0.03143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.168|23.946|||ANCOVA|||The statistical analysis reflects Part A of the study.||23.946|1.168|0.03143
90813861|NCT05160766|181506561|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|4.331|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.671||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|7.621|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part B of the study.||7.621|1.04|0.0101
90813862|NCT05160766|181506562|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|12.168|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.88||0.04405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.338|23.998|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part A of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant B.1.1.7 (alpha)."|23.998|0.338|0.04405
91055176|NCT02585934|181992426|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|-0.14||||0.765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|0.8||the threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical Method: Mixed model for repeated measures||||0.80|-1.09|0.7650
90813863|NCT05160766|181506562|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|14.212|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.767||0.01744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.61|25.814|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part A of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant B.1.351 (beta)."|25.814|2.61|0.01744
90813864|NCT05160766|181506562|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|14.239|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.932||0.02039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.305|26.173|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part A of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant P.1 (gamma)."|26.173|2.305|0.02039
90813865|NCT05160766|181506562|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|9.331|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.636||0.04989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.005|18.656|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part A of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant BA.1 (omicron)."|18.656|0.005|0.04989
90813866|NCT05160766|181506562|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|10.312|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.373||0.02259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.514|19.111|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part A of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant BA.4 (omicron)."|19.111|1.514|0.02259
90813867|NCT05160766|181506562|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|11.601|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.634||0.01583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.279|20.924|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part A of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant BA.4.6 (omicron)."|20.924|2.279|0.01583
90813868|NCT05160766|181506562|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|11.863|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.323||0.00856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.166|20.56|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part A of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant BA.5 (omicron)."|20.56|3.166|0.00856
90813869|NCT05160766|181506562|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|6.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.244||0.00258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.41|11.249|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part B of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant B.1.1.7 (alpha)."|11.249|2.41|0.00258
90813870|NCT05160766|181506562|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|6.048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.244||0.00748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.63|10.466|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part B of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant B.1.351 (beta)."|10.466|1.63|0.00748
90813871|NCT05160766|181506562|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|7.302|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.782||0.00922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.821|12.782|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part B of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant P.1 (gamma)."|12.782|1.821|0.00922
91015875|NCT02203305|181914588|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5||||||Percent correct data were converted to rationalized arcsine units (RAU) prior to data analysis.|bivariate pearson correlation|||Association of subjective benefit (Noise Subscale) at the preoperative interval and speech recognition with AzBio sentences when the target is from the front and the masker is towards the acoustic ear.||||=0.500
91055177|NCT02585934|181992427|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|-0.38||||0.2472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|0.27||the threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical Method: Mixed model for repeated measures||||0.27|-1.03|0.2472
90813872|NCT05160766|181506562|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|4.791|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.646||0.07136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.419|10.001|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part B of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant BA.1 (omicron)."|10.001|-0.419|0.07136
91055178|NCT00593736|181992447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.646||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|Least Squares (LS) means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model.||||0.646
90813873|NCT05160766|181506562|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|3.965|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.196||0.07218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|8.29|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part B of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant BA.4 (omicron)."|8.29|-0.36|0.07218
90813874|NCT05160766|181506562|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|4.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.202||0.02949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.484|9.155|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part B of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant BA.4.6 (omicron)."|9.155|0.484|0.02949
90813875|NCT05160766|181506562|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|3.926|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.263||0.08403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.531|8.382|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part B of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant BA.5 (omicron)."|8.382|-0.531|0.08403
90813876|NCT05160766|181506565|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|8.835|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.03||0.42797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.475|31.145|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part A of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant B.1.1.7 (alpha)."|31.145|-13.475|0.42797
90813877|NCT05160766|181506565|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|3.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.575||0.73961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.85|24.929|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part A of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant B.1.351 (beta)."|24.929|-17.85|0.73961
90813878|NCT05160766|181506565|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|8.086|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.683||0.4537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.524|29.695|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part A of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant P.1 (gamma)."|29.695|-13.524|0.45370
90813879|NCT05160766|181506565|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|1.636|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.187||0.87323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.969|22.241|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part A of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant BA.1 (omicron)."|22.241|-18.969|0.87323
90813880|NCT05160766|181506565|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.848||0.93489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.109|20.728|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis relfects Part A of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant BA.4 (omicron)."|20.728|-19.109|0.93489
91015876|NCT02203305|181914588|OTHER|bivariate pearson correlation|bivariate pearson correlation|-0.51|||=|0.023|TWO_SIDED|||||Percent correct data were converted to rationalized arcsine units (RAU) prior to data analysis.|bivariate pearson correlation|||Association of subjective benefit (Noise Subscale) at the 12-month interval and speech recognition with AzBio sentences when the target is from the front and the masker is towards the acoustic ear.||||=0.023
91015877|NCT02203305|181914588|OTHER|bivariate pearson correlation|bivariate pearson correlation|-0.55|||=|0.033|TWO_SIDED|||||Percent correct data were converted to rationalized arcsine units (RAU) prior to data analysis.|bivariate pearson correlation|||Association of subjective benefit (Noise Subscale) at the 12-month interval and speech recognition with AzBio sentences when the target is from the front and the masker is towards the acoustic ear.||||=0.033
91055179|NCT00593736|181992447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.084||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.084
90813881|NCT05160766|181506565|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|3.511|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.845||0.74784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.425|25.448|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part A of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant BA.4.6 (omicron)."|25.448|-18.425|0.74784
90813882|NCT05160766|181506565|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|2.088|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.409||0.84202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.966|23.143|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part A of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant BA.5 (omicron)."|23.143|-18.966|0.84202
90813883|NCT05160766|181506565|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|5.807|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.068||0.15477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.207|13.821|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part B of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant B.1.1.7 (alpha)."|13.821|-2.207|0.15477
90813884|NCT05160766|181506565|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|3.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.984||0.37773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.327|11.368|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part B of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant B.1.351 (beta)."|11.368|-4.327|0.37773
90813885|NCT05160766|181506565|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|4.413|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.18||0.29212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.821|12.647|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part B of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant P.1 (gamma)."|12.647|-3.821|0.29212
90813886|NCT05160766|181506565|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|5.961|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.04||0.1414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.998|13.919|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part B of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant BA.1 (omicron)."|13.919|-1.998|0.14140
90813887|NCT05160766|181506565|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|2.199|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.875||0.5709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.434|9.832|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part B of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant BA.4 (omicron)."|9.832|-5.434|0.57090
90813888|NCT05160766|181506565|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|6.528|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.071||0.11012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.491|14.548|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part B of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant BA.4.6 (omicron)."|14.548|-1.491|0.11012
91055180|NCT00593736|181992447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.929||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.929
91055181|NCT00593736|181992448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.854||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS Means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.854
91055182|NCT00593736|181992448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.383||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS Means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.383
90813889|NCT05160766|181506565|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|4.239|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.06||0.29755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.759|12.237|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part B of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant BA.5 (omicron)."|12.237|-3.759|0.29755
90813890|NCT05160766|181506570|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|9.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.191||0.39426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.995|32.275|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part A of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant P.2 (gamma)."|32.275|-12.995|0.39426
90813891|NCT05160766|181506570|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|8.764|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.765||0.42055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.011|30.539|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part A of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant B.1.617."|30.539|-13.011|0.42055
90813892|NCT05160766|181506570|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|8.472|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.953||0.44391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.683|30.627|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part A of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant B.1.617.1 (kappa)."|30.627|-13.683|0.44391
90813893|NCT05160766|181506570|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|8.483|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.82||0.43775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.402|30.368|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part A of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant AY.3 (delta)."|30.368|-13.402|0.43775
91055183|NCT00593736|181992448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.883||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS Means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.883
90813894|NCT05160766|181506570|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|6.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.892||0.53511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.819|26.2|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part A of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant AY.4.2 (delta)."|26.2|-13.819|0.53511
90813895|NCT05160766|181506570|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|4.552|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.801||0.67576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.295|26.399|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part A of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant B.1.617.3."|26.399|-17.295|0.67576
90813896|NCT05160766|181506570|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|8.438|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.168||0.45443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.15|31.027|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part A of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant B.1.526.1 (iota)."|31.027|-14.15|0.45443
90813897|NCT05160766|181506570|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|8.901|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.218||0.38904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.768|29.569|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part A of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant BA.2+L452M (omicron)."|29.569|-11.768|0.38904
91055184|NCT00593736|181992449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.365||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS Means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.365
91015878|NCT02203305|181914588|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.208|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Main effects: cohort (p=0.541), interval (p=0.446), and subscale (p=0.208). Interactions: 2-way or 3-way (p\>0.287).||Comparison of subjective benefit between groups (UHL/SSD and AHL) on the ease of communication, background noise, and reverberation subscales over the post-activation intervals (1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months).||||>0.208
90813898|NCT05160766|181506570|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|7.302|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.11||0.47466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.147|27.751|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part A of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant BA.2+L452R (omicron)."|27.751|-13.147|0.47466
90813899|NCT05160766|181506570|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|2.878|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.824||0.7711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.993|22.749|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part A of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant BA.2.12.1 (omicron)."|22.749|-16.993|0.77110
90813900|NCT05160766|181506570|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|1.753||||0.86646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.195|22.701|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part A of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant BA.2.75 (omicron)."|22.701|-19.195|0.86646
90813901|NCT05160766|181506570|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|5.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.705||0.57972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.21|25.049|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part A of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant BA.2.75.2 (omicron)."|25.049|-14.21|0.57972
90813902|NCT05160766|181506570|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.408||0.90166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.859|20.199|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part A of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant BA.3 (omicron)."|20.199|-17.859|0.90166
91015879|NCT02203305|181914589|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.221||||||A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.|ANOVA|||"The Tinnitus Handicap Inventory is a 25-item questionnaire. The subject answers yes (4 points), sometimes (2 points), or no (0 points) to each question. Responses are added to quantify tinnitus severity: none/slight (0-16), mild (18-36), moderate (38-56), severe (58-76), and catastrophic (78-100). Responses were compared over the post-activation time period (1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months)."||||=0.221
91015880|NCT02203305|181914589|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.538||||||A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.|ANOVA|||"The Tinnitus Handicap Inventory is a 25-item questionnaire. The subject answers yes (4 points), sometimes (2 points), or no (0 points) to each question. Responses are added to quantify tinnitus severity: none/slight (0-16), mild (18-36), moderate (38-56), severe (58-76), and catastrophic (78-100). Responses were compared over the post-activation time period (1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months)."||||=0.538
91055185|NCT00593736|181992449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.121||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.121
91055186|NCT00593736|181992449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.269||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.269
91055187|NCT00593736|181992450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.920
91055188|NCT00593736|181992450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.382||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.382
90813903|NCT05160766|181506570|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|1.018|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.44||0.92279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.099|22.136|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part A of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant BF.7 (omicron)."|22.136|-20.099|0.92279
90813904|NCT05160766|181506570|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|3.532|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.496||0.71191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.675|22.74|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part A of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant BQ.1 (omicron)."|22.74|-15.675|0.71191
91015881|NCT02203305|181914589|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.218||||||There were no significant main effects of cohort (p=0.265) or interval (p=0.430). There was no significant interaction between cohort and interval (p=0.218).|Mixed Models Analysis|Main effects: cohort (p=0.265) or interval (p=0.430). Interaction: cohort and interval (p=0.218).||Comparison of subjective benefit between groups (UHL/SSD and AHL) on the Tinnitus Handicap Inventory over the post-activation intervals (1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months).||||>0.218
91055189|NCT00593736|181992450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.439||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.439
90813905|NCT05160766|181506570|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|2.995|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.755||0.73415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.714|20.703|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part A of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant BQ.1.1 (omicron)."|20.703|-14.714|0.73415
90813906|NCT05160766|181506570|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|7.157|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.548||0.45798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.155|26.469|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part A of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant XBB.1 (omicron)."|26.469|-12.155|0.45798
90813907|NCT05160766|181506570|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|4.819|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.055||0.23582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.169|12.808|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part B of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant P.2 (gamma)."|12.808|-3.169|0.23582
90813908|NCT05160766|181506570|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|5.312|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.074||0.19354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.713|13.337|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part B of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant B.1.617."|13.337|-2.713|0.19354
90813909|NCT05160766|181506570|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|5.714|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.155||0.17033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.471|13.899|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part B of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant B.1.617.1 (kappa)."|13.899|-2.471|0.17033
90813910|NCT05160766|181506570|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|5.934|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.997||0.13895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|13.808|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part B of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant AY.3 (delta)."|13.808|-1.94|0.13895
90813911|NCT05160766|181506570|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|4.222|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.812||0.26924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.288|11.732|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part B of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant AY.4.2 (delta)."|11.732|-3.288|0.26924
90813912|NCT05160766|181506570|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|5.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.996||0.1708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.382|13.362|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part B of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant B.1.617.3."|13.362|-2.382|0.17080
90813913|NCT05160766|181506570|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|5.567|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.188||0.18502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.683|13.818|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part B of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant B.1.526.1 (iota)."|13.818|-2.683|0.18502
90813914|NCT05160766|181506570|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|3.438|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.938||0.38344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.318|11.195|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part B of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant BA.2+L452M (omicron)."|11.195|-4.318|0.38344
90813915|NCT05160766|181506570|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|3.279|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.982||0.411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.565|11.124|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part B of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant BA.2+L452R (omicron)."|11.124|-4.565|0.41100
90813916|NCT05160766|181506570|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|2.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.014||0.5066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.237|10.577|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part B of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant BA.2.12.1 (omicron)."|10.577|-5.237|0.50660
90813917|NCT05160766|181506570|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|4.535|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.242||0.28604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.82|12.891|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part B of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant BA.2.75 (omicron)."|12.891|-3.82|0.28604
91015882|NCT02203305|181914590|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.322||||||Percent correct data were converted to rationalized arcsine units (RAU) prior to data analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|Main effect: interval (p=0.084) and condition (p=0.322). Interaction: interval and condition (p=0.125).||Recorded AzBio sentences in a 10-talker masker were evaluated in 2 conditions: 1) unaided and 2) with the cochlear implant (CI) over the post-activation study period. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the main effects of interval (1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation), condition (unaided or with the CI), and their interaction.||||<0.322
91055190|NCT00593736|181992451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.973||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.973
91055191|NCT00593736|181992451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.117||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.117
90813918|NCT05160766|181506570|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|6.259|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.98||0.11715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.582|14.1|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part B of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant BA.2.75.2 (omicron)."|14.1|-1.582|0.11715
91055192|NCT00593736|181992451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.816||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.816
91055193|NCT00593736|181992452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.661||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.661
90813919|NCT05160766|181506570|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|3.818|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.957||0.33567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.978|11.613|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part B of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant BA.3 (omicron)."|11.613|-3.978|0.33567
90813920|NCT05160766|181506570|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|5.775|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.022||0.15232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.147|13.697|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part B of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant BF.7 (omicron)."|13.697|-2.147|0.15232
90813921|NCT05160766|181506570|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|4.808|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.845||0.21234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.766|12.383|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part B of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant BQ.1 (omicron)."|12.383|-2.766|0.21234
90813922|NCT05160766|181506570|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|4.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.78||0.22687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.866|12.026|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part B of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant BQ.1.1 (omicron)."|12.026|-2.866|0.22687
90813923|NCT05160766|181506570|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|3.498|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.047||0.38832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.475|11.47|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part B of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant XBB.1 (omicron)."|11.47|-4.475|0.38832
90813924|NCT01854632|181506647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.996|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.996
90813925|NCT02337530|181506663|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|7.01|||Fisher Exact|||||7.01|0.28|0.73
90813926|NCT02337530|181506663|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.4||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|24.8|||Fisher Exact|||||24.8|1.65|0.01
90813927|NCT02337530|181506664|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.6|||Log Rank|||||1.60|0.42|0.56
90813928|NCT02337530|181506664|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.49|||Log Rank|||||1.49|0.40|0.44
90813929|NCT03249935|181506665|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||Assumptions were that 20% of enrolled chlamydia-infected males will have urethral symptoms and azithromycin treatment failures will occur in 10% of symptomatic men vs. 2% of asymptomatic men. At a one-sided 0.05 significance level with power of 0.80, a sample size of 357 evaluable males would be needed, or approximately 72 symptomatic and 285 asymptomatic males. Assuming 20% of males enrolled would be unevaluable, a total of 446 males was targeted for enrollment.|Given that the study closed early and there were only 4 treatment failures, formal hypothesis testing was not performed.|||
90813930|NCT03249935|181506666|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|2.62|||Regression, Logistic|||Unadjusted odds ratio for age in years as a continuous variable in a logistic regression model predicting treatment failure at day 28||2.62|0.22|0.656
90813931|NCT03249935|181506666|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.65||||0.197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|47.89|||Regression, Logistic|||Unadjusted odds ratio for reporting at baseline new partners in the last 30 days (reference group=no new partners) from a logistic model predicting treatment failure at day 28.||47.89|0.45|0.197
90813932|NCT03249935|181506666|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.68||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.01|||Regression, Logistic|||Unadjusted odds ratio for Chlamydia viral load at baseline as a continuous variable in a logistic model predicting treatment failure at day 28.||1.01|0.45|0.058
90813933|NCT00989235|181506669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted difference|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.46|||ANCOVA|Adjustment based on ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline value as covariate.|Change from Baseline = Post-baseline - Baseline value.|Day 29||0.46|-0.11|
90813934|NCT00989235|181506669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference|-0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.17|||ANCOVA|Adjustment based on ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline value as covariate.|Change from Baseline = Post-baseline - Baseline value.|Day 57||0.17|-0.34|
90813935|NCT00989235|181506669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference|-0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.2|||ANCOVA|Adjustment based on ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline value as covariate.|Change from Baseline = Post-baseline - Baseline value.|Day 85||0.20|-0.37|
90813936|NCT00989235|181506669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference|-0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.04|||ANCOVA|Adjustment based on ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline value as covariate.|Change from Baseline = Post-baseline - Baseline value.|Day 113||0.04|-0.50|
90813937|NCT00989235|181506669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.32|||ANCOVA|Adjustment based on ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline value as covariate.|Change from Baseline = Post-baseline - Baseline value.|Day 141||0.32|-0.26|
90813938|NCT00989235|181506669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference|-0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.15|||ANCOVA|Adjustment based on ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline value as covariate.|Change from Baseline = Post-baseline - Baseline value.|Day 169||0.15|-0.41|
90813939|NCT00989235|181506669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference|-0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.13|||ANCOVA|Adjustment based on ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline value as covariate.|Change from Baseline = Post-baseline - Baseline value.|Day 197||0.13|-0.38|
91055194|NCT00593736|181992452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.341||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.341
91055195|NCT00593736|181992452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.853||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.853
91055196|NCT00593736|181992453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.365||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.365
90813940|NCT00989235|181506669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.25|||ANCOVA|Adjustment based on ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline value as covariate.|Change from Baseline = Post-baseline - Baseline value.|Day 225||0.25|-0.32|
90813941|NCT00989235|181506669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.36|||ANCOVA|Adjustment based on ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline value as covariate.|Change from Baseline = Post-baseline - Baseline value.|Day 253||0.36|-0.19|
90813942|NCT00989235|181506669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.38|||ANCOVA|Adjustment based on ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline value as covariate.|Change from Baseline = Post-baseline - Baseline value.|Day 281||0.38|-0.12|
90813943|NCT00989235|181506669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.22|||ANCOVA|Adjustment based on ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline value as covariate.|Change from Baseline = Post-baseline - Baseline value.|Day 309||0.22|-0.27|
90813944|NCT00989235|181506669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.31|||ANCOVA|Adjustment based on ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline value as covariate.|Change from Baseline = Post-baseline - Baseline value.|Day 337||0.31|-0.37|
90813945|NCT00989235|181506669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.55|||ANCOVA|Adjustment based on ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline value as covariate.|Change from Baseline = Post-baseline - Baseline value.|Day 365||0.55|-0.09|
90813946|NCT00989235|181506670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||estimate of difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.2|18.0|||normal approximation|For 95% CI: normal approximation with continuity correction.||||18.0|-17.2|
90813947|NCT00989235|181506671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||estimate of difference|-8.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.3|3.2|||normal approximation|For 95% CI: normal approximation with continuity correction.||||3.2|-20.3|
90813948|NCT00989235|181506673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.69|||Cox proportional hazards model||Hazard ratio determined by a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as the only covariate.|Through Month 12||1.69|0.45|
90813949|NCT00989235|181506674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||estimate of difference|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|10.7|||normal approximation|For 95% CI: normal approximation with continuity correction.||||10.7|-12.9|
90813950|NCT00989235|181506675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||estimate of difference|-7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.6|7.3|||normal approximation|95% CI: normal approximation with continuity correction.||||7.3|-22.6|
90813951|NCT00989235|181506676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||estimate of difference|-10.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.1|10.0|||normal approximation|95% CI: normal approximation with continuity correction.||||10.0|-31.1|
90813952|NCT01229943|181506732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.17||Tests were stratified by: prior treatment with cytotoxic chemotherapy (no vs yes), prior use of octreotide (no vs yes), and prior therapy with sunitinib (no vs yes).|Log Rank|||Based on the log rank test, with 130 patients enrolled over 22 months and followed an additional 24 months, the difference in median PFS between 9 months and 14 months can be detected with approximately 90% power (1-sided, α=0.15).||1.17|0.55|0.12
90813953|NCT01969500|181506807|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.81||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.37|6.96|||Linear mixed effects model||Mean difference (Intervention Arm - TAU) in change from baseline to 12 weeks|||6.96|-8.37|.85
90813954|NCT01969500|181506808|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.67||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.66|2.06|||Linear mixed effects model||Mean difference (Intervention Arm - TAU) in change from baseline to 12 weeks|||2.06|-4.66|.44
90813955|NCT02193087|181506811|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Based on the Two One-Sided Tests (TOST) with α=0.05, if the 90% CI for the ratio of GMT for a given dengue serotype for the comparison was within the range of 0.67 and 1, then the 2 formulations were deemed equivalent.|LS Mean Ratio|0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.23|0.36||||||DEN-1||0.36|0.23|
90813956|NCT02193087|181506811|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Based on the Two One-Sided Tests (TOST) with α=0.05, if the 90% CI for the ratio of GMT for a given dengue serotype for the comparison was within the range of 0.67 and 1, then the 2 formulations were deemed equivalent.|LS Mean Ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.26||||||DEN-2||1.26|0.90|
90813957|NCT02193087|181506811|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Based on the Two One-Sided Tests (TOST) with α=0.05, if the 90% CI for the ratio of GMT for a given dengue serotype for the comparison was within the range of 0.67 and 1, then the 2 formulations were deemed equivalent.|LS Mean Ratio|1.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.13|1.89||||||DEN-3||1.89|1.13|
90813958|NCT02193087|181506811|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Based on the Two One-Sided Tests (TOST) with α=0.05, if the 90% CI for the ratio of GMT for a given dengue serotype for the comparison was within the range of 0.67 and 1, then the 2 formulations were deemed equivalent.|LS Mean Ratio|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.57|0.95||||||DEN-4||0.95|0.57|
90813959|NCT02008357|181506833|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.816|0.22|||Natural Cubic Spline (NCS) method|||||0.220|-0.816|0.260
91055197|NCT00593736|181992453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.121||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.121
90813960|NCT02008357|181506835|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.089|1.02|||Natural Cubic Spline (NCS) method|||||1.020|-0.089|0.100
90813961|NCT02008357|181506837|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.265|0.076|||Natural Cubic Spline (NCS) method|||||0.076|-1.265|0.082
91055198|NCT00593736|181992453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.268||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.268
91055199|NCT00593736|181992454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.900
90813962|NCT02008357|181506839|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0073|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.057|-0.028|||ANCOVA|||||-0.028|-0.057|<0.001
90813963|NCT02008357|181506840|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|3.239|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|32.8719||0.922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.02|68.498|||ANCOVA|||Cerebrospinal fluid Tau Protein Immunoassay||68.498|-62.020|0.922
90813964|NCT02008357|181506840|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.965|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6535||0.717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.241|4.311|||ANCOVA|||Cerebrospinal Fluid Phosphorylated Tau Protein Immunoassay||4.311|-6.241|0.717
90813965|NCT02008357|181506841|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|12738.449|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|998.7048|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10757.047|14719.851|||ANCOVA|||Cerebrospinal Fluid Amyloid Beta 1-40 Modified ELISA - INNOTEST||14719.851|10757.047|<0.001
90813966|NCT02008357|181506841|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|996.411|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|60.7404|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|875.873|1116.948||p-value using ANCOVA model for endpoint measures: CHG = Baseline + APOE4 + AGE + Treatment.|ANCOVA|||Cerebrospinal Fluid Amyloid Beta 1-42 Mod Modified ELISA - INNOTEST||1116.948|875.873|<0.001
90813967|NCT02008357|181506842|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.054|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0388||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.131|0.022|||ANCOVA|||Total hippocampal volume||0.022|-0.131|0.161
90813968|NCT02008357|181506842|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|0.351|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4513||0.437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.535|1.236|||ANCOVA|||Total Lateral Ventricular Volume||1.236|-0.535|0.437
90813969|NCT03553498|181506854|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.08
90813970|NCT03553498|181506855|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.989|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.989
90813971|NCT03553498|181506856|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.414|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.414
90813972|NCT03553498|181506857|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.153|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.153
90813973|NCT02741570|181506860|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.0469|TWO_SIDED|97.51|0.59|1.03|||Log Rank|stratified regular log-rank test||||1.03|0.59|0.0469
90813974|NCT02741570|181506861|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.95||||0.4951|TWO_SIDED|97.9|0.8|1.13|||Log Rank|stratified regular log-rank test||||1.13|0.80|0.4951
90813975|NCT02741570|181506862|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.95||||||||0.95|0.68|
90813976|NCT02741570|181506863|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|1.63|||||All Randomized Participants|||1.63|1.19|
90813977|NCT02741570|181506863|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.3|||||All Randomized PD-L1 CPS \>= 20 Participants|||1.30|0.77|
90813978|NCT02741570|181506866|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.97||||||||0.97|0.60|
90813979|NCT02741570|181506867|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.08||||||||1.08|0.82|
90813980|NCT01498185|181506868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.5425|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.85|35.86||No formal statistical testing was performed to compare between treatment groups.|Descriptive statistics|||||35.86|-40.85|
91055200|NCT00593736|181992454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.525||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.525
90813981|NCT01498185|181506868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.7228|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.36|33.82||No formal statistical testing was performed to compare between treatment groups.|Descriptive statistics|||||33.82|-35.36|
90813982|NCT01498185|181506868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.1548|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.21|28.45||No formal statistical testing was performed to compare between treatment groups.|Descriptive statistics|||||28.45|-42.21|
90813983|NCT01498185|181506868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.4617|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.22|37.16||No formal statistical testing was performed to compare between treatment groups.|Descriptive statistics|||||37.16|-39.22|
90813984|NCT00946322|181506876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired sample t-test||||.028
90813985|NCT00946322|181506877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired sample t-tests were used. Due to variable skewness, variables were logarithm-transformed to improve their distributions.||||.022
90813986|NCT00946322|181506878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.043|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired sample t-test||||.043
91055201|NCT00593736|181992454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.418||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.418
91055202|NCT00593736|181992455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.051||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.051
90813987|NCT00946322|181506879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.482|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired sample t-test||||.482
90813988|NCT00946322|181506880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired sample t-test||||.009
90813989|NCT00946322|181506881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired sample t-test||||.001
91055203|NCT00593736|181992455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.926||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.926
91055204|NCT00593736|181992455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.166||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.166
90813990|NCT00946322|181506882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired sample t-test||||.027
90813991|NCT00946322|181506883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.177|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired sample t-test||||.177
90813992|NCT01075971|181506893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.77|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|2.19||Analysis of variance with repeated measurements (daily scores from day 1 to day 5) for the whole set of patients was performed adjusted on the formulation (SL vs. FDT). Other independent factors were the subject and the day.|Analysis of variance|||||2.19|1.35|<0.0001
90813993|NCT02827500|181506905|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|5.19||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.88|14.33|||Regression, Logistic|||||14.33|1.88|0.002
90813994|NCT02827500|181506906|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.011
90813995|NCT02827500|181506907|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||Regression, Linear|||The null hypothesis tested was that there is no difference in change in heart rate between the treatment arms.||||0.011
90813996|NCT02827500|181506908|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.054||||||The apriori threshold for statistical significance is alpha=0.05.|Chi-squared, Corrected|The p-value is obtained using the F-test (combination of Chi-Squared tests) due to multiple imputation.||The null hypothesis tested was that there is no difference between the treatment arms in the proportion of patients with heart rate \< 70 BPM.||||0.054
90813997|NCT02827500|181506909|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.717|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.717
90813998|NCT02827500|181506910|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.784|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.784
90813999|NCT03343080|181506912|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.776|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.776
90814000|NCT03343080|181506913|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.296|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||4 hours post-extubation||||0.296
90814001|NCT01241760|181506914|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the difference in proportions was above the pre-determined non-inferiority margin of -11%, non-inferiority was established.|Difference in proportion of response, %|1.5||||||95.0|-4.9|12.0|||Regression, Logistic|The 95% confidence interval of the difference in proportions was estimated using a logistic regression model.|Observed data|||12|-4.9|
90814002|NCT03697993|181506954|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-18.0||||0.264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.4|8.7|||Multiple imputation using Wald method|||||8.7|-43.4|0.264
90814003|NCT03697993|181506958|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.2|24.3|||Fisher Exact|||||24.3|-26.2|1.000
90814004|NCT03697993|181506959|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.5|||Proportional odds model using Wald test|||||2.5|0.3|0.894
90814005|NCT03697993|181506960|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||0.973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.3|25.3|||Multiple imputation using Wald method|||||25.3|-26.3|0.973
90814006|NCT04384107|181506961|OTHER|Estimated differences, confidence intervals (CIs), and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percent|-1.1|||=|0.641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|3.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Injection site erythema||3.6|-5.9|= 0.641
90814007|NCT04384107|181506961|OTHER|Estimated differences, confidence intervals (CIs), and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percent|-0.2|||=|0.937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|5.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Injection site induration||5.6|-6.1|= 0.937
90814008|NCT04384107|181506961|OTHER|Estimated differences, confidence intervals (CIs), and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percent|7.1|||=|0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|13.8|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Injection site pain||13.8|0.5|= 0.036
90814009|NCT04384107|181506961|OTHER|Estimated differences, confidence intervals (CIs), and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percent|-4.0|||=|0.208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|2.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Injection site swelling||2.2|-10.2|= 0.208
90814010|NCT04384107|181506962|OTHER|Estimated differences, confidence intervals (CIs), and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percent|-0.4|||=|0.912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|6.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Decreased appetite||6.0|-6.7|= 0.912
90814011|NCT04384107|181506962|OTHER|Estimated differences, confidence intervals (CIs), and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percent|5.9|||=|0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|13.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Irritability||13.0|-1.3|= 0.108
90814012|NCT04384107|181506962|OTHER|Estimated differences, confidence intervals (CIs), and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percent|1.0|||=|0.792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|8.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Somnolence||8.4|-6.4|= 0.792
90814013|NCT04384107|181506962|OTHER|Estimated differences, confidence intervals (CIs), and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percent|-0.3|||=|0.843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|2.8|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Urticaria||2.8|-3.5|= 0.843
90814014|NCT04384107|181506963|OTHER|Estimated differences and CIs are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percent|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.3||||||||1.3|-1.4|
90814015|NCT04384107|181506964|NON_INFERIORITY|The stratum-adjusted proportion difference using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weight, and the corresponding 95% CI and p-value based on the method of Miettinen and Nurminen stratified by age category. A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to PCV13 is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - PCV13) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Difference in Percent|-0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Serotype 1: Participants With IgG ≥0.35 μg/mL||0.8|-1.7|< 0.001
91055205|NCT00593736|181992456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.511||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.511
90814016|NCT04384107|181506964|NON_INFERIORITY|The stratum-adjusted proportion difference using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weight, and the corresponding 95% CI and p-value based on the method of Miettinen and Nurminen stratified by age category. A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to PCV13 is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - PCV13) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Difference in Percent|2.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|4.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Serotype 3: Participants With IgG ≥0.35 μg/mL||4.5|1.0|< 0.001
90814017|NCT04384107|181506964|NON_INFERIORITY|The stratum-adjusted proportion difference using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weight, and the corresponding 95% CI and p-value based on the method of Miettinen and Nurminen stratified by age category. A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to PCV13 is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - PCV13) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Difference in Percent|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Serotype 4: Participants With IgG ≥0.35 μg/mL||1.1|-1.1|< 0.001
90814018|NCT04384107|181506964|NON_INFERIORITY|The stratum-adjusted proportion difference using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weight, and the corresponding 95% CI and p-value based on the method of Miettinen and Nurminen stratified by age category. A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to PCV13 is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - PCV13) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Difference in Percent|-1.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-0.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Serotype 5: Participants With IgG ≥0.35 μg/mL||-0.1|-3.0|< 0.001
90814019|NCT04384107|181506964|NON_INFERIORITY|The stratum-adjusted proportion difference using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weight, and the corresponding 95% CI and p-value based on the method of Miettinen and Nurminen stratified by age category. A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to PCV13 is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - PCV13) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Difference in Percent|-0.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Serotype 6A: Participants With IgG ≥0.35 μg/mL||0.2|-2.6|< 0.001
91055206|NCT00593736|181992456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.082||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.082
90814020|NCT04384107|181506964|NON_INFERIORITY|The stratum-adjusted proportion difference using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weight, and the corresponding 95% CI and p-value based on the method of Miettinen and Nurminen stratified by age category. A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to PCV13 is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - PCV13) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Difference in Percent|-3.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|-1.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Serotype 6B: Participants With IgG ≥0.35 μg/mL||-1.3|-6.9|< 0.001
90814021|NCT04384107|181506964|NON_INFERIORITY|The stratum-adjusted proportion difference using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weight, and the corresponding 95% CI and p-value based on the method of Miettinen and Nurminen stratified by age category. A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to PCV13 is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - PCV13) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Difference in Percent|-0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Serotype 7F: Participants With IgG ≥0.35 μg/mL||0.8|-1.7|< 0.001
90890365|NCT00360529|181645262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.9||||0.0001||95.0|-5.6|-2.2||Hierarchical ordering used for multiple endpoints, and Hochberg used for multiple dose comparisons. P-values ordered (p1≤p2). If p2≤0.05 then all doses significant. If p1≤0.025 then reject null for p1|ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, centre and baseline as a covariate||Flibanserin 100 mg qhs versus placebo||-2.2|-5.6|0.0001
90814022|NCT04384107|181506964|NON_INFERIORITY|The stratum-adjusted proportion difference using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weight, and the corresponding 95% CI and p-value based on the method of Miettinen and Nurminen stratified by age category. A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to PCV13 is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - PCV13) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Difference in Percent|-0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Serotype 9V: Participants With IgG ≥0.35 μg/mL||0.8|-1.7|< 0.001
90814023|NCT04384107|181506964|NON_INFERIORITY|The stratum-adjusted proportion difference using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weight, and the corresponding 95% CI and p-value based on the method of Miettinen and Nurminen stratified by age category. A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to PCV13 is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - PCV13) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Difference in Percent|-0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Serotype 14: Participants With IgG ≥0.35 μg/mL||1.1|-1.9|< 0.001
90814024|NCT04384107|181506964|NON_INFERIORITY|The stratum-adjusted proportion difference using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weight, and the corresponding 95% CI and p-value based on the method of Miettinen and Nurminen stratified by age category. A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to PCV13 is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - PCV13) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Difference in Percent|-1.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-0.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Serotype 18C: Participants With IgG ≥0.35 μg/mL||-0.1|-3.0|< 0.001
90814025|NCT04384107|181506964|NON_INFERIORITY|The stratum-adjusted proportion difference using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weight, and the corresponding 95% CI and p-value based on the method of Miettinen and Nurminen stratified by age category. A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to PCV13 is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - PCV13) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Difference in Percent|-0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Serotype 19A: Participants With IgG ≥0.35 μg/mL||0.8|-1.7|< 0.001
90814026|NCT04384107|181506964|NON_INFERIORITY|The stratum-adjusted proportion difference using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weight, and the corresponding 95% CI and p-value based on the method of Miettinen and Nurminen stratified by age category. A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to PCV13 is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - PCV13) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Difference in Percent|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Serotype 19F: Participants With IgG ≥0.35 μg/mL||1.1|-1.1|< 0.001
90814027|NCT04384107|181506964|NON_INFERIORITY|The stratum-adjusted proportion difference using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weight, and the corresponding 95% CI and p-value based on the method of Miettinen and Nurminen stratified by age category. A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to PCV13 is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - PCV13) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Difference in Percent|-1.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-0.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Serotype 23F: Participants With IgG ≥0.35 μg/mL||-0.2|-4.0|< 0.001
91055207|NCT00593736|181992456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.188||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.188
90814028|NCT04384107|181506964|NON_INFERIORITY|The stratum-adjusted proportion difference using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weight, and the corresponding 95% CI and p-value based on the method of Miettinen and Nurminen stratified by age category. A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to PCV13 is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - PCV13) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Difference in Percent|2.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|4.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Serotype 22F: Participants With IgG ≥0.35 μg/mL||4.3|0.4|<0.001
90814029|NCT04384107|181506964|NON_INFERIORITY|The stratum-adjusted proportion difference using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weight, and the corresponding 95% CI and p-value based on the method of Miettinen and Nurminen stratified by age category. A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to PCV13 is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - PCV13) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Difference in Percent|-6.8|||=|0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|-3.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Serotype 33F: Participants With IgG ≥0.35 μg/mL||-3.5|-10.6|= 0.048
90814030|NCT04384107|181506965|NON_INFERIORITY|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed IgG concentrations as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors. A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to PCV13 is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/PCV13) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|0.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.67|||Linear model|||Serotype 1: IgG GMC Ratio||0.67|0.55|< 0.001
90814031|NCT04384107|181506965|NON_INFERIORITY|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed IgG concentrations as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors. A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to PCV13 is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/PCV13) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|1.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.67|2.05|||Linear model|||Serotype 3: IgG GMC Ratio||2.05|1.67|< 0.001
90814032|NCT04384107|181506965|NON_INFERIORITY|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed IgG concentrations as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors. A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to PCV13 is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/PCV13) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|0.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.93|||Linear model|||Serotype 4: IgG GMC Ratio||0.93|0.76|< 0.001
91055208|NCT00593736|181992457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.691||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.691
91055209|NCT00593736|181992457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.323||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.323
91015883|NCT02203305|181914590|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.317||||||Percent correct data were converted to rationalized arcsine units (RAU) prior to data analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|Main effects: interval (p=0.014) and condition (p=0.317). Interaction: interval and condition (p=0.118).||Recorded AzBio sentences in a 10-talker masker were evaluated in 2 conditions: 1) unaided and 2) with the cochlear implant (CI) over the post-activation study period. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the main effects of interval (1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation), condition (unaided or with the CI), and their interaction.||||<0.317
91015884|NCT02203305|181914590|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.017||||||Percent correct data were converted to rationalized arcsine units (RAU) prior to data analysis.|ANOVA|||Recorded AzBio sentences in a 10-talker masker were evaluated in an unaided condition for the poorer hearing ear pre-operatively and with the cochlear implant (CI) over the study period. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the main effect of interval (before surgery, and 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation). Percent correct converted to RAU.||||=0.017
91015885|NCT02203305|181914590|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.292||||||Percent correct data were converted to rationalized arcsine units (RAU) prior to data analysis.|ANOVA|||Recorded AzBio sentences in a 10-talker masker were evaluated in an unaided condition for the poorer hearing ear pre-operatively and with the cochlear implant (CI) over the study period. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the main effect of interval (before surgery, and 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation). Percent correct converted to RAU.||||=0.292
91015886|NCT02203305|181914590|OTHER|pearson correlation|||||>|0.185|||||||bivariate pearson correlation|||Association of word recognition and speech recognition in noise, analyzed with a Bivariate Pearson correlation. Scores were averaged between 3 and 12 months post-activation as an estimate of asymptotic performance.||||>0.185
91015887|NCT02203305|181914591|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.581||||||Percent correct data were converted to rationalized arcsine units (RAU) prior to data analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|Main effect: interval (p=0.039) and condition (p=0.007). Interaction: interval and condition (p=0.581).||Recorded AzBio sentences in a 10-talker masker were evaluated in 2 conditions: 1) unaided and 2) with the cochlear implant (CI) over the post-activation study period. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the main effects of interval (1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation), condition (unaided or with the CI), and their interaction.||||<0.581
91015888|NCT02203305|181914591|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.817||||||Percent correct data were converted to rationalized arcsine units (RAU) prior to data analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|Main effects: condition (p=0.005) and interval (p=0.528). Interaction: condition and interval (p=0.817).||Recorded AzBio sentences in a 10-talker masker were evaluated in 2 conditions: 1) unaided and 2) with the cochlear implant (CI) over the post-activation study period. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the main effects of interval (1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation), condition (unaided or with the CI), and their interaction.||||<0.817
91015889|NCT02203305|181914591|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.008||||||A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.|ANOVA|||Recorded AzBio sentences in a 10-talker masker were evaluated in an unaided condition for the poorer hearing ear pre-operatively and with the cochlear implant (CI) over the study period. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the main effect of interval (before surgery, and 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation). Percent correct converted to RAU.||||=0.008
91015890|NCT02203305|181914591|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.009|||||||ANOVA|||Recorded AzBio sentences in a 10-talker masker were evaluated in an unaided condition for the poorer hearing ear pre-operatively and with the cochlear implant (CI) over the study period. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the main effect of interval (before surgery, and 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation). Percent correct converted to RAU.||||=0.009
91055210|NCT00593736|181992457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.324||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.324
91015891|NCT02203305|181914591|OTHER|bivariate correlation|||||=|0.049||||||"Percent correct data were converted to rationalized arcsine units (RAU) prior to data analysis.~This correlation was no longer significant when controlling for the hearing threshold at 8000 Hz."|bivariate pearson correlation|||Association of age at implantation and performance at the 12-month interval with the cochlear implant, analyzed with a Bivariate Pearson correlation (one-tailed).||||=0.049
91015892|NCT02203305|181914591|OTHER|pearson correlation|||||>|0.185|||||||bivariate pearson correlation|||Association of word recognition and speech recognition in noise, analyzed with a Bivariate Pearson correlation. Scores were averaged between 3 and 12 months post-activation as an estimate of asymptotic performance.||||>0.185
91015893|NCT02203305|181914592|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.44|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Main effects: interval (p=0.070) and condition (p=0.440). Interaction: interval and condition (p=0.047).||Recorded BKB sentences in a 4-talker masker were evaluated in 2 conditions: 1) unaided and 2) with the cochlear implant (CI) over the post-activation study period. Results are reported in dB SNR, where a lower value indicates better performance. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the main effects of interval (1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation), condition (unaided or with the CI), and their interaction.||||<0.440
91015894|NCT02203305|181914592|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.379|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Main effects: condition (p\<0.001) and interval (p=0.250). Interaction: interval and condition (p=0.379).||Recorded BKB sentences in a 4-talker masker were evaluated in 2 conditions: 1) unaided and 2) with the cochlear implant (CI) over the post-activation study period. Results are reported in dB SNR, where a lower value indicates better performance. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the main effects of interval (1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation), condition (unaided or with the CI), and their interaction.||||<0.379
91015895|NCT02203305|181914592|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.021|||||||ANOVA|||Recorded BKB sentences in a 4-talker masker were evaluated in an unaided condition for the poorer hearing ear pre-operatively and with the cochlear implant (CI) over the study period. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the main effect of interval (before surgery, and 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation).||||=0.021
91015896|NCT02203305|181914592|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Recorded BKB sentences in a 4-talker masker were evaluated in an unaided condition for the poorer hearing ear pre-operatively and with the cochlear implant (CI) over the study period. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the main effect of interval (before surgery, and 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation).||||<0.001
90814033|NCT04384107|181506965|NON_INFERIORITY|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed IgG concentrations as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors. A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to PCV13 is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/PCV13) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|0.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.87|||Linear model|||Serotype 5: IgG GMC Ratio||0.87|0.69|< 0.001
90814034|NCT04384107|181506965|NON_INFERIORITY|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed IgG concentrations as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors. A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to PCV13 is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/PCV13) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|0.56|||=|0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.63|||Linear model|||Serotype 6A: IgG GMC Ratio||0.63|0.50|= 0.019
90814035|NCT04384107|181506965|NON_INFERIORITY|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed IgG concentrations as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors. A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to PCV13 is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/PCV13) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|0.59|||=|0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.68|||Linear model|||Serotype 6B: IgG GMC Ratio||0.68|0.51|= 0.015
90814036|NCT04384107|181506965|NON_INFERIORITY|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed IgG concentrations as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors. A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to PCV13 is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/PCV13) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|0.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|0.94|||Linear model|||Serotype 7F: IgG GMC Ratio||0.94|0.75|< 0.001
90814037|NCT04384107|181506965|NON_INFERIORITY|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed IgG concentrations as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors. A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to PCV13 is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/PCV13) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|0.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|0.97|||Linear model|||Serotype 9V: IgG GMC Ratio||0.97|0.78|< 0.001
90814038|NCT04384107|181506965|NON_INFERIORITY|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed IgG concentrations as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors. A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to PCV13 is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/PCV13) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|0.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.85|||Linear model|||Serotype 14: IgG GMC Ratio||0.85|0.66|< 0.001
90814039|NCT04384107|181506965|NON_INFERIORITY|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed IgG concentrations as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors. A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to PCV13 is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/PCV13) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|0.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.82|||Linear model|||Serotype 18C: IgG GMC Ratio||0.82|0.67|< 0.001
90814040|NCT04384107|181506965|NON_INFERIORITY|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed IgG concentrations as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors. A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to PCV13 is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/PCV13) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|0.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.72|||Linear model|||Serotype 19A: IgG GMC Ratio||0.72|0.59|< 0.001
90814041|NCT04384107|181506965|NON_INFERIORITY|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed IgG concentrations as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors. A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to PCV13 is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/PCV13) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|0.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.82|||Linear model|||Serotype 19F: IgG GMC Ratio||0.82|0.69|< 0.001
90814042|NCT04384107|181506966|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed IgG concentrations as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMC Ratio|107.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.18|120.03||||||Serotype 22F: IgG GMC Ratio||120.03|96.18|
90814043|NCT04384107|181506966|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed IgG concentrations as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMC Ratio|32.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.72|38.05||||||Serotype 33F: IgG GMC Ratio||38.05|27.72|
90814044|NCT04384107|181506967|OTHER|The stratum-adjusted proportion difference using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weight, and the corresponding 95% CI based on the method of Miettinen and Nurminen stratified by age category.|Difference in Percent|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.8||||||Serotype 1: Participants With IgG ≥0.35 μg/mL||0.8|-1.7|
90814045|NCT04384107|181506967|OTHER|The stratum-adjusted proportion difference using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weight, and the corresponding 95% CI based on the method of Miettinen and Nurminen stratified by age category.|Difference in Percent|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|5.8||||||Serotype 3: Participants With IgG ≥0.35 μg/mL||5.8|1.8|
90814046|NCT04384107|181506967|OTHER|The stratum-adjusted proportion difference using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weight, and the corresponding 95% CI based on the method of Miettinen and Nurminen stratified by age category.|Difference in Percent|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.8||||||Serotype 4: Participants With IgG ≥0.35 μg/mL||0.8|-1.7|
90814047|NCT04384107|181506967|OTHER|The stratum-adjusted proportion difference using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weight, and the corresponding 95% CI based on the method of Miettinen and Nurminen stratified by age category.|Difference in Percent|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.1||||||Serotype 5: Participants With IgG ≥0.35 μg/mL||1.1|-1.1|
91055211|NCT00593736|181992458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.197||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.197
90814048|NCT04384107|181506967|OTHER|The stratum-adjusted proportion difference using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weight, and the corresponding 95% CI based on the method of Miettinen and Nurminen stratified by age category.|Difference in Percent|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.1||||||Serotype 6A: Participants With IgG ≥0.35 μg/mL||1.1|-1.1|
90814049|NCT04384107|181506967|OTHER|The stratum-adjusted proportion difference using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weight, and the corresponding 95% CI based on the method of Miettinen and Nurminen stratified by age category.|Difference in Percent|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.1||||||Serotype 6B: Participants With IgG ≥0.35 μg/mL||1.1|-1.1|
90814050|NCT04384107|181506967|OTHER|The stratum-adjusted proportion difference using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weight, and the corresponding 95% CI based on the method of Miettinen and Nurminen stratified by age category.|Difference in Percent|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.1||||||Serotype 7F: Participants With IgG ≥0.35 μg/mL||1.1|-1.1|
90814051|NCT04384107|181506967|OTHER|The stratum-adjusted proportion difference using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weight, and the corresponding 95% CI based on the method of Miettinen and Nurminen stratified by age category.|Difference in Percent|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.1||||||Serotype 9V: Participants With IgG ≥0.35 μg/mL||1.1|-1.1|
90814052|NCT04384107|181506967|OTHER|The stratum-adjusted proportion difference using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weight, and the corresponding 95% CI based on the method of Miettinen and Nurminen stratified by age category.|Difference in Percent|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.1||||||Serotype 14: Participants With IgG ≥0.35 μg/mL||1.1|-1.1|
90814053|NCT04384107|181506967|OTHER|The stratum-adjusted proportion difference using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weight, and the corresponding 95% CI based on the method of Miettinen and Nurminen stratified by age category.|Difference in Percent|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.1||||||Serotype 18C: Participants With IgG ≥0.35 μg/mL||1.1|-1.1|
90814054|NCT04384107|181506967|OTHER|The stratum-adjusted proportion difference using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weight, and the corresponding 95% CI based on the method of Miettinen and Nurminen stratified by age category.|Difference in Percent|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.1||||||Serotype 19A: Participants With IgG ≥0.35 μg/mL||1.1|-1.1|
90814055|NCT04384107|181506967|OTHER|The stratum-adjusted proportion difference using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weight, and the corresponding 95% CI based on the method of Miettinen and Nurminen stratified by age category.|Difference in Percent|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.1||||||Serotype 19F: Participants With IgG ≥0.35 μg/mL||1.1|-1.1|
90814056|NCT04384107|181506967|OTHER|The stratum-adjusted proportion difference using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weight, and the corresponding 95% CI based on the method of Miettinen and Nurminen stratified by age category.|Difference in Percent|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.9||||||Serotype 23F: Participants With IgG ≥0.35 μg/mL||1.9|-1.1|
90814057|NCT04384107|181506967|OTHER|The stratum-adjusted proportion difference using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weight, and the corresponding 95% CI based on the method of Miettinen and Nurminen stratified by age category.|Difference in Percent|94.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.8|96.7||||||Serotype 22F: Participants With IgG ≥0.35 μg/mL||96.7|91.8|
91055212|NCT00593736|181992458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.871||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.871
90814058|NCT04384107|181506967|OTHER|The stratum-adjusted proportion difference using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weight, and the corresponding 95% CI based on the method of Miettinen and Nurminen stratified by age category.|Difference in Percent|88.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|84.5|91.6||||||Serotype 33F: Participants With IgG ≥0.35 μg/mL||91.6|84.5|
90814059|NCT04384107|181506968|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed IgG concentrations as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMC Ratio|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.59||||||Serotype 1: IgG GMC Ratio||0.59|0.47|
90814060|NCT04384107|181506968|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed IgG concentrations as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMC Ratio|1.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|1.9||||||Serotype 3: IgG GMC Ratio||1.90|1.53|
90814061|NCT04384107|181506968|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed IgG concentrations as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMC Ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.05||||||Serotype 4: IgG GMC Ratio||1.05|0.80|
90814062|NCT04384107|181506968|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed IgG concentrations as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMC Ratio|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.75||||||Serotype 5: IgG GMC Ratio||0.75|0.59|
90814063|NCT04384107|181506968|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed IgG concentrations as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMC Ratio|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.73||||||Serotype 6A: IgG GMC Ratio||0.73|0.56|
90814064|NCT04384107|181506968|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed IgG concentrations as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMC Ratio|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.84||||||Serotype 6B: IgG GMC Ratio||0.84|0.65|
90814065|NCT04384107|181506968|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed IgG concentrations as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMC Ratio|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.92||||||Serotype 7F: IgG GMC Ratio||0.92|0.71|
90814066|NCT04384107|181506968|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed IgG concentrations as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMC Ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.94||||||Serotype 9V: IgG GMC Ratio||0.94|0.73|
90814067|NCT04384107|181506968|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed IgG concentrations as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMC Ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.96||||||Serotype 14: IgG GMC Ratio||0.96|0.74|
90814068|NCT04384107|181506968|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed IgG concentrations as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMC Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.14||||||Serotype 18C: IgG GMC Ratio||1.14|0.87|
90814069|NCT04384107|181506968|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed IgG concentrations as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMC Ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.92||||||Serotype 19A: IgG GMC Ratio||0.92|0.73|
90814070|NCT04384107|181506968|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed IgG concentrations as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMC Ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|0.94||||||Serotype 19F: IgG GMC Ratio||0.94|0.75|
90814071|NCT04384107|181506968|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed IgG concentrations as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMC Ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.7||||||Serotype 23F: IgG GMC Ratio||0.70|0.52|
90814072|NCT04384107|181506968|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed IgG concentrations as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMC Ratio|86.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|77.61|96.95||||||Serotype 22F: IgG GMC Ratio||96.95|77.61|
90814073|NCT04384107|181506968|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed IgG concentrations as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMC Ratio|45.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.07|51.54||||||Serotype 33F: IgG GMC Ratio||51.54|40.07|
90814074|NCT04384107|181506969|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed OPA titers as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMT Ratio|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.78||||||Serotype 1: OPA GMT Ratio||0.78|0.55|
90814075|NCT04384107|181506969|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed OPA titers as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMT Ratio|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|1.59||||||Serotype 3: OPA GMT Ratio||1.59|1.23|
90814076|NCT04384107|181506969|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed OPA titers as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMT Ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.1||||||Serotype 4: OPA GMT Ratio||1.10|0.85|
90814077|NCT04384107|181506969|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed OPA titers as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMT Ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.04||||||Serotype 5: OPA GMT Ratio||1.04|0.80|
90814078|NCT04384107|181506969|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed OPA titers as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMT Ratio|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.89||||||Serotype 6A: OPA GMT Ratio||0.89|0.65|
90814079|NCT04384107|181506969|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed OPA titers as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMC Ratio|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.95||||||Serotype 6B: OPA GMT Ratio||0.95|0.69|
90814080|NCT04384107|181506969|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed OPA titers as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMC Ratio|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.95||||||Serotype 7F: OPA GMT Ratio||0.95|0.70|
90814081|NCT04384107|181506969|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed OPA titers as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMT Ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.94||||||Serotype 9V: OPA GMT Ratio||0.94|0.71|
90814082|NCT04384107|181506969|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed OPA titers as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMT Ratio|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.38||||||Serotype 14: OPA GMT Ratio||1.38|0.97|
90814083|NCT04384107|181506969|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed OPA titers as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMT Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.11||||||Serotype 18C: OPA GMT Ratio||1.11|0.90|
90814084|NCT04384107|181506969|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed OPA titers as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMT Ratio|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.77||||||Serotype 19A: OPA GMT Ratio||0.77|0.61|
90814085|NCT04384107|181506969|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed OPA titers as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMT Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.04||||||Serotype 19F: OPA GMT Ratio||1.04|0.84|
90814086|NCT04384107|181506969|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed OPA titers as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMT Ratio|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.74||||||Serotype 23F: OPA GMT Ratio||0.74|0.53|
90814087|NCT04384107|181506969|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed OPA titers as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMT Ratio|560.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|474.05|662.63||||||Serotype 22F: OPA GMT Ratio||662.63|474.05|
90814088|NCT04384107|181506969|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed OPA titers as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMT Ratio|196.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|141.85|271.21||||||Serotype 33F: OPA GMT Ratio||271.21|141.85|
90814089|NCT04384107|181506970|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed OPA titers as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMT Ratio|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.75||||||Serotype 1: OPA GMT Ratio||0.75|0.38|
90814090|NCT04384107|181506970|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed OPA titers as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMT Ratio|1.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|2.03||||||Serotype 3: OPA GMT Ratio||2.03|1.28|
90814091|NCT04384107|181506970|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed OPA titers as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMT Ratio|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.93||||||Serotype 4: OPA GMT Ratio||0.93|0.57|
90814092|NCT04384107|181506970|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed OPA titers as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMT Ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.13||||||Serotype 5: OPA GMT Ratio||1.13|0.66|
90814093|NCT04384107|181506970|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed OPA titers as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMT Ratio|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.91||||||Serotype 6A: OPA GMT Ratio||0.91|0.57|
90814094|NCT04384107|181506970|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed OPA titers as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMT Ratio|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.83||||||Serotype 6B: OPA GMT Ratio||0.83|0.52|
90814095|NCT04384107|181506970|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed OPA titers as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMT Ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.07||||||Serotype 7F: OPA GMT Ratio||1.07|0.68|
90814096|NCT04384107|181506970|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed OPA titers as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMT Ratio|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.84||||||Serotype 9V: OPA GMT Ratio||0.84|0.50|
90814097|NCT04384107|181506970|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed OPA titers as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMT Ratio|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|1.9||||||Serotype 14: OPA GMT Ratio||1.90|1.16|
90814098|NCT04384107|181506970|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed OPA titers as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMT Ratio|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.48||||||Serotype 18C: OPA GMT Ratio||1.48|0.95|
90814099|NCT04384107|181506970|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed OPA titers as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMT Ratio|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.01||||||Serotype 19A: OPA GMT Ratio||1.01|0.60|
90814100|NCT04384107|181506970|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed OPA titers as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMT Ratio|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.52||||||Serotype 19F: OPA GMT Ratio||1.52|1.00|
90814101|NCT04384107|181506970|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed OPA titers as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMT Ratio|0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.49||||||Serotype 23F: OPA GMT Ratio||0.49|0.28|
90814102|NCT04384107|181506970|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed OPA titers as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMT Ratio|155.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|101.84|238.59||||||Serotype 22F: OPA GMT Ratio||238.59|101.84|
91015897|NCT02203305|181914593|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.639||||||A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.|Mixed Models Analysis|Main effect: condition (p\<0.001) and interval (p=0.639). Interaction: interval and condition (p=0.280).||Recorded BKB sentences in a 4-talker masker were evaluated in 2 conditions: 1) unaided and 2) with the cochlear implant (CI) over the post-activation study period. Results are reported in dB SNR, where a lower value indicates better performance. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the main effects of interval (1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation), condition (unaided or with the CI), and their interaction.||||<0.639
91055213|NCT00593736|181992458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.737||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.737
90814103|NCT04384107|181506970|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed OPA titers as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMT Ratio|16.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.74|24.08||||||Serotype 33F: OPA GMT Ratio||24.08|11.74|
90814104|NCT01048866|181506990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|-196.6||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-321.0|-72.2||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANOVA|||||-72.2|-321.0|0.0021
90814105|NCT01048866|181506991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|-19.0||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.7|-9.3||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANOVA|Baseline DSS fitted as a covariate and centre as a fixed effect.||||-9.3|-28.7|0.0002
90814106|NCT01048866|181506992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|-179.7||||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-305.7|-53.8||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANOVA|||||-53.8|-305.7|0.0054
90814107|NCT01048866|181506993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|-16.4||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.9|-7.0||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANOVA|||||-7.0|-25.9|0.0008
91055214|NCT00593736|181992459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.972||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.972
91055215|NCT00593736|181992459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.117||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.117
91055216|NCT00593736|181992459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.811||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.811
90814108|NCT01048866|181506994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|-168.4||||0.0087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-293.7|-43.1|||ANOVA|||||-43.1|-293.7|0.0087
90814109|NCT01048866|181506995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|-19.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.0|-10.0|||ANOVA|Baseline STPIS fitted as a covariate and centre as a fixed effect.||||-10.0|-28.0|<0.0001
90814110|NCT01048866|181506996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|-118.9||||0.1844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-295.3|57.5|||ANOVA|Baseline STPIS fitted as a covariate and centre as a fixed effect.||||57.5|-295.3|0.1844
90814111|NCT01048866|181506997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
90814112|NCT01048866|181506998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8827|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8827
90814113|NCT01048866|181506999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0105|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Stratified by centre||||||0.0105
90814114|NCT01048866|181507001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|-5.9||||0.0743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|0.6|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA model with participant as a random effect.||||0.6|-12.4|0.0743
90814115|NCT01048866|181507002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|-5.5||||0.0871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|0.8|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA model with patient as a random effect.||||0.8|-11.7|0.0871
90814116|NCT01048866|181507003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|-6.0||||0.0595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|0.2|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA model with participant as a random effect.||||0.2|-12.3|0.0595
90814117|NCT01048866|181507004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|0.5||||0.0195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.9|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA model with participant as a random effect.||||0.9|0.1|0.0195
90814118|NCT01048866|181507005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0322|||||||Regression, Logistic|Effect for centre||||||0.0322
90814119|NCT01048866|181507006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0276|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0276
90814120|NCT01048866|181507007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|-0.2||||0.0288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.0|||ANOVA|||||-0.0|-0.4|0.0288
90814121|NCT01048866|181507008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|-0.1||||0.4274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1|||ANOVA|||||0.1|-0.3|0.4274
90814122|NCT03582813|181507009|SUPERIORITY||MIXREG Estimate|4.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.61|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Effects Random Regression|||This mixed effects random regression analysis tested whether intervention participants would report larger increases than controls in self-perceived Recovery and that this effect would be maintained overtime;||||<.01
90814123|NCT03582813|181507010|SUPERIORITY||MIXREG Estimate|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.031|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Effects Random Regression|||This mixed effects random regression analysis tested whether intervention participants would report larger increases than controls in self-esteem that would be maintained longitudinally||||.031
90814124|NCT03582813|181507011|SUPERIORITY||MIXREG Estimate|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Effects Random Regression|||This mixed effects random regression analysis tested whether intervention participants would report larger increases than controls in coping mastery that would be maintained longitudinally||||<0.01
90814125|NCT03582813|181507012|SUPERIORITY||MIXREG Estimate|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Effects Random Regression|||This mixed effects random regression analysis tested whether intervention participants would report larger increases than controls in perceived autonomy support that would be maintained longitudinally||||0.030
91015898|NCT02203305|181914593|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.637|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Main effects: condition (p\<0.001) and interval (p=0.637). Interaction: interval and condition (p=0.450).||Recorded BKB sentences in a 4-talker masker were evaluated in 2 conditions: 1) unaided and 2) with the cochlear implant (CI) over the post-activation study period. Results are reported in dB SNR, where a lower value indicates better performance. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the main effects of interval (1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation), condition (unaided or with the CI), and their interaction.||||<0.637
91015899|NCT02203305|181914593|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.|ANOVA|||Recorded BKB sentences in a 4-talker masker were evaluated in an unaided condition for the poorer hearing ear pre-operatively and with the cochlear implant (CI) over the study period. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the main effect of interval (before surgery, and 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation).||||<0.001
91015900|NCT02203305|181914593|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.002|||||||ANOVA|||Recorded BKB sentences in a 4-talker masker were evaluated in an unaided condition for the poorer hearing ear pre-operatively and with the cochlear implant (CI) over the study period. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the main effect of interval (before surgery, and 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation).||||=0.002
91015901|NCT02203305|181914594|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.671|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Main effects: interval (p=0.020) and condition (p=0.406). Interaction: interval and condition (p=0.671).||Recorded BKB sentences in a 4-talker masker were evaluated in 2 conditions: 1) unaided and 2) with the cochlear implant (CI) over the post-activation study period. Results are reported in dB SNR, where a lower value indicates better performance. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the main effects of interval (1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation), condition (unaided or with the CI), and their interaction.||||<0.671
91015902|NCT02203305|181914594|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.124|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Main effects: interval (p=0.124) and condition (p=0.845). Interaction: interval and condition (p=0.960).||Recorded BKB sentences in a 4-talker masker were evaluated in 2 conditions: 1) unaided and 2) with the cochlear implant (CI) over the post-activation study period. Results are reported in dB SNR, where a lower value indicates better performance. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the main effects of interval (1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation), condition (unaided or with the CI), and their interaction.||||>0.124
91015903|NCT02203305|181914594|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.025|||||||ANOVA|||Recorded BKB sentences in a 4-talker masker were evaluated in an unaided condition for the poorer hearing ear pre-operatively and with the cochlear implant (CI) over the study period. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the main effect of interval (before surgery, and 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation).||||=0.025
91015904|NCT02203305|181914594|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.442|||||||ANOVA|||Recorded BKB sentences in a 4-talker masker were evaluated in an unaided condition for the poorer hearing ear pre-operatively and with the cochlear implant (CI) over the study period. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the main effect of interval (before surgery, and 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation).||||=0.442
90814126|NCT03582813|181507013|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.19||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|4.74|||Regression, Logistic|||This mixed effects random regression analysis tested whether intervention participants would report greater likelihood of employment that would be maintained longitudinally||4.74|1.01|0.046
91015905|NCT02203305|181914595|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Percent correct values were converted to rationalized arcsine units prior to analysis.|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired samples t-test comparing word recognition (percent correct for CNC words) with a hearing aid at the pre-operative interval and the cochlear implant at the 12-month interval for the affected ear (masking presented to the contralateral ear).||||<0.001
91015906|NCT02203305|181914595|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Percent correct data were converted to rationalized arcsine units (RAU) prior to data analysis.|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired samples t-test comparing word recognition (percent correct for CNC words) with a hearing aid at the pre-operative interval and the cochlear implant at the 12-month interval for the affected ear (masking presented to the contralateral ear).||||<0.001
91015907|NCT02203305|181914596|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.|ANOVA|||Participants listened with a bone conduction device preoperatively and with the cochlear implant at 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation. Overall root-mean-square (RMS) error is the difference between the sound source azimuth and the response azimuth and a lower score indicates more accurate localization of the sound source. Repeated-measures ANOVA compared performance over time.||||<0.001
91015908|NCT02203305|181914596|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.|ANOVA|||Participants listening with a bone conduction device preoperatively and with the cochlear implant at 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation. Overall root-mean-square (RMS) error is the difference between the sound source azimuth and the response azimuth and a lower score indicates more accurate localization of the sound source. Repeated-measures ANOVA compared performance over time.||||<0.001
91015909|NCT02203305|181914596|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Compare localization performance with the cochlear implant to a bone-conduction device at the 12-month interval using a paired samples t-test.||||<0.001
91015910|NCT02203305|181914596|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Compare localization performance with the cochlear implant to a bone-conduction device at the 12-month interval using a paired samples t-test.||||<0.001
91015911|NCT02203305|181914597|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.|ANOVA|||The Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit, participants rank their perceived difficulty on a scale of 1-99, with lower values indicate less perceived difficulty. The global score is calculated from the responses on the ease of communication, reverberation, and effectiveness in background noise subscales. Responses at the preoperative interval (alternative treatments for unilateral hearing loss) were compared to responses over time with the cochlear implant using a repeated-measures ANOVA.||||<0.001
91015912|NCT02203305|181914597|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.|ANOVA|||The Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit, participants rank their perceived difficulty on a scale of 1-99, with lower values indicate less perceived difficulty. The global score is calculated from the responses on the ease of communication, reverberation, and effectiveness in background noise subscales. Responses at the preoperative interval (alternative treatments for unilateral hearing loss) were compared to responses over time with the cochlear implant using a repeated-measures ANOVA.||||<0.001
90814127|NCT03582813|181507014|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.14|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|11.44|||Regression, Logistic|||This mixed effects random regression analysis tested whether intervention participants would report greater likelihood of enrollment in educational classes that would be maintained longitudinally||11.44|1.50|<0.01
90814128|NCT00316524|181507016|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin to show that Group 4 (vaccinia experienced subjects receiving a single vaccination) is non-inferior to Group 1 (vaccinia naive subjects receiving 2 vaccinations) in terms of seroconversion rate 2 weeks after the last vaccination was predefined as -5% for the difference in seroconversion rates|Difference in seroconversion rates (%)|-3.4|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|-7.36||||||||||-7.36|
90814129|NCT02525094|181507027|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|4.33||||||||4.33|0.90|
90814130|NCT02789410|181507046|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.132|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.132
90814131|NCT02789410|181507047|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.590
90814132|NCT02789410|181507048|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.971|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.971
90814133|NCT01751776|181507049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|2.0506|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4242|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1843|2.9168|||||Dose proportionality was explored using a regression model. Based on the estimate for the slope parameter, a 2-sided 95% CI was computed. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1. PK endpoints on the log-transformed scale.|Dose proportionality for Cmax was explored after the first adminstration of BI 65564 on Day 1.||2.9168|1.1843|
91055217|NCT00593736|181992460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.659||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.659
90814134|NCT01751776|181507049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|1.4227|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1644|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0869|1.7584|||||Dose proportionality was explored using a regression model. Based on the estimate for the slope parameter, a 2-sided 95% CI was computed. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1. PK endpoints on the log-transformed scale.|Dose proportionality for Cmax was explored after the last (fourth) adminstration of BI 65564 on Day 22.||1.7584|1.0869|
90814135|NCT01751776|181507050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|2.0091|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1706|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6607|2.3575|||||Dose proportionality was explored using a regression model. Based on the estimate for the slope parameter, a 2-sided 95% CI was computed. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1. PK endpoints on the log-transformed scale.|Dose proportionality for AUC 0-infinity was explored after the last adminstration of BI 65564 on Day 22.||2.3575|1.6607|
90814136|NCT01751776|181507051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|1.4225|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.164|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0876|1.7574|||||Dose proportionality was explored using a regression model. Based on the estimate for the slope parameter, a 2-sided 95% CI was computed. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1. PK endpoints on the log-transformed scale.|Dose proportionality for AUCtau was explored after the last administration of BI 65564 on Day 22.||1.7574|1.0876|
90814137|NCT01751776|181507053|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|22.7|||||||||||||Mean Difference in percentage|Observed difference of ACR20 response for BI 120mg - Placebo||||
90814138|NCT01751776|181507053|OTHER|Evaluation of the difference in ACR20 response rates using a Bayesian approach. Results based on 1000000 simulations of the posterior distribution; for the treatment group a non-informative beta (0,0) prior was used; for the placebo group, an informative beta (5.5, 16.5) prior was used; prior to any imputation, assessments up to the End of Trial (EoT) visit were mapped to an on-treatment visit window (Visit 4/Week 2 - Visit 14 (EoT)/Week 12) relative to the day of the first dose.|Mean Difference (Net)|33.0|||||||||||||Mean Difference in percentage|Expected difference of ACR20 response for BI 120mg - Placebo||||
90814139|NCT01751776|181507053|OTHER|Evaluation of the difference in ACR20 response rates using a Bayesian approach. Results based on 1000000 simulations of the posterior distribution; for the treatment group a non-informative beta (0,0) prior was used; for the placebo group, an informative beta (5.5, 16.5) prior was used; prior to any imputation, assessments up to the End of Trial (EoT) visit were mapped to an on-treatment visit window (Visit 4/Week 2 - Visit 14 (EoT)/Week 12) relative to the day of the first dose.|Probability in percentage|99.9||||||||||||||Probability that difference of ACR20 response for BI 120mg - Placebo is larger than 0%||||
90814140|NCT01751776|181507053|OTHER|Evaluation of the difference in ACR20 response rates using a Bayesian approach. Results based on 1000000 simulations of the posterior distribution; for the treatment group a non-informative beta (0,0) prior was used; for the placebo group, an informative beta (5.5, 16.5) prior was used; prior to any imputation, assessments up to the End of Trial (EoT) visit were mapped to an on-treatment visit window (Visit 4/Week 2 - Visit 14 (EoT)/Week 12) relative to the day of the first dose.|Probability in percentage|99.7||||||||||||||Probability that difference of ACR20 response for BI 120mg - Placebo is larger than 5%||||
90814141|NCT01751776|181507053|OTHER|Evaluation of the difference in ACR20 response rates using a Bayesian approach. Results based on 1000000 simulations of the posterior distribution; for the treatment group a non-informative beta (0,0) prior was used; for the placebo group, an informative beta (5.5, 16.5) prior was used; prior to any imputation, assessments up to the End of Trial (EoT) visit were mapped to an on-treatment visit window (Visit 4/Week 2 - Visit 14 (EoT)/Week 12) relative to the day of the first dose.|Probability in percentage|98.7||||||||||||||Probability that difference of ACR20 response for BI 120mg - Placebo is larger than 10%||||
90814142|NCT01751776|181507053|OTHER|Evaluation of the difference in ACR20 response rates using a Bayesian approach. Results based on 1000000 simulations of the posterior distribution; for the treatment group a non-informative beta (0,0) prior was used; for the placebo group, an informative beta (5.5, 16.5) prior was used; prior to any imputation, assessments up to the End of Trial (EoT) visit were mapped to an on-treatment visit window (Visit 4/Week 2 - Visit 14 (EoT)/Week 12) relative to the day of the first dose.|Probability in percentage|96.0||||||||||||||Probability that difference of ACR20 response for BI 120mg - Placebo is larger than 15%||||
90814143|NCT01751776|181507053|OTHER|Evaluation of the difference in ACR20 response rates using a Bayesian approach. Results based on 1000000 simulations of the posterior distribution; for the treatment group a non-informative beta (0,0) prior was used; for the placebo group, an informative beta (5.5, 16.5) prior was used; prior to any imputation, assessments up to the End of Trial (EoT) visit were mapped to an on-treatment visit window (Visit 4/Week 2 - Visit 14 (EoT)/Week 12) relative to the day of the first dose.|Probability in percentage|90.0||||||||||||||Probability that difference of ACR20 response for BI 120mg - Placebo is larger than 20%||||
90814144|NCT01751776|181507053|OTHER|Evaluation of the difference in ACR20 response rates using a Bayesian approach. Results based on 1000000 simulations of the posterior distribution; for the treatment group a non-informative beta (0,0) prior was used; for the placebo group, an informative beta (5.5, 16.5) prior was used; prior to any imputation, assessments up to the End of Trial (EoT) visit were mapped to an on-treatment visit window (Visit 4/Week 2 - Visit 14 (EoT)/Week 12) relative to the day of the first dose.|Probability in percentage|79.0||||||||||||||Probability that difference of ACR20 response for BI 120mg - Placebo is larger than 25%||||
90814145|NCT01751776|181507053|OTHER|Evaluation of the difference in ACR20 response rates using a Bayesian approach. Results based on 1000000 simulations of the posterior distribution; for the treatment group a non-informative beta (0,0) prior was used; for the placebo group, an informative beta (5.5, 16.5) prior was used; prior to any imputation, assessments up to the End of Trial (EoT) visit were mapped to an on-treatment visit window (Visit 4/Week 2 - Visit 14 (EoT)/Week 12) relative to the day of the first dose.|Probability in percentage|62.5||||||||||||||Probability that difference of ACR20 response for BI 120mg - Placebo is larger than 30%||||
90814146|NCT01751776|181507053|OTHER|Evaluation of the difference in ACR20 response rates using a Bayesian approach. Results based on 1000000 simulations of the posterior distribution; for the treatment group a non-informative beta (0,0) prior was used; for the placebo group, an informative beta (5.5, 16.5) prior was used; prior to any imputation, assessments up to the End of Trial (EoT) visit were mapped to an on-treatment visit window (Visit 4/Week 2 - Visit 14 (EoT)/Week 12) relative to the day of the first dose.|Probability in percentage|42.9||||||||||||||Probability that difference of ACR20 response for BI 120mg - Placebo is larger than 35%||||
90814147|NCT01751776|181507053|OTHER|Evaluation of the difference in ACR20 response rates using a Bayesian approach. Results based on 1000000 simulations of the posterior distribution; for the treatment group a non-informative beta (0,0) prior was used; for the placebo group, an informative beta (5.5, 16.5) prior was used; prior to any imputation, assessments up to the End of Trial (EoT) visit were mapped to an on-treatment visit window (Visit 4/Week 2 - Visit 14 (EoT)/Week 12) relative to the day of the first dose.|Probability in percentage|24.5||||||||||||||Probability that difference of ACR20 response for BI 120mg - Placebo is larger than 40%||||
90814148|NCT01751776|181507053|OTHER|Evaluation of the difference in ACR20 response rates using a Bayesian approach. Results based on 1000000 simulations of the posterior distribution; for the treatment group a non-informative beta (0,0) prior was used; for the placebo group, an informative beta (5.5, 16.5) prior was used; prior to any imputation, assessments up to the End of Trial (EoT) visit were mapped to an on-treatment visit window (Visit 4/Week 2 - Visit 14 (EoT)/Week 12) relative to the day of the first dose.|Probability in percentage|11.1||||||||||||||Probability that difference of ACR20 response for BI 120mg - Placebo is larger than 45%||||
90814149|NCT01751776|181507054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk difference, unadjusted|18.2||||0.0754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|38.6|||One-sided exact test (see description)|One-sided exact test for superiority testing|The exact 95% confidence interval was calculated by Clopper and Pearson.|unadjusted||38.6|-6.6|0.0754
90814150|NCT01751776|181507054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||risk difference, adjusted|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|39.0|||||The 95 % confidence interval was determined by root method to determine the cumulative distribution function. Adjusted for treatment, region and anti-Tumour Necrosis Factor (TNF)|adjusted||39.0|-4.6|
91055218|NCT00593736|181992460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.337||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.337
90814151|NCT01751776|181507055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||risk difference, unadjusted|4.5||||0.3938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.4|22.3|||one-sided exact test (see description)|one-sided exact test for superiority testing.|The exact 95% confidence interval was calculated by Clopper and Pearson.|unadjusted||22.3|-18.4|0.3938
91055219|NCT00593736|181992460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.853||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.853
90814152|NCT01751776|181507055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||risk difference, adjusted|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9|21.1|||||The 95 % confidence interval was determined by root method to determine the cumulative distribution function. Adjusted for treatment, region and anti-TNF history|adjusted||21.1|-18.9|
90814153|NCT01751776|181507058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk difference|6.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6|32.7|||||The exact 95% confidence interval was calculated by Clopper and Pearson.|unadjusted||32.7|-17.6|
90814154|NCT01751776|181507058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||risk difference, adjusted|8.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.9|34.2|||||The 95 % confidence interval was determined by root method to determine the cumulative distribution function. Adjusted for treatment, region and anti-TNF history|adjusted||34.2|-15.9|
90814155|NCT01751776|181507059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted mean|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.266|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.39|||||difference calculated as BI 655064 120mg minus placebo. The ANCOVA model was used. In this model the mean was adjusted for region, anti-TNF history and baseline DAS28-CRP.|difference calculated as BI 655064 120mg minus placebo.||0.39|-0.67|
90814156|NCT02117349|181507075|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|42.8|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.58|401.0||Study was terminated early at 55 randomized subjects, therefore p-value is considered nominal|Regression, Logistic|||Odds Ratio (OR) and Wald-based 95% Confidence intervals (CIs) are from logistic regression model comparing the response between treatment arms.||401.0|4.58|= 0.0010
90814157|NCT03780959|181507085|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Mantel Haenszel|Stratified by study center and the number of active joints at randomization||||||0.0030
90814158|NCT03780959|181507086|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0001
90814159|NCT01307462|181507146|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||SF-36 norm-based physical functioning score||||.81
90814160|NCT01307462|181507146|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||SF-36 norm-based role-physical score||||.18
90814161|NCT01307462|181507146|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||SF-36 norm-based bodily pain score||||.48
90814162|NCT01307462|181507146|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||SF-36 norm-based general health score||||.26
90814163|NCT01307462|181507146|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||SF-36 norm-based vitality score||||.23
90814164|NCT01307462|181507146|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||SF-36 norm-based social functioning score||||.36
90814165|NCT01307462|181507146|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||SF-36 norm-based role-emotional score||||.41
90814166|NCT01307462|181507146|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||SF-36 norm-based mental health score||||.80
90814167|NCT01307462|181507146|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||SF-36 standardized physical component score||||.80
90814168|NCT01307462|181507146|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||SF-36 standardized mental component score||||.23
90814169|NCT01307462|181507147|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||FACT physical well-being||||0.28
90814170|NCT01307462|181507147|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||FACT social/family well-being||||0.1
90814171|NCT01307462|181507147|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||FACT emotional well-being||||0.63
90814172|NCT01307462|181507147|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||FACT functional well-being||||0.78
90814173|NCT01307462|181507147|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||FACT BMT subscale||||.84
90814174|NCT01307462|181507147|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||FACT trial outcome index||||.37
90814175|NCT01307462|181507147|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||FACT-G||||.71
90814176|NCT01307462|181507147|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||FACT-BMT total||||.54
90814177|NCT01307462|181507148|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||HAP maximum activity score - highest item still doing||||.37
91015913|NCT02203305|181914597|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.|Mixed Models Analysis|Main effects: interval (p\<0.001) and subscales (p\<0.001). Interaction: interval and subscales (p\<0.001).||The Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit, participants rank their perceived difficulty on a scale of 1-99, with lower values indicate less perceived difficulty. Subscales include: ease of communication, reverberation, effectiveness in background noise, and reverberation. A repeated-measures ANOVA compared the main effects of interval and subscale and their interaction from the preoperative interval (alternative treatments) and over time with the cochlear implant.||||<0.001
90814178|NCT01307462|181507148|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||HAP adjusted activity score - MAS minus stopped||||.39
90814179|NCT01307462|181507148|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Modified HAP adjusted activity score||||.39
90814180|NCT01307462|181507149|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Lee symptom skin scale||||.11
90814181|NCT01307462|181507149|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Lee symptom energy scale||||.007
90814182|NCT01307462|181507149|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Lee symptom lung scale||||.20
90814183|NCT01307462|181507149|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Lee symptom eye scale||||.002
90814184|NCT01307462|181507149|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Lee symptom nutrition scale||||.52
90814185|NCT01307462|181507149|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Lee symptom psychological scale||||.22
90814186|NCT01307462|181507149|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Lee symptom mouth scale||||.002
90814187|NCT01307462|181507149|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Lee symptom overall summary scale||||<0.001
90814188|NCT03495102|181507154|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|-0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.06|-0.29|0.003
90814189|NCT03495102|181507154|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.22|-0.45|<0.001
90814190|NCT03495102|181507155|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.4|-1.4|0.001
90814191|NCT03495102|181507155|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.1|-2.1|<0.001
90814192|NCT03495102|181507156|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.98|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.98|1.12|0.006
90814193|NCT03495102|181507156|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|3.01|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.01|1.65|<0.001
90814194|NCT03495102|181507157|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.7||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.5|-7.8|0.084
90814195|NCT03495102|181507157|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|-3.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.9|-12.3|<0.001
90814196|NCT03875664|181507192|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
90814197|NCT05065190|181507205|OTHER||Adjusted difference|106.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|76.84|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.13|260.28|||||Adjusted difference between treatment groups was based on a random slope and intercept model with fixed effects for treatment, HRCT pattern, and baseline FVC \[mL\], and including treatment-by-time and baseline-by-time interactions.|||260.28|-47.13|
90814198|NCT03938324|181507214|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0034||||||The two-tailed significance set at 0.05 was not adjusted for multiple outcomes or comparisons. No adjustments for pairwise comparisons were required for the model.|Multi-level mixed effects|Fixed effects were treatment, time, treatment-by time; whereas, random effects were participant and participant-by-time.||Multi-level mixed effects model for longitudinal data to compare treatment group difference in trajectory across 12 months. Group sizes provided at least 80% power to detect a true difference in change trajectories (treatment-by-time interaction effect), assuming a medium effect size, two-tailed tests, and statistical significance set at 0.05. Null hypothesis was no treatment group difference in the trajectory from baseline to 12 months (no significant treatment-by-time effect).||||0.0034
90814199|NCT03938324|181507215|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5137||||||The two-tailed significance set at 0.05 was not adjusted for multiple outcomes or comparisons. No adjustments for pairwise comparisons were required for the model.|Multi-level mixed effects|Fixed effects were treatment, time, treatment-by time; whereas, random effects were participant and participant-by-time.||Multi-level mixed effects model for longitudinal data to compare treatment group difference in trajectory across 12 months. Group sizes provided at least 80% power to detect a true difference in change trajectories (treatment-by-time interaction effect), assuming a medium effect size, two-tailed tests, and statistical significance set at 0.05. Null hypothesis was no treatment group difference in the trajectory from baseline to 12 months (no significant treatment-by-time effect).||||0.5137
90814200|NCT03938324|181507216|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4107||||||The two-tailed significance set at 0.05 was not adjusted for multiple outcomes or comparisons. No adjustments for pairwise comparisons were required for the model.|Multi-level mixed effects|Fixed effects were treatment, time, treatment-by time; whereas, random effects were participant and participant-by-time.||Multi-level mixed effects model for longitudinal data to compare treatment group difference in trajectory across 12 months. Group sizes provided at least 80% power to detect a true difference in change trajectories (treatment-by-time interaction effect), assuming a medium effect size, two-tailed tests, and statistical significance set at 0.05. Null hypothesis was no treatment group difference in the trajectory from baseline to 12 months (no significant treatment-by-time effect).||||0.4107
90814201|NCT03938324|181507217|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1708||||||The two-tailed significance set at 0.05 was not adjusted for multiple outcomes or comparisons. No adjustments for pairwise comparisons were required for the model.|Multi-level mixed effects|Fixed effects were treatment, time, treatment-by time; whereas, random effects were participant and participant-by-time.||Multi-level mixed effects model for longitudinal data to compare treatment group difference in trajectory across 12 months. Group sizes provided at least 80% power to detect a true difference in change trajectories (treatment-by-time interaction effect), assuming a medium effect size, two-tailed tests, and statistical significance set at 0.05. Null hypothesis was no treatment group difference in the trajectory from baseline to 12 months (no significant treatment-by-time effect).||||0.1708
90814202|NCT03938324|181507218|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7982||||||The two-tailed significance set at 0.05 was not adjusted for multiple outcomes or comparisons. No adjustments for pairwise comparisons were required for the model.|Multi-level mixed effects|Fixed effects were treatment, time, treatment-by time; whereas, random effects were participant and participant-by-time.||Multi-level mixed effects model for longitudinal data to compare treatment group difference in trajectory across 12 months. Group sizes provided at least 80% power to detect a true difference in change trajectories (treatment-by-time interaction effect), assuming a medium effect size, two-tailed tests, and statistical significance set at 0.05. Null hypothesis was no treatment group difference in the trajectory from baseline to 12 months (no significant treatment-by-time effect).||||0.7982
90814203|NCT04332614|181507237|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8791371||||0.0248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7856042|0.9838058||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05. All 3 comparisons run within same logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||||0.9838058|0.7856042|0.0248
90814204|NCT04332614|181507237|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5980109|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5159511|0.6931219||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05. All 3 comparisons run within same logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||||0.6931219|0.5159511|<0.0001
90814205|NCT04332614|181507237|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8380003||||0.0133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7285712|0.9638653||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05. All 3 comparisons run within same logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||||0.9638653|0.7285712|0.0133
91015914|NCT02203305|181914597|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.|Mixed Models Analysis|Main effects: interval (p\<0.001) and subscales (p=0.010). Interaction: interval and subscales (p=0.001).||The Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit, participants rank their perceived difficulty on a scale of 1-99, with lower values indicate less perceived difficulty. Subscales include: ease of communication, reverberation, effectiveness in background noise, and reverberation. A repeated-measures ANOVA compared the main effects of interval and subscale and their interaction from the preoperative interval (alternative treatments) and over time with the cochlear implant.||||<0.010
91015915|NCT02203305|181914598|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.|ANOVA|||"The Tinnitus Handicap Inventory is a 25-item questionnaire. The subject answers yes (4 points), sometimes (2 points), or no (0 points) to each question. Responses are added to quantify tinnitus severity: none/slight (0-16), mild (18-36), moderate (38-56), severe (58-76), and catastrophic (78-100). Responses were compared at the preoperative interval (alternative treatments) and over the post-activation time period (1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months) with the cochlear implant."||||<0.001
91015916|NCT02203305|181914598|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.003||||||A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.|ANOVA|||"The Tinnitus Handicap Inventory is a 25-item questionnaire. The subject answers yes (4 points), sometimes (2 points), or no (0 points) to each question. Responses are added to quantify tinnitus severity: none/slight (0-16), mild (18-36), moderate (38-56), severe (58-76), and catastrophic (78-100). Responses were compared at the preoperative interval (alternative treatments) and over the post-activation time period (1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months) with the cochlear implant."||||=0.003
91055220|NCT00593736|181992461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.206||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.206
90814206|NCT04332614|181507238|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.3700794|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2870513|0.4771231||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05. All 3 comparisons run within same logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||||0.4771231|0.2870513|<0.0001
90814207|NCT04332614|181507238|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.285144|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1881589|0.4321194||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05. All 3 comparisons run within same logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||||0.4321194|0.1881589|<0.0001
90814208|NCT04332614|181507238|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5565905||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4059477|0.7631354||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05. All 3 comparisons run within same logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||||0.7631354|0.4059477|0.0003
91015917|NCT02203305|181914599|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.|ANOVA|||Responses on the SSQ as measured with the total score were compared at the preoperative interval (alternative treatments for SSD) and over the post-activation period (i.e., 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months).||||<0.001
90814209|NCT04332614|181507239|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72429741||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49167734|1.0669736||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05. All 3 comparisons run within same logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.0669736|0.49167734|0.103
90814210|NCT04332614|181507239|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.63578603||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35943749|1.1246013||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05. All 3 comparisons run within same logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.1246013|0.35943749|0.120
90814211|NCT04332614|181507239|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06482385||||0.789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67282661|1.6852036||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05. All 3 comparisons run within same logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.6852036|0.67282661|0.789
90814212|NCT04332614|181507240|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8837908||||0.0286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7912382|0.9871694||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05. All 3 comparisons run within same logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||||0.9871694|0.7912382|0.0286
90814213|NCT04332614|181507240|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6000149|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5193168|0.6932528||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05. All 3 comparisons run within same logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||||0.6932528|0.5193168|<0.0001
90814214|NCT04332614|181507240|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8225743||||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7167043|0.9440832|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.9440832|0.7167043|0.0055
90814215|NCT04332614|181507241|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.3948795|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.310437|0.5022914||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05. All 3 comparisons run within same logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||||0.5022914|0.3104370|<0.0001
90814216|NCT04332614|181507241|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.2790595|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1875017|0.4153254||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05. All 3 comparisons run within same logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||||0.4153254|0.1875017|<0.0001
91015918|NCT02203305|181914599|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.|ANOVA|||Responses on the SSQ as measured with the total score were compared at the preoperative interval (alternative treatments for asymmetric hearing loss) and over the post-activation period (i.e., 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months).||||<0.001
91055221|NCT00593736|181992461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.495||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.495
91055222|NCT00593736|181992461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.800
91055223|NCT00593736|181992462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.194||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.194
90814217|NCT04332614|181507241|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6097538||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4528751|0.8209762||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05. All 3 comparisons run within same logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||||0.8209762|0.4528751|0.0011
90814218|NCT04332614|181507242|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0049587||||0.976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72693253|1.3893201||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05. All 3 comparisons run within same logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.3893201|0.72693253|0.976
90814219|NCT04332614|181507242|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7576895||||0.246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4741259|1.2108458||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05. All 3 comparisons run within same logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.2108458|0.47412590|0.246
90814220|NCT04332614|181507242|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1728665||||0.428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79090107|1.7393021||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05. All 3 comparisons run within same logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.7393021|0.79090107|0.428
90814221|NCT04332614|181507243|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9980487||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8680298|1.147543||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05. All 3 comparisons run within same logistic regression model, correcting for the 3 pairwise comparisons using Tukey's Contrasts.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.147543|0.8680298|1
90814222|NCT04332614|181507243|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8953032||||0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7771682|1.031395||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05. All 3 comparisons run within same logistic regression model, correcting for the 3 pairwise comparisons using Tukey's Contrasts.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.031395|0.7771682|0.276
91055224|NCT00593736|181992462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.134||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.134
91055225|NCT00593736|181992462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.130
90814223|NCT04332614|181507243|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8970536||||0.289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7785981|1.033531||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05. All 3 comparisons run within same logistic regression model, correcting for the 3 pairwise comparisons using Tukey's Contrasts.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.033531|0.7785981|0.289
90814224|NCT04332614|181507244|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9313889||||0.94591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6003591|1.444944||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05. All 3 comparisons run within same logistic regression model, correcting for the 3 pairwise comparisons using Tukey's Contrasts.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.444944|0.6003591|0.94591
90814225|NCT04332614|181507244|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8998642||||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2809137|2.817898||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05. All 3 comparisons run within same logistic regression model, correcting for the 3 pairwise comparisons using Tukey's Contrasts.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.817898|1.2809137|0.0041
90814226|NCT04332614|181507244|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0398184||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3648075|3.048678||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05. All 3 comparisons run within same logistic regression model, correcting for the 3 pairwise comparisons using Tukey's Contrasts.|Regression, Logistic|||||3.048678|1.3648075|0.0015
90814227|NCT04332614|181507245|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.180837||||0.829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6750639|2.065546||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05. All 3 comparisons run within same logistic regression model, correcting for the 3 pairwise comparisons using Tukey's Contrasts.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.065546|0.6750639|0.829
90814228|NCT04332614|181507245|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.432003||||0.404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8279689|2.476702||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05. All 3 comparisons run within same logistic regression model, correcting for the 3 pairwise comparisons using Tukey's Contrasts.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.476702|0.8279689|0.404
90814229|NCT04332614|181507245|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.212702||||0.753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7161724|2.05348||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05. All 3 comparisons run within same logistic regression model, correcting for the 3 pairwise comparisons using Tukey's Contrasts.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.053480|0.7161724|0.753
90814230|NCT04332614|181507246|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9747188||||0.9284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8501783|1.1175028||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05. All 3 comparisons run within same logistic regression model, correcting for the 3 pairwise comparisons using Tukey's Contrasts.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.1175028|0.8501783|0.9284
90814231|NCT04332614|181507246|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8518974||||0.0612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.741461|0.9787827||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05. All 3 comparisons run within same logistic regression model, correcting for the 3 pairwise comparisons using Tukey's Contrasts.|Regression, Logistic|||||0.9787827|0.7414610|0.0612
90814232|NCT04332614|181507246|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.873993||||0.1407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7602296|1.0047804||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05. All 3 comparisons run within same logistic regression model, correcting for the 3 pairwise comparisons using Tukey's Contrasts.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.0047804|0.7602296|0.1407
90814233|NCT04332614|181507247|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9089673||||0.8848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6109603|1.352333||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05. All 3 comparisons run within same logistic regression model, correcting for the 3 pairwise comparisons using Tukey's Contrasts.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.352333|0.6109603|0.8848
90814234|NCT04332614|181507247|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6914929||||0.0127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1762411|2.43245||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05. All 3 comparisons run within same logistic regression model, correcting for the 3 pairwise comparisons using Tukey's Contrasts.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.432450|1.1762411|0.0127
90814235|NCT04332614|181507247|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8608951||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2800275|2.705356||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05. All 3 comparisons run within same logistic regression model, correcting for the 3 pairwise comparisons using Tukey's Contrasts.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.705356|1.2800275|0.0033
90814236|NCT04332614|181507248|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8619131||||0.759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5709078|1.301251||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05. All 3 comparisons run within same logistic regression model, correcting for the 3 pairwise comparisons using Tukey's Contrasts.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.301251|0.5709078|0.759
91015919|NCT02203305|181914599|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||"There were significant main effects of interval (p\<0.001) and subscale (p\<0.001) and interaction (p=0.001).~A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity."|Mixed Models Analysis|Main effects: interval (p\<0.001) and subscale (p\<0.001). Interaction: interval and subscale (p=0.001).||Responses on the SSQ as measured with the subscales (speech, spatial, \& qualities) were compared at the preoperative interval (alternative treatments for SSD) and over the post-activation period (i.e., 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months). A repeated-measures ANOVA assessed the main effects of interval and subscale, and their interaction.||||<0.001
90814237|NCT04332614|181507248|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0950508||||0.897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7331329|1.635633||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05. All 3 comparisons run within same logistic regression model, correcting for the 3 pairwise comparisons using Tukey's Contrasts.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.635633|0.7331329|0.897
90814238|NCT04332614|181507248|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2704886||||0.498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8377249|1.926816||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05. All 3 comparisons run within same logistic regression model, correcting for the 3 pairwise comparisons using Tukey's Contrasts.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.926816|0.8377249|0.498
90814239|NCT02937766|181507259|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.9|||t-test, 2 sided|The t-test tested the hypothesis of no treatment difference between treatment groups.||||0.9|-0.1|0.093
90814240|NCT02937766|181507260|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.7||The t-test tested the hypothesis of no treatment difference between treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.7|-0.2|0.234
90814241|NCT02753127|181507261|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.976||||0.3629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.854|1.117||1-sided|Log Rank|Based on stratified log-rank test stratified by actual stratification factors. P-value is nominal p-value without multiplicity adjustment.|"Based on Cox Proportional hazards model stratified by actual stratification factors including Time to progression on 1st line therapy, RAS mutation, and Bev as part of study treatment.~A HR \<1 indicates a lower risk with Arm 1 compared with Arm 2."|General population||1.117|0.854|0.3629
90814242|NCT02753127|181507261|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.969||||0.3782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.797|1.179||1-sided|Log Rank|Based on unstratified log-rank test. P-value is nominal p value without multiplicity adjustment.|Hazard Ratio is for Napabucasin + FOLFIRI ± bev vs FOLFIRI ± bev. Based on unstratified Cox proportional hazards model. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with Napabucasin+ FOLFIRI ± bev compared with FOLFIRI ± bev.|activated signal transducers and activators of transcription 3 (pSTAT3)-positive (pSTAT3(+)) Subpopulation patients||1.179|0.797|0.3782
91055226|NCT00593736|181992463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.063||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.063
90814243|NCT02753127|181507262|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.7307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.917|1.18||1-sided|Log Rank|"Based on stratified log rank test stratified by actual stratification factors~. P-value is nominal p-value without multiplicity adjustment."|"Based on Cox Proportional hazards model stratified by actual stratification~. A HR \<1 indicates a lower risk with Arm 1 compared with Arm 2."|General population||1.180|0.917|0.7307
90814244|NCT02753127|181507262|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.064||||0.7434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.883|1.283||1-sided|Log Rank|Based on unstratified log-rank test. P-value is nominal p-value without multiplicity adjustment.|Hazard ratio is for Napabucasin + FOLFIRI ± bev vs FOLFIRI ± bev. Based on unstratified Cox Proportional hazards model. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with Napabucasin + FOLFIRI ± bev compared with FOLFIRI ± bev.|activated signal transducers and activators of transcription 3 (pSTAT3)-positive (pSTAT3(+)) Subpopulation patients||1.283|0.883|0.7434
90814245|NCT02753127|181507263|SUPERIORITY||rate difference|0.1||||0.4797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|5.2||1-sided|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by actual stratification factors. P-value is nominal p-value without multiplicity adjustment .|Treatment difference and 95% CI is based on Harmonic Means method adjusting stratification factor|General population||5.2|-4.9|0.4797
90814246|NCT02753127|181507263|SUPERIORITY||rate difference|-3.1||||0.783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|4.7||1-sided|Z test|Based on one-sided Z test. P-value is nominal p-value without multiplicity adjustment.|Treatment difference and 95% CI is based on normal approximation method.|activated signal transducers and activators of transcription 3 (pSTAT3)-positive (pSTAT3(+)) Subpopulation patients||4.7|-11.0|0.783
90814247|NCT02753127|181507264|SUPERIORITY||rate difference|-0.9||||0.6776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|3.0||1-sided|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by actual stratification factors. P-value is nominal p-value without multiplicity adjustment.|Treatment difference and 95% CI is based on Harmonic Means method adjusting stratification factor|General population||3.0|-4.8|0.6776
90814248|NCT02753127|181507264|SUPERIORITY||rate difference|-2.0||||0.7513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|3.7||1-sided|Z test|Based on one-sided Z test. P-value is nominal p-value without multiplicity adjustment.|Treatment difference and 95% CI is based on normal approximation method.|activated signal transducers and activators of transcription 3 (pSTAT3)-positive (pSTAT3(+)) Subpopulation patients||3.7|-7.7|0.7513
90814249|NCT00098722|181507269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1802|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.426|-0.616||||||The difference between the treatment least square means (LS means) adjusted for randomization strata was presented in addition to 2-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) as an adjustment for multiplicity using a Bonferroni correction. Negative value favors maraviroc over placebo.||-0.616|-1.426|
90814250|NCT00098722|181507269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1786|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.444|-0.64||||||The difference between the treatment LS means adjusted for randomization strata was presented in addition to 2-sided 97.5% CI as an adjustment for multiplicity using a Bonferroni correction. Negative value favors maraviroc over placebo.||-0.640|-1.444|
90814251|NCT00098722|181507270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.961|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1856|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.379|-0.544||||||The difference between the treatment LS means adjusted for randomization strata was presented in addition to 2-sided 97.5% CI as an adjustment for multiplicity using a Bonferroni correction. Negative value favors maraviroc over placebo.||-0.544|-1.379|
90814252|NCT00098722|181507270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.109|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.184|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.523|-0.695||||||The difference between the treatment LS means adjusted for randomization strata was presented in addition to 2-sided 97.5% CI as an adjustment for multiplicity using a Bonferroni correction. Negative value favors maraviroc over placebo.||-0.695|-1.523|
90814253|NCT00098722|181507271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.56|8.23|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24: Two-sided 95% CI was presented for the odds ratios between treatment groups with placebo as the comparator. CIs were calculated using the Wald-approximation. Logistic model with treatment, screening HIV concentrations (less than \[\<\] 100,000 or greater than or equal to \[\>=\] 100,000), enfuvirtide use (Yes or No) as covariates was used. Odds ratio greater than (\>) 1 favors maraviroc.||8.23|2.56|<0.0001
90814254|NCT00098722|181507271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.35|10.78|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24: Two-sided 95% CI was presented for the odds ratios between treatment groups with placebo as the comparator. CIs were calculated using the Wald-approximation. Logistic model with treatment, screening HIV concentrations (\<100,000 or \>=100,000), enfuvirtide use (Yes or No) as covariates was used. Odds ratio \>1 favors maraviroc.||10.78|3.35|<0.0001
90814255|NCT00098722|181507271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.25|7.2|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48: Two-sided 95% CI was presented for the odds ratios between treatment groups with placebo as the comparator. CIs were calculated using the Wald-approximation. Logistic model with treatment, screening HIV concentrations (\<100,000 or \>=100,000), enfuvirtide use (Yes or No) as covariates was used. Odds ratio \>1 favors maraviroc.||7.20|2.25|<0.0001
90814256|NCT00098722|181507271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.47|7.85|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48: Two-sided 95% CI was presented for the odds ratios between treatment groups with placebo as the comparator. CIs were calculated using the Wald-approximation. Logistic model with treatment, screening HIV concentrations (\<100,000 or \>=100,000), enfuvirtide use (Yes or No) as covariates was used. Odds ratio \>1 favors maraviroc.||7.85|2.47|<0.0001
90814257|NCT00098722|181507272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.72|8.1|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24: Two-sided 95% CI was presented for the odds ratios between treatment groups with placebo as the comparator. CIs were calculated using the Wald-approximation. Logistic model with treatment, screening HIV concentrations (\<100,000 or \>=100,000), enfuvirtide use (Yes or No) as covariates was used. Odds ratio \>1 favors maraviroc.||8.10|2.72|<0.0001
90814258|NCT00098722|181507272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.91|8.62|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24: Two-sided 95% CI was presented for the odds ratios between treatment groups with placebo as the comparator. CIs were calculated using the Wald-approximation. Logistic model with treatment, screening HIV concentrations (\<100,000 or \>=100,000), enfuvirtide use (Yes or No) as covariates was used. Odds ratio \>1 favors maraviroc.||8.62|2.91|<0.0001
90814259|NCT00098722|181507272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.67|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.13|6.32|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48: Two-sided 95% CI was presented for the odds ratios between treatment groups with placebo as the comparator. CIs were calculated using the Wald-approximation. Logistic model with treatment, screening HIV concentrations (\<100,000 or \>=100,000), enfuvirtide use (Yes or No) as covariates was used. Odds ratio \>1 favors maraviroc.||6.32|2.13|<0.0001
90814260|NCT00098722|181507272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.69|8.02|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48: Two-sided 95% CI was presented for the odds ratios between treatment groups with placebo as the comparator. CIs were calculated using the Wald-approximation. Logistic model with treatment, screening HIV concentrations (\<100,000 or \>=100,000), enfuvirtide use (Yes or No) as covariates was used. Odds ratio \>1 favors maraviroc.||8.02|2.69|<0.0001
91015920|NCT02203305|181914599|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.034||||||A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.|Mixed Models Analysis|Main effects: interval (p\<0.001) and subscale (p\<0.001). Interaction: interval and subscale (p=0.034).||Responses on the SSQ as measured with the subscales (speech, spatial, \& qualities) were compared at the preoperative interval (alternative treatments for asymmetric hearing loss) and over the post-activation period (i.e., 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months). A repeated-measures ANOVA assessed the main effects of interval and subscale, and their interaction.||||<0.034
90814261|NCT00098722|181507273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.64|7.92|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24: Two-sided 95% CI was presented for the odds ratios between treatment groups with placebo as the comparator. CIs were calculated using the Wald-approximation. Logistic model with treatment, screening HIV concentrations (\<100,000 or \>=100,000), enfuvirtide use (Yes or No) as covariates was used. Odds ratio \>1 favors maraviroc.||7.92|2.64|<0.0001
90814262|NCT00098722|181507273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.13|9.39|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24: Two-sided 95% CI was presented for the odds ratios between treatment groups with placebo as the comparator. CIs were calculated using the Wald-approximation. Logistic model with treatment, screening HIV concentrations (\<100,000 or \>=100,000), enfuvirtide use (Yes or No) as covariates was used. Odds ratio \>1 favors maraviroc.||9.39|3.13|<0.0001
90814263|NCT00098722|181507273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.29|7.0|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48: Two-sided 95% CI was presented for the odds ratios between treatment groups with placebo as the comparator. CIs were calculated using the Wald-approximation. Logistic model with treatment, screening HIV concentrations (\<100,000 or \>=100,000), enfuvirtide use (Yes or No) as covariates was used. Odds ratio \>1 favors maraviroc.||7.00|2.29|<0.0001
90814264|NCT00098722|181507273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.91|8.89|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48: Two-sided 95% CI was presented for the odds ratios between treatment groups with placebo as the comparator. CIs were calculated using the Wald-approximation. Logistic model with treatment, screening HIV concentrations (\<100,000 or \>=100,000), enfuvirtide use (Yes or No) as covariates was used. Odds ratio \>1 favors maraviroc.||8.89|2.91|<0.0001
90814265|NCT00098722|181507274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.95|6.48|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24: Two-sided 95% CI was presented for the odds ratios between treatment groups with placebo as the comparator. CIs were calculated using the Wald-approximation. Logistic model with treatment, screening HIV concentrations (\<100,000 or \>=100,000), enfuvirtide use (Yes or No) as covariates was used. Odds ratio \>1 favors maraviroc.||6.48|1.95|<0.0001
90814266|NCT00098722|181507274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.88||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|5.23|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24: Two-sided 95% CI was presented for the odds ratios between treatment groups with placebo as the comparator. CIs were calculated using the Wald-approximation. Logistic model with treatment, screening HIV concentrations (\<100,000 or \>=100,000), enfuvirtide use (Yes or No) as covariates was used. Odd ratio \>1 favors maraviroc.||5.23|1.59|0.0005
90814267|NCT00098722|181507274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.26|7.92|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48: Two-sided 95% CI was presented for the odds ratios between treatment groups with placebo as the comparator. CIs were calculated using the Wald-approximation. Logistic model with treatment, screening HIV concentrations (\<100,000 or \>=100,000), enfuvirtide use (Yes or No) as covariates was used. Odds ratio \>1 favors maraviroc.||7.92|2.26|<0.0001
90814268|NCT00098722|181507274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|7.64|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48: Two-sided 95% CI was presented for the odds ratios between treatment groups with placebo as the comparator. CIs were calculated using the Wald-approximation. Logistic model with treatment, screening HIV concentrations (\<100,000 or \>=100,000), enfuvirtide use (Yes or No) as covariates was used. Odds ratio \>1 favors maraviroc.||7.64|2.20|<0.0001
90814269|NCT00098722|181507276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|47.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.383|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.64|74.25||||||Week 24: The difference between the treatment LS means adjusted for the randomization strata was presented in addition to 2-sided 95% CI. Positive value favors maraviroc over placebo.||74.25|21.64|
90814270|NCT00098722|181507276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|38.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.313|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.96|64.28||||||Week 24: The difference between the treatment LS means adjusted for the randomization strata was presented in addition to 2-sided 95% CI. Positive value favors maraviroc over placebo.||64.28|11.96|
90814271|NCT00098722|181507276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|52.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.803|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.06|81.25||||||Week 48: The difference between the treatment LS means adjusted for the randomization strata was presented in addition to 2-sided 95% CI. Positive value favors maraviroc over placebo.||81.25|23.06|
90814272|NCT00098722|181507276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|58.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.725|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.53|87.4||||||Week 48: The difference between the treatment LS means adjusted for the randomization strata was presented in addition to 2-sided 95% CI. Positive value favors maraviroc over placebo.||87.40|29.53|
90814273|NCT00098722|181507277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|218.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|71.225|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.59|358.54||||||Week 24: The difference between the treatment LS means adjusted for the randomization strata was presented in addition to 2-sided 95% CI. Positive value favors maraviroc over placebo.||358.54|78.59|
90814274|NCT00098722|181507277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|133.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|70.855|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.03|272.47||||||Week 24: The difference between the treatment LS means adjusted for the randomization strata was presented in addition to 2-sided 95% CI. Positive value favors maraviroc over placebo.||272.47|-6.03|
90814275|NCT00098722|181507277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|136.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|57.85|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.24|250.62||||||Week 48: The difference between the treatment LS means adjusted for the randomization strata was presented in addition to 2-sided 95% CI. Positive value favors maraviroc over placebo.||250.62|23.24|
91015921|NCT02203305|181914599|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Main effects: interval (p\<0.001) and pragmatic subscale (p\<0.001). Interaction: interval and pragmatic subscale (p\<0.001).||Responses on the SSQ Speech pragmatic subscale over the study period (i.e., preoperative, and 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation). A repeated-measures ANOVA compared the main effects of interval and pragmatic subscale and their interaction over time.||||<0.001
91015922|NCT02203305|181914599|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.192|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Main effect: interval (p\<0.001) and pragmatic subscale (p=0.192). Interaction: interval and pragmatic subscale (p=0.001).||Responses on the SSQ Spatial pragmatic subscale over the study period (i.e., preoperative, and 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation). A repeated-measures ANOVA compared the main effects of interval and pragmatic subscale and their interaction over time.||||<0.192
90814276|NCT00098722|181507277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|140.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|57.55|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.15|253.35||||||Week 48: The difference between the treatment LS means adjusted for the randomization strata was presented in addition to 2-sided 95% CI. Positive value favors maraviroc over placebo.||253.35|27.15|
90814277|NCT00098722|181507278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.56|||Log Rank|||P-value was calculated using Log rank test controlling for the effect of the randomization strata. Hazard ratio calculated by fitting a Cox proportional hazards model including treatment group and randomization strata. Hazard ratio \<1 favors maraviroc.||0.56|0.29|<0.0001
90814278|NCT00098722|181507278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.46|||Log Rank|||P-value was calculated using Log rank test controlling for the effect of the randomization strata. Hazard ratio calculated by fitting a Cox proportional hazards model including treatment group and randomization strata. Hazard ratio \<1 favors maraviroc.||0.46|0.23|<0.0001
90814279|NCT00098722|181507279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.876|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1534|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.177|-0.575||||||Week 24: The difference between the treatment LS means adjusted for the randomization strata was presented in addition to 2-sided 95% CI. Negative value favors maraviroc over placebo.||-0.575|-1.177|
90814280|NCT00098722|181507279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.882|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1521|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.181|-0.584||||||Week 24: The difference between the treatment LS means adjusted for the randomization strata was presented in addition to 2-sided 95% CI. Negative value favors maraviroc over placebo.||-0.584|-1.181|
90814281|NCT00098722|181507279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.855|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.189|-0.521||||||Week 48: The difference between the treatment LS means adjusted for the randomization strata was presented in addition to 2-sided 95% CI. Negative value favors maraviroc over placebo.||-0.521|-1.189|
90814282|NCT00098722|181507279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.033|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1685|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.364|-0.701||||||Week 48: The difference between the treatment LS means adjusted for the randomization strata was presented in addition to 2-sided 95% CI. Negative value favors maraviroc over placebo.||-0.701|-1.364|
90814283|NCT01519674|181507288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference|0.24||||0.011||95.0|0.06|0.43||No corrections for multiplicity were performed.|Regression, Linear|||"The null-hypothesis (H0) was tested against the alternative hypothesis (HA) in each of the comparisons as given by:~H0: D = 0% against HA: D ≠ 0% D being the mean treatment difference for change from baseline in HbA1c after 24 weeks of treatment between the two treatment group comparisons (BID+Met and BID+Sita+Met)."||0.43|0.06|0.011
90814284|NCT01519674|181507288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference|-0.11||||0.231||95.0|-0.3|0.07|||Regression, Linear|||The null-hypothesis (H0) was tested against the alternative hypothesis (HA) in each of the comparisons as given by: H0: D = 0% against HA: D ≠ 0% D being the mean treatment difference for change from baseline in HbA1c after 24 weeks of treatment between the two treatment group comparisons (BID+Sita+Met and OD+Sita+Met).||0.07|-0.30|0.231
91015923|NCT02203305|181914599|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Main effects: interval (p\<0.001) and pragmatic subscale (p\<0.001). Interaction: interval and pragmatic subscale (p\<0.001).||Responses on the SSQ Qualities of Hearing pragmatic subscale over the study period (i.e., preoperative, and 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation). A repeated-measures ANOVA compared the main effects of interval and pragmatic subscale and their interaction over time.||||<0.001
91015924|NCT02203305|181914599|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.479|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Main effects: interval (p\<0.001) and pragmatic subscale (p\<0.001). Interaction: interval and pragmatic subscale (p=0.479).||Responses on the SSQ Speech pragmatic subscale over the study period (i.e., preoperative, and 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation). A repeated-measures ANOVA compared the main effects of interval and pragmatic subscale and their interaction over time.||||<0.479
91055227|NCT00593736|181992463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.156||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.156
90814285|NCT01519674|181507288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference|-0.36|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.54|-0.17|||Regression, Linear|||The null-hypothesis (H0) was tested against the alternative hypothesis (HA) in each of the comparisons as given by: H0: D = 0% against HA: D ≠ 0% D being the mean treatment difference for change from baseline in HbA1c after 24 weeks of treatment between the two treatment group comparisons (BID+Sita+Met and OD+Sita+Met).||-0.17|-0.54|<0.001
90814286|NCT01519674|181507289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.022||95.0|0.39|0.93|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.93|0.39|0.022
90814287|NCT01519674|181507289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.618||95.0|0.73|1.71|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.71|0.73|0.618
90814288|NCT01519674|181507289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.85||||0.005||95.0|1.2|2.85|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.85|1.20|0.005
91015925|NCT02203305|181914599|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.804|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Main effect: interval (p\<0.001) and pragmatic subscale (p=0.804). Interaction: interval and pragmatic subscale (p=0.090).||Responses on the SSQ Spatial pragmatic subscale over the study period (i.e., preoperative, and 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation). A repeated-measures ANOVA compared the main effects of interval and pragmatic subscale and their interaction over time.||||<0.804
90814289|NCT01519674|181507290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59||||0.02||95.0|0.38|0.92|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.92|0.38|0.020
90814290|NCT01519674|181507290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.286||95.0|0.81|2.07|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.07|0.81|0.286
90814291|NCT01519674|181507290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2|||<|0.001||95.0|1.39|3.47|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.47|1.39|<0.001
90814292|NCT01519674|181507291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference|0.13||||0.52||95.0|-0.26|0.52|||Regression, Linear|||||0.52|-0.26|0.520
90814293|NCT01519674|181507291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference|0.05||||0.788||95.0|-0.34|0.45|||Regression, Linear|||||0.45|-0.34|0.788
90814294|NCT01519674|181507291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference|-0.07||||0.708||95.0|-0.46|0.31|||Regression, Linear|||||0.31|-0.46|0.708
90814295|NCT01519674|181507292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference|0.28||||0.291||95.0|-0.24|0.81|||Regression, Linear|||||0.81|-0.24|0.291
90814296|NCT01519674|181507292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference|-0.88||||0.001||95.0|-1.41|-0.35|||Regression, Linear|||||-0.35|-1.41|0.001
90814297|NCT01519674|181507292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference|-1.16|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.69|-0.64|||Regression, Linear|||||-0.64|-1.69|<0.001
90814298|NCT01519674|181507293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference|0.85||||0.005||95.0|0.26|1.45|||Regression, Linear|||||1.45|0.26|0.005
90814299|NCT01519674|181507293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference|0.52||||0.085||95.0|-0.07|1.12|||Regression, Linear|||||1.12|-0.07|0.085
90814300|NCT01519674|181507293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference|-0.33||||0.275||95.0|-0.92|0.26|||Regression, Linear|||||0.26|-0.92|0.275
90814301|NCT01519674|181507294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference|-0.12||||0.674||95.0|-0.7|0.45|||Regression, Linear|||||0.45|-0.70|0.674
90814302|NCT01519674|181507294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference|0.72||||0.015||95.0|0.14|1.3|||Regression, Linear|||||1.30|0.14|0.015
91015926|NCT02203305|181914599|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.005|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Main effects: interval (p\<0.001) and pragmatic subscale (p\<0.001). Interaction: interval and pragmatic subscale (p=0.005).||Responses on the SSQ Qualities of Hearing pragmatic subscale over the study period (i.e., preoperative, and 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation). A repeated-measures ANOVA compared the main effects of interval and pragmatic subscale and their interaction over time.||||<0.005
91015927|NCT02203305|181914600|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Recorded AzBio sentences in a 10-talker masker were evaluated in 2 conditions: 1) bone-conduction device at the preoperative interval and 2) with the cochlear implant (CI) at the 12-month post-activation period. A paired samples t-test compared the performance with the two devices. Percent correct data were converted to rationalized arcsine units (RAU) prior to data analysis.||||=0.001
91015928|NCT02203305|181914600|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.034|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Recorded AzBio sentences in a 10-talker masker were evaluated in 2 conditions: 1) bone-conduction device at the preoperative interval and 2) with the cochlear implant (CI) at the 12-month post-activation period. A paired samples t-test compared the performance with the two devices. Percent correct data were converted to rationalized arcsine units (RAU) prior to data analysis.||||=0.034
91055228|NCT00593736|181992463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.521||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.521
90814303|NCT01519674|181507294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference|0.84||||0.004||95.0|0.27|1.41|||Regression, Linear|||||1.41|0.27|0.004
91015929|NCT02203305|181914601|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Recorded AzBio sentences in a 10-talker masker were evaluated in 2 conditions: 1) bone-conduction device at the preoperative interval and 2) with the cochlear implant (CI) at the 12-month post-activation period. A paired samples t-test compared the performance with the two devices. Percent correct data were converted to rationalized arcsine units (RAU) prior to data analysis.||||=0.001
90814304|NCT01519674|181507295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference|0.31||||0.08||95.0|-0.04|0.65|||Regression, Linear|||||0.65|-0.04|0.080
90814305|NCT01519674|181507295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference|0.09||||0.613||95.0|-0.26|0.43|||Regression, Linear|||||0.43|-0.26|0.613
90814306|NCT01519674|181507295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference|-0.22||||0.213||95.0|-0.56|0.13|||Regression, Linear|||||0.13|-0.56|0.213
91015930|NCT02203305|181914601|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.037|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Recorded AzBio sentences in a 10-talker masker were evaluated in 2 conditions: 1) bone-conduction device at the preoperative interval and 2) with the cochlear implant (CI) at the 12-month post-activation period. A paired samples t-test compared the performance with the two devices. Percent correct data were converted to rationalized arcsine units (RAU) prior to data analysis.||||=0.037
91015931|NCT02203305|181914602|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Recorded AzBio sentences in a 10-talker masker were evaluated in 2 conditions: 1) bone-conduction device at the preoperative interval and 2) with the cochlear implant (CI) at the 12-month post-activation period. A paired samples t-test compared the performance with the two devices. Percent correct data were converted to rationalized arcsine units (RAU) prior to data analysis.||||<0.001
91055229|NCT00593736|181992464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.675||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.675
90814307|NCT01519674|181507298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference|0.29||||0.8||95.0|-1.97|2.56|||Regression, Linear|||||2.56|-1.97|0.800
90814308|NCT01519674|181507298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference|0.02||||0.989||95.0|-2.26|2.29|||Regression, Linear|||||2.29|-2.26|0.989
90814309|NCT01519674|181507298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference|-0.28||||0.809||95.0|-2.52|1.97|||Regression, Linear|||||1.97|-2.52|0.809
90814310|NCT03523273|181507301|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.004
90814311|NCT03523273|181507302|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.033|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.033
90814312|NCT02963987|181507309|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
90814313|NCT02963987|181507310|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.006
90814314|NCT02963987|181507311|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
90814315|NCT03180398|181507316|SUPERIORITY|It was hoped to compare radiomics features, using non-parametric tests, but this was not possible because of the small number of patients accrued.|||||||||||||||||Not enough patients were accrued for radiomics analysis. PI left institution and country. Analysis could not be completed.|||
90814316|NCT03180398|181507317|OTHER|Analysis could not be completed.|||||||||||||||||PI left institution and country. Analysis could not be completed.|||
90814317|NCT00765882|181507336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.93||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|5.72||The p-value is still less than 0.05 after adjusting multiplicity using a serial gatekeeping multiple comparison procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Null hypothesis: There is no difference in the proportion of 12-week CSBM overall responders between patients taking the 145-μg dose and those taking placebo.~The power, adjusted for multiplicity, was expected to be 90% based on study NCT00402337 (MCP-103-201) data."||5.72|1.50|0.0012
90814318|NCT00765882|181507336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|8.1||The p-value is still less than 0.05 after adjusting multiplicity using a serial gatekeeping multiple comparison procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Null hypothesis: There is no difference in the proportion of 12-week CSBM overall responders between patients taking the 290-μg dose and those taking placebo.~The power, adjusted for multiplicity, was expected to be 96% based on study NCT00460811 (MCP-103-202) data."||8.10|2.20|<0.0001
90814319|NCT04375397|181507390|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|5.8|||=|0.599|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-9.2|20.4|||Miettinen-Nurminen method||Ibrutinib 420 mg + SOC - Placebo + SOC Miettinen-Nurminen (MN) CI for the adjusted risk difference across strata|The difference in response rates between the experimental arm and the control arm were analyzed using the Miettinen-Nurminen (MN) method, adjusting for the stratification factor of prescription for remdesivir. The MN test p-value for testing the rate difference = 0 at two-sided alpha = 0.2.||20.4|-9.2|=0.599
90814320|NCT04375397|181507390|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|5.8|||=|0.599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.1|28.7|||Miettinen-Nurminen method||Ibrutinib 420 mg + SOC - Placebo + SOC Miettinen-Nurminen (MN) CI for the adjusted risk difference across strata|The difference in response rates between the experimental arm and the control arm were analyzed using the Miettinen-Nurminen (MN) method, adjusting for the stratification factor of prescription for remdesivir. The MN test p-value for testing the rate difference = 0 at twosided alpha = 0.2.||28.7|-18.1|=0.599
91015932|NCT02203305|181914602|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Recorded AzBio sentences in a 10-talker masker were evaluated in 2 conditions: 1) bone-conduction device at the preoperative interval and 2) with the cochlear implant (CI) at the 12-month post-activation period. A paired samples t-test compared the performance with the two devices. Percent correct data were converted to rationalized arcsine units (RAU) prior to data analysis.||||=0.001
91015933|NCT02203305|181914603|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Recorded BKB sentences in a 4-talker masker were evaluated in 2 conditions: 1) with a bone-conduction device (preoperative interval) and 2) with the cochlear implant (CI) at the 12-month post-activation interval. Results are reported in dB SNR, where a lower value indicates better performance. A paired samples t-test compared the performance with the two devices.||||=0.004
91015934|NCT02203305|181914603|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Recorded BKB sentences in a 4-talker masker were evaluated in 2 conditions: 1) bone-conduction device at the preoperative interval and 2) with the cochlear implant (CI) at the 12-month post-activation period. A paired samples t-test compared the performance with the two devices. Results are reported in dB SNR, where a lower value indicates better performance.||||=0.004
91015935|NCT02203305|181914604|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Recorded BKB sentences in a 4-talker masker were evaluated in 2 conditions: 1) bone-conduction device at the preoperative interval and 2) with the cochlear implant (CI) at the 12-month post-activation period. A paired samples t-test compared the performance with the two devices. Results are reported in dB SNR, where a lower value indicates better performance.||||<0.001
91015936|NCT02203305|181914604|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.727|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Recorded BKB sentences in a 4-talker masker were evaluated in 2 conditions: 1) bone-conduction device at the preoperative interval and 2) with the cochlear implant (CI) at the 12-month post-activation period. A paired samples t-test compared the performance with the two devices. Results are reported in dB SNR, where a lower value indicates better performance.||||=0.727
91015937|NCT02203305|181914605|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Recorded BKB sentences in a 4-talker masker were evaluated in 2 conditions: 1) bone-conduction device at the preoperative interval and 2) with the cochlear implant (CI) at the 12-month post-activation period. A paired samples t-test compared the performance with the two devices. Results are reported in dB SNR, where a lower value indicates better performance.||||=0.001
91055230|NCT00593736|181992464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.566||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.566
90814321|NCT04375397|181507391|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17|||=|0.886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|10.44|||Multinomial Logistic Regression|||"Change in ordinal score from baseline to day 14 = -3~To evaluate the odds of clinical status improvement as determined by the WHO-8 ordinal scale, a multinomial logistic regression model was used.~Pairwise Comparison in Reference to the Group with Change = -4"||10.44|0.13|=0.886
90814322|NCT04375397|181507391|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.64|||=|0.705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|6.43|||Multinomial Logistic Regression|||"Change in ordinal score from baseline to day 14 = -2~To evaluate the odds of clinical status improvement as determined by the WHO-8 ordinal scale, a multinomial logistic regression model was used.~Pairwise Comparison in Reference to the Group with Change = -4"||6.43|0.06|=0.705
90814323|NCT04375397|181507391|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0|||=|0.996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0||The upper limit of this 95% CI is infinite.||Multinomial Logistic Regression|||"Change in ordinal score from baseline to day 14 = -1~To evaluate the odds of clinical status improvement as determined by the WHO-8 ordinal scale, a multinomial logistic regression model was used.~Pairwise Comparison in Reference to the Group with Change = -4"|||0.00|=0.996
91015938|NCT02203305|181914605|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Recorded BKB sentences in a 4-talker masker were evaluated in 2 conditions: 1) bone-conduction device at the preoperative interval and 2) with the cochlear implant (CI) at the 12-month post-activation period. A paired samples t-test compared the performance with the two devices. Results are reported in dB SNR, where a lower value indicates better performance.||||=0.090
91015939|NCT02203305|181914611|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.923|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Main effect: electrode (p\<0.001), target stimulus (p=0.923), and interval (p=0.226). Interaction: electrode and interval (p=0.496).||A linear mixed effects model compared the main effects of target stimulus (click, tone), electrode (1-5), and interval (1, 3, 6, and 12 months) on the normalized pitch match.||||<0.923
91015940|NCT02203305|181914611|OTHER||||||>|0.164|||||||bivariate pearson correlation|||Correlation between pitch perception (normalized mean pitch match) and word recognition with the CI alone.||||>0.164
91015941|NCT02203305|181914611|OTHER|bivariate pearson correlation|||||>|0.367|||||||bivariate pearson correlation|||Correlation between pitch perception (normalized mean pitch match) and speech recognition in noise (masker from the front, masker towards the better hearing ear, and masker towards the poorer hearing ear).||||>0.367
91015942|NCT02203305|181914611|OTHER|bivariate pearson correlation|||||>|0.349|||||||bivariate pearson correlation|||Correlation between pitch perception (normalized mean pitch match) and sound source localization (RMS error).||||>0.349
91015943|NCT02203305|181914612|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Comparison of the unaided threshold at 125 Hz at the preoperative and initial activation intervals for the 25 participants with unaided threshold of 80 dB HL or better at the preoperative interval.~The data from the SSD and AHL group were combined to review hearing preservation with long arrays. The inclusion criteria for the implanted ear were the same for the SSD and AHL groups and all subjects received the same 31.5 mm electrode array."||||<0.001
90814324|NCT04375397|181507391|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07|||=|0.969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|32.18|||Multinomial Logistic Regression|||"Change in ordinal score from baseline to day 14 = 0~To evaluate the odds of clinical status improvement as determined by the WHO-8 ordinal scale, a multinomial logistic regression model was used.~Pairwise Comparison in Reference to the Group with Change = -4"||32.18|0.04|=0.969
90814325|NCT04375397|181507391|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07|||=|0.969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|32.18|||Multinomial Logistic Regression|||"Change in ordinal score from baseline to day 14 = 1~To evaluate the odds of clinical status improvement as determined by the WHO-8 ordinal scale, a multinomial logistic regression model was used.~Pairwise Comparison in Reference to the Group with Change = -4"||32.18|0.04|=0.969
90814326|NCT04375397|181507391|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07|||=|0.969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|32.18|||Multinomial Logistic Regression|||"Change in ordinal score from baseline to day 14 = 3~To evaluate the odds of clinical status improvement as determined by the WHO-8 ordinal scale, a multinomial logistic regression model was used.~Pairwise Comparison in Reference to the Group with Change = -4"||32.18|0.04|=0.969
90814327|NCT04375397|181507392|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Medians|-1.5|||=|0.801|TWO_SIDED||||||Van Elteren's test||Ibrutinib 420 mg + SOC - Placebo + SOC|Median days spent on supplemental oxygen was compared between treatment groups using Van Elteren's test with the stratification factor of prescription for remdesivir.||||=0.801
90814328|NCT04375397|181507393|SUPERIORITY||Mortality rate difference|0.0|||=|1|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.7|7.3|||Miettinen-Nurminen|||"At Day 7-- Ibrutinib 420 mg + SOC - Placebo + SOC~The Miettinen-Nurminen (MN) test p-value for testing the rate difference = 0 adjusting for the stratification factor of prescription for remdesivir using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights at two-sided alpha of 0.2 and associated confidence intervals are reported."||7.3|-6.7|=1.000
90814329|NCT04375397|181507393|SUPERIORITY||Mortality rate difference|0.0|||=|1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|15.5|||Miettinen-Nurminen|||"At Day 7-- Ibrutinib 420 mg + SOC - Placebo + SOC~The Miettinen-Nurminen (MN) test p-value for testing the rate difference = 0 adjusting for the stratification factor of prescription for remdesivir using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights at two-sided alpha of 0.2 and associated confidence intervals are reported."||15.5|-14.4|=1.000
90814330|NCT04375397|181507393|SUPERIORITY||Mortality rate difference|0.0|||=|1|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.7|7.3|||Miettinen-Nurminen|||"At Day 14-- Ibrutinib 420 mg + SOC - Placebo + SOC~The Miettinen-Nurminen (MN) test p-value for testing the rate difference = 0 adjusting for the stratification factor of prescription for remdesivir using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights at two-sided alpha of 0.2 and associated confidence intervals are reported."||7.3|-6.7|=1.000
90814331|NCT04375397|181507393|SUPERIORITY||Mortality rate difference|0.0|||=|1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|15.5|||Miettinen-Nurminen|||"At Day 14-- Ibrutinib 420 mg + SOC - Placebo + SOC~The Miettinen-Nurminen (MN) test p-value for testing the rate difference = 0 adjusting for the stratification factor of prescription for remdesivir using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights at two-sided alpha of 0.2 and associated confidence intervals are reported."||15.5|-14.4|=1.000
90814332|NCT04375397|181507393|SUPERIORITY||Mortality rate difference|4.8|||=|0.267|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.7|14.8|||Miettinen-Nurminen|||"At Day 21-- Ibrutinib 420 mg + SOC - Placebo + SOC~The Miettinen-Nurminen (MN) test p-value for testing the rate difference = 0 adjusting for the stratification factor of prescription for remdesivir using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights at two-sided alpha of 0.2 and associated confidence intervals are reported."||14.8|-1.7|=0.267
90814333|NCT04375397|181507393|SUPERIORITY||Mortality rate difference|4.8|||=|0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|22.8|||Miettinen-Nurminen|||"At Day 21-- Ibrutinib 420 mg + SOC - Placebo + SOC~The Miettinen-Nurminen (MN) test p-value for testing the rate difference = 0 adjusting for the stratification factor of prescription for remdesivir using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights at two-sided alpha of 0.2 and associated confidence intervals are reported."||22.8|-9.6|=0.267
91055231|NCT00593736|181992464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.205||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.205
91055232|NCT00593736|181992465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.643||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.643
91055233|NCT00593736|181992465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.032||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.032
90814334|NCT04375397|181507393|SUPERIORITY||Mortality rate difference|4.8|||=|0.267|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.7|14.8|||Miettinen-Nurminen|||"At Day 28-- Ibrutinib 420 mg + SOC - Placebo + SOC~The Miettinen-Nurminen (MN) test p-value for testing the rate difference = 0 adjusting for the stratification factor of prescription for remdesivir using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights at two-sided alpha of 0.2 and associated confidence intervals are reported."||14.8|-1.7|=0.267
90814335|NCT04375397|181507393|SUPERIORITY||Mortality rate difference|4.8|||=|0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|22.8|||Miettinen-Nurminen|||"At Day 28-- Ibrutinib 420 mg + SOC - Placebo + SOC~The Miettinen-Nurminen (MN) test p-value for testing the rate difference = 0 adjusting for the stratification factor of prescription for remdesivir using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights at two-sided alpha of 0.2 and associated confidence intervals are reported."||22.8|-9.6|=0.267
90890366|NCT00360529|181645263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.1144||95.0|-0.3|0.0||Hierarchical ordering used for multiple endpoints, and Hochberg used for multiple dose comparisons. P-values ordered (p1≤p2). If p2≤0.05 then all doses significant. If p1≤0.025 then reject null for p1|ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, centre and baseline as a covariate||Flibanserin 50 mg qhs versus placebo||0.0|-0.3|0.1144
90814336|NCT04375397|181507394|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|-10.7|||=|0.314|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-24.8|3.3|||Miettinen-Nurminen|||"Failure/Mortality Rate Difference Compared to Placebo + SOC at Day 7~The difference in response rates between the experimental arm and the control arm was analyzed using the Miettinen-Nurminen (MN) method adjusting for the stratification factor of prescription for remdesivir. MN test p-value for testing the rate difference = 0 adjusting for the stratification factor of prescription for remdesivir using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights at two-sided alpha of 0.2."||3.3|-24.8|=0.314
90814337|NCT04375397|181507394|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|-10.7|||=|0.314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.8|12.0|||Miettinen-Nurminen|||"Failure/Mortality Rate Difference Compared to Placebo + SOC at Day 7~The difference in response rates between the experimental arm and the control arm was analyzed using the Miettinen-Nurminen (MN) method adjusting for the stratification factor of prescription for remdesivir. MN test p-value for testing the rate difference = 0 adjusting for the stratification factor of prescription for remdesivir using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights at two-sided alpha of 0.2."||12.0|-32.8|=0.314
90814338|NCT04375397|181507394|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|-10.7|||=|0.314|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-24.8|3.3|||Miettinen-Nurminen|||"Failure/Mortality Rate Difference Compared to Placebo + SOC at Day 14~The difference in response rates between the experimental arm and the control arm was analyzed using the Miettinen-Nurminen (MN) method adjusting for the stratification factor of prescription for remdesivir. MN test p-value for testing the rate difference = 0 adjusting for the stratification factor of prescription for remdesivir using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights at two-sided alpha of 0.2."||3.3|-24.8|=0.314
90814339|NCT04375397|181507394|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|-10.7|||=|0.314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.8|12.0|||Miettinen-Nurminen|||"Failure/Mortality Rate Difference Compared to Placebo + SOC at Day 14~The difference in response rates between the experimental arm and the control arm was analyzed using the Miettinen-Nurminen (MN) method adjusting for the stratification factor of prescription for remdesivir. MN test p-value for testing the rate difference = 0 adjusting for the stratification factor of prescription for remdesivir using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights at two-sided alpha of 0.2."||12.0|-32.8|=0.314
90814340|NCT04375397|181507394|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|-5.8|||=|0.599|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-20.4|9.2|||Miettinen-Nurminen|||"Failure/Mortality Rate Difference Compared to Placebo + SOC at Day 21~The difference in response rates between the experimental arm and the control arm was analyzed using the Miettinen-Nurminen (MN) method adjusting for the stratification factor of prescription for remdesivir. MN test p-value for testing the rate difference = 0 adjusting for the stratification factor of prescription for remdesivir using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights at two-sided alpha of 0.2."||9.2|-20.4|=0.599
90814341|NCT04375397|181507394|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|-5.8|||=|0.599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.7|18.1|||Miettinen-Nurminen|||"Failure/Mortality Rate Difference Compared to Placebo + SOC at Day 21~The difference in response rates between the experimental arm and the control arm was analyzed using the Miettinen-Nurminen (MN) method adjusting for the stratification factor of prescription for remdesivir. MN test p-value for testing the rate difference = 0 adjusting for the stratification factor of prescription for remdesivir using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights at two-sided alpha of 0.2."||18.1|-28.7|=0.599
90814342|NCT04375397|181507394|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|-5.8|||=|0.599|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-20.4|9.2|||Miettinen-Nurminen|||"Failure/Mortality Rate Difference Compared to Placebo + SOC at Day 28~The difference in response rates between the experimental arm and the control arm was analyzed using the Miettinen-Nurminen (MN) method adjusting for the stratification factor of prescription for remdesivir. MN test p-value for testing the rate difference = 0 adjusting for the stratification factor of prescription for remdesivir using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights at two-sided alpha of 0.2."||9.2|-20.4|=0.599
90814343|NCT04375397|181507394|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|-5.8|||=|0.599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.7|18.1|||Miettinen-Nurminen|||"Failure/Mortality Rate Difference Compared to Placebo + SOC at Day 28~The difference in response rates between the experimental arm and the control arm was analyzed using the Miettinen-Nurminen (MN) method adjusting for the stratification factor of prescription for remdesivir. MN test p-value for testing the rate difference = 0 adjusting for the stratification factor of prescription for remdesivir using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights at two-sided alpha of 0.2."||18.1|-28.7|=0.599
90814344|NCT04375397|181507395|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.851|||||||Log Rank|||For the analysis of mechanical ventilation-free survival, the distribution of time to event was estimated by treatment group using Kaplan-Meier methodology and compared between the experimental arm and the control arm using the log-rank test stratified by prescription for remdesivir.||||=0.851
91015944|NCT02203305|181914612|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.47|||||||ANOVA|generalized linear mixed-effects model||"Comparison of the unaided threshold at 125 Hz from the initial activation to the 12-month post-activation interval for the 9 participants with an unaided threshold of 95 dB HL or better at the initial activation interval.~The data from the SSD and AHL group were combined to review hearing preservation with long arrays. The inclusion criteria for the implanted ear were the same for the SSD and AHL groups and all subjects received the same 31.5 mm electrode array."||||=0.47
90814345|NCT04375397|181507396|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Medians|0.0|||=|0.745|TWO_SIDED||||||Van Elteren's test||Ibrutinib 420 mg + SOC - Placebo + SOC|Median days spent on mechanical ventilation were compared between treatment groups using Van Elteren's test with the stratification factor of prescription for remdesivir.||||=0.745
90814346|NCT04375397|181507397|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Medians|-0.5|||=|0.977|TWO_SIDED||||||Van Elteren's test]||Ibrutinib 420 mg + SOC - Placebo + SOC|Median duration of hospitalization was compared between treatment groups using Van Elteren's test with the stratification factor of prescription for remdesivir.||||=0.977
91055234|NCT00593736|181992465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.875||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.875
91015945|NCT02203305|181914613|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.739|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A paired samples t-test compared the performance with the bone-conduction device at the preoperative and 12-month intervals.||||=0.739
91015946|NCT02203305|181914613|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.553|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A paired samples t-test compared the performance with the bone-conduction device at the preoperative and 12-month intervals.||||=0.553
90814347|NCT04375397|181507398|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.969|||||||Log Rank|||For the analysis of time to discharge from hospital, the distribution of time to event was estimated by treatment group using Kaplan-Meier methodology and compared between the experimental arm and the control arm using the log-rank test stratified by prescription for remdesivir.||||=0.969
90814348|NCT00610441|181507402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.6996||||0.0147|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-10.911|-0.4881||To correct for multiplicity, p-values (2-sided) should be compared with the 2.5% level of significance.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measurements||Mixed Model for Repeated Measurements (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment, period, visit, center and treatment by visit interaction, and random effect for participant, and baseline AISRS score as covariate.|The treatment difference between 100 mg MK-8777 fixed dose and Placebo was estimated for the average effect (average change from baseline) of the 2nd and 3rd week of each period (Day 14 and Day 21).||-0.4881|-10.911|0.0147
90814349|NCT00610441|181507402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9926||||0.591|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.2961|5.2814||To correct for multiplicity, p-values (2-sided) should be compared with the 2.5% level of significance.|MMRM||MMRM with fixed effects for treatment, period, visit, center and treatment by visit interaction, and random effect for participant, and baseline AISRS score as covariate.|The treatment difference between 100-300 mg MK-8777 rising dose and Placebo was estimated for the average effect (average change from baseline) of the 2nd and 3rd week of each period (Day 14 and Day 21).||5.2814|-3.2961|0.5910
90814350|NCT00610441|181507403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.8506|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.799|26.0878|||||Logistic regression with fixed effects for treatment and period, and baseline AISRS score as covariate.|||26.0878|1.7990|
90814351|NCT00610441|181507403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9461|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3119|2.8701|||||Logistic regression with fixed effects for treatment and period, and baseline AISRS score as covariate.|||2.8701|0.3119|
90814352|NCT00610441|181507404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.2468|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6712|58.1395|||||Since no participants in the Placebo group achieved a 50% reduction, the comparison was done using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method and 0.5 was added to both groups.|||58.1395|0.6712|
90814353|NCT00610441|181507404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.1453|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0152|1.388|||||Logistic regression with fixed effects for treatment and period, and baseline AISRS score as covariate.|||1.3880|0.0152|
90814354|NCT00610441|181507407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2074|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5654|2.5785|||||Proportional odds model with fixed effects for treatment and period.|||2.5785|0.5654|
91015947|NCT02203305|181914614|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.345||||||Percent correct data were converted to rationalized arcsine units (RAU) prior to data analysis.|ANOVA|Main effect: interval (p=0.027) and masker condition (p\<0.001). Interaction: interval and masker condition (p=0.345).||A repeated-measures ANOVA assessed the effects of interval (preoperative and 12-months) and masker condition (front, acoustic ear, or affected ear) on performance with the bone conduction device.||||<0.345
91015948|NCT02203305|181914614|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.577||||||Percent correct data were converted to rationalized arcsine units (RAU) prior to data analysis.|ANOVA|Main effect: masker condition (p\<0.001) and interval (p=0.577). Interaction: interval and masker condition (p=0.055).||A repeated-measures ANOVA assessed the effects of interval (preoperative and 12-months) and masker condition (front, acoustic ear, or affected ear) on performance with the bone conduction device.||||<0.577
91015949|NCT02203305|181914615|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.023|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Main effect: coding strategy (p=0.023). Interaction: coding strategy and electrode (p=0.044). All other main effects and interactions were p\>0.160.||A linear mixed effect model assessed the main effects of stimulus, electrode, and coding strategy, and their interactions.||||>0.023
91055235|NCT00593736|181992466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.286||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.286
91055236|NCT00593736|181992466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.318||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.318
91015950|NCT02203305|181914615|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.035|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Pitch perception for electrode 1 (p=0.035). All other comparisons were p\>0.318.||Paired samples t-tests evaluated whether pitch perception (mean normalized pitch) differed between coding strategy for each electrode.||||>0.035
91015951|NCT02203305|181914616|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.084|||||||ANOVA|Main effects: condition (p=0.960) and interval (p=0.084). Interaction: condition and interval (p=0.433).||A repeated-measures ANOVA assessed the effects of condition (unaided, bone-conduction device) and interval (preoperative, 12-month) and their interaction on sound source localization.||||>0.084
90814355|NCT00610441|181507407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8548|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6951|4.9494|||||Proportional odds model with fixed effects for treatment and period.|||4.9494|0.6951|
90814356|NCT00610441|181507408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3149|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5402|3.2008|||||Proportional odds model with fixed effects for treatment and period.|||3.2008|0.5402|
90814357|NCT00610441|181507408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3982|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.524|3.7309|||||Proportional odds model with fixed effects for treatment and period.|||3.7309|0.5240|
90814358|NCT00610441|181507409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3163||||0.6155|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.8138|1.1812||To correct for multiplicity, p-values (2-sided) should be compared with the 2.5% level of significance.|MMRM||MMRM with fixed effects for treatment, period, visit, center and treatment by visit interaction, and random effect for participant, and baseline ESS score as covariate. For statistical analyses, the average score from Days 14 and 21 was used.|The treatment difference between 100 mg MK-8777 fixed dose and Placebo was estimated for the average effect (average change from baseline) of the 2nd and 3rd week of each period (Day 14 and Day 21).||1.1812|-1.8138|0.6155
90814359|NCT00610441|181507409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.2934||||0.133|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.7449|3.3317||To correct for multiplicity, p-values (2-sided) should be compared with the 2.5% level of significance.|MMRM||MMRM with fixed effects for treatment, period, visit, center and treatment by visit interaction, and random effect for participant, and baseline ESS score as covariate. For statistical analyses, the average score from Days 14 and 21 was used.|The treatment difference between 100-300 mg MK-8777 rising dose and Placebo was estimated for the average effect (average change from baseline) of the 2nd and 3rd week of each period (Day 14 and Day 21).||3.3317|-0.7449|0.1330
90814360|NCT00610441|181507410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5501||||0.3907|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.9427|2.0429||To correct for multiplicity, p-values (2-sided) should be compared with the 2.5% level of significance.|MMRM||MMRM with fixed effects for treatment, period, visit, center and treatment by visit interaction, and random effect for participant, and baseline PSQI score as covariate.|The treatment difference between 100 mg MK-8777 fixed dose and Placebo was estimated for the average effect (average change from baseline) of the 2nd and 3rd week of each period (Day 14 and Day 21).||2.0429|-0.9427|0.3907
90814361|NCT00610441|181507410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0065||||0.9872|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.9486|0.9357||To correct for multiplicity, p-values (2-sided) should be compared with the 2.5% level of significance.|MMRM||MMRM with fixed effects for treatment, period, visit, center and treatment by visit interaction, and random effect for participant, and baseline PSQI score as covariate.|The treatment difference between 100-300 mg MK-8777 rising dose and Placebo was estimated for the average effect (average change from baseline) of the 2nd and 3rd week of each period (Day 14 and Day 21).||0.9357|-0.9486|0.9872
90814362|NCT00610441|181507411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1543||||0.7828|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.4898|1.1811||To correct for multiplicity, p-values (2-sided) should be compared with the 2.5% level of significance.|MMRM||MMRM with fixed effects for treatment, period, visit, center and treatment by visit interaction, and random effect for participant, and baseline QIDS-C score as covariate. Scores from Days 14 and 21 were averaged for statistical analyses.|The treatment difference between 100 mg MK-8777 fixed dose and Placebo was estimated for the average effect (average change from baseline) of the 2nd and 3rd week of each period (Day 14 and Day 21).||1.1811|-1.4898|0.7828
90814363|NCT00610441|181507411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4222||||0.2883|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.5187|1.363||To correct for multiplicity, p-values (2-sided) should be compared with the 2.5% level of significance.|MMRM||MMRM with fixed effects for treatment, period, visit, center and treatment by visit interaction, and random effect for participant, and baseline QIDS-C score as covariate. Scores from Days 14 and 21 were averaged for statistical analyses.|The treatment difference between 100-300 mg MK-8777 rising dose and Placebo was estimated for the average effect (average change from baseline) of the 2nd and 3rd week of each period (Day 14 and Day 21).||1.3630|-0.5187|0.2883
90814364|NCT00610441|181507412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9685||||0.6532|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-5.9599|4.0229|||MMRM|To correct for multiplicity, p-values (2-sided) should be compared with the 2.5% level of significance.|MMRM with fixed effects for treatment, period, visit, center and treatment by visit interaction, and random effect for participant, and baseline TASS score as covariate.|The treatment difference between 100 mg MK-8777 fixed dose and Placebo was estimated for the average effect (average change from baseline) of the 2nd and 3rd week of each period (Day 14 and Day 21).||4.0229|-5.9599|0.6532
91015952|NCT02203305|181914616|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.434|||||||ANOVA|Main effect: condition (p=0.434) or interval (p=0.687). Interaction: condition and interval (p=0.678).||A repeated-measures ANOVA assessed the effects of condition (unaided, bone-conduction device) and interval (preoperative, 12-month) and their interaction on sound source localization.||||>0.434
91015953|NCT02203305|181914617|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.935||||||Percent correct converted to rationalized arcsine units (RAU) prior to analysis.|ANOVA|Main effects: condition (p=0.018), interval (p=0.012), and masker (p\<0.001). Interactions: interval and masker (p\<0.001). Other interactions: p\>0.117.||A repeated-measures ANOVA assessed the effects of condition (unaided, bone-conduction device), interval (preoperative, 12-month), and masker condition and their 2-way and 3-way interactions on speech recognition in noise.||||<0.935
91015954|NCT02203305|181914617|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.977||||||A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.|ANOVA|Effects: interval (p=0.012) and masker (p\<0.001). Interactions: interval\&masker (p=0.020) \& condition, interval, \&masker (p=0.035). Others: (p\>0.131).||A repeated-measures ANOVA assessed the effects of condition (unaided, bone-conduction device), interval (preoperative, 12-month), and masker condition and their 2-way and 3-way interactions on speech recognition in noise.||||<0.977
90814365|NCT00610441|181507412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.1022||||0.5247|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.8951|5.0996||To correct for multiplicity, p-values (2-sided) should be compared with the 2.5% level of significance.|MMRM||MMRM with fixed effects for treatment, period, visit, center and treatment by visit interaction, and random effect for participant, and baseline TASS score as covariate.|The treatment difference between 100-300 mg MK-8777 rising dose and Placebo was estimated for the average effect (average change from baseline) of the 2nd and 3rd week of each period (Day 14 and Day 21).||5.0996|-2.8951|0.5247
90814366|NCT01643876|181507424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-1.5|||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: in individuals with denture stomatitis, there are no difference in the extent of palatal inflammation before and 3 months after palatal brushing. Assuming that the minimal practically important pre/post difference in the mean change score is 20 percent and the standard deviation of the distribution of the change in score is 0.8, a sample size of 44 participants is required to ensure a power of 90 % of rejecting the null hypothesis if it is indeed false.||||<0.0001
90814367|NCT01643876|181507425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-57.5|||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null Hypothesis: in individuals with denture stomatitis, there are no difference in the number of Candida Colony-Forming Units (CFUs), before and 3 months after palatal brushing.||||<0.05
91055237|NCT00593736|181992466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.483||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.483
91015955|NCT03586427|181914618|OTHER|Mixed model of repeated measures least square estimates of change compared to placebo|||||>|0.05||||||Comparison of each dose level change from baseline to placebo baseline yielded P values \>0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Each dose group was compared to placebo||||>0.05
91055238|NCT00593736|181992467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.040
90814368|NCT01945775|181507426|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio, log|0.542|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.413|0.711|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio was based on stratified Cox regression model with treatment as the only covariate (stratification factors: number of prior cytotoxic chemotherapy regimens, triple negative status, history of central nervous system metastasis status).||0.711|0.413|<0.0001
90814369|NCT01945775|181507427|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.93|8.83|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||p-value was based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method. Stratification factors: number of prior cytotoxic chemotherapy regimens, triple negative status, history of central nervous system metastasis status.||8.83|2.93|<0.0001
90814370|NCT01945775|181507428|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.848||||0.1693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.073|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio was based on stratified Cox regression model with treatment as the only covariate (stratification factors: number of prior cytotoxic chemotherapy regimens, triple negative status, history of central nervous system metastasis status).||1.073|0.670|0.1693
90814371|NCT01945775|181507436|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.6|12.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was based on repeated measures mixed-effect model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate. Analysis was based on restricted maximum likelihood using unstructured covariance matrix.||12.3|4.6|<0.0001
90814372|NCT01945775|181507437|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.376|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.257|0.549|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio is based on stratified Cox regression model with treatment as the only covariate (stratification factors: number of prior cytotoxic chemotherapy regimens, triple negative status, history of central nervous system metastasis status).||0.549|0.257|<0.0001
90814373|NCT01945775|181507438|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.392||||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.198|0.775|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio is based on stratified Cox regression model with treatment as the only covariate (stratification factors: number of prior cytotoxic chemotherapy regimens, triple negative status, history of central nervous system).||0.775|0.198|0.0053
90814374|NCT02876328|181507439|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Each active group is compared to placebo using a 2-sided .0167 significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analyses are stratified by site.||Analysis applies to both adults and children.||||<.001
90814375|NCT00130923|181507455|SUPERIORITY||difference in treatment slopes|-0.043|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021||0.054|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||We report the estimated coefficient for difference in treatment slopes in a mixed model and its standard error.|||||0.054
90814376|NCT00130923|181507456|SUPERIORITY||Difference in treatment means|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.035|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||We report the estimated coefficient for difference in treatment means in a mixed model and its standard error.|||||.035
90814377|NCT00130923|181507457|SUPERIORITY||difference in treatment means|0.056|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099||0.57|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||We report the estimated coefficient for difference in treatment means in a mixed model and its standard error.|||||.57
90814378|NCT00130923|181507458|SUPERIORITY||difference in treatment means|2.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.68||0.32|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||We report the estimated coefficient difference in treatment means in a mixed model and its standard error.|||||.32
91015956|NCT00593385|181914633|OTHER||Meta-Analysis|9.67||||0.005|ONE_SIDED|95.0||16.57||An exact one sided upper 95% confidence interval of the primary endpoint rate was calculated based on primary analysis population.|Exact test of the binomial distribution||To estimate primary endpoint rate, a meta-analysis was performed on data from 3 previous studies. The meta-analytical rate derived was 9.67%|The composite event rate to determine the performance metric of 16.57% was based on a meta-analysis performed on data from 3 previous studies(9.67%). A 6.9% margin was deemed acceptable at the time of study design. Rejection of the null hypothesis requires that the iCAST Covered Stent primary endpoint rate was significantly below 16.57%. Other assumptions for the analysis included a power of 80% and one-sided alpha error of 5%.||16.57||0.005
90814379|NCT00130923|181507459|SUPERIORITY||difference in treatment means|0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.19||0.44|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||We report the estimated coefficient for difference in treatment means in a mixed model and its standard error.|||||.44
90814380|NCT00130923|181507460|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Chi-squared|Statistical test of hypothesis. Value of the Chi-squared statistic is 9.08||||||.003
90814381|NCT01049802|181507486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.05
90814382|NCT01049802|181507487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.05
90814383|NCT01049802|181507488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.05
90814384|NCT01049802|181507489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.05
90814385|NCT01049802|181507490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.05
90814386|NCT03461406|181507535|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was deemed to have been demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) exceeds 0.8.|Relative risk|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Hemostasis by 4 Minutes (Parenchymous)||1.09|0.92|< 0.001
90814387|NCT03461406|181507535|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was deemed to have been demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI exceeds 0.8|Relative risk|1.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.16|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Hemostasis by 4 Minutes (Soft Tissue)||1.16|0.91|< 0.001
90814388|NCT03461406|181507536|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was deemed to have been demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) exceeds 0.8.|Relative risk|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Hemostasis by 7 Minutes (Parenchymous)||1.09|0.92|< 0.001
90814389|NCT03461406|181507536|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was deemed to have been demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) exceeds 0.8.|Relative risk|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Hemostasis by 7 Minutes (Soft tissue)||1.09|0.92|< 0.001
90814390|NCT03461406|181507537|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was deemed to have been demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI exceeds 0.8.|Relative risk|0.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.02|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Hemostasis by 10 Minutes (Parenchymous)||1.02|0.94|< 0.001
90814391|NCT03461406|181507537|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was deemed to have been demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI exceeds 0.8.|Relative risk|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Hemostasis by 10 Minutes (Soft tissue)||1.09|0.92|< 0.001
90814392|NCT01636713|181507552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.151|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.191|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least squares mean difference=UMEC/VI 62.5/25 µg minus Placebo.|||0.191|0.110|<0.001
91015957|NCT00924313|181914669|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The reported p-value is representative of the difference in levels of the histopathologic confirmed tumor and normal prostate tissue.|Spearman rank correlation|||||||<0.0001
90814393|NCT01636713|181507552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.216|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.175|0.257|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least squares mean difference= UMEC/VI 125/25 µg minus Placebo.|||0.257|0.175|<0.001
90814394|NCT02033213|181507556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41||||||P \< 0.05 was considered significant.|t-test, 1 sided|||The measurement was assessed at 10 minutes time point.||||0.410
90814395|NCT02033213|181507556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.621||||||P \< 0.05 was considered significant.|t-test, 1 sided|||The measurement was assessed at 6 hours time point.||||0.621
90814396|NCT02033213|181507557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.791||||||P \< 0.05 was considered significant.|t-test, 1 sided|||The measurement was assessed at 10 minutes time point.||||0.791
90814397|NCT02033213|181507557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41||||||P \< 0.05 was considered significant.|t-test, 1 sided|||The measurement was assessed at 6 hours time point.||||0.410
90814398|NCT02033213|181507558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.322||||||P \< 0.05 was considered significant.|t-test, 1 sided|||The measurement aws assessed at 10 minutes time point.||||0.322
90814399|NCT02033213|181507558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.574||||||P \< 0.05 was considered significant.|t-test, 1 sided|||The measurement was assessed at 6 hours time point.||||0.574
90814400|NCT02033213|181507559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||||||P \< 0.05 was considered significant.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.030
90814401|NCT02033213|181507559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.096||||||P \< 0.05 was considered significant.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.096
90814402|NCT02033213|181507560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.362|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.362
91015958|NCT00924313|181914669|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65||||||The reported p-value is representative of the BPH high uptake level.|Spearman rank correlation|||||||0.65
91055239|NCT00593736|181992467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.610
90814403|NCT02033213|181507561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.020
90814404|NCT03474081|181507568|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.095|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0167|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.062|0.128||The MMRM model included Baseline FEV1, visit, geographical region, and treatment as covariates and visit-by-Baseline FEV1 and visit-by-treatment interaction terms.|Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|||||0.128|0.062|<0.001
90814405|NCT03474081|181507569|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.122|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0144|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.094|0.15||The MMRM model included Baseline FEV1, visit, geographical region, and treatment as covariates and visit-by-Baseline FEV1 and visit-by-treatment interaction terms.|Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|||||0.150|0.094|<0.001
90814406|NCT03474081|181507570|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.087|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0159|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.056|0.118||The MMRM model included Baseline FEV1, visit, geographical region, and treatment as covariates and visit-by-Baseline FEV1 and visit-by-treatment interaction terms.|Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|||||0.118|0.056|<0.001
90814407|NCT00260065|181507596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of Participants|33.0||||||95.0|24.2|43.5||||||||43.5|24.2|
91055240|NCT00593736|181992467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.368||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.368
90814408|NCT00260065|181507597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of Participants|52.0||||||95.0|41.3|61.7||||||||61.7|41.3|
90814409|NCT04732949|181507621|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.27|||Cox proportional hazard model|||Hazard Ratio for time to hospital discharge - SNG001 vs Placebo||1.27|0.89|0.509
90814410|NCT04732949|181507622|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.28|||Cox proportional hazard model|||Hazard Ratio for time to OSCI recovery - SNG001 vs Placebo||1.28|0.81|0.888
90814411|NCT04732949|181507623|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71||||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.15|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds Ratio for progression to severe disease or death - SNG001 vs Placebo||1.15|0.44|0.161
91055241|NCT00593736|181992468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.352||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.352
90814412|NCT04732949|181507624|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.61|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds Ratio for intubation or death - SNG001 vs Placebo||1.61|0.45|0.610
90814413|NCT04732949|181507625|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.67|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds Ratio for death - SNG001 vs Placebo||1.67|0.38|0.544
90814414|NCT04732949|181507626|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.64|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds Ratio for hospital discharge (Day 7) - SNG001 vs Placebo||1.64|0.85|0.323
90814415|NCT04732949|181507626|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.7|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds Ratio for hospital discharge (Day 14) - SNG001 vs Placebo||1.70|0.81|0.406
90814416|NCT04732949|181507626|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.43|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds Ratio for hospital discharge (Day 21) - SNG001 vs Placebo||1.43|0.64|0.828
90814417|NCT04732949|181507626|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.4|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds Ratio for hospital discharge (Day 28) - SNG001 vs Placebo||1.40|0.61|0.706
90814418|NCT04732949|181507627|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|3.22|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds Ratio for OSCI recovery (Day 7) - SNG001 vs Placebo||3.22|0.90|0.101
90814419|NCT04732949|181507627|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.45|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds Ratio for OSCI recovery (Day 14) - SNG001 vs Placebo||1.45|0.67|0.942
91015959|NCT00924313|181914672|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||Spearman rank correlation|||||||0.55
91015960|NCT00924313|181914674|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.407|||||||Spearman rank correlation|||||||0.407
90814420|NCT04732949|181507627|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.35|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds Ratio for OSCI recovery (Day 21) - SNG001 vs Placebo||1.35|0.68|0.824
90814421|NCT04732949|181507627|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.28|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds Ratio for OSCI recovery (Day 28) - SNG001 vs Placebo||1.28|0.66|0.613
90814422|NCT04732949|181507629|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||SNG001 vs Placebo||0.3|-0.1|0.410
90814423|NCT01023672|181507639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The analysis was done per protocol (n=17)||||0.003
90814424|NCT02408523|181507670|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.377|0.774||Wald's method was used to calculate the p-value, Hazard Ratio (HR) and confidence intervals (CIs).|Regression, Cox|||Comparison of LCM versus Placebo was based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model with an effect for treatment, stratifying for the following combinations of study participants' Baseline PGTCS frequency and Development from interactive response technology (IRT) (\<= 2 per 28 days in the Combined Baseline Period and Pediatric, \<= 2 per 28 days in the Combined Baseline Period and Adult, and \> 2 per 28 days in the Combined Baseline Period). The reference group was Placebo.||0.774|0.377|<0.001
90814425|NCT02408523|181507671|SUPERIORITY||KM seizure free of LCM vs Placebo|14.1|||=|0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|25.1||Superiority of LCM vs Placebo p-value was based on a chi-square test on 1 degree of freedom.|Mantel Haenszel||Stratified difference in proportion of subjects who are seizure-free from PGTCS on Lacosamide (FAS) vs Placebo (FAS).|The key secondary efficacy variable was evaluated using an extended Mantel-Haenszel testing procedure. Baseline PGTCS Frequency from Combined Baseline and development (age from interactive response technology (IRT)) were calculated from IRT.||25.1|3.2|=0.011
90814426|NCT02408523|181507672|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.683|||=|0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.507|0.921||Wald's method was used to calculate the p-value, Hazard Ratio (HR) and confidence intervals (CIs).|Regression, Cox|||Comparison of LCM versus Placebo was based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model with an effect for treatment, stratifying for the following combinations of study participants' Baseline PGTCS frequency and Development from interactive response technology (IRT) (\<= 2 per 28 days in the Combined Baseline Period and Pediatric, \<= 2 per 28 days in the Combined Baseline Period and Adult, and \> 2 per 28 days in the Combined Baseline Period). The reference group was Placebo.||0.921|0.507|=0.012
91055242|NCT00593736|181992468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.860
91055243|NCT00593736|181992468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.297||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.297
91055244|NCT00593736|181992469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.053||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.053
90814427|NCT00996801|181507681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.96||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.58|-0.35||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||-0.35|-3.58|0.012
90814428|NCT00996801|181507681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.81||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.37|-0.25||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||-0.25|-3.37|0.019
90814429|NCT00996801|181507681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.82||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.23|-0.41||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||-0.41|-3.23|0.019
91055245|NCT00593736|181992469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.837||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.837
91055246|NCT00593736|181992469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.783||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.783
90814430|NCT00996801|181507682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-2.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|-1.38||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||-1.38|-3.90|<0.001
90814431|NCT00996801|181507682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-2.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.83|-1.4||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||-1.40|-3.83|<0.001
90814432|NCT00996801|181507682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-2.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.22|-1.02||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||-1.02|-3.22|<0.001
91055247|NCT00593736|181992470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.566||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.566
91055248|NCT00593736|181992470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.543||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.543
90814433|NCT00996801|181507682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|-0.74||||0.376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|0.52||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||0.52|-1.99|0.376
90814434|NCT00996801|181507682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.71||||0.376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|0.5||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||0.50|-1.93|0.376
90814435|NCT00996801|181507682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.22||||0.699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|0.88||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||0.88|-1.32|0.699
90814436|NCT00996801|181507683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-2.04||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.43|-0.64||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||-0.64|-3.43|0.002
90814437|NCT00996801|181507683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.29||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|-0.09||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||-0.09|-2.48|0.035
90814438|NCT00996801|181507683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.76||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.14|-0.38||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||-0.38|-3.14|0.009
90814439|NCT00996801|181507683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.86||||0.335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|0.54||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||0.54|-2.26|0.335
90814440|NCT00996801|181507683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.11||||0.857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.08||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||1.08|-1.30|0.857
90814441|NCT00996801|181507683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.59||||0.542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|0.79||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||0.79|-1.96|0.542
90814442|NCT00996801|181507684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-3.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.91|-1.57||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||-1.57|-4.91|<0.001
90814443|NCT00996801|181507684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|-3.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.78|-1.57||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||-1.57|-4.78|<0.001
90814444|NCT00996801|181507684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-3.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.66|-1.74||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||-1.74|-4.66|<0.001
90814445|NCT00996801|181507684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.27||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.93|0.4||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||0.40|-2.93|0.180
90814446|NCT00996801|181507684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.2||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.81|0.4||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||0.40|-2.81|0.180
90814447|NCT00996801|181507684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.22||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.68|0.23||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||0.23|-2.68|0.180
90814448|NCT00996801|181507685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.36||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|-0.54||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||-0.54|-2.18|0.001
90814449|NCT00996801|181507685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.51||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.46|-0.55||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||-0.55|-2.46|0.001
90814450|NCT00996801|181507685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.93|-0.91||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||-0.91|-2.93|<0.001
90814451|NCT00996801|181507685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.37||||0.383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|0.46||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||0.46|-1.21|0.383
90814452|NCT00996801|181507685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.52||||0.383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|0.45||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||0.45|-1.49|0.383
90814453|NCT00996801|181507685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.94||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|0.09||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||0.09|-1.96|0.084
90814454|NCT00996801|181507686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.47||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|0.94||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||0.94|-1.88|0.680
90814455|NCT00996801|181507686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.01||||0.993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.28||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||1.28|-1.30|0.993
90814456|NCT00996801|181507686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.1||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.67|0.46||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||0.46|-2.67|0.230
90814457|NCT00996801|181507686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.84||||0.333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|0.61||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||0.61|-2.29|0.333
90814458|NCT00996801|181507686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.37||||0.577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|0.94||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||0.94|-1.69|0.577
90814459|NCT00996801|181507686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.47||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.07|0.12||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||0.12|-3.07|0.078
90814460|NCT00996801|181507687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.99||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.22|0.25||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||0.25|-4.22|0.094
90814461|NCT00996801|181507687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.66||||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.82|0.5||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||0.50|-3.82|0.157
90814462|NCT00996801|181507687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.57||||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.53|0.38||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||0.38|-3.53|0.157
90814463|NCT00996801|181507687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.43||||0.937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|1.76||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||1.76|-2.61|0.937
90814464|NCT00996801|181507687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.1||||0.992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|2.01||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||2.01|-2.21|0.992
90814465|NCT00996801|181507687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.01||||0.992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|1.9||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||1.90|-1.93|0.992
90814466|NCT00996801|181507688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.47||||0.824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.56||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||1.56|-2.50|0.824
90814467|NCT00996801|181507688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.42||||0.824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28|1.43||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||1.43|-2.28|0.824
90814468|NCT00996801|181507688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.96||||0.624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.23|1.31||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||1.31|-3.23|0.624
91055249|NCT00593736|181992470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.847||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.847
90814469|NCT00996801|181507688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.78||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|2.82||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||2.82|-1.25|0.700
90814470|NCT00996801|181507688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.83||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|3.06||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||3.06|-1.39|0.700
91055250|NCT00593736|181992471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.356||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.356
90814471|NCT00996801|181507688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.3||||0.759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.19||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||2.19|-1.60|0.759
90814472|NCT00996801|181507689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-16.22||||0.227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.15|6.72||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||6.72|-39.15|0.227
90814473|NCT00996801|181507689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|1.85||||0.853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.9|21.61||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||21.61|-17.90|0.853
90814474|NCT00996801|181507689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-13.14||||0.327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.67|9.39||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||9.39|-35.67|0.327
90814475|NCT00996801|181507689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-2.74||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.91|18.43||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||18.43|-23.91|0.940
90814476|NCT00996801|181507689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|15.33||||0.273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.86|38.52||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||38.52|-7.86|0.273
91015961|NCT00750373|181914726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.1|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||We estimated that a sample size of 74 patients would provide 80% power to detect a significant difference with respect to the primary end point at the 2-sided significance level of 0.05, assuming that the in-hospital event rate would be 23% in the conventional treatment group and 3% in the early surgery group.||||<0.05
90814477|NCT00996801|181507689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.33||||0.973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.23|19.9||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||19.90|-19.23|0.973
91015962|NCT02871921|181914731|EQUIVALENCE|A linear regression model was run with the outcome being the MoCA score at Month 6, controlling for the baseline MoCA score. The coefficient of the treatment indicator (1: experimental group, 0: control group) is our main interest. The significant coefficient means that treatment and control groups differ in the outcome score at Month 6, controlling for the baseline score.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86||0.87|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Outcome: MoCA at Month 6 Among participants with normal cognition||||0.87
91015963|NCT02871921|181914731|EQUIVALENCE|A linear regression model was run with the outcome being the MoCA score at Month 6, controlling for the baseline MoCA score. The coefficient of the treatment indicator (1: experimental group, 0: control group) is our main interest. The significant coefficient means that treatment and control groups differ in the outcome score at Month 6, controlling for the baseline score.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Outcome: MoCA at Month 6 Among MCI||||.03
90814478|NCT00996801|181507690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.48||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.66|-0.29||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||-0.29|-2.66|0.010
90814479|NCT00996801|181507690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.14||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|0.01||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||0.01|-2.29|0.053
90814480|NCT00996801|181507690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.15||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.19|-0.11||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||-0.11|-2.19|0.053
90814481|NCT00996801|181507690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.58||||0.509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|0.6||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||0.60|-1.77|0.509
91055251|NCT00593736|181992471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.964||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.964
90814482|NCT00996801|181507690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.25||||0.843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|0.77||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||0.77|-1.27|0.843
90814483|NCT00996801|181507690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.26||||0.843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|0.92||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||0.92|-1.43|0.843
91055252|NCT00593736|181992471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.799||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.799
91055253|NCT00593736|181992472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.698||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.698
91015964|NCT02871921|181914732|EQUIVALENCE|A linear regression model was run with the outcome being the Category Fluency test score at Month 6, controlling for tits baseline score. The coefficient of the treatment indicator (1: experimental group, 0: control group) is our main interest. The significant coefficient means that treatment and control groups differ in the outcome score at Month 6, controlling for the baseline score and a COVID-19 pandemic period indicator (0: pre-COVID-19 pandemic, 1: during COVID-19 pandemic period).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.19||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Outcome: Category fluency animals Among participants with normal cognition||||0.03
91015965|NCT02871921|181914732|OTHER|A linear regression model was run with the outcome being the Category Fluency test score at Month 6, controlling for tits baseline score. The coefficient of the treatment indicator (1: experimental group, 0: control group) is our main interest. The significant coefficient means that treatment and control groups differ in the outcome score at Month 6, controlling for the baseline score and a COVID-19 pandemic period indicator (0: pre-COVID-19 pandemic, 1: during COVID-19 pandemic period).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93||0.46|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Outcome: Category Fluency (Animals) at Month 6 Among MCI participants||||0.46
91015966|NCT02871921|181914733|EQUIVALENCE|A linear regression model was run with the outcome being the Craft Stroy Immediate Recall score at Month 6, controlling for its baseline score. The coefficient of the treatment indicator (1: experimental group, 0: control group) is our main interest. The significant coefficient means that treatment and control groups differ in the outcome score at Month 6, controlling for the baseline score and a COVID-19 pandemic period indicator (0: pre-COVID-19 pandemic, 1: during COVID-19 pandemic period).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.45|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Outcome: Craft Stroy Immediate Recall (paraphrase scoring) Among participants with normal cognition||||0.45
91015967|NCT02871921|181914733|EQUIVALENCE|A linear regression model was run with the outcome being the Craft Story score at Month 6, controlling for tits baseline score. The coefficient of the treatment indicator (1: experimental group, 0: control group) is our main interest. The significant coefficient means that treatment and control groups differ in the outcome score at Month 6, controlling for the baseline score and a COVID-19 pandemic period indicator (0: pre-COVID-19 pandemic, 1: during COVID-19 pandemic period).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.41|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Outcome: Craft Story Immediate Recall (paraphrase) Among MCI||||0.41
91015968|NCT02871921|181914734|EQUIVALENCE|A linear regression model was run with the outcome being the Craft Story test score at Month 6, controlling for tits baseline score. The coefficient of the treatment indicator (1: experimental group, 0: control group) is our main interest. The significant coefficient means that treatment and control groups differ in the outcome score at Month 6, controlling for the baseline score and a COVID-19 pandemic period indicator (0: pre-COVID-19 pandemic, 1: during COVID-19 pandemic period).|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.74|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Outcome: Craft Story Delayed Recall) (Paraphrase scoring) Among participants with normal cognition||||0.74
91015969|NCT02871921|181914734|EQUIVALENCE|A linear regression model was run with the outcome being the Craft Story test score at Month 6, controlling for tits baseline score. The coefficient of the treatment indicator (1: experimental group, 0: control group) is our main interest. The significant coefficient means that treatment and control groups differ in the outcome score at Month 6, controlling for the baseline score and a COVID-19 pandemic period indicator (0: pre-COVID-19 pandemic, 1: during COVID-19 pandemic period).|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Outcome: Craft Story Delayed Recall (Paraphrase scoring) Among MCI||||0.90
90814484|NCT00996801|181507691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|86.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.87|108.29||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||108.29|64.87|<0.001
91015970|NCT03056456|181914735|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|1.23||||||Day 1||1.23|0.810|
91015971|NCT03056456|181914735|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.817|1.25||||||Day 3||1.25|0.817|
91015972|NCT03056456|181914736|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.808|1.31||||||Day 1||1.31|0.808|
91015973|NCT03056456|181914736|SUPERIORITY|Day 3|Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.82|1.32||||||||1.32|0.820|
91055254|NCT00593736|181992472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.385||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.385
91055255|NCT00593736|181992472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.641||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.641
91015974|NCT00326625|181914739|SUPERIORITY||Slope difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.083||0.4807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.1|||ANCOVA||Glatiramer acetate vs. Placebo|Analysis compares the ALSFRS-R slopes of change from baseline between treatment groups. Analysis includes the following covariates: time from randomization, treatment group, time by treatment interaction, center, Riluzole use, age, site of ALS onset, time from ALS onset and baseline ALSFRS-R score.||0.10|-0.22|0.4807
91015975|NCT00326625|181914740|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.8583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|2.005|||Regression, Cox||Glatiramer acetate vs. Placebo|Analysis covariates are center, riluzole use, site of ALS onset, time from ALS onset, baseline ALSFRS-R score, baseline slow vital capacity (VC) and baseline body mass index (BMI).||2.005|0.560|0.8583
91055256|NCT00593736|181992473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.979||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.979
90814485|NCT00996801|181507691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|82.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.0|101.66||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||101.66|63.00|<0.001
90814486|NCT00996801|181507691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|107.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|82.03|133.23||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||133.23|82.03|<0.001
90814487|NCT00996801|181507691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|22.87||||0.104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|49.68||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||49.68|-3.80|0.104
90814488|NCT00996801|181507691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|18.68||||0.123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.11|42.56||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||42.56|-5.11|0.123
90814489|NCT00996801|181507691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|43.8||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.85|75.06||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||75.06|12.85|0.003
90814490|NCT00996801|181507692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|187.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|154.44|221.25||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||221.25|154.44|<0.001
90814491|NCT00996801|181507692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|200.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|161.21|240.91||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||240.91|161.21|<0.001
90814492|NCT00996801|181507692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|224.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|180.19|270.39||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||270.39|180.19|<0.001
90814493|NCT00996801|181507692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|48.29||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.75|93.11||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||93.11|3.75|0.034
91015976|NCT02234427|181914795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|5e-06||||||Above noted p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons. Analysis was performed using the TopHat/Cufflinks pipeline. The differential expression algorithm uses a beta distribution and the overdispersion with a negative binomial distribution.|negative binomial|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in gene expression before and after aspirin therapy||||<0.000005
91015977|NCT04668066|181914856|OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|5.6||||0.6343|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.4|32.6|||ANCOVA|||||32.6|-21.4|0.6343
91015978|NCT00056472|181914877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28|||<|0.001||95.0|1.12|1.47|||Regression, Logistic|||Predicting remission rates of 40% in combination therapy and 20% in monotherapy subjects, 260 subjects randomized into the two treatment groups would provide \>80% power at a two-tailed alpha level of .05. Treatment efficacy was compared between groups based on intent-to-treat analyses for the longitudinal binary outcome of remission using mixed effects logistic regression with a random intercept that included treatment and time as fixed effects and a treatment by time interaction effect.||1.47|1.12|<.001
90814494|NCT00996801|181507692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|61.27||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.8|114.22||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||114.22|8.80|0.019
90814495|NCT00996801|181507692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|85.28||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.7|144.63||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||144.63|26.70|0.002
90814496|NCT00996801|181507693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|133.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|110.01|156.75||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||156.75|110.01|<0.001
90814497|NCT00996801|181507693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|133.03||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|110.01|156.75||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||156.75|110.01|0.001
90814498|NCT00996801|181507693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|131.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|110.7|152.94||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||152.94|110.70|<0.001
91015979|NCT00056472|181914878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0||||The p-value is for the overall mean CGI-S score compared to baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|This was a longitudinal analysis of CGI-S scores compared to baseline.||Intent-to-treat changes in global improvement from week to week compared to baseline (CGI-S) over the course of the trial using longitudinal mixed effects linear regression models. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in overall change in CGI-S.||||.02
90814499|NCT00996801|181507693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|169.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|141.59|199.11||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||199.11|141.59|<0.001
90814500|NCT00996801|181507693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|58.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.42|88.04||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||88.04|29.42|<0.001
90814501|NCT00996801|181507693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|57.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.76|83.64||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||83.64|30.76|<0.001
90814502|NCT00996801|181507693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|95.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.4|130.91||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||130.91|60.40|<0.001
91015980|NCT00056472|181914879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The p-value is for the overall mean across all time points between each treatment group.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Intent-to-treat between group comparison using longitudinal mixed effects regression.||||<.001
91015981|NCT05027958|181914967|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05714|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05714
91015982|NCT01244516|181914988|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is set at -5.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.83|||TWO_SIDED|97.4|-5.91|6.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Alpha is adjusted to 1.3% based on a Sidak multiplicity correction.|The direction of comparison is AAHP - AOA.|This comparison is between galyfilcon and lotrafilcon B. Ho: galyfilcon A -lotrafilcon B \<= -5. Ha: galyfilcon A - lotrafilcon B \> -5.||6.70|-5.91|
91015983|NCT01244516|181914988|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is set at -5.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.79|||TWO_SIDED|97.4|-5.96|6.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|Alpha is adjusted to 1.3% based on a Sidak multiplicity correction.|The direction of comparison is AAHP - BIO.|This comparison is between galyfilcon A and comfilcon A. Ho: gayfilcon A- comfilcon A \<= -5. Ha: galyfilcon A- comfilcon A\> -5.||6.79|-5.96|
90814503|NCT00996801|181507694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|53.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.31|68.6||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||68.60|39.31|<0.001
90814504|NCT00996801|181507694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|53.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.37|66.38||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||66.38|41.37|<0.001
91015984|NCT01244516|181914989|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is set at \> 0.75. Superiority is concluded is the 97.4% CL \> 1.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.66|||||TWO_SIDED|97.4|1.14|2.44|||Regression, Logistic|Alpha is adjusted to 1.3% based on a Sidak multiplicity correction.|The direction of comparison is AAHP/AOA.|The comparison is between galyfilcon A (AAHP) and lotrafilcon B (AOA) for comparing proportions of those with corneal staining and those without. Ho: OR = 1 for (AAHP/AOA). Ha: OR \> 1 for (AAHP/AOA).||2.44|1.14|
91015985|NCT01244516|181914989|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is set at \> 0.75. Superiority is concluded is the 97.4% CL \> 1.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.66|||||TWO_SIDED|97.4|1.14|2.44|||Regression, Logistic|Alpha is adjusted to 1.3% based on a Sidak multiplicity correction.||The comparison is between galyfilcon A (AAHP) and comfilcon A (BIO) for comparing proportions of those with corneal staining and those without. Ho: OR = 1 for (AAHP/BIO). Ha: OR \> 1 for (AAHP/BIO).||2.44|1.14|
91015986|NCT04456998|181915017|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-96.1||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-183.5|-8.8|||ANCOVA||GB002 vs. Placebo|||-8.8|-183.5|0.0310
91015987|NCT04456998|181915018|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.5||||0.5972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.9|30.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||GB002 vs. Placebo|||30.9|-17.9|0.5972
91015988|NCT02080273|181915019|OTHER|||||||0.919|||||||ANOVA|||Means and standard deviations. 1 factor ANOVA to balance treatment groups to show no difference between groups. The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.919
91015989|NCT02080273|181915020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||||||1 factor ANCOVA to determine difference between groups with baseline as covariate. The F statistic is used to determine significance. If significance is found then a Tukey's multiple comparison is done.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups. ANCOVA adjusting for baseline.||||0.001
91015990|NCT02080273|181915021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||||||1 factor ANCOVA to determine difference between groups with baseline as covariate. The F statistic is used to determine significance. If significance is found then a Tukey's multiple comparison is done.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups. ANCOVA adjusting for baseline.||||0.001
91015991|NCT02080273|181915022|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||1 factor ANCOVA to determine difference between groups with baseline as covariate. The F statistic is used to determine significance. If significance is found then a Tukey's multiple comparison is done.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups. ANCOVA adjusting for baseline.||||0.001
91015992|NCT02080273|181915023|OTHER|||||||0.922|||||||ANOVA|||Means and standard deviations. 1 factor ANOVA to balance treatment groups to show no difference between groups. The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.922
91015993|NCT02080273|181915024|OTHER|||||||0.848||||||1 factor ANCOVA to determine difference between groups with baseline as covariate. The F statistic is used to determine significance. If significance is found then a Tukey's multiple comparison is done.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups. ANCOVA adjusting for baseline||||0.848
91015994|NCT02080273|181915025|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||1 factor ANCOVA to determine difference between groups with baseline as covariate. The F statistic is used to determine significance. If significance is found then a Tukey's multiple comparison is done.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups. ANCOVA adjusting for baseline.||||0.001
91015995|NCT02080273|181915026|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||1 factor ANCOVA to determine difference between groups with baseline as covariate. The F statistic is used to determine significance. If significance is found then a Tukey's multiple comparison is done.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups. ANCOVA adjusting for baseline.||||0.001
91015996|NCT03707145|181915028|SUPERIORITY||Partial Eta Squared|0.058|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Partial Eta Squared was calculated based on ANOVA with Time (pre-post) as within subject factor and Empowerment (Professional led versus Patient Empowered) as between subject factor.||||
91015997|NCT03707145|181915029|SUPERIORITY||Partial Eta Squared|0.008|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Partial Eta Squared was calculated based on ANOVA with Time (pre-post) as within subject factor and Empowerment (Professional led versus Patient Empowered) as between subject factor.||||
91015998|NCT04221477|181915035|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|13.4||||0.0232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.95|24.84||Test 1 of 7 maintaining a fixed sequence testing for type I error control at two-sided alpha 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||24.84|1.95|0.0232
91015999|NCT04221477|181915036|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|11.88||||0.0421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|23.18||Test 2 of 7 maintaining a fixed sequence testing for type I error control at two-sided alpha 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||23.18|0.57|0.0421
90814505|NCT00996801|181507694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|55.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.19|69.94||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||69.94|41.19|<0.001
90814506|NCT00996801|181507694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|20.53||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.96|35.03||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||35.03|5.96|0.009
90814507|NCT00996801|181507694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Mean Squares|20.47||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.96|35.03||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||35.03|5.96|0.009
90814508|NCT00996801|181507694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|22.13||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.47|39.89||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||39.89|4.47|0.009
90814509|NCT00289198|181507699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.256|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|-0.78||Change from Baseline (Day 1) in reflective total nasal symptom scores for Placebo versus that for fluticasone furoate|ANCOVA|||||-0.78|-1.73|<0.001
90814510|NCT00289198|181507700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.459|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|-0.99||Mean change from Baseline in AM pre-dose instantaneous TNSS over entire period for Placebo versus that for Fluticasone furoate|ANCOVA|||||-0.99|-1.93|<0.001
90814511|NCT00289198|181507701|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|Based on logistic regression adjusting for age, gender and country||||||<0.001
90814512|NCT00289198|181507702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.274|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|-0.81|||ANCOVA|||||-0.81|-1.74|<0.001
90814513|NCT00289198|181507703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.291|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|-0.81|||ANCOVA|||||-0.81|-1.77|<0.001
91016000|NCT04221477|181915037|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|13.68||||0.0227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.01|25.36||Test 3 of 7 maintaining a fixed sequence testing for type I error control at two-sided alpha 0.04 with fallback method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||25.36|2.01|0.0227
91016001|NCT04221477|181915038|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|3.84||||0.1842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|9.51||Test 4 of 7 maintaining a fixed sequence testing for type I error control at two-sided alpha 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||9.51|-1.83|0.1842
91016002|NCT04221477|181915039|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-16.83||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.42|-6.23||Ranked 5 of 7 in the fixed sequence for type I error control. P-value is nominal as the hierarchical testing stops at the first non-significant endpoint.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-6.23|-27.42|0.0026
91016003|NCT04221477|181915040|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|8.36||||0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.41|20.12||Ranked 6 of 7 in the fixed sequence for type I error control.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||20.12|-3.41|0.1670
91016004|NCT04221477|181915041|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-1.35||||0.2991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.89|1.2||Ranked 7 of 7 in the fixed sequence for type I error control.|ANCOVA|||||1.20|-3.89|0.2991
91055257|NCT00593736|181992473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.194||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.194
90814514|NCT00289198|181507704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.118|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.03|-8.21|||ANCOVA|||||-8.21|-20.03|<0.001
90814515|NCT00289198|181507705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.033|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.13|-12.94|||ANCOVA|||||-12.94|-27.13|<0.001
90814516|NCT00289198|181507706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.277|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.14|||ANCOVA|||Rhinorrhea score, Placebo vs Fluticasone furoate||-0.14|-0.41|<0.001
90814517|NCT00289198|181507706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.277|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.14|||ANCOVA|||Nasal Congestion, Placebo vs Fluticasone furoate||-0.14|-0.42|<0.001
90814518|NCT00289198|181507706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.331|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||Nasal Itching, Placebo vs Fluticasone furoate||-0.20|-0.47|<0.001
90814519|NCT00289198|181507706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.27|||ANCOVA|||Sneezing score, Placebo vs Fluticasone furoate||-0.27|-0.52|<0.001
91016005|NCT04221477|181915042|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.36||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.16||Not type I error controlled.|ANCOVA|||||-0.16|-0.57|0.0006
91016006|NCT04221477|181915043|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.2||Not type I error controlled|ANCOVA|||||0.20|0.08|<0.0001
91016007|NCT04221477|181915044|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.12||||0.9384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.11|2.87||Not type I error controlled.|ANCOVA|||||2.87|-3.11|0.9384
91016008|NCT04221477|181915045|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.31||||0.1324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.89||Not type I error controlled.|Log Rank|||||1.89|0.91|0.1324
91016009|NCT04221477|181915046|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|13.37||||0.0237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.91|24.82||Not type I error controlled.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||24.82|1.91|0.0237
91055258|NCT00593736|181992473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.004
90814520|NCT00289198|181507707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.357||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.22|||ANCOVA|||Rhinorrhea score, Placebo versus fluticasone furoate||-0.22|-0.50|0.001
90814521|NCT00289198|181507707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.23|||ANCOVA|||Nasal Congestion score, Placebo versus fluticasone furoate||-0.23|-0.51|0.001
90814522|NCT00289198|181507707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.372||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||Nasal itching score, Placebo versus fluticasone furoate||-0.24|-0.50|0.001
90814523|NCT00289198|181507707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.372||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||Sneezing score, Placebo versus fluticasone furoate||-0.24|-0.50|0.001
90814524|NCT00289198|181507708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.281||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.14|||ANCOVA|||Rhinorrhea score,Placebo versus fluticasone furoate||-0.14|-0.42|0.001
90814525|NCT00289198|181507708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.314||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.17|||ANCOVA|||Nasal Congestion score, Placebo versus fluticasone furoate||-0.17|-0.45|0.001
90814526|NCT00289198|181507708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.324||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.19|||ANCOVA|||Nasal itching score, Placebo versus fluticasone furoate||-0.19|-0.45|0.001
90814527|NCT00289198|181507708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.374||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.25|||ANCOVA|||Sneezing score, Placebo versus fluticasone furoate||-0.25|-0.50|0.001
90814528|NCT00289198|181507709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.292|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.43|-0.15|||ANCOVA|||Rhinorrhea score, Placebo vs Fluticasone furoate||-0.15|-0.43|<0.001
91016010|NCT02242942|181915052|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.51|||Log Rank||Hazard ratios were estimated by Cox regression model. Stratification factors: Binet and Geographic region.|||0.51|0.22|<0.0001
90814529|NCT00289198|181507709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.264|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.12|||ANCOVA|||Nasal Congestion score, Placebo vs Fluticasone furoate||-0.12|-0.40|<0.001
90814530|NCT00289198|181507709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.336|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||Nasal Itching score, Placebo vs Fluticasone furoate||-0.20|-0.48|<0.001
90814531|NCT00289198|181507709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.412|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.28|||ANCOVA|||Sneezing score, Placebo vs Fluticasone furoate||-0.28|-0.54|<0.001
90814532|NCT00289198|181507710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.506||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.16|||ANCOVA|||||-0.16|-0.85|0.004
90814533|NCT00289198|181507711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.491||||0.007||95.0|-0.85|-0.13|||ANCOVA|||||-0.13|-0.85|0.007
90814534|NCT00289198|181507712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.531||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.19|||ANCOVA|||||-0.19|-0.88|0.003
90814535|NCT00289198|181507713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.496||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.15|||ANCOVA|||||-0.15|-0.84|0.005
91016011|NCT02242942|181915053|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.53|||Log Rank||Hazard Ratios were estimated by Cox regression model. Stratification factors: Binet and Geographic region.|||0.53|0.23|<0.0001
90814536|NCT00289198|181507714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.216||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|-0.09|||ANCOVA|||Eye itching/burning score, Placebo vs fluticasone furoate||-0.09|-0.34|0.001
90814537|NCT00289198|181507714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.137||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||Eye tearing/watering score, Placebo vs fluticasone furoate||-0.02|-0.26|0.028
90814538|NCT00289198|181507714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.156||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||Eye redness, Placebo vs fluticasone furoate||-0.04|-0.27|0.010
90814539|NCT00289198|181507715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.215||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.08|||ANCOVA|||Eye itching/burning score, Placebo vs fluticasone furoate||-0.08|-0.35|0.002
90814540|NCT00289198|181507715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.161||||0.016||95.0|-0.29|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||Eye tearing or watering, Placebo vs fluticasone furoate||-0.03|-0.29|0.016
90814541|NCT00289198|181507715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.113||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||Eye redness score, Placebo vs fluticasone furoate||-0.01|-0.24|0.076
90814542|NCT00289198|181507716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.211||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|-0.08|||ANCOVA|||Eye itching/burning score, Placebo vs Fluticasone furoate||-0.08|-0.34|0.001
90814543|NCT00289198|181507716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.145||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||Eye tearing/watering, Placebo vs Fluticasone furoate||-0.02|-0.27|0.023
90814544|NCT00289198|181507716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.176||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||Eye Redness score, Placebo vs Fluticasone furoate||-0.05|-0.30|0.005
90814545|NCT00289198|181507717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.223||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.09|||ANCOVA|||Eye itching/burning, Placebo vs fluticasone furoate||-0.09|-0.35|0.001
90814546|NCT00289198|181507717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||Eye Tearing/Watering score, Placebo vs fluticasone furoate||-0.01|-0.25|0.040
90814547|NCT00289198|181507717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.142||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||Eye Redness score, Placebo vs fluticasone furoate||-0.02|-0.26|0.022
90814548|NCT00289198|181507718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.376||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.71|14.04|||ANCOVA|||||14.04|2.71|0.004
90814549|NCT00289198|181507719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.28||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.52|15.04|||ANCOVA|||||15.04|3.52|0.002
90814550|NCT00289198|181507720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.638||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.89|13.39|||ANCOVA|||||13.39|1.89|0.009
90890367|NCT00360529|181645263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.0001||95.0|-0.5|-0.2||Hierarchical ordering used for multiple endpoints, and Hochberg used for multiple dose comparisons. P-values ordered (p1≤p2). If p2≤0.05 then all doses significant. If p1≤0.025 then reject null for p1|ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, centre and baseline as a covariate||Flibanserin 100 mg qhs versus placebo||-0.2|-0.5|0.0001
90814551|NCT04172467|181507722|OTHER|To estimate the relevance of guideline adherent treatment (GLAD) for the susceptibility to infection, full GLAD is taken as reference category.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.72|5.42||For effect estimation, hazard ratios are reported with 95% confidence interval. The significance level is set to two-sided ≤ 5% (p ≤ 0.05).|Regression, Cox|The Model developed by Anderson and Gill (1982) is an extension to the proportional hazard model (Cox model) for time to recurrent event analysis.||For the analysis of susceptibility to infection, the time to next infection was examined using the Andersen-Gill model. This model is an extension to the proportional hazard model (Cox model) for time to recurrent event analysis. The null hypothesis is that the GLAD-Score has no effect on susceptibility to infection.||5.42|3.72|<0.001
90814552|NCT04172467|181507722|OTHER|To estimate the relevance of guideline adherent treatment (GLAD) for the susceptibility to infection, full GLAD is taken as reference category.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.98|3.21||For effect estimation, hazard ratios are reported with 95% confidence interval. The significance level is set to two-sided ≤ 5% (p ≤ 0.05).|Regression, Cox|The Model developed by Anderson and Gill (1982) is an extension to the proportional hazard model (Cox model) for time to recurrent event analysis.||For the analysis of susceptibility to infection, the time to next infection was examined using the Andersen-Gill model. This model is an extension to the proportional hazard model (Cox model) for time to recurrent event analysis. The null hypothesis is that the GLAD-Score has no effect on susceptibility to infection.||3.21|1.98|<0.001
90890368|NCT00360529|181645264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.0173||95.0|0.0|0.4|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, centre and baseline as a covariate||Flibanserin 50 mg qhs versus placebo||0.4|0.0|0.0173
91016012|NCT02242942|181915054|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|13.43||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.47|21.38||P-value was assessed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the IvRS randomization stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% Confidence Interval (CI) for difference in rates were constructed using Anderson-Hauck method.|||21.38|5.47|0.0007
91016013|NCT02242942|181915055|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|26.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.41|35.36||P-value was assessed using CMH test stratified by the IvRS randomization stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for difference in rates were constructed using Anderson-Hauck method.|||35.36|17.41|<0.0001
91016014|NCT02242942|181915056|SUPERIORITY||Difference in MRD Negative Rates|40.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.45|49.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for difference in rates were constructed using Anderson-Hauck method.|||49.10|31.45|<0.0001
91016015|NCT02242942|181915057|SUPERIORITY||Difference in MRD Negative Rates|39.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.27|48.36|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for difference in rates were constructed using Anderson-Hauck method.|||48.36|31.27|<0.0001
91016016|NCT02242942|181915059|SUPERIORITY||Difference in MRD Negative Rates|32.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.76|41.98|||Chi-squared||95% CI for difference in rates were constructed using Anderson-Hauck method.|||41.98|23.76|<0.0001
91016017|NCT02242942|181915060|SUPERIORITY||Difference in MRD Negative Rates|38.43|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.15|46.71|||Chi-squared||95% CI for difference in rates were constructed using Anderson-Hauck method.|||46.71|30.15|<0.0001
91016018|NCT02242942|181915061|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|1.85||||0.5612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.63|8.33||P-value was assessed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the IvRS randomization stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% Confidence Interval (CI) for difference in rates were constructed using Anderson-Hauck method.|||8.33|-4.63|0.5612
91016019|NCT02242942|181915063|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|0.93||||0.7169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.66|6.51|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was assessed using CMH test stratified by the IvRS randomization stratification factors.|95% CI for difference in rates were constructed using Anderson-Hauck method.|||6.51|-4.66|0.7169
91016020|NCT05014672|181915095|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS mean vs placebo|0.86||||0.0206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.746|0.994|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||0.994|0.746|0.0206
91016021|NCT05014672|181915095|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS mean vs placebo|0.81||||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.703|0.939|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||0.939|0.703|0.0057
91055259|NCT00593736|181992474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.975||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.975
91055260|NCT00593736|181992474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.639||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.639
91016022|NCT05014672|181915096|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference vs placebo|-2.16||||0.2214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.785|3.458|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||3.458|-7.785|0.2214
91016023|NCT05014672|181915096|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference vs placebo|0.63||||0.591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.859|6.12|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||6.120|-4.859|0.5910
91016024|NCT05014672|181915099|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference vs placebo|0.42||||0.5675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.454|5.285|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||5.285|-4.454|0.5675
91016025|NCT05014672|181915099|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference vs placebo|0.02||||0.5032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.886|4.926|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||4.926|-4.886|0.5032
91016026|NCT05014672|181915100|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS mean vs placebo|0.85||||0.0491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.692|1.033|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||1.033|0.692|0.0491
91016027|NCT05014672|181915100|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS mean vs placebo|0.95||||0.3099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.783|1.158|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||1.158|0.783|0.3099
91016028|NCT05014672|181915106|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS mean vs placebo|0.84||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.743|0.954|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||0.954|0.743|0.0039
91016029|NCT05014672|181915107|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference vs placebo|0.3905||||0.3905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.496|4.153|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||4.153|-5.496|0.3905
91016030|NCT05014672|181915108|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference vs placebo|0.21||||0.5393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.968|4.381|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||4.381|-3.968|0.5393
91016031|NCT05014672|181915109|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS mean vs placebo|0.9||||0.1079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.759|1.065|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||1.065|0.759|0.1079
91016032|NCT00965562|181915116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.15
91016033|NCT00965562|181915117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.05
91016034|NCT00965562|181915118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.06
91016035|NCT00965562|181915119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.09
91016036|NCT00965562|181915120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.005
91016037|NCT00965562|181915121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.04
91016038|NCT00965562|181915122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-2.63||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.51|0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis||Slope represents average change in fluoxetine group IDS score as compared to placebo|||0.24|-5.51|0.07
91016039|NCT00965562|181915122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.1||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.85|2.65|||Mixed Models Analysis||Slope represents average change in calcium group IDS scores as compared to placebo|||2.65|-2.85|0.94
91016040|NCT00965562|181915122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|1.15||||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Cohen's d effect sizes were calculated by subtracting the difference between changes in the fluoxetine group between visits 1 and 5 and changes in the placebo group between Visits 1 and 5, divided by the std dev in the placebo group at Visit 5|||||0.07
91016041|NCT00965562|181915122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|0.1||||0.94|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Cohen's d effect sizes were calculated by subtracting the difference between changes in the calcium group between visits 1 and 5 and changes in the placebo group between Visits 1 and 5, divided by the std dev in the placebo group at Visit 5|||||0.94
91055261|NCT00593736|181992474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.109||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.109
91055262|NCT00593736|181992475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.823||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.823
91055263|NCT00593736|181992475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.004
91016042|NCT00965562|181915123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-1.63||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis||Slope represents average change in fluoxetine group PMTS scores as compared to placebo|||0.34|-3.60|0.10
91016043|NCT00965562|181915123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.81||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.71|1.09|||Mixed Models Analysis||Slope represents average change in calcium group PMTS scores as compared to placebo|||1.09|-2.71|0.40
91016044|NCT00965562|181915123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|1.06||||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Cohen's d effect sizes were calculated by subtracting the difference between changes in the fluoxetine group between visits 1 and 5 and changes in the placebo group between Visits 1 and 5, divided by the std dev in the placebo group at Visit 5|||||0.10
91016045|NCT00965562|181915123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|0.37||||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Cohen's d effect sizes were calculated by subtracting the difference between changes in the calcium group between visits 1 and 5 and changes in the placebo group between Visits 1 and 5, divided by the std dev in the placebo group at Visit 5|||||0.40
91016046|NCT00965562|181915124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.35||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis||Slope represents average change in fluoxetine group CGI-S scores as compared to placebo|||0.03|-0.73|0.07
91016047|NCT00965562|181915124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.17||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Slope represents average change in calcium group CGI-S scores as compared to placebo|||0.20|-0.54|0.36
91055264|NCT00593736|181992475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.296||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.296
90814553|NCT03369431|181507723|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.784|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the percentage change from baseline in the ATEC Total between Vivomixx and Placebo.~A sample size of 72 participants was needed to determine an effect size of 0.50 with 80% power, with a type 1 error of 5% using a two-sided test. This calculation is based on the assumed effect size of the primary outcome measure, the ATEC. The minimally clinically important difference based on the primary outcome measure with this instrument was 15 points."||||0.784
90814554|NCT03369431|181507724|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.357|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Related-samples Wilcoxon Signed Rank||Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the change from baseline in frequency of Abdominal Pain between Vivomixx and Placebo.||||0.357
90814555|NCT03369431|181507724|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Related-samples Wilcoxon Signed Rank||Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the change from baseline in frequency of Gaseousness between Vivomixx and Placebo.||||0.290
90814556|NCT03369431|181507724|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.418|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Related-samples Wilcoxon Signed Rank||Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the change from baseline in frequency of Diarrhoea between Vivomixx and Placebo.||||0.418
90814557|NCT03369431|181507724|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.734|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Related-samples Wilcoxon Signed Rank||Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the change from baseline in frequency of Constipation between Vivomixx and Placebo.||||0.734
90814558|NCT03369431|181507724|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.362|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Related-samples Wilcoxon Signed Rank||Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the change from baseline in frequency of Pain on Stooling between Vivomixx and Placebo.||||0.362
90814559|NCT03369431|181507724|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.705|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Related-samples Wilcoxon Signed Rank||Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the change from baseline in frequency of Difficulty Swallowing between Vivomixx and Placebo.||||0.705
90814560|NCT03369431|181507724|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.589|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Related-samples Wilcoxon Signed Rank||Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change from baseline in frequency of vomiting between Vivomixx and placebo||||0.589
90814561|NCT03369431|181507724|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Related-samples Wilcoxon signed rank||Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change from baseline in frequency of blood in stool between Vivomixx and placebo||||1.0
90814562|NCT03369431|181507724|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Related-samples Wilcoxon signed rank||Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change from baseline in frequency of blood in vomit between Vivomixx and placebo||||1.0
90814563|NCT03369431|181507725|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.635|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Related-samples Wilcoxon Signed Rank||Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the change from baseline of ABC Irritability score between Vivomixx and Placebo||||0.635
90814564|NCT03369431|181507725|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.367|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Related-samples Wilcoxon Signed Rank||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the change from baseline of ABC Lethargy/social withdrawal score between Vivomixx and Placebo.||||0.367
90814565|NCT03369431|181507725|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.609|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Related-samples Wilcoxon Signed Rank||Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the change from baseline in the ABC Stereotypic behaviour between Vivomixx and Placebo.||||0.609
90814566|NCT03369431|181507725|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.805|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired samples t-test||Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the change from baseline of the ABC Hyperactivity/Noncompliance between Vivomixx and Placebo.||||0.805
90814567|NCT03369431|181507725|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.985|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Related-samples Wilcoxon Signed Rank test used.||Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the change from baseline of the ABC Inappropriate Speech between Vivomixx and Placebo.||||0.985
90814568|NCT03369431|181507726|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.661|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Related-samples Wilcoxon Signed Rank||||||0.661
90814569|NCT01062061|181507728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9733||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.9733
90814570|NCT01062061|181507729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0001
90814571|NCT02046070|181507743|OTHER|||||||0.4859|||||||Chi-squared|||P-value tests the null hypothesis: CR+VGPR rate=27% in treatment arms obtained using the one-sided Chi-Square test with alpha=0.10.||||0.4859
90814572|NCT02046070|181507743|OTHER|||||||0.6757|||||||Chi-squared|||P-value tests the null hypothesis: CR+VGPR rate=27% in treatment arms obtained using the one-sided Chi-Square test with alpha=0.10.||||0.6757
90814573|NCT02046070|181507744|OTHER|||||||0.9688|||||||Chi-squared|||P-value tests the null hypothesis: CR+VGPR+PR rate=60% obtained using the one-sided Chi-Square test with alpha=0.10.||||0.9688
90814574|NCT05601102|181507780|EQUIVALENCE|pre- to post-intervention paired t-test, two-tailed||||||0.41|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.41
90814575|NCT05601102|181507781|EQUIVALENCE|pre- to post-intervention paired t-test, two-tailed||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Anxiety subscale analysis||||.01
90814576|NCT05601102|181507781|EQUIVALENCE|pre- to post-intervention paired t-test, two-tailed||||||0.42|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Depression subscale||||.42
90814577|NCT05601102|181507782|EQUIVALENCE|pre- to post-intervention paired t-test, two-tailed||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.04
90814578|NCT05601102|181507783|EQUIVALENCE|pre- to post-intervention paired t-test, two-tailed||||||0.15|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.15
90814579|NCT05601102|181507784|EQUIVALENCE|pre- to post-intervention paired t-test, two-tailed||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.02
90814580|NCT05601102|181507785|EQUIVALENCE|pre- to post-intervention paired t-test, two-tailed||||||0.22|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.22
90814581|NCT05601102|181507786|EQUIVALENCE|pre- to post-intervention paired t-test, two-tailed||||||0.29|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.29
90814582|NCT05601102|181507787|EQUIVALENCE|pre- to post-intervention paired t-test, two-tailed||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||1.00
90814583|NCT05601102|181507788|EQUIVALENCE|pre- to post-intervention paired t-test, two-tailed||||||0.6|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.60
90814584|NCT05601102|181507789|EQUIVALENCE|pre- to post-intervention paired t-test, two-tailed||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||1.00
90814585|NCT05601102|181507790|EQUIVALENCE|pre- to post-intervention paired t-test, two-tailed|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
90814586|NCT06504524|181507803|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.128|||=|0.615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.705|1.804|||Regression, Cox||IPTW hazard ratio (HR) were estimated using weighted Cox proportional hazard models and confidence intervals were estimated using robust error variances. Stabilized IPT weights truncated at the 99.5th percentile were used.|||1.804|0.705|=0.615
90814587|NCT06504524|181507804|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18|||=|0.4429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.64|||Regression, Cox||IPTW HR were estimated using weighted Cox proportional hazard models and confidence intervals were estimated using robust error variances. Stabilized IPT weights truncated at the 99.5th percentile were used.|||1.64|0.85|=0.4429
90814588|NCT06504524|181507805|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66|||=|0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.115|||Regression, Cox||IPTW HR were estimated using weighted Cox proportional hazard models and confidence intervals were estimated using robust error variances. Stabilized IPT weights truncated at the 99.5th percentile were used.|||1.115|0.390|=0.120
90814589|NCT06504524|181507806|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52|||=|0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.71|||Regression, Cox||IPTW HR were estimated using weighted Cox proportional hazard models and confidence intervals were estimated using robust error variances. Stabilized IPT weights truncated at the 99.5th percentile were used.|||0.71|0.38|=0.0011
90814590|NCT06504524|181507807|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.759|||=|0.503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.337|1.71|||Regression, Cox||IPTW HR were estimated using weighted Cox proportional hazard models and confidence intervals were estimated using robust error variances. Stabilized IPT weights truncated at the 99.5th percentile were used.|||1.710|0.337|=0.503
90814591|NCT06504524|181507808|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.57|||Regression, Cox||IPTW HR were estimated using weighted Cox proportional hazard models and confidence intervals were estimated using robust error variances. Stabilized IPT weights truncated at the 99.5th percentile were used.|||0.57|0.26|<0.0001
90814592|NCT06504524|181507809|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.918|||=|0.706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.587|1.436|||Regression, Cox||IPTW HR were estimated using weighted Cox proportional hazard models and confidence intervals were estimated using robust error variances. Stabilized IPT weights truncated at the 99.5th percentile were used.|||1.436|0.587|=0.706
90814593|NCT06504524|181507810|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68|||=|0.0182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.88|||Regression, Cox||IPTW HR were estimated using weighted Cox proportional hazard models and confidence intervals were estimated using robust error variances. Stabilized IPT weights truncated at the 99.5th percentile were used.|||0.88|0.52|=0.0182
91016048|NCT00965562|181915124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|0.92||||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Cohen's d effect sizes were calculated by subtracting the difference between changes in the fluoxetine group between visits 1 and 5 and changes in the placebo group between Visits 1 and 5, divided by the std dev in the placebo group at Visit 5|||||0.07
91055265|NCT00593736|181992476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.092||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.092
90814594|NCT03859739|181507815|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted by Placebo data pooled from historical placebo data from recent monotherapy studies in HIV-1 infected participants (NCT00100048, NCT01466985, NCT01152255, and NCT01353898) and fitted with a LDA model containing fixed effects for study and time, and a random effect for participants.|Posterior Mean Difference|-0.79|||||||||||||Posterior Probability (PP) of true mean difference in the plasma HIV-1 RNA change from baseline between MK-8558 and placebo ≤ -1.4 copies/mL was 2.44 %.|It was hypothesized that the true mean difference in the plasma HIV-1 RNA reduction from baseline between MK-8558 and placebo is ≥ 1.4 log10 copies/mL.||||
90814595|NCT03859739|181507815|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted by Placebo data pooled from historical placebo data from recent monotherapy studies in HIV-1 infected participants (NCT00100048, NCT01466985, NCT01152255, and NCT01353898) and fitted with a LDA model containing fixed effects for study and time, and a random effect for participants.|Posterior Mean Difference|-0.97|||||||||||||PP of true mean difference in the plasma HIV-1 RNA change from baseline between MK-8558 and placebo ≤ -1.4 copies/mL was 7.60%.|It was hypothesized that the true mean difference in the plasma HIV-1 RNA reduction from baseline between MK-8558 and placebo is ≥ 1.4 log10 copies/mL.||||
90814596|NCT03859739|181507815|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted by Placebo data pooled from historical placebo data from recent monotherapy studies in HIV-1 infected participants (NCT00100048, NCT01466985, NCT01152255, and NCT01353898) and fitted with a LDA model containing fixed effects for study and time, and a random effect for participants.|Posterior Mean Difference|-1.58|||||||||||||PP of true mean difference in the plasma HIV-1 RNA change from baseline between MK-8558 and placebo ≤ -1.4 copies/mL was 74.99%.|It was hypothesized that the true mean difference in the plasma HIV-1 RNA reduction from baseline between MK-8558 and placebo is ≥ 1.4 log10 copies/mL.||||
90890369|NCT00360529|181645264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.0001||95.0|0.2|0.5|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, centre and baseline as a covariate||Flibanserin 100 mg qhs versus placebo||0.5|0.2|0.0001
91055266|NCT00593736|181992476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.025
91055267|NCT00593736|181992476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.732||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.732
90890370|NCT00360529|181645265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5||||0.0071||95.0|0.4|2.6|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, centre and baseline as a covariate||Flibanserin 50 mg qhs versus placebo||2.6|0.4|0.0071
91016049|NCT00965562|181915124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|0.44||||0.36|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Cohen's d effect sizes were calculated by subtracting the difference between changes in the calcium group between visits 1 and 5 and changes in the placebo group between Visits 1 and 5, divided by the std dev in the placebo group at Visit 5|||||0.36
91016050|NCT00965562|181915125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.28||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis||Slope represents average change in fluoxetine group DRSP scores as compared to placebo|||-0.04|-0.53|0.02
91055268|NCT00593736|181992477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.298||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.298
90814597|NCT03859739|181507815|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted by Placebo data pooled from historical placebo data from recent monotherapy studies in HIV-1 infected participants (NCT00100048, NCT01466985, NCT01152255, and NCT01353898) and fitted with a LDA model containing fixed effects for study and time, and a random effect for participants.|Posterior Mean Difference|-1.78|||||||||||||PP of true mean difference in the plasma HIV-1 RNA change from baseline between MK-8558 and placebo ≤ -1.4 copies/mL was 87.41%.|It was hypothesized that the true mean difference in the plasma HIV-1 RNA reduction from baseline between MK-8558 and placebo is ≥ 1.4 log10 copies/mL.||||
90814598|NCT03859739|181507823|OTHER||Standard Error (SE)|0.146|||||||||||||PP that the true C168hr in plasma MK-8558 is ≥ 9.0 μM was 0.25%.|The posterior probability (PP) that the true GM C168hr is ≥ 9.0 μM was calculated using a non-informative (Jeffrey's) prior under an assumption of normality of log C168hr.||||
90814599|NCT03859739|181507823|OTHER||SE|0.146|||||||||||||PP that the true C168hr in plasma MK-8558 is ≥ 9.0 μM was 65.41%.|The PP that the true GM C168hr is ≥ 9.0 μM was calculated using a non-informative (Jeffrey's) prior under an assumption of normality of log C168hr.||||
90814600|NCT03859739|181507823|OTHER||SE|0.133|||||||||||||PP that the true C168hr in plasma MK-8558 is ≥ 9.0 μM was 99.99%.|The PP that the true GM C168hr is ≥ 9.0 μM was calculated using a non-informative (Jeffrey's) prior under an assumption of normality of log C168hr.||||
90814601|NCT03859739|181507823|OTHER||SE|0.163|||||||||||||PP that the true C168hr in plasma MK-8558 is ≥ 9.0 μM was 99.98%.|The PP that the true GM C168hr is ≥ 9.0 μM was calculated using a non-informative (Jeffrey's) prior under an assumption of normality of log C168hr.||||
90814602|NCT02590562|181507950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||F test|||||||<0.0001
90814603|NCT02590562|181507951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0108|TWO_SIDED||||||F test|||||||0.0108
91016051|NCT00965562|181915125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.06||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis||Slope represents average change in calcium group DRSP scores as compared to placebo|||0.28|-0.16|0.58
91016052|NCT00965562|181915125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|2.08||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Cohen's d effect sizes were calculated by subtracting the difference between changes in the fluoxetine group between visits 1 and 5 and changes in the placebo group between Visits 1 and 5, divided by the std dev in the placebo group at Visit 5|||||0.02
90814604|NCT01457950|181507957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.06|4.36|||ANCOVA|||||4.36|2.06|<0.0001
90814605|NCT00824005|181507997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|2.34||No adjustment for multiple comparisons|t-test, 2 sided|||Compare the change in the cell group to the change in the placebo group.||2.34|-0.42|0.169
90814606|NCT00824005|181507998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|23.9||0.856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.05|12.07|||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in the difference of end systolic volume over time.||12.07|-10.05|0.856
90814607|NCT00824005|181507999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.3||0.835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|10.1||Is the change in percent reversible defect the same between the two groups|t-test, 2 sided|||Change in percent of the defect that is reversible||10.1|-12.5|0.835
90814608|NCT00824005|181508002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.14|||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in the change between the two groups||0.14|-0.30|0.471
90814609|NCT00824005|181508003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.25|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.784||0.227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.16|||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in average improvement in Canadian Class Score over time between the two groups.||0.16|-0.66|0.227
90814610|NCT00824005|181508004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.176|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.845||0.361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.21|||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in the change in NYHA score between the two groups||0.21|-0.56|0.361
90814611|NCT00824005|181508005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the proportion of particip|0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.045||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.09|||Chi-squared|||Difference in the change in anti-anginal meds across groups||0.09|-0.01|0.28
90814612|NCT00824005|181508006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|104.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|409.0||0.302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-95.0|303.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in six minute walk distance||303|-95|0.302
90814613|NCT00824005|181508007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-34.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|176.0||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-150.0|80.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in the change in BNP(reg) between cell and placebo group||80|-150|0.55
90814614|NCT00824005|181508008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|31.2||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.03|23.93|||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in the difference of end diastolic volume between the two groups over time.||23.93|-5.03|0.198
90814615|NCT00824005|181508009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the incidence rates|-0.047|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.133|0.039|||t-test, 2 sided|||The difference in the incidence of major adverse cardiac events between the two groups over time. (Incidence rate)||0.039|-0.133|0.47
90814616|NCT00824005|181508010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.78|3.36|||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in the change between the two groups||3.36|-4.78|0.7
90814617|NCT03458702|181508016|EQUIVALENCE|It would be expected at baseline that there were no differences between groups.|||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>.05
90814618|NCT03458702|181508016|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||ANOVA for TIME||||<0.001
90814619|NCT03458702|181508017|EQUIVALENCE|It would be expected at baseline there would be no difference between groups.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
90814620|NCT03458702|181508017|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||ANOVA: Condition x Time Interaction||||<0.001
90814621|NCT03458702|181508017|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||ANOVA|||ANOVA: TIME||||0.005
90814622|NCT03458702|181508018|EQUIVALENCE|It would be hypothesized that there would not be a difference at baseline.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||> .05
90814623|NCT03458702|181508018|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.042|||||||ANOVA|||ANOVA: CONDITION X TIME INTERACTION||||0.042
90814624|NCT03458702|181508018|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||ANOVA: TIME||||<0.001
90814625|NCT03458702|181508019|EQUIVALENCE|A difference at baseline was not expected.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
90814626|NCT03458702|181508019|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016|||||||ANOVA|||ANOVA: TIME||||0.016
90814627|NCT03458702|181508020|EQUIVALENCE|no difference is expected at baseline|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
90814628|NCT03458702|181508020|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.026|||||||ANOVA|||ANOVA:TIME||||0.026
90814629|NCT03458702|181508021|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<.05
90814630|NCT05268744|181508055|SUPERIORITY|Since all outcomes were normally distributed, one-sided paired t-test was used to compare mean pre- and post-treatment scores to see whether post-treatment scores of ABI-S and SRS had improved compared to pre-treatment scores|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Null hypothesis was no improvement in mean ABI-S and SRS scores at the end of the study, compared to baseline||||<0.05
90814631|NCT02699450|181508057|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|1.4||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.6|3.4||There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons. Test for Arm B vs. Arm A was carried out at one-sided 10% alpha.|Mixed Effects Model of Repeated Measures|Categorical covariates: treatment group, categorical visit, and visit by treatment group, stratification factors; continuous covariate: baseline BCVA.|The mean difference between arms was calculated as Arm B minus Arm A.|Null hypothesis (H0): There is no difference between either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arms B and C) and the active comparator ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha): Either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arm B or C) is different from the ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A).||3.4|-0.6|0.37
90814632|NCT02699450|181508057|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|3.6||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.5|5.6||There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons. Test for Arm C vs. Arm A was carried out at one-sided 10% alpha.|Mixed Effects Model of Repeated Measures|Categorical covariates: treatment group, categorical visit, and visit by treatment group, stratification factors; continuous covariate: baseline BCVA.|The mean difference between arms was calculated as Arm C minus Arm A.|Null hypothesis (H0): There is no difference between either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arms B and C) and the active comparator ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha): Either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arm B or C) is different from the ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A).||5.6|1.5|0.03
90814633|NCT02699450|181508058|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|1.3||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.3|5.0||There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons. Test for Arm C vs. Arm A was carried out at one-sided 10% alpha.|Mixed Effects Model of Repeated Measures|Categorical covariates: treatment group, categorical visit, and visit by treatment group, stratification factors; continuous covariate: baseline BCVA.|The mean difference between arms was calculated as Arm C minus Arm A.|Null hypothesis (H0): There is no difference between either of the faricimab treatment arm (Arm C) and the active comparator ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha): The faricimab treatment arms (Arm C) is different from the ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A).||5.0|-2.3|0.63
90814634|NCT02699450|181508059|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|2.3||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.2|4.3||There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons. Test for Arm B vs. Arm A was carried out at one-sided 10% alpha.|Mixed Effects Model of Repeated Measures|Categorical covariates: treatment group, categorical visit, and visit by treatment group, stratification factors; continuous covariate: baseline BCVA.|The mean difference between arms was calculated as Arm B minus Arm A.|Null hypothesis (H0): There is no difference between either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arms B and C) and the active comparator ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha): Either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arm B or C) is different from the ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A).||4.3|0.2|0.15
90814635|NCT02699450|181508059|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|2.9||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.1|4.7||There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons. Test for Arm C vs. Arm A was carried out at one-sided 10% alpha.|Mixed Effects Model of Repeated Measures|Categorical covariates: treatment group, categorical visit, and visit by treatment group, stratification factors; continuous covariate: baseline BCVA.|The mean difference between arms was calculated as Arm C minus Arm A.|Null hypothesis (H0): There is no difference between either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arms B and C) and the active comparator ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha): Either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arm B or C) is different from the ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A).||4.7|1.1|0.04
90814636|NCT02699450|181508060|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.8||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-11.3|12.8||There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons. Test for Arm B vs. Arm A was carried out at one-sided 10% alpha.|Generalized Estimating Equations Model|Categorical covariates: treatment group, visit, and visit by treatment group interaction term.|The mean difference between arms was calculated as Arm B minus Arm A.|Null hypothesis (H0): There is no difference between either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arms B and C) and the active comparator ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha): Either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arm B or C) is different from the ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A).||12.8|-11.3|0.94
91016053|NCT00965562|181915125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|0.18||||0.58|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Cohen's d effect sizes were calculated by subtracting the difference between changes in the calcium group between visits 1 and 5 and changes in the placebo group between Visits 1 and 5, divided by the std dev in the placebo group at Visit 5|||||0.58
91016054|NCT00965562|181915126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-1.03||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis||Slope represents average change in fluoxetine group CGI Improvement scores as compared to placebo|||-0.35|-1.70|0.04
91055269|NCT00593736|181992477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.276||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.276
90890371|NCT00360529|181645265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5||||0.0001||95.0|1.4|3.6|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, centre and baseline as a covariate||Flibanserin 100 mg qhs versus placebo||3.6|1.4|0.0001
91016055|NCT00965562|181915126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.2||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.46|||Mixed Models Analysis||Slope represents average change in calcium group CGI Improvement scores as compared to placebo|||0.46|-0.86|0.54
91016056|NCT00965562|181915126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|0.8||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Cohen's d effect sizes were calculated by subtracting the difference between changes in the fluoxetine group between visits 2 and 5 and changes in the placebo group between Visits 2 and 5, divided by the std dev in the placebo group at Visit 5|||||0.04
91055270|NCT00593736|181992477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.430
90814637|NCT02699450|181508060|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|7.3||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.4|19.9||There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons. Test for Arm C vs. Arm A was carried out at one-sided 10% alpha.|Generalized Estimating Equations Model|Categorical covariates: treatment group, visit, and visit by treatment group interaction term.|The mean difference between arms was calculated as Arm C minus Arm A.|Null hypothesis (H0): There is no difference between either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arms B and C) and the active comparator ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha): Either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arm B or C) is different from the ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A).||19.9|-5.4|0.46
90814638|NCT02699450|181508061|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Participants|6.4||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-7.7|20.5||There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons. Test for Arm C vs. Arm A was carried out at one-sided 10% alpha.|Generalized Estimating Equations Model|Categorical covariates: treatment group, visit, and visit by treatment group interaction term.|The mean difference between arms was calculated as Arm C minus Arm A.|Null hypothesis (H0): There is no difference between either of the faricimab treatment arm (Arm C) and the active comparator ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha): The faricimab treatment arms (Arm C) is different from the ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A).||20.5|-7.7|0.56
90814639|NCT02699450|181508062|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|6.6||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.0|17.2||There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons. Test for Arm B vs. Arm A was carried out at one-sided 10% alpha.|Generalized Estimating Equations Model|Categorical covariates: treatment group, visit, and visit by treatment group interaction term.|The mean difference between arms was calculated as Arm B minus Arm A.|Null hypothesis (H0): There is no difference between either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arms B and C) and the active comparator ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha): Either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arm B or C) is different from the ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A).||17.2|-4.0|0.43
90814640|NCT02699450|181508062|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|7.2||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.6|17.0||There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons. Test for Arm C vs. Arm A was carried out at one-sided 10% alpha.|Generalized Estimating Equations Model|Categorical covariates: treatment group, visit, and visit by treatment group interaction term.|The mean difference between arms was calculated as Arm C minus Arm A.|Null hypothesis (H0): There is no difference between either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arms B and C) and the active comparator ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha): Either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arm B or C) is different from the ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A).||17.0|-2.6|0.34
90814641|NCT02699450|181508063|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|9.5||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.6|20.6||There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons. Test for Arm B vs. Arm A was carried out at one-sided 10% alpha.|Generalized Estimating Equations Model|Categorical covariates: treatment group, visit, and visit by treatment group interaction term.|The mean difference between arms was calculated as Arm B minus Arm A.|Null hypothesis (H0): There is no difference between either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arms B and C) and the active comparator ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha): Either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arm B or C) is different from the ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A).||20.6|-1.6|0.27
90814642|NCT02699450|181508063|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|6.8||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.9|18.5||There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons. Test for Arm C vs. Arm A was carried out at one-sided 10% alpha.|Generalized Estimating Equations Model|Categorical covariates: treatment group, visit, and visit by treatment group interaction term.|The mean difference between arms was calculated as Arm C minus Arm A.|Null hypothesis (H0): There is no difference between either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arms B and C) and the active comparator ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha): Either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arm B or C) is different from the ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A).||18.5|-4.9|0.45
90814643|NCT02699450|181508064|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.6||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-16.8|15.5||There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons. Test for Arm C vs. Arm A was carried out at one-sided 10% alpha.|Generalized Estimating Equations Model|Categorical covariates: treatment group, visit, and visit by treatment group interaction term.|The mean difference between arms was calculated as Arm C minus Arm A.|Null hypothesis (H0): There is no difference between either of the faricimab treatment arm (Arm C) and the active comparator ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha): The faricimab treatment arms (Arm C) is different from the ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A).||15.5|-16.8|0.96
90814644|NCT02699450|181508065|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|9.9||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.1|19.7||There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons. Test for Arm B vs. Arm A was carried out at one-sided 10% alpha.|Generalized Estimating Equations Model|Categorical covariates: treatment group, visit, and visit by treatment group interaction term.|The mean difference between arms was calculated as Arm B minus Arm A.|Null hypothesis (H0): There is no difference between either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arms B and C) and the active comparator ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha): Either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arm B or C) is different from the ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A).||19.7|0.1|0.19
90814645|NCT02699450|181508065|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|4.2||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.3|13.6||There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons. Test for Arm C vs. Arm A was carried out at one-sided 10% alpha.|Generalized Estimating Equations Model|Categorical covariates: treatment group, visit, and visit by treatment group interaction term.|The mean difference between arms was calculated as Arm C minus Arm A.|Null hypothesis (H0): There is no difference between either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arms B and C) and the active comparator ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha): Either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arm B or C) is different from the ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A).||13.6|-5.3|0.57
90890372|NCT00360529|181645266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage responders|34.7||||0.0513||95.0|29.0|40.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Model includes treatment and centre||Flibanserin 25 mg bid versus placebo||40.4|29.0|0.0513
90890373|NCT00360529|181645266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage responders|38.6||||0.0059||95.0|32.6|44.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Model includes treatment and centre||Flibanserin 50 mg qhs versus placebo||44.6|32.6|0.0059
91055271|NCT00593736|181992478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.349||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.349
90814646|NCT02699450|181508066|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-2.8||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-10.5|4.9||There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons. Test for Arm B vs. Arm A was carried out at one-sided 10% alpha.|Generalized Estimating Equations Model|Categorical covariates: treatment group, visit, and visit by treatment group interaction term.|The mean difference between arms was calculated as Arm B minus Arm A.|Null hypothesis (H0): There is no difference between either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arms B and C) and the active comparator ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha): Either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arm B or C) is different from the ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A).||4.9|-10.5|0.64
90814647|NCT02699450|181508066|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.8||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-9.8|6.2||There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons. Test for Arm C vs. Arm A was carried out at one-sided 10% alpha.|Generalized Estimating Equations Model|Categorical covariates: treatment group, visit, and visit by treatment group interaction term.|The mean difference between arms was calculated as Arm C minus Arm A.|Null hypothesis (H0): There is no difference between either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arms B and C) and the active comparator ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha): Either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arm B or C) is different from the ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A).||6.2|-9.8|0.78
90814648|NCT02699450|181508067|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-2.3||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-12.7|8.2||There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons. Test for Arm C vs. Arm A was carried out at one-sided 10% alpha.|Generalized Estimating Equations Model|Categorical covariates: treatment group, visit, and visit by treatment group interaction term.|The mean difference between arms was calculated as Arm C minus Arm A.|Null hypothesis (H0): There is no difference between either of the faricimab treatment arm (Arm C) and the active comparator ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha): The faricimab treatment arms (Arm C) is different from the ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A).||8.2|-12.7|0.78
90814649|NCT02699450|181508068|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.5||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-7.7|6.7||There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons. Test for Arm B vs. Arm A was carried out at one-sided 10% alpha.|Generalized Estimating Equations Model|Categorical covariates: treatment group, visit, and visit by treatment group interaction term.|The mean difference between arms was calculated as Arm B minus Arm A.|Null hypothesis (H0): There is no difference between either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arms B and C) and the active comparator ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha): Either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arm B or C) is different from the ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A).||6.7|-7.7|0.93
90814650|NCT02699450|181508068|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-2.0||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-8.3|4.4||There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons. Test for Arm C vs. Arm A was carried out at one-sided 10% alpha.|Generalized Estimating Equations Model|Categorical covariates: treatment group, visit, and visit by treatment group interaction term.|The mean difference between arms was calculated as Arm C minus Arm A.|Null hypothesis (H0): There is no difference between either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arms B and C) and the active comparator ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha): Either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arm B or C) is different from the ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A).||4.4|-8.3|0.69
90814651|NCT02699450|181508069|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-6.5||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-27.8|14.7||There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons. Test for Arm B vs. Arm A was carried out at one-sided 10% alpha.|Mixed Effects Model of Repeated Measures|Categorical covariates: treatment group, categorical visit, and visit by treatment group, stratification factors; continuous covariate: baseline FCPT.|The mean difference between arms was calculated as Arm B minus Arm A.|Null hypothesis (H0): There is no difference between either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arms B and C) and the active comparator ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha): Either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arm B or C) is different from the ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A).||14.7|-27.8|0.69
90814652|NCT02699450|181508069|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-22.8||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-44.5|-1.2||There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons. Test for Arm C vs. Arm A was carried out at one-sided 10% alpha.|Mixed Effects Model of Repeated Measures|Categorical covariates: treatment group, categorical visit, and visit by treatment group, stratification factors; continuous covariate: baseline FCPT.|The mean difference between arms was calculated as Arm C minus Arm A.|Null hypothesis (H0): There is no difference between either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arms B and C) and the active comparator ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha): Either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arm B or C) is different from the ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A).||-1.2|-44.5|0.18
90890374|NCT00907153|181645321|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.017||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.034|0.0|||Regression, Linear|Model-based differences adjusted for oral contraceptive use and season.||||-0.000|-0.034|0.05
90890375|NCT00907153|181645322|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.14||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.89|3.62|||Regression, Linear|Model-based differences adjusted for oral contraceptive use and season.||||3.62|-5.89|0.62
90890376|NCT00907153|181645323|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.65||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.32|7.02|||Regression, Linear|Model-based differences adjusted for oral contraceptive use and season.||||7.02|-14.32|0.48
91016057|NCT00965562|181915126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|0.32||||0.54|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Cohen's d effect sizes were calculated by subtracting the difference between changes in the calcium group between visits 2 and 5 and changes in the placebo group between Visits 2 and 5, divided by the std dev in the placebo group at Visit 5|||||0.54
91016058|NCT05455684|181915132|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|=|0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.24|1.49|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||1.49|-3.24|=0.467
91016059|NCT05455684|181915137|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|0.52||||||||0.52|-2.21|
91016060|NCT05204563|181915145|OTHER||Treatment difference|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|4.0||||||||4.0|-3.5|
91016061|NCT05204563|181915146|OTHER||Treatment difference|4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|8.7||||||||8.7|-0.4|
91016062|NCT05204563|181915147|OTHER||Treatment difference|3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|9.4||||||Day 14||9.4|-3.0|
91016063|NCT05204563|181915147|OTHER||Treatment difference|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|11.3||||||Day 28||11.3|-3.4|
91016064|NCT05204563|181915148|OTHER||Treatment difference|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|6.3||||||Day 14||6.3|-5.4|
91016065|NCT05204563|181915148|OTHER||Treatment difference|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|9.8||||||Day 28||9.8|-3.9|
90814653|NCT02699450|181508070|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-49.2||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-84.2|-14.2||There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons. Test for Arm C vs. Arm A was carried out at one-sided 10% alpha.|Mixed Effects Model of Repeated Measures|Categorical covariates: treatment group, categorical visit, and visit by treatment group, stratification factors; continuous covariate: baseline FCPT.|The mean difference between arms was calculated as Arm C minus Arm A.|Null hypothesis (H0): There is no difference between either of the faricimab treatment arm (Arm C) and the active comparator ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha): The faricimab treatment arms (Arm C) is different from the ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A).||-14.2|-84.2|0.07
90814654|NCT02699450|181508071|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-17.3||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-38.0|3.4||There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons. Test for Arm B vs. Arm A was carried out at one-sided 10% alpha.|Mixed Effects Model of Repeated Measures|Categorical covariates: treatment group, categorical visit, and visit by treatment group, stratification factors; continuous covariate: baseline FCPT.|The mean difference between arms was calculated as Arm B minus Arm A.|Null hypothesis (H0): There is no difference between either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arms B and C) and the active comparator ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha): Either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arm B or C) is different from the ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A).||3.4|-38.0|0.28
90814655|NCT02699450|181508071|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-29.2||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-47.8|-10.6||There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons. Test for Arm C vs. Arm A was carried out at one-sided 10% alpha.|Mixed Effects Model of Repeated Measures|Categorical covariates: treatment group, categorical visit, and visit by treatment group, stratification factors; continuous covariate: baseline FCPT.|The mean difference between arms was calculated as Arm C minus Arm A.|Null hypothesis (H0): There is no difference between either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arms B and C) and the active comparator ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha): Either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arm B or C) is different from the ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A).||-10.6|-47.8|0.05
90814656|NCT02699450|181508072|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-12.4||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-29.7|5.0||There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons. Test for Arm B vs. Arm A was carried out at one-sided 10% alpha.|Mixed Effects Model of Repeated Measures|Categorical covariates: treatment group, categorical visit, and visit by treatment group, stratification factors; continuous covariate: baseline CST.|The mean difference between arms was calculated as Arm B minus Arm A.|Null hypothesis (H0): There is no difference between either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arms B and C) and the active comparator ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha): Either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arm B or C) is different from the ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A).||5.0|-29.7|0.36
90814657|NCT02699450|181508072|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-21.1||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-38.7|-3.5||There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons. Test for Arm C vs. Arm A was carried out at one-sided 10% alpha.|Mixed Effects Model of Repeated Measures|Categorical covariates: treatment group, categorical visit, and visit by treatment group, stratification factors; continuous covariate: baseline CST.|The mean difference between arms was calculated as Arm C minus Arm A.|Null hypothesis (H0): There is no difference between either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arms B and C) and the active comparator ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha): Either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arm B or C) is different from the ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A).||-3.5|-38.7|0.13
90814658|NCT02699450|181508073|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-38.6||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-65.9|-11.3||There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons. Test for Arm C vs. Arm A was carried out at one-sided 10% alpha.|Mixed Effects Model of Repeated Measures|Categorical covariates: treatment group, categorical visit, and visit by treatment group, stratification factors; continuous covariate: baseline CST.|The mean difference between arms was calculated as Arm C minus Arm A.|Null hypothesis (H0): There is no difference between either of the faricimab treatment arm (Arm C) and the active comparator ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha): The faricimab treatment arms (Arm C) is different from the ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A).||-11.3|-65.9|0.07
90814659|NCT02699450|181508074|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-20.1||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-36.4|-3.8||There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons. Test for Arm B vs. Arm A was carried out at one-sided 10% alpha.|Mixed Effects Model of Repeated Measures|Categorical covariates: treatment group, categorical visit, and visit by treatment group, stratification factors; continuous covariate: baseline CST.|The mean difference between arms was calculated as Arm B minus Arm A.|Null hypothesis (H0): There is no difference between either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arms B and C) and the active comparator ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha): Either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arm B or C) is different from the ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A).||-3.8|-36.4|0.12
90814660|NCT02699450|181508074|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-26.7||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-41.3|-12.0||There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons. Test for Arm C vs. Arm A was carried out at one-sided 10% alpha.|Mixed Effects Model of Repeated Measures|Categorical covariates: treatment group, categorical visit, and visit by treatment group, stratification factors; continuous covariate: baseline CST.|The mean difference between arms was calculated as Arm C minus Arm A.|Null hypothesis (H0): There is no difference between either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arms B and C) and the active comparator ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha): Either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arm B or C) is different from the ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A).||-12.0|-41.3|0.02
90814661|NCT02699450|181508075|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Participants|-4.08||||0.4948|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-7.7|-0.46||There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons. Test for Arm B vs. Arm A was carried out at one-sided 10% alpha.|Fisher Exact||The difference between arms was calculated as Arm B minus Arm A.|Null hypothesis (H0): There is no difference between either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arms B and C) and the active comparator ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha): Either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arm B or C) is different from the ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A).||-0.46|-7.70|0.4948
90890377|NCT00907153|181645324|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.51||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.07|-0.96|||Regression, Linear|Model-based differences adjusted for oral contraceptive use and season.||||-0.96|-12.07|0.02
90890378|NCT00907153|181645325|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.28||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.97|16.54|||Regression, Linear|Model-based differences adjusted for oral contraceptive use and season.||||16.54|-3.97|0.22
90814662|NCT02699450|181508075|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Participants|-4.08||||0.496|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-7.7|-0.46||There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons. Test for Arm C vs. Arm A was carried out at one-sided 10% alpha.|Fisher Exact||The difference between arms was calculated as Arm C minus Arm A.|Null hypothesis (H0): There is no difference between either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arms B and C) and the active comparator ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha): Either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arm B or C) is different from the ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A).||-0.46|-7.70|0.4960
90814663|NCT02699450|181508076|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Participants|-2.8||||1|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-11.08|5.49||There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons. Test for Arm C vs. Arm A was carried out at one-sided 10% alpha.|Fisher Exact||The difference between arms was calculated as Arm C minus Arm A.|Null hypothesis (H0): There is no difference between either of the faricimab treatment arm (Arm C) and the active comparator ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha): The faricimab treatment arms (Arm C) is different from the ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A).||5.49|-11.08|1.0000
90814664|NCT02699450|181508077|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Participants|-6.12||||0.5759|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-15.41|3.17||There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons. Test for Arm B vs. Arm A was carried out at one-sided 10% alpha.|Fisher Exact||The difference between arms was calculated as Arm B minus Arm A.|Null hypothesis (H0): There is no difference between either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arms B and C) and the active comparator ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha): Either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arm B or C) is different from the ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A).||3.17|-15.41|0.5759
90814665|NCT02699450|181508077|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Participants|3.15||||0.7437|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.02|11.33||There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons. Test for Arm C vs. Arm A was carried out at one-sided 10% alpha.|Fisher Exact||The difference between arms was calculated as Arm C minus Arm A.|Null hypothesis (H0): There is no difference between either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arms B and C) and the active comparator ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha): Either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arm B or C) is different from the ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A).||11.33|-5.02|0.7437
90814666|NCT02699450|181508078|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Participants|2.02||||1|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-8.6|12.64||There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons. Test for Arm C vs. Arm A was carried out at one-sided 10% alpha.|Fisher Exact||The difference between arms was calculated as Arm C minus Arm A.|Null hypothesis (H0): There is no difference between either of the faricimab treatment arm (Arm C) and the active comparator ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha): The faricimab treatment arms (Arm C) is different from the ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A).||12.64|-8.60|1.0000
90814667|NCT01811303|181508106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
90814668|NCT01811303|181508106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.016||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.016
90814669|NCT02266875|181508124|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.320
90814670|NCT02266875|181508125|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
90814671|NCT00086502|181508133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.73|<|0.001||95.0|-0.85|-0.54||"Model terms: treatment; baseline; prior antihyperglycemic~agent (AHA) therapy \[not on AHA, monotherapy with oral AHA, peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor (PPAR)-based combination therapy\]"|ANCOVA|||||-0.54|-0.85|<0.001
90814672|NCT00086502|181508134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-17.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|30.9|<|0.001||95.0|-24.3|-11.0||Model terms: treatment; baseline; prior antihyperglycemic agent (AHA) therapy \[not on AHA, monotherapy with oral AHA, peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor (PPAR)-based combination therapy\]|ANCOVA|||||-11.0|-24.3|<0.001
90814673|NCT01304329|181508135|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability|Geometric Mean Ratio|102.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.9|105.29|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV)|Considered characteristic is empa plus simvastatin divided by empa alone||105.29|98.90|
90814674|NCT01304329|181508136|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability|Geometric Mean Ratio|101.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|40.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.06|128.07|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the gCV|"AUC of simvastatin~Considered characteristic is empa plus simvastatin divided by simvastatin alone"||128.07|80.06|
90814675|NCT01304329|181508136|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability|Geometric Mean Ratio|104.87|STANDARD_DEVIATION|25.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.09|122.07|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the gCV|"AUC of simvastatin acid~Considered characteristic is empa plus simvastatin divided by simvastatin alone."||122.07|90.09|
90814676|NCT01304329|181508137|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability|Geometric Mean Ratio|109.49|STANDARD_DEVIATION|21.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.91|123.69|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the gCV|Considered characteristic is empa plus simvastatin divided by empa alone||123.69|96.91|
90814677|NCT01304329|181508138|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability|Geometric Mean Ratio|97.18|STANDARD_DEVIATION|41.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.3|123.77|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the gCV|"Cmax of simvastatin.~Considered characteristic is empa plus simvastatin divided by simvastatin alone."||123.77|76.30|
90814678|NCT01304329|181508138|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability|Geometric Mean Ratio|97.27|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.9|111.44|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the gCV|"Cmax of simvastatin acid.~Considered characteristic is empa plus simvastatin divided by simvastatin alone."||111.44|84.90|
90814679|NCT01304329|181508139|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability|Geometric Mean Ratio|102.52|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.8|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.1|106.06|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the gCV|Considered characteristic is empa plus simvastatin divided by empa alone.||106.06|99.10|
90814680|NCT01304329|181508140|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability|Geometric Mean Ratio|102.34|STANDARD_DEVIATION|41.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.39|130.29|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the gCV|"AUC of simvastatin.~Considered characteristic is empa plus simvastatin divided by simvastatin alone."||130.29|80.39|
90814681|NCT01304329|181508140|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability|Geometric Mean Ratio|111.25|STANDARD_DEVIATION|24.8|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.93|129.02|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the gCV|"AUC of simvastatin acid.~Considered characteristic is empa plus simvastatin divided by simvastatin alone."||129.02|95.93|
90814682|NCT05545644|181508148|SUPERIORITY||Hedges g|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48|||TWO_SIDED|||||Given the small sample size, we relied more heavily on effect size calculations (Hedges g adjusted for small sample bias).||||||||
90814683|NCT05545644|181508149|SUPERIORITY||Hedges g|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45|||TWO_SIDED|||||Given the small sample size, we relied more heavily on effect size calculations (Hedges g adjusted for small sample bias).||||||||
90814684|NCT05545644|181508150|SUPERIORITY||Hedges g|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|||TWO_SIDED|||||Given the small sample size, we relied more heavily on effect size calculations (Hedges g adjusted for small sample bias).||||||||
90814685|NCT05545644|181508150|SUPERIORITY|Given the small sample size, we relied more heavily on effect size calculations (Hedges g adjusted for small sample bias).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||||Hedges g = .04; SE = .42|||
90814686|NCT05545644|181508151|SUPERIORITY||Hedges g|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63|||TWO_SIDED|||||Given the small sample size, we relied more heavily on effect size calculations (Hedges g adjusted for small sample bias).||||||||
90814687|NCT01831817|181508254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change difference|-0.1||||0.4321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.15|||ANCOVA||Treatment as fixed factor and baseline Schiff score as covariate. Difference was First named treatment-second named treatment that a negative difference implied the mean of the second named treatment was larger than that of the first named treatment|Principal null hypothesis to be tested was- H0: The change from baseline was the same for both treatments in all pairwise comparisons||0.15|-0.35|0.4321
90814688|NCT01831817|181508254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change difference|-0.48||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.23|||ANCOVA||Treatment as fixed factor and baseline Schiff score as covariate. Difference is First named treatment - second named treatment that a negative difference implies the mean of the second named treatment is larger than that of the first named treatment|Principal null hypothesis to be tested was- H0: The change from baseline was the same for both treatments in all pairwise comparisons||-0.23|-0.73|0.0002
90814689|NCT01831817|181508254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change difference|-0.49||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.24|||ANCOVA||Treatment as fixed factor and baseline Schiff score as covariate. Difference is First named treatment - second named treatment that a negative difference implies the mean of the second named treatment is larger than that of the first named treatment|Principal null hypothesis to be tested was- H0: The change from baseline was the same for both treatments in all pairwise comparisons||-0.24|-0.74|0.0002
90814690|NCT01831817|181508254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change difference|0.38||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.63|||ANCOVA||Treatment as fixed factor and baseline Schiff score as covariate. Difference is second named treatment - first named treatment that a negative difference implies the mean of the first named treatment is larger than that of the second named treatment|Principal null hypothesis to be tested was- H0: The change from baseline was the same for both treatments in all pairwise comparisons||0.63|0.13|0.0028
90814691|NCT01831817|181508254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change difference|0.39||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.63|||ANCOVA||Treatment as fixed factor and baseline Schiff score as covariate. Difference is Second named treatment - first named treatment that a negative difference implies the mean of the first named treatment is larger than that of the second named treatment|Principal null hypothesis to be tested was- H0: The change from baseline waas the same for both treatments in all pairwise comparisons||0.63|0.14|0.0022
91055272|NCT00593736|181992478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.203||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.203
90814692|NCT01831817|181508254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change difference|-0.01||||0.9606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.24|||ANCOVA||Treatment as fixed factor and baseline Schiff score as covariate. Difference is Second named treatment - first named treatment that a negative difference implies the mean of the first named treatment is larger than that of the second named treatment|Principal null hypothesis to be tested was- H0: The change from baseline was the same for both treatments in all pairwise comparisons||0.24|-0.25|0.9606
90814693|NCT01831817|181508255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change difference|0.04||||0.803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.38|||ANCOVA||Treatment as fixed factor and baseline Schiff score as covariate. Difference is First named treatment - second named treatment that a negative difference implies the mean of the second named treatment is larger than that of the first named treatment|Principal null hypothesis to be tested was- H0: The change from baseline was the same for both treatments in all pairwise comparisons||0.38|-0.30|0.8030
90814694|NCT01831817|181508255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change difference|-0.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|-0.48|||ANCOVA||Treatment as fixed factor and baseline Schiff score as covariate. Difference is First named treatment - second named treatment that a negative difference implies the mean of the second named treatment is larger than that of the first named treatment|Principal null hypothesis to be tested was- H0: The change from baseline was the same for both treatments in all pairwise comparisons||-0.48|-1.16|<0.0001
90814695|NCT01831817|181508255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change difference|-0.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.53|||ANCOVA||Treatment as fixed factor and baseline Schiff score as covariate. Difference is First named treatment - second named treatment that a negative difference implies the mean of the second named treatment is larger than that of the first named treatment|Principal null hypothesis to be tested was- H0: The change from baseline was the same for both treatments in all pairwise comparisons||-0.53|-1.20|<0.0001
90890379|NCT00907153|181645326|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|13.84||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-210.29|37.98|||Regression, Linear|Model-based differences adjusted for oral contraceptive use and season.||||37.98|-210.29|0.33
90814696|NCT01831817|181508255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change difference|0.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.19|||ANCOVA||Treatment as fixed factor and baseline Schiff score as covariate. Difference is Second named treatment - first named treatment that a negative difference implies the mean of the first named treatment is larger than that of the second named treatment|Principal null hypothesis to be tested was- H0: The change from baseline was the same for both treatments in all pairwise comparisons||1.19|0.53|<0.0001
90814697|NCT01831817|181508255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change difference|0.91|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.23|||ANCOVA||Treatment as fixed factor and baseline Schiff score as covariate. Difference is Second named treatment - first named treatment that a negative difference implies the mean of the second named treatment is larger than that of the first named treatment|Principal null hypothesis to be tested was- H0: The change from baseline was the same for both treatments in all pairwise comparisons||1.23|0.58|<0.0001
90814698|NCT01831817|181508255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change difference|-0.04||||0.7872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.28|||ANCOVA||Treatment as fixed factor and baseline Schiff score as covariate. Difference is Second named treatment - first named treatment that a negative difference implies the mean of the first named treatment is larger than that of the second named treatment|Principal null hypothesis to be tested was- H0: The change from baseline was the same for both treatments in all pairwise comparisons||0.28|-0.37|0.7872
90814699|NCT01831817|181508256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann shift|0.0||||0.9642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Hodges-Lehmann Wilcoxon non-parametric||Positive values favour the first named treatment|||0.00|0.00|0.9642
90814700|NCT01831817|181508256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann shift|0.0||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|5.0|||Hodges-Lehmann Wilcoxon non-parametric||Positive values favour the first named treatment|||5.00|0.00|0.0016
90814701|NCT01831817|181508256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann shift|0.0||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|5.0|||Hodges-Lehmann Wilcoxon non-parametric||Positive values favour the first named treatment|||5.00|0.00|0.0100
91016066|NCT05204563|181915149|OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|3.3||||||Day 14||3.3|-4.9|
91016067|NCT05204563|181915149|OTHER||Treatment difference|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|7.2||||||Day 28||7.2|-2.7|
91016068|NCT05204563|181915150|OTHER||Treatment difference|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|8.9||||||Day 14||8.9|-4.7|
91016069|NCT05204563|181915150|OTHER||Treatment difference|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|9.1||||||Day 28||9.1|-6.5|
91016070|NCT05204563|181915151|OTHER||Treatment difference|-7.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.3|9.7||||||Day 14||9.7|-25.3|
91055273|NCT00593736|181992478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.444||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.444
90814702|NCT01831817|181508256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann shift|0.0||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Hodges-Lehmann Wilcoxon non-parametric||Positive values favour the second named treatment|||0.00|0.00|0.0020
90814703|NCT01831817|181508256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann shift|0.0||||0.0122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Hodges-Lehmann Wilcoxon non-parametric||Positive values favour the second named treatment|||0.00|0.00|0.0122
90814704|NCT01831817|181508256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann shift|0.0||||0.7138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Hodges-Lehmann Wilcoxon non-parametric||Positive values favour the first named treatment|||0.00|0.00|0.7138
90814705|NCT01831817|181508257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann shift|0.0||||0.9834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|5.0|||Hodges-Lehmann Wilcoxon non-parametric||Positive values favour the first named treatment|||5.00|-5.00|0.9834
90814706|NCT01831817|181508257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann shift|5.0||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|15.0|||Hodges-Lehmann Wilcoxon non-parametric||Positive values favour the first named treatment|||15.00|0.00|0.0001
90814707|NCT01831817|181508257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann shift|2.5||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|15.0|||Hodges-Lehmann Wilcoxon non-parametric||Positive values favour the first named treatment|||15.00|0.00|0.0003
90814708|NCT01831817|181508257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann shift|-5.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|0.0|||Hodges-Lehmann Wilcoxon non-parametric||Positive values favour the second named treatment|||0.00|-10.00|<0.0001
90814709|NCT01831817|181508257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann shift|-5.0||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|0.0|||Hodges-Lehmann Wilcoxon non-parametric||Positive values favour the second named treatment|||0.00|-10.00|0.0002
90814710|NCT01831817|181508257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann shift|0.0||||0.2894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Hodges-Lehmann Wilcoxon non-parametric||Positive values favour the first named treatment|||0.00|0.00|0.2894
90814711|NCT01831817|181508258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change difference|-0.24||||0.5555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|0.56|||ANCOVA||Treatment as fixed factor. Baseline Schiff strata and VRS as covariates. Difference is 1st named treatment - 2nd named treatment that a negative difference implies the mean of the 2nd named treatment is larger than that of the 1st named treatment|||0.56|-1.03|0.5555
90814712|NCT01831817|181508258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change difference|-0.06||||0.8769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.73|||ANCOVA||Treatment as fixed factor. Baseline Schiff strata and VRS as covariates. Difference is 1st named treatment - 2nd named treatment that a negative difference implies the mean of the 2nd named treatment is larger than that of the 1st named treatment|||0.73|-0.86|0.8769
91016071|NCT05204563|181915151|OTHER||Treatment difference|-7.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.3|9.7||||||Day 28||9.7|-25.3|
91016072|NCT05204563|181915152|OTHER||Treatment difference|3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|13.2||||||Day 4||13.2|-6.0|
91016073|NCT05204563|181915152|OTHER||Treatment difference|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|12.3||||||EOT (up to Day 14)||12.3|-5.3|
91016074|NCT05204563|181915152|OTHER||Treatment difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|9.3||||||TOC (Day 21)||9.3|-9.4|
91016075|NCT05204563|181915152|OTHER||Treatment difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|12.2||||||LFU (Day 28)||12.2|-6.9|
91016076|NCT05204563|181915153|OTHER||Treatment difference|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.1|13.6||||||Day 4||13.6|-18.1|
91016077|NCT05204563|181915153|OTHER||Treatment difference|12.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|26.3||||||EOT (up to Day 14)||26.3|-1.6|
91016078|NCT05204563|181915153|OTHER||Treatment difference|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|20.4||||||TOC (Day 21)||20.4|-10.5|
91016079|NCT05204563|181915153|OTHER||Treatment difference|8.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|24.7||||||LFU (Day 28)||24.7|-6.9|
90814713|NCT01831817|181508258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change difference|-0.76||||0.0562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|0.02|||ANCOVA||Treatment as fixed factor. Baseline Schiff strata and VRS as covariates. Difference is 1st named treatment - 2nd named treatment that a negative difference implies the mean of the 2nd named treatment is larger than that of the 1st named treatment|||0.02|-1.55|0.0562
90814714|NCT01831817|181508258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change difference|-0.18||||0.6562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.6|||ANCOVA||Treatment as fixed factor. Baseline Schiff strata and VRS as covariates. Difference is 1st named treatment - 2nd named treatment that a negative difference implies the mean of the 2nd named treatment is larger than that of the 1st named treatment|||0.60|-0.95|0.6562
90814715|NCT01831817|181508258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change difference|0.53||||0.1788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|1.3|||ANCOVA||Treatment as fixed factor. Baseline Schiff strata and VRS as covariates. Difference is 1st named treatment - 2nd named treatment that a negative difference implies the mean of the 2nd named treatment is larger than that of the 1st named treatment|||1.30|-0.24|0.1788
90814716|NCT01831817|181508258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change difference|-0.7||||0.0734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|0.07|||ANCOVA||Treatment as fixed factor. Baseline Schiff strata and VRS as covariates. Difference is 1st named treatment - 2nd named treatment that a negative difference implies the mean of the 2nd named treatment is larger than that of the 1st named treatment|||0.07|-1.47|0.0734
90814717|NCT01831817|181508259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change difference|0.19||||0.6727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|1.1|||ANCOVA||Treatment as fixed factor. Baseline Schiff strata and VRS as covariates. Difference is 1st named treatment - 2nd named treatment that a negative difference implies the mean of the 2nd named treatment is larger than that of the 1st named treatment|||1.10|-0.71|0.6727
90814718|NCT01831817|181508259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change difference|-1.24||||0.0072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.14|-0.34|||ANCOVA||Treatment as fixed factor. Baseline Schiff strata and VRS as covariates. Difference is 1st named treatment - 2nd named treatment that a negative difference implies the mean of the 2nd named treatment is larger than that of the 1st named treatment|||-0.34|-2.14|0.0072
90814719|NCT01831817|181508259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change difference|-1.27||||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|-0.38|||ANCOVA||Treatment as fixed factor. Baseline Schiff strata and VRS as covariates. Difference is 1st named treatment - 2nd named treatment that a negative difference implies the mean of the 2nd named treatment is larger than that of the 1st named treatment|||-0.38|-2.16|0.0056
90814720|NCT01831817|181508259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change diference|1.43||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|2.31|||ANCOVA||Treatment as fixed factor. Baseline Schiff strata and VRS as covariates. Difference is 1st named treatment - 2nd named treatment that a negative difference implies the mean of the 2nd named treatment is larger than that of the 1st named treatment|||2.31|0.56|0.0016
90814721|NCT01831817|181508259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change difference|1.46||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.33|||ANCOVA||Treatment as fixed factor. Baseline Schiff strata and VRS as covariates. Difference is 1st named treatment - 2nd named treatment that a negative difference implies the mean of the 2nd named treatment is larger than that of the 1st named treatment|||2.33|0.59|0.0011
91016080|NCT05204563|181915154|OTHER||Treatment difference|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|14.4||||||Day 4||14.4|-12.7|
90814722|NCT01831817|181508259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change difference|-0.03||||0.9413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.84|||ANCOVA||Treatment as fixed factor. Baseline Schiff strata and VRS as covariates. Difference is 1st named treatment - 2nd named treatment that a negative difference implies the mean of the 2nd named treatment is larger than that of the 1st named treatment|||0.84|-0.90|0.9413
90814723|NCT00958217|181508262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||2nd order effects of time (2 slope|33.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||P-values based on likelihood ratio tests for the significance of the first and second order trajectory parameters. Primary tests compared curvilinear trajectories of the two treatment groups.|Linear Mixed Effects Models||We gauged sampling error with 95% confidence bands.|Data analyses included comparison of mean scores and linear mixed effects models used to ascertain trajectories for depression symptoms.||||<.05
90814724|NCT00958217|181508263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Second order effect of time (2 slopes)|57.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Linear Mixed Effects Models||We gauged sampling error with 95% confidence bands.|||||<.05
90814725|NCT00958217|181508264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Second order effect of time (2 slopes)|0.43|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Linear Mixed Effects Model|A logit link was used in this model.|We gauged sampling error with 95% confidence bands.|Analysis of substance use was conducted using trajectories modeled as a dichotomous outcome using logit links to predict the probability of substance use (any alcohol or drug use) on a particular day.||||<.05
90814726|NCT00958217|181508264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Second order effect of time (2 slopes)|0.26|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Linear Mixed Effects Model|A logit link was used in this model|We gauged sampling error with 95% confidence bands.|Second statistical analysis evaluates trajectories of heavy drinking (\<5 drinks on a given day) Analysis of heavy drinking was conducted using trajectories modeled as a dichotomous outcome using logit links to predict the probability of heavy drinking (5 or more drinks) on a particular day.||||<.05
90814727|NCT02440789|181508267|OTHER|||||||0.56|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||||0.56
90814728|NCT02440789|181508269|OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||||0.11
90814729|NCT02440789|181508271|OTHER|||||||0.93|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test; results less than the analysis lower limit (0.7 cp/mL) were imputed to a value of one half the analysis lower limit.||||||0.93
90814730|NCT02440789|181508273|OTHER|||||||0.041|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||||0.041
91016081|NCT05204563|181915154|OTHER||Treatment difference|8.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|20.3||||||EOT (up to Day 14)||20.3|-3.7|
91016082|NCT05204563|181915154|OTHER||Treatment difference|8.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|21.9||||||TOC (Day 21)||21.9|-4.8|
90814731|NCT02440789|181508276|OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||||0.008
90814732|NCT02440789|181508278|OTHER|||||||0.26|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||||0.26
90814733|NCT02440789|181508280|OTHER|||||||0.75|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||||0.75
90814734|NCT02440789|181508282|OTHER|||||||0.97|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||||0.97
90814735|NCT02440789|181508284|OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||||0.7
90814736|NCT02440789|181508286|OTHER|||||||0.47|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||||0.47
91016083|NCT05204563|181915154|OTHER||Treatment difference|10.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|24.2||||||LFU (Day 28)||24.2|-3.0|
91016084|NCT05204563|181915155|OTHER||Treatment difference|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|12.8||||||Day 4||12.8|-8.3|
90814737|NCT02440789|181508288|OTHER|||||||0.72|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||||0.72
90814738|NCT02440789|181508290|OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||||0.28
90814739|NCT02440789|181508292|OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||||0.7
90814740|NCT02440789|181508294|OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||||0.28
90814741|NCT02440789|181508296|OTHER|||||||0.77|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||||0.77
90814742|NCT02440789|181508298|OTHER|||||||0.93|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||||0.93
90814743|NCT02440789|181508300|OTHER|||||||0.65|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||||0.65
90814744|NCT02440789|181508302|OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||||0.22
90814745|NCT02440789|181508304|OTHER|||||||0.031|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||||0.031
90814746|NCT02440789|181508306|OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||||0.005
90814747|NCT02440789|181508308|OTHER|||||||0.69|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||||0.69
90814748|NCT02440789|181508310|OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||||0.008
90814749|NCT01999218|181508311|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is declared if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the mean difference is less than 0.3%.|Difference in the Least Squares Means|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.22|||||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis (cLDA) model with fixed effects for treatment, time, prior antihyperglycemic medication (monotherapy or dual therapy), baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.|||0.22|-0.02|
90814750|NCT01999218|181508311|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is declared if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the mean difference is less than 0.3%.|Difference in the Least Squares means|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.3|||||"Based on cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, prior antihyperglycemic medication (monotherapy or dual therapy), baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.~Time was treated as a categorical variable."|||0.30|0.06|
90814751|NCT01999218|181508312|OTHER|Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in % vs. Glimepiride|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|7.7||||||||7.7|-4.5|
90814752|NCT01999218|181508312|OTHER|Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in % vs. Glimepiride|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|6.5||||||||6.5|-5.6|
90814753|NCT01999218|181508313|OTHER||Difference in % vs. Glimepiride|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|6.4||||||||6.4|-0.3|
90814754|NCT01999218|181508313|OTHER||Difference in % vs. Glimepiride|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|4.7||||||||4.7|-1.7|
91016085|NCT05204563|181915155|OTHER||Treatment difference|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|10.1||||||EOT (up to Day 14)||10.1|-6.7|
90814755|NCT01999218|181508314|OTHER||Difference in % vs. Glimepiride|-14.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.4|-9.8|||Based on Miettinen & Nurminen method||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|-9.8|-18.4|<0.001
91055274|NCT00593736|181992479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.581||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.581
90814756|NCT01999218|181508314|OTHER||Difference in % vs. Glimepiride|-16.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.3|-12.2|||Based on Miettinen & Nurminen method||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|-12.2|-20.3|<0.001
90814757|NCT01999218|181508315|OTHER||Difference in LSM vs. Glimepiride|-4.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.77|-3.8|||Constrained Longitudinal Data analysis||LSM=Least Squares Means||Constrained Longitudinal Data analysis with fixed effects for treatment, time, interaction of time by treatment, prior antihyperglycemic medication (monotherapy or dual therapy), and baseline eGFR (continuous).|-3.80|-4.77|<0.001
90814758|NCT01999218|181508315|OTHER||Difference in the LSM vs. Glimepiride|-3.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.36|-3.38|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis||||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis with fixed effects for treatment, time, interaction of time by treatment, prior antihyperglycemic medication (monotherapy or dual therapy), and baseline eGFR (continuous).|-3.38|-4.36|<0.001
90814759|NCT01999218|181508316|OTHER||Difference in the LSM vs. Glimepiride|-4.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.29|-3.25|||Constrained Logitudinal Data Analysis||||Constrained Logitudinal Data Analysis with fixed effects for treatment, time, interaction of time by treatment, prior anthyperglycemic medication (monotherapy or dual therapy), and baseline eGFR (continuous).|-3.25|-6.29|<0.001
90814760|NCT01999218|181508316|OTHER||Difference in the LSM vs. Glimepiride|-3.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|0.001|-4.73|-1.67|||Constrained Logitudinal Data Analysis||||Constrained Logitudinal Data Analysis with fixed effects for treatment, time, interaction of time by treatment, prior anthyperglycemic medication (monotherapy or dual therapy), and baseline eGFR (continuous).|-1.67|-4.73|<0.001
90814761|NCT01266590|181508318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0664||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank|||||||0.0664
90814762|NCT04253587|181508320|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was no difference between mean change scores for time-points X conditions.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|=|0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.06||Mixed effects ANOVA applied family wise error for post-hoc tests according to a priori hypothesis|ANOVA|||||0.06|-0.06|= 0.016
90814763|NCT04253587|181508321|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|=|0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.03|||ANOVA|effect of condition (F1,20 = 1.616, p = 0.22), effect of time (F1,20 = 0.613, p = 0.44)||||0.03|-0.03|= 0.22
90814764|NCT02905006|181508342|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value evaluating dose response excludes the BKZ Dose 3 group; is based on a logistic regression model with fixed effects for region, prior biologic exposure, continuous treatment variable with values of -2, -1, 0, 1, 2 for the remaining groups.|Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.0001
91016086|NCT05204563|181915155|OTHER||Treatment Difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|10.0||||||TOC (Day 21)||10.0|-9.2|
91016087|NCT05204563|181915155|OTHER||Treatment difference|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|12.6||||||LFU (Day 28)||12.6|-7.7|
91016088|NCT05204563|181915156|OTHER||Treatment difference|-4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.4|12.2||||||Day 4||12.2|-21.4|
91016089|NCT05204563|181915156|OTHER||Treatment difference|7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|21.2||||||EOT (up to Day 14)||21.2|-5.8|
91016090|NCT05204563|181915156|OTHER||Treatment difference|6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|22.0||||||TOC (Day 21)||22.0|-9.4|
91016091|NCT05204563|181915156|OTHER||Treatment difference|10.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|27.1||||||LFU (Day 28)||27.1|-5.9|
90814765|NCT02905006|181508342|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value evaluating dose response excludes the BKZ Dose 3 group; is based on a logistic regression model with fixed effects for region, prior biologic exposure, continuous treatment variable with values of -2, -1, 0, 1, 2 for the remaining groups.|Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.0001
90814766|NCT02905006|181508342|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value evaluating dose response excludes the BKZ Dose 3 group; is based on a logistic regression model with fixed effects for region, prior biologic exposure, continuous treatment variable with values of -2, -1, 0, 1, 2 for the remaining groups.|Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.0001
90814767|NCT02905006|181508342|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value evaluating dose response excludes the BKZ Dose 3 group; is based on a logistic regression model with fixed effects for region, prior biologic exposure, continuous treatment variable with values of -2, -1, 0, 1, 2 for the remaining groups.|Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.0001
90814768|NCT02905006|181508343|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|21.43|||=|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.51|101.88|||Regression, Logistic|Confidence intervals, odds ratios, p-values derived from a logistic regression model with fixed effects for treatment, region, prior bio-exposure.||||101.88|4.51|=0.0001
90814769|NCT02905006|181508343|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|63.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.9|309.83|||Regression, Logistic|Confidence intervals, odds ratios, p-values derived from a logistic regression model with fixed effects for treatment, region, prior bio-exposure.||||309.83|12.90|<0.0001
90814770|NCT02905006|181508343|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|62.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.61|308.29|||Regression, Logistic|Confidence intervals, odds ratios, p-values derived from a logistic regression model with fixed effects for treatment, region, prior bio-exposure.||||308.29|12.61|<0.0001
90814771|NCT02905006|181508343|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|130.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.5|693.51|||Regression, Logistic|Confidence intervals, odds ratios, p-values derived from a logistic regression model with fixed effects for treatment, region, prior bio-exposure.||||693.51|24.50|<0.0001
90814772|NCT02905006|181508343|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|69.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.07|342.4|||Regression, Logistic|Confidence intervals, odds ratios, p-values derived from a logistic regression model with fixed effects for treatment, region, prior bio-exposure.||||342.40|14.07|<0.0001
91016092|NCT05204563|181915157|OTHER||Treatment difference|5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.3|32.1||||||Day 4||32.1|-20.3|
91016093|NCT05204563|181915157|OTHER||Treatment difference|18.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|42.1||||||EOT (up to Day 14)||42.1|-5.4|
90814773|NCT02905006|181508344|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|18.23|||=|0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.79|87.76|||Regression, Logistic|Confidence intervals, odds ratios, p-values derived from a logistic regression model with fixed effects for treatment, region, prior bio-exposure.||||87.76|3.79|=0.0003
90814774|NCT02905006|181508344|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|39.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.19|191.59|||Regression, Logistic|Confidence intervals, odds ratios, p-values derived from a logistic regression model with fixed effects for treatment, region, prior bio-exposure.||||191.59|8.19|<0.0001
90814775|NCT02905006|181508344|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|77.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.19|392.93|||Regression, Logistic|Confidence intervals, odds ratios, p-values derived from a logistic regression model with fixed effects for treatment, region, prior bio-exposure.||||392.93|15.19|<0.0001
90814776|NCT02905006|181508344|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|141.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.26|767.72|||Regression, Logistic|Confidence intervals, odds ratios, p-values derived from a logistic regression model with fixed effects for treatment, region, prior bio-exposure.||||767.72|26.26|<0.0001
90814777|NCT02905006|181508344|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|58.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.89|288.0|||Regression, Logistic|Confidence intervals, odds ratios, p-values derived from a logistic regression model with fixed effects for treatment, region, prior bio-exposure.||||288.00|11.89|<0.0001
90814778|NCT02905006|181508345|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The placebo treatment group contained no PASI90 responders and as such the p-values for the pairwise comparisons are based upon the Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
90814779|NCT02905006|181508345|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The placebo treatment group contained no PASI90 responders and as such the p-values for the pairwise comparisons are based upon the Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
90814780|NCT02905006|181508345|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The placebo treatment group contained no PASI90 responders and as such the p-values for the pairwise comparisons are based upon the Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
90814781|NCT02905006|181508345|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The placebo treatment group contained no PASI90 responders and as such the p-values for the pairwise comparisons are based upon the Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
90814782|NCT02905006|181508345|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The placebo treatment group contained no PASI90 responders and as such the p-values for the pairwise comparisons are based upon the Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
90814783|NCT02905006|181508346|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|32.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.82|156.38|||Regression, Logistic|Confidence intervals, odds ratios, p-values derived from a logistic regression model with fixed effects for treatment, region, prior bio-exposure.||||156.38|6.82|<0.0001
91016094|NCT05204563|181915157|OTHER||Treatment difference|23.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|47.5||||||TOC (Day 21)||47.5|-1.5|
91016095|NCT05204563|181915157|OTHER||Treatment difference|14.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|39.7||||||LFU (Day 28)||39.7|-11.6|
91016096|NCT05204563|181915158|OTHER||Treatment difference|10.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|25.3||||||EOT (up to Day 14)||25.3|-3.5|
91016097|NCT05204563|181915158|OTHER||Treatment difference|6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|22.4||||||TOC (Day 21)||22.4|-9.7|
91016098|NCT05204563|181915158|OTHER||Treatment difference|8.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|24.7||||||LFU (Day 28)||24.7|-7.3|
91016099|NCT05204563|181915159|OTHER||Treatment difference|10.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|23.5||||||EOT (up to Day 14)||23.5|-2.3|
91016100|NCT05204563|181915159|OTHER||Treatment difference|6.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|20.0||||||TOC (Day 21)||20.0|-7.2|
91016101|NCT05204563|181915159|OTHER||Treatment difference|5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|18.9||||||LFU (Day 28)||18.9|-8.2|
91016102|NCT05204563|181915160|OTHER||Treatment difference|19.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|44.8||||||EOT (up to Day 14)||44.8|-6.4|
91016103|NCT05204563|181915160|OTHER||Treatment difference|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.3|22.0||||||TOC (Day 21)||22.0|-24.3|
91016104|NCT05204563|181915160|OTHER||Treatment difference|-10.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.9|12.5||||||LFU (Day 28)||12.5|-32.9|
91016105|NCT05204563|181915161|OTHER||Treatment difference|6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|20.4||||||EOT (up to Day 14)||20.4|-7.9|
90814784|NCT02905006|181508346|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|94.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.54|481.86|||Regression, Logistic|Confidence intervals, odds ratios, p-values derived from a logistic regression model with fixed effects for treatment, region, prior bio-exposure.||||481.86|18.54|<0.0001
90814785|NCT02905006|181508346|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|117.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.08|626.89|||Regression, Logistic|Confidence intervals, odds ratios, p-values derived from a logistic regression model with fixed effects for treatment, region, prior bio-exposure.||||626.89|22.08|<0.0001
90814786|NCT02905006|181508346|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|280.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.06|1789.24|||Regression, Logistic|Confidence intervals, odds ratios, p-values derived from a logistic regression model with fixed effects for treatment, region, prior bio-exposure.||||1789.24|44.06|<0.0001
90814787|NCT02905006|181508346|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|107.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.82|558.57|||Regression, Logistic|Confidence intervals, odds ratios, p-values derived from a logistic regression model with fixed effects for treatment, region, prior bio-exposure.||||558.57|20.82|<0.0001
90814788|NCT02905006|181508347|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||The placebo treatment group contained no PASI100 responders and as such the p-values for the pairwise comparisons are based upon the Fisher's exact test.||||=0.0001
90814789|NCT02905006|181508347|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0002|||||||Fisher Exact|||The placebo treatment group contained no PASI100 responders and as such the p-values for the pairwise comparisons are based upon the Fisher's exact test.||||=0.0002
90814790|NCT02905006|181508347|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||The placebo treatment group contained no PASI100 responders and as such the p-values for the pairwise comparisons are based upon the Fisher's exact test.||||<0.0001
90814791|NCT02905006|181508347|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||The placebo treatment group contained no PASI100 responders and as such the p-values for the pairwise comparisons are based upon the Fisher's exact test.||||<0.0001
90814792|NCT02905006|181508347|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||The placebo treatment group contained no PASI100 responders and as such the p-values for the pairwise comparisons are based upon the Fisher's exact test.||||<0.0001
90814793|NCT05149313|181508404|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|27.88|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.63|40.14|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||40.14|15.63|<0.0001
90814794|NCT05149313|181508405|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|17.8||||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.03|28.57|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||28.57|7.03|0.0052
91055275|NCT00593736|181992479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.257||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.257
90814795|NCT05149313|181508406|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|18.15||||0.0114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.47|30.83|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||30.83|5.47|0.0114
90814796|NCT04243330|181508423|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.01||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|2.48||the p-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.48|-0.46|0.18
90814797|NCT04243330|181508424|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.58||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|7.28||the p-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.28|-0.11|.06
90814798|NCT04243330|181508425|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|1.7||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|7.9||the p-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.9|-4.5|0.60
90814799|NCT04243330|181508426|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-4.1||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|4.7||p-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.7|-12.8|0.36
90814800|NCT04243330|181508427|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.5||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|-0.67||p-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.67|-8.3|.02
90814801|NCT04243330|181508428|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.56||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|4.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.4|-5.5|0.82
90814802|NCT01114360|181508501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.075|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Two-way repeated measures mixed model ANOVA.||The null hypothesis is that there is no interaction between the order of randomization and primary outcomes.||||0.075
90814803|NCT01114360|181508501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.75
90814804|NCT01114360|181508502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.79
90814805|NCT01114360|181508503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.21
90814806|NCT01114360|181508504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.64
90814807|NCT01114360|181508505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.89
90814808|NCT01114360|181508506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.97
90814809|NCT01114360|181508507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.01
90814810|NCT01114360|181508508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis is that there is no interaction between the order of randomization and primary outcomes.||||0.75
90814811|NCT01114360|181508509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71|TWO_SIDED||||||Friedman|||||||0.71
90814812|NCT01114360|181508510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38|TWO_SIDED||||||Friedman|||||||0.38
90814813|NCT01114360|181508511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||Friedman|||||||0.11
90814814|NCT01114360|181508512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.96
90814815|NCT01114360|181508513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.25
90814816|NCT01114360|181508514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.52
90814817|NCT03007745|181508517|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.96|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Unadjusted|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test comparing baseline and 3-month measures within group||||<0.0001
90814818|NCT03007745|181508517|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.73|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.97|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Unadjusted||Paired t-test comparing baseline and 3-month measures within group||||<0.0001
90890380|NCT00907153|181645327|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.8||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.94|17.34|||Regression, Linear|Model-based differences adjusted for oral contraceptive use and season.||||17.34|-42.94|0.39
90814819|NCT03007745|181508517|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.9171|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted mean changes and adjusted differences in mean changes were estimated as site-total-sample-size weighted values controlling for treatment group differences in mean pre-treatment baseline values|ANCOVA|||Adjusted differences in mean changes were estimated as site-total-sample-size weighted values controlling for treatment group differences in mean pre-treatment baseline values. ANCOVA model included main effects for type of study (home versus in-laboratory), site, and the pre-treatment baseline value of the outcome measure.||||0.9171
90814820|NCT03007745|181508517|NON_INFERIORITY|We hypothesized that the lower bound of the non-inferiority analysis of FOSQ-10 would be greater than the a-priori threshold of -1.0.|||||>|0.05||||||"Adjusted group difference in mean change in FOSQ-10 score from baseline to Month 3, controlling for baseline FOSQ and site, was -0.06 ± 061 (SEM) (P = 0.917).~The lower bound of the 95% noninferiority confidence interval was -1.08"|ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
90814821|NCT03007745|181508518|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.31|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.86|<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|||||Subjects initiated on CPAP and receiving a 3-month follow-up (LOCF applied using 1-month data) Paired t-test comparing baseline and 3-month measures within group|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test comparing baseline and 3-month measures within group||||<0.0001
90814822|NCT03007745|181508518|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.51|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.52|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Subjects initiated on CPAP and receiving a 3-month follow-up (LOCF applied using 1-month data) Paired t-test comparing baseline and 3-month measures within group|t-test, 2 sided|||Subjects initiated on CPAP and receiving a 3-month follow-up (LOCF applied using 1-month data) Paired t-test comparing baseline and 3-month measures within group||||<0.0001
90814823|NCT03007745|181508518|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.9251|ONE_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA included main effects for group, site, and the pre-treatment baseline value of the outcome measure||Adjusted differences in mean changes were estimated as site-total-sample-size weighted values controlling for treatment group differences in mean pre-treatment baseline values. ANCOVA model included main effects for type of study (home versus in-laboratory), site, and the pre-treatment baseline value of the outcome measure.||||0.9251
90814824|NCT03007745|181508519|SUPERIORITY|Paired t-test comparing change in score (3-month - baseline) within group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.33||0.4116|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Subjects initiated on CPAP and receiving a 3-month follow-up (LOCF applied using 1-month data)||Within arm change from baseline to 3 month follow-up||||0.4116
90814825|NCT03007745|181508519|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.39||0.2201|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test comparing change in score (3-month - baseline) within group||||0.2201
90814826|NCT03007745|181508519|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.1732|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA included main effects for group, site, and the pre-treatment baseline value of the outcome measure||Adjusted differences in mean changes between groups from baseline to month 3 in participants initiated on CPAP (LOCF applied using 1-month data).||||0.1732
90814827|NCT03007745|181508520|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.76|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.73|<|0.0003|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Unadjusted||Paired t-test comparing baseline and 3-month measures within group||||<0.0003
90814828|NCT03007745|181508520|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.38|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Unadjusted||Subjects initiated on CPAP and receiving a 3-month follow-up (LOCF applied using 1-month data) Paired t-test comparing baseline and 3-month measures within group||||<0.0001
90814829|NCT03007745|181508520|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.673|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA included main effects for group, site, and the pre-treatment baseline value of the outcome measure||Adjusted differences in mean changes were estimated as site-total-sample-size weighted values controlling for treatment group differences in mean pre-treatment baseline values. Subjects initiated on CPAP and receiving a 3-month follow-up (LOCF applied using 1-month data)||||0.6730
90814830|NCT03007745|181508521|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.94|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Unadjusted|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test comparing baseline and 3-month measures within group (LOCF applied using 1-month data)||Paired t-test comparing baseline and 3-month measures within group (LOCF applied using 1-month data)||||<0.0001
90814831|NCT03007745|181508521|SUPERIORITY|Paired t-test comparing baseline and 3-month measures within group (LOCF applied using 1-month data)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.96||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Unadjusted|t-test, 2 sided|||Subjects initiated on CPAP and receiving a 3-month follow-up (LOCF applied using 1-month data)||||0.0001
90814832|NCT03007745|181508521|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.9903|TWO_SIDED|||||ANCOVA included main effects for group, site, and the pre-treatment baseline value of the outcome measure|ANCOVA|Adjusted differences in mean changes estimated as site-total-sample-size weighted values controlling for group differences in mean baseline values||Between group comparison of change in Insomnia Severity Index (ISI) at 3 months (LOCF applied using 1-month data)||||0.9903
90814833|NCT03007745|181508525|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Between group comparison of Client Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ-8) at 3 months (LOCF applied using 1-month data)||||>0.05
90814834|NCT03007745|181508526|NON_INFERIORITY|The a-priori lower bound selected for the non-inferiority analysis of average daily CPAP use over 3 months was -0.75 hours.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.308|TWO_SIDED|||||Group difference (REVAMP - In-person) in mean CPAP daily use over all days adjusted for investigative site.|ANCOVA|The lower bound of the 95% noninferiority confidence interval was -0.22.||||||0.308
90814835|NCT03344172|181508529|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.52||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|6.71|||Fisher Exact|||||6.71|0.30|0.63
90814836|NCT03344172|181508530|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.63|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.52||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.25|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.25|-1.00|0.13
91016106|NCT05204563|181915161|OTHER||Treatment difference|7.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|24.5||||||TOC (Day 21)||24.5|-9.5|
91016107|NCT05204563|181915161|OTHER||Treatment difference|8.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|26.0||||||LFU (Day 28)||26.0|-8.6|
91016108|NCT05204563|181915162|OTHER||Treatment difference|23.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|42.3||||||Klebsiella pneumoniae complex EOT (up to Day 14)||42.3|4.3|
91016109|NCT05204563|181915162|OTHER||Treatment difference|7.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|29.2||||||Klebsiella pneumoniae complex TOC (Day 21)||29.2|-13.6|
91016110|NCT05204563|181915162|OTHER||Treatment difference|11.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|33.5||||||Klebsiella pneumoniae complex LFU (Day 28)||33.5|-9.6|
90814837|NCT00159913|181508569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|7.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.98||0.056||95.0|-0.19|15.6||No adjustments for multiple comparisons have been made.|ANCOVA|Analyses performed using analysis of covariance with etiology, weight and baseline peak VO2 as the covariates.||||15.60|-0.19|0.056
90814838|NCT00159913|181508569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0||||95.0|-6.11|13.73|||ANCOVA|Analyses performed using analysis of covariance with etiology, weight and baseline peak VO2 as the covariates.||||13.73|-6.11|
90814839|NCT00159913|181508569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|11.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.84||||95.0|1.72|20.94|||ANCOVA|Analyses performed using analysis of covariance with etiology, weight and baseline peak VO2 as the covariates.||||20.94|1.72|
90814840|NCT00159913|181508569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|7.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.85||||95.0|-1.64|17.6|||ANCOVA|Analyses performed using analysis of covariance with etiology, weight and baseline peak VO2 as the covariates.||||17.60|-1.64|
90814841|NCT00159913|181508570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2||0.172||95.0|-7.5|1.3|||ANCOVA|Covariates:etiology, wt grp, capability performing exercise test. Normality assumptions not met with main analysis: alternative=excluding outliers||||1.3|-7.5|0.172
91016111|NCT05204563|181915162|OTHER||Treatment difference|22.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.6|63.7||||||Pseudomonas aeruginosa EOT (up to Day 14)||63.7|-18.6|
91016112|NCT05204563|181915162|OTHER||Treatment difference|8.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.2|47.6||||||Pseudomonas aeruginosa TOC (Day 21)||47.6|-30.2|
91055276|NCT00593736|181992479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.688||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.688
90814842|NCT00159913|181508570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1||||95.0|-4.5|7.6|||ANCOVA|Covariates:etiology, wt grp, capability performing exercise test. Normality assumptions not met with main analysis: alternative=excluding outliers||||7.6|-4.5|
90814843|NCT00159913|181508570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7||||95.0|-8.9|1.9|||ANCOVA|Covariates:etiology, wt grp, capability performing exercise test. Normality assumptions not met with main analysis: alternative=excluding outliers||||1.9|-8.9|
90814844|NCT00159913|181508570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6||||95.0|-12.4|-2.1|||ANCOVA|Covariates:etiology, wt grp, capability performing exercise test. Normality assumptions not met with main analysis: alternative=excluding outliers||||-2.1|-12.4|
90814845|NCT00159913|181508571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.041||95.0|-8.0|-0.2|||ANCOVA|Covariates:etiology, wt grp, capability performing exercise test. Normality assumptions not met w/ main analysis: alternative=natural log transformed||||-0.2|-8.0|0.041
90814846|NCT00159913|181508571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7||||95.0|-5.9|4.7|||ANCOVA|Covariates:etiology, wt grp, capability performing exercise test. Normality assumptions not met w/ main analysis: alternative=natural log transformed||||4.7|-5.9|
90814847|NCT00159913|181508571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||||95.0|-9.3|0.3|||ANCOVA|Covariates:etiology, wt grp, capability performing exercise test. Normality assumptions not met w/ main analysis: alternative=natural log transformed||||0.3|-9.3|
90814848|NCT00159913|181508571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3||||95.0|-11.7|-2.7|||ANCOVA|Covariates:etiology, wt grp, capability performing exercise test. Normality assumptions not met w/ main analysis: alternative=natural log transformed||||-2.7|-11.7|
90814849|NCT00159913|181508572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.36||0.795||95.0|-4.07|5.3|||ANCOVA|The model included the covariates etiology and weight group||||5.30|-4.07|0.795
90814850|NCT00159913|181508572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.99||||95.0|-3.31|8.54|||ANCOVA|The model included the covariates etiology and weight group||||8.54|-3.31|
90814851|NCT00159913|181508572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.92||||95.0|-7.09|4.5|||ANCOVA|The model included the covariates etiology and weight group||||4.50|-7.09|
90814852|NCT00159913|181508572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9||||95.0|-5.24|6.28|||ANCOVA|The model included the covariates etiology and weight group||||6.28|-5.24|
90814853|NCT00159913|181508573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.2||0.139||95.0|-3.05|21.54|||ANCOVA|The model included the covariates etiology and weight group||||21.54|-3.05|0.139
90814854|NCT00159913|181508573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.84||||95.0|-5.21|25.9|||ANCOVA|The model included the covariates etiology and weight group||||25.90|-5.21|
90814855|NCT00159913|181508573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.67||||95.0|-3.78|26.64|||ANCOVA|The model included the covariates etiology and weight group||||26.64|-3.78|
91016113|NCT05204563|181915162|OTHER||Treatment difference|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.5|38.9||||||Pseudomonas aeruginosa LFU (Day 28)||38.9|-37.5|
91016114|NCT05204563|181915162|OTHER||Treatment difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.3|46.3||||||A.calco/baumannii complex EOT (up to Day 14)||46.3|-46.3|
91016115|NCT05204563|181915162|OTHER||Treatment difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.3|46.3||||||A.calco/baumannii complex TOC (Day 21)||46.3|-46.3|
91016116|NCT05204563|181915162|OTHER||Treatment difference|9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.7|56.9||||||A.calco/baumannii complex LFU (Day 28)||56.9|-38.7|
91016117|NCT05204563|181915162|OTHER||Treatment difference|-40.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|37.9||||||Enterobacter cloacae complex EOT (up to Day 14)||37.9|-100.0|
91016118|NCT05204563|181915162|OTHER||Treatment difference|-60.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|17.9||||||Enterobacter cloacae complex TOC (Day 21)||17.9|-100.0|
91016119|NCT05204563|181915162|OTHER||Treatment difference|-60.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|17.9||||||Enterobacter cloacae complex LFU (Day 28)||17.9|-100.0|
91016120|NCT05204563|181915162|OTHER||Treatment difference|-33.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|53.3||||||Klebsiella aerogenes EOT (up to Day 14)||53.3|-100.0|
91016121|NCT05204563|181915162|OTHER||Treatment difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|100.0||||||Klebsiella aerogenes TOC (Day 21)||100.0|-100.0|
90814856|NCT00159913|181508573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.62||||95.0|-9.16|21.08|||ANCOVA|The model included the covariates etiology and weight group||||21.08|-9.16|
90814857|NCT00159913|181508574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.172||95.0|-7.1|1.3|||ANCOVA|The model included the covariates etiology, weight group and capability of performing the exercise test||||1.3|-7.1|0.172
90814858|NCT00159913|181508574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9||||95.0|-5.5|5.9|||ANCOVA|The model included the covariates etiology, weight group and capability of performing the exercise test||||5.9|-5.5|
90814859|NCT00159913|181508574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6||||95.0|-8.5|1.7|||ANCOVA|The model included the covariates etiology, weight group and capability of performing the exercise test||||1.7|-8.5|
90814860|NCT00159913|181508574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||||95.0|-10.3|-0.7|||ANCOVA|The model included the covariates etiology, weight group and capability of performing the exercise test||||-0.7|-10.3|
90814861|NCT00159913|181508575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.015||95.0|0.14|1.34|||ANCOVA|The model included the covariates etiology, weight group and capability of performing the exercise test||||1.34|0.14|0.015
90814862|NCT00159913|181508575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||||95.0|-0.1|1.52|||ANCOVA|The model included the covariates etiology, weight group and capability of performing the exercise test||||1.52|-0.10|
90814863|NCT00159913|181508575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||||95.0|-0.12|1.35|||ANCOVA|The model included the covariates etiology, weight group and capability of performing the exercise test||||1.35|-0.12|
90814864|NCT00159913|181508575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||||95.0|0.21|1.58|||ANCOVA|The model included the covariates etiology, weight group and capability of performing the exercise test||||1.58|0.21|
90814865|NCT00159913|181508576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.44||95.0|-1.77|0.77|||ANCOVA|The model included the covariates etiology, weight group and capability of performing the exercise test||||0.77|-1.77|0.440
90814866|NCT00159913|181508576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88||||95.0|-1.91|1.57|||ANCOVA|The model included the covariates etiology, weight group and capability of performing the exercise test||||1.57|-1.91|
90814867|NCT00159913|181508576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||||95.0|-1.73|1.36|||ANCOVA|The model included the covariates etiology, weight group and capability of performing the exercise test||||1.36|-1.73|
90814868|NCT00159913|181508576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||||95.0|-2.61|0.33|||ANCOVA|The model included the covariates etiology, weight group and capability of performing the exercise test||||0.33|-2.61|
90814869|NCT00159913|181508577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93||0.75||95.0|-4.45|3.21|||ANCOVA|The covariates included in the model were baseline scale, etiology, weight and capability of performing the exercise test.||||3.21|-4.45|0.750
90814870|NCT00159913|181508577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.57||||95.0|-4.21|5.95|||ANCOVA|||||5.95|-4.21|
90814871|NCT00159913|181508577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.49||||95.0|-4.68|5.15|||ANCOVA|||||5.15|-4.68|
90814872|NCT00159913|181508577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.23||||95.0|-7.37|1.45|||ANCOVA|||||1.45|-7.37|
90814873|NCT00159913|181508578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.51||0.784||95.0|-3.41|2.58|||ANCOVA|The covariates included in the model were baseline scale, etiology, weight and capability of performing the exercise test.||||2.58|-3.41|0.784
90814874|NCT00159913|181508578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.97||||95.0|-3.49|4.3|||ANCOVA|||||4.30|-3.49|
90814875|NCT00159913|181508578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.96||||95.0|-5.99|1.77|||ANCOVA|||||1.77|-5.99|
91055277|NCT00593736|181992480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.561||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.561
90814876|NCT00159913|181508578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.77||||95.0|-3.06|3.97|||ANCOVA|||||3.97|-3.06|
90814877|NCT00159913|181508579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.83||||0.184||95.0|0.75|4.45|||Regression, Logistic|Proportional odds method. Model covariates were baseline WHO functional class, etiology, weight group and capability of performing the exercise test.||||4.45|0.75|0.184
90814878|NCT00159913|181508579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.409||95.0|0.18|2.01|||Regression, Logistic|Proportional odds method. Model covariates were baseline WHO functional class, etiology, weight group and capability of performing the exercise test.||||2.01|0.18|0.409
90814879|NCT00159913|181508579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.25||||0.146||95.0|0.75|6.69|||Regression, Logistic|Proportional odds method. Model covariates were baseline WHO functional class, etiology, weight group and capability of performing the exercise test.||||6.69|0.75|0.146
90814880|NCT00159913|181508579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.52||||0.006||95.0|1.56|13.1|||Regression, Logistic|Proportional odds method. Model covariates were baseline WHO functional class, etiology, weight group and capability of performing the exercise test.||||13.10|1.56|0.006
90814881|NCT00159913|181508580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.35||0.179||95.0|-2.74|14.53|||ANCOVA|Analyses performed using analysis of covariance with etiology, weight and baseline peak VO2 as the covariates||||14.53|-2.74|0.179
90814882|NCT00159913|181508580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.35||||95.0|-9.49|11.77|||ANCOVA|Analyses performed using analysis of covariance with etiology, weight and baseline peak VO2 as the covariates||||11.77|-9.49|
90814883|NCT00159913|181508580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.36||||95.0|0.66|21.96|||ANCOVA|Analyses performed using analysis of covariance with etiology, weight and baseline peak VO2 as the covariates||||21.96|0.66|
90814884|NCT00159913|181508580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.16||||95.0|-5.02|15.5|||ANCOVA|Analyses performed using analysis of covariance with etiology, weight and baseline peak VO2 as the covariates||||15.50|-5.02|
90814885|NCT00385723|181508613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in change from baseline|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|-0.028||Bonferroni-adjusted to account for multiple testing.|Mixed Models Analysis||1.25 g/d minus placebo|Comparison was made on change from baseline to 4 months||-0.028|-0.19|0.03
90814886|NCT00385723|181508613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in change from baseline|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|-0.052||Bonferroni-adjusted to account for multiple testing.|Mixed Models Analysis||2.5 g/d minus placebo|Comparison was made on the change from baseline to 4 months.||-0.052|-0.22|0.004
90814887|NCT00385723|181508614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in change from baseline|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.21||Bonferroni-adjusted to account for multiple testing.|Mixed Models Analysis||1.25 g/d minus placebo|Comparison was made on change from baseline to 4 months.||-0.21|-0.62|0.0003
90814888|NCT00385723|181508614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in change from baseline|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|-0.22||Bonferroni-adjusted to account for multiple testing.|Mixed Models Analysis||2.5 g/d minus placebo|Comparison was made on the change from baseline to 4 months.||-0.22|-0.64|0.0002
90814889|NCT00385723|181508615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in change from baseline|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.18||Bonferroni-adjusted to account for multiple testing.|Mixed Models Analysis||1.25 g/d minus placebo|Comparison was made on the change from baseline to 4 months.||0.18|-0.64|0.80
91016122|NCT05204563|181915162|OTHER||Treatment difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|100.0||||||Klebsiella aerogenes LFU (Day 28)||100.0|-100.0|
91016123|NCT05204563|181915162|OTHER||Treatment difference|-33.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|86.7||||||Escherichia coli TOC (Day 21)||86.7|-100.0|
90814890|NCT00385723|181508615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in change from baseline|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.21||Bonferroni-adjusted to account for multiple testing.|Mixed Models Analysis||2.5 g/d minus placebo|Comparison was made on the change from baseline to 4 months.||0.21|-0.61|1.0
90814891|NCT00168103|181508618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.525||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.217|-0.033||1-sided P-value. The a priori threshold was 0.024 (overall Type 1 error 0.025 adjusted for alpha spending for an interim analysis).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|1-sided|The median difference was estimated by the Hodges-Lehmann estimate.|||-0.033|-2.217|0.0025
90814892|NCT00168103|181508619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.1088||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.0392|0.3023||1-sided P-value. The a priori threshold for significance was 0.1 (trend).|Fisher Exact|1-sided|The Odds Ratio was calculated as C1-INH 20 U/kg bw (numerator) versus Placebo (denominator).|Worsened intensity was evaluated between 2 and 4 hours after start of study treatment relative to baseline for at least 1 of the HAE symptoms present at baseline.||0.3023|0.0392|0.0014
90814893|NCT00168103|181508620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-3.292||||0.0237|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.15|-1.05||1-sided, exploratory test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|1-sided|The median difference was estimated by the Hodge-Lehmann estimate.|This was an exploratory analysis.||-1.050|-5.150|0.0237
90814894|NCT00168103|181508621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.1714|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0642|0.4575|||||The Odds Ratio was calculated as C1-INH 20 U/kg bw (numerator) versus Placebo (denominator).|This was an exploratory analysis.||0.4575|0.0642|
90814895|NCT00168103|181508622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0329|TWO_SIDED|80.0||||1-sided P-value. The a priori threshold for significance was 0.1 (trend).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|1-sided||||||0.0329
90814896|NCT00689793|181508631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.5||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|10.0||Significant level of treatment effect was set at p\<0.05|Regression, Linear|Level of fatigue at four weeks:dependant variable. Group allocation and level of fatigue at baseline: independant variables.||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in fatigue VAS scores between the treatment and placebo groups at 4 weeks||10|0|0.69
90814897|NCT00689793|181508632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.5|<|0.05||95.0|0.0|10.0|||Regression, Linear|Hemoglobin value at four weeks : dependant variable. Group allocation and hemoglobin value at baseline : independant variables.||||10|0|<0.05
90814898|NCT00689793|181508633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|30.0|||Regression, Linear|Ferritin level at 4 weeks : dependant variable. Group allocation and ferritin level at baseline: independant variables.||||30|0|<0.05
90814899|NCT00689793|181508634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.0||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|6.0|||Regression, Linear|Aerobic capacity at 4 weeks : dependant variables. Group allocation and aerobic capacity at baseline : independant variable.||||6|0|0.05
90814900|NCT02469714|181508704|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.66||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between group comparison of total scheduled appointments from 1-13 months||||.04
90814901|NCT02469714|181508704|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.61||||0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between group comparison of total achieved appointments from 1-13 months||||.008
90814902|NCT02469714|181508705|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.99||||0.135|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis applies from baseline to 12 month.||||.135
90814903|NCT02469714|181508706|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.99||||0.077|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis applies from baseline to 12 month.||||.077
90814904|NCT02469714|181508707|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis applies from baseline to 12 month.||||.0005
91016124|NCT05204563|181915162|OTHER||Treatment difference|-33.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|86.7||||||Escherichia coli LFU (Day 28)||86.7|-100.0|
91016125|NCT05204563|181915162|OTHER||Treatment difference|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-94.3|100.0||||||Citrobacter koseri TOC (Day 21)||100.0|-94.3|
91016126|NCT05204563|181915162|OTHER||Treatment difference|-50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|94.3||||||Citrobacter koseri LFU (Day 28)||94.3|-100.0|
91016127|NCT05204563|181915162|OTHER||Treatment difference|-100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|0.0||||||Klebsiella oxytoca TOC (Day 21)||0.0|-100.0|
90814905|NCT02469714|181508708|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.05||||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis applies from baseline to 12 month.||||.060
90814906|NCT02469714|181508709|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.03||||0.073|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis applies from baseline to 12 month.||||.073
90814907|NCT02469714|181508710|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.93||||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis applies from baseline to 12 month.||||.34
90814908|NCT02469714|181508711|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.95||||0.21|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis applies from baseline to 12 month.||||.21
90814909|NCT02068118|181508743|SUPERIORITY||rate ratio|0.97|||=|0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.23|||negative binomial regression|||"Number of events compared using a negative binomial regression model with log link for the expected rate of events (i.e., number of events divided by the effective duration of follow-up).~Deaths that occurred during hospitalization with an overnight stay were counted as two events."||1.23|0.77|=0.80
90814910|NCT02068118|181508744|SUPERIORITY||rate ratio|0.82|||=|0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.1|||negative binomial regression|||"Number of events compared using a negative binomial regression model with log link for the expected rate of events (i.e., number of events divided by the effective duration of follow-up).~Deaths that occurred during hospitalization with an overnight stay were counted as two events."||1.10|0.62|=0.18
90814911|NCT02068118|181508745|SUPERIORITY||rate ratio|0.6|||=|0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.92|||negative binomial regression|||"Number of events compared using a negative binomial regression model with log link for the expected rate of events (i.e., number of events divided by the effective duration of follow-up).~Deaths that occurred during hospitalization with an overnight stay were counted as two events."||0.92|0.39|=0.02
90814912|NCT02068118|181508746|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.68|||||||Log Rank|||Time to first event compared using the log-rank test||||=0.68
90814913|NCT02068118|181508748|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.85|||||||Log Rank|||Time to death from any cause compared using the log-rank test||||=0.85
90814914|NCT02068118|181508749|SUPERIORITY||rate ratio|0.97|||=|0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.21|||negative binomial regression|||Number of events compared using a negative binomial regression model with log link for the expected rate of events (i.e., number of events divided by the effective duration of follow-up).||1.21|0.78|=0.77
90814915|NCT02068118|181508750|SUPERIORITY||rate ratio|0.97|||=|0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.27|||negative binomial regression|||"Number of events compared using a negative binomial regression model with log link for the expected rate of events (i.e., number of events divided by the effective duration of follow-up).~Deaths from cardiovascular cause that occurred during a hospitalization for cardiovascular cause with an overnight stay were counted as two events."||1.27|0.74|=0.83
91016128|NCT05204563|181915162|OTHER||Treatment difference|-100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|0.0||||||Klebsiella oxytoca LFU (Day 28)||0.0|-100.0|
90814916|NCT02068118|181508751|SUPERIORITY||rate ratio|0.84|||=|0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.15|||negative binomial regression|||Number of events compared using a negative binomial regression model with log link for the expected rate of events (i.e., number of events divided by the effective duration of follow-up)||1.15|0.62|=0.28
90814917|NCT02068118|181508752|SUPERIORITY||rate ratio|0.71|||=|0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.04|||negative binomial regression|||Number of events compared using a negative binomial regression model with log link for the expected rate of events (i.e., number of events divided by the effective duration of follow-up)||1.04|0.48|=0.078
90814918|NCT02068118|181508753|SUPERIORITY||rate ratio|0.5|||=|0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.91|||negative binomial regression|||Number of events compared using a negative binomial regression model with log link for the expected rate of events (i.e., number of events divided by the effective duration of follow-up)||0.91|0.28|=0.023
90814919|NCT02068118|181508754|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79|||=|0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.99|||Regression, Cox|||Time to first unplanned hospital readmission for heart failure compared using multivariable Cox regression model||0.99|0.62|=0.044
90814920|NCT02068118|181508755|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Means Difference|1.06|||=|0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|4.61||Study group effect over time|Mixed Models Analysis|||ANCOVA Physical Functioning score: Parametric analysis of covariance mixed model on repeated measurements (Baseline, 12 and 18 months) with physical functioning score assessed at baseline as covariate, study group and visit as fixed factors, interaction between study group and visit, interaction between study group and score assessed at baseline and patient as random factor||4.61|-2.48|=0.17
90814921|NCT02068118|181508755|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Means Difference|1.8|||=|0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|6.21||Study group effect over time|Mixed Models Analysis|||ANCOVA Role Physical score: Parametric analysis of covariance mixed model on repeated measurements (Baseline, 12 and 18 months) with role physical score assessed at baseline as covariate, study group and visit as fixed factors, interaction between study group and visit, interaction between study group and score assessed at baseline and patient as random factor||6.21|-2.61|=0.23
90814922|NCT02068118|181508755|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Means Difference|4.46|||=|0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|8.33||Study group effect over time|Mixed Models Analysis|||ANCOVA Bodily Pain score: Parametric analysis of covariance mixed model on repeated measurements (Baseline, 12 and 18 months) with bodily pain score assessed at baseline as covariate, study group and visit as fixed factors, interaction between study group and visit, interaction between study group and score assessed at baseline and patient as random factor||8.33|0.59|=0.50
90814923|NCT02068118|181508755|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Means Difference|2.52|||=|0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|5.12||Study group effect over time|Mixed Models Analysis|||ANCOVA General Health score: Parametric analysis of covariance mixed model on repeated measurements (Baseline, 12 and 18 months) with general health score assessed at baseline as covariate, study group and visit as fixed factors, interaction between study group and visit, interaction between study group and score assessed at baseline and patient as random factor||5.12|-0.07|=0.19
91016129|NCT05204563|181915163|OTHER||Treatment difference|18.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|35.5||||||Klebsiella pneumoniae complex EOT (up to Day 14)||35.5|0.4|
91016130|NCT05204563|181915163|OTHER||Treatment difference|18.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|48.3||||||A.calco/baumannii complex EOT (up to Day 14)||48.3|-11.3|
91016131|NCT05204563|181915163|OTHER||Treatment difference|9.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.0|45.7||||||Pseudomonas aeruginosa EOT (up to Day 14)||45.7|-27.0|
91016132|NCT05204563|181915163|OTHER||Treatment difference|-33.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-96.1|29.4||||||Burkholderia cepacia complex EOT (up to Day 14)||29.4|-96.1|
91016133|NCT05204563|181915163|OTHER||Treatment difference|-33.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-96.1|29.4||||||Klebsiella aerogenes EOT (up to Day 14)||29.4|-96.1|
90814924|NCT02068118|181508755|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Means Difference|2.38|||=|0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|4.85||Study group effect over time|Mixed Models Analysis|||ANCOVA Vitality score: Parametric analysis of covariance mixed model on repeated measurements (Baseline, 12 and 18 months) with vitality score assessed at baseline as covariate, study group and visit as fixed factors, interaction between study group and visit, interaction between study group and score assessed at baseline and patient as random factor||4.85|-0.09|=0.034
90814925|NCT02068118|181508755|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Means Difference|4.03|||=|0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|7.47||Study group effect over time|Mixed Models Analysis|||ANCOVA Social Functioning score: Parametric analysis of covariance mixed model on repeated measurements (Baseline, 12 and 18 months) with social functioning score assessed at baseline as covariate, study group and visit as fixed factors, interaction between study group and visit, interaction between study group and score assessed at baseline and patient as random factor||7.47|0.60|=0.025
90814926|NCT02068118|181508755|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Means Difference|1.01|||=|0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.79|4.81||Study group effect over time|Mixed Models Analysis|||ANCOVA Role Emotional score: Parametric analysis of covariance mixed model on repeated measurements (Baseline, 12 and 18 months) with role emotional score assessed at baseline as covariate, study group and visit as fixed factors, interaction between study group and visit, interaction between study group and score assessed at baseline and patient as random factor||4.81|-2.79|=0.90
90814927|NCT02068118|181508755|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Means Difference|2.26|||=|0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|4.37||Study group effect over time|Mixed Models Analysis|||ANCOVA Mental Health score: Parametric analysis of covariance mixed model on repeated measurements (Baseline, 12 and 18 months) with mental health score assessed at baseline as covariate, study group and visit as fixed factors, interaction between study group and visit, interaction between study group and score assessed at baseline and patient as random factor||4.37|0.16|=0.19
90814928|NCT02068118|181508755|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Means Difference|0.9|||=|0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|2.28||Study group effect over time|Mixed Models Analysis|||ANCOVA Physical Component Summary (PCS) score: Parametric analysis of covariance mixed model on repeated measurements (Baseline, 12 and 18 months) with PCS score assessed at baseline as covariate, study group and visit as fixed factors, interaction between study group and visit, interaction between study group and score assessed at baseline and patient as random factor||2.28|-0.48|=0.26
90814929|NCT02068118|181508755|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Means Difference|1.2|||=|0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|2.31||Study group effect over time|Mixed Models Analysis|||ANCOVA Mental Component Summary (MCS) score: Parametric analysis of covariance mixed model on repeated measurements (Baseline, 12 and 18 months) with MCS score assessed at baseline as covariate, study group and visit as fixed factors, interaction between study group and visit, interaction between study group and score assessed at baseline and patient as random factor||2.31|0.08|=0.17
90814930|NCT02068118|181508760|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.03|||||||Log Rank|||Time to first event compared using the log-rank test||||=0.03
90814931|NCT02068118|181508761|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.15|||||||Log Rank|||Time to first event compared using the log-rank test||||=0.15
90814932|NCT02068118|181508762|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||=|0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.95|||Regression, Cox|||Time to first unplanned hospital readmission for heart failure compared using multivariable Cox regression model||0.95|0.53|=0.02
90814933|NCT02068118|181508763|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62|||=|0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.98|||Regression, Cox|||Time to first unplanned hospital readmission for heart failure compared using multivariable Cox regression model||0.98|0.39|=0.043
90814934|NCT00892606|181508764|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0072|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0072
90814935|NCT00892606|181508765|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.004
90814936|NCT00892606|181508766|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0146|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0146
91016134|NCT05204563|181915163|OTHER||Treatment difference|-40.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|29.6||||||Enterobacter cloacae complex EOT (up to Day 14)||29.6|-100.0|
91016135|NCT05204563|181915163|OTHER||Treatment difference|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|100.0||||||Serratia marcescens EOT (up to Day 14)||100.0|0.0|
90814937|NCT00140842|181508767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|15.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.0|<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis was that there is no difference between the groups for peak growth hormone on the growth hormone stimulation test.||||<0.05
90814938|NCT00140842|181508768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|23.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.0|<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the groups for visceral adipose tissue||||<0.05
90814939|NCT00353873|181508774|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was tested using a one-sided significance level of 2.5%. If the lower confidence interval for the difference SFC-FP falls above -12 L/min the once daily SFC treatment combination was deemed to be statistically non-inferior. In the event that the lower confidence limit (2.5% 1-sided significance) exceeded 0, and using a separate closed testing procedure, superiority could be established.|Mean Difference (Net)|7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.01||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|13.5|||ANCOVA|||||13.5|1.7|0.012
90814940|NCT00353873|181508775|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was tested using a one-sided significance level of 2.5%. If the lower confidence interval for the difference SFC-FP falls above -12 L/min the once daily SFC treatment combination was deemed to be statistically non-inferior. In the event that the lower confidence limit (2.5% 1-sided significance) exceeded 0, and using a separate closed testing procedure, superiority could be established.|Mean Difference (Net)|9.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.08||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|15.3|||ANCOVA|||||15.3|3.2|0.003
90814941|NCT00353873|181508776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.4|0.7|0.389
90814942|NCT00353873|181508777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.9|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.9|0.7|0.535
90814943|NCT01515475|181508778|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|3.0||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|18.0|||Barnard's Exact Test|||||18|-12|0.72
90814944|NCT01515475|181508778|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-13.0||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.0|4.0|||Barnard's Exact Test|||||4|-31|0.14
91016136|NCT05204563|181915163|OTHER||Treatment difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|20.0||||||Klebsiella pneumoniae complex TOC (Day 21)||20.0|-19.4|
91016137|NCT05204563|181915163|OTHER||Treatment difference|9.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.1|40.7||||||A.calco/baumannii complex TOC (Day 21)||40.7|-22.1|
91016138|NCT05204563|181915163|OTHER||Treatment difference|5.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.2|39.8||||||Pseudomonas aeruginosa TOC (Day 21)||39.8|-28.2|
90814945|NCT01515475|181508786|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.11|1.09||Results are considered statistically significant if p\<0.01.|ANCOVA|||"Analysis for the more hyperopic eye, Older Cohort:~An analysis of covariance model adjusting for refractive error at enrollment was used to compare mean change in refractive error between treatment groups."||1.09|0.11|0.002
90814946|NCT01515475|181508786|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.58||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.1|1.06||Results are considered statistically significant if p\<0.01.|ANCOVA|||"Analysis for the less hyperopic eye, Older Cohort:~An analysis of covariance model adjusting for refractive error at enrollment was used to compare mean change in refractive error between treatment groups."||1.06|0.10|0.002
90814947|NCT01515475|181508786|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-0.51|0.84||Results are considered statistically significant if p≤0.01.|ANCOVA|||"Analysis for the more hyperopic eye, Younger Cohort:~An analysis of covariance model adjusting for refractive error at enrollment was used to compare mean change in refractive error between treatment groups."||0.84|-0.51|0.53
90814948|NCT01515475|181508786|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-0.43|0.86||Results are considered statistically significant if p≤0.01.|ANCOVA|||"Analysis for the less hyperopic eye, Younger Cohort:~An analysis of covariance model adjusting for refractive error at enrollment was used to compare mean change in refractive error between treatment groups."||0.86|-0.43|0.38
90814949|NCT01515475|181508787|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.0||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-49.0|1.0||Results are considered statistically significant if p\<0.01.|Barnard's Exact Test|||"Analysis for the more hyperopic eye:~Barnard's exact test was used to compare proportions between treatment groups."||1|-49|0.013
90814950|NCT01515475|181508787|OTHER||Hazard Ratio, log|-18.0||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-42.0|8.0||Results are considered statistically significant if p\<0.01.|Barnard's Exact Test|||"Analysis for the less hyperopic eye:~Barnard's exact test was used to compare proportions between treatment groups."||8|-42|0.08
90814951|NCT01515475|181508788|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-0.02|0.04|||ANCOVA|||"Test for Difference in Means in Better-Seeing Eye: Older Cohort~An analysis of covariance model, adjusting for age at the 3-year visit and visual acuity at baseline, was used to compare mean visual acuity between treatment groups. Results are considered statistically significant if p\<0.01."||0.04|-0.02|0.22
90814952|NCT01515475|181508788|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-0.06|0.03|||ANCOVA|||"Test for Difference in Means in Worse-Seeing Eye: Older Cohort~An analysis of covariance model, adjusting for age at the 3-year visit and visual acuity at baseline, was used to compare mean visual acuity between treatment groups. Results are considered statistically significant if p\<0.01."||0.03|-0.06|0.41
90814953|NCT01515475|181508788|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-0.12|0.01|||ANCOVA|||"Test for Difference in Means in Better-Seeing Eye: Younger Cohort~An analysis of covariance model, adjusting for age at the 3-year visit and visual acuity at baseline, was used to compare mean visual acuity between treatment groups. Results are considered statistically significant if p\<0.01."||0.01|-0.12|0.02
90814954|NCT01515475|181508788|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-0.19|0.05|||ANCOVA|||"Test for Difference in Means in Worse-Seeing Eye: Younger Cohort~An analysis of covariance model, adjusting for age at the 3-year visit and visual acuity at baseline, was used to compare mean visual acuity between treatment groups. Results are considered statistically significant if p\<0.01."||0.05|-0.19|0.15
90814955|NCT01515475|181508789|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-18.0|13.0||Results are considered statistically significant if p\<0.01.|Barnard's Exact Test|||Barnard's exact test was used to compare proportions between treatment groups.||13|-18|0.51
90814956|NCT01515475|181508789|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-18.0|14.0||Results are considered statistically significant if p\<0.01.|Barnard's Exact Test|||Barnard's exact test was used to compare proportions between treatment groups.||14|-18|0.79
90814957|NCT01515475|181508790|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-18.0|13.0||Results are considered statistically significant if p\<0.01.|Barnard's Exact Test|||Barnard's exact test was used to compare proportions between treatment groups.||13|-18|0.51
90814958|NCT01515475|181508790|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-24.0|16.0||Results are considered statistically significant if p≤0.01.|Barnard's Exact Test|||Barnard's exact test was used to compare proportions between treatment groups.||16|-24|0.68
90814959|NCT01515475|181508791|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-0.12|0.05||Results are considered statistically significant if p\<0.01|ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance model, adjusting for age at the 3-year visit and visual acuity at baseline, was used to compare mean visual acuity between treatment groups.||0.05|-0.12|0.21
90814960|NCT01515475|181508791|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-0.1|0.04||Results are considered statistically significant if p≤0.01.|ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance model, adjusting for age at the 3-year visit and visual acuity at baseline, was used to compare mean visual acuity between treatment groups.||0.04|-0.10|0.25
90814961|NCT01515475|181508792|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-18.0|13.0||Results are considered statistically significant if p\<0.01.|Barnard's Exact Test|||Barnard's exact test used to compare proportions between treatment groups||13|-18|0.51
90814962|NCT01515475|181508792|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|-17.0|17.0||No p-value, because there was 0% difference||||Barnard's exact test used to compare proportions between treatment groups.||17|-17|
90814963|NCT01515475|181508793|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-0.11|0.14||Results are considered statistically significant if p\<0.01.|ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance model was used to compare mean change in stereoacuity between treatment groups. The analysis controlled for age at the 3-year visit, anisometropia at the most recent visit, and stereoacuity at enrollment.||0.14|-0.11|0.74
91016139|NCT05204563|181915163|OTHER||Treatment difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-90.3|90.3||||||Burkholderia cepacia complex TOC (Day 21)||90.3|-90.3|
91016140|NCT05204563|181915163|OTHER||Treatment difference|16.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.0|100.0||||||Klebsiella aerogenes TOC (Day 21)||100.0|-75.0|
91016141|NCT05204563|181915163|OTHER||Treatment difference|-60.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|9.6||||||Enterobacter cloacae complex TOC (Day 21)||9.6|-100.0|
91016142|NCT05204563|181915163|OTHER||Treatment difference|-25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|54.9||||||Escherichia coli TOC (Day 21)||54.9|-100.0|
91016143|NCT05204563|181915163|OTHER||Treatment difference|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-94.3|100.0||||||Citrobacter koseri TOC (Day 21)||100.0|-94.3|
91016144|NCT05204563|181915163|OTHER||Treatment difference|-100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|0.0||||||Klebsiella oxytoca TOC (Day 21)||0.0|-100.0|
91016145|NCT05204563|181915163|OTHER||Treatment difference|-100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|0.0||||||Serratia marcescens TOC (Day 21)||0.0|-100.0|
90814964|NCT01515475|181508793|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-0.4|0.1|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance model was used to compare mean change in stereoacuity between treatment groups. The analysis controlled for age at the 3-year visit and anisometropia at the most recent visit.||0.1|-0.4|0.15
90814965|NCT01515475|181508794|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.0||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-14.0|26.0||Results are considered statistically significant if p\<0.01.|Barnard's Exact Test|||Barnard's exact test used to compare proportions between treatment groups||26|-14|0.53
90814966|NCT01515475|181508794|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.0||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-40.0|2.0||Results are considered statistically significant if p\<0.01.|Barnard's Exact Test|||Barnard's exact test used to compare proportions between treatment groups.||2|-40|0.02
90814967|NCT03743064|181508807|SUPERIORITY|The Multiple Imputation process (N=100) was performed leading to least squares mean (LSM) and standard error (SE) estimates using the ANOVA model (including treatment group and the 3 stratification factors at randomization as categorical covariates). The estimates were pooled using Rubin rule, with corresponding p-value for difference between treatment groups. The 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated for each treatment group and for the pooled difference between the groups.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.284|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.289|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.718|1.851|||ANOVA|||"To declare anamorelin superior to placebo, both co-primary endpoints had to be significant.~The null hypothesis for mean change in body weight from baseline over 12 weeks (H0w) and the corresponding alternative hypothesis (H1w) were:~H0w: MWa = MWp H1w: MWa ≠ MWp~Where MWa is the mean change in body weight from baseline over 12 weeks for the anamorelin arm and MWp is the mean change in body weight from baseline over 12 weeks for the placebo arm."||1.851|0.718|<0.0001
91016146|NCT05204563|181915163|OTHER||Treatment difference|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|22.7||||||Klebsiella pneumoniae complex LFU (Day 28)||22.7|-17.1|
91055278|NCT00593736|181992480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.595||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.595
90814968|NCT03743064|181508808|SUPERIORITY|The Multiple Imputation process (N=100) was performed leading to least squares mean (LSM) and standard error (SE) estimates using the ANOVA model (including treatment group and the 3 stratification factors at randomization as categorical covariates). The estimates were pooled using Rubin rule, with corresponding p-value for difference between treatment groups. The 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated for each treatment group and for the pooled difference between the groups.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.141|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.399||0.7241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.641|0.923|||ANOVA|||"To declare anamorelin superior to the placebo, both co-primary endpoints had to be significant. The null hypothesis for mean change from baseline over 12 weeks in patient 5-IASS (H0A) and the corresponding alternative (H1A) were:~H0A: MAa = MAp; H1A: MAa ≠ MAp~Where MAa is the mean change from baseline over 12 weeks in 5-IASS for the anamorelin arm and MAp is the mean change from baseline over 12 weeks in 5-IASS for the placebo arm."||0.923|-0.641|0.7241
90814969|NCT03743064|181508809|SUPERIORITY|All secondary endpoints were analyzed using the same statistical model and multiple imputation approach as for the co-primary efficacy endpoints.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.081|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.579||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.946|3.216|||ANOVA|||||3.216|0.946|0.0003
91016147|NCT05204563|181915163|OTHER||Treatment difference|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.4|34.3||||||A.calco/baumannii complex LFU (Day 28)||34.3|-28.4|
91016148|NCT05204563|181915163|OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.9|33.0||||||Pseudomonas aeruginosa LFU (Day 28)||33.0|-33.9|
91016149|NCT05204563|181915163|OTHER||Treatment difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-90.3|90.3||||||Burkholderia cepacia complex LFU (Day 28)||90.3|-90.3|
91016150|NCT05204563|181915163|OTHER||Treatment difference|16.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.0|100.0||||||Klebsiella aerogenes LFU (Day 28)||100.0|-75.0|
91016151|NCT05204563|181915163|OTHER||Treatment difference|-26.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|68.5||||||Enterobacter cloacae complex LFU (Day 28)||68.5|-100.0|
90814970|NCT03743064|181508810|SUPERIORITY|All secondary endpoints were analyzed using the same statistical model and multiple imputation approach as for the co-primary efficacy endpoints.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.404|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.476|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.471|3.337|||ANOVA|||||3.337|1.471|<0.0001
90814971|NCT03743064|181508811|SUPERIORITY|All secondary endpoints were analyzed using the same statistical model and multiple imputation approach as for the co-primary efficacy endpoints.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.629|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.431||0.1443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.215|1.472|||ANOVA|||||1.472|-0.215|0.1443
90814972|NCT03743064|181508812|SUPERIORITY|All secondary endpoints were analyzed using the same statistical model and multiple imputation approach as for the co-primary efficacy endpoints.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.151|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.452||0.7376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.734|1.036|||ANOVA|||||1.036|-0.734|0.7376
91016152|NCT05204563|181915163|OTHER||Treatment difference|-50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|36.5||||||Escherichia coli LFU (Day 28)||36.5|-100.0|
91016153|NCT05204563|181915163|OTHER||Treatment difference|-50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|94.3||||||Citrobacter koseri LFU (Day 28)||94.3|-100.0|
91016154|NCT05204563|181915163|OTHER||Treatment difference|-100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|0.0||||||Klebsiella oxytoca LFU (Day 28)||0.0|-100.0|
91016155|NCT05204563|181915164|OTHER||Treatment difference|21.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|39.6||||||Klebsiella pneumoniae complex EOT (up to Day 14)||39.6|2.4|
91016156|NCT05204563|181915164|OTHER||Treatment difference|18.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.7|62.0||||||Pseudomonas aeruginosa EOT (up to Day 14)||62.0|-25.7|
91016157|NCT05204563|181915164|OTHER||Treatment difference|-8.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.6|33.9||||||A.calco/baumannii complex EOT (up to Day 14)||33.9|-51.6|
91016158|NCT05204563|181915164|OTHER||Treatment difference|-50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|61.0||||||Klebsiella aerogenes EOT (up to Day 14)||61.0|-100.0|
91016159|NCT05204563|181915164|OTHER||Treatment difference|-50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|69.3||||||Enterobacter cloacae complex EOT (up to Day 14)||69.3|-100.0|
91055279|NCT00593736|181992480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.795||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.795
90814973|NCT01996592|181508820|OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||p-value was calculated|ANOVA|||"PROMIS -perceived stress scale was utilized (a validated test). Scoring ranges from 0-40, with the following ranges indicative of low, moderate, or high perceived stress:~0-13=low stress 14-26=moderate stress 27-40=high perceived stress"||||<0.01
90814974|NCT01996592|181508821|OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||p-value was calculated|ANOVA|||||||<0.01
90814975|NCT00870194|181508822|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-Inferiority Margin of 0.4%||||||0.012||95.0|||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||||.012
90814976|NCT00870194|181508822|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|Least Square Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.53|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Standard Error of the Least Square Mean|Power calculation: 80% assuming 200 patients (100 in each arm), no true difference and 1.0% standard deviation.||0.53|0.07|.012
90814977|NCT00870194|181508823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038||95.0|||||Fisher's Exact Test|||||||.038
90814978|NCT00870194|181508824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027||95.0|||||Fisher's Exact Test|||||||.027
90814979|NCT00870194|181508825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48||95.0|||||Fisher's Exact Test|||||||.480
90814980|NCT00870194|181508826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.038
90814981|NCT00870194|181508827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.266||95.0|||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||||.266
90814982|NCT00870194|181508828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.095||95.0|||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||||.095
90814983|NCT00870194|181508829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.567||95.0|||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||||.567
90814984|NCT00870194|181508830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.207||95.0|||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||||.207
90814985|NCT00870194|181508831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.055||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.055
90814986|NCT00870194|181508832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.269||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.269
90814987|NCT00870194|181508833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.622||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.622
90814988|NCT00870194|181508834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.888||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.888
90814989|NCT00870194|181508835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.287||95.0|||||Fisher's Exact Test|||||||.287
90814990|NCT00870194|181508836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.498||95.0|||||Fisher's Exact Test|||||||.498
90814991|NCT00870194|181508837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.247||95.0|||||Fisher's Exact Test|||||||.247
90814992|NCT00870194|181508838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher's Exact Test|||||||1.00
90814993|NCT00707746|181508846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance was concluded if p ≤ 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||It was estimated that the standard deviation of the percent change in LDL-C was 20%. A sample size of 30 patients was planned for this study: 20 patients in the mipomersen group and 10 patients in the placebo group. A 2-sided t-test with an alpha level of 0.05 was expected to provide ≥90% power to detect a 30% difference in LDL-C percent reduction between the 2 groups (35% reduction for the mipomersen group and 5% reduction for the placebo group).||||<0.001
90814994|NCT00707746|181508849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Inflation of type 1 error was controlled by specifying a small number of secondary parameters and a sequential inferential approach in which inferential conclusions about each successive parameter required statistical significance of the prior one.|Wilcoxon signed rank sum|||||||<0.001
90814995|NCT00707746|181508851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Inflation of type 1 error was controlled by specifying a small number of secondary parameters and a sequential inferential approach in which inferential conclusions about each successive parameter required statistical significance of the prior one.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90814996|NCT00707746|181508853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Inflation of type 1 error was controlled by specifying a small number of secondary parameters and a sequential inferential approach in which inferential conclusions about each successive parameter required statistical significance of the prior one.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90814997|NCT00707746|181508855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||||||Statistical significance was concluded if p ≤0.05. No further adjustments were made for tertiary parameters.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.005
90814998|NCT00707746|181508857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance was concluded if p ≤0.05. No further adjustments were made for tertiary parameters.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90814999|NCT00707746|181508859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||||||Statistical significance was concluded if p ≤0.05. No further adjustments were made for tertiary parameters.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.006
90815000|NCT00707746|181508861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance was concluded if p ≤0.05. No further adjustments were made for tertiary parameters.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90815001|NCT00707746|181508863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.784||||||Statistical significance was concluded if p ≤0.05. No further adjustments were made for tertiary parameters.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.784
90815002|NCT00707746|181508865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.079||||||Statistical significance was concluded if p ≤0.05. No further adjustments were made for tertiary parameters.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.079
90815003|NCT02573246|181508872|SUPERIORITY|Aimed to recruit 20 participants in each condition to align with other neurostimulation studies where 6-20 adults per condition were sufficient to demonstrate proof-of-concept for novel treatments (Bentwich et al., 2011; Cunningham et al., 2015).|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.323|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.131||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.056||A priori threshold for significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The results presented are between the active right and sham conditions.|A mixed models analysis of variance (MMANOVA) examining regulation duration during each regulation period was conducted using treatment condition (active right, active left, sham), experimental condition (regulation1, regulation2, regulation3), and baseline as predictors.||-.056|-.590|0.019
90815004|NCT02573246|181508872|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.237|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.133||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.034|0.508|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed models analysis of variance (MMANOVA) examining regulation duration during each regulation period was conducted using treatment condition (active right, active left, sham), experimental condition (regulation1, regulation2, regulation3), and baseline as predictors.||.508|-.034|.08
90815005|NCT02573246|181508872|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.227|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.103||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.434|-0.02||A priori threshold for significance was set to .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|we controlled for baseline and for the distance between the brain and the scalp||Regulation duration was transformed using a logarithmic transformation to achieve normality||-.020|-.434|.033
90890381|NCT00907153|181645328|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-75.08||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-161.9|11.78|||Regression, Linear|Model-based differences adjusted for oral contraceptive use and season.||||11.78|-161.9|0.09
90815006|NCT02573246|181508873|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.124|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.184||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.504|0.256||A priori set threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|ANOVA|||A univariate general linear model was employed to test of regulation duration, transformed for normality.||.256|-0.504|.51
90815007|NCT02573246|181508873|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.364|0.378|||ANOVA|||||.378|-.364|.97
90815008|NCT02573246|181508873|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.147993|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.167031||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.215936|0.511921||A priori set significance threshold was 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||A t test of the variable 'time it took to return to HR baseline', transformed for normality was used to examine between condition differences at the 1 month follow up.||0.511921|-0.215936|0.39
90815009|NCT02573246|181508874|SUPERIORITY|HF-HRV was transformed using the function lg10\*(HF-HRV\*1000000) in order to be normally distributed.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.51||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.044|0.267||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||In the original study (CR+active left rTMS vs CR+ active right rTMS vs CR+sham rTMS), mixed-effects hierarchical linear models (MMANOVA) with analytically determined covariance structures were used to analyze the repeated measures data. We hypothesized that active neurostimulation would increase HF-HRV during regulation.||.267|.044|.022
90815010|NCT02573246|181508874|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.0499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.000037|0.213074|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMANOVA||0.213074|0.000037|0.0499
90815011|NCT02573246|181508874|SUPERIORITY|Aimed to recruit 20 participants in each condition to align with other neurostimulation studies where 6-20 adults per condition were sufficient to demonstrate proof-of-concept for novel treatments (Bentwich et al., 2011; Cunningham et al., 2015).|Mean Difference (Net)|0.172|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.38|<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.129|0.215||Significance threshold was set at p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The MMANOVA analysis used an unstructured covariance structure.|In the supplemental study (CR+active left rTMS with functional targeting vs CR+sham rTMS), mixed-effects hierarchical linear models (MMANOVA) with analytically determined covariance structures were used to analyze the repeated measures data. We hypothesized that active neurostimulation would increase HF-HRV during regulation when compared with sham.||.215|.129|<.000001
90815012|NCT02573246|181508875|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.111|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.091544||0.236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.078086|0.300661||A priori threshold was set to 0.05.|ANCOVA|Brain to skull difference and intake difference in dlPFC activation between regulation and feeling negative were included as confounds.|Parameter estimate is the value of the difference between active stimulation and sham stimulation.|Difference between treatment conditions in dlPFC activation change between feeling negative emotions and downregulation of negative affect a week after intervention, when controlling for baseline activation difference||0.300661|-0.078086|.236
90815013|NCT02573246|181508875|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.359024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.144067||0.020347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.061|0.657049||Threshold was set at 0.05 a priori|ANCOVA|Brain to skull difference and intake difference in vlpfc activation between regulation and feeling negative were included as confounds.||Expected significantly higher activation following active intervention in the vlPFC when compared to sham when engaging in downregulation versus passive experience of negative emotions induced with autobiographical stressors. ROI data was extracted using FSL featquery. A univariate general linear model excluding one outlier from the active condition was conducted for this outcome measure.||0.657049|0.061000|0.020347
90815014|NCT02573246|181508875|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.221683|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.461481||0.635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.732963|1.17633||A priori threshold was set to .05|ANCOVA|Brain to skull difference and intake difference in vmpfc activation between regulation and feeling negative were included as confounds.||Expected significantly higher activation following active intervention in the vmPFC when compared to sham when engaging in downregulation versus passive experience of negative emotions induced with autobiographical stressors. ROI data was extracted with FSL featquery.||1.176330|-0.732963|0.635
90815015|NCT02573246|181508875|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.179412|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.178029||0.324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.188868|0.547692||a priori set threshold was 0.05|ANCOVA|Brain to skull difference and intake difference in amygdala activation between regulation and feeling negative were included as confounds.||Expected significantly lower activation following active intervention in the amygdala when compared to sham when engaging in downregulation versus passive experience of negative emotions induced with autobiographical stressors. ROI data was extracted with featquery (FSL).||0.547692|-0.188868|.324
90815016|NCT02573246|181508875|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.021231|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.071185||0.76819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.126027|0.168489||A priori set threshold was 0.05|ANCOVA|Brain to skull difference and intake difference in insula activation between regulation and feeling negative were included as confounds.||Expected significantly lower activation following active intervention in the insula when compared to sham when engaging in downregulation versus passive experience of negative emotions induced with autobiographical stressors. FSL featquery tool was used to extract ROI (region of interest) data.||0.168489|-0.126027|0.768190
90815017|NCT02573246|181508876|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.455||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.553|1.293||a priori threshold for significance was 0.05|ANOVA|||Likert-type questions about acceptability were rated on a scale from 0 (not at all) to 9 (extremely) and then averaged to create a mean for acceptability. This average score was normally distributed and therefore was entered into a univariate general linear model where acceptability was entered as a dependent variable and condition as a fixed factor.||1.293|-0.553|0.69
90815018|NCT02573246|181508876|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.592|1.139|||ANOVA|||||1.139|-.592|.53
90815019|NCT02573246|181508876|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|0.27||a priory threshold for significance was .05|t-test, 2 sided|||we compared differences in acceptability between conditions using an independent samples t-test (acceptability was normally distributed)||0.27|-1.59|0.15
90815020|NCT02573246|181508877|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.295|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.304||0.551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.322|0.912||a priori threshold was set to 0.05|ANOVA|||We compared differences between conditions in the perceived feasibility of the procedures. Feasibility average was normally distributed and therefore a general linear model, univariate was employed to test between condition effects.||0.912|-0.322|0.551
90815021|NCT02573246|181508877|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.281||0.995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.567|0.571|||ANOVA|||||.571|-.567|.995
90815022|NCT02573246|181508877|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09957|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.371||0.791|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8672|0.6681||A priori threshold for statistical significance was set to 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|df = 23||We examined differences in feasibility between the active and sham condition in the sub-study where fMRI targeting was utilized. Average feasibility was normally distributed and therefore an independent samples t-test was used to test this outcome.||0.6681|-0.8672|0.791
90815023|NCT02573246|181508878|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.048||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.522964|21.60462||A priori threshold was set to 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||To test the long-term effects of the intervention, a MMANOVA model was conducted examining between-condition differences at the 1-week and 1-month follow-up in the OQ-45. Baseline was co-varied.||21.604620|-9.522964|0.61
90815024|NCT02573246|181508878|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.906|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.37||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.83|14.02||a priori threshold was set to .05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||14.02|-15.83|.90
90815025|NCT02573246|181508878|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|10.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.93||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.971581|26.892619||threshold was set to 0.05 a priori|Mixed Models Analysis||HLM models used a compound symmetry covariance structure.|||26.892619|-5.971581|.20
90815026|NCT02573246|181508879|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.258||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.062356|-0.043203||A priori threshold was set to .05 for significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subjective Units of Distress (SUDS) right before the intervention were co-varied as baseline.|Results reported are for active left vs. sham comparison.|Hypothesized that active neurostimulation would lead to lower daily distress than sham stimulation. We used a hierarchical linear model (HLM) for this analysis with an identity covariance structure (random intercept and random slope).||-0.043203|-1.062356|.034
90815027|NCT02573246|181508879|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.631|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.404||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.208|1.47||A priori set threshold was .05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Hypothesized that active neurostimulation will lead to less daily distress than sham neurostimulation during the ambulatory data collection. An HLM analysis was conducted using an unstructured covariance structure and reported distress right before the intervention as baseline.||1.47|-.208|.133
90815028|NCT02573246|181508880|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.300772|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.670936||0.629061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.708548|4.107||A priori threshold was set to .05|Mixed Models Analysis|Intake values for the dependent measures were covaried. The time by condition interaction term was included.||Mixed model analyses of variance (MMANOVAs) were conducted to explore the difference between active and sham neurostimulation on self reported indices of regulation and psychopathology. We expected active neurostimulation to lead to less functional impairment than sham neurostimulation.||4.107|-6.708548|0.629061
91016160|NCT05204563|181915164|OTHER||Treatment difference|9.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|32.1||||||Klebsiella pneumoniae complex TOC (Day 21)||32.1|-12.7|
90815029|NCT02573246|181508880|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.977394|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.605189||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.255223|4.300434|||Mixed Models Analysis|||We expected lower functional impairment in the active right versus the sham condition.||4.300434|-6.255223|0.71
90815030|NCT02573246|181508880|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.292137|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.314194||0.331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.157811|3.573537||A priori set threshold was .05|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline WSAS was covaried|The analysis compared sham versus active stimulation.|Mixed model analyses of variance (MMANOVAs) were conducted to explore the difference between active and sham neurostimulation on self reported indices of regulation and psychopathology in the substudy also. We expected active neurostimulation to lead to less impairment than sham neurostimulation.||3.573537|-10.157811|0.331
90815031|NCT02573246|181508880|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.284589|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.276698||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27603|0.845209||A priori set threshold for significance was 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|baseline was covaried||Mixed model analyses of variance (MMANOVAs) were conducted to explore the difference between active and sham neurostimulation on self reported indices of regulation and psychopathology. We expected active neurostimulation to lead to more use of cognitive restructuring than sham neurostimulation.||0.845209|-0.276030|0.31
90815032|NCT02573246|181508880|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|10.129377|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.150339||0.275257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.394724|28.653479|||Mixed Models Analysis|||We hypothesized that active right neurostimulation would yield lower emotional dysregulation after the intervention when compared to sham neurostimulation.||28.653479|-8.394724|0.275257
90815033|NCT02573246|181508880|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.187|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.212753||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.002351|-0.372281||A priori set significance threshold was 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed model analyses of variance (MMANOVAs) were conducted to explore the difference between active and sham neurostimulation on self reported indices of regulation and psychopathology. We expected active neurostimulation to lead to less emotional dysregulation than sham neurostimulation.||-0.372281|-26.002351|0.044
91016161|NCT05204563|181915164|OTHER||Treatment difference|10.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.4|53.2||||||Pseudomonas aeruginosa TOC (Day 21)||53.2|-31.4|
90815034|NCT02573246|181508880|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.927909|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.603423||0.924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.508252|20.364071||A priori set threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|baseline was covaried||We expected active stimulation to lead to less emotional dysregulation than sham neurostimulation. A MMANOVA model was employed, controlling for baseline.||20.364071|-18.508252|.924
90815035|NCT02573246|181508880|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.017547|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.267983||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.560994|0.525901|||Mixed Models Analysis|||we expected more use of cr following active right neurostimulation then after following sham neurostimulation.||0.525901|-0.560994|.95
90890382|NCT00907153|181645329|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.73||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.59|34.06|||Regression, Linear|Model-based differences adjusted for oral contraceptive use and season.||||34.06|-32.59|0.96
91016162|NCT05204563|181915164|OTHER||Treatment difference|-8.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.6|33.9||||||A.calco/baumannii complex TOC (Day 21)||33.9|-51.6|
91016163|NCT05204563|181915164|OTHER||Treatment difference|16.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|100.0||||||Klebsiella aerogenes TOC (Day 21)||100|-100.0|
91016164|NCT05204563|181915164|OTHER||Treatment difference|-50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|69.3||||||Enterobacter cloacae complex TOC (Day 21)||69.3|-100.0|
91016165|NCT05204563|181915164|OTHER||Treatment difference|-33.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|86.7||||||Escherichia coli TOC (Day 21)||86.7|-100.0|
91016166|NCT05204563|181915164|OTHER||Treatment difference|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-94.3|100.0||||||Citrobacter koseri TOC (Day 21)||100.0|-94.3|
90815036|NCT02573246|181508880|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.096719|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.389897||0.806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.900919|0.707481||A priori set significance threshold was 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline use of cognitive restructuring was covaried||Mixed model analyses of variance (MMANOVAs) were conducted to explore the difference between active and sham neurostimulation on self reported indices of regulation and psychopathology. We expected active neurostimulation to lead to more use of cognitive restructuring than sham neurostimulation.||0.707481|-0.900919|.806
90815037|NCT01073930|181508932|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the 1-sided 97.5% CI for the treatment difference (PICOPREP minus HalfLytely) was \>-9% for the percentage of responders. Superiority was demonstrated if the 1-sided 97.5% CI for treatment difference was \>0%.|Mean Difference (Net)|9.8|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|3.4||||||||||3.4|
90815038|NCT01073930|181508933|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the lower bound of the 97.5% confidence interval exceeds -9.0% then PicoPrep will be declared non-inferior to HalfLytely. If the non-inferiority test is satisfied then a test for superiority will be performed by comparing the lower bound of the 97.5% confidence interval with 0.0%. If the lower bound of the confidence interval is above 0.0% then superiority will be declared.|Mean Difference (Net)|10.7|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|4.9|||||||Ascending colon comparison|||4.9|
90815039|NCT01073930|181508933|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the lower bound of the 97.5% confidence interval exceeds -9.0% then PicoPrep will be declared non-inferior to HalfLytely. If the non-inferiority test is satisfied then a test for superiority will be performed by comparing the lower bound of the 97.5% confidence interval with 0.0%. If the lower bound of the confidence interval is above 0.0% then superiority will be declared.|Mean Difference (Net)|6.6|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|1.6|||||||Mid colon comparison|||1.6|
90815040|NCT01073930|181508933|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the lower bound of the 97.5% confidence interval exceeds -9.0% then PicoPrep will be declared non-inferior to HalfLytely. If the non-inferiority test is satisfied then a test for superiority will be performed by comparing the lower bound of the 97.5% confidence interval with 0.0%. If the lower bound of the confidence interval is above 0.0% then superiority will be declared.|Mean Difference (Net)|5.2|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|0.4|||||||Recto-sigmoid colon comparison|||0.4|
90815041|NCT01073930|181508933|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the lower bound of the 97.5% confidence interval exceeds -9.0% then PicoPrep will be declared non-inferior to HalfLytely. If the non-inferiority test is satisfied then a test for superiority will be performed by comparing the lower bound of the 97.5% confidence interval with 0.0%. If the lower bound of the confidence interval is above 0.0% then superiority will be declared.|Mean Difference (Net)|11.4|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|5.2|||||||Overall: Ascending, mid, and recto-sigmoid colon comparison|||5.2|
90815042|NCT01073930|181508934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
90815043|NCT01073930|181508935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
90815044|NCT01073930|181508936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
90815045|NCT01073930|181508937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
90815046|NCT01073930|181508938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
90815047|NCT01073930|181508939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
90815048|NCT00541346|181508941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Bayesian Mean Change Score|26.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.6|33.1||Posterior-Predictive Probability of Mean Change (Pre-Post) Score at or Below Zero.|Mixed Models Analysis|Bayesian random intercept model.|The confidence interval listed is a Bayesian credible interval which represents the probabilistic likelihood that the population mean change falls within these bounds.|Random intercept growth curves were fit to all outcome data, including intermediate assessments. A Bayesian posterior-predictive mean change score and its associated 95% credible interval were estimated using the MCMC Gibbs sampler with non-informative priors. Models included linear and quadratic dose effects, effect for compliance, baseline Life Participation Scale (LPS) effect, LPS by compliance interaction, a functional time component, and interaction between LPS and time.||33.1|19.6|<0.001
90815049|NCT00541346|181508942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Bayesian Mean Change Score|23.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.9|29.3||Posterior-Predictive Probability of Mean Change Score (Pre-Post) at or Below Zero.|Mixed Models Analysis|Bayesian random intercept model.|The confidence interval listed is a Bayesian credible interval which represents the probabilistic likelihood that the population mean change falls within these bounds.|Random intercept growth curves were fit to all outcome data, including intermediate assessments. A Bayesian posterior-predictive mean change score and its associated 95% credible interval were estimated using the MCMC Gibbs sampler with non-informative priors. Models included linear and quadratic dose effects, effect for compliance, baseline Life Participation Scale (LPS) effect, LPS by compliance interaction, a functional time component, and interaction between LPS and time.||29.3|16.9|<0.001
90815050|NCT00541346|181508943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Bayesian Mean Change Score|10.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.4|16.8||Posterior-Predictive Probability of Mean Change Score (Pre-Post) at or Below Zero.|Mixed Models Analysis|Bayesian random intercept model.||Random intercept growth curves were fit to all outcome data, including intermediate assessments. A Bayesian posterior-predictive mean change score and its associated 95% credible interval were estimated using the MCMC Gibbs sampler with non-informative priors. Models included linear and quadratic dose effects, effect for compliance, baseline Life Participation Scale (LPS) effect, LPS by compliance interaction, a functional time component, and interaction between LPS and time.||16.8|5.4|<0.001
90815051|NCT00541346|181508944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Bayesian Mean Change Score|7.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|11.1||Posterior-Predictive Probability of Mean Change Score (Pre-Post) at or Below Zero.|Mixed Models Analysis|Bayesian random intercept model.|The confidence interval listed is a Bayesian credible interval which represents the probabilistic likelihood that the population mean change falls within these bounds.|Random intercept growth curves were fit to all outcome data, including intermediate assessments. A Bayesian posterior-predictive mean change score and its associated 95% credible interval were estimated using the MCMC Gibbs sampler with non-informative priors. Models included linear and quadratic dose effects, effect for compliance, baseline Life Participation Scale (LPS) effect, LPS by compliance interaction, a functional time component, and interaction between LPS and time.||11.1|3.3|<0.001
90890383|NCT00907153|181645330|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.08||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|7.99|||Regression, Linear|Model-based differences adjusted for oral contraceptive use and season.||||7.99|-1.84|0.21
91016167|NCT05204563|181915164|OTHER||Treatment difference|-100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|0.0||||||Klebsiella oxytoca TOC (Day 21)||0.0|-100.0|
91016168|NCT05204563|181915164|OTHER||Treatment difference|12.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|35.6||||||Klebsiella pneumoniae complex LFU (Day 28)||35.6|-10.5|
91055280|NCT00593736|181992481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.655||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.655
90815052|NCT00541346|181508945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Bayesian Mean Change Score|4.1|||<|0.01||95.0|1.2|6.9||Posterior-Predictive Probability of Mean Change Score (Pre-Post) at or Below Zero.|Mixed Models Analysis|Bayesian random intercept model.|The confidence interval listed is a Bayesian credible interval which represents the probabilistic likelihood that the population mean change falls within these bounds.|Random intercept growth curves were fit to all outcome data, including intermediate assessments. A Bayesian posterior-predictive mean change score and its associated 95% credible interval were estimated using the MCMC Gibbs sampler with non-informative priors. Models included linear and quadratic dose effects, effect for compliance, baseline Life Participation Scale (LPS) effect, LPS by compliance interaction, a functional time component, and interaction between LPS and time.||6.9|1.2|<0.01
90815053|NCT00541346|181508946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Bayesian random intercept model.|3.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|5.2||Posterior-Predictive Probability of Mean Change Score (Pre-Post) at or Below Zero.|Mixed Models Analysis|Bayesian random intercept model.|The confidence interval listed is a Bayesian credible interval which represents the probabilistic likelihood that the population mean change falls within these bounds|Random intercept growth curves were fit to all outcome data, including intermediate assessments. A Bayesian posterior-predictive mean change score and its associated 95% credible interval were estimated using the MCMC Gibbs sampler with non-informative priors. Models included linear and quadratic dose effects, effect for compliance, baseline Life Participation Scale (LPS) effect, LPS by compliance interaction, a functional time component, and interaction between LPS and time.||5.2|1.8|<0.001
90815054|NCT00541346|181508947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Bayesian Mean Change Score|-10.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.8|-5.4||Posterior-Predictive Probability of Mean Change Score (Pre-Post) at or Above Zero.|Mixed Models Analysis|Bayesian random intercept model.|The confidence interval listed is a Bayesian credible interval which represents the probabilistic likelihood that the population mean change falls within these bounds|Random intercept growth curves were fit to all outcome data. A Bayesian posterior-predictive mean change score and its associated 95% credible interval were estimated using the MCMC Gibbs sampler with non-informative priors. Models included linear dose and time effects.||-5.4|-16.8|<0.001
90815055|NCT00541346|181508948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Bayesian Mean Change Score|1.94|||>|0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.98|6.82||Posterior-Predictive Probability of Mean Change Score (Pre-Post) at or Below Zero.|Mixed Models Analysis|Bayesian random intercept model.|The confidence interval listed is a Bayesian credible interval which represents the probabilistic likelihood that the population mean change falls within these bounds.|Random intercept growth curves were fit to all outcome data, including intermediate assessments. A Bayesian posterior-predictive mean change score and its associated 95% credible interval were estimated using the MCMC Gibbs sampler with non-informative priors. Models included linear and quadratic dose effects, effect for compliance, baseline Life Participation Scale (LPS) effect, LPS by compliance interaction, a functional time component, and interaction between LPS and time.||6.82|-2.98|>0.21
90815056|NCT00541346|181508949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Bayesian Mean Change Score|-3.4|||>|0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|0.8||Posterior-Predictive Probability of Mean Change Score (Pre-Post) at or Above Zero.|Mixed Models Analysis|Bayesian random intercept model.|The confidence interval listed is a Bayesian credible interval which represents the probabilistic likelihood that the population mean change falls within these bounds.|Random intercept growth curves were fit to all outcome data. A Bayesian posterior-predictive mean change score and its associated 95% credible interval were estimated using the MCMC Gibbs sampler with non-informative priors. Models included linear dose and time effects.||0.80|-7.9|>0.06
90890384|NCT00907153|181645331|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.11||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.43|24.64|||Regression, Linear|Model-based differences adjusted for oral contraceptive use and season.||||24.64|-24.43|0.99
90890385|NCT00907153|181645332|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-1.93||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.12|6.26|||Regression, Linear|Model-based differences adjusted for oral contraceptive use and season.||||6.26|-10.12|0.62
91016169|NCT05204563|181915164|OTHER||Treatment difference|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.9|43.5||||||Pseudomonas aeruginosa LFU (Day 28)||43.5|-39.9|
91016170|NCT05204563|181915164|OTHER||Treatment difference|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.1|49.6||||||A.calco/baumannii complex LFU (Day 28)||49.6|-45.1|
91016171|NCT05204563|181915164|OTHER||Treatment difference|16.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|100.0||||||Klebsiella aerogenes LFU (Day 28)||100.0|-100.0|
91055281|NCT00593736|181992481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.177||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.177
91055282|NCT00593736|181992481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.044||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.044
91055283|NCT00593736|181992482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.475||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.475
91055284|NCT00593736|181992482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.635||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.635
91016172|NCT05204563|181915164|OTHER||Treatment difference|-50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|69.3||||||Enterobacter cloacae complex LFU (Day 28)||69.3|-100.0|
91016173|NCT05204563|181915164|OTHER||Treatment difference|-33.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|86.7||||||Escherichia coli LFU (Day 28)||86.7|-100.0|
91016174|NCT05204563|181915164|OTHER||Treatment difference|-50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|94.3||||||Citrobacter koseri LFU (Day 28)||94.3|-100.0|
91016175|NCT05204563|181915164|OTHER||Treatment difference|-100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|0.0||||||Klebsiella oxytoca LFU (Day 28)||0.0|-100.0|
91016176|NCT05204563|181915165|OTHER||Treatment difference|30.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|64.8||||||A.calco/baumannii complex EOT (up to Day 14)||64.8|-4.2|
91055285|NCT00593736|181992482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.782||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.782
91055286|NCT00593736|181992483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.192||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.192
90815057|NCT00541346|181508950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Bayesian Mean Change Score|-5.26|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.37|-1.18||Posterior-Predictive Probability of Mean Change Score (Pre-Post) at or Above Zero.|Mixed Models Analysis|Bayesian random intercept model.|The confidence interval listed is a Bayesian credible interval which represents the probabilistic likelihood that the population mean change falls within these bounds.|Random intercept growth curves were fit to all outcome data. A Bayesian posterior-predictive mean change score and its associated 95% credible interval were estimated using the MCMC Gibbs sampler with non-informative priors. Models included linear dose and time effects.||-1.18|-9.37|<0.01
90815058|NCT00541346|181508951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Bayesian Mean Change Score|7.6|||>|0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|20.7||Posterior-Predictive Probability of Mean Change Score (Pre-Post) at or Below Zero.|Mixed Models Analysis|Bayesian random intercept model.|The confidence interval listed is a Bayesian credible interval which represents the probabilistic likelihood that the population mean change falls within these bounds.|Random intercept growth curves were fit to all outcome data, including intermediate assessments. A Bayesian posterior-predictive mean change score and its associated 95% credible interval were estimated using the MCMC Gibbs sampler with non-informative priors. Models included linear and quadratic dose effects, effect for compliance, baseline Life Participation Scale (LPS) effect, LPS by compliance interaction, a functional time component, and interaction between LPS and time.||20.7|-5.6|>0.11
90815059|NCT03320330|181508965|OTHER|Recommended Phase 2 dose of pepinemab (VX15/2503), administered to children with recurrent or refractory solid tumors (Part A), was determined by the rolling-6 design.|Recommended Phase 2 dose|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Recommended Phase 2 dose of pepinemab (VX15/2503) is 20 mg/kg.|||||
90815060|NCT03323736|181508977|SUPERIORITY|The Procedural Success endpoint would be successfully met if the lower bound of the 95% Credible Interval (lower limit 0.80) exceeded the 68% success rate performance goal.|Credible Interval|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.91||||||Procedural success rate was compared to the performance goal of 68% using a Bayesian Hierarchical model.||0.91|0.80|
90815061|NCT03323736|181508977|SUPERIORITY|The Procedural Success endpoint would be successfully met if the lower bound of the 95% Credible Interval (lower limit 0.82) exceeded the 68% success rate performance goal.|Credible Interval|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|0.93||||||Procedural success rate was compared to the performance goal of 68% using a Bayesian Hierarchical model.||0.93|0.82|
90815062|NCT03323736|181508978|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of mean tube placement FPS-R score to a performance goal of 4.2.||||||0.0072||||||Mean FPS-R score hypothesized to be less than (superior to) a performance goal of 4.2, at a significance level of 0.025 (p\<0.025).|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0072
90815063|NCT03323736|181508979|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Pre-specified threshold for superiority was \>80%, at alpha = 0.025.|mid-P method for single proportion|||Tube Patency endpoint would be successfully met if the percentage of subjects with patent tubes was greater than (superior to) 80% (by subject), at a significance level of 0.025 (p\<0.025).||||<0.0001
90815064|NCT03323736|181508980|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Pre-specified threshold for superiority was \>88%, at alpha = 0.025.|mid-P method for single proportion|||Tube Retention endpoint would be successfully met if the percentage of subjects with retained tubes was greater than (superior to) 88% (by subject), at a significance level of 0.025 (p\<0.025).||||<0.0001
90815065|NCT03323736|181508981|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Pre-specified threshold for superiority was \>85%, at alpha = 0.025.|mid-P method for single proportion|||The Anesthesia Effectiveness endpoint would be successfully met if the percentage of subjects with successful anesthesia was greater than (superior to) 85% (by subject), at a significance level of 0.025 (p\<0.025).||||<0.0001
91016177|NCT05204563|181915165|OTHER||Treatment difference|12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.1|43.2||||||A.calco/baumannii complex TOC (Day 21)||43.2|-19.1|
91016178|NCT05204563|181915165|OTHER||Treatment difference|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.0|29.9||||||A.calco/baumannii complex LFU (Day 28)||29.9|-29.0|
91055287|NCT00593736|181992483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.618||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.618
90815066|NCT02262078|181508999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.002
90815067|NCT03826342|181509016|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2964|||||||Generalized linear mixed model analysis|generalized linear mixed model analysis under a negative binomial framework||Baseline to 2-month assessment||||0.2964
91016179|NCT05204563|181915165|OTHER||Treatment difference|-8.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.9|41.1||||||EOT (up to Day 14)||41.1|-57.9|
91016180|NCT05204563|181915165|OTHER||Treatment difference|-39.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-89.1|9.4||||||Klebsiella pneumoniae complex TOC (Day 21)||9.4|-89.1|
91016181|NCT05204563|181915165|OTHER||Treatment difference|-45.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-93.8|3.5||||||Klebsiella pneumoniae complex LFU (Day 28)||3.5|-93.8|
91016182|NCT05204563|181915165|OTHER||Treatment difference|20.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.8|100.0||||||Pseudomonas aeruginosa EOT (up to Day 14)||100.0|-59.8|
91016183|NCT05204563|181915165|OTHER||Treatment difference|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-82.0|76.9||||||Pseudomonas aeruginosa TOC (Day 21)||76.9|-82.0|
91016184|NCT05204563|181915165|OTHER||Treatment difference|-17.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-95.3|59.4||||||Pseudomonas aeruginosa LFU (Day 28)||59.4|-95.3|
91016185|NCT05204563|181915165|OTHER||Treatment difference|-100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|0.0||||||Escherichia coli LFU (Day 28)||0.0|-100.0|
91055288|NCT00593736|181992483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.152||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.152
90815068|NCT03826342|181509016|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3404|||||||generalized linear mixed model analysis|generalized linear mixed model analysis under a negative binomial framework||2-month assessment to 6-month assessment||||0.3404
90815069|NCT03826342|181509017|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7915|||||||Generalized linear mixed model analysis|generalized linear mixed model analysis under a negative binomial framework||Baseline to 2-month assessment||||0.7915
90815070|NCT03826342|181509017|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2131|||||||generalized linear mixed model analysis|generalized linear mixed model analysis under a negative binomial framework||2-month assessment to 6-month assessment||||0.2131
90815071|NCT03826342|181509018|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8357|||||||Generalized linear mixed model analysis|generalized linear mixed model analysis under a negative binomial framework||Baseline to 2-month assessment||||0.8357
90815072|NCT03826342|181509018|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.095|||||||generalized linear mixed model analysis|generalized linear mixed model analysis under a negative binomial framework||2-month assessment to 6-month assessment||||0.0950
90815073|NCT03826342|181509019|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7496|||||||generalized linear mixed model analysis|generalized linear mixed model analysis under a negative binomial framework||||||0.7496
90815074|NCT03826342|181509020|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4492|||||||generalized linear mixed model analysis|generalized linear mixed model analysis under a negative binomial framework||||||0.4492
90815075|NCT03826342|181509021|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0765|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0765
90815076|NCT03826342|181509022|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.535|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.535
90815077|NCT03826342|181509023|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4302|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4302
90815078|NCT03826342|181509024|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.807|||||||generalized linear mixed model analysis|generalized linear mixed model analysis under a negative binomial framework||||||0.8070
90815079|NCT00413010|181509050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||||95.0|-2.16|-0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for treatment, pooled center baseline, HAM-A total score,time,and treatment-by time|Since an interim analysis was conducted and the sample size was larger than the targeted 173 subjects per group, a critical t-value adjustment was 1.977, yielding an adjusted 95% CI shown above.|Null hypothesis: no difference between Pregabalin (150-600 mg/day) BID and Placebo BID treatment groups. An initial sample size of 173 subjects per double-blind treatment group was calculated to provide at least 90% power to detect an effect size (ie, difference in the true means between 2 treatment groups/standard deviation) of 0.36 for the HAM-A total score change from Baseline using a 2-sided nominal significance level of 4.9%.||-0.26|-2.16|
90815080|NCT00413010|181509051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||||95.0|-2.3|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment (tx) adjusted, pooled center baseline HAM-A total score,time,and tx-by time. Degrees of freedom adjusted using Satterthwaite approximation|Difference reflects pregabalin minus placebo.|Week 1||-0.4|-2.3|
90815081|NCT00413010|181509051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||||95.0|-2.2|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment (tx) adjusted, pooled center baseline HAM-A total score,time,and tx-by time. Degrees of freedom adjusted using Satterthwaite approximation|Difference reflects pregabalin minus placebo.|Week 2||0.1|-2.2|
90815082|NCT00413010|181509051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||||95.0|-2.7|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment (tx) adjusted, pooled center baseline HAM-A total score,time,and tx-by time. Degrees of freedom adjusted using Satterthwaite approximation|Difference reflects pregabalin minus placebo.|Week 3||-0.2|-2.7|
90815083|NCT00413010|181509051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||||95.0|-2.6|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment (tx) adjusted, pooled center baseline HAM-A total score,time,and tx-by time. Degrees of freedom adjusted using Satterthwaite approximation|Difference reflects pregabalin minus placebo.|Week 4||-0.1|-2.6|
90815084|NCT00413010|181509051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||||95.0|-2.1|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment (tx) adjusted, pooled center baseline HAM-A total score,time,and tx-by time. Degrees of freedom adjusted using Satterthwaite approximation|Difference reflects pregabalin minus placebo.|Week 5||0.5|-2.1|
90815085|NCT00413010|181509051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67||||95.0|-2.5|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment (tx) adjusted, pooled center baseline HAM-A total score,time,and tx-by time. Degrees of freedom adjusted using Satterthwaite approximation|Difference reflects pregabalin minus placebo.|Week 6||0.1|-2.5|
90815086|NCT00413010|181509051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||||95.0|-2.9|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment (tx) adjusted, pooled center baseline HAM-A total score,time,and tx-by time. Degrees of freedom adjusted using Satterthwaite approximation|Difference reflects pregabalin minus placebo.|Week 8||0.2|-2.9|
90815087|NCT00413010|181509052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.35||||||95.0|1.37|8.24||P-value less that the nominal 0.05 level is suggestive of a treatment difference; P-value corresponds to Wald's Chi square test.|Regression, Logistic|Based on fitting a logistic regression on the HAM-A responders at each week with treatment and center in the model.|The odds ratio represented the odds of demonstrating an improvement comparing pregabalin versus placebo. Odds of being a responder (yes) for pregabalin relative to the odds of being a responder for placebo.|Week 1||8.24|1.37|
90815088|NCT00413010|181509052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.61||||||95.0|0.9|2.87||P-value less than the nominal 0.05 level is suggestive of a treatment difference; P-value corresponds to Wald's Chi square test.|Regression, Logistic|Based on fitting a logistic regression on the HAM-A responsers at each each with treatment and center in the model.|The odds ratio represented the odds of demonstrating an improvement comparing pregabalin versus placebo. Odds of being a responder (yes) for pregabalin relative to the odds of being a responder for placebo.|Week 2||2.87|0.90|
90890386|NCT00907153|181645333|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.28||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.29|20.85|||Regression, Linear|Model-based differences adjusted for oral contraceptive use and season.||||20.85|-20.29|0.98
90815089|NCT00413010|181509052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.15||||||95.0|1.76|5.66||P-value less than the nominal 0.05 level is suggestive of a treatment difference; P-value corresponds to Wald's Chi square test.|Regression, Logistic|Based on fitting a logistic regression on the HAM-A responsers at each each with treatment and center in the model.|The odds ratio represented the odds of demonstrating an improvement comparing pregabalin versus placebo. Odds of being a responder (yes) for pregabalin relative to the odds of being a responder for placebo.|Week 3||5.66|1.76|
90815090|NCT00413010|181509052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||||95.0|1.06|3.05||P-value less than the nominal 0.05 level is suggestive of a treatment difference; P-value corresponds to Wald's Chi square test.|Regression, Logistic|Based on fitting a logistic regression on the HAM-A responsers at each each with treatment and center in the model.|The odds ratio represented the odds of demonstrating an improvement comparing pregabalin versus placebo. Odds of being a responder (yes) for pregabalin relative to the odds of being a responder for placebo.|Week 4||3.05|1.06|
90815091|NCT00413010|181509052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.57||||||95.0|0.9|2.73||P-value less than the nominal 0.05 level is suggestive of a treatment difference; P-value corresponds to Wald's Chi square test.|Regression, Logistic|Based on fitting a logistic regression on the HAM-A responsers at each each with treatment and center in the model.|The odds ratio represented the odds of demonstrating an improvement comparing pregabalin versus placebo. Odds of being a responder (yes) for pregabalin relative to the odds of being a responder for placebo.|Week 5||2.73|0.90|
90815092|NCT00413010|181509052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.52||||||95.0|0.86|2.66||P-value less than the nominal 0.05 level is suggestive of a treatment difference; P-value corresponds to Wald's Chi square test.|Regression, Logistic|Based on fitting a logistic regression on the HAM-A responsers at each each with treatment and center in the model.|The odds ratio represented the odds of demonstrating an improvement comparing pregabalin versus placebo. Odds of being a responder (yes) for pregabalin relative to the odds of being a responder for placebo.|Week 6||2.66|0.86|
90815093|NCT00413010|181509052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.86||||||95.0|1.08|3.22||P-value less than the nominal 0.05 level is suggestive of a treatment difference; P-value corresponds to Wald's Chi square test.|Regression, Logistic|Based on fitting a logistic regression on the HAM-A responsers at each each with treatment and center in the model.|The odds ratio represented the odds of demonstrating an improvement comparing pregabalin versus placebo. Odds of being a responder (yes) for pregabalin relative to the odds of being a responder for placebo.|Week 8||3.22|1.08|
90815094|NCT00413010|181509052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77||||||95.0|1.12|2.79||P-value less than the nominal 0.05 level is suggestive of a treatment difference; P-value corresponds to Wald's Chi square test.|Regression, Logistic|Based on fitting a logistic regression on the HAM-A responders at Week 8 (LOCF) with treatment and center in the model.|The odds ratio represented the odds of demonstrating an improvement comparing pregabalin versus placebo. Odds of being a responder (yes) for pregabalin relative to the odds of being a responder for placebo.|Week 8 (last observation carried forward, LOCF)||2.79|1.12|
90815095|NCT00413010|181509053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.88||||||95.0|0.94|8.8||P-value less that the nominal 0.05 level is suggestive of a treatment difference; P-value corresponds to Wald's Chi square test.|Regression, Logistic|Based on fitting a logistic regression on the HAM-A remission at Week 8 with treatment and center in the model.|The odds ratio represented the odds of demonstrating an improvement comparing pregabalin versus placebo. Odds of being a remitter (yes) for pregabalin relative to the odds of being a remitter for placebo.|Week 1||8.80|0.94|
90815096|NCT00413010|181509053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||||95.0|0.72|3.06||P-value less that the nominal 0.05 level is suggestive of a treatment difference; P-value corresponds to Wald's Chi square test.|Regression, Logistic|Based on fitting a logistic regression on the HAM-A remission at Week 8 with treatment and center in the model.|The odds ratio represented the odds of demonstrating an improvement comparing pregabalin versus placebo. Odds of being a remitter (yes) for pregabalin relative to the odds of being a remitter for placebo.|Week 2||3.06|0.72|
90815097|NCT00413010|181509053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.08||||||95.0|1.09|3.97||P-value less that the nominal 0.05 level is suggestive of a treatment difference; P-value corresponds to Wald's Chi square test.|Regression, Logistic|Based on fitting a logistic regression on the HAM-A remission at Week 8 with treatment and center in the model.|The odds ratio represented the odds of demonstrating an improvement comparing pregabalin versus placebo. Odds of being a remitter (yes) for pregabalin relative to the odds of being a remitter for placebo.|Week 3||3.97|1.09|
90815098|NCT00413010|181509053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||||95.0|0.99|3.28||P-value less that the nominal 0.05 level is suggestive of a treatment difference; P-value corresponds to Wald's Chi square test.|Regression, Logistic|Based on fitting a logistic regression on the HAM-A remission at Week 8 with treatment and center in the model.|The odds ratio represented the odds of demonstrating an improvement comparing pregabalin versus placebo. Odds of being a remitter (yes) for pregabalin relative to the odds of being a remitter for placebo.|Week 4||3.28|0.99|
90890387|NCT00907153|181645334|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|10.24||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.61|55.08|||Regression, Linear|Model-based differences adjusted for oral contraceptive use and season.||||55.08|-34.61|0.64
91016186|NCT05204563|181915166|OTHER||Treatment difference|10.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|25.3||||||EOT (up to Day 14)||25.3|-4.9|
91016187|NCT05204563|181915166|OTHER||Treatment difference|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|19.0||||||TOC (Day 21)||19.0|-13.0|
91016188|NCT05204563|181915166|OTHER||Treatment difference|7.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|23.5||||||LFU (Day 28)||23.5|-7.6|
91016189|NCT05204563|181915167|OTHER||Treatment difference|7.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|20.8||||||EOT (up to Day 14)||20.8|-5.8|
91055289|NCT00593736|181992484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.379||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.379
91016190|NCT05204563|181915167|OTHER||Treatment difference|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|15.5||||||TOC (Day 21)||15.5|-11.6|
91016191|NCT05204563|181915167|OTHER||Treatment difference|4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|17.4||||||LFU (Day 28)||17.4|-9.2|
91016192|NCT05204563|181915168|OTHER||Treatment difference|4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|20.2||||||EOT (up to Day 14)||20.2|-10.6|
91016193|NCT05204563|181915168|OTHER||Treatment difference|3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|20.4||||||TOC (Day 21)||20.4|-14.0|
90815099|NCT00413010|181509053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53||||||95.0|0.82|2.85||P-value less that the nominal 0.05 level is suggestive of a treatment difference; P-value corresponds to Wald's Chi square test.|Regression, Logistic|Based on fitting a logistic regression on the HAM-A remission at Week 8 with treatment and center in the model.|The odds ratio represented the odds of demonstrating an improvement comparing pregabalin versus placebo. Odds of being a remitter (yes) for pregabalin relative to the odds of being a remitter for placebo.|Week 5||2.85|0.82|
90815100|NCT00413010|181509053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||||95.0|0.71|2.48||P-value less that the nominal 0.05 level is suggestive of a treatment difference; P-value corresponds to Wald's Chi square test.|Regression, Logistic|Based on fitting a logistic regression on the HAM-A remission at Week 8 with treatment and center in the model.|The odds ratio represented the odds of demonstrating an improvement comparing pregabalin versus placebo. Odds of being a remitter (yes) for pregabalin relative to the odds of being a remitter for placebo.|Week 6||2.48|0.71|
90815101|NCT00413010|181509053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||||95.0|0.85|2.83||P-value less that the nominal 0.05 level is suggestive of a treatment difference; P-value corresponds to Wald's Chi square test.|Regression, Logistic|Based on fitting a logistic regression on the HAM-A remission at Week 8 with treatment and center in the model.|The odds ratio represented the odds of demonstrating an improvement comparing pregabalin versus placebo. Odds of being a remitter (yes) for pregabalin relative to the odds of being a remitter for placebo.|Week 8||2.83|0.85|
90815102|NCT00413010|181509053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53||||||95.0|0.92|2.53|||Regression, Logistic|Based on fitting a logistic regression on the HAM-A responders at Week 8 (LOCF) with treatment and center in the model.|The odds ratio represented the odds of demonstrating an improvement comparing pregabalin versus placebo. Odds of being a remitter (yes) for pregabalin relative to the odds of being a remitter for placebo.|Week 8 Last Observation Carried Foward (LOCF)||2.53|0.92|
90815103|NCT00413010|181509054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0137||||||P-value corresponds to the 2-sided log-rank test.|Log Rank|2-sided log-rank test||Kaplan Meier product limit estimate for calculating median time in days to onset sustained HAM-A Improvement.||||0.0137
90815104|NCT00413010|181509055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.54||||||95.0|0.96|2.47||P-value less than the nominal 0.05 level is suggestive of a treatment difference; P-value corresponds to Wald's Chi square test.|Regression, Logistic|Based on fitting a logistic regression on the CGI-I responders at Week 8 with treatment and center in the model.|The odds ratio represented the odds of demonstrating an improvement comparing pregabalin versus placebo. Odds of being a responder (yes) for pregabalin relative to the odds of being a responder for placebo.|Week 1||2.47|0.96|
91016194|NCT05204563|181915168|OTHER||Treatment difference|8.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|25.6||||||LFU (Day 28)||25.6|-8.4|
91055290|NCT00593736|181992484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.057||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.057
91055291|NCT00593736|181992484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.808||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.808
90815105|NCT00413010|181509055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.58||||||95.0|1.01|2.47||P-value less than the nominal 0.05 level is suggestive of a treatment difference; P-value corresponds to Wald's Chi square test.|Regression, Logistic||The odds ratio represented the odds of demonstrating an improvement comparing pregabalin versus placebo. Odds of being a responder (yes) for pregabalin relative to the odds of being a responder for placebo.|Week 2||2.47|1.01|
90815106|NCT00413010|181509055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.75||||||95.0|1.09|2.82||P-value less than the nominal 0.05 level is suggestive of a treatment difference; P-value corresponds to Wald's Chi square test.|Regression, Logistic||The odds ratio represented the odds of demonstrating an improvement comparing pregabalin versus placebo. Odds of being a responder (yes) for pregabalin relative to the odds of being a responder for placebo.|Week 3||2.82|1.09|
91016195|NCT05204563|181915169|OTHER||Treatment difference|11.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|36.9||||||EOT (up to Day 14)||36.9|-14.5|
91055292|NCT00593736|181992485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.284||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.284
90815107|NCT00413010|181509055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||||95.0|0.77|2.05||P-value less than the nominal 0.05 level is suggestive of a treatment difference; P-value corresponds to Wald's Chi square test.|Regression, Logistic||The odds ratio represented the odds of demonstrating an improvement comparing pregabalin versus placebo. Odds of being a responder (yes) for pregabalin relative to the odds of being a responder for placebo.|Week 4||2.05|0.77|
90815108|NCT00413010|181509055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||||95.0|0.72|2.11||P-value less than the nominal 0.05 level is suggestive of a treatment difference; P-value corresponds to Wald's Chi square test.|Regression, Logistic||The odds ratio represented the odds of demonstrating an improvement comparing pregabalin versus placebo. Odds of being a responder (yes) for pregabalin relative to the odds of being a responder for placebo.|Week 5||2.11|0.72|
90815109|NCT00413010|181509055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||||95.0|0.84|2.5|||Regression, Logistic|P-value less than the nominal 0.05 level is suggestive of a treatment difference; P-value corresponds to Wald's Chi square test.|The odds ratio represented the odds of demonstrating an improvement comparing pregabalin versus placebo. Odds of being a responder (yes) for pregabalin relative to the odds of being a responder for placebo.|Week 6||2.50|0.84|
91016196|NCT05204563|181915169|OTHER||Treatment difference|-5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.4|17.6||||||TOC (Day 21)||17.6|-28.4|
91016197|NCT05204563|181915169|OTHER||Treatment difference|-10.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.9|12.5||||||LFU (Day 28)||12.5|-32.9|
91016198|NCT05643573|181915172|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|3.785|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.457|5.833|||Log Rank|||Comparison of Asundexian 50 mg verus Apixaban||5.833|2.457|<.0001
91016199|NCT05643573|181915172|SUPERIORITY||Fine-Gray model|3.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.46|5.839|||Gray's test|||Comparison of Asundexian 50 mg verus Apixaban||5.839|2.460|<.0001
90815110|NCT00413010|181509055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||||95.0|0.61|1.84||P-value less than the nominal 0.05 level is suggestive of a treatment difference; P-value corresponds to Wald's Chi square test.|Regression, Logistic||The odds ratio represented the odds of demonstrating an improvement comparing pregabalin versus placebo. Odds of being a responder (yes) for pregabalin relative to the odds of being a responder for placebo.|Week 8||1.84|0.61|
90815111|NCT00413010|181509055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||||95.0|0.71|1.76||P-value less than the nominal 0.05 level is suggestive of a treatment difference; P-value corresponds to Wald's Chi square test.|Regression, Logistic||The odds ratio represented the odds of demonstrating an improvement comparing pregabalin versus placebo. Odds of being a responder (yes) for pregabalin relative to the odds of being a responder for placebo.|Week 8 (LOCF) Last Observation Carried Forward||1.76|0.71|
90815112|NCT00413010|181509056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||||95.0|1.07|2.3||P-value less than the nominal 0.05 level is suggestive of a treatment difference; P-value corresponds to Wald's Chi square test.|Cumulative Logit Model|Based on fitting a logistic regression model for ordinal response of CGI-S scores at Week 8 (LOCF) with treatment and center in the model.|The odds ratio represented the odds of demonstrating an improvement comparing pregabalin versus placebo. The odds of having an increasingly better response for pregabalin relative to the odds of having an increasingly better response for placebo.|Week 8 Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF)||2.30|1.07|
90815113|NCT00413010|181509057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||||95.0|-1.5|0.0|||ANCOVA|Repeated analysis of covariance heterogeneous auto-regressive w/ tx center wk \& tx by wk fixed effects; Baseline HAM-D total score covariate in model.|Difference is pregabalin minus placebo.|Week 1||0.0|-1.5|
90815114|NCT00413010|181509057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||||95.0|-1.5|0.2|||ANCOVA|Repeated analysis of covariance heterogeneous auto-regressive w/ tx center wk \& tx by wk fixed effects; Baseline HAM-D total score covariate in model.|Difference is pregabalin minus placebo.|Week 2||0.2|-1.5|
90815115|NCT00413010|181509057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||||95.0|-1.6|0.1|||ANCOVA|Repeated analysis of covariance heterogeneous auto-regressive w/ tx center wk \& tx by wk fixed effects; Baseline HAM-D total score covariate in model.|Difference is pregabalin minus placebo.|Week 3||0.1|-1.6|
90815116|NCT00413010|181509057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||||95.0|-2.1|-0.6|||ANCOVA|Repeated analysis of covariance heterogeneous auto-regressive w/ tx center wk \& tx by wk fixed effects; Baseline HAM-D total score covariate in model.|Difference is pregabalin minus placebo.|Week 4||-0.6|-2.1|
91016200|NCT05643573|181915173|SUPERIORITY||Fine-Gray model|0.319|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.185|0.552|||Log Rank|||Comparison of Asundexian 50 mg verus Apixaban||0.552|0.185|<.0001
91016201|NCT05643573|181915173|SUPERIORITY||Fine-Gray model|0.316|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.182|0.547|||Gray's test|||Comparison of Asundexian 50 mg verus Apixaban||0.547|0.182|<.0001
90815117|NCT00413010|181509057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||||95.0|-1.3|0.5|||ANCOVA|Repeated analysis of covariance heterogeneous auto-regressive w/ tx center wk \& tx by wk fixed effects; Baseline HAM-D total score covariate in model.|Difference is pregabalin minus placebo.|Week 5||0.5|-1.3|
90815118|NCT00413010|181509057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||||95.0|-1.8|0.0|||ANCOVA|Repeated analysis of covariance heterogeneous auto-regressive w/ tx center wk \& tx by wk fixed effects; Baseline HAM-D total score covariate in model.|Difference is pregabalin minus placebo.|Week 6||0.0|-1.8|
90815119|NCT00413010|181509057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||||95.0|-2.1|0.1|||ANCOVA|Repeated analysis of covariance heterogeneous auto-regressive w/ tx center wk \& tx by wk fixed effects; Baseline HAM-D total score covariate in model.|Difference is pregabalin minus placebo.|Week 8||0.1|-2.1|
91016202|NCT05643573|181915174|SUPERIORITY||Fine-Gray model|1.61||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.207|2.149|||Log Rank|||Comparison of Asundexian 50 mg verus Apixaban||2.149|1.207|0.0011
91016203|NCT05643573|181915174|SUPERIORITY||Fine-Gray model|1.599||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.197|2.134|||Gray's test|||Comparison of Asundexian 50 mg verus Apixaban||2.134|1.197|0.0013
91055293|NCT00593736|181992485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.344||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.344
91055294|NCT00593736|181992485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.558||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.558
91016204|NCT02268214|181915195|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0697|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.28|||RMM|Repeated Measures Model||||-0.28|-0.56|<0.0001
91016205|NCT02268214|181915195|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0696|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|-0.31|||RMM|Repeated Measures Model||||-0.31|-0.58|<0.0001
91016206|NCT02268214|181915196|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9555|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.56|-4.88|||RMM|Repeated Measures Model||||-4.88|-12.56|<0.0001
91016207|NCT02268214|181915196|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8643|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.75|-9.43|||RMM|Repeated Measures Model||||-9.43|-16.75|<0.0001
90890388|NCT00907153|181645335|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.88||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.81|8.51|||Regression, Linear|Model-based differences adjusted for oral contraceptive use and season.||||8.51|-22.81|0.88
90890389|NCT00907153|181645336|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.15||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|2.41|||Regression, Linear|Model-based differences adjusted for oral contraceptive use and season.||||2.41|-8.70|0.25
91016208|NCT02268214|181915197|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3251|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.68|-2.41|||RMM|Repeated Measures Model||||-2.41|-3.68|<0.0001
91016209|NCT02268214|181915197|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3213|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.34|-3.08|||RMM|Repeated Measures Model||||-3.08|-4.34|<0.0001
91016210|NCT02268214|181915198|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4859|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.22|-10.46|||RMM|Repeated Measures Model||||-10.46|-20.22|<0.0001
90815120|NCT01173029|181509065|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Study power calculation was post-hoc based on composite end-point achieved. Number of exposed: 62 Non-exposed to exposed ratio: 0.5 Relative risk worth detecting: 2.5 Attack rate among non-exposed: 23% Alpha risk: 0.05 Calculated power: 89.8%|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.7||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|4.1||not adjusted|Chi-squared, Corrected|1 degree-of-freedom||"Long-term intention-to-treat data analysis:~Student 't' tests Yates's corrected Chi-squared or Fisher's exact test, when appropriate Relative risk estimation Cox proportional-hazard model Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium"||4.1|0.7|0.19
90815121|NCT01173029|181509066|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Study power calculation was post-hoc based on composite end-point achieved. Number of exposed: 62 Non-exposed to exposed ratio: 0.5 Relative risk worth detecting: 2.5 Attack rate among non-exposed: 23% Alpha risk: 0.05 Calculated power: 89.8%|Risk Ratio (RR)|2.6||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|7.3||not adjusted|Chi-squared, Corrected|1 degree-of-freedom||"Long-term intention-to-treat data analysis:~Student 't' test Yates' corrected Chi-squared or Fisher's exact test Relative risk estimation Cox proportional-hazard model Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium"||7.3|1.01|0.01
90815122|NCT01173029|181509066|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Proportional-risk hypothesis was tested using the correlation between Schoenfeld's residuals and time (Schoenfeld's global test). The correlation rho was -0.08, Chi-squared was 0.12, and p was 0.73. Therefore, the hypothesis of proportional risk was accepted, validating the correct application model.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.2||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|4.8||The p-value was adjusted for confounders: Framingham risk score, body mass index, ethnic groups|Regression, Cox|The actuarial function of events per time since the first diagnosis of arterial hypertension was plotted for both groups.||Cox proportional hazard model for the composite endpoint (stroke + myocardial infarction) was assessed. By taking pseudo-resistant arterial hypertension as baseline reference, the hazard ratio for the composite endpoint was calculated.||4.8|1.1|0.04
90815123|NCT01173029|181509067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||C-statistic|0.66|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.76||At an optimal value of \>3, polygenic risk score yielded 90% sensitivity and 40% specificity for composite endpoint.|z test|Area under receiver operating characteristic curve.|The optimal cutoff value for polygenic risk score was set to \>3.|Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis for the polygenic score as predictor of composite endpoint (stroke + myocardial infarction)||0.76|0.56|<0.01
90815124|NCT01173029|181509067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.9||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|9.2||The p-value was adjusted for confounders: Framingham risk score, body mass index, ethnic group|Regression, Cox|The actuarial function of events per time since the first diagnosis of arterial hypertension was plotted for polygenic risk score\<=3 and \>3.||Cox proportional hazard model of the polygenic risk score\<=3 and \> 3 for the composite endpoint (stroke + myocardial infarction). By taking polygenic risk score\<=3, the hazard ratio for the composite endpoint was calculated for polygenic risk score\>3 .||9.2|1.2|0.04
90815125|NCT01842581|181509068|NON_INFERIORITY|Threshold for significance=upper bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for hazard ratio less than (\<) 1.56.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.959||||0.0359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.045|3.672|||Score statistics|||Hazard ratio estimate (hazard of breakthrough HE for rifaximin compared to rifaximin + lactulose) obtained from Cox proportional hazards model with effect for treatment, stratified by analysis region.||3.672|1.045|0.0359
90815126|NCT01842581|181509069|SUPERIORITY|2-sided test at a significance level of 0.05.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.739||||0.0985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.894|3.382||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Log Rank|||Analysis was performed using log-rank test stratified by analysis region. Hazard ratio estimate (hazard of breakthrough HE for rifaximin compared to rifaximin + lactulose) obtained from Cox proportional hazards model with effect for treatment, stratified by analysis region.||3.382|0.894|0.0985
90815127|NCT05432167|181509088|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.676||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.36|-2.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The analysis was performed using a mixed-effect model for repeated measures including fixed effects for treatment, visit, stratification variables (SGLT2 inhibitor use and CKD category), and the treatment-by-visit interaction, along with a covariate of the baseline seated SBP value and the baseline seated SBP by visit interaction.||-2.79|-13.36|0.003
90815128|NCT05432167|181509089|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.051||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.24|-1.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The analysis was performed using a mixed-effect model for repeated measures including fixed effects for treatment, visit, stratification variables (SGLT2 inhibitor use and CKD category), and the treatment-by-visit interaction, along with a covariate of the baseline seated SBP value and the baseline seated SBP by visit interaction.||-1.19|-13.24|0.019
90815129|NCT05432167|181509090|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.098||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.1|-2.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The analysis was performed using a mixed-effect model for repeated measures including fixed effects for treatment, visit, stratification variables (SGLT2 inhibitor use and CKD category), and the treatment-by-visit interaction, along with a covariate of the baseline seated SBP value and the baseline seated SBP by visit interaction.||-2.87|-15.10|0.004
90890390|NCT00907153|181645337|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|44.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.13|61.48|||Regression, Linear|Model-based differences adjusted for oral contraceptive use and season.||||61.48|27.13|<0.001
91016211|NCT02268214|181915198|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.505|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.95|-13.11|||RMM|Repeated Measures Model||||-13.11|-22.95|<0.0001
91016212|NCT02268214|181915199|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6273|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.46|-12.14|||RMM|Repeated Measures Model||||-12.14|-22.46|<0.0001
91016213|NCT02268214|181915199|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6482|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.13|-13.73|||RMM|Repeated Measures Model||||-13.73|-24.13|<0.0001
91016214|NCT02268214|181915200|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1611|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.83|11.39|||RMM|Repeated Measures Model||||11.39|6.83|<0.0001
91016215|NCT02268214|181915200|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1689|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.35|12.94|||RMM|Repeated Measures Model||||12.94|8.35|<0.0001
91016216|NCT02268214|181915201|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.198|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|4.56|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.56|2.10|<0.0001
91016217|NCT02268214|181915201|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1979|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.23|4.85|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.85|2.23|<0.0001
90815130|NCT01511809|181509092|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|A lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the difference between the two proportions of treatment failure (triple therapy-monotherapy) below the pre-specified margin of non-inferiority of -10% established inferiority. A sample size of 342 patients (171 per treatment arm) provided 80% power (one-sided, alpha 0.05) to establish non-inferiority of ATV/r monotherapy as compared to ATV/r triple therapy with an overall treatment failure (TF) rate of 15% at week 48.|difference between TF proportions|15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Here are reported the results of the 48-week interim analyses according to the intention-to-treat (ITT) principle. ITT=F (with re-intensification=failure) and the ITT=S (with re-intensification=success) treatment failure results are shown.~Based on the efficacy data review, in June 2013, an independent Data and Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) recommended to stop further patients' enrolment and to follow-up the enrolled patients until 96 weeks, after having signed an updated informed consent."||||
90815131|NCT00357656|181509094|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority by the 200% margin of non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper confidence limit of a 95% 2-sided confidence interval for the ratio of means did not exceed 200%.|Mean ratio CI/BI|0.924||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.816|1.046||one-sided p-value against the null hypothesis of ration \>=200%|Hypothesis test|||The main analysis used a point estimate and a two-sided 95% confidence interval for ratio of the primary outcome measure of CI over BI combined over the three strata: stratum A: unilateral knee replacement, stratum B: hip surgery, stratum C: shoulder/elbow/ankle/knee (except knee replacement) surgery.||1.046|0.816|0.001
90815132|NCT02256267|181509103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|0.0771|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0671|0.0886||||||||0.0886|0.0671|
90815133|NCT02256267|181509104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|0.0467|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0376|0.0581||||||||0.0581|0.0376|
90815134|NCT01443130|181509120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2441||||||A Bonferroni correction was used due to multiple comparisons. Comparisons are statistically significant if the two-sided p-value is ≤ 0.05/2=0.025|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is the incidence of placental malaria infection based on histology is identical between subjects receiving maternal chloroquine prophylaxis vs. maternal SP IPT.||||0.2441
90815135|NCT01443130|181509120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||A Bonferroni correction was used due to multiple comparisons. Comparisons are statistically significant if the two-sided p-value is ≤ 0.05/2=0.025|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is the incidence of placental malaria infection based on histology is identical between subjects receiving maternal chloroquine IPT vs. maternal SP IPT.||||1.000
91016218|NCT04584294|181915216|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|3.06||The threshold for significance was set at p\<0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Model adjusted for site, provider clinic type, provider, Veteran age, Veteran race, Veteran education, and Veteran health insurance status.||We used a multilevel logistic regression model to test whether the outcome was significantly different in the intervention versus control arm. Analyses accounted for missing data in outcome and a priori adjustment variables through multiple imputation (MI) using Multiple Imputation by Chained Equations (MICE).||3.06|0.70|0.31
91016219|NCT04584294|181915216|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||Threshold for significance was set at p\<0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Model adjusted for site, provider clinic type, provider, Veteran age, Veteran race, Veteran education, and Veteran health insurance status.||"Per the study protocol, to account for noncompliance, we estimated the complier average causal effect to estimate the causal effect of using the MyPath tool on the outcome. Our model accounted for missing data in outcome and baseline adjustment variables through multiple imputation (MI) using Multiple Imputation by Chained Equations (MICE) in R."|P-value and estimated OR (95% CI) is not available because the model did not converge.|||
91055295|NCT00593736|181992486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.867||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.867
91055296|NCT00593736|181992486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.244||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.244
91055297|NCT00593736|181992486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.620
91016220|NCT04584294|181915217|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.38||Threshold for significance was set at p\<0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Model adjusted for site, provider clinic type, provider, Veteran age, Veteran race, Veteran education, and Veteran health insurance status.||We used a multilevel logistic regression model to test whether the outcome was significantly different in the intervention versus control arm, using an Intent to Treat approach. Analyses accounted for missing data in outcome and baseline adjustment variables through multiple imputation (MI) using Multiple Imputation by Chained Equations (MICE).||2.38|0.79|0.26
91055298|NCT00593736|181992487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.206||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.206
90815136|NCT01443130|181509121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4941||||||A Bonferroni correction was used due to multiple comparisons. Comparisons are statistically significant if the two-sided p-value is ≤ 0.05/2=0.025.|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is the incidence of malaria by placental impression smear is identical between subjects receiving maternal chloroquine prophylaxis vs. maternal SP IPT.||||0.4941
90815137|NCT01443130|181509121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.499||||||A Bonferroni correction was used due to multiple comparisons. Comparisons are statistically significant if the two-sided p-value is ≤ 0.05/2=0.025.|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is the incidence of malaria by placental impression smear is identical between subjects receiving maternal chloroquine IPT vs. maternal SP IPT.||||0.4990
90890391|NCT00907153|181645338|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.56||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.08|5.2|||Regression, Linear|Model-based differences adjusted for oral contraceptive use and season.||||5.20|-2.08|0.38
90815138|NCT01443130|181509122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3089||||||A Bonferroni correction was used due to multiple comparisons. Comparisons are statistically significant if the two-sided p-value is ≤ 0.05/2=0.025.|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is the incidence of maternal anemia is identical between subjects receiving maternal chloroquine prophylaxis vs. maternal SP IPT.||||0.3089
90815139|NCT01443130|181509122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6973||||||A Bonferroni correction was used due to multiple comparisons. Comparisons are statistically significant if the two-sided p-value is ≤ 0.05/2=0.025.|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is the incidence of maternal anemia is identical between subjects receiving maternal chloroquine IPT vs. maternal SP IPT.||||0.6973
90815140|NCT01443130|181509123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||A Bonferroni correction was used due to multiple comparisons. Comparisons are statistically significant if the two-sided p-value is ≤ 0.05/2=0.025.|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is the incidence of maternal severe anemia is identical between subjects receiving maternal chloroquine prophylaxis vs. maternal SP IPT.||||1.00
90815141|NCT01443130|181509123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||A Bonferroni correction was used due to multiple comparisons. Comparisons are statistically significant if the two-sided p-value is ≤ 0.05/2=0.025.|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is the incidence of maternal severe anemia is identical between subjects receiving maternal chloroquine IPT vs. maternal SP IPT.||||1.00
90815142|NCT01443130|181509124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4979||||||A Bonferroni correction was used due to multiple comparisons. Comparisons are statistically significant if the two-sided p-value is ≤ 0.05/2=0.025.|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is the incidence of stillbirth is identical between subjects receiving maternal chloroquine prophylaxis vs. maternal SP IPT.||||0.4979
90815143|NCT01443130|181509124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1166||||||A Bonferroni correction was used due to multiple comparisons. Comparisons are statistically significant if the two-sided p-value is ≤ 0.05/2=0.025.|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is the incidence of stillbirth is identical between subjects receiving maternal chloroquine IPT vs. maternal SP IPT.||||0.1166
90815144|NCT01443130|181509125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6237||||||A Bonferroni correction was used due to multiple comparisons. Comparisons are statistically significant if the two-sided p-value is ≤ 0.05/2=0.025.|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is the incidence of miscarriage is identical between subjects receiving maternal chloroquine prophylaxis vs. maternal SP IPT.||||0.6237
90815145|NCT01443130|181509125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||A Bonferroni correction was used due to multiple comparisons. Comparisons are statistically significant if the two-sided p-value is ≤ 0.05/2=0.025.|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is the incidence of miscarriage is identical between subjects receiving maternal chloroquine IPT vs. maternal SP IPT.||||1.000
91016221|NCT04584294|181915217|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.46||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|9.76||Threshold for significance was set at p\<0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Model adjusted for site, provider clinic type, provider, Veteran age, Veteran race, Veteran education, and Veteran health insurance status.||"Per the study protocol, to account for noncompliance, we estimated the complier average causal effect to estimate the causal effect of using the MyPath tool on the outcome. Our model accounted for missing data in outcome and baseline adjustment variables through multiple imputation (MI) using Multiple Imputation by Chained Equations (MICE) in R."||9.76|1.23|0.019
91055299|NCT00593736|181992487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.559||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.559
90815146|NCT01443130|181509126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5187||||||A Bonferroni correction was used due to multiple comparisons. Comparisons are statistically significant if the two-sided p-value is ≤ 0.05/2=0.025.|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is the incidence of preterm delivery is identical between subjects receiving maternal chloroquine prophylaxis vs. maternal SP IPT.||||0.5187
90815147|NCT01443130|181509126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2163||||||A Bonferroni correction was used due to multiple comparisons. Comparisons are statistically significant if the two-sided p-value is ≤ 0.05/2=0.025.|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is the incidence of preterm delivery is identical between subjects receiving maternal chloroquine IPT vs. maternal SP IPT.||||0.2163
90815148|NCT01443130|181509127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5959||||||A Bonferroni correction was used due to multiple comparisons. Comparisons are statistically significant if the two-sided p-value is ≤ 0.05/2=0.025.|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is the incidence of infant mortality within 14 weeks of delivery is identical between subjects receiving maternal chloroquine prophylaxis vs. maternal SP IPT.||||0.5959
90815149|NCT01443130|181509127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8127||||||A Bonferroni correction was used due to multiple comparisons. Comparisons are statistically significant if the two-sided p-value is ≤ 0.05/2=0.025.|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is the incidence of infant mortality within 14 weeks of delivery is identical between subjects receiving maternal chloroquine IPT vs. maternal SP IPT.||||0.8127
90815150|NCT01443130|181509128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2566||||||A Bonferroni correction was used due to multiple comparisons. Comparisons are statistically significant if the two-sided p-value is ≤ 0.05/2=0.025.|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is the incidence of low birth weight is identical between subjects receiving maternal chloroquine prophylaxis vs. maternal SP IPT.||||0.2566
90815151|NCT01443130|181509128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7839||||||A Bonferroni correction was used due to multiple comparisons. Comparisons are statistically significant if the two-sided p-value is ≤ 0.05/2=0.025.|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is the incidence of low birth weight is identical between subjects receiving maternal chloroquine IPT vs. maternal SP IPT.||||0.7839
90815152|NCT01443130|181509129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2553||||||A Bonferroni correction was used due to multiple comparisons. Comparisons are statistically significant if the two-sided p-value is ≤ 0.05/2=0.025.|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is the incidence of intrauterine growth restriction is identical between subjects receiving maternal chloroquine prophylaxis vs. maternal SP IPT.||||0.2553
90815153|NCT01443130|181509129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4354||||||A Bonferroni correction was used due to multiple comparisons. Comparisons are statistically significant if the two-sided p-value is ≤ 0.05/2=0.025.|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is the incidence of intrauterine growth restriction is identical between subjects receiving maternal chloroquine IPT vs. maternal SP IPT.||||0.4354
91016222|NCT04584294|181915218|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.62||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|0.48||Threshold for significance was set at p\<0.05.|Regression, Linear|Model adjusted for site, provider clinic type, provider, Veteran age, Veteran race, Veteran education, and Veteran health insurance status.||We used a multilevel logistic regression model to test whether the outcome was significantly different in the intervention versus control arm, using an Intent to Treat approach. Analyses accounted for missing data in outcome and baseline adjustment variables through multiple imputation (MI) using Multiple Imputation by Chained Equations (MICE).||0.48|-1.71|0.27
90815154|NCT01443130|181509130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.369||||||A Bonferroni correction was used due to multiple comparisons. Comparisons are statistically significant if the two-sided p-value is ≤ 0.05/2=0.025.|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is the incidence of active placental malaria infection is identical between subjects receiving maternal chloroquine prophylaxis vs. maternal SP IPT.||||0.3690
90815155|NCT01443130|181509130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4947||||||A Bonferroni correction was used due to multiple comparisons. Comparisons are statistically significant if the two-sided p-value is ≤ 0.05/2=0.025.|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is the incidence of active placental malaria infection is identical between subjects receiving maternal chloroquine IPT vs. maternal SP IPT.||||0.4947
90815156|NCT01443130|181509131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.063||||||A Bonferroni correction was used due to multiple comparisons. Comparisons are statistically significant if the two-sided p-value is ≤ 0.05/2=0.025.|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is the incidence of malaria infection (all species) measured by positive parasitemia is identical between subjects receiving maternal chloroquine prophylaxis vs. maternal SP IPT.||||0.0630
90815157|NCT01443130|181509131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4184||||||A Bonferroni correction was used due to multiple comparisons. Comparisons are statistically significant if the two-sided p-value is ≤ 0.05/2=0.025.|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is the incidence of malaria infection (all species) measured by positive parasitemia is identical between subjects receiving maternal chloroquine IPT vs. maternal SP IPT.||||0.4184
90815158|NCT01443130|181509132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0268||||||A Bonferroni correction was used due to multiple comparisons. Comparisons are statistically significant if the two-sided p-value is ≤ 0.05/2=0.025.|Cox proportional hazards|||The null hypothesis is the incidence of clinical malaria (all species) is identical between subjects receiving maternal chloroquine prophylaxis vs. maternal SP IPT.||||0.0268
90815159|NCT01443130|181509132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1646||||||A Bonferroni correction was used due to multiple comparisons. Comparisons are statistically significant if the two-sided p-value is ≤ 0.05/2=0.025.|Cox proportional hazards|||The null hypothesis is the incidence of clinical malaria (all species) is identical between subjects receiving maternal chloroquine IPT vs. maternal SP IPT.||||0.1646
90815160|NCT01443130|181509133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4501||||||A Bonferroni correction was used due to multiple comparisons. Comparisons are statistically significant if the two-sided p-value is ≤ 0.05/2=0.025.|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is the incidence of infection in the fetal circulation is identical between subjects receiving maternal chloroquine prophylaxis vs. maternal SP IPT.||||0.4501
91016223|NCT04584294|181915218|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.84||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.91|1.22||Threshold for significance was set at p\<0.05.|Regression, Linear|Model adjusted for site, provider clinic type, provider, Veteran age, Veteran race, Veteran education, and Veteran health insurance status.||"Per the study protocol, to account for noncompliance, we estimated the complier average causal effect to estimate the causal effect of using the MyPath tool on the outcome. Our model accounted for missing data in outcome and baseline adjustment variables through multiple imputation (MI) using Multiple Imputation by Chained Equations (MICE) in R."||1.22|-2.91|0.42
91016224|NCT04584294|181915219|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.35||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|1.26||Threshold for significance was set at p\<0.05.|Regression, Linear|Model adjusted for site, provider clinic type, provider, Veteran age, Veteran race, Veteran education, and Veteran health insurance status.||We used a multilevel logistic regression model to test whether the outcome was significantly different in the intervention versus control arm, using an Intent to Treat approach.||1.26|-0.56|0.45
90815161|NCT01443130|181509133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1758||||||A Bonferroni correction was used due to multiple comparisons. Comparisons are statistically significant if the two-sided p-value is ≤ 0.05/2=0.025.|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is the incidence of infection in the fetal circulation is identical between subjects receiving maternal chloroquine IPT vs. maternal SP IPT.||||0.1758
91016225|NCT04584294|181915219|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.94||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|2.02||Threshold for significance was set at p\<0.05.|Regression, Linear|Model adjusted for site, provider clinic type, provider, Veteran age, Veteran race, Veteran education, and Veteran health insurance status.||"Per the study protocol, to account for noncompliance, we estimated the complier average causal effect to estimate the causal effect of using the MyPath tool on the outcome."||2.02|-0.15|0.09
90815162|NCT00364533|181509141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference of SPID48|91.4|||<|0.001||95.0|49.77|133.07|||ANCOVA|||The study was terminated and did not reach the planned sample size.||133.07|49.77|<0.001
90815163|NCT00364533|181509141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference of SPID48|81.5|||<|0.001||95.0|38.66|124.29|||ANCOVA|||The study was terminated and did not reach the planned sample size.||124.29|38.66|<0.001
90815164|NCT00364533|181509141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference of SPID48|81.5|||<|0.001||95.0|39.21|123.8|||ANCOVA|||The study was terminated and did not reach the planned sample size.||123.80|39.21|<0.001
90815165|NCT00364533|181509141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference of SPID48|82.4|||<|0.001||95.0|38.96|125.88|||ANCOVA|||The study was terminated and did not reach the planned sample size.||125.88|38.96|<0.001
90815166|NCT00815191|181509156|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority delta of 0.5°C|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.091|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.139|0.321|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.321|-0.139|<0.0001
90815167|NCT01741532|181509177|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0761|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0761
90815168|NCT01741532|181509178|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7279|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7279
90815169|NCT01741532|181509179|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7228|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of treatment groups on change in score on UPDRS Part I||||0.7228
90815170|NCT01741532|181509179|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3677|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of treatment groups on change in score on UPDRS Part II||||0.3677
90815171|NCT01741532|181509179|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2182|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of treatment groups on change in score on UPDRS Part III||||0.2182
90815172|NCT01741532|181509179|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1749|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of treatment groups on change in score on UPDRS Part VI||||0.1749
90815173|NCT01741532|181509180|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1524|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1524
90815174|NCT01741532|181509181|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2026|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2026
91055300|NCT00593736|181992487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.074||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.074
91055301|NCT00593736|181992488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.796||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.796
90815175|NCT01741532|181509182|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9759|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Patient self-report, total score||||0.9759
90815176|NCT01741532|181509182|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5781|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Parent proxy-report, total score||||0.5781
90815177|NCT01741532|181509183|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6323|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.6323
90815178|NCT01741532|181509184|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0000
90815179|NCT00973102|181509185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.47||||0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|5.25|||Barnard's unconditional Exact Test|||||5.25|1.16|.252
90815180|NCT00973102|181509186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.895|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.895
90815181|NCT00613080|181509187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion (reported as percentage)|51.0||||0.93|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This study was designed for a one-sided chi-square test to detect at least 12% reduction in the 40% rate of ≥ grade 2 treatment-related preoperative GI AEs from the conventional radiotherapy / capecitabine /oxaliplatin arm of study RTOG-0247 (NCT00081289) with 80% power and a one-sided type I error rate of 0.10.||||0.93
90815182|NCT02360293|181509198|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|46.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-119.0|122.7|||||Generated through ANCOVA predicting Active Minutes as a function of arm and f/u time, adjusted for Sex, Baseline PA Goal (AM), and type of Smart Phone. Represents the contrast between SS+Coaching, 12 mos. - Baseline vs. SS alone, 12 mos. - Baseline.|Estimated marginal means/least squares means are derived from a linear mixed model/rmANOVA/rmANCOVA, adjusted for baseline AM goal, Type of Smart Phone, and Sex.||122.7|-119.0|
90815183|NCT02360293|181509199|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-5.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|56.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.85|5.81|||||Generated through ANCOVA predicting Weight as a function of the interaction of arm and follow-up time. Estimate represents the contrast between SS+Coaching, 12 mos. - Baseline vs. SS alone, 12 mos. - Baseline.|The estimated marginal means/least squares means are derived from a linear mixed model/rmANOVA/rmANCOVA.||5.81|-15.85|
90815184|NCT02360293|181509200|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.162|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.969|0.646|||||Generated through ANCOVA predicting PHQ-8 Score as a function of the interaction of arm and follow-up time. Estimate represents the contrast between SS+Coaching, 12 mos. - Baseline vs. SS alone, 12 mos. - Baseline.|The estimated marginal means/least squares means are derived from a linear mixed model/rmANOVA/rmANCOVA.||0.646|-2.969|
90815185|NCT02360293|181509201|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.345|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.267|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.044|0.353|||||"Estimate generated through ANCOVA predicting Pain In Past Week as a function of the interaction of arm and follow-up time. Estimate represents the contrast between SS+Coaching, 12 mos. - Baseline vs. SS alone, 12 mos. - Baseline.."|The estimated marginal means/least squares means are derived from a linear mixed model/rmANOVA/rmANCOVA.||0.353|-1.044|
90815186|NCT02945553|181509225|OTHER|Mixed model analysis of variance|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1596.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|202.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
90815187|NCT02945553|181509230|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|30.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
90815188|NCT02700165|181509269|OTHER||sucess proportion|78.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.2|95.3|||||Independent physician reviewers correctly identified 13/14, 11/14 and 10/14, respectively for an overall percentage of correct identification of 34/42 or 81%. Two of three reviewers correctly identified 11/14 (78.6%) photos.|||95.3|49.2|
90815189|NCT00915148|181509273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The reported p-value corresponds with each area under the ROC assessments|Chi-squared|||In a previous study we investigated women before induction of labor. Using 40 mm as cut-off level for fetal head - perineum distance, the Cesarean section rate in primiparous women was 7% in the group with a short distance and 27% in the group with a long distance. We assumed similar results, with alpha 0.05, power 0.8 and a ratio of 1 : 1 for the numbers of women with a long and short distance. We would need to include 110 women in the study.||||<0.01
90815190|NCT00915148|181509274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||the reported p-value corresponds with each log rank comparison|Log Rank|||"Kaplan Meier plots were used to compare time from a defined prolonged labor in the first stage to delivery for~1. women with fetal head-perineum distance ≤40 mm vs. women with distance \>40 mm measured with 2D ultrasound.~2. women with angle of progression ≥110 degrees vs. women with angle \<110 degrees measured with 2D ultrasound"||||<0.01
90815191|NCT01428336|181509282|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority region of 0.15 for the difference in correlations is expected.|Difference in correlation|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.6||||||Analysis comparing Peak 25ug CST correlation with ITT vs. Peak 1ug CST correlation with ITT||0.60|-0.20|
90815192|NCT01428336|181509282|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority region of 0.15 for the difference in correlations is expected.|Difference in correlation|-0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.01||||||Analysis comparing Peak 25ug CST correlation with ITT vs. Peak 250ug CST correlation with ITT||-0.01|-0.69|
90815193|NCT01428336|181509282|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority region of 0.15 for the difference in correlations is expected.|Difference in correlation|-0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.04||||||Analysis comparing Peak 25ug CST correlation with ITT vs. 30-minute 250ug CST correlation with ITT||0.04|-0.65|
90815194|NCT01428336|181509283|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority region of 0.15 for the difference in correlations is expected.|Difference in correlation|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.65||||||Analysis comparing Peak 25ug CST correlation with ITT vs. Peak 1ug CST correlation with ITT - free cortisol||0.65|-0.24|
90890392|NCT00907153|181645339|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.84||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.34|13.67|||Regression, Linear|Model-based differences adjusted for oral contraceptive use and season.||||13.67|-29.34|0.46
90815195|NCT01428336|181509283|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority region of 0.15 for the difference in correlations is expected.|Difference in correlation|-0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.15||||||Analysis comparing Peak 25ug CST correlation with ITT vs. Peak 250ug CST correlation with ITT - free cortisol||-0.15|-0.91|
90815196|NCT01428336|181509283|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority region of 0.15 for the difference in correlations is expected.|Difference in correlation|-0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.14||||||Analysis comparing Peak 25ug CST correlation with ITT vs. 30-minute 250ug CST correlation with ITT - free cortisol||-0.14|-0.94|
90815197|NCT02449018|181509285|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.28|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.31||0.13|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.24|0.79|||ANCOVA|||||0.79|-0.24|0.130
90815198|NCT02698371|181509311|EQUIVALENCE|alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.025|||||||McNemar|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC by Self-Etch mode (FBDC-SE; G1) and MM adhesives by SE mode (MM-SE; G4G6) result in similar (no significant differences) clinical (aesthetic, functional and biologic) behaviour/performance between baseline and 24 month follow-up;||||0.025
90815199|NCT02698371|181509311|EQUIVALENCE|alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.189|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC-SE (G1) and MM-SE(G4G6) result in similar restorations (aesthetic, functional and biologic) success rates;||||0.189
90815200|NCT02698371|181509311|EQUIVALENCE|alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.189|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC-SE (G1) and MM-SE (G4G6) adhesives result in similar restoration retention rates;||||0.189
90815201|NCT02698371|181509311|EQUIVALENCE|alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.025|||||||McNemar|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC by SE and enamel etching mode (FBDC-SE-EE; G2) and MM adhesives by Etch-and-Rinse mode (MM-ER; G3G5) result in similar (no significant differences) clinical (aesthetic, functional and biologic) behaviour/performance from baseline to 24 month follow-up;||||0.025
90815202|NCT02698371|181509311|EQUIVALENCE|alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.747|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC-SE-EE (G2) and MM-ER (G3G5) result in similar restorations (aesthetic, functional and biologic) success rates;||||0.747
91016226|NCT04584294|181915220|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.26||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.94|5.42||Threshold for significance was set at p\<0.05.|Regression, Linear|Model adjusted for site, provider clinic type, provider, Veteran age, Veteran race, Veteran education, and Veteran health insurance status.||We used a multilevel regression model to test whether the outcome was significantly different in the intervention versus control arm, using an Intent to Treat approach.||5.42|-9.94|0.56
91016227|NCT04584294|181915220|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.72||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.37|-2.06||Threshold for significance was set at p\<0.05.|Regression, Linear|Model adjusted for site, provider clinic type, provider, Veteran age, Veteran race, Veteran education, and Veteran health insurance status.||"Per the study protocol, to account for noncompliance, we estimated the complier average causal effect to estimate the causal effect of using the MyPath tool on the outcome."||-2.06|-25.37|0.02
90815203|NCT02698371|181509311|EQUIVALENCE|alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.747|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC-SE-EE (G2) and MM-ER (G3G5) result in similar restoration retention rates;||||0.747
90815204|NCT02698371|181509311|EQUIVALENCE|alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.07|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC (G1G2) or FBU (G3G4), DC adhesives, and ADU (G5G6) light-curing adhesive, with SE or SE-ER/ER modes result in similar (no significant differences) clinical (aesthetic, functional and biologic) behaviour/performance;||||0.070
90815205|NCT02698371|181509311|EQUIVALENCE|alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.07||||||Applied for rows/Categories- Acceptance Vs Not Acceptance Functional-FDI comparison between G1G2 and G3G4 and G5G6 Arms success rate from baseline to 24 month recall. For Esthetic and Biological-FDI comparison p values were \> 0.05. Adjusted P-values.|Kruskal-Wallis|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC (G1G2) or FBU (G3G4) and ADU (G5G6) light-curing adhesive, with SE or SE-ER/ER modes result in similar restorations (aesthetic, functional and biologic) success rates;||||0.070
90815206|NCT02698371|181509311|EQUIVALENCE|alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.07||||||Applied for rows/Categories- Acceptance Vs Not Acceptance Retention-FDI comparison between G1G2 and G3G4 and G5G6 Arms retention rate from baseline to 24 month recall. Adjusted P-values.|Kruskal-Wallis|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC (G1G2) or FBU (G3G4) and ADU (G5G6) light-curing adhesive, with SE or SE-ER/ER modes result in similar restoration retention rates;||||0.070
90815207|NCT02698371|181509312|EQUIVALENCE|alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.025|||||||McNemar|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC by Self-Etch mode (FBDC-SE; G1) and MM adhesives by SE mode (MM-SE; G4G6) result in similar (no significant differences) clinical (aesthetic, functional and biologic) behaviour/performance;||||0.025
90815208|NCT02698371|181509312|EQUIVALENCE|alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.189|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC-SE (G1) and MM-SE(G4G6) result in similar restorations (aesthetic, functional and biologic) success rates;||||0.189
90815209|NCT02698371|181509312|EQUIVALENCE|alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.189|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC-SE (G1) and MM-SE (G4G6) adhesives result in similar restoration retention rates;||||0.189
91055302|NCT00593736|181992488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.546||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.546
90815210|NCT02698371|181509312|EQUIVALENCE|alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.025|||||||McNemar|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC by SE and enamel etching mode (FBDC-SE-EE; G2) and MM adhesives by Etch-and-Rinse mode (MM-ER; G3G5) result in similar (no significant differences) clinical (aesthetic, functional and biologic) behaviour/performance;||||0.025
90815211|NCT02698371|181509312|EQUIVALENCE|alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.154|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC-SE-EE (G2) and MM-ER (G3G5) result in similar restorations (aesthetic, functional and biologic) success rates;||||0.154
90815212|NCT02698371|181509312|EQUIVALENCE|alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.747|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC-SE-EE (G2) and MM-ER (G3G5) result in similar restoration retention rates;||||0.747
90815213|NCT02698371|181509312|EQUIVALENCE|alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.07|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC (G1G2) or FBU (G3G4), DC adhesives, and ADU (G5G6) light-curing adhesive, with SE or SE-ER/ER modes result in similar (no significant differences) clinical (aesthetic, functional and biologic) behaviour/performance;||||0.070
91016228|NCT04584294|181915221|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.47||Threshold for significance was set at p\<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||We used a multilevel regression model to test whether the outcome was significantly different in the intervention versus control arm, using an Intent to Treat approach.||0.47|-0.38|0.84
91016229|NCT04584294|181915221|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|1.25||Threshold for significance was set at p\<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||"Per the study protocol, to account for noncompliance, we estimated the complier average causal effect to estimate the causal effect of using the MyPath tool on the outcome."||1.25|-0.35|0.27
91016230|NCT04584294|181915233|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.99||threshold for significance set at \<0.05|Regression, Linear|Model adjusted for site, provider clinic type, provider, Veteran age, Veteran race, Veteran education, and Veteran health insurance status.||We used a multilevel logistic regression model to test whether the outcome was significantly different in the intervention versus control arm, using an Intent to Treat approach.||0.99|-0.22|0.21
91016231|NCT04584294|181915233|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.89||||0.04||95.0|0.04|1.75||Threshold for significance was set at p\<0.05.|Regression, Linear|Model adjusted for site, provider clinic type, provider, Veteran age, Veteran race, Veteran education, and Veteran health insurance status.||"Per the study protocol, to account for noncompliance, we estimated the complier average causal effect to estimate the causal effect of using the MyPath tool on the outcome."||1.75|0.04|0.04
91016232|NCT03378921|181915240|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.183||||||The threshold for statistical significance was P = 0.05|Log Rank|||The sample size (n = 26) was calculated according to the estimation that the remission rate in the FMT group would be 80% and 25% in the placebo group during the follow-up of 1 year. This difference of 55% was considered to be clinically meaningful. The significance level was selected to be 1%, and the power was set to 90%.||||0.183
91016233|NCT03677440|181915242|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||ANOVA|||This involves a repeated-measures ANOVA testing a condition (i.e., treadmill walking exercise training vs. stretching-and-toning exercise training)-by-time (i.e., baseline, follow-up) interaction on Symbol Digit Modalities Test scores.||||.34
91016234|NCT03677440|181915243|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||.01
91016235|NCT03677440|181915244|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||.02
91016236|NCT03677440|181915245|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||ANOVA|||||||.63
91016237|NCT03677440|181915246|SUPERIORITY||Partial eta-squared|0.067||||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.20
91016238|NCT03677440|181915247|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||ANOVA|||||||.96
91016239|NCT03677440|181915248|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||ANOVA|||||||.55
91016240|NCT03677440|181915249|SUPERIORITY||Partial eta-squared|0.087||||0.14|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.14
91016241|NCT03677440|181915250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||ANOVA|||||||.69
91055303|NCT00593736|181992488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.479||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.479
91016242|NCT03677440|181915251|SUPERIORITY||Partial eta-squared|0.048||||0.28|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.28
91016243|NCT01233284|181915263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.138|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001||95.0|0.09|0.186|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R1.25 qd minus Placebo|||0.186|0.090|<0.0001
91016244|NCT01233284|181915263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.128|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001||95.0|0.08|0.176|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R2.5 qd minus Placebo|||0.176|0.080|<0.0001
91016245|NCT01233284|181915263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.188|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001||95.0|0.14|0.236|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd minus Placebo|||0.236|0.140|<0.0001
91016246|NCT01233284|181915264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.125|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001||95.0|0.078|0.173|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R1.25 qd minus Placebo|||0.173|0.078|<0.0001
91016247|NCT01233284|181915264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.132|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001||95.0|0.084|0.179|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R2.5 qd minus Placebo|||0.179|0.084|<0.0001
91016248|NCT01233284|181915264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.143|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001||95.0|0.096|0.191|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd minus Placebo|||0.191|0.096|<0.0001
91016249|NCT01233284|181915265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.129|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001||95.0|0.083|0.175|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R1.25 qd minus Placebo|||0.175|0.083|<0.0001
91016250|NCT01233284|181915265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.127|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001||95.0|0.081|0.172|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R2.5 qd minus Placebo|||0.172|0.081|<0.0001
91055304|NCT00593736|181992489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.766||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.766
90890393|NCT00778648|181645343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.023
91016251|NCT01233284|181915265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.178|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001||95.0|0.132|0.224|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd minus Placebo|||0.224|0.132|<0.0001
91016252|NCT01233284|181915266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.079|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.0034||95.0|0.026|0.132|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R1.25 qd minus Placebo|||0.132|0.026|0.0034
91016253|NCT01233284|181915266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.071|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.0087||95.0|0.018|0.124|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R2.5 qd minus Placebo|||0.124|0.018|0.0087
91016254|NCT01233284|181915266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.137|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027|<|0.0001||95.0|0.085|0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd minus Placebo|||0.190|0.085|<0.0001
91016255|NCT01233284|181915267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.054|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0732||95.0|-0.005|0.113|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R1.25 qd minus Placebo|||0.113|-0.005|0.0732
91016256|NCT01233284|181915267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.072|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0177||95.0|0.012|0.131|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R2.5 qd minus Placebo|||0.131|0.012|0.0177
91016257|NCT01233284|181915267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.098|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0012||95.0|0.039|0.157|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd minus Placebo|||0.157|0.039|0.0012
90815214|NCT02698371|181509312|EQUIVALENCE|alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.07|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC (G1G2) or FBU (G3G4) and ADU (G5G6) light-curing adhesive, with SE or SE-ER/ER modes result in similar restorations (aesthetic, functional and biologic) success rates;||||0.070
91016258|NCT01233284|181915268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.064|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.0149||95.0|0.013|0.115|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R1.25 qd minus Placebo|||0.115|0.013|0.0149
91016259|NCT01233284|181915268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.075|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.0043||95.0|0.024|0.126|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R2.5 qd minus Placebo|||0.126|0.024|0.0043
91016260|NCT01233284|181915268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.138|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001||95.0|0.086|0.189|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd minus Placebo|||0.189|0.086|<0.0001
91016261|NCT01233284|181915272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.737|<|0.0001||95.0|11.204|25.895|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R1.25 qd minus Placebo|||25.895|11.204|<0.0001
91016262|NCT01233284|181915272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.895|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.737|<|0.0001||95.0|10.55|25.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R2.5 qd minus Placebo|||25.240|10.550|<0.0001
91016263|NCT01233284|181915272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.846|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.739|<|0.0001||95.0|13.497|28.195|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd minus Placebo|||28.195|13.497|<0.0001
91055305|NCT00593736|181992489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.912||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.912
91055306|NCT00593736|181992489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.952||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.952
90815215|NCT02698371|181509312|EQUIVALENCE|alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.07|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC (G1G2) or FBU (G3G4) and ADU (G5G6) light-curing adhesive, with SE or SE-ER/ER modes result in similar restoration retention rates;||||0.070
90815216|NCT02698371|181509313|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||1||||||Applied for rows/Categories- Acceptance Vs Not Acceptance Esthetic of FDI and of USPHS comparison; Applied to G1G2; G3G4 and G5G6 separately.|Chi-squared|||H0: FDI or USPHS criteria Esthetic outcomes not differ at 24th month follow-up regarding Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC (G1G2) or FBU (G3G4) and ADU (G5G6) adhesive, with SE or SE-ER/ER modes.||||1.000
91016264|NCT01233284|181915273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.251|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.77|<|0.0001||95.0|13.84|28.662|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R1.25 qd minus Placebo|||28.662|13.840|<0.0001
91016265|NCT01233284|181915273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.577|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.77||0.0001||95.0|7.166|21.988|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R2.5 qd minus Placebo|||21.988|7.166|0.0001
91016266|NCT01233284|181915273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.581|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.773|<|0.0001||95.0|14.166|28.997|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd minus Placebo|||28.997|14.166|<0.0001
91016267|NCT01233284|181915274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.114|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.635||0.8574||95.0|-1.363|1.134|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R1.25 qd minus Placebo|||1.134|-1.363|0.8574
91016268|NCT01233284|181915274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.635||0.3954||95.0|-1.789|0.708|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R2.5 qd minus Placebo|||0.708|-1.789|0.3954
91016269|NCT01233284|181915274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.077|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.636||0.9034||95.0|-1.327|1.173|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd minus Placebo|||1.173|-1.327|0.9034
91016270|NCT01233284|181915275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.233|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.107||0.0296||95.0|-0.443|-0.023|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R1.25 qd minus Placebo|||-0.023|-0.443|0.0296
91016271|NCT01233284|181915275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.214|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.107||0.0454||95.0|-0.424|-0.004|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R2.5 qd minus Placebo|||-0.004|-0.424|0.0454
91016272|NCT01233284|181915275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.201|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.107||0.061||95.0|-0.41|0.009|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd minus Placebo|||0.009|-0.410|0.0610
91016273|NCT01233284|181915276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.149|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063||0.0183||95.0|-0.273|-0.025|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R1.25 qd minus Placebo|||-0.025|-0.273|0.0183
90815217|NCT02698371|181509313|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||1||||||Applied for rows/Categories- Acceptance Vs Not Acceptance Functional of FDI and of USPHS comparison; Applied to G1G2; G3G4 and G5G6 separately.|Chi-squared|||H0: FDI or USPHS criteria Functional outcomes not differ at 24th month follow-up regarding Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC (G1G2) or FBU (G3G4) and ADU (G5G6) adhesive, with SE or SE-ER/ER modes.||||1.000
90815218|NCT02698371|181509313|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.998||||||Applied for rows/Categories- Acceptance Vs Not Acceptance Biologic FDI and of USPHS comparison; Applied to G1G2; G3G4 and G5G6 separately.|Chi-squared|||H0: FDI or USPHS criteria Biological outcomes not differ at 24th month follow-up regarding Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC (G1G2) or FBU (G3G4) and ADU (G5G6) adhesive, with SE or SE-ER/ER modes.||||0.998
90815219|NCT02698371|181509314|EQUIVALENCE|alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.029||||||Applied for all rows/Categories (graded on a 5-point scale) Surface Luster-FDI comparison between G1 and G4G6 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC by Self-Etch mode (FBDC-SE; G1) and MM adhesives by SE mode (MM-SE; G4G6) result in similar (no significant differences) Surface Luster Performance at 24 Month Follow-up recall.||||0.029
90815220|NCT02698371|181509314|EQUIVALENCE|alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.002||||||Applied for all rows/Categories (graded on a 5-point scale) Surface Luster-FDI comparison between G2 and G3G5 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC by SE and enamel etching mode (FBDC-SE-EE; G2) and MM adhesives by Etch-and-Rinse mode (MM-ER; G3G5) result in similar (no significant differences) Surface Luster performance at 24 Month Follow-up recall;||||0.002
90815221|NCT02698371|181509314|EQUIVALENCE|alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.618||||||Applied for all rows/Categories (graded on a 5-point scale) Surface Luster-FDI comparison between G1G2 and G3G4 and G5G6 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall. P-value adjusted.|Kruskal-Wallis|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC (G1G2) or FBU (G3G4), DC adhesives, and ADU (G5G6) light-curing adhesive, with SE or SE-ER/ER modes result in similar (no significant differences) Surface Luster performance at 24 Month Follow-up recall.||||0.618
90815222|NCT02698371|181509315|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.009||||||Applied for all rows/Categories (graded on a 5-point scale) Staining Margin-FDI comparison between G1 and G4G6 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC by Self-Etch mode (FBDC-SE; G1) and MM adhesives by SE mode (MM-SE; G4G6) result in similar (no significant differences) Staining Margin Performance at 24 Month Follow-up recall.||||0.009
90815223|NCT02698371|181509315|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.059||||||Applied for all rows/Categories (graded on a 5-point scale) Staining Margin-FDI comparison between G2 and G3G5 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC by SE and enamel etching mode (FBDC-SE-EE; G2) and MM adhesives by Etch-and-Rinse mode (MM-ER; G3G5) result in similar (no significant differences) Staining Margin Performance at 24 Month Follow-up recall.||||0.059
91016274|NCT01233284|181915276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.138|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063||0.0288||95.0|-0.262|-0.014|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R2.5 qd minus Placebo|||-0.014|-0.262|0.0288
91016275|NCT01233284|181915276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.111|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063||0.0781||95.0|-0.235|0.013|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd minus Placebo|||0.013|-0.235|0.0781
91016276|NCT01233284|181915277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.084|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055||0.1303||95.0|-0.193|0.025|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R1.25 qd minus Placebo|||0.025|-0.193|0.1303
90815224|NCT02698371|181509315|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.829||||||Applied for all rows/Categories (graded on a 5-point scale) Staining Margin-FDI comparison between G1G2 and G3G4 and G5G6 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall. P-value adjusted.|Kruskal-Wallis|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC (G1G2) or FBU (G3G4), DC adhesives, and ADU (G5G6) light-curing adhesive, with SE or SE-ER/ER modes result in similar (no significant differences) Staining Margin performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||0.829
90815225|NCT02698371|181509316|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered|||||<|0.001||||||Applied for all rows/Categories (graded on a 5-point scale) Colour Stability-FDI comparison between G1 and G4G6 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC by Self-Etch mode (FBDC-SE; G1) and MM adhesives by SE mode (MM-SE; G4G6) result in similar (no significant differences) Colour Stability performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||<0.001
90815226|NCT02698371|181509316|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered|||||<|0.001||||||Applied for all rows/Categories (graded on a 5-point scale) of Colour Stability-FDI comparison between G2 and G3G5 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC by SE and enamel etching mode (FBDC-SE-EE; G2) and MM adhesives by Etch-and-Rinse mode (MM-ER; G3G5) result in similar (no significant differences) Colour Stability performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||<0.001
90890394|NCT00713648|181645352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean (Lambda)|0.048||||||95.0|0.0094|0.2501|||Poisson model (log-link)|The estimated rate was adjusted for age and overdispersion which was estimated by Pearson's chi-square statistic divided by its degrees of freedom.|Mean (Lambda) refer to the estimate of the annualised bleeding rate|||0.2501|0.0094|
90890395|NCT01552213|181645356|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.8||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.24|||Chi-squared|||||1.24|0.53|0.32
91016277|NCT01233284|181915277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.068|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055||0.2191||95.0|-0.177|0.041|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R2.5 qd minus Placebo|||0.041|-0.177|0.2191
91016278|NCT01233284|181915277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.087|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056||0.1163||95.0|-0.196|0.022|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd minus Placebo|||0.022|-0.196|0.1163
91055307|NCT00593736|181992490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.722||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.722
91016279|NCT01233284|181915278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032||0.7501||95.0|-0.073|0.052|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R1.25 qd minus Placebo|||0.052|-0.073|0.7501
90815227|NCT02698371|181509316|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.064||||||Applied for all rows/Categories (graded on a 5-point scale) of Colour Stability-FDI comparison between G1G2 and G3G4 and G5G6 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall. P-value adjusted.|Kruskal-Wallis|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC (G1G2) or FBU (G3G4), DC adhesives, and ADU (G5G6) light-curing adhesive, with SE or SE-ER/ER modes result in similar (no significant differences) Colour Stability performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||0.064
90815228|NCT02698371|181509317|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.006||||||Applied for all rows/Categories (graded on a 5-point scale) of Fractures and Retention-FDI comparison between G1 and G4G6 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC by Self-Etch mode (FBDC-SE; G1) and MM adhesives by SE mode (MM-SE; G4G6) result in similar (no significant differences) Fractures and Retention performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||0.006
90815229|NCT02698371|181509317|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.02||||||Applied for all rows/Categories (graded on a 5-point scale) of Fractures and Retention-FDI comparison between G2 and G3G5 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC by SE and enamel etching mode (FBDC-SE-EE; G2) and MM adhesives by Etch-and-Rinse mode (MM-ER; G3G5) result in similar (no significant differences) Fractures and Retention performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||0.020
90815230|NCT02698371|181509317|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.054||||||Applied for all rows/Categories (graded on a 5-point scale) of Fractures and Retention-FDI comparison between G1G2 and G3G4 and G5G6 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall. P-value adjusted.|Kruskal-Wallis|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC (G1G2) or FBU (G3G4), DC adhesives, and ADU (G5G6) light-curing adhesive, with SE or SE-ER/ER modes result in similar (no significant differences) Fractures and Retention performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||0.054
90815231|NCT02698371|181509318|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.01||||||Applied for all rows/Categories (graded on a 5-point scale) of Marginal Adaptation-FDI comparison between G1 and G4G6 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC by Self-Etch mode (FBDC-SE; G1) and MM adhesives by SE mode (MM-SE; G4G6) result in similar (no significant differences) Marginal Adaptation performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||0.010
90815232|NCT02698371|181509318|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.071||||||Applied for all rows/Categories (graded on a 5-point scale) of Marginal Adaptation-FDI comparison between G2 and G3G5 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC by SE and enamel etching mode (FBDC-SE-EE; G2) and MM adhesives by Etch-and-Rinse mode (MM-ER; G3G5) result in similar (no significant differences) Marginal Adaptation performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||0.071
90815233|NCT02698371|181509318|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.898||||||Applied for all rows/Categories (graded on a 5-point scale) of Marginal Adaptation-FDI comparison between G1G2 and G3G4 and G5G6 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall. P-value adjusted.|Kruskal-Wallis|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC (G1G2) or FBU (G3G4), DC adhesives, and ADU (G5G6) light-curing adhesive, with SE or SE-ER/ER modes result in similar (no significant differences) Marginal Adaptation performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||0.898
90815234|NCT02698371|181509319|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.317||||||Applied for all rows/Categories (graded on a 5-point scale) of Postoperative Hypersensibility, Tooth Vitality-FDI comparison between G1 and G4G6 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC by Self-Etch mode (FBDC-SE; G1) and MM adhesives by SE mode (MM-SE; G4G6) result in similar (no significant differences) Postoperative Hypersensibility, Tooth Vitality performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||0.317
90815235|NCT02698371|181509319|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.18||||||Applied for all rows/Categories (graded on a 5-point scale) of Postoperative Hypersensibility, Tooth Vitality-FDI comparison between G2 and G3G5 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC by SE and enamel etching mode (FBDC-SE-EE; G2) and MM adhesives by Etch-and-Rinse mode (MM-ER; G3G5) result in similar (no significant differences) Postoperative Hypersensibility, Tooth Vitality performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||0.180
90815236|NCT02698371|181509319|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.918||||||Applied for all rows/Categories (graded on a 5-point scale) of Postoperative Hypersensibility, Tooth Vitality-FDI comparison between G1G2 and G3G4 and G5G6 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall. P-value adjusted.|Kruskal-Wallis|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC (G1G2) or FBU (G3G4), DC adhesives, and ADU (G5G6) light-curing adhesive, with SE or SE-ER/ER modes result in similar (no significant differences) Postoperative Hypersensibility, Tooth Vitality performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||0.918
90815237|NCT02698371|181509320|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.317||||||Applied for all rows/Categories (graded on a 5-point scale) of Recurrence of Caries, Erosion, Abfraction-FDI comparison between G1 and G4G6 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC by Self-Etch mode (FBDC-SE; G1) and MM adhesives by SE mode (MM-SE; G4G6) result in similar (no significant differences) Recurrence of Caries, Erosion, Abfraction performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||0.317
90815238|NCT02698371|181509320|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.317||||||Applied for all rows/Categories (graded on a 5-point scale) of Recurrence of Caries, Erosion, Abfraction-FDI comparison between G2 and G3G5 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC by SE and enamel etching mode (FBDC-SE-EE; G2) and MM adhesives by Etch-and-Rinse mode (MM-ER; G3G5) result in similar (no significant differences) Recurrence of Caries, Erosion, Abfraction performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||.317
90815239|NCT02698371|181509320|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.575||||||Applied for all rows/Categories (graded on a 5-point scale) of Recurrence of Caries, Erosion \& Abfraction-FDI comparison between G1G2 and G3G4 and G5G6 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall. P-value adjusted.|Kruskal-Wallis|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC (G1G2) or FBU (G3G4), DC adhesives, and ADU (G5G6) light-curing adhesive, with SE or SE-ER/ER modes result in similar (no significant differences) Recurrence of Caries, Erosion, Abfraction performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||0.575
90890396|NCT01552213|181645357|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.32
90890397|NCT01552213|181645358|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.96
90890398|NCT01552213|181645359|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
90890399|NCT01552213|181645360|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.75
90815240|NCT02698371|181509321|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.02||||||Applied for all rows/Categories (graded on a 5-point scale) of Tooth Integrity (enamel cracks)-FDI comparison between G1 and G4G6 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC by Self-Etch mode (FBDC-SE; G1) and MM adhesives by SE mode (MM-SE; G4G6) result in similar (no significant differences) Tooth Integrity (enamel cracks) performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||0.020
90815241|NCT02698371|181509321|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.107||||||Applied for all rows/Categories (graded on a 5-point scale) of Tooth Integrity (enamel cracks)-FDI comparison between G2 and G3G5 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC by SE and enamel etching mode (FBDC-SE-EE; G2) and MM adhesives by Etch-and-Rinse mode (MM-ER; G3G5) result in similar (no significant differences) Tooth Integrity (enamel cracks) performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||0.107
90815242|NCT02698371|181509321|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.592||||||Applied for all rows/Categories (graded on a 5-point scale) of Tooth Integrity (enamel cracks)-FDI comparison between G1G2 and G3G4 and G5G6 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall. P-value adjusted.|Kruskal-Wallis|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC (G1G2) or FBU (G3G4), DC adhesives, and ADU (G5G6) light-curing adhesive, with SE or SE-ER/ER modes result in similar (no significant differences) Tooth Integrity (enamel cracks) performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||0.592
90815243|NCT02698371|181509322|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||1||||||Applied for rows/categories alfa/bravo/charlie of Surface Staining-USPHS comparison between G1 and G4G6 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC by Self-Etch mode (FBDC-SE; G1) and MM adhesives by SE mode (MM-SE; G4G6) result in similar (no significant differences) Surface Staining performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||1.000
90815244|NCT02698371|181509322|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||1||||||Applied for rows/categories alfa/bravo/charlie of Surface Staining-USPHS comparison between G2 and G3G5 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC by SE and enamel etching mode (FBDC-SE-EE; G2) and MM adhesives by Etch-and-Rinse mode (MM-ER; G3G5) result in similar (no significant differences) Surface Staining performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||1.000
90815245|NCT02698371|181509322|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||1||||||Applied for rows/categories alfa/bravo/charlie of Surface Staining-USPHS comparison between G1G2 and G3G4 and G5G6 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall. P-value adjusted.|Kruskal-Wallis|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC (G1G2) or FBU (G3G4), DC adhesives, and ADU (G5G6) light-curing adhesive, with SE or SE-ER/ER modes result in similar (no significant differences) Surface Staining performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||1.000
90815246|NCT02698371|181509323|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.011||||||Applied for rows/categories alfa/bravo/charlie of Marginal Discoloration-USPHS comparison between G1 and G4G6 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC by Self-Etch mode (FBDC-SE; G1) and MM adhesives by SE mode (MM-SE; G4G6) result in similar (no significant differences) Marginal Discoloration performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||0.011
91016280|NCT01233284|181915278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032||0.8401||95.0|-0.069|0.056|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R2.5 qd minus Placebo|||0.056|-0.069|0.8401
91016281|NCT01233284|181915278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.031|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032||0.3237||95.0|-0.094|0.031|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd minus Placebo|||0.031|-0.094|0.3237
91055308|NCT00593736|181992490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.262||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.262
90815247|NCT02698371|181509323|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.034||||||Applied for rows/categories alfa/bravo/charlie of Marginal Discoloration-USPHS comparison between G2 and G3G5 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC by SE and enamel etching mode (FBDC-SE-EE; G2) and MM adhesives by Etch-and-Rinse mode (MM-ER; G3G5) result in similar (no significant differences) Marginal Discoloration performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||0.034
91016282|NCT01233284|181915279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.079||0.1402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.276||MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis||Tio R1.25 qd minus Placebo|Comparison vs. Placebo for AUC0-12h||0.276|-0.040|0.1402
90815248|NCT02698371|181509323|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.885||||||Applied for rows/categories alfa/bravo/charlie of Marginal Discoloration-USPHS comparison between G1G2 and G3G4 and G5G6 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall. P-value adjusted.|Kruskal-Wallis|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC (G1G2) or FBU (G3G4), DC adhesives, and ADU (G5G6) light-curing adhesive, with SE or SE-ER/ER modes result in similar (no significant differences) Marginal Discoloration performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||0.885
90890400|NCT01552213|181645361|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.95
90890401|NCT01552213|181645362|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5
91055309|NCT00593736|181992490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.717||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.717
90890402|NCT01552213|181645363|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6
90890403|NCT01552213|181645364|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.36
91016283|NCT01233284|181915279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.148|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.079||0.0656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.305|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R2.5 qd minus Placebo|Comparison vs. Placebo for AUC0-12h||0.305|-0.010|0.0656
91016284|NCT01233284|181915279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.142|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.079||0.0766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.015|0.299|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd minus Placebo|Comparison vs. Placebo for AUC0-12h||0.299|-0.015|0.0766
90815249|NCT02698371|181509324|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||1||||||Applied for rows/categories alfa/bravo/charlie of Color Match-USPHS comparison between G1 and G4G6 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC by Self-Etch mode (FBDC-SE; G1) and MM adhesives by SE mode (MM-SE; G4G6) result in similar (no significant differences) Color Match performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||1.000
90815250|NCT02698371|181509324|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.317||||||Applied for rows/categories alfa/bravo/charlie of Color Match-USPHS comparison between G2 and G3G5 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC by SE and enamel etching mode (FBDC-SE-EE; G2) and MM adhesives by Etch-and-Rinse mode (MM-ER; G3G5) result in similar (no significant differences) Color Match performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||0.317
90815251|NCT02698371|181509324|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.403||||||Applied for rows/categories alfa/bravo/charlie of Color Match-USPHS comparison between G1G2 and G3G4 and G5G6 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall. P-value adjusted.|Kruskal-Wallis|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC (G1G2) or FBU (G3G4), DC adhesives, and ADU (G5G6) light-curing adhesive, with SE or SE-ER/ER modes result in similar (no significant differences) Color Match performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||0.403
90815252|NCT02698371|181509325|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.02||||||Applied for rows/categories alfa/bravo/charlie of Retention-USPHS comparison between G1 and G4G6 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC by Self-Etch mode (FBDC-SE; G1) and MM adhesives by SE mode (MM-SE; G4G6) result in similar (no significant differences) Retention performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||0.020
91016285|NCT01233284|181915279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.081|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.084||0.3371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.086|0.249|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R1.25 qd minus Placebo|Comparison vs. Placebo for AUC12-24h||0.249|-0.086|0.3371
91016286|NCT01233284|181915279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.136|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.084||0.1097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.031|0.303|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R2.5 qd minus Placebo|Comparison vs. Placebo for AUC12-24h||0.303|-0.031|0.1097
91016287|NCT01233284|181915279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.196|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.084||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.029|0.363|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd minus Placebo|Comparison vs. Placebo for AUC12-24h||0.363|0.029|0.0220
91016288|NCT01233284|181915279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.078||0.2062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.056|0.256|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R1.25 qd minus Placebo|Comparison vs. Placebo for AUC0-24h||0.256|-0.056|0.2062
91016289|NCT01233284|181915279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.142|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.078||0.0731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.014|0.297|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R2.5 qd minus Placebo|Comparison vs. Placebo for AUC0-24h||0.297|-0.014|0.0731
91016290|NCT01233284|181915279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.169|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.078||0.0333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.014|0.324|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd minus Placebo|Comparison vs. Placebo for AUC0-24h||0.324|0.014|0.0333
91016291|NCT01233284|181915280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.116|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099||0.2451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.081|0.312|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R1.25 qd minus Placebo|Comparison vs. Placebo for AUC0-12h||0.312|-0.081|0.2451
91016292|NCT01233284|181915280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.209|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099||0.0379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.012|0.405|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R2.5 qd minus Placebo|Comparison vs. Placebo for AUC0-12h||0.405|0.012|0.0379
91055310|NCT00593736|181992491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.498||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.498
90815253|NCT02698371|181509325|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.02||||||Applied for rows/categories alfa/bravo/charlie of Retention-USPHS comparison between G2 and G3G5 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC by SE and enamel etching mode (FBDC-SE-EE; G2) and MM adhesives by Etch-and-Rinse mode (MM-ER; G3G5) result in similar (no significant differences) Retention performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||0.020
90890404|NCT01552213|181645365|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.42
91016293|NCT01233284|181915280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.167|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099||0.0957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.363|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd minus Placebo|Comparison vs. Placebo for AUC0-12h||0.363|-0.030|0.0957
91016294|NCT01233284|181915280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.067|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.104||0.5207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.139|0.273|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R1.25 qd minus Placebo|Comparison vs. Placebo for AUC12-24h||0.273|-0.139|0.5207
91016295|NCT01233284|181915280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.198|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.104||0.0606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.009|0.404|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R2.5 qd minus Placebo|Comparison vs. Placebo for AUC12-24h||0.404|-0.009|0.0606
91016296|NCT01233284|181915280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.181|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.104||0.0855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.026|0.387|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd minus Placebo|Comparison vs. Placebo for AUC12-24h||0.387|-0.026|0.0855
91016297|NCT01233284|181915280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.091|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099||0.3564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.104|0.287|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R1.25 qd minus Placebo|Comparison vs. Placebo for AUC0-24h||0.287|-0.104|0.3564
91016298|NCT01233284|181915280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.203|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099||0.0424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.007|0.399|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R2.5 qd minus Placebo|Comparison vs. Placebo for AUC0-24h||0.399|0.007|0.0424
90815254|NCT02698371|181509325|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.04||||||Applied for rows/categories alfa/bravo/charlie of Retention-USPHS comparison between G1G2 and G3G4 and G5G6 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall. P-value adjusted.|Kruskal-Wallis|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC (G1G2) or FBU (G3G4), DC adhesives, and ADU (G5G6) light-curing adhesive, with SE or SE-ER/ER modes result in similar (no significant differences) Retention performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||0.040
90815255|NCT02698371|181509326|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered|||||<|0.001||||||Applied for rows/categories alfa/bravo/charlie/delta of Marginal Integrity-USPHS comparison between G1 and G4G6 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC by Self-Etch mode (FBDC-SE; G1) and MM adhesives by SE mode (MM-SE; G4G6) result in similar (no significant differences) Marginal Integrity performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||<0.001
90890405|NCT01552213|181645366|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5
91016299|NCT01233284|181915280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.174|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099||0.0815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.022|0.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd minus Placebo|Comparison vs. Placebo for AUC0-24h||0.370|-0.022|0.0815
91016300|NCT05405218|181915308|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.08||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.29|-0.13|0.46
91016301|NCT05405218|181915309|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.23|-0.2|0.92
91016302|NCT05405218|181915311|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.61||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.3|-0.08|0.09
91016303|NCT05405218|181915312|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.05|-0.06|0.9
91016304|NCT00157820|181915320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.31||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.67|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||An additional primary analysis was pre-planned: the odds ratio of CSAE-score between DC and SC obtained from SAS GENMOD procedure with the length of follow-up as an 'offset'.|"The assumed effect of the DC treatment was a reduction from 30 to 15% in the proportion of patients who develop a CSAE, as well as a 15% reduction in the mean of CSAE (from 6 to 5.1). The estimated sample size was 200 (DC true) vs. 100 (SC true) patients followed for 8 months, with a two-sided alfa \< 0.05 and a power of 88.8%.~The sample size was set up to 360 patients (120 patients per arm), considering losses in follow-up."||0.67|0.14|0.0028
91016305|NCT02207413|181915371|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority criterion (for each of the 4 strains): UL of the 95% CI for the GMT ratio (D-QIV\_LP/ D-QIV\_IP) is ≤ 1.5.|Adjusted GMT Ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.11|||ANCOVA||The GMTs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMTs, which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMT ratio with 95% confidence interval (Ancova model: adjustment for baseline titer - pooled variance).|The adjusted GMT of HI antibodies for H1N1 strain at post-vaccination of each vaccine, the GMT ratio of Influsplit Tetra\_LP/ Influsplit Tetra\_IP and the 2-sided 95% CI on each GMT ratio were computed after fitting an ANCOVA model on the logarithm10 transformation of the titers, including the vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination antibody titer as covariate.||1.11|0.85|
91016306|NCT02207413|181915371|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority criterion (for each of the 4 strains): UL of the 95% CI for the GMT ratio (Influsplit Tetra\_LP/ Influsplit Tetra\_IP) is ≤ 1.5.|Adjusted GMT Ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.18|||ANCOVA||The GMTs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMTs, which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMT ratio with 95% confidence interval (Ancova model: adjustment for baseline titer - pooled variance).|The adjusted GMT of HI antibodies for H3N2 strain at post-vaccination of each vaccine, the GMT ratio of Influsplit Tetra\_LP/Influsplit Tetra\_IP and the 2-sided 95% CI on each GMT ratio were computed after fitting an ANCOVA model on the logarithm10 transformation of the titers, including the vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination antibody titer as covariate.||1.18|0.94|
91016307|NCT02207413|181915371|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority criterion (for each of the 4 strains): UL of the 95% CI for the GMT ratio (Influsplit Tetra\_LP/ Influsplit Tetra\_IP) is ≤ 1.5|Adjusted GMT Ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.16|||ANCOVA||The GMTs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMTs, which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMT ratio with 95% confidence interval (Ancova model: adjustment for baseline titer - pooled variance).|The adjusted GMT of HI antibodies for Yamagata strain at post-vaccination of each vaccine, the GMT ratio of Influsplit Tetra\_LP/Influsplit Tetra\_IP and the 2-sided 95% CI on each GMT ratio were computed after fitting an ANCOVA model on the logarithm10 transformation of the titers, including the vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination antibody titer as covariate.||1.16|0.91|
91016308|NCT02207413|181915371|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority criterion (for each of the 4 strains): UL of the 95% CI for the GMT ratio (Influsplit Tetra\_LP/ Influsplit Tetra\_IP) is ≤ 1.5.|Adjusted GMT Ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.21|||ANCOVA||The GMTs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMTs, which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMT ratio with 95% confidence interval (Ancova model: adjustment for baseline titer - pooled variance).|The adjusted GMT of HI antibodies for Victoria strain at post-vaccination of each vaccine, the GMT ratio of Influsplit Tetra\_LP/Influsplit Tetra\_IP and the 2-sided 95% CI on each GMT ratio were computed after fitting an ANCOVA model on the logarithm10 transformation of the titers, including the vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination antibody titer as covariate.||1.21|0.90|
91016309|NCT02207413|181915372|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority criterion (for each of the 4 strains): UL of the 95% CI for the GMT ratio (Influsplit Tetra\_LP/Influsplit Tetra\_IP) is ≤ 1.5.|Adjusted GMT ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.28|||ANCOVA|||The adjusted GMT of HI antibodies for H1N1 strain at post-vaccination of each vaccine, the GMT ratio of Influsplit Tetra\_LP/Influsplit Tetra\_IP and the 2-sided 95% CI on each GMT ratio were computed after fitting an ANCOVA model on the logarithm10 transformation of the titers, including the vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination antibody titer as covariate.||1.28|0.90|
90890406|NCT01552213|181645367|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.46
91055311|NCT00593736|181992491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.664||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.664
91055312|NCT00593736|181992491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.428||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.428
91055313|NCT00593736|181992492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.519||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.519
91055314|NCT00593736|181992492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.179||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.179
91055315|NCT00593736|181992492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.935||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.935
91055316|NCT00593736|181992493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.425||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.425
91016310|NCT02207413|181915372|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority criterion (for each of the 4 strains): UL of the 95% CI for the GMT ratio (Influsplit Tetra\_LP/Influsplit Tetra\_IP) is ≤ 1.5|Adjusted GMT Ratio|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.39|||ANCOVA||The GMTs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMTs, which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMT ratio with 95% confidence interval (Ancova model: adjustment for baseline titer - pooled variance).|The adjusted GMT of HI antibodies for H3N2 strain at post-vaccination of each vaccine, the GMT ratio of Influsplit Tetra\_LP/Influsplit Tetra\_IP and the 2-sided 95% CI on each GMT ratio were computed after fitting an ANCOVA model on the logarithm10 transformation of the titers, including the vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination antibody titer as covariate.||1.39|1.00|
91016311|NCT02207413|181915372|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority criterion (for each of the 4 strains): UL of the 95% CI for the GMT ratio (Influsplit Tetra\_LP/Influsplit Tetra\_IP) is ≤ 1.5.|Adjusted GMT Ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.27|||ANCOVA|||The adjusted GMT of HI antibodies for Yamagata strain at post-vaccination of each vaccine, the GMT ratio of Influsplit Tetra\_LP/Influsplit Tetra\_IP and the 2-sided 95% CI on each GMT ratio were computed after fitting an ANCOVA model on the logarithm10 transformation of the titers, including the vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination antibody titer as covariate.||1.27|0.91|
91016312|NCT02207413|181915372|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority criterion (for each of the 4 strains): UL of the 95% CI for the GMT ratio (Influsplit Tetra\_LP/Influsplit Tetra\_IP) is ≤ 1.5.|Adjusted GMT Ratio|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.38|||ANCOVA||The GMTs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMTs, which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMT ratio with 95% confidence interval (Ancova model: adjustment for baseline titer - pooled variance).|The adjusted GMT of HI antibodies for Victoria strain at post-vaccination of each vaccine, the GMT ratio of Influsplit Tetra\_LP/Influsplit Tetra\_IP and the 2-sided 95% CI on each GMT ratio were computed after fitting an ANCOVA model on the logarithm10 transformation of the titers, including the vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination antibody titer as covariate||1.38|0.99|
91016313|NCT00299546|181915408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||A positive test is concluded if there is a significant difference between combined golimumab and placebo groups and at least one of the pair-wise comparisons at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline Methotrexate (MTX)||Null hypothesis: No difference in ACR 20 response at Wk 14 comparing Group 1 vs. Combined Groups 2 and 3. A sample size of 140 patients per group provides a \>90% power assuming 50% of patients used Methotrexate (MTX) at baseline and 30% ACR 20 response in placebo and 40\~55% ACR 20 response in golimumab groups.||||<0.001
91016314|NCT00299546|181915408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||||||Test was performed because Group 1: Placebo was significantly different from Combined Groups 2 \& 3.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline MTX||Null Hypothesis: No difference in ACR 20 response at Wk 14 between Group 1: Placebo and Group 2: 50 mg.||||0.001
91016315|NCT00299546|181915408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Test was performed because Group 1: Placebo was significantly different from Combined Groups 2 \& 3.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline MTX.||Null Hypothesis: No difference in ACR 20 response at Wk 14 between Group 1: Placebo and Group 3 :100 mg.||||<0.001
91016316|NCT00299546|181915409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline Methotrexate (MTX).||||||0.003
91016317|NCT00299546|181915409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021||||||Test was performed because Group 1: Placebo was significantly different from Combined Groups 2 \& 3.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline MTX.||||||0.021
91016318|NCT00299546|181915409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||||||Test was performed because Group 1: Placebo was significantly different from Combined Groups 2 \& 3.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline MTX.||||||0.002
91016319|NCT00299546|181915410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline Methorexate (MTX).||||||<0.001
91016320|NCT00299546|181915410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Test was performed because Group 1: Placebo was significantly different from Combined Groups 2 \& 3.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline MTX.||||||<0.001
91016321|NCT00299546|181915410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Test was performed because Group 1: Placebo was significantly different from Combined Groups 2 \& 3.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline MTX.||||||<0.001
91016322|NCT00299546|181915411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline Methotrexate (MTX).||||||<0.001
91055317|NCT00593736|181992493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.406||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.406
91055318|NCT00593736|181992493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.720
90815256|NCT02698371|181509326|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered|||||<|0.001||||||Applied for rows/categories alfa/bravo/charlie/delta of Marginal Integrity-USPHS comparison between G2 and G3G5 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC by SE and enamel etching mode (FBDC-SE-EE; G2) and MM adhesives by Etch-and-Rinse mode (MM-ER; G3G5) result in similar (no significant differences) Marginal Integrity performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||<0.001
90815257|NCT02698371|181509326|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.211||||||Applied for rows/categories alfa/bravo/charlie/delta of Marginal Integrity-USPHS comparison between G1G2 and G3G4 and G5G6 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall. P-value adjusted.|Kruskal-Wallis|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC (G1G2) or FBU (G3G4), DC adhesives, and ADU (G5G6) light-curing adhesive, with SE or SE-ER/ER modes result in similar (no significant differences) Marginal Integrity performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||0.211
90815258|NCT02698371|181509327|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.102||||||Applied for rows/categories No Evidence vs Evidence of Postoperative Sensitivity-USPHS comparison between G1 and G4G6 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC by Self-Etch mode (FBDC-SE; G1) and MM adhesives by SE mode (MM-SE; G4G6) result in similar (no significant differences) Postoperative Sensitivity performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||0.102
90815259|NCT02698371|181509327|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.18||||||Applied for rows/categories No Evidence vs Evidence of Postoperative Sensitivity-USPHS comparison between G2 and G3G5 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC by SE and enamel etching mode (FBDC-SE-EE; G2) and MM adhesives by Etch-and-Rinse mode (MM-ER; G3G5) result in similar (no significant differences) Postoperative Sensitivity performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||0.180
90815260|NCT02698371|181509327|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.99||||||Applied for rows/categories No Evidence vs Evidence of Postoperative Sensitivity-USPHS comparison between G1G2 and G3G4 and G5G6 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall. P-value adjusted.|Kruskal-Wallis|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC (G1G2) or FBU (G3G4), DC adhesives, and ADU (G5G6) light-curing adhesive, with SE or SE-ER/ER modes result in similar (no significant differences) Postoperative Sensitivity performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||0.990
91016323|NCT00299546|181915411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||||||Test was performed because Group 1: Placebo was significantly different from Combined Groups 2 \& 3.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline MTX.||||||0.002
91016324|NCT00299546|181915411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Test was performed because Group 1: Placebo was significantly different from Combined Groups 2 \& 3.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline MTX.||||||<0.001
91016325|NCT00299546|181915412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores.|Stratified by baseline Methotrexate (MTX).||||||<0.001
91016326|NCT00299546|181915412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Test was performed because Group 1: Placebo was significantly different from Combined Groups 2 \& 3.|ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores.|Stratified by baseline MTX.||||||<0.001
91016327|NCT00299546|181915412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Test was performed because Group 1: Placebo was significantly different from Combined Groups 2 \& 3.|ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores.|Stratified by baseline MTX.||||||<0.001
91016328|NCT01656850|181915413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
91016329|NCT01656850|181915414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2786|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2786
91016330|NCT01656850|181915415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.420
91016331|NCT01656850|181915416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
91016332|NCT01656850|181915417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2412|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2412
91016333|NCT01656850|181915418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3837|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.3837
91016334|NCT01656850|181915419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9784|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.9784
91016335|NCT01656850|181915420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5868|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.5868
91016336|NCT01656850|181915421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1101|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1101
91016337|NCT01656850|181915422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7823|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7823
91016338|NCT01656850|181915423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.557|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.5570
91016339|NCT01656850|181915424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6263|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.6263
91016340|NCT01656850|181915425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8328|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8328
91016341|NCT01656850|181915426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7758|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7758
91016342|NCT01656850|181915427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0476|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0476
91016343|NCT01656850|181915428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1205|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1205
91016344|NCT01656850|181915429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1512|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1512
91016345|NCT01656850|181915430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7364|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7364
91016346|NCT01656850|181915431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1995|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1995
91016347|NCT01656850|181915432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8528|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8528
91016348|NCT01256086|181915478|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Relative potency of Novolizer compared to Aerolizer. Equivalence was to be concluded if the CI for the relative potency was completely covered by the interval (0.67, 1.50) according to OIP Guideline.|Relative potency|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|1.38|||||Fieller confidence interval for logarithm of relative potency|||1.38|0.94|
91016349|NCT02329834|181915502|EQUIVALENCE|90% Confidence Interval 80\<ratio of AUC\<125. The FDA guided Bioequivalence limit of 80 to 125% for the ratio of the product averages has been adopted for use of an average BE criterion.|% diff Geometric Least Squared Mean|99.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.77|104.75||||||||104.75|94.77|
91016350|NCT02329834|181915503|OTHER||% Diff Geometric Least Squared Mean|99.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.79|104.75||||||||104.75|94.79|
91016351|NCT02951182|181915528|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|8.6||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|13.8|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||13.8|3.5|0.0016
91016352|NCT02951182|181915528|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|10.6||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.5|15.8|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||15.8|5.5|0.0001
91055319|NCT00593736|181992494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.294||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.294
91055320|NCT00593736|181992494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.474||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.474
91055321|NCT00593736|181992494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.999||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.999
91055322|NCT00593736|181992495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.655||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.655
91055323|NCT00593736|181992495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.331||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.331
91055324|NCT00593736|181992495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.362||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.362
91055325|NCT00593736|181992496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.684||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.684
91055326|NCT00593736|181992496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.399||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.399
91055327|NCT00593736|181992496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.611||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.611
91055328|NCT00593736|181992497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.157||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.157
91055329|NCT00593736|181992497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.463||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.463
91055330|NCT00593736|181992497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.774||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.774
90890407|NCT01552213|181645368|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1
91055331|NCT00593736|181992498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.413||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.413
91055332|NCT00593736|181992498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.093||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.093
91055333|NCT00593736|181992498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.982||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.982
91055334|NCT00593736|181992499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.441||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.441
91055335|NCT00593736|181992499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.082||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.082
91055336|NCT00593736|181992499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.549||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.549
91055337|NCT00593736|181992500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.860
91055338|NCT00593736|181992500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.997||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.997
91055339|NCT00593736|181992500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.834||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.834
91055340|NCT00593736|181992501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.837||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.837
91055341|NCT00593736|181992501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.321||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.321
91055342|NCT00593736|181992501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.978||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.978
91055343|NCT00593736|181992502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.513||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.513
91055344|NCT00593736|181992502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.751||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.751
91055345|NCT00593736|181992502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.242||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.242
91055346|NCT00593736|181992503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.307||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.307
91055347|NCT00593736|181992503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.765||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.765
91055348|NCT00593736|181992503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.727||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.727
90890408|NCT01552213|181645369|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.56
91055349|NCT00593736|181992504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.902||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.902
91055350|NCT00593736|181992504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.590
91055351|NCT00593736|181992504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.290
91055352|NCT00593736|181992505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.685||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.685
91055353|NCT00593736|181992505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.214||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.214
91055354|NCT00593736|181992505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.055||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.055
91055355|NCT00593736|181992506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.589||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.589
91055356|NCT00593736|181992506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.156||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.156
91055357|NCT00593736|181992506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.041||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.041
91055358|NCT01853930|181992511|SUPERIORITY|The purpose of the superiority test is to show if laboratory based training is superior to an independent home-based training option.||||||0.876|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t= -0.157 df= 30||||||0.876
91055359|NCT00110136|181992539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.81|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.02||0.2629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.36|0.74||Paired t-test; no adjustments for multiple comparisons|paired t-test||The difference is post minus pre so negative values represents fewer hot flashes after treatment.|Analysis of the change in hot flash frequency from baseline to four weeks; null hypothesis is no change.||0.74|-2.36|0.2629
91055360|NCT00110136|181992540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.37|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.91||0.1365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.45|1.72||Paired t-test; unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|paired t-test||Difference in hot flash score is post minus pre so a negative value represents a decrease in the frequency and/or severity of the hot flashes.|Assessment of the change in the hot flash score over time||1.72|-10.45|0.1365
91055361|NCT00110136|181992542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.54|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.0||0.832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.84|5.92||Paired t-test; unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|paired t-test||This is the change in MCS from baseline to four weeks (post minus pre) so values greater than zero reflect improvement in QOL.|Assess the change in MCS from baseline to four weeks in patients receiving St. John's wort.||5.92|-4.84|0.8320
91055362|NCT00110136|181992543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.43||0.9995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.71|5.71||Paired t-test on the change in PCS from baseline to four weeks; unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|paired t-test||This is the change in PCS from baseline to four weeks (post minus pre), so positive numbers represent improvement in QOL.|Assess the change in PCS from baseline to four weeks; null hypothesis is no change.||5.71|-5.71|0.9995
91055363|NCT00110136|181992544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.35|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.12||0.1042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|9.822||Paired t-test; unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|paired t-test||This is the change in mood from baseline to four weeks (post minus pre). Mood is scored so that higher numbers represent better mood so positive changes represent an improvement in mood.|Assess the change in mood from baseline to four weeks. Null hypothesis is no change.||9.822|-1.12|0.1042
91055364|NCT04540406|181992573|OTHER|We employed covariate-adjusted Principal Coordinates Analysis and a subject-stratified PERMANOVA test to assess the overall gut microbiota structural change. These tests are generally neither superiority, non-inferiority, nor equivalence tests. Instead, they are used to detect and evaluate overall differences in the microbial community structure between groups or conditions.||||||||||||||||PCoA (Principal Coordinates Analysis) + PERMANOVA (Permutational Multivariate Analysis of Variance) are exploratory multivariate techniques commonly used in microbiome research to assess and visualize differences in community composition. The null hypothesis for PERMANOVA is that there are no differences in the centroids (multivariate means) of the groups being compared. The microbial communities in different groups or conditions are not significantly different from each other.|To assess the overall structural changes in gut microbiota, we employed covariate-adjusted Principal Coordinates Analysis (PCoA) and a subject-stratified PERMANOVA test. PCoA, an exploratory multivariate technique, helps visualize and interpret patterns in complex microbiome data by reducing dimensionality, with the first principal coordinate (PC1) capturing the largest variation among samples. PERMANOVA, which does not rely on standard parametric assumptions, was used to determine if there are statistically significant differences in the overall composition of microbial communities between groups based on a chosen distance metric. Our analysis aimed to explore whether microbial community compositions differed significantly between Day 0 and Day 28 within the Treatment group, accounting for inter-individual variability. Similarly, we investigated if such differences existed over the same time points in the Control group. The unit of measure was distance metrics.|||
91055365|NCT01517373|181992597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145||0.4468|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.21|0.17||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons among treatment groups.||Treatment difference and 80 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) were based on least squares (LS) mean. A mixed model repeated measure (MMRM) analysis was performed with treatment,duration of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM),time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects,baseline as the covariate,time was repeated for participant. Null hypothesis stated there was no difference between PF 04937319 and placebo, alternative hypothesis stated PF 04937319 was superior to placebo.||0.17|-0.21|0.4468
91055366|NCT01517373|181992597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.146||0.0218|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.48|-0.11||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons among treatment groups.||Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant. Null hypothesis stated there was no difference between PF 04937319 and placebo, alternative hypothesis stated PF 04937319 was superior to placebo.||-0.11|-0.48|0.0218
91055367|NCT01517373|181992597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.144||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.65|-0.28||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons among treatment groups.||Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant. Null hypothesis stated there was no difference between PF 04937319 and placebo, alternative hypothesis stated PF 04937319 was superior to placebo.||-0.28|-0.65|0.0006
90815261|NCT02698371|181509328|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.157||||||Applied for rows/categories No Evidence vs Evidence of Secondary Caries-USPHS comparison between G1 and G4G6 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC by Self-Etch mode (FBDC-SE; G1) and MM adhesives by SE mode (MM-SE; G4G6) result in similar (no significant differences) Secondary Caries performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||0.157
90815262|NCT02698371|181509328|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.317||||||Applied for rows/categories No Evidence vs Evidence of Secondary Caries-USPHS comparison between G2 and G3G5 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC by SE and enamel etching mode (FBDC-SE-EE; G2) and MM adhesives by Etch-and-Rinse mode (MM-ER; G3G5) result in similar (no significant differences) Secondary Caries performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||0.317
90890409|NCT02566031|181645371|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.011|0.093|||ANCOVA|||||0.093|0.011|0.0129
90890410|NCT02566031|181645372|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.06||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.017|0.098|||ANCOVA|||-45 min||0.098|0.017|0.0058
91016353|NCT02951182|181915528|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|12.0||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.7|17.4|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||17.4|6.7|0.0001
91016354|NCT02951182|181915529|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-22.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.1|-12.4||||||||-12.4|-32.1|
91016355|NCT02951182|181915529|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-34.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.7|-24.8||||||||-24.8|-44.7|
91016356|NCT02951182|181915529|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-33.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.5|-18.3||||||||-18.3|-48.5|
91016357|NCT02951182|181915530|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|14.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|24.2||||||||24.2|5.3|
91055368|NCT01517373|181992597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.144|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.02|-0.65||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons among treatment groups.||Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant. Null hypothesis stated there was no difference between PF 04937319 and placebo, alternative hypothesis stated PF 04937319 was superior to placebo.||-0.65|-1.02|<0.0001
91055369|NCT01517373|181992598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.087||0.6112|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.09|0.14||P-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.14|-0.09|0.6112
91055370|NCT01517373|181992598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.088||0.055|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.25|-0.03||P-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-0.03|-0.25|0.0550
91055371|NCT01517373|181992598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.086||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.35|-0.13||P-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 80%CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-0.13|-0.35|0.0032
91055372|NCT01517373|181992598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.086|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.55|-0.33||P-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-0.33|-0.55|<0.0001
91055373|NCT01517373|181992598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.101||0.6146|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.1|0.16||P-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 6: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.16|-0.10|0.6146
91055374|NCT01517373|181992598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.101||0.2606|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.19|0.06||P-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 6: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.06|-0.19|0.2606
91055375|NCT01517373|181992598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.45|-0.2||P-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 6: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-0.20|-0.45|0.0006
91016358|NCT02951182|181915530|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|19.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.7|28.6||||||||28.6|9.7|
91016359|NCT02951182|181915530|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.8|29.1||||||||29.1|10.8|
91016360|NCT02951182|181915531|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|16.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.4|26.8||||||||26.8|5.4|
91016361|NCT02951182|181915531|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|18.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.9|29.1||||||||29.1|7.9|
90890411|NCT02566031|181645372|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.0161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.009|0.091|||ANCOVA|||-15min||0.091|0.009|0.0161
91016362|NCT02951182|181915531|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|20.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.9|28.4||||||||28.4|11.9|
91016363|NCT03112720|181915535|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared||||\< 0.01 study terminated because of covid and no meaningfull numbers participated|||<0.01
91016364|NCT02181673|181915628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|53.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.8|60.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||60.90|45.80|<0.001
91016365|NCT01354015|181915659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.79||0.2539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||All statistical analysis used intent-to-treat methodology and all comparisons used a two-tailed test at the .05 level of significance. Continuous variables are reported as means and standard deviations. W||||0.2539
91016366|NCT00337727|181915664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0||||Superiority based on 2-sided level of significance of 0.05, based on a logistic regression model that included terms for treatment group, region and gender.|Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.01
91016367|NCT00337727|181915665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0||||Superiority based on 2-sided level of significance of 0.05, based on a logistic regression model that included terms for treatment group, region and gender.|Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.01
91016368|NCT00491322|181915668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91016369|NCT00517868|181915669|NON_INFERIORITY|A paired student t comparison was used to assess treatment differences as measured by 11 point numerical rating scale.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.14||||0.0363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.43|2.16|||t-test, 1 sided|||||2.16|-44.43|0.0363
91016370|NCT06067191|181915678|OTHER||Difference in Least Square Mean|-312.28||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-489.17|-135.38|||ANCOVA||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline viral load as the covariate.|||-135.38|-489.17|0.0009
90890412|NCT02566031|181645373|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.31||||0.0767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.033|0.646|||ANCOVA|||||0.646|-0.033|0.0767
91016371|NCT06067191|181915679|OTHER||Difference in Least Square Mean|-1.45||||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.43|-0.47|||ANCOVA||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline viral load as the covariate.|||-0.47|-2.43|0.0047
91016372|NCT06067191|181915680|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
91016373|NCT06067191|181915681|OTHER|||||||0.0051|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0051
91016374|NCT06067191|181915682|OTHER|||||||0.0077|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0077
91016375|NCT06067191|181915683|OTHER||Difference in Least Square Mean|-87.4||||0.0268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-164.3|-10.49|||ANCOVA||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline viral load as the covariate.|||-10.49|-164.30|0.0268
91016376|NCT06067191|181915684|OTHER||Difference in Least Square Mean|-0.99||||0.0865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|0.15|||ANCOVA||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline viral load as the covariate.|||0.15|-2.13|0.0865
91016377|NCT06067191|181915685|OTHER|||||||0.0008|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0008
91016378|NCT06067191|181915686|OTHER|||||||0.8579|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.8579
91016379|NCT06067191|181915687|OTHER||Difference in Least Square Mean|-93.95||||0.0658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-194.26|6.36|||ANCOVA||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline viral load as the covariate.|||6.36|-194.26|0.0658
91016380|NCT06067191|181915688|OTHER||Difference in Least Square Mean|-93.95||||0.0658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-194.26|6.36|||ANCOVA||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline viral load as the covariate.|||6.36|-194.26|0.0658
91016381|NCT06067191|181915689|OTHER||Difference in Least Square Mean|-0.93||||0.203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.38|0.52|||ANCOVA||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline viral load as the covariate.|||0.52|-2.38|0.2030
91016382|NCT00806416|181915720|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Administration of a 70 mg alendronate/2800 IU vitamin D3 final market combination tablet and the 70 mg alendronate market tablet, the GMR of the combination tablet/alendronate only tablet are contained within \[0.80,1.25\].|Least square mean ratio|1.03||||||90.0|0.91|1.17||||||If the true geometric mean ratio (GMR) for total urinary excretion of alendronate of 70 mg alendronate/vitamin D3 combination tablet with respect to alendronate alone is 1.00 then a sample size =208 provided 99% probability of yielding a 90% CI for the total urinary excretion GMR within the interval of \[0.80, 1.25\]. These calculations were based on the observed-pooled within-subject standard deviation (log scale) of 0.521 obtained from earlier Phase 1 studies.||1.17|0.91|
91016383|NCT00806416|181915721|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Administration of a 70 mg alendronate/2800 IU vitamin D3 final market combination tablet and a tablet containing 2800 IU vitamin D3, the geometric mean ratio (GMR) for AUC0-120 hr and Cmax, corrected for predose concentration, of the combination tablet/2800 IU vitamin D3 only tablet were contained within \[0.80,1.25\].|Least square mean ratio for AUC0-120 hr|0.88||||||90.0|0.81|0.95||||||If the true GMRs for AUC and Cmax for 70 mg alendronate/vitamin D3 combination tablet with respect to 2800 IU vitamin D3 alone were 1.00 then a sample size=28 provided \>99% probability of yielding a 90% CI for both AUC(0-120 hr) and Cmax GMRs within the interval of \[0.80, 1.25\]. The within-subject standard deviation of 0.14 ln ng•hr/mL for AUC(0-120 hr) (ng•hr/mL) and 0.14 ng/mL for Cmax was obtained from another phase 1 study.||0.95|0.81|
91016384|NCT00806416|181915722|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Administration of a 70 mg alendronate/2800 IU vitamin D3 final market combination tablet and a tablet containing 2800 IU vitamin D3, the geometric mean ratio (GMR) for AUC0-120 hr and Cmax, corrected for predose concentration, of the combination tablet/2800 IU vitamin D3 only tablet were contained within \[0.80,1.25\].|least-squares mean for Cmax|0.89||||||90.0|0.84|0.95||||||If the true GMR ratios for AUC and Cmax for 70 mg alendronate/vitamin D3 combination tablet with respect to 2800 IU vitamin D3 alone were 1.00 then a sample of N=28 provided \>99% probability of yielding a 90% CI for both AUC0-120 hr and Cmax GMRs within the interval of \[0.80, 1.25\]. The within-subject standard deviation of 0.14 ln ng•hr/mL for AUC0-120 hr (ng•hr/mL) and 0.14 ng/mL for Cmax was obtained from another phase 1 study.||0.95|0.84|
91016385|NCT04035694|181915729|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.41|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.41
91016386|NCT04035694|181915730|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||.11
91016387|NCT04035694|181915731|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.54|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.54
91055376|NCT01517373|181992598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.7|-0.44||P-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 6: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-0.44|-0.70|<0.0001
90890413|NCT02566031|181645374|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.81||||0.1008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|0.16|||ANCOVA|||||0.16|-1.77|0.1008
90890414|NCT00000392|181645471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.18
90815263|NCT02698371|181509328|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.334||||||Applied for rows/categories No Evidence vs Evidence of Secondary Caries-USPHS comparison between G1G2 and G3G4 and G5G6 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall. P-value adjusted|Kruskal-Wallis|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC (G1G2) or FBU (G3G4), DC adhesives, and ADU (G5G6) light-curing adhesive, with SE or SE-ER/ER modes result in similar (no significant differences) Secondary Caries performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||0.334
90815264|NCT02698371|181509329|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.132||||||Applied for rows/categories No Evidence vs Evidence of Gingival Bleeding-USPHS comparison between G1 and G4G6 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC by Self-Etch mode (FBDC-SE; G1) and MM adhesives by SE mode (MM-SE; G4G6) result in similar (no significant differences) Gingival Bleeding performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||0.132
90890415|NCT02415400|181645485|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-Inferiority (NI) margin = 1.2|||||<|0.0001|||||||1-sided p-value for NI test|||Separate hierarchical testing was performed for apixaban vs VKA: 1) Non-inferiority for the primary endpoint.||||<0.0001
91016388|NCT04035694|181915732|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.38|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.38
91016389|NCT04035694|181915733|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.56|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.56
91016390|NCT04035694|181915734|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.09
91016391|NCT04035694|181915735|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.40
91016392|NCT04035694|181915736|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.74|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.74
91016393|NCT04035694|181915737|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.66|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.66
91016394|NCT04035694|181915738|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.78|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.78
91016395|NCT04035694|181915739|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.52|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.52
91055377|NCT01517373|181992598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.118||0.6618|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.1|0.2||P-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.20|-0.10|0.6618
91016396|NCT04035694|181915740|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.74|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.74
91016397|NCT04035694|181915741|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Median Difference (Net)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.21|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.21
91016398|NCT04035694|181915742|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.27|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.27
91016399|NCT04035694|181915743|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Median Difference (Net)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.01
91016400|NCT04035694|181915744|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.23
91016401|NCT04035694|181915745|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.05
91016402|NCT04035694|181915746|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.95|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.95
91016403|NCT04035694|181915747|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.19|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.19
91016404|NCT04035694|181915748|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.92|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.92
91016405|NCT04035694|181915749|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Median Difference (Net)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.81|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.81
91055378|NCT01517373|181992598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.119||0.0878|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.31|-0.01||P-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-0.01|-0.31|0.0878
91055379|NCT01517373|181992598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.117||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.49|-0.19||P-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-0.19|-0.49|0.0022
91055380|NCT01517373|181992598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.117|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.81|-0.51||P-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-0.51|-0.81|<0.0001
91055381|NCT01517373|181992599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.222||0.3446|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-8.8|4.62||P-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||4.62|-8.80|0.3446
91055382|NCT01517373|181992599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.21||0.1204|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-12.81|0.57||P-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.57|-12.81|0.1204
91055383|NCT01517373|181992599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-13.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.166||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-20.37|-7.1||P-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-7.10|-20.37|0.0041
91055384|NCT01517373|181992599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-21.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.192|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-28.01|-14.67||P-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-14.67|-28.01|<0.0001
91055385|NCT01517373|181992599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.191||0.1616|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-11.8|1.53||P-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||1.53|-11.80|0.1616
91055386|NCT01517373|181992599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.219||0.1974|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-11.15|2.26||P-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||2.26|-11.15|0.1974
90815265|NCT02698371|181509329|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.257||||||Applied for rows/categories No Evidence vs Evidence of Gingival Bleeding-USPHS comparison between G2 and G3G5 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC by SE and enamel etching mode (FBDC-SE-EE; G2) and MM adhesives by Etch-and-Rinse mode (MM-ER; G3G5) result in similar (no significant differences) Gingival Bleeding performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||0.257
91055387|NCT01517373|181992599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-11.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.14||0.0122|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-18.22|-5.02||P-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-5.02|-18.22|0.0122
91055388|NCT01517373|181992599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-24.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.129|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-31.37|-18.2||P-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-18.20|-31.37|<0.0001
91055389|NCT01517373|181992599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.674||0.3645|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-9.26|5.32||P-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 6: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||5.32|-9.26|0.3645
91055390|NCT01517373|181992599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.676||0.3672|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-9.22|5.36||P-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 6: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||5.36|-9.22|0.3672
91055391|NCT01517373|181992599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.598||0.0906|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-14.69|-0.31||P-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 6: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-0.31|-14.69|0.0906
91055392|NCT01517373|181992599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-19.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.624||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-26.91|-12.46||P-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 6: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-12.46|-26.91|0.0003
90815266|NCT02698371|181509329|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.918||||||Applied for rows/categories No Evidence vs Evidence of Gingival Bleeding-USPHS comparison between G1G2 and G3G4 and G5G6 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall. P-value adjusted|Kruskal-Wallis|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC (G1G2) or FBU (G3G4), DC adhesives, and ADU (G5G6) light-curing adhesive, with SE or SE-ER/ER modes result in similar (no significant differences) Gingival Bleeding performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||0.918
90815267|NCT05063539|181509411|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|1.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.375|3.771|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||3.771|-0.375|
91055393|NCT01517373|181992599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.534||0.1748|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-12.29|1.93||P-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||1.93|-12.29|0.1748
91055394|NCT01517373|181992599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-10.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.566||0.0297|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-17.69|-3.38||P-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-3.38|-17.69|0.0297
91055395|NCT01517373|181992599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-12.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.469||0.0118|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-19.47|-5.41||P-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-5.41|-19.47|0.0118
91055396|NCT01517373|181992599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-27.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.48|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-34.04|-19.96||P-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-19.96|-34.04|<0.0001
91055397|NCT01517373|181992599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-8.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.281||0.1012|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-16.1|0.04||P-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 12: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.04|-16.10|0.1012
91055398|NCT01517373|181992599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-10.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.287||0.0409|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-19.07|-2.91|||t-test, 1 sided|||Week 12: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-2.91|-19.07|0.0409
91055399|NCT01517373|181992599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-14.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.232||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-22.88|-6.86|||t-test, 1 sided|||Week 12: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-6.86|-22.88|0.0089
91055400|NCT01517373|181992599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-25.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.233|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-33.93|-17.92||P-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 12: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-17.92|-33.93|<0.0001
91055401|NCT01517373|181992607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.196||0.0898|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.08|0.59||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 80 percent(%) confidence interval (CI) were based on least squares (LS) mean. A mixed model repeated measure (MMRM) analysis was performed with treatment, duration of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.59|0.08|0.0898
91055402|NCT01517373|181992607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.195||0.0555|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.12|0.62||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.62|0.12|0.0555
91055403|NCT01517373|181992607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.193||0.0585|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.12|0.61||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.61|0.12|0.0585
91055404|NCT01517373|181992607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.194||0.0454|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.14|0.64||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.64|0.14|0.0454
91055405|NCT01517373|181992607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.235||0.2819|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.05|0.55||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.55|-0.05|0.2819
90815268|NCT05063539|181509411|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.354|-1.042|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||-1.042|-5.354|
91055406|NCT01517373|181992607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.235||0.0319|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.2|0.81||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.81|0.20|0.0319
91055407|NCT01517373|181992607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.231||0.1835|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.01|0.6||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.60|0.01|0.1835
90815269|NCT05063539|181509412|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|1.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.443|3.697|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||3.697|-0.443|
90815270|NCT05063539|181509412|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-5.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.277|-2.862||||||||-2.862|-7.277|
91055408|NCT01517373|181992607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.231||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.63|1.22||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||1.22|0.63|0.0001
91055409|NCT01517373|181992607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.266||0.9689|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.35|0.33||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 6: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.33|-0.35|0.9689
91055410|NCT01517373|181992607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.265||0.2221|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.02|0.67||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 6: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.67|-0.02|0.2221
91055411|NCT01517373|181992607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.261||0.2774|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.05|0.62||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 6: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.62|-0.05|0.2774
91055412|NCT01517373|181992607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.263|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.76|1.43||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 6: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||1.43|0.76|<0.0001
91055413|NCT01517373|181992607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.314||0.0667|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.17|0.98||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.98|0.17|0.0667
91055414|NCT01517373|181992607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.314||0.0133|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.38|1.19||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||1.19|0.38|0.0133
91055415|NCT01517373|181992607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.308||0.026|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.29|1.08||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||1.08|0.29|0.0260
91055416|NCT01517373|181992607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.23|2.02||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||2.02|1.23|<0.0001
91055417|NCT01517373|181992607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.374||0.0335|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.32|1.28||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||1.28|0.32|0.0335
91055418|NCT01517373|181992607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.373||0.1557|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.05|1.01||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||1.01|0.05|0.1557
91055419|NCT01517373|181992607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.368||0.0132|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.45|1.39||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||1.39|0.45|0.0132
90815271|NCT05063539|181509413|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.763|0.488|||NCS2|A NCS model with 2 degrees of freedom (NCS2) was used.||||0.488|-0.763|0.665
91055420|NCT01517373|181992607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|2.2|3.15||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||3.15|2.20|<0.0001
91055421|NCT01517373|181992607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.394||0.0158|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.45|1.46||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 14 (Follow-up): Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||1.46|0.45|0.0158
91055422|NCT01517373|181992607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.392||0.2132|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.01|0.99||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 14 (Follow-up): Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.99|-0.01|0.2132
91055423|NCT01517373|181992607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.387||0.0263|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.37|1.36||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 14 (Follow-up): Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||1.36|0.37|0.0263
90815272|NCT05063539|181509413|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.435|1.736|||NCS2|A NCS model with 2 degrees of freedom (NCS2) was used.||||1.736|0.435|0.001
91055424|NCT01517373|181992607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|2.12|3.12||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 14 (Follow-up): Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||3.12|2.12|<0.0001
91055425|NCT02699060|181992612|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-1.76|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.8||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.002
91055426|NCT04916444|181992613|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.691|||||||ANOVA|Two-way repeated measures ANOVA||Null hypothesis is that there was no interaction between the intervention and time factors on the TWSTRS scores.||||0.691
91055427|NCT04916444|181992614|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.816|||||||ANOVA|Two-way repeated measures ANOVA||Null hypothesis is that there was no interaction between the intervention and time factors on the BDI scores.||||0.816
91055428|NCT04916444|181992615|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.167|||||||ANOVA|Two-way repeated measures ANOVA||Null hypothesis is that there was no interaction between the intervention and time factors on the time to complete the TMT-A task.||||0.167
91055429|NCT04916444|181992616|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.507|||||||ANOVA|Two-way repeated measures ANOVA||Null hypothesis is that there was no interaction between the intervention and time factors on the time to complete the TMT-A task.||||0.507
91055430|NCT04916444|181992617|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.056|||||||ANOVA|Two-way repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.056
91055431|NCT04916444|181992618|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.646|||||||ANOVA|Two-way repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.646
91055432|NCT05005312|181992619|OTHER|The ratio and 90% CI were expressed as percentages|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|101.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.2|140.11|||ANOVA|||||140.11|74.20|
91055433|NCT05005312|181992620|OTHER|The ratio and 90% CI were expressed as percentages|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|99.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.81|139.21|||ANOVA|||||139.21|70.81|
91055434|NCT05005312|181992621|OTHER|The ratio and 90% CI were expressed as percentages|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|98.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.65|138.12|||ANOVA|||||138.12|70.65|
90815273|NCT05063539|181509414|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.641|0.749|||NCS2|A NCS model with 2 degrees of freedom (NCS2) was used.||||0.749|-0.641|0.878
90815274|NCT05063539|181509414|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.615|2.05|||NCS2|A NCS model with 2 degrees of freedom (NCS2) was used.||||2.050|0.615|<0.001
91055435|NCT02970318|181992639|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.49||Stratified by randomization stratification factors as recorded in IXRS, i.e., presence of del17p (Yes/No), ECOG (0-1/2), # of prior therapies (1-3/4+).|Log Rank||Cox Proportional Hazard Model (Arm A vs. Arm B) stratified by factors as recorded in IXRS, i.e., presence of del17p (Yes/No), ECOG (0-1/2), # of prior therapies (1-3/4+).|||0.49|0.20|<0.0001
91055436|NCT02970318|181992640|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.38||Stratified by randomization stratification factors as recorded in IXRS, i.e., presence of del17p (Yes/No), ECOG (0-1/2), # of prior therapies (1-3/4+).|Log Rank||Cox Proportional Hazard Model (Arm A vs. Arm B) stratified by factors as recorded in IXRS, i.e., presence of del17p (Yes/No), ECOG (0-1/2), # of prior therapies (1-3/4+).|||0.38|0.20|<0.0001
91055437|NCT02970318|181992641|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.8||||0.2248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|14.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with adjustment for randomization stratification factors as recorded in IXRS.|Risk difference (% Arm A - Arm B) based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with adjustment for randomization stratification factors as recorded in IXRS.|||14.9|-3.3|0.2248
90815275|NCT05063539|181509415|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99||0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.073|0.811|||NCS2|A NCS model with 2 degrees of freedom (NCS2) was used.||||0.811|-3.073|0.252
90815276|NCT05063539|181509415|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.825|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.252|1.797|||NCS2|A NCS model with 2 degrees of freedom (NCS2) was used.||||1.797|-2.252|0.825
90815277|NCT05063539|181509416|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09||0.733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.527|1.779|||NCS2|A NCS model with 2 degrees of freedom (NCS2) was used.||||1.779|-2.527|0.733
90815278|NCT05063539|181509416|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.13||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.565|3.877|||NCS2|A NCS model with 2 degrees of freedom (NCS2) was used.||||3.877|-0.565|0.143
90815279|NCT05063539|181509417|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.802|2.158|||NCS2|A NCS model with 2 degrees of freedom (NCS2) was used.||||2.158|-1.802|0.860
91055438|NCT02970318|181992642|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.3||||0.734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|7.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with adjustment for randomization stratification factors as recorded in IXRS.|Risk difference (% Arm A - Arm B) based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with adjustment for randomization stratification factors as recorded in IXRS.|||7.0|-9.6|0.7340
91055439|NCT02970318|181992643|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||0.0783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.04|||Log Rank|Log-Rank Analysis stratified by factors recorded in IXRS data: presence of deletion 17 p (yes / no), ECOG (0-1/2), # of prior therapies (1-3/4+).|Cox proportional hazard analysis stratified (Arm A vs. Arm B) by factors recorded in IXRS data including presence of deletion 17 p (yes / no), ECOG (0-1/2), # of prior therapies (1-3/4+).|Analysis stratified by factors recorded in IXRS data including presence of deletion 17 p (yes / no), ECOG (0-1/2), # of prior therapies (1-3/4+).||1.04|0.46|0.0783
91055440|NCT02970318|181992644|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.59||Log Rank Test stratified by factors as recorded in IXRS, i.e., presence of del17p (Yes/No), ECOG (0-1/2), # of prior therapies (1-3/4+).|Log Rank||Cox Proportional Hazard Model (Arm A vs. Arm B) stratified by factors as recorded in IXRS, i.e., presence of del17p (Yes/No), ECOG (0-1/2), # of prior therapies (1-3/4+).|||0.59|0.19|<0.0001
91055441|NCT02970318|181992645|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.33||Log Rank Test stratified by factors as recorded in IXRS, i.e., presence of del17p (Yes/No), ECOG (0-1/2), # of prior therapies (1-3/4+).|Log Rank||Cox Proportional Hazard Model (Arm A vs. Arm B) stratified by factors as recorded in IXRS, i.e., presence of del17p (Yes/No), ECOG (0-1/2), # of prior therapies (1-3/4+).|||0.33|0.16|<0.0001
91055442|NCT02970318|181992646|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.4||Log Rank Test stratified by factors as recorded in IXRS, i.e., presence of del17p (Yes/No), ECOG (0-1/2), # of prior therapies (1-3/4+).|Log Rank||Cox Proportional Hazard Model (Arm A vs. Arm B) stratified by factors as recorded in IXRS, i.e., presence of del17p (Yes/No), ECOG (0-1/2), # of prior therapies (1-3/4+).|||0.40|0.21|<0.0001
91055443|NCT02500641|181992683|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5298|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.5298
91055444|NCT04156620|181992721|SUPERIORITY||Marginal difference|17.91|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.12|25.71|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16||25.71|10.12|<0.0001
91055445|NCT04156620|181992722|SUPERIORITY||Marginal difference|20.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.45|26.44|||Regression, Logistic|||||26.44|14.45|<0.0001
91055446|NCT04156620|181992723|SUPERIORITY||LS mean change|-1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.189|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|-0.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16||-0.64|-1.38|<0.0001
91055447|NCT04156620|181992724|SUPERIORITY||Marginal difference|22.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.36|29.95|||Regression, Logistic|||||29.95|14.36|<0.0001
91055448|NCT04156620|181992725|SUPERIORITY||LS mean change|-0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.194|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16||-0.56|-1.33|<0.0001
91055449|NCT04156620|181992726|SUPERIORITY||LS mean change|3.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.615|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|4.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16||4.22|1.80|<0.0001
91055450|NCT04156620|181992727|SUPERIORITY||LS mean change|-1.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.373|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|-1.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16||-1.04|-2.51|<0.0001
91055451|NCT04156620|181992728|SUPERIORITY||Relative LS mean change|0.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16||0.51|0.37|<0.0001
91016406|NCT04035694|181915750|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.81|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.81
91055452|NCT04156620|181992729|SUPERIORITY||Marginal difference|23.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.61|31.66|||Regression, Logistic|||||31.66|15.61|<0.0001
91055453|NCT04156620|181992730|SUPERIORITY||Marginal difference|12.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.96|17.19|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16||17.19|7.96|<0.0001
91055454|NCT04156620|181992731|SUPERIORITY||Marginal difference|10.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.64|15.47|||Regression, Logistic|||||15.47|5.64|<0.0001
91055455|NCT04156620|181992732|SUPERIORITY||LS mean change|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.292||0.0234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|-0.09|||Regression, Logistic|||||-0.09|-1.24|0.0234
91055456|NCT01150890|181992749|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1941|||||||Overall Trend test|||The primary null hypothesis was tested sequentially using a linear trend test at the significance level of 0.05 (two-sided) using logistic regression modeling.||||0.1941
91055457|NCT01150890|181992749|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rate|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.09|||Chi-squared|||||0.09|-0.09|1.0000
91055458|NCT01150890|181992749|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rate|0.1203||||0.0966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.26|||Chi-squared|||||0.26|-0.02|0.0966
91055459|NCT01150890|181992749|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rate|0.0597||||0.3208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.17|||Chi-squared|||||0.17|-0.06|0.3208
91055460|NCT01150890|181992750|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rate|0.0363||||0.6831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.21|||Chi-squared|||||0.21|-0.14|0.6831
91055461|NCT01150890|181992750|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rate|0.1477||||0.1396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.34|||Chi-squared|||||0.34|-0.04|0.1396
91055462|NCT01150890|181992750|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rate|0.0265||||0.7588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.19|||Chi-squared|||||0.19|-0.14|0.7588
91055463|NCT01150890|181992751|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4161|||||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model adjusted for baseline CDAI score.||||||0.4161
91055464|NCT01150890|181992751|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8094|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline CDAI score.||||||0.8094
91055465|NCT01150890|181992751|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.304|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline CDAI score.||||||0.3040
91055466|NCT01672970|181992772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Statistical analysis at Month 3||||0.000
91055467|NCT01672970|181992772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Statistical Analysis at Month 6||||0.000
91055468|NCT01672970|181992773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Statistical Analysis at Month 3||||0.001
91055469|NCT01672970|181992773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Statistical Analysis at Month 6||||0.005
91055470|NCT01672970|181992774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Statistical Analysis at Month 3||||0.000
91055471|NCT01672970|181992774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Statistical Analysis at Month 6||||0.000
91055472|NCT01672970|181992775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Statistical Analysis at Month 3||||0.000
91055473|NCT01672970|181992775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.001
91055474|NCT01672970|181992778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||Statistical Analysis at Month 3||||0.000
91055475|NCT01672970|181992778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||Statistical Analysis at Month 6||||0.000
91055476|NCT01672970|181992779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||Statistical Analysis at Month 3||||0.000
91055477|NCT01672970|181992779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||Statistical Analysis at Month 6||||0.000
91055478|NCT01672970|181992784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||Statistical Analysis at Month 3||||0.000
91055479|NCT01672970|181992784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||Statistical Analysis at Month 6||||0.000
91055480|NCT01672970|181992785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||Statistical Analysis at Month 3||||0.000
91055481|NCT01672970|181992785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||Statistical Analysis at Month 6||||0.000
91016407|NCT04035694|181915751|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.14|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.14
91016408|NCT04035694|181915752|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.82|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.82
91016409|NCT04035694|181915753|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Median Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.97|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.97
91016410|NCT04035694|181915754|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.89|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.89
91016411|NCT04035694|181915755|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.69
91016412|NCT04035694|181915756|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.63|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.63
91016413|NCT04035694|181915757|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.79|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.79
91016414|NCT04035694|181915758|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.93|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.93
91016415|NCT04035694|181915759|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|2.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.18||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||.20
91016416|NCT04035694|181915760|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.52||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.11
91055482|NCT01672970|181992786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||Statistical Analysis at Month 3||||0.000
91055483|NCT01672970|181992786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||Statistical Analysis at Month 6||||0.000
90815280|NCT05063539|181509417|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.567|-0.456|||NCS2|A NCS model with 2 degrees of freedom (NCS2) was used.||||-0.456|-4.567|0.017
91055484|NCT01672970|181992787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Statistical Analysis at Month 3||||0.000
91055485|NCT01672970|181992787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Statistical Analysis at Month 6||||0.000
91055486|NCT01672970|181992788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Statistical Analysis at Month 3||||0.000
91055487|NCT01672970|181992788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Statistical Analysis at Month 6||||0.000
91055488|NCT01672970|181992789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Statistical Analysis at Month 3||||0.000
91055489|NCT01672970|181992789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Statistical Analysis at Month 6||||0.000
91055490|NCT03118570|181992790|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.644||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with change from baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.644
91055491|NCT03118570|181992790|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.485||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with change from baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.485
91055492|NCT03118570|181992790|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.404||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with change from baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.404
91055493|NCT03118570|181992791|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.006||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.006
91055494|NCT03118570|181992791|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.19||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.190
91055495|NCT03118570|181992791|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.704||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.704
91055496|NCT03118570|181992792|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.011||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.011
91055497|NCT03118570|181992792|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.047||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.047
91055498|NCT03118570|181992792|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.756||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.756
91055499|NCT03118570|181992793|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.329||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with change from baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 6||||0.329
91055500|NCT03118570|181992793|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.953||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with change from baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 6||||0.953
91055501|NCT03118570|181992793|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.795||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with change from baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 6||||0.795
91055502|NCT03118570|181992793|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.644||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with change from baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 12||||0.644
91055503|NCT03118570|181992793|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.485||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with change from baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 12||||0.485
91055504|NCT03118570|181992793|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.404||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with change from baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 12||||0.404
91055505|NCT03118570|181992793|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.827||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with change from baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 18||||0.827
91055506|NCT03118570|181992793|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.459||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with change from baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 18||||0.459
91055507|NCT03118570|181992793|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.022||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with change from baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 18||||0.022
90815281|NCT05063539|181509418|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.949|1.387|||NCS2|A NCS model with 2 degrees of freedom (NCS2) was used.||||1.387|-2.949|0.479
91016417|NCT04035694|181915761|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|-6.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.38||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.01
91016418|NCT04035694|181915762|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.45||0.64|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.64
91016419|NCT04035694|181915763|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|-6.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.53||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.03
91016420|NCT04035694|181915764|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.68||0.65|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.65
91016421|NCT04035694|181915765|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||<.01
91016422|NCT04035694|181915766|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.20
91016423|NCT04035694|181915767|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|2.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.22||0.28|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.28
91016424|NCT04035694|181915768|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Median Difference (Net)|1.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.77||0.58|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.58
91016425|NCT04035694|181915769|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.49
91055508|NCT03118570|181992793|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.821||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with change from baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 24||||0.821
91055509|NCT03118570|181992793|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.911||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with change from baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 24||||0.911
90815282|NCT05063539|181509418|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.13|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.239|-1.788|||NCS2|A NCS model with 2 degrees of freedom (NCS2) was used.||||-1.788|-6.239|<0.001
91055510|NCT03118570|181992793|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.152||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with change from baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 24||||0.152
91055511|NCT03118570|181992793|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.668||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with change from baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 6||||0.668
91055512|NCT03118570|181992793|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.109||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with change from baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 6||||0.109
90815283|NCT05063539|181509419|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.445|1.642|||NCS2|A NCS model with 2 degrees of freedom (NCS2) was used.||||1.642|-0.445|0.259
90815284|NCT05063539|181509419|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.629|0.541|||NCS2|A NCS model with 2 degrees of freedom (NCS2) was used.||||0.541|-1.629|0.324
90815285|NCT05063539|181509420|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.946|1.313|||NCS2|A NCS model with 2 degrees of freedom (NCS2) was used.||||1.313|-0.946|0.749
90815286|NCT05063539|181509420|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.462|-0.134|||NCS2|A NCS model with 2 degrees of freedom (NCS2) was used.||||-0.134|-2.462|0.029
90815287|NCT05063539|181509421|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Frontal||0.03|-0.01|0.346
90815288|NCT05063539|181509421|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Frontal||0.01|-0.04|0.412
90815289|NCT05063539|181509421|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Parietal||0.02|-0.04|0.421
91016426|NCT04035694|181915770|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.55|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||.55
91055513|NCT03118570|181992793|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.358||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with change from baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 6||||0.358
90815290|NCT05063539|181509421|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Parietal||0.00|-0.05|0.080
90815291|NCT05063539|181509421|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021||0.192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Lateral occipital||0.01|-0.07|0.192
90815292|NCT05063539|181509421|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022||0.279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Lateral occipital||0.02|-0.07|0.279
91055514|NCT03118570|181992793|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.742||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 12||||0.742
90815293|NCT05063539|181509421|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016||0.693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Lateral temporal||0.02|-0.04|0.693
90815294|NCT05063539|181509421|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Lateral temporal||-0.00|-0.07|0.040
90815295|NCT05063539|181509421|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015||0.838|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.03|||ANCOVA|||AD neocortical signature (measured using MUBADA)||0.03|-0.03|0.838
90815296|NCT05063539|181509421|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.0|||ANCOVA|||AD neocortical signature (measured using MUBADA)||0.00|-0.06|0.055
90815297|NCT05063539|181509422|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.04|||ANCOVA|||Frontal||0.04|-0.02|0.455
90815298|NCT05063539|181509422|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014||0.745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Frontal||0.02|-0.03|0.745
90815299|NCT05063539|181509422|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015||0.676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.04|||ANCOVA|||Parietal||0.04|-0.02|0.676
90815300|NCT05063539|181509422|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015||0.794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Parietal||0.03|-0.03|0.794
90815301|NCT05063539|181509422|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021||0.643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Lateral occipital||0.03|-0.05|0.643
90815302|NCT05063539|181509422|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.04|||ANCOVA|||Lateral occipital||0.04|-0.05|0.880
90815303|NCT05063539|181509422|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017||0.844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Lateral temporal||0.03|-0.04|0.844
90815304|NCT05063539|181509422|SUPERIORITY|Lateral temporal|LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017||0.388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.02|||ANCOVA|||||0.02|-0.05|0.388
90815305|NCT05063539|181509422|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016||0.815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.04|||ANCOVA|||AD neocortical signature (measured using MUBADA)||0.04|-0.03|0.815
90815306|NCT05063539|181509422|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017||0.562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.02|||ANCOVA|||AD neocortical signature (measured using MUBADA)||0.02|-0.04|0.562
90815307|NCT05063539|181509423|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral Hippocampus||0.14|0.04|<0.001
90815308|NCT05063539|181509423|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral Hippocampus||0.18|0.08|<0.001
90815309|NCT05063539|181509423|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.587|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.53|-1.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral Whole Lateral Ventricles||-1.21|-3.53|<0.001
90815310|NCT05063539|181509423|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.611||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.84|-0.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral Whole Lateral Ventricles||-0.43|-2.84|0.008
90815311|NCT05063539|181509423|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|8.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.715|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.79|11.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral Whole Brain||11.56|4.79|<0.001
90815312|NCT05063539|181509423|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|9.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.804|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.81|12.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral Whole Brain||12.92|5.81|<0.001
90815313|NCT05063539|181509424|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral Hippocampus||0.13|0.04|<0.001
91016427|NCT04035694|181915771|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.54|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.54
91016428|NCT04035694|181915772|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.95|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.95
91016429|NCT04035694|181915773|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Median Difference (Net)|-4.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.15||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.05
91055515|NCT03118570|181992793|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.567||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 12||||0.567
91055516|NCT03118570|181992793|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.43||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 12||||0.430
90815314|NCT05063539|181509424|SUPERIORITY|Bilateral Hippocampus|LS Mean Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.17|0.08|<0.001
90815315|NCT05063539|181509424|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.33|-1.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral Whole Lateral Ventricles||-1.08|-3.33|<0.001
91055517|NCT03118570|181992793|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.634||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with change from baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 18||||0.634
90815316|NCT05063539|181509424|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.582||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.57|-0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral Whole Lateral Ventricles||-0.28|-2.57|0.015
90815317|NCT05063539|181509424|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|7.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.635|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.95|10.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral Whole Brain||10.40|3.95|<0.001
90815318|NCT05063539|181509424|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|8.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.68|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.85|11.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral Whole Brain||11.47|4.85|<0.001
90815319|NCT00167388|181509433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.571|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in mean mesenteric blood flow velocity from pre- to post- feed in the anemic state for babies \<1250 gm||||0.571
90815320|NCT00167388|181509433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.345|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||change in peak systolic blood flow velocity from pre-to post feed for babies \<1250 gm while anemic||||0.345
90815321|NCT00167388|181509433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in superior mesenteric artery blood flow velocity from pre- to post- feed in the anemic state for babies \>1250 gm||||0.006
90815322|NCT00167388|181509433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||change in peak systolic blood flow velocity from pre-to post feed for babies \>1250 gm while anemic||||0.035
90815323|NCT00167388|181509433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.91|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in mean mesenteric blood flow velocity from pre-to post-feed for babies \<1250 gm after the PRBC transfusion||||0.910
90815324|NCT00167388|181509433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in Peak systolic mesenteric blood flow velocity from pre-to post-feed for babies \<1250 gm after the PRBC transfusion||||0.850
90815325|NCT00167388|181509433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.507|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in mean mesenteric blood flow velocity from pre-to post-feed for babies \>1250 gm after the PRBC transfusion||||0.507
90815326|NCT00167388|181509433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.286|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in peak systolic mesenteric blood flow velocity from pre-to post-feed for babies \>1250 gm after the PRBC transfusion||||0.286
90815327|NCT05501795|181509445|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||< 0.001
90815328|NCT04692077|181509448|OTHER||Exact CI for Proportions|88.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.8|99.7|||||||Exact 95% Confidence Interval for Proportion for Participants who Reported Grade 2 and Above AEs|99.7|51.8|
90815329|NCT04692077|181509449|OTHER||Exact CI for Proportions|11.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|48.3|||||||Exact 95% Confidence Interval for Proportion for Participants who Discontinued Early due to Intolerability of Injection or Burden of Study Procedures|48.3|0.3|
90815330|NCT04692077|181509450|OTHER||Exact CI for Proportions|66.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.3|95.7|||||||Exact 95% confidence interval for proportion for Participants who received at least one injection and preferred injectable PrEP at end of step 2.|95.7|22.3|
90815331|NCT04692077|181509454|OTHER||Exact CI for Proportions|88.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.8|99.7|||||||The Exact 95% Confidence Interval for Proportion for Number of Participants with Grade 2 or above AEs during Injection Phase.|99.7|51.8|
91016430|NCT04035694|181915774|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.84||0.75|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.75
90815332|NCT04692077|181509455|OTHER||Exact CI for Proportions|88.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.8|99.7|||||||Exact 95% Confidence Interval for Proportion for Participants who Completed All Scheduled Injections among those who received at least one Injection|99.7|51.8|
90815333|NCT04271475|181509507|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean|-16.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.2||0.974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.34|0.16|||MMRM||Least square mean and SE of the mean was estimated by mixed model repeated measurements method.|||0.16|-32.34|0.974
90815334|NCT02888743|181509545|SUPERIORITY||Difference between proportions|0.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.6|14.6|||Chi-squared||Arm A compared with Arm C; normal approximation for confidence interval|||14.6|-14.6|0.99
90815335|NCT02888743|181509545|SUPERIORITY||Difference between proportions|-3.8||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.3|9.6|||Chi-squared||Arm B compared with Arm C; normal approximation used for confidence interval.|||9.6|-17.3|0.64
90815336|NCT02888743|181509546|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6|1.58|||Regression, Cox|||||1.58|0.60|0.92
90815337|NCT02888743|181509546|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|1.38|||Regression, Cox|||||1.38|0.50|0.55
90815338|NCT02888743|181509547|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.3|1.22|||Regression, Cox|||||1.22|0.30|0.24
90815339|NCT02888743|181509547|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.36|1.45|||Regression, Cox|||||1.45|0.36|0.44
90815340|NCT02888743|181509551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68||||||Unadjusted p-value.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.68
90815341|NCT04908280|181509555|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0308|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0308
91055518|NCT03118570|181992793|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.146||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with change from baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 18||||0.146
90815342|NCT01804582|181509563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.15|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||An intent to treat analysis was conducted using a linear mixed model to determine if there was any significant difference in change from baseline to 3 months based on time and condition. Data for all participants was included at baseline and 3 months.||||.15
90815343|NCT01804582|181509564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.53|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Cohen's d was calculated to measure the estimation parameter.|||||.53
90815344|NCT01804582|181509565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.80
90815345|NCT01804582|181509566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.33|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.33
90815346|NCT01804582|181509567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.21|||||||Wald Chi-Squared|||||||.21
90815347|NCT01804582|181509568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Phi|0.19||||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Chi Squared (1, N = 229) = 7.99.||The total n=229 included those on medication at 90 days (119 never filled the prescription or changed to a different med)||||.005
90815348|NCT01299571|181509585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|3.8||||||95.0|3.2|4.4|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with adverse events.|||4.4|3.2|
90815349|NCT01189292|181509599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|28.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|42.0|||Chi-squared|||null hypothesis: Incidence of PONV is the same in both treatment arms||42|12|0.001
90815350|NCT01189292|181509600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|24.0||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|40.0|||Chi-squared|||per protocol analysis||40|7|0.006
90815351|NCT01189292|181509603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.674|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model over the mean ranks at all time points measured (4, 8, 16, 24, 32, 48 hours)||||||0.674
90815352|NCT01189292|181509604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.835|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.835
90815353|NCT01739803|181509607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||To control for experiment-wise Type I error rate in this analysis, a comparison-wise alpha of 0.01 was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We projected mean composite adherence rate for all participants to be approximately 80% ± 15. We anticipated at least 10% increase in intervention group adherence at end of intervention. To have 80% power to detect expected difference of 10% at the 2-tailed 5% significance level, sample size needed to be at least 36 RTRs per group. We took a conservative approach, in combination with anticipated attrition over the course of study, and increased enrollment.||||<0.05
90815354|NCT01739803|181509608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.05
90815355|NCT01739803|181509609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.05||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.05
90815356|NCT05714943|181509642|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.99
90815357|NCT05714943|181509643|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.00
90815358|NCT05714943|181509644|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.09
90815359|NCT05714943|181509645|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.57
90815360|NCT05714943|181509646|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.32
90815361|NCT05714943|181509647|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.00
90815362|NCT05714943|181509648|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.97
90815363|NCT05714943|181509649|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.21
90815364|NCT05714943|181509650|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.27
90815365|NCT05714943|181509651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.00
90815366|NCT05714943|181509652|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.86
90815367|NCT05714943|181509653|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.61
90815368|NCT05714943|181509654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.02
90815369|NCT05714943|181509655|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.08
90815370|NCT05714943|181509656|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.08
90815371|NCT05714943|181509657|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.06
90815372|NCT05714943|181509658|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.00
90815373|NCT05714943|181509659|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.88
90815374|NCT05714943|181509660|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.94
90815375|NCT01058941|181509664|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.42||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.97|3.13||We used a significance level of p = 0.025 for our measure of ADL changes based on a simple Bonferroni adjustment since we have two primary outcomes.|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline outcome, time from baseline, age, education category, BMI, cholinesterase inhibitors, memantine, vitamin E, and Apo-E.||The target enrollment was 60 subjects, allowing for up to a 20% drop-out. It was calculated that with 48 subjects (24 per group) we would have 80% power to see differences in ADL scores over 18 months between the treatment and placebo groups with a significance level of 0.025 based on a simple Bonferroni adjustment, since we had two primary outcomes.||3.13|-3.97|0.82
90815376|NCT01058941|181509665|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.68||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|-1.46||We used a significance level of p = 0.025 for our measure of ADAS-cog changes based on a simple Bonferroni adjustment since we have two primary outcomes.|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline outcome, time from baseline, age, education category, BMI, cholinesterase inhibitors, memantine, vitamin E, and Apo-E.||The target enrollment was 60 subjects, allowing for up to a 20% drop-out. It was calculated that with 48 subjects (24 per group) we would have 80% power to see differences in ADL scores over 18 months between the treatment and placebo groups with a significance level of 0.025 based on a simple Bonferroni adjustment, since we had two primary outcomes.||-1.46|-5.90|0.001
90815377|NCT00897390|181509666|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals were calculated for the Arm B to Arm A and Arm D to Arm C ratios of geometric means for Cmax, AUC(INF) and AUC(0-T) of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. Potency-corrected results were also provided. Bioequivalence will be concluded if the 90% confidence intervals for the test-to-reference ratios of geometric means are entirely contained within 80% to 125% for both Cmax and AUC(INF). No adjustments were made for multiplicity.|adjusted geometric mean|1.042|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.009|1.075||||||To demonstrate the bioequivalence of formulation (FDC tablet versus co-administration of separate saxagliptin tablet and metformin IR tablet) in the fasted and fed state, linear mixed model analyses were performed on log(Cmax), log\[AUC(INF)\] and log\[AUC(0-T)\] of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. The factors in the model were sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect.||1.075|1.009|
90815378|NCT00897390|181509666|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals were calculated for the Arm B to Arm A and Arm D to Arm C ratios of geometric means for Cmax, AUC(INF) and AUC(0-T) of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. Potency-corrected results were also provided. Bioequivalence will be concluded if the 90% confidence intervals for the test-to-reference ratios of geometric means are entirely contained within 80% to 125% for both Cmax and AUC(INF). No adjustments were made for multiplicity.|adjusted geometric mean|0.988|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.958|1.019||||||To demonstrate the bioequivalence of formulation (FDC tablet versus co-administration of separate saxagliptin tablet and metformin IR tablet) in the fasted and fed state, linear mixed model analyses were performed on log(Cmax), log\[AUC(INF)\] and log\[AUC(0-T)\] of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. The factors in the model were sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect.||1.019|0.958|
90815379|NCT00897390|181509668|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals were calculated for the Arm B to Arm A and Arm D to Arm C ratios of geometric means for Cmax, AUC(INF) and AUC(0-T) of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. Potency-corrected results were also provided. Bioequivalence will be concluded if the 90% confidence intervals for the test-to-reference ratios of geometric means are entirely contained within 80% to 125% for both Cmax and AUC(INF). No adjustments were made for multiplicity.|adjusted geometric mean|1.045|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.013|1.077||||||To demonstrate the bioequivalence of formulation (FDC tablet versus co-administration of separate saxagliptin tablet and metformin IR tablet) in the fasted and fed state, linear mixed model analyses were performed on log(Cmax), log\[AUC(INF)\] and log\[AUC(0-T)\] of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. The factors in the model were sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect.||1.077|1.013|
90890416|NCT02415400|181645485|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.82|||2-sided p-value for superiority test|||Separate hierarchical testing was performed for apixaban vs VKA: 2) Superiority for the primary endpoint||0.82|0.58|<0.0001
90890417|NCT02415400|181645486|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.88|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|2.23|||2-sided p-value for superiority test|||Separate hierarchical testing was performed for aspirin vs placebo: 2) Superiority for the primary endpoint.||2.23|1.58|<0.0001
90890418|NCT02415400|181645487|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||2-sided p-value for superiority test|||Separate hierarchical testing was performed for apixaban vs VKA: 2) Superiority for the primary endpoint.||||<0.0001
91055519|NCT03118570|181992793|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.521||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with change from baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 18||||0.521
90815380|NCT00897390|181509668|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals were calculated for the Arm B to Arm A and Arm D to Arm C ratios of geometric means for Cmax, AUC(INF) and AUC(0-T) of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. Potency-corrected results were also provided. Bioequivalence will be concluded if the 90% confidence intervals for the test-to-reference ratios of geometric means are entirely contained within 80% to 125% for both Cmax and AUC(INF). No adjustments were made for multiplicity.|adjusted geometric mean|0.992|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.962|1.022||||||To demonstrate the bioequivalence of formulation (FDC tablet versus co-administration of separate saxagliptin tablet and metformin IR tablet) in the fasted and fed state, linear mixed model analyses were performed on log(Cmax), log\[AUC(INF)\] and log\[AUC(0-T)\] of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. The factors in the model were sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect.||1.022|0.962|
90815381|NCT00897390|181509669|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals were calculated for the Arm B to Arm A and Arm D to Arm C ratios of geometric means for Cmax, AUC(INF) and AUC(0-T) of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. Potency-corrected results were also provided. Bioequivalence will be concluded if the 90% confidence intervals for the test-to-reference ratios of geometric means are entirely contained within 80% to 125% for both Cmax and AUC(INF). No adjustments were made for multiplicity.|adjusted geometric mean|1.077|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.978|1.185||||||To demonstrate the bioequivalence of formulation (FDC tablet versus co-administration of separate saxagliptin tablet and metformin IR tablet) in the fasted and fed state, linear mixed model analyses were performed on log(Cmax), log\[AUC(INF)\] and log\[AUC(0-T)\] of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. The factors in the model were sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect.||1.185|0.978|
90815382|NCT00897390|181509669|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals were calculated for the Arm B to Arm A and Arm D to Arm C ratios of geometric means for Cmax, AUC(INF) and AUC(0-T) of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. Potency-corrected results were also provided. Bioequivalence will be concluded if the 90% confidence intervals for the test-to-reference ratios of geometric means are entirely contained within 80% to 125% for both Cmax and AUC(INF). No adjustments were made for multiplicity.|adjusted geometric mean|0.987|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.083||||||To demonstrate the bioequivalence of formulation (FDC tablet versus co-administration of separate saxagliptin tablet and metformin IR tablet) in the fasted and fed state, linear mixed model analyses were performed on log(Cmax), log\[AUC(INF)\] and log\[AUC(0-T)\] of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. The factors in the model were sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect.||1.083|0.900|
90815383|NCT00897390|181509672|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals were calculated for the Arm B to Arm A and Arm D to Arm C ratios of geometric means for Cmax, AUC(INF) and AUC(0-T) of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. Potency-corrected results were also provided. Bioequivalence will be concluded if the 90% confidence intervals for the test-to-reference ratios of geometric means are entirely contained within 80% to 125% for both Cmax and AUC(INF). No adjustments were made for multiplicity.|adjusted geometric mean|0.974|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.921|1.03||||||To demonstrate the bioequivalence of formulation (FDC tablet versus co-administration of separate saxagliptin tablet and metformin IR tablet) in the fasted and fed state, linear mixed model analyses were performed on log(Cmax), log\[AUC(INF)\] and log\[AUC(0-T)\] of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. The factors in the model were sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect.||1.030|0.921|
90815384|NCT00897390|181509672|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals were calculated for the Arm B to Arm A and Arm D to Arm C ratios of geometric means for Cmax, AUC(INF) and AUC(0-T) of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. Potency-corrected results were also provided. Bioequivalence will be concluded if the 90% confidence intervals for the test-to-reference ratios of geometric means are entirely contained within 80% to 125% for both Cmax and AUC(INF). No adjustments were made for multiplicity.|adjusted geometric mean|0.966||||||90.0|0.915|1.02||||||To demonstrate the bioequivalence of formulation (FDC tablet versus co-administration of separate saxagliptin tablet and metformin IR tablet) in the fasted and fed state, linear mixed model analyses were performed on log(Cmax), log\[AUC(INF)\] and log\[AUC(0-T)\] of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. The factors in the model were sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect.||1.020|0.915|
90815385|NCT00897390|181509673|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals were calculated for the Arm B to Arm A and Arm D to Arm C ratios of geometric means for Cmax, AUC(INF) and AUC(0-T) of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. Potency-corrected results were also provided. Bioequivalence will be concluded if the 90% confidence intervals for the test-to-reference ratios of geometric means are entirely contained within 80% to 125% for both Cmax and AUC(INF). No adjustments were made for multiplicity.|adjusted geometric mean|0.962||||||90.0|0.906|1.02||||||To demonstrate the bioequivalence of formulation (FDC tablet versus co-administration of separate saxagliptin tablet and metformin IR tablet) in the fasted and fed state, linear mixed model analyses were performed on log(Cmax), log\[AUC(INF)\] and log\[AUC(0-T)\] of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. The factors in the model were sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect.||1.020|0.906|
90815386|NCT00897390|181509673|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals were calculated for the Arm B to Arm A and Arm D to Arm C ratios of geometric means for Cmax, AUC(INF) and AUC(0-T) of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. Potency-corrected results were also provided. Bioequivalence will be concluded if the 90% confidence intervals for the test-to-reference ratios of geometric means are entirely contained within 80% to 125% for both Cmax and AUC(INF). No adjustments were made for multiplicity.|adjusted geometric mean|0.974||||||90.0|0.92|1.032||||||To demonstrate the bioequivalence of formulation (FDC tablet versus co-administration of separate saxagliptin tablet and metformin IR tablet) in the fasted and fed state, linear mixed model analyses were performed on log(Cmax), log\[AUC(INF)\] and log\[AUC(0-T)\] of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. The factors in the model were sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect.||1.032|0.920|
91055520|NCT03118570|181992793|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.991||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with change from baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 24||||0.991
90815387|NCT00897390|181509674|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals were calculated for the Arm B to Arm A and Arm D to Arm C ratios of geometric means for Cmax, AUC(INF) and AUC(0-T) of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. Potency-corrected results were also provided. Bioequivalence will be concluded if the 90% confidence intervals for the test-to-reference ratios of geometric means are entirely contained within 80% to 125% for both Cmax and AUC(INF). No adjustments were made for multiplicity.|adjusted geometric mean|0.937|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.864|1.016||||||To demonstrate the bioequivalence of formulation (FDC tablet versus co-administration of separate saxagliptin tablet and metformin IR tablet) in the fasted and fed state, linear mixed model analyses were performed on log(Cmax), log\[AUC(INF)\] and log\[AUC(0-T)\] of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. The factors in the model were sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect.||1.016|0.864|
90815388|NCT00897390|181509674|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals were calculated for the Arm B to Arm A and Arm D to Arm C ratios of geometric means for Cmax, AUC(INF) and AUC(0-T) of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. Potency-corrected results were also provided. Bioequivalence will be concluded if the 90% confidence intervals for the test-to-reference ratios of geometric means are entirely contained within 80% to 125% for both Cmax and AUC(INF). No adjustments were made for multiplicity.|adjusted geometric mean|0.964|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.891|1.042||||||To demonstrate the bioequivalence of formulation (FDC tablet versus co-administration of separate saxagliptin tablet and metformin IR tablet) in the fasted and fed state, linear mixed model analyses were performed on log(Cmax), log\[AUC(INF)\] and log\[AUC(0-T)\] of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. The factors in the model were sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect.||1.042|0.891|
90815389|NCT03159104|181509686|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|5.0||||0.0113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|9.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Hodges-Lehmann estimator was used for the difference between median change of total scholastic skill score in each comparison group.|The difference between final and initial total scholastic skill score was calculated for each participant. Wilcoxon test was used for comparison of these differences because data distribution differs from normal.||9|1|0.0113
90815390|NCT03159104|181509687|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.0608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|5.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Hodges-Lehmann estimator was used for the difference between median change of total scholastic skill score in each comparison group.|||5|0|0.0608
90815391|NCT03159104|181509688|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.0824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Hodges-Lehmann estimator was used for the difference between median change of total scholastic skill score in each comparison group.|||0|0|0.0824
90815392|NCT03159104|181509689|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.2391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Hodges-Lehmann estimator was used for the difference between median change of total scholastic skill score in each comparison group.|||1|0|0.2391
90815393|NCT03159104|181509690|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0033|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0033
90815394|NCT03159104|181509691|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0012|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0012
90815395|NCT01742065|181509692|SUPERIORITY|To assess effectiveness, we fit generalized estimating equations (GEE) with a logistic link to model patient-level data. We weighted patient data so that each clinic's data had an equal weight. Models were adjusted for age, sex, and health center. They used robust variance estimators and independent correlation structures. We specified clinic as a clustering variable to account for intraclinic correlation; the intraclinic correlation coefficient was 0.05 after model covariates adjustment.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.4||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|6.8||We report effectiveness as the absolute difference between intervention and usual care clinics in adjusted probabilities calculated using mean values for all covariates;|Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE)|Reported P values based on the corresponding adjusted odds ratio and account for reduced degrees of freedom owing to clustering.||||6.8|.1|.05
91016431|NCT04035694|181915775|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.14|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.14
91055521|NCT03118570|181992793|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.069||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with change from baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 24||||0.069
90815396|NCT01742065|181509693|OTHER|To assess effectiveness, we fit generalized estimating equations (GEE) with a logistic link to model patient-level data. We weighted patient data so that each clinic's data had an equal weight. Models were adjusted for age, sex, and health center. They used robust variance estimators and independent correlation structures. We specified clinic as a clustering variable to account for intraclinic correlation; the intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.05 after covariable adjustment.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.8||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|7.0||We report effectiveness as the absolute difference between intervention and usual care clinics in adjusted probabilities calculated using mean values for all covariates;|Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE)|Reported P values based on the corresponding adjusted odds ratio and account for reduced degrees of freedom owing to clustering.||||7|.6|.02
90815397|NCT01280695|181509699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-10.0||||0.4195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.0|14.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||14.0|-34.0|0.4195
90815398|NCT01280695|181509699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-18.0||||0.0811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.0|4.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||4.0|-38.0|0.0811
90815399|NCT01280695|181509699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-20.0||||0.0639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.0|-38.0|0.0639
90815400|NCT01280695|181509699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-32.0||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.0|-12.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||-12.0|-50.0|0.0022
91055522|NCT03118570|181992793|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.625||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with change from baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 24||||0.625
90815401|NCT01216683|181509705|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||one-sided p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The study was designed to detect a 16% difference in CR rate from 50% in the Bendamustine + Rituximab arms to 66% in the Bendamustine + Rituximab + Bortezomib arm, with 90% power at the one-sided alpha 0.15 level.||||0.02
91055523|NCT03118570|181992794|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.615||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with change from baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 6||||0.615
91055524|NCT03118570|181992794|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.376||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with change from baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 12||||0.376
91055525|NCT03118570|181992794|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.259||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with change from baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 6||||0.259
90815402|NCT01216683|181509706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified on Groupe d'Etude des Lymphomes Folliculaires status and Follicular Lymphoma International Prognostic Index||||||0.02
90815403|NCT05011513|181509730|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6027|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.6027
90815404|NCT05011513|181509732|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1796||||||P-value reported for COVID-19 hospitalization and death due to any cause.|Normal approximation|||||||0.1796
90815405|NCT05011513|181509734|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0971|||||||Negative binomial|||||||0.0971
90815406|NCT05011513|181509736|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.819||||0.1622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.618|1.084|||Regression, Logistic|||Main effects of treatment, geographic region, baseline SARS-CoV-2 serology status and baseline viral load (\< 4 log10 copies/mL, \>= 4 log10 copies/mL).||1.084|0.618|0.1622
91055526|NCT03118570|181992794|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.253||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with change from baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 12||||0.253
90815407|NCT05011513|181509737|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4298|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.4298
90815408|NCT05011513|181509740|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.802||||0.1086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.613|1.05|||Regression, Logistic|||Main effects of treatment, geographic region, symptom onset duration (\<=3, \>3), baseline SARS-CoV-2 serology status (positive/negative), vaccination status (complete/not vaccinated) and baseline viral load (\<4 log10 copies/mL, \>=4 log10 copies/mL).||1.050|0.613|0.1086
90815409|NCT05011513|181509741|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|50.333||||0.3262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.163|192.472|||Breslow-Day Test|||||192.472|13.163|0.3262
90815410|NCT05011513|181509741|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|22.224|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.36|59.08||||||Odds ratio for Day 5 vs Day 1||59.080|8.360|
90815411|NCT04327024|181509775|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|1.08|||ANCOVA|Model included change from baseline as the dependent variable, treatment as the independent variable and baseline peak VO2 as covariate.||||1.08|-1.28|0.862
90815412|NCT04327024|181509776|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44||||0.472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|1.64|||ANCOVA|Model included change from baseline as the dependent variable, treatment as the independent variable and baseline peak VO2 as covariate.||||1.64|-0.76|0.472
90815413|NCT04327024|181509777|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.15||||0.287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.65|8.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model included treatment as the independent variable and visit, visit by treatment, and baseline KCCQ-TSS as covariates.||"H0: Difference in mean change from baseline in KCCQ-TSS (verinurad + allopurinol vs placebo) = 0 Ha: Difference in mean change from baseline in KCCQ-TSS (verinurad + allopurinol vs placebo) ≠ 0~A hierarchical test sequence was used for the confirmatory analysis of the primary and secondary objectives in order to address the issue of multiple testing and control the Type I error rate at an overall two-sided 0.05 level."||8.94|-2.65|0.287
90815414|NCT04327024|181509778|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|5.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model included treatment as the independent variable and visit, visit by treatment, and baseline KCCQ-TSS as covariates.||"H0: Difference in mean change from baseline in KCCQ-TSS (verinurad + allopurinol vs allopurinol) = 0 Ha: Difference in mean change from baseline in KCCQ-TSS (verinurad + allopurinol vs allopurinol) ≠ 0~A hierarchical test sequence was used for the confirmatory analysis of the primary and secondary objectives in order to address the issue of multiple testing and control the Type I error rate at an overall two-sided 0.05 level."||5.61|-5.90|0.960
90815415|NCT01597635|181509808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.17||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.083|0.359|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||AngII, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 0.5 hours||0.359|0.083|1.000
90815416|NCT01597635|181509808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.23||||0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.111|0.492|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||AngII, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 2 hours||0.492|0.111|0.9999
90815417|NCT01597635|181509808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.26||||0.9997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.121|0.568|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||AngII, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 6 hours||0.568|0.121|0.9997
90815418|NCT01597635|181509808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.31||||0.9997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.136|0.66|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||AngII, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 12 hours||0.660|0.136|0.9997
91055527|NCT03118570|181992795|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.064||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 6||||0.064
91055528|NCT03118570|181992795|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.019||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 6||||0.019
91055529|NCT03118570|181992795|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.845||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 6||||0.845
90815419|NCT01597635|181509808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.29||||0.9991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.133|0.632|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||AngII, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 24 hours||0.632|0.133|0.9991
90815420|NCT01597635|181509808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.46||||0.9631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.213|1.081|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||AngII, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 48 hours||1.081|0.213|0.9631
90815421|NCT01597635|181509808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.33||||0.9941||95.0|0.157|0.789|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||AngII, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 48.5 hours||0.789|0.157|0.9941
90815422|NCT01597635|181509808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.38||||0.9875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.179|0.891|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||AngII, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 50 hours||0.891|0.179|0.9875
90815423|NCT01597635|181509808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.33||||0.9956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.151|0.759|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||AngII, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 54 hours||0.759|0.151|0.9956
90815424|NCT01597635|181509808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.34||||0.9964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.157|0.747|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||AngII, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 60 hours||0.747|0.157|0.9964
90815425|NCT01597635|181509808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.25||||0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.114|0.532|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||AngII, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 66 hours||0.532|0.114|0.9999
90815426|NCT01597635|181509808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.29||||0.9991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.647|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||AngII, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 72 hours||0.647|0.130|0.9991
90815427|NCT01597635|181509808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.36||||0.9852|TWO_SIDED|0.9852|0.137|0.906|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||AngII, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 96 hours||0.906|0.137|0.9852
91055530|NCT03118570|181992795|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.006||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 12||||0.006
90815428|NCT01597635|181509808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.51||||0.9719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.014|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||AngII, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 120 hours||1.014|0.230|0.9719
90815429|NCT01597635|181509808|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Active/Placebo|3.98||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.263|6.919|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang1-5 , Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 0.5 hours||6.919|2.263|1.0000
90815430|NCT01597635|181509808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|3.46||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.976|6.052|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang1-5 , Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 2 hours||6.052|1.976|1.000
90815431|NCT01597635|181509808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|3.59||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.06|6.345|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang1-5 , Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 6 hours||6.345|2.060|1.0000
90815432|NCT01597635|181509808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.82||||0.9806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.031|3.17|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang1-5 , Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 12 hours||3.170|1.031|0.9806
90815433|NCT01597635|181509808|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.5||||0.9129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.828|2.636|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang1-5 , Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 24 hours||2.636|0.828|0.9129
90815434|NCT01597635|181509808|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.92||||0.9891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.098|3.349|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang1-5 , Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 48 hours||3.349|1.098|0.9891
90815435|NCT01597635|181509808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|2.29||||0.9983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.316|3.974|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang1-5 , Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 48.5 hours||3.974|1.316|0.9983
90815436|NCT01597635|181509808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.94||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.112|3.359|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang1-5 , Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 50 hours||3.359|1.112|0.9900
90815437|NCT01597635|181509808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.27||||0.7996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.729|2.163|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang1-5 , Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 54 hours||2.163|0.729|0.7996
90815438|NCT01597635|181509808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.23||||0.7778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.718|2.087|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang1-5 , Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 60 hours||2.087|0.718|0.7778
90815439|NCT01597635|181509808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.24||||0.773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.705|2.113|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang1-5 , Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 66 hours||2.113|0.705|0.7730
90815440|NCT01597635|181509808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.45||||0.8951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.814|2.604|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang1-5 , Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 72 hours||2.604|0.814|0.8951
90815441|NCT01597635|181509808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.57||||0.9324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.276|1.183|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang1-5 , Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 96 hours||1.183|0.276|0.9324
91055531|NCT03118570|181992795|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.19||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 12||||0.190
90815442|NCT01597635|181509808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.63||||0.8982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.351|1.257|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang1-5 , Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 120 hours||1.257|0.351|0.8982
90815443|NCT01597635|181509808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|4.22||||0.9998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.91|8.905|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang1-7 , Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 0.5 hours||8.905|1.910|0.9998
90815444|NCT01597635|181509808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|3.67||||0.9993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.689|7.97|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang1-7 , Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 2 hours||7.970|1.689|0.9993
90815445|NCT01597635|181509808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|5.26||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.392|11.754|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang1-7 , Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 6 hours||11.754|2.392|1.0000
90815446|NCT01597635|181509808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|2.25||||0.9713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.972|5.136|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang1-7 , Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 12 hours||5.136|0.972|0.9713
90815447|NCT01597635|181509808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|2.19||||0.9649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|4.975|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang1-7 , Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 24 hours||4.975|0.940|0.9649
90815448|NCT01597635|181509808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.59||||0.8749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.711|3.473|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Ang1-7 , Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 48 hours||3.473|0.711|0.8749
90815449|NCT01597635|181509808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.99||||0.9566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.899|4.342|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang1-7 , Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 48.5 hours||4.342|0.899|0.9566
90815450|NCT01597635|181509808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.91||||0.9549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.862|4.173|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang1-7 , Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 50 hours||4.173|0.862|0.9549
90815451|NCT01597635|181509808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.81||||0.9275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.816|4.005|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang1-7 , Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 54 hours||4.005|0.816|0.9275
90815452|NCT01597635|181509808|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.32||||0.7483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.584|3.007|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang1-7 , Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 60 hours||3.007|0.584|0.7483
90815453|NCT01597635|181509808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.17||||0.648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.516|2.675|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang1-7 , Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 66 hours||2.675|0.516|0.6480
91016432|NCT04035694|181915776|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.03
91055532|NCT03118570|181992795|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.704||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 12||||0.704
90815454|NCT01597635|181509808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.76||||0.9038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.741|4.17|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang1-7 , Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 72 hours||4.170|0.741|0.9038
91016433|NCT04035694|181915777|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.01
90815455|NCT01597635|181509808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.38||||0.7339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|3.915|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang1-7 , Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 96 hours||3.915|0.490|0.7339
90815456|NCT01597635|181509808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.38||||0.7714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.651|3.321|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang1-7 , Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 120 hours||3.321|0.651|0.7714
90815457|NCT01597635|181509809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.07||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.032|0.14|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang II/Ang1-5, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 0.5 hours||0.140|0.032|1.0000
90815458|NCT01597635|181509809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.1||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.048|0.209|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang II/Ang1-5, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 2 hours||0.209|0.048|1.0000
90815459|NCT01597635|181509809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.11||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.054|0.243|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang II/Ang1-5, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 6 hours||0.243|0.054|1.0000
90815460|NCT01597635|181509809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.25||||0.9996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.113|0.547|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang II/Ang1-5, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 12 hours||0.547|0.113|0.9996
90815461|NCT01597635|181509809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.29||||0.9991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.634|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang II/Ang1-5, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 24 hours||0.634|0.130|0.9991
91055533|NCT03118570|181992795|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.002||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 18||||0.002
90815462|NCT01597635|181509809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.32||||0.9979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.149|0.682|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang II/Ang1-5, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 48 hours||0.682|0.149|0.9979
90815463|NCT01597635|181509809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.19||||1||95.0|0.091|0.417|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang II/Ang1-5, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 48.5 hours||0.417|0.091|1.0000
90815464|NCT01597635|181509809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.25||||0.9998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.119|0.539|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang II/Ang1-5, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 50 hours||0.539|0.119|0.9998
90815465|NCT01597635|181509809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.31||||0.9985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.141|0.666|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang II/Ang1-5, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 54 hours||0.666|0.141|0.9985
90815466|NCT01597635|181509809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.34||||0.9977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.162|0.73|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang II/Ang1-5, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 60 hours||0.730|0.162|0.9977
90815467|NCT01597635|181509809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.22||||0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.105|0.468|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang II/Ang1-5, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 66 hours||0.468|0.105|0.9999
90815468|NCT01597635|181509809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.26||||0.9996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.119|0.57|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang II/Ang1-5, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 72 hours||0.570|0.119|0.9996
90815469|NCT01597635|181509809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.82||||0.6621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.319|2.136|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang II/Ang1-5, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 96 hours||2.136|0.319|0.6621
90815470|NCT01597635|181509809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.79||||0.7085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.324|1.847|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang II/Ang1-5, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 120 hours||1.847|0.324|0.7085
90815471|NCT01597635|181509809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.06||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.028|0.14|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang II/Ang1-7, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 0.5 hours||0.140|0.028|1.0000
90815472|NCT01597635|181509809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.1||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.043|0.216|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang II/Ang1-7, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 2 hours||0.216|0.043|1.0000
90815473|NCT01597635|181509809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.08||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.034|0.177|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang II/Ang1-7, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 6 hours||0.177|0.034|1.0000
90815474|NCT01597635|181509809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.2||||0.9998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.086|0.453|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang II/Ang1-7, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 12 hours||0.453|0.086|0.9998
90815475|NCT01597635|181509809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.17||||0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.075|0.4|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang II/Ang1-7, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 24 hours||0.400|0.075|0.9999
90815476|NCT01597635|181509809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.4||||0.9863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.173|0.901|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang II/Ang1-7, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 48 hours||0.901|0.173|0.9863
90815477|NCT01597635|181509809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.24||||0.9998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.103|0.529|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang II/Ang1-7, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 48.5 hours||0.529|0.103|0.9998
91055534|NCT03118570|181992795|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.021||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 18||||0.021
90815478|NCT01597635|181509809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.28||||0.9992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.119|0.626|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang II/Ang1-7, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 50 hours||0.626|0.119|0.9992
90815479|NCT01597635|181509809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.24||||0.9995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.102|0.561|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang II/Ang1-7, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 54 hours||0.561|0.102|0.9995
90815480|NCT01597635|181509809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.31||||0.9964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.131|0.729|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang II/Ang1-7, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 60 hours||0.729|0.131|0.9964
90815481|NCT01597635|181509809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.25||||0.9995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.107|0.584|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang II/Ang1-7, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 66 hours||0.584|0.107|0.9995
90815482|NCT01597635|181509809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.24||||0.9993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.098|0.578|||Ratio of Active/Placebo|||Ang II/Ang1-7, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 72 hours||0.578|0.098|0.9993
90815483|NCT01597635|181509809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.34||||0.9781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.119|0.969|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang II/Ang1-7, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 96 hours||0.969|0.119|0.9781
90815484|NCT01597635|181509809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.38||||0.9375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.154|1.341|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang II/Ang1-7, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 120 hours||1.341|0.154|0.9375
90815485|NCT01597635|181509810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.93||||0.2598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.752|1.215|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PEEP, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 0.5 hours||1.215|0.752|0.2598
90815486|NCT01597635|181509810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.97||||0.3949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.783|1.273|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PEEP, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 1 hour||1.273|0.783|0.3949
90815487|NCT01597635|181509810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.98||||0.4175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.791|1.294|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PEEP, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 2 hours||1.294|0.791|0.4175
90815488|NCT01597635|181509810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.98||||0.442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.806|1.292|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PEEP, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 4 hours||1.292|0.806|0.4420
90815489|NCT01597635|181509810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.99||||0.4432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.811|1.262|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PEEP, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 6 hours||1.262|0.811|0.4432
90815490|NCT01597635|181509810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.99||||0.4578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.818|1.229|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PEEP, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 8 hours||1.229|0.818|0.4578
90815491|NCT01597635|181509810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.96||||0.3365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.167|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PEEP, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 12 hours||1.167|0.790|0.3365
90815492|NCT01597635|181509810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.95||||0.3339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.163|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PEEP, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 18 hours||1.163|0.770|0.3339
90815493|NCT01597635|181509810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.96||||0.3608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.786|1.166|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PEEP, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 24 hours||1.166|0.786|0.3608
90815494|NCT01597635|181509810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.96||||0.3584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.788|1.168|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PEEP, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 24.5 hours||1.168|0.788|0.3584
90815495|NCT01597635|181509810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.88||||0.1219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.725|1.073|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PEEP, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 25 hours||1.073|0.725|0.1219
90815496|NCT01597635|181509810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.99||||0.4662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.814|1.21|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PEEP, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 26 hours||1.210|0.814|0.4662
90815497|NCT01597635|181509810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.02||||0.5748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.828|1.247|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PEEP, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 28 hours||1.247|0.828|0.5748
90815498|NCT01597635|181509810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.97||||0.4104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.786|1.204|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PEEP, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 30 hours||1.204|0.786|0.4104
90815499|NCT01597635|181509810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.0||||0.5114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.817|1.246|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PEEP, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 32 hours||1.246|0.817|0.5114
90815500|NCT01597635|181509810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.98||||0.4213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.783|1.2|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PEEP, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 36 hours||1.200|0.783|0.4213
90815501|NCT01597635|181509810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.93||||0.2663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.731|1.132|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PEEP, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 42 hours||1.132|0.731|0.2663
90815502|NCT01597635|181509810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.91||||0.2373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.142|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PEEP, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 48 hours||1.142|0.720|0.2373
90815503|NCT01597635|181509810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.92||||0.2575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.721|1.149|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PEEP, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 48.5 hours||1.149|0.721|0.2575
90815504|NCT01597635|181509810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.9||||0.2173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.708|1.127|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PEEP, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 49 hours||1.127|0.708|0.2173
90815505|NCT01597635|181509810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.91||||0.2406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.717|1.143|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PEEP, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 50 hours||1.143|0.717|0.2406
90815506|NCT01597635|181509810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.92||||0.2471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.721|1.151|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PEEP, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 52 hours||1.151|0.721|0.2471
90815507|NCT01597635|181509810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.93||||0.2585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.727|1.157|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PEEP, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 54 hours||1.157|0.727|0.2585
91055535|NCT03118570|181992795|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.504||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 18||||0.504
90815508|NCT01597635|181509810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.94||||0.3101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.737|1.17|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PEEP, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 56 hours||1.170|0.737|0.3101
90815509|NCT01597635|181509810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.92||||0.2476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.727|1.16|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PEEP, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 60 hours||1.160|0.727|0.2476
90815510|NCT01597635|181509810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.96||||0.3887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.767|1.222|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PEEP, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 66 hours||1.222|0.767|0.3887
90815511|NCT01597635|181509810|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.92||||0.2294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.749|1.146|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PEEP, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 72 hours||1.146|0.749|0.2294
90815512|NCT01597635|181509810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.09||||0.8522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.916|1.234|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PEEP, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 168 hours||1.234|0.916|0.8522
90815513|NCT01597635|181509810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.02||||0.5885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.164|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Peak ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 0.5 hours||1.164|0.890|0.5885
90815514|NCT01597635|181509810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.07||||0.8558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.23|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Peak ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 1 hour||1.230|0.940|0.8558
90815515|NCT01597635|181509810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.07||||0.8374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.932|1.224|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Peak ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 2 hour||1.224|0.932|0.8374
90815516|NCT01597635|181509810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.01||||0.5886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.887|1.152|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Peak ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 4 hours||1.152|0.887|0.5886
90815517|NCT01597635|181509810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.05||||0.7532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.918|1.18|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Peak ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 6 hours||1.180|0.918|0.7532
90815518|NCT01597635|181509810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.04||||0.7108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.906|1.179|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Peak ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 8 hours||1.179|0.906|0.7108
90815519|NCT01597635|181509810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.04||||0.7445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.918|1.19|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Peak ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 12 hours||1.190|0.918|0.7445
90815520|NCT01597635|181509810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.98||||0.3759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.863|1.115|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Peak ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 18 hours||1.115|0.863|0.3759
90815521|NCT01597635|181509810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.98||||0.398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.859|1.118|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Peak ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 24 hours||1.118|0.859|0.3980
90815522|NCT01597635|181509810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.97||||0.3231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.849|1.103|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Peak ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 24.5 hours||1.103|0.849|0.3231
90815523|NCT01597635|181509810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.93||||0.1245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.812|1.056|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Peak ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 25 hours||1.056|0.812|0.1245
90815524|NCT01597635|181509810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.99||||0.4631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.134|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Peak ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 26 hours||1.134|0.870|0.4631
90815525|NCT01597635|181509810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.92||||0.1026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.801|1.047|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Peak ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 28 hours||1.047|0.801|0.1026
90815526|NCT01597635|181509810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.97||||0.3152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.101|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Peak ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 30 hours||1.101|0.850|0.3152
90815527|NCT01597635|181509810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.91||||0.0762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.803|1.035|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Peak ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 32 hours||1.035|0.803|0.0762
90815528|NCT01597635|181509810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.88||||0.0274||95.0|0.763|1.003|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Peak ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 36 hours||1.003|0.763|0.0274
90815529|NCT01597635|181509810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.98||||0.3594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.853|1.112|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Peak ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 42 hours||1.112|0.853|0.3594
90815530|NCT01597635|181509810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.04||||0.7027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.906|1.197|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Peak ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 48 hours||1.197|0.906|0.7027
90815531|NCT01597635|181509810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.08||||0.8661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.941|1.246|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Peak ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 48.5 hours||1.246|0.941|0.8661
91016434|NCT04035694|181915778|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.02
90815532|NCT01597635|181509810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.06||||0.8084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.924|1.228|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Peak ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 49 hours||1.228|0.924|0.8084
90815533|NCT01597635|181509810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.13||||0.9504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.976|1.3|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Peak ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 50 hours||1.300|0.976|0.9504
91016435|NCT04035694|181915779|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.03
90815534|NCT01597635|181509810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.01||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.871|1.164|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Peak ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 52 hours||1.164|0.871|0.5300
90815535|NCT01597635|181509810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.08||||0.8595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.942|1.243|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Peak ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 54 hours||1.243|0.942|0.8595
90815536|NCT01597635|181509810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.09||||0.8802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.943|1.261|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Peak ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 56 hours||1.261|0.943|0.8802
90815537|NCT01597635|181509810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.11||||0.9232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.958|1.278|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Peak ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 60 hours||1.278|0.958|0.9232
90815538|NCT01597635|181509810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.07||||0.7911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.902|1.256|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Peak ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 66 hours||1.256|0.902|0.7911
90815539|NCT01597635|181509810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.28||||0.9946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.059|1.514|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Peak ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 72 hours||1.514|1.059|0.9946
90815540|NCT01597635|181509810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.26||||0.983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.019|1.444|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Peak ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 168 hours||1.444|1.019|0.9830
90815541|NCT01597635|181509810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.08||||0.8024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.261|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Plateau ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 0.5 hours||1.261|0.910|0.8024
90815542|NCT01597635|181509810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.0||||0.4806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.843|1.166|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Plateau ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 1 hour||1.166|0.843|0.4806
90815543|NCT01597635|181509810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.04||||0.6658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.869|1.223|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Plateau ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 2 hours||1.223|0.869|0.6658
90815544|NCT01597635|181509810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.03||||0.6131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.856|1.212|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Plateau ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 4 hours||1.212|0.856|0.6131
90815545|NCT01597635|181509810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.02||||0.5795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.856|1.197|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Plateau ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 6 hours||1.197|0.856|0.5795
90815546|NCT01597635|181509810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.85||||0.0209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.716|0.993|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Plateau ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 8 hours||0.993|0.716|0.0209
90815547|NCT01597635|181509810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.0||||0.4823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.187|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Plateau ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 12 hours||1.187|0.830|0.4823
90815548|NCT01597635|181509810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||0.0406|0.85||||0.0406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.703|1.021|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Plateau ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 18 hours||1.021|0.703|0.0406
90815549|NCT01597635|181509810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.0||||0.5186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.844|1.169|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Plateau ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 24 hours||1.169|0.844|0.5186
90815550|NCT01597635|181509810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.98||||0.387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.824|1.132|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Plateau ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 24.5 hours||1.132|0.824|0.3870
90815551|NCT01597635|181509810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.91||||0.1281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.065|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Plateau ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 25 hours||1.065|0.770|0.1281
90815552|NCT01597635|181509810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.99||||0.4754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.837|1.181|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Plateau ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 26 hours||1.181|0.837|0.4754
90815553|NCT01597635|181509810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.01||||0.5627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.856|1.217|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Plateau ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 28 hours||1.217|0.856|0.5627
90815554|NCT01597635|181509810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.01||||0.5552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.848|1.22|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Plateau ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 30 hours||1.220|0.848|0.5552
91016436|NCT04035694|181915780|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.57|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.57
90815555|NCT01597635|181509810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.0||||0.503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.843|1.201|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Plateau ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 32 hours||1.201|0.843|0.5030
90815556|NCT01597635|181509810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.01||||0.5558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.218|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Plateau ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 36 hours||1.218|0.840|0.5558
90815557|NCT01597635|181509810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.94||||0.2709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.769|1.135|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Plateau ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 42 hours||1.135|0.769|0.2709
90815558|NCT01597635|181509810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.98||||0.4143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.795|1.208|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Plateau ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 48 hours||1.208|0.795|0.4143
90815559|NCT01597635|181509810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.09||||0.7886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.891|1.348|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Plateau ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 48.5 hours||1.348|0.891|0.7886
90815560|NCT01597635|181509810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.08||||0.7607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.885|1.353|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Plateau ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 49 hours||1.353|0.885|0.7607
90815561|NCT01597635|181509810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.13||||0.8677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.922|1.4|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Plateau ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 50 hours||1.400|0.922|0.8677
90815562|NCT01597635|181509810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.06||||0.7012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.847|1.302|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Plateau ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 52 hours||1.302|0.847|0.7012
90815563|NCT01597635|181509810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.0||||0.5156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.805|1.23|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Plateau ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 54 hours||1.230|0.805|0.5156
90815564|NCT01597635|181509810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.96||||0.3524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.783|1.178|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Plateau ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 56 hours||1.178|0.783|0.3524
90815565|NCT01597635|181509810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.04||||0.638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.845|1.292|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Plateau ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 60 hours||1.292|0.845|0.6380
90815566|NCT01597635|181509810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.96||||0.4003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.743|1.241|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Plateau ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 66 hours||1.241|0.743|0.4003
90815567|NCT01597635|181509810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.16||||0.8817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.907|1.502|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Plateau ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 72 hours||1.502|0.907|0.8817
90815568|NCT01597635|181509810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.14||||0.8145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.804|1.505|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Plateau ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 168 hours||1.505|0.804|0.8145
90815569|NCT01597635|181509811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.05||||0.6468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.765|1.321|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PaO2/FiO2, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 0.5 hours||1.321|0.765|0.6468
90815570|NCT01597635|181509811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.9||||0.1965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.658|1.136|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PaO2/FiO2, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 1 hour||1.136|0.658|0.1965
90815571|NCT01597635|181509811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.9||||0.1681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.694|1.129|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PaO2/FiO2, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 2 hours||1.129|0.694|0.1681
90815572|NCT01597635|181509811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.85||||0.0877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.669|1.075|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PaO2/FiO2, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 4 hours||1.075|0.669|0.0877
90815573|NCT01597635|181509811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.9||||0.2011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.715|1.159|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PaO2/FiO2, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 6 hours||1.159|0.715|0.2011
90815574|NCT01597635|181509811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.06||||0.6855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.842|1.345|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PaO2/FiO2, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 8 hours||1.345|0.842|0.6855
90815575|NCT01597635|181509811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.04||||0.6093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.325|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PaO2/FiO2, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 12 hours||1.325|0.800|0.6093
91016437|NCT04035694|181915781|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.91|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.91
91016438|NCT04035694|181915782|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.72|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.72
91016439|NCT04035694|181915783|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.07
91016440|NCT04035694|181915784|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.56|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.56
90815576|NCT01597635|181509811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.98||||0.435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.765|1.253|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PaO2/FiO2, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 18 hours||1.253|0.765|0.4350
90815577|NCT01597635|181509811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.91||||0.2232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.722|1.195|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PaO2/FiO2, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 24 hours||1.195|0.722|0.2232
90815578|NCT01597635|181509811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.93||||0.2716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.733|1.2|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PaO2/FiO2, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 24.5 hours||1.200|0.733|0.2716
90815579|NCT01597635|181509811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.93||||0.2866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.726|1.19|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PaO2/FiO2, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 25 hours||1.190|0.726|0.2866
90815580|NCT01597635|181509811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.0||||0.5033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.27|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PaO2/FiO2, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 26 hours||1.270|0.780|0.5033
90815581|NCT01597635|181509811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.88||||0.1493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.684|1.12|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PaO2/FiO2, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 28 hours||1.120|0.684|0.1493
90815582|NCT01597635|181509811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.0||||0.4947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.759|1.301|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PaO2/FiO2, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 30 hours||1.301|0.759|0.4947
90815583|NCT01597635|181509811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.89||||0.1951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.678|1.161|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PaO2/FiO2, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 32 hours||1.161|0.678|0.1951
90815584|NCT01597635|181509811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.8||||0.0512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.612|1.05|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PaO2/FiO2, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 36 hours||1.050|0.612|0.0512
90815585|NCT01597635|181509811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.99||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.775|1.279|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PaO2/FiO2, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 42 hours||1.279|0.775|0.4700
90815586|NCT01597635|181509811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.05||||0.634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.811|1.368|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PaO2/FiO2, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 48 hours||1.368|0.811|0.6340
90815587|NCT01597635|181509811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.9||||0.2129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.689|1.183|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PaO2/FiO2, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 48.5 hours||1.183|0.689|0.2129
90815588|NCT01597635|181509811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.05||||0.6418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.798|1.411|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PaO2/FiO2, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 49 hours||1.411|0.798|0.6418
90815589|NCT01597635|181509811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.99||||0.4797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.754|1.315|||Ratio of Active/Placebo|||PaO2/FiO2, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 50 hours||1.315|0.754|0.4797
90815590|NCT01597635|181509811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.92||||0.2659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.703|1.199|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PaO2/FiO2, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 52 hours||1.199|0.703|0.2659
90815591|NCT01597635|181509811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.9||||0.2102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.687|1.159|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PaO2/FiO2, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 54 hours||1.159|0.687|0.2102
90815592|NCT01597635|181509811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.96||||0.3623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.24|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PaO2/FiO2, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 56 hours||1.240|0.740|0.3623
90815593|NCT01597635|181509811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.95||||0.3499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.225|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PaO2/FiO2, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 60 hours||1.225|0.730|0.3499
90815594|NCT01597635|181509811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.05||||0.6494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.787|1.377|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PaO2/FiO2, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 66 hours||1.377|0.787|0.6494
91016441|NCT04035694|181915785|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.17|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.17
91016442|NCT04035694|181915786|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.89|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.89
91016443|NCT04035694|181915787|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||.20
91055536|NCT03118570|181992795|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.462||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 24||||0.462
90815595|NCT01597635|181509811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.02||||0.5567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.766|1.358|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PaO2/FiO2, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 72 hours||1.358|0.766|0.5567
90815596|NCT01597635|181509811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.85||||0.1095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.615|1.073|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PaO2/FiO2, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 168 hours||1.073|0.615|0.1095
90815597|NCT01597635|181509812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.06||||0.6098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.721|1.644|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Oxygenation index, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 0.5 hours||1.644|0.721|0.6098
90815598|NCT01597635|181509812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.35||||0.9441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.931|2.068|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Oxygenation index, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 1 hour||2.068|0.931|0.9441
90815599|NCT01597635|181509812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.12||||0.7173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.749|1.621|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Oxygenation index, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 2 hours||1.621|0.749|0.7173
90815600|NCT01597635|181509812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.26||||0.8292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.949|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Oxygenation index, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 4 hours||1.949|0.810|0.8292
90815601|NCT01597635|181509812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.23||||0.8008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.775|1.832|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Oxygenation index, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 6 hours||1.832|0.775|0.8008
90815602|NCT01597635|181509812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.2||||0.7905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.776|1.799|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Oxygenation index, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 8 hours||1.799|0.776|0.7905
90815603|NCT01597635|181509812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.17||||0.7566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.737|1.958|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Oxygenation index, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 12 hours||1.958|0.737|0.7566
90815604|NCT01597635|181509812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.25||||0.8349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.812|2.05|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Oxygenation index, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 18 hours||2.050|0.812|0.8349
90815605|NCT01597635|181509812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.99||||0.4739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.713|1.527|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Oxygenation index, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 24 hours||1.527|0.713|0.4739
90815606|NCT01597635|181509812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.06||||0.6291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.763|1.647|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Oxygenation index, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 24.5 hours||1.647|0.763|0.6291
90815607|NCT01597635|181509812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.18||||0.8032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.814|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Oxygenation index, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 25 hours||1.814|0.830|0.8032
90815608|NCT01597635|181509812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.91||||0.325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.626|1.416|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Oxygenation index, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 26 hours||1.416|0.626|0.3250
90815609|NCT01597635|181509812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.05||||0.5828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.687|1.63|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Oxygenation index, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 28 hours||1.630|0.687|0.5828
90815610|NCT01597635|181509812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.98||||0.4546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.661|1.512|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Oxygenation index, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 30 hours||1.512|0.661|0.4546
90815611|NCT01597635|181509812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.06||||0.6158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.719|1.639|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Oxygenation index, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 32 hours||1.639|0.719|0.6158
90815612|NCT01597635|181509812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.17||||0.7748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.752|1.77|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Oxygenation index, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 36 hours||1.770|0.752|0.7748
90815613|NCT01597635|181509812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.09||||0.6565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.686|1.714|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Oxygenation index, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 42 hours||1.714|0.686|0.6565
90815614|NCT01597635|181509812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.87||||0.2773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.566|1.38|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Oxygenation index, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 48 hours||1.380|0.566|0.2773
90815615|NCT01597635|181509812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.92||||0.3606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.467|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Oxygenation index, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 48.5 hours||1.467|0.610|0.3606
90815616|NCT01597635|181509812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.83||||0.2211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.555|1.317|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Oxygenation index, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 49 hours||1.317|0.555|0.2211
91016444|NCT04035694|181915788|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.78|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.78
91055537|NCT03118570|181992795|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.134||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 24||||0.134
91055538|NCT03118570|181992795|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.086||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 24||||0.086
91055539|NCT03118570|181992795|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.199||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 6||||0.199
91055540|NCT03118570|181992795|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.219||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 8||||0.219
90815617|NCT01597635|181509812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.88||||0.286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.587|1.348|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Oxygenation index, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 50 hours||1.348|0.587|0.2860
90815618|NCT01597635|181509812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.94||||0.4079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.609|1.51|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Oxygenation index, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 52 hours||1.510|0.609|0.4079
90815619|NCT01597635|181509812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.02||||0.5284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.614|1.663|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Oxygenation index, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 54 hours||1.663|0.614|0.5284
90815620|NCT01597635|181509812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.9||||0.3586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.568|1.458|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Oxygenation index, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 56 hours||1.458|0.568|0.3586
90815621|NCT01597635|181509812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.13||||0.6768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.672|1.853|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Oxygenation index, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 60 hours||1.853|0.672|0.6768
90815622|NCT01597635|181509812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.77||||0.1574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.488|1.39|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Oxygenation index, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 66 hours||1.390|0.488|0.1574
90815623|NCT01597635|181509812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.92||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.521|1.584|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Oxygenation index, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 72 hours||1.584|0.521|0.3900
90815624|NCT01597635|181509812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.05||||0.5915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.748|1.516|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Oxygenation index, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 168 hours||1.516|0.748|0.5915
90815625|NCT01597635|181509815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.88||||0.06828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.528|1.501|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||CXCL-8 (IL-8), Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 12 hours||1.501|0.528|0.06828
90815626|NCT01597635|181509815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.96||||0.5674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.609|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||CXCL-8 (IL-8), Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 24 hours||1.609|0.570|0.5674
90815627|NCT01597635|181509815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.66||||0.8855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.321|1.316|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||CXCL-8 (IL-8), Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 48 hours||1.316|0.321|0.8855
90815628|NCT01597635|181509815|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.97||||0.5358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.531|1.76|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||CXCL-8 (IL-8), Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 72 hours||1.760|0.531|0.5358
90815629|NCT01597635|181509815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.17||||0.699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.622|2.155|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||CXCL-8 (IL-8), Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 120 hours||2.155|0.622|0.6990
90815630|NCT01597635|181509815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.99||||0.513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.549|1.721|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||IL-6, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 12 hours||1.721|0.549|0.5130
90815631|NCT01597635|181509815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.73||||0.7696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.731|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||IL-6, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 24 hours||1.731|0.300|0.7696
90815632|NCT01597635|181509815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.51||||0.9254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.203|1.289|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||IL-6, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 48 hours||1.289|0.203|0.9254
90815633|NCT01597635|181509815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.72||||0.7088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.216|2.419|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||IL-6, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 72 hours||2.419|0.216|0.7088
90815634|NCT01597635|181509815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.47||||0.8787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.112|1.69|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||IL-6, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 120 hours||1.690|0.112|0.8787
90815635|NCT01597635|181509815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.92||||0.7338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.714|1.197|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||RAGE, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 12 hours||1.197|0.714|0.7338
90815636|NCT01597635|181509815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.0||||0.4955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.703|1.415|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||RAGE, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 24 hours||1.415|0.703|0.4955
91016445|NCT04035694|181915789|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.41|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.41
90815637|NCT01597635|181509815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.98||||0.5264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.541|1.788|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||RAGE, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 48 hours||1.788|0.541|0.5264
91016446|NCT04035694|181915790|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.34
91016447|NCT01102972|181915791|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority would be established between the two arms if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in the percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \<50 copies/mL at Week 24 was -12% or greater.|Treatment difference of proportions|0.33||||0.937||95.0|-7.97|8.64||The p-value was obtained from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method stratified by initial antiretroviral regimen.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% confidence intervals were calculated (using Mantel-Haenszel weight) stratified by initial antiretroviral regimen.|||8.64|-7.97|0.937
90815638|NCT01597635|181509815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.91||||0.6183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.454|1.742|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||RAGE, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 72 hours||1.742|0.454|0.6183
90815639|NCT01597635|181509815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.03||||0.5291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.483|2.118|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||RAGE, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 120 hours||2.118|0.483|0.5291
90815640|NCT01597635|181509815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.09||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.828|1.448|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||MPO, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 12 hours||1.448|0.828|0.7400
90815641|NCT01597635|181509815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.25||||0.9375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.937|1.683|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||MPO, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 24 hours||1.683|0.937|0.9375
90815642|NCT01597635|181509815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.26||||0.9118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.896|1.771|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||MPO, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 48 hours||1.771|0.896|0.9118
90815643|NCT01597635|181509815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.43||||0.9217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.866|2.382|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||MPO, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 72 hours||2.382|0.866|0.9217
90815644|NCT01597635|181509815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.48||||0.8676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|3.064|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||MPO, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 120 hours||3.064|0.730|0.8676
90815645|NCT01597635|181509815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.83||||0.8835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.609|1.135|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Angiopoietin-2, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 12 hours||1.135|0.609|0.8835
90815646|NCT01597635|181509815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.98||||0.5446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.723|1.33|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Angiopoietin-2, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 24 hours||1.330|0.723|0.5446
90815647|NCT01597635|181509815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.95||||0.6267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.679|1.333|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Angiopoietin-2, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 48 hours||1.333|0.679|0.6267
90815648|NCT01597635|181509815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.88||||0.7668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.612|1.26|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Angiopoietin-2, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 72 hours||1.260|0.612|0.7668
90815649|NCT01597635|181509815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.94||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.588|1.509|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Angiopoietin-2, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 120 hours||1.509|0.588|0.6100
90815650|NCT01597635|181509815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.68||||0.8159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.291|1.623|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Renin, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 72 hours||1.623|0.291|0.8159
90815651|NCT01597635|181509815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.53||||0.7988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.106|2.657|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Aldosterone, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 72 hours||2.657|0.106|0.7988
90815652|NCT01597635|181509816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.12||||0.6536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.626|2.024|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||CRP, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 12 hours||2.024|0.626|0.6536
90815653|NCT01597635|181509816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.3||||0.9066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.876|1.955|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||CRP, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 24 hours||1.955|0.876|0.9066
90815654|NCT01597635|181509816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.23||||0.7859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.723|2.066|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||CRP, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 48 hours||2.066|0.723|0.7859
90815655|NCT01597635|181509816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.9||||0.6058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.413|1.963|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||CRP, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 72 hours||1.963|0.413|0.6058
90815656|NCT01597635|181509816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.29||||0.6921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.456|3.632|||Ratio of Active/Placebo|||CRP, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 72 hours||3.632|0.456|0.6921
90815657|NCT01597635|181509817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.92||||0.7934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.737|1.14|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||CCP-16, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 12 hours||1.140|0.737|0.7934
90815658|NCT01597635|181509817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.01||||0.5205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.782|1.317|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||CCP-16, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 24 hours||1.317|0.782|0.5205
90815659|NCT01597635|181509817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.12||||0.6682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.673|1.865|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||CCP-16, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 48 hours||1.865|0.673|0.6682
90815660|NCT01597635|181509817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.99||||0.5304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.744|1.315|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||CCP-16, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 72 hours||1.315|0.744|0.5304
90815661|NCT01597635|181509817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.81||||0.9078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.582|1.112|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||CCP-16, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 120 hours||1.112|0.582|0.9078
90815662|NCT01597635|181509817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.26||||0.9907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.042|1.526|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||SP-D, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 12 hours||1.526|1.042|0.9907
90815663|NCT01597635|181509817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.27||||0.9973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.005|1.606|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||SP-D, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 24 hours||1.606|1.005|0.9973
90815664|NCT01597635|181509817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.61||||0.9954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|2.331|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||SP-D, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 48 hours||2.331|1.130|0.9954
90815665|NCT01597635|181509817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.65||||0.983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.045|2.588|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||SP-D, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 72 hours||2.588|1.045|0.9830
90815666|NCT01597635|181509817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.52||||0.9312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.867|2.737|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||SP-D, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 120 hours||2.737|0.867|0.9312
90815667|NCT01192568|181509820|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.612||0.0928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.45|30.9|||ANCOVA|||||30.90|-2.45|0.0928
90815668|NCT01192568|181509821|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|34.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.089||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.13|58.7|||ANCOVA|||||58.70|11.13|0.0054
90815669|NCT01192568|181509822|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.215||0.1739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.89|80.07|||ANCOVA|||||80.07|-14.89|0.1739
90815670|NCT01192568|181509823|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.117||0.266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.15|||ANCOVA|||Results from a pre-specified test (Kolmogorov-Smirnov test p \<= 0.05) determined that the Pre-Am3 and Post-Am3 OTG data should be analyzed separately for the primary analysis.||0.15|-0.53|0.2660
90815671|NCT01192568|181509823|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.67||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|-0.21|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.21|-1.13|0.0070
90815672|NCT02593825|181509824|SUPERIORITY|Significance was based on α = .05. Hedges' g, corrected for small sample bias, was calculated as a measure of effect size using the model-predicted group differences in rate of change in the numerator and the pooled standard deviation estimated from the 3 or 12 month assessment (for short- and long-term effects, respectively) in the denominator.|Slope|1.14|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Piecewise linear mixed modeling (LMM) was performed to address the study questions. LMM was necessary to account for repeated measures nested within children.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Also examined these groups in sub-groups of mildly delayed (\<2.5 Standard Deviations below the mean on motor Bayley score at baseline) and significantly motor delayed (\>2.5 Standard Deviations below the mean on motor Bayley score at baseline)|Piecewise modeling, using individually-varying timepoints, allowed separate slopes to be estimated across the intervention (baseline to 3 months) and post-intervention (3 to 12 months) phases, and accounted for variation in the time between assessments across children. All models controlled for intercept-level differences by site, as well as intercept- and slope-level differences by baseline-adjusted age and motor severity. Intervention effects were derived via intervention by slope interaction terms. Three-way interaction terms were subsequently added to the models to obtain intervention effects stratified by severity.|||<0.05
90815673|NCT02593825|181509825|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.192||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Linear piecewise modeling|||||||.05
90890419|NCT02415400|181645488|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|0.94|||2-sided p-value|||Separate hierarchical testing was performed for apixaban vs VKA: 3) Superiority for all-cause death and all-cause rehospitalization.||0.94|0.75|0.0033
91016448|NCT00318409|181915834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.98
90815674|NCT02593825|181509826|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||data shown is for the 12 month time point for the severely delayed group comparison|Also examined these groups in sub-groups of mildly delayed (\<2.5 Standard Deviations below the mean on motor Bayley score at baseline) and significantly motor delayed (\>2.5 Standard Deviations below the mean on motor Bayley score at baseline)||||<0.05
90815675|NCT02593825|181509828|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.02|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Also examined these groups in sub-groups of mildly delayed (\<2.5SD below the mean on motor Bayley score at baseline) and significantly motor delayed (\>2.5SD below the mean on motor Bayley score at baseline)|LMM was necessary to account for repeated measures nested within children. Piecewise modeling, using individually-varying timepoints, allowed separate slopes to be estimated across the intervention (baseline to 3 months).|||<0.05
90815676|NCT02593825|181509829|SUPERIORITY||Slope|8.7|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Also examined these groups in sub-groups of mildly delayed (\<2.5SD below the mean on motor Bayley score at baseline) and significantly motor delayed (\>2.5SD below the mean on motor Bayley score at baseline)|Piecewise modeling, using individually-varying timepoints, allowed separate slopes to be estimated across the intervention (baseline to 3 months)|||<0.05
90815677|NCT02593825|181509830|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.417|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.417
90815678|NCT06359080|181509832|EQUIVALENCE|The difference between post treatment CARS scores and pre treatment CARS scores will be statistically significant as measured by independent sample t-test with p\<.05|Mean Difference (Net)|6.77|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.5|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.36|8.19||It's a calculated p-value.|t-test, 2 sided|||||8.19|5.36|<0.05
90815679|NCT00511134|181509841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Descriptive data|||It was hypothesized that the Zyban+Lunesta group would report lower ISI scores at end of trial than the Zyban+Placebo group.||||<0.05
90815680|NCT00511134|181509842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|Degrees of freedom=1||It is predicted that subjects taking eszopiclone will be more likely to report abstinence at trial endpoint than those taking placebo.||||<0.05
90815681|NCT01885910|181509843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<.0001
90815682|NCT00300677|181509863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||predose: ratio adjusted geometric means|300.28||||||90.0|192.91|467.43|||ANOVA|Mixed-effects analysis of variance model with time, compartment, and time by compartment interaction as fixed effects and subjects as random effects.|Estimated value = ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means comparing brain (test) vs. plasma (reference) concentrations of voriconazole.|Other estimated parameter represents the Day 3 pre-dose ratio of the adjusted geometric means comparing brain vs. plasma concentrations of voriconazole. Natural-log transformed concentrations of voriconazole were analyzed using a mixed-effects model to obtain the adjusted mean difference (Test-Reference) and 90% confidence interval for the difference which were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of the adjusted geometric means and 90% CI for the ratio.||467.43|192.91|
90815683|NCT00300677|181509863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||postdose: ratio adjusted geometric means|192.72||||||90.0|123.81|300.0|||ANOVA|Mixed-effects analysis of variance model with time, compartment, and time by compartment interaction as fixed effects and subjects as random effects.|Estimated value = ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means comparing brain (test) vs. plasma (reference) concentrations of voriconazole.|Other estimated parameter represents the Day 3 post-dose ratio of the adjusted geometric means comparing brain vs. plasma concentrations of voriconazole. Natural-log transformed concentrations of voriconazole were analyzed using a mixed-effects model to obtain the adjusted mean difference (Test-Reference) and 90% confidence interval for the difference which were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of the adjusted geometric means and 90% CI for the ratio.||300.00|123.81|
91016449|NCT01360021|181915917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Geometic Mean Ratio|1.1||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.14|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on the log transformed outcome variable with treatment and country as factor, and log transformed baseline FEV1 (pre-dose) as covariate.|Symbicort AC pMDI 2x160/4.5 µg bid vs Budesonide AC pMDI 2x160 µg bid|The comparison of Symbicort AC pMDI 2x160/4.5 µg bid with budesonide AC pMDI 2x160 µg bid for post dose FEV1||1.14|1.06|0.001
91016450|NCT01360021|181915917|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assuming a standard deviation of 0.2 (for pre dose FEV1) on the log-scale and 60 patients/arm, the width of the confidence interval will extend 0.072 from the point estimate on the log-scale. The lower and upper limits of the CI for the ratio of effects will thus be obtained by multiplying the estimated ratio by 0.931 and 1.075, respectively.|Estimated Geometric Mean Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.05|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on the log transformed outcome variable with treatment and country as factor, and log transformed baseline FEV1 (pre-dose) as covariate.|The comparisons was used to assess therapeutic equivalence of Symbicort AC pMDI and Symbicort BA MDI. Assay sensitivity was demonstrated before proceeding to assess therapeutic equivalence of the 2 Symbicort products.|The comparisons of Symbicort BA MDI 2x160/4.5 µg bid with Symbicort AC pMDI 2x160/4.5 µg bid for post dose FEV1.||1.05|0.97|
90815684|NCT00300677|181509864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||predose: ratio adjusted geometric means|300.28||||||90.0|192.91|467.43|||ANOVA|Mixed-effects analysis of variance model with time, compartment, and time by compartment interaction as fixed effects and subjects as random effects.|Estimated value = ratio (%) of the adjusted geometric means comparing brain (test) vs. plasma (reference) concentrations of voriconazole.|Other estimated parameter represents the Day 3 pre-dose ratio of the adjusted geometric means comparing brain vs. plasma concentrations of voriconazole. Natural-log transformed concentrations of voriconazole were analyzed using a mixed-effects model to obtain the adjusted mean difference (Test-Reference) and 90% confidence interval for the difference which were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of the adjusted geometric means and 90% CI for the ratio.||467.43|192.91|
90890420|NCT02415400|181645489|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.2219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.2|||2-sided p-value|||Separate hierarchical testing was performed for aspirin vs placebo: 3) Superiority for all-cause death and all-cause rehospitalization.||1.20|0.96|0.2219
91055541|NCT03118570|181992795|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.112||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 6||||0.112
90890421|NCT02415400|181645490|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.13|||2-sided p-value|||Separate hierarchical testing was performed for apixaban vs VKA: 4) Superiority for all-cause death and ischemic events.||1.13|0.75|0.4370
90815685|NCT00300677|181509864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||postdose: ratio adjusted geometric means|192.72||||||90.0|123.81|300.0|||ANOVA|Mixed-effects analysis of variance model with time, compartment, and time by compartment interaction as fixed effects and subjects as random effects.|Estimated value = ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means comparing brain (test) vs. plasma (reference) concentrations of voriconazole.|Other estimated parameter represents the Day 3 post-dose ratio of the adjusted geometric means comparing brain vs. plasma concentrations of voriconazole. Natural-log transformed concentrations of voriconazole were analyzed using a mixed-effects model to obtain the adjusted mean difference (Test-Reference) and 90% confidence interval for the difference which were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of the adjusted geometric means and 90% CI for the ratio.||300.00|123.81|
90815686|NCT00300677|181509865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||predose: ratio adjusted geometric means|12.39||||||90.0|7.09|21.65|||ANOVA|Mixed-effects analysis of variance model with time, compartment, and time by compartment interaction as fixed effects and subjects as random effects.|Estimated value = ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means comparing brain (test) vs. plasma (reference) concentrations of voriconazole N-oxide.|Other estimated parameter represents the Day 3 pre-dose ratio of the adjusted geometric means comparing brain vs. plasma concentrations of voriconazole N-oxide. Natural-log transformed concentrations of voriconazole were analyzed using a mixed-effects model to obtain the adjusted mean difference (Test-Reference) and 90% confidence interval for the difference which were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of the adjusted geometric means and 90% CI for the ratio.||21.65|7.09|
90815687|NCT00300677|181509865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||postdose: ratio adjusted geometric means|31.57||||||90.0|18.06|55.18|||ANOVA|Mixed-effects analysis of variance model with time, compartment, and time by compartment interaction as fixed effects and subjects as random effects.|Estimated value = ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means comparing brain (test) vs. plasma (reference) concentrations of voriconazole N-oxide.|Other estimated parameter represents the Day 3 post-dose ratio of the adjusted geometric means comparing brain vs. plasma concentrations of voriconazole N-oxide. Natural-log transformed concentrations of voriconazole were analyzed using a mixed-effects model to obtain the adjusted mean difference (Test-Reference) and 90% confidence interval for the difference which were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of the adjusted geometric means and 90% CI for the ratio.||55.18|18.06|
90815688|NCT00300677|181509866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||predose: ratio adjusted mean|12.39||||||90.0|7.09|21.65|||ANOVA|Mixed-effects analysis of variance model with time, compartment, and time by compartment interaction as fixed effects and subjects as random effects.|Estimated value = ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means comparing brain (test) vs. plama (reference) concentrations of voriconazole N-oxide.|Other estimated parameter represents the Day 3 pre-dose ratio of the adjusted geometric means comparing brain vs. plasma concentrations of voriconazole N-oxide. Natural-log transformed concentrations of voriconazole were analyzed using a mixed-effects model to obtain the adjusted mean difference (Test-Reference) and 90% confidence interval for the difference which were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of the adjusted geometric means and 90% CI for the ratio.||21.65|7.09|
90815689|NCT00300677|181509866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||postdose: ratio adjusted mean|31.57||||||90.0|18.06|55.18|||ANOVA|Mixed-effects analysis of variance model with time, compartment, and time by compartment interaction as fixed effects and subjects as random effects.|Estimated value = ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means comparing brain (test) vs. plasma (reference) concentrations of voriconazole N-oxide.|Other estimated parameter represents the Day 3 post-dose ratio of the adjusted geometric means comparing brain vs. plasma concentrations of voriconazole N-oxide. Natural-log transformed concentrations of voriconazole were analyzed using a mixed-effects model to obtain the adjusted mean difference (Test-Reference) and 90% confidence interval for the difference which were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of the adjusted geometric means and 90% CI for the ratio.||55.18|18.06|
90815690|NCT01300351|181509867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.03||With a sample size of 220 randomised patients and 150 progression events, if treatment effect is consistent between ethnicities/the study populations, there is an 89% chance the HR \<1.|Log Rank|||The results of this study would be considered to be consistent with that of the CONFIRM study if the hazard ratio (HR) point estimate for the treatment comparison was \<1 (ie, it favoured fulvestrant 500 mg), without the requirement for the benefit of fulvestrant 500 mg to be statistically significant.||1.03|0.54|0.078
90815691|NCT01300351|181509868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|2.24|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.24|0.93|0.107
91016451|NCT01360021|181915918|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assuming a standard deviation of 0.2 (for pre dose FEV1) on the log-scale and 60 patients/arm, the width of the confidence interval will extend 0.072 from the point estimate on the log-scale. The lower and upper limits of the CI for the ratio of effects will thus be obtained by multiplying the estimated ratio by 0.931 and 1.075, respectively.|Estimated Geometric Mean Ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.08|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on the log transformed outcome variable with treatment and country as factor, and log transformed baseline FEV1 (pre-dose) as covariate.|The comparisons was used to assess therapeutic equivalence of Symbicort AC pMDI and Symbicort BA MDI. Assay sensitivity was demonstrated before proceeding to assess therapeutic equivalence of the 2 Symbicort products.|The comparisons of Symbicort BA MDI 2x160/4.5 µg bid with Symbicort AC pMDI 2x160/4.5 µg bid, for pre-dose FEV1.||1.08|0.99|
91016452|NCT01360021|181915919|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No adjustment were be made for multiplicity for these supportive variables and nominal p-values were reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.75||0.825|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.81|14.8|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as a factor and baseline value as covariate.|Secondary efficacy variables were analyzed as continuous data, comparing mean changes from baseline to the average of the double-blind treatment period between treatments. No adjustment were made for multiplicity and nominal p-values were reported.|Morning peak expiratory flow (mPEF): Comparing mean changes from baseline to the average of the double-blind treatment period between Symbicort BA MDI 2x160/4.5 μg bid and Symbicort AC pMDI 2x160/4.5 µg bid||14.80|-11.81|0.825
91055542|NCT03118570|181992795|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.086||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 12||||0.086
90815692|NCT01300351|181509869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.8|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.80|1.04|0.023
90815693|NCT00673881|181509892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0042||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0042
90815694|NCT00673881|181509893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison baseline to end-of-treatment||||0.0002
90815695|NCT00673881|181509894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||NS|0|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison from baseline to end-of-treatment||||NS
90815696|NCT00673881|181509902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90815697|NCT03968159|181509916|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.2956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.8|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||0.8|-2.5|0.2956
90815698|NCT00443781|181509935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002||95.0|||||McNemar|Exact test was used.||Mcnemar test was used to test the difference between paired PD (provocative discography) and F.A.D. (Functional Anesthetic Discography) proportions.||||0.002
90815699|NCT01533922|181509938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.244|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.191|0.298|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 5/5 once daily (QD) minus Placebo|||0.298|0.191|<0.0001
90815700|NCT01533922|181509938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.119|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.065|0.172|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 5/5 QD minus Olodaterol 5 mcg|||0.172|0.065|<0.0001
90815701|NCT01533922|181509938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.114|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.061|0.167|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 5/5 QD minus Tiotropium 5 mcg QD|||0.167|0.061|<0.0001
90815702|NCT01533922|181509938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.218|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.164|0.271|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 2.5/5 QD minus Placebo QD|||0.271|0.164|<0.0001
90815703|NCT01533922|181509938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.092|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.038|0.145|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 2.5/5 QD minus Olodaterol 5 mcg QD|||0.145|0.038|0.0008
90815704|NCT01533922|181509938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.087|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.034|0.141|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 2.5/5 QD minus Tiotropium 5 mcg QD|||0.141|0.034|0.0015
91016453|NCT01360021|181915919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|33.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.8||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.11|46.93|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as a factor and baseline value as covariate.|Secondary efficacy variables were analyzed as continuous data, comparing mean changes from baseline to the average of the double-blind treatment period between treatments. No adjustment were made for multiplicity and nominal p-values were reported.|Morning peak expiratory flow (mPEF): Comparing mean changes from baseline to the average of the double-blind treatment period between Symbicort AC pMDI 2x160/4.5 µg bid minus Budesonide AC pMDI 2x160 µg bid||46.93|20.11|0.001
91055543|NCT03118570|181992795|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.245||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 12||||0.245
91055544|NCT03118570|181992795|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.232||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 12||||0.232
90815705|NCT01533922|181509939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.209|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.132|1.292|||Mixed Models Analysis||Ratio calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 5/5 QD divided by Placebo QD|||1.292|1.132|<0.0001
90815706|NCT01533922|181509939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034||0.9633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.937|1.07|||Mixed Models Analysis||Ratio calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 5/5 QD divided by Olodaterol 5 mcg QD|||1.070|0.937|0.9633
90815707|NCT01533922|181509939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.993|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033||0.8415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.061|||Mixed Models Analysis||Ratio calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 5/5 QD divided by Tiotropium 5 mcg QD|||1.061|0.930|0.8415
90815708|NCT01533922|181509939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.265|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.042|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.184|1.351|||Mixed Models Analysis||Ratio calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 2.5/5 QD divided by Placebo QD|||1.351|1.184|<0.0001
90815709|NCT01533922|181509939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.047|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035||0.1717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.119|||Mixed Models Analysis||Ratio calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 2.5/5 QD divided by Olodaterol 5 mcg QD|||1.119|0.980|0.1717
90815710|NCT01533922|181509939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.039|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035||0.261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.972|1.11|||Mixed Models Analysis||Ratio calculated asTiotropium + olodaterol 2.5/5 QD divided by Tiotropium 5 mcg QD|||1.110|0.972|0.2610
90815711|NCT01533922|181509940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|-0.001|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 5/5 QD minus Placebo QD|||-0.001|-0.004|0.0004
90815712|NCT01533922|181509940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001||0.8291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|0.002|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 5/5 QD minus Olodaterol 5 mcg QD|||0.002|-0.001|0.8291
90815713|NCT01533922|181509940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001||0.857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.002|0.001|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 5/5 QD minus Tiotropium 5 mcg QD|||0.001|-0.002|0.8570
90815714|NCT01533922|181509940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|-0.002|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 2.5/5 QD minus Placebo QD|||-0.002|-0.005|<0.0001
90815715|NCT01533922|181509940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001||0.7294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.002|0.001|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 2.5/5 QD minus Olodaterol 5 mcg QD|||0.001|-0.002|0.7294
90815716|NCT01533922|181509940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001||0.4567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.002|0.001|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 2.5/5 QD minus Tiotropium 5 mcg QD|||0.001|-0.002|0.4567
90815717|NCT01533922|181509941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.323|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.293|0.352|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 5/5 QD minus Placebo QD|||0.352|0.293|<0.0001
90815718|NCT01533922|181509941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.101|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 5/5 QD minus Olodaterol 5 mcg QD|||0.160|0.101|<0.0001
90815719|NCT01533922|181509941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.114|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.084|0.143|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 5/5 QD minus Tiotropium 5 mcg QD|||0.143|0.084|<0.0001
90815720|NCT01533922|181509941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.286|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.256|0.315|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 2.5/5 QD minus Placebo QD|||0.315|0.256|<0.0001
90815721|NCT01533922|181509941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.093|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.063|0.123|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 2.5/5 QD minus Olodaterol 5 mcg QD|||0.123|0.063|<0.0001
90815722|NCT01533922|181509941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.077|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.047|0.106|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 2.5/5 QD minus Tiotropium 5 mcg QD|||0.106|0.047|<0.0001
90815723|NCT03973905|181509980|OTHER||Vaccine Effectiveness|65.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.93|92.68|||||Vaccine Effectiveness (VE) was estimated as (1-odds ratio) × 100%. The Confidence Interval was calculated based on the conditional binomial distribution of cases in the exposed group and the total number of cases.|To assess the effectiveness of maternal vaccination with Boostrix during third trimester of pregnancy (at least 14 days before delivery) at preventing pertussis in infants \<2 months||92.68|-64.93|
90815724|NCT03973905|181509981|OTHER||Vaccine Effectiveness|42.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1071.8|97.13|||||VE was estimated as (1-odds ratio) × 100%. The Confidence Interval was calculated based on the conditional binomial distribution of cases in the exposed group and the total number of cases.|To assess the effectiveness of maternal vaccination with Boostrix before pregnancy at preventing pertussis in infants \<2 months||97.13|-1071.80|
91016454|NCT01360021|181915919|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No adjustment were made for multiplicity for these supportive variables and nominal p-values were reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.15||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.66|13.61|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as a factor and baseline value as covariate.|Secondary efficacy variables were analyzed as continuous data, comparing mean changes from baseline to the average of the double-blind treatment period between treatments. No adjustment were made for multiplicity and nominal p-values were reported.|Evening peak expiratory flow (ePEF): Comparing mean changes from baseline to the average of the double-blind treatment period between Symbicort BA MDI 2x160/4.5 μg bid and Symbicort AC pMDI 2x160/4.5 µg bid.||13.61|-10.66|0.810
91016455|NCT01360021|181915919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|32.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.21||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.01|44.49|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as a factor and baseline value as covariate.|Secondary efficacy variables were analyzed as continuous data, comparing mean changes from baseline to the average of the double-blind treatment period between treatments. No adjustment were made for multiplicity and nominal p-values were reported.|Evening peak expiratory flow (ePEF): Comparing mean changes from baseline to the average of the double-blind treatment period between Symbicort AC pMDI 2x160/4.5 µg bid and Budesonide AC pMDI 2x160 µg bid.||44.49|20.01|0.001
90815725|NCT03973905|181509981|OTHER||Vaccine Effectiveness|62.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-439.75|97.35|||||VE was estimated as (1-odds ratio) × 100%. The Confidence Interval was calculated based on the conditional binomial distribution of cases in the exposed group and the total number of cases.|To assess the effectiveness of maternal vaccination with Boostrix during first or second trimester of pregnancy at preventing pertussis in infants \<2 months||97.35|-439.75|
90815726|NCT03973905|181509981|OTHER||Vaccine Effectiveness|-12.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-166.37|52.16|||||VE was estimated as (1-odds ratio) × 100%. The Confidence Interval was calculated based on the conditional binomial distribution of cases in the exposed group and the total number of cases.|To assess the effectiveness of maternal vaccination with Boostrix after pregnancy at preventing pertussis in infants \<2 months||52.16|-166.37|
90815727|NCT03973905|181509982|OTHER||Vaccine Effectiveness|64.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.51|92.13|||||VE was estimated as (1-odds ratio) × 100%. The Confidence Interval was calculated based on the conditional binomial distribution of cases in the exposed group and the total number of cases.|To assess the effectiveness of maternal vaccination with Boostrix at any time during pregnancy at preventing pertussis in infants \<2 months||92.13|-57.51|
90815728|NCT03973905|181509983|OTHER||Vaccine Effectiveness|17.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12529.0|99.46|||||VE was estimated as (1-odds ratio) × 100%. The Confidence Interval was calculated based on the conditional binomial distribution of cases in the exposed group and the total number of cases.|To assess the effectiveness of maternal vaccination with Boostrix before pregnancy at preventing pertussis in infants \<2 months||99.46|-12529.0|
90815729|NCT03973905|181509983|OTHER||Vaccine Effectiveness|85.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.91|98.03|||||VE was estimated as (1-odds ratio) × 100%. The Confidence Interval was calculated based on the conditional binomial distribution of cases in the exposed group and the total number of cases.|To assess the effectiveness of maternal vaccination with Boostrix during third trimester of pregnancy at preventing pertussis in infants \<2 months||98.03|-13.91|
90815730|NCT03973905|181509983|OTHER||Vaccine Effectiveness|37.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-87.4|79.25|||||VE was estimated as (1-odds ratio) × 100%. The Confidence Interval was calculated based on the conditional binomial distribution of cases in the exposed group and the total number of cases.|To assess the effectiveness of maternal vaccination with Boostrix after pregnancy at preventing pertussis in infants \<2 months||79.25|-87.40|
90815731|NCT02648217|181509984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Contrast|0.02||||0.8426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.24|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|||The endpoint was analysed using mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM) with an unstructured covariance matrix. The model included treatment, sex, region, previous OAD treatment, pre-Ramadan trial exposure and visit as factors and age and baseline value of the endpoint as covariates. Interactions between visit and all factors and covariates are included in the model.||0.24|-0.20|0.8426
90815732|NCT02553538|181509991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
90815733|NCT02553538|181509992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
90815734|NCT02553538|181509993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
90815735|NCT02553538|181509994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
90815736|NCT02639338|181510029|SUPERIORITY|The p-value is obtained from the 2-sided exact 1-sample binomial test for the superiority over the performance goal of 83%.|||||<|0.001||||||The reported p-value was calculated. The statistical test was performed in SOF/VEL for 12 weeks at 0.05 significance level if and only if the statistical test performed in SOF/VEL/VOX for 8 weeks was significant at 0.05 significance level.|Binomial Test|||||||<0.001
90815737|NCT02639338|181510029|SUPERIORITY|The p-value is obtained from the 2-sided exact 1-sample binomial test for the superiority over the performance goal of 83%.|||||<|0.001||||||The reported p-value was calculated. The statistical test was performed in SOF/VEL for 12 weeks at 0.05 significance level if and only if the statistical test performed in SOF/VEL/VOX for 8 weeks was significant at 0.05 significance level.|2-sided exact 1-sample binomial test|||||||<0.001
90815738|NCT00853840|181510038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.11||||||90.0|-3.8|1.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"1.5 hour post-dose for supine systolic BP~Vardenafil minus Placebo~A total sample size of 18 subjects provides 90% confidence intervals for the difference between vardenafil and placebo of ±5.90 on the standing diastolic BP with 98% coverage probability at each time postdose."||1.59|-3.80|
90815739|NCT00853840|181510038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.93||||||90.0|-3.55|-0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"1.5 hour post-dose for supine diastolic BP~Vardenafil minus Placebo~A total sample size of 18 subjects provides 90% confidence intervals for the difference between vardenafil and placebo of ±5.90 on the standing diastolic BP with 98% coverage probability at each time postdose."||-0.31|-3.55|
90815740|NCT00853840|181510038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.99||||||90.0|-7.69|-2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"2 hour post-dose for supine systolic BP~Vardenafil minus Placebo~A total sample size of 18 subjects provides 90% confidence intervals for the difference between vardenafil and placebo of ±5.90 on the standing diastolic BP with 98% coverage probability at each time postdose."||-2.30|-7.69|
91016456|NCT01360021|181915920|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No adjustment were made for multiplicity for these supportive variables and nominal p-values were reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.35|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as a factor and baseline value as covariate.||Comparing mean changes from baseline to the average of the double-blind treatment period between Symbicort BA MDI 2x160/4.5 μg bid and Symbicort AC pMDI 2x160/4.5 µg bid.||0.35|-0.10|0.272
91016457|NCT01360021|181915921|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No adjustment were made for multiplicity for these supportive variables and nominal p-values were reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|-6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.69||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.41|-0.79|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as a factor and baseline value as covariate.||Comparing mean changes from baseline to the average of the double-blind treatment period between Symbicort BA MDI 2x160/4.5 μg bid and Symbicort AC pMDI 2x160/4.5 µg bid.||-0.79|-11.41|0.025
91016458|NCT01360021|181915922|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No adjustment were made for multiplicity for these supportive variables and nominal p-values were reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.71|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as a factor and baseline value as covariate.||Comparing mean changes from baseline to the average of the double-blind treatment period between BAI Symbicort BA MDI 2x160/4.5 μg bid and pMDI Symbicort AC pMDI 2x160/4.5 µg bid.||0.71|-0.19|0.258
90815741|NCT00853840|181510038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.96||||||90.0|-4.58|-1.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"2 hour post-dose for supine diastolic BP~Vardenafil minus Placebo~A total sample size of 18 subjects provides 90% confidence intervals for the difference between vardenafil and placebo of ±5.90 on the standing diastolic BP with 98% coverage probability at each time postdose."||-1.34|-4.58|
91016459|NCT00650806|181915931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.1|||ANOVA|Cofactors were treatment, run-in weight loss stratum, and pooled center.||||-0.1|-1.6|0.031
91016460|NCT00650806|181915931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.8|||ANOVA|Cofactors were treatment, run-in weight loss stratum, and pooled center.||||-0.8|-2.4|<0.001
91016461|NCT00650806|181915931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.6|||ANOVA|Cofactors were treatment, run-in weight loss stratum, and pooled center.||||-0.6|-2.1|<0.001
91016462|NCT00650806|181915932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|-0.02|||ANCOVA|Cofactors were treatment, run-in weight loss stratum, and pooled center. Baseline body weight was a covariate.||||-0.02|-1.58|0.045
90815742|NCT00853840|181510038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.88||||||90.0|-7.58|-2.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"2.5 hour post-dose for supine systolic BP~Vardenafil minus Placebo~A total sample size of 18 subjects provides 90% confidence intervals for the difference between vardenafil and placebo of ±5.90 on the standing diastolic BP with 98% coverage probability at each time postdose."||-2.19|-7.58|
90815743|NCT00853840|181510038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.82||||||90.0|-5.44|-2.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"2.5 hour post-dose for supine diastolic BP~Vardenafil minus Placebo~A total sample size of 18 subjects provides 90% confidence intervals for the difference between vardenafil and placebo of ±5.90 on the standing diastolic BP with 98% coverage probability at each time postdose."||-2.20|-5.44|
90815744|NCT00853840|181510038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.05||||||90.0|-4.74|0.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"3 hour post-dose for supine systolic BP~Vardenafil minus Placebo~A total sample size of 18 subjects provides 90% confidence intervals for the difference between vardenafil and placebo of ±5.90 on the standing diastolic BP with 98% coverage probability at each time postdose."||0.64|-4.74|
90815745|NCT00853840|181510038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.76||||||90.0|-3.38|-0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"3 hour post-dose for supine diastolic BP~Vardenafil minus Placebo~A total sample size of 18 subjects provides 90% confidence intervals for the difference between vardenafil and placebo of ±5.90 on the standing diastolic BP with 98% coverage probability at each time postdose."||-0.15|-3.38|
91016463|NCT00650806|181915932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.8|||ANCOVA|Cofactors were treatment, run-in weight loss stratum, and pooled center. Baseline body weight was a covariate.||||-0.80|-2.40|<0.001
91016464|NCT00650806|181915932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|-0.51|||ANCOVA|Cofactors were treatment, run-in weight loss stratum, and pooled center. Baseline body weight was a covariate.||||-0.51|-2.07|0.001
91016465|NCT00650806|181915933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.03|||ANCOVA|Cofactors were treatment, run-in weight loss stratum, and pooled center. The corresponding baseline measurement was a covariate.||||-0.03|-0.59|0.031
91016466|NCT00650806|181915933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.32|||ANCOVA|Cofactors were treatment, run-in weight loss stratum, and pooled center. The corresponding baseline measurement was a covariate.||||-0.32|-0.90|<0.001
91016467|NCT00650806|181915933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.2|||ANCOVA|Cofactors were treatment, run-in weight loss stratum, and pooled center. The corresponding baseline measurement was a covariate.||||-0.20|-0.76|<0.001
91016468|NCT00650806|181915934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.317||95.0|0.6|5.6||P-value controlled for run-in weight loss stratum and pooled center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio and Confidence Interval controlled for run-in weight loss stratum and pooled center.|||5.6|0.6|0.317
91055545|NCT03118570|181992795|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.237||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 18||||0.237
90815746|NCT00853840|181510038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.08||||||90.0|-4.77|0.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"4 hour post-dose for supine systolic BP~Vardenafil minus Placebo~A total sample size of 18 subjects provides 90% confidence intervals for the difference between vardenafil and placebo of ±5.90 on the standing diastolic BP with 98% coverage probability at each time postdose."||0.62|-4.77|
90815747|NCT00853840|181510038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.88||||||90.0|-2.49|0.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"4 hour post-dose for supine diastolic BP~Vardenafil minus Placebo~A total sample size of 18 subjects provides 90% confidence intervals for the difference between vardenafil and placebo of ±5.90 on the standing diastolic BP with 98% coverage probability at each time postdose."||0.74|-2.49|
91016469|NCT00650806|181915934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.9||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|11.1||P-value controlled for run-in weight loss stratum and pooled center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio and Confidence Interval controlled for run-in weight loss stratum and pooled center.|||11.1|0.9|0.059
91016470|NCT00650806|181915934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.1||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|10.0||P-value controlled for run-in weight loss stratum and pooled center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio and Confidence Interval controlled for run-in weight loss stratum and pooled center.|||10.0|1.0|0.027
91016471|NCT00650806|181915935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.117|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test controlled for run-in weight loss stratum and pooled center.||||||0.117
91016472|NCT00650806|181915935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.225|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test controlled for run-in weight loss stratum and pooled center.||||||0.225
91016473|NCT00650806|181915935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.317|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test controlled for run-in weight loss stratum and pooled center.||||||0.317
91016474|NCT00650806|181915936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.23||0.835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.68|2.17|||ANCOVA|Cofactors were treatment, run-in weight loss stratum, and pooled center. The corresponding baseline measurement was a covariate.||||2.17|-2.68|0.835
91016475|NCT00650806|181915936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29||0.466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.47|1.59|||ANCOVA|Cofactors were treatment, run-in weight loss stratum, and pooled center. The corresponding baseline measurement was a covariate.||||1.59|-3.47|0.466
91016476|NCT00650806|181915936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Sqaures Mean Difference|-1.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25||0.273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.87|1.09|||ANCOVA|Cofactors were treatment, run-in weight loss stratum, and pooled center. The corresponding baseline measurement was a covariate.||||1.09|-3.87|0.273
91016477|NCT00650806|181915937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-1.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.13||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.85|0.59|||ANCOVA|Cofactors were treatment, run-in weight loss stratum, and pooled center. The corresponding baseline measurement was a covariate.||||0.59|-3.85|0.149
90890422|NCT02415400|181645491|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.1742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.07|||2-sided p-value|||Separate hierarchical testing was performed for aspirin vs placebo: 4) Superiority for all-cause death and ischemic events.||1.07|0.70|0.1742
90815748|NCT00853840|181510038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3||||||90.0|-4.99|0.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"6 hour post-dose for supine systolic BP~Vardenafil minus Placebo~A total sample size of 18 subjects provides 90% confidence intervals for the difference between vardenafil and placebo of ±5.90 on the standing diastolic BP with 98% coverage probability at each time postdose."||0.39|-4.99|
90815749|NCT00853840|181510038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85||||||90.0|-2.47|0.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"6 hour post-dose for supine diastolic BP~Vardenafil minus Placebo~A total sample size of 18 subjects provides 90% confidence intervals for the difference between vardenafil and placebo of ±5.90 on the standing diastolic BP with 98% coverage probability at each time postdose."||0.77|-2.47|
90815750|NCT00853840|181510038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.22||||||90.0|-6.91|-1.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"8 hour post-dose for supine systolic BP~Vardenafil minus Placebo~A total sample size of 18 subjects provides 90% confidence intervals for the difference between vardenafil and placebo of ±5.90 on the standing diastolic BP with 98% coverage probability at each time postdose."||-1.52|-6.91|
90815751|NCT00853840|181510038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.51||||||90.0|-4.13|-0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"8 hour post-dose for supine diastolic BP~Vardenafil minus Placebo~A total sample size of 18 subjects provides 90% confidence intervals for the difference between vardenafil and placebo of ±5.90 on the standing diastolic BP with 98% coverage probability at each time postdose."||-0.90|-4.13|
91016478|NCT00650806|181915937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18||0.541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.05|1.6|||ANCOVA|Cofactors were treatment, run-in weight loss stratum, and pooled center. The corresponding baseline measurement was a covariate.||||1.6|-3.05|0.541
91016479|NCT00650806|181915937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-1.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.03|0.47|||ANCOVA|Cofactors were treatment, run-in weight loss stratum, and pooled center. The corresponding baseline measurement was a covariate.||||0.47|-4.03|0.121
91016480|NCT00650806|181915938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|0.011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0091||0.239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0071|0.0286|||ANCOVA|Cofactors were treatment, run-in weight loss stratum, and pooled center. The corresponding baseline measurement was a covariate.||||0.0286|-0.0071|0.239
91016481|NCT00650806|181915938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0095||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0174|0.0198|||ANCOVA|Cofactors were treatment, run-in weight loss stratum, and pooled center. The corresponding baseline measurement was a covariate.||||0.0198|-0.0174|0.900
90815752|NCT00853840|181510038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.94||||||90.0|-4.63|0.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"12 hour post-dose for supine systolic BP~Vardenafil minus Placebo~A total sample size of 18 subjects provides 90% confidence intervals for the difference between vardenafil and placebo of ±5.90 on the standing diastolic BP with 98% coverage probability at each time postdose."||0.76|-4.63|
90815753|NCT00853840|181510038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.32||||||90.0|-3.94|-0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"12 hour post-dose for supine diastolic BP~Vardenafil minus Placebo~A total sample size of 18 subjects provides 90% confidence intervals for the difference between vardenafil and placebo of ±5.90 on the standing diastolic BP with 98% coverage probability at each time postdose."||-0.70|-3.94|
91016482|NCT00650806|181915938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0092||0.822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.016|0.0202|||ANCOVA|Cofactors were treatment, run-in weight loss stratum, and pooled center. The corresponding baseline measurement was a covariate.||||0.0202|-0.0160|0.822
91016483|NCT00145119|181915949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||proportion (%)|8.0||||||||||||||||||
91016484|NCT04411641|181915950|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures are reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at 2-sided 0.05. Primary and first 6 secondary endpoints are included in this procedure.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.693||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.546|0.88||Threshold for significance at 2-sided 0.05 level.|Regression, Cox|||Derived using Cox proportional-hazards model with robust variance estimation.Covariates were treatment group,age at screening (\>40,\<=40 years),geographic region (United States \[US\], non-US),baseline EDSS score \& baseline gadolinium (Gd)-enhancing T1 lesions (presence, absence).In this analysis, for participants who completed study with 3-month confirmation and continued to meet disability progression criteria throughout EOS, their 6-month CDP status was imputed via multiple imputation method.||0.880|0.546|0.0026
91016485|NCT04411641|181915951|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures are reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at 2-sided 0.05. Primary and first 6 secondary endpoints are included in this procedure.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.757||||0.0134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.607|0.944||Threshold for significance at 2-sided 0.05 level.|Regression, Cox|||Derived using Cox proportional-hazards model with robust variance estimation. Covariates were treatment group, age at screening (\>40, \<=40 years), geographic region (US, non-US), baseline EDSS score and baseline Gd-enhancing T1 lesions (presence, absence).||0.944|0.607|0.0134
91055546|NCT03118570|181992795|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.088||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 18||||0.088
91055547|NCT03118570|181992795|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.302||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 18||||0.302
91016486|NCT04411641|181915952|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures are reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at 2-sided 0.05. Primary and first 6 secondary endpoints are included in this procedure.|Relative Risk|0.622||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.432|0.897||Threshold for significance at 2-sided 0.05 level.|Chi-squared|||Derived using negative binomial model with the number of new and/or enlarging T2-hyperintense lesions between randomization date and EOS date as the response variable, treatment group, age at screening (\>40, \<=40 years), geographic region (US, non-US), baseline EDSS score, and baseline number of T2 lesions as covariates, and log transformed observation duration as the offset variable.||0.897|0.432|0.0110
91016487|NCT04411641|181915953|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures are reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at 2-sided 0.05. Primary and first 6 secondary endpoints are included in this procedure.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.972||||0.8428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.735|1.286||Threshold for significance at 2-sided 0.05 level.|Regression, Cox|||Derived using Cox proportional-hazards model with robust variance estimation. Covariates were treatment group, age at screening (\>40, \<=40 years), geographic region (US, non-US), baseline EDSS score and baseline Gd-enhancing T1 lesions (presence, absence).||1.286|0.735|0.8428
91016488|NCT04411641|181915954|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures are reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at 2-sided 0.05. Primary and first 6 secondary endpoints are included in this procedure.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.767||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.919|||Regression, Cox|||Derived using Cox proportional-hazards model with robust variance estimation. Covariates were treatment group, age at screening (\>40, \<=40 years), geographic region (US, non-US), baseline EDSS score and baseline Gd-enhancing T1 lesions (presence, absence).||0.919|0.640|0.0040
90815754|NCT00853840|181510038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.36||||||90.0|-8.22|-0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"1.5 hour post-dose for standing systolic BP~Vardenafil minus Placebo~A total sample size of 18 subjects provides 90% confidence intervals for the difference between vardenafil and placebo of ±5.90 on the standing diastolic BP with 98% coverage probability at each time postdose."||-0.50|-8.22|
90815755|NCT00853840|181510038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.93||||||90.0|-6.29|-1.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"1.5 hour post-dose for standing diastolic BP~Vardenafil minus Placebo~A total sample size of 18 subjects provides 90% confidence intervals for the difference between vardenafil and placebo of ±5.90 on the standing diastolic BP with 98% coverage probability at each time postdose."||-1.56|-6.29|
90815756|NCT00853840|181510038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.91||||||90.0|-10.77|-3.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"2 hour post-dose for standing systolic BP~Vardenafil minus Placebo~A total sample size of 18 subjects provides 90% confidence intervals for the difference between vardenafil and placebo of ±5.90 on the standing diastolic BP with 98% coverage probability at each time postdose."||-3.05|-10.77|
90815757|NCT00853840|181510038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.79||||||90.0|-8.15|-3.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"2 hour post-dose for standing diastolic BP~Vardenafil minus Placebo~A total sample size of 18 subjects provides 90% confidence intervals for the difference between vardenafil and placebo of ±5.90 on the standing diastolic BP with 98% coverage probability at each time postdose."||-3.42|-8.15|
91016489|NCT04411641|181915955|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures are reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at 2-sided 0.05. Primary and first 6 secondary endpoints are included in this procedure.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.882||||0.0206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.102|3.214|||Regression, Cox|||Derived using Cox proportional-hazards model with robust variance estimation. Covariates were treatment group, age at screening (\>40, \<=40 years), geographic region (US, non-US), baseline EDSS score and baseline Gd-enhancing T1 lesions (presence, absence).||3.214|1.102|0.0206
91055548|NCT03118570|181992795|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.626||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 24||||0.626
91055549|NCT03118570|181992795|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.517||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 8||||0.517
91016490|NCT04411641|181915956|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures are reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at 2-sided 0.05. Primary and first 6 secondary endpoints are included in this procedure.|LS Mean Difference|0.082||||0.1646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.034|0.197|||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|||Covariates in the mixed-effect model with repeated measures were treatment group, age at screening (\>40, \<=40 years), geographic region (US, non-US), visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, cube root transformed Month 6 brain volume, and cube root transformed Month 6 brain volume-by-visit interaction.||0.197|-0.034|0.1646
91016491|NCT04342390|181915967|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.363|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.363
91016492|NCT04342390|181915968|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.633|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.633
91016493|NCT04342390|181915969|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.433|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.433
91055550|NCT03118570|181992795|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.262||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 24||||0.262
91016494|NCT04342390|181915970|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.822|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.822
90815758|NCT00853840|181510038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.8||||||90.0|-9.66|-1.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"2.5 hour post-dose for standing systolic BP~Vardenafil minus Placebo~A total sample size of 18 subjects provides 90% confidence intervals for the difference between vardenafil and placebo of ±5.90 on the standing diastolic BP with 98% coverage probability at each time postdose."||-1.94|-9.66|
90815759|NCT00853840|181510038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.65||||||90.0|-9.01|-4.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"2.5 hour post-dose for standing diastolic BP~Vardenafil minus Placebo~A total sample size of 18 subjects provides 90% confidence intervals for the difference between vardenafil and placebo of ±5.90 on the standing diastolic BP with 98% coverage probability at each time postdose."||-4.29|-9.01|
90815760|NCT00853840|181510038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.27||||||90.0|-8.13|-0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"3 hour post-dose for standing systolic BP~Vardenafil minus Placebo~A total sample size of 18 subjects provides 90% confidence intervals for the difference between vardenafil and placebo of ±5.90 on the standing diastolic BP with 98% coverage probability at each time postdose."||-0.41|-8.13|
90815761|NCT00853840|181510038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.65||||||90.0|-6.01|-1.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"3 hour post-dose for standing diastolic BP~Vardenafil minus Placebo~A total sample size of 18 subjects provides 90% confidence intervals for the difference between vardenafil and placebo of ±5.90 on the standing diastolic BP with 98% coverage probability at each time postdose."||-1.29|-6.01|
90815762|NCT00853840|181510038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.05||||||90.0|-5.91|1.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"4 hour post-dose for standing systolic BP~Vardenafil minus Placebo~A total sample size of 18 subjects provides 90% confidence intervals for the difference between vardenafil and placebo of ±5.90 on the standing diastolic BP with 98% coverage probability at each time postdose."||1.81|-5.91|
90815763|NCT00853840|181510038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.09||||||90.0|-3.46|1.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"4 hour post-dose for standing diastolic BP~Vardenafil minus Placebo~A total sample size of 18 subjects provides 90% confidence intervals for the difference between vardenafil and placebo of ±5.90 on the standing diastolic BP with 98% coverage probability at each time postdose."||1.27|-3.46|
90815764|NCT00853840|181510038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3||||||90.0|-6.16|1.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"6 hour post-dose for standing systolic BP~Vardenafil minus Placebo~A total sample size of 18 subjects provides 90% confidence intervals for the difference between vardenafil and placebo of ±5.90 on the standing diastolic BP with 98% coverage probability at each time postdose."||1.56|-6.16|
90815765|NCT00853840|181510038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.43||||||90.0|-5.79|-1.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"6 hour post-dose for standing diastolic BP~Vardenafil minus Placebo~A total sample size of 18 subjects provides 90% confidence intervals for the difference between vardenafil and placebo of ±5.90 on the standing diastolic BP with 98% coverage probability at each time postdose."||-1.06|-5.79|
90815766|NCT00853840|181510038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.47||||||90.0|-7.33|0.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"8 hour post-dose for standing systolic BP~Vardenafil minus Placebo~A total sample size of 18 subjects provides 90% confidence intervals for the difference between vardenafil and placebo of ±5.90 on the standing diastolic BP with 98% coverage probability at each time postdose."||0.39|-7.33|
91016495|NCT04342390|181915971|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.554|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.554
91016496|NCT04342390|181915972|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.186|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.186
91016497|NCT04342390|181915973|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.921|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.921
91055551|NCT03118570|181992796|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline|||||<|0.001||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 6||||< 0.001
91016498|NCT00318357|181915980|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Regression, Cox|||Mortality is compared between the arms of the CARE-HF study, using Cox proportional hazards regression. Data from the original CARE-HF trial and the CARE-HF Long Term Follow-up trial were combined for the analysis.||||0.007
91016499|NCT00710840|181916112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|||||Difference in the change from Preop to 4 weeks Postop|t-test, 2 sided|||The primary outcome, difference in quadriceps torque between intervention (TKA Min) and Control TKA at 4 weeks, was tested using an analysis of covariance model. Confirmatory measures were evaluated at 4 and 12 weeks after surgery in the same way. Baseline characteristics of the treatment groups were compared using 2-sample t tests for continuous measures or a χ2 test for independent proportions for categorical measures. A 2-sided α level of .05 was designated for statistical significance.||||0.07
91016500|NCT00710840|181916113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|||||Difference in the change from Preop to 4 weeks Postop|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.92
91016501|NCT00710840|181916114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|||||Difference in the change from Preop to 4 weeks Postop|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.48
91016502|NCT00710840|181916115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|||||Difference in the change from Preop to 4 weeks Postop|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.41
91016503|NCT00347776|181916124|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.67||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.98|||Log Rank|||"The log rank test was done to compare the survival rates between the tetracycline arm and the azithromycin arms combined.~The Cox proportional hazard model was used to evaluate risk factors and adjust for confounding in predicting recurrence."||0.98|0.45|.047
90815767|NCT00853840|181510038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.26||||||90.0|-5.62|-0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"8 hour post-dose for standing diastolic BP~Vardenafil minus Placebo~A total sample size of 18 subjects provides 90% confidence intervals for the difference between vardenafil and placebo of ±5.90 on the standing diastolic BP with 98% coverage probability at each time postdose."||-0.90|-5.62|
90815768|NCT00853840|181510038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27||||||90.0|-4.13|3.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"12 hour post-dose for standing systolic BP~Vardenafil minus Placebo~A total sample size of 18 subjects provides 90% confidence intervals for the difference between vardenafil and placebo of ±5.90 on the standing diastolic BP with 98% coverage probability at each time postdose."||3.59|-4.13|
90815769|NCT00853840|181510038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.26||||||90.0|-4.62|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"12 hour post-dose for standing diastolic BP~Vardenafil minus Placebo~A total sample size of 18 subjects provides 90% confidence intervals for the difference between vardenafil and placebo of ±5.90 on the standing diastolic BP with 98% coverage probability at each time postdose."||0.10|-4.62|
90815770|NCT00853840|181510039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.95||||||90.0|4.18|9.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"1.5 hour post-dose for supine pulse rate~Vardenafil minus Placebo"||9.72|4.18|
90815771|NCT00853840|181510039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.51||||||90.0|2.73|8.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"2 hour post-dose for supine pulse rate~Vardenafil minus Placebo"||8.28|2.73|
90815772|NCT00853840|181510039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.64||||||90.0|0.87|6.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"2.5 hour post-dose for supine pulse rate~Vardenafil minus Placebo"||6.42|0.87|
90815773|NCT00853840|181510039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.89||||||90.0|0.12|5.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"3 hour post-dose for supine pulse rate~Vardenafil minus Placebo"||5.67|0.12|
91016504|NCT00347776|181916125|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Log Rank|||"We tried to evaluate if treating the immediate family members of the subject with oral azithromycin along with the subject had added advantage in reducing the rate of recurrent trichiasis in comparison to treating the subject alone with oral azithromycin post surgery.~The log rank test was done to compare the survival rates between the two intervention arms.The comparison results were expressed in person-years."||||0.19
90815774|NCT00853840|181510039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.06||||||90.0|-0.71|4.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"4 hour post-dose for supine pulse rate~Vardenafil minus Placebo"||4.83|-0.71|
90815775|NCT00853840|181510039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.45||||||90.0|2.68|8.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"6 hour post-dose for supine pulse rate~Vardenafil minus Placebo"||8.22|2.68|
90815776|NCT00853840|181510039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.12||||||90.0|1.34|6.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"8 hour post-dose for supine pulse rate~Vardenafil minus Placebo"||6.89|1.34|
90815777|NCT00853840|181510039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.45||||||90.0|0.68|6.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"12 hour post-dose for supine pulse rate~Vardenafil minus Placebo"||6.22|0.68|
91055552|NCT03118570|181992796|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.004||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 12||||0.004
90815778|NCT00853840|181510039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.33||||||90.0|3.7|10.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"1.5 hour post-dose for standing pulse rate~Vardenafil minus Placebo"||10.95|3.70|
90815779|NCT00853840|181510039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.83||||||90.0|3.2|10.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"2 hour post-dose for standing pulse rate~Vardenafil minus Placebo"||10.45|3.20|
90815780|NCT00853840|181510039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.02||||||90.0|1.4|8.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"2.5 hour post-dose for standing pulse rate~Vardenafil minus Placebo"||8.65|1.40|
91016505|NCT00347776|181916126|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.1|||Regression, Logistic||Comparison group was the tetracycline group.|Surgery was considered a failure if there was trichiasis recurrence at 6 week follow-up.||1.10|0.36|
90815781|NCT00853840|181510039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.72||||||90.0|1.09|8.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"3 hour post-dose for standing pulse rate~Vardenafil minus Placebo"||8.34|1.09|
91016506|NCT02074982|181916128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.01|4.02|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.02|2.01|<0.0001
90815782|NCT00853840|181510039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.05||||||90.0|0.43|7.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"4 hour post-dose for standing pulse rate~Vardenafil minus Placebo"||7.67|0.43|
90815783|NCT00853840|181510039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.36||||||90.0|2.73|9.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"6 hour post-dose for standing pulse rate~Vardenafil minus Placebo"||9.98|2.73|
90815784|NCT00853840|181510039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.08||||||90.0|1.45|8.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"8 hour post-dose for standing pulse rate~Vardenafil minus Placebo"||8.70|1.45|
90815785|NCT00853840|181510039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.88||||||90.0|-1.74|5.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"12 hour post-dose for standing pulse rate~Vardenafil minus Placebo"||5.51|-1.74|
90815786|NCT02725593|181510092|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|0.15|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||0.15|-1.65|0.101
90815787|NCT02725593|181510093|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.42|0.85|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||0.85|-2.42|0.340
90815788|NCT02725593|181510094|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.96||||0.655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.11|9.62|||Fisher's exact test|||||9.62|-20.11|0.655
90815789|NCT02725593|181510095|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.83||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|41.11|||Fisher's exact test|||||41.11|0.50|0.056
90815790|NCT01122108|181510099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||If a sequence was not found to be statistically significant, then that term was removed from final model. Normality of residuals was investigated for each outcome variable using the Shapiro-Wilk test.|repeated measures analysis of variance|Sensitivity analyses were run to evaluate possible product by sequence interactions||"The BASA scale was previously developed to effectively compare differing Bile acid sequestrant forumulations. The BASA scale should differentiate subject acceptability of Colesevelam HCl 3.75 vs Cholestyramine 12g based upon the sum of ratings for taste, texture, appearance and mixability.~If normality hypothesis was rejected, then further inspection of the distribution utilizing normal quantile-quantile and kernel density plots was employed."||||<0.05
90815791|NCT01274611|181510105|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|A sample of 20 patients, or 40 treatment sites (the unit of randomization), provided 80% power to detect effect sizes of 0.68 using a paired t test at a type I error rate of 5%.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.8|||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
90815792|NCT01274611|181510106|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|A sample of 20 patients, or 40 treatment sites (the unit of randomization), provided 80% power to detect effect sizes of 0.68 using a paired t test at a type I error rate of 5%.|Mean Difference (Net)|15.0|||>|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.01
91016507|NCT03292731|181916174|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.08||adjusted for cerclage|Regression, Logistic|adjusted for cerclage||logistic regression comparing drug concentration to the rate of sPTB||1.08|0.93|0.96
90815793|NCT02690649|181510147|SUPERIORITY||estimated adherence rate for the interve|94.0||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|92.0|95.0|||Regression, Linear|||estimated adherence rate for the intervention group Generalized linear models were used to test the effect of the intervention on medication adherence. These generalized linear models used a Poisson distribution to estimate the rate of adherence with the log of total prescribed doses as an offset term in the linear predictor.||95|92|0.28
90815794|NCT02690649|181510148|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||A negative binomial distribution because the outcome was a count variable and it was over-dispersed.|Regression, Linear|Age, previous patient portal logins, and gender were used as co-variates in the model.||||||<0.001
90815795|NCT02690649|181510149|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.61||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|-0.07||baseline AF knowledge, gender, age, and educational level were all used as co-variates.|Regression, Linear|generalized linear model tested whether AF knowledge at study completion was related to baseline AF knowledge, gender, age, and educational level||||-0.07|-1.14|0.03
90815796|NCT04557787|181510189|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.4||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.2|44.6||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||44.6|12.2|0.001
90815797|NCT04557787|181510189|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.2||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|44.4||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||44.4|12.0|0.001
90815798|NCT04557787|181510189|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|16.3||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||16.3|-16.0|0.983
90815799|NCT04557787|181510190|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.0|49.4||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||49.4|17.0|<0.001
91016508|NCT03292731|181916175|OTHER||Slope|1.11||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.23|||Regression, Linear|||||2.23|0.00|0.05
91016509|NCT03292731|181916176|OTHER||Slope|1.56||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|2.87|||Regression, Linear|||||2.87|0.25|0.022
91016510|NCT03292731|181916177|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82||||||no adjustments|Fisher Exact|||Only RCT subjects utilized in neonatal safety analysis||||0.82
90815800|NCT04557787|181510190|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|29.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.5|46.0||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||46.0|13.5|<0.001
90815801|NCT04557787|181510190|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.5||||0.667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|19.7||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||19.7|-12.6|0.667
90815802|NCT04557787|181510191|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.6||||0.503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.2|7.0||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||7.0|-14.2|0.503
90815803|NCT04557787|181510191|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|11.2||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||11.2|-10.1|0.916
90815804|NCT04557787|181510191|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.1||||0.438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|6.5||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied||6.5|-14.8|0.438
90815805|NCT04557787|181510192|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|10.9||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||10.9|-10.3|0.955
90815806|NCT04557787|181510192|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.5||||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.2|2.2||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||2.2|-19.2|0.118
90815807|NCT04557787|181510192|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.8||||0.104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|19.5||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||19.5|-1.8|0.104
90815808|NCT04557787|181510193|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19||||0.352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.6||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.60|-0.22|0.352
91016511|NCT00471237|181916181|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|1.37|||ANOVA|Each dose of ronacaleret was deemed significantly different from placebo if the Hommel-adjusted p-value was \<0.044 at Month 12.||||1.37|-0.78|0.590
91016512|NCT00471237|181916181|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|2.44|||ANOVA|Each dose of ronacaleret was deemed significantly different from placebo if the Hommel-adjusted p-value was \<0.044 at Month 12||||2.44|0.28|0.028
90815809|NCT04557787|181510193|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.4||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.40|-0.41|0.980
90815810|NCT04557787|181510193|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.6||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.60|-0.21|0.339
90815811|NCT04557787|181510194|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.42||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.42|-0.62|0.700
90815812|NCT04557787|181510194|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32||||0.227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.84||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.84|-0.20|0.227
91016513|NCT00471237|181916181|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|2.65|||ANOVA|Each dose of ronacaleret was deemed significantly different from placebo if the Hommel-adjusted p-value was \<0.044 at Month 12.||||2.65|0.51|0.011
91016514|NCT00471237|181916181|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|2.69|||ANOVA|Each dose of ronacaleret was deemed significantly different from placebo if the Hommel-adjusted p-value was \<0.044 at Month 12.||||2.69|0.51|0.012
91055553|NCT03118570|181992796|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.08||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 6||||0.080
90815813|NCT04557787|181510194|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42||||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.1||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.10|-0.94|0.112
90815814|NCT04557787|181510195|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.99||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.17||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||1.17|0.22|0.013
91016515|NCT00471237|181916189|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|0.48|||ANOVA|Each dose of ronacaleret was deemed significantly different from placebo if the Hommel-adjusted p-value was \<0.006 at Month 6.||||0.48|-1.38|0.680
91016516|NCT00471237|181916189|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|1.89|||ANOVA|Each dose of ronacaleret was deemed significantly different from placebo if the Hommel-adjusted p-value was \<0.006 at Month 6.||||1.89|0.01|0.192
91016517|NCT00471237|181916189|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|0.73|||ANOVA|Each dose of ronacaleret was deemed significantly different from placebo if the Hommel-adjusted p-value was \<0.006 at Month 6.||||0.73|-1.12|0.680
91016518|NCT00471237|181916189|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|1.29|||ANOVA|Each dose of ronacaleret was deemed significantly different from placebo if the Hommel-adjusted p-value was \<0.006 at Month 6.||||1.29|-0.59|0.680
91016519|NCT00471237|181916190|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|-0.04|||ANOVA|||Total Hip aBMD, Month 6||-0.04|-1.32|0.037
90815815|NCT04557787|181510195|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.73||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|1.51||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||1.51|-0.05|0.065
90815816|NCT04557787|181510195|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27||||0.497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|1.04||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||1.04|-0.51|0.497
90815817|NCT04557787|181510196|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.88||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.88|0.06|0.027
91016520|NCT00471237|181916190|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|-0.14|||ANOVA|||Total Hip aBMD, Month 6||-0.14|-1.43|0.017
91016521|NCT00471237|181916190|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.92|-0.64|||ANOVA|||Total Hip aBMD, Month 6||-0.64|-1.92|0.000
91016522|NCT00471237|181916190|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|-0.65|||ANOVA|||Total Hip aBMD, Month 6||-0.65|-1.95|0.000
91016523|NCT00471237|181916190|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|-0.17|||ANOVA|||Total Hip aBMD, Month 12||-0.17|-1.61|0.015
91016524|NCT00471237|181916190|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|-0.3|||ANOVA|||Total Hip aBMD, Month 12||-0.30|-1.74|0.006
91016525|NCT00471237|181916190|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|-0.63|||ANOVA|||Total Hip aBMD, Month 12||-0.63|-2.04|0.000
91016526|NCT00471237|181916190|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-1.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.84|||ANOVA|||Total Hip aBMD, Month 12||-0.84|-2.30|0.000
91016527|NCT00848965|181916203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.08|-0.68|||||Treatment difference (FP minus placebo) is presented as the difference in the adjusted means for treatment versus placebo.|||-0.68|-2.08|
91016528|NCT00848965|181916203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.309|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|-0.93|||||Treatment difference (FP minus placebo) is presented as the difference in the adjusted means for treatment versus placebo.|||-0.93|-2.16|
91016529|NCT00848965|181916203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.305|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|-1.11|||||Treatment difference (FP minus placebo) is presented as the difference in the adjusted means for treatment versus placebo.|||-1.11|-2.33|
91016530|NCT00848965|181916203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.351|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-1.19|||||Treatment difference is presented as the difference in the adjusted means for treatment versus placebo.|||-1.19|-2.60|
91016531|NCT00659945|181916214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||The primary endpoint was the incidence of emesis at any time within the first 48 hours after surgery. Power analysis showed that a sample size of 69 patients per group was necessary to detect a significant decrease in the incidence of emesis from 33% in the placebo group to 15% in the aprepitant group using a Chi-square test with an alpha value of 0.05 and power of 80%.||||<0.05
91016532|NCT01976104|181916216|SUPERIORITY||Difference of proportion versus placebo|33.7|||=|0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.8|51.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by the risk of bleeding associated with the scheduled procedure within each Baseline platelet count cohort.|Difference of proportion vs placebo = proportion of Responders for avatrombopag - proportion of Responders for placebo; 95% CI is calculated based on normal approximation.|The null hypothesis was that the proportion of participants not requiring a platelet transfusion or any rescue procedure for bleeding after randomization and up to 7 days following a scheduled procedure was the same between the 60 mg avatrombopag and matched placebo treatment groups.||51.6|15.8|=0.0006
90815818|NCT04557787|181510196|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.02||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||1.02|0.19|0.005
90815819|NCT04557787|181510196|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.28||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.28|-0.54|0.532
90815820|NCT04557787|181510197|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.56||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.56|-0.26|0.461
90815821|NCT04557787|181510197|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.73||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.73|-0.09|0.120
90815822|NCT04557787|181510197|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.24||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.24|-0.58|0.404
90815823|NCT04557787|181510198|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19||||0.478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.71||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.71|-0.33|0.478
90815824|NCT04557787|181510198|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.58||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.58|-0.46|0.824
90815825|NCT04557787|181510198|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.65||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.65|-0.39|0.626
90815826|NCT04557787|181510199|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.86||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.64||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||1.64|0.09|0.030
90815827|NCT04557787|181510199|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.88||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|1.66||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||1.66|0.11|0.027
90815828|NCT04557787|181510199|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.75||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.75|-0.80|0.956
90815829|NCT04557787|181510200|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.36||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.78||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.78|-0.05|0.084
91055554|NCT03118570|181992796|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.031||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 12||||0.031
90815830|NCT04557787|181510200|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.39||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.81||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.81|-0.02|0.063
90815831|NCT04557787|181510200|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.38||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.38|-0.44|0.885
90815832|NCT01302054|181510201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.63|-2.02||Statistical testing: one-sided, at alpha = 0.025.|t-test, 1 sided|||||-2.02|-2.63|<0.0001
90815833|NCT01302054|181510202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.13||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and country with centered baseline value as a covariate was used. Statistical testing: one-sided, at alpha = 0.025.|ANCOVA|||Multiple hypothesis testing was carried out in a hierarchical sequentially rejective manner. Statistical testing between fesoterodine and placebo (Analysis of covariance \[ANCOVA\]) was carried out only if the change from baseline at Week 12 in UUI episodes for fesoterodine group was found statistically significant (paired t-test).||-0.13|-0.87|0.0079
90815834|NCT01302054|181510203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.07||Statistical testing: one-sided, at alpha = 0.025.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and country with centered baseline value as a covariate was used.||0.07|-0.86|0.0931
90815835|NCT01302054|181510204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.0438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|-0.02||Statistical testing: one-sided, at alpha = 0.025.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and country with centered baseline value as a covariate was used.||-0.02|-1.37|0.0438
90815836|NCT01302054|181510205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Change at Week 12: the p-value was obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with modified ridit scoring controlling for country.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
90815837|NCT01302054|181510206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|||||Change at Week 12: the p-value was obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with modified ridit scoring controlling for country.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0095
90815838|NCT01302054|181510207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|-3.58||Statistical testing: one-sided, at alpha = 0.025.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and country with centered baseline value as a covariate was used.||-3.58|-11.10|0.0001
90815839|NCT01302054|181510208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|9.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.98|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.12|12.91||Statistical testing: one-sided, at alpha = 0.025.|ANCOVA|||Concern Subscale - Change at Week 12: ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and country with centered baseline value as a covariate was used.||12.91|5.12|<0.0001
91016533|NCT01976104|181916216|SUPERIORITY||Difference of proportion versus placebo|54.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.5|72.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by the risk of bleeding associated with the scheduled procedure within each Baseline platelet count cohort|Difference of proportion vs placebo = proportion of Responders for avatrombopag - proportion of Responders for placebo; 95% CI is calculated based on normal approximation.|The null hypothesis was that the proportion of participants not requiring a platelet transfusion or any rescue procedure for bleeding after randomization and up to 7 days following a scheduled procedure was the same between the 60 mg avatrombopag and matched placebo treatment groups.||72.7|36.5|<0.0001
91016534|NCT01976104|181916217|SUPERIORITY||Difference of proportion versus placebo|60.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.8|73.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by the risk of bleeding associated with the scheduled procedure within each Baseline platelet count cohort.|Difference of proportion vs placebo = proportion of responders for avatrombopag - proportion of responders for placebo; 95% CI is calculated based on normal approximation.|The null hypothesis was that the proportion of participants not requiring a platelet transfusion or any rescue procedure for bleeding after randomization and up to 7 days following a scheduled procedure was the same between the avatrombopag and placebo treatment groups.||73.5|46.8|<0.0001
90815840|NCT01302054|181510208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.97|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.87|11.62||Statistical testing: one-sided, at alpha = 0.025.|ANCOVA|||Coping Subscale - Change at Week 12: ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and country with centered baseline value as a covariate was used.||11.62|3.87|<0.0001
90815841|NCT01302054|181510208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|10.45||Statistical testing: one-sided, at alpha = 0.025.|ANCOVA|||Sleep Subscale - Change at Week 12: ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and country with centered baseline value as a covariate was used.||10.45|2.60|0.0012
90815842|NCT01302054|181510208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.64||0.0123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|7.36||Statistical testing: one-sided, at alpha = 0.025.|ANCOVA|||Social Interaction Subscale - Change at Week 12: ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and country with centered baseline value as a covariate was used.||7.36|0.90|0.0123
90815843|NCT01302054|181510208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.77|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.63|10.57||Statistical testing: one-sided, at alpha = 0.025.|ANCOVA|||Total HRQL - Change at Week 12: ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and country with centered baseline value as a covariate was used.||10.57|3.63|<0.0001
90815844|NCT01302054|181510209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) general association test and stratified by country.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0023
90815845|NCT01302054|181510210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) general association test and stratified by country.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0027
90815846|NCT01302054|181510211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0427|TWO_SIDED|||||Treatment difference at Week 4: p-value was obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) general association test and stratified by country.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0427
90815847|NCT01302054|181510211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1461|TWO_SIDED|||||Treatment difference at Week 12: p-value was obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) general association test and stratified by country.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1461
90815848|NCT01291836|181510224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Area under Receiver-Operator Curve (ROC)|0.658|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.586|0.73||||||Null Hypothesis: ROC AUC of 0.58; using a one-sided z-test at a significance level of 0.025. Efficacy determined by the evaluation of the area under the Receiver Operator Curve (ROC) generated from the study primary endpoint data. The units on both axes of the ROC curve are dimensionless proportions from 0 to 1.|Efficacy determined by the evaluation of the area under the Receiver Operator Curve (ROC) generated from the study primary endpoint data. The units on both axes of the ROC curve are dimensionless proportions from 0 to 1.|0.73|0.586|
91055555|NCT03118570|181992797|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.06||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 6||||0.060
91055556|NCT03118570|181992797|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.015||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 6||||0.015
90815849|NCT01291836|181510225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ROC AUC|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.598|0.702||||||Null Hypothesis: AUC ≤0.55, using a one-sided z-test at a significance level of 0.025. Efficacy determined by the evaluation of the area under the Receiver Operator Curve (ROC) generated from the study primary endpoint data. The units on both axes of the ROC curve are dimensionless proportions from 0 to 1.|Efficacy determined by the evaluation of the area under the Receiver Operator Curve (ROC) generated from the study primary endpoint data. The units on both axes of the ROC curve are dimensionless proportions from 0 to 1.|0.702|0.598|
90815850|NCT02715726|181510233|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-35.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.6|-30.7||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 75 mg Q2W/up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Ezetimibe|Alirocumab group was compared to ezetimibe group using an appropriate contrast statement.||-30.7|-40.6|<0.0001
90815851|NCT02715726|181510234|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-37.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.1|-32.6||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 75 mg Q2W/up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Ezetimibe|A hierarchical testing method was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||-32.6|-42.1|<0.0001
90815852|NCT02715726|181510235|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-34.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.5|-30.2||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 75 mg Q2W/up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Ezetimibe|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-30.2|-39.5|<0.0001
90815853|NCT02715726|181510236|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-35.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.0|-30.7||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 75 mg Q2W/up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Ezetimibe|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-30.7|-40.0|<0.0001
90815854|NCT02715726|181510237|SUPERIORITY|Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|LS mean difference|-27.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.8|-23.9||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 75 mg Q2W/up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Ezetimibe|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-23.9|-30.8|<0.0001
90815855|NCT02715726|181510238|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-27.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.2|-24.4||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 75 mg Q2W/up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Ezetimibe|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-24.4|-31.2|<0.0001
90815856|NCT02715726|181510239|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-27.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.8|-23.6||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 75 mg Q2W/up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Ezetimibe|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-23.6|-31.8|<0.0001
90815857|NCT02715726|181510240|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-28.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.6|-24.7||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 75 mg Q2W/up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Ezetimibe|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-24.7|-32.6|<0.0001
90815858|NCT02715726|181510241|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-20.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.1|-17.2||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 75 mg Q2W/up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Ezetimibe|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-17.2|-23.1|<0.0001
90815859|NCT02715726|181510242|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-26.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.8|-23.2||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 75 mg Q2W/up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Ezetimibe|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-23.2|-29.8|<0.0001
90815860|NCT02715726|181510243|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-26.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.5|-22.8||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 75 mg Q2W/up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Ezetimibe|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-22.8|-30.5|<0.0001
90815861|NCT02715726|181510244|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-19.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.1|-16.5||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 75 mg Q2W/up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Ezetimibe|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-16.5|-22.1|<0.0001
90815862|NCT02715726|181510245|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.1|17.7||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model.|Alirocumab 75 mg Q2W/up to 150 mg Q2W vs Ezetimibe|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||17.7|7.1|<0.0001
90815863|NCT02715726|181510246|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.3|22.3||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model.|Alirocumab 75 mg Q2W/up to 150 mg Q2W vs Ezetimibe|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||22.3|8.3|<0.0001
90815864|NCT02715726|181510247|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-34.273|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.262|-29.285||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Robust|Multiple imputation approach followed by a robust regression model.|Alirocumab 75 mg Q2W/up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Ezetimibe|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-29.285|-39.262|<0.0001
90815865|NCT02715726|181510248|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.9||||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|4.9||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 75 mg Q2W/up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Ezetimibe|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||4.9|-1.2|0.2280
90815866|NCT00966719|181510290|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.84||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.24|||Fisher Exact|||||1.24|0.56|0.40
90815867|NCT00966719|181510291|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.15||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|3.02|||Fisher Exact|||||3.02|0.44|1
90815868|NCT00966719|181510292|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.1|||Fisher Exact|||||1.10|0.91|1
90815869|NCT00966719|181510293|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.26|||Fisher Exact|||||1.26|0.85|0.78
90815870|NCT00966719|181510294|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.94||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|27.3|||Fisher Exact|||||27.30|0.32|0.32
90815871|NCT00966719|181510295|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.5||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.38|||Fisher Exact|||||2.38|0.95|0.09
90815872|NCT00966719|181510296|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.27|||Fisher Exact|||||1.27|0.83|0.77
90815873|NCT00966719|181510297|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.36||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|3.15|||Fisher Exact|||||3.15|0.58|0.6
90815874|NCT03242018|181510308|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square (LS) Means|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.173||0.0962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.628|0.051|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||0.051|-0.628|0.0962
90815875|NCT03242018|181510309|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.196||0.8124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.338|0.431|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||0.431|-0.338|0.8124
91016535|NCT01976104|181916217|SUPERIORITY||Difference of proportion versus placebo|53.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.8|71.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by the risk of bleeding associated with the scheduled procedure within each Baseline platelet count cohort.|Difference of proportion vs placebo = proportion of responders for avatrombopag - proportion of responders for placebo; 95% CI is calculated based on normal approximation.|The null hypothesis was that the proportion of participants not requiring a platelet transfusion or any rescue procedure for bleeding after randomization and up to 7 days following a scheduled procedure was the same between the avatrombopag and placebo treatment groups||71.6|35.8|<0.0001
91055557|NCT03118570|181992797|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.795||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 6||||0.795
90815876|NCT03242018|181510310|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.361|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6033||0.5501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5431|0.822|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and baseline FPG as a covariate.||0.8220|-1.5431|0.5501
90815877|NCT03242018|181510310|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.714|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5298||0.1779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7524|0.3246|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and baseline FPG as a covariate.||0.3246|-1.7524|0.1779
90815878|NCT03242018|181510311|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.703||0.2432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.197|0.557|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and baseline body weight as a covariate.||0.557|-2.197|0.2432
90815879|NCT03242018|181510311|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.715||0.0487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.81|-0.008|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and baseline body weight as a covariate.||-0.008|-2.810|0.0487
90815880|NCT03242018|181510312|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-2.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.515||0.3954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.066|2.792|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 12 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and baseline SBP as a covariate.||2.792|-7.066|0.3954
90815881|NCT03242018|181510312|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.442||0.0716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.185|0.386|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 12 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and baseline SBP as a covariate.||0.386|-9.185|0.0716
90815882|NCT03242018|181510313|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-3.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.103||0.1232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.365|0.881|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 12 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and baseline SBP as a covariate.||0.881|-7.365|0.1232
90815883|NCT03242018|181510313|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-5.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.077||0.0098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.433|-1.292|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 12 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and baseline SBP as a covariate.||-1.292|-9.433|0.0098
90815884|NCT03242018|181510314|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|-20.37||||0.222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.75|14.77|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and log-transformed baseline UACR as a covariate.||14.77|-44.75|0.222
90815885|NCT03242018|181510314|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|-21.17||||0.1965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.05|13.1|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and log-transformed baseline UACR as a covariate.||13.10|-45.05|0.1965
91055558|NCT03118570|181992797|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.011||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 12||||0.011
90815886|NCT03242018|181510315|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|3.2||||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.17|8.66|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage difference between treatment groups using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by the randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of metformin use at screening (Yes, No), and the randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening.||8.66|-2.17|0.2420
90815887|NCT03242018|181510315|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|6.5||||0.0513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|12.93|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage difference between treatment groups using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by the randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of metformin use at screening (Yes, No), and the randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening.||12.93|0.04|0.0513
90815888|NCT03242018|181510316|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|12.0||||0.0066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.48|20.61|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage difference between treatment groups using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by the randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of metformin use at screening (Yes, No), and the randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening.||20.61|3.48|0.0066
90815889|NCT03242018|181510316|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|13.0||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.28|21.75|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage difference between treatment groups using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by the randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of metformin use at screening (Yes, No), and the randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening.||21.75|4.28|0.0043
90815890|NCT03689244|181510363|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric LS mean|0.95||||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.07|||ANCOVA|||Ratio of Geometric mean of Selexipag to Placebo was reported.||1.07|0.84|0.412
90815891|NCT01184417|181510365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|32.0||||||||32|4|
90815892|NCT01184417|181510366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|49.0||||||||49|4|
90815893|NCT01184417|181510367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|42.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|82.0||||||||82|-4|
90815894|NCT01184417|181510369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|23.0||||||||23|-11|
90815895|NCT01355796|181510373|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.66|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|4.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.75|-1.76|<0.05
90815896|NCT04728594|181510382|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|2.69||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05.|Regression, Logistic|||We conducted a logistic regression with the two experimental conditions as dummy variables with delayed contact as the reference group.||2.69|1.65|<.001
91055559|NCT03118570|181992797|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.047||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 12||||0.047
90815897|NCT04728594|181510382|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|2.87||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05.|Regression, Logistic|||We conducted a logistic regression with the two experimental conditions as dummy variables with delayed contact as the reference group.||2.87|1.77|<.001
90815898|NCT04728594|181510382|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.3||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05.|Regression, Logistic|||We conducted a logistic regression with the two experimental conditions as dummy variables with delayed contact as the reference group.||1.30|0.88|<.001
90815899|NCT00128713|181510421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83||||||Three one-degree-of-freedom chi-square tests, each comparing a pair of treatment groups. These tests were carried out at the .017 significance level to adjust for the multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|These tests were carried out at the .017 significance level to adjust for the multiple comparisons.||||||0.83
90815900|NCT00128713|181510421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83||||||Three one-degree-of-freedom chi-square tests, each comparing a pair of treatment groups. These tests were carried out at the .017 significance level to adjust for the multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|These tests were carried out at the .017 significance level to adjust for the multiple comparisons.||||||0.83
90815901|NCT00128713|181510421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66||||||Three one-degree-of-freedom chi-square tests, each comparing a pair of treatment groups. These tests were carried out at the .017 significance level to adjust for the multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|These tests were carried out at the .017 significance level to adjust for the multiple comparisons.||||||0.66
90815902|NCT00128713|181510422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||||||All analyses are based on intention to treat. These tests were carried out at the .017 significance level to adjust for the multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.02
90815903|NCT00128713|181510422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||All analyses are based on intention to treat. These tests were carried out at the .017 significance level to adjust for the multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90815904|NCT00128713|181510422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||All analyses are based on intention to treat. These tests were carried out at the .017 significance level to adjust for the multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90815905|NCT00128713|181510423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||All analyses were carried out using intention to treat. These tests were carried out at the .017 significance level to adjust for the multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90815906|NCT00128713|181510423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||All analyses were carried out using intention to treat. These tests were carried out at the .017 significance level to adjust for the multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90815907|NCT00128713|181510423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16||||||All analyses were carried out using intention to treat. These tests were carried out at the .017 significance level to adjust for the multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.16
90815908|NCT00128713|181510425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51||||||Each pair of treatment arms was compared using an exact version of the Mantel-Haenszel test for trend.|Mantel Haenszel|These tests will be carried out at the .017 significance level to adjust for the multiple comparisons||||||0.51
90815909|NCT00128713|181510425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82||||||Each pair of treatment arms was compared using an exact version of the Mantel-Haenszel test for trend.|Mantel Haenszel|These tests will be carried out at the .017 significance level to adjust for the multiple comparisons||||||0.82
90815910|NCT00128713|181510425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68||||||Each pair of treatment arms was compared using an exact version of the Mantel-Haenszel test for trend.|Mantel Haenszel|These tests will be carried out at the .017 significance level to adjust for the multiple comparisons||||||0.68
90815911|NCT00969436|181510517|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority with respect to seroconversion rates for measles 42-56 days after second vaccination dose was concluded if the lower limit (LL) of the two-sided standardised asymptotic 95% CI on the difference in the seroconversion rates between the two groups (Priorix-Tetra Group minus Control Group) was greater than or equal to (≥) -10%.|Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|5.09||||||Non-inferiority of 2 doses of Priorix-Tetra® vaccine compared to Priorix™ vaccine followed by Priorix™ vaccine co-administered with Varilrix™ vaccine in terms of anti-measles seroconversion rates.||5.09|-2.52|
90815912|NCT00969436|181510517|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority with respect to seroconversion rates for mumps 42-56 days after second vaccination dose was concluded if the lower limit (LL) of the two-sided standardised asymptotic 95% CI on the difference in the seroconversion rates between the two groups (Priorix-Tetra Group minus Control Group) was greater than or equal to (≥) -10%.|Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|5.09||||||Non-inferiority of 2 doses of Priorix-Tetra® vaccine compared to Priorix™ vaccine followed by Priorix™ vaccine co-administered with Varilrix™ vaccine in terms of anti-mumps seroconversion rates.||5.09|-2.52|
90815913|NCT00969436|181510517|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority with respect to seroconversion rates for rubella 42-56 days after second vaccination dose was concluded if the lower limit (LL) of the two-sided standardised asymptotic 95% CI on the difference in the seroconversion rates between the two groups (Priorix-Tetra Group minus Control Group) was greater than or equal to (≥) -10%.|Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|5.02||||||Non-inferiority of 2 doses of Priorix-Tetra® vaccine compared to Priorix™ vaccine followed by Priorix™ vaccine co-administered with Varilrix™ vaccine in terms of anti-rubella seroconversion rates.||5.02|-2.51|
90815914|NCT00969436|181510517|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority with respect to seroconversion rates for varicella 42-56 days after second vaccination dose was concluded if the lower limit (LL) of the two-sided standardised asymptotic 95% CI on the difference in the seroconversion rates between the two groups (Priorix-Tetra Group minus Control Group) was greater than or equal to (≥) -10%.|Difference in percentage|4.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|11.57||||||Non-inferiority of 2 doses of Priorix-Tetra® vaccine compared to Priorix™ vaccine followed by Priorix™ vaccine co-administered with Varilrix™ vaccine in terms of anti-varicella seroconversion rates.||11.57|1.37|
90815915|NCT00969436|181510517|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority with respect to seroconversion rates for measles 42-56 days after second vaccination dose was concluded if the lower limit (LL) of the 2-sided standardised asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) on the difference in the seroconversion rates between the 2 groups (Priorix/Priorix-Tetra Group minus Control Group) was ≥ -10%.|Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.46|5.09||||||Non-inferiority of Priorix™ vaccine followed by Priorix-Tetra® vaccine compared to Priorix™ vaccine followed by Priorix™ vaccine co-administered with Varilrix™ vaccine in terms of anti-measles seroconversion rates.||5.09|-2.46|
90815916|NCT00969436|181510517|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority with respect to seroconversion rates for mumps 42-56 days after second vaccination dose was concluded if the lower limit (LL) of the 2-sided standardised asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) on the difference in the seroconversion rates between the 2 groups (Priorix/Priorix-Tetra Group minus Control Group) was ≥ -10%.|Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|5.09||||||Non-inferiority of Priorix™ vaccine followed by Priorix-Tetra® vaccine compared to Priorix™ vaccine followed by Priorix™ vaccine co-administered with Varilrix™ vaccine in terms of anti-mumps seroconversion rates.||5.09|-2.48|
90815917|NCT00969436|181510517|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority with respect to seroconversion rates for rubella 42-56 days after second vaccination dose was concluded if the lower limit (LL) of the 2-sided standardised asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) on the difference in the seroconversion rates between the 2 groups (Priorix/Priorix-Tetra Group minus Control Group) was ≥ -10%.|Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|5.02||||||Non-inferiority of Priorix™ vaccine followed by Priorix-Tetra® vaccine compared to Priorix™ vaccine followed by Priorix™ vaccine co-administered with Varilrix™ vaccine in terms of anti-rubella seroconversion rates.||5.02|-2.48|
90815918|NCT00969436|181510517|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority with respect to seroconversion rates for varicella 42-56 days after second vaccination dose was concluded if the lower limit (LL) of the 2-sided standardised asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) on the difference in the seroconversion rates between the 2 groups (Priorix/Priorix-Tetra Group minus Control Group) was ≥ -10%.|Difference in percentage|2.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|10.29||||||Non-inferiority of Priorix™ vaccine followed by Priorix-Tetra® vaccine compared to Priorix™ vaccine followed by Priorix™ vaccine co-administered with Varilrix™ vaccine in terms of anti-varicella seroconversion rates.||10.29|-1.59|
90815919|NCT00351273|181510526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|40.8||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in the percentages of participants with response between all those who received combination therapy vs. placebo||||0.01
90815920|NCT01672866|181510534|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSMeans [SIM - Placebo]|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.0||||||A mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for each participant was used to calculate a point estimate and a 95% confidence interval (CI) for the treatment difference between each treatment arm and placebo in least squares mean (LSMean) change from baseline in MQC at Week 96. With MMRM setting, all participants with available data from 3 treatment groups with change in MQC at Week 48 and/or Week 96 contributed to the overall model.||1.0|-1.3|
91055560|NCT03118570|181992797|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.756||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 12||||0.756
90815921|NCT01672866|181510534|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSMeans [SIM - Placebo]|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.8||||||An MMRM with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for each participant was used to calculate a point estimate and a 95% CI for the treatment difference between each treatment arm and placebo in LSMean change from baseline in MQC at Week 96. With MMRM setting, all participants with available data from 3 treatment groups with change in MQC at Week 48 and/or Week 96 contributed to the overall model.||0.8|-1.5|
91016536|NCT01976104|181916218|SUPERIORITY||Difference in change of platelet count|25.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.5|32.0|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|P-value was based on Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test for each avatrombopag treatment group versus placebo within each Baseline platelet count cohort.|Difference in change from Baseline of platelet count for avatrombopag versus placebo within each Baseline platelet count cohort was based on Hodges-Lehmann estimation; 95% CI was the asymptotic (Moses) CI|||32.0|19.5|<0.0001
90815922|NCT01672866|181510535|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||Stratified log-rank test|||Differences in EFS between a given SIM group and placebo were assessed using the log-rank test stratified by the presence or absence of diabetes at baseline.||||0.73
90815923|NCT01672866|181510535|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||Stratified log-rank test|||Differences in EFS between a given SIM group and placebo were assessed using the log-rank test stratified by the presence or absence of diabetes at baseline.||||0.85
90815924|NCT01018095|181510536|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Continuous variables were assessed for normality, and tested accordingly. When appropriate, continuous variables were categorized using clinically relevant cut-points. Categorical variables were compared using the Chi-square test. The measure of association at TOC was calculated as a relative risk with 95% confidence interval.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.191||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.0|||Relative risk|The measure of association at TOC and 3 months was calculated as a relative risk with 95% confidence interval.||It was initially estimated that a total of 380 participants (190 per arm) would be required, with 90% power and a significance level of 5%, to establish equivalency between the two treatment arms.31 Enrollment rates were lower than estimated and only 270 participants (135 per arm) were enrolled.||1.00|0.25|.045
90815925|NCT01018095|181510536|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|It was initially estimated that a total of 380 participants (190 per arm) would be required, with 90% power and a significance level of 5%, to establish equivalency between the two treatment arms.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.46|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.98||Continuous variables were assessed for normality, and tested accordingly. When appropriate, continuous variables were categorized using clinically relevant cut-points. Categorical variables were compared using the Chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||||0.98|0.21|<0.05
90815926|NCT01018095|181510537|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Continuous variables were assessed for normality, and tested accordingly. When appropriate, continuous variables were categorized using clinically relevant cut-points. Categorical variables were compared using the Chi-square test. The measure of association at 3 months was calculated as a relative risk with 95% confidence interval.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.196|=|0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.98|||Relative risk|The measure of association at TOC and 3 months was calculated as a relative risk with 95% confidence interval.||It was initially estimated that a total of 380 participants (190 per arm) would be required, with 90% power and a significance level of 5%, to establish equivalency between the two treatment arms.31 Enrollment rates were lower than estimated and only 270 participants (135 per arm) were enrolled.||0.98|.21|=0.03
90815927|NCT01595581|181510547|OTHER|Mann-Whitney U test for continuous variables and Fisher exact test for categorical variables|Mean Difference (Net)|2.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.5||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Power was estimated for change in lean mass of 3.0 plus or minus 1.5 kg in healthy men receiving testosterone. Using a significance level of 0.05 and a power of 0.80, a sample size of 6 participants per group was calculated.~This statistical analysis applies to lean mass in participants 6 weeks post operative."||||0.35
90815928|NCT01595581|181510547|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.0||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Power was estimated for change in lean mass of 3.0 plus or minus 1.5 kg in healthy men receiving testosterone. Using a significance level of 0.05 and a power of 0.80, a sample size of 6 participants per group was calculated.~This statistical analysis applies to lean mass in participants 12 weeks post operative."||||0.48
90815929|NCT01595581|181510547|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.0||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Power was estimated for change in lean mass of 3.0 plus or minus 1.5 kg in healthy men receiving testosterone. Using a significance level of 0.05 and a power of 0.80, a sample size of 6 participants per group was calculated.~This statistical analysis applies to lean mass in participants 24 weeks post operative."||||0.74
90815930|NCT01969721|181510556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.125|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.103|0.147||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is two-sided alpha=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation and Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 - F+S 250/50 adjusted mean FEV1 AUC 0-12h change from patient baseline (L)|"Null hypothesis: Mean FEV1 AUC 0-12h change from patient baseline (Tiotropium + Olodaterol 5/5 µg) = Mean FEV1 AUC 0-12h change from patient baseline (Fluticasone propionate + Salmeterol 250/50 µg).~Hypothesis was analysed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed effect repeated measures model including fixed effects of treatment and period; period baseline and patient baseline as covariates; patient as a random effect."||0.147|0.103|<0.0001
91055561|NCT03118570|181992797|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.006||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 18||||0.006
90890423|NCT03825380|181645492|NON_INFERIORITY|"Primary tested:Non-inferiority of T4032 to Lumigan® on the change from baseline in IOP using a MMRM. 3 independent models will be performed, one for each time point (8:00, 10:00~\& 16:00). The 95% CI for treatment effect (difference T4032 - Lumigan) will be estimated at Wk 12. NI will be achieved if the upper bound of the 95% CI for the difference between treatment groups (T4032 - Lumigan) is lower than the margin of +1.5 mmHg for each of the 3 time points 8:00, 10:00 \& 16:00."|Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.28|-0.62|0.453
91016537|NCT01976104|181916218|SUPERIORITY||Difference in change of platelet count|36.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.5|45.5|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|P-value was based on Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test for each avatrombopag treatment group versus placebo within each Baseline platelet count cohort.|Difference in change from baseline of platelet count for avatrombopag vs. placebo within each baseline platelet count cohort is based on Hodges-Lehmann estimation; 95% confidence interval is the asymptotic (Moses) CI.|||45.5|25.5|<0.0001
90815931|NCT01969721|181510556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.129|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.107|0.15||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is two-sided alpha=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation and Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 - F+S 500/50 adjusted mean FEV1 AUC 0-12h change from patient baseline (L)|"Null hypothesis: Mean FEV1 AUC 0-12h change from patient baseline (Tiotropium + Olodaterol 5/5 µg) = Mean FEV1 AUC 0-12h change from patient baseline (Fluticasone propionate + Salmeterol 500/50 µg).~Hypothesis was analysed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed effect repeated measures model including fixed effects of treatment and period; period baseline and patient baseline as covariates; patient as a random effect."||0.150|0.107|<0.0001
90815932|NCT01969721|181510556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.103|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011|<|0.0001||95.0|0.081|0.124||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is two-sided alpha=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation and Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 - F+S 250/50 adjusted mean FEV1 AUC 0-12h change from patient baseline (L)|"Null hypothesis: Mean FEV1 AUC 0-12h change from patient baseline (Tiotropium + Olodaterol 2.5/5 µg) = Mean FEV1 AUC 0-12h change from patient baseline (Fluticasone propionate + Salmeterol 250/50 µg).~Hypothesis was analysed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed effect repeated measures model including fixed effects of treatment and period; period baseline and patient baseline as covariates; patient as a random effect."||0.124|0.081|<0.0001
90815933|NCT01969721|181510556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.106|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.085|0.128||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is two-sided alpha=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation and Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 - F+S 500/50 adjusted mean FEV1 AUC 0-12h change from patient baseline (L)|"Null hypothesis: Mean FEV1 AUC 0-12h change from patient baseline (Tiotropium + Olodaterol 2.5/5 µg) = Mean FEV1 AUC 0-12h change from patient baseline (Fluticasone propionate + Salmeterol 500/50 µg).~Hypothesis was analysed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed effect repeated measures model including fixed effects of treatment and period; period baseline and patient baseline as covariates; patient as a random effect."||0.128|0.085|<0.0001
90815934|NCT01969721|181510557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.082|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.061|0.103||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is two-sided alpha=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation and Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 - F+S 250/50 adjusted mean FEV1 AUC 0-24h change from patient baseline (L)|Null hypothesis: Mean FEV1 AUC 0-24h change from patient baseline (Tiotropium + Olodaterol 5/5 μg) = Mean FEV1 AUC 0-24h change from patient baseline (Fluticasone propionate + Salmeterol 250/50 μg). Hypothesis was analysed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed effect repeated measures model including fixed effects of treatment and period; period baseline and patient baseline as covariates; patient as a random effect.||0.103|0.061|<0.0001
90815935|NCT01969721|181510557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.086|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.065|0.107||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is two-sided alpha=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation and Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 - F+S 500/50 adjusted mean FEV1 AUC 0-24h change from patient baseline (L)|Null hypothesis: Mean FEV1 AUC 0-24h change from patient baseline (Tiotropium + Olodaterol 5/5 μg) = Mean FEV1 AUC 0-24h change from patient baseline (Fluticasone propionate + Salmeterol 500/50 μg). Hypothesis was analysed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed effect repeated measures model including fixed effects of treatment and period; period baseline and patient baseline as covariates; patient as a random effect.||0.107|0.065|<0.0001
90890424|NCT01968213|181645508|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.365|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.295|0.451|||Regression, Cox||||Analysis is performed by randomization strata of HRD classification by CTA, best response, and penultimate platinum progression-free interval.|0.451|0.295|<0.0001
91016538|NCT01353209|181916226|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear Mixed-Effects Model Adjusted for Sirolimus Use||||||0.4
91016539|NCT01353209|181916227|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear Mixed-Effects Model Adjusted for Sirolimus Use||||||0.7
91016540|NCT01353209|181916228|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Regression, Linear|Linear Mixed-Effects Model Adjusted for Sirolimus Use||||||0.8
91055562|NCT03118570|181992797|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.137||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 18||||0.137
91055563|NCT03118570|181992797|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.639||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 18||||0.639
91016541|NCT01353209|181916228|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.8
91016542|NCT01353209|181916229|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear Mixed-Effects Model Adjusted for Sirolimus Use. P value was obtained for testing zero slope for log(VEGF-D).||||||0.015
91016543|NCT01283009|181916230|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.4|||Mantel Haenszel|||||1.40|0.58|0.635
91016544|NCT03237325|181916249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1798|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.1798
91055564|NCT03118570|181992797|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.325||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 24||||0.325
91055565|NCT03118570|181992797|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.108||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 24||||0.108
90815936|NCT01969721|181510557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.065|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.045|0.086||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is two-sided alpha=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation and Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 - F+S 250/50 adjusted mean FEV1 AUC 0-24h change from patient baseline (L)|Null hypothesis: Mean FEV1 AUC 0-24h change from patient baseline (Tiotropium + Olodaterol 2.5/5 μg) = Mean FEV1 AUC 0-24h change from patient baseline (Fluticasone propionate + Salmeterol 250/50 μg). Hypothesis was analysed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed effect repeated measures model including fixed effects of treatment and period; period baseline and patient baseline as covariates; patient as a random effect.||0.086|0.045|<0.0001
90815937|NCT01969721|181510557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.069|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.048|0.09||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is two-sided alpha=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation and Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 - F+S 500/50 adjusted mean FEV1 AUC 0-24h change from patient baseline (L)|Null hypothesis: Mean FEV1 AUC 0-24h change from patient baseline (Tiotropium + Olodaterol 2.5/5 μg) = Mean FEV1 AUC 0-24h change from patient baseline (Fluticasone propionate + Salmeterol 500/50 μg). Hypothesis was analysed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed effect repeated measures model including fixed effects of treatment and period; period baseline and patient baseline as covariates; patient as a random effect.||0.090|0.048|<0.0001
90815938|NCT01969721|181510558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.047|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.022|0.071||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is two-sided alpha=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation and Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 - F+S 250/50 adjusted mean trough FEV1 change from patient baseline (L)|Null hypothesis: Mean trough FEV1 change from patient baseline (Tiotropium + Olodaterol 5/5 μg) = Mean trough FEV1 change from patient baseline (Fluticasone propionate + Salmeterol 250/50 μg). Hypothesis was analysed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed effect repeated measures model including fixed effects of treatment and period; period baseline and patient baseline as covariates; patient as a random effect.||0.071|0.022|0.0002
90815939|NCT01969721|181510558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.058|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.034|0.082||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is two-sided alpha=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation and Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 - F+S 500/50 adjusted mean trough FEV1 change from patient baseline (L)|Null hypothesis: Mean trough FEV1 change from patient baseline (Tiotropium + Olodaterol 5/5 μg) = Mean trough FEV1 change from patient baseline (Fluticasone propionate + Salmeterol 500/50 μg). Hypothesis was analysed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed effect repeated measures model including fixed effects of treatment and period; period baseline and patient baseline as covariates; patient as a random effect.||0.082|0.034|<0.0001
90815940|NCT01969721|181510558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.018|0.067||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is two-sided alpha=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation and Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 - F+S 250/50 adjusted mean trough FEV1 change from patient baseline (L)|Null hypothesis: Mean trough FEV1 change from patient baseline (Tiotropium + Olodaterol 2.5/5 μg) = Mean trough FEV1 change from patient baseline (Fluticasone propionate + Salmeterol 250/50 μg). Hypothesis was analysed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed effect repeated measures model including fixed effects of treatment and period; period baseline and patient baseline as covariates; patient as a random effect.||0.067|0.018|0.0007
90815941|NCT01969721|181510558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.054|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.029|0.078||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is two-sided alpha=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation and Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 - F+S 500/50 adjusted mean trough FEV1 change from patient baseline (L)|Null hypothesis: Mean trough FEV1 change from patient baseline (Tiotropium + Olodaterol 2.5/5 μg) = Mean trough FEV1 change from patient baseline (Fluticasone propionate + Salmeterol 500/50 μg). Hypothesis was analysed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed effect repeated measures model including fixed effects of treatment and period; period baseline and patient baseline as covariates; patient as a random effect.||0.078|0.029|<0.0001
90890425|NCT01968213|181645509|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.354|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.278|0.45|||Regression, Cox||||Analysis is performed by randomization strata of HRD classification by CTA, best response, and penultimate platinum progression-free interval.|0.450|0.278|<0.0001
91016545|NCT02684370|181916250|OTHER||adjusted difference in percentage|70.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.0|76.7||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (baseline weight \[≤100 kg vs \>100 kg\] and prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor \[TNF\] antagonists \[0 vs ≥1\]). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|||76.7|64.0|<0.001
91055566|NCT03118570|181992797|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.078||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 24||||0.078
91055567|NCT03118570|181992797|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.106||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 6||||0.106
90815942|NCT01969721|181510559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.039|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.017|0.062||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is two-sided alpha=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation and Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference calculated T+O 5/5 - F+S 250/50 adjusted mean FEV1 AUC 12-24h change from patient baseline (L)|Null hypothesis: Mean FEV1 AUC 12-24h change from patient baseline (Tiotropium + Olodaterol 5/5 μg) = Mean FEV1 AUC 12-24h change from patient baseline (Fluticasone propionate + Salmeterol 250/50 μg). Hypothesis was analysed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed effect repeated measures model including fixed effects of treatment and period; period baseline and patient baseline as covariates; patient as a random effect.||0.062|0.017|0.0007
90815943|NCT01969721|181510559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.043|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.021|0.065||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is two-sided alpha=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation and Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 - F+S 500/50 adjusted mean FEV1 AUC 12-24h change from patient baseline (L)|Null hypothesis: Mean FEV1 AUC 12-24h change from patient baseline (Tiotropium + Olodaterol 5/5 μg) = Mean FEV1 AUC 12-24h change from patient baseline (Fluticasone propionate + Salmeterol 500/50 μg). Hypothesis was analysed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed effect repeated measures model including fixed effects of treatment and period; period baseline and patient baseline as covariates; patient as a random effect.||0.065|0.021|0.0002
90815944|NCT01969721|181510559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.028|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011||0.0146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.006|0.051||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is two-sided alpha=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation and Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 - F+S 250/50 adjusted mean FEV1 AUC 12-24h change from patient baseline (L)|Null hypothesis: Mean FEV1 AUC 12-24h change from patient baseline (Tiotropium + Olodaterol 2.5/5 μg) = Mean FEV1 AUC 12-24h change from patient baseline (Fluticasone propionate + Salmeterol 250/50 μg). Hypothesis was analysed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed effect repeated measures model including fixed effects of treatment and period; period baseline and patient baseline as covariates; patient as a random effect.||0.051|0.006|0.0146
90815945|NCT01969721|181510559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.032|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.009|0.054||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is two-sided alpha=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation and Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 - F+S 500/50 adjusted mean FEV1 AUC 12-24h change from patient baseline (L)|Null hypothesis: Mean FEV1 AUC 12-24h change from patient baseline (Tiotropium + Olodaterol 2.5/5 μg) = Mean FEV1 AUC 12-24h change from patient baseline (Fluticasone propionate + Salmeterol 500/50 μg). Hypothesis was analysed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed effect repeated measures model including fixed effects of treatment and period; period baseline and patient baseline as covariates; patient as a random effect.||0.054|0.009|0.0055
90815946|NCT01969721|181510560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.142|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.118|0.166||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is two-sided alpha=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation and Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 - F+S 250/50 adjusted mean FEV1 peak (0-3h) change from patient baseline (L)|Null hypothesis: Mean FEV1 peak (0-3h) change from patient baseline (Tiotropium + Olodaterol 5/5 μg) = Mean FEV1 peak (0-3h) change from patient baseline (Fluticasone propionate + Salmeterol 250/50 μg). Hypothesis was analysed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed effect repeated measures model including fixed effects of treatment and period; period baseline and patient baseline as covariates; patient as a random effect.||0.166|0.118|<0.0001
90815947|NCT01969721|181510560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.147|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.123|0.171||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is two-sided alpha=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation and Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 - F+S 500/50 adjusted mean FEV1 peak (0-3h) change from patient baseline (L)|Null hypothesis: Mean FEV1 peak (0-3h) change from patient baseline (Tiotropium + Olodaterol 5/5 μg) = Mean FEV1 peak (0-3h) change from patient baseline (Fluticasone propionate + Salmeterol 500/50 μg). Hypothesis was analysed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed effect repeated measures model including fixed effects of treatment and period; period baseline and patient baseline as covariates; patient as a random effect.||0.171|0.123|<0.0001
90815948|NCT01969721|181510560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.111|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.087|0.135||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is two-sided alpha=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation and Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 - F+S 250/50 adjusted mean FEV1 peak (0-3h) change from patient baseline (L)|Null hypothesis: Mean FEV1 peak (0-3h) change from patient baseline (Tiotropium + Olodaterol 2.5/5 μg) = Mean FEV1 peak (0-3h) change from patient baseline (Fluticasone propionate + Salmeterol 250/50 μg). Hypothesis was analysed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed effect repeated measures model including fixed effects of treatment and period; period baseline and patient baseline as covariates; patient as a random effect.||0.135|0.087|<0.0001
90890426|NCT00295750|181645514|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority limit was -10 percentage points.|Difference in cumulative probability|1.9||||||97.5|-1.8|5.7||||||A non-inferiority assessment determined whether degarelix was non-inferior to leuprolide with respect to the cumulative probability of testosterone \<=0.5 ng/mL from Day 28 to Day 364.||5.7|-1.8|
90890427|NCT00295750|181645514|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority limit was -10 percentage points.|Difference in cumulative probability|0.9||||||97.5|-3.2|5.0||||||A non-inferiority assessment determined whether degarelix was non-inferior to leuprolide with respect to the cumulative probability of testosterone \<=0.5 ng/mL from Day 28 to Day 364.||5.0|-3.2|
91016546|NCT02684370|181916251|OTHER||adjusted difference in percentage|79.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|73.5|86.3||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (baseline weight \[≤100 kg vs \>100 kg\] and prior exposure to TNF antagonists \[0 vs ≥1\]). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|||86.3|73.5|<0.001
91016547|NCT02684370|181916252|OTHER||adjusted difference in percentage|34.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.6|40.8||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (baseline weight \[≤100 kg vs \>100 kg\] and prior exposure to TNF antagonists \[0 vs ≥1\]). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|||40.8|28.6|<0.001
91016548|NCT02684370|181916253|OTHER||adjusted difference in percentage|35.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.0|41.0||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (baseline weight \[≤100 kg vs \>100 kg\] and prior exposure to TNF antagonists \[0 vs ≥1\]). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|||41.0|30.0|< 0.001
91016549|NCT02684370|181916254|OTHER||adjusted difference in percentage|57.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.4|65.3||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (baseline weight \[≤100 kg vs \>100 kg\] and prior exposure to TNF antagonists \[0 vs ≥1\]). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|||65.3|50.4|< 0.001
91016550|NCT02684370|181916255|OTHER||adjusted difference in percentage|27.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.2|32.9||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (baseline weight \[≤100 kg vs \>100 kg\] and prior exposure to TNF antagonists \[0 vs ≥1\]). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|||32.9|21.2|< 0.001
91055568|NCT03118570|181992797|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.236||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 6||||0.236
90815949|NCT01969721|181510560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.116|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.092|0.14||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is two-sided alpha=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation and Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 - F+S 500/50 adjusted mean FEV1 peak (0-3h) change from patient baseline (L)|Null hypothesis: Mean FEV1 peak (0-3h) change from patient baseline (Tiotropium + Olodaterol 2.5/5 μg) = Mean FEV1 peak (0-3h) change from patient baseline (Fluticasone propionate + Salmeterol 500/50 μg). Hypothesis was analysed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed effect repeated measures model including fixed effects of treatment and period; period baseline and patient baseline as covariates; patient as a random effect.||0.140|0.092|<0.0001
90815950|NCT01294163|181510591|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Xenon was to be concluded non-inferior to sevoflurane if the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference \[mean troponin I level (xenon) - mean troponin I level (sevoflurane)\] was below the prespecified margin of 0.63 ng/mL. Assuming a margin of 0.63, a same concentration of troponin I at 24 hours in the xenon and sevoflurane groups, a common standard deviation of 1.9 ng/mL and a one-sided type I error of 0.025, 164 patients per group were deemed necessary to demonstrate non-inferiority.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|0.47|||ANCOVA|Treatment difference and 95%CI assessed using ANCOVA with 24h troponin I as response, treatment group and pre-induction troponin I as covariates.||||0.47|-1.27|0.02
90815951|NCT01294163|181510600|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|It was to be concluded that xenon was non-inferior to sevoflurane if the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference \[mean troponin I level (xenon) - mean troponin I level (sevoflurane)\] was below the margin of 0.15 ng/mL.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.0186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.11|||ANCOVA|||As the residuals from the primary ANCOVA model were non-normal and skewed, the non-inferiority analysis was repeated using log-transformed blood troponin levels.||0.11|-0.30|0.0186
91016551|NCT02684370|181916256|OTHER||adjusted difference in percentage|33.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.7|44.3||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (baseline weight \[≤100 kg vs \>100 kg\] and prior exposure to TNF antagonists \[0 vs ≥1\]). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|||44.3|22.7|< 0.001
91016552|NCT02684370|181916257|OTHER||adjusted difference in percentage|25.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.2|35.0||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (baseline weight \[≤100 kg vs \>100 kg\] and prior exposure to TNF antagonists \[0 vs ≥1\]). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|||35.0|15.2|< 0.001
91055569|NCT03118570|181992797|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.164||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 6||||0.164
91055570|NCT03118570|181992797|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.031||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 12||||0.031
90815952|NCT01563172|181510601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square (LS) mean difference|6.95||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.91|10.98||Between Treatment p-Values based on the statistical model adjusting for treatment, study period, and participant (random effect).|ANOVA||"LS Mean from Analysis of variance (ANOVA) with factors for treatment, study period, and participant (random effect).~Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favours the first named treatment."|||10.98|2.91|0.0008
90815953|NCT01563172|181510602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|5.7||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.74|9.66||Between Treatment p-Values based on the statistical model adjusting for treatment, study period, and participant (random effect).|ANOVA||"LS Mean from ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and participant (random effect).~Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favours the first named treatment."|||9.66|1.74|0.0049
90815954|NCT01563172|181510603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-10.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.77|-6.94||Between Treatment p-Values based on the statistical model adjusting for treatment, study period, and participant (random effect).|ANOVA||"LS Mean from ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and participant (random effect).~Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favours the first named treatment."|||-6.94|-14.77|<0.0001
90815955|NCT01563172|181510604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-9.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.68|-5.54||Between Treatment p-Values based on the statistical model adjusting for treatment, study period, and participant (random effect).|ANOVA||"LS Mean from ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and participant (random effect).~Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favours the first named treatment."|||-5.54|-13.68|<0.0001
90815956|NCT01563172|181510605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|15.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.45|19.31||Between Treatment p-Values based on the statistical model adjusting for treatment, study period, and participant (random effect).|ANOVA||"LS Mean from ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and participant (random effect).~Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favours the first named treatment."|||19.31|11.45|<0.0001
90815957|NCT01563172|181510606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|514.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|283.02|744.99||Between Treatment p-Values based on the statistical model adjusting for treatment, study period, and participant (random effect).|ANOVA||"LS Mean from ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and participant (random effect).~Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favours the first named treatment."|||744.99|283.02|<0.0001
90815958|NCT01563172|181510607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|265.92||||0.0218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.0|492.83||Between Treatment p-Values based on the statistical model adjusting for treatment, study period, and participant (random effect).|ANOVA||"LS Mean from ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and participant (random effect).~Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favours the first named treatment."|||492.83|39.00|0.0218
90815959|NCT01563172|181510608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-822.88|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1047.34|-598.42||Between Treatment p-Values based on the statistical model adjusting for treatment, study period, and participant (random effect).|ANOVA||"LS Mean from ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and participant (random effect).~Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favours the first named treatment."|||-598.42|-1047.34|<0.0001
90815960|NCT01563172|181510609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-574.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-808.08|-341.5||Between Treatment p-Values based on the statistical model adjusting for treatment, study period, and participant (random effect).|ANOVA||"LS Mean from ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and participant (random effect).~Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favours the first named treatment."|||-341.50|-808.08|<0.0001
90815961|NCT01563172|181510610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1294.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1069.24|1519.43||Between Treatment p-Values based on the statistical model adjusting for treatment, study period, and participant (random effect).|ANOVA||"LS Mean from ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and participant (random effect).~Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favours the first named treatment."|||1519.43|1069.24|<0.0001
90815962|NCT01755455|181510617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81|||||||Fixed-effect model|||Fixed-effect models accounted for repeated measurements within subjects and treatment sequence. The estimated effect signifies the absolute change from baseline at 6 weeks in the specified outcome measure and (standard error).||||0.81
90815963|NCT01755455|181510618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Fixed-effect model|||||||<0.05
90815964|NCT01755455|181510619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Fixed-effect model|||Fixed-effect models accounted for repeated measurements within subjects and treatment sequence. The estimated effect signifies the absolute change from baseline at 6 weeks in the specified outcome measure and (standard error).||||<0.05
90815965|NCT01755455|181510620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||Fixed-effect model|||||||0.16
90815966|NCT00344500|181510634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Predicted trajectory of mean weight change between matched UC and LB subjects over 12 months (treatment\*time interaction: F(1,1275)=68.75, p\<.01).||General Linear Mixed Model (GLMM) used to illustrate the magnitude of difference between slopes for major outcomes for two hypothetical participants with identical baseline characteristics over 12 months.||||<0.01
90815967|NCT00599755|181510637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.27|0.55||||||||0.55|0.27|
90815968|NCT00599755|181510638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Concordance correlation coefficient|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.85|0.92||||||||0.92|0.85|
90815969|NCT00599755|181510642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion|0.125|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.06|0.23||||||||0.23|0.06|
90815970|NCT02198794|181510657|OTHER||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|0.17||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||The statistical model was an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment group and dopamine receptor antagonist status at the pre-withdrawal visit as fixed effects and the pre-withdrawal visit value as a covariate.||0.17|-1.42|0.121
90815971|NCT01364740|181510672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Sign test|||Patient data from one night with the PMP-300E compared to In-Lab PSG data||||>0.05
90815972|NCT01364740|181510673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Sign test|||Patient data from one night with the PMP-300E compared to In-Lab PSG data||||>0.05
90815973|NCT01364740|181510674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Sign test|||Patient data from one night with the PMP-300E compared to In-Lab PSG data||||>0.05
90815974|NCT01364740|181510675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Sign test|||Patient data from one night with the PMP-300E compared to In-Lab PSG data||||>0.05
90815975|NCT00789672|181510708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|1.0||||||Given this was pilot study, no formal sample size estimates were calculated.||1|-6|
90815976|NCT00680797|181510714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|||||Comparison of pre- to post-intervention insulin levels between the groups receiving E only versus the group receiving no hormone replacement.|ANCOVA|||The major outcome variable being presented is changes in insulin levels. Changes in insulin levels were analyzed using an ANCOVA model that adjusted for baseline insulin and age.||||0.023
90815977|NCT00680797|181510714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|||||Comparison in the change in insulin levels between the groups receiving E with or without T.|ANCOVA|||The major outcome variable being presented is changes in insulin levels. Changes in insulin levels were analyzed using an ANCOVA model that adjusted for baseline insulin and age.||||0.042
90815978|NCT00530920|181510737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.43||||0.997|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||NULL HYPOTHESIS (H0): Median viral load reduction from baseline \>1.2 log10 copies/mL within each group||||0.997
90815979|NCT00530920|181510737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.55||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||NULL HYPOTHESIS (H0): Median viral load reduction from baseline \>1.2 log10 copies/mL within each group||||1
90815980|NCT00530920|181510737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.47||||0.998|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||NULL HYPOTHESIS (H0): Median viral load reduction from baseline \>1.2 log10 copies/mL within each group||||0.998
90815981|NCT00907296|181510754|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.3598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.26|||Cox proportional hazard model||A hazard ratio \> 1 favors romosozumab.|The cause-specific hazard was modeled using a Cox proportional hazards model with 10 treatment groups as the independent variable, stratified by type of fracture and definitive fracture fixation (closed with reamed IM nail, Gustilo type I/II open with reamed IM nail, Gustilo type I/II open with unreamed IM nail) and adjusting for quality of surgical fixation.||1.26|0.53|0.3598
90815982|NCT00907296|181510754|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.6544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.39|||Cox proportional hazard model||A hazard ratio \> 1 favors romosozumab.|The cause-specific hazard was modeled using a Cox proportional hazards model with 10 treatment groups as the independent variable, stratified by type of fracture and definitive fracture fixation (closed with reamed IM nail, Gustilo type I/II open with reamed IM nail, Gustilo type I/II open with unreamed IM nail) and adjusting for quality of surgical fixation.||1.39|0.59|0.6544
90815983|NCT00907296|181510754|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.9958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.58|||Cox proportional hazard model||A hazard ratio \> 1 favors romosozumab.|The cause-specific hazard was modeled using a Cox proportional hazards model with 10 treatment groups as the independent variable, stratified by type of fracture and definitive fracture fixation (closed with reamed IM nail, Gustilo type I/II open with reamed IM nail, Gustilo type I/II open with unreamed IM nail) and adjusting for quality of surgical fixation.||1.58|0.64|0.9958
90815984|NCT00907296|181510754|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.6276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.37|||Cox proportional hazard model||A hazard ratio \> 1 favors romosozumab.|The cause-specific hazard was modeled using a Cox proportional hazards model with 10 treatment groups as the independent variable, stratified by type of fracture and definitive fracture fixation (closed with reamed IM nail, Gustilo type I/II open with reamed IM nail, Gustilo type I/II open with unreamed IM nail) and adjusting for quality of surgical fixation.||1.37|0.59|0.6276
90815985|NCT00907296|181510754|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.8819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.49|||Cox proportional hazard model||A hazard ratio \> 1 favors romosozumab.|The cause-specific hazard was modeled using a Cox proportional hazards model with 10 treatment groups as the independent variable, stratified by type of fracture and definitive fracture fixation (closed with reamed IM nail, Gustilo type I/II open with reamed IM nail, Gustilo type I/II open with unreamed IM nail) and adjusting for quality of surgical fixation.||1.49|0.63|0.8819
90815986|NCT00907296|181510754|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.7197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.42|||Cox proportional hazard model||A hazard ratio \> 1 favors romosozumab.|The cause-specific hazard was modeled using a Cox proportional hazards model with 10 treatment groups as the independent variable, stratified by type of fracture and definitive fracture fixation (closed with reamed IM nail, Gustilo type I/II open with reamed IM nail, Gustilo type I/II open with unreamed IM nail) and adjusting for quality of surgical fixation.||1.42|0.60|0.7197
90815987|NCT00907296|181510754|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.6204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.7|||Cox proportional hazard model||A hazard ratio \> 1 favors romosozumab.|The cause-specific hazard was modeled using a Cox proportional hazards model with 10 treatment groups as the independent variable, stratified by type of fracture and definitive fracture fixation (closed with reamed IM nail, Gustilo type I/II open with reamed IM nail, Gustilo type I/II open with unreamed IM nail) and adjusting for quality of surgical fixation.||1.70|0.73|0.6204
90815988|NCT00907296|181510754|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18||||0.4779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.84|||Cox proportional hazard model||A hazard ratio \> 1 favors romosozumab.|The cause-specific hazard was modeled using a Cox proportional hazards model with 10 treatment groups as the independent variable, stratified by type of fracture and definitive fracture fixation (closed with reamed IM nail, Gustilo type I/II open with reamed IM nail, Gustilo type I/II open with unreamed IM nail) and adjusting for quality of surgical fixation.||1.84|0.75|0.4779
90815989|NCT00907296|181510754|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.9952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.53|||Cox proportional hazard model||A hazard ratio \> 1 favors romosozumab.|The cause-specific hazard was modeled using a Cox proportional hazards model with 10 treatment groups as the independent variable, stratified by type of fracture and definitive fracture fixation (closed with reamed IM nail, Gustilo type I/II open with reamed IM nail, Gustilo type I/II open with unreamed IM nail) and adjusting for quality of surgical fixation.||1.53|0.65|0.9952
90890428|NCT00295750|181645515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
91055571|NCT03118570|181992797|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.224||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 12||||0.224
91016553|NCT02684370|181916258|OTHER||adjusted difference in percentage|23.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.5|32.1||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (baseline weight \[≤100 kg vs \>100 kg\] and prior exposure to TNF antagonists \[0 vs ≥1\]). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|||32.1|15.5|< 0.001
91016554|NCT02684370|181916259|OTHER||adjusted difference in percentage|22.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.3|31.6||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (baseline weight \[≤100 kg vs \>100 kg\] and prior exposure to TNF antagonists \[0 vs ≥1\]). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|||31.6|14.3|< 0.001
91016555|NCT02684370|181916260|OTHER||adjusted difference in percentage|38.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.9|48.6||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (baseline weight \[≤100 kg vs \>100 kg\] and prior exposure to TNF antagonists \[0 vs ≥1\]). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|P-value calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for baseline weight (≤100 kg vs \>100 kg) and prior exposure to TNF antagonists (0 vs ≥1).||48.6|27.9|< 0.001
91016556|NCT02684370|181916261|OTHER||adjusted difference in percentage|35.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.7|44.6||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (baseline weight \[≤100 kg vs \>100 kg\] and prior exposure to TNF\] antagonists \[0 vs ≥1\]). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|||44.6|25.7|< 0.001
91016557|NCT02684370|181916262|OTHER||adjusted difference in percentage|36.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.0|45.9||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (baseline weight \[≤100 kg vs \>100 kg\] and prior exposure to TNF\] antagonists \[0 vs ≥1\]). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|||45.9|27.0|< 0.001
90815990|NCT00907296|181510757|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.1713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.14|||Cox proportional hazard model||A hazard ratio \> 1 favors romosozumab.|The cause-specific hazard was modeled using a Cox proportional hazards model with 10 treatment groups as the independent variable, stratified by type of fracture and definitive fracture fixation (closed with reamed IM nail, Gustilo type I/II open with reamed IM nail, Gustilo type I/II open with unreamed IM nail) and adjusting for quality of surgical fixation.||1.14|0.47|0.1713
90815991|NCT00907296|181510757|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.9958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.53|||Cox proportional hazard model||A hazard ratio \> 1 favors romosozumab.|The cause-specific hazard was modeled using a Cox proportional hazards model with 10 treatment groups as the independent variable, stratified by type of fracture and definitive fracture fixation (closed with reamed IM nail, Gustilo type I/II open with reamed IM nail, Gustilo type I/II open with unreamed IM nail) and adjusting for quality of surgical fixation.||1.53|0.65|0.9958
90815992|NCT00907296|181510757|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.27||||0.295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.97|||Cox proportional hazard model||A hazard ratio \> 1 favors romosozumab.|The cause-specific hazard was modeled using a Cox proportional hazards model with 10 treatment groups as the independent variable, stratified by type of fracture and definitive fracture fixation (closed with reamed IM nail, Gustilo type I/II open with reamed IM nail, Gustilo type I/II open with unreamed IM nail) and adjusting for quality of surgical fixation.||1.97|0.81|0.2950
90815993|NCT00907296|181510757|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.0844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.05|||Cox proportional hazard model||A hazard ratio \> 1 favors romosozumab.|The cause-specific hazard was modeled using a Cox proportional hazards model with 10 treatment groups as the independent variable, stratified by type of fracture and definitive fracture fixation (closed with reamed IM nail, Gustilo type I/II open with reamed IM nail, Gustilo type I/II open with unreamed IM nail) and adjusting for quality of surgical fixation.||1.05|0.44|0.0844
91016558|NCT02684370|181916263|OTHER||adjusted difference in percentage|17.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|26.6||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (baseline weight \[≤100 kg vs \>100 kg\] and prior exposure to TNF antagonists \[0 vs ≥1\]). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|||26.6|7.4|< 0.001
91016559|NCT02684370|181916264|OTHER||adjusted difference in percentage|17.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.3|27.3||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (baseline weight \[≤100 kg vs \>100 kg\] and prior exposure to TNF\] antagonists \[0 vs ≥1\]). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|||27.3|7.3|< 0.001
91016560|NCT02684370|181916265|OTHER||adjusted difference in percentage|23.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.9|34.0||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (baseline weight \[≤100 kg vs \>100 kg\] and prior exposure to TNF\] antagonists \[0 vs ≥1\]). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|||34.0|11.9|< 0.001
91016561|NCT02684370|181916266|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.765|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.496|-5.035|||van Elteren test|||P-value calculated by the van Elteren test stratified for baseline weight (≤100 kg vs \>100 kg) and prior exposure to TNF antagonists (0 vs ≥1).||-5.035|-6.496|<0.001
91016562|NCT00627094|181916274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73||||0.0438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|2.96||In order to obtain 90% power to show superiority of Biatain Ibu compared to Biatain, a sample size of 60 pts per group (assuming a 15% drop-out rate) was found by simulating data from multi-nomial distributions over time.|Chi-squared|Result based on ITT population (evening). PP-analysis show a strong tendency (not significant) in favour of Biatain Ibu supporting the ITT-analysis||The null hypothesis to be tested was that the distributions of categorical responses were the same.||2.96|1.02|0.0438
91016563|NCT02050373|181916304|OTHER|For the comparison between the LLLT and control groups the Pearson chi-square (χ2) or Fisher's Exact tests were used.|||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||The Pearson chi-square (χ2) or Fisher's Exact tests were used, at three different times (AD, D7, HD), to analyze the oral mucositis severity in the comparison between the LLLT and control groups. Statistical analysis was not performed for each grade of oral mucositis separately.||||<0.05
91016564|NCT02050373|181916305|OTHER|Student's t test was used to numerical variables with normal distribution. The Mann-Whitney test was used to compare the cytokine values of the two groups (control and laser). The Friedman test was used to indicate differences by comparing cytokine levels at different times of assessment within each group. The Friedman and Wilcoxon tests were used for paired analyzes of the saliva collection times in the groups. All tests were used to compare the groups at the three different times (AD, D7, HD).|||||<|0.05||||||p\<0,05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91016565|NCT04342130|181916306|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91016566|NCT00807040|181916314|OTHER|We tested this hypothesis in an intention-to-treat analysis using a two-tailed Wilcoxon rank-sum test, at a 0.05 alpha level. This analysis accommodated nonignorable missing LVESVI outcomes owing to the death of patients by assigning deceased patients the worst ranks in order on the basis of the time of death. We used multiple imputation for data that were missing for reasons other than death to calculate the 12-month LVESVI on the assumption that the data were missing at random.||||||0.18|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The trial was designed with a power of 90% to detect a between-group difference of 15 ml per square meter in the LVESVI from baseline to 12 months. We assumed a baseline LVESVI of 100 ml per square meter, improvements of 20 ml per square meter in the repair group and 35 ml per square meter in the replacement group, and equal 1-year mortality of 10 to 20% in the two groups. The primary null hypothesis was that there would be no between-group difference in the LVESVI at 12 months.||||0.18
91055572|NCT03118570|181992797|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.291||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 12||||0.291
91055573|NCT03118570|181992797|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.324||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 18||||0.324
91055574|NCT03118570|181992797|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.188||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 18||||0.188
91055575|NCT03118570|181992797|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.503||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 18||||0.503
91055576|NCT03118570|181992797|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.385||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 24||||0.385
91016567|NCT00807040|181916315|OTHER|We used the log-rank test to compare rates of death from baseline to 2 years.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.35|||Log Rank|||||1.35|0.46|0.39
91016568|NCT01783860|181916332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.03
91016569|NCT01783860|181916333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.01
91016570|NCT01783860|181916334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.007
91016571|NCT01783860|181916335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||> 0.05
91016572|NCT01783860|181916336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.02
91016573|NCT01783860|181916337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.08
91016574|NCT03992261|181916339|OTHER|"Mean, median, SD, minimum/maximum determined for total amount of test article used by each subject in Safety, Evaluable, and PK populations HPA Axis Suppression: Proportion of subjects manifesting laboratory evidence of adrenal suppression at EOS were presented with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for Evaluable and Safety populations. Descriptive statistics for daily dose of test article were tabulated separately for suppressed and non-suppressed subjects.~PK: Screening, Day 8, Day 15"||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Outcome measure: extent of exposure, HPA axis suppression, and pharmacokinetic analysis.||||0.05
91016575|NCT00258310|181916340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||proportion|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.9||||||||.90|.59|
91016576|NCT01833897|181916357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||F1,6.4=161.8,|linear mixed model|||||||<0.001
91016577|NCT01833897|181916358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91055577|NCT03118570|181992797|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.727||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 24||||0.727
91055578|NCT03118570|181992797|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.338||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 24||||0.338
91055579|NCT03118570|181992798|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline|||||<|0.001||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 6||||< 0.001
91016578|NCT01833897|181916359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.026
91016579|NCT01833897|181916360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.011
91016580|NCT01833897|181916361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91016581|NCT02325739|181916367|OTHER||RP2D|120.0|||||||||||||The estimation parameter and recommended Phase 2 dose level for FGF401 (single agent - fasted) is 120mg.|||||
91016582|NCT02325739|181916367|OTHER||RP2D|120.0|||||||||||||The estimation parameter and recommended Phase 2 dose level for FGF401 (single agent - fed) is 120mg.|||||
91016583|NCT02325739|181916367|OTHER||RP2D|120.0|||||||||||||The estimation parameter and recommended Phase 2 dose level for FGF401 + PDR001 combination is for FGF401 120mg.|||||
91055580|NCT03118570|181992798|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline|||||<|0.001||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 12||||< 0.001
91055581|NCT03118570|181992798|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline|||||<|0.001||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 6||||< 0.001
91055582|NCT03118570|181992798|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline|||||<|0.001||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 12||||< 0.001
91016584|NCT02325739|181916367|OTHER||RP2D|300.0|||||||||||||The estimation parameter and recommended Phase 2 dose level for FGF401 + PDR001 combination is for PDR001 300mg.|||||
91016585|NCT02222168|181916401|OTHER|The statistical model used for the analysis of the endpoint comparing 'BI 409306 fasted' against 'BI 409306 fed' was an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA ) model on the logarithmic scale.This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|Ratio (Fed/Fasted)|95.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|50.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|72.593|126.682|||||The estimated parameter was the adjusted geometric mean ratios \[%\] of BI 409306: fed (numerator), fasted (denominator). The standard deviation is the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation \[%\].|No formal hypothesis was tested.||126.682|72.593|
91016586|NCT02222168|181916401|OTHER|The statistical model used for the analysis of the endpoint comparing 'BI 409306 fasted' against 'BI 409306 at bed-time' was an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA ) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'subject' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subject' was considered as random, whereas the effect treatment was considered as fixed.|Ratio (Bed time/Fasted)|82.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|38.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|66.37|101.639|||||The estimated parameter was the adjusted geometric mean ratios \[%\] of BI 409306: at bed time (numerator), fasted (denominator). The standard deviation is the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation \[%\].|No formal hypothesis was tested.||101.639|66.370|
91016587|NCT02222168|181916402|OTHER|The statistical model used for the analysis of the endpoint comparing 'BI 409306 fasted' against 'BI 409306 fed' was an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA ) model on the logarithmic scale.This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|Ratio (Fed/Fasted)|107.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.697|119.318|||||The estimated parameter was the adjusted geometric mean ratios \[%\] of BI 409306: fed (numerator), fasted (denominator). The standard deviation is the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation \[%\].|No formal hypothesis was tested.||119.318|96.697|
91016588|NCT02222168|181916402|OTHER|The statistical model used for the analysis of the endpoint comparing 'BI 409306 fasted' against 'BI 409306 at bed-time' was an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA ) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'subject' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subject' was considered as random, whereas the effect treatment was considered as fixed.|Ratio (Bed time/Fasted)|94.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.028|105.875|||||The estimated parameter was the adjusted geometric mean ratios \[%\] of BI 409306: at bed time (numerator), fasted (denominator). The standard deviation is the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation \[%\].|No formal hypothesis was tested.||105.875|85.028|
91016589|NCT02222168|181916403|OTHER|The statistical model used for the analysis of the endpoint comparing 'BI 409306 fasted' against 'BI 409306 fed' was an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA ) model on the logarithmic scale.This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|Ratio (Fed/Fasted)|107.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.709|119.301|||||The estimated parameter was the adjusted geometric mean ratios \[%\] of BI 409306: fed (numerator), fasted (denominator). The standard deviation is the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation \[%\].|No formal hypothesis was tested.||119.301|96.709|
91055583|NCT03118570|181992800|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline|||||<|0.001||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Lumbar||||< 0.001
91055584|NCT03118570|181992800|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline|||||<|0.001||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Lumbar||||< 0.001
90890429|NCT00295750|181645515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
91055585|NCT03118570|181992800|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.08||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Lumbar||||0.080
91055586|NCT03118570|181992800|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.238||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Total body||||0.238
90815994|NCT00907296|181510757|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.3225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.24|||Cox proportional hazard model||A hazard ratio \> 1 favors romosozumab.|The cause-specific hazard was modeled using a Cox proportional hazards model with 10 treatment groups as the independent variable, stratified by type of fracture and definitive fracture fixation (closed with reamed IM nail, Gustilo type I/II open with reamed IM nail, Gustilo type I/II open with unreamed IM nail) and adjusting for quality of surgical fixation.||1.24|0.52|0.3225
90815995|NCT00907296|181510757|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.4754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.81|||Cox proportional hazard model||A hazard ratio \> 1 favors romosozumab.|The cause-specific hazard was modeled using a Cox proportional hazards model with 10 treatment groups as the independent variable, stratified by type of fracture and definitive fracture fixation (closed with reamed IM nail, Gustilo type I/II open with reamed IM nail, Gustilo type I/II open with unreamed IM nail) and adjusting for quality of surgical fixation.||1.81|0.76|0.4754
90815996|NCT00907296|181510757|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.5578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.75|||Cox proportional hazard model||A hazard ratio \> 1 favors romosozumab.|The cause-specific hazard was modeled using a Cox proportional hazards model with 10 treatment groups as the independent variable, stratified by type of fracture and definitive fracture fixation (closed with reamed IM nail, Gustilo type I/II open with reamed IM nail, Gustilo type I/II open with unreamed IM nail) and adjusting for quality of surgical fixation.||1.75|0.74|0.5578
90815997|NCT00907296|181510757|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.34||||0.1864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|2.07|||Cox proportional hazard model||A hazard ratio \> 1 favors romosozumab|The cause-specific hazard was modeled using a Cox proportional hazards model with 10 treatment groups as the independent variable, stratified by type of fracture and definitive fracture fixation (closed with reamed IM nail, Gustilo type I/II open with reamed IM nail, Gustilo type I/II open with unreamed IM nail) and adjusting for quality of surgical fixation.||2.07|0.87|0.1864
90815998|NCT00907296|181510757|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.8488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.59|||Cox proportional hazard model||A hazard ratio \> 1 favors romosozumab.|The cause-specific hazard was modeled using a Cox proportional hazards model with 10 treatment groups as the independent variable, stratified by type of fracture and definitive fracture fixation (closed with reamed IM nail, Gustilo type I/II open with reamed IM nail, Gustilo type I/II open with unreamed IM nail) and adjusting for quality of surgical fixation.||1.59|0.68|0.8488
90815999|NCT00316888|181510780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.218|||||||one sample binomial test|||Null hypothesis is that the local failure rate at 3 years is no more than 35%.||||0.218
90816000|NCT00316888|181510780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.592|||||||one sample binomial test|||The null hypothesis is that the local failure rate at 3 years is no more than 35%.||||0.592
90816001|NCT00110461|181510785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.49|-3.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||The change scores were analyzed by using ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline Y-MRS total score as a covariate. For comparing YMRS-Total score in treatment groups at baseline, only treatment was included in the ANOVA model with baseline values as the dependent variable. The LS means obtained from a type III analysis using SAS were used for the treatment comparisons. Two-tailed student's t-tests were used to test differences between the LS means within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||-3.5|-8.49|<0.0001
90816002|NCT00110461|181510785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-8.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|-5.77|||t-test, 2 sided|||The change scores were analyzed by using ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline Y-MRS total score as a covariate. For comparing YMRS-Total score in treatment groups at baseline, only treatment was included in the ANOVA model with baseline values as the dependent variable. The LS means obtained from a type III analysis using SAS were used for the treatment comparisons. Two-tailed student's t-tests were used to test differences between the LS means within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||-5.77|-10.7|<0.0001
90816003|NCT00110461|181510786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-5.89|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|-3.08|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyses were performed by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline score as covariate. Two pair-wise comparisons, aripiprazole 10 mg target dose versus placebo and aripiprazole 30 mg target dose versus placebo, were performed within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||-3.08|-8.7|<0.0001
90816004|NCT00110461|181510786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|11.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.99|15.03|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyses were performed by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline score as covariate. Two pair-wise comparisons, aripiprazole 10 mg target dose versus placebo and aripiprazole 30 mg target dose versus placebo, were performed within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||15.03|7.99|<0.0001
90816005|NCT00110461|181510787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|9.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.77|12.84|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyses were performed by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline score as covariate. Two pair-wise comparisons, aripiprazole 10 mg target dose versus placebo and aripiprazole 30 mg target dose versus placebo, were performed within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||12.84|5.77|<0.0001
90816006|NCT00110461|181510787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|11.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.99|15.03|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyses were performed by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline score as covariate. Two pair-wise comparisons, aripiprazole 10 mg target dose versus placebo and aripiprazole 30 mg target dose versus placebo, were performed within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||15.03|7.99|<0.0001
90816007|NCT00110461|181510788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|-0.48|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyses were performed by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline score as covariate. Two pair-wise comparisons, aripiprazole 10 mg target dose versus placebo and aripiprazole 30 mg target dose versus placebo, were performed within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||-0.48|-1.15|<0.0001
90816008|NCT00110461|181510788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.26|||<|0.0001||95.0|-1.59|-0.93|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyses were performed by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline score as covariate. Two pair-wise comparisons, aripiprazole 10 mg target dose versus placebo and aripiprazole 30 mg target dose versus placebo, were performed within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||-0.93|-1.59|<0.0001
90890430|NCT00295750|181645516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
90890431|NCT00295750|181645516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
90890432|NCT00295750|181645518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Percentage change from baseline to Day 14||||<0.0001
91016590|NCT02222168|181916403|OTHER|The statistical model used for the analysis of the endpoint comparing 'BI 409306 fasted' against 'BI 409306 at bed-time' was an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA ) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'subject' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subject' was considered as random, whereas the effect treatment was considered as fixed.|Ratio (Bed time/Fasted)|94.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.061|105.921|||||The estimated parameter was the adjusted geometric mean ratios \[%\] of BI 409306: at bed time (numerator), fasted (denominator). The standard deviation is the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation \[%\].|No formal hypothesis was tested.||105.921|85.061|
91016591|NCT02596009|181916404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|26.97|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.7|30.24|||paired t-test|||||30.24|23.70|<0.0001
91016592|NCT02596009|181916404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|53.93|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.15|58.72|||paired t-test|||||58.72|49.15|<0.0001
91016593|NCT04755283|181916409|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.314|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.192|0.513|||Stratified Log Rank Test|Stratified for stratification factors|Cox Proportional Hazards Model Adjusted for Stratification Factors|||0.513|0.192|<0.001
91016594|NCT04755283|181916409|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.382|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.243|0.602|||Stratified Log Rank Test|Stratified for stratification factors|Cox Proportional Hazards Model Adjusted for Stratification Factors|||0.602|0.243|<0.001
91016595|NCT04755283|181916410|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.263|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.121|0.572|||Stratified Log Rank Test|Stratified for stratification factors|Cox Proportional Hazards Model Adjusted for Stratification Factors|||0.572|0.121|<0.001
91016596|NCT04755283|181916410|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.325||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.159|0.663|||Stratified Log Rank Test|Stratified for stratification factors|Cox Proportional Hazards Model Adjusted for Stratification Factors|||0.663|0.159|0.001
91055587|NCT03118570|181992800|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.238||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Total body||||0.238
91016597|NCT04755283|181916411|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.332|0.638|||Stratified Log Rank Test|Stratified for stratification factors|Cox Proportional Hazards Model Adjusted for Stratification Factors|||0.638|0.332|<0.001
91016598|NCT04755283|181916411|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.683||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.512|0.912|||Stratified Log Rank Test|Stratified for stratification factors|Cox Proportional Hazards Model Adjusted for Stratification Factors|||0.912|0.512|0.010
91016599|NCT04410978|181916450|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error.|Relative risk|1.061||||0.6691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.808|1.393||Threshold for significance at 2-sided 0.05 level.|Chi-squared|||Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with number of adjudicated relapses onset between randomization date and EOS date as the response variable, treatment group, Gadolinium (Gd)-enhancing T1 lesions at baseline (presence, absence), expanded disability status scale (EDSS) strata (\<4, \>=4) and geographic region (United States \[US\], non-US) as covariates, and log transformed observation duration as the offset variable.||1.393|0.808|0.6691
91016600|NCT04410978|181916451|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.4888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.565|1.278||Derived from log-rank test with stratification of EDSS strata (\<4, \>=4), geographic region (US, non-US).|Log Rank|||Analysis was performed using Cox proportional-hazards model with robust variance estimation. Covariates were treatment group, Gd-enhancing T1 lesions at baseline (presence, absence), EDSS strata (\<4, \>=4), geographic region (US, non-US).||1.278|0.565|0.4888
91016601|NCT04410978|181916452|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.819||||0.2991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.582|1.151||Derived from log-rank test with stratification of EDSS strata (\<4, \>=4), geographic region (US, non-US).|Log Rank|||Analysis was performed using Cox proportional-hazards model with robust variance estimation. Covariates were treatment group, Gd-enhancing T1 lesions at baseline (presence, absence), EDSS strata (\<4, \>=4), geographic region (US, non-US).||1.151|0.582|0.2991
91016602|NCT04410978|181916453|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error.|Relative risk|1.084||||0.4575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.876|1.342|||Chi-squared|||Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with the number of new and/or enlarging T2-hyperintense lesions between randomization date and EOS date as the response variable, treatment group, baseline T2-hyperintense lesion count, EDSS strata (\<4, \>=4) and geographic region (US, non-US) as covariates, and log transformed observation duration as the offset variable.||1.342|0.876|0.4575
91055588|NCT03118570|181992800|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.035||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Total body||||0.035
91055589|NCT03118570|181992800|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.687||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Femoral neck||||0.687
91016603|NCT04410978|181916454|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error.|Relative risk|1.86||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.358|2.548|||Chi-squared|||Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with the number of new Gd-enhancing T1-hyperintense lesions between randomization date and EOS date as the response variable, treatment group, Gd-enhancing T1 lesions at baseline (presence, absence), EDSS strata (\<4, \>=4) and geographic region (US, non-US) as covariates, and log transformed number of MRI scans as the offset variable.||2.548|1.358|0.0001
91016604|NCT04410978|181916455|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error.|Least square (LS) mean difference|0.035||||0.432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.053|0.124|||MMRM|||Covariates in the mixed-effect model with repeated measures (MMRM) were treatment group, EDSS strata (\<4, \>=4), geographic region (US, non-US), visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline value-by-visit interaction.||0.124|-0.053|0.4320
91055590|NCT03118570|181992800|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.107||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Femoral neck||||0.107
91016605|NCT04410978|181916456|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error.|LS mean difference|1.873||||0.0675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.135|3.88|||MMRM|||Covariates in the MMRM were treatment group, EDSS strata (\<4, \>=4), geographic region (US, non-US), visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline value-by-visit interaction.||3.880|-0.135|0.0675
91016606|NCT04410978|181916457|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.831||||0.3594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.554|1.245||Derived from log-rank test with stratification of EDSS strata (\<4, \>=4), geographic region (US, non-US).|Log Rank|||Analysis was performed using Cox proportional-hazards model with robust variance estimation. Covariates were treatment group, Gd-enhancing T1 lesions at baseline (presence, absence), EDSS strata (\<4, \>=4), geographic region (US, non-US).||1.245|0.554|0.3594
91016607|NCT04410978|181916458|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error.|LS mean difference|0.196||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.093|0.298|||MMRM|||Covariates in the MMRM were treatment group, EDSS strata (\<4, \>=4), geographic region (US, non-US), visit, treatment by visit interaction, cube root transformed Month 6 brain volume, and cube root transformed Month 6 brain volume-by-visit interaction.||0.298|0.093|0.0002
91016608|NCT05153629|181916467|OTHER|||||||0.93||||||A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of back pain.||||0.93
91016609|NCT05153629|181916467|OTHER|||||||0.76||||||A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of abdominal/groin pain.||||0.76
91016610|NCT05153629|181916467|OTHER|||||||0.56||||||A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of pain frequency.||||0.56
91055591|NCT03118570|181992800|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.128||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Femoral neck||||0.128
90816009|NCT00110461|181510789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.28||||0.0767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.81|0.25|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyses were performed by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline score as covariate. Two pair-wise comparisons, aripiprazole 10 mg target dose versus placebo and aripiprazole 30 mg target dose versus placebo, were performed within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||0.25|-4.81|0.0767
90816010|NCT00110461|181510789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.19||||0.3515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.69|1.32|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyses were performed by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline score as covariate. Two pair-wise comparisons, aripiprazole 10 mg target dose versus placebo and aripiprazole 30 mg target dose versus placebo, were performed within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||1.32|-3.69|0.3515
91016611|NCT05153629|181916467|OTHER|||||||0.26||||||A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of nausea intensity.||||0.26
91016612|NCT05153629|181916468|OTHER|||||||0.55||||||A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of difference in back pain.||||0.55
91016613|NCT05153629|181916468|OTHER|||||||0.28||||||A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of difference in abdominal/groin pain.||||0.28
91016614|NCT05153629|181916468|OTHER|||||||0.39||||||A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of difference in pain frequency.||||0.39
91016615|NCT05153629|181916468|OTHER|||||||0.26||||||A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of difference in nausea intensity.||||0.26
91016616|NCT05153629|181916469|OTHER|||||||0.5||||||A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.50
91016617|NCT05153629|181916470|OTHER|||||||0.5||||||A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.50
91016618|NCT05153629|181916471|OTHER|||||||0.8||||||A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of overall USDT score.||||0.80
91016619|NCT05153629|181916471|OTHER|||||||0.72||||||A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of urinary symptoms.||||0.72
91016620|NCT05153629|181916471|OTHER|||||||0.45||||||A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of pain.||||0.45
91016621|NCT05153629|181916471|OTHER|||||||0.42||||||A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of daily life.||||0.42
91016622|NCT05153629|181916471|OTHER|||||||0.36||||||A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of sexual life.||||0.36
91016623|NCT05153629|181916471|OTHER|||||||0.49||||||A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of medical care/analgesic use.||||0.49
91016624|NCT05153629|181916471|OTHER|||||||0.88||||||A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of overall quality of life.||||0.88
91016625|NCT04089566|181916476|SUPERIORITY|The Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model used rank score as response, treatment as fixed effect and disease duration at screening, baseline Hammersmith Infant Neurological Examination (HINE) Section 2 (HINE 2), baseline CHOP INTEND total score as covariates.|Least square (LS) mean difference|26.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.141|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.941|34.172|||ANCOVA|||||34.172|17.941|< 0.0001
91016626|NCT04089566|181916499|SUPERIORITY||Difference of percentages|58.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.46|71.81|||Fisher Exact||Exact unconditional confidence interval|||71.81|39.46|<0.0001
91016627|NCT04089566|181916500|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|26.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.009|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.812|34.526||ANCOVA model was used treatment as fixed effect and disease duration at screening, baseline HINE 2, baseline CHOP INTEND total score as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||34.526|18.812|<0.0001
91016628|NCT04089566|181916501|SUPERIORITY||LS geometric mean ratio|0.08|||<|0.0001||||||ANCOVA model was used with treatment as a fixed effect and adjusted for each participant disease duration at screening, baseline log plasma NF-L and baseline CHOP INTEND total score.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
90816011|NCT00110461|181510790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.88|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.02|-3.73|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyses were performed by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline score as covariate. Two pair-wise comparisons, aripiprazole 10 mg target dose versus placebo and aripiprazole 30 mg target dose versus placebo, were performed within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||-3.73|-8.02|<0.0001
90816012|NCT00110461|181510790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.46|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|-3.32|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyses were performed by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline score as covariate. Two pair-wise comparisons, aripiprazole 10 mg target dose versus placebo and aripiprazole 30 mg target dose versus placebo, were performed within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||-3.32|-7.40|<0.0001
90816013|NCT00110461|181510791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|-5.43|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyses were performed by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor, and baseline score as covariate. Two pair-wise comparisons, aripiprazole 10 mg target dose versus placebo and aripiprazole 30 mg target dose versus placebo, were performed within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||-5.43|-12.3|<0.0001
90816014|NCT00110461|181510791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|-4.83|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyses were performed by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor, and baseline score as covariate. Two pair-wise comparisons, aripiprazole 10 mg target dose versus placebo and aripiprazole 30 mg target dose versus placebo, were performed within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||-4.83|-11.6|<0.0001
90816015|NCT00110461|181510792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.07|13.93|||t-test, 2 sided|||||13.93|5.07|<0.0001
90816016|NCT00110461|181510792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|10.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.87|14.14|||t-test, 2 sided|||||14.14|5.87|<0.0001
90816017|NCT00110461|181510793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.33|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyses were performed by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline score as covariate. Two pair-wise comparisons, aripiprazole 10 mg target dose versus placebo and aripiprazole 30 mg target dose versus placebo, were performed within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||-0.33|-1.08|0.0003
90816018|NCT00110461|181510793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|-0.66|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyses were performed by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline score as covariate. Two pair-wise comparisons, aripiprazole 10 mg target dose versus placebo and aripiprazole 30 mg target dose versus placebo, were performed within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||-0.66|-1.41|<0.0001
90816019|NCT00110461|181510794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||0.0878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.04|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyses were performed by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline score as covariate. Two pair-wise comparisons, aripiprazole 10 mg target dose versus placebo and aripiprazole 30 mg target dose versus placebo, were performed within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||0.04|-0.54|0.0878
90816020|NCT00110461|181510794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.26||||0.0752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.03|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyses were performed by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline score as covariate. Two pair-wise comparisons, aripiprazole 10 mg target dose versus placebo and aripiprazole 30 mg target dose versus placebo, were performed within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||0.03|-0.55|0.0752
90816021|NCT00110461|181510795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.2553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.13|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyses were performed by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline score as covariate. Two pair-wise comparisons, aripiprazole 10 mg target dose versus placebo and aripiprazole 30 mg target dose versus placebo, were performed within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||0.13|-0.51|0.2553
90816022|NCT00110461|181510795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39||||0.0166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.07|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyses were performed by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline score as covariate. Two pair-wise comparisons, aripiprazole 10 mg target dose versus placebo and aripiprazole 30 mg target dose versus placebo, were performed within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||-0.07|-0.71|0.0166
90816023|NCT00110461|181510796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|-0.51|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyses were performed by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline score as covariate. Two pair-wise comparisons, aripiprazole 10 mg target dose versus placebo and aripiprazole 30 mg target dose versus placebo, were performed within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||-0.51|-1.16|<0.0001
90816024|NCT00110461|181510796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|-0.86|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyses were performed by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline score as covariate. Two pair-wise comparisons, aripiprazole 10 mg target dose versus placebo and aripiprazole 30 mg target dose versus placebo, were performed within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||-0.86|-1.51|<0.0001
91016629|NCT04089566|181916502|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.251|=|0.8484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.29|11.299||ANCOVA model used rank score as response, treatment as fixed effect and disease duration at screening, baseline HINE 2, baseline CHOP INTEND total score as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||11.299|-9.29|=0.8484
91016630|NCT04089566|181916503|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|6.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.497|=|0.1734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.693|14.939||ANCOVA model used rank score as response, treatment as fixed effect and disease duration at screening, baseline HINE 2, baseline CHOP INTEND total score as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||14.939|-2.693|=0.1734
91016631|NCT04089566|181916504|SUPERIORITY||LS geometric mean ratio|0.51|||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.78||ANCOVA model was used with treatment as a fixed effect and adjustment for each participant disease duration at screening, baseline log plasma NF-L and baseline CHOP INTEND total score.|ANCOVA|||||0.78|0.33|=0.002
91016632|NCT04089566|181916547|SUPERIORITY||LS geometric mean ratio|0.86|||=|0.3785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.2||ANCOVA model was used with treatment as a fixed effect and adjusted for each participant disease duration at screening, baseline log CSF NF-L and baseline CHOP INTEND total score.|ANCOVA|||||1.2|0.62|=0.3785
91016633|NCT04938687|181916641|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.07
91016634|NCT04938687|181916641|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.039|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.039
91016635|NCT04938687|181916641|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.037|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.037
91016636|NCT04938687|181916642|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.38
91016637|NCT04938687|181916642|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.79
91016638|NCT04938687|181916642|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.069|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.069
91016639|NCT04938687|181916643|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.92
91016640|NCT04938687|181916643|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.053|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.053
91016641|NCT04938687|181916643|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.069|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.069
91016642|NCT04938687|181916644|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.35
91055592|NCT03118570|181992801|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline|||||<|0.001||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Lumbar||||< 0.001
91055593|NCT03118570|181992801|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline|||||<|0.001||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Lumbar||||< 0.001
91055594|NCT03118570|181992801|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.088||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Lumbar||||0.088
91055595|NCT03118570|181992801|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.184||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Total body||||0.184
91055596|NCT03118570|181992801|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.144||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Total body||||0.144
90816025|NCT00110461|181510797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|-0.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyses were performed by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline score as covariate. Two pair-wise comparisons, aripiprazole 10 mg target dose versus placebo and aripiprazole 30 mg target dose versus placebo, were performed within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||-0.40|-1.13|<0.0001
90816026|NCT00110461|181510797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.97|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyses were performed by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline score as covariate. Two pair-wise comparisons, aripiprazole 10 mg target dose versus placebo and aripiprazole 30 mg target dose versus placebo, were performed within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||-0.60|-1.33|<0.0001
91016643|NCT04938687|181916644|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.59
91016644|NCT04938687|181916644|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.073|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.073
91016645|NCT04938687|181916645|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.93
91016646|NCT04938687|181916645|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
91016647|NCT04938687|181916645|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.17
91016648|NCT04938687|181916646|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.29
91016649|NCT04938687|181916646|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.038
91016650|NCT04938687|181916646|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.08
91016651|NCT04938687|181916647|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.04
91016652|NCT04938687|181916647|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.007
91016653|NCT04938687|181916647|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.15
91016654|NCT04938687|181916650|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.42
91016655|NCT04938687|181916650|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
91016656|NCT04938687|181916650|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.06
91055597|NCT03118570|181992801|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.028||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Total body||||0.028
91055598|NCT03118570|181992801|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.694||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Femoral neck||||0.694
91055599|NCT03118570|181992801|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.143||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Femoral neck||||0.143
91055600|NCT03118570|181992801|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.111||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Femoral neck||||0.111
91055601|NCT03118570|181992802|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline|||||<|0.001||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Lumbar||||< 0.001
91055602|NCT03118570|181992802|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline|||||<|0.001||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Lumbar||||< 0.001
91055603|NCT03118570|181992802|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.026||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Lumbar||||0.026
91055604|NCT03118570|181992802|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.007||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Total body||||0.007
91055605|NCT03118570|181992802|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.004||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Total body||||0.004
90816027|NCT00110461|181510798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.92||||0.1729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.69|0.85|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.85|-4.69|0.1729
90816028|NCT00110461|181510798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.43||||0.75586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.17|2.31|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.31|-3.17|0.75586
90816029|NCT00110461|181510799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|-2.61|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyses were performed by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline score as covariate. Two pair-wise comparisons, aripiprazole 10 mg target dose versus placebo and aripiprazole 30 mg target dose versus placebo, were performed within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||-2.61|-6.90|<0.0001
90816030|NCT00110461|181510799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.78|-2.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyses were performed by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline score as covariate. Two pair-wise comparisons, aripiprazole 10 mg target dose versus placebo and aripiprazole 30 mg target dose versus placebo, were performed within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||-2.50|-6.78|<0.0001
90816031|NCT00110461|181510800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.85||||0.0468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.67|-0.03|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyses were performed by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor, and baseline score as covariate. Two pair-wise comparisons, aripiprazole 10 mg target dose versus placebo and aripiprazole 30 mg target dose versus placebo, were performed within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||-0.03|-3.67|0.0468
90816032|NCT00110461|181510800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.03||||0.0296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.85|-0.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyses were performed by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor, and baseline score as covariate. Two pair-wise comparisons, aripiprazole 10 mg target dose versus placebo and aripiprazole 30 mg target dose versus placebo, were performed within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||-0.20|-3.85|0.0296
90816033|NCT00110461|181510801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.44||||0.1309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.31|0.43|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyses were performed by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor, and baseline score as covariate. Two pair-wise comparisons, aripiprazole 10 mg target dose versus placebo and aripiprazole 30 mg target dose versus placebo, were performed within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||0.43|-3.31|0.1309
90816034|NCT00110461|181510801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.64||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.51|-0.77|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyses were performed by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor, and baseline score as covariate. Two pair-wise comparisons, aripiprazole 10 mg target dose versus placebo and aripiprazole 30 mg target dose versus placebo, were performed within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||-0.77|-4.51|0.0058
90816035|NCT00110461|181510802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.13||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|-0.07|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyses were performed by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor, and baseline score as covariate. Two pair-wise comparisons, aripiprazole 10 mg target dose versus placebo and aripiprazole 30 mg target dose versus placebo, were performed within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||-0.07|-4.20|0.0430
90816036|NCT00110461|181510802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31||||0.7696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.37|1.76|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyses were performed by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor, and baseline score as covariate. Two pair-wise comparisons, aripiprazole 10 mg target dose versus placebo and aripiprazole 30 mg target dose versus placebo, were performed within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||1.76|-2.37|0.7696
91055606|NCT03118570|181992802|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.085||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Total body||||0.085
91055607|NCT03118570|181992802|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.04||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Femoral neck||||0.040
90816037|NCT00110461|181510803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.9418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|1.86|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyses were performed by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor, and baseline score as covariate. Two pair-wise comparisons, aripiprazole 10 mg target dose versus placebo and aripiprazole 30 mg target dose versus placebo, were performed within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||1.86|-1.73|0.9418
90816038|NCT00110461|181510803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|1.98|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyses were performed by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor, and baseline score as covariate. Two pair-wise comparisons, aripiprazole 10 mg target dose versus placebo and aripiprazole 30 mg target dose versus placebo, were performed within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||1.98|-1.67|0.19
90816039|NCT00110461|181510804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.9418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|1.86|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyses were performed by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor, and baseline score as covariate. Two pair-wise comparisons, aripiprazole 10 mg target dose versus placebo and aripiprazole 30 mg target dose versus placebo, were performed within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||1.86|-1.73|0.9418
90816040|NCT00110461|181510804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19||||0.8377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|1.98|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyses were performed by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor, and baseline score as covariate. Two pair-wise comparisons, aripiprazole 10 mg target dose versus placebo and aripiprazole 30 mg target dose versus placebo, were performed within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||1.98|-1.61|0.8377
90816041|NCT00110461|181510805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.82||||0.3969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.71|1.08|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyses were performed by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor, and baseline score as covariate. Two pair-wise comparisons, aripiprazole 10 mg target dose versus placebo and aripiprazole 30 mg target dose versus placebo, were performed within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||1.08|-2.71|0.3969
90890433|NCT00295750|181645518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Percentage change from baseline to Day 14||||<0.0001
90890434|NCT00295750|181645518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Percentage change from baseline to Day 28||||<0.0001
91055608|NCT03118570|181992802|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.061||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Femoral neck||||0.061
90816042|NCT00110461|181510805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.21||||0.2101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|0.68|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyses were performed by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor, and baseline score as covariate. Two pair-wise comparisons, aripiprazole 10 mg target dose versus placebo and aripiprazole 30 mg target dose versus placebo, were performed within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||0.68|-3.09|0.2101
90816043|NCT00110461|181510806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|-3.64|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyses were performed by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor, and baseline score as covariate. Two pair-wise comparisons, aripiprazole 10 mg target dose versus placebo and aripiprazole 30 mg target dose versus placebo, were performed within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||-3.64|-10.5|<0.0001
90816044|NCT00110461|181510806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.55||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.94|-2.16|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyses were performed by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor, and baseline score as covariate. Two pair-wise comparisons, aripiprazole 10 mg target dose versus placebo and aripiprazole 30 mg target dose versus placebo, were performed within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||-2.16|-8.94|0.0014
90816045|NCT00110461|181510807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.7||||0.0074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.01|32.4|||Chi-squared|||Analyzed using a Chi-square test. Ninety five percent confidence intervals for difference in the responder rates are derived from the normal approximation to binomial.||32.40|5.01|0.0074
90816046|NCT00110461|181510807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|37.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.41|51.68|||Chi-squared|||Analyzed using a Chi-square test. Ninety five percent confidence intervals for difference in the responder rates are derived from the normal approximation to binomial.||51.68|23.41|<0.0001
90816047|NCT00110461|181510808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.4||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.57|37.24|||Chi-squared|||Analyzed using a Chi-square test. Ninety five percent confidence intervals for difference in the responder rates are derived from the normal approximation to binomial.||37.24|9.57|0.0009
90816048|NCT00110461|181510808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.96|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.05|42.87|||Chi-squared|||Analyzed using a Chi-square test. Ninety five percent confidence intervals for difference in the responder rates are derived from the normal approximation to binomial.||42.87|15.05|<0.0001
90816049|NCT00110461|181510809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.97|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|-0.66|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analyzed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score statistic by week.||-0.66|-1.29|<0.0001
90816050|NCT00110461|181510809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|-0.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analyzed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score statistic by week.||-0.70|-1.39|<0.0001
90816051|NCT00110461|181510810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.64||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|-0.24|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analyzed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score statistic by week.||-0.24|-1.04|0.0020
90816052|NCT00110461|181510810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|-0.41|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-0.41|-1.19|0.0001
90816053|NCT00110461|181510811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.26|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analyzed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score statistic by week.||-0.26|-0.96|0.0010
90816054|NCT00110461|181510811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.16|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analyzed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score statistic by week.||-0.16|-0.85|0.0053
90816055|NCT00110461|181510812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26||||0.1726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.11|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analyzed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score statistic by week.||0.11|-0.64|0.1726
90816056|NCT00110461|181510812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.0113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.12|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analyzed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score statistic by week.||-0.12|-0.89|0.0113
90816057|NCT00110461|181510813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|-0.67|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analyzed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score statistic by week.||-0.67|-1.31|<0.0001
90816058|NCT00110461|181510813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|-0.72|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analyzed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score statistic by week.||-0.72|-1.39|<0.0001
90816059|NCT00110461|181510814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.63||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|-0.22|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analyzed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score statistic by week.||-0.22|-1.04|0.0030
90816060|NCT00110461|181510814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.79||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|-0.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analyzed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score statistic by week.||-0.40|-1.18|0.0001
90816061|NCT04135859|181510845|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.3||||0.023|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.023
90816062|NCT04135859|181510846|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-59.0||||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.06
90816063|NCT04135859|181510847|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.76||||0.43|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.43
90816064|NCT02855944|181510902|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.639||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.489|0.835|||Regression, Cox|||||0.835|0.489|0.0010
90816065|NCT02855944|181510903|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.665||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.516|0.858|||Regression, Cox|||||0.858|0.516|0.0017
90816066|NCT02855944|181510906|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.589||||0.0401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.356|0.976|||Regression, Cox|||||0.976|0.356|0.0401
90816067|NCT02855944|181510907|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.564||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.343|0.927|||Regression, Cox|||||0.927|0.343|0.0240
90816068|NCT01852383|181510940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Change from Week 0 to Week 12, not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Alpha=0.05 threshold for statistical significance.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90816069|NCT01852383|181510941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.1||||||Change from Week 0 to Week 12, not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Alpha=0.05 threshold for statistical significance.|Corrlation|||||||<0.1
90816070|NCT01852383|181510942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Change from Week 0 to Week 12, not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Alpha=0.05 threshold for statistical significance.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91055609|NCT03118570|181992802|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.189||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Femoral neck||||0.189
91055610|NCT03118570|181992803|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline|||||<|0.001||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Lumbar||||< 0.001
91055611|NCT03118570|181992803|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline|||||<|0.001||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Lumbar||||< 0.001
91055612|NCT03118570|181992803|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.035||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Lumbar||||0.035
91055613|NCT03118570|181992803|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.003||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Total body||||0.003
91055614|NCT03118570|181992803|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.003||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Total body||||0.003
91055615|NCT03118570|181992803|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.088||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Total body||||0.088
91055616|NCT03118570|181992803|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.016||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Femoral neck||||0.016
91055617|NCT03118570|181992803|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.068||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Femoral neck||||0.068
91055618|NCT03118570|181992803|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.16||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Femoral neck||||0.160
91055619|NCT03118570|181992804|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.065||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 6||||0.065
91055620|NCT03118570|181992804|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.405||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 6||||0.405
91055621|NCT03118570|181992804|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.966||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 6||||0.966
91055622|NCT03118570|181992804|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.003||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 12||||0.003
91055623|NCT03118570|181992804|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.229||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 12||||0.229
91055624|NCT03118570|181992804|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.807||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 12||||0.807
91055625|NCT03118570|181992804|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.042||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 18||||0.042
91055626|NCT03118570|181992804|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.283||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 18||||0.283
91055627|NCT03118570|181992804|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.536||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 18||||0.536
91055628|NCT03118570|181992804|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.765||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 24||||0.765
91055629|NCT03118570|181992804|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.247||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 24||||0.247
91055630|NCT03118570|181992804|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.05||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 24||||0.050
91055631|NCT03118570|181992804|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.037||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 6||||0.037
91055632|NCT03118570|181992804|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.174||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 6||||0.174
91055633|NCT03118570|181992804|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.558||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 6||||0.558
91055634|NCT03118570|181992804|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.02||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 12||||0.020
91055635|NCT03118570|181992804|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.346||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 12||||0.346
91055636|NCT03118570|181992804|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.387||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 12||||0.387
90816071|NCT01852383|181510943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Pearson correlation coefficient. Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Alpha=0.05 for statistical significance threshold.|Pearson correlation|||Correlation of maximum duloxetine dose with change in Hamilton Depression Rating Scale scores from 0 Weeks to 12 Weeks.||||<.001
91055637|NCT03118570|181992804|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.093||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 18||||0.093
91055638|NCT03118570|181992804|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.156||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 18||||0.156
91055639|NCT03118570|181992804|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.324||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 18||||0.324
91055640|NCT03118570|181992804|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.92||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 24||||0.920
91055641|NCT03118570|181992804|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.04||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 24||||0.040
91055642|NCT03118570|181992804|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.643||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 24||||0.643
91055643|NCT03118570|181992805|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.285||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 6||||0.285
91055644|NCT03118570|181992805|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.544||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 6||||0.544
91055645|NCT03118570|181992805|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.615||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 6||||0.615
91055646|NCT03118570|181992805|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.179||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 12||||0.179
91055647|NCT03118570|181992805|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.513||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 12||||0.513
91055648|NCT03118570|181992805|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.849||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 12||||0.849
90816072|NCT02968914|181510954|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (%)|94.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.16|101.21|||ANOVA|||||101.21|88.16|
91055649|NCT03118570|181992805|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.037||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 18||||0.037
91055650|NCT03118570|181992805|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.88||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 18||||0.880
91055651|NCT03118570|181992805|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.153||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 18||||0.153
90816073|NCT02968914|181510955|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (%)|92.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.41|98.58|||ANOVA|||||98.58|87.41|
90816074|NCT02968914|181510956|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (%)|92.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.34|98.75|||ANOVA|||||98.75|86.34|
90816075|NCT02636946|181511015|NON_INFERIORITY|MMRM was used for IOP change from baseline. The model includes IOP change from baseline as the response variable and treatment, visit, eye, baseline IOP, treatment-by-baseline, treatment-by-eye, treatment-by-visit, visit-by-eye interactions as covariates. A Kronecker product of unstructured covariance matrix for study visit and compound symmetry covariance matrix for between eye correlation was used in the analysis.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.0166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|-0.13|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 4: The null hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 15 μg was to be declared non-inferior to SLT if the upper limit of the 95% CI was ≤ 1.5 mmHg at all scheduled visits (Weeks 4, 12, and 24).||-0.13|-1.28|0.0166
90816076|NCT02636946|181511016|NON_INFERIORITY|MMRM was used for IOP change from baseline. The model includes IOP change from baseline as the response variable and treatment, visit, eye, baseline IOP, treatment-by-baseline, treatment-by-eye, treatment-by-visit, visit-by-eye interactions as covariates. A Kronecker product of unstructured covariance matrix for study visit and compound symmetry covariance matrix for between eye correlation was used in the analysis.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.0735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|0.05|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 12: The null hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 15 μg was to be declared non-inferior to SLT if the upper limit of the 95% CI was ≤ 1.5 mmHg at all scheduled visits (Weeks 4, 12, and 24).||0.05|-1.09|0.0735
90816077|NCT02636946|181511017|NON_INFERIORITY|MMRM was used for IOP change from baseline. The model includes IOP change from baseline as the response variable and treatment, visit, eye, baseline IOP, treatment-by-baseline, treatment-by-eye, treatment-by-visit, visit-by-eye interactions as covariates. A Kronecker product of unstructured covariance matrix for study visit and compound symmetry covariance matrix for between eye correlation was used in the analysis.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.3928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.32|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 24: The null hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 15 μg was to be declared non-inferior to SLT if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) was ≤ 1.5 mmHg at all scheduled visits (Weeks 4, 12, and 24).||0.32|-0.81|0.3928
90816078|NCT04405245|181511047|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.366||0.807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.81|||ANCOVA|||||0.81|-0.63|0.8070
90816079|NCT04405245|181511047|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.365||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||||-0.20|-1.64|0.0130
90816080|NCT00576472|181511056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.033|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0062|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0452|-0.0208|||ANOVA|||||-0.0208|-0.0452|<.0001
90816081|NCT00576472|181511057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0285|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0046|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.019|0.038|||ANOVA|||||0.0380|0.0190|<.0001
90816082|NCT00576472|181511058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0144|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0064||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.000204|0.0285|||ANOVA|||||0.0285|0.000204|0.025
90816083|NCT00576472|181511058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0442|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0093|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0292|0.0591|||ANOVA|||||0.0591|0.0292|<.0001
90816084|NCT00576472|181511058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0491|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0064|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0396|0.0586|||ANOVA|||||0.0586|0.0396|<.0001
90816085|NCT00576472|181511058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0298|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0083||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.00974|0.0499|||ANOVA|||||0.0499|0.00974|.0004
90816086|NCT00576472|181511058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0347|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0047|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.025|0.0445|||ANOVA|||||0.0445|0.0250|<.0001
90816087|NCT00576472|181511058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.00494|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0083||0.552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00865|0.0185|||ANOVA|||||0.0185|-0.00865|.552
90816088|NCT00576472|181511059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|-3.3|||ANOVA|||||-3.3|-11.0|.0005
90816089|NCT00576472|181511060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.59||0.0413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|-0.1|||ANOVA|||||-0.1|-6.5|0.0413
91055652|NCT03118570|181992805|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.073||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 24||||0.073
91055653|NCT03118570|181992805|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.007||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 24||||0.007
90816090|NCT00576472|181511061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|-6.4|||ANOVA|||||-6.4|-11.0|<.0001
90816091|NCT00576472|181511062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|-7.0|||ANOVA|||||-7.0|-12.0|<.0001
90816092|NCT00576472|181511063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.81|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|11.6|||ANOVA|||||11.6|4.4|<.0001
90816093|NCT00576472|181511064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.8425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.9|||ANOVA|||||1.9|-2.3|.8425
90816094|NCT00576472|181511065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|-0.9|||ANOVA|||||-0.9|-3.9|.0016
90816095|NCT00576472|181511066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.8329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|2.3|||ANOVA|||||2.3|-1.9|.8329
90816096|NCT00576472|181511068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0077||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0077
90816097|NCT00576472|181511068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90816098|NCT00576472|181511068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1408||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1408
90816099|NCT00576472|181511069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0428||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0428
90816100|NCT00576472|181511069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0058||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0058
90816101|NCT00576472|181511069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4258||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4258
90816102|NCT00576472|181511070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0035||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0035
90816103|NCT00576472|181511070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0003
90816104|NCT00576472|181511070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4086||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4086
91055654|NCT03118570|181992805|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.791||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 24||||0.791
90816105|NCT00576472|181511071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0001
90816106|NCT00576472|181511071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0007||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0007
90816107|NCT00576472|181511071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7007||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7007
90816108|NCT00576472|181511072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0002
90816109|NCT00576472|181511072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0016||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0016
90816110|NCT00576472|181511072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6237||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6237
90816111|NCT00576472|181511073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0002
90816112|NCT00576472|181511073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.0001
90816113|NCT00576472|181511073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6071||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6071
90816114|NCT00576472|181511074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1386||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1386
90816115|NCT00576472|181511074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0905||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0905
90816116|NCT00576472|181511074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8039||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.8039
90816117|NCT00576472|181511075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7496||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7496
90816118|NCT00576472|181511075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9489||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9489
90816119|NCT00576472|181511075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7021||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7021
90816120|NCT00576472|181511076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0190
90816121|NCT00576472|181511076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0003
90816122|NCT00576472|181511076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1622||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1622
90816123|NCT00576472|181511077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1202||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1202
90816124|NCT00576472|181511077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0103||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0103
90816125|NCT00576472|181511077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2831||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2831
90816126|NCT00576472|181511078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7027||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7027
90816127|NCT00576472|181511079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7493||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7493
90816128|NCT00576472|181511080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7339||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7339
90816129|NCT00576472|181511081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6148||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6148
90816130|NCT00576472|181511082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4456||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4456
90816131|NCT00576472|181511083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5866||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5866
90816132|NCT00576472|181511084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8918||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.8918
90816133|NCT00576472|181511085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4427||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4427
90816134|NCT00576472|181511086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4203||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4203
90816135|NCT00576472|181511087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5754||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5754
90816136|NCT00576472|181511088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0251||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0251
90816137|NCT00576472|181511089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1049||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1049
90816138|NCT02576860|181511112|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.799|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.799
90816139|NCT02576860|181511113|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.858|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.858
90816140|NCT02391961|181511119|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.842672|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical Analysis applies to the 4 subgroups: average PSR at baseline and after 3 hours on dalfampridine, and average PSR at baseline and after 3 hours on placebo.||||0.842672
90816141|NCT02391961|181511120|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.972866|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical Analysis applies to the 4 subgroups: average PTD at baseline and after 3 hours on dalfampridine, and average PTD at baseline and after 3 hours on placebo.||||0.972866
90816142|NCT02391961|181511121|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical Analysis applies to the 4 subgroups: RA at baseline and after 3 hours on dalfampridine, and RA at baseline and after 3 hours on placebo.||||0.95
90816143|NCT02391961|181511122|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical Analysis applies to the 4 subgroups: MRS at baseline and after 3 hours on dalfampridine, and MRS at baseline and after 3 hours on placebo.||||0.9
90816144|NCT02391961|181511123|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.990995|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical Analysis applies to the 4 subgroups: 25 FWT at baseline and after 3 hours on dalfampridine, and 25 FWT at baseline and after 3 hours on placebo.||||0.990995
90816145|NCT02391961|181511124|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Statistical Analysis applies to the 2 groups, mean VFQ-25 scores on dalfampridine vs mean VFQ-25 scores on placebo||||0.71
90816146|NCT02391961|181511125|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Statistical Analysis applies to the 2 groups, mean 10-item NOS scores on dalfampridine vs mean 10-item NOS scores on placebo||||0.95
90816147|NCT01541917|181511129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|-0.02|||Multilevel growth model|Adjusted for baseline values|The parameter represents the average monthly change on the outcome variable since group procedures were initiated.|Multilevel growth model evaluating average change over time (regardless of group) on the outcome variable||-.02|-.06|<.001
90816148|NCT01541917|181511129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.014|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.055|0.027|||Multilevel growth model||The estimated parameter value represents the difference in the monthly change (since baseline) in the outcome variable attributed to being in the treatment group (web-based coping skills training) versus the control group (online disease education).|Multilevel linear growth modeling was used for analyses, with the time variable coded as months since randomization. All models included an adjustment for baseline group differences on the outcome variable.||.027|-.055|.51
90816149|NCT01541917|181511130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.46|||Multilevel growth model|Adjusted for baseline values.|The parameter represents the average monthly change on the outcome variable since before group procedures were started.|Multilevel growth model evaluating average change over time on the outcome variable||.46|.27|<.001
90816150|NCT01541917|181511130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.053|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.101||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.144|0.252|||Multilevel growth model|Adjusted for baseline values on the outcome variable|The estimated parameter value represents the difference in the monthly change (since baseline) in the outcome variable attributed to being in the treatment group (web-based coping skills training) versus the control group (online disease education).|Multilevel linear growth modeling was used for analyses, with the time variable coded as months since randomization. All models included an adjustment for baseline group differences on the outcome variable.||.252|-.144|.59
90816151|NCT01541917|181511131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.14|||Multilevel growth model|Adjusted for baseline values|The parameter represents the average monthly change on the outcome variable since before group procedures were started|Multilevel growth model evaluating average change over time on the outcome variable||.14|.10|<.001
90816152|NCT01541917|181511131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.03|||Multilevel growth model|Adjusted for baseline values on the outcome variable|The estimated parameter value represents the difference in the monthly change (since baseline) in the outcome variable attributed to being in the treatment group (web-based coping skills training) versus the control group (online disease education).|Multilevel linear growth modeling was used for analyses, with the time variable coded as months since randomization. All models included an adjustment for baseline group differences on the outcome variable.||.03|-.05|.63
90816153|NCT01541917|181511132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|-0.01|||Multilevel growth model|Adjusted for baseline values|The parameter represents the average monthly change on the outcome variable since before group procedures were started.|Multilevel growth model evaluating average change over time on the outcome variable||-.01|-.18|.02
90816154|NCT01541917|181511132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.009|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.084||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.174|0.155|||Multilevel growth model|Adjusted for baseline values on the outcome variable|The estimated parameter value represents the difference in the monthly change (since baseline) in the outcome variable attributed to being in the treatment group (web-based coping skills training) versus the control group (online disease education).|Multilevel linear growth modeling was used for analyses, with the time variable coded as months since randomization. All models included an adjustment for baseline group differences on the outcome variable.||.155|-.174|.91
90816155|NCT01541917|181511133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.0316|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.004|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.04|||Multilevel growth model|Adjusted for baseline values.|The parameter represents the average monthly change on the outcome variable since before group procedures were started|Multilevel growth model evaluating average change over time on the outcome variable||.04|.02|<.001
90816156|NCT01541917|181511133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.008||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.013|||Multilevel growth model|Adjusted for baseline values on the outcome variable|The estimated parameter value represents the difference in the monthly change (since baseline) in the outcome variable attributed to being in the treatment group (web-based coping skills training) versus the control group (online disease education).|Multilevel linear growth modeling was used for analyses, with the time variable coded as months since randomization. All models included an adjustment for baseline group differences on the outcome variable.||.013|-.02|.67
90816157|NCT01541917|181511134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.004||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.01|||Multilevel growth model|Adjusted for baseline values|The parameter represents the average monthly change on the outcome variable since before group procedures were started.|Multilevel growth model evaluating average change over time on the outcome variable||.01|-.01|.58
90816158|NCT01541917|181511134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.007||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.009|0.018|||Multilevel growth model|Adjusted for baseline values on the outcome variable|The estimated parameter value represents the difference in the monthly change (since baseline) in the outcome variable attributed to being in the treatment group (web-based coping skills training) versus the control group (online disease education).|Multilevel linear growth modeling was used for analyses, with the time variable coded as months since randomization. All models included an adjustment for baseline group differences on the outcome variable.||.018|-.009|.49
90816159|NCT00121641|181511135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.33||Between-group comparisons significant at alpha = 0.019, significance testing based on hierarchical testing. Primary and secondary endpoints are presented in order of testing.|ANCOVA|Adjusted mean difference for saxagliptin groups vs placebo in Week 24 (LOCF). Adjusted for baseline.|ANCOVA model:post - pre = pre treatment|||-0.33|-0.90|<.0001
90890435|NCT00295750|181645518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Percentage change from baseline to Day 28||||<0.0001
90890436|NCT00295750|181645519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cumulative probability|85.8||||||95.0|79.8|90.1|||||95% confidence interval for the cumulative probability of completing the study without prostate specific antigen failure from Day 0 to Day 364.|||90.1|79.8|
91055655|NCT03118570|181992805|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.01||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 6||||0.010
91055656|NCT03118570|181992805|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.553||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 6||||0.553
90816160|NCT00121641|181511135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|-0.36||Between-group comparisons significant at alpha = 0.019, significance testing based on hierarchical testing. Primary and secondary endpoints are presented in order of testing.|ANCOVA|Adjusted mean difference for saxagliptin groups vs placebo in Week 24 (LOCF). Adjusted for baseline.|ANCOVA model:post - pre = pre treatment|||-0.36|-0.93|<.0001
90816161|NCT00121641|181511135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.44||Between-group comparisons significant at alpha = 0.019, significance testing based on hierarchical testing. Primary and secondary endpoints are presented in order of testing.|ANCOVA|Adjusted mean difference for saxagliptin groups vs placebo in Week 24 (LOCF). Adjusted for baseline.|ANCOVA model:post - pre = pre treatment|||-0.44|-1.02|<.0001
90816162|NCT00121641|181511136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.53||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.47|-9.72||Significance testing based on hierarchical testing. Primary and secondary endpoints are presented in order of testing.|ANCOVA|Adjusted mean difference for saxagliptin groups vs placebo in Week 24 (LOCF). Adjusted for baseline.|ANCOVA model:post - pre = pre treatment|||-9.72|-31.47|0.0002
90816163|NCT00121641|181511136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.48||0.0074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.5|-3.97||Significance testing based on hierarchical testing. Primary and secondary endpoints are presented in order of testing.|ANCOVA|Adjusted mean difference for saxagliptin groups vs placebo in Week 24 (LOCF). Adjusted for baseline.|ANCOVA model:post - pre = pre treatment|||-3.97|-25.50|0.0074
90816164|NCT00121641|181511136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.58|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.79|-11.84||Significance testing based on hierarchical testing. Primary and secondary endpoints are presented in order of testing.|ANCOVA|Adjusted mean difference for saxagliptin groups vs placebo in Week 24 (LOCF). Adjusted for baseline.|ANCOVA model:post - pre = pre treatment|||-11.84|-33.79|<.0001
90816165|NCT00121641|181511137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|11.1||||0.1141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|24.9||Significance testing based on hierarchical testing. Primary and secondary endpoints are presented in order of testing.|Fisher Exact|The exact 95% CIs is based on the standardized statistic and inverting the one 2-sided test.||||24.9|-3.1|0.1141
90816166|NCT00121641|181511137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|14.0||||0.0443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|27.6||Significance testing based on hierarchical testing. Primary and secondary endpoints are presented in order of testing.|Fisher Exact|The exact 95% CIs is based on the standardized statistic and inverting the one 2-sided test.||||27.6|-0.1|0.0443
90816167|NCT00121641|181511137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|17.1||||0.0133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|31.0||Significance testing based on hierarchical testing. Primary and secondary endpoints are presented in order of testing.|Fisher Exact|The exact 95% CIs is based on the standardized statistic and inverting the one 2-sided test.||||31.0|2.8|0.0133
90816168|NCT00121641|181511138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6221.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1701.3||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9570.0|-2872.0||Significance testing based on hierarchical testing. Primary and secondary endpoints are presented in order of testing.|ANCOVA|Adjusted mean difference for saxagliptin groups vs placebo in Week 24 (LOCF). Adjusted for baseline.|ANCOVA model:post - pre = pre treatment|||-2872|-9570|0.0003
90816169|NCT00121641|181511138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6249.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1675.1||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9546.0|-2952.0||Significance testing based on hierarchical testing. Primary and secondary endpoints are presented in order of testing.|ANCOVA|Adjusted mean difference for saxagliptin groups vs placebo in Week 24 (LOCF). Adjusted for baseline.|ANCOVA model:post - pre = pre treatment|||-2952|-9546|0.0002
90816170|NCT00121641|181511138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7437.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1707.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10798.0|-4076.0||Significance testing based on hierarchical testing. Primary and secondary endpoints are presented in order of testing.|ANCOVA|Adjusted mean difference for saxagliptin groups vs placebo in Week 24 (LOCF). Adjusted for baseline.|ANCOVA model:post - pre = pre treatment|||-4076|-10798|<.0001
90816171|NCT03263780|181511173|SUPERIORITY||Sensitivity|0.25||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.46||mpMRI vs hrMRI and PET (PIRADS 3-5 \& Gleason 6+)|Durkalski's Chi-square test||We did not present standard deviation as the variability is already incorporated in the provided confidence interval.|mpMRI vs hrMRI and PET (PIRADS 3-5 \& Gleason 6+)||0.46|0.19|0.056
90816172|NCT03263780|181511173|SUPERIORITY||Sensitivity|0.56||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.78||mpMRI vs hrMRI or PET (PIRADS 3-5 \& Gleason 6+)|Durkalski's Chi-square test||We did not present standard deviation as the variability is already incorporated in the provided confidence interval.|mpMRI vs hrMRI or PET (PIRADS 3-5 \& Gleason 6+)||0.78|0.44|0.56
90816173|NCT03263780|181511173|SUPERIORITY||Sensitivity|0.22||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.47||mpMRI vs hrMRI and PET (PIRADS 4-5 \& Gleason 6+)|Durkalski's Chi-square test||We did not present standard deviation as the variability is already incorporated in the provided confidence interval.|mpMRI vs hrMRI and PET (PIRADS 4-5 \& Gleason 6+)||0.47|0.17|0.060
90816174|NCT03263780|181511173|SUPERIORITY||Sensitivity|0.5||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.74||mpMRI vs hrMRI or PET (PIRADS 4-5 \& Gleason 6+)|Durkalski's Chi-square test||We did not present standard deviation as the variability is already incorporated in the provided confidence interval.|mpMRI vs hrMRI or PET (PIRADS 4-5 \& Gleason 6+)||0.74|0.39|0.083
90816175|NCT03263780|181511174|SUPERIORITY||Sensitivity|0.35||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.65||mpMRI vs hrMRI and PET (PIRADS 3-5 \& Gleason 7+)|Durkalski's Chi-square test||We did not present standard deviation as the variability is already incorporated in the provided confidence interval.|mpMRI vs hrMRI and PET (PIRADS 3-5 \& Gleason 7+)||0.65|0.26|0.096
90816176|NCT03263780|181511174|SUPERIORITY||Sensitivity|0.6||||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.9||mpMRI vs hrMRI or PET (PIRADS 3-5 \& Gleason 7+)|Durkalski's Chi-square test||We did not present standard deviation as the variability is already incorporated in the provided confidence interval.|mpMRI vs hrMRI or PET (PIRADS 3-5 \& Gleason 7+)||0.90|0.46|0.317
90816177|NCT03263780|181511174|SUPERIORITY||Sensitivity|0.3||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.66||mpMRI vs hrMRI and PET (PIRADS 4-5 \& Gleason 7+)|Durkalski's Chi-square test||We did not present standard deviation as the variability is already incorporated in the provided confidence interval.|mpMRI vs hrMRI and PET (PIRADS 4-5 \& Gleason 7+)||0.66|0.23|0.063
90816178|NCT03263780|181511174|SUPERIORITY||Sensitivity|0.6||||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.9||mpMRI vs hrMRI or PET (PIRADS 4-5 \& Gleason 7+)|Durkalski's Chi-square test||We did not present standard deviation as the variability is already incorporated in the provided confidence interval.|mpMRI vs hrMRI or PET (PIRADS 4-5 \& Gleason 7+)||0.90|0.46|0.317
90816179|NCT02011490|181511178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|5.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.12|7.11|||||Difference in least squares means of log-transformed data (severe renal impaired - healthy) was back transformed to geometric least squares mean ratio (severe renal impaired/healthy)|Log-transformed plasma values were modeled using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) linear fixed-effect model with population (severe insufficiency, moderate insufficiency, and healthy control) as a fixed effect||7.11|4.12|
90816180|NCT02011490|181511178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|2.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.84|3.17|||||Difference in least squares means of log-transformed data (moderate renal impaired - healthy) was back transformed to geometric least squares mean ratio (moderate renal impaired/healthy)|Log-transformed plasma values were modeled using an ANOVA linear fixed-effect model with population (severe insufficiency, moderate insufficiency, and healthy control) as a fixed effect||3.17|1.84|
90816181|NCT02011490|181511179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|5.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.18|7.22|||||Difference in least squares means of log-transformed data (severe renal impaired - healthy) was back transformed to geometric least squares mean ratio (severe renal impaired/healthy)|Log-transformed plasma values were modeled using an ANOVA linear fixed-effect model with population (severe insufficiency, moderate insufficiency, and healthy control) as a fixed effect||7.22|4.18|
90816182|NCT02011490|181511179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|2.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.84|3.18|||||Difference in least squares means of log-transformed data (moderate renal impaired - healthy) was back transformed to geometric least squares mean ratio (moderate renal impaired/healthy)|Log-transformed plasma values were modeled using an ANOVA linear fixed-effect model with population (severe insufficiency, moderate insufficiency, and healthy control) as a fixed effect||3.18|1.84|
90816183|NCT02011490|181511180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.73|1.21|||||Difference in least squares means of log-transformed data (severe renal impaired - healthy) was back transformed to geometric least squares mean ratio (severe renal impaired/healthy)|Log-transformed plasma values were modeled using an ANOVA linear fixed-effect model with population (severe insufficiency, moderate insufficiency, and healthy control) as a fixed effect||1.21|0.73|
90816184|NCT02011490|181511180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.72|1.18|||||Difference in least squares means of log-transformed data (moderate renal impaired - healthy) was back transformed to geometric least squares mean ratio (moderate renal impaired/healthy)|Log-transformed plasma values were modeled using an ANOVA linear fixed-effect model with population (severe insufficiency, moderate insufficiency, and healthy control) as a fixed effect||1.18|0.72|
90816185|NCT01014455|181511192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.672||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.672
90816186|NCT00249613|181511196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.79||Odds ratio is 0.40, confidence interval is 0.21-0.79.|Regression, Logistic||The direction of the comparison would dictate that odds ratio of less than 1 would indicate Women-Only participants are less likely than Mixed-Gender participants to engage in criminal activities.|Logistic regression does not separate arms because group status (women-only vs mixed gender) is the dependent variable in our multinomial logistic regression. Because we were not able to randomly assign after all, we also included a propensity score, and additional variables (substance use in past 30 days at baseline, age, race/ethnicity, childhood sexual abuse history, previous treatment, criminal justice funding source, and primary drug) to adjust for the non-random sampling.||0.79|0.21|0.01
91055657|NCT03118570|181992805|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.652||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 6||||0.652
91055658|NCT03118570|181992805|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline|||||<|0.001||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 12||||< 0.001
90816187|NCT00249613|181511197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Beta coefficient|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|0.7|||Generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||Generalized estimating equation (GEE) models do not separate arms: group status (women-only vs mixed-gender) is the dependent variable. Because we were not able to randomly assign, we also included a propensity score, and additional variables (education, race/ethnicity, marital status, income, history of sexual abuse, criminal justice funding source, had child, mental health symptoms, and a time in treatment by group interaction term) to adjust for the non-random sampling.||0.70|-2.11|0.33
90816188|NCT00249613|181511198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.82|||Regression, Logistic||The direction of the comparison would dictate that odds ratio of less than 1 would indicate Women-Only treatment participants are less likely than the Mixed-Gender group to use drugs or alcohol during the 30 days prior to the 12-Mo follow-up.|Logistic regression does not separate arms because group status (women-only vs mixed gender) is the dependent variable in our multinomial logistic regression. Because we were not able to randomly assign after all, we also included a propensity score, and additional variables (substance use in past 30 days at baseline, age, race/ethnicity, childhood sexual abuse history, previous treatment, criminal justice funding source, and primary drug) to adjust for the non-random sampling.||0.82|0.22|0.01
90816189|NCT03268941|181511206|OTHER||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|7.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.03|13.52||ANCOVA model was used for analysis. Treatment, underlying disease (DG/IG) were fixed factors. ln of baseline prolactin concentration as covariate, ln of ratio of Cmax to baseline concentration as response. Results in original scale are presented.|ANCOVA|||Change in serum prolactin on Day 1 at the Tmax as a ratio of Cmax to serum prolactin concentration at Baseline.||13.52|4.03|<0.001
90816190|NCT03268941|181511206|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|11.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.91|21.41||ANCOVA model was used for analysis. Treatment, underlying disease (DG/IG) were fixed factors. ln of baseline prolactin concentration as covariate, ln of ratio of Cmax to baseline concentration as response. Results in original scale are presented.|ANCOVA|||Change in serum prolactin on Day 1 at the Tmax as a ratio of Cmax to serum prolactin concentration at Baseline.||21.41|5.91|<0.001
90816191|NCT03268941|181511206|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|12.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.94|23.59||ANCOVA model was used for analysis. Treatment, underlying disease (DG/IG) were fixed factors. ln of baseline prolactin concentration - covariate, ln of ratio of Cmax to baseline concentration as response. Results in original scale are presented.|ANCOVA|||Change in serum prolactin on Day 1 at the Tmax as a ratio of Cmax to serum prolactin concentration at Baseline.||23.59|6.94|<0.001
90816192|NCT03268941|181511207|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.648||0.599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.89|37.41||P-value was obtained by ANCOVA model with treatment and underlying disease (DG/IG) condition as fixed factors and baseline score as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline in GEBT gastric half-emptying time on Day 7 in Part 1.||37.41|-21.89|0.599
90816193|NCT03268941|181511207|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.469||0.687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.04|37.59||P-value was obtained by ANCOVA model with treatment and underlying disease (DG/IG) condition as fixed factors and baseline score as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline in GEBT gastric half-emptying time on Day 7 in Part 1.||37.59|-25.04|0.687
90816194|NCT03268941|181511207|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|8.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.45||0.605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.22|39.33||P-value was obtained by ANCOVA model with treatment and underlying disease (DG/IG) condition as fixed factors and baseline score as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline in GEBT gastric half-emptying time on Day 7 in Part 1.||39.33|-23.22|0.605
90816195|NCT03268941|181511208|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.708||0.522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.06|31.19||P-value was obtained by ANCOVA model with treatment and underlying disease (DG/IG) condition as fixed factors and baseline score as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline in GEBT gastric half-emptying time on Day 1 in Part 1.||31.19|-16.06|0.522
90816196|NCT03268941|181511208|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|12.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.143||0.293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.58|37.43||P-value was obtained by ANCOVA model with treatment and underlying disease (DG/IG) condition as fixed factors and baseline score as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline in GEBT gastric half-emptying time on Day 1 in Part 1.||37.43|-11.58|0.293
90816197|NCT03268941|181511208|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.654||0.551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.52|30.52||P-value was obtained by ANCOVA model with treatment and underlying disease (DG/IG) condition as fixed factors and baseline score as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline in GEBT gastric half-emptying time on Day 1 in Part 1.||30.52|-16.52|0.551
90816198|NCT03268941|181511209|OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann Estimate of Median Diff|-18.14||||0.274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-307.58|13.56||P-value was obtained with pairwise Wilcoxon Rank Sum tests.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum tests|||Percent Change in GE time measured by the SmartPill on Day 7 in Part 1.||13.56|-307.58|0.274
91055659|NCT03118570|181992805|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.482||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 12||||0.482
91055660|NCT03118570|181992805|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.685||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 12||||0.685
91055661|NCT03118570|181992805|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.002||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 18||||0.002
90816199|NCT03268941|181511209|OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann Estimate of Median Diff|-26.95||||0.481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-229.73|530.49||P-value was obtained with pairwise Wilcoxon Rank Sum tests.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum tests|||Percent Change in GE time measured by the SmartPill on Day 7 in Part 1.||530.49|-229.73|0.481
90816200|NCT03268941|181511209|OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann Estimate of Median Diff|-24.49||||0.382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-225.87|98.91||P-value was obtained with pairwise Wilcoxon Rank Sum tests.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum tests|||Percent Change in GE on time measured by the SmartPill Day 7 in Part 1.||98.91|-225.87|0.382
90816201|NCT02720692|181511220|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||P\<0.05 applies to Day 1 (0-24 Hours; p=0.0033), Days 1-2 (0-48 Hours; p=0.0077), and Days 1-3 (0-72 Hours; p=0.0152).|ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
90816202|NCT03878758|181511222|SUPERIORITY|The average difference in incidence of needle bending with BD Nano vs. Comparator pen needle was calculated with 95% confidence interval and assessed for statistical significance.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.39||||0.591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|1.04|||Fisher Exact|||||1.04|-1.82|0.591
90816203|NCT03878758|181511222|SUPERIORITY|The average difference in percentage of occurrence with BD Nano vs. Comparator pen needle was calculated with 95% confidence interval and assessed for statistical significance.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.13||||0.931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|3.06|||Fisher Exact|||||3.06|-2.8|0.931
90816204|NCT03878758|181511222|SUPERIORITY|The average difference in percentage of occurrence with BD Nano vs. Comparator pen needle was calculated with 95% confidence interval and assessed for statistical significance.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.42||||0.723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|2.75|||Fisher Exact|||||2.75|-1.91|0.723
90816205|NCT03878758|181511223|SUPERIORITY|The average difference in percentage of occurrence with BD Nano vs. comparator was calculated with 95% confidence interval and assessed for statistical significance.|Risk Difference (RD)|-5.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|-3.5|||Fisher Exact|||||-3.5|-9.0|<0.001
91055662|NCT03118570|181992805|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.672||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 18||||0.672
91055663|NCT03118570|181992805|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.377||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 18||||0.377
91055664|NCT03118570|181992805|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.015||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 24||||0.015
91055665|NCT03118570|181992805|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.086||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 24||||0.086
91055666|NCT03118570|181992805|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.712||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 24||||0.712
91055667|NCT03118570|181992807|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.045||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Lean, Month 6||||0.045
91055668|NCT03118570|181992807|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.101||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Lean, Month 6||||0.101
90816206|NCT03878758|181511223|SUPERIORITY|The average difference in percentage of occurrence with BD Nano vs. comparator was calculated with 95% confidence interval and assessed for statistical significance.|Risk Difference (RD)|-14.09||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.49|-1.69||Although a site difference was detected - all sites combined p-value was generated,|Fisher Exact|||||-1.69|-26.49|0.026
90816207|NCT03878758|181511223|SUPERIORITY|The average difference in percentage of occurrence with BD Nano vs.Comparator pen needle was calculated with 95% confidence interval and assessed for statistical significance.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.2||||0.644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.6|||Fisher Exact|||||0.6|-1.9|0.644
91055669|NCT03118570|181992807|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.482||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Lean, Month 6||||0.482
91055670|NCT03118570|181992807|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.011||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Lean, Month 12||||0.011
91055671|NCT03118570|181992807|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.508||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Lean, Month 12||||0.508
91055672|NCT03118570|181992807|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.563||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Lean, Month 12||||0.563
91055673|NCT03118570|181992807|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.917||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Fat, Month 6||||0.917
91055674|NCT03118570|181992807|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.789||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Fat, Month 6||||0.789
91055675|NCT03118570|181992807|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.262||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Fat, Month 6||||0.262
90890437|NCT00295750|181645519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cumulative probability|91.1||||||95.0|85.9|94.5|||||95% confidence interval for the cumulative probability of completing the study without prostate specific antigen failure from Day 0 to Day 364.|||94.5|85.9|
91055676|NCT03118570|181992807|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.426||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Fat, Month 12||||0.426
91055677|NCT03118570|181992807|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.871||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Fat, Month 12||||0.871
91055678|NCT03118570|181992807|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.113||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Fat, Month 12||||0.113
91055679|NCT03118570|181992808|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline|||||<|0.001||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 1||||< 0.001
91055680|NCT03118570|181992808|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline|||||<|0.001||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 1||||< 0.001
91055681|NCT03118570|181992808|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.984||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 1||||0.984
91055682|NCT03118570|181992808|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline|||||<|0.001||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 3||||< 0.001
91055683|NCT03118570|181992808|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.05||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 3||||0.050
91055684|NCT03118570|181992808|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.857||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 3||||0.857
91055685|NCT03118570|181992808|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.001||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 6||||0.001
91055686|NCT03118570|181992808|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.079||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 6||||0.079
91055687|NCT03118570|181992808|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.912||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 6||||0.912
90816208|NCT03878758|181511224|SUPERIORITY|Two-sided 95% confidence intervals is calculated for the average relative rating. A linear model was used to evaluate the pen needle group effect on the response to test whether the groups can be combined (a p-value \< 0.05 for the pen needle group effect indicates non-poolability) and to adjust for the order effect. The order of the pen needles used and the group to which the subject belongs were used as covariates.|Overall Mean|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.98||||||||0.98|0.62|
91055688|NCT03118570|181992808|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.054||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 9||||0.054
91055689|NCT03118570|181992808|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.95||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 9||||0.950
91055690|NCT03118570|181992808|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.555||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 9||||0.555
91055691|NCT03118570|181992808|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.221||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 12||||0.221
91055692|NCT03118570|181992808|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.393||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 12||||0.393
91055693|NCT03118570|181992808|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.385||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 12||||0.385
91055694|NCT03118570|181992809|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline|||||<|0.001||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 1||||< 0.001
91055695|NCT03118570|181992809|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline|||||<|0.001||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 1||||< 0.001
91055696|NCT03118570|181992809|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline|||||<|0.001||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 1||||< 0.001
91055697|NCT03118570|181992809|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.003||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 3||||0.003
91055698|NCT03118570|181992809|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.05||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 3||||0.050
91055699|NCT03118570|181992809|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.006||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 3||||0.006
91055700|NCT03118570|181992809|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.519||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 6||||0.519
91055701|NCT03118570|181992809|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.226||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 6||||0.226
91055702|NCT03118570|181992809|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.19||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 6||||0.190
91055703|NCT03118570|181992809|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.388||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 9||||0.388
91055704|NCT03118570|181992809|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.109||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 9||||0.109
91055705|NCT03118570|181992809|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.204||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 9||||0.204
91055706|NCT03118570|181992809|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.119||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 12||||0.119
90816209|NCT03878758|181511224|SUPERIORITY|Two-sided 95% confidence intervals is calculated for the average relative rating. A linear model was used to evaluate the pen needle group effect on the response to test whether the groups can be combined (a p-value \< 0.05 for the pen needle group effect indicates non-poolability) and to adjust for the order effect. The order of the pen needles used and the group to which the subject belongs were used as covariates.|Overall Mean|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.16||||||||1.16|0.8|
91055707|NCT03118570|181992809|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.925||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 12||||0.925
91055708|NCT03118570|181992809|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.204||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 12||||0.204
91055709|NCT03118570|181992810|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.588||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 6||||0.588
91055710|NCT03118570|181992810|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.697||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 6||||0.697
91055711|NCT03118570|181992810|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.283||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 6||||0.283
91055712|NCT03118570|181992810|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.354||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 12||||0.354
91055713|NCT03118570|181992810|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.43||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 12||||0.430
91055714|NCT03118570|181992810|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.091||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 12||||0.091
91055715|NCT03118570|181992811|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.527||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 6||||0.527
91055716|NCT03118570|181992811|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.738||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 6||||0.738
91055717|NCT03118570|181992811|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.465||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 6||||0.465
91055718|NCT03118570|181992811|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.068||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 12||||0.068
91055719|NCT03118570|181992811|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.328||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 12||||0.328
90816210|NCT03878758|181511224|SUPERIORITY|Two-sided 95% confidence intervals is calculated for the average relative rating. A linear model was used to evaluate the pen needle group effect on the response to test whether the groups can be combined (a p-value \< 0.05 for the pen needle group effect indicates non-poolability) and to adjust for the order effect. The order of the pen needles used and the group to which the subject belongs were used as covariates.|Overall Mean|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.49||||||||0.49|0.13|
90816211|NCT03878758|181511225|SUPERIORITY|A mixed effect model was used (fixed effects of PN, abdomen site, order of pair, order of PN within pair and random subject effect) to estimate average difference (BD Nano PN - Comparator PN) in delivery time and total injection time. A Box-Cox transformation might be used to normalize the data if necessary.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.192|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||-0.141|||Mixed Models Analysis|||BD Nano Pro vs Artsana 34G||-0.141||<0.001
90816212|NCT03878758|181511225|SUPERIORITY|A mixed effect model was used (fixed effects of PN, abdomen site, order of pair, order of PN within pair and random subject effect) to estimate average difference (BD Nano PN - Comparator PN) in delivery time and total injection time. A Box-Cox transformation might be used to normalize the data if necessary.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.122||||0.104|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.016|||Mixed Models Analysis|||BD NANO vs Artsana 33G. A significant site effect was detected at one site; the most conservative p-value is reported.||0.016||0.104
90816213|NCT03878758|181511225|SUPERIORITY|A mixed effect model was used (fixed effects of PN, abdomen site, order of pair, order of PN within pair and random subject effect) to estimate average difference (BD Nano PN - Comparator PN) in delivery time and total injection time. A Box-Cox transformation might be used to normalize the data if necessary. The upper bound of the confidence interval was compared to 0.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.068||||0.003|ONE_SIDED|95.0||-0.017|||Mixed Models Analysis|||BD NANO vs Comfort EZ 33G||-0.017||0.003
90816214|NCT03878758|181511226|SUPERIORITY|The number and proportion of needle breaking occurrence for each pen needle type were summarized. A 95% confidence interval for difference in proportions between BD Nano Pro and the Comparator was calculated using the score method for independent proportions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.2||||||||1.2|-0.4|
90816215|NCT03878758|181511226|SUPERIORITY|The number and proportion of needle breaking occurrence for each pen needle type were summarized. A 95% confidence interval for difference in proportions between BD Nano Pro and the Comparator was calculated using the score method for independent proportions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.2||||||||1.2|-0.4|
90816216|NCT03878758|181511226|SUPERIORITY|The number and proportion of needle breaking occurrence for each pen needle type were summarized. A 95% confidence interval for difference in proportions between BD Nano Pro and the Comparator was calculated using the score method for independent proportions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.2||||||||1.2|-0.4|
90816217|NCT00652951|181511243|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority criteria: The upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the GMC ratio for between groups (Synflorix + Infanrix hexa Group over Synflorix + Pediacel Group), was lower than 2 for the pneumococcal vaccine serotype 1.|GMC ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.07|||ANOVA|||The 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio between the Synflorix + Infanrix hexa and Synflorix + Pediacel groups (Synflorix + Infanrix hexa Group over Synflorix + Pediacel Group), at one month after Dose 3 of pneumococcal vaccine, was computed for each of the 10 pneumococcal vaccine serotypes and protein D. This statistical method concerns pneumococcal vaccine serotype 1.||1.07|0.74|
90816218|NCT00652951|181511243|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority criteria: The upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio for between groups (Synflorix + Infanrix hexa Group over Synflorix + Pediacel Group), was lower than 2 for the pneumococcal vaccine serotype 4.|GMC ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.23|||ANOVA|||The 2-sided 95% CI of the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio between the Synflorix + Infanrix hexa and Synflorix + Pediacel groups (Synflorix + Infanrix hexa Group over Synflorix + Pediacel Group), at one month after Dose 3 of pneumococcal vaccine, was computed for each of the 10 pneumococcal vaccine serotypes and protein D. This statistical method concerns pneumococcal vaccine serotype 4.||1.23|0.84|
90816219|NCT00652951|181511243|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority criteria: The upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio for between groups (Synflorix + Infanrix hexa Group over Synflorix + Pediacel Group), was lower than 2 for the pneumococcal vaccine serotype 5.|GMC ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.15|||ANOVA|||The 2-sided 95% CI of the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio between the Synflorix + Infanrix hexa and Synflorix + Pediacel groups (Synflorix + Infanrix hexa Group over Synflorix + Pediacel Group), at one month after Dose 3 of pneumococcal vaccine, was computed for each of the 10 pneumococcal vaccine serotypes and protein D. This statistical method concerns pneumococcal vaccine serotype 5.||1.15|0.83|
90816220|NCT00652951|181511243|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority criteria: The upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio for between groups (Synflorix + Infanrix hexa Group over Synflorix + Pediacel Group), was lower than 2 for the pneumococcal vaccine serotype 6B.|GMC ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.26|||ANOVA|||The 2-sided 95% CI of the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio between the Synflorix + Infanrix hexa and Synflorix + Pediacel groups (Synflorix + Infanrix hexa Group over Synflorix + Pediacel Group), at one month after Dose 3 of pneumococcal vaccine, was computed for each of the 10 pneumococcal vaccine serotypes and protein D. This statistical method concerns pneumococcal vaccine serotype 6B.||1.26|0.69|
90816221|NCT00652951|181511243|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority criteria: The upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio for between groups (Synflorix + Infanrix hexa Group over Synflorix + Pediacel Group Group), was lower than 2 for the pneumococcal vaccine serotype 7F.|GMC ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.13|||ANOVA|||The 2-sided 95% CI of the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio between the Synflorix + Infanrix hexa and Synflorix + Pediacel Group groups (Synflorix + Infanrix hexa Group over Synflorix + Pediacel Group), at one month after Dose 3 of pneumococcal vaccine, was computed for each of the 10 pneumococcal vaccine serotypes and protein D. This statistical method concerns pneumococcal vaccine serotype 7F.||1.13|0.82|
91055720|NCT03118570|181992811|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.277||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 12||||0.277
91055721|NCT03118570|181992812|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.092||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 6||||0.092
91055722|NCT03118570|181992812|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.31||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 6||||0.310
91055723|NCT03118570|181992812|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.304||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 6||||0.304
91055724|NCT03118570|181992812|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.155||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 12||||0.155
91055725|NCT03118570|181992812|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.392||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 12||||0.392
91055726|NCT03118570|181992812|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.464||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 12||||0.464
91055727|NCT03118570|181992813|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.15||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 6||||0.150
91055728|NCT03118570|181992813|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.468||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 6||||0.468
90816222|NCT00652951|181511243|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority criteria: The upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio for between groups (Synflorix + Infanrix hexa Group over Synflorix + Pediacel Group), was lower than 2 for the pneumococcal vaccine serotype 9V.|GMC ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.16|||ANOVA|||The 2-sided 95% CI of the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio between the Synflorix + Infanrix hexa and Synflorix + Pediacel groups (Synflorix + Infanrix hexa Group over Synflorix + Pediacel Group), at one month after Dose 3 of pneumococcal vaccine, was computed for each of the 10 pneumococcal vaccine serotypes and protein D. This statistical method concerns pneumococcal vaccine serotype 9V.||1.16|0.78|
90890438|NCT00295750|181645519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cumulative probability|85.9||||||95.0|79.9|90.2|||||95% confidence interval for the cumulative probability of completing the study without prostate specific antigen failure from Day 0 to Day 364.|||90.2|79.9|
91055729|NCT03118570|181992813|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.8||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 6||||0.800
91055730|NCT03118570|181992813|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.563||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 12||||0.563
91055731|NCT03118570|181992813|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.839||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 12||||0.839
91055732|NCT03118570|181992813|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.186||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 12||||0.186
91055733|NCT03118570|181992814|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.278||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 6||||0.278
91055734|NCT03118570|181992814|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.292||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 6||||0.292
91055735|NCT03118570|181992814|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.115||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 6||||0.115
91055736|NCT03118570|181992814|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.356||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 12||||0.356
91055737|NCT03118570|181992814|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.205||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 12||||0.205
91055738|NCT03118570|181992814|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.078||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 12||||0.078
91055739|NCT03118570|181992815|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.037||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 6||||0.037
91055740|NCT03118570|181992815|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.342||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 6||||0.342
91055741|NCT03118570|181992815|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.515||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 6||||0.515
91055742|NCT03118570|181992815|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.786||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 12||||0.786
91055743|NCT03118570|181992815|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.212||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 12||||0.212
91055744|NCT03118570|181992815|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.655||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 12||||0.655
91055745|NCT02304991|181992838|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Intent to treat; participants not completing the DBPCFC considered to have challenge score of zero||||0.002
91055746|NCT02304991|181992839|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Intent to treat; participants not completing the DBPCFC considered to have challenge score of zero||||0.0005
91055747|NCT02304991|181992840|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.007
90816223|NCT00652951|181511243|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority criteria: The upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio for between groups (Synflorix + Infanrix hexa Group over Synflorix + Pediacel Group), was lower than 2 for the pneumococcal vaccine serotype 14.|GMC ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.21|||ANOVA|||The 2-sided 95% CI of the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio between the Synflorix + Infanrix hexa and Synflorix + Pediacel groups (Synflorix + Infanrix hexa Group over Synflorix + Pediacel Group), at one month after Dose 3 of pneumococcal vaccine, was computed for each of the 10 pneumococcal vaccine serotypes and protein D. This statistical method concerns pneumococcal vaccine serotype 14.||1.21|0.85|
91055748|NCT02304991|181992841|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Per protocol analysis of patients with available samples.||||0.01
91055749|NCT02304991|181992842|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Per protocol analysis of patients with available samples.||||<0.0001
91055750|NCT02304991|181992843|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3
91055751|NCT00786994|181992844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||Mantel Haenszel|||A vs C/D||||0.60
91055752|NCT00786994|181992844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83|TWO_SIDED||||||Mantel Haenszel|||B vs. C/D||||0.83
91055753|NCT01193127|181992856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-squares mean difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0||95.0|0.6|1.1||Repeated measures model includes treatment (OMS302, ketorolac tromethamine, and vehicle), time-point and LOCS II grade as covariates|repeated measures model|All data time points collected used in the analysis.|OMS302 - Vehicle (BSS)|||1.1|0.6|0.0000
91055754|NCT01193127|181992856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-squares mean difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0||95.0|0.5|0.9||Repeated measures model includes treatment (OMS302, ketorolac tromethamine, and vehicle), time-point and LOCS II grade as covariates.|repeated measures model|OMS302 - ketorolac tromethamine||||0.9|0.5|0.0000
91055755|NCT01193127|181992857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-squares mean difference|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2||0.0421||95.0|-8.9|-0.2||Repeated measures model includes treatment (OMS302, PE and vehicle), time point and LOCS II grade as covariates|repeated measures model||OMS302 - Vehicle (BSS)|||-0.2|-8.9|0.0421
91055756|NCT01193127|181992857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-squares mean difference|-5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2||0.0093||95.0|-10.3|-1.5||Repeated measures model includes treatment (OMS302, PE and vehicle), time point and LOCS II grade as covariates.|repeated measures model||OMS302 - PE|||-1.5|-10.3|0.0093
91055757|NCT01193127|181992858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.630
91055758|NCT01193127|181992858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.769||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.769
91055759|NCT01193127|181992858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.025
91055760|NCT01193127|181992859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.229||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.229
91055761|NCT01193127|181992859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.162||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.162
91055762|NCT01193127|181992859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.226||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.226
91055763|NCT01193127|181992860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.177||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.177
91055764|NCT01193127|181992860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.051||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.051
91055765|NCT01193127|181992860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.497||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.497
91055766|NCT01193127|181992861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.480
91055767|NCT01193127|181992861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.090
91055768|NCT01193127|181992861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.439||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.439
91055769|NCT01193127|181992862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.812||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.812
91055770|NCT01193127|181992862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.480
91055771|NCT01193127|181992862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.160
90816224|NCT00652951|181511243|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority criteria: The upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio for between groups (Synflorix + Infanrix hexa Group over Synflorix + Pediacel Group), was lower than 2 for the pneumococcal vaccine serotype 18C.|GMC ratio|1.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|2.03|||ANOVA|||The 2-sided 95% CI of the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio between the Synflorix + Infanrix hexa and Synflorix + Pediacel groups (Synflorix + Infanrix hexa Group over ), at one month after Dose 3 of pneumococcal vaccine, was computed for each of the 10 pneumococcal vaccine serotypes and protein D. This statistical method concerns pneumococcal vaccine serotype 18C.||2.03|1.28|
91055772|NCT01193127|181992863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.085||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.085
91055773|NCT01193127|181992863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.742||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.742
91055774|NCT01193127|181992863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.021
91055775|NCT01193127|181992864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.081||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.081
91055776|NCT01193127|181992864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.202||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.202
91055777|NCT01193127|181992864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.606||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.606
91055778|NCT01193127|181992865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.893||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.893
91055779|NCT01193127|181992865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.553||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.553
91055780|NCT01193127|181992865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.412||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.412
91055781|NCT01193127|181992866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.186||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.186
91055782|NCT01193127|181992866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.191||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.191
91055783|NCT01193127|181992866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.167||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.167
91055784|NCT01193127|181992867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.663||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.663
91055785|NCT01193127|181992867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.326||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.326
91055786|NCT01193127|181992867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.045||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.045
91055787|NCT01193127|181992868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.106||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.106
91055788|NCT01193127|181992868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.519||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.519
91055789|NCT01193127|181992868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.039||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.039
91055790|NCT01193127|181992869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.100
91055791|NCT01193127|181992869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.029
91055792|NCT01193127|181992869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.525||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.525
91055793|NCT01193127|181992870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.642||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.642
91055794|NCT01193127|181992870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.442||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.442
91055795|NCT01193127|181992870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.467||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.467
91055796|NCT01193127|181992871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.695||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.695
91055797|NCT01193127|181992871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.355||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.355
91055798|NCT01193127|181992871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.369||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.369
91055799|NCT01193127|181992872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.124||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.124
91055800|NCT01193127|181992872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.298||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.298
90816225|NCT00652951|181511243|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority criteria: The upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio for between groups (Synflorix + Infanrix hexa Group over Synflorix + Pediacel Group), was lower than 2 for the pneumococcal vaccine serotype 19F.|GMC ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.36|||ANOVA|||The 2-sided 95% CI of the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio between the Synflorix + Infanrix hexa and Synflorix + Pediacel groups (Synflorix + Infanrix hexa Group over Synflorix + Pediacel Group), at one month after Dose 3 of pneumococcal vaccine, was computed for each of the 10 pneumococcal vaccine serotypes and protein D. This statistical method concerns pneumococcal vaccine serotype 19F.||1.36|0.82|
90890439|NCT00584727|181645548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Alternative hypothesis was senofilcon A toric was superior to etafilcon A sphere by having more eyes see 20/20||||<0.0001
91055801|NCT01193127|181992872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.291||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.291
91055802|NCT01193127|181992873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.825||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.825
91055803|NCT01193127|181992873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.211||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.211
91055804|NCT01193127|181992873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.589||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.589
91055805|NCT01193127|181992874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.401||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.401
91055806|NCT01193127|181992874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.200
91055807|NCT01193127|181992874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.478||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.478
91055808|NCT01193127|181992875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.758||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.758
91055809|NCT01193127|181992875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.521||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.521
91055810|NCT01193127|181992875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.432||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.432
91055811|NCT01193127|181992876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.148||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.148
91055812|NCT01193127|181992876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.156||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.156
91055813|NCT01193127|181992876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.381||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.381
91055814|NCT01193127|181992877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.646||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.646
91055815|NCT01193127|181992877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.950
91055816|NCT01193127|181992877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.160
91055817|NCT01193127|181992878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||1.000
91055818|NCT01193127|181992878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.667||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.667
90816226|NCT00652951|181511243|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority criteria: The upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio for between groups (Synflorix + Infanrix hexa Group Group over Synflorix + Pediacel Group), was lower than 2 for the pneumococcal vaccine serotype 23F.|GMC ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.23|||ANOVA|||The 2-sided 95% CI of the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio between the Synflorix + Infanrix hexa Group and Synflorix + Pediacel groups (Synflorix + Infanrix hexa Group Group over Synflorix + Pediacel Group), at one month after Dose 3 of pneumococcal vaccine, was computed for each of the 10 pneumococcal vaccine serotypes and protein D. This statistical method concerns pneumococcal vaccine serotype 23F.||1.23|0.7|
90816227|NCT00652951|181511244|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority criteria: The upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio for between groups (Synflorix + Infanrix hexa Group over Synflorix + Pediacel Group), was lower than 2 for protein D.|GMC ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.06|||ANOVA|||The 2-sided 95% CI of the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio between the Synflorix + Infanrix hexa and Synflorix + Pediacel groups (Synflorix + Infanrix hexa Group over Synflorix + Pediacel Group), at one month after Dose 3 of pneumococcal vaccine, was computed for each of the 10 pneumococcal vaccine serotypes and protein D. This statistical method concerns protein D.||1.06|0.77|
90816228|NCT01206582|181511288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison for day 3||||0.0002
90816229|NCT01206582|181511288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison for day 7||||0.008
90816230|NCT01206582|181511289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison for day 3||||0.0003
90816231|NCT01206582|181511296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison for Day 7||||<0.05
90816232|NCT01206582|181511297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison for Day 7||||<0.05
90816233|NCT01206582|181511298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison for Platelets on Day 4||||0.01
90816234|NCT01939366|181511299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.0621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|0.04||Due to the exploratory character of this trial, no multiple testing adjustment for control of the false positive rate was applied.|Mixed Models Analysis|The analysis consisted of the contrasts (mixed model Wald tests) of individual cebranopadol doses versus placebo during Week 6 of Maintenance Phase.||The mixed model repeated measurement (MMRM) model included fixed effects of pooled sites, treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, baseline pain, and a subject-specific random effect. The model was based on the weekly average 24-hour pain intensity of the 2 weeks in the Titration Phase and 6 weeks in the Maintenance Phase. An unstructured covariance matrix was used to model the covariance structure, denominator degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Roger approximation.||0.04|-1.43|0.0621
90816235|NCT01939366|181511299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.0564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.02||Due to the exploratory character of this trial, no multiple testing adjustment for control of the false positive rate was applied.|Mixed Models Analysis|The analysis consisted of the contrasts (mixed model Wald tests) of individual cebranopadol doses versus placebo during Week 6 of Maintenance Phase.||The mixed model repeated measurement (MMRM) model included fixed effects of pooled sites, treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, baseline pain, and a subject-specific random effect. The model was based on the weekly average 24-hour pain intensity of the 2 weeks in the Titration Phase and 6 weeks in the Maintenance Phase. An unstructured covariance matrix was used to model the covariance structure, denominator degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Roger approximation.||0.02|-1.50|0.0564
90816236|NCT01939366|181511299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.0153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|-0.2||Due to the exploratory character of this trial, no multiple testing adjustment for control of the false positive rate was applied.|Mixed Models Analysis|The analysis consisted of the contrasts (mixed model Wald tests) of individual cebranopadol doses versus placebo during Week 6 of Maintenance Phase.||The mixed model repeated measurement (MMRM) model included fixed effects of pooled sites, treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, baseline pain, and a subject-specific random effect. The model was based on the weekly average 24-hour pain intensity of the 2 weeks in the Titration Phase and 6 weeks in the Maintenance Phase. An unstructured covariance matrix was used to model the covariance structure, denominator degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Roger approximation.||-0.20|-1.83|0.0153
90816237|NCT02252965|181511300|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin of this efficacy outcome measure is -0.4%.|Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.17||||||||0.17|-0.10|
90816238|NCT02252965|181511301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage difference|-1.52||||0.674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|5.56|||Mantel Haenszel|||||5.56|-8.60|0.674
90816239|NCT04736628|181511311|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.228||||0.0179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.417|-0.04|||Mixed-effect Model repeat Measurement||"Least Squares Mean of Avenciguat 1 mg TID - Least Squares Mean of Placebo."|Least Squares Mean differences and 95% confidence intervals were estimated by restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) including the fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit (baseline, Week 6, Week 12 and Week 20), and the continuous effect of baseline at each visit (Week 6, Week 12, and Week 20) as well as random effects of patient.||-0.040|-0.417|0.0179
90816240|NCT04736628|181511311|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.209||||0.0307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.398|-0.02|||Mixed-effect Model repeat Measurement||"Least Squares Mean of Avenciguat 2 mg TID - Least Squares Mean of Placebo."|Least Squares Mean differences and 95% confidence intervals were estimated by restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) including the fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit (baseline, Week 6, Week 12 and Week 20), and the continuous effect of baseline at each visit (Week 6, Week 12, and Week 20) as well as random effects of patient.||-0.020|-0.398|0.0307
90816241|NCT04736628|181511311|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.235||||0.0151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.425|-0.046|||Mixed-effect Model repeat Measurement||"Least Squares Mean of Avenciguat 3 mg TID - Least Squares Mean of Placebo."|Least Squares Mean differences and 95% confidence intervals were estimated by restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) including the fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit (baseline, Week 6, Week 12 and Week 20), and the continuous effect of baseline at each visit (Week 6, Week 12, and Week 20) as well as random effects of patient.||-0.046|-0.425|0.0151
91055819|NCT01193127|181992878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.303||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.303
91055820|NCT01193127|181992879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.789||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.789
91055821|NCT01193127|181992879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.977||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.977
91055822|NCT01193127|181992879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.336||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.336
91055823|NCT01193127|181992880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.632||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.632
91055824|NCT01193127|181992880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.778||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.778
91055825|NCT01193127|181992880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.336||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.336
91055826|NCT01193127|181992881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.528||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.528
90816242|NCT04736628|181511311|OTHER|MMRM estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit (baseline, Week 6, Week 12 and Week 20), and the continuous effect of baseline at each visit (Week 6, Week 12, and Week 20) as well as random effects of patient.||||||0.0053|||||||MCP-Mod E-max model fit|Model assumption: 80% of the maximum effect is achieved at 6 mg.||"A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of avenciguat and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (Emax, exponential, linear, quadratic, sigmoid emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.050).~The total daily dose was considered for MCP-Mod analysis (placebo, active avenciguat 3 mg, 6 mg, and 9 mg)."||||0.0053
91055827|NCT01193127|181992881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.362||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.362
91055828|NCT01193127|181992881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.353||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.353
91055829|NCT01193127|181992882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.463||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.463
91055830|NCT01193127|181992882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.406||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.406
91055831|NCT01193127|181992882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.245||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.245
91055832|NCT01193127|181992883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.945||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.945
91055833|NCT01193127|181992883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.438||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.438
91055834|NCT01193127|181992883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.596||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.596
91055835|NCT01193127|181992884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.811||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.811
91055836|NCT01193127|181992884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.552||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.552
91055837|NCT01193127|181992884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.549||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.549
91055838|NCT01193127|181992885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.173||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.173
91055839|NCT01193127|181992885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.362||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.362
91055840|NCT01193127|181992885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.559|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.559
91055841|NCT01193127|181992886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.681||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.681
91055842|NCT01193127|181992886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.429||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.429
91055843|NCT01193127|181992886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.306||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.306
91055844|NCT01193127|181992887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.226||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.226
91055845|NCT01193127|181992887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.602||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.602
91055846|NCT01193127|181992887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.290
91055847|NCT01193127|181992888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.244||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.244
91055848|NCT01193127|181992888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.122||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.122
91055849|NCT01193127|181992888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.790
91055850|NCT01193127|181992889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.752||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.752
91055851|NCT01193127|181992889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.355||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.355
91055852|NCT01193127|181992889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.292||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.292
91055853|NCT01193127|181992890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.228||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.228
91055854|NCT01193127|181992890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.564||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.564
91055855|NCT01193127|181992890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.755||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.755
91055856|NCT01193127|181992891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.018
91055857|NCT01193127|181992891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.292||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.292
91055858|NCT01193127|181992891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.298||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.298
91055859|NCT01193127|181992892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.271||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.271
91055860|NCT01193127|181992892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.345||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.345
91055861|NCT01193127|181992892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.096||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.096
91055862|NCT01193127|181992893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.320
91055863|NCT01193127|181992893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.390
91055864|NCT01193127|181992893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.230
91055865|NCT01193127|181992894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.778||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.778
91055866|NCT01193127|181992894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.348||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.348
91055867|NCT01193127|181992894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.477||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.477
91055868|NCT01193127|181992895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.374||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.374
91055869|NCT01193127|181992895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.265||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.265
91055870|NCT01193127|181992895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.555||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.555
91055871|NCT01193127|181992896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.031
91055872|NCT01193127|181992896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.059||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.059
91055873|NCT01193127|181992896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.472||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.472
91055874|NCT01193127|181992897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.476||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.476
91055875|NCT01193127|181992897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.169||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.169
91055876|NCT01193127|181992897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.310
91055877|NCT01193127|181992898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.075||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.075
91055878|NCT01193127|181992898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.005
91055879|NCT01193127|181992898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.078||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.078
91055880|NCT01193127|181992899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.226||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.226
91055881|NCT01193127|181992899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.357||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.357
91055882|NCT01193127|181992899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.291||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.291
91055883|NCT01193127|181992900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.172||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.172
91055884|NCT01193127|181992900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.547||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.547
91055885|NCT01193127|181992900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.921||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wicoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.921
91055886|NCT01193127|181992901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.701||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.701
91055887|NCT01193127|181992901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.089||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.089
91055888|NCT01193127|181992901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.095||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.095
91055889|NCT01193127|181992902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.086||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.086
91055890|NCT01193127|181992902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.092||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wicoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.092
91055891|NCT01193127|181992902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.120
90890440|NCT00584727|181645549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7155|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1334||||95.0|0.3625|0.7155|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was senofilcon A toric minus etafilcon A sphere.|Alternative hypothesis was senofilcon A toric was superior to etafilcon A sphere.||0.7155|0.3625|
91055892|NCT01193127|181992903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.626||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.626
91055893|NCT01193127|181992903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.736||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.736
91055894|NCT01193127|181992903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.725||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.725
91055895|NCT01193127|181992904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.220
91055896|NCT01193127|181992904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.903||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.903
91055897|NCT01193127|181992904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.463||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.463
91055898|NCT01193127|181992905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.675||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.675
91055899|NCT01193127|181992905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.825||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|WIlcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.825
91055900|NCT01193127|181992905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.668||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.668
91055901|NCT01193127|181992906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2066||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on ANOVA model with covariates treatment group and the LOCS II grade group.|ANOVA|||||||0.2066
91055902|NCT01193127|181992906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2066||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on ANOVA model with covariates treatment group and the LOCS II grade group.|ANOVA|||||||0.2066
91055903|NCT01193127|181992906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5263||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on ANOVA model with covariates treatment group and the LOCS II grade group.|ANOVA|||||||0.5263
90816243|NCT04736628|181511311|OTHER|MMRM estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit (baseline, Week 6, Week 12 and Week 20), and the continuous effect of baseline at each visit (Week 6, Week 12, and Week 20) as well as random effects of patient.||||||0.0102|||||||MCP-Mod quadratic model fit|Model assumption: 50 % of the maximum effect is achieved at a dose of 3 mg. 90 % of the maximum effect is achieved at a dose of 6 mg.||"A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of avenciguat and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (Emax, exponential, linear, quadratic, sigmoid emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.050).~The total daily dose was considered for MCP-Mod analysis (placebo, active avenciguat 3 mg, 6 mg, and 9 mg)."||||0.0102
90816244|NCT04736628|181511311|OTHER|MMRM estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit (baseline, Week 6, Week 12 and Week 20), and the continuous effect of baseline at each visit (Week 6, Week 12, and Week 20) as well as random effects of patient.||||||0.023|||||||MCP-Mod linear model fit|Model assumption: no assumption is needed.||"A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of avenciguat and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (Emax, exponential, linear, quadratic, sigmoid emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.050).~The total daily dose was considered for MCP-Mod analysis (placebo, active avenciguat 3 mg, 6 mg, and 9 mg)."||||0.0230
90816245|NCT04736628|181511311|OTHER|MMRM estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit (baseline, Week 6, Week 12 and Week 20), and the continuous effect of baseline at each visit (Week 6, Week 12, and Week 20) as well as random effects of patient.||||||0.0292|||||||MCP-Mod Sigmoid Emax model fit|Model assumption: 30 % of the maximum effect is achieved at a dose of 3 mg. 90 % of the maximum effect is achieved at a dose of 6 mg.||"A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of avenciguat and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (Emax, exponential, linear, quadratic, sigmoid emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.050).~The total daily dose was considered for MCP-Mod analysis (placebo, active avenciguat 3 mg, 6 mg, and 9 mg)."||||0.0292
90816246|NCT04736628|181511311|OTHER|MMRM estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit (baseline, Week 6, Week 12 and Week 20), and the continuous effect of baseline at each visit (Week 6, Week 12, and Week 20) as well as random effects of patient.||||||0.0468|||||||MCP-Mod Exponential model fit|Model assumption: 20% of the maximum effect is achieved at 3 mg.||"A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of avenciguat and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (Emax, exponential, linear, quadratic, sigmoid emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.050).~The total daily dose was considered for MCP-Mod analysis (placebo, active avenciguat 3 mg, 6 mg, and 9 mg)."||||0.0468
90816247|NCT04736628|181511312|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.217||||0.0327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.416|-0.018|||Mixed-effect Model repeat Measurement||"Least Squares Mean of Avenciguat 1 mg TID - Least Squares Mean of Placebo."|Least Squares Mean differences and 95% confidence intervals were estimated by restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) including the fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit (baseline, Week 6, Week 12 and Week 20), and the continuous effect of baseline at each visit (Week 6, Week 12, and Week 20) as well as random effects of patient.||-0.018|-0.416|0.0327
90816248|NCT04736628|181511312|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.206||||0.0447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.408|-0.005|||Mixed-effect Model repeat Measurement||"Least Squares Mean of Avenciguat 2 mg TID - Least Squares Mean of Placebo."|Least Squares Mean differences and 95% confidence intervals were estimated by restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) including the fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit (baseline, Week 6, Week 12 and Week 20), and the continuous effect of baseline at each visit (Week 6, Week 12, and Week 20) as well as random effects of patient.||-0.005|-0.408|0.0447
90816249|NCT04736628|181511312|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.187||||0.0654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.387|0.012|||Mixed-effect Model repeat Measurement||"Least Squares Mean of Avenciguat 3 mg TID - Least Squares Mean of Placebo."|Least Squares Mean differences and 95% confidence intervals were estimated by restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) including the fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit (baseline, Week 6, Week 12 and Week 20), and the continuous effect of baseline at each visit (Week 6, Week 12, and Week 20) as well as random effects of patient.||0.012|-0.387|0.0654
90816250|NCT04736628|181511313|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2||||0.0476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|4.79||Nominal p-value.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio (Avenciguat 1 mg TID vs. Placebo).|Treatment and sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitor (SGLT2i) use at randomization were used as covariates in the logistic regression model.||4.79|1.01|0.0476
90816251|NCT04736628|181511313|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.72||||0.0119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|5.94||Nominal p-value.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio (Avenciguat 2 mg TID vs. Placebo).|Treatment and sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitor (SGLT2i) use at randomization were used as covariates in the logistic regression model.||5.94|1.25|0.0119
90816252|NCT04736628|181511313|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.43||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|7.45||Nominal p-value.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio (Avenciguat 3 mg TID vs. Placebo).|Treatment and sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitor (SGLT2i) use at randomization were used as covariates in the logistic regression model.||7.45|1.58|0.0019
90816253|NCT04736628|181511314|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.13||||0.0497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|4.55||Nominal p-value.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio (Avenciguat 1 mg TID vs. Placebo).|Treatment and sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitor (SGLT2i) use at randomization were used as covariates in the logistic regression model.||4.55|1.00|0.0497
90816254|NCT04736628|181511314|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.15||||0.0502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|4.61||Nominal p-value.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio (Avenciguat 2 mg TID vs. Placebo).|Treatment and sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitor (SGLT2i) use at randomization were used as covariates in the logistic regression model.||4.61|1.00|0.0502
90890441|NCT00584727|181645550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2161||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Aletrnative hypothesis was senofilcon A toric was superior to alphafilcon A toric by having more eyes within 5 degrees.||||0.2161
91055904|NCT01193127|181992907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4222||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on ANOVA model with covariates treatment group and the LOCS II grade group.|ANOVA|||||||0.4222
91055905|NCT01193127|181992907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2712||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on ANOVA model with covariates treatment group and the LOCS II grade group.|ANOVA|||||||0.2712
91055906|NCT01193127|181992907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8819||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on ANOVA model with covariates treatment group and the LOCS II grade group.|ANOVA|||||||0.8819
91055907|NCT01193127|181992908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.051||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on ANOVA model with covariates treatment group and the LOCS II grade group.|ANOVA|||||||0.0510
91055908|NCT01193127|181992908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8084||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on ANOVA model with covariates treatment group and the LOCS II grade group.|ANOVA|||||||0.8084
91055909|NCT01193127|181992908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1495||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on ANOVA model with covariates treatment group and the LOCS II grade group.|ANOVA|||||||0.1495
91055910|NCT01193127|181992909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4099||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on ANOVA model with covariates treatment group and the LOCS II grade group.|ANOVA|||||||0.4099
91055911|NCT01193127|181992909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6499||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on ANOVA model with covariates treatment group and the LOCS II grade group.|ANOVA|||||||0.6499
91055912|NCT01193127|181992909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0765||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on ANOVA model with covariates treatment group and the LOCS II grade group.|ANOVA|||||||0.0765
90816255|NCT04736628|181511314|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.09||||0.0572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|4.49||Nominal p-value.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio (Avenciguat 3 mg TID vs. Placebo).|Treatment and sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitor (SGLT2i) use at randomization were used as covariates in the logistic regression model.||4.49|0.98|0.0572
91055913|NCT01193127|181992910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0688||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on ANOVA model with covariates treatment group and the LOCS II grade group.|ANOVA|||||||0.0688
91055914|NCT01193127|181992910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0314||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on ANOVA model with covariates treatment group and the LOCS II grade group.|ANOVA|||||||0.0314
91055915|NCT01193127|181992910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0775||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on ANOVA model with covariates treatment group and the LOCS II grade group.|ANOVA|||||||0.0775
91055916|NCT01193127|181992911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5369||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on ANOVA model with covariates treatment group and the LOCS II grade group.|ANOVA|||||||0.5369
91055917|NCT01193127|181992911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3763||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on ANOVA model with covariates treatment group and the LOCS II grade group.|ANOVA|||||||0.3763
91055918|NCT01193127|181992911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6144||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on ANOVA model with covariates treatment group and the LOCS II grade group.|ANOVA|||||||0.6144
91055919|NCT01193127|181992912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1374||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on ANOVA model with covariates treatment group and the LOCS II grade group.|ANOVA|||||||0.1374
91055920|NCT01193127|181992912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9146||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on ANOVA model with covariates treatment group and the LOCS II grade group.|ANOVA|||||||0.9146
91055921|NCT01193127|181992912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7599||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on ANOVA model with covariates treatment group and the LOCS II grade group.|ANOVA|||||||0.7599
91055922|NCT01193127|181992913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.317||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.317
91055923|NCT01193127|181992913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.317||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.317
91055924|NCT01193127|181992913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||1.000
91055925|NCT01193127|181992914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.559||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.559
91055926|NCT01193127|181992914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.647||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.647
91055927|NCT01193127|181992914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.559||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.559
91055928|NCT01193127|181992915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.317||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.317
91055929|NCT01193127|181992915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.335||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.335
91055930|NCT01193127|181992915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.317||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.317
91055931|NCT01193127|181992916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||1.000
90816256|NCT04051827|181511321|OTHER|Geometric Mean Ratio|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.739|1.42|||||The geometric mean ratio (GMR) of midazolam Cmax on Day 24 (with mobocertinib) versus on Day 1 (without mobocertinib) were calculated.|The ratios of geometric mean midazolam Cmax (in the presence vs absence of mobocertinib) and the associated 2-sided 90 percent (%) confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated on the basis of the within-patient variance using a mixed-effects analysis of variance (ANOVA) model fitting terms for treatment (midazolam in the absence and presence of mobocertinib).||1.42|0.739|
90816257|NCT04051827|181511322|OTHER|Geometric Mean Ratio|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.676|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.532|0.859|||||The GMR of midazolam AUC∞ on Day 24 (with mobocertinib) versus on Day 1 (without mobocertinib) were calculated.|The ratios of geometric mean midazolam AUC∞ (in the presence vs absence of mobocertinib) and the associated 2-sided 90% CIs were calculated on the basis of the within-patient variance using a mixed-effects ANOVA model fitting terms for treatment (midazolam in the absence and presence of mobocertinib).||0.859|0.532|
90816258|NCT04051827|181511323|OTHER|Geometric Mean Ratio|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.886|1.92|||||The GMR of midazolam Cmax on Day 25 (with mobocertinib) versus on Day 2 (without mobocertinib) were calculated.|The ratios of geometric mean midazolam Cmax (in the presence vs absence of mobocertinib) and the associated 2-sided 90% CIs were calculated on the basis of the within-patient variance using a mixed-effects ANOVA model fitting terms for treatment (midazolam in the absence and presence of mobocertinib).||1.92|0.886|
90816259|NCT04051827|181511324|OTHER|Geometric Mean Ratio|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.837|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.673|1.04|||||The GMR of midazolam AUC∞ on Day 25 (with mobocertinib) versus on Day 2 (without mobocertinib) were calculated.|The ratios of geometric mean midazolam AUC∞ (in the presence vs absence of mobocertinib) and the associated 2-sided 90% CIs were calculated on the basis of the within-patient variance using a mixed-effects ANOVA model fitting terms for treatment (midazolam in the absence and presence of mobocertinib).||1.04|0.673|
90816260|NCT01424566|181511332|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.9173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.38|||ANCOVA|||||0.38|-0.42|0.9173
90816261|NCT02066415|181511351|SUPERIORITY|"A sequential testing procedure, specifically, the hierarchical gate-keeping procedures and Hochberg method, was used to maintain the 2-sided study-wise type I error at 0.05 between the 2 erenumab doses and the primary and secondary endpoints.~This comparison was tested at a 2-sided significance level of 0.04."|Difference in LS Means|-2.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.52|-1.39|||Generalized linear mixed model|||The primary endpoint was analyzed using a linear mixed effects model including treatment group, baseline value, stratification factors (region and medication overuse status), scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.||-1.39|-3.52|<0.001
90816262|NCT02066415|181511351|SUPERIORITY|"A sequential testing procedure, specifically, the hierarchical gate-keeping procedures and Hochberg method, was used to maintain the 2-sided study-wise type I error at 0.05 between the 2 erenumab doses and the primary and secondary endpoints.~This comparison was tested at a 2-sided significance level of 0.01."|Difference in LS Means|-2.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.51|-1.38|||Generalized linear mixed model|||The primary endpoint was analyzed using a linear mixed effects model including treatment group, baseline value, stratification factors (region and medication overuse status), scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.||-1.38|-3.51|<0.001
90816263|NCT02066415|181511352|SUPERIORITY|This comparison was tested at a 2-sided significance level of 0.04.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|3.27|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analyzed using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test after the missing data were imputed as non-response, stratified by stratification factors (region and medication overuse status).||3.27|1.46|<0.001
90816264|NCT02066415|181511352|SUPERIORITY|This comparison was tested at a 2-sided significance level of 0.01.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|3.51|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analyzed using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test after the missing data were imputed as non-response, stratified by stratification factors (region and medication overuse status).||3.51|1.56|<0.001
90816265|NCT02066415|181511353|SUPERIORITY|This comparison was tested at a 2-sided significance level of 0.04.|Difference in LS Means|-1.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-1.13|||Generalized linear mixed model|||Analyzed using a linear mixed effects model including treatment group, baseline value, stratification factors (region and medication overuse status), scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.||-1.13|-2.60|<0.001
90816266|NCT02066415|181511353|SUPERIORITY|This comparison was tested at a 2-sided significance level of 0.01.|Difference in LS Means|-2.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.28|-1.82|||Generalized linear mixed model|||Analyzed using a linear mixed effects model including treatment group, baseline value, stratification factors (region and medication overuse status), scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.||-1.82|-3.28|<0.001
90816267|NCT02066415|181511354|SUPERIORITY|This comparison was tested at a 2-sided significance level of 0.04.|Difference in LS Means|-9.54||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.98|7.9|||Generalized linear mixed model|||Analyzed using a linear mixed effects model including treatment group, baseline value, stratification factors (region and medication overuse status), scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.||7.90|-26.98|0.28
91055932|NCT01193127|181992916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.559||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.559
91055933|NCT01193127|181992916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||1.000
91055934|NCT01193127|181992917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.824||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.824
91055935|NCT01193127|181992917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.476||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.476
91055936|NCT01193127|181992917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.281||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.281
91055937|NCT01193127|181992918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.842||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.842
90816268|NCT02066415|181511354|SUPERIORITY|This comparison was tested at a 2-sided significance level of 0.01.|Difference in LS Means|-19.31||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.71|-1.92|||Generalized linear mixed model|||Analyzed using a linear mixed effects model including treatment group, baseline value, stratification factors (region and medication overuse status), scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.||-1.92|-36.71|0.030
90816269|NCT03242252|181511359|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares (LS) Means|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.076||0.2095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.245|0.054|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, randomization stratum of Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD) stage (3A, 3B) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||0.054|-0.245|0.2095
90816270|NCT03242252|181511359|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.077||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.386|-0.085|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, randomization stratum of CKD stage (3A, 3B) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||-0.085|-0.386|0.0021
90816271|NCT03242252|181511360|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.587|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2397||0.0144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0564|-0.1169|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, randomization stratum of CKD stage (3A, 3B) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and baseline FPG as a covariate.||-0.1169|-1.0564|0.0144
90816272|NCT03242252|181511360|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.478|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2368||0.0436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.942|-0.0136|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, randomization stratum of CKD stage (3A, 3B) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and baseline FPG as a covariate.||-0.0136|-0.942|0.0436
90816273|NCT03242252|181511361|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-2.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.034||0.2627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.265|1.709|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 12 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization stratum of CKD stage (3A, 3B) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and baseline SBP as a covariate.||1.709|-6.265|0.2627
90816274|NCT03242252|181511361|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-2.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.799||0.1602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.052|1.0|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 12 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization stratum of CKD stage (3A, 3B) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and baseline SBP as a covariate.||1|-6.052|0.1602
90816275|NCT03242252|181511362|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.301||0.2212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.142|0.958|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 12 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, randomization stratum of CKD stage (3A, 3B) at screening, country as fixed effects, and baseline SBP as a covariate.||0.958|-4.142|0.2212
90816276|NCT03242252|181511362|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.297||0.2089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.171|0.912|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 12 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, randomization stratum of CKD stage (3A, 3B) at screening, country as fixed effects, and baseline SBP as a covariate.||0.912|-4.171|0.2089
90816277|NCT03242252|181511363|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.326|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.92|-0.644|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, randomization stratum of CKD stage (3A, 3B) at screening, country as fixed effects, and baseline body weight as a covariate.||-0.644|-1.92|< 0.0001
90816278|NCT03242252|181511363|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.339||0.0155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.487|-0.156|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, randomization stratum of CKD stage (3A, 3B) at screening, country as fixed effects, and baseline body weight as a covariate.||-0.156|-1.487|0.0155
90816279|NCT03242252|181511364|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|-30.72||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.78|-13.07|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, randomization stratum of CKD stage (3A, 3B) at screening, country as fixed effects, and and log-transformed baseline UACR as a covariate.||-13.07|-44.78|0.0015
90816280|NCT03242252|181511364|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|-36.18||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.91|-18.68|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, randomization stratum of CKD stage (3A, 3B) at screening, country as fixed effects, and and log-transformed baseline UACR as a covariate.||-18.68|-49.91|0.0003
90816281|NCT03242252|181511365|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|1.5||||0.4328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|5.21|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage difference between treatment groups using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by the randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening and randomization strata of CKD stage (3A, 3B) at screening.||5.21|-2.23|0.4328
90816282|NCT03242252|181511365|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|1.5||||0.4328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|5.17|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage difference between treatment groups using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by the randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening and randomization strata of CKD stage (3A, 3B) at screening.||5.17|-2.2|0.4328
91055938|NCT01193127|181992918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.619||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.619
91055939|NCT01193127|181992918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.711||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.711
91055940|NCT01193127|181992919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.773||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.773
91055941|NCT01193127|181992919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.592||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.592
91055942|NCT01193127|181992919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.787||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.787
91055943|NCT01193127|181992920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.695||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups were based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test. For subjects with mean count \> 30, the mean count was imputed as 45 for the purpose of treatment comparisons.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.695
91055944|NCT01193127|181992920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.166||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups were based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test. For subjects with mean count \> 30, the mean count was imputed as 45 for the purpose of treatment comparisons.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.166
91055945|NCT01193127|181992920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.987||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups were based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test. For subjects with mean count \> 30, the mean count was imputed as 45 for the purpose of treatment comparisons.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.987
91055946|NCT01193127|181992921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.134||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups were based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test. For subjects with mean count \> 30, the mean count was imputed as 45 for the purpose of treatment comparisons.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.134
91055947|NCT01193127|181992921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups were based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test. For subjects with mean count \> 30, the mean count was imputed as 45 for the purpose of treatment comparisons.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.710
91055948|NCT01193127|181992921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups were based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test. For subjects with mean count \> 30, the mean count was imputed as 45 for the purpose of treatment comparisons.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.310
91055949|NCT01193127|181992922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.086||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups were based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test. For subjects with mean count \> 30, the mean count was imputed as 45 for the purpose of treatment comparisons.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.086
91055950|NCT01193127|181992922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.183||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups were based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test. For subjects with mean count \> 30, the mean count was imputed as 45 for the purpose of treatment comparisons.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.183
91055951|NCT01193127|181992922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups were based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test. For subjects with mean count \> 30, the mean count was imputed as 45 for the purpose of treatment comparisons.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.029
91055952|NCT01193127|181992923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.206||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups were based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test. For subjects with mean count \> 30, the mean count was imputed as 45 for the purpose of treatment comparisons.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.206
91055953|NCT01193127|181992923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups were based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test. For subjects with mean count \> 30, the mean count was imputed as 45 for the purpose of treatment comparisons.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.021
91055954|NCT01193127|181992923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups were based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test. For subjects with mean count \> 30, the mean count was imputed as 45 for the purpose of treatment comparisons.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.026
91055955|NCT01193127|181992924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.822||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups were based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test. For subjects with mean count \> 30, the mean count was imputed as 45 for the purpose of treatment comparisons.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.822
91055956|NCT01193127|181992924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.424||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups were based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test. For subjects with mean count \> 30, the mean count was imputed as 45 for the purpose of treatment comparisons.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.424
91055957|NCT01193127|181992924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.695||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups were based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test. For subjects with mean count \> 30, the mean count was imputed as 45 for the purpose of treatment comparisons.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.695
91055958|NCT01193127|181992925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.489||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups were based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test. For subjects with mean count \> 30, the mean count was imputed as 45 for the purpose of treatment comparisons.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.489
91055959|NCT01193127|181992925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.459||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups were based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test. For subjects with mean count \> 30, the mean count was imputed as 45 for the purpose of treatment comparisons.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.459
91055960|NCT01193127|181992925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups were based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test. For subjects with mean count \> 30, the mean count was imputed as 45 for the purpose of treatment comparisons.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.990
91055961|NCT01193127|181992927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4575||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4575
91055962|NCT01193127|181992927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8318||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.8318
91055963|NCT01193127|181992927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8946||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.8946
91055964|NCT01193127|181992928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.157||||||Ocular pain medications will be identified by reviewing concomitant medications. Subject incidence of ocular pain medication use at day 1 and post day 1 will be presented. Treatment comparisons will be performed using methodology 1.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1570
91055965|NCT01193127|181992928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0839||||||Ocular pain medications will be identified by reviewing concomitant medications. Subject incidence of ocular pain medication use at day 1 and post day 1 will be presented. Treatment comparisons will be performed using methodology 1.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0839
90816283|NCT03242252|181511366|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|6.0||||0.0614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|12.21|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage difference between treatment groups using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by the randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening and randomization strata of CKD stage (3A, 3B) at screening.||12.21|-0.23|0.0614
90816284|NCT03242252|181511366|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|7.4||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|13.65|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage difference between treatment groups using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by the randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening and randomization strata of CKD stage (3A, 3B) at screening.||13.65|1.08|0.023
90816285|NCT01116427|181511373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|||||Analysis was stratified on the presence or absence of subclinical activity as demonstrated by a Gd-enhanced lesion on one MRI in the past year prior to enrollment.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.87
90816286|NCT01116427|181511374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|||||Wilcoxon rank sum test in which the total number of new lesions were converted to ranks and then compared between groups|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.36
90816287|NCT01116427|181511375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|||||Rank sum test in which the lesion volume change values per participant were converted to ranks and compared between the treatment groups|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.93
90816288|NCT01116427|181511376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|||||Wilcoxon rank sum test in which percent brain volume change values per participant were converted to ranks and the ranks were compared between groups|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.68
91055966|NCT01193127|181992928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.092||||||Ocular pain medications will be identified by reviewing concomitant medications. Subject incidence of ocular pain medication use at day 1 and post day 1 will be presented. Treatment comparisons will be performed using methodology 1.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0920
91055967|NCT01193127|181992929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.711||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.711
91055968|NCT01193127|181992929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.253||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.253
90816289|NCT01116427|181511377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|||||Wilcoxon rank sum test in which mean numbers of new lesions per participant were converted to ranks and compared between groups|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.21
90816290|NCT01116427|181511378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.65
90816291|NCT01116427|181511380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|||||Wilcoxon rank sum test in which the change from baseline scores per subject were converted to ranks and compared between treatment groups|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.13
90816292|NCT01116427|181511381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|||||Analysis was stratified on the presence or absence of subclinical activity as demonstrated by a Gd-enhanced lesion on one MRI in the past year prior to enrollment.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.06
90816293|NCT01116427|181511382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|||||Rank sum test in which the lesion volume change values per participant were converted to ranks and compared between the treatment groups|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.07
90816294|NCT01116427|181511383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|||||Wilcoxon rank sum test in which the percent brain volume change values per participant were converted to ranks and compared between treatment groups|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.88
90816295|NCT01116427|181511384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.29
90816296|NCT01116427|181511386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|||||Wilcoxon rank sum test in which the change from baseline scores per participant were converted to ranks and compared between treatment groups|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.67
90816297|NCT03344640|181511434|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.77||||0.875|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.84|7.3|||LS mean|LS mean change from baseline in WORC total percentage score||All Patients at day 99||7.30|-8.84|0.875
91055969|NCT01193127|181992929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.104||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.104
91055970|NCT00321737|181992943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05||||||Hochberg's method was used to ensure that the overall 0.0025 level of significance was maintained for the pairwise comparisons between each dexlansoprazole MR dose and placebo.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.00001
91055971|NCT00321737|181992943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05||||||Hochberg's method was used to ensure that the overall 0.0025 level of significance was maintained for the pairwise comparisons between each dexlansoprazole MR dose and placebo.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.00001
91055972|NCT00321737|181992943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99999||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.0025 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||>0.99999
91055973|NCT00321737|181992944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05||95.0||||The 0.0025 level of significance for this secondary endpoint was controlled using Hochberg's method for comparison of each dexlansoprazole MR dose to placebo.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.00001
91055974|NCT00321737|181992944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05||95.0||||The 0.0025 level of significance for this secondary endpoint was controlled using Hochberg's method for comparison of each dexlansoprazole MR dose to placebo.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.00001
91055975|NCT00321737|181992944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0673||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.0025 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.06730
91055976|NCT00321737|181992946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05||95.0||||Hochberg's method was used to ensure that the overall 0.0025 level of significance was maintained for the pairwise comparisons between each dexlansoprazole MR dose and placebo.|Log Rank|||||||<0.00001
91055977|NCT00321737|181992946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05||95.0||||Hochberg's method was used to ensure that the overall 0.0025 level of significance was maintained for the pairwise comparisons between each dexlansoprazole MR dose and placebo.|Log Rank|||||||<0.00001
91055978|NCT00321737|181992946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13932||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.0025 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|||||||0.13932
91055979|NCT00321737|181992947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05||95.0||||The 0.0025 level of significance for this secondary endpoint was controlled using Hochberg's method for comparison of each dose to placebo.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.00001
91055980|NCT00321737|181992947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05||95.0||||The 0.0025 level of significance for this secondary endpoint was controlled using Hochberg's method for comparison of each dose to placebo.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.00001
91055981|NCT00321737|181992947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11257||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.0025 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.11257
91055982|NCT04994483|181992951|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39||||0.4308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|0.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.59|-1.37|0.4308
91055983|NCT04994483|181992952|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.51||||0.4034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.70|-0.68|0.4034
91055984|NCT02213510|181992960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91055985|NCT02213510|181992961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.655|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.655
91055986|NCT02213510|181992962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.811|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.811
91055987|NCT02213510|181992963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||1.00
91055988|NCT02213510|181992964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.462|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.462
91055989|NCT02213510|181992965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.646|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.646
91055990|NCT02213510|181992966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.510
91055991|NCT02213510|181992967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.651|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.651
91055992|NCT02213510|181992968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.588|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.588
91055993|NCT02213510|181992969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.858|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.858
91055994|NCT02213510|181992970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||1.00
91055995|NCT02603393|181992991|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority will be demonstrated if the 95% confidence interval of the treatment difference lies entirely to the right of (higher than) -50 mL.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.026||||0.0404||95.0|-0.053|0.001||1 sided|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures Analys|||||0.001|-0.053|0.0404
91055996|NCT02603393|181992992|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of rates|1.08||||0.5802||95.0|0.83|1.4||2 sided|Generalized Linear Model Analysis|||||1.40|0.83|0.5802
91055997|NCT02603393|181992993|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of rates|1.08||||0.5651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.43||2-sided|Generalized Linear Model Analysis|||||1.43|0.82|0.5651
91055998|NCT02603393|181992994|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of rates|1.02||||0.9665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|2.34||2-sided|Generalized Linear Model Analysis|||||2.34|0.44|0.9665
91055999|NCT02603393|181992995|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.026||||0.0573||95.0|-0.053|0.001||2-Sided|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures Analys|||||0.001|-0.053|0.0573
91056000|NCT02603393|181992996|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8||||0.0022||95.0|0.7|3.0||2-Sided|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures Analys|||||3.0|0.7|0.0022
91056001|NCT02603393|181992997|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4||||0.0221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.6||2-Sided|Mixed Model for Repeated measures Analys|||||2.6|0.2|0.0221
91056002|NCT02603393|181992998|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.241||||0.1724||95.0|-0.587|0.105|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures Analys|||||0.105|-0.587|0.1724
91056003|NCT02603393|181992999|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.288||||0.1055||95.0|-0.638|0.061||2-Sided|Mixed Model for Repated Measures Analysi|||||0.061|-0.638|0.1055
91056004|NCT02603393|181993000|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.177||||0.0641||95.0|-0.01|0.365||2-Sided|Linear Mixed Model Analysis|||||0.365|-0.010|0.0641
91056005|NCT02603393|181993001|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.018||||0.4107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.025|0.061||2-Sided|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures Analys|||||0.061|-0.025|0.4107
91056006|NCT04562155|181993065|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0345||||||Adjusted p-value|MCP-Mod method|||Detection of dose-response: Emax model (ED50=30) Dose response relationship was assessed using the MCP-Mod method combining multiple comparison procedures (MCP) principles with modeling techniques. A generalized MCP approach (with adjustment for baseline cough count and geographic region) was applied to calculate the adjusted one-sided p-values of the contrast test. Pre-specified overall Type one error at alpha level of 0.1 (one-sided).||||= 0.0345
91056007|NCT04562155|181993065|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0376||||||Adjusted p-value|MCP-Mod method|||Detection of dose-response: Emax model (ED50=50) Dose response relationship was assessed using the MCP-Mod method combining multiple comparison procedures (MCP) principles with modeling techniques. A generalized MCP approach (with adjustment for baseline cough count and geographic region) was applied to calculate the adjusted one-sided p-values of the contrast test. Pre-specified overall Type one error at alpha level of 0.1 (one-sided).||||= 0.0376
91056008|NCT04562155|181993065|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0319||||||Adjusted p-value|MCP-Mod method|||Detection of dose-response: sigm. Emax model (ED50=30, h=3) sigm = sigmoidal h = hill parameter Dose response relationship was assessed using the MCP-Mod method combining multiple comparison procedures (MCP) principles with modeling techniques. A generalized MCP approach (with adjustment for baseline cough count and geographic region) was applied to calculate the adjusted one-sided p-values of the contrast test. Pre-specified overall Type one error at alpha level of 0.1 (one-sided).||||= 0.0319
91056009|NCT04562155|181993065|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0603||||||Adjusted p-value|MCP-Mod method|||Detection of dose-response: sigm. Emax model (ED50=60, h=5) sigm = sigmoidal h = hill parameter Dose response relationship was assessed using the MCP-Mod method combining multiple comparison procedures (MCP) principles with modeling techniques. A generalized MCP approach (with adjustment for baseline cough count and geographic region) was applied to calculate the adjusted one-sided p-values of the contrast test. Pre-specified overall Type one error at alpha level of 0.1 (one-sided).||||= 0.0603
91056010|NCT03149445|181993076|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.4||||0.1045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|1.5||P-value from an ANCOVA with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|ANCOVA|||||1.5|-12.3|0.1045
91056011|NCT03149445|181993076|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.7||||0.7422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|5.3||P-value from an ANCOVA with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|ANCOVA|||||5.3|-4.0|0.7422
91056012|NCT03149445|181993076|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.6||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|11.0||P-value from an ANCOVA with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|ANCOVA|||||11.0|0.1|0.0460
91056013|NCT03149445|181993076|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.3||||0.3847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|17.8||P-value from an ANCOVA with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|ANCOVA|||||17.8|-9.2|0.3847
91056014|NCT03149445|181993077|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.2||||0.1326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|2.5||P-value from an ANCOVA with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|ANCOVA|||||2.5|-14.9|0.1326
91056015|NCT03149445|181993077|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.2||||0.5148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|5.3||P-value from an ANCOVA with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|ANCOVA|||||5.3|-2.9|0.5148
91056016|NCT03149445|181993077|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.5||||0.0605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|9.4||P-value from an ANCOVA with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|ANCOVA|||||9.4|-0.3|0.0605
91056017|NCT03149445|181993077|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.6||||0.5198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|14.0||P-value from an ANCOVA with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|ANCOVA|||||14.0|-8.8|0.5198
91056018|NCT03149445|181993078|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-8.1||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|-3.6||P-value from an ANCOVA with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|ANCOVA|||||-3.6|-12.5|0.0058
91056019|NCT03149445|181993078|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.1||||0.5142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|9.5||P-value from an ANCOVA with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|ANCOVA|||||9.5|-5.3|0.5142
91056020|NCT03149445|181993078|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.1||||0.3794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|11.3||P-value from an ANCOVA with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|ANCOVA|||||11.3|-5.1|0.3794
91056021|NCT03149445|181993078|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.0||||0.685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|8.1||P-value from an ANCOVA with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|ANCOVA|||||8.1|-6.1|0.6850
91056022|NCT00176423|181993093|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91056023|NCT00176423|181993094|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
91056024|NCT00176423|181993095|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
91056025|NCT00176423|181993096|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
91056026|NCT01755767|181993099|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8006|||||||Log Rank|Stratified log rank between treatment arms adjusted for stratification factors: vascular invasion, extra-hepatic spread, and alpha fetoprotein level.||||||0.8006
91056027|NCT01755767|181993099|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9682||||0.8061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7483|1.2529|||Regression, Cox|Stratified Cox Regression between treatment arms adjusted for factors: vascular invasion, extra-hepatic spread, and alpha fetoprotein level.||||1.2529|0.7483|0.8061
91056028|NCT01755767|181993101|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7509|||||||Log Rank|Stratified log rank between treatment arms adjusted for stratification factors: vascular invasion, extra-hepatic spread, and alpha fetoprotein level.||||||0.7509
91056029|NCT01755767|181993101|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9557||||0.716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7487|1.22|||Regression, Cox|Stratified Cox regression between treatment arms adjusted for factors: vascular invasion, extra-hepatic spread, and alpha fetoprotein level.||||1.2200|0.7487|0.7160
91056030|NCT06077149|181993161|NON_INFERIORITY|The primary outcome of the study was to demonstrate the noninferiority in antibody response at 30 days for any RSV vaccine between the LTCF group and the community group. A sample size of 152 participants (76 per group) was expected to provide 80% power to demonstrate noninferiority of 1 month GMT to within a relative noninferiority margin of 1.5-fold using a 1-sided 0.05-level linear model-based t test comparing log (1-month titer) by population, adjusted for vaccine and log (baseline titer).||||||0.14|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.14
91056031|NCT06077149|181993162|NON_INFERIORITY|The primary outcome of the study was to demonstrate the noninferiority in antibody response at 30 days for any RSV vaccine between the LTCF group and the community group. A sample size of 152 participants (76 per group) was expected to provide 80% power to demonstrate noninferiority of 1 month GMT to within a relative noninferiority margin of 1.5-fold using a 1-sided 0.05-level linear model-based t test comparing log (1-month titer) by population, adjusted for vaccine and log (baseline titer).||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.17
91056032|NCT06077149|181993163|NON_INFERIORITY|The primary outcome of the study was to demonstrate the noninferiority in antibody response at 30 days for any RSV vaccine between the LTCF group and the community group. A sample size of 152 participants (76 per group) was expected to provide 80% power to demonstrate noninferiority of 1 month GMT to within a relative noninferiority margin of 1.5-fold using a 1-sided 0.05-level linear model-based t test comparing log (1-month titer) by population, adjusted for vaccine and log (baseline titer).||||||0.32|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.32
91056033|NCT06077149|181993164|NON_INFERIORITY|The primary outcome of the study was to demonstrate the noninferiority in antibody response at 30 days for any RSV vaccine between the LTCF group and the community group. A sample size of 152 participants (76 per group) was expected to provide 80% power to demonstrate noninferiority of 1 month GMT to within a relative noninferiority margin of 1.5-fold using a 1-sided 0.05-level linear model-based t test comparing log (1-month titer) by population, adjusted for vaccine and log (baseline titer).||||||0.82|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.82
91056034|NCT04154631|181993166|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-10.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|||Immediate TranS-C (Standard/Adapted combined) versus UC-DT on change in sleep disturbance from pre to post.||||<0.001
91056035|NCT04154631|181993166|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient of indirect effect|0.17||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.62|4.95|||SEM|||Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test whether the relationship between treatment condition (Standard vs. Adapted) and sleep disturbance (PROMIS-SD) at post was mediated by provider ratings of acceptability (AIM) at post. The parameter of interest was the indirect effect.||4.95|-4.62|0.95
91056036|NCT04154631|181993166|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient of indirect effect|0.09||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.39|2.56|||SEM|||Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test whether the relationship between treatment condition (Standard vs. Adapted) and sleep disturbance (PROMIS-SD) at 6-month follow-up was mediated by provider ratings of acceptability (AIM) at post. The parameter of interest was the indirect effect.||2.56|-2.39|0.95
91056037|NCT04154631|181993166|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient of indirect effect|-0.16||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.31|1.98|||SEM|||Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test whether the relationship between treatment condition (Standard vs. Adapted) and sleep disturbance (PROMIS-SD) at post was mediated by provider ratings of appropriateness (IAM) at post. The parameter of interest was the indirect effect.||1.98|-2.31|0.88
91056038|NCT04154631|181993166|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient of indirect effect|-0.13||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|2.31|||SEM|||Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test whether the relationship between treatment condition (Standard vs. Adapted) and sleep disturbance (PROMIS-SD) at 6-month follow-up was mediated by provider ratings of appropriateness (IAM) at post. The parameter of interest was the indirect effect.||2.31|-3.10|0.88
91056039|NCT04154631|181993166|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient of indirect effect|-0.5||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|1.66|||SEM|||Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test whether the relationship between treatment condition (Standard vs. Adapted) and sleep disturbance (PROMIS-SD) at post was mediated by provider ratings of feasibility (FIM) at post. The parameter of interest was the indirect effect.||1.66|-2.18|0.79
91056040|NCT04154631|181993166|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient of indirect effect|-0.26||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|1.66|||SEM|||Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test whether the relationship between treatment condition (Standard vs. Adapted) and sleep disturbance (PROMIS-SD) at 6-month follow-up was mediated by provider ratings of feasibility (FIM) at post. The parameter of interest was the indirect effect.||1.66|-2.18|0.79
91056041|NCT04154631|181993167|SUPERIORITY||time by treatment interaction coeff.|-0.03||||0.77|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|||Treatment effect (Standard versus Adapted TranS-C) on change in Acceptability Intervention Measure (AIM) from baseline (post-training) to post-treatment.||||0.77
91056042|NCT04154631|181993168|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-9.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|||Treatment condition (Standard/Adapted TranS-C versus UC-DT) on change in sleep-related impairment from pre to post.||||<0.001
91056043|NCT04154631|181993168|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient of indirect effect|0.26||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.04|5.56|||SEM|||Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test whether the relationship between treatment condition (Standard vs. Adapted) and sleep-related impairment (PROMIS-SRI) at post was mediated by provider ratings of acceptability (AIM) at post. The parameter of interest was the indirect effect.||5.56|-5.04|0.92
91056044|NCT04154631|181993168|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient of indirect effect|0.1||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|2.24|||SEM|||Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test whether the relationship between treatment condition (Standard vs. Adapted) and sleep-related impairment (PROMIS-SRI) at 6-month follow-up was mediated by provider ratings of acceptability (AIM) at post. The parameter of interest was the indirect effect.||2.24|-2.04|0.92
91056045|NCT04154631|181993168|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient of indirect effect|-0.39||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|2.31|||SEM|||Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test whether the relationship between treatment condition (Standard vs. Adapted) and sleep-related impairment (PROMIS-SRI) at post was mediated by provider ratings of appropriateness (IAM) at post. The parameter of interest was the indirect effect.||2.31|-3.10|0.78
91056046|NCT04154631|181993168|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient of indirect effect|-0.3||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|1.75|||SEM|||Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test whether the relationship between treatment condition (Standard vs. Adapted) and sleep-related impairment (PROMIS-SRI) at 6-month follow-up was mediated by provider ratings of appropriateness (IAM) at post. The parameter of interest was the indirect effect.||1.75|-2.35|0.78
91056047|NCT04154631|181993168|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient of indirect effect|-0.43||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.66|3.8|||SEM|||Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test whether the relationship between treatment condition (Standard vs. Adapted) and sleep-related impairment (PROMIS-SRI) at post was mediated by provider ratings of feasibility (FIM) at post. The parameter of interest was the indirect effect.||3.80|-4.66|0.84
91056048|NCT04154631|181993168|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient of indirect effect|-0.18||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|1.58|||SEM|||Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test whether the relationship between treatment condition (Standard vs. Adapted) and sleep-related impairment (PROMIS-SRI) at 6-month follow-up was mediated by provider ratings of feasibility (FIM) at post. The parameter of interest was the indirect effect.||1.58|-1.94|0.84
91056049|NCT04154631|181993169|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|1.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|||Treatment condition (Standard/Adapted TranS-C versus UC-DT) on change in Composite Sleep Health Score from pre to post.||||<0.001
91056050|NCT04154631|181993170|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-5.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|||Treatment condition (Standard/Adapted TranS-C versus UC-DT) on change in functional impairment from pre to post.||||<0.001
91056051|NCT04154631|181993170|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient of indirect effect|-3.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.58|-1.66|||SEM|||Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test whether the relationship between TranS-C condition (Immediate vs. UC-DT) and functional impairment (Sheehan Disability Scale) at post was mediated by sleep disturbance (PROMIS-SD) at post. The parameter of interest was the indirect effect.||-1.66|-4.58|<0.001
91056052|NCT04154631|181993170|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient of indirect effect|-3.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.41|-2.22|||SEM|||Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test whether the relationship between TranS-C condition (Immediate vs. UC-DT) and functional impairment (Sheehan Disability Scale) at post was mediated by sleep-related impairment (PROMIS-SRI). The parameter of interest was the indirect effect at post||-2.22|-5.41|<0.001
91056053|NCT04154631|181993170|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient of indirect effect|0.07||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|1.92|||SEM|||Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test whether the relationship between treatment condition (Standard vs. Adapted) and functional impairment (Sheehan Disability Scale) at post was mediated by provider ratings of acceptability (AIM) at post. The parameter of interest was the indirect effect.||1.92|-1.78|0.94
91056054|NCT04154631|181993170|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient of indirect effect|0.05||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|1.25|||SEM|||Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test whether the relationship between treatment condition (Standard vs. Adapted) and functional impairment (Sheehan Disability Scale) at 6-month follow-up was mediated by provider ratings of acceptability (AIM) at post. The parameter of interest was the indirect effect.||1.25|-1.16|0.94
91056055|NCT04154631|181993170|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient of indirect effect|0.03||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.37|||SEM|||Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test whether the relationship between treatment condition (Standard vs. Adapted) and functional impairment (Sheehan Disability Scale) at post was mediated by provider ratings of appropriateness (IAM) at post. The parameter of interest was the indirect effect.||0.37|-0.30|0.85
91056056|NCT04154631|181993170|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient of indirect effect|-0.23||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|0.95|||SEM|||Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test whether the relationship between treatment condition (Standard vs. Adapted) and functional impairment (Sheehan Disability Scale) at 6-month follow-up was mediated by provider ratings of appropriateness (IAM) at post. The parameter of interest was the indirect effect.||0.95|-1.41|0.70
91056057|NCT04154631|181993170|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient of indirect effect|0.01||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.25|||SEM|||Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test whether the relationship between treatment condition (Standard vs. Adapted) and functional impairment (Sheehan Disability Scale) at post was mediated by provider ratings of feasibility (FIM) at post. The parameter of interest was the indirect effect.||0.25|-0.23|0.92
91056058|NCT04154631|181993170|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient of indirect effect|-0.07||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.54|||SEM|||Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test whether the relationship between treatment condition (Standard vs. Adapted) and functional impairment (Sheehan Disability Scale) at 6-month follow-up was mediated by provider ratings of feasibility (FIM) at post. The parameter of interest was the indirect effect.||0.54|-0.68|0.82
91056059|NCT04154631|181993171|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-6.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|||Treatment condition (Standard/Adapted TranS-C versus UC-DT) on change in psychiatric symptoms from pre to post.||||<0.001
91056060|NCT04154631|181993171|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient of indirect effect|-1.86||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.93|-0.21|||SEM|||Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test whether the relationship between TranS-C condition (Immediate vs. UC-DT) and psychiatric symptoms (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Cross-Cutting Symptom Measure) at post was mediated by sleep disturbance (PROMIS-SD) at post. The parameter of interest was the indirect effect.||-0.21|-3.93|0.08
91056061|NCT04154631|181993171|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient of indirect effect|-2.51||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.58|-0.44|||SEM|||Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test whether the relationship between TranS-C condition (Immediate vs. UC-DT) and psychiatric symptoms (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Cross-Cutting Symptom Measure) at post was mediated by sleep-related impairment (PROMIS-SRI) at post. The parameter of interest was the indirect effect.||-0.44|-4.58|0.02
91056062|NCT04154631|181993171|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient of indirect effect|0.05||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|2.08|||SEM|||Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test whether the relationship between treatment condition (Standard vs. Adapted) and functional impairment (The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Cross-Cutting Symptom Measure) at post was mediated by provider ratings of acceptability (AIM) at post. The parameter of interest was the indirect effect.||2.08|-1.99|0.97
91056063|NCT04154631|181993171|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient of indirect effect|0.004||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.19|||SEM|||Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test whether the relationship between treatment condition (Standard vs. Adapted) and functional impairment (The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Cross-Cutting Symptom Measure) at 6-month follow-up was mediated by provider ratings of acceptability (AIM) at post. The parameter of interest was the indirect effect.||0.19|-0.18|0.97
91056064|NCT04154631|181993171|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient of indirect effect|0.02||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.3|||SEM|||Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test whether the relationship between treatment condition (Standard vs. Adapted) and functional impairment (The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Cross-Cutting Symptom Measure) at post was mediated by provider ratings of appropriateness (IAM) at post. The parameter of interest was the indirect effect.||0.30|-0.27|0.90
91056065|NCT04154631|181993171|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient of indirect effect|0.01||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.2|||SEM|||Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test whether the relationship between treatment condition (Standard vs. Adapted) and functional impairment (The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Cross-Cutting Symptom Measure) at 6-month follow-up was mediated by provider ratings of appropriateness (IAM) at post. The parameter of interest was the indirect effect.||0.20|-0.19|0.94
91056066|NCT04154631|181993171|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient of indirect effect|-0.19||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|1.28|||SEM|||Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test whether the relationship between treatment condition (Standard vs. Adapted) and functional impairment (The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Cross-Cutting Symptom Measure) at post was mediated by provider ratings of feasibility (FIM) at post. The parameter of interest was the indirect effect.||1.28|-1.67|0.80
91056067|NCT04154631|181993171|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient of indirect effect|-0.04||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.25|||SEM|||Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test whether the relationship between treatment condition (Standard vs. Adapted) and functional impairment (The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Cross-Cutting Symptom Measure) at 6-month follow-up was mediated by provider ratings of feasibility (FIM) at post. The parameter of interest was the indirect effect.||0.25|-0.33|0.77
91056068|NCT04154631|181993172|SUPERIORITY||time by treatment interaction coeff.|-0.01||||0.94|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|||Treatment effect (Standard versus Adapted TranS-C) on change in Intervention Appropriateness Measure (IAM) from baseline (post-training) to post-treatment.||||0.94
91056069|NCT04154631|181993173|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-0.11||||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|||Treatment effect (Standard versus Adapted TranS-C) on change in Feasibility of Intervention Measure (FIM) from baseline (post-training) to post-treatment.||||0.34
91056070|NCT02036775|181993206|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of relative bioavailability without molar mass adjustment (dose adjustment) was based upon two-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (test divided by reference) of the area under the curve (AUCss 0-24) using an acceptance range of 80%-125%.|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|110.68|STANDARD_DEVIATION|20.42|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.84|122.69|||||The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV(%))|||122.69|99.84|
91056071|NCT02036775|181993206|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of relative bioavailability without molar mass adjustment (dose adjustment) was based upon two-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (test divided by reference) of the area under the curve (AUCss 0-24) using an acceptance range of 80%-125%.|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|103.39|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.52|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.54|110.74|||||The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV(%))|||110.74|96.54|
91056072|NCT02036775|181993206|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of relative bioavailability without molar mass adjustment (dose adjustment) was based upon two-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (test divided by reference) of the area under the curve (AUCss 0-24) using an acceptance range of 80%-125%.|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|106.93|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.65|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.29|114.02|||||The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV(%))|||114.02|100.29|
91056073|NCT02036775|181993207|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of relative bioavailability without molar mass adjustment (dose adjustment) was based upon two-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (test divided by reference) of the peak concentration (Cmax ss) using an acceptance range of 75%-133%.|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|84.72|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.01|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.96|93.25|||||The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV(%))|||93.25|76.96|
91056074|NCT02036775|181993207|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of relative bioavailability without molar mass adjustment (dose adjustment) was based upon two-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (test divided by reference) of the peak concentration (Cmax ss) using an acceptance range of 75%-133%.|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|103.87|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.19|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.22|113.31|||||The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV(%))|||113.31|95.22|
91056075|NCT02036775|181993207|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of relative bioavailability without molar mass adjustment (dose adjustment) was based upon two-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (test divided by reference) of the peak concentration (Cmax ss) using an acceptance range of 75%-133%.|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|80.94|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.95|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|73.92|88.62|||||The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV(%))|||88.62|73.92|
91056076|NCT02036775|181993208|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of relative bioavailability without molar mass adjustment (dose adjustment) was based upon two-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (test divided by reference) for the dose-adjusted total exposure (AUCss 0-24 norm) using an acceptance range of 80%-125%.|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|88.54|STANDARD_DEVIATION|20.42|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.87|98.15|||||The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV(%))|||98.15|79.87|
91056077|NCT02036775|181993208|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of relative bioavailability without molar mass adjustment (dose adjustment) was based upon two-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (test divided by reference) for the dose-adjusted total exposure (AUCss 0-24 norm) using an acceptance range of 80%-125%.|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|103.39|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.52|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.54|110.74|||||The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV(%))|||110.74|96.54|
91056078|NCT02036775|181993208|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of relative bioavailability without molar mass adjustment (dose adjustment) was based upon two-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (test divided by reference) for the dose-adjusted total exposure (AUCss 0-24 norm) using an acceptance range of 80%-125%.|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|85.55|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.65|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.23|91.22|||||The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV(%))|||91.22|80.23|
91056079|NCT02036775|181993209|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of relative bioavailability without molar mass adjustment (dose adjustment) was based upon two-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (test divided by reference) for the rate of absorption at steady state (Cmax ss/AUCss 0-24) using an acceptance range of 75%-133%.|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|76.55|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.55|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|71.1|82.4|||||The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV(%))|||82.40|71.10|
91056080|NCT02036775|181993209|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of relative bioavailability without molar mass adjustment (dose adjustment) was based upon two-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (test divided by reference) for the rate of absorption at steady state (Cmax ss/AUCss 0-24) using an acceptance range of 75%-133%.|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|100.46|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.65|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.69|106.58|||||The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV(%))|||106.58|94.69|
91056081|NCT02036775|181993209|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of relative bioavailability without molar mass adjustment (dose adjustment) was based upon two-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (test divided by reference) for the rate of absorption at steady state (Cmax ss/AUCss 0-24) using an acceptance range of 75%-133%.|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|75.69|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.64|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|69.92|81.93|||||The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV(%))|||81.93|69.92|
91056082|NCT04181723|181993233|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.0175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|-0.6|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||-0.6|-5.7|0.0175
90816298|NCT03344640|181511435|SUPERIORITY||Difference and 90% CI versus placebo|3.97||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.03|8.97|||LS mean|LS mean change from baseline in WORC total percentage score||All patientts at day 15||8.97|-1.03|0.190
91056083|NCT04181723|181993234|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.1|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||-0.1|-0.5|0.0030
91056084|NCT04181723|181993235|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.7|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||1.7|0.3|0.0064
91056085|NCT04181723|181993236|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.67||0.3376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|4.8|||ANCOVA|||||4.8|-13.8|0.3376
91056086|NCT04181723|181993237|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.3649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||0.1|-0.3|0.3649
91056087|NCT04181723|181993238|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.2114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||0.1|-0.3|0.2114
91056088|NCT04181723|181993239|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.0|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||0.0|-0.6|0.0257
91056089|NCT04181723|181993240|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.9799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||0.2|-0.2|0.9799
91056090|NCT04181723|181993241|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.5304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||0.1|-0.1|0.5304
91056091|NCT04181723|181993242|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.5855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|2.0|||ANCOVA|||||2.0|-3.5|0.5855
91056092|NCT04181723|181993243|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.2507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.4|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||0.4|-0.1|0.2507
91056093|NCT03496610|181993244|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum test performed given non-normal distribution of data by Shapiro Wilks Test. Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in oral morphine equivalent consumption between the two groups in the first 24hrs after surgery. Original sample size calculation based on α=0.05, β=0.8, difference in means=2, and effect size of 1.0.||||0.81
91056094|NCT03496610|181993245|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum test performed with α=0.05. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two groups in pain on postoperative day 7.||||0.40
91056095|NCT03496610|181993246|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum test performed with α=0.05. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in bloating severity between the two groups.||||0.74
91056096|NCT03496610|181993247|OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom = 1||Compared using the Likelihood ratio test with α=0.05. The null hypothesis was that there is no difference between the groups.||||0.38
91056097|NCT01753336|181993274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.94|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.79|-6.28||||||Cycle 1-Day 1 vs Cycle 1-Week 4. The mean difference in the TWSTRS total scores from treatment cycle baseline (Day 1) at the Week 4 visit for Treatment Cycle 1 is presented.||-6.28|-9.79|
91056098|NCT01753336|181993274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.68|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.36|-2.68||||||Cycle 1-Day 1 vs Cycle 1-Week 12. The mean difference in the TWSTRS total scores from treatment cycle baseline (Day 1) at the Week 12 visit for Treatment Cycle 1 is presented.||-2.68|-7.36|
91056099|NCT01753336|181993274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.29|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.42|-4.47||||||Cycle 2-Day 1 vs Cycle 2-Week 4. The mean difference in the TWSTRS total scores from treatment cycle baseline (Day 1) at the Week 4 visit for Treatment Cycle 2 is presented.||-4.47|-7.42|
91056100|NCT01753336|181993274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.49|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.37|-0.27||||||Cycle 2-Day 1 vs Cycle 2-Week 12. The mean difference in the TWSTRS total scores from treatment cycle baseline (Day 1) at the Week 12 visit for Treatment Cycle 2 is presented.||-0.27|-3.37|
91056101|NCT01753336|181993274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.99|-2.2||||||Cycle 3-Day 1 vs Cycle 3-Week 4. The mean difference in the TWSTRS total scores from treatment cycle baseline (Day 1) at the Week 4 visit for Treatment Cycle 3 was determined.||-2.20|-5.99|
91056102|NCT01753336|181993274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.42|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.11|0.81||||||Cycle 3-Day 1 vs Cycle 3-Week 12. The mean difference in the TWSTRS total scores from treatment cycle baseline (Day 1) at the Week 12 visit for Treatment Cycle 3 was determined.||0.81|-3.11|
91056103|NCT01753336|181993275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.74|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.38|-9.56||||||Pretreatment baseline vs Cycle 1-Week 4. The mean difference in the TWSTRS total scores from baseline (pretreatment measurement before receiving Dysport® in Study 169 or for subjects who received placebo in Study 169, baseline was Day 1 of Cycle 1 of Study 170) at the Week 4 visit for Treatment Cycle 1 is presented.||-9.56|-13.38|
91056104|NCT01753336|181993275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.89|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.08|-6.71||||||Pretreatment baseline vs Cycle 1-Week 12. The mean difference in the TWSTRS total scores from baseline (pretreatment measurement before receiving Dysport® in Study 169 or for subjects who received placebo in Study 169, baseline was Day 1 of Cycle 1 of Study 170) at the Week 12 visit for treatment Cycle 1 is presented.||-6.71|-11.08|
91056105|NCT01753336|181993275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.43|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.74|-12.11||||||Pretreatment baseline vs Cycle 2-Week 4. The mean difference in the TWSTRS total scores from baseline (pretreatment measurement before receiving Dysport® in Study 169 or for subjects who received placebo in Study 169, baseline was Day 1 of Cycle 1 of Study 170) at the Week 4 visit for Treatment Cycle 2 is presented.||-12.11|-16.74|
91056106|NCT01753336|181993275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.33|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.92|-8.22||||||Pretreatment baseline vs Cycle 2-Week 12. The mean difference in the TWSTRS total scores from baseline (pretreatment measurement before receiving Dysport® in Study 169 or for subjects who received placebo in Study 169, baseline was Day 1 of Cycle 1 of Study 170) at the Week 12 visit for Treatment Cycle 2 is presented.||-8.22|-12.92|
91056107|NCT01753336|181993275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.19|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.18|-12.1||||||Pretreatment baseline vs Cycle 3-Week 4. The mean difference in the TWSTRS total scores from baseline (pretreatment measurement before receiving Dysport® in Study 169 or for subjects who received placebo in Study 169, baseline was Day 1 of Cycle 1 of Study 170) at the Week 4 visit for Treatment Cycle 3 is presented.||-12.10|-17.18|
91056108|NCT01753336|181993275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.17|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.02|-9.39||||||Pretreatment baseline vs Cycle 3-Week 12. The mean difference in the TWSTRS total scores from baseline (pretreatment measurement before receiving Dysport® in Study 169 or for subjects who received placebo in Study 169, baseline was Day 1 of Cycle 1 of Study 170) at the Week 12 visit for Treatment Cycle 3 is presented.||-9.39|-14.02|
91056109|NCT01753336|181993277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.95|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.46|-2.52||||||Cycle 1-Day 1 vs Cycle 1-Week 4. The mean difference in the TWSTRS severity subscale scores from treatment cycle baseline (Day 1) at the Week 4 visit for Treatment Cycle 1 was determined.||-2.52|-4.46|
91056110|NCT01753336|181993277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.24|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.81|-0.7||||||Cycle 1-Day 1 vs Cycle 1-Week 12. The mean difference in the TWSTRS severity subscale scores from treatment cycle baseline (Day 1) at the Week 12 visit for Treatment Cycle 1 was determined.||-0.70|-2.81|
91056111|NCT01753336|181993277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.77|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.75|-2.23||||||Cycle 2-Day 1 vs Cycle 2-Week 4. The mean difference in the TWSTRS severity subscale scores from treatment cycle baseline (Day 1) at the Week 4 visit for Treatment Cycle 2 was determined.||-2.23|-3.75|
91056112|NCT01753336|181993277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.86|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|0.27||||||Cycle 2-Day 1 vs Cycle 2-Week 12. The mean difference in the TWSTRS severity subscale scores from treatment cycle baseline (Day 1) at the Week 12 visit for Treatment Cycle 2 was determined.||0.27|-1.33|
91056113|NCT01753336|181993277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.32|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.64|-1.83||||||Cycle 3-Day 1 vs Cycle 3-Week 4. The mean difference in the TWSTRS severity subscale scores from treatment cycle baseline (Day 1) at the Week 4 visit for Treatment Cycle 3 was determined.||-1.83|-3.64|
91056114|NCT01753336|181993277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.77|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.02||||||Cycle 3-Day 1 vs Cycle 3-Week 12. The mean difference in the TWSTRS severity subscale scores from treatment cycle baseline (Day 1) at the Week 12 visit for Treatment Cycle 3 was determined.||-0.02|-2.00|
91056115|NCT01753336|181993278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.86|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.64|-2.12||||||Cycle 1-Day 1 vs Cycle 1-Week 4. The mean difference in the TWSTRS disability subscale scores from treatment cycle baseline (Day 1) at the Week 4 visit for Treatment Cycle 1 was determined.||-2.12|-3.64|
91056116|NCT01753336|181993278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.82|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.79|-0.86||||||Cycle 1-Day 1 vs Cycle 1-Week 12.The mean difference in the TWSTRS disability subscale scores from treatment cycle baseline (Day 1) at the Week 12 visit for Treatment Cycle 1 was determined.||-0.86|-2.79|
91056117|NCT01753336|181993278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.47|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|-1.04||||||Cycle 2-Day 1 vs Cycle 2-Week 4. The mean difference in the TWSTRS disability subscale scores from treatment cycle baseline (Day 1) at the Week 4 visit for Treatment Cycle 2 was determined.||-1.04|-2.44|
91056118|NCT01753336|181993278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.46|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|-0.12||||||Cycle 2-Day 1 vs Cycle 2-Week 12. The mean difference in the TWSTRS disability subscale scores from treatment cycle baseline (Day 1) at the Week 12 visit for Treatment Cycle 2 was determined.||-0.12|-1.55|
90816299|NCT03344640|181511435|SUPERIORITY||Difference and 90% CI versus placebo|3.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.39|9.11|||LS Mean|LS mean change from baseline in WORC total percentage score||All patients at day 29||9.11|-3.39|
91056119|NCT01753336|181993278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.75|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|0.12||||||Cycle 3-Day 1 vs Cycle 3-Week 4. The mean difference in the TWSTRS disability subscale scores from treatment cycle baseline (Day 1) at the Week 4 visit for Treatment Cycle 3 was determined.||0.12|-1.45|
91056120|NCT01753336|181993278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.73|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.7||||||Cycle 3-Day 1 vs Cycle 3-Week 12.The mean difference in the TWSTRS disability subscale scores from treatment cycle baseline (Day 1) at the Week 12 visit for Treatment Cycle 3 was determined.||0.70|-0.85|
91056121|NCT01753336|181993279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.74|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.39|-0.92||||||Cycle 1-Day 1 vs Cycle 1-Week 4. The mean difference in the TWSTRS pain subscale scores from treatment cycle baseline (Day 1) at the Week 4 visit for Treatment Cycle 1 was determined.||-0.92|-2.39|
91056122|NCT01753336|181993279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.88|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|-0.66||||||Cycle 1-Day 1 vs Cycle 1-Week 12. The mean difference in the TWSTRS pain subscale scores from treatment cycle baseline (Day 1) at the Week 12 visit for Treatment Cycle 1 was determined.||-0.66|-2.22|
91056123|NCT01753336|181993279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|-0.58||||||Cycle 2-Day 1 vs Cycle 2-Week 4.The mean difference in the TWSTRS pain subscale scores from treatment cycle baseline (Day 1) at the Week 4 visit for Treatment Cycle 2 was determined.||-0.58|-1.84|
91056124|NCT01753336|181993279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.04|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|0.18||||||Cycle 2-Day 1 vs Cycle 2-Week 12. The mean difference in the TWSTRS pain subscale scores from treatment cycle baseline (Day 1) at the Week 12 visit for Treatment Cycle 2 was determined.||0.18|-1.08|
91056125|NCT01753336|181993279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|0.19||||||Cycle 3-Day 1 vs Cycle 3-Week 4. The mean difference in the TWSTRS pain subscale scores from treatment cycle baseline (Day 1) at the Week 4 visit for Treatment Cycle 3 was determined.||0.19|-1.57|
91056126|NCT01753336|181993279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.78|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.73||||||Cycle 3-Day 1 vs Cycle 3-Week 12. The mean difference in the TWSTRS pain subscale scores from treatment cycle baseline (Day 1) at the Week 12 visit for Treatment Cycle 3 was determined.||0.73|-0.85|
91079197|NCT03240406|182044056|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-15.37||||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.44|3.69||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|ANCOVA|MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|||3.69|-34.44|0.115
90816300|NCT03344640|181511435|SUPERIORITY||Difference and 90% CI versus placebo|0.761||||0.761|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.81|6.08|||LS Mean|LS mean change from baseline in WORC total percentage score||All patients at day 57||6.08|-8.81|0.761
91056127|NCT01121666|181993280|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This study was powered to test equivalence using a two one-sided test (TOST) of the number of oocytes retrieved with a power of 90%, an alpha error of 2.5% and a pre-determined clinical equivalence margin of +/-2.9 oocytes for the relevant population.||||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|||||This study was powered to test equivalence using a two one-sided test (TOST) with a power of 90%, an alpha error of 2.5% and a pre-determined clinical equivalence margin of +/-2.9 oocytes for the relevant population.|Shuirmann's TOST|||This study was powered to test equivalence using a two one-sided test (TOST) of the number of oocytes retrieved.||||0.0003
91056128|NCT01121666|181993281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2357|TWO_SIDED|||||Follicles of 12 mm|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2357
91056129|NCT01121666|181993281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1395|TWO_SIDED|||||Follicles of 15 mm|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1395
91056130|NCT01121666|181993281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3992|TWO_SIDED|||||Follicles of 17 mm|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3992
91056131|NCT01121666|181993283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9638|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.9638
91056132|NCT01121666|181993288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8926|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8926
91056133|NCT01121666|181993295|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This study was powered to test equivalence using a two one-sided test (TOST) of the number of oocytes retrieved with a power of 90%, an alpha error of 2.5% and a pre-determined clinical equivalence margin of +/-2.9 oocytes for the relevant population.||||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED||||||Shuirmann's TOST|||||||0.0003
91056134|NCT01629966|181993403|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.27||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.71|0.17|||MMRM|||||0.17|-2.71|0.0830
91056135|NCT01629966|181993403|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.8||||0.0156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.26|-0.34|||MMRM|||||-0.34|-3.26|0.0156
91056136|NCT01629966|181993404|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.37||||0.0536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.75|0.02|||MMRM|||||0.02|-2.75|0.0536
91056137|NCT01629966|181993404|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.52||||0.0349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.94|-0.11|||MMRM|||||-0.11|-2.94|0.0349
91056138|NCT04430855|181993405|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|13.3||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|27.2|||Chi-squared||Response rate difference compared to historical placebo = upadacitinib 30 mg - historical placebo|The primary analysis compared the percentage of participants in the upadacitinib 30 mg treatment group who achieved HiSCR response to that of a prespecified, single historical placebo rate (25%). The historical placebo rate of 25% was assumed based on the corresponding response rates of placebo participants satisfying the same key eligibility criteria from the 2 adalimumab HS Phase 3 studies, Study M11-313 (NCT01468207) and Study M11-810 (NCT01468233).||27.2|-0.6|0.018
91056139|NCT04430855|181993405|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|9.2||||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|25.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline Hurley Stage \[Stage \< III, Stage III\] and prior TNF use \[Yes or No\])|Response rate difference = upadacitinib 30 mg - placebo (in-trial + synthetic)|As a supplemental analysis, the percentage of participants who achieved HiSCR at Week 12 was further analyzed by comparing upadacitinib with in-trial placebo participants combined with subjects with historical placebo HiSCR data pre-selected using propensity score matching from adalimumab studies M11-313 and M11-810 and risankizumab study M16-833 (NCT03926169), whose study populations, entry criteria and study designs were similar to this study. The placebo in-trial + synthetic HiSCR was 29.2%.||25.9|-7.6|0.142
91056140|NCT04430855|181993405|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|14.7||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|36.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline Hurley Stage \[Stage \< III, Stage III\] and prior TNF use \[Yes or No\])|Response rate difference = upadacitinib 30 mg - placebo|As an additional supplemental analysis, the percentage of participants who achieved HiSCR at Week 12 was also analyzed by comparing upadacitinib 30 mg with in-trial placebo participants.||36.0|-6.6|0.087
91056141|NCT04430855|181993406|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|13.9||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|30.3|||Chi-squared||Response rate difference compared to historical placebo (upadacitinib 30 mg - historical placebo)|The primary analysis compared the percentage of participants in the upadacitinib 30 mg treatment group who achieved NRS30 response to that of a prespecified, single historical placebo rate (22.5%). The historical placebo rate of 22.5% was assumed based on the corresponding response rates of placebo participants satisfying the same key eligibility criteria from the 2 adalimumab HS Phase 3 studies, Study M11-313 (NCT01468207) and Study M11-810 (NCT01468233).||30.3|-2.5|0.028
91056142|NCT04430855|181993406|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|4.5||||0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|23.5||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline Hurley Stage \[Stage \< III, Stage III\] and prior TNF use \[Yes or No\])|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Response rate difference = upadacitinib 30 mg - placebo (in-trial + synthetic)|As a supplemental analysis, the percentage of participants who achieved NRS30 at Week 12 was further analyzed by comparing upadacitinib with in-trial placebo participants combined with subjects with historical placebo NRS30 data pre-selected using propensity score matching from adalimumab studies M11-313 and M11-810 and risankizumab study M16-833 (NCT03926169), whose study populations, entry criteria and study designs were similar to this study. The placebo in-trial + synthetic NRS30 was 31.3%.||23.5|-14.6|0.323
91056143|NCT04430855|181993406|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|2.2||||0.421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.6|24.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline Hurley Stage \[Stage \< III, Stage III\] and prior TNF use \[Yes or No\])|Response rate difference = upadacitinib 30 mg - placebo|As an additional supplemental analysis, the percentage of participants who achieved NRS30 at Week 12 was also analyzed by comparing upadacitinib 30 mg with in-trial placebo participants.||24.0|-19.6|0.421
91056144|NCT03801382|181993407|EQUIVALENCE|Validity and test-retest reliability were explored|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||||Validity and test-retest reliability were explored|||>.05
91056145|NCT01770392|181993415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio in percentage|50.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.7||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|47.155|53.275||p-value for ratio outside interval 0.8 - 1.25|ANOVA|"The model includes fixed effect for treatment and effect subjects was considered as random"|"The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (in %).~The ratio has been calculated as (nintedanib+ rifampicin) divided by nintedanib (in %)"|||53.275|47.155|1.0000
90890442|NCT00584727|181645551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1328||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Alternative hypothesis was senofilcon A toric was superior to alphafilcon A toric by having more eyes within 5 degrees||||0.1328
91056146|NCT01770392|181993416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio in percentage|59.76|STANDARD_DEVIATION|21.9||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|53.829|66.348||p-value for ratio outside interval 0.8 - 1.25|ANOVA|"The model includes fixed effect for treatment and effect subjects was considered as random"|"The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (in %).~The ratio has been calculated as (nintedanib+ rifampicin) divided by nintedanib (in %)."|||66.348|53.829|1.0000
91056147|NCT01770392|181993417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio in percentage|49.98|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.3||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|46.886|53.286||p-value for ratio outside interval 0.8 - 1.25|ANOVA|"The model includes fixed effect for treatment and effect subjects was considered as random"|"The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (in %).~The ratio has been calculated as (nintedanib+ rifampicin) divided by nintedanib (in %)."|||53.286|46.886|1.0000
90816301|NCT03344640|181511435|SUPERIORITY||Difference and 90% CI versus placebo|0.765||||0.765|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.27|9.03|||LS Mean|LS mean change from baseline in WORC total percentage score||All patients at day 85||9.03|-6.27|0.765
90816302|NCT03344640|181511435|SUPERIORITY||Difference and 90% CI versus placebo|0.491||||0.491|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.73|11.45|||LS Mean|LS mean change from baseline in WORC total percentage score||All patients at day 127||11.45|-4.73|0.491
90816303|NCT03344640|181511435|SUPERIORITY||Difference and 90% CI versus placebo|2.44||||0.639|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.19|11.07|||LS Mean|LS mean change from baseline in WORC total percentage score||All patients at end of study||11.07|-6.19|0.639
90816304|NCT03344640|181511436|SUPERIORITY||Difference and 90% CI versus Placebo|1.23||||0.735|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.81|7.28||Difference and 90% CI versus placebo|LS Mean|LS mean change from baseline in QuickDASH total score||Statistical analysis results of QuickDASH total score (PD Analysis Set) at day 99||7.28|-4.81|0.735
90816305|NCT03344640|181511436|SUPERIORITY||Difference and 90% CI versus Placebo|1.51||||0.689|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.76|7.79|||LS Mean|LS mean change from baseline in QuickDASH total score||Statistical analysis results of QuickDASH total score (PD analysis set) at End of Study||7.79|-4.76|0.689
90816306|NCT03344640|181511437|SUPERIORITY||Difference and 90% CI vesus placebo|3.5||||0.411|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.54|10.54|||LS Mean|LS mean change from baseline in ASES total percentage score||Statistical analysis results of ASES total score (PD analysis) at day 99||10.54|-3.54|0.411
90816307|NCT03344640|181511437|SUPERIORITY||Difference and 90% CI versus placebo|1.14||||0.804|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.5|8.78|||LS Mean|LS mean change from baseline in ASES total percentage score||Statistical analysis results of ASES total score (PD analysis) at End of Study set)||8.78|-6.50|0.804
90816308|NCT03344640|181511438|SUPERIORITY||Difference and 90% CI versus placebo|-1.26||||0.706|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.81|4.29|||LS Mean|LS Mean change from baseline in Your Health Today Score at day 99||Statistical analysis results of Your Health Today EQ-5D-5L Index score at day 99 (PD Analysis Set)||4.29|-6.81|0.706
91056148|NCT00390221|181993426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.461|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.318|0.668||adjusted for the number of relapses in the 1 year prior to study entry, baseline Expanded Disability Status Scale (\<=2.5 vs \> 2.5), and age (\<=35 vs \>35)|Negative Binomial Regression|||||0.668|0.318|<0.0001
91056149|NCT00390221|181993426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.503||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.352|0.721||adjusted for the number of relapses in the 1 year prior to study entry, baseline Expanded Disability Status Scale (\<=2.5 vs \> 2.5), and age (\<=35 vs \>35)|Negative Binomial Regression|||||0.721|0.352|0.0002
91056150|NCT00390221|181993427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Reduction|78.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.97|86.35|||Negative Binomial Regression|adjusted for the baseline number of Gd-enhancing lesions||For each of the secondary endpoints, a sequential closed testing procedure was used, with the first comparison (the DAC HYP 300 mg group versus placebo) and the second comparison (the DAC HYP 150 mg group versus placebo). Secondary endpoints were rank prioritized, in the order presented. If statistical significance was not achieved for an endpoint, all endpoints(s) of a lower rank were not considered statistically significant.||86.35|65.97|<0.0001
91056151|NCT00390221|181993427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Reduction|69.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.4|80.41|||Negative Binomial Regression|adjusted for the baseline number of Gd-enhancing lesions||For each of the secondary endpoints, a sequential closed testing procedure was used, with the first comparison (the DAC HYP 300 mg group versus placebo) and the second comparison (the DAC HYP 150 mg group versus placebo). Secondary endpoints were rank prioritized, in the order presented. If statistical significance was not achieved for an endpoint, all endpoints(s) of a lower rank were not considered statistically significant.||80.41|52.40|<0.0001
91056152|NCT00390221|181993428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Reduction|78.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.33|84.22|||Negative Binomial Regression|adjusted for baseline number of T2 lesions||For each of the secondary endpoints, a sequential closed testing procedure was used, with the first comparison (the DAC HYP 300 mg group versus placebo) and the second comparison (the DAC HYP 150 mg group versus placebo). Secondary endpoints were rank prioritized, in the order presented. If statistical significance was not achieved for an endpoint, all endpoints(s) of a lower rank were not considered statistically significant.||84.22|71.33|<0.0001
90816309|NCT03344640|181511438|SUPERIORITY||Difference and 90% CI versus placebo|-1.9||||0.647|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.79|4.99|||LS Mean|LS mean change from baseline in Your Health Today score||Statistical analysis results of Your Health Today EQ-5D-5L Index score at End of Study||4.99|-8.79|0.647
90816310|NCT03344640|181511439|SUPERIORITY||Difference and 90% CI versus placebo|0.01||||0.613|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.03|0.06|||LS Mean|LS mean change from baseline in EQ-5D-5L Index score||Statistical analysis results of of EQ-5D-5L Index score at day 99 (PD Analysis Set)||0.06|-0.03|0.613
90816311|NCT03344640|181511439|SUPERIORITY||Difference and 90% CI versus placebo|0.02||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.04|0.06|||LS Mean|LS mean change from baseline in EQ-5D-5L Index score||Statistical analysis results of of EQ-5D-5L Index score at End of Study (PD Analysis Set)||0.06|-0.04|0.740
90816312|NCT03344640|181511440|SUPERIORITY||Difference and 90% CI versus placebo|-5.55||||0.281|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.07|2.97|||LS Mean|LS MMean CFB (90% CI)||Statistical analysis results of pain score using VAS scale (PD Analysis Set) at day 99||2.97|-14.07|0.281
90816313|NCT03344640|181511440|SUPERIORITY||Difference and 90% CI versus placebo|-1.49||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.33|7.35|||LS Mean|LS Mean CFB (90% CI)||Statistical analysis results of pain score using VAS scale (PD Analysis Set) at End of Study||7.35|-10.33|0.780
90816314|NCT03344640|181511441|SUPERIORITY||Difference and 90% CI versus placebo|-3.32||||0.489|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.28|4.64|||LS Mean|LS Mean change from baseline in VAS score||Statistical analysis results of pain score using VAS scale (PD Analysis Set) at day 99||4.64|-11.28|0.489
91056153|NCT00390221|181993428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Reduction|70.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.94|77.88|||Negative Binomial Regression|adjusted for baseline number of T2 lesions||For each of the secondary endpoints, a sequential closed testing procedure was used, with the first comparison (the DAC HYP 300 mg group versus placebo) and the second comparison (the DAC HYP 150 mg group versus placebo). Secondary endpoints were rank prioritized, in the order presented. If statistical significance was not achieved for an endpoint, all endpoints(s) of a lower rank were not considered statistically significant.||77.88|59.94|<0.0001
91056154|NCT00390221|181993429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio|0.49||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.72||Covariates included were number of relapses in the 1 year prior to study entry (p=0.001), baseline Expanded Disability Status Scale (\<=2.5 versus \>2.5, p=0.449), and age (\<=35 versus \>35, p=0.026).|Cox Proportional Hazard|||For each of the secondary endpoints, a sequential closed testing procedure was used, with the first comparison (the DAC HYP 300 mg group versus placebo) and the second comparison (the DAC HYP 150 mg group versus placebo). Secondary endpoints were rank prioritized, in the order presented. If statistical significance was not achieved for an endpoint, all endpoints(s) of a lower rank were not considered statistically significant.||0.72|0.33|0.0003
91056155|NCT00390221|181993429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.67||Covariates included were number of relapses in the 1 year prior to study entry (p=0.001), baseline Expanded Disability Status Scale (\<=2.5 versus \>2.5, p=0.449), and age (\<=35 versus \>35, p=0.026).|Cox Proportional Hazard|||For each of the secondary endpoints, a sequential closed testing procedure was used, with the first comparison (the DAC HYP 300 mg group versus placebo) and the second comparison (the DAC HYP 150 mg group versus placebo). Secondary endpoints were rank prioritized, in the order presented. If statistical significance was not achieved for an endpoint, all endpoints(s) of a lower rank were not considered statistically significant.||0.67|0.30|<0.0001
91056156|NCT00390221|181993430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Mean Change|-1.93||||0.1284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.42|0.56||Analysis of variance for difference between treatment groups, controlling for baseline score.|Analysis of Variance|||For each of the secondary endpoints, a sequential closed testing procedure was used, with the first comparison (the DAC HYP 300 mg group versus placebo) and the second comparison (the DAC HYP 150 mg group versus placebo). Secondary endpoints were rank prioritized, in the order presented. If statistical significance was not achieved for an endpoint, all endpoints(s) of a lower rank were not considered statistically significant.||0.56|-4.42|0.1284
91056157|NCT00390221|181993430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Mean Change|-4.27||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.76|-1.78|||Analysis of Variance|Analysis of variance for difference between treatment groups, controlling for baseline score.||For each of the secondary endpoints, a sequential closed testing procedure was used, with the first comparison (the DAC HYP 300 mg group versus placebo) and the second comparison (the DAC HYP 150 mg group versus placebo). Secondary endpoints were rank prioritized, in the order presented. If statistical significance was not achieved for an endpoint, all endpoints(s) of a lower rank were not considered statistically significant.||-1.78|-6.76|0.0008
90816315|NCT03344640|181511441|SUPERIORITY||Difference and 90% CI versus placebo|-8.29||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.26|-0.32|||LS Mean|LS Mean change from baseline in VAS score||Statistical analysis results of pain score using VAS scale at End of Study||-0.32|-16.26|0.087
90816316|NCT03344640|181511442|SUPERIORITY||Difference and 99% CL versus placebo|6.1||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.9|13.91|||LS Mean|LS Mean CFB (90% CI)||Statistical analysis results of PhGA score using VAS scale at day 99||13.91|-1.90|0.210
90816317|NCT03344640|181511442|SUPERIORITY||Difference and 90% CI versus placebo|-0.37||||0.942|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.86|8.11|||LS Mean|LS Mean CFB (90% CI)||Statistical analysis results of PhGA score using VAS scale at End of Study||8.11|-8.86|0.942
90816318|NCT01177969|181511453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||||||This analysis applies to the post-treatment assessment (16 weeks after baseline)|ANCOVA|||||||.04
90816319|NCT01177969|181511454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25||||||This analysis applies to the post-treatment assessment (16 weeks after baseline)|ANCOVA|||||||.25
91056158|NCT04682730|181993446|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.11|0.58|0.18
91056159|NCT04682730|181993448|OTHER|single intervention group across 16 clinics|mean total program costs in 2021 dollars|7845.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6378.0|9312.0|||||An opportunity cost approach was used. Costs estimated: Develop workbook- guideline, EHR data analyses, survey, evidence review- \& print; facilitator training/delivery/program tailoring; staff time; implemented strategies; dental sealant placements.|Mean Total Program costs per clinic for the KPNW Dental system.||9312|6378|
91056160|NCT04682730|181993452|OTHER|single intervention group across 16 clinics|mean total costs/per clinic per sealant|1321.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1245.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|845.0|3208.0|||||Total cost per sealant calculated as quotient of total intervention costs ($125,521) \& total sealants placed (95), is = to mean cost/sealant across each clinic ($7845/5.938).|Mean Total Program costs per sealant per clinic for the KPNW Dental system.||3208|845|
90816320|NCT01792518|181511480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Unstructured covariance structure has been used to fit the mixed model|Mean Difference (Final Values) is actually the Adjusted mean difference calculated as Linagliptin 5 mg minus Placebo.|Superiority of Linagliptin 5 mg vs. placebo: change in HbA1c is analysed using mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach. Model includes baseline HbA1c, baseline log10 (UACR), baseline HbA1c by visit and baseline log10 (UACR) by visit as linear covariates and treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects.||-0.43|-0.78|<0.0001
90816321|NCT01792518|181511481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|0.94||||0.1954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.03|||ANCOVA||Ratio of relative change for Linagliptin 5 mg over placebo is presented.|Superiority of Linagliptin 5 mg vs. placebo: change in UACR is analysed using analysis of covariance model. Model includes baseline HbA1c and baseline log10 (UACR) as linear covariates and treatment as fixed effect.||1.03|0.85|0.1954
90890443|NCT00584727|181645552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.489|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1393||||95.0|0.1529|0.489|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was senofilcon A toric minus alphafilcon A toric|Alternative hypothesis was senofilcon A toric was superior to alphafilcon A toric.||0.4890|0.1529|
90890444|NCT00584727|181645553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Alternative hypothesis was senofilcon A toric was superior to etafilcon A sphere.||||<0.0001
90816322|NCT01792518|181511482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7||0.3306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.95|2.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Unstructured covariance structure has been used to fit the mixed model|Mean Difference (Final Values) is actually the Adjusted mean difference calculated as Linagliptin 5 mg minus Placebo.|Change in eGFR is analysed using mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach. Model includes baseline HbA1c, baseline log10 (UACR), baseline eGFR, baseline HbA1c by visit, baseline log10 (UACR) by visit and baseline eGFR by visit as linear covariates and treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects.||2.68|-7.95|0.3306
90816323|NCT03995355|181511488|NON_INFERIORITY|Subjective overall comfort was analyzed using linear mixed model. Statistical inference was made based on the 95% confidence interval constructed for the least square mean difference.|Least square mean difference|11.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.44|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|20.1|||Linear Mixed Model Analysis||Least square mean difference was calculated as Test minus Control|||20.1|2.6|
90816324|NCT03995355|181511489|NON_INFERIORITY|Subjective overall comfort was analyzed using linear mixed model. Statistical inference was made based on the 95% confidence interval constructed for the least square mean difference.|Least square mean difference|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.97|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|10.4|||Linear Mixed Model Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Least square mean difference was calculated as Test minus Control|||10.4|-5.3|
90816325|NCT03995355|181511490|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.967|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.528|1.77|||Generalized linear Mixed Model Analysis||Odds ratio was calculated as Test over Control. No difference was concluded if 1 fall within the 95% confidence interval for the odds ratio.|||1.770|0.528|
90816326|NCT03995355|181511490|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|2.203|||Generalized linear Mixed Model Analysis||Odds ratio was calculated as Test over Control. No difference was concluded if 1 fall within the 95% confidence interval for the odds ratio.|30-Day follow-up||2.203|0.610|
90816327|NCT03995355|181511491|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.601|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.178|19.616|||Fisher Exact||Odds ratio was calculated as Test over Control|||19.616|0.178|
90816328|NCT03995355|181511492|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.73|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|15.4|||Linear Mixed Model Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Least square mean difference was calculated as Test minus Control|||15.4|0.7|
90816329|NCT03995355|181511493|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.86|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|17.0|||Linear Mixed Model Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Least square mean difference was calculated as Test minus Control|||17.0|1.7|
90816330|NCT03869333|181511510|OTHER|||||||0.504|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test of any difference between the 3 active dose groups in GMT at Baseline||||0.504
90816331|NCT03869333|181511510|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test of any difference between the 3 active dose groups in GMT at Day 22||||0.010
90816332|NCT03869333|181511510|OTHER|||||||0.038|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test of any difference between the 3 active dose groups in GMT at Day 43||||0.038
90816333|NCT03869333|181511510|OTHER|||||||0.016|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test of any difference between the 3 active dose groups in GMT at Day 50||||0.016
90816334|NCT03869333|181511510|OTHER|||||||0.058|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test of any difference between the 3 active dose groups in GMT at Day 57||||0.058
90816335|NCT03869333|181511510|OTHER|||||||0.038|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test of any difference between the 3 active dose groups in GMT at Day 71||||0.038
90816336|NCT03869333|181511511|OTHER|||||||0.129|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test of any difference between the 3 active dose groups in GMT at Baseline||||0.129
90816337|NCT03869333|181511511|OTHER|||||||0.017|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test of any difference between the 3 active dose groups in GMT at Day 22||||0.017
90816338|NCT03869333|181511511|OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test of any difference between the 3 active dose groups in GMT at Day 43||||0.008
90816339|NCT03869333|181511511|OTHER|||||||0.011|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test of any difference between the 3 active dose groups in GMT at Day 50||||0.011
90816340|NCT03869333|181511511|OTHER|||||||0.029|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test of any difference between the 3 active dose groups in GMT at Day 57||||0.029
90816341|NCT03869333|181511511|OTHER|||||||0.042|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test of any difference between the 3 active dose groups in GMT at Day 71||||0.042
90816342|NCT03869333|181511512|OTHER|||||||0.226|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test of any difference between the 3 active dose groups in GMT at Baseline||||0.226
90816343|NCT03869333|181511512|OTHER|||||||0.601|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test of any difference between the 3 active dose groups in GMT at Day 8||||0.601
90816344|NCT03869333|181511512|OTHER|||||||0.628|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test of any difference between the 3 active dose groups in GMT at Day 29||||0.628
90816345|NCT03869333|181511512|OTHER|||||||0.878|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test of any difference between the 3 active dose groups in GMT at Day 50||||0.878
90816346|NCT03869333|181511513|OTHER|||||||0.762|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test of any difference between the 3 active dose groups in GMT at Baseline||||0.762
90816347|NCT03869333|181511513|OTHER|||||||0.335|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test of any difference between the 3 active dose groups in GMT at Day 8||||0.335
91056161|NCT04682730|181993454|OTHER|descriptive analysis|percentage|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||||89/89 treatment plans completed by the end of the period.|||
91056162|NCT00620659|181993495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.615||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|The mixed model included terms for period and treatment.||||||0.615
91056163|NCT00620659|181993496|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was 1.5 minutes. If the lower bound of the one-sided 95% confidence interval for MK0249 minus modafinil 200 mg was greater than -1.5 minutes, non-inferiority would be established.|Difference in Least Squares Mean|-4.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.92|-2.3||||||||-2.30|-5.92|
91056164|NCT00620659|181993497|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was 1.5 minutes. If the lower bound of the one-sided 95% confidence interval for MK0249 minus modafinil 200 mg was greater than -1.5 minutes, non-inferiority would be established.|Difference in Least Squares Mean|-3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.23|-2.38||||||||-2.38|-5.23|
91056165|NCT00620659|181993498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.079||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|The mixed model included terms for period and treatment.||||||0.079
91056166|NCT00620659|181993499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|The mixed model included terms for period and treatment.||||||0.003
91056167|NCT02352779|181993500|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6763|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4843||0.1666|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Based on a contrast using the three-arm ANCOVA.||BFI-SF||||0.1666
91056168|NCT02352779|181993500|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6936|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4567||0.1329|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Based on a contrast using the three-arm ANCOVA.||BFI-SF||||0.1329
91056169|NCT02352779|181993500|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0831|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8065||0.9826|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Based on a contrast using the three-arm ANCOVA.||MFSI-SF||||0.9826
91056170|NCT02352779|181993500|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.9898|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5448||0.4016|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Based on a contrast using the three-arm ANCOVA.||MFSI-SF||||0.4016
91056171|NCT01540773|181993510|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
91056172|NCT01540773|181993511|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04
91056173|NCT03867097|181993532|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference in change|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.047||0.8498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.04|7.49|||ANCOVA||The Shapiro-Wilk normality test of residuals indicated that the data did not have a normal distribution (p-value 0.0108).|"Treatment comparison of change versus placebo. LS mean difference in change. When a subject had no RP attacks in the past 24 hours, the frequency was considered as zero for that day.~The LS means, SEs, CIs, and p-values came from an ANCOVA model with randomized treatment group and use of phosphodiesterase inhibitors at screening (yes, no) as factors and baseline as a covariate."||7.49|-9.04|0.8498
91056174|NCT03867097|181993532|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.9729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.97|9.32|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Change in the Weekly Frequency of Symptomatic Raynaud's Phenomenon Attacks From Baseline to the Double-Blind Endpoint Using Nonparametric Analysis - Modified Intent-to-Treat Population.~Treatment comparison of change versus placebo."||9.32|-9.97|0.9729
91056175|NCT01398943|181993535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91056176|NCT01398943|181993535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
90816348|NCT03869333|181511513|OTHER|||||||0.229|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test of any difference between the 3 active dose groups in GMT at Day 29||||0.229
91056177|NCT01398943|181993536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91056178|NCT01398943|181993536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
91056179|NCT00918138|181993588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.01||0.1278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.8|3.2||Comparison between saxagliptin 5 mg + metformin 1500 mg and metformin 2000 mg significant at alpha =0.05 according to sequential testing procedure|ANCOVA|Change from baseline to week 4 was analyzed with ANCOVA including treatment group, baseline value and country in the model|Estimate = adjusted mean change for saxagliptin 5 mg + metformin 1500 mg - adjusted mean change for metformin 2000 mg|With at least 36 participants per treatment group (72 total), there is 90% power to detect a difference of 18 mg/dL between the two treatment groups. Assuming approximately 20% of participants will discontinue without any valid post-randomization assessment at Week 4, a total of 90 participants (45 participants per treatment group) needed to be randomized.||3.2|-24.8|0.1278
91056180|NCT00918138|181993589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-31.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.6|-7.7||Comparison between saxagliptin 5 mg + metformin 1500 mg and metformin 2000 mg significant at alpha =0.05 according to sequential testing procedure.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline to week 4 was analyzed with ANCOVA including treatment group, baseline value and country in the model|Estimate = adjusted mean change for saxagliptin 5 mg + metformin 1500 mg - adjusted mean change for metformin 2000 mg.|||-7.7|-54.6|
91056181|NCT00918138|181993590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.18|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|8.5||Comparison between saxagliptin 5 mg + metformin 1500 mg and metformin 2000 mg significant at alpha =0.05 according to sequential testing procedure.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline to week 4 was analyzed with ANCOVA including treatment group, baseline value and country in the model.|Estimate = adjusted mean change for saxagliptin 5 mg + metformin 1500 mg - adjusted mean change for metformin 2000 mg|||8.5|-20.0|
91056182|NCT02885181|181993634|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means of Differences|0.01||||0.978|TWO_SIDED|95.0||0.76|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.76|- 0.74|0.978
91056183|NCT02885181|181993634|SUPERIORITY||LS Means of Differences|0.4||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0||1.16|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.16|- 0.36|0.300
91056184|NCT02885181|181993634|SUPERIORITY||LS Means of Differences|0.0||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||- 0.43|- 1.92|0.002
91056185|NCT02885181|181993635|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|-5.9||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.0|24.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||24.0|-36.0|0.660
91056186|NCT02885181|181993635|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|-15.9||||0.277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.7|13.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||13.8|-44.7|0.277
91056187|NCT02885181|181993635|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|40.0||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.7|65.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||65.6|10.7|0.009
91056188|NCT02885181|181993636|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|-2.7||||0.853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.0|27.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||27.5|-32.0|0.853
91056189|NCT02885181|181993636|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|-2.7||||0.852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.0|27.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||27.5|-32.0|0.852
91056190|NCT02885181|181993636|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|24.9||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|51.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||51.5|-6.6|0.092
91056191|NCT02885181|181993637|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|-8.6||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.9|22.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||22.5|-37.9|0.360
91056192|NCT02885181|181993637|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|1.4||||0.896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.0|31.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||31.7|-28.0|0.896
91056193|NCT02885181|181993637|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|24.5||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|50.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||50.1|-6.6|0.072
91056194|NCT02885181|181993638|SUPERIORITY||LS Means of Differences|-0.12||||0.528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.25|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.25|-0.49|0.528
91056195|NCT02885181|181993638|SUPERIORITY||LS Means of Differences|0.2||||0.293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.57|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.57|-0.17|0.293
90816349|NCT03869333|181511513|OTHER|||||||0.102|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test of any difference between the 3 active dose groups in GMT at Day 50||||0.102
90816350|NCT03869333|181511514|OTHER|||||||0.828|||||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact 2-tail test of the difference between the 3 Invaplex\[AR-Detox\] dose groups in seroconversion rates at Day 22.||||0.828
90816351|NCT03869333|181511514|OTHER|||||||0.629|||||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact 2-tail test of the difference between the 3 Invaplex\[AR-Detox\] dose groups in seroconversion rates at Day 43||||0.629
90816352|NCT03869333|181511514|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact 2-tail test of the difference between the 3 Invaplex\[AR-Detox\] dose groups in seroconversion rates at Day 50||||>0.999
90816353|NCT03869333|181511514|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact 2-tail test of the difference between the 3 Invaplex\[AR-Detox\] dose groups in seroconversion rates at Day 57||||>0.999
90816354|NCT03869333|181511514|OTHER|||||||0.825|||||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact 2-tail test of the difference between the 3 Invaplex\[AR-Detox\] dose groups in seroconversion rates at Day 71||||0.825
90816355|NCT03869333|181511515|OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact 2-tail test of the difference between the 3 Invaplex\[AR-Detox\] dose groups in seroconversion rates at Day 22.||||0.005
90816356|NCT03869333|181511515|OTHER|||||||0.082|||||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact 2-tail test of the difference between the 3 Invaplex\[AR-Detox\] dose groups in seroconversion rates at Day 43||||0.082
90816357|NCT03869333|181511515|OTHER|||||||0.293|||||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact 2-tail test of the difference between the 3 Invaplex\[AR-Detox\] dose groups in seroconversion rates at Day 50||||0.293
90816358|NCT03869333|181511515|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact 2-tail test of the difference between the 3 Invaplex\[AR-Detox\] dose groups in seroconversion rates at Day 57||||>0.999
91056196|NCT02885181|181993638|SUPERIORITY||LS Means of Differences|-0.33||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.03|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.03|-0.70|0.072
90816359|NCT03869333|181511515|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact 2-tail test of the difference between the 3 Invaplex\[AR-Detox\] dose groups in seroconversion rates at Day 71||||>0.999
90816360|NCT03869333|181511516|OTHER|||||||0.828|||||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact 2-tail tests of differences between the 3 Invaplex\[AR-Detox\] dose groups in seroconversion rates at Day 8||||0.828
90816361|NCT03869333|181511516|OTHER|||||||0.913|||||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact 2-tail tests of differences between the 3 Invaplex\[AR-Detox\] dose groups in seroconversion rates at Day 29||||0.913
90816362|NCT03869333|181511516|OTHER|||||||0.924|||||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact 2-tail tests of differences between the 3 Invaplex\[AR-Detox\] dose groups in seroconversion rates at Day 50||||0.924
90816363|NCT03869333|181511517|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact 2-tail tests of differences between the 3 Invaplex\[AR-Detox\] dose groups in seroconversion rates at Day 8||||>0.999
90816364|NCT03869333|181511517|OTHER|||||||0.412|||||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact 2-tail tests of differences between the 3 Invaplex\[AR-Detox\] dose groups in seroconversion rates at Day 29||||0.412
90816365|NCT03869333|181511517|OTHER|||||||0.847|||||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact 2-tail tests of differences between the 3 Invaplex\[AR-Detox\] dose groups in seroconversion rates at Day 50||||0.847
90816366|NCT03869333|181511518|OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test of any difference between the 3 active dose groups in GMFR at Day 22||||0.009
91056197|NCT04005352|181993653|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|||||with significance level of 0.025|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
90816367|NCT03869333|181511518|OTHER|||||||0.037|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test of any difference between the 3 active dose groups in GMFR at Day 43||||0.037
90816368|NCT03869333|181511518|OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test of any difference between the 3 active dose groups in GMFR at Day 50||||0.009
90816369|NCT03869333|181511518|OTHER|||||||0.036|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test of any difference between the 3 active dose groups in GMFR at Day 57||||0.036
90816370|NCT03869333|181511518|OTHER|||||||0.042|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test of any difference between the 3 active dose groups in GMFR at Day 71||||0.042
90816371|NCT03869333|181511519|OTHER|||||||0.028|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test of any difference between the 3 active dose groups in GMFR at Day 22||||0.028
90816372|NCT03869333|181511519|OTHER|||||||0.088|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test of any difference between the 3 active dose groups in GMFR at Day 43||||0.088
90816373|NCT03869333|181511519|OTHER|||||||0.146|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test of any difference between the 3 active dose groups in GMFR at Day 50||||0.146
90816374|NCT03869333|181511519|OTHER|||||||0.126|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test of any difference between the 3 active dose groups in GMFR at Day 57||||0.126
90816375|NCT03869333|181511519|OTHER|||||||0.273|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test of any difference between the 3 active dose groups in GMFR at Day 71||||0.273
90816376|NCT03869333|181511521|OTHER|||||||0.348|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test of any difference between the 3 active dose groups in GMFR at Day 8||||0.348
90816377|NCT03869333|181511521|OTHER|||||||0.179|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test of any difference between the 3 active dose groups in GMFR at Day 29||||0.179
90816378|NCT03869333|181511521|OTHER|||||||0.089|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test of any difference between the 3 active dose groups in GMFR at Day 50||||0.089
90816379|NCT00424268|181511522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|80.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.0|110.0||No adjustment of the significance level (0.05) was done as a hierarchical approach for hypotheses testing was used.|ANCOVA|Repeated measurements analysis (change from baseline over 24 weeks of treatment taking all post-randomization measurements into account).||||110|51|<0.0001
90816380|NCT00424268|181511523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|81.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.0|110.0||No adjustment of the significance level (0.05) was done as a hierarchical approach for hypotheses testing was used.|ANCOVA|Repeated measurements analysis (change from baseline over 24 weeks of treatment taking all post-randomization measurements into account).||||110|51|<0.0001
90816381|NCT00424268|181511524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.768|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.157||0.1957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.515|1.146||No adjustment of the significance level (0.05) was done as a hierarchical approach for hypotheses testing was used.|Poisson regression|||||1.146|0.515|0.1957
90890445|NCT02512575|181645637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.847|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0238|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.807|0.887||||||||0.887|0.807|
90890446|NCT02512575|181645640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0364|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.869|0.991||||||||0.991|0.869|
91056198|NCT04005352|181993654|NON_INFERIORITY|4 letter margin (1-sided)|Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.5|||ANOVA|||||1.5|-1.3|<0.0001
91056199|NCT04005352|181993655|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91056200|NCT04005352|181993656|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91056201|NCT04005352|181993657|SUPERIORITY|Week 14|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.7|||likelihood ratio test|Assessed at one-sided 0.025 significance level||||2.7|0.9|0.0510
91056202|NCT04005352|181993657|SUPERIORITY|Week 16|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|3.9|||likelihood ratio test|Assessed at one-sided 0.025 significance level||||3.9|1.7|<0.0001
91056203|NCT04005352|181993660|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.8137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.5||p-value for treatment difference|ANOVA|||||1.5|-1.9|0.8137
91056204|NCT04005352|181993661|SUPERIORITY|Week 32|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.4106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.3|||likelihood ratio test|adjusting for baseline BCVA categories (\<55, 55-\<73, ≥73 letters).||||1.3|0.7|0.4106
91056205|NCT04005352|181993661|SUPERIORITY|Week 64|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.4667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.4|||likelihood ratio test|adjusting for baseline BCVA categories (\<55, 55-\<73, ≥73 letters).||||1.4|0.7|0.4667
91056206|NCT04005352|181993662|SUPERIORITY|Week 32|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.2397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.7|||likelihood ratio test|assessed at the 0.025 significance level||||1.7|0.8|0.2397
91056207|NCT04005352|181993662|SUPERIORITY|Week 64|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.8|||likelihood ratio test|assessed at the 0.025 significance level||||1.8|0.9|0.1150
91056208|NCT04005352|181993663|SUPERIORITY|Weeks 28 and 32|Difference|-26.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.87||0.0066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.3|-7.5|||ANOVA|||||-7.5|-46.3|0.0066
91056209|NCT04005352|181993663|SUPERIORITY|Weeks 60 and 64|Difference|-15.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.26||0.1714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.6|6.7|||ANOVA|||||6.7|-37.6|0.1714
91056210|NCT04005352|181993666|SUPERIORITY|Week 32|LS Mean Difference|0.37||||0.193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.9|||ANCOVA|||||0.9|-0.2|0.193
91056211|NCT04005352|181993666|SUPERIORITY|Week 64|LS Mean Difference|-2.0||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.0|-3.9|0.052
90816382|NCT00424268|181511525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.7||This secondary endpoint was analyzed in an exploratory manner.|ANCOVA|Repeated measurements analysis (change from baseline over 24 weeks of treatment taking all post-randomization measurements into account).||||0.7|0.1|0.0032
91056212|NCT04005352|181993667|SUPERIORITY|Week 32|LS Mean Difference|2.16||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|4.6|||ANCOVA|||||4.6|-0.3|0.081
91056213|NCT04005352|181993667|SUPERIORITY|Week 64|LS Mean Difference|-0.7||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|1.8|||ANCOVA|||||1.8|-3.2|0.590
91056214|NCT04005352|181993668|SUPERIORITY|Week 32|LS Mean Difference|0.77||||0.558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|3.4|||ANCOVA|||||3.4|-1.8|0.558
91056215|NCT04005352|181993668|SUPERIORITY|Week 64|LS Mean Difference|-1.9||||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|0.6|||ANCOVA|||||0.6|-4.5|0.138
91056216|NCT04005352|181993669|SUPERIORITY|Week 32|LS Mean Difference|1.6||||0.287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|4.6|||ANCOVA|||||4.6|-1.4|0.287
91056217|NCT04005352|181993669|SUPERIORITY|Week 64|LS Mean Difference|-3.0||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|0.2|||ANCOVA|||||0.2|-6.2|0.070
91056218|NCT04005352|181993670|SUPERIORITY|Week 32|LS Mean Difference|-0.71||||0.602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|2.0|||ANCOVA|||||2.0|-3.4|0.602
91056219|NCT04005352|181993670|SUPERIORITY|Week 64|LS Mean Difference|-2.5||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|0.4|||ANCOVA|||||0.4|-5.3|0.086
91056220|NCT04005352|181993671|SUPERIORITY|Week 32|LS Mean Difference|1.55||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|3.8|||ANCOVA|||||3.8|-0.7|0.174
91056221|NCT04005352|181993671|SUPERIORITY|Week 64|LS Mean Difference|-1.5||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|0.8|||ANCOVA|||||0.8|-3.8|0.210
91056222|NCT04005352|181993672|SUPERIORITY|Week 32|LS Mean Difference|-0.96||||0.499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|1.8|||ANCOVA|||||1.8|-3.8|0.499
91056223|NCT04005352|181993672|SUPERIORITY|Week 64|LS Mean Difference|-2.3||||0.147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|0.8|||ANCOVA|||||0.8|-5.4|0.147
91056224|NCT04005352|181993673|SUPERIORITY|Week 32|LS Mean Difference|0.88||||0.643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|4.6|||ANCOVA|||||4.6|-2.8|0.643
91056225|NCT04005352|181993673|SUPERIORITY|Week 64|LS Mean Difference|-1.3||||0.507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|2.5|||ANCOVA|||||2.5|-5.0|0.507
91056226|NCT04005352|181993674|SUPERIORITY|Week 32|LS Mean Difference|0.49||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|3.0|||ANCOVA|||||3.0|-2.0|0.700
91056227|NCT04005352|181993674|SUPERIORITY|Week 64|LS Mean Difference|-2.9||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|0.2|||ANCOVA|||||0.2|-6.0|0.070
91056228|NCT04005352|181993675|SUPERIORITY|Week 32|LS Mean Difference|0.73||||0.741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|5.1|||ANCOVA|||||5.1|-3.6|0.741
91056229|NCT04005352|181993675|SUPERIORITY|Week 64|LS Mean Difference|-1.7||||0.494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|3.2|||ANCOVA|||||3.2|-6.6|0.494
91056230|NCT04005352|181993676|SUPERIORITY|Week 32|LS Mean Difference|1.76||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.5|||ANCOVA|||||3.5|-0.0|0.054
91056231|NCT04005352|181993676|SUPERIORITY|Week 64|LS Mean Difference|-1.1||||0.331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|1.2|||ANCOVA|||||1.2|-3.4|0.331
91056232|NCT04005352|181993677|SUPERIORITY|Week 32|LS Mean Difference|1.24||||0.394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|4.1|||ANCOVA|||||4.1|-1.6|0.394
91056233|NCT04005352|181993677|SUPERIORITY|Week 64|LS Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|2.5|||ANCOVA|||||2.5|-3.6|0.728
91056234|NCT00191165|181993691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.45||||0.34||95.0|-0.5|1.4|||ANOVA||Mean Difference = High Dose - Label Dose|||1.40|-0.50|0.340
91056235|NCT00191165|181993692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.16||||0.388||95.0|-0.21|0.53||P-value for 12-Month Height SDS Change|ANOVA||Mean Difference = High Dose - Label Dose|||0.53|-0.21|0.388
91056236|NCT00191165|181993692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.49||||0.061||95.0|-0.02|0.99||P-value for 24-Month Height SDS Change|ANOVA||Mean Difference = High Dose - Label Dose|||0.99|-0.02|0.061
91056237|NCT00191165|181993693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.13||||0.088||95.0|-0.18|2.44|||ANOVA||Mean Difference = High Dose - Label Dose|||2.44|-0.18|0.088
91056238|NCT03200912|181993694|EQUIVALENCE|Primary Efficacy Endpoint - AK Complete Clearance Rates at Day 57 (PP and mITT Populations)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.55|12.14||||||||12.14|-7.55|
91056239|NCT00998309|181993704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Gender. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between males and females in the participatns of responders."||||=0.001
91056240|NCT00998309|181993705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Age. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between \<65 years and \>=65 years  in the participatns of responders."||||=1.000
91056241|NCT00998309|181993706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was type of infection. The null hypothesis is there is no difference amang Skin and Soft Tissue Infection, Sexual Transmitted Infection, and Dental and Oral Surgery Infection in the participatns of responders."||||<0.001
91056242|NCT00998309|181993707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.556|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Infection severity. The null hypothesis is there is no difference amang mild infection, moderate infection, and severe infection in the participatns of responders."||||=0.556
91056243|NCT00998309|181993708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.074|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was hepatic dysfunction. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without hepatic dysfunction in the participatns of responders."||||=0.074
91056244|NCT00998309|181993709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Renal dysfunction. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without Renal dysfunction in the participatns of responders."||||=1.000
91056245|NCT00998309|181993710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Past medical history. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without past medical history in the participatns of responders."||||=1.000
91056246|NCT00998309|181993711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was complications. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without complications  in the participatns of responders."||||=1.000
91056247|NCT00998309|181993712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was previous antibiotic treatment history. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without previous antibiotic treatment history in the participatns of responders."||||=1.000
91056248|NCT00998309|181993713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.47|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was comcomittant drugs. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without comcomittant drugs in the participatns of responders."||||=0.470
91056249|NCT00998309|181993714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was non-drug therapy. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without non-drug therapy in the participatns of responders."||||=1.000
91056250|NCT00998309|181993717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.657|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Gender. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between males and females in the Incidence Rate of Treatment Related Adverse Events (TRAEs)."||||=0.657
91056251|NCT00998309|181993718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.145|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Age. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between \<65 years or \>=65 in the Incidence Rate of Treatment Related Adverse Events (TRAEs)."||||=0.145
90816383|NCT00424268|181511526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|-0.8||This secondary endpoint was analyzed in an exploratory manner.|ANCOVA|Repeated measurements analysis (change from baseline over 24 weeks of treatment taking all post-randomization measurements into account).||||-0.8|-4.5|0.0051
91056252|NCT00998309|181993719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Type of Infection. The null hypothesis is there is no difference amang Skin and Soft Tissue Infection, Sexual Transmitted Infection, and Dental or Oral Surgery Infection in the Incidence Rate of Treatment Related Adverse Events (TRAEs)."||||=0.005
91056253|NCT00998309|181993720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.213|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Infection severity. The null hypothesis is there is no difference amang mild infection, moderate infection, or severe infection in the Incidence Rate of Treatment Related Adverse Events (TRAEs)."||||=0.213
91056254|NCT00998309|181993721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Hepatic Dysfunction. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without Hepatic Dysfunction in the Incidence Rate of Treatment Related Adverse Events (TRAEs)."||||=1.000
91056255|NCT00998309|181993722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.116|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Renal Dysfunction. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without Renal Dysfunction in the Incidence Rate of Treatment Related Adverse Events (TRAEs)."||||=0.116
91056256|NCT00998309|181993723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Past Medical History. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without Past Medical History in the Incidence Rate of Treatment Related Adverse Events (TRAEs)."||||<0.001
91056257|NCT00998309|181993724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.645|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was complications. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without complications in the Incidence Rate of Treatment Related Adverse Events (TRAEs)."||||=0.645
91056258|NCT00998309|181993725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.679|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was previous antibiotic treatment history (PATH). The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without previous antibiotic treatment history (PTH) in the Incidence Rate of Treatment Related Adverse Events (TRAEs)."||||=0.679
91056259|NCT00998309|181993726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.234|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was comcomittant drugs. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without comcomittant drugs in the Incidence Rate of Treatment Related Adverse Events (TRAEs)."||||=0.234
91056260|NCT00998309|181993727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.039|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was non-drug therapy. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without non-drug therapy in the Incidence Rate of Treatment Related Adverse Events (TRAEs)."||||=0.039
91056261|NCT00998309|181993728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.605|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Pregnancy in Female. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without Pregnancy in the Incidence Rate of Treatment Related Adverse Events (TRAEs) in Female."||||=0.605
90816384|NCT02409342|181511638|SUPERIORITY|Stratified analysis. OS was tested hierarchically in the efficacy analysis populations.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.595||||0.0106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.398|0.89|||Log Rank|||TC3 or IC3-WT Population||0.890|0.398|0.0106
90890447|NCT02512575|181645641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.917|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0364|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.856|0.978||||||||0.978|0.856|
91056262|NCT05187013|181993748|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.72||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.59|-1.73|||t-test, 1 sided|||Null Hypothesis: No improvement between baseline and final SBP, i.e., Final SBP - Baseline SBP \>= 0 Alternative Hypothesis: Final SBP - Baseline SBP \<0 Power calculation: Based on the data, the mean and SD of the change in SBP are -7.16 and 21.40, respectively. Using a one-sided paired t-test with a significance level of 0.05, we should have a power of 83.16%||-1.73|-12.59|0.006
91056263|NCT05187013|181993748|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.79|0.49|||t-test, 1 sided|||Null Hypothesis: No improvement between baseline and final DBP, i.e., Final DBP - Baseline DBP \>= 0 Alternative Hypothesis: Final DBP - Baseline DBP \<0 Power calculation: Based on the data, the mean and SD of the change in SBP are -2.15 and 10.49, respectively. Using a one-sided paired t-test with a significance level of 0.05, we should have a power of 51.48%||0.49|-4.79|0.056
91056264|NCT05187013|181993748|EQUIVALENCE|The margin was considered to be 0.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.13||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.76|7.42|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline SBP and follow-up time|The parameter was defined as the change in SBP for the general health education arm - the change in SBP for the HTN specific education arm adjusted for follow-up time and baseline SBP|"Null hypothesis: No difference between the change in SBP between the two arms~Power calculation: With our sample size, we expect to have 80% power as long as the effect size is at least 0.72 at a 5% level."||7.42|-8.76|0.87
91056265|NCT05187013|181993748|EQUIVALENCE|The margin was taken to be 0|Mean Difference (Net)|0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.02|4.98|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline DBP and follow-up time|The parameter was defined as the change in DBP for the general health education arm - the change in DBP for the HTN specific education arm adjusted for follow-up time and baseline SBP|"Null hypothesis: No difference between the change in DBP between the two arms~Power calculation: With our sample size, we expect to have 80% power as long as the effect size is at least 0.72 at a 5% level."||4.98|-3.02|0.63
91056266|NCT05187013|181993749|EQUIVALENCE|The margin is taken to be 0|Odds Ratio, log|0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|2.29|||Regression, Logistic|A mixed effect model with study arm as a fixed effect and subject-specific random effect.|For OR: the general education arm was taken as the baseline (denominator)|Null hypothesis: There is no difference in medicine adherence between the two groups||2.29|-0.26|0.14
91056267|NCT05187013|181993750|EQUIVALENCE|The margin was taken to be 0.|Odds Ratio, log|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.19|||Regression, Logistic|Binomial regression for appointment attended/appointment scheduled.|The baseline (denominator) was taken to be the general education arm.|Null hypothesis: No difference in appointment adherence between the study arms||0.19|-0.58|0.32
91056268|NCT01096368|181993756|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.866||||0.229|TWO_SIDED|90.46|0.627|1.197||P-value is one-sided. After adjusting for interim analyses, the a priori threshold for significance for the final analysis is one-sided alpha=0.031.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio is based on hazard of events for Arm II over hazard of events for Arm III. Confidence interval is stage-wise adjusted for multiple interim analyses.|The study was designed to test the superiority of RT+maintenance vs. RT alone as measured by EFS using the hazard ratio via a 1-sided log-rank test. The planned sample size was 160 subjects per arm. 85 EFS events were needed, which were expected after 8 years of accrual and 2 years of follow-up. At 5% type 1 error, the study had 93% power to detect an increase in 2-year EFS from 75% (RT alone) to 87% (RT+maintenance). The design also incorporated interim analyses for futility and efficacy.||1.197|0.627|0.229
91056269|NCT01096368|181993757|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.757||||0.172|TWO_SIDED|90.46|0.463|1.238||P-value is one-sided. After adjusting for interim analyses, the a priori threshold for significance for the final analysis is one-sided alpha=0.031.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio is based on hazard of death for Arm II over hazard of death for Arm III. Confidence interval is stage-wise adjusted for multiple interim analyses.|It was planned to test the superiority of RT+maintenance vs. RT alone as measured by OS using the hazard ratio via a 1-sided log-rank test using the planned sample size of 160 subjects per arm which was optimized for the EFS outcome. A one-sided significance threshold of 5% was planned for this comparison as well.||1.238|0.463|0.172
91056270|NCT01096368|181993758|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.701||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.461|1.068||P-value is two-sided and not adjusted for multiple comparisons for this exploratory subgroup comparison.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio is based on hazard of events for Arm II over hazard of events for Arm III.|In stratum 1, it was also planned to test the superiority of RT+maintenance vs. RT alone as measured by EFS using the hazard ratio via a 2-sided log-rank test. A two-sided significance threshold of 5% was planned for this comparison.||1.068|0.461|0.096
91056271|NCT01096368|181993759|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.684||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.004|7.175||P-value is two-sided and not adjusted for multiple comparisons for this exploratory subgroup comparison.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio is based on hazard of events for Arm II over hazard of events for Arm III.|In stratum 2, it was also planned to test the superiority of RT+maintenance vs. RT alone as measured by EFS using the hazard ratio via a 2-sided log-rank test. A two-sided significance threshold of 5% was planned for this comparison.||7.175|1.004|0.041
91056272|NCT01096368|181993760|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.547||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.284|1.053||P-value is two-sided and not adjusted for multiple comparisons for this exploratory subgroup comparison.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio is based on hazard of death for Arm II over death of events for Arm III.|In stratum 1, it was also planned to test the superiority of RT+maintenance vs. RT alone as measured by OS using the hazard ratio via a 2-sided log-rank test. A two-sided significance threshold of 5% was planned for this comparison.||1.053|0.284|0.067
90816385|NCT02409342|181511639|SUPERIORITY|Stratified analysis. OS was tested hierarchically in the efficacy analysis populations.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.868||||0.3091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.661|1.14|||Log Rank|||TC2/3 or IC2/3-WT Population||1.140|0.661|0.3091
91078320|NCT02284568|182042097|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1293||0.903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.239|0.2705||significance at 0.05.|Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||The statistical model was a repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment group, week, treatment group by week interaction, normalized brain volume at baseline, natural logarithm of T2 lesion volume at baseline, and country as fixed effects.||0.2705|-0.2390|0.903
90816386|NCT02409342|181511639|SUPERIORITY|Stratified analysis. OS was tested hierarchically in the efficacy analysis populations.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.845||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.688|1.037||P-value is descriptive as it was not formally tested.|Log Rank|||TC1/2/3 or IC/1/2/3-WT||1.037|0.688|0.1070
91056273|NCT01096368|181993761|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.601||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.724|17.902||P-value is two-sided and not adjusted for multiple comparisons for this exploratory subgroup comparison.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio is based on hazard of death for Arm II over hazard of death for Arm III.|In stratum 2, it was also planned to test the superiority of RT+maintenance vs. RT alone as measured by OS using the hazard ratio via a 2-sided log-rank test. A two-sided significance threshold of 5% was planned for this comparison.||17.902|0.724|0.094
91056274|NCT01568320|181993769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Freedom from Major adverse events (%)|71.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.0|82.0|||||Clopper-Pearson (Exact) Method|||82|59|
91056275|NCT01568320|181993770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Survival rate (%)|95.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|87.0|99.0|||||Clopper-Pearson (Exact) Method|||99|87|
91056276|NCT03233230|181993771|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.1746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.61|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.61|0.84|0.1746
91056277|NCT03233230|181993771|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.8283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.87|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.87|0.61|0.8283
91056278|NCT03233230|181993771|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.1298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.74|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.74|0.88|0.1298
91056279|NCT03233230|181993772|SUPERIORITY||Response rate difference|0.13||||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.23|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.23|0.04|0.0077
91056280|NCT03233230|181993772|SUPERIORITY||Response rate difference|0.17||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.27|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.27|0.07|0.0013
91056281|NCT03233230|181993772|SUPERIORITY||Response rate difference|0.13||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.23|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.23|0.04|0.0080
91056282|NCT03233230|181993773|SUPERIORITY||Response rate difference|0.09||||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.17|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.17|0.03|0.0056
91056283|NCT03233230|181993773|SUPERIORITY||Response rate difference|0.09||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.17|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.17|0.03|0.0050
91056284|NCT03233230|181993773|SUPERIORITY||Response rate difference|0.09||||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.17|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.17|0.03|0.0053
91056285|NCT03233230|181993774|SUPERIORITY||Response rate difference|0.09||||0.1419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.21|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.21|-0.03|0.1419
91056286|NCT03233230|181993774|SUPERIORITY||Response rate difference|0.07||||0.2202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.19|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.19|-0.05|0.2202
91056287|NCT03233230|181993774|SUPERIORITY||Response rate difference|0.07||||0.2328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.19|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.19|-0.05|0.2328
91056288|NCT03233230|181993775|SUPERIORITY||Response rate difference|0.06||||0.1232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.15|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.15|-0.02|0.1232
91056289|NCT03233230|181993775|SUPERIORITY||Response rate difference|0.05||||0.1725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.14|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.14|-0.03|0.1725
91056290|NCT03233230|181993775|SUPERIORITY||Response rate difference|0.05||||0.1795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.13|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.13|-0.03|0.1795
91056291|NCT03233230|181993783|SUPERIORITY||Response rate difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.04||||||||0.04|-0.04|
90890448|NCT02512575|181645642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Active Vs Placebo)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.11||||||||1.11|0.960|
91056292|NCT03233230|181993783|SUPERIORITY||Response rate difference|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.06||||||||0.06|-0.03|
91056293|NCT03233230|181993783|SUPERIORITY||Response rate difference|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.09||||||||0.09|-0.01|
91056294|NCT03233230|181993784|SUPERIORITY||Response rate difference|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.09||||||||0.09|-0.02|
91056295|NCT03233230|181993784|SUPERIORITY||Response rate difference|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.12||||||||0.12|-0.00|
91056296|NCT03233230|181993784|SUPERIORITY||Response rate difference|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.08||||||||0.08|-0.03|
91056297|NCT03233230|181993785|SUPERIORITY||Response rate difference|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.09||||||||0.09|-0.01|
91056298|NCT03233230|181993785|SUPERIORITY||Response rate difference|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.1||||||||0.10|0.00|
91056299|NCT03233230|181993785|SUPERIORITY||Response rate difference|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.09||||||||0.09|-0.01|
91056300|NCT03233230|181993786|SUPERIORITY||Response rate difference|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.24||||||||0.24|-0.03|
91056301|NCT03233230|181993786|SUPERIORITY||Response rate difference|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.25||||||||0.25|-0.02|
91056302|NCT03233230|181993786|SUPERIORITY||Response rate difference|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.31||||||||0.31|0.05|
91056303|NCT04159935|181993808|OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.400
91056304|NCT04159935|181993809|OTHER|||||||0.057|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.057
91056305|NCT04159935|181993810|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.000
91056306|NCT04159935|181993812|OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.400
91056307|NCT04159935|181993813|OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.400
91056308|NCT04159935|181993814|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.500
91056309|NCT04159935|181993815|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.00
91056310|NCT04159935|181993816|OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.400
91056311|NCT04159935|181993818|OTHER|||||||0.343|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.343
91056312|NCT04159935|181993819|OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.700
91056313|NCT04159935|181993820|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.500
91056314|NCT02472223|181993821|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|90.0||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.02
91056315|NCT00206323|181993846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0259|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Primary variable change of TTS/YGTSS at the BSL to Day 70. Changes of YGTSS compared using analysis of covariance with score at day 1 as a covariate. Groups compared for incidence of AE's and of AESI based on Fisher's Exact Test. All tests were two-sided at the 5% level of significance.~The Total Tic Score is a summation of the Total Motor Tic and Total Phonic Tic Scores. The Overall Impairment Rating is rated on a 50-point scale anchored by 0 (No impairment) and 50 (Severe impairment)"||||0.0259
91056316|NCT03657342|181993891|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.095||||0.731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.405|0.214||1-sided p value.|Mixed Models Analysis|||at V9.||0.214|-0.405|0.7310
91078343|NCT00424021|182042210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|25.31|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|1.8||||||The small sample size, nonrandomized dose group assignments, and the potential for dose adjustments precluded meaningful comparisons between the dose groups. Therefore, efficacy results are only presented for the combined ambrisentan group.||1.8|-12.0|
91056317|NCT03657342|181993892|SUPERIORITY||least suare mean difference|-0.064||||0.8041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.212|0.084||1-sided p value|Mixed Models Analysis|||Estimates were from a Linear Mixed Model on the response variable change from baseline in FEV1/FVC with factors for time splines, treatment, the interactions of time splines by treatment, baseline FEV1/FVC, the interactions of time splines with baseline FEV1/FVC, region (North America versus all other countries together), underlying indication for lung transplant (COPD versus all others), use of azithromycin at randomization, and time as random effect.||0.084|-0.212|0.8041
91056318|NCT03657342|181993893|SUPERIORITY||adjusted hazard ratio|2.601||||0.1559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.408|16.585||1-sided p value. Adjusted Hazard Ratio calculated using Cox proportional hazards model with covariates of Treatment, Baseline FEV1, with Efron's method of tie handling.|Regression, Cox|||||16.585|0.408|0.1559
90816387|NCT02409342|181511640|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.449|0.884||P-value is descriptive as it was not formally tested.|Log Rank|||TC3 or IC3-WT Population||0.884|0.449|0.0070
90816388|NCT02409342|181511641|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.641||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.501|0.82||P-value is descriptive as it was not formally tested.|Log Rank|||TC2/3 or IC2/3-WT Population||0.820|0.501|0.0004
90816389|NCT02409342|181511641|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.716||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.595|0.863||P-value is descriptive as it was not formally tested.|Log Rank|||TC1/2/3 or IC1/2/3-WT Population||0.863|0.595|0.0004
90816390|NCT02409342|181511642|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Difference in ORR|9.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.07|23.56||||||TC3 or IC3-WT Population||23.56|-4.07|
90816391|NCT02409342|181511643|SUPERIORITY|Stratified analysis|Difference in ORR|1.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.14|12.42||||||TC2/3 or IC2/3-WT Population||12.42|-9.14|
90816392|NCT02409342|181511643|SUPERIORITY|Stratified analysis|Difference in ORR|-0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.84|7.39||||||TC1/2/3 or IC1/2/3-WT Population||7.39|-8.84|
90816393|NCT02409342|181511644|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.365|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.166|0.8||||||TC3 or IC3-WT Population||0.800|0.166|
91056319|NCT02373189|181993899|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||The P-value indicated above is calculated.|paired t-test|means at pre and post treatment were compared within subject.||||||0.05
90816394|NCT02409342|181511645|SUPERIORITY|Stratified analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.235|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.135|0.409||||||TC2/3 or IC2/3-WT Population||0.409|0.135|
90816395|NCT02409342|181511645|SUPERIORITY|Stratified analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.284|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.424||||||TC1/2/3 or IC1/2/3-WT Population||0.424|0.190|
90816396|NCT02409342|181511646|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|14.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|28.55||||||1-Year TC3 or IC3-WT Population||28.55|-0.03|
91056320|NCT02373189|181993900|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
91056321|NCT02151877|181993901|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||This test applies to the first marker, cardiac troponin I.|t-test, 2 sided|||Null: mean cardiac troponin I changes in the NO group = mean cardiac troponin I changes in the control||||>0.05
90816397|NCT02409342|181511647|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|20.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.94|38.47||||||2-Years TC3 or IC3-WT Population||38.47|2.94|
90816398|NCT02409342|181511648|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|4.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.93|15.4||||||1-Year TC2/3 or IC2/3-WT Population||15.40|-5.93|
90816399|NCT02409342|181511648|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|5.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.27|13.4||||||1-Year TC1/2/3 or IC1/2/3-WT Population||13.40|-3.27|
90816400|NCT02409342|181511649|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|8.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|19.45||||||2-Years TC2/3 or IC2/3-WT Population||19.45|-1.99|
90816401|NCT02409342|181511649|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|10.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.83|19.04||||||2-Years TC1/2/3 or IC1/2/3-WT Population||19.04|2.83|
90816402|NCT02409342|181511650|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.142|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.657|1.984||||||Cough in TC3 or IC3-WT Populations||1.984|0.657|
90816403|NCT02409342|181511650|SUPERIORITY|Stratified analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.891|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.555|1.43||||||Dyspnoea in TC3 or IC3-WT Populations||1.430|0.555|
90816404|NCT02409342|181511650|SUPERIORITY|Stratified analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.229|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.737|2.049||||||Chest pain in TC3 or IC3-WT Populations||2.049|0.737|
90816405|NCT02409342|181511652|SUPERIORITY|Stratified analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.984|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.477|2.03||||||Cough for TC3 or IC3-WT Populations||2.030|0.477|
90816406|NCT02409342|181511652|SUPERIORITY|Stratified analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.955|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.569|1.604||||||Dyspnea for TC3 or IC3-WT Populations||1.604|0.569|
90816407|NCT02409342|181511652|SUPERIORITY|Stratified analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.024|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.472|2.222||||||Chest pain for TC3 or IC3-WT Populations||2.222|0.472|
90816408|NCT02409342|181511653|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.707|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.0||||||SP263 \>=50%-WT Population||1.000|0.500|
90816409|NCT02409342|181511653|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.693|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.502|0.956||||||SP263 \>=25%-WT Population||0.956|0.502|
90816410|NCT02409342|181511653|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.768|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.579|1.018||||||SP263 \>=1%-WT Population||1.018|0.579|
90816411|NCT02409342|181511654|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.674|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.511|0.89||||||SP263 \>=50%-WT Population||0.890|0.511|
90816412|NCT02409342|181511654|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.698|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.539|0.904||||||SP263 \>=25%-WT Population||0.904|0.539|
90816413|NCT02409342|181511654|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.725|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.577|0.91||||||SP263 \>=1%-WT Population||0.910|0.577|
90816414|NCT02409342|181511655|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.867|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.578|1.301||||||bTMB \>=10-WT Population||1.301|0.578|
90816415|NCT02409342|181511655|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.748|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.414|1.351||||||bTMB \>=16-WT Population||1.351|0.414|
90816416|NCT02409342|181511655|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.362|1.638||||||bTMB \>=20-WT Population||1.638|0.362|
90816417|NCT02409342|181511656|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.743|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.525|1.052||||||bTMB \>=10-WT Population||1.052|0.525|
91056322|NCT02151877|181993902|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null: NO group fluid balances are the same as the control||||>0.05
91056323|NCT03095638|181993909|OTHER||Ratio|1.0084|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8626|1.1789||||||||1.1789|0.8626|
91056324|NCT03095638|181993910|OTHER||Ratio|1.0121|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8648|1.1845||||||||1.1845|0.8648|
91056325|NCT03095638|181993911|OTHER||Ration|1.0329|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8623|1.2373||||||||1.2373|0.8623|
91056326|NCT03095638|181993912|OTHER||Ratio|1.6242|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.4986|1.7604||||||||1.7604|1.4986|
91056327|NCT03095638|181993912|OTHER||Ratio|1.5448|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.4253|1.6743||||||||1.6743|1.4253|
91056328|NCT03095638|181993913|OTHER||Ratio|1.6292|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.503|1.7661||||||||1.7661|1.5030|
91056329|NCT03095638|181993913|OTHER||Ratio|1.5519|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.4317|1.6822||||||||1.6822|1.4317|
91056330|NCT03095638|181993914|OTHER||Ratio|1.7933|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.6226|1.9819||||||||1.9819|1.6226|
91056331|NCT03095638|181993914|OTHER||Ratio|1.7974|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.6263|1.9865||||||||1.9865|1.6263|
91056332|NCT01158573|181993976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Hypothesis that leptin levels in OA is not different from the other 3 groups.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91056333|NCT01158573|181993977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.002
91056334|NCT01158573|181993978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.725|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.725
91056335|NCT01158573|181993979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.16
91056336|NCT02980874|181993982|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|-6.1||||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|3.0||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.050. Prior to evaluating the results of the CMH test, a Breslow-Day test with Tarone's adjustment was conducted to confirm the homogeneity of the odds ratios between RVO strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH test was stratified by the type of retinal vein occlusion, i.e., branch vs. central.|Estimated value was calculated as the percentage of subjects in the Active arm meeting the primary endpoint minus the percentage of subjects in the Control arm meeting the primary endpoint.|Based on a Pearson chi-square test, a total sample size of approximately 460 subjects provided 90% power to detect a difference of 15% between the Active and Control arms assuming the Control arm showed a proportion of 0.50 at 8 weeks. The primary analysis was a test of superiority of the Active arm over the Control arm, and was based on a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by type of retinal vein occlusion.||3.0|-15.2|0.187
90816418|NCT02409342|181511656|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.553|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.331|0.924||||||bTMB \>=16-WT Population||0.924|0.331|
91056337|NCT02450526|181993985|SUPERIORITY|The model includes treatment group, stratification factors, gender and baseline severity score of glabellar lines at maximum frown measured by the ILA, and centre as explanatory variables and responder (Yes or No) as response variable.|Treatment difference|94.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|90.8|97.7||The test is two-sided at the significance level of 0.025.|Regression, Logistic|||Superiority analysis of Dysport® to placebo was tested using a multivariate logistic regression model.||97.7|90.8|<0.0001
91056338|NCT02450526|181993986|SUPERIORITY|The model includes treatment group, stratification factors, gender and baseline severity score of glabellar lines at maximum frown measured by the ILA, and centre as explanatory variables and responder (Yes or No) as response variable.|Treatment difference|87.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|82.5|92.4||The test is two-sided at the significance level of 0.025.|Regression, Logistic|||Superiority analysis of Dysport® to placebo was tested using a multivariate logistic regression model.||92.4|82.5|<0.0001
91056339|NCT02450526|181993987|NON_INFERIORITY|The model includes treatment group, stratification factors, gender and baseline severity score of glabellar lines at maximum frown measured by the ILA, and centre as explanatory variables and responder (Yes or No) as response variable.|Treatment Difference|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|1.9||||||The non-inferiority of Dysport® to Botox on the ILA at maximum frown was tested using a multivariate logistic regression model||1.9|-6.7|
91056340|NCT02450526|181993988|SUPERIORITY|The model includes treatment group, stratification factors, gender and baseline severity score of glabellar lines at maximum frown measured by the ILA and centre as explanatory variables and responder (Yes or No) as response variable.|Treatment difference|73.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.1|88.4|||Regression, Logistic|||Superiority analysis of Dysport® to placebo was tested using a multivariate logistic regression model.||88.4|59.1|<0.0001
91056341|NCT02450526|181993989|SUPERIORITY|The comparison between mean scores of SGA at Treatment Cycle 1, Day 29 is based on 2 separate linear mixed models, adjusting on the two stratification parameters, gender and baseline ILA severity score, and the centre.|Treatment Difference|2.603|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.327|2.878||The test was two-sided at the significance level of 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Superiority analysis of Dysport® to placebo was tested using a linear mixed model.||2.878|2.327|<0.0001
91056342|NCT02450526|181993990|SUPERIORITY|The model includes treatment group, stratification factors, gender and baseline severity score of glabellar lines at maximum frown measured by the ILA, and centre as explanatory variables and responder (Yes or No) as response variable.|Treatment difference|83.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.7|88.7|||Regression, Logistic|||Superiority analysis of Dysport® to placebo was tested using a multivariate logistic regression model.||88.7|78.7|<0.0001
90816419|NCT02409342|181511656|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.295|1.062||||||bTMB \>=20-WT Population||1.062|0.295|
91056343|NCT00911807|181994005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Square (Factor Treatment)|19.59||||0.6348||||||ANCOVA F-test. The study was designed to show significant differences in each of the two primary variables. No adjustment for multiple testing was needed and all tests were done with retention of the full two-sided alpha-level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with the week 28 ADAS-cog+ change score as dependent variable and the ADAS-cog+ baseline score as a covariate.||The null-hypothesis stated no differences between the three treatment groups regarding the mean change from baseline in ADAS-cog+ at week 28. A sample size of approximately 60 evaluable patients per treatment arm was estimated to allow for the detection of a significant group difference of two points in ADAS-cog+ week 28 change score (standard deviation \[SD\] 3.3) between the three groups with a power of \> 80% and a probability level of alpha = 0.05 (two-sided).||||0.6348
90816420|NCT00279812|181511661|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
90816421|NCT00279812|181511662|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.05
90816422|NCT00279812|181511663|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.05
91056344|NCT00911807|181994005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.63||||0.583||95.0|-2.891|1.63||No adjustment for multiple testing was needed and all tests were done with retention of the full two-sided alpha-level of 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Comparisons between all pair of means were performed with two-sample t-tests within the ANCOVA model.||Multiple testing of individual null hypotheses that control for the overall significance level alpha = 0.05 were performed by using the 'closed testing procedure'||1.630|-2.891|0.5830
90816423|NCT03907033|181511665|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Standard Bupivacaine study arm compared to Liposomal Bupivacaine study arm for Hydrocodone use||||1.000
90890449|NCT02512575|181645642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Active Vs Placebo)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.929|1.08||||||||1.08|0.929|
91056345|NCT00911807|181994005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.08||||0.3434||95.0|-3.324|1.163||No adjustment for multiple testing was needed and all tests were done with retention of the full two-sided alpha-level of 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Comparisons between all pair of means were performed with two-sample t-tests within the ANCOVA model.||Multiple testing of individual null hypotheses that control for the overall significance level alpha = 0.05 were performed by using the 'closed testing procedure'.||1.163|-3.324|0.3434
91056346|NCT00911807|181994005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45||||0.6962||95.0|-2.719|1.819||No adjustment for multiple testing was needed and all tests were done with retention of the full two-sided alpha-level of 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Comparisons between all pair of means were performed with two-sample t-tests within the ANCOVA model.||Multiple testing of individual null hypotheses that control for the overall significance level alpha = 0.05 were performed by using the 'closed testing procedure'.||1.819|-2.719|0.6962
91056347|NCT01997229|181994059|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.7||||0.0698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.33|0.96|||ANCOVA|||||0.96|-24.33|0.0698
91056348|NCT04568031|181994065|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
91056349|NCT04568031|181994065|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
91056350|NCT04568031|181994070|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
91056351|NCT04568031|181994070|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
91056352|NCT04568031|181994073|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
91056353|NCT04568031|181994073|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
91056354|NCT02304458|181994077|OTHER|Maximum Tolerate Dose Level was determined by the rolling-6 design.|Maximum Tolerate Dose Level|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Maximum Tolerate Dose Level is 3 mg/kg Nivolumab|||||
91056355|NCT04874636|181994090|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.75|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.75|-0.59|
91056356|NCT04874636|181994091|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|2.0|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||2.00|-1.02|
91056357|NCT04874636|181994092|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.55|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.55|-0.27|
90816424|NCT03907033|181511665|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Standard Bupivacaine study arm compared to Liposomal Bupivacaine study arm for Oxycodone use||||0.010
90816425|NCT03907033|181511666|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.248|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Standard Bupivacaine study arm compared to Liposomal Bupivacaine study arm for Ibuprofen use||||0.248
90816426|NCT03907033|181511666|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Standard Bupivacaine study arm compared to Liposomal Bupivacaine study arm for Tylenol use||||1.000
90816427|NCT03907033|181511668|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.846|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Standard Bupivacaine study arm compared to Liposomal Bupivacaine study arm 24 hours post-surgery||||0.846
90816428|NCT03907033|181511668|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Standard Bupivacaine study arm compared to Liposomal Bupivacaine study arm 48 hours post-surgery||||0.490
90816429|NCT03907033|181511668|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.564|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Standard Bupivacaine study arm compared to Liposomal Bupivacaine study arm 72 hours post-surgery||||0.564
91056358|NCT04874636|181994093|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|1.02|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||1.02|-0.43|
91056359|NCT04874636|181994094|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|7.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|16.14|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||16.14|-0.32|
91056360|NCT04874636|181994095|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.3|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.30|-0.65|
90816430|NCT03907033|181511669|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.264|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Standard Bupivacaine study arm compared to Liposomal Bupivacaine arm at 24 hours post-surgery||||0.264
90816431|NCT03907033|181511669|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Standard Bupivacaine study arm compared to Liposomal Bupivacaine arm at 48 hours post-surgery||||0.970
90816432|NCT03907033|181511669|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.536|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Standard Bupivacaine study arm compared to Liposomal Bupivacaine arm at 72 hours post-surgery||||0.536
90816433|NCT03907033|181511670|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.957|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Standard Bupivacaine study arm compared to Liposomal Bupivacaine study arm at 24 hours post-surgery||||0.957
90816434|NCT03907033|181511670|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.353|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Standard Bupivacaine study arm compared to Liposomal Bupivacaine study arm at 48 hours post-surgery||||0.353
90816435|NCT03907033|181511670|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.165|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Standard Bupivacaine study arm compared to Liposomal Bupivacaine study arm at 72 hours post-surgery||||0.165
91056361|NCT04874636|181994096|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-34.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-176.34|106.69|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||106.69|-176.34|
91056362|NCT04874636|181994097|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.09|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.09|-0.10|
91056363|NCT04188301|181994102|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.38||Participant level random effects were included in the model to adjust for multiple worms/person. Adjusted P values were model-adjusted for repeated measurements per person.|Regression, Logistic|Mixed-effects logistic regression model where study participant was included as a random effect to adjust for multiple worms per person.||IA vs IDA for living female O. volvulus worms in nodules after treatment.||2.38|0.84|0.192
90816436|NCT03907033|181511672|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.802|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Standard Bupivacaine study arm compared to Liposomal Bupivacaine study arm at 72 hours post-surgery||||0.802
90816437|NCT03907033|181511672|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.656|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Standard Bupivacaine study arm compared to Liposomal Bupivacaine study arm at 7-10 days post-surgery||||0.656
90816438|NCT02020408|181511692|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The p value was calculated and adjusted for multiple comparisons (Bonferroni).|ANOVA|||||||> 0.05
90816439|NCT02020408|181511693|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The p value was calculated and adjusted for multiple comparisons (Bonferroni).|General Linear Model|||A General Linear Model using log(\[11C\]raclopride BPND) after amphetamine administration as dependent variable and Diagnostic Group as independent variable was used. Baseline (before amphetamine administration) \[11C\]raclopride BPND was used as covariate.||||<0.05
90890450|NCT02512575|181645642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Active Vs Placebo)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.987|1.14||||||||1.14|0.987|
91056364|NCT04188301|181994102|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.29||Participant level random effects were included in the model to adjust for multiple worms/person. Adjusted P values were model-adjusted for repeated measurements per person.|Regression, Logistic|Mixed-effects logistic regression model where study participant was included as a random effect to adjust for multiple worms per person.||IA vs IDA3 for living female O. volvulus worms in nodules after treatment.||2.29|0.92|0.107
90816440|NCT02100475|181511726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|0.46|||ANCOVA|||The response and change from baseline in the response after 26 weeks of treatment was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) method with treatment and baseline IDegLira dose strata as fixed factors and baseline response as a covariate. Missing data were imputed using LOCF.||0.46|-1.05|0.427
90816441|NCT01769196|181511736|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was that there is no difference in PFS between simtuzumab and simtuzumab placebo. The alternative hypothesis was that there is a difference. These hypotheses were evaluated using stratified log-rank test, adjusted for screening post-bronchodilator FVC % predicted, sLOXL2 level categories and concomitant use of pirfenidone or nintedanib (P/N) at time of screening.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.45|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated from Cox regression model adjusted for treatment and stratified for screening post-bronchodilator FVC % predicted, sLOXL2 level categories, and concomitant pirfenidone/nintedanib use at time of screening.|||1.45|0.88|0.329
90816442|NCT01769196|181511737|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was that there is no difference in PFS between simtuzumab and simtuzumab placebo in participants with sLOXL2 ≥ 50th percentile. The alternative hypothesis was that there is a difference. These hypotheses were evaluated using stratified log-rank test, adjusted for screening post-bronchodilator FVC % predicted and concomitant use of pirfenidone or nintedanib (P/N) at time of screening.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.43|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated from Cox regression model adjusted for treatment and stratified for screening post-bronchodilator FVC % predicted and concomitant pirfenidone/nintedanib use at time of screening.|||1.43|0.74|0.851
90816443|NCT01769196|181511738|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was that there is no difference in PFS between simtuzumab and simtuzumab placebo in participants with sLOXL2 ≥ 75th percentile. The alternative hypothesis was that there is a difference. These hypotheses were evaluated using stratified log-rank test, adjusted for screening post-bronchodilator FVC % predicted and concomitant use of pirfenidone or nintedanib (P/N) at time of screening.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.0|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated from Cox regression model adjusted for treatment and stratified for screening post-bronchodilator FVC % predicted and concomitant pirfenidone/nintedanib use at time of screening.|||2.00|0.72|0.475
90816444|NCT01769196|181511739|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|2.37|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated from Cox regression model adjusted for treatment and stratified for screening post-bronchodilator FVC % predicted, sLOXL2 level categories, and concomitant pirfenidone/nintedanib use at time of screening.|||2.37|0.61|0.602
90816445|NCT01769196|181511740|OTHER|The difference in OS between the treatment groups was assessed using the stratified log-rank test, adjusted for screening post-bronchodilator FVC % predicted and concomitant use of pirfenidone or nintedanib (P/N) at time of screening.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|2.28|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated from Cox regression model adjusted for treatment and stratified for screening post-bronchodilator FVC % predicted and concomitant pirfenidone/nintedanib use at time of screening.|||2.28|0.43|0.988
90816446|NCT01769196|181511741|OTHER|The difference in OS between the treatment groups was assessed using the stratified log-rank test, adjusted for screening post-bronchodilator FVC % predicted and concomitant use of pirfenidone or nintedanib (P/N) at time of screening.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.99|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated from Cox regression model adjusted for treatment and stratified for screening post-bronchodilator FVC % predicted and concomitant pirfenidone/nintedanib use at time of screening.|||2.99|0.30|0.925
90816447|NCT00321464|181511761|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|A synthesis method was used for the non-inferiority test for the hypothesis that denosumab preserves at least 50% of the effect of zoledronic acid vs. placebo.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.71|0.95|||Regression, Cox||Stratified by the randomization stratification factors (previous skeletal-related event, prior oral bisphosphonate use, current chemotherapy, and location in Japan).|||0.95|0.71|<0.0001
90816448|NCT00321464|181511762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.01||95.0|0.71|0.95||P-value was adjusted for multiplicity according to a hierarchical testing strategy and Hochberg procedure|Regression, Cox||Stratified by the randomization stratification factors (previous skeletal-related event, prior oral bisphosphonate use, current chemotherapy, and location in Japan).|||0.95|0.71|0.010
91056365|NCT04188301|181994102|SUPERIORITY|IA vs IDA treatment groups for living female O. volvulus worms in nodules after treatment.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|2.15||Participant level random effects were included in the model to adjust for multiple worms/person. Adjusted P values were model-adjusted for repeated measurements per person.|Regression, Logistic|Mixed-effects logistic regression model where study participant was included as a random effect to adjust for multiple worms per person.||||2.15|0.97|0.068
91056366|NCT04188301|181994102|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.79||Participant level random effects were included in the model to adjust for multiple worms/person. Adjusted P values were model-adjusted for repeated measurements per person.|Regression, Logistic|Mixed-effects logistic regression model where study participant was included as a random effect to adjust for multiple worms per person.||IDA vs IDA3 for living female O. volvulus worms in nodules after treatment.||1.79|0.59|0.918
91056367|NCT04188301|181994105|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.38||Participant level random effects were included in the model to adjust for multiple worms/person. Adjusted P values were model-adjusted for repeated measurements per person.|Regression, Logistic|Mixed-effects logistic regression model where study participant was included as a random effect to adjust for multiple worms per person.||IA vs IDA for living female O. volvulus worms in nodules after treatment.||2.38|0.84|0.192
91056368|NCT04188301|181994105|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.29||Participant level random effects were included in the model to adjust for multiple worms/person. Adjusted P values were model-adjusted for repeated measurements per person.|Regression, Logistic|Mixed-effects logistic regression model where study participant was included as a random effect to adjust for multiple worms per person.||IA vs IDA3 for living female O. volvulus worms in nodules after treatment.||2.29|0.92|0.107
91078344|NCT00424021|182042211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|23.69|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|4.6||||||The small sample size, nonrandomized dose group assignments, and the potential for dose adjustments precluded meaningful comparisons between the dose groups. Therefore, efficacy results are only presented for the combined ambrisentan group.||4.6|-8.4|
90816449|NCT00321464|181511763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate ratio|0.77||||0.001||95.0|0.66|0.89||P-value was adjusted for multiplicity according to a hierarchical testing strategy and Hochberg procedure|Anderson-Gill model||Stratified by the randomization stratification factors (previous skeletal-related event, prior oral bisphosphonate use, current chemotherapy, and location in Japan).|||0.89|0.66|0.001
90816450|NCT02100969|181511794|SUPERIORITY||"proportion of successes"|0.864||||0.0179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.0||No adjustment is required as we are not doing multiple comparisons for the primary outcome analyses.|One sample Z test of proportions||One sample Z test of proportions is used. Method of handling missing data (as per protocol) is Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF). Only 2 participants had missing values and in our case the LOCF results reflect a 'best-case' scenario.|"Sample size/power calculations are mentioned in the study protocol.~The study hypotheses are as follows:~H0: Proportion of patients whose QMG scores are increased by no more than 3 points at the end of the SCIg treatment phase ≤ 0.65 HA: Proportion of patients whose QMG scores are increased by no more than 3 points at the end of the SCIg treatment phase \> 0.65"||1.000|0.720|0.0179
90816451|NCT02100969|181511795|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.113|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank for paired data||The value of the signed rank test statistic is 44.50.|||||0.113
90816452|NCT02100969|181511796|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|6.0||||0.612|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank for paired data|||||||0.612
90816453|NCT02100969|181511797|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|2.0||||0.047|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank for paired data||The value of the signed-rank test statistic is 53.|||||0.047
90816454|NCT02100969|181511798|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|5.6||||0.901|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank for paired data|||||||0.901
90816455|NCT02100969|181511799|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|4.2||||0.51|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank for paired data|||||||0.510
90816456|NCT02100969|181511800|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|8.3||||0.289|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank for paired data|||||||0.289
90816457|NCT02100969|181511801|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|715.0||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank for paired data|||||||0.0028
90816458|NCT00528801|181511808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.07||0.008||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for gender, age, and education.|Cases are lower than controls.|Null hypothesis is no difference between cases and controls in the WAIS-III Perormance IQ (PIQ) Index. A linear model controlling for gender, age, and education was used to compare controls versus cases using an F statistic. Based on sample-size calculations, 120 patients and 36 controls were needed to have 80% power to detect an 8-point difference on the WAIS-III PIQ Index.||||0.008
90816459|NCT00528801|181511809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.11||||0.048||95.0|0.026|0.199|||Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis is no difference between cases and controls in the proportion of subjects with lacunae. This was tested using a Fisher's Exact Test.||.199|.026|0.048
90816460|NCT02207491|181511811|NON_INFERIORITY|Clinical noninferiority was to be concluded if the upper limit of the 95% CIs around the difference (AR-13324 - timolol) was within 1.5 mmHg at all time points and was within 1.0 mmHg at a majority of the time points.|||||<|0.0001||||||Calculated p-value|ANCOVA|Statistical analysis applies at all 3 timepoints on Day 15, Day 43, and Day 90||Assuming zero difference between AR-13324 and timolol, a 2-tailed alpha of 0.05 at each of 9 time points, a common SD of 3.0 mmHg, and a correlation between time points of 0.60 or less, 170 PP subjects per arm were necessary to have 90% power to show clinical noninferiority of AR-13324 to timolol in mean IOP.||||<0.0001
90816461|NCT04468074|181511926|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0||||0.014|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.014
90816462|NCT04468074|181511927|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.79||||0.0159|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0159
90816463|NCT04468074|181511928|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-3.85||||0.0066|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0066
90816464|NCT00343382|181511982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1675|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.1675
90816465|NCT00343382|181511982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5974|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.5974
90816466|NCT00343382|181511983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison of Rigors among arms.||||0.002
90816467|NCT00343382|181511983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison of Urinary Frequency among arms||||0.006
90816468|NCT00343382|181511983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison of nausea among arms||||0.030
90816469|NCT00343382|181511983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.062|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison of sweating among arms||||0.062
90816470|NCT03945019|181511986|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Previous biologic agent and/or JAK inhibitors exposure, Use of oral corticosteroids treatment at Week 0, Clinical remission at Week 10.||||||<0.0001
90816471|NCT03945019|181511987|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Previous biologic agent and/or JAK inhibitors exposure, Use of oral corticosteroids treatment at Week 0, Clinical remission at Week 10.||||||<0.0001
91056369|NCT04188301|181994105|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|2.15||Participant level random effects were included in the model to adjust for multiple worms/person. Adjusted P values were model-adjusted for repeated measurements per person.|Regression, Logistic|Mixed-effects logistic regression model where study participant was included as a random effect to adjust for multiple worms per person.||IA vs IDA groups for living female O. volvulus worms in nodules after treatment.||2.15|0.97|0.068
91078345|NCT03313310|182042241|OTHER|A one-sample non-parametric test for change between baseline and 8-month follow-up was conducted.||||||0.98||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.10. This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank|||||||0.98
90816472|NCT02337725|181512003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-6.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.53|-4.25|||ANCOVA||Estimated Value was reported for the least squares mean difference between TVP-1012 1mg and Placebo (TVP-1012 1mg - Placebo).|||-4.250|-8.530|<0.0001
90890451|NCT02512575|181645642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Active Vs Placebo)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.983|1.13||||||||1.13|0.983|
90890452|NCT02512575|181645642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Active Vs Placebo)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.995|1.15||||||||1.15|0.995|
90890453|NCT02512575|181645642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Active Vs Placebo)|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.09|1.25||||||||1.25|1.09|
90890454|NCT02512575|181645642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Active Vs Placebo)|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.07|1.24||||||||1.24|1.07|
90816473|NCT01571453|181512012|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Vortioxetine was declared to be non-inferior to venlafaxine if the upper limit of the calculated two-sided 95% confidence interval for the treatment difference at Week 8 between vortioxetine and venlafaxine was less than +2.5 MADRS units versus venlafaxine.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93||0.199||95.0|-3.03|0.63||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|ANCOVA|LOCF was used.||The sample size calculation was based on a non-inferiority comparison of the treatment groups in the change from baseline to Week 8 in MADRS total score using a two-sided 95% CI against a margin of +2.5 points. Assuming a standard deviation of 9.0 points and an expected true mean difference between treatments of 0 points, a total of 410 patients (205 per treatment group) were needed to provide a power of 80% for correctly concluding non-inferiority.||0.63|-3.03|0.199
90816474|NCT01571453|181512013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.09||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|ANCOVA|LOCF was used.||The same ANCOVA methodology as for the primary endpoint was used.||0.09|-0.39|0.228
90816475|NCT01571453|181512014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.06||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|ANCOVA|LOCF was used.||The same ANCOVA methodology as for the primary endpoint was used.||0.06|-0.35|0.174
90816476|NCT01571453|181512015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|0.45||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|ANCOVA|LOCF was used.||The same ANCOVA methodology as for the primary endpoint was used.||0.45|-2.09|0.207
90816477|NCT01571453|181512016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.272||95.0|0.84|1.86||Wald's Test. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.86|0.84|0.272
90816478|NCT01571453|181512017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.731||95.0|0.73|1.58||Wald's Test. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.58|0.73|0.731
90816479|NCT00500760|181512019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Kaplan-Meier estimate|-0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.09|||||The difference between the treatment groups is calculated as panitumumab plus chemoradiation minus chemoradiotherapy alone.|||0.09|-0.23|
90816480|NCT00500760|181512020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Kaplan-Meier estimate|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.12|||||The difference between the treatment groups is calculated as panitumumab plus chemoradiation minus chemoradiotherapy alone.|Difference between treatment groups at 6 months||0.12|-0.18|
90816481|NCT00500760|181512020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Kaplan-Meier estimate|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|0.12|||||The difference between the treatment groups is calculated as panitumumab plus chemoradiation minus chemoradiotherapy alone.|Difference between treatment groups at 12 months||0.12|-1.09|
90816482|NCT00500760|181512021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.328||||0.3106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.767|2.299|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio is presented as panitumumab plus chemoradiation:chemoradiotherapy alone.|||2.299|0.767|0.3106
90816483|NCT00500760|181512022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||0.6069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.675|1.961|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio is presented as panitumumab plus chemoradiation:chemoradiotherapy alone.|||1.961|0.675|0.6069
90816484|NCT00500760|181512023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.628||||0.1223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.877|3.019|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio is presented as panitumumab plus chemoradiation:chemoradiotherapy alone.|||3.019|0.877|0.1223
90816485|NCT00500760|181512024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.535||||0.1737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.217|1.262|||Regression, Logistic||The odds ratio is defined as the odds of having an overall response in the panitumumab plus chemoradiation arm relative to the odds in the chemoradiotherapy alone arm.|||1.262|0.217|0.1737
90816486|NCT00500760|181512024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in rate|-10.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.56|4.14|||||Difference is presented as the rate in panitumumab plus chemoradiation arm minus the rate in chemoradiotherapy alone arm.|||4.14|-24.56|
90816487|NCT00500760|181512025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.087||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.448|2.712|||Regression, Logistic||The odds ratio is defined as the odds of having a complete response in the panitumumab plus chemoradiation arm relative to the odds in the chemoradiotherapy alone arm.|||2.712|0.448|1.0000
90816488|NCT00500760|181512025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in rate|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.23|14.71|||||Difference is presented as the rate in panitumumab plus chemoradiation arm minus the rate in chemoradiotherapy alone arm.|||14.71|-13.23|
90816489|NCT00129961|181512026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022||||||Poisson regression was used to model NMSC counts using the years in study as an offset. The generalized estimated equations (GEE) approach was used to estimate parameters and compare treatment differences.|Poisson regression|Adjusted by baseline strata; Poisson model = strata + treatment.||||||0.022
90816490|NCT00129961|181512027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047|||||||Regression, Cox|Stratified by baseline lesions||||||0.047
90816491|NCT00129961|181512028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline lesion strata||||||0.015
90816492|NCT00129961|181512029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.799||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.799
90816493|NCT00129961|181512030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline lesion strata||SCC Well differentiated||||0.014
90816494|NCT00129961|181512030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.491||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline lesion strata||SCC Moderately differentiated||||0.491
90816495|NCT00129961|181512030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.905||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline lesion strata||SCC Poorly differentiated||||0.905
91078346|NCT03313310|182042241|OTHER|A one-sample non-parametric test for change between baseline and 3-month follow-up was conducted.||||||0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.10. This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank|||||||0.05
90816496|NCT00129961|181512030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline lesion strata||SCC Invasive||||0.018
90816497|NCT00129961|181512030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline lesion strata||SCC In Situ||||0.012
90816498|NCT00129961|181512030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.463||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline lesion strata||SCC Invasive with Perineural Invasion||||0.463
90816499|NCT00129961|181512030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline lesion strata||SCC Invasive without Perineural Invasion||||0.004
90816500|NCT00129961|181512030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.094||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline lesion strata||BCC Superficial||||0.094
90816501|NCT00129961|181512030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline lesion strata||BCC Nodular||||0.720
90816502|NCT00129961|181512030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.227||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline lesion strata||BCC Infiltrative||||0.227
90816503|NCT00129961|181512031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.748||95.0|||||Poisson regression|||||||0.748
90816504|NCT00129961|181512032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.425||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline lesion strata||||||0.425
90816505|NCT00129961|181512035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.604||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.604
90816506|NCT00129961|181512036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.672||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.672
90816507|NCT00129961|181512037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.999||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.999
90816508|NCT00129961|181512038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.588||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.588
90816509|NCT00129961|181512039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.999||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.999
91056370|NCT04188301|181994105|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.79||Participant level random effects were included in the model to adjust for multiple worms/person. Adjusted P values were model-adjusted for repeated measurements per person.|Regression, Logistic|Mixed-effects logistic regression model where study participant was included as a random effect to adjust for multiple worms per person.||IDA vs IDA3 for living female O. volvulus worms in nodules after treatment.||1.79|0.59|0.918
90816510|NCT00129961|181512040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.030
90816511|NCT01264770|181512041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.56||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.23|0.9|||ANCOVA|Includes terms for baseline as a continuous covariate and treatment, DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country as factors.||Change from baseline at Week 6. Non-responder imputation applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.90|0.23|0.006
91056371|NCT04188301|181994108|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.66||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|3.21||Adjusted p values were model-adjusted for repeated measurements per person. Participant level random effects were included in the model to adjust for multiple worms/person.|Regression, Logistic|Mixed-effects logistic regression model where study participant was included as a random effect to adjust for multiple worms per person.||IA vs IDA in fertile female O. volvulus worms in nodules after treatment.||3.21|0.85|0.134
91056372|NCT04188301|181994108|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.23||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|4.44||Participant level random effects were included in the model to adjust for multiple worms/person. Adjusted P values were model-adjusted for repeated measurements per person.|Regression, Logistic|Mixed-effects logistic regression model where study participant was included as a random effect to adjust for multiple worms per person.||IA vs IDA3 for fertile female O. volvulus worms in nodules after treatment.||4.44|1.12|0.023
90816512|NCT01264770|181512041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.49||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.14|0.84|||ANCOVA|Includes terms for baseline as a continuous covariate and treatment, DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country as factors.||Change from baseline at Week 6. Non-responder imputation applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.84|0.14|0.022
90816513|NCT01264770|181512041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.22||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.12|0.56|||ANCOVA|Includes terms for baseline as a continuous covariate and treatment, DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country as factors.||Change from baseline at Week 6. Non-responder imputation applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.56|-0.12|0.280
90816514|NCT01264770|181512042|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For the comparison with adalimumab a non-inferiority margin of -0.6 in the mean change from baseline in DAS28-CRP at Week 24 was defined. The lower 80% confidence interval for treatment difference was below this value so non-inferiority could not be concluded. A p-value is also provided for a 2-sided test of superiority.|Treatment difference|-0.72||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.04|-0.4|||ANCOVA|Includes terms for baseline as a continuous covariate and treatment, DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country as factors.||Change from baseline at Week 24. Non-responder imputation applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||-0.40|-1.04|0.005
90816515|NCT01264770|181512042|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For the comparison with adalimumab a non-inferiority margin of -0.6 in the mean change from baseline in DAS28-CRP at Week 24 was defined. The lower 80% confidence interval for treatment difference was below this value so non-inferiority could not be concluded. A p-value is also provided for a 2-sided test of superiority.|Treatment difference|-0.61||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.94|-0.27|||ANCOVA|Includes terms for baseline as a continuous covariate and treatment, DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country as factors.||Change from baseline at Week 24. Non-responder imputation applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||-0.27|-0.94|0.020
90816516|NCT01264770|181512042|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For the comparison with adalimumab a non-inferiority margin of -0.6 in the mean change from baseline in DAS28-CRP at Week 24 was defined. The lower 80% confidence interval for treatment difference was below this value so non-inferiority could not be concluded. A p-value is also provided for a 2-sided test of superiority.|Treatment difference|-0.72||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.04|-0.4|||ANCOVA|Includes terms for baseline as a continuous covariate and treatment, DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country as factors.||Change from baseline at Week 24. Non-responder imputation applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||-0.40|-1.04|0.004
90816517|NCT01264770|181512043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.05||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.59|5.86|||Proportional odds model||An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||5.86|1.59|0.005
90890455|NCT02512575|181645642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Active Vs Placebo)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.11|1.29||||||||1.29|1.11|
90890456|NCT02512575|181645642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Active Vs Placebo)|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.11|1.27||||||||1.27|1.11|
90816518|NCT01264770|181512043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.1|8.05|||Proportional odds model||An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||8.05|2.10|<0.001
90816519|NCT01264770|181512043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.335|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.76|2.83|||Proportional odds model||An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||2.83|0.76|0.335
90816520|NCT01264770|181512044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.37||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.2|0.68|||Proportional odds model||An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.68|0.20|0.007
90816521|NCT01264770|181512044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.48||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.26|0.89|||Proportional odds model||An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.89|0.26|0.051
90816522|NCT01264770|181512044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.36||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.2|0.65|||Proportional odds model||An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.65|0.20|0.004
90816523|NCT01264770|181512045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|0.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.17|0.4||Week 6|Mantel Haenszel|p-values are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.|90% confidence intervals are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.40|0.17|<0.001
90816524|NCT01264770|181512045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.18|0.43||Week 6|Mantel Haenszel|p-values are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.|90% confidence intervals are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.43|0.18|<0.001
90816525|NCT01264770|181512045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|0.19||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.07|0.31||Week 6|Mantel Haenszel|p-values are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.|90% confidence intervals are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.31|0.07|0.007
90816526|NCT01264770|181512045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|-0.16||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|-0.03||Week 24|Mantel Haenszel|p-values are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.|90% confidence intervals are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||-0.03|-0.30|0.049
90816527|NCT01264770|181512045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|-0.02||||0.803|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.16|0.12||Week 24|Mantel Haenszel|p-values are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.|90% confidence intervals are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.12|-0.16|0.803
90816528|NCT01264770|181512045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|-0.24||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.37|-0.1||Week 24|Mantel Haenszel|p-values are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.|90% confidence intervals are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||-0.10|-0.37|0.003
90816529|NCT01264770|181512046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|0.09||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.01|0.18||Week 6|Mantel Haenszel|p-values are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.|90% confidence intervals are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.18|0.01|0.059
91056373|NCT04188301|181994108|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|2.85||Participant level random effects were included in the model to adjust for multiple worms/person. Adjusted P values were model-adjusted for repeated measurements per person.|Regression, Logistic|Mixed-effects logistic regression model where study participant was included as a random effect to adjust for multiple worms per person.||IDA1 vs IDA3 for fertile female O. volvulus worms in nodules after treatment.||2.85|.64|0.430
91078347|NCT03313310|182042242|OTHER|A one-sample non-parametric test for change between baseline and 8-month follow-up was conducted.||||||0.39||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.10. This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank|||||||0.39
90816530|NCT01264770|181512046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|0.09||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.01|0.17||Week 6|Mantel Haenszel|p-values are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.|90% confidence intervals are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.17|0.01|0.071
90816531|NCT01264770|181512046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|0.01||||0.758|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.05|0.07||Week 6|Mantel Haenszel|p-values are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.|90% confidence intervals are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.07|-0.05|0.758
90816532|NCT01264770|181512046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|-0.12||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.24|0.0||Week 24|Mantel Haenszel|p-values are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.|90% confidence intervals are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.00|-0.24|0.114
90816533|NCT01264770|181512046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|-0.14||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.26|-0.01||Week 24|Mantel Haenszel|p-values are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.|90% confidence intervals are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||-0.01|-0.26|0.078
90816534|NCT01264770|181512046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|-0.21||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.32|-0.09||Week 24|Mantel Haenszel|p-values are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.|90% confidence intervals are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||-0.09|-0.32|0.003
90816535|NCT01264770|181512047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|-0.02||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.07|0.03||Week 6|Mantel Haenszel|p-values are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.|90% confidence intervals are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.03|-0.07|0.460
90816536|NCT01264770|181512047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|0.0||||0.903|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.05|0.06||Week 6|Mantel Haenszel|p-values are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.|90% confidence intervals are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.06|-0.05|0.903
90816537|NCT01264770|181512047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|-0.03||||0.172|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.08|0.01||Week 6|Mantel Haenszel|p-values are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.|90% confidence intervals are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.01|-0.08|0.172
90816538|NCT01264770|181512047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|-0.11||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.21|-0.01||Week 24|Mantel Haenszel|p-values are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.|90% confidence intervals are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||-0.01|-0.21|0.082
90816539|NCT01264770|181512047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|-0.11||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.21|0.0||Week 24|Mantel Haenszel|p-values are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.|90% confidence intervals are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||-0.00|-0.21|0.092
90816540|NCT01264770|181512047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|-0.17||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.27|-0.08||Week 24|Mantel Haenszel|p-values are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.|90% confidence intervals are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||-0.08|-0.27|0.002
90890457|NCT02512575|181645643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Active Vs Placebo)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.872|1.26||||||||1.26|0.872|
90816541|NCT01264770|181512048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|23.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.57|40.0|||Van Elteren|Estimated using the Van Elteren test stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||40.00|9.57|<0.001
90816542|NCT01264770|181512048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|22.97||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.84|38.34|||Van Elteren|Estimated using the Van Elteren test stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||38.34|7.84|0.006
90816543|NCT01264770|181512048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|5.72||||0.234|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.2|21.68|||Van Elteren|Estimated using the Van Elteren test stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||21.68|-3.20|0.234
90816544|NCT01264770|181512049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-13.72||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-25.01|0.0|||Van Elteren|Estimated using the Van Elteren test stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.00|-25.01|0.030
90816545|NCT01264770|181512049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-9.49||||0.207|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-25.0|6.96|||Van Elteren|Estimated using the Van Elteren test stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||6.96|-25.00|0.207
90816546|NCT01264770|181512049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-19.53||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-30.01|-6.25|||Van Elteren|Estimated using the Van Elteren test stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||-6.25|-30.01|0.002
90816547|NCT01264770|181512050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.24||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.09|0.38|||ANCOVA|Including terms for baseline as a continuous covariate \& treatment, DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) \& pooled country as factors.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.38|0.09|0.007
90816548|NCT01264770|181512050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.22||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.07|0.37|||ANCOVA|Including terms for baseline as a continuous covariate \& treatment, DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) \& pooled country as factors.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.37|0.07|0.016
90816549|NCT01264770|181512050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.14||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.29|||ANCOVA|Includes terms for baseline as a continuous covariate \& treatment, DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) \& pooled country as factors.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.29|0.00|0.094
90816550|NCT01264770|181512051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.2||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.36|-0.04|||ANCOVA|Including terms for baseline as a continuous covariate \& treatment, DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) \& pooled country as factors.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||-0.04|-0.36|0.043
90816551|NCT01264770|181512051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.14||||0.158|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.31|0.02|||ANCOVA|Including terms for baseline as a continuous covariate \& treatment, DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) \& pooled country as factors.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.02|-0.31|0.158
90816552|NCT01264770|181512051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.32||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.47|-0.16|||ANCOVA|Includes terms for baseline as a continuous covariate \& treatment, DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) \& pooled country as factors.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||-0.16|-0.47|0.001
90816553|NCT01264770|181512052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-2.77||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.08|-0.45|||ANCOVA|Including terms for baseline as a continuous covariate \& treatment, DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) \& pooled country as factors.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||-0.45|-5.08|0.050
90816554|NCT01264770|181512052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-1.33||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.73|1.06|||ANCOVA|Including terms for baseline as a continuous covariate \& treatment, DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) \& pooled country as factors.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||1.06|-3.73|0.360
90816555|NCT01264770|181512052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-2.99||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.29|-0.7|||ANCOVA|Includes terms for baseline as a continuous covariate \& treatment, DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) \& pooled country as factors.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||-0.70|-5.29|0.032
90890458|NCT02512575|181645643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Active Vs Placebo)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.874|1.26||||||||1.26|0.874|
90890459|NCT02512575|181645643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Active Vs Placebo)|0.907|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.745|1.1||||||||1.10|0.745|
91056374|NCT04188301|181994108|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.91||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|3.34||Participant level random effects were included in the model to adjust for multiple worms/person. Adjusted P values were model-adjusted for repeated measurements per person.|Regression, Logistic|Mixed-effects logistic regression model where study participant was included as a random effect to adjust for multiple worms per person.||IA vs IDA treatment groups for fertile female O. volvulus worms in nodules after treatment.||3.34|1.09|0.023
91056375|NCT03564444|181994135|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|1.9||||||||1.9|-6.7|
91056376|NCT03246646|181994141|SUPERIORITY||Z test of proportions|0.66|||>|0.05|ONE_SIDED||||||Z test of independent proportions|||||||>.05
91056377|NCT02569112|181994142|SUPERIORITY|A significant improvement in skin laxity reduction is defined as a mean average increase in grade of 1 as per the GAIS.|||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Used Wilcoxon Matched-Pairs Signed-Ranks test||The null hypothesis was that the addition of the multipolar radiofrequency with varipulse technology treatment to the cryolipolysis treatment would not show visual improvement.||||<0.01
91056378|NCT00319982|181994143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted for age, sex, genotype, family relations, and baseline value. p\<0.05 considered statistically significant.|Generalized estimating equation|Generalized estimating equation approach accounting for an exchangeable correlation structure within families||Change in E' Velocity comparing baseline and final study visits||||0.75
91056379|NCT00319982|181994144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Adverse Events||||0.99
91056380|NCT00319982|181994145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.06|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted for age, sex, genotype, family relations, and baseline value. p\<0.05 considered statistically significant.|Generalized Estimating Equation|Generalized estimating equation approach accounting for an exchangeable correlation structure within families||||||>0.06
91056381|NCT00319982|181994146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted for age, sex, genotype, family relations, and baseline value|Generalized Estimating Equation|Generalized estimating equation approach accounting for an exchangeable correlation structure within families||Change in LV End-Diastolic Diameter z-score from baseline to final visit||||<0.001
91056382|NCT00319982|181994148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Percentage adherent to study medication||||0.08
91056383|NCT00319982|181994149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted for age, sex, genotype, family relations, and baseline value|Generalized estimating equation|Generalized estimating equation approach accounting for an exchangeable correlation structure within families||||||0.15
91056384|NCT00758680|181994151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference on Last Dosing Day|37.63||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.58|62.68|||Mixed Effect Model|||||62.68|12.58|0.015
91056385|NCT00758680|181994151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference on Last Dosing Day|92.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.56|117.04|||Mixed Effect Model|||||117.04|67.56|<0.001
91056386|NCT03480386|181994155|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0788|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Daily Light Physical Activity||||0.0788
91056387|NCT03480386|181994155|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0742|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Daily Moderate Physical Activity||||0.0742
91056388|NCT03480386|181994156|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0113|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0113
91056389|NCT03480386|181994157|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0021|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0021
91056390|NCT03480386|181994158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2216|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2216
91056391|NCT03480386|181994159|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4762|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4762
91056392|NCT03480386|181994160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0068|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0068
91056393|NCT03480386|181994161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1548|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1548
91056394|NCT03589768|181994178|OTHER|N/A, Only risk difference estimated and 95% CI reported.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|10.3|||||Difference is calculated as the proportion in the BOOSTRIX group minus the proportion in the Td group.|||10.3|-11.9|
91056395|NCT03589768|181994179|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.62||||0.559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.25|15.5|||Fisher Exact||Difference is calculated as the proportion in the BOOSTRIX group minus the proportion in the Td group.|||15.5|-6.25|0.559
91056396|NCT03589768|181994180|OTHER|Only risk difference estimated and 95% CI reported.|Risk Difference (RD)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|9.8|||||||Difference is calculated as the proportion in the BOOSTRIX group minus the proportion in the Td group.|9.8|-9.3|
91056397|NCT03589768|181994181|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.06||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.82|15.9|||Fisher Exact||||Difference is calculated as the proportion in the BOOSTRIX group minus the proportion in the Td group.|15.9|-3.82|0.290
91056398|NCT03589768|181994183|OTHER|Only risk difference estimated and 95% CI reported.|Risk Difference (RD)|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|7.3|||||||Difference is calculated as the proportion in the BOOSTRIX group minus the proportion in the Td group.|7.3|-6.4|
91056399|NCT03589768|181994184|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|7.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.6|10.7|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for birth day timepoint|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|10.7|4.6|<0.0001
91056400|NCT03589768|181994184|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|4.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|7.3|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for Prior to receipt of first dose of DTwP (approximately 6 weeks of age) timepoint|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|7.3|3.2|<0.0001
91056401|NCT03589768|181994184|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|2.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|4.8|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for One month after receipt of first dose of DTwP (approximately 10 weeks of age) timepoint|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|4.8|1.8|<0.0001
91056402|NCT03589768|181994184|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.3||||0.0068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.7|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for One month after receipt of last dose of DTwP (approximately 18 weeks of age) time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|0.7|0.1|0.0068
91056403|NCT03589768|181994184|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.3||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.5|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares differences in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for 6 months of age time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|0.5|0.1|0.0003
90816556|NCT01264770|181512053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-1.02||||0.568|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.95|1.92|||ANCOVA|Including terms for baseline as a continuous covariate \& treatment, DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) \& pooled country as factors.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||1.92|-3.95|0.568
90816557|NCT01264770|181512053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-1.66||||0.368|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.69|1.38|||ANCOVA|Including terms for baseline as a continuous covariate \& treatment, DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) \& pooled country as factors.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||1.38|-4.69|0.368
90816558|NCT01264770|181512053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-2.48||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.38|0.43|||ANCOVA|Includes terms for baseline as a continuous covariate \& treatment, DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) \& pooled country as factors.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.43|-5.38|0.160
90816559|NCT04881747|181512094|EQUIVALENCE|Model: Log(PK) = Treatment + Sequence + Period + Participant(Sequence) + Random Error, where participant within sequence is fitted as a random effect.|Ratio of Geometric least squares mean|0.875|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.834|0.919||||||||0.919|0.834|
90816560|NCT04881747|181512094|EQUIVALENCE|Model: Log(PK) = Treatment + Sequence + Period + Participant(Sequence) + Random Error, where participant within sequence is fitted as a random effect.|Ratio of Geometric least squares mean|0.889|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.846|0.934||||||||0.934|0.846|
90816561|NCT04881747|181512095|EQUIVALENCE|Model: Log(PK) = Treatment + Sequence + Period + Participant(Sequence) + Random Error, where participant within sequence is fitted as a random effect.|Ratio of Geometric least squares mean|0.944|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.914|0.976||||||||0.976|0.914|
90816562|NCT04881747|181512095|EQUIVALENCE|Model: Log(PK) = Treatment + Sequence + Period + Participant(Sequence) + Random Error, where participant within sequence is fitted as a random effect.|Ratio of Geometric least squares mean|0.946|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.914|0.978||||||||0.978|0.914|
90816563|NCT04881747|181512096|EQUIVALENCE|Model: Log(PK) = Treatment + Sequence + Period + Participant(Sequence) + Random Error, where participant within sequence is fitted as a random effect.|Ratio of Geometric least squares mean|0.941|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|0.972||||||||0.972|0.910|
90816564|NCT04881747|181512096|EQUIVALENCE|Model: Log(PK) = Treatment + Sequence + Period + Participant(Sequence) + Random Error, where participant within sequence is fitted as a random effect.|Ratio of Geometric least squares mean|0.944|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.913|0.977||||||||0.977|0.913|
91056404|NCT03589768|181994185|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.9||||0.7102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.3|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for pre-vaccination time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|1.3|0.7|0.7102
90816565|NCT02138240|181512100|OTHER|Pre-post comparison|||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank sum|||||||<0.001
90816566|NCT02138240|181512103|OTHER|Pre-post comparison of baseline median weight to median weight at 6-month follow up||||||0.21|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank sum|||||||0.21
90816567|NCT02598128|181512120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The independent variables in the mixed model analysis included fixed effect factors for treatment (placebo or RELiZORB).||||||<0.001
90816568|NCT01378429|181512122|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|35 subjects per arm would have ≥90% power to demonstrate that the upper bound of a two-sided 95% confidence interval (equivalent to the upper bound of a one-sided 97.5% confidence interval) of the difference of placebo minus ciclesonide nasal aerosol would be less than 20% of the baseline value of 175 mcg•h/dL or a noninferiority limit of 35 mcg•h/dL assuming a SD of 40 and a one-sided α of 0.025. A total of 40 subjects will be randomly assigned to ensure 35 subjects complete the study per arm.|LS Mean Difference|7.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|22.6||\<0.025 for a one-sided test.|ANCOVA||Difference is calculated as Placebo - Ciclesonide.|35 subjects per arm would have ≥90% power to demonstrate that the upper bound of a two-sided 95% confidence interval (equivalent to the upper bound of a one-sided 97.5% confidence interval) of the difference of placebo minus ciclesonide nasal aerosol would be less than 20% of the baseline value of 175 mcg•h/dL or a noninferiority limit of 35 mcg•h/dL assuming a SD of 40 and a one-sided α of 0.025. A total of 40 subjects will be randomly assigned to ensure 35 subjects complete the study per arm.||22.6|-7.4|
90816569|NCT03002454|181512139|EQUIVALENCE|"Control: 99mTc MDP Injection:fission Investigation: 99mTc MDP Injection:neutron-bombardment~Anticipated sample size of 50 participants with sample size parameters of:~Alpha 0.05 Power 80% Kappa of significance 0.7 - 0.8 Prevalence of abnormal bone scans 30%~Actual study population of 4 participants with 4 out of 4 demonstrating gross abnormal biodistribution therefore the study was terminated and no statistical analysis was conducted."|||||||||||||||||No statistical analysis - insufficient study population|||
90816570|NCT01064687|181512140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|-0.88||P-value is adjusted for multiplicity based on a tree-gatekeeping strategy. To determine significance, p-value is compared to the family-wise 1-sided Type I error of 0.025. The confidence interval is not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Superiority analysis.||-0.88|-1.22|<0.001
90816571|NCT01064687|181512140|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A non-inferiority margin of 0.4% was used.|LS Mean Difference|-0.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.39||P-value is adjusted for multiplicity, based on tree-gatekeeping strategy. To determine significance, p-value is compared to the family-wise 1-sided Type I error of 0.025. The confidence interval is not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Non-inferiority analysis.||-0.39|-0.66|<0.0001
90816572|NCT01064687|181512140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.67||P-value is adjusted for multiplicity based on a tree-gatekeeping strategy. To determine significance, p-value is compared to the family-wise 1-sided Type I error of 0.025. The confidence interval is not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Superiority analysis.||-0.67|-1.01|<0.001
90816573|NCT01064687|181512140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.39||P-value is adjusted for multiplicity based on a tree-gatekeeping strategy. To determine significance, p-value is compared to the family-wise 1-sided Type I error of 0.025. The confidence interval is not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Superiority analysis.||-0.39|-0.66|<0.001
91056405|NCT03589768|181994185|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|8.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.2|12.0|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for one month after vaccination time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|12.0|6.2|<0.0001
91056406|NCT03589768|181994185|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|4.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|6.6|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for delivery time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|6.6|3.3|<0.0001
91056407|NCT03589768|181994185|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|3.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|5.2|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for 6 months after delivery time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|5.2|2.1|<0.0001
91056408|NCT03589768|181994186|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|1.1||||0.7039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.4|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for pre-vaccination time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|1.4|0.8|0.7039
91056409|NCT03589768|181994186|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|18.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.0|24.3|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for one month after vaccination time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|24.3|14.0|<0.0001
91056410|NCT03589768|181994186|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|10.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.1|13.7|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for delivery time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|13.7|8.1|<0.0001
91056411|NCT03589768|181994186|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|7.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|11.1|||t-test, 2 sided|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.||Statistical analysis for 6 months after delivery time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|11.1|5.0|<0.0001
91056412|NCT03589768|181994187|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|1.2||||0.2897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.8|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for pre-vaccination time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|1.8|0.8|0.2897
91056413|NCT03589768|181994187|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|54.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.6|82.4|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for one month after vaccination time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|82.4|35.6|<0.0001
90816574|NCT01064687|181512140|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A non-inferiority margin of 0.4% was used.|LS Mean Difference|-0.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.18||P-value is adjusted for multiplicity, based on tree-gatekeeping strategy. To determine significance, p-value is compared to the family-wise 1-sided Type I error of 0.025. The confidence interval is not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Non-inferiority analysis.||-0.18|-0.44|<0.001
91056414|NCT03589768|181994187|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|32.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.6|49.7|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for delivery time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|49.7|20.6|<0.0001
91056415|NCT03589768|181994187|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|18.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.4|34.2|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for 6 months after delivery time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|34.2|10.4|<0.0001
91056416|NCT03589768|181994188|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|1.0||||0.837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.5|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for pre-vaccination time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|1.5|0.6|0.8370
91056417|NCT03589768|181994188|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.8|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for one month after vaccination time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|0.8|0.5|<0.0001
91056418|NCT03589768|181994188|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.7||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.9|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for delivery time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|0.9|0.6|0.0050
91056419|NCT03589768|181994188|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.8||||0.0689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.0|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for 6 months after delivery time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|1.0|0.6|0.0689
91056420|NCT03589768|181994189|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|1.0||||0.8361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.6|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for pre-vaccination time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|1.6|0.7|0.8361
91056421|NCT03589768|181994189|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.9||||0.5136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.3|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for one month after vaccination time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|1.3|0.6|0.5136
91056422|NCT03589768|181994189|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.9||||0.4237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.2|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for delivery time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|1.2|0.6|0.4237
90816575|NCT01064687|181512140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.18||P-value is adjusted for multiplicity based on a tree-gatekeeping strategy. To determine significance, p-value is compared to the family-wise 1-sided Type I error of 0.025. The confidence interval is not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Superiority analysis.||-0.18|-0.44|<0.001
91056423|NCT03589768|181994189|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.7||||0.1607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.2|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for 6 months after delivery time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|1.2|0.4|0.1607
91056424|NCT03589768|181994190|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|13.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.2|18.3|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for birth time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|18.3|10.2|<0.0001
91056425|NCT03589768|181994190|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|10.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|14.5|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for prior to receipt of first dose of DTwP (approximately 6 weeks of age)|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|14.5|8.0|<0.0001
91056426|NCT03589768|181994190|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|10.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|15.2|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio. Test compares difference in log values.|Statistical analysis for one month after receipt of first dose of DTwP (approximately 10 weeks of age) time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|15.2|6.9|<0.0001
91056427|NCT03589768|181994190|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|2.1||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|3.0|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for one month after receipt of last dose of DTwP (approximately 18 weeks of age) time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|3.0|1.4|0.0002
91056428|NCT03589768|181994190|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|1.2||||0.4828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.7|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for 6 months of age time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|1.7|0.8|0.4828
91056429|NCT03589768|181994191|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|46.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.6|81.0|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for birth time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|81.0|26.6|<0.0001
91056430|NCT03589768|181994191|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|39.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.0|65.0|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for prior to receipt of first dose of DTwP (approximately 6 weeks of age)|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|65.0|24.0|<0.0001
91056431|NCT03589768|181994191|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|10.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.1|17.9|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for one month after receipt of first dose of DTwP (approximately 10 weeks of age) time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|17.9|6.1|<0.0001
91056432|NCT03589768|181994191|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.6||||0.0746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.1|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for one month after receipt of last dose of DTwP (approximately 18 weeks of age) time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|1.1|0.3|0.0746
91056433|NCT03589768|181994191|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.7||||0.1532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.1|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for 6 months of age time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|1.1|0.5|0.1532
91056434|NCT03589768|181994192|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.7||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.9|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for birth time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|0.9|0.6|0.0022
91056435|NCT03589768|181994192|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.7||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.8|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for prior to receipt of first dose of DTwP (approximately 6 weeks of age)|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|0.8|0.5|0.0008
91056436|NCT03589768|181994192|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.7||||0.0261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.0|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for one month after receipt of first dose of DTwP (approximately 10 weeks of age) time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|1.0|0.5|0.0261
91056437|NCT03589768|181994192|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.6||||0.0532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.0|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for one month after receipt of last dose of DTwP (approximately 18 weeks of age) time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|1.0|0.3|0.0532
91056438|NCT03589768|181994192|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.9||||0.5587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.4|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for 6 months of age time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|1.4|0.5|0.5587
91056439|NCT03589768|181994193|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.9||||0.5056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.3|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for birth time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|1.3|0.6|0.5056
91056440|NCT03589768|181994193|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|1.0||||0.9466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.5|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for prior to receipt of first dose of DTwP (approximately 6 weeks of age)|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|1.5|0.7|0.9466
90890460|NCT02512575|181645643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Active Vs Placebo)|0.914|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.762|1.1||||||||1.10|0.762|
90890461|NCT02512575|181645643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Active Vs Placebo)|0.876|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.728|1.05||||||||1.05|0.728|
90816576|NCT01064687|181512141|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A non-inferiority margin of 0.4% was used.|LS Mean Difference|-0.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.39||P-value is adjusted for multiplicity, based on tree-gatekeeping strategy. To determine significance, p-value is compared to the family-wise 1-sided Type I error of 0.025. The confidence interval is not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Non-inferiority analysis.||-0.39|-0.73|<0.001
90816577|NCT01064687|181512141|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A non-inferiority margin of 0.4% was used.|LS Mean Difference|-0.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.11||P-value is adjusted for multiplicity, based on tree-gatekeeping strategy. To determine significance, p-value is compared to the family-wise 1-sided Type I error of 0.025. The confidence interval is not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Non-inferiority analysis.||-0.11|-0.44|<0.001
90816578|NCT01064687|181512141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.39||P-value is adjusted for multiplicity based on a tree-gatekeeping strategy. To determine significance, p-value is compared to the family-wise 1-sided Type I error of 0.025. The confidence interval is not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Superiority analysis.||-0.39|-0.73|<0.001
90816579|NCT01064687|181512141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.11||P-value is adjusted for multiplicity, based on tree-gatekeeping strategy. To determine significance, p-value is compared to the family-wise 1-sided Type I error of 0.025. The confidence interval is not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Superiority analysis.||-0.11|-0.44|<0.001
90816580|NCT01064687|181512142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.58|-1.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.85|-3.58|<0.001
90816581|NCT01064687|181512142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.49|-0.88|0.571
90816582|NCT01064687|181512142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.19||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|-0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.33|-2.06|0.007
90816583|NCT01064687|181512142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|2.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.01|0.64|<0.001
90816584|NCT01064687|181512142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.39|-1.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.65|-3.39|<0.001
90816585|NCT01064687|181512143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.32||||0.507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|0.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.62|-1.25|0.507
90816586|NCT01064687|181512143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.25||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|2.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.19|0.32|0.009
90816587|NCT01064687|181512144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-0.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|-0.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.67|-1.27|<0.001
90816588|NCT01064687|181512144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.07||||0.568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.17|-0.31|0.568
90816589|NCT01064687|181512144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.42||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.12|-0.72|0.006
90816590|NCT01064687|181512144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.71|0.24|<0.001
90816591|NCT01064687|181512144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.60|-1.20|<0.001
90816592|NCT01064687|181512145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.09||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.23|-0.42|0.580
90816593|NCT01064687|181512145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.46||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.79|0.14|0.005
90816594|NCT01064687|181512146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-28.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.5|-23.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-23.02|-34.50|<0.001
90816595|NCT01064687|181512146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-9.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.62|-5.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.06|-13.62|<0.001
90816596|NCT01064687|181512146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-24.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.8|-18.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-18.24|-29.80|<0.001
90816597|NCT01064687|181512146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.61||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.95|-0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.27|-8.95|0.038
90816598|NCT01064687|181512146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-19.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.18|-13.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-13.65|-25.18|<0.001
90816599|NCT01064687|181512147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.68||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.84|-2.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.52|-12.84|0.004
90816600|NCT01064687|181512147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.47||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.66|0.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.73|-9.66|0.092
90816601|NCT01064687|181512148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|23.4||Treatment comparison for HbA1c less than 7.0%.|Regression, Logistic|||||23.4|7.4|<0.001
90816602|NCT01064687|181512148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|10.1||Treatment comparison for HbA1c less than 7.0%.|Regression, Logistic|||||10.1|3.9|<0.001
90816603|NCT01064687|181512148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|8.0||Treatment comparison for HbA1c less than 7.0%.|Regression, Logistic|||||8.0|2.8|<0.001
90816604|NCT01064687|181512148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|3.5||Treatment comparison for HbA1c less than 7.0%.|Regression, Logistic|||||3.5|1.5|<0.001
90816605|NCT01064687|181512148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|3.5||Treatment comparison for HbA1c less than 7.0%.|Regression, Logistic|||||3.5|1.3|0.004
90816606|NCT01064687|181512148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.7|20.8||Treatment comparison for HbA1c less than or equal to 6.5%.|Regression, Logistic|||||20.8|6.7|<0.001
90816607|NCT01064687|181512148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|6.8||Treatment comparison for HbA1c less than or equal to 6.5%.|Regression, Logistic|||||6.8|2.9|<0.001
90816608|NCT01064687|181512148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|10.9||Treatment comparison for HbA1c less than or equal to 6.5%.|Regression, Logistic|||||10.9|3.7|<0.001
90816609|NCT01064687|181512148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|3.5||Treatment comparison for HbA1c less than or equal to 6.5%.|Regression, Logistic|||||3.5|1.6|<0.001
90816610|NCT01064687|181512148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|4.6||Treatment comparison for HbA1c less than or equal to 6.5%.|Regression, Logistic|||||4.6|1.6|<0.001
90816611|NCT01064687|181512149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|5.6||Treatment comparison for HbA1c less than 7.0%.|Regression, Logistic|||||5.6|2.4|<0.001
90816612|NCT01064687|181512149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.5||Treatment comparison for HbA1c less than 7.0%.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.5|1.1|0.008
90816613|NCT01064687|181512149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|5.1||Treatment comparison for HbA1c less than or equal to 6.5%.|Regression, Logistic|||||5.1|2.3|<0.001
90816614|NCT01064687|181512149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|3.1||Treatment comparison for HbA1c less than or equal to 6.5%.|Regression, Logistic|||||3.1|1.4|<0.001
90816615|NCT01064687|181512150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|35.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.26|43.16||Treatment comparison of HOMA2-B|Mixed Models Analysis|||||43.16|27.26|<0.001
90816616|NCT01064687|181512150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|21.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.97|27.28||Treatment comparison of HOMA2-B|Mixed Models Analysis|||||27.28|14.97|<0.001
90816617|NCT01064687|181512150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|22.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.63|30.72||Treatment comparison of HOMA2-B|Mixed Models Analysis|||||30.72|14.63|<0.001
90816618|NCT01064687|181512150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|8.59||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.31|14.87||Treatment comparison of HOMA2-B|Mixed Models Analysis|||||14.87|2.31|0.007
90816619|NCT01064687|181512150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|14.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.06|22.11||Treatment comparison of HOMA2-B|Mixed Models Analysis|||||22.11|6.06|<0.001
90816620|NCT01064687|181512150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.7||||0.207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.56|3.17||Treatment comparison of HOMA2-S|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.17|-14.56|0.207
90816621|NCT01064687|181512150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.54||||0.659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.41|5.32||Treatment comparison of HOMA2-S|Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.32|-8.41|0.659
91078348|NCT03313310|182042242|OTHER|A one-sample non-parametric test for change between baseline and 3-month follow-up was conducted.||||||0.76||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.10. This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank|||||||0.76
90816622|NCT01064687|181512150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.4||||0.759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.37|7.56||Treatment comparison of HOMA2-S|Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.56|-10.37|0.759
90816623|NCT01064687|181512150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.75||||0.441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.25|9.76||Treatment comparison of HOMA2-S|Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.76|-4.25|0.441
90816624|NCT01064687|181512150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.15||||0.362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|4.79||Treatment comparison of HOMA2-S|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.79|-13.10|0.362
90816625|NCT01064687|181512151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|21.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.2|28.08||Treatment comparison of HOMA2-B|Mixed Models Analysis|||||28.08|15.20|<0.001
90816626|NCT01064687|181512151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|12.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.56|18.68||Treatment comparison of HOMA2-B|Mixed Models Analysis|||||18.68|5.56|<0.001
90816627|NCT01064687|181512151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.73||||0.307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|3.43||Treatment comparison of HOMA2-S|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.43|-10.90|0.307
90816628|NCT01064687|181512151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.75||||0.638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.05|5.55||Treatment comparison of HOMA2-S|Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.55|-9.05|0.638
90816629|NCT04075409|181512227|OTHER||LS means ratio|1.426|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.112|1.83|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included genotype group as the fixed effects. The natural logs were taken of the dependent variables and were back-transformed.||Point estimates for the geometric least squares (LS) means ratio and the respective 2-sided 90% Confidence Intervals (CIs) were computed using the LS means and the root mean squares of error, based on of the log-transformed data with subsequent exponential transformation.||1.830|1.112|
90816630|NCT04075409|181512227|OTHER||LS means ratio|1.234|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9619|1.584|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included genotype group as the fixed effects. The natural logs were taken of the dependent variables and were back-transformed.||Point estimates for the geometric least squares (LS) means ratio and the respective 2-sided 90% CIs were computed using the LS means and the root mean squares of error, based on of the log-transformed data with subsequent exponential transformation.||1.584|0.9619|
90816631|NCT04075409|181512227|OTHER||LS means ratio|1.156|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9008|1.483|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included genotype group as the fixed effects. The natural logs were taken of the dependent variables and were back-transformed.||Point estimates for the geometric least squares (LS) means ratio and the respective 2-sided 90% CIs were computed using the LS means and the root mean squares of error, based on of the log-transformed data with subsequent exponential transformation.||1.483|0.9008|
90816632|NCT04075409|181512228|OTHER||LS means ratio|2.122|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.706|2.638|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included genotype group as the fixed effects. The natural logs were taken of the dependent variables and were back-transformed.||Point estimates for the geometric least squares (LS) means ratio and the respective 2-sided 90% CIs were computed using the LS means and the root mean squares of error, based on of the log-transformed data with subsequent exponential transformation.||2.638|1.706|
90816633|NCT04075409|181512228|OTHER||LS means ratio|1.289|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.037|1.603|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included genotype group as the fixed effects. The natural logs were taken of the dependent variables and were back-transformed.||Point estimates for the geometric least squares (LS) means ratio and the respective 2-sided 90% CIs were computed using the LS means and the root mean squares of error, based on of the log-transformed data with subsequent exponential transformation.||1.603|1.037|
90816634|NCT04075409|181512228|OTHER||LS means ratio|1.646|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.323|2.046|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included genotype group as the fixed effects. The natural logs were taken of the dependent variables and were back-transformed.||Point estimates for the geometric least squares (LS) means ratio and the respective 2-sided 90% CIs were computed using the LS means and the root mean squares of error, based on of the log-transformed data with subsequent exponential transformation.||2.046|1.323|
90890462|NCT02512575|181645643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Active Vs Placebo)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.716|1.03||||||||1.03|0.716|
90890463|NCT02512575|181645643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Active Vs Placebo)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.842|1.21||||||||1.21|0.842|
90890464|NCT02512575|181645643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Active Vs Placebo)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.846|1.22||||||||1.22|0.846|
91056441|NCT03589768|181994193|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|1.1||||0.6911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.0|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for one month after receipt of first dose of DTwP (approximately 10 weeks of age) time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|2.0|0.6|0.6911
91056442|NCT03589768|181994193|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.6||||0.0952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.1|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for one month after receipt of last dose of DTwP (approximately 18 weeks of age) time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|1.1|0.3|0.0952
91056443|NCT03589768|181994193|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|1.2||||0.4134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.0|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for 6 months of age time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|2.0|0.8|0.4134
91056444|NCT03589768|181994194|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|1.6||||0.0859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.6|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for birth time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|2.6|0.9|0.0859
90816635|NCT04075409|181512229|OTHER||LS means ratio|2.124|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.709|2.639|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included genotype group as the fixed effects. The natural logs were taken of the dependent variables and were back-transformed.||Point estimates for the geometric least squares (LS) means ratio and the respective 2-sided 90% CIs were computed using the LS means and the root mean squares of error, based on of the log-transformed data with subsequent exponential transformation.||2.639|1.709|
90816636|NCT04075409|181512229|OTHER||LS means ratio|1.291|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.039|1.604|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included genotype group as the fixed effects. The natural logs were taken of the dependent variables and were back-transformed.||Point estimates for the geometric least squares (LS) means ratio and the respective 2-sided 90% CIs were computed using the LS means and the root mean squares of error, based on of the log-transformed data with subsequent exponential transformation.||1.604|1.039|
90816637|NCT04075409|181512229|OTHER||LS means ratio|1.645|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.324|2.044|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included genotype group as the fixed effects. The natural logs were taken of the dependent variables and were back-transformed.||Point estimates for the geometric least squares (LS) means ratio and the respective 2-sided 90% CIs were computed using the LS means and the root mean squares of error, based on of the log-transformed data with subsequent exponential transformation.||2.044|1.324|
90816638|NCT04075409|181512232|OTHER||LS means ratio|1.089|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8859|1.339|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included genotype group as the fixed effects. The natural logs were taken of the dependent variables and were back-transformed.||Point estimates for the geometric least squares (LS) means ratio and the respective 2-sided 90% CIs were computed using the LS means and the root mean squares of error, based on of the log-transformed data with subsequent exponential transformation.||1.339|0.8859|
90816639|NCT04075409|181512232|OTHER||LS means ratio|1.044|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8489|1.283|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included genotype group as the fixed effects. The natural logs were taken of the dependent variables and were back-transformed.||Point estimates for the geometric least squares (LS) means ratio and the respective 2-sided 90% CIs were computed using the LS means and the root mean squares of error, based on of the log-transformed data with subsequent exponential transformation.||1.283|0.8489|
90816640|NCT04075409|181512232|OTHER||LS means ratio|1.044|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8489|1.283|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included genotype group as the fixed effects. The natural logs were taken of the dependent variables and were back-transformed.||Point estimates for the geometric least squares (LS) means ratio and the respective 2-sided 90% CIs were computed using the LS means and the root mean squares of error, based on of the log-transformed data with subsequent exponential transformation.||1.283|0.8489|
90816641|NCT04075409|181512233|OTHER||LS means ratio|1.344|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.092|1.653|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included genotype group as the fixed effects. The natural logs were taken of the dependent variables and were back-transformed.||Point estimates for the geometric least squares (LS) means ratio and the respective 2-sided 90% CIs were computed using the LS means and the root mean squares of error, based on of the log-transformed data with subsequent exponential transformation.||1.653|1.092|
90816642|NCT04075409|181512233|OTHER||LS means ratio|0.9991|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.812|1.229|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included genotype group as the fixed effects. The natural logs were taken of the dependent variables and were back-transformed.||Point estimates for the geometric least squares (LS) means ratio and the respective 2-sided 90% CIs were computed using the LS means and the root mean squares of error, based on of the log-transformed data with subsequent exponential transformation.||1.229|0.8120|
90816643|NCT04075409|181512233|OTHER||LS means ratio|1.345|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.093|1.655|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included genotype group as the fixed effects. The natural logs were taken of the dependent variables and were back-transformed.||Point estimates for the geometric least squares (LS) means ratio and the respective 2-sided 90% CIs were computed using the LS means and the root mean squares of error, based on of the log-transformed data with subsequent exponential transformation.||1.655|1.093|
91056445|NCT03589768|181994194|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|1.4||||0.204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.3|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for prior to receipt of first dose of DTwP (approximately 6 weeks of age)|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|2.3|0.8|0.2040
90816644|NCT00162266|181512237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|25.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.8|38.4|||Chi-squared|||||38.4|12.8|<0.001
90816645|NCT00162266|181512237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|6.6||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|19.4|||Chi-squared|||||19.4|-6.2|0.31
90816646|NCT00162266|181512238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|5.9||||0.283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|16.7|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 15||16.7|-4.9|0.283
90816647|NCT00162266|181512238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|-11.6||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.9|-2.3|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 15||-2.3|-20.9|0.015
90816648|NCT00162266|181512238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|11.5||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|23.8|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 30||23.8|-0.8|0.067
90816649|NCT00162266|181512238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|-9.3||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.8|2.2|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 30||2.2|-20.8|0.113
90816650|NCT00162266|181512238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|22.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.3|34.8|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 60||34.8|9.3|<0.001
90816651|NCT00162266|181512238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|-1.1||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|11.3|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 60||11.3|-13.5|0.86
90816652|NCT00162266|181512238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|18.6||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.9|31.4|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 90||31.4|5.9|0.004
90816653|NCT00162266|181512238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|2.8||||0.664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|15.4|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 90||15.4|-9.8|0.664
90816654|NCT00162266|181512238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|23.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.1|36.7|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 120||36.7|11.1|<0.001
90816655|NCT00162266|181512238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|6.9||||0.292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|19.9|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 120||19.9|-6.0|0.292
90816656|NCT00162266|181512238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|23.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.2|35.8|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 150||35.8|10.2|<0.001
90816657|NCT00162266|181512238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|8.5||||0.193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|21.3|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 150||21.3|-4.3|0.193
90816658|NCT00162266|181512238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|25.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.8|38.4|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 180||38.4|12.8|<0.001
90816659|NCT00162266|181512238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|6.6||||0.31||95.0|-6.2|19.4|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 180||19.4|-6.2|0.31
90816660|NCT00162266|181512238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|27.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.5|40.1|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 240||40.1|14.5|<0.001
90816661|NCT00162266|181512238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|5.7||||0.384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|18.4|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 240||18.4|-7.1|0.384
90816662|NCT00162266|181512238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|29.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.2|41.8|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 300||41.8|16.2|<0.001
90816663|NCT00162266|181512238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|4.6||||0.476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|17.2|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 300||17.2|-8.0|0.476
90816664|NCT00162266|181512238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|26.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.7|39.3|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 360||39.3|13.7|<0.001
90816665|NCT00162266|181512238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|5.8||||0.377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|18.6|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 360||18.6|-7.0|0.377
90816666|NCT00162266|181512239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|-0.8||||0.679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|2.9|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 15||2.9|-4.5|0.679
90816667|NCT00162266|181512239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|-2.5||||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|0.5|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 15||0.5|-5.5|0.101
90816668|NCT00162266|181512239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|8.0||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|15.7|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 30||15.7|0.4|0.039
90816669|NCT00162266|181512239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|-2.1||||0.474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|3.6|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 30||3.6|-7.7|0.474
90816670|NCT00162266|181512239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|6.6||||0.192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|16.5|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 60||16.5|-3.3|0.192
90816671|NCT00162266|181512239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|-1.8||||0.702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|7.4|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 60||7.4|-11.0|0.702
90816672|NCT00162266|181512239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|11.7||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|21.7|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 90||21.7|1.8|0.02
90816673|NCT00162266|181512239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|4.5||||0.339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|13.8|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 90||13.8|-4.8|0.339
90816674|NCT00162266|181512239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|17.9||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|28.9|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 120||28.9|7.0|0.001
90816675|NCT00162266|181512239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|2.0||||0.682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|11.7|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 120||11.7|-7.6|0.682
90816676|NCT00162266|181512239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|20.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.3|31.8|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 150||31.8|9.3|<0.001
90816677|NCT00162266|181512239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|1.2||||0.813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|10.9|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 150||10.9|-8.6|0.813
90816678|NCT00162266|181512239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|24.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.8|35.7|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 180||35.7|13.8|<0.001
90816679|NCT00162266|181512239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|11.1||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|20.9|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 180||20.9|1.2|0.027
90816680|NCT00162266|181512239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|15.5||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|27.0|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 240||27.0|4.0|0.008
90816681|NCT00162266|181512239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|0.8||||0.885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|11.4|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 240||11.4|-9.8|0.885
90816682|NCT00162266|181512239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|24.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.6|35.4|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 300||35.4|12.6|<0.001
90816683|NCT00162266|181512239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|6.8||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|16.9|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 300||16.9|-3.4|0.19
90816684|NCT00162266|181512239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|21.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.7|33.4|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 360||33.4|9.7|<0.001
90816685|NCT00162266|181512239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|2.7||||0.625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|13.5|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 360||13.5|-8.1|0.625
90816686|NCT00162266|181512240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|3.5||||0.04||95.0|0.2|6.8|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 30||6.8|0.2|0.04
90816687|NCT00162266|181512240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|2.9||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|5.9|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 30||5.9|-0.2|0.063
90816688|NCT00162266|181512240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|8.7||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|13.9|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 60||13.9|3.5|0.001
90816689|NCT00162266|181512240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|3.8||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|7.3|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 60||7.3|0.3|0.032
90816690|NCT00162266|181512240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|7.9||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|13.3|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 90||13.3|2.4|0.005
90816691|NCT00162266|181512240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|3.9||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|8.2|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 90||8.2|-0.3|0.07
90816692|NCT00162266|181512240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|9.7||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|16.7|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 120||16.7|2.7|0.007
90816693|NCT00162266|181512240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|2.4||||0.395||95.0|-3.1|7.8|||Chi-squared|||||7.8|-3.1|0.395
90816694|NCT00162266|181512240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|10.6||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|17.7|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 150||17.7|3.4|0.004
90816695|NCT00162266|181512240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|2.4||||0.395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|7.8|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 150||7.8|-3.1|0.395
90816696|NCT00162266|181512240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|14.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.5|22.2|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 180||22.2|7.5|<0.001
90816697|NCT00162266|181512240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|8.8||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|14.9|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 180||14.9|2.7|0.005
91056446|NCT03589768|181994194|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|1.6||||0.0763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.7|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for one month after receipt of first dose of DTwP (approximately 10 weeks of age) time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|2.7|1.0|0.0763
90816698|NCT00162266|181512240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|13.2||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|21.4|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 240||21.4|5.0|0.002
90816699|NCT00162266|181512240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|3.5||||0.292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|10.1|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 240||10.1|-3.0|0.292
90816700|NCT00162266|181512240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|21.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.4|29.5|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 300||29.5|12.4|<0.001
90816701|NCT00162266|181512240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|8.0||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|14.3|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 300||14.3|1.6|0.014
90816702|NCT00162266|181512240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|13.3||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|22.2|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 360||22.2|4.4|0.003
90816703|NCT00162266|181512240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|4.8||||0.227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|12.6|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 360||12.6|-3.0|0.227
90816704|NCT00162266|181512241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.02||||0.2676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|5.61|||ANOVA|ANOVA model: AUC = treatment|Estimate= Model AUC for abatacept+methotrexate - Model AUC for placebo+methotrexate|Day 15 Treatment Comparison||5.61|-1.56|0.2676
90816705|NCT00162266|181512241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.8||||0.0418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.46|-0.14|||ANOVA|ANOVA model: AUC = treatment|Estimate= Model AUC for abatacept+methotrexate - Model AUC for placebo+methotrexate|Day 15 Treatment Comparison||-0.14|-7.46|0.0418
90816706|NCT00162266|181512241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.25||||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.08|12.41|||ANOVA|ANOVA model: AUC = treatment|Estimate= Model AUC for abatacept+methotrexate - Model AUC for placebo+methotrexate|Day 30 Treatment Comparison||12.41|2.08|0.0061
90816707|NCT00162266|181512241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.14||||0.6713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.45|4.16||ANOVA model: AUC = treatment|ANOVA||Estimate= Model AUC for abatacept+methotrexate - Model AUC for placebo+methotrexate|Day 30 Treatment Comparison||4.16|-6.45|0.6713
90816708|NCT00162266|181512241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.75||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.67|17.84|||ANOVA|ANOVA model: AUC = treatment|Estimate= Model AUC for abatacept+methotrexate - Model AUC for placebo+methotrexate|Day 60 Treatment Comparison||17.84|5.67|0.0002
90816709|NCT00162266|181512241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.8495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.62|6.82|||ANOVA|ANOVA model: AUC = treatment|Estimate= Model AUC for abatacept+methotrexate - Model AUC for placebo+methotrexate|Day 60 Treatment Comparison||6.82|-5.62|0.8495
90816710|NCT00162266|181512241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.1||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.63|18.56|||ANOVA|ANOVA model: AUC = treatment|Estimate= Model AUC for abatacept+methotrexate - Model AUC for placebo+methotrexate|Day 90 Treatment Comparison||18.56|5.63|0.0003
90816711|NCT00162266|181512241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.19||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|10.81|||ANOVA|ANOVA model: AUC = treatment|Estimate= Model AUC for abatacept+methotrexate - Model AUC for placebo+methotrexate|Day 90 Treatment Comparison||10.81|-2.44|0.0003
90816712|NCT00162266|181512241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.54||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.28|21.81|||ANOVA|ANOVA model: AUC = treatment|Estimate= Model AUC for abatacept+methotrexate - Model AUC for placebo+methotrexate|Day 120 Treatment Comparison||21.81|7.28|0.0001
90816713|NCT00162266|181512241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.6||||0.3141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.43|10.64|||ANOVA|ANOVA model: AUC = treatment|Estimate= Model AUC for abatacept+methotrexate - Model AUC for placebo+methotrexate|Day 120 Treatment Comparison||10.64|-3.43|0.3141
90816714|NCT00162266|181512241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.96||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.49|25.43|||ANOVA|ANOVA model: AUC = treatment|Estimate= Model AUC for abatacept+methotrexate - Model AUC for placebo+methotrexate|Day 150 Treatment Comparison||25.43|8.49|0.0001
90816715|NCT00162266|181512241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.32||||0.3552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.73|10.37|||ANOVA|ANOVA model: AUC = treatment|Estimate= Model AUC for abatacept+methotrexate - Model AUC for placebo+methotrexate|Day 150 Treatment Comparison||10.37|-3.73|0.3552
90816716|NCT00162266|181512241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.36||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.19|30.54|||ANOVA|ANOVA model: AUC = treatment|Estimate= Model AUC for abatacept+methotrexate - Model AUC for placebo+methotrexate|Day 180 Treatment Comparison||30.54|10.19|0.0001
90816717|NCT00162266|181512241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.38||||0.0451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|14.6|||ANOVA|ANOVA model: AUC = treatment|Estimate= Model AUC for abatacept+methotrexate - Model AUC for placebo+methotrexate|Day 180 Treatment Comparison||14.60|0.16|0.0451
90890465|NCT02512575|181645643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Active Vs Placebo)|0.687|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.572|0.825||||||||0.825|0.572|
91056447|NCT03589768|181994194|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.5||||0.0836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.1|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for one month after receipt of last dose of DTwP (approximately 18 weeks of age) time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|1.1|0.2|0.0836
91056448|NCT03589768|181994194|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.6||||0.0672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.0|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for 6 months of age time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|1.0|0.3|0.0672
91056449|NCT00191113|181994200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|||<|0.001||95.0|0.7|1.1|||ANCOVA|Model includes baseline height SDS, baseline age, treatment, and interactions. Age and interaction terms removed when not significant.|"Effect direction is As-Randomized Humatrope minus As-Randomized Control"|This component of the primary analysis is inferential i.e. to ascertain definitively whether Humatrope treatment affects change in Height SDS (NCHS). Null hypothesis is no effect of Humatrope treatment.||1.1|0.7|<0.001
90816718|NCT00162266|181512241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.63||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.83|26.44|||ANOVA|ANOVA model: AUC = treatment|Estimate= Model AUC for abatacept+methotrexate - Model AUC for placebo+methotrexate|Day 240 Treatment Comparison||26.44|8.83|0.0001
90816719|NCT00162266|181512241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.78||||0.4669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.73|10.28|||ANOVA|ANOVA model: AUC = treatment|Estimate= Model AUC for abatacept+methotrexate - Model AUC for placebo+methotrexate|Day 240 Treatment Comparison||10.28|-4.73|0.4669
90816720|NCT00162266|181512241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.0||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.51|31.48|||ANOVA|ANOVA model: AUC = treatment|Estimate= Model AUC for abatacept+methotrexate - Model AUC for placebo+methotrexate|Day 300 Treatment Comparison||31.48|10.51|0.0001
90816721|NCT00162266|181512241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.13||||3.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.15|10.41|||ANOVA|ANOVA model: AUC = treatment|Estimate= Model AUC for abatacept+methotrexate - Model AUC for placebo+methotrexate|Day 300 Treatment Comparison||10.41|-4.15|3.13
90816722|NCT00162266|181512241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.38||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.2|30.56|||ANOVA|ANOVA model: AUC = treatment|Estimate= Model AUC for abatacept+methotrexate - Model AUC for placebo+methotrexate|Day 360 Treatment Comparison||30.56|10.20|0.0001
90816723|NCT00162266|181512241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.06||||0.2989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.61|11.72|||ANOVA|ANOVA model: AUC = treatment|Estimate= Model AUC for abatacept+methotrexate - Model AUC for placebo+methotrexate|Day 360 Treatment Comparison||11.72|-3.61|0.2989
90816724|NCT00162266|181512242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2132.63||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1067.32|3197.94||ANOVA model: AUC = treatment|ANOVA||Estimate = Model AUC for Aripiprazole+MTX - Model AUC for PLACEBO+MTX|Comparison at Day 180||3197.94|1067.32|0.0001
90816725|NCT00162266|181512242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|353.47||||0.4393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-544.46|1251.41||ANOVA model: AUC = treatment|ANOVA||Estimate = Model AUC for Aripiprazole+MTX - Model AUC for PLACEBO+MTX|Comparison at Day 180||1251.41|-544.46|0.4393
90816726|NCT00162266|181512242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5641.6||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2823.46|8459.74||ANOVA model: AUC = treatment|ANOVA||Estimate = Model AUC for Aripiprazole+MTX - Model AUC for PLACEBO+MTX|Comparison at Day 360||8459.74|2823.46|0.0001
90816727|NCT00162266|181512242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1054.38||||0.3029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-955.59|3064.35||ANOVA model: AUC = treatment|ANOVA||Estimate = Model AUC for Aripiprazole+MTX - Model AUC for PLACEBO+MTX|Comparison at Day 360||3064.35|-955.59|0.3029
90816728|NCT00162266|181512246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.66||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.67|42.66|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA: % change = pretreatment|Estimate = adjusted % change (BMS10mg/kg+MTX or BMS 2mg/kg+MTX) - adjusted change for placebo+MTX|Day 180||42.66|12.67|0.0003
91056450|NCT00191113|181994201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|||<|0.001||95.0|0.9|1.2|||ANCOVA|Model includes baseline height SDS, baseline age, treatment, and interactions. Age and interactions terms removed when not significant.|"Effect direction is As-Treated Growth Hormone minus As-Treated No Growth Hormone"|Estimation analysis of the magnitude of effect of treatment with growth hormone upon Final Height. Null hypothesis is no effect of growth hormone upon attained height standard deviation score (National Center for Health Statistics).||1.2|0.9|<0.001
90816729|NCT00162266|181512246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.68||||0.3253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: % change = pretreatment|Estimate = adjusted % change (BMS10mg/kg+MTX or BMS 2mg/kg+MTX) - adjusted change for placebo+MTX|Day 180||||0.3253
90816730|NCT00162266|181512246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.24||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.14|48.33|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: % change = pretreatment|Estimate = adjusted % change (BMS10mg/kg+MTX or BMS 2mg/kg+MTX) - adjusted change for placebo+MTX|Day 360||48.33|16.14|0.0001
90816731|NCT00162266|181512246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.48||||0.0869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|26.78|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: % change = pretreatment|Estimate = adjusted % change (BMS10mg/kg+MTX or BMS 2mg/kg+MTX) - adjusted change for placebo+MTX|Day 360||26.78|-1.82|0.0869
90816732|NCT02299076|181512305|SUPERIORITY|Welch Two Sample t-test|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90816733|NCT03449433|181512362|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of LS Means|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.985|1.1||||||||1.10|0.985|
90816734|NCT02651220|181512397|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was based on 90% confidence interval within 80-125%.|Bioavailability|100.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.78|103.91||||||||103.91|96.78|
90816735|NCT02651220|181512398|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence is based on 90% confidence interval within 80-125%.|Bioavailability|99.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.04|103.56||||||||103.56|96.04|
90816736|NCT02651220|181512399|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
90890466|NCT02512575|181645644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Active Vs Placebo)|0.982|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.861|1.12||||||||1.12|0.861|
90890467|NCT02512575|181645644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Active Vs Placebo)|0.961||||||90.0|0.846|1.09||||||||1.09|0.846|
90890468|NCT02512575|181645644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Active Vs Placebo)|0.942|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.829|1.07||||||||1.07|0.829|
91056451|NCT00191113|181994202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.1|||<|0.001||95.0|0.9|1.3|||ANCOVA|||||1.3|0.9|<0.001
91056452|NCT00191113|181994203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.9|||<|0.001||95.0|5.7|8.1|||ANCOVA|||||8.1|5.7|<0.001
91056453|NCT00191113|181994204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
90816737|NCT01439373|181512406|OTHER||Mean posterior difference|0.46|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.119|||||||||Bayesian probability model|"P1= P(p805 \>pPLC +0.3 \| data)= 0.905. A probability of 95% (P1 \> 0.95) or greater was to be considered 'substantial evidence of superiority."|Posterior Distribution of Difference= p805 - pPLC, where, p805 is the RVR rate for GSK2336805 and pPLC is the RVR rate for Placebo. 95% credible set was defined as the 2.5 and 97.5 percentiles. 95% credible interval for the estimate was 0.22 to 0.68.|||||
90816738|NCT01439373|181512407|OTHER||Mean posterior difference|0.41|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.122|||||||||Bayesian probability model|"P1= P(p805 \>pPLC +0.3 \| data)= 0.822. A probability of 95% (P1 \> 0.95) or greater was to be considered 'substantial evidence of superiority."|Posterior Distribution of Difference= p805 - pPLC, where, p805 is the RVR rate for GSK2336805 and pPLC is the RVR rate for Placebo. 95% credible set was defined as the 2.5 and 97.5 percentiles. 95% credible interval for the estimate was 0.17 to 0.6|||||
90816739|NCT00574548|181512429|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|ratio of geometric mean titer|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.33|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (\[13vPnC / 23vPS\] - \[23vPS\]).|Serotype 1: ratio for GMT calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||1.33|0.75|
90816740|NCT00574548|181512429|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|ratio of geometric mean titer|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|1.94|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (\[13vPnC / 23vPS\] - \[23vPS\]).|Serotype 3: ratio for GMT calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||1.94|1.24|
90816741|NCT00574548|181512429|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|ratio of geometric mean titer|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.41|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (\[13vPnC / 23vPS\] - \[23vPS\]).|Serotype 4: ratio for GMT calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||1.41|0.74|
90816742|NCT00574548|181512429|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|ratio of geometric mean titer|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|2.0|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (\[13vPnC / 23vPS\] - \[23vPS\]).|Serotype 5: ratio for GMT calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||2.00|1.01|
90816743|NCT00574548|181512429|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|ratio of geometric mean titer|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|2.51|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (\[13vPnC / 23vPS\] - \[23vPS\]).|Serotype 6B: ratio for GMT calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||2.51|1.18|
90816744|NCT00574548|181512429|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|ratio of geometric mean titer|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|2.47|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (\[13vPnC / 23vPS\] - \[23vPS\]).|Serotype 7F: ratio for GMT calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||2.47|1.07|
90816745|NCT00574548|181512429|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|ratio of geometric mean titer|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.12|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (\[13vPnC / 23vPS\] - \[23vPS\]).|Serotype 9V: ratio for GMT calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||2.12|0.79|
90816746|NCT00574548|181512429|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|ratio of geometric mean titer|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.25|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (\[13vPnC / 23vPS\] - \[23vPS\]).|Serotype 14: ratio for GMT calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||1.25|0.58|
90816747|NCT00574548|181512429|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|ratio of geometric mean titer|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.93|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (\[13vPnC / 23vPS\] - \[23vPS\]).|Serotype 18C: ratio for GMT calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||1.93|0.94|
90816748|NCT00574548|181512429|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|ratio of geometric mean titer|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.61|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (\[13vPnC / 23vPS\] - \[23vPS\]).|Serotype 19A: ratio for GMT calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||1.61|0.96|
90890469|NCT02512575|181645644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Active Vs Placebo)|0.861|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.757|0.979||||||||0.979|0.757|
90890470|NCT02512575|181645644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Active Vs Placebo)|0.848|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.745|0.964||||||||0.964|0.745|
90890471|NCT02512575|181645644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Active Vs Placebo)|0.927|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.815|1.05||||||||1.05|0.815|
90816749|NCT00574548|181512429|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|ratio of geometric mean titer|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|2.12|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (\[13vPnC / 23vPS\] - \[23vPS\]).|Serotype 19F: ratio for GMT calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||2.12|1.09|
90816750|NCT00574548|181512429|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|ratio of geometric mean titer|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.86|4.35|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (\[13vPnC / 23vPS\] - \[23vPS\]).|Serotype 23F: ratio for GMT calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||4.35|1.86|
90816751|NCT00574548|181512430|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|ratio of geometric mean titer|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|2.57|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (\[13vPnC / 23vPS\] - \[23vPS / 13vPnC\]).|Serotype 1: ratio for GMT calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||2.57|1.43|
90816752|NCT00574548|181512430|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|ratio of geometric mean titer|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.95|3.16|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (\[13vPnC / 23vPS\] - \[23vPS / 13vPnC\]).|Serotype 3: ratio for GMT calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||3.16|1.95|
90816753|NCT00574548|181512430|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|ratio of geometric mean titer|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.96|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (\[13vPnC / 23vPS\] - \[23vPS / 13vPnC\]).|Serotype 4: ratio for GMT calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||1.96|1.12|
90816754|NCT00574548|181512430|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|ratio of geometric mean titer|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.67|3.31|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (\[13vPnC / 23vPS\] - \[23vPS / 13vPnC\]).|Serotype 5: ratio for GMT calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||3.31|1.67|
90816755|NCT00574548|181512430|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|ratio of geometric mean titer|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|2.47|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (\[13vPnC / 23vPS\] - \[23vPS / 13vPnC\]).|Serotype 6B: ratio for GMT calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||2.47|1.19|
90816756|NCT00574548|181512430|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|ratio of geometric mean titer|4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.76|6.61|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (\[13vPnC / 23vPS\] - \[23vPS / 13vPnC\]).|Serotype 7F: ratio for GMT calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||6.61|2.76|
90816757|NCT00574548|181512430|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|ratio of geometric mean titer|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.97|5.45|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (\[13vPnC / 23vPS\] - \[23vPS / 13vPnC\]).|Serotype 9V: ratio for GMT calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||5.45|1.97|
90816758|NCT00574548|181512430|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|ratio of geometric mean titer|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|2.1|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (\[13vPnC / 23vPS\] - \[23vPS / 13vPnC\]).|Serotype 14: ratio for GMT calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||2.10|0.98|
90816759|NCT00574548|181512430|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|ratio of geometric mean titer|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|2.69|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (\[13vPnC / 23vPS\] - \[23vPS / 13vPnC\]).|Serotype 18C: ratio for GMT calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||2.69|1.32|
90816760|NCT00574548|181512430|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|ratio of geometric mean titer|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|2.07|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (\[13vPnC / 23vPS\] - \[23vPS / 13vPnC\]).|Serotype 19A: ratio for GMT calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||2.07|1.27|
90890472|NCT02512575|181645644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Active Vs Placebo)|0.907|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.798|1.03||||||||1.03|0.798|
91056454|NCT00191113|181994205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.744||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.744
91056455|NCT00191113|181994206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.073||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.073
90816761|NCT00574548|181512430|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|ratio of geometric mean titer|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.96|3.74|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (\[13vPnC / 23vPS\] - \[23vPS / 13vPnC\]).|Serotype 19F: ratio for GMT calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||3.74|1.96|
90816762|NCT00574548|181512430|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|ratio of geometric mean titer|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|2.45|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (\[13vPnC / 23vPS\] - \[23vPS / 13vPnC\]).|Serotype 23F: ratio for GMT calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||2.45|1.05|
90816763|NCT00574548|181512431|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean fold rise greater than 0.5.|Geometric mean fold rise|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.82|||||CIs are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Serotype 1: geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) calculated using all evaluable participants with data from both the postvaccination 1 and postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.82|0.54|
90816764|NCT00574548|181512431|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean fold rise greater than 0.5.|Geometric mean fold rise|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.49|||||CIs are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Serotype 3: geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) calculated using all evaluable participants with data from both the postvaccination 1 and postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.49|0.99|
90816765|NCT00574548|181512431|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean fold rise greater than 0.5.|Geometric mean fold rise|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.68|||||CIs are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Serotype 4: geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) calculated using all evaluable participants with data from both the postvaccination 1 and postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.68|0.43|
90816766|NCT00574548|181512431|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean fold rise greater than 0.5.|Geometric mean fold rise|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.77|||||CIs are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Serotype 5: geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) calculated using all evaluable participants with data from both the postvaccination 1 and postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.77|0.43|
90816767|NCT00574548|181512431|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean fold rise greater than 0.5.|Geometric mean fold rise|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.08|||||CIs are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Serotype 6A: geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) calculated using all evaluable participants with data from both the postvaccination 1 and postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.08|0.67|
90816768|NCT00574548|181512431|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean fold rise greater than 0.5.|Geometric mean fold rise|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.12|||||CIs are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Serotype 6B: geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) calculated using all evaluable participants with data from both the postvaccination 1 and postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.12|0.71|
90816769|NCT00574548|181512431|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean fold rise greater than 0.5.|Geometric mean fold rise|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.49|||||CIs are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Serotype 7F: geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) calculated using all evaluable participants with data from both the postvaccination 1 and postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.49|0.24|
91056456|NCT00191113|181994207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of proportion of patients with any category of hearing loss between As-Treated Growth Hormone group and As-Treated No Growth Hormone.||||>0.999
90890473|NCT02512575|181645644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Active Vs Placebo)|0.893|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.784|1.02||||||||1.02|0.784|
91056457|NCT00191113|181994208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.492||||0.419||95.0|-8.631|3.646|||ANOVA||Direction of estimated treatment effect is Humatrope minus Control|||3.646|-8.631|0.419
90890474|NCT02512575|181645644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Active Vs Placebo)|0.691||||||90.0|0.608|0.785||||||||0.785|0.608|
91056458|NCT00191113|181994210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.545||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.545
91056459|NCT00191113|181994212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
91056460|NCT00191113|181994214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
91056461|NCT00191113|181994215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.007||||0.945||95.0|-0.199|0.186|||ANOVA||Direction of estimated treatment effect is Humatrope minus Control|||0.186|-0.199|0.945
91056462|NCT00191113|181994217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||||95.0||||P-value cannot be computed since no patients had abnormal result in either comparison group.|Fisher Exact|||||||
91056463|NCT01555671|181994222|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|30.0||||0.029|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.029
91056464|NCT00631657|181994225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares (LS) Means|48.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.0|62.5|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA performed with fixed effects for treatment and (pooled) center as factors and baseline TST as covariate.|||62.5|35.0|<0.0001
91056465|NCT00631657|181994228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-4.9||||0.2145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|2.8|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA performed with fixed effects for treatment and (pooled) center as factors and baseline SL as covariate.|||2.8|-12.6|0.2145
91056466|NCT00631657|181994229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-25.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.5|-15.4|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA performed with fixed effects for treatment and (pooled) center as factors and baseline WASO as covariate.|||-15.4|-34.5|<0.0001
90816770|NCT00574548|181512431|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean fold rise greater than 0.5.|Geometric mean fold rise|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.51|||||CIs are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Serotype 9V: geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) calculated using all evaluable participants with data from both the postvaccination 1 and postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.51|0.26|
90816771|NCT00574548|181512431|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean fold rise greater than 0.5.|Geometric mean fold rise|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.02|||||CIs are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Serotype 14: geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) calculated using all evaluable participants with data from both the postvaccination 1 and postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.02|0.60|
90816772|NCT00574548|181512431|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean fold rise greater than 0.5.|Geometric mean fold rise|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.87|||||CIs are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Serotype 18C: geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) calculated using all evaluable participants with data from both the postvaccination 1 and postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.87|0.54|
90816773|NCT00574548|181512431|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean fold rise greater than 0.5.|Geometric mean fold rise|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.82|||||CIs are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Serotype 19A: geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) calculated using all evaluable participants with data from both the postvaccination 1 and postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.82|0.53|
90816774|NCT00574548|181512431|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean fold rise greater than 0.5.|Geometric mean fold rise|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.15|||||CIs are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Serotype 19F: geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) calculated using all evaluable participants with data from both the postvaccination 1 and postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.15|0.69|
90816775|NCT00574548|181512431|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean fold rise greater than 0.5.|Geometric mean fold rise|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|2.13|||||CIs are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Serotype 23F: geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) calculated using all evaluable participants with data from both the postvaccination 1 and postvaccination 2 blood draws.||2.13|1.15|
90816776|NCT00574548|181512432|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean fold rise greater than 0.5.|Geometric mean fold rise|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.75|||||CIs are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Serotype 1: geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) calculated using all evaluable participants with data from both the postvaccination 1 and postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.75|0.55|
90816777|NCT00574548|181512432|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean fold rise greater than 0.5.|Geometric mean fold rise|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|2.01|||||CIs are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Serotype 3: geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) calculated using all evaluable participants with data from both the postvaccination 1 and postvaccination 2 blood draws.||2.01|1.52|
90816778|NCT00574548|181512432|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean fold rise greater than 0.5.|Geometric mean fold rise|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.66|||||CIs are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Serotype 4: geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) calculated using all evaluable participants with data from both the postvaccination 1 and postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.66|0.49|
91056467|NCT00806286|181994263|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Two-sided p-value is calculated by dividing the square of the treatment group difference on the log-log scale by the standard error of the difference and referring the result to the standard normal distribution.|Z-test||The estimated value represents the difference in treatments (%).|||||<0.0001
90816779|NCT00574548|181512432|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean fold rise greater than 0.5.|Geometric mean fold rise|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.03|||||CIs are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Serotype 5: geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) calculated using all evaluable participants with data from both the postvaccination 1 and postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.03|0.67|
90890475|NCT04773587|181645668|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.96|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.881|4.647|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site and vIGA-AD randomization strata with multiple imputation of missing observations|Stratified by pooled study site and vIGA-AD randomization strata with multiple imputation of missing observations|Difference in vIGA-AD Success at Week 4||4.647|1.881|<0.0001
91056468|NCT00806286|181994263|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.579||||0.0499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.5|||Regression, Cox|||||2.5|1.0|0.0499
91056469|NCT00806286|181994264|SUPERIORITY|Two-sided p-value is calculated by dividing the square of the treatment group difference on the log-log scale by the standard error of the difference and referring the result to the standard normal distribution.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Z-test||The estimated value represents the difference in treatments (%).|||||<0.0001
91078349|NCT03313310|182042243|OTHER|A one-sample non-parametric test for change between baseline and 8-month follow-up was conducted.|||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.10. This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank|||||||<0.001
90816780|NCT00574548|181512432|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean fold rise greater than 0.5.|Geometric mean fold rise|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.79|||||CIs are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Serotype 6B: geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) calculated using all evaluable participants with data from both the postvaccination 1 and postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.79|0.57|
90816781|NCT00574548|181512432|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean fold rise greater than 0.5.|Geometric mean fold rise|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.52|||||CIs are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Serotype 7F: geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) calculated using all evaluable participants with data from both the postvaccination 1 and postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.52|0.35|
90816782|NCT00574548|181512432|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean fold rise greater than 0.5.|Geometric mean fold rise|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.69|||||CIs are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Serotype 9V: geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) calculated using all evaluable participants with data from both the postvaccination 1 and postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.69|0.41|
90816783|NCT00574548|181512432|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean fold rise greater than 0.5.|Geometric mean fold rise|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.15|||||CIs are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Serotype 14: geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) calculated using all evaluable participants with data from both the postvaccination 1 and postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.15|0.75|
90816784|NCT00574548|181512432|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean fold rise greater than 0.5.|Geometric mean fold rise|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.85|||||CIs are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Serotype 18C: geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) calculated using all evaluable participants with data from both the postvaccination 1 and postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.85|0.58|
90816785|NCT00574548|181512432|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean fold rise greater than 0.5.|Geometric mean fold rise|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.74|||||CIs are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Serotype 19A: geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) calculated using all evaluable participants with data from both the postvaccination 1 and postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.74|0.58|
90816786|NCT00574548|181512432|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean fold rise greater than 0.5.|Geometric mean fold rise|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.39|||||CIs are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Serotype 19F: geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) calculated using all evaluable participants with data from both the postvaccination 1 and postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.39|0.89|
90816787|NCT00574548|181512432|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean fold rise greater than 0.5.|Geometric mean fold rise|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.73|||||CIs are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Serotype 23F: geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) calculated using all evaluable participants with data from both the postvaccination 1 and postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.73|0.50|
90816788|NCT00574548|181512433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titer|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.03|3.55|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (\[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS / 13vPnC\]).|Serotype 1: ratio for GMT calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||3.55|2.03|
90816789|NCT00574548|181512433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titer|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|1.89|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (\[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS / 13vPnC\]).|Serotype 3: ratio for GMT calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||1.89|1.18|
90816790|NCT00574548|181512433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titer|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.07|3.55|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (\[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS / 13vPnC\]).|Serotype 4: ratio for GMT calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||3.55|2.07|
90816791|NCT00574548|181512433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titer|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|3.61|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (\[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS / 13vPnC\]).|Serotype 5: ratio for GMT calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||3.61|1.77|
90816792|NCT00574548|181512433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titer|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.94|3.88|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (\[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS / 13vPnC\]).|Serotype 6B: ratio for GMT calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||3.88|1.94|
90816793|NCT00574548|181512433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titer|8.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.68|12.6|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (\[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS / 13vPnC\]).|Serotype 7F: ratio for GMT calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||12.60|5.68|
90816794|NCT00574548|181512433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titer|6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.45|10.22|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (\[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS / 13vPnC\]).|Serotype 9V: ratio for GMT calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||10.22|4.45|
91056470|NCT04713553|181994286|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was to be achieved if the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for GMR falls within the interval (0.67, 1.5).|Geometric mean ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.13|||||GMRs and corresponding 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating difference in LS means and corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of age and vaccine group.|||1.13|0.91|
91056471|NCT04713553|181994286|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was to be achieved if the 2-sided 95% CI for GMR falls within the interval (0.67, 1.5).|Geometric mean ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.04|||||GMRs and corresponding 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating difference in LS means and corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of age and vaccine group.|||1.04|0.83|
91056472|NCT04713553|181994286|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was to be achieved if the 2-sided 95% CI for GMR falls within the interval (0.67, 1.5).|Geometric mean ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.03|||||GMRs and corresponding 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating difference in LS means and corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of age and vaccine group.|||1.03|0.82|
91056473|NCT04713553|181994287|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was to be achieved if the 2-sided 95% CI for GMR falls within the interval (0.67, 1.5).|Geometric mean ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.07|||||GMRs and corresponding 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating difference in LS means and corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of age and vaccine group.|||1.07|0.84|
91056474|NCT04713553|181994288|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority of the 20 mcg dose to the corresponding 30 mcg dose was said to be achieved if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR is \>0.67.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.02|||||GMRs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means and corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of age and vaccine group|||1.02|0.84|
91056475|NCT03783039|181994338|NON_INFERIORITY|10% margin|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0605|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-0.0189|||Testing whether the group difference in proportion of successes is \>-0.1 (Test Group - Control Group)|Farrington-Manning method||||||-0.0189|<0.0001
91056476|NCT03783039|181994339|OTHER||Difference in proportion of successes|0.0992|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0078|0.1906|||Farrington-Manning Method|Difference in proportion of successes (Test Group - Control Group)||||0.1906|0.0078|
91056477|NCT03783039|181994340|OTHER||Difference in proportion of successes|0.0275|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0312|0.0863|||Farrington-Manning Method|Difference in proportion of successes (Test Group - Control Group)||||0.0863|-0.0312|
91056478|NCT03151408|181994354|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8275||||||P-value stratified by cytogenetic risk factor and ECOG performance status|Log Rank|||||||0.8275
91056479|NCT03151408|181994355|OTHER|||||||0.1244|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1244
91056480|NCT03151408|181994356|OTHER|||||||0.143|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1430
91056481|NCT03151408|181994357|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9977|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.9977
91056482|NCT03151408|181994358|OTHER|||||||0.9959|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.9959
91056483|NCT03151408|181994359|OTHER|||||||0.3502|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3502
91056484|NCT03151408|181994360|OTHER|||||||0.0502|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0502
91056485|NCT03151408|181994362|OTHER|||||||0.4656|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.4656
91056486|NCT03151408|181994363|OTHER|||||||0.7063|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.7063
91056487|NCT03151408|181994364|OTHER|||||||0.0592|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0592
91056488|NCT03151408|181994365|OTHER|||||||0.3835|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.3835
91056489|NCT03151408|181994366|OTHER|||||||0.7099|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.7099
91056490|NCT00265395|181994368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||SVR Rate Difference|-4.9||||0.6445||95.0|-20.4|10.6|||Asymptotic Z-test|||||10.6|-20.4|0.6445
91056491|NCT01955837|181994369|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.99|||Log Rank|||||0.99|0.62|0.035
91056492|NCT01955837|181994370|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.54|||Log Rank|||||0.54|0.34|<0.001
91056493|NCT01955837|181994371|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.58|||Log Rank|||||0.58|0.37|<0.001
91056494|NCT01955837|181994372|SUPERIORITY||Difference in ORR|1.1||||0.554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|2.4|||Fisher Exact|||||2.4|-0.1|0.554
91056495|NCT01955837|181994373|SUPERIORITY||Difference in DCR|29.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.9|38.0|||Fisher Exact|||||38.0|20.9|<0.001
91056496|NCT01955837|181994374|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|29.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.9|38.0|||Fisher Exact|||||38.0|20.9|<0.001
91056497|NCT01955837|181994377|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.04|||Log Rank|||||1.04|0.57|0.083
91056498|NCT01955837|181994378|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.2|||Log Rank|||||1.20|0.57|0.228
91056499|NCT01955837|181994379|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.59||||||||0.59|0.32|
91056500|NCT01955837|181994380|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.65||||||||0.65|0.31|
91056501|NCT03400943|181994391|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.78|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Number of subjects per treatment: 41 (Vilaprisan) / 20 (Placebo).|Vilaprisan (A1) and Vilaprisan+Placebo (B2) combined vs. Placebo+Vilaprisan (B1) in treatment period 1||0.78|0.33|<.0001
91056502|NCT02563106|181994398|OTHER|The analysis of the primary endpoint was based on the mITT analysis set. Per-protocol and worse case analyses were performed as sensitivity analyses.The P-value was based on a one-sided z-test for the comparison of the treatment difference between the SYN-004 group and the Placebo group.|Relative Risk Reduction (%)|71.4||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.9|94.0||Study was designed to provide 80% power to detect treatment effect with one-sided alpha = 0.05 on the primary endpoint. Based on the pre-specified z-test the one-sided P=0.045.|z-test|1-sided P=0.045.|Relative Risk Reduction in SYN-004 group compared to Placebo group.|The Modified Intent-to-Treat (mITT) analysis set included randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study drug. Number of subjects with CDI, imputing early termination without CDI as not being treatment failures.||94.0|-35.9|0.045
91056503|NCT02338193|181994399|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.032|||||||ANOVA|||One Way ANOVA with Bonferroni contrast if p\>0.05||||<0.032
91056504|NCT02338193|181994400|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|One Way ANOVA with Bonferoni contrast test||||||<0.05
91056505|NCT02338193|181994401|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA with Bonferroni contrast test||||<0.01
91056506|NCT02338193|181994402|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.012|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA with Bonferroni contrast test||||<0.012
91056507|NCT02338193|181994403|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA with Bonferroni contrast test||||0.007
91056508|NCT02338193|181994404|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.023|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA with Bonferroni contrast||||0.023
91056509|NCT02338193|181994405|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA with Bonferroni contrast||||>0.05
91056510|NCT02338193|181994406|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA with Bonferroni contrast||||>0.05
91056511|NCT02338193|181994407|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA with Bonferroni contrast||||<0.001
91056512|NCT02338193|181994408|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA with Bonferroni contrast test||||<0.001
91056513|NCT02338193|181994409|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.004|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA with Bonferroni contrast test||||<0.004
91056514|NCT02338193|181994410|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.02|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA with Bonferroni contrast test||||<0.02
91056515|NCT02338193|181994411|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.012|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA with Bonferroni contrast test||||<0.012
91056516|NCT02338193|181994412|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA with Bonferroni contrast test||||>0.05
91056517|NCT02338193|181994413|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.028|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA with Bonferroni contrast test||||<0.028
91056518|NCT02338193|181994414|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.03|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA with Bonferroni contrast test||||<.03
91056519|NCT05084716|181994446|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.08|12.13|||Regression, Logistic|||||12.13|2.08|<.0001
91056520|NCT05084716|181994446|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.48|16.59|||Regression, Logistic|||||16.59|3.48|<.0001
91056521|NCT05084716|181994447|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.88|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.96|27.85|||Regression, Logistic|||||27.85|5.96|<.0001
91056522|NCT05084716|181994447|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.78||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|2.52|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.52|1.26|.001
91056523|NCT05084716|181994448|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d for difference in proportions|1.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Odds Ratio is undefined and p-value from Fisher's Exact test is reported because 0% of PrEP users had ≥80% medication coverage pre-intervention.|Fisher Exact|||||||<.0001
91056524|NCT05084716|181994448|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.24|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.34|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.34|0.16|<.0001
91056525|NCT03839823|181994449|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.611||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.429|0.87|||one-sided stratified logrank test|||||0.870|0.429|0.003
91056526|NCT03839823|181994450|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.497||||||95.0|0.363|0.68||||||||0.680|0.363|
91056527|NCT03839823|181994451|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.020
91056528|NCT03839823|181994452|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.255|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.255
91056529|NCT03839823|181994453|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.116|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.116
91056530|NCT03839823|181994454|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.762|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.546|1.064||||||||1.064|0.546|
91056531|NCT04228783|181994468|EQUIVALENCE|An equivalence margin of 0.5 to 2.0 was considered relevant to demonstrate the equivalence of the two products.|Ratio of GMCs|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.1||||||||1.1|0.8|
91056532|NCT04228783|181994468|EQUIVALENCE|An equivalence margin of 0.5 to 2.0 was considered relevant to demonstrate the equivalence of the two products.|Ratio of GMCs|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.1||||||||1.1|0.8|
91056533|NCT04228783|181994468|EQUIVALENCE|An equivalence margin of 0.5 to 2.0 was considered relevant to demonstrate the equivalence of the two products.|Ratio of GMCs|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.2||||||||1.2|0.9|
91056534|NCT04228783|181994469|EQUIVALENCE|An equivalence margin of 0.5 to 2.0 was considered relevant to demonstrate the equivalence of the two products.|Ratio of GMCs|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.2||||||||1.2|0.8|
91056535|NCT04228783|181994469|EQUIVALENCE|An equivalence margin of 0.5 to 2.0 was considered relevant to demonstrate the equivalence of the two products.|Ratio of GMCs|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.3||||||||1.3|0.8|
91056536|NCT04228783|181994469|EQUIVALENCE|An equivalence margin of 0.5 to 2.0 was considered relevant to demonstrate the equivalence of the two products.|Ratio of GMCs|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.3||||||||1.3|0.8|
91056537|NCT00626392|181994474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons. P-values \<= 0.05 were reported as statistically significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.010
91056538|NCT03151811|181994486|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0311|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0311
91056539|NCT01081834|181994499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.091|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.088|-0.729|||ANCOVA|||||-0.729|-1.088|<0.001
91056540|NCT01081834|181994499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-1.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.091|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.342|-0.985|||ANCOVA|||||-0.985|-1.342|<0.001
91056541|NCT01081834|181994501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|9.23|||Regression, Logistic|||||9.23|3.10|<0.001
91056542|NCT01081834|181994501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.14|26.25|||Regression, Logistic|||||26.25|8.14|<0.001
91056543|NCT01081834|181994502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-35.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.42|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.22|-28.78|||ANCOVA|||||-28.78|-42.22|<0.001
91056544|NCT01081834|181994502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-43.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.402|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.06|-36.69|||ANCOVA|||||-36.69|-50.06|<0.001
91056545|NCT01081834|181994503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-49.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.629|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.12|-36.99|||ANCOVA|||||-36.99|-59.12|<0.001
91056546|NCT01081834|181994503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-64.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.616|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.02|-52.94|||ANCOVA|||||-52.94|-75.02|<0.001
91056547|NCT01081834|181994504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-1.6|||ANCOVA|||||-1.6|-2.9|<0.001
91056548|NCT01081834|181994504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-2.6|||ANCOVA|||||-2.6|-4.0|<0.001
91056549|NCT01081834|181994505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-3.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.093|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.86|-1.568|||ANCOVA|||||-1.568|-5.860|<0.001
91056550|NCT01081834|181994505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-5.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.088|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.556|-3.28|||ANCOVA|||||-3.280|-7.556|<0.001
91056551|NCT01081834|181994506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.8||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|4.1|||ANCOVA|||||4.1|-14.8|0.267
91056552|NCT01081834|181994506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-10.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.8||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.6|-0.8|||ANCOVA|||||-0.8|-19.6|0.034
91056553|NCT01081834|181994507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|10.6|||ANCOVA|||||10.6|2.9|<0.001
91056554|NCT01081834|181994507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|9.9|||ANCOVA|||||9.9|2.2|0.002
91056555|NCT02045147|181994516|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.82||0.463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.98|10.65|||t-test, 2 sided|||||10.65|-4.98|0.463
91056556|NCT02045147|181994516|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4||0.634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.23|8.49|||t-test, 2 sided|||||8.49|-5.23|0.634
91056557|NCT02045147|181994516|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.15||0.259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.74|13.32|||t-test, 2 sided|||||13.32|-3.74|0.259
91056558|NCT02045147|181994516|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.21|6.84|||t-test, 2 sided|||||6.84|-3.21|0.472
91056559|NCT02045147|181994517|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.15||0.532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|4.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.5|-8.5|0.532
91056560|NCT02045147|181994517|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9||0.574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|4.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.2|-7.5|0.574
91056561|NCT02045147|181994517|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8||0.254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|3.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.4|-12.3|0.254
91056562|NCT02045147|181994517|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7||0.759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|4.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.6|-6.3|0.759
91056563|NCT02045147|181994518|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|12.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||||12.7|-2.1|0.153
91056564|NCT02045147|181994518|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3||0.729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|5.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.5|-7.9|0.729
91056565|NCT02045147|181994518|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5||0.886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|7.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||7.6|-6.6|0.886
91056566|NCT02045147|181994518|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1||0.446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|3.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.9|-8.7|0.446
91056567|NCT02045147|181994519|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1||0.521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|11.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||11.1|-5.7|0.521
91056568|NCT02045147|181994519|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7||0.146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|9.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||9.5|-1.5|0.146
91056569|NCT02045147|181994519|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3||0.926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|9.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||9.3|-8.5|0.926
91056570|NCT02045147|181994519|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|3.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.3|-6.4|0.526
91056571|NCT02045147|181994520|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9||0.776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|6.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||||6.9|-9.2|0.776
91056572|NCT02045147|181994520|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|11.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||||11.7|-1.6|0.135
91056573|NCT02045147|181994520|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|6.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||6.0|-10.9|0.556
91056574|NCT02045147|181994520|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7||0.361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|7.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||||7.9|-2.9|0.361
91056575|NCT02045147|181994521|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.4||0.564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|11.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||11.6|-6.4|0.564
91056576|NCT02045147|181994521|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1||0.307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|9.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||9.3|-3.0|0.307
91056577|NCT02045147|181994521|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8||0.768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|8.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||||8.9|-6.7|0.768
91056578|NCT02045147|181994521|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|5.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.5|-4.2|0.785
91056579|NCT02045147|181994522|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5||0.917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|6.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||||6.8|-7.5|0.917
91056580|NCT02045147|181994522|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3||0.181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|11.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||11.3|-2.2|0.181
91056581|NCT02045147|181994522|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6||0.772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|8.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||8.3|-6.3|0.772
91056582|NCT02045147|181994522|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8||0.526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|7.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||7.3|-3.8|0.526
91056583|NCT02045147|181994523|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||||.9|-.8|0.872
91056584|NCT02045147|181994523|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.34|||t-test, 2 sided|||||.34|-.87|0.387
91056585|NCT02045147|181994523|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.81|||t-test, 2 sided|||||.81|-.37|0.916
91056586|NCT02045147|181994523|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.94|||t-test, 2 sided|||||.94|-.19|0.189
91056587|NCT02045147|181994524|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.13|||t-test, 2 sided|||||.13|-.21|0.627
91056588|NCT02045147|181994524|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.09|||t-test, 2 sided|||||.09|-.11|0.840
91056589|NCT02045147|181994524|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-.00|-.22|0.049
91056590|NCT02045147|181994524|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.06|||t-test, 2 sided|||||.06|-.06|0.952
91056591|NCT02045147|181994525|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.9||||0.436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.07|25.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||25.00|-11.07|.436
91056592|NCT02045147|181994525|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.71||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.24|1.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.80|-25.24|.088
91056593|NCT02045147|181994525|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-10.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.45||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.86|4.77|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.77|-25.86|0.169
91056594|NCT02045147|181994525|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.52||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.79|5.37|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.37|-12.79|0.416
91056595|NCT00049530|181994529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||bionomial proportion test|||It is of interest to test the null hypothesis of 10% plasma b-FGF response rate versus the alternative hypothesis of 30% response rate. Based on the sample size of 30 eligible patients, there will be 84% power to detect this 20% difference in b-FGF response rates. This was based on a two-sided type I error of .05, using the one-sample binomial test.||||<0.001
91056596|NCT06017479|181994549|OTHER|"Chi-square test as the study used chi-square analysis to compare the incidence of UTIs between the groups (p = 0.660) For this non-inferiority analysis, the study demonstrated that the odds ratio (OR) between the two groups was 0.8 (95% CI: 0.4-1.95), indicating no significant difference. Further details are provided in the study's discussion section."|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|18.125||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.95||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons as there were no multiple outcome measures being compared in this analysis. The significance threshold (alpha) was set at 0.05.|Chi-squared||"The standard deviations (SD) for the groups are as follows:~For the group receiving 3g fosfomycin: 19.08 For the group receiving 500mg levofloxacin: 17.17"|This randomized controlled trial compared the incidence of UTI between two groups: patients receiving a single dose of 500 mg levofloxacin and patients receiving a single dose of 3 g fosfomycin one hour before a urodynamic study. The null hypothesis is that there is no significant difference in UTI incidence between the two groups. The power calculation was based on a sample size of 126 patients.|A chi-square test was performed to compare the incidence of UTIs between the two groups: patients receiving a single dose of 500 mg levofloxacin and those receiving a single dose of 3 g fosfomycin, both administered one hour before the urodynamic study (UDS). The result showed no statistically significant difference between the two groups (p = 0.660). An odds ratio was also calculated (OR = 0.8, 95% CI: 0.4-1.95), indicating a slightly lower likelihood of UTI in the fosfomycin group, but the difference was not significant.|1.95|0.4|0.660
91056597|NCT00936897|181994550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.8|||ANCOVA||Denosumab - Ibandronate|||1.8|1.0|<0.0001
91056598|NCT00936897|181994551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91056599|NCT00936897|181994552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.7|||ANCOVA||Denosumab - Ibandronate|||1.7|0.7|<0.0001
91056600|NCT00936897|181994553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|2.5|||ANCOVA||Denosumab - Ibandronate|||2.5|1.5|<0.0001
91056601|NCT04058067|181994559|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|1.1|||ANOVA|||||1.1|-3.7|0.013
91056602|NCT04058067|181994560|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|0.4|||ANOVA|||||0.4|-4.2|0.035
91056603|NCT04058067|181994562|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|0.8|||ANOVA|||||0.8|-3.0|
91056604|NCT04058067|181994563|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|0.2|||ANOVA|||||0.2|-4.0|
91056605|NCT04058067|181994564|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|0.2|||ANOVA|||||0.2|-4.3|
90816795|NCT00574548|181512433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titer|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|2.18|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (\[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS / 13vPnC\]).|Serotype 14: ratio for GMT calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||2.18|1.02|
91056606|NCT04058067|181994567|SUPERIORITY||DIfference|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|6.7|||Regression, Logistic|||Proportion of subjects with ≥5 letters gain from baseline or reached BCVA of ≥84 letters at Week 52||6.7|-13.7|
91056607|NCT04058067|181994567|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|9.4|||Regression, Logistic|||Proportion of subjects with ≥10 letters gain from baseline or reached BCVA of ≥84 letters at Week 52||9.4|-14.7|
91056608|NCT04058067|181994567|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5|6.9|||Regression, Logistic|||Proportion of subjects with ≥15 letters gain from baseline or reached BCVA of ≥84 letters at Week 52||6.9|-15.5|
91056609|NCT04058067|181994571|SUPERIORITY||DIfference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|4.4|||Regression, Logistic|||Proportion of subjects with ≥5 letters loss from baseline at Week 52||4.4|-4.2|
91056610|NCT04058067|181994571|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|3.8|||Regression, Logistic|||Proportion of subjects with ≥10 letters loss from baseline at Week 52||3.8|-1.6|
91056611|NCT04058067|181994571|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|2.3|||Regression, Logistic|||Proportion of subjects with ≥15 letters loss from baseline at Week 52||2.3|-2.2|
91056612|NCT04058067|181994572|OTHER|Descriptive, Week 4|Difference - %|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|8.6|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||Week 4||8.6|-7.9|
91056613|NCT04058067|181994572|OTHER|Descriptive, Week 6|Difference - %|-5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|2.9|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||Week 6||2.9|-14.3|
91056614|NCT04058067|181994572|OTHER|Descriptive, Week 8|Difference - %|-4.0||||||95.0|-13.3|4.4|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||Week 8||4.4|-13.3|
91056615|NCT04058067|181994572|OTHER|Descriptive, Week 12|Difference - %|-7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|2.3|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||Week 12||2.3|-16.4|
91056616|NCT04058067|181994572|OTHER|Descriptive, Week 16|Difference - %|-9.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.2|0.0|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||Week 16||-0.0|-19.2|
91056617|NCT04058067|181994572|OTHER|Descriptive, Week 18|Difference - %|-9.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|0.0|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||Week 18||-0.0|-19.0|
91056618|NCT04058067|181994572|OTHER|Descriptive, Week 20|Difference - %|-5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.8|3.9|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||Week 20||3.9|-15.8|
91056619|NCT04058067|181994572|OTHER|Descriptive, Week 24|Difference - %|-13.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.9|-3.1|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||Week 24||-3.1|-23.9|
91056620|NCT04058067|181994572|OTHER|Descriptive, Week 28|Difference - %|-12.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|-2.1|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||Week 28||-2.1|-22.0|
91056621|NCT04058067|181994572|OTHER|Descriptive, Week 32|Difference - %|-15.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.0|-4.8|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||Week 32||-4.8|-26.0|
91056622|NCT04058067|181994572|OTHER|Descriptive, Week 36|Difference - %|-18.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.5|-8.9|||Clopper-Pearson exact method.|||Week 36||-8.9|-29.5|
91056623|NCT04058067|181994572|OTHER|Descriptive, Week 40|Difference - %|-18.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.7|-8.6|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||Week 40||-8.6|-28.7|
91056624|NCT04058067|181994572|OTHER|Descriptive, Week 44|Difference - %|-14.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.6|-4.4|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||Week 44||-4.4|-25.6|
91056625|NCT04058067|181994572|OTHER|Descriptive, Week 48|Difference - %|-13.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.6|-3.4|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||Week 48||-3.4|-23.6|
91056626|NCT04058067|181994572|OTHER|Descriptive, Week 52|Difference - %|-12.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.5|-2.9|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||Week 52||-2.9|-23.5|
91056627|NCT04058067|181994573|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|11.2|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||||11.2|-13.6|
91056628|NCT04058067|181994575|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-10.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.79|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.3|17.0|||ANOVA|||||17.0|-37.3|
91056629|NCT04058067|181994576|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.34|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.8|21.9|||ANOVA|||||21.9|-26.8|
91056630|NCT04058067|181994577|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-8.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.3|13.2|||ANOVA|||||13.2|-30.3|
90816796|NCT00574548|181512433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titer|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.01|3.89|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (\[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS / 13vPnC\]).|Serotype 18C: ratio for GMT calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||3.89|2.01|
91056631|NCT04058067|181994578|SUPERIORITY||Difference - %|5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|13.5|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||Week 4||13.5|-3.3|
91056632|NCT04058067|181994578|SUPERIORITY||Difference - %|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|20.6|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||Week 6||20.6|1.4|
91056633|NCT04058067|181994578|SUPERIORITY||Difference - %|14.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|25.3|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||Week 8||25.3|3.9|
91056634|NCT04058067|181994578|SUPERIORITY||Difference - %|14.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|24.9|||Clopper-Pearson exact method||Proportion estimates (%) = 39.3|Week 12||24.9|2.8|
91056635|NCT04058067|181994578|SUPERIORITY||Difference - %|16.8||||||95.0|5.1|28.6|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||Week 16||28.6|5.1|
91056636|NCT04058067|181994578|SUPERIORITY||Difference - %|15.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|26.6|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||Week 18||26.6|3.1|
91056637|NCT04058067|181994578|SUPERIORITY||Difference - %|15.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|27.1|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||Week 20||27.1|3.5|
91056638|NCT04058067|181994578|SUPERIORITY||Difference - %|19.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.2|30.2|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||Week 24||30.2|7.2|
91056639|NCT04058067|181994578|SUPERIORITY||Difference - %|16.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|27.9|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||Week 28||27.9|4.9|
91056640|NCT04058067|181994578|SUPERIORITY||Difference - %|12.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|24.4|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||Week 32||24.4|0.4|
91056641|NCT04058067|181994578|SUPERIORITY||Difference - %|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|18.0|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||Week 36||18.0|-5.9|
91056642|NCT04058067|181994578|SUPERIORITY||Difference - %|15.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|26.1|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||Week 40||26.1|3.3|
91056643|NCT04058067|181994578|SUPERIORITY||Difference - %|13.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|25.7|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||Week 44||25.7|1.9|
91056644|NCT04058067|181994578|SUPERIORITY||Difference - %|11.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|23.6|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||Week 48||23.6|-0.8|
91056645|NCT04058067|181994578|SUPERIORITY||Difference - %|17.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.8|30.5|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||Week 52||30.5|5.8|
91056646|NCT04058067|181994579|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|3.6|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||||3.6|0.8|
91056647|NCT04058067|181994580|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|4.6|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||||4.6|-13.2|
91056648|NCT04058067|181994581|SUPERIORITY||Difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|12.4|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||||12.4|-10.5|
91056649|NCT04058067|181994586|OTHER|Descriptive, Week 28|Difference - %|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|8.8|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||Week 28||8.8|-13.9|
91056650|NCT04058067|181994586|OTHER|Descriptive, Week 52|Difference - %|-2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|9.0|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||Week 52||9.0|-14.1|
91056651|NCT04058067|181994588|OTHER|Descriptive, Week 28|Difference - %|4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|12.6|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||Week 28||12.6|-4.1|
91056652|NCT04058067|181994588|OTHER|Descriptive, Week 52|Difference - %|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|9.3|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||Week 52||9.3|-10.5|
91056653|NCT04058067|181994590|OTHER|Descriptive, Week 28|Difference - %|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.9|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||Week 28||2.9|0.7|
91056654|NCT04058067|181994592|OTHER|Descriptive, Week 28|Difference - %|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.9|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||Week 28||2.9|0.7|
91056655|NCT04058067|181994593|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.9||||||95.0|-4.1|2.3|||ANCOVA|||Week 28||2.3|-4.1|
91056656|NCT04058067|181994593|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|3.3|||ANCOVA|||Week 52||3.3|-3.1|
91056657|NCT05502081|181994635|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
91056658|NCT05502081|181994635|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.176|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.176
91056659|NCT05502081|181994635|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
91056660|NCT05502081|181994635|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
91056661|NCT05502081|181994636|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.011
91056662|NCT05502081|181994636|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.021|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.021
91056663|NCT05502081|181994636|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.42
91056664|NCT05502081|181994636|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.007
91056665|NCT05502081|181994637|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.99
91056666|NCT05502081|181994638|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.005
91056667|NCT05502081|181994638|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.99
91056668|NCT05502081|181994638|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.003
91056669|NCT05502081|181994638|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.003
91056670|NCT05502081|181994639|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
91056671|NCT05502081|181994639|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.119|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.119
91056672|NCT05502081|181994639|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
91056673|NCT05502081|181994639|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
91056674|NCT05502081|181994640|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.933|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.933
91056675|NCT05502081|181994641|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.011
91056676|NCT05502081|181994641|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.054|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.054
91056677|NCT05502081|181994641|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.185|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.185
91056678|NCT05502081|181994641|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.004
91056679|NCT05502081|181994642|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
91056680|NCT05502081|181994642|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.001
91056681|NCT05502081|181994642|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
91056682|NCT05502081|181994642|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
91056683|NCT05502081|181994643|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
91056684|NCT05502081|181994643|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.758|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.758
91056685|NCT05502081|181994643|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
91056686|NCT05502081|181994643|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
91056687|NCT05502081|181994644|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.412|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.412
91056688|NCT05502081|181994645|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.106|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.106
91056689|NCT05502081|181994646|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.01
91056690|NCT05502081|181994646|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.06
91056691|NCT05502081|181994646|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.156|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.156
91056692|NCT05502081|181994646|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.003
91056693|NCT05502081|181994647|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.219|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.219
91056694|NCT05502081|181994648|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.298|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.298
91056695|NCT05502081|181994649|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.015
91056696|NCT05502081|181994649|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.232|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.232
91056697|NCT05502081|181994649|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.004
91056698|NCT05502081|181994649|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.054|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.054
91056699|NCT05502081|181994650|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.68
91056700|NCT05502081|181994650|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.232|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.232
91056701|NCT05502081|181994650|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.004
91056702|NCT05502081|181994650|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.054|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.054
91056703|NCT05502081|181994651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.002
91056704|NCT05502081|181994651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.557|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.557
91056705|NCT05502081|181994651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.001
91056706|NCT05502081|181994651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.004
91056707|NCT05502081|181994652|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
91056708|NCT05502081|181994652|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.51
91056709|NCT05502081|181994652|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
91056710|NCT05502081|181994652|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
91056711|NCT05502081|181994653|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
91056712|NCT05502081|181994653|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.891|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.891
91056713|NCT05502081|181994653|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
91056714|NCT05502081|181994653|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
91056715|NCT05502081|181994654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.516|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.516
91056716|NCT05502081|181994655|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.264|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.264
91056717|NCT05502081|181994656|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
91056718|NCT05502081|181994656|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.256|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.256
91056719|NCT05502081|181994656|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
91056720|NCT05502081|181994656|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
91056721|NCT05502081|181994657|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.008
91056722|NCT05502081|181994657|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.797|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.797
91056723|NCT05502081|181994657|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.003
91056724|NCT05502081|181994657|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.004
91056725|NCT05502081|181994658|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.157|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.157
91056726|NCT05502081|181994659|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
91056727|NCT05502081|181994659|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.982|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.982
91056728|NCT05502081|181994659|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
91056729|NCT05502081|181994659|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
91056730|NCT05502081|181994660|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.015
91056731|NCT05502081|181994660|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.136|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.136
91056732|NCT05502081|181994660|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.062|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.062
91056733|NCT05502081|181994660|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.005
91056734|NCT05502081|181994661|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.136|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.136
91056735|NCT05502081|181994662|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.687|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.687
91056736|NCT05502081|181994663|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.278|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.278
91056737|NCT05502081|181994664|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.99
91056738|NCT05502081|181994665|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.574|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.574
91056739|NCT05502081|181994666|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.017
91056740|NCT05502081|181994666|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.017
91056741|NCT05502081|181994666|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.041|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.041
91056742|NCT05502081|181994666|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.616|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.616
90816797|NCT00574548|181512433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titer|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.92|3.13|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (\[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS / 13vPnC\]).|Serotype 19A: ratio for GMT calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||3.13|1.92|
90816798|NCT00574548|181512433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titer|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|3.44|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (\[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS / 13vPnC\]).|Serotype 19F: ratio for GMT calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||3.44|1.80|
90816799|NCT00574548|181512433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titer|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.92|4.28|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (\[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS / 13vPnC\]).|Serotype 23F: ratio for GMT calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||4.28|1.92|
90816800|NCT00448747|181512449|OTHER||ROC AUC|0.923|||||ONE_SIDED|99.0|0.85|||||||Summary of ROC Analyses following macimorelin administration.|||0.850|
90816801|NCT00448747|181512449|OTHER|Sensitivity|sensitivity (percent)|82.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||ROC analysis on peak GH concentrations in response to macimorelin: GH cut point of 2.7 ng/mL.||||
90816802|NCT00448747|181512449|OTHER|Specificity|Specificity (percent)|92.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||ROC analysis on peak GH concentrations in response to macimorelin: GH cut point of 2.7 ng/mL.||||
90816803|NCT00448747|181512449|OTHER|Misclassification|misclassification (percent)|13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||ROC analysis on peak GH concentrations in response to macimorelin: GH cut point of 2.7 ng/mL.||||
90816804|NCT00448747|181512450|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.57|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Summary of IGF-1 before and after AEZS-130 administration: post - pre differences||||
90816805|NCT00448747|181512450|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.25|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90816806|NCT00568126|181512456|SUPERIORITY|Remission rates for maca vs. placebo were compared by chi-squared and by odds ratio (with 95% confidence interval).|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|25.2||P values above are calculated. No multiple comparisons. Threshold for significance set a priori as P\<0.05.|Chi-squared||Odds ratio for attaining remission while taking maca vs taking placebo|"Treatment groups were compared based on percentage reaching remission thresholds per scale: a total score of 12 (minimally diminished) or less on the MGH-SFQ scale, and a total score of 10 (very strong/very easily/very satisfying) or less on the ASEX."||25.2|0.18|0.55
90816807|NCT00568126|181512457|SUPERIORITY|Remission rates for maca vs. placebo were compared by chi-squared and by odds ratio (with 95% confidence interval).|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|7.34||P values above are calculated. No multiple comparisons. Threshold for significance set a priori as P\<0.05.|Chi-squared||Odds ratio for attaining remission while taking maca vs taking placebo|"Treatment groups were compared based on percentage reaching remission thresholds per scale: a total score of 12 (minimally diminished) or less on the MGH-SFQ scale, and a total score of 10 (very strong/very easily/very satisfying) or less on the ASEX."||7.34|0.40|0.47
90816808|NCT04473664|181512463|OTHER|Least squares (LS) means were calculated from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on log-transformed scale. The LS means for each treatment were back transformed from the log scale to provide estimates of the geometric means (GMS). The ratio (%) of GMS was calculated and 90% Confidence Intervals (CIs) for the ratio (%) of GMS were presented.|Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Mean]|95.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.1|117.0|||||For the comparison, the Moderate Hepatic Impairment treatment group represents the numerator and Normal Hepatic Function treatment group represents the denominator.|Statistical comparison was analyzed for Quizartinib.||117|77.1|
90816809|NCT04473664|181512465|OTHER|Least squares (LS) means were calculated from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on log-transformed scale. The LS means for each treatment were back transformed from the log scale to provide estimates of the geometric means (GMS). The ratio (%) of GMS was calculated and 90% Confidence Intervals (CIs) for the ratio (%) of GMS were presented.|Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Mean]|109.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|59.5|201.0|||||For the comparison, the Moderate Hepatic Impairment treatment group represents the numerator and Normal Hepatic Function treatment group represents the denominator.|AUClast statistical comparison was analyzed for Quizartinib.||201|59.5|
91056743|NCT05502081|181994667|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.99
90816810|NCT04473664|181512465|OTHER|Least squares (LS) means were calculated from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on log-transformed scale. The LS means for each treatment were back transformed from the log scale to provide estimates of the geometric means (GMS). The ratio (%) of GMS was calculated and 90% Confidence Intervals (CIs) for the ratio (%) of GMS were presented.|Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Mean]|109.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|57.9|207.0|||||For the comparison, the Moderate Hepatic Impairment treatment group represents the numerator and Normal Hepatic Function treatment group represents the denominator.|AUCinf statistical comparison was analyzed for Quizartinib.||207|57.9|
90890476|NCT04773587|181645669|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.67|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.64|4.359|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site with multiple imputation of missing observations|Stratified by pooled study site with multiple imputation of missing observations|Difference in vIGA-AD Success at Week 4||4.359|1.640|<0.0001
91056744|NCT05502081|181994668|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
91056745|NCT05502081|181994668|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.208|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.208
91056746|NCT05502081|181994668|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
91056747|NCT05502081|181994668|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.001
91056748|NCT05502081|181994669|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.088|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.088
91056749|NCT05502081|181994670|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.157|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.157
91056750|NCT05502081|181994671|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.006
91056751|NCT05502081|181994671|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.151|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.151
91056752|NCT05502081|181994671|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.001
91056753|NCT05502081|181994671|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.035
91056754|NCT05502081|181994672|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.037|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.037
91056755|NCT05502081|181994672|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.997|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.997
91056756|NCT05502081|181994672|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.016
91056757|NCT05502081|181994672|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.014
91056758|NCT05502081|181994673|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.48
91056759|NCT05502081|181994674|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.047|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.047
91056760|NCT05502081|181994674|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.04
91056761|NCT05502081|181994674|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.036
91056762|NCT05502081|181994674|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.67
91056763|NCT05502081|181994675|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.015
91056764|NCT05502081|181994675|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.027
91056765|NCT05502081|181994675|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.008
91056766|NCT05502081|181994675|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.38
91056767|NCT05502081|181994676|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.814|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.814
91056768|NCT05502081|181994677|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.157|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.157
91056769|NCT05502081|181994678|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
91056770|NCT05502081|181994678|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
91056771|NCT05502081|181994678|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
91056772|NCT05502081|181994678|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.971|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.971
91056773|NCT05502081|181994679|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.001
91056774|NCT05502081|181994679|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
91056775|NCT05502081|181994680|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.007
91056776|NCT05502081|181994680|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.017
91056777|NCT05502081|181994680|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.452|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.452
91056778|NCT05502081|181994680|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.237|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.237
91056779|NCT05502081|181994681|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.157|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.157
91056780|NCT05502081|181994682|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.015
91056781|NCT05502081|181994682|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.223|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.223
91056782|NCT05502081|181994682|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.004
91056783|NCT05502081|181994682|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.05
91056784|NCT05502081|181994683|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.423|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.423
91056785|NCT05502081|181994684|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.429|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.429
91056786|NCT05502081|181994685|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.089|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.089
91056787|NCT05502081|181994686|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.222|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.222
91056788|NCT05502081|181994687|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.252|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.252
91056789|NCT05502081|181994688|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.157|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.157
91056790|NCT05502081|181994689|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.007
91056791|NCT05502081|181994689|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.382|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.382
91056792|NCT05502081|181994689|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.017
91056793|NCT05502081|181994689|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.002
91056794|NCT05502081|181994690|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.457|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.457
91056795|NCT05502081|181994691|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.48
91056796|NCT05502081|181994692|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.01
91056797|NCT05502081|181994692|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.605|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.605
91056798|NCT05502081|181994692|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.003
91056799|NCT05502081|181994692|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.01
91056800|NCT05502081|181994693|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.293|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.293
91056801|NCT05502081|181994694|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.157|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.157
91056802|NCT05502081|181994695|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.36
91056803|NCT05502081|181994696|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.404|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.404
91056804|NCT05502081|181994697|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
91056805|NCT05502081|181994697|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.234|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.234
91056806|NCT05502081|181994697|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
91056807|NCT05502081|181994697|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
91056808|NCT05502081|181994698|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
91056809|NCT05502081|181994698|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.223|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.223
91056810|NCT05502081|181994698|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
91056811|NCT05502081|181994698|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
91056812|NCT05502081|181994699|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
91056813|NCT05502081|181994699|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.002
91056814|NCT05502081|181994699|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
91056815|NCT05502081|181994699|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.213|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.213
91056816|NCT05502081|181994700|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
91056817|NCT05502081|181994700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.478|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.478
91056818|NCT05502081|181994700|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
91056819|NCT05502081|181994700|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
91056820|NCT05502081|181994701|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
91056821|NCT05502081|181994701|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.413|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.413
91056822|NCT05502081|181994701|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
91056823|NCT05502081|181994701|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
91056824|NCT05502081|181994702|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.005
91056825|NCT05502081|181994702|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.155|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.155
91056826|NCT05502081|181994702|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.022
91056827|NCT05502081|181994702|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.001
91056828|NCT05502081|181994703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.48
91056829|NCT05502081|181994704|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
91056830|NCT05502081|181994704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.003
90816811|NCT04473664|181512469|OTHER|Least squares (LS) means were calculated from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on log-transformed scale. The LS means for each treatment were back transformed from the log scale to provide estimates of the geometric means (GMS). The ratio (%) of GMS was calculated and 90% Confidence Intervals (CIs) for the ratio (%) of GMS were presented.|Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Mean|74.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|32.0|173.0|||||For the comparison, the Moderate Hepatic Impairment treatment group represents the numerator and Normal Hepatic Function treatment group represents the denominator.|Statistical comparison was analyzed for AC886.||173|32.0|
90816812|NCT04473664|181512471|OTHER|Least squares (LS) means were calculated from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on log-transformed scale. The LS means for each treatment were back transformed from the log scale to provide estimates of the geometric means (GMS). The ratio (%) of GMS was calculated and 90% Confidence Intervals (CIs) for the ratio (%) of GMS were presented.|Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Mean|62.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|35.3|111.0|||||For the comparison, the Moderate Hepatic Impairment treatment group represents the numerator and Normal Hepatic Function treatment group represents the denominator.|AUClast statistical comparison was analyzed for AC886.||111|35.3|
90816813|NCT04473664|181512471|OTHER|Least squares (LS) means were calculated from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on log-transformed scale. The LS means for each treatment were back transformed from the log scale to provide estimates of the geometric means (GMS). The ratio (%) of GMS was calculated and 90% Confidence Intervals (CIs) for the ratio (%) of GMS were presented.|Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Mean|69.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|46.8|104.0|||||For the comparison, the Moderate Hepatic Impairment treatment group represents the numerator and Normal Hepatic Function treatment group represents the denominator.|AUCinf statistical comparison was analyzed for AC886.||104|46.8|
90816814|NCT04473664|181512474|OTHER|Least squares (LS) means were calculated from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on log-transformed scale. The LS means for each treatment were back transformed from the log scale to provide estimates of the geometric means (GMS). The ratio (%) of GMS was calculated and 90% Confidence Intervals (CIs) for the ratio (%) of GMS were presented.|Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Mean|44.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|18.0|111.0|||||For the comparison, the Moderate Hepatic Impairment treatment group represents the numerator and Normal Hepatic Function treatment group represents the denominator.|Statistical comparison was analyzed for Quizartinib.||111|18.0|
90816815|NCT04473664|181512475|OTHER|Least squares (LS) means were calculated from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on log-transformed scale. The LS means for each treatment were back transformed from the log scale to provide estimates of the geometric means (GMS). The ratio (%) of GMS was calculated and 90% Confidence Intervals (CIs) for the ratio (%) of GMS were presented.|Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Mean|51.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|16.0|165.0|||||For the comparison, the Moderate Hepatic Impairment treatment group represents the numerator and Normal Hepatic Function treatment group represents the denominator.|AUClast statistical comparison was analyzed for Quizartinib.||165|16.0|
90816816|NCT04473664|181512475|OTHER|Least squares (LS) means were calculated from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on log-transformed scale. The LS means for each treatment were back transformed from the log scale to provide estimates of the geometric means (GMS). The ratio (%) of GMS was calculated and 90% Confidence Intervals (CIs) for the ratio (%) of GMS were presented.|Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Mean|51.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|15.8|168.0|||||For the comparison, the Moderate Hepatic Impairment treatment group represents the numerator and Normal Hepatic Function treatment group represents the denominator.|AUCinf statistical comparison was analyzed for Quizartinib.||168|15.8|
90816817|NCT02429791|181512484|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was concluded if the lower bound of a two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in response rates between the two treatment arms was greater than -10%.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|3.0|||||Estimates based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel stratified analysis adjusting for Baseline stratification factors: Age group (\< or \>=50 years old) and Baseline third agent (PI, NNRTI, INI).|||3.0|-4.3|
90816818|NCT02429791|181512486|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|4.0|||||Cochran-Mantel Haenszel stratified analysis adjusting for Baseline stratification factors: Age group (\< or \>=50 years old) and Baseline third agent (PI, NNRTI, INI). No formal non-inferiority margin has been pre-specified for secondary endpoints.|||4.0|-1.9|
90816819|NCT02429791|181512497|OTHER|||||||0.007||||||P-value for interaction between treatment group and baseline third agent (25 hydroxy-vitamin D)|ANCOVA|||||||0.007
91056831|NCT05502081|181994704|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
90816820|NCT02429791|181512497|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.958||||0.275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.888|1.034||P value to assess difference between treatment groups (25 hydroxy-vitamin D - NNRTI)|ANCOVA||Estimates are calculated from an ANCOVA model adjusting for Baseline third agent class, age, sex, BMI category, smoking status and baseline biomarker level.|||1.034|0.888|0.275
90816821|NCT02429791|181512497|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.902||||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.793|1.025||P value to assess difference between treatment groups (25 hydroxy-vitamin D - INI)|ANCOVA||Estimates are calculated from an ANCOVA model adjusting for Baseline third agent class, age, sex, BMI category, smoking status and baseline biomarker level.|||1.025|0.793|0.112
90816822|NCT02429791|181512497|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.847||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.763|0.942||P value to assess difference between treatment groups (25 hydroxy-vitamin D - PI)|ANCOVA||Estimates are calculated from an ANCOVA model adjusting for Baseline third agent class, age, sex, BMI category, smoking status and baseline biomarker level.|||0.942|0.763|0.002
90816823|NCT02429791|181512499|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||P-value for interaction between treatment group and baseline third agent (bone-specific alkaline phosphatase)|ANCOVA|||||||0.001
90816824|NCT02429791|181512499|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.724|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.679|0.772||P value to assess difference between treatment groups (bone-specific alkaline phosphatase - NNRTI)|ANCOVA||Estimates are calculated from an ANCOVA model adjusting for Baseline third agent class, age, sex, BMI category, smoking status and Baseline biomarker level.|||0.772|0.679|<.001
91056832|NCT05502081|181994704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.011
91056833|NCT05502081|181994705|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.189|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.189
91056834|NCT05502081|181994706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.414|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.414
91056835|NCT03421730|181994724|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (%)|8.69|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||A: n=6; D: n=5||The intra-subject coefficient of variation was 25.33%.|||
91056836|NCT03421730|181994724|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (%)|28.18|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||B: n=6, D: n=5||The intra-subject coefficient of variation was 25.33%.|||
91056837|NCT03421730|181994724|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (%)|59.51|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||C: n=6, D: n=5||The intra-subject coefficient of variation was 25.33%.|||
90816825|NCT02429791|181512499|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.825|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.742|0.918||P value to assess difference between treatment groups (bone-specific alkaline phosphatase - INI)|ANCOVA||Estimates are calculated from an ANCOVA model adjusting for Baseline third agent class, age, sex, BMI category, smoking status and Baseline biomarker level.|||0.918|0.742|<.001
90816826|NCT02429791|181512499|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.742|0.884||P value to assess difference between treatment groups (bone-specific alkaline phosphatase - PI)|ANCOVA||Estimates are calculated from an ANCOVA model adjusting for Baseline third agent class, age, sex, BMI category, smoking status and Baseline biomarker level.|||0.884|0.742|<.001
90816827|NCT02429791|181512499|OTHER|||||||0.677||||||P-value for interaction between treatment group and Baseline third agent (procollagen type 1-N-propeptide)|ANCOVA|||||||0.677
90816828|NCT02429791|181512499|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.817|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.774|0.863||P value to assess difference between treatment groups (procollagen type 1-N-propeptide)|ANCOVA||Estimates are calculated from an ANCOVA model adjusting for Baseline third agent class, age, sex, BMI category, smoking status and Baseline biomarker level.|||0.863|0.774|<.001
90816829|NCT02429791|181512499|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value for interaction between treatment group and Baseline third agent (osteocalcin)|ANCOVA|||||||<.001
90816830|NCT02429791|181512499|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.881|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.823|0.943||P value to assess difference between treatment groups (osteocalcin - NNRTI)|ANCOVA||Estimates are calculated from an ANCOVA model adjusting for Baseline third agent class, age, sex, BMI category, smoking status and Baseline biomarker level.|||0.943|0.823|<.001
90816831|NCT02429791|181512499|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.829||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.93||P value to assess difference between treatment groups (osteocalcin - INI)|ANCOVA||Estimates are calculated from an ANCOVA model adjusting for Baseline third agent class, age, sex, BMI category, smoking status and Baseline biomarker level.|||0.930|0.740|0.001
90816832|NCT02429791|181512499|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.691|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.628|0.759||P value to assess difference between treatment groups (osteocalcin - PI)|ANCOVA||Estimates are calculated from an ANCOVA model adjusting for Baseline third agent class, age, sex, BMI category, smoking status and Baseline biomarker level.|||0.759|0.628|<.001
90816833|NCT02429791|181512499|OTHER|||||||0.782||||||P-value for interaction between treatment group and baseline third agent (type 1 collagen cross-linked C-telopeptide)|ANCOVA|||||||0.782
90816834|NCT02429791|181512499|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.804|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.742|0.872||P value to assess difference between treatment groups (type 1 collagen cross-linked C-telopeptide)|ANCOVA||Estimates are calculated from an ANCOVA model adjusting for Baseline third agent class, age, sex, BMI category, smoking status and Baseline biomarker level.|||0.872|0.742|<.001
90816835|NCT02429791|181512512|OTHER|||||||0.317||||||One-sided p-value from weighted least squares chi-squared statistic. A p-value \<=0.10 was used to indicate statistically significant evidence of heterogeneity in the difference in proportions across levels of each analysis strata.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.317
90816836|NCT02429791|181512512|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|1.5|||||NNRTI: No formal non-inferiority margin has been pre-specified for secondary endpoints.|||1.5|-7.7|
90816837|NCT02429791|181512512|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|9.0|||||INI: No formal non-inferiority margin has been pre-specified for secondary endpoints.|||9.0|-5.1|
90816838|NCT02429791|181512512|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|10.8|||||PI: No formal non-inferiority margin has been pre-specified for secondary endpoints.|||10.8|-5.3|
90816839|NCT02429791|181512520|OTHER|||||||0.94||||||P-value for interaction between treatment group and Baseline symptom bother score (Week 4)|ANCOVA|||||||0.940
90816840|NCT02429791|181512520|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.924|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.26|-1.588||P value to assess difference between treatment groups (Week 4)|ANCOVA||Estimates are calculated from an ANCOVA model adjusting for age, Baseline third agent, gender, race and Baseline score.|||-1.588|-4.260|<.001
90816841|NCT02429791|181512520|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||P-value for interaction between treatment group and Baseline symptom bother score (Week 24)|ANCOVA|||||||0.001
90816842|NCT02429791|181512520|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.192||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.656|0.271||P value to assess difference between treatment groups (Week 24)|ANCOVA||Estimates are calculated from an ANCOVA model adjusting for age, Baseline third agent, gender, race and Baseline score.|||0.271|-2.656|0.110
90816843|NCT02429791|181512520|OTHER|||||||0.048||||||P-value for interaction between treatment group and Baseline symptom bother score (Week 48)|ANCOVA|||||||0.048
90816844|NCT02429791|181512520|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.569||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.048|-0.09||P value to assess difference between treatment groups (Week 48)|ANCOVA||Estimates are calculated from an ANCOVA model adjusting for age, Baseline third agent, gender, race and Baseline score.|||-0.090|-3.048|0.038
90816845|NCT02429791|181512523|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||P-value to assess HIVTSQs Total Score difference between treatment groups (Week 4)|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.002
90816846|NCT02429791|181512523|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value to assess HIVTSQs Total Score difference between treatment groups (Week 24)|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||<0.001
90816847|NCT02429791|181512523|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024||||||P-value to assess HIVTSQs Total score difference between treatment groups (Week 48)|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.024
90816848|NCT02429791|181512523|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value to assess HIVTSQs lifestyle/ease sub- score difference between treatment groups (Week 4)|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||<0.001
90816849|NCT02429791|181512523|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value to assess HIVTSQs lifestyle/ease sub- score difference between treatment groups (Week 24)|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||<0.001
90816850|NCT02429791|181512523|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||P-value to assess HIVTSQs lifestyle/ease sub- score difference between treatment groups (Week 48)|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.005
90816851|NCT02429791|181512523|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.063||||||P-value to assess HIVTSQs General satisfaction/CS sub- score difference between treatment groups (Week 4)|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.063
90816852|NCT02429791|181512523|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||P-value to assess HIVTSQs General satisfaction/CS sub- score difference between treatment groups (Week 24)|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.002
90816853|NCT02429791|181512523|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.099||||||P-value to assess HIVTSQs General satisfaction/CS sub- score difference between treatment groups (Week 48)|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.099
91056838|NCT03421730|181994725|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (%)|13.35|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||A: n=4, D: n=4||The intra-subject coefficient of variation was 22.05%.|||
90816854|NCT04201093|181512558|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-11.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|-9.2||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and CI's are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, treatment by visit interaction and MAO-B inhibitor use with the baseline value as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||||-9.2|-13.8|<0.0001
90816855|NCT04201093|181512558|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-12.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|-9.8||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and CI's are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, treatment by visit interaction and MAO-B inhibitor use with the baseline value as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||||-9.8|-14.4|<0.0001
90816856|NCT04201093|181512559|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-1.7||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and CI's are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, treatment by visit interaction and MAO-B inhibitor use with the baseline value as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||||-1.7|-3.3|<0.0001
90816857|NCT04201093|181512559|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-1.7||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and CI's are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, treatment by visit interaction and MAO-B inhibitor use with the baseline value as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||||-1.7|-3.4|<0.0001
90816858|NCT04201093|181512560|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.148|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.339|11.321|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.321|3.339|<0.0001
90816859|NCT04201093|181512560|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.968|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.22|11.062|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.062|3.220|<0.0001
90816860|NCT04201093|181512561|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-11.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|-9.2||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and CI's are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, treatment by visit interaction and MAO-B inhibitor use with the baseline value as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 26||-9.2|-13.8|<0.0001
90816861|NCT04201093|181512561|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-12.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|-9.8||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and CI's are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, treatment by visit interaction and MAO-B inhibitor use with the baseline value as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 26||-9.8|-14.4|<0.0001
90816862|NCT04201093|181512562|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-11.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.35|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|-9.1||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and CI's are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, treatment by visit interaction and MAO-B inhibitor use with the baseline value as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 26||-9.1|-14.4|<0.0001
90816863|NCT04201093|181512562|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-12.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.37|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|-9.3||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and CI's are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, treatment by visit interaction and MAO-B inhibitor use with the baseline value as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 26||-9.3|-14.7|<0.0001
91056839|NCT03421730|181994725|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (%)|35.97|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||B: n=4, D: n=4||The intra-subject coefficient of variation was 22.05%|||
90816864|NCT04201093|181512563|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.4822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.5||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and CI's are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, treatment by visit interaction and MAO-B inhibitor use with the baseline value as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Part I: Week 26||0.5|-1.0|0.4822
90816865|NCT04201093|181512563|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.7742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.6||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and CI's are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, treatment by visit interaction and MAO-B inhibitor use with the baseline value as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Part I: Week 26||0.6|-0.9|0.7742
90816866|NCT04201093|181512563|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-1.7||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and CI's are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, treatment by visit interaction and MAO-B inhibitor use with the baseline value as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Part II: Week 26||-1.7|-3.3|<0.0001
90816867|NCT04201093|181512563|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-1.7||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and CI's are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, treatment by visit interaction and MAO-B inhibitor use with the baseline value as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Part II: Week 26||-1.7|-3.4|<0.0001
90816868|NCT04201093|181512563|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|-7.3||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and CI's are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, treatment by visit interaction and MAO-B inhibitor use with the baseline value as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Part III: Week 26||-7.3|-10.8|<0.0001
90816869|NCT04201093|181512563|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-9.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|-7.6||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and CI's are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, treatment by visit interaction and MAO-B inhibitor use with the baseline value as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Part III: Week 26||-7.6|-11.2|<0.0001
91056840|NCT03421730|181994725|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (%)|76.98|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||C: n=4, D: n=4||The intra-subject coefficient of variation was 22.05%|||
91056841|NCT03421730|181994726|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (%)|9.55|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||A: n=6, D: n=5||The intra-subject coefficient of variation was 33.04%.|||
91056842|NCT03421730|181994726|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (%)|32.42|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||B: n=6, D: n=5||The intra-subject coefficient of variation was 33.04%.|||
90816870|NCT04201093|181512564|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.3||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and CI's are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, treatment by visit interaction and MAO-B inhibitor use with the baseline value as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 26||-0.3|-0.6|<0.0001
90816871|NCT04201093|181512564|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.2||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and CI's are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, treatment by visit interaction and MAO-B inhibitor use with the baseline value as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 26||-0.2|-0.5|<0.0001
90816872|NCT04201093|181512565|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.9||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and CI's are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, treatment by visit interaction and MAO-B inhibitor use with the baseline value as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 26||-0.9|-1.4|<0.0001
90816873|NCT04201093|181512565|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.7||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and CI's are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, treatment by visit interaction and MAO-B inhibitor use with the baseline value as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 26||-0.7|-1.2|<0.0001
90816874|NCT04201093|181512566|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.9||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and CI's are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, treatment by visit interaction and MAO-B inhibitor use with the baseline value as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 26||-0.9|-1.4|<0.0001
90816875|NCT04201093|181512566|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.9||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and CI's are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, treatment by visit interaction and MAO-B inhibitor use with the baseline value as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 26||-0.9|-1.5|<0.0001
90816876|NCT04201093|181512567|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.6047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.5||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and CI's are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, treatment by visit interaction and MAO-B inhibitor use with the baseline value as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 26||0.5|-0.8|0.6047
90816877|NCT04201093|181512567|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.3||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and CI's are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, treatment by visit interaction and MAO-B inhibitor use with the baseline value as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 26||0.3|-1.0|0.2570
90816878|NCT04201093|181512568|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.8516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.1||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and CI's are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, treatment by visit interaction and MAO-B inhibitor use with the baseline value as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 26||1.1|-1.4|0.8516
90816879|NCT04201093|181512568|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.6421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.0||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and CI's are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, treatment by visit interaction and MAO-B inhibitor use with the baseline value as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 26||1.0|-1.6|0.6421
90816880|NCT02596230|181512586|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.634||||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.322|1.249||One-side p-value|Regression, Cox|Cox-regression proportional hazards model including fixed effects for treatment.|Hazard Ratio \< 1 favors Dabigatran etexilate.|||1.249|0.322|0.188
90816881|NCT02596230|181512587|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.778||||0.606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.017||One-side p-value|Regression, Cox|Cox-regression proportional hazards model including fixed effects for treatment.|Hazard Ratio \< 1 favors Dabigatran etexilate.|||2.017|0.300|0.606
90816882|NCT02596230|181512588|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.751||||0.542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.299|1.885||One-side p-value|Regression, Cox|Cox-regression proportional hazards model including fixed effects for treatment.|Hazard Ratio \< 1 favors Dabigatran etexilate.|||1.885|0.299|0.542
90816883|NCT02596230|181512589|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.0||||0.996|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||One-side p-value|Regression, Cox|Cox-regression proportional hazards model including fixed effects for treatment.|"Hazard Ratio \< 1 favors Dabigatran etexilate.~Hazard Ratio is actually \<0.01~95% Confidence Interval is not calculable (NA) due to insufficient number of participants with events."|||||0.996
90816884|NCT02596230|181512590|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.857||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.402|1.828||One-side p-value|Regression, Cox|Cox-regression proportional hazards model including fixed effects for treatment.|Hazard Ratio \< 1 favors Dabigatran etexilate.|||1.828|0.402|0.690
90816885|NCT02294734|181512646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.03||||60.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.25||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Longitudinal; Lobes; RUL; D12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.25|0.85|60.66
90816886|NCT02294734|181512646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.19||||95.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.47||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Longitudinal; Lobes; RUL; D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.47|0.97|95.21
91056843|NCT03421730|181994726|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (%)|59.75|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||C: n=6, D: n=5||The intra-subject coefficient of variation was 33.04%.|||
91056844|NCT00555152|181994741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
91056845|NCT02922738|181994746|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.92||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.21|||Regression, Cox|||||1.21|0.70|0.54
91056846|NCT02922738|181994747|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.29
91056847|NCT02730351|181994762|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.69||||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.76|0.39||Mixed model repeated measures analysis adjusted for fixed effects of treatment, sex, age, treatment period, smoking history, period Baseline FEV1 and the mean of the two period Baseline FEV1 values. Subject is fitted as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.39|-3.76|0.109
91056848|NCT02730351|181994763|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.15||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.31|0.01||Mixed model repeated measures analysis adjusted for fixed effects of treatment, sex, age, treatment period, smoking history, period Baseline FEV1 and the mean of the two period Baseline FEV1 values. Subject is fitted as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.01|-4.31|0.051
91056849|NCT02730351|181994764|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.26||Repeated measures logistic regression model with parameters estimated using the Generalized Estimating Equation method. Covariates of treatment, sex, age, treatment period, and period baseline FEV1 were included.|Regression, Logistic||12 hrs: modeling the odds of having FEV1 \>/=95% of pre exercise FEV1 at each of the two time points.|||2.26|0.80|0.266
91056850|NCT02730351|181994764|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.58||Repeated measures logistic regression model with parameters estimated using the Generalized Estimating Equation method|Regression, Logistic||23 hrs: modeling the odds of having FEV1 \>/=95% of pre exercise FEV1 at each of the two time points.|||2.58|0.73|0.322
91056851|NCT02730351|181994765|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.65||||0.342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.01|0.71||Mixed model repeated measures analysis adjusted for fixed effects of treatment, sex, age, treatment period, smoking history, period Baseline FEV1 and the mean of the two period Baseline FEV1 values. Subject is fitted as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis||12 hrs post-dose|||0.71|-2.01|0.342
91056852|NCT02730351|181994765|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.75||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.42|-0.07||Mixed model repeated measures analysis adjusted for fixed effects of treatment, sex, age, treatment period, smoking history, period Baseline FEV1 and the mean of the two period Baseline FEV1 values.|Mixed Models Analysis||23 hrs post-dose|||-0.07|-3.42|0.041
91056853|NCT01798316|181994769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
91056854|NCT06281171|181994784|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<.001
91056855|NCT06281171|181994785|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.996|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.996
91056856|NCT06281171|181994786|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.782|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.782
91056857|NCT06281171|181994787|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.54
91056858|NCT06281171|181994788|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.03
91056859|NCT06281171|181994789|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.30
91056860|NCT06281171|181994790|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.06
91056861|NCT00513682|181994793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0013||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0013
91056862|NCT00513682|181994794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0009||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0009
91056863|NCT03258853|181994821|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||paired 2-sided t-test|||||||0.001
91056864|NCT03258853|181994822|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Secondary outcomes were adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||1.0
91056865|NCT03258853|181994823|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||Secondary outcomes are adjusted for multiple comparisons|paired 2-sided t-test|||||||0.04
91056866|NCT03258853|181994824|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wicoxon signed rank test|||||||1.0
91056867|NCT03258853|181994825|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014||||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.014
91056868|NCT03258853|181994826|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014||||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.014
91056869|NCT03258853|181994827|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14||||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.14
91056870|NCT03258853|181994828|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||1.0
91056871|NCT03258853|181994829|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.01
91056872|NCT03258853|181994830|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||McNemar|||||||0.08
91056873|NCT03258853|181994831|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||McNemar|||||||0.56
91056874|NCT03258853|181994832|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||McNemar|||||||0.56
91056875|NCT03258853|181994833|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||McNemar|||||||0.15
91056876|NCT03047330|181994850|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.22
91056877|NCT03047330|181994850|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.001
91056878|NCT03047330|181994851|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.048|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.048
91056879|NCT03047330|181994851|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.58
91056880|NCT05773794|181994852|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.968|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.968
91056881|NCT05773794|181994852|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.366|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.366
91056882|NCT05773794|181994852|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91056883|NCT05773794|181994853|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.016
91056884|NCT05773794|181994853|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.11
91056885|NCT05773794|181994853|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.59
91056886|NCT05773794|181994854|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0196|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0196
91056887|NCT05773794|181994854|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91056888|NCT05773794|181994854|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91056889|NCT01392963|181994868|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.001
91056890|NCT00492024|181994884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.189||95.0||||P-value is adjusted for study center; p-value applies to percentage of subjects with success (clinical cure)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for study center||Null hypothesis is that the success rate for moxifloxacin = the success rate for placebo||||0.189
91056891|NCT00492024|181994889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.075||95.0||||p-value adjusted for study center; p-value applies to percentage of subjects with success (clinical cure)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|adjusted for study center||Null hypothesis is that the success rate for moxifloxacin = the success rate for placebo||||0.075
90816887|NCT02294734|181512646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.06||||74.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.28||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Longitudinal; Lobes; LUL; D12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.28|0.88|74.29
90816888|NCT02294734|181512646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.29||||99.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.58||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Longitudinal; Lobes; LUL; D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.58|1.06|99.48
90816889|NCT02294734|181512646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.87||||13.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.13||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Longitudinal; Lobes; RML; D12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.13|0.66|13.98
90816890|NCT02294734|181512646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.28||||97.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.62||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Longitudinal; Lobes; RML; D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.62|1.01|97.92
90816891|NCT02294734|181512646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.14||||80.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.54||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Longitudinal; Lobes; RLL; D12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.54|0.84|80.24
90816892|NCT02294734|181512646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.3||||97.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.66||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Longitudinal; Lobes; RLL; D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.66|1.01|97.79
90816893|NCT02294734|181512646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.0||||51.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.25||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Longitudinal; Lobes; LLL; D12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.25|0.81|51.27
90816894|NCT02294734|181512646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.15||||90.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.42||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Longitudinal; Lobes; LLL; D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.42|0.93|90.66
90816895|NCT02294734|181512646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.01||||54.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.12||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RUL; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.12|0.90|54.89
91056892|NCT00926783|181994947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048||||||The p-value was based on Fisher's exact test. There were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that rates of free from atrial arrhythmia for the two arms, Targeted and Generalized, are the same. The alternative hypothesis is that the rates are not the same. Due to the lack of literature data comparing these endpoints between two randomization groups, the sample size is not statistically powered to support statistical inferences.||||0.048
90816896|NCT02294734|181512646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.1||||94.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.24||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RUL; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.24|0.98|94.45
90816897|NCT02294734|181512646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.09||||94.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.21||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RUL; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.21|0.98|94.09
91078350|NCT03313310|182042243|OTHER|A one-sample non-parametric test for change between baseline and 3-month follow-up was conducted.||||||0.02||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.10. This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank|||||||0.02
90816898|NCT02294734|181512646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.02||||62.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.14||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LUL; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.14|0.91|62.95
90816899|NCT02294734|181512646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.12||||96.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.26||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LUL; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.26|0.99|96.86
90816900|NCT02294734|181512646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.09||||94.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.2||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LUL; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.20|0.98|94.16
90816901|NCT02294734|181512646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.0||||48.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.15||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RML; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.15|0.86|48.99
90816902|NCT02294734|181512646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.12||||94.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.28||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RML; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.28|0.98|94.51
90816903|NCT02294734|181512646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.13||||94.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.31||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RML; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.31|0.97|94.59
90816904|NCT02294734|181512646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.03||||61.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.23||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RLL; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.23|0.86|61.27
90816905|NCT02294734|181512646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.15||||96.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.34||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.No|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RLL; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.34|0.99|96.63
90816906|NCT02294734|181512646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.12||||94.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.29||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RLL; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.29|0.97|94.02
90816907|NCT02294734|181512646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.01||||53.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.17||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LLL; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.17|0.87|53.24
90816908|NCT02294734|181512646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.04||||70.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.19||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LLL; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.19|0.91|70.84
91056893|NCT00926783|181994948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the total RF delivery times for both arms are equal. The alternative hypothesis is that the total RF delivery times are not equal. Due to the lack of literature data comparing these endpoints between two randomization groups, the sample size is not statistically powered to support statistical inferences.||||0.002
90890477|NCT04773587|181645670|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.98||||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.186|3.319|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site and vIGA-AD randomization strata with multiple imputation of missing observations|Stratified by pooled study site and vIGA-AD randomization strata with multiple imputation of missing observations|WI-NRS Success at Week 4||3.319|1.186|0.0089
91056894|NCT00696787|181994971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean|-0.38||||0.471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|0.66|||ANCOVA|||||0.66|-1.42|0.471
90816909|NCT02294734|181512646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.04||||74.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.19||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LLL; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.19|0.92|74.15
90816910|NCT02294734|181512646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.04||||65.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.24||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Longitudinal;Region; Upper; D12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.24|0.87|65.43
90816911|NCT02294734|181512646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.19||||97.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.42||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Longitudinal; Region; Upper; D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.42|0.99|97.15
90816912|NCT02294734|181512646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.05||||63.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.34||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Longitudinal; Region; Lower; D12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.34|0.81|63.99
90816913|NCT02294734|181512646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.15||||91.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.41||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Longitudinal; Region; Lower; D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.41|0.94|91.99
90816914|NCT02294734|181512646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.03||||76.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.14||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Longitudinal; Region;Central; D12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.14|0.94|76.81
90816915|NCT02294734|181512646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.02||||67.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.09||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Longitudinal;Region; Central; D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.09|0.95|67.01
90816916|NCT02294734|181512646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.04||||63.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.27||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Longitudinal; Region; Distal; D12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.27|0.85|63.91
91056895|NCT00696787|181994971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean|-0.28||||0.604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|0.77|||ANCOVA|||||0.77|-1.33|0.604
90816917|NCT02294734|181512646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.18||||96.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.42||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Longitudinal; Region; Distal D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.42|0.99|96.47
90890478|NCT04773587|181645671|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.81||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|5.457|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site and vIGA-AD randomization strata with multiple imputation of missing observations|Stratified by pooled study site and vIGA-AD randomization strata with multiple imputation of missing observations|WI-NRS Success at Week 2||5.457|1.450|0.0016
91056896|NCT00696787|181994972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean|-0.35||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|0.71|||ANCOVA|||||0.71|-1.42|0.510
91056897|NCT00696787|181994972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean|-0.55||||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|0.54|||ANCOVA|||||0.54|-1.64|0.317
91056898|NCT02704403|181994981|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.043||||0.0659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.003|0.09|||Regression, Logistic|test is 2-sided, alpha=0.01||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in response rates between the elafibranor and placebo treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was that there was a difference in the response rates between the elafibranor and placebo treatment groups.||0.090|-0.003|0.0659
91056899|NCT02704403|181994982|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.619|1.457|||||No formal test due to the early termination of the study.|||1.457|0.619|
91078351|NCT03313310|182042244|OTHER|A one-sample non-parametric test for change between baseline and 8-month follow-up was conducted.||||||0.51||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.10. This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank|||||||0.51
91056900|NCT04623086|181995009|OTHER|Comparison of two groups|Mean Difference (Net)|8.1||||0.14|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||For our power calculations, we assumed the true change in TIR to be 0% for the bridging group and 15% for the direct-conversion group, and we assumed a common standard deviation of 15% (meaning the distributions of change in TIR are separated by 1 standard-deviation unit), and thereby obtained that 20 patients in each group would provide 87% power to observe a statistically significant (at the two-sided level of .05) difference in mean change of TIR.||||0.14
91056901|NCT04623086|181995010|OTHER|Comparison of two groups|Mean Difference (Net)|4.1||||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.11
91056902|NCT04623086|181995011|OTHER|Comparison of two groups|Mean Difference (Net)|12.1||||0.29|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.29
91056903|NCT04623086|181995012|OTHER|Comparison of two groups|Mean Difference (Net)|-11.9||||0.015|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.015
91056904|NCT04623086|181995013|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.88|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.88
91056905|NCT04623086|181995014|OTHER|Comparison of two groups|Mean Difference (Net)|2.6||||0.031|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.031
91056906|NCT04623086|181995015|OTHER|Comparison of two groups|Mean Difference (Net)|1.1||||0.27|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.27
91056907|NCT04623086|181995016|OTHER|Comparison of two groups|Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.99
91056908|NCT03464630|181995017|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.503||||||P-value is Bonferroni correction adjusted at 0.05|GLM Repeated Measures|||||||0.503
91056909|NCT03464630|181995018|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value is Bonferroni correction adjusted at 0.05|GLM Repeated Measures|||||||<0.001
91056910|NCT03464630|181995019|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.059||||||P-value is Bonferroni correction adjusted at 0.05|GLM Repeated Measures|||||||0.059
91056911|NCT03464630|181995020|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.702||||||P-value is Bonferroni correction adjusted at 0.05|GLM Repeated Measures|||||||0.702
91056912|NCT03464630|181995021|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08||||||P-value is Bonferroni correction adjusted at 0.05|GLM Repeated Measures|||||||0.08
91056913|NCT03464630|181995022|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09||||||P-value is Bonferroni correction adjusted at 0.05|GLM Repeated Measures|||||||0.09
91056914|NCT03464630|181995023|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.898||||||P-value is Bonferroni correction adjusted at 0.05|GLM Repeated Measures|||||||0.898
91056915|NCT03464630|181995024|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.349||||||P-value is Bonferroni correction adjusted at 0.05|GLM Repeated Measures|||||||0.349
91056916|NCT03464630|181995025|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value is Bonferroni correction adjusted at 0.05|GLM Repeated Measures|||||||<0.001
91056917|NCT00715624|181995026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.096||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.174||Statistical testing: 2-sided at significance level=0.05. Analysis of co-variance (ANCOVA) included treatment arms, randomization strata of screening HbA1c (\<8.0, \>=8.0%), metformin use (yes, no), country as fixed effects, baseline HbA1c as covariate.|ANCOVA|To control type I error, a step-down procedure described by Hochberg and Tomhane was applied.||To detect a difference of 0.5% (or 0.4%) in change from baseline to Week 24 in HbA1c between lixisenatide and placebo, 300 patients in lixisenatide arm and 150 in placebo arm would provide a power of 96% (or 86%) assuming common standard deviation of 1.3% with a 2-sided test at 5% significance level.||-0.174|-0.550|0.0002
91056918|NCT02309138|181995055|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.903||||0.668|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.538|1.516||Each co-primary hypothesis was tested at the 2.5% significance level.|Regression, Logistic|In the ITT, logistic regression was used to quantify the probability of large-for-gestational age as a function of the study arm and clinic type.|A relative risk \< 1 represents a benefit in the direction of the IADPSG group, while a value \> 1 represents a benefit towards the CC group.|Co-primary hypotheses #1: women diagnosed using the IADPSG criteria will have lower rates of large-for-gestational age infants compared to those diagnosed using the Carpenter-Coustan criteria.||1.516|0.538|0.668
91056919|NCT02309138|181995055|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.853||||0.853|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.493|1.475||Each co-primary hypothesis was tested at the 2.5% significance level.|Regression, Logistic|In the ITT, logistic regression was used to quantify the probability of large-for-gestational age as a function of the study arm and clinic type.||"Co-primary hypothesis #2: women classified as no gestational diabetes by the IADPSG criteria will have lower rates of large-for-gestational age infants compared to those classified in the Carpenter-Coustan criteria."||1.475|0.493|0.853
91056920|NCT02309138|181995056|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.046||||0.6669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.847|1.291|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.291|0.847|0.6669
91056921|NCT02309138|181995056|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.033||||0.8394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.816|1.307|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.307|0.816|0.8394
91056922|NCT02309138|181995057|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.987||||0.9335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.318|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.318|0.740|0.9335
91056923|NCT02309138|181995057|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.022||||0.926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.742|1.407|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.407|0.742|0.9260
91056924|NCT02309138|181995058|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.4||||0.0322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.027|1.909|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.909|1.027|0.0322
91056925|NCT02309138|181995058|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.233||||0.2643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.864|1.76|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.760|0.864|0.2643
91056926|NCT01338870|181995075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares (LS) mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145||0.7606|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.08|0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment difference and 80% confidence interval (CI) were based on least squares (LS) mean. A mixed model repeated measure (MMRM) analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction, baseline-by-treatment interaction, baseline-by-treatment-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||0.29|-0.08|0.7606
91056927|NCT01338870|181995075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.142||0.0266|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.46|-0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction, baseline-by-treatment interaction, baseline-by-treatment-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||-0.09|-0.46|0.0266
91078352|NCT03313310|182042244|OTHER|A one-sample non-parametric test for change between baseline and 3-month follow-up was conducted.||||||0.17||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.10. This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank|||||||0.17
91056928|NCT01338870|181995075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141||0.044|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.42|-0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction, baseline-by-treatment interaction, baseline-by-treatment-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||-0.06|-0.42|0.0440
91056929|NCT01338870|181995075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.71|-0.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction, baseline-by-treatment interaction, baseline-by-treatment-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||-0.36|-0.71|0.0001
91056930|NCT01338870|181995075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.139||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.6|-0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction, baseline-by-treatment interaction, baseline-by-treatment-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||-0.25|-0.60|0.0013
91056931|NCT01338870|181995076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-5.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7||0.3611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|5.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||5.98|-16.40|0.3611
91056932|NCT01338870|181995076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-9.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.686||0.0969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.61|1.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||1.71|-20.61|0.0969
91056933|NCT01338870|181995076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-8.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.71||0.1566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.3|3.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||3.11|-19.30|0.1566
91056934|NCT01338870|181995076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-15.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.678||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.06|-4.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-4.77|-27.06|0.0052
91056935|NCT01338870|181995076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-21.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.712||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.3|-9.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-9.88|-32.30|0.0002
91056936|NCT01338870|181995076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.852||0.9893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.41|11.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||11.56|-11.41|0.9893
91056937|NCT01338870|181995076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-4.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.814||0.4767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.55|7.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||7.27|-15.55|0.4767
91056938|NCT01338870|181995076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.816||0.6222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.28|8.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||8.55|-14.28|0.6222
91056939|NCT01338870|181995076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-13.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.744||0.0159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.16|-2.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-2.61|-25.16|0.0159
91056940|NCT01338870|181995076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-18.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.735||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.95|-7.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-7.44|-29.95|0.0012
91056941|NCT01338870|181995076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|3.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.895||0.5125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.71|15.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||15.43|-7.71|0.5125
91056942|NCT01338870|181995076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-8.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.815||0.1455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.89|2.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||2.94|-19.89|0.1455
91056943|NCT01338870|181995076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.794||0.8712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.43|12.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||12.31|-10.43|0.8712
91056944|NCT01338870|181995076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-19.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.707||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.77|-8.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-8.36|-30.77|0.0006
91056945|NCT01338870|181995076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-19.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.696||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.26|-7.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-7.90|-30.26|0.0008
91056946|NCT01338870|181995076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|6.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.055||0.2488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|18.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||18.87|-4.90|0.2488
91056947|NCT01338870|181995076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-7.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.004||0.2084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.34|4.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||4.23|-19.34|0.2084
91056948|NCT01338870|181995076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.971||0.9053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.01|12.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||12.43|-11.01|0.9053
91056949|NCT01338870|181995076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-15.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.853||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.79|-3.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-3.81|-26.79|0.0091
91056950|NCT01338870|181995076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-18.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.875||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.15|-7.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-7.09|-30.15|0.0016
91056951|NCT01338870|181995076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|6.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.217||0.2963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.71|18.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||18.70|-5.71|0.2963
91056952|NCT01338870|181995076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-9.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.17||0.1159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.82|2.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||2.40|-21.82|0.1159
91056953|NCT01338870|181995076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.103||0.4413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.28|16.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||16.68|-7.28|0.4413
91056954|NCT01338870|181995076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-15.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.918||0.0099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.91|-3.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-3.68|-26.91|0.0099
91056955|NCT01338870|181995076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-14.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.981||0.0126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.69|-3.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-3.21|-26.69|0.0126
91056956|NCT01338870|181995077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.058||0.1797|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.13|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction, baseline-by-treatment interaction, baseline-by-treatment-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||0.02|-0.13|0.1797
91056957|NCT01338870|181995077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.058||0.0234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|-0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction, baseline-by-treatment interaction, baseline-by-treatment-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||-0.04|-0.19|0.0234
91056958|NCT01338870|181995077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.058||0.04|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.18|-0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction, baseline-by-treatment interaction, baseline-by-treatment-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||-0.03|-0.18|0.0400
91056959|NCT01338870|181995077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057||0.1568|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.13|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction, baseline-by-treatment interaction, baseline-by-treatment-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||0.02|-0.13|0.1568
91056960|NCT01338870|181995077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.058||0.001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.25|-0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction, baseline-by-treatment interaction, baseline-by-treatment-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||-0.11|-0.25|0.0010
90816918|NCT02294734|181512646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.03||||72.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.14||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Longitudinal; Region;Total; D12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.14|0.93|72.17
90816919|NCT02294734|181512646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.03||||74.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.11||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Longitudinal; Region; Total; D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.11|0.95|74.38
90816920|NCT02294734|181512646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.01||||53.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.12||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Region;Upper; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.12|0.90|53.85
90816921|NCT02294734|181512646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.1||||95.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.23||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Region;Upper; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.23|0.98|95.02
90816922|NCT02294734|181512646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.07||||92.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.18||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Region;Upper; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.18|0.97|92.27
90816923|NCT02294734|181512646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.01||||54.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.16||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Region;Lower; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.16|0.88|54.65
90816924|NCT02294734|181512646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.08||||87.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.23||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Region; Lower; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.23|0.95|87.93
90816925|NCT02294734|181512646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.05||||77.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.19||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Region;Lower; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.19|0.92|77.57
90816926|NCT02294734|181512646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.03||||77.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.11||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC;Scan Trimmed;Region;Central; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.11|0.95|77.07
90816927|NCT02294734|181512646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.03||||78.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.1||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC;Scan Trimmed; Region Central; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.10|0.96|78.42
90890479|NCT04773587|181645672|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.81||||0.0159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.161|12.511|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site and vIGA-AD randomization strata with multiple imputation of missing observations|Stratified by pooled study site and vIGA-AD randomization strata with multiple imputation of missing observations|WI-NRS Success at Week 1||12.511|1.161|0.0159
91056961|NCT01338870|181995077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.0695|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.19|-0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction, baseline-by-treatment interaction, baseline-by-treatment-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||-0.01|-0.19|0.0695
91056962|NCT01338870|181995077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.069||0.0636|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.2|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction, baseline-by-treatment interaction, baseline-by-treatment-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||-0.02|-0.20|0.0636
91056963|NCT01338870|181995077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.069||0.0512|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.2|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction, baseline-by-treatment interaction, baseline-by-treatment-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||-0.02|-0.20|0.0512
91056964|NCT01338870|181995077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.26|-0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction, baseline-by-treatment interaction, baseline-by-treatment-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||-0.09|-0.26|0.0051
91056965|NCT01338870|181995077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.069||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.3|-0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction, baseline-by-treatment interaction, baseline-by-treatment-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||-0.13|-0.30|0.0009
90816928|NCT02294734|181512646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.0||||44.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.06||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC;Scan Trimmed;Region Central; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.06|0.93|44.15
90816929|NCT02294734|181512646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.0||||52.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.13||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC;Scan Trimmed; Region;Distal; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.13|0.89|52.79
90816930|NCT02294734|181512646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.1||||94.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.24||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC;Scan Trimmed;Region; Distal; SCRD28 .The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.24|0.98|94.51
90816931|NCT02294734|181512646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.08||||93.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.19||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC;Scan Trimmed;Region;Distal; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.19|0.98|93.16
90816932|NCT02294734|181512646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.03||||73.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.11||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC;Scan Trimmed; Region;Total; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.11|0.95|73.70
90816933|NCT02294734|181512646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.03||||81.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.1||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC;Scan Trimmed;Region;Total; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.10|0.96|81.04
90816934|NCT02294734|181512646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.0||||52.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.07||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed;Region;Total; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.07|0.94|52.58
90816935|NCT02294734|181512646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.95||||15.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.05||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal; Lobes; RUL; D12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.05|0.86|15.85
90890480|NCT04773587|181645673|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.102|4.795|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site and vIGA-AD randomization strata with multiple imputation of missing observations|Stratified by pooled study site and vIGA-AD randomization strata with multiple imputation of missing observations|EASI-75 at Week 4||4.795|2.102|<0.0001
91056966|NCT01338870|181995077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094||0.2392|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.19|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction, baseline-by-treatment interaction, baseline-by-treatment-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||0.05|-0.19|0.2392
90816936|NCT02294734|181512646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.0||||48.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.11||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal; Lobes; RUL; D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.11|0.90|48.69
90816937|NCT02294734|181512646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.0||||52.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.13||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal; Lobes; LUL; D12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.13|0.90|52.25
90816938|NCT02294734|181512646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.03||||66.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.16||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal; Lobes; LUL; D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.16|0.91|66.48
90816939|NCT02294734|181512646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.88||||9.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.06||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal; Lobes; RML; D12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.06|0.72|9.12
90816940|NCT02294734|181512646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.92||||16.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.09||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal; Lobes; RML; D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.09|0.78|16.95
90816941|NCT02294734|181512646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.89||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.05||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal; Lobes; RLL; D12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.05|0.75|0.89
90816942|NCT02294734|181512646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.0||||50.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.17||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal; Lobes; RLL; D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.17|0.86|50.40
90816943|NCT02294734|181512646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.89||||7.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.04||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal; Lobes; LLL; D12 .The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.04|0.76|7.44
90816944|NCT02294734|181512646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.01||||56.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.18||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal; Lobes; LLL; D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.18|0.87|56.35
90816945|NCT02294734|181512646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.93||||4.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.01||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RUL; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.01|0.87|4.03
90816946|NCT02294734|181512646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.97||||24.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.06||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RUL; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.06|0.89|24.79
91056967|NCT01338870|181995077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.091||0.0308|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.29|-0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction, baseline-by-treatment interaction, baseline-by-treatment-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||-0.05|-0.29|0.0308
91078353|NCT03313310|182042245|OTHER||||||||||||||||||A one-sample McNemar's test for change between baseline and 8-month follow-up was planned. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.10. However, McNemar's test statistic could not be calculated due to small cell counts.|||
91056968|NCT01338870|181995077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.091||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.38|-0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction, baseline-by-treatment interaction, baseline-by-treatment-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||-0.15|-0.38|0.0019
91056969|NCT01338870|181995077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.089||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.36|-0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction, baseline-by-treatment interaction, baseline-by-treatment-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||-0.13|-0.36|0.0034
91056970|NCT01338870|181995077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.44|-0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction, baseline-by-treatment interaction, baseline-by-treatment-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||-0.21|-0.44|0.0002
91056971|NCT01338870|181995077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.126||0.7854|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.06|0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction, baseline-by-treatment interaction, baseline-by-treatment-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||0.26|-0.06|0.7854
91056972|NCT01338870|181995077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.123||0.0778|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.33|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction, baseline-by-treatment interaction, baseline-by-treatment-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||-0.02|-0.33|0.0778
91056973|NCT01338870|181995077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.122||0.0065|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.46|-0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction, baseline-by-treatment interaction, baseline-by-treatment-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||-0.15|-0.46|0.0065
91056974|NCT01338870|181995077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.119||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.52|-0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction, baseline-by-treatment interaction, baseline-by-treatment-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||-0.21|-0.52|0.0011
91056975|NCT01338870|181995077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.52|-0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction, baseline-by-treatment interaction, baseline-by-treatment-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||-0.21|-0.52|0.0013
91056976|NCT01338870|181995079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.272||0.5636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.38|-0.69|0.5636
91056977|NCT01338870|181995079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.271||0.4889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.72|-0.35|0.4889
91056978|NCT01338870|181995079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.272||0.5849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.39|-0.68|0.5849
91056979|NCT01338870|181995079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.268||0.5104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.35|-0.70|0.5104
91056980|NCT01338870|181995079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.269||0.264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.23|-0.83|0.2640
91056981|NCT01338870|181995079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.357||0.0464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|-0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-0.01|-1.42|0.0464
91056982|NCT01338870|181995079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.353||0.7107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.56|-0.83|0.7107
90890481|NCT04773587|181645674|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.707|3.843|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site and vIGA-AD randomization strata with multiple imputation of missing observations|Stratified by pooled study stie and vIGA-AD randomization strata with multiple imputation of missing observations|vIGA-AD Score of 'Clear' or 'Almost Clear' at Week 4||3.843|1.707|<0.0001
91056983|NCT01338870|181995079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.352||0.1564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.19|-1.19|0.1564
91056984|NCT01338870|181995079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.345||0.3834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.38|-0.98|0.3834
91056985|NCT01338870|181995079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.346||0.1279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.15|-1.21|0.1279
91056986|NCT01338870|181995079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.339||0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.28|-1.06|0.2520
91056987|NCT01338870|181995079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.336||0.2772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||1.03|-0.30|0.2772
91056988|NCT01338870|181995079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.335||0.7038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.53|-0.79|0.7038
91056989|NCT01338870|181995079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.329||0.2031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.23|-1.07|0.2031
91056990|NCT01338870|181995079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.6948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.52|-0.78|0.6948
91056991|NCT01338870|181995079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.421||0.5691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|0.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.59|-1.07|0.5691
91056992|NCT01338870|181995079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.415||0.3447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|1.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||1.21|-0.42|0.3447
91056993|NCT01338870|181995079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.413||0.5769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|0.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.58|-1.04|0.5769
91056994|NCT01338870|181995079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.402||0.3599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.42|-1.16|0.3599
91056995|NCT01338870|181995079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.407||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.50|-1.10|0.4600
91056996|NCT01338870|181995079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.504||0.4253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|0.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.59|-1.39|0.4253
91056997|NCT01338870|181995079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.497||0.4349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|1.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||1.37|-0.59|0.4349
91056998|NCT01338870|181995079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.492||0.6697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|0.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.76|-1.18|0.6697
91056999|NCT01338870|181995079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.476||0.5501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|0.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.65|-1.22|0.5501
91057000|NCT01338870|181995079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.484||0.4081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|0.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.55|-1.35|0.4081
91057001|NCT01955083|181995082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|48.4|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We hypothesized that pillar implant provide a better efficacy in the treatment of snoring than radiofrequency surgery. The sample size was estimated using the primary outcome effects (VAS) in two previously published studies (Friedman 2008; Fang 2004). Using a two-tailed Wilcoxon signed-rank test (normal parent distribution; effect size, 1.0; type I error, 0.05; power, 80%), we got a sample size of 11. For considering a 20% drop-out rate, we needed at least 14 participants.||48.4|-14.4|<0.05
91057002|NCT01955083|181995083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91057003|NCT01955083|181995084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91057004|NCT01955083|181995085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91057005|NCT01955083|181995086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91057006|NCT01955083|181995087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91057007|NCT01955083|181995088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91057008|NCT01955083|181995089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91057009|NCT01955083|181995090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91057010|NCT01955083|181995091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91057011|NCT01955083|181995092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91057012|NCT01955083|181995093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91057013|NCT01955083|181995094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
91057014|NCT01559389|181995109|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.5||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|0.21||P-values less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|The method was a paired t-test||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the overall GRISS score between females with UUI and their male partners||0.21|-1.23|.16
91057015|NCT01559389|181995110|SUPERIORITY||z-score|2.97||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Exact test|The z-score is a standardized Wilcoxon statistic. In this study, z-scores with an absolute value exceeding 1.96 indicate a significant difference in the GRISS change score between responders and non-responders of solifenacin treatment|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the overall GRISS change score between those who respond and do not respond to treatment with solifenacin.||||.003
91057016|NCT01559389|181995111|SUPERIORITY||z-score|0.89||||0.37|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The z-score is a standardized Wilcoxon statistic. In this study, z-scores with an absolute value exceeding 1.96 indicate a significant difference in the GRISS change score between the two groups|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the overall GRISS change score between male partners of female participants who respond to solifenacin and male partners of female participants who do not respond to solifenacin||||.37
91057017|NCT02871492|181995112|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4294|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4294
91057018|NCT03201445|181995152|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-7.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|0.7|||||Difference in percentage and 95% confidence interval (CI) was based on a stratified Mantel-Haenszel test.|||0.7|-16.3|
91057019|NCT03201445|181995154|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.8|||||Difference in Medians and 95% CI for change from baseline at Week 13 was based on quantile regression.|||1.8|-2.1|
90890482|NCT04773587|181645675|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.31|7.926|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site and vIGA-AD randomization strata with multiple imputation of missing observations|Stratified by pooled study site and vIGA-AD randomization strata with multiple imputation of missing observations|vIGA-AD Success at Week 2||7.926|2.310|<0.0001
91057020|NCT03201445|181995156|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|24.7|||||Difference in medians and 95% CI for change from baseline at Week 13 was based on quantile regression.|||24.7|-13.4|
91057021|NCT03201445|181995158|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|4.9|||||Difference in Medians and 95% CI for change from baseline at Week 13 was based on quantile regression.|||4.9|-2.8|
91057022|NCT03201445|181995160|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.3|||||Difference in Medians and 95% CI for change from baseline at Week 13 was based on quantile regression.|||0.3|-0.1|
91057023|NCT03201445|181995162|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|4.0|||||Difference in Medians and 95% CI for change from baseline at Week 13 was based on quantile regression.|||4|0|
91057024|NCT01346293|181995190|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of DTaP-IPV was demonstrated if the lower limits of the 2-sided 95% Confidence intervals (CIs) of the difference (DTaP-IPV minus DAPTACEL® + IPOL®) in post-vaccination booster response rates for Anti-Pertussis toxoid antigen between groups were \> -10%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|10.2||||||Non-inferiority comparison of post-vaccination anti-pertussis booster response rates in the Per-protocol Analysis Set. The hypothesis was based on testing the difference between 2 proportion parameters.||10.2|0.7|
91057025|NCT01346293|181995190|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of DTaP-IPV was demonstrated if the lower limits of the 2-sided 95% CIs of the difference (DTaP-IPV minus DAPTACEL® + IPOL®) in post-vaccination booster response rates for Anti-Filamentous Haemagglutinin between groups were \> -10%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|21.5||||||Non-inferiority comparison of post-vaccination anti-pertussis booster response rates in the Per-protocol Analysis Set. The hypothesis was based on testing the difference between 2 proportion parameters.||21.5|2.5|
91057026|NCT01346293|181995190|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of DTaP-IPV was demonstrated if the lower limits of the 2-sided 95% CIs of the difference (DTaP-IPV minus DAPTACEL® + IPOL®) in post-vaccination booster response rates for the Pertactin antigens between groups were \> -10%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|3.7|-0.2|7.9||||||Non-inferiority comparison of post-vaccination anti-pertussis booster response rates in the Per-protocol Analysis Set. The hypothesis was based on testing the difference between 2 proportion parameters.||7.9|-0.2|
91078354|NCT03313310|182042245|OTHER||||||||||||||||||A one-sample McNemar's test for change between baseline and 3-month follow-up was planned. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.10. However, McNemar's test statistic could not be calculated due to small cell counts.|||
91057027|NCT01346293|181995190|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of DTaP-IPV was demonstrated if the lower limits of the 2-sided 95% CIs of the difference (DTaP-IPV minus DAPTACEL® + IPOL®) in post-vaccination booster response rates for Fimbriae types 2 and 3 antigens between groups were \> -10%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|9.1||||||Non-inferiority comparison of post-vaccination anti-pertussis booster response rates in the Per-protocol Analysis Set. The hypothesis was based on testing the difference between 2 proportion parameters.||9.1|0.9|
91057028|NCT01346293|181995191|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of DTaP-IPV was demonstrated if the lower limits of the 2-sided 95% CIs of the ratio (DTaP-IPV / DAPTACEL® + IPOL®) in post-vaccination GMCs for the Pertussis Toxoid antigens between groups were \> 2/3.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.68|2.31||||||Hypothesis was based on testing the ratio between the 2 post-vaccination GMCs (GMCQ / GMCD) for each Pertussis antigen and their 2-sided 95% Confidence Intervals.||2.31|1.68|
91057029|NCT01346293|181995191|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of DTaP-IPV was demonstrated if the lower limits of the 2-sided 95% CIs of the ratio (DTaP-IPV / DAPTACEL® + IPOL®) in post-vaccination GMCs for the Filamentous Haemagglutinin antigens between groups were \> 2/3.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|1.88||||||Hypothesis was based on testing the ratio between the 2 post-vaccination GMCs (GMCQ / GMCD) for each pertussis antigen and their 2-sided 95% Confidence Intervals.||1.88|1.30|
91057030|NCT01346293|181995191|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of DTaP-IPV was demonstrated if the lower limits of the 2-sided 95% CIs of the ratio (DTaP-IPV / DAPTACEL® + IPOL®) in post-vaccination GMCs for the Pertactin antigens between groups were \> 2/3.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|1.79||||||Hypothesis was based on testing the ratio between the 2 post-vaccination GMCs (GMCQ / GMCD) for each pertussis antigen and their 2-sided 95% Confidence Intervals.||1.79|1.27|
91057031|NCT01346293|181995191|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of DTaP-IPV was demonstrated if the lower limits of the 2-sided 95% CIs of the ratio (DTaP-IPV / DAPTACEL® + IPOL® ) in post-vaccination GMCs for the Fimbriae types 2 and 3 antigens between groups were \> 2/3.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.6||||||Hypothesis was based on testing the ratio between the 2 post-vaccination GMCs (GMCQ / GMCD) for each pertussis antigen and their 2-sided 95% Confidence Intervals.||1.60|1.12|
91057032|NCT02687217|181995205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5
91057033|NCT02687217|181995206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5
91057034|NCT02687217|181995207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5
91057035|NCT01844505|181995208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.5|0.43|0.76|||Stratified Log Rank test||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model. Ratio of Nivolumab over Ipimlimumab.|||0.76|0.43|<0.0001
91057036|NCT01844505|181995208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.5|0.31|0.57|||Stratified Log Rank test||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model. Ratio of Nivolumab+Ipilimumab over Ipilimumab.|||0.57|0.31|<0.0001
91057037|NCT01844505|181995209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.0|0.5|0.78|||Log Rank|Log-rank Test stratified by PD-L1 status, BRAF status, and M stage at screening as entered into the Interactive Voice Response System (IVRS).|Stratified Cox proportional hazard model. Ratio of Nivolumab over Ipilimumab|||0.78|0.50|<0.0001
91057038|NCT01844505|181995209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.0|0.42|0.72|||Log Rank|Log-rank Test stratified by PD-L1 status, BRAF status, and M stage at screening as entered into the IVRS.|Stratified Cox proportional hazard model. Ratio of Nivolumab+Ipilimumab over Ipilimumab.|||0.72|0.42|<0.0001
91057039|NCT01844505|181995212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.96|||||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model. Hazard Ratio is Nivolumab + Ipilimumab over Nivolumab.|||0.96|0.65|
91057040|NCT01844505|181995213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.05|||||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model. Hazard Ratio is Nivolumab + Ipilimumab over Nivolumab.|||1.05|0.69|
91057041|NCT01844505|181995214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.49|5.16|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Test Stratified by PD-L1 Status, BRAF Status and M stage at screening as entered into the IVRS. Ratio of Nivolumab over Ipilimumab.|||5.16|2.49|<0.0001
91057042|NCT01844505|181995214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.38|9.22|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Test Stratified by PD-L1 Status, BRAF Status and M stage at screening as entered into the IVRS. Ratio of Nivolumab + Ipilimumab over Ipilimumab.|||9.22|4.38|<0.0001
91057043|NCT01844505|181995214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference of Objective Response Rates|26.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.1|32.8|||||Difference in ORR and corresponding 95% CI is based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method of weighting, adjusting for PD-L1 Status, BRAF Mutation Status and M-stage at screening as entered into the IVRS. Difference of Nivolumab - Ipilimumab.|||32.8|19.1|
91057044|NCT01844505|181995214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference of Objective Response Rates|39.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.2|45.9|||||Difference in ORR and corresponding 95% CI is based on CMH method of weighting, adjusting for PD-L1 Status, BRAF Mutation Status and M-stage at screening as entered into the IVRS. Difference of Nivolumab and Ipilimumab - Ipilimumab.|||45.9|32.2|
91057045|NCT01844505|181995214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|2.42|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Test Stratified by PD-L1 Status, BRAF Status and M stage at screening as entered into the IVRS. Ratio of Nivolumab + Ipilimumab over Nivolumab|||2.42|1.26|
91057046|NCT01844505|181995214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference of Objective Response Rates|13.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|20.7|||||Difference in ORR and corresponding 95% CI is based on CMH method of weighting, adjusting for PD-L1 Status, BRAF Mutation Status and M-stage at screening as entered into the IVRS. Difference of Nivolumab and Ipilimumab - Nivolumab.|||20.7|5.7|
91057047|NCT01844505|181995215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.85|||||HR of Nivolumab vs. Ipilimumab in participants with PD-L1 expression \< 1%|||0.85|0.46|
91057048|NCT01844505|181995215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.54|||||HR of Nivolumab+Ipilimumab vs. Ipilimumab in participants with PD-L1 expression \< 1%|||0.54|0.28|
91057049|NCT01844505|181995215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.87|||||HR of Nivolumab+Ipilimumab vs. Nivolumab in participants with PD-L1 expression \< 1%|||0.87|0.45|
91057050|NCT01844505|181995215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.59|||||HR of Nivolumab vs. Ipilimumab in participants with PD-L1 expression \>= 1%|||0.59|0.34|
91057051|NCT01844505|181995215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.53|||||HR of Nivolumab+Ipilimumab vs. Ipilimumab in participants with PD-L1 expression \>= 1%|||0.53|0.30|
91057052|NCT01844505|181995215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.21|||||HR of Nivolumab+Ipilimumab vs. Nivolumab in participants with PD-L1 expression \>= 1%|||1.21|0.66|
91057053|NCT01844505|181995215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.71|||||HR of Nivolumab vs. Ipilimumab in participants with PD-L1 expression \< 5%|||0.71|0.45|
91057054|NCT01844505|181995215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.53|||||HR of Nivolumab+Ipilimumab vs. Ipilimumab in participants with PD-L1 expression \< 5%|||0.53|0.33|
91057055|NCT01844505|181995215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.94|||||HR of Nivolumab+Ipilimumab vs. Nivolumab in participants with PD-L1 expression \< 5%|||0.94|0.57|
91057056|NCT01844505|181995215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.6|||||HR of Nivolumab vs. Ipilimumab in participants with PD-L1 expression \>= 5%|||0.60|0.27|
91057057|NCT01844505|181995215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.54|||||HR of Nivolumab+Ipilimumab vs. Ipilimumab in participants with PD-L1 expression \>= 5%|||0.54|0.22|
91057058|NCT01844505|181995215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.38|||||HR of Nivolumab+Ipilimumab vs. Nivolumab in participants with PD-L1 expression \>= 5%|||1.38|0.54|
91057059|NCT01844505|181995215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.67|||||HR of Nivolumab vs. Ipilimumab in participants with PD-L1 expression \< 10%|||0.67|0.43|
91057060|NCT01844505|181995215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.54|||||HR of Nivolumab+Ipilimumab vs. Ipilimumab in participants with PD-L1 expression \< 10%|||0.54|0.34|
91057061|NCT01844505|181995215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.01|||||HR of Nivolumab+Ipilimumab vs. Nivolumab in participants with PD-L1 expression \< 10%|||1.01|0.63|
91057062|NCT01844505|181995215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.73|||||HR of Nivolumab vs. Ipilimumab in participants with PD-L1 expression \>= 10%|||0.73|0.28|
91057063|NCT01844505|181995215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.49|||||HR of Nivolumab+Ipilimumab vs. Ipilimumab in participants with PD-L1 expression \>= 10%|||0.49|0.16|
91057064|NCT01844505|181995215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.09|||||HR of Nivolumab+Ipilimumab vs. Nivolumab in participants with PD-L1 expression \>= 10%|||1.09|0.34|
91057065|NCT01844505|181995215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.52|||||HR of Nivolumab vs. Ipilimumab in participants with PD-L1 expression not evaluable at baseline|||1.52|0.49|
91057066|NCT01844505|181995215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.89|||||HR of Nivolumab+Ipilimumab vs. Ipilimumab in participants with PD-L1 expression not evaluable at baseline|||0.89|0.30|
91057067|NCT01844505|181995215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.09|||||HR of Nivolumab+Ipilimumab vs. Nivolumab in participants with PD-L1 expression not evaluable at baseline|||1.09|0.33|
91057068|NCT01844505|181995216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.05|||||HR of Nivolumab vs. Ipilimumab in participants with PD-L1 expression \< 1%|||1.05|0.57|
91057069|NCT01844505|181995216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.81|||||HR of Nivolumab+Ipilimumab vs. Ipilimumab in participants with PD-L1 expression \< 1%|||0.81|0.43|
91057070|NCT01844505|181995216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||||95.0|0.55|1.04|||||HR of Nivolumab+Ipilimumab vs. Nivolumab in participants with PD-L1 expression \< 1%|||1.04|0.55|
91057071|NCT01844505|181995216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.68|||||HR of Nivolumab vs. Ipilimumab in participants with PD-L1 expression \>= 1%|||0.68|0.39|
91057072|NCT01844505|181995216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.67|||||HR of Nivolumab+Ipilimumab vs. Ipilimumab in participants with PD-L1 expression \>= 1%|||0.67|0.38|
91057073|NCT01844505|181995216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.31|||||HR of Nivolumab+Ipilimumab vs. Nivolumab in participants with PD-L1 expression \>= 1%|||1.31|0.72|
91057074|NCT01844505|181995216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.78|||||HR of Nivolumab vs. Ipilimumab in participants with PD-L1 expression \< 5%|||0.78|0.49|
91057075|NCT01844505|181995216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.66|||||HR of Nivolumab+Ipilimumab vs. Ipilimumab in participants with PD-L1 expression \< 5%|||0.66|0.41|
91057076|NCT01844505|181995216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.08|||||HR of Nivolumab+Ipilimumab vs. Nivolumab in participants with PD-L1 expression \< 5%|||1.08|0.66|
91057077|NCT01844505|181995216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.91|||||HR of Nivolumab vs. Ipilimumab in participants with PD-L1 expression \>= 5%|||0.91|0.41|
91057078|NCT01844505|181995216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.91|||||HR of Nivolumab+Ipilimumab vs. Ipilimumab in participants with PD-L1 expression \>= 5%|||0.91|0.38|
91057079|NCT01844505|181995216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.53|||||HR of Nivolumab+Ipilimumab vs. Nivolumab in participants with PD-L1 expression \>= 5%|||1.53|0.62|
91057080|NCT01844505|181995216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.75|||||HR of Nivolumab vs. Ipilimumab in participants with PD-L1 expression \< 10%|||0.75|0.48|
91057081|NCT01844505|181995216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.68|||||HR of Nivolumab+Ipilimumab vs. Ipilimumab in participants with PD-L1 expression \< 10%|||0.68|0.43|
91057082|NCT01844505|181995216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.14|||||HR of Nivolumab+Ipilimumab vs. Nivolumab in participants with PD-L1 expression \< 10%|||1.14|0.71|
91057083|NCT01844505|181995216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.1|||||HR of Nivolumab vs. Ipilimumab in participants with PD-L1 expression \>= 10%|||1.10|0.44|
91057084|NCT01844505|181995216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.91|||||HR of Nivolumab+Ipilimumab vs. Ipilimumab in participants with PD-L1 expression \>= 10%|||0.91|0.32|
91057085|NCT01844505|181995216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.32|||||HR of Nivolumab+Ipilimumab vs. Nivolumab in participants with PD-L1 expression \>= 10%|||1.32|0.45|
91057086|NCT01844505|181995216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.34|||||HR of Nivolumab vs. Ipilimumab in participants with PD-L1 expression not evaluable at baseline|||1.34|0.37|
91057087|NCT01844505|181995216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.91|||||HR of Nivolumab+Ipilimumab vs. Ipilimumab in participants with PD-L1 expression not evaluable at baseline|||0.91|0.26|
91057088|NCT01844505|181995216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.39|||||HR of Nivolumab+Ipilimumab vs. Nivolumab in participants with PD-L1 expression not evaluable at baseline|||1.39|0.34|
91057089|NCT00311402|181995233|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-event rates after 1 year in the Aggrenox group and ASA group are estimated at 94.0% and 91.5%, respectively. The non-inferiority margin was set to 2%. Under these conditions, 500 patients per group were supposed to be enough to detect the non-inferiority of Aggrenox with over 80% power.|Cox Proportional Hazard|1.47||||0.097||95.0|0.93|2.31|||Regression, Cox|||Non-event rate was calculated by using the Kaplan-Meier method and the comparison of groups was made by using the Cox proportional hazard regression model.||2.31|0.93|0.097
91057090|NCT00311402|181995234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.79||||0.223||95.0|0.7|4.54|||Regression, Cox|||Non-event rate was calculated by using the Kaplan-Meier method and the comparison of groups was made by using the Cox proportional hazard regression model.||4.54|0.70|0.223
91057091|NCT00311402|181995235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.0||||0.998|ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.0||||Regression, Cox|||Non-event rate was calculated by using the Kaplan-Meier method and the comparison of groups was made by using the Cox proportional hazard regression model.|||0|0.998
91057092|NCT00311402|181995236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.02||||0.977||95.0|0.21|5.07|||Regression, Cox|||Non-event rate was calculated by using the Kaplan-Meier method and the comparison of groups was made by using the Cox proportional hazard regression model.||5.07|0.21|0.977
91057093|NCT00311402|181995237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.58||||0.192||95.0|0.26|1.31|||Regression, Cox|||Non-event rate was calculated by using the Kaplan-Meier method and the comparison of groups was made by using the Cox proportional hazard regression model.||1.31|0.26|0.192
91057094|NCT00311402|181995238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.88||||0.215||95.0|0.69|5.07|||Regression, Cox|||Non-event rate was calculated by using the Kaplan-Meier method and the comparison of groups was made by using the Cox proportional hazard regression model.||5.07|0.69|0.215
91057095|NCT00311402|181995239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.16||||0.443||95.0|0.79|1.69|||Regression, Cox|||Non-event rate was calculated by using the Kaplan-Meier method and the comparison of groups was made by using the Cox proportional hazard regression model.||1.69|0.79|0.443
91057096|NCT00311402|181995240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.52||||0.043||95.0|1.01|2.29|||Regression, Cox|||Non-event rate was calculated by using the Kaplan-Meier method and the comparison of groups was made by using the Cox proportional hazard regression model.||2.29|1.01|0.043
91057097|NCT00311402|181995241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.04||||0.919||95.0|0.48|2.25|||Regression, Cox|||Non-event rate was calculated by using the Kaplan-Meier method and the comparison of groups was made by using the Cox proportional hazard regression model.||2.25|0.48|0.919
91057098|NCT00311402|181995242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.34||||0.101||95.0|0.94|1.91|||Regression, Cox|||Non-event rate was calculated by using the Kaplan-Meier method and the comparison of groups was made by using the Cox proportional hazard regression model.||1.91|0.94|0.101
91057099|NCT02640053|181995243|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.26
91057100|NCT02640053|181995244|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.72
91057101|NCT02640053|181995245|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.39
91057102|NCT02640053|181995246|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.32
91057103|NCT02640053|181995247|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.41
91057104|NCT02640053|181995248|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.76
91057105|NCT02640053|181995249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.62
91057106|NCT02640053|181995250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.67
91057107|NCT00474266|181995275|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority criterion: Lower limit \[LL\] of the 2-sided standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval \[CI\] ≥-10%.|Difference in percentage|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|6.78||||||||6.78|0.29|
91057108|NCT00474266|181995275|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority criterion: Lower limit \[LL\] of the 2-sided standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval \[CI\] ≥ -10%|Difference in percentage|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|1.58||||||||1.58|-0.78|
91057109|NCT00474266|181995275|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority criterion: Lower limit \[LL\] of the 2-sided standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval \[CI\] ≥ -10%.|Difference in percentage|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|1.58||||||||1.58|-0.79|
91057110|NCT00474266|181995275|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority criterion: Lower limit \[LL\] of the 2-sided standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval \[CI\] ≥ -10%.|Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|1.07||||||||1.07|-1.06|
91057111|NCT00474266|181995276|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority criterion: Lower limit \[LL\] of the 2-sided standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval \[CI\] ≥ -10%.|Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|3.17||||||||3.17|-1.06|
91057112|NCT00474266|181995277|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority criterion: Lower limit \[LL\] of the 2-sided standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval \[CI\] ≥-10%.|Difference in percentage|4.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.82|12.46||||||||12.46|-2.82|
91057113|NCT00474266|181995278|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority criterion: Lower limit \[LL\] of the 2-sided standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval \[CI\] ≥ -10%|Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|3.18||||||||3.18|-1.06|
91057114|NCT00474266|181995279|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority criterion: Lower limit \[LL\] of the 2-sided standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval \[CI\] ≥-10%.|Difference in percentage|3.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|9.5||||||||9.5|-0.28|
91057115|NCT03316378|181995363|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|73.8||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|||Specific Aim 1: Between groups||||0.44
91057116|NCT03316378|181995363|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|31.7||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|||Specific Aim 2: Effect of time||||0.08
91057117|NCT03316378|181995364|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|||Specific Aim 1: Between groups||||<0.001
91057118|NCT03316378|181995364|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|||Specific Aim 2: Effect of time||||0.012
91057119|NCT03316378|181995365|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|||Specific Aim 1: Between groups||||1.0
91057120|NCT03316378|181995365|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|||Specific Aim 2: Effect of time||||1.0
91057121|NCT01197755|181995366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportion|0.17||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.28||Week 24|Mantel Haenszel|Treatment difference in proportion of responders at Week 24 with a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.28|0.05|0.004
91057122|NCT01197755|181995366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportion|0.07||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.18||Week 24|Mantel Haenszel|Treatment difference in proportion of responders at Week 24 with a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.18|-0.03|0.168
91057123|NCT01197755|181995367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportion|0.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.29|||Mantel Haenszel|95% confidence intervals and p-values are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.29|0.16|<0.001
91057124|NCT01197755|181995368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportion|0.1||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.19|||Mantel Haenszel|95% confidence intervals and p-values are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.19|0.02|0.014
91057125|NCT01197755|181995368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportion|0.05||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.12||Nominal p-value presented for Group B comparison. Formal statistical testing could not be carried out due to the predefined multiplicity procedure (primary variable comparison of Group B versus Group C was non-significant).|Mantel Haenszel|95% confidence intervals and p-values are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.12|-0.02|0.180
91057126|NCT01197755|181995369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportion|0.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.19|||Mantel Haenszel|95% confidence intervals and p-values are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.19|0.06|<0.001
91057127|NCT01197755|181995369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportion|0.0||||0.891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.04||Nominal p-value presented for Group B comparison. Formal statistical testing could not be carried out due to the predefined multiplicity procedure (primary variable comparison of Group B versus Group C was non-significant).|Mantel Haenszel|95% confidence intervals and p-values are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.04|-0.04|0.891
91057128|NCT01197755|181995370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|||||0.01||||||Nominal p-value presented for treatment comparison. ACRn was not formally tested within the predefined multiplicity procedure. As this is a non-parametric test p-values alone are presented rather than an estimated treatment difference.|Van Elteren|P-values are estimated using the Van Elteren test stratified by pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||||0.010
91057129|NCT01197755|181995370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019||||||Nominal p-value presented for treatment comparison. ACRn was not formally tested within the predefined multiplicity procedure. As this is a non-parametric test p-values alone are presented rather than an estimated treatment difference.|Van Elteren|P-values are estimated using the Van Elteren test stratified by pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||||0.019
91057130|NCT01197755|181995371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.1||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|13.91|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals are calculated using Logistic Regression with treatment and pooled country as factors.|An odds ratio of \>1 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||13.91|1.21|0.023
91057131|NCT01197755|181995371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3||||0.197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|8.23||Nominal p-value presented for Group B comparison. Formal statistical testing could not be carried out due to the predefined multiplicity procedure (primary variable comparison of Group B versus Group C was non-significant).|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals are calculated using Logistic Regression with treatment and pooled country as factors.|An odds ratio of \>1 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||8.23|0.65|0.197
91057132|NCT01197755|181995372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.1||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|10.92|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals are calculated using Logistic Regression with treatment and pooled country as factors.|An odds ratio of \>1 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||10.92|1.54|0.005
91057133|NCT01197755|181995372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.7||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.79|12.3||Nominal p-value presented for Group B comparison. Formal statistical testing could not be carried out due to the predefined multiplicity procedure (primary variable comparison of Group B versus Group C was non-significant).|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals are calculated using Logistic Regression with treatment and pooled country as factors.|An odds ratio of \>1 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||12.30|1.79|0.002
91057134|NCT01197755|181995373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.86|5.76||Nominal p value only. This was not included in the pre-defined multiplicity testing procedure.|Proportional odds model|No response, moderate response and good response are included in the proportional odds model with treatment and pooled country as factors.|An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data||5.76|1.86|<0.001
91057135|NCT01197755|181995373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.89||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|3.31||Nominal p-value only. This was not included in the pre-defined multiplicity testing procedure.|Proportional odds model|No response, moderate response and good response are included in the proportional odds model with treatment and pooled country as factors.|An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data||3.31|1.07|0.028
91057136|NCT01197755|181995374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.4||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|4.45|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals are calculated using logistic regression with treatment and pooled country as factors|An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||4.45|1.33|0.004
91057137|NCT01197755|181995374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|2.79||Nominal p-value presented for Group B comparison. Formal statistical testing could not be carried out due to the predefined multiplicity procedure (primary variable comparison of Group B versus Group C was non-significant).|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals are calculated using logistic regression with treatment and pooled country as factors|An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||2.79|0.82|0.186
91057138|NCT01197755|181995375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.729||||||Nominal p-value only. This was not included in the pre-defined multiplicity procedure. As this is a non-parametric test p-values alone are presented rather than an estimated treatment difference.|ANCOVA|This was performed on the ranks of the change from baseline, by pooled country, including a term for the ranks of the baseline score as covariate.||||||0.729
91057139|NCT01197755|181995375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019||||||Nominal p-value only. This was not included in the pre-defined multiplicity procedure. As this is a non-parametric test p-values alone are presented rather than an estimated treatment difference.|ANCOVA|This was performed on the ranks of the change from baseline, by pooled country, including a term for the ranks of the baseline score as covariate.||||||0.019
91057140|NCT01197755|181995376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|2.6||||0.009||95.0|0.65|4.56|||ANCOVA|Improvement from baseline, including terms for baseline as a continuous covariate and treatment and pooled country as factors.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||4.56|0.65|0.009
91057141|NCT01197755|181995376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|1.53||||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|3.44|||ANCOVA|Improvement from baseline, including terms for baseline as a continuous covariate and treatment and pooled country as factors.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||3.44|-0.39|0.118
91057142|NCT01197755|181995377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.67||||0.487||95.0|-1.23|2.58|||ANCOVA|Improvement from baseline, including terms for baseline as a continuous covariate and treatment and pooled country as factors.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||2.58|-1.23|0.487
91057143|NCT01197755|181995377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.62||||0.516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|2.51|||ANCOVA|Improvement from baseline, including terms for baseline as a continuous covariate and treatment and pooled country as factors.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||2.51|-1.26|0.516
91057144|NCT01372774|181995384|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.63|||Log Rank|||||0.63|0.35|<0.0001
91057145|NCT01372774|181995385|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.5|||Log Rank|||||1.50|0.76|0.70
91057146|NCT01372774|181995386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.00068||||||Intracranial Brain Control Rates estimated via 1-Cumulative Incidence Rate from Competing Risk survival analysis of time to the specific recurrence type. Deaths without recurrence are censored at time of death.|Gray's K-sample|||||||0.00068
91057147|NCT01372774|181995388|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.31
91057148|NCT00070499|181995389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.073||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.073
91057149|NCT00070499|181995389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.31||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.31
91057150|NCT00070499|181995391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.29||95.0|||||Log Rank|||Log-rank test of overall survival||||0.29
91057151|NCT00070499|181995391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.55||95.0|||||Log Rank|||Log-rank test of overall survival||||0.55
91057152|NCT00070499|181995392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.074||95.0|||||Log Rank|||Log-rank test of relapse-free survival||||0.074
91057153|NCT00070499|181995392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.29||95.0|||||Log Rank|||Log-rank test of relapse-free survival||||0.29
91057154|NCT04036799|181995397|OTHER|Categorical variables were summarized using frequencies and proportions.|Cumulative proportion of events at 5 yrs|9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
91057155|NCT04240392|181995398|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.369||||0.534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.462|4.055|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized Linear Mixed Model||||4.055|0.462|0.5340
91057156|NCT04240392|181995399|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.803||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.326|1.979|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized Linear Mixed Model||At delivery||1.979|0.326|0.600
91057157|NCT04240392|181995399|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.709||||0.471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.254|1.975|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized Linear Mixed Model||At 3 months post partum||1.975|0.254|0.471
91057158|NCT04240392|181995400|SUPERIORITY||Beta-coefficient|1.53||||0.518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.13|6.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated Measures Linear Mixed Model|Beta-coefficient for treatment for time interaction term|At week 36||6.19|-3.13|0.518
91057159|NCT04240392|181995400|SUPERIORITY||Beta-coefficient|0.32||||0.893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.41|5.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated Measures Linear Mixed Model|Beta-coefficient for treatment for time interaction term|At 3 months post partum||5.06|-4.41|0.893
91057160|NCT03785600|181995401|OTHER||||||<|0.02||||||a priori threshold is \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.02
91057161|NCT04086407|181995419|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided||||All statistical tests were completed with a significance of p \< 0.05 and 95% confidence intervals. Sample sets were statistically compared and analyzed by using two-tailed, unpaired Student t test analyses of means.|||<.05
91057162|NCT04086407|181995420|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided||||All statistical tests were completed with a significance of p \< 0.05 and 95% confidence intervals. Sample sets were statistically compared and analyzed by using two-tailed, unpaired Student t test analyses of means.|||<.05
91057163|NCT04086407|181995421|OTHER||||||||||||||||||All statistical tests were completed with a significance of p \< 0.05 and 95% confidence intervals. Sample sets were statistically compared and analyzed by using two-tailed, unpaired Student t test analyses of means.|||
91057164|NCT04086407|181995422|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided||||All statistical tests were completed with a significance of p \< 0.05 and 95% confidence intervals. Sample sets were statistically compared and analyzed by using two-tailed, unpaired Student t test analyses of means.|||<.05
91057165|NCT00660907|181995423|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|non-inferior margin delta = 0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0569|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.11||Significant at alpha=0.025 (1-sided). A hierarchical closed testing procedure was used to control Type I error across the primary \& key secondary objectives|ANCOVA|with treatment group as effect and baseline value as covariate||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(reference) \>= delta versus the alternative HA: mean(treat) minus mean(reference) \< delta (with alpha = 0.025, one-sided)||0.11|-0.11|<0.0001
91057166|NCT00660907|181995424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2483|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.14|-4.17||Significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure|ANCOVA|with treatment group as effect and baseline value as covariate||H0: mean(treat) minus mean(reference) = 0 versus the alternative HA: mean(treat) minus mean(reference) =/= 0||-4.17|-5.14|<0.0001
91057167|NCT00660907|181995425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-37.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.578|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.3|-32.2||Significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure|Regression, Logistic|Based on methodology of Zhang, Tsiatis \& Davidian and Davidian, Tsiatis, Zhang \& Lu, with adjustment for baseline value.||H0: proportion(treat) minus proportion(reference) = 0 versus the alternative HA: proportion(treat) minus proportion(reference) =/= 0||-32.2|-42.3|<0.0001
91057168|NCT00660907|181995426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|30.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.48|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.0|35.7||Significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure|Regression, Logistic|Based on methodology of Zhang, Tsiatis \& Davidian and Davidian, Tsiatis, Zhang \& Lu, with adjustment for baseline value.||H0: proportion(treat) minus proportion(reference) = 0 versus the alternative HA: proportion(treat) minus proportion(reference) =/= 0||35.7|26.0|<0.0001
91057169|NCT01908907|181995427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|13.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.5||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|28.7|||Regression, Linear|Outcome was transformed using a natural logarithm transformation. Models included gestational age group since the randomization was blocked.|Since analyzed on the log scale, estimates provide are % change rather than absolute change between group.|All analyses used the intent-to-treat study population. A linear mixed model was used to assess differences in time to full feeds, days on study drug, and gestational age at discharge. These models included a random effect for multiples, which was maintained in the model after testing. Fixed effects included treatment and GA group for time to full feeds and days on study drug and treatment effect for gestational age at discharge.||28.7|0.2|0.07
91057170|NCT01908907|181995428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.008||0.048|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|This is a complex regression model including linear and quadratic growth and interactions as specified above.||Linear mixed models were used to explore growth over time (weight, length and head circumference). These models included a random effect for intercepts and slopes to account for subject specific growth over time as well as a random effect for possible correlation between twins and triplets present in the data set. Fixed effects included both a linear and quadratic time effect, GA at birth, treatment group, full feeds (yes/no), and interactions. Non-significant interactions were eliminated.||||0.048
91078355|NCT03313310|182042246|OTHER|A one-sample test for change between baseline and 8-month follow-up was conducted.||||||1||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.10. This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|McNemar|||||||1.00
90816947|NCT02294734|181512646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.03||||77.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.12||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RUL; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.12|0.95|77.08
90816948|NCT02294734|181512646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.97||||23.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.05||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LUL; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.05|0.89|23.07
90816949|NCT02294734|181512646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.96||||18.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.05||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LUL; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.05|0.88|18.58
90816950|NCT02294734|181512646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.99||||44.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.08||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LUL; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.08|0.92|44.94
90816951|NCT02294734|181512646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.89||||2.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.0||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RML; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.00|0.80|2.21
90816952|NCT02294734|181512646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.92||||6.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.02||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RML; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.02|0.83|6.09
90816953|NCT02294734|181512646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.02||||66.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.13||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RML; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.13|0.92|66.60
91057171|NCT04684238|181995442|OTHER|Least square means of the difference between the treatment groups, including a 2-sided 95% confidence interval was reported in the statistical analysis. The noninferiority criterion was a relative difference of less than 15% between treatment groups.|Least square means|6.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.99|22.13||Noninferiority was defined as the entire 95% CI for the difference being above the noninferiority margin for the relative difference of -15%. Testing the hypothesis of no difference between isoflurane and midazolam.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||22.13|-8.99|
91057172|NCT04684238|181995443|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin was set to a relative difference of -15%.|Least square means|5.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.48|21.17||Testing the hypothesis of no difference between isoflurane and midazolam.||||||21.17|-10.48|
91057173|NCT04684238|181995444|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|-1.1|||ANCOVA|||||-1.1|-3.8|0.0004
91057174|NCT04684238|181995445|SUPERIORITY|Results display comparison between isoflurane and midazolam and are based on an analysis of variance model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline opioid dose as covariate.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.77||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|0.14|||ANCOVA|||||0.14|-1.69|0.096
91057175|NCT04684238|181995446|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.3||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|7.07|||Regression, Cox|||Time to extubation||7.07|1.54|0.0021
91057176|NCT04684238|181995447|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.25|||ANOVA|||Spontaneous breathing efforts. Results display a comparison between isoflurane and midazolam and are based on a mixed effects analysis of variance model with treatment group as fixed effect.||0.25|-0.15|0.636
91057177|NCT04684238|181995448|SUPERIORITY|Results display comparison between isoflurane and midazolam and are based on a Wilcoxon ranksum test.||||||0.55|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Need for inotropic/vasopressor agent at ≤24 hours.||||0.55
91057178|NCT04684238|181995448|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.637|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Need for inotropic/vasopressor agent at \>24 hours.||||0.637
91057179|NCT02152605|181995479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.28|-1.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.79|-6.28|<0.001
91057180|NCT02152605|181995480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.122|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.071|0.172|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.172|0.071|<0.001
91057181|NCT02152605|181995481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.4|-1.1|<0.001
91078356|NCT03313310|182042246|OTHER|A one-sample test for change between baseline and 3-month follow-up was conducted.||||||0.5||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.10. This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|McNemar|||||||0.50
91057182|NCT00537303|181995486|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The two treatments are declared equivalent if the 95% Confidence Interval for the estimated difference in means between the two treatment groups is included in the interval from -0.4 to 0.4 for both the full analysis set and the per protocol set|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.606||95.0|-0.17|0.29||P-value for test of difference between treatments.|ANCOVA|Regimen, country and previous oral antidiabetic drug (OAD) use as factors and baseline HbA1c as covariate.||Equivalence analysis with a null hypothesis stating that there is a difference between Advanced and Basic treatment groups of more than 0.4%.||0.29|-0.17|0.606
91057183|NCT00537303|181995487|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The two treatments are declared equivalent if the 95% Confidence Interval for the estimated difference in means between the two treatment groups is included in the interval from -0.4 to 0.4 for both the Full Analysis Set and the Per Protocol set.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.816||95.0|-0.21|0.26||P-value for test of difference between treatments.|ANCOVA|||Equivalence analysis with a null hypothesis stating that there is a difference between Advanced and Basic treatment groups of more than 0.4%.||0.26|-0.21|0.816
91057184|NCT01473524|181995493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) General Association test stratified by randomization strata factor.||H0: The response rates are equal between placebo and 10 mg OCA. H1: The response rates are different between placebo and 10 mg OCA.||||<0.0001
91057185|NCT01473524|181995495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) General Association test stratified by randomization strata factor.||H0: The response rates are equal between placebo and 10 mg OCA. H1: The response rates are different between placebo and 10 mg OCA.||||<0.0001
91057186|NCT01473524|181995496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) General Association test stratified by randomization strata factor.||H0: The response rates are equal between placebo and 5-10 mg OCA. H1: The response rates are different between placebo and 5-10 mg OCA.||||<0.0001
91057187|NCT01473524|181995497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) General Association test stratified by randomization strata factor.||H0: The response rates are equal between placebo and 5-10 mg OCA. H1: The response rates are different between placebo and 5-10 mg OCA.||||<0.0001
91057188|NCT01473524|181995498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with baseline value as a covariate and fixed effects for treatment and randomization strata factor.||||||<0.0001
91057189|NCT01473524|181995498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with baseline value as a covariate and fixed effects for treatment and randomization strata factor.||||||<0.0001
91057190|NCT01473524|181995499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0004|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with baseline value as a covariate and fixed effects for treatment and randomization strata factor.||||||0.0004
91057191|NCT01473524|181995499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with baseline value as a covariate and fixed effects for treatment and randomization strata factor.||||||<0.0001
91057192|NCT01473524|181995500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with baseline value as a covariate and fixed effects for treatment and randomization strata factor.||||||<0.0001
91057193|NCT01473524|181995500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with baseline value as a covariate and fixed effects for treatment and randomization strata factor.||||||<0.0001
91057194|NCT01473524|181995501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with baseline value as a covariate and fixed effects for treatment and randomization strata factor.||||||<0.0001
91057195|NCT01473524|181995501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with baseline value as a covariate and fixed effects for treatment and randomization strata factor.||||||<0.0001
91057196|NCT01473524|181995502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with baseline value as a covariate and fixed effects for treatment and randomization strata factor.||||||0.0003
91057197|NCT01473524|181995502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with baseline value as a covariate and fixed effects for treatment and randomization strata factor||||||<0.0001
91057198|NCT01473524|181995503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with baseline value as a covariate and fixed effects for treatment and randomization strata factor.||||||<0.0001
91057199|NCT01473524|181995503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with baseline value as a covariate and fixed effects for treatment and randomization strata factor.||||||<0.0001
91057200|NCT01544179|181995506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.13|||Cox Proportional Hazards|||||1.13|0.65|0.273
91057201|NCT01544179|181995509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.62||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|2.52|||Cox Proportional Hazards|||||2.52|1.05|0.029
91057202|NCT01544179|181995510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.55|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.55|0.55|0.760
91057203|NCT01544179|181995511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|2.62|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.62|0.74|0.308
91057204|NCT01544179|181995512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.59|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.59|0.53|0.770
91057205|NCT01544179|181995513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.21|||Cox Proportional Hazards|||||1.21|0.68|0.507
91057206|NCT01544179|181995514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.53|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.53|0.54|0.725
91057207|NCT01544179|181995515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.23|||Cox Proportional Hazards|||||1.23|0.69|0.575
91057208|NCT01544179|181995516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.68|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.68|0.61|0.959
91057209|NCT01544179|181995517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.2|||Cox Proportional Hazards|||||1.20|0.66|0.437
91057210|NCT01386983|181995518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|3.406||||0.0128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.297|8.941|||Regression, Cox|||||8.941|1.297|0.0128
91057211|NCT01386983|181995519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||95.0|||||Generalized linear model|Gamma distribution with log-link function was used.||||||0.0002
91057212|NCT04516759|181995546|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.09||||0.1854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.32|||Chi-squared|Chi-squared test on the one-sided significance level of 2.5%||||1.32|0.9|0.1854
91057213|NCT04516759|181995547|OTHER|||||||0.0286||||||Baseline p-value|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|one-side significance level of 2.5%||||||0.0286
91057214|NCT04516759|181995547|OTHER|||||||0.0786||||||Day 7 p-value|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|one-side significance level of 2.5%||||||0.0786
91057215|NCT04516759|181995547|OTHER|||||||0.2169||||||Day 14 p-value|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|one-side significance level of 2.5%||||||0.2169
91057216|NCT04516759|181995547|OTHER|||||||0.186||||||Day 21 p-value|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|one-sided significance level of 2.5%||||||0.1860
91057217|NCT04516759|181995547|OTHER|||||||0.2256||||||Study Drug Discontinuation (SDD) p-value|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|one-sided significance level of 2.5%||||||0.2256
91057218|NCT04516759|181995548|OTHER|||||||0.4006||||||Increase in Diabetic Medication needed equal or more than 3 days|Fisher Exact|||||||0.4006
91057219|NCT04516759|181995548|OTHER|||||||0.7482||||||Diabetic Medication is stable/reduced equal or more than 3 days|Fisher Exact|||||||0.7482
91057220|NCT04516759|181995548|OTHER|||||||0.6949||||||Increase in Diabetic Medication needed at any time during the study|Fisher Exact|||||||0.6949
91057221|NCT04516759|181995548|OTHER|||||||0.5521||||||Diabetic Medication is stable/reduced at any time during the study|Fisher Exact|||||||0.5521
91057222|NCT04516759|181995549|OTHER|||||||0.5875|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.5875
91057223|NCT04516759|181995550|OTHER|||||||0.1129|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1129
91057224|NCT04516759|181995551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1556|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.1556
91057225|NCT04516759|181995552|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.41||||0.0903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.26|||Fisher Exact|The p-value is assessed by means of an Fisher's exact test on the one-sided significance level of 2.5%||||1.26|0.13|0.0903
91057226|NCT04516759|181995553|OTHER|||||||0.6144|||||||Fisher Exact|One-sided significance level of 2.5%||||||0.6144
91057227|NCT04516759|181995554|OTHER|||||||0.0105|||||||Fisher Exact|one-sided significance level of 2.5%||||||0.0105
91057228|NCT04516759|181995555|OTHER|||||||0.062|||||||Fisher Exact|one-sided significance level of 2.5%||||||0.062
91057229|NCT04314648|181995556|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.38|16.48|||Regression, Logistic|||||16.48|2.38|<.001
91057230|NCT04314648|181995557|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|5.76|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.86|17.86|||Regression, Logistic|||||17.86|1.86|<.01
91057231|NCT04314648|181995558|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|2.64|||Regression, Logistic||Main effects of the intervention on this outcome were compared between arms by fitting follow-up values to a logistic regression model, adjusted for baseline use.|||2.64|.21|.64
91057232|NCT04314648|181995559|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.67||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|20.51|||Regression, Logistic||Main effects of the intervention on this outcome were compared between arms by fitting follow-up values to a logistic regression model, adjusted for baseline use.|||20.51|.35|.35
91057233|NCT04314648|181995560|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.32||0.43|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Main effects of the intervention on this outcome were compared between arms by fitting follow-up values to a linear regression model, adjusted for baseline use.|||||.43
91057234|NCT04314648|181995561|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0||0.44|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Main effects of the intervention on this outcome were compared between arms by fitting follow-up values to a liner regression model, adjusted for baseline use.|||||.44
91057235|NCT04314648|181995562|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|3.62|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.62|.39|.77
91057236|NCT00724048|181995568|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.17||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.47|0.13|||ANCOVA|||The ANCOVA model included a term for treatment, as well as covariates for baseline mMS, and age at entry to the study.||0.13|-2.47|0.078
91057237|NCT00724048|181995568|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.19||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.53|0.16||Hypothesis testing was completed only if ACR16 45 mg BID (90 mg) vs. placebo was significant.|ANCOVA|||The ANCOVA model included a term for treatment, as well as covariates for baseline mMS, and age at entry to the study.||0.16|-2.53|0.084
91057238|NCT00724048|181995568|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|1.32||Hypothesis testing was completed only if ACR16 22.5 mg BID (45 mg) vs. placebo was significant.|ANCOVA|||The ANCOVA model included a term for treatment, as well as covariates for baseline mMS, and age at entry to the study.||1.32|-1.35|0.982
91057239|NCT02288182|181995656|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Student's t-test comparing the group means was planned and performed (successfully). However, due to some outliers, the central tendencies have been reported as medians (instead of arithmetic means). Therefore an additional non-parameteric test (Mann-Whitney U-test) was performed.||||0.001
91057240|NCT03582826|181995674|SUPERIORITY|Paired Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Tests|Median Difference (Final Values)|79.0||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.0|163.0||Original p-value for dermatological bacteria was 6e-05. It was adjusted first by applying centered log-ratio (CLR) transformation approach then by false discovery rate (FDR) correction for multiple comparisons by using Benjamini-Hochberg Procedure.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||163|26|0.02
91057241|NCT00574912|181995683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91057242|NCT01282723|181995684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.0093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Estimation of Odds Ratio of True Positive Fraction between SureCALL® and TOCO~Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the True Positive Fraction of SureCALL® and of TOCO or the SureCALL® is significantly greater than TOCO.~Alternative hypothesis: There is a difference between the True Positive Fraction of SureCALL® and of TOCO and the TOCO is significantly greater than SureCALL®."||1.95|1.10|0.0093
91057243|NCT01282723|181995684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.3204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Estimation of Odds Ratio of False Positive Fraction between SureCALL® and TOCO~Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the False Positive Fraction of SureCALL® and of TOCO or the SureCALL® is significantly less than TOCO.~Alternative hypothesis: There is a difference between the False Positive Fraction of SureCALL® and of TOCO and the TOCO is significantly less than SureCALL®."||1.17|0.61|0.3204
91057244|NCT00469911|181995686|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91057245|NCT00371397|181995723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.75||||0.009||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||hsCRP dichotomized as undetectable/detectable. Logistic regression w/generalized estimating equations(GEE)s to determine odds ratio. Assessed hsCRP at baseline at each of the three visits; 43% of the values (n = 65) were below the assay's detectable lower bound of .3 mg/dL, and thus hsCRP was dichotomized as undetectable/detectable.||||.009
91057246|NCT03753763|181995738|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.1||||0.9697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|6.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM) was used to analyze the change in anterior and lateral displacement from baseline||The model included treatment, week of visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate.||6.5|-6.3|0.9697
91057247|NCT03753763|181995739|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|0.5||||0.7751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|4.1||A mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM) was used to analyze the change in anterior and lateral displacement from baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The model included treatment, week of visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate||4.1|-3.1|0.7751
91057248|NCT03753763|181995740|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|0.2||||0.9076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|3.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM) was used to analyze the change in from baseline in UMSARS Part II||The model included treatment, week of visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate.||3.7|-3.3|0.9076
91057249|NCT03753763|181995741|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|-1.1||||0.5386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|2.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM) was used to analyze the change in from baseline in UMSARS Part II.||The model included treatment, week of visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate.||2.6|-4.8|0.5386
91057250|NCT03753763|181995742|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|6.0||||0.3364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|18.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM) was used to analyze the change in from baseline in MSA-QoL scale.||The model included treatment, week of visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate.||18.6|-6.5|0.3364
91057251|NCT03753763|181995743|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.2||||0.7574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.5|||ANCOVA|||The ANCOVA included change from baseline as the response variable, treatment group as a factor, and baseline score as a covariate||1.5|-1.1|0.7574
91057252|NCT03753763|181995744|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.8||||0.6393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|4.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM) was used to analyze the change from baseline in UDRS.||The model included treatment, week of visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate.||4.0|-2.5|0.6393
91057253|NCT01104779|181995745|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.8||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|-2.4|||ANCOVA||Cariprazine 3-6 mg/day vs Placebo|||-2.4|-11.3|0.0029
91057254|NCT01104779|181995745|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|-5.3|||ANCOVA||Cariprazine 6-9 mg/day vs Placebo|||-5.3|-14.5|<0.0001
91057255|NCT01104779|181995746|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.0115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.1|||ANCOVA||Cariprazine 3-6 mg/day vs Placebo|||-0.1|-0.6|0.0115
91057256|NCT01104779|181995746|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.3|||ANCOVA||Cariprazine 6-9 mg/day vs Placebo|||-0.3|-0.8|<0.0001
91057257|NCT01565850|181995767|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A total sample size of 150 HIV-1 infected participants, randomized in a 2:1 ratio to 2 groups, would achieve 56% power to evaluate noninferiority with respect to the response rate of HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL at Week 24 if a response rate of 0.88 for both arms, a noninferiority margin of 0.12, and the significance level of the test at a one-sided 0.025 level were assumed.|Difference in proportions|3.3||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|18.1||The p-value for the superiority test comparing the percentages of virologic success was from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA and race strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference in percentages of virologic success and its 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated based on baseline HIV-1 RNA and race stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel proportion.|The null hypothesis was that the D/C/F/TAF group is at least 12% worse than the DRV+COBI+FTC/TDF group with respect to the percentage of participants achieving HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL (response rate as defined by the snapshot analysis algorithm) at Week 24; the alternative hypothesis was that the response rate in the D/C/F/TAF group is less than 12% worse than that in the DRV+COBI +FTC/TDF group.||18.1|-11.4|0.64
90816954|NCT02294734|181512646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.9||||3.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.01||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RLL; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.01|0.81|3.23
91057258|NCT01565850|181995768|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was that the D/C/F/TAF group is at least 12% worse than the DRV+COBI+FTC/TDF group with respect to the percentage of participants achieving HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL (response rate as defined by the snapshot analysis algorithm) at Week 48; the alternative hypothesis was that the response rate in the D/C/F/TAF group is less than 12% worse than that in the DRV+COBI +FTC/TDF group.|Difference in proportions|-6.2||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.9|7.4||The p-value for the superiority test comparing the percentages of virologic success was from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA and race strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference in percentages of virologic success and its 95% CI were calculated based on baseline HIV-1 RNA and race stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel proportion.|||7.4|-19.9|0.35
91057259|NCT01565850|181995769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|0.04||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.21||The p-value, difference in least squares mean (LSM), and its 95% CI were from ANOVA model with baseline HIV-1 RNA level (≤ 100,000 or \> 100,000 copies/mL) and race (Black or non-Black) as fixed effects in the model.|ANOVA|||||0.21|-0.14|0.67
91057260|NCT01565850|181995770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|0.06||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.23||The p-value, difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were from ANOVA model with baseline HIV-1 RNA level (≤ 100,000 or \> 100,000 copies/mL) and race (Black or non-Black) as fixed effects in the model.|ANOVA|||||0.23|-0.11|0.50
91057261|NCT01565850|181995771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|45.0||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|101.0||The p-value, difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were from ANOVA model with baseline HIV-1 RNA level (≤ 100,000 or \> 100,000 copies/mL) and race (Black or non-Black) as fixed effects in the model.|ANOVA|||||101|-10|0.11
91057262|NCT01565850|181995772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|18.0||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.0|72.0||The p-value, difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were from ANOVA model with baseline HIV-1 RNA level (≤ 100,000 or \> 100,000 copies/mL) and race (Black or non-Black) as fixed effects in the model.|ANOVA|||||72|-35|0.50
91057263|NCT03395405|181995796|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.64||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made. The a priori threshold for statistical significant is 0.05.|Likelihood Ratio Test|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in time until clinical resolution between study arms, with a two-sided alternative.|HR estimated from a Cox model|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in time until clinical resolution between study arms, with a two-sided alternative.||1.64|0.33|0.459
91057264|NCT03395405|181995798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.735||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made. The a priori threshold for statistical significant is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Titer values were log-transformed||Includes participants in the Norovirus GII subgroup. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in time until clinical resolution between study arms, with a two-sided alternative.||||0.735
91057265|NCT03395405|181995802|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|4.06||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Likelihood Ratio Test|||Includes participants in the Norovirus GII subgroup. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in time until first negative viral load between study arms, with a two-sided alternative.||4.06|0.19|0.873
91057266|NCT04324073|181995803|SUPERIORITY||Median posterior absolute risk differenc|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.7|12.2||Posterior probability|Bayesian analysis|Adjusted for age and centre|% Confidence Interval is % Credibility interval here|||12.2|-11.7|
91057267|NCT04324073|181995804|SUPERIORITY||Median posterior Hazard Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|1.74||Posterior probability|Bayesian analysis|HR adjusted for age and centre|% Confidence interval is % Credible interval here|||1.74|0.69|
91057268|NCT04324073|181995805|SUPERIORITY||Median posterior absolute risk differenc|-7.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.5|8.7||Posterior probability|Bayesian analysis|Adjusted on age and centre|% Confidence Interval is %Credible Interval here. Results are presented as the proportion not improved, so that an effective treatment would be associated with a decrease in proportion.|||8.7|-22.5|
91057269|NCT04324073|181995806|SUPERIORITY||Median posterior Hazard Ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.55|2.07||Posterior probability|Bayesian analysis||% Confidence Interval is % Credible Interval here|||2.07|0.55|
91057270|NCT04324073|181995807|SUPERIORITY|Day 14|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|2.03|||Regression, Cox|adjusted for age and sex||||2.03|0.23|
91057271|NCT04324073|181995807|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.59|||Regression, Cox|||Day 28||1.59|0.27|
91057272|NCT04324073|181995807|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.58|||Regression, Cox|||Day 90||1.58|0.31|
91057273|NCT04324073|181995807|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.25|||Regression, Cox|||Day 14||2.25|0.40|
91057274|NCT04324073|181995807|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.96|||Regression, Cox|||Day 28||1.96|0.40|
91057275|NCT04324073|181995807|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.58|||Regression, Cox|||Day 90||1.58|0.35|
91057276|NCT04324073|181995808|SUPERIORITY||Median posterior OR|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|2.34|||Proportionnal odds model|Bayesian analysis. Adjusted for age and centre.|% Confidence Interval is % Credible Interval here|Day 4||2.34|0.53|
90816955|NCT02294734|181512646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.96||||20.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.07||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RLL; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.07|0.86|20.83
91057277|NCT04324073|181995808|SUPERIORITY||Median posterior OR|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|2.08|||Proportionnal odds model|Bayesian analysis. Adjusted for age and centre.|% Confidence Interval is % Credible Interval here|Day 7||2.08|0.49|
91057278|NCT04324073|181995808|SUPERIORITY||Median posterior OR|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.47|||Proportionnal odds model|Bayesian analysis. Adjusted for age and centre.|% Confidence Interval is % Credible Interval here|Day 14||1.47|0.42|
91057279|NCT04324073|181995808|SUPERIORITY||Median posterior OR|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|2.02|||Proportionnal odds model|Bayesian analysis. Adjusted for age and centre.|% Confidence Interval is % Credible Interval here|Day 4||2.02|0.38|
91057280|NCT04324073|181995808|SUPERIORITY||Median posterior OR|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|2.4|||Proportionnal odds model|Bayesian analysis. Adjusted for age and centre.|% Confidence Interval is % Credible Interval here|Day 14||2.40|0.47|
91057281|NCT04324073|181995808|SUPERIORITY||Median posterior OR|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.57|||Proportionnal odds model|Bayesian analysis. Adjusted for age and sex|% Confidence Interval is % Credible Interval here|Day 90||2.57|0.50|
91057282|NCT04324073|181995809|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|3.9||||adjusted on age and centre||||3.9|-6.1|
91057283|NCT04324073|181995810|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.57|||Fine-Gray model|adjusted for age and centre||Day 28||1.57|0.72|
91057284|NCT04324073|181995810|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|2.25|||Fine-Gray model|Adjusted for age and centre||Day 90||2.25|0.74|
91057285|NCT04324073|181995810|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.44|||Fine-Gray model|adjusted for age and centre||Day 28||2.44|0.59|
91057286|NCT04324073|181995810|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.55|||Fine-Gray model|Adjusted for age and centre||Day 90||1.55|0.74|
91057287|NCT04324073|181995811|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.75|||Fine-Gray model|Adjusted on age and centre||Day 28||1.75|0.81|
91057288|NCT04324073|181995811|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.67|||Fine-Gray model|Adjusted on age and centre||Day 90||1.67|0.80|
91057289|NCT04324073|181995811|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|2.66|||Fine-Gray model|Adjusted on age and centre||Day 28||2.66|0.55|
91057290|NCT04324073|181995811|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.37|||Fine-Gray model|Adjusted on age and centre||Day 90||2.37|0.71|
91057291|NCT04324073|181995812|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.44|||Fine-Gray model|Adjusted for age and centre||Day 28||1.44|0.42|
91057292|NCT04324073|181995812|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.47|||Fine-Gray model|adjusted for age and centre||Day 90||1.47|0.49|
91057293|NCT04308226|181995822|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91057294|NCT04308226|181995824|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.001
91057295|NCT05307510|181995832|SUPERIORITY|Statistical analysis is under powered. N is too low.||||||0.135||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.6|t-test, 2 sided|||Pain at rest||||0.135
91057296|NCT05307510|181995832|SUPERIORITY|Statistical analysis is underpowered. N is too low||||||0.716||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.6|t-test, 2 sided|||Pain at Night||||.716
91057297|NCT05307510|181995832|SUPERIORITY|Statistical Analysis underpowered. N is too small.||||||0.509||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.6|t-test, 2 sided|||Pain in use||||.509
91057298|NCT05307510|181995833|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||1
91057299|NCT05307510|181995834|SUPERIORITY|Statistical analysis is underpowered. N is too low.||||||0.635||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.6|t-test, 2 sided|||Palmar abduction of surgical hand||||.635
91057300|NCT05307510|181995834|SUPERIORITY|Statistical analysis is underpowered. N is too low.|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.1||||0.521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|7.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||Radial Abduction Surgical Hand||7.4|-13.6|.521
91057301|NCT05307510|181995835|SUPERIORITY|Statistical analysis is underpowered. N is too low.|Mean Difference (Net)|7.42||||0.495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.16|32.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||32.0|-16.16|.495
91057302|NCT05307510|181995836|SUPERIORITY|Statistical analysis is underpowered. N is too low.||||||0.953||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.6|t-test, 2 sided|||Buttoning Buttons||||.953
91057303|NCT05307510|181995836|SUPERIORITY|Statistical analysis is underpowered. N is too low.||||||0.947||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.6|t-test, 2 sided|||Lacing and tying a shoe||||.947
91057304|NCT05307510|181995836|SUPERIORITY|Statistical analysis is underpowered. N is too low.||||||0.828||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.6|t-test, 2 sided|||Opening and closing safety pins||||.828
91057305|NCT05307510|181995836|SUPERIORITY|Statistical analysis is underpowered. N is too low.||||||0.169||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.6|t-test, 2 sided|||Managing coins||||.169
91057306|NCT05307510|181995837|SUPERIORITY|Statistical analysis underpowered. N too small.||||||0.917||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.6|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.917
91057307|NCT05307510|181995837|SUPERIORITY|Statistical analysis is underpowered. N is too small||||||0.837||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.6|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.837
91057308|NCT03610516|181995840|OTHER|A repeated measures mixed model was fitted with factors for treatment group (CFZ533 or placebo) and visit.|Ratio of geometric means CFZ533/placebo|0.579||||0.0788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.267|1.256||one-sided p-value|Repeated measures Mixed Model|||||1.256|0.267|0.0788
91057309|NCT00761657|181995858|OTHER|||||||0.2073||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|t-test, 2 sided|||P-value is from inter-group 2-sample t-tests comparing roxadustat change from baseline with placebo change from baseline.||||0.2073
91057310|NCT00761657|181995858|OTHER|||||||0.0046||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|t-test, 2 sided|||P-value is from inter-group 2-sample t-tests comparing roxadustat change from baseline with placebo change from baseline.||||0.0046
91057311|NCT00761657|181995858|OTHER|||||||0.086||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|t-test, 2 sided|||P-value is from inter-group 2-sample t-tests comparing roxadustat change from baseline with placebo change from baseline.||||0.0860
91057312|NCT00761657|181995858|OTHER|||||||0.4005||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|t-test, 2 sided|||P-value is from inter-group 2-sample t-tests comparing roxadustat change from baseline with placebo change from baseline.||||0.4005
91057313|NCT00761657|181995858|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|t-test, 2 sided|||P-value is presented for Day 26-29 timepoint. P-value is from inter-group 2-sample t-tests comparing roxadustat change from baseline with placebo change from baseline.||||<0.0001
91057314|NCT00761657|181995858|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|t-test, 2 sided|||P-value is from inter-group 2-sample t-tests comparing roxadustat change from baseline with placebo change from baseline.||||<0.0001
91057315|NCT00761657|181995858|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|t-test, 2 sided|||P-value is from inter-group 2-sample t-tests comparing roxadustat change from baseline with placebo change from baseline.||||<0.0001
91057316|NCT00761657|181995858|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.||P-value is from inter-group 2-sample t-tests comparing roxadustat change from baseline with placebo change from baseline.||||<0.0001
91057317|NCT00761657|181995859|OTHER|||||||0.0507||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|t-test, 2 sided|||P-value is from inter-group 2-sample t-tests comparing roxadustat change from baseline with placebo change from baseline.||||0.0507
91057318|NCT00761657|181995859|OTHER|||||||0.4502||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|t-test, 2 sided|||P-value is from inter-group 2-sample t-tests comparing roxadustat change from baseline with placebo change from baseline.||||0.4502
91057319|NCT00761657|181995859|OTHER|Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.||||||0.1603|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-value is from inter-group 2-sample t-tests comparing roxadustat change from baseline with placebo change from baseline.||||0.1603
91057320|NCT00761657|181995859|OTHER|||||||0.9816||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|t-test, 2 sided|||P-value is from inter-group 2-sample t-tests comparing roxadustat change from baseline with placebo change from baseline.||||0.9816
91057321|NCT00761657|181995859|OTHER|||||||0.0139||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|t-test, 2 sided|||P-value is from inter-group 2-sample t-tests comparing roxadustat change from baseline with placebo change from baseline.||||0.0139
91057322|NCT00761657|181995859|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|t-test, 2 sided|||P-value is from inter-group 2-sample t-tests comparing roxadustat change from baseline with placebo change from baseline.||||<0.0001
91057323|NCT00761657|181995859|OTHER|||||||0.0001||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|t-test, 2 sided|||P-value is from inter-group 2-sample t-tests comparing roxadustat change from baseline with placebo change from baseline.||||0.0001
91057324|NCT00761657|181995859|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|t-test, 2 sided|||P-value is from inter-group 2-sample t-tests comparing roxadustat change from baseline with placebo change from baseline.||||<0.0001
91057325|NCT00618332|181995877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.372||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.372
91057326|NCT00618332|181995878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.775||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.775
91057327|NCT00618332|181995879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.737||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.737
91057328|NCT00618332|181995880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.117||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.117
91057329|NCT00618332|181995881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.676||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.676
91057330|NCT00618332|181995882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.795||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.795
91057331|NCT00618332|181995883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.638||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.638
91057332|NCT00618332|181995884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.800
90816956|NCT02294734|181512646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.06||||87.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.16||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RLL; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.16|0.96|87.60
90816957|NCT02294734|181512646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.93||||7.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.03||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LLL; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.03|0.84|7.90
90816958|NCT02294734|181512646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.96||||23.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.07||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LLL; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.07|0.87|23.39
90816959|NCT02294734|181512646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.03||||76.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.12||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LLL; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.12|0.95|76.16
91057333|NCT00618332|181995885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.968||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.968
91057334|NCT01564537|181995912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.742||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.587|0.939|||Log Rank||HR is estimated from Cox Regression.|||0.939|0.587|0.012
91057335|NCT01564537|181995913|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.939|||=|0.495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.784|1.125|||Log Rank||HR:estimated from Cox Regression with stratification factors: prior therapies, proteasome inhibitor, and ISS Stage at Screening with treatment as factor in model. \<1 hazard ratio for treatment=better prevention of death in drug arm vs control.|||1.125|0.784|=0.495
91057336|NCT01564537|181995914|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.916|||=|0.764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.516|1.626|||Log Rank||HR:estimated from Cox Regression with stratification factors: prior therapies, proteasome inhibitor, and ISS Stage at Screening with treatment as factor in model. \<1 hazard ratio for treatment=better prevention of death in drug arm vs control.|||1.626|0.516|=0.764
91057337|NCT01564537|181995926|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3|||=|0.332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|2.45||P-value is from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel stratified by: prior therapies (1, 2 or 3), proteasome inhibitor (exposed, naïve), and ISS Stage at Screening (I or II, III).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio is from logistic regression model with prognostic factors: prior therapies (1, 2 or 3), proteasome inhibitor (exposed, naïve),and ISS Stage at Screening (I or II, III). Odds ratio \> 1 favors Ixazomib.|||2.45|0.69|=0.332
91057338|NCT02784444|181995984|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.81||Statistical testing was two-sided using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Logistic|Models are adjusted for presence of diabetes mellitus, baseline fibrosis F1 versus F2/F3, and baseline NAS (0-8).||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in response rates between the MSDC-0602K dose and placebo.||1.81|0.44|0.747
91057339|NCT02784444|181995984|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.48||Statistical testing was two-sided using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Logistic|Models are adjusted for presence of diabetes mellitus, baseline fibrosis F1 versus F2/F3, and baseline NAS (0-8).||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in response rates between the MSDC-0602K dose and placebo.||2.48|0.60|0.575
91057340|NCT02784444|181995984|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.64||||0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|3.27||Statistical testing was two-sided using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Logistic|Models are adjusted for presence of diabetes mellitus, baseline fibrosis F1 versus F2/F3, and baseline NAS (0-8).||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in response rates between the MSDC-0602K dose and placebo.||3.27|0.83|0.158
91057341|NCT02784444|181995985|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|2.42||Statistical testing was two-sided using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Logistic|Models are adjusted for presence of diabetes mellitus, baseline fibrosis F1 versus F2/F3, and baseline NAS (0-8).||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in response rates between the MSDC-0602K dose and placebo.||2.42|0.49|0.828
91057342|NCT02784444|181995985|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|3.21||Statistical testing was two-sided using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Logistic|Models are adjusted for presence of diabetes mellitus, baseline fibrosis F1 versus F2/F3, and baseline NAS (0-8).||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in response rates between the MSDC-0602K dose and placebo.||3.21|0.70|0.299
91057343|NCT02784444|181995985|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.82||||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|3.82||Statistical testing was two-sided using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Logistic|Models are adjusted for presence of diabetes mellitus, baseline fibrosis F1 versus F2/F3, and baseline NAS (0-8).||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in response rates between the MSDC-0602K dose and placebo.||3.82|0.86|0.116
91057344|NCT02784444|181995986|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|2.55||Statistical testing was two-sided using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Logistic|Models are adjusted for presence of diabetes mellitus, baseline fibrosis F1 versus F2/F3, and baseline NAS (0-8).||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in response rates between the MSDC-0602K dose and placebo.||2.55|0.55|0.657
91057345|NCT02784444|181995986|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|3.06||Statistical testing was two-sided using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Logistic|Models are adjusted for presence of diabetes mellitus, baseline fibrosis F1 versus F2/F3, and baseline NAS (0-8).||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in response rates between the MSDC-0602K dose and placebo.||3.06|0.69|0.332
91057346|NCT02784444|181995986|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|3.16||Statistical testing was two-sided using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Logistic|Models are adjusted for presence of diabetes mellitus, baseline fibrosis F1 versus F2/F3, and baseline NAS (0-8).||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in response rates between the MSDC-0602K dose and placebo.||3.16|0.72|0.270
91057347|NCT02784444|181995987|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.3||Statistical testing was two-sided using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Model adjusted by age, sex, presence of diabetes mellitus, Vitamin E ≥ 400 IU, baseline fibrosis F1 versus F2/F3, and baseline NAS (0-8).||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in changes between the MSDC-0602K dose and placebo.||0.3|-0.7|0.392
91057348|NCT02784444|181995987|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.1||Statistical testing was two-sided using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Model adjusted by age, sex, presence of diabetes mellitus, Vitamin E ≥ 400 IU, baseline fibrosis F1 versus F2/F3, and baseline NAS (0-8).||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in changes between the MSDC-0602K dose and placebo.||-0.1|-1.1|0.023
91057349|NCT02784444|181995987|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.1||Statistical testing was two-sided using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Model adjusted by age, sex, presence of diabetes mellitus, Vitamin E ≥ 400 IU, baseline fibrosis F1 versus F2/F3, and baseline NAS (0-8).||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in changes between the MSDC-0602K dose and placebo.||-0.1|-1.0|0.028
91057350|NCT02784444|181995988|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1||Statistical testing was two-sided using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Model adjusted by age, sex, presence of diabetes mellitus, Vitamin E ≥ 400 IU, baseline fibrosis F1 versus F2/F3, and baseline steatosis.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in changes between the MSDC-0602K dose and placebo.||0.1|-0.4|0.224
91057351|NCT02784444|181995988|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.0||Statistical testing was two-sided using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Model adjusted by age, sex, presence of diabetes mellitus, Vitamin E ≥ 400 IU, baseline fibrosis F1 versus F2/F3, and baseline steatosis.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in changes between the MSDC-0602K dose and placebo.||0.0|-0.4|0.096
91057352|NCT02784444|181995988|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.1||Statistical testing was two-sided using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Model adjusted by age, sex, presence of diabetes mellitus, Vitamin E ≥ 400 IU, baseline fibrosis F1 versus F2/F3, and baseline steatosis.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in changes between the MSDC-0602K dose and placebo.||-0.1|-0.6|0.007
91057353|NCT02784444|181995989|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2||Statistical testing was two-sided using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Model adjusted by age, sex, presence of diabetes mellitus, Vitamin E ≥ 400 IU, baseline fibrosis F1 versus F2/F3, and baseline inflammation.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in changes between the MSDC-0602K dose and placebo.||0.2|-0.1|0.488
91057354|NCT02784444|181995989|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1||Statistical testing was two-sided using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Model adjusted by age, sex, presence of diabetes mellitus, Vitamin E ≥ 400 IU, baseline fibrosis F1 versus F2/F3, and baseline inflammation.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in changes between the MSDC-0602K dose and placebo.||0.1|-0.3|0.291
91057355|NCT02784444|181995989|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1||Statistical testing was two-sided using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Model adjusted by age, sex, presence of diabetes mellitus, Vitamin E ≥ 400 IU, baseline fibrosis F1 versus F2/F3, and baseline inflammation.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in changes between the MSDC-0602K dose and placebo.||0.1|-0.2|0.595
91057356|NCT02784444|181995990|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2||Statistical testing was two-sided using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Model adjusted by age, sex, presence of diabetes mellitus, Vitamin E ≥ 400 IU, baseline fibrosis F1 versus F2/F3, and baseline ballooning.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in changes between the MSDC-0602K dose and placebo.||0.2|-0.4|0.416
91057357|NCT02784444|181995990|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.0||Statistical testing was two-sided using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Model adjusted by age, sex, presence of diabetes mellitus, Vitamin E ≥ 400 IU, baseline fibrosis F1 versus F2/F3, and baseline ballooning.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in changes between the MSDC-0602K dose and placebo.||0.0|-0.5|0.056
91057358|NCT02784444|181995990|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1||Statistical testing was two-sided using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Model adjusted by age, sex, presence of diabetes mellitus, Vitamin E ≥ 400 IU, baseline fibrosis F1 versus F2/F3, and baseline ballooning.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in changes between the MSDC-0602K dose and placebo.||0.1|-0.4|0.220
91057359|NCT02784444|181995991|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3||Statistical testing was two-sided using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Model adjusted by age, sex, diabetes mellitus, Vitamin E ≥ 400 IU, baseline fibrosis F1 vs. F2/F3, and baseline CRN fibrosis staging score.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in changes between the MSDC-0602K dose and placebo.||0.3|-0.3|0.928
91057360|NCT02784444|181995991|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1||Statistical testing was two-sided using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Model adjusted by age, sex, diabetes mellitus, Vitamin E ≥ 400 IU, baseline fibrosis F1 vs. F2/F3, and baseline CRN fibrosis staging score.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in changes between the MSDC-0602K dose and placebo.||0.1|-0.5|0.244
91057361|NCT02784444|181995991|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1||Statistical testing was two-sided using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Model adjusted by age, sex, diabetes mellitus, Vitamin E ≥ 400 IU, baseline fibrosis F1 vs. F2/F3, and baseline CRN fibrosis staging score.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in changes between the MSDC-0602K dose and placebo.||0.1|-0.5|0.228
91057362|NCT00843479|181996018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.07||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
91057363|NCT00843479|181996019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.25||||0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
91057364|NCT00843479|181996020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.01
91057365|NCT00843479|181996021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
91057366|NCT00843479|181996022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
91057367|NCT00843479|181996023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
91057368|NCT02383810|181996024|SUPERIORITY|The overall hypothesis system was represented by the following pool of partial hypothesis systems: Hok: πGi = πGj i = 1 to 3, and j = 2 to 4, and k = 1 to 6, and i ≠ j HAk: πGi ≠πGj i = 1 to 3, and j = 2 to 4, and k = 1 to 6, and i ≠ j where πG is the probability of absence of Grade ≥2 CID for the Group. Each Ho involved 2 groups.|||||<|0.1||||||Overall alpha level 0.10 was maintained by correction for multiplicity according to Hommel's procedure.|Chi-squared|||Overall null hypothesis: All elsiglutide dose groups had equal proportion of subjects with max Grade≥2 diarrhea and this was equal to the one in the placebo group. This includes 6 individual hypotheses (i.e., 3 to compare each dose group vs. placebo and 3 to compare dose groups vs. each other). Raw p-values from Chi square tests were corrected for multiplicity according to the Hommel's procedure. Each of 6 hypotheses was then evaluated based on corrected p-value at alpha 0.10 (two-sided).||||<0.1
91057369|NCT01934335|181996049|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.51
91057370|NCT01934335|181996050|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.35
91057371|NCT01934335|181996051|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.43
91057372|NCT00469144|181996057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||100 Days, Between Arms: Participants in CR||||0.9
91057373|NCT00469144|181996057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||100 Days, Between Arms: Participants not in CR||||0.4
91057374|NCT00469144|181996057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||1 Year, Between Arms: Participants in CR||||0.7
91057375|NCT00469144|181996057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||1 Year, Between Arms: Participants not in CR||||0.05
91057376|NCT01994291|181996059|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority was to be declared if the lower limit of the confidence interval for the mean difference at Week 12 is greater than -3.0 letters.|Difference in LS means|-2.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52||0.1271|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.27|-0.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The null hypothesis was that the difference, in the mean change from baseline in BCVA in the PF-04634817 group,and the control group is less than or equal to -3 letters.||-0.37|-4.27|0.1271
91057377|NCT01994291|181996059|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority was to be declared if the lower limit of the confidence interval for the mean difference at Week 12 is greater than -3.0 letters.|Difference in LS means|-2.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36||0.0699|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.24|-0.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The null hypothesis was that the difference, in the mean change from baseline in BCVA in the PF-04634817 group,and the control group is less than or equal to -3 letters.||-0.73|-4.24|0.0699
91057378|NCT01994291|181996059|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority was to be declared if the lower limit of the confidence interval for the mean difference at Week 12 is greater than -3.0 letters.|Difference in LS means|-2.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17||0.0399|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.91|-0.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The null hypothesis was that the difference, in the mean change from baseline in BCVA in the PF-04634817 group,and the control group is less than or equal to -3 letters.||-0.91|-3.91|0.0399
91057379|NCT01994291|181996060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1416||||0.0218|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.2483|-0.0467|||Barnard test|||||-0.0467|-0.2483|0.0218
91057380|NCT01994291|181996060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.0442||||0.4209|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.1217|0.0261|||Barnard test.|||baseline in BCVA in the PF-04634817 group,and the control group is less than or equal to -3 letters.||0.0261|-0.1217|0.4209
91057381|NCT01994291|181996060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.0849||||0.0778|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.1516|-0.0168|||Barnard test.|||||-0.0168|-0.1516|0.0778
91057382|NCT01994291|181996061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|114.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.84|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|88.56|139.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||139.59|88.56|<0.0001
91057383|NCT01994291|181996061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|65.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.36||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|80.0|42.2|89.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||89.43|42.20|0.0004
91057384|NCT01994291|181996061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|87.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.44|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|67.45|107.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||107.19|67.45|<0.0001
90816960|NCT02294734|181512646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.96||||22.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.06||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal;Region; Upper; D12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.06|0.87|22.54
90816961|NCT02294734|181512646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.01||||58.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.12||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal; Region; Upper; D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.12|0.91|58.17
90816962|NCT02294734|181512646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.89||||6.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.03||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal; Region; Lower; D12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.03|0.76|6.22
90816963|NCT02294734|181512646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.01||||55.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.17||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal; Region; Lower; D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.17|0.88|55.85
90816964|NCT02294734|181512646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.99||||25.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.02||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal; Region;Central; D12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.02|0.96|25.44
90816965|NCT02294734|181512646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.99||||18.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.02||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal;Region; Cetral; D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.02|0.96|18.15
90816966|NCT02294734|181512646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.92||||8.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.04||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal; Region; Distal; D12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.04|0.82|8.12
90816967|NCT02294734|181512646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.01||||57.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.13||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal; Region; Distal D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.13|0.90|57.39
90816968|NCT02294734|181512646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.97||||10|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.02||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal; Region;Total; D12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.02|0.93|10.00
90816969|NCT02294734|181512646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.99||||29.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.03||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal; Region; Total; D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.03|0.95|29.88
91057385|NCT01994291|181996062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|7.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.44|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|6.13|9.83|||ANCOVA|||||9.83|6.13|<0.0001
91057386|NCT01994291|181996062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|6.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.28|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|4.7|7.98|||ANCOVA|||||7.98|4.70|<0.0001
91057387|NCT01994291|181996062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|7.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|5.66|8.48|||ANCOVA|||||8.48|5.66|<0.0001
91057388|NCT01994291|181996063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0423|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.13|0.55|||ANCOVA|||||0.55|0.13|0.0423
91057389|NCT01994291|181996063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.36|0.75|||ANCOVA|||||0.75|0.36|0.0004
91057390|NCT01994291|181996063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.3|0.63|||ANCOVA|||||0.63|0.30|0.0004
91057391|NCT01695863|181996110|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.269|0.816|||t-test, 2 sided|||Right Colon||0.816|0.269|<0.0001
91057392|NCT01695863|181996110|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.39||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.122|0.655|||t-test, 2 sided|||Transverse Colon||0.655|0.122|0.005
91057393|NCT01695863|181996110|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.029|0.484|||t-test, 2 sided|||Left Colon||0.484|-0.029|0.08
91057394|NCT01695863|181996111|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16||||0.093|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Calcium||||0.093
91057395|NCT01695863|181996111|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.03||||0.801|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Glucose||||0.801
91057396|NCT01695863|181996111|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44||||0.599|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Blood Urea Nitrogen||||0.599
91057397|NCT01695863|181996111|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.696|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Creatinine||||0.696
91057398|NCT01695863|181996111|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.19||||0.042|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Sodium||||.042
91057399|NCT01695863|181996111|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.596|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Potassium||||0.596
91057400|NCT01695863|181996111|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.98||||0.107|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Chloride||||0.107
91057401|NCT01695863|181996111|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.71||||0.351|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Bicarbonate||||0.351
91057402|NCT01695863|181996112|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0438||||0.772|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Nausea||||0.772
91057403|NCT01695863|181996112|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2821||||0.028|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Vomiting||||0.028
91057404|NCT01695863|181996112|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2102||||0.235|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Bloating||||0.235
91057405|NCT01695863|181996112|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0547||||0.707|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Abdominal pain or cramping||||0.707
91057406|NCT01695863|181996112|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0269||||0.773|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Ability to complete entire prep||||0.773
91057407|NCT01695863|181996112|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0498||||0.766|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difficulty/Inconvenience in completing prep||||0.766
91057408|NCT01687244|181996130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||HGRF survival at 12 months|33.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|16.8|53.6||Not applicable: the primary analysis was a calculation of a confidence interval||||The primary efficacy endpoint was the incidence of high-grade recurrence-free survival at 12 months. The proportion of patients achieving high-grade recurrence-free survival at 12 months was reported for each dose group, together with an exact 90% confidence interval for the proportion||53.6|16.8|
91057409|NCT01687244|181996130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||HGRF survival at 12 months|36.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|18.8|58.2|||||The proportion of subjects achieving high-grade recurrence-free survival at 12 months|The primary efficacy endpoint was the incidence of high-grade recurrence-free survival at 12 months. The proportion of patients achieving high-grade recurrence-free survival at 12 months was reported for each dose group, together with an exact 90% confidence interval for the proportion.||58.2|18.8|
91057410|NCT01330420|181996143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-ranked test|||Due to the small sample size, the Wilcoxon signed-ranked test, a non-parametric statistical test, was used to detect outcome measure changes from pre-intervention to post-intervention||||<.001
91057411|NCT01330420|181996144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-ranked test|||Due to the small sample size, the Wilcoxon signed-ranked test, a non-parametric statistical test, was used to detect outcome measure changes from pre-intervention to post-intervention||||<.001
91057412|NCT01330420|181996145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-ranked test|||Due to the small sample size, the Wilcoxon signed-ranked test, a non-parametric statistical test, was used to detect outcome measure changes from pre-intervention to post-intervention||||<.01
91057413|NCT01330420|181996147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-ranked test|||Due to the small sample size, the Wilcoxon signed-ranked test, a non-parametric statistical test, was used to detect outcome measure changes from pre-intervention to post-intervention||||<.01
91057414|NCT00073021|181996155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Success Rates|12.543||||0.0357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|24.12|||Chi-squared|||It was assumed that true rate of improvement for 2.4 g/day treatment group is 40% and for the 4.8 g/day group is 60%. To detect a true difference of 20% between these 2 groups with 2-sided test, type I error of 0.05 (alpha = 0.05), and power of 80%, 120 patients with moderately active ulcerative colitis were required per group to complete the study.||24.12|0.96|0.0357
91057415|NCT00073021|181996156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Between Means|-0.5||||0.1594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|0.21|||ANOVA|||||0.21|-1.28|0.1594
91057416|NCT00073021|181996156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Compared to baseline|t-test, 2 sided|The 2-sample t-test will be used to examine the treatment effect.||||||<0.0001
91057417|NCT00073021|181996156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Compared to baseline|t-test, 2 sided|Teh 2-sample t-test will be used to examine the treatment effect.||||||<0.0001
91057418|NCT00073021|181996157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Success Rates|3.75||||0.5774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.43|16.93|||Chi-squared|||||16.93|-9.43|0.5774
91057419|NCT00073021|181996158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Success Rates|6.19||||0.2991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.47|17.86|||Chi-squared|||||17.86|-5.47|0.2991
91057420|NCT00073021|181996159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Success Rates|2.74||||0.6543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.25|14.73|||Chi-squared|||||14.73|-9.25|0.6543
91057421|NCT00073021|181996160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Success Rates|1.05||||0.8542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.19|12.29|||Chi-squared|||||12.29|-10.19|0.8542
91057422|NCT00073021|181996161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Success Rates|-0.96||||0.8859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.09|12.17|||Chi-squared|||||12.17|-14.09|0.8859
91057423|NCT00073021|181996162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Success Rates|9.73||||0.0758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|20.4|||Chi-squared|||||20.40|-0.94|0.0758
91057424|NCT00073021|181996163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8308||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8308
91057425|NCT00073021|181996163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Compared to baseline|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91057426|NCT00073021|181996163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Compared to baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91057427|NCT00073021|181996164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.534||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5340
91057428|NCT00073021|181996164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Compared to baseline|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91057429|NCT00073021|181996164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Compared to baseline|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91057430|NCT00073021|181996165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Success Rates|11.1||||0.0966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|24.14|||Chi-squared|||||24.14|-1.87|0.0966
91057431|NCT00073021|181996166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Success Rates|9.75||||0.1173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.39|21.89|||Chi-squared|||||21.89|-2.39|0.1173
91057432|NCT03982199|181996167|SUPERIORITY||Event Rate|80.0||||4e-05|TWO_SIDED|94.211|52.2|92.9|||Poisson regression|||Case Definition 1||92.9|52.2|0.00004
91057433|NCT03982199|181996167|SUPERIORITY||Event Rate|75.0||||1e-05|TWO_SIDED|94.211|50.1|88.5|||Poisson regression|||Case Definition 2||88.5|50.1|0.00001
91057434|NCT03982199|181996167|SUPERIORITY||Event Rate|69.8||||4e-05|TWO_SIDED|94.211|43.7|84.7|||Poisson regression|||Case Definition 3||84.7|43.7|0.00004
91057435|NCT03433755|181996184|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-70.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.65|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.98|-63.48||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||-63.48|-77.98|< 0.0001
91057436|NCT03433755|181996184|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-69.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.41|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.51|-62.97||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||-62.97|-76.51|< 0.0001
91057437|NCT03433755|181996185|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-70.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.33|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-79.47|-62.27||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||-62.27|-79.47|< 0.0001
91057438|NCT03433755|181996185|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-65.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.97|-57.66||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||-57.66|-73.97|< 0.0001
91057439|NCT03433755|181996186|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-76.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-86.6|-66.4||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||-66.4|-86.6|< 0.0001
91057440|NCT03433755|181996186|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-77.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-87.7|-66.7||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||-66.7|-87.7|< 0.0001
91057441|NCT03433755|181996187|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-75.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-87.1|-64.7||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||-64.7|-87.1|< 0.0001
91057442|NCT03433755|181996187|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-73.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.1|-61.8||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||-61.8|-84.1|< 0.0001
91057443|NCT03433755|181996188|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-61.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.44|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.04|-54.37||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||-54.37|-68.04|< 0.0001
91057444|NCT03433755|181996188|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-62.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.94|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.97|-56.32||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||-56.32|-67.97|< 0.0001
91057445|NCT03433755|181996189|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-61.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.93|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.25|-53.65||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||-53.65|-69.25|< 0.0001
91057446|NCT03433755|181996189|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-56.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.54|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.66|-49.63||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||-49.63|-63.66|< 0.0001
91057447|NCT03433755|181996190|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-56.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.44|-50.07||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||-50.07|-62.44|< 0.0001
91078357|NCT03313310|182042247|OTHER|A one-sample test for change between baseline and 8-month follow-up was conducted.||||||0.63||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.10. This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|McNemar|||||||0.63
91057448|NCT03433755|181996190|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-57.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.35|-51.65||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||-51.65|-62.35|< 0.0001
91057449|NCT03433755|181996191|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-55.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.67|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.98|-48.41||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||-48.41|-62.98|< 0.0001
91057450|NCT03433755|181996191|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-51.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.45|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.06|-44.37||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||-44.37|-58.06|< 0.0001
91057451|NCT03433755|181996192|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-42.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.68|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.06|-37.41||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||-37.41|-48.06|< 0.0001
91057452|NCT03433755|181996192|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-44.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.38|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.02|-39.58||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||-39.58|-49.02|< 0.0001
91057453|NCT03433755|181996193|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-43.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.09|-37.0||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||-37.00|-49.09|< 0.0001
91057454|NCT03433755|181996193|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-40.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.98|-34.87||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||-34.87|-45.98|< 0.0001
91057455|NCT03433755|181996194|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|87.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|72.6|92.8||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted by the stratification factor.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||92.8|72.6|< 0.0001
91057456|NCT03433755|181996194|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|91.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|76.9|96.1||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on CMH test adjusted by the stratification factor.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||96.1|76.9|< 0.0001
91057457|NCT03433755|181996195|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|90.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|76.6|95.6||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on CMH test adjusted by the stratification factor.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||95.6|76.6|< 0.0001
90816970|NCT02294734|181512646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.96||||12.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.03||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Region;Upper; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.03|0.89|12.63
91057458|NCT03433755|181996195|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|85.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.2|91.9||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on CMH test adjusted by the stratification factor.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||91.9|68.2|< 0.0001
91057459|NCT03433755|181996196|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|87.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|73.3|93.0||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on CMH test adjusted by the stratification factor.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||93.0|73.3|< 0.0001
91057460|NCT03433755|181996196|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|88.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|73.5|94.0||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on CMH test adjusted by the stratification factor.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||94.0|73.5|< 0.0001
91057461|NCT03433755|181996197|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|82.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.8|90.1||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on CMH test adjusted by the stratification factor.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||90.1|67.8|< 0.0001
91057462|NCT03433755|181996197|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|82.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.8|89.7||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on CMH test adjusted by the stratification factor.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||89.7|64.8|< 0.0001
91057463|NCT03433755|181996198|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-48.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.71|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.78|-39.11||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||-39.11|-57.78|< 0.0001
90816971|NCT02294734|181512646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.98||||32.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.06||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Region;Upper; SCRD28 The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.06|0.91|32.29
90816972|NCT02294734|181512646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.02||||69.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.1||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Region;Upper; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.10|0.95|69.92
90816973|NCT02294734|181512646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.93||||6.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.02||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Region;Lower; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.02|0.84|6.10
90816974|NCT02294734|181512646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.98||||33.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.08||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Region; Lower; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.08|0.89|33.63
90816975|NCT02294734|181512646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.05||||86.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.13||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Region;Lower; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.13|0.97|86.07
90816976|NCT02294734|181512646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.0||||41.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.03||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC;Scan Trimmed;Region;Central; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.03|0.96|41.38
90816977|NCT02294734|181512646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.99||||24.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.02||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC;Scan Trimmed; Region Central; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.02|0.96|24.88
90816978|NCT02294734|181512646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.99||||29.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.02||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC;Scan Trimmed;Region Central; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.02|0.97|29.89
90816979|NCT02294734|181512646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.94||||7.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.02||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC;Scan Trimmed; Region;Distal; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.02|0.87|7.13
90816980|NCT02294734|181512646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.98||||32.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.07||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC;Scan Trimmed;Region; Distal; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.07|0.90|32.91
90816981|NCT02294734|181512646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.03||||81.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.11||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC;Scan Trimmed;Region;Distal; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.11|0.96|81.15
90890483|NCT04773587|181645676|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|25.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.815|229.388|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site and vIGA-AD randomization strata with multiple imputation of missing observations|Stratified by pooled study site and vIGA-AD randomization strata with multiple imputation of missing observations|vIGA-AD Success at Week 1||229.388|2.815|<0.0001
91078358|NCT03313310|182042247|OTHER|A one-sample test for change between baseline and 3-month follow-up was conducted.||||||1||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.10. This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|McNemar|||||||1.00
91057464|NCT03433755|181996198|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-40.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.62|-32.24||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||-32.24|-48.62|< 0.0001
91057465|NCT03433755|181996199|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-44.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.76|-34.65||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||-34.65|-54.76|< 0.0001
91057466|NCT03433755|181996199|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-38.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.88|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.94|-26.59||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||-26.59|-49.94|< 0.0001
91057467|NCT03433755|181996200|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-15.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.71||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.44|-5.75||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||-5.75|-24.44|0.008
91057468|NCT03433755|181996200|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-19.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.35|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.3|-11.05||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||-11.05|-28.30|< 0.0001
91057469|NCT03433755|181996201|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-17.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.98||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.42|-5.69||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||-5.69|-29.42|0.008
91057470|NCT03433755|181996201|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-12.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.38|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.04|-1.67||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||-1.67|-23.04|< 0.0001
91057471|NCT03433755|181996202|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|8.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.56||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.35|13.52||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||13.52|3.35|0.008
91057472|NCT03433755|181996202|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.37||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|11.5||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||11.50|2.10|0.017
91057473|NCT03433755|181996203|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|7.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.91||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.18|13.71||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||13.71|2.18|0.008
91057474|NCT03433755|181996203|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|6.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|11.92||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||11.92|0.42|0.017
91057475|NCT03433755|181996204|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-22.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.44||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.12|-12.81||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||-12.81|-33.12|0.0002
91057476|NCT03433755|181996204|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-27.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.44|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.6|-19.02||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||-19.02|-36.60|< 0.0001
91057477|NCT03433755|181996205|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-21.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.32||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.31|-9.25||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||-9.25|-34.31|0.0002
91057478|NCT03433755|181996205|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-15.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.33|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.31|-5.18||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||-5.18|-26.31|< 0.0001
91057479|NCT00826007|181996280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.18|||Regression, Logistic|||||.18|.09|<0.001
91057480|NCT00324649|181996312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0014||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|No adjustments were made.||Null Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are equal. Alternative Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are different (two sided).||||0.0014
91057481|NCT00324649|181996313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9713||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|No adjustments were made.||Null Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are equal. Alternative Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are different (two sided).||||0.9713
91057482|NCT00324649|181996314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9725||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|No adjustments were made.||Null Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are equal. Alternative Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are different (two sided).||||0.9725
91057483|NCT00324649|181996315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0078||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|No adjustments were made.||Null Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are equal. Alternative Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are different (two sided).||||0.0078
91057484|NCT00324649|181996316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6984||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|No adjustments were made.||Null Hypothesis: percentages of days with compliance in the two treatment groups are equal. Alternative Hypothesis: percentages of days with compliance in the two treatment groups are different (two sided).||||0.6984
91057485|NCT00324649|181996317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|14.3||||0.1165||95.0|-0.9|29.4||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Fisher Exact|No adjustments were made.|The difference is for Truvada minus zidovudine/lamivudine. The 95% confidence interval on the mean difference between treatment groups is based on the normal approximation.|"Null Hypothesis: treatment is not associated with the observed virologic response.~Alternative Hypothesis: treatment is associated with the observed virologic response."||29.4|-0.9|0.1165
91057486|NCT00324649|181996320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0789||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|No adjustments were made.||Null Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are equal. Alternative Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are different (two sided).||||0.0789
91057487|NCT00324649|181996321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9633||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|No adjustments were made.||Null Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are equal. Alternative Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are different (two sided).||||0.9633
91057488|NCT00324649|181996322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9686||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|No adjustments were made.||Null Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are equal. Alternative Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are different (two sided).||||0.9686
91057489|NCT00324649|181996323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6638||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were performed.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|No adjustments were made.||Null Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are equal. Alternative Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are different (two sided).||||0.6638
91057490|NCT00324649|181996324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2907||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|No adjustments were made.||Null Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are equal. Alternative Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are different (two sided).||||0.2907
91057491|NCT00324649|181996325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0072||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|No adjustments were made.||Null Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are equal. Alternative Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are different (two sided).||||0.0072
91057492|NCT00324649|181996326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|No adjustments were made.||Null Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are equal. Alternative Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are different (two sided).||||0.0006
91057493|NCT00324649|181996327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1785||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|No adjustments were made.||Null Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are equal. Alternative Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are different (two sided).||||0.1785
91057494|NCT02618759|181996330|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0745|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0745
91057495|NCT02618759|181996331|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.231|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2310
91057496|NCT02618759|181996332|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1059|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1059
91057497|NCT02618759|181996333|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6962|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.6962
91057498|NCT02618759|181996334|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||1.0000
91057499|NCT02618759|181996335|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1044|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1044
91057500|NCT02657928|181996340|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5004|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.5004
91057501|NCT02657928|181996341|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9127|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.9127
91057502|NCT01988129|181996347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis for 'sick' days||||0.66
91057503|NCT01988129|181996347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis for 'disability/injury' days||||0.033
91057504|NCT01988129|181996347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model analysis with nested random effects for possible station-level and station-pairing correlation (3-level hierarchical linear model)||Mixed model analysis was conducted for 'disability/injury' days||||0.003
91057505|NCT01988129|181996348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.87
91057506|NCT01988129|181996349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.98|||t-test, 2 sided||The Odds Ratio analyses compared the odds of reporting at least one injury during the study between those who did (n=560) and did not (n=629) attend the education sessions, regardless of station assignment (intervention or control).|||0.98|0.60|0.31
91057507|NCT01988129|181996350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Of the 100 participants who completed both the pre- and post-study survey (see Patient Flow), only 62 completed answered the question about sleep duration at both time points||||0.22
91057508|NCT01988129|181996351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||||||0.65
91057509|NCT01988129|181996352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||||||0.71
91057510|NCT01988129|181996354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of firefighters screened|41.5|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||This analysis describes the prevalence of the risk of any sleep disorders; there is no comparison group||||
91057511|NCT01988129|181996354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of firefighters screene|31.3|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||This analysis describes the prevalence of the risk of obstructive sleep apnea only; there is no comparison group||||
91057512|NCT01988129|181996354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of firefighters screene|7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||This analysis describes the prevalence of the risk of insomnia; there is no comparison group||||
91057513|NCT01988129|181996354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of firefighters screene|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||This analysis describes the prevalence of the risk of restless legs syndrome only; there is no comparison group||||
91057514|NCT01988129|181996354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of firefighters screene|9.3|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||This analysis describes the prevalence of the risk of shiftwork disorder only; there is no comparison group||||
91057515|NCT01988129|181996355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||||||0.31
91057516|NCT01988129|181996356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test, 2-sided|||Sleeping while stopped in traffic||||0.16
91057517|NCT01988129|181996357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test, 2-sided|||||||0.46
91057518|NCT02500043|181996359|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6917||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5597|0.8548||One-sided P-Value.|Log Rank|||TAS-102+BSC and Placebo+BSC were compared using the stratified log-rank test using the 3 randomization stratification factors (region, ECOG performance status, and prior treatment with ramucirumab). The hazard ratio was estimated using a stratified Cox's proportional hazard (CPH) model and survival was summarized using Kaplan Meier estimates.||0.8548|0.5597|0.0003
91057519|NCT02500043|181996360|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5723|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4674|0.7008||||||TAS-102+BSC and Placebo+BSC were compared using the stratified log-rank test using the 3 randomization stratification factors (region, ECOG performance status, and prior treatment with ramucirumab). The hazard ratio was estimated using a stratified CPH model and survival was summarized using Kaplan Meier estimates.||0.7008|0.4674|
91057520|NCT00580788|181996368|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The study was designed as a standard dose-escalation study, dose-finding pilot study. The primary outcome measures were safety (hypercalcemia, hypophosphatemia and symptoms/hemodynamic measurements). A modified Fibronacci dose-escalation scheme was employed.|||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value corresponds to change over time for the PTHrP 2 and PTHrP 5 pmol groups|Mixed Models Analysis|The level of statistical significance was set at .05 (two-tailed)||||||>0.05
91057521|NCT00580788|181996368|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The study was designed as a standard dose-escalation study, dose-finding pilot study. The primary outcome measures were safety (hypercalcemia, hypophosphatemia and symptoms/hemodynamic measurements). A modified Fibronacci dose-escalation scheme was employed.||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||the reported p value corresponds to a decrease by Day 8 compared to baseline in the PTHrP 4 pmol group|Mixed Models Analysis|The level of statistical significance was set at .05 (two-tailed)||||||0.01
91057522|NCT00580788|181996370|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The study was designed as a standard dose-escalation study, dose-finding pilot study. The primary outcome measures were safety (hypercalcemia, hypophosphatemia and symptoms/hemodynamic measurements). A modified Fibronacci dose-escalation scheme was employed.||||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value corresponds to all Arms/Groups at all time points compared to baseline|Mixed Models Analysis|The level of statistical significance was set at .05 (two-tailed)||||||0.61
91057523|NCT00580788|181996371|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The study was designed as a standard dose-escalation study, dose-finding pilot study. The primary outcome measures were safety (hypercalcemia, hypophosphatemia and symptoms/hemodynamic measurements). A modified Fibronacci dose-escalation scheme was employed.|||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value corresponds to the increase over time for the PTHrP 4 pmol group.|Mixed Models Analysis|Value The level of statistical significance was set at .05 (two-tailed)||||||<0.0001
91057524|NCT00580788|181996372|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The study was designed as a standard dose-escalation study, dose-finding pilot study. The primary outcome measures were safety (hypercalcemia, hypophosphatemia and symptoms/hemodynamic measurements). A modified Fibronacci dose-escalation scheme was employed.|||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value corresponds to the increase over time for the PTHrP 4 pmol group.|Mixed Models Analysis|The level of statistical significance was set at .05 (two-tailed)||||||<0.0001
91057525|NCT00580788|181996373|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The study was designed as a standard dose-escalation study, dose-finding pilot study. The primary outcome measures were safety (hypercalcemia, hypophosphatemia and symptoms/hemodynamic measurements). A modified Fibronacci dose-escalation scheme was employed.|||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value corresponds to change over time from baseline for all Arms/groups|Mixed Models Analysis|The level of statistical significance was set at .05 (two-tailed)||||||>.05
91057526|NCT00580788|181996374|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The study was designed as a standard dose-escalation study, dose-finding pilot study. The primary outcome measures were safety (hypercalcemia, hypophosphatemia and symptoms/hemodynamic measurements). A modified Fibronacci dose-escalation scheme was employed.|||||<|0.008|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value corresponds to the % increase compared to baseline in all Arms/groups on Days 2-8.|Mixed Models Analysis|The level of statistical significance was set at .05 (two-tailed)||||||<.008
91057527|NCT00580788|181996374|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The study was designed as a standard dose-escalation study, dose-finding pilot study. The primary outcome measures were safety (hypercalcemia, hypophosphatemia and symptoms/hemodynamic measurements). A modified Fibronacci dose-escalation scheme was employed.|||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value corresponds the the % change from baseline at follow-up in all Arms/groups|Mixed Models Analysis|The level of statistical significance was set at .05 (two-tailed)||||||>0.05
91057528|NCT00580788|181996375|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The study was designed as a standard dose-escalation study, dose-finding pilot study. The primary outcome measures were safety (hypercalcemia, hypophosphatemia and symptoms/hemodynamic measurements). A modified Fibronacci dose-escalation scheme was employed.|||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value corresponds to % change (increase) from baseline in all Arms/groups at Days 2-8.|Mixed Models Analysis|The level of statistical significance was set at .05 (two-tailed)||||||<.0001
91057529|NCT00580788|181996375|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The study was designed as a standard dose-escalation study, dose-finding pilot study. The primary outcome measures were safety (hypercalcemia, hypophosphatemia and symptoms/hemodynamic measurements). A modified Fibronacci dose-escalation scheme was employed.|||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value corresponds to the % change from baseline at follow-up in all Arms/groups|Mixed Models Analysis|The level of statistical significance was set at .05 (two-tailed)||||||>0.05
90816982|NCT02294734|181512646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.98||||21.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.02||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC;Scan Trimmed; Region;Total; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.02|0.95|21.87
90816983|NCT02294734|181512646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.99||||24.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.02||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC;Scan Trimmed;Region;Total; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.02|0.95|24.49
90816984|NCT02294734|181512646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.0||||55.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.03||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed;Region;Total; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.03|0.97|55.52
90816985|NCT02294734|181512647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.02||||59.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.25||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|(FRC; Longitudinal; Lobes; RUL; D12, The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.25|0.84|59.55
90816986|NCT02294734|181512647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.18||||94.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.46||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|(FRC; Longitudinal; Lobes; RUL; D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.46|0.96|94.01
90816987|NCT02294734|181512647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.1||||82.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.33||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Longitudinal; Lobes; LUL; D12, The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.33|0.90|82.27
90816988|NCT02294734|181512647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.31||||99.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.61||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Longitudinal; Lobes; LUL; D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.61|1.06|99.22
90816989|NCT02294734|181512647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.99||||46.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.29||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Longitudinal; Lobes; RML; D12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.29|0.75|46.24
90816990|NCT02294734|181512647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.29||||98.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.64||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Longitudinal; Lobes; RML; D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.64|1.02|98.30
90816991|NCT02294734|181512647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.25||||92.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.7||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Longitudinal; Lobes; RLL; D12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.70|0.92|92.60
90816992|NCT02294734|181512647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.38||||99.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.81||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Longitudinal; Lobes; RLL; D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.81|1.05|99.01
91078359|NCT03313310|182042248|OTHER|A one-sample test for change between baseline and 8-month follow-up was conducted.||||||1||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.10. This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|McNemar|||||||1.00
91057530|NCT00580788|181996376|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The study was designed as a standard dose-escalation study, dose-finding pilot study. The primary outcome measures were safety (hypercalcemia, hypophosphatemia and symptoms/hemodynamic measurements). A modified Fibronacci dose-escalation scheme was employed.|||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||the reported p-value corresponds to % decrease compared to baseline at Days 2-8 in all Arms/groups|Mixed Models Analysis|The level of statistical significance was set at .05 (two-tailed)||||||<.0001
91057531|NCT00580788|181996376|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The study was designed as a standard dose-escalation study, dose-finding pilot study. The primary outcome measures were safety (hypercalcemia, hypophosphatemia and symptoms/hemodynamic measurements). A modified Fibronacci dose-escalation scheme was employed.||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||the reported p-value corresponds to % change from baseline at the follow-up visit in all Arms/groups|Mixed Models Analysis|The level of statistical significance was set at .05 (two-tailed)||||||0.01
91057532|NCT00580788|181996377|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The study was designed as a standard dose-escalation study, dose-finding pilot study. The primary outcome measures were safety (hypercalcemia, hypophosphatemia and symptoms/hemodynamic measurements). A modified Fibronacci dose-escalation scheme was employed.||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||the reported p-value correspond to the decrease compared to baseline over time in the PTHrP 4 pmol group.|Mixed Models Analysis|The level of statistical significance was set at .05 (two-tailed)||||||0.001
91057533|NCT00580788|181996377|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The study was designed as a standard dose-escalation study, dose-finding pilot study. The primary outcome measures were safety (hypercalcemia, hypophosphatemia and symptoms/hemodynamic measurements). A modified Fibronacci dose-escalation scheme was employed.||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||the reported p=value corresponds to % change compared to baseline at follow-up in all Arms/groups|Mixed Models Analysis|The level of statistical significance was set at .05 (two-tailed)||||||.01
91057534|NCT00580788|181996378|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The study was designed as a standard dose-escalation study, dose-finding pilot study. The primary outcome measures were safety (hypercalcemia, hypophosphatemia and symptoms/hemodynamic measurements). A modified Fibronacci dose-escalation scheme was employed.|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||the reported p-values correspond to the decrease compared to baseline in all arms/groups at Days 2-8|Mixed Models Analysis|The level of statistical significance was set at .05 (two-tailed)||||||<0.05
91057535|NCT00580788|181996379|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The study was designed as a standard dose-escalation study, dose-finding pilot study. The primary outcome measures were safety (hypercalcemia, hypophosphatemia and symptoms/hemodynamic measurements). A modified Fibronacci dose-escalation scheme was employed.||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||the reported p-value corresponds to the increase comapred to baseline over time (days 2-8) in the PTHrP 4 pmol group|Mixed Models Analysis|The level of statistical significance was set at .05 (two-tailed)||||||.002
91057536|NCT03301649|181996380|EQUIVALENCE|Therapeutic equivalence was demonstrated if 90% CI of percentage difference between generic ivermectin lotion and sklice (ivermectin) lotion group was within the range (-20%, +20%).|Difference in percentage of participants|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.9|7.8||||||If the 90% confidence interval (CI) for the absolute difference between the percentage of participants who were considered a treatment success in the generic ivermectin lotion and sklice (ivermectin) lotion was contained within the range (-20%, +20%) then therapeutic equivalence of the generic ivermectin lotion and sklice (ivermectin) lotion was considered to have been demonstrated.||7.8|-3.9|
91057537|NCT03301649|181996381|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis was performed using Cochran- Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by clinical site in mITT population (using last observation carried forward \[LOCF\] method).||||<0.0001
91057538|NCT03301649|181996381|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis was performed using Cochran- Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by clinical site in mITT population (using LOCF method).||||<0.0001
91057539|NCT03301649|181996382|EQUIVALENCE|Therapeutic equivalence was demonstrated if 90% CI of percentage difference between generic ivermectin lotion and sklice (ivermectin) lotion group was within the range (-20%, +20%).|Difference in percentage of participants|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.6|4.5||||||If the 90% CI for the absolute difference between the percentage of participants who were considered a treatment success in the generic ivermectin lotion and sklice (ivermectin) lotion was contained within the range (-20%, +20%) then therapeutic equivalence of the generic ivermectin lotion and sklice (ivermectin) lotion was considered to have been demonstrated.||4.5|-2.6|
91057540|NCT03301649|181996383|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis was performed using Cochran- Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by clinical site in mITT population (using LOCF method).||||<0.0001
91057541|NCT03301649|181996383|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis was performed using Cochran- Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by clinical site in mITT population (using LOCF method).||||<0.0001
90816993|NCT02294734|181512647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.02||||58.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.28||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Longitudinal; Lobes; LLL; D12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.28|0.82|58.80
91057542|NCT01403051|181996384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||||||2-sided test with type I error rate of 5%, not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Stratified Wilcoxon rank sum test|Stratified Wilcoxon rank sum test for differences between the two treatment groups, stratified by the screening 25-OH vitamin (\<=20 vs. \>20 ng/mL)||The study was sized to have 80% power to detect a 2 % difference in BMD of the hip from baseline to week 48.||||0.001
91078360|NCT03313310|182042248|OTHER|A one-sample test for change between baseline and 3-month follow-up was conducted.||||||0.25||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.10. This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|McNemar|||||||0.25
90890484|NCT04773587|181645677|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.217|5.911|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site and vIGA-AD randomization strata with multiple imputation of missing observations|Stratified by pooled study site and vIGA-AD randomization strata with multiple imputation of missing observations|vIGA-AD Score of 'Clear' or 'Almost Clear' at Week 2||5.911|2.217|<0.0001
90816994|NCT02294734|181512647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.13||||86.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.42||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Longitudinal; Lobes; LLL; D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.42|0.91|86.82
90816995|NCT02294734|181512647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.02||||67.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.14||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RUL; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.14|0.92|67.37
90816996|NCT02294734|181512647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.14||||98.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.29||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RUL; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.29|1.01|98.35
90816997|NCT02294734|181512647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.1||||96.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.23||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RUL; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.23|0.99|96.86
90816998|NCT02294734|181512647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.07||||86.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.19||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LUL; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.19|0.95|86.18
90816999|NCT02294734|181512647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.16||||98.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.31||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LUL; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.31|1.02|98.89
90817000|NCT02294734|181512647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.08||||91.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.19||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LUL; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.19|0.97|91.94
90817001|NCT02294734|181512647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.01||||55.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.17||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RML; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.17|0.88|55.32
90817002|NCT02294734|181512647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.15||||97.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.32||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RML; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.32|1.00|97.17
90817003|NCT02294734|181512647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.14||||96.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.32||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RML; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.32|0.99|96.57
90817004|NCT02294734|181512647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.07||||79.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.27||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RLL; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.27|0.90|79.13
90817005|NCT02294734|181512647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.22||||99.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.42||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RLL; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.42|1.05|99.54
90817006|NCT02294734|181512647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.14||||97.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.3||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RLL; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.30|1.00|97.80
90817007|NCT02294734|181512647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.04||||71.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.19||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LLL; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.19|0.91|71.94
90817008|NCT02294734|181512647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.08||||85.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.23||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LLL; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.23|0.94|85.30
90817009|NCT02294734|181512647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.06||||82.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.19||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LLL; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.19|0.94|82.15
90817010|NCT02294734|181512647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.06||||72.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.27||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Longitudinal;Region; Upper; D12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.27|0.88|72.55
90817011|NCT02294734|181512647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.22||||98.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.47||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Longitudinal; Region; Upper; D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.47|1.02|98.44
90817012|NCT02294734|181512647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.11||||78.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.43||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Longitudinal; Region; Lower; D12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.43|0.86|78.24
90817013|NCT02294734|181512647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.23||||96.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.52||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Longitudinal; Region; Lower; D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.52|0.99|96.80
90817014|NCT02294734|181512647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.07||||91.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.17||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Longitudinal; Region;Central; D12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.17|0.97|91.11
90817015|NCT02294734|181512647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.05||||89.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.13||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Longitudinal;Region; Cetral; D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.13|0.97|89.30
90817016|NCT02294734|181512647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.07||||74.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.32||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Longitudinal; Region; Distal; D12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.32|0.87|74.67
90817017|NCT02294734|181512647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.23||||98.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.48||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Longitudinal; Region; Distal D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.48|1.02|98.25
90817018|NCT02294734|181512647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.06||||87.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.18||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Longitudinal; Region;Total; D12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.18|0.96|87.80
90817019|NCT02294734|181512647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.06||||91.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.15||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Longitudinal; Region; Total; D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.15|0.97|91.54
90817020|NCT02294734|181512647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.03||||68.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.14||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Region;Upper; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.14|0.92|68.89
90817021|NCT02294734|181512647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.13||||98.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.27||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Region;Upper; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.27|1.01|98.19
90817022|NCT02294734|181512647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.08||||94.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.19||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Region;Upper; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.19|0.98|94.07
90817023|NCT02294734|181512647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.05||||75.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.19||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Region;Lower; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.19|0.92|75.74
90817024|NCT02294734|181512647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.12||||95.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.28||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Region; Lower; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.28|0.99|95.83
90817025|NCT02294734|181512647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.05||||79.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.17||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Region;Lower; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.17|0.94|79.80
90817026|NCT02294734|181512647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.06||||95.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.13||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC;Scan Trimmed;Region;Central; SCRD12 .The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.13|0.99|95.29
90817027|NCT02294734|181512647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.06||||96.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.13||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC;Scan Trimmed; Region Central; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.13|0.99|96.27
90817028|NCT02294734|181512647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.0||||47.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.06||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC;Scan Trimmed;Region Central; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.06|0.94|47.62
90817029|NCT02294734|181512647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.03||||71.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.15||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC;Scan Trimmed; Region;Distal; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.15|0.92|71.55
90817030|NCT02294734|181512647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.13||||98.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.28||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC;Scan Trimmed;Region; Distal; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.28|1.01|98.29
90817031|NCT02294734|181512647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Bayesian repeated measures model|1.08||||95.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.19||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC;Scan Trimmed;Region;Distal; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.19|0.99|95.09
90817032|NCT02294734|181512647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.05||||93.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.13||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC;Scan Trimmed; Region;Total; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.13|0.98|93.68
90817033|NCT02294734|181512647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.06||||96.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.14||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC;Scan Trimmed;Region;Total; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.14|1.00|96.58
90817034|NCT02294734|181512647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.0||||56.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.06||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed;Region;Total; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.06|0.95|56.99
90817035|NCT02294734|181512647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.94||||13.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.04||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal; Lobes; RUL; D12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.04|0.85|13.08
90817036|NCT02294734|181512647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.0||||52.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.13||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal; Lobes; RUL; D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.13|0.89|52.99
90817037|NCT02294734|181512647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.02||||60.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.14||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal; Lobes; LUL; D12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.14|0.90|60.75
90817038|NCT02294734|181512647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.05||||75.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.2||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal; Lobes; LUL; D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.20|0.92|75.23
90817039|NCT02294734|181512647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.95||||28.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.14||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal; Lobes; RML; D12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.14|0.78|28.14
90817040|NCT02294734|181512647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.98||||38.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.14||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal; Lobes; RML; D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.14|0.84|38.43
91057543|NCT01701011|181996406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||IBM SPSS Statistics 20 was used to perform the statistical analysis. A mixed model for repeated measures was used to examine the differences between the three groups over time for the primary outcome, anxiety. All models were estimated by the method of restricted maximum likelihood (REML) and the Compound Symmetry covariance structure was chosen for the repeated measures. The analysiswas performed according to the intention to treat.||||<0.05
91078361|NCT03313310|182042249|OTHER|A one-sample test for change between baseline and 8-month follow-up was conducted.||||||1||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.10. This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|McNemar|||||||1.00
90817041|NCT02294734|181512647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.95||||25.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.12||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal; Lobes; RLL; D12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.12|0.80|25.21
90817042|NCT02294734|181512647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.08||||81.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.27||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal; Lobes; RLL; D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.27|0.91|81.73
90817043|NCT02294734|181512647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.9||||9.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.06||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal; Lobes; LLL; D12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.06|0.76|9.87
90817044|NCT02294734|181512647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.03||||63.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.21||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal; Lobes; LLL; D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.21|0.87|63.15
90817045|NCT02294734|181512647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.93||||4.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.01||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RUL; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.01|0.86|4.03
90817046|NCT02294734|181512647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.97||||30.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.07||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RUL; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.07|0.89|30.03
90817047|NCT02294734|181512647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.04||||80.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.13||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RUL; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.13|0.95|80.34
90817048|NCT02294734|181512647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.97||||25.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.06||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LUL; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.06|0.89|25.65
90817049|NCT02294734|181512647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.97||||24.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.06||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LUL; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.06|0.88|24.36
90817050|NCT02294734|181512647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.0||||48.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.09||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LUL; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.09|0.91|48.45
90817051|NCT02294734|181512647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.89||||1.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|0.99||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RML; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||0.99|0.81|1.95
90890485|NCT04773587|181645678|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.46||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.705|7.007|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site and vIGA-AD randomization strata with multiple imputation of missing observations|Stratified by pooled study site and vIGA-AD randomization strata with multiple imputation of missing observations|vIGA-AD Score of 'Clear' or 'Almost Clear' at Week 1||7.007|1.705|0.0002
91057544|NCT01701011|181996406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||To test the difference in psychological well-being between three groups with a power of 95%,a ¼ 0.05 and a medium effect size ( f ¼ 0.25), a total of 297 participants were required (99 patients per group). Taking into account a 20% attrition rate, at least 124 women had to be recruited in each group.||||<0.05
90817052|NCT02294734|181512647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.94||||14.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.05||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RML; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.05|0.85|14.15
90817053|NCT02294734|181512647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.05||||80.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.16||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RML; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.16|0.95|80.61
90817054|NCT02294734|181512647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.91||||3.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.01||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RLL; SCRD12.The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.01|0.81|3.30
90817055|NCT02294734|181512647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.99||||42.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.11||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RLL; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.11|0.88|42.22
90817056|NCT02294734|181512647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.09||||95.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.2||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RLL; D12D28The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.20|0.99|95.24
90817057|NCT02294734|181512647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.92||||6.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.03||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LLL; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.03|0.83|6.38
90817058|NCT02294734|181512647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.97||||28.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.09||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LLL; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.09|0.86|28.82
90817059|NCT02294734|181512647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.05||||87.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.14||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LLL; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.14|0.97|87.39
90817060|NCT02294734|181512647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.96||||23.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.07||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal; Region; Upper; D12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.07|0.87|23.27
90817061|NCT02294734|181512647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.01||||57.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.13||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model.|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal; Region; Upper; D28.The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.13|0.90|57.82
90817062|NCT02294734|181512647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.9||||9.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.06||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model.|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal; Region; Lower; D12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.06|0.77|9.67
90890486|NCT01808313|181645688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|53.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.53|64.66|||t-test, 2 sided|||||64.66|42.53|<0.001
91057545|NCT01701011|181996407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||IBM SPSS Statistics 20 was used to perform the statistical analysis. A mixed model for repeated measures was used to examine the differences between the three groups over time for the secondary outcome, depression. All models were estimated by the method of restricted maximum likelihood (REML) and the Compound Symmetry covariance structure was chosen for the repeated measures. The analysiswas performed according to the intention to treat.||||<0.05
91057546|NCT02932306|181996408|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with factors of treatment group and analysis center and the respective baseline lesion count as a covariate.||||<0.001
91057547|NCT02932306|181996409|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with factors of treatment group and analysis center and the respective baseline lesion count as a covariate.||||<0.001
91057548|NCT02932306|181996410|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||Analysis was performed using a logistic regression test (using Firth's Penalized Likelihood) with factors of treatment group and analysis center.||||<0.001
91057549|NCT01635218|181996433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|7.0||The ANOVA result (p\<0.05)suggests rejecting the global null hypothesis.Bonferroni post-hoc test was used to determine which means differ among groups.|ANOVA|||||7.0|3.1|<0.05
91057550|NCT01635218|181996433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|5.25||The ANOVA result (p\<0.05)suggests rejecting the global null hypothesis.Bonferroni post-hoc test was used to determine which means differ among groups.|ANOVA|||||5.25|1.31|<0.05
91057551|NCT01635218|181996434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.71||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|7.61||The statistical significant ANOVA result (p\<0.05) suggests rejecting the global null hypothesis.Bonferroni post-hoc test was used to determine which means differ among groups.|ANOVA|||||7.61|-0.73|0.14
91057552|NCT01635218|181996434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.73||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.93|5.5||The ANOVA result (p\<0.05)suggests rejecting the global null hypothesis.Bonferroni post-hoc test was used to determine which means differ among groups.|ANOVA|||||5.5|-2.93|0.99
91057553|NCT01635218|181996435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.11|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.34|||Chi-squared|||||0.34|0.03|<0.05
91057554|NCT01635218|181996435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.19|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.56|||Chi-squared|||||0.56|0.06|<0.05
91057555|NCT01635218|181996436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.42||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.72|14.52||The ANOVA result (p\<0.05)suggests rejecting the global null hypothesis.Bonferroni post-hoc test was used to determine which means differ among groups.|ANOVA|||||14.52|2.72|0.002
91057556|NCT01635218|181996436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.37||0.424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|9.6||The ANOVA result (p\<0.05)suggests rejecting the global null hypothesis.Bonferroni post-hoc test was used to determine which means differ among groups.|ANOVA|||||9.6|-2.33|0.424
91057557|NCT01635218|181996437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.26||||0.1||95.0|0.05|1.32|||Chi-squared|||||1.32|0.05|0.10
91057558|NCT01635218|181996437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.27||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|1.39|||Chi-squared|||||1.39|0.05|0.11
91057559|NCT03262038|181996450|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.412|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.412
91057560|NCT03262038|181996451|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.633|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.633
91057561|NCT03262038|181996452|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.007
91057562|NCT03262038|181996453|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.634|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.634
91057563|NCT03323437|181996468|OTHER|two way anova|||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
91057564|NCT03323437|181996469|OTHER|two way anova||||||0.68|||||||ANOVA|||||||.68
90890487|NCT01808313|181645689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|64.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.72|80.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||80.00|48.72|<0.001
91057565|NCT03323437|181996470|OTHER|two way anova||||||0.03|||||||ANOVA|||||||.03
91057566|NCT03323437|181996471|OTHER|two way anova||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||.01
91057567|NCT03323437|181996472|OTHER|two sided t test||||||0.59|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.59
91057568|NCT03323437|181996473|OTHER|two sided t test||||||0.45|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.45
91057569|NCT03323437|181996474|OTHER|two way anova||||||0.32|||||||ANOVA|||||||.32
91057570|NCT03323437|181996475|OTHER|two way anova||||||0.6|||||||ANOVA|||||||.60
91057571|NCT03323437|181996476|OTHER|two way anova||||||0.34|||||||ANOVA|||||||.34
91057572|NCT03323437|181996477|OTHER|two way anova||||||0.35|||||||ANOVA|||||||.35
91057573|NCT03323437|181996478|OTHER|fisher's exact||||||0.66|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.66
91057574|NCT03323437|181996479|OTHER|two sided t test||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.04
91057575|NCT03323437|181996480|OTHER|fisher's exact test||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
91057576|NCT03857750|181996481|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|82.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.0|124.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparing onset time of rocuronium||124|40|<0.001
91057577|NCT03857750|181996481|OTHER||Odds|19.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney odd||95 % confidence interval is 7.63 to infinity|82||||<0.001
91057578|NCT03857750|181996483|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|31.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.0|48.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparing duration of action of rocuronium||48|14|<0.001
91057579|NCT03857750|181996483|OTHER||Odds|6.35||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney odd||95% Confidence interval is 2.59 to infinity.|Comparing duration of action of rocuronium||||0.001
91057580|NCT00168818|181996490|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority Analysis with NI margin 7.7%. This results from the null-hypotheses of non-inferiority testing, where the rate difference has to be below 7.7%. Non-inferiority can only be shown with CI.|Risk Difference (Percentage)|-0.7||||0.5648||95.0|-2.9|1.6||p-value is for superiority testing|Normal approximation|Normal approximation of independent binomial distribution without stratification||Risk difference versus Enoxaparin||1.6|-2.9|0.5648
91057581|NCT00168818|181996490|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority Analysis with NI margin 7.7%. This results from the null-hypotheses of non-inferiority testing, where the rate difference has to be below 7.7%. Non-inferiority can only be shown with CI.|Risk Difference (Percentage)|1.9||||0.1339||95.0|-0.6|4.4||p-value is for superiority testing|Normal approximation|Normal approximation of independent binomial distribution without stratification||Risk difference versus Enoxaparin||4.4|-0.6|0.1339
90890488|NCT01808313|181645691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Week 12||||<0.001
90890489|NCT01808313|181645691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Week 24||||0.003
91057582|NCT00168818|181996491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (Percentage)|-0.8||||0.3256||95.0|-2.5|0.8|||Normal approximation|Normal approximation of independent binomial distribution without stratification||Risk difference versus Enoxaparin||0.8|-2.5|0.3256
90817063|NCT02294734|181512647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.04||||70.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.22||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model.|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal; Region; Lower; D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.22|0.89|70.73
90817064|NCT02294734|181512647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.99||||25.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.02||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model.|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal; Region; Central; D12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.02|0.95|25.61
90817065|NCT02294734|181512647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.0||||44.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.03||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model.|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal; Region; Cetral; D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.03|0.96|44.10
90817066|NCT02294734|181512647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.92||||10.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.04||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model.|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal; Region; Distal; D12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.04|0.82|10.14
90817067|NCT02294734|181512647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.02||||62.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.16||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model.|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal; Region; Distal D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.16|0.90|62.87
90817068|NCT02294734|181512647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.97||||11.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.02||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model.|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal; Region; Total; D12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.02|0.93|11.82
90817069|NCT02294734|181512647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.0||||51.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.05||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model.|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal; Region; Total; D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.05|0.95|51.44
90817070|NCT02294734|181512647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.95||||9.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.03||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Region; Upper; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.03|0.88|9.54
90817071|NCT02294734|181512647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.98||||30.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.07||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Region; Upper; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.07|0.89|30.03
91057583|NCT00168818|181996491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (Percentage)|0.4||||0.7052||95.0|-1.5|2.2|||Normal approximation|Normal approximation of independent binomial distribution without stratification||Risk difference versus Enoxaparin||2.2|-1.5|0.7052
91057584|NCT00168818|181996492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (Percentage)|-1.1||||0.1863||95.0|-2.7|0.5|||Normal approximation|Normal approximation of independent binomial distribution without stratification||Risk difference versus Enoxaparin||0.5|-2.7|0.1863
90890490|NCT01808313|181645692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.366|0.519|||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Week 12|||0.519|0.366|<0.001
91057585|NCT00168818|181996492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (Percentage)|0.3||||0.702||95.0|-1.4|2.1|||Normal approximation|Normal approximation of independent binomial distribution without stratification||Risk difference versus Enoxaparin||2.1|-1.4|0.7020
91057586|NCT00168818|181996493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (Percentage)|-1.1||||0.3173||95.0|-3.3|1.1|||Normal approximation|Normal approximation of independent binomial distribution without stratification||Risk difference versus Enoxaparin||1.1|-3.3|0.3173
91057587|NCT00168818|181996493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (Percentage)|1.9||||0.1274||95.0|-0.5|4.3|||Normal approximation|Normal approximation of independent binomial distribution without stratification||Risk difference versus Enoxaparin||4.3|-0.5|0.1274
91057588|NCT00168818|181996494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0694||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison versus Enoxaparin||||0.0694
90817072|NCT02294734|181512647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.02||||73.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.11||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model.|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Region; Upper; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.11|0.95|73.03
90817073|NCT02294734|181512647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.92||||4.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.01||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model.|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Region; Lower; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.01|0.83|4.64
90817074|NCT02294734|181512647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.99||||42.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.1||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Region; Lower; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.10|0.89|42.13
90817075|NCT02294734|181512647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.07||||93.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.16||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Region; Lower; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.16|0.98|93.33
90817076|NCT02294734|181512647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.99||||27.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.02||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Region; Central; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.02|0.95|27.33
90817077|NCT02294734|181512647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.99||||34.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.03||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Region Central; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.03|0.96|34.15
90817078|NCT02294734|181512647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.0||||58.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.03||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Region Central; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.03|0.98|58.42
90817079|NCT02294734|181512647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.94||||5.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.02||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Region; Distal; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.02|0.86|5.93
90817080|NCT02294734|181512647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.98||||35.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.08||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Region; Distal; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.08|0.89|35.88
90817081|NCT02294734|181512647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.04||||86.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.13||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Region; Distal; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.13|0.97|86.41
90817082|NCT02294734|181512647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.98||||13.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.02||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Region; Total; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.02|0.94|13.52
90890491|NCT01808313|181645692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.303|0.453|||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Week 24|||0.453|0.303|<0.001
91057589|NCT00168818|181996494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0212||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison versus Enoxaparin||||0.0212
91057590|NCT00168818|181996495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5062||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison versus Enoxaparin||||0.5062
91057591|NCT00168818|181996495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3717||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison versus Enoxaparin||||0.3717
91057592|NCT00168818|181996496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.124||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison versus Enoxaparin||||0.1240
90817083|NCT02294734|181512647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.99||||32.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.03||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Region; Total; SCRD28 .The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.03|0.95|32.84
90817084|NCT02294734|181512647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.01||||78.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.04||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Region; Total; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.04|0.98|78.09
90817085|NCT02294734|181512648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.95||||60.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.39||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RUL; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.39|0.66|60.07
90817086|NCT02294734|181512648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.99||||51.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.53||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RUL; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.53|0.65|51.75
90817087|NCT02294734|181512648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.92||||65.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.4||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RUL; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.40|0.60|65.66
90817088|NCT02294734|181512648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.85||||81.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.21||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LUL; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.21|0.59|81.67
90817089|NCT02294734|181512648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.77||||89.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.15||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LUL; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.15|0.51|89.98
90817090|NCT02294734|181512648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.03||||43.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.51||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LUL; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.51|0.70|43.88
90817091|NCT02294734|181512648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.1||||36.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.91||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RML; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.91|0.64|36.10
91057593|NCT00168818|181996496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2497||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison versus Enoxaparin||||0.2497
91057594|NCT00168818|181996498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4352||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison versus Enoxaparin||||0.4352
91057595|NCT00168818|181996498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6037||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison versus Enoxaparin||||0.6037
91057596|NCT01775189|181996502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) mean Difference|9.5||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.8|14.2||P-value was adjusted using Benjamini-Hochberg method.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||14.2|4.8|0.0001
90817092|NCT02294734|181512648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.7||||95.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.05||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RML; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.05|0.47|95.74
91057597|NCT01775189|181996502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-32.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.0|-27.6||P-value was adjusted using Benjamini-Hochberg method.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-27.6|-37.0|<0.0001
91057598|NCT01775189|181996502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|9.1||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|13.8||P-value was adjusted using Benjamini-Hochberg method.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||13.8|4.5|0.0002
91057599|NCT01775189|181996502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.8806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|4.3||P-value was adjusted using Benjamini-Hochberg method.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||4.3|-5.0|0.8806
91057600|NCT01775189|181996502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|41.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.8|46.1||P-value was adjusted using Benjamini-Hochberg method.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||46.1|36.8|<0.0001
91057601|NCT01775189|181996502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|41.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.1|46.4||P-value was adjusted using Benjamini-Hochberg method.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||46.4|37.1|<0.0001
91057602|NCT01775189|181996503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.6||||0.2176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|17.1||P-value was adjusted using Benjamini-Hochberg method.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||17.1|-4.0|0.2176
91057603|NCT01775189|181996503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-54.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.1|-44.1||P-value was adjusted using Benjamini-Hochberg method.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-44.1|-65.1|<0.0001
91057604|NCT01775189|181996503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.0||||0.3502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|15.5||P-value was adjusted using Benjamini-Hochberg method.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||15.5|-5.6|0.3502
91057605|NCT01775189|181996503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.6||||0.7624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|8.9||P-value was adjusted using Benjamini-Hochberg method.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||8.9|-12.1|0.7624
91057606|NCT01775189|181996503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|59.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.0|70.1||P-value was adjusted using Benjamini-Hochberg method.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||70.1|49.0|<0.0001
91057607|NCT01775189|181996503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|61.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.6|71.7||P-value was adjusted using Benjamini-Hochberg method.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||71.7|50.6|<0.0001
91057608|NCT01775189|181996504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|24.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.8|35.3||P-value was adjusted using Benjamini-Hochberg method.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||35.3|13.8|<0.0001
91057609|NCT01775189|181996504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-61.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.6|-50.9||P-value was adjusted using Benjamini-Hochberg method.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-50.9|-72.6|<0.0001
91057610|NCT01775189|181996504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|18.2||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|29.1||P-value was adjusted using Benjamini-Hochberg method.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||29.1|7.4|0.0012
91057611|NCT01775189|181996504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.3||||0.2507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.2|4.5||P-value was adjusted using Benjamini-Hochberg method.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||4.5|-17.2|0.2507
91057612|NCT01775189|181996504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|79.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|69.2|90.7||P-value was adjusted using Benjamini-Hochberg method.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||90.7|69.2|<0.0001
91057613|NCT01775189|181996504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|86.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|75.4|97.1||P-value was adjusted using Benjamini-Hochberg method.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||97.1|75.4|<0.0001
91057614|NCT01775189|181996505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|26.9||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.6|43.1||P-value was adjusted using Benjamini-Hochberg method.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||43.1|10.6|0.0015
91057615|NCT01775189|181996505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-109.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-125.7|-93.0||P-value was adjusted using Benjamini-Hochberg method.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-93.0|-125.7|<0.0001
91057616|NCT01775189|181996505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|21.4||||0.0109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.1|37.8||P-value was adjusted using Benjamini-Hochberg method.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||37.8|5.1|0.0109
91057617|NCT01775189|181996505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.4||||0.5117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.8|10.9||P-value was adjusted using Benjamini-Hochberg method.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||10.9|-21.8|0.5117
91057618|NCT01775189|181996505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|130.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|114.5|147.0||P-value was adjusted using Benjamini-Hochberg method.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||147.0|114.5|<0.0001
91057619|NCT01775189|181996505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|136.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|119.8|152.5||P-value was adjusted using Benjamini-Hochberg method.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||152.5|119.8|<0.0001
91057620|NCT00118534|181996583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.09||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|3.59|||Regression, Logistic|||The target sample size (n=1400)was designed to have 90% power to detect the difference between 6% and 11% prolonged abstinence rates in SCC and IC, respectively, using a 2-sided .05 level Chi-square test. Final enrollment was 943. The recruitment period was not extended because the achieved sample size provided 78% power to detect the hypothesized prolonged abstinence rates, and the study continued to the end of planned follow-up.||3.59|1.22|0.007
91057621|NCT00118534|181996584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|3.74|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.74|1.58|<0.001
91057622|NCT00811928|181996657|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The upper limit of the 95% Confidence Interval for the difference in incidence defined as (# of participants affected with proven or probable IFI/ # of participants in the FAS population at risk)\*100% (posaconazole minus fluconazole) had to be \< 4 in order to be considered non-inferior. IFI occurred: proven+probable|Difference for the incidence|-5.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.21|0.25|||||Posaconazole minus fluconazole|||0.25|-12.21|
91057623|NCT00811928|181996658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of Participants|4.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|9.7|||||IFI Incidence for the Posaconazole group = (# of participants affected with proven or probable IFI/ # of participants in the FAS population at risk)\*100%|||9.7|1.4|
91057624|NCT00811928|181996658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of Participants|13.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|21.3|||||IFI Incidence for the Fluconazole group = (# of participants affected with proven or probable IFI/ # of participants in the FAS population at risk)\*100%|||21.3|8.0|
91057625|NCT00811928|181996661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of Participants|31.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.3|40.9|||||IFI Incidence for the Posaconazole group = (# of participants affected with proven or probable IFI/ # of participants in the FAS population at risk)\*100%.|||40.9|23.3|
91057626|NCT00811928|181996661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of Participants|41.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.8|51.4|||||IFI Incidence for the Fluconazole group = (# of participants affected with proven or probable IFI/ # of participants in the FAS population at risk)\*100%|||51.4|32.8|
91057627|NCT00811928|181996662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of Participants|2.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|7.3|||||All-Cause Mortality Rate is the percentage of participants with mortality from any cause.|||7.3|0.5|
91057628|NCT00811928|181996662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of Participants|5.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|11.9|||||All-Cause Mortality Rate is the percentage of participants with mortality from any cause.|||11.9|2.4|
91057629|NCT00314951|181996674|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The point estimate of the difference and the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference between treatment groups were computed. If the lower limit of the CI was greater than -10%, the clinical non-inferiority of fidaxomicin was demonstrated. CIs for the difference of cure rates were calculated using the method recommended by Agresti and Caffo.|Risk Difference (RD)|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|8.0||||||H0: C(fidaxomicin) - C(Vancomycin) \<= -10% Power calculation is based on cure rate of 85% in both treatment groups, non-inferiority margin of 10%, 2.5% (1-sided) type I error rate with approximately 90% power gives a total of 530 subjects.||8.0|-2.9|
91057630|NCT00314951|181996675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-9.4||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|-2.5|||Chi-squared|||||-2.5|-16.2|0.008
91057631|NCT00314951|181996676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|10.2||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|17.5|||Chi-squared|||||17.5|2.8|0.007
91057632|NCT00838435|181996686|OTHER|Coefficient estimates from a random coefficient model and associated p-values.|Slope|-0.5768|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6004|0.4468|||||The slope shown above is based on a 2-year window.|A random coefficient model was used to calculate the slope (per year) of FSIQ over the entire study period. Factors in the model included visit and testing sequence, with change in FSIQ score as the dependent variable. Random terms include both intercept and visit. The treatment was considered successful if the lower 95% confidence limit of the mean change excluded a decline of greater than 5 points over a 2-year window.||0.4468|-1.6004|
91057633|NCT02348723|181996696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD) %|-5.3||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|-2.2|||Chi-squared|||The risk difference between dabigatran etexilate vs. warfarin, its 2-sided 95% CI, and corresponding p-value are presented.||-2.2|-8.4|0.0009
91057634|NCT00678886|181996700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.08|||Mixed effects repeated measures model|||Mixed meal-stimulated C-peptide AUC, Placebo Vs Otelixizumab at Month 12||0.08|-0.06|0.813
91057635|NCT00678886|181996701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.7|||Hochberg adjusted|||Percentage of responders, Placebo Vs Otelixizumab at Week 12||1.70|0.47|0.737
91057636|NCT00678886|181996701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77||||0.737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.39|||Hochberg adjusted|||Percentage of responders, Placebo Vs Otelixizumab at Month 6||1.39|0.42|0.737
91057637|NCT00678886|181996701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.46|||Hochberg adjusted|||Percentage of responders, Placebo Vs Otelixizumab at Month 12||1.46|0.45|0.481
91057638|NCT00678886|181996702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03||||0.281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.01|||Mixed effects repeated measures model|Mixed effects repeated measures models was adjusted for age, continent, and baseline parameter value.||Mean insulin use, Placebo Vs Otelixizumab at Week 12||0.01|-0.07|0.281
91057639|NCT00678886|181996702|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.05|||Mixed effects repeated measures model|Mixed effects repeated measures models was adjusted for age, continent, and baseline parameter value.||Mean insulin use, Placebo Vs Otelixizumab at Month 6||0.05|-0.05|0.969
91057640|NCT00678886|181996702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.02|||Mixed effects repeated measures model|Mixed effects repeated measures models was adjusted for age, continent, and baseline parameter value.||Mean insulin use, Placebo Vs Otelixizumab at Month 12||0.02|-0.08|0.272
91057641|NCT00678886|181996703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.52|||Mixed effects repeated measures model|Mixed effects repeated measures models was adjusted for age, continent, and baseline parameter value.||HbA1c levels, Placebo Vs Otelixizumab at Month 12||0.52|-0.16|0.289
91057642|NCT00678886|181996703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17||||0.538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.49|||Mixed effects repeated measures model|Mixed effects repeated measures models was adjusted for age, continent, and baseline parameter value.||HbA1c levels, Placebo Vs Otelixizumab at Month 6||0.49|-0.15|0.538
91057643|NCT00678886|181996703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.09||||0.538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.36|||Mixed effects repeated measures model|Mixed effects repeated measures models was adjusted for age, continent, and baseline parameter value.||HbA1c levels, Placebo Vs Otelixizumab at Week 12||0.36|-0.19|0.538
91057644|NCT00678886|181996712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|1.12||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|3.11|||Mixed effects repeated measures model|||ADRR, Placebo Vs Otelixizumab at Week 12||3.11|-0.88|0.540
91057645|NCT00678886|181996712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.83||||0.546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|3.56|||Mixed effects repeated measures model|||ADRR, Placebo Vs Otelixizumab at Month 6||3.56|-1.89|0.546
91057646|NCT00678886|181996712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.93||||0.462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|3.42|||Mixed effects repeated measures model|||ADRR, Placebo Vs Otelixizumab at Month 12||3.42|-1.56|0.462
91057647|NCT00678886|181996713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.957|||||||Hochberg-adjusted|||Composite Rank Summary for HbA1c and Exogenous Insulin Use, Placebo Vs Otelixizumab at Month 6||||0.957
91057648|NCT00678886|181996713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.957|||||||Hochberg-adjusted|||Composite Rank Summary for HbA1c and Exogenous Insulin Use, Placebo Vs Otelixizumab at Month 12||||0.957
91057649|NCT00678886|181996714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.653|||||||Hochberg-adjusted|||Composite Rank Summary for C-Peptide AUC, HbA1c and Exogenous Insulin Use, Placebo Vs Otelixizumab at Month 6||||0.653
91057650|NCT00678886|181996714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.653|||||||Hochberg-adjusted|||Composite Rank Summary for C-Peptide AUC, HbA1c and Exogenous Insulin Use, Placebo Vs Otelixizumab at Month 12||||0.653
91057651|NCT04693416|181996720|OTHER|||||||0.252|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre/post scores within arm||||0.252
91057652|NCT04693416|181996721|OTHER|||||||0.546|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre/post score within arm||||0.546
91057653|NCT04693416|181996722|OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre/post scores within arm||||0.005
91057654|NCT04693416|181996723|OTHER|||||||0.188|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre/post scores within arm||||0.188
91057655|NCT04693416|181996724|OTHER|||||||0.049|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre/post score within arm||||0.049
91057656|NCT04693416|181996725|OTHER|||||||0.036|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre/post scores within arm||||0.036
91057657|NCT02629354|181996807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Ratio Test/Ref|113.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.99|130.75|||ANOVA||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) with fixed effects for sequence, subject nested within sequence, period and product after logarithmic transformation of the data.|Relative bioavailability \[%\] was estimated by the ratios of the geometric means (100\*test/reference \[T/R\]). Additionally, it's two-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) was provided.||130.75|98.99|
91057658|NCT02629354|181996808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Ratio Test/Ref|110.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.32|125.97|||ANOVA||ANOVA with fixed effects for sequence, subject nested within sequence, period and product after logarithmic transformation of the data.|Relative bioavailability \[%\] was estimated by the ratios of the geometric means (100\*test/reference \[T/R\]). Additionally, it's two-sided 90% CI was provided.||125.97|96.32|
91057659|NCT02629354|181996809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Ratio Test/Ref|112.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.49|128.94|||ANOVA||ANOVA with fixed effects for sequence, subject nested within sequence, period and product after logarithmic transformation of the data.|Relative bioavailability \[%\] was estimated by the ratios of the geometric means (100\*test/reference \[T/R\]). Additionally, it's two-sided 90% CI was provided.||128.94|98.49|
91057660|NCT02629354|181996810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Ratio Test/Ref|97.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.61|100.19|||ANOVA||ANOVA with fixed effects for sequence, subject nested within sequence, period and product after logarithmic transformation of the data.|Relative bioavailability \[%\] was estimated by the ratios of the geometric means (100\*test/reference \[T/R\]). Additionally, it's two-sided 90% CI was provided.||100.19|94.61|
91057661|NCT02629354|181996811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Ratio Test/Ref|96.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.74|99.28|||ANOVA||ANOVA with fixed effects for sequence, subject nested within sequence, period and product after logarithmic transformation of the data.|Relative bioavailability \[%\] was estimated by the ratios of the geometric means (100\*test/reference \[T/R\]). Additionally, it's two-sided 90% CI was provided.||99.28|93.74|
91057662|NCT02629354|181996812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Ratio Test/Ref|97.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.57|102.8|||ANOVA||ANOVA with fixed effects for sequence, subject nested within sequence, period and product after logarithmic transformation of the data.|Relative bioavailability \[%\] was estimated by the ratios of the geometric means (100\*test/reference \[T/R\]). Additionally, it's two-sided 90% CI was provided.||102.80|92.57|
91057663|NCT02629354|181996813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Ratio Test/Ref|97.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.5|100.73|||ANOVA||ANOVA with fixed effects for sequence, subject nested within sequence, period and product after logarithmic transformation of the data.|Relative bioavailability \[%\] was estimated by the ratios of the geometric means (100\*test/reference \[T/R\]). Additionally, it's two-sided 90% CI was provided.||100.73|94.50|
91057664|NCT02629354|181996814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Ratio Test/Ref|97.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.22|102.46|||ANOVA||ANOVA with fixed effects for sequence, subject nested within sequence, period and product after logarithmic transformation of the data.|Relative bioavailability \[%\] was estimated by the ratios of the geometric means (100\*test/reference \[T/R\]). Additionally, it's two-sided 90% CI was provided.||102.46|92.22|
91057665|NCT02629354|181996815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Ratio Test/Ref|96.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.75|100.01|||ANOVA||ANOVA with fixed effects for sequence, subject nested within sequence, period and product after logarithmic transformation of the data.|Relative bioavailability \[%\] was estimated by the ratios of the geometric means (100\*test/reference \[T/R\]). Additionally, it's two-sided 90% CI was provided.||100.01|93.75|
91057666|NCT01056289|181996824|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: absolute difference between the 2 discontinuation regimens in DESS total scores was \>2.5. Alternative hypothesis: absolute difference was ≤2.5; tested by calculating 95% 2-sided confidence intervals (CIs) on the mean difference between the 2 regimens. If absolute values of both confidence limits were ≤2.5, then the regimens were declared equivalent.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|2.83|||ANCOVA|||Difference: Placebo versus DVS SR 50 mg||2.83|-0.51|
91078362|NCT03313310|182042249|OTHER|A one-sample test for change between baseline and 3-month follow-up was conducted.||||||1||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.10. This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|McNemar|||||||1.00
91057667|NCT01056289|181996824|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: absolute difference between the 2 discontinuation regimens in DESS total scores was \>2.5. Alternative hypothesis: absolute difference was ≤2.5; tested by calculating 95% 2-sided confidence intervals (CIs) on the mean difference between the 2 regimens. If absolute values of both confidence limits were ≤2.5, then the regimens were declared equivalent.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|2.35|||ANCOVA|||Difference: DVS SR 25 mg versus DVS SR 50 mg||2.35|-1.03|
91057668|NCT01056289|181996824|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: absolute difference between the 2 discontinuation regimens in DESS total scores was \>2.5. Alternative hypothesis: absolute difference was ≤2.5; tested by calculating 95% 2-sided confidence intervals (CIs) on the mean difference between the 2 regimens. If absolute values of both confidence limits were ≤2.5, then the regimens were declared equivalent.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|1.89|||ANCOVA|||Difference: Placebo versus DVS SR 25 mg||1.89|-0.88|
91057669|NCT01917916|181996828|OTHER||Slope|2.4386|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3417|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7504|3.1267|||||Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1. Standard error of mean is actually standard error of slope.|Dose proportionality was explored using the power model. Dose proportionality of BI 655064 was to be assessed based on the exposure parameter Cmax, determined for the 4 subcutaneous dose levels. This analysis is for the overall population.||3.1267|1.7504|
91057670|NCT01917916|181996829|OTHER||Slope|2.6033|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2499|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0993|3.1073|||||Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1. Standard error of mean is actually standard error of slope.|Dose proportionality was explored using the power model. Dose proportionality of BI 655064 was to be assessed based on the exposure parameter AUC0-∞, determined for the 4 subcutaneous dose levels. This analysis is for the overall population.||3.1073|2.0993|
91057671|NCT01917916|181996830|OTHER||Slope|3.1291|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.392|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3395|3.9187|||||Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1. Standard error of mean is actually standard error of slope.|Dose proportionality was explored using the power model. Dose proportionality of BI 655064 was to be assessed based on the exposure parameter AUC0-tz, determined for the 4 subcutaneous dose levels. This analysis is for the overall population.||3.9187|2.3395|
91057672|NCT00270855|181996838|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed.|||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We evaluated differences between baseline and following the 16-week exercise intervention in the ACE group (i.e, baseline vs. post-intervention in ARE)||||>0.05
91057673|NCT00270855|181996838|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed.|||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We evaluated differences between baseline and following the 16-week exercise intervention in the FESLCE group (i.e, baseline vs. post-intervention in FESLCE)||||>0.05
91057674|NCT00270855|181996839|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed.|||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We evaluated differences between baseline and following the 16-week exercise intervention in the ACE group||||>0.05
91057675|NCT00270855|181996839|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed.|||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We evaluated differences between baseline and following the 16-week exercise intervention in the FESLCE group||||>0.05
91057676|NCT00270855|181996840|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed.||||||0.519|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We evaluated differences between baseline and following the 16-week exercise intervention in the ACE group.||||0.519
91057677|NCT00270855|181996840|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed.|||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We evaluated differences between baseline and following the 16-week exercise intervention in the FESLCE group||||>0.05
91057678|NCT00270855|181996841|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed.||||||0.615|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We evaluated differences between baseline and following the 16-week exercise intervention in the ACE group||||0.615
91057679|NCT00270855|181996841|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed.|||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We evaluated differences between baseline and following the 16-week exercise intervention in the FESLCE group||||>0.05
91057680|NCT00270855|181996842|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed.|||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We evaluated differences between baseline and following the 16-week exercise intervention in the ACE group||||>0.05
91057681|NCT00270855|181996842|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed.|||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We evaluated differences between baseline and following the 16-week exercise intervention in the FESLCE group||||>0.05
91057682|NCT00270855|181996843|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A Mann-Whitney-u test was performed.|||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We evaluated differences in the above variable between the ACE and FESLCE following the the 16-week exercise intervention||||>0.05
91057683|NCT00270855|181996844|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A Mann-Whitney-u test was performed.|||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We evaluated differences in the above variable between the ACE and FESLCE following the the 16-week exercise intervention||||>0.05
91057684|NCT00270855|181996845|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A Mann-Whitney-u test was performed.|||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We evaluated differences in the above variable between the ACE and FESLCE following the the 16-week exercise intervention||||>0.05
91057685|NCT00270855|181996846|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A Mann-Whitney-u test was performed.|||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We evaluated differences in the above variable between the ACE and FESLCE following the the 16-week exercise intervention||||>0.05
91057686|NCT00270855|181996847|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A Mann-Whitney-u test was performed|||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We evaluated differences in the above variable between the ACE and FESLCE following the the 16-week exercise intervention||||>0.05
91057687|NCT00270855|181996848|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed.|||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We evaluated differences between baseline and following the 16-week exercise intervention in the ACE group||||>0.05
91057688|NCT00270855|181996848|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed.|||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We evaluated differences between baseline and following the 16-week exercise intervention in the FESLCE group||||>0.05
91057689|NCT00270855|181996849|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed.|||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We evaluated differences between baseline and following the 16-week exercise intervention in the ACE group||||>0.05
91057690|NCT00270855|181996849|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed.|||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We evaluated differences between baseline and following the 16-week exercise intervention in the FESLCE group||||>0.05
91057691|NCT00270855|181996850|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed|||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We evaluated differences between baseline and following the 16-week exercise intervention in the ACE group||||>0.05
91057692|NCT00270855|181996850|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed.|||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We evaluated differences between baseline and following the 16-week exercise intervention in the FESLCE group||||>0.05
91057693|NCT00270855|181996851|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed|||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We evaluated differences between baseline and following the 16-week exercise intervention in the ACE group||||>0.05
91057694|NCT00270855|181996851|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed.|||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We evaluated differences between baseline and following the 16-week exercise intervention in the FESLCE group||||>0.05
91057695|NCT00270855|181996852|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed|||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We evaluated differences between baseline and following the 16-week exercise intervention in the ACE group||||>0.05
91057696|NCT00270855|181996852|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed.|||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We evaluated differences between baseline and following the 16-week exercise intervention in the FESLCE group||||>0.05
91057697|NCT00270855|181996853|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed|||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We evaluated differences between baseline and following the 16-week exercise intervention in the ACE group||||>0.05
91057698|NCT00270855|181996853|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed.|||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We evaluated differences between baseline and following the 16-week exercise intervention in the FESLCE group||||>0.05
91057699|NCT00270855|181996854|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed|||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We evaluated differences between baseline and following the 16-week exercise intervention in the ACE group||||>0.05
91057700|NCT00270855|181996854|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed.|||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We evaluated differences between baseline and following the 16-week exercise intervention in the FESLCE group||||>0.05
91057701|NCT00270855|181996855|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A Mann-Whitney-u test was performed.|||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We evaluated differences in the above variable between the ACE and FESLCE following the the 16-week exercise intervention||||>0.05
91057702|NCT00270855|181996856|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A Mann-Whitney-u test was performed|||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We evaluated differences in the above variable between the ACE and FESLCE following the the 16-week exercise intervention||||>0.05
91057703|NCT00270855|181996857|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A Mann-Whitney-u test was performed|||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We evaluated differences in the above variable between the ACE and FESLCE following the the 16-week exercise intervention||||>0.05
91057704|NCT00270855|181996858|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A Mann-Whitney-u test was performed|||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We evaluated differences in the above variable between the ACE and FESLCE following the the 16-week exercise intervention||||>0.05
91057705|NCT00270855|181996859|OTHER|A Mann-Whitney U test was performed.|||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We evaluated differences in the above variable between the ACE and FESLCE following the the 16-week exercise intervention||||>0.05
91057706|NCT00270855|181996860|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|We used a Mann-Whitney U test.|||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||we evaluated differences in the above variable between the ACE and FESLCE following the the 16-week exercise intervention||||>0.05
91057707|NCT00270855|181996861|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A mann-whitney u test was performed.|||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We evaluated differences in the above variable between the ACE and FESLCE following the the 16-week exercise intervention||||>0.05
91057708|NCT00270855|181996862|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed.|||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We evaluated differences between baseline and following the 16-week exercise intervention in the ACE group||||>0.05
91057709|NCT00270855|181996862|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed.|||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We evaluated differences between baseline and following the 16-week exercise intervention in the FESLCE group||||>0.05
91057710|NCT00270855|181996863|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A Mann-Whitney U test was performed.|||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We evaluated differences in the above variable between the ACE and FESLCE following the the 16-week exercise intervention||||>0.05
91057711|NCT03257865|181996918|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-1.62|||=|0.1011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.56|0.32|||mixed-effect model repeated measure||"Comparison between treatment groups was carried out using MMRM, with study center, treatment group, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction as factor and baseline-by-visit interaction as a covariate. An unstructured covariance was used."|||0.32|-3.56|=0.1011
91057712|NCT02549027|181996920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.12|0.47|||||Ratio is MK-1064/placebo|Analysis used a step-down approach. Mean log treatment difference of the highest MK-1064 dose versus placebo (MK-1064 - placebo) and 90% confidence interval (CI) were computed and back-transformed to obtain the 90% CI interval for LPS treatment ratio. If the CI lies completely below 1, testing continued to next lower MK-1064 dose. The hypothesis that MK-1064 is superior to placebo in decreasing LPS was supported if the CI lies below 1 for at least one dose.||0.47|0.12|
91057713|NCT02549027|181996920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.1|0.41|||||Ratio is MK-1064/placebo|Analysis used a step-down approach. Mean log treatment difference of the highest MK-1064 dose versus placebo (MK-1064 - placebo) and 90% CI were computed and back-transformed to obtain the 90% CI interval for LPS treatment ratio. If the CI lies completely below 1, testing continued to next lower MK-1064 dose. The hypothesis that MK-1064 is superior to placebo in decreasing LPS was supported if the CI lies below 1 for at least one dose.||0.41|0.10|
91057714|NCT02549027|181996920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.08|0.3|||||Ratio is MK-1064/placebo|Analysis used a step-down approach. Mean log treatment difference of the highest MK-1064 dose versus placebo (MK-1064 - placebo) and 90% CI were computed and back-transformed to obtain the 90% CI interval for LPS treatment ratio. If the CI lies completely below 1, testing continued to next lower MK-1064 dose. The hypothesis that MK-1064 is superior to placebo in decreasing LPS was supported if the CI lies below 1 for at least one dose.||0.30|0.08|
91057715|NCT02549027|181996921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.02|0.11|||||Ratio is MK-6096/placebo|Mean log treatment difference of MK-6096 versus placebo (MK-6096 - placebo) and 90% CI were computed and back-transformed to obtain the 90% CI interval for LPS treatment ratio.||0.11|0.02|
91057716|NCT02549027|181996924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.67|1.07|||||Ratio is MK-1064/placebo|Analysis used a step-down approach. Mean log treatment difference of the highest MK-1064 dose versus placebo (MK-1064 - placebo) and 90% CI were computed and back-transformed to obtain the 90% CI interval for WASO treatment ratio. If the CI lies completely below 1, testing continued to next lower MK-1064 dose. The hypothesis that MK-1064 is superior to placebo in decreasing WASO was supported if the CI lies below 1 for at least one dose.||1.07|0.67|
91057717|NCT02549027|181996924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.54|0.86|||||Ratio is MK-1064/placebo|Analysis used a step-down approach. Mean log treatment difference of the highest MK-1064 dose versus placebo (MK-1064 - placebo) and 90% CI were computed and back-transformed to obtain the 90% CI interval for WASO treatment ratio. If the CI lies completely below 1, testing continued to next lower MK-1064 dose. The hypothesis that MK-1064 is superior to placebo in decreasing WASO was supported if the CI lies below 1 for at least one dose.||0.86|0.54|
91057718|NCT02549027|181996924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6|0.95|||||Ratio is MK-1064/placebo|Analysis used a step-down approach. Mean log treatment difference of the highest MK-1064 dose versus placebo (MK-1064 - placebo) and 90% CI were computed and back-transformed to obtain the 90% CI interval for WASO treatment ratio. If the CI lies completely below 1, testing continued to next lower MK-1064 dose. The hypothesis that MK-1064 is superior to placebo in decreasing WASO was supported if the CI lies below 1 for at least one dose.||0.95|0.60|
91057719|NCT02549027|181996925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|0.79|||||Ratio is MK-6096/placebo|Mean log treatment difference of MK-6096 versus placebo (MK-6096 - placebo) and 90% CI were computed and back-transformed to obtain the 90% CI interval for WASO treatment ratio.||0.79|0.50|
91057720|NCT02549027|181996926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.59|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.01|17.2|||||Difference is MK-1064 - placebo|Analysis used a step-up approach. Mean treatment difference in change from baseline of the lowest MK-1064 dose versus placebo (MK-1064 - placebo) and 90% CI were computed. If the CI lies completely below 25 milliseconds, testing continued to the next higher MK-1064 dose. The hypothesis that at least one dose of MK-1064 does not produce psychomotor impairment versus placebo as assessed by CRT will be supported if the CI lies below 25 milliseconds for at least one dose.||17.20|-12.01|
91057721|NCT02549027|181996926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.33|19.88|||||Difference is MK-1064 - placebo|Analysis used a step-up approach. Mean treatment difference in change from baseline of the lowest MK-1064 dose versus placebo (MK-1064 - placebo) and 90% CI were computed. If the CI lies completely below 25 milliseconds, testing continued to the next higher MK-1064 dose. The hypothesis that at least one dose of MK-1064 does not produce psychomotor impairment versus placebo as assessed by CRT will be supported if the CI lies below 25 milliseconds for at least one dose.||19.88|-9.33|
91057722|NCT02549027|181996926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.23|20.98|||||Difference is MK-1064 - placebo|Analysis used a step-up approach. Mean treatment difference in change from baseline of the lowest MK-1064 dose versus placebo (MK-1064 - placebo) and 90% CI were computed. If the CI lies completely below 25 milliseconds, testing continued to the next higher MK-1064 dose. The hypothesis that at least one dose of MK-1064 does not produce psychomotor impairment versus placebo as assessed by CRT will be supported if the CI lies below 25 milliseconds for at least one dose.||20.98|-8.23|
91057723|NCT02549027|181996927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.1|25.7|||||Difference is MK-6096 - placebo|Mean treatment difference in change from baseline of MK-6096 versus placebo (MK-6096 - placebo) and 90% CI were computed.||25.70|-7.10|
91057724|NCT05384171|181996936|SUPERIORITY||Partial Eta Squared (effect size)|0.02||||0.617|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||.617
91057725|NCT05384171|181996938|SUPERIORITY||Partial Eta Squared (effect size)|0.089||||0.214|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis: Intervention and active control group intention follow-up means are equal when controlling for covariates (i.e., baseline intention scores and age)||||.214
90817093|NCT02294734|181512648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.0||||50.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.48||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RML; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.48|0.67|50.74
90817094|NCT02294734|181512648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.85||||72.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.44||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RLL; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.44|0.51|72.81
91057726|NCT05384171|181996938|SUPERIORITY||Partial Eta Squared (effect size)|0.001||||0.894|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis: Intervention and active control group attitude follow-up means are equal when controlling for covariates (i.e., baseline attitude scores and age)||||.894
91057727|NCT05384171|181996938|SUPERIORITY||Partial Eta Squared (Effect Size)|0.053||||0.359|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis: Intervention and active control group social norms follow-up means are equal when controlling for covariates (i.e., baseline social norms scores and age)||||.359
91057728|NCT05384171|181996938|SUPERIORITY||Partial Eta Squared (Effect Size)|0.058||||0.322|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis: Intervention and active control group perceived behavioral control follow-up means are equal when controlling for covariates (i.e., baseline perceived behavioral control scores and age)||||.322
91057729|NCT05384171|181996939|SUPERIORITY||Partial Eta Squared (effect size)|0.001||||0.891|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||.891
91078363|NCT03313310|182042250|OTHER||||||||||||||||||A one-sample McNemar's test for change between baseline and 8-month follow-up was planned. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.10. However, McNemar's test statistic could not be calculated due to small cell counts.|||
91057730|NCT01421511|181996941|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI was calculated for the observed differences in the early clinical response rates at 48 to 72 Hours after the first infusion of study drug using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen without stratification. Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 95% CI was greater than -10%.|Risk Difference (RD)|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|8.2|||||Risk difference corresponds to the tedizolid responder rate minus the linezolid responder rate.|||8.2|-3.0|
91057731|NCT01421511|181996942|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI was calculated for the observed differences in the programmatic clinical response at the EOT visit using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen without stratification. Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 95% CI was greater than -10% and the conditions of the hierarchical testing procedure were met.|Risk Difference (RD)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|4.1||Hierarchical testing procedure of Westfall and Krishen used to control for inflation of the overall type I error rate. If NI is declared for the primary, NI will be tested for the secondary outcomes in this order: Secondary Outcomes Measures 2 to 5.|||Risk difference corresponds to the tedizolid clinical response rate minus the linezolid clinical response rate.|||4.1|-6.1|
91057732|NCT01421511|181996943|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI was calculated for the observed differences in the clinical response rate based on the Investigator's assessment of clinical response at the EOT Visit using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen without stratification. Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 95% CI was greater than -10% and the conditions of the hierarchical testing procedure were met.|Risk Difference (RD)|-4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|0.3|||||Risk difference corresponds to the tedizolid clinical response rate minus the linezolid clinical response rate.|||0.3|-8.8|
91057733|NCT01421511|181996944|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI was calculated for the observed differences in the clinical success rate based on the Investigator's assessment of clinical response at the PTE Visit using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen without stratification. Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 95% CI was greater than -10% and the conditions of the hierarchical testing procedure were met.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|5.3|||||Risk difference corresponds to the tedizolid clinical success rate minus the linezolid clinical success rate.|||5.3|-4.8|
91057734|NCT01421511|181996945|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI was calculated for the observed differences in the clinical success rate based on the Investigator's assessment of clinical response at the PTE Visit using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen without stratification. Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 95% CI was greater than -10% and the conditions of the hierarchical testing procedure were met.|Risk Difference (RD)|-3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|0.2|||||Risk difference corresponds to the tedizolid clinical success rate minus the linezolid clinical success rate.|||0.2|-7.7|
91057735|NCT01421511|181996946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|5.6|||||Risk difference corresponds to the tedizolid clinical response rate minus the linezolid clinical response rate.|A two-sided 95% CI was calculated for the observed differences in the clinical response rate based on the Investigator's assessment of clinical response at the 48-72 Hour Visit using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen without stratification.||5.6|-3.3|
91057736|NCT01421511|181996947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|4.9|||||Risk difference corresponds to the tedizolid clinical response rate minus the linezolid clinical response rate.|A two-sided 95% CI was calculated for the observed differences in the clinical response rate based on the Investigator's assessment of clinical response at the Day 7 Visit using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen without stratification.||4.9|-3.2|
91057737|NCT00106964|181996966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.044|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0440
91057738|NCT00106964|181996966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0157|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0157
91057739|NCT00106964|181996970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.5822||95.0|||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.5822
91057740|NCT00106964|181996970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.8698||95.0|||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.8698
91057741|NCT00106964|181996971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.29||||0.0853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.19|||Regression, Logistic||Adjusted odds ratio (OR) Odds ratio depends on CD4 count resulting from interaction. For example, OR=0.29 for CD4 count = 0; OR= 2.91 for CD4 count = 460 (median CD4 count for the evaluable study population).|||1.19|0.07|0.0853
91057742|NCT00106964|181996971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.99||||0.0244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|3.63|||Regression, Logistic||Adjusted odds ratio|||3.63|1.09|0.0244
91057743|NCT04040192|181996972|OTHER|||||||0.0034||||||p-value was estimated by the log-rank test, stratified by age group, duration of the BID treatment in OL period, and ISGA score at randomization.|Log Rank|||||||0.0034
91057744|NCT04040192|181996974|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model included fixed effects of treatment group, age group, duration of the BID treatment in OL period, and ISGA score at randomization.|Least square mean difference|34.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.274||0.0346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.53|66.64|||ANCOVA|||||66.64|2.53|0.0346
91057745|NCT04040192|181996975|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||p-value was estimated by Wilcoxon rank sum test stratified by age group, duration of the BID treatment in OL period, and ISGA score at randomization.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Median difference and 95%CI were estimated using Hodges-Lehmann method.|||0.00|-1.00|0.0042
91057746|NCT04040192|181996976|OTHER|||||||0.6815||||||p-value was estimated by the log-rank test, stratified by age group, duration of the BID treatment in OL period, and ISGA score at randomization.|Log Rank|||Baseline PP NRS \>=3 and \>=3 point reduction in PP NRS||||0.6815
91057747|NCT04040192|181996976|OTHER|||||||0.1518||||||p-value was estimated by the log-rank test, stratified by age group, duration of the BID treatment in OL period, and ISGA score at randomization.|Log Rank|||Baseline PP NRS \>=4 and \>=4 point reduction in PP NRS||||0.1518
91057748|NCT04040192|181996977|OTHER|||||||0.1933||||||p-value was estimated by the log-rank test, stratified by age group, duration of the BID treatment in OL period, and ISGA score at randomization|Log Rank|||||||0.1933
91057749|NCT04040192|181996978|OTHER|p-value was estimated by the log-rank test, stratified by age group, duration of the BID treatment in OL period, and ISGA score at randomization||||||0.3778|||||||Log Rank|||Baseline ORIS Scale \>=3 and \>=3 point reduction||||0.3778
91057750|NCT04040192|181996978|OTHER|p-value was estimated by the log-rank test, stratified by age group, duration of the BID treatment in OL period, and ISGA score at randomization||||||0.487|||||||Log Rank|||Baseline ORIS Scale \>=4 and \>=4 point reduction||||0.4870
91057751|NCT04040192|181996979|OTHER|||||||0.1159||||||p-value was estimated by the log-rank test, stratified by age group, duration of the BID treatment in OL period, and ISGA score at randomization.|Log Rank|||||||0.1159
91057752|NCT04040192|181996980|OTHER|||||||0.6973||||||p-value was estimated by the log-rank test, stratified by age group, duration of the BID treatment in OL period, and ISGA score at randomization.|Log Rank|||DLQI for participants \>=16 years of age||||0.6973
91057753|NCT04040192|181996980|OTHER|||||||0.7456||||||p-value was estimated by the log-rank test, stratified by age group, duration of the BID treatment in OL period, and ISGA score at randomization.|Log Rank|||Children's DLQI: participants 4-\<16 yrs of age||||0.7456
91057754|NCT04040192|181996981|OTHER|||||||0.0513||||||p-value was estimated by the log-rank test, stratified by age group, duration of the BID treatment in OL period, and ISGA score at randomization.|Log Rank|||POEM||||0.0513
91057755|NCT04040192|181996981|OTHER|||||||0.0217||||||p-value was estimated by the log-rank test, stratified by age group, duration of the BID treatment in OL period, and ISGA score at randomization.|Log Rank|||Proxy POEM||||0.0217
91057756|NCT03207243|181997074|OTHER||Median Rate Ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.99|||||Median rate ratio (Placebo - GSK3772847) and its 95% Credible Interval has been presented|||0.99|0.66|
91057757|NCT03207243|181997079|OTHER||Median Rate Ratio|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.01|||||Median rate ratio (Placebo - GSK3772847) and its 95% Credible Interval has been presented|||1.01|0.44|
91057758|NCT03207243|181997080|OTHER|||||||0.044|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.044
91057759|NCT03207243|181997124|OTHER||Percent change|-93.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-94.9|-91.7||Week 4|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||-91.7|-94.9|<0.001
91057760|NCT03207243|181997124|OTHER||Percent change|-92.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-94.8|-90.3||Week 8|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||-90.3|-94.8|<0.001
91057761|NCT03207243|181997124|OTHER||Percent change|-93.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-95.4|-90.0||Week 12|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||-90.0|-95.4|<0.001
91057762|NCT03207243|181997124|OTHER||Percent change|-93.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-95.3|-90.4||Week 16|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||-90.4|-95.3|<0.001
91057763|NCT03207243|181997125|OTHER||Percent change|2300.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1833.9|2879.3||Week 4|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||2879.3|1833.9|<0.001
91057764|NCT03207243|181997125|OTHER||Percent change|2507.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1924.2|3259.4||Week 8|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||3259.4|1924.2|<0.001
91057765|NCT03207243|181997125|OTHER||Percent change|2162.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1489.1|3120.3||Week 12|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||3120.3|1489.1|<0.001
91057766|NCT03207243|181997125|OTHER||Percent change|2663.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1994.6|3544.8||Week 16|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||3544.8|1994.6|<0.001
91057767|NCT00603837|181997135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.445||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.445
91057768|NCT02960490|181997137|SUPERIORITY||Difference from Placebo|-4.7||||0.621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.85|16.46|||Regression, Logistic|||||16.46|-25.85|0.621
91057769|NCT02368314|181997158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.226|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.226
91057770|NCT04411914|181997177|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0009|||||||Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||||||0.0009
91057771|NCT04411914|181997178|OTHER|||||||0.0053|||||||Spearman Correlation Coefficient|"Spearman Correlation Coefficient, N=9 Prob \> \|r\| under H0: Rho=0"||||||0.0053
91057772|NCT00423319|181997208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.36|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.54||Statistically significant at the 1-sided 0.025 level|Farrington-Manning test||Apixaban-enoxaparin|||0.54|0.22|<0.0001
91057773|NCT00423319|181997208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference|-2.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.54|1.5||Statistically significant at the 1-sided 0.025 level|Farrington-Manning test||Apixaban-enoxaparin|||1.50|-3.54|<0.0001
91057774|NCT00423319|181997209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.8||Statistically significant at the 1-sided 0.025 level|Farrington-Manning test||Apixaban-enoxaparin|||0.80|0.15|<0.0001
91057775|NCT00423319|181997209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk difference|-0.68||||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|-0.17||Statistically significant at the 1-sided 0.025 level|Chi-squared||Apixaban-enoxaparin|||-0.17|-1.27|0.0054
91057776|NCT00423319|181997211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in event rates|0.15||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.64||2-sided P-Value|Chi-squared||Major bleeding. Apixaban-enoxaparin|||0.64|-0.33|0.54
91057777|NCT00423319|181997211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in event rates|-0.44||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|0.66||2-sided P-Value|Chi-squared||CRNM. Apixaban-enoxaparin|||0.66|-1.53|0.43
91057778|NCT00423319|181997211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in event rates|-0.21||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|0.95||2-sided P-Value|Chi-squared||Major or CRNM. Apixaban-enoxaparin|||0.95|-1.38|0.72
91057779|NCT00423319|181997211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in event rate|-0.85||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|0.9||2-sided P-Value|Chi-squared||Any bleeding. Apixaban-enoxaparin|||0.90|-2.61|0.34
91057780|NCT00423319|181997221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in event rates|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.26|||||Apixaban-enoxaparin. MI/stroke|||0.26|-0.34|
91057781|NCT00423319|181997221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in event rates|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.34|||||Apixaban-enoxaparin. MI|||0.34|-0.17|
91057782|NCT00423319|181997221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in event rates|-0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.07|||||Apixaban-enoxaparin. Stroke|||0.07|-0.35|
91057783|NCT00423319|181997221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in event rates|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.17|||||Apixaban-enoxaparin. Thrombocytopenia|||0.17|-0.26|
91057784|NCT02639052|181997222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9704||||||Significance defined a priori as p\<0.05. P-values not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA with Repeated Measures|||Baseline assessment of itch VAS after itch induction but prior to Botox or saline application. Analyzed using ANOVA with repeated measures to compare main effects of treatment (Botox vs saline) and time, and interaction effect between treatment and time.||||0.9704
91057785|NCT02639052|181997223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical significance defined a priori as p\<0.05. P-values have not been adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA with Repeated Measures|||1 week (Visit 2) was the first assessment of itch VAS after itch induction after Botox or saline application. Analyzed using ANOVA with repeated measures to compare main effects of treatment (Botox vs saline) and time, and interaction effect between treatment and time.||||<0.0001
91078364|NCT03313310|182042250|OTHER||||||||||||||||||A one-sample McNemar's test for change between baseline and 3-month follow-up was planned. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.10. However, McNemar's test statistic could not be calculated due to small cell counts.|||
91057786|NCT02639052|181997224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistically significant difference in mean itch VAS between the two treatments (Botox mean=2.45 versus saline mean=3.20, p\<0.0001). Statistical significance defined a priori as p\<0.05. P-values have not been adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA with Repeated Measures|||1 month (Visit 3) was the second assessment of itch VAS after itch induction after Botox or saline application. Analyzed using ANOVA with repeated measures to compare main effects of treatment (Botox vs saline) and time, and interaction effect between treatment and time.||||<0.0001
91057787|NCT02639052|181997225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004||||||Statistical significance defined a priori as p\<0.05. P-values have not been adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA with Repeated Measures|Analyzed using ANOVA with repeated measures to compare treatment (Botox vs saline), time, and interaction effect between treatment \& time||3 months (Visit 4) was the third assessment of itch VAS after itch induction after Botox or saline application. Analyzed using ANOVA with repeated measures to compare main effects of treatment (Botox vs saline) and time, and interaction effect between treatment and time.||||0.0004
91057788|NCT02639052|181997226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1306||||||Statistical significance defined a priori as p\<0.05.|ANOVA with Repeated Measures|||Analyzed using ANOVA with repeated measures to compare main effects of treatment (Botox vs saline) and visit, and interaction effect between treatment and visit.||||0.1306
91057789|NCT03203564|181997247|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.68|14.12|||||Parameter estimate is done for Placebo-corrected change-from baseline QTcF (ΔΔQTcF) for Modufolin 500 mg/m2 at end of infusion.|"The primary analysis of QTcF was based on a linear mixed-effects model with change-from-baseline QTcF as the dependent variable, time (categorical), treatment, and time-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects, and baseline QTcF as a covariate. The least-squares (LS) mean and 2-sided 90 % CIs have been calculated for the contrast Modufolin® versus placebo at each dose of Modufolin® and each post-dose time point."||14.12|0.68|
91057790|NCT00789737|181997278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0369||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||least squares mean; 80% power to detect a 0.3% change||||0.0369
91057791|NCT00789737|181997279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0373||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0373
91057792|NCT00789737|181997284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.00001
91057793|NCT04630158|181997296|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) mean difference|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.1||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|11.7||Reporting the adjusted p-value derived based on Dunett procedure.|Mixed Models Analysis|mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis||||11.7|-8.5|0.930
91057794|NCT04630158|181997296|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) mean difference|3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.11||0.699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|13.8||Reporting the adjusted p-value derived based on Dunett procedure.|Mixed Models Analysis|mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis||||13.8|-6.4|0.699
91057795|NCT05162014|181997313|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.02|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional hazards regression models based on time-to-first acute pancreatitis used to estimate the hazard ratios.||||1.02|0.76|
91057796|NCT02458287|181997332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-63.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.0|-54.7|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals, and p-value are from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment groups, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction as covariates.||-54.7|-72.0|<0.001
91057797|NCT02458287|181997341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-43.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.53|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.9|-34.0|||MMRM|||LS-mean differences and associated 95% confidence intervals, and p-values are from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment groups, visit, treatment group \* visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value \* visit interaction as covariates.||-34.0|-51.9|<0.001
91057798|NCT02458287|181997342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-39.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.86|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.4|-34.1|||MMRM|||LS-mean differences and associated 95% confidence intervals, and p-values are from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment groups, visit, treatment group \* visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value \* visit interaction as covariates.||-34.1|-45.4|<0.001
91057799|NCT02458287|181997342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-26.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.96|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.5|-20.8|||MMRM|||LS-mean differences and associated 95% confidence intervals, and p-values are from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment groups, visit, treatment group \* visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value \* visit interaction as covariates.||-20.8|-32.5|<0.001
91057800|NCT02458287|181997343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-57.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.25|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.2|-49.5|||MMRM|||LS-mean differences and associated 95% confidence intervals, and p-values are from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment groups, visit, treatment group \* visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value \* visit interaction as covariates.||-49.5|-66.2|<0.001
91057801|NCT02458287|181997343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-35.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.38|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.4|-27.1|||MMRM|||LS-mean differences and associated 95% confidence intervals, and p-values are from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment groups, visit, treatment group \* visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value \* visit interaction as covariates.||-27.1|-44.4|<0.001
91057802|NCT02458287|181997344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-56.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.84|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.7|-48.6|||MMRM|||LS-mean differences and associated 95% confidence intervals, and p-values are from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment groups, visit, treatment group \* visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value \* visit interaction as covariates.||-48.6|-63.7|<0.001
91057803|NCT02458287|181997344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-37.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.99|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.0|-29.3|||MMRM|||LS-mean differences and associated 95% confidence intervals, and p-values are from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment groups, visit, treatment group \* visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value \* visit interaction as covariates.||-29.3|-45.0|<0.001
91057804|NCT01943994|181997354|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.12||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.99|23.26|||Regression, Logistic|||||23.26|1.99|0.003
91057805|NCT02823652|181997402|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.0001
91057806|NCT02823652|181997403|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.035
91057807|NCT02823652|181997404|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.312|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.312
91057808|NCT02823652|181997405|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.11
91057809|NCT04428333|181997418|SUPERIORITY|Other|Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.16||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|23.87||Nominal p-value was calculated based on the one sided log-rank test, stratified by stratified by PD-L1 expression (CPS ≥20 vs. 1≤ CPS \<20 vs. CPS \<1) and HPV status (oropharynx HPV positive vs oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharynx).|Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|||The hazard ratio and corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence interval was calculated from the cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate and stratified by PD-L1 expression (CPS ≥20 vs. 1≤ CPS \<20 vs. CPS \<1) and Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) status (positive vs. negative). Participants with oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharyngeal tumors were combined as the HPV negative group.||23.87|0.20|0.740
91057810|NCT04428333|181997419|SUPERIORITY|Other|Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.16||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|23.87||Nominal p-value was calculated based on the one sided log-rank test, stratified by stratified by PD-L1 expression (CPS ≥20 vs. 1≤ CPS \<20) and HPV status (oropharynx HPV positive vs oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharynx).|Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|||The hazard ratio and corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence interval was calculated from the cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate and stratified by PD-L1 expression (CPS ≥ 20 vs 1≤ CPS\<20) and HPV status (positive vs. negative). Participants with oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharyngeal tumors were combined as the HPV negative group.||23.87|0.20|0.740
91057811|NCT04428333|181997420|SUPERIORITY|Other|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.43||Nominal p-value was calculated based on the one sided log-rank test, stratified by stratified by PD-L1 expression (CPS ≥20 vs. 1≤ CPS \<20 vs. CPS \<1) and HPV status (oropharynx HPV positive vs oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharynx).|Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|||The hazard ratio and corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence interval was calculated from the cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate and stratified by PD-L1 expression (CPS ≥20 vs. 1≤ CPS \<20 vs. CPS \<1) and HPV status (positive vs. negative). Participants with oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharyngeal tumors were combined as the HPV negative group.||2.43|0.20|0.284
91057812|NCT04428333|181997421|SUPERIORITY|Other|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.43||Nominal p-value was calculated based on the one sided log-rank test, stratified by stratified by PD-L1 expression (CPS ≥20 vs. 1≤ CPS \<20) and HPV status (oropharynx HPV positive vs oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharynx).|Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|||The hazard ratio and corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence interval was calculated from the cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate and stratified by PD-L1 expression (CPS≥20 vs 1≤CPS\<20) and HPV status (positive vs. negative). Participants with oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharyngeal tumors were combined as the HPV negative group.||2.43|0.20|0.284
91057813|NCT04428333|181997424|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.8|11.3||||||The comparison between treatment groups was based on the stratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method with strata weighting by sample size and a single treatment covariate. Stratification factors included PD-L1 expression (CPS ≥20 vs. 1≤ CPS \<20 vs. CPS \<1) and HPV status (positive vs. negative). Participants with oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharyngeal tumors were combined as the HPV negative group.||11.3|-20.8|
91057814|NCT04428333|181997425|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.4|11.3||||||The comparison between treatment groups was based on the stratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method with strata weighting by sample size and a single treatment covariate. Stratification factors included PD-L1 expression (CPS≥20 vs 1≤CPS\<20) and HPV status (positive vs. negative). Participants with oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharyngeal tumors were combined as the HPV negative group.||11.3|-21.4|
91057815|NCT04428333|181997426|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.2|13.1||||||The comparison between treatment groups was based on the stratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method with strata weighting by sample size and a single treatment covariate. Stratification factors included PD-L1 expression (CPS ≥20 vs. 1≤ CPS \<20 vs. CPS \<1) and HPV status (positive vs. negative). Participants with oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharyngeal tumors were combined as the HPV negative group.||13.1|-22.2|
91057816|NCT04428333|181997427|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.8|13.3||||||The comparison between treatment groups was based on the stratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method with strata weighting by sample size and a single treatment covariate. Stratification factors included PD-L1 expression (CPS ≥20 vs. 1≤ CPS \<20) and HPV status (positive vs. negative). Participants with oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharyngeal tumors were combined as the HPV negative group.||13.3|-22.8|
91057817|NCT04428333|181997444|SUPERIORITY|Other|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.71||Nominal p-value was calculated based on the one sided log-rank test, stratified by stratified by PD-L1 expression (CPS ≥20 vs. 1≤ CPS \<20 vs. CPS \<1) and HPV status (oropharynx HPV positive vs oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharynx).|Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|||The hazard ratio and corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence interval was calculated from the cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate and stratified by PD-L1 expression (CPS ≥20 vs. 1≤ CPS \<20 vs. CPS \<1) and HPV status (positive vs. negative). Participants with oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharyngeal tumors were combined as the HPV negative group.||1.71|0.42|0.329
91057818|NCT04428333|181997445|SUPERIORITY|Other|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.69||Nominal p-value was calculated based on the one sided log-rank test, stratified by stratified by PD-L1 expression (CPS ≥20 vs. 1≤ CPS \<20) and HPV status (oropharynx HPV positive vs oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharynx).|Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|||The hazard ratio and corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence interval was calculated from the cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate and stratified by PD-L1 expression (CPS≥20 vs 1≤CPS\<20) and HPV status (positive vs. negative). Participants with oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharyngeal tumors were combined as the HPV negative group.||1.69|0.40|0.302
90817095|NCT02294734|181512648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.73||||94.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.08||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RLL; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.08|0.50|94.41
91057819|NCT04428333|181997446|SUPERIORITY|Other|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|2.11||Nominal p-value was calculated based on the one sided log-rank test, stratified by stratified by PD-L1 expression (CPS ≥20 vs. 1≤ CPS \<20 vs. CPS \<1) and HPV status (oropharynx HPV positive vs oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharynx).|Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|||The hazard ratio and corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence interval was calculated from the cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate and stratified by PD-L1 expression (CPS ≥20 vs. 1≤ CPS \<20 vs. CPS \<1) and HPV status (positive vs. negative). Participants with oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharyngeal tumors were combined as the HPV negative group.||2.11|0.44|0.472
91057820|NCT04428333|181997447|SUPERIORITY|Other|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.9||Nominal p-value was calculated based on the one sided log-rank test, stratified by stratified by PD-L1 expression (CPS ≥20 vs. 1≤ CPS \<20) and HPV status (oropharynx HPV positive vs oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharynx).|Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|||The hazard ratio and corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence interval was calculated from the cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate and stratified by PD-L1 expression (CPS≥20 vs 1≤CPS\<20) and HPV status (positive vs. negative). Participants with oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharyngeal tumors were combined as the HPV negative group.||1.90|0.36|0.335
91057821|NCT04853992|181997448|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|0.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The primary endpoint, change from baseline in post-provocation Urticaria Activity Score (UASprovo) to the end of the treatment period, was compared between treatments with the null hypothesis that they are equal against the alternative that they are different. The primary efficacy endpoint was analysed using a linear mixed model, containing treatment, period and carryover effects, the factor site and additionally the value of UASprovo at baseline as a covariate.||0.53|-1.69|0.277
91057822|NCT02092467|181997505|NON_INFERIORITY|Hazard ratio (95% CI) was based on a univariate Cox proportional hazard model with treatment \[All Tofacitinib (ie, tofacitinib 5 mg BID and tofacitinib 10 mg BID combined) and TNFi\] as covariate.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|2.09|||||Primary comparison. Non-inferiority was to be claimed between All Tofacitinib and TNFi if the upper limit of the 95% CI for HR was \< 1.8 (non-inferiority criterion).|All Tofacitinib versus TNFi||2.09|1.04|
91057823|NCT02092467|181997505|NON_INFERIORITY|Hazard ratio (95% CI) was based on a univariate cox proportional hazard model with treatment (tofacitinib 5 mg BID, tofacitinib 10 mg BID and TNFi) as covariate.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.43|||||Secondary comparison. Non-inferiority was to be claimed between tofacitinib 10 mg BID and tofacitinib 5 mg BID if the upper limit of the 95% CI for HR was \< 2.0 (non-inferiority criterion).|Tofacitinib 10 mg BID versus Tofacitinib 5 mg BID||1.43|0.70|
91057824|NCT02092467|181997505|OTHER|Hazard ratio (95% CI) was based on a univariate cox proportional hazard model with treatment (tofacitinib 5 mg BID, tofacitinib 10 mg BID and TNFi) as covariate.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.18|||||Supportive analysis to the primary comparison between All Tofacitinib vs TNFi.|Tofacitinib 5 mg BID versus TNFi||2.18|1.00|
91057825|NCT02092467|181997505|OTHER|Hazard ratio (95% CI) was based on a univariate cox proportional hazard model with treatment (tofacitinib 5 mg BID, tofacitinib 10 mg BID and TNFi) as covariate.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.19|||||Supportive analysis to the primary comparison between All Tofacitinib vs TNFi.|Tofacitinib 10 mg BID versus TNFi||2.19|1.00|
91057826|NCT02092467|181997506|NON_INFERIORITY|Hazard ratio (95% CI) was based on a univariate Cox proportional hazard model with treatment \[All Tofacitinib (ie, tofacitinib 5 mg BID and tofacitinib 10 mg BID combined) and TNFi\] as covariate.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.94|||||Primary comparison. Non-inferiority was to be claimed between All Tofacitinib and TNFi if the upper limit of the 95% CI for HR was \< 1.8 (non-inferiority criterion).|All Tofacitinib versus TNFi||1.94|0.91|
91057827|NCT02092467|181997506|NON_INFERIORITY|Hazard ratio (95% CI) was based on a univariate cox proportional hazard model with treatment (tofacitinib 5 mg BID, tofacitinib 10 mg BID and TNFi) as covariate.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.71|||||Secondary Comparison. Non-inferiority was to be claimed between tofacitinib 10 mg BID and tofacitinib 5 mg BID if the upper limit of the 95% CI for HR was \<2.0 (non-inferiority criterion).|Tofacitinib 10 mg BID versus Tofacitinib 5 mg BID||1.71|0.77|
91057828|NCT02092467|181997506|OTHER|Hazard ratio (95% CI) was based on a univariate cox proportional hazard model with treatment (tofacitinib 5 mg BID, tofacitinib 10 mg BID and TNFi) as covariate.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.91|||||Supportive analysis to the primary comparison between All Tofacitinib vs TNFi.|Tofacitinib 5 mg BID versus TNFi||1.91|0.81|
91057829|NCT02092467|181997506|OTHER|Hazard ratio (95% CI) was based on a univariate cox proportional hazard model with treatment (tofacitinib 5 mg BID, tofacitinib 10 mg BID and TNFi) as covariate.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|2.18|||||Supportive analysis to the primary comparison between All Tofacitinib vs TNFi.|Tofacitinib 10 mg BID versus TNFi||2.18|0.94|
91057830|NCT01284621|181997529|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability. Ratio calculated as empa plus ramipril divided by empa alone|Geometric mean ratio|96.55|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.05|100.18|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV)|||100.18|93.05|
91057831|NCT01284621|181997530|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability. Ratio calculated as empa plus ramipril divided by empa alone|Geometric mean ratio|104.47|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.65|111.77|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the gCV|||111.77|97.65|
91057832|NCT01284621|181997531|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability. Ratio calculated as empa plus ramipril divided by ramipril alone|Geometric mean ratio|108.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.51|116.35|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the gCV|||116.35|100.51|
91057833|NCT01284621|181997532|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability. Ratio calculated as empa plus ramipril divided by ramipril alone.|Geometric mean ratio|103.61|STANDARD_DEVIATION|28.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.73|119.64|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the gCV|||119.64|89.73|
91057834|NCT01284621|181997533|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability. Ratio calculated as empa plus ramipril divided by ramipril alone|Geometric mean ratio|98.67|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.0|101.42|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the gCV|||101.42|96.00|
91057835|NCT01284621|181997534|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability. Ratio calculated as empa plus ramipril divided by ramipril alone.|Geometric mean ratio|98.29|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.67|104.25|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the gCV|||104.25|92.67|
91057836|NCT02293863|181997592|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.605|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.83|1.4|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.40|0.83|0.6050
91057837|NCT02293863|181997592|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.2028|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.85|1.51|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.51|0.85|0.2028
91057838|NCT02293863|181997594|OTHER||Difference in event rates|10.19||||0.1905|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.15|20.52|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||20.52|-0.15|0.1905
91057839|NCT02293863|181997594|OTHER||Difference in event rates|7.91||||0.3168|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.64|18.47|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||18.47|-2.64|0.3168
91057840|NCT02293863|181997595|OTHER||Difference in event rates|-7.92||||0.6043|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-27.5|11.66|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||11.66|-27.50|0.6043
91057841|NCT02293863|181997595|OTHER||Difference in event rates|-14.58||||0.3865|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-36.13|6.97|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||6.97|-36.13|0.3865
91057842|NCT02293863|181997596|OTHER||Difference in event rates|1.99||||0.5379|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.57|9.56|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 14||9.56|-5.57|0.5379
91057843|NCT02293863|181997596|OTHER||Difference in event rates|4.97||||0.2189|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.12|13.05|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 14||13.05|-3.12|0.2189
91057844|NCT02293863|181997596|OTHER||Difference in event rates|2.14||||0.6594|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.04|10.31|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 30||10.31|-6.04|0.6594
91057845|NCT02293863|181997596|OTHER||Difference in event rates|3.54||||0.5013|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.24|12.31|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 30||12.31|-5.24|0.5013
91057846|NCT02293863|181997596|OTHER||Difference in event rates|2.21||||0.6849|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.28|10.69|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 60||10.69|-6.28|0.6849
91057847|NCT02293863|181997596|OTHER||Difference in event rates|1.68||||0.7633|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-7.38|10.74|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 60||10.74|-7.38|0.7633
91057848|NCT02293863|181997597|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.73||||0.2407|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.41|-1.06|||ANOVA|||||-1.06|-6.41|0.2407
91057849|NCT02293863|181997597|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.8339|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.49|2.1|||ANOVA|||||2.10|-3.49|0.8339
91057850|NCT02293863|181997598|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33||||0.279|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.6|-0.07|||ANOVA|||||-0.07|-0.60|0.2790
91057851|NCT02293863|181997598|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42||||0.1909|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.7|-0.15|||ANOVA|||||-0.15|-0.70|0.1909
91057852|NCT02293863|181997599|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.7413|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.77|1.32|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.32|0.77|0.7413
91057853|NCT02293863|181997599|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.32||||0.4763|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.99|1.77|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.77|0.99|0.4763
91057854|NCT02293863|181997600|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.8806|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.78|1.32|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.32|0.78|0.8806
91057855|NCT02293863|181997600|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.5447|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.8|1.38|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.38|0.80|0.5447
91057856|NCT02293863|181997601|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.4171|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.47|1.03|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.03|0.47|0.4171
91057857|NCT02293863|181997601|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.8322|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.61|1.34|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.34|0.61|0.8322
91057858|NCT02293863|181997602|OTHER||Difference in event rates|-1.42||||0.824|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-10.61|7.76|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||7.76|-10.61|0.8240
91057859|NCT02293863|181997602|OTHER||Difference in event rates|-1.6||||0.8111|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-11.48|8.28|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||8.28|-11.48|0.8111
91057860|NCT02293863|181997603|OTHER||Difference in event rates|2.42||||0.7219|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.96|11.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||11.80|-6.96|0.7219
91057861|NCT02293863|181997603|OTHER||Difference in event rates|0.67||||0.9225|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-9.29|10.64|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.64|-9.29|0.9225
91057862|NCT02293863|181997604|OTHER||Difference in event rates|1.99||||0.5379|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.57|9.56|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||9.56|-5.57|0.5379
91057863|NCT02293863|181997604|OTHER||Difference in event rates|-1.85||||0.3667|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-9.88|6.18|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||6.18|-9.88|0.3667
91057864|NCT02293863|181997605|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.7827|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.41|1.07|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.07|0.41|0.7827
91057865|NCT02293863|181997605|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58||||0.2522|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.36|0.96|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.96|0.36|0.2522
91057866|NCT00213135|181997649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.54|||Wald Chi-square test|||||0.54|0.35|<0.001
91057867|NCT00213135|181997649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.54|||Wald Chi-square test|||||0.54|0.34|<0.001
91057868|NCT01328379|181997653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|0.054|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0724||0.457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.088|0.196||To demonstrate study sensitivity with respect to efficacy and maintain an overall alpha level ≤ 0.05, a stepwise procedure was performed.|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Change from Baseline in Walking Speed - dependent variable and Baseline Walking Speed and Treatment - independent variables||dalfampridine-ER 5mg twice daily vs. placebo twice daily: Change from baseline in walking speed at Approximately CmaxSS at Visit 3||0.196|-0.088|0.457
91057869|NCT01328379|181997653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|0.118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0732||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.026|0.262|||ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Change from Baseline in Walking Speed - dependent variable and Baseline Walking Speed and Treatment - independent variables||dalfampridine-ER 10mg twice daily vs. placebo twice daily: Change from baseline in walking speed at Approximately CmaxSS at Visit 3||0.262|-0.026|0.107
91078365|NCT03313310|182042252|OTHER|A one-sample test for change between baseline and 8-month follow-up was conducted.||||||1||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.10. This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|McNemar|||||||1.00
91057870|NCT01328379|181997653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|0.064|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0724||0.375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.078|0.207|||ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Change from Baseline in Walking Speed - dependent variable and Baseline Walking Speed and Treatment - independent variables||dalfampridine-ER 5mg twice daily vs. dalfampridine-ER 10mg twice daily: Change from baseline in walking speed at Approximately CmaxSS at Visit 3||0.207|-0.078|0.375
91057871|NCT01328379|181997654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-0.014|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0666||0.832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.145|0.117||To demonstrate study sensitivity with respect to efficacy and maintain an overall alpha level ≤ 0.05, a stepwise procedure was performed.|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Change from Baseline in Walking Speed - dependent variable and Baseline Walking Speed and Treatment - independent variables||dalfampridine-ER 5mg twice daily vs. placebo twice daily: Change from baseline in walking speed at Approximately CminSS at Visit 3||0.117|-0.145|0.832
91057872|NCT01328379|181997654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|0.093|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0674||0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.039|0.226|||ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Change from Baseline in Walking Speed - dependent variable and Baseline Walking Speed and Treatment - independent variables||dalfampridine-ER 10mg twice daily vs. placebo twice daily: Change from baseline in walking speed at Approximately CminSS at Visit 3||0.226|-0.039|0.167
91057873|NCT01328379|181997654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|0.107|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0666||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.024|0.238|||ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Change from Baseline in Walking Speed - dependent variable and Baseline Walking Speed and Treatment - independent variables||dalfampridine-ER 5mg twice daily vs. dalfampridine-ER 10mg twice daily: Change from baseline in walking speed at Approximately CminSS at Visit 3||0.238|-0.024|0.108
91057874|NCT01328379|181997655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Lease Squares Mean|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.367||0.866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.05|4.25|||ANOVA|ANOVA model with change from baseline in MSWS-12 Score as the dependent variable and baseline MSWS-12 Score and treatment as the independent variables||dalfampridine-ER 5mg twice daily vs. placebo twice daily: Change from baseline in MSWS-12 at visit 3||4.25|-5.05|0.866
91057875|NCT01328379|181997655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-2.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.393||0.286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.26|2.15|||ANOVA|ANOVA model with change from baseline in MSWS-12 Score as the dependent variable and baseline MSWS-12 Score and treatment as the independent variables||dalfampridine-ER 10mg twice daily vs. placebo twice daily: Change from baseline in MSWS-12 at visit 3||2.15|-7.26|0.286
91057876|NCT01328379|181997655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-2.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.366||0.362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.81|2.49|||ANOVA|ANOVA model with change from baseline in MSWS-12 Score as the dependent variable and baseline MSWS-12 Score and treatment as the independent variables||dalfampridine-ER 5mg twice daily vs. dalfampridine-ER 10mg twice daily: Change from baseline in MSWS-12 at visit 3||2.49|-6.81|0.362
91057877|NCT01328379|181997656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.237||0.708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.56|5.24|||ANOVA|ANOVA model with change from baseline in MSWS-12 Score as the dependent variable and baseline MSWS-12 Score and treatment as the independent variables||dalfampridine-ER 5mg twice daily vs. placebo twice daily: Change from baseline in MSWS-12 at visit 2||5.24|-3.56|0.708
91057878|NCT01328379|181997656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.258||0.868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.81|4.06|||ANOVA|ANOVA model with change from baseline in MSWS-12 Score as the dependent variable and baseline MSWS-12 Score and treatment as the independent variables||dalfampridine-ER 10mg twice daily vs. placebo twice daily: Change from baseline in MSWS-12 at visit 2||4.06|-4.81|0.868
91057879|NCT01328379|181997656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.236||0.588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.61|3.18|||ANOVA|ANOVA model with change from baseline in MSWS-12 Score as the dependent variable and baseline MSWS-12 Score and treatment as the independent variables||dalfampridine-ER 5mg twice daily vs. dalfampridine-ER 10mg twice daily: Change from baseline in MSWS-12 at visit 2||3.18|-5.61|0.588
91057880|NCT01328379|181997657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|35.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|34.57||0.308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.0|103.7|||ANOVA|Change from Baseline in Six-Minute Walk Distance as dependent variable and Baseline Six-Minute Walk Distance and Treatment as independent variables.||dalfampridine-ER 5mg twice daily vs. placebo twice daily: Change from baseline in Six-Minute Walk Distance at visit 2||103.7|-33.0|0.308
91057881|NCT01328379|181997657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|87.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|34.9||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.2|156.1|||ANOVA|Change from Baseline in Six-Minute Walk Distance as dependent variable and Baseline Six-Minute Walk Distance and Treatment as independent variables.||dalfampridine-ER 10mg twice daily vs. placebo twice daily: Change from baseline in Six-Minute Walk Distance at visit 2||156.1|18.2|0.014
91057882|NCT01328379|181997657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|51.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|34.21||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.9|119.3|||ANOVA|Change from Baseline in Six-Minute Walk Distance as dependent variable and Baseline Six-Minute Walk Distance and Treatment as independent variables.||dalfampridine-ER 5mg twice daily vs. dalfampridine-ER 10mg twice daily: Change from baseline in Six-Minute Walk Distance at visit 2||119.3|-15.9|0.133
91057883|NCT01328379|181997658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.1|||ANOVA|ANOVA model with change from baseline score as the dependant variable and baseline score and treatment as the independent variables.||dalfampridine-ER 5mg twice daily vs. placebo twice daily: Change from baseline in Average EQ-5D score at Visit 3||0.1|-0.0|0.320
91057884|NCT01328379|181997658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.0|||ANOVA|ANOVA model with change from baseline score as the dependant variable and baseline score and treatment as the independent variables.||dalfampridine-ER 10mg twice daily vs. placebo twice daily: Change from baseline in Average EQ-5D score at Visit 3||0.0|-0.1|0.734
91057885|NCT01328379|181997658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.0|||ANOVA|ANOVA model with change from baseline score as the dependant variable and baseline score and treatment as the independent variables.||dalfampridine-ER 5mg twice daily vs. dalfampridine-ER 10mg twice daily: Change from baseline in Average EQ-5D score at Visit 3||0.0|-0.1|0.185
91057886|NCT01328379|181997659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.79||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|0.1|||ANOVA|ANOVA model with change from baseline score as the dependant variable and baseline score and treatment as the independent variables.||dalfampridine-ER 5mg twice daily vs. placebo twice daily: Change from baseline in EQ-5D VAS score at Visit 3||0.1|-7.0|0.055
91057887|NCT01328379|181997659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.83||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|2.4|||ANOVA|ANOVA model with change from baseline score as the dependant variable and baseline score and treatment as the independent variables.||dalfampridine-ER 10mg twice daily vs. placebo twice daily: Change from baseline in EQ-5D VAS score at Visit 3||2.4|-4.7|0.530
91057888|NCT01328379|181997659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|5.8|||ANOVA|ANOVA model with change from baseline score as the dependant variable and baseline score and treatment as the independent variables.||dalfampridine-ER 5mg twice daily vs. dalfampridine-ER 10mg twice daily: Change from baseline in EQ-5D VAS score at Visit 3||5.8|-1.2|0.203
91057889|NCT03452137|181997726|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.6804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.26|||Log Rank||HR was estimated by Cox regression.|Stratified Analysis: The stratification factors were response to definitive local therapy, human papillomavirus (HPV) status and type of definitive local therapy as per interactive voice or web-based response system (IxRS).||1.26|0.70|0.6804
91057890|NCT03452137|181997727|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.8371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.36|||Log Rank||HR was estimated by Cox regression.|Stratified Analysis: The stratification factors were response to definitive local therapy, HPV status and type of definitive local therapy as per interactive voice or web-based response system (IxRS).||1.36|0.68|0.8371
91057891|NCT03452137|181997728|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.9115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.32|||Log Rank||HR was estimated by Cox regression|Stratified Analysis: The stratification factors were response to definitive local therapy, HPV status and type of definitive local therapy as per interactive voice or web-based response system (IxRS).||1.32|0.73|0.9115
91057892|NCT03452137|181997729|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|-0.67||||0.8816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.45|8.11|||Z test|||Difference in EFS Event-Free Rates at 1 year||8.11|-9.45|0.8816
91057893|NCT03452137|181997729|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|0.46||||0.9234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.86|9.78|||Z test|||Difference in EFS Event-Free Rates at 2 years||9.78|-8.86|0.9234
91057894|NCT03452137|181997729|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|1.19||||0.809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.49|10.88|||Z test|||Difference in EFS Event-Free Rates at 3 years||10.88|-8.49|0.8090
91057895|NCT03452137|181997729|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|0.01||||0.9985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.17|10.19|||Z test|||Difference in EFS Event-Free Rates at 4 years||10.19|-10.17|0.9985
91057896|NCT03452137|181997730|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|5.17||||0.2393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.44|13.79|||Z test|||Difference in EFS Event-Free Rates at 1 year||13.79|-3.44|0.2393
91057897|NCT03452137|181997730|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|3.61||||0.4472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.69|12.9|||Z test|||Difference in EFS Event-Free Rates at 2 years||12.90|-5.69|0.4472
91057898|NCT03452137|181997730|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|3.14||||0.5222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.49|12.77|||Z test|||Difference in EFS Event-Free Rates at 3 years||12.77|-6.49|0.5222
90817096|NCT02294734|181512648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.83||||81.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.25||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RLL; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.25|0.55|81.07
91057899|NCT03452137|181997730|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|1.31||||0.7967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.64|11.26|||Z test|||Difference in EFS Event-Free Rates at 4 years||11.26|-8.64|0.7967
91057900|NCT03452137|181997731|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|2.77||||0.4819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.95|10.49|||Z test|||Difference in OS Event-Free Rates at 2 years||10.49|-4.95|0.4819
91057901|NCT03452137|181997731|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|-1.25||||0.7783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.97|7.47|||Z test|||Difference in OS Event-Free Rates at 3 years||7.47|-9.97|0.7783
91057902|NCT03452137|181997731|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|-1.07||||0.8924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.56|14.42|||Z test|||Difference in OS Event-Free Rates at 5 years||14.42|-16.56|0.8924
91057903|NCT02856802|181997764|NON_INFERIORITY|Assumption that 15% of placebo and 42% of DFN 02 10 mg (treated) subjects would be pain-free at 2 hours. A sample size of 50 subjects in each DB1 dosing arm provided 86% power to detect this assumed difference between placebo and DFN-02 10 mg at a 5% (2-sided) level of significance.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.68||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|6.83|||Fisher Exact|||Statistical testing and confidence intervals (CIs) were 2 sided and performed using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05. All statistical analyses were conducted with the statistical analysis system (SAS)® software package (version 9.3).||6.83|1.05|0.044
91057904|NCT02856802|181997765|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority conducted as specified in the statistical analysis plan (SAP).||||||0.007||||||The corresponding p-values from Fisher's exact test were computed for the comparison between treatment groups.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.007
91057905|NCT02856802|181997766|NON_INFERIORITY|No assumptions made.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|3.3|||Fisher Exact|||Statistical testing and confidence intervals (CIs) were 2 sided and performed using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05. All statistical analyses were conducted with the SAS® software package (version 9.3).||3.30|0.52|0.642
91057906|NCT00261443|181997777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.544||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.332|0.893||Stratified Log-rank Test, controlling for type of mood stabilizer and type of mood episode|Stratified Log-rank Test||Cox proportional hazards model, with type of mood stabilizer and type of index mood episode as stratification factors, and treatment group as covariate.|||0.893|0.332|0.014
91057907|NCT00261443|181997778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.01||||0.911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.15||ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode used for baseline. ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, and baseline value used for mean change from baseline.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, difference in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Baseline Comparison||0.15|-0.16|0.911
91078366|NCT03313310|182042252|OTHER|A one-sample test for change between baseline and 3-month follow-up was conducted.||||||1||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.10. This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|McNemar|||||||1.00
91057908|NCT00261443|181997778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|0.04||||0.557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.18||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 4 Comparison||0.18|-0.09|0.557
91057909|NCT00261443|181997778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.04||||0.596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.1||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 8 Comparison||0.10|-0.18|0.596
91057910|NCT00261443|181997778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.05||||0.522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.11||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 12 Comparison||0.11|-0.22|0.522
91057911|NCT00261443|181997778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.13||||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.04||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 16 Comparison||0.04|-0.30|0.142
91057912|NCT00261443|181997778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.16||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.03||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 20 Comparison||0.03|-0.35|0.092
91057913|NCT00261443|181997778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.2||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.01||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 24 Comparison||-0.01|-0.40|0.039
91057914|NCT00261443|181997778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.21||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.0||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 28 Comparison||0.00|-0.43|0.050
91057915|NCT00261443|181997778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.19||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.01||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 32 Comparison||0.01|-0.40|0.064
91057916|NCT00261443|181997778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.25||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.05||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 36 Comparison||-0.05|-0.46|0.017
91057917|NCT00261443|181997778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.22||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.01||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 40 Comparison||-0.01|-0.43|0.039
91057918|NCT00261443|181997778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.27||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.05||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 44 Comparison||-0.05|-0.48|0.015
90817097|NCT02294734|181512648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.87||||69.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.51||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LLL; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.51|0.50|69.29
90817098|NCT02294734|181512648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.86||||73.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.37||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LLL; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.37|0.54|73.67
91078367|NCT03313310|182042253|OTHER|A one-sample test for change between baseline and 8-month follow-up was conducted.||||||1||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.10. This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|McNemar|||||||1.00
91057919|NCT00261443|181997778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.29||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.07||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 48 Comparison||-0.07|-0.50|0.009
91057920|NCT00261443|181997778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.28||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.06||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 52 Comparison||-0.06|-0.50|0.013
91057921|NCT00261443|181997779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.348||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.146|0.829||Stratified Log-rank Test, controlling for type of mood stabilizer and type of index mood episode.|Stratified Log-rank Test||Cox proportional hazards model, with type of mood stabilizer and type of index mood episode as stratification factors, and treatment group as covariate.|||0.829|0.146|0.013
91057922|NCT00261443|181997780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.733||||0.384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.364|1.479||Stratified Log-rank Test P-value for Equality of Survival Curves|Stratified Log-rank Test||Cox proportional hazards model, with type of mood stabilizer and type of index mood episode as stratification factors, and treatment group as covariate.|||1.479|0.364|0.384
91057923|NCT00261443|181997782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|0.02||||0.955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.77||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, and baseline value. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Baseline Comparison||0.77|-0.73|0.955
91057924|NCT00261443|181997782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|0.06||||0.895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.95||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, and baseline value. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 4 Comparison||0.95|-0.83|0.895
91057925|NCT00261443|181997782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.69||||0.144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|0.24||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, and baseline value. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 8 Comparison||0.24|-1.61|0.144
91057926|NCT00261443|181997782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-1.1||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.19|-0.01||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, and baseline value. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 12 Comparison||-0.01|-2.19|0.047
91057927|NCT00261443|181997782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-1.39||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|-0.25||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, and baseline value. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 16 Comparison||-0.25|-2.52|0.017
91057928|NCT00261443|181997782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-1.91||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.15|-0.68||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, and baseline value. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 20 Comparison||-0.68|-3.15|0.003
91057929|NCT00261443|181997782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-2.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.47|-0.89||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, and baseline value. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 24 Comparison||-0.89|-3.47|<0.001
91057930|NCT00261443|181997782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-2.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.06|-1.19||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, and baseline value. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 28 Comparison||-1.19|-4.06|<0.001
91057931|NCT00261443|181997782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-2.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|-0.95||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, and baseline value. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 32 Comparison||-0.95|-3.70|<0.001
91057932|NCT00261443|181997782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-2.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.19|-1.37||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, and baseline value. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 36 Comparison||-1.37|-4.19|<0.001
91078368|NCT03313310|182042253|OTHER|A one-sample test for change between baseline and 3-month follow-up was conducted.||||||0.75||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.10. This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|McNemar|||||||0.75
90817099|NCT02294734|181512648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.87||||75.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.29||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LLL; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.29|0.59|75.82
90817100|NCT02294734|181512648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.98||||54.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.39||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Region; Upper; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.39|0.69|54.22
90817101|NCT02294734|181512648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.92||||66.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.35||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Region; Upper; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.35|0.63|66.46
90817102|NCT02294734|181512648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.16||||21.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.71||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Region; Upper; D12D28 . The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.71|0.79|21.45
90817103|NCT02294734|181512648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.86||||69.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.5||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Region; Lower; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.50|0.50|69.91
90817104|NCT02294734|181512648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.86||||75.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.31||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Region; Lower; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.31|0.57|75.29
90817105|NCT02294734|181512648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.03||||44.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.58||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Region; Lower; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.58|0.68|44.05
90817106|NCT02294734|181512648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.82||||94.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.04||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC;Scan Trimmed; Region; Central; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.04|0.65|94.93
90817107|NCT02294734|181512648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.77||||97.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.01||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Region Central; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.01|0.59|97.11
91057933|NCT00261443|181997782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-2.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.13|-1.29||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, and baseline value. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 40 Comparison||-1.29|-4.13|<0.001
91057934|NCT00261443|181997782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-2.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.38|-1.46||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, and baseline value. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 44 Comparison||-1.46|-4.38|<0.001
91057935|NCT00261443|181997782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-3.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.59|-1.57||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, and baseline value. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 48 Comparison||-1.57|-4.59|<0.001
91078369|NCT03313310|182042254|OTHER|A one-sample test for change between baseline and 8-month follow-up was conducted.||||||0.55||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.10. This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|McNemar|||||||0.55
91057936|NCT00261443|181997782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-3.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.55|-1.54||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, and baseline value. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 52 Comparison||-1.54|-4.55|<0.001
91057937|NCT00261443|181997784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|0.2||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.94||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Baseline Comparison||0.94|-0.54|0.590
91057938|NCT00261443|181997784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.5||||0.371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|0.6||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 4 Comparison||0.60|-1.59|0.371
91057939|NCT00261443|181997784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-1.04||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|0.25||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 8 Comparison||0.25|-2.33|0.113
91057940|NCT00261443|181997784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-1.0||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28|0.29||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 12 Comparison||0.29|-2.28|0.128
91057941|NCT00261443|181997784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.85||||0.205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|0.47||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 16 Comparison||0.47|-2.16|0.205
91057942|NCT00261443|181997784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-1.13||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.59|0.32||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 20 Comparison||0.32|-2.59|0.125
91057943|NCT00261443|181997784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-1.43||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.92|0.06||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 24 Comparison||0.06|-2.92|0.061
91057944|NCT00261443|181997784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-1.51||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.07|0.06||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 28 Comparison||0.06|-3.07|0.060
91057945|NCT00261443|181997784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-1.62||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.21|-0.03||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 32 Comparison||-0.03|-3.21|0.046
91057946|NCT00261443|181997784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-1.15||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.77|0.47||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 36 Comparison||0.47|-2.77|0.164
91057947|NCT00261443|181997784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-1.53||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.16|0.1||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 40 Comparison||0.10|-3.16|0.066
91057948|NCT00261443|181997784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-1.57||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.24|0.1||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 44 Comparison||0.10|-3.24|0.066
91057949|NCT00261443|181997784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-2.08||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.73|-0.43||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 48 Comparison||-0.43|-3.73|0.014
91057950|NCT00261443|181997784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-2.01||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.68|-0.34||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 52 Comparison||-0.34|-3.68|0.019
90817108|NCT02294734|181512648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.89||||85.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.11||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Region Central; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.11|0.70|85.41
90817109|NCT02294734|181512648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.97||||54.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.53||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Region; Distal; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.53|0.62|54.73
90817110|NCT02294734|181512648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.89||||72.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.3||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Region; Distal; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.30|0.61|72.31
90817111|NCT02294734|181512648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.21||||15.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.75||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Region; Distal; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.75|0.84|15.05
90817112|NCT02294734|181512648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.88||||84.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.13||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Region; Total; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.13|0.68|84.87
90817113|NCT02294734|181512648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.82||||92.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.08||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Region; Total; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.08|0.63|92.24
90817114|NCT02294734|181512648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.96||||63.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.22||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Region; Total; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.22|0.75|63.42
90817115|NCT02294734|181512648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.17||||9.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.46||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RUL; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.46|0.93|9.05
90817116|NCT02294734|181512648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.95||||66.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.22||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RUL; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.22|0.74|66.40
90817117|NCT02294734|181512648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.78||||97.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.0||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RUL; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.00|0.60|97.39
90817118|NCT02294734|181512648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.13||||16.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.42||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LUL; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.42|0.89|16.02
90817119|NCT02294734|181512648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.9||||75.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.21||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LUL; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.21|0.68|75.69
91078370|NCT03313310|182042254|OTHER|A one-sample test for change between baseline and 3-month follow-up was conducted.||||||1||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.10. This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|McNemar|||||||1.00
90817120|NCT02294734|181512648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.86||||90.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.08||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LUL; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.08|0.69|90.22
90817121|NCT02294734|181512648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.21||||9.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.62||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RML; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.62|0.91|9.64
90817122|NCT02294734|181512648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.15||||20.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.61||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RML; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.61|0.82|20.44
90817123|NCT02294734|181512648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.98||||55.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.31||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RML; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.31|0.73|55.06
90817124|NCT02294734|181512648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.36||||5.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.97||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RLL; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.97|0.94|5.29
90817125|NCT02294734|181512648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.11||||28.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.6||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RLL; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.60|0.77|28.82
90817126|NCT02294734|181512648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.81||||93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.07||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RLL; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.07|0.61|93.00
90817127|NCT02294734|181512648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.42||||1.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.95||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LLL; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.95|1.03|1.64
90817128|NCT02294734|181512648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.0||||50.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.38||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LLL; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.38|0.72|50.71
90817129|NCT02294734|181512648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.68||||99.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.91||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LLL; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||0.91|0.51|99.52
90817130|NCT02294734|181512648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.22||||3.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.51||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Region; Upper; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.51|0.99|3.10
90817131|NCT02294734|181512648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.92||||75.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.18||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Region; Upper; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.18|0.71|75.39
91078371|NCT03313310|182042255|OTHER|A one-sample test for change between baseline and 8-month follow-up was conducted.||||||0.45||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.10. This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|McNemar|||||||0.45
91057951|NCT00261443|181997786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|0.05||||0.597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.22||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Baseline Comparison||0.22|-0.13|0.597
91057952|NCT00261443|181997786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|0.02||||0.838|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.21||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 4 Comparison||0.21|-0.17|0.838
91057953|NCT00261443|181997786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.11||||0.291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.1||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 8 Comparison||0.10|-0.32|0.291
90817132|NCT02294734|181512648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.85||||93.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.05||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Region; Upper; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.05|0.68|93.29
90817133|NCT02294734|181512648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.33||||3.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.82||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Region;Lower; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.82|0.97|3.79
90817134|NCT02294734|181512648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.06||||36.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.48||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Region; Lower; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.48|0.76|36.75
90817135|NCT02294734|181512648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.72||||99.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.93||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Region;Lower; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||0.93|0.56|99.32
90817136|NCT02294734|181512648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.06||||18.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.2||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC;Scan Trimmed;Region;Central; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.20|0.93|18.91
90817137|NCT02294734|181512648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.0||||47.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.15||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC;Scan Trimmed; Region Central; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.15|0.87|47.35
90817138|NCT02294734|181512648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.96||||78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.07||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC;Scan Trimmed;Region Central; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.07|0.86|78.00
90817139|NCT02294734|181512648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.29||||2.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.67||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC;Scan Trimmed; Region;Distal; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.67|1.00|2.65
90817140|NCT02294734|181512648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.97||||58.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.29||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC;Scan Trimmed;Region; Distal; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.29|0.73|58.48
90817141|NCT02294734|181512648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.75||||99.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.92||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.No|TLC;Scan Trimmed;Region;Distal; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||0.92|0.61|99.64
91057954|NCT00261443|181997786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.14||||0.219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.08||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 12 Comparison||0.08|-0.37|0.219
91057955|NCT00261443|181997786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.18||||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.05||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 16 Comparison||0.05|-0.41|0.133
91057956|NCT00261443|181997786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.21||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.04||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 20 Comparison||0.04|-0.46|0.092
91057957|NCT00261443|181997786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.31||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.05||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 24 Comparison||-0.05|-0.56|0.018
91057958|NCT00261443|181997786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.29||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.03||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 28 Comparison||-0.03|-0.56|0.029
91057959|NCT00261443|181997786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.31||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.04||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 32 Comparison||-0.04|-0.57|0.024
91057960|NCT00261443|181997786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.29||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.02||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 36 Comparison||-0.02|-0.56|0.035
91057961|NCT00261443|181997786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.29||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.02||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 40 Comparison||-0.02|-0.56|0.038
91057962|NCT00261443|181997786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.34||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.07||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 44 Comparison||-0.07|-0.62|0.015
91057963|NCT00261443|181997786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.39||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.12||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 48 Comparison||-0.12|-0.67|0.006
91057964|NCT00261443|181997786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.35||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.07||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 52 Comparison||-0.07|-0.62|0.015
91057965|NCT00261443|181997788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|0.04||||0.588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.16||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Baseline Comparison||0.16|-0.09|0.588
91057966|NCT00261443|181997788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.01||||0.922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.16||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 4 Comparison||0.16|-0.18|0.922
91057967|NCT00261443|181997788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.11||||0.266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.08||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 8 Comparison||0.08|-0.30|0.266
91057968|NCT00261443|181997788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.14||||0.159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.06||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 12 Comparison||0.06|-0.34|0.159
91057969|NCT00261443|181997788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.11||||0.305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.1||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 16 Comparison||0.10|-0.31|0.305
91057970|NCT00261443|181997788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.13||||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.09||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 20 Comparison||0.09|-0.35|0.251
91057971|NCT00261443|181997788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.17||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.05||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 24 Comparison||0.05|-0.40|0.135
91057972|NCT00261443|181997788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.22||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.02||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 28 Comparison||0.02|-0.46|0.073
91057973|NCT00261443|181997788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.26||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.02||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 32 Comparison||-0.02|-0.50|0.034
91057974|NCT00261443|181997788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.17||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.07||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 36 Comparison||0.07|-0.41|0.174
91057975|NCT00261443|181997788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.19||||0.132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.06||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 40 Comparison||0.06|-0.43|0.132
91057976|NCT00261443|181997788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.18||||0.152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.07||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 44 Comparison||0.07|-0.42|0.152
91057977|NCT00261443|181997788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.23||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.01||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 48 Comparison||0.01|-0.48|0.060
91057978|NCT00261443|181997788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.22||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.03||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 52 Comparison||0.03|-0.46|0.085
91057979|NCT00261443|181997791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|0.04||||0.774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.33||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 4 Comparison||0.33|-0.25|0.774
91057980|NCT00261443|181997791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.19||||0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.11||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 8 Comparison||0.11|-0.49|0.213
91057981|NCT00261443|181997791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.12||||0.465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.2||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 12 Comparison||0.20|-0.43|0.465
91057982|NCT00261443|181997791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.29||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.02||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 16 Comparison||0.02|-0.59|0.068
91078372|NCT03313310|182042255|OTHER|A one-sample test for change between baseline and 3-month follow-up was conducted.||||||0.07||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.10. This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|McNemar|||||||0.07
90817142|NCT02294734|181512648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.19||||1.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.4||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC;Scan Trimmed; Region;Total; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.40|1.01|1.90
90817143|NCT02294734|181512648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.97||||63.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.16||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC;Scan Trimmed;Region;Total; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.16|0.81|63.03
90817144|NCT02294734|181512648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.83||||99.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.97||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed;Region;Total; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||0.97|0.72|99.19
90817145|NCT02294734|181512649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.92||||67.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.33||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures random effect|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RUL; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.33|0.64|67.19
90817146|NCT02294734|181512649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.03||||44.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.61||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures random effect|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RUL; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.61|0.66|44.80
90817147|NCT02294734|181512649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.95||||59.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.46||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures random effect|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RUL; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.46|0.61|59.90
90817148|NCT02294734|181512649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.91||||70.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.31||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures random effect|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LUL; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.31|0.63|70.12
90817149|NCT02294734|181512649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.82||||83.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.22||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures random effect|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LUL; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.22|0.54|83.98
90817150|NCT02294734|181512649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.08||||34.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.57||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures random effect|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LUL; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.57|0.73|34.93
91057983|NCT00261443|181997791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.27||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.05||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 20 Comparison||0.05|-0.58|0.095
91057984|NCT00261443|181997791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.29||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.04||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 24 Comparison||0.04|-0.62|0.082
91057985|NCT00261443|181997791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.36||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.03||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 28 Comparison||-0.03|-0.69|0.033
91078373|NCT00824382|182042339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean for the difference|0.091|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.051|0.131|||ANCOVA|||Olodaterol 2mcg - Placebo||0.131|0.051|<0.0001
91078374|NCT00824382|182042339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean for the difference|0.132|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001||95.0|0.091|0.172|||ANCOVA|||Olodaterol 5mcg - Placebo||0.172|0.091|<0.0001
90817151|NCT02294734|181512649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.14||||32.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.96||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures random effect|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RML; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.96|0.65|32.45
90817152|NCT02294734|181512649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.7||||95.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.06||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures random effect|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RML; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.06|0.46|95.35
90817153|NCT02294734|181512649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.0||||50.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.54||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures random effect|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RML; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.54|0.66|50.10
90817154|NCT02294734|181512649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.94||||59.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.6||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures random effect|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RLL; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.60|0.55|59.37
90817155|NCT02294734|181512649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.8||||87.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.17||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures random effect|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RLL; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.17|0.55|87.99
90817156|NCT02294734|181512649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.89||||70.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.36||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures random effect|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RLL; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.36|0.59|70.87
90817157|NCT02294734|181512649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.91||||63.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.6||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures random effect|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LLL; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.60|0.51|63.71
90817158|NCT02294734|181512649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.91||||65.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.44||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures random effect|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LLL; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.44|0.57|65.99
90817159|NCT02294734|181512649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.89||||71.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.32||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures random effect|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LLL; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.32|0.60|71.95
90817160|NCT02294734|181512649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.01||||48.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.43||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures random effect|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Region;Upper; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.43|0.71|48.28
91057986|NCT00261443|181997791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.31||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.02||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 32 Comparison||0.02|-0.64|0.062
91057987|NCT00261443|181997791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.43||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.1||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 36 Comparison||-0.10|-0.76|0.011
91078375|NCT00824382|182042339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean for the difference|0.132|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.092|0.172|||ANCOVA|||Olodaterol 10mcg - Placebo||0.172|0.092|<0.0001
91057988|NCT00261443|181997791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.37||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.04||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 40 Comparison||-0.04|-0.70|0.027
91057989|NCT00261443|181997791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.37||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.04||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 44 Comparison||-0.04|-0.71|0.029
91057990|NCT00261443|181997791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.4||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.06||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 48 Comparison||-0.06|-0.74|0.022
91057991|NCT00261443|181997791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.4||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.06||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 52 Comparison||-0.06|-0.75|0.023
91057992|NCT00261443|181997793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|0.09||||0.486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.36||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 4 Comparison||0.36|-0.17|0.486
91057993|NCT00261443|181997793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.04||||0.793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.23||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 8 Comparison||0.23|-0.30|0.793
91057994|NCT00261443|181997793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.06||||0.665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.22||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 12 Comparison||0.22|-0.34|0.665
91057995|NCT00261443|181997793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.07||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.22||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 16 Comparison||0.22|-0.35|0.650
91057996|NCT00261443|181997793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.06||||0.705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.23||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 20 Comparison||0.23|-0.34|0.705
91057997|NCT00261443|181997793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.08||||0.572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.21||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 24 Comparison||0.21|-0.38|0.572
91057998|NCT00261443|181997793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.12||||0.418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.18||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 28 Comparison||0.18|-0.43|0.418
91057999|NCT00261443|181997793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.2||||0.185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.1||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 32 Comparison||0.10|-0.51|0.185
91058000|NCT00261443|181997793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.1||||0.536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.21||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 36 Comparison||0.21|-0.41|0.536
91058001|NCT00261443|181997793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.07||||0.637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.24||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 40 Comparison||0.24|-0.39|0.637
91058002|NCT00261443|181997793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.03||||0.875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.29||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 44 Comparison||0.29|-0.34|0.875
91058003|NCT00261443|181997793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.14||||0.378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.17||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 48 Comparison||0.17|-0.46|0.378
91058004|NCT00261443|181997793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.12||||0.474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.2||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 52 Comparison||0.20|-0.43|0.474
91058005|NCT00261443|181997795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|0.1||||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.4||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 4 Comparison||0.40|-0.19|0.488
91058006|NCT00261443|181997795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.15||||0.349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.16||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 8 Comparison||0.16|-0.46|0.349
91058007|NCT00261443|181997795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.07||||0.653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.25||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 12 Comparison||0.25|-0.39|0.653
91058008|NCT00261443|181997795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.24||||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.08||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 16 Comparison||0.08|-0.56|0.141
91058009|NCT00261443|181997795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.22||||0.196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.11||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 20 Comparison||0.11|-0.54|0.196
91058010|NCT00261443|181997795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.29||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.04||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 24 Comparison||0.04|-0.62|0.088
91058011|NCT00261443|181997795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.34||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.01||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 28 Comparison||-0.01|-0.68|0.047
91058012|NCT00261443|181997795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.33||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.01||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 32 Comparison||0.01|-0.67|0.057
91058013|NCT00261443|181997795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.33||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.02||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 36 Comparison||0.02|-0.68|0.063
91058014|NCT00261443|181997795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.3||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.05||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 40 Comparison||0.05|-0.65|0.091
91058015|NCT00261443|181997795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.29||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.06||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 44 Comparison||0.06|-0.64|0.105
91058016|NCT00261443|181997795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.36||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.01||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 48 Comparison||-0.01|-0.72|0.047
91058017|NCT00261443|181997795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.33||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.03||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 52 Comparison||0.03|-0.69|0.073
91058018|NCT00261443|181997796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of Remission Rate|1.0||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.08||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel General Association Test controlling for mood stabilizer and index mood episode.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Aripiprazole/Placebo|Week 4||1.08|0.92|0.910
91058019|NCT00261443|181997796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of Remission Rate|1.04||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.11||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel General Association Test controlling for mood stabilizer and index mood episode.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Aripiprazole/Placebo|Week 8||1.11|0.97|0.300
91058020|NCT00261443|181997796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of Remission Rate|1.01||||0.744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.08||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel General Association Test controlling for mood stabilizer and index mood episode.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Aripiprazole/Placebo|Week 12||1.08|0.95|0.744
91058021|NCT00261443|181997796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of Remission Rate|1.09||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.17||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel General Association Test controlling for mood stabilizer and index mood episode.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Aripiprazole/Placebo|Week 16||1.17|1.02|0.015
90817161|NCT02294734|181512649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.95||||61.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.39||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures random effect|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Region;Upper; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.39|0.65|61.06
91058022|NCT00261443|181997796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of Remission Rate|1.05||||0.264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.14||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel General Association Test controlling for mood stabilizer and index mood episode.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Aripiprazole/Placebo|Week 20||1.14|0.97|0.264
91058023|NCT00261443|181997796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of Remission Rate|1.05||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.11||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel General Association Test controlling for mood stabilizer and index mood episode.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Aripiprazole/Placebo|Week 24||1.11|0.99|0.090
91058024|NCT00261443|181997796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of Remission Rate|1.08||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.17||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel General Association Test controlling for mood stabilizer and index mood episode.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Aripiprazole/Placebo|Week 28||1.17|1.00|0.056
91058025|NCT00261443|181997796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of Remission Rate|0.99||||0.756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.05||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel General Association Test controlling for mood stabilizer and index mood episode.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Aripiprazole/Placebo|Week 32||1.05|0.93|0.756
91058026|NCT00261443|181997796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of Remission Rate|1.05||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.13||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel General Association Test controlling for mood stabilizer and index mood episode.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Aripiprazole/Placebo|Week 36||1.13|0.98|0.177
91058027|NCT00261443|181997796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of Remission Rate|1.07||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.13||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel General Association Test controlling for mood stabilizer and index mood episode.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Aripiprazole/Placebo|Week 40||1.13|1.01|0.021
91058028|NCT00261443|181997796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of Remission Rate|1.06||||0.216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.16||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel General Association Test controlling for mood stabilizer and index mood episode.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Aripiprazole/Placebo|Week 44||1.16|0.96|0.216
91058029|NCT00261443|181997796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of Remission Rate|1.07||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.15||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel General Association Test controlling for mood stabilizer and index mood episode.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Aripiprazole/Placebo|Week 48||1.15|1.01|0.017
91058030|NCT00261443|181997796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of Remission Rate|1.06||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.13||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel General Association Test controlling for mood stabilizer and index mood episode.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Aripiprazole/Placebo|Week 52||1.13|0.99|0.083
91058031|NCT00261443|181997797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.78||||0.132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.08|||Stratified Log Rank Test|Stratified Log Rank Test p-value for equality of survival curves.||||1.08|0.56|0.132
91058032|NCT00261443|181997838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.64||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Baseline Treatment Comparison; Aripiprazole/Placebo||||0.640
91058033|NCT00261443|181997838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.423||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 52 LOCF Treatment Comparison; Aripiprazole/Placebo||||0.423
91058034|NCT00261443|181997838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.297||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Highest Value Treatment Comparison; Aripiprazole/Placebo||||0.297
91058035|NCT00261443|181997838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.707||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Lowest Value Treatment Comparison; Aripiprazole/Placebo||||0.707
91058036|NCT00261443|181997839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.656||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Baseline Treatment Comparison; Aripiprazole/Placebo||||0.656
91058037|NCT00261443|181997839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.045||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 52 LOCF Treatment Comparison; Aripiprazole/Placebo||||0.045
91058038|NCT00261443|181997839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.532||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Highest Value Treatment Comparison; Aripiprazole/Placebo||||0.532
91058039|NCT00261443|181997839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.578||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Lowest Value Treatment Comparison; Aripiprazole/Placebo||||0.578
91058040|NCT00261443|181997840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.619||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Baseline Treatment Comparison; Aripiprazole/Placebo||||0.619
91058041|NCT00261443|181997840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.868||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 52 LOCF Treatment Comparison; Aripiprazole/Placebo||||0.868
91058042|NCT00261443|181997840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.284||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Highest Value Treatment Comparison; Aripiprazole/Placebo||||0.284
91058043|NCT00261443|181997840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.481||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Lowest Value Treatment Comparison; Aripiprazole/Placebo||||0.481
91058044|NCT00261443|181997841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.184||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Baseline Treatment Comparison; Aripiprazole/Placebo||||0.184
91058045|NCT00261443|181997841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.073||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 52 LOCF Treatment Comparison; Aripiprazole/Placebo||||0.073
91058046|NCT00261443|181997841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Highest Value Treatment Comparison; Aripiprazole/Placebo||||0.020
91058047|NCT00261443|181997841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.206||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Lowest Value Treatment Comparison; Aripiprazole/Placebo||||0.206
91058048|NCT00261443|181997842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.142||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Baseline Treatment Comparison; Aripiprazole/Placebo||||0.142
91058049|NCT00261443|181997842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.11||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 52 LOCF Treatment Comparison; Aripiprazole/Placebo||||0.110
91058050|NCT00261443|181997842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.022||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Highest Value Treatment Comparison; Aripiprazole/Placebo||||0.022
91058051|NCT00261443|181997842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.542||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Lowest Value Treatment Comparison; Aripiprazole/Placebo||||0.542
91058052|NCT00261443|181997843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.916||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Baseline Treatment Comparison; Aripiprazole/Placebo||||0.916
91058053|NCT00261443|181997843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.707||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 52 LOCF Treatment Comparison; Aripiprazole/Placebo||||0.707
91058054|NCT00261443|181997843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.665||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Highest Value Treatment Comparison; Aripiprazole/Placebo||||0.665
91058055|NCT00261443|181997843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.757||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Lowest Value Treatment Comparison; Aripiprazole/Placebo||||0.757
91058056|NCT00261443|181997844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.871||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Baseline Treatment Comparison; Aripiprazole/Placebo||||0.871
91058057|NCT00261443|181997844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.362||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 52 LOCF Treatment Comparison; Aripiprazole/Placebo||||0.362
91058058|NCT00261443|181997844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.295||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Highest Value Treatment Comparison; Aripiprazole/Placebo||||0.295
91058059|NCT00261443|181997844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.519||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Lowest Value Treatment Comparison; Aripiprazole/Placebo||||0.519
91058060|NCT00261443|181997845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.935||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Baseline Treatment Comparison; Aripiprazole/Placebo||||0.935
91058061|NCT00261443|181997845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.174||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 52 LOCF Treatment Comparison; Aripiprazole/Placebo||||0.174
91058062|NCT00261443|181997845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.527||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Highest Value Treatment Comparison; Aripiprazole/Placebo||||0.527
91058063|NCT00261443|181997845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.753||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Lowest Value Treatment Comparison; Aripiprazole/Placebo||||0.753
91058064|NCT00261443|181997846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.85||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Baseline Treatment Comparison; Aripiprazole/Placebo||||0.850
91058065|NCT00261443|181997846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.709||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 52 LOCF Treatment Comparison; Aripiprazole/Placebo||||0.709
91058066|NCT00261443|181997846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.326||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Highest Value Treatment Comparison; Aripiprazole/Placebo||||0.326
91058067|NCT00261443|181997846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.201||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Lowest Value Treatment Comparison; Aripiprazole/Placebo||||0.201
91058068|NCT00261443|181997847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47||||0.491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|1.81||ANOVA model, controlling for treatment and mood stabilizer, is used for baseline. ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and baseline value, is used for mean change from baseline.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Week 52 (LOCF) Treatment Difference||1.81|-0.87|0.491
91058069|NCT00261443|181997847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|1.12||ANOVA model, controlling for treatment and mood stabilizer, is used for baseline. ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and baseline value, is used for mean change from baseline.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Highest Value Treatment Difference||1.12|-1.21|0.945
91058070|NCT00261443|181997848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.279||95.0||||CMH General Association Test controlling for mood stabilizer.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12 Treatment Comparison||||0.279
91058071|NCT00261443|181997848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.247||95.0||||CMH General Association Test controlling for mood stabilizer.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24 Treatment Comparison||||0.247
91058072|NCT00261443|181997848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.329||95.0||||CMH General Association Test controlling for mood stabilizer.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 36 Treatment Comparison||||0.329
91058073|NCT00261443|181997848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.928||95.0||||CMH General Association Test controlling for mood stabilizer.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52 Treatment Comparison||||0.928
91058074|NCT00261443|181997848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.17||||0.584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.09||CMH General Association Test controlling for mood stabilizer.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52 (LOCF) Treatment Comparison||2.09|0.66|0.584
91058075|NCT00261443|181997848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.26||||0.369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.08||CMH General Association Test controlling for mood stabilizer.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"At Any Time Treatment Comparison"||2.08|0.76|0.369
91058076|NCT00261443|181997849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.685||95.0||||CMH General Association Test controlling for mood stabilizer.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12 Treatment Comparison||||0.685
91058077|NCT00261443|181997849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.792||95.0||||CMH General Association Test controlling for mood stabilizer.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24 Treatment Comparison||||0.792
91058078|NCT00261443|181997849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.805||95.0||||CMH General Association Test controlling for mood stabilizer.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 36 Treatment Comparison||||0.805
91058079|NCT00261443|181997849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.533||95.0||||CMH General Association Test controlling for mood stabilizer.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52 Treatment Comparison||||0.533
91058080|NCT00261443|181997849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.78||||0.545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.74||CMH General Association Test controlling for mood stabilizer.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52 (LOCF) Treatment Comparison||1.74|0.35|0.545
91058081|NCT00261443|181997849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01||||0.987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.86||CMH General Association Test controlling for mood stabilizer.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"At Any Time Treatment Comparison"||1.86|0.54|0.987
91058082|NCT00261443|181997850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.646||95.0||||ANOVA model, controlling for treatment and mood stabilizer, is used for baseline. ANCOVA model on the rank of the change from baseline, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and the rank of baseline is used for change from baseline.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|||Treatment Comparison Baseline||||0.646
91058083|NCT00261443|181997850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.006||95.0||||ANOVA model, controlling for treatment and mood stabilizer, is used for baseline. ANCOVA model on the rank of the change from baseline, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and the rank of baseline is used for change from baseline.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|||Week 12 Treatment Comparison||||0.006
91058084|NCT00261443|181997850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.485||95.0||||ANOVA model, controlling for treatment and mood stabilizer, is used for baseline. ANCOVA model on the rank of the change from baseline, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and the rank of baseline is used for change from baseline.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|||Week 24 Treatment Comparison||||0.485
91058085|NCT00261443|181997850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.325||95.0||||ANOVA model, controlling for treatment and mood stabilizer, is used for baseline. ANCOVA model on the rank of the change from baseline, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and the rank of baseline is used for change from baseline.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|||Week 36 Treatment Comparison||||0.325
91058086|NCT00261443|181997850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.374||95.0||||ANOVA model, controlling for treatment and mood stabilizer, is used for baseline. ANCOVA model on the rank of the change from baseline, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and the rank of baseline is used for change from baseline.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|||Week 52 Treatment Comparison||||0.374
91058087|NCT00261443|181997850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.064||95.0||||ANOVA model, controlling for treatment and mood stabilizer, is used for baseline. ANCOVA model on the rank of the change from baseline, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and the rank of baseline is used for change from baseline.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|||Week 52 (LOCF) Treatment Comparison||||0.064
91058088|NCT00261443|181997850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.31||95.0||||ANOVA model, controlling for treatment and mood stabilizer, is used for baseline. ANCOVA model on the rank of the change from baseline, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and the rank of baseline is used for change from baseline.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|||Highest Value Treatment Comparison||||0.310
91058089|NCT00261443|181997850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.046||95.0||||ANOVA model, controlling for treatment and mood stabilizer, is used for baseline. ANCOVA model on the rank of the change from baseline, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and the rank of baseline is used for change from baseline.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|||Lowest Value Treatment Comparison||||0.046
91058090|NCT00261443|181997852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.331||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Baseline ALP||||0.331
91058091|NCT00261443|181997852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.353||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Change from Baseline in ALP at Week 52 (LOCF)||||0.353
91058092|NCT00261443|181997852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.298||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison ALP Highest Change Value During Phase 3||||0.298
91058093|NCT00261443|181997853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.111||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Baseline ALT||||0.111
91058094|NCT00261443|181997853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.948||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Change in ALT at Week 52 (LOCF)||||0.948
91058095|NCT00261443|181997853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.559||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison ALT Highest Change Value During Phase 3||||0.559
91058096|NCT00261443|181997854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.077||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Baseline AST||||0.077
91058097|NCT00261443|181997854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.255||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Change in AST at Week 52 (LOCF)||||0.255
91058098|NCT00261443|181997854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.918||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison AST Highest Change Value During Phase 3||||0.918
91058099|NCT00261443|181997855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.118||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Baseline BUN||||0.118
91058100|NCT00261443|181997855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.532||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Change from Baseline in BUN at Week 52 (LOCF)||||0.532
91058101|NCT00261443|181997855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.169||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison BUN Highest Value of Change During Phase 3||||0.169
91058102|NCT00261443|181997856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.878||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Baseline Total Cholesterol (fasting)||||0.878
91058103|NCT00261443|181997856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.544||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Change from Baseline in Total Cholesterol (fasting) at Week 52 (LOCF)||||0.544
91058104|NCT00261443|181997856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.658||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Highest Value of Change in Total Cholesterol (fasting) in Phase 3||||0.658
90817162|NCT02294734|181512649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.19||||18.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.74||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures random effect|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Region;Upper; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.74|0.82|18.05
90817163|NCT02294734|181512649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.92||||61.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.61||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures random effect|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Region;Lower; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.61|0.53|61.12
90817164|NCT02294734|181512649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.92||||64.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.41||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures random effect|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Region; Lower; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.41|0.61|64.40
90817165|NCT02294734|181512649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.07||||38.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.66||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures random effect|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Region;Lower; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.66|0.69|38.12
90817166|NCT02294734|181512649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.85||||91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.08||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures random effect|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC;Scan Trimmed;Region;Central; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.08|0.67|91.00
90817167|NCT02294734|181512649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.81||||94.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.05||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures random effect|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC;Scan Trimmed; Region Central; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.05|0.62|94.52
90817168|NCT02294734|181512649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.9||||82.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.13||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures random effect|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC;Scan Trimmed;Region Central; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.13|0.72|82.11
90817169|NCT02294734|181512649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.01||||48.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.6||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures random effect|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC;Scan Trimmed; Region;Distal; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.60|0.64|48.10
90817170|NCT02294734|181512649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.93||||65.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.36||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures random effect|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC;Scan Trimmed;Region; Distal; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.36|0.64|65.66
91058105|NCT00261443|181997857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.043||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Baseline Creatine Kinase||||0.043
91058106|NCT00261443|181997857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.019||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Change from baseline in Creatine Kinase at Week 52 (LOCF)||||0.019
91058107|NCT00261443|181997857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.176||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Highest Value of Change in Creatine Kinase During Phase 3||||0.176
91058108|NCT00261443|181997858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.105||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Baseline Creatinine||||0.105
91058109|NCT00261443|181997858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.634||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Change from Baseline in Creatinine at Week 52 (LOCF)||||0.634
91058110|NCT00261443|181997858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.958||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Highest Value of Change in Creatinine During Phase 3||||0.958
91058111|NCT00261443|181997859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.507||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Baseline Eosinophils (relative)||||0.507
90817171|NCT02294734|181512649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.25||||11.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.8||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures random effect|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC;Scan Trimmed;Region;Distal; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.80|0.87|11.46
90817172|NCT02294734|181512649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.91||||77.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.17||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures random effect|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC;Scan Trimmed; Region;Total; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.17|0.70|77.20
90817173|NCT02294734|181512649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.86||||87.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.11||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures random effect|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC;Scan Trimmed;Region;Total; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.11|0.66|87.35
90817174|NCT02294734|181512649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.98||||56.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.25||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures random effect|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed;Region;Total; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.25|0.77|56.53
90817175|NCT02294734|181512649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.19||||7.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.5||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RUL; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.50|0.94|7.29
90817176|NCT02294734|181512649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.98||||55.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.28||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RUL; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.28|0.75|55.09
90817177|NCT02294734|181512649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.79||||96.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.02||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RUL; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.02|0.61|96.49
90817178|NCT02294734|181512649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.13||||14.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.44||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LUL; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.44|0.90|14.54
90817179|NCT02294734|181512649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.94||||66.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.25||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LUL; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.25|0.71|66.85
90817180|NCT02294734|181512649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.88||||85.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.11||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LUL; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.11|0.70|85.77
90817181|NCT02294734|181512649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.24||||8.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.7||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RML; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.70|0.91|8.67
90817182|NCT02294734|181512649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.22||||14.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.75||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RML; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.75|0.84|14.80
91058112|NCT00261443|181997859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.834||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Change from Baseline in Eosinophils (relative) at Week 52 (LOCF)||||0.834
91058113|NCT00261443|181997859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.511||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Highest Value of Change in Eosinophils (relative) During Phase 3||||0.511
91058114|NCT00261443|181997860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.741||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Baseline Glucose (fasting)||||0.741
91058115|NCT00261443|181997860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.962||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Change from Baseline in Glucose (fasting) at Week 52 (LOCF)||||0.962
91058116|NCT00261443|181997860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.592||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Highest Change Value in Glucose (fasting) During Phase 3||||0.592
91058117|NCT00261443|181997861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.08||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Baseline Hemoglobin||||0.080
91058118|NCT00261443|181997861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.868||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Change from Baseline in Hemoglobin at Week 52 (LOCF)||||0.868
91058119|NCT00261443|181997861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.299||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Lowest Change Value in Hemoglobin During Phase 3||||0.299
91058120|NCT00261443|181997862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.187||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Baseline Hematocrit||||0.187
91058121|NCT00261443|181997862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.377||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Change from Baseline in Hematocrit During Week 52 (LOCF)||||0.377
91058122|NCT00261443|181997862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.494||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Lowest Value of Change in Hematocrit During Phase 3||||0.494
91058123|NCT00261443|181997863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.18||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Baseline HDL Cholesterol (fasting)||||0.180
91058124|NCT00261443|181997863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.95||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Change from Baseline in HDL Cholesterol (fasting) at Week 52 (LOCF)||||0.950
91058125|NCT00261443|181997863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.342||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Lowest Value of Change in HDL Cholesterol (fasting) During Phase 3||||0.342
91058126|NCT00261443|181997864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.349||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Baseline HOMA2-Percent Beta||||0.349
91058127|NCT00261443|181997864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.624||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Change from Baseline in HOMA2-Percent Beta at Week 52 (LOCF)||||0.624
91058128|NCT00261443|181997864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.329||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Highest Value in HOMA2-Percent Beta During Phase 3||||0.329
91058129|NCT00261443|181997865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.55||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Baseline HOMA2-IR||||0.550
91058130|NCT00261443|181997865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.554||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Change from Baseline in HOMA2-IR at Week 52 (LOCF)||||0.554
91058131|NCT00261443|181997865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.87||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Highest Value of Change in HOMA2-IR, Phase 3 Safety Sample||||0.870
91058132|NCT00261443|181997866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Baseline Lactate Dehydrogenase||||0.004
91058133|NCT00261443|181997866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.034||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Baseline Lactate Dehydrogenase||||0.034
91058134|NCT00261443|181997866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.091||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Highest Value of Change in Lactate Dehydrogenase During Phase 3||||0.091
91058135|NCT00261443|181997867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.808||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Baseline LDL Cholesterol (fasting)||||0.808
91058136|NCT00261443|181997867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.507||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Change from Baseline at Week 52 (LOCF)||||0.507
91058137|NCT00261443|181997867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.948||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Highest Change Value in LDL Cholesterol (fasting)||||0.948
91058138|NCT00261443|181997868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.967||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Baseline Neutrophils (relative)||||0.967
91058139|NCT00261443|181997868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.486||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison in change from Baseline in Neutrophils (relative) at Week 52 (LOCF)||||0.486
91058140|NCT00261443|181997868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.323||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Highest Value of Change in Neutrophils (relative), Phase 3 Safety Sample||||0.323
91058141|NCT00261443|181997869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.663||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Baseline in Platelet Count||||0.663
91058142|NCT00261443|181997869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.322||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Change from Baseline at Week 52 (LOCF)||||0.322
91058143|NCT00261443|181997869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.358||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Highest Value of Change in Platelet Count, Phase 3 Safety Sample||||0.358
91058144|NCT00261443|181997869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.541||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Lowest Value of Change in Platelet Count, Phase 3 Safety Sample||||0.541
91058145|NCT00261443|181997870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.412||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Baseline Prolactin||||0.412
91058146|NCT00261443|181997870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison, Change from Baseline at Week 52 (LOCF)||||<0.001
91058147|NCT00261443|181997870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Highest Value of Change in Prolactin, Phase 3 Safety Sample||||0.004
91058148|NCT00261443|181997871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.63||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Baseline Total Bilirubin||||0.630
91058149|NCT00261443|181997871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.675||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Change from Baseline at Week 52 (LOCF)||||0.675
91058150|NCT00261443|181997871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.592||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Highest Value of Change in Total Bilirubin, Phase 3 Safety Sample||||0.592
91058151|NCT00261443|181997872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.273||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Baseline Triglycerides (fasting)||||0.273
91058152|NCT00261443|181997872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.489||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Change from Baseline at Week 52 (LOCF)||||0.489
91058153|NCT00261443|181997872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.415||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Highest Value of Change in Triglycerides (fasting), Phase 3 Safety Sample||||0.415
91058154|NCT00261443|181997873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.189||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Baseline Uric Acid||||0.189
91058155|NCT00261443|181997873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.35||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Change from Baseline at Week 52 (LOCF)||||0.350
91058156|NCT00261443|181997873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.799||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Highest Value of Change in Uric Acid, Phase 3 Safety Sample||||0.799
91058157|NCT00261443|181997874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.124||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Baseline Leukocytes||||0.124
91058158|NCT00261443|181997874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.295||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Change from Baseline at Week 52 (LOCF)||||0.295
91058159|NCT00261443|181997874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.735||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Highest Value of Change in Leukocytes, Phase 3||||0.735
91058160|NCT00261443|181997874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.505||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Lowest Value of Change in Leukocytes, Phase 3||||0.505
91058161|NCT00261443|181997876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.213||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Baseline QTc Bazett||||0.213
91058162|NCT00261443|181997876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.708||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison, Change from Baseline in QTc Bazett at Week 52 (LOCF)||||0.708
91058163|NCT00261443|181997876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.107||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Highest Value of Change in QTc Bazett, Phase 3||||0.107
91058164|NCT00261443|181997877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.205||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Baseline QTc (0.33)||||0.205
91058165|NCT00261443|181997877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.669||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison, Change from Baseline in QTc (0.33) at Week 52 (LOCF)||||0.669
91058166|NCT00261443|181997877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.072||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Highest Value of Change in QTc (0.33), Phase 3||||0.072
91058167|NCT00261443|181997878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.012||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Baseline PR||||0.012
91058168|NCT00261443|181997878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.027||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison, Change from Baseline in PR at Week 52 (LOCF)||||0.027
91058169|NCT00261443|181997878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.128||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Highest Value of Change in PR, Phase 3||||0.128
91058170|NCT00261443|181997879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.571||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Baseline RR||||0.571
91058171|NCT00261443|181997879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.353||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison, Change from Baseline in RR at Week 52 (LOCF)||||0.353
91058172|NCT00261443|181997879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.204||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Highest Value of Change in RR, Phase 3 Safety Sample||||0.204
91058173|NCT00261443|181997879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.435||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Lowest Value of Change in Prolactin, Phase 3 Safety Sample||||0.435
91058174|NCT00261443|181997880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.826||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Baseline QRS||||0.826
91058175|NCT00261443|181997880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.545||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison, Change from Baseline in QRS at Week 52 (LOCF)||||0.545
91058176|NCT00261443|181997880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.372||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Highest Value of Change in QRS, Phase 3||||0.372
91058177|NCT00261443|181997881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.27||ANOVA model, controlling for treatment and mood stabilizer, is used for baseline. ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and baseline value, is used for mean change from baseline.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Week 52 LOCF Treatment Difference||0.27|-0.07|0.235
91058178|NCT00261443|181997881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.36||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.64||ANOVA model, controlling for treatment and mood stabilizer, is used for baseline. ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and baseline value, is used for mean change from baseline.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Highest Value in Change Treatment Difference||0.64|0.08|0.012
91058179|NCT00261443|181997882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.587||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Baseline Heart Rate||||0.587
91058180|NCT00261443|181997882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.386||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison, Change from Baseline in Heart Rate at Week 52 (LOCF)||||0.386
91058181|NCT00261443|181997882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.405||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Highest Value of Change in Heart Rate, Phase 3||||0.405
91058182|NCT00261443|181997882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.253||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Lowest Value of Change in Heart Rate, Phase 3||||0.253
91058183|NCT00261443|181997883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.23||ANOVA model, controlling for treatment and mood stabilizer, is used for baseline. ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and baseline value, is used for mean change from baseline.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Week 52 LOCF Treatment Difference||0.23|-0.12|0.514
91058184|NCT00261443|181997883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.38||ANOVA model, controlling for treatment and mood stabilizer, is used for baseline. ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and baseline value, is used for mean change from baseline.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Highest Value of Change Treatment Difference||0.38|-0.14|0.362
91058185|NCT00261443|181997884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.04||ANOVA model, controlling for treatment and mood stabilizer, is used for baseline. ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and baseline value, is used for mean change from baseline.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Week 52 LOCF Treatment Difference||0.04|-0.04|0.904
91058186|NCT00261443|181997884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.11||ANOVA model, controlling for treatment and mood stabilizer, is used for baseline. ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and baseline value, is used for mean change from baseline.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Highest Value of Change Treatment Difference||0.11|-0.03|0.222
90817183|NCT02294734|181512649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.02||||45.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.37||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RML; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.37|0.75|45.69
91058187|NCT00261443|181997885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.04||ANOVA model, controlling for treatment and mood stabilizer, is used for baseline. ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and baseline value, is used for mean change from baseline.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Week 52 LOCF Treatment Difference||0.04|-0.03|0.808
91058188|NCT00261443|181997885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.771||95.0||||ANOVA model, controlling for treatment and mood stabilizer, is used for baseline. ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and baseline value, is used for mean change from baseline.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Highest Value of Change Treatment Difference||||0.771
91058189|NCT00261443|181997886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.03||ANOVA model, controlling for treatment and mood stabilizer, is used for baseline. ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and baseline value, is used for mean change from baseline.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Week 52 LOCF Treatment Difference||0.03|-0.05|0.576
91058190|NCT00261443|181997886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.08||ANOVA model, controlling for treatment and mood stabilizer, is used for baseline. ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and baseline value, is used for mean change from baseline.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Highest Value treatment Difference||0.08|-0.05|0.636
90817184|NCT02294734|181512649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.42||||2.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|2.06||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RLL; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||2.06|0.99|2.94
91058191|NCT00261443|181997887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.08||ANOVA model, controlling for treatment and mood stabilizer, is used for baseline. ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and baseline value, is used for mean change from baseline.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Week 52 LOCF Treatment Difference||0.08|-0.06|0.774
90817185|NCT02294734|181512649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.22||||13.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.73||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RLL; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.73|0.85|13.92
90817186|NCT02294734|181512649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.86||||86.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.13||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RLL; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.13|0.65|86.40
90817187|NCT02294734|181512649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.46||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.0||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LLL; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||2.00|1.06|0.88
90817188|NCT02294734|181512649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.04||||41.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.43||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LLL; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.43|0.75|41.25
90817189|NCT02294734|181512649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.7||||99.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.94||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LLL; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||0.94|0.52|99.20
90817190|NCT02294734|181512649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.22||||3.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.51||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Region;Upper; SCRD12 .The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.51|0.98|3.49
90817191|NCT02294734|181512649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.93||||73.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.19||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Region;Upper; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.19|0.72|73.09
90817192|NCT02294734|181512649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.85||||92.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.06||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Region;Upper; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.06|0.69|92.41
90817193|NCT02294734|181512649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.38||||2.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.89||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Region;Lower; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.89|1.01|2.29
90817194|NCT02294734|181512649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.12||||23.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.56||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters.Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Region; Lower; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.56|0.81|23.67
91058192|NCT00261443|181997887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.14||ANOVA model, controlling for treatment and mood stabilizer, is used for baseline. ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and baseline value, is used for mean change from baseline.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Highest Value of Change, Treatment Difference||0.14|-0.06|0.444
91078376|NCT00824382|182042340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.081|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021||0.0002||95.0|0.039|0.124|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.124|0.039|0.0002
91058193|NCT02755649|181997901|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|29.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.87|42.05||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level. P-values were derived by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by disease severity (IGA 3 vs IGA 4) and prior Cyclosporine A (CSA) use (Yes, No).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing approach was used to control Type-1 error at 0.05 across 2 dose regimens. Difference is Dupilumab minus placebo. Confidence Interval (CI) calculated using normal approximation. Participants with missing values at Week 16 were categorized as non-responders at Week 16. Participants who used rescue treatment were categorized as non-responders from time rescue treatment was initiated.||42.05|16.87|< 0.0001
91058194|NCT02755649|181997901|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|33.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.41|45.57||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level. P-values were derived by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by disease severity (IGA 3 vs IGA 4) and prior Cyclosporine A (CSA) use (Yes, No).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing approach was used to control Type-1 error at 0.05 across 2 dose regimens. Difference is Dupilumab minus placebo. Confidence Interval (CI) calculated using normal approximation. Participants with missing values at Week 16 were categorized as non-responders at Week 16. Participants who used rescue treatment were categorized as non-responders from time rescue treatment was initiated.||45.57|20.41|< 0.0001
91058195|NCT02755649|181997902|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) mean difference|-31.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.85|-24.3||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level|ANCOVA|||Hierarchical testing approach to control Type-1 error rate at 0.05 across 2 dose regimens.CI w/p-value based on treatment difference(dupilumab vs placebo) of LS mean percent change using multiple imputation (MI) w/ANCOVA model w/baseline measurement as covariate \& treatment, randomization strata(disease severity\[IGA 3 vs IGA 4\] \& prior CSA use\[Yes,No\]) as fixed factors.Efficacy data from participants who received rescue treatment were set to missing after timepoint of rescue, then imputed by MI||-24.3|-38.85|< 0.0001
91058196|NCT02755649|181997902|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-33.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.42|-25.88||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level|ANCOVA|||Hierarchical testing approach was used to control Type-1 error rate at 0.05 across 2 dose regimens.CI with p-value based on treatment difference(dupilumab vs. placebo) of LS mean percent change using MI with ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate \& treatment, randomization strata(disease severity\[IGA 3 vs IGA 4\] \& prior CSA use \[Yes,No\]) as fixed factors. Efficacy data from participants who received rescue treatment were set to missing after timepoint of rescue \& then imputed by MI.||-25.88|-40.42|< 0.0001
91058197|NCT02755649|181997903|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-26.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.07|-17.41||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Hierarchical testing approach was used to control Type-1 error rate at 0.05 across 2 dose regimens.CI with p-value based on treatment difference(dupilumab vs. placebo) of LS mean percent change using MI with ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate \& treatment, randomization strata(disease severity\[IGA 3 vs IGA 4\] \& prior CSA use \[Yes,No\]) as fixed factors.Efficacy data from participants who received rescue treatment were set to missing after timepoint of rescue, then imputed by MI||-17.41|-35.07|< 0.0001
91058198|NCT02755649|181997903|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference]|-28.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.34|-19.68||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level|ANCOVA|||Hierarchical testing approach was used to control Type-1 error rate at 0.05 across 2 dose regimens.CI with p-value based on treatment difference(dupilumab vs. placebo) of LS mean percent change using MI with ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate \& treatment, randomization strata(disease severity\[IGA 3 vs IGA 4\] \& prior CSA use \[Yes,No\]) as fixed factors.Efficacy data from participants who received rescue treatment were set to missing after timepoint of rescue, then imputed by MI.||-19.68|-37.34|< 0.0001
91058199|NCT02755649|181997904|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-28.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.56|-21.93||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level|ANCOVA|||Hierarchical testing approach was used to control Type-1 error rate at 0.05 across 2 dose regimens.CI with p-value based on treatment difference(dupilumab vs. placebo) of LS mean percent change using MI with ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate \& treatment, randomization strata(disease severity\[IGA 3 vs IGA 4\] \& prior CSA use \[Yes,No\]) as fixed factors.Efficacy data from participants who received rescue treatment were set to missing after timepoint of rescue, then imputed by MI.||-21.93|-35.56|< 0.0001
90817195|NCT02294734|181512649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.75||||98.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.96||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Region;Lower; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||0.96|0.59|98.87
90817196|NCT02294734|181512649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.07||||14.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.2||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC;Scan Trimmed;Region;Central; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.20|0.95|14.50
90817197|NCT02294734|181512649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.04||||30.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.18||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC;Scan Trimmed; Region Central; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.18|0.91|30.26
90817198|NCT02294734|181512649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.98||||62.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.09||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC;Scan Trimmed;Region Central; D12D28 .The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.09|0.89|62.84
91058200|NCT02755649|181997904|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-32.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.7|-26.06||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level|ANCOVA|||Hierarchical testing approach was used to control Type-1 error rate at 0.05 across 2 dose regimens.CI with p-value based on treatment difference(dupilumab vs. placebo) of LS mean percent change using MI with ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate \& treatment, randomization strata(disease severity\[IGA 3 vs IGA 4\] \& prior CSA use \[Yes,No\]) as fixed factors.Efficacy data from participants who received rescue treatment were set to missing after timepoint of rescue, then imputed by MI.||-26.06|-39.7|< 0.0001
91058201|NCT02755649|181997905|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|26.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.89|38.39||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing approach was used to control Type-1 error at 0.05 across the 2 dose regimens. Difference is dupilumab minus placebo. CI calculated using normal approximation. P-values were derived by CMH test stratified by disease severity (IGA 3 vs IGA 4) and prior CSA use (Yes,No). Participants who used rescue treatment were categorized as non-responders from time rescue treatment was initiated. Participants with missing values at Week 16 were categorized as non-responders at Week 16.||38.39|13.89|< 0.0001
91058202|NCT02755649|181997905|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|31.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.08|43.83||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing approach was used to control Type-1 error at 0.05 across the 2 dose regimens. Difference is dupilumab minus placebo. CI calculated using normal approximation. P-values were derived by CMH test stratified by disease severity (IGA 3 vs IGA 4) and prior CSA use (Yes,No). Participants who used rescue treatment were categorized as non-responders from time rescue treatment was initiated. Participants with missing values at Week 16 were categorized as non-responders at Week 16.||43.83|19.08|< 0.0001
91058203|NCT02755649|181997906|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-17.95|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.706|-13.197||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level|ANCOVA|||Hierarchical testing approach was used to control Type-1 error rate at 0.05 across 2 dose regimens.CI with p-value is based on treatment difference(dupilumab vs. placebo) of LS mean percent change using MI with ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate \& treatment,randomization strata(disease severity\[IGA 3 vs IGA 4\] \& prior CSA use \[Yes,No\]) as fixed factors. Efficacy data from participants who received rescue treatment were set to missing after timepoint of rescue, then imputed by MI||-13.197|-22.706|< 0.0001
91058204|NCT02755649|181997906|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-19.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.431|-14.895||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level|ANCOVA|||Hierarchical testing approach was used to control Type-1 error rate at 0.05 across 2 dose regimens.CI with p-value based on treatment difference(dupilumab vs. placebo) of LS mean percent change using MI with ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate \& treatment, randomization strata(disease severity\[IGA 3 vs IGA 4\] \& prior CSA use \[Yes,No\]) as fixed factors.Efficacy data from participants who received rescue treatment were set to missing after timepoint of rescue, then imputed by MI.||-14.895|-24.431|< 0.0001
90817199|NCT02294734|181512649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.31||||2.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.7||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC;Scan Trimmed; Region;Distal; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.70|1.01|2.06
90817200|NCT02294734|181512649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.0||||49.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.32||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC;Scan Trimmed;Region; Distal; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.32|0.76|49.97
90817201|NCT02294734|181512649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.76||||99.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.94||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC;Scan Trimmed;Region;Distal; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||0.94|0.62|99.43
91058205|NCT02755649|181997907|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|25.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.99|36.41||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing approach was used to control Type-1 error at 0.05 across the 2 dose regimens. Difference is dupilumab minus placebo. CI calculated using normal approximation. P-values were derived by CMH test stratified by disease severity (IGA 3 vs IGA 4) and prior CSA use (Yes,No). Participants who used rescue treatment were categorized as non-responders from time rescue treatment was initiated. Participants with missing values at Week 16 were categorized as non-responders at Week 16.||36.41|13.99|< 0.0001
91058206|NCT02755649|181997907|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|26.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.95|37.65||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing approach was used to control Type-1 error at 0.05 across the 2 dose regimens. Difference is dupilumab minus placebo. CI calculated using normal approximation. P-values were derived by CMH test stratified by disease severity (IGA 3 vs IGA 4) and prior CSA use (Yes,No). Participants who used rescue treatment were categorized as non-responders from time rescue treatment was initiated. Participants with missing values at Week 16 were categorized as non-responders at Week 16.||37.65|14.95|< 0.0001
91078377|NCT00824382|182042340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.141|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.098|0.184|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.184|0.098|<0.0001
90817202|NCT02294734|181512649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.2||||1.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.41||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC;Scan Trimmed; Region;Total; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.41|1.02|1.17
90817203|NCT02294734|181512649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.0||||49.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.18||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC;Scan Trimmed;Region;Total; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.18|0.84|49.78
90817204|NCT02294734|181512649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.85||||98.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.98||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed;Region;Total; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||0.98|0.73|98.66
90817205|NCT02294734|181512650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.01||||32.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.06||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC Lobes; RUL; Day 12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.06|0.97|32.51
90817206|NCT02294734|181512650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.04||||6.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.08||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC Lobes; RUL Day 28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.08|0.99|6.21
90817207|NCT02294734|181512650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.02||||15.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.07||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC Lobes; LUL Day 12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.07|0.98|15.91
90817208|NCT02294734|181512650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.04||||6.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.09||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC Lobes;LUL Day 28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.09|0.99|6.73
90817209|NCT02294734|181512650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.02||||27.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.07||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC Lobes; RML Day 12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.07|0.96|27.65
90817210|NCT02294734|181512650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.03||||12.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.07||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC Lobes; RML Day 28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.07|0.98|12.19
90817211|NCT02294734|181512650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.03||||11.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.1||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC Lobes; RLL Day 12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.10|0.98|11.62
90817212|NCT02294734|181512650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.04||||7.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.1||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC Lobes; RLL Day 28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.10|0.99|7.66
91058207|NCT02755649|181997908|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|-3.04||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level|ANCOVA|||Hierarchical testing approach was used to control Type-1 error rate at 0.05 across 2 dose regimens.CI with p-value based on treatment difference(dupilumab vs. placebo) of LS mean percent change using MI with ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate \& treatment, randomization strata(disease severity\[IGA 3 vs IGA 4\] \& prior CSA use \[Yes,No\]) as fixed factors.Efficacy data from participants who received rescue treatment were set to missing after timepoint of rescue, then imputed by MI.||-3.04|-5.6|< 0.0001
91058208|NCT02755649|181997908|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.31|-3.74||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level|ANCOVA|||Hierarchical testing approach was used to control Type-1 error rate at 0.05 across 2 dose regimens.CI with p-value based on treatment difference(dupilumab vs. placebo) of LS mean percent change using MI with ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate \& treatment, randomization strata(disease severity\[IGA 3 vs IGA 4\] \& prior CSA use \[Yes,No\])as fixed factors. Efficacy data from participants who received rescue treatment were set to missing after timepoint of rescue, then imputed by MI.||-3.74|-6.31|< 0.0001
91078378|NCT00824382|182042340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.157|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001||95.0|0.115|0.199|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.199|0.115|<0.0001
91058209|NCT02755649|181997909|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.78|-5.47||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level|ANCOVA|||Hierarchical testing approach was used to control Type-1 error rate at 0.05 across 2 dose regimens.CI with p-value based on treatment difference(dupilumab vs. placebo) of LS mean percent change using MI with ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate \& treatment, randomization strata(disease severity\[IGA 3 vs IGA 4\] \& prior CSA use \[Yes,No\])as fixed factors. Efficacy data from participants who received rescue treatment were set to missing after timepoint of rescue, then imputed by MI.||-5.47|-8.78|< 0.0001
90817213|NCT02294734|181512650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.01||||28.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.07||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC Lobes; LLL Day 12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.07|0.96|28.88
90817214|NCT02294734|181512650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.01||||28.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.07||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC Lobes; LLL Day 28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.07|0.96|28.28
90817215|NCT02294734|181512650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.01||||27.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.05||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC Region; Upper Day 12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.05|0.97|27.87
91058210|NCT02755649|181997909|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.29|-5.97||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level|ANCOVA|||Hierarchical testing approach was used to control Type-1 error rate at 0.05 across 2 dose regimens.CI with p-value based on treatment difference(dupilumab vs. placebo) of LS mean percent change using MI with ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate \& treatment, randomization strata(disease severity\[IGA 3 vs IGA 4\] \& prior CSA use \[Yes,No\])as fixed factors. Efficacy data from participants who received rescue treatment were set to missing after timepoint of rescue, then imputed by MI.||-5.97|-9.29|< 0.0001
91058211|NCT02755649|181997910|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|30.1|||=|0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.63|45.64||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing approach was used to control Type-1 error at 0.05 across the 2 dose regimens. Difference is dupilumab minus placebo. CI calculated using normal approximation. P-values were derived by CMH test stratified by disease severity (IGA 3 vs IGA 4) and prior CSA use (Yes,No). Participants who used rescue treatment were categorized as non-responders from time rescue treatment was initiated. Participants with missing values at Week 16 were categorized as non-responders at Week 16.||45.64|14.63|= 0.0002
91058212|NCT02755649|181997910|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|31.6|||=|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.11|47.05||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Hierarchical testing approach was used to control Type-1 error at 0.05 across the 2 dose regimens. Difference is dupilumab minus placebo. CI calculated using normal approximation. P-values derived by CMH test stratified by disease severity (IGA 3 vs IGA 4) and prior CSA use (Yes,No). Participants who used rescue treatment were categorized as non-responders from time rescue treatment was initiated. Participants with missing values at Week 16 were categorized as non-responders at Week 16.||47.05|16.11|= 0.0001
91058213|NCT02755649|181997911|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.6|||=|0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.64|-3.51||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level|ANCOVA|||Hierarchical testing approach was used to control Type-1 error rate at 0.05 across 2 dose regimens.CI with p-value based on treatment difference(dupilumab vs. placebo) of LS mean percent change using MI with ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate \& treatment, randomization strata(disease severity\[IGA 3 vs IGA 4\] \& prior CSA use \[Yes,No\]) as fixed factors.Efficacy data from participants who received rescue treatment were set to missing after timepoint of rescue, then imputed by MI.||-3.51|-11.64|= 0.0003
91058214|NCT02755649|181997911|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-10.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.15|-5.95||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level|ANCOVA|||Hierarchical testing approach was used to control Type-1 error rate at 0.05 across 2 dose regimens.CI with p-value based on treatment difference(dupilumab vs. placebo) of LS mean percent change using MI with ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate \& treatment, randomization strata(disease severity\[IGA 3 vs IGA 4\] \& prior CSA use \[Yes,No\]) as fixed factors.Efficacy data from participants who received rescue treatment were set to missing after timepoint of rescue, then imputed by MI.||-5.95|-14.15|< 0.0001
91058215|NCT02755649|181997912|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.9|||=|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.41|-1.43||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level|ANCOVA|||Hierarchical testing approach was used to control Type-1 error rate at 0.05 across 2 dose regimens.CI with p-value based on treatment difference(dupilumab vs. placebo) of LS mean percent change using MI with ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate \& treatment, randomization strata(disease severity\[IGA 3 vs IGA 4\] \& prior CSA use \[Yes,No\]) as fixed factors.Efficacy data from participants who received rescue treatment were set to missing after timepoint of rescue, then imputed by MI.||-1.43|-4.41|= 0.0001
91058216|NCT02755649|181997912|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.38|-2.4||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level|ANCOVA|||Hierarchical testing approach was used to control Type-1 error rate at 0.05 across 2 dose regimens.CI with p-value based on treatment difference(dupilumab vs. placebo) of LS mean percent change using MI with ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate \& treatment, randomization strata(disease severity\[IGA 3 vs IGA 4\] \& prior CSA use \[Yes,No\]) as fixed factors.Efficacy data from participants who received rescue treatment were set to missing after timepoint of rescue, then imputed by MI.||-2.4|-5.38|< 0.0001
91078379|NCT00824382|182042341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean for the difference|0.138|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.095|0.182|||ANCOVA|||Olodaterol 2mcg - Placebo||0.182|0.095|<0.0001
91058217|NCT02755649|181997913|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|29.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.1|41.96||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing approach was used to control Type-1 error at 0.05 across the 2 dose regimens. Difference is dupilumab minus placebo. CI calculated using normal approximation. P-values were derived by CMH test stratified by disease severity (IGA 3 vs IGA 4) and prior CSA use (Yes,No). Participants who used rescue treatment were categorized as non-responders from time rescue treatment was initiated. Participants with missing values at Week 16 were categorized as non-responders at Week 16.||41.96|17.1|< 0.0001
91058218|NCT02755649|181997913|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|40.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.24|52.61||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing approach was used to control Type-1 error at 0.05 across the 2 dose regimens. Difference is dupilumab minus placebo. CI calculated using normal approximation. P-values were derived by CMH test stratified by disease severity (IGA 3 vs IGA 4) and prior CSA use (Yes,No). Participants who used rescue treatment were categorized as non-responders from time rescue treatment was initiated. Participants with missing values at Week 16 were categorized as non-responders at Week 16.||52.61|28.24|< 0.0001
91058219|NCT02755649|181997914|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-24.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.63|-16.88||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||A hierarchical testing approach was used to control Type-1 error rate at 0.05 across 2 dose regimens.CI with p-value based on treatment difference(dupilumab group vs. placebo)of LS mean percent change using MI with ANCOVA with baseline measurement as covariate \& treatment,randomization strata(disease severity\[IGA 3 vs IGA 4\] \& prior CSA use\[Yes,No\])as fixed factors.Efficacy data from participants who received rescue treatment were set to missing after timepoint of rescue, then imputed by MI.||-16.88|-31.63|< 0.0001
91058220|NCT02755649|181997914|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-26.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.49|-18.86||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Hierarchical testing approach was used to control Type-1 error rate at 0.05 across 2 dose regimens.CI with p-value based on treatment difference(dupilumab vs. placebo) of LS mean percent change using MI with ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate \& treatment, randomization strata (disease severity\[IGA 3 vs IGA 4\] \& prior CSA use \[Yes,No\]) as fixed factors.Efficacy data from participants who received rescue treatment were set to missing after timepoint of rescue, then imputed by MI.||-18.86|-33.49|< 0.0001
91058221|NCT02755649|181997915|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.7|||=|0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.8|-3.66||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level|ANCOVA|||Hierarchical testing approach was used to control Type-1 error rate at 0.05 across 2 dose regimens. CI with p-value based on treatment difference(dupilumab vs. placebo) of LS mean percent change using MI with ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate \& treatment, randomization strata(disease severity\[IGA 3 vs IGA 4\] \& prior CSA use \[Yes,No\]) as fixed factors.Efficacy data from participants who received rescue treatment were set to missing after timepoint of rescue, then imputed by MI.||-3.66|-15.8|= 0.0017
91058222|NCT02755649|181997915|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.2|||=|0.0214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.31|-1.06||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level|ANCOVA|||Hierarchical testing approach was used to control Type-1 error rate at 0.05 across 2 dose regimens.CI with p-value based on treatment difference(dupilumab vs. placebo) of LS mean percent change using MI with ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate \& treatment, randomization strata(disease severity\[IGA 3 vs IGA 4\] \& prior CSA use \[Yes,No\]) as fixed factors.Efficacy data from participants who received rescue treatment were set to missing after timepoint of rescue, then imputed by MI.||-1.06|-13.31|= 0.0214
91058223|NCT02755649|181997916|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|-4.7|||=|0.1486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.97|1.58|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing approach was used to control Type-1 error at 0.05 across the 2 dose regimens. Difference is dupilumab minus placebo. CI calculated using normal approximation. P-values were derived by CMH test stratified by disease severity (IGA 3 vs IGA 4) and prior CSA use (Yes,No). Participants who used rescue treatment were categorized as non-responders from time rescue treatment was initiated. Participants with missing values at Week 16 were categorized as non-responders at Week 16.||1.58|-10.97|= 0.1486
90817216|NCT02294734|181512650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.03||||9.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.07||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.No|FRC Region; Upper Day 28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.07|0.99|9.83
91058224|NCT02755649|181997916|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|-6.5|||=|0.0319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.27|-0.65|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing approach was used to control Type-1 error at 0.05 across the 2 dose regimens. Difference is dupilumab minus placebo. CI calculated using normal approximation. P-values were derived by CMH test stratified by disease severity (IGA 3 vs IGA 4) and prior CSA use (Yes,No). Participants who used rescue treatment were categorized as non-responders from time rescue treatment was initiated. Participants with missing values at Week 16 were categorized as non-responders at Week 16.||-0.65|-12.27|= 0.0319
91058225|NCT02755649|181997917|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|0.0|||=|0.9829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|3.53|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing approach was used to control Type-1 error at 0.05 across the 2 dose regimens. Difference is dupilumab minus placebo. CI calculated using normal approximation. P-values were derived by CMH test stratified by disease severity (IGA 3 vs IGA 4) and prior CSA use (Yes,No). Participants who used rescue treatment were categorized as non-responders from time rescue treatment was initiated. Participants with missing values at Week 16 were categorized as non-responders at Week 16.||3.53|-3.6|= 0.9829
91078380|NCT00824382|182042341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean for the difference|0.197|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.154|0.241|||ANCOVA|||Olodaterol 5mcg - Placebo||0.241|0.154|<0.0001
90817217|NCT02294734|181512650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.02||||21.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.07||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC Region; Lower Day 12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.07|0.97|21.87
91058226|NCT02755649|181997917|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|0.0|||=|1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|3.63|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing approach was used to control Type-1 error at 0.05 across the 2 dose regimens. Difference is dupilumab minus placebo. CI calculated using normal approximation. P-values were derived by CMH test stratified by disease severity (IGA 3 vs IGA 4) and prior CSA use (Yes,No). Participants who used rescue treatment were categorized as non-responders from time rescue treatment was initiated. Participants with missing values at Week 16 were categorized as non-responders at Week 16.||3.63|-3.6|= 1
91058227|NCT02755649|181997918|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|0.9|||=|0.5619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.19|3.97|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing approach was used to control Type-1 error at 0.05 across the 2 dose regimens. Difference is dupilumab minus placebo. CI calculated using normal approximation. P-values were derived by CMH test stratified by disease severity (IGA 3 vs IGA 4) and prior CSA use (Yes,No). Participants who used rescue treatment were categorized as non-responders from time rescue treatment was initiated. Participants with missing values at Week 16 were categorized as non-responders at Week 16.||3.97|-2.19|= 0.5619
91058228|NCT02755649|181997918|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|-0.9|||=|0.3241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.73|0.88|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing approach was used to control Type-1 error at 0.05 across the 2 dose regimens. Difference is dupilumab minus placebo. CI calculated using normal approximation. P-values were derived by CMH test stratified by disease severity (IGA 3 vs IGA 4) and prior CSA use (Yes,No). Participants who used rescue treatment were categorized as non-responders from time rescue treatment was initiated. Participants with missing values at Week 16 were categorized as non-responders at Week 16.||0.88|-2.73|= 0.3241
91058229|NCT02755649|181997919|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|-0.4|||=|0.9518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|11.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing approach was used to control Type-1 error at 0.05 across the 2 dose regimens. Difference is dupilumab minus placebo. CI calculated using normal approximation. P-values were derived by CMH test stratified by disease severity (IGA 3 vs IGA 4) and prior CSA use (Yes,No). Participants who used rescue treatment were categorized as non-responders from time rescue treatment was initiated. Participants with missing values at Week 16 were categorized as non-responders at Week 16.||11.9|-12.6|= 0.9518
91058230|NCT02755649|181997919|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|2.5|||=|0.6833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.64|14.68|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing approach was used to control Type-1 error at 0.05 across the 2 dose regimens. Difference is dupilumab minus placebo. CI calculated using normal approximation. P-values were derived by CMH test stratified by disease severity (IGA 3 vs IGA 4) and prior CSA use (Yes,No). Participants who used rescue treatment were categorized as non-responders from time rescue treatment was initiated. Participants with missing values at Week 16 were categorized as non-responders at Week 16.||14.68|-9.64|= 0.6833
91058231|NCT02089659|181997928|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.72|1.35|||||Moderate hepatic insufficiency / Healthy controls|||1.35|0.72|
90817218|NCT02294734|181512650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.02||||18.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.07||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC Region; Lower Day 28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.07|0.97|18.58
90817219|NCT02294734|181512650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.02||||22.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.06||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC Region; Total Day 12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.06|0.98|22.28
91058232|NCT02089659|181997929|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.66|1.24|||||Moderate hepatic insufficiency / Healthy controls|||1.24|0.66|
91058233|NCT02089659|181997930|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.74|1.18|||||Moderate hepatic insufficiency / Healthy controls|||1.18|0.74|
91058234|NCT02089659|181997931|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.74|1.33|||||Moderate hepatic insufficiency / Healthy controls|||1.33|0.74|
91058235|NCT02126826|181997933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.7865|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6193|0.9537|||ANCOVA|||Investigation of dose proportionality - dose groups 50mg to 300mg||0.9537|0.6193|
91058236|NCT02126826|181997933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.0171|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8378|1.1964|||ANCOVA|||Investigation of dose proportionality - dose groups 50mg to 200mg||1.1964|0.8378|
91058237|NCT02126826|181997935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.9511|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7654|1.1367|||ANCOVA|||Investigation of dose proportionality - dose groups 50mg to 300mg||1.1367|0.7654|
91058238|NCT02126826|181997935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.0834|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8655|1.3013|||ANCOVA|||Investigation of dose proportionality - dose groups 50mg to 200mg||1.3013|0.8655|
91058239|NCT02126826|181997937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.7832|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6235|0.9428|||ANCOVA|||Investigation of dose proportionality - dose groups 50mg to 300mg||0.9428|0.6235|
91058240|NCT02126826|181997937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.0365|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8593|1.2137|||ANCOVA|||Investigation of dose proportionality - dose groups 50mg to 200mg||1.2137|0.8593|
91058241|NCT02126826|181997939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.9433|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7744|1.1122|||ANCOVA|||Investigation of dose proportionality - dose groups 50mg to 300mg||1.1122|0.7744|
91058242|NCT02126826|181997939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.081|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8583|1.3037|||ANCOVA|||Investigation of dose proportionality - dose groups 50mg to 200mg||1.3037|0.8583|
91058243|NCT00591773|181997946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.54|-13.19||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons controlled using closed testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||-13.19|-18.54|<0.001
91058244|NCT00591773|181997946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.13|-12.76||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons controlled using closed testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||-12.76|-18.13|<0.001
90817220|NCT02294734|181512650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.03||||10.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.07||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC Region; Total Day 28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.07|0.98|10.86
90817221|NCT02294734|181512650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.99||||84.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.01||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC Lobes; RUL; Day 12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.01|0.97|84.89
90817222|NCT02294734|181512650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.0||||63.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.02||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC Lobes; RUL Day 28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.02|0.97|63.78
90817223|NCT02294734|181512650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.0||||69.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.01||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC Lobes; LUL Day 12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.01|0.98|69.42
90817224|NCT02294734|181512650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.0||||62.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.02||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC Lobes;LUL Day 28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.02|0.97|62.63
90817225|NCT02294734|181512650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.99||||72.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.02||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC Lobes; RML Day 12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.02|0.96|72.55
90817226|NCT02294734|181512650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.01||||36.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.04||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC Lobes; RML Day 28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.04|0.97|36.28
90817227|NCT02294734|181512650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.0||||47.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.04||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC Lobes; RLL Day 12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.04|0.96|47.44
90817228|NCT02294734|181512650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.02||||22.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.06||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC Lobes; RLL Day 28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.06|0.97|22.99
90817229|NCT02294734|181512650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.98||||85.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.02||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC Lobes; LLL Day 12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.02|0.94|85.95
90817230|NCT02294734|181512650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.99||||60.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.03||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC Lobes; LLL Day 28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.03|0.96|60.20
90817231|NCT02294734|181512650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.99||||81.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.01||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC Upper Day 12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.01|0.97|81.34
91058245|NCT00591773|181997947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.81|-10.99||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons controlled using closed testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||-10.99|-17.81|<0.001
90817232|NCT02294734|181512650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.0||||63.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.02||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC UpperDay 28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.02|0.97|63.04
90817233|NCT02294734|181512650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.99||||69.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.03||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC Lower Day 12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.03|0.96|69.67
90817234|NCT02294734|181512650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.0||||39.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.04||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC Lower Day 28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.04|0.97|39.81
90817235|NCT02294734|181512650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.99||||73.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.02||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC Total Day 12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.02|0.97|73.01
90817236|NCT02294734|181512650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.0||||48.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.03||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC Total Day 28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.03|0.97|48.97
90817237|NCT02294734|181512651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.04||||2.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.07||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC Length Day 12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.07|1.00|2.89
90817238|NCT02294734|181512651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.02||||8.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.05||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC Length Day 28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.05|0.99|8.49
90817239|NCT02294734|181512651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.02||||86.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.07||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC Diameter Day 12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.07|0.98|86.21
90817240|NCT02294734|181512651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.01||||75.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.05||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC Diameter Day 28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.05|0.98|75.20
90817241|NCT02294734|181512651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.99||||84.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.01||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC Length Day 12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.01|0.97|84.29
90817242|NCT02294734|181512651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.0||||71.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.01||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC Length Day 28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.01|0.98|71.08
90817243|NCT02294734|181512651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.0||||34.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.01||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC Diameter Day 12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.01|0.98|34.93
91058246|NCT00591773|181997947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.1|-9.25||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons controlled using closed testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||-9.25|-16.10|<0.001
90817244|NCT02294734|181512651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.99||||25.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.01||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC Diameter Day 28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.01|0.98|25.05
90817245|NCT02294734|181512652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.01||||28.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.06||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC Length/Diameter Day 12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.06|0.97|28.51
90817246|NCT02294734|181512652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.01||||32.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.05||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC Length/Diameter Day 28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.05|0.97|32.15
90817247|NCT02294734|181512652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.99||||66.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.02||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC Length/Diameter Day 12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.02|0.97|66.51
90817248|NCT02294734|181512652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.0||||45.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.03||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC Length/Diameter Day 28 The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.03|0.98|45.28
90817249|NCT02294734|181512660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-118.5|115.3|||Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|Day 28|||115.3|-118.5|0.487
90817250|NCT02294734|181512660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|60.6||||0.816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.3|194.3|||Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|Day 84|||194.3|-73.3|0.816
90817251|NCT02294734|181512663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.144||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.133|||Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|Day 28|||0.133|-0.420|0.151
90817252|NCT02294734|181512663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.121||||0.712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.305|0.551|||Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|Day 84|||0.551|-0.305|0.712
90817253|NCT02294734|181512664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.216|0.57|||Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|Day 28|||0.570|-0.216|0.817
90817254|NCT02294734|181512664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.114||||0.697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.324|0.549|||Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|Day 84|||0.549|-0.324|0.697
91058247|NCT00591773|181997948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.02|-8.56||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-8.56|-12.02|<0.001
91058248|NCT00591773|181997948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.23|-8.76||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-8.76|-12.23|<0.001
90817255|NCT02294734|181512667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.171||||0.965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.988|1.388|||Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.||||1.388|0.988|0.965
90817256|NCT02294734|181512667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.114||||0.913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.953|1.305|||Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.||||1.305|0.953|0.913
90817257|NCT02809053|181512675|OTHER|The 95%CI (confidence interval) for the difference in the overall response rate (ORR) was calculated using the Newcombe-Wilson method based on CMH (Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel) weight with stratification factor FLIPI-2 (low, intermediate and high risk).|Adjusted Difference Rate (%)|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|6.35|||||Comparison: SAIT101 versus MabThera.|Adjusted Difference Rate (%) in Overall Response Rate (ORR) of SAIT101 versus MabThera at Week 28.||6.35|-14.80|
91058249|NCT00591773|181997949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.25|-5.25||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-5.25|-9.25|<0.001
91058250|NCT00591773|181997949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.06|-5.05||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-5.05|-9.06|<0.001
91058251|NCT00591773|181997950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.56|-14.04||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-14.04|-19.56|<0.001
91058252|NCT00591773|181997950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.01|-13.47||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-13.47|-19.01|<0.001
91058253|NCT00591773|181997951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.86|-9.18||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-9.18|-12.86|<0.001
91058254|NCT00591773|181997951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.04|-9.35||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-9.35|-13.04|<0.001
91058255|NCT00591773|181997952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.92|-9.94||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-9.94|-15.92|<0.001
91058256|NCT00591773|181997952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.83|-9.84||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-9.84|-15.83|<0.001
91058257|NCT00591773|181997953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.14|-6.19||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-6.19|-10.14|<0.001
91058258|NCT00591773|181997953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.15|-6.19||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-6.19|-10.15|<0.001
91058259|NCT00591773|181997954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.39|-14.64||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-14.64|-20.39|<0.001
91058260|NCT00591773|181997954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.84|-14.05||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-14.05|-19.84|<0.001
91058261|NCT00591773|181997955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.49|-9.59||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-9.59|-13.49|<0.001
91058262|NCT00591773|181997955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.64|-9.72||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-9.72|-13.64|<0.001
91058263|NCT00591773|181997956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.13|-10.94||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-10.94|-17.13|<0.001
91058264|NCT00591773|181997956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.58|-10.37||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-10.37|-16.58|<0.001
91058265|NCT00591773|181997957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.65|-7.2||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-7.20|-11.65|<0.001
91058266|NCT00591773|181997957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.92|-7.46||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-7.46|-11.92|<0.001
91058267|NCT00591773|181997958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.38|7.03||P-value for response criteria for systolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||7.03|2.38|<0.001
91058268|NCT00591773|181997958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.82|5.03||P-value for response criteria for systolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||5.03|1.82|<0.001
91058269|NCT00591773|181997959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|7.27||P-value for response criteria for diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic diastolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||7.27|1.90|<0.001
91058270|NCT00591773|181997959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.7||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|5.0||P-value for response criteria for diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic diastolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||5.00|1.46|0.002
91058271|NCT00591773|181997960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.41|6.64||P-value for joint response criteria for systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||6.64|2.41|<0.001
91058272|NCT00591773|181997960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.83|4.79||P-value for joint response criteria for systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||4.79|1.83|<0.001
91058273|NCT02135614|181997961|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|0.12||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.43||P-value was calculated from the ANCOVA model including baseline values, Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) score, and stratification factor as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||0.43|-0.20|0.46
91058274|NCT02135614|181997962|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|0.08||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.16||P-value was calculated from the ANCOVA model including the baseline value, CFS score and stratification factor as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||0.16|0.00|0.046
91058275|NCT02135614|181997963|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39||||||P-value was calculated from the negative binomial model with the stratification factor as covariate.|Negative Binomial Model|||||||0.39
91058276|NCT02135614|181997964|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||P-value from the negative binomial model comparing the rate ratio between treatment groups, adjusted for the stratification factor.|Negative Binomial Model|||||||0.004
91058277|NCT03022084|181997965|NON_INFERIORITY|The probability that Desyncra is non-inferior to CBT, defined by the sponsor as the event that mean TQ score change from baseline in the Desyncra arm is no more than 3.5 points worse than the mean TQ change in the CBT arm.|||||||||||||Bayesian|Data collected to date were analyzed using a Bayesian approach.|||Data collected to date were analyzed using a Bayesian approach.|||
91058278|NCT00605540|181997989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||All data were analyzed using SigmaStat 3.2 (Inc., USA) software. Mean ± SD or median interquartile range (25-75%) was used depending on the data distribution. Wilcoxon test was applied to compare the characteristics at baseline to those observed after 3 years.||||0.09
91058279|NCT01235195|181997998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio (%) of adjusted means|104.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.12|109.83|||||Reference treatment=Sertraline hydrochloride 50 mg hard gelatin capsule. Test treatment=sertraline hydrochloride 50 mg film-coated tablet.|Natural log-transformed AUC (0-72) analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period, treatment as fixed effects; subject within sequence as a random effect. Estimates of adjusted mean differences (Test minus Reference) and corresponding 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were obtained from the model. Adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test divided by Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||109.83|100.12|
91058280|NCT01235195|181997999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio (%) of adjusted means|105.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.46|112.69|||||Reference treatment=Sertraline hydrochloride 50 mg hard gelatin capsule. Test treatment=sertraline hydrochloride 50 mg film-coated tablet.|Natural log-transformed Cmax analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period, treatment as fixed effects; subject within sequence as a random effect. Estimates of adjusted mean differences (Test minus Reference) and corresponding 90% CIs were obtained from the model. Adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test divided by Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||112.69|98.46|
91058281|NCT01235195|181998001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio (%) of adjusted means|106.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.16|112.39|||||Reference treatment=Sertraline hydrochloride 50 mg hard gelatin capsule. Test treatment=sertraline hydrochloride 50 mg film-coated tablet.|Natural log-transformed AUC (0-∞) analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period, treatment as fixed effects; subject within sequence as a random effect. Estimates of adjusted mean differences (Test minus Reference) and corresponding 90% CIs were obtained from the model. Adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test divided by Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||112.39|100.16|
91058282|NCT02119819|181998004|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.459|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.05|-0.52|||Bayesian|||||-0.52|-1.05|0.459
91058283|NCT02119819|181998004|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.511|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.07|-0.54|||Bayesian|||||-0.54|-1.07|0.511
91058284|NCT02119819|181998004|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.988|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.41|-0.89|||Bayesian|||||-0.89|-1.41|0.988
91058285|NCT02119819|181998004|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.934|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.3|-0.78|||Bayesian|||||-0.78|-1.30|0.934
91058286|NCT02119819|181998004|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.373|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.08|0.61|||Bayesian|||||0.61|0.08|0.373
91058287|NCT02119819|181998004|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.433|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.07|0.59|||Bayesian|||||0.59|0.07|0.433
91058288|NCT02119819|181998004|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.978|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.28|0.24|||Bayesian|||||0.24|-0.28|0.978
91058289|NCT02119819|181998004|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.904|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.17|0.35|||Bayesian|||||0.35|-0.17|0.904
91058290|NCT01917214|181998028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0308|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0308
91058291|NCT00856375|181998063|OTHER|Hazard Ratio and 95% CI from univariate Cox regression model|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.645|||=|0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.041|||Log Rank|||||1.041|0.4|= 0.07
91058292|NCT00856375|181998064|OTHER|Hazard ratio and 95% CI from univariate Cox regression model.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91|||=|0.706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.557|1.486|||Log Rank|||||1.486|0.557|= 0.706
91058293|NCT00856375|181998065|OTHER|ORR 95% CI based on Exact (Clopper-Pearson) confidence limits. Odds ratio 95% CI based on asymptotic confidence limits.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.054|||=|0.676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.355|11.9|||Fisher Exact|||||11.9|0.355|= 0.676
91058294|NCT00856375|181998066|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.018|||||||Log Rank|||||||= 0.018
91058295|NCT04414345|181998069|SUPERIORITY||Disease Rate Ratio|0.98|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.797|1.188||Posterior probability that the disease rate ratio (DRR) is less than 1 (i.e. CNM-Au8 slowed progression) was 0.59059. NOTE: p-value is not provided for Bayesian model.|Bayesian shared-parameter model|A Bayesian shared-parameter model of change in disease severity as measured by ALSFRS-R total score and mortality.|"DDR \<1 imply slowing of disease progression by CNM-Au8 relative to placebo. Note: reported Confidence Interval is actually a Bayesian credible interval."||"The DRR parameter for active treatment represents the relative change to the rate of decline of ALSFRS-R and the rate of mortality of treated participant relative to a placebo participant. The estimated DRR can also be interpreted as the average rate of decline in function and mortality.~The model includes covariates for baseline use of edaravone, baseline use of riluzole, months since onset of symptoms, and pre-baseline slope of ALSFRS-R, and random effects for regimen and participant-specific slopes."|1.188|0.797|
91058296|NCT04414345|181998071|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.766||0.657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.25|2.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates include baseline use of edaravone and riluzole, months since symptom onset, and pre-baseline ALSFRS-R slope.|CNM-Au8 24-week change from baseline relative to placebo 24-week change from baseline.|||2.68|-4.25|0.6570
91058297|NCT04414345|181998072|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.403||0.3621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.78|3.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates include baseline use of edaravone and riluzole, months since symptom onset, and pre-baseline ALSFRS-R slope.|CNM-Au8 24-week change from baseline relative to placebo 24-week change from baseline.|||3.58|-9.78|0.3621
91058298|NCT04414345|181998073|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7398|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.7398
91058299|NCT01851330|181998083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value for the comparison of the LDV/SOF 8 week group against the adjusted historical null rate (60%) was based on a 2-sided 1-sample binomial test.|Binomial test|||||||<0.001
91058300|NCT01851330|181998083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value for the comparison of the LDV/SOF+RBV 8 week group against the adjusted historical null rate (60%) was based on a 2-sided 1-sample binomial test.|Binomial test|||||||<0.001
91058301|NCT01851330|181998083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value for the comparison of the LDV/SOF 12 week group against the adjusted historical null rate (60%) was based on a 2-sided 1-sample binomial test.|Binomial test|||||||<0.001
91058302|NCT01851330|181998083|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority would be demonstrated if the lower bound of the confidence interval (CI) for the difference between groups was greater than -12%.|Difference in proportions|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-8.3|1.8|||||Difference in proportions between treatment groups and associated confidence interval (CI) were calculated based on stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel proportions.|||1.8|-8.3|
91058303|NCT01851330|181998083|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority would be demonstrated if the lower bound of the CI for the difference between groups was greater than -12%.|Difference in proportions|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-7.2|2.5|||||Difference in proportions between treatment groups and associated confidence interval (CI) were calculated based on stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel proportions.|||2.5|-7.2|
91058304|NCT01851330|181998083|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority would be demonstrated if the lower bound of the CI for the difference between groups was greater than -12%.|Difference in proportions|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|5.7|||||Difference in proportions between treatment groups and associated confidence interval (CI) were calculated based on stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel proportions.|||5.7|-3.9|
91058305|NCT02318303|181998104|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1087|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.669|-0.5485|||ANCOVA|||||-0.5485|-1.6690|<0.0001
91058306|NCT02318303|181998104|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1703|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.7315|-0.609|||ANCOVA|||||-0.6090|-1.7315|<0.0001
91058307|NCT02318303|181998104|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7718||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2616|-0.282|||ANCOVA|||||-0.2820|-1.2616|0.0020
91058308|NCT02318303|181998104|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3563||||0.1524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8445|0.1319|||ANCOVA|||||0.1319|-0.8445|0.1524
91058309|NCT02318303|181998104|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4918||||0.0488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.981|-0.0025|||ANCOVA|||||-0.0025|-0.9810|0.0488
91058310|NCT02318303|181998104|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7133||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2031|-0.2235|||ANCOVA|||||-0.2235|-1.2031|0.0043
91058311|NCT01266031|181998133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26||||||Null hypothesis is: PFS 6 months of Bevacizumab = PFS 6 months of Bevacizumab + Vorinostat.|Chi-squared|||Null hypothesis is: progression free survival (PFS) 6 months of Bevacizumab = PFS 6 months of Bevacizumab + Vorinostat.||||0.26
91058312|NCT02047734|181998173|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.623|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.506|0.768||To account for multiple comparisons, each of the 2 treatment comparisons was tested at the alpha = 0.025 level.|Poisson regression model|Adjusted for region, age, and Baseline number of GdE lesions, and Included the natural log transformation of time on study as an offset term.|Rate Ratio = Ozanimod / IFN β-1a|||0.768|0.506|<0.0001
91058313|NCT02047734|181998173|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.791||||0.0167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.652|0.958||To account for multiple comparisons, each of the 2 treatment comparisons was tested at the alpha = 0.025 level.|Poisson Regression Model|Adjusted for region, age, and Baseline number of GdE lesions, and Included the natural log transformation of time on study as an offset term.|Rate Ratio = Ozanimod / IFN β-1a|||0.958|0.652|0.0167
91058314|NCT02047734|181998174|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.576|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.465|0.714||To control for type 1 error, the key secondary endpoints were tested in order in a sequential, closed hierarchical testing procedure. Each comparison was tested at the alpha = 0.05 level.|Negative Binomial Regression Model|Adjusted for region, age, and Baseline GdE lesions, and included the natural log transformation of available number of MRI scans as an offset term.|Rate Ratio = Ozanimod / IFN β-1a|||0.714|0.465|<0.0001
91058315|NCT02047734|181998174|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.657||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.531|0.813||To control for type 1 error, the key secondary endpoints were tested in order in a sequential, closed hierarchical testing procedure. Each comparison was tested at the alpha = 0.05 level.|Negative binomial regression model|Adjusted for region, age, and Baseline GdE lesions and included the natural log transformation of available number of MRI scans as an offset term.|Rate Ratio = Ozanimod / IFN β-1a|||0.813|0.531|0.0001
91058316|NCT02047734|181998175|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.471||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.306|0.725||To control for type 1 error, the key secondary endpoints were tested in order in a sequential, closed hierarchical testing procedure. Each comparison was tested at the alpha = 0.05 level.|Negative Binomial Regression Model|Adjusted for region, age, and Baseline GdE lesions with the natural log transformation of available MRI scans at Month 24 as an offset term.|Rate ratio = Ozanimod / IFN β-1a|||0.725|0.306|0.0006
91058317|NCT02047734|181998175|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.528||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.346|0.805||To control for type 1 error, the key secondary endpoints were tested in order in a sequential, closed hierarchical testing procedure. Each comparison was tested at the alpha = 0.05 level.|Negative binomial regression model,|Adjusted for region, age, and Baseline GdE lesions with the natural log transformation of available MRI scans at Month 24 as an offset term.|Rate ratio = Ozanimod / IFN β-1a|||0.805|0.346|0.0030
91078381|NCT00824382|182042341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean for the difference|0.193|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.15|0.236|||ANCOVA|||Olodaterol 10mcg - Placebo||0.236|0.150|<0.0001
91058318|NCT02047734|181998176|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.045||||0.8224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.711|1.537||To control for type 1 error, the key secondary endpoints were tested in order in a sequential, closed hierarchical testing procedure. Each comparison was tested at the alpha = 0.05 level.|Cox proportional hazards model|Adjusted for region (Eastern Europe vs Rest of World) age at Baseline, and Baseline EDSS score|Hazard ratio (Ozanimod / IFN β-1a) based on Cox proportional hazard model with factors for treatment group, adjusted for region, age at Baseline, and Baseline EDSS score.|||1.537|0.711|0.8224
91058319|NCT02047734|181998176|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.798||||0.2849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.528|1.206||To control for type 1 error, the key secondary endpoints were tested in order in a sequential, closed hierarchical testing procedure. Each comparison was tested at the alpha = 0.05 level.|Cox proportional hazards model|Adjusted for region (Eastern Europe vs Rest of World), age at Baseline, and Baseline EDSS score|Hazard ratio (Ozanimod / IFN β-1a) based on Cox proportional hazard model with factors for treatment group, adjusted for region, age at Baseline, and Baseline EDSS score.|||1.206|0.528|0.2849
91058320|NCT02047734|181998177|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.435||||0.1353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.893|2.305||To control for type 1 error, the key secondary endpoints were tested in order in a sequential, closed hierarchical testing procedure. Each comparison was tested at the alpha = 0.05 level.|Cox proportional hazard model|Adjusted for region (Eastern Europe vs Rest of World), age at Baseline, and Baseline EDSS score|Hazard ratio (Ozanimod / IFN β-1a) based on Cox proportional hazard model with factors for treatment group, adjusted for region, age at Baseline, and Baseline EDSS score.|||2.305|0.893|0.1353
91058321|NCT02047734|181998177|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.098||||0.7154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.664|1.815||To control for type 1 error, the key secondary endpoints were tested in order in a sequential, closed hierarchical testing procedure. Each comparison was tested at the alpha = 0.05 level.|Cox proportional hazard model|Adjusted for region (Eastern Europe vs Rest of World), age at Baseline, and Baseline EDSS score|Hazard ratio (Ozanimod / IFN β-1a) based on Cox proportional hazard model with factors for treatment group, adjusted for region, age at Baseline, and Baseline EDSS score.|||1.815|0.664|0.7154
91058322|NCT02047734|181998178|SUPERIORITY||Difference|9.4||||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|15.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region (Eastern Europe vs Rest of the World) and Baseline EDSS category||||15.8|2.9|0.0047
91058323|NCT02047734|181998178|SUPERIORITY||Difference|7.1||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|13.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region (Eastern Europe vs Rest of the World) and Baseline EDSS category||||13.6|0.6|0.0320
91058324|NCT02047734|181998179|SUPERIORITY||Difference|5.4||||0.0466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|10.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region (Eastern Europe vs. rest of the world) and Baseline EDSS category||||10.8|0.0|0.0466
91058325|NCT02047734|181998179|SUPERIORITY||Difference|5.1||||0.0581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|10.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region (Eastern Europe vs. rest of the world) and Baseline EDSS category||||10.5|-0.3|0.0581
91058326|NCT02047734|181998180|SUPERIORITY||Difference in means|0.244|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.125|0.363||Based on the analysis of covariance model, adjusted for region (Eastern Europe vs. rest of the world), Baseline EDSS category, and brain volume at Baseline|ANCOVA||Difference in means based on the analysis of covariance model, adjusted for region (Eastern Europe vs. rest of the world), Baseline EDSS category, and brain volume at Baseline.|||0.363|0.125|<0.0001
91058327|NCT02047734|181998180|SUPERIORITY||Difference in means|0.224||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.106|0.342||Based on the analysis of covariance model, adjusted for region (Eastern Europe vs. rest of the world), Baseline EDSS category, and brain volume at Baseline.|ANCOVA||Difference in means based on the analysis of covariance model, adjusted for region (Eastern Europe vs. rest of the world), Baseline EDSS category, and brain volume at Baseline.|||0.342|0.106|0.0002
91058328|NCT02047734|181998181|SUPERIORITY||Difference in means|0.043||||0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.116|||ANCOVA|Based on the analysis of covariance model, adjusted for region, Baseline EDSS category, and Baseline MSFC Z-score|Difference in means are based on the analysis of covariance model, adjusted for region (Eastern Europe vs Rest of the World), Baseline EDSS category, and the Baseline MSFC Z-score.|||0.116|-0.030|0.2480
91058329|NCT02047734|181998181|SUPERIORITY||Difference in means|0.093||||0.0123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.165|||ANCOVA|Based on the analysis of covariance model, adjusted for region, Baseline EDSS category, and Baseline MSFC Z-score|Difference in means based on the analysis of covariance model, adjusted for region (Eastern Europe vs Rest of the World), Baseline EDSS category, and the Baseline MSFC Z-score.|||0.165|0.020|0.0123
91058330|NCT02047734|181998182|SUPERIORITY||Difference in means|1.345||||0.0988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.252|2.943|||ANCOVA|Based on the analysis of covariance model, adjusted for region, Baseline EDSS category, and Baseline summary score|Difference in means based on the analysis of covariance model, adjusted for region (Eastern Europe vs Rest of the World), Baseline EDSS category, and Baseline summary score.|Analysis of Physical Health Composite Summary Score||2.943|-0.252|0.0988
91058331|NCT02047734|181998182|SUPERIORITY||Difference in means|1.849||||0.0228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.258|3.44|||ANCOVA|Based on the analysis of covariance model, adjusted for region, Baseline EDSS category, and Baseline summary score.|Difference in means based on the analysis of covariance model, adjusted for region (Eastern Europe vs Rest of the World), Baseline EDSS category, and Baseline summary score.|Analysis of Physical Health Composite Summary Score||3.440|0.258|0.0228
91058332|NCT02047734|181998182|SUPERIORITY||Difference in means|0.38||||0.6997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.553|2.313|||ANCOVA|Based on the analysis of covariance model, adjusted for region, Baseline EDSS category, and Baseline summary score|Difference in means based on the analysis of covariance model, adjusted for region (Eastern Europe vs Rest of the World), Baseline EDSS category, and Baseline summary score.|Analysis of Mental Health Composite Summary Score||2.313|-1.553|0.6997
91058333|NCT02047734|181998182|SUPERIORITY||Difference in means|0.587||||0.5501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.339|2.513|||ANCOVA|Based on the analysis of covariance model, adjusted for region, Baseline EDSS category, and the Baseline summary score|Difference in means based on the analysis of covariance model, adjusted for region (Eastern Europe vs Rest of the World), Baseline EDSS category, and Baseline summary score.|Analysis of Mental Health Composite Summary Score||2.513|-1.339|0.5501
91058334|NCT02047734|181998184|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Rank ANCOVA|Adjusted for region and Baseline EDSS category, with the dependent variable as the residual of the rank of brain volume at Baseline||||||<0.0001
90817258|NCT02809053|181512676|OTHER|The 95%CI (confidence interval) for the difference in the overall response rate (ORR) was calculated using the Newcombe-Wilson method based on CMH (Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel) weight with stratification factor FLIPI-2 (low, intermediate and high risk).|Adjusted Difference Rate|-10.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.42|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.92|0.61|||||Comparison: SAIT101 versus MabThera|Adjusted Difference Rate of Overall Response Rate (ORR) of SAIT101 versus MabThera at Week 12.||0.61|-20.92|
90817259|NCT02809053|181512681|OTHER|The estimated Hazard Ratio with 95% CI was obtained from Cox regression model; however, stratification factors, ie, FLIPI-2 (low, intermediate and high risk), were only taken into account if FLIPI-2 score=all.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.724|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.853|3.482|||||Hazard Ration of TTE SAIT101:MabThera|Time to Event (TTE) Hazard Ratio (HR) of SAIT101:MabThera. The TTE is defined as the time from the date of randomization to the date when an event occurs; an event is disease progression as assessed by Investigator, death due to any cause, or the start of new treatment, whichever comes first.||3.482|0.853|
90817260|NCT02809053|181512682|EQUIVALENCE|Standard acceptance limits for bioequivalence (80.00% to 125.00%).|GLS Mean Difference (%)|101.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.86|107.24|||||Comparison: SAIT101 versus MabThera. Equivalence was demonstrated for SAIT101 and MabThera with exposure pharmacokinetic parameter AUC0-168,w1 within the standard acceptance limits for bioequivalence (80.00% to 125.00%).|Statistical Comparison: geometric least square (GLS) Mean Ratio (90% Confidence Interval (CI)) (%) of SAIT101 versus MabThera Area Under the Concentration time Curve Day 0 to Week 1 (AUC0-168,w1) (h×µg/mL). The statistical comparison of the loge-transformed primary parameters between treatments is based on an analysis of variance model with fixed effect for treatment.||107.24|95.86|
90817261|NCT02809053|181512682|EQUIVALENCE|Standard acceptance limits for bioequivalence (80.00% to 125.00%).|GLS Mean Difference (%)|96.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.85|103.4|||||Comparison: SAIT101 versus MabThera. Pharmacokinetic equivalence was demonstrated for SAIT101 and MabThera with exposure PK parameter AUC0-168,w4 within the standard acceptance limits for bioequivalence (80.00% to 125.00%).|Statistical Comparison: geometric least square (GLS) Mean Ratio (90% Confidence Interval (CI)) %) of SAIT101 versus MabThera Area Under the Concentration time Cure Day 0 to Week 4 (AUC0-168,w4) (h×µg/mL). The statistical comparison of the loge-transformed primary parameters between treatments is based on an analysis of variance model with fixed effect for treatment.||103.40|90.85|
90817262|NCT02809053|181512683|EQUIVALENCE|Standard acceptance limits for bioequivalence (80.00% to 125.00|GLS Mean Ratio (%)|99.35|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.85|103.4|||||Comparison: SAIT101 versus MabThera. Pharmacokinetic equivalence was demonstrated for SAIT101 and MabThera with Cmax,w1 exposure within the standard acceptance limits for bioequivalence (80.00% to 125.00%).|Statistical Comparison: geometric least square (GLS) Mean Ratio (90% CI) (%) of SAIT101 versus MabThera maximum plasma concentration at Week 1 (Cmax,w1) (h×µg/mL). The statistical comparison of the loge-transformed primary parameters between treatments is based on an analysis of variance model with fixed effect for treatment.||103.40|90.85|
90817263|NCT02809053|181512683|EQUIVALENCE|Standard acceptance limits for bioequivalence (80.00% to 125.00%).|GLS Mean Ration (%)|99.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.96|105.92|||||Comparison: SAIT101 versus MabThera. Pharmacokinetic equivalence was demonstrated for SAIT101 and MabThera with exposure PK parameter Cmax,w4 within the standard acceptance limits for bioequivalence (80.00% to 125.00%).|Statistical Comparison: geometric least square (GLS) Mean Ratio (90% CI) (%) of SAIT101 versus MabThera maximum plasma concentration at Week 4 (Cmax,w1) (h×µg/mL). The statistical comparison of the loge-transformed primary parameters between treatments is based on an analysis of variance model with fixed effect for treatment||105.92|92.96|
90817264|NCT02809053|181512686|EQUIVALENCE|Standard acceptance limits for bioequivalence (80.00% to 125.00%).|GLS Mean Ratio (%)|95.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.85|102.55|||||Comparison: SAIT101 versus MabThera. Pharmacokinetic equivalence was demonstrated for SAIT101 and MabThera with exposure PK parameter Ctrough,d29 within the standard acceptance limits for bioequivalence (80.00% to 125.00%).|Statistical Comparison: geometric least square (GLS) Mean Ratio (90% CI) (%) of SAIT101 versus MabThera trough plasma concentration at the end of the dosing period (Day 29) (Ctrough,d29) (µg/mL) . The statistical comparison of the log-transformed primary parameters between treatments is based on an analysis of variance model with fixed effect for treatment||102.55|88.85|
90817265|NCT02809053|181512690|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-31.0|45.4|||||Comparison: SAIT101 versus MabThera|Statistical Comparison of CD19+ B-cell Pharmacodynamic Parameters (Pharmacodynamic Analysis Set). Area under the pharmacodynamic time effect curve from baseline (Time 0) to Week 1 (AUEC0-168,w1), normalized (cells/µL). The statistical comparison of the between treatments is based on an analysis of covariance (ANOVA) model with fixed effect for treatment and a covariate for baseline value.||45.4|-31.0|
90817266|NCT02809053|181512690|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.6|57.6|||||Comparison: SAIT101 versus MabThera.|Statistical Comparison of CD19+ B-cell Pharmacodynamic Parameters (Pharmacodynamic Analysis Set). Area under the pharmacodynamic time effect curve from baseline (Time 0) to Week 2 (AUEC0-168,w2), normalized (cells/µL). The statistical comparison of the between treatments is based on an analysis of covariance (ANOVA) model with fixed effect for treatment and a covariate for baseline value.||57.6|-21.6|
90817267|NCT02809053|181512690|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.3|61.0|||||Comparison: SAIT101 versus MabThera.|Statistical Comparison of CD19+ B-cell Pharmacodynamic Parameters (Pharmacodynamic Analysis Set). Area under the pharmacodynamic time effect curve from baseline (Time 0) to Week 3 (AUEC0-168,w3), normalized (cells/µL). The statistical comparison of the between treatments is based on an analysis of covariance (ANOVA) model with fixed effect for treatment and a covariate for baseline value.||61.0|-18.3|
90817268|NCT02809053|181512690|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-19.3|60.2|||||comparison: SAIT101 versus MabThera|Statistical Comparison of CD19+ B-cell Pharmacodynamic Parameters (Pharmacodynamic Analysis Set). Area under the pharmacodynamic time effect curve from baseline (Time 0) to Week 4 (AUEC0-168,w4), normalized (cells/µL). The statistical comparison of the between treatments is based on an analysis of covariance (ANOVA) model with fixed effect for treatment and a covariate for baseline value.||60.2|-19.3|
91058335|NCT02047734|181998184|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Rank ANCOVA|Adjusted for region and Baseline EDSS category, with the dependent variable as the residual of the rank of brain volume at Baseline||||||<0.0001
91058336|NCT01333397|181998185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||ILA - Dysport NG 20 U Vs Placebo||||<0.0001
91058337|NCT01333397|181998185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||ILA - Dysport NG 50 U Vs Placebo||||<0.0001
91058338|NCT01333397|181998185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||ILA - Dysport NG 75 U Vs Placebo||||<0.0001
91058339|NCT01333397|181998185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||SSA - Dysport NG 20 U Vs Placebo||||<0.0001
91058340|NCT01333397|181998185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||SSA - Dysport NG 50 U Vs Placebo||||<0.0001
91058341|NCT01333397|181998185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||SSA - Dysport NG 75 U Vs Placebo||||<0.0001
91058342|NCT05084924|181998209|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.049|||||||ANOVA|Main effect of stimulation: F(2,32) = 3.32||||||0.049
91058343|NCT05084924|181998210|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||Main effect of stimulation: F(2,32) = 6.67|ANOVA|||||||0.004
91058344|NCT03774407|181998215|OTHER|||||||0.002||||||This P value reported was for bladder urinary frequency change from baseline to 9 months|p value|||||||0.002
91058345|NCT00182325|181998218|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91058346|NCT00182325|181998219|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.84
91058347|NCT00182325|181998220|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.68
91058348|NCT00182325|181998221|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.67
91058349|NCT00182325|181998222|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.57
91058350|NCT00182325|181998223|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.17
91058351|NCT00182325|181998224|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.46
91058352|NCT00182325|181998225|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.57
91058353|NCT00182325|181998226|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.26
91058354|NCT00182325|181998227|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.12
91058355|NCT01120704|181998239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.906||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.822|0.998|||Regression, Cox|||The Cox regression model effects consisted of five treatment effects, 10 two-way treatment interactions, 10 three-way treatment interactions, and two covariates : two items from the Fagerstrom Test of Nicotine Dependence (Item 1: time to first cigarette; Item 4: cigarettes per day).||.998|.822|.045
91058356|NCT01120704|181998239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.982||||0.705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.892|1.081|||Regression, Cox|||The Cox regression model effects consisted of five treatment effects, 10 two-way treatment interactions, 10 three-way treatment interactions, and two covariates : two items from the Fagerstrom Test of Nicotine Dependence (Item 1: time to first cigarette; Item 4: cigarettes per day).||1.081|.892|.705
91058357|NCT01120704|181998239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.044||||0.382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.948|1.149|||Regression, Cox|||The Cox regression model effects consisted of five treatment effects, 10 two-way treatment interactions, 10 three-way treatment interactions, and two covariates : two items from the Fagerstrom Test of Nicotine Dependence (Item 1: time to first cigarette; Item 4: cigarettes per day).||1.149|.948|.382
91058358|NCT01120704|181998239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.954||||0.339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.867|1.05|||Regression, Cox|||The Cox regression model effects consisted of five treatment effects, 10 two-way treatment interactions, 10 three-way treatment interactions, and two covariates : two items from the Fagerstrom Test of Nicotine Dependence (Item 1: time to first cigarette; Item 4: cigarettes per day).||1.050|.867|.339
91058359|NCT01120704|181998239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.945||||0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.858|1.04|||Regression, Cox|||||1.040|.858|.248
91058360|NCT01120704|181998240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.402||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.821|||Regression, Logistic|||The logistic regression model effects consisted of five treatment main effects and all treatment interactions. The main effects provide direct tests of the primary aim of the study, i.e., determining whether or not more intensive treatments (compared to less intensive treatments; e.g., 8 Weeks of Nicotine Patch and Nicotine Gum vs. 26 Weeks of Nicotine Patch and Nicotine Gum) would result in significantly higher abstinence at 52 weeks after target quit day.||1.821|1.080|.011
91058361|NCT01120704|181998240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.008||||0.956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.769|1.321|||Regression, Logistic|||The logistic regression model effects consisted of five treatment main effects and all treatment interactions. The main effects provide direct tests of the primary aim of the study, i.e., determining whether or not more intensive treatments (compared to less intensive treatments; e.g., No Maintenance Counseling vs. Maintenance Counseling) would result in significantly higher abstinence at 52 weeks after target quit day.||1.321|.769|.956
91058362|NCT01120704|181998240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.018||||0.885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.797|1.301|||Regression, Logistic|||The logistic regression model effects consisted of five treatment main effects and all treatment interactions. The main effects provide direct tests of the primary aim of the study, i.e., determining whether or not more intensive treatments (compared to less intensive treatments; e.g., No Cognitive Medication Adherence Counseling vs. Cognitive Medication Adherence Counseling) would result in significantly higher abstinence at 52 weeks after target quit day.||1.301|.797|.885
91058363|NCT01120704|181998240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.852||||0.205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.664|1.092|||Regression, Logistic|||The logistic regression model effects consisted of five treatment main effects and all treatment interactions. The main effects provide direct tests of the primary aim of the study, i.e., determining whether or not more intensive treatments (compared to less intensive treatments; e.g., Electronic Medication Monitoring Device Without Feedback vs. Electronic Medication Monitoring Device Plus Feedback) would result in significantly higher abstinence at 52 weeks after target quit day.||1.092|.664|.205
91058364|NCT01120704|181998240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.842|1.411|||Regression, Logistic|||The logistic regression model effects consisted of five treatment main effects and all treatment interactions. The main effects provide direct tests of the primary aim of the study, i.e., determining whether or not more intensive treatments (compared to less intensive treatments; e.g., No Automated Adherence Prompting Phone Calls vs. Automated Adherence Prompting Phone Calls) would result in significantly higher abstinence at 52 weeks after target quit day.||1.411|.842|.514
91058365|NCT01292226|181998257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4505||||||Free MPA, time 0 \[trough\]|ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA)||||||0.4505
91058366|NCT01292226|181998257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7322||||||Free MPA, time 120 \[2 hours after administration at Week 12\]|ANOVA|||||||0.7322
91058367|NCT01292226|181998257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6798||||||Total MPA, time 0 \[trough\]|ANOVA|||||||0.6798
91058368|NCT01292226|181998257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.541||||||Total MPA, time 120 \[2 hours after administration at Week 12\]|ANOVA|||||||0.5410
91058369|NCT01292226|181998258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3892||||||Free MPA, time 0 \[trough\]|ANOVA|||||||0.3892
91058370|NCT01292226|181998258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6564||||||Total MPA, time 0 \[trough\]|ANOVA|||||||0.6564
91058371|NCT01292226|181998258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7772||||||Free MPA, time 120 \[2 hours after administration at Week 12\]|ANOVA|||||||0.7772
91058372|NCT01292226|181998258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0958||||||Total MPA, time 120 \[2 hours after administration at Week 12\]|ANOVA|||||||0.0958
91058373|NCT01292226|181998259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5796||||||Time 0 \[trough\]|ANOVA|||||||0.5796
91058374|NCT01292226|181998259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3428||||||Time 120 \[2 hours after administration at Week 12\]|ANOVA|||||||0.3428
91058375|NCT01292226|181998260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9372||||||Free MPA, time 0 \[trough\]|ANOVA|||||||0.9372
91058376|NCT01292226|181998260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9904||||||Total MPA, time 0 \[trough\]|ANOVA|||||||0.9904
91058377|NCT01292226|181998260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3658||||||Free MPA, time 120 \[2 hours after administration at Week 12\]|ANOVA|||||||0.3658
91058378|NCT01292226|181998260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2987||||||Total MPA, time 120 \[2 hours after administration at Week 12\]|ANOVA|||||||0.2987
91058379|NCT01292226|181998261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7455||||||time 0 \[trough\]|ANOVA|||||||0.7455
91058380|NCT01292226|181998261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8504||||||Time 120 \[2 hours after administration at Week 12\]|ANOVA|||||||0.8504
91058381|NCT01292226|181998262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6847||||||IMPDH I, time 0 \[trough\]|ANOVA|||||||0.6847
91058382|NCT01292226|181998262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3184||||||IMPDH I, time 120 \[2 hours after administration at Week 12\]|ANOVA|||||||0.3184
91058383|NCT01292226|181998262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3862||||||IMPDH II, time 0 \[trough\]|ANOVA|||||||0.3862
91058384|NCT01292226|181998262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.904||||||IMPDH II, time 120 \[2 hours after administration at Week 12\]|ANOVA|||||||0.9040
91058385|NCT01292226|181998262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0907||||||IMPDH activity, time 0 \[trough\]|ANOVA|||||||0.0907
91058386|NCT01292226|181998262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.963||||||IMPDH activity, time 120 \[2 hours after administration at Week 12\]|ANOVA|||||||0.9630
91058387|NCT01292226|181998263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.413||||||IMPDH I|ANOVA|||||||0.4130
91058388|NCT01292226|181998263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3823||||||IMPDH II|ANOVA|||||||0.3823
91058389|NCT01292226|181998264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0316||||||IMPDH I|ANOVA|||||||0.0316
91058390|NCT01292226|181998264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.944||||||IMPDH II|ANOVA|||||||0.9440
91058391|NCT01292226|181998265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1328||||||IMPDH I|ANOVA|||||||0.1328
91058392|NCT01292226|181998265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.576||||||IMPDH II|ANOVA|||||||0.5760
91058393|NCT01292226|181998266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7332||||||Free MPA|ANOVA|||||||0.7332
91058394|NCT01292226|181998266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2681||||||Total MPA|ANOVA|||||||0.2681
91058395|NCT01292226|181998266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7087||||||AUC MPA|ANOVA|||||||0.7087
91058396|NCT01292226|181998267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9432||||||Free MPA|ANOVA|||||||0.9432
91058397|NCT01292226|181998267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5177||||||Total MPA|ANOVA|||||||0.5177
91058398|NCT01292226|181998267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6398||||||AUC MPA|ANOVA|||||||0.6398
91058399|NCT01292226|181998268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0656||||||Free MPA|ANOVA|||||||0.0656
91058400|NCT01292226|181998268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0131||||||Total MPA|ANOVA|||||||0.0131
91058401|NCT01292226|181998268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0515||||||AUC MPA|ANOVA|||||||0.0515
91058402|NCT00468650|181998271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|10.96|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.19|<|0.001||95.0|10.0|11.93||"Statistical significance will be declared if the p-value is \<0.05.~Change from Baseline: Week 6 (LOCF) minus Baseline"|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Primary hypothesis to be tested is whether there is a significant improvement in the IIEF EF domain at the end of the 100 mg period, as compared to the baseline (Week 0) score. Sample size (N=115) provides more than 90% power to detect a change from baseline of 10 in the primary efficacy variable, assuming a standard deviation of 9, using the two-sided, single-sample t-test with significance level (alpha) of 0.05.||11.93|10.00|<0.001
91058403|NCT00468650|181998272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|7.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.21|<|0.001||95.0|6.17|8.11||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 2 minus baseline||8.11|6.17|<0.001
91058404|NCT00468650|181998272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|10.57|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.43|<|0.001||95.0|9.56|11.59||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus baseline||11.59|9.56|<0.001
91058405|NCT00468650|181998272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|10.93|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.26|<|0.001||95.0|9.93|11.92||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus baseline||11.92|9.93|<0.001
91058406|NCT00468650|181998272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|10.95|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.21|<|0.001||95.0|9.97|11.92||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 endpoint minus baseline||11.92|9.97|<0.001
91058407|NCT00468650|181998273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.48|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.97|<|0.001||95.0|2.74|4.23||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus Week 2||4.23|2.74|<0.001
91058408|NCT00468650|181998273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.88|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.38|<|0.001||95.0|3.05|4.71||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus Week 2 For the secondary outcome, the change in IIEF-EF domain from the end of 50 mg period (Week 2) to the end of 100 mg period (Week 6), the sample size (N=115) provides more than 80% power to detect a mean change of 1.75 points, assuming a standard deviation of 6, using the two-sided, single sample t-test with significance level (alpha) of 0.05||4.71|3.05|<0.001
91078382|NCT00824382|182042342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean for the difference|0.146|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001||95.0|0.101|0.191|||ANCOVA|||Olodaterol 2mcg - Placebo||0.191|0.101|<0.0001
90817269|NCT02809053|181512690|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.1|54.6|||||Comparison: SAIT101 versus MabThera|Statistical Comparison of CD19+ B-cell Pharmacodynamic Parameters (Pharmacodynamic Analysis Set). Area under the pharmacodynamic time effect curve from baseline (Time 0) to Week 12 (AUEC0-168,w12), normalized (cells/µL). The statistical comparison of the between treatments is based on an analysis of covariance (ANOVA) model with fixed effect for treatment and a covariate for baseline value.||54.6|-23.1|
90817270|NCT02809053|181512690|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-26.0|51.8|||||Comparison: SAIT101 versus MabThera.|Statistical Comparison of CD19+ B-cell Pharmacodynamic Parameters (Pharmacodynamic Analysis Set). Area under the pharmacodynamic time effect curve from baseline (Time 0) to Week 28 (AUEC0-168,w28), normalized (cells/µL). The statistical comparison of the between treatments is based on an analysis of covariance (ANOVA) model with fixed effect for treatment and a covariate for baseline value.||51.8|-26.0|
90817271|NCT02809053|181512694|OTHER|||||||0.587||||||The p-value was calculated using Gail-Simon Test for Qualitative Interactions.|Gail-Simon|||Exploratory statistical analysis: Comparison of Overall Response Rate (ORR) by Region (European Union / Other). The interaction p-value for the Region subgroup was calculated based upon the full set of data, and based on a Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) model including treatment, and applicable stratification covariate.||||0.587
90817272|NCT02809053|181512694|OTHER|||||||0.421||||||The p-value was calculated using Gail-Simon Test for Qualitative Interactions.|Gail-Simon|||Exploratory statistical analysis. Overall Response Rate by Age Group (18-60 years and \>60 years). The interaction p-value for the Age subgroup was calculated based upon the full set of data, and based on a Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) model including treatment, and applicable stratification covariate.||||0.421
90817273|NCT02809053|181512694|OTHER|||||||0.288||||||The p-value was calculated using Gail-Simon Test for Qualitative Interactions.|Gail-Simon|||Exploratory statistical analysis. Comparison of Overall Response Rate (ORR) by Gender (Male / Female). The interaction p-value for the Gender subgroup was calculated based upon the full set of data, and based on a Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) model including treatment, and applicable stratification covariate. The p-value was calculated using Gail-Simon Test for Qualitative Interactions.||||0.288
90817274|NCT02809053|181512694|OTHER|||||||0.588||||||The p-value was calculated using Gail-Simon Test for Qualitative Interactions.|Gail-Wilson|||Exploratory statistical analysis. Comparison of Overall Response Rate (ORR) by Anti-drug Antibody (ADA) status (Positive / Negative). The interaction p-value for the ADA subgroup was calculated based upon the full set of data, and based on a Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) model including treatment, and applicable stratification covariate.||||0.588
90817275|NCT01943552|181512700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|154.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|32.32|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.08|218.63|||ANCOVA||The Mean Difference; nebulized ipratropium minus placebo was estimated by the difference of their adjusted means.|The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) method was used to compare the change of FEV1 from pre-bronchodilator at baseline to post-nebulization on treatment day 3 between the active arm and the placebo arm, with baseline value as covariate and two stratification factors based on acute bronchodilator responsiveness at baseline and age as main effects.||218.63|91.08|<0.0001
90817276|NCT01943552|181512701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|51.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|54.48||0.3509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.55|158.46|||ANCOVA||The Mean Difference; nebulized ipratropium minus placebo was estimated by the difference of their adjusted means.|The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) method was used to compare the change of forced vital capacity (FVC) from pre-bronchodilator at baseline to post-nebulization on treatment day 3 between the active arm and the placebo arm, with baseline value as covariate and two stratification factors based on acute bronchodilator responsiveness at baseline and age as main effects.||158.46|-56.55|0.3509
90817277|NCT01943552|181512702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.18||0.2069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|7.07|||ANCOVA||The Mean Difference; nebulized ipratropium minus placebo was estimated by the difference of their adjusted means.|The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) method was used to compare the change of blood gas analyses from pre-bronchodilator at baseline to post-nebulization on treatment day 3 for PaO2 between the active arm and the placebo arm, with baseline value as covariate and two stratification factors based on acute bronchodilator responsiveness at baseline and age as main effects.||7.07|-1.54|0.2069
90817278|NCT01943552|181512703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.1899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.93|||ANCOVA||The Mean Difference; nebulized ipratropium minus placebo was estimated by the difference of their adjusted means.|The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) method was used to compare the change of blood gas analyses from pre-bronchodilator at baseline to post-nebulization on treatment day 3 for Oxygen saturation between the active arm and the placebo arm, with baseline value as covariate and two stratification factors based on acute bronchodilator responsiveness at baseline and age as main effects.||0.93|-0.19|0.1899
90817279|NCT01943552|181512704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.4758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|1.55|||ANCOVA||The Mean Difference; nebulized ipratropium minus placebo was estimated by the difference of their adjusted means.|The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) method was used to compare the change of blood gas analyses from pre-bronchodilator at baseline to post-nebulization on treatment day 3 for PaCO2 between the active arm and the placebo arm, with baseline value as covariate and two stratification factors based on acute bronchodilator responsiveness at baseline and age as main effects.||1.55|-0.72|0.4758
90817280|NCT01943552|181512705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Test Statistic|1.82||||0.1779|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For main post-operative pulmonary complications, the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel analysis was performed on the SCS. Mantel-Haenszel test with strata based on acute bronchodilator responsiveness at baseline and age was used to compare the number of patients with main post-operative pulmonary complications between the two arms.||||0.1779
90817281|NCT03249103|181512769|OTHER|||||||0.032|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||placebo - NYX-2925 20 mg||||0.032
90817282|NCT03249103|181512770|OTHER|||||||0.039|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||placebo - NYX-2925 200 mg||||0.039
90817283|NCT03249103|181512771|OTHER|||||||0.0072|||||||t-test, 2 sided|comparing Week 2 (Placebo) to Week 6 (NYX-2925 200 mg)||||||0.0072
91078383|NCT00824382|182042342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean for the difference|0.202|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001||95.0|0.157|0.247|||ANCOVA|||Olodaterol 5mcg - Placebo||0.247|0.157|<0.0001
91078384|NCT00824382|182042342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean for the difference|0.196|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001||95.0|0.151|0.24|||ANCOVA|||Olodaterol 10mcg - Placebo||0.240|0.151|<0.0001
91058409|NCT00468650|181998273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.86|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.35|<|0.001||95.0|3.04|4.67||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 LOCF minus Week 2 For the secondary outcome, the change in IIEF-EF domain from the end of 50 mg period (Week 2) to the end of 100 mg period (Week 6), the sample size (N=115) provides more than 80% power to detect a mean change of 1.75 points, assuming a standard deviation of 6, using the two-sided, single sample t-test with significance level (alpha) of 0.05||4.67|3.04|<0.001
91058410|NCT00468650|181998273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.86|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.35|<|0.001||95.0|3.04|4.67||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 Endpoint minus Week 2 For the secondary outcome, the change in IIEF-EF domain from the end of 50 mg period (Week 2) to the end of 100 mg period (Week 6), the sample size (N=115) provides more than 80% power to detect a mean change of 1.75 points, assuming a standard deviation of 6, using the two-sided, single sample t-test with significance level (alpha) of 0.05||4.67|3.04|<0.001
91058411|NCT00468650|181998274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.89|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.4|<|0.001||95.0|1.45|2.34||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 2 minus Baseline||2.34|1.45|<0.001
91058412|NCT00468650|181998274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.46|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.32|<|0.001||95.0|2.02|2.89||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus Baseline||2.89|2.02|<0.001
91058413|NCT00468650|181998274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.59|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.44|<|0.001||95.0|2.13|3.05||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus Baseline||3.05|2.13|<0.001
91058414|NCT00468650|181998274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.63|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.45|<|0.001||95.0|2.17|3.08||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 LOCF minus Baseline||3.08|2.17|<0.001
91058415|NCT00468650|181998274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.59|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.42|<|0.001||95.0|2.14|3.04||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 Endpoint minus Baseline||3.04|2.14|<0.001
91058416|NCT00468650|181998275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.61|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.51|<|0.001||95.0|0.32|0.89||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus Week 2||0.89|0.32|<0.001
91058417|NCT00468650|181998275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.46|<|0.001||95.0|0.47|1.02||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus Week 2||1.02|0.47|<0.001
91058418|NCT00468650|181998275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.74|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.45|<|0.001||95.0|0.47|1.01||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 LOCF minus Week 2||1.01|0.47|<0.001
91058419|NCT00468650|181998275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.74|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.45|<|0.001||95.0|0.47|1.01||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 Endpoint minus Week 2||1.01|0.47|<0.001
91058420|NCT00468650|181998276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.43|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.87|<|0.001||95.0|1.09|1.78||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 2 minus Baseline||1.78|1.09|<0.001
91058421|NCT00468650|181998276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.86|<|0.001||95.0|1.65|2.35||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus Baseline||2.35|1.65|<0.001
91058422|NCT00468650|181998276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.25|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.91|<|0.001||95.0|1.89|2.62||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus Baseline||2.62|1.89|<0.001
91058423|NCT00468650|181998276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.94|<|0.001||95.0|1.9|2.62||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 LOCF minus Baseline||2.62|1.90|<0.001
91058424|NCT00468650|181998276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.28|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.93|<|0.001||95.0|1.91|2.64||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 Endpoint minus Baseline||2.64|1.91|<0.001
91058425|NCT00468650|181998277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.55|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.41|<|0.001||95.0|0.29|0.82||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus Week 2||0.82|0.29|<0.001
91058426|NCT00468650|181998277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.81|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.47|<|0.001||95.0|0.53|1.09||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus Week 2||1.09|0.53|<0.001
91058427|NCT00468650|181998277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.83|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.49|<|0.001||95.0|0.55|1.11||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 LOCF minus Week 2||1.11|0.55|<0.001
91058428|NCT00468650|181998277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.83|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.49|<|0.001||95.0|0.55|1.11||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 Endpoint minus Week 2||1.11|0.55|<0.001
91058429|NCT00468650|181998278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.18|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.42|<|0.001||95.0|2.73|3.63||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 2 minus Baseline||3.63|2.73|<0.001
91058430|NCT00468650|181998278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.38|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.39|<|0.001||95.0|3.94|4.83||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus Baseline||4.83|3.94|<0.001
91058431|NCT00468650|181998278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.73|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.53|<|0.001||95.0|4.25|5.21||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus Baseline||5.21|4.25|<0.001
91058432|NCT00468650|181998278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.52|<|0.001||95.0|4.23|5.17||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 LOCF minus Baseline||5.17|4.23|<0.001
91058433|NCT00468650|181998278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.72|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.52|<|0.001||95.0|4.25|5.19||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 Endpoint minus Baseline||5.19|4.25|<0.001
91058434|NCT00468650|181998279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.1|<|0.001||95.0|0.8|1.59||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus Week 2||1.59|0.80|<0.001
91058435|NCT00468650|181998279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.54|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.2|<|0.001||95.0|1.12|1.95||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus Week 2||1.95|1.12|<0.001
91058436|NCT00468650|181998279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.54|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.19|<|0.001||95.0|1.13|1.95||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 LOCF minus Week 2||1.95|1.13|<0.001
91058437|NCT00468650|181998279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.54|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.19|<|0.001||95.0|1.13|1.95||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 Endpoint minus Week 2||1.95|1.13|<0.001
91058438|NCT00468650|181998280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.73|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.38|<|0.001||95.0|2.28|3.17||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 2 minus Baseline||3.17|2.28|<0.001
91058439|NCT00468650|181998280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.67|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.49|<|0.001||95.0|3.2|4.14||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus Baseline||4.14|3.20|<0.001
91058440|NCT00468650|181998280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.92|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.52|<|0.001||95.0|3.44|4.4||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus Baseline||4.40|3.44|<0.001
91058441|NCT00468650|181998280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.91|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.53|<|0.001||95.0|3.44|4.38||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 LOCF minus Baseline||4.38|3.44|<0.001
91058442|NCT00468650|181998280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.89|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.53|<|0.001||95.0|3.42|4.37||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 Endpoint minus Baseline||4.37|3.42|<0.001
91058443|NCT00468650|181998281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.97|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.88|<|0.001||95.0|0.62|1.32||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus Week 2||1.32|0.62|<0.001
91058444|NCT00468650|181998281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.92|<|0.001||95.0|0.85|1.57||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus Week 2||1.57|0.85|<0.001
91058445|NCT00468650|181998281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.9|<|0.001||95.0|0.84|1.55||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 LOCF minus Week 2||1.55|0.84|<0.001
91058446|NCT00468650|181998281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.9|<|0.001||95.0|0.84|1.55||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 Endpoint minus Week 2||1.55|0.84|<0.001
91058447|NCT00468650|181998282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|32.71|STANDARD_DEVIATION|25.36|<|0.001||95.0|27.98|37.43||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 2 minus Baseline||37.43|27.98|<0.001
91058448|NCT00468650|181998282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|46.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|26.27|<|0.001||95.0|41.29|51.12||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus Baseline||51.12|41.29|<0.001
91058449|NCT00468650|181998282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|45.53|STANDARD_DEVIATION|26.96|<|0.001||95.0|40.44|50.63||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus Baseline||50.63|40.44|<0.001
91058450|NCT00468650|181998282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|45.28|STANDARD_DEVIATION|27.01|<|0.001||95.0|40.25|50.31||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 LOCF minus Baseline||50.31|40.25|<0.001
91058451|NCT00468650|181998282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|45.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|27.02|<|0.001||95.0|39.99|50.11||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 Endpoint minus Baseline||50.11|39.99|<0.001
91058452|NCT00468650|181998283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|13.84|STANDARD_DEVIATION|21.1|<|0.001||95.0|9.89|17.79||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus Week 2||17.79|9.89|<0.001
90817284|NCT00257660|181512780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.84|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.94|-4.74||A hierarchical testing procedure was applied for the primary and secondary outcome measures ranked in the order of priority listed. At each step of the hierarchical testing procedure, there was one comparison and p\<0.05 was considered significant.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, baseline TWSTRS score, center and previous treatment by botulinum toxin or not were fitted in the ANCOVA model.|"Baseline TWSTRS total scores are analysed for all subjects of ITT population, while the analysis at Week 4 excludes the scores for the 7 subjects who were not assessed.~Mean difference = difference in adjusted least squares mean (Dysport - Placebo)."|||-4.74|-12.94|<0.0001
90817285|NCT00257660|181512781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.81|||<|0.0001||95.0|-12.91|-4.71||A hierarchical testing procedure was applied for the primary and secondary outcome measures ranked in the order of priority listed. At each step of the hierarchical testing procedure, there was one comparison and p\<0.05 was considered significant.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, baseline TWSTRS score, center and previous treatment by botulinum toxin or not were fitted in the ANCOVA model.|"Baseline TWSTRS total scores are analysed for all subjects of ITT population, while the Week 8 analysis excludes the scores for the 24 subjects who were not assessed.~Mean difference = difference in adjusted least squares mean (Dysport - Placebo)."|||-4.71|-12.91|<0.0001
90817286|NCT00257660|181512782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.12||||0.019||95.0|-7.55|-0.68||A hierarchical testing procedure was applied for the primary and secondary outcome measures ranked in the order of priority listed. At each step of the hierarchical testing procedure, there was one comparison and p\<0.05 was considered significant.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, baseline TWSTRS score, center and previous treatment by botulinum toxin or not were fitted in the ANCOVA model.|"Baseline TWSTRS total scores are analysed for all subjects of ITT population, while the Week 12 analysis excludes the scores for the 27 subjects who were not assessed.~Mean difference = difference in adjusted least squares mean (Dysport - Placebo)."|||-0.68|-7.55|0.019
90817287|NCT00257660|181512783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-15.2|||<|0.001||95.0|-24.0|-6.4||A hierarchical testing procedure was applied for the primary and secondary outcome measures ranked in the order of priority listed. At each step of the hierarchical testing procedure, there was one comparison and p\<0.05 was considered significant.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, baseline Subject VAS symptom score, center and previous treatment by botulinum toxin or not were fitted in the ANCOVA model.|Analysis at baseline (and on change at Week 4) excludes 4 subjects (and 13 subjects respectively) of ITT population who were not assessed. Mean difference=difference in adjusted least squares mean (Dysport-placebo)|||-6.4|-24.0|<0.001
90817288|NCT00257660|181512784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.2|||<|0.001||95.0|-22.3|-6.1||A hierarchical testing procedure was applied for the primary and secondary outcome measures ranked in the order of priority listed. At each step of the hierarchical testing procedure, there was one comparison and p\<0.05 was considered significant.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, baseline Investigator VAS CD symptom score, center and previous treatment by botulinum toxin or not were fitted in the ANCOVA model.|Analysis at baseline (and on change at Week 4) excludes 3 subjects (and 8 subjects respectively) of ITT population who were not assessed. Mean difference=difference in adjusted least squares mean (Dysport-placebo)|||-6.1|-22.3|<0.001
90817289|NCT00257660|181512785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.95|||<|0.001||95.0|-25.8|-8.1||A hierarchical testing procedure was applied for the primary and secondary outcome measures ranked in the order of priority listed. At each step of the hierarchical testing procedure, there was one comparison and p\<0.05 was considered significant.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, baseline Subject VAS Pain score, center and previous treatment by botulinum toxin or not were fitted in the ANCOVA model.|Analysis at baseline (and on change at Week 8) excludes 4 subjects (and 4 subjects respectively) of ITT population who were not assessed. Mean difference=difference in adjusted least squares mean (Dysport-placebo)|||-8.1|-25.8|<0.001
90817290|NCT00257660|181512786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.0|||<|0.001||95.0|-24.2|-7.8||A hierarchical testing procedure was applied for the primary and secondary outcome measures ranked in the order of priority listed. At each step of the hierarchical testing procedure, there was one comparison and p\<0.05 was considered significant.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, baseline Investigator VAS Pain score, center and previous treatment by botulinum toxin or not were fitted in the ANCOVA model.|Analysis at baseline (and on change at Week 8) excludes 3 subjects (and 3 subjects respectively) of ITT population who were not assessed. Mean difference=difference in adjusted least squares mean (Dysport-placebo)|||-7.8|-24.2|<0.001
91058453|NCT00468650|181998283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|13.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|24.25|<|0.001||95.0|8.49|17.65||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus Week 2||17.65|8.49|<0.001
91058454|NCT00468650|181998283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|12.69|STANDARD_DEVIATION|24.26|<|0.001||95.0|8.14|17.23||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 LOCF minus Week 2||17.23|8.14|<0.001
91058455|NCT00468650|181998283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|12.69|STANDARD_DEVIATION|24.26|<|0.001||95.0|8.14|17.23||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 Endpoint minus Week 2||17.23|8.14|<0.001
91058456|NCT00468650|181998284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.41|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.4|<|0.001||95.0|4.59|6.23||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 2 minus Baseline||6.23|4.59|<0.001
91058457|NCT00468650|181998284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|8.85|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.96|<|0.001||95.0|7.92|9.78||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus Baseline||9.78|7.92|<0.001
91058458|NCT00468650|181998284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|9.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.19|<|0.001||95.0|8.23|10.19||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus Baseline||10.19|8.23|<0.001
91058459|NCT00468650|181998284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|9.28|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.14|<|0.001||95.0|8.32|10.24||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 LOCF minus Baseline||10.24|8.32|<0.001
90817291|NCT00257660|181512787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.05||||0.007||95.0|-19.0|-3.1||A hierarchical testing procedure was applied for the primary and secondary outcome measures ranked in the order of priority listed. At each step of the hierarchical testing procedure, there was one comparison and p\<0.05 was considered significant.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, baseline Subject VAS Pain score, center and previous treatment by botulinum toxin or not were fitted in the ANCOVA model.|Analysis at baseline (and on change at Week 12) excludes 4 subjects (and 4 subjects respectively) of ITT population who were not assessed. Mean difference=difference in adjusted least squares mean (Dysport-placebo)|||-3.1|-19.0|0.007
90817292|NCT00257660|181512788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.05||||0.028||95.0|-13.3|-0.8||A hierarchical testing procedure was applied for the primary and secondary outcome measures ranked in the order of priority listed. At each step of the hierarchical testing procedure, there was one comparison and p\<0.05 was considered significant.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, baseline Investigator VAS Pain score, center and previous treatment by botulinum toxin or not were fitted in the ANCOVA model.|Analysis at baseline (and on change at Week 12) excludes 3 subjects (and 3 subjects respectively) of ITT population who were not assessed. Mean difference=difference in adjusted least squares mean (Dysport-placebo)|||-0.8|-13.3|0.028
90817293|NCT00257660|181512789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.65||||0.061||95.0|-0.17|7.47||A hierarchical testing procedure was applied for the primary and secondary outcome measures ranked in the order of priority listed. At each step of the hierarchical testing procedure, there was one comparison and p\<0.05 was considered significant.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, baseline SF-36 mental health summary score, center and previous treatment by botulinum toxin or not were fitted in the ANCOVA model.|Analysis at baseline (and on change at Week 8) excludes 3 subjects (and 37 subjects respectively) of ITT population who were not assessed. Mean difference=difference in adjusted least squares mean (Dysport-placebo)|||7.47|-0.17|0.061
90817294|NCT00257660|181512790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.66||||0.002||95.0|1.73|7.58||A hierarchical testing procedure was applied for the primary and secondary outcome measures ranked in the order of priority listed. At each step of the hierarchical testing procedure, there was one comparison and p\<0.05 was considered significant.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, baseline SF-36 physical health summary score, center and previous treatment by botulinum toxin or not were fitted in ANCOVA model.|Analysis at baseline (and on change at Week 8) excludes 3 subjects (and 37 subjects respectively) of ITT population who were not assessed. Mean difference=difference in adjusted least squares mean (Dysport-placebo)|||7.58|1.73|0.002
90817295|NCT00257660|181512791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.206|||<|0.0001||95.0|3.01|17.26||A hierarchical testing procedure was applied for the primary and secondary outcome measures ranked in the order of priority listed. At each step of the hierarchical testing procedure, there was one comparison and p\<0.05 was considered significant.|odds ratio|The odds ratio represents the odds of success on Dysport versus Placebo stratified for strata and country||The number of participants considered treatment successes was analysed using a logistic model with treatment, strata (naive or non-naive) and center as factors in the model.||17.26|3.01|<0.0001
90817296|NCT02437084|181512822|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Paired samples t test, 2 sided|SSPG concentration was log-transformed for statistical analysis; degrees of freedom = 69||Null hypothesis: There will be no change in steady-state plasma glucose (SSPG) concentration after treatment with atorvastatin 40 mg daily for 9 - 10 weeks.||||0.01
90817297|NCT02437084|181512823|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Paired samples t test, 2 sided|Insulin secretion rate AUC was log-transformed for statistical analysis; degrees of freedom = 63.||Null hypothesis: There will be no change in insulin secretion rate AUC after treatment with atorvastatin 40 mg daily for 9 - 10 weeks.||||<0.001
90817298|NCT02437084|181512824|OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||Paired samples t test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 70||Null hypothesis: There will be no change in fasting plasma glucose concentration after treatment with atorvastatin 40 mg daily for 8 - 10 weeks.||||0.10
91058460|NCT00468650|181998284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|9.25|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.15|<|0.001||95.0|8.28|10.22||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 Endpoint minus Baseline||10.22|8.28|<0.001
91058461|NCT00468650|181998285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.51|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.89|<|0.001||95.0|2.78|4.24||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus Week 2||4.24|2.78|<0.001
91058462|NCT00468650|181998285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.91|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.41|<|0.001||95.0|3.08|4.74||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus Week 2||4.74|3.08|<0.001
91058463|NCT00468650|181998285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.91|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.38|<|0.001||95.0|3.09|4.73||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 LOCF minus Week 2||4.73|3.09|<0.001
91058464|NCT00468650|181998285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.91|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.38|<|0.001||95.0|3.09|4.73||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 Endpoint minus Week 2||4.73|3.09|<0.001
91058465|NCT00468650|181998286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.68|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.86|<|0.001||95.0|5.77|7.59||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 2 minus Baseline||7.59|5.77|<0.001
91058466|NCT00468650|181998286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|9.94|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.21|<|0.001||95.0|8.96|10.91||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus Baseline||10.91|8.96|<0.001
91058467|NCT00468650|181998286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|10.59|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.08|<|0.001||95.0|9.62|11.56||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus Baseline||11.56|9.62|<0.001
90817299|NCT02437084|181512825|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Paired samples t test, 2 sided|Fasting plasma insulin concentration was log-transformed for statistical analysis; degrees of freedom = 68||Null hypothesis: There will be no change in fasting plasma insulin concentration after treatment with atorvastatin 40 mg daily for 8 - 10 weeks.||||0.01
91058468|NCT00468650|181998286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|10.63|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.03|<|0.001||95.0|9.68|11.58||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 LOCF minus Baseline||11.58|9.68|<0.001
91058469|NCT00468650|181998286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|10.64|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.06|<|0.001||95.0|9.68|11.59||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 Endpoint minus Baseline||11.59|9.68|<0.001
91058470|NCT00468650|181998287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.29|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.1|<|0.001||95.0|2.52|4.05||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus Week 2||4.05|2.52|<0.001
91058471|NCT00468650|181998287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.09|<|0.001||95.0|3.06|5.0||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus Week 2||5.00|3.06|<0.001
91058472|NCT00468650|181998287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.04|<|0.001||95.0|3.06|4.96||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 LOCF minus Week 2||4.96|3.06|<0.001
90817300|NCT02437084|181512826|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Paired samples t test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 70||Null hypothesis: There will be no change in OGTT glucose AUC after treatment with atorvastatin 40 mg daily for 8 - 10 weeks.||||0.03
90817301|NCT02437084|181512827|OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||Paired samples t test, 2 sided|OGTT insulin AUC was log-transformed for statistical analysis; degrees of freedom = 63||Null hypothesis: There will be no change in OGTT insulin AUC after treatment with atorvastatin 40 mg daily for 8 weeks.||||0.27
90817302|NCT00884832|181512837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Proportion of semi-formed and loose stools (Bristol Form 5-7) associated with diarrhea subgroup versus no diarrhea subgroup.||||<0.001
90817303|NCT00884832|181512838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.018
91058473|NCT00468650|181998287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.04|<|0.001||95.0|3.06|4.96||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 Endpoint minus Week 2||4.96|3.06|<0.001
91058474|NCT00468650|181998288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.79|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.44|<|0.001||95.0|2.33|3.24||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 2 minus Baseline||3.24|2.33|<0.001
91058475|NCT00468650|181998288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.23|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.56|<|0.001||95.0|3.74|4.71||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus Baseline||4.71|3.74|<0.001
91058476|NCT00468650|181998288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.74|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.84|<|0.001||95.0|4.2|5.28||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus Baseline||5.28|4.20|<0.001
91058477|NCT00468650|181998288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.78|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.81|<|0.001||95.0|4.25|5.31||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 LOCF minus Baseline||5.31|4.25|<0.001
91058478|NCT00468650|181998288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.76|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.82|<|0.001||95.0|4.23|5.3||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 Endpoint minus Baseline||5.30|4.23|<0.001
91058479|NCT00468650|181998289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.49|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.91|<|0.001||95.0|1.13|1.85||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus Week 2||1.85|1.13|<0.001
91058480|NCT00468650|181998289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.96|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.08|<|0.001||95.0|1.57|2.36||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus Week 2||2.36|1.57|<0.001
91058481|NCT00468650|181998289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.98|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.07|<|0.001||95.0|1.59|2.37||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 LOCF minus Week 2||2.37|1.59|<0.001
91058482|NCT00468650|181998289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.98|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.07|<|0.001||95.0|1.59|2.37||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 Endpoint minus Week 2||2.37|1.59|<0.001
90817304|NCT00884832|181512838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||drug\*group interactions||||0.047
90817305|NCT00884832|181512840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.082||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.082
90817306|NCT01325714|181512843|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were based on the ability to detect a small-to-moderate difference (Cohen's h = .4) between treatment groups in rate of aggression onset over a 1-year period, assuming 80% power and T1 error rate of 5%. This differential rate in aggression onset is comparable to a 37% rate of aggression onset over a 1 year period for the control group versus 19% for the treatment group. Given this, our goal was to include 220 total participants (after 10% attrition: N = 198).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.11||This is the p value from the discrete-time Cox regression time-to-event analyses|Regression, Cox|DF = 1|The enhanced usual care arm is the comparison group.|"Univariate time-to-event analyses, using discrete-time Cox regression models to evaluate differences between PAVeD and EU-PC in the primary outcome of incidence of aggression over time.~We expected that patients with dementia among dyads randomized to PAVeD arm would be less likely to develop aggression compared to those randomized to the enhanced usual care arm."||1.11|0.45|0.13
91058483|NCT00468650|181998290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Net)|8.84|STANDARD_DEVIATION|28.7||0.0016||95.0|3.42|14.26||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 2 minus baseline||14.26|3.42|0.0016
90817307|NCT01325714|181512843|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were based on the ability to detect a small-to-moderate difference (Cohen's h = .4) between treatment groups in rate of aggression onset over a 1-year period, assuming 80% power and T1 error rate of 5%. This differential rate in aggression onset is comparable to a 37% rate of aggression onset over a 1 year period for the control group versus 19% for the treatment group. Given this, our goal was to include 220 total participants (after 10% attrition: N = 198).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.39||From discrete time-cox regression time-to-event analysis.|Regression, Cox|df = 1|The enhanced usual care arm is the reference group.|Comparison of incidence of non-verbal aggression between treatment groups.||1.39|0.43|0.39
90817308|NCT01325714|181512843|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were based on the ability to detect a small-to-moderate difference (Cohen's h = .4) between treatment groups in rate of aggression onset (the primary outcome) over a 1-year period, assuming 80% power and type I error rate of 5%. This differential rate in aggression onset is comparable to a 37% rate of aggression onset over a 1 year period for the control group (anticipated based on estimated rates from prior work) versus 19% for the treatment group|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.37||From discrete-time Cox regression time-to-event analyses|Regression, Cox|df = 1|The usual care arm is the reference group.|Examination of group differences in incidence of verbal aggression. We expected those in paved to have lower incidence of verbal aggression relative to those in enhanced usual care.||1.37|0.51|0.84
90817309|NCT01325714|181512844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Results of F value of growth curve model|0.86||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|||||P value of the interaction between treatment group and time (time coded as 0, 3, 6, 12).|Mixed Models Analysis|F (3, 455) = 0.86||Growth curve models were conducted to examine whether there were differences between treatment groups in change in caregiver reported worst pain over time.||||0.46
90817310|NCT01325714|181512845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Results of F value of growth curve model|1.43||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|||||P value of the interaction between treatment group and time (time coded as 0, 3, 6, 12).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Growth curve models were conducted to examine whether there were differences between treatment groups in change in caregiver reported worst pain over time.||||0.23
90817311|NCT01325714|181512846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Results of F value of growth curve model|1.45||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|||||P value of the interaction between treatment group and time (time coded as 0, 3, 6, 12).|Mixed Models Analysis|F (3, 455) = 1.45||Growth curve models were conducted to examine whether there were differences between treatment groups in change in caregiver reported overall pain over time.||||0.23
90817312|NCT01325714|181512847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Results of F value of growth curve model|0.86||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|||||P value of the interaction between treatment group and time (time coded as 0, 3, 6, 12).|Mixed Models Analysis|F (3, 409) = 0.59||Growth curve models were conducted to examine whether there were differences between treatment groups in change in patient-reported overall pain over time.||||0.62
90817313|NCT01325714|181512848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Results of F value of growth curve model|0.94||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|||||P value of the interaction between treatment group and time (time coded as 0, 3, 6, 12).|Mixed Models Analysis|F (3, 453) = 0.94.||Growth curve models were conducted to examine whether there were differences between treatment groups in change in depression over time.||||0.42
90817314|NCT01325714|181512849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Results of F value of growth curve model|1.1||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|||||P value of the interaction between treatment group and time (time coded as 0, 3, 6, 12).|Mixed Models Analysis|F (3, 457) = 1.10||Growth curve models were conducted to examine whether there were differences between treatment groups in change in pleasant events over time.||||0.35
90817315|NCT01325714|181512850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Results of F value of growth curve model|0.11||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|||||P value of the interaction between treatment group and time (time coded as 0, 3, 6, 12).|Mixed Models Analysis|F (3, 456) = 2.00||Growth curve models were conducted to examine whether there were differences between treatment groups in change in caregiver burden over time.||||0.11
91058484|NCT00468650|181998290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|10.18|STANDARD_DEVIATION|27.51|<|0.001||95.0|4.93|15.43||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus baseline||15.43|4.93|<0.001
91058485|NCT00468650|181998290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|12.29|STANDARD_DEVIATION|28.88|<|0.001||95.0|6.7|17.88||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus baseline||17.88|6.70|<0.001
91058486|NCT00468650|181998290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|11.96|STANDARD_DEVIATION|28.33|<|0.001||95.0|6.61|17.32||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 LOCF minus baseline||17.32|6.61|<0.001
91078385|NCT00824382|182042343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean for the difference|0.191|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043|<|0.0001||95.0|0.107|0.275|||ANCOVA|||Olodaterol 2mcg - Placebo||0.275|0.107|<0.0001
90817316|NCT01325714|181512851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Results of F value of growth curve model|3.84||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||P value of the interaction between treatment group and time (time coded as 0, 3, 6, 12).|Mixed Models Analysis|F (3, 456) = 3.84||Growth curve models were conducted to examine whether there were differences between treatment groups in change in caregiver reported mutuality over time.||||0.01
90817317|NCT01985360|181512853|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.29||||||||1.29|0.79|
90817318|NCT00079677|181512854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.5||||0.0003||95.0|1.67|5.46||The p-value for each treatment group is for the comparison of that treatment group to the placebo treatment group.|ANOVA|||Assumption: both primary treatment comparisons would be with a 2 sided test at an alpha level of 0.05||5.46|1.67|0.0003
90817319|NCT00079677|181512855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0069||||||The p-value for each treatment group is for the comparison of that treatment group to the placebo treatment group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Assumption: both primary treatment comparisons would be with a 2 sided test at an alpha level of 0.05.||||0.0069
90817320|NCT00721175|181512856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2407407|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0920078||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4210726|-0.0604089|||Two-sample test of proportion|||||-.0604089|-.4210726|0.011
90817321|NCT00721175|181512857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0021||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.0021
90817322|NCT00721175|181512859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.278744|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0929622||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4609466|-0.0965414|||Two-sample test of proportion|||||-.0965414|-.4609466|0.004
90817323|NCT04598269|181512865|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means (LSM) % Differences|-33.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.971|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-47.95|-18.08||P-value is based on a 1-sided hypothesis test of the superiority of ATI-1777 relative to the vehicle. Significance level at α = 0.05.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)||"Fixed factors for treatment, visit, visit\*treatment, baseline measurement. A compound symmetry covariance matrix was used to account for within-subject variability.~Week 4: Least Square Means (LSM) % differences ATI-1777 arm minus vehicle arm"|||-18.08|-47.95|<0.001
90817324|NCT04598269|181512866|SUPERIORITY||LSM % Differences|-23.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.971||0.005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-38.47|-8.59||P-value is based on a 1-sided hypothesis test of the superiority of ATI-1777 relative to the vehicle. Significance level at α = 0.05.|MMRM||"Fixed factors for treatment, visit, visit\*treatment, baseline measurement. A compound symmetry covariance matrix was used to account for within-subject variability.~Day 8: LSM % differences ATI-1777 arm minus vehicle arm"|Day 8 statistical analysis||-8.59|-38.47|0.005
90817325|NCT04598269|181512866|SUPERIORITY||LSM % Differences|-23.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.971||0.005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-38.38|-8.5||P-value is based on a 1-sided hypothesis test of the superiority of ATI-1777 relative to the vehicle. Significance level at α = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||"Fixed factors for treatment, visit, visit\*treatment, baseline measurement. A compound symmetry covariance matrix was used to account for within-subject variability.~Day 15: LSM % differences ATI-1777 arm minus vehicle arm"|Day 15 statistical analysis||-8.50|-38.38|0.005
90817326|NCT04598269|181512867|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|15.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.9|63.2||1-sided p-value of responders in the treatment groups at 0.05 level of significance.|Regression, Logistic||Active/Vehicle|||63.2|3.9|<0.001
90817327|NCT04598269|181512868|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|5.9||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.1|17.0||1-sided p-value of responders in the treatment groups at 0.05 level of significance|Regression, Linear||Active/Vehicle|||17.0|2.1|0.003
90817328|NCT04598269|181512869|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|1.7||||0.203|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6|5.3||1-sided p-value of responders in the treatment groups at 0.05 level of significance|Regression, Logistic||Active/Vehicle|||5.3|0.6|0.203
90817329|NCT04598269|181512870|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.148||||||1-sided p-value of responders in the treatment groups at 0.05 level of significance|MMRM|||Day 8 statistical analysis||||0.148
90817330|NCT04598269|181512870|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017||||||1-sided p-value of responders in the treatment groups at 0.05 level of significance|MMRM|||Day 15 statistical analysis||||0.017
90817331|NCT04598269|181512870|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||1-sided p-value of responders in the treatment groups at 0.05 level of significance|MMRM|||Week 4 statistical analysis||||0.002
90817332|NCT04598269|181512871|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.088||||||1-sided p-value of responders in the treatment groups at 0.05 level of significance|MMRM|||Day 8 statistical analysis||||0.088
90817333|NCT04598269|181512871|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022||||||1-sided p-value of responders in the treatment groups at 0.05 level of significance|MMRM|||Day 15 statistical analysis||||0.022
91058487|NCT00468650|181998290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|11.95|STANDARD_DEVIATION|28.55|<|0.001||95.0|6.51|17.4||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 Endpoint minus baseline||17.40|6.51|<0.001
90817334|NCT04598269|181512871|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||1-sided p-value of responders in the treatment groups at 0.05 level of significance.|MMRM|||Week 4 statistical analysis||||<0.001
90817335|NCT04598269|181512872|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014||||||1-sided p-value of responders in the treatment groups at 0.05 level of significance|MMRM|||Day 8 statistical analysis||||0.014
90817336|NCT04598269|181512872|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.069||||||1-sided p-value of responders in the treatment groups at 0.05 level of significance|MMRM|||Day 15 statistical analysis||||0.069
90817337|NCT04598269|181512872|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06||||||1-sided p-value of responders in the treatment groups at 0.05 level of significance|MMRM|||Week 4 statistical analysis||||0.060
90817338|NCT00424190|181512873|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the observed difference in the primary outcome measure between ceftaroline and vancomycin plus aztreonam was calculated. Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 95% CI was higher than -10%.|Risk Difference (RD)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|6.2|||||Risk difference corresponds to Ceftaroline clinical cure rate minus Vancomycin plus Aztreonam clinical cure rate. The confidence interval was calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen method without adjustment.|The primary objective of this study was to determine the noninferiority in clinical cure rate of ceftaroline in comparison with vancomycin plus aztreonam in adult subjects with cSSSI.||6.2|-4.2|
90817339|NCT02265796|181512883|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||the reported p value is for all between group comparisons of the SAQ domains.|t-test, 2 sided|||between group comparison for all SAQ domains||||>0.05
90817340|NCT02265796|181512883|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||reported p value is for the physical limitation, angina frequency and treatment satisfaction domains|paired t test|||within group comparison of change from baseline||||>0.05
90817341|NCT02265796|181512883|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||reported p value is for the angina stability and quality of life domains|paired t test|||within group comparison of change from baseline||||<0.05
90817342|NCT02265796|181512883|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||reported p value is for the physical limitation and treatment satisfaction domains|paired t test|||within group comparison of change from baseline||||>0.05
90817343|NCT02265796|181512883|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||reported p value is for the angina stability, angina frequency and quality of life domains|paired t test|||within group comparison of change from baseline||||<0.05
90817344|NCT02265796|181512884|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||Fisher Exact|||"between group comparison for the excellent/good"||||0.58
90817345|NCT02265796|181512884|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Fisher Exact|||"Between group analysis for fair/poor"||||0.80
90817346|NCT02265796|181512884|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||McNemar|||within group analysis of change from baseline for excellent/good||||0.50
90817347|NCT02265796|181512884|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||McNemar|||within group comparison of change from baseline for fair/poor||||0.48
90817348|NCT02265796|181512884|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||McNemar|||within group analysis of change from baseline for excellent/good||||0.19
90817349|NCT02265796|181512884|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.067|||||||McNemar|||within group comparison of change from baseline for fair/poor||||0.067
90817350|NCT02265796|181512885|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.05
90817351|NCT00377364|181512961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Baseline RAVLT scores used as covariate.||||<0.05
90817352|NCT00377364|181512964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Baseline ISS scores used as a covariate. ANCOVA results were not significant.||||||<0.05
90817353|NCT00377364|181512965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Baseline HRSD scores used as a covariate.||||<0.05
90817354|NCT00377364|181512967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Baseline YMRS scores used as a covariate.||||||0.05
90817355|NCT00377364|181512969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Baseline ACQ scores used as a covariate.||||||<0.05
90817356|NCT03480009|181512971|OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.20
90817357|NCT03480009|181512971|OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.20
90817358|NCT03480009|181512972|OTHER|||||||0.81|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Ibuprofen||||.81
90817359|NCT03480009|181512972|OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||acetaminophen||||.24
90817360|NCT03480009|181512972|OTHER|||||||0.54|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||oxycodone||||.54
90817361|NCT03480009|181512972|OTHER|||||||0.61|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Ibuprofen||||.61
90817362|NCT03480009|181512972|OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Acetaminophen||||.24
90817363|NCT03480009|181512973|OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||Wald Chi Square|Wald Chi Square from mixed effects linear regression||||||.99
90817364|NCT03480009|181512973|OTHER|||||||0.56|||||||Wald Chi Square|P-value from Wald chi-square from mixed effects linear regression||||||.56
90817365|NCT03480009|181512974|OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.07
90817366|NCT03480009|181512974|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.50
90817367|NCT02014584|181512975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.0||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|18.8|||Fisher's Exact Test|||||18.8|-4.7|0.27
90817368|NCT02014584|181513021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-3.5||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|3.4|||Fisher's Exact Test||DB Week 4|||3.4|-10.4|0.62
90817369|NCT02014584|181513021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|6.4||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|17.6|||Fisher's Exact Test||DB Week 12|||17.6|-4.7|0.34
90817370|NCT02014584|181513021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|6.3||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|16.7|||Fisher's Exact Test||DB Week 24|||16.7|-4.2|0.31
90817371|NCT02014584|181513023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|3.0|||t-test from general linear model||DB Week 4|||3.0|-0.2|0.082
90817372|NCT02014584|181513023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|0.9|||t-test from general linear model||DB Week 12|||0.9|-3.4|0.25
90817373|NCT02014584|181513023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|2.1|||t-test from general linear model||DB Week 24|||2.1|-2.0|0.99
90817374|NCT02014584|181513025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.9|||t-test from general linear model||Erectile Function DB Week 4|||0.9|-0.4|0.46
90817375|NCT02014584|181513025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.3|||t-test from general linear model||Erectile Function DB Week 12|||0.3|-1.8|0.14
90817376|NCT02014584|181513025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.5|||t-test from general linear model||Erectile Function DB Week 24|||0.5|-1.9|0.27
90817377|NCT02014584|181513025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.8|||t-test from general linear model||Intercourse satisfaction DB Week 4|||0.8|-0.1|0.13
90817378|NCT02014584|181513025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.5|||t-test from general linear model||Intercourse satisfaction DB Week 12|||0.5|-0.8|0.73
90817379|NCT02014584|181513025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.5|||t-test from general linear model||Intercourse satisfaction DB Week 24|||0.5|-0.8|0.64
90817380|NCT02014584|181513025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.5|||t-test from general linear model||Orgasmic function DB Week 4|||0.5|-0.1|0.23
90817381|NCT02014584|181513025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.2|||t-test from general linear model||Orgasmic function DB Week 12|||0.2|-0.5|0.33
90817382|NCT02014584|181513025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.3|||t-test from general linear model||Orgasmic function DB Week 24|||0.3|-0.6|0.64
90817383|NCT02014584|181513025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.7|||t-test from general linear model||Sexual desire DB Week 4|||0.7|-0.1|0.19
90817384|NCT02014584|181513025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.2|||t-test from general linear model||Sexual desire DB Week 12|||0.2|-0.7|0.28
90817385|NCT02014584|181513025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5|||t-test from general linear model||Sexual desire DB Week 24|||0.5|-0.5|1.00
90817386|NCT02014584|181513025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.5|||t-test from general linear model||Overall sexual satisfaction DB Week 4|||0.5|-0.2|0.28
90817387|NCT02014584|181513025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.3|||t-test from general linear model||Overall sexual satisfaction DB Week 12|||0.3|-0.5|0.64
90817388|NCT02014584|181513025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.3|||t-test from general linear model||Overall sexual satisfaction DB Week 24|||0.3|-0.5|0.69
90817389|NCT02014584|181513027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|3.4|||t-test from general linear model||DB Week 12|||3.4|-1.1|0.33
90817390|NCT02014584|181513027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|5.6|||t-test from general linear model||DB Week 24|||5.6|1.1|0.004
90817391|NCT02014584|181513029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.4|||t-test from general linear model||DB Week 12|||0.4|-1.7|0.22
91058488|NCT00468650|181998291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.37|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.85||0.3324||95.0|-1.42|4.17||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus Week 2||4.17|-1.42|0.3324
90817392|NCT02014584|181513029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.0|||t-test from general linear model||DB Week 24|||1.0|-2.0|0.50
90817393|NCT03109184|181513033|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||3-Month follow-up between groups odds ratio of DV perpetration|||||
90817394|NCT03109184|181513033|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||9-month follow-up between group odds ratio of DV perpetration|||||
90817395|NCT03109184|181513033|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.79|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||3-month follow-up between groups odds ratio of DV victimization|||||
90817396|NCT03109184|181513033|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||9-month follow-up between groups odds ratio of DV victimization|||||
90817397|NCT03109184|181513034|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size (d)|-0.07|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||3-month follow-up between groups effect size of general aggression|||||
90817398|NCT03109184|181513034|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size (d)|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||9-month follow-up between groups effect size of general aggression|||||
90817399|NCT03109184|181513035|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size (d)|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||3-month follow-up between groups effect size of adolescent attitudes support aggression|||||
90817400|NCT03109184|181513035|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size (d)|-0.17|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||9-month follow-up between groups effect size of adolescent attitudes support aggression|||||
90817401|NCT03109184|181513035|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size (d)|0.19|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||3-month follow-up between groups effect size of parent attitudes support aggression|||||
91058489|NCT00468650|181998291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.26||0.0249||95.0|0.4|5.84||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus Week 2||5.84|0.40|0.0249
91058490|NCT00468650|181998291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.98|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.95||0.0249||95.0|0.37|5.58||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 LOCF minus Week 2||5.58|0.37|0.0249
90817402|NCT03109184|181513035|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size (d)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||9-month follow-up between groups effect size of parent attitudes support aggression|||||
90817403|NCT03109184|181513036|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size (d)|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||3-month follow-up between groups effect size of adolescent short-term self-regulation|||||
90817404|NCT03109184|181513036|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size (d)|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||9-month follow-up between groups effect size of adolescent short-term self-regulation|||||
90817405|NCT03109184|181513036|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size (d)|-0.11|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||3-month follow-up between groups effect size of adolescent long-term self-regulation|||||
90817406|NCT03109184|181513036|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size (d)|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||9-month follow-up between groups effect size of adolescent long-term self-regulation|||||
90817407|NCT03109184|181513037|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size (d)|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||3-month follow-up between groups effect size of adolescent reported open family communication|||||
90817408|NCT03109184|181513037|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size (d)|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||9-month follow-up between groups effect size of adolescent reported open family communication|||||
90817409|NCT03109184|181513037|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size (d)|-0.15|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||3-month follow-up between groups effect size of adolescent reported problems in family communication|||||
90817410|NCT03109184|181513037|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size (d)|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||9-month follow-up between groups effect size of adolescent reported problems in family communication|||||
90817411|NCT03109184|181513037|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size (d)|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||3-month follow-up between groups effect size of adolescent reported number of relationship topics discussed|||||
90817412|NCT03109184|181513037|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size (d)|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||9-month follow-up between groups effect size of adolescent reported number of relationship topics discussed|||||
90817413|NCT03109184|181513037|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size (d)|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||3-month follow-up between groups effect size of parent reported open family communication|||||
90817414|NCT03109184|181513037|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size (d)|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||9-month follow-up between groups effect size of parent reported open family communication|||||
90817415|NCT03109184|181513037|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size (d)|-0.15|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||3-month follow-up between groups effect size of parent reported problems in family communication|||||
90817416|NCT03109184|181513037|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size (d)|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||9-month follow-up between groups effect size of parent reported problems in family communication|||||
90817417|NCT03109184|181513037|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size (d)|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||3-month follow-up between groups effect size of parent reported number of relationship topics discussed|||||
90817418|NCT03109184|181513037|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size (d)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||9-month follow-up between groups effect size of parent reported number of relationship topics discussed|||||
90817419|NCT03109184|181513038|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size (d)|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||3-month follow-up between groups effect size of adolescent emotion-regulation|||||
90817420|NCT03109184|181513038|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size (d)|0.32|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||9-month follow-up between groups effect size of adolescent emotion-regulation|||||
90817421|NCT03109184|181513039|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size (d)|-0.11|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||3-month follow-up between groups effect size of adolescent distress tolerance|||||
90817422|NCT03109184|181513039|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size (d)|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||9-month follow-up between groups effect size of adolescent distress tolerance|||||
90817423|NCT00602420|181513040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.67||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|3.24|||t-test, 2 sided|||Tested at the two-sided 0.05 significance level.||3.24|0.10|0.037
90817424|NCT00602420|181513040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Tested at the two-sided 0.05 significance level.||||0.007
90817425|NCT01209078|181513131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-22.2|||||||||||Regression, Logistic|||GSK1322322 1500 mg versus Linezolid 600 mg for end of therapy Clinical Success.||||
90817426|NCT01209078|181513131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-24.0|||||||||||Regression, Logistic|||GSK1322322 1500 mg versus Linezolid 600 mg for Follow-up Clinical Success.||||
90817427|NCT01209078|181513132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-35.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.6|-9.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||-9.4|-60.6|
90817428|NCT01209078|181513133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-35.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.6|-9.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||-9.4|-60.6|
91058491|NCT00468650|181998291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.07||0.0249||95.0|0.39|5.68||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 Endpoint minus Week 2||5.68|0.39|0.0249
91058492|NCT00468650|181998292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|15.37|STANDARD_DEVIATION|30.51|<|0.001||95.0|9.38|21.36||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 2 minus baseline||21.36|9.38|<0.001
91058493|NCT00468650|181998292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|17.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|32.22|<|0.001||95.0|10.76|23.55||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus baseline||23.55|10.76|<0.001
91058494|NCT00468650|181998292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|18.22|STANDARD_DEVIATION|32.44|<|0.001||95.0|11.68|24.76||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus baseline||24.76|11.68|<0.001
91058495|NCT00468650|181998292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|17.33|STANDARD_DEVIATION|31.87|<|0.001||95.0|11.07|23.59||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 LOCF minus baseline||23.59|11.07|<0.001
91058496|NCT00468650|181998292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|17.68|STANDARD_DEVIATION|32.1|<|0.001||95.0|11.31|24.04||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 Endpoint minus baseline||24.04|11.31|<0.001
91058497|NCT00468650|181998293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.46|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.41||0.1061||95.0|-0.32|3.24||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus Week 2||3.24|-0.32|0.1061
91058498|NCT00468650|181998293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.18|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.33||0.3237||95.0|-1.18|3.54||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus Week 2||3.54|-1.18|0.3237
91058499|NCT00468650|181998293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.05||0.3236||95.0|-1.13|3.38||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 LOCF minus Week 2||3.38|-1.13|0.3236
91058500|NCT00468650|181998293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.16||0.3236||95.0|-1.15|3.45||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 Endpoint minus Week 2||3.45|-1.15|0.3236
91058501|NCT00468650|181998294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|56.96|STANDARD_DEVIATION|38.93|<|0.001||95.0|49.31|64.6||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 2 minus baseline||64.60|49.31|<0.001
90817429|NCT01209078|181513136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||GSK1322322 1500 mg versus Linezolid 600 mg for Day 2 exudate or pus score.||0.74|-0.41|
91058502|NCT00468650|181998294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|70.78|STANDARD_DEVIATION|35.46|<|0.001||95.0|63.74|77.81||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus baseline||77.81|63.74|<0.001
91058503|NCT00468650|181998294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|71.23|STANDARD_DEVIATION|35.79|<|0.001||95.0|64.02|78.45||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus baseline||78.45|64.02|<0.001
91058504|NCT00468650|181998294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|72.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|35.41|<|0.001||95.0|65.2|79.11||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 LOCF minus baseline||79.11|65.20|<0.001
91058505|NCT00468650|181998294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|71.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|35.55|<|0.001||95.0|64.54|78.65||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 Endpoint minus baseline||78.65|64.54|<0.001
91058506|NCT00468650|181998295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|13.56|STANDARD_DEVIATION|30.89|<|0.001||95.0|7.72|19.4||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus Week 2||19.40|7.72|<0.001
91058507|NCT00468650|181998295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|14.25|STANDARD_DEVIATION|31.31|<|0.001||95.0|8.25|20.25||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus Week 2||20.25|8.25|<0.001
91058508|NCT00468650|181998295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|14.51|STANDARD_DEVIATION|31.77|<|0.001||95.0|8.56|20.46||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 LOCF minus Week 2||20.46|8.56|<0.001
91058509|NCT00468650|181998295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|14.77|STANDARD_DEVIATION|32.0|<|0.001||95.0|8.72|20.82||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 Endpoint minus Week 2||20.82|8.72|<0.001
91058510|NCT00468650|181998296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|58.58|STANDARD_DEVIATION|41.24|<|0.001||95.0|50.48|66.68||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 2 minus baseline||66.68|50.48|<0.001
90817430|NCT01209078|181513136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.45|||Mixed Models Analysis||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (final values) of GSK1322322 1500 mg and Linezolid 600 mg.|GSK1322322 1500 mg versus Linezolid 600 mg for Day 3 exudate or pus score.||0.45|-0.70|
90817431|NCT01209078|181513136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.43|||Mixed Models Analysis||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (final values) of GSK1322322 1500 mg and Linezolid 600 mg.|GSK1322322 1500 mg versus Linezolid 600 mg for Day 4 exudate or pus score.||0.43|-0.74|
91058511|NCT00468650|181998296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|76.29|STANDARD_DEVIATION|37.21|<|0.001||95.0|68.9|83.67||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus baseline||83.67|68.90|<0.001
91058512|NCT00468650|181998296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|77.69|STANDARD_DEVIATION|37.26|<|0.001||95.0|70.18|85.21||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus baseline||85.21|70.18|<0.001
91058513|NCT00468650|181998296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|78.79|STANDARD_DEVIATION|36.65|<|0.001||95.0|71.59|85.99||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 LOCF minus baseline||85.99|71.59|<0.001
91058514|NCT00468650|181998296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|78.36|STANDARD_DEVIATION|36.89|<|0.001||95.0|71.04|85.68||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 Endpoint minus baseline||85.68|71.04|<0.001
91058515|NCT00468650|181998297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|17.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|36.63|<|0.001||95.0|10.98|24.83||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus Week 2||24.83|10.98|<0.001
91058516|NCT00468650|181998297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|19.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|36.84|<|0.001||95.0|12.44|26.56||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus Week 2||26.56|12.44|<0.001
90817432|NCT01209078|181513136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.95|||Mixed Models Analysis||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (final values) of GSK1322322 1500 mg and Linezolid 600 mg.|GSK1322322 1500 mg versus Linezolid 600 mg for Day 8 exudate or pus score.||0.95|-0.25|
90817433|NCT01209078|181513136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.72|||Mixed Models Analysis||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (final values) of GSK1322322 1500 mg and Linezolid 600 mg.|GSK1322322 1500 mg versus Linezolid 600 mg for Day 11 exudate or pus score.||0.72|-0.49|
91058517|NCT00468650|181998297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|19.52|STANDARD_DEVIATION|36.99|<|0.001||95.0|12.59|26.45||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 LOCF minus Week 2||26.45|12.59|<0.001
91058518|NCT00468650|181998297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|19.88|STANDARD_DEVIATION|37.23|<|0.001||95.0|12.84|26.91||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 Endpoint minus Week 2||26.91|12.84|<0.001
90817434|NCT01209078|181513136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.66|||Mixed Models Analysis||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (final values) of GSK1322322 1500 mg and Linezolid 600 mg.|GSK1322322 1500 mg versus Linezolid 600 mg for 7 Day Follow- up exudate or pus score.||0.66|-0.53|
90817435|NCT01209078|181513136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.58|||Mixed Models Analysis||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (final values) of GSK1322322 1500 mg and Linezolid 600 mg.|GSK1322322 1500 mg versus Linezolid 600 mg for 28 Day Follow- up exudate or pus score.||0.58|-0.65|
91058519|NCT00468650|181998298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|57.34|STANDARD_DEVIATION|42.6|<|0.001||95.0|48.93|65.75||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 2 minus baseline||65.75|48.93|<0.001
91058520|NCT00468650|181998298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|70.72|STANDARD_DEVIATION|40.3|<|0.001||95.0|62.72|78.71||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus baseline||78.71|62.72|<0.001
91058521|NCT00468650|181998298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|70.63|STANDARD_DEVIATION|40.78|<|0.001||95.0|62.41|78.85||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus baseline||78.85|62.41|<0.001
91058522|NCT00468650|181998298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|72.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|40.27|<|0.001||95.0|64.16|79.98||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 LOCF minus baseline||79.98|64.16|<0.001
91058523|NCT00468650|181998298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|71.51|STANDARD_DEVIATION|40.48|<|0.001||95.0|63.48|79.55||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 Endpoint minus baseline||79.55|63.48|<0.001
91058524|NCT00468650|181998299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|13.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|29.11|<|0.001||95.0|7.58|18.63||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus Week 2||18.63|7.58|<0.001
91058525|NCT00468650|181998299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|14.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|32.53|<|0.001||95.0|7.84|20.37||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus Week 2||20.37|7.84|<0.001
91058526|NCT00468650|181998299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|13.47|STANDARD_DEVIATION|31.92|<|0.001||95.0|7.47|19.47||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 LOCF minus Week 2||19.47|7.47|<0.001
91058527|NCT00468650|181998299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|13.72|STANDARD_DEVIATION|32.16|<|0.001||95.0|7.61|19.82||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 Endpoint minus Week 2||19.82|7.61|<0.001
91078386|NCT00824382|182042343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean for the difference|0.191|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043|<|0.0001||95.0|0.106|0.276|||ANCOVA|||Olodaterol 5mcg - Placebo||0.276|0.106|<0.0001
90817436|NCT01209078|181513137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.04|1.33|||Mixed Models Analysis||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (final values) of GSK1322322 1500 mg and Linezolid 600 mg.|GSK1322322 1500 mg versus Linezolid 600 mg for Day 2 total SIS.||1.33|-3.04|
90817437|NCT01209078|181513137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.94|1.41|||Mixed Models Analysis||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (final values) of GSK1322322 1500 mg and Linezolid 600 mg.|GSK1322322 1500 mg versus Linezolid 600 mg for Day 3 total SIS.||1.41|-2.94|
90817438|NCT01209078|181513137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|2.75|||||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (final values) of GSK1322322 1500 mg and Linezolid 600 mg.|GSK1322322 1500 mg versus Linezolid 600 mg for Day 4 total SIS.||2.75|-1.68|
90817439|NCT01209078|181513137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|4.05|||Mixed Models Analysis||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (final values) of GSK1322322 1500 mg and Linezolid 600 mg.|GSK1322322 1500 mg versus Linezolid 600 mg for Day 8 total SIS.||4.05|-0.46|
90817440|NCT01209078|181513137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|3.47|||Mixed Models Analysis||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (final values) of GSK1322322 1500 mg and Linezolid 600 mg.|GSK1322322 1500 mg versus Linezolid 600 mg for Day 11 total SIS.||3.47|-1.09|
90817441|NCT01209078|181513137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|2.98|||Mixed Models Analysis||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (final values) of GSK1322322 1500 mg and Linezolid 600 mg.|GSK1322322 1500 mg versus Linezolid 600 mg for 7 Day Follow-up total SIS.||2.98|-1.49|
90817442|NCT01209078|181513137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|2.52|||Mixed Models Analysis||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (final values) of GSK1322322 1500 mg and Linezolid 600 mg.|GSK1322322 1500 mg versus Linezolid 600 mg for 28 Day Follow-up total SIS.||2.52|-2.09|
90817443|NCT01209078|181513138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.04|1.33|||Mixed Models Analysis||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of GSK1322322 1500 mg and Linezolid 600 mg.|GSK1322322 1500 mg versus Linezolid 600 mg for Day 2 total SIS.||1.33|-3.04|
90817444|NCT01209078|181513138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.94|1.41|||Mixed Models Analysis||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of GSK1322322 1500 mg and Linezolid 600 mg.|GSK1322322 1500 mg versus Linezolid 600 mg for Day 3 total SIS.||1.41|-2.94|
90817445|NCT01209078|181513138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|2.75|||Mixed Models Analysis||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of GSK1322322 1500 mg and Linezolid 600 mg.|GSK1322322 1500 mg versus Linezolid 600 mg for Day 4 total SIS.||2.75|-1.68|
90817446|NCT01209078|181513138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|4.05|||Mixed Models Analysis||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of GSK1322322 1500 mg and Linezolid 600 mg.|GSK1322322 1500 mg versus Linezolid 600 mg for Day 8 total SIS.||4.05|-0.46|
90817447|NCT01209078|181513138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|3.47|||Mixed Models Analysis||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of GSK1322322 1500 mg and Linezolid 600 mg.|GSK1322322 1500 mg versus Linezolid 600 mg for Day 11 total SIS.||3.47|-1.09|
90817448|NCT01209078|181513138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|2.98|||Mixed Models Analysis||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of GSK1322322 1500 mg and Linezolid 600 mg.|GSK1322322 1500 mg versus Linezolid 600 mg for 7 Day Follow-up total SIS.||2.98|-1.49|
90817449|NCT01209078|181513138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|2.52|||Mixed Models Analysis||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of GSK1322322 1500 mg and Linezolid 600 mg.|GSK1322322 1500 mg versus Linezolid 600 mg for 28 Day Follow-up total SIS.||2.52|-2.09|
90817450|NCT01209078|181513139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-68.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-132.8|-4.95|||Mixed Models Analysis||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of GSK1322322 1500 mg and Linezolid 600 mg.|GSK1322322 1500 mg versus Linezolid 600 mg for Day 2 wound area.||-4.95|-132.8|
90817451|NCT01209078|181513139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.54|60.43|||Mixed Models Analysis||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of GSK1322322 1500 mg and Linezolid 600 mg.|GSK1322322 1500 mg versus Linezolid 600 mg for Day 3 wound area.||60.43|-66.54|
90817452|NCT01209078|181513139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|31.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.53|96.47|||Mixed Models Analysis||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of GSK1322322 1500 mg and Linezolid 600 mg.|GSK1322322 1500 mg versus Linezolid 600 mg for Day 4 wound area.||96.47|-33.53|
90817453|NCT01209078|181513139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|43.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.43|110.31|||Mixed Models Analysis||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of GSK1322322 1500 mg and Linezolid 600 mg.|GSK1322322 1500 mg versus Linezolid 600 mg for Day 8 wound area.||110.31|-22.43|
90817454|NCT01209078|181513139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|34.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.03|101.45|||Mixed Models Analysis||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of GSK1322322 1500 mg and Linezolid 600 mg.|GSK1322322 1500 mg versus Linezolid 600 mg for Day 11 wound area.||101.45|-33.03|
90817455|NCT01209078|181513139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|37.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.25|103.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of GSK1322322 1500 mg and Linezolid 600 mg.|GSK1322322 1500 mg versus Linezolid 600 mg for 7 Day Follow-up wound area.||103.40|-28.25|
90817456|NCT01209078|181513139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|37.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.77|105.56|||Mixed Models Analysis||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of GSK1322322 1500 mg and Linezolid 600 mg.|GSK1322322 1500 mg versus Linezolid 600 mg for 28 Day Follow-up wound area.||105.56|-30.77|
90817457|NCT01209078|181513140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-35.4|||||||||||Regression, Logistic|||GSK1322322 1500 mg versus Linezolid 600 mg for Staphylococcus aureus (all).||||
90817458|NCT01209078|181513140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-37.5|||||||||||Regression, Logistic|||GSK1322322 1500 mg versus Linezolid 600 mg for MRSA.||||
90817459|NCT01209078|181513140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-28.6|||||||||||Regression, Logistic|||GSK1322322 1500 mg versus Linezolid 600 mg for MSSA.||||
90817460|NCT01209078|181513140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-66.7|||||||||||Regression, Logistic|||GSK1322322 1500 mg versus Linezolid 600 mg for Streptococcus pyogenes.||||
91058528|NCT00468650|181998300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|56.96|STANDARD_DEVIATION|38.93|<|0.001||95.0|49.31|64.6||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 2 minus Baseline||64.60|49.31|<0.001
91058529|NCT00468650|181998300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|70.78|STANDARD_DEVIATION|35.46|<|0.001||95.0|63.74|77.81||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus baseline||77.81|63.74|<0.001
91058530|NCT00468650|181998300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|71.23|STANDARD_DEVIATION|35.79|<|0.001||95.0|64.02|78.45||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus baseline||78.45|64.02|<0.001
91058531|NCT00468650|181998300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|72.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|35.41|<|0.001||95.0|65.2|79.11||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 LOCF minus baseline||79.11|65.20|<0.001
91058532|NCT00468650|181998300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|71.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|35.55|<|0.001||95.0|64.54|78.65||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 Endpoint minus baseline||78.65|64.54|<0.001
91058533|NCT00468650|181998301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|13.56|STANDARD_DEVIATION|30.89|<|0.001||95.0|7.72|19.4||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus Week 2||19.40|7.72|<0.001
91058534|NCT00468650|181998301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|14.25|STANDARD_DEVIATION|31.31|<|0.001||95.0|8.25|20.25||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus Week 2||20.25|8.25|<0.001
91058535|NCT00468650|181998301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|14.51|STANDARD_DEVIATION|31.77|<|0.001||95.0|8.56|20.46||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 LOCF minus Week 2||20.46|8.56|<0.001
91058536|NCT00468650|181998301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|14.77|STANDARD_DEVIATION|32.0|<|0.001||95.0|8.72|20.82||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 Endpoint minus Week 2||20.82|8.72|<0.001
91058537|NCT00468650|181998302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.58|STANDARD_DEVIATION|37.77||0.001||95.0|-19.96|-5.2||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 2 minus baseline||-5.20|-19.96|0.0010
91058538|NCT00468650|181998302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-20.55|STANDARD_DEVIATION|35.04|<|0.001||95.0|-27.47|-13.64||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus baseline||-13.64|-27.47|<0.001
91058539|NCT00468650|181998302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-22.53|STANDARD_DEVIATION|36.64|<|0.001||95.0|-29.88|-15.18||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus baseline||-15.18|-29.88|<0.001
91058540|NCT00468650|181998302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-21.44|STANDARD_DEVIATION|36.06|<|0.001||95.0|-28.49|-14.39||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 LOCF minus baseline||-14.39|-28.49|<0.001
91058541|NCT00468650|181998302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-21.86|STANDARD_DEVIATION|36.29|<|0.001||95.0|-29.03|-14.7||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 Endpoint minus baseline||-14.70|-29.03|<0.001
91058542|NCT00468650|181998303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.79|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.58||0.0021||95.0|-11.06|-2.52||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus Week 2||-2.52|-11.06|0.0021
91058543|NCT00468650|181998303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.85|STANDARD_DEVIATION|23.02||0.0027||95.0|-11.26|-2.43||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus Week 2||-2.43|-11.26|0.0027
91058544|NCT00468650|181998303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.43|STANDARD_DEVIATION|24.2||0.0015||95.0|-11.97|-2.9||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 LOCF minus Week 2||-2.90|-11.97|0.0015
91058545|NCT00468650|181998303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.57|STANDARD_DEVIATION|24.4||0.0015||95.0|-12.18|-2.96||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 Endpoint minus Week 2||-2.96|-12.18|0.0015
91058546|NCT00468650|181998304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.87|STANDARD_DEVIATION|34.44||0.0045||95.0|-16.6|-3.14||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 2 minus baseline||-3.14|-16.60|0.0045
91058547|NCT00468650|181998304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.74|STANDARD_DEVIATION|32.8|<|0.001||95.0|-18.22|-5.27||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus baseline||-5.27|-18.22|<0.001
90817461|NCT01209078|181513140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-25.0|||||||||||Regression, Logistic|||GSK1322322 1500 mg versus Linezolid 600 mg for Gram-negative pathogens.||||
91058548|NCT00468650|181998304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.78|STANDARD_DEVIATION|33.56|<|0.001||95.0|-19.51|-6.05||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus baseline||-6.05|-19.51|<0.001
91058549|NCT00468650|181998304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|33.94|<|0.001||95.0|-19.76|-6.5||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 LOCF minus baseline||-6.50|-19.76|<0.001
91078387|NCT00824382|182042343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean for the difference|0.187|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.042|<|0.0001||95.0|0.103|0.27|||ANCOVA|||Olodaterol 10mcg - Placebo||0.270|0.103|<0.0001
91058550|NCT00468650|181998304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|33.13|<|0.001||95.0|-18.94|-5.86||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 Endpoint minus baseline||-5.86|-18.94|<0.001
91058551|NCT00468650|181998305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.39|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.0||0.2567||95.0|-6.55|1.77||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus Week 2||1.77|-6.55|0.2567
91058552|NCT00468650|181998305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.91|STANDARD_DEVIATION|20.73||0.3435||95.0|-5.88|2.07||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus Week 2||2.07|-5.88|0.3435
91058553|NCT00468650|181998305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.71|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.28||0.2||95.0|-6.89|1.46||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 LOCF minus Week 2||1.46|-6.89|0.2000
91058554|NCT00468650|181998305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.76|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.48||0.2||95.0|-7.01|1.48||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 Endpoint minus Week 2||1.48|-7.01|0.2000
91078388|NCT00824382|182042344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean for the difference|0.253|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047|<|0.0001||95.0|0.16|0.345|||ANCOVA|||Olodaterol 2mcg - Placebo||0.345|0.160|<0.0001
90817462|NCT01209078|181513140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-37.5|||||||||||Regression, Logistic|||GSK1322322 1500 mg versus Linezolid 600 mg for All pathogens.||||
90817463|NCT01209078|181513140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|2.2|||||||||||Regression, Logistic|||GSK1322322 1500 mg versus Linezolid 600 mg for No pathogens.||||
90817464|NCT03270891|181513143|SUPERIORITY|Null hypothesis of equality.||||||0.0115|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline and 6 month values||||0.0115
90817465|NCT03270891|181513143|SUPERIORITY|Null hypothesis of equality.||||||0.027|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||baseline to 6 month comparison||||0.027
90817466|NCT03270891|181513144|SUPERIORITY|Null hypothesis of equality.||||||0.0327|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline p value to six month||||0.0327
90817467|NCT03270891|181513144|SUPERIORITY|Null hypothesis of equality.||||||0.2088|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||baseline to 6 month comparison p value||||0.2088
90817468|NCT03270891|181513145|SUPERIORITY|Null hypothesis of equality.||||||0.947|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||baseline to 6 month comparison||||0.947
90817469|NCT00849108|181513154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||sensitivity|0.769||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.655|0.884||P-Value for sensitivity comparison of PET MPI for the same reader|McNemar|two-sided McNemar test with 1 degree of freedom.|No standard deviation can be calculated for PET sensitivity|||0.884|0.655|0.02
90817470|NCT00849108|181513154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Sensitivity|0.596||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.463|0.73||p-value for sensitivity comparison for SPECT MPI for the same reader|McNemar||No standard deviation can be calculated for SPECT sensitivity|||0.730|0.463|0.02
90817471|NCT00849108|181513156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||PET specificity|0.877||||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.801|0.952||p-value for comparison of PET specificity for same reader|McNemar||no standard deviation for PET specficity|||0.952|0.801|0.317
90817472|NCT00849108|181513156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||SPECT specificity|0.836||||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.751|0.921||p-value for comparison of SPECT specificity for same reader|McNemar||no standard deviation for SPECT specificity|||0.921|0.751|0.317
90817473|NCT00545103|181513165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.778||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.778
90817474|NCT00545103|181513165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.159||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.159
90817475|NCT00545103|181513165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.368||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.368
90817476|NCT00545103|181513166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.685||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.685
90817477|NCT00545103|181513166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.198||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.198
90817478|NCT00545103|181513166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.441||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.441
90817479|NCT02358044|181513176|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The lower bound of 95% CIs was compared to pre-specified non-inferiority margin, -10% to evaluate non-inferiority. The Missing=Failure (M=F) approach was used to handle missing values.|Adjusted Difference in Percentage|8.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.6|15.3|||Miettinen & Nurminen Method|||"Primary Analysis Approach: Non-Inferiority~Analyses of the percentage of participants achieving SVR12 was conducted using the Miettinen \& Nurminen (M\&N) method. The analysis was adjusted for genotype (1a vs. non-1a) and fibrosis stage (cirrhotic vs. non-cirrhotic). The adjusted differences (grazoprevir+elbasvir arm minus SOF+PR arm) in percentages along with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and p-values were provided."||15.3|3.6|<0.001
90817480|NCT02358044|181513176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference in Percentage|8.8||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.6|15.3|||Miettinen & Nurminen Method|The lower bound of 95% CIs was compared to zero to evaluate superiority. The M=F approach was used to handle missing values.||"Secondary Analysis Approach: Superiority~Analyses of the percentage of participants achieving SVR12 was conducted using the M\&N method. The analysis was adjusted for genotype (1a vs. non-1a) and fibrosis stage (cirrhotic vs. non-cirrhotic). The adjusted differences (grazoprevir +elbasvir arm minus SOF+PR arm) in percentages along with the corresponding 95% CIs and p-values were provided."||15.3|3.6|0.001
90817481|NCT02358044|181513177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-41.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.1|-31.9||||||The percentage of participants with an event were assessed via point estimates with 95% CIs provided for between-group comparisons.||-31.9|-51.1|
90817482|NCT02358044|181513179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-27.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.5|-19.6||% of participants with ≥1 Tier 1 event = total number participants with ≥1 Tier 1 event ÷ total number ASaT participants within each treatment arm. M\&N method used to calculate a 2-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference and corresponding p-value.|Miettinen & Nurminen Method|||"Total Tier 1 AEs:~If, and only if the primary efficacy null hypothesis was rejected, the Tier 1 safety superiority hypothesis was tested at the 2-sided 5% alpha level. The safety superiority hypothesis was that the percentage of grazoprevir+elbasvir participants with ≥1 Tier 1 event is lower than the percentage of SOF+PR participants with ≥1 Tier 1 event."||-19.6|-35.5|<0.001
90817483|NCT02358044|181513179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-2.4||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|0.6||% of participants with ≥1 Tier 1 event = total number participants with ≥1 Tier 1 event ÷ total number ASaT participants within each treatment arm. M\&N method used to calculate a 2-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference and corresponding p-value.|Miettinen & Nurminen Method|||"Serious drug-related AEs:~If, and only if the primary efficacy null hypothesis was rejected, the Tier 1 safety superiority hypothesis was tested at the 2-sided 5% alpha level. The safety superiority hypothesis was that the percentage of grazoprevir+elbasvir participants with ≥1 Tier 1 event is lower than the percentage of SOF+PR participants with ≥1 Tier 1 event."||0.6|-6.8|0.078
90817484|NCT02358044|181513179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-0.8||||0.312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|2.1||% of participants with ≥1 Tier 1 event = total number participants with ≥1 Tier 1 event ÷ total number ASaT participants within each treatment arm. M\&N method used to calculate a 2-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference and corresponding p-value.|Miettinen & Nurminen Method|||"DC due to drug-related AE:~If, and only if the primary efficacy null hypothesis was rejected, the Tier 1 safety superiority hypothesis was tested at the 2-sided 5% alpha level. The safety superiority hypothesis was that the percentage of grazoprevir+elbasvir participants with ≥1 Tier 1 event is lower than the percentage of SOF+PR participants with ≥1 Tier 1 event."||2.1|-4.4|0.312
91058555|NCT00468650|181998306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.82|STANDARD_DEVIATION|56.75||0.0558||95.0|-21.91|0.27||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 2 minus baseline||0.27|-21.91|0.0558
90817485|NCT02358044|181513179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-12.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|-8.0||% of participants with ≥1 Tier 1 event = total number participants with ≥1 Tier 1 event ÷ total number ASaT participants within each treatment arm. M\&N method used to calculate a 2-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference and corresponding p-value.|Miettinen & Nurminen Method|||"Neutrophil count \<0.75 x 10\^9/L:~If, and only if the primary efficacy null hypothesis was rejected, the Tier 1 safety superiority hypothesis was tested at the 2-sided 5% alpha level. The safety superiority hypothesis was that the percentage of grazoprevir+elbasvir participants with ≥1 Tier 1 event is lower than the percentage of SOF+PR participants with ≥1 Tier 1 event."||-8.0|-19.7|<0.001
90817486|NCT02358044|181513179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-13.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.8|-7.9||% of participants with ≥1 Tier 1 event = total number participants with ≥1 Tier 1 event ÷ total number ASaT participants within each treatment arm. M\&N method used to calculate a 2-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference and corresponding p-value.|Miettinen & Nurminen Method|||"Hemoglobin \<10 g/dL:~If, and only if the primary efficacy null hypothesis was rejected, the Tier 1 safety superiority hypothesis was tested at the 2-sided 5% alpha level. The safety superiority hypothesis was that the percentage of grazoprevir+elbasvir participants with ≥1 Tier 1 event is lower than the percentage of SOF+PR participants with ≥1 Tier 1 event."||-7.9|-20.8|<0.001
90817487|NCT02358044|181513180|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The lower bound of 95% CIs was compared to pre-specified non-inferiority margin, -10% to evaluate non-inferiority. The Missing=Failure (M=F) approach was used to handle missing values.|Adjusted Difference in Percentage|8.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|15.7||||||Analyses of the percentage of participants achieving SVR24 was conducted using the Miettinen \& Nurminen (M\&N) method. The analysis was adjusted for genotype (1a vs. non-1a) and fibrosis stage (cirrhotic vs. non-cirrhotic). The adjusted differences (grazoprevir+elbasvir arm minus SOF+PR arm) in percentages along with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and p-values were provided.||15.7|3.3|
90817488|NCT00903331|181513187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.9631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.08|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between ACT-064922 and placebo for the change in FVC from baseline to the end of Period 1. The aim was to detect a placebo-corrected change in FVC of ≥ 0.1 L (Standard Deviation = 0.2 L) at a two-sided 0.05 type 1 error level and 80% power.||0.08|-0.09|0.9631
90817489|NCT00903331|181513188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.118||||0.7056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.626|1.996|||Log Rank|||||1.996|0.626|0.7056
90817490|NCT03233438|181513207|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.5||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.6|0.6|0.003
90817491|NCT03233438|181513208|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.56||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.8|0.6|0.003
90817492|NCT02219503|181513248|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The non-inferiority of the Ombitasvir/Paritaprevir/Ritonavir and Dasabuvir regimen in SVR12 to a historical threshold for sofosbuvir plus pegIFN/ ribavirin (RBV) for the treatment of participants with HCV Genotype 1b (GT1b) infection and cirrhosis was calculated using a 2-sided 95% CI from Wilson's score method. Non-inferiority was to be declared if the lower confidence bound was greater than 72.7%.|Percentage of Participants|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.0|100.0|||||95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated using Wilson score method.|||100.0|94.0|
90817493|NCT02219503|181513248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of Participants|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.0|100.0|||||95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated using Wilson score method.|The superiority of the Ombitasvir/Paritaprevir/Ritonavir and Dasabuvir regimen in SVR12 to a historical threshold for sofosbuvir plus pegIFN/ ribavirin (RBV) for the treatment of participants with HCV Genotype 1b (GT1b) infection and cirrhosis was calculated using a 2-sided 95% CI from Wilson's score method. Superiority was declared if the lower confidence bound was greater than 83.2%.||100.0|94.0|
90817494|NCT02025439|181513254|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.071|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
90817495|NCT03426631|181513325|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-11.7||||0.47|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.47
90817496|NCT00454181|181513333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Chi-square analysis of the proportion of subjects in each group meeting the definition of positive response.||||0.30
90817497|NCT00454181|181513334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Chi-square analysis of the proportion of subjects in each group meeting the definition of positive response||||0.26
91058556|NCT00468650|181998306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-29.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|59.81|<|0.001||95.0|-40.96|-17.35||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus baseline||-17.35|-40.96|<0.001
91058557|NCT00468650|181998306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-30.79|STANDARD_DEVIATION|60.9|<|0.001||95.0|-43.0|-18.58||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus baseline||-18.58|-43.00|<0.001
90817498|NCT00454181|181513335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||"Chi-square analysis of the proportion of subjects in each group reporting change in oral warts from baseline to week 24 as better."||||0.50
90817499|NCT00454181|181513336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||"Chi-square analysis of the proportion of subjects in each group reporting change in global oral health from baseline to week 24 as better."||||0.29
90817500|NCT00454181|181513337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||"Chi-square analysis of the proportion of subjects rated as improved with respect to changes in oral warts from baseline to week 24 by the attending investigator."||||0.74
90817501|NCT00454181|181513338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||"Chi-square analysis of the proportion of subjects rated as improved with resepect to changes from baseline to week 24 in global oral health by the attending investigator."||||.71
91058558|NCT00468650|181998306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-30.27|STANDARD_DEVIATION|61.7|<|0.001||95.0|-42.33|-18.21||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 LOCF minus baseline||-18.21|-42.33|<0.001
91058559|NCT00468650|181998306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-30.87|STANDARD_DEVIATION|60.54|<|0.001||95.0|-42.82|-18.92||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 Endpoint minus baseline||-18.92|-42.82|<0.001
90817502|NCT02096263|181513349|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority in terms of immune response to pertussis antigens will be demonstrated if, for each of the three antigens, the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) on the GMC ratio \[Pediarix Group divided by Infanrix hexa Group\] is ≤ 1.5.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.31|||||Adjusted GMC (ANCOVA model adjusted with the vaccine group as fixed effect and the Infanrix vaccination history of the mother during pregnancy as continuous regressor).|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of Infanrix hexa to Pediarix co-administered with ActHIB, in terms of antibody geometric mean concentrations (GMCs) for pertussis antigen, pertussis toxoid (PT), one month after the third dose of the primary vaccination.||1.31|0.92|
90817503|NCT02096263|181513349|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority in terms of immune response to pertussis antigens will be demonstrated if, for each of the three antigens, the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) on the GMC ratio \[Pediarix Group divided by Infanrix hexa Group\] is ≤ 1.5.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.35|||||Adjusted GMC (ANCOVA model adjusted with the vaccine group as fixed effect and the Infanrix vaccination history of the mother during pregnancy as continuous regressor).|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of Infanrix hexa to Pediarix co-administered with ActHIB, in terms of antibody geometric mean concentrations (GMCs) for pertussis antigen, filamentous hemagglutinin (FHA), one month after the third dose of the primary vaccination.||1.35|0.97|
90817504|NCT02096263|181513349|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority in terms of immune response to pertussis antigens will be demonstrated if, for each of the three antigens, the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) on the GMC ratio \[Pediarix Group divided by Infanrix hexa Group\] is ≤ 1.5.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.99|||||Adjusted GMC (ANCOVA model adjusted with the vaccine group as fixed effect and the Tdap vaccination history of the mother during pregnancy as continuous regressor.).|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of Infanrix hexa to Pediarix co-administered with ActHIB, in terms of antibody geometric mean concentrations (GMCs) for pertussis antigen, pertactin (PRN), one month after the third dose of the primary vaccination.||0.99|0.63|
90817505|NCT04971941|181513399|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.17||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.1||This P value applies to comparison of IAN with and without DentalVibe|t-test, 2 sided|df =58||Sample size estimation from Nanitsos 2010: Using the P value from the paired T test with 61 degrees of freedom the T statistic calculated at 4.365. From mean difference 9.3 SD was calculated as 16.66 for an effect size of 0.558. This generated a sample size of 44 subjects, receiving 2 injections (1 with DV3 and 1 without), is necessary to attain 95% power for a paired t-test comparing the 2 pain measures at a two-tailed alpha level of 0.05. P value for IAN||2.1|0.4|0.001
90817506|NCT04971941|181513399|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.75||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-1.5|||t-test, 2 sided|df= 58||||-1.5|-1.7|0.02
90817507|NCT04971941|181513399|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.74||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.1|0.4|0.004
90817508|NCT04971941|181513400|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|14.0|0.4|4.8||This P value applies to comparing IAN with or with DV as measured by SSI tolerability/ability to endure|t-test, 2 sided|||||4.8|0.4|0.001
90817509|NCT04971941|181513400|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
91058560|NCT00468650|181998307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Net)|-18.36|STANDARD_DEVIATION|46.03|<|0.001||95.0|-27.05|-9.66||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus Week 2||-9.66|-27.05|<0.001
91058561|NCT00468650|181998307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-22.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|45.24|<|0.001||95.0|-30.84|-13.49||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus Week 2||-13.49|-30.84|<0.001
91058562|NCT00468650|181998307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-20.28|STANDARD_DEVIATION|45.86|<|0.001||95.0|-28.87|-11.69||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 LOCF minus Week 2||-11.69|-28.87|<0.001
91058563|NCT00468650|181998307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-20.65|STANDARD_DEVIATION|46.2|<|0.001||95.0|-29.38|-11.92||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 Endpoint minus Week 2||-11.92|-29.38|<0.001
91058564|NCT00468650|181998308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|33.27|STANDARD_DEVIATION|41.43|<|0.001||95.0|25.17|41.36||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 2 minus baseline||41.36|25.17|<0.001
91058565|NCT00468650|181998308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|61.45|STANDARD_DEVIATION|44.77|<|0.001||95.0|52.61|70.29||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus baseline||70.29|52.61|<0.001
90817510|NCT04971941|181513400|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
90817511|NCT04971941|181513400|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.058|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.058
90817512|NCT04971941|181513400|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.008
90817513|NCT04971941|181513400|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.044|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.044
90817514|NCT04971941|181513400|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.023|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.023
91058566|NCT00468650|181998308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|66.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|45.15|<|0.001||95.0|57.05|75.16||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus baseline||75.16|57.05|<0.001
90817515|NCT04971941|181513400|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.042|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.042
91058567|NCT00468650|181998308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|64.84|STANDARD_DEVIATION|45.7|<|0.001||95.0|55.91|73.77||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 LOCF minus baseline||73.77|55.91|<0.001
91058568|NCT00468650|181998308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|65.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|45.56|<|0.001||95.0|56.14|74.12||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 Endpoint minus baseline||74.12|56.14|<0.001
91078389|NCT00824382|182042344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean for the difference|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047|<|0.0001||95.0|0.156|0.343|||ANCOVA|||Olodaterol 5mcg - Placebo||0.343|0.156|<0.0001
91058569|NCT00468650|181998309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|27.53|STANDARD_DEVIATION|40.19|<|0.001||95.0|19.94|35.13||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus Week 2||35.13|19.94|<0.001
91058570|NCT00468650|181998309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|30.92|STANDARD_DEVIATION|41.9|<|0.001||95.0|22.89|38.95||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus Week 2||38.95|22.89|<0.001
91058571|NCT00468650|181998309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|30.43|STANDARD_DEVIATION|41.88|<|0.001||95.0|22.59|38.27||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 LOCF minus Week 2||38.27|22.59|<0.001
91058572|NCT00468650|181998309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|30.98|STANDARD_DEVIATION|42.06|<|0.001||95.0|23.04|38.93||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 Endpoint minus Week 2||38.93|23.04|<0.001
91058573|NCT00468650|181998310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|22.45|STANDARD_DEVIATION|46.1|<|0.001||95.0|13.44|31.46||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 2 minus baseline||31.46|13.44|<0.001
91058574|NCT00468650|181998310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|32.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|42.15|<|0.001||95.0|23.97|40.62||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus baseline||40.62|23.97|<0.001
91058575|NCT00468650|181998310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|35.31|STANDARD_DEVIATION|43.52|<|0.001||95.0|26.59|44.04||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus baseline||44.04|26.59|<0.001
91058576|NCT00468650|181998310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|34.57|STANDARD_DEVIATION|43.48|<|0.001||95.0|26.07|43.07||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 LOCF minus baseline||43.07|26.07|<0.001
91058577|NCT00468650|181998310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|34.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|43.29|<|0.001||95.0|25.72|42.81||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 Endpoint minus baseline||42.81|25.72|<0.001
91058578|NCT00468650|181998311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|9.18|STANDARD_DEVIATION|29.45||0.0014||95.0|3.61|14.74||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus Week 2||14.74|3.61|0.0014
91058579|NCT00468650|181998311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|8.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|29.26||0.0025||95.0|3.15|14.36||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus Week 2||14.36|3.15|0.0025
91058580|NCT00468650|181998311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|10.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|31.11|<|0.001||95.0|4.32|15.97||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 LOCF minus Week 2||15.97|4.32|<0.001
91058581|NCT00468650|181998311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|10.33|STANDARD_DEVIATION|31.36|<|0.001||95.0|4.41|16.26||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 Endpoint minus Week 2||16.26|4.41|<0.001
91058582|NCT00642278|181998312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.747|-0.148||Adjusted using Dunnett's procedure.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline value, and stratification factor (participation in mixed meal tolerance test).||||-0.148|-0.747|<0.001
91058583|NCT00642278|181998312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.804|-0.207||Adjusted using Dunnett's procedure.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline value, and stratification factor (participation in mixed meal tolerance test).||||-0.207|-0.804|<0.001
91058584|NCT00642278|181998312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.841|-0.244||Adjusted using Dunnett's procedure.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline value, and stratification factor (participation in mixed meal tolerance test).||||-0.244|-0.841|<0.001
90817516|NCT04971941|181513400|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.053|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.053
91058585|NCT00642278|181998312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.117|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.006|-0.405||Adjusted using Dunnett's procedure.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline value, and stratification factor (participation in mixed meal tolerance test).||||-0.405|-1.006|<0.001
91058586|NCT00642278|181998312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.029|-0.432||Adjusted using Dunnett's procedure.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline value, and stratification factor (participation in mixed meal tolerance test).||||-0.432|-1.029|<0.001
91058587|NCT00642278|181998312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.862|-0.265||Adjusted using Dunnett's procedure.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline value, and stratification factor (participation in mixed meal tolerance test).||||-0.265|-0.862|<0.001
91058588|NCT00642278|181998313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|-0.34|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline value, and stratification factor (participation in mixed meal tolerance test).||||-0.34|-1.39|0.001
91058589|NCT00642278|181998313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|-0.92|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline value, and stratification factor (participation in mixed meal tolerance test).||||-0.92|-1.98|<0.001
91058590|NCT00642278|181998313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|-1.27|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline value, and stratification factor (participation in mixed meal tolerance test).||||-1.27|-2.33|<0.001
90817517|NCT04971941|181513401|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.459|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that there is no relation between use of DV and numb times. There were no studies from which to perform a power calculation for this outcome measure||||0.459
90817518|NCT02963701|181513434|EQUIVALENCE|A claim of bioequivalence was made if the 90% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric means of T/R ratio was contained in the pre-defined acceptance range of 80.00% to 125.00%|T/R Ratio (%)|99.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.49|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.52|101.89|||ANOVA|Results are based on ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including fixed effects for sequence, subject nested within sequence, period and treatment.|The estimated parameter was the adjusted geometric mean ratios (%) of Test and Reference products. The parameter dispersion type (Standard Deviation) was actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|||101.89|96.52|
90817519|NCT02963701|181513435|EQUIVALENCE|A claim of bioequivalence was made if the 90% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric means of T/R ratio was contained in the pre-defined acceptance range of 80.00% to 125.00%|T/R Ratio (%)|89.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.28|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.88|94.76|||ANOVA|Results are based on ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including fixed effects for sequence, subject nested within sequence, period and treatment.|The estimated parameter was the adjusted geometric mean ratios (%) of Test and Reference products. The parameter dispersion type (Standard Deviation) was actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|||94.76|83.88|
90817520|NCT02963701|181513436|EQUIVALENCE|A claim of bioequivalence was made if the 90% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric means of T/R ratio was contained in the pre-defined acceptance range of 80.00% to 125.00%.|T/R Ratio (%)|99.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.96|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.73|103.95|||ANOVA|Results are based on ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including fixed effects for sequence, subject nested within sequence, period and treatment.|The estimated parameter was the adjusted geometric mean ratios \[%\] of Test and Reference products. The parameter dispersion type (Standard Deviation) was actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation \[%\].|||103.95|95.73|
90817521|NCT02963701|181513437|EQUIVALENCE|A claim of bioequivalence was made if the 90% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric means of T/R ratio was contained in the pre-defined acceptance range of 80.00% to 125.00%.|T/R Ratio (%)|102.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.37|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.3|107.27|||ANOVA|Results are based on ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including fixed effects for sequence, subject nested within sequence, period and treatment.|The estimated parameter was the adjusted geometric mean ratios \[%\] of Test and Reference products. The parameter dispersion type \[SD\] was actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation \[%\].|||107.27|97.30|
90817522|NCT02963701|181513438|EQUIVALENCE|A claim of bioequivalence was made if the 90% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric means of T/R ratio was contained in the pre-defined acceptance range of 80.00% to 125.00%.|T/R Ratio (%)|98.97|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.13|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.44|101.57|||ANOVA|Results are based on ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including fixed effects for sequence, subject nested within sequence, period and treatment.|The estimated parameter was the adjusted geometric mean ratios (%)of Test and Reference products. The parameter dispersion type (Standard Deviation) was actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|||101.57|96.44|
90817523|NCT02963701|181513439|EQUIVALENCE|A claim of bioequivalence was made if the 90% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric means of T/R ratio was contained in the pre-defined acceptance range of 80.00% to 125.00%.|T/R Ratio (%)|99.67|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.48|104.04|||ANOVA|Results are based on ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including fixed effects for sequence, subject nested within sequence, period and treatment.|The estimated parameter was the adjusted geometric mean ratios (%) of Test and Reference products. The parameter dispersion type (Standard Deviation) was actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|||104.04|95.48|
90817524|NCT02963701|181513440|EQUIVALENCE|A claim of bioequivalence was made if the 90% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric means of T/R ratio was contained in the pre-defined acceptance range of 80.00% to 125.00%.|T/R Ratio (%)|95.96|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.27|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.7|100.4|||ANOVA|Results are based on ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including fixed effects for sequence, subject nested within sequence, period and treatment.|The estimated parameter was the adjusted geometric mean ratios (%) of Test and Reference products. The parameter dispersion type (Standard Deviation) was actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|||100.40|91.70|
90817525|NCT02963701|181513441|EQUIVALENCE|A claim of bioequivalence was made if the 90% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric means of T/R ratio was contained in the pre-defined acceptance range of 80.00% to 125.00%.|T/R Ratio (%)|96.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.06|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.92|100.51|||ANOVA|Results are based on ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including fixed effects for sequence, subject nested within sequence, period and treatment.|The estimated parameter was the adjusted geometric mean ratios (%) of Test and Reference products. The parameter dispersion type (Standard Deviation) was actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|||100.51|91.92|
91058591|NCT00642278|181998313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.32|-1.26|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline value, and stratification factor (participation in mixed meal tolerance test).||||-1.26|-2.32|<0.001
91058592|NCT00642278|181998313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|-1.19|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline value, and stratification factor (participation in mixed meal tolerance test).||||-1.19|-2.25|<0.001
91058593|NCT00642278|181998313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|-0.46|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline value, and stratification factor (participation in mixed meal tolerance test).||||-0.46|-1.51|<0.001
91058594|NCT00642278|181998315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Sqaures Mean Difference|36.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.07|46.13|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline value, and stratification factor (participation in mixed meal tolerance test).||||46.13|26.07|<0.001
91058595|NCT00642278|181998315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Sqaures Mean Difference|49.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.13|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.17|59.34|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline value, and stratification factor (participation in mixed meal tolerance test).||||59.34|39.17|<0.001
91078390|NCT00824382|182042344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean for the difference|0.233|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047|<|0.0001||95.0|0.141|0.325|||ANCOVA|||Olodaterol 10mcg - Placebo||0.325|0.141|<0.0001
91058596|NCT00642278|181998315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Sqaures Mean Difference|48.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.98|58.42|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline value, and stratification factor (participation in mixed meal tolerance test).||||58.42|37.98|<0.001
90817526|NCT02963701|181513442|EQUIVALENCE|A claim of bioequivalence was made if the 90% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric means of T/R ratio was contained in the pre-defined acceptance range of 80.00% to 125.00%.|T/R Ratio (%)|90.83|STANDARD_DEVIATION|21.49|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.87|97.21|||ANOVA|Results are based on ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including fixed effects for sequence, subject nested within sequence, period and treatment.|The estimated parameter was the adjusted geometric mean ratios (%) of Test and Reference products. The parameter dispersion type (Standard Deviation) was actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|||97.21|84.87|
90817527|NCT02963701|181513443|EQUIVALENCE|A claim of bioequivalence was made if the 90% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric means of T/R ratio was contained in the pre-defined acceptance range of 80.00% to 125.00%.|T/R Ratio (%)|101.86|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.89|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.33|104.46|||ANOVA|Results are based on ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including fixed effects for sequence, subject nested within sequence, period and treatment.|The estimated parameter was the adjusted geometric mean ratios (%) of Test and Reference products. The parameter dispersion type (Standard Deviation) was actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|||104.46|99.33|
90817528|NCT02963701|181513444|EQUIVALENCE|A claim of bioequivalence was made if the 90% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric means of T/R ratio was contained in the pre-defined acceptance range of 80.00% to 125.00%.|T/R Ratio (%)|101.65|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.01|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.4|103.95|||ANOVA|Results are based on ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including fixed effects for sequence, subject nested within sequence, period and treatment.|The estimated parameter was the adjusted geometric mean ratios (%) of Test and Reference products. The parameter dispersion type (Standard Deviation) was actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|||103.95|99.40|
90817529|NCT02963701|181513445|EQUIVALENCE|A claim of bioequivalence was made if the 90% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric means of T/R ratio was contained in the pre-defined acceptance range of 80.00% to 125.00%.|T/R Ratio (%)|86.53|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.85|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.03|91.28|||ANOVA|Results are based on ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including fixed effects for sequence, subject nested within sequence, period and treatment.|The estimated parameter was the adjusted geometric mean ratios (%) of Test and Reference products. The parameter dispersion type (Standard Deviation) was actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|||91.28|82.03|
90817530|NCT02963701|181513446|EQUIVALENCE|A claim of bioequivalence was made if the 90% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric means of T/R ratio was contained in the pre-defined acceptance range of 80.00% to 125.00%.|Ratio (%)|106.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.77|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.3|111.26|||ANOVA|Results are based on ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including fixed effects for sequence, subject nested within sequence, period and treatment.|The estimated parameter was the adjusted geometric mean ratios (%) of Test and Reference products. The parameter dispersion type (Standard Deviation) was actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|||111.26|101.30|
90817531|NCT01345682|181513452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.792||||0.0257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.643|0.977||Log-rank test stratified by baseline Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance score (PS)(0 or 1) and prior use of Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor (EGFR)-targeted antibody in the Recurrent and/or Metastatic (R/M) setting (Yes or No).|Stratified Log-rank test||"Hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazards model stratified by baseline ECOG PS (0 or 1) and prior use of EGFR-targeted antibody in the R/M setting (Yes or No).~Afatinib (BIBW 2992) vs Methotrexate"|||0.977|0.643|0.0257
90817532|NCT01345682|181513453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.958||||0.6755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.786|1.169||Log-rank test stratified by baseline ECOG PS (0 or 1) and prior use of EGFR-targeted antibody in the R/M setting (Yes or No).|Stratified Log-rank test||"Hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazards model stratified by baseline ECOG PS (0 or 1) and prior use of EGFR-targeted antibody in the R/M setting (Yes or No).~Afatinib (BIBW 2992) vs Methotrexate"|||1.169|0.786|0.6755
90817533|NCT01345682|181513454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.91||||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|4.14|||Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) and p-value (two-sided) from logistic regression stratified by baseline ECOG PS (0 or 1) and prior use of EGFR-targeted antibody in the R/M setting (Yes or No).~Afatinib (BIBW 2992) vs Methotrexate"|||4.14|0.88|0.1010
90817534|NCT01345682|181513455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.52||||0.0353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.26|||Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio, 95% CI and p-value (two-sided) from logistic regression stratified by baseline ECOG PS (0 or 1) and prior use of EGFR-targeted antibody in the R/M setting (Yes or No).~Afatinib (BIBW 2992) vs Methotrexate"|||2.26|1.03|0.0353
90817535|NCT01345682|181513457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.01||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.31|-0.42||Adjusted for baseline ECOG performance score (0 or 1) and prior use of EGFR-targeted antibody for R/M HNSCC (Yes or No).|longitudinal models||Afatinib (BIBW 2992) vs Methotrexate|Changes in scores over time were assessed using longitudinal models, i.e. mixed effects growth curve models with the average profile over time for each endpoint described by a piecewise linear model adjusted for the fixed effects baseline ECOG performance score (PS) and prior use of EGFR-targeted antibody for recurrent and/or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (R/M HNSCC).||-0.42|-8.31|0.0300
91058597|NCT00642278|181998315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|49.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.11|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.91|59.01|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline value, and stratification factor (participation in mixed meal tolerance test).||||59.01|38.91|<0.001
91058598|NCT00642278|181998315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Sqaures Mean Difference|60.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.13|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.17|70.35|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline value, and stratification factor (participation in mixed meal tolerance test).||||70.35|50.17|<0.001
91058599|NCT00642278|181998315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.09||0.513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.33|6.67|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline value, and stratification factor (participation in mixed meal tolerance test).||||6.67|-13.33|0.513
91078391|NCT00824382|182042345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean for the difference|0.253|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001||95.0|0.155|0.351|||ANCOVA|||Olodaterol 2mcg - Placebo||0.351|0.155|<0.0001
90817536|NCT01345682|181513458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.16||0.9773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|4.18||Adjusted for baseline ECOG performance score (0 or 1) and prior use of EGFR-targeted antibody for R/M HNSCC (Yes or No).|longitudinal models||Afatinib (BIBW 2992) vs Methotrexate|Changes in scores over time were assessed using longitudinal models, i.e. mixed effects growth curve models with the average profile over time for each endpoint described by a piecewise linear model adjusted for the fixed effects baseline ECOG PS and prior use of EGFR-targeted antibody for recurrent and/or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (R/M HNSCC).||4.18|-4.30|0.9773
90817537|NCT01345682|181513459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.95||0.7767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.28|4.39||Adjusted for baseline ECOG performance score (0 or 1) and prior use of EGFR-targeted antibody for R/M HNSCC (Yes or No).|longitudinal models||Afatinib (BIBW 2992) vs Methotrexate|Changes in scores over time were assessed using longitudinal models, i.e. mixed effects growth curve models with the average profile over time for each endpoint described by a piecewise linear model adjusted for the fixed effects baseline ECOG PS and prior use of EGFR-targeted antibody for recurrent and/or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (R/M HNSCC).||4.39|-3.28|0.7767
90817538|NCT01345682|181513460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.717|1.99|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio, 95% CI and p-value (two-sided) from logistic regression stratified by baseline ECOG PS (0 or 1) and prior use of EGFR-targeted antibody in the R/M setting (Yes or No). Afatinib (BIBW 2992) vs Methotrexate|||1.990|0.717|0.494
90817539|NCT01345682|181513461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.687|1.95|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio, 95% CI and p-value (two-sided) from logistic regression stratified by baseline ECOG PS (0 or 1) and prior use of EGFR-targeted antibody in the R/M setting (Yes or No). Afatinib (BIBW 2992) vs Methotrexate|||1.950|0.687|0.584
90817540|NCT01345682|181513462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.657|1.705|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio, 95% CI and p-value (two-sided) from logistic regression stratified by baseline ECOG PS (0 or 1) and prior use of EGFR-targeted antibody in the R/M setting (Yes or No). Afatinib (BIBW 2992) vs Methotrexate|||1.705|0.657|0.816
90817541|NCT01345682|181513463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.0217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.96||Log-rank test stratified by baseline ECOG PS (0 or 1) and prior use of EGFR-targeted antibody in the R/M setting (Yes or No).|Stratified Log-rank test||Hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazards model stratified by baseline ECOG PS (0 or 1) and prior use of EGFR-targeted antibody in the R/M setting (Yes or No).|||0.96|0.55|0.0217
90817542|NCT01345682|181513464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.89||Log-rank test stratified by baseline ECOG PS (0 or 1) and prior use of EGFR-targeted antibody in the R/M setting (Yes or No).|Stratified Log-rank test||"Hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazards model stratified by baseline ECOG PS (0 or 1) and prior use of EGFR-targeted antibody in the R/M setting (Yes or No).~Afatinib (BIBW 2992) vs Methotrexate"|||0.89|0.50|0.0040
90817543|NCT01345682|181513465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.0268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.97||Log-rank test stratified by baseline ECOG PS (0 or 1) and prior use of EGFR-targeted antibody in the R/M setting (Yes or No).|Stratified Log-rank test||"Hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazards model stratified by baseline ECOG PS (0 or 1) and prior use of EGFR-targeted antibody in the R/M setting (Yes or No).~Afatinib (BIBW 2992) vs Methotrexate"|||0.97|0.56|0.0268
90817544|NCT00752726|181513513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.263|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.115||0.0244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.035|0.491||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Mean change was adjusted for treatment, baseline VAT and center effect using an ANCOVA model.|Adjusted mean difference between Placebo group and Orlistat group was determined. For this primary analysis, only one statistical test was performed and therefore, no multiple comparison adjustment was done.|The null hypothesis considered no difference in the change from baseline to week 24 between the two treatment groups.||0.491|0.035|0.0244
90817545|NCT00752726|181513514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.172|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0834||0.0415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.007|0.337||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Mean change was adjusted for the treatment, baseline VAT and center effects using an ANCOVA model.|Adjusted mean difference between Placebo group and Orlistat group was determined.|The null hypothesis considered no difference in the change from baseline to week 12 between the two treatment groups.||0.337|0.007|0.0415
90817546|NCT00752726|181513515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.881||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|3.74||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Mean change was adjusted for the treatment, baseline weight and center effects, using an ANCOVA model.|Adjusted mean difference between Placebo group and Orlistat group was determined.|The null hypothesis considered no difference in the change from baseline to week 24 between the two treatment groups.||3.74|0.25|0.026
91058600|NCT00642278|181998317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Sqaures Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.3|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline value, and stratification factor (participation in mixed meal tolerance test).||||-0.3|-2.2|0.009
90817547|NCT00752726|181513516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.642|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7174||0.0242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.219|3.065||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Mean change was adjusted for the treatment, baseline total fat mass and center effects using an ANCOVA model.|Adjusted mean difference between placebo group and Orlistat group was determined.|The null hypothesis considered no difference in the change from baseline to week 24 between the two treatment groups.||3.065|0.219|0.0242
90817548|NCT00752726|181513517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.704||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|2.87||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|Mean was adjusted for the treatment, baseline total fat mass and center effects using an ANCOVA model.|Adjusted mean difference between placebo group and Orlistat group was evaluated.|The null hypothesis considered no difference in the change from baseline to week 24 between the two treatment groups.||2.87|0.07|0.039
91058601|NCT00642278|181998317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Sqaures Mean Difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-0.6|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline value, and stratification factor (participation in mixed meal tolerance test).||||-0.6|-2.5|0.002
91058602|NCT00642278|181998317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Sqaures Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-0.7|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline value, and mixed meal tolerance test.||||-0.7|-2.6|<0.001
90817549|NCT00752726|181513518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.974||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|3.63||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|Mean change was adjusted for the treatment, baseline waist circumference and center effects, using an ANCOVA model.|Adjusted mean difference between Placebo group and Orlistat group was determined.|The null hypothesis considered no difference in the change from baseline to week 24 between the two treatment groups.||3.63|-0.24|0.085
90817550|NCT00752726|181513520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.023|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0232||0.3235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.069|0.023||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Mean change was adjusted for the treatment, baseline liver fat and center effects, using an ANCOVA model.|Adjusted mean difference between placebo group and Orlistat group was evaluated.|The null hypothesis considered no difference in the change from baseline to week 24 between the two treatment groups.||0.023|-0.069|0.3235
90817551|NCT00752726|181513521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|783.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|726.54||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-657.3|2224.9||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|Mean change was adjusted for the treatment, baseline total calories expended and center effects using an ANCOVA model.|Adjusted mean difference between placebo group and Orlistat group was evaluated.|The null hypothesis considered no difference in the change from baseline to week 24 between the two treatment groups.||2224.9|-657.3|0.28
90817552|NCT00752726|181513522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.542||0.2847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|4.72||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Mean difference was adjusted for the treatment, baseline value and center effects using an ANCOVA model.|Adjusted mean difference was calculated as placebo minus orlistat.|The null hypothesis considered no difference in the change from baseline to week 24 between the treatment groups.||4.72|-1.40|0.2847
90817553|NCT04232215|181513524|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|6.1|||Regression, Linear|A generalized linear model adjusting by intervention group and the order of randomization was conducted.||Difference in ease of use between our standard fetal Doppler and HeraBEAT™ device, as measured by the System Usability Survey (SUS) will be the primary outcome. We aim to recruit 50 participants (50 per arm, with cross-over) for a 99.7% power to detect a 10-point difference in SUS, as this accounts for a withdraw / post-randomization exclusion as high as 10% (assuming a proportion of expectant mothers to withdraw participation after being enrolled or found to not meet criteria after the fact).||6.1|-10.2|0.64
90817554|NCT04232215|181513525|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.2||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|2.53|||Chi-squared|||||2.53|0.57|0.63
90817555|NCT01555125|181513536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
90817556|NCT01555125|181513536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
90817557|NCT01555125|181513537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
90817558|NCT01555125|181513537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
90817559|NCT04268745|181513559|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.603||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.634|-1.573|||Regression, Linear|||||-1.573|-25.634|0.027
90817560|NCT04268745|181513560|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|6.405||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.474|8.335|||Regression, Linear|||||8.335|4.474|0.0001
90817561|NCT04268745|181513561|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.703||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.235|-9.172|||Regression, Linear|||||-9.172|-28.235|0.0002
90817562|NCT04268745|181513562|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.556||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.938|16.174|||Regression, Linear|||||16.174|0.938|0.028
90817563|NCT04268745|181513563|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.111||||0.695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.443|0.665|||Regression, Linear|||||0.665|-0.443|0.695
90817564|NCT04268745|181513564|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.514||||0.469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.901|0.874|||Regression, Linear|||||0.874|-1.901|0.469
90817565|NCT02039856|181513574|SUPERIORITY|Difference-in-differences using ordered logistic regression, adjusting for age, gender, race/ethnicity, marital status, employment, education, dual use of VA and non-VA for care, diagnosis of PTSD, and the population weights, which were the product of design weights and non-response weights. We verified that proportional odds assumption was met.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.913|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.175||0.637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.627|1.33|||difference-in-differences analysis||The estimated value is predicted change in the odds of WH-PACT achievement, adjusting for characteristics described in the statistical analysis overview.|Change in the odds of achieving a higher WH-PACT element.||1.33|0.627|0.637
90817566|NCT02039856|181513575|SUPERIORITY|Difference-in-differences analysis using linear regression, adjusted for gender, race/ethnicity, years worked at VA, worked in women's health clinic vs general primary care clinic, clinician status vs staff status, fulltime employment, percent of women veterans enrolled at the VA facility. We adjusted our analysis using the population weights, which were the product of design weights and non-response weights.|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1195||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.57|||Regression, Linear||The estimated value reported here is the predicted mean change over time, adjusting for characteristics described in the statistical analysis overview.|Change in gender sensitivity score between EBQI and control over time||0.57|0.10|0.006
90817567|NCT02039856|181513576|SUPERIORITY|Difference-in-differences analysis using linear regression, adjusted for gender, race/ethnicity, years worked at VA, worked in women's health clinic vs general primary care clinic, clinician status vs staff status, fulltime employment, percent of women veterans enrolled at the VA facility. We adjusted our analysis using the population weights, which were the product of design weights and non-response weights.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2253||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.87|||Regression, Linear||The estimated value reported here is the predicted mean change over time, adjusting for characteristics described in the statistical analysis overview.|Change in team functioning score between EBQI and control over time.||0.87|-0.01|0.055
90817568|NCT02039856|181513577|SUPERIORITY|We adjusted our analysis using the population weights, which were the product of design weights and non-response weights|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1922||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.04|||Regression, Logistic||The estimated value is the predicted mean, adjusting for weights, worked in women's health vs general PC clinic, years worked at the VA, race/ethnicity, gender, full-time employment, and percent of women veterans enrolled at the VA facility.|||1.04|0.13|0.058
91078392|NCT00824382|182042345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean for the difference|0.242|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001||95.0|0.142|0.341|||ANCOVA|||Olodaterol 5mcg - Placebo||0.341|0.142|<0.0001
90817569|NCT02039856|181513578|SUPERIORITY|Difference-in-differences analysis using linear regression, adjusted for age, gender, race/ethnicity, marital status, employment, education, dual use of VA and non-VA for care, diagnosis of PTSD. We adjusted our analysis using the population weights, which were the product of design weights and non-response weights.|Median Difference (Net)|1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|2.36|||Regression, Linear||The estimated value is predicted change in the number of VA primary care visits, adjusting for characteristics described in the statistical analysis overview.|Change in number of patient primary care visits between EBQI and control over time||2.36|0.14|0.008
90817570|NCT02039856|181513579|SUPERIORITY|Difference-in-differences analysis using linear regression, adjusted for adjusted for survey weights, age, gender, race/ethnicity, marital status, employment, education, dual use of VA and non-VA for care, diagnosis of PTSD, and the population weights, which were the product of design weights and non-response weights.|Median Difference (Net)|1.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.413||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.51|||Regression, Linear||The estimated value is predicted change in the number of VA women's health visits, adjusting for characteristics described in the statistical analysis overview.|Change in number of patient visits to women's health care between EBQI and control over time||2.51|0.88|0.000
90817571|NCT02039856|181513580|SUPERIORITY|Difference-in-differences analysis using linear regression, adjusted for adjusted for survey weights, age, gender, race/ethnicity, marital status, employment, education, dual use of VA and non-VA for care, diagnosis of PTSD. We adjusted our analysis using the population weights, which were the product of design weights and non-response weights.|Median Difference (Net)|-0.018|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068||0.794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.12|||Regression, Linear||The estimated value is predicted change in the number of VA hospitalization, adjusting for characteristics described in the statistical analysis overview.|Change in number of patient hospitalization for any cause between EBQI and control over time||0.12|-0.15|0.794
90817572|NCT02039856|181513581|SUPERIORITY|Difference-in-differences analysis using linear regression, adjusted for adjusted for survey weights, age, gender, race/ethnicity, marital status, employment, education, dual use of VA and non-VA for care, diagnosis of PTSD. We adjusted our analysis using the population weights, which were the product of design weights and non-response weights.|Median Difference (Net)|0.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.265|0.306|||Regression, Linear||The estimated value is predicted change in the number of VA emergency room visits, adjusting for characteristics described in the statistical analysis overview.|Change in number of emergency room visits for any cause between EBQI and control over time||0.306|-0.265|0.888
90817573|NCT00896441|181513582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|One sample t-test||||||<0.01
90817574|NCT00896441|181513584|OTHER||||||<|0.006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Single group t-test||||||<.006
90817575|NCT01174173|181513610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|||||A two-sided t-test was performed with p-value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant a priori.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0013
90817576|NCT01174173|181513611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|||||A two-sided t-test was performed for change in 6-minute walk test and p-value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant a priori.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.09
90817577|NCT01174173|181513612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|||||A two-sided t-test was performed for difference from baseline and 3-month KCCQ score. A p-value of \<0.05 was considered statistically significant a priori.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.37
90817578|NCT01174173|181513614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.037|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.037
90817579|NCT01174173|181513615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.66
90817580|NCT00649428|181513619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by combined treatment site.||A 5% level of significance was used as the threshold for determination of statistical significance, and all tests were two-tailed. the effect size and associated 95% confidence interval (CI) are provided for all comparative efficacy outcomes. Primary analysis of the two co-primary efficacy endpoints and the secondary efficacy endpoints were performed on the ITT population.||||.00001
90817581|NCT00649428|181513622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by combined treatment site.||A 5% level of significance was used as the threshold for determination of statistical significance, and all tests were two-tailed. the effect size and associated 95% confidence interval (CI) are provided for all comparative efficacy outcomes. Primary analysis of the two co-primary efficacy endpoints and the secondary efficacy endpoints were performed on the ITT population.||||<.00001
90817582|NCT02008227|181513634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.87|||Log Rank|||Stratified analysis based on the strata of IC levels per interactive voice/web response system (IxRS), the number of prior chemotherapy regimens per IxRS, and histology per electronic case report form (eCRF).||0.87|0.62|0.0003
90817583|NCT02008227|181513634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.86|||Log Rank|||Unstratified Analysis||0.86|0.62|0.0002
90817584|NCT02008227|181513635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.0102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.93|||Log Rank|||Stratified analysis based on the strata of IC levels per IxRS, the number of prior chemotherapy regimens per IxRS, and histology per eCRF.||0.93|0.58|0.0102
90817585|NCT02008227|181513635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.91|||Log Rank|||Unstratified Analysis||0.91|0.58|0.0052
90817586|NCT02008227|181513638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.4928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.1|||Log Rank|||Stratified analysis based on the strata of IC levels per IxRS, the number of prior chemotherapy regimens per IxRS, and histology per eCRF.||1.10|0.82|0.4928
90817587|NCT02008227|181513638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.3596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.08|||Log Rank|||Unstratified Analysis||1.08|0.81|0.3596
90817588|NCT02008227|181513639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.3806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.12|||Log Rank|||Stratified analysis based on the strata of IC levels per IxRS, the number of prior chemotherapy regimens per IxRS, and histology per eCRF.||1.12|0.74|0.3806
90817589|NCT02008227|181513639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.3249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.1|||Log Rank|||Unstratified Analysis||1.10|0.74|0.3249
90817590|NCT02008227|181513642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.55|||Log Rank|||Stratified analysis based on the strata of IC levels per IxRS, the number of prior chemotherapy regimens per IxRS, and histology per eCRF.||0.55|0.18|<0.0001
90817591|NCT02008227|181513642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.55|||Log Rank|||Unstratified Analysis||0.55|0.21|<0.0001
90817592|NCT02008227|181513643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.31||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.62|||Log Rank|||Stratified analysis based on the strata of IC levels per IxRS, the number of prior chemotherapy regimens per IxRS, and histology per eCRF.||0.62|0.15|0.0006
90817593|NCT02008227|181513643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.38||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.65|||Log Rank|||Unstratified Analysis||0.65|0.22|0.0003
90817594|NCT02008227|181513647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.93|||Log Rank|||Pain in Chest: Stratified analysis based on the strata of IC levels per IxRS, the number of prior chemotherapy regimens per IxRS, and histology per eCRF.||0.93|0.55|0.0111
90817595|NCT02008227|181513647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.6305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.33|||Log Rank|||Cough: Unstratified Analysis||1.33|0.84|0.6305
90817596|NCT02008227|181513647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.7406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.16|||Log Rank|||Dyspnea: Unstratified Analysis||1.16|0.81|0.7406
90817597|NCT02008227|181513647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.5221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.17|||Log Rank|||Arm/Shoulder Pain||1.17|0.73|0.5221
90817598|NCT02008227|181513662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.92|||Log Rank|||Stratified analysis based on the strata of IC levels per interactive voice/web response system (IxRS), the number of prior chemotherapy regimens per IxRS, and histology per electronic case report form (eCRF).||0.92|0.70|0.0012
90817599|NCT02008227|181513663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.92|||Log Rank|||Stratified analysis based on the strata of IC levels per interactive voice/web response system (IxRS), the number of prior chemotherapy regimens per IxRS, and histology per electronic case report form (eCRF).||0.92|0.64|0.0045
90817600|NCT02008227|181513664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.84|||Log Rank|||Stratified analysis based on the strata of IC levels per interactive voice/web response system (IxRS), the number of prior chemotherapy regimens per IxRS, and histology per electronic case report form (eCRF).||0.84|0.49|0.0012
90817601|NCT02008227|181513665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.68|||Log Rank|||Stratified analysis based on the strata of IC levels per interactive voice/web response system (IxRS), the number of prior chemotherapy regimens per IxRS, and histology per electronic case report form (eCRF).||0.68|0.30|<0.0001
90817602|NCT02008227|181513666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Stratified Hazard Ratio|0.96||||0.4981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.08|||Log Rank|||||1.08|0.85|0.4981
90817603|NCT02008227|181513668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Unstratified Hazard Ratio|0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.48||||||||0.48|0.21|
90817604|NCT04566601|181513672|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.7||||0.4994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|2.69||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed effects model repeated measures||"Least Squares Mean of BI 1358894 5mg - Least Squares Mean of Placebo."|Least Squares (LS) mean difference and 95 % confidence interval were estimated by REML-based MMRM including the fixed categorical covariates of treatment, visit (baseline and Week 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10) and the baseline ZAN-BPD total score strata indicator (\<=18 vs. \>=19), the continuous fixed covariate of baseline ZAN-BPD total score, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as baseline-by-visit interaction. LS means differences (95 % confidence intervals) for Week 10 are reported.||2.69|-1.31|0.4994
90817605|NCT04566601|181513672|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.6014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|1.51||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed effects model repeated measures||"Least Squares Mean of BI 1358894 25mg - Least Squares Mean of Placebo."|Least Squares (LS) mean difference and 95 % confidence interval were estimated by REML-based MMRM including the fixed categorical covariates of treatment, visit (baseline and Week 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10) and the baseline ZAN-BPD total score strata indicator (\<=18 vs. \>=19), the continuous fixed covariate of baseline ZAN-BPD total score, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as baseline-by-visit interaction. LS means differences (95 % confidence intervals) for Week 10 are reported.||1.51|-2.60|0.6014
90817606|NCT04566601|181513672|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.8166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.17|1.72||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed effects model repeated measures||"Least Squares Mean of BI 1358894 75mg - Least Squares Mean of Placebo."|Least Squares (LS) mean difference and 95 % confidence interval were estimated by REML-based MMRM including the fixed categorical covariates of treatment, visit (baseline and Week 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10) and the baseline ZAN-BPD total score strata indicator (\<=18 vs. \>=19), the continuous fixed covariate of baseline ZAN-BPD total score, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as baseline-by-visit interaction. LS means differences (95 % confidence intervals) for Week 10 are reported.||1.72|-2.17|0.8166
90817607|NCT04566601|181513672|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.6588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|1.24||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed effects model repeated measures||"Least Squares Mean of BI 1358894 125mg - Least Squares Mean of Placebo."|Least Squares (LS) mean difference and 95 % confidence interval were estimated by REML-based MMRM including the fixed categorical covariates of treatment, visit (baseline and Week 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10) and the baseline ZAN-BPD total score strata indicator (\<=18 vs. \>=19), the continuous fixed covariate of baseline ZAN-BPD total score, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as baseline-by-visit interaction. LS means differences (95 % confidence intervals) for Week 10 are reported.||1.24|-1.96|0.6588
90817608|NCT04566601|181513672|OTHER|MMRM estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included the fixed categorical covariates of treatment, visit (baseline and Week 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10) and the baseline ZAN-BPD total score strata indicator (\<=18 vs. \>=19), the continuous fixed covariate of baseline ZAN-BPD total score, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as baseline-by-visit interaction.||||||0.3914|||||||MCP-Mod sigmoid Emax model fit|Model assumption: 50% of the maximum effect is achieved at 25 mg, and 90% of the maximum effect is achieved at 75 mg.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of BI 1358894 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential, Emax 1, Emax 2 and Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.100).||||0.3914
91078393|NCT00824382|182042345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean for the difference|0.226|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001||95.0|0.129|0.324|||ANCOVA|||Olodaterol 10mcg - Placebo||0.324|0.129|<0.0001
90817609|NCT04566601|181513672|OTHER|MMRM estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included the fixed categorical covariates of treatment, visit (baseline and Week 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 and 12) and the baseline ZAN-BPD total score strata indicator (\<=18 vs. \>=19), the continuous fixed covariate of baseline ZAN-BPD total score, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as baseline-by-visit interaction.||||||0.4104|||||||MCP-Mod Emax1 model fit|Model assumption: 50% of the maximum effect is achieved at 25 mg.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of BI 1358894 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential, Emax 1, Emax 2 and Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.100).||||0.4104
90817610|NCT04566601|181513672|OTHER|MMRM estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included the fixed categorical covariates of treatment, visit (baseline and Week 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10) and the baseline ZAN-BPD total score strata indicator (\<=18 vs. \>=19), the continuous fixed covariate of baseline ZAN-BPD total score, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as baseline-by-visit interaction.||||||0.456|||||||MCP-Mod linear model fit|Model assumption: No parameter assumptions required.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of BI 1358894 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential, Emax 1, Emax 2 and Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.100).||||0.4560
90817611|NCT04566601|181513672|OTHER|MMRM estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included the fixed categorical covariates of treatment, visit (baseline and Week 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10) and the baseline ZAN-BPD total score strata indicator (\<=18 vs. \>=19), the continuous fixed covariate of baseline ZAN-BPD total score, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as baseline-by-visit interaction.||||||0.4908|||||||MCP-Mod exponential model fit|Model assumption: 5% of the maximum effect is achieved at 25 mg.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of BI 1358894 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential, Emax 1, Emax 2 and Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.100).||||0.4908
90817612|NCT04566601|181513672|OTHER|MMRM estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included the fixed categorical covariates of treatment, visit (baseline and Week 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10) and the baseline ZAN-BPD total score strata indicator (\<=18 vs. \>=19), the continuous fixed covariate of baseline ZAN-BPD total score, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as baseline-by-visit interaction.||||||0.4974|||||||MCP-Mod Emax2 model fit|Model assumption: 70% of the maximum effect is achieved at 5 mg.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of BI 1358894 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential, Emax 1, Emax 2 and Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.100).||||0.4974
90817613|NCT04566601|181513673|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.486|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.207|1.14|||||Odds Ratio of BI 1358894 5mg vs. Placebo.|The odds ratio (OR) and associated confidence intervals between the active treatment arm versus placebo were calculated through a logistic regression model that was adjusted for fixed factors of treatment, baseline ZAN-BPD strata indicator (≤18 vs. ≥19), and the continuous covariate of baseline ZAN-BPD total score.||1.140|0.207|
90817614|NCT04566601|181513673|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.294|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.829|7.48|||||Odds Ratio of BI 1358894 25mg vs. Placebo.|The odds ratio (OR) and associated confidence intervals between the active treatment arm versus placebo were calculated through a logistic regression model that was adjusted for fixed factors of treatment, baseline ZAN-BPD strata indicator (≤18 vs. ≥19), and the continuous covariate of baseline ZAN-BPD total score.||7.480|0.829|
90817615|NCT04566601|181513673|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.753|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.698|4.861|||||Odds Ratio of BI 1358894 75mg vs. Placebo.|The odds ratio (OR) and associated confidence intervals between the active treatment arm versus placebo were calculated through a logistic regression model that was adjusted for fixed factors of treatment, baseline ZAN-BPD strata indicator (≤18 vs. ≥19), and the continuous covariate of baseline ZAN-BPD total score.||4.861|0.698|
90817616|NCT04566601|181513673|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.352|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.642|2.913|||||Odds Ratio of BI 1358894 125mg vs. Placebo.|The odds ratio (OR) and associated confidence intervals between the active treatment arm versus placebo were calculated through a logistic regression model that was adjusted for fixed factors of treatment, baseline ZAN-BPD strata indicator (≤18 vs. ≥19), and the continuous covariate of baseline ZAN-BPD total score.||2.913|0.642|
90817617|NCT04566601|181513674|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.9675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.11|4.9||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed effects model repeated measures||"Least Squares Mean of BI 1358894 5mg - Least Squares Mean of Placebo."|Least Squares (LS) mean difference and 95% confidence interval were estimated by REML-based MMRM including the fixed categorical covariates of treatment, visit (baseline and Week 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10) and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline DERS-16 total score, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as baseline-by-visit interaction. Patient was considered as random. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.||4.90|-5.11|0.9675
91058603|NCT00642278|181998317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Sqaures Mean Difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-1.4|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline value, and stratification factor (participation in mixed meal tolerance test).||||-1.4|-3.3|<0.001
91058604|NCT00642278|181998317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Sqaures Mean Difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-1.4|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline value, and stratification factor (participation in mixed meal tolerance test).||||-1.4|-3.3|<0.001
91058605|NCT00642278|181998317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Sqaures Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.4|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline value, and stratification factor (participation in mixed meal tolerance test).||||1.4|-0.5|0.371
91058606|NCT03713619|181998318|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|1.75||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|2.73|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression analysis of HiSCR50 response at Week 16 (multiple imputation)||2.73|1.12|0.0070
91058607|NCT03713619|181998318|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.0418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.32|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression analysis of HiSCR50 response at Week 16 (multiple imputation)||2.32|0.95|0.0418
90817618|NCT04566601|181513674|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.9969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.08|5.1||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed effects model repeated measures||"Least Squares Mean of BI 1358894 25mg - Least Squares Mean of Placebo."|Least Squares (LS) mean difference and 95% confidence interval were estimated by REML-based MMRM including the fixed categorical covariates of treatment, visit (baseline and Week 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10) and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline DERS-16 total score, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as baseline-by-visit interaction. Patient was considered as random. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.||5.10|-5.08|0.9969
90817619|NCT04566601|181513674|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.79||||0.7542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.73|4.15||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed effects model repeated measures||"Least Squares Mean of BI 1358894 75mg - Least Squares Mean of Placebo."|Least Squares (LS) mean difference and 95% confidence interval were estimated by REML-based MMRM including the fixed categorical covariates of treatment, visit (baseline and Week 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10) and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline DERS-16 total score, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as baseline-by-visit interaction. Patient was considered as random. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.||4.15|-5.73|0.7542
90817620|NCT04566601|181513674|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.17||||0.5683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.86|5.19||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed effects model repeated measures||"Least Squares Mean of BI 1358894 125mg - Least Squares Mean of Placebo."|Least Squares (LS) mean difference and 95% confidence interval were estimated by REML-based MMRM including the fixed categorical covariates of treatment, visit (baseline and Week 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10) and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline DERS-16 total score, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as baseline-by-visit interaction. Patient was considered as random. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.||5.19|-2.86|0.5683
90817621|NCT04566601|181513675|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.07||||0.3568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.49|2.35||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed effects model repeated measures||"Least Squares Mean of BI 1358894 5mg - Least Squares Mean of Placebo."|Least Squares (LS) mean difference and 95% confidence interval were estimated by restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed effects model repeated measures (REML-based MMRM) including the fixed categorical covariates of treatment, visit (baseline and Week 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10) and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline STAI-S total score, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as baseline-by-visit interaction. Patient was considered as random. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.35|-6.49|0.3568
90817622|NCT04566601|181513675|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.21||||0.6009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.33|5.75||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed effects model repeated measures||"Least Squares Mean of BI 1358894 25mg - Least Squares Mean of Placebo."|Least Squares (LS) mean difference and 95% confidence interval were estimated by restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed effects model repeated measures (REML-based MMRM) including the fixed categorical covariates of treatment, visit (baseline and Week 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10) and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline STAI-S total score, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as baseline-by-visit interaction. Patient was considered as random. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.||5.75|-3.33|0.6009
90817623|NCT04566601|181513675|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.36||||0.8705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|3.98||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed effects model repeated measures||"Least Squares Mean of BI 1358894 75mg - Least Squares Mean of Placebo."|Least Squares (LS) mean difference and 95% confidence interval were estimated by restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed effects model repeated measures (REML-based MMRM) including the fixed categorical covariates of treatment, visit (baseline and Week 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10) and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline STAI-S total score, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as baseline-by-visit interaction. Patient was considered as random. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.||3.98|-4.70|0.8705
90817624|NCT04566601|181513675|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.15||||0.5262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|4.71||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed effects model repeated measures||"Least Squares Mean of BI 1358894 125mg - Least Squares Mean of Placebo."|Least Squares (LS) mean difference and 95% confidence interval were estimated by restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed effects model repeated measures (REML-based MMRM) including the fixed categorical covariates of treatment, visit (baseline and Week 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10) and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline STAI-S total score, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as baseline-by-visit interaction. Patient was considered as random. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.||4.71|-2.41|0.5262
90817625|NCT04566601|181513676|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.83||||0.0782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.87|0.21||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed effects model repeated measures||"Least Squares Mean of BI 1358894 5mg - Least Squares Mean of Placebo."|Least Squares (LS) mean difference and 95% confidence interval were estimated by restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed effects model repeated measures (REML-based MMRM) including the fixed categorical covariates of treatment, visit (baseline and Week 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10) and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline PHQ-9 total score, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as baseline-by-visit interaction. Patient was considered as random. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.21|-3.87|0.0782
90817626|NCT04566601|181513676|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.23||||0.8266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|2.32||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed effects model repeated measures||"Least Squares Mean of BI 1358894 25mg - Least Squares Mean of Placebo."|Least Squares (LS) mean difference and 95% confidence interval were estimated by restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed effects model repeated measures (REML-based MMRM) including the fixed categorical covariates of treatment, visit (baseline and Week 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10) and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline PHQ-9 total score, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as baseline-by-visit interaction. Patient was considered as random. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.32|-1.86|0.8266
91058608|NCT03713619|181998319|SUPERIORITY||Least square Mean Difference|-23.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.9|-12.21|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance of percentage change from baseline in AN count at Week 16 (multiple imputation)||-12.21|-33.90|<0.0001
91058609|NCT03713619|181998319|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean difference|-18.46||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.32|-7.6|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance of percentage change from baseline in AN count at Week 16 (multiple imputation)||-7.60|-29.32|0.0004
91058610|NCT03713619|181998320|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.42||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.73|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression analysis of Flare over 16 weeks (multiple imputation)||0.73|0.25|0.0010
90817627|NCT04566601|181513676|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.27||||0.791|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28|1.74||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed effects model repeated measures||"Least Squares Mean of BI 1358894 75mg - Least Squares Mean of Placebo."|Least Squares (LS) mean difference and 95% confidence interval were estimated by restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed effects model repeated measures (REML-based MMRM) including the fixed categorical covariates of treatment, visit (baseline and Week 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10) and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline PHQ-9 total score, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as baseline-by-visit interaction. Patient was considered as random. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.74|-2.28|0.7910
90817628|NCT04566601|181513676|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13||||0.8743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|1.51||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed effects model repeated measures||"Least Squares Mean of BI 1358894 125mg - Least Squares Mean of Placebo."|Least Squares (LS) mean difference and 95% confidence interval were estimated by restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed effects model repeated measures (REML-based MMRM) including the fixed categorical covariates of treatment, visit (baseline and Week 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10) and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline PHQ-9 total score, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as baseline-by-visit interaction. Patient was considered as random. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.51|-1.77|0.8743
90817629|NCT04566601|181513677|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05||||0.8016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.37||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed effects model repeated measures||"Least Squares Mean of BI 1358894 5mg - Least Squares Mean of Placebo."|Least Squares (LS) mean difference and 95% confidence interval were estimated by restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed effects model repeated measures (REML-based MMRM) including the fixed categorical covariates of treatment, visit (baseline and Week 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10) and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline CGI-S total score, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as baseline-by-visit interaction. Patient was considered as random. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.37|-0.47|0.8016
90817630|NCT04566601|181513677|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.23||||0.2929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.2||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed effects model repeated measures||"Least Squares Mean of BI 1358894 25mg - Least Squares Mean of Placebo."|Least Squares (LS) mean difference and 95% confidence interval were estimated by restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed effects model repeated measures (REML-based MMRM) including the fixed categorical covariates of treatment, visit (baseline and Week 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10) and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline CGI-S total score, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as baseline-by-visit interaction. Patient was considered as random. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.20|-0.67|0.2929
90817631|NCT04566601|181513677|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.9666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.4||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed effects model repeated measures||"Least Squares Mean of BI 1358894 75mg - Least Squares Mean of Placebo."|Least Squares (LS) mean difference and 95% confidence interval were estimated by restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed effects model repeated measures (REML-based MMRM) including the fixed categorical covariates of treatment, visit (baseline and Week 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10) and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline CGI-S total score, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as baseline-by-visit interaction. Patient was considered as random. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.40|-0.42|0.9666
90817632|NCT04566601|181513677|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.18||||0.2833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.15||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed effects model repeated measures||"Least Squares Mean of BI 1358894 125mg - Least Squares Mean of Placebo."|Least Squares (LS) mean difference and 95% confidence interval were estimated by restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed effects model repeated measures (REML-based MMRM) including the fixed categorical covariates of treatment, visit (baseline and Week 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10) and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline CGI-S total score, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as baseline-by-visit interaction. Patient was considered as random. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.15|-0.52|0.2833
90817633|NCT04566601|181513678|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13||||0.4552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.2||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed effects model repeated measures||"Least Squares Mean of BI 1358894 5mg - Least Squares Mean of Placebo."|Least Squares (LS) mean difference and 95% confidence interval were estimated by restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed effects model repeated measures (REML-based MMRM) including the fixed categorical covariates of treatment, visit (baseline and Week 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10) and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline PGI-S total score, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as baseline-by-visit interaction. Patient was considered as random. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.20|-0.45|0.4552
90817634|NCT04566601|181513678|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13||||0.4734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.22||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed effects model repeated measures||"Least Squares Mean of BI 1358894 25mg - Least Squares Mean of Placebo."|Least Squares (LS) mean difference and 95% confidence interval were estimated by restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed effects model repeated measures (REML-based MMRM) including the fixed categorical covariates of treatment, visit (baseline and Week 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10) and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline PGI-S total score, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as baseline-by-visit interaction. Patient was considered as random. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.22|-0.47|0.4734
91058611|NCT03713619|181998320|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71||||0.0926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.17|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression analysis of Flare over 16 weeks (multiple imputation)||1.17|0.43|0.0926
91058612|NCT03713619|181998321|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.84||||0.0248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|3.4|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression analysis of skin pain/NRS30 response at Week 16 (pooled data, multiple imputation)||3.40|1.00|0.0248
91058613|NCT03713619|181998321|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|1.77||||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|2.0|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression analysis of skin pain/NRS30 response at Week 16 (pooled data, multiple imputation)||2.0|1.15|0.0044
91058614|NCT02552212|181998337|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|15.231|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.336|31.623|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio: CZP/Placebo and p-value were calculated using logistic regression with factors for treatment, region and Magnetic Resonance Imaging/C- Reactive Protein (MRI/CRP) classification.||31.623|7.336|<0.001
91058615|NCT02552212|181998338|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.436|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.127|13.401|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio: CZP/Placebo and p-value were calculated using logistic regression with factors for treatment, region and MRI/CRP classification.||13.401|4.127|<0.001
90817635|NCT04566601|181513678|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03||||0.8388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.29||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed effects model repeated measures||"Least Squares Mean of BI 1358894 75mg - Least Squares Mean of Placebo."|Least Squares (LS) mean difference and 95% confidence interval were estimated by restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed effects model repeated measures (REML-based MMRM) including the fixed categorical covariates of treatment, visit (baseline and Week 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10) and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline PGI-S total score, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as baseline-by-visit interaction. Patient was considered as random. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.29|-0.36|0.8388
90817636|NCT04566601|181513678|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08||||0.554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.19||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed effects model repeated measures||"Least Squares Mean of BI 1358894 125mg - Least Squares Mean of Placebo."|Least Squares (LS) mean difference and 95% confidence interval were estimated by restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed effects model repeated measures (REML-based MMRM) including the fixed categorical covariates of treatment, visit (baseline and Week 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10) and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline PGI-S total score, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as baseline-by-visit interaction. Patient was considered as random. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.19|-0.35|0.5540
90817637|NCT00757822|181513679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|4.6|||>|0.76|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.5|18.6|||Fisher Exact|||The incidence of PON per arm will be determined and expressed as a percentage of the total patients per arm. Treatment efficacy will be measured as the percentage-point decrease in PON in the treatment arm (Marinol) compared to the standard therapy arm (ondansetron). Null hypothesis: Marinol treatment is not superior to ondansetron treatment. We will test the statistical significance with Fisher's Exact test at a significance level of 0.05||18.6|-9.5|>0.76
90817638|NCT00757822|181513680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.92|||||||Fisher Exact|One-sided Fisher's Exact test was performed comparing the percentage of subjects with at least one VAS score \> 0. (Marinol\>Ondansetron).||||||>0.92
90817639|NCT00757822|181513681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|7.7|||>|0.55|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.1|13.3|||Fisher Exact|||||13.3|-12.1|>0.55
90817640|NCT00757822|181513682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.981|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test|||||||=0.981
90817641|NCT00757822|181513683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.9|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.90
90817642|NCT00757822|181513684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.37|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.37
90817643|NCT00757822|181513685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.75|TWO_SIDED||||||FREQ Procedure|||Comparisons at 24-48 hr post-surgery. Null hypothesis: dronabinol is not superior to ondansetron in patient satisfaction.||||>0.75
90817644|NCT00757822|181513685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||FREQ procedure|||Comparisons of both arms at 2-6 weeks; null hypothesis: dronabinol is not superior to ondansetron in patient satisfaction||||>0.10
90817645|NCT00757822|181513686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.29|TWO_SIDED||||||FREQ procedure|||Comparison of both group responses at 24-48 hours.||||>0.29
90817646|NCT00757822|181513686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.55|TWO_SIDED||||||FREQ Procedure|||Comparisons of both arms at 2-6 weeks.||||>0.55
91058616|NCT02552212|181998348|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.359|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.286|12.636|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio: CZP/Placebo and p-value were calculated using logistic regression with factors for treatment, region MRI/CRP classification.||12.636|4.286|<0.001
90817647|NCT01272635|181513687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.98|||Discrete time survival analysis||Hazard ratio: Numerator is Azithromycin and Denominator is Placebo|||0.98|0.41|0.04
90817648|NCT02702180|181513701|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means (LSmean)|-4.6||||0.1688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|2.0|||ANCOVA||The estimated value represents the estimated difference between once daily molgramostim and placebo groups in LSmean change from baseline to week 24.|Primary endpoint was evaluated using analysis of covariance with treatment, whole lung lavage within 2 months before baseline, and geographic region as factors, and baseline values as covariates. To control type I error, key secondary endpoints were analyzed using a testing hierarchy wherein once daily molgramostim and placebo was compared and if statistical significance was reached, evaluation of intermittent molgramostim and placebo would proceed.||2.0|-11.1|0.1688
90817649|NCT02702180|181513701|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means (LSmean)|-2.8||||0.3968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|3.7|||ANCOVA||The estimated value represents the estimated difference between intermittent molgramostim and placebo groups in LSmean change from baseline to week 24.|||3.7|-9.3|0.3968
90817650|NCT02702180|181513702|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means (LSmean)|20.6||||0.3159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.8|61.0|||ANCOVA||The estimated value represents the estimated difference between once daily molgramostim and placebo groups in LSmean change from baseline to week 24.|||61.0|-19.8|0.3159
90817651|NCT02702180|181513702|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means (LSmean)|5.6||||0.7809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.1|45.2|||ANCOVA||The estimated value represents the estimated difference between intermittent molgramostim and placebo groups in LSmean change from baseline to week 24.|||45.2|-34.1|0.7809
90817652|NCT02702180|181513703|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means (LSmean)|-7.6||||0.0103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|-1.8|||ANCOVA||The estimated value represents the estimated difference between once daily molgramostim and placebo groups in LSmean change from baseline to week 24.|||-1.8|-13.4|0.0103
90817653|NCT02702180|181513703|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means (LSmean)|-7.0||||0.0173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|-1.3|||ANCOVA||The estimated value represents the estimated difference between intermittent molgramostim and placebo groups in LSmean change from baseline to week 24..|||-1.3|-12.7|0.0173
90817654|NCT02702180|181513704|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.284||||0.1918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.043|1.881|||Negative binomial regression||The estimated value represents the RR between once daily molgramostim and placebo groups.|||1.881|0.043|0.1918
90817655|NCT02702180|181513704|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.367||||0.2421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.068|1.968|||Negative binomial regression||The estimated value represents the RR between intermittent molgramostim and placebo groups.|||1.968|0.068|0.2421
90817656|NCT02870101|181513733|OTHER|Estimated positive percent agreement (PPA) defined as: (Index Test Positive; ASIS Positive) / (Index Test Negative; ASIS Positive + Index Test Positive; ASIS Positive + Index Test Negative; ASIS Indeterminate)|PPA|94.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|90.7|97.0|||||PPA estimated with two-sided 95% score confidence interval.|||97.0|90.7|
91058617|NCT02552212|181998349|OTHER||Difference|-1.696|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|-1.282|||ANCOVA|||From an ANCOVA model including scores at Baseline, treatment group, region and MRI/CRP classification.||-1.282|-2.110|<0.001
91058618|NCT02552212|181998350|OTHER||Difference|-1.585|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.132|-1.038|||ANCOVA|||From an ANCOVA model including scores at Baseline, treatment group, region and MRI/CRP classification.||-1.038|-2.132|<0.0001
91058619|NCT02552212|181998351|OTHER||Difference|-1.819|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|-1.388|||ANCOVA|||From an ANCOVA model including scores at Baseline, treatment group, region and MRI/CRP classification.||-1.388|-2.250|<0.001
91058620|NCT02552212|181998352|OTHER||Difference|-1.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.909|-0.672|||ANCOVA|||From an ANCOVA model including scores at Baseline, treatment group, region and MRI/CRP classification.||-0.672|-1.909|<0.001
91058621|NCT02552212|181998353|OTHER||Difference|-4.8687|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4014|-3.336|||ANCOVA|||From an ANCOVA model including scores at Baseline, treatment group, region and MRI/CRP classification.||-3.3360|-6.4014|<0.001
91058622|NCT02552212|181998354|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.223|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|10.191|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio: CZP/Placebo and p-value were calculated using logistic regression with factors for treatment, region and MRI/CRP classification.||10.191|3.800|<0.001
91058623|NCT02552212|181998355|OTHER||Difference|-0.183|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|-0.117|||ANCOVA|||From an ANCOVA model including scores at Baseline, treatment group, region and MRI/CRP classification.||-0.117|-0.250|<0.001
91058624|NCT02552212|181998363|OTHER||Difference|-1.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.62|-1.18|||ANCOVA|||From an ANCOVA model including scores at Baseline, treatment group, region and MRI/CRP classification.||-1.18|-2.62|<0.001
90817657|NCT02870101|181513733|OTHER|Estimated negative percent agreement (NPA) defined as: (Index Test Negative; ASIS Negative) / (Index Test Negative; ASIS Negative + Index Test Positive; ASIS Negative + Index Test Positive; ASIS Indeterminate)|NPA|98.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.2|99.1|||||NPA estimated with two-sided 95% score confidence interval.|||99.1|98.2|
91058625|NCT02552212|181998364|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.484|||=|0.247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.142|1.653|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio: CZP/PBO and p-value were calculated using logistic regression with factors for treatment, region and MRI/CRP classification.||1.653|0.142|=0.247
91058626|NCT03020589|181998368|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.27||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|2.05|||Fisher Exact|||||2.05|0.67|0.58
91058627|NCT03020589|181998369|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.26||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.02|||Fisher Exact|||||2.02|0.72|0.46
91058628|NCT01094886|181998376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.5||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.34|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.34|-0.05|.008
91058629|NCT01094886|181998377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.91|STANDARD_DEVIATION|-1.1||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.048|0.219|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.219|-2.048|0.111
90817658|NCT02870101|181513734|OTHER|Estimated positive percent agreement (PPA) defined as: (Index Test Positive; ASIS Positive) / (Index Test Negative; ASIS Positive + Index Test Positive; ASIS Positive + Index Test Negative; ASIS Indeterminate)|PPA|91.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.5|94.4|||||PPA estimated with two-sided 95% score confidence interval.|||94.4|86.5|
91058630|NCT01094886|181998378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.977||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.77|2.35|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.35|-2.77|0.87
91058631|NCT01094886|181998379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-35.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|36.316|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.01|-22.26|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-22.26|-48.01|<0.001
90817659|NCT02870101|181513734|OTHER|Estimated negative percent agreement (NPA) defined as: (Index Test Negative; ASIS Negative) / (Index Test Negative; ASIS Negative + Index Test Positive; ASIS Negative + Index Test Positive; ASIS Indeterminate)|NPA|99.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.3|99.8|||||NPA estimated with two-sided 95% score confidence interval.|||99.8|99.3|
91058632|NCT01371747|181998410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value \<0.001|ANCOVA|||Each starting dose group was compared to its baseline.||||<0.001
91058633|NCT01371747|181998410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||P-Value \<0.001|ANCOVA|||Each starting dose group was compared to its baseline.||||<0.001
91058634|NCT01371747|181998410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value \<0.001|ANCOVA|||Each starting dose group was compared to its baseline.||||<0.001
91058635|NCT01371747|181998410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value \<0.001|ANCOVA|||Each starting dose group was compared to its baseline.||||<0.001
91058636|NCT01371747|181998410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value \<0.001|ANCOVA|||Each starting dose group was compared to its baseline.||||<0.001
91058637|NCT01371747|181998410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value \<0.001|ANCOVA|||Each starting dose group was compared to its baseline.||||<0.001
91058638|NCT01371747|181998411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||P-Value \<0.001|ANCOVA|||Each starting dose group was compared to its baseline.||||<0.001
91058639|NCT01371747|181998411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||P-Value \<0.001|ANCOVA|||Each starting dose group was compared to its baseline.||||<0.001
91058640|NCT01371747|181998411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value \<0.001|ANCOVA|||Each starting dose group was compared to its baseline.||||<0.001
91058641|NCT01371747|181998411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value \<0.001|ANCOVA|||Each starting dose group was compared to its baseline.||||<0.001
91058642|NCT01371747|181998411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value \<0.001|ANCOVA|||Each starting dose group was compared to its baseline.||||<0.001
91058643|NCT01371747|181998411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value \<0.001|ANCOVA|||Each starting dose group was compared to its baseline.||||<0.001
91058644|NCT01371747|181998412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||P-Value \<0.001|ANCOVA|||Each starting dose group was compared to its baseline.||||<0.001
91058645|NCT01371747|181998412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||P-Value \<0.001|ANCOVA|||Each starting dose group was compared to its baseline.||||<0.001
91058646|NCT01371747|181998412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value \<0.001|ANCOVA|||Each starting dose group was compared to its baseline.||||<0.001
91058647|NCT01371747|181998412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value \<0.001|ANCOVA|||Each starting dose group was compared to its baseline.||||<0.001
91058648|NCT01371747|181998412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value \<0.001|ANCOVA|||Each starting dose group was compared to its baseline.||||<0.001
91058649|NCT01371747|181998412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value \<0.001|ANCOVA|||Each starting dose group was compared to its baseline.||||<0.001
91058650|NCT01371747|181998413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.54|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Estimated values were based on summary statistics.|Each starting dose group was compared to its baseline.||||
91058651|NCT01371747|181998413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.44|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Estimated values were based on summary statistics.|Each starting dose group was compared to its baseline.||||
91058652|NCT01371747|181998413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Estimated values were based on summary statistics.|Each starting dose group was compared to its baseline.||||
91058653|NCT01371747|181998413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Estimated values were based on summary statistics.|Each starting dose group was compared to its baseline.||||
91058654|NCT01371747|181998413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.96|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Estimated values were based on summary statistics.|Each starting dose group was compared to its baseline.||||
90817660|NCT02870101|181513735|OTHER|Estimated positive percent agreement (PPA) defined as: (Index Test Positive; ASIS Positive) / (Index Test Negative; ASIS Positive + Index Test Positive; ASIS Positive + Index Test Equivocal; ASIS Indeterminate + Index Test Negative; ASIS Indeterminate)|PPA|95.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.3|97.3|||||PPA estimated with two-sided 95% score confidence interval.|||97.3|91.3|
90817661|NCT02870101|181513735|OTHER|Estimated negative percent agreement (NPA) defined as: (Index Test Negative; ASIS Negative) / (Index Test Negative; ASIS Negative + Index Test Positive; ASIS Negative + Index Test Equivocal; ASIS Negative + Index Test Positive; ASIS Indeterminate)|NPA|98.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.3|99.2|||||NPA estimated with two-sided 95% score confidence interval.|||99.2|98.3|
90817662|NCT02870101|181513736|OTHER|Estimated positive percent agreement (PPA) defined as: (Index Test Positive; ASIS Positive) / (Index Test Negative; ASIS Positive + Index Test Positive; ASIS Positive + Index Test Negative; ASIS Indeterminate)|PPA|96.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|92.9|98.3|||||PPA estimated with two-sided 95% score confidence interval.|||98.3|92.9|
90817663|NCT02870101|181513736|OTHER|Estimated negative percent agreement (NPA) defined as: (Index Test Negative; ASIS Negative) / (Index Test Negative; ASIS Negative + Index Test Positive; ASIS Negative + Index Test Positive; ASIS Indeterminate)|NPA|99.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.8|99.5|||||NPA estimated with two-sided 95% score confidence interval.|||99.5|98.8|
90817664|NCT02870101|181513737|OTHER|Estimated positive percent agreement (PPA) defined as: (Index Test Positive; ASIS Positive) / (Index Test Negative; ASIS Positive + Index Test Positive; ASIS Positive + Index Test Negative; ASIS Indeterminate)|PPA|84.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|79.4|89.0|||||PPA estimated with two-sided 95% score confidence interval.|||89.0|79.4|
90817665|NCT02870101|181513737|OTHER|Estimated negative percent agreement (NPA) defined as: (Index Test Negative; ASIS Negative) / (Index Test Negative; ASIS Negative + Index Test Positive; ASIS Negative + Index Test Positive; ASIS Indeterminate)|NPA|99.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.2|99.7|||||NPA estimated with two-sided 95% score confidence interval.|||99.7|99.2|
91058655|NCT01371747|181998413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.17|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Estimated values were based on summary statistics.|Each starting dose group was compared to its baseline.||||
91058656|NCT01371747|181998414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Estimated values were based on summary statistics.|Each starting dose group was compared to its baseline.||||
90817666|NCT02870101|181513738|OTHER|Estimated positive percent agreement (PPA) defined as: (Index Test Positive; ASIS Positive) / (Index Test Negative; ASIS Positive + Index Test Positive; ASIS Positive + Index Test Negative; ASIS Indeterminate)|PPA|88.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|83.2|92.0|||||PPA estimated with two-sided 95% score confidence interval.|||92.0|83.2|
90817667|NCT02870101|181513738|OTHER|Estimated negative percent agreement (NPA) defined as: (Index Test Negative; ASIS Negative) / (Index Test Negative; ASIS Negative + Index Test Positive; ASIS Negative + Index Test Positive; ASIS Indeterminate)|NPA|99.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.2|99.8|||||NPA estimated with two-sided 95% score confidence interval.|||99.8|99.2|
90817668|NCT02870101|181513739|OTHER|Estimated positive percent agreement (PPA) defined as: (Index Test Positive; ASIS Positive) / (Index Test Negative; ASIS Positive + Index Test Positive; ASIS Positive + Index Test Negative; ASIS Indeterminate)|PPA|95.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.3|98.9|||||PPA estimated with two-sided 95% score confidence interval.|||98.9|86.3|
91058657|NCT01371747|181998414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.22|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Estimated values were based on summary statistics.|Each starting dose group was compared to its baseline.||||
90817669|NCT02870101|181513739|OTHER|Estimated negative percent agreement (NPA) defined as: (Index Test Negative; ASIS Negative) / (Index Test Negative; ASIS Negative + Index Test Positive; ASIS Negative + Index Test Positive; ASIS Indeterminate)|NPA|99.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.4|99.8|||||NPA estimated with two-sided 95% score confidence interval.|||99.8|99.4|
90817670|NCT02870101|181513740|OTHER|Estimated positive percent agreement (PPA) defined as: (Index Test Positive; ASIS Positive) / (Index Test Negative; ASIS Positive + Index Test Positive; ASIS Positive + Index Test Negative; ASIS Indeterminate)|PPA|86.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|80.9|89.9|||||PPA estimated with two-sided 95% score confidence interval.|||89.9|80.9|
91058658|NCT01371747|181998414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Estimated values were based on summary statistics.|Each starting dose group was compared to its baseline.||||
91058659|NCT01371747|181998414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.41|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Estimated values were based on summary statistics.|Each starting dose group was compared to its baseline.||||
91058660|NCT01371747|181998414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.39|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Estimated values were based on summary statistics.|Each starting dose group was compared to its baseline.||||
91058661|NCT01371747|181998414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Estimated values were based on summary statistics.|Each starting dose group was compared to its baseline.||||
91058662|NCT01371747|181998415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of Participants|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.3|100.0|||||2-sided 95% exact binomial CI|||100.0|94.3|
91058663|NCT01371747|181998415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of Participants|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.5|100.0|||||2-sided 95% exact binomial CI|||100|94.5|
91058664|NCT01371747|181998415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of Participants|98.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.6|100.0|||||2-sided 95% exact binomial CI|||100|91.6|
91058665|NCT01371747|181998415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of Participants|91.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|73.0|99.0|||||2-sided 95% exact binomial CI|||99|73|
91058666|NCT01371747|181998415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of Participants|95.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.9|99.9|||||2-sided 95% exact binomial CI|||99.9|78.9|
91058667|NCT01371747|181998415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of Participants|95.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|77.2|99.9|||||2-sided 95% exact binomial CI|||99.9|77.2|
90817671|NCT02870101|181513740|OTHER|Estimated Negative percent agreement (NPA) defined as: (Index Test Negative; ASIS Negative) / (Index Test Negative; ASIS Negative + Index Test Positive; ASIS Negative + Index Test Positive; ASIS Indeterminate)|NPA|99.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.9|99.6|||||NPA estimated with two-sided 95% score confidence interval.|||99.6|98.9|
90817672|NCT02870101|181513741|OTHER|Estimated positive percent agreement (PPA) defined as: (Index Test Positive; ASIS Positive) / (Index Test Negative; ASIS Positive + Index Test Positive; ASIS Positive + Index Test Equivocal; ASIS Indeterminate + Index Test Negative; ASIS Indeterminate)|PPA|88.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|76.6|94.5|||||PPA estimated with two-sided 95% score confidence interval.|||94.5|76.6|
90817673|NCT02870101|181513741|OTHER|Estimated negative percent agreement (NPA) defined as: (Index Test Negative; ASIS Negative) / (Index Test Negative; ASIS Negative + Index Test Positive; ASIS Negative + Index Test Equivocal; ASIS Negative + Index Test Positive; ASIS Indeterminate)|NPA|99.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.4|99.8|||||NPA estimated with two-sided 95% score confidence interval.|||99.8|99.4|
90817674|NCT02870101|181513742|OTHER|Estimated positive percent agreement (PPA) defined as: (Index Test Positive; ASIS Positive) / (Index Test Negative; ASIS Positive + Index Test Positive; ASIS Positive + Index Test Equivocal; ASIS Indeterminate + Index Test Negative; ASIS Indeterminate)|PPA|88.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|83.9|92.3|||||PPA estimated with two-sided 95% score confidence interval.|||92.3|83.9|
90817675|NCT02870101|181513742|OTHER|Estimated negative percent agreement (NPA) defined as: (Index Test Negative; ASIS Negative) / (Index Test Negative; ASIS Negative + Index Test Positive; ASIS Negative + Index Test Equivocal; ASIS Negative + Index Test Positive; ASIS Indeterminate)|NPA|98.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.2|99.1|||||NPA estimated with two-sided 95% score confidence interval.|||99.1|98.2|
90817676|NCT02870101|181513743|OTHER|Estimated positive percent agreement (PPA) defined as: (Index Test Positive; ASIS Positive) / (Index Test Negative; ASIS Positive + Index Test Positive; ASIS Positive + Index Test Equivocal; ASIS Indeterminate + Index Test Negative; ASIS Indeterminate)|PPA|84.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.5|91.7|||||PPA estimated with two-sided 95% score confidence interval.|||91.7|71.5|
90817677|NCT02870101|181513743|OTHER|Estimated negative percent agreement (NPA) defined as: (Index Test Negative; ASIS Negative) / (Index Test Negative; ASIS Negative + Index Test Positive; ASIS Negative + Index Test Equivocal; ASIS Negative + Index Test Positive; ASIS Indeterminate)|NPA|99.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.5|99.9|||||NPA estimated with two-sided 95% score confidence interval.|||99.9|99.5|
90817678|NCT02870101|181513744|OTHER|Estimated positive percent agreement (PPA) defined as: (Index Test Positive; ASIS Positive) / (Index Test Negative; ASIS Positive + Index Test Positive; ASIS Positive + Index Test Equivocal; ASIS Indeterminate + Index Test Negative; ASIS Indeterminate)|PPA|83.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|77.6|87.3|||||PPA estimated with two-sided 95% score confidence interval.|||87.3|77.6|
90817679|NCT02870101|181513744|OTHER|Estimated negative percent agreement (NPA) defined as: (Index Test Negative; ASIS Negative) / (Index Test Negative; ASIS Negative + Index Test Positive; ASIS Negative + Index Test Equivocal; ASIS Negative + Index Test Positive; ASIS Indeterminate)|NPA|99.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.6|99.4|||||NPA estimated with two-sided 95% score confidence interval.|||99.4|98.6|
90817680|NCT00126776|181513750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||mean cumulative frequency|||primary outcome is mean cumulative frequency of COPD related hospitlaizations and ED visits ;ver 1 yr: 0.48 for disease management; 0.82 for usual care, difference 0.34 (95% CI 0.15 to 0.52; P\<0.001)||||< 0.001
90817681|NCT02893917|181513755|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.617||||0.0359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.392|0.969|||Regression, Cox|||||0.969|0.392|0.0359
90817682|NCT02893917|181513756|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.705|2.399||no p value provided|Regression, Cox|||||2.399|0.705|
91058668|NCT01371747|181998416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of Participants|95.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.7|99.0|||||2-sided 95% exact binomial CI|||99.0|86.7|
91058669|NCT01371747|181998416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of Participants|90.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|81.0|96.5|||||2-sided 95% exact binomial CI|||96.5|81.0|
90817683|NCT02893917|181513759|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.272|1.504|||Regression, Cox|||HRD positive ONLY||1.504|0.272|
90817684|NCT02893917|181513759|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.777|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.448|1.348|||Regression, Cox|||HRD negative ONLY||1.348|0.448|
90817685|NCT01815840|181513789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.2|5.7|||||Asymptotic confidence intervals are presented for the difference between treatment arms.|The mean difference in the mean relative reduction between treatment arms, along with the corresponding 95% confidence interval, was estimated by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as main effect and the following covariates: number of basal cell carcinomas at baseline, geographical region, immunosuppression status, confirmed basal cell carcinoma nevus syndrome.||5.7|-22.2|
90817686|NCT00434642|181513801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.484|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.388|0.605||A P-value \< 0.05 was required for significance.|Log Rank|The analysis was stratified for time since the last platinum therapy (6-12, \> 12 months) and cytoreductive surgery for recurrent disease (yes, no).|The hazard ratio was estimated using Cox regression. The hazard ratio is relative to the carboplatin and gemcitabine + placebo group.|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the 2 treatment groups, ie, that the hazard ratio is equal to 1. The alternative hypothesis was that progression free survival was longer in the carboplatin and gemcitabine + bevacizumab group, ie, that the hazard ratio is not equal to 1.||0.605|0.388|<0.0001
90817687|NCT00434642|181513802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.0|29.2||A P-value \< 0.05 was required for significance.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was stratified for time since the last platinum therapy (6-12, \> 12 months) and cytoreductive surgery for recurrent disease (yes, no).|The difference in response rates and the 95% confidence intervals for response rates were computed using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the percentage of patients with an objective response between the 2 treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was that a larger percentage of patients had an objective response in the carboplatin and gemcitabine + bevacizumab group.||29.2|13.0|<0.0001
91058670|NCT01371747|181998416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of Participants|81.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|69.5|89.9|||||2-sided 95% exact binomial CI|||89.9|69.5|
91058671|NCT01371747|181998416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of Participants|79.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.8|92.9|||||2-sided 95% exact binomial CI|||92.9|57.8|
91058672|NCT01371747|181998416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of Participants|91.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|73.0|99.0|||||2-sided 95% exact binomial CI|||99|73|
91058673|NCT01371747|181998416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of Participants|77.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.6|92.2|||||2-sided 95% exact binomial CI|||92.2|54.6|
91058674|NCT01371747|181998418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of Participants|86.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|73.7|94.3|||||2-sided 95% exact binomial CI|||94.3|73.7|
91058675|NCT01371747|181998418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of Participants|81.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.0|91.2|||||2-sided 95% exact binomial CI|||91.2|68.0|
90817688|NCT00434642|181513804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.952||||0.6479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.771|1.176||Summaries of duration of overall survival (median, percentiles) were estimated from Kaplan-Meier curves. The 95% confidence interval for the median was computed using the method of Brookmeyer and Crowley.|Log Rank|The analysis was stratified for time since the last platinum therapy (≤12, \>12 months) and cytoreductive surgery for recurrent disease (Yes, No).|The hazard ratio was estimated using Cox regression. The hazard ratio is relative to the carboplatin and gemcitabine + placebo group.|||1.176|0.771|0.6479
90817689|NCT01463072|181513862|OTHER||Percent|35.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.0|52.0|||||35% of participants were responders (CR+PR).|||52|21|
90817690|NCT01463072|181513864|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.8||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|33.1|||Fisher Exact||Ratio is intermediate/high toxicity risk over low toxicity risk|CARG chemotherapy toxicity risk predictive of chemotherapy toxicity (grade 3)||33.1|1.3|0.01
90817691|NCT01463072|181513864|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of group means|1.38||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.8|||t-test, 2 sided||Ratio is dose reduction over no dose reduction.|CARG chemotherapy toxicity risk predictive of dose reduction due to chemotherapy toxicity||1.80|1.04|0.02
90817692|NCT02868229|181513968|SUPERIORITY||Differences of LS Means|-5.666||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.082|-2.25|||ANCOVA|||The P-value was obtained from rank transformed analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model, where the rank transformed change from baseline (CFB) values as the response variable and treatments as a factor and the rank transformed baseline value as its covariate.||-2.250|-9.082|0.002
90817693|NCT02868229|181513968|SUPERIORITY||Differences of LS Means|-6.913|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.613|-3.214|||ANCOVA|||The P-value was obtained from rank transformed analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model, where the rank transformed change from baseline (CFB) values as the response variable and treatments as a factor and the rank transformed baseline value as its covariate.||-3.214|-10.613|<0.001
90817694|NCT02868229|181513968|SUPERIORITY||Differences of LS Means|-9.591|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.217|-5.965|||ANCOVA|||The P-value was obtained from rank transformed analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model, where the rank transformed change from baseline (CFB) values as the response variable and treatments as a factor and the rank transformed baseline value as its covariate.||-5.965|-13.217|<0.001
91058676|NCT01371747|181998418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of Participants|88.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|75.9|96.3|||||2-sided 95% exact binomial CI|||96.3|75.9|
91058677|NCT01371747|181998418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of Participants|86.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.5|98.3|||||2-sided 95% exact binomial CI|||98.3|59.5|
91058678|NCT01371747|181998418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of Participants|89.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|66.9|98.7|||||2-sided 95% exact binomial CI|||98.7|66.9|
91058679|NCT01371747|181998418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of Participants|93.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.1|99.8|||||2-sided 95% exact binomial CI|||99.8|68.1|
91058680|NCT03092219|181998419|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|For this outcome measure, missing data were imputed using a LOCF (Last Observation Carried Forward) method.||||||0.0001
90817695|NCT06225466|181514119|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean difference|0.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|0.047|||ANOVA|||||0.047|-0.005|0.123
90817696|NCT06225466|181514120|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.55||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.12|0.26|0.102
90817697|NCT06225466|181514121|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate ratio|2.37||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|4.52|||Negative Binomial Regression|||||4.52|1.25|0.008
90817698|NCT04676867|181514131|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.2
90817699|NCT04676867|181514132|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2
90817700|NCT04676867|181514133|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2
90817701|NCT04676867|181514134|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.2
90817702|NCT04676867|181514135|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.2
90817703|NCT04676867|181514136|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.2
90817704|NCT04676867|181514137|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.2
90817705|NCT04676867|181514138|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2
91058681|NCT05013008|181998468|OTHER|The hypotheses 'H0i: βi=0' (i=1,…,27) were tested at a two-sided significance level of 5%, where βi was the estimator for the difference in log-transformed ratios of biomarker levels of Visit 11 to Visit 3 between finerenone and placebo group for the i-th of the 27 pre-specified biomarkers.|||||=|0.001||||||Benjamini-Hochberg adjusted P-value was calculated using the log2-scaled NPX value.|t-test, 2 sided|||The NPX difference (corresponding to log-transformed ratio to baseline) of Matrilysin (P09237) was analyzed.||||= 0.001
91058682|NCT05013008|181998468|OTHER|The hypotheses 'H0i: βi=0' (i=1,…,27) were tested at a two-sided significance level of 5%, where βi was the estimator for the difference in log-transformed ratios of biomarker levels of Visit 11 to Visit 3 between finerenone and placebo group for the i-th of the 27 pre-specified biomarkers.|||||=|0.002||||||Benjamini-Hochberg adjusted P-value was calculated using the log2-scaled NPX value.|t-test, 2 sided|||The NPX difference (corresponding to log-transformed ratio to baseline) of von Willebrand factor (P04275) was analyzed.||||= 0.002
91058683|NCT05013008|181998468|OTHER|The hypotheses 'H0i: βi=0' (i=1,…,27) were tested at a two-sided significance level of 5%, where βi was the estimator for the difference in log-transformed ratios of biomarker levels of Visit 11 to Visit 3 between finerenone and placebo group for the i-th of the 27 pre-specified biomarkers.|||||=|0.044||||||Benjamini-Hochberg adjusted P-value was calculated using the log2-scaled NPX value.|t-test, 2 sided|||The NPX difference (corresponding to log-transformed ratio to baseline) of CCN family member 4 (O95388) was analyzed.||||= 0.044
91058684|NCT05013008|181998468|OTHER|The hypotheses 'H0i: βi=0' (i=1,…,27) were tested at a two-sided significance level of 5%, where βi was the estimator for the difference in log-transformed ratios of biomarker levels of Visit 11 to Visit 3 between finerenone and placebo group for the i-th of the 27 pre-specified biomarkers.|||||=|0.044||||||Benjamini-Hochberg adjusted P-value was calculated using the log2-scaled NPX value.|t-test, 2 sided|||The NPX difference (corresponding to log-transformed ratio to baseline) of TGF beta-1 proprotein (P01137) was analyzed.||||= 0.044
91058685|NCT05013008|181998468|OTHER|The hypotheses 'H0i: βi=0' (i=1,…,27) were tested at a two-sided significance level of 5%, where βi was the estimator for the difference in log-transformed ratios of biomarker levels of Visit 11 to Visit 3 between finerenone and placebo group for the i-th of the 27 pre-specified biomarkers.|||||=|0.127||||||Benjamini-Hochberg adjusted P-value was calculated using the log2-scaled NPX value.|t-test, 2 sided|||The NPX difference (corresponding to log-transformed ratio to baseline) of TGF beta receptor type 3 (Q03167) was analyzed.||||= 0.127
90817706|NCT04676867|181514139|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2
90817707|NCT04676867|181514140|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.2
90817708|NCT04676867|181514141|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.2
90817709|NCT04676867|181514143|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.2
90817710|NCT04676867|181514144|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.2
90817711|NCT00548717|181514158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between Grade 0-I aGVHD vs Grade II-IV aGVHD in the Siro/MMF group at week 1.||||0.77
90817712|NCT00548717|181514158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between Grade 0-I aGVHD vs Grade II-IV aGVHD in the Siro/MMF group at week 2.||||0.59
90817713|NCT00548717|181514158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between Grade 0-I aGVHD vs Grade II-IV aGVHD in the Siro/MMF group at week 3.||||0.92
90817714|NCT00548717|181514158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between Grade 0-I aGVHD vs Grade II-IV aGVHD in the Siro/MMF group at week 8.||||0.63
90817715|NCT00548717|181514158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between Grade 0-I aGVHD vs Grade II-IV aGVHD in the Siro/MMF group at week 12.||||0.79
90817716|NCT02411929|181514162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test (oral)/Reference (IV) of means|104.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.64|107.91|||||Natural log transformed AUCinf(dn) and AUClast(dn) from Period 1 were analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences were exponentiated.|Ratio - Test (oral) / Reference (IV) of means||107.91|101.64|
90817717|NCT02411929|181514172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|110.71|||||||||||||The ratio (Test/Reference) of the geometric means of dose normalized natural log transformed Total 14\^C in Urine will be estimated. Total 14\^C\_Urine\_IV is the Reference formulation and Total 14C\_Urine\_Oral is the Test formulation (expressed as a %).|Ratio - Test (Oral) / Reference (IV) (%)||||
91058686|NCT05013008|181998468|OTHER|The hypotheses 'H0i: βi=0' (i=1,…,27) were tested at a two-sided significance level of 5%, where βi was the estimator for the difference in log-transformed ratios of biomarker levels of Visit 11 to Visit 3 between finerenone and placebo group for the i-th of the 27 pre-specified biomarkers.|||||=|0.21||||||Benjamini-Hochberg adjusted P-value was calculated using the log2-scaled NPX value.|t-test, 2 sided|||The NPX differences (corresponding to log-transformed ratio to baseline) of IL-15 receptor subunit alpha (Q13261) was analyzed.||||= 0.210
90817718|NCT04268173|181514182|EQUIVALENCE|A two sample t-test was conducted to test the null hypothesis that the pre-intervention mean response was equivalent to the post-intervention mean response in the Prevention Navigation group. Hypothesis: A p-value greater than 0.05 suggests the means are not statistically different from one another.||||||0.84|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.84
90817719|NCT01600092|181514202|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority required that the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the GMT ratio is \>0.67|GMT Ratio (Experimental/Existing)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.07|||||GMTs and GMT ratio were based on a model with terms for treatment and country, with the constraint that the mean baseline value is the same for both treatment groups|Serotype G1||1.07|0.79|
90817720|NCT01600092|181514202|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority required that the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the GMT ratio is \>0.67|GMT Ratio (Experimental/Existing)|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.33|||||GMTs and GMT ratio were based on a model with terms for treatment and country, with the constraint that the mean baseline value is the same for both treatment groups|Serotype G2||1.33|0.99|
90817721|NCT01600092|181514202|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority required that the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the GMT ratio is \>0.67|GMT Ratio (Experimental/Existing)|3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.75|3.74|||||GMTs and GMT ratio were based on a model with terms for treatment and country, with the constraint that the mean baseline value is the same for both treatment groups|Serotype G3||3.74|2.75|
90817722|NCT01600092|181514202|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority required that the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the GMT ratio is \>0.67|GMT Ratio (Experimental/Existing)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.2|||||GMTs and GMT ratio were based on a model with terms for treatment and country, with the constraint that the mean baseline value is the same for both treatment groups|Serotype G4||1.20|0.94|
90817723|NCT01600092|181514202|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority required that the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the GMT ratio is \>0.67|GMT Ratio (Experimental/Existing)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.35|||||GMTs and GMT ratio were based on a model with terms for treatment and country, with the constraint that the mean baseline value is the same for both treatment groups|Serotype P1A\[8\]||1.35|1.00|
90817724|NCT01561963|181514231|EQUIVALENCE|No statistically significant interaction between apremilast and rifampicin was confirmed if both the upper and lower 90% confidence interval (CI) limits for the geometric least squares mean ratios of apremilast administered with rifampicin to apremilast alone fell within the no effect boundary of 80% to 125%.|Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|96.35|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.56|104.82|||||Apremilast + IV Rifampin / Apremilast Alone|The effect of rifampicin on the PK of apremilast was evaluated using a linear mixed effect analysis of variance on the log-transformed values of AUCt of apremilast, to estimate the mean ratio of apremilast administered with and without rifampicin treatment. The model included treatment as fixed effect, and subject as a random effect.||104.82|88.56|
90817725|NCT01561963|181514231|EQUIVALENCE|No statistically significant interaction between apremilast and rifampicin was confirmed if both the upper and lower 90% CI limits for the geometric least squares mean ratios of apremilast administered with rifampicin to apremilast alone fell within the no effect boundary of 80% to 125%.|Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|27.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|25.63|30.34|||||Apremilast + Multiple Dose Oral Rifampin / Apremilast Alone|The effect of rifampicin on the PK of apremilast was evaluated using a linear mixed effect analysis of variance on the log-transformed values of AUCt of apremilast, to estimate the mean ratio of apremilast administered with and without rifampicin treatment. The model included treatment as fixed effect, and subject as a random effect.||30.34|25.63|
91058687|NCT05013008|181998468|OTHER|The hypotheses 'H0i: βi=0' (i=1,…,27) were tested at a two-sided significance level of 5%, where βi was the estimator for the difference in log-transformed ratios of biomarker levels of Visit 11 to Visit 3 between finerenone and placebo group for the i-th of the 27 pre-specified biomarkers.|||||=|0.215||||||Benjamini-Hochberg adjusted P-value was calculated using the log2-scaled NPX value.|t-test, 2 sided|||The NPX difference (corresponding to log-transformed ratio to baseline) of Metalloproteinase inhibitor 1 (P01033) was analyzed.||||= 0.215
91078394|NCT00824382|182042346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.111|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.0045||95.0|0.035|0.188|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.188|0.035|0.0045
90817726|NCT01561963|181514232|EQUIVALENCE|No statistically significant interaction between apremilast and rifampicin was confirmed if both the upper and lower 90% CI limits for the geometric least squares mean ratios of apremilast administered with rifampicin to apremilast alone fell within the no effect boundary of 80% to 125%.|Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|95.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.99|104.12|||||Apremilast + IV Rifampin / Apremilast Alone|The effect of rifampicin on the PK of apremilast was evaluated using a linear mixed effect analysis of variance on the log-transformed values of AUC∞ of apremilast, to estimate the mean ratio of apremilast administered with and without rifampicin treatment. The model included treatment as fixed effect, and subject as a random effect.||104.12|87.99|
90817727|NCT01561963|181514232|EQUIVALENCE|No statistically significant interaction between apremilast and rifampicin was confirmed if both the upper and lower 90% CI limits for the geometric least squares mean ratios of apremilast administered with rifampicin to apremilast alone fell within the no effect boundary of 80% to 125%.|Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|27.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|25.7|30.41|||||Apremilast + Multiple Dose Oral Rifampin / Apremilast Alone|The effect of rifampicin on the PK of apremilast was evaluated using a linear mixed effect analysis of variance on the log-transformed values of AUC∞ of apremilast, to estimate the mean ratio of apremilast administered with and without rifampicin treatment. The model included treatment as fixed effect, and subject as a random effect.||30.41|25.70|
90817728|NCT01561963|181514233|EQUIVALENCE|No statistically significant interaction between apremilast and rifampicin was confirmed if both the upper and lower 90% CI limits for the geometric least squares mean ratios of apremilast administered with rifampicin to apremilast alone fell within the no effect boundary of 80% to 125%.|Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|113.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.18|123.91|||||Apremilast + IV Rifampin / Apremilast Alone|The effect of rifampicin on the PK of apremilast was evaluated using a linear mixed effect analysis of variance on the log-transformed values of Cmax of apremilast, to estimate the mean ratio of apremilast administered with and without rifampicin treatment. The model included treatment as fixed effect, and subject as a random effect.||123.91|103.18|
90817729|NCT01561963|181514233|EQUIVALENCE|No statistically significant interaction between apremilast and rifampicin was confirmed if both the upper and lower 90% CI limits for the geometric least squares mean ratios of apremilast administered with rifampicin to apremilast alone fell within the no effect boundary of 80% to 125%.|Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|56.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|51.84|62.25|||||Apremilast + Multiple Dose Oral Rifampin / Apremilast Alone|The effect of rifampicin on the PK of apremilast was evaluated using a linear mixed effect analysis of variance on the log-transformed values of Cmax of apremilast, to estimate the mean ratio of apremilast administered with and without rifampicin treatment. The model included treatment as fixed effect, and subject as a random effect.||62.25|51.84|
90817730|NCT01561963|181514234|OTHER||Median Difference|-0.25||||0.2656|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.75|0.0|||Wilcoxon signed rank test||Apremilast + IV Rifampin - Apremilast Alone|Tmax was analyzed using nonparametric methods. The median difference and 90% CI of the median difference were calculated from the Hodges-Lehrmann estimate.||0.00|-0.75|0.2656
90817731|NCT01561963|181514234|OTHER||Median Difference|-0.5||||0.1141|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon signed rank test||Apremilast + Multiple Dose Oral Rifampin - Apremilast Alone|Tmax was analyzed using nonparametric methods. The median difference and 90% CI of the median difference were calculated from the Hodges-Lehrmann estimate.||0.00|-1.00|0.1141
90817732|NCT02228096|181514258|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Clopper-Pearson|||||||<0.0001
90817733|NCT02925728|181514303|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
90817734|NCT03101085|181514320|OTHER|We performed a paired T-test analysis to ascertain whether the COX/CS activity while on S-equol was comparable or different than the COX/CS while on placebo. For each participant, the COX/CS value while on S-equol was subtracted from their COX/CS value while on placebo.|||||>|0.05|||||||Paired T-test|||As the order of the intervention does not matter, all 39 participants who contributed data to the final analysis are included together.||||>0.05
90817735|NCT02986854|181514330|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Difference in percentages|30.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.76|41.25|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A-day 29-Total seroresponse (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||41.25|21.76|
90817736|NCT02986854|181514330|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Difference in percentages|30.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.66|41.17|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A-day 29-Total seroresponse (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||41.17|21.66|
90817737|NCT02986854|181514330|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Difference in percentages|30.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.89|41.12|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A-day 29-Total seroresponse (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naïve)||41.12|21.89|
91058688|NCT05013008|181998468|OTHER|The hypotheses 'H0i: βi=0' (i=1,…,27) were tested at a two-sided significance level of 5%, where βi was the estimator for the difference in log-transformed ratios of biomarker levels of Visit 11 to Visit 3 between finerenone and placebo group for the i-th of the 27 pre-specified biomarkers.|||||=|0.215||||||Benjamini-Hochberg adjusted P-value was calculated using the log2-scaled NPX value.|t-test, 2 sided|||The NPX difference (corresponding to log-transformed ratio to baseline) of Pappalysin-1 (Q13219) was analyzed.||||= 0.215
91058689|NCT05013008|181998468|OTHER|The hypotheses 'H0i: βi=0' (i=1,…,27) were tested at a two-sided significance level of 5%, where βi was the estimator for the difference in log-transformed ratios of biomarker levels of Visit 11 to Visit 3 between finerenone and placebo group for the i-th of the 27 pre-specified biomarkers.|||||=|0.745||||||Benjamini-Hochberg adjusted P-value was calculated using the log2-scaled NPX value.|t-test, 2 sided|||The NPX difference (corresponding to log-transformed ratio to baseline) of Proto-oncogene c-Src (P12931) was analyzed.||||= 0.745
90817738|NCT02986854|181514330|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method.|Difference in percentages|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.15|3.36|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- DAY 29 : Total seroresponse (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||3.36|-3.15|
90817739|NCT02986854|181514330|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Difference in percentages|38.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.54|48.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C-day 29-Total seroresponse (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||48.90|28.54|
90817740|NCT02986854|181514330|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Difference in percentages|39.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.16|49.46|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C-day 29-Total seroresponse (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||49.46|29.16|
90817741|NCT02986854|181514330|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Difference in percentages|38.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.03|49.06|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C-day 29-Total seroresponse (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naïve)||49.06|29.03|
90817742|NCT02986854|181514330|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Difference in percentages|-0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.12|2.92|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C-DAY 29 : Total seroresponse (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||2.92|-4.12|
90817743|NCT02986854|181514330|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Difference in percentages|59.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.49|69.32|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W-day 29-Total seroresponse (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||69.32|49.49|
90817744|NCT02986854|181514330|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Difference in percentages|57.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.71|66.88|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W-day 29-Total seroresponse (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||66.88|46.71|
90817745|NCT02986854|181514330|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Difference in percentages|58.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.32|67.94|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W-day 29-Total seroresponse (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naïve)||67.94|48.32|
90817746|NCT02986854|181514330|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Difference in percentages|2.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|6.62|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W-DAY 29 : Total seroresponse (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||6.62|-1.17|
90817747|NCT02986854|181514330|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Difference in percentages|45.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.11|55.47|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y-day 29-Total seroresponse (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||55.47|35.11|
90817748|NCT02986854|181514330|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Difference in percentages|42.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.34|53.04|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y-day 29-Total seroresponse (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||53.04|32.34|
90817749|NCT02986854|181514330|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Difference in percentages|43.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.92|54.14|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y-day 29-Total seroresponse (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naïve)||54.14|33.92|
90817750|NCT02986854|181514330|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Difference in percentages|2.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|6.3|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- DAY 29 : Total seroresponse (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||6.3|-0.86|
90817751|NCT02986854|181514336|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|8.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|13.41|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 1- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||13.41|1.23|
90817752|NCT02986854|181514336|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method.|Between group differences in percentage|10.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.54|16.14|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 1- (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||16.14|3.54|
90817753|NCT02986854|181514336|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method.|Between group differences in percentage|9.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.72|13.58|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 1- (Pooled Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||13.58|2.72|
91078395|NCT00824382|182042346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.216|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|<|0.0001||95.0|0.14|0.293|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.293|0.140|<0.0001
90817754|NCT02986854|181514336|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method.|Between group differences in percentage|-2.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.17|3.24|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 1- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||3.24|-8.17|
90817755|NCT02986854|181514336|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|6.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.57|14.15|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 4- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||14.15|-3.57|
90817756|NCT02986854|181514336|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|8.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|16.52|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 4- (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||16.52|-1.77|
90817757|NCT02986854|181514336|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|7.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|13.48|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 4- (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||13.48|-2.34|
90817758|NCT02986854|181514336|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|-1.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.84|5.82|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 4- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||5.82|-9.84|
91058690|NCT05013008|181998468|OTHER|The hypotheses 'H0i: βi=0' (i=1,…,27) were tested at a two-sided significance level of 5%, where βi was the estimator for the difference in log-transformed ratios of biomarker levels of Visit 11 to Visit 3 between finerenone and placebo group for the i-th of the 27 pre-specified biomarkers.|||||=|0.762||||||Benjamini-Hochberg adjusted P-value was calculated using the log2-scaled NPX value.|t-test, 2 sided|||The NPX difference (corresponding to log-transformed ratio to baseline) of Protein AMBP (P02760) was analyzed.||||= 0.762
91058691|NCT05013008|181998468|OTHER|The hypotheses 'H0i: βi=0' (i=1,…,27) were tested at a two-sided significance level of 5%, where βi was the estimator for the difference in log-transformed ratios of biomarker levels of Visit 11 to Visit 3 between finerenone and placebo group for the i-th of the 27 pre-specified biomarkers.|||||=|0.762||||||Benjamini-Hochberg adjusted P-value was calculated using the log2-scaled NPX value.|t-test, 2 sided|||The NPX difference (corresponding to log-transformed ratio to baseline) of Uromodulin (P07911) was analyzed.||||= 0.762
91058692|NCT05013008|181998468|OTHER|The hypotheses 'H0i: βi=0' (i=1,…,27) were tested at a two-sided significance level of 5%, where βi was the estimator for the difference in log-transformed ratios of biomarker levels of Visit 11 to Visit 3 between finerenone and placebo group for the i-th of the 27 pre-specified biomarkers.|||||=|0.762||||||Benjamini-Hochberg adjusted P-value was calculated using the log2-scaled NPX value.|t-test, 2 sided|||The NPX difference (corresponding to log-transformed ratio to baseline) of Aminopeptidase N (P15144) was analyzed.||||= 0.762
91058693|NCT05013008|181998468|OTHER|The hypotheses 'H0i: βi=0' (i=1,…,27) were tested at a two-sided significance level of 5%, where βi was the estimator for the difference in log-transformed ratios of biomarker levels of Visit 11 to Visit 3 between finerenone and placebo group for the i-th of the 27 pre-specified biomarkers.|||||=|0.762||||||Benjamini-Hochberg adjusted P-value was calculated using the log2-scaled NPX value.|t-test, 2 sided|||The NPX difference (corresponding to log-transformed ratio to baseline) of TNFRSF1A (P19438) was analyzed.||||= 0.762
91058694|NCT05013008|181998468|OTHER|The hypotheses 'H0i: βi=0' (i=1,…,27) were tested at a two-sided significance level of 5%, where βi was the estimator for the difference in log-transformed ratios of biomarker levels of Visit 11 to Visit 3 between finerenone and placebo group for the i-th of the 27 pre-specified biomarkers.|||||=|0.917||||||Benjamini-Hochberg adjusted P-value was calculated using the log2-scaled NPX value.|t-test, 2 sided|||The NPX difference (corresponding to log-transformed ratio to baseline) of Plasminogen activator inhibitor 1 (P05121) was analyzed.||||= 0.917
91058695|NCT05013008|181998468|OTHER|The hypotheses 'H0i: βi=0' (i=1,…,27) were tested at a two-sided significance level of 5%, where βi was the estimator for the difference in log-transformed ratios of biomarker levels of Visit 11 to Visit 3 between finerenone and placebo group for the i-th of the 27 pre-specified biomarkers.|||||=|0.917||||||Benjamini-Hochberg adjusted P-value was calculated using the log2-scaled NPX value.|t-test, 2 sided|||The NPX difference (corresponding to log-transformed ratio to baseline) of CCN family member 2 (P29279) was analyzed.||||= 0.917
91058696|NCT05013008|181998468|OTHER|The hypotheses 'H0i: βi=0' (i=1,…,27) were tested at a two-sided significance level of 5%, where βi was the estimator for the difference in log-transformed ratios of biomarker levels of Visit 11 to Visit 3 between finerenone and placebo group for the i-th of the 27 pre-specified biomarkers.|||||=|0.917||||||Benjamini-Hochberg adjusted P-value was calculated using the log2-scaled NPX value.|t-test, 2 sided|||The NPX difference (corresponding to log-transformed ratio to baseline) of uPAR (Q03405) was analyzed.||||= 0.917
91058697|NCT05013008|181998468|OTHER|The hypotheses 'H0i: βi=0' (i=1,…,27) were tested at a two-sided significance level of 5%, where βi was the estimator for the difference in log-transformed ratios of biomarker levels of Visit 11 to Visit 3 between finerenone and placebo group for the i-th of the 27 pre-specified biomarkers.|||||=|0.917||||||Benjamini-Hochberg adjusted P-value was calculated using the log2-scaled NPX value.|t-test, 2 sided|||The NPX difference (corresponding to log-transformed ratio to baseline) of C-C motif chemokine 14 (Q16627) was analyzed.||||= 0.917
91058698|NCT05013008|181998468|OTHER|The hypotheses 'H0i: βi=0' (i=1,…,27) were tested at a two-sided significance level of 5%, where βi was the estimator for the difference in log-transformed ratios of biomarker levels of Visit 11 to Visit 3 between finerenone and placebo group for the i-th of the 27 pre-specified biomarkers.|||||=|0.979||||||Benjamini-Hochberg adjusted P-value was calculated using the log2-scaled NPX value.|t-test, 2 sided|||The NPX difference (corresponding to log-transformed ratio to baseline) of C-C motif chemokine 16 (O15467) was analyzed.||||= 0.979
91058699|NCT05013008|181998468|OTHER|The hypotheses 'H0i: βi=0' (i=1,…,27) were tested at a two-sided significance level of 5%, where βi was the estimator for the difference in log-transformed ratios of biomarker levels of Visit 11 to Visit 3 between finerenone and placebo group for the i-th of the 27 pre-specified biomarkers.|||||=|0.979||||||Benjamini-Hochberg adjusted P-value was calculated using the log2-scaled NPX value.|t-test, 2 sided|||The NPX difference (corresponding to log-transformed ratio to baseline) of Collagen alpha-1(I) chain (P02452) was analyzed.||||= 0.979
91058700|NCT05013008|181998468|OTHER|The hypotheses 'H0i: βi=0' (i=1,…,27) were tested at a two-sided significance level of 5%, where βi was the estimator for the difference in log-transformed ratios of biomarker levels of Visit 11 to Visit 3 between finerenone and placebo group for the i-th of the 27 pre-specified biomarkers.|||||=|0.979||||||Benjamini-Hochberg adjusted P-value was calculated using the log2-scaled NPX value.|t-test, 2 sided|||The NPX difference (corresponding to log-transformed ratio to baseline) of Decorin (P07585) was analyzed.||||= 0.979
91058701|NCT05013008|181998468|OTHER|The hypotheses 'H0i: βi=0' (i=1,…,27) were tested at a two-sided significance level of 5%, where βi was the estimator for the difference in log-transformed ratios of biomarker levels of Visit 11 to Visit 3 between finerenone and placebo group for the i-th of the 27 pre-specified biomarkers.|||||=|0.979||||||Benjamini-Hochberg adjusted P-value was calculated using the log2-scaled NPX value.|t-test, 2 sided|||The NPX differences (corresponding to log-transformed ratio to baseline) of C-C motif chemokine 2 (P13500) was analyzed.||||= 0.979
90817759|NCT02986854|181514336|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|44.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.25|54.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 6- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||54.60|30.25|
90817760|NCT02986854|181514336|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|38.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.93|48.58|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 6- (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||48.58|23.93|
90817761|NCT02986854|181514336|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|41.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.15|49.72|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 6- (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||49.72|28.15|
90817762|NCT02986854|181514336|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|6.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.31|17.71|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 6- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||17.71|-5.31|
90817763|NCT02986854|181514336|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|27.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.25|37.65|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 29- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||37.65|19.25|
90817764|NCT02986854|181514336|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|27.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.6|37.95|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 29- (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||37.95|19.60|
90817765|NCT02986854|181514336|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|27.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.5|37.76|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 29- (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||37.76|19.50|
90817766|NCT02986854|181514336|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|-0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.56|1.86|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 29- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||1.86|-2.56|
90817767|NCT02986854|181514337|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|27.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.23|38.27|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 1- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||38.27|16.23|
90817768|NCT02986854|181514337|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|20.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.78|31.03|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 1- (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||31.03|8.78|
91058702|NCT05013008|181998468|OTHER|The hypotheses 'H0i: βi=0' (i=1,…,27) were tested at a two-sided significance level of 5%, where βi was the estimator for the difference in log-transformed ratios of biomarker levels of Visit 11 to Visit 3 between finerenone and placebo group for the i-th of the 27 pre-specified biomarkers.|||||=|0.979||||||Benjamini-Hochberg adjusted P-value was calculated using the log2-scaled NPX value.|t-test, 2 sided|||The NPX difference (corresponding to log-transformed ratio to baseline) of Matrix metalloproteinase-9 (P14780) was analyzed.||||= 0.979
91058703|NCT05013008|181998468|OTHER|The hypotheses 'H0i: βi=0' (i=1,…,27) were tested at a two-sided significance level of 5%, where βi was the estimator for the difference in log-transformed ratios of biomarker levels of Visit 11 to Visit 3 between finerenone and placebo group for the i-th of the 27 pre-specified biomarkers.|||||=|0.979||||||Benjamini-Hochberg adjusted P-value was calculated using the log2-scaled NPX value.|t-test, 2 sided|||The NPX differences (corresponding to log-transformed ratio to baseline) of E-selectin (P16581) was analyzed.||||= 0.979
91058704|NCT05013008|181998468|OTHER|The hypotheses 'H0i: βi=0' (i=1,…,27) were tested at a two-sided significance level of 5%, where βi was the estimator for the difference in log-transformed ratios of biomarker levels of Visit 11 to Visit 3 between finerenone and placebo group for the i-th of the 27 pre-specified biomarkers.|||||=|0.979||||||Benjamini-Hochberg adjusted P-value was calculated using the log2-scaled NPX value.|t-test, 2 sided|||The NPX difference (corresponding to log-transformed ratio to baseline) of Thrombospondin-2 (P35442) was analyzed.||||= 0.979
90817769|NCT02986854|181514337|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|24.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.28|33.86|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 1- (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||33.86|13.28|
90817770|NCT02986854|181514337|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|7.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|15.42|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 1- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||15.42|-0.76|
90817771|NCT02986854|181514337|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|27.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.04|42.14|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 4- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||42.14|11.04|
90817772|NCT02986854|181514337|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|16.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|31.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 4- (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||31.90|0.04|
90817773|NCT02986854|181514337|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|21.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.73|36.11|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 4- (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||36.11|6.73|
90817774|NCT02986854|181514337|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|10.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|21.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 4- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||21.60|-0.42|
90817775|NCT02986854|181514337|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|44.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.65|58.93|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 6- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||58.93|28.65|
91058705|NCT05013008|181998468|OTHER|The hypotheses 'H0i: βi=0' (i=1,…,27) were tested at a two-sided significance level of 5%, where βi was the estimator for the difference in log-transformed ratios of biomarker levels of Visit 11 to Visit 3 between finerenone and placebo group for the i-th of the 27 pre-specified biomarkers.|||||=|0.979||||||Benjamini-Hochberg adjusted P-value was calculated using the log2-scaled NPX value.|t-test, 2 sided|||The NPX difference (corresponding to log-transformed ratio to baseline) of RARRES2 (Q99969) was analyzed.||||= 0.979
91058706|NCT05013008|181998468|OTHER|The hypotheses 'H0i: βi=0' (i=1,…,27) were tested at a two-sided significance level of 5%, where βi was the estimator for the difference in log-transformed ratios of biomarker levels of Visit 11 to Visit 3 between finerenone and placebo group for the i-th of the 27 pre-specified biomarkers.|||||=|0.979||||||Benjamini-Hochberg adjusted P-value was calculated using the log2-scaled NPX value.|t-test, 2 sided|||The NPX difference (corresponding to log-transformed ratio to baseline) of C-X-C motif chemokine 16 (Q9H2A7) was analyzed.||||= 0.979
91058707|NCT05013008|181998468|OTHER|The hypotheses 'H0i: βi=0' (i=1,…,27) were tested at a two-sided significance level of 5%, where βi was the estimator for the difference in log-transformed ratios of biomarker levels of Visit 11 to Visit 3 between finerenone and placebo group for the i-th of the 27 pre-specified biomarkers.|||||=|0.979||||||Benjamini-Hochberg adjusted P-value was calculated using the log2-scaled NPX value.|t-test, 2 sided|||The NPX difference (corresponding to log-transformed ratio to baseline) of Dickkopf-related protein 3 (Q9UBP4) was analyzed.||||= 0.979
91058708|NCT02207634|181998542|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin was 0.19, calculated as 20% of the observed common standard deviation, which was estimated from observations in the placebo group by a repeated measured mixed-effect linear model with visit as a covariate. If the upper bound of the 95% CI for the difference between the placebo and evolocumab group in mean change from baseline for Z score averaged across the visits was less than the non-inferiority margin non-inferiority criteria were met.|Treatment Difference|0.0072|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0375|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0664|0.0808||||||A repeated measures mixed-effect linear model was used to estimate treatment difference (placebo - evolocumab) in change from baseline and associated 95% confidence intervals (CI). The model included stratification factors for Study 20110118 (final screening low-density lipoprotein cholesterol \[LDL-C\] and geographical region), age, education level, baseline SWM strategy index Z score, treatment group, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||0.0808|-0.0664|
91058709|NCT02207634|181998543|OTHER||Treatment Difference|0.0333|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0363|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0378|0.1045||||||A repeated measures mixed-effect linear model was used to estimate treatment difference (placebo - evolocumab) in change from baseline and associated 95% confidence intervals (CI). The model included stratification factors for Study 20110118 (final screening LDL-C and geographical region), age, education level, baseline SWM between-errors Z score, treatment group, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||0.1045|-0.0378|
91058710|NCT02207634|181998544|OTHER||Treatment Difference|0.0226|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0422|0.0873||||||A repeated measures mixed-effect linear model was used to estimate treatment difference (placebo - evolocumab) in change from baseline and associated 95% confidence intervals (CI). The model included stratification factors for Study 20110118 (final screening LDL-C and geographical region), age, education level, baseline PAL total errors adjusted Z score, treatment group, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||0.0873|-0.0422|
91058711|NCT02207634|181998545|OTHER||Treatment Difference|0.0727|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0382|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0022|0.1477||||||A repeated measures mixed-effect linear model was used to estimate treatment difference ( placebo - evolocumab) in change from baseline and associated 95% confidence intervals (CI). The model included stratification factors for Study 20110118 (final screening LDL-C and geographical region), age, education level, baseline RTI median 5-choice reaction time Z score, treatment group, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||0.1477|-0.0022|
91058712|NCT01696058|181998568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.106|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.078|0.135|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Results are from an mixed model repeated measure (MMRM) model. Fixed effects include treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline and baseline by visit interaction. Patient is considered random and an unstructured covariance structure was used. Number of patients contributing to models: Tio+Placebo (566), Tio+Olo 5ug (563).||0.135|0.078|<.0001
91058713|NCT01696058|181998569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.014|0.065|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Results are from an MMRM model. Fixed effects include treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline and baseline by visit interaction. Patient is considered random and an unstructured covariance structure was used. Number of patients contributing to models: Tio+Placebo (555), Tio+Olo 5ug (550).||0.065|0.014|0.0029
91058714|NCT01696058|181998570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.854|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.461|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.757|-0.951|||ANCOVA|||"Results are from ANCOVA model. Fixed effects include study, treatment and baseline.~Number of patients contributing to models: Tio+Placebo (1055), Tio+Olo 5ug (1039)."||-0.951|-2.757|<.0001
91058715|NCT01696058|181998571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.071|0.129|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||"Results are from an MMRM model. Fixed effects include treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline and baseline by visit interaction. Patient is considered random and an unstructured covariance structure was used.~Number of patients contributing to models: Tio+Placebo (566), Tio+Olo 5ug (563)."||0.129|0.071|<.0001
91058716|NCT01696058|181998572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.072|0.164|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||"Results are from an MMRM model. Fixed effects include treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline and baseline by visit interaction. Patient is considered random and an unstructured covariance structure was used.~Number of patients contributing to models: Tio+Placebo (566), Tio+Olo 5ug (563)."||0.164|0.072|<.0001
91058717|NCT01696058|181998573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.104|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.057|0.152|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||"Results are from an MMRM model. Fixed effects include treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline and baseline by visit interaction. Patient is considered random and an unstructured covariance structure was used.~Number of patients contributing to models: Tio+Placebo (566), Tio+Olo 5ug (563)."||0.152|0.057|<.0001
90817776|NCT02986854|181514337|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|48.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.45|63.13|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 6- (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||63.13|33.45|
90817777|NCT02986854|181514337|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|46.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.52|60.59|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 1- (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||60.59|31.52|
90817778|NCT02986854|181514337|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|-4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.84|2.69|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 6- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||2.69|-11.84|
90817779|NCT02986854|181514337|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|12.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.53|21.22|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 29- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||21.22|7.53|
90817780|NCT02986854|181514337|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|12.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.1|20.89|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 29- (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||20.89|7.10|
90817781|NCT02986854|181514337|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|12.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.34|21.05|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 29- (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||21.05|7.34|
90817782|NCT02986854|181514337|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|1.99|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 29- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||1.99|-0.96|
90817783|NCT02986854|181514338|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|14.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.46|25.39|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 1- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||25.39|3.46|
90817784|NCT02986854|181514338|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|15.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|26.89|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 1- (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||26.89|5.00|
90817785|NCT02986854|181514338|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|14.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.91|25.62|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 1- (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||25.62|4.91|
90817786|NCT02986854|181514338|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|-1.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.51|5.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 1- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||5.50|-8.51|
90817787|NCT02986854|181514338|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|19.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.25|34.83|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 4- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||34.83|5.25|
90817788|NCT02986854|181514338|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|20.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.88|35.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 4- (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||35.50|5.88|
90817789|NCT02986854|181514338|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|19.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.53|34.58|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 4- (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||34.58|6.53|
90817790|NCT02986854|181514338|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|-0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.67|8.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 4- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||8.40|-9.67|
90817791|NCT02986854|181514338|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|30.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.78|45.45|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 6- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||45.45|16.78|
90817792|NCT02986854|181514338|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|34.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.29|49.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 6- (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||49.20|21.29|
90817793|NCT02986854|181514338|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|32.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.3|47.13|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 6- (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||47.13|19.30|
90817794|NCT02986854|181514338|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|-4.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.45|0.74|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 6- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||0.74|-9.45|
90817795|NCT02986854|181514338|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|15.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.28|23.95|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 29- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||23.95|9.28|
90817796|NCT02986854|181514338|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|15.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.28|23.95|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 29- (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||23.95|9.28|
90817797|NCT02986854|181514338|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|15.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.28|23.94|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 29- (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||23.94|9.28|
90817798|NCT02986854|181514338|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|1.35|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 29- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||1.35|-1.31|
90817799|NCT02986854|181514339|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|21.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.19|32.25|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 1- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||32.25|10.19|
90817800|NCT02986854|181514339|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|14.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.15|25.29|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 1- (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||25.29|3.15|
90817801|NCT02986854|181514339|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|18.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.44|27.92|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 1- (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||27.92|7.44|
90817802|NCT02986854|181514339|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|7.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|15.17|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 1- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||15.17|-1.20|
90817803|NCT02986854|181514339|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|21.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.57|36.37|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 4- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||36.37|5.57|
91058718|NCT01696058|181998574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.034|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022||0.1156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.008|0.076|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||"Results are from an MMRM model. Fixed effects include treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline and baseline by visit interaction. Patient is considered random and an unstructured covariance structure was used.~Number of patients contributing to models: Tio+Placebo (555), Tio+Olo 5ug (550)."||0.076|-0.008|0.1156
91058719|NCT01696058|181998575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference from Tio+Placebo Week 12|7.237|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.145||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.028|11.446|||ANCOVA|||"Week 12: Results are from non-MMRM ANCOVA models by week with LOCF up to each week. Fixed effects include treatment and baseline.~Number of patients contributing to models: Tio+Placebo (559), Tio+Olo 5ug (552)."||11.446|3.028|0.0008
90817804|NCT02986854|181514339|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|22.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.05|37.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 4- (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||37.00|6.05|
90817805|NCT02986854|181514339|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|22.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.89|35.38|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 4- (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||35.38|6.89|
90817806|NCT02986854|181514339|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|-0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.11|11.03|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 4- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||11.03|-12.11|
90817807|NCT02986854|181514339|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|40.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.26|54.95|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 6- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||54.95|24.26|
90817808|NCT02986854|181514339|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|42.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.71|57.17|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 6- (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||57.17|26.71|
90817809|NCT02986854|181514339|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|41.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.12|55.55|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 6- (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||55.55|26.12|
90817810|NCT02986854|181514339|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|-2.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.41|5.73|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 6- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||5.73|-10.41|
91058720|NCT01696058|181998576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference from Tio+Placebo Week 12|-0.568|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.118|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.336|||ANCOVA|||"Week 12 - Results are from non-MMRM ANCOVA models by week with LOCF up to each week. Fixed effects include treatment and baseline.~Number of patients contributing to models: Tio+Placebo (559), Tio+Olo 5ug (555)."||-0.336|-0.800|<.0001
91058721|NCT01696058|181998577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference from Tio+Placebo Week 1|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045||0.0467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.178|-0.001|||ANCOVA|||"Week 12 - Results are from non-MMRM ANCOVA models by week with LOCF up to each week. Fixed effects include treatment and baseline.~Number of patients contributing to models: Tio+Placebo (559), Tio+Olo 5ug (555)."||-0.001|-0.178|0.0467
91058722|NCT01696058|181998578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference from Tio+Placebo Week 12|-0.483|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.668|-0.298|||ANCOVA|||"Week 12 - Results are from non-MMRM ANCOVA models by week with LOCF up to each week. Fixed effects include treatment and baseline.~Number of patients contributing to models: Tio+Placebo (559), Tio+Olo 5ug (555)."||-0.298|-0.668|<.0001
91058723|NCT04746794|181998615|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0074|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0074
91058724|NCT04746794|181998616|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
91058725|NCT00875797|181998638|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|t-test||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
91058726|NCT00875797|181998639|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|χ2 test|percentage of infection|20.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.0||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||p\<0.05|Chi-squared|2 degrees of freedom||||||0.05
91058727|NCT00875797|181998640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of survivers|80.0|||<|0.05||95.0||||p\<0.05|Chi-squared, Corrected|2-degrees of freedom||Chi-square||||<0.05
90817811|NCT02986854|181514339|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|22.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.26|32.08|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 29- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||32.08|15.26|
91058728|NCT02052011|181998659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.62||||||||0.62|-0.08|
91058729|NCT00000620|181998660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.03||P-value presented is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori significance level was 0.05.|Regression, Cox|||Adjustment performed for the following pre-specified factors: sub-trial assignment (Blood Pressure Trial or Lipid Trial), assignment to intensive BP group in BP Trial, assignment to fenofibrate group in Lipid Trial, the seven clinical center networks, and presence of clinical cardiovascular disease at baseline.||1.03|0.81|0.12
91058730|NCT00000620|181998661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.38||P-value presented is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori significance level was 0.05.|Regression, Cox|||Adjustment performed for the following pre-specified factors: sub-trial assignment (Blood Pressure Trial or Lipid Trial), assignment to intensive BP group in BP Trial, assignment to fenofibrate group in Lipid Trial, the seven clinical center networks, and presence of clinical cardiovascular disease at baseline.||1.38|1.03|0.02
91058731|NCT00000620|181998662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.06||P-value is adjusted for interim monitoring. A priori significance level was 0.05.|Regression, Cox|Adjustment for the seven clinical center networks and presence of clinical cardiovascular disease at baseline as pre-specified in the study protocol.||Recruitment for the Blood PressureTrial was designed to enroll 4200 participant to have 94% power to detect a 20% reduction in the rate of MCE for patients in the intensive-therapy group as compared with the standard-therapy group, assuming a two-sided alpha level of 0.05, a primary-outcome rate of 4% per year in the standard-therapy group, and a planned average follow-up of approximately 5.6 years.||1.06|0.73|0.20
91058732|NCT00000620|181998663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.89||P-value presented is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori significance level was 0.05.|Regression, Cox|Adjustment for the seven clinical center networks and presence of clinical cardiovascular disease at baseline as pre-specified in the study protocol.||||0.89|0.39|0.01
91058733|NCT00000620|181998664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.08||P-value is adjusted for interim monitoring. A priori significance level was 0.05.|Regression, Cox|Adjustment for the seven clinical center networks and presence of clinical cardiovascular disease at baseline as pre-specified in the study protocol.||Recruitment for the Glycemia Trial was designed to enroll 5800 participant to have 87% power to detect a 20% reduction in the rate of MCE for patients in the fenofibrate group as compared with the placebo group, assuming a two-sided alpha level of 0.05, a primary-outcome rate of 2.4% per year in the placebo group, and a planned average follow-up of approximately 5.6 years.||1.08|0.79|0.32
91058734|NCT00000620|181998665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.05||P-value presented is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori significance level was 0.05.|Regression, Cox|Adjustment for the seven clinical center networks and presence of clinical cardiovascular disease at baseline as pre-specified in the study protocol.||||1.05|0.85|0.30
91058735|NCT01590797|181998666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.19|||Robust Regression|Robust regression using M-estimation with terms for treatment and the metformin stratum and type of insulin, and baseline A1C (%) as a covariate.||||-0.19|-0.50|<0.001
90817812|NCT02986854|181514339|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|22.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.86|31.74|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 29- (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||31.74|14.86|
90817813|NCT02986854|181514339|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|22.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.08|31.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 29- (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||31.90|15.08|
90817814|NCT02986854|181514339|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|1.99|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 29- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||1.99|-0.96|
90817815|NCT02986854|181514340|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|7.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.08|11.23|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 1- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||11.23|2.08|
90817816|NCT02986854|181514340|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|8.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.28|12.74|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 1- (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||12.74|3.28|
90817817|NCT02986854|181514340|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|7.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.87|10.78|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 1- (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||10.78|2.87|
90817818|NCT02986854|181514340|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|-1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|3.49|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 1- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||3.49|-6.10|
90817819|NCT02986854|181514340|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|6.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.04|12.44|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 4- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||12.44|-3.04|
90817820|NCT02986854|181514340|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|6.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.71|13.01|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 4- (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||13.01|-2.71|
90817821|NCT02986854|181514340|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|6.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.66|10.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 4- (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||10.90|-2.66|
90817822|NCT02986854|181514340|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|-0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.27|6.43|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 4- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||6.43|-7.27|
90817823|NCT02986854|181514340|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|41.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.85|50.63|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 6- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||50.63|28.85|
90817824|NCT02986854|181514340|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|36.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.39|46.34|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 6- (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||46.34|24.39|
90817825|NCT02986854|181514340|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|39.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.61|46.33|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 6- (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||46.33|27.61|
90817826|NCT02986854|181514340|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|4.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.04|15.83|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 6- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||15.83|-7.04|
90817827|NCT02986854|181514340|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|31.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.68|41.79|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 29- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||41.79|22.68|
90817828|NCT02986854|181514340|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|30.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.85|41.08|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 29- (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||41.08|21.85|
90817829|NCT02986854|181514340|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|31.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.39|41.38|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 29- (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||41.38|22.39|
90817830|NCT02986854|181514340|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|3.52|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 29- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||3.52|-1.81|
91058736|NCT01590797|181998667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.14|||Robust Regression|Robust regression using M-estimation with terms for treatment and type of insulin, and baseline A1C (%) as a covariate.||||-0.14|-0.61|0.002
91058737|NCT01590797|181998668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.4|-14.7|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and the metformin stratum and type of insulin, and baseline 2-hr Post- Meal Glucose (mg/dL) as a covariate.||||-14.7|-38.4|<0.001
91058738|NCT03106987|181998671|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.566||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.372|0.868|||Stratified log-rank||Hazard Ratio (Cox Proportional Hazards model)|||0.868|0.372|0.0220
91058739|NCT03106987|181998671|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.43||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.264|0.708|||Stratified log-rank||Hazard Ratio (Cox Proportional Hazards model)|||0.708|0.264|0.0023
91058740|NCT02114385|181998695|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority required that the lower bound of the two-sided confidence interval (CI) of the GMT ratio was \>0.50|GMT Ratio|1.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.45|||ANOVA||GMT ratio = GMT (V503) / GMT (Gardasil)|HPV Type 6||1.45|1.04|<0.001
91058741|NCT02114385|181998695|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority required that the lower bound of the two-sided confidence interval (CI) of the GMT ratio was \>0.50|GMT Ratio|0.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.04|||ANOVA||GMT ratio = GMT (V503) / GMT (Gardasil)|HPV Type 11||1.04|0.76|<0.001
91058742|NCT02114385|181998695|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority required that the lower bound of the two-sided confidence interval (CI) of the GMT ratio was \>0.50|GMT Ratio|1.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.21|||ANOVA||GMT ratio = GMT (V503) / GMT (Gardasil)|HPV Type 16||1.21|0.89|<0.001
91058743|NCT02114385|181998695|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority required that the lower bound of the two-sided confidence interval (CI) of the GMT ratio was \>0.50|GMT Ratio|1.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.37|||ANOVA||GMT ratio = GMT (V503) / GMT (Gardasil)|HPV Type 18||1.37|0.91|<0.001
91058744|NCT01651793|181998729|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||P value reference to the beverage x time interaction effect|ANCOVA|||Hypotheses were tested using a series (all outcome variables) of 2 Treatment x 4 Time point, repeated measures ANCOVAs that controlled for the prior night's sleep. Primary interests were the presence of statistically significant interactions of time and either cocoa versus placebo, cocoa + caffeine versus cocoa, or cocoa + caffeine versus caffeine-only. Significant interactions were decomposed using one-way ANOVAs and t-tests with familywise error controlled using LSD post-hoc tests.||||0.05
91058745|NCT03898908|181998776|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015||||||pValues below 0.05 are considered statistically significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between baseline and Week 8||||0.015
91058746|NCT03898908|181998777|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.754||||||pValues below 0.05 are considered statistically significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between baseline and W24||||0.754
91058747|NCT00345943|181998781|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Growth curve models with between-within degrees of freedom and a random effect for the intercept and fixed effects for predictors.|BN versus HC group effect|Growth curve models examined the following: group (BN versus HC) differences in cortical thickness (CT) at baseline; group differences in the rate of change in CT over time; and the persistence of group differences in CT over time.||||.03
91058748|NCT00345943|181998781|OTHER||Slope|0.053|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|Growth curve models with between-within degrees of freedom and a random effect for the intercept and fixed effects for predictors.||Growth curve models examined the following: group (BN versus HC) differences in conflict-related BOLD signal at baseline; group differences in the rate of change in conflict-related BOLD signal over time; and the persistence of group differences in conflict-related BOLD signal over time.||0.15|-0.04|<.05
90817831|NCT02986854|181514341|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|30.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.55|38.83|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 1- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||38.83|19.55|
90817832|NCT02986854|181514341|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|20.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.48|29.69|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 1- (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||29.69|10.48|
90817833|NCT02986854|181514341|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|25.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.79|33.21|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 1- (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||33.21|15.79|
90817834|NCT02986854|181514341|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|9.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|17.16|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 1- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||17.16|1.01|
90817835|NCT02986854|181514341|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.82|38.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 4- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||38.90|8.82|
90817836|NCT02986854|181514341|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|15.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|29.86|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 4- (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||29.86|-0.44|
90817837|NCT02986854|181514341|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|20.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.32|33.08|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 4- (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||33.08|5.32|
90817838|NCT02986854|181514341|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|9.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.45|20.68|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 4- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||20.68|-2.45|
90817839|NCT02986854|181514341|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|50.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.09|63.67|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 6- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||63.67|34.09|
90817840|NCT02986854|181514341|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|49.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.21|63.01|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 6- (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||63.01|33.21|
91058749|NCT03322930|181998785|OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||calculated from data|t-test, 2 sided||||mean sensitivity for group; Coefficient of Repeatability for multiple tests per patient|||<0.05
90817841|NCT02986854|181514341|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|49.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.42|62.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 6- (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||62.60|34.42|
90817842|NCT02986854|181514341|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|9.92|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 6- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||9.92|-8.30|
90817843|NCT02986854|181514341|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|29.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.34|39.75|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 29- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||39.75|21.34|
90817844|NCT02986854|181514341|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|29.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.32|39.74|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 29- (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||39.74|21.32|
90817845|NCT02986854|181514341|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|29.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.35|39.73|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 29- (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||39.73|21.35|
90817846|NCT02986854|181514341|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.67|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 29- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||1.67|-1.60|
90817847|NCT02986854|181514342|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|17.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.85|28.67|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 1- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||28.67|5.85|
90817848|NCT02986854|181514342|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|17.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.39|29.25|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 1- (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||29.25|6.39|
91058750|NCT01758588|181998786|OTHER||||||||||||||||||A statistical comparison and analysis of the clinical improvement (CI) proportions cannot be made because the sample size (n=5 in treatment arm, n=3 in observation arm) is too small|||
90817849|NCT02986854|181514342|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|17.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.85|28.28|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 1- (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||28.28|6.85|
90817850|NCT02986854|181514342|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|-0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.32|7.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 1- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||7.20|-8.32|
90817851|NCT02986854|181514342|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|14.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|30.38|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 4- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||30.38|-0.98|
90817852|NCT02986854|181514342|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|22.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.3|38.16|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 4- (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||38.16|7.30|
90817853|NCT02986854|181514342|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|18.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.14|33.37|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 4- (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||33.37|4.14|
90817854|NCT02986854|181514342|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|-8.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.34|2.38|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 4- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||2.38|-18.34|
90817855|NCT02986854|181514342|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|39.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.76|54.07|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 6- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||54.07|23.76|
90817856|NCT02986854|181514342|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|42.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.08|56.98|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 6- (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||56.98|27.08|
90817857|NCT02986854|181514342|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|40.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.91|55.15|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 6- (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||55.15|25.91|
91058751|NCT03344861|181998789|OTHER|No comparator arm.|Clopper-Pearson (binomial proportion)|0.05|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||exact Clopper-Pearson binomial method|One-sided 95% upper confidence limit for the event percentage was calculated using exact (Clopper-Pearson) method for binomial proportion.|One-sided 95% upper confidence limit for the event percentage was calculated using exact (Clopper-Pearson) method for binomial proportion|Adverse events will be listed, coded by MedDRA, by system organ class and preferred term.||||<0.05
91058752|NCT03344861|181998814|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||exact Clopper-Pearson binomial method|One-sided 95% upper confidence limit for the event percentage, calculated using exact (Clopper-Pearson) method for binomial proportion.||"All adverse event terms are coded using MedDRA Dictionary version 21.1. NCS (Non-Clinical Significant) events were not included in the summary because their CTCAE grade and relationship were not collected. Subjects are counted once within each system organ class and each preferred term. An AE is defined as treatment related if its relationship to the study drug is recorded as reasonable possibility on the CRF (Case Report Form)."||||<0.05
91058753|NCT02728843|181998836|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
91058754|NCT02728843|181998837|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
91058755|NCT02728843|181998838|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
90817858|NCT02986854|181514342|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|-3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|3.89|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 6- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||3.89|-10.20|
90817859|NCT02986854|181514342|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|19.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.74|28.83|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 29- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||28.83|12.74|
90817860|NCT02986854|181514342|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|19.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.74|28.83|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 29- (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||28.83|12.74|
90817861|NCT02986854|181514342|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|19.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.75|28.83|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 29- (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||28.83|12.75|
91058756|NCT02728843|181998839|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
91058757|NCT02728843|181998840|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
91058758|NCT02728843|181998841|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
91058759|NCT02728843|181998842|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
91058760|NCT00205803|181998854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-2.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.08|2.33||||||For serotype 4 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||2.33|-8.08|
91058761|NCT00205803|181998854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.93|8.65||||||For serotype 6B the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||8.65|-9.93|
91058762|NCT00205803|181998854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-2.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.07|2.26||||||For serotype 9V the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||2.26|-8.07|
90817862|NCT02986854|181514342|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|1.35|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 29- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||1.35|-1.31|
90817863|NCT02986854|181514343|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|21.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.44|30.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 1- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||30.60|11.44|
90817864|NCT02986854|181514343|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|17.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.34|26.43|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 1- (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||26.43|7.34|
90817865|NCT02986854|181514343|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|19.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.09|27.43|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 1- (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||27.43|10.09|
90817866|NCT02986854|181514343|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|4.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|12.04|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 1- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||12.04|-3.80|
90817867|NCT02986854|181514343|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|18.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.92|30.99|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 4- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||30.99|2.92|
90817868|NCT02986854|181514343|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|18.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.83|31.06|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 4- (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||31.06|2.83|
90817869|NCT02986854|181514343|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|18.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.83|29.39|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 4- (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naïve)||29.39|3.83|
91058763|NCT00205803|181998854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.68||||||95.0|-4.96|6.16||||||For serotype 14 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||6.16|-4.96|
91058764|NCT00205803|181998854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-2.25||||||95.0|-8.18|2.36||||||For serotype 18C the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||2.36|-8.18|
91058765|NCT00205803|181998854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.7||||||95.0|-4.84|6.32||||||For serotype 19F the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||6.32|-4.84|
91058766|NCT00205803|181998854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-0.69||||||95.0|-7.75|5.86||||||For serotype 23F the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||5.86|-7.75|
91058767|NCT00205803|181998854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|72.87||||||95.0|63.32|81.07||||||For serotype 1 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||81.07|63.32|
90817870|NCT02986854|181514343|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.35|11.39|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 4- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||11.39|-11.35|
90817871|NCT02986854|181514343|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|48.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.64|62.38|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 6- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||62.38|32.64|
90817872|NCT02986854|181514343|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|48.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.87|61.79|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 6- (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||61.79|31.87|
90817873|NCT02986854|181514343|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|48.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.04|61.31|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 6- (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naïve)||61.31|33.04|
90817874|NCT02986854|181514343|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|10.04|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 6- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||10.04|-8.60|
91058768|NCT00205803|181998854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|84.92||||||95.0|76.73|91.05||||||For serotype 3 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||91.05|76.73|
91058769|NCT00205803|181998854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|57.94||||||95.0|48.01|67.42||||||For serotype 5 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||67.42|48.01|
91058770|NCT00205803|181998854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|62.81||||||95.0|52.33|72.2||||||For serotype 6A the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||72.20|52.33|
91058771|NCT00205803|181998854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|92.27||||||95.0|85.26|96.54||||||For serotype 7F the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||96.54|85.26|
91058772|NCT00205803|181998854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|5.61||||||95.0|1.23|11.86||||||For serotype 19A the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||11.86|1.23|
91058773|NCT00205803|181998855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-1.5||||||95.0|-7.9|3.6||||||For serotype 4 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||3.6|-7.9|
90817875|NCT02986854|181514343|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|35.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.5|45.62|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 29- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||45.62|26.50|
90817876|NCT02986854|181514343|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|34.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.94|44.28|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 29- (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||44.28|24.94|
90817877|NCT02986854|181514343|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|34.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.78|44.93|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 29- (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naïve)||44.93|25.78|
90817878|NCT02986854|181514343|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|1.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|3.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 29- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||3.60|0.10|
90817879|NCT02986854|181514344|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Differences in percentage|1.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.08|4.94|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- Day 4- Total seroresponse (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||4.94|-6.08|
90817880|NCT02986854|181514344|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Differences in percentage|2.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.32|6.21|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- Day 4-Total seroresponse - (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||6.21|-5.32|
90817881|NCT02986854|181514344|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Differences in percentage|1.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.68|4.09|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- Day 4-Total seroresponse - (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naïve)||4.09|-5.68|
90817882|NCT02986854|181514344|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Differences in percentage|-0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.98|3.01|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- Day 4-Total seroresponse - (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||3.01|-4.98|
90817883|NCT02986854|181514344|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Differences in percentage|34.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.38|44.07|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- Day 6-Total seroresponse- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||44.07|22.38|
90817884|NCT02986854|181514344|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Differences in percentage|26.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.67|36.13|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- Day 6-Total seroresponse - (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||36.13|14.67|
90817885|NCT02986854|181514344|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Differences in percentage|30.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.42|37.97|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- Day 6-Total seroresponse - (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naïve)||37.97|19.42|
90817886|NCT02986854|181514344|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Differences in percentage|7.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.25|18.81|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- Day 6-Total seroresponse - (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||18.81|-3.25|
90817887|NCT02986854|181514344|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Differences in percentage|-3.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.26|2.35|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- Day 4-Total seroresponse- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||2.35|-14.26|
90817888|NCT02986854|181514344|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Differences in percentage|2.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|9.98|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- Day 4-Total seroresponse - (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||9.98|-8.70|
90817889|NCT02986854|181514344|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Differences in percentage|-0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.35|4.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- Day 4-Total seroresponse - (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naïve)||4.90|-11.35|
90817890|NCT02986854|181514344|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Differences in percentage|-5.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.25|-0.57|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- Day 4-Total seroresponse - (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||-0.57|-12.25|
90817891|NCT02986854|181514344|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Differences in percentage|40.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.37|50.92|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- Day 6-Total seroresponse- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||50.92|25.37|
90817892|NCT02986854|181514344|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Differences in percentage|36.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.14|47.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- Day 6-Total seroresponse - (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||47.90|22.14|
90817893|NCT02986854|181514344|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Differences in percentage|38.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.79|47.57|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- Day 6-Total seroresponse - (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naïve)||47.57|24.79|
90817894|NCT02986854|181514344|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Differences in percentage|3.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.44|14.73|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- Day 6-Total seroresponse - (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||14.73|-8.44|
91058774|NCT00205803|181998855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-4.6|4.0||||||For serotype 6B the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||4.0|-4.6|
91058775|NCT00205803|181998855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-1.3||||||95.0|-6.9|2.8||||||For serotype 9V the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||2.8|-6.9|
91058776|NCT00205803|181998855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-4.6|4.0||||||For serotype 14 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||4.0|-4.6|
91058777|NCT00205803|181998855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-4.7|3.9||||||For serotype 18C the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||3.9|-4.7|
91058778|NCT00205803|181998855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-4.6|4.0||||||For serotype 19F the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||4.0|-4.6|
91058779|NCT00205803|181998855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|2.2||||||95.0|-2.6|7.7||||||For serotype 23F the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||7.7|-2.6|
91058780|NCT00205803|181998855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|97.8||||||95.0|92.3|99.7||||||For serotype 1 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||99.7|92.3|
91058781|NCT00205803|181998855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|83.6||||||95.0|73.2|90.8||||||For serotype 3 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||90.8|73.2|
91058782|NCT00205803|181998855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|29.5||||||95.0|19.7|40.9||||||For serotype 5 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||40.9|19.7|
91058783|NCT00205803|181998855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|12.0||||||95.0|5.9|20.4||||||For serotype 6A the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||20.4|5.9|
91058784|NCT00205803|181998855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|94.1||||||95.0|86.8|98.1||||||For serotype 7F the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||98.1|86.8|
91058785|NCT00205803|181998855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-4.6|4.0||||||For serotype 19A the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||4.0|-4.6|
91058786|NCT00205803|181998856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.76||||||95.0|0.59|0.96||||||For serotype 4 the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||0.96|0.59|
91058787|NCT00205803|181998856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.96||||||95.0|0.62|1.48||||||For serotype 6B the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.48|0.62|
91058788|NCT00205803|181998856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.85||||||95.0|0.69|1.05||||||For serotype 9V the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.05|0.69|
91058789|NCT00205803|181998856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.82||||||95.0|0.6|1.11||||||For serotype 14 the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.11|0.60|
91058790|NCT00205803|181998856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.62||||||95.0|0.49|0.79||||||For serotype 18C the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||0.79|0.49|
91058791|NCT00205803|181998856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.86||||||95.0|0.67|1.09||||||For serotype 19F the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.09|0.67|
91058792|NCT00205803|181998856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.77||||||95.0|0.59|1.0||||||For serotype 23F the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.00|0.59|
91058793|NCT00205803|181998856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|39.78||||||95.0|27.47|57.63||||||For serotype 1 the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||57.63|27.47|
91058794|NCT00205803|181998856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|15.56||||||95.0|11.63|20.81||||||For serotype 3 the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||20.81|11.63|
91058795|NCT00205803|181998856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|8.67||||||95.0|6.65|11.29||||||For serotype 5 the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||11.29|6.65|
91058796|NCT00205803|181998856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|9.6||||||95.0|7.07|13.04||||||For serotype 6A the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||13.04|7.07|
91058797|NCT00205803|181998856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|26.78||||||95.0|20.97|34.22||||||For serotype 7F the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||34.22|20.97|
91058798|NCT00205803|181998856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.71||||||95.0|1.36|2.16||||||For serotype 19A the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||2.16|1.36|
91058799|NCT00205803|181998858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|3.08||||||95.0|-7.22|13.73||||||For Haemophilus influenzae type b the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.15 µg/mL threshold was calculated||13.73|-7.22|
91058800|NCT00205803|181998858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|7.02||||||95.0|-7.28|21.14||||||For Haemophilus influenzae type b the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 1.0 µg/mL threshold was calculated||21.14|-7.28|
91058801|NCT00205803|181998858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-9.38|7.73||||||For Diphtheria the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.01 IU/mL and 0.1 IU/mL thresholds was calculated||7.73|-9.38|
91058802|NCT00205803|181998858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-9.38|7.73||||||For Tetanus the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.01 IU/mL and 0.1 IU/mL thresholds was calculated||7.73|-9.38|
91058803|NCT00205803|181998858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-5.97|5.68||||||For Polio Type 1 the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 1:8 threshold was calculated||5.68|-5.97|
91058804|NCT00205803|181998858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-1.64||||||95.0|-8.8|4.24||||||For Polio Type 2 the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 1:8 threshold was calculated||4.24|-8.80|
91058805|NCT00205803|181998858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-1.64||||||95.0|-8.8|4.21||||||For Polio Type 3 the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 1:8 threshold was calculated||4.21|-8.80|
91058806|NCT00205803|181998858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-9.38|7.73||||||For Hepatitis b the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 10 mIU/mL threshold was calculated||7.73|-9.38|
91058807|NCT00205803|181998858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-1.74||||||95.0|-11.0|6.99||||||For Pertussis - FHA the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 82.00 EU/MI threshold was calculated||6.99|-11.00|
91058808|NCT00205803|181998858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-6.36||||||95.0|-17.03|3.16||||||For Pertussis - PT the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 43.00 EU/mL threshold was calculated||3.16|-17.03|
91058809|NCT00205803|181998858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|1.33||||||95.0|-6.79|9.68||||||For Pertussis - Pertactin the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 18.00 EU/mL threshold was calculated||9.68|-6.79|
91058810|NCT00205803|181998859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|2.14||||||||2.14|0.69|
91058811|NCT00205803|181998860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.48||||||||1.48|0.63|
91058812|NCT00205803|181998861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.21||||||||1.21|0.57|
91058813|NCT00205803|181998862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.53||||||Polio Type 1||1.53|0.66|
91058814|NCT00205803|181998862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.49||||||Polio Type 2||1.49|0.56|
91058815|NCT00205803|181998862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.84||||||Polio Type 3||1.84|0.69|
91058816|NCT00205803|181998863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.15||||||Pertussis - FHA||1.15|0.74|
90817895|NCT02986854|181514344|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Differences in percentage|-3.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.28|2.31|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- Day 4-Total seroresponse- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||2.31|-14.28|
91058817|NCT00205803|181998863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.25||||||Pertussis - PT||1.25|0.83|
91058818|NCT00205803|181998863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.44||||||Pertussis - Pertactin||1.44|0.76|
91058819|NCT00197496|181998874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-26.3|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.1|19.6|||Regression, Linear|||||19.6|-72.1|<0.05
91058820|NCT00197496|181998877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.8||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|9.2|||Regression, Linear|||||9.2|-3.6|0.40
91058821|NCT00673387|181998950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||unadjusted for multiple comparisons; significance level of 0.0492 based on the Haybittle-Peto Criterion.|t-test, 2 sided|||When multiplicity not considered, sample size of 50 participants per arm (after dropouts) was considered adequate to detect a difference of 4.5% in mean body weight change from baseline to Week 28 between one effective pramlintide + metreleptin combination treatment group versus the placebo, Pramlintide 360 mcg BID + Placebo-M, or Metreleptin 5.0 mg BID + Placebo-P treatment arms with approximately 90% power, assuming a common within-treatment standard deviation of 6.858%.||||<0.0001
91058822|NCT00673387|181998950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||||||unadjusted for multiple comparisons; significance level of 0.0492 based on the Haybittle-Peto Criterion|t-test, 2 sided|||When multiplicity not considered, sample size of 50 participants per arm (after dropouts) was considered adequate to detect a difference of 4.5% in mean body weight change from baseline to Week 28 between one effective pramlintide + metreleptin combination treatment group versus the placebo, Pramlintide 360 mcg BID + Placebo-M, or Metreleptin 5.0 mg BID + Placebo-P treatment arms with approximately 90% power, assuming a common within-treatment standard deviation of 6.858%.||||0.0002
91058823|NCT00673387|181998950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004||||||unadjusted for multiple comparisons; significance level of 0.0492 based on the Haybittle-Peto Criterion|t-test, 2 sided|||When multiplicity not considered, sample size of 50 participants per arm (after dropouts) was considered adequate to detect a difference of 4.5% in mean body weight change from baseline to Week 28 between one effective pramlintide + metreleptin combination treatment group versus the placebo, Pramlintide 360 mcg BID + Placebo-M, or Metreleptin 5.0 mg BID + Placebo-P treatment arms with approximately 90% power, assuming a common within-treatment standard deviation of 6.858%.||||0.0004
91058824|NCT00673387|181998950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||unadjusted for multiple comparisons; significance level of 0.0492 based on the Haybittle-Peto Criterion|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91058825|NCT00673387|181998950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||||||unadjusted for multiple comparisons; significance level of 0.0492 based on the Haybittle-Peto Criterion|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0001
91058826|NCT00673387|181998950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.251||||||unadjusted for multiple comparisons; significance level of 0.0492 based on the Haybittle-Peto Criterion|t-test, 2 sided|||When multiplicity not considered, sample size of 50 participants per arm (after dropouts) was considered adequate to detect a difference of 4.5% in mean body weight change from baseline to Week 28 between one effective pramlintide + metreleptin combination treatment group versus the placebo, Pramlintide 360 mcg BID + Placebo-M, or Metreleptin 5.0 mg BID + Placebo-P treatment arms with approximately 90% power, assuming a common within-treatment standard deviation of 6.858%.||||0.2510
91058827|NCT00673387|181998950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3433||||||unadjusted for multiple comparisons; significance level of 0.0492 based on the Haybittle-Peto Criterion|t-test, 2 sided|||When multiplicity not considered, sample size of 50 participants per arm (after dropouts) was considered adequate to detect a difference of 4.5% in mean body weight change from baseline to Week 28 between one effective pramlintide + metreleptin combination treatment group versus the placebo, Pramlintide 360 mcg BID + Placebo-M, or Metreleptin 5.0 mg BID + Placebo-P treatment arms with approximately 90% power, assuming a common within-treatment standard deviation of 6.858%.||||0.3433
91058828|NCT00673387|181998950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4503||||||unadjusted for multiple comparisons; significance level of 0.0492 based on the Haybittle-Peto Criterion|t-test, 2 sided|||When multiplicity not considered, sample size of 50 participants per arm (after dropouts) was considered adequate to detect a difference of 4.5% in mean body weight change from baseline to Week 28 between one effective pramlintide + metreleptin combination treatment group versus the placebo, Pramlintide 360 mcg BID + Placebo-M, or Metreleptin 5.0 mg BID + Placebo-P treatment arms with approximately 90% power, assuming a common within-treatment standard deviation of 6.858%.||||0.4503
91078396|NCT00824382|182042346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.217|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038|<|0.0001||95.0|0.142|0.292|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.292|0.142|<0.0001
91058829|NCT00673387|181998950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2122||||||unadjusted for multiple comparisons; significance level of 0.0492 based on the Haybittle-Peto Criterion|t-test, 2 sided|||When multiplicity not considered, sample size of 50 participants per arm (after dropouts) was considered adequate to detect a difference of 4.5% in mean body weight change from baseline to Week 28 between one effective pramlintide + metreleptin combination treatment group versus the placebo, Pramlintide 360 mcg BID + Placebo-M, or Metreleptin 5.0 mg BID + Placebo-P treatment arms with approximately 90% power, assuming a common within-treatment standard deviation of 6.858%.||||0.2122
91058830|NCT00673387|181998950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2232||||||unadjusted for multiple comparisons; significance level of 0.0492 based on the Haybittle-Peto Criterion|t-test, 2 sided|||When multiplicity not considered, sample size of 50 participants per arm (after dropouts) was considered adequate to detect a difference of 4.5% in mean body weight change from baseline to Week 28 between one effective pramlintide + metreleptin combination treatment group versus the placebo, Pramlintide 360 mcg BID + Placebo-M, or Metreleptin 5.0 mg BID + Placebo-P treatment arms with approximately 90% power, assuming a common within-treatment standard deviation of 6.858%.||||0.2232
91058831|NCT00673387|181998950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4207||||||unadjusted for multiple comparisons; significance level of 0.0492 based on the Haybittle-Peto Criterion.|t-test, 2 sided|||When multiplicity not considered, sample size of 50 participants per arm (after dropouts) was considered adequate to detect a difference of 4.5% in mean body weight change from baseline to Week 28 between one effective pramlintide + metreleptin combination treatment group versus the placebo, Pramlintide 360 mcg BID + Placebo-M, or Metreleptin 5.0 mg BID + Placebo-P treatment arms with approximately 90% power, assuming a common within-treatment standard deviation of 6.858%.||||0.4207
91058832|NCT00673387|181998950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5375||||||unadjusted for multiple comparisons; significance level of 0.0492 based on the Haybittle-Peto Criterion.|t-test, 2 sided|||When multiplicity not considered, sample size of 50 participants per arm (after dropouts) was considered adequate to detect a difference of 4.5% in mean body weight change from baseline to Week 28 between one effective pramlintide + metreleptin combination treatment group versus the placebo, Pramlintide 360 mcg BID + Placebo-M, or Metreleptin 5.0 mg BID + Placebo-P treatment arms with approximately 90% power, assuming a common within-treatment standard deviation of 6.858%||||0.5375
91058833|NCT00673387|181998950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6633||||||unadjusted for multiple comparisons; significance level of 0.0492 based on the Haybittle-Peto Criterion|t-test, 2 sided|||When multiplicity not considered, sample size of 50 participants per arm (after dropouts) was considered adequate to detect a difference of 4.5% in mean body weight change from baseline to Week 28 between one effective pramlintide + metreleptin combination treatment group versus the placebo, Pramlintide 360 mcg BID + Placebo-M, or Metreleptin 5.0 mg BID + Placebo-P treatment arms with approximately 90% power, assuming a common within-treatment standard deviation of 6.858%||||0.6633
91058834|NCT00673387|181998950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3667||||||unadjusted for multiple comparisons; significance level of 0.0492 based on the Haybittle-Peto Criterion|t-test, 2 sided|||When multiplicity not considered, sample size of 50 participants per arm (after dropouts) was considered adequate to detect a difference of 4.5% in mean body weight change from baseline to Week 28 between one effective pramlintide + metreleptin combination treatment group versus the placebo, Pramlintide 360 mcg BID + Placebo-M, or Metreleptin 5.0 mg BID + Placebo-P treatment arms with approximately 90% power, assuming a common within-treatment standard deviation of 6.858%.||||0.3667
91058835|NCT00673387|181998950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.372||||||unadjusted for multiple comparisons; significance level of 0.0492 based on the Haybittle-Peto Criterion.|t-test, 2 sided|||When multiplicity not considered, sample size of 50 participants per arm (after dropouts) was considered adequate to detect a difference of 4.5% in mean body weight change from baseline to Week 28 between one effective pramlintide + metreleptin combination treatment group versus the placebo, Pramlintide 360 mcg BID + Placebo-M, or Metreleptin 5.0 mg BID + Placebo-P treatment arms with approximately 90% power, assuming a common within-treatment standard deviation of 6.858%.||||0.3720
91058836|NCT00673387|181998954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0404|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change at Week 28 based on a general linear model with factors for treatment group, sex, baseline BMI category, and baseline value as a covariate||||0.0404
91058837|NCT00673387|181998954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0265|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change at Week 28 based on a general linear model with factors for treatment group, sex, baseline BMI category, and baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0265
91058838|NCT00673387|181998954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1357|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change at Week 28 based on a general linear model with factors for treatment group, sex, baseline BMI category, and baseline value as a covariate.||||0.1357
91058839|NCT00673387|181998954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0409|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change at Week 28 based on a general linear model with factors for treatment group, sex, baseline BMI category, and baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0409
91058840|NCT00673387|181998954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0082|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change at Week 28 based on a general linear model with factors for treatment group, sex, baseline BMI category, and baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0082
91058841|NCT00673387|181998958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0464|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Based on a general linear model general linear model that includes baseline value and factors for treatment group, sex, baseline BMI category (\<35 kg/m2, 35 to \<40 kg/m2, ≥40 kg/m2).||||0.0464
91058842|NCT00673387|181998958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0647|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Based on a general linear model general linear model that includes baseline value and factors for treatment group, sex, baseline BMI category (\<35 kg/m2, 35 to \<40 kg/m2, ≥40 kg/m2).||||0.0647
91058843|NCT00673387|181998958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.069|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Based on a general linear model general linear model that includes baseline value and factors for treatment group, sex, baseline BMI category (\<35 kg/m2, 35 to \<40 kg/m2, ≥40 kg/m2).||||0.0690
90817896|NCT02986854|181514344|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Differences in percentage|3.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|11.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- Day 4-Total seroresponse - (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||11.60|-7.40|
91058844|NCT00673387|181998958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3717|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Based on a general linear model general linear model that includes baseline value and factors for treatment group, sex, baseline BMI category (\<35 kg/m2, 35 to \<40 kg/m2, ≥40 kg/m2).||||0.3717
91058845|NCT00673387|181998958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0327|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Based on a general linear model general linear model that includes baseline value and factors for treatment group, sex, baseline BMI category (\<35 kg/m2, 35 to \<40 kg/m2, ≥40 kg/m2).||||0.0327
90817897|NCT02986854|181514344|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Differences in percentage|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|5.66|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- Day 4-Total seroresponse - (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naïve)||5.66|-10.70|
90817898|NCT02986854|181514344|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Differences in percentage|-7.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.89|-1.8|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- Day 4-Total seroresponse - (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||-1.80|-13.89|
90817899|NCT02986854|181514344|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Differences in percentage|38.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.35|49.88|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- Day 6-Total seroresponse- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||49.88|24.35|
90817900|NCT02986854|181514344|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Differences in percentage|37.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.23|48.95|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- Day 6-Total seroresponse - (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||48.95|23.23|
90817901|NCT02986854|181514344|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Differences in percentage|38.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.8|47.56|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- Day 6-Total seroresponse - (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naïve)||47.56|24.80|
90817902|NCT02986854|181514344|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Differences in percentage|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.51|12.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- Day 6-Total seroresponse - (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||12.60|-10.51|
90817903|NCT02986854|181514344|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Differences in percentage|7.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|13.36|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- Day 4-Total seroresponse- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||13.36|0.15|
90817904|NCT02986854|181514344|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Differences in percentage|4.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.15|9.24|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- Day 4-Total seroresponse - (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||9.24|-3.15|
90817905|NCT02986854|181514344|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Differences in percentage|6.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|9.55|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- Day 4-Total seroresponse - (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naïve)||9.55|-1.41|
90817906|NCT02986854|181514344|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Differences in percentage|3.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|9.54|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- Day 4-Total seroresponse - (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||9.54|-2.48|
91058846|NCT00673387|181998959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0049|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Based on a general linear model general linear model that includes baseline value and factors for treatment group, sex, baseline BMI category (\<35 kg/m2, 35 to \<40 kg/m2, ≥40 kg/m2).||||0.0049
91058847|NCT00673387|181998959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0047|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Based on a general linear model general linear model that includes baseline value and factors for treatment group, sex, baseline BMI category (\<35 kg/m2, 35 to \<40 kg/m2, ≥40 kg/m2).||||0.0047
91058848|NCT00673387|181998959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0046|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Based on a general linear model general linear model that includes baseline value and factors for treatment group, sex, baseline BMI category (\<35 kg/m2, 35 to \<40 kg/m2, ≥40 kg/m2).||||0.0046
90817907|NCT02986854|181514344|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Differences in percentage|39.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.76|50.29|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- Day 6-Total seroresponse- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||50.29|25.76|
90817908|NCT02986854|181514344|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Differences in percentage|48.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.89|58.34|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- Day 6-Total seroresponse - (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||58.34|33.89|
90817909|NCT02986854|181514344|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Differences in percentage|43.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.79|52.37|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- Day 6-Total seroresponse - (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naïve)||52.37|30.79|
90817910|NCT02986854|181514344|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Differences in percentage|-8.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.61|3.45|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- Day 6-Total seroresponse - (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||3.45|-19.61|
90817911|NCT02986854|181514345|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.7||||||Serogroup A-Vaccine comparison at day 4(Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||1.70|0.93|
91058849|NCT00673387|181998959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0257|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Based on a general linear model general linear model that includes baseline value and factors for treatment group, sex, baseline BMI category (\<35 kg/m2, 35 to \<40 kg/m2, ≥40 kg/m2).||||0.0257
91058850|NCT00673387|181998959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0014|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Based on a general linear model general linear model that includes baseline value and factors for treatment group, sex, baseline BMI category (\<35 kg/m2, 35 to \<40 kg/m2, ≥40 kg/m2).||||0.0014
91058851|NCT00673387|181998960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0222|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Based on a general linear model general linear model that includes baseline value and factors for treatment group, sex, baseline BMI category (\<35 kg/m2, 35 to \<40 kg/m2, ≥40 kg/m2).||||0.0222
90817912|NCT02986854|181514345|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.82||||||Serogroup A-Vaccine comparison at day 4(Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||1.82|0.98|
90817913|NCT02986854|181514345|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.72||||||Serogroup A-Vaccine comparison at day 4(Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||1.72|0.97|
90817914|NCT02986854|181514345|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.17||||||Serogroup A-Vaccine comparison at day 4 (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||1.17|0.76|
90817915|NCT02986854|181514345|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|5.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.84|9.47||||||Serogroup A-Vaccine comparison at day 6 (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||9.47|2.84|
90817916|NCT02986854|181514345|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.24|7.5||||||Serogroup A-Vaccine comparison at day 6 (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||7.50|2.24|
90817917|NCT02986854|181514345|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|4.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.62|8.15||||||Serogroup A-Vaccine comparison at day 6 (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naïve)||8.15|2.62|
90817918|NCT02986854|181514345|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.91||||||Serogroup A-Vaccine comparison at day 6 (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||1.91|0.84|
90817919|NCT02986854|181514345|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|6.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.84|8.85||||||Serogroup A-Vaccine comparison at day 29 (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||8.85|4.84|
90817920|NCT02986854|181514345|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|7.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.44|9.98||||||Serogroup A-Vaccine comparison at day 29 (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||9.98|5.44|
90817921|NCT02986854|181514345|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|6.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.23|9.21||||||Serogroup A-Vaccine comparison at day 29 (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naïve)||9.21|5.23|
90817922|NCT02986854|181514345|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.1||||||Serogroup A-Vaccine comparison at day 29 (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||1.10|0.72|
90817923|NCT02986854|181514345|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|between group GMT ratios|3.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.95|6.04||||||Serogroup C-Vaccine comparison at day 4 (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||6.04|1.95|
90817924|NCT02986854|181514345|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|2.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|3.77||||||Serogroup C-Vaccine comparison at day 4 (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||3.77|1.21|
90817925|NCT02986854|181514345|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|2.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|4.64||||||Serogroup C-Vaccine comparison at day 4 - (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naïve)||4.64|1.60|
90817926|NCT02986854|181514345|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|1.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|2.4||||||Serogroup C-Vaccine comparison at day 4 (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||2.40|1.07|
90817927|NCT02986854|181514345|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|13.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.51|25.19||||||Serogroup C-Vaccine comparison at day 6 (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||25.19|7.51|
90817928|NCT02986854|181514345|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|13.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.31|24.66||||||Serogroup C-Vaccine comparison at day 6 (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||24.66|7.31|
91058852|NCT00673387|181998960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0128|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Based on a general linear model general linear model that includes baseline value and factors for treatment group, sex, baseline BMI category (\<35 kg/m2, 35 to \<40 kg/m2, ≥40 kg/m2).||||0.0128
91058853|NCT00673387|181998960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0122|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Based on a general linear model general linear model that includes baseline value and factors for treatment group, sex, baseline BMI category (\<35 kg/m2, 35 to \<40 kg/m2, ≥40 kg/m2).||||0.0122
91058854|NCT00673387|181998960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0073|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Based on a general linear model general linear model that includes baseline value and factors for treatment group, sex, baseline BMI category (\<35 kg/m2, 35 to \<40 kg/m2, ≥40 kg/m2).||||0.0073
91058855|NCT00673387|181998960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0034|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Based on a general linear model general linear model that includes baseline value and factors for treatment group, sex, baseline BMI category (\<35 kg/m2, 35 to \<40 kg/m2, ≥40 kg/m2).||||0.0034
91058856|NCT00960115|181998977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.953||||0.828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.614|1.479||This trial was not powered to demonstrate statistical significance of treatment differences with respect to a statistical test, i.e., the p value being lower than a significance level of alpha (α) = 0.05.|Log Rank||Cox proportional hazards regression model|||1.479|0.614|0.828
91058857|NCT02952898|181998996|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Two-sided, continuity-corrected Chi-square tests was used to evaluate the superiority of GDC 695 gel's complete clearance proportion over that of the Vehicle treatment in the mITT population using LOCF.||||<0.0001
91058858|NCT02952898|181998996|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Two-sided, continuity-corrected Chi-square tests was used to evaluate the superiority of Diclofenac sodium gel's complete clearance proportion over that of the Vehicle treatment in the mITT population using LOCF.||||<0.0001
91058859|NCT02968849|181999001|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.3|||Log Rank|The hazard ratio was tested using a sex-stratified log rank test.|The hazard ratio was estimated using a sex-stratified Cox proportional hazards model. The vaccine group (ALVAC-HIV + subtype C gp120/MF59) represents the numerator and the placebo group represents the denominator.|||1.30|0.81|0.84
91058860|NCT02968849|181999001|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.31|||Wald||The hazard ratio was estimated using Nelson-Aalen cumulative hazard estimates. The vaccine group (ALVAC-HIV + subtype C gp120/MF59) represents the numerator and the placebo group represents the denominator..|||1.31|0.81|0.83
91058861|NCT02968849|181999012|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.28|||Log Rank|The hazard ratio was tested using a sex-stratified log rank test.|The hazard ratio was estimated using a sex-stratified Cox proportional hazards model. The vaccine group (ALVAC-HIV + subtype C gp120/MF59) represents the numerator and the placebo group represents the denominator.|||1.28|0.85|0.66
91058862|NCT02968849|181999012|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.23|||Wald||The hazard ratio was estimated using Nelson-Aalen cumulative hazard estimates. The vaccine group (ALVAC-HIV + subtype C gp120/MF59) represents the numerator and the placebo group represents the denominator..|||1.23|0.81|0.98
91058863|NCT02968849|181999014|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.58|||Log Rank|The hazard ratio was tested using a sex-stratified log rank test.|The hazard ratio was estimated using a sex-stratified Cox proportional hazards model. The vaccine group (ALVAC-HIV + subtype C gp120/MF59) represents the numerator and the placebo group represents the denominator.|||1.58|0.84|0.39
91058864|NCT02968849|181999014|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.54|||Wald||The hazard ratio was estimated using Nelson-Aalen cumulative hazard estimates. The vaccine group (ALVAC-HIV + subtype C gp120/MF59) represents the numerator and the placebo group represents the denominator..|||1.54|0.81|0.50
91058865|NCT02968849|181999025|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.33|||Log Rank|The hazard ratio was tested using a sex-stratified log rank test.|The hazard ratio was estimated using a sex-stratified Cox proportional hazards model. The vaccine group (ALVAC-HIV + subtype C gp120/MF59) represents the numerator and the placebo group represents the denominator.|||1.33|0.80|0.82
91058866|NCT02968849|181999026|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.98|||Log Rank|The hazard ratio was tested using a sex-stratified log rank test.|The hazard ratio was estimated using a sex-stratified Cox proportional hazards model. The vaccine group (ALVAC-HIV + subtype C gp120/MF59) represents the numerator and the placebo group represents the denominator.|||1.98|0.50|0.98
91058867|NCT02968849|181999027|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.47|||Log Rank|The hazard ratio was tested using a sex-stratified log rank test.|The hazard ratio was estimated using a sex-stratified Cox proportional hazards model. The vaccine group (ALVAC-HIV + subtype C gp120/MF59) represents the numerator and the placebo group represents the denominator.|||1.47|0.80|0.60
91058868|NCT02968849|181999028|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.46|||Log Rank|The hazard ratio was tested using a sex-stratified log rank test.|The hazard ratio was estimated using a sex-stratified Cox proportional hazards model. The vaccine group (ALVAC-HIV + subtype C gp120/MF59) represents the numerator and the placebo group represents the denominator.|||1.46|0.58|0.71
91058869|NCT02203331|181999033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Emax|0.1483|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2925||0.3875|||||||Contrast tests for dose-response model|||The analysis was performed by using MCP-Mod method using pre-defined candidate dose-response model.||||0.3875
91058870|NCT02203331|181999033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Linear|0.2484|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2975||0.2676|||||||Contrast tests for dose-response model|||The analysis was performed by using MCP-Mod method using pre-defined candidate dose-response model.||||0.2676
91058871|NCT02203331|181999033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Sigmoidal Emax 1|0.1995|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2922||0.3211|||||||Contrast tests for dose-response model|||The analysis was performed by using MCP-Mod method using pre-defined candidate dose-response model.||||0.3211
91058872|NCT02203331|181999033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Sigmoidal Emax 2|0.3467|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2994||0.1721|||||||Contrast tests for dose-response model|||The analysis was performed by using MCP-Mod method using pre-defined candidate dose-response model.||||0.1721
91058873|NCT02203331|181999034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Emax|0.2736|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2878||0.231|||||||Contrast tests for dose-response model|||The analysis was performed by using MCP-Mod method using pre-defined candidate dose-response model.||||0.231
91058874|NCT02203331|181999034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Linear|0.3234|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2927||0.1865|||||||Contrast tests for dose-response model|||The analysis was performed by using MCP-Mod method using pre-defined candidate dose-response model.||||0.1865
91058875|NCT02203331|181999034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Sigmoidal Emax 1|0.3081|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2875||0.1955|||||||Contrast tests for dose-response model|||The analysis was performed by using MCP-Mod method using pre-defined candidate dose-response model.||||0.1955
91058876|NCT02203331|181999034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Sigmoidal Emax 2|0.3781|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2944||0.1416|||||||Contrast tests for dose-response model|||The analysis was performed by using MCP-Mod method using pre-defined candidate dose-response model.||||0.1416
91058877|NCT02203331|181999035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Emax|0.0081|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2832||0.5794|||||||Contrast tests for dose-response model|||The analysis was performed by using MCP-Mod method using pre-defined candidate dose-response model.||||0.5794
91058878|NCT02203331|181999035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Linear|0.1148|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.288||0.4301|||||||Contrast tests for dose-response model|||The analysis was performed by using MCP-Mod method using pre-defined candidate dose-response model.||||0.4301
91058879|NCT02203331|181999035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Sigmoidal Emax 1|0.0401|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2829||0.5337|||||||Contrast tests for dose-response model|||The analysis was performed by using MCP-Mod method using pre-defined candidate dose-response model.||||0.5337
91058880|NCT02203331|181999035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Sigmoidal Emax 2|0.1835|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2899||0.3396|||||||Contrast tests for dose-response model|||The analysis was performed by using MCP-Mod method using pre-defined candidate dose-response model.||||0.3396
91058881|NCT05833139|181999075|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (T/R) [%]|141.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|126.3|157.7|||ANOVA||Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV%) = 18.0|"The statistical model used was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale. AUC0-∞ was log transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model, considering the effect 'participant' as random and treatment as fixed."||157.7|126.3|
90817929|NCT02986854|181514345|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|13.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|24.0||||||Serogroup C-Vaccine comparison at day 6 (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naïve)||24.00|7.70|
90817930|NCT02986854|181514345|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.56||||||Serogroup C-Vaccine comparison at day 6 (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||1.56|0.67|
90817931|NCT02986854|181514345|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|19.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.73|27.51||||||Serogroup C-Vaccine comparison at day 29 (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||27.51|13.73|
90817932|NCT02986854|181514345|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|17.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.5|25.12||||||Serogroup C-Vaccine comparison at day 29 (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||25.12|12.50|
90817933|NCT02986854|181514345|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|18.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.4|25.73||||||Serogroup C-Vaccine comparison at day 29 (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naïve)||25.73|13.40|
90817934|NCT02986854|181514345|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.4||||||Serogroup C-Vaccine comparison at day 29 (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||1.40|0.86|
90817935|NCT02986854|181514345|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|1.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|3.11||||||Serogroup W-Vaccine comparison at day 4 (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||3.11|1.13|
90817936|NCT02986854|181514345|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|2.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|4.08||||||Serogroup W-Vaccine comparison at day 4 (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||4.08|1.48|
90817937|NCT02986854|181514345|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|2.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|3.44||||||Serogroup W-Vaccine comparison at day 4 - (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naïve)||3.44|1.33|
90817938|NCT02986854|181514345|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.1||||||Serogroup W-Vaccine comparison at day 4 (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||1.10|0.53|
91058882|NCT05833139|181999076|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (T/R) [%]|126.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|106.6|151.0|||ANOVA||Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV%) = 28.7|"The statistical model used was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale. Cmax was log transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model, considering the effect 'participant' as random and treatment as fixed."||151.0|106.6|
91058883|NCT05833139|181999077|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (T/R) [%]|142.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|126.0|161.9|||ANOVA||Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV%) = 20.4|"The statistical model used was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale. AUC0-tz was log transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model, considering the effect 'participant' as random and treatment as fixed."||161.9|126.0|
91058884|NCT03996447|181999086|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.76|1.88||To demonstrate the superiority, a statistically significant (one-sided p-value ≤0.025) positive difference in mean scores in border delineation, internal morphology and degree of contrast enhancement of lesions had to be met for 2 out of 3 readers.|t-test, 2 sided|||Criterion: Border delineation; Reader 1. The null hypothesis was that the difference in mean scores between Paired images and Pre-contrast images for each of the 3 co-primary criteria was equal to 0. The Null hypothesis was rejected if the difference was significantly different from zero with a type 1 error set at 0.025. To conclude the superiority of gadopiclenol-enhanced MRI, the null hypothesis had to be rejected for all co-criteria simultaneously and for at least 2 out of 3 readers.||1.88|1.76|<.0001
90817939|NCT02986854|181514345|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|7.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.05|12.22||||||Serogroup W-Vaccine comparison at day 6 (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||12.22|4.05|
90817940|NCT02986854|181514345|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|8.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.16|15.66||||||Serogroup W-Vaccine comparison at day 6 (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||15.66|5.16|
91077830|NCT02913105|182041134|OTHER|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.0||||0.9453|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.02|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 42||1.02|0.97|0.9453
90817941|NCT02986854|181514345|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|7.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.72|13.35||||||Serogroup W-Vaccine comparison at day 6 (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naïve)||13.35|4.72|
90817942|NCT02986854|181514345|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.14||||||Serogroup W-Vaccine comparison at day 6 (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||1.14|0.54|
90817943|NCT02986854|181514345|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|25.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.83|35.65||||||Serogroup W-Vaccine comparison at day 29 (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||35.65|17.83|
90817944|NCT02986854|181514345|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|34.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.06|48.23||||||Serogroup W-Vaccine comparison at day 29 (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||48.23|24.06|
90817945|NCT02986854|181514345|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|29.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.09|40.52||||||Serogroup W-Vaccine comparison at day 29 (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naïve)||40.52|21.09|
90817946|NCT02986854|181514345|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.94||||||Serogroup W-Vaccine comparison at day 29 (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||0.94|0.58|
90817947|NCT02986854|181514345|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|2.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|4.07||||||Serogroup Y-Vaccine comparison at day 4 (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||4.07|1.36|
90817948|NCT02986854|181514345|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|2.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|4.54||||||Serogroup Y-Vaccine comparison at day 4 (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||4.54|1.51|
90817949|NCT02986854|181514345|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|2.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|4.14||||||Serogroup Y-Vaccine comparison at day 4 - (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naïve)||4.14|1.48|
90817950|NCT02986854|181514345|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.33||||||Serogroup Y-Vaccine comparison at day 4 (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||1.33|0.61|
90817951|NCT02986854|181514345|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|9.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.47|17.64||||||Serogroup Y-Vaccine comparison at day 6 (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||17.64|5.47|
90817952|NCT02986854|181514345|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|9.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.31|17.19||||||Serogroup Y-Vaccine comparison at day 6 (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||17.19|5.31|
91077831|NCT02913105|182041134|OTHER|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.99||||0.4344|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.01|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 84||1.01|0.96|0.4344
90817953|NCT02986854|181514345|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|9.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.59|16.79||||||Serogroup Y-Vaccine comparison at day 6 (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naïve)||16.79|5.59|
90817954|NCT02986854|181514345|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.54||||||Serogroup Y-Vaccine comparison at day 6 (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||1.54|0.69|
90817955|NCT02986854|181514345|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|28.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.23|40.2||||||Serogroup Y-Vaccine comparison at day 29 (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||40.20|20.23|
90817956|NCT02986854|181514345|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|26.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.09|38.02||||||Serogroup Y-Vaccine comparison at day 29 (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||38.02|19.09|
90817957|NCT02986854|181514345|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|27.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.1|38.26||||||Serogroup Y-Vaccine comparison at day 29 (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naïve)||38.26|20.10|
90817958|NCT02986854|181514345|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.35||||||Serogroup Y-Vaccine comparison at day 29 (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||1.35|0.83|
90817959|NCT00086411|181514349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2734|<|0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.25||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons.|GEE model for repeated binary outcomes|Model included hx of heavy smoking, elevated depression, cigarettes per day, gender, and race|The above was for the main effect of BUP versus NTX on cessation.|Rates of abstinence were addressed using a generalized estimating equations (GEE) logistic regression model. Counseling type and medication type were entered as the main explanatory variables along with time and the interaction of these factors, together with some covariates (described below). The sample size provided 80% power to detect a difference of about 14% between groups across three time points (i.e., 12, 26, and 52 weeks post-treatment initiation.||2.25|0.77|<0.017
90817960|NCT02530996|181514352|OTHER|Power calculations were performed using G\*Power computer software version 3. Sample-size calculations were based on the number of patients needed to detect significant differences in FMD between placebo and BH4.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.5|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistics were performed using SPSS software (IBM, Chicago, IL). Paired t-tests were used to identify significant changes in measured variables between placebo and BH4. Unpaired t-tests were used to identify significant changes in measured variables between ordered groups. Based on data published in PMID: 25511849 power calculations for this study of SSc patients were made.||||<0.05
90817961|NCT04484207|181514367|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.031|||||||GEE|||||||0.031
90817962|NCT01593592|181514524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||A total of 70 patients were included; 35 in each arm. The sample size was calculated assuming eradication of H. pylori in at least 70% of treated patients, aiming to detect a difference of 30% based on a 0.80 power to detect significant difference (p =0.05, two-sided).||||
90817963|NCT03335774|181514529|SUPERIORITY|To determine if the 'hydrocortisone' arm was indeed superior than 'placebo' to reduce swelling and itching associated with internal hemorrhoids||||||0.8918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The statistical analyses were conducted using SAS software Version 9.4.All statistical tests were two-sided at a significance level of α = 0.05. Continuous data were presented using descriptive statistics (i.e. number of subjects, mean, SD, median, minimum, and maximum).Baseline value of each assessment was defined as the latest available assessment obtained prior to the first administration of the study drug.||||0.8918
90817964|NCT03335774|181514530|SUPERIORITY|To determine if the 'hydrocortisone' arm was indeed superior than 'placebo' to reduce swelling and itching associated with internal hemorrhoids||||||0.8323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The statistical analyses were conducted using SAS software Version 9.4.All statistical tests were two-sided at a significance level of α = 0.05. Continuous data were presented using descriptive statistics (i.e. number of subjects, mean, SD, median, minimum, and maximum).Baseline value of each assessment was defined as the latest available assessment obtained prior to the first administration of the study drug.||||0.8323
90817965|NCT00746863|181514535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0251||95.0||||A Bonferroni correction was used when evaluating the VAS results to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A 2.0 cm difference on a 10.0 cm VAS scale was clinically significant. Assuming a power of 80% to detect a 2.0 difference on scores between groups, standard deviation of 2.2, an α of 0.05, then, 21 patients would be needed in each group for a total of 42 subjects. A t-test was used in comparing the intervention and control groups, if continuous variables were approximately normal. If data were not approximately normal, a Mann-Whitney Wilcoxon test was used in comparing the two groups.||||0.0251
90817966|NCT00746863|181514536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0923||95.0||||Adjusted for multiple comparisions|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A t-test was used in comparing the intervention and control groups, if continuous variables were approximately normal. If data were not approximately normal, a Mann-Whitney Wilcoxon test was used in comparing the two groups.||||0.0923
90817967|NCT00746863|181514537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4756||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Chi square was performed to compared the two groups and the patient's ability to pass their voiding trial prior to discharge||||0.4756
90817968|NCT00746863|181514538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.258||95.0||||A Bonferroni correction was used when evaluating the VAS results to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A t-test was used in comparing the intervention and control groups, if continuous variables were approximately normal. If data were not approximately normal, a Mann-Whitney Wilcoxon test was used in comparing the two groups. Normality of continuous variables was assessed using the Shapiro-Wilk test. For categorical data, Fisher's exact test was used to evaluate the data. A Bonferroni correction was used when evaluating the VAS results to adjust for multiple comparisons.||||0.258
91078397|NCT00824382|182042347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.082|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.0348||95.0|0.006|0.159|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.159|0.006|0.0348
90817969|NCT00746863|181514539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.435||95.0||||A Bonferroni correction was used when evaluating the VAS results to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A t-test was used in comparing the intervention and control groups, if continuous variables were approximately normal. If data were not approximately normal, a Mann-Whitney Wilcoxon test was used in comparing the two groups. Normality of continuous variables was assessed using the Shapiro-Wilk test. For categorical data, Fisher's exact test was used to evaluate the data. A Bonferroni correction was used when evaluating the VAS results to adjust for multiple comparisons.||||0.435
90817970|NCT00082407|181514587|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Pre-specified non-inferiority margin was 0.4% (i.e., noninferiority is demonstrated if the upper limit of a two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in change in HbA1c between exenatide and biphasic insulin aspart is less than 0.4%.)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.2534||95.0|-0.28|0.08|||ANCOVA|||||0.08|-0.28|0.2534
90817971|NCT00082407|181514588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0779||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0779
91058885|NCT03996447|181999086|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.81|2.0||To demonstrate the superiority, a statistically significant (one-sided p-value ≤0.025) positive difference in mean scores in border delineation, internal morphology and degree of contrast enhancement of lesions had to be met for 2 out of 3 readers.|t-test, 2 sided|||Criterion: Border delineation; Reader 2. The null hypothesis was that the difference in mean scores between Paired images and Pre-contrast images for each of the 3 co-primary criteria was equal to 0. The Null hypothesis was rejected if the difference was significantly different from zero with a type 1 error at 0.025. To conclude the superiority of gadopiclenol-enhanced MRI, the null hypothesis had to be rejected for all co-criteria simultaneously.||2.00|1.81|<.0001
91058886|NCT03996447|181999086|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|1.44||To demonstrate the superiority, a statistically significant (one-sided p-value ≤0.025) positive difference in mean scores in border delineation, internal morphology and degree of contrast enhancement of lesions had to be met for 2 out of 3 readers.|t-test, 2 sided|||Criterion: Border delineation; Reader 3. The null hypothesis was that the difference in mean scores between Paired images and Pre-contrast images for each of the 3 co-primary criteria was equal to 0. The Null hypothesis was rejected if the difference was significantly different from zero with a type 1 error at 0.025. To conclude the superiority of gadopiclenol-enhanced MRI, the null hypothesis had to be rejected for all co-criteria simultaneously.||1.44|1.29|<.0001
91058887|NCT03996447|181999086|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|2.33||To demonstrate the superiority, a statistically significant (one-sided p-value ≤0.025) positive difference in mean scores in border delineation, internal morphology and degree of contrast enhancement of lesions had to be met for 2 out of 3 readers.|t-test, 2 sided|||Criterion: Internal morphology; Reader 1. The null hypothesis was that the difference in mean scores between Paired images and Pre-contrast images for each of the 3 co-primary criteria was equal to 0. The Null hypothesis was rejected if the difference was significantly different from zero with a type 1 error at 0.025. To conclude the superiority of gadopiclenol-enhanced MRI, the null hypothesis had to be rejected for all co-criteria simultaneously.||2.33|2.20|<.0001
91058888|NCT03996447|181999086|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.69|1.85||To demonstrate the superiority, a statistically significant (one-sided p-value ≤0.025) positive difference in mean scores in border delineation, internal morphology and degree of contrast enhancement of lesions had to be met for 2 out of 3 readers.|t-test, 2 sided|||Criterion: Internal morphology; Reader 2. The null hypothesis was that the difference in mean scores between Paired images and Pre-contrast images for each of the 3 co-primary criteria was equal to 0. The Null hypothesis was rejected if the difference was significantly different from zero with a type 1 error at 0.025. To conclude the superiority of gadopiclenol-enhanced MRI, the null hypothesis had to be rejected for all co-criteria simultaneously.||1.85|1.69|<.0001
91058889|NCT03996447|181999086|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.85|2.06||To demonstrate the superiority, a statistically significant (one-sided p-value ≤0.025) positive difference in mean scores in border delineation, internal morphology and degree of contrast enhancement of lesions had to be met for 2 out of 3 readers.|t-test, 2 sided|||Criterion: Internal morphology; Reader 3. The null hypothesis was that the difference in mean scores between Paired images and Pre-contrast images for each of the 3 co-primary criteria was equal to 0. The Null hypothesis was rejected if the difference was significantly different from zero with a type 1 error at 0.025. To conclude the superiority of gadopiclenol-enhanced MRI, the null hypothesis had to be rejected for all co-criteria simultaneously.||2.06|1.85|<.0001
91058890|NCT03996447|181999086|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.69|2.85||To demonstrate the superiority, a statistically significant (one-sided p-value ≤0.025) positive difference in mean scores in border delineation, internal morphology and degree of contrast enhancement of lesions had to be met for 2 out of 3 readers.|t-test, 2 sided|||Criterion: Contrast enhancement; Reader 1. The null hypothesis was that the difference in mean scores between Paired images and Pre-contrast images for each of the 3 co-primary criteria was equal to 0. The Null hypothesis was rejected if the difference was significantly different from zero with a type 1 error at 0.025. To conclude the superiority of gadopiclenol-enhanced MRI, the null hypothesis had to be rejected for all co-criteria simultaneously.||2.85|2.69|<.0001
91058891|NCT03996447|181999086|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.49|2.67||To demonstrate the superiority, a statistically significant (one-sided p-value ≤0.025) positive difference in mean scores in border delineation, internal morphology and degree of contrast enhancement of lesions had to be met for 2 out of 3 readers.|t-test, 2 sided|||Criterion: Contrast enhancement - Reader 2. The null hypothesis was that the difference in mean scores between Paired images and Pre-contrast images for each of the 3 co-primary criteria was equal to 0. The Null hypothesis was rejected if the difference was significantly different from zero with a type 1 error at 0.025. To conclude the superiority of gadopiclenol-enhanced MRI, the null hypothesis had to be rejected for all co-criteria simultaneously.||2.67|2.49|<.0001
91058892|NCT03996447|181999086|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.84|2.95||To demonstrate the superiority, a statistically significant (one-sided p-value ≤0.025) positive difference in mean scores in border delineation, internal morphology and degree of contrast enhancement of lesions had to be met for 2 out of 3 readers.|t-test, 2 sided|||Criterion: Contrast enhancement; Reader 3. The null hypothesis was that the difference in mean scores between Paired images and Pre-contrast images for each of the 3 co-primary criteria was equal to 0. The Null hypothesis was rejected if the difference was significantly different from zero with a type 1 error at 0.025. To conclude the superiority of gadopiclenol-enhanced MRI, the null hypothesis had to be rejected for all co-criteria simultaneously.||2.95|2.84|<.0001
91078398|NCT00824382|182042347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.176|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|<|0.0001||95.0|0.1|0.252|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.252|0.100|<0.0001
90817972|NCT00082407|181514589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0001
90817973|NCT00082407|181514590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6456||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.6456
91058893|NCT03996447|181999087|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority between gadopiclenol and gadobutrol was concluded if the lower bound of this confidence interval was above the non-inferiority margin set to 0.35 for at least 2 out of 3 blinded readers and for the 3 co-primary criteria simultaneously.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.02||The Null hypothesis was rejected if the 2-sided 95% Confidence Interval (CI) for the difference \[gadopiclenol scores mean - gadobutrol scores mean\] had its lower limit above -0.35.|t-test, 2 sided|The Student's t-based 95% CIs of the difference between gadopiclenol and gadobutrol were constructed for each of 3 co-primary criteria.||Criterion: Border delineation; Reader 1. The null hypothesis was that the difference in mean scores between gadopiclenol and gadobutrol for each of the 3 primary criteria was equal to the non inferiority margin (-0.35). The alternative hypothesis was that the difference in mean scores between gadopiclenol and gadobutrol for each of the 3 co-primary criteria was greater than the non inferiority margin.||0.02|-0.06|<0.0001
90817974|NCT00082407|181514592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7888||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.7888
90817975|NCT00082407|181514593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3722||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3722
90817976|NCT03464019|181514594|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.086||||0.1212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.726|1.623|||Peto-Peto test|||In Part 1, participants who converted following medical assistance were censored at the time of conversion after medical assistance. Participants who presented missing data from time t to the end were censored at the time of last available data. Participants who did not convert or were not censored before 5 hours were censored at 5 hours.||1.623|0.726|0.1212
90817977|NCT03464019|181514594|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.857|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.868|4.371||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon|||In Parts 2 and 3, participants converting after additional medication interventions were censored after the end of the observation period.||4.371|1.868|<0.001
90817978|NCT00767806|181514595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the Brief Pain Inventory 24-hour average pain score after 12 weeks of treatment.||||0.001
90817979|NCT00767806|181514596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|-0.25||P-value is for BPI severity of worst pain - change|ANCOVA|Main effect model: Change = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline (Type III sums of square)||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the Brief Pain Inventory severity of worst pain score during 12 weeks of treatment.||-0.25|-1.12|0.002
90817980|NCT00767806|181514596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.14||P-value is for BPI severity of least pain - change|ANCOVA|Main effect model: Change = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline (Type III sums of square)||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the Brief Pain Inventory severity of least pain score during 12 weeks of treatment.||-0.14|-0.85|0.006
90817981|NCT00767806|181514596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|-0.46||P-value is for BPI severity of pain right now - change|ANCOVA|Main effect model: Change = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline (Type III sums of square)||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the Brief Pain Inventory severity of pain right now score during 12 weeks of treatment.||-0.46|-1.25|<0.001
90817982|NCT00767806|181514596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|-0.35||P-value is for BPI interference with general activity - change|ANCOVA|Main Effect Model: Change = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline (Type III sums of squares)||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the Brief Pain Inventory interference with general activity score during 12 weeks of treatment.||-0.35|-1.16|<0.001
90817983|NCT00767806|181514596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|-0.34||P-value is for BPI interference with mood score - change|ANCOVA|Main Effect Model: Change = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline (Type III sums of squares)||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the Brief Pain Inventory interference with mood score during 12 weeks of treatment.||-0.34|-1.09|<0.001
90817984|NCT00767806|181514596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.07||P-value is for BPI interference with walking ability - change|ANCOVA|Main Effect Model: Change = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline (Type III sums of squares)||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the Brief Pain Inventory interference with walking ability score during 12 weeks of treatment.||-0.07|-0.84|0.020
90817985|NCT00767806|181514596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.11||P-value is for BPI interference with normal work - change|ANCOVA|Main Effect Model: Change = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline (Type III sums of squares)||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the Brief Pain Inventory interference with normal work score during 12 weeks of treatment.||-0.11|-0.90|0.012
90817986|NCT00767806|181514596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|-0.22||P-value is for BPI interference with relations to others - change|ANCOVA|Main Effect Model: Change = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline (Type III sums of squares)||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the Brief Pain Inventory interference with relations to others score during 12 weeks of treatment.||-0.22|-0.92|0.001
90817987|NCT00767806|181514596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|-0.27||P-value is for BPI interference with sleep score - change|ANCOVA|Main Effect Model: Change = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline (Type III sums of squares)||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the Brief Pain Inventory interference with sleep score during 12 weeks of treatment.||-0.27|-1.13|0.002
90817988|NCT00767806|181514596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.18||P-value is for BPI interference with enjoyment of life score - change|ANCOVA|Main Effect Model: Change = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline (Type III sums of squares)||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the Brief Pain Inventory interference with enjoyment of life score during 12 weeks of treatment.||-0.18|-0.96|0.005
90817989|NCT00767806|181514596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|-0.25||P-value is for BPI average interference score - change|ANCOVA|Main Effect Model: Change = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline (Type III sums of squares)||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the Brief Pain Inventory average interference score during 12 weeks of treatment.||-0.25|-0.92|<0.001
90817990|NCT00767806|181514597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.35||p-value is for weekly 24-hour average pain rating score - change|ANCOVA|Main Effect Model: Change = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline (Type III sums of squares)||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the weekly 24-hour average pain rating score during 12 weeks of treatment.||-0.35|-1.05|<0.001
90817991|NCT00767806|181514597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.33||p-value is for weekly 24-hour worst pain score - change|ANCOVA|Main Effect Model: Change = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline (Type III sums of squares)||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the weekly 24-hour worst pain score during 12 weeks of treatment.||-0.33|-1.08|<0.001
90817992|NCT00767806|181514597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.17||p-value is for weekly 24-hour night pain score - change|ANCOVA|Main Effect Model: Change = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline (Type III sums of squares)||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the weekly 24-hour night pain score during 12 weeks of treatment.||-0.17|-0.87|0.004
90817993|NCT00767806|181514598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.108||95.0||||p-value is for number of patients who achieve a \>=30% reduction of the Brief Pain Inventory average pain severity rating - difference between placebo and duloxetine|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in number of patients who achieve a \>=30% reduction of the Brief Pain Inventory average pain severity rating after 12 weeks of treatment.||||0.108
90817994|NCT00767806|181514599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0||||p-value is for number of patients who achieve a \>=50% reduction of the Brief Pain Inventory average pain severity rating - difference between placebo and duloxetine|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in number of patients who achieve a \>=50% reduction of the Brief Pain Inventory average pain severity rating after 12 weeks of treatment.||||0.006
90817995|NCT00767806|181514600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.082||95.0||||p-value is difference between duloxetine and placebo in number of patients who achieve criteria described in null hypothesis|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in number of patients who achieve a \>=30% reduction of the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) average pain severity rating from baseline to endpoint and baseline to earlier visit than last visit and maintains a \>=20% reduction of BPI average pain rating from baseline at every visit.||||0.082
90817996|NCT00767806|181514601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013||95.0||||p-value is for difference between duloxetine and placebo groups in the empirical overall cumulated distribution of the percentage pain reduction|Kolnogorov-Smirnov test|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between duloxetine and placebo groups in the empirical cumulated distribution of the percentage pain reduction.||||0.013
90817997|NCT00767806|181514602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.02||p-value is for difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the Clinical Global Impression of Severity score|ANCOVA|Main Effect Model: Change = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline (Type III sums of squares)||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the Clinical Global Impression of Severity score after 12 weeks of treatment.||0.02|-0.33|0.077
90817998|NCT00767806|181514603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.07||p-value is for difference between placebo and duloxetine groups Patient's Global Impression of Improvement endpoint value|ANCOVA|Main Effect Model: PGI-I=Treatment+Investigator+Baseline(Type III sums of squares). PGI-Severity score from baseline visit was used as the baseline.||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups Patient's Global Impression of Improvement endpoint value during 12 weeks of treatment.||-0.07|-0.56|0.011
90817999|NCT00767806|181514604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47||||0.255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|0.34||p-value is for difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire total score|ANCOVA|Main Effect Model: Change = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline (Type III sums of squares)||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire total score during 12 weeks of treatment.||0.34|-1.28|0.255
90818000|NCT00767806|181514605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|-0.37||p-value is for difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the Profile of Mood States Tension-Anxiety subscore|ANCOVA|Main Effect Model: Change = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline (Type III sums of squares)||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the Profile of Mood States Tension-Anxiety subscore during 12 weeks of treatment.||-0.37|-1.38|<0.001
90818001|NCT00767806|181514605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39||||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.12||p-value is for difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the Profile of Mood States Depression-Dejection subscore|ANCOVA|Main Effect Model: Change = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline (Type III sums of squares)||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the Profile of Mood States Depression-Dejection subscore during 12 weeks of treatment.||0.12|-0.90|0.133
90818002|NCT00767806|181514605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|-0.37||p-value is for difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the Profile of Mood States Anger-Hostility score|ANCOVA|Main Effect Model: Change = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline (Type III sums of squares)||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the Profile of Mood States Anger-Hostility score during 12 weeks of treatment.||-0.37|-1.46|<0.001
90818003|NCT00767806|181514605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.13||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.88||p-value is for difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the Profile of Mood States Vigor-Activity score|ANCOVA|Main Effect Model: Change = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline (Type III sums of squares)||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the Profile of Mood States Vigor-Activity score during 12 weeks of treatment.||1.88|0.38|0.003
90818004|NCT00767806|181514605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||0.469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.43||p-value is for difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the Profile of Mood States Fatigue-Inertia score|ANCOVA|Main Effect Model: Change = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline (Type III sums of squares)||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the Profile of Mood States Fatigue-Inertia score during 12 weeks of treatment.||0.43|-0.93|0.469
90818005|NCT00767806|181514605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.17||p-value is for difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the Profile of Mood States Confusion-Bewilderment score|ANCOVA|Main Effect Model: Change = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline (Type III sums of squares)||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the Profile of Mood States Confusion-Bewilderment score during 12 weeks of treatment.||-0.17|-0.98|0.006
90818006|NCT00767806|181514605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.41|-1.6||p-value is for difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the Profile of Mood States Total Mood Disturbance score|ANCOVA|Main Effect Model: Change = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline (Type III sums of squares)||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the Profile of Mood States Total Mood Disturbance score during 12 weeks of treatment.||-1.60|-6.41|0.001
90818007|NCT00767806|181514606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.24||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|3.02||p-value is for difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the 36-SF Health Survey Physical Component score|ANCOVA|Main Effect Model: Change = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline (Type III sums of squares)||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the 36-SF Health Survey Physical Component score during 12 weeks of treatment.||3.02|-0.53|0.168
90818008|NCT00767806|181514606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.24||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|3.96||p-value is for difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the SF-36 Health Survey Mental Component score|ANCOVA|Main Effect Model: Change = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline (Type III sums of squares)||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the SF-36 Health Survey Mental Component score during 12 weeks of treatment.||3.96|0.53|0.010
90818009|NCT00767806|181514606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.58||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|8.3||p-value is for difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the SF-36 Health Survey Bodily Pain Transformed score|ANCOVA|Main Effect Model: Change = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline (Type III sums of squares)||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the SF-36 Health Survey Bodily Pain Transformed score during 12 weeks of treatment.||8.30|0.86|0.016
90818010|NCT00767806|181514606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.15|7.61||p-value is for difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the SF-36 Health Survey Mental Health Transformed score|ANCOVA|Main Effect Model: Change = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline (Type III sums of squares)||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the SF-36 Health Survey Mental Health Transformed score during 12 weeks of treatment.||7.61|2.15|<0.001
90818011|NCT00767806|181514606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.58||||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|5.67||p-value is for difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the SF-36 Health Survey General Health Transformed score|ANCOVA|Main Effect Model: Change = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline (Type III sums of squares)||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the SF-36 Health Survey General Health Transformed score during 12 weeks of treatment.||5.67|-0.50|0.101
90818012|NCT00767806|181514606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.5||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|7.12||p-value is for difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the SF-36 Health Survey Physical Functioning Transformed score|ANCOVA|Main Effect Model: Change = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline (Type III sums of squares)||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the SF-36 Health Survey Physical Functioning Transformed score during 12 weeks of treatment.||7.12|-0.12|0.058
90818013|NCT00767806|181514606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.43||||0.227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|6.37||p-value is for difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the SF-36 Health Survey Role-Emotional Transformed score|ANCOVA|Main Effect Model: Change = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline (Type III sums of squares)||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the SF-36 Health Survey Role-Emotional Transformed score during 12 weeks of treatment.||6.37|-1.52|0.227
90818014|NCT00767806|181514606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.91||||0.383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.39|6.21||p-value is for difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the SF-36 Health Survey Role-Physical Transformed score|ANCOVA|Main Effect Model: Change = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline (Type III sums of squares)||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the SF-36 Health Survey Role-Physical Transformed score during 12 weeks of treatment.||6.21|-2.39|0.383
90818015|NCT00767806|181514606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.0||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|7.61||p-value is for difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the SF-36 Health Survey Social Functioning Transformed score|ANCOVA|Main Effect Model: Change = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline (Type III sums of squares)||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the SF-36 Health Survey Social Functioning Transformed score during 12 weeks of treatment.||7.61|0.38|0.030
90818016|NCT00767806|181514606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.1||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|7.6||p-value is for difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the SF-36 Health Survey Vitality Transformed score|ANCOVA|Main Effect Model: Change = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline (Type III sums of squares)||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the SF-36 Health Survey Vitality Transformed score during 12 weeks of treatment.||7.60|0.59|0.022
90818017|NCT00767806|181514607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.12||p-value is for difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the European Quality of Life Questionnaire - 5 Dimension - United Kingdom population-based Index score|ANCOVA|Main Effect Model: Change = Treatment + Investigator (Type III sums of squares)||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the European Quality of Life Questionnaire - 5 Dimension - United Kingdom population-based Index score during 12 weeks of treatment.||0.12|0.03|<0.001
90818018|NCT00767806|181514607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.08||p-value is for difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the European Quality of Life Questionnaire - 5 Dimension - United States population-based index score|ANCOVA|Main Effect Model: Change = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline (Type III sums of squares)||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the European Quality of Life Questionnaire - 5 Dimension - United States population-based index score during 12 weeks of treatment.||0.08|0.02|0.002
90818019|NCT00767806|181514608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.06||p-value is for difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Instrument (WPAI) - Absenteeism score|ANCOVA|Main Effect Model: Change = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline (Type III sums of squares)||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Instrument (WPAI) - Absenteeism score during 12 weeks of treatment.||0.06|-0.03|0.461
90818020|NCT00767806|181514608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.03||p-value is for difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Instrument (WPAI) - Presenteeism score|ANCOVA|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Instrument (WPAI) - Presenteeism score during 12 weeks of treatment.||0.03|-0.09|0.374
90818021|NCT00767806|181514608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.05||p-value is for difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Instrument (WPAI) - Work Productivity Loss score|ANCOVA|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Instrument (WPAI) - Work Productivity Loss score during 12 weeks of treatment.||0.05|-0.09|0.557
90818022|NCT00767806|181514608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|-0.02||p-value is for difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Instrument (WPAI) - Activity Impairment score|ANCOVA|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Instrument (WPAI) - Activity Impairment score during 12 weeks of treatment.||-0.02|-0.10|0.007
90818023|NCT00767806|181514610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0||||p-value is for difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in uric acid - change|ANOVA|Change Variable = Treatment + Investigator (Type III sums of squares). Rank-transformed change was used as change variable in the ANOVA model.||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of uric acid during 12 weeks of treatment.||||0.010
90818024|NCT00767806|181514611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031||95.0||||p-value is for difference between duloxetine and placebo in albumin - change|ANOVA|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of Albumin during 12 weeks of treatment.||||0.031
90818025|NCT00767806|181514612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0||||p-value is for difference between duloxetine and placebo in alkaline phosphatase - change|ANOVA|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of alkaline phosphatase during 12 weeks of treatment.||||0.004
90818026|NCT00767806|181514613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013||95.0||||p-value is for difference between duloxetine and placebo in alanine aminotransferase - change|ANOVA|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of Alanine Aminotransferase during 12 weeks of treatment.||||0.013
90818027|NCT00767806|181514614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.039||95.0||||p-value for difference between duloxetine and placebo in aspartate aminotransferase - change|ANOVA|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of aspartate aminotransferase during 12 weeks of treatment.||||0.039
90818028|NCT00767806|181514615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024||95.0||||p-value is for difference between duloxetine and placebo in creatinine - change|ANOVA|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of creatinine during 12 weeks of treatment.||||0.024
90818029|NCT00767806|181514616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019||95.0||||p-value is for difference between duloxetine and placebo in total protein - change|ANOVA|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of total protein during 12 weeks of treatment.||||0.019
90818030|NCT00767806|181514617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.329||95.0||||p-value is for difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of systolic blood pressure|ANOVA|Main Effect Model: Change = Treatment + Investigator (Type III sums of squares)||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of systolic blood pressure during 12 weeks of treatment.||||0.329
90818031|NCT00767806|181514617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.562||95.0||||p-value is for difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of diastolic blood pressure|ANOVA|Main Effect Model: Change = Treatment + Investigator (Type III sums of squares)||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of diastolic blood pressure during 12 weeks of treatment.||||0.562
90818032|NCT00767806|181514619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68||95.0||||p-value is for difference between duloxetine and placebo in pulse rate - change|ANOVA|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of pulse rate during 12 weeks of treatment.||||0.680
90818033|NCT00858208|181514624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0072|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||||||0.0072
90818034|NCT00858208|181514625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0433|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Change from baseline at Week 6||||0.0433
90818035|NCT00858208|181514625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0133|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Change from baseline at Week 12||||0.0133
90818036|NCT00858208|181514625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0278|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Change from baseline at Week 18||||0.0278
90818037|NCT00858208|181514625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Change from baseline at Week 24||||0.0160
90818038|NCT00858208|181514625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0264|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Change from baseline at Week 30||||0.0264
90818039|NCT00858208|181514625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0278|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Change from baseline at Week 36||||0.0278
90818040|NCT00858208|181514625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1854|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Change from baseline at Week 42||||0.1854
90818041|NCT00858208|181514625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1684|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Change from baseline at Week 48||||0.1684
90818042|NCT00858208|181514625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4718|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Change from baseline at Week 54||||0.4718
90818043|NCT00858208|181514625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.434|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Change from baseline at Week 60||||0.4340
90818044|NCT00858208|181514625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7765|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Change from baseline at Week 66||||0.7765
90818045|NCT00858208|181514625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7544|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Change from baseline at Week 72||||0.7544
90818046|NCT00858208|181514625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7201|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Change from baseline at Week 84||||0.7201
90818047|NCT00858208|181514625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5692|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Change from baseline at Week 90||||0.5692
90818048|NCT00858208|181514625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2749|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Change from baseline at Week 96||||0.2749
90818049|NCT00858208|181514625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2749|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Change from baseline at Week 102||||0.2749
90818050|NCT00858208|181514627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.297|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Change at Month 6||||0.2970
90818051|NCT00858208|181514627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1392|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Change at Month 12||||0.1392
90818052|NCT00858208|181514627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0573|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Change at Month 18||||0.0573
90818053|NCT00858208|181514627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7625|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Change at Month 24||||0.7625
90818054|NCT00858208|181514628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2759|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||||||0.2759
90818055|NCT01543776|181514638|NON_INFERIORITY|The above criteria for non-inferiority corresponds to a response rate in the low dose arm that is no more than 15% lower than the response rate in the high dose arm (i.e., non-inferiority margin of 15%), under the assumption that the log ratios are approximately normally distributed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3976|||<|0.1|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-0.1111|||Calculated p-value.|t-test, 1 sided||||||-0.1111|<0.10
90818056|NCT01543776|181514639|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.38
90818057|NCT01543776|181514640|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.13
90818058|NCT01543776|181514641|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.26
90818059|NCT01543776|181514642|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.012
90818060|NCT02397057|181514648|OTHER|Observed cases, logistic regression analysis. Subjects with missing data on Day 42 were excluded from the statistical testing.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.63||p-value was estimated by logistic regression with treatment, region (US, EUR), and baseline RLS medication-related augmentation as fixed factors, and baseline IRLS as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.63|0.70|0.3690
90818061|NCT02397057|181514652|OTHER||Least square(LS) mean difference|-4.071|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.542||0.1108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.083|0.941|||ANCOVA|||LOCF, ANCOVA Analysis||0.941|-9.083|0.1108
90818062|NCT02397057|181514653|OTHER|||||||0.0002||||||p-value was estimated using continuity-corrected chi-square test.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.0002
90818063|NCT03927144|181514667|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.48|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.28|9.82|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for stratification factor (no. of prior prophylactic migraine treatment failures=1 vs 2) after missing data were imputed as non-response.||||9.82|4.28|<0.0001
90818064|NCT03927144|181514668|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.53|16.87|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for number of prior prophylactic migraine treatment failures=1 vs 2 after missing data were imputed as non-response.||||16.87|7.53|<0.0001
90818065|NCT03927144|181514669|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-2.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.74|-1.52|||Linear mixed effects model||AMG334 70 mg/140 mg vs Oral Prophylactic|Comparison of mean change from baseline in monthly migraine days at Week 52||-1.52|-2.74|<0.001
90818066|NCT03927144|181514670|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.08|20.83|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for number of prior prophylactic migraine treatment failures=1 vs 2 after missing data were imputed as non-response.||||20.83|9.08|<0.001
90818067|NCT04071158|181514710|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|2.8||||||Difference in percentage||2.8|-1.4|
90818068|NCT04071158|181514711|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|1.7||||||Difference in percentage||1.7|-4.6|
90818069|NCT04071158|181514712|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric Mean|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.0||||||Anti-PT: Ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the GMC of RSV vaccine with aluminum hydroxide with Tdap arm by GMC of placebo/Tdap arm.||1.00|0.64|
90818070|NCT04071158|181514712|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric Mean|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.7||||||Anti-PT: Ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the GMC of RSV vaccine with aluminum hydroxide with Tdap arm by GMC of placebo/Tdap arm.||0.70|0.50|
90818071|NCT04071158|181514712|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric Mean|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.76||||||Anti-PT: Ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the GMC of RSV vaccine with aluminum hydroxide with Tdap arm by GMC of placebo/Tdap arm.||0.76|0.48|
90818072|NCT04071158|181514713|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric Mean|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.13|||||Ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing GMT of RSV vaccine with aluminum hydroxide with Tdap arm by GMT of RSV vaccine with aluminum hydroxide with placebo arm.|2.0-fold margin (related to primary objective): primary objective was demonstrated if the lower limit of 95% confidence interval (CI) from the ratio of titers with 50 percent cut off from two treatment groups greater than (\>) 0.5.||1.13|0.84|
90818073|NCT04071158|181514714|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric Mean|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.14|||||Ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing GMT of RSV vaccine with aluminum hydroxide with Tdap arm by GMT of RSV vaccine with aluminum hydroxide with placebo arm.|2.0-fold margin (related to primary objective): primary objective was demonstrated if the lower limit of 95% CI from the ratio of titers with 50 percent cut off from two treatment groups \> 0.5.||1.14|0.81|
90818074|NCT04071158|181514719|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric Mean|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.13|||||Ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing GMT of RSV vaccine with aluminum hydroxide with Tdap arm by GMT of RSV vaccine with aluminum hydroxide with placebo arm.|1.5-fold margin (related to secondary objective): secondary objective was demonstrated if the lower limit of 95% CI from the ratio of titers with 50 percent cut off from two treatment groups \> 0.67.||1.13|0.84|
90818075|NCT04071158|181514720|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric Mean|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.14|||||Ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing GMT of RSV vaccine with aluminum hydroxide with Tdap arm by GMT of RSV vaccine with aluminum hydroxide with placebo arm.|1.5-fold margin (related to secondary objective): secondary objective was demonstrated if the lower limit of 95% CI from the ratio of titers with 50 percent cut off from two treatment groups \> 0.67.||1.14|0.81|
90818076|NCT01178099|181514725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means, SCD:Healthy|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.829|1.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|Log(AUC) = Participant + Population + Dose + Population\*Dose + Random Error|This is the estimated value for the 10 mg SD (overall).|||1.33|0.829|
90818077|NCT01178099|181514725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means, SCD:Healthy|0.895|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.718|1.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|Log(AUC) = Participant + Population + Dose + Population\*Dose + Random Error|This is the estimated value for the 7.5 mg MD.|||1.12|0.718|
90818078|NCT01178099|181514725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means, SCD:Healthy|0.905|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.656|1.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|Log(AUC) = Participant + Population + Dose + Population\*Dose + Random Error|This is the estimated value for the 5 mg MD.|||1.25|0.656|
90818079|NCT01178099|181514726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means, SCD:Healthy|0.953|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.664|1.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|Log(Cmax) = Participant + Population + Dose + Population\*Dose + Random Error|This is the estimated value for the 10 mg SD (overall).|||1.37|0.664|
90818080|NCT01178099|181514726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means, SCD:Healthy|0.612|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.436|0.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|Log(Cmax) = Participant + Population + Dose + Population\*Dose + Random Error|This is the estimated value for the 7.5 mg MD.|||0.860|0.436|
90818081|NCT01178099|181514726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS Means, SCD:Healthy|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.625|1.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|Log(Cmax) = Participant + Population + Dose + Population\*Dose + Random Error|This is the estimated value for 5 mg MD.|||1.68|0.625|
90818082|NCT01178099|181514727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07||95.0||||The p-value is from model: Change from Baseline = Baseline + Treatment + Population + Treatment\*Population + Random Error.|ANCOVA|||||||0.070
90818083|NCT01178099|181514728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means, SCD:Healthy|1.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1|2.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Log(AUC) = Participant + Population + Dose + Population\*Dose + Random Error|This is the estimated value for 10 mg SD (overall) for the R-95913 metabolite.|||2.10|1.10|
90818084|NCT01178099|181514728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means, SCD:Healthy|1.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.06|1.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|Log(AUC) = Participant + Population + Dose + Population\*Dose + Random Error|This is the estimated value for 7.5 mg MD for the R-95913 metabolite.|||1.94|1.06|
90818085|NCT01178099|181514728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means, SCD:Healthy|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.918|2.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|Log(AUC) = Participant + Population + Dose + Population\*Dose + Random Error|This is the estimated value for 5 mg MD for the R-95913 metabolite.|||2.21|0.918|
90818086|NCT01178099|181514728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means, SCD:Healthy|0.971|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.742|1.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|Log(AUC) = Participant + Population + Dose + Population\*Dose + Random Error|This is the estimated value for the 10 mg SD (overall) for the R-106583 metabolite.|||1.27|0.742|
90818087|NCT01178099|181514728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means, SCD:Healthy|0.815|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.633|1.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|Log(AUC) = Participant + Population + Dose + Population\*Dose + Random Error|This is the estimated value for the 7.5 mg MD for the R-106583 metabolite.|||1.05|0.633|
90818088|NCT01178099|181514728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means, SCD:Healthy|0.952|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.658|1.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|Log(AUC) = Participant + Population + Dose + Population\*Dose + Random Error|This is the estimated value for the 5 mg MD for the R-106583 metabolite.|||1.38|0.658|
90818089|NCT01178099|181514728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means, SCD:Healthy|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.833|1.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|Log(AUC) = Participant + Population + Dose + Population\*Dose + Random Error|This is the estimated value for 10 mg SD (overall) for the R-119251 metabolite.|||1.65|0.833|
90818090|NCT01178099|181514728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means, SCD:Healthy|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.779|1.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|Log(AUC) = Participant + Population + Dose + Population\*Dose + Random Error|This is the estimated value for 7.5 mg MD for the R-119251 metabolite.|||1.48|0.779|
90818091|NCT01178099|181514728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means, SCD:Healthy|0.813|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Log(AUC) = Participant + Population + Dose + Population\*Dose + Random Error|This is the estimated value for 5 mg MD for the R-119251 metabolite.|||1.30|0.510|
90818092|NCT01178099|181514729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018||95.0||||The p-value is from model: Change from Baseline = Baseline + Treatment + Population + Treatment\*Population + Random Error.|ANCOVA|||||||0.018
90818093|NCT01178099|181514730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0||||The p-value is from model: Change from Baseline = Baseline + Treatment + Population + Treatment\*Population + Random Error.|ANCOVA|||||||0.060
90818094|NCT01178099|181514731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.219||95.0||||The p-value is from model: Change from Baseline = Baseline + Treatment + Population + Treatment\*Population + Random Error.|ANCOVA|||||||0.219
91058894|NCT03996447|181999087|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority between gadopiclenol and gadobutrol was concluded if the lower bound of this confidence interval was above the non-inferiority margin set to 0.35 for at least 2 out of 3 blinded readers and for the 3 co-primary criteria simultaneously.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.11||The Null hypothesis was rejected if the 2-sided 95% Confidence Interval (CI) for the difference \[gadopiclenol scores mean - gadobutrol scores mean\] had its lower limit above -0.35.|t-test, 2 sided|The Student's t-based 95% CIs of the difference between gadopiclenol and gadobutrol were constructed for each of 3 co-primary criteria.||Criterion: Border delineation; Reader 2. The null hypothesis was that the difference in mean scores between gadopiclenol and gadobutrol for each of the 3 primary criteria was equal to the non inferiority margin (-0.35). The alternative hypothesis was that the difference in mean scores between gadopiclenol and gadobutrol for each of the 3 co-primary criteria was greater than the non inferiority margin.||0.11|-0.04|<0.0001
91058895|NCT03996447|181999087|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin : -0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.05|||t-test, 2 sided|||Criterion: Border delineation; Reader 3||0.05|-0.01|<0.0001
91058896|NCT03996447|181999087|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin : -0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.03|||t-test, 2 sided|||Criterion: Internal morphology; Reader 1||0.03|-0.04|<0.0001
91058897|NCT03996447|181999087|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin : -0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.09|||t-test, 2 sided|||Criterion: Internal morphology; Reader 2||0.09|-0.05|<0.0001
91058898|NCT03996447|181999087|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin : -0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.08|||t-test, 2 sided|||Criterion: Internal morphology; Reader 3||0.08|0.01|<0.0001
91058899|NCT03996447|181999087|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin : -0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.07|||t-test, 2 sided|||Criterion: Contrast enhancement; Reader 1||0.07|-0.04|0.0001
91058900|NCT03996447|181999087|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin : -0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.12|||t-test, 2 sided|||Criterion: Contrast enhancement; Reader 2||0.12|-0.03|<0.0001
91058901|NCT03996447|181999087|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin : -0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.15|||t-test, 2 sided|||Criterion: Contrast enhancement; Reader 3||0.15|0.03|<0.0001
91058902|NCT00369486|181999105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46||95.0||||Adjusted for baseline central subfield thickness|repeated measures least sq. regression|Models adjusted for baseline values and for correlated data from subjects with two study eyes.||Comparison of change in central subfield thickening from baseline to 34 weeks in all five groups.||||0.46
91058903|NCT00369486|181999106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5||||0.04||95.0|0.2|1.0|||generalized estimating equations|||Analysis combined posterior and anterior injection + laser groups to compare with laser only.||1.0|0.2|0.04
91058904|NCT00369486|181999106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.63||95.0|0.5|2.9|||generalized estimating equations|||Analysis combined posterior and anterior injection only groups to compare with laser only treatment group.||2.9|0.5|0.63
91058905|NCT00369486|181999107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.94||95.0|||||repeated measures least sq. regression|Adjusted for baseline values and for the correlated data from subjects with two study eyes.||Comparison of the mean change in visual acuity letter score among the five groups at 34 weeks. Negative changes represent a worsening in visual acuity.||||0.94
91058906|NCT03888066|181999117|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.097|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.128|-0.067|||Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)|||Difference in adjusted mean changes (SE)||-0.067|-0.128|< 0.001
91058907|NCT03888066|181999118|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63|||=|0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.87||Threshold for statistical significance = 0.05|Regression, Cox|||"Hazard Ratio patiromer vs placebo.~The HR for the time to first hyperkalemia event for patiromer vs placebo was calculated. HR and p-value come from a Cox proportional regression model adjusted for geographic region, sex, Baseline T2DM status, Baseline K+ value, and Baseline eGFR.~HR = Hazard Ratio; T2DM=Type 2 diabetes mellitus; eGFR=Estimated glomerular filtration rate"||0.87|0.45|= 0.006
91058908|NCT03888066|181999119|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62|||=|0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.87||Threshold for statistical significance = 0.05|Regression, Cox|||"Hazard Ratio patiromer vs placebo.~The HR for the time to first hyperkalemia event for patiromer vs placebo was calculated. HR and p-value come from a Cox proportional regression model adjusted for geographic region, sex, Baseline T2DM status, Baseline K+ value, and Baseline eGFR.~HR = Hazard Ratio; T2DM=Type 2 diabetes mellitus; eGFR=Estimated glomerular filtration rate"||0.87|0.45|= 0.006
91058909|NCT03888066|181999120|SUPERIORITY||Annualized event rate ratio|0.658|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.534|0.81|||Negative binomial model adjusted for cov|||"NBMAC Annualized event RR patiromer vs placebo.~NBMAC adjusted for geographical region, sex, Baseline T2DM status, Baseline K+ value, and Baseline eGFR. Rate ratio less than 1 favors patiromer.~NBMAC=Negative binomial model adjusted for covariates; RR=Rate Ratio; T2DM=Type 2 diabetes mellitus; eGFR=Estimated glomerular filtration rate"||0.81|0.534|< 0.001
91058910|NCT03888066|181999121|SUPERIORITY||Win Ratio|1.526|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.231|1.906|||Win Ratio|||"Win ratio for composite.~Win ratio approach: Patients in the new treatment and control groups are formed into matched pairs based on their risk profiles. For each matched pair, the new treatment patient is labelled winner/loser depending on CV/hyperkalemia event first. The win ratio is the total number of winners divided by the total numbers of losers."||1.906|1.231|<0.001
91058911|NCT03888066|181999121|SUPERIORITY||Win Ratio|0.914|||=|0.744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.526|1.578|||Win Ratio|||"Win ratio CV death and hospitalization.~Win ratio approach: Patients in the new treatment and control groups are formed into matched pairs based on their risk profiles. For each matched pair, the new treatment patient is labelled winner/loser depending on CV/hyperkalemia event first. The win ratio is the total number of winners divided by the total numbers of losers. Unmatched win ratio is presented for this endpoint. Win ratio above 1 favors patiromer."||1.578|0.526|= 0.744
91078399|NCT00824382|182042347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038|<|0.0001||95.0|0.115|0.265|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.265|0.115|<0.0001
91058912|NCT03888066|181999122|SUPERIORITY||Win Ratio|1.248|||=|0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.003|1.564|||Win Ratio|||"Win ratio for composite.~Win ratio approach: Patients in the new treatment and control groups are formed into matched pairs based on their risk profiles. For each matched pair, the new treatment patient is labelled winner/loser depending on CV/hyperkalemia event first. The win ratio is the total number of winners divided by the total numbers of losers. Unmatched win ratio is presented for this endpoint. Win ratio above 1 favors patiromer."||1.564|1.003|= 0.048
91058913|NCT02640482|181999186|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority of the rate of sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment for Arm A as compared with the historical rate for patients treated with the current standard of care (SOF + RBV for 12 weeks) was analyzed; the lower confidence bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (95% CI) for the percentage of participants with sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment must exceed 89% to achieve noninferiority.|Percentage of Participants|99.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.5|100.0||||||Based on a 2-sided significance level of 0.05 and an underlying rate of ≥96% in the Arm A (180 participants) provides \>90% power to demonstrate noninferiority of ABT-493/ABT-530 to the historical rate for patients treated with the current standard of care (SOF + RBV for 12 weeks) (95%) (based on the normal approximation of using a single binomial proportion a one-sample test for superiority).||100.0|98.5|
90818095|NCT01178099|181514732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.177||95.0||||The p-value is from model: Change from Baseline = Baseline + Treatment + Population + Treatment\*Population + Random Error.|ANCOVA|||||||0.177
90818096|NCT01178099|181514733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.168||95.0||||The p-value is from model: Change from Baseline = Baseline + Treatment + Population + Treatment\*Population + Random Error.|ANCOVA|||||||0.168
90818097|NCT01178099|181514734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means, SCD:Healthy|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.01|2.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|Log(Cmax) = Participant + Population + Dose + Population\*Dose + Random Error|This is the estimated value for 10 mg SD (overall) for the R-95913 metabolite.|||2.22|1.01|
90818098|NCT01178099|181514734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means, SCD:Healthy|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.751|1.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|Log(Cmax) = Participant + Population + Dose + Population\*Dose + Random Error|This is the estimated value for 7.5 mg MD for the R-95913 metabolite.|||1.58|0.751|
90818099|NCT01178099|181514734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means, SCD:Healthy|1.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.09|3.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Log(Cmax) = Participant + Population + Dose + Population\*Dose + Random Error|This is the estimated value for 5 mg MD for the R-95913 metabolite.|||3.20|1.09|
90818100|NCT01178099|181514734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means, SCD:Healthy|0.873|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.66|1.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|Log(Cmax) = Participant + Population + Dose + Population\*Dose + Random Error|This is the estimated value for 10 mg SD (overall) for the R-106583 metabolite.|||1.15|0.660|
90818101|NCT01178099|181514734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means, SCD:Healthy|0.681|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.524|0.886|||Mixed Models Analysis|Log(Cmax) = Participant + Population + Dose + Population\*Dose + Random Error|This is the estimated value for 7.5 mg MD for the R-106583 metabolite.|||0.886|0.524|
90818102|NCT01178099|181514734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means, SCD:Healthy|0.898|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.612|1.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|Log(Cmax) = Participant + Population + Dose + Population\*Dose + Random Error|This is the estimated value for 5 mg MD for the R-106583 metabolite.|||1.32|0.612|
90818103|NCT01178099|181514734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means, SCD:Healthy|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.773|1.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|Log(Cmax) = Participant + Population + Dose + Population\*Dose + Random Error|This is the estimated value for 10 mg SD (overall) for the R-119251 metabolite.|||1.46|0.773|
90818104|NCT01178099|181514734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means, SCD:Healthy|0.785|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.582|1.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|Log(Cmax) = Participant + Population + Dose + Population\*Dose + Random Error|This is the estimated value for 7.5 mg MD for the R-119251 metabolite.|||1.06|0.582|
90818105|NCT01178099|181514734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means, SCD:Healthy|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.648|1.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|Log(Cmax) = Participant + Population + Dose + Population\*Dose + Random Error|This is the estimated value for 5 mg MD for the R-119251 metabolite.|||1.55|0.648|
90818106|NCT01178099|181514735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0||||The p-value is from model: Change from Baseline = Baseline + Treatment + Population + Treatment\*Population + Random Error.|ANCOVA|||||||0.060
90818107|NCT01178099|181514736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.086||95.0||||This is the p-value for PRI by flow cytometry. The p-value is from model: Change from Baseline = Baseline + Treatment + Population + Treatment\*Population + Random Error|ANCOVA|||||||0.086
91058914|NCT02640482|181999187|SUPERIORITY|The superiority of the rate of sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment for Arm A as compared with the historical rate for patients treated with the current standard of care (SOF + RBV for 12 weeks) was analyzed; the lower confidence bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (95% CI) for the percentage of participants with sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment must exceed 95% to achieve superiority.|Percentage of Participants|99.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.5|100.0||||||Based on a 2-sided significance level of 0.05 and an underlying rate of ≥96% in the Arm A (180 participants) provides \>90% power to demonstrate superiority of ABT-493/ABT-530 to the historical rate for patients treated with the current standard of care (SOF + RBV for 12 weeks) (95%) (based on the normal approximation of a single binomial proportion using a one-sample test for superiority).||100.0|98.5|
90818108|NCT01178099|181514736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.679||95.0||||This is the p-value for PRI by ELISA. The p-value is from model: Change from Baseline = Baseline + Treatment + Population + Treatment\*Population + Random Error|ANCOVA|||||||0.679
91058915|NCT00113763|181999191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|Stratified by baseline IVRS ECOG performance status and geographic region||Null hypothesis was no difference between treatment groups||||<0.0001
91078400|NCT00824382|182042348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.256|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.476|<|0.0001||95.0|16.477|38.036|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||38.036|16.477|<0.0001
90818109|NCT01178099|181514737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.396||95.0||||This is the p-value for AU\*min to 6.5 µM ADP. The p-value is from model: Change from Baseline = Baseline + Treatment + Population + Treatment\*Population + Random Error.|ANCOVA|||||||0.396
90818110|NCT01178099|181514737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.288||95.0||||This is the p-value for AU\*min to 20 µM ADP. The p-value is from model: Change from Baseline = Baseline + Treatment + Population + Treatment\*Population + Random Error.|ANCOVA|||||||0.288
90818111|NCT01178099|181514737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.095||95.0||||This is the p-value for AU\*min to Collagen. The p-value is from model: Change from Baseline = Baseline + Treatment + Population + Treatment\*Population + Random Error.|ANCOVA|||||||0.095
90818112|NCT01178099|181514737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.086||95.0||||This is the p-value for AU\*min to TRAP-6. The p-value is from model: Change from Baseline = Baseline + Treatment + Population + Treatment\*Population + Random Error.|ANCOVA|||||||0.086
90818113|NCT01178099|181514738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.083||95.0||||The p-value is from model: Change from Baseline = Baseline + Treatment + Population + Treatment\*Population + Random Error.|ANCOVA|||||||0.083
90818114|NCT01178099|181514739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.124||95.0||||The p-value is from model: Change from Baseline = Baseline + Treatment + Population + Treatment\*Population + Random Error.|ANCOVA|||||||0.124
90818115|NCT02473367|181514740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geom. least-squares mean ratio (GLSMR)|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.24|0.32|||||Raltegravir+TUMS/Raltegravir only|||0.32|0.24|
90818116|NCT02473367|181514740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLSMR|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.73|1.03|||||Raltegravir+12 Hrs Leader Antacid/Raltegravir only|||1.03|0.73|
90818117|NCT02473367|181514740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLSMR|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|1.03|||||Raltegravir+12 Hrs TUMS/Raltegravir only|||1.03|0.80|
90818118|NCT02473367|181514741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLSMR|0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.21|0.32|||||Raltegravir+TUMS/Raltegravir only|||0.32|0.21|
90818119|NCT02473367|181514741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLSMR|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.65|1.15|||||Raltegravir+12 Hrs Leader Antacid/Raltegravir only|||1.15|0.65|
90818120|NCT02473367|181514741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLSMR|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|1.17|||||Raltegravir+12 Hrs TUMS/Raltegravir only|||1.17|0.81|
90818121|NCT02473367|181514742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLSMR|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.45|0.61|||||Raltegravir+TUMS/Raltegravir only|||0.61|0.45|
90818122|NCT02473367|181514742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLSMR|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.34|0.52|||||Raltegravir+12 Hrs Leader Antacid/Raltegravir only|||0.52|0.34|
90818123|NCT02473367|181514742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLSMR|0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.36|0.51|||||Raltegravir+12 Hrs TUMS/Raltegravir only|||0.51|0.36|
90818124|NCT04816721|181514745|SUPERIORITY|The model included treatment group (EDP-938, placebo) and Day (3, 5, 9, and 14) as fixed effect, associated baseline, and treatment group by day interaction term as factors. An unstructured covariance matrix was imposed. The Satterthwaite approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.96||||0.1249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|0.28|||Mixed-effect Model of Repeated Measures|||Day 3: EDP-938 Versus Placebo||0.28|-2.21|0.1249
90818125|NCT04816721|181514745|SUPERIORITY|The model included treatment group (EDP-938, placebo) and Day (3, 5, 9, and 14) as fixed effect, associated baseline, and treatment group by day interaction term as factors. An unstructured covariance matrix was imposed. The Satterthwaite approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.41||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.88|0.05|||Mixed-effect Model of Repeated Measures|||Day 5: EDP-938 Versus Placebo||0.05|-2.88|0.0580
90818126|NCT04816721|181514745|SUPERIORITY|The model included treatment group (EDP-938, placebo) and Day (3, 5, 9, and 14) as fixed effect, associated baseline, and treatment group by day interaction term as factors. An unstructured covariance matrix was imposed. The Satterthwaite approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.43||||0.5877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|1.16|||Mixed-effect Model of Repeated Measures|||Day 9: EDP-938 Versus Placebo||1.16|-2.02|0.5877
90818127|NCT04816721|181514745|SUPERIORITY|The model included treatment group (EDP-938, placebo) and Day (3, 5, 9, and 14) as fixed effect, associated baseline, and treatment group by day interaction term as factors. An unstructured covariance matrix was imposed. The Satterthwaite approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.84||||0.2932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|2.43|||Mixed-effect Model of Repeated Measures|||Day 14: EDP-938 Versus Placebo||2.43|-0.76|0.2932
90818128|NCT04816721|181514746|SUPERIORITY|The model included treatment group (EDP-938, placebo) and Day (3, 5, 9, and 14) as fixed effect, associated baseline, and treatment group by day interaction term as factors. An unstructured covariance matrix was imposed. The Satterthwaite approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.17||||0.6574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.59|||Mixed-effect Model of Repeated Measures|||Day 3: EDP-938 Versus Placebo||0.59|-0.93|0.6574
90818129|NCT04816721|181514746|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.33||||0.4728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|0.58|||Mixed-effect Model of Repeated Measures|||Day 5: EDP-938 Versus Placebo||0.58|-1.23|0.4728
90818130|NCT04816721|181514746|SUPERIORITY|The model included treatment group (EDP-938, placebo) and Day (3, 5, 9, and 14) as fixed effect, associated baseline, and treatment group by day interaction term as factors. An unstructured covariance matrix was imposed. The Satterthwaite approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.7||||0.2058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.79|0.39|||Mixed-effect Model of Repeated Measures|||Day 9: EDP-938 Versus Placebo||0.39|-1.79|0.2058
90818131|NCT04816721|181514746|OTHER|The model included treatment group (EDP-938, placebo) and Day (3, 5, 9, and 14) as fixed effect, associated baseline, and treatment group by day interaction term as factors. An unstructured covariance matrix was imposed. The Satterthwaite approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.33||||0.5391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|1.41|||Mixed-effect Model of Repeated Measures|||Day 14: EDP-938 Versus Placebo||1.41|-0.74|0.5391
90818132|NCT04816721|181514748|SUPERIORITY|The model included treatment group (EDP-938, placebo) and Day (3, 5, 9, and 14) as fixed effect, associated baseline, and treatment group by day interaction term as factors. An unstructured covariance matrix was imposed. The Satterthwaite approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.17||||0.6574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.59|||Mixed-effect Model of Repeated Measures|||Day 1 through Day 3: EDP-938 Versus Placebo||0.59|-0.93|0.6574
91058916|NCT00113763|181999192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.806||||||This analysis was conducted contingent on a statistically significant difference in the primary outcome, and adjusted to an a priori threshold for statistical significance at a 4% level for a multiple comparison involving objective tumor response|Log Rank|Stratified by baseline IVRS ECOG performance status and geographic region||Null hypothesis was no difference between treatment groups||||0.806
91078401|NCT00824382|182042348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|29.383|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.574|<|0.0001||95.0|18.41|40.357|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||40.357|18.410|<0.0001
90818133|NCT04816721|181514748|SUPERIORITY|The model included treatment group (EDP-938, placebo) and Day (3, 5, 9, and 14) as fixed effect, associated baseline, and treatment group by day interaction term as factors. An unstructured covariance matrix was imposed. The Satterthwaite approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.67||||0.5359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.81|1.47|||Mixed-effect Model of Repeated Measures|||Day 1 through Day 5: EDP-938 Versus Placebo||1.47|-2.81|0.5359
90818134|NCT04816721|181514748|SUPERIORITY|The model included treatment group (EDP-938, placebo) and Day (3, 5, 9, and 14) as fixed effect, associated baseline, and treatment group by day interaction term as factors. An unstructured covariance matrix was imposed. The Satterthwaite approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.73||||0.3029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.95|2.5|||Mixed-effect Model of Repeated Measures|||Day 1 through Day 9: EDP-938 Versus Placebo||2.50|-7.95|0.3029
90818135|NCT04816721|181514748|SUPERIORITY|The model included treatment group (EDP-938, placebo) and Day (3, 5, 9, and 14) as fixed effect, associated baseline, and treatment group by day interaction term as factors. An unstructured covariance matrix was imposed. The Satterthwaite approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.64||||0.3871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.98|4.69|||Mixed-effect Model of Repeated Measures|||Day 1 through Day 14: EDP-938 Versus Placebo||4.69|-11.98|0.3871
90818136|NCT03445559|181514776|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.54||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.98|||Chi-squared|||||0.98|0.30|0.006
90818137|NCT03445559|181514777|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.66|||Chi-squared|||||2.66|0.70|0.42
90818138|NCT03445559|181514778|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90818139|NCT00997620|181514807|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The statistical analysis was of t testing of the difference of the mean between the baseline and after two weeks. The power analysis was prior to data collection was not performed for this test. The null hypothesis is no different, no difference between placebo and active treatment.||||< .05
90818140|NCT03847909|181514864|SUPERIORITY|P value is from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as the main effect, age category, baseline eGFR category, baseline Uox value as covariates for adjustment.|Difference of Least Mean Square|5171.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1144.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2929.3|7414.2|||ANCOVA|||||7414.2|2929.3|<0.0001
90818141|NCT04018313|181514912|EQUIVALENCE|The similarity of PK between CT-P39 versus EU-approved Xolair, CT-P39 versus US-licensed Xolair, and EU-approved Xolair versus US-licensed Xolair was concluded if the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) of the ratios of geometric means of each comparison are entirely contained within 80% to 125% for AUC0-inf, AUC0-last, and Cmax.|Ratio of geometric least square means|105.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.91|116.31||||||The statistical analysis of the log-transformed primary endpoints was based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline body weight, total IgE level and sex as covariates.||116.31|95.91|
90818142|NCT04018313|181514912|EQUIVALENCE|The similarity of PK between CT-P39 versus EU-approved Xolair, CT-P39 versus US-licensed Xolair, and EU-approved Xolair versus US-licensed Xolair was concluded if the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) of the ratios of geometric means of each comparison are entirely contained within 80% to 125% for AUC0-inf, AUC0-last, and Cmax|Ratio of geometric least square means|98.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.76|108.58||||||The statistical analysis of the log-transformed primary endpoints was based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline body weight, total IgE level and sex as covariates.||108.58|89.76|
90818143|NCT04018313|181514912|EQUIVALENCE|The similarity of PK between CT-P39 versus EU-approved Xolair, CT-P39 versus US-licensed Xolair, and EU-approved Xolair versus US-licensed Xolair was concluded if the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) of the ratios of geometric means of each comparison are entirely contained within 80% to 125% for AUC0-inf, AUC0-last, and Cmax.|Ratio of geometric least square means|93.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.09|102.68||||||The statistical analysis of the log-transformed primary endpoints was based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline body weight, total IgE level and sex as covariates.||102.68|85.09|
90818144|NCT04018313|181514913|EQUIVALENCE|The similarity of PK between CT-P39 versus EU-approved Xolair, CT-P39 versus US-licensed Xolair, and EU-approved Xolair versus US-licensed Xolair was concluded if the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) of the ratios of geometric means of each comparison are entirely contained within 80% to 125% for AUC0-inf, AUC0-last, and Cmax.|Ratio of geometric least square means|104.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.96|113.89||||||The statistical analysis of the log-transformed primary endpoints was based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline body weight, total IgE level and sex as covariates.||113.89|94.96|
90818145|NCT04018313|181514913|EQUIVALENCE|The similarity of PK between CT-P39 versus EU-approved Xolair, CT-P39 versus US-licensed Xolair, and EU-approved Xolair versus US-licensed Xolair was concluded if the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) of the ratios of geometric means of each comparison are entirely contained within 80% to 125% for AUC0-inf, AUC0-last, and Cmax.|Ratio of geometric least square means|99.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.79|108.61||||||The statistical analysis of the log-transformed primary endpoints was based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline body weight, total IgE level and sex as covariates.||108.61|90.79|
90818146|NCT04018313|181514913|EQUIVALENCE|The similarity of PK between CT-P39 versus EU-approved Xolair, CT-P39 versus US-licensed Xolair, and EU-approved Xolair versus US-licensed Xolair was concluded if the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) of the ratios of geometric means of each comparison are entirely contained within 80% to 125% for AUC0-inf, AUC0-last, and Cmax.|Ratio of geometric least square means|95.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.36|104.37||||||The statistical analysis of the log-transformed primary endpoints was based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline body weight, total IgE level and sex as covariates.||104.37|87.36|
90818147|NCT04018313|181514914|EQUIVALENCE|The similarity of PK between CT-P39 versus EU-approved Xolair, CT-P39 versus US-licensed Xolair, and EU-approved Xolair versus US-licensed Xolair was concluded if the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) of the ratios of geometric means of each comparison are entirely contained within 80% to 125% for AUC0-inf, AUC0-last, and Cmax.|Ratio of geometric least square means|113.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.15|124.11||||||The statistical analysis of the log-transformed primary endpoints was based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline body weight, total IgE level and sex as covariates.||124.11|103.15|
90818148|NCT04018313|181514914|EQUIVALENCE|The similarity of PK between CT-P39 versus EU-approved Xolair, CT-P39 versus US-licensed Xolair, and EU-approved Xolair versus US-licensed Xolair was concluded if the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) of the ratios of geometric means of each comparison are entirely contained within 80% to 125% for AUC0-inf, AUC0-last, and Cmax.|Ratio of geometric least square means|103.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.83|113.8||||||The statistical analysis of the log-transformed primary endpoints was based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline body weight, total IgE level and sex as covariates.||113.80|94.83|
91058917|NCT03743415|181999208|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm difference in linear mixed effects model that reflected average difference between arms over time (weeks 1-13).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.96||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed effects models were used for 13 repeated measures of the symptom index, adjusting for baseline value.|Mean of SMSH alone minus mean of SMSH+TIPC|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that the means of two groups were not equal. The adjusted effect size d=0.54 between the SMSH alone group and SMSH+TIPC group was detectable with power of .94 in two-sided tests at .05 level of significance.||1.96|-2.50|.81
91078402|NCT00824382|182042348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|36.678|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.431|<|0.0001||95.0|25.987|47.369|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||47.369|25.987|<0.0001
90818149|NCT04018313|181514914|EQUIVALENCE|The similarity of PK between CT-P39 versus EU-approved Xolair, CT-P39 versus US-licensed Xolair, and EU-approved Xolair versus US-licensed Xolair was concluded if the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) of the ratios of geometric means of each comparison are entirely contained within 80% to 125% for AUC0-inf, AUC0-last, and Cmax.|Ratio of geometric least square means|91.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.87|100.52||||||The statistical analysis of the log-transformed primary endpoints was based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline body weight, total IgE level and sex as covariates.||100.52|83.87|
90818150|NCT02102399|181514922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon's signed-rank test|||||||0.001
90818151|NCT02102399|181514923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.345|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon's signed-rank test|||||||0.345
90818152|NCT02102399|181514924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.003
90818153|NCT02102399|181514925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.171|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon's signed-rank test|||||||0.171
90818154|NCT02102399|181514926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon's signed-rank test|||||||0.022
90818155|NCT02102399|181514927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.451|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon's signed-rank test|||||||0.451
90818156|NCT02102399|181514928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.477|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon's signed-rank test|||||||0.477
90818157|NCT02102399|181514929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon's signed-rank test|||||||0.007
90818158|NCT02102399|181514930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon's signed-rank test|||||||0.049
90818159|NCT02102399|181514931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.323|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon's signed-rank test|||||||0.323
90818160|NCT02102399|181514932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.296|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon's signed-rank test|||||||0.296
91058918|NCT03743415|181999208|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm difference at week 17 in linear mixed effects model.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.07||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.65|3.49||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The model included adjustment for baseline value of the symptom index.|Mean of SMSH alone minus SMSH+TIPC.|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that the means of two groups were not equal. The adjusted effect size d=0.54 between the SMSH alone group and SMSH+TIPC group was detectable with power of .94 in two-sided tests at .05 level of significance.||3.49|-4.65|.78
90818161|NCT02102399|181514933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.776|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon's signed-rank test|||||||0.776
90818162|NCT02102399|181514934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.959|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon's signed-rank test|||||||0.959
90818163|NCT02102399|181514935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.76
90818164|NCT02102399|181514936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.30
90818165|NCT02102399|181514937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.20
90818166|NCT02102399|181514938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.77
90818167|NCT02102399|181514939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.49
90818168|NCT02102399|181514940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.74
90818169|NCT02102399|181514941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.120
90818170|NCT02102399|181514942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.030
90818171|NCT02102399|181514943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.107|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.107
90818172|NCT04836247|181514964|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||\<.001 is calculated p-value in SPSS.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
90818173|NCT04836247|181514965|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||\<.001 is calculated p-value in SPSS.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
90818174|NCT04836247|181514966|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||\<.001 is calculated p-value in SPSS.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
90818175|NCT04836247|181514967|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.74|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.74
90818176|NCT04836247|181514968|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.76|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.76
90818177|NCT04836247|181514969|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.44|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.44
90818178|NCT01078168|181515004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3769||||0.0347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03025|0.7235||threshold: p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.7235|0.03025|0.0347
90818179|NCT02467582|181515097|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.11
90818180|NCT02467582|181515097|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.27|1.22|||||Unstratified|||1.22|0.27|
90818181|NCT02467582|181515097|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.22|1.46|||||Stratified|||1.46|0.22|
90818182|NCT02467582|181515098|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.089|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.089
90818183|NCT02467582|181515098|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.21|1.19|||||Unstratified|||1.19|0.21|
90818184|NCT02467582|181515098|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.2|1.55|||||Stratified|||1.55|0.20|
90818185|NCT02467582|181515099|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.3
90818186|NCT02467582|181515099|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.23|2.13|||||Unstratified|||2.13|0.23|
90818187|NCT02467582|181515099|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.15|2.43|||||Stratified|||2.43|0.15|
90818188|NCT02814175|181515110|OTHER|Between group difference|point estimate difference|28.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.8|38.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for the stratification factor which is the duration of prior MTX 15 mg ew use of ≤ 3 months or \> 3 months.||||38.9|17.8|< 0.001
90818189|NCT02170870|181515123|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||ANOVA|||Mean GI symptom score during lipid infusion in controls vs diabetics adjusted for treatment status (ie, exendin or placebo)||||0.06
90818190|NCT02170870|181515123|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Mean GI symptom score during lipid infusion in controls vs functional dyspepsia adjusted for treatment status (ie, exendin or placebo)||||0.0001
90818191|NCT00125957|181515125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in the mean change MADRS score between Wellbutrin-Placebo and Placebo-Wellbutrin treatment groups||||.04
90818192|NCT00125957|181515126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in the median HAM-D score between Wellbutrin-Placebo and Placebo-Wellbutrin treatment groups||||0.09
90818193|NCT00151476|181515154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier Estimate of Time to Event|14.49||||||95.0|3.48|301.64|||||Kaplan-Meier Estimate of Time to Event (months).|"Time to FAP-related surgical events (months); twenty-fifth (25th) percentile presented due to limited number of subjects.~Index date based on most recent colon and or rectum adenomatous polyps evaluation, most recent duodenal adenomatous polyps evaluation, and most recent desmoids tumors evaluation for Matched Control, Not Matched Celecoxib, and All Celecoxib Treated, respectively.~Only 13 matched pairs identified: p-values not computed in analysis of time-to-event endpoints"||301.64|3.48|
90818194|NCT00151476|181515154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier Estimate of Time to Event|5.06||||||95.0|3.48|11.76|||||Kaplan-Meier Estimate of Time to Event (months).|Time to FAP-related surgical events (months); 25th percentile.||11.76|3.48|
90818195|NCT00151476|181515154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier Estimate of Time to Event|5.52||||||95.0|3.48|14.49|||||Kaplan-Meier Estimate of Time to Event (months).|Time to FAP-related surgical events (months); 25th percentile.||14.49|3.48|
90818196|NCT00151476|181515155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier Estimate of Time to Event|5.98||||||95.0|0.0|33.77|||||Kaplan-Meier Estimate of Time to Event (months).|Time to FAP-related surgical events (months); 25th percentile.||33.77|0.00|
90818197|NCT00151476|181515155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier Estimate of Time to Event|19.81||||||95.0|0.0|33.77|||||Kaplan-Meier Estimate of Time to Event (months).|Time to FAP-related surgical events (months); 25th percentile.||33.77|0.00|
90818198|NCT00151476|181515156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier Estimate of Time to Event|137.34||||||95.0|104.73|183.48|||||Kaplan-Meier Estimate of Time to Event (months).|Time to FAP-related surgical events (months); 25th percentile. Index date based on most recent colon and or rectum adenomatous polyps evaluation, most recent duodenal adenomatous polyps evaluation, and most recent desmoids tumors evaluation for Matched Control, Not Matched Celecoxib, and All Celecoxib Treated, respectively.||183.48|104.73|
90818199|NCT00151476|181515156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier Estimate of Time to Event|169.94||||||95.0|104.73|183.48|||||Kaplan-Meier Estimate of Time to Event (months).|Time to FAP-related surgical events (months); 25th percentile.||183.48|104.73|
90818200|NCT00151476|181515157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier Estimate of Time to Event|11.28||||||95.0|9.07|38.24|||||Kaplan-Meier Estimate of Time to Event (months).|Time to FAP-related surgical events (months); 25th percentile.||38.24|9.07|
90818201|NCT00151476|181515158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier Estimate of Time to Event|20.63||||||95.0|8.05|48.03|||||Kaplan-Meier Estimate of Time to Event (months).|Time to FAP-related surgical events (months); 25th percentile.||48.03|8.05|
91058919|NCT03743415|181999208|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm difference in linear mixed effects model that included reflected average difference between arms over time (weeks 1-13).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|2.32||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome was adjusted for in the model.|Mean of SMSH minus SMSH+TIPC.|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that the means of two groups were not equal. The adjusted effect size d=0.54 between the SMSH alone group and SMSH+TIPC group was detectable with power of .94 in two-sided tests at .05 level of significance.||2.32|-0.66|.27
91058920|NCT03743415|181999208|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm difference at week 17 in linear mixed effects model.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.35||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|4.39||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome was adjusted for in the model.|Mean of SMSH alone minus SMSH+TIPC.|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that the means of two groups were not equal. The adjusted effect size d=0.54 between the SMSH alone group and SMSH+TIPC group was detectable with power of .94 in two-sided tests at .05 level of significance.||4.39|-0.88|.19
91058921|NCT03743415|181999209|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm difference in linear mixed effects model that included reflected average difference between arms over weeks 5-13.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.46||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|6.36||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome was adjusted for in the model.|Mean of SMSH alone minus SMSH+TIPC.|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that the means of two groups were not equal. . The adjusted effect size (Cohen's d=0.54) was used to power comparisons on the primary outcomes reported by groups from the second randomization. This analysis indicated that 60 per group would be required for power of .80 or greater in two-sided tests at α= 0.05.||6.36|-3.30|.53
91078403|NCT00824382|182042349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|29.052|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.534|<|0.0001||95.0|18.159|39.946|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||39.946|18.159|<0.0001
90818202|NCT00151476|181515158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier Estimate of Time to Event|40.21||||||95.0|8.31|105.68|||||Kaplan-Meier Estimate of Time to Event (months).|Time to FAP-related surgical events (months); 25th percentile.||105.68|8.31|
90818203|NCT00151476|181515158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier Estimate of Time to Event|19.81||||||95.0|16.03|56.34|||||Kaplan-Meier Estimate of Time to Event (months).|Time to FAP-related surgical events (months); 25th percentile.||56.34|16.03|
90818204|NCT00151476|181515158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier Estimate of Time to Event|20.22||||||95.0|12.35|40.31|||||Kaplan-Meier Estimate of Time to Event (months).|Time to FAP-related surgical events (months); 25th percentile.||40.31|12.35|
90818205|NCT00151476|181515160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier Estimate of Time to Event|21.22||||||95.0|4.07|64.16|||||Kaplan-Meier Estimate of Time to Event (months).|Time to FAP-related events (months); 25th percentile.||64.16|4.07|
90818206|NCT00151476|181515160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier Estimate of Time to Event|19.81||||||95.0|3.68|64.16|||||Kaplan-Meier Estimate of Time to Event (months).|Time to FAP-related events (months); 25th percentile.||64.16|3.68|
90818207|NCT03446456|181515167|EQUIVALENCE|An equivalence test was conducted to compare if the vasopressin group differed from the saline group in changes of BOLD signal in the brain.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.00264||||0.982|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni corrected|t-test, 2 sided|||Percentage of BOLD signal change was calculated as the BOLD signal in the right supplementary motor area (SMA, a typical brain area responding to pain stimulation), divided by the BOLD signal of the whole-brain average during the 24 trials of 20-second painful stimulations. The percentage of BOLD signal changes in SMA during the 20-second painful stimulations were compared between the Saline group and the Vasopressin group using an equivalence test.||||0.982
90818208|NCT03446456|181515168|EQUIVALENCE|An equivalence test was conducted to compare if the vasopressin group differed from the saline group in heating temperature that was used for the testing phase.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.282||||0.269|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni corrected|ANCOVA|The drug group (Vasopressin vs. Saline) was set as a between-subject factor. Age and race were treated as covariates.||||||0.269
90818209|NCT03446456|181515169|EQUIVALENCE|An equivalence test was conducted to compare if the vasopressin group differed from the saline group in implicit racial biases.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.378|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Drug group (Vasopressin vs. Saline) was set as between-subject factor. Age and race were treated as covariates.||"Response latencies were recorded to calculate the IAT difference score (D). A difference score (D) was calculated based on the following steps: 1) Compute the standard deviation (SD) of response latencies from overall trials; 2) M1 is the mean of the response latencies in the condition where White people and good share the same response key. M2 is the mean of the latencies in the condition where African-American/Asian people and good share the same response key; 3) D = (M2-M1)/SD."||||0.378
90818210|NCT03446456|181515170|EQUIVALENCE|An equivalence test was conducted to compare if the vasopressin group differed from the saline group in self-reported pain intensity ratings.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.35||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni corrected|Mixed Models Analysis|Age, race, and heating temperature used during the testing phase were treated as covariates.||||||0.014
90818211|NCT03002311|181515215|SUPERIORITY|We conducted a conditional power analysis 120 days after 6 months of enrollment. We determined the effect size based on the difference of proportions of follow-up attendance in the intervention and control arms. We used the effect size of 20% to estimate the sample size needed for a two-sided alpha of 0.05 at 90% power and a 1:1 ratio to require 266 participants. Loss to follow-up was estimated to be 20%, increasing target enrollment to 334 total participants.|||||<|0.001|||||||Gray's test|We compared the cumulative incidence function.||||||<0.001
90818212|NCT03002311|181515216|SUPERIORITY|This was a secondary analysis so no power analysis was done.||||||0.8||||||We used a two-sided alpha of 0.05 to determine significance.|Gray's test|We compared the cumulative incidence functions.||||||0.8
90818213|NCT00869401|181515308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.16||Using Logrank Test|Log Rank|||||1.16|0.54|.222
90818214|NCT00869401|181515310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.806||||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.11|||Log Rank|||||1.11|0.59|0.183
91058922|NCT03743415|181999209|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm difference at week 17 in linear mixed effects model.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.92||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|9.68||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome was adjusted for in the model.|Mean of SMSH alone minus SMSH+TIPC.|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that the means of two groups were not equal. . The adjusted effect size (Cohen's d=0.54) was used to power comparisons on the primary outcomes reported by groups from the second randomization. This analysis indicated that 60 per group would be required for power of .80 or greater in two-sided tests at α= 0.05.||9.68|-5.70|.97
90818215|NCT02522442|181515312|OTHER|Pilot study, not powered for any endpoint.||||||0.377|||||||Chi-squared|||Pilot study, not powered for any endpoint.||||0.377
90818216|NCT02522442|181515313|OTHER|Pilot study, not powered for any endpoint.||||||0.624|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.624
90818217|NCT00975143|181515317|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Pre-defined criterion for non-inferiority: upper bound of the 95% CI for the treatment difference \< 4.|LS Mean Difference|0.1382||||0.5077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2712|0.5475||P values are from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) controlling for Baseline total nodular lesion count, gender and analysis site.|ANCOVA|The 95% CI of the adjusted least square mean difference (CIP-ISOTRETINOIN minus Isotretinoin) was calculated using the ANCOVA model.||Change from Baseline was calculated as the post-Baseline value minus the Baseline value||0.5475|-0.2712|0.5077
90818218|NCT00975143|181515318|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the two co-primary endpoints were significant, a 95% 2 sided CI on the difference between treatments (CIP-Isotretinoin minus Isotretinoin) was calculated.|Proportion difference|-3.48|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|1.4|||Normal approximation|95% CI on difference in proportions (CIP-Isotretinoin minus Isotretinoin) was estimated using normal approximation.||The analysis of the secondary efficacy endpoint was based on observed cases only, with no imputation for missing values.||1.4|-8.4|>0.05
90818219|NCT00975143|181515319|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Pre-defined criterion for non-inferiority: lower bound of the 95% CI for the treatment difference \> -10.|Proportion difference|-2.1|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.94|3.74|||Normal approximation|||||3.74|-7.94|>0.05
90818220|NCT00599638|181515347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.306||0.391|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.31|0.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.48|-0.31|0.3910
90818221|NCT00599638|181515347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.357||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.78|-0.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.86|-1.78|0.0002
90818222|NCT00599638|181515348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0055||||0.4959|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.3|1.71|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis was performed compositely for all categories.||1.71|0.30|0.4959
90818223|NCT00599638|181515348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.0763||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.69|8.46|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis was performed compositely for all categories.||8.46|1.69|0.0011
90818224|NCT00599638|181515350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.819||0.338|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.47|4.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.84|-2.47|0.3380
90818225|NCT00599638|181515350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-9.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.268||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-13.89|-5.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.42|-13.89|0.0022
91058923|NCT03743415|181999209|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm difference in linear mixed effects model that included reflected average difference between arms over weeks 5-13.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.94||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|5.75||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome was adjusted for in the model.|Mean of SMSH alone minus SMSH+TIPC.|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that the means of two groups were not equal. . The adjusted effect size (Cohen's d=0.54) was used to power comparisons on the primary outcomes reported by groups from the second randomization. This analysis indicated that 60 per group would be required for power of .80 or greater in two-sided tests at α= 0.05.||5.75|-1.83|.31
91058924|NCT03743415|181999209|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm difference at week 17 in linear mixed effects model.|Mean Difference (Net)|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.77||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|8.74||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome was adjusted for in the model.|Mean of SMSH minus SMSH+TIPC|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that the means of two groups were not equal. The adjusted effect size (Cohen's d=0.54) was used to power comparisons on the primary outcomes reported by groups from the second randomization. This analysis indicated that 60 per group would be required for power of .80 or greater in two-sided tests at α= 0.05.||8.74|-2.13|.61
91058925|NCT03743415|181999210|SUPERIORITY|Key parameter was the difference between arms at week 13.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.12|1.35||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Regression, Linear|Baseline value of the outcome was adjusted for in the model.|Mean of SMSH minus SMSH+TIPC.|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that the means of two groups were not equal. Sample size was determined by the power calculation for the primary outcome.||1.35|-3.12|.44
91058926|NCT03743415|181999210|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that the means of two groups were not equal. Sample size was determined by the power calculation for the primary outcome.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.32|2.18||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome was adjusted for in the model.|Mean of SMSH minus SMSH+TIPC.|The key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm difference at week 17 in linear mixed effects model.||2.18|-2.32|.95
91058927|NCT03743415|181999210|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm difference at week 13 in linear mixed effects model.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|1.93||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome was adjusted for in the model.|Mean of SMSH minus SMSH+TIPC.|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that the means of two groups were not equal. Sample size was determined by the power calculation for the primary outcome.||1.93|-1.85|.97
91058928|NCT03743415|181999210|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm difference at week 17 in linear mixed effects model.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|2.2||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome was adjusted for in the model.|Mean of SMSH minus SMSH+TIPC.|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that the means of two groups were not equal. Sample size was determined by the power calculation for the primary outcome.||2.20|-1.56|.74
91058929|NCT03743415|181999211|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm difference at week 13 in linear mixed effects model.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.31||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.49|4.58||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome was adjusted for in the model.|Mean of SMSH minus mean of SMSH+TIPC.|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that the means of two groups were not equal. Sample size was determined by the power calculation for the primary outcome.||4.58|-4.49|.98
91058930|NCT03743415|181999211|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm difference at week 17 in linear mixed effects model.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.34||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.48|3.68||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome was adjusted for in the model.|Mean of SMSH minus SMSH+TIPC.|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that the means of two groups were not equal. Sample size was determined by the power calculation for the primary outcome.||3.68|-5.48|.70
91058931|NCT03743415|181999211|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm difference at week 13 in linear mixed effects model.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.85||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.62|1.62||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome was adjusted for in the model.|Mean of SMSH minus SMSH+TIPC.|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that the means of two groups were not equal. Sample size was determined by the power calculation for the primary outcome.||1.62|-5.62|.27
91058932|NCT03743415|181999211|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm difference at week 17 in linear mixed effects model.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.84||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|3.81||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome was adjusted for in the model.|Mean of SMSH minus SMSH+TIPC.|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that the means of two groups were not equal. Sample size was determined by the power calculation for the primary outcome.||3.81|-3.40|.91
90818226|NCT03836677|181515385|OTHER||Geometric Mean ratio to baseline|1.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|2.13||Statistical significance assessed using Hochberg's procedure applied across primary endpoints within each treatment.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group comparison to baseline using paired test||||2.13|1.38|<0.0001
90818227|NCT03836677|181515385|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio to baseline|1.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|1.83||Statistical significance assessed using Hochberg's procedure applied across primary endpoints within each treatment.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group comparison to baseline using paired test.||||1.83|1.28|<0.0001
90818228|NCT03836677|181515386|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio to baseline|0.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.63||Statistical significance assessed using Hochberg's procedure applied across primary endpoints within each treatment.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group comparison to baseline using paired test||||0.63|0.39|<0.0001
90818229|NCT03836677|181515386|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio to baseline|0.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.67||Statistical significance assessed using Hochberg's procedure applied across primary endpoints within each treatment.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group comparison to baseline using paired test||||0.67|0.40|<0.0001
90818230|NCT03836677|181515387|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio to baseline|1.7|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.37|2.11|||t-test, 2 sided|Within-group comparison to baseline using paired test||||2.11|1.37|<0.0001
90818231|NCT03836677|181515387|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio to baseline|1.51||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|1.8|||t-test, 2 sided|Within-group comparison to baseline using paired test||||1.80|1.26|0.0001
90818232|NCT03836677|181515388|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio to baseline|0.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.63|||t-test, 2 sided|Within-group comparison to baseline using paired test||||0.63|0.40|<0.0001
90818233|NCT03836677|181515388|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio to baseline|0.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.68|||t-test, 2 sided|Within-group comparison to baseline using paired test||||0.68|0.40|<0.0001
90818234|NCT03836677|181515389|OTHER||Mean Change from Baseline|0.346||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.182|0.509|||t-test, 2 sided|Within-group comparison to baseline using paired test.||||0.509|0.182|0.0003
90818235|NCT03836677|181515389|OTHER||Mean Change from Baseline|0.273||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.405|||t-test, 2 sided|Within-group comparison to baseline using paired test.||||0.405|0.140|0.0004
90818236|NCT03836677|181515390|OTHER||Mean ratio to baseline|-0.28||||0.2515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.21|||t-test, 2 sided|Within-group comparison to baseline using paired test.||||0.21|-0.77|0.2515
90818237|NCT03836677|181515390|OTHER||Mean ratio to baseline|-0.5||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.18|||t-test, 2 sided|Within-group comparison to baseline using paired test.||||-0.18|-0.81|0.0040
90818238|NCT00462748|181515409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Hochberg's FDR was used to power the study; the power was based on a two-sided p value of 0.025.|Regression, Logistic|The logistic regression model included terms for treatment and stratum; treatment by stratum interaction was assessed.||Ho is no difference in proportion achieving the target of LDL-C \< 2mmol/l.. 240 patients per group give a power of at least 85% to detect a 15% difference in this proportion, assuming the percentage decrease from baseline in LDL-C was 25% in the E/S group and 15% in the two comparator groups. A two-sided 0.025 test to allow for multiple comparisons was used.||||<0.001
90818239|NCT00462748|181515409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Hochberg's FDR was used to power the study; the power was based on a two-sided p value of 0.025.|Regression, Logistic|The logistic regression model included terms for treatment and stratum; treatment by stratum interaction was assessed.||Ho is no difference in proportion achieving the target of LDL-C \< 2mmol/l.. 240 patients per group give a power of at least 85% to detect a 15% difference in this proportion, assuming the percentage decrease from baseline in LDL-C was 25% in the E/S group and 15% in the two comparator groups. A two-sided 0.025 test to allow for multiple comparisons was used.||||<0.001
90818240|NCT03429543|181515410|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.2935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.3|||ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated as \[Treatment\] - Placebo.|Treatment group 1 (TG1) consisting of Placebo, Linagliptin 5 mg and Empagliflozin pooled Patients: Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with a continuous covariate (baseline HbA1c) and categorical covariates (treatment and age). The effect of linagliptin and of empagliflozin (including responders and non-responders) was compared with placebo at an overall α of 0.05 (2-sided) using the Hochberg method to account for multiple testing.||0.30|-0.99|0.2935
90818241|NCT03429543|181515410|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.0116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.19|||ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated as \[Treatment\] - Placebo.|Treatment group 1 (TG1) consisting of Placebo, Linagliptin 5 mg and Empagliflozin pooled Patients: Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with a continuous covariate (baseline HbA1c) and categorical covariates (treatment and age). The effect of linagliptin and of empagliflozin (including responders and non-responders) was compared with placebo at an overall α of 0.05 (2-sided) using the Hochberg method to account for multiple testing.||-0.19|-1.50|0.0116
90818242|NCT03429543|181515410|OTHER|Only after having obtained statistically significant results for both hypotheses of the primary family of hypotheses (TG1), the secondary hypotheses were to compare the individual empagliflozin doses versus placebo based on TG2 and TG3.The ANCOVA utilised a weight of zero for patients who were not in the hypothesis test of interest, a value of 2 for re-randomised patients who were in the hypothesis test of interest and a value of 1 otherwise.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.1943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|0.27|||ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated as \[Treatment\] - Placebo.|Treatment group 2 (TG2) consisting of Placebo, Empagliflozin 25mg Patients: Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with a continuous covariate (baseline HbA1c) and categorical covariates (treatment and age). The effect of linagliptin and of empagliflozin (including responders and non-responders) was compared with placebo at an overall α of 0.05 (2-sided) using the Hochberg method to account for multiple testing.||0.27|-1.31|0.1943
90890492|NCT03086447|181645724|OTHER|It was deemed that a total of 135 subjects in the Test group is sufficient to demonstrate statistical acceptance of monocular VA better than equal to 20/40 with a minimum of 90% statistical power using the reference incidence rate of 95% with a correlation of 0.8 between eyes.|Proportion|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.5|100.0||All primary hypotheses were simultaneously evaluated using a significance level of 0.05 following the intersection-union principal. All primary hypotheses must be met to claim success of the study objectives.|Binomial proportion with Agresti-Coull||All eyes (100%) in the Test group had acceptable VA throughout the study.|Proportion of eyes with overall acceptable VA assessed throughout the study period (up to 4-week) in the Test group was compared to the historical control acceptable rate of 80%. Lower 95% confidence limit was compared to 0.8.||100|96.5|
90818243|NCT03429543|181515410|OTHER|Only after having obtained statistically significant results for both hypotheses of the primary family of hypotheses (TG1), the secondary hypotheses were to compare the individual empagliflozin doses versus placebo based on TG2 and TG3.The ANCOVA utilised a weight of zero for patients who were not in the hypothesis test of interest, a value of 2 for re-randomised patients who were in the hypothesis test of interest and a value of 1 otherwise.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.45|||ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated as \[Treatment\] - Placebo.|Treatment group 3 (TG3) consisting of Placebo, Empagliflozin 10mg Patients: Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with a continuous covariate (baseline HbA1c) and categorical covariates (treatment and age). The effect of linagliptin and of empagliflozin (including responders and non-responders) was compared with placebo at an overall α of 0.05 (2-sided) using the Hochberg method to account for multiple testing.||-0.45|-1.90|0.0015
90818244|NCT03429543|181515411|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-58.7|43.7|||Fisher Exact||Risk difference calculated as \[treatment\]-\[placebo\].|Risk difference of active treatments versus placebo was determined and assessed by an exact 2-sided 90% confidence interval based on the method of Chan and Zhang. Patients were assigned to the treatment they were randomised to at the initial randomisation.||43.7|-58.7|1.0000
90818245|NCT03429543|181515411|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-58.7|43.7|||Fisher Exact||Risk difference calculated as \[treatment\]-\[placebo\].|Risk difference of active treatments versus placebo was determined and assessed by an exact 2-sided 90% confidence interval based on the method of Chan and Zhang. Patients were assigned to the treatment they were randomised to at the initial randomisation.||43.7|-58.7|1.0000
90818246|NCT03429543|181515412|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.68||||0.4828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.86|1.49|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference calculated as \[Treatment\] - Placebo.|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML) approach with mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM). Fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and categorical covariate age (baseline) and continuous, fixed covariates of baseline of response variable and baseline of response variable-by-visit interaction. Covariate visit was treated as repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure used to model within-patient measurements.||1.49|-2.86|0.4828
90818247|NCT03429543|181515412|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.38||||0.7047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.64|1.88|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference calculated as \[Treatment\] - Placebo.|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML) approach with mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM). Fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and categorical covariate age (baseline) and continuous, fixed covariates of baseline of response variable and baseline of response variable-by-visit interaction. Covariate visit was treated as repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure used to model within-patient measurements.||1.88|-2.64|0.7047
90818248|NCT03429543|181515413|OTHER|||||||0.8626|||||||Log Rank|||Time to treatment failure was analysed by Kaplan-Meier estimates up to the end of the study. A log-rank test compared linagliptin and empagliflozin pooled versus placebo up to Week 26.||||0.8626
90818249|NCT03429543|181515413|OTHER|||||||0.2827|||||||Log Rank|||Time to treatment failure was analysed by Kaplan-Meier estimates up to the end of the study. A log-rank test compared linagliptin and empagliflozin pooled versus placebo up to Week 26.||||0.2827
90818250|NCT03429543|181515414|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.41||||0.6438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.49|17.67|||ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated as \[Treatment\] - Placebo.|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed classification effect, baseline FPG as linear covariate and age at randomisation as categorical covariate. The random error was assumed to be normally distributed.||17.67|-28.49|0.6438
90818251|NCT03429543|181515414|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-35.18||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.61|-11.74|||ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated as \[Treatment\] - Placebo.|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed classification effect, baseline FPG as linear covariate and age at randomisation as categorical covariate. The random error was assumed to be normally distributed.||-11.74|-58.61|0.0035
90818252|NCT03429543|181515414|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|38.62||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.54|72.7|||ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated as \[Treatment\] - Placebo.|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed classification effect, baseline FPG as linear covariate and age at randomisation as categorical covariate. The random error was assumed to be normally distributed.||72.70|4.54|0.0310
90818253|NCT03429543|181515414|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.05||||0.1994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.01|53.11|||ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated as \[Treatment\] - Placebo.|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed classification effect, baseline FPG as linear covariate and age at randomisation as categorical covariate. The random error was assumed to be normally distributed.||53.11|-13.01|0.1994
91077832|NCT02913105|182041134|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.99||||0.639|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.02|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 42||1.02|0.97|0.6390
90818254|NCT03429543|181515415|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.46||||0.1394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|3.41|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference calculated as \[Treatment\] - Placebo.|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with the fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the categorical covariate age at randomisation and the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline of the response variable and baseline of the response variable-by-visit interaction. The covariate visit was treated as repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure used to model the within-patient measurements.||3.41|-0.48|0.1394
90818255|NCT03429543|181515415|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.75||||0.4476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.68|1.19|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference calculated as \[Treatment\] - Placebo.|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with the fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the categorical covariate age at randomisation and the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline of the response variable and baseline of the response variable-by-visit interaction. The covariate visit was treated as repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure used to model the within-patient measurements.||1.19|-2.68|0.4476
90818256|NCT03429543|181515415|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.9789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|3.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference calculated as \[Treatment\] - Placebo.|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with the fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the categorical covariate age at randomisation and the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline of the response variable and baseline of the response variable-by-visit interaction. The covariate visit was treated as repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure used to model the within-patient measurements.||3.90|-3.80|0.9789
90818257|NCT03429543|181515415|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.35||||0.5092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.68|2.99|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference calculated as \[Treatment\] - Placebo.|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with the fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the categorical covariate age at randomisation and the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline of the response variable and baseline of the response variable-by-visit interaction. The covariate visit was treated as repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure used to model the within-patient measurements.||2.99|-5.68|0.5092
90818258|NCT03429543|181515416|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.91||||0.587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|4.22|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference calculated as \[Treatment\] - Placebo.|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with the fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the categorical covariate age at randomisation and the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline of the response variable and baseline of the response variable-by-visit interaction. The covariate visit was treated as repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure used to model the within-patient measurements.||4.22|-2.40|0.5870
90818259|NCT03429543|181515416|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.42||||0.3967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.72|1.88|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference calculated as \[Treatment\] - Placebo.|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with the fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the categorical covariate age at randomisation and the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline of the response variable and baseline of the response variable-by-visit interaction. The covariate visit was treated as repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure used to model the within-patient measurements.||1.88|-4.72|0.3967
90818260|NCT03429543|181515416|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.53||||0.5414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.42|11.47|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference calculated as \[Treatment\] - Placebo.|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with the fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the categorical covariate age at randomisation and the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline of the response variable and baseline of the response variable-by-visit interaction. The covariate visit was treated as repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure used to model the within-patient measurements.||11.47|-6.42|0.5414
90818261|NCT03429543|181515416|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.9995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.13|10.13|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference calculated as \[Treatment\] - Placebo.|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with the fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the categorical covariate age at randomisation and the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline of the response variable and baseline of the response variable-by-visit interaction. The covariate visit was treated as repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure used to model the within-patient measurements.||10.13|-10.13|0.9995
90818262|NCT03429543|181515417|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5||||0.2433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|4.02|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference calculated as \[Treatment\] - Placebo.|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with the fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the categorical covariate age at randomisation and the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline of the response variable and baseline of the response variable-by-visit interaction. The covariate visit was treated as repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure used to model the within-patient measurements.||4.02|-1.03|0.2433
90818263|NCT03429543|181515417|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.9878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|2.56|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference calculated as \[Treatment\] - Placebo.|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with the fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the categorical covariate age at randomisation and the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline of the response variable and baseline of the response variable-by-visit interaction. The covariate visit was treated as repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure used to model the within-patient measurements.||2.56|-2.52|0.9878
90818264|NCT03429543|181515417|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.33||||0.567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|15.65|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference calculated as \[Treatment\] - Placebo.|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with the fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the categorical covariate age at randomisation and the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline of the response variable and baseline of the response variable-by-visit interaction. The covariate visit was treated as repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure used to model the within-patient measurements.||15.65|-9.00|0.5670
90818265|NCT03429543|181515417|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.62||||0.2348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.19|4.95|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference calculated as \[Treatment\] - Placebo.|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with the fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the categorical covariate age at randomisation and the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline of the response variable and baseline of the response variable-by-visit interaction. The covariate visit was treated as repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure used to model the within-patient measurements.||4.95|-18.19|0.2348
90818266|NCT03429543|181515418|OTHER||Rate difference (percentage)|6.0||||0.3536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|19.9|||Wald test||Difference calculated as \[Treatment\] - Placebo.|The risk difference of active treatments versus placebo was determined and assessed by an exact 2-sided 95% confidence interval. Exact 95% CI by Chan and Zhang. Asymptotic and two-sided Wald test.||19.9|-7.7|0.3536
90818267|NCT03429543|181515418|OTHER||Rate difference (percentage)|11.7||||0.0914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|26.3|||Wald test||Difference calculated as \[Treatment\] - Placebo.|The risk difference of active treatments versus placebo was determined and assessed by an exact 2-sided 95% confidence interval. Exact 95% CI by Chan and Zhang. Asymptotic and two-sided Wald test.||26.3|-2.4|0.0914
90818268|NCT03429543|181515418|OTHER||Rate difference (percentage)|-23.3||||0.5455|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-67.9|27.1|||Fisher Exact||Difference calculated as \[Treatment\] - Placebo.|The risk difference of active treatments versus placebo was determined and assessed by an exact 2-sided 95% confidence interval. Exact 95% CI by Chan and Zhang. Asymptotic and Fisher's exact test.||27.1|-67.9|0.5455
90818269|NCT03429543|181515418|OTHER||Rate difference (percentage)|-23.3||||0.5455|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-67.9|27.1|||Fisher Exact||Difference calculated as \[Treatment\] - Placebo.|The risk difference of active treatments versus placebo was determined and assessed by an exact 2-sided 95% confidence interval. Exact 95% CI by Chan and Zhang. Asymptotic and Fisher's exact test.||27.1|-67.9|0.5455
90818270|NCT03429543|181515419|OTHER||Rate difference (percentage)|2.4||||0.7789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|19.5|||Wald test||Difference calculated as \[Treatment\] - Placebo.|The risk difference of active treatments versus placebo was determined and assessed by an exact 2-sided 95% confidence interval. Exact 95% CI by Chan and Zhang. Asymptotic and two-sided Wald test.||19.5|-15.2|0.7789
90818271|NCT03429543|181515419|OTHER||Rate difference (percentage)|10.1||||0.2548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|28.1|||Wald test||Difference calculated as \[Treatment\] - Placebo.|The risk difference of active treatments versus placebo was determined and assessed by an exact 2-sided 95% confidence interval. Exact 95% CI by Chan and Zhang. Asymptotic and two-sided Wald test.||28.1|-7.7|0.2548
90818272|NCT03429543|181515419|OTHER||Rate difference (percentage)|-23.3||||0.5455|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-67.9|27.1|||Fisher Exact||Difference calculated as \[Treatment\] - Placebo.|The risk difference of active treatments versus placebo was determined and assessed by an exact 2-sided 95% confidence interval. Exact 95% CI by Chan and Zhang. Asymptotic and Fisher's exact test.||27.1|-67.9|0.5455
90818273|NCT03429543|181515419|OTHER||Rate difference (percentage)|26.7||||0.5671|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-30.8|70.8|||Fisher Exact||Difference calculated as \[Treatment\] - Placebo.|The risk difference of active treatments versus placebo was determined and assessed by an exact 2-sided 95% confidence interval. Exact 95% CI by Chan and Zhang. Asymptotic and Fisher's exact test.||70.8|-30.8|0.5671
90818274|NCT00082381|181515433|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Pre-specified non-inferiority margin was 0.4% (i.e., noninferiority is demonstrated if the upper limit of a two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in change in HbA1c between exenatide and insulin glargine is less than 0.4%.)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.4602||95.0|-0.09|0.2|||ANCOVA|||||0.20|-0.09|0.4602
90818275|NCT00082381|181515434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7839||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.7839
90818276|NCT00082381|181515435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
90818277|NCT00082381|181515436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
90818278|NCT00082381|181515438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3002||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.3002
90818279|NCT00082381|181515439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3385||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3385
90818280|NCT02428413|181515440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.24
90818281|NCT02428413|181515441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.26
90818282|NCT01786252|181515457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|Sidak-multiple comparison test was performed to detect significant differences between groups.||Statistical analysis to compare differences between endometrial glandular and stromal dating within the vehicle group.||||<0.05
91078404|NCT00824382|182042349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|30.955|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.635|<|0.0001||95.0|19.861|42.049|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||42.049|19.861|<0.0001
90818283|NCT01786252|181515457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|Sidak-multiple comparison test was performed to detect significant differences between groups.||Statistical analysis to compare differences between endometrial glandular and stromal dating within the hCG group.||||>0.05
90818284|NCT01786252|181515457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|Sidak-multiple comparison test was performed to detect significant differences between groups.||Statistical analysis to compare stromal staging between hCG and IVF media group.||||<0.01
90818285|NCT01786252|181515457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|Sidak-multiple comparison test was performed to detect significant differences between groups.||Statistical analysis to compare differences between endometrial glandular dating between hCG and IVF media groups.||||>0.05
90818286|NCT01786252|181515458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
90818287|NCT01786252|181515459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
90818288|NCT01786252|181515460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
90818289|NCT03322423|181515478|SUPERIORITY|Statistical superiority was concluded if the upper limit of the confidence intervals of the Test lens was below +0.01 logMAR for distance.|Least-Square Mean Estimate|-0.058|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0114|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|-0.035|||Linear mixed model analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.||||-0.035|-0.080|
90818290|NCT03322423|181515478|SUPERIORITY|Statistical superiority was concluded if the upper limit of the confidence intervals of the Test lens was below +0.01 logMAR for distance.|Least-Square Mean Estimate|-0.076|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0114|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.099|-0.054|||Linear mixed model analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.||||-0.054|-0.099|
91058933|NCT03743415|181999212|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm difference at week 13 in linear mixed effects model.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.98|0.19||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome was adjusted for in the model.|Mean of SMSH minus SMSH+TIPC.|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that the means of two groups were not equal. Sample size was determined by the power calculation for the primary outcome.||0.19|-3.98|.06
91058934|NCT03743415|181999212|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm difference at week 17 in linear mixed effects model.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.81|0.11||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome was adjusted for in the model.|Mean of SMSH minus SMSH+TIPC|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that the means of two groups were not equal. Sample size was determined by the power calculation for the primary outcome.||0.11|-3.81|.09
91058935|NCT03743415|181999212|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm difference at week 13 in linear mixed effects model.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|2.04||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome was adjusted for in the model.|Mean of SMSH minus SMSH+TIPC|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that the means of two groups were not equal. Sample size was determined by the power calculation for the primary outcome.||2.04|-1.77|.89
91058936|NCT03743415|181999212|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm difference at week 17 in linear mixed effects model.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|2.58||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome was adjusted for in the model.|Mean of SMSH minus SMSH+TIPC.|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that the means of two groups were not equal. Sample size was determined by the power calculation for the primary outcome.||2.58|-1.20|.47
91058937|NCT03743415|181999213|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm difference at week 13 in linear mixed effects model.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.94||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.22|2.39||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome was adjusted for in the model.|Mean of SMSH minus SMSH+TIPC.|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that the means of two groups were not equal. Sample size was determined by the power calculation for the primary outcome.||2.39|-5.22|.45
91058938|NCT03743415|181999213|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm difference at week 17 in linear mixed effects model.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.97||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.59|4.12||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome was adjusted for in the model.|Mean of SMSH minus SMSH+TIPC.|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that the means of two groups were not equal. Sample size was determined by the power calculation for the primary outcome.||4.12|-3.59|.82
91078405|NCT00824382|182042349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|37.191|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.489|<|0.0001||95.0|26.386|47.996|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||47.996|26.386|<0.0001
91058939|NCT03743415|181999213|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm difference at week 13 in linear mixed effects model.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.88||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.13|4.23||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome was adjusted for in the model.|Mean of SMSH minus SMSH+TIPC.|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that the means of two groups were not equal. Sample size was determined by the power calculation for the primary outcome.||4.23|-3.13|.77
91058940|NCT03743415|181999213|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm difference at week 17 in linear mixed effects model.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.87||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.98|3.34||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome was adjusted for in the model.|Mean of SMSH minus SMSH+TIPC.|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that the means of two groups were not equal. Sample size was determined by the power calculation for the primary outcome.||3.34|-3.98|.86
91058941|NCT03578549|181999219|OTHER||Correlation Coefficient|0.01||||0.92|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.92
91058942|NCT00741286|181999230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A linear mixed model for a repeated measures covariance pattern model with unstructured covariances within subjects was used. Two fixed effects were included: 1 between-subjects treatment effect (group: cilostazol, control) and 1 within-subject time effect (time: baseline, 14 days, 90 days). A possible difference in treatment across 14- and 90-day follow-up was analyzed by time x treatment interactions.||||<0.05
91058943|NCT00741286|181999230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||To determine between-group differences of changes in the PIs at 14 and 90 days from the baseline study.||||<0.05
90818291|NCT03322423|181515479|SUPERIORITY|Statistical superiority was concluded if the upper limit of the confidence intervals of the Test lens was below +0.17 logMAR for near.|LS Mean Estimate|0.141|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0147|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.112|0.17|||Linear mixed model analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.||||0.170|0.112|
90818292|NCT03322423|181515479|SUPERIORITY|Statistical superiority was concluded if the upper limit of the confidence intervals of the Test lens was below +0.17 logMAR for near.|LS Mean Estimate|0.141|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0147|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.112|0.17|||Linear mixed model analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.||||0.170|0.112|
90818293|NCT03322423|181515480|SUPERIORITY|Statistical superiority was concluded if the lower limit of the confidence intervals of the Test lens was above 32 CLUE points.|LS Mean Estimate|45.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.19|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.2|49.9|||Linear Mixed Model Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.||||49.9|41.2|
90818294|NCT03322423|181515480|SUPERIORITY|Statistical superiority was concluded if the lower limit of the confidence intervals of the Test lens was above 32 CLUE points.|LS Mean Estimate|46.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.21|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.1|50.8|||Linear Mixed Model Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.||||50.8|42.1|
91058944|NCT00741286|181999231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
91058945|NCT01256944|181999236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91058946|NCT01256944|181999237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91058947|NCT01256944|181999238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
90818295|NCT02453555|181515492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference (Net)|-1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|-0.91|||Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted Mean Difference was calculated as: (adjusted mean change from baseline in HbA1c at Week 24 in Empagliflozin 10 mg/linagliptin 5 mg group) - (adjusted mean change from baseline in HbA1c at Week 24 in Linagliptin 5 mg + Placebo 10 mg group)|A restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach was used with baseline HbA1c as linear covariate and baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) (Modification of Diet in Renal Disease \[MDRD\] formula), prior use of antidiabetic drug, treatment, visit, visit by Treatment interaction as fixed effect(s). The covariance used to fit the model was unstructured.||-0.91|-1.36|<0.0001
90818296|NCT02453555|181515494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference (Net)|-1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|-0.99|||Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted Mean Difference was calculated as: (adjusted mean change from baseline in HbA1c at Week 52 in All Empagliflozin group) - (adjusted mean change from baseline in HbA1c at Week 52 in All Placebo group)|A restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach was used with baseline HbA1c as linear covariate and baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) (Modification of Diet in Renal Disease \[MDRD\] formula), prior use of antidiabetic drug, treatment, visit, visit by Treatment interaction as fixed effect(s). The covariance used to fit the model was unstructured.||-0.99|-1.45|<0.0001
90818297|NCT02453555|181515495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference (Net)|-1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|-0.96|||Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted Mean Difference was calculated as: (adjusted mean change from baseline in HbA1c at Week 52 in Empagliflozin 25 mg/linagliptin 5 mg group) - (adjusted mean change from baseline in HbA1c at Week 52 in Linagliptin 5 mg + Placebo 25 mg group)|A restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach was used with baseline HbA1c as linear covariate and baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) (Modification of Diet in Renal Disease \[MDRD\] formula), prior use of antidiabetic drug, treatment, visit, visit by Treatment interaction as fixed effect(s). The covariance used to fit the model was unstructured.||-0.96|-1.45|<0.0001
91058948|NCT01256944|181999240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91058949|NCT01256944|181999241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91058950|NCT01256944|181999242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91058951|NCT01256944|181999243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91058952|NCT01256944|181999245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91058953|NCT01256944|181999246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
90818298|NCT02453555|181515496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference (Net)|-1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|-0.84|||Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted Mean Difference was calculated as: (adjusted mean change from baseline in HbA1c at Week 52 in Empagliflozin 25 mg/linagliptin 5 mg group) - (adjusted mean change from baseline in HbA1c at Week 52 in All Placebo group)|A restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach was used with baseline HbA1c as linear covariate and baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) (Modification of Diet in Renal Disease \[MDRD\] formula), prior use of antidiabetic drug, treatment, visit, visit by Treatment interaction as fixed effect(s). The covariance used to fit the model was unstructured.||-0.84|-1.34|<0.0001
90818299|NCT03045341|181515497|SUPERIORITY|Analyses used all available data.||||||0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses to compare treatments were all intent-to-treat. Analyses were performed for all randomized patients who attended the first treatment session.||BWL versus no BWL||||0.0001
90818300|NCT03045341|181515497|SUPERIORITY|Analyses used all available data.||||||0.58|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses to compare treatments were all intent-to-treat. Analyses were performed for all randomized patients who attended the first treatment session.||NB versus placebo||||0.58
90818301|NCT03045341|181515498|SUPERIORITY|Analyses used all available data.||||||0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses to compare treatments were all intent-to-treat. Analyses were performed for all randomized patients who attended the first treatment session.||BWL versus no BWL||||0.0001
90818302|NCT03045341|181515498|SUPERIORITY|Analyses used all available data.||||||0.63|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses to compare treatments were all intent-to-treat. Analyses were performed for all randomized patients who attended the first treatment session.||NB versus placebo||||0.63
90818303|NCT03045341|181515499|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Chi-squared|||Analyses used all available data.||||.004
90818304|NCT03178669|181515505|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.1806|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.75|5.47||one-sided and adjusted for stratification factors, p values of less than 0.10 were regarded as statistically significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.47|0.75|0.1806
90818305|NCT03178669|181515505|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.6649|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.2|2.24||one-sided and adjusted for stratification factors, p values of less than 0.10 were regarded as statistically significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.24|0.20|0.6649
90818306|NCT03178669|181515505|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.8||||0.0247|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.53|9.47||one-sided and adjusted for stratification factors, p values of less than 0.10 were regarded as statistically significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||9.47|1.53|0.0247
90818307|NCT03178669|181515505|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.3279|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.52|3.88||one-sided and adjusted for stratification factors, p values of less than 0.10 were regarded as statistically significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.88|0.52|0.3279
90818308|NCT03178669|181515506|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.2115|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.69|4.99||one-sided and adjusted for stratification factors, p values of less than 0.10 were regarded as statistically significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.99|0.69|0.2115
91058954|NCT02892149|181999288|NON_INFERIORITY|Establishment of non-inferiority was based on a margin of -0.75 g/dL applied to the difference in mean change: Vadadustat minus Darbepoetin alfa.|Least squares mean difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|-0.1||||||Treatment comparison: Vadadustat minus Darbepoetin Alfa||-0.10|-0.23|
91058955|NCT02892149|181999289|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per Food and Drug Administration \[FDA\]) and 1.30 (per European Medicines Agency \[EMA\]).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.4745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.828|1.117|||Log Rank|Based on non-parametric analysis.||Statistical analysis from study AKB-6548-CI-0017 has been reported in this section.||1.117|0.828|0.4745
91058956|NCT02892149|181999289|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per FDA) and 1.30 (per EMA).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96|||=|0.4877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.833|1.113|||Log Rank|Based on non-parametric analysis.||MACE analysis was performed on pooled data from studies AKB-6548-CI-0016 (NCT02865850) and AKB-6548-CI-0017 (NCT02892149). Time to first MACE for the Vadadustat and Darbepoetin alfa treatment groups was as follows: participants with events = 355 and 377 respectively; median time to first event (Q1, Q3) = 46.14 (24.71, 77.14) weeks versus 47.00 (22.43, 74.43) weeks, respectively. Statistical analysis from the pooled data has been reported in this section.||1.113|0.833|=0.4877
91058957|NCT02892149|181999290|NON_INFERIORITY|Establishment of non-inferiority was based on a margin of -0.75 g/dL applied to the difference in mean change: Vadadustat minus Darbepoetin alfa.|Least squares mean difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|-0.12||||||Treatment comparison: Vadadustat minus Darbepoetin Alfa||-0.12|-0.25|
90818309|NCT03178669|181515506|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.3||||0.8498|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.06|1.34||one-sided and adjusted for stratification factors, p values of less than 0.10 were regarded as statistically significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.34|0.06|0.8498
90818310|NCT03178669|181515506|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.6||||0.0977|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.01|6.62||one-sided and adjusted for stratification factors, p values of less than 0.10 were regarded as statistically significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||6.62|1.01|0.0977
90818311|NCT03178669|181515506|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.522|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.32|2.84||one-sided and adjusted for stratification factors, p values of less than 0.10 were regarded as statistically significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.84|0.32|0.5220
90818312|NCT03178669|181515507|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.2335|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.74|2.94||one-sided and adjusted for stratification factors, p values of less than 0.10 were regarded as statistically significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.94|0.74|0.2335
90818313|NCT03178669|181515507|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.2511|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.73|2.69||one-sided and adjusted for stratification factors, p values of less than 0.10 were regarded as statistically significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.69|0.73|0.2511
90818314|NCT03178669|181515507|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.1162|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.96|3.52||one-sided and adjusted for stratification factors, p values of less than 0.10 were regarded as statistically significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.52|0.96|0.1162
90818315|NCT03178669|181515507|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.3467|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.63|2.4||one-sided and adjusted for stratification factors, p values of less than 0.10 were regarded as statistically significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.40|0.63|0.3467
90818316|NCT03178669|181515508|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.6326|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.5|1.5||one-sided and adjusted for stratification factors, p values of less than 0.10 were regarded as statistically significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.50|0.50|0.6326
90818317|NCT03178669|181515508|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.7127|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.45|1.37||one-sided and adjusted for stratification factors, p values of less than 0.10 were regarded as statistically significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.37|0.45|0.7127
90818318|NCT03178669|181515508|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.2658|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.75|2.34||one-sided and adjusted for stratification factors, p values of less than 0.10 were regarded as statistically significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.34|0.75|0.2658
90818319|NCT03178669|181515508|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.8301|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.36|1.16||one-sided and adjusted for stratification factors, p values of less than 0.10 were regarded as statistically significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.16|0.36|0.8301
90818320|NCT03178669|181515509|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.7994|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.32|1.27||one-sided and adjusted for stratification factors, p values of less than 0.10 were regarded as statistically significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.27|0.32|0.7994
90818321|NCT03178669|181515509|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.3||||0.9665|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.16|0.72||one-sided and adjusted for stratification factors, p values of less than 0.10 were regarded as statistically significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.72|0.16|0.9665
90818322|NCT03178669|181515509|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.2049|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.8|2.82||one-sided and adjusted for stratification factors, p values of less than 0.10 were regarded as statistically significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.82|0.80|0.2049
90818323|NCT03178669|181515509|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.6504|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.42|1.6||one-sided and adjusted for stratification factors, p values of less than 0.10 were regarded as statistically significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.60|0.42|0.6504
90818324|NCT03178669|181515510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4||||0.9207|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.18|0.93||one-sided and adjusted for stratification factors, p values of less than 0.10 were regarded as statistically significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.93|0.18|0.9207
90818325|NCT03178669|181515510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4||||0.9228|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.19|0.92||one-sided and adjusted for stratification factors, p values of less than 0.10 were regarded as statistically significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.92|0.19|0.9228
90818326|NCT03178669|181515510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.6636|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.39|1.61||one-sided and adjusted for stratification factors, p values of less than 0.10 were regarded as statistically significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.61|0.39|0.6636
90818327|NCT03178669|181515510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.7449|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.34|1.41||one-sided and adjusted for stratification factors, p values of less than 0.10 were regarded as statistically significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.41|0.34|0.7449
90818328|NCT02914561|181515513|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Percentage Difference|12.7||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|20.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test was stratified by concomitant use of oral, systemic corticosteroids (Yes/No) and of immunomodulators (Yes/No) at Day 1, and number of prior exposures to biologic agent (0, \>=1).||20.7|4.7|0.0017
90818329|NCT02914561|181515513|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Percentage Difference|5.2||||0.173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|12.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of oral, systemic corticosteroids (Yes/No) and of immunomodulators (Yes/No) at Day 1, and number of prior exposures to biologic agent (0, \>=1).||12.7|-2.4|0.1730
90818330|NCT02914561|181515513|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Percentage Difference|12.0||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|19.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of oral, systemic corticosteroids (Yes/No) and of immunomodulators (Yes/No) at Day 1, and number of prior exposures to biologic agent (\<=1, \>1).||19.9|4.1|0.0023
90818331|NCT02914561|181515513|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Percentage Difference|1.8||||0.6038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|8.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of oral, systemic corticosteroids (Yes/No) and of immunomodulators (Yes/No) at Day 1, and number of prior exposures to biologic agent (\<=1, \>1).||8.7|-5.2|0.6038
90818332|NCT02914561|181515514|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Percentage Difference|5.5||||0.1365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|12.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by use of corticosteroids (Yes/No), immunomodulators (Yes/No), and prior exposure to biologic agents (0, \>=1) at Day 1.||CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of oral, systemic corticosteroids (Yes/No) and of immunomodulators (Yes/No) at Day 1, and number of prior exposures to biologic agent (0, \>=1).||12.9|-2.0|0.1365
90818333|NCT02914561|181515514|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Percentage Difference|2.4||||0.5103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|9.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of oral, systemic corticosteroids (Yes/No) and of immunomodulators (Yes/No) at Day 1, and number of prior exposures to biologic agent (0, \>=1).||9.5|-4.8|0.5103
90818334|NCT02914561|181515514|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Percentage Difference|0.1||||0.9797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|6.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by use of corticosteroids (Yes/No), immunomodulators (Yes/No), and prior exposure to biologic agents (\<=1, \>1) at Day 1.||CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of oral, systemic corticosteroids (Yes/No) and of immunomodulators (Yes/No) at Day 1, and number of prior exposures to biologic agent (\<=1, \>1).||6.6|-6.5|0.9797
90818335|NCT02914561|181515514|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Percentage Difference|2.4||||0.4264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|8.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of oral, systemic corticosteroids (Yes/No) and of immunomodulators (Yes/No) at Day 1, and number of prior exposures to biologic agent (\<=1, \>1).||8.8|-3.9|0.4264
90818336|NCT02914561|181515515|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Percentage Difference|13.7||||0.0839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|28.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of immunomodulators (Yes/No), at Maintenance baseline, and history of exposure to a biologic agent (Yes/No).||28.4|-1.0|0.0839
90818337|NCT02914561|181515515|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Percentage Difference|1.5||||0.8288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|15.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of immunomodulators (Yes/No), at Maintenance baseline, and history of exposure to a biologic agent (Yes/No).||15.0|-12.1|0.8288
90818338|NCT02914561|181515516|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Percentage Difference|20.6||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.2|33.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of immunomodulators (Yes/No), at Maintenance baseline, and history of exposure to a biologic agent (Yes/No).||33.1|8.2|0.0038
90818339|NCT02914561|181515516|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Percentage Difference|5.8||||0.3466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|18.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of immunomodulators (Yes/No), at Maintenance baseline, and history of exposure to a biologic agent (Yes/No).||18.3|-6.6|0.3466
90818340|NCT02914561|181515517|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Percentage Difference|6.9||||0.0963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|15.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of oral, systemic corticosteroids (Yes/No) and of immunomodulators (Yes/No) at Day 1, and number of prior exposures to biologic agent (0, \>=1).||15.2|-1.4|0.0963
90818341|NCT02914561|181515517|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Percentage Difference|4.2||||0.305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|12.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of oral, systemic corticosteroids (Yes/No) and of immunomodulators (Yes/No) at Day 1, and number of prior exposures to biologic agent (0, \>=1).||12.2|-3.9|0.3050
90818342|NCT02914561|181515517|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Percentage Difference|11.9||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|20.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of oral, systemic corticosteroids (Yes/No) and of immunomodulators (Yes/No) at Day 1, and number of prior exposures to biologic agent (\<=1, \>1).||20.2|3.7|0.0039
90818343|NCT02914561|181515517|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Percentage Difference|1.1||||0.7556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|8.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of oral, systemic corticosteroids (Yes/No) and of immunomodulators (Yes/No) at Day 1, and number of prior exposures to biologic agent (\<=1, \>1).||8.5|-6.2|0.7556
90818344|NCT02914561|181515518|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Percentage Difference|12.0||||0.0074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|20.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of oral, systemic corticosteroids (Yes/No) and of immunomodulators (Yes/No) at Day 1, and number of prior exposures to biologic agent (0, ≥1).||20.8|3.2|0.0074
90818345|NCT02914561|181515518|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Percentage Difference|5.5||||0.2159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|14.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of oral, systemic corticosteroids (Yes/No) and of immunomodulators (Yes/No) at Day 1, and number of prior exposures to biologic agent (0, ≥1).||14.1|-3.2|0.2159
90818346|NCT02914561|181515518|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Percentage Difference|11.6||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|20.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of oral, systemic corticosteroids (Yes/No) and of immunomodulators (Yes/No) at Day 1, and number of prior exposures to biologic agent (\<=1, \>1).||20.6|2.6|0.0110
91058958|NCT02892149|181999291|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per FDA) and 1.30 (per EMA).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.3718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.832|1.097|||Log Rank|Based on non-parametric analysis.||Statistical analysis from study AKB-6548-CI-0017 has been reported in this section.||1.097|0.832|0.3718
91058959|NCT02892149|181999291|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per FDA) and 1.30 (per EMA).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96|||=|0.4096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.096|||Log Rank|Based on non-parametric analysis.||MACE analysis was performed on pooled data from studies AKB-6548-CI-0016 (NCT02865850) and AKB-6548-CI-0017 (NCT02892149). Time to first MACE plus hospitalization for heart failure or thromboembolic event Excluding vascular access thrombosis for the Vadadustat and Darbepoetin alfa treatment groups was as follows: participants with events = 420 and 449 respectively; median time to first event (Q1, Q3) = 42.07 (21.50, 71.14) weeks versus 45.29 (22.29, 72.43) weeks, respectively.||1.096|0.840|=0.4096
91058960|NCT02892149|181999292|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per FDA) and 1.30 (per EMA).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.3875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.777|1.131|||Gray's test|Based on non-parametric analysis.||Statistical analysis from study AKB-6548-CI-0017 has been reported in this section.||1.131|0.777|0.3875
91058961|NCT02892149|181999292|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per FDA) and 1.30 (per EMA).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95|||=|0.5007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.795|1.144|||Gray's test|||MACE analysis was performed on pooled data from studies AKB-6548-CI-0016 (NCT02865850) and AKB-6548-CI-0017 (NCT02892149). Time to first cardiovascular MACE for the Vadadustat and Darbepoetin alfa treatment groups was as follows: participants with events = 225 and 242 respectively; median time to first event (Q1, Q3) = 43.29 (21.71, 77.14) weeks versus 45.79 (21.14, 73.86) weeks, respectively. Statistical analysis from the pooled data has been reported in this section.||1.144|0.795|=0.5007
91058962|NCT02892149|181999293|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per FDA) and 1.30 (per EMA).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.6281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.761|1.203|||Gray's test|Based on non-parametric analysis.||Statistical analysis from study AKB-6548-CI-0017 has been reported in this section.||1.203|0.761|0.6281
90818347|NCT02914561|181515518|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Percentage Difference|8.2||||0.0593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|16.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of oral, systemic corticosteroids (Yes/No) and of immunomodulators (Yes/No) at Day 1, and number of prior exposures to biologic agent (\<=1, \>1).||16.7|-0.4|0.0593
90818348|NCT02914561|181515519|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Percentage Difference|16.8||||0.0382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|31.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of immunomodulators (Yes/No), at Maintenance baseline, and history of exposure to a biologic agent (Yes/No).||31.6|2.0|0.0382
90818349|NCT02914561|181515519|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Percentage Difference|5.8||||0.4263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|20.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of immunomodulators (Yes/No), at Maintenance baseline, and history of exposure to a biologic agent (Yes/No).||20.0|-8.5|0.4263
90818350|NCT02914561|181515520|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Percentage Difference|10.9||||0.1827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|26.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of immunomodulators (Yes/No) at Maintenance baseline, and history of exposure to a biologic agent (Yes/No).||26.4|-4.7|0.1827
90818351|NCT02914561|181515520|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Percentage Difference|4.0||||0.5944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|19.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of immunomodulators (Yes/No) at Maintenance baseline, and history of exposure to a biologic agent (Yes/No).||19.2|-11.1|0.5944
90818352|NCT02914561|181515521|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Percentage Difference|15.2||||0.0512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|29.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of immunomodulators (Yes/No) at Maintenance baseline, and history of exposure to a biologic agent (Yes/No).||29.3|1.0|0.0512
90818353|NCT02914561|181515521|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Percentage Difference|-0.2||||0.9801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|13.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of immunomodulators (Yes/No) at Maintenance baseline, and history of exposure to a biologic agent (Yes/No).||13.0|-13.3|0.9801
91058963|NCT02892149|181999293|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per FDA) and 1.30 (per EMA).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96|||=|0.6284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.766|1.195|||Gray's test|Based on non-parametric analysis.||MACE analysis was performed on pooled data from studies AKB-6548-CI-0016 (NCT02865850) and AKB-6548-CI-0017 (NCT02892149). Time to first cardiovascular death for the Vadadustat and Darbepoetin alfa treatment groups was as follows: participants with events = 150 and 160 respectively; median time to first event (Q1, Q3) = 43.71 (27.43, 77.14) weeks versus 49.29 (24.43, 74.07) weeks, respectively. Statistical analysis from the pooled data has been reported in this section.||1.195|0.766|=0.6284
91058964|NCT02892149|181999294|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per FDA) and 1.30 (per EMA).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.5811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.816|1.136|||Log Rank|Based on non-parametric analysis.||Statistical analysis from study AKB-6548-CI-0017 has been reported in this section.||1.136|0.816|0.5811
91058965|NCT02892149|181999294|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per FDA) and 1.30 (per EMA).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95|||=|0.4878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.812|1.118|||Log Rank|Based on non-parametric analysis.||MACE analysis was performed on pooled data from studies AKB-6548-CI-0016 (NCT02865850) and AKB-6548-CI-0017 (NCT02892149). Time to first all-cause mortality for the Vadadustat and Darbepoetin alfa treatment groups was as follows: participants with events = 291 and 310 respectively; median time to first event (Q1, Q3) = 50.00 (29.71, 79.00) weeks versus 49.57 (25.86, 77.29) weeks, respectively. Statistical analysis from the pooled data has been reported in this section.||1.118|0.812|=0.4878
91058966|NCT02054338|181999322|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.2|||Log Rank|||Kaplan-Meier curves and life tables by treatment arm to describe time-dependent parameters. Stratified Cox proportional model was used to compare the 2 treatment arms. A stratified Cox proportional hazards model and logistic regression were applied to the progression-free survival and to the tumour response, respectively.||1.20|0.91|0.54
91058967|NCT02054338|181999323|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.19|||Log Rank|||||1.19|0.87|0.86
91058968|NCT02054338|181999324|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|11.3||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.7|14.4|||Log Rank|||||14.4|8.7|0.10
91058969|NCT04080544|181999391|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance testing|Slope|-1.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.03|0.18||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, sex, and years of education.||Regression testing the relationship of temporal tau SUVR to episodic memory.||0.18|-3.03|.081
91058970|NCT04080544|181999391|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance test|Slope|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.19||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, sex, and years of education.||Regression testing the interaction of temporal tau SUVR and amyloid SUVR in prediction of episodic memory.||0.19|-0.32|.604
91058971|NCT04080544|181999392|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance test|Slope|1.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|3.39||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline age, sex, and years of education.||Regression testing the relationship between amyloid accumulation (annualized change score for amyloid SUVR) to temporal tau SUVR.||3.39|0.15|.033
91058972|NCT04080544|181999393|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance testing|Slope|0.272|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|1.66||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, sex, and years of education.||Regression testing the relationship of temporal tau SUVR to speed of processing.||1.66|-1.12|.699
91058973|NCT04080544|181999393|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance test|Slope|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.38||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, sex, and years of education.||Regression testing the interaction of temporal tau SUVR and amyloid SUVR in the prediction of speed of processing.||0.38|-0.06|.154
91058974|NCT04080544|181999394|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance testing|Slope|-1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.58|0.36||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, sex, and years of education.||Regression testing the relationship of temporal tau SUVR to reasoning function.||0.36|-2.58|.137
91058975|NCT04080544|181999394|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance test|Slope|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.37||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, sex, and years of education.||Regression testing the interaction of temporal tau SUVR and amyloid SUVR in prediction of reasoning.||0.37|-0.16|.428
90818354|NCT02914561|181515522|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Percentage Difference|14.0||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|33.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH test was stratified by immunomodulators (Yes) at Maintenance baseline, immunomodulators (No) at Maintenance baseline and history of exposure to biologic agent (Yes), and immunomodulators (No) at Maintenance baseline and history of exposure to biologic agent (No).||33.1|-5.1|0.1900
91058976|NCT04080544|181999395|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance test|Slope|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|0.86||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, sex, and years of education.||Regression testing the relationship of temporal tau SUVR to working memory.||0.86|-2.25|.376
91058977|NCT04080544|181999395|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance test|Slope|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.53||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, sex, and years of education.||Regression testing the interaction of temporal tau SUVR and amyloid SUVR in prediction of working memory.||0.53|0.01|.039
90818355|NCT02914561|181515522|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Percentage Difference|-5.5||||0.4248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.6|11.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH test was stratified by immunomodulators (Yes) at Maintenance baseline, immunomodulators (No) at Maintenance baseline and history of exposure to biologic agent (Yes), and immunomodulators (No) at Maintenance baseline and history of exposure to biologic agent (No).||11.6|-22.6|0.4248
90818356|NCT02914561|181515523|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Percentage Difference|19.9||||0.0122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|34.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH test was stratified by concomitant use immunomodulators (Yes/No), at Maintenance baseline, and history of exposure to a biologic agent (Yes/No).||34.0|5.7|0.0122
90818357|NCT02914561|181515523|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Percentage Difference|2.0||||0.7708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|16.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH test was stratified by concomitant use immunomodulators (Yes/No), at Maintenance baseline, and history of exposure to a biologic agent (Yes/No).||16.1|-12.0|0.7708
90818358|NCT02914561|181515524|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Percentage Difference|12.0||||0.2631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|32.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH test was stratified by immunomodulators (Yes) at Maintenance baseline, immunomodulators (No) at Maintenance baseline and history of exposure to biologic agent (Yes), and immunomodulators (No) at Maintenance baseline and history of exposure to biologic agent (No).||32.3|-8.3|0.2631
90818359|NCT02914561|181515524|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Percentage Difference|-3.4||||0.6444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.9|14.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH test was stratified by immunomodulators (Yes) at Maintenance baseline, immunomodulators (No) at Maintenance baseline and history of exposure to biologic agent (Yes), and immunomodulators (No) at Maintenance baseline and history of exposure to biologic agent (No).||14.0|-20.9|0.6444
91058978|NCT04080544|181999395|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance test|Slope|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.091|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.017 after Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons (3 post hoc tests).|sim_slopes (R interactions package)|||Post hoc simple slopes test of the amyloid x tau interaction (Statistical Analysis #2) at 1SD below the mean for amyloid||||.091
90818360|NCT01300455|181515533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.22|5.09|||Difference of the Least Squares Means|||Difference (Suvorexant - Placebo) of Least Squares Means||5.09|0.22|
90818361|NCT01300455|181515536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.49|0.42|||Difference in the Least Squares Means|||Day 1, Difference (Suvorexant - Placebo) of Least Squares Means||0.42|-0.49|
90818362|NCT01300455|181515536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.45|0.33|||Difference of the Least Squares Means|||Day 4, Difference (Suvorexant - Placebo) of Least Squares Means||0.33|-0.45|
90818363|NCT01300455|181515537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.31|2.79|||Difference in the Least Squares Means|||Day 1, SaO2 \<90%, Difference (Suvorexant - Placebo) of Least Squares Means||2.79|-1.31|
90818364|NCT01300455|181515537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|0.59|||Difference in the Least Squares Means|||Day 1, SaO2 \<85%, Difference (Suvorexant - Placebo) of Least Squares Means||0.59|-0.10|
90818365|NCT01300455|181515537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.59|1.01|||Difference in the Least Squares Means|||Day 4, SaO2 \<90%, Difference (Suvorexant - Placebo) of Least Squares Means||1.01|-0.59|
90818366|NCT01300455|181515537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.09|0.65|||Difference in the Least Squares Means|||Day 4, SaO2 \<85%, Difference (Suvorexant - Placebo) of Least Squares Means||0.65|-0.09|
90818367|NCT01300455|181515538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.61|0.49|||Difference of Least Squares Means|||Day 1, REM, Difference (Suvorexant - Placebo) of Least Squares Means||0.49|-0.61|
90818368|NCT01300455|181515538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.41|0.5|||Difference of the Least Sqares Means|||Day 1, Non-REM, Difference (Suvorexant - Placebo) of Least Squares Means||0.50|-0.41|
90818369|NCT01300455|181515538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.13|0.1|||Difference of the Least Squares Means|||Day 1, Wake, Difference (Suvorexant - Placebo) of Least Squares Means||0.10|-1.13|
90818370|NCT01300455|181515538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.24|0.5|||Difference of the Least Squares Means|||Day 4, REM, Difference (Suvorexant - Placebo) of Least Squares Means||0.50|-0.24|
90818371|NCT01300455|181515538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|0.43|||Difference in the Least Squares Means|||Day 4, Non-REM, Difference (Suvorexant - Placebo) of Least Squares Means||0.43|-0.40|
90818372|NCT01300455|181515538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.61|0.25|||Difference in the Least Squares Means|||Day 4, Wake, Difference (Suvorexant - Placebo) of Least Squares Means||0.25|-0.61|
90818373|NCT01300455|181515539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.2|2.26|||Difference of Least Squares Means|||Difference (Suvorexant - Placebo) of Least Squares Means||2.26|-3.20|
90818374|NCT01370265|181515588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for hyperemic global MBF between Regadenoson and Adenosine groups (per intervention), alpha level of 0.05.||||0.14
90818375|NCT01370265|181515590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for Cardiac Flow Rate (CFR) between Regadenoson and Adenosine groups (per intervention), alpha level of 0.05||||0.21
90818376|NCT01370265|181515591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis comparing Regadenoson and Adenosine groups (per intervention), for Hyperemic MBF Anterior, alpha level of 0.05.||||0.57
90818377|NCT01370265|181515591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis comparing Regadenoson and Adenosine groups (per intervention) for Hyperemic MBF Septum, alpha level of 0.05.||||0.13
90818378|NCT01370265|181515591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis comparing Regadenoson and Adenosine groups (per intervention)for Hyperemic MBF Inferior, alpha level of 0.05.||||0.44
90818379|NCT01370265|181515591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis comparing Regadenoson and Adenosine groups (per intervention) for Hyperemic MBF Lateral, alpha level of 0.05.||||0.74
90818380|NCT01370265|181515592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis comparing Regadenoson and Adenosine groups (per intervention for CFR Anterior, alpha level of 0.05.||||0.78
90818381|NCT01370265|181515592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis comparing Regadenoson and Adenosine groups (per intervention) for CFR Septum, alpha level of 0.05||||0.42
90818382|NCT01370265|181515592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis comparing Regadenoson and Adenosine groups (per intervention for CFR Inferior, alpha level of 0.05||||0.96
90818383|NCT01370265|181515592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis comparing Regadenoson and Adenosine groups (per intervention) for CFR Lateral, alpha level of 0.05.||||0.13
90818384|NCT01370265|181515593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis comparing Regadenoson and Adenosine groups (per intervention) for resting heart rate, alpha level of 0.05.||||0.28
90818385|NCT01370265|181515593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis comparing Regadenoson and Adenosine groups (per intervention) for hyperemic heart rate, alpha level of 0.05.||||0.51
90818386|NCT01370265|181515594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis comparing Regadenoson and Adenosine groups (per intervention) for systolic blood pressure, alpha level of 0.05.||||0.31
90818387|NCT01370265|181515594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis comparing Regadenoson and Adenosine groups (per intervention) for diastolic blood pressure, alpha level of 0.05.||||0.08
90818388|NCT01031979|181515600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Beta|-1.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|-0.59|||mixed effects/hierarchical linear model|||||-0.59|-2.29|<0.001
90818389|NCT01031979|181515601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.87||||0.39|TWO_SIDED||||||Hierarchical Linear Modeling|||||||.39
90818390|NCT01031979|181515602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.55||||0.58|TWO_SIDED||||||Hierarchical Linear Modeling|||||||.58
90818391|NCT01031979|181515603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Beta|-1.6||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.71|-0.49|||Hierarchical Linear Modeling|||||-0.49|-2.71|.03
90818392|NCT03592368|181515607|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90818393|NCT03592368|181515609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.32
90818394|NCT03592368|181515610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.12
91058979|NCT04080544|181999395|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance test|Slope|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.296|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.017 after Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons (3 post hoc tests).|sim_slopes (R interactions package)|||Post hoc simple slopes test of the amyloid x tau interaction (Statistical Analysis #2) at the mean for amyloid SUVR||||.296
90818395|NCT03831100|181515611|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.1||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.0|0.9||A two-sided P \< .10 indicates the a priori threshold for statistical significance. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear||The mean for each study arm represents the mean difference in the score at the post-treatment timepoint relative to the score at baseline. The mean difference (net) represents the mean model-based difference between study arms.|||0.9|-5.0|0.25
90818396|NCT03831100|181515612|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.8||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.1|-2.5||A two-sided P \< .10 indicates the a priori threshold for statistical significance. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear||The mean for each study arm represents the mean difference in the score at the post-treatment timepoint relative to the score at baseline. The mean difference (net) represents the mean model-based difference between study arms.|||-2.5|-9.1|.006
90818397|NCT03831100|181515613|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.9||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.9|0.0||A two-sided P \< .10 indicates the a priori threshold for statistical significance. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear||The mean for each study arm represents the mean difference in the score at the post-treatment timepoint relative to the score at baseline. The mean difference (net) represents the mean model-based difference between study arms.|||0.0|-15.9|.10
90818398|NCT03831100|181515614|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-17.1||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-25.6|-8.6||A two-sided P \< .10 indicates the a priori threshold for statistical significance. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||||-8.6|-25.6|.002
90818399|NCT03831100|181515615|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.4||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.8|2.0||A two-sided P \< .10 indicates the a priori threshold for statistical significance. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Model-based treatment effect estimated using ANCOVA with change score modeled as a function of treatment group (AC, BRIGHT/Therapist A, BRIGHT/Therapist B), with adjustment for baseline scores|||2.0|-8.8|0.30
90818400|NCT03831100|181515616|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-9.7||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.2|-4.2||A two-sided P \< .10 indicates the a priori threshold for statistical significance. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Model-based treatment effect estimated using ANCOVA with change score modeled as a function of treatment group (AC, BRIGHT/Therapist A, BRIGHT/Therapist B), with adjustment for baseline scores.|||-4.2|-15.2|0.005
90818401|NCT03831100|181515617|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.4||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.4|0.4||A two-sided P \< .10 indicates the a priori threshold for statistical significance. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Model-based treatment effect estimated using ANCOVA with change score modeled as a function of treatment group (AC, BRIGHT/Therapist A, BRIGHT/Therapist B), with adjustment for baseline scores.|||0.4|-6.4|0.064
90818402|NCT03831100|181515618|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.3||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.8|-0.8||A two-sided P \< .10 indicates the a priori threshold for statistical significance. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Model-based treatment effect estimated using ANCOVA with change score modeled as a function of treatment group (AC, BRIGHT/Therapist A, BRIGHT/Therapist B), with adjustment for baseline scores.|||-0.8|-7.8|0.046
90818403|NCT03831100|181515619|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.5||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.2|2.1||A two-sided P \< .10 indicates the a priori threshold for statistical significance. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Model-based treatment effect estimated using ANCOVA with change score modeled as a function of treatment group (AC, BRIGHT/Therapist A, BRIGHT/Therapist B), with adjustment for baseline scores.|||2.1|-5.2|0.49
90818404|NCT03831100|181515620|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.1||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.5|0.3||A two-sided P \< .10 indicates the a priori threshold for statistical significance. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Model-based treatment effect estimated using ANCOVA with change score modeled as a function of treatment group (AC, BRIGHT/Therapist A, BRIGHT/Therapist B), with adjustment for baseline scores.|||0.3|-6.5|0.14
91058980|NCT04080544|181999395|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance test|Slope|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.695|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.017 after Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons (3 post hoc tests).|sim_slopes (R interactions package)|||Post hoc simple slopes test of the amyloid x tau interaction (Statistical Analysis #2) at 1SD above the mean for amyloid SUVR||||.695
90818405|NCT03831100|181515621|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.2||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.2|6.3||A two-sided P \< .10 indicates the a priori threshold for statistical significance. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Model-based treatment effect estimated using ANCOVA with change score modeled as a function of treatment group (AC, BRIGHT/Therapist A, BRIGHT/Therapist B), with adjustment for baseline scores.|||6.3|0.2|0.082
90818406|NCT03831100|181515622|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.7||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|5.7||A two-sided P \< .10 indicates the a priori threshold for statistical significance. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Model-based treatment effect estimated using ANCOVA with change score modeled as a function of treatment group (AC, BRIGHT/Therapist A, BRIGHT/Therapist B), with adjustment for baseline scores.|||5.7|-0.4|0.15
90818407|NCT03831100|181515623|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.2||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.2|-0.7||A two-sided P \< .10 indicates the a priori threshold for statistical significance. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Model-based treatment effect estimated using ANCOVA with change score modeled as a function of treatment group (AC, BRIGHT/Therapist A, BRIGHT/Therapist B), with adjustment for baseline scores.|||-0.7|-5.2|0.22
90818408|NCT03831100|181515624|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.9||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.8|-0.1||A two-sided P \< .10 indicates the a priori threshold for statistical significance. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Model-based treatment effect estimated using ANCOVA with change score modeled as a function of treatment group (AC, BRIGHT/Therapist A, BRIGHT/Therapist B), with adjustment for baseline scores.|||-0.1|-5.8|0.093
90818409|NCT01107665|181515635|OTHER||Log Rank HR|0.784||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.54|||Log Rank|||||1.54|.41|0.49
90818410|NCT01115673|181515650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|469.37|||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.|SPRID6 = 0.25 times (PRID at 15 min + PRID at 30 min + PRID at 45 min + PRID at 60 min + PRID at 75 min + PRID at 90 min) + 0.5 times (PRID at 120 minutes) + PRID at 3 hours + PRID at 4 hours + PRID at 5 hours + PRID at 6 hours.|First test H1: acetaminophen 1000 mg vs placebo at the alpha = 0.025 one-tail level; If H1 was rejected then, Test H2: acetaminophen 1000 mg vs acetaminophen 650 mg, and Test H3: acetaminophen 650 mg vs placebo; H2 and H3 were each tested at the alpha = 0.025 one-tail level.||||<0.001
90818411|NCT01115673|181515650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|102.09||||0.001|||||||ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.|SPRID6 = 0.25 times (PRID at 15 min + PRID at 30 min + PRID at 45 min + PRID at 60 min + PRID at 75 min + PRID at 90 min) + 0.5 times (PRID at 120 minutes) + PRID at 3 hours + PRID at 4 hours + PRID at 5 hours + PRID at 6 hours.|First test H1: acetaminophen 1000 mg vs placebo at the alpha = 0.025 one-tail level; If H1 was rejected then, Test H2: acetaminophen 1000 mg vs acetaminophen 650 mg, and Test H3: acetaminophen 650 mg vs placebo; H2 and H3 were each tested at the alpha = 0.025 one-tail level.||||0.001
90818412|NCT01115673|181515650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|367.28|||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.|SPRID6 = 0.25 times (PRID at 15 min + PRID at 30 min + PRID at 45 min + PRID at 60 min + PRID at 75 min + PRID at 90 min) + 0.5 times (PRID at 120 minutes) + PRID at 3 hours + PRID at 4 hours + PRID at 5 hours + PRID at 6 hours.|First test H1: acetaminophen 1000 mg vs placebo at the alpha = 0.025 one-tail level; If H1 was rejected then, Test H2: acetaminophen 1000 mg vs acetaminophen 650 mg, and Test H3: acetaminophen 650 mg vs placebo; H2 and H3 were each tested at the alpha = 0.025 one-tail level.||||<0.001
91058981|NCT04080544|181999396|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance test|Slope|0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0004|0.004||A prior threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|No adjustments were made.||Regression testing the relationship of age(linear) to inferior temporal SUVR.||0.004|0.0004|.012
91058982|NCT04080544|181999396|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance test|Slope|-0.000005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00004||0.905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.000009|0.00008||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|No adjustments were made.||Regression testing the relationship of age(quadratic) to inferior temporal SUVR.||0.00008|-0.000009|.905
91058983|NCT04080544|181999396|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance test|Slope|0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001||0.006|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|No adjustments were made.||Regression testing the relationship of age(growth model) to inferior temporal SUVR. Growth modeling was performed using SPSS curve estimation.||||.006
91058984|NCT04080544|181999396|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance test|Slope|0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0003|0.003||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|No adjustments were made.||Regression testing the relationship of age(linear) to middle temporal gyrus SUVR.||0.003|0.0003|.018
90818413|NCT01115673|181515651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|226.7|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
91058985|NCT04080544|181999396|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance test|Slope|-0.00002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00004||0.579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0001|0.00006||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|No adjustment for multiple comparisons.||Regression testing the relationship of age(quadratic) to middle temporal SUVR.||0.00006|-0.0001|.579
91058986|NCT04080544|181999396|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance test|Slope|0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001||0.008|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|No adjustments were made.||Regression testing the relationship of age(growth model) to middle temporal SUVR. Growth modeling was performed using SPSS curve estimation.||||.008
91058987|NCT04080544|181999396|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance test|Slope|0.00006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0004||0.897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|0.001||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|No adjustments were made.||Regression testing the relationship of age to superior temporal SUVR.||0.001|-0.001|.897
91058988|NCT04080544|181999396|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance test|Slope|-0.00002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00003||0.539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00007|0.00003||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|No adjustments were made.||Regression testing the relationship of age(quadratic) to superior temporal SUVR.||0.00003|-0.00007|.539
90818414|NCT01115673|181515651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|48.14||||0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.001
90818415|NCT01115673|181515651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|178.56|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
90818416|NCT01115673|181515652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|242.67|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
90818417|NCT01115673|181515652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|53.95||||0.002||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.002
90818418|NCT01115673|181515652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|188.72|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
90818419|NCT01115673|181515653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.3||||0.037||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.037
90818420|NCT01115673|181515653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.36||||0.294||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.294
90818421|NCT01115673|181515653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.66||||0.006||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.006
90818422|NCT01115673|181515654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.85|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
90818423|NCT01115673|181515654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.946||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.946
90818424|NCT01115673|181515654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.99|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
90818425|NCT01115673|181515655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.68|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
90818426|NCT01115673|181515655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.06||||0.661||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.661
91058989|NCT04080544|181999396|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance test|Slope|-0.00001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0004||0.973|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|No adjustments were made.||Regression testing the relationship of age(growth model) to superior temporal SUVR. Growth modeling was performed using SPSS curve estimation.||||.973
91058990|NCT04080544|181999396|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance test|Slope|0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|0.003||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|No adjustments were made.||Regression testing the relationship of age(linear) to entorhinal SUVR.||0.003|-0.001|.200
91058991|NCT04080544|181999396|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance test|Slope|0.00005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00005||0.346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00005|0.0001||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|No adjustments were made.||Regression testing the relationship of age(quadratic) to entorhinal SUVR.||0.0001|-0.00005|.346
90818427|NCT01115673|181515655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.62|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
90818428|NCT01115673|181515656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|40.56|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
90818429|NCT01115673|181515656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.88||||0.13||95.0||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.13
90818430|NCT01115673|181515656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|36.67|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
91058992|NCT04080544|181999396|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance test|Slope|0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001||0.283|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|No adjustments were made.||Regression testing relationship of age(growth model) to entorhinal SUVR. Growth modeling was performed using SPSS curve estimation.||||.283
90818431|NCT01115673|181515657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|43.97|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
90818432|NCT01115673|181515657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.42||||0.041||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.041
90818433|NCT01115673|181515657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|38.55|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
90818434|NCT01115673|181515658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|44.97|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
90818435|NCT01115673|181515658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.34||||0.02||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.02
90818436|NCT01115673|181515658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|38.63|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
90818437|NCT01115673|181515659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|47.46|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
90818438|NCT01115673|181515659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.08||||0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.001
90818439|NCT01115673|181515659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|38.38|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
90818440|NCT01115673|181515660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|43.42|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
90818441|NCT01115673|181515660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.83||||0.002||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.002
90818442|NCT01115673|181515660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|34.59|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
90818443|NCT01115673|181515661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|41.99|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
90818444|NCT01115673|181515661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.57|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
90818445|NCT01115673|181515661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|31.42|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
90818446|NCT01115673|181515662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|38.04|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
90818447|NCT01115673|181515662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.82|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
90818448|NCT01115673|181515662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.22|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
90818449|NCT01115673|181515663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.45|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
90818450|NCT01115673|181515663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.58||||0.002||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.002
90818451|NCT01115673|181515663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.87|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
90818452|NCT01115673|181515664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.35||||0.028||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.028
90818453|NCT01115673|181515664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.13||||0.462||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.462
90818454|NCT01115673|181515664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.48||||0.008||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.008
90818455|NCT01115673|181515665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.81|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
90818456|NCT01115673|181515665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.907||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.907
90818457|NCT01115673|181515665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.11|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
90818458|NCT01115673|181515666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|38.19|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
90818459|NCT01115673|181515666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.32||||0.655||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.655
90818460|NCT01115673|181515666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|36.87|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
90818461|NCT01115673|181515667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|46.15|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
91058993|NCT04080544|181999396|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance test|Slope|0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0004|0.003||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|No adjustments were made.||Regression testing the relationship of age(linear) to parahippocampal SUVR.||0.003|0.0004|.011
90818462|NCT01115673|181515667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.33||||0.155||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.155
90818463|NCT01115673|181515667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|41.82|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
90818464|NCT01115673|181515668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|49.69|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
90818465|NCT01115673|181515668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.04||||0.05||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.05
90818466|NCT01115673|181515668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|43.65|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
90818467|NCT01115673|181515669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|49.83|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
90818468|NCT01115673|181515669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.74||||0.032||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.032
90818469|NCT01115673|181515669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|43.1|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
90818470|NCT01115673|181515670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|52.36|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
91058994|NCT04080544|181999396|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance test|Slope|0.00002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00003||0.536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00004|0.00009||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|No adjustments were made.||Regression testing the relationship of age(quadratic) to parahippocampal SUVR.||0.00009|-0.00004|.536
90818471|NCT01115673|181515670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.52||||0.003||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.003
90818472|NCT01115673|181515670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|42.84|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
90818473|NCT01115673|181515671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|46.8|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
90818474|NCT01115673|181515671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.04||||0.002||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.002
90818475|NCT01115673|181515671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|36.75|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
90818476|NCT01115673|181515672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|43.84|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
90818477|NCT01115673|181515672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.82|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
91058995|NCT04080544|181999396|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance test|Slope|0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001||0.013|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|No adjustments were made.||Regression testing the relationship of age(growth model) to parahippocampal SUVR. Growth modeling was performed using SPSS curve estimation.||||.013
91058996|NCT04080544|181999396|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance test|Slope|0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0005|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.003||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|No adjustments were made.||Regression testing the relationship of age(linear) to fusiform SUVR.||0.003|0.001|<.001
91058997|NCT04080544|181999396|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance test|Slope|0.00001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00003||0.692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00004|0.00006||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|No adjustments were made.||Regression testing the relationship of age(quadratic) to fusiform SUVR.||0.00006|-0.00004|.692
90818478|NCT01115673|181515672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.02|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
90818479|NCT01115673|181515673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|38.4|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
90818480|NCT01115673|181515673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.68|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
90818481|NCT01115673|181515673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|26.72|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
90818482|NCT01115673|181515674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.94|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
90818483|NCT01115673|181515674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.4||||0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.001
90818484|NCT01115673|181515674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.55|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
90818485|NCT01115673|181515675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.65||||0.027||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.027
90818486|NCT01115673|181515675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.49||||0.365||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.365
90818487|NCT01115673|181515675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.14||||0.005||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.005
91058998|NCT04080544|181999396|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance test|Slope|0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0004|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|No adjustments were made.||Regression testing the relationship of age(growth model) to fusiform SUVR. Growth modeling was performed using SPSS curve estimation.||||<.001
91058999|NCT04080544|181999397|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance testing|Slope|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.53||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, sex, and years of education.||Regression testing the relationship of temporal tau SUVR to inferior temporal gyrus cortical thickness.||0.53|-0.18|.331
91059000|NCT04080544|181999397|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance testing|Slope|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.39||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, sex, and years of education||Regression testing the relationship between temporal tau SUVR to middle temporal gyrus cortical thickness.||0.39|-0.24|.636
91059001|NCT04080544|181999397|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance testing|Slope|0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.7||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, sex, and years of education.||Regression testing the relationship between temporal tau SUVR to superior temporal gyrus cortical thickness.||0.70|0.05|.024
91059002|NCT04080544|181999397|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance testing|Slope|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.18||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, sex, and years of education.||Regression testing the relationship between temporal tau SUVR to parahippocampal gyrus cortical thickness.||0.18|-0.73|.235
91059003|NCT04080544|181999397|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance testing|Slope|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|1.01||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, sex, and years of education.||Regression testing the relationship between temporal tau SUVR to entorhinal gyrus cortical thickness.||1.01|-0.63|.639
91059004|NCT04080544|181999397|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance test|Slope|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.5||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, sex, and years of education.||Regression testing the relationship of temporal tau SUVR to fusiform gyrus cortical thickness.||0.50|-0.13|.252
91059005|NCT04080544|181999398|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance test|Slope|-233.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|469.31||0.619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1163.28|695.79||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, sex, and years of education.||Regression testing the relationship of temporal tau SUVR to hippocampal volume.||695.79|-1163.28|.619
90818488|NCT01115673|181515676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|45.65|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
90818489|NCT01115673|181515676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45||||0.923||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.923
90818490|NCT01115673|181515676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|46.1|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
90818491|NCT01115673|181515677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|71.87|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
91059006|NCT04080544|181999399|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance test|Slope|9260.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3836.92||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1660.52|16859.51||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, sex, and years of education.||Regression testing the relationship of temporal tau SUVR to volume of white matter hypointensities.||16859.51|1660.52|.017
91059007|NCT04080544|181999400|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance test|Slope|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.99||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, sex, and years of education.||Regression testing the relationship of temporal tau SUVR to activation of inferior frontal gyrus (beta) on the semantic judgment fMRI task.||0.99|-0.41|.411
91059008|NCT04080544|181999400|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance test|Slope|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.81||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, sex, and years of education.||Regression testing the relationship of temporal tau SUVR to middle temporal gyrus activation (beta) on the semantic judgment fMRI task.||0.81|-0.34|.412
91059009|NCT04080544|181999400|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance test|Slope|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|1.09||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, sex, and years of education.||Regression testing the relationship of temporal tau SUVR to precuneus gyrus activation (beta) on the semantic judgment fMRI task.||1.09|-0.48|.438
91059010|NCT04080544|181999401|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance test|Slope|-1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|-0.14||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, sex, and years of education.||Regression testing the relationship of temporal tau SUVR to resting-state system segregation.||-0.14|-2.12|.026
91059011|NCT03185013|181999407|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the one-sided p-value was \<0.025 and the corresponding lower bound of the 95% CI exceeded zero (0).|Difference in percentage|11.4||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|21.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||||21.2|-0.4|0.029
91059012|NCT03185013|181999409|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI exceeded 0.|Difference in percentage|12.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|24.5||||||||24.5|-0.6|
91059013|NCT03185013|181999410|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI exceeded 0.|Difference in percentage|18.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.1|29.4||||||||29.4|5.1|
91059014|NCT03185013|181999411|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI exceeded 0.|Difference in percentage|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|23.5||||||||23.5|1.7|
91059015|NCT03185013|181999412|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI exceeded 0.|Difference in percentage|11.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|20.3||||||||20.3|1.5|
91059016|NCT03185013|181999413|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI exceeded 0.|Difference in percentage|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|10.3||||||||10.3|-11.5|
91059017|NCT03185013|181999414|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI exceeded 0.|Difference in percentage|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|20.1||||||||20.1|-0.5|
91059018|NCT03185013|181999415|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI exceeded 0.|Location shift|224.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.0|224.0||||||Week 15: HPV-16 E7||224.0|24.0|
91059019|NCT03185013|181999415|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI exceeded 0.|Location shift|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||||||Week 36: HPV-16 E7||0.0|0.0|
91059020|NCT03185013|181999415|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI exceeded 0.|Location Shift|2024.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2000.0|6050.0||||||Week 15: HPV-18 E7||6050.0|2000.0|
90818492|NCT01115673|181515677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.38||||0.653||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.653
91059021|NCT03185013|181999415|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI exceeded 0.|Location Shift|224.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|74.0|674.0||||||Week 36: HPV-18 E7||674.0|74.0|
91059022|NCT03185013|181999416|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI exceeded 0.|Location shift|11.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.33|20.0||||||HPV-16 E6: Week 15||20.00|8.33|
91059023|NCT03185013|181999416|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI exceeded 0.|Difference in median|8.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.33|11.67||||||HPV-16 E6: Week 36||11.67|3.33|
91059024|NCT03185013|181999416|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI exceeded 0.|Difference in median|10.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|15.0||||||HPV-16 E7: Week 15||15.00|5.00|
91059025|NCT03185013|181999416|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI exceeded 0.|Difference in median|7.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.67|10.0||||||HPV-16 E7: Week 36||10.00|1.67|
91059026|NCT03185013|181999416|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI exceeded 0.|Difference in median|50.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.67|66.67||||||HPV-18 E6: Week 15||66.67|31.67|
91059027|NCT03185013|181999416|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI exceeded 0.|Difference in median|38.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.33|51.67||||||HPV-18 E6: Week 36||51.67|18.33|
91059028|NCT03185013|181999416|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI exceeded 0.|Difference in median|14.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.67|18.33||||||HPV-18 E7: Week 15||18.33|6.67|
91059029|NCT03185013|181999416|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI exceeded 0.|Difference in median|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|15.0||||||HPV-18 E7: Week 36||15.00|5.00|
91059030|NCT03185013|181999417|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI exceeded 0.|Difference in median|0.025|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.002|0.046||||||Parameter: CD8+CD137+Perforin+||0.046|0.002|
91059031|NCT03185013|181999417|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI exceeded 0.|Difference in median|0.011|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.014||||||Parameter: CD8+CD38+Perforin+||0.014|0.000|
91059032|NCT03185013|181999417|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI exceeded 0.|Difference in median|0.044|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.017|0.058||||||Parameter: CD8+CD69+Perforin+||0.058|0.017|
91059033|NCT01175031|181999463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||signed-rank tests|||||||0.003
91059034|NCT00555360|181999467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.74|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.0||0.975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.62|4.77|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.77|-4.62|.975
91059035|NCT00555360|181999468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.87|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.7||0.349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.78|2.05|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.05|-5.78|.349
91059036|NCT00555360|181999469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent|14.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.0||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|24.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||24.2|3.9|.007
91059037|NCT02056392|181999470|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|All one-sided 95% confidence intervals at each time point for the selumetinib difference versus placebo (2-sided 90% CIs) should be less than 10ms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.8|1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||47 evaluable volunteers gives 90% power to show non-inferiority of selumetinib versus placebo across all 10 post-dose time points, using paired T-test, 1-sided alpha=0.05 and assuming a true difference of 3 msec.||1.5|-1.8|
91059038|NCT02056392|181999470|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|All one-sided 95% confidence intervals at each time point for the selumetinib difference versus placebo (2-sided 90% CIs) should be less than 10ms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.4|7.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||47 evaluable volunteers gives 90% power to show non-inferiority of selumetinib versus placebo across all 10 post-dose time points, using paired T-test, 1-sided alpha=0.05 and assuming a true difference of 3 msec.||7.7|4.4|
91059039|NCT02056392|181999471|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|All one-sided 95% confidence intervals at each time point for the selumetinib difference versus placebo (2-sided 90% CIs) should be less than 10ms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.0|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||47 evaluable volunteers gives 90% power to show non-inferiority of selumetinib versus placebo across all 10 post-dose time points, using paired T-test, 1-sided alpha=0.05 and assuming a true difference of 3 msec.||1.3|-2.0|
91059040|NCT02056392|181999471|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|All one-sided 95% confidence intervals at each time point for the selumetinib difference versus placebo (2-sided 90% CIs) should be less than 10ms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.6|10.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||47 evaluable volunteers gives 90% power to show non-inferiority of selumetinib versus placebo across all 10 post-dose time points, using paired T-test, 1-sided alpha=0.05 and assuming a true difference of 3 msec.||10.8|7.6|
91059041|NCT02056392|181999472|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|All one-sided 95% confidence intervals at each time point for the selumetinib difference versus placebo (2-sided 90% CIs) should be less than 10ms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|2.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||47 evaluable volunteers gives 90% power to show non-inferiority of selumetinib versus placebo across all 10 post-dose time points, using paired T-test, 1-sided alpha=0.05 and assuming a true difference of 3 msec.||2.5|-0.7|
91078406|NCT00824382|182042350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.191|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.149||0.2016||95.0|-0.485|0.103|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.103|-0.485|0.2016
90818493|NCT01115673|181515677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|69.49|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
90818494|NCT01115673|181515678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|86.71|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
90818495|NCT01115673|181515678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.21||||0.138||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.138
90818496|NCT01115673|181515678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|78.49|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
90818497|NCT01115673|181515679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|93.66|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
90818498|NCT01115673|181515679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.46||||0.043||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.043
90818499|NCT01115673|181515679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|82.2|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
90818500|NCT01115673|181515680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|94.8|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
91059042|NCT02056392|181999472|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|All one-sided 95% confidence intervals at each time point for the selumetinib difference versus placebo (2-sided 90% CIs) should be less than 10ms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.3|11.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||47 evaluable volunteers gives 90% power to show non-inferiority of selumetinib versus placebo across all 10 post-dose time points, using paired T-test, 1-sided alpha=0.05 and assuming a true difference of 3 msec.||11.5|8.3|
91059043|NCT02056392|181999473|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|All one-sided 95% confidence intervals at each time point for the selumetinib difference versus placebo (2-sided 90% CIs) should be less than 10ms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.2|2.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||47 evaluable volunteers gives 90% power to show non-inferiority of selumetinib versus placebo across all 10 post-dose time points, using paired T-test, 1-sided alpha=0.05 and assuming a true difference of 3 msec.||2.0|-1.2|
90818501|NCT01115673|181515680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.08||||0.024||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.024
90818502|NCT01115673|181515680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|81.72|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
90818503|NCT01115673|181515681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|99.82|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
90818504|NCT01115673|181515681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.6||||0.002||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.002
90818505|NCT01115673|181515681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|81.23|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
90818506|NCT01115673|181515682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|90.22|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
90818507|NCT01115673|181515682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.87||||0.002||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.002
90818508|NCT01115673|181515682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|71.35|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
90818509|NCT01115673|181515683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|85.82|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
90818510|NCT01115673|181515683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.39|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
91059044|NCT02056392|181999473|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|All one-sided 95% confidence intervals at each time point for the selumetinib difference versus placebo (2-sided 90% CIs) should be less than 10ms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.5|11.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||47 evaluable volunteers gives 90% power to show non-inferiority of selumetinib versus placebo across all 10 post-dose time points, using paired T-test, 1-sided alpha=0.05 and assuming a true difference of 3 msec.||11.8|8.5|
91059045|NCT02056392|181999474|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|All one-sided 95% confidence intervals at each time point for the selumetinib difference versus placebo (2-sided 90% CIs) should be less than 10ms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.8|1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||47 evaluable volunteers gives 90% power to show non-inferiority of selumetinib versus placebo across all 10 post-dose time points, using paired T-test, 1-sided alpha=0.05 and assuming a true difference of 3 msec.||1.5|-1.8|
91059046|NCT02056392|181999474|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|All one-sided 95% confidence intervals at each time point for the selumetinib difference versus placebo (2-sided 90% CIs) should be less than 10ms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.9||||||90.0|10.3|13.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||47 evaluable volunteers gives 90% power to show non-inferiority of selumetinib versus placebo across all 10 post-dose time points, using paired T-test, 1-sided alpha=0.05 and assuming a true difference of 3 msec.||13.6|10.3|
91059047|NCT02056392|181999475|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|All one-sided 95% confidence intervals at each time point for the selumetinib difference versus placebo (2-sided 90% CIs) should be less than 10ms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.1|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||47 evaluable volunteers gives 90% power to show non-inferiority of selumetinib versus placebo across all 10 post-dose time points, using paired T-test, 1-sided alpha=0.05 and assuming a true difference of 3 msec.||0.2|-3.1|
91059048|NCT02056392|181999475|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|All one-sided 95% confidence intervals at each time point for the selumetinib difference versus placebo (2-sided 90% CIs) should be less than 10ms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.2|12.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||47 evaluable volunteers gives 90% power to show non-inferiority of selumetinib versus placebo across all 10 post-dose time points, using paired T-test, 1-sided alpha=0.05 and assuming a true difference of 3 msec.||12.5|9.2|
91059049|NCT02056392|181999476|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|All one-sided 95% confidence intervals at each time point for the selumetinib difference versus placebo (2-sided 90% CIs) should be less than 10ms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.4|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||47 evaluable volunteers gives 90% power to show non-inferiority of selumetinib versus placebo across all 10 post-dose time points, using paired T-test, 1-sided alpha=0.05 and assuming a true difference of 3 msec.||-0.1|-3.4|
90818511|NCT01115673|181515683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|63.44|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
90818512|NCT01115673|181515684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|76.44|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
91059050|NCT02056392|181999476|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|All one-sided 95% confidence intervals at each time point for the selumetinib difference versus placebo (2-sided 90% CIs) should be less than 10ms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.1|10.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||47 evaluable volunteers gives 90% power to show non-inferiority of selumetinib versus placebo across all 10 post-dose time points, using paired T-test, 1-sided alpha=0.05 and assuming a true difference of 3 msec.||10.4|7.1|
91059051|NCT02056392|181999477|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|All one-sided 95% confidence intervals at each time point for the selumetinib difference versus placebo (2-sided 90% CIs) should be less than 10ms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.9|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||47 evaluable volunteers gives 90% power to show non-inferiority of selumetinib versus placebo across all 10 post-dose time points, using paired T-test, 1-sided alpha=0.05 and assuming a true difference of 3 msec.||0.4|-2.9|
90818513|NCT01115673|181515684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.5|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
90818514|NCT01115673|181515684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|53.94|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
90818515|NCT01115673|181515685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|66.39|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
91059052|NCT02056392|181999477|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|All one-sided 95% confidence intervals at each time point for the selumetinib difference versus placebo (2-sided 90% CIs) should be less than 10ms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.2|10.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||47 evaluable volunteers gives 90% power to show non-inferiority of selumetinib versus placebo across all 10 post-dose time points, using paired T-test, 1-sided alpha=0.05 and assuming a true difference of 3 msec.||10.5|7.2|
91059053|NCT02056392|181999478|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|All one-sided 95% confidence intervals at each time point for the selumetinib difference versus placebo (2-sided 90% CIs) should be less than 10ms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.4|-3.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||47 evaluable volunteers gives 90% power to show non-inferiority of selumetinib versus placebo across all 10 post-dose time points, using paired T-test, 1-sided alpha=0.05 and assuming a true difference of 3 msec.||-3.1|-6.4|
91059054|NCT02056392|181999478|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|All one-sided 95% confidence intervals at each time point for the selumetinib difference versus placebo (2-sided 90% CIs) should be less than 10ms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.0|9.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||47 evaluable volunteers gives 90% power to show non-inferiority of selumetinib versus placebo across all 10 post-dose time points, using paired T-test, 1-sided alpha=0.05 and assuming a true difference of 3 msec.||9.3|6.0|
91059055|NCT02056392|181999479|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|All one-sided 95% confidence intervals at each time point for the selumetinib difference versus placebo (2-sided 90% CIs) should be less than 10ms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.1|-0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||47 evaluable volunteers gives 90% power to show non-inferiority of selumetinib versus placebo across all 10 post-dose time points, using paired T-test, 1-sided alpha=0.05 and assuming a true difference of 3 msec.||-0.9|-4.1|
91059056|NCT02056392|181999479|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|All one-sided 95% confidence intervals at each time point for the selumetinib difference versus placebo (2-sided 90% CIs) should be less than 10ms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.4|5.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||47 evaluable volunteers gives 90% power to show non-inferiority of selumetinib versus placebo across all 10 post-dose time points, using paired T-test, 1-sided alpha=0.05 and assuming a true difference of 3 msec.||5.7|2.4|
91059057|NCT00658021|181999489|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.363||0.444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|0.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Adjusted LS mean and treatment group difference in the change from baseline values at visit are obtained from a MMRM including treatment, baseline HbA1c, background diabetes therapy strata, week of visit, baseline HbA1c-by-visit interaction and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects using an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.45|-1.01|0.444
91059058|NCT00658021|181999491|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.562|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Treatment difference in HbA1c \< 7% at Week 28:~Treatment group comparison is based on CMH test stratified by screening HbA1c and background diabetes therapy strata. P-value is from the general association statistics."||||0.562
91059059|NCT00658021|181999491|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.621|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Treatment difference in HbA1c \<= 6.5% at Week 28:~Treatment group comparison is based on CMH test stratified by screening HbA1c and background diabetes therapy strata. P-value is from the general association statistics."||||0.621
91059060|NCT00658021|181999491|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.229|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Treatment difference in HbA1c \< 6.5% at Week 28:~Treatment group comparison is based on CMH test stratified by screening HbA1c and background diabetes therapy strata. P-value is from the general association statistics."||||0.229
91059061|NCT00658021|181999492|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.327||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|-0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Treatment difference in body weight at Week 4:~Adjusted LS mean and treatment group difference in the change from baseline values at visit are obtained from a MMRM including treatment, baseline body weight, screening HbA1c strata, background diabetes therapy strata, week of visit, baseline body weight-by visit interaction and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects using an unstructured covariance matrix."||-0.28|-1.58|0.005
91059062|NCT00658021|181999492|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.669||0.314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Treatment difference in body weight at Week 12:~Adjusted LS mean and treatment group difference in the change from baseline values at visit are obtained from a MMRM including treatment, baseline body weight, screening HbA1c strata, background diabetes therapy strata, week of visit, baseline body weight-by visit interaction and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects using an unstructured covariance matrix."||0.65|-2.00|0.314
91059063|NCT00658021|181999492|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94||0.692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.24|1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Treatment difference in body weight at Week 20:~Adjusted LS mean and treatment group difference in the change from baseline values at visit are obtained from a MMRM including treatment, baseline body weight, screening HbA1c strata, background diabetes therapy strata, week of visit, baseline body weight-by visit interaction and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects using an unstructured covariance matrix."||1.50|-2.24|0.692
91059064|NCT00658021|181999492|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.065||0.679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.56|1.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Treatment difference in body weight at Week 28:~Adjusted LS mean and treatment group difference in the change from baseline values at visit are obtained from a MMRM including treatment, baseline body weight, screening HbA1c strata, background diabetes therapy strata, week of visit, baseline body weight-by visit interaction and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects using an unstructured covariance matrix."||1.68|-2.56|0.679
91059065|NCT00658021|181999493|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.281|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.614|1.052|||ANCOVA|||Adjusted LS Mean and treatment group difference in the change from baseline values at Week 28 are obtained from multiple imputation ANCOVA including treatment, baseline fasting serum glucose, screening HbA1c strata and background diabetes therapy strata as fixed effects.||1.052|-1.614|0.679
91059066|NCT00658021|181999494|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.189|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5151||0.714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.821|1.199|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference for pre-meal SMBG: Adjusted LS Mean and treatment group difference in the change from baseline values at Week 28 are obtained from multiple imputation ANCOVA including treatment, baseline SMBG measure, screening HbA1c strata and background diabetes therapy strata as fixed effects.||1.199|-0.821|0.714
91059067|NCT00658021|181999494|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.513|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5245||0.329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.516|1.541|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference for post-meal SMBG: Adjusted LS Mean and treatment group difference in the change from baseline values at Week 28 are obtained from multiple imputation ANCOVA including treatment, baseline SMBG measure, screening HbA1c strata and background diabetes therapy strata as fixed effects.||1.541|-0.516|0.329
91059068|NCT00658021|181999494|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4015||0.601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.577|0.997|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference for post-prandial excursion SMBG: Adjusted LS Mean and treatment group difference in the change from baseline values at Week 28 are obtained from multiple imputation ANCOVA including treatment, baseline SMBG measure, screening HbA1c strata and background diabetes therapy strata as fixed effects.||0.997|-0.577|0.601
91059069|NCT00658021|181999494|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.316|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4749||0.505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.615|1.248|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference for overall SMBG: Adjusted LS Mean and treatment group difference in the change from baseline values at Week 28 are obtained from multiple imputation ANCOVA including treatment, baseline SMBG measure, screening HbA1c strata and background diabetes therapy strata as fixed effects.||1.248|-0.615|0.505
91059070|NCT00658021|181999495|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-10.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|43.187||0.802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-95.48|73.84|||ANCOVA|||Adjusted LS Mean and treatment group difference in the change from baseline values at Week 28 are obtained from multiple imputation ANCOVA including treatment, baseline fasting serum insulin, screening HbA1c strata and background diabetes therapy strata as fixed effects.||73.84|-95.48|0.802
91059071|NCT00658021|181999496|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.542||0.836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.19|32.51|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference for HOMA-B: Adjusted LS Mean and treatment group difference in the change from baseline values at Week 28 are obtained from multiple imputation ANCOVA including treatment, baseline %HOMA-B, screening HbA1c strata and background diabetes therapy strata as fixed effects.||32.51|-40.19|0.836
91059072|NCT00658021|181999496|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.846||0.941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.82|7.26|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference for HOMA-S: Adjusted LS Mean and treatment group difference in the change from baseline values at Week 28 are obtained from multiple imputation ANCOVA including treatment, baseline %HOMA-S, screening HbA1c strata and background diabetes therapy strata as fixed effects.||7.26|-7.82|0.941
90818516|NCT01115673|181515685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.98||||0.002||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.002
91059073|NCT05819203|181999532|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0013|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the means of AUC on global score or ARSSQ during the first 10 days of the study between both groups.||||0.0013
91059074|NCT05819203|181999533|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0209|||||||Cox survival regression and p Wald|||Comparison of the mean duration of common cold during the study between both groups.||||0.0209
90818517|NCT01115673|181515685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|45.41|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
90818518|NCT01115673|181515686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided). p-Values are based on the Wilcoxon test from PROC LIFETEST that compared survival curves.|Wilcoxon test, from SAS PROC LIFETEST|||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
90818519|NCT01115673|181515686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided). p-Values are based on the Wilcoxon test from PROC LIFETEST that compared survival curves.|Wilcoxon test, from SAS PROC LIFETEST|||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.26
90818520|NCT01115673|181515686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided). p-Values are based on the Wilcoxon test from PROC LIFETEST that compared survival curves.|Wilcoxon test, from SAS PROC LIFETEST|||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
91059075|NCT05819203|181999534|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0399|||||||Cox survival regression and p Wald|||Comparison of the mean duration of impact of common cold on quality of life during the study between both groups.||||0.0399
91059076|NCT05819203|181999535|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0015|||||||Poisson regression|||||||0.0015
91059077|NCT05819203|181999536|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||not significant|Poisson regression|||||||>0.05
91059078|NCT05819203|181999537|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0029|||||||Poisson regression|||||||0.0029
90818521|NCT01115673|181515687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided). p-Values are based on the Wilcoxon test from PROC LIFETEST that compared survival curves.|Wilcoxon test, from SAS PROC LIFETEST|||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
90818522|NCT01115673|181515687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.934||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided). p-Values are based on the Wilcoxon test from PROC LIFETEST that compared survival curves.|Wilcoxon test, from SAS PROC LIFETEST|||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.934
90818523|NCT01115673|181515687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided). p-Values are based on the Wilcoxon test from PROC LIFETEST that compared survival curves.|Wilcoxon test, from SAS PROC LIFETEST|||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
90818524|NCT01115673|181515688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided). p-Values are based on the log-rank test from PROC LIFETEST that compared survival curves.|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups. Subjects not rescuing during the 6-hour study period had their time to rescue set to 6 hours and were censored.||||<0.001
91059079|NCT05819203|181999538|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0006|||||||Poisson regression|||||||0.0006
91059080|NCT05819203|181999539|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0513|||||||Poisson regression|||||||0.0513
91059081|NCT05819203|181999540|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0789|||||||Poisson regression|||||||0.0789
91059082|NCT05819203|181999541|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Poisson regression|||||||<0.0001
91059083|NCT05819203|181999542|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of the means of AUC on global score or ARSSQ during the first 10 days of the study between both groups.||||||0.0034|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0034
91059084|NCT01277601|181999617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Raw p-values comparing treatments were based on a log-rank test stratified by HBeAg status and viral genotype.|Log Rank|||||||< 0.001
91059085|NCT01277601|181999617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||Raw p-values comparing treatments were based on a log-rank test stratified by HBeAg status and viral genotype.|Log Rank|||||||0.002
91059086|NCT02260570|181999654|SUPERIORITY||F value|24.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|F(1,1,60) = 24.1, p \< 0.0001, adjusted r\^2 = 0.275||||||<0.0001
91059087|NCT02260570|181999655|SUPERIORITY||F value|6.23||||0.0184|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|F(1,30) = 6.23, p = 0.0184, adjusted r\^2 = 0.144||||||0.0184
91059088|NCT04034927|181999658|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.707|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.241|2.068|||||The numerator is the experimental arm (odds of response) and the denominator is the control arm (odds of response).|Odds ratio for experimental arm (O + T) response compared to control arm (O) response.||2.068|0.241|
91059089|NCT03956355|181999661|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|5.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91059090|NCT03956355|181999662|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91059091|NCT03956355|181999663|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.68||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0001
90818525|NCT01115673|181515688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided). p-Values are based on the log-rank test from PROC LIFETEST that compared survival curves.|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups. Subjects not rescuing during the 6-hour study period had their time to rescue set to 6 hours and were censored.||||<0.001
90818526|NCT01115673|181515688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided). p-Values are based on the log-rank test from PROC LIFETEST that compared survival curves.|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups. Subjects not rescuing during the 6-hour study period had their time to rescue set to 6 hours and were censored.||||<0.001
90818527|NCT01115673|181515689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.06|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by categorical baseline pain rating.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
90818528|NCT01115673|181515689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.52||||0.002||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by categorical baseline pain rating.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.002
90818529|NCT01115673|181515689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.12|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by categorical baseline pain rating.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
90818530|NCT01115673|181515690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.1|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by categorical baseline pain rating.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
90818531|NCT01115673|181515690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.49|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by categorical baseline pain rating.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
90818532|NCT01115673|181515690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.21|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by categorical baseline pain rating.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
90818533|NCT01115673|181515691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|18.45|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by categorical baseline pain rating.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
90818534|NCT01115673|181515691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.65||||0.006||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by categorical baseline pain rating.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.006
90818535|NCT01115673|181515691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.16|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by categorical baseline pain rating.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
91059092|NCT03956355|181999664|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-3.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91059093|NCT03956355|181999665|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|8.54||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0005
90818536|NCT01115673|181515692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.68|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
90818537|NCT01115673|181515692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33||||0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.001
90818538|NCT01115673|181515692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.35|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
90818539|NCT01732770|181515693|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of (denosumab - zoledronic acid) was compared with the non-inferiority margin of -0.46% for assessing non-inferiority.|Treatment Difference|2.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|2.6|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment, screening sCTX, baseline BMD, DXA machine type (Hologic or Lunar), and baseline BMD-by-machine type interaction.|Treatment difference = denosumab - zoledronic acid|A step-down sequential testing procedure was used in order to maintain the overall type I error rate at 5% for the tests of primary and secondary BMD endpoints. For the non-inferiority analysis the 1-sided significance level was 2.5%.||2.6|1.6|<0.0001
91059094|NCT00094861|181999666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-Square Statistic|0.8553||||0.355||95.0||||Generalized Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for general association. Participants with no assessments were assumed as having grade ≥ 2 dysphagia in hypothesis testing.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by disease stage, ECOG performance status, and estimated weight loss in the 3 months before study randomization.||||||0.3550
91059095|NCT00094861|181999667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-Square Statistic|0.9936||||0.3189||95.0||||Generalized Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for mean score difference using modified ridit score.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by disease stage, ECOG performance status, and estimated weight loss in the 3 months before study randomization.||||||0.3189
91059096|NCT00094861|181999668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-Square Statistic|0.437||||0.5086||95.0||||Generalized Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for general association. Participants with no assessments were assumed as having grade 5 dysphagia in hypothesis testing.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by disease stage, ECOG performance status, and estimated weight loss in the 3 months before study randomization.||||||0.5086
91078407|NCT00824382|182042350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.454|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.151||0.0029||95.0|-0.752|-0.156|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.156|-0.752|0.0029
90818540|NCT01732770|181515694|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI) of (denosumab - zoledronic acid) was compared with the non-inferiority margin of -0.51% for assessing non-inferiority.|Treatment Difference|1.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.7|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment, screening sCTX, baseline BMD, DXA machine type (Hologic or Lunar), and baseline BMD-by-machine type interaction.|Treatment difference = denosumab - zoledronic acid|A step-down sequential testing procedure was used in order to maintain the overall type I error rate at 5% for the tests of primary and secondary BMD endpoints. For the non-inferiority analysis the 1-sided significance level was 2.5%.||1.7|1.0|<0.0001
91059097|NCT00094861|181999669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-Square Statistic|0.46||||0.4976||95.0||||Generalized Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for general association. Participants with no assessments were assumed as having grade ≥ 3 dysphagia in hypothesis testing.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by disease stage, ECOG performance status, and estimated weight loss in the 3 months before study randomization.||||||0.4976
91059098|NCT00094861|181999670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-Square Statistic|-2.5325||||0.1115||95.0||||Generalized Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for general association. Participants who never received radiotherapy were assumed to have unplanned breaks.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by disease stage, ECOG performance status, and estimated weight loss in the 3 months before study randomization.||||||0.1115
91059099|NCT00094861|181999671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-Square Statistic|3.4812||||0.0621|TWO_SIDED|||||Generalized Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test for mean score difference using modified ridit score. Participants without any ECOG assessment post baseline were assumed to have ECOG status of 5 in the CMH test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by disease stage, ECOG performance status, and estimated weight loss in the 3 months before study randomization.||||||0.0621
90818541|NCT01732770|181515695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|2.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|2.6|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment, screening sCTX, baseline BMD, DXA machine type (Hologic or Lunar), and baseline BMD-by-machine type interaction.|Treatment difference = denosumab - zoledronic acid|A step-down sequential testing procedure was used in order to maintain the overall type I error rate at 5% for the tests of primary and secondary BMD endpoints. For the superiority analysis the 2-sided significance level was 5%.||2.6|1.6|<0.0001
90818542|NCT01732770|181515696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|1.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.7|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment, screening sCTX, baseline BMD, DXA machine type (Hologic or Lunar), and baseline BMD-by-machine type interaction.|Treatment difference = denosumab - zoledronic acid|A step-down sequential testing procedure was used in order to maintain the overall type I error rate at 5% for the tests of primary and secondary BMD endpoints. For the superiority analysis the 2-sided significance level was 5%.||1.7|1.0|<0.0001
90818543|NCT01959841|181515702|NON_INFERIORITY|Wherein the non-inferiority margin was set at 10%. If the one-sided P-value was less than 0.025 between the ASP2151(400mg) once daily and the valaciclovir 1000 mg three times daily, non-inferiority of ASP2151 to valaciclovir was assumed.||||||2.41e-06|||||||Modified Farrington-Manning test|||The non-inferiority of each ASP2151 dose level versus valaciclovir was assessed stepwise using a closed testing procedure.First step analysis was performed in the ASP2151(400mg) once daily.||||0.00000241
90818544|NCT01959841|181515702|NON_INFERIORITY|Wherein the non-inferiority margin was set at 10%. If the one-sided P-value was less than 0.025 between the ASP2151(200mg) once daily and the valaciclovir 1000 mg three times daily, non-inferiority of ASP2151 to valaciclovir was assumed.||||||0.0688|||||||Modified Farrington-Manning test|||The analysis was performed in the ASP2151(200 mg) once daily only when non-inferiority of the ASP2151(400 mg) 0nce daily to valaciclovir 1000 mg three times daily was assumed.||||0.0688
90818545|NCT04207749|181515722|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority in CLCDVA was declared if the upper confidence limit was less than 0.10 logMAR.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.02||Since noninferiority hypotheses are being tested, a p-value is not applicable. Confidence limit is being reported and compared to the noninferiority margin.|Mixed effects repeated measures||Least squares mean difference (LID015385 minus Biofinity).|||0.02|-0.00|
90818546|NCT04207749|181515723|NON_INFERIORITY|Proportion of subjects is presented. Noninferiority in proportion of subjects achieving CLCDVA 20/20 or better in each eye was declared if the lower confidence limit was greater than -0.10.|Difference in proportion|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.04||Since noninferiority hypotheses are being tested, a p-value is not applicable. Confidence limit is being reported and compared to the noninferiority margin.|Farrington-Manning||Lens difference (LID015385 minus Biofinity)|||0.04|-0.06|
90818547|NCT00655629|181515724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.92|||<|0.0001||95.0|-8.45|-5.38|||ANCOVA|||Power adjustment for 3 primary efficacy variables (3 variables have to be significant in favor of Vardenafil to conclude efficacy). Statistical analysis applies to the total population.||-5.38|-8.45|<0.0001
90818548|NCT00655629|181515725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.972|||<|0.0001||95.0|-32.688|-19.256|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to the total population.||-19.256|-32.688|<0.0001
90818549|NCT00655629|181515726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-33.432|||<|0.0001||95.0|-40.439|-26.425|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to the total population.||-26.425|-40.439|<0.0001
91059100|NCT00094861|181999672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-Square Statistic|0.0294||||0.8639||95.0||||Generalized Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by disease stage, ECOG performance status, and estimated weight loss in the 3 months before study randomization.||||||0.8639
91059101|NCT00094861|181999673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-Square Statistic|3.1414||||0.1996||||||Generalized Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for mean score difference using modified ridit score.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by disease stage, ECOG performance status, and estimated weight loss in the 3 months before study randomization.||||||0.1996
91059102|NCT00264550|181999674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The positive test is defined if the comparison between combined golimumab+MTX and Group 1 is significant at the 0.05, and at least one of the pair-wise comparisons is also significant at the 0.05.|Chi-squared|||Null hypothesis: No difference in ACR 20 response at Wk 14 comparing Groups I vs III and Groups I vs IV at 0.05 level of significance. Assuming greater than 90 % power, ACR 20 response for Group I, Group III and Group IV (120, 80, and 80 participants, respectively) as 35 % for Group I and 55 % for Groups III and IV.||||<0.001
91078408|NCT00824382|182042350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.387|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.148||0.0095||95.0|-0.678|-0.095|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.095|-0.678|0.0095
90818550|NCT00655629|181515727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|53.8693|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH adjusted for age group and center||Statistical analysis applies to the total population.||||<0.0001
90818551|NCT00655629|181515728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.078|||<|0.0001||95.0|-22.41|-9.746|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to the total population.||-9.746|-22.41|<0.0001
90818552|NCT00655629|181515729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-33.134|||<|0.0001||95.0|-40.281|-25.987|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to the total population.||-25.987|-40.281|<0.0001
90818553|NCT00655629|181515730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-33.934|||<|0.0001||95.0|-41.119|-26.749|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to the total population.||-26.749|-41.119|<0.0001
90818554|NCT00655629|181515731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.902|||<|0.0001||95.0|-27.724|-14.081|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to the total population.||-14.081|-27.724|<0.0001
90818555|NCT00655629|181515733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.866|||<|0.0001||95.0|-22.599|-11.133|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to the total population.||-11.133|-22.599|<0.0001
90818556|NCT00655629|181515734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.04|||<|0.0001||95.0|-31.547|-20.533|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to the total population.||-20.533|-31.547|<0.0001
90818557|NCT00655629|181515735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.496|||<|0.0001||95.0|-24.676|-14.315|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to the total population.||-14.315|-24.676|<0.0001
90818558|NCT00655629|181515736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.418|||<|0.0001||95.0|-24.439|-12.396|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to the total population.||-12.396|-24.439|<0.0001
91059103|NCT00264550|181999674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||Null hypothesis: No difference in ACR 20 response at Wk 14 comparing Groups I vs III and Groups I vs IV at 0.05 level of significance. Samples of sizes 120, 80, 80 patients in Group I, III, and IV provide \>90% power assuming 35% response in Group I and 55% ACR 20 response in golimumab groups(III \& IV).||||0.001
91059104|NCT00264550|181999674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||Null hypothesis: No difference in ACR 20 response at Wk 14 comparing Groups I vs III and Groups I vs IV at 0.05 level of significance. Samples of sizes 120, 80, 80 patients in Group I, III, and IV provide \>90% power assuming 35% response in Group I and 55% ACR 20 response in golimumab groups(III \& IV).||||<0.001
91078409|NCT03539484|182042443|OTHER|A Bayesian approach is used to estimate the maximum tolerated dose (MTD).|Posterior probability at dose 1.8 mg|10.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|26.5||There is no p-value derived; logistic regression is used to estimate the probability of DLT.|Regression, Logistic|||||26.5|2.10|
90818559|NCT00655629|181515737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.379|||<|0.0001||95.0|-28.006|-16.753|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to the total population.||-16.753|-28.006|<0.0001
90818560|NCT00655629|181515738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-30.758|||<|0.0001||95.0|-36.736|-24.779|||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to the total population.||-24.779|-36.736|<0.0001
90818561|NCT00655629|181515739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|60.2391|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH adjusted for age group and center||Statistical analysis applies to the total population.||||<0.0001
90818562|NCT03416127|181515746|OTHER|||||||0.031|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.031
90818563|NCT03416127|181515747|OTHER|||||||0.963|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.963
90818564|NCT03416127|181515748|OTHER|||||||0.236|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.236
90818565|NCT03416127|181515749|OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.015
90818566|NCT03416127|181515750|OTHER|||||||0.017|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.017
90818567|NCT03416127|181515751|OTHER|||||||0.162|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.162
90818568|NCT03416127|181515752|OTHER|||||||0.686|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.686
90818569|NCT03416127|181515753|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.004
90818570|NCT03416127|181515754|OTHER|||||||0.945|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.945
90818571|NCT03416127|181515755|OTHER|||||||0.332|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.332
90818572|NCT03416127|181515756|OTHER|||||||0.075|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.075
90818573|NCT03416127|181515757|OTHER|||||||0.903|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.903
90818574|NCT03416127|181515758|OTHER|||||||0.697|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.697
90818575|NCT03416127|181515759|OTHER|||||||0.668|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.668
90818576|NCT03416127|181515760|OTHER|||||||0.308|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.308
90818577|NCT03416127|181515761|OTHER|||||||0.318|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.318
90818578|NCT03416127|181515762|OTHER|||||||0.88|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.880
90818579|NCT03416127|181515763|OTHER|||||||0.376|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.376
90818580|NCT03416127|181515764|OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.210
90818581|NCT03416127|181515765|OTHER|||||||0.88|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.880
90818582|NCT03416127|181515766|OTHER|||||||0.059|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.059
90818583|NCT03416127|181515767|OTHER|||||||0.978|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.978
90818584|NCT03416127|181515768|OTHER|||||||0.122|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.122
90818585|NCT03416127|181515769|OTHER|||||||0.551|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.551
90818586|NCT00924508|181515770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline and post-treatment comparison||||<0.001
90818587|NCT00924508|181515770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline and post-treatment comparison||||<0.001
90818588|NCT00924508|181515770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline and post-treatment comparison||||<0.001
90818589|NCT00741013|181515790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0||||Only a single statistical analysis was performed upon completion of the study.|ANOVA|||One-way analysis of variance was performed to determine whether lovastatin or rhAPC effectively reduced endotoxin-induced lung inflammation.||||<0.05
90818590|NCT01754493|181515798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|-18.24|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.44|-12.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||We used the intention-to-treat (ITT) sample, including all subjects dispensed medication (n=17). This was a repeated-measures mixed-effects regression analysis assessing the rate of change in total MADRS symptom scores for MDD. To account for the correlation of observations within individuals, we used mixed-effects models with random intercepts and a first-order autocorrelation structure. Data from each time point (wks 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12) were used in the single repeated-measures analysis.||-12.63|-23.44|<.05
90818591|NCT01754493|181515799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|-20.71|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.44|-13.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||We used the intention-to-treat (ITT) sample, including all subjects dispensed medication (n=17). This was a repeated-measures mixed-effects regression analysis assessing the rate of change in total GSRS symptom scores for IBS. To account for the correlation of observations within individuals, we used mixed-effects models with random intercepts and a first-order autocorrelation structure. Data from each time point (wks 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12) were used in the single repeated-measures analysis.||-13.97|-27.44|<0.05
90818592|NCT01754493|181515800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|-1.59|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|-1.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||We used the intention-to-treat (ITT) sample, including all subjects dispensed medication (n=17). This was a repeated-measures mixed-effects regression analysis assessing the rate of change in CGI-MDD score. To account for the correlation of observations within individuals, we used mixed-effects models with random intercepts and a first-order autocorrelation structure. Data from each time point (weeks 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12) were used in the single repeated-measures analysis.||-1.03|-2.16|<0.05
90818593|NCT01754493|181515800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|-1.55|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|-1.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||We used the intention-to-treat (ITT) sample, including all subjects dispensed medication (n=17). This was a repeated-measures mixed-effects regression analysis assessing the rate of change in CGI-IBS score. To account for the correlation of observations within individuals, we used mixed-effects models with random intercepts and a first-order autocorrelation structure. Data from each time point (weeks 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12) were used in the single repeated-measures analysis.||-1.11|-1.99|<0.05
90818594|NCT01754493|181515801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|-0.03|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||We used the intention-to-treat (ITT) sample, including all subjects dispensed medication (n=17). This was a repeated-measures mixed-effects regression analysis assessing the rate of change in VAS score of overall pain. To account for the correlation of observations within individuals, we used mixed-effects models with random intercepts and a first-order autocorrelation structure. Data from each time point (weeks 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12) were used in the single repeated-measures analysis.||1.10|-1.16|<0.05
90818595|NCT01754493|181515801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|0.47|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|2.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||We used the intention-to-treat (ITT) sample with all subjects dispensed medication (n=17). This repeated-measures mixed-effects regression analysis assessed the rate of change in VAS score of pain interfering with daily activities. To account for the correlation of observations within individuals, we used mixed-effects models with random intercepts and a 1st-order autocorrelation structure. Data from each time point (wks 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12) were used in the single repeated-measures analysis||2.01|-1.07|<0.05
90818596|NCT01754493|181515801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|-0.59|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||We used the intention-to-treat (ITT) sample, including all subjects dispensed medication (n=17). This was a repeated-measures mixed-effects regression analysis assessing the rate of change in VAS score of headaches. To account for the correlation of observations within individuals, we used mixed-effects models with random intercepts and a first-order autocorrelation structure. Data from each time point (weeks 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12) were used in the single repeated-measures analysis.||1.10|-2.28|<0.05
90818597|NCT01754493|181515801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|-0.35|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|0.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||We used the intention-to-treat (ITT) sample, including all subjects dispensed medication (n=17). This was a repeated-measures mixed-effects regression analysis assessing the rate of change in VAS score of back pain. To account for the correlation of observations within individuals, we used mixed-effects models with random intercepts and a first-order autocorrelation structure. Data from each time point (weeks 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12) were used in the single repeated-measures analysis.||.87|-1.56|<0.05
90818598|NCT01754493|181515801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|-0.48|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||We used the intention-to-treat (ITT) sample, including all subjects dispensed medication (n=17). This was a repeated-measures mixed-effects regression analysis assessing the rate of change in VAS score of shoulder pain. To account for the correlation of observations within individuals, we used mixed-effects models with random intercepts and a first-order autocorrelation structure. Data from each time point (weeks 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12) were used in the single repeated-measures analysis.||1.03|-2.00|<0.05
90818599|NCT01754493|181515802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|-4.38|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.39|-1.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||We used the intention-to-treat (ITT) sample with all subjects dispensed medication (n=17). This was a repeated-measures mixed-effects regression analysis assessing the rate of change in PHQ-15 scores of somatization symptoms. To account for the correlation of observations within individuals, we used mixed-effects models with random intercepts and a first-order autocorrelation structure. Data from each time point (weeks 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12) were used in the single repeated-measures analysis.||-1.36|-7.39|<0.05
90818600|NCT03392649|181515819|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.60
91059105|NCT00264550|181999674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.059||||||This null hypothesis is tested only if a positive test for null hypothesis Statistical Analysis 1.|Chi-squared|||Null hypothesis: No difference between Group II and Group I with respect of ACR 20 at Wk 14. Superiority of golimumab alone vs MTX alone will be demonstrated if 2-sided test is significant. Sample of 120 patients in each Group I \& II provides \>85% power assuming 35% ACR 20 response in Group I and 55% ACR 20 in Group II.||||0.059
90818601|NCT03392649|181515820|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.34
90818602|NCT03392649|181515821|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.54
91059106|NCT00264550|181999675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91059107|NCT00264550|181999675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.001
91059108|NCT00264550|181999675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91059109|NCT00264550|181999675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.035
91059110|NCT00264550|181999676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The positive test is defined if the comparison between combined golimumab+MTX and Group I is significant at the 0.05, and at least one of the pair-wise comparisons is also significant at the 0.05.|ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores.|||Null hypothesis: No difference in HAQ response at Wk 24 comparing Groups I and Combined Golimumab + Methotrexate (MTX) at 0.05 level of significance.||||<0.001
90818603|NCT03392649|181515822|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.09
90818604|NCT03392649|181515823|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.16
90818605|NCT03392649|181515824|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.67
90818606|NCT03392649|181515825|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.0
90818607|NCT03392649|181515826|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.12
90818608|NCT01452919|181515845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|-1.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25||0.17||95.0||||Two-sided p-value.|Type 3 sums of squares|||||||0.170
90818609|NCT01452919|181515846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.109||95.0||||Two-sided p-value. P-value is for Week 0.5.|Type 3 sums of squares|||||||0.109
90818610|NCT01452919|181515846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.372||95.0||||Two-sided p-value. P-value is for Week 1.|Type 3 sums of squares|||||||0.372
91059111|NCT00264550|181999676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores.|||Null hypothesis: No difference in HAQ response at Wk 24 comparing Groups I and III at 0.05 level of significance.||||<0.001
91059112|NCT00264550|181999676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores.|||Null hypothesis: No difference in HAQ response at Wk 24 comparing Groups I and IV at 0.05 level of significance.||||<0.001
90818611|NCT01452919|181515846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.555||95.0||||Two-sided p-value. P-value is for Week 1.5.|Type 3 sums of squares|||||||0.555
90818612|NCT01452919|181515846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.806||95.0||||Two-sided p-value. P-value is for Week 2.|Type 3 sums of squares|||||||0.806
90818613|NCT01452919|181515847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0.762||95.0||||Two-sided p-value.|Type 3 sums of squares|||||||0.762
91059113|NCT00264550|181999676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores.|||Null hypothesis: No difference in HAQ response at Wk 24 comparing Groups I and II at 0.05 level of significance.||||0.240
91059114|NCT00264550|181999677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91059115|NCT00264550|181999677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
90818614|NCT01452919|181515848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.506||95.0||||Two-sided p-value.|Type 3 sums of squares|||||||0.506
91059116|NCT00264550|181999677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91059117|NCT00264550|181999677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.187||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.187
91059118|NCT00264550|181999678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA on van der Waerden noramal|||||||<0.001
91059119|NCT00264550|181999678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores|||||||<0.001
91059120|NCT00264550|181999678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores|||||||<0.001
91059121|NCT00264550|181999678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.097||95.0|||||ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores|||||||0.097
91059122|NCT00264550|181999679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.551|||||||ANOVA on van der Waerden normal|||||||0.551
91059123|NCT00264550|181999679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.953|||||||ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores|||||||0.953
91059124|NCT00264550|181999679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.293|||||||ANOVA on van der waerden normal scores|||||||0.293
91059125|NCT00264550|181999679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.361|||||||ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores|||||||0.361
91059126|NCT02129608|181999680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.398|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.398
91059127|NCT02129608|181999680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.436|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.436
91059128|NCT02129608|181999681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.070
91059129|NCT02129608|181999681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.950
91059130|NCT00451204|181999682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.63||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.05|||negative binomial regression|adjusted for age, BL EDSS score, # of relapses in previous 12 mo, time since dx, previous glatiramer acetate tx, and previous interferon beta tx.||||1.05|0.37|0.077
90818615|NCT01452919|181515849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.515||95.0||||Two-sided p-value.|Type 3 sums of squares|||||||0.515
90818616|NCT01452919|181515852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.966||95.0||||One-sided p-value.|Type 3 sums of squares|||||||0.966
90818617|NCT01452919|181515853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.895||95.0||||One-sided p-value.|Type 3 sums of squares|||||||0.895
90818618|NCT04856904|181515894|SUPERIORITY||Bilateral difference|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|-2.0|||Student's t-test for paired samples|||||-2|-4.4|< 0.0001
90818619|NCT04856904|181515895|SUPERIORITY||Bilateral difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|=|0.9476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3|||Student's t-test for paired samples|||Week 1: Trifarotene 50 mcg/g, vehicle cream||0.3|-0.3|= 0.9476
90818620|NCT04856904|181515895|SUPERIORITY||Bilateral difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|=|0.0248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.1|||Student's t-test for paired samples|||Week 2: Trifarotene 50 mcg/g, vehicle cream||-0.1|-1.1|= 0.0248
90818621|NCT04856904|181515895|SUPERIORITY||Bilateral difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|=|0.0072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.2|||Student's t-test for paired samples|||Week 4: Trifarotene 50 mcg/g, vehicle cream||-0.2|-1.4|= 0.0072
90818622|NCT04856904|181515895|SUPERIORITY||Bilateral difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.7|||Student's t-test for paired samples|||Week 8: Trifarotene 50 mcg/g, vehicle cream||-0.7|-2.1|< 0.0001
90818623|NCT04856904|181515895|SUPERIORITY||Bilateral difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-1.3|||Student's t-test for paired samples|||Week 12: Trifarotene 50 mcg/g, vehicle cream||-1.3|-2.9|< 0.0001
90818624|NCT04856904|181515895|SUPERIORITY||Bilateral difference|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|-1.6|||Student's t-test for paired samples|||Week 16: Trifarotene 50 mcg/g, vehicle cream||-1.6|-3.8|< 0.0001
91059131|NCT00451204|181999683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.65||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.08|||negative binomial regression|adjusted for age, BL EDSS score, # of relapses in previous 12 months, time since dx, previous GA treatment, and previous interferon beta treatment.||||1.08|0.39|0.098
91059132|NCT00451204|181999684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.63||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.09|||negative binomial regression|adjusted for age, BL EDSS score, # of relapses in previous 12 months, time since dx, previous GA treatment, and previous interferon beta treatment.||||1.09|0.36|0.096
91059133|NCT00451204|181999685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.7||||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.17|||negative binomial regression|adjusted for age, BL EDSS score, # of relapses in previous 12 months, time since dx, previous GA treatment, and previous interferon beta treatment.||||1.17|0.42|0.179
91059134|NCT00451204|181999686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.49||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.88|||negative binomial regression|adjusted for age, BL EDSS score, # of relapses in previous 12 months, time since dx, previous GA treatment, and previous interferon beta treatment.||||0.88|0.28|0.016
91059135|NCT00451204|181999687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.52||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.86|||negative binomial regression|adjusted for age, BL EDSS score, # of relapses in previous 12 months, time since dx, previous GA treatment, and previous interferon beta treatment.||||0.86|0.31|0.012
91059136|NCT02597127|181999697|SUPERIORITY|Two sample t-tests were performed to test the superiority of any dosing group over placebo. A Dunnett multiple t-test procedure was applied to adjust for multiple comparisons with six different dosing regimens.|||||<|0.0001||||||This P-Value applies to the comparison of the mean percent change at Day 180 for the 200 mg (Single-Dose) Inclisiran group versus Placebo (Single-Dose).|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
91059137|NCT02597127|181999697|SUPERIORITY|Two sample t-tests were performed to test the superiority of any dosing group over placebo. A Dunnett multiple t-test procedure was applied to adjust for multiple comparisons with six different dosing regimens.|||||<|0.0001||||||This P-Value applies to the comparison of the mean percent change at Day 180 for the 300 mg (Single-Dose) Inclisiran group versus Placebo (Single-Dose).|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
91059138|NCT02597127|181999697|SUPERIORITY|Two sample t-tests were performed to test the superiority of any dosing group over placebo. A Dunnett multiple t-test procedure was applied to adjust for multiple comparisons with six different dosing regimens.|||||<|0.0001||||||This P-Value applies to the comparison of the mean percent change at Day 180 for the 500 mg (Single-Dose) Inclisiran group versus Placebo (Single-Dose).|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
91059139|NCT02597127|181999697|SUPERIORITY|Two sample t-tests were performed to test the superiority of any dosing group over placebo. A Dunnett multiple t-test procedure was applied to adjust for multiple comparisons with six different dosing regimens.|||||<|0.0001||||||This P-Value applies to the comparison of the mean percent change at Day 180 for the 100 mg Double-Dose) Inclisiran group versus Placebo (Double-Dose).|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
91059140|NCT02597127|181999697|SUPERIORITY|Two sample t-tests were performed to test the superiority of any dosing group over placebo. A Dunnett multiple t-test procedure was applied to adjust for multiple comparisons with six different dosing regimens.|||||<|0.0001||||||This P-Value applies to the comparison of the mean percent change at Day 180 for the 200 mg Double-Dose) Inclisiran group versus Placebo (Double-Dose).|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
91059141|NCT02597127|181999697|SUPERIORITY|Two sample t-tests were performed to test the superiority of any dosing group over placebo. A Dunnett multiple t-test procedure was applied to adjust for multiple comparisons with six different dosing regimens.|||||<|0.0001||||||This P-Value applies to the comparison of the mean percent change at Day 180 for the 300 mg Double-Dose) Inclisiran group versus Placebo (Double-Dose).|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
91059142|NCT02661217|181999760|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.896||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.786|1.021|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.021|0.786|0.099
91059143|NCT02661217|181999761|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.906||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.827|0.993|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.993|0.827|0.034
91059144|NCT02661217|181999762|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.96||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.916|1.006|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.006|0.916|0.089
91059145|NCT01778634|181999765|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.53|22.27|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||22.27|2.53|<0.0001
91059146|NCT01778634|181999766|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.11||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.29|||Generalized Estimating Equations||Generalized Estimating Equations with an identity link|||0.29|-0.08|0.28
91059147|NCT01778634|181999767|SUPERIORITY|P values are based on GEE to account for twins||||||0.11|||||||GEE|||||||0.11
91059148|NCT01778634|181999768|SUPERIORITY|P values are based on GEE to account for twins. The counts provided refer to to the numbers actually observed. The analysis to determine the p value accounted for the missing 11 patients using multiple imputation.||||||0.62|||||||GEE with multiple imputation|||||||0.62
91059149|NCT01778634|181999769|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
91059150|NCT01778634|181999770|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88||||||To include non-survivors as bad values of this outcome we imputed a high value for the participants who died. Note, because we analyzed the data using a nonparametric test, the actual value doesn't affect the analysis, only the rank of the value.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.88
91059151|NCT01778634|181999771|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|5.0||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|26.0||To include non-survivors as bad values of this outcome we imputed a high value for the participants who died. Note, because we analyzed the data using a nonparametric test, the actual value doesn't affect the analysis, only the rank of the value.|Wilcoxon test after multiple outputation||Bootstrap|||26|-15|0.94
91059152|NCT01778634|181999772|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.49
91059153|NCT01778634|181999773|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|2.63|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.63|0.44|0.88
91059154|NCT01778634|181999774|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||Generalized Estimating Equations|||||||0.18
91059155|NCT01778634|181999776|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||||0.05
91059156|NCT01778634|181999777|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
91059157|NCT01778634|181999778|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||Generalized Estimating Equations|||||||0.18
91059158|NCT01778634|181999779|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.091|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.091
91059159|NCT01778634|181999780|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
91059160|NCT01778634|181999781|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||Generalized Estimating Equations|||||||0.33
91059161|NCT01778634|181999782|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
91059162|NCT00687830|181999786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
91059163|NCT00687830|181999787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.04
90818625|NCT04856904|181515895|SUPERIORITY||Bilateral difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-1.5|||Student's t-test for paired samples|||Week 20: Trifarotene 50 mcg/g, vehicle cream||-1.5|-3.5|< 0.0001
90818626|NCT01641822|181515899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.743||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.446|1.238|||Negative binomial regression|||Ratio between rates||1.238|0.446|0.25
90818627|NCT01641822|181515900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.33||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|3.2||The p-value is from an MMRM analysis. The model includes terms for baseline value, previous exacerbations (1, 2, ≥ 3), treatment, visit (categorical), and treatment by visit interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference in change in FEV1 % predicted||3.2|-0.55|0.16
90818628|NCT01641822|181515901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of percentages||||0.67
90818629|NCT01641822|181515902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.59|||Log Rank|||Comparison of time to exacerbation||1.59|0.50|0.71
90818630|NCT01641822|181515903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.642||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.355|1.164|||Negative binomial regression|||Comparison of hospitalization rate||1.164|0.355|0.14
90818631|NCT01641822|181515904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.06||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|7.82||The p-value is from an MMRM analysis. The model includes terms for baseline value, previous exacerbations (1, 2, ≥ 3), treatment, visit (categorical), and treatment by visit interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference in change in CFQ-R RSS||7.82|-1.71|0.21
90818632|NCT00454584|181515905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi square|The test was stratified by baseline weight \[\<90kg vs. ≥ 90 kg).||||||<0.001
90818633|NCT00454584|181515905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||95.0||||To control the overall type I error rate at 0.05 level in the primary endpoint analysis, a step-down test procedure was applied. First, ustekinumab 90 mg and etanercept were compared. Then ustekinumab 45 mg and etanercept would be compared.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi square|The test was stratified by baseline weight \[\<90kg vs. ≥ 90 kg).||Null Hypothesis: No difference between ustekinumab 90 mg or 45 mg and etanercept at an overall significant level of 0.05. Sample Size: Assuming the PASI 75 response rates of ustekinumab 90 mg, 45 mg, etanercept are 65%, 64%, and 50% , respectively, with 325 participants each in the ustekinumab 90 mg and etanercept groups, the power to detect a treatment difference is 97%. With 200 participants in the ustekinumab 45 mg group, the complete power to further detect a treatment difference was 87%.||||0.012
90818634|NCT00454584|181515906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi square|The test was stratified by baseline weight \[\<90kg vs. ≥ 90 kg).||||||<0.001
90818635|NCT00454584|181515906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi square|The test was stratified by baseline weight \[\<90kg vs. ≥ 90 kg).||Null Hypothesis: No difference between ustekinumab 90 mg or 45 mg and etanercept at an overall significant level of 0.05.||||<0.001
90818636|NCT00454584|181515907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi square|The test was stratified by baseline weight \[\<90kg vs. ≥ 90 kg).||||||<0.001
90818637|NCT00454584|181515907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi square|The test was stratified by baseline weight \[\<90kg vs. ≥ 90 kg).||Null Hypothesis: No difference between ustekinumab 90 mg or 45 mg and etanercept at an overall significant level of 0.05.||||<0.001
90818638|NCT02250664|181515911|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.41|-3.26||The p-value is Bonferroni-corrected for multiple comparisons with a priori threshold of significance P \< 0.0167|ANCOVA||Group difference = 0.12 mg nicotine - 0.8 mg nicotine|The statistical analysis method was ANCOVA, in order to test for statistically significant differences between group means, while controlling for covariates of interest. It was calculated that 207 subjects per group would be required to have at least 90% power to detect a mean difference of 4.52 CPD between the 0.8 mg and 0.12 mg groups at week 12, with significance level alpha of 0.0167. The significance level reflects the Bonferroni correction needed for testing of all pairwise comparisons.||-3.26|-7.41|<0.0001
90818639|NCT02250664|181515911|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.51|-5.57||The p-value is Bonferroni-corrected for multiple comparisons with a priori threshold of significance P \< 0.0167|ANOVA|||The statistical analysis method was ANCOVA, in order to test for statistically significant differences between group means, while controlling for covariates of interest. It was calculated that 207 subjects per group would be required to have at least 90% power to detect a mean difference of 4.52 CPD between the 0.8 mg and 0.12 mg groups at week 12, with significance level alpha of 0.0167. The significance level reflects the Bonferroni correction needed for testing of all pairwise comparisons.|Group difference = 0.03 mg nicotine - 0.8 mg nicotine|-5.57|-9.51|<0.0001
90818640|NCT00651625|181515932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||non-applicable|||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||group comparisons using t-test and confidence intervals.||||0.05
90818641|NCT04583956|181516031|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.61|||Proportional odds model||Odds ratio above 1 favors Remdesivir plus Risankizumab.|Includes all ordinal score categories. Odds ratio of a better clinical status score, confidence interval, and p-value estimated from a proportional odds model adjusted for baseline steroid use and baseline ordinal score. Missing data imputed using multiple imputation (MI) for participants lost to follow-up before Day 8 while hospitalized, in hospice, long term acute care, or transferred to other hospital while participants lost to follow-up after discharge to home are assigned a score of 2.||1.61|0.59|0.927
90818642|NCT04583956|181516032|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|2.25|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio greater than 1 favors Remdesivir plus Risankizumab.|Odds ratio, confidence interval, and p-value estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline dexamethasone use, baseline ordinal score, age, and baseline C-Reactive Protein (CRP).||2.25|0.36|0.829
90818643|NCT04583956|181516033|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.56|||Regression, Cox||HR greater than 1 favors Remdesivir plus Risankizumab.|Hazard ratio, confidence interval, and p-value estimated from a Cox model adjusted for baseline steroid use and baseline ordinal score.||1.56|0.84|0.399
91079198|NCT03240406|182044057|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.06||||0.847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.64||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|ANCOVA|MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|||0.64|-0.53|0.847
90818644|NCT04583956|181516034|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.71|||Proportional odds model||Odds ratio above 1 favors Remdesivir plus Risankizumab.|Includes all ordinal score categories. Odds ratio of a better clinical status score, confidence interval, and p-value estimated from a proportional odds model adjusted for baseline steroid use and baseline ordinal score. Missing data imputed using last observation carried forward for those lost to follow-up before Day 15 while hospitalized, in hospice, long term acute care, or transferred to other hospital. Participants lost to follow-up before Day 15 after discharge are given a score of 2.||1.71|0.62|0.910
90818645|NCT04583956|181516035|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.93|||Proportional odds model||Odds ratio above 1 favors Remdesivir plus Risankizumab.|Includes all ordinal score categories. Odds ratio of a better clinical status score, confidence interval, and p-value estimated from a proportional odds model adjusted for baseline steroid use and baseline ordinal score. Missing data imputed using last observation carried forward for those lost to follow-up before Day 15 while hospitalized, in hospice, long term acute care, or transferred to other hospital. Participants lost to follow-up before Day 15 after discharge are given a score of 2.||1.93|0.68|0.617
90818646|NCT04583956|181516068|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.46|||Regression, Cox||HR greater than 1 favors Remdesivir plus Risankizumab.|Hazard ratio (HR), confidence interval, and p-value estimated from a Cox model adjusted for baseline steroid use and baseline ordinal score.||1.46|0.82|0.550
90818647|NCT04583956|181516069|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.48|||Regression, Cox||HR greater than 1 favors Remdesivir plus Risankizumab.|Hazard ratio (HR), confidence interval, and p-value estimated from a Cox model adjusted for baseline steroid use and baseline ordinal score.||1.48|0.82|0.523
90818648|NCT00915551|181516078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90818649|NCT00915551|181516079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90818650|NCT01304589|181516088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||||||A paired T-Test was calculated assuming a standard difference (d) between the 4 paired outcomes for pain of 0.60 (moderate effect size), a SD of 1 for each outcome variable and a correlation of 0.50 between each paired variable.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.001
90818651|NCT01304589|181516089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||||||A paired T-Test was calculated assuming a standard difference (d) between the 4 paired outcomes for pain of 0.60 (moderate effect size), a SD of 1 for each outcome variable and a correlation of 0.50 between each paired variable.|paired T-test|"Subjects completed a tampon insertion pain test once a week. The values were averaged and compared pre-treatment versus post-treatment."||||||.003
90818652|NCT01304589|181516090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||||||A paired T-Test was calculated assuming a standard difference (d) between the 4 paired outcomes for pain of 0.60 (moderate effect size), a SD of 1 for each outcome variable and a correlation of 0.50 between each paired variable.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.001
90818653|NCT01304589|181516091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||A paired T-Test was calculated assuming a standard difference (d) between the 4 paired outcomes for pain of 0.60 (moderate effect size), a SD of 1 for each outcome variable and a correlation of 0.50 between each paired variable.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
90818654|NCT00006400|181516105|SUPERIORITY|The primary analysis was done using an intention-to-treat principle.||||||0.21||||||The spleen endpoint was to be tested at an overall alpha = 0.04. Originally there was a second primary outcome to be tested at alpha = 0.01, but this outcome was dropped.|Fisher Exact|||The primary analysis compared the frequency of worsening spleen function (from normal to decreased or absent, or decreased to absent) and not worsening (from decreased to decreased, normal to normal, or decreased to normal) as measured by splenic uptake on a technetium-99m (99mTc) sulfur colloid liver-spleen scan. Children with missing data or absent spleen function at baseline were excluded from the analysis (26 subjects from hydroxyurea and 23 subjects from placebo group were excluded).||||0.21
90818655|NCT00006400|181516106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93||||||This was originally a second primary outcome to be tested at alpha = 0.01, but was later dropped from the protocol. We analyzed the available data.|ANOVA|||The change from baseline to exit as measured by DTPA GFR were compared between treatment groups.||||0.93
91059164|NCT00101283|181999818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Overall Response Percent|18.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.4|41.7|||||Overall response percent for Pemetrexed/Carboplatin arm (percent of eligible, treated patients with complete or partial response)|The treatment was to be considered promising if a true response rate of 40% or higher was observed, whereas a rate of 15% or less would not be of interest. 3 or more responses were required to expand accrual to a second stage. This expansion did not occur.||41.7|5.4|
90818656|NCT00006400|181516107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43||||||All secondary outcomes were tested at alpha=0.01|ANOVA|||The change from baseline to exit as measured by GFR (calculated using Shwartz formula) were compared between treatment groups.||||0.43
91079199|NCT03240406|182044058|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|118.57||||0.191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.62|295.76||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|ANCOVA|MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|||295.76|-58.62|0.191
90818657|NCT00006400|181516108|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48||||||All secondary outcomes were to be tested at alpha = 0.01|ANOVA|||The change in GFR from baseline to exit were compared between treatment groups. GFR was calculated using new Schwartz formula.||||0.48
90818658|NCT01128192|181516141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|||||Two sided P value|ANOVA|||Change in fasting plasma glucose level||||0.240
90818659|NCT01128192|181516141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.339|TWO_SIDED|||||Two sided P value.|ANOVA|||Change in fasting plasma glucose level||||0.339
90818660|NCT01128192|181516142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Two sided P value.|ANOVA|||Pre and Post treatment Area Under the Curve (AUC) 0-30 minutes||||<0.001
90818661|NCT01128192|181516142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Two sided P Value.|ANOVA|||Pre and Post treatment Area Under the Curve (AUC) 30-180 minutes||||<0.001
90818662|NCT01128192|181516142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Two sided P Value|ANOVA|||Pre and Post treatment Area Under the Curve (AUC) 0-180 minutes||||<0.001
90818663|NCT01128192|181516142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Two sided P value.|ANOVA|||Pre and Post treatment Area Under the Curve (AUC) 0-30 minutes||||<0.001
90818664|NCT01128192|181516142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Two sided P value.|ANOVA|||Pre and Post treatment Area Under the Curve (AUC) 30-180 minutes||||<0.001
90818665|NCT01128192|181516142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Two sided P value.|ANOVA|||Pre and Post treatment Area Under the Curve (AUC) 0-180 minutes||||<0.001
91059165|NCT00101283|181999818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Overall Response Percent|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|20.6|||||Overall response percent for Pemetrexed/Gemcitabine arm (percent of eligible, treated patients with complete or partial response)|The treatment was to be considered promising if a true response rate of 40% or higher was observed, whereas a rate of 15% or less would not be of interest. 3 or more responses were required to expand accrual to a second stage. This expansion did not occur.||20.6|0.0|
90818666|NCT01128192|181516143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|||||Two sided P value.|ANOVA|||Change in fasting plasma insulin level||||0.019
90818667|NCT01128192|181516143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Two sided P value.|ANOVA|||Change in fasting plasma insulin level||||<0.001
90818668|NCT01128192|181516144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Two sided P value.|ANOVA|||Pre and Post treatment Area Under the Curve (AUC) 0-30 minutes||||<0.001
90818669|NCT01128192|181516144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Two sided P value|ANOVA|||Pre and Post treatment Area Under the Curve (AUC) 30-180 minutes||||<0.001
90818670|NCT01128192|181516144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Two sided P value.|ANOVA|||Pre and Post treatment Area Under the Curve (AUC) 0-180 minutes||||<0.001
90818671|NCT01128192|181516144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Two sided P value.|ANOVA|||Pre and Post treatment Area Under the Curve (AUC) 0-30 minutes||||<0.001
90818672|NCT01128192|181516144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Two sided P value.|ANOVA|||Pre and Post treatment Area Under the Curve (AUC) 30-180 minutes||||<0.001
90818673|NCT01128192|181516144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Two sided P value.|ANOVA|||Pre and Post treatment Area Under the Curve (AUC) 0-180 minutes||||<0.001
90818674|NCT01128192|181516145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Two sided P value.|ANOVA|||Change in Baseline Insulin Level||||<0.001
90818675|NCT01128192|181516145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Two sided P value|ANOVA|||Change in Baseline Insulin Level||||<0.001
90818676|NCT01128192|181516146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Two sided P value.|ANOVA|||Pre and Post treatment Area Under the Curve (AUC) 0-10 minutes||||<0.001
90818677|NCT01128192|181516146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Two sided P value|ANOVA|||Pre and Post treatment Area Under the Curve (AUC) 10-180 minutes||||<0.001
91059166|NCT03485365|181999838|OTHER|Bayesian Repeated Measures Model|Median Difference (Net)|-1.18|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.494|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|-0.2|||||Posterior median difference (GSK3858279 - Placebo) and 95% credible interval is presented.|||-0.20|-2.15|
91059167|NCT03485365|181999839|OTHER|Bayesian Repeated Measures Model|Median Difference (Net)|-1.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.612|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|0.12|||||Posterior median difference (GSK3858279 - Placebo) and 95% credible interval is presented.|||0.12|-2.29|
90818678|NCT01128192|181516146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Two sided P value|ANOVA|||Pre and Post treatment Area Under the Curve (AUC) 0-180 minutes||||<0.001
90818679|NCT01128192|181516146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Two sided P value|ANOVA|||Pre and Post treatment Area Under the Curve (AUC) 0-10 minutes||||<0.001
90818680|NCT01128192|181516146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Two sided P value.|ANOVA|||Pre and Post treatment Area Under the Curve (AUC) 10-180 minutes||||<0.001
90818681|NCT01128192|181516146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Two sided P value.|ANOVA|||Pre and Post treatment Area Under the Curve (AUC) 0-180 minutes||||<0.001
90818682|NCT01128192|181516147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.608|TWO_SIDED|||||Two sided P value.|ANOVA|||Change in Basal EGP||||0.608
90818683|NCT01128192|181516147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.132|TWO_SIDED|||||Two sided P value.|ANOVA|||Change in Basal EGP||||0.132
90818684|NCT01128192|181516148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.178|TWO_SIDED|||||Two sided P value.|ANOVA|||Change in Low-Dose % EGP Inhibition||||0.178
90818685|NCT01128192|181516148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|||||Two sided P value.|ANOVA|||Change in Low-Dose % EGP Inhibition||||0.111
90818686|NCT01128192|181516149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.573|TWO_SIDED|||||Two sided P value.|ANOVA|||Change in high-dose % EGP Inhibition||||0.573
90818687|NCT01128192|181516150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.956|TWO_SIDED|||||Two sided P value.|ANOVA|||Change in Low-Dose Glucose Disposal Rate (GDR)||||0.956
90818688|NCT01128192|181516150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|||||Two sided P value.|ANOVA|||Change in Low-Dose Glucose Disposal Rate (GDR)||||0.125
90818689|NCT01128192|181516151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.993|TWO_SIDED|||||Two sided P value.|ANOVA|||Change in High-Dose Glucose Disposal Rate (GDR)||||0.993
90818690|NCT01128192|181516151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.956|TWO_SIDED|||||Two sided P value.|ANOVA|||Change in High-Dose Glucose Disposal Rate (GDR)||||0.956
90818691|NCT03121365|181516158|EQUIVALENCE|0.05||||||0.7635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development Cognitive Composite Scores between infants 12-18 months old in the Standard and Digital Arms||||.7635
90818692|NCT03121365|181516158|EQUIVALENCE|0.05||||||0.0996|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Language Composite Scores between infants 12-18 months old in the Standard and Digital Arms||||.0996
90818693|NCT03121365|181516158|EQUIVALENCE|0.05||||||0.2291|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Gross Motor Composite Scores between infants 12-18 months old in the Standard and Digital Arms||||.2291
90818694|NCT03121365|181516159|EQUIVALENCE|0.05||||||0.018|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||StimQ scores between infants 6 months of age and 9 months of age in the board book arm and e-book arm||||.0180
90818695|NCT03121365|181516159|EQUIVALENCE|0.05||||||0.4144|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||StimQ scores between infants 9 months of age and 12 months of age in the board book arm and e-book arm||||.4144
90818696|NCT03121365|181516159|EQUIVALENCE|0.05||||||0.4251|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||StimQ scores between infants 6 months of age and 12 months of age in the board book arm and e-book arm||||.4251
90818697|NCT03121365|181516160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.235||||||Difference in Board Book Reading|Chi-squared|||||||0.235
90818698|NCT03121365|181516161|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
90818699|NCT03121365|181516162|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.601|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.601
90818700|NCT03121365|181516163|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.219|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.219
90818701|NCT03121365|181516164|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
90818702|NCT03121365|181516165|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.574|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.574
90818703|NCT03121365|181516166|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.430
90818704|NCT03121365|181516167|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
90818705|NCT03121365|181516168|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.861|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.861
90818706|NCT02277925|181516171|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.74||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|5.14|||Chi-squared|||||5.14|0.59|0.30
90818707|NCT02277925|181516172|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.11|||Chi-squared|||||1.11|0.96|0.43
90818708|NCT02277925|181516173|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.5||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|5.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.7|-14.7|0.39
90818709|NCT00244101|181516181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.03||||||PS group used as standard of care. Relative risk and 95 % CI calculated for PS (reference) versus ISX or NCPAP.||1.03|0.59|
91059168|NCT03332979|181999873|OTHER|Multivariable regression analysis will be used to enable us to explore the impact of modifiable factors reflecting preparation for end of life on the MMCGI-SF.|||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear||||Multivariable regression will be used to explore preparation for end of life on the MMCGI-SF. The analyses will use the MMCGI-SF as the dependent variable with five predictor variables (dementia knowledge \[DKAS\], Social support \[HLQ1\], Communication with healthcare professionals \[HLW4\], advance decisions and knowledge of end of life wishes of person with dementia. There will also be 10 confounders included in the model (gender of caregiver, living arrangement of person with dementia \[at home of a care home\], aged of person with dementia, dementia severity \[CDR\], change in closeness, religiosity \[DURAL\], deprivation and relationship of the carer to the person with dementia).|||<0.05
91059169|NCT03968978|181999913|OTHER||Proportion|98.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.67|99.5|||Score CI|CI at Week 0 (in clinic)||||99.5|93.67|
91059170|NCT03968978|181999913|OTHER||Proportion|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.65|100.0|||Score CI|CI at Week 4 (in clinic)||||100|96.65|
91059171|NCT03968978|181999913|OTHER||Proportion|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.63|100.0|||Score CI|CI for Week 8 (in clinic)||||100.00|96.63|
91059172|NCT03968978|181999913|OTHER||Proportion|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.63|100.0|||Score CI|CI for Week 12 (at home)||||100.00|96.63|
91059173|NCT03968978|181999913|OTHER||Proportion|95.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.71|98.02|||Score CI|CI for Week 16 (at home)||||98.02|89.71|
90818710|NCT00244101|181516181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.27||||||PS group used as standard of care. Relative risk and 95% CI calculated for PS (reference) versus NCPAP.||1.27|0.25|
90818711|NCT00244101|181516182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.94||||||PS group used as standard of care. Relative risk and 95 % CI calculated for PS (reference) versus ISX.||1.94|0.49|
90818712|NCT00244101|181516182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.09||||||PS group used as standard of care. Relative risk and 95% CI calculated for PS (reference) versus NCPAP.||1.09|0.64|
90818713|NCT04493281|181516192|EQUIVALENCE|The analysis was performed by analysis of variance (ANOVA), which included factors accounting for the following sources of variation: sequence, subjects nested in sequences, period, and treatment. For bioequivalence, the 90% CIs of the geometric mean ratio of AUC0-t for oral suspension and intravenous formulation were required to be within the range of 0.80 to 1.25.|Ratio (PO/IV)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.04||||||||1.04|0.91|
90818714|NCT04493281|181516193|EQUIVALENCE|The analysis was performed by analysis of variance (ANOVA), which included factors accounting for the following sources of variation: sequence, subjects nested in sequences, period, and treatment. For bioequivalence, the 90% CIs of the geometric mean ratio of AUC0-inf for oral suspension and intravenous formulation were required to be within the range of 0.80 to 1.25.|Ratio (PO/IV)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.04||||||||1.04|0.92|
90818715|NCT04493281|181516194|EQUIVALENCE|The analysis was performed by analysis of variance (ANOVA), which included factors accounting for the following sources of variation: sequence, subjects nested in sequences, period, and treatment. For bioequivalence, the 90% CIs of the geometric mean ratio of Cmax for oral suspension and intravenous formulation were required to be within the range of 0.80 to 1.25.|Ratio (PO/IV)|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.09|1.36||||||||1.36|1.09|
90818716|NCT03176771|181516239|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|-2.6|||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures|||"Control for multiplicity was accomplished through the a fixed-sequence testing procedure for Week 6 outcomes:~* AIMS dyskinesia total score mean change from baseline (CFB): MT-5199 80 mg vs. placebo.~* AIMS: MT-5199 40 mg vs. PBO. For a test result in the above list to be considered statistically significant, all of the test results higher in the list must have been significant at the 0.05 level of significance."||-2.6|-4.5|<0.001
91059174|NCT03968978|181999913|OTHER||Proportion|96.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|90.94|98.56|||Score CI|CI for Week 20 (in clinic)||||98.56|90.94|
91059175|NCT03968978|181999913|OTHER||Proportion|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.47|100.0|||Score CI|CI for Week 0 (in clinic)||||100.00|96.47|
91059176|NCT03968978|181999913|OTHER||Proportion|97.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.93|99.02|||Score CI|CI for Week 4 (in clinic)||||99.02|91.93|
91059177|NCT03968978|181999913|OTHER||Proportion|98.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.32|99.48|||Score CI|CI for Week 8 (in clinic)||||99.48|93.32|
90818717|NCT03176771|181516239|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-1.3|||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures|||||-1.3|-3.0|<0.001
90818718|NCT03176771|181516240|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.6||||0.027|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.027
90818719|NCT03176771|181516240|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|36.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90818720|NCT03176771|181516241|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.3|||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures|||||-0.3|-2.7|0.013
90818721|NCT03176771|181516241|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-1.1|||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures|||||-1.1|-3.5|<0.001
91059178|NCT03968978|181999913|OTHER||Proportion|99.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.8|99.83|||Score CI|CI for week 12 (at home)||||99.83|94.80|
91059179|NCT03968978|181999913|OTHER||Proportion|97.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.93|99.02|||Score CI|CI for Week 16 (at home)||||99.02|91.93|
91059180|NCT03968978|181999913|OTHER||Proportion|97.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.93|99.02|||Score CI|CI for Week 20 (in clinic)||||99.02|91.93|
91059181|NCT03968978|181999914|OTHER||Proportion|98.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.67|99.5|||Score CI|CI at Week 0 (in clinic)||||99.50|93.67|
91059182|NCT03968978|181999914|OTHER||Proportion|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.65|100.0|||Score CI|CI at Week 4 (in clinic)||||100.00|96.65|
90818722|NCT03176771|181516242|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.1|||ANOVA|||||-0.1|-0.7|0.021
90818723|NCT03176771|181516242|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.3|||ANOVA|||||-0.3|-1.0|<0.001
90818724|NCT04097379|181516247|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean|51.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|71.327||0.2366||90.0|-68.7|172.1|||Mixed effects model for repeated measure|||||172.1|-68.7|0.2366
90818725|NCT04097379|181516247|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean|38.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|68.1||0.2892|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-76.7|153.1|||Mixed effects model for repeated measure|||||153.1|-76.7|0.2892
90818726|NCT04776135|181516273|OTHER|AUC0-t was log-transformed and analyzed by analysis of variance using administration groups, the administration route, study periods, and subjects as factors. Estimates of the mean values on the log scale, the mean difference between administration routes on the log scale, and 90% CIs for the difference were back transformed to present mean ratios and their 90% CIs for administration via NGT to oral administration.|Ratio (NGT/oral)|0.987|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.936|1.041|||ANOVA|||For AUC0-t, MT-1186 orally Versus MT-1186 via NGT||1.041|0.936|
90818727|NCT04776135|181516273|OTHER|AUC0-inf was log-transformed and analyzed by analysis of variance using administration groups, the administration route, study periods, and subjects as factors. Estimates of the mean values on the log scale, the mean difference between administration routes on the log scale, and 90% CIs for the difference were back transformed to present mean ratios and their 90% CIs for administration via NGT to oral administration.|Ratio (NGT/oral)|0.981|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.931|1.033|||ANOVA|||For AUC0-inf, MT-1186 orally Versus MT-1186 via NGT||1.033|0.931|
90818728|NCT04776135|181516274|OTHER|Cmax was log-transformed and analyzed by analysis of variance using administration groups, the administration route, study periods, and subjects as factors. Estimates of the mean values on the log scale, the mean difference between administration routes on the log scale, and 90% CIs for the difference were back transformed to present mean ratios and their 90% CIs for administration via NGT to oral administration.|Ratio (NGT/oral)|1.052|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.903|1.227|||ANOVA|||MT-1186 orally Versus MT-1186 via NGT||1.227|0.903|
90818729|NCT04617496|181516309|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3||0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.13
90818730|NCT04617496|181516310|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
91059183|NCT03968978|181999914|OTHER||Proportion|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.63|100.0|||Score CI|CI for Week 8 (in clinic)||||100.00|96.63|
91059184|NCT03968978|181999914|OTHER||Proportion|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.63|100.0|||Score CI|CI for Week 12 (at home)||||100.00|96.63|
91059185|NCT03968978|181999914|OTHER||Proportion|97.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|92.8|99.04|||Score CI|CI for Week 16 (at home)||||99.04|92.80|
91059186|NCT03968978|181999914|OTHER||Proportion|99.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.85|99.83|||Score CI|CI for Week 20 (in clinic)||||99.83|94.85|
91059187|NCT03968978|181999914|OTHER||Proportion|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.46|100.0|||Score CI|CI for Week 0 (in clinic)||||100.00|96.46|
91059188|NCT03968978|181999914|OTHER||Proportion|97.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.38|99.48|||Score CI|CI for Week 4 (in clinic)||||99.48|93.38|
91059189|NCT03968978|181999914|OTHER||Proportion|98.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.32|99.48|||Other CI|CI for Week 8 (in clinic)||||99.48|93.32|
91059190|NCT03968978|181999914|OTHER||Proportion|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.44|100.0|||Score CI|CI for week 12 (at home)||||100.00|96.44|
91059191|NCT03968978|181999914|OTHER||Proportion|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.37|100.0|||Score CI|CI for Week 16 (at home)||||100.00|96.37|
91059192|NCT03968978|181999914|OTHER||Proportion|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.37|100.0|||Score CI|CI for Week 20 (in clinic)||||100.00|96.37|
91059193|NCT03968978|181999915|OTHER||Proportion|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|6.33|||Score CI|CI at Week 0 (in clinic)||||6.33|0.50|
90818731|NCT04508530|181516346|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.1||||0.00855|TWO_SIDED|5.0|0.2|2.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.0|0.2|0.00855
90818732|NCT04508530|181516347|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-19.0||||0.0718|ONE_SIDED|2.5||6.7|||t-test, 1 sided|||||6.7||0.0718
90818733|NCT04508530|181516348|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0111|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0111
90818734|NCT04530552|181516349|OTHER||See above|0.895|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posterior probability of observing a response rate ≥ 50%||||
90818735|NCT04530552|181516349|OTHER||See above|0.943|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posterior probability of observing a response rate ≥ 25%||||
90818736|NCT04530552|181516350|OTHER|Two-sided paired t-test at 2.5% significance level (Bonferroni correction)||||||0.034||||||Two-sided paired t-test at 2.5% significance level (Bonferroni correction)|paired t-test|||||||0.034
90818737|NCT04530552|181516350|OTHER|||||||0.252||||||Two-sided paired t-test at 2.5% significance level (Bonferroni correction)|paired t-test|||||||0.252
91059194|NCT03968978|181999915|OTHER||Proportion|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.35|||Score CI|CI at Week 4 (in clinic)||||3.35|0|
91059195|NCT03968978|181999915|OTHER||Proportion|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.37|||Score CI|CI for Week 8 (in clinic)||||3.37|0|
91059196|NCT03968978|181999915|OTHER||Proportion|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.37|||Score CI|CI for Week 12 (at home)||||3.37|0|
91059197|NCT03968978|181999915|OTHER||Proportion|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|7.92|||Score CI|CI for Week 16 (at home)||||7.92|0.96|
91059198|NCT03968978|181999915|OTHER||Proportion|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|5.15|||Score CI|CI for Week 20 (in clinic)||||5.15|0.17|
91059199|NCT03968978|181999915|SUPERIORITY||Proportion|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.53|||Score CI|CI for Week 0 (in clinic)||||3.53|0|
91059200|NCT03968978|181999915|OTHER||Proportion|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|7.99|||Score CI|CI for Week 4 (in clinic)||||7.99|0.97|
91059201|NCT03968978|181999915|OTHER||Proportion|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|6.68|||Other CI|CI for Week 8 (in clinic)||||6.68|0.52|
90818738|NCT04530552|181516351|OTHER|||||||1||||||Significance level of 2.5% (Bonferroni correction)|Pearson correlation|||Correlation with % change PSA at end-of-intervention||||1.0
91059202|NCT03968978|181999915|OTHER||Proportion|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.56|||Score CI|CI for week 12 (at home)||||3.56|0|
91059203|NCT03968978|181999915|OTHER||Proportion|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.63|||Score CI|CI for Week 16 (at home)||||3.63|0|
91059204|NCT03968978|181999915|OTHER||Proportion|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.63|||Score CI|CI for Week 20 (in clinic)||||3.63|0|
91059205|NCT00863772|181999919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|1.01|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of co-variance (ANCOVA) model was used with treatment as main effect, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||1.01|-0.44|0.434
90818739|NCT04530552|181516351|OTHER|||||||1||||||Significance level of 2.5% (Bonferroni correction)|Pearson correlation|||Correlation with % change PSA at end-of-intervention||||1.0
90818740|NCT04530552|181516352|OTHER|||||||0.658||||||two-sided paired t-test (no Bonferroni adjustment)|paired t-test|||||||0.658
90818741|NCT04530552|181516352|OTHER|||||||0.167||||||Two-sided paired t-test (no Bonferroni adjustment)|paired t-test|||||||0.167
90818742|NCT03703856|181516364|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|ANOVA|||Change in ADAS-Cog score over time||||0.68
90818743|NCT03703856|181516365|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|ANOVA|||||||>0.05
90818744|NCT03703856|181516366|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05|ANOVA|||||||>0.05
90818745|NCT01192412|181516401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.35||||||We estimated that with a sample size of 514 per group, the study would have 80% power, at a two-tailed alpha level of 0.05, assuming primary outcome rates of 33% in the tight-control group and 25% in the less-tight-control group, a 10% rate of crossover, a 1% loss to follow-up, and two interim analyses, as calculated with the chi-square test with the use of East software (Cytel) and the Lan-DeMets spending function with O'Brien-Fleming-type boundaries for early stopping.||1.35|0.77|
90818746|NCT01192412|181516402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|3.84||||||||3.84|0.79|
90818747|NCT02421588|181516403|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.057||||0.6294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.854|1.309|||Log Rank|||PFS between treatments||1.309|0.854|0.6294
90818748|NCT02421588|181516403|SUPERIORITY||PFS at 6 months|24.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.4|30.7|||||Percent of Participants|PFS (%) at 6 months||30.7|18.4|
90818749|NCT02421588|181516403|SUPERIORITY||PFS at 6 months|27.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.9|34.4|||||Percent of Participants|PFS (%) at 6 months||34.4|20.9|
90818750|NCT02421588|181516403|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5032|||||||Normal approximation|||PFS (%) at 6 months between treatments||||0.5032
90818751|NCT02421588|181516403|SUPERIORITY||PFS at 12 months|8.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|13.3|||||Percent of Participants|PFS (%) at 12 months||13.3|4.7|
90818752|NCT02421588|181516403|SUPERIORITY||PFS at 12 months|7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|12.5|||||Percent of Participants|PFS (%) at 12 months||12.5|3.3|
90818753|NCT02421588|181516403|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6742|||||||Normal approximation|||PFS (%) at 12 months between treatments||||0.6742
90818754|NCT02421588|181516404|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.987||||0.7673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.805|1.209|||Log Rank|||PFS between treatments||1.209|0.805|0.7673
90818755|NCT02421588|181516404|SUPERIORITY||PFS at 6 months|29.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.8|35.4|||||Percent of Participants|PFS (%) at 6 months||35.4|22.8|
90818756|NCT02421588|181516404|SUPERIORITY||PFS at 6 months|27.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.3|33.9|||||Percent of Participants|PFS (%) at 6 months||33.9|21.3|
90818757|NCT02421588|181516404|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7385|||||||Normal approximation|||PFS (%) at 6 months between treatments||||0.7385
90818758|NCT02421588|181516404|SUPERIORITY||PFS (%) at 12 months|8.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.8|12.7|||||Percent of Participants|PFS (%) at 12 months||12.7|4.8|
90818759|NCT02421588|181516404|SUPERIORITY||PFS (%) at 12 months|7.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|12.2|||||Percent of Participants|PFS (%) at 12 months||12.2|4.2|
90818760|NCT02421588|181516404|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8245|||||||Normal approximation|||PFS (%) at 12 months between treatments||||0.8245
90818761|NCT02421588|181516405|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.956||||0.8021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.772|1.183|||Log Rank|||OS between treatments||1.183|0.772|0.8021
90818762|NCT02421588|181516405|SUPERIORITY||OS at 12 months|48.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.3|54.8|||||Percent of Participants|OS (%) at 12 months||54.8|41.3|
90818763|NCT02421588|181516405|SUPERIORITY||OS (%) at 12 months|45.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.4|52.0|||||Percent of Participants|OS (%) at 12 months||52.0|38.4|
90818764|NCT02421588|181516405|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5515|||||||Normal approximation|||OS (%) at 12 months between treatments||||0.5515
90818765|NCT02421588|181516405|SUPERIORITY||OS (%) at 24 months|22.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.8|28.2|||||Percent of Participants|OS (%) at 24 months||28.2|16.8|
90818766|NCT02421588|181516405|SUPERIORITY||OS (%) at 24 months|22.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.1|28.7|||||Percent of Participants|OS (%) at 24 months||28.7|17.1|
90818767|NCT02421588|181516405|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9253|||||||Normal approximation|||OS (%) at 24 months between treatments||||0.9253
90818768|NCT02421588|181516406|SUPERIORITY||ORR|14.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.1|19.8|||||Percent of Participants|Overall response rate||19.8|10.1|
90818769|NCT02421588|181516406|SUPERIORITY||ORR|12.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.6|17.8|||||Percent of Participants|Overall response rate||17.8|8.6|
90818770|NCT02421588|181516406|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6772|||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall response rate between treatments||||0.6772
90818771|NCT02421588|181516407|SUPERIORITY||ORR|15.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.3|21.3|||||Percent of Participants|Overall response rate (ORR)||21.3|11.3|
90818772|NCT02421588|181516407|SUPERIORITY||Overall response rate (ORR)|16.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.1|22.3|||||Percent of Participants|Overall response rate (ORR)||22.3|12.1|
90818773|NCT02421588|181516407|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8976|||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall response rate (ORR) between treatments||||0.8976
90818774|NCT02421588|181516408|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.406||||0.2631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.769|2.569|||Log Rank|||Duration of response between treatments||2.569|0.769|0.2631
90818775|NCT02421588|181516409|SUPERIORITY|Duration of response between treatments|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.056||||0.8276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.743|||Log Rank|||||1.743|0.64|0.8276
90818776|NCT02421588|181516410|SUPERIORITY||ORR (%)|26.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.2|33.8|||||Percent of Participants|ORR (%) by CA-125||33.8|20.2|
90818777|NCT02421588|181516410|SUPERIORITY||ORR (%)|19.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.7|26.3|||||Percent of Participants|ORR (%) by CA-125||26.3|13.7|
90818778|NCT02421588|181516410|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1231|||||||Fisher Exact|||ORR (%) by CA-125 between treatments||||0.1231
90818779|NCT02678923|181516454|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.73||||0.0738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|1.52||Baseline parameter value as a covariate and treatment group as factor, adjusting for country and prior statin use.|ANCOVA|||||1.52|-0.07|0.0738
90818780|NCT01716104|181516566|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0005
90818781|NCT01716104|181516567|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.035
90818782|NCT01716104|181516568|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0008|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0008
90818783|NCT01716104|181516569|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0011|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0011
90818784|NCT01716104|181516570|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0054|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0054
90818785|NCT01716104|181516571|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0437|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0437
90818786|NCT01716104|181516572|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0862|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0862
90818787|NCT01716104|181516573|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0621|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0621
90818788|NCT01716104|181516574|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0142|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0142
90818789|NCT00117793|181516576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0||||Statistical significance was set a-priori at p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The effect of study limb on limb volume was analyzed using repeated measures one-way analyses of variance.||||||>0.05
91059206|NCT00863772|181999919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.79|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model was used with treatment as main effect, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.79|-0.68|0.883
91059207|NCT00863772|181999920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.86|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of co-variance (ANCOVA) model was used with treatment as main effect, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.86|-0.59|0.720
90818790|NCT00117793|181516577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.0056||95.0||||Statistical significance was set a-priori at p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The effect of study limb on activity level was analyzed using repeated measures one-way analyses of variance.||||||=0.0056
90818791|NCT00117793|181516578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.0021||95.0||||Statistical significance was set a-priori at p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The effect of study limb on limb pistoning was analyzed using repeated measures one-way analyses of variance.||||||=0.0021
90818792|NCT01818492|181516584|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0134|||||||Exact binomial test|This test was undertaken at the one-sided 0.025 significance level.||Pre-specified null hypothesis that ORR is at most 40%.||||0.0134
90818793|NCT01818492|181516585|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0031|||||||Exact binomial test|This test was undertaken at the one-sided 0.025 significance level.||Pre-specified null hypothesis that ORR is at most 40%||||0.0031
90818794|NCT01818492|181516586|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0205|||||||Exact binomial test|This test was undertaken at the one-sided 0.025 significance level.||Pre-specified null hypothesis that ORR is at most 40%||||0.0205
90818795|NCT01818492|181516587|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0053|||||||Exact binomial test|This test was undertaken at the one-sided 0.025 significance level.||Pre-specified null hypothesis that ORR is at most 40%.||||0.0053
90818796|NCT00552409|181516625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.0|251.0|||Regression, Linear||Mean urine ACR on treatment was 17% lower among participants assigned to cholecalciferol, compared to participants assigned to placebo, adjusted for baseline values.|||251|-56|
90818797|NCT00659230|181516636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|-0.18||||0.723|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.64|0.27|||ANOVA||Effect size (ES) for change in CAPS-D score relative to baseline was calculated according to the method of Cohen.|The analysis was conducted using a repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) model. The model consisted of two factors - treatment at two levels and time (5 time points including baseline) and group by time interaction.||0.27|-0.64|0.723
90818798|NCT00659230|181516637|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size|-0.07||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.52|0.39|||ANOVA||Effect size (ES) for change in CAPS-D score relative to baseline was calculated according to the method of Cohen.|||0.39|-.52|0.540
90818799|NCT00659230|181516638|SUPERIORITY||Effect size|-0.18||||0.951|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.64|0.27|||ANOVA||Effect size (ES) for change in CAPS-D score relative to baseline was calculated according to the method of Cohen.|||0.27|-0.64|0.951
90818800|NCT00659230|181516639|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size|0.11||||0.396|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.35|0.56|||ANOVA||Effect size (ES) for change in CAPS-D score relative to baseline was calculated according to the method of Cohen.|||0.56|-0.35|0.396
90818801|NCT05342597|181516680|OTHER|Estimated difference in least squares means and corresponding 90%CI of log-transformed PK parameters were back transformed to obtain the estimate and CI of the geometric mean ratio of each meal condition to the fasted state.|LS Mean Ratio|1.025|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.931|1.128|||ANOVA|||PK parameters of unchanged edaravone were analyzed for the assessments of food effect on PK.||1.128|0.931|
90818802|NCT05342597|181516680|OTHER|Estimated difference in least squares means and corresponding 90%CI of log-transformed PK parameters were back transformed to obtain the estimate and CI of the geometric mean ratio of each meal condition to the fasted state.|LS Mean Ratio|0.959|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.871|1.056|||ANOVA|||PK parameters of unchanged edaravone were analyzed for the assessments of food effect on PK.||1.056|0.871|
90818803|NCT05342597|181516680|OTHER|Estimated difference in least squares means and corresponding 90%CI of log-transformed PK parameters were back transformed to obtain the estimate and CI of the geometric mean ratio of each meal condition to the fasted state.|LS Mean Ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.827|1.002|||ANOVA|||PK parameters of unchanged edaravone were analyzed for the assessments of food effect on PK.||1.002|0.827|
90818804|NCT05342597|181516680|OTHER|Estimated difference in least squares means and corresponding 90%CI of log-transformed PK parameters were back transformed to obtain the estimate and CI of the geometric mean ratio of each meal condition to the fasted state.|LS Mean Ratio|0.801|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.712|0.901|||ANOVA|||PK parameters of unchanged edaravone were analyzed for the assessments of food effect on PK.||0.901|0.712|
90818805|NCT05342597|181516681|OTHER|Estimated difference in least squares means and corresponding 90%CI of log-transformed PK parameters were back transformed to obtain the estimate and CI of the geometric mean ratio of each meal condition to the fasted state.|LS Mean Ratio|1.083|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.821|1.429|||ANOVA|||PK parameters of unchanged edaravone were analyzed for the assessments of food effect on PK.||1.429|0.821|
90818806|NCT05342597|181516681|OTHER|Estimated difference in least squares means and corresponding 90%CI of log-transformed PK parameters were back transformed to obtain the estimate and CI of the geometric mean ratio of each meal condition to the fasted state.|LS Mean Ratio|0.872|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.661|1.15|||ANOVA|||PK parameters of unchanged edaravone were analyzed for the assessments of food effect on PK.||1.150|0.661|
91059208|NCT00863772|181999920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.74|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model was used with treatment as main effect, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.74|-0.73|0.985
91059209|NCT04400682|181999978|EQUIVALENCE|0.80-1.25 margins for equivalence|Mean ratio|1.015||||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9897|1.041|||ANOVA||||Ln(AUClast) : 0.989- 1.0410|1.0410|0.9897|0.0000
91059210|NCT04400682|181999979|EQUIVALENCE|0.80 - 1.25 equivalence margin is required.|Mean ratio|1.0361||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9294|1.1551|||ANOVA||||Ln(Cmax) : 0.9294 - 1.1551|1.1551|0.9294|0.0033
90818807|NCT05342597|181516681|OTHER|Estimated difference in least squares means and corresponding 90%CI of log-transformed PK parameters were back transformed to obtain the estimate and CI of the geometric mean ratio of each meal condition to the fasted state.|LS Mean Ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.621|1.082|||ANOVA|||PK parameters of unchanged edaravone were analyzed for the assessments of food effect on PK.||1.082|0.621|
90818808|NCT05342597|181516681|OTHER|Estimated difference in least squares means and corresponding 90%CI of log-transformed PK parameters were back transformed to obtain the estimate and CI of the geometric mean ratio of each meal condition to the fasted state.|LS Mean Ratio|0.536|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.362|0.794|||ANOVA|||PK parameters of unchanged edaravone were analyzed for the assessments of food effect on PK.||0.794|0.362|
90818809|NCT02354222|181516728|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|-0.72|||ANCOVA|||||-0.72|-1.16|<0.001
90818810|NCT02354222|181516729|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-15.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.3|-7.9|||ANCOVA|||||-7.9|-23.3|<0.001
90818811|NCT02354222|181516730|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.23|||ANCOVA|||||2.23|0.63|<0.001
90818812|NCT02354222|181516731|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-55.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.1|-37.6|||ANCOVA|||||-37.6|-74.1|<0.001
90818813|NCT02354222|181516732|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-37.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.9|-25.2|||ANCOVA|||||-25.2|-49.9|<0.001
90818814|NCT04099511|181516781|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.693|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.693
90818815|NCT04099511|181516782|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.536|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.536
90818816|NCT04099511|181516783|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.260
91059211|NCT04400682|181999980|EQUIVALENCE|0.80 - 1.25 equivalence margin is not required.|Mean ratio|1.0108||||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9856|1.0366|||ANOVA||||Ln(Cmax) : 0.9856 - 1.0366|1.0366|0.9856|0.0000
90818817|NCT04099511|181516784|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.387|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.387
90818818|NCT04099511|181516785|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.826|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.826
90818819|NCT04099511|181516786|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.826|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.826
90818820|NCT04099511|181516787|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.388|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.388
91059212|NCT04784533|181999987|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.5|26.8|||||Treatment difference is calculated as the difference between the percentage of responders in the 12 mg BID group versus the 8 mg BID group.|Week 12||26.8|5.5|
90818821|NCT04099511|181516788|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.308|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.308
90818822|NCT06581094|181516792|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.478||||||It calculated the p value of two treatment (Control group and Test group). The threshold of statistical significance was p = 0.05|ANOVA|||This analysis examined the overall (main) effect of treatment-comparing Control and Test groups across the three time points (baseline, week 6, and week 12) Comparison groups: Control and Test group of Normal walk, Left baseline, week 6, and week 12.||||0.478
90818823|NCT06581094|181516792|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.612||||||It calculated the p value of two treatment (Control group and Test group). The threshold of statistical significance was p = 0.05|ANOVA|||This analysis examined the overall (main) effect of treatment-comparing Control and Test groups across the three time points (baseline, week 6, and week 12) Comparison groups: Control and Test group of Normal walk, Right baseline, week 6, and week 12.||||0.612
90818824|NCT06581094|181516792|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.534|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis examined the overall (main) effect of treatment-comparing Control and Test groups across the three time points (baseline, week 6, and week 12) Comparison groups: Control and Test group of Stand up/squat down, Left baseline, week 6, and week 12.||||0.534
91059213|NCT04784533|181999987|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|12.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|22.9|||||Treatment difference is calculated as the difference between the percentage of responders in the 12 mg BID group versus the 8 mg BID group.|Week 16||22.9|1.3|
90818825|NCT06581094|181516792|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.538|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis examined the overall (main) effect of treatment-comparing Control and Test groups across the three time points (baseline, week 6, and week 12) Comparison groups: Control and Test group of Stand up/squat down, Right baseline, week 6, and week 12.||||0.538
90818826|NCT06581094|181516792|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.195||||||It calculated the p value of two treatment (Control group and Test group). The threshold of statistical significance was p = 0.05|ANOVA|||This analysis examined the overall (main) effect of treatment-comparing Control and Test groups across the three time points (baseline, week 6, and week 12) Comparison groups: Control and Test group of Bend to biggest angle, Left baseline, week 6, and week 12.||||0.195
90818827|NCT06581094|181516792|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.232||||||It calculated the p value of two treatment (Control group and Test group). The threshold of statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|||This analysis examined the overall (main) effect of treatment-comparing Control and Test groups across the three time points (baseline, week 6, and week 12) Comparison groups: Control and Test group of Bend to biggest angle, Right baseline, week 6, and week 12.||||0.232
90818828|NCT06581094|181516792|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.369||||||It calculated the p value of the interaction between 2 groups X 3 time points. The threshold of statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|||It calculated the interaction between 2 groups (Control group and Test group) X 3 time points (Baseline, week 6, week 12) of Normal walk, Left.||||0.369
90818829|NCT06581094|181516792|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.593||||||It calculated the p value of the interaction between 2 groups X 3 time points. The threshold of statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|||It calculated the interaction between 2 groups (Control group and Test group) X 3 time points (Baseline, week 6, week 12) of Normal walk, Right.||||0.593
90818830|NCT06581094|181516792|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.918||||||It calculated the p value of the interaction between 2 groups X 3 time points. The threshold of statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|||It calculated the interaction between 2 groups (Control group and Test group) X 3 time points (Baseline, week 6, week 12) of Stand up/squat down, Left.||||0.918
91059214|NCT04784533|181999987|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|26.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.4|37.5|||||Treatment difference is calculated as the difference between the percentage of responders in the 12 mg BID group versus the 8 mg BID group.|Week 20||37.5|15.4|
91059215|NCT04784533|181999987|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|19.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.5|31.3|||||Treatment difference is calculated as the difference between the percentage of responders in the 12 mg BID group versus the 8 mg BID group.|Week 24||31.3|8.5|
90818831|NCT06581094|181516792|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99||||||It calculated the p value of the interaction between 2 groups X 3 time points. The threshold of statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|||It calculated the interaction between 2 groups (Control group and Test group) X 3 time points (Baseline, week 6, week 12) of Stand up/squat down, Right.||||0.990
90818832|NCT06581094|181516792|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.263||||||It calculated the p value of the interaction between 2 groups X 3 time points. The threshold of statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|||It calculated the interaction between 2 groups (Control group and Test group) X 3 time points (Baseline, week 6, week 12) of Bend to biggest angle, Left.||||0.263
90818833|NCT06581094|181516792|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.235||||||It calculated the p value of the interaction between 2 groups X 3 time points. The threshold of statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|||It calculated the interaction between 2 groups (Control group and Test group) X 3 time points (Baseline, week 6, week 12) of Bend to biggest angle, Right.||||0.235
90818834|NCT06581094|181516793|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.399||||||It calculated the p value of two treatment (Control group and Test group). The threshold of statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|It calculated the p value of two treatment (Control group and Test group). The threshold of statistical significance was p = 0.05.||This analysis examined the overall (main) effect of treatment-comparing Control and Test groups across the three time points (baseline, week 6, and week 12) Comparison groups: Control and Test group of up-and-go test on baseline, week 6, and week 12.||||0.399
90818835|NCT06581094|181516793|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.106||||||It calculated the p value of the interaction between 2 groups X 3 time points. The threshold of statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|||It calculated the interaction between 2 groups (Control group and Test group) X 3 time points (Baseline, week 6, week 12) of timed up-and-go test.||||0.106
90818836|NCT06581094|181516794|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.502||||||It calculated the p value of two treatment (Control group and Test group). The threshold of statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|||This analysis examined the overall (main) effect of treatment-comparing Control and Test groups across the three time points (baseline, week 6, and week 12) Comparison groups: Control and Test group of AROM, Left baseline, week 6, and week 12.||||0.502
90818837|NCT06581094|181516794|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.724||||||It calculated the p value of two treatment (Control group and Test group). The threshold of statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|||This analysis examined the overall (main) effect of treatment-comparing Control and Test groups across the three time points (baseline, week 6, and week 12) Comparison groups: Control and Test group of AROM, Right baseline, week 6, and week 12.||||0.724
90818838|NCT06581094|181516794|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.414||||||It calculated the p value of two treatment (Control group and Test group). The threshold of statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|||This analysis examined the overall (main) effect of treatment-comparing Control and Test groups across the three time points (baseline, week 6, and week 12) Comparison groups: Control and Test group of PROM, Left baseline, week 6, and week 12.||||0.414
90818839|NCT06581094|181516794|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.563||||||It calculated the p value of two treatment (Control group and Test group). The threshold of statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|||This analysis examined the overall (main) effect of treatment-comparing Control and Test groups across the three time points (baseline, week 6, and week 12) Comparison groups: Control and Test group of PROM, Right baseline, week 6, and week 12.||||0.563
90818840|NCT06581094|181516794|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11||||||It calculated the p value of the interaction between 2 groups X 3 time points. The threshold of statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|||It calculated the interaction between 2 groups (Control group and Test group) X 3 time points (Baseline, week 6, week 12) of AROM, Left.||||0.110
90818841|NCT06581094|181516794|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.245||||||It calculated the p value of the interaction between 2 groups X 3 time points. The threshold of statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|||It calculated the interaction between 2 groups (Control group and Test group) X 3 time points (Baseline, week 6, week 12) of AROM, Right.||||0.245
90818842|NCT06581094|181516794|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.113||||||It calculated the p value of the interaction between 2 groups X 3 time points. The threshold of statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|||It calculated the interaction between 2 groups (Control group and Test group) X 3 time points (Baseline, week 6, week 12) of PROM, Left.||||0.113
91059216|NCT04784533|181999988|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|3.9|||||Treatment difference is calculated as the difference between the percentage of responders in the 12 mg BID group versus the 8 mg BID group.|Week 8||3.9|-2.7|
90818843|NCT06581094|181516794|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.395||||||It calculated the p value of the interaction between 2 groups X 3 time points. The threshold of statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|||It calculated the interaction between 2 groups (Control group and Test group) X 3 time points (Baseline, week 6, week 12) of PROM, Right.||||0.395
90818844|NCT06581094|181516795|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.823||||||It calculated the p value of two treatment (Control group and Test group). The threshold of statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|||This analysis examined the overall (main) effect of treatment-comparing Control and Test groups across the three time points (baseline, week 6, and week 12) Comparison groups: Control and Test group of Pain on baseline, week 6, and week 12.||||0.823
90818845|NCT06581094|181516795|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.895||||||It calculated the p value of two treatment (Control group and Test group). The threshold of statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|||This analysis examined the overall (main) effect of treatment-comparing Control and Test groups across the three time points (baseline, week 6, and week 12) Comparison groups: Control and Test group of Stiffness on baseline, week 6, and week 12.||||0.895
90818846|NCT06581094|181516795|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.682||||||It calculated the p value of two treatment (Control group and Test group). The threshold of statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|||This analysis examined the overall (main) effect of treatment-comparing Control and Test groups across the three time points (baseline, week 6, and week 12) Comparison groups: Control and Test group of Physical function on baseline, week 6, and week 12.||||0.682
90818847|NCT06581094|181516795|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.303||||||It calculated the p value of the interaction between 2 groups X 3 time points. The threshold of statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|||It calculated the interaction between 2 groups (Control group and Test group) X 3 time points (Baseline, week 6, week 12) of Pain.||||0.303
91059217|NCT04784533|181999988|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|10.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|17.9|||||Treatment difference is calculated as the difference between the percentage of responders in the 12 mg BID group versus the 8 mg BID group.|Week 12||17.9|3.3|
90818848|NCT06581094|181516795|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.148||||||It calculated the p value of the interaction between 2 groups X 3 time points. The threshold of statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|||It calculated the interaction between 2 groups (Control group and Test group) X 3 time points (Baseline, week 6, week 12) of Stiffness.||||0.148
90818849|NCT06581094|181516795|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.283||||||It calculated the p value of the interaction between 2 groups X 3 time points. The threshold of statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|||It calculated the interaction between 2 groups (Control group and Test group) X 3 time points (Baseline, week 6, week 12) of Physical function.||||0.283
90818850|NCT05740618|181516797|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||MCC60 was analyzed using a linear repeated measure model including visit number, skew of the deposition histogram as fixed effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.04
90818851|NCT05740618|181516798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2||||||T-tests performed as paired analyses using baseline cough clearance.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.20
90818852|NCT05740618|181516799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07||||||T-tests performed as paired analyses using baseline Mucociliary Clearance (MCC) Over 90 Minutes.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.07
90818853|NCT05740618|181516800|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||T-tests performed as paired analyses using baseline FEV1.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04
90818854|NCT05740618|181516801|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94||||||T-tests performed as paired analyses using baseline CFQR-R respiratory domain.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.94
90818855|NCT05740618|181516802|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||t-test, 2 sided|T-tests performed as paired analyses using baseline CFRSD-CRISS.||||||0.13
90818856|NCT02354235|181516850|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|-0.6|||ANCOVA|||||-0.60|-1.15|<0.001
90818857|NCT02354235|181516851|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-38.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.5|-29.2|||ANCOVA|||||-29.2|-48.5|<0.001
90818858|NCT02354235|181516852|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-1.45|||ANCOVA|||||-1.45|-3.20|<0.001
90818859|NCT02354235|181516853|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-100.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-122.2|-78.4|||ANCOVA|||||-78.4|-122.2|<0.001
90818860|NCT02354235|181516854|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-50.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.9|-36.9|||ANCOVA|||||-36.9|-64.9|<0.001
90818861|NCT03436693|181516868|OTHER|Point Estimate|Difference(Multiple imputation method)|11.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|21.5||||||||21.5|1.2|
90818862|NCT03436693|181516869|OTHER|Point Estimate|Difference(Multiple imputation method)|3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|11.7||||||||11.7|-4.1|
90818863|NCT03436693|181516870|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LSMean|1.09||||0.351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|3.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.40|-1.21|0.351
90818864|NCT03436693|181516871|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.55|||Regression, Cox|||||1.55|0.23|0.293
90818865|NCT03436693|181516872|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric LSMean|0.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.418|0.646|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.646|0.418|<0.001
90818866|NCT04481789|181516873|OTHER|Estimates of least squares mean difference of log-transformed PK parameters between treatments were obtained with their 2-sided 90%CIs for the difference. These estimates and limits were then back-transformed to obtain ratios of least squares geometric means. If the 90%CIs lay entirely within the limits of 0.80 to 1.25, this would provide evidence of no effect of edaravone on the PK of rosuvastatin, sildenafil, and furosemide (LS Mean Ratio: Rosuvastatin + Edaravone / Rosuvastatin Alone).|LS Mean Ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.08||||||PK parameters of rosuvastatin, sildenafil, and furosemide alone and in the presence of edaravone were analyzed for the assessments of effect on PK of rosuvastatin, sildenafil, and furosemide by edaravone.||1.08|0.97|
90818867|NCT04481789|181516873|OTHER|Estimates of least squares mean difference of log-transformed PK parameters between treatments were obtained with their 2-sided 90%CIs for the difference. These estimates and limits were then back-transformed to obtain ratios of least squares geometric means. If the 90%CIs lay entirely within the limits of 0.80 to 1.25, this would provide evidence of no effect of edaravone on the PK of rosuvastatin, sildenafil, and furosemide (LS Mean Ratio: Sildenafil + Edaravone / Sildenafil Alone).|LS Mean Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|0.99||||||PK parameters of rosuvastatin, sildenafil, and furosemide alone and in the presence of edaravone were analyzed for the assessments of effect on PK of rosuvastatin, sildenafil, and furosemide by edaravone.||0.99|0.88|
90818868|NCT04481789|181516873|OTHER|Estimates of least squares mean difference of log-transformed PK parameters between treatments were obtained with their 2-sided 90%CIs for the difference. These estimates and limits were then back-transformed to obtain ratios of least squares geometric means. If the 90%CIs lay entirely within the limits of 0.80 to 1.25, this would provide evidence of no effect of edaravone on the PK of rosuvastatin, sildenafil, and furosemide (LS Mean Ratio: Furosemide + Edaravone / Furosemide Alone).|LS Mean Ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|1.09||||||PK parameters of rosuvastatin, sildenafil, and furosemide alone and in the presence of edaravone were analyzed for the assessments of effect on PK of rosuvastatin, sildenafil, and furosemide by edaravone.||1.09|0.98|
90818869|NCT04481789|181516874|OTHER|Estimates of least squares mean difference of log-transformed PK parameters between treatments were obtained with their 2-sided 90%CIs for the difference. These estimates and limits were then back-transformed to obtain ratios of least squares geometric means. If the 90%CIs lay entirely within the limits of 0.80 to 1.25, this would provide evidence of no effect of edaravone on the PK of rosuvastatin, sildenafil, and furosemide (LS Mean Ratio: Rosuvastatin + Edaravone / Rosuvastatin).|LS Mean Ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.06||||||PK parameters of rosuvastatin, sildenafil, and furosemide alone and in the presence of edaravone were analyzed for the assessments of effect on PK of rosuvastatin, sildenafil, and furosemide by edaravone.||1.06|0.91|
90818870|NCT04481789|181516874|OTHER|Estimates of least squares mean difference of log-transformed PK parameters between treatments were obtained with their 2-sided 90%CIs for the difference. These estimates and limits were then back-transformed to obtain ratios of least squares geometric means. If the 90%CIs lay entirely within the limits of 0.80 to 1.25, this would provide evidence of no effect of edaravone on the PK of rosuvastatin, sildenafil, and furosemide (LS Mean Ratio: Sildenafil + Edaravone / Sildenafil Alone).|LS Mean Ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|1.1||||||PK parameters of rosuvastatin, sildenafil, and furosemide alone and in the presence of edaravone were analyzed for the assessments of effect on PK of rosuvastatin, sildenafil, and furosemide by edaravone.||1.10|0.80|
90818871|NCT04481789|181516874|OTHER|Estimates of least squares mean difference of log-transformed PK parameters between treatments were obtained with their 2-sided 90%CIs for the difference. These estimates and limits were then back-transformed to obtain ratios of least squares geometric means. If the 90%CIs lay entirely within the limits of 0.80 to 1.25, this would provide evidence of no effect of edaravone on the PK of rosuvastatin, sildenafil, and furosemide (LS Mean Ratio: Furosemide + Edaravone / Furosemide Alone).|LS Mean Ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.23||||||PK parameters of rosuvastatin, sildenafil, and furosemide alone and in the presence of edaravone were analyzed for the assessments of effect on PK of rosuvastatin, sildenafil, and furosemide by edaravone.||1.23|0.96|
90818872|NCT04481789|181516889|OTHER|Estimated difference in least squares means and corresponding 90%CI of log-transformed PK parameters were back transformed to obtain the estimate and CI of the geometric mean ratio of 1 Hour After a High-fat Meal condition to the fasted state.|LS Mean Ratio|0.842|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.697|1.017||||||PK parameters of unchanged edaravone were analyzed for the assessments of food effect on PK.||1.017|0.697|
90818873|NCT04481789|181516889|OTHER|Estimated difference in least squares means and corresponding 90% CI of log-transformed PK parameters were back transformed to obtain the estimate and CI of the geometric mean ratio of 4 Hours After a High-fat Meal condition to the fasted state.|LS Mean Ratio|0.737|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.61|0.891||||||PK parameters of unchanged edaravone were analyzed for the assessments of food effect on PK.||0.891|0.610|
90818874|NCT04481789|181516890|OTHER|Estimated difference in least squares means and corresponding 90% CI of log-transformed PK parameters were back transformed to obtain the estimate and CI of the geometric mean ratio of 1 Hour After a High-fat Meal condition to the fasted state.|LS Mean Ratio|0.657|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.379|1.137||||||PK parameters of unchanged edaravone were analyzed for the assessments of food effect on PK.||1.137|0.379|
90818875|NCT04481789|181516890|OTHER|Estimated difference in least squares means and corresponding 90%CI of log-transformed PK parameters were back transformed to obtain the estimate and CI of the geometric mean ratio of 4 Hours After a High-fat Meal condition to the fasted state.|LS Mean Ratio|0.522|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.301|0.903||||||PK parameters of unchanged edaravone were analyzed for the assessments of food effect on PK.||0.903|0.301|
90818876|NCT05216224|181516903|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.01|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.5|4.52||Significance level of 0.05|MMRM|Fixed effect terms for treatment, study visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline count of inflammatory abscesses and nodules as a covariate.||||4.52|1.50|>0.999
90818877|NCT03245008|181516911|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|-0.86||Adjusted P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.86|-1.57|<0.001
91059218|NCT04784533|181999988|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|14.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|22.8|||||Treatment difference is calculated as the difference between the percentage of responders in the 12 mg BID group versus the 8 mg BID group.|Week 16||22.8|5.3|
90818878|NCT03245008|181516911|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.07||Adjusted P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.07|-0.76|0.103
90818879|NCT03245008|181516912|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.92||Adjusted P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.92|-1.60|<0.001
90818880|NCT03245008|181516912|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.05||||||||-0.05|-0.84|
90818881|NCT02159118|181517007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
90818882|NCT02159118|181517008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.65
90818883|NCT02159118|181517009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90818884|NCT02159118|181517010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.01
90818885|NCT02159118|181517011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.06
90818886|NCT02159118|181517012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.93
90818887|NCT02159118|181517013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.22
90818888|NCT02159118|181517014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.51
90818889|NCT02159118|181517015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.08
90818890|NCT03688100|181517027|SUPERIORITY||ratio of means|0.62||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.86||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05.|Zero Inflated Poisson (ZIP) Model||For the ratio of means, BA is the numerator and MEDS is the denominator.|Emergency Department visits AT 3 MONTHS||0.86|0.45|0.005
90818891|NCT03688100|181517027|SUPERIORITY||ratio of means|0.7||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.86||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05|Zero Inflated Poisson (ZIP) Model||For the ratio of means for ED visits, BA is the numerator and MEDS is the denominator.|Emergency Department visits AT 6 MONTHS||0.86|0.60|0.008
90818892|NCT03688100|181517027|SUPERIORITY||ratio of means|0.73||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.85||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05.|Zero Inflated Poisson (ZIP) Model||For the ratio of means for ED visits , BA is numerator and MEDS is the denominator.|Emergency Department visits AT 12 MONTHS||0.85|0.62|0.0001
90818893|NCT03688100|181517028|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05.|Zero Inflated Poisson (ZIP) Model|||Differences in the number of hospital readmissions between BA and MEDS at 3, 6, and 12 months||||>0.05
90818894|NCT03688100|181517029|SUPERIORITY||ratio of means|0.83||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|0.92||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05.|Zero Inflated Poisson (ZIP) Model||For the ratio of means, BA is the numerator and MEDS is the denominator.|Days in the Hospital at 3 months||0.92|0.75|0.002
90818895|NCT03688100|181517029|SUPERIORITY||ratio of means|0.81||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|0.87||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05.|Zero Inflated Poisson (ZIP) Model||For the ratio of means, BA is numerator and MEDS is the denominator.|Days in the Hospital at 6 MONTHS||0.87|0.75|0.005
90818896|NCT03688100|181517029|SUPERIORITY||ratio of means|0.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.68||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05.|Zero Inflated Poisson (ZIP) Model||For the ratio of means, BA is the numerator and MEDS is the denominator.|Days in the Hospital AT 12 MONTHS||0.68|0.60|<0.0001
91059219|NCT04784533|181999988|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|19.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.2|29.5|||||Treatment difference is calculated as the difference between the percentage of responders in the 12 mg BID group versus the 8 mg BID group.|Week 20||29.5|9.2|
90818897|NCT03688100|181517030|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05.|Kaplan Meier survival plots|||||||>0.05
90818898|NCT04783077|181517031|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.28||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|8.5|||Regression, Logistic||The estimated odds ratio of return donation attempt represents WhatsApp compared to control.|The primary analysis applies only to the RCT participants (N=130). Docudrama participants were not assessed for return blood donation. Analysis used fitted logistic regression with outcome donation attempted (Y/N) on the modiﬁed intention-to-treat (mITT) population, adjusted for type of donor (FRD, VNRBD).|Missing data on the primary outcome from the mITT analysis was handled using multiple imputation via chained equations with 50 imputations, and included stratum, group assignment (WhatsApp, Control) and ethnicity. Ethnicity was the only baseline variable with a minimum Kendall's tau of 0.2 with donation attempt.|8.50|0.61|0.23
90818899|NCT02772978|181517051|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||The threshold for statistical significance was set to p \< 0.05.|Fisher transformation|||The comparison group represents the difference in ICR and the baseline impulsiveness scale, non-planning subscale.||||0.04
90818900|NCT02772978|181517052|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The threshold is set to p \< 0.05, corrected for multiple comparisons.|Fisher transformation|||||||< 0.05
90818901|NCT01532869|181517058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square (LS) mean|-2.7||||0.0915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.85|0.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The analysis included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, the stratification factor of joint involvement at the baseline visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous covariates of baseline score and baseline score-by-visit interaction.||0.45|-5.85|0.0915
90818902|NCT01532869|181517060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS mean|-0.43||||0.9336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.78|9.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change From Baseline in Intestinal VAS Score at Week 24. The analysis included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, the stratification factor of joint involvement at the baseline visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous covariates of baseline score and baseline score-by-visit interaction.||9.91|-10.78|0.9336
91059220|NCT04784533|181999988|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|20.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.8|31.7|||||Treatment difference is calculated as the difference between the percentage of responders in the 12 mg BID group versus the 8 mg BID group.|Week 24||31.7|9.8|
91059221|NCT04784533|181999989|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|1.8|||||LS means,standard error(SE),and confidence intervals(CIs) are based on mixed model repeated measures(MMRM)analysis with effects for treatment,visit,treatment-by-visit interaction,and baseline value.The Model uses an unstructured covariance structure.|Week 4||1.8|-2.8|
90818903|NCT01532869|181517060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS mean|-4.12||||0.4609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.21|6.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change From Baseline in Breathing VAS Score at Week 24. The analysis included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, the stratification factor of joint involvement at the baseline visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous covariates of baseline score and baseline score-by-visit interaction.||6.96|-15.21|0.4609
90818904|NCT01532869|181517060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS mean|-1.28||||0.8493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|12.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change From Baseline in Raynaud Syndrome Score at Week 24. The analysis included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, the stratification factor of joint involvement at the baseline visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous covariates of baseline score and baseline score-by-visit interaction.||12.13|-14.70|0.8493
90818905|NCT01532869|181517060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS mean|4.89||||0.4717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.59|18.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change From Baseline in Finger Ulcers Score at Week 24. The analysis included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, the stratification factor of joint involvement at the baseline visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous covariates of baseline score and baseline score-by-visit interaction.||18.37|-8.59|0.4717
90818906|NCT01532869|181517060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS mean|-0.08||||0.9876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.93|9.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change From Baseline in Overall Disease Score at Week 24. The analysis included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, the stratification factor of joint involvement at the baseline visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous covariates of baseline score and baseline score-by-visit interaction.||9.78|-9.93|0.9876
90818907|NCT01532869|181517060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS mean|-6.8||||0.2407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.3|4.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change From Baseline in Intestinal VAS Score at Week 48. The analysis included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, the stratification factor of joint involvement at the baseline visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous covariates of baseline score and baseline score-by-visit interaction.||4.71|-18.30|0.2407
91059222|NCT04784533|181999989|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.32|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|-2.7|||||LS means, SE, and CIs are based on an MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value. The model is fit using an unstructured covariance structure.|Week 8||-2.7|-11.9|
90818908|NCT01532869|181517060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS mean|1.54||||0.7742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.18|12.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change From Baseline in Breathing VAS Score at Week 48. The analysis included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, the stratification factor of joint involvement at the baseline visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous covariates of baseline score and baseline score-by-visit interaction.||12.26|-9.18|0.7742
90818909|NCT01532869|181517060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS mean|-4.48||||0.5182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.28|9.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change From Baseline in Raynaud Syndrome Score at Week 48. The analysis included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, the stratification factor of joint involvement at the baseline visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous covariates of baseline score and baseline score-by-visit interaction.||9.31|-18.28|0.5182
91059223|NCT04784533|181999989|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-12.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.3|-5.5|||||LS means, SE, and CIs are based on an MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value. The model is fit using an unstructured covariance structure.|Week 12||-5.5|-19.3|
91059224|NCT04784533|181999989|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-14.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.2|-6.9|||||LS means, SE, and CIs are based on an MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value. The model is fit using an unstructured covariance structure.|Week 16||-6.9|-22.2|
90818910|NCT01532869|181517060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS mean|-5.8||||0.3106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.2|5.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change From Baseline in Finger Ulcers Score at Week 48. The analysis included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, the stratification factor of joint involvement at the baseline visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous covariates of baseline score and baseline score-by-visit interaction.||5.59|-17.20|0.3106
90818911|NCT01532869|181517060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS mean|-7.82||||0.1717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.11|3.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change From Baseline in Overall Disease Score at Week 48. The analysis included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, the stratification factor of joint involvement at the baseline visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous covariates of baseline score and baseline score-by-visit interaction.||3.48|-19.11|0.1717
90818912|NCT01532869|181517061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS mean|0.02||||0.8503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.186|0.225|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change From Baseline in HAQ-DI Score at Week 24. The analysis included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, the stratification factor of joint involvement at the baseline visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous covariates of baseline score and baseline score-by-visit interaction||0.225|-0.186|0.8503
90818913|NCT01532869|181517061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS mean|-0.207||||0.1212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.471|0.056|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change From Baseline in HAQ-DI Score at Week 48. The analysis included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, the stratification factor of joint involvement at the baseline visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous covariates of baseline score and baseline score-by-visit interaction.||0.056|-0.471|0.1212
90818914|NCT01532869|181517062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS mean|-0.99||||0.8118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|7.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change From Baseline in Clinician's Global Assessment at Week 24.The analysis included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, the stratification factor of joint involvement at the baseline visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous covariates of baseline score and baseline score-by-visit interaction.||7.23|-9.20|0.8118
90818915|NCT01532869|181517062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS mean|-9.02||||0.0768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.04|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change From Baseline in Clinician's Global Assessment at Week 48.The analysis included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, the stratification factor of joint involvement at the baseline visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous covariates of baseline score and baseline score-by-visit interaction.||1.00|-19.04|0.0768
90818916|NCT01532869|181517063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS mean|-3.85||||0.4063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.04|5.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change From Baseline in Patient's Global Assessment at Week 24. The analysis included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, the stratification factor of joint involvement at the baseline visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous covariates of baseline score and baseline score-by-visit interaction.||5.34|-13.04|0.4063
90818917|NCT01532869|181517063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS mean|-8.3||||0.1371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.31|2.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change From Baseline in Patient's Global Assessment at Week 48. The analysis included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, the stratification factor of joint involvement at the baseline visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous covariates of baseline score and baseline score-by-visit interaction.||2.71|-19.31|0.1371
90818918|NCT01532869|181517064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS mean|1.43||||0.5197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.97|5.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change From Baseline in FACIT-Fatigue Score at Week 24. The analysis included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, the stratification factor of joint involvement at the baseline visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous covariates of baseline score and baseline score-by-visit interaction.||5.82|-2.97|0.5197
90818919|NCT01532869|181517064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS mean|2.75||||0.1886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|6.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change From Baseline in FACIT-Fatigue Score at Week 48. The analysis included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, the stratification factor of joint involvement at the baseline visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous covariates of baseline score and baseline score-by-visit interaction.||6.88|-1.38|0.1886
90818920|NCT01532869|181517065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS mean|0.79||||0.3651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|2.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change From Baseline in 5-D Itch Scale at Week 24. The analysis included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, the stratification factor of joint involvement at the baseline visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous covariates of baseline score and baseline score-by-visit interaction.||2.51|-0.94|0.3651
90818921|NCT01532869|181517065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS mean|-1.11||||0.2841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.16|0.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change From Baseline in 5-D Itch Scale at Week 48. The analysis included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, the stratification factor of joint involvement at the baseline visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous covariates of baseline score and baseline score-by-visit interaction.||0.94|-3.16|0.2841
91059225|NCT04784533|181999989|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-15.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.7|-7.2|||||LS means, SE, and CIs are based on an MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value. The model is fit using an unstructured covariance structure.|Week 20||-7.2|-23.7|
90818922|NCT01532869|181517066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS mean|-3.55||||0.0579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.23|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The analysis included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, the stratification factor of joint involvement at the baseline visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous covariates of baseline score and baseline score-by-visit interaction.||0.12|-7.23|0.0579
90818923|NCT01532869|181517067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.704||0.2159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|9.5|||Regression, Logistic|||The logistic regression model included the fixed categorical effects of treatment and the stratification factor of joint involvement at the baseline visit. The continuous covariate of baseline mRSS score was also included in the model.||9.50|0.60|0.2159
90818924|NCT03624127|181517098|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|18.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.51|36.81|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||36.81|9.51|<0.0001
90818925|NCT03624127|181517099|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.09|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.49|18.95|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||18.95|6.49|<0.0001
90818926|NCT03624127|181517100|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.91|37.72|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||37.72|6.91|<0.0001
90818927|NCT03624127|181517100|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.4||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|3.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.60|1.51|0.0002
90818928|NCT03624127|181517101|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|31.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.09|239.36|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||239.36|4.09|<0.0001
90818929|NCT03624127|181517102|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.07|9.84|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||9.84|2.07|<0.0001
90818930|NCT03624127|181517102|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|39.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.29|295.75|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||295.75|5.29|<0.0001
90818931|NCT03624127|181517103|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-8.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|-4.9|||ANCOVA|||||-4.9|-12.8|<0.0001
90818932|NCT03624127|181517104|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.67||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|105.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||105.50|1.77|0.0013
90818933|NCT03624127|181517104|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.84||||0.1702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|4.42|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.42|0.76|0.1702
90818934|NCT03624127|181517105|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.46|10.53|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.53|3.46|<0.0001
90818935|NCT03624127|181517106|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.84||||0.1049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|10.96|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.96|0.73|0.1049
90818936|NCT03624127|181517107|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|3.91|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.91|1.78|<0.0001
90818937|NCT03624127|181517108|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|3.78|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.78|1.70|<0.0001
90818938|NCT03624127|181517109|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.92|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.69|21.25|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.25|6.69|<0.0001
90818939|NCT03624127|181517109|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.21|6.04|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||6.04|2.21|<0.0001
90818940|NCT03624127|181517110|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.16|4.83|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.83|2.16|<0.0001
90818941|NCT03624127|181517111|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.53|5.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.60|2.53|<0.0001
90818942|NCT03624127|181517112|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.71|4.05|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.05|1.71|<0.0001
90818943|NCT03624127|181517113|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.96|4.69|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.69|1.96|<0.0001
90818944|NCT03624127|181517114|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.06|4.69|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.69|2.06|<0.0001
90818945|NCT03624127|181517115|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.55||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|4.19|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.19|1.55|0.0002
90818946|NCT01817959|181517116|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|0.001||||0.9863|TWO_SIDED|99.75|-0.205|0.207||Treatment p value|ANOVA|||||0.207|-0.205|0.9863
90818947|NCT01817959|181517117|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|0.024||||0.7115|TWO_SIDED|99.75|-0.184|0.232||Treatment p value|ANOVA|||||0.232|-0.184|0.7115
90818948|NCT01817959|181517118|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.21||||0.1346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|1.63||Treatment p value|Regression, Logistic|||Analytical statistics are reported for Day 75 after transplant 2||1.63|0.03|0.1346
90818949|NCT01817959|181517119|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|4.93||Treatment p value|Regression, Logistic|||||4.93|0.17|0.9130
90818950|NCT01817959|181517120|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65||||0.5467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|2.66||Treatment p value|Regression, Logistic|||||2.66|0.16|0.5467
90818951|NCT01817959|181517121|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1383|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1383
90818952|NCT01817959|181517123|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|-0.021||||0.6952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.088||Treatment p value|ANCOVA|||This is is the analytic statistics for Day 75 (Transplant 1)||0.088|-0.130|0.6952
90818953|NCT01817959|181517123|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|0.028||||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.068|0.124||This is a treatment p value|ANCOVA|||This is is the analytic statistics for Day 75 (Transplant 2)||0.124|-0.068|0.5560
90818954|NCT01817959|181517123|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|0.056||||0.2537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.042|0.154||Treatment p value|ANCOVA|Treatment p value||This is the analytic statics for Day 365 (last Transplant)||0.154|-0.042|0.2537
90818955|NCT01817959|181517124|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|-7.4||||0.591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.2|20.3||Treatment p value|ANCOVA|||This is the analytic statics for Day 75 (Transplant 1)||20.3|-35.2|0.5910
90818956|NCT01817959|181517124|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|4.2||||0.5966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|20.2||Treatment p value|ANCOVA|Treatment p value||This is the analytic statics for Day 75 (Transplant 2)||20.2|-11.8|0.5966
90818957|NCT01817959|181517124|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|6.1||||0.5005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|24.4||Treatment p value|ANCOVA|||This is the analytic statics for Day 365 (last Transplant)||24.4|-12.1|0.5005
90818958|NCT01817959|181517125|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|0.21||||0.3253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.63||Treatment p value|ANCOVA|||This is the analytic statics for Day 75 (Transplant 1)||0.63|-0.21|0.3253
90818959|NCT01817959|181517125|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|0.16||||0.6069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.78||Treatment p value|least square mean difference|||This is the analytic statics for Day 75 (Transplant 2)||0.78|-0.46|0.6069
90818960|NCT01817959|181517125|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.17||||0.6437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.93||Treatment p value|ANCOVA|Treatment p value||This is the analytic statics for Day 365 (last Transplant)||0.93|-0.56|0.6437
90818961|NCT01817959|181517126|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|2.0||||0.429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|6.9||Treatment p value|ANCOVA|||This is the analytic statistics for Day 75 (Transplant 1)||6.9|-3.0|0.4290
90818962|NCT01817959|181517126|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|1.0||||0.7853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|8.3||Treatment p value|ANCOVA|||This is the analytic statistics for Day 75 (Transplant 2)||8.3|-6.3|0.7853
90818963|NCT01817959|181517126|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|1.9||||0.6583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|10.4||Treatment p value|ANCOVA|||This is the analytic statistics for Day 365 (last Transplant)||10.4|-6.6|0.6583
90818964|NCT01817959|181517130|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.0||||0.9949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|1.28||Treatment p value|ANOVA|||This is the analytic statistics for Day 75 (Transplant 1)||1.28|-1.28|0.9949
90818965|NCT01817959|181517130|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.1||||0.8753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|1.38||Treatment p value|ANOVA|||This is the analytic statistics for Day 75 (Transplant 2)||1.38|-1.18|0.8753
90818966|NCT01817959|181517130|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.59||||0.3955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.97|0.8||Treatment p value|ANOVA|||This is the analytic statistics for Day 365 (last Transplant)||0.80|-1.97|0.3955
90818967|NCT01817959|181517131|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.105||||0.2444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.286|0.075||Treatment p value|ANOVA|||This is the analytic statistics for Day 75 (Transplant 1)||0.075|-0.286|0.2444
90818968|NCT01817959|181517131|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.218||||0.0328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.417|-0.019||Treatment p value|ANOVA|||This is the analytic statistics for Day 75 (Transplant 2)||-0.019|-0.417|0.0328
90818969|NCT01817959|181517131|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.177||||0.1059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.393|0.039||This is the analytic statistics for Day 75 (Transplant 2)|ANOVA|||This is the analytic statistics for Day 365 (last Transplant)||0.039|-0.393|0.1059
90818970|NCT01727414|181517155|SUPERIORITY|General linear mixed models were used to evaluate the subtype\*dose interaction to determine if the subtypes have unique MPH dose-response curves, with the outcome being Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder total symptom scores (minimum=0, maximum=54, higher=worse)|Slope|0.29|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
90818971|NCT03281304|181517156|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|12.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|25.0||||||Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||25.0|0.5|
90818972|NCT03281304|181517158|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|13.4||||||Month 1: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||13.4|-7.5|
91059226|NCT04784533|181999989|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-15.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.36|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.0|-6.8|||||LS means, SE, and CIs are based on an MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value. The model is fit using an unstructured covariance structure.|Week 24||-6.8|-24.0|
91059227|NCT04784533|181999990|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|20.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.9|31.8|||||Treatment difference is calculated as the difference between the percentage of responders in the 12 mg BID group versus the 8 mg BID group.|Week 12||31.8|9.9|
90818973|NCT03281304|181517158|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|11.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|22.8||||||Month 3: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||22.8|0.1|
90818974|NCT03281304|181517158|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|14.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|25.2||||||Month 6: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||25.2|2.9|
90818975|NCT03281304|181517158|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|31.8||||||Month 9: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||31.8|8.0|
90818976|NCT03281304|181517158|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|15.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|28.7||||||Month 12: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||28.7|2.2|
90818977|NCT03281304|181517158|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|14.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|27.9||||||Month 15: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||27.9|0.0|
90818978|NCT03281304|181517158|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|14.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|28.5||||||Month 18: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||28.5|-0.7|
90818979|NCT03281304|181517158|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|21.9||||||Month 21: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||21.9|-8.0|
90818980|NCT03281304|181517158|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|20.4||||||Month 24: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||20.4|-9.3|
90818981|NCT03281304|181517158|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|8.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|23.6||||||Month 27: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||23.6|-7.0|
90818982|NCT03281304|181517158|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|18.3||||||Month 30: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||18.3|-12.8|
90818983|NCT03281304|181517158|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|17.2||||||Month 33: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||17.2|-14.4|
90818984|NCT03281304|181517158|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|18.5||||||Month 36: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||18.5|-13.0|
90818985|NCT03281304|181517158|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|-4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.2|11.9||||||Month 39: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||11.9|-20.2|
90818986|NCT03281304|181517158|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|19.9||||||Month 42: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||19.9|-11.7|
90818987|NCT03281304|181517159|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|11.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|24.1||||||Month 6: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||24.1|-1.5|
90818988|NCT03281304|181517159|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.6|35.0||||||Month 18: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||35.0|3.6|
90818989|NCT03281304|181517159|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|12.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|28.3||||||Month 30: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||28.3|-3.5|
90818990|NCT03281304|181517159|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|18.0||||||Month 42: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||18.0|-12.5|
90818991|NCT03281304|181517160|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|13.4||||||Month 1: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||13.4|-7.5|
90818992|NCT03281304|181517160|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|11.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|22.8||||||Month 3: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||22.8|0.1|
90818993|NCT03281304|181517160|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|14.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|25.6||||||Month 6: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||25.6|2.4|
90818994|NCT03281304|181517160|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|31.8||||||Month 9: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||31.8|8.0|
90818995|NCT03281304|181517160|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|15.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|28.7||||||Month 12: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||28.7|2.2|
90818996|NCT03281304|181517160|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|14.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|27.9||||||Month 15: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||27.9|0.0|
90818997|NCT03281304|181517160|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|15.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|29.9||||||Month 18: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||29.9|0.7|
90818998|NCT03281304|181517160|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|20.6||||||Month 21: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||20.6|-9.5|
90818999|NCT03281304|181517160|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|21.9||||||Month 24: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||21.9|-8.0|
90819000|NCT03281304|181517160|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|25.1||||||Month 27: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||25.1|-5.7|
90819001|NCT03281304|181517160|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|19.7||||||Month 30: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||19.7|-11.4|
90819002|NCT03281304|181517160|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|17.2||||||Month 33: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||17.2|-14.4|
90819003|NCT03281304|181517160|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|18.5||||||Month 36: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||18.5|-13.0|
90819004|NCT03281304|181517160|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|-2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.8|13.3||||||Month 39: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||13.3|-18.8|
90819005|NCT03281304|181517160|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|18.5||||||Month 42: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||18.5|-13.0|
90819006|NCT03281304|181517161|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|15.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|30.8||||||Month 18: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||30.8|-0.4|
90819007|NCT03281304|181517161|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|12.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|28.3||||||Month 30: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||28.3|-3.5|
90819008|NCT03281304|181517161|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|16.7||||||Month 42: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||16.7|-14.0|
90819009|NCT03281304|181517162|OTHER||Mean Difference|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.1||||||||0.1|-0.8|
90819010|NCT03281304|181517164|OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.3||||||Month 1||0.3|-0.1|
90819011|NCT03281304|181517164|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2||||||Month 3||0.2|-0.2|
90819012|NCT03281304|181517164|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.3||||||Month 6||0.3|-0.2|
90819013|NCT03281304|181517166|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.1||||||||0.1|-1.2|
90819014|NCT03281304|181517168|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3||||||Month 1||0.3|-0.3|
90819015|NCT03281304|181517168|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.2||||||Month 3||0.2|-0.3|
90819016|NCT03281304|181517168|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3||||||Month 6||0.3|-0.3|
90819017|NCT03281304|181517170|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|11.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|23.1||||||Month 6: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||23.1|-0.3|
90819018|NCT03281304|181517170|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|18.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|32.6||||||Month 18: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||32.6|3.5|
90819019|NCT03281304|181517170|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|12.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|28.1||||||Month 30: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||28.1|-3.3|
90819020|NCT03281304|181517170|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.1|16.1||||||Month 42: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||16.1|-16.1|
90819021|NCT03281304|181517171|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|11.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|22.0||||||Month 6: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||22.0|1.3|
90819022|NCT03281304|181517171|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|11.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|26.4||||||Month 18: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||26.4|-4.2|
90819023|NCT03281304|181517171|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|25.2||||||Month 30: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||25.2|-5.8|
90819024|NCT03281304|181517171|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|18.5||||||Month 42: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||18.5|-13.0|
90819025|NCT00605345|181517187|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Non-inferiority was met if the lower limit of the confidence interval for the response rate of the CERA group was greater than the observed response rate of the darbepoetin group minus 15%. The calculated lower limit of an acceptable difference in response rates thus, was based on the actual percentage of responders in the darbepoetin group and this percentage minus 15% had to be excluded."||||||0.5947|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.5947
90819026|NCT02577016|181517193|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.62|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Based on a cLDA model with the terms listed above.||||-0.62|-1.05|<0.001
90819027|NCT02577016|181517196|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-42.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.7|-31.2|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Based on a cLDA model with the terms listed above.||||-31.2|-53.7|<0.001
90819028|NCT02577016|181517197|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-67.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.0|-50.0|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Based on a cLDA model with the terms listed above.||||-50.0|-84.0|<0.001
90819029|NCT02577016|181517198|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-11.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.2|-5.2|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Based on a cLDA model with the terms listed above.||||-5.2|-17.2|<0.001
90819030|NCT02126839|181517199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.52|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.1|33.94|||mixed model repeated measures analysis|Fixed effects of treatment group, treatment day, and study day by treatment interaction, with baseline measured at each study day as a covariate.||||33.94|16.10|<0.0001
90819031|NCT02126839|181517200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|76.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.47|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.76|104.91|||mixed model repeated measures|Fixed effects of treatment group, treatment day, and study day by treatment interaction, with baseline measured at each study day as a covariate.||||104.91|47.76|<0.0001
90819032|NCT05399290|181517202|OTHER|Chi square analysis was conducted to detect any significant between group differences (100 mg vs 20 mg) in perceived acne severity.||||||0.677|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.677
90819033|NCT05399290|181517202|OTHER|Friedman's test was conducted for the 100 mg treatment arm to detect any significant within group differences in perceived acne severity.||||||0.002|||||||Friedman's test|||||||0.002
90819034|NCT05399290|181517202|OTHER|Friedman's test was conducted for the 20 mg treatment arm to detect any significant within group differences in perceived acne severity.||||||0.018|||||||Fried|||||||0.018
90819035|NCT00666224|181517222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.55||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.77||Type of unifocal presentation at baseline, past corticosteroid treatment (Yes/No) for the initial attack prior to randomization, and center effects as covariates.|Regression, Cox|||||0.77|0.40|0.0005
90819036|NCT00666224|181517223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.61|||Quasi-Likelihood NB* Regression|"\*NB = Negative Binomial~Center and baseline number of enhancing lesions as covariates."||||0.61|0.29|<0.0001
90819037|NCT00666224|181517224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric means ratio|0.87||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.95|||ANCOVA|Used log-transformed measurements comparing the adjusted geometric means of T2 volume. Center and baseline T2 volume used as covariates.||||0.95|0.79|0.0013
90819038|NCT00666224|181517227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.61||Type of unifocal presentation, past corticosteroid treatment (Yes/No) for the initial attack prior to randomization and center effects as covariates.|Regression, Logistic|||||0.61|0.27|<0.0001
90819039|NCT03828617|181517247|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.37||||||Serotype 1: Geometric mean ratios (GMRs) (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 2) and 2-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs).||1.37|0.95|
90819040|NCT03828617|181517247|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.16||||||Serotype 3: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 2) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.16|0.88|
90819041|NCT03828617|181517247|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.17||||||Serotype 4: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 2) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.17|0.78|
90819042|NCT03828617|181517247|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.12||||||Serotype 5: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 2) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.12|0.77|
90819043|NCT03828617|181517247|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.5||||||Serotype 6A: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 2) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.50|1.03|
90819044|NCT03828617|181517247|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.21||||||Serotype 6B: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 2) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.21|0.85|
90819045|NCT03828617|181517247|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.17||||||Serotype 7F: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 2) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.17|0.82|
90819046|NCT03828617|181517247|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.33||||||Serotype 9V: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 2) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.33|0.93|
90819047|NCT03828617|181517247|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.27||||||Serotype 14: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 2) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.27|0.90|
90819048|NCT03828617|181517247|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.07||||||Serotype 18C: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 2) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.07|0.72|
90819049|NCT03828617|181517247|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.12||||||Serotype 19A: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 2) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.12|0.81|
90819050|NCT03828617|181517247|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.21||||||Serotype 19F: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 2) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.21|0.81|
90819051|NCT03828617|181517247|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.16||||||Serotype 23F: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 2) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.16|0.72|
90819052|NCT03828617|181517247|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.4||||||Serotype 8: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 2) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.40|1.00|
90819053|NCT03828617|181517247|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.36||||||Serotype 10A: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 2) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.36|0.91|
90819054|NCT03828617|181517247|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.6||||||Serotype 11A: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 2) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.60|1.03|
90819055|NCT03828617|181517247|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.33||||||Serotype 12F: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 2) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.33|0.88|
91059228|NCT04784533|181999990|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|13.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|25.2|||||Treatment difference is calculated as the difference between the percentage of responders in the 12 mg BID group versus the 8 mg BID group.|Week 16||25.2|2.5|
90819056|NCT03828617|181517247|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.46||||||Serotype 15B: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 2) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.46|0.91|
90819057|NCT03828617|181517247|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.43||||||Serotype 22F: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 2) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.43|0.87|
90819058|NCT03828617|181517247|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.3||||||Serotype 33F: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 2) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.30|0.83|
91059229|NCT04784533|181999990|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|15.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|27.0|||||Treatment difference is calculated as the difference between the percentage of responders in the 12 mg BID group versus the 8 mg BID group.|Week 20||27.0|4.1|
90819059|NCT03828617|181517247|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.46||||||Serotype 1: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.46|1.01|
90819060|NCT03828617|181517247|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.26||||||Serotype 3: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.26|0.96|
90819061|NCT03828617|181517247|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.22||||||Serotype 4: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.22|0.82|
90819062|NCT03828617|181517247|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.31||||||Serotype 5: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.31|0.89|
90819063|NCT03828617|181517247|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|1.69||||||Serotype 6A: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.69|1.16|
90819064|NCT03828617|181517247|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.35||||||Serotype 6B: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.35|0.94|
90819065|NCT03828617|181517247|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.16||||||Serotype 7F: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.16|0.81|
90819066|NCT03828617|181517247|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.25||||||Serotype 9V: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.25|0.87|
90819067|NCT03828617|181517247|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.33||||||Serotype 14: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.33|0.94|
91059230|NCT04784533|181999990|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|14.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|25.9|||||Treatment difference is calculated as the difference between the percentage of responders in the 12 mg BID group versus the 8 mg BID group.|Week 24||25.9|2.9|
91059231|NCT04784533|181999991|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|22.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.9|34.0|||||Treatment difference is calculated as the difference between the percentage of responders in the 12 mg BID group versus the 8 mg BID group.|Week 12||34.0|11.9|
90819068|NCT03828617|181517247|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.13||||||Serotype 18C: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.13|0.75|
90819069|NCT03828617|181517247|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.2||||||Serotype 19A: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.20|0.86|
90819070|NCT03828617|181517247|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.17||||||Serotype 19F: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.17|0.78|
90819071|NCT03828617|181517247|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.25||||||Serotype 23F: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.25|0.78|
90819072|NCT03828617|181517247|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.16||||||Serotype 8: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.16|0.83|
90819073|NCT03828617|181517247|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.3||||||Serotype 10A: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.30|0.87|
90819074|NCT03828617|181517247|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.24||||||Serotype 11A: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.24|0.80|
90819075|NCT03828617|181517247|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.42||||||Serotype 12F: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.42|0.94|
90819076|NCT03828617|181517247|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.33||||||Serotype 15B: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.33|0.82|
91059232|NCT04784533|181999991|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|21.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.7|33.1|||||Treatment difference is calculated as the difference between the percentage of responders in the 12 mg BID group versus the 8 mg BID group.|Week 16||33.1|10.7|
91059233|NCT04784533|181999991|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|22.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.2|33.9|||||Treatment difference is calculated as the difference between the percentage of responders in the 12 mg BID group versus the 8 mg BID group.|Week 20||33.9|11.2|
90819077|NCT03828617|181517247|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.26||||||Serotype 22F: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.26|0.77|
90819078|NCT03828617|181517247|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.29||||||Serotype 33F: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.29|0.82|
90819079|NCT03828617|181517247|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.28||||||Serotype 1: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 2 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.28|0.89|
90819080|NCT03828617|181517247|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.24||||||Serotype 3: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 2 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.24|0.95|
90819081|NCT03828617|181517247|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.27||||||Serotype 4: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 2 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.27|0.85|
90819082|NCT03828617|181517247|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.41||||||Serotype 5: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 2 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.41|0.96|
90819083|NCT03828617|181517247|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.36||||||Serotype 6A: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 2 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.36|0.93|
90819084|NCT03828617|181517247|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.33||||||Serotype 6B: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 2 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.33|0.93|
90819085|NCT03828617|181517247|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.19||||||Serotype 7F: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 2 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.19|0.83|
90819086|NCT03828617|181517247|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.12||||||Serotype 9V: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 2 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.12|0.78|
90819087|NCT03828617|181517247|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.24||||||Serotype 14: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 2 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.24|0.88|
91059234|NCT04784533|181999991|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|19.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.1|31.0|||||Treatment difference is calculated as the difference between the percentage of responders in the 12 mg BID group versus the 8 mg BID group.|Week 24||31.0|8.1|
90819088|NCT03828617|181517247|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.29||||||Serotype 18C: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 2 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.29|0.86|
90819089|NCT03828617|181517247|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.25||||||Serotype 19A: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 2 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.25|0.91|
90819090|NCT03828617|181517247|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.17||||||Serotype 19F: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 2 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.17|0.79|
90819091|NCT03828617|181517247|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.37||||||Serotype 23F: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 2 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.37|0.85|
90819092|NCT03828617|181517247|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.98||||||Serotype 8: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 2 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||0.98|0.70|
90819093|NCT03828617|181517247|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.17||||||Serotype 10A: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 2 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.17|0.78|
90819094|NCT03828617|181517247|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.96||||||Serotype 11A: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 2 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||0.96|0.62|
90819095|NCT03828617|181517247|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.31||||||Serotype 12F: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 2 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.31|0.87|
90819096|NCT03828617|181517247|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.15||||||Serotype 15B: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 2 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.15|0.71|
91059235|NCT04784533|181999992|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.3|||||LS means, SE, and CIs are based on an MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value. The model is fit using an unstructured covariance structure.|Week 12||-0.3|-0.9|
91059236|NCT04784533|181999992|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.4|||||LS means, SE, and CIs are based on an MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value. The model is fit using an unstructured covariance structure.|Week 16||-0.4|-1.1|
90819097|NCT03828617|181517247|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.12||||||Serotype 22F: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 2 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.12|0.69|
90819098|NCT03828617|181517247|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.24||||||Serotype 33F: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 2 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.24|0.79|
90819099|NCT03354273|181517251|OTHER|Sensitivity was compared to a pre-specified threshold of 60%.|||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sided z-tests|The hypothesis tests were one-sided z-tests with a significance level of 0.025.||Reader 1: Sensitivity||||<0.0001
90819100|NCT03354273|181517251|OTHER|Specificity was compared to a pre-specified threshold of 60%.||||||0.0182|||||||One-sided z-tests|The hypothesis tests were one-sided z-tests with a significance level of 0.025.||Reader 1: Specificity||||0.0182
90819101|NCT03354273|181517251|OTHER|Sensitivity was compared to a pre-specified threshold of 60%.|||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sided z-tests|The hypothesis tests were one-sided z-tests with a significance level of 0.025.||Reader 2: Sensitivity||||<0.0001
90819102|NCT03354273|181517251|OTHER|Specificity was compared to a pre-specified threshold of 60%.||||||0.0002|||||||One-sided z-tests|The hypothesis tests were one-sided z-tests with a significance level of 0.025.||Reader 2: Specificity||||0.0002
90819103|NCT03354273|181517251|OTHER|Sensitivity was compared to a pre-specified threshold of 60%.|||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sided z-tests|The hypothesis tests were one-sided z-tests with a significance level of 0.025.||Reader 3: Sensitivity||||<0.0001
90819104|NCT03354273|181517251|OTHER|Specificity was compared to a pre-specified threshold of 60%.||||||0.997|||||||One-sided z-tests|The hypothesis tests were one-sided z-tests with a significance level of 0.025.||Reader 3: Specificity||||0.9970
90819105|NCT03354273|181517251|OTHER|Sensitivity was compared to a pre-specified threshold of 60%.|||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sided z-tests|The hypothesis tests were one-sided z-tests with a significance level of 0.025.||Majority Rule: Sensitivity||||<0.0001
90819106|NCT03354273|181517251|OTHER|Specificity was compared to a pre-specified threshold of 60%.||||||0.0781|||||||One-sided z-tests|The hypothesis tests were one-sided z-tests with a significance level of 0.025.||Majority Rule: Specificity||||0.0781
90819107|NCT03354273|181517252|SUPERIORITY|The test of sensitivity comparison between Flurpiridaz (18F) Injection PET MPI and SPECT MPI was performed with a 1-sided McNemar's test at a significance level of 0.025 using 1-sided McNemar's tests.|Difference between PET MPI and SPECT MPI|14.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|22.4|||McNemar|The hypothesis tests were 1-sided McNemar's tests with a significance level of 0.025 for sensitivity.||Reader 1: Sensitivity||22.4|6.5|<0.0001
91059237|NCT04784533|181999992|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.4|||||LS means, SE, and CIs are based on an MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value. The model is fit using an unstructured covariance structure.|Week 20||-0.4|-1.2|
91059238|NCT04784533|181999992|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.3|||||LS means, SE, and CIs are based on an MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value. The model is fit using an unstructured covariance structure.|Week 24||-0.3|-1.2|
90819108|NCT03354273|181517252|NON_INFERIORITY|The test of specificity noninferiority between Flurpiridaz (18F) Injection PET MPI and SPECT MPI was performed with a paired test for noninferiority at a 1-sided significance level of 0.025 using Nam's RMLE method (margin=0.1).|Difference between PET MPI and SPECT MPI|2.4||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|9.7|||Nam's RMLE|||Reader 1: Specificity||9.7|-4.9|0.0004
90819109|NCT03354273|181517252|SUPERIORITY|The test of sensitivity comparison between Flurpiridaz (18F) Injection PET MPI and SPECT MPI was performed with a 1-sided McNemar's test at a significance level of 0.025 using 1-sided McNemar's tests.|Difference between PET MPI and SPECT MPI|12.9||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|21.0|||McNemar|||Reader 2: Sensitivity||21.0|4.7|0.0002
90819110|NCT03354273|181517252|NON_INFERIORITY|The test of specificity noninferiority between Flurpiridaz (18F) Injection PET MPI and SPECT MPI was performed with a paired test for noninferiority at a 1-sided significance level of 0.025 using Nam's RMLE method (margin=0.1).|Difference between PET MPI and SPECT MPI|4.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|11.8|||Nam's RMLE|||Reader 2: Specificity||11.8|-2.1|<0.0001
90819111|NCT03354273|181517252|SUPERIORITY|The test of sensitivity comparison between Flurpiridaz (18F) Injection PET MPI and SPECT MPI was performed with a 1-sided McNemar's test at a significance level of 0.025 using 1-sided McNemar's tests.|Difference between PET MPI and SPECT MPI|13.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.6|19.9|||McNemar|||Reader 3: Sensitivity||19.9|6.6|<0.0001
90819112|NCT03354273|181517252|NON_INFERIORITY|The test of specificity noninferiority between Flurpiridaz (18F) Injection PET MPI and SPECT MPI was performed with a paired test for noninferiority at a 1-sided significance level of 0.025 using Nam's RMLE method (margin=0.1).|Difference between PET MPI and SPECT MPI|1.2||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|8.4|||Nam's RMLE|||Reader 3: Specificity||8.4|-6.0|0.0011
90819113|NCT03354273|181517252|SUPERIORITY|The test of sensitivity comparison between Flurpiridaz (18F) Injection PET MPI and SPECT MPI was performed with a 1-sided McNemar's test at a significance level of 0.025 using 1-sided McNemar's tests.|Difference between PET MPI and SPECT MPI|11.6||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|19.2|||McNemar|||Majority Rule: Sensitivity||19.2|4.1|0.0003
90819114|NCT03354273|181517252|NON_INFERIORITY|The test of specificity noninferiority between Flurpiridaz (18F) Injection PET MPI and SPECT MPI was performed with a paired test for noninferiority at a 1-sided significance level of 0.025 using Nam's RMLE method (margin=0.1).|Difference between PET MPI and SPECT MPI|2.1||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|9.3|||Nam's RMLE|||Majority Rule: Specificity||9.3|-5.0|0.0004
90819115|NCT03354273|181517253|SUPERIORITY|The test of sensitivity comparison between Flurpiridaz (18F) Injection PET MPI and SPECT MPI was performed with a 1-sided McNemar's test at a significance level of 0.025 using 1-sided McNemar's tests.|Difference between PET MPI and SPECT MPI|24.4||||0.0127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.4|43.4|||McNemar|||Reader 1: Sensitivity||43.4|5.4|0.0127
90819116|NCT03354273|181517253|NON_INFERIORITY|The test of specificity noninferiority between Flurpiridaz (18F) Injection PET MPI and SPECT MPI was performed with a paired test for noninferiority at a 1-sided significance level of 0.025 using Nam's RMLE method (margin=0.1).|Difference between PET MPI and SPECT MPI|9.5||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|20.2|||Nam's RMLE|||Reader 1: Specificity||20.2|-1.2|0.0001
91059239|NCT04784533|181999993|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.1|||||LS means, SE, and CIs are based on an MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score. The model is fit using an unstructured covariance structure.|Week 12||-0.1|-0.7|
91059240|NCT04784533|181999993|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.3|||||LS means, SE, and CIs are based on an MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score. The model is fit using an unstructured covariance structure.|Week 16||-0.3|-1.0|
90819117|NCT03354273|181517253|SUPERIORITY|The test of sensitivity comparison between Flurpiridaz (18F) Injection PET MPI and SPECT MPI was performed with a 1-sided McNemar's test at a significance level of 0.025 using 1-sided McNemar's tests.|Difference between PET MPI and SPECT MPI|22.0||||0.0195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|41.7|||McNemar|||Reader 2: Sensitivity||41.7|2.2|0.0195
90819118|NCT03354273|181517253|NON_INFERIORITY|The test of specificity noninferiority between Flurpiridaz (18F) Injection PET MPI and SPECT MPI was performed with a paired test for noninferiority at a 1-sided significance level of 0.025 using Nam's RMLE method (margin=0.1).|Difference between PET MPI and SPECT MPI|6.8||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|16.8|||Nam's RMLE|||Reader 2: Specificity||16.8|-3.2|0.0004
90819119|NCT03354273|181517253|SUPERIORITY|The test of sensitivity comparison between Flurpiridaz (18F) Injection PET MPI and SPECT MPI was performed with a 1-sided McNemar's test at a significance level of 0.025 using 1-sided McNemar's tests.|Difference between PET MPI and SPECT MPI|17.1||||0.0174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|32.4|||McNemar|||Reader 3: Sensitivity||32.4|1.7|0.0174
90819120|NCT03354273|181517253|NON_INFERIORITY|The test of specificity noninferiority between Flurpiridaz (18F) Injection PET MPI and SPECT MPI was performed with a paired test for noninferiority at a 1-sided significance level of 0.025 using Nam's RMLE method (margin=0.1).|Difference between PET MPI and SPECT MPI|0.7||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|11.3|||Nam's RMLE|||||11.3|-9.9|0.0240
90819121|NCT03354273|181517253|SUPERIORITY||Difference between PET MPI and SPECT MPI|17.1||||0.0448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|35.6|||McNemar|||Majority Rule: Sensitivity||35.6|-1.5|0.0448
90819122|NCT03354273|181517253|NON_INFERIORITY|The test of specificity noninferiority between Flurpiridaz (18F) Injection PET MPI and SPECT MPI was performed with a paired test for noninferiority at a 1-sided significance level of 0.025 using Nam's RMLE method (margin=0.1).|Difference between PET MPI and SPECT MPI|6.8||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|17.0|||Nam's RMLE|||Majority Rule: Specificity||17.0|-3.4|0.0004
90819123|NCT03354273|181517254|SUPERIORITY|The test of sensitivity comparison between Flurpiridaz (18F) Injection PET MPI and SPECT MPI was performed with a 1-sided McNemar's test at a significance level of 0.025 using 1-sided McNemar's tests.|Difference between PET MPI and SPECT MPI|12.0||||0.0116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|23.9|||McNemar|||Reader 1: Sensitivity||23.9|0.0|0.0116
91059241|NCT04784533|181999993|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.5|||||LS means, SE, and CIs are based on an MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score. The model is fit using an unstructured covariance structure.|Week 20||-0.5|-1.2|
90819124|NCT03354273|181517254|NON_INFERIORITY|The test of specificity noninferiority between Flurpiridaz (18F) Injection PET MPI and SPECT MPI was performed with a paired test for noninferiority at a 1-sided significance level of 0.025 using Nam's RMLE method (margin=0.1).|Difference between PET MPI and SPECT MPI|6.6||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|16.2|||Nam's RMLE|||Reader 1: Specificity||16.2|-2.9|0.0003
90819125|NCT03354273|181517254|SUPERIORITY|The test of sensitivity comparison between Flurpiridaz (18F) Injection PET MPI and SPECT MPI was performed with a 1-sided McNemar's test at a significance level of 0.025 using 1-sided McNemar's tests.|Difference between PET MPI and SPECT MPI|6.8||||0.1085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|18.9|||McNemar|||Reader 2: Sensitivity||18.9|-5.2|0.1085
90819126|NCT03354273|181517254|NON_INFERIORITY|The test of specificity noninferiority between Flurpiridaz (18F) Injection PET MPI and SPECT MPI was performed with a paired test for noninferiority at a 1-sided significance level of 0.025 using Nam's RMLE method (margin=0.1).|Difference between PET MPI and SPECT MPI|11.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|21.1|||Nam's RMLE|||Reader 2: Specificity||21.1|2.1|<0.0001
90819127|NCT03354273|181517254|SUPERIORITY|The test of sensitivity comparison between Flurpiridaz (18F) Injection PET MPI and SPECT MPI was performed with a 1-sided McNemar's test at a significance level of 0.025 using 1-sided McNemar's tests.|Difference between PET MPI and SPECT MPI|13.7||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|23.5|||McNemar|||Reader 3: Sensitivity||23.5|3.8|0.0017
90819128|NCT03354273|181517254|NON_INFERIORITY|The test of specificity noninferiority between Flurpiridaz (18F) Injection PET MPI and SPECT MPI was performed with a paired test for noninferiority at a 1-sided significance level of 0.025 using Nam's RMLE method (margin=0.1).|Difference between PET MPI and SPECT MPI|2.8||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|12.1|||Nam's RMLE|||Reader 3: Specificity||12.1|-6.6|0.0034
90819129|NCT03354273|181517254|SUPERIORITY|The test of sensitivity comparison between Flurpiridaz (18F) Injection PET MPI and SPECT MPI was performed with a 1-sided McNemar's test at a significance level of 0.025 using 1-sided McNemar's tests.|Difference between PET MPI and SPECT MPI|7.7||||0.0641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|19.0|||McNemar|||Majority Rule: Sensitivity||19.0|-3.6|0.0641
90819130|NCT03354273|181517254|NON_INFERIORITY|The test of specificity noninferiority between Flurpiridaz (18F) Injection PET MPI and SPECT MPI was performed with a paired test for noninferiority at a 1-sided significance level of 0.025 using Nam's RMLE method (margin=0.1).|Difference between PET MPI and SPECT MPI|5.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|14.6|||Nam's RMLE|||Majority Rule: Specificity||14.6|-4.6|0.0010
90819131|NCT03354273|181517255|SUPERIORITY|The test of sensitivity comparison between Flurpiridaz (18F) Injection PET MPI and SPECT MPI was performed with a 1-sided McNemar's test at a significance level of 0.025 using 1-sided McNemar's tests.|Difference between PET MPI and SPECT MPI|11.0||||0.0294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|24.6|||McNemar|||Reader 1: Sensitivity||24.6|-2.6|0.0294
90819132|NCT03354273|181517255|NON_INFERIORITY|The test of specificity noninferiority between Flurpiridaz (18F) Injection PET MPI and SPECT MPI was performed with a paired test for noninferiority at a 1-sided significance level of 0.025 using Nam's RMLE method (margin=0.1).|Difference between PET MPI and SPECT MPI|3.9||||0.0117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|16.1|||Nam's RMLE|||Reader 1: Specificity||16.1|-8.3|0.0117
90819133|NCT03354273|181517255|SUPERIORITY|The test of sensitivity comparison between Flurpiridaz (18F) Injection PET MPI and SPECT MPI was performed with a 1-sided McNemar's test at a significance level of 0.025 using 1-sided McNemar's tests.|Difference between PET MPI and SPECT MPI|6.6||||0.1444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|20.3|||McNemar|||Reader 2: Sensitivity||20.3|-7.1|0.1444
90819134|NCT03354273|181517255|NON_INFERIORITY|The test of specificity noninferiority between Flurpiridaz (18F) Injection PET MPI and SPECT MPI was performed with a paired test for noninferiority at a 1-sided significance level of 0.025 using Nam's RMLE method (margin=0.1).|Difference between PET MPI and SPECT MPI|11.7||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|23.7|||Nam's RMLE|||Reader 2: Specificity||23.7|-0.4|0.0001
90819135|NCT03354273|181517255|SUPERIORITY|The test of sensitivity comparison between Flurpiridaz (18F) Injection PET MPI and SPECT MPI was performed with a 1-sided McNemar's test at a significance level of 0.025 using 1-sided McNemar's tests.|Difference between PET MPI and SPECT MPI|8.8||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|18.9|||McNemar|||Reader 3: Sensitivity||18.9|-1.3|0.0440
90819136|NCT03354273|181517255|NON_INFERIORITY|The test of specificity noninferiority between Flurpiridaz (18F) Injection PET MPI and SPECT MPI was performed with a paired test for noninferiority at a 1-sided significance level of 0.025 using Nam's RMLE method (margin=0.1).|Difference between PET MPI and SPECT MPI|7.8||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|20.3|||Nam's RMLE|||Reader 3: Specificity||20.3|-4.8|0.0022
90819137|NCT03354273|181517255|SUPERIORITY|The test of sensitivity comparison between Flurpiridaz (18F) Injection PET MPI and SPECT MPI was performed with a 1-sided McNemar's test at a significance level of 0.025 using 1-sided McNemar's tests.|Difference between PET MPI and SPECT MPI|4.4||||0.2164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|17.2|||McNemar|||Majority Rule: Sensitivity||17.2|-8.4|0.2164
90819138|NCT03354273|181517255|NON_INFERIORITY|The test of specificity noninferiority between Flurpiridaz (18F) Injection PET MPI and SPECT MPI was performed with a paired test for noninferiority at a 1-sided significance level of 0.025 using Nam's RMLE method (margin=0.1).|Difference between PET MPI and SPECT MPI|9.7||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|22.0|||Nam's RMLE|||Majority Rule: Specificity||22.0|-2.6|0.0006
90819139|NCT00303485|181517256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in median|-64.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.28|-46.21|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||-46.21|-80.28|< 0.0001
90819140|NCT00510744|181517270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|24.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired changes in fat absorption assessed by parametric (t test) or non-parametric tests (Mann-Whitney)||||<0.05
90819141|NCT04566692|181517344|NON_INFERIORITY|The bi-weekly treatment was considered non-inferior to the weekly treatment if the lower bound of the 90% CI was \> 0.8.|GLSM Ratio|1.035|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.003|1.0685||||||Geometric least-squares means (GLSMs), GLSM ratio, and 90% CI of GLSM ratio were determined from a mixed-effect model for the log-transformed parameter value with treatment period (weekly or bi-weekly) as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect.||1.0685|1.0030|
90819142|NCT04566692|181517347|NON_INFERIORITY|The biweekly treatment was considered non-inferior to the weekly treatment if the lower bound of the 90% CI was \> 0.8.|GLSM Ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9447|0.9957||||||GLSMs, GLSM ratio, and 90% CI of GLSM ratio were determined from a mixed-effect model for the log-transformed parameter value with treatment period (weekly or bi-weekly) as a fixed effect and participants as a random effect.||0.9957|0.9447|
90819143|NCT00590577|181517356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least-squares means|-9.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0|<|0.001||95.0|-13.71|-5.85||Used analysis of covariance model with treatment (placebo, paliperidone palmitate 25, 100, 150 mg eq.) and country as factors and baseline value as a covariate. P-values adjusted for multiplicity for comparison with placebo using Dunnett's test.|ANCOVA||The 95% confidence intervals were unadjusted for multiplicity.|The overall type I error rate for testing all paliperidone palmitate doses vs. placebo for both the primary outcome and key secondary outcome was controlled at the 2-sided 0.05 significance level. The 2 families of hypotheses (in each family, comparison of each paliperidone palmitate dose vs. placebo) were tested using a parallel gatekeeping procedure that adjusts for multiplicity by using Dunnett's method in each family of hypotheses and using Bonferroni's inequality between different families.||-5.85|-13.71|<0.001
90819144|NCT00590577|181517356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least-squares means|-8.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0|<|0.001||95.0|-12.62|-4.78||Used analysis of covariance model with treatment (placebo, paliperidone palmitate 25, 100, 150 mg eq.) and country as factors and baseline value as a covariate. P-values adjusted for multiplicity for comparison with placebo using Dunnett's test.|ANCOVA||The 95% confidence intervals were unadjusted for multiplicity.|The overall type I error rate for testing all paliperidone palmitate doses vs. placebo for both the primary outcome and key secondary outcome was controlled at the 2-sided 0.05 significance level. The 2 families of hypotheses (in each family, comparison of each paliperidone palmitate dose vs. placebo) were tested using a parallel gatekeeping procedure that adjusts for multiplicity by using Dunnett's method in each family of hypotheses and using Bonferroni's inequality between different families.||-4.78|-12.62|<0.001
90819145|NCT00590577|181517356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least-squares means|-5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.01||0.034||95.0|-9.01|-1.1||Used analysis of covariance model with treatment (placebo, paliperidone palmitate 25, 100, 150 mg eq.) and country as factors and baseline value as a covariate. P-values adjusted for multiplicity for comparison with placebo using Dunnett's test.|ANCOVA||The 95% confidence intervals were unadjusted for multiplicity.|The overall type I error rate for testing all paliperidone palmitate doses vs. placebo for both the primary outcome and key secondary outcome was controlled at the 2-sided 0.05 significance level. The 2 families of hypotheses (in each family, comparison of each paliperidone palmitate dose vs. placebo) were tested using a parallel gatekeeping procedure that adjusts for multiplicity by using Dunnett's method in each family of hypotheses and using Bonferroni's inequality between different families.||-1.10|-9.01|0.034
90819146|NCT00590577|181517357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least-squares means|6.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.49|<|0.001||95.0|3.26|9.12||P-values were adjusted for multiplicity between PANSS total score (primary efficacy endpoint) and PSP, as well as different dose levels in comparison with placebo, using the Dunnett-Bonferroni-based parallel gatekeeping method.|ANCOVA||The 95% confidence intervals were unadjusted for multiplicity.|Analysis of the key secondary endpoint was conducted using an analysis of covariance model with treatment and country as factors, and the baseline PSP score as a covariate. The Dunnett-Bonferroni-based parallel gatekeeping approach was used to adjust for multiple testing.||9.12|3.26|<0.001
90819147|NCT00590577|181517357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least-squares means|4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.007||95.0|1.43|7.31||P-values were adjusted for multiplicity between PANSS total score (primary efficacy endpoint) and PSP, as well as different dose levels in comparison with placebo, using the Dunnett-Bonferroni-based parallel gatekeeping method.|ANCOVA||The 95% confidence intervals were unadjusted for multiplicity.|Analysis of the key secondary endpoint was conducted using an analysis of covariance model with treatment and country as factors, and the baseline PSP score as a covariate. The Dunnett-Bonferroni-based parallel gatekeeping approach was used to adjust for multiple testing.||7.31|1.43|0.007
90819148|NCT00590577|181517357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least-squares means|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.509||95.0|-1.96|3.95||P-values were adjusted for multiplicity between PANSS total score (primary efficacy endpoint) and PSP, as well as different dose levels in comparison with placebo, using the Dunnett-Bonferroni-based parallel gatekeeping method.|ANCOVA||The 95% confidence intervals were unadjusted for multiplicity.|Analysis of the key secondary endpoint was conducted using an analysis of covariance model with treatment and country as factors, and the baseline PSP score as a covariate. The Dunnett-Bonferroni-based parallel gatekeeping approach was used to adjust for multiple testing.||3.95|-1.96|0.509
90819149|NCT00590577|181517358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Comparisons with placebo were without multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|||Analysis of the change in the CGI-S score at end point was performed using an analysis of covariance model on the ranks of the change in score at end point with treatment and country as factors, and (non-ranked) baseline CGI-S score as a covariate.||||<0.001
90819150|NCT00590577|181517358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||Comparisons with placebo were without multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|||Analysis of the change in the CGI-S score at end point was performed using an analysis of covariance model on the ranks of the change in score at end point with treatment and country as factors, and (non-ranked) baseline CGI-S score as a covariate.||||0.005
90819151|NCT00590577|181517358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14||95.0||||Comparisons with placebo were without multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|||Analysis of the change in the CGI-S score at end point was performed using an analysis of covariance model on the ranks of the change in score at end point with treatment and country as factors, and (non-ranked) baseline CGI-S score as a covariate.||||0.140
91059242|NCT04784533|181999993|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.4|||||LS means, SE, and CIs are based on an MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score. The model is fit using an unstructured covariance structure.|Week 24||-0.4|-1.2|
91059243|NCT04784533|181999994|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.2|||||LS means, SEs, and CIs are based on a mixed model repeated measures analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score. The model is fit using an unstructured covariance structure.|Satisfied Thickness Hair Coverage: Week 12||-0.2|-0.7|
91059244|NCT04784533|181999994|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.2|||||LS means, SEs, and CIs are based on a mixed model repeated measures analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score. The model is fit using an unstructured covariance structure.|Satisfied Thickness Hair Coverage: Week 16||-0.2|-0.7|
90819152|NCT03927404|181517360|OTHER|We used median (Inter-quartile range) to describe the continuous measures of limb health such as TEWL, Hydration, and Oxygenation levels at each visit and each location of the measurements in the sound (SL) and residual limbs (RL).|||||<|0.05||||||In a bivariate analysis, we used two-sided equality of the median test for the matched pairs of observations|bivariate analysis|||||||<0.05
90819153|NCT03927404|181517362|OTHER|We used median (Inter-quartile range) to describe the continuous measures of limb health such as TEWL, Hydration, and Oxygenation levels at each visit and each location of the measurements in the sound (SL) and residual limbs (RL).||||||0.05||||||In a bivariate analysis, we used two-sided equality of the median test for the matched pairs of observations|bivariate analysis|||||||0.05
90819154|NCT01229449|181517363|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
90819155|NCT01229449|181517363|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
90819156|NCT01229449|181517363|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0001
90819157|NCT01229449|181517363|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0001
90819158|NCT01229449|181517363|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.72
90819159|NCT01229449|181517363|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
90819160|NCT01229449|181517363|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0005
90819161|NCT01229449|181517363|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0005
90819162|NCT01229449|181517363|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91059245|NCT04784533|181999994|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.3|||||LS means, SEs, and CIs are based on a mixed model repeated measures analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score. The model is fit using an unstructured covariance structure.|Satisfied Thickness Hair Coverage: Week 20||-0.3|-0.8|
90819163|NCT01229449|181517363|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
90819164|NCT02641067|181517373|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|2.04||||||||2.04|1.00|
90819165|NCT02641067|181517374|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.99|1.92||||||||1.92|0.99|
90819166|NCT02641067|181517375|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.61|1.15||||||||1.15|0.61|
90819167|NCT01300260|181517390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares (LS) mean ratio|2.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.41|3.64||P-value is two-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|The mixed model analysis included treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant nested in sequence as a random effect.||||3.64|2.41|<0.001
90819168|NCT01300260|181517390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares (LS) means ratio|5.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.09|7.13||P-value is two-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|The mixed model analysis included treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant nested in sequence as a random effect.||||7.13|4.09|<0.001
90819169|NCT01300260|181517391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares (LS) mean ratio|3.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.66|3.59||P-value is two-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|The mixed model analysis included treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant nested in sequence as a random effect.||||3.59|2.66|<0.001
90819170|NCT01300260|181517391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares (LS) mean ratio|7.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.82|13.0||P-value is two-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|The mixed model analysis included treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant nested in sequence as a random effect.||||13.0|4.82|<0.001
90819171|NCT01300260|181517392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares (LS) mean ratio|4.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.45|5.0||P-value is two-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|The mixed model analysis included treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant nested in sequence as a random effect.||||5.00|3.45|<0.001
90819172|NCT01300260|181517392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares (LS) mean ratio|3.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.99|4.78||P-value is two-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|The mixed model analysis included treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant nested in sequence as a random effect.||||4.78|2.99|<0.001
90819173|NCT01300260|181517393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares (LS) mean ratio|2.04||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|3.31||P-value is two-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|The mixed model analysis included treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant nested in sequence as a random effect.||||3.31|1.26|0.011
90819174|NCT01300260|181517393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares (LS) mean ratio|2.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.71|3.47||P-value is two-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|The mixed model analysis included treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant nested in sequence as a random effect.||||3.47|1.71|<0.001
90819175|NCT01300260|181517394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares (LS) mean ratio|1.22||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.43||P-value is two-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|The mixed model analysis included treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant nested in sequence as a random effect.||||1.43|1.04|0.021
90819176|NCT01300260|181517394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares (LS) mean ratio|1.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|1.53||P-value is two-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|The mixed model analysis included treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant nested in sequence as a random effect.||||1.53|1.27|<0.001
90819177|NCT01300260|181517395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares (LS) mean ratio|1.43||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.8||P-value is two-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|The mixed model analysis included treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant nested in sequence as a random effect.||||1.80|1.14|0.009
90819178|NCT01300260|181517395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares (LS) mean ratio|1.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|1.94||P-value is 2-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|The mixed model analysis included treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant nested in sequence as a random effect.||||1.94|1.59|<0.001
90819179|NCT00439374|181517396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.35||||||All deliveries less than 37 weeks||1.35|0.79|
90819180|NCT00439374|181517396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.4||||||Spontaneous deliveries||1.40|0.70|
90819181|NCT00439374|181517396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.84||||||Medically-indicated deliveries||1.84|0.65|
90819182|NCT00439374|181517397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.93
90819183|NCT00439374|181517398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.8||||||||1.80|0.61|
90819184|NCT00439374|181517399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.21||||||||1.21|0.58|
90819185|NCT00439374|181517400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.43||||||||1.43|0.54|
90819186|NCT00439374|181517401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.3||||||||1.30|0.36|
90819187|NCT00439374|181517402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.15||||||||1.15|0.82|
90819188|NCT00439374|181517403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.29||||||||1.29|0.55|
90819189|NCT00439374|181517404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.55||||||||1.55|0.77|
90819190|NCT00439374|181517405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|5.33||||||||5.33|0.43|
90819191|NCT00439374|181517406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.72||||||||1.72|0.78|
90819192|NCT00439374|181517407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|2.41||||||||2.41|0.56|
90819193|NCT00439374|181517409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.58||||||||1.58|0.34|
90819194|NCT00439374|181517410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.52||||||||2.52|0.84|
90819195|NCT00439374|181517411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.46||||||||1.46|0.79|
90819196|NCT00439374|181517412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.13||||||Any side effect||1.13|0.92|
90819197|NCT00439374|181517412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.17||||||Injection site||1.17|0.93|
90819198|NCT00439374|181517412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|5.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|22.78||||||Urticaria||22.78|1.11|
90819199|NCT00439374|181517412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.83||||||Nausea||1.83|0.27|
90819200|NCT00439374|181517413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.3||||||Analysis is for the total composite||1.30|0.46|
90819201|NCT00439374|181517414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.82
90819202|NCT00439374|181517422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.61
90819203|NCT02533726|181517424|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.27||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.75|||Fisher Exact|||Per-protocol (PP) analysis, consistent with regulatory guidance (FDA).||.75|.1|.012
90819204|NCT02533726|181517424|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.2||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.74|||Fisher Exact|||Per protocol analysis adjusted for admitting team, unit of admission, and risk for pressure injury.||0.74|0.06|0.015
90819205|NCT01147848|181517430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.037||||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.088|0.015|||ANCOVA||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline FEV1, region, sex, age, and treatment.|||0.015|-0.088|0.162
90819206|NCT04033068|181517443|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2003|||||||Fisher-Freeman-Halton Test|||||||= 0.2003
90819207|NCT04033068|181517444|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1448|||||||Fisher-Freeman-Halton Test|||||||= 0.1448
90819208|NCT04033068|181517445|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.9111|||||||Fisher-Freeman-Halton Test|||||||= 0.9111
90819209|NCT04033068|181517446|SUPERIORITY||||||=|1|||||||Fisher-Freeman-Halton Test|||||||= 1.0000
90819210|NCT04033068|181517448|SUPERIORITY||GMT Ratio|0.9|||=|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|5.5|||ANOVA|||Day 0||5.5|0.2|= 0.9990
90819211|NCT04033068|181517448|SUPERIORITY||GMT Ratio|0.8|||=|0.9798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|5.2|||ANOVA|||Day 0||5.2|0.1|= 0.9798
90819212|NCT04033068|181517448|SUPERIORITY||GMT Ratio|1.2|||=|0.9958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|10.1|||ANOVA|||Day 0||10.1|0.1|= 0.9958
90819213|NCT04033068|181517448|SUPERIORITY||GMT Ratio|0.8|||=|0.9935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|5.5|||ANOVA|||Day 0||5.5|0.1|= 0.9935
90819214|NCT04033068|181517448|SUPERIORITY||GMT Ratio|1.3|||=|0.9852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|10.7|||ANOVA|||Day 0||10.7|0.2|= 0.9852
90819215|NCT04033068|181517448|SUPERIORITY||GMT Ratio|1.6|||=|0.944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|14.4|||ANOVA|||Day 0||14.4|0.2|= 0.9440
90819216|NCT04033068|181517448|SUPERIORITY||GMT Ratio|1.2|||=|0.9943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|5.5|||ANOVA|||Day 28||5.5|0.2|= 0.9943
90819217|NCT04033068|181517448|SUPERIORITY||GMT Ratio|1.0|||=|0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|5.1|||ANOVA|||Day 28||5.1|0.2|= 0.9999
90819218|NCT04033068|181517448|SUPERIORITY||GMT Ratio|2.2|||=|0.6476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|14.3|||ANOVA|||Day 28||14.3|0.4|= 0.6476
90819219|NCT04033068|181517448|SUPERIORITY||GMT Ratio|0.8|||=|0.9911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|4.3|||ANOVA|||Day 28||4.3|0.2|= 0.9911
90819220|NCT04033068|181517448|SUPERIORITY||GMT Ratio|1.9|||=|0.7647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|12.0|||ANOVA|||Day 28||12.0|0.3|= 0.7647
90819221|NCT04033068|181517448|SUPERIORITY||GMT Ratio|2.3|||=|0.6447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|15.8|||ANOVA|||Day 28||15.8|0.3|= 0.6447
90819222|NCT04033068|181517448|SUPERIORITY||GMT Ratio|1.3|||=|0.9638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|5.3|||ANOVA|||Day 56||5.3|0.3|= 0.9638
90819223|NCT04033068|181517448|SUPERIORITY||GMT Ratio|1.7|||=|0.7837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|7.7|||ANOVA|||Day 56||7.7|0.4|= 0.7837
90819224|NCT04033068|181517448|SUPERIORITY||GMT Ratio|2.9|||=|0.3427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|15.3|||ANOVA|||Day 56||15.3|0.5|= 0.3427
90819225|NCT04033068|181517448|SUPERIORITY||GMT Ratio|1.3|||=|0.9578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|5.8|||ANOVA|||Day 56||5.8|0.3|= 0.9578
90819226|NCT04033068|181517448|SUPERIORITY||GMT Ratio|2.2|||=|0.5637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|11.7|||ANOVA|||Day 56||11.7|0.4|= 0.5637
90819227|NCT04033068|181517448|SUPERIORITY||GMT Ratio|1.7|||=|0.8471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|9.6|||ANOVA|||Day 56||9.6|0.3|= 0.8471
90819228|NCT00324233|181517480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.56||95.0|||||equivalence testing|||||||0.56
90819229|NCT01972789|181517483|NON_INFERIORITY|This is a non-inferiority study design, with a pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 5 letters between intensive and relaxed groups. That is, if the change from Baseline in BCVA at Month 24 in the intensive group is not more than 5 letters higher than the relaxed group, then the relaxed group is regarded not inferior to the intensive group|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4||||0.787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|3.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.32|-2.51|0.787
90819230|NCT01972789|181517484|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.31||||0.833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|2.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.58|-3.20|0.833
90819231|NCT01972789|181517485|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|-21.39||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.17|0.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.39|-43.17|0.054
90819232|NCT01972789|181517486|OTHER||Negative Binomial Regression|1.11||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.18|||Mixed Model|||||1.18|1.04|0.001
90819233|NCT01972789|181517487|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.26||||0.338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.80|-0.28|0.338
90819234|NCT01972789|181517488|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|2.8|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 12||2.80|0.74|0.284
90819235|NCT01972789|181517488|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.33|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 24||2.33|0.71|0.407
90819236|NCT01972789|181517489|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.35||||0.217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|1.04|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.04|0.12|0.217
90819237|NCT01972789|181517490|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.66|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.66|0.42|0.615
91059246|NCT04784533|181999994|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.2|||||LS means, SEs, and CIs are based on a mixed model repeated measures analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score. The model is fit using an unstructured covariance structure.|Satisfied Thickness Hair Coverage: Week 24||-0.2|-0.8|
90819238|NCT01972789|181517491|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|2.18|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.18|0.54|0.819
90819239|NCT01972789|181517493|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.32||||0.565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|630.5|||Regression, Logistic|||||630.5|0.03|0.565
90819240|NCT01972789|181517494|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.9|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.90|1.03|0.034
90819241|NCT01707381|181517495|OTHER||Treatment difference|-1.773|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.38|-1.166|||ANCOVA||Treatment Difference = BOL-303259-X 0.024% - Timolol maleate 0.5%.|||-1.166|-2.380|<0.001
90819242|NCT01707381|181517496|OTHER||Bonferroni t-test used for paired compar|0.01|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA||the bonferroni result applies to nocturnal supine OPP data comparing BOL group to timolol group|Statistical analysis of nocturnal (supine) OPP was performed among baseline, the BOL-303259-X treatment and timolol treatment using ANOVA. the criteria for statistical significance was P\<0.05. Post hoc Bonferroni T-tests were then utilized to compare BOL and timolol groups.||||<0.05
90819243|NCT01707381|181517497|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.77||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.915|-0.625|||ANOVA||Treatment Difference = BOL-303259-X 0.024% - Timolol maleate 0.5%.|||-0.625|-2.915|0.004
90819244|NCT03596450|181517499|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|1.36||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.79|||Regression, Logistic|||Estimate and p-value are based on logistic regression model with logit link function, treatment as categorical effect, and baseline HbA1c as covariate.||1.79|1.03|0.033
91059247|NCT04784533|181999994|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.3|||||LS means, SEs, and CIs are based on a mixed model repeated measures analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score. The model is fit using an unstructured covariance structure.|Satisfied Evenness Hair Coverage: Week 12||-0.3|-0.8|
90819245|NCT04016077|181517575|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Ratio of Geometric Means|118.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.96|159.64|||ANOVA|||||159.64|87.96|
90819246|NCT04016077|181517576|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Ratio of Geometric Means|104.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.48|145.23|||ANOVA|||||145.23|74.48|
90819247|NCT03036189|181517587|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.15||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.50
90819248|NCT03036189|181517588|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.42||||0.71|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.71
90819249|NCT03036189|181517589|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.12||||0.83|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.83
90819250|NCT03036189|181517590|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.37||||0.58|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.58
90819251|NCT03036189|181517591|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.4||||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.69
90819252|NCT03036189|181517592|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.49||||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.60
90819253|NCT03036189|181517593|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.03||||0.97|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.97
90819254|NCT03036189|181517594|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.45||||0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.49
90819255|NCT03036189|181517595|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.25||||0.77|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.77
90819256|NCT03036189|181517596|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.54|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.05
90819257|NCT03036189|181517597|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.99||||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.40
90819258|NCT03036189|181517598|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.05||||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.07
90819259|NCT03036189|181517599|SUPERIORITY||Slope|2.0||||0.84|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.84
90819260|NCT03036189|181517600|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-23.01||||0.64|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.64
90819261|NCT03262441|181517601|OTHER||Slope|-0.00033|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.002|0.0014||||||||0.0014|-0.0020|
90819262|NCT03262441|181517602|OTHER||Slope|0.001|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0036|0.0056||||||||0.0056|-0.0036|
90819263|NCT03262441|181517603|OTHER||Slope|0.0024|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.003|0.0078||||||||0.0078|-0.003|
90819264|NCT00559988|181517658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.064||||0.732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.51|||Regression, Cox|||||1.51|0.75|0.732
90819265|NCT03916484|181517678|OTHER|||||||0.33||||||No a priori threshold for statistical significance was specified.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.33
90819266|NCT03916484|181517679|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.00
90819267|NCT03916484|181517679|OTHER|||||||0.43|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.43
90819268|NCT03916484|181517679|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.06
90819269|NCT03916484|181517679|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.06
90819270|NCT03916484|181517679|OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.48
90819271|NCT03916484|181517680|OTHER|||||||0.45||||||No a priori threshold for statistical significance was specified.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.45
90819272|NCT03916484|181517681|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||McNemar|||||||<0.001
90819273|NCT03916484|181517681|OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||McNemar|||||||0.07
90819274|NCT03916484|181517681|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||McNemar|||||||0.003
90819275|NCT03916484|181517682|OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||McNemar|||||||0.25
90819276|NCT03916484|181517682|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||McNemar|||||||0.002
90819277|NCT03916484|181517682|OTHER|||||||0.453|||||||McNemar|||||||0.453
90819278|NCT03916484|181517682|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||McNemar|||||||0.500
90819279|NCT03916484|181517682|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||McNemar|||||||0.003
90819280|NCT04943432|181517683|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T2 - T1||||0.06
90819281|NCT04943432|181517683|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T3 - T1||||0.68
90819282|NCT04943432|181517685|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T2-T1||||.01
90819283|NCT04943432|181517685|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T3-T1||||.32
90819284|NCT04943432|181517686|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T2-T1||||.44
90819285|NCT04943432|181517686|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T3-T1||||.007
90819286|NCT04943432|181517690|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T2-T1||||.01
90819287|NCT04943432|181517690|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T3-T1||||.11
90819288|NCT04943432|181517691|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T2-T1||||.82
91059248|NCT04784533|181999994|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.3|||||LS means, SEs, and CIs are based on a mixed model repeated measures analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score. The model is fit using an unstructured covariance structure.|Satisfied Evenness Hair Coverage: Week 16||-0.3|-0.7|
90819289|NCT04943432|181517691|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T3-T1||||.36
90819290|NCT04943432|181517692|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T2-T1||||.34
90819291|NCT04943432|181517692|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T3-T1||||.02
90819292|NCT04943432|181517694|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T2-T1||||.14
90819293|NCT04943432|181517694|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T3-T1||||.29
90819294|NCT04943432|181517696|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T2-T1||||<.001
90819295|NCT04943432|181517696|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T3-T1||||.23
90819296|NCT00241904|181517703|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||General Linear Mixed Model|||Intention to treat analysis was used||||<0.001
90819297|NCT00241904|181517704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||General Linear Mixed Model|||||||0.003
90819298|NCT00241904|181517705|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.034|||||||General Linear Mixed Model|||||||0.034
90819299|NCT00241904|181517706|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||General Linear Mixed Model|||||||<0.001
90819300|NCT01990612|181517710|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.8||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.0|||Chi-squared|Group sequential method to control type I error w/ Lan-DeMets characterization of O'Brien-Fleming boundary. 2-tailed p-value \<0.46 considered stat sig|One interim analysis was performed; in final analysis of the primary outcome, a two-tailed P value of less than 0.046 considered to indicate statistical significance. Since adjustment is minimal, we report 95% confidence interval for relative risk.|||1.00|0.64|0.049
90819301|NCT01990612|181517711|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|3.33|||||Exact confidence intervals are provided for rare outcomes. Widths of the confidence intervals for components of the primary outcome have not been adjusted for multiplicity, and should not be used to infer definitive effects of management strategies.|||3.33|0.12|
90819302|NCT01990612|181517712|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.93||||||||0.93|0.55|
90819303|NCT01990612|181517713|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.37|||||Widths of the confidence intervals for components of the primary outcome have not been adjusted for multiplicity, and should not be used to infer definitive effects of management strategies.|||1.37|0.32|
90819304|NCT01990612|181517714|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.37|||||Widths of the confidence intervals for components of the primary outcome have not been adjusted for multiplicity, and should not be used to infer definitive effects of management strategies.|||1.37|0.35|
90819305|NCT01990612|181517715|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|8.12|||||Exact confidence intervals are provided for rare outcomes. Widths of the confidence intervals for components of the primary outcome have not been adjusted for multiplicity, and should not be used to infer definitive effects of management strategies.|||8.12|0.91|
90819306|NCT01990612|181517716|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.76|||||Widths of the confidence intervals for components of the primary outcome have not been adjusted for multiplicity, and should not be used to infer definitive effects of management strategies.|||1.76|0.31|
90819307|NCT01990612|181517717|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.19|||||Widths of the confidence intervals for components of the primary outcome have not been adjusted for multiplicity, and should not be used to infer definitive effects of management strategies.|||1.19|0.35|
90819308|NCT01990612|181517718|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.55|||||Widths of the confidence intervals for components of the primary outcome have not been adjusted for multiplicity, and should not be used to infer definitive effects of management strategies.|||1.55|0.38|
90819309|NCT01990612|181517719|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|3.42|||||Widths of the confidence intervals for components of the primary outcome have not been adjusted for multiplicity, and should not be used to infer definitive effects of management strategies.|||3.42|0.48|
90819310|NCT01990612|181517720|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|1.79|||||Exact confidence intervals are provided for rare outcomes. Widths of the confidence intervals for components of the primary outcome have not been adjusted for multiplicity, and should not be used to infer definitive effects of management strategies.|||1.79|0.06|
90819311|NCT01990612|181517721|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.93||The P value remained significant after controlling for multiple comparisons with the false discovery rate method.|Chi-squared|||||0.93|0.76|<0.001
90819312|NCT01990612|181517722|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.58||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.92||The P value remained significant after controlling for multiple comparisons with the false discovery rate method.|Chi-squared|||||0.92|0.36|0.02
90819313|NCT01990612|181517723|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.85||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.01|||Chi-squared|||||1.01|0.72|0.07
90819314|NCT01990612|181517724|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.94||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.07|||Chi-squared|||||1.07|0.83|0.35
90819315|NCT01990612|181517725|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.15||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.52|||Chi-squared|||||1.52|0.87|0.33
90819316|NCT01990612|181517727|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.5||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.55|||Chi-squared||Exact confidence intervals are provided for rare outcomes.|||1.55|0.13|0.26
90819317|NCT01990612|181517728|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.74||The P value remained significant after controlling for multiple comparisons with the false discovery rate method.|Chi-squared|||||0.74|0.56|<0.001
90819318|NCT01990612|181517729|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.29|||Chi-squared|||||1.29|0.82|0.81
90819319|NCT01990612|181517730|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The P value remained significant after controlling for multiple comparisons with the false discovery rate method.|Chi-squared|||Analysis for 6-96 hours after delivery||||<0.001
90819320|NCT01990612|181517730|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||The P value remained significant after controlling for multiple comparisons with the false discovery rate method.|Chi-squared|||Analysis for 4-8 weeks after delivery||||0.01
90819321|NCT01990612|181517731|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The P value remained significant after controlling for multiple comparisons with the false discovery rate method.|Chi-squared|||Analysis for Worst labor pain score||||<0.001
90819322|NCT01990612|181517731|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The P value remained significant after controlling for multiple comparisons with the false discovery rate method.|Chi-squared|||Analysis for Overall labor pain score||||<0.001
90819323|NCT01990612|181517732|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.76||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.1|||Chi-squared|||||1.10|0.53|0.15
90819324|NCT01990612|181517733|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.99||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|26.8|||Chi-squared|The P-values has not been adjusted for multiplicity of comparisons of secondary outcomes.|Exact confidence intervals are provided for rare outcomes.|||26.8|0.26|1.00
90819325|NCT01990612|181517735|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Cochran-Armitage trend test|||||||0.01
90819326|NCT01990612|181517736|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.92||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.23|||Chi-squared|||||1.23|0.68|0.56
91059249|NCT04784533|181999994|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.3|||||LS means, SEs, and CIs are based on a mixed model repeated measures analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score. The model is fit using an unstructured covariance structure.|Satisfied Evenness Hair Coverage: Week 20||-0.3|-0.8|
91059250|NCT04784533|181999994|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.3|||||LS means, SEs, and CIs are based on a mixed model repeated measures analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score. The model is fit using an unstructured covariance structure.|Satisfied Evenness Hair Coverage: Week 24||-0.3|-0.8|
91059251|NCT04784533|181999994|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.2|||||LS means, SEs, and CIs are based on a mixed model repeated measures analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score. The model is fit using an unstructured covariance structure.|How Satisfied With Your Eyebrows: Week 12||-0.2|-0.8|
90819327|NCT01990612|181517737|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.28|||Chi-squared|||||1.28|0.64|0.56
90819328|NCT01990612|181517738|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.79||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.74|||Chi-squared||Exact confidence intervals are provided for rare outcomes.|||2.74|0.20|0.75
90819329|NCT01990612|181517739|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.27|||Chi-squared|||||1.27|0.81|0.91
90819330|NCT01990612|181517740|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.05||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.66|||Chi-squared|||||1.66|0.66|0.84
91059252|NCT04784533|181999994|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.1|||||LS means, SEs, and CIs are based on a mixed model repeated measures analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score. The model is fit using an unstructured covariance structure.|How Satisfied With Your Eyebrows: Week 16||-0.1|-0.6|
90819331|NCT01990612|181517741|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.03|||Chi-squared|||||1.03|0.79|0.13
90819332|NCT01990612|181517742|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum|||||||<0.001
90819333|NCT01990612|181517743|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||The P value remained significant after controlling for multiple comparisons with the false discovery rate method.|Cochran-Armitage trend test|||||||0.01
90819334|NCT01990612|181517744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||The P value remained significant after controlling for multiple comparisons with the false discovery rate method.|Cochran-Armitage trend test|||||||0.002
90819335|NCT01990612|181517746|OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|1.01||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.15||Odds ratios from multinomial logistic regression.|Regression, Logistic|||Multinomial logistic regression using participants who are breastfeeding only as the reference group. This analysis compares the participants who are breastfeeding and formula feeding to participants who are only breastfeeding.||1.15|0.89|0.88
90819336|NCT01990612|181517746|OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|0.98||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.12|||Regression, Logistic|||Multinomial logistic regression using participants who are breastfeeding only as the reference group. This analysis compares the participants who are only formula feeding to participants who are only breastfeeding.||1.12|0.86|0.78
90819337|NCT02980133|181517776|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.9||||0.285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|5.3||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model with effects due to baseline trough morning percent predicted FEV1, sex, age, (pooled) investigational center, previous therapy (ICS or NCS), and IMP treatment group.||5.3|-1.6|0.285
90819338|NCT02980133|181517777|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) mean difference|6.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|8.8||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with effects due to baseline trough morning percent predicted FEV1, sex, age, (pooled) investigational center, previous therapy (inhaled corticosteroid \[ICS\] or noncorticosteroid \[NCS\]), and investigational medicinal product (IMP) treatment group.||8.8|3.2|<0.001
90819339|NCT02980133|181517777|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|7.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|9.8||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model with effects due to baseline trough morning percent predicted FEV1, sex, age, (pooled) investigational center, previous therapy (ICS or NCS), and IMP treatment group.||9.8|4.1|<0.001
90819340|NCT01854281|181517784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||null hypothesis: there is no difference in the occurence of arterial bubbles after simulated dive between closure and PFO groups.||||0.02
90819341|NCT01854281|181517784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||null hypothesis: there is no difference in the occurence of arterial bubbles after simulated dive between closure and PFO groups.||||<0.01
90819342|NCT03208088|181517794|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority of the Test lens relative to the Control will be concluded if the lower confidence limit of LSM difference is above the non-inferiority margin -5.|Least Square Mean Difference|5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.92|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|11.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|LS Mean difference was calculated as Test 1 - Control.|||11.6|0.1|
90819343|NCT03208088|181517794|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority of the Test lens relative to the Control will be concluded if the lower confidence limit of LSM difference is above the non-inferiority margin -5.|Least Square Mean Difference|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.06|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|8.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|LS Mean difference was calculated as Test 2 - Control.|||8.1|-4.0|
90819344|NCT03208088|181517795|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority of the Test lens relative to the Control will be concluded if the lower confidence limit of LSM difference is above the non-inferiority margin -5.|Least Square Mean difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.06|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|4.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|LS Mean difference was calculated as Test 3 - Control.|||4.6|-7.5|
91059253|NCT04784533|181999994|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.1|||||LS means, SEs, and CIs are based on a mixed model repeated measures analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score. The model is fit using an unstructured covariance structure.|How Satisfied With Your Eyebrows: Week 20||-0.1|-0.7|
91059254|NCT04784533|181999994|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.2|||||LS means, SEs, and CIs are based on a mixed model repeated measures analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score. The model is fit using an unstructured covariance structure.|How Satisfied With Your Eyebrows: Week 24||-0.2|-0.7|
91059255|NCT04784533|181999994|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.2|||||LS means, SEs, and CIs are based on a mixed model repeated measures analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score. The model is fit using an unstructured covariance structure.|How Satisfied With Your Eyelashes: Week 12||-0.2|-0.7|
91059256|NCT04784533|181999994|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.2|||||LS means, SEs, and CIs are based on a mixed model repeated measures analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score. The model is fit using an unstructured covariance structure.|How Satisfied With Your Eyelashes: Week 16||-0.2|-0.7|
91059257|NCT04784533|181999994|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.2|||||LS means, SEs, and CIs are based on a mixed model repeated measures analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score. The model is fit using an unstructured covariance structure.|How Satisfied With Your Eyelashes: Week 20||-0.2|-0.7|
91059258|NCT04784533|181999994|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.3|||||LS means, SEs, and CIs are based on a mixed model repeated measures analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score. The model is fit using an unstructured covariance structure.|How Satisfied With Your Eyelashes: Week 24||-0.3|-0.8|
90819345|NCT03208088|181517795|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority of the Test lens relative to the Control will be concluded if the lower confidence limit of LSM difference is above the non-inferiority margin -5.|Least Square Mean|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.88|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|LS Mean difference was calculated as Test 4 - Control.|||2.3|-9.0|
90819346|NCT00360724|181517796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||F statistics|9.43||||0.003|||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|df 1,55|time X Drug group, f=9.43,df 1,55, p=.003|Repeated measures ANOVA was used to compare measures between baseline and week 10.||||.003
90819347|NCT00360724|181517798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||F statistics|8.72||||0.05|||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|d.f. 1,55|Time x Treatment: F=8.72, d.f=1,55, p=0.05|Repeated measures ANOVA was used to compare measures between baseline and week 10.||||0.05
91059259|NCT02105974|181999998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.034||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.014|0.055|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM)||||0.055|0.014|0.001
91059260|NCT02105974|181999999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.62||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|5.59|||ANCOVA|||||5.59|-0.35|0.084
90819348|NCT00360724|181517799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||F statistics|5.33||||0.025|||||||Repeated measures ANOVA|d.f. 1,55||Repeated measures ANOVA was used to compare measures between baseline and week 10.||||0.025
90819349|NCT00360724|181517800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||F statistics|0.26||||0.6|||||||Repeated measures ANOVA|d.f.=1,55||Repeated measures ANOVA was used to compare measures between baseline and week 10.||||0.6
90819350|NCT00360724|181517805|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.0||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.002
90819351|NCT00360724|181517806|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9
91059261|NCT02105974|182000000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.78||Nominal p-value|Regression, Cox|||||0.78|0.43|<0.001
91059262|NCT03597464|182000011|OTHER|"The model is based on a logistic regression with terms for treatment, baseline UPCR, biopsy class, MMF use at baseline and region.~Subjects who withdrew from the study prior to the visit assessments and thus provide insufficient visit data were defined as non-responders."|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|4.05|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 12 (AURORA 2 baseline)||4.05|1.30|0.004
91059263|NCT03597464|182000011|OTHER|"The model is based on a logistic regression with terms for treatment, baseline UPCR, biopsy class, MMF use at baseline and region.~Subjects who withdrew from the study prior to the visit assessments and thus provide insufficient visit data were defined as non-responders."|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.19||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|3.83|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 18||3.83|1.25|0.006
90819352|NCT02227394|181517960|OTHER|The difference between the predose and postdose values of test product and the reference product was compared after applying Benjamini-Hochberg correction (BH) to control the false discovery rate and after Holm-Bonferroni correction (Holm) to control the family-wise error rate.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.187||||0.727|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.098|0.724|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.724|-1.098|0.727
90819353|NCT02227394|181517961|OTHER|The difference between the predose and postdose values of test product and the reference product was compared after applying Benjamini-Hochberg correction (BH) to control the false discovery rate and after Holm-Bonferroni correction (Holm) to control the family-wise error rate.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.003||||0.366|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.002|0.007|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.007|-0.002|0.366
90819354|NCT02227394|181517963|OTHER|The difference between the predose and postdose values of test product and the reference product was compared after applying Benjamini-Hochberg correction (BH) to control the false discovery rate and after Holm-Bonferroni correction (Holm) to control the family-wise error rate.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.025||||0.486|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.035|0.084|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.084|-0.035|0.486
90819355|NCT02227394|181517964|OTHER|The difference between the predose and postdose values of test product and the reference product was compared after applying Benjamini-Hochberg correction (BH) to control the false discovery rate and after Holm-Bonferroni correction (Holm) to control the family-wise error rate.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.049||||0.413|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.052|0.15|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.150|-0.052|0.413
90819356|NCT02227394|181517965|OTHER|The difference between the predose and postdose values of test product and the reference product was compared after applying Benjamini-Hochberg correction (BH) to control the false discovery rate and after Holm-Bonferroni correction (Holm) to control the family-wise error rate.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.375|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.289|0.09|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.090|-0.289|0.375
90819357|NCT02227394|181517966|OTHER|The difference between the predose and postdose values of test product and the reference product was compared after applying Benjamini-Hochberg correction (BH) to control the false discovery rate and after Holm-Bonferroni correction (Holm) to control the family-wise error rate.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.009||||0.879|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.092|0.11|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.110|-0.092|0.879
90819358|NCT02227394|181517967|OTHER|The difference between the predose and postdose values of test product and the reference product was compared after applying Benjamini-Hochberg correction (BH) to control the false discovery rate and after Holm-Bonferroni correction (Holm) to control the family-wise error rate.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.023||||0.819|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.149|0.195|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.195|-0.149|0.819
90819359|NCT02227394|181517968|OTHER|The difference between the predose and postdose values of test product and the reference product was compared after applying Benjamini-Hochberg correction (BH) to control the false discovery rate and after Holm-Bonferroni correction (Holm) to control the family-wise error rate.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.643|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.87|1.07|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.070|-1.870|0.643
90819360|NCT02227394|181517969|OTHER|The difference between the predose and postdose values of test product and the reference product was compared after applying Benjamini-Hochberg correction (BH) to control the false discovery rate and after Holm-Bonferroni correction (Holm) to control the family-wise error rate.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.011||||0.866|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|0.122|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.122|-0.100|0.866
90819361|NCT02227394|181517970|OTHER|The difference between the predose and postdose values of test product and the reference product was compared after applying Benjamini-Hochberg correction (BH) to control the false discovery rate and after Holm-Bonferroni correction (Holm) to control the family-wise error rate.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.054||||0.346|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.043|0.152|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.152|-0.043|0.346
90819362|NCT02227394|181517971|OTHER|The difference between the predose and postdose values of test product and the reference product was compared after applying Benjamini-Hochberg correction (BH) to control the false discovery rate and after Holm-Bonferroni correction (Holm) to control the family-wise error rate.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.029||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.001|0.058|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.058|0.001|0.093
90819363|NCT02227394|181517972|OTHER|The difference between the predose and postdose values of test product and the reference product was compared after applying Benjamini-Hochberg correction (BH) to control the false discovery rate and after Holm-Bonferroni correction (Holm) to control the family-wise error rate.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.074||||0.686|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.386|0.238|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.238|-0.386|0.686
90819364|NCT02227394|181517974|OTHER|The difference between the predose and postdose values of test product and the reference product was compared after applying Benjamini-Hochberg correction (BH) to control the false discovery rate and after Holm-Bonferroni correction (Holm) to control the family-wise error rate.|Mean Difference (Net)|-10.368||||0.312|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.659|6.922|||t-test, 2 sided|||||6.922|-27.659|0.312
90819365|NCT02227394|181517975|OTHER|The difference between the predose and postdose values of test product and the reference product was compared after applying Benjamini-Hochberg correction (BH) to control the false discovery rate and after Holm-Bonferroni correction (Holm) to control the family-wise error rate.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.361|0.321|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.321|-0.361|0.920
90819366|NCT02227394|181517976|OTHER|The difference between the predose and postdose values of test product and the reference product was compared after applying Benjamini-Hochberg correction (BH) to control the false discovery rate and after Holm-Bonferroni correction (Holm) to control the family-wise error rate.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.08||||0.818|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.513|0.673|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.673|-0.513|0.818
90819367|NCT02227394|181517977|OTHER|The difference between the predose and postdose values of test product and the reference product was compared after applying Benjamini-Hochberg correction (BH) to control the false discovery rate and after Holm-Bonferroni correction (Holm) to control the family-wise error rate.|Mean Difference (Net)|11.4||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.789|20.011|||t-test, 2 sided|||||20.011|2.789|0.034
90819368|NCT02227394|181517978|OTHER|The difference between the predose and postdose values of test product and the reference product was compared after applying Benjamini-Hochberg correction (BH) to control the false discovery rate and after Holm-Bonferroni correction (Holm) to control the family-wise error rate.|Mean Difference (Net)|5.6||||0.427|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.323|17.523|||t-test, 2 sided|||||17.523|-6.323|0.427
91059264|NCT03597464|182000011|OTHER|"The model is based on a logistic regression with terms for treatment, baseline UPCR, biopsy class, MMF use at baseline and region.~Subjects who withdrew from the study prior to the visit assessments and thus provide insufficient visit data were defined as non-responders."|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.81||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|3.16|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 24||3.16|1.04|0.035
90819369|NCT04302545|181517981|OTHER|Other Primary outcomes were the extent of injury, operative time, blood loss and proportion of subjects receiving a blood transfusion. Postoperatively, subjects were assessed for secondary outcomes of UTI, micturition problems, and fistula formation during the hospital stay and for the next 3 months. Postoperative micturition problems were feeling of incomplete evacuation, frequency, urgency, urethral and extra-urethral incontinence.|Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.178|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.261|-0.094||The threshold for statistical significance was \<.05.|Regression, Linear|||"Null Hypothesis: During the cesarean section of women with adhesions of the previous cesarean section that obscure the bladder, the bladder injury rate is not significantly decreased in cystoinflation group compared to the control.~In this study, the bladder injury rate was seven times lesser in cystoinflation group compared to the control, thereby strongly supporting our hypothesis. The power of the study for bladder injury was 0.988, calculated with statistical software G'Power version 3.1."||-.094|-.261|<.0001
90819370|NCT04302545|181517982|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|-211.776|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-290.7|-132.84|||Regression, Linear|||||-132.84|-290.70|<0.0001
90819371|NCT04302545|181517983|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.634|3.634|||Regression, Linear|||Null Hypothsis:Cystoinflation is ineffective to prevent bladder injury in adhesions of previous C-section.The cystoinflation was to be cosidered ineffective if proportion of bladder injury in study group was less than %0% of the control.The power of the study for bladder injury prevention was.988,calculated with statistical software G'Power version3.1.||3.634|-3.634|1
90819372|NCT04302545|181517984|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|-1.093||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.708|-0.479|||Regression, Linear|||||-.479|-1.708|.001
90819373|NCT04302545|181517985|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.226|-0.073|||Regression, Linear|||||-0.073|-0.226|<0.0001
90819374|NCT04302545|181517986|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.103||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.171|-0.035|||Regression, Linear|||||-0.035|-0.171|0.003
90819375|NCT04302545|181517987|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.654||||0.336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.682|1.991|||Regression, Linear|||||1.991|-0.682|.336
90819376|NCT04302545|181517988|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.393||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.725|-0.06|||Regression, Linear|||||-0.06|-0.725|.021
90819377|NCT04302545|181517989|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|-1.89|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.813|-0.963|||Regression, Linear|||||-0.963|-2.813|<0.0001
90819378|NCT04302545|181517990|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|-1.318|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.021|-0.614|||Regression, Linear|||||-0.614|-2.021|<.0001
90819379|NCT04302545|181517992|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.065||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.108|-0.023|||Regression, Linear|||||-.023|-.108|.003
90819380|NCT02516592|181517993|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.045||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.005|0.084|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.084|0.005|0.028
90819381|NCT02516592|181517994|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.46||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.94|-0.03|0.063
90819382|NCT02516592|181517995|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.102||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.037|0.167|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.167|0.037|0.002
90819383|NCT02516592|181517996|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.4|-1.3|0.319
90819384|NCT02516592|181517997|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.13|-0.20|0.662
90819385|NCT00300365|181518005|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
90819386|NCT01727336|181518030|OTHER||recommended dose for Part 2|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||The recommended dose level for Part 2 was determined to be 0.9 mg/kg|||||
90819387|NCT00849862|181518044|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|92.2||||||90.0|85.0|100.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||100|85.0|
90819388|NCT00849862|181518045|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|100.0||||||90.0|96.3|104.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||104|96.3|
90819389|NCT00849862|181518046|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|99.6||||||90.0|96.2|103.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||103|96.2|
90819390|NCT02540265|181518049|OTHER||Effect Size|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90819391|NCT02540265|181518049|OTHER||Effect Size|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90819392|NCT02540265|181518050|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0049|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0049
90819393|NCT02540265|181518050|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0076|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0076
90819394|NCT02540265|181518051|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||Applies to SPID 0-6, SPID 0-12, SPID 0-24, SPID 12-24, SPID 12-48, and SPID 24-48|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
90819395|NCT02540265|181518051|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||Applies to SPID 0-6, SPID 0-12, SPID 0-24, SPID 12-24, SPID 12-48, and SPID 24-48|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
90819396|NCT00418574|181518059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.099||||0.301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.919|1.315|||Regression, Cox|||||1.315|0.919|0.301
90819397|NCT01455194|181518064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.122|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1175||0.2988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.353|0.109|||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean difference were derived from an ANCOVA model with baseline ACQ and age as covariates, and treatment, centre pool, sex, and prestudy ICS dose as factors.||0.109|-0.353|0.2988
90819398|NCT01455194|181518064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.034|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.118||0.7741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.198|0.266|||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean difference were derived from an ANCOVA model with baseline ACQ and age as covariates, and treatment, centre pool, sex, and prestudy ICS dose as factors.||0.266|-0.198|0.7741
90819399|NCT01455194|181518064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.156|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1172||0.1835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.387|0.074|||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean difference were derived from an ANCOVA model with baseline ACQ and age as covariates, and treatment, centre pool, sex, and prestudy ICS dose as factors.||0.074|-0.387|0.1835
90819400|NCT01455194|181518066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann point estimate|0.0||||0.8465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|4.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Treatment comparisons were carried out using an exact Wilcoxon Mann Whitney test.|||4.000|-3.000|0.8465
90819401|NCT01455194|181518066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann point estimate|1.0||||0.4175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|5.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Treatment comparisons were carried out using an exact Wilcoxon Mann Whitney test.|||5.000|-2.000|0.4175
90819402|NCT01455194|181518067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4186|||||||Fisher Exact|||Well-controlled Asthma||||0.4186
90819403|NCT01455194|181518067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.146|||||||Fisher Exact|||Well-controlled Asthma||||0.1460
90819404|NCT01455194|181518067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6017|||||||Fisher Exact|||Well-controlled Asthma||||0.6017
90819405|NCT01455194|181518067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3305|||||||Fisher Exact|||ACQ Improvement||||0.3305
90819406|NCT01455194|181518067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.486|||||||Fisher Exact|||ACQ Improvement||||0.4860
91059265|NCT03597464|182000011|OTHER|"The model is based on a logistic regression with terms for treatment, baseline UPCR, biopsy class, MMF use at baseline and region.~Subjects who withdrew from the study prior to the visit assessments and thus provide insufficient visit data were defined as non-responders."|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.24||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|3.92|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 30||3.92|1.28|0.005
90819407|NCT01455194|181518067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8922|||||||Fisher Exact|||ACQ Improvement||||0.8922
90819408|NCT01455194|181518068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0806||0.6062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.221|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio of \>1 represented a benefit for the test treatment.|Well-controlled Asthma||1.221|0.890|0.6062
90819409|NCT01455194|181518068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0669||0.4674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.921|1.197|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio of \>1 represented a benefit for the test treatment.|ACQ Improvement||1.197|0.921|0.4674
90819410|NCT01455194|181518068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.201|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1597||0.2523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.878|1.642|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio of \>1 represented a benefit for the test treatment.|Well-controlled Asthma||1.642|0.878|0.2523
90819411|NCT01455194|181518068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.913|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1354||0.5026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.191|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio of \>1 represented a benefit for the test treatment.|ACQ Improvement||1.191|0.700|0.5026
90819412|NCT01455194|181518068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.898|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.156||0.4893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.661|1.219|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio of \>1 represented a benefit for the test treatment.|Well-controlled Asthma||1.219|0.661|0.4893
90819413|NCT01455194|181518068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.181|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1351||0.2193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.906|1.538|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio of \>1 represented a benefit for the test treatment.|ACQ Improvement||1.538|0.906|0.2193
90819414|NCT01455194|181518069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.058|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0917||0.5397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.884|1.266|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio of \>1 represented a benefit for the test treatment.|ACQ cut-off at 0.5||1.266|0.884|0.5397
90819415|NCT01455194|181518069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0738||0.9458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.161|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio of \>1 represented a benefit for the test treatment.|ACQ cut-off at 1.0||1.161|0.870|0.9458
90819416|NCT01455194|181518069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.026|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0708||0.7213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.893|1.178|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio of \>1 represented a benefit for the test treatment.|ACQ cut-off at 1.25||1.178|0.893|0.7213
91059266|NCT03597464|182000011|OTHER|"The model is based on a logistic regression with terms for treatment, baseline UPCR, biopsy class, MMF use at baseline and region.~Subjects who withdrew from the study prior to the visit assessments and thus provide insufficient visit data were defined as non-responders."|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|3.03|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 36||3.03|1.00|0.051
90819417|NCT01455194|181518069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0692||0.4807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.917|1.202|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio of \>1 represented a benefit for the test treatment.|ACQ cut-off at 1.5||1.202|0.917|0.4807
90819418|NCT01455194|181518069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.326|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1791||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.934|1.884|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio of \>1 represented a benefit for the test treatment.|ACQ cut-off at 0.5||1.884|0.934|0.1150
90819419|NCT01455194|181518069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.074|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1467||0.6281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.805|1.431|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio of \>1 represented a benefit for the test treatment.|ACQ cut-off at 1.0||1.431|0.805|0.6281
90819420|NCT01455194|181518069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.059|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1415||0.6853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.803|1.397|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio of \>1 represented a benefit for the test treatment.|ACQ cut-off at 1.25||1.397|0.803|0.6853
90819421|NCT01455194|181518069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.055|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1388||0.6995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.804|1.385|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio of \>1 represented a benefit for the test treatment.|ACQ cut-off at 1.5||1.385|0.804|0.6995
90819422|NCT01455194|181518069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.837|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1744||0.308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.595|1.178|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio of \>1 represented a benefit for the test treatment.|ACQ cut-off at 0.5||1.178|0.595|0.3080
90819423|NCT01455194|181518069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.939|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1461||0.6645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.705|1.25|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio of \>1 represented a benefit for the test treatment.|ACQ cut-off at 1.0||1.250|0.705|0.6645
90819424|NCT01455194|181518069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.992|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1408||0.9564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.753|1.308|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio of \>1 represented a benefit for the test treatment.|ACQ cut-off at 1.25||1.308|0.753|0.9564
90819425|NCT01455194|181518069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.047|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1375||0.7367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.371|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio of \>1 represented a benefit for the test treatment.|ACQ cut-off at 1.5||1.371|0.800|0.7367
90819426|NCT01455194|181518070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.367|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2583||0.2264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.824|2.267|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio of \<1 represented a benefit for the test treatment.|||2.267|0.824|0.2264
90819427|NCT01455194|181518070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.102|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5001||0.1373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.789|5.602|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio of \<1 represented a benefit for the test treatment.|||5.602|0.789|0.1373
90819428|NCT01455194|181518070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.882|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4365||0.7732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.375|2.074|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio of \<1 represented a benefit for the test treatment.|||2.074|0.375|0.7732
90819429|NCT01455194|181518071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.288|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2880
90819430|NCT01455194|181518071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2864|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2864
91059267|NCT03597464|182000012|OTHER|"The model is based on a logistic regression with terms for treatment, baseline UPCR, biopsy class, MMF use at baseline and region.~Subjects who withdrew from the study prior to the visit assessments and thus provide insufficient visit data were defined as non-responders."|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.88|8.46|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 12 (AURORA 2 baseline)||8.46|1.88|<0.001
91059268|NCT03597464|182000012|OTHER|"The model is based on a logistic regression with terms for treatment, baseline UPCR, biopsy class, MMF use at baseline and region.~Subjects who withdrew from the study prior to the visit assessments and thus provide insufficient visit data were defined as non-responders."|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.5||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|4.88|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 18||4.88|1.28|0.008
90819431|NCT00148941|181518091|EQUIVALENCE|Lot-to-lot consistency in terms of immunogenicity would be demonstrated if the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of GMCs for each antigen (D, T, PT, FHA, PRN, and Poliovirus types 1, 2, and 3) and between each pair of the three lots of SB213503 vaccine were within the pre-defined clinical limits of \[0.67; 1.5\].|GMC ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.871|1.08|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline concentration - pooled variance with more than 2 groups.||The lot-to-lot consistency of three manufacturing lots of SB213503 vaccine in terms of diphtheria toxoid (D) in a subset of subjects one month after vaccination when co-administered with M-M-R II.||1.080|0.871|
90819432|NCT00148941|181518091|EQUIVALENCE|Lot-to-lot consistency in terms of immunogenicity would be demonstrated if the lower and upper limits of the 95% CIs for the ratios of GMCs for each antigen (D, T, PT, FHA, PRN, and Poliovirus types 1, 2, and 3) and between each pair of the three lots of SB213503 vaccine were within the pre-defined clinical limits of \[0.67; 1.5\].|GMC ratio|0.961|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.863|1.07|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline concentration - pooled variance with more than 2 groups.||The lot-to-lot consistency of three manufacturing lots of SB213503 vaccine in terms of diphtheria toxoid (D) in a subset of subjects one month after vaccination when co-administered with M-M-R II.||1.070|0.863|
90819433|NCT00148941|181518091|EQUIVALENCE|Lot-to-lot consistency in terms of immunogenicity would be demonstrated if the lower and upper limits of the 95% CIs for the ratios of GMCs for each antigen (D, T, PT, FHA, PRN, and Poliovirus types 1, 2, and 3) and between each pair of the three lots of SB213503 vaccine were within the pre-defined clinical limits of \[0.67; 1.5\].|GMC ratio|0.991|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.103|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline concentration - pooled variance with more than 2 groups.||The lot-to-lot consistency of three manufacturing lots of SB213503 vaccine in terms of diphtheria toxoid (D) in a subset of subjects one month after vaccination when co-administered with M-M-R II.||1.103|0.890|
90819434|NCT00148941|181518091|EQUIVALENCE|Lot-to-lot consistency in terms of immunogenicity would be demonstrated if the lower and upper limits of the 95% CIs for the ratios of GMCs for each antigen (D, T, PT, FHA, PRN, and Poliovirus types 1, 2, and 3) and between each pair of the three lots of SB213503 vaccine were within the pre-defined clinical limits of \[0.67; 1.5\].|GMC ratio|0.975|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.866|1.097|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline concentration - pooled variance with more than 2 groups.||The lot-to-lot consistency of three manufacturing lots of SB213503 vaccine in terms of tetanus toxoid (T) in a subset of subjects one month after vaccination when co-administered with M-M-R II.||1.097|0.866|
90819435|NCT00148941|181518091|EQUIVALENCE|Lot-to-lot consistency in terms of immunogenicity would be demonstrated if the lower and upper limits of the 95% CIs for the ratios of GMCs for each antigen (D, T, PT, FHA, PRN, and Poliovirus types 1, 2, and 3) and between each pair of the three lots of SB213503 vaccine were within the pre-defined clinical limits of \[0.67; 1.5\].|GMC ratio|0.878|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|0.988|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline concentration - pooled variance with more than 2 groups.||The lot-to-lot consistency of three manufacturing lots of SB213503 vaccine in terms of tetanus toxoid (T) in a subset of subjects one month after vaccination when co-administered with M-M-R II.||0.988|0.780|
90819436|NCT00148941|181518091|EQUIVALENCE|Lot-to-lot consistency in terms of immunogenicity would be demonstrated if the lower and upper limits of the 95% CIs for the ratios of GMCs for each antigen (D, T, PT, FHA, PRN, and Poliovirus types 1, 2, and 3) and between each pair of the three lots of SB213503 vaccine were within the pre-defined clinical limits of \[0.67; 1.5\].|GMC ratio|0.901|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.014|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline concentration - pooled variance with more than 2 groups.||The lot-to-lot consistency of three manufacturing lots of SB213503 vaccine in terms of tetanus toxoid (T) in a subset of subjects one month after vaccination when co-administered with M-M-R II.||1.014|0.800|
90819437|NCT00148941|181518092|EQUIVALENCE|Lot-to-lot consistency in terms of immunogenicity would be demonstrated if the lower and upper limits of the 95% CIs for the ratios of GMCs for each antigen (D, T, PT, FHA, PRN, and Poliovirus types 1, 2, and 3) and between each pair of the three lots of SB213503 vaccine were within the pre-defined clinical limits of \[0.67; 1.5\].|GMC ratio|0.938|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.828|1.063|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline concentration - pooled variance with more than 2 groups.||The lot-to-lot consistency of three manufacturing lots of SB213503 vaccine in terms of pertussis toxoid (PT) in a subset of subjects one month after vaccination when co-administered with M-M-R II.||1.063|0.828|
90819438|NCT00148941|181518092|EQUIVALENCE|Lot-to-lot consistency in terms of immunogenicity would be demonstrated if the lower and upper limits of the 95% CIs for the ratios of GMCs for each antigen (D, T, PT, FHA, PRN, and Poliovirus types 1, 2, and 3) and between each pair of the three lots of SB213503 vaccine were within the pre-defined clinical limits of \[0.67; 1.5\].|GMC ratio|0.963|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.091|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline concentration - pooled variance with more than 2 groups.||The lot-to-lot consistency of three manufacturing lots of SB213503 vaccine in terms of pertussis toxoid (PT) in a subset of subjects one month after vaccination when co-administered with M-M-R II.||1.091|0.850|
91059269|NCT03597464|182000012|OTHER|"The model is based on a logistic regression with terms for treatment, baseline UPCR, biopsy class, MMF use at baseline and region.~Subjects who withdrew from the study prior to the visit assessments and thus provide insufficient visit data were defined as non-responders."|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.68||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|4.91|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 24||4.91|1.46|0.001
91059270|NCT03597464|182000012|OTHER|"The model is based on a logistic regression with terms for treatment, baseline UPCR, biopsy class, MMF use at baseline and region.~Subjects who withdrew from the study prior to the visit assessments and thus provide insufficient visit data were defined as non-responders."|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.86||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|3.34|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 30||3.34|1.03|0.040
90819439|NCT00148941|181518092|EQUIVALENCE|Lot-to-lot consistency in terms of immunogenicity would be demonstrated if the lower and upper limits of the 95% CIs for the ratios of GMCs for each antigen (D, T, PT, FHA, PRN, and Poliovirus types 1, 2, and 3) and between each pair of the three lots of SB213503 vaccine were within the pre-defined clinical limits of \[0.67; 1.5\].|GMC ratio|1.026|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.906|1.162|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline concentration - pooled variance with more than 2 groups.||The lot-to-lot consistency of three manufacturing lots of SB213503 vaccine in terms of pertussis toxoid (PT) in a subset of subjects one month after vaccination when co-administered with M-M-R II.||1.162|0.906|
90819440|NCT00148941|181518092|EQUIVALENCE|Lot-to-lot consistency in terms of immunogenicity would be demonstrated if the lower and upper limits of the 95% CIs for the ratios of GMCs for each antigen (D, T, PT, FHA, PRN, and Poliovirus types 1, 2, and 3) and between each pair of the three lots of SB213503 vaccine were within the pre-defined clinical limits of \[0.67; 1.5\].|GMC ratio|0.874|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.783|0.976|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline concentration - pooled variance with more than 2 groups.||The lot-to-lot consistency of three manufacturing lots of SB213503 vaccine in terms of filamentous haemagglutinin (FHA) in a subset of subjects one month after vaccination when co-administered with M-M-R II.||0.976|0.783|
90819441|NCT00148941|181518092|EQUIVALENCE|Lot-to-lot consistency in terms of immunogenicity would be demonstrated if the lower and upper limits of the 95% CIs for the ratios of GMCs for each antigen (D, T, PT, FHA, PRN, and Poliovirus types 1, 2, and 3) and between each pair of the three lots of SB213503 vaccine were within the pre-defined clinical limits of \[0.67; 1.5\].|GMC ratio|0.947|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.849|1.057|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline concentration - pooled variance with more than 2 groups.||The lot-to-lot consistency of three manufacturing lots of SB213503 vaccine in terms of filamentous haemagglutinin (FHA) in a subset of subjects one month after vaccination when co-administered with M-M-R II.||1.057|0.849|
90819442|NCT00148941|181518092|EQUIVALENCE|Lot-to-lot consistency in terms of immunogenicity would be demonstrated if the lower and upper limits of the 95% CIs for the ratios of GMCs for each antigen (D, T, PT, FHA, PRN, and Poliovirus types 1, 2, and 3) and between each pair of the three lots of SB213503 vaccine were within the pre-defined clinical limits of \[0.67; 1.5\].|GMC ratio|1.084|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.971|1.209|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline concentration - pooled variance with more than 2 groups.||The lot-to-lot consistency of three manufacturing lots of SB213503 vaccine in terms of filamentous haemagglutinin (FHA) in a subset of subjects one month after vaccination when co-administered with M-M-R II.||1.209|0.971|
90819443|NCT00148941|181518092|EQUIVALENCE|Lot-to-lot consistency in terms of immunogenicity would be demonstrated if the lower and upper limits of the 95% CIs for the ratios of GMCs for each antigen (D, T, PT, FHA, PRN, and Poliovirus types 1, 2, and 3) and between each pair of the three lots of SB213503 vaccine were within the pre-defined clinical limits of \[0.67; 1.5\].|GMC ratio|0.998|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.867|1.148|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline concentration - pooled variance with more than 2 groups.||The lot-to-lot consistency of three manufacturing lots of SB213503 vaccine in terms of pertactin (PRN) in a subset of subjects one month after vaccination when co-administered with M-M-R II.||1.148|0.867|
90819444|NCT00148941|181518092|EQUIVALENCE|Lot-to-lot consistency in terms of immunogenicity would be demonstrated if the lower and upper limits of the 95% CIs for the ratios of GMCs for each antigen (D, T, PT, FHA, PRN, and Poliovirus types 1, 2, and 3) and between each pair of the three lots of SB213503 vaccine were within the pre-defined clinical limits of \[0.67; 1.5\].|GMC ratio|1.043|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.907|1.2|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline concentration - pooled variance with more than 2 groups.||The lot-to-lot consistency of three manufacturing lots of SB213503 vaccine in terms of pertactin (PRN) in a subset of subjects one month after vaccination when co-administered with M-M-R II.||1.200|0.907|
90819445|NCT00148941|181518092|EQUIVALENCE|Lot-to-lot consistency in terms of immunogenicity would be demonstrated if the lower and upper limits of the 95% CIs for the ratios of GMCs for each antigen (D, T, PT, FHA, PRN, and Poliovirus types 1, 2, and 3) and between each pair of the three lots of SB213503 vaccine were within the pre-defined clinical limits of \[0.67; 1.5\].|GMC ratio|1.045|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.909|1.202|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline concentration - pooled variance with more than 2 groups.||The lot-to-lot consistency of three manufacturing lots of SB213503 vaccine in terms of pertactin (PRN) in a subset of subjects one month after vaccination when co-administered with M-M-R II.||1.202|0.909|
90819446|NCT00148941|181518093|EQUIVALENCE|Lot-to-lot consistency in terms of immunogenicity would be demonstrated if the lower and upper limits of the 95% CIs for the ratios of GMTs for each antigen (D, T, PT, FHA, PRN, and Poliovirus types 1, 2, and 3) and between each pair of the three lots of SB213503 vaccine were within the pre-defined clinical limits of \[0.67; 1.5\].|GMT ratio|0.994|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.836|1.181|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline titer - pooled variance with more than 2 groups.||The lot-to-lot consistency of three manufacturing lots of SB213503 vaccine in terms of poliovirus type 1 geometric mean titers (GMTs) in a subset of subjects one month after vaccination when co-administered with M-M-R II.||1.181|0.836|
91059271|NCT03597464|182000012|OTHER|"The model is based on a logistic regression with terms for treatment, baseline UPCR, biopsy class, MMF use at baseline and region.~Subjects who withdrew from the study prior to the visit assessments and thus provide insufficient visit data were defined as non-responders."|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.58|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 36||2.58|0.75|0.290
91059272|NCT03597464|182000013|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.56||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.99|||Regression, Logistic|||Number of subjects with adequate renal response. This model is based on a logistic regression with terms for treatment, baseline urine protein creatinine ratio (UPCR), biopsy class, mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) use at baseline and region. An odds ratio \< unity indicates benefit for voclosporin.||0.99|0.32|0.045
91059273|NCT03597464|182000014|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean difference|-0.8||||0.238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18||0.5|-2.1|0.238
91059274|NCT03597464|182000014|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean difference|-0.7||||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24||0.4|-1.8|0.215
91059275|NCT03597464|182000014|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean difference|-0.7||||0.246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36||0.5|-1.8|0.246
91059276|NCT03597464|182000015|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean difference|-0.65||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12 (AURORA 2 baseline)||-0.26|-1.05|0.001
91059277|NCT03597464|182000015|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean difference|-0.63||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18||-0.07|-1.20|0.029
91059278|NCT03597464|182000015|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean difference|-0.77||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|-0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24||-0.29|-1.24|0.002
90819447|NCT00148941|181518093|EQUIVALENCE|Lot-to-lot consistency in terms of immunogenicity would be demonstrated if the lower and upper limits of the 95% CIs for the ratios of GMTs for each antigen (D, T, PT, FHA, PRN, and Poliovirus types 1, 2, and 3) and between each pair of the three lots of SB213503 vaccine were within the pre-defined clinical limits of \[0.67; 1.5\].|GMT ratio|0.987|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.831|1.172|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline titer - pooled variance with more than 2 groups.||The lot-to-lot consistency of three manufacturing lots of SB213503 vaccine in terms of poliovirus type 1 geometric mean titers (GMTs) in a subset of subjects one month after vaccination when co-administered with M-M-R II.||1.172|0.831|
90819448|NCT00148941|181518093|EQUIVALENCE|Lot-to-lot consistency in terms of immunogenicity would be demonstrated if the lower and upper limits of the 95% CIs for the ratios of GMTs for each antigen (D, T, PT, FHA, PRN, and Poliovirus types 1, 2, and 3) and between each pair of the three lots of SB213503 vaccine were within the pre-defined clinical limits of \[0.67; 1.5\].|GMT ratio|0.993|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.836|1.18|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline titer - pooled variance with more than 2 groups.||The lot-to-lot consistency of three manufacturing lots of SB213503 vaccine in terms of poliovirus type 1 geometric mean titers (GMTs) in a subset of subjects one month after vaccination when co-administered with M-M-R II.||1.180|0.836|
90819449|NCT00148941|181518093|EQUIVALENCE|Lot-to-lot consistency in terms of immunogenicity would be demonstrated if the lower and upper limits of the 95% CIs for the ratios of GMTs for each antigen (D, T, PT, FHA, PRN, and Poliovirus types 1, 2, and 3) and between each pair of the three lots of SB213503 vaccine were within the pre-defined clinical limits of \[0.67; 1.5\].|GMT ratio|1.118|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.951|1.314|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline titer - pooled variance with more than 2 groups.||The lot-to-lot consistency of three manufacturing lots of SB213503 vaccine in terms of poliovirus type 2 geometric mean titers (GMTs) in a subset of subjects one month after vaccination when co-administered with M-M-R II.||1.314|0.951|
90819450|NCT00148941|181518093|EQUIVALENCE|Lot-to-lot consistency in terms of immunogenicity would be demonstrated if the lower and upper limits of the 95% CIs for the ratios of GMTs for each antigen (D, T, PT, FHA, PRN, and Poliovirus types 1, 2, and 3) and between each pair of the three lots of SB213503 vaccine were within the pre-defined clinical limits of \[0.67; 1.5\].|GMT ratio|1.006|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.856|1.183|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline titer - pooled variance with more than 2 groups.||The lot-to-lot consistency of three manufacturing lots of SB213503 vaccine in terms of poliovirus type 2 geometric mean titers (GMTs) in a subset of subjects one month after vaccination when co-administered with M-M-R II.||1.183|0.856|
90819451|NCT00148941|181518093|EQUIVALENCE|Lot-to-lot consistency in terms of immunogenicity would be demonstrated if the lower and upper limits of the 95% CIs for the ratios of GMTs for each antigen (D, T, PT, FHA, PRN, and Poliovirus types 1, 2, and 3) and between each pair of the three lots of SB213503 vaccine were within the pre-defined clinical limits of \[0.67; 1.5\] for Anti-poliovirus type 2.|GMT ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.765|1.06|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline titer - pooled variance with more than 2 groups.||The lot-to-lot consistency of three manufacturing lots of SB213503 vaccine in terms of poliovirus type 2 geometric mean titers (GMTs) in a subset of subjects one month after vaccination when co-administered with M-M-R II.||1.060|0.765|
90819452|NCT00148941|181518093|EQUIVALENCE|Lot-to-lot consistency in terms of immunogenicity would be demonstrated if the lower and upper limits of the 95% CIs for the ratios of GMTs for each antigen (D, T, PT, FHA, PRN, and Poliovirus types 1, 2, and 3) and between each pair of the three lots of SB213503 vaccine were within the pre-defined clinical limits of \[0.67; 1.5\].|GMT ratio|1.112|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.941|1.314|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline titer - pooled variance with more than 2 groups.||The lot-to-lot consistency of three manufacturing lots of SB213503 vaccine in terms of poliovirus type 3 geometric mean titers (GMTs) in a subset of subjects one month after vaccination when co-administered with M-M-R II.||1.314|0.941|
90819453|NCT00148941|181518093|EQUIVALENCE|Lot-to-lot consistency in terms of immunogenicity would be demonstrated if the lower and upper limits of the 95% CIs for the ratios of GMTs for each antigen (D, T, PT, FHA, PRN, and Poliovirus types 1, 2, and 3) and between each pair of the three lots of SB213503 vaccine were within the pre-defined clinical limits of \[0.67; 1.5\].|GMT ratio|1.034|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.876|1.22|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline titer - pooled variance with more than 2 groups.||The lot-to-lot consistency of three manufacturing lots of SB213503 vaccine in terms of poliovirus type 3 geometric mean titers (GMTs) in a subset of subjects one month after vaccination when co-administered with M-M-R II.||1.220|0.876|
90819454|NCT00148941|181518093|EQUIVALENCE|Lot-to-lot consistency in terms of immunogenicity would be demonstrated if the lower and upper limits of the 95% CIs for the ratios of GMTs for each antigen (D, T, PT, FHA, PRN, and Poliovirus types 1, 2, and 3) and between each pair of the three lots of SB213503 vaccine were within the pre-defined clinical limits of \[0.67; 1.5\].|GMT ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.787|1.099|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline titer - pooled variance with more than 2 groups.||The lot-to-lot consistency of three manufacturing lots of SB213503 vaccine in terms of poliovirus type 3 geometric mean titers (GMTs) in a subset of subjects one month after vaccination when co-administered with M-M-R II.||1.099|0.787|
91059279|NCT03597464|182000015|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean difference|-0.91||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|-0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 30||-0.33|-1.49|0.002
91059280|NCT03597464|182000015|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean difference|-0.48||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36||-0.10|-1.06|0.106
91059281|NCT03597464|182000016|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean difference|-2.7||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12 (AURORA 2 baseline)||-0.1|-5.3|0.041
91059282|NCT03597464|182000016|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean difference|-1.8||||0.292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18||1.6|-5.1|0.292
91059283|NCT03597464|182000016|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean difference|-2.2||||0.282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|1.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24||1.8|-6.1|0.282
91059284|NCT03597464|182000016|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean difference|0.9||||0.659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|5.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 30||5.1|-3.2|0.659
91059285|NCT03597464|182000016|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean difference|1.8||||0.438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|6.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36||6.4|-2.8|0.438
91059286|NCT03597464|182000017|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean difference|-67.7||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-110.4|-25.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12 (AURORA 2 baseline)||-25.1|-110.4|0.002
90819455|NCT00148941|181518093|NON_INFERIORITY|The objectives were achieved if for D, T, PT, FHA and PRN: the upper limit of the two-sided standardized asymptotic 95% CI of the difference in booster response rates was less than or equal to the pre-defined clinical limit of 10% AND for poliovirus types 1, 2 and 3: the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the GMT ratio was less than or equal to the pre-defined clinical limit of 1.5.|GMT ration|0.792|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.922|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: adjustment for baseline titer - pooled variance||Analysis of the non-inferiority of SB213503 vaccine compared to Infanrix + IPOL administered separately in terms of anti-poliovirus type 1 (measured by the GMT ratio of Infanrix + IPOL + M-M-R Group over SB213503 + M-M-R Group = pooled lot 1, 2 \& 3 groups) in a subset of subjects one month after vaccination when co-administered with M-M-R II.|SB213503 lot 1, SB213503 lot 2, and SB213503 lot 3 Arms/Groups were pooled for statistical analysis.|0.922|0.680|
90819456|NCT00148941|181518093|NON_INFERIORITY|The objectives were achieved if for D, T, PT, FHA and PRN: the upper limit of the two-sided standardized asymptotic 95% CI of the difference in booster response rates was less than or equal to the pre-defined clinical limit of 10% AND for poliovirus types 1, 2 and 3: the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the GMT ratio was less than or equal to the pre-defined clinical limit of 1.5.|GMT ratio|0.802|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.696|0.925|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: adjustment for baseline titer - pooled variance||Analysis of the non-inferiority of SB213503 vaccine compared to Infanrix + IPOL administered separately in terms of anti-poliovirus type 2 (measured by the GMT ratio of Infanrix + IPOL + M-M-R Group over SB213503 + M-M-R Group = pooled lot 1, 2 \& 3 groups) in a subset of subjects one month after vaccination when co-administered with M-M-R II.|SB213503 lot 1, SB213503 lot 2, and SB213503 lot 3 Arms/Groups were pooled for statistical analysis.|0.925|0.696|
90819457|NCT00148941|181518093|NON_INFERIORITY|The objectives were achieved if for D, T, PT, FHA and PRN: the upper limit of the two-sided standardized asymptotic 95% CI of the difference in booster response rates was less than or equal to the pre-defined clinical limit of 10% AND for poliovirus types 1, 2 and 3: the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the GMT ratio was less than or equal to the pre-defined clinical limit of 1.5.|GMT ratio|0.938|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.811|1.085|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: adjustment for baseline titer - pooled variance||Analysis of the non-inferiority of SB213503 vaccine compared to Infanrix + IPOL administered separately in terms of anti-poliovirus type 3 (measured by the GMT ratio of Infanrix + IPOL + M-M-R Group over SB213503 + M-M-R Group = pooled lot 1, 2 \& 3 groups) in a subset of subjects one month after vaccination when co-administered with M-M-R II.|SB213503 lot 1, SB213503 lot 2, and SB213503 lot 3 Arms/Groups were pooled for statistical analysis.|1.085|0.811|
90819458|NCT00148941|181518094|NON_INFERIORITY|The objectives were achieved if for D, T, PT, FHA and PRN: the upper limit of the two-sided standardized asymptotic 95% CI of the difference in booster response rates was less than or equal to the pre-defined clinical limit of 10% AND for poliovirus types 1, 2 and 3: the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the GMT ratio was less than or equal to the pre-defined clinical limit of 1.5.|Difference between groups|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|1.21||||||Analysis of the non-inferiority of SB213503 vaccine compared to Infanrix + IPOL administered separately in terms of diphtheria toxoid (D) booster responses (i.e measured by the difference in percentage of subjects with a booster response between the Infanrix + IPOL + M-M-R Group and (minus) the SB213503 + M-M-R Group = pooled lot 1, 2 \& 3 groups) in a subset of subjects one month after vaccination when co-administered with M-M-R II.|SB213503 lot 1, SB213503 lot 2, and SB213503 lot 3 Arms/Groups were pooled for statistical analysis.|1.21|-0.98|
90819459|NCT00148941|181518094|NON_INFERIORITY|The objectives were achieved if for D, T, PT, FHA and PRN: the upper limit of the two-sided standardized asymptotic 95% CI of the difference in booster response rates was less than or equal to the pre-defined clinical limit of 10% AND for poliovirus types 1, 2 and 3: the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the GMT ratio was less than or equal to the pre-defined clinical limit of 1.5.|Difference between groups|-2.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.55|-0.09||||||Analysis of the non-inferiority of SB213503 vaccine compared to Infanrix + IPOL administered separately in terms of tetanus toxoid (T) booster responses (measured by the difference in percentage of subjects with a booster response between the Infanrix + IPOL + M-M-R Group and (minus) the SB213503 + M-M-R Group = pooled lot 1, 2 \& 3 groups) in a subset of subjects one month after vaccination when co-administered with M-M-R II.|SB213503 lot 1, SB213503 lot 2, and SB213503 lot 3 Arms/Groups were pooled for statistical analysis.|-0.09|-6.55|
90819460|NCT00148941|181518095|NON_INFERIORITY|The objectives were achieved if for D, T, PT, FHA and PRN: the upper limit of the two-sided standardized asymptotic 95% CI of the difference in booster response rates was less than or equal to the pre-defined clinical limit of 10% AND for poliovirus types 1, 2 and 3: the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the GMT ratio was less than or equal to the pre-defined clinical limit of 1.5.|Difference between groups|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.83|3.71||||||Analysis of the non-inferiority of SB213503 vaccine compared to Infanrix + IPOL administered separately in terms of pertussis toxoid (PT) booster responses (measured by the difference in percentage of subjects with a booster response between the Infanrix + IPOL + M-M-R Group and (minus) the SB213503 + M-M-R Group = pooled lot 1, 2 \& 3 groups) in a subset of subjects one month after vaccination when co-administered with M-M-R II.|SB213503 lot 1, SB213503 lot 2, and SB213503 lot 3 Arms/Groups were pooled for statistical analysis.|3.71|-3.83|
90819461|NCT00148941|181518095|NON_INFERIORITY|The objectives were achieved if for D, T, PT, FHA and PRN: the upper limit of the two-sided standardized asymptotic 95% CI of the difference in booster response rates was less than or equal to the pre-defined clinical limit of 10% AND for poliovirus types 1, 2 and 3: the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the GMT ratio was less than or equal to the pre-defined clinical limit of 1.5.|Difference between groups|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|3.21||||||Analysis of the non-inferiority of SB213503 vaccine compared to Infanrix + IPOL administered separately in terms of filamentous haemagglutinin (FHA) booster responses (measured by the difference in percentage of subjects with a booster response between the Infanrix + IPOL + M-M-R Group and (minus) the SB213503 + M-M-R Group = pooled lot 1, 2 \& 3 groups) in a subset of subjects one month after vaccination when co-administered with M-M-R II.|SB213503 lot 1, SB213503 lot 2, and SB213503 lot 3 Arms/Groups were pooled for statistical analysis.|3.21|-2.50|
91059287|NCT03597464|182000017|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean difference|-87.7||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-151.2|-24.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18||-24.2|-151.2|0.007
91059288|NCT03597464|182000017|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean difference|-47.0||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-90.8|-3.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24||-3.3|-90.8|0.035
91059289|NCT03597464|182000017|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean difference|-73.1||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-123.5|-22.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 30||-22.6|-123.5|0.005
91059290|NCT03597464|182000017|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean difference|-19.0||||0.537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-79.7|41.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36||41.7|-79.7|0.537
90819462|NCT00148941|181518095|NON_INFERIORITY|The objectives were achieved if for D, T, PT, FHA and PRN: the upper limit of the two-sided standardized asymptotic 95% CI of the difference in booster response rates was less than or equal to the pre-defined clinical limit of 10% AND for poliovirus types 1, 2 and 3: the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the GMT ratio was less than or equal to the pre-defined clinical limit of 1.5.|Difference between groups|-0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.79|1.14||||||Analysis of the non-inferiority of SB213503 vaccine compared to Infanrix + IPOL administered separately in terms of pertactin (PRN) booster responses (measured by the difference in percentage of subjects with a booster response between the Infanrix + IPOL + M-M-R Group and (minus) the SB213503 + M-M-R Group = pooled lot 1, 2 \& 3 groups) in a subset of subjects one month after vaccination when co-administered with M-M-R II.|SB213503 lot 1, SB213503 lot 2, and SB213503 lot 3 Arms/Groups were pooled for statistical analysis.|1.14|-3.79|
90819463|NCT00148941|181518096|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority objective was considered demonstrated, when the upper limit of the 95% CI for the difference between groups (SB213503 + M-M-R Group = pooled lot 1, 2 \& 3 groups minus Infanrix + IPOL + M-M-R Group) in percentage of subjects reporting increased circumferential swelling was equal or less than 2%.|Difference in percentage|-0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|0.16||||||Non-inferiority of the SB213503 vaccine compared to Infanrix + IPOL administered separately in terms of the incidence of increased circumferential swelling at the SB213503 and Infanrix injection site, defined as an injection site swelling diameter that involves \> 50% of the length of the upper arm that also is associated with a \> 30 mm increase of the mid-upper arm circumference compared to the baseline measurement.|SB213503 lot 1, SB213503 lot 2, and SB213503 lot 3 Arms/Groups were pooled for statistical analysis.|0.16|-1.26|
90819464|NCT01092663|181518129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|unpaired t-test||Difference in treatment effect between the 2 groups||||>0.05
90819465|NCT01092663|181518130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|unpaired t-test||Difference in treatment effect between the 2 groups||||>0.05
90819466|NCT01092663|181518131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|unpaired t-test||Difference in treatment effects between the 2 groups||||>0.05
90819467|NCT01092663|181518132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|unpaired t-test||Difference in treatment effect between the 2 groups||||>0.05
90819468|NCT01092663|181518133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|unpaired t-test||Difference in treatment effect between the 2 groups||||>0.05
90819469|NCT01092663|181518134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|unpaired t-test||Difference in treatment effect between the 2 groups||||<0.05
90819470|NCT01092663|181518135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|unpaired t-test||Treament difference in fasting EGP between the 2 groups were compared.||||>0.05
91059291|NCT03597464|182000018|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean difference|0.084|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.035|0.134|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12 (AURORA 2 baseline)||0.134|0.035|<0.001
90819471|NCT01092663|181518136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|unpaired t-test||Difference in treatment effect between groups was evaluated||||>0.05
90819472|NCT01092663|181518137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|unpaired ttest||Difference in treatment effect between groups was evaluated||||>0.05
90819473|NCT01092663|181518138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|unpaired t-test||Difference in treatment effect between the 2 groups||||>0.05
90819474|NCT01092663|181518139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.01||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|unpaired t-test||Difference in treatment effect between the 2 groups||||=0.01
90819475|NCT01092663|181518140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|unpaired t-test||differerences in treatment effect between the 2 groups||||>0.05
90819476|NCT01092663|181518141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|unpaired t-test||Difference in treatment effect between the 2 groups||||>0.05
90819477|NCT01092663|181518142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|unpaired t-test||Difference in treatment effect between the 2 groups||||>0.05
90819478|NCT01092663|181518143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|unpaired t-test||Difference in treatment effect between the 2 groups||||>0.05
90819479|NCT01092663|181518144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|unpaired t-test||Difference in treatment effect between the 2 groups||||>0.05
90819480|NCT01092663|181518145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|unpaired t-test||Difference in treatment effect between the 2 groups||||<0.05
91059292|NCT03597464|182000018|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean difference|0.051||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.029|0.131|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18||0.131|-0.029|0.209
91059293|NCT03597464|182000018|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean difference|0.057||||0.353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.064|0.178|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24||0.178|-0.064|0.353
90819481|NCT01092663|181518146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|unpaired t-test||Difference in treatment effect between the 2 groups||||<0.05
90819482|NCT01092663|181518147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|unpaired t-test||Difference in treatment effect between the 2 groups||||<0.01
90819483|NCT01092663|181518148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|unpaired t-test||Difference in treatment effect between the 2 groups||||<0.01
90819484|NCT01092663|181518149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|unpaired t-test||Difference in treatment effect between the 2 groups||||>0.05
90819485|NCT00788710|181518150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90819486|NCT00788710|181518150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90819487|NCT00788710|181518151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90819488|NCT00788710|181518151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90819489|NCT00788710|181518152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90819490|NCT00788710|181518152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91059294|NCT03597464|182000018|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean difference|-0.036||||0.616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.176|0.105|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 30||0.105|-0.176|0.616
91059295|NCT03597464|182000018|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean difference|-0.077||||0.372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.248|0.094|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36||0.094|-0.248|0.372
91059296|NCT03104400|182000042|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and the 14 ranked secondary endpoints was controlled using a two-part sequential graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|Response Rate Difference|34.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.2|40.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the main stratification factor of current DMARD use (yes/no).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||40.7|28.2|<0.0001
91059297|NCT03104400|182000042|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and the 14 ranked secondary endpoints was controlled using a two-part sequential graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|Response Rate Difference|42.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.3|48.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the main stratification factor of current DMARD use (yes/no).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||48.3|36.3|<0.0001
91059298|NCT03104400|182000043|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and the 14 ranked secondary endpoints was controlled using a two-part sequential graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.22|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM analysis including treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, current DMARD use (yes/no) as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-0.22|-0.35|<0.0001
91059299|NCT03104400|182000043|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and the 14 ranked secondary endpoints was controlled using a two-part sequential graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|LS Mean Difference|-0.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.27|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM analysis including treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, current DMARD use (yes/no) as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-0.27|-0.40|<0.0001
91059300|NCT03104400|182000044|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and the 14 ranked secondary endpoints was controlled using a two-part sequential graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|Response Rate Difference|31.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.7|37.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the main stratification factor of current DMARD use (yes/no).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||37.5|24.7|<0.0001
91059301|NCT03104400|182000044|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and the 14 ranked secondary endpoints was controlled using a two-part sequential graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|Response Rate Difference|43.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.7|49.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the main stratification factor of current DMARD use (yes/no).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||49.6|36.7|<0.0001
91059302|NCT03104400|182000045|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and the 14 ranked secondary endpoints was controlled using a two-part sequential graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|Response Rate Difference|41.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.8|49.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the main stratification factor of current DMARD use (yes/no).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||49.8|32.8|<0.0001
91059303|NCT03104400|182000045|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and the 14 ranked secondary endpoints was controlled using a two-part sequential graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|Response Rate Difference|41.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.5|49.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the main stratification factor of current DMARD use (yes/no).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||49.6|32.5|<0.0001
91059304|NCT03104400|182000046|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and the 14 ranked secondary endpoints was controlled using a two-part sequential graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|LS Mean Difference|-0.29||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.14|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including treatment and the stratification factor current DMARD use (yes/no) as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-0.14|-0.44|0.0002
91059305|NCT03104400|182000046|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and the 14 ranked secondary endpoints was controlled using a two-part sequential graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|LS Mean Difference|-0.21||||0.0069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.06|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including treatment and the stratification factor current DMARD use (yes/no) as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-0.06|-0.36|0.0069
91059306|NCT03104400|182000047|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and the 14 ranked secondary endpoints was controlled using a two-part sequential graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|Response Rate Difference|24.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.8|29.8||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the main stratification factor of current DMARD use (yes/no).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||29.8|18.8|<0.0001
91059307|NCT03104400|182000047|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and the 14 ranked secondary endpoints was controlled using a two-part sequential graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|Response Rate Difference|33.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.4|38.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the main stratification factor of current DMARD use (yes/no).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||38.8|27.4|<0.0001
91059308|NCT03104400|182000048|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and the 14 ranked secondary endpoints was controlled using a two-part sequential graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|Response Rate Difference|21.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.0|29.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the main stratification factor of current DMARD use (yes/no).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||29.7|13.0|<0.0001
90819491|NCT04407234|181518158|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric least squares mean|0.881|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.803|0.967|||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||0.967|0.803|
90819492|NCT04407234|181518158|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric least squares mean|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.05|1.28|||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||1.28|1.05|
90819493|NCT04407234|181518159|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric least squares mean|0.446|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.39|0.509|||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||0.509|0.390|
90819494|NCT04407234|181518159|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric least squares mean|0.679|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.589|0.783|||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||0.783|0.589|
90819495|NCT04407234|181518161|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometricleast squares mean|0.888|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.778|1.01||||||||1.01|0.778|
90819496|NCT04407234|181518161|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometricleast squares mean|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.07|1.42||||||||1.42|1.07|
90819497|NCT04407234|181518162|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometricleast squares mean|0.875|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.766|0.999||||||||0.999|0.766|
91059309|NCT03104400|182000048|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and the 14 ranked secondary endpoints was controlled using a two-part sequential graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|Response Rate Difference|25.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.9|33.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the main stratification factor of current DMARD use (yes/no).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||33.7|16.9|<0.0001
91059310|NCT03104400|182000049|NON_INFERIORITY|"Non-inferiority of each upadacitinib dose versus adalimumab was assessed using Koch's 3-arm approach; non-inferiority was achieved if upadacitinib preserved at least 50% of the placebo-subtracted adalimumab effect.~The overall type I error rate of the primary and the 14 ranked secondary endpoints was controlled using a two-part sequential graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path."|Percent Adalimumab Effect Preservation|119.381|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|97.987|147.942|||Koch 3-Arm Test||The percent of adalimumab effect preservation is the point estimate of 3-arm non-inferiority analysis, which is calculated by (Upadacitinib - Placebo) / (Adalimumab - Placebo) \* 100.|||147.942|97.987|<0.0001
91059311|NCT03104400|182000049|NON_INFERIORITY|"Non-inferiority of each upadacitinib dose versus adalimumab was assessed using Koch's 3-arm approach; non-inferiority was achieved if upadacitinib preserved at least 50% of the placebo-subtracted adalimumab effect.~The overall type I error rate of the primary and the 14 ranked secondary endpoints was controlled using a two-part sequential graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path."|Percent Adalimumab Effect Preservation|146.604|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|122.817|180.398|||Koch 3-Arm Test||The percent of adalimumab effect preservation is the point estimate of 3-arm non-inferiority analysis, which is calculated by (Upadacitinib - Placebo) / (Adalimumab - Placebo) \* 100.|||180.398|122.817|<0.0001
91059312|NCT03104400|182000050|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and the 14 ranked secondary endpoints was controlled using a two-part sequential graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|LS Mean Difference|4.67|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.67|5.67|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM analysis including treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, current DMARD use (yes/no) as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||5.67|3.67|<0.0001
90819498|NCT04407234|181518162|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometricleast squares mean|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.938|1.25||||||||1.25|0.938|
90819499|NCT04407234|181518163|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometricleast squares mean|0.453|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.376|0.545||||||||0.545|0.376|
90819500|NCT04407234|181518163|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometricleast squares mean|0.804|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.66|0.979||||||||0.979|0.660|
90819501|NCT04407234|181518164|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometricleast squares mean|0.438|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.364|0.527||||||||0.527|0.364|
90819502|NCT04407234|181518164|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometricleast squares mean|0.574|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.471|0.698||||||||0.698|0.471|
90819503|NCT00727558|181518170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.554|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1943||||97.47|0.1721|0.554|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is narafilcon A minus nelfilcon A.|Alternative hypothesis: narafilcon A is superior to nelfilcon A||0.554|0.1721|
90819504|NCT00727558|181518171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1734|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03555||||97.47|-0.1734|-0.1037|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference is narafilcon A minus nelfilcon A|Alternative hypothesis: narafilcon A is superior to nelfilcon A.||-0.1037|-0.1734|
90819505|NCT00727558|181518172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.3968|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1548||||98.7|0.04983|0.3968|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is narafilcon A minus nelfilcon A.|Alternative hypothesis: narafilcon A is superior to nelfilcon A||0.3968|0.04983|
90819506|NCT00727558|181518173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3875|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2054||||98.7|0.03714|0.3875|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is narafilcon A minus nelfilcon A.|Alternative hypothesis: narafilcon A is superior to nelfilcon A.||0.3875|0.03714|
90819507|NCT00727558|181518174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6735|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1563||||98.7|0.213|0.6735|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is narafilcon A minus nelfilcon A.|Alternative hypothesis: narafilcon A is superior to nelfilcon A||0.6735|0.213|
90819508|NCT00727558|181518175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.132|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1648||||98.7|-0.2375|0.132|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference is narafilcon A minus nelfilcon A.|Alternative hypothesis: narafilcon A is superior to nelfilcon A||0.132|-0.2375|
90819509|NCT00727558|181518176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2469|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04448||||97.47|-0.2469|-0.1599|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is narafilcon A minus nelfilcon A.|Alternative hypothesis: narafilcon A is superior to nelfilcon A by having a lower level of inferior region corneal staining||-0.1599|-0.2469|
90819510|NCT02262754|181518214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (PF-06372865-Placebo)|0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.28|0.6||||||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model within an outlier robust Bayesian framework was applied. Baseline was included as a fixed effect. An informative N (-2.36, 0.542\^2) prior for the placebo effect was assumed. Non informative prior distributions were assumed for the rest of the model parameters. A last observation carried forward (LOCF) was used for missing data.||0.60|-0.28|
90819511|NCT02262754|181518214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (PF-06372865-Naproxen)|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.02|0.87||||||An ANCOVA model within an outlier robust Bayesian framework was applied. Baseline was included as a fixed effect. An informative N (-2.36, 0.542\^2) prior for the placebo effect was assumed. Non informative prior distributions were assumed for the rest of the model parameters. A last observation carried forward LOCF was used for missing data.||0.87|-0.02|
90819512|NCT02262754|181518214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Naproxen-Placebo)|-0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|0.18||||||An ANCOVA model within an outlier robust Bayesian framework was applied. Baseline was included as a fixed effect. An informative N (-2.36, 0.542\^2) prior for the placebo effect was assumed. Non informative prior distributions were assumed for the rest of the model parameters. A last observation carried forward LOCF was used for missing data.||0.18|-0.70|
90819513|NCT02262754|181518220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (PF-06372865-Placebo)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.76|0.3||||||The ANCOVA model included treatment as fixed effects.||0.30|-0.76|
90819514|NCT02262754|181518220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Naproxen-Placebo)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.41|0.65||||||The ANCOVA model included treatment as fixed effects.||0.65|-0.41|
90819515|NCT02262754|181518220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference(PF-06372865-Naproxen)|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.87|0.17||||||The ANCOVA model included treatment as fixed effects.||0.17|-0.87|
90819516|NCT02262754|181518221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (PF-06372865-Placebo)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|0.36||||||Week 1: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline was included as a covariate.||0.36|-0.20|
91059313|NCT03104400|182000050|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and the 14 ranked secondary endpoints was controlled using a two-part sequential graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|LS Mean Difference|5.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.71|6.72|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM analysis including treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, current DMARD use (yes/no) as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||6.72|4.71|<0.0001
91059314|NCT03104400|182000051|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and the 14 ranked secondary endpoints was controlled using a two-part sequential graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|LS Mean Difference|3.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|4.7|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM analysis including treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, current DMARD use (yes/no) as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||4.7|2.4|<0.0001
91059315|NCT03104400|182000051|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and the 14 ranked secondary endpoints was controlled using a two-part sequential graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|LS Mean Difference|4.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|5.5|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM analysis including treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, current DMARD use (yes/no) as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||5.5|3.1|<0.0001
91059316|NCT03104400|182000052|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and the 14 ranked secondary endpoints was controlled using a two-part sequential graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|Response Rate Difference|5.6||||0.0815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|11.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the main stratification factor of current DMARD use (yes/no).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Adalimumab|||11.8|-0.6|0.0815
91059317|NCT03104400|182000052|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and the 14 ranked secondary endpoints was controlled using a two-part sequential graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|LS Mean Difference|13.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.5|19.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the main stratification factor of current DMARD use (yes/no).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Adalimumab|||19.4|7.5|<0.0001
91059318|NCT03104400|182000053|OTHER|The overall type I error rate of the primary and the 14 ranked secondary endpoints was controlled using a two-part sequential graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|Response Rate Difference|36.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.7|47.9||This comparison was not tested for statistical significance because the hierarchical testing procedures stopped at ACR 20 at Week 12 superiority test of upadacitinib 15 mg versus adalimumab 40 mg.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the main stratification factor of current DMARD use (yes/no).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||47.9|25.7|<0.0001
90819517|NCT02262754|181518221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Naproxen-Placebo)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.48|0.07||||||Week 1: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline was included as a covariate.||0.07|-0.48|
90819518|NCT02262754|181518221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference(PF-06372865-Naproxen)|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.01|0.56||||||Week 1: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline was included as a covariate.||0.56|0.01|
90819519|NCT02262754|181518221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (PF-06372865-Placebo)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.43|0.34||||||Week 2: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline was included as a covariate.||0.34|-0.43|
90819520|NCT02262754|181518221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Naproxen-Placebo)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.62|0.15||||||Week 2: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline was included as a covariate.||0.15|-0.62|
90819521|NCT02262754|181518221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference(PF-06372865-Naproxen)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.19|0.58||||||Week 2: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline was included as a covariate.||0.58|-0.19|
90819522|NCT02262754|181518221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (PF-06372865-Placebo)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.39|0.45||||||Week 3: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline was included as a covariate.||0.45|-0.39|
90819523|NCT02262754|181518221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Naproxen-Placebo)|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.69|0.16||||||Week 3: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline was included as a covariate.||0.16|-0.69|
90819524|NCT02262754|181518221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference(PF-06372865-Naproxen)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||||90.0|-0.12|0.71||||||Week 3: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline was included as a covariate.||0.71|-0.12|
90819525|NCT02262754|181518221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (PF-06372865-Placebo)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|0.55||||||Week 4: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline was included as a covariate.||0.55|-0.40|
90819526|NCT02262754|181518221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Naproxen-Placebo)|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.84|0.11||||||Week 4: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline was included as a covariate.||0.11|-0.84|
90819527|NCT02262754|181518221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference(PF-06372865-Naproxen)|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.03|0.91||||||Week 4: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline was included as a covariate.||0.91|-0.03|
90819528|NCT02262754|181518222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (PF-06372865-Placebo)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.03|0.08||||||Week 1: The mixed effect repeated measures model includes treatment, week and the week\*treatment interaction as fixed effects, week repeated within each subject as a repeated effect and log baseline as a response. LS Mean Difference and 90 percent confidence interval was calculated from log values.||0.08|-0.03|
90819529|NCT02262754|181518222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Naproxen-Placebo)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.09|0.02||||||Week 1: The mixed effect repeated measures model includes treatment, week and the week\*treatment interaction as fixed effects, week repeated within each subject as a repeated effect and log baseline as a response. LS Mean Difference and 90 percent confidence interval was calculated from log values.||0.02|-0.09|
91059319|NCT03104400|182000053|OTHER|The overall type I error rate of the primary and the 14 ranked secondary endpoints was controlled using a two-part sequential graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|Response Rate Difference|39.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.8|50.9||This comparison was not tested for statistical significance because the hierarchical testing procedures stopped at ACR 20 at Week 12 superiority test of upadacitinib 15 mg versus adalimumab 40 mg.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the main stratification factor of current DMARD use (yes/no).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||50.9|28.8|<0.0001
90819530|NCT02262754|181518222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference(PF-06372865-Naproxen)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.01|0.12||||||Week 1: The mixed effect repeated measures model includes treatment, week and the week\*treatment interaction as fixed effects, week repeated within each subject as a repeated effect and log baseline as a response. LS Mean Difference and 90 percent confidence interval was calculated from log values.||0.12|0.01|
90819531|NCT02262754|181518222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (PF-06372865-Placebo)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.09|0.1||||||Week 2: The mixed effect repeated measures model includes treatment, week and the week\*treatment interaction as fixed effects, week repeated within each subject as a repeated effect and log baseline as a response. LS Mean Difference and 90 percent confidence interval was calculated from log values.||0.10|-0.09|
90819532|NCT02262754|181518222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Naproxen-Placebo)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.15|0.05||||||Week 2: The mixed effect repeated measures model includes treatment, week and the week\*treatment interaction as fixed effects, week repeated within each subject as a repeated effect and log baseline as a response. LS Mean Difference and 90 percent confidence interval was calculated from log values.||0.05|-0.15|
90819533|NCT02262754|181518222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference(PF-06372865-Naproxen)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.04|0.15||||||Week 2: The mixed effect repeated measures model includes treatment, week and the week\*treatment interaction as fixed effects, week repeated within each subject as a repeated effect and log baseline as a response. LS Mean Difference and 90 percent confidence interval was calculated from log values.||0.15|-0.04|
90819534|NCT02262754|181518222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (PF-06372865-Placebo)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.12|0.12||||||Week 3: The mixed effect repeated measures model includes treatment, week and the week\*treatment interaction as fixed effects, week repeated within each subject as a repeated effect and log baseline as a response. LS Mean Difference and 90 percent confidence interval was calculated from log values.||0.12|-0.12|
90819535|NCT02262754|181518222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Naproxen-Placebo)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.16|0.07||||||Week 3: The mixed effect repeated measures model includes treatment, week and the week\*treatment interaction as fixed effects, week repeated within each subject as a repeated effect and log baseline as a response. LS Mean Difference and 90 percent confidence interval was calculated from log values.||0.07|-0.16|
90819536|NCT02262754|181518222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference(PF-06372865-Naproxen)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.07|0.16||||||Week 3: The mixed effect repeated measures model includes treatment, week and the week\*treatment interaction as fixed effects, week repeated within each subject as a repeated effect and log baseline as a response. LS Mean Difference and 90 percent confidence interval was calculated from log values.||0.16|-0.07|
91059320|NCT03104400|182000054|OTHER|The overall type I error rate of the primary and the 14 ranked secondary endpoints was controlled using a two-part sequential graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3||This comparison was not tested for statistical significance because the hierarchical testing procedures stopped at ACR 20 at Week 12 superiority test of upadacitinib 15 mg versus adalimumab 40 mg.|Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM analysis including treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, current DMARD use (yes/no) as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Adalimumab|||0.3|-0.3|0.8970
91059321|NCT03104400|182000054|OTHER|The overall type I error rate of the primary and the 14 ranked secondary endpoints was controlled using a two-part sequential graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|LS Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.2||This comparison was not tested for statistical significance because the hierarchical testing procedures stopped at ACR 20 at Week 12 superiority test of upadacitinib 15 mg versus adalimumab 40 mg.|Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM analysis including treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, current DMARD use (yes/no) as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Adalimumab|||-0.2|-0.7|0.0028
91077833|NCT02913105|182041134|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.99||||0.6329|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.02|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 84||1.02|0.97|0.6329
90819537|NCT02262754|181518222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (PF-06372865-Placebo)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.16|0.14||||||Week 4: The mixed effect repeated measures model includes treatment, week and the week\*treatment interaction as fixed effects, week repeated within each subject as a repeated effect and log baseline as a response. LS Mean Difference and 90 percent confidence interval was calculated from log values.||0.14|-0.16|
90819538|NCT02262754|181518222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Naproxen-Placebo)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.24|0.05||||||Week 4: The mixed effect repeated measures model includes treatment, week and the week\*treatment interaction as fixed effects, week repeated within each subject as a repeated effect and log baseline as a response. LS Mean Difference and 90 percent confidence interval was calculated from log values.||0.05|-0.24|
90819539|NCT02262754|181518222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference(PF-06372865-Naproxen)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.05|0.23||||||Week 4: The mixed effect repeated measures model includes treatment, week and the week\*treatment interaction as fixed effects, week repeated within each subject as a repeated effect and log baseline as a response. LS Mean Difference and 90 percent confidence interval was calculated from log values.||0.23|-0.05|
90819540|NCT02262754|181518223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.54|1.73||||||\>=30 percent sustained response rates: Odds Ratios based on a logistic regression model included treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||1.73|0.54|
90819541|NCT02262754|181518223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|2.51||||||\>=30 percent sustained response rates: Odds Ratios based on a logistic regression model included treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||2.51|0.81|
90819542|NCT02262754|181518223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.39|1.2||||||\>=30 percent sustained response rates: Odds Ratios based on a logistic regression model included treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||1.20|0.39|
90819543|NCT02262754|181518223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.37|1.81||||||\>=50 percent sustained response rates: Odds Ratios based on a logistic regression model included treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||1.81|0.37|
90819544|NCT02262754|181518223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.53|2.35||||||\>=50 percent sustained response rates: Odds Ratios based on a logistic regression model included treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||2.35|0.53|
90819545|NCT02262754|181518223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.33|1.6||||||\>=50 percent sustained response rates: Odds Ratios based on a logistic regression model included treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||1.60|0.33|
90819546|NCT02262754|181518229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (PF-06372865-Placebo)|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.06|0.7||||||Week 1: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline was included as a covariate.||0.70|-1.06|
90819547|NCT02262754|181518229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Naproxen-Placebo)|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.8|-0.03||||||Week 1: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline was included as a covariate.||-0.03|-1.80|
90819548|NCT02262754|181518229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference(PF-06372865-Naproxen)|0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.15|1.61||||||Week 1: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline was included as a covariate.||1.61|-0.15|
90819549|NCT02262754|181518229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (PF-06372865-Placebo)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.69|0.29||||||Week 2: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline was included as a covariate.||0.29|-1.69|
90819550|NCT02262754|181518229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Naproxen-Placebo)|-1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.11|-0.11||||||Week 2: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline was included as a covariate.||-0.11|-2.11|
90819551|NCT02262754|181518229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference(PF-06372865-Naproxen)|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.57|1.39||||||Week 2: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline was included as a covariate.||1.39|-0.57|
90819552|NCT02262754|181518229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (PF-06372865-Placebo)|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.42|0.6||||||Week 3: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline was included as a covariate.||0.60|-1.42|
90819553|NCT02262754|181518229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Naproxen-Placebo)|-1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.28|-0.27||||||Week 3: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline was included as a covariate.||-0.27|-2.28|
90819554|NCT02262754|181518229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference(PF-06372865-Naproxen)|0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.12|1.85||||||Week 3: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline was included as a covariate.||1.85|-0.12|
91059322|NCT03104400|182000055|OTHER|The overall type I error rate of the primary and the 14 ranked secondary endpoints was controlled using a two-part sequential graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|LS Mean Difference|-0.08||||0.0162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|-0.01||This comparison was not tested for statistical significance because the hierarchical testing procedures stopped at ACR 20 at Week 12 superiority test of upadacitinib 15 mg versus adalimumab 40 mg.|Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM analysis including treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, current DMARD use (yes/no) as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Adalimumab|||-0.01|-0.15|0.0162
91059323|NCT03104400|182000055|OTHER|The overall type I error rate of the primary and the 14 ranked secondary endpoints was controlled using a two-part sequential graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|LS Mean Difference|-0.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|-0.07||This comparison was not tested for statistical significance because the hierarchical testing procedures stopped at ACR 20 at Week 12 superiority test of upadacitinib 15 mg versus adalimumab 40 mg.|Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM analysis including treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, current DMARD use (yes/no) as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Adalimumab|||-0.07|-0.20|<0.0001
91059324|NCT03104400|182000056|OTHER|The overall type I error rate of the primary and the 14 ranked secondary endpoints was controlled using a two-part sequential graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|LS Mean Difference|-17.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.6|-14.6||This comparison was not tested for statistical significance because the hierarchical testing procedures stopped at ACR 20 at Week 12 superiority test of upadacitinib 15 mg versus adalimumab 40 mg.|Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM analysis including treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, current DMARD use (yes/no) as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-14.6|-19.6|<0.0001
91059325|NCT03104400|182000056|OTHER|The overall type I error rate of the primary and the 14 ranked secondary endpoints was controlled using a two-part sequential graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|LS Mean Difference|-19.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.3|-17.3||This comparison was not tested for statistical significance because the hierarchical testing procedures stopped at ACR 20 at Week 12 superiority test of upadacitinib 15 mg versus adalimumab 40 mg.|Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM analysis including treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, current DMARD use (yes/no) as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-17.3|-22.3|<0.0001
91059326|NCT03104400|182000057|OTHER||Response Rate Difference|24.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.7|29.9||This comparison was not part of the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the main stratification factor of current DMARD use (yes/no).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||29.9|18.7|<0.0001
91059327|NCT03104400|182000057|OTHER||Response Rate Difference|38.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.8|44.3||This comparison was not part of the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the main stratification factor of current DMARD use (yes/no).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||44.3|32.8|<0.0001
91059328|NCT03104400|182000058|OTHER||Response Rate Difference|13.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.5|17.0||This comparison was not part of the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the main stratification factor of current DMARD use (yes/no).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||17.0|9.5|<0.0001
91059329|NCT03104400|182000058|OTHER||Response Rate Difference|22.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.5|27.3||This comparison was not part of the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the main stratification factor of current DMARD use (yes/no).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||27.3|18.5|<0.0001
90819555|NCT02262754|181518230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (PF-06372865-Placebo)|-0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.63|0.35||||||Week 4: An ANCOVA model within an outlier robust Bayesian framework was applied. Baseline was included as a fixed effect. An informative N (-3.28, 1.19\^2) prior for the placebo effect was assumed. Non informative prior distributions were assumed for the rest of the model parameters. LOCF was used for missing data.||0.35|-1.63|
90819556|NCT02262754|181518230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Naproxen-Placebo)|-1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.4|-0.45||||||Week 4: An ANCOVA model within an outlier robust Bayesian framework was applied. Baseline was included as a fixed effect. An informative N (-3.28, 1.19\^2) prior for the placebo effect was assumed. Non informative prior distributions were assumed for the rest of the model parameters. LOCF was used for missing data.||-0.45|-2.40|
90819557|NCT02262754|181518230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (PF-06372865-Naproxen)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.22|1.8||||||Week 4: An ANCOVA model within an outlier robust Bayesian framework was applied. Baseline was included as a fixed effect. An informative N (-3.28, 1.19\^2) prior for the placebo effect was assumed. Non informative prior distributions were assumed for the rest of the model parameters. LOCF was used for missing data.||1.80|-0.22|
90819558|NCT02262754|181518231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (PF-06372865-Placebo)|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.52|0.78||||||Total recall score at Week 2: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline (recordings on Day 1) was included as a covariate. Unplanned readings were excluded from the analysis.||0.78|-1.52|
90819559|NCT02262754|181518231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Naproxen-Placebo)|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.1|0.2||||||Total recall score at Week 2: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline (recordings on Day 1) was included as a covariate. Unplanned readings were excluded from the analysis.||0.20|-2.10|
90819560|NCT02262754|181518231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference(PF-06372865-Naproxen)|0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.56|1.71||||||Total recall score at Week 2: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline (recordings on Day 1) was included as a covariate. Unplanned readings were excluded from the analysis.||1.71|-0.56|
90819561|NCT02262754|181518231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (PF-06372865-Placebo)|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.06|0.02||||||Total Recall score at Week 4: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline (recordings on Day 1) was included as a covariate. Unplanned readings were excluded from the analysis.||0.02|-2.06|
91059330|NCT03104400|182000059|OTHER||Response Rate Difference|16.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.9|21.4||This comparison was not part of the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the main stratification factor of current DMARD use (yes/no).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||21.4|10.9|<0.0001
91059331|NCT03104400|182000059|OTHER||Response Rate Difference|26.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.7|31.8||This comparison was not part of the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the main stratification factor of current DMARD use (yes/no).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||31.8|20.7|<0.0001
91059332|NCT01191944|182000069|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|pre-specified non-inferiority (NI) margin of -4 points|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9192|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.047|2.566||one-sided test relative to NI margin of -4|ANCOVA|adjusted for treatment, centre and baseline|Pramipexole IR minus Pramipexole ER, Pramipexole ER non inferior to Pramipexole IR if lower limit of confidence interval (CI) for the mean difference is higher than NI margin.|The null hypothesis (H0) states that the mean change from baseline to Week 18 (or last observation carried forward \[LOCF\]) in the UPDRS II+III score for the treatment group pramipexole ER is inferior to the mean change for the treatment group pramipexole IR.||2.566|-1.047|<0.0001
91059333|NCT01191944|182000070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1836||0.8261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.787|3.826|||ANCOVA|||||3.826|-4.787|0.8261
91059334|NCT01191944|182000071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.054|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3274||0.8698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.699|0.592|||ANCOVA|||||0.592|-0.699|0.8698
90819562|NCT02262754|181518231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Naproxen-Placebo)|-1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.25|-0.17||||||Total Recall score at Week 4: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline (recordings on Day 1) was included as a covariate. Unplanned readings were excluded from the analysis.||-0.17|-2.25|
90819563|NCT02262754|181518231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference(PF-06372865-Naproxen)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.82|1.19||||||Total Recall score at Week 4: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline (recordings on Day 1) was included as a covariate. Unplanned readings were excluded from the analysis.||1.19|-0.82|
90819564|NCT02262754|181518231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (PF-06372865-Placebo)|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.39|-0.15||||||Delayed recall score at Week 2: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline (recordings on Day 1) was included as a covariate. Unplanned readings were excluded from the analysis.||-0.15|-1.39|
91059335|NCT01191944|182000072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7902||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.7902
91059336|NCT01191944|182000073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.763|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7845||0.3223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.255|2.729|||ANCOVA|||||2.729|-8.255|0.3223
91059337|NCT01191944|182000074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5581||0.0254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.437|6.583|||ANCOVA|||||6.583|0.437|0.0254
90819565|NCT02262754|181518231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Naproxen-Placebo)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8|0.45||||||Delayed recall score at Week 2: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline (recordings on Day 1) was included as a covariate. Unplanned readings were excluded from the analysis.||0.45|-0.80|
90819566|NCT02262754|181518231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference(PF-06372865-Naproxen)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.21|0.02||||||Delayed recall score at Week 2: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline (recordings on Day 1) was included as a covariate. Unplanned readings were excluded from the analysis.||0.02|-1.21|
90819567|NCT02262754|181518231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (PF-06372865-Placebo)|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.42|-0.28||||||Delayed recall score at Week 4: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline (recordings on Day 1) was included as a covariate. Unplanned readings were excluded from the analysis.||-0.28|-1.42|
90819568|NCT02262754|181518231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Naproxen-Placebo)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.67|0.46||||||Delayed recall score at Week 4: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline (recordings on Day 1) was included as a covariate. Unplanned readings were excluded from the analysis.||0.46|-0.67|
90819569|NCT02262754|181518231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference(PF-06372865-Naproxen)|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.29|-0.2||||||Delayed recall score at Week 4: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline (recordings on Day 1) was included as a covariate. Unplanned readings were excluded from the analysis.||-0.20|-1.29|
90819570|NCT02262754|181518232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.61|1.58||||||A repeated measures logistic regression model included treatment and week as fixed effects and LBPI baseline as a covariate. Participant was included as a repeated effect.||1.58|0.61|
91059338|NCT01191944|182000075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.621|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2658||0.7843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.848|5.09|||ANCOVA|||||5.090|-3.848|0.7843
91059339|NCT01191944|182000076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.369|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4901||0.4529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.598|1.335|||ANCOVA|||||1.335|-0.598|0.4529
91059340|NCT01191944|182000077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4437||0.2338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.405|0.345|||ANCOVA|||||0.345|-1.405|0.2338
90819571|NCT02262754|181518232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.33|3.14||||||A repeated measures logistic regression model included treatment and week as fixed effects and LBPI baseline as a covariate. Participant was included as a repeated effect.||3.14|1.33|
90819572|NCT02262754|181518232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.31|0.74||||||A repeated measures logistic regression model included treatment and week as fixed effects and LBPI baseline as a covariate. Participant was included as a repeated effect.||0.74|0.31|
90819573|NCT02262754|181518233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (PF-06372865-Placebo)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.19|0.2||||||Week 1: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline (recordings on Day 1) was included as a covariate.||0.20|-0.19|
90819574|NCT02262754|181518233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Naproxen-Placebo)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.34|0.05||||||Week 1: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline (recordings on Day 1) was included as a covariate.||0.05|-0.34|
90819575|NCT02262754|181518233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference(PF-06372865-Naproxen)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.05|0.35||||||Week 1: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline (recordings on Day 1) was included as a covariate.||0.35|-0.05|
91059341|NCT01191944|182000078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.562|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2509||0.0263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.067|1.057|||ANCOVA|||||1.057|0.067|0.0263
90819576|NCT02262754|181518233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (PF-06372865-Placebo)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.26|0.18||||||Week 2: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline (recordings on Day 1) was included as a covariate.||0.18|-0.26|
90819577|NCT02262754|181518233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Naproxen-Placebo)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.37|0.07||||||Week 2: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline (recordings on Day 1) was included as a covariate.||0.07|-0.37|
91059342|NCT01191944|182000079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.031|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3727||0.9337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.704|0.766|||ANCOVA|||||0.766|-0.704|0.9337
91059343|NCT01191944|182000080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.031|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0798||0.6995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.127|0.188|||ANCOVA|||||0.188|-0.127|0.6995
91059344|NCT01191944|182000081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.317||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3170
91059345|NCT01191944|182000082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4756||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4756
91059346|NCT01191944|182000083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1051||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1051
91059347|NCT01191944|182000084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.154|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3138||0.6237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.463|0.771|||ANCOVA|||||0.771|-0.463|0.6237
90819578|NCT02262754|181518233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference(PF-06372865-Naproxen)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|0.33||||||Week 2: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline (recordings on Day 1) was included as a covariate.||0.33|-0.10|
90819579|NCT02262754|181518233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (PF-06372865-Placebo)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.09|0.38||||||Week 3: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline (recordings on Day 1) was included as a covariate.||0.38|-0.09|
90819580|NCT02262754|181518233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Naproxen-Placebo)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.21|0.25||||||Week 3: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline (recordings on Day 1) was included as a covariate.||0.25|-0.21|
90819581|NCT02262754|181518233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference(PF-06372865-Naproxen)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|0.36||||||Week 3: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline (recordings on Day 1) was included as a covariate.||0.36|-0.10|
90819582|NCT02262754|181518233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (PF-06372865-Placebo)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.13|0.38||||||Week 4: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline (recordings on Day 1) was included as a covariate.||0.38|-0.13|
90819583|NCT02262754|181518233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Naproxen-Placebo)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.46|0.05||||||Week 4: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline (recordings on Day 1) was included as a covariate.||0.05|-0.46|
90819584|NCT02262754|181518233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference(PF-06372865-Naproxen)|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.08|0.58||||||Week 4: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline (recordings on Day 1) was included as a covariate.||0.58|0.08|
90819585|NCT02262754|181518234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (PF-06372865-Placebo)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.42|0.08||||||Week 1: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect.||0.08|-0.42|
90819586|NCT02262754|181518234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Naproxen-Placebo)|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.62|-0.12||||||Week 1: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect.||-0.12|-0.62|
90819587|NCT02262754|181518234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference(PF-06372865-Naproxen)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.05|0.45||||||Week 1: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect.||0.45|-0.05|
90819588|NCT02262754|181518234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (PF-06372865-Placebo)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.38|0.21||||||Week 2: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect.||0.21|-0.38|
90819589|NCT02262754|181518234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Naproxen-Placebo)|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.58|0.01||||||Week 2: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect.||0.01|-0.58|
90819590|NCT02262754|181518234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference(PF-06372865-Naproxen)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.09|0.49||||||Week 2: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect.||0.49|-0.09|
90819591|NCT02262754|181518234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (PF-06372865-Placebo)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.36|0.21||||||Week 3: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect.||0.21|-0.36|
90819592|NCT02262754|181518234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Naproxen-Placebo)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.67|-0.1||||||Week 3: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect.||-0.10|-0.67|
90819593|NCT02262754|181518234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference(PF-06372865-Naproxen)|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.03|0.59||||||Week 3: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect.||0.59|0.03|
91059348|NCT01191944|182000086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.628|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7088||0.376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.765|2.021|||ANCOVA|||||2.021|-0.765|0.3760
91059349|NCT02814890|182000091|OTHER|difference test||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Sample size: Based on our previous data, pain score at rest 48 hours postoperatively when using ropivacaine only was of 2.8 with a standard deviation of 1.4. Assuming a decrease of pain score by 1.1 being clinically significant, twenty six patents in each group would be required for a study power of 80% (α=0.05,β=0.2). Considering possible dropouts, we aimed at recruiting 30 patients in each group with a total of 60 patients.||||0.001
91059350|NCT02814890|182000092|OTHER|difference test|Kendall's tau-b correlation coefficient|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91059351|NCT02814890|182000094|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.64|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.05
91059352|NCT01753297|182000133|OTHER|||||||0.158|||||||Log Rank|||A two-sided log-rank test was used to compare time to BRFS between both treatment groups.|Analysis on BRFS was based on 61 BR events (comprised of 35 BR events in the active surveillance arm and 26 BR events in the triptorelin arm).|||0.158
91059353|NCT01753297|182000133|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.09|||Regression, Cox|||"Comparison between treatment groups: Triptorelin compared to Active surveillance.~A Cox proportional hazard model was fitted to compute hazards ratios (HRs) and the corresponding 95% CIs with treatment group, country (China as reference), centre (the largest centre as reference), and Gleason score on prostatectomy specimen (in categories: ≤6 / =7 / ≥8, with ≤6 considered as the reference) as fixed factors."||1.09|0.38|0.100
91059354|NCT01753297|182000133|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.49||||0.502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|4.79|||Regression, Cox|||"Comparison between countries: Russia compared to China.~A Cox proportional hazard model was fitted to compute HRs and the corresponding 95% CIs with treatment group, country (China as reference), centre (the largest centre as reference), and Gleason score on prostatectomy specimen (in categories: ≤6 / =7 / ≥8, with ≤6 considered as the reference) as fixed factors."|Interactions effect between treatment group and each covariate (country, centre(country) and Gleason score) were tested one by one in separate models. An interaction effect was considered as significant if p-value was \<0.20. Interaction between treatment group and country: p=0.970.|4.79|0.46|0.502
91059355|NCT01753297|182000133|OTHER|||||||0.671|||||||Regression, Cox|||"Centre effect.~A Cox proportional hazard model was fitted to compute HRs and the corresponding 95% CIs with treatment group, country (China as reference), centre (the largest centre as reference), and Gleason score on prostatectomy specimen (in categories: ≤6 / =7 / ≥8, with ≤6 considered as the reference) as fixed factors."|Interactions effect between treatment group and each covariate (country, centre(country) and Gleason score) were tested one by one in separate models. An interaction effect was considered as significant if p-value was \<0.20. Interaction between treatment group and centre: p=0.241.|||0.671
91059356|NCT01753297|182000133|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.35||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|6.39|||Regression, Cox|||"Comparison between Gleason score categories: Gleason score of =7 compared to Gleason score ≤6.~A Cox proportional hazard model was fitted to compute HRs and the corresponding 95% CIs with treatment group, country (China as reference), centre (the largest centre as reference), and Gleason score on prostatectomy specimen (in categories: ≤6 / =7 / ≥8, with ≤6 considered as the reference) as fixed factors."|Interactions effect between treatment group and each covariate (country, centre(country) and Gleason score) were tested one by one in separate models. An interaction effect was considered as significant if p-value was \<0.20. Interaction between treatment group and Gleason score: p=0.272.|6.39|0.87|0.093
91059357|NCT01753297|182000133|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.03||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|5.55|||Regression, Cox|||"Comparison between Gleason score categories: Gleason score of ≥8 compared to Gleason score ≤6.~A Cox proportional hazard model was fitted to compute HRs and the corresponding 95% CIs with treatment group, country (China as reference), centre (the largest centre as reference), and Gleason score on prostatectomy specimen (in categories: ≤6 / =7 / ≥8, with ≤6 considered as the reference) as fixed factors."||5.55|0.74|0.168
91059358|NCT01753297|182000135|OTHER|||||||0.639|||||||Log Rank|||A two-sided log-rank test was used to compare time to EFS between both treatment groups.|Analysis was based on 2 EFS events in the active surveillance arm and 3 EFS events in the triptorelin arm.|||0.639
91059359|NCT01753297|182000135|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.52||||0.653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|9.59|||Regression, Cox|||"Comparison between treatment groups: Triptorelin compared to Active surveillance.~A Cox proportional hazard model was fitted to compute HRs and the corresponding 95% CIs with treatment group, country (China as reference), centre (the largest centre as reference), and Gleason score on prostatectomy specimen (in categories: ≤6 / =7 / ≥8, with ≤6 considered as the reference) as fixed factors."||9.59|0.24|0.653
91059360|NCT01753297|182000135|OTHER|||||||0.999|||||||Regression, Cox|||"Country effect.~A Cox proportional hazard model was fitted to compute HRs and the corresponding 95% CIs with treatment group, country (China as reference), centre (the largest centre as reference), and Gleason score on prostatectomy specimen (in categories: ≤6 / =7 / ≥8, with ≤6 considered as the reference) as fixed factors."||||0.999
91059361|NCT01753297|182000135|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Regression, Cox|||"Centre effect.~A Cox proportional hazard model was fitted to compute HRs and the corresponding 95% CIs with treatment group, country (China as reference), centre (the largest centre as reference), and Gleason score on prostatectomy specimen (in categories: ≤6 / =7 / ≥8, with ≤6 considered as the reference) as fixed factors."||||1.000
91059362|NCT01753297|182000135|OTHER|||||||0.583|||||||Regression, Cox|||"Gleason score effect.~A Cox proportional hazard model was fitted to compute HRs and the corresponding 95% CIs with treatment group, country (China as reference), centre (the largest centre as reference), and Gleason score on prostatectomy specimen (in categories: ≤6 / =7 / ≥8, with ≤6 considered as the reference) as fixed factors."||||0.583
90819594|NCT02262754|181518234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (PF-06372865-Placebo)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.42|0.21||||||Week 4: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect.||0.21|-0.42|
91059363|NCT01753297|182000137|OTHER|||||||0.557|||||||Log Rank|||A two-sided log-rank test was used to compare time to OS between both treatment groups.|1 death occurred in the active surveillance arm and 2 deaths occurred in the triptorelin arm.|||0.557
91059364|NCT01753297|182000140|OTHER|||||||0.525|||||||Log Rank|||A two-sided log-rank test was used to compare PSADT between both treatment groups.|Analysis was based on 9 PSADT events in the active surveillance arm and 6 PSADT events in the triptorelin arm.|||0.525
91059365|NCT01753297|182000140|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.72||||0.435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|6.73|||Regression, Cox|||"Comparison between treatment groups: Triptorelin compared to Active surveillance.~A Cox proportional hazard model was fitted to compute HRs and the corresponding 95% CIs with treatment group, country (China as reference), centre (the largest centre as reference), and Gleason score on prostatectomy specimen (in categories: ≤6 / =7 / ≥8, with ≤6 considered as the reference) as fixed factors."||6.73|0.44|0.435
91059366|NCT01753297|182000140|OTHER|||||||0.761|||||||Regression, Cox|||"Country effect.~A Cox proportional hazard model was fitted to compute HRs and the corresponding 95% CIs with treatment group, country (China as reference), centre (the largest centre as reference), and Gleason score on prostatectomy specimen (in categories: ≤6 / =7 / ≥8, with ≤6 considered as the reference) as fixed factors."||||0.761
91059367|NCT01753297|182000140|OTHER|||||||0.652|||||||Regression, Cox|||"Centre effect.~A Cox proportional hazard model was fitted to compute HRs and the corresponding 95% CIs with treatment group, country (China as reference), centre (the largest centre as reference), and Gleason score on prostatectomy specimen (in categories: ≤6 / =7 / ≥8, with ≤6 considered as the reference) as fixed factors."||||0.652
91059368|NCT01753297|182000140|OTHER|||||||0.726|||||||Regression, Cox|||"Gleason score effect.~A Cox proportional hazard model was fitted to compute HRs and the corresponding 95% CIs with treatment group, country (China as reference), centre (the largest centre as reference), and Gleason score on prostatectomy specimen (in categories: ≤6 / =7 / ≥8, with ≤6 considered as the reference) as fixed factors."||||0.726
91059369|NCT00794339|182000178|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence margin=0||||||0.4883|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Participants were divided into two groups by whether their T/M Ratio fell at or above vs. below the observed median of 7.3 and the the median survival was compared between the 2 groups.||||0.4883
91059370|NCT00794339|182000179|EQUIVALENCE|no equivalence margin|Slope|-0.1235|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6988||0.1924|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic Regression Modeling Complete Metabolic Response by T/M Ratio||||0.1924
91059371|NCT00794339|182000180|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence margin = 0||||||0.309|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Participants were divided into two groups: those at or above the median for T/M Ratio (7.3) vs. those below, and the time to primary tumor recurrence was compared between the 2 goups.||||0.3090
91059372|NCT00794339|182000181|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence margin=0||||||0.5291|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic Regression Evaluating Tissue to Muscle (T/M) uptake ratio as a Predictor of PELVIC Lymph Node Metastases at Baseline||||0.5291
91059373|NCT00794339|182000181|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence margin=0||||||0.9684|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic Regression Evaluating Tissue to Muscle (T/M) uptake Ratio as a Predictor of COMMON ILIAC Lymph Node Metastases at Baseline||||0.9684
91059374|NCT00794339|182000181|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence margin=0||||||0.7327|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic Regression Evaluating Tissue to Muscle (T/M) uptake Ratio as a Predictor of Para Aortic Lymph Node Metastases at Baseline||||0.7327
91059375|NCT00794339|182000191|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence margin=0||||||0.4981|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Participants were divided into two groups by whether their T/M Ratio fell at or above vs. below the observed median of 7.3 and the time to observe new distant metastases was compared between the groups||||.4981
91059376|NCT04315506|182000213|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.5384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.72||The analysis was a two-intervention arm comparison. Adjustments for multiple tests and outcomes were not required.|Regression, Logistic||Odds of quitting in Enuf Snuff group (SGR) compared to Enough Snuff (control)|||1.72|0.75|0.5384
91059377|NCT04315506|182000214|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.1057||||0.6624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5808|0.3693||P-value above is for the treatment-by-time squared term in the statistical model for longitudinal data; quadratic change in outcome determined, compared trajectory of outcome change in EnufSnuff (SGR) compared to Enough Snuff (control)|Mixed Models Analysis|Multi-level, mixed-effects model for longitudinal data was conducted.|Slope difference estimate reported above, estimate compares trajectory slope coefficient for EnufSnuff (SGR) to slope coefficient for Enough Snuff (control).|For secondary outcomes, the study was not powered. The null hypothesis was no between-treatment arm difference in the trajectory of change from baseline to six months.||0.3693|-0.5808|0.6624
91059378|NCT04315506|182000215|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.0946||||0.232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0609|0.2501||A multi-level, mixed-effects model for longitudinal data was applied. The p-value provided above was for the treatment-by-time effect used to test for differences in the trajectory of change in craving reduction between the two treatment groups.|Mixed Models Analysis|Multi-level, mixed-effects model for longitudinal data was conducted. (trajectory analysis)|Slope difference estimate reported above, estimate compares trajectory slope coefficient for EnufSnuff (SGR) to slope coefficient for Enough Snuff (control).|For secondary outcomes, the study was not powered. The null hypothesis was no between-treatment arm difference in the trajectory of change from baseline to six months.||0.2501|-0.0609|0.2320
91059379|NCT00704132|182000219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least-Squares Mean|-111.0|||<|0.001||95.0|-158.0|-63.9|||ANCOVA||Sitagliptin minus Placebo|||-63.9|-158.0|<0.001
91059380|NCT04238650|182000231|EQUIVALENCE|Two treatments are judged not to be different from one another if the 90% CI of the ratio of a log-transformed exposure measure (AUC) falls completely within the range 0.80-1.25. The PK parameter AUC\[0-∞\] was log-transformed (base e) prior to analysis and was analysed using an ANCOVA model. The model included treatment as a fixed effect and body weight as a covariate.|Ratio of GLSM|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.981|1.11||||||||1.11|0.981|
91059381|NCT04238650|182000232|EQUIVALENCE|Two treatments are judged not to be different from one another if the 90% CI of the ratio of a log-transformed exposure measure (Cmax) falls completely within the range 0.80-1.25. The PK parameter Cmax was log-transformed (base e) prior to analysis and was analysed using an ANCOVA model. The model included treatment as a fixed effect and body weight as a covariate.|Ratio of GLSM|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.03|1.24||||||||1.24|1.03|
91059382|NCT04238650|182000233|EQUIVALENCE|Two treatments are judged not to be different from one another if the 90% CI of the ratio of a log-transformed exposure measure (AUC) falls completely within the range 0.80-1.25. The PK parameter AUClast was log-transformed (base e) prior to analysis and was analysed using an ANCOVA model. The model included treatment as a fixed effect and body weight as a covariate.|Ratio of GLSM|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.997|1.11||||||||1.11|0.997|
91059383|NCT02585778|182000318|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-47.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.7|-35.0||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Alirocumab group was compared to placebo group using an appropriate contrast statement.||-35.0|-60.7|<0.0001
90819595|NCT02262754|181518234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Naproxen-Placebo)|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.75|-0.12||||||Week 4: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect.||-0.12|-0.75|
90819596|NCT02262754|181518234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference(PF-06372865-Naproxen)|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.02|0.63||||||Week 4: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect.||0.63|0.02|
90819597|NCT02262754|181518235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.46|1.56||||||Odds Ratios were based on a logistic regression model and included treatment as a fixed effect.||1.56|0.46|
90819598|NCT02262754|181518235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.23|0.81||||||Odds Ratios were based on a logistic regression model and included treatment as a fixed effect.||0.81|0.23|
90819599|NCT02262754|181518235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.06|3.65||||||Odds Ratios were based on a logistic regression model and included treatment as a fixed effect.||3.65|1.06|
90819600|NCT00223704|181518238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72||95.0||||This P-value is for the main comparison of receiving any transfusion.|Chi-squared|||||||0.72
90819601|NCT00223704|181518239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.88
90819602|NCT00223704|181518240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.43
90819603|NCT00223704|181518241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92||95.0||||The P-value reflects the difference in Interleukin-6 concentrations among the 3 treatment groups over the course of the study (baseline, post-bypass, postoperative day 1 and 2)|Mixed Models Analysis|||The time course for Interleukin-6 concentrations were analyzed using mixed-effects models with fixed effects of drug treatment (placebo, aminocaproic acid, HOE 140) and time since randomization. We included a random subject effect and a first-order autoregressive process to account for the correlation in the response variable in the mixed-effects model||||0.92
90819604|NCT00223704|181518242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The P-value reflects the difference in D-dimer concentrations among the 3 treatment groups over the course of the study (baseline, 30min, 60min, post-bypass, and postoperative day 1)|Mixed Models Analysis|||The time course for D-dimer concentrations were analyzed using mixed-effects models with fixed effects of drug treatment (placebo, aminocaproic acid, HOE 140) and time since randomization. We included a random subject effect and a first-order autoregressive process to account for the correlation in the response variable in the mixed-effects model||||<0.001
90819605|NCT02684188|181518265|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||P-values comparing the counts for the 2 groups after adjusting for PAM10.|Poisson regression|||H0: There is no difference in the cumulative number of hospital visits for day 3 (null hypothesis); H1: The cumulative number of hospital visits for the standard discharge group is greater than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 3.|For day 3, 112(68 baseline and 44 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.030
91059384|NCT02585778|182000318|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-49.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.4|-43.6||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Alirocumab group was compared to placebo group using an appropriate contrast statement.||-43.6|-54.4|<0.0001
91059385|NCT02585778|182000320|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-50.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.4|-37.9||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level. Hierarchical testing procedure was followed for T1DM and T2DM participants separately.||-37.9|-63.4|<0.0001
91059386|NCT02585778|182000320|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-51.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.9|-46.4||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant in relevant diabetes stratum).||-46.4|-56.9|<0.0001
90819606|NCT02684188|181518265|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.025||||||P-values comparing the counts for the 2 groups after adjusting for PAM10.|Poisson regression|||H0: There is no difference in the cumulative number of hospital visits for day 7 (null hypothesis); H1: The cumulative number of hospital visits for the standard discharge group is greater than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 7.|For day 7, 110 (66 baseline and 44 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.025
90819607|NCT02684188|181518265|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.037||||||P-values comparing the counts for the 2 groups after adjusting for PAM10.|Poisson regression|||H0: There is no difference in the cumulative number of hospital visits for day 14 (null hypothesis); H1: The cumulative number of hospital visits for the standard discharge group is greater than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 14.|For day 14, 104 (61 baseline and 43 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.037
90819608|NCT02684188|181518265|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011||||||P-values comparing the counts for the 2 groups after adjusting for PAM10.|Poisson regression|||H0: There is no difference in the cumulative number of hospital visits for day 21 (null hypothesis); H1: The cumulative number of hospital visits for the standard discharge group is greater than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 21.|For day 21, 98 (57 baseline and 41 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.011
90819609|NCT02684188|181518265|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||P-values comparing the counts for the 2 groups after adjusting for PAM10.|Poisson regression|||H0: There is no difference in the cumulative number of hospital visits for day 30 (null hypothesis); H1: The cumulative number of hospital visits for the standard discharge group is greater than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 30.|For day 30, 95 (56 baseline and 39 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.050
90819610|NCT02684188|181518265|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.055|||||||Poisson regression|||H0: There is no difference in the cumulative number of hospital visits for day 60 (null hypothesis); H1: The cumulative number of hospital visits for the standard discharge group is greater than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 60.|For day 60, 87 (53 baseline and 34 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.055
91059387|NCT02585778|182000321|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-48.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.2|-35.5||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant in relevant diabetes stratum).||-35.5|-61.2|<0.0001
91059388|NCT02585778|182000321|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-45.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.9|-40.4||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant in relevant diabetes stratum).||-40.4|-50.9|<0.0001
91059389|NCT02585778|182000322|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-44.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.9|-32.8||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant in relevant diabetes stratum).||-32.8|-56.9|<0.0001
91059390|NCT02585778|182000322|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-50.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.2|-45.3||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant in relevant diabetes stratum).||-45.3|-55.2|<0.0001
91059391|NCT02585778|182000323|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-42.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.9|-30.5||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant in relevant diabetes stratum).||-30.5|-54.9|<0.0001
91059392|NCT02585778|182000323|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-44.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.0|-39.2||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant in relevant diabetes stratum).||-39.2|-49.0|<0.0001
91059393|NCT02585778|182000324|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-42.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.2|-31.3||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant in relevant diabetes stratum).||-31.3|-54.2|<0.0001
91059394|NCT02585778|182000324|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-38.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.4|-33.9||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant in relevant diabetes stratum).||-33.9|-43.4|<0.0001
91059395|NCT02585778|182000325|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-39.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.4|-28.7||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant in relevant diabetes stratum).||-28.7|-49.4|<0.0001
91059396|NCT02585778|182000325|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-36.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.9|-32.5||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant in relevant diabetes stratum).||-32.5|-40.9|<0.0001
91059397|NCT02585778|182000326|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-29.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.8|-20.7||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant in relevant diabetes stratum).||-20.7|-37.8|<0.0001
90819611|NCT02684188|181518265|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.137||||||P-values comparing the counts for the 2 groups after adjusting for PAM10.|Poisson regression|||H0: There is no difference in the cumulative number of hospital visits for day 90 (null hypothesis); H1: The cumulative number of hospital visits for the standard discharge group is greater than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 90.|For day 90, 83 (49 baseline and 34 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.137
90819612|NCT02684188|181518266|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.279||||||P-values comparing the counts for the 2 groups after adjusting for PAM10.|Regression, Logistic|||H0: There is no difference in the proportion of patients with at least one ED visits by day 3 (null hypothesis); H1: The proportion of patients with at least one ED visit for the standard discharge group is greater than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 3.|For day 3, 112(68 baseline and 44 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.279
90819613|NCT02684188|181518266|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.211||||||P-values comparing the counts for the 2 groups after adjusting for PAM10.|Regression, Logistic|||H0: There is no difference in the proportion of patients with at least one ED visits by day 7 (null hypothesis); H1: The proportion of patients with at least one ED visit for the standard discharge group is greater than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 7.|For day 7, 110 (66 baseline and 44 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.211
91059398|NCT02585778|182000326|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-27.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.2|-24.1||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant in relevant diabetes stratum).||-24.1|-31.2|<0.0001
91059399|NCT02585778|182000327|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|117.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.1|1041.8||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model.|Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant in relevant diabetes stratum).||1041.8|13.1|<0.0001
91059400|NCT02585778|182000327|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|84.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.5|196.1||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level|Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model.|Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant in relevant diabetes stratum).||196.1|36.5|<0.0001
90819614|NCT02684188|181518266|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.424||||||P-values comparing the counts for the 2 groups after adjusting for PAM10.|Regression, Logistic|||H0: There is no difference in the proportion of patients with at least one ED visits by day 14 (null hypothesis); H1: The proportion of patients with at least one ED visit for the standard discharge group is greater than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 14.|For day 14, 104 (61 baseline and 43 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.424
91059401|NCT02585778|182000328|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|52.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.6|168.3||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model.|Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||168.3|16.6|<0.0001
91059402|NCT02585778|182000329|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|33.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|137.4||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model.|Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant in relevant diabetes stratum).||137.4|8.0|<0.0001
91059403|NCT02585778|182000329|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|27.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.2|51.5||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model.|Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant in relevant diabetes stratum).||51.5|14.2|<0.0001
91059404|NCT02585778|182000330|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|55.5||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|473.7||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model.|Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant in relevant diabetes stratum).||473.7|6.5|0.0002
91059405|NCT02585778|182000330|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|103.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.6|433.1||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model.|Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant in relevant diabetes stratum).||433.1|24.6|<0.0001
91059406|NCT02585778|182000331|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-18.7||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.4|-6.0||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Robust|Multiple imputation approach followed by robust regression model.|Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant in relevant diabetes stratum).||-6.0|-31.4|0.0039
91059407|NCT02585778|182000331|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-18.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.7|-13.2||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Robust|Multiple imputation approach followed by robust regression model.|Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant in relevant diabetes stratum).||-13.2|-23.7|<0.0001
90819615|NCT02684188|181518266|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.191||||||P-values comparing the counts for the 2 groups after adjusting for PAM10.|Regression, Logistic|||H0: There is no difference in the proportion of patients with at least one ED visits by day 21 (null hypothesis); H1: The proportion of patients with at least one ED visit for the standard discharge group is greater than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 21.|For day 21, 98 (57 baseline and 41 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.191
90819616|NCT02684188|181518266|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.478||||||P-values comparing the counts for the 2 groups after adjusting for PAM10.|Regression, Logistic|||H0: There is no difference in the proportion of patients with at least one ED visits by day 30 (null hypothesis); H1: The proportion of patients with at least one ED visit for the standard discharge group is greater than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 30.|For day 30, 95 (56 baseline and 39 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.478
90819617|NCT02684188|181518266|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.452||||||P-values comparing the counts for the 2 groups after adjusting for PAM10.|Regression, Logistic|||H0: There is no difference in the proportion of patients with at least one ED visits by day 60 (null hypothesis); H1: The proportion of patients with at least one ED visit for the standard discharge group is greater than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 60.|For day 60, 87 (53 baseline and 34 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.452
91059408|NCT02585778|182000332|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.9||||0.3434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|12.0||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant in relevant diabetes stratum).||12.0|-4.2|0.3434
91059409|NCT02585778|182000332|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.4||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|7.7||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant in relevant diabetes stratum).||7.7|1.1|0.0100
91059410|NCT02585778|182000333|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-5.7||||0.0902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|0.9||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Robust|Multiple imputation approach followed by robust regression model.|Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant in relevant diabetes stratum).||0.9|-12.3|0.0902
91059411|NCT05147324|182000397|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.70
91059412|NCT05147324|182000398|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.70
91059413|NCT05147324|182000406|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
91059414|NCT01727726|182000407|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.48||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.56|-0.39|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM)||||-0.39|-2.56|0.0078
91059415|NCT01727726|182000407|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.6642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|1.04|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM)||||1.04|-1.63|0.6642
91059416|NCT01727726|182000408|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0.1334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.07|||MMRM|Mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM)||||0.07|-0.52|0.1334
91059417|NCT01727726|182000408|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.42||||0.0237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.78|||MMRM|Mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM)||||0.78|0.06|0.0237
91059418|NCT01727726|182000409|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.53||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|-0.76|||MMRM|Mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM)||Phase B week 2||-0.76|-2.29|0.0001
91059419|NCT01727726|182000409|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.22||||0.0103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|-0.29|||MMRM|Mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM)||Phase B Week 2||-0.29|-2.15|0.0103
91059420|NCT01727726|182000409|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.17||||0.0185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|-0.2|||MMRM|Mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM)||Phase B week 4||-0.20|-2.15|0.0185
91059421|NCT01727726|182000409|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.8949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|1.11|||MMRM|Mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM)||Phase B Week 4||1.11|-1.27|0.8949
91059422|NCT01727726|182000410|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|-0.01|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CGI-Severity of Illness Scale Score||-0.01|-0.29|0.0350
91059423|NCT01727726|182000410|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.5601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.12|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CGI-Severity of Illness Scale Score||0.12|-0.22|0.5601
91059424|NCT01727726|182000410|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.0146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.04|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CGI-Improvement Scale Score||-0.04|-0.35|0.0146
91059425|NCT01727726|182000410|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.7127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.15|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CGI-Improvement Scale Score||0.15|-0.23|0.7127
90819618|NCT02684188|181518266|SUPERIORITY|H0: There is no difference in the proportion of patients with at least one ED visits by day 90 (null hypothesis); H1: The proportion of patients with at least one ED visit for the standard discharge group is greater than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 90.||||||0.381||||||P-values comparing the counts for the 2 groups after adjusting for PAM10.|Regression, Logistic||||For day 90, 83 (49 baseline and 34 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.381
90819619|NCT02684188|181518267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.502||||||P-values comparing the counts for the 2 groups after adjusting for PAM10.|Poisson regression|||H0: There is no difference in the cumulative number of hospital visits for day 3 (null hypothesis); H1: The cumulative number of hospital visits for the standard discharge group is greater than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 3.|For day 3, 115 (70 baseline and 45 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.502
90819620|NCT02684188|181518267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.286||||||P-values comparing the counts for the 2 groups after adjusting for PAM10.|Poisson regression|||H0: There is no difference in the cumulative number of ED visits for day 7 (null hypothesis); H1: The cumulative number of ED visits for the standard discharge group is greater than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 7.|For day 7, 113 (68 baseline and 45 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.286
90819621|NCT02684188|181518267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.347||||||P-values comparing the counts for the 2 groups after adjusting for PAM10.|Poisson regression|||H0: There is no difference in the cumulative number of ED visits for day 14 (null hypothesis); H1: The cumulative number of ED visits for the standard discharge group is greater than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 14.|For day 14, 107 (63 baseline and 44 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.347
90819622|NCT02684188|181518267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25||||||P-values comparing the counts for the 2 groups after adjusting for PAM10.|Poisson regression|||H0: There is no difference in the cumulative number of ED visits for day 21 (null hypothesis); H1: The cumulative number of ED visits for the standard discharge group is greater than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 21.|For day 21, 101 (59 baseline and 42 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.250
90819623|NCT02684188|181518267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22||||||P-values comparing the counts for the 2 groups after adjusting for PAM10.|Poisson regression|||H0: There is no difference in the cumulative number of ED visits for day 30 (null hypothesis); H1: The cumulative number of ED visits for the standard discharge group is greater than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 30.|For day 30, 98 (58 baseline and 40 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.220
90819624|NCT02684188|181518267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.116||||||P-values comparing the counts for the 2 groups after adjusting for PAM10.|Poisson regression|||H0: There is no difference in the cumulative number of ED visits for day 60 (null hypothesis); H1: The cumulative number of ED visits for the standard discharge group is greater than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 60.|For day 60, 90 (55 baseline and 35 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.116
90819625|NCT02684188|181518267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.126||||||P-values comparing the counts for the 2 groups after adjusting for PAM10.|Poisson regression|||H0: There is no difference in the cumulative number of ED visits for day 90 (null hypothesis); H1: The cumulative number of ED visits for the standard discharge group is greater than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 90.|For day 90, 86 (51 baseline and 35 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.126
91059426|NCT01727726|182000411|OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.49||||0.2242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.84|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Phase B Week 6||2.84|0.78|0.2242
91059427|NCT01727726|182000411|OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.26||||0.5998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|2.98|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Phase B Week 6||2.98|0.53|0.5998
91059428|NCT01727726|182000412|OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.52||||0.3321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|3.49|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Phase B Week 6||3.49|0.66|0.3321
91059429|NCT01727726|182000412|OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|0.51||||0.3917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|2.46|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Phase B Week 6||2.46|0.11|0.3917
91059430|NCT01727726|182000413|OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.35||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.66|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Phase B Week 6||1.66|1.10|0.0032
91059431|NCT01727726|182000413|OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.24||||0.0898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.59|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Phase B Week 6||1.59|0.98|0.0898
91059432|NCT01727726|182000415|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16||||0.448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.56|||MMRM|Mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM)||Work/School Score||0.56|-0.25|0.4480
91059433|NCT01727726|182000415|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.52||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|1.02|||MMRM|Mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM)||Work/School Score||1.02|0.03|0.0380
91059434|NCT01727726|182000415|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0.0436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.01|||MMRM|Mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM)||Social Life Score||-0.01|-0.66|0.0436
91059435|NCT01727726|182000415|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.43||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.84|||MMRM|Mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM)||Social Life Score||0.84|0.03|0.0350
91059436|NCT01727726|182000415|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35||||0.0424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.01|||MMRM|Mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM)||Family Life Score||-0.01|-0.69|0.0424
91059437|NCT01727726|182000415|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33||||0.123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.75|||MMRM|Mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM)||Family Life Score||0.75|-0.09|0.1230
91079200|NCT03240406|182044059|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|955.19||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|164.63|1745.74||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|ANCOVA|MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|||1745.74|164.63|0.019
91059438|NCT02714426|182000416|OTHER|||||||0.024||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p \< .05. No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons. The critical effect of interest evaluated here was the Linear Occasion (1-14) x Group (Brain Health vs. Mindfulness) interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|F(1,33) = 5.57, p = .024, no adjustments.||Mixed effects models were used. Independent variables were linear and quadratic time/occasion, intervention group, and group-by-time interactions if appropriate. Preparatory to modeling, preliminary unconditional models were run to determine best fitting approaches for repeated and random covariance structures. First-order Autoregressive was best (which specifies homogeneous variance over time but allows one correlation between occasions).||||.024
91059439|NCT02714426|182000417|OTHER|||||||0.333||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p \< .05. No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons. The critical effect of interest evaluated here was the Linear Occasion (1-14) x Group (Brain Health vs. Mindfulness) interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|F(1,34) = 0.96, p = .333, no adjustments.||Mixed effects models were used. Independent variables were linear and quadratic time/occasion, intervention group, and group-by-time interactions if appropriate. Preparatory to modeling, preliminary unconditional models were run to determine best fitting approaches for repeated and random covariance structures. Diagonal repeated covariance was best (heterogeneous variance over time, and no residual cross-time covariances).||||0.333
90819626|NCT02684188|181518268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.597||||||P-values comparing the counts for the 2 groups after adjusting for PAM10.|Regression, Logistic|||H0: There is no difference in the proportion of patients with at least one ED visits by day 3; H1: The proportion of patients with at least one ED visit for the standard discharge group is greater than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 3.|For day 3, 115 (70 baseline and 45 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.597
90819627|NCT02684188|181518268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.504||||||P-values comparing the counts for the 2 groups after adjusting for PAM10.|Regression, Logistic|||H0: There is no difference in the proportion of patients with at least one ED visits by day 7; H1: The proportion of patients with at least one ED visit for the standard discharge group is greater than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 7.|For day 7, 113 (68 baseline and 45 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.504
90819628|NCT02684188|181518268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.558||||||P-values comparing the counts for the 2 groups after adjusting for PAM10.|Regression, Logistic|||H0: There is no difference in the proportion of patients with at least one ED visits by day 14; H1: The proportion of patients with at least one ED visit for the standard discharge group is greater than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 14.|For day 14, 107 (63 baseline and 44 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.558
90819629|NCT02684188|181518268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.472||||||Comments (covariates): P-values comparing the counts for the 2 groups after adjusting for PAM10.|Regression, Logistic|||H0: There is no difference in the proportion of patients with at least one ED visits by day 21; H1: The proportion of patients with at least one ED visit for the standard discharge group is greater than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 21.|For day 21, 101 (59 baseline and 42 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.472
90819630|NCT02684188|181518268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.462||||||P-values comparing the counts for the 2 groups after adjusting for PAM10.|Regression, Logistic|||H0: There is no difference in the proportion of patients with at least one ED visits by day 30; H1: The proportion of patients with at least one ED visit for the standard discharge group is greater than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 30.|For day 30, 98 (58 baseline and 40 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.462
90819631|NCT02684188|181518268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.394||||||P-values comparing the counts for the 2 groups after adjusting for PAM10.|Regression, Logistic|||H0: There is no difference in the proportion of patients with at least one ED visits by day 60; H1: The proportion of patients with at least one ED visit for the standard discharge group is greater than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 60.|For day 60, 90 (55 baseline and 35 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.394
90819632|NCT02684188|181518268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.368||||||Comments (covariates): P-values comparing the counts for the 2 groups after adjusting for PAM10.|Regression, Logistic|||H0: There is no difference in the proportion of patients with at least one ED visits by day 90; H1: The proportion of patients with at least one ED visit for the standard discharge group is greater than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 90.|For day 90, 86 (51 baseline and 35 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.368
90819633|NCT02684188|181518269|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.946||||||P-values comparing the counts for the 2 groups after adjusting for sex, age, number in household, county, and LACE+ score.|Poisson regression|||The following hypotheses were tested: H0: There is no difference in the cumulative number of PCP visits for day 3 (null hypothesis); H1: The cumulative number of PCP visits for the standard discharge group is less than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 3.|For day 3, 114 (70 baseline and 44 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.946
90819634|NCT02684188|181518269|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.613|||||||Poisson regression|||H0: There is no difference in the cumulative number of PCP visits for day 7 (null hypothesis); H1: The cumulative number of PCP visits for the standard discharge group is less than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 7.|For day 7, 111 (67 baseline and 44 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.613
90819635|NCT02684188|181518269|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.541||||||P-values comparing the counts for the 2 groups after adjusting for sex, age, number in household, county, and LACE+ score.|Poisson regression|||H0: There is no difference in the cumulative number of PCP visits for day 14 (null hypothesis); H1: The cumulative number of PCP visits for the standard discharge group is less than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 14.|For day 14, 105 (62 baseline and 43 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.541
90819636|NCT02684188|181518269|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.765||||||P-values comparing the counts for the 2 groups after adjusting for sex, age, number in household, county, and LACE score.|Poisson regression|||H0: There is no difference in the cumulative number of PCP visits for day 21 (null hypothesis); H1: The cumulative number of PCP visits for the standard discharge group is less than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 21.|For day 21, 98 (58 baseline and 40 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.765
90819637|NCT02684188|181518269|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.919||||||P-values comparing the counts for the 2 groups after adjusting for sex, age, number in household, county, and LACE+ score.|Poisson regression|||H0: There is no difference in the cumulative number of PCP visits for day 30 (null hypothesis); H1: The cumulative number of PCP visits for the standard discharge group is less than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 30.|For day 30, 95 (57 baseline and 38 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.919
91059440|NCT02714426|182000419|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p \< .05. No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons. The critical effect of interest evaluated here was the Linear Occasion (1-8) x Group (Brain Health vs. Mindfulness) interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|F(1,31.069) = 15.046, p = .001, no adjustments.||Mixed effects models were used. Independent variables were linear and quadratic time/occasion, intervention group, and group-by-time interactions if appropriate. Preparatory to modeling, preliminary unconditional models were run to determine best fitting approaches for repeated and random covariance structures. Diagonal repeated covariance was best (heterogeneous variance over time, and no residual cross-time covariances).||||0.001
90819638|NCT02684188|181518269|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999||||||P-values comparing the counts for the 2 groups after adjusting for sex, age, number in household, county, and LACE score.|Poisson regression|P-values comparing the counts for the 2 groups after adjusting for sex, age, number in household, county, and LACE score.||H0: There is no difference in the cumulative number of PCP visits for day 60 (null hypothesis); H1: The cumulative number of PCP visits for the standard discharge group is less than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 60.|For day 60, 87 (54 baseline and 33 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.999
90819639|NCT02684188|181518269|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.995|||||||Poisson regression|||H0: There is no difference in the cumulative number of PCP visits for day 90 (null hypothesis); H1: The cumulative number of PCP visits for the standard discharge group is less than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 90.|For day 90, 83 (50 baseline and 33 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.995
90819640|NCT02684188|181518270|EQUIVALENCE|A repeated measures ANOVA model was used to model the SF12 Physical Health score as a function of treatment group. The likelihood ratio test was used to calculate the p-values for the treatment effect and covariates. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. Hypotheses were tested after adjusting for the effects of the repeated measures, patient age, and the number of people in a household. All hypotheses were 2-sided and p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.||||||0.371||||||The P-value comparing the means for the 2 groups averaged across the 7 days is p = 0.371, after adjusting for covariates.|ANOVA|||The following hypotheses were tested: Hoi: There is no difference in mean SF12 Physical Health scores between the standard and enhanced discharge groups (null hypothesis); H1i: The mean SF12 Physical Health scores differ between the standard and enhanced discharge groups.||||0.371
90819641|NCT02684188|181518271|EQUIVALENCE|A repeated measures ANOVA model was used to model the SF-12 Mental Health score as a function of treatment group. The likelihood ratio test was used to calculate the p-values for the treatment effect and covariates. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. Hypotheses were tested after adjusting for the effects of the repeated measures, patient age, income, and county. All hypotheses were 2-sided and p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.||||||0.232||||||The P-value comparing the means for the 2 groups averaged across the 7 days is p = 0.232, after adjusting for covariates.|ANOVA|||The following hypotheses were tested: Hoi: There is no difference in mean SF-12 Mental Health scores between the standard and enhanced discharge groups (null hypothesis); H1i: The mean SF-12 Mental Health scores differ between the standard and enhanced discharge groups.||||0.232
90819642|NCT02684188|181518272|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.806|||||||ANCOVA|||The following hypotheses were tested: H0: There is no difference in the mean CTM3 score between the standard and enhanced discharge groups (null hypothesis); H1: Patients in the enhanced discharge group will have a higher mean CTM3 rating than patients in the standard discharge group.|An analysis of covariance was used to model the CTM3 discharge planning score as a function of treatment group. An ANOVA F-test was used to calculate the p-values for the treatment effect and covariates. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. Hypotheses were tested after adjusting for the effects of patient age and income. The hypothesis test for the group comparison was 1-sided, hypotheses to assess significance of covariates were 2-sided, and p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant. The covariates Sex, County, Number in Household, LACE+ score, and PAM10 score did not differ in their mean CTM3 scores so were not retained in the model.|||0.806
90819643|NCT02684188|181518273|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.742|||||||ANOVA|||The following hypotheses were tested: H0: There is no difference in the mean RTM14 score between the standard and enhanced discharge groups (null hypothesis); H1: Patients in the enhanced discharge group will have a higher mean RTM14 rating than patients in the standard discharge group.|A repeated measures ANOVA model (over the 6 time measurement periods) was used to model the RTM14 score as a function of treatment group. The likelihood ratio test was used to calculate the p-values for the treatment effect and covariates. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. Hypotheses were tested after adjusting for the effects of the repeated measures, patient age, income, and whether or not a patient had visited a hospital or ED prior to that day. The hypothesis test for the group comparison was 1-sided, hypotheses to assess significance of covariates were 2-sided, and p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant. The covariates Sex, Number in household, LACE+ score, and PAM10 score were not significant in explaining SF-12 scores so were not retained in the model.|||0.742
90819644|NCT02684188|181518274|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.717||||||This Hypothesis was tested with no adjustments for covariates since none were significant.|Regression, Logistic|||: H0: There is no difference in the cumulative number of PCP visits for day 3 (null hypothesis); H1: The cumulative number of PCP visits for the standard discharge group is less than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 3.|For day 3, 114 (70 baseline and 44 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.717
90819645|NCT02684188|181518274|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.479||||||This Hypothesis was tested with no adjustments for covariates since none were significant.|Regression, Logistic|||H0: There is no difference in the cumulative number of PCP visits for day 7 (null hypothesis); H1: The cumulative number of PCP visits for the standard discharge group is less than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 7.|For day 7, 111 (67 baseline and 44 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.479
91059441|NCT02714426|182000420|OTHER|||||||0.448||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p \< .05. No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons. The critical effect of interest evaluated here was the Linear Occasion (1-14) x Group (Brain Health vs. Mindfulness) interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|F(1,34) = 0.589, p = .0.448, no adjustments.||Mixed effects models were used. Independent variables were linear and quadratic time/occasion, intervention group, and group-by-time interactions if appropriate. Preparatory to modeling, preliminary unconditional models were run to determine best fitting approaches for repeated and random covariance structures. Diagonal repeated covariance was best (heterogeneous variance over time, and no residual cross-time covariances).||||0.448
90819646|NCT02684188|181518274|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.329|||||||Regression, Logistic|||H0: There is no difference in the cumulative number of PCP visits for day 14 (null hypothesis); H1: The cumulative number of PCP visits for the standard discharge group is less than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 14.|For day 14, 105 (62 baseline and 43 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.329
90819647|NCT02684188|181518274|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Regression, Logistic|||H0: There is no difference in the cumulative number of PCP visits for day 21 (null hypothesis); H1: The cumulative number of PCP visits for the standard discharge group is less than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 21.|This Hypothesis was tested with no adjustments for covariates since none were significant.|||0.780
90819648|NCT02684188|181518274|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.779||||||This Hypothesis was tested with no adjustments for covariates since none were significant.|Regression, Logistic|||H0: There is no difference in the cumulative number of PCP visits for day 30 (null hypothesis); H1: The cumulative number of PCP visits for the standard discharge group is less than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 30.|For day 30, 95 (57 baseline and 38 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.779
90819649|NCT02684188|181518274|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.848||||||This Hypothesis was tested with no adjustments for covariates since none were significant.|Regression, Logistic|||H0: There is no difference in the cumulative number of PCP visits for day 60 (null hypothesis); H1: The cumulative number of PCP visits for the standard discharge group is less than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 60.|For day 60, 87 (54 baseline and 33 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.848
90819650|NCT02684188|181518274|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.857||||||This Hypothesis was tested with no adjustments for covariates since none were significant.|Regression, Logistic|||H0: There is no difference in the cumulative number of PCP visits for day 90 (null hypothesis); H1: The cumulative number of PCP visits for the standard discharge group is less than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 90.|For day 90, 83 (50 baseline and 33 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.857
90819651|NCT00488826|181518281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1097.0||||||90.0|793.6|1461.0||P-Values were not calculated.|||This analysis is for Serotype 4.|"The ratio of the 7vPnC Separately group to the DTaP Alone group geometric mean comparisons (GMC) was provided with a corresponding 90% confidence interval."||1461|793.6|
90819652|NCT00488826|181518281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|54.6||||||90.0|35.36|85.49||P-Values were not calculated.|||This analysis is for Serotype 6B.|"The ratio of the 7vPnC Separately group to the DTaP Alone group geometric mean comparisons (GMC) was provided with a corresponding 90% confidence interval."||85.49|35.36|
90819653|NCT00488826|181518281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|99.48||||||90.0|79.81|142.0||P-Values were not calculated.|||This analysis is for Serotype 9V|"The ratio of the 7vPnC Separately group to the DTaP Alone group geometric mean comparisons (GMC) was provided with a corresponding 90% confidence interval."||142.0|79.81|
90819654|NCT00488826|181518281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|134.3||||||90.0|80.83|197.1||P-Values were not calculated.|||This analysis is for Serotype 14.|"The ratio of the 7vPnC Separately group to the DTaP Alone group geometric mean comparisons (GMC) was provided with a corresponding 90% confidence interval."||197.1|80.83|
90819655|NCT00488826|181518281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|200.3||||||90.0|151.9|302.4||P-Values were not calculated.|||This analysis is for Serotype 18C.|"The ratio of the 7vPnC Separately group to the DTaP Alone group geometric mean comparisons (GMC) was provided with a corresponding 90% confidence interval."||302.4|151.9|
90819656|NCT00488826|181518281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|181.3||||||90.0|119.8|253.1||P-Values were not calculated.|||This analysis is for Serotype 19F.|"The ratio of the 7vPnC Separately group to the DTaP Alone group geometric mean comparisons (GMC) was provided with a corresponding 90% confidence interval."||253.1|119.8|
90819657|NCT00488826|181518281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|90.02||||||90.0|57.93|150.5||P-Values were not calculated.|||This analysis is for Serotype 23F.|"The ratio of the 7vPnC Separately group to the DTaP Alone group geometric mean comparisons (GMC) was provided with a corresponding 90% confidence interval."||150.5|57.93|
91059442|NCT02714426|182000421|OTHER|||||||0.439||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p \< .05. No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons. The critical effect of interest evaluated here was the Linear Occasion (1-14) x Group (Brain Health vs. Mindfulness) interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|F(1,31) = 0.616, p = 0.439, no adjustments.||Mixed effects models were used. Independent variables were linear and quadratic time/occasion, intervention group, and group-by-time interactions if appropriate. Preparatory to modeling, preliminary unconditional models were run to determine best fitting approaches for repeated and random covariance structures. Diagonal repeated covariance was best (heterogeneous variance over time, and no residual cross-time covariances).||||0.439
91059443|NCT01595386|182000425|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Study sample size was powered to detect a 60% difference in LCOS between groups at α 0.05 and β 0.70, assuming the prevalence of LCOS after neonatal bypass of 65% (based on retrospective data of patients who died, required rescue steroids, ECMO, or epinephrine \> 0.1 μg/kg/min).||||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.049
91059444|NCT01595386|182000426|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation.||||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.44
91059445|NCT01595386|182000427|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation.||||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.62
90819658|NCT00488826|181518282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|665.1||||||90.0|473.3|851.2||P-Values were not calculated.|||This analysis is for Serotype 4.|"The ratio of the 7vPnC + DTaP Concurrently group to DTaP Alone group geometric mean comparisons (GMC) was provided with a corresponding 90% confidence interval."||851.2|473.3|
90819659|NCT00488826|181518282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|22.2||||||90.0|13.99|31.77||P-Values were not calculated.|||This analysis is for Serotype 6B.|"The ratio of the 7vPnC + DTaP Concurrently group to DTaP Alone group geometric mean comparisons (GMC) was provided with a corresponding 90% confidence interval."||31.77|13.99|
90819660|NCT00488826|181518282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|73.7||||||90.0|56.41|103.6||P-Values were not calculated.|||This analysis is for Serotype 9V.|"The ratio of the 7vPnC + DTaP Concurrently group to DTaP Alone group geometric mean comparisons (GMC) was provided with a corresponding 90% confidence interval."||103.6|56.41|
91059446|NCT01595386|182000428|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|There was not a power calculation for this statistic|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
90819661|NCT00488826|181518282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|99.48||||||90.0|61.09|147.5||P-Values were not calculated.|||This analysis is for Serotype 14.|"The ratio of the 7vPnC + DTaP Concurrently group to DTaP Alone group geometric mean comparisons (GMC) was provided with a corresponding 90% confidence interval."||147.5|61.09|
90819662|NCT00488826|181518282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|164.0||||||90.0|114.9|232.9||P-Values were not calculated.|||This analysis is for Serotype 18C.|"The ratio of the 7vPnC + DTaP Concurrently group to DTaP Alone group geometric mean comparisons (GMC) was provided with a corresponding 90% confidence interval."||232.9|114.9|
90819663|NCT00488826|181518282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|81.45||||||90.0|57.98|119.1||P-Values were not calculated.|||This analysis is for Serotype 19F.|"The ratio of the 7vPnC + DTaP Concurrently group to DTaP Alone group geometric mean comparisons (GMC) was provided with a corresponding 90% confidence interval."||119.1|57.98|
90819664|NCT00488826|181518282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|44.7||||||90.0|29.48|68.71||P-Values were not calculated.|||This analysis is for Serotype 23F.|"The ratio of the 7vPnC + DTaP Concurrently group to DTaP Alone group geometric mean comparisons (GMC) was provided with a corresponding 90% confidence interval."||68.71|29.48|
90819665|NCT00422383|181518327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted Difference|-0.01||||0.8156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Analysis stratified by region, prior biologic use, rheumatoid factor (RF) status, and treatment.|||0.10|-0.13|0.8156
90819666|NCT00422383|181518327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted Difference|0.07||||0.2419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.19|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Analysis stratified by region, prior biologic use, RF status, and treatment.|||0.19|-0.05|0.2419
90819667|NCT00422383|181518330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7127|TWO_SIDED|||||Stratified by region, prior biologic use, RF status and treatment.|ANOVA|||||||0.7127
90819668|NCT00422383|181518330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1018|TWO_SIDED|||||Stratified by region, prior biologic use, RF status and treatment.|ANOVA|||||||0.1018
90819669|NCT00422383|181518331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5029|TWO_SIDED|||||Stratified by region, prior biologic use, RF status, and treatment.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.5029
90819670|NCT00422383|181518331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0495|TWO_SIDED|||||Stratified by region, prior biologic use, RF status, and treatment.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0495
91059447|NCT01595386|182000428|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|There was not a power calculation for this statistic|||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||interleukin-6 at 12, 24, and 48 hour. A p-value of \<0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
91059448|NCT01595386|182000428|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|There was not a power calculation for this statistic|||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||TNF-alpha at 12, 24, and 48 hours.A p-value of \<0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
90819671|NCT00238238|181518369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.29
90819672|NCT00238238|181518370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.002
90819673|NCT01007838|181518371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3||95.0||||Statistical significance was accepted if p \< 0.05.|ANCOVA|||Omnibus ANCOVA. An interaction would suggests patients responded to exercise differently than controls||||0.30
90819674|NCT01007838|181518371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0017||95.0||||Statistical significance was accepted if p \< 0.05.|ANOVA|||Follow up ANOVA in chronic kideny disease patients only. An interaction would suggest patients allocated to the resistance exercise group increased muscle size more than those allocated to the sham exercise group.||||0.0017
90819675|NCT01007838|181518371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024||95.0||||Statistical sigficance was accepted if p \< 0.05.|ANOVA|||Follow up ANOVA in healthy controls only. An interaction would suggest healthy controls allocated to the resistance exercise group increased muscle size more than those allocated to the sham exercise group.||||0.024
90819676|NCT04978818|181518373|NON_INFERIORITY|The anti-PRP IgG GMC for children receiving dose 1 of Vaxelis® was defined a priori as non-inferior if it was within a 1.5-fold margin of the GMC for children receiving dose 1 of PedvaxHIB®, corresponding to the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the IgG GMC ratio (Vaxelis® to PedvaxHIB®) being greater than 0.67.|Ratio of Geometric Mean Concentration|1.03||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.41|||Constrained Longitudinal Analysis||The lower bound of the 95% confidence interval was greater than the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 0.67. Thus, Vaxelis® post-dose 1 anti-PRP IgG immunogenicity met the non-inferiority criterion compared to PedvaxHIB®.|||1.41|0.75|0.85
90819677|NCT04978818|181518374|OTHER|||||||0.39|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.39
90819678|NCT04978818|181518375|OTHER|||||||0.64|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.64
90819679|NCT04978818|181518376|OTHER|||||||0.87|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.87
90819680|NCT04978818|181518377|OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3
90819681|NCT04978818|181518378|OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.15
90819682|NCT04978818|181518379|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.03
90819683|NCT01345669|181518385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.126||||0.4806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.809|1.569|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio (Afatinib vs. Placebo) from Cox proportional hazards model stratified by baseline ECOG (0 or 1) and nodal status (N0-N2a or N2b-N3).|DFS was analysed using a stratified log-rank test with nodal status (N0- N2a vs. N2b-N3) and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (0 vs. 1) being the stratification factors.||1.569|0.809|0.4806
90819684|NCT01345669|181518386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Kaplan-Meier estimates|-6.27||||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.04|2.5|||Log Rank||Difference in Kaplan-Meier estimates of Afatinib vs. Placebo is provided.|Kaplan-Meier (KM) curves were calculated for each treatment group, separately, and the estimates of DFS probabilities from the curves and 95% Confidence interval (CI) (using the Greenwood standard error estimate) were tabulated||2.50|-15.04|0.1610
91059449|NCT01595386|182000428|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|There was not a power calculation for this statistic|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Interleukin1-beta at 24 and 48 hours.A p-value of \<0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91059450|NCT01595386|182000428|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|There was not a power calculation for this statistic|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Interleukin-8 at 24 and 48 hours.A p-value of \<0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91059451|NCT01595386|182000428|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|There was not a power calculation for this statistic||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||IL-10 at 4 hours.A p-value of \<0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
90819685|NCT01345669|181518387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.444||||0.1301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.895|2.332||p-value (two-sided) from log-rank test stratified by baseline ECOG (0 or 1) and nodal status (N0-N2a or N2b-N3).|Log Rank|||Hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazards model stratified by baseline ECOG (0 or 1) and nodal status (N0-N2a or N2b-N3).||2.332|0.895|0.1301
90819686|NCT01345669|181518388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.431||||0.0561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.991|2.068|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio and p-value from logistic regression analysis of 'improved vs. not improved' stratified by baseline ECOG (0 or 1) and nodal status (N0-N2a or N2b-N3) for Swallowing (Q5-Q8 from QLQ-HN35).||2.068|0.991|0.0561
90819687|NCT01345669|181518388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.446||||0.0523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.996|2.098|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio and p-value from logistic regression analysis of 'improved vs. not improved' stratified by baseline ECOG (0 or 1) and nodal status (N0-N2a or N2b-N3) for Pain HN35 (Q1-Q4 from QLQ-HN35).||2.098|0.996|0.0523
90819688|NCT01345669|181518388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.818||||0.257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.577|1.158|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio and p-value from logistic regression analysis of 'improved vs. not improved' stratified by baseline ECOG (0 or 1) and nodal status (N0-N2a or N2b-N3) for Global health status/QoL(Q29-Q30 from QLQ-C30).||1.158|0.577|0.2570
90819689|NCT01345669|181518389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.295||||0.0591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.986|1.7||P-value from log-rank test stratified by baseline ECOG (0 or 1) and nodal status (N0-N2a or N2b-N3).|Log Rank|||For swallowing scale; Hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazard model stratified by baseline ECOG (0 or 1) and nodal status (N0-N2a or N2b-N3).||1.700|0.986|0.0591
90819690|NCT01345669|181518389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.456||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.113|1.905||P-value from log-rank test stratified by baseline ECOG (0 or 1) and nodal status (N0-N2a or N2b-N3).|Log Rank|||For pain HN35 scale; Hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazard model stratified by baseline ECOG (0 or 1) and nodal status (N0-N2a or N2b-N3).||1.905|1.113|0.0049
90819691|NCT01345669|181518389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.604||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.238|2.079||P-value from log-rank test stratified by baseline ECOG (0 or 1) and nodal status (N0-N2a or N2b-N3).|Log Rank|||For global health status/QoL scale; Hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazard model stratified by baseline ECOG (0 or 1) and nodal status (N0-N2a or N2b-N3).||2.079|1.238|0.0002
90819692|NCT01345669|181518390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08||0.2232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|3.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom calculated using the Kenward-Roger method.|Afatinib minus Placebo mean adjusted for total with data for baseline ECOG (0 or 1) and nodal status (N0-N2a or N2b-N3).|Scores (swallowing scale) over time were assessed using longitudinal mixed-effects growth curve models with the average profile over time for each endpoint described by a piecewise linear model adjusted for the fixed effects baseline ECOG performance score and nodal status.||3.45|-0.81|0.2232
90819693|NCT01345669|181518390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|5.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom calculated using the Kenward-Roger method.|Afatinib minus Placebo mean adjusted for total with data for baseline ECOG (0 or 1) and nodal status (N0-N2a or N2b-N3).|Scores (pain scale) over time were assessed using longitudinal mixed-effects growth curve models with the average profile over time for each endpoint described by a piecewise linear model adjusted for the fixed effects baseline ECOG performance score and nodal status.||5.36|1.12|0.0028
90819694|NCT01345669|181518390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.33|-1.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom calculated using the Kenward-Roger method.|Afatinib minus Placebo mean adjusted for total with data for baseline ECOG (0 or 1) and nodal status (N0-N2a or N2b-N3).|Scores (global health/QoL) over time were assessed using longitudinal mixed-effects growth curve models with the average profile over time for each endpoint described by a piecewise linear model adjusted for the fixed effects baseline ECOG performance score and nodal status.||-1.49|-5.33|0.0005
90819695|NCT01793883|181518391|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.251|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.251
90819696|NCT01793883|181518391|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.818|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.818
91059452|NCT01595386|182000429|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation.|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91059453|NCT01595386|182000430|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation.||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.04
91059454|NCT01595386|182000431|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation.||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
90819697|NCT02611817|181518410|SUPERIORITY||Clopper-Pearson method|13.7||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|23.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by electronic data capture (EDC) stratum according to concomitant use of corticosteroids, clinical remission status at Week 6, and previous TNF-alpha antagonist failure/exposed or concomitant immunomodulator use.||23.7|3.8|0.008
90819698|NCT02611817|181518411|SUPERIORITY||Clopper-Pearson method|7.3||||0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|17.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated by CMH test stratified by EDC stratum according to concomitant use of corticosteroids, clinical remission status at Week 6, and previous TNF-alpha antagonist failure/exposed or concomitant immunomodulator use.||17.5|-3.0|0.167
90819699|NCT02611817|181518412|SUPERIORITY||Clopper-Pearson method|27.1||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.9|42.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated by CMH test stratified by EDC stratum according to concomitant use of corticosteroids, clinical remission status at Week 6, and previous TNF-alpha antagonist failure/exposed or concomitant immunomodulator use.||42.3|11.9|0.002
91059455|NCT01595386|182000432|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation.||||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7
91059456|NCT01595386|182000433|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation.||||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.76
91059457|NCT01595386|182000434|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation.||||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.23
91059458|NCT01595386|182000435|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation.|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
91059459|NCT01595386|182000435|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|There was not a power calculation for this statistic|||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||post-operative cortisol.A p-value of \<0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91059460|NCT01595386|182000435|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|There was not a power calculation for this statistic||||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Adrenal Insufficiency after bypass.A p-value of \<0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.004
91059461|NCT01595386|182000435|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|There was not a power calculation for this statistic||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Development of Low cardiac output syndrome in subjects with Adrenal Insufficiency.A p-value of \<0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.02
91059462|NCT02682927|182000475|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference from Placebo|62.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.72|72.8|||||Estimate was obtained from the LSMeans on the log scale as follows: 100 x \[1 - exp(LS mean active - LS mean placebo).|||72.80|47.72|
91059463|NCT02682927|182000475|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference from Placebo|64.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.85|74.19|||||Estimate was obtained from the LSMeans on the log scale as follows: 100 x \[1 - exp(LS mean active - LS mean placebo).|||74.19|51.85|
91059464|NCT02682927|182000476|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference from Placebo|32.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.19|51.33|||||Estimate was obtained from the LSMeans on the log scale as follows: 100 x \[1 - exp(LS mean active - LS mean placebo).|||51.33|6.19|
91059465|NCT02682927|182000476|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference from Placebo|49.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.31|63.43|||||Estimate was obtained from the LSMeans on the log scale as follows: 100 x \[1 - exp(LS mean active - LS mean placebo).|||63.43|31.31|
91059466|NCT02682927|182000478|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.773||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.475|15.45|||Regression, Logistic|||||15.450|1.475|0.009
91059467|NCT02682927|182000478|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.484|49.915|||Regression, Logistic|||||49.915|4.484|<0.001
91059468|NCT02682927|182000478|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.4||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.6|49.8|||Regression, Logistic|||||49.8|3.6|0.0001
91059469|NCT02682927|182000478|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|53.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.9|220.5|||Regression, Logistic|||||220.5|12.9|<0.0001
91059470|NCT02682927|182000481|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.035
91059471|NCT02682927|182000481|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||<0.001
91059472|NCT02682927|182000481|SUPERIORITY||Comparing active with placebo|||||0.0002|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.0002
91059473|NCT02682927|182000481|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||<0.0001
91059474|NCT03462459|182000500|EQUIVALENCE|Proportional tests (Chi-squared) compared the episodes of C. difficile. Log-rank tests (Kaplan-Meier) were conducted to compare the non-recurrence proportions within the eight-week period. Multivariate Cox proportional hazard regression determined if treatment, age, and number of previous C. difficile episodes were predictors of recurrence.|See comments|-0.11||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.1|8.0|||Chi-squared||Proportional tests compared episodes of C. difficile recurrence in eight weeks (vancomycin vs. placebo) using Chi-squared test. Log-rank tests compared the non-recurrence proportions within 8 weeks with the Kaplan-Meier method.||"Statistical analyses are primarily reported for the population who were randomized in the study (as randomized). The secondary statistical analyses are reported for the population who completed all three visits (as completed treatment). Proportional tests were conducted to compare the episodes of C. difficile recurrence in eight weeks following the completion of the study intervention in patients receiving vancomycin versus placebo using the Chi-squared test. Log-rank tests were conducted to compare the non-recurrence proportions within the eight-week period in patients receiving vancomycin versus placebo with the Kaplan-Meier method. A nonparametric Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to compare distributions of the number of days to the first recurrence of CDI after starting oral vancomycin or placebo. The significance level was set to be ≤0.05. All statistical analyses were conducted in R statistical software (version 4.4.0; R Core Team, 2024)"|8.0|-35.1|0.22
91059475|NCT03462459|182000502|EQUIVALENCE|Proportional difference tests comparing the proportion of patients with VRE colonization at Visit 3, compared to baseline. Significance level was set to 0.10.||||||0.1|||||||Proportional difference test|||||||0.10
91059476|NCT03975491|182000520|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|20.9||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|76.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||From a model that included the baseline value of the dependent variable and sex (randomization stratification factor) as covariates.|||76.2|-17.1|0.32
91059477|NCT03975491|182000521|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|11.4||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|34.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||From a model that included the baseline value of the dependent variable and sex (randomization stratification factor) as covariates.|||34.0|-7.5|0.25
91059478|NCT03975491|182000522|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.6||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|7.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||From a model that included the baseline value of the dependent variable and sex (randomization stratification factor) as covariates.|||7.7|-13.7|0.52
91059479|NCT03975491|182000523|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.59||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|1.51|||Mixed Models Analysis||From a model that included the baseline value of the dependent variable and sex (randomization stratification factor) as covariates.|||1.51|-0.33|0.21
91059480|NCT03975491|182000525|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0005||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0024|0.0034|||Mixed Models Analysis||From a model that included the baseline value of the dependent variable and sex (randomization stratification factor) as covariates.|||0.0034|-0.0024|0.73
91059481|NCT03922529|182000535|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.543|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline value of the outcome as a covariate using linear mixed models and multiple imputation for missing data.|The adjusted difference from a model may not necessarily match the raw difference between groups.|||||0.5430
91059482|NCT03922529|182000536|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.7625|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline value of the outcome as a covariate using linear mixed models and multiple imputation for missing data.|The adjusted difference from a model may not necessarily match the raw difference between groups.|||||0.7625
91059483|NCT03922529|182000537|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.8842|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline value of the outcome as a covariate using linear mixed models and multiple imputation for missing data.|The adjusted difference from a model may not necessarily match the raw difference between groups.|||||0.8842
91059484|NCT03922529|182000538|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.4086|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline value of the outcome as a covariate using linear mixed models and multiple imputation for missing data.|The adjusted difference from a model may not necessarily match the raw difference between groups.|||||0.4086
91059485|NCT03922529|182000539|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.3841|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline value of the outcome as a covariate using linear mixed models and multiple imputation for missing data.|The adjusted difference from a model may not necessarily match the raw difference between groups.|||||0.3841
91059486|NCT03922529|182000540|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.1393|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline value of the outcome as a covariate using linear mixed models and multiple imputation for missing data.|||The adjusted difference from a model may not necessarily match the raw difference between groups.|||0.1393
91059487|NCT03922529|182000541|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.3||0.9257|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline value of the outcome as a covariate using linear mixed models and multiple imputation for missing data.|The adjusted difference from a model may not necessarily match the raw difference between groups.|||||0.9257
91059488|NCT03922529|182000542|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.8||0.6588|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline value of the outcome as a covariate using linear mixed models and multiple imputation for missing data.|The adjusted difference from a model may not necessarily match the raw difference between groups.|||||0.6588
91059489|NCT03922529|182000543|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.0||0.992|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline value of the outcome as a covariate using linear mixed models and multiple imputation for missing data.|The adjusted difference from a model may not necessarily match the raw difference between groups.|||||0.9920
91059490|NCT03922529|182000544|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.9504|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline value of the outcome as a covariate using linear mixed models and multiple imputation for missing data.|The adjusted difference from a model may not necessarily match the raw difference between groups.|||||0.9504
91059491|NCT03922529|182000545|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.6228|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline value of the outcome as a covariate using linear mixed models and multiple imputation for missing data.|The adjusted difference from a model may not necessarily match the raw difference between groups.|||||0.6228
91059492|NCT03922529|182000546|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.7966|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline value of the outcome as a covariate using linear mixed models and multiple imputation for missing data.|The adjusted difference from a model may not necessarily match the raw difference between groups.|||||0.7966
91059493|NCT03922529|182000547|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.5071|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline value of the outcome as a covariate using linear mixed models and multiple imputation for missing data.|The adjusted difference from a model may not necessarily match the raw difference between groups.|||||0.5071
91059494|NCT03922529|182000548|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.5553|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline value of the outcome as a covariate using linear mixed models and multiple imputation for missing data.|The adjusted difference from a model may not necessarily match the raw difference between groups.|||||0.5553
91059495|NCT03922529|182000549|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.1194|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline value of the outcome as a covariate using linear mixed models and multiple imputation for missing data.|The adjusted difference from a model may not necessarily match the raw difference between groups.|||||0.1194
91059496|NCT03922529|182000550|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.9012|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline value of the outcome as a covariate using linear mixed models and multiple imputation for missing data.|The adjusted difference from a model may not necessarily match the raw difference between groups.|||||0.9012
91059497|NCT03922529|182000551|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.4279|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline value of the outcome as a covariate using linear mixed models and multiple imputation for missing data.|The adjusted difference from a model may not necessarily match the raw difference between groups.|||||0.4279
91059498|NCT03922529|182000552|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.1932|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline value of the outcome as a covariate using linear mixed models and multiple imputation for missing data.|The adjusted difference from a model may not necessarily match the raw difference between groups.|||||0.1932
91059499|NCT03922529|182000553|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.2723|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline value of the outcome as a covariate using linear mixed models and multiple imputation for missing data.|The adjusted difference from a model may not necessarily match the raw difference between groups.|||||0.2723
91059500|NCT03922529|182000554|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.8951|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline value of the outcome as a covariate using linear mixed models and multiple imputation for missing data.|The adjusted difference from a model may not necessarily match the raw difference between groups.|||||0.8951
91059501|NCT03922529|182000555|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.2574|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline value of the outcome as a covariate using linear mixed models and multiple imputation for missing data.|The adjusted difference from a model may not necessarily match the raw difference between groups.|||||0.2574
91059502|NCT03922529|182000556|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.8307|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline value of the outcome as a covariate using linear mixed models and multiple imputation for missing data.|The adjusted difference from a model may not necessarily match the raw difference between groups.|||||0.8307
91059503|NCT03922529|182000557|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.614|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline value of the outcome as a covariate using linear mixed models and multiple imputation for missing data.|The adjusted difference from a model may not necessarily match the raw difference between groups.|||||0.6140
91059504|NCT03922529|182000558|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.7327|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline value of the outcome as a covariate using linear mixed models and multiple imputation for missing data.|The adjusted difference from a model may not necessarily match the raw difference between groups.|||||0.7327
91059505|NCT03922529|182000559|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7651|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum|||||||0.7651
91059506|NCT03922529|182000560|SUPERIORITY||Incident Rate Ratio|1.15||||0.3974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.59|||Negative binomial regression models|||||1.59|0.83|0.3974
91059507|NCT03922529|182000561|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.2727|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline value of the outcome as a covariate using linear mixed models and multiple imputation for missing data.|The adjusted difference from a model may not necessarily match the raw difference between groups.|||||0.2727
91059508|NCT03922529|182000562|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.4269|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline value of the outcome as a covariate using linear mixed models and multiple imputation for missing data.|The adjusted difference from a model may not necessarily match the raw difference between groups.|||||0.4269
91059509|NCT03922529|182000563|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.4354|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline value of the outcome as a covariate using linear mixed models and multiple imputation for missing data.|The adjusted difference from a model may not necessarily match the raw difference between groups.|||||0.4354
91059510|NCT03922529|182000564|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.8695|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline value of the outcome as a covariate using linear mixed models and multiple imputation for missing data.|The adjusted difference from a model may not necessarily match the raw difference between groups.|||||0.8695
91059511|NCT03922529|182000565|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.7075|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline value of the outcome as a covariate using linear mixed models and multiple imputation for missing data.|The adjusted difference from a model may not necessarily match the raw difference between groups.|||||0.7075
91059512|NCT03922529|182000566|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.8936|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline value of the outcome as a covariate using linear mixed models and multiple imputation for missing data.|The adjusted difference from a model may not necessarily match the raw difference between groups.|||||0.8936
91059513|NCT03922529|182000567|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2794|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2794
91059514|NCT03922529|182000568|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6177|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.6177
91059515|NCT03922529|182000569|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.144|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1440
91059516|NCT03922529|182000570|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1122|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1122
91059517|NCT03922529|182000571|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.9653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.62|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.62|0.63|0.9653
91059518|NCT02731638|182000572|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.82||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|5.23|||Regression, Logistic|Bias-corrected logistic regression, accounting for baseline culture status||||5.23|0.65|0.26
91059519|NCT02731638|182000573|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient|1.6||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|4.4|||Regression, Linear||Positive coefficients of the logMAR value indicated worsened visual acuity|||4.4|-1.2|0.25
91059520|NCT02731638|182000573|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient|0.5||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|3.6|||Regression, Linear||Positive coefficients of the logMAR value indicate worsened visual acuity|||3.6|-2.6|0.75
91059521|NCT00447876|182000588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment difference|0.2|||=|0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.46|||Fisher Exact|||The responders rate at Week 6 was compared between treatment groups by a two-sided Fisher exact test.||0.46|-0.06|=0.182
91059522|NCT00447876|182000589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.222|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Gerbershagen's Global scores were compared at Week 18 using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel analysis of variance statistic with adjustment to the baseline score.||||=0.222
91059523|NCT00447876|182000591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-8.837|||=|0.423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.94|13.266|||ANCOVA|||SPID was compared between the two treatment groups using a fixed effect analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) taking into account the SPID value as dependent variable, the baseline pain intensity as co-variable, and the treatment group as explicative variable.||13.266|-30.940|=0.423
91059524|NCT00447876|182000593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-4.173|||=|0.682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.64|16.294|||ANCOVA|||SPID was compared between the two treatment groups using a fixed effect ANCOVA taking into account the SPID value as dependent variable, the baseline pain intensity as co-variable, and the treatment group as explicative variable.||16.294|-24.640|=0.682
91059525|NCT00447876|182000595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-8.066|||=|0.438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.91|12.779|||ANCOVA|||The sum of pain threshold difference (i.e. SPID expressed as AUC) was compared between the two treatment groups using a fixed effect ANCOVA taking into account the SPID AUC value as dependent variable, the baseline pain intensity as co-variable, and the treatment group as explicative variable.||12.779|-28.910|=0.438
91059526|NCT00447876|182000597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.594|||=|0.937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.575|15.762|||ANCOVA|||The sum of pressure threshold difference (i.e. SPID expressed as AUC) was compared between the two treatment groups using a fixed effect ANCOVA taking into account the SPID AUC value as dependent variable, the baseline pain intensity as co-variable, and the treatment group as explicative variable.||15.762|-14.575|=0.937
91059527|NCT00447876|182000598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.8|||=|0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|5.3||The difference (most affected side - control side) in ROM for the dorsal extension was analyzed using a fixed effect ANCOVA, using Week 18 results as the dependent variable and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||5.3|-6.8|=0.800
91059528|NCT00447876|182000599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.862|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dysport® vs placebo at Week 2. The variables for global assessment of pain assessed by the Investigator were described at each visit as ordinal qualitative variables and were compared between the two treatment groups by means of a non parametric Wilcoxon rank sum test.||||=0.862
91059529|NCT00447876|182000599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.317|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dysport® vs placebo at Week 6. The variables for global assessment of pain assessed by the Investigator were described at each visit as ordinal qualitative variables and were compared between the two treatment groups by means of a non parametric Wilcoxon rank sum test.||||=0.317
91059530|NCT00447876|182000599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.525|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dysport® vs placebo at Week 10. The variables for global assessment of pain assessed by the Investigator were described at each visit as ordinal qualitative variables and were compared between the two treatment groups by means of a non parametric Wilcoxon rank sum test.||||=0.525
91059531|NCT00447876|182000599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.931|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dysport® vs placebo at Week 14. The variables for global assessment of pain assessed by the Investigator were described at each visit as ordinal qualitative variables and were compared between the two treatment groups by means of a non parametric Wilcoxon rank sum test.||||=0.931
91059532|NCT00447876|182000599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.353|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dysport® vs placebo at Week 18. The variables for global assessment of pain assessed by the Investigator were described at each visit as ordinal qualitative variables and were compared between the two treatment groups by means of a non parametric Wilcoxon rank sum test.||||=0.353
91059533|NCT00447876|182000600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.882|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dysport® vs placebo at Week 2. The variables for global assessment of pain assessed by the patient were described at each visit as ordinal qualitative variables and were compared between the two treatment groups by means of a non parametric Wilcoxon rank sum test.||||=0.882
91059534|NCT00447876|182000600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.489|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dysport® vs placebo at Week 6. The variables for global assessment of pain assessed by the patient were described at each visit as ordinal qualitative variables and were compared between the two treatment groups by means of a non parametric Wilcoxon rank sum test.||||=0.489
91059535|NCT00447876|182000600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.66|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dysport® vs placebo at Week 10. The variables for global assessment of pain assessed by the patient were described at each visit as ordinal qualitative variables and were compared between the two treatment groups by means of a non parametric Wilcoxon rank sum test.||||=0.660
91059536|NCT00447876|182000600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.485|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dysport® vs placebo at Week 14. The variables for global assessment of pain assessed by the patient were described at each visit as ordinal qualitative variables and were compared between the two treatment groups by means of a non parametric Wilcoxon rank sum test.||||=0.485
91059537|NCT00447876|182000600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.392|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dysport® vs placebo at Week 18. The variables for global assessment of pain assessed by the patient were described at each visit as ordinal qualitative variables and were compared between the two treatment groups by means of a non parametric Wilcoxon rank sum test.||||=0.392
91059538|NCT02952586|182000610|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.21||||0.9199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.928|1.573||The treatment arms were compared using a stratified, 1-sided, log rank Test. The three stratification factors were tumor (T) stage (\< T4 vs T4), Nodal (N) stage (N0 /N1/N2a/N2b vs N2c/N3), Human papillomavirus (HPV) status (Positive vs Negative).|Log Rank|||||1.573|0.928|0.9199
91059539|NCT02952586|182000611|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.31||||0.9372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.927|1.849||The treatment arms were compared using a stratified, 1-sided, log rank Test. The three stratification factors were tumor (T) stage (\< T4 vs T4), Nodal (N) stage (N0 /N1/N2a/N2b vs N2c/N3), Human papillomavirus (HPV) status (Positive vs Negative).|Log Rank|||||1.849|0.927|0.9372
91059540|NCT02952586|182000613|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.25||||0.9316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.694||The treatment arms were compared using a stratified, 1-sided, log rank Test. The three stratification factors were tumor (T) stage (\< T4 vs T4), Nodal (N) stage (N0 /N1/N2a/N2b vs N2c/N3), Human papillomavirus (HPV) status (Positive vs Negative).|Log Rank|||||1.694|0.930|0.9316
91059541|NCT02952586|182000614|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.947||||0.6229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.663|1.352||The treatment arms were compared using a stratified, 1-sided, Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Test. The 3 stratification factors were tumor stage (\< T4 vs T4), Nodal stage (N0 /N1/N2a/N2b vs N2c/N3), HPV status (Positive vs Negative).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.352|0.663|0.6229
91059542|NCT02952586|182000615|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.21||||0.9061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.909|1.624||The treatment arms were compared using a stratified, 1-sided, log rank Test. The three stratification factors were tumor stage (\< T4 vs T4), Nodal stage (N0 /N1/N2a/N2b vs N2c/N3), HPV status (Positive vs Negative).|Log Rank|||||1.624|0.909|0.9061
91059543|NCT01931878|182000635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparison of mean RLS Scale scores between 21 incoA and 21 saline injections||||0.031
91059544|NCT01931878|182000636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0088|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0088
91059545|NCT01931878|182000637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0855|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0855
91059546|NCT00789035|182000663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.29||No formal testing so adjustment for multiple comparisons was not necessary.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, number of previous anti-diabetic medications and country.|Difference calculated as empa 5mg minus placebo|||-0.29|-0.74|<0.0001
91059547|NCT00789035|182000663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.35||No formal testing so adjustment for multiple comparisons was not necessary.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, number of previous anti-diabetic medications and country.|Difference calculated as empa 10mg minus placebo|||-0.35|-0.80|<0.0001
91059548|NCT00789035|182000663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.5||No formal testing so adjustment for multiple comparisons was not necessary.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, number of previous anti-diabetic medications and country.|Difference calculated as empa 25mg minus placebo|||-0.50|-0.94|<0.0001
91077834|NCT02913105|182041134|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.99||||0.664|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.02|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 42||1.02|0.97|0.6640
91059549|NCT00295061|182000837|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A total sample size of 20 subjects could demonstrate comparability of an AUC(0-7days) with 90% power up to a standard deviation of 0.288 of the difference in the log scale, expected mean treatment difference of 0 (= ratio of 1), a lower equivalence limit of -0.223 (= log 0.8), upper limit of 0.223 (= log 1.25) and a one-sided alpha of 0.05 (90% CI).|Geometric least square means ratio|1.03||||||90.0|0.97|1.09||||||To compare AUC 0-7 days between the two treatments (Alpha-1 MP vs. Prolastin),natural log-transformed AUC 0-7 days values were analyzed by analysis of variance (ANOVA).||1.09|0.97|
91059550|NCT00606632|182000845|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.023|||||||McNemar|||||||0.023
91059551|NCT00606632|182000845|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||McNemar|||||||<0.01
91059552|NCT00711880|182000849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.96||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|-0.32|||ANCOVA|||The change in Numerical Rating Scale Peripheral Neuropathic Pain scores was compared between treatment groups using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). The model included treatment and centre as factors and baseline Numerical Rating Scale Peripheral Neuropathic Pain score as a covariate.||-0.32|-1.59|0.004
91059553|NCT00711880|182000850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-8.03||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.83|-2.23|||ANCOVA|||The change in Neuropathic Pain Scale scores was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment and centre as factors and baseline Neuropathic Pain Scale score as a covariate.||-2.23|-13.83|0.007
91059554|NCT00711880|182000851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.43||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.19|||ANCOVA|||The change in sleep disturbance scores was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment and centre as factors and mean baseline sleep disturbance score as a covariate.||-0.19|-0.67|0.001
91059555|NCT00711880|182000852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-5.85||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.62|-2.09|||ANCOVA|||The change in total Pain Disability Index scores was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment and centre as factors and mean baseline total Pain Disability Index score as a covariate.||-2.09|-9.62|0.003
91059556|NCT00711880|182000853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.82||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||The change in Dynamic Allodynia Test score was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment and centre as factors and mean baseline Dynamic Allodynia Test score as a covariate.||-0.03|-1.60|0.042
91059557|NCT00711880|182000854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|12.73||||0.144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|29.85|||ANCOVA|||The change in Static Allodynia Test score was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment and centre as factors and mean baseline Static Allodynia Test score as a covariate.||29.85|-4.40|0.144
91059558|NCT00711880|182000855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.75||||0.483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.84|1.35|||ANCOVA|||The change in total General Health Questionnaire score was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment and centre as factors and mean baseline total General Health Questionnaire score as a covariate.||1.35|-2.84|0.483
90819700|NCT02611817|181518413|SUPERIORITY||Clopper-Pearson method|4.3||||0.591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|20.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated by CMH test stratified by EDC stratum according to concomitant use of corticosteroids, clinical remission status at Week 6, and previous TNF-alpha antagonist failure/exposed or concomitant immunomodulator use.||20.3|-11.6|0.591
91059559|NCT00711880|182000856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|0.02||||0.924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.5|||ANCOVA|||The change in selective reminding test score was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment and centre as factors and mean baseline selective reminding test score as a covariate.||0.50|-0.46|0.924
91059560|NCT00711880|182000857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|0.53||||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|1.38|||ANCOVA|||The change in 10/36 spatial recall test score was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment and centre as factors and mean baseline 10/36 spatial recall test score as a covariate.||1.38|-0.31|0.214
91059561|NCT00711880|182000858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-2.15||||0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.15|0.85|||ANCOVA|||The change in symbol digit modalities test score was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment and centre as factors and mean baseline symbol digit modalities test score as a covariate.||0.85|-5.15|0.158
91059562|NCT00711880|182000859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|1.28||||0.656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.47|7.04|||ANCOVA|||The change in paced auditory serial addition task score was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment and centre as factors and mean baseline paced auditory serial addition task test score as a covariate.||7.04|-4.47|0.656
91059563|NCT00711880|182000860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.08||||0.962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.56|3.39|||ANCOVA|||The change in word list generation test score was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment and centre as factors and mean baseline word list generation test score as a covariate.||3.39|-3.56|0.962
91059564|NCT00711880|182000861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|32.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.4|48.12|||Fisher Exact|||The proportion of subjects who considered their condition 'Very Much Improved', 'Much Improved' or 'Minimally Improved' was compared between treatment groups for each question, using Fisher's Exact Test.||48.12|16.40|<0.001
91059565|NCT00711880|182000863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|29.03||||0.001||95.0|13.39|44.67|||Fisher Exact|||The proportion of subjects who considered their condition 'Very Much Improved', 'Much Improved' or 'Minimally Improved' was compared between treatment groups for each question, using Fisher's Exact Test.||44.67|13.39|0.001
90819701|NCT03738618|181518426|OTHER||Treatment difference|43.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.5|47.6|||Fisher Exact||95% exact Agresti-Min confidence intervals.|||47.6|36.5|<0.001
91059566|NCT03633825|182000870|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.23|||=|0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.46|||Chi-squared|||||1.46|1.03|=.02
91059567|NCT03633825|182000871|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.2|||=|0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.59|||Chi-squared|||||1.59|0.91|=.19
91079201|NCT03240406|182044060|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-15.74||||0.493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.66|29.19||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|ANCOVA|MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|||29.19|-60.66|0.493
91059568|NCT04841577|182000872|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the group GMT ratio \[Control group divided by Co Ad group\] for RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine is ≤ (equal to or smaller than) 1.5.|Adjusted group GMT ratio|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.44||||||Adjusted ratios of Control group over Co-Ad Group in RSV-A Neutralizing antibody GMTs at one month after RSV\_PreF3 OA investigational vaccination. An Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model was used to analyse post-vaccination log-transformed titers of RSV-A neutralizing antibodies The ANCOVA model included the treatment group, the age category (age at vaccination: 60-69, 70-79 or \>=80 years), country and sex as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.||1.44|1.12|
91059569|NCT04841577|182000873|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the group GMT ratio \[Control group divided by Co Ad group\] for each of the FLU vaccine strains is ≤1.5.|Adjusted geometric mean titer ratio|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.35||||||For the Flu A/Hong Kong/2671/2019 (H3N2) strain, an ANCOVA model was used to analyze post-vaccination log-transformed titers. The ANCOVA model included the treatment group, the age category (age at vaccination: 60-69, 70-79 or \>=80 years), country and sex as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 transformed titer as covariate.||1.35|1.02|
91059570|NCT04841577|182000873|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the group GMT ratio \[Control group divided by Co Ad group\] for each of the FLU vaccine strains is ≤1.5.|Adjusted geometric mean Titer ratio|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.44||||||For the Flu A/Victoria/2570/2019 (H1N1) strain, an ANCOVA model was used to analyze post-vaccination log-transformed titers. The ANCOVA model included the treatment group, the age category (age at vaccination: 60-69, 70-79 or \>=80 years), country and sex as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 transformed titer as covariate.||1.44|1.03|
91059571|NCT04841577|182000873|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the group GMT ratio \[Control group divided by Co Ad group\] for each of the FLU vaccine strains is ≤1.5.|Adjusted geometric mean Titer ratio|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.32||||||For the Flu B/Phuket/3073/2013 (Yamagata) strain, an ANCOVA model was used to analyze post-vaccination log-transformed titers. The ANCOVA model included the treatment group, the age category (age at vaccination: 60-69, 70-79 or \>=80 years), country and sex as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 transformed titer as covariate.||1.32|1.04|
91059572|NCT04841577|182000873|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the group GMT ratio \[Control group divided by Co Ad group\] for each of the FLU vaccine strains is ≤1.5.|Adjusted geometric mean Titer ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.26||||||For the Flu B/Washington/02/2019 (Victoria) strain, an ANOVA model was used to analyze post-vaccination log-transformed titers. The ANCOVA model included the treatment group, the age category (age at vaccination: 60-69, 70-79 or \>=80 years), country and sex as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 transformed titer as covariate.||1.26|0.95|
91059573|NCT04841577|182000874|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI on the group difference (Control group minus Co-Ad group) in seroconversion rate is ≤10% for HI antibody titers.|Difference in percentage|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.13|9.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||For the Flu A/Hong Kong/2671/2019 (H3N2) strain, the 2-sided 95% CI on group difference in seroconversion rate (Control group minus Co-Ad group).||9.30|-4.13|
91059574|NCT04841577|182000874|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI on the group difference (Control group minus Co-Ad group) in seroconversion rate is ≤10% for HI antibody titers.|Difference in percentage|4.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|9.83|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||For the Flu A/Victoria/2570/2019 (H1N1) strain, the 2-sided 95% CI on group difference in seroconversion rate (Control group minus Co-Ad group).||9.83|-0.77|
91059575|NCT04841577|182000874|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI on the group difference (Control group minus Co-Ad group) in seroconversion rate is ≤10% for HI antibody titers.|Difference in percentage|4.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|10.28|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||For the Flu B/Phuket/3073/2013 (Yamagata) strain, the 2-sided 95% CI on group difference in seroconversion rate (Control group minus Co-Ad group).||10.28|-2.21|
91059576|NCT04841577|182000874|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI on the group difference (Control group minus Co-Ad group) in seroconversion rate is ≤10% for HI antibody titers.|Difference in percentage|0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.07|6.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||For the Flu B/Washington/02/2019 (Victoria) strain, the 2-sided 95% CI on group difference in seroconversion rate (Control group minus Co-Ad group).||6.90|-6.07|
91059577|NCT04841577|182000876|OTHER||Adjusted group GMT ratio|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.51||||||Adjusted ratios of Control group over Co-Ad Group in RSV-B Neutralizing antibody GMTs at one month after RSV\_PreF3 OA investigational vaccination. An Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model was used to analyse post-vaccination log-transformed titers of RSV-B neutralizing antibodies. The ANCOVA model included the treatment group, the age category (age at vaccination: 60-69, 70-79 or \>=80 years), country and sex as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.||1.51|1.09|
91059578|NCT05246670|182000887|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|5.74||||||||5.74|-1.33|
91059579|NCT05246670|182000887|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.23|5.41||||||||5.41|-5.23|
91059580|NCT05246670|182000887|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.87|7.09||||||||7.09|-2.87|
91059581|NCT05124691|182000928|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||pairwise comparisons of cure rates within the three study groups, considering an overall significance level of 0.05. To account for multiple testing, a Bonferroni correction was applied, resulting in an adjusted significance level of 0.0167||||<0.0001
91059582|NCT05124691|182000928|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Pairwise comparisons of cure rates within the three study groups, considering an overall significance level of 0.05. To account for multiple testing, a Bonferroni correction was applied, resulting in an adjusted significance level of 0.0167||||<0.0001
91059583|NCT05124691|182000928|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Pairwise comparisons of cure rates within the three study groups, considering an overall significance level of 0.05. To account for multiple testing, a Bonferroni correction was applied, resulting in an adjusted significance level of 0.0167||||<0.0001
90819702|NCT03738618|181518427|OTHER||Treatment difference|22.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.9|25.7|||Fisher Exact||95% exact Agresti-Min confidence intervals.|Ongoing Pregnancy Rate in the Fresh Cycle||25.7|14.9|<0.001
90819703|NCT03738618|181518431|OTHER||Treatment difference|26.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.8|30.8|||Fisher Exact||95% exact Agresti-Min confidence intervals.|Clinical pregnancy rate in the fresh cycle||30.8|19.8|<0.001
90819704|NCT03738618|181518431|OTHER||Treatment difference|52.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.9|56.3|||Fisher Exact||95% exact Agresti-Min confidence intervals.|Clinical pregnancy rate cumulatively||56.3|44.9|<0.001
90819705|NCT03738618|181518432|OTHER||Treatment difference|23.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.7|27.2|||Fisher Exact||95% exact Agresti-Min confidence intervals.|Vital pregnancy rate in the fresh cycle||27.2|16.7|<0.001
90819706|NCT03738618|181518432|OTHER||Treatment difference|45.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.5|49.9|||Fisher Exact||95% exact Agresti-Min confidence intervals.|Vital pregnancy rate cumulatively||49.9|38.5|<0.001
90819707|NCT03738618|181518434|OTHER||Treatment difference|32.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.9|36.2|||Fisher Exact||95% exact Agresti-Min confidence intervals.|Positive βhCG rate in the fresh cycle||36.2|24.9|<0.001
90819708|NCT03738618|181518434|OTHER||Treatment difference|58.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.9|63.0|||Fisher Exact||95% exact Agresti-Min confidence intervals.|Positive βhCG rate cumulatively||63.0|51.9|<0.001
90819709|NCT03738618|181518446|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||<0.001
90819710|NCT03738618|181518447|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||<0.001
90819711|NCT03738618|181518448|OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.190
90819712|NCT03738618|181518449|OTHER|||||||0.396|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.396
90819713|NCT00826618|181518495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0015|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Compare final visual acuity to baseline visual acuity||||0.0015
91059584|NCT05124691|182000931|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||Pairwise comparisons of cure rates were conducted between Albendazole and FDCx3, as well as FDCx1 and FDCx3, but not between Albendazole and FDCx1, since both contain the same dose regimen of the active drug. An overall significance level of 0.05 was considered, and to account for multiple testing, a Bonferroni correction was applied.||||<0.0001
90819714|NCT01959139|181518596|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.07|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|3.34|||Regression, Cox|||||3.34|1.28|<0.01
90819715|NCT01959139|181518597|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.74||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|2.66|||Regression, Cox|||||2.66|1.14|0.01
90819716|NCT01496469|181518611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|3.4||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a factor, and the baseline value and prior use of an ARB or an ACEi as covariates.|ANCOVA|||A total of 120 enrolled participants (60 participants per treatment group) was sufficient to achieve 80 percent (%) power to detect a difference of 6.0 mmHg between the placebo and febuxostat 80 mg treatment groups by a 2 sample t-test of the mean change from Baseline at Week 6 in 24-hour mean ambulatory SBP with a 2-sided significance level of 5%.||3.4|-3.9|0.882
90819717|NCT01496469|181518612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.6||||0.613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|3.2||Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor, and the baseline value and prior use of an ARB or an ACEi as covariates.||3.2|-1.9|0.613
91059585|NCT05124691|182000931|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0007|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Pairwise comparisons of cure rates were conducted between Albendazole and FDCx3, as well as FDCx1 and FDCx3, but not between Albendazole and FDCx1, since both contain the same dose regimen of the active drug. An overall significance level of 0.05 was considered, and to account for multiple testing, a Bonferroni correction was applied.||||=0.0007
90819718|NCT01496469|181518613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|-2.9||Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor, and the baseline value and prior use of an ARB or an ACEi as covariates.||-2.9|-3.9|<0.001
90819719|NCT01963845|181518617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.585|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.585
90819720|NCT01963845|181518618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7583|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of change in AST values from baseline to 24 weeks between the two groups.||||0.7583
90819721|NCT01963845|181518619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8569|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of change in ALT values from baseline to 24 weeks between the two groups.||||0.8569
90819722|NCT01963845|181518620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7984|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of change in LDL values from baseline to 24 weeks between the two groups.||||0.7984
90819723|NCT01963845|181518621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.556|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of change in HOMA-IR values from baseline to 24 weeks between the two groups.||||0.5560
90819724|NCT02219334|181518625|EQUIVALENCE|Historical data at the institution for similar patients had a mean length of stay(LOS) of 25.7 hours (standard deviation-\[SD\] =10.3) from 9/2012- 9/13 was observed for 134 patients admitted to the emergency department observation unit and treated with the standard of care (NeoSucker). Given a LOS-SD of 10.3 hours, 75 subjects per treatment group would provide 80% statistical power at the 5% significance level to demonstrate equivalence in the two treatments' length of stay within ±5 hours.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.49|STANDARD_DEVIATION|21.4|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.74|15.72|||two one-sided t-test (TOST)||Due to slower than anticipated patient recruitment, the target size of 75 participants per treatment group was not reached.|The primary hypothesis of length of stay equivalence within a margin of ± 5 hours was tested using the two one-sided t-test (TOST) procedure, with a 5% significance level.||15.72|-10.74|<0.05
90819725|NCT00118742|181518634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.9||||0.0012||95.0|14.8|35.0|||ANCOVA|||||35.0|14.8|0.0012
91059586|NCT05124691|182000934|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||< 0.001
91059587|NCT05124691|182000934|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90819726|NCT00118742|181518635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.6|||<|0.0001||95.0|15.7|35.6|||ANCOVA|||||35.6|15.7|<0.0001
90819727|NCT00118742|181518636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.7||||0.0053||95.0|13.7|43.7|||ANCOVA|||||43.7|13.7|0.0053
90819728|NCT00118742|181518637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|21.1|||<|0.0001||95.0|12.5|29.6|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis for calculated creatinine clearance at 6 months posttransplant||29.6|12.5|<0.0001
90819729|NCT00118742|181518637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.2|||<|0.0001||95.0|9.9|26.6|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis for calculated creatinine clearance at 12 months posttransplant||26.6|9.9|<0.0001
90819730|NCT00118742|181518637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.6||||0.0006||95.0|10.2|37.0|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis for calculated creatinine clearance at 24 months posttransplant||37.0|10.2|0.0006
91059588|NCT05124691|182000934|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91059589|NCT00428116|182000936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||WAZ-score comparison at 18 months||||0.15
91059590|NCT00428116|182000936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||HAZ score at 18 months||||0.45
91059591|NCT00428116|182000937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39|TWO_SIDED||||||log rank or Cox regression|incidence with Cox regression utilized Anderson-Gill method to handle recurrent events||SAEs||||0.39
91059592|NCT00428116|182000937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||Cox regression Anderson Gill|||Pneumonia||||0.60
91059593|NCT00428116|182000937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||Pneumonia||||0.60
91059594|NCT00428116|182000937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||Diarrhea||||0.77
91059595|NCT00428116|182000937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Death||||0.29
91059596|NCT01890434|182000942|SUPERIORITY||Sensitivity Difference|16.7||||9e-05|ONE_SIDED|95.0|9.3||||McNemar|McNemar one-sided test at alpha level of 5%||Sensitivity of gadobutrol-enhanced CMRI was compared with sensitivity of unenhanced CMRI evaluated by Reader 1.|||9.3|0.00009
91059597|NCT01890434|182000942|SUPERIORITY||Sensitivity Difference|26.0|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|18.2||||McNemar|McNemar one-sided test at alpha level of 5%||Sensitivity of gadobutrol-enhanced CMRI was compared with sensitivity of unenhanced CMRI evaluated by Reader 2.|||18.2|<0.0001
91059598|NCT01890434|182000942|SUPERIORITY||Sensitivity Difference|32.0|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|24.5||||McNemar|McNemar one-sided test at alpha level of 5%||Sensitivity of gadobutrol-enhanced CMRI was compared with sensitivity of unenhanced CMRI evaluated by Reader 3.|||24.5|<0.0001
91059599|NCT01890434|182000943|SUPERIORITY||Sensitivity Difference|21.0||||5e-05|ONE_SIDED|95.0|12.1||||McNemar|McNemar one-sided test at alpha level of 2.5%||Sensitivity of gadobutrol-enhanced CMRI was compared with sensitivity of unenhanced CMRI evaluated by Reader 1.|||12.1|0.00005
91059600|NCT01890434|182000943|SUPERIORITY||Sensitivity Difference|36.2|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|26.3||||McNemar|McNemar one-sided test at alpha level of 2.5%||Sensitivity of gadobutrol-enhanced CMRI was compared with sensitivity of unenhanced CMRI evaluated by Reader 2.|||26.3|<0.0001
91059601|NCT01890434|182000943|SUPERIORITY||Sensitivity Difference|41.0|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|31.8||||McNemar|McNemar one-sided test at alpha level of 2.5%||Sensitivity of gadobutrol-enhanced CMRI was compared with sensitivity of unenhanced CMRI evaluated by Reader 3.|||31.8|<0.0001
91059602|NCT01890434|182000948|SUPERIORITY||Sensitivity Difference|21.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.9|28.4|||McNemar|McNemar 2-sided test at alpha level of 5%||Sensitivity of gadobutrol-enhanced CMRI was compared with sensitivity of unenhanced CMRI.||28.4|12.9|<0.0001
91059603|NCT01890434|182000948|SUPERIORITY||Sensitivity Difference|21.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|14.2|27.2|||McNemar|McNemar 2-sided test at alpha level of 10%||||27.2|14.2|<0.0001
91059604|NCT01890434|182000950|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin was set as 15%|Sensitivity Difference|5.7||||0.2733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|14.9|||McNemar|McNemar 2-sided test at alpha level of 5%||Sensitivity of gadobutrol-enhanced CMRI was compared with sensitivity of GSPECT evaluated by majority BR.||14.9|-5.4|0.2733
91059605|NCT01890434|182000950|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin was set as 15%.|Sensitivity Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|7.2|||McNemar|McNemar 2-sided test at alpha level of 5%||Sensitivity of gadobutrol-enhanced CMRI was compared with sensitivity of GSPECT evaluated by investigator.||7.2|-8.6|1.0000
91059606|NCT01890434|182000952|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin was set as 15%.|Specificity Difference|11.1||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|17.0|||McNemar|McNemar 2-sided test at alpha level of 5%||Specificity of gadobutrol-enhanced CMRI was compared with specificity of GSPECT by majority BR.||17.0|4.1|0.0010
91059607|NCT01890434|182000952|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin was set as 15%.|Specificity Difference|7.8||||0.0094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|13.2|||McNemar|McNemar 2-sided test at alpha level of 5%||Specificity of gadobutrol-enhanced CMRI was compared with specificity of GSPECT by investigator.||13.2|1.6|0.0094
91059608|NCT01044264|182000965|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|BE of the test to reference in the per protocol population|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.47|113.54|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||113.54|92.47|
91059609|NCT02257385|182000968|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Alternate hypothesis:the difference between the trt means (umeclidinium/vilanterol minus indacaterol + tiotropium bromide) would be \> -50 milliliters (mL). If the lower CI (2.5% 1-sided significance level) of the statistical test should fall above -50 mL, then umeclidinium/vilanterol may be deemed statistically non-inferior to indacaterol plus tiotropium. If the lower CI (2.5% 1-sided significance) of the statistical testing exceeded 0 then, statistical superiority would have been established.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.001||||0.964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.029|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.030|-0.029|0.964
91059610|NCT02257385|182000969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.023||||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.054|0.008|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.008|-0.054|0.145
91059611|NCT00086281|182000996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0|||||ANOVA on ranks|||||||0.009
90819731|NCT02381015|181518638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.29|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.29
90819732|NCT02381015|181518639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.35|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.35
90819733|NCT02381015|181518640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.29|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.29
91059612|NCT00086281|182000996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0244||95.0||||Bonferroni adjusted P-Value|ANOVA on ranks|||||||0.0244
91059613|NCT00086281|182000996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0119||95.0||||Bonferroni adjusted P-Value|ANOVA on ranks|||||||0.0119
91059614|NCT00086281|182000996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5055||95.0||||Bonferroni adjusted P-Value|ANOVA on ranks|||||||0.5055
91059615|NCT00086281|182000996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3132||95.0||||Bonferroni adjusted P-Value|ANOVA on ranks|||||||0.3132
91059616|NCT02391987|182001001|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.73
91059617|NCT02391987|182001002|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.98
91059618|NCT02391987|182001003|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.37
91059619|NCT01004003|182001040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.437|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.805|2.565|||||"Hazard ratio (HR) from Cox proportional hazards model stratified by macroscopic vacular invasion, extrahepatic spread, or both present vs both absent.~HR below 1 favors Nintedanib."|||2.565|0.805|
91059620|NCT01004003|182001043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.351|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.779|2.343|||||"Hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazards model stratified by macroscopic vacular invasion, extrahepatic spread, or both present vs both absent.~HR below 1 favors Nintedanib."|||2.343|0.779|
91059621|NCT01004003|182001044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.877|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.522|1.473|||||"Hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazards model stratified by macroscopic vacular invasion, extrahepatic spread, or both present vs both absent.~HR below 1 favors Nintedanib."|||1.473|0.522|
91059622|NCT00351533|182001097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.37
91059623|NCT00351533|182001098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.04
91059624|NCT00351533|182001099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.16
91059625|NCT00351533|182001100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.79
91059626|NCT00351533|182001101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.34
91059627|NCT00351533|182001102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.26
91059628|NCT00351533|182001103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.06
91059629|NCT00351533|182001104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.89
91059630|NCT00351533|182001105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
91059631|NCT00351533|182001106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.27
90819734|NCT02381015|181518641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.49|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.49
91059632|NCT00351533|182001107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.20
91059633|NCT00351533|182001108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.11
91059634|NCT00351533|182001109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.56||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.56
90819735|NCT02381015|181518642|OTHER||Beta|93.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.55||0.42|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||The statistical analysis shows the relation between risk given and risk recall at the immediate post results assessment for the total number of participants.||||0.42
91059635|NCT00351533|182001110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.69
91059636|NCT00351533|182001111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.66
91059637|NCT00351533|182001112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.27
91059638|NCT00351533|182001113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.65
91059639|NCT00351533|182001114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.49
91059640|NCT00351533|182001115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.55
91059641|NCT00351533|182001116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.38
91059642|NCT00351533|182001117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.84
91059643|NCT00351533|182001118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.74
91059644|NCT00351533|182001119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.84
91059645|NCT00351533|182001120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.71
91059646|NCT00351533|182001121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.08
91059647|NCT00351533|182001122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.86
90819736|NCT02381015|181518643|OTHER||Beta|94.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.93||0.33|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.33
90819737|NCT00930553|181518672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage with SAD|22.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.33|27.06|||||The percentage and 95% CI of the participants with SAD are estimated by the Kaplan Meier method.|||27.06|18.33|
91059648|NCT00351533|182001123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.89
91059649|NCT00351533|182001124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.34
91059650|NCT00315731|182001132|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Comparability of AUC values after dosimetric dose of fission-derived 131I-tositumomab with historical data from tellurium-derived 131I-tositumomab|Ratio of AUC(0-120)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|1.12|||||Ratio of AUC(0-120) is the ratio of AUC(0-120) values following infusion of fission-derived 131I-tositumomab to those following infusion of tellurium-derived 131I-tositumomab.|||1.12|0.85|
91059651|NCT00315731|182001133|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Comparability of AUC values after dosimetric dose of fission-derived 131I-tositumomab with historical data from tellurium-derived 131I-tositumomab|Ratio of AUC(0-168)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|1.11|||||Ratio of AUC(0-168) is the ratio of AUC(0-168) values following infusion of fission-derived 131I-tositumomab to those following infusion of tellurium-derived 131I-tositumomab.|||1.11|0.83|
91059652|NCT00315731|182001134|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Comparability of AUC values after dosimetric dose of fission-derived 131I-tositumomab with historical data from tellurium-derived 131I-tositumomab|Ratio of AUC(0 to infinity)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.78|1.1||||||||1.10|0.78|
91059653|NCT00315731|182001135|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Comparability of AUC values after dosimetric dose of fission-derived 131I-tositumomab with historical data from tellurium-derived 131I-tositumomab|Ratio of Cmax|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|1.11||||||||1.11|0.87|
91059654|NCT04123561|182001153|SUPERIORITY|"The primary efficacy endpoint is defined as the change from Injection 1 Baseline in WOMAC Pain on a normalized scale of 0-4 at Week 12 between the randomized TLC599 12mg and Placebo groups.~The least-squares mean, alongside its corresponding 95% confidence interval, was used to estimate the treatment difference between TLC599 and Placebo, utilizing two-sided p-values."|Least Squares Mean Difference (LSMD)|-0.171|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0819||0.0372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.331|-0.01|||ANCOVA|Parameters estimated via REML using the Newton-Raphson algorithm, and the Kenward-Roger method calculates denominator degrees of freedom.||||-0.010|-0.331|0.0372
91059655|NCT02091466|182001166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance for repeated measures (ANCOVA), adjusted for baseline values, compared tympanic temperatures between the groups. Statistical significance was established at p \< 0.05, and the statistical analysis was performed using SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) software version 20.||||<0.05
91059656|NCT02454608|182001167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.01
91059657|NCT02454608|182001168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.001
90819738|NCT00930553|181518672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage with SAD|29.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.42|34.49|||||The percentage and 95% CI of the participants with SAD are estimated by the Kaplan Meier method.|||34.49|25.42|
90819739|NCT00930553|181518673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage with SAD|9.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.54|15.56|||||The percentage and 95% CI of the participants with SAD are estimated by the Kaplan Meier method.|||15.56|5.54|
90819740|NCT00930553|181518673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage with SAD|7.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.48|13.9|||||The percentage and 95% CI of the participants with SAD are estimated by the Kaplan Meier method.|||13.90|4.48|
90819741|NCT00930553|181518673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage with SAD|20.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.67|28.03|||||The percentage and 95% CI of the participants with SAD are estimated by the Kaplan Meier method.|||28.03|14.67|
90819742|NCT00930553|181518673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage with SAD|11.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.63|18.58|||||The percentage and 95% CI of the participants with SAD are estimated by the Kaplan Meier method.|||18.58|7.63|
90819743|NCT00930553|181518674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage with SRD|32.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.96|39.28|||||The percentage and 95% CI of the participants with SRD are estimated by the Kaplan Meier method.|||39.28|26.96|
90819744|NCT00930553|181518674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage with SRD|42.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.08|48.28|||||The percentage and 95% CI of the participants with SRD are estimated by the Kaplan Meier method.|||48.28|37.08|
90819745|NCT00930553|181518675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage with SRD|16.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.75|28.47|||||The percentage and 95% CI of the participants with SRD are estimated by the Kaplan Meier method.|||28.47|9.75|
90819746|NCT00930553|181518675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage with SRD|13.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.47|22.33|||||The percentage and 95% CI of the participants with SRD are estimated by the Kaplan Meier method.|||22.33|8.47|
90819747|NCT02967510|181518708|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|-1|=0.304
90819748|NCT02967510|181518708|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|-1|=0.109
90819749|NCT02967510|181518708|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|0|=0.119
90819750|NCT02967510|181518709|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.031|-0.444|||ANCOVA|||||-0.444|-1.031|<0.001
90819751|NCT02967510|181518709|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.051|-0.458|||ANCOVA|||||-0.458|-1.051|<0.001
90819752|NCT02967510|181518709|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.951|-0.369|||ANCOVA|||||-0.369|-0.951|<0.001
90819753|NCT02967510|181518710|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.147|0.278|||ANCOVA|||||0.278|0.147|<0.001
90819754|NCT02967510|181518710|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.078|0.213|||ANCOVA|||||0.213|0.078|<0.001
90819755|NCT02967510|181518710|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.097|0.226|||ANCOVA|||||0.226|0.097|<0.001
90819756|NCT02967510|181518711|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.603|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||||-0.4|-0.603|<0.001
90819757|NCT02967510|181518711|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.572|-0.365|||ANCOVA|||||-0.365|-0.572|<0.001
90819758|NCT02967510|181518711|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.531|-0.331|||ANCOVA|||||-0.331|-0.531|<0.001
90819759|NCT02967510|181518712|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|-1|=0.47
90819760|NCT02967510|181518712|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|0|-1|=0.448
90819761|NCT02967510|181518712|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|-1|=0.451
90819762|NCT02967510|181518713|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|0|=0.329
90819763|NCT02967510|181518713|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|0|=0.348
91059658|NCT02454608|182001169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.25
91059659|NCT02454608|182001170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
91059660|NCT02454608|182001171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6
91059661|NCT02454608|182001172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.78
91059662|NCT02454608|182001173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7
91059663|NCT02462291|182001184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.27||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|5.4|||ANOVA|||Baseline||5.4|-7.9|1
91059664|NCT02462291|182001184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.3|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.4|40.2|||ANOVA|||After the treatment||40.2|26.4|<0.01
91059665|NCT02462291|182001184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-31.5|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.2|-24.8|||ANOVA|||PRE Vs POST||-24.8|-38.2|<0.01
91059666|NCT02462291|182001184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.1||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|9.9|||ANOVA|||PRE Vs POST||9.9|-3.7|1
91059667|NCT02462291|182001185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.5|||ANOVA|||Baseline||0.5|-0.8|1
90819764|NCT02967510|181518713|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|0|=0.266
91059668|NCT02462291|182001185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.94|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-1.2|||ANOVA|||After the treatment||-1.2|-2.6|<0.01
91059669|NCT02462291|182001185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.94|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.61|||ANOVA|||PRE Vs POST||1.61|0.28|<0.01
91059670|NCT02462291|182001185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.84|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|-0.17|||ANOVA|||PRE Vs POST||-0.17|-1.52|<0.01
91059671|NCT02462291|182001186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.74|||=|0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|2.1|||ANOVA|||Baseline||2.1|-3.6|= 0.84
91059672|NCT02462291|182001186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.31|||=|0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|1.7|||ANOVA|||After the treatment||1.7|-4.3|= 0.9
91059673|NCT02462291|182001186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.14|2.69|||ANOVA|||PRE Vs POST||2.69|-3.14|0.88
91059674|NCT02462291|182001186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.78||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.73|2.16|||ANOVA|||PRE Vs POST||2.16|-3.73|0.89
91059675|NCT02462291|182001187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.37||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.48|2.73|||ANOVA|||Baseline||2.73|-5.48|0.9
91059676|NCT02462291|182001187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.62||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|6.9|||ANOVA|||After the treatment||6.90|-1.60|0.59
91059677|NCT02462291|182001187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.99||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.15|1.16|||ANOVA|||PRE Vs POST||1.16|-7.15|0.34
91059678|NCT02462291|182001187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.03||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.17|5.23|||ANOVA|||PRE Vs POST||5.23|-3.17|0.9
91059679|NCT02462291|182001188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.36||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|2.14|||ANOVA|||Baseline||2.14|-1.41|0.83
91059680|NCT02462291|182001188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.69|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|4.53|||ANOVA|||After the treatment||4.53|0.84|<0.01
91059681|NCT02462291|182001188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.14||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.94|-0.34|||ANOVA|||PRE Vs POST||-0.34|-3.94|0.010
91059682|NCT02462291|182001188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|2.0|||ANOVA|||PRE Vs POST||2.00|-1.64|0.84
91059683|NCT02462291|182001189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.39||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|2.95|||ANOVA|||Baseline||2.95|-0.16|0.11
91059684|NCT02462291|182001189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.79||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|2.41|||ANOVA|||After the treatment||2.41|-0.81|0.7
91059685|NCT02462291|182001189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|1.98|||ANOVA|||PRE Vs POST||1.98|-1.17|0.88
91059686|NCT02462291|182001189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|1.39|||ANOVA|||PRE Vs POST||1.39|-1.78|0.95
91059687|NCT02462291|182001190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.4|||ANOVA|||Baseline||0.40|-0.67|0.95
91059688|NCT02462291|182001190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.43||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.99|||ANOVA|||After the treatment||0.99|-0.12|0.23
91059689|NCT02462291|182001190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.44|||ANOVA|||PRE Vs POST||0.44|-0.65|0.96
91059690|NCT02462291|182001190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.46||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|1.01|||ANOVA|||PRE Vs POST||1.01|-0.08|0.15
91059691|NCT02462291|182001191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|1.27|||ANOVA|||Baseline||1.27|-1.14|0.84
91059692|NCT02462291|182001191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|1.54|||ANOVA|||After the treatment||1.54|-0.96|0.81
91059693|NCT02462291|182001191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|0.74|||ANOVA|||PRE Vs POST||0.74|-1.71|0.86
91059694|NCT02462291|182001191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|0.97|||ANOVA|||PRE Vs POST||0.97|-1.49|0.75
91059695|NCT02462291|182001192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.7||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.4|44.9|||ANOVA|||Baseline||44.9|-74.4|0.94
91059696|NCT02462291|182001192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.36||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.47|70.2|||ANOVA|||After the treatment||70.20|-53.47|0.87
91059697|NCT02462291|182001192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.7||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-90.19|30.78|||ANOVA|||PRE Vs POST||30.78|-90.19|0.78
91059698|NCT02462291|182001192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.6||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.7|54.5|||ANOVA|||PRE Vs POST||54.5|-67.7|0.84
91059699|NCT02462291|182001193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.73|4.56|||ANOVA|||Baseline||4.56|-3.73|0.74
91059700|NCT02462291|182001193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.25||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.54|3.04|||ANOVA|||After the treatment||3.04|-5.54|0.82
91059701|NCT02462291|182001193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.63||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.57|4.82|||ANOVA|||PRE Vs POST||4.82|-3.57|0.59
91059702|NCT02462291|182001193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.04||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.28|3.19|||ANOVA|||PRE Vs POST||3.19|-5.28|0.69
91059703|NCT02462291|182001194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|1.09|||ANOVA|||Baseline||1.09|-0.64|0.9
91059704|NCT02462291|182001194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.86|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.96|3.76|||ANOVA|||After the treatment||3.76|1.96|<0.01
91059705|NCT02462291|182001194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.92|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|-2.04|||ANOVA|||PRE Vs POST||-2.04|-3.80|<0.01
91059706|NCT02462291|182001194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|0.59|||ANOVA|||PRE Vs POST||0.59|-1.17|0.88
91059707|NCT02462291|182001195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.37|||ANOVA|||Baseline||0.37|-0.72|0.83
91059708|NCT02462291|182001195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.72||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.29|||ANOVA|||After the treatment||1.29|0.15|0.005
90819765|NCT02967510|181518714|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|0|=0.122
90819766|NCT02967510|181518714|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|0|=0.188
91059709|NCT02462291|182001195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.65||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|-0.09|||ANOVA|||PRE Vs POST||-0.09|-1.21|0.013
91059710|NCT02462291|182001195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.81|||ANOVA|||PRE Vs POST||0.81|-0.31|0.87
91059711|NCT02462291|182001196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-squared value|0.542|||=|0.91|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared||Power of performed test with alpha = 0.050: 0.082; 3 degrees of freedom|||||= 0.910
91059712|NCT02462291|182001197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-squared value|17.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared||Power of performed test with alpha = 0.050: 0.965; 3 degrees of freedom|||||<0.001
91059713|NCT02462291|182001198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-squared value|5.749||||0.124|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared||Power of performed test with alpha = 0.050: 0.488; 3 degrees of freedom|||||0.124
91059714|NCT02462291|182001199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-squared value|0.008||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared||Power of performed test with alpha = 0.050: 0.050; 3 degrees of freedom|||||1
91059715|NCT02462291|182001200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-squared value|1.049||||0.789|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared||Power of performed test with alpha = 0.050: 0.116; 3 degrees of freedom|||||0.789
91059716|NCT01549405|182001208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Mann-Whitney U test|||||||0.002
91059717|NCT01549405|182001209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|122.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|58.0||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.98|132.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||||132.4|52.98|0.000
91059718|NCT02111603|182001233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of on-treatment total fecal bile acid excretion with baseline total fecal bile acid excretion.||||0.012
91059719|NCT00976911|182001240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Response Rates|15.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|24.8||||||||24.8|6.5|
91059720|NCT00976911|182001240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's chi-square|unstratified analysis||||||0.0010
91059721|NCT00976911|182001240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|||||Stratified analysis: The strata were chemotherapy selected (paclitaxel, PLD, or topotecan), prior anti-angiogenic therapy (yes or no), and platinum-free interval (\<3 or 3-6 months).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0007
91059722|NCT00976911|182001241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.45||||0.0202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.225|0.9||Unstratified analysis|Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by unstratified Cox regression model.|||0.900|0.225|0.0202
91059723|NCT00976911|182001241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0081|TWO_SIDED||||||Peto-Peto-Prentice|||||||0.0081
91059724|NCT00976911|182001243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.379|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.296|0.485|||Log Rank||Stratified analysis:Strata were chemotherapy selected (paclitaxel, PLD, or topotecan), prior anti-angiogenic therapy (yes or no), and platinum-free interval (less than \[\<\] 3 or 3-6 months). Cox regression model was used to determine the hazard ratio.|||0.485|0.296|<0.0001
91059725|NCT00976911|182001243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.46|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.366|0.577|||Log Rank|Unstratified analysis||||0.577|0.366|<0.0001
91059726|NCT00976911|182001243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Peto-Peto-Prentice|Unstratified analysis||||||<0.0001
91059727|NCT00976911|182001243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Peto-Peto-Prentice|Stratified analysis:Strata were chemotherapy selected, prior anti-angiogenic therapy, and platinum-free interval.||||||<0.0001
91059728|NCT00976911|182001244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.833||||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.655|1.059||Unstratified analysis|Log Rank|||||1.059|0.655|0.1360
91059729|NCT00976911|182001244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0715|TWO_SIDED|||||Unstratified analysis|Peto-Peto-Prentice|||||||0.0715
91059730|NCT00976911|182001244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.2711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.678|1.116||Stratified analysis: The strata were chemotherapy selected (paclitaxel, PLD, or topotecan), prior anti-angiogenic therapy (yes or no), and platinum-free interval (\<3 or 3-6 months).|Log Rank|||||1.116|0.678|0.2711
91059731|NCT00976911|182001244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|||||Stratified analysis: The strata were chemotherapy selected (paclitaxel, PLD, or topotecan), prior anti-angiogenic therapy (yes or no), and platinum-free interval (\<3 or 3-6 months).|Peto-Peto-Prentice|||||||0.0890
91059732|NCT00976911|182001245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Response Rates|8.8||||0.1859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|21.4|||Fisher Exact||95% CI was approximated with Hauck-Anderson continuity correction.|Comparison of responders at baseline versus Week 8/9||21.4|-3.8|0.1859
90819767|NCT02967510|181518714|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|0|=0.222
90819768|NCT02967510|181518715|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|0|=0.393
90819769|NCT02967510|181518715|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|0|=0.221
90819770|NCT02967510|181518715|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|0|=0.432
90819771|NCT02967510|181518716|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.24|||=|0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.487|||ANCOVA|||||1.487|-1|=0.65
90819772|NCT02967510|181518716|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.24|||=|0.361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.568|1.09|||ANCOVA|||||1.09|-1.568|=0.361
90819773|NCT02967510|181518716|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.03|||=|0.522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.188|1.257|||ANCOVA|||||1.257|-1.188|=0.522
90819774|NCT02967510|181518717|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.56|||=|0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.204|0.079|||ANCOVA|||||0.079|-1.204|=0.043
90819775|NCT02967510|181518717|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.51|||=|0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.158|0.137|||ANCOVA|||||0.137|-1.158|=0.061
90819776|NCT02967510|181518717|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.48|||=|0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.111|0.16|||ANCOVA|||||0.16|-1.111|=0.071
90819777|NCT02967510|181518718|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|-1|=0.012
90819778|NCT02967510|181518718|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|-1|=0.007
90819779|NCT02967510|181518718|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|-1|<0.001
90819780|NCT02967510|181518719|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|0|=0.438
90819781|NCT02967510|181518719|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|0|=0.388
90819782|NCT02967510|181518719|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|0|=0.259
90819783|NCT02967510|181518720|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|-1|=0.022
90819784|NCT02967510|181518720|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|-1|=0.02
90819785|NCT02967510|181518720|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|-1|=0.003
91059733|NCT00976911|182001245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Response Rates|3.5||||0.8309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|20.9|||Fisher Exact||95% CI was approximated with Hauck-Anderson continuity correction.|Comparison of responders at baseline versus at Week 16/18||20.9|-14|0.8309
91059734|NCT00976911|182001245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Response Rates|9.3||||0.579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|34.1|||Fisher Exact||95% CI was approximated with Hauck-Anderson continuity correction.|Comparison of responders at baseline versus at Week 24||34.1|-15|0.5790
91059735|NCT00976911|182001245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Response Rates|-4.8||||0.7339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.0|30.6|||Fisher Exact||95% CI was approximated with Hauck-Anderson continuity correction.|Comparison of responders at baseline versus at Week 30||30.6|-40|0.7339
91059736|NCT00230178|182001279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rate %|21.0||||0.0009||95.0|8.6|32.7|||Wilson's method|||||32.7|8.6|0.0009
91059737|NCT00230178|182001279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rate %|12.3||||0.0632||95.0|-0.9|25.0|||Wilson's method|||||25.0|-0.9|0.0632
91059738|NCT00230178|182001280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91059739|NCT00230178|182001280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91059740|NCT02652611|182001282|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.3|||=|0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||We reported the average pain and function from 6 to 24 months postinjury with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and summarized pain and function at 6, 9, 12, 18, and 24 months postinjury with means and standard deviations and medians with interquartile ranges.||1.4|-0.8|=0.57
91059741|NCT02652611|182001283|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.7||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|12.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||12.3|-2.9|0.21
91059742|NCT03577301|182001284|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi Square|3.3||||0.35|TWO_SIDED||||||Negative Binomial Regression|Model testing whether condition predicted illicit drug use at 3 months.||||||0.35
91059743|NCT03577301|182001284|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi Square|1.97||||0.58|TWO_SIDED||||||Negative Binomial Regression|Model testing whether condition predicted illicit drug use at 6 months.||||||0.58
91059744|NCT03577301|182001284|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi Square|1.68||||0.64|TWO_SIDED||||||Negative Binomial Regression|Model testing whether condition predicted illicit drug use at 9 months.||||||0.64
90819786|NCT02967510|181518721|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|-1|=0.002
91059745|NCT03577301|182001284|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi Square|1.15||||0.76|TWO_SIDED||||||Negative Binomial Regression|Model testing whether condition predicted illicit drug use at 12 months.||||||0.76
91059746|NCT03577301|182001285|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi Square|3.08||||0.38|TWO_SIDED||||||Negative Binomial Regression|Model testing whether condition predicted condomless anal sex acts at 3 months.||||||0.38
91059747|NCT03577301|182001285|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi Square|1.26||||0.74|TWO_SIDED||||||Negative Binomial Regression|Model testing whether condition predicted condomless anal sex acts at 6 months.||||||0.74
91059748|NCT03577301|182001285|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi Square|1.27||||0.74|TWO_SIDED||||||Negative Binomial Regression|Model testing whether condition predicted condomless anal sex acts at 9 months.||||||0.74
91059749|NCT03577301|182001285|SUPERIORITY||Slope|3.66||||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||Negative Binomial Regression|Model testing whether condition predicted condomless anal sex acts at 12 months.||||||0.300
91059750|NCT03577301|182001286|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi Square|1.3||||0.73|TWO_SIDED||||||Negative Binomial Regression|Model testing whether condition predicted marijuana use days at 3 months.||||||0.73
91059751|NCT03577301|182001286|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi Square|1.68||||0.64|TWO_SIDED||||||Negative Binomial Regression|Model testing whether condition predicted marijuana use days at 6 months.||||||0.64
91059752|NCT03577301|182001286|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi Square|0.64||||0.89|TWO_SIDED||||||Negative Binomial Regression|Model testing whether condition predicted marijuana use days at 9 months.||||||0.89
91059753|NCT03577301|182001286|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi Square|1.08||||0.78|TWO_SIDED||||||Negative Binomial Regression|Model testing whether condition predicted marijuana use days at 12 months.||||||0.78
91059754|NCT03577301|182001287|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi Square|2.37||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Negative Binomial Regression|Model testing whether condition predicted alcohol use days at 3 months.||||||0.50
91059755|NCT03577301|182001287|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi Square|2.98||||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||Negative Binomial Regression|Model testing whether condition predicted alcohol use days at 6 months.||||||0.34
91059756|NCT03577301|182001287|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi Square|1.59||||0.66|TWO_SIDED||||||Negative Binomial Regression|Model testing whether condition predicted alcohol use days at 9 months.||||||0.66
91059757|NCT03577301|182001287|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi Square|2.74||||0.43|TWO_SIDED||||||Negative Binomial Regression|Model testing whether condition predicted alcohol use days at 12 months.||||||0.43
91059758|NCT00005957|182001290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.13|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio (HR) estimation is for Standard Breast Irradiation arm versus Breast Radiation plus regional radiation arm.|It was estimated that the actuarial five year survival of patients on the control arm of this trial would be 80% and a 5% increase in five year survival with experiment arm is clinically interesting to detect. A sample size of 1832 will ensure 80% power to detect such a difference with two-sided alpha of 0.05.||1.13|0.72|0.38
91059759|NCT00005957|182001291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.94|||Log Rank|||||0.94|0.61|0.01
91059760|NCT02075515|182001344|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Superiority Criterion: The two-sided 95 % CI of the GMC ratio between all pairs of lots are within \[0.67, 1.5\]|Adjusted GMC Ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.09|||ANCOVA|||||1.09|0.86|
91059761|NCT02075515|182001344|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Superiority Criterion: The two-sided 95 % CI of the GMC ratio between all pairs of lots are within \[0.67, 1.5\]|Adjustd GMC Ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.08|||ANCOVA|||||1.08|0.85|
91059762|NCT02075515|182001344|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Superiority Criterion: The two-sided 95 % CI of the GMC ratio between all pairs of lots are within \[0.67, 1.5\].|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.1|||ANCOVA|||||1.10|0.88|
91059763|NCT01297985|182001354|SUPERIORITY||MIXREG Estimate|1.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.013|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Effects Random Regression|||"This mixed effects random regression analysis tested whether intervention participants would report larger increases than controls in self-perceived Recovery and that this effect would be maintained overtime; and that intervention participants would report greater increases in hopefulness than controls, also maintained longitudinally~This first model reports on Recovery over time."||||.013
91059764|NCT01297985|182001355|SUPERIORITY||MIXREG Estimate|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Effects Random Regression|This analysis used Random Regression Modeling; this first model included depressive symptoms as moderator||"We tested 3 moderating variables: BSI depressive symptom, anxiety, and general symptom distress. In these three models, we hypothesized that the intervention participants with high levels of each type of symptoms would experience greater gains in empowerment over time than participants with low levels of symptoms, as well as control participants with both high and low symptom level.~This model includes depressive symptoms as the moderator (High depressive symptoms X time X study condition)"||||0.01
91059765|NCT01297985|182001355|SUPERIORITY||MIXREG Estimate|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Effects Random Regression|This analysis used Random Regression Modeling; this second model included anxiety symptoms as moderator||"We tested 3 moderating variables: depressive symptom, anxiety, and general symptom distress. In these three models, we hypothesized that the intervention participants with high levels of each type of symptoms would experience greater gains in empowerment over time than participants with low levels of symptoms, as well as control participants with both high and low symptom level.~This model includes anxiety as the moderator (high anxiety X time X study condition)"||||0.01
91059766|NCT01297985|182001355|SUPERIORITY||MIXREG Estimate|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.022|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Effects Random Regression|This analysis used Random Regression Modeling; this third model included the general symptom distress as moderator||"We tested 3 moderating variables: BSI depressive symptom, anxiety, and general symptom distress. In these three models, we hypothesized that the intervention participants with high levels of each type of symptoms would experience greater gains in empowerment over time than participants with low levels of symptoms, as well as control participants with both high and low symptom level.~This model includes general symptom distress as the moderator (high symptom distress X time X study condition)"||||.022
91059767|NCT01297985|182001356|SUPERIORITY||MIXREG Estimate|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Effects Random Regression|||This mixed effects random regression analysis tested whether intervention participants would report larger increases than controls in Hopefulness that would be maintained longitudinally||||<.01
91059768|NCT01297985|182001357|SUPERIORITY||MIXREG Estimate|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Effects Random Regression|||This analysis Mixed Effects Random Regression Modeling to test whether self-advocacy scores changed overtime by study condition status. Reported below are findings for the self-advocacy assertiveness sub scale.||||<0.01
91059769|NCT01297985|182001358|SUPERIORITY||MIXREG Estimate|0.042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018||0.017|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Effects Random Regression|||||||0.017
91059770|NCT02032680|182001367|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3749|||||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||The two treatments were compared to see whether participants in one achieved a higher level on their goals (i.e., the maximum level achieved on the goal).||||0.3749
91059771|NCT03593395|182001374|OTHER|Estimation only|Least Square Mean Estimate|2.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.81|3.34|||||Estimates are from generalized linear mixed model with a negative binomial distribution log link construct and length of follow up offset. Includes fixed effects for site size, baseline acute utilization, and random effect for cluster (site).|||3.34|1.81|
91059772|NCT03593395|182001374|OTHER|Estimation only.|Least Square Mean Estimate|2.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.09|4.19|||||Estimates are from generalized linear mixed model with a negative binomial distribution log link construct and length of follow up offset. Includes fixed effects for site size, baseline acute utilization, and random effect for cluster (site).|||4.19|2.09|
91059773|NCT02370238|182001392|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.81||p-value based on a log-rank test stratified by randomized sub-populations, newly diagnosed metastatic patients and patients that had relapsed following a prior (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy regimen.|Log Rank|||||1.81|0.71|0.589
91059774|NCT02370238|182001393|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.65||p-value based on a log-rank test stratified by randomized sub-populations, newly diagnosed metastatic patients and patients that had relapsed following a prior (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy regimen.|Log Rank|||||1.65|0.64|0.897
91059775|NCT02370238|182001394|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.262||||0.667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4909|3.963||P-value is based on Zelen's test for homogeneity of the odds ratios.|Zelen's test|||||3.963|0.4909|0.667
91059776|NCT02370238|182001396|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.767||||||For the All Patients group, p-value was based on a log-rank test stratified by actual sub-populations, newly diagnosed metastatic patients and patients that had relapsed following a prior (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy regimen.|Log Rank|||||||0.767
91059777|NCT02370238|182001397|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.101||||0.667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.437|2.79||P-value was based on Zelen's test for homogeneity of the odds ratios|Zelen's test|||||2.790|0.437|0.667
91059778|NCT03837743|182001416|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.42||0.022|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Difference in Change (week 4)||||0.022
91059779|NCT03837743|182001416|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.8||0.296|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Difference in Change (week 8)||||0.296
91059780|NCT01685840|182001429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.22||A sample size of 1100 patients was expected to provide approximately 90% power to detect a difference in the primary endpoint with an assumed type I error rate of 0.05, 2-sided. Analysis was adjusted for age, sex, ejection fraction, NT-proBNP and DM.|Regression, Cox|||||1.22|0.79|0.88
91059781|NCT01685840|182001430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.86||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.2|||Regression, Cox|||||1.20|0.62|0.37
91059782|NCT01685840|182001431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.0||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|39.0|||Bang-Tsiatis Partitioned Estimator|||||39|-20|0.53
91059783|NCT01685840|182001432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.37|||Regression, Cox|||||1.37|0.65|0.75
91059784|NCT01685840|182001433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.31|||Regression, Cox|||||1.31|0.82|0.76
91059785|NCT01685840|182001434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.29||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.72|||Anderson-Gill Intensity Model|||||1.72|0.97|0.08
91059786|NCT01685840|182001435|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.636|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline||||0.636
91059787|NCT01685840|182001435|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.628|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||3 month||||0.628
91059788|NCT01685840|182001435|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.586|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||6 month||||0.586
91059789|NCT01685840|182001435|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.669|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||12 month||||0.669
91059790|NCT01685840|182001435|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.949|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||24 month||||0.949
91059791|NCT01685840|182001436|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.88||||0.404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.188|2.947||Adjusted P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||3 month||2.947|-1.188|0.404
91059792|NCT01685840|182001436|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.478||||0.219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.881|3.836||Adjusted P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||6 month||3.836|-0.881|0.219
91059793|NCT01685840|182001436|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.099||||0.104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.433|4.63||Adjusted P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||12 month||4.630|-0.433|0.104
91059794|NCT01685840|182001436|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.999||||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.253|5.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||24 month||5.250|-1.253|0.228
91059795|NCT01685840|182001437|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.017||||0.421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.025|0.06||Adjusted P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||3 month||0.060|-0.025|0.421
91059796|NCT01685840|182001437|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.028||||0.239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.018|0.074||Adjusted P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||6 month||0.074|-0.018|0.239
91059797|NCT01685840|182001437|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.021||||0.402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.028|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||12 month||0.070|-0.028|0.402
91059798|NCT01685840|182001437|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.009||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.057|0.076||Adjusted P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||24 month||0.076|-0.057|0.780
91059799|NCT01685840|182001438|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.131||||0.268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.902|1.64||Adjusted P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||3 month||1.640|-5.902|0.268
91059800|NCT01685840|182001438|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.069||||0.599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.921|5.058|||Mixed Models Analysis|||6 month||5.058|-2.921|0.599
91059801|NCT01685840|182001438|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.389||||0.852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.486|3.707||Adjusted P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||12 month||3.707|-4.486|0.852
91059802|NCT01685840|182001438|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.343||||0.221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.708|2.022||Adjusted P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||24 month||2.022|-8.708|0.221
90819787|NCT02967510|181518721|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|0|=0.331
91059803|NCT01685840|182001439|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.816||||0.615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.999|2.367||Adjusted P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||3 month||2.367|-3.999|0.615
91059804|NCT01685840|182001439|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.252||||0.878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.977|3.482||Adjusted P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||6 month||3.482|-2.977|0.878
91059805|NCT01685840|182001439|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.406||||0.441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.989|2.178||Adjusted P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||12 month||2.178|-4.989|0.441
91059806|NCT01685840|182001439|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.091||||0.653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.673|5.856||Adjusted P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||24 month||5.856|-3.673|0.653
91059807|NCT01685840|182001440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.226||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.097|0.645||Adjusted P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||3 month||0.645|-3.097|0.199
91059808|NCT01685840|182001440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.742||||0.465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.735|1.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||6 month||1.250|-2.735|0.465
91059809|NCT01685840|182001440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.074||||0.943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.119|1.97||Adjusted P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||12 month||1.970|-2.119|0.943
91059810|NCT01685840|182001440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.478||||0.294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.286|4.241||Adjusted P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||24 month||4.241|-1.286|0.294
91059811|NCT01685840|182001441|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.579||||0.294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.527|1.369||Adjusted P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||3 month||1.369|-4.527|0.294
91059812|NCT01685840|182001441|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.946||||0.555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.096|2.203||Adjusted P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||6 month||2.203|-4.096|0.555
91059813|NCT01685840|182001441|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.798||||0.643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.178|2.583||Adjusted P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||12 month||2.583|-4.178|0.643
91059814|NCT01685840|182001441|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.647||||0.757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.767|3.472||Adjusted P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||24 month||3.472|-4.767|0.757
91059815|NCT01685840|182001442|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.484||||0.837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.102|4.133||Adjusted P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||3 month||4.133|-5.102|0.837
91059816|NCT01685840|182001442|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.693||||0.288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.662|2.276||Adjusted P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||6 month||2.276|-7.662|0.288
91059817|NCT01685840|182001442|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.539||||0.567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.81|3.732||Adjusted P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||12 month||3.732|-6.810|0.567
91059818|NCT01685840|182001442|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.512||||0.475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.394|9.419||Adjusted P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||24 month||9.419|-4.394|0.475
91059819|NCT01685840|182001443|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.057||||0.696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.25|6.364||Adjusted P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||3 month||6.364|-4.250|0.696
91059820|NCT01685840|182001443|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.966||||0.497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.715|7.647||Adjusted P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||6 months||7.647|-3.715|0.497
91059821|NCT01685840|182001443|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.564||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.456|12.673||Adjusted P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||12 month||12.673|0.456|0.035
91059822|NCT01685840|182001443|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.857||||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.247|10.961||Adjusted P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||24 month||10.961|-5.247|0.488
91059823|NCT01685840|182001444|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.017||||0.992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.383|3.417||Adjusted P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||3 month||3.417|-3.383|0.992
91059824|NCT01685840|182001444|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28||||0.882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.409|3.969||Adjusted P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||6 month||3.969|-3.409|0.882
91059825|NCT01685840|182001444|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.904||||0.647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.973|4.782||Adjusted P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||12 month||4.782|-2.973|0.647
91059826|NCT01685840|182001444|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.322||||0.903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.894|5.538||Adjusted P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||24 month||5.538|-4.894|0.903
91059827|NCT01685840|182001445|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Hospitalizations||||0.74
91059828|NCT01685840|182001445|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||ER only events||||0.45
91059829|NCT01685840|182001445|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Rehab facilities||||0.67
91059830|NCT01685840|182001445|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Total admissions||||0.47
91059831|NCT01685840|182001446|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Hospital Costs||||0.88
91059832|NCT01685840|182001446|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Physician Fees||||0.69
91059833|NCT01685840|182001446|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Total Cost||||0.88
91059834|NCT01906515|182001487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
91059835|NCT01906515|182001488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91059836|NCT03390426|182001539|SUPERIORITY|"this is a superiority study and the non-inferiority or equivalence analysis is not required"|||||<|0.05||||||Comparisons were made between the two groups using a two-sample t-test or Mann-Whitney U test for continuous variables and Fisher's exact test for categorical variables. p-value of \<0.05 was considered to be statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|Comparisons were made using a two-sample t-test or Mann-Whitney U test for continuous variables and Fisher's exact test for categorical variables.||We determined 30 subjects were needed to detect a 50% difference in THN incidence between the two groups using a one-sided Fisher's exact test with alpha = 0.05 and 80% power while allowing up to 20% drop-out. For primary and secondary outcomes, comparisons were made between the two groups using a two-sample t-test or Mann-Whitney U test for continuous variables and Fisher's exact test for categorical variables. p-value of \<0.05 was considered to be statistically significant.||||<0.05
91059837|NCT03355469|182001568|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.53||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|6.99||Benjamini and Hochberg method was used to decrease the false discovery rate with an overall error rate of 0.05. The B\&H P-value threshold for this comparison was 0.017.|ANCOVA|Linear ANCOVA model adjusted for pre-intervention FMD.||Intention to treat Full Maximum Likelihood based comparisons of baseline covariate adjusted pre- to post-intervention 0 min unscaled FMD change, where the difference is between treatment combination #2 and treatment combination #1 (i.e. treatment combination # 2 - treatment combination #1).||6.99|0.08|0.045
91059838|NCT03355469|182001568|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.15||||0.507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.42|4.73||Benjamini and Hochberg method was used to decrease the false discovery rate with an overall error rate of 0.05. The B\&H P-value threshold for this comparison was 0.050.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA linear model adjusted for pre-intervention FMD.||Intention to treat Full Maximum Likelihood based comparisons of baseline covariate adjusted pre- to post-intervention 0 min unscaled FMD change, where the difference is between treatment combination #2 and treatment combination #1 (i.e. treatment combination # 2 - treatment combination #1).||4.73|-2.42|0.507
91059839|NCT03355469|182001568|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.98||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|8.83||Benjamini and Hochberg method was used to decrease the false discovery rate with an overall error rate of 0.05. The B\&H P-value threshold for this comparison was 0.008.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA linear model adjusted for pre-intervention FMD.||Intention to treat Full Maximum Likelihood based comparisons of baseline covariate adjusted pre- to post-intervention 0 min unscaled FMD change, where the difference is between treatment combination #2 and treatment combination #1 (i.e. treatment combination # 2 - treatment combination #1).||8.83|1.14|0.014
91059840|NCT03355469|182001568|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.38||||0.237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|6.42||Benjamini and Hochberg method was used to decrease the false discovery rate with an overall error rate of 0.05. The B\&H P-value threshold for this comparison was 0.033.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA linear model adjusted for pre-intervention FMD.||Intention to treat Full Maximum Likelihood based comparisons of baseline covariate adjusted pre- to post-intervention 0 min unscaled FMD change, where the difference is between treatment combination #2 and treatment combination #1 (i.e. treatment combination # 2 - treatment combination #1).||6.42|-1.66|0.237
91059841|NCT03355469|182001568|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.45||||0.486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|5.7||Benjamini and Hochberg method was used to decrease the false discovery rate with an overall error rate of 0.05. The B\&H P-value threshold for this comparison was 0.042.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA linear model adjusted for pre-intervention FMD.||Intention to treat Full Maximum Likelihood based comparisons of baseline covariate adjusted pre- to post-intervention 0 min unscaled FMD change, where the difference is between treatment combination #2 and treatment combination #1 (i.e. treatment combination # 2 - treatment combination #1).||5.70|-2.80|0.486
91059842|NCT03355469|182001568|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.83||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|8.19||Benjamini and Hochberg method was used to decrease the false discovery rate with an overall error rate of 0.05. The B\&H P-value threshold for this comparison was 0.025.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA linear model adjusted for pre-intervention FMD.||Intention to treat Full Maximum Likelihood based comparisons of baseline covariate adjusted pre- to post-intervention 0 min unscaled FMD change, where the difference is between treatment combination #2 and treatment combination #1 (i.e. treatment combination # 2 - treatment combination #1).||8.19|-0.53|0.081
91059843|NCT03355469|182001569|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0073||||0.373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0093|0.024||Benjamini and Hochberg method was used to decrease the false discovery rate with an overall error rate of 0.05. The B\&H P-value threshold for this comparison was 0.025.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA linear model adjusted for pre-intervention GIR.||Intention to treat Full Maximum Likelihood based comparisons of baseline covariate adjusted pre- to post-intervention GIR, where the difference is between treatment combination #2 and treatment combination #1 (i.e. treatment combination # 2 - treatment combination #1).||0.0240|-0.0093|0.373
91059844|NCT03355469|182001569|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0097||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0055|0.025||Benjamini and Hochberg method was used to decrease the false discovery rate with an overall error rate of 0.05. The B\&H P-value threshold for this comparison was 0.008.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA linear model adjusted for pre-intervention GIR.||Intention to treat Full Maximum Likelihood based comparisons of baseline covariate adjusted pre- to post-intervention GIR, where the difference is between treatment combination #2 and treatment combination #1 (i.e. treatment combination # 2 - treatment combination #1).||0.0250|-0.0055|0.198
90819788|NCT02967510|181518721|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|0|=0.043
90819789|NCT02967510|181518722|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|||=|0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|-1|=0.022
90819790|NCT02967510|181518722|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|||=|0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|-1|=0.032
90819791|NCT02967510|181518722|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|-1|=0.001
90819792|NCT02967510|181518723|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|0|=0.176
90819793|NCT02967510|181518723|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|0|=0.358
90819794|NCT02967510|181518723|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|0|=0.21
90819795|NCT02967510|181518724|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||1|0|=0.106
90819796|NCT02967510|181518724|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||1|0|=0.229
90819797|NCT02967510|181518724|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|-1|=0.345
90819798|NCT02967510|181518725|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|0|=0.026
90819799|NCT02967510|181518725|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|0|=0.424
91059845|NCT03355469|182001569|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0041||||0.622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0129|0.0211||Benjamini and Hochberg method was used to decrease the false discovery rate with an overall error rate of 0.05. The B\&H P-value threshold for this comparison was 0.033.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA linear model adjusted for pre-intervention GIR.||Intention to treat Full Maximum Likelihood based comparisons of baseline covariate adjusted pre- to post-intervention GIR, where the difference is between treatment combination #2 and treatment combination #1 (i.e. treatment combination # 2 - treatment combination #1).||0.0211|-0.0129|0.622
90819800|NCT02967510|181518725|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|0|=0.414
90819801|NCT02967510|181518726|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|0|=0.36
91059846|NCT03355469|182001569|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0024||||0.666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0136|0.0088||Benjamini and Hochberg method was used to decrease the false discovery rate with an overall error rate of 0.05. The B\&H P-value threshold for this comparison was 0.050.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA linear model adjusted for pre-intervention GIR.||Intention to treat Full Maximum Likelihood based comparisons of baseline covariate adjusted pre- to post-intervention GIR, where the difference is between treatment combination #2 and treatment combination #1 (i.e. treatment combination # 2 - treatment combination #1).||0.0088|-0.0136|0.666
91059847|NCT03355469|182001569|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0032||||0.634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0169|0.0104||Benjamini and Hochberg method was used to decrease the false discovery rate with an overall error rate of 0.05. The B\&H P-value threshold for this comparison was 0.042.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA linear model adjusted for pre-intervention GIR.||Intention to treat Full Maximum Likelihood based comparisons of baseline covariate adjusted pre- to post-intervention GIR, where the difference is between treatment combination #2 and treatment combination #1 (i.e. treatment combination # 2 - treatment combination #1).||0.0104|-0.0169|0.634
91059848|NCT03355469|182001569|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0056||||0.336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0174|0.0062||Benjamini and Hochberg method was used to decrease the false discovery rate with an overall error rate of 0.05. The B\&H P-value threshold for this comparison was 0.017.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA linear model adjusted for pre-intervention GIR.||Intention to treat Full Maximum Likelihood based comparisons of baseline covariate adjusted pre- to post-intervention GIR, where the difference is between treatment combination #2 and treatment combination #1 (i.e. treatment combination # 2 - treatment combination #1).||0.0062|-0.0174|0.336
90819802|NCT02967510|181518726|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|0|=0.12
90819803|NCT02967510|181518726|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|0|=0.266
90819804|NCT02967510|181518727|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|0|=0.47
90819805|NCT02967510|181518727|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|0|=0.137
90819806|NCT02967510|181518727|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|0|=0.133
90819807|NCT02967510|181518728|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.74|||=|0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.669|2.153|||ANCOVA|||||2.153|-0.669|=0.85
90819808|NCT02967510|181518728|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.87|||=|0.877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.611|2.361|||ANCOVA|||||2.361|-0.611|=0.877
91059849|NCT03355469|182001570|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.51||||0.671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.68|8.69||Benjamini and Hochberg method was used to decrease the false discovery rate with an overall error rate of 0.05. The B\&H P-value threshold for this comparison was 0.042.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA linear model adjusted for pre-intervention AIx75.||Intention to treat Full Maximum Likelihood based comparisons of baseline covariate adjusted pre- to post-intervention AIx75 change, where the difference is between treatment combination #2 and treatment combination #1 (i.e. treatment combination # 2 - treatment combination #1).||8.69|-5.68|0.671
90819809|NCT02967510|181518728|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.64|||=|0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.009|0.728|||ANCOVA|||||0.728|-2.009|=0.178
90819810|NCT02967510|181518729|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|||=|0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.854|0.531|||ANCOVA|||||0.531|-0.854|=0.323
90819811|NCT02967510|181518729|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|||=|0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.917|0.484|||ANCOVA|||||0.484|-0.917|=0.272
90819812|NCT02967510|181518729|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|||=|0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|0.084|||ANCOVA|||||0.084|-1.29|=0.043
90819813|NCT02967510|181518730|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|-1|=0.009
90819814|NCT02967510|181518730|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|-1|=0.025
90819815|NCT02967510|181518730|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|-1|<0.001
91059850|NCT03355469|182001570|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.82||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.84|2.19||Benjamini and Hochberg method was used to decrease the false discovery rate with an overall error rate of 0.05. The B\&H P-value threshold for this comparison was 0.025.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA linear model adjusted for pre-intervention AIx75.||Intention to treat Full Maximum Likelihood based comparisons of baseline covariate adjusted pre- to post-intervention AIx75 change, where the difference is between treatment combination #2 and treatment combination #1 (i.e. treatment combination # 2 - treatment combination #1).||2.19|-11.84|0.170
91059851|NCT03355469|182001570|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66||||0.839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.29|5.97||Benjamini and Hochberg method was used to decrease the false discovery rate with an overall error rate of 0.05. The B\&H P-value threshold for this comparison was 0.050.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA linear model adjusted for pre-intervention AIx75.||Intention to treat Full Maximum Likelihood based comparisons of baseline covariate adjusted pre- to post-intervention AIx75 change, where the difference is between treatment combination #2 and treatment combination #1 (i.e. treatment combination # 2 - treatment combination #1).||5.97|-7.29|0.839
91059852|NCT03355469|182001570|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.33||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|11.8||Benjamini and Hochberg method was used to decrease the false discovery rate with an overall error rate of 0.05. The B\&H P-value threshold for this comparison was 0.008.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA linear model adjusted for pre-intervention AIx75.||Intention to treat Full Maximum Likelihood based comparisons of baseline covariate adjusted pre- to post-intervention AIx75 change, where the difference is between treatment combination #2 and treatment combination #1 (i.e. treatment combination # 2 - treatment combination #1).||11.80|0.86|0.024
91059853|NCT03355469|182001570|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.16||||0.385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.16|2.83||Benjamini and Hochberg method was used to decrease the false discovery rate with an overall error rate of 0.05. The B\&H P-value threshold for this comparison was 0.033.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA linear model adjusted for pre-intervention AIx75.||Intention to treat Full Maximum Likelihood based comparisons of baseline covariate adjusted pre- to post-intervention AIx75 change, where the difference is between treatment combination #2 and treatment combination #1 (i.e. treatment combination # 2 - treatment combination #1).||2.83|-7.16|0.385
91059854|NCT03355469|182001570|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.17||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|8.86||Benjamini and Hochberg method was used to decrease the false discovery rate with an overall error rate of 0.05. The B\&H P-value threshold for this comparison was 0.017.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA linear model adjusted for pre-intervention AIx75.||Intention to treat Full Maximum Likelihood based comparisons of baseline covariate adjusted pre- to post-intervention AIx75 change, where the difference is between treatment combination #2 and treatment combination #1 (i.e. treatment combination # 2 - treatment combination #1).||8.86|-0.53|0.080
91059855|NCT03355469|182001571|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.032||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.069|0.005||Benjamini and Hochberg method was used to decrease the false discovery rate with an overall error rate of 0.05. The B\&H P-value threshold for this comparison was 0.017.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA linear model adjusted for pre-intervention MBF.||Intention to treat Full Maximum Likelihood based comparisons of baseline covariate adjusted pre- to post-intervention MBF change, where the difference is between treatment combination #2 and treatment combination #1 (i.e. treatment combination # 2 - treatment combination #1).||0.005|-0.069|0.088
91059856|NCT03355469|182001571|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.001||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.059|0.062||Benjamini and Hochberg method was used to decrease the false discovery rate with an overall error rate of 0.05. The B\&H P-value threshold for this comparison was 0.050.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA linear model adjusted for pre-intervention MBF.||Intention to treat Full Maximum Likelihood based comparisons of baseline covariate adjusted pre- to post-intervention MBF change, where the difference is between treatment combination #2 and treatment combination #1 (i.e. treatment combination # 2 - treatment combination #1).||0.062|-0.059|0.960
91059857|NCT03355469|182001571|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.052||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.109|0.006||Benjamini and Hochberg method was used to decrease the false discovery rate with an overall error rate of 0.05. The B\&H P-value threshold for this comparison was 0.008.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA linear model adjusted for pre-intervention MBF.||Intention to treat Full Maximum Likelihood based comparisons of baseline covariate adjusted pre- to post-intervention MBF change, where the difference is between treatment combination #2 and treatment combination #1 (i.e. treatment combination # 2 - treatment combination #1).||0.006|-0.109|0.075
91059858|NCT03355469|182001571|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.033||||0.258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.094|0.028||Benjamini and Hochberg method was used to decrease the false discovery rate with an overall error rate of 0.05. The B\&H P-value threshold for this comparison was 0.033.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA linear model adjusted for pre-intervention MBF.||Intention to treat Full Maximum Likelihood based comparisons of baseline covariate adjusted pre- to post-intervention MBF change, where the difference is between treatment combination #2 and treatment combination #1 (i.e. treatment combination # 2 - treatment combination #1).||0.028|-0.094|0.258
91059859|NCT03355469|182001571|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.075|0.035||Benjamini and Hochberg method was used to decrease the false discovery rate with an overall error rate of 0.05. The B\&H P-value threshold for this comparison was 0.042.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA linear model adjusted for pre-intervention MBF.||Intention to treat Full Maximum Likelihood based comparisons of baseline covariate adjusted pre- to post-intervention MBF change, where the difference is between treatment combination #2 and treatment combination #1 (i.e. treatment combination # 2 - treatment combination #1).||0.035|-0.075|0.443
91059860|NCT03355469|182001571|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.053||||0.144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.126|0.02||Benjamini and Hochberg method was used to decrease the false discovery rate with an overall error rate of 0.05. The B\&H P-value threshold for this comparison was 0.025.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA linear model adjusted for pre-intervention MBF.||Intention to treat Full Maximum Likelihood based comparisons of baseline covariate adjusted pre- to post-intervention MBF change, where the difference is between treatment combination #2 and treatment combination #1 (i.e. treatment combination # 2 - treatment combination #1).||0.020|-0.126|0.144
91078410|NCT02173379|182042477|NON_INFERIORITY|One-sided p-value by using Farrington-Manning non-inferiority test statistic with non-inferiority margin of 2.9%, to be compared with a one-sided significance level of 0.025.||||||0.0244|ONE_SIDED|97.5|||||Farrington-Manning|||"The hypothesis test is designed to show non-inferiority of Absorb BVS to XIENCE for the primary endpoint with a one-sided alpha of 0.025. The null (H0) and alternative (HA) hypotheses are:~H0: TLFAbsorb - TLFXIENCE ≥ ∆TLF HA: TLFAbsorb - TLFXIENCE \< ∆TLF."||||0.0244
91059861|NCT03355469|182001572|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.007||||0.147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.017|0.003||Benjamini and Hochberg method was used to decrease the false discovery rate with an overall error rate of 0.05. The B\&H P-value threshold for this comparison was 0.017.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA linear model adjusted for pre-intervention MFV.||Intention to treat Full Maximum Likelihood based comparisons of baseline covariate adjusted pre- to post-intervention MFV change, where the difference is between treatment combination #2 and treatment combination #1 (i.e. treatment combination # 2 - treatment combination #1).||0.003|-0.017|0.147
91059862|NCT03355469|182001572|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.001||||0.943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.016|0.017||Benjamini and Hochberg method was used to decrease the false discovery rate with an overall error rate of 0.05. The B\&H P-value threshold for this comparison was 0.050.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA linear model adjusted for pre-intervention MFV.||Intention to treat Full Maximum Likelihood based comparisons of baseline covariate adjusted pre- to post-intervention MFV change, where the difference is between treatment combination #2 and treatment combination #1 (i.e. treatment combination # 2 - treatment combination #1).||0.017|-0.016|0.943
91059863|NCT03355469|182001572|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.012||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.027|0.003||Benjamini and Hochberg method was used to decrease the false discovery rate with an overall error rate of 0.05. The B\&H P-value threshold for this comparison was 0.008.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA linear model adjusted for pre-intervention MFV.||Intention to treat Full Maximum Likelihood based comparisons of baseline covariate adjusted pre- to post-intervention MFV change, where the difference is between treatment combination #2 and treatment combination #1 (i.e. treatment combination # 2 - treatment combination #1).||0.003|-0.027|0.108
91059864|NCT03355469|182001572|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.008||||0.319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.024|0.009||Benjamini and Hochberg method was used to decrease the false discovery rate with an overall error rate of 0.05. The B\&H P-value threshold for this comparison was 0.033.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA linear model adjusted for pre-intervention MFV.||Intention to treat Full Maximum Likelihood based comparisons of baseline covariate adjusted pre- to post-intervention MFV change, where the difference is between treatment combination #2 and treatment combination #1 (i.e. treatment combination # 2 - treatment combination #1).||0.009|-0.024|0.319
91059865|NCT03355469|182001572|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.005||||0.496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.019|0.01||Benjamini and Hochberg method was used to decrease the false discovery rate with an overall error rate of 0.05. The B\&H P-value threshold for this comparison was 0.042.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA linear model adjusted for pre-intervention MFV.||Intention to treat Full Maximum Likelihood based comparisons of baseline covariate adjusted pre- to post-intervention MFV change, where the difference is between treatment combination #2 and treatment combination #1 (i.e. treatment combination # 2 - treatment combination #1).||0.010|-0.019|0.496
91059866|NCT03355469|182001572|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.012||||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.031|0.007||Benjamini and Hochberg method was used to decrease the false discovery rate with an overall error rate of 0.05. The B\&H P-value threshold for this comparison was 0.025.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA linear model adjusted for pre-intervention MFV.||Intention to treat Full Maximum Likelihood based comparisons of baseline covariate adjusted pre- to post-intervention MFV change, where the difference is between treatment combination #2 and treatment combination #1 (i.e. treatment combination # 2 - treatment combination #1).||0.007|-0.031|0.187
91059867|NCT03355469|182001573|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.495|0.035||Benjamini and Hochberg method was used to decrease the false discovery rate with an overall error rate of 0.05. The B\&H P-value threshold for this comparison was 0.008.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA linear model adjusted for pre-intervention MBV.||Intention to treat Full Maximum Likelihood based comparisons of baseline covariate adjusted pre- to post-intervention MBV change, where the difference is between treatment combination #2 and treatment combination #1 (i.e. treatment combination # 2 - treatment combination #1).||0.035|-0.495|0.086
91059868|NCT03355469|182001573|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.354|0.574||Benjamini and Hochberg method was used to decrease the false discovery rate with an overall error rate of 0.05. The B\&H P-value threshold for this comparison was 0.050.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA linear model adjusted for pre-intervention MBV.||Intention to treat Full Maximum Likelihood based comparisons of baseline covariate adjusted pre- to post-intervention MBV change, where the difference is between treatment combination #2 and treatment combination #1 (i.e. treatment combination # 2 - treatment combination #1).||0.574|-0.354|0.608
91059869|NCT03355469|182001573|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.344||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.779|0.09||Benjamini and Hochberg method was used to decrease the false discovery rate with an overall error rate of 0.05. The B\&H P-value threshold for this comparison was 0.017.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA linear model adjusted for pre-intervention MBV.||Intention to treat Full Maximum Likelihood based comparisons of baseline covariate adjusted pre- to post-intervention MBV change, where the difference is between treatment combination #2 and treatment combination #1 (i.e. treatment combination # 2 - treatment combination #1).||0.090|-0.779|0.110
91059870|NCT03355469|182001573|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.818|0.137||Benjamini and Hochberg method was used to decrease the false discovery rate with an overall error rate of 0.05. The B\&H P-value threshold for this comparison was 0.033.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA linear model adjusted for pre-intervention MBV.||Intention to treat Full Maximum Likelihood based comparisons of baseline covariate adjusted pre- to post-intervention MBV change, where the difference is between treatment combination #2 and treatment combination #1 (i.e. treatment combination # 2 - treatment combination #1).||0.137|-0.818|0.145
91059871|NCT03355469|182001573|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.114||||0.565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.538|0.309||Benjamini and Hochberg method was used to decrease the false discovery rate with an overall error rate of 0.05. The B\&H P-value threshold for this comparison was 0.042.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA linear model adjusted for pre-intervention MBV.||Intention to treat Full Maximum Likelihood based comparisons of baseline covariate adjusted pre- to post-intervention MBV change, where the difference is between treatment combination #2 and treatment combination #1 (i.e. treatment combination # 2 - treatment combination #1).||0.309|-0.538|0.565
91077835|NCT02913105|182041134|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.0||||0.7517|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|1.03|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 84||1.03|0.98|0.7517
91059872|NCT03355469|182001573|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.454||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.025|0.116||Benjamini and Hochberg method was used to decrease the false discovery rate with an overall error rate of 0.05. The B\&H P-value threshold for this comparison was 0.025.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA linear model adjusted for pre-intervention MBV.||Intention to treat Full Maximum Likelihood based comparisons of baseline covariate adjusted pre- to post-intervention MBV change, where the difference is between treatment combination #2 and treatment combination #1 (i.e. treatment combination # 2 - treatment combination #1).||0.116|-1.025|0.110
90819816|NCT02967510|181518731|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|-1|=0.04
90819817|NCT02967510|181518731|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|0|=0.259
90819818|NCT02967510|181518731|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|0|=0.104
90819819|NCT02967510|181518732|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|-1|<0.001
90819820|NCT02967510|181518732|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|-1|<0.001
90819821|NCT02967510|181518732|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|-1|<0.001
90819822|NCT02967510|181518733|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|-1|<0.001
90819823|NCT02967510|181518733|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|0|=0.054
90819824|NCT02967510|181518733|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|0|<0.001
90819825|NCT02967510|181518734|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|-1|=0.008
91059873|NCT02291510|182001574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Ratio of LS Means|35.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|32.27|38.74|||ANOVA|Included treatment, sequence, and period and as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||2000 mg Met XR QD is the denominator for the % ratio of least squares (LS) means and the comparator for the p-values.||38.74|32.27|<0.001
91059874|NCT02291510|182001574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Ratio of LS Means|52.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|47.77|57.36|||ANOVA|Included treatment, sequence, and period and as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||2000 mg Met XR QD is the denominator for the % ratio of LS means and the comparator for the p-values.||57.36|47.77|<0.001
91059875|NCT02291510|182001574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Ratio of LS Means|32.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|29.3|35.18|||ANOVA|Included treatment, sequence, and period and as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||1000 mg Met IR BID is the denominator for the % ratio of LS means and the comparator for the p-values.||35.18|29.30|<0.001
90819826|NCT02967510|181518734|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|||=|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|-1|=0.01
91059876|NCT02291510|182001574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Ratio of LS Means|47.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|43.38|52.09|||ANOVA|Included treatment, sequence, and period and as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||1000 mg Met IR BID is the denominator for the % ratio of LS means and the comparator for the p-values.||52.09|43.38|<0.001
91059877|NCT02291510|182001574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Ratio of LS Means|110.1||||0.0832|TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.5|120.68|||ANOVA|Included treatment, sequence, and period and as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||2000 mg Met XR QD is the denominator for the % ratio of LS means and the comparator for the p-values.||120.68|100.50|0.0832
91059878|NCT02291510|182001575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Ratio of LS Means|35.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|32.43|39.77|||ANOVA|Included treatment, sequence, and period and as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||2000 mg Met XR QD is the denominator for the % ratio of LS means and the comparator for the p-values.||39.77|32.43|<0.001
91059879|NCT02291510|182001575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Ratio of LS Means|53.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|47.88|58.71|||ANOVA|Included treatment, sequence, and period and as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||2000 mg Met XR QD is the denominator for the % ratio of LS means and the comparator for the p-values.||58.71|47.88|<0.001
91059880|NCT02291510|182001575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Ratio of LS Means|45.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|40.88|50.13|||ANOVA|Included treatment, sequence, and period and as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||1000 mg Met IR BID is the denominator for the % ratio of LS means and the comparator for the p-values.||50.13|40.88|<0.001
91059881|NCT02291510|182001575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Ratio of LS Means|66.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.34|74.0|||ANOVA|Included treatment, sequence, and period and as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||1000 mg Met IR BID is the denominator for the % ratio of LS means and the comparator for the p-values.||74.00|60.34|<0.001
91059882|NCT02291510|182001575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Ratio of LS Means|79.3||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|71.65|87.86|||ANOVA|Included treatment, sequence, and period and as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||2000 mg Met XR QD is the denominator for the % ratio of LS means and the comparator for the p-values.||87.86|71.65|0.0004
91059883|NCT04856930|182001586|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25||0.7841|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.42|1.73||LS Mean, Standard error, 90% CI, p-value based on LRMM which included: treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and Hurley Stage at baseline (II vs. III) as categorical covariates; baseline AN count as continuous covariate.|Linear repeated measures model (LRMM)|||||1.73|-2.42|0.7841
91059884|NCT04856930|182001586|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25||0.2885|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.74|3.4||LS Mean, Standard error, 90% CI, p-value based on LRMM which included: treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and Hurley Stage at baseline (II vs. III) as categorical covariates; baseline AN count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||||3.40|-0.74|0.2885
91059885|NCT04856930|182001587|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.97||0.5939|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-19.66|10.07||LS Mean, Standard error, 90% CI, p-value based on LRMM which included: treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and Hurley Stage at baseline (II vs. III) as categorical covariates; baseline AN count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||||10.07|-19.66|0.5939
91059886|NCT04856930|182001587|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.95||0.7002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.38|18.29||LS Mean, Standard error, 90% CI, p-value based on LRMM which included: treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and Hurley Stage at baseline (II vs. III) as categorical covariates; baseline AN count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||||18.29|-11.38|0.7002
91059887|NCT04856930|182001588|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.3|23.4|||||Estimate parameter and 90% CI was based on Unadjusted Risk Difference and exact unconditional confidence intervals (CI).|||23.4|-13.3|
91059888|NCT04856930|182001588|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.6|21.0|||||Estimate parameter and 90% C was based on Unadjusted Risk Difference and exact unconditional CIs.|||21.0|-14.6|
91059889|NCT04856930|182001589|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.7282|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.08|0.7||LS Mean, Standard error, 90% CI, p-value based on LRMM which included: treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and Hurley Stage at baseline (II vs. III) as categorical covariates and baseline worst HS Pain NRS as a continuous covariate.|LRMM|||||0.70|-1.08|0.7282
91059890|NCT04856930|182001589|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.5019|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.25|0.53||LS Mean, Standard error, 90% CI, p-value based on LRMM which included: treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and Hurley Stage at baseline (II vs. III) as categorical covariates and baseline worst HS Pain NRS as a continuous covariate.|LRMM|||||0.53|-1.25|0.5019
91059891|NCT04856930|182001590|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.7698|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.96|0.67||LS Mean, Standard error, 90% CI, p-value based on LRMM which included: treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and Hurley Stage at baseline (II vs. III) as categorical covariates and baseline average HS Pain NRS as a continuous covariate.|LRMM|||||0.67|-0.96|0.7698
91059892|NCT04856930|182001590|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.7468|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.97|0.65||LS Mean, Standard error, 90% CI, p-value based on LRMM which included: treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and Hurley Stage at baseline (II vs. III) as categorical covariates and baseline average HS Pain NRS as a continuous covariate.|LRMM|||||0.65|-0.97|0.7468
91059893|NCT04856930|182001591|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-25.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|23.46||0.275|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-64.57|13.14||LS Mean, Standard error, 90% CI, p-value based on LRMM which included: treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and Hurley Stage at baseline (II vs. III) as categorical covariates and baseline worst HS Pain NRS as a continuous covariate.|LRMM|||||13.14|-64.57|0.2750
91059894|NCT04856930|182001591|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-21.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|23.81||0.3757|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-60.6|18.28||LS Mean, Standard error, 90% CI, p-value based on LRMM which included: treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and Hurley Stage at baseline (II vs. III) as categorical covariates and baseline worst HS Pain NRS as a continuous covariate.|LRMM|||||18.28|-60.60|0.3757
91059895|NCT04856930|182001592|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.04||0.6146|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-28.22|15.05||LS Mean, Standard error, 90% CI, p-value based on LRMM which included: treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and Hurley Stage at baseline (II vs. III) as categorical covariates and baseline average HS Pain NRS as a continuous covariate.|LRMM|||||15.05|-28.22|0.6146
91078411|NCT02173379|182042478|NON_INFERIORITY|One-sided p-value by using Farrington-Manning non-inferiority test statistic with non-inferiority margin of 4.8%, to be compared with a one-sided significance level of 0.025.||||||0.0006|||||||Farrington-Manning|||||||0.0006
91059896|NCT04856930|182001592|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-8.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.95||0.4951|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-30.35|12.62||LS Mean, Standard error, 90% CI, p-value based on LRMM which included: treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and Hurley Stage at baseline (II vs. III) as categorical covariates and baseline average HS Pain NRS as a continuous covariate.|LRMM|||||12.62|-30.35|0.4951
91059897|NCT00459355|182001624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||MANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91059898|NCT00459355|182001625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||MANCOVA|||||||<.0001
91059899|NCT00459355|182001626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||MANCOVA|||||||.002
91059900|NCT01009814|182001628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1089|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.212||0.6102|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4656|0.2477|||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis was that there was 0 difference in mean log10 decrease in HIV RNA at Day 9 between two groups.||0.2477|-0.4656|0.6102
91059901|NCT01009814|182001628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1266|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2076||0.5452|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4758|0.2225|||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis was that there was 0 difference in mean log10 decrease in HIV RNA at Day 9 between two groups.||0.2225|-0.4758|0.5452
91059902|NCT01009814|182001628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1682|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2055||0.4178|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5139|0.1775|||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis was that there was 0 difference in mean log10 decrease in HIV RNA at Day 9 between two groups.||0.1775|-0.5139|0.4178
91059903|NCT01009814|182001628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4885|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2075||0.0233|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8375|-0.1395|||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis was that there was 0 difference in mean log10 decrease in HIV RNA at Day 9 between two groups.||-0.1395|-0.8375|0.0233
91059904|NCT01009814|182001628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0177|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2043||0.9314|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3613|0.3259|||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis was that there was 0 difference in mean log10 decrease in HIV RNA at Day 9 between two groups.||0.3259|-0.3613|0.9314
91059905|NCT01009814|182001628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0592|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2045||0.7734|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4032|0.2847|||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis was that there was 0 difference in mean log10 decrease in HIV RNA at Day 9 between two groups.||0.2847|-0.4032|0.7734
91059906|NCT01009814|182001628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3796|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2043||0.0702|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7232|-0.036|||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis was that there was 0 difference in mean log10 decrease in HIV RNA at Day 9 between two groups.||-0.0360|-0.7232|0.0702
91059907|NCT01009814|182001628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0415|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1993||0.8359|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3768|0.2937|||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis was that there was 0 difference in mean log10 decrease in HIV RNA at Day 9 between two groups.||0.2937|-0.3768|0.8359
91059908|NCT01009814|182001628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3619|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1988||0.0759|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6962|-0.0275|||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis was that there was 0 difference in mean log10 decrease in HIV RNA at Day 9 between two groups.||-0.0275|-0.6962|0.0759
91059909|NCT01009814|182001628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3203|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1993||0.1155|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6555|0.0149|||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis was that there was 0 difference in mean log10 decrease in HIV RNA at Day 9 between two groups.||0.0149|-0.6555|0.1155
91059910|NCT04933383|182001676|SUPERIORITY||difference/ratio of least square means|180.6||||0.000813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|106.42|306.48|||ANCOVA|||"The primary efficacy endpoint is the change from baseline in PC20 after each treatment period (baseline is defined at Visit 1).~For primary efficacy analysis, the mean PC20 changes from baseline between AQ001S and the comparator were compared by analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) for crossover design. A p-value was calculated for the difference of the parameter between AQ001S and the comparator.~Additionally, an adjusted 95%-CI for the mean difference was obtained by the ANCOVA."||306.48|106.42|0.000813
91059911|NCT00180661|182001697|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
91059912|NCT00180661|182001698|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.005
91059913|NCT02237092|182001729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91059914|NCT02237092|182001730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91059915|NCT02237092|182001731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.02
91059916|NCT02237092|182001732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.58|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|2.58|||NNT|||||2.58|1.05|<0.05
91059917|NCT03713632|182001739|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.64||||0.0149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|2.55||one-sided p-value|Regression, Logistic|||||2.55|1.05|0.0149
91059918|NCT03713632|182001739|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|2.96||one-sided p-value|Regression, Logistic|||||2.96|1.22|0.0022
91059919|NCT03713632|182001740|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.33||||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.79|-3.88||one-side p-value|ANCOVA|||||-3.88|-28.79|0.0051
91059920|NCT03713632|182001740|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-22.94||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.24|-10.63||one-side p-value|ANCOVA|||||-10.63|-35.24|0.0001
91059921|NCT03713632|182001741|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.68||||0.0732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.14||one-sided p-value|Regression, Logistic|||||1.14|0.41|0.0732
91059922|NCT03713632|182001741|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.49||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.84||one-sided p-value|Regression, Logistic|||||0.84|0.29|0.0049
91059923|NCT03713632|182001742|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.29||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|4.09||one-sided p-value|Regression, Logistic|||||4.09|1.28|0.0026
91059924|NCT03713632|182001742|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.86||||0.0206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|3.37||one-sided p-value|Regression, Logistic|||||3.37|1.03|0.0206
91059925|NCT03971474|182001754|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.51|0.92||If either P value from the two tests (standard stratified log-rank and weighted log-rank) was \< 0.0972, the study would be considered to have rejected the null at the one-sided 10% level.|Log Rank|Testing was performed using a standard stratified log-rank test.|Treatment effects comparing the RP arm to the SOC arm were summarized using a Cox proportional hazards model including the stratification factors (PD-L1 status and histology) and 80% CIs.|Comparison of OS was performed using a standard stratified log-rank test and a weighted log-rank test. The study had 90% power to detect the scenario with overlapping curves up to 3 months and a hazard ratio of 0.5 after 3 months, assuming exponentially distributed survival times, a median OS of 10.5 months in the SOC arm, and uniform accrual over 21-24 months. This analysis reports the standard stratified log-rank test.||0.92|0.51|0.05
91078412|NCT04997265|182042659|OTHER|Given the small sample size, simple descriptive were used. Between-group differences were performed using a Fisher exact test.|||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
91078413|NCT01636947|182042677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.191|||||||Pearson's chi-square test|||||||0.191
90819827|NCT02967510|181518734|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|-1|=0.001
90819828|NCT02967510|181518735|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.071|-0.548|||ANCOVA|||||-0.548|-1.071|<0.001
90819829|NCT02967510|181518735|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.013|-0.484|||ANCOVA|||||-0.484|-1.013|<0.001
90819830|NCT02967510|181518735|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.916|-0.397|||ANCOVA|||||-0.397|-0.916|<0.001
90819831|NCT02967510|181518736|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.337|0.535|||ANCOVA|||||0.535|0.337|<0.001
90819832|NCT02967510|181518736|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.291|0.494|||ANCOVA|||||0.494|0.291|<0.001
90819833|NCT02967510|181518736|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.245|0.439|||ANCOVA|||||0.439|0.245|<0.001
90819834|NCT02967510|181518737|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.575|-0.371|||ANCOVA|||||-0.371|-0.575|<0.001
90819835|NCT02967510|181518737|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.592|-0.383|||ANCOVA|||||-0.383|-0.592|<0.001
90819836|NCT02967510|181518737|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||||-0.3|-0.5|<0.001
90819837|NCT00787189|181518752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0005||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0005
90819838|NCT00183625|181518769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.66
91059926|NCT03971474|182001754|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15||||||If either p-value from the two tests (standard stratified log-rank and weighted log-rank) was \< 0.0972, the study would be considered to have rejected the null at the one-sided 10% level.|Log Rank|||Comparison of OS was performed using a standard stratified log-rank test and a weighted log-rank test. The study had 90% power to detect the scenario with overlapping curves up to 3 months and a hazard ratio of 0.5 after 3 months, assuming exponentially distributed survival times, a median OS of 10.5 months in the SOC arm, and uniform accrual over 21-24 months. This analysis reports the weighted log-rank test.||||0.15
91059927|NCT03971474|182001755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19||||||Proportions were compared using a chi-squared test at the one-sided 5% level.|Chi-squared|||||||0.19
90819839|NCT00183625|181518770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0176||95.0||||The p-value listed is for the medication by time interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression of body mass index on medication group (risp or olanz), time (in days over first 18 months of study) and a group by time interaction with site and baseline timepoint indicators as covariates. The model included a random slope and intercept for time.||||.0176
90819840|NCT02524158|181518772|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.340
90819841|NCT02524158|181518773|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.003
90819842|NCT02524158|181518774|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||The a priori specified threshold is p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.005
90819843|NCT02524158|181518775|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.013
90819844|NCT02524158|181518776|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.044||||||The a priori specified threshold is p \< 0.05|ANCOVA|||||||0.044
90819845|NCT02524158|181518777|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.01
90819846|NCT02524158|181518778|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||The a priori specified threshold is p \< 0.05|ANCOVA|||||||0.010
90819847|NCT02524158|181518779|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.66
90819848|NCT02524158|181518780|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.1|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.10
90819849|NCT02524158|181518781|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.202|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.202
90819850|NCT02524158|181518782|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.369|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.369
90819851|NCT02524158|181518783|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.50
90819852|NCT02524158|181518784|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.067|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.067
90819853|NCT02524158|181518786|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.071|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.071
90819854|NCT02524158|181518787|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.92
90819855|NCT02524158|181518788|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036||||||The a priori specified threshold is p \< 0.05|ANCOVA|||||||0.036
90819856|NCT02524158|181518789|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.071|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.071
90819857|NCT01336023|181518830|NON_INFERIORITY|"Non-inferiority of IDegLira vs. IDeg was confirmed when 95% confidence interval for the treatment differences for change in HbA1c lies entirely below 0.3%.~IDegLira minus IDeg"|Treatment Contrast|-0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|-0.36|||ANCOVA||IDegLira minus IDeg|||-0.36|-0.58|
90819858|NCT01336023|181518830|SUPERIORITY|"Superiority of IDegLira over liraglutide was confirmed when the 95% confidence interval for the treatment difference for change in HbA1c lies entirely below 0%.~IDegLira minus Liraglutide"|Treatment contrast|-0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.53|||ANCOVA||IDegLira minus Liraglutide|||-0.53|-0.75|
90819859|NCT04118595|181518873|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.13
90819860|NCT04118595|181518874|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.41
90819861|NCT04118595|181518875|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.08
90819862|NCT04118595|181518876|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.64
90819863|NCT04118595|181518877|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.57
90819864|NCT04118595|181518878|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.43
90819865|NCT04118595|181518879|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.19
90819866|NCT04118595|181518880|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.15
90819867|NCT04118595|181518881|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.04
90819868|NCT04118595|181518882|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.36
90819869|NCT02478255|181518924|OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.22
90819870|NCT00516165|181518929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Kaplan Meier|||||||0.05
90819871|NCT00516165|181518930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Kaplan-Meier|||||||<0.05
90819872|NCT00516165|181518931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Kaplan-Meier|||||||<0.05
90819873|NCT00516165|181518932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Kaplan-Meier|||||||0.05
90819874|NCT00516165|181518933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Kaplan-Meier|||||||0.05
90819875|NCT00516165|181518934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Kaplan-Meier|||||||0.05
90819876|NCT00061633|181518939|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size was selected on the basis of clinical judgment and was deemed adequate to provide clinically meaningful descriptive results consistent with study objectives. This sample size was estimated to provide 39% power to test televancin's non-inferiority to vancomycin with respect to clinical response using a non-inferiority margin of 10%.||||||0.5289|||||||2-sided 95% confidence interval|||95% Confidence Interval: -0.1349 to 0.0485 No est. value. Parameter that was estimated: Risk Difference||||0.5289
90819877|NCT01431963|181518940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|43.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.85|55.96|||||The estimated value reflects the percentage of participants who were seizure free for all seizures.|||55.96|30.85|
90819878|NCT01431963|181518940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|40.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.02|54.09|||||The estimated value reflects the percentage of participants who were seizure free for A+B+C seizures.|||54.09|27.02|
90819879|NCT01431963|181518940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|40.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.63|56.72|||||The estimated value reflects the percentage of participants who were seizure free for A+B seizures.|||56.72|25.63|
90819880|NCT01431963|181518940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|69.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.29|84.41|||||The estimated value reflects the percentage of participants who were seizure free for C seizures.|||84.41|51.29|
90819881|NCT01431963|181518940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|80.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.39|97.48|||||The estimated value reflects the percentage of participants who were seizure free for D5 seizures.|||97.48|44.39|
90819882|NCT02255461|181518999|OTHER|Ordinal logistic regression model was built for outcome neutropenia (0/1/2). Explanatory variable AUC was transformed by dividing by 100.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.15||||||||1.15|0.97|
90819883|NCT02255461|181519000|OTHER|Ordinal logistic regression model was built for outcome lymphopenia (0/1/2). Explanatory variable AUC was transformed by dividing by 100.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.15||||||||1.15|0.97|
90819884|NCT02255461|181519001|OTHER|Ordinal logistic regression model was built for outcome leukopenia (0/1/2). Explanatory variable AUC was transformed by dividing by 100.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.2||||||||1.20|1.01|
90819885|NCT04120402|181519010|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.004
90819886|NCT04120402|181519011|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.014
90819887|NCT04120402|181519012|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90819888|NCT04120402|181519013|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.518|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.518
90819889|NCT04120402|181519014|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.028
91059928|NCT03971474|182001756|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38||||||Proportions were compared using a chi-squared test at the one-sided 5% level.|Chi-squared|||||||0.38
91059929|NCT03971474|182001759|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.66|1.14|||Log Rank|Testing was performed using a standard stratified log-rank test.|Treatment effects comparing the RP arm to the SOC arm were summarized using a Cox proportional hazards model including the stratification factors (PD-L1 status and histology) and 80% CIs.|Comparison of IA-PFS was performed using a standard stratified log-rank test and a weighted log-rank test with weights equal to 1-S(t), where S(t) is the pooled survival estimate at time t (G\[rho=0, gamma=1\]). The weighted test weights later events over earlier events and has more power than the standard log-rank test under a delayed separation in the curves. This analysis reports the standard stratified log-rank test.||1.14|0.66|0.25
90819890|NCT01357551|181519015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|3.13||A priori threshold was p\<.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Parameters included common intercept, initial weight loss stratum, dummy-coded time, and indicators for the maintenance X each follow-up time point||The sample size estimate was based on the primary hypothesis that patients randomized to receive the maintenance intervention would have less mean weight regain at week 56 than those randomized to usual care. The week 0 standard deviation was estimated as 24.6kg, the correlation between week 0 and week 56 as 0.95, and the week 56 dropout rate as 10%. To detect a difference of 3.5 kg with 90% power and a type I error rate of 5%, 230 total (115 in each group) randomized patients were needed.||3.13|.07|.04
90819891|NCT01357551|181519016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-125.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|78.64||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-280.71|29.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|Common intercept, initial weight loss stratum, indicators for week 26 \& 56, group X time interaction||The hypothesis was that patients randomized to receive the maintenance intervention would have less caloric intake at week 56 than those randomized to usual care.||29.72|-280.71|.11
90819892|NCT01357551|181519017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||incidence rate ratio|1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|Common intercept, initial weight loss stratum, indicators for week 26 \& 56, group X time interaction; negative binomial distribution with log link||The hypothesis was that patients randomized to receive the maintenance intervention would have higher rates of walking per week at week 56 than those randomized to usual care.||1.68|0.63|.91
90819893|NCT01357551|181519018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||incidence rate ratio|1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|2.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|Common intercept, initial weight loss stratum, indicators for week 26 \& 56, group X time interaction; negative binomial distribution with log link||The hypothesis was that patients randomized to receive the maintenance intervention would have higher rates of moderate physical activity per week at week 56 than those randomized to usual care.||2.03|0.57|.83
90819894|NCT06292130|181519023|OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.17
90819895|NCT06292130|181519024|OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.006
90819896|NCT00921843|181519032|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
90819897|NCT00711971|181519033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||ANOVA|||Significance for the BDI test at 26-28 weeks||||.29
91078414|NCT01636947|182042678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.458|||||||Pearson's chi-square test|||Overall Stage p-value||||0.458
90819898|NCT00711971|181519033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51|||||||ANOVA|||Significance for BDI at 34-36 weeks gestation||||.51
90819899|NCT00711971|181519033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.56|||||||ANOVA|||BDI score at 6-8 weeks postpartum||||.56
90819900|NCT00711971|181519034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||Fisher Exact|||Gestational diabetes mellitus||||.06
91059930|NCT03971474|182001759|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||Log Rank|Testing was performed using a weighted log-rank test.||Comparison of IA-PFS between the RP and SOC arms was performed using a standard stratified log-rank test and a weighted log-rank test with weights equal to 1-S(t), where S(t) is the pooled survival estimate at time t (G\[rho=0, gamma=1\]). The weighted test weights later events over earlier events and has more power than the standard log-rank test under a delayed separation in the curves. This analysis reports the weighted log-rank test.||||0.14
91059931|NCT03971474|182001760|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.5|1.1||One-sided p-values were calculated using a standard log-rank test.|Log Rank||Treatment effects comparing the RP arm to the SOC arm were summarized using a Cox proportional hazards model and 80% CIs.|This analysis includes the results for the PD-L1 \< 1% subgroup.||1.10|0.50|0.16
91059932|NCT03971474|182001760|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.45|0.97||One-sided p-values were calculated using a standard log-rank test.|Log Rank||Treatment effects comparing the RP arm to the SOC arm were summarized using a Cox proportional hazards model and 80% CIs.|This analysis includes the results for the PD-L1 \>= 1% subgroup.||0.97|0.45|0.08
91059933|NCT03971474|182001760|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.43||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.28|0.65||One-sided p-values were calculated using a standard log-rank test.|Log Rank||Treatment effects comparing the RP arm to the SOC arm were summarized using a Cox proportional hazards model and 80% CIs.|This analysis includes the results for the squamous histology subgroup.||0.65|0.28|0.005
91059934|NCT03971474|182001760|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.67|1.35||One-sided p-values were calculated using a standard log-rank test.|Log Rank||Treatment effects comparing the RP arm to the SOC arm were summarized using a Cox proportional hazards model and 80% CIs.|This analysis includes the results for the non-squamous histology subgroup.||1.35|0.67|0.43
91059935|NCT03971474|182001761|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.58|1.22||One-sided p-values were calculated using a standard log-rank test.|Log Rank||Treatment effects comparing the RP arm to the SOC arm were summarized using a Cox proportional hazards model and 80% CIs.|This analysis includes the results for the PD-L1 \< 1% subgroup.||1.22|0.58|0.28
91059936|NCT03971474|182001761|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.48|0.95||One-sided p-values were calculated using a standard log-rank test.|Log Rank||Treatment effects comparing the RP arm to the SOC arm were summarized using a Cox proportional hazards model and 80% CIs.|This analysis includes the results for the PD-L1 \>= 1% subgroup.||0.95|0.48|0.07
91059937|NCT03971474|182001761|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.55||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.38|0.8||One-sided p-values were calculated using a standard log-rank test.|Log Rank||Treatment effects comparing the RP arm to the SOC arm were summarized using a Cox proportional hazards model and 80% CIs.|This analysis includes the results for the squamous histology subgroup.||0.80|0.38|0.02
90819901|NCT00711971|181519034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||Fisher Exact|||Hypertension or preeclampsia||||.12
90819902|NCT00711971|181519034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||Fisher Exact|||Induced labor||||.20
90819903|NCT00711971|181519034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Fisher Exact|||Cesarean section||||.08
91059938|NCT03971474|182001761|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.69|1.29||One-sided p-values were calculated using a standard log-rank test.|Log Rank||Treatment effects comparing the RP arm to the SOC arm were summarized using a Cox proportional hazards model and 80% CIs.|This analysis includes the results for the non-squamous histology subgroup.||1.29|0.69|0.41
91059939|NCT01023035|182001763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|7.2|||Mantel-Haenszel, modified Koch method|||The modified Koch method was used to calculate the stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel (MH) difference between the SVR rates for the Erythropoietin Use Arm versus the Ribavirin Dose Reduction Arm and corresponding 95% confidence interval with continuity correction.||7.2|-8.6|
91059940|NCT01937871|182001766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|-0.57||||||||-0.57|-2.25|
91059941|NCT01937871|182001770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|0.18||||||||0.18|-1.87|
91059942|NCT02652949|182001804|SUPERIORITY||Event rate|0.023|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|97.5||0.081|||Exact binomial test|||"The primary study endpoint, major device effect at 30 days, is a dichotomous study outcome; hence, an exact method based on the binomial distribution was used for the hypothesis testing. The primary study endpoint was tested against a performance goal of 16%:~H0: p ≥ 16% vs. Ha: p \<16%, where p denotes the true event rate of primary study endpoint in the target population."||0.081||<0.0001
90819904|NCT00711971|181519034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88|||||||Fisher Exact|||Spontaneous vaginal delivery||||.88
90819905|NCT00711971|181519034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32|||||||Fisher Exact|||Operative vaginal delivery||||.32
90819906|NCT00711971|181519035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<.0001
90819907|NCT00711971|181519036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81|||||||ANOVA|||||||.81
90819908|NCT00711971|181519037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|Kruskal-Wallis test was used for outliers; Tukey multiple comparisons test was also used.||||||<.001
90819909|NCT00711971|181519038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39|||||||ANOVA|||||||.39
90819910|NCT00711971|181519039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||ANOVA|||||||.19
90819911|NCT00711971|181519040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
90819912|NCT00711971|181519041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.54
90819913|NCT03100058|181519061|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.17|-0.29|||ANCOVA|||||-0.29|-3.17|<0.0001
91059943|NCT05199090|182001839|OTHER||adjusted means|-1.9||||0.0182|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.9|-0.9|||MMRM analysis|||Comparison of adjusted means||-0.9|-2.9|0.0182
91059944|NCT05199090|182001839|OTHER||adjusted means|-1.3||||0.1205|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.4|-0.2|||MMRM analysis|||||-0.2|-2.4|0.1205
91059945|NCT05199090|182001839|OTHER||adjusted means|-1.3||||0.0931|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.2|-0.3|||MMRM analysis|||||-0.3|-2.2|0.0931
91059946|NCT05199090|182001839|OTHER||adjusted means|0.6||||0.4994|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.5|1.7|||MMRM analysis|||||1.7|-0.5|0.4994
91059947|NCT05199090|182001839|OTHER||adjusted means|1.0||||0.2295|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.1|2.1|||MMRM analysis|||||2.1|-0.1|0.2295
91059948|NCT05199090|182001839|OTHER||adjusted means|-0.7||||0.2114|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.3|0.0|||MMRM analysis|||||0.0|-1.3|0.2114
91059949|NCT00384930|182001855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change = Endpoint minus Baseline.|Permutation Test|||This is the principal inferential analysis of the primary outcome.||||<0.001
90819914|NCT03100058|181519061|OTHER|Dose finding study|Median Difference (Net)|-1.93|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.36|-0.5|||ANCOVA|||||-0.50|-3.36|<0.0001
90819915|NCT03100058|181519061|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.86|-1.75|||ANCOVA|||||-1.75|-4.86|<0.0001
90819916|NCT03100058|181519061|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-4.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.39|-3.44|||ANCOVA|||||-3.44|-5.39|<0.0001
90819917|NCT03100058|181519061|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.53|-0.25|||ANCOVA|||||-0.25|-2.53|<0.0001
90819918|NCT03100058|181519061|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.11|-1.36|||ANCOVA|||||-1.36|-4.11|<0.0001
90819919|NCT03100058|181519061|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-4.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.54|-2.68|||ANCOVA|||||-2.68|-5.54|<0.0001
90819920|NCT03100058|181519061|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-4.48|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.54|-3.43|||ANCOVA|||||-3.43|-5.54|<0.0001
90819921|NCT03100058|181519062|OTHER|Dose finding study|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.38||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|6.67|||ANCOVA|||\>=5%||6.67|0.85|0.099
90819922|NCT03100058|181519062|OTHER|Dose finding study|Odds Ratio, log|1.18||||0.779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|3.84|||ANCOVA|||\>=5%||3.84|0.36|0.779
90819923|NCT03100058|181519062|OTHER|Dose finding study|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.69||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|10.11|||ANCOVA|||\>=5%||10.11|1.35|0.011
90819924|NCT03100058|181519062|OTHER|Dose finding study|Odds Ratio (OR)|5.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.41|12.88|||ANCOVA|||\>=5%||12.88|2.41|<.001
90819925|NCT03100058|181519062|OTHER|Dose finding study|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|3.74|||ANCOVA|||\>=5%||3.74|0.36|0.812
90819926|NCT03100058|181519062|OTHER|Dose finding study|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.94||||0.229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|5.69|||ANCOVA|||\>=5%||5.69|0.66|0.229
90819927|NCT03100058|181519062|OTHER|Dose finding study|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.29||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.61|11.46|||ANCOVA|||\>=5%||11.46|1.61|0.004
90819928|NCT03100058|181519062|OTHER|Dose finding study|Odds Ratio (OR)|6.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.72|14.93|||ANCOVA|||\>=5%||14.93|2.72|<.001
90819929|NCT03100058|181519062|OTHER|Dose finding study|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|12.41|||ANCOVA|||\>=10%||12.41|0.10|0.943
90819930|NCT03100058|181519062|OTHER|Dose finding study|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.11||||0.465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|15.77|||ANCOVA|||\>=10%||15.77|0.28|0.465
90819931|NCT03100058|181519062|OTHER|Dose finding study|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6||||0.696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|17.15|||ANCOVA|||\>=10%||17.15|0.15|0.696
90819932|NCT03100058|181519062|OTHER|Dose finding study|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.14||||0.389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|12.1|||ANCOVA|||\>=10%||12.10|0.38|0.389
90819933|NCT03100058|181519062|OTHER|Dose finding study|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|11.87|||ANCOVA|||\>=10%||11.87|0.09|0.976
90819934|NCT03100058|181519062|OTHER|Dose finding study|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|11.7|||ANCOVA|||\>=10%||11.70|0.09|0.986
90819935|NCT03100058|181519062|OTHER|Dose finding study|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.51||||0.181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|22.18|||ANCOVA|||\>=10%||22.18|0.56|0.181
90819936|NCT03100058|181519062|OTHER|Dose finding study|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.97||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|20.54|||ANCOVA|||\>=10%||20.54|0.77|0.100
90819937|NCT03100058|181519063|OTHER|Dose finding study|Odds Ratio (OR)|6.29||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|38.76|||ANCOVA|||\>=5% (Dysglycemic)||38.76|1.02|0.048
90819938|NCT03100058|181519063|OTHER|Dose finding study|Odds Ratio, log|3.94||||0.171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|28.03|||ANCOVA|||\>=5% (Dsyglycemic)||28.03|0.55|0.171
90819939|NCT03100058|181519063|OTHER|Dose finding study|Odds Ratio (OR)|7.17||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|47.27|||ANCOVA|||\>=5% (Dysglycemic)||47.27|1.09|0.041
90819940|NCT03100058|181519063|OTHER|Dose finding study|Odds Ratio (OR)|11.89||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.32|60.93|||ANCOVA|||\>=5% (Dysglycemic)||60.93|2.32|0.003
90819941|NCT03100058|181519063|OTHER|Dose finding study|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|11.72|||ANCOVA|||\>=5% (Dysglycemic)||11.72|0.08|0.976
90819942|NCT03100058|181519063|OTHER|Dose finding study|Odds Ratio (OR)|8.78||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|56.44|||ANCOVA|||\>=5% (Dysglycemic)||56.44|1.37|0.022
90819943|NCT03100058|181519063|OTHER|Dose finding study|Odds Ratio (OR)|7.5||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|46.99|||ANCOVA|||\>=5% (Dysglycemic)||46.99|1.20|0.032
90819944|NCT03100058|181519063|OTHER|Dose finding study|Odds Ratio (OR)|11.28||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.11|60.46|||ANCOVA|||\>=5% (Dysglycemic)||60.46|2.11|0.005
90819945|NCT03100058|181519063|OTHER|Dose finding study|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.21||||0.227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|21.28|||ANCOVA|||\>=5% (Normoglycemic)||21.28|0.48|0.227
90819946|NCT03100058|181519063|OTHER|Dose finding study|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||0.763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|7.85|||ANCOVA|||\>=5% (Normoglycemic)||7.85|0.06|0.763
90819947|NCT03100058|181519063|OTHER|Dose finding study|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.68||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|28.7|||ANCOVA|||\>=5% (Normoglycemic)||28.70|0.76|0.095
90819948|NCT03100058|181519063|OTHER|Dose finding study|Odds Ratio (OR)|5.33||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|24.83|||ANCOVA|||\>=5% (Normoglycemic)||24.83|1.14|0.033
90819949|NCT03100058|181519063|OTHER|Dose finding study|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72||||0.788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|8.1|||ANCOVA|||\>=5% (Normoglycemic)||8.10|0.06|0.788
90819950|NCT03100058|181519063|OTHER|Dose finding study|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.68||||0.751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|7.62|||ANCOVA|||\>=5% (Normoglycemic)||7.62|0.06|0.751
90819951|NCT03100058|181519063|OTHER|Dose finding study|Odds Ratio (OR)|8.05||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|51.09|||ANCOVA|||\>=5% (Normoglycemic)||51.09|1.27|0.027
90819952|NCT03100058|181519063|OTHER|Dose finding study|Odds Ratio (OR)|6.64||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|34.0|||ANCOVA|||\>=5% (Normoglycemic)||34.00|1.30|0.023
90819953|NCT03100058|181519063|OTHER|Dose finding study|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.48||||0.528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|4.78|||ANCOVA|||\>=5% (T2DM)||4.78|0.05|0.528
90819954|NCT03100058|181519063|OTHER|Dose finding study|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|6.68|||ANCOVA|||\>=5% (T2DM)||6.68|0.17|0.958
90819955|NCT03100058|181519063|OTHER|Dose finding study|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|9.49|||ANCOVA|||\>=5% (T2DM)||9.49|0.30|0.546
90819956|NCT03100058|181519063|OTHER|Dose finding test|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.09||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|11.75|||ANCOVA|||\>=5% (T2DM)||11.75|0.81|0.098
90819957|NCT03100058|181519063|OTHER|Dose finding study|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.64||||0.563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|8.7|||ANCOVA|||\>=5% (T2DM)||8.70|0.31|0.563
90819958|NCT03100058|181519063|OTHER|Dose finding study|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.55||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|5.38|||ANCOVA|||\>=5% (T2DM)||5.38|0.06|0.610
90819959|NCT03100058|181519063|OTHER|Dose finding study|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|9.16|||ANCOVA|||\>=5% (T2DM)||9.16|0.32|0.528
90819960|NCT03100058|181519063|OTHER|Dose finding study|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.55||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|16.9|||ANCOVA|||\>=5% (T2DM)||16.90|1.23|0.023
90819961|NCT03100058|181519064|OTHER|Dose finding study|Median Difference (Net)|-0.8||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.96|1.37|||ANCOVA|||||1.37|-2.96|0.470
90819962|NCT03100058|181519064|OTHER|Dose finding study|Median Difference (Net)|-1.4||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.64|0.76|||ANCOVA|||||0.76|-3.64|0.199
90819963|NCT03100058|181519064|OTHER|Dose finding study|Median Difference (Net)|-1.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.64|0.76|||ANCOVA|||||0.76|-3.64|<0.001
90819964|NCT03100058|181519064|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.4||||0.206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.56|0.77|||ANCOVA|||||0.77|-3.56|0.206
90819965|NCT03100058|181519064|OTHER|Dose finding study|Median Difference (Net)|-3.0||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.18|-0.88|||ANCOVA|||||-0.88|-5.18|0.006
90819966|NCT03100058|181519064|OTHER|Dose finding study|Median Difference (Net)|-3.5||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|-1.3|||ANCOVA|||||-1.30|-5.70|0.002
90819967|NCT03100058|181519064|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|-1.51|||ANCOVA|||||-1.51|-5.10|<0.001
90819968|NCT03100058|181519064|OTHER|Dose finding study|Median Difference (Net)|-0.9||||0.391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.82|1.1|||ANCOVA|||||1.10|-2.82|0.391
90819969|NCT03100058|181519064|OTHER|Dose finding study|Median Difference (Net)|-2.5||||0.259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|0.84|||ANCOVA|||||0.84|-3.10|0.259
90819970|NCT03100058|181519064|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.5||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.91|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||||-0.02|-4.91|0.048
90819971|NCT03100058|181519065|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|1.0||||0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|2.61|||ANCOVA|||||2.61|-0.62|0.225
90819972|NCT03100058|181519065|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.62|0.68|||ANCOVA|||||0.68|-2.62|0.247
90819973|NCT03100058|181519065|OTHER|Dose finding study|Median Difference (Net)|-2.0||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.75|-0.34|||ANCOVA|||||-0.34|-3.75|0.019
90819974|NCT03100058|181519065|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.6||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.96|-0.33|||ANCOVA|||||-0.33|-2.96|0.015
90819975|NCT03100058|181519065|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.97|0.29|||ANCOVA|||||0.29|-2.97|0.106
90819976|NCT03100058|181519065|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.9||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.54|-0.31|||ANCOVA|||||-0.31|-3.54|0.020
90819977|NCT03100058|181519065|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.8||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.44|-0.12|||ANCOVA|||||-0.12|-3.44|0.035
90819978|NCT03100058|181519065|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.9||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.22|-0.61|||ANCOVA|||||-0.61|-3.22|0.004
90819979|NCT03100058|181519066|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|0.4||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.79|||ANCOVA|||||0.79|-0.05|0.082
90819980|NCT03100058|181519066|OTHER|Dose finding study|Median Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.21|||ANCOVA|||||0.21|-0.63|0.319
90819981|NCT03100058|181519066|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.16|||ANCOVA|||||-0.16|-1.05|0.008
90819982|NCT03100058|181519066|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.08|||ANCOVA|||||-0.08|-0.76|0.015
90819983|NCT03100058|181519066|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.34|||ANCOVA|||||0.34|-0.50|0.707
90819984|NCT03100058|181519066|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.19|||ANCOVA|||||0.19|-0.65|0.280
90819985|NCT03100058|181519066|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.05|||ANCOVA|||||0.05|-0.80|0.086
90819986|NCT03100058|181519066|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||||-0.04|-0.72|0.030
90819987|NCT03100058|181519067|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.8||||0.156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.64|1.07|||ANCOVA|||SBP||1.07|-6.64|0.156
90819988|NCT03100058|181519067|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.1||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.11|0.89|||ANCOVA|||SBP||0.89|-7.11|0.127
90819989|NCT03100058|181519067|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-6.5||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.52|-2.42|||ANCOVA|||SBP||-2.42|-10.52|0.002
90819990|NCT03100058|181519067|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.7||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.86|0.42|||ANCOVA|||SBP||0.42|-5.86|0.089
90819991|NCT03100058|181519067|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.3||||0.245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.12|1.57|||ANCOVA|||SBP||1.57|-6.12|0.245
90819992|NCT03100058|181519067|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8||||0.678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.65|3.02|||ANCOVA|||SBP||3.02|-4.65|0.678
90819993|NCT03100058|181519067|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-4.1||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.07|-0.19|||ANCOVA|||SBP||-0.19|-8.07|0.040
90819994|NCT03100058|181519067|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.4||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.61|-0.19|||ANCOVA|||SBP||-0.19|-6.61|0.038
90819995|NCT03100058|181519067|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.38|1.96|||ANCOVA|||DBP||1.96|-3.38|0.601
90819996|NCT03100058|181519067|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|2.34|||ANCOVA|||DBP||2.34|-3.20|0.760
90819997|NCT03100058|181519067|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.8||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|0.01|||ANCOVA|||DBP||0.01|-5.60|0.051
90819998|NCT03100058|181519067|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.8||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.98|0.38|||ANCOVA|||DBP||0.38|-3.98|0.105
90819999|NCT03100058|181519067|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.36|2.98|||ANCOVA|||DBP||2.98|-2.36|0.820
90820000|NCT03100058|181519067|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.9||||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.58|0.74|||ANCOVA|||DBP||0.74|-4.58|0.157
90820001|NCT03100058|181519067|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.99|2.49|||ANCOVA|||DBP||2.49|-2.99|0.859
90820002|NCT03100058|181519067|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.2||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.41|0.04|||ANCOVA|||DBP||0.04|-4.41|0.054
90820003|NCT03100058|181519069|OTHER|Dose finding study|Median Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|0.66|||ANCOVA|||||0.66|-1.84|0.355
90820004|NCT03100058|181519069|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|0.69|||ANCOVA|||||0.69|-1.83|0.373
90820005|NCT03100058|181519069|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.36|-1.24|||ANCOVA|||||-1.24|-4.36|<0.001
91059950|NCT00384930|182001856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.57||||0.025||95.0|-1.08|-0.07||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint - Baseline. P-values from ANCOVA model with effect of treatment group, geographic region, and baseline value of analyzed variable as a covariate, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = 2.5 mg Tadalafil minus Placebo|||-0.07|-1.08|0.025
91059951|NCT00384930|182001856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.4|-0.4||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint - Baseline. P-values from ANCOVA model with effect of treatment group, geographic region, and baseline value of analyzed variable as a covariate, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = 5 mg Tadalafil minus Placebo|||-0.40|-1.40|<0.001
90820006|NCT03100058|181519075|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|1.07||||0.632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.42|||ANCOVA|||||1.42|0.81|0.632
90820007|NCT03100058|181519075|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|1.15||||0.352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.55|||ANCOVA|||||1.55|0.86|0.352
90820008|NCT03100058|181519075|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|1.41||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.92|||ANCOVA|||||1.92|1.04|0.027
90820009|NCT03100058|181519075|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|1.07||||0.587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.35|||ANCOVA|||||1.35|0.85|0.587
90820010|NCT03100058|181519075|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|1.1||||0.508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.47|||ANCOVA|||||1.47|0.82|0.508
90820011|NCT03100058|181519075|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|1.01||||0.945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.34|||ANCOVA|||||1.34|0.76|0.945
90820012|NCT03100058|181519075|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|1.08||||0.602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.45|||ANCOVA|||||1.45|0.81|0.602
90820013|NCT03100058|181519075|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|1.06||||0.612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.35|||ANCOVA|||||1.35|0.84|0.612
90820014|NCT03100058|181519075|OTHER|Dose finding study|Median Difference (Net)|0.89||||0.382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.16|||ANCOVA|||||1.16|0.68|0.382
90820015|NCT03100058|181519075|OTHER|Dose finding study|Median Difference (Net)|0.87||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.14|||ANCOVA|||||1.14|0.67|0.310
90820016|NCT03100058|181519075|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|0.9||||0.525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.25|||ANCOVA|||||1.25|0.65|0.525
90820017|NCT03100058|181519076|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-7.9||||0.254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.37|5.65|||ANCOVA|||Triglycerides (TG)||5.65|-21.37|0.254
90820018|NCT03100058|181519076|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.7||||0.716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.44|11.99|||ANCOVA|||Triglycerides (TG)||11.99|-17.44|0.716
90820019|NCT03100058|181519076|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-15.6||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.3|-0.86|||ANCOVA|||Triglycerides (TG)||-0.86|-30.30|0.038
90820020|NCT03100058|181519076|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-7.0||||0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.15|4.06|||ANCOVA|||Triglycerides (TG)||4.06|-18.15|0.213
90820021|NCT03100058|181519076|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.7||||0.806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.38|11.96|||ANCOVA|||Triglycerides (TG)||11.96|-15.38|0.806
90820022|NCT03100058|181519076|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.3||||0.739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.8|11.21|||ANCOVA|||Triglycerides (TG)||11.21|-15.80|0.739
90820023|NCT03100058|181519076|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|1.4||||0.837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.36|15.26|||ANCOVA|||Triglycerides (TG)||15.26|-12.36|0.837
90820024|NCT03100058|181519076|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.4||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.71|-0.07|||ANCOVA|||Triglycerides (TG)||-0.07|-22.71|0.049
90820025|NCT03100058|181519076|OTHER|Dose finding study|Median Difference (Net)|1.3||||0.764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.22|9.82|||ANCOVA|||Total Cholesterol (TC)||9.82|-7.22|0.764
90820026|NCT03100058|181519076|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|2.6||||0.571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.43|11.63|||ANCOVA|||Total Cholesterol (TC)||11.63|-6.43|0.571
90820027|NCT03100058|181519076|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|9.46|||ANCOVA|||Total Cholesterol (TC)||9.46|-9.30|0.987
90820028|NCT03100058|181519076|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|9.9||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.85|16.87|||ANCOVA|||Total Cholesterol (TC)||16.87|2.85|0.006
90820029|NCT03100058|181519076|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.3||||0.463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.03|5.48|||ANCOVA|||Total Cholesterol (TC)||5.48|-12.03|0.463
90820030|NCT03100058|181519076|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|0.4||||0.925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.18|9.01|||ANOVA|||Total Cholesterol (TC)||9.01|-8.18|0.925
90820031|NCT03100058|181519076|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|1.7||||0.711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.19|10.53|||ANCOVA|||Total Cholesterol (TC)||10.53|-7.19|0.711
90820032|NCT03100058|181519076|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|4.1||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|11.26|||ANCOVA|||Total Cholesterol (TC)||11.26|-3.10|0.265
90820033|NCT03100058|181519076|OTHER|Dose finding study|Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.31|7.36|||ANCOVA|||HDL Cholesterol||7.36|-7.31|0.995
90820034|NCT03100058|181519076|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|4.1||||0.288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.52|11.81|||ANCOVA|||HDL Cholesterol||11.81|-3.52|0.288
90820035|NCT03100058|181519076|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|4.5||||0.269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|12.5|||ANCOVA|||HDL Cholesterol||12.50|-3.50|0.269
90820036|NCT03100058|181519076|OTHER|Dose finding study|Median Difference (Net)|7.3||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|13.27|||ANCOVA|||HDL Cholesterol||13.27|1.23|0.018
90820037|NCT03100058|181519076|OTHER|Dose finding study|Median Difference (Net)|2.2||||0.565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.32|9.73|||ANCOVA|||HDL Cholesterol||9.73|-5.32|0.565
90820038|NCT03100058|181519076|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|1.7||||0.649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.67|9.09|||ANCOVA|||HDL Cholesterol||9.09|-5.67|0.649
90820039|NCT03100058|181519076|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|0.7||||0.847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.87|8.36|||ANCOVA|||HDL Cholesterol||8.36|-6.87|0.847
90820040|NCT03100058|181519076|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|7.3||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|13.43|||ANCOVA|||HDL Cholesterol||13.43|1.14|0.020
90820041|NCT03100058|181519076|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.8||||0.579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.09|9.57|||ANCOVA|||LDL Cholesterol||9.57|-17.09|0.579
90820042|NCT03100058|181519076|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.0||||0.487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.08|19.02|||ANCOVA|||LDL Cholesterol||19.02|-9.08|0.487
90820043|NCT03100058|181519076|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-4.3||||0.561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.96|10.3|||ANCOVA|||LDL Cholesterol||10.30|-18.96|0.561
90820044|NCT03100058|181519076|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.3||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|20.25|||ANCOVA|||LDL Cholesterol||20.25|-1.68|0.097
90820045|NCT03100058|181519076|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-8.4||||0.227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.1|5.26|||ANCOVA|||LDL Cholesterol||5.26|-22.10|0.227
90820046|NCT03100058|181519076|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.8||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.22|9.64|||ANCOVA|||LDL Cholesterol||9.64|-17.22|0.580
90820047|NCT03100058|181519076|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-4.8||||0.494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.67|9.03|||ANCOVA|||LDL Cholesterol||9.03|-18.67|0.494
90820048|NCT03100058|181519076|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.6||||0.782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.81|9.65|||ANCOVA|||LDL Cholesterol||9.65|-12.81|0.782
90820049|NCT03100058|181519076|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|1.9||||0.816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.82|17.54|||ANCOVA|||Triglycerides (TG)||17.54|-13.82|0.816
90820050|NCT03100058|181519076|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|8.02||||0.341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.13|23.42|||ANCOVA|||Triglycerides (TG)||23.42|-8.13|0.341
90820051|NCT03100058|181519076|OTHER|Dose finding study|Median Difference (Net)|9.99||||0.566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.39|13.91|||ANCOVA|||Triglycerides (TG)||13.91|-25.39|0.566
90820052|NCT03100058|181519076|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|2.98||||0.405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.38|8.36|||ANCOVA|||Total Cholesterol (TC)||8.36|-3.38|0.405
90820053|NCT03100058|181519076|OTHER|Dose finding study|Median Difference (Net)|2.0||||0.511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.92|7.87|||ANCOVA|||Total Cholesterol (TC)||7.87|-3.92|0.511
90820054|NCT03100058|181519076|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|2.5||||0.506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.83|9.79|||ANCOVA|||Total Cholesterol (TC)||9.79|-4.83|0.506
90820055|NCT03100058|181519076|OTHER|Dose finding study|Median Difference (Net)|3.3||||0.392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|10.7|||ANCOVA|||HDL Cholesterol||10.70|-4.20|0.392
90820056|NCT03100058|181519076|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|3.0||||0.426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.45|10.53|||ANOVA|||HDL Cholesterol||10.53|-4.45|0.426
90820057|NCT03100058|181519076|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|8.5||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|17.8|||ANCOVA|||HDL Cholesterol||17.80|-0.72|0.071
90820058|NCT03100058|181519076|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|2.9||||0.498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.56|11.42|||ANCOVA|||LDL Cholesterol||11.42|-5.56|0.498
90820059|NCT03100058|181519076|OTHER|Dose finding study|Median Difference (Net)|2.4||||0.586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.17|10.9|||ANCOVA|||LDL Cholesterol||10.90|-6.17|0.586
90820060|NCT03100058|181519076|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|2.1||||0.696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.47|12.67|||ANCOVA|||LDL Cholesterol||12.67|-8.47|0.696
90820061|NCT00465088|181519081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||alpha = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||An n = 81 for niacin extended-release with simvastatin and n = 54 for atorvastatin would provide \> 99% power to detect a 13% increase in HDL-C with niacin extended-release with simvastatin relative to atorvastatin, assuming an SD of 16%||||<0.001
90820062|NCT01835158|181519106|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.95|||Log Rank|||||.95|.46|0.012
90820063|NCT01835158|181519107|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.26||||||||1.26|0.50|
90820064|NCT00596830|181519110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.179||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.404||The p-value stated is the 2-sided p-value from the log rank test stratified by gender, prior adjuvant chemotherapy, and histology.|Log Rank|||||1.404|0.990|0.064
90820065|NCT00596830|181519111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.103||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.925|1.315||2-sided p-value is from the unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank||HR was based on the Cox proportional hazards model|||1.315|0.925|0.270
90820066|NCT00596830|181519112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk difference|-1.472||||0.685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|5.6|||Chi-squared||Risk difference confidence interval was calculated based on a normal distribution.|||5.6|-8.6|0.685
90820067|NCT00939562|181519120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|102.95||||||90.0|94.74|111.86|||||The adjusted mean differences and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were exponentiated to provide the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. Doxycycline carragenate=Reference, doxycycline monohydrate=Test.|Natural log transformed Cmax was analyzed using a mixed effects model (sequence, period and treatment were fixed effects and subject within sequence was a random effect).||111.86|94.74|
90820068|NCT00939562|181519121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|104.67||||||90.0|98.95|110.73|||||The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs were exponentiated to provide the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. Doxycycline carragenate=Reference, doxycycline monohydrate=Test.|Natural log transformed AUCinf was analyzed using a mixed effects model (sequence, period and treatment were fixed effects and subject within sequence was a random effect).||110.73|98.95|
90820069|NCT01919801|181519122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.633||||||Test was performed using a weighted log-rank test called the Peto-Prentice test with a global 2-sided significance level of 5% after adjusting for stratification factors (race, and severity) in the ITT population.|Adjusted Peto-Prentice|||A total of 121 participants were analysed, however 3 participants did not receive the study medication and were censored at time 0.||||0.633
90820070|NCT01059994|181519132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
91059952|NCT00384930|182001856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.96|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.45|-0.46||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint - Baseline. P-values from ANCOVA model with effect of treatment group, geographic region, and baseline value of analyzed variable as a covariate, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = 10 mg Tadalafil minus Placebo|||-0.46|-1.45|<0.001
90820071|NCT01059994|181519133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004
90820072|NCT01677858|181519134|OTHER||Maximum Tolerated Dose (mg/m²)|70.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90820073|NCT00988091|181519150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|5.33||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|10.24||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons because there was a single treatment comparison for the primary endpoint. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures ANCOVA|The analysis included baseline score as a covariate and study center as a stratification variable.||A treatment difference of \>=7.0 mm and a pooled SD of 27.6 mm, requires a sample size of 244 subjects/treatment to complete the trial at 80% power at a two-sided significance level of 5%. To account for 18% dropout rate, the sample size was increased to 298/arm (total of 596). The primary null hypothesis (Ho) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 26 weeks is equal and the corresponding alternative hypothesis (HA) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 26 weeks is unequal.||10.24|0.41|0.034
90820074|NCT00988091|181519151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|2.89||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|7.08||For secondary outcome measures, fixed-sequence testing was used in a sequentially rejective fashion. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures ANCOVA|The analysis included baseline score as a covariate and study center as a stratification variable.||The null hypothesis (Ho) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 26 weeks is equal and the corresponding alternative hypothesis (HA) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 26 weeks is unequal.||7.08|-1.29|0.175
90820075|NCT00988091|181519152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.777||||0.193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.532|1.136||For secondary outcome measures, fixed-sequence testing was used in a sequentially rejective fashion. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05.|Regression, Logistic|The analysis included study center as a stratification variable.||The null hypothesis (Ho) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 26 weeks is equal and the corresponding alternative hypothesis (HA) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 26 weeks is unequal.||1.136|0.532|0.193
90820076|NCT00988091|181519153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.887||95.0||||For secondary outcome measures, fixed-sequence testing was used in a sequentially rejective fashion. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis included study center as a stratification variable.||The null hypothesis (Ho) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 26 weeks is equal and the corresponding alternative hypothesis (HA) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 26 weeks is unequal.||||0.887
91059953|NCT00384930|182001856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.07|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.58|-0.57||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint - Baseline. P-values from ANCOVA model with effect of treatment group, geographic region, and baseline value of analyzed variable as a covariate, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = 20 mg Tadalafil minus Placebo|||-0.57|-1.58|<0.001
91059954|NCT00384930|182001857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.97||||0.008||95.0|-1.69|-0.26||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint - Baseline. P-values from ANCOVA model with effect of treatment group, geographic region, and baseline value of analyzed variable as a covariate, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = 2.5 mg Tadalafil minus Placebo|||-0.26|-1.69|0.008
91059955|NCT00384930|182001857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.69|||<|0.001||95.0|-2.4|-0.98||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint - Baseline. P-values from ANCOVA model with effect of treatment group, geographic region, and baseline value of analyzed variable as a covariate, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = 5 mg Tadalafil minus Placebo|||-0.98|-2.40|<0.001
91059956|NCT00384930|182001857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.89|||<|0.001||95.0|-2.6|-1.18||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint - Baseline. P-values from ANCOVA model with effect of treatment group, geographic region, and baseline value of analyzed variable as a covariate, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = 10 mg Tadalafil minus Placebo|||-1.18|-2.60|<0.001
91059957|NCT00384930|182001857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.87|||<|0.001||95.0|-2.59|-1.15||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint - Baseline. P-values from ANCOVA model with effect of treatment group, geographic region, and baseline value of analyzed variable as a covariate, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = 20 mg Tadalafil minus Placebo|||-1.15|-2.59|<0.001
91059958|NCT00384930|182001858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07||||0.503||95.0|-0.28|0.14||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint - Baseline. P-values from ANCOVA model with effect of treatment group, geographic region, and baseline value of analyzed variable as a covariate, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = 2.5 mg Tadalafil minus Placebo|||0.14|-0.28|0.503
91059959|NCT00384930|182001858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13||||0.206||95.0|-0.34|0.07||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint - Baseline. P-values from ANCOVA model with effect of treatment group, geographic region, and baseline value of analyzed variable as a covariate, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = 5 mg Tadalafil minus Placebo|||0.07|-0.34|0.206
91059960|NCT00384930|182001858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08||||0.452||95.0|-0.28|0.13||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint - Baseline. P-values from ANCOVA model with effect of treatment group, geographic region, and baseline value of analyzed variable as a covariate, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = 10 mg Tadalafil minus Placebo|||0.13|-0.28|0.452
91059961|NCT00384930|182001858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.26||||0.012||95.0|-0.47|-0.06||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint - Baseline. P-values from ANCOVA model with effect of treatment group, geographic region, and baseline value of analyzed variable as a covariate, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = 20 mg Tadalafil minus Placebo|||-0.06|-0.47|0.012
90820077|NCT00988091|181519155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|4.0||||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|8.98||For secondary outcome measures, fixed-sequence testing was used in a sequentially rejective fashion. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures ANCOVA|The analysis included baseline score as a covariate and study center as a stratification variable.||The null hypothesis (Ho) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 26 weeks is equal and the corresponding alternative hypothesis (HA) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 26 weeks is unequal.||8.98|-0.99|0.116
90820078|NCT00988091|181519156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.483|1.044||For secondary outcome measures, fixed-sequence testing was used in a sequentially rejective fashion. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05.|Regression, Logistic|The analysis included study center as a stratification variable.||The null hypothesis (Ho) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 26 weeks is equal and the corresponding alternative hypothesis (HA) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 26 weeks is unequal.\[||1.044|0.483|0.081
90820079|NCT03078855|181519162|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.28||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.98|||Regression, Cox||The EFS hazard ratio was adjusted for enrolling site, continuous age at randomization, and (via stratification) 3 randomization strata: non-follicular histology, follicular (FL) with low/intermediate FLIPI score and FL with high FLIPI score.|||1.98|0.83|0.26
90820080|NCT03194646|181519165|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|-1.26||||||||-1.26|-2.44|
90820081|NCT03194646|181519165|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.87|-1.8||||||||-1.80|-2.87|
90820082|NCT03194646|181519165|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|-1.1||||||||-1.10|-2.51|
90820083|NCT00098306|181519223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.788|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1571|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.141|-0.435||||||The difference between the treatment least square means (LS means) adjusted for the randomization strata was presented in addition to 2-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) as an adjustment for multiplicity using a Bonferroni correction. Negative value favors maraviroc over placebo.||-0.435|-1.141|
90820084|NCT00098306|181519223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.922|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1568|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.275|-0.57||||||The difference between the treatment LS means adjusted for the randomization strata was presented in addition to 2-sided 97.5% CI as an adjustment for multiplicity using a Bonferroni correction. Negative value favors maraviroc over placebo.||-0.570|-1.275|
90820085|NCT00098306|181519224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.88|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|4.67|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24: Two-sided 95% CI was presented for the odds ratios between treatment groups with placebo as the comparator. CIs were calculated using the Wald-approximation. Logistic model with treatment, screening HIV concentrations (less than \[\<\] 100,000 or greater than or equal to \[\>=\] 100,000), enfuvirtide use (Yes or No) as covariates was used. Odds ratio greater than (\>) 1 favors maraviroc.||4.67|1.78|<0.0001
90820086|NCT00098306|181519224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.26|5.95|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24: Two-sided 95% CI was presented for the odds ratios between treatment groups with placebo as the comparator. CIs were calculated using the Wald-approximation. Logistic model with treatment, screening HIV concentrations (\<100,000 or \>=100,000), enfuvirtide use (Yes or No) as covariates was used. Odds ratio \>1 favors maraviroc.||5.95|2.26|<0.0001
90820087|NCT00098306|181519224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.96|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.36|6.64|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48: Two-sided 95% CI was presented for the odds ratios between treatment groups with placebo as the comparator. CIs were calculated using the Wald-approximation. Logistic model with treatment, screening HIV concentrations (\<100,000 or \>=100,000), enfuvirtide use (Yes or No) as covariates was used. Odds ratio \>1 favors maraviroc.||6.64|2.36|<0.0001
90820088|NCT00098306|181519224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.04|8.59|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48: Two-sided 95% CI was presented for the odds ratios between treatment groups with placebo as the comparator. CIs were calculated using the Wald-approximation. Logistic model with treatment, screening HIV concentrations (\<100,000 or \>=100,000), enfuvirtide use (Yes or No) as covariates was used. Odds ratio \>1 favors maraviroc.||8.59|3.04|<0.0001
90820089|NCT00098306|181519225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.63|4.13|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24: Two-sided 95% CI was presented for the odds ratios between treatment groups with placebo as the comparator. CIs were calculated using the Wald-approximation. Logistic model with treatment, screening HIV concentrations (\<100,000 or \>=100,000), enfuvirtide use (Yes or No) as covariates was used. Odds ratio \>1 favors maraviroc.||4.13|1.63|<0.0001
90820090|NCT00098306|181519225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.79|4.54|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24: Two-sided 95% CI was presented for the odds ratios between treatment groups with placebo as the comparator. CIs were calculated using the Wald-approximation. Logistic model with treatment, screening HIV concentrations (\<100,000 or \>=100,000), enfuvirtide use (Yes or No) as covariates was used. Odds ratio \>1 favors maraviroc.||4.54|1.79|<0.0001
90820091|NCT00098306|181519225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.93|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.83|4.67|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48: Two-sided 95% CI was presented for the odds ratios between treatment groups with placebo as the comparator. CIs were calculated using the Wald-approximation. Logistic model with treatment, screening HIV concentrations (\<100,000 or \>=100,000), enfuvirtide use (Yes or No) as covariates was used. Odds ratio \>1 favors maraviroc.||4.67|1.83|<0.0001
90820092|NCT00098306|181519225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.08|5.32|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48: Two-sided 95% CI was presented for the odds ratios between treatment groups with placebo as the comparator. CIs were calculated using the Wald-approximation. Logistic model with treatment, screening HIV concentrations (\<100,000 or \>=100,000), enfuvirtide use (Yes or No) as covariates was used. Odds ratio \>1 favors maraviroc.||5.32|2.08|<0.0001
91059962|NCT00384930|182001859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.26||||0.029||95.0|-0.49|-0.03||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint - Baseline. P-values from ANCOVA model with effect of treatment group, geographic region, and baseline value of analyzed variable as a covariate, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = 2.5 mg Tadalafil minus Placebo|||-0.03|-0.49|0.029
91059963|NCT00384930|182001859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.37||||0.002||95.0|-0.6|-0.14||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint - Baseline. P-values from ANCOVA model with effect of treatment group, geographic region, and baseline value of analyzed variable as a covariate, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = 5 mg Tadalafil minus Placebo|||-0.14|-0.60|0.002
91059964|NCT00384930|182001859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.43|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.66|-0.19||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint - Baseline. P-values from ANCOVA model with effect of treatment group, geographic region, and baseline value of analyzed variable as a covariate, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = 10 mg Tadalafil minus Placebo|||-0.19|-0.66|<0.001
91059965|NCT00384930|182001859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.64|-0.17||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint - Baseline. P-values from ANCOVA model with effect of treatment group, geographic region, and baseline value of analyzed variable as a covariate, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = 20 mg Tadalafil minus Placebo|||-0.17|-0.64|<0.001
91059966|NCT00384930|182001860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13||||0.583||95.0|-0.58|0.33||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint - Baseline. P-values from ANCOVA model with effect of treatment group, geographic region, and baseline value of analyzed variable as a covariate, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = 2.5 mg Tadalafil minus Placebo|||0.33|-0.58|0.583
90820093|NCT00098306|181519226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.92|4.88|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24: Two-sided 95% CI was presented for the odds ratios between treatment groups with placebo as the comparator. CIs were calculated using the Wald-approximation. Logistic model with treatment, screening HIV concentrations (\<100,000 or \>=100,000), enfuvirtide use (Yes or No) as covariates was used. Odds ratio \>1 favors maraviroc.||4.88|1.92|<0.0001
90820094|NCT00098306|181519226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.22|5.68|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24: Two-sided 95% CI was presented for the odds ratios between treatment groups with placebo as the comparator. CIs were calculated using the Wald-approximation. Logistic model with treatment, screening HIV concentrations (\<100,000 or \>=100,000), enfuvirtide use (Yes or No) as covariates was used. Odds ratio \>1 favors maraviroc.||5.68|2.22|<0.0001
90820095|NCT00098306|181519226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.05|5.31|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48: Two-sided 95% CI was presented for the odds ratios between treatment groups with placebo as the comparator. CIs were calculated using the Wald-approximation. Logistic model with treatment, screening HIV concentrations (\<100,000 or \>=100,000), enfuvirtide use (Yes or No) as covariates was used. Odds ratio \>1 favors maraviroc.||5.31|2.05|<0.0001
90820096|NCT00098306|181519226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|6.51|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48: Two-sided 95% CI was presented for the odds ratios between treatment groups with placebo as the comparator. CIs were calculated using the Wald-approximation. Logistic model with treatment, screening HIV concentrations (\<100,000 or \>=100,000), enfuvirtide use (Yes or No) as covariates was used. Odds ratio \>1 favors maraviroc.||6.51|2.50|<0.0001
90820097|NCT00098306|181519227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.43||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|4.04|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24: Two-sided 95% CI was presented for the odds ratios between treatment groups with placebo as the comparator. CIs were calculated using the Wald-approximation. Logistic model with treatment, screening HIV concentrations (\<100,000 or \>=100,000), enfuvirtide use (Yes or No) as covariates was used. Odds ratio \>1 favors maraviroc.||4.04|1.46|0.0006
90820098|NCT00098306|181519227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|5.23|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24: Two-sided 95% CI was presented for the odds ratios between treatment groups with placebo as the comparator. CIs were calculated using the Wald-approximation. Logistic model with treatment, screening HIV concentrations (\<100,000 or \>=100,000), enfuvirtide use (Yes or No) as covariates was used. Odds ratio \>1 favors maraviroc.||5.23|1.90|<0.0001
90820099|NCT00098306|181519227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.32|7.25|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48: Two-sided 95% CI was presented for the odds ratios between treatment groups with placebo as the comparator. CIs were calculated using the Wald-approximation. Logistic model with treatment, screening HIV concentrations (\<100,000 or \>=100,000), enfuvirtide use (Yes or No) as covariates was used. Odds ratio \>1 favors maraviroc.||7.25|2.32|<0.0001
91059967|NCT00384930|182001860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.57||||0.013||95.0|-1.03|-0.12||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint - Baseline. P-values from ANCOVA model with effect of treatment group, geographic region, and baseline value of analyzed variable as a covariate, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = 5 mg Tadalafil minus Placebo|||-0.12|-1.03|0.013
91059968|NCT00384930|182001860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.55||||0.016||95.0|-1.0|-0.1||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint - Baseline. P-values from ANCOVA model with effect of treatment group, geographic region, and baseline value of analyzed variable as a covariate, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = 10 mg Tadalafil minus Placebo|||-0.10|-1.00|0.016
90820100|NCT00098306|181519227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.97|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.82|8.77|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48: Two-sided 95% CI was presented for the odds ratios between treatment groups with placebo as the comparator. CIs were calculated using the Wald-approximation. Logistic model with treatment, screening HIV concentrations (\<100,000 or \>=100,000), enfuvirtide use (Yes or No) as covariates was used. Odds ratio \>1 favors maraviroc.||8.77|2.82|<0.0001
90820101|NCT00098306|181519229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|54.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.435|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.07|78.92||||||Week 24: The difference between the treatment LS means adjusted for the randomization strata was presented in addition to 2-sided 95% CI. Positive value favors maraviroc over placebo.||78.92|30.07|
90820102|NCT00098306|181519229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|58.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.378|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.63|83.26||||||Week 24: The difference between the treatment LS means adjusted for the randomization strata was presented in addition to 2-sided 95% CI. Positive value favors maraviroc over placebo.||83.26|34.63|
90820103|NCT00098306|181519229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|58.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.677|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.66|83.46||||||Week 48: The difference between the treatment LS means adjusted for the randomization strata was presented in addition to 2-sided 95% CI. Positive value favors maraviroc over placebo.||83.46|33.66|
90820104|NCT00098306|181519229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|68.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.617|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.69|93.25||||||Week 48: The difference between the treatment LS means adjusted for the randomization strata was presented in addition to 2-sided 95% CI. Positive value favors maraviroc over placebo.||93.25|43.69|
90820105|NCT00098306|181519230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|284.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|51.779|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|182.51|385.92||||||Week 24: The difference between the treatment LS means adjusted for the randomization strata was presented in addition to 2-sided 95% CI. Positive value favors maraviroc over placebo.||385.92|182.51|
90820106|NCT00098306|181519230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|303.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|51.507|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|201.9|404.23||||||Week 24: The difference between the treatment LS means adjusted for the randomization strata was presented in addition to 2-sided 95% CI. Positive value favors maraviroc over placebo.||404.23|201.90|
90820107|NCT00098306|181519230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|213.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|49.679|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|115.77|310.92||||||Week 48: The difference between the treatment LS means adjusted for the randomization strata was presented in addition to 2-sided 95% CI. Positive value favors maraviroc over placebo.||310.92|115.77|
90820108|NCT00098306|181519230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|235.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|49.416|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|138.68|332.8||||||Week 48: The difference between the treatment LS means adjusted for the randomization strata was presented in addition to 2-sided 95% CI. Positive value favors maraviroc over placebo.||332.80|138.68|
90820109|NCT00098306|181519231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.6|||Log Rank|||P-value was calculated using Log rank test controlling for the effect of the randomization strata. Hazard ratio calculated by fitting a Cox proportional hazards model including treatment group and randomization strata. Hazard ratio \<1 favors maraviroc.||0.60|0.34|<0.0001
90820110|NCT00098306|181519231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.5|||Log Rank|||P-value was calculated using Log rank test controlling for the effect of the randomization strata. Hazard ratio calculated by fitting a Cox proportional hazards model including treatment group and randomization strata. Hazard ratio \<1 favors maraviroc.||0.50|0.28|<0.0001
90820111|NCT00098306|181519232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.697|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1347|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.961|-0.432||||||Week 24: The difference between the treatment LS means adjusted for the randomization strata was presented in addition to 2-sided 95% CI. Negative value favors maraviroc over placebo.||-0.432|-0.961|
90820112|NCT00098306|181519232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.802|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1344|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.065|-0.538||||||Week 24: The difference between the treatment LS means adjusted for the randomization strata was presented in addition to 2-sided 95% CI. Negative value favors maraviroc over placebo.||-0.538|-1.065|
90820113|NCT00098306|181519232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.767|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1497|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.061|-0.474||||||Week 48: The difference between the treatment LS means adjusted for the randomization strata was presented in addition to 2-sided 95% CI. Negative value favors maraviroc over placebo.||-0.474|-1.061|
90820114|NCT00098306|181519232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.931|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1494|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.225|-0.638||||||Week 48: The difference between the treatment LS means adjusted for the randomization strata was presented in addition to 2-sided 95% CI. Negative value favors maraviroc over placebo.||-0.638|-1.225|
90820115|NCT00098306|181519233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.853|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1621|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.217|-0.489||||||The difference between the treatment LS means adjusted for the randomization strata was presented in addition to 2-sided 97.5% CI as an adjustment for multiplicity using a Bonferroni correction. Negative value favors maraviroc over placebo.||-0.489|-1.217|
90820116|NCT00098306|181519233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1618|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.385|-0.658||||||The difference between the treatment LS means adjusted for the randomization strata was presented in addition to 2-sided 97.5% CI as an adjustment for multiplicity using a Bonferroni correction. Negative value favors maraviroc over placebo.||-0.658|-1.385|
90820117|NCT01192828|181519247|OTHER|Descriptive analysis||||||0.235|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired||Null hypothesis applied.||||0.235
90820118|NCT01192828|181519248|OTHER|Descriptive analysis.||||||0.701|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired||Null hypothesis assumed.||||0.701
90820119|NCT01192828|181519249|OTHER|Descriptive analysis.||||||0.19|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||Null hypothesis applied.||||0.190
90820120|NCT01192828|181519250|OTHER|Descriptive analysis.||||||0.052|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||Null hypothesis applied.||||0.052
90820121|NCT01192828|181519251|OTHER|Descriptive analysis.||||||0.014|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||Null hypothesis assumed.||||0.014
90820122|NCT01192828|181519253|OTHER|Descriptive analysis||||||0.541|||||||Spearman's rank correlation|||Null hypothesis assumed|Spearman's rank correlation rho is 0.179, with p value 0.541, N is 14|||.541
90820123|NCT01192828|181519255|OTHER|Descriptive analysis||||||0.014|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||Null hypothesis assumed||||0.014
90820124|NCT01192828|181519256|OTHER|Descriptive analysis||||||0.012|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||Null hypothesis assumed||||0.012
90820125|NCT01192828|181519257|OTHER|Descriptive analysis.||||||0.16|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||Null hypothesis applied.||||0.160
90820126|NCT01192828|181519258|OTHER|Descriptive analysis||||||0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.10
90820127|NCT00820222|181519259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.63|||Odds Ratio||The Odds Ratio is based on a logistic regression model. The P-value for the test of Odds Ratio is 1.|||1.63|0.26|0.360
90820128|NCT00820222|181519260|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.64|||Log Rank||A HR \> 1 indicates a higher risk for lapatinib+capecitabine compared with trastuzumab+capecitabine.|||1.64|1.04|0.021
90820129|NCT00820222|181519262|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.34||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.9|||Log Rank||A HR \> 1 indicates a higher risk for lapatinib+capecitabine compared with trastuzumab+capecitabine.|||1.90|0.95|0.095
90820130|NCT00820222|181519263|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7984||||0.2731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5407|1.1771|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison for Overall Response (CR+PR)||1.1771|0.5407|0.2731
90820131|NCT00820222|181519264|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9016||||0.6106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6315|1.2866|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison for Clinical Benefit||1.2866|0.6315|0.6106
90820132|NCT03037983|181519288|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.38||||0.849|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.849
90820133|NCT03037983|181519290|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5||||0.782|TWO_SIDED|||||t = 0.287|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.782
90820134|NCT00767819|181519328|SUPERIORITY|The lower limit of the confidence interval was used to support the decision in favor of p0 or p1: if the lower limit of the confidence interval overlapped p0, the hypothesis that p is greater than or equal to p1 could be rejected; on the other side, if the lower limit of the confidence interval excluded p0, the hypothesis that p is greater than or equal to p1 could be accepted.|percentage of participants|40.5||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|80.0|29.5|52.4|||Clopper-Person confidence interval|||||52.4|29.5|0.1
90820135|NCT03916081|181519334|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference vs Vehicle|-1.18||||0.356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.983|0.619||MMRM = mixed effects model for repeated measures vIGA-AD = validated Investigator Global Assessment scale for Atopic Dermatitis|MMRM|Change from BL MMRM model includes treatment, visit, vIGA-AD strata, treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline EASI as a covariate.|Change from BL MMRM model includes treatment, visit, vIGA-AD strata, treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline EASI as a covariate.|Change from Baseline in Week 4 EASI Total Score: Roflumilast Cream 0.05% vs. Vehicle Cream||0.619|-2.983|0.356
90820136|NCT03916081|181519334|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference vs Vehicle|-1.6||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.382|0.178|||MMRM|Change from BL MMRM model includes treatment, visit, vIGA-AD strata, treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline EASI as a covariate.|Change from BL MMRM model includes treatment, visit, vIGA-AD strata, treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline EASI as a covariate.|Change from Baseline in Week 4 EASI Total Score: Roflumilast Cream 0.15% vs. Vehicle Cream||0.178|-3.382|0.097
90820137|NCT03916081|181519335|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-11.37||||0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.789|4.044|||MMRM|Change from BL MMRM model includes treatment, visit, vIGA-AD strata, treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline EASI as a covariate.|Change from BL MMRM model includes treatment, visit, vIGA-AD strata, treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline EASI as a covariate.|Percent Change from Baseline in Week 1 EASI Total Score: Roflumilast Cream 0.05% vs. Vehicle Cream||4.044|-26.789|0.248
90820138|NCT03916081|181519335|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-10.28||||0.349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.666|5.114|||MMRM|Change from BL MMRM model includes treatment, visit, vIGA-AD strata, treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline EASI as a covariate.|Change from BL MMRM model includes treatment, visit, vIGA-AD strata, treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline EASI as a covariate.|Percent Change from Baseline in Week 1 EASI Total Score: Roflumilast Cream 0.15% vs. Vehicle Cream||5.114|-25.666|0.349
90820139|NCT03916081|181519335|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.82||||0.912|TWO_SIDED|-22.52|-22.52|10.88|||MMRM|Change from BL MMRM model includes treatment, visit, vIGA-AD strata, treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline EASI as a covariate.|Change from BL MMRM model includes treatment, visit, vIGA-AD strata, treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline EASI as a covariate.|Percent Change from Baseline in Week 2 EASI Total Score: Roflumilast Cream 0.05% vs. Vehicle Cream||10.880|-22.520|0.912
90820140|NCT03916081|181519335|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.17||||0.548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.686|7.341|||MMRM|Change from BL MMRM model includes treatment, visit, vIGA-AD strata, treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline EASI as a covariate.|Change from BL MMRM model includes treatment, visit, vIGA-AD strata, treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline EASI as a covariate.|Percent Change from Baseline in Week 2 EASI Total Score: Roflumilast Cream 0.15% vs. Vehicle Cream||7.341|-25.686|0.548
90820141|NCT03916081|181519335|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-13.53||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.157|3.097|||MMRM|Change from BL MMRM model includes treatment, visit, vIGA-AD strata, treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline EASI as a covariate.|Change from BL MMRM model includes treatment, visit, vIGA-AD strata, treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline EASI as a covariate.|Percent Change from Baseline in Week 4 EASI Total Score: Roflumilast Cream 0.05% vs. Vehicle Cream||3.097|-30.157|0.164
90820142|NCT03916081|181519335|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-16.48||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.921|-0.048|||MMRM|Change from BL MMRM model includes treatment, visit, vIGA-AD strata, treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline EASI as a covariate.|Change from BL MMRM model includes treatment, visit, vIGA-AD strata, treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline EASI as a covariate.|Percent Change from Baseline in Week 4 EASI Total Score: Roflumilast Cream 0.15% vs. Vehicle Cream||-0.048|-32.921|0.049
90820143|NCT03916081|181519336|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.92||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.412|0.568|||MMRM|Change from BL MMRM model includes treatment, visit, vIGA-AD strata, treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline EASI as a covariate.|Change from BL MMRM model includes treatment, visit, vIGA-AD strata, treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline EASI as a covariate.|Change from Baseline in Week 1 EASI Total Score: Roflumilast Cream 0.05% vs. Vehicle Cream||0.568|-2.412|0.440
90820144|NCT03916081|181519336|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.57||||0.875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.061|0.914|||MMRM|Change from BL MMRM model includes treatment, visit, vIGA-AD strata, treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline EASI as a covariate.|Change from BL MMRM model includes treatment, visit, vIGA-AD strata, treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline EASI as a covariate.|Change from Baseline in Week 1 EASI Total Score: Roflumilast Cream 0.15% vs. Vehicle Cream||0.914|-2.061|0.875
90820145|NCT03916081|181519337|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.352|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Baseline vIGA-AD was included as stratification factor.||Number Achieving EASI-50 at Week 1: Roflumilast Cream 0.05% vs. Vehicle Cream||||0.352
90820146|NCT03916081|181519337|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.803|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Baseline vIGA-AD was included as stratification factor.||Number Achieving EASI-50 at Week 1: Roflumilast Cream 0.15% vs. Vehicle Cream||||0.803
90820147|NCT03916081|181519337|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Baseline vIGA-AD was included as stratification factor.||Number Achieving EASI-50 at Week 2: Roflumilast Cream 0.05% vs. Vehicle Cream||||0.250
90820148|NCT03916081|181519337|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.756|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Baseline vIGA-AD was included as stratification factor.||Number Achieving EASI-50 at Week 2: Roflumilast Cream 0.15% vs. Vehicle Cream||||0.756
91059969|NCT00384930|182001860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.62||||0.007||95.0|-1.08|-0.17||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint - Baseline. P-values from ANCOVA model with effect of treatment group, geographic region, and baseline value of analyzed variable as a covariate, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = 20 mg Tadalafil minus Placebo|||-0.17|-1.08|0.007
90820149|NCT03916081|181519337|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.097|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Baseline vIGA-AD was included as stratification factor.||Number Achieving EASI-50 at Week 4: Roflumilast Cream 0.05% vs. Vehicle Cream||||0.097
90820150|NCT03916081|181519337|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.054|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Baseline vIGA-AD was included as stratification factor.||Number Achieving EASI-50 at Week 4: Roflumilast Cream 0.15% vs. Vehicle Cream||||0.054
90820151|NCT03916081|181519338|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.178|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Baseline vIGA-AD was included as stratification factor.||Number Achieving EASI-75 at Week 1: Roflumilast Cream 0.05% vs. Vehicle Cream||||0.178
90820152|NCT03916081|181519338|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Baseline vIGA-AD was included as stratification factor.||Number Achieving EASI-75 at Week 1: Roflumilast Cream 0.15% vs. Vehicle Cream||||0.046
90820153|NCT03916081|181519338|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.469|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Baseline vIGA-AD was included as stratification factor.||Number Achieving EASI-75 at Week 2: Roflumilast Cream 0.05% vs. Vehicle Cream||||0.469
90820154|NCT03916081|181519338|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.446|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Baseline vIGA-AD was included as stratification factor.||Number Achieving EASI-75 at Week 2: Roflumilast Cream 0.15% vs. Vehicle Cream||||0.446
90820155|NCT03916081|181519338|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Baseline vIGA-AD was included as stratification factor.||Number Achieving EASI-75 at Week 4: Roflumilast Cream 0.05% vs. Vehicle Cream||||0.009
90820156|NCT03916081|181519338|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.045|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Baseline vIGA-AD was included as stratification factor.||Number Achieving EASI-75 at Week 4: Roflumilast Cream 0.15% vs. Vehicle Cream||||0.045
90820157|NCT03916081|181519339|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.317|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Baseline vIGA-AD was included as stratification factor.||Number Achieving EASI-90 at Week 1: Roflumilast Cream 0.15% vs. Vehicle Cream||||0.317
90820158|NCT03916081|181519339|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.182|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Baseline vIGA-AD was included as stratification factor.||Number Achieving EASI-90 at Week 2: Roflumilast Cream 0.05% vs. Vehicle Cream||||0.182
90820159|NCT03916081|181519339|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.485|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Baseline vIGA-AD was included as stratification factor.||Number Achieving EASI-90 at Week 2: Roflumilast Cream 0.15% vs. Vehicle Cream||||0.485
90820160|NCT03916081|181519339|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.913|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Baseline vIGA-AD was included as stratification factor.||Number Achieving EASI-90 at Week 4: Roflumilast Cream 0.05% vs. Vehicle Cream||||0.913
90820161|NCT03916081|181519339|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.288|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Baseline vIGA-AD was included as stratification factor.||Number Achieving EASI-90 at Week 4: Roflumilast Cream 0.05% vs. Vehicle Cream||||0.288
90820162|NCT03916081|181519340|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Baseline vIGA-AD was included as stratification factor.||Number Achieving EASI-100 at Week 2: Roflumilast Cream 0.05% vs. Vehicle Cream||||0.340
90820163|NCT03916081|181519340|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.146|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Baseline vIGA-AD was included as stratification factor.||Number Achieving EASI-100 at Week 2: Roflumilast Cream 0.15% vs. Vehicle Cream||||0.146
90820164|NCT03916081|181519340|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.967|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Baseline vIGA-AD was included as stratification factor.||Number Achieving EASI-100 at Week 4: Roflumilast Cream 0.05% vs. Vehicle Cream||||0.967
91059970|NCT00384930|182001861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.133||95.0||||P-values are from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by the randomization strata factors (4 geographic regions, 2 levels of IPSS severity, 2 levels of ED history) as fixed effect, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.133
91059971|NCT00384930|182001861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||P-values are from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by the randomization strata factors (4 geographic regions, 2 levels of IPSS severity, 2 levels of ED history) as fixed effect, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.003
90820165|NCT03916081|181519340|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.088|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Baseline vIGA-AD was included as stratification factor.||Number Achieving EASI-100 at Week 4: Roflumilast Cream 0.15% vs. Vehicle Cream||||0.088
90820166|NCT03916081|181519341|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.38||||0.989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.098|1.852|||MMRM|Dunnett's method was used to control for multiple comparisons|Change from BL MMRM model includes treatment, visit, vIGA-AD strata, treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline BSA as a covariate.|Change from Baseline in BSA Affected at Week 1: Roflumilast Cream 0.05% vs. Vehicle Cream||1.852|-1.098|0.989
90820167|NCT03916081|181519341|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.566|1.367|||MMRM|Dunnett's method was used to control for multiple comparisons|Change from BL MMRM model includes treatment, visit, vIGA-AD strata, treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline BSA as a covariate.|Change from Baseline in BSA Affected at Week 1: Roflumilast Cream 0.15% vs. Vehicle Cream||1.367|-1.566|>0.999
90820168|NCT03916081|181519341|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.6||||0.966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|2.702|||MMRM|Dunnett's method was used to control for multiple comparisons|Change from BL MMRM model includes treatment, visit, vIGA-AD strata, treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline BSA as a covariate.|Change from Baseline in BSA Affected at Week 2: Roflumilast Cream 0.05% vs. Vehicle Cream||2.702|-1.510|0.966
90820169|NCT03916081|181519341|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.34||||0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.415|1.744|||MMRM|Dunnett's method was used to control for multiple comparisons|Change from BL MMRM model includes treatment, visit, vIGA-AD strata, treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline BSA as a covariate.|Change from Baseline in BSA Affected at Week 2: Roflumilast Cream 0.15% vs. Vehicle Cream||1.744|-2.415|0.999
90820170|NCT03916081|181519341|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.25|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.624|2.119|||MMRM|Dunnett's method was used to control for multiple comparisons|Change from BL MMRM model includes treatment, visit, vIGA-AD strata, treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline BSA as a covariate.|Change from Baseline in BSA Affected at Week 4: Roflumilast Cream 0.05% vs. Vehicle Cream||2.119|-2.624|>0.999
90820171|NCT03916081|181519341|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.94||||0.798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.285|1.398|||MMRM|Dunnett's method was used to control for multiple comparisons|Change from BL MMRM model includes treatment, visit, vIGA-AD strata, treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline BSA as a covariate.|Change from Baseline in BSA Affected at Week 4: Roflumilast Cream 0.15% vs. Vehicle Cream||1.398|-3.285|0.798
90820172|NCT03916081|181519342|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.78||||0.466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.075|0.506|||MMRM|Dunnett's method was used to control for multiple comparisons|Change from BL MMRM model includes treatment, visit, vIGA-AD strata, treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline WI-NRS as a covariate.|Change from Baseline in WI-NRS at Week 1: Roflumilast Cream 0.05% vs. Vehicle Cream||0.506|-2.075|0.466
90820173|NCT03916081|181519342|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.03||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.322|0.255|||MMRM|Dunnett's method was used to control for multiple comparisons|Change from BL MMRM model includes treatment, visit, vIGA-AD strata, treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline WI-NRS as a covariate.|Change from Baseline in WI-NRS at Week 1: Roflumilast Cream 0.15% vs. Vehicle Cream||0.255|-2.322|0.180
90820174|NCT03916081|181519342|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.43||||0.967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.921|1.069|||MMRM|Dunnett's method was used to control for multiple comparisons|Change from BL MMRM model includes treatment, visit, vIGA-AD strata, treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline WI-NRS as a covariate.|Change from Baseline in WI-NRS at Week 2: Roflumilast Cream 0.05% vs. Vehicle Cream||1.069|-1.921|0.967
90820175|NCT03916081|181519342|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.72||||0.684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.205|0.762|||MMRM|Dunnett's method was used to control for multiple comparisons|Change from BL MMRM model includes treatment, visit, vIGA-AD strata, treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline WI-NRS as a covariate.|Change from Baseline in WI-NRS at Week 2: Roflumilast Cream 0.15% vs. Vehicle Cream||0.762|-2.205|0.684
90820176|NCT03916081|181519342|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.61||||0.856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.221|1.003|||MMRM|Dunnett's method was used to control for multiple comparisons|Change from BL MMRM model includes treatment, visit, vIGA-AD strata, treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline WI-NRS as a covariate.|Change from Baseline in WI-NRS at Week 4: Roflumilast Cream 0.05% vs. Vehicle Cream||1.003|-2.221|0.856
90820177|NCT03916081|181519342|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.51||||0.932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.105|1.089|||MMRM|Dunnett's method was used to control for multiple comparisons|Change from BL MMRM model includes treatment, visit, vIGA-AD strata, treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline WI-NRS as a covariate.|Change from Baseline in WI-NRS at Week 4: Roflumilast Cream 0.15% vs. Vehicle Cream||1.089|-2.105|0.932
90820178|NCT03916081|181519343|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.637|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|v-IGA-AD included as a stratification factor.||Number of Participants Achieving a ≥4-Point Improvement from Baseline WI-NRS at Week 1: Roflumilast Cream 0.05% vs. Vehicle Cream||||0.637
90820179|NCT03916081|181519343|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.124|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|v-IGA-AD included as a stratification factor.||Number of Participants Achieving a ≥4-Point Improvement from Baseline WI-NRS at Week 1: Roflumilast Cream 0.05% vs. Vehicle Cream||||0.124
90820180|NCT03916081|181519343|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.196|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|v-IGA-AD included as a stratification factor.||Number of Participants Achieving a ≥4-Point Improvement from Baseline WI-NRS at Week 2: Roflumilast Cream 0.05% vs. Vehicle Cream||||0.196
90820181|NCT03916081|181519343|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.985|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|v-IGA-AD included as a stratification factor.||Number of Participants Achieving a ≥4-Point Improvement from Baseline WI-NRS at Week 2: Roflumilast Cream 0.05% vs. Vehicle Cream||||0.985
90820182|NCT03916081|181519343|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.401|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|v-IGA-AD included as a stratification factor.||Number of Participants Achieving a ≥4-Point Improvement from Baseline WI-NRS at Week 4: Roflumilast Cream 0.05% vs. Vehicle Cream||||0.401
90820183|NCT03916081|181519343|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.996|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|v-IGA-AD included as a stratification factor.||Number of Participants Achieving a ≥4-Point Improvement from Baseline WI-NRS at Week 4: Roflumilast Cream 0.15% vs. Vehicle Cream||||0.996
90820184|NCT04146935|181519350|OTHER|Mixed model repeated measures||||||0.4147||||||Visit 1 (baseline) to visit 4 (peak)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.4147
90820185|NCT04146935|181519351|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.0001
90820186|NCT04146935|181519352|OTHER|Mixed model repeated measures||||||0.6957|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.6957
91059972|NCT00384930|182001861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values are from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by the randomization strata factors (4 geographic regions, 2 levels of IPSS severity, 2 levels of ED history) as fixed effect, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90820187|NCT04146935|181519353|OTHER|||||||0.0092|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0092
90820188|NCT04146935|181519354|OTHER|Mixed model repeated measures||||||0.1383|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1383
90820189|NCT04146935|181519355|OTHER|mixed model repeated measures||||||0.0572|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0572
90820190|NCT00235716|181519368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.15||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|5.39||p-value adjusted for 6 treatment group comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model assuming data missing at random, adjusted for medical center as a random effect and for the baseline outcome score.|Mean difference is the least squares mean changes from baseline for the vitamin E group minus the placebo group.|Longitudinal analysis to assess the average treatment effect over 48 months with visits at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 42 and 48 months using all available data.||5.39|0.92|0.03
90820191|NCT00235716|181519368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.98||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|4.2||p-value is adjusted for 6 treatment group comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model assuming data missing at random, adjusted for medical center as a random effect and for the baseline outcome score.|Mean difference is the least squares mean changes from baseline for the memantine group minus the placebo group.|Longitudinal analysis to assess the average treatment effect over 48 months with visits at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 42 and 48 months using all available data.||4.20|-0.24|0.40
91059973|NCT00384930|182001861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values are from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by the randomization strata factors (4 geographic regions, 2 levels of IPSS severity, 2 levels of ED history) as fixed effect, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90820192|NCT00235716|181519368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.76||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|4.0||p-value is adjusted for 6 treatment group comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model assuming data missing at random, adjusted for medical center as a random effect and for the baseline outcome score.|Mean difference is the least squares mean changes from baseline for the vitamin E + memantine group minus the placebo group.|Longitudinal analysis to assess the average treatment effect over 48 months with visits at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 42 and 48 months using all available data.||4.00|-0.48|0.49
90820193|NCT00235716|181519368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.39||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.63|0.85||p-value is adjusted for 6 treatment group comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model assuming data missing at random, adjusted for medical center as a random effect and for the baseline outcome score.|Mean difference is the least squares mean changes from baseline for the vitamin E + memantine group minus the vitamin E group.|Longitudinal analysis to assess the average treatment effect over 48 months with visits at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 42 and 48 months using all available data.||0.85|-3.63|0.60
90820194|NCT00235716|181519368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.22||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|2.01||p-value is adjusted for 6 treatment group comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model assuming data missing at random, adjusted for medical center as a random effect and for the baseline outcome score.|Mean difference is the least squares mean changes from baseline for the vitamin E + memantine group minus the memantine group.|Longitudinal analysis to assess the average treatment effect over 48 months with visits at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 42 and 48 months using all available data.||2.01|-2.44|0.85
90820195|NCT00235716|181519368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.18||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|3.39||p-value is adjusted for 6 treatment group comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model assuming data missing at random, adjusted for medical center as a random effect and for the baseline outcome score.|Mean difference is the least squares mean changes from baseline for the vitamin E group minus the memantine group.|Longitudinal analysis to assess the average treatment effect over 48 months with visits at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 42 and 48 months using all available data.||3.39|-1.04|0.60
90820196|NCT00235716|181519369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69||||||p- value is unadjusted for multiple comparisons because its a 3 degrees of freedom test for any treatment group differences|Log Rank|3 degrees of freedom test||||||0.69
90820197|NCT00235716|181519370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.19||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.92||p-value is adjusted for 6 treatment group comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model assuming data missing at random, adjusted for medical center as a random effect and for the baseline outcome score.|Mean difference is the least squares mean changes from baseline for the vitamin E group minus the placebo group.|Longitudinal analysis to assess the average treatment effect over 48 months with visits at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 42 and 48 months using all available data.||0.92|-0.54|0.84
90820198|NCT00235716|181519370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.84||p-value is adjusted for 6 treatment group comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model assuming data missing at random, adjusted for medical center as a random effect and for the baseline outcome score.|Mean difference is the least squares mean changes from baseline for the memantine group minus the placebo group.|Longitudinal analysis to assess the average treatment effect over 48 months with visits at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 42 and 48 months using all available data.||0.84|-0.61|0.84
90820199|NCT00235716|181519370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.37||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|1.1||p-value is adjusted for 6 treatment group comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model assuming data missing at random, adjusted for medical center as a random effect and for the baseline outcome score.|Mean difference is the least squares mean changes from baseline for the vitamin E + memantine group minus the placebo group.|Longitudinal analysis to assess the average treatment effect over 48 months with visits at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 42 and 48 months using all available data.||1.10|-0.36|0.84
90820200|NCT00235716|181519370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17||||0.84||95.0|-0.56|0.9||p-value is adjusted for 6 treatment group comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model assuming data missing at random, adjusted for medical center as a random effect and for the baseline outcome score.|Mean difference is the least squares mean changes from baseline for the vitamin E + memantine group minus the vitamin E group.|Longitudinal analysis to assess the average treatment effect over 48 months with visits at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 42 and 48 months using all available data.||0.90|-0.56|0.84
90820201|NCT00235716|181519370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.25||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.98||p-value is adjusted for 6 treatment group comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model assuming data missing at random, adjusted for medical center as a random effect and for the baseline outcome score.|Mean difference is the least squares mean changes from baseline for the vitamin E + memantine group minus the memantine group.|Longitudinal analysis to assess the average treatment effect over 48 months with visits at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 42 and 48 months using all available data.||0.98|-0.47|0.84
91059974|NCT00384930|182001862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.14||||0.735||95.0|-0.69|0.98||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint - Baseline. P-values from ANCOVA model with effect of treatment group, geographic region, and baseline value of analyzed variable as a covariate, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = 2.5 mg Tadalafil minus Placebo|||0.98|-0.69|0.735
91059975|NCT00384930|182001862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.39||||0.355||95.0|-0.44|1.23||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint - Baseline. P-values from ANCOVA model with effect of treatment group, geographic region, and baseline value of analyzed variable as a covariate, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = 5 mg Tadalafil minus Placebo|||1.23|-0.44|0.355
91059976|NCT00384930|182001862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.34||||0.433||95.0|-0.5|1.17||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint - Baseline. P-values from ANCOVA model with effect of treatment group, geographic region, and baseline value of analyzed variable as a covariate, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = 10 mg Tadalafil minus Placebo|||1.17|-0.50|0.433
91059977|NCT00384930|182001862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.74||||0.089||95.0|-0.11|1.59||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint - Baseline. P-values from ANCOVA model with effect of treatment group, geographic region, and baseline value of analyzed variable as a covariate, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = 20 mg Tadalafil minus Placebo|||1.59|-0.11|0.089
90820202|NCT00235716|181519370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.08||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.8||p-value is adjusted for 6 treatment group comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model assuming data missing at random, adjusted for medical center as a random effect and for the baseline outcome score.|Mean difference is the least squares mean changes from baseline for the vitamin E group minus the memantine group.|Longitudinal analysis to assess the average treatment effect over 48 months with visits at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 42 and 48 months using all available data.||0.80|-0.65|0.84
90820203|NCT00235716|181519371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.8||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.28|-0.33||p-value is adjusted for 6 treatment group comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model assuming data missing at random, adjusted for medical center as a random effect and for the baseline outcome score.|Mean difference is the least squares mean changes from baseline for the vitamin E group minus the placebo group.|Longitudinal analysis to assess the average treatment effect over 48 months with visits at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 42 and 48 months using all available data.||-0.33|-3.28|0.10
90820204|NCT00235716|181519371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.39||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.85|0.07||p-value is adjusted for 6 treatment group comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model assuming data missing at random, adjusted for medical center as a random effect and for the baseline outcome score.|Mean difference is the least squares mean changes from baseline for the memantine group minus the placebo group.|Longitudinal analysis to assess the average treatment effect over 48 months with visits at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 42 and 48 months using all available data.||0.07|-2.85|0.25
90820205|NCT00235716|181519371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.65||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.12|-0.17||p-value is adjusted for 6 treatment group comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model assuming data missing at random, adjusted for medical center as a random effect and for the baseline outcome score.|Mean difference is the least squares mean changes from baseline for the vitamin E + memantine group minus the placebo group.|Longitudinal analysis to assess the average treatment effect over 48 months with visits at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 42 and 48 months using all available data.||-0.17|-3.12|0.14
90820206|NCT00235716|181519371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.15||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|1.63||p-value is adjusted for 6 treatment group comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model assuming data missing at random, adjusted for medical center as a random effect and for the baseline outcome score.|Mean difference is the least squares mean changes from baseline for the vitamin E + memantine group minus the vitamin E group.|Longitudinal analysis to assess the average treatment effect over 48 months with visits at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 42 and 48 months using all available data.||1.63|-1.32|0.84
90820207|NCT00235716|181519371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.26||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|1.21||p-value is adjusted for 6 treatment group comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model assuming data missing at random, adjusted for medical center as a random effect and for the baseline outcome score.|Mean difference is the least squares mean changes from baseline for the vitamin E + memantine group minus the memantine group.|Longitudinal analysis to assess the average treatment effect over 48 months with visits at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 42 and 48 months using all available data.||1.21|-1.72|0.84
90820208|NCT00235716|181519371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.41||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|1.06||p-value is adjusted for 6 treatment group comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model assuming data missing at random, adjusted for medical center as a random effect and for the baseline outcome score.|Mean difference is the least squares mean changes from baseline for the vitamin E group minus the memantine group.|Longitudinal analysis to assess the average treatment effect over 48 months with visits at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 42 and 48 months using all available data.||1.06|-1.88|0.84
90820209|NCT00235716|181519372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.46||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.55|0.63||p-value is adjusted for 6 treatment group comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model assuming data missing at random, adjusted for medical center as a random effect and for the baseline outcome score.|Mean difference is the least squares mean changes from baseline for the vitamin E group minus the placebo group.|Longitudinal analysis to assess the average treatment effect over 48 months with visits at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 42 and 48 months using all available data.||0.63|-3.55|0.94
90820210|NCT00235716|181519372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.39||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.47|1.7||p-value is adjusted for 6 treatment group comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model assuming data missing at random, adjusted for medical center as a random effect and for the baseline outcome score.|Mean difference is the least squares mean changes from baseline for the memantine group minus the placebo group.|Longitudinal analysis to assess the average treatment effect over 48 months with visits at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 42 and 48 months using all available data.||1.70|-2.47|0.94
90820211|NCT00235716|181519372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.47||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.57|1.63||p-value is adjusted for 6 treatment group comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model assuming data missing at random, adjusted for medical center as a random effect and for the baseline outcome score.|Mean difference is the least squares mean changes from baseline for the vitamin E + memantine group minus the placebo group.|Longitudinal analysis to assess the average treatment effect over 48 months with visits at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 42 and 48 months using all available data.||1.63|-2.57|0.94
90820212|NCT00235716|181519372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.99||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|3.07||p-value is adjusted for 6 treatment group comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model assuming data missing at random, adjusted for medical center as a random effect and for the baseline outcome score.|Mean difference is the least squares mean changes from baseline for the vitamin E + memantine group minus the vitamin E group.|Longitudinal analysis to assess the average treatment effect over 48 months with visits at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 42 and 48 months using all available data.||3.07|-1.09|0.94
91059978|NCT00384930|182001863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.36|||<|0.001||95.0|1.56|5.17||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint - Baseline. P-values from ANCOVA model with effect of treatment group, geographic region, and baseline value of analyzed variable as a covariate, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = 2.5 mg Tadalafil minus Placebo|||5.17|1.56|<0.001
91059979|NCT00384930|182001863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.75|||<|0.001||95.0|2.95|6.54||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint - Baseline. P-values from ANCOVA model with effect of treatment group, geographic region, and baseline value of analyzed variable as a covariate, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = 5 mg Tadalafil minus Placebo|||6.54|2.95|<0.001
90820213|NCT00235716|181519372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|1.99||p-value is adjusted for 6 treatment group comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model assuming data missing at random, adjusted for medical center as a random effect and for the baseline outcome score.|Mean difference is the least squares mean changes from baseline for the vitamin E + memantine group minus the memantine group.|Longitudinal analysis to assess the average treatment effect over 48 months with visits at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 42 and 48 months using all available data.||1.99|-2.16|0.94
90820214|NCT00235716|181519372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.08||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.14|0.99||p-value is adjusted for 6 treatment group comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model assuming data missing at random, adjusted for medical center as a random effect and for the baseline outcome score.|Mean difference is the least squares mean changes from baseline for the vitamin E group minus the memantine group.|Longitudinal analysis to assess the average treatment effect over 48 months with visits at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 42 and 48 months using all available data.||0.99|-3.14|0.94
90820215|NCT00235716|181519373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.79||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.35|-0.23||p-value is adjusted for 6 treatment group comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model assuming data missing at random, adjusted for medical center as a random effect and for the baseline outcome score.|Mean difference is the least squares mean changes from baseline for the vitamin E group minus the placebo group.|Longitudinal analysis to assess the average treatment effect over 48 months with visits at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 42 and 48 months using all available data.||-0.23|-3.35|0.12
90820216|NCT00235716|181519373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.38||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|1.94||p-value is adjusted for 6 treatment group comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model assuming data missing at random, adjusted for medical center as a random effect and for the baseline outcome score.|Mean difference is the least squares mean changes from baseline for the memantine group minus the placebo group.|Longitudinal analysis to assess the average treatment effect over 48 months with visits at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 42 and 48 months using all available data.||1.94|-1.18|0.86
90820217|NCT00235716|181519373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.42||p-value is adjusted for 6 treatment group comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model assuming data missing at random, adjusted for medical center as a random effect and for the baseline outcome score.|Mean difference is the least squares mean changes from baseline for the vitamin E + memantine group minus the placebo group.|Longitudinal analysis to assess the average treatment effect over 48 months with visits at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 42 and 48 months using all available data.||1.42|-1.70|0.86
90820218|NCT00235716|181519373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.65||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|3.19||p-value is adjusted for 6 treatment group comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model assuming data missing at random, adjusted for medical center as a random effect and for the baseline outcome score.|Mean difference is the least squares mean changes from baseline for the vitamin E + memantine group minus the vitamin E group.|Longitudinal analysis to assess the average treatment effect over 48 months with visits at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 42 and 48 months using all available data.||3.19|0.11|0.14
90820219|NCT00235716|181519373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.52||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|1.02||p-value is adjusted for 6 treatment group comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model assuming data missing at random, adjusted for medical center as a random effect and for the baseline outcome score.|Mean difference is the least squares mean changes from baseline for the vitamin E + memantine group minus the memantine group.|Longitudinal analysis to assess the average treatment effect over 48 months with visits at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 42 and 48 months using all available data.||1.02|-2.07|0.86
90820220|NCT00235716|181519373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.17||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.71|-0.63||p-value is adjusted for 6 treatment group comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model assuming data missing at random, adjusted for medical center as a random effect and for the baseline outcome score.|Mean difference is the least squares mean changes from baseline for the vitamin E group minus the memantine group.|Longitudinal analysis to assess the average treatment effect over 48 months with visits at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 42 and 48 months using all available data.||-0.63|-3.71|0.03
90820221|NCT00235716|181519374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.13||p-value is unadjusted for multiple comparisons|Log Rank||Hazard ratio is for vitamin E group relative to the placebo group.|||1.13|0.67|0.31
90820222|NCT00235716|181519374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.24||p-value is unadjusted for multiple comparisons|Log Rank||Hazard ratio is for the memantine group relative to the placebo group.|||1.24|0.91|0.47
90820223|NCT00235716|181519374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.54||p-value is unadjusted for multiple comparisons|Log Rank||Hazard ratio is for the vitamin E + memantine group relative to the placebo group.|||1.54|0.57|0.80
90820224|NCT02249182|181519382|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was determined if the 90% confidence intervals (CI) were within the predefined equivalence boundaries of 50% to 200% for all age groups.|Percentage Geometric Mean Ratio|105.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.61|122.13||||||AUCtau of GS-331007 for the 12 to \< 18 Years old group in the PK Lead-in Phase was compared against historical data collected in adult Phase 2/3 studies.||122.13|90.61|
90820225|NCT02249182|181519382|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was determined if the 90% CIs were within the predefined equivalence boundaries of 50% to 200% for all age groups.|Percentage Geometric Mean Ratio|65.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|56.62|76.37||||||AUCtau of GS-331007 for the 6 to \< 12 Years Old group in the PK Lead-in Phase was compared against historical data collected in adult Phase 2/3 studies.||76.37|56.62|
91059980|NCT00384930|182001863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.83|||<|0.001||95.0|4.04|7.62||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint - Baseline. P-values from ANCOVA model with effect of treatment group, geographic region, and baseline value of analyzed variable as a covariate, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = 10 mg Tadalafil minus Placebo|||7.62|4.04|<0.001
91059981|NCT00384930|182001863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.15|||<|0.001||95.0|4.35|7.95||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint - Baseline. P-values from ANCOVA model with effect of treatment group, geographic region, and baseline value of analyzed variable as a covariate, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = 20 mg Tadalafil minus Placebo|||7.95|4.35|<0.001
90820226|NCT02249182|181519382|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was determined if the 90% CIs were within the predefined equivalence boundaries of 50% to 200% for all age groups.|Percentage Geometric Mean Ratio|94.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.51|107.27||||||AUCtau of GS-331007 for the 3 to \< 6 Years Old group in the PK Lead-in Phase was compared against historical data collected in adult Phase 2/3 studies.||107.27|82.51|
90820227|NCT02249182|181519382|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was determined if the 90% CIs were within the predefined equivalence boundaries of 50% to 200% for all age groups.|Percentage Geometric Mean Ratio|127.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.89|170.45||||||AUCtau of LDV for the 12 to \< 18 Years Old group in the PK Lead-in Phase was compared against historical data collected in adult Phase 2/3 studies.||170.45|94.89|
90820228|NCT02249182|181519382|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was determined if the 90% CIs were within the predefined equivalence boundaries of 50% to 200% for all age groups.|Percentage Geometric Mean Ratio|82.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|61.34|110.3||||||AUCtau of LDV for the 6 to \< 12 Years Old group in the PK Lead-in Phase was compared against historical data collected in adult Phase 2/3 studies.||110.30|61.34|
90820229|NCT02249182|181519382|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was determined if the 90% CIs were within the predefined equivalence boundaries of 50% to 200% for all age groups.|Percentage Geometric Mean Ratio|120.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.18|155.73||||||AUCtau of LDV for the 3 to \< 6 Years Old group in the PK Lead-in Phase was compared against historical data collected in adult Phase 2/3 studies.||155.73|93.18|
90820230|NCT02249182|181519382|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was determined if the 90% CIs were within the predefined equivalence boundaries of 50% to 200% for all age groups.|Percentage Geometric Mean Ratio|159.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|137.89|185.37||||||AUCtau of SOF for the 12 to \< 18 Years Old group in the PK Lead-in Phase was compared against historical data collected in adult Phase 2/3 studies.||185.37|137.89|
90820231|NCT02249182|181519382|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was determined if the 90% CIs were within the predefined equivalence boundaries of 50% to 200% for all age groups.|Percentage Geometric Mean Ratio|129.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|110.79|151.32||||||AUCtau of SOF for the 6 to \< 12 Years Old group in the PK Lead-in Phase was compared against historical data collected in adult Phase 2/3 studies.||151.32|110.79|
90820232|NCT02249182|181519382|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was determined if the 90% CIs were within the predefined equivalence boundaries of 50% to 200% for all age groups.|Percentage Geometric Mean Ratio|187.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|143.41|245.82||||||AUCtau of SOF for the 3 to \< 6 Years Old group in the PK Lead-in Phase was compared against historical data collected in adult Phase 2/3 studies.||245.82|143.41|
90820233|NCT00781859|181519430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.56||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|5.24||comparing placebo and ocriplasmin|Fisher Exact|||||5.24|1.32|0.003
90820234|NCT00360568|181519447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90820235|NCT00360568|181519448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.394|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.394
90820236|NCT00360568|181519449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91059982|NCT00384930|182001864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.58||||0.005||95.0|-2.68|-0.48||P-values are from an ANCOVA model with effect of treatment group, geographic region, and IPSS baseline value (at Visit 3) as a covariate, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = 2.5 mg Tadalafil minus Placebo|This is a supportive analysis of the primary outcome.||-0.48|-2.68|0.005
90820237|NCT00360568|181519450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90820238|NCT00360568|181519451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.055|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.055
90820239|NCT00360568|181519452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.766|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.766
90820240|NCT00360568|181519453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.571|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.571
90820241|NCT00360568|181519454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.583|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.583
90820242|NCT00360568|181519455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90820243|NCT00360568|181519456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.670
90820244|NCT00360568|181519457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.341|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.341
90820245|NCT00360568|181519458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.220
90820246|NCT00360568|181519459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.174|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.174
90820247|NCT00360568|181519460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.259|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.259
90820248|NCT00360568|181519461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.922|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.922
90820249|NCT00360568|181519462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.258|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.258
90820250|NCT00360568|181519463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.104|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.104
90820251|NCT00360568|181519464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.650
90820252|NCT00360568|181519465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.759|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.759
90820253|NCT00360568|181519466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.459|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.459
90820254|NCT00360568|181519467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.899|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.899
90820255|NCT01220180|181519480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90820256|NCT01220180|181519481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90820257|NCT01220180|181519482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90820258|NCT01220180|181519483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90820259|NCT01220180|181519484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90820260|NCT01220180|181519485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90820261|NCT01220180|181519486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90820262|NCT01220180|181519487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90820263|NCT00348309|181519496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|0.0||APOE4 negatives|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.0|-2.7|0.049
90820264|NCT00348309|181519496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.3||APOE4 negatives|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.3|-1.7|0.808
91059983|NCT00384930|182001864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.6|||<|0.001||95.0|-3.69|-1.51||P-values are from an ANCOVA model with effect of treatment group, geographic region, and IPSS baseline value (at Visit 3) as a covariate, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = 5 mg Tadalafil minus Placebo|This is a supportive analysis of the primary outcome.||-1.51|-3.69|<0.001
91059984|NCT00384930|182001864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.9|||<|0.001||95.0|-3.99|-1.81||P-values are from an ANCOVA model with effect of treatment group, geographic region, and IPSS baseline value (at Visit 3) as a covariate, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = 10 mg Tadalafil minus Placebo|This is a supportive analysis of the primary outcome.||-1.81|-3.99|<0.001
91059985|NCT00384930|182001864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.94|||<|0.001||95.0|-4.04|-1.84||P-values are from an ANCOVA model with effect of treatment group, geographic region, and IPSS baseline value (at Visit 3) as a covariate, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = 20 mg Tadalafil minus Placebo|This is a supportive analysis of the primary outcome.||-1.84|-4.04|<0.001
91059986|NCT02686138|182001922|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91059987|NCT02686138|182001923|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91059988|NCT02686138|182001924|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.5||||0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.004
91059989|NCT02686138|182001925|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.16||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.003
90820265|NCT00348309|181519496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.1||All except E4/E4s|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.1|-1.9|0.035
91059990|NCT02686138|182001926|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.3||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.01
91059991|NCT02686138|182001927|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.17||||0.013|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.013
90820266|NCT00348309|181519496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.0||All except E4/E4s|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.0|-1.0|0.999
90820267|NCT00348309|181519496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.2||Full population|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.2|-1.9|0.020
91059992|NCT02686138|182001928|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91059993|NCT02686138|182001929|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91059994|NCT02686138|182001930|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.17||||0.015|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.015
91059995|NCT00345631|182001995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-15.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.04|-12.31||Multiplicity is addressed for the two co-primary effectiveness endpoints via a closed testing procedure where the time to hemostasis will be assessed first and then time to ambulation only if significance is first achieved for time to hemostasis.|t-test, 2 sided|||"Null hypothesis: The mean time to hemostasis for the manual compression (MC) arm is less or equal to that for the vascular closure device (VCD) arm.~The trial is powered to detect a 5 minute reduction in mean time to hemostasis and a 2 hour reduction in mean time to ambulation for VCD vs. MC with over 90% power and a 5% two-sided (2.5% one-sided) Type I error"||-12.31|-19.04|<0.0001
91059996|NCT00345631|182001996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-3.7||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.53|-1.87||Multiplicity is addressed for the two co-primary effectiveness endpoints via a closed testing procedure where the time to hemostasis will be assessed first and then time to ambulation only if significance is first achieved for time to hemostasis.|t-test, 2 sided|||"Null hypothesis:The mean time to ambulation for the manual compression (MC) arm is less or equal to that for the vascular closure device (VCD) arm.~The trial is powered to detect a 5 minute reduction in mean time to hemostasis and a 2 hour reduction in mean time to ambulation for VCD vs. MC with over 90% power and a 5% two-sided (2.5% one-sided) Type I error"||-1.87|-5.53|0.0028
91059997|NCT00345631|182001997|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size is adequate to rule out a 4% or larger disadvantage for VCD vs. MC (null hypothesis: 2.5% MC vs. 6.5% VCD) in the incidence of major complications for VCD vs. MC using a 95% upper confidence bound for the VCD - MC difference with 80% power and a 5% one-sided Type I error|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.0006|ONE_SIDED|95.0||1.14||P-value was calculated using unconditional exact test of non-inferiority for difference of two binomial proportions (VCD vs. MC) with a margin of 4%.|unconditional exact test|||Based on pre-planned hypotheses, a minimum sample size of 390 randomized patients (260 VCD patients and 130 MC patients) would demonstrate non-inferiority for the primary safety endpoint and superiority for both co-primary effectiveness endpoints in comparing VCD vs. MC.||1.14||0.0006
90820268|NCT00348309|181519496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.7||Full population|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.7|-1.2|0.661
91059998|NCT00345631|182001998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.7||||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.84|0.45|||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: The mean time to eligibility for hospital discharge for the manual compression (MC) arm is equal to that for the vascular closure device (VCD) arm.||0.45|-7.84|0.1540
91059999|NCT00345631|182001999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.57||||0.3612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.46|2.31|||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: The mean time to hospital discharge for the manual compression (MC) arm is equal to that for the vascular closure device (VCD) arm.||2.31|-7.46|0.3612
91060000|NCT00345631|182002002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|0.7||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|7.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: The percentages of patients achieving procedure success between the vascular closure device and manual compression arms are equal.||7.4|-4.8|0.85
91060001|NCT00517556|182002004|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.05
91060002|NCT03301623|182002024|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.69||||0.541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|1.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|Test is on interaction term between time (pre/post intervention) and treatment group (CDSvsPEAT) dummy variables in the regression model.|The interaction term describes the effect of PEAT in the post period.|"Question: Which communication strategy used during the clinical encounter is more effective in reducing pain interference over time for patients with chronic pain who were taking opioids at baseline?~Regression model includes a fixed effect for time and an interaction effect between pre/post intervention and intervention arm dummy variables. Analysis is clustered at the participant level."||1.52|-2.9|.541
90820269|NCT00348309|181519497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|||=|0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||APOE4 negatives|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.0|-1.0|=0.056
90820270|NCT00348309|181519497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||=|0.587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.7||APOE4 negatives|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.7|-0.4|=0.587
90820271|NCT00348309|181519497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|||=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.2||All except E4/E4s|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.2|-0.9|=0.004
90820272|NCT00348309|181519497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||=|0.402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.6||All except E4/E4s|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.6|-0.2|=0.402
90820273|NCT00348309|181519497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.2||Full population|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.2|-0.9|=0.002
90820274|NCT00348309|181519497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|||=|0.478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.5||Full population|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.5|-0.2|=0.478
90820275|NCT00348309|181519498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|||=|0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.7||Week 8|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.7|-2.0|=0.340
90820276|NCT00348309|181519498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|||=|0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.1||Week 8|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.1|-2.5|=0.079
90820277|NCT00348309|181519498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|||=|0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.5||Week 16|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.5|-1.7|=0.910
90820278|NCT00348309|181519498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.0||Week 16|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.0|-2.1|0.521
90820279|NCT00348309|181519498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|||=|0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|3.0||Week 24|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.0|-0.5|=0.154
91060003|NCT03301623|182002025|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.96||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|7.31|||Regression, Logistic|There were 69 providers with at least one CG-CAHPS response.|The interaction term describes the change in the PEAT group's scores in the post period.|"Question: Which communication strategy used during the clinical encounter is more effective in improving how satisfied patients feel over time after communicating with their physician about chronic pain treatment risks and benefits?~Regression model includes a fixed effect for time and an interaction effect between pre/post intervention and intervention arm dummy variables. Analysis is clustered at the PCP level."||7.31|1.20|.019
90820280|NCT00348309|181519498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||=|0.836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.0||Week 24|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.0|-1.6|=0.836
90820281|NCT00348309|181519498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|4.2||Week 48|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.2|-0.1|0.061
91060004|NCT03301623|182002026|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42||||0.719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.73|1.88|||Mixed Models Analysis||The interaction term describes the effect of PEAT in the post period.|"Question: Which communication strategy used during the clinical encounter is more effective in improving physical function over time for patients with chronic pain who were taking opioids at baseline?~Regression model includes a fixed effect for time and an interaction effect between pre/post intervention and intervention arm dummy variables. Analysis is clustered at the participant level."||1.88|-2.73|.719
90820282|NCT00348309|181519498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|||=|0.566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|1.6||Week 48|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.6|-2.9|=0.566
90820283|NCT00348309|181519499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||=|0.414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.5||Week 8|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.5|-1.3|=0.414
90820284|NCT00348309|181519499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.1||Week 8|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.1|-1.0|0.931
90820285|NCT00348309|181519499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.7||Week 16|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.7|-1.4|0.485
90820286|NCT00348309|181519499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.5||Week 16|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.5|-0.8|0.550
90820287|NCT00348309|181519499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.5||Week 24|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.5|-1.8|0.264
90820288|NCT00348309|181519499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.0||Week 24|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.0|-1.5|0.732
90820289|NCT00348309|181519499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|0.0||Week 48|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.0|-2.9|0.043
90820290|NCT00348309|181519499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.8||Week 48|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.8|-1.4|0.814
90820291|NCT00348309|181519500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.6|||ANCOVA|||||0.6|-0.5|0.870
90820292|NCT00348309|181519500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.4|||ANCOVA|||||0.4|-0.7|0.617
90820293|NCT00348309|181519501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|6.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12 Q1||6.9|-5.2|0.789
90820294|NCT00348309|181519501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|5.6||Week 12Q1|Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.6|-9.0|0.643
90820295|NCT00348309|181519501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.3||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|0.1||Week 24 Q1|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.1|-14.7|0.052
90820296|NCT00348309|181519501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.7||||0.481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|6.6||Week 24 Q1|Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.6|-14.0|0.481
90820297|NCT00348309|181519501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.2||||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.6|3.2||Week 36 Q1|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.2|-15.6|0.195
90820298|NCT00348309|181519501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|10.7||Week 36 Q1|Mixed Models Analysis|||||10.7|-12.9|0.857
90820299|NCT00348309|181519501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.6||||0.422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.9|6.7||Week 48 Q1|Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.7|-15.9|0.422
90820300|NCT00348309|181519501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.6||||0.562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.7|8.6||Week 48 Q1|Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.6|-15.7|0.562
90820301|NCT00348309|181519501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.8||||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|20.2||Week 12 Q2|Mixed Models Analysis|||||20.2|-2.6|0.129
90820302|NCT00348309|181519501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.9||||0.194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|19.9||Week 12 Q2|Mixed Models Analysis|||||19.9|-4.0|0.194
90820303|NCT00348309|181519501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|13.1||Week 24 Q2|Mixed Models Analysis|||||13.1|-10.5|0.832
90820304|NCT00348309|181519501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.1||||0.351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|19.1||Week 24 Q2|Mixed Models Analysis|||||19.1|-6.8|0.351
90820305|NCT00348309|181519501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|12.5||Week 36 Q2|Mixed Models Analysis|||||12.5|-13.3|0.949
90820306|NCT00348309|181519501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.3||||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|22.6||Week 36 Q2|Mixed Models Analysis|||||22.6|-6.0|0.253
90820307|NCT00348309|181519501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4||||0.735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|11.4||Week 48 Q2|Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.4|-16.2|0.735
90820308|NCT00348309|181519501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.2||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|32.0||Week 48 Q2|Mixed Models Analysis|||||32.0|0.3|0.046
90820309|NCT00348309|181519502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|2.0||Week 12 Thermometer|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.0|-2.3|0.914
90820310|NCT00348309|181519502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|1.4||Week 12 Thermometer|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.4|-3.3|0.415
90820311|NCT00348309|181519502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|0.1||Week 36 Thermometer|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.1|-4.9|0.063
90820312|NCT00348309|181519502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.9||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|-0.3||Week 36 Thermometer|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.3|-5.6|0.030
90820313|NCT00348309|181519502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2||||0.392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|3.8||Week 48 Thermometer|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.8|-1.5|0.392
90820314|NCT00348309|181519502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|2.0||Week 48 Thermometer|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.0|-3.7|0.557
90820315|NCT00348309|181519502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.03||Week 12 Utility|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.03|-0.01|0.320
90820316|NCT00348309|181519502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.01||Week 12 Utility|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.01|-0.04|0.180
91078415|NCT00460265|182042704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.873||||0.1403||95.0|0.729|1.046|||Log Rank|Stratified by IVRS randomization factors (ECOG(0:1),previously treated w/ CT/RT(yes:no),primary tumor site(oropharynx/larynx:oral cavity/hypopharynx))|Hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazards model stratified by IVRS randomization factors; hazard ratio presented as panitumumab plus chemotherapy:chemotherapy alone.|||1.046|0.729|0.1403
90820317|NCT00348309|181519502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.04||Week 36 Utility|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.04|-0.02|0.498
90820318|NCT00348309|181519502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.0||Week 36 Utility|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.00|-0.06|0.081
90820319|NCT00348309|181519502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.06||Week 48 Utility|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.06|-0.00|0.077
90820320|NCT00348309|181519502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.03||Week 48 Utility|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.03|-0.04|0.640
90820321|NCT00348309|181519503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.2|||ANCOVA|||||0.2|-1.6|0.105
90820322|NCT00348309|181519503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.6|||ANCOVA|||||0.6|-1.3|0.483
90820323|NCT00348309|181519504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||||-0.2|-0.9|0.004
90820324|NCT00348309|181519504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.5|||ANCOVA|||||0.5|-0.3|0.554
90820325|NCT00348309|181519505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.1|||ANCOVA|||||1.1|-0.3|0.292
90820326|NCT00348309|181519505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.1|||ANCOVA|||||1.1|-0.3|0.297
90820327|NCT00348309|181519506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.2|0.598
90820328|NCT00348309|181519506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.0|-0.4|0.073
90820329|NCT00348309|181519507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.12|||ANCOVA|||||0.12|0.02|0.006
90820330|NCT00348309|181519507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.09|||ANCOVA|||||0.09|-0.01|0.140
90820331|NCT00348309|181519517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.1||Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.1|-1.2|0.027
90820332|NCT00348309|181519517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.1||Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.1|-1.1|0.091
90820333|NCT00348309|181519517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.3||Week 36|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.3|-1.1|0.268
90820334|NCT00348309|181519517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.4||Week 36|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.4|-1.1|0.318
90820335|NCT00348309|181519517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.1||Week 48|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.1|-1.6|0.030
90820336|NCT00348309|181519517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.7||Week 48|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.7|-0.9|0.797
90820337|NCT04254666|181519574|OTHER||||||||||||||||||pre and post scores for this measure are presented as the percent of foods correctly classified.|||
90820338|NCT01865448|181519650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.278|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.2780
90820339|NCT01865448|181519650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8689|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||0.8689
90820340|NCT01865448|181519650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4533|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||0.4533
90820341|NCT01865448|181519651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71833|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.71833
90820342|NCT01865448|181519651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||<0.001
90820343|NCT01865448|181519651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||<0.001
90820344|NCT01865448|181519652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.519|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.51900
90820345|NCT01865448|181519652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||<0.001
90820346|NCT01865448|181519652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||<0.001
90820347|NCT01865448|181519653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24567|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.24567
90820348|NCT01865448|181519653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||<0.001
90820349|NCT01865448|181519653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||<0.001
90820350|NCT01865448|181519654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9573|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.9573
90820351|NCT01865448|181519654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5257|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||0.5257
90820352|NCT01865448|181519654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0657|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||0.0657
90820353|NCT01865448|181519655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7474|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.7474
90820354|NCT01865448|181519655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3745|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||0.3745
90820355|NCT01865448|181519655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0476|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||0.0476
90820356|NCT01865448|181519656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27444|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.27444
90820357|NCT01865448|181519656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||<0.001
90820358|NCT01865448|181519656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||<0.001
90820359|NCT01865448|181519657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28489|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.28489
90820360|NCT01865448|181519657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||<0.001
90820361|NCT01865448|181519657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
90820362|NCT01865448|181519658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04491|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.04491
90820363|NCT01865448|181519658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||<0.001
90820364|NCT01865448|181519658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||<0.001
90820365|NCT01865448|181519659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24396|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.24396
90820366|NCT01865448|181519659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.00162|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||0.00162
90820367|NCT01865448|181519659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.00162|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||0.00162
90820368|NCT01865448|181519660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82322|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.82322
90820369|NCT01865448|181519660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25908|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||0.25908
90820370|NCT01865448|181519660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25908|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||0.25908
90820371|NCT01865448|181519661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76435|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.76435
90820372|NCT01865448|181519661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18876|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||0.18876
90820373|NCT01865448|181519661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18876|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||0.18876
90820374|NCT01865448|181519662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.40485|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.40485
90820375|NCT01865448|181519662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||<0.001
90820376|NCT01865448|181519662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||<0.001
90820377|NCT01865448|181519663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13911|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.13911
90820378|NCT01865448|181519663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05726|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||0.05726
90820379|NCT01865448|181519663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05726|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||0.05726
90820380|NCT01865448|181519664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.60214|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.60214
90820381|NCT01865448|181519664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||<0.001
90820382|NCT01865448|181519664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||<0.001
90820383|NCT01865448|181519665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66053|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.66053
90820384|NCT01865448|181519665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||<0.001
90820385|NCT01865448|181519665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||<0.05
90820386|NCT01865448|181519666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28743|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.28743
90820387|NCT01865448|181519666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||<0.001
90820388|NCT01865448|181519666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||<0.001
90820389|NCT01865448|181519667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58561|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.58561
90820390|NCT01865448|181519667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||<0.001
90820391|NCT01865448|181519667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
90820392|NCT01865448|181519668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1953|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.1953
90820393|NCT01865448|181519668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0351|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||0.0351
91078416|NCT00460265|182042705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|10.98||||||95.0|3.13|18.68||||||||18.68|3.13|
90820394|NCT01865448|181519668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0795|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||0.0795
90820395|NCT01865448|181519669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6664|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.6664
90820396|NCT01865448|181519669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.431|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||0.4310
90820397|NCT01865448|181519669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||0.0049
90820398|NCT01865448|181519670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.247|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.2470
90820399|NCT01865448|181519670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2755|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||0.2755
90820400|NCT01865448|181519670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8226|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||0.8226
90820401|NCT01865448|181519671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6779|||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.6779
90820402|NCT01865448|181519671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3761|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||0.3761
90820403|NCT01865448|181519671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0281|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||0.0281
90820404|NCT01865448|181519672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8591|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.8591
90820405|NCT01865448|181519672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0404|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||0.0404
90820406|NCT01865448|181519672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0474|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||0.0474
90820407|NCT01865448|181519673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3187|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.3187
90820408|NCT01865448|181519673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0482|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||0.0482
90820409|NCT01865448|181519673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0394|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||0.0394
90820410|NCT01865448|181519674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2813|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.2813
90820411|NCT01865448|181519674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4421|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||0.4421
90820412|NCT01865448|181519674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3198|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||0.3198
90820413|NCT01865448|181519675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2792|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.2792
90820414|NCT01865448|181519675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1034|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||0.1034
90820415|NCT01865448|181519675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9898|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||0.9898
90820416|NCT01865448|181519676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7047|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.7047
90820417|NCT01865448|181519676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4749|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||0.4749
90820418|NCT01865448|181519676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6014|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||0.6014
90820419|NCT01865448|181519677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5932|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.5932
90820420|NCT01865448|181519677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.714|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||0.7140
90820421|NCT01865448|181519677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5827|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||0.5827
90820422|NCT01865448|181519678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2894|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.2894
90820423|NCT01865448|181519678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2128|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||0.2128
90820424|NCT01865448|181519678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0823|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||0.0823
90820425|NCT01865448|181519679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.345|||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.3450
90820426|NCT01865448|181519679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1365|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||0.1365
90820427|NCT01865448|181519679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0073|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||0.0073
90820428|NCT01865448|181519680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2333|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.2333
90820429|NCT01865448|181519680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4292|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||0.4292
90820430|NCT01865448|181519680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3356|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||0.3356
90820431|NCT01865448|181519681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.683|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.6830
91078417|NCT00460265|182042705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.69||||||95.0|1.15|2.44||||||||2.44|1.15|
91078418|NCT00460265|182042709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||||95.0|0.659|0.922|||||Cox proportional hazards model stratified by IVRS randomization factors|||0.922|0.659|
90820432|NCT01865448|181519681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8625|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||0.8625
90820433|NCT01865448|181519681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0068|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||0.0068
90820434|NCT01865448|181519682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3694|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.3694
90820435|NCT01865448|181519682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0291|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||0.0291
90820436|NCT01865448|181519682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0402|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||0.0402
91060005|NCT03301623|182002027|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|2.36|||Mixed Models Analysis||The interaction term describes the effect of PEAT in the post period.|"Question: Which communication strategy used during the clinical encounter is more effective in reducing opioid prescriptions of more than 90 morphine milligrams equivalent (MME) over time for patients with chronic pain who were taking opioids at baseline?~Regression model includes a fixed effect for time and an interaction effect between pre/post intervention and intervention arm dummy variables. Analysis is clustered at the PCP level."||2.36|1.13|.010
91060006|NCT03301623|182002028|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.71|||Mixed Models Analysis||The interaction term describes the effect of PEAT in the post period.|Question: Which communication strategy used during the clinical encounter is more effective in reducing co-prescription of opioids and benzodiazepines over time for patients with chronic pain who were taking opioids at baseline?||1.71|.34|.510
91060007|NCT03301623|182002029|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.34|||Regression, Logistic|We employed robust standard errors clustered at the participant level. Time was controlled for using a fixed effect.|The interaction term describes the effect of PEAT in the post period.|PHQ-9 was categorized by assigning scores of 0, 1, 2, and 3 to the response categories (not at all: several days, more than half the days, nearly every day, respectively) and then summing. Scores of 5, 10, 15, and 20 represent cutpoints for mild, moderate, moderately severe and severe depression, respectively. The analysis was conducted as a multilevel ordered logistic regression.||2.34|.76|.260
90820437|NCT01865448|181519683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1226|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.1226
90820438|NCT01865448|181519683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0472|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||0.0472
90820439|NCT01865448|181519683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0197|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||0.0197
90820440|NCT01865448|181519684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8969|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.8969
90820441|NCT01865448|181519684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7218|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||0.7218
90820442|NCT01865448|181519684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4536|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||0.4536
90820443|NCT01865448|181519685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8765|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.8765
90820444|NCT01865448|181519685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5114|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||0.5114
90820445|NCT01865448|181519685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0237|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||0.0237
90820446|NCT01865448|181519686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2914|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.2914
90820447|NCT01865448|181519686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5594|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||0.5594
90820448|NCT01865448|181519686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2532|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||0.2532
90820449|NCT01865448|181519687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0528|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.0528
90820450|NCT01865448|181519687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.192|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||0.1920
90820451|NCT01865448|181519687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||0.0011
90820452|NCT01865448|181519688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2999|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.2999
90820453|NCT01865448|181519688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5184|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||0.5184
90820454|NCT01865448|181519688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0564|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||0.0564
90820455|NCT01865448|181519689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0783|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.0783
90820456|NCT01865448|181519689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1263|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||0.1263
90820457|NCT01865448|181519689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6484|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||0.6484
90820458|NCT01865448|181519690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6896|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.6896
90820459|NCT01865448|181519690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.098|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||0.0980
90820460|NCT01865448|181519690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3526|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||0.3526
90820461|NCT01865448|181519691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9662|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.9662
90820462|NCT01865448|181519691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.145|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||0.1450
90820463|NCT01865448|181519691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3811|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.3811
90820464|NCT01865448|181519692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2643|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.2643
90820465|NCT01865448|181519692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0761|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||0.0761
90820466|NCT01865448|181519692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1342|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||0.1342
90820467|NCT01865448|181519693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.141|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.1410
91060008|NCT00676780|182002051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.027||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||=0.027
91060009|NCT00676780|182002052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.023
91060010|NCT00676780|182002053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is no change, i.e. median change = 0.0||||<0.001
91060011|NCT01613313|182002116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||No p value||This is a proof of concept dose escalation study. No power justification has been implemented. Descriptive data provided for each arm.||||
91060012|NCT01613313|182002117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||This is a proof of concept dose escalation study. No power of justification was implemented. Descriptive statistics was provided for each arm only.||||
91060013|NCT00708227|182002118|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.27
91060014|NCT00708227|182002119|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.15
91060015|NCT00708227|182002120|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.06
91060016|NCT04007991|182002124|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Mean|-3.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.351|=|0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.09|-0.79||Change from baseline in YGTSS score as a continuous variable was based on mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with an unstructured covariance matrix.|ANCOVA|||||-0.79|-6.09|=0.011
91060017|NCT01495702|182002356|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was that the Stribild group was at least 12% worse than the NNRTI+FTC/TDF group with respect to the percentage of participants maintaining HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL at Week 48. The alternative hypothesis was that the Stribild group was less than 12% worse than the NNRTI+FTC/TDF group.|Difference in proportions|5.3||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|12.0|||Fisher Exact||The 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference was from unconditional exact method using 2 inverted 1-sided tests with the standardized statistic using StatXact.|||12.0|-0.5|0.066
91060018|NCT04152863|182002373|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|11.9||||0.1812|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.5|32.5|||Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|To ensure adequate number of participants, strata were combined according to sSAP when one treatment had 0 participants in a particular stratum.||||32.5|-9.5|0.1812
91060019|NCT04152863|182002373|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.8||||0.3548|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.2|25.5|||Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|To ensure adequate number of participants, strata were combined according to sSAP when one treatment had 0 participants in a particular stratum.||||25.5|-16.2|0.3548
91060020|NCT04152863|182002373|OTHER|Difference in percentage based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in %|7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.6|28.2||||||||28.2|-14.6|
90820468|NCT01865448|181519693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3774|||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||0.3774
91060021|NCT04152863|182002374|OTHER|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.27||||||||2.27|0.50|
91060022|NCT04152863|182002374|OTHER|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|2.29||||||||2.29|0.51|
91060023|NCT04152863|182002374|OTHER|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.04||||||||2.04|0.50|
90820469|NCT01865448|181519693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1811|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.1811
90820470|NCT01865448|181519694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||<0.0001
91060024|NCT04152863|182002376|OTHER|Difference in percentage based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in percentage|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.1|19.2||||||||19.2|-23.1|
91060025|NCT04152863|182002376|OTHER|Difference in percentage based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in percentage|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.1|19.2||||||||19.2|-23.1|
91060026|NCT04152863|182002376|OTHER|Difference in percentage based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in %|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.2|21.2||||||||21.2|-21.2|
91060027|NCT04152863|182002377|OTHER|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|3.02||||||||3.02|0.70|
91060028|NCT04152863|182002377|OTHER|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.68||||||||2.68|0.62|
91060029|NCT04152863|182002377|OTHER|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.22||||||||2.22|0.60|
91060030|NCT04152863|182002379|OTHER|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|3.79||||||||3.79|0.71|
91060031|NCT04152863|182002379|OTHER|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|2.68||||||||2.68|0.47|
91060032|NCT04152863|182002379|OTHER|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|3.02||||||||3.02|0.64|
91060033|NCT00919126|182002382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|The analysis of covariance was adjusted for quantity of propofol (mg) administered during the induction period, gender, type of surgery and centre.||The dose of propofol adjusted to BSA and maintenance duration was expected to be 4.0 mg/m².min in the control group, 2.8 mg/m².min in one xenon group and 3.0 mg/m².min in the other xenon group. With an expected common standard deviation of 2.0 mg/m².min, a type I error of 0.05 (two-sided) and a power of 0.80, the sample size required to show a statistically significant difference between the three groups was estimated to be 48 patients per group, resulting in a total of 144 randomised patients.||||<0.0001
91060034|NCT00919126|182002382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0256|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.328|3.724||Pairwise comparison performed using Tukey's test.|ANCOVA|The analysis of covariance was adjusted for quantity of propofol (mg) administered during the induction period, gender, type of surgery and centre.|The difference Xenon 70% in Oxygen minus Medical Air in Oxygen was assessed.|||3.724|2.328|<0.0001
91060035|NCT00919126|182002382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2905|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|3.011||Pairwise comparison performed using Tukey's test.|ANCOVA|The analysis of covariance was adjusted for quantity of propofol (mg) administered during the induction period, gender, type of surgery and centre.|The difference Xenon 50% in Oxygen minus Medical Air in Oxygen was assessed.|||3.011|1.570|<0.0001
90820471|NCT01865448|181519694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||<0.0001
90820472|NCT01865448|181519694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||<0.0001
90820473|NCT01865448|181519695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5893|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.5893
90820474|NCT01865448|181519695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0431|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||0.0431
90820475|NCT01865448|181519695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0066|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||0.0066
90820476|NCT01865448|181519696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||<0.0001
91060036|NCT00919126|182002382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7351||||0.0365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.038|1.432||Pairwise comparison was performed using the Tukey's test.|ANCOVA|The analysis of covariance was adjusted for quantity of propofol (mg) administered during the induction period, gender, type of surgery and centre.|The difference Xenon 70% in Oxygen minus Xenon 50% in Oxygen was assessed|||1.432|0.038|0.0365
90820477|NCT01865448|181519696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||<0.0001
90820478|NCT01865448|181519696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||<0.0001
90820479|NCT01865448|181519697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.985|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.9850
90820480|NCT01865448|181519697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||0.0049
90820481|NCT01865448|181519697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0062|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.0062
90820482|NCT01865448|181519698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1946|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.1946
90820483|NCT01865448|181519698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2337|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||0.2337
90820484|NCT01865448|181519698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9188|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||0.9188
90820485|NCT01865448|181519699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7964|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.7964
90820486|NCT01865448|181519699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.768|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||0.7680
90820487|NCT01865448|181519699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5669|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||0.5669
90820488|NCT01865448|181519700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.032|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.0320
90820489|NCT01865448|181519700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||0.0220
90820490|NCT01865448|181519700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4563|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||0.4563
90820491|NCT01865448|181519701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72828|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.72828
90820492|NCT01618695|181519703|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-5.09||||0.233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.112|4.519|||ANCOVA||Median Difference to placebo and the 95 percent (%) confidence interval are based on the Hodges-Lehmann method.|||4.519|-14.112|0.2330
90820493|NCT01618695|181519703|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-16.45||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.683|-7.251|||ANCOVA||Median Difference to placebo and the 95% confidence interval are based on the Hodges-Lehmann method.|||-7.251|-25.683|0.0003
90820494|NCT01618695|181519703|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-24.95|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.878|-16.235|||ANCOVA||Median Difference to placebo and the 95% confidence interval are based on the Hodges-Lehmann method.|||-16.235|-33.878|<0.0001
90820495|NCT01618695|181519704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3954|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3954
90820496|NCT01618695|181519704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0005
90820497|NCT01618695|181519704|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
90820498|NCT01618695|181519705|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-8.27||||0.0552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.067|1.671|||ANCOVA||Median Difference to placebo and the 95% confidence interval are based on the Hodges-Lehmann method.|||1.671|-18.067|0.0552
90820499|NCT01618695|181519705|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-21.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.941|-11.368|||ANCOVA||Median Difference to placebo and the 95% confidence interval are based on the Hodges-Lehmann method.|||-11.368|-30.941|<0.0001
90820500|NCT01618695|181519705|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-28.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.698|-19.794|||ANCOVA||Median Difference to placebo and the 95% confidence interval are based on the Hodges-Lehmann method.|||-19.794|-37.698|<0.0001
90820501|NCT00931606|181519717|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999||||||"P-values greater than 0.999 are reported as \>0.999."|Fisher Exact|Clopper and Pearson exact approach||Overall||||>0.999
90820502|NCT00931606|181519717|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999||||||"P-values greater than 0.999 are reported as \>0.999."|Fisher Exact|Clopper and Pearson exact approach||Overall||||>0.999
90820503|NCT00931606|181519717|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.524|||||||Fisher Exact|Clopper and Pearson exact approach||Overall||||0.524
90820504|NCT00931606|181519717|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999||||||"P-values greater than 0.999 are reported as \>0.999."|Fisher Exact|Clopper and Pearson exact approach||Overall||||>0.999
90820505|NCT00931606|181519717|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.333|||||||Fisher Exact|Clopper and Pearson exact approach||Weekly Chemotherapy||||0.333
90820506|NCT00931606|181519717|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.333|||||||Fisher Exact|Clopper and Pearson exact approach||Weekly Chemotherapy||||0.333
90820507|NCT00931606|181519717|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.333|||||||Fisher Exact|Clopper and Pearson exact approach||Weekly Chemotherapy||||0.333
90820508|NCT00931606|181519717|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.236|||||||Fisher Exact|Clopper and Pearson exact approach||Less Frequent Chemotherapy||||0.236
90820509|NCT00931606|181519717|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.429|||||||Fisher Exact|Clopper and Pearson exact approach||Less Frequent Chemotherapy||||0.429
90820510|NCT00931606|181519717|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.519|||||||Fisher Exact|Clopper and Pearson exact approach||Less Frequent Chemotherapy||||0.519
90820511|NCT00931606|181519720|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999||||||"P-values greater than 0.999 are reported as \>0.999."|Fisher Exact|Clopper and Pearson exact approach||Overall||||>0.999
91060037|NCT01644617|182002395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means (LSM)|-3.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.85|-2.39|||ANCOVA||Analysis by ANCOVA with treatment and baseline endpoint score as fixed effects and adjusted for different error variation for each treatment group.|||-2.39|-4.85|<0.001
91060038|NCT01644617|182002395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|-1.98||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.24|-0.72|||ANCOVA||Analysis by ANCOVA with treatment and baseline endpoint score as fixed effects and adjusted for different error variation for each treatment group.|||-0.72|-3.24|0.003
91060039|NCT01644617|182002396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|-2.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.14|-1.03|||ANCOVA||Analysis by ANCOVA with treatment and baseline endpoint score as fixed effects and adjusted for different error variation for each treatment group.|||-1.03|-3.14|<0.001
91060040|NCT01644617|182002396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|-1.23||||0.032||95.0|-2.36|-0.11|||ANCOVA||Analysis by ANCOVA with treatment and baseline endpoint score as fixed effects and adjusted for different error variation for each treatment group.|||-0.11|-2.36|0.032
91060041|NCT01644617|182002397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|-1.37||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|-0.39|||ANCOVA||Analysis by ANCOVA with treatment and baseline endpoint score as fixed effects and adjusted for different error variation for each treatment group.|||-0.39|-2.34|0.007
91060042|NCT01644617|182002397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|-0.54||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|0.29|||ANCOVA||Analysis by ANCOVA with treatment and baseline endpoint score as fixed effects and adjusted for different error variation for each treatment group.|||0.29|-1.38|0.198
91060043|NCT01644617|182002398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|-4.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.59|-3.09|||ANCOVA||Analysis by ANCOVA with treatment and baseline endpoint score as fixed effects and adjusted for different error variation for each treatment group.|||-3.09|-6.59|<0.001
91060044|NCT01644617|182002398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|-2.65||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.35|-0.95|||ANCOVA||Analysis by ANCOVA with treatment and baseline endpoint score as fixed effects and adjusted for different error variation for each treatment group.|||-0.95|-4.35|0.003
91060045|NCT01644617|182002399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|-2.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.12|-1.13|||ANCOVA||Analysis by ANCOVA with treatment and baseline endpoint score as fixed effects and adjusted for different error variation for each treatment group.|||-1.13|-4.12|<0.001
91060046|NCT01644617|182002399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|-1.37||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.96|0.22|||ANCOVA||Analysis by ANCOVA with treatment and baseline endpoint score as fixed effects and adjusted for different error variation for each treatment group.|||0.22|-2.96|0.091
91060047|NCT01644617|182002400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|-1.97||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-0.64|||ANCOVA||Analysis by ANCOVA with treatment and baseline endpoint score as fixed effects and adjusted for different error variation for each treatment group.|||-0.64|-3.30|0.004
91060048|NCT01644617|182002400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|-0.83||||0.181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|0.4|||ANCOVA||Analysis by ANCOVA with treatment and baseline endpoint score as fixed effects and adjusted for different error variation for each treatment group.|||0.40|-2.06|0.181
91060049|NCT01644617|182002401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|-1.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.92|-0.62|||ANCOVA||Analysis by ANCOVA with treatment and baseline endpoint score as fixed effects and adjusted for different error variation for each treatment group.|||-0.62|-1.92|<0.001
91060050|NCT01644617|182002401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|-0.77||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|-0.11|||ANCOVA||Analysis by ANCOVA with treatment and baseline endpoint score as fixed effects and adjusted for different error variation for each treatment group.|||-0.11|-1.43|0.023
91060051|NCT01644617|182002402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|-0.53||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|0.07|||ANCOVA||Analysis by ANCOVA with treatment and baseline endpoint score as fixed effects and adjusted for different error variation for each treatment group.|||0.07|-1.13|0.082
91060052|NCT01644617|182002402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|-0.13||||0.691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.52|||ANCOVA||Analysis by ANCOVA with treatment and baseline endpoint score as fixed effects and adjusted for different error variation for each treatment group.|||0.52|-0.79|0.691
91060053|NCT01644617|182002403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|-0.61||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|-0.09|||ANCOVA||Analysis by ANCOVA with treatment and baseline endpoint score as fixed effects and adjusted for different error variation for each treatment group.|||-0.09|-1.14|0.023
91060054|NCT01644617|182002403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|-0.34||||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.22|||ANCOVA||Analysis by ANCOVA with treatment and baseline endpoint score as fixed effects and adjusted for different error variation for each treatment group.|||0.22|-0.90|0.235
91060055|NCT01644617|182002406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM: D. pteronyssinus|0.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.68|||ANOVA||Analysis by ANOVA with treatment as fixed effect and adjusted for different error variation for each treatment group.|||0.68|0.43|<0.001
91060056|NCT01644617|182002406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM: D. pteronyssinus|0.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.52|||ANOVA||Analysis by ANOVA with treatment as fixed effect and adjusted for different error variation for each treatment group.|||0.52|0.33|<0.001
91060057|NCT01644617|182002406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM: D. farinae|0.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.64|||ANOVA||Analysis by ANOVA with treatment as fixed effect and adjusted for different error variation for each treatment group.|||0.64|0.41|<0.001
91060058|NCT01644617|182002406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM: D. farinae|0.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.48|||ANOVA||Analysis by ANOVA with treatment as fixed effect and adjusted for different error variation for each treatment group.|||0.48|0.30|<0.001
91060059|NCT01644617|182002407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM: D. pteronyssinus|0.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.33|||ANOVA||Analysis by ANOVA with treatment as fixed effect and adjusted for different error variation for each treatment group.|||0.33|0.13|<0.001
91060060|NCT01644617|182002407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM: D. pteronyssinus|0.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.25|||ANOVA||Analysis by ANOVA with treatment as fixed effect and adjusted for different error variation for each treatment group.|||0.25|0.12|<0.001
91060061|NCT01644617|182002407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM: D. farinae|0.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.42|||ANOVA||Analysis by ANOVA with treatment as fixed effect and adjusted for different error variation for each treatment group.|||0.42|0.23|<0.001
90820512|NCT00931606|181519720|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999||||||"P-values greater than 0.999 are reported as \>0.999."|Fisher Exact|Clopper and Pearson exact approach||Overall||||>0.999
90820513|NCT00931606|181519720|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999||||||"P-values greater than 0.999 are reported as \>0.999."|Fisher Exact|Clopper and Pearson exact approach||Less Frequent Chemotherapy||||>0.999
90820514|NCT00931606|181519720|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|Clopper and Pearson exact approach||Less Frequent Chemotherapy||||>0.999
90820515|NCT00931606|181519721|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999||||||"P-values greater than 0.999, are reported as \>0.999."|Fisher Exact|Clopper and Pearson exact approach||Overall||||>0.999
90820516|NCT00931606|181519721|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999||||||"P-values greater than 0.999 are reported as \>0.999."|Fisher Exact|Clopper and Pearson exact approach||Overall||||>0.999
90820517|NCT00931606|181519721|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.206|||||||Fisher Exact|Clopper and Pearson exact approach||Overall||||0.206
91060062|NCT01644617|182002407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM: D. farinae|0.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.33|||ANOVA||Analysis by ANOVA with treatment as fixed effect and adjusted for different error variation for each treatment group.|||0.33|0.16|<0.001
91060063|NCT01644617|182002408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage Versus Placebo|12.4||||||95.0|-3.6|28.9|||||Analysis based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method|||28.9|-3.6|
90820518|NCT00931606|181519721|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999||||||"P-values greater than 0.999 are reported as \>0.999."|Fisher Exact|Clopper and Pearson exact approach||Overall||||>0.999
90820519|NCT00931606|181519721|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.333|||||||Fisher Exact|Clopper and Pearson exact approach||Weekly Chemotherapy||||0.333
90820520|NCT00931606|181519721|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999||||||"P-values greater than 0.999, are reported as \>0.999."|Fisher Exact|Clopper and Pearson exact approach||Weekly Chemotherapy||||>0.999
90820521|NCT00931606|181519721|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999||||||"P-values greater than 0.999, are reported as \>0.999."|Fisher Exact|Clopper and Pearson exact approach||Weekly Chemotherapy||||>0.999
90820522|NCT00931606|181519721|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.429|||||||Fisher Exact|Clopper and Pearson exact approach||Less Frequent Chemotherapy||||0.429
90820523|NCT00931606|181519721|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999||||||"P-values greater than 0.999 are reported as \>0.999."|Fisher Exact|Clopper and Pearson exact approach||Less Frequent Chemotherapy||||>0.999
90820524|NCT00931606|181519721|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.143|||||||Fisher Exact|Clopper and Pearson exact approach||Less Frequent Chemotherapy||||0.143
90820525|NCT00931606|181519721|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.519|||||||Fisher Exact|Clopper and Pearson exact approach||Less Frequent Chemotherapy||||0.519
90820526|NCT00931606|181519722|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999||||||"P-values greater than 0.999 are reported as \>0.999."|Fisher Exact|Clopper and Pearson exact approach||Overall||||>0.999
90820527|NCT00931606|181519722|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999||||||"P-values greater than 0.999 are reported as \>0.999."|Fisher Exact|Clopper and Pearson exact approach||Overall||||>0.999
90820528|NCT00931606|181519722|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.206|||||||Fisher Exact|Clopper and Pearson exact approach||Overall||||0.206
90820529|NCT00931606|181519722|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999||||||"P-values greater than 0.999 are reported as \>0.999."|Fisher Exact|Clopper and Pearson exact approach||Overall||||>0.999
90820530|NCT00931606|181519722|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.333|||||||Fisher Exact|Clopper and Pearson exact approach||Weekly Chemotherapy||||0.333
90820531|NCT00931606|181519722|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999||||||"P-values greater than 0.999 are reported as \>0.999."|Fisher Exact|Clopper and Pearson exact approach||Weekly Chemotherapy||||>0.999
90820532|NCT00931606|181519722|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999||||||"P-values greater than 0.999 are reported as \>0.999."|Fisher Exact|Clopper and Pearson exact approach||Weekly Chemotherapy||||>0.999
90820533|NCT00931606|181519722|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.429|||||||Fisher Exact|Clopper and Pearson exact approach||Less Frequent Chemotherapy||||0.429
90820534|NCT00931606|181519722|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999||||||"P-values greater than 0.999 are reported as \>0.999."|Fisher Exact|Clopper and Pearson exact approach||Less Frequent Chemotherapy||||>0.999
90820535|NCT00931606|181519722|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.143|||||||Fisher Exact|Clopper and Pearson exact approach||Less Frequent Chemotherapy||||0.143
90820536|NCT00931606|181519722|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.519|||||||Fisher Exact|Clopper and Pearson exact approach||Less Frequent Chemotherapy||||0.519
90820537|NCT02391363|181519776|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77||||||P-value for treatment-group effect (CL vs ECC)|ANCOVA|Treatment group F = 0.08 (Numerator df = 1, Denominator df varies, as multiple imputation was used).||"Analyses were ITT using PROC MI and PROC MI ANALYZE in conjunction with ANCOVA. We expected to reject the null hypothesis of no treatment group difference in 6 month PSWQ-A, controlling for baseline PSWQ-A.~Race/ethnicity and ERS-expectancies significantly differed between groups at baseline and were included as covariates.~A total of 134 participants allowed for 80% power to detect moderate group differences (d=.49) in primary and secondary outcomes given a 2-tailed type 1 error rate of .05."||||0.77
90820538|NCT02391363|181519777|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07||||||P-value for treatment-group effect (CL vs ECC)|ANCOVA|Treatment group F = 3.50 (Numerator df = 1, Denominator df varies, as multiple imputation was used).||"Analyses were ITT using PROC MI and PROC MI ANALYZE in conjunction with ANCOVA. We expected to reject the null hypothesis of no treatment group difference in 9 month PSWQ-A, controlling for baseline PSWQ-A.~Race/ethnicity and ERS-expectancies significantly differed between groups at baseline and were included as covariates.~A total of 134 participants allowed for 80% power to detect moderate group differences (d=.49) in primary and secondary outcomes given a 2-tailed type 1 error rate"||||0.07
90820539|NCT02391363|181519778|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34||||||P-value for treatment-group effect (CL vs ECC)|ANCOVA|Treatment group F = 0.92. (Numerator df = 1, Denominator df varies, as multiple imputation was used).||"Analyses were ITT using PROC MI and PROC MI ANALYZE in conjunction with ANCOVA. We expected to reject the null hypothesis of no treatment group difference in 6 month GAD-7, controlling for baseline GAD-7.~Race/ethnicity and ERS-expectancies significantly differed between groups at baseline and were included as covariates.~A total of 134 participants allowed for 80% power to detect moderate group differences (d=.49) in primary and secondary outcomes given a 2-tailed type 1 error rate"||||0.34
91060064|NCT01644617|182002408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage Versus Placebo|9.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|26.6|||||Analysis based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method|||26.6|-7.0|
91060065|NCT01644617|182002409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage Versus Placebo|-7.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.6|6.7|||||Analysis based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method|||6.7|-22.6|
91060066|NCT01644617|182002409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage Versus Placebo|-14.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.5|-5.4|||||Analysis based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method|||-5.4|-28.5|
91060067|NCT00719615|182002410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05||95.0||||Only risk factors significant at the 0.10 level in univariate analysis were included in the multivariate model.|Fisher Exact|||Patient characteristics for each group were assessed using descriptive statistics, including medians, range, frequencies, and proportions. Categorical outcomes were compared between the 3 groups using a Fisher's exact test. A logistic regression modeling procedure was used to compare the odds of a low vitamin D levels between patient groups while adjusting for other risk factors: gender, age, BMI, season, and TNM staging.||||<0.05
91060068|NCT02995408|182002411|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.99||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.63|0.65||p-value was calculated|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.65|-2.63|.23
91060069|NCT02995408|182002412|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.78||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|10.78||.05 is the threshold for significance|t-test, 2 sided|||We examined between group (3RP treatment versus wait-list) differences in pre-post change scores of resiliency.||10.78|.78|0.024
91060070|NCT02995408|182002413|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.78||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.45|12.12||p=.05 is the threshold for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||||12.12|3.45|0.001
91060071|NCT03126435|182002433|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6647|||||||Log Rank|P-Value is from a stratified log-rank test.||||||0.6647
91060072|NCT03126435|182002434|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4345|||||||Log Rank|P-Value is from a stratified log-rank test.||||||0.4345
91060073|NCT03126435|182002435|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2632|||||||Regression, Logistic|P-value is from logistic regression model adjusted for stratification factors among non-missing records||||||0.2632
91060074|NCT03126435|182002437|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1002|||||||Regression, Logistic|P-value is from logistic regression model adjusted for stratification factors among non-missing records.||||||0.1002
91060075|NCT03126435|182002438|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9882|||||||Regression, Logistic|P-value is from logistic regression model adjusted for stratification factors among non-missing records.||||||0.9882
91060076|NCT01807065|182002441|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.06
91060077|NCT02664181|182002446|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||Partial remission rate was compared between both arms. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in partial remission rate between the two arms, with a p-value of \< 0.05 indicating significance||||0.05
91060078|NCT02664181|182002447|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.4||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.21|||Log Rank|||||1.21|0.13|0.06
91060079|NCT02664181|182002448|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.4||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|1.62|||Log Rank||Data from Kaplan-Meier analyses|||1.62|0.11|0.19
91060080|NCT00699816|182002450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.94|||Log Rank|||||0.94|0.43|0.01
91060081|NCT00699816|182002451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.21||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.75|||Log Rank|||||0.75|0.06|0.008
91060082|NCT00699816|182002452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.19||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.87|||Log Rank|||||0.87|0.04|0.02
91060083|NCT03668808|182002466|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis is there was no difference in Time in Range (70-140mg/dl) in the initial 24 hours at destination, whether after Eastward travel or Westward travel, between Insulin Degludec \& Insulin Glargine U100. Travel direction not tested. Criterion for significance set at 0.05; using paired t-test analysis, a sample size of 21 subjects would achieve a power of at least 77% to detect a difference of 10% between basal insulins assuming the standard deviation of the difference is \<106 minutes.||||<0.05
91060084|NCT03668808|182002467|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis is there was no difference in Time in Range (70-180mg/dl) in the initial 24 hours at destination, whether after Eastward travel or Westward travel, between Insulin Degludec \& Insulin Glargine U100. Travel direction not tested. Criterion for significance set at 0.05; using paired t-test analysis, a sample size of 21 subjects would achieve a power of at least 77% to detect a difference of 10% between basal insulins assuming the standard deviation of the difference is \<106 minutes.||||<0.05
91060085|NCT03668808|182002468|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis is there was no difference in Mean ± SD CGM glucose (mg/dl) in flight, East or West travel, and in 72 hours at destination, whether after East or West travel, between Insulin Degludec \& Insulin Glargine U100. Travel direction not tested. Criterion for significance was at 0.05. Using paired t-test analysis, a sample size of 21 subjects would achieve a power of at least 77% to detect a difference of 10% between basal insulins assuming the SD of the difference is \<106 minutes.||||<0.05
91060086|NCT03668808|182002469|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in CGM % time \<70 mg/dl in flight, East or West travel, and in 72 hours at destination, whether after East or West travel, between Insulin Degludec and Insulin Glargine U100. Travel direction not tested. Criterion for significance was at 0.05. Using paired t-test analysis, a sample size of 21 subjects would achieve a power of at least 77% to detect a difference of 10% between basal insulins assuming the SD of the difference is \<106 minutes.||||<0.05
91060087|NCT03668808|182002470|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in CGM % time 70-180 mg/dl in flight, East or West travel, and in 72 hours at destination, whether after East or West travel, between Insulin Degludec \& Insulin Glargine U100. Travel direction not tested. Criterion for significance was at 0.05. Using paired t-test analysis, a sample size of 21 subjects would achieve a power of at least 77% to detect a difference of 10% between basal insulins assuming the SD of the difference is \<106 minutes.||||<0.05
91060088|NCT03668808|182002471|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in CGM % time \>180 mg/dl in flight, East or West travel, and in 72 hours at destination, whether after East or West travel, between Insulin Degludec \& Insulin Glargine U100. Travel direction not tested. Criterion for significance was at 0.05. Using paired t-test analysis, a sample size of 21 subjects would achieve a power of at least 77% to detect a difference of 10% between basal insulins assuming the SD of the difference is \<106 minutes.||||<0.05
91060089|NCT03668808|182002472|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis is there was no difference in CGM - Coefficient of Variation (CV) in flight, East or West travel, and in 72 hours at destination, whether after East or West travel, between Insulin Degludec \& Insulin Glargine U100. Travel direction not tested. Criterion for significance was at 0.05. Using paired t-test analysis, a sample size of 21 subjects would achieve a power of at least 77% to detect a difference of 10% between basal insulins assuming the SD of the difference is \<106 minutes.||||<0.05
91060090|NCT03668808|182002473|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis is there was no difference in CGM Fasting Blood Glucose (FBG) at 0600 local time at destination, whether after East or West travel, between Insulin Degludec and Insulin Glargine U100. Travel direction not tested. Criterion for significance was set at 0.05, and using a paired t-test analysis, a sample size of 21 subjects would achieve a power of at least 77% to detect a difference of 10% between basal insulins assuming the standard deviation of the difference is \<106 minutes.||||<0.05
91060091|NCT03668808|182002474|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in Liverpool Jet-Lag Questionnaire after 24 and 48 hours at the destination, whether after Eastward travel or after Westward travel, between Insulin Degludec and Insulin Glargine U100. Travel direction not tested. The criterion for significance was set at 0.05, and using a paired t-test analysis, a sample size of 21 subjects would achieve a power of at least 77% to detect a difference of 10% between basal insulins.||||<0.01
91060092|NCT03668808|182002475|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The tests were performed with a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in Sleep quantity measured by ActiGraph in 24 hours at the destination, whether after Eastward or after Westward travel, between Insulin Degludec and Insulin Glargine U100. Travel direction not tested. The criterion for significance was set at 0.05, and using a paired t-test analysis, a sample size of 21 subjects would achieve a power of at least 77% to detect a difference of 10% between basal insulins.||||<0.05
91060093|NCT03668808|182002476|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The tests were performed with a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is there was no difference in Sleep efficiency measured by ActiGraph in 24 hours at the destination, whether after Eastward or after Westward travel, between Insulin Degludec and Insulin Glargine U100. Travel direction not tested. The criterion for significance was set at 0.05, and using a paired t-test analysis, a sample size of 21 subjects would achieve a power of at least 77% to detect a difference of 10% between basal insulins.||||<0.05
91060094|NCT01895777|182002477|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of 20%|Difference in Rates|-0.038|||=|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.141|0.066||p-value for non-inferiority is actually \<0.0001|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in rates (SOC - DE)|The primary analysis of the primary efficacy endpoint used the randomised set, following the intention-to-treat principle, based on adjudication-confirmed data. Age group was used as stratification factor using a Mantel-Haenszel type weighted average of differences.||0.066|-0.141|= 0.0001
91060095|NCT01895777|182002478|OTHER||Kaplan-Meier estimate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.032|0.032|||Kaplan-Meier estimate||Kaplan-Meier estimate of rate difference.|Time-to event endpoint using Kaplan-Meier estimates based on adjudication-confirmed data. Due to the low event rate of major bleeding, age group stratification was not considered.||0.032|-0.032|
91060096|NCT01895777|182002484|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.145|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.736|1.78||||||Any bleeding events was analysed as time-to-event endpoint using a stratified Cox proportional hazard model with treatment as a covariate in the model and age group as the stratification factor. A pooling of age groups was performed as no events were observed in certain age group.||1.780|0.736|
91060097|NCT01895777|182002485|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|69990000.0||||0.9976|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|999999999.0|||Cox proportional hazard model||Upper Limit of the 90% confidence interval was not assessable|All-cause mortality was analyzed as time-to-event endpoint using a stratified Cox proportional hazard model with treatment as a covariate in the model.||999999999|0.000|0.9976
91060098|NCT01307748|182002523|OTHER|||||||0.005||||||The p value was adjusted for multiple comparisons using false discovery rate.|ANCOVA|Repeated-measures ANOVA with time (stress, post-stress) as a within factor and aroma (lavender, coconut, water) as a between-group factor was used.||The null hypothesis stated that there were no differences between the groups in cortisol level trajectory over time.||||.005
91060099|NCT01307748|182002525|OTHER|||||||0.01||||||P value was adjusted for multiple comparisons using false discovery rate|ANCOVA|A 3 (lavender, coconut, water) by 2 ( prime, no prime) Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA), with years of education as a covariate was used.||||||.01
91060100|NCT02374346|182002527|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Associations between categorical variables were tested by χ2 test, while differences between categorical and continuous variables were tested by Student's t test. Univariate analysis was performed with the computation of unadjusted odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals. A stepwise multiple logistic regression analysis was conducted to find independent factors.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.23||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.04|5.13|||t-test, 2 sided|||Sevoflurane administration in developing postoperative headache||5.13|2.04|0.001
91060101|NCT02374346|182002527|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Associations between categorical variables were tested by χ2 test, while differences between categorical and continuous variables were tested by Student's t test. Univariate analysis was performed with the computation of unadjusted odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals. A stepwise multiple logistic regression analysis was conducted to find independent factors.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.85||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|2.84|||t-test, 2 sided|||Smoking as a factor for developing postoperative headache||2.84|1.19|0.006
91060102|NCT02374346|182002527|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Associations between categorical variables were tested by χ2 test, while differences between categorical and continuous variables were tested by Student's t test. Univariate analysis was performed with the computation of unadjusted odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals. A stepwise multiple logistic regression analysis was conducted to find independent factors.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.11||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|3.66|||t-test, 2 sided|||Intraoperative hypotension associated with postoperative headache in total sample||3.66|1.22|0.008
91078419|NCT01642485|182042721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||The effect of insulin, C-peptide and glucose on QTcF was investigated using linear mixed effect concentration-response models with the double difference of QTcF (difference to time matched placebo of the change from average baseline) as dependent variable and up to two of the variables change from time matched placebo in insulin, C-peptide and glucose as covariates.||||0.05
91060103|NCT02374346|182002527|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Associations between categorical variables were tested by χ2 test, while differences between categorical and continuous variables were tested by Student's t test. Univariate analysis was performed with the computation of unadjusted odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals. A stepwise multiple logistic regression analysis was conducted to find independent factors.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.85||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|3.15|||t-test, 2 sided|||Female gender as a factor for developing postoperative headache||3.15|1.08|0.024
91060104|NCT02374346|182002527|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Associations between categorical variables were tested by χ2 test, while differences between categorical and continuous variables were tested by Student's t test. Univariate analysis was performed with the computation of unadjusted odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals. A stepwise multiple logistic regression analysis was conducted to find independent factors.|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.56||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|13.17|||t-test, 2 sided|||Association of female gender and postoperative headache||13.17|1.58|0.005
91060105|NCT02374346|182002527|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Associations between categorical variables were tested by χ2 test, while differences between categorical and continuous variables were tested by Student's t test. Univariate analysis was performed with the computation of unadjusted odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals. A stepwise multiple logistic regression analysis was conducted to find independent factors.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.79||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|9.72|||t-test, 2 sided|||Association of intraoperative hypotension and postoperative headache||9.72|1.48|0.006
91060106|NCT02374346|182002527|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Associations between categorical variables were tested by χ2 test, while differences between categorical and continuous variables were tested by Student's t test. Univariate analysis was performed with the computation of unadjusted odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals. A stepwise multiple logistic regression analysis was conducted to find independent factors.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.86||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|14.06|||t-test, 2 sided|||Association of caffeine consumption and postoperative headache||14.06|1.06|0.041
91060107|NCT02374346|182002527|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Associations between categorical variables were tested by χ2 test, while differences between categorical and continuous variables were tested by Student's t test.Univariate analysis was performed with the computation of unadjusted odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals. A stepwise multiple logistic regression analysis was conducted to find independent factors.|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.26||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.82|9.95|||t-test, 2 sided|||Association of sevoflurane administration and postoperative headache||9.95|1.82|0.001
91060108|NCT00396565|182002545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-12.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26|<|0.0001||95.0|-17.16|-8.25|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline score as a covariate||||-8.25|-17.16|<0.0001
91060109|NCT00396565|182002546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68|<|0.0001||95.0|-5.17|-2.51|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and with baseline score as a covariate.||||-2.51|-5.17|<0.0001
91060110|NCT00396565|182002547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.0001||95.0|-3.71|-1.33|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and with baseline score as a covariate||||-1.33|-3.71|<0.0001
91060111|NCT00396565|182002548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-6.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21|<|0.0001||95.0|-8.58|-3.8|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor, and with baseline score as a covariate||||-3.80|-8.58|<0.0001
91060112|NCT00396565|182002549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0007|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0007
91060113|NCT00396565|182002550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.84|-0.34|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor, and baseline score as a covariate||||-0.34|-0.84|<0.0001
91060114|NCT01252277|182002552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance, p\<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91060115|NCT01252277|182002553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.021
91060116|NCT01252277|182002554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91060117|NCT01252277|182002555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance, p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.48
91060118|NCT02211417|182002609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.057|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.057
91060119|NCT01198132|182002619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.8||||0.3797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.32|||Poisson log-linear model|||||1.32|0.48|0.3797
91060120|NCT01277211|182002629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of Pearl Indices|0.61||||0.531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|2.29|||Poisson distribution method|Differences between treatment groups was explored using an exact 95% CI for the ratio of the two Pearl Indices based on the Poisson distribution.||Differences between the two treatment groups (ENG-EE vs. DRSP-EE) were explored using an exact 95% CI for the Ratio of the two Pearl Indices based on the Poisson distribution.||2.29|0.19|0.531
91060121|NCT01277211|182002630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages, Cycle 1|-3.0||||0.346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|3.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||For Cycle 1, a two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage between the treatment groups (ENG-EE vs. DRSP-EE) was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||3.1|-9.9|0.346
91060122|NCT01277211|182002630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages, Cycle 2|-6.2||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|-0.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||For Cycle 2, a two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage between the treatment groups (ENG-EE vs. DRSP-EE) was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||-0.6|-12.7|0.029
91060123|NCT01277211|182002630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages, Cycle 3|-5.8||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|-0.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||For Cycle 3, a two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage between the treatment groups (ENG-EE vs. DRSP-EE) was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||-0.9|-11.8|0.019
91060124|NCT01277211|182002630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages, Cycle 4|-8.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|-2.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||For Cycle 4, a two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage between the treatment groups (ENG-EE vs. DRSP-EE) was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||-2.9|-14.0|0.001
90820540|NCT02391363|181519779|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08||||||P-value for treatment-group effect (CL vs ECC)|ANCOVA|Treatment group F = 3.20 (Numerator df = 1, Denominator df varies, as multiple imputation was used).||"Analyses were ITT using PROC MI and PROC MI ANALYZE in conjunction with ANCOVA. We expected to reject the null hypothesis of no treatment group difference in 9 month GAD-7, controlling for baseline GAD-7.~Race/ethnicity and ERS-expectancies significantly differed between groups at baseline and were included as covariates.~A total of 134 participants allowed for 80% power to detect moderate group differences (d=.49) in primary and secondary outcomes given a 2-tailed type 1 error rate"||||0.08
90820541|NCT02391363|181519780|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45||||||P-value for treatment-group effect (CL vs ECC)|ANCOVA|Treatment group F = 0.59 (Numerator df = 1, Denominator df varies, as multiple imputation was used).||"Analyses were ITT using PROC MI and PROC MI ANALYZE in conjunction with ANCOVA. We expected to reject the null hypothesis of no treatment group difference in 6 month GAI-SF, controlling for baseline GAI-SF.~Race/ethnicity and ERS-expectancies significantly differed between groups at baseline and were included as covariates.~A total of 134 participants allowed for 80% power to detect moderate group differences (d=.49) in primary and secondary outcomes given a 2-tailed type 1 error rate"||||0.45
90820542|NCT02391363|181519781|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13||||||P-value for treatment-group effect (CL vs ECC)|ANCOVA|Treatment group F = 2.37 (Numerator df = 1, Denominator df varies, as multiple imputation was used).||"Analyses were ITT using PROC MI and PROC MI ANALYZE in conjunction with ANCOVA. We expected to reject the null hypothesis of no treatment group difference in 9 month GAI-SF, controlling for baseline GAI-SF.~Race/ethnicity and ERS-expectancies significantly differed between groups at baseline and were included as covariates.~A total of 134 participants allowed for 80% power to detect moderate group differences (d=.49) in primary and secondary outcomes given a 2-tailed type 1 error rate"||||0.13
90820543|NCT02391363|181519782|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52||||||P-value for treatment-group effect (CL vs ECC)|ANCOVA|Treatment group F = 0.42 (Numerator df = 1, Denominator df varies, as multiple imputation was used).||"Analyses were ITT using PROC MI and PROC MI ANALYZE in conjunction with ANCOVA. We expected to reject the null hypothesis of no treatment group difference in 6 month PHQ-8, controlling for baseline PHQ-8.~Race/ethnicity and ERS-expectancies significantly differed between groups at baseline and were included as covariates.~A total of 134 participants allowed for 80% power to detect moderate group differences (d=.49) in primary and secondary outcomes given a 2-tailed type 1 error rate"||||0.52
90820544|NCT02391363|181519783|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29||||||P-value for treatment-group effect (CL vs ECC)|ANCOVA|Treatment group F = 1.14 (Numerator df = 1, Denominator df varies, as multiple imputation was used).||"Analyses were ITT using PROC MI and PROC MI ANALYZE in conjunction with ANCOVA. We expected to reject the null hypothesis of no treatment group difference in 9 month PHQ-8, controlling for baseline PHQ-8.~Race/ethnicity and ERS-expectancies significantly differed between groups at baseline and were included as covariates.~A total of 134 participants allowed for 80% power to detect moderate group differences (d=.49) in primary and secondary outcomes given a 2-tailed type 1 error rate"||||0.29
90820545|NCT02391363|181519784|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14||||||P-value for treatment-group effect (CL vs ECC)|ANCOVA|Treatment group F = 2.19 (Numerator df = 1, Denominator df varies, as multiple imputation was used).||"Analyses were ITT using PROC MI and PROC MI ANALYZE in conjunction with ANCOVA. We expected to reject the null hypothesis of no treatment group difference in 6 month GDS-SF, controlling for baseline GDS-SF.~Race/ethnicity and ERS-expectancies significantly differed between groups at baseline and were included as covariates.~A total of 134 participants allowed for 80% power to detect moderate group differences (d=.49) in primary and secondary outcomes given a 2-tailed type 1 error rate"||||0.14
90820546|NCT02391363|181519785|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59||||||P-value for treatment-group effect (CL vs ECC)|ANCOVA|Treatment group F = 0.30 (Numerator df = 1, Denominator df varies, as multiple imputation was used).||"Analyses were ITT using PROC MI and PROC MI ANALYZE in conjunction with ANCOVA. We expected to reject the null hypothesis of no treatment group difference in 9 month GDS-SF, controlling for baseline GDS-SF.~Race/ethnicity and ERS-expectancies significantly differed between groups at baseline and were included as covariates.~A total of 134 participants allowed for 80% power to detect moderate group differences (d=.49) in primary and secondary outcomes given a 2-tailed type 1 error rate"||||0.59
90820547|NCT02391363|181519786|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64||||||P-value for treatment-group effect (CL vs ECC)|ANCOVA|Treatment group F = 0.22 (Numerator df = 1, Denominator df varies, as multiple imputation was used).||"Analyses were ITT using PROC MI and PROC MI ANALYZE in conjunction with ANCOVA. We expected to reject the null hypothesis of no treatment group difference in 6 month ISI, controlling for baseline ISI.~Race/ethnicity and ERS-expectancies significantly differed between groups at baseline and were included as covariates.~A total of 134 participants allowed for 80% power to detect moderate group differences (d=.49) in primary and secondary outcomes given a 2-tailed type 1 error rate"||||0.64
90820548|NCT02391363|181519787|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35||||||P-value for treatment-group effect (CL vs ECC)|ANCOVA|Treatment group F = 0.88 (Numerator df = 1, Denominator df varies, as multiple imputation was used).||"Analyses were ITT using PROC MI and PROC MI ANALYZE in conjunction with ANCOVA. We expected to reject the null hypothesis of no treatment group difference in 9 month ISI, controlling for baseline ISI.~Race/ethnicity and ERS-expectancies significantly differed between groups at baseline and were included as covariates.~A total of 134 participants allowed for 80% power to detect moderate group differences (d=.49) in primary and secondary outcomes given a 2-tailed type 1 error rate"||||0.35
90820549|NCT02391363|181519788|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52||||||P-value for treatment-group effect (CL vs ECC)|ANCOVA|Treatment group F = 0.42 (Numerator df = 1, Denominator df varies, as multiple imputation was used).||"Analyses were ITT using PROC MI and PROC MI ANALYZE in conjunction with ANCOVA. We expected to reject the null hypothesis of no treatment group difference in 6 month LL-FDI, controlling for baseline LL-FDI.~Race/ethnicity and ERS-expectancies significantly differed between groups at baseline and were included as covariates.~A total of 134 participants allowed for 80% power to detect moderate group differences (d=.49) in primary and secondary outcomes given a 2-tailed type 1 error rate"||||0.52
90820550|NCT02391363|181519789|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92||||||P-value for treatment-group effect (CL vs ECC)|ANCOVA|Treatment group F = .01(Numerator df = 1, Denominator df varies, as multiple imputation was used).||"Analyses were ITT using PROC MI and PROC MI ANALYZE in conjunction with ANCOVA. We expected to reject the null hypothesis of no treatment group difference in 9 month LL-FDI, controlling for baseline LL-FDI.~Race/ethnicity and ERS-expectancies significantly differed between groups at baseline and were included as covariates.~A total of 134 participants allowed for 80% power to detect moderate group differences (d=.49) in primary and secondary outcomes given a 2-tailed type 1 error rate"||||0.92
90820551|NCT02391363|181519790|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59||||||P-value for treatment-group effect (CL vs ECC)|ANCOVA|Treatment group F = 0.29 (Numerator df = 1, Denominator df varies, as multiple imputation was used).||"Analyses were ITT using PROC MI and PROC MI ANALYZE in conjunction with ANCOVA. We expected to reject the null hypothesis of no treatment group difference in 6 month LL-FDI, controlling for baseline LL-FDI.~Race/ethnicity and ERS-expectancies significantly differed between groups at baseline and were included as covariates.~A total of 134 participants allowed for 80% power to detect moderate group differences (d=.49) in primary and secondary outcomes given a 2-tailed type 1 error rate"||||0.59
90820552|NCT02391363|181519791|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89||||||P-value for treatment-group effect (CL vs ECC)|ANCOVA|Treatment group F = 0.20 (Numerator df = 1, Denominator df varies, as multiple imputation was used).||"Analyses were ITT using PROC MI and PROC MI ANALYZE in conjunction with ANCOVA. We expected to reject the null hypothesis of no treatment group difference in 9 month LL-FDI, controlling for baseline LL-FDI.~Race/ethnicity and ERS-expectancies significantly differed between groups at baseline and were included as covariates.~A total of 134 participants allowed for 80% power to detect moderate group differences (d=.49) in primary and secondary outcomes given a 2-tailed type 1 error rate"||||0.89
90820553|NCT02391363|181519792|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64||||||P-value for treatment-group effect (CL vs ECC)|ANCOVA|Treatment group F= 0.23 (Numerator df = 1, Denominator df varies, as multiple imputation was used).||"Analyses were ITT using PROC MI and PROC MI ANALYZE in conjunction with ANCOVA. We expected to reject the null hypothesis of no treatment group difference in 6 month SF-12, controlling for baseline SF-12.~Race/ethnicity and ERS-expectancies significantly differed between groups at baseline and were included as covariates.~A total of 134 participants allowed for 80% power to detect moderate group differences (d=.49) in primary and secondary outcomes given a 2-tailed type 1 error rate"||||0.64
90820554|NCT02391363|181519793|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94||||||P-value for treatment-group effect (CL vs ECC)|ANCOVA|Treatment group F = 0.00 (Numerator df = 1, Denominator df varies, as multiple imputation was used).||"Analyses were ITT using PROC MI and PROC MI ANALYZE in conjunction with ANCOVA. We expected to reject the null hypothesis of no treatment group difference in 9 month SF-12, controlling for baseline SF-12.~Race/ethnicity and ERS-expectancies significantly differed between groups at baseline and were included as covariates.~A total of 134 participants allowed for 80% power to detect moderate group differences (d=.49) in primary and secondary outcomes given a 2-tailed type 1 error rate"||||0.94
90820555|NCT02391363|181519794|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98||||||P-value for treatment-group effect (CL vs ECC)|ANCOVA|Treatment group F = 0.00 (Numerator df = 1, Denominator df varies, as multiple imputation was used).||"Analyses were ITT using PROC MI and PROC MI ANALYZE in conjunction with ANCOVA. We expected to reject the null hypothesis of no treatment group difference in 6 month SF-12, controlling for baseline SF-12.~Race/ethnicity and ERS-expectancies significantly differed between groups at baseline and were included as covariates.~A total of 134 participants allowed for 80% power to detect moderate group differences (d=.49) in primary and secondary outcomes given a 2-tailed type 1 error rate"||||0.98
90820556|NCT02391363|181519795|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88||||||P-value for treatment-group effect (CL vs ECC)|ANCOVA|Treatment group F= 0.02 (Numerator df = 1, Denominator df varies, as multiple imputation was used).||"Analyses were ITT using PROC MI and PROC MI ANALYZE in conjunction with ANCOVA. We expected to reject the null hypothesis of no treatment group difference in 9 month SF-12, controlling for baseline SF-12.~Race/ethnicity and ERS-expectancies significantly differed between groups at baseline and were included as covariates.~A total of 134 participants allowed for 80% power to detect moderate group differences (d=.49) in primary and secondary outcomes given a 2-tailed type 1 error rate"||||0.88
90820557|NCT02391363|181519796|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31||||||P-value for treatment-group effect (CL vs ECC)|ANCOVA|Treatment group F = 1.02 (Numerator df = 1, Denominator df varies, as multiple imputation was used).||"Analyses were ITT using PROC MI and PROC MI ANALYZE in conjunction with ANCOVA. We expected to reject the null hypothesis of no treatment group difference in 6 month PCL-5, controlling for baseline PCL-5.~Race/ethnicity and ERS-expectancies significantly differed between groups at baseline and were included as covariates.~A total of 134 participants allowed for 80% power to detect moderate group differences (d=.49) in primary and secondary outcomes given a 2-tailed type 1 error rate"||||0.31
90820558|NCT02391363|181519797|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96||||||P-value for treatment-group effect (CL vs ECC)|ANCOVA|Treatment group F = 0.00 (Numerator df = 1, Denominator df varies, as multiple imputation was used).||"Analyses were ITT using PROC MI and PROC MI ANALYZE in conjunction with ANCOVA. We expected to reject the null hypothesis of no treatment group difference in 9 month PCL-5, controlling for baseline PCL-5.~Race/ethnicity and ERS-expectancies significantly differed between groups at baseline and were included as covariates.~A total of 134 participants allowed for 80% power to detect moderate group differences (d=.49) in primary and secondary outcomes given a 2-tailed type 1 error rate"||||0.96
90820559|NCT02391363|181519798|SUPERIORITY|"We expected to reject the null hypothesis of no treatment group difference in 6 month health service use, controlling for baseline health service use.~Race/ethnicity and ERS-expectancies significantly differed between groups at baseline and were included as covariates.~A total of 134 participants allowed for 80% power to detect moderate group differences (d=.49) in primary and secondary outcomes given a 2-tailed type 1 error rate"||||||0.52||||||Parameter estimate for treatment group = 0.40 (SE = 0.63). Controlled for baseline health service use, ERS-expectancies and race/ethnicity|Regression, Logistic|ITT analyses with PROC MI AND MI ANALYZE in conjunction with multiple logistic regression.||||||0.52
91060125|NCT01277211|182002630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages, Cycle 5|-1.3||||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|2.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||For Cycle 5, a two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage between the treatment groups (ENG-EE vs. DRSP-EE) was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||2.6|-6.4|0.556
91060126|NCT01277211|182002630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages, Cycle 6|-3.9||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|0.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||For Cycle 6, a two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage between the treatment groups (ENG-EE vs. DRSP-EE) was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||0.5|-9.5|0.089
91060127|NCT01277211|182002630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages, Cycle 7|-3.7||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|0.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||For Cycle 7, a two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage between the treatment groups (ENG-EE vs. DRSP-EE) was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||0.8|-9.4|0.110
90820560|NCT02391363|181519799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||Parameter estimate for treatment group = 1.79 (SE = 0.85). Controlled for baseline health service use, ERS-expectancies and race/ethnicity|Regression, Logistic|ITT analyses with PROC MI AND MI ANALYZE in conjunction with multiple logistic regression.||"We expected to reject the null hypothesis of no treatment group difference in 9 month health service use, controlling for baseline health service use.~Race/ethnicity and ERS-expectancies significantly differed between groups at baseline and were included as covariates.~A total of 134 participants allowed for 80% power to detect moderate group differences (d=.49) in primary and secondary outcomes given a 2-tailed type 1 error rate"||||0.04
90820561|NCT02391363|181519800|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||Parameter estimate for treatment group = 1.56 (SE = 0.74). Controlled for baseline health service use, ERS-expectancies and race/ethnicity|Regression, Logistic|ITT analyses with PROC MI AND MI ANALYZE in conjunction with multiple logistic regression.||"We expected to reject the null hypothesis of no treatment group difference in 6 month hospital admissions, controlling for baseline hospital admissions.~Race/ethnicity and ERS-expectancies significantly differed between groups at baseline and were included as covariates.~A total of 134 participants allowed for 80% power to detect moderate group differences (d=.49) in primary and secondary outcomes given a 2-tailed type 1 error rate"||||0.04
90820562|NCT02391363|181519801|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||Parameter estimate for treatment group = 2.96 (SE = 0.91). Controlled for baseline health service use, ERS-expectancies and race/ethnicity|Regression, Logistic|ITT analyses with PROC MI AND MI ANALYZE in conjunction with multiple logistic regression.||"We expected to reject the null hypothesis of no treatment group difference in 9 month hospital admissions, controlling for baseline hospital admissions.~Race/ethnicity and ERS-expectancies significantly differed between groups at baseline and were included as covariates.~A total of 134 participants allowed for 80% power to detect moderate group differences (d=.49) in primary and secondary outcomes given a 2-tailed type 1 error rate"||||0.001
90820563|NCT02391363|181519802|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42||||||Parameter estimate for treatment group = 0.42 (SE = 0.51). Controlled for baseline health service use, ERS-expectancies and race/ethnicity|Regression, Logistic|ITT analyses with PROC MI AND MI ANALYZE in conjunction with multiple logistic regression.||"We expected to reject the null hypothesis of no treatment group difference in 6 month social service use, controlling for baseline social service use.~Race/ethnicity and ERS-expectancies significantly differed between groups at baseline and were included as covariates.~A total of 134 participants allowed for 80% power to detect moderate group differences (d=.49) in primary and secondary outcomes given a 2-tailed type 1 error rate"||||0.42
90820564|NCT02391363|181519803|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85||||||Parameter estimate for treatment group = 0.09 (SE = 0.47). Controlled for baseline health service use, ERS-expectancies and race/ethnicity|Regression, Logistic|ITT analyses with PROC MI AND MI ANALYZE in conjunction with multiple logistic regression.||"We expected to reject the null hypothesis of no treatment group difference in 9 month social service use, controlling for baseline social service use.~Race/ethnicity and ERS-expectancies significantly differed between groups at baseline and were included as covariates.~A total of 134 participants allowed for 80% power to detect moderate group differences (d=.49) in primary and secondary outcomes given a 2-tailed type 1 error rate"||||0.85
90820565|NCT02391363|181519804|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55||||||Parameter estimate for treatment group = -0.28 (SE = 0.46). Controlled for baseline health service use, ERS-expectancies and race/ethnicity|Regression, Logistic|ITT analyses with PROC MI AND MI ANALYZE in conjunction with multiple logistic regression.||"We expected to reject the null hypothesis of no treatment group difference in 6 month psychological service use, controlling for baseline psychological service use.~Race/ethnicity and ERS-expectancies significantly differed between groups at baseline and were included as covariates.~A total of 134 participants allowed for 80% power to detect moderate group differences (d=.49) in primary and secondary outcomes given a 2-tailed type 1 error rate"||||0.55
90820566|NCT02391363|181519805|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54||||||Parameter estimate for treatment group = -0.29 (SE = 0.47). Controlled for baseline health service use, ERS-expectancies and race/ethnicity|Regression, Logistic|ITT analyses with PROC MI AND MI ANALYZE in conjunction with multiple logistic regression.||"We expected to reject the null hypothesis of no treatment group difference in 9 month psychological service use, controlling for baseline psychological service use.~Race/ethnicity and ERS-expectancies significantly differed between groups at baseline and were included as covariates.~A total of 134 participants allowed for 80% power to detect moderate group differences (d=.49) in primary and secondary outcomes given a 2-tailed type 1 error rate"||||0.54
90820567|NCT00799266|181519806|SUPERIORITY|Difference in least squares (LS) = LS mean for the zoledronic acid group-LS mean for the placebo group.|Difference in LS mean|0.414||||0.0392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.022|0.806|||ANCOVA|||Lumbar Spine BMD Z-score at Month 12||0.806|0.022|0.0392
90820568|NCT00799266|181519807|SUPERIORITY|Difference in least squares (LS) = LS mean for the zoledronic acid group-LS mean for the placebo group.|Difference in LS mean|0.29||||0.1322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.094|0.673|||ANCOVA|||Lumbar Spine BMD Z-score at Month 6||0.673|-0.094|0.1322
90820569|NCT00799266|181519808|OTHER|Difference in least squares (LS) = LS mean for the zoledronic acid group-LS mean for the placebo group.|Difference in LS mean|1.979||||0.0409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.089|3.869|||ANCOVA|||Lumbar Spine BMC at Month 6||3.869|0.089|0.0409
90820570|NCT00799266|181519808|OTHER|Difference in least squares (LS) = LS mean for the zoledronic acid group-LS mean for the placebo group.|Difference in LS mean|2.155||||0.234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.488|5.798|||ANCOVA|||Lumbar Spine BMC at Month 12||5.798|-1.488|0.2340
90820571|NCT00799266|181519809|OTHER|Difference in least squares (LS) = LS mean for the zoledronic acid group-LS mean for the placebo group.|Difference in LS mean|34.058||||0.3827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.385|113.502|||ANCOVA|||Total Body BMC at Month 6||113.502|-45.385|0.3827
90820572|NCT00799266|181519809|OTHER|Difference in least squares (LS) = LS mean for the zoledronic acid group-LS mean for the placebo group.|Difference in LS mean|80.741||||0.2634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.602|227.084|||ANCOVA|||Total Body BMC at Month 12||227.084|-65.602|0.2634
90820573|NCT00799266|181519810|OTHER|Difference in least squares (LS) = LS mean for the zoledronic acid group-LS mean for the placebo group.|Difference in LS mean|-211.782||||0.0631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-363.765|-59.8|||ANCOVA|||Serum P1NP at Month 6||-59.800|-363.765|0.0631
91060128|NCT01277211|182002630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages, Cycle 8|-4.3||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|0.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||For Cycle 8, a two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage between the treatment groups (ENG-EE vs. DRSP-EE) was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||-0.0|-9.8|0.049
90820574|NCT00799266|181519810|OTHER|Difference in least squares (LS) = LS mean for the zoledronic acid group-LS mean for the placebo group.|Difference in LS mean|-381.132||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-565.416|-196.848|||ANCOVA|||Serum P1NP at Month 12||-196.848|-565.416|0.0049
90820575|NCT00799266|181519811|OTHER|Difference in least squares (LS) = LS mean for the zoledronic acid group-LS mean for the placebo group.|Difference in LS mean|-11.223||||0.2129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.595|0.149|||ANCOVA|||Serum BSAP at Month 6||0.149|-22.595|0.2129
90820576|NCT00799266|181519811|OTHER|Difference in least squares (LS) = LS mean for the zoledronic acid group-LS mean for the placebo group.|Difference in LS mean|-20.435||||0.0215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.96|-6.909|||ANCOVA|||Serum BSAP at Month 12||-6.909|-33.960|0.0215
90820577|NCT00799266|181519812|OTHER|Difference in least squares (LS) = LS mean for the zoledronic acid group-LS mean for the placebo group.|Difference in LS mean|-20.938||||0.0254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.766|-8.11|||ANCOVA|||Serum NTX at Month 6||-8.110|-33.766|0.0254
90820578|NCT00799266|181519812|OTHER|Difference in least squares (LS) = LS mean for the zoledronic acid group-LS mean for the placebo group.|Difference in LS mean|-27.574||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.037|-16.111|||ANCOVA|||Serum NTX at Month 12||-16.111|-39.037|0.0002
90820579|NCT00799266|181519813|OTHER|Difference in least squares (LS) = LS mean for the zoledronic acid group-LS mean for the placebo group.|Difference in LS mean|-1.874||||0.2178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.931|0.182|||ANCOVA|||Serum TRAP-5b at Month 6||0.182|-3.931|0.2178
90820580|NCT00799266|181519813|OTHER|Difference in least squares (LS) = LS mean for the zoledronic acid group-LS mean for the placebo group.|Difference in LS mean|-1.837||||0.184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.103|0.429|||ANCOVA|||Serum TRAP-5b at Month 12||0.429|-4.103|0.1840
90820581|NCT00799266|181519814|OTHER|The number and percentage of patients with new vertebral fractures at Month 12 were presented by treatment group and between-treatment differences were evaluated using Fisher's exact test.||||||0.2258|||||||Fisher Exact|||New vertebral fractures at Month 12||||0.2258
90820582|NCT00799266|181519815|OTHER|Difference in least squares (LS) = LS mean for the zoledronic acid group-LS mean for the placebo group.|Difference in LS mean|-0.018||||0.318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.055|0.019|||ANCOVA|||Vertebral morphometry at Month 12||0.019|-0.055|0.3180
90820583|NCT00799266|181519816|OTHER|Presented by treatment group and evaluated using a logistic regression model with treatment, pooled centers, underlying condition treated with glucocorticoids and baseline pain score as explanatory variables.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.45||||0.5226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|5.2|||Regression, Logistic|||Reduction in Pain at Month 3||5.20|0.04|0.5226
90820584|NCT00799266|181519816|OTHER|Presented by treatment group and evaluated using a logistic regression model with treatment, pooled centers, underlying condition treated with glucocorticoids and baseline pain score as explanatory variables.|Odds Ratio (OR)|999.99||||0.522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|999.99||\>999.99 (\<0.01, \>999.99)|Regression, Logistic|||Reduction in Pain at Month 6||999.99|0.01|0.5220
91060129|NCT01277211|182002630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages, Cycle 9|-1.1||||0.621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|2.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||For Cycle 9, a two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage between the treatment groups (ENG-EE vs. DRSP-EE) was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||2.9|-6.2|0.621
91060130|NCT01277211|182002630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages, Cycle 10|-4.4||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|-0.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||For Cycle 10, a two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage between the treatment groups (ENG-EE vs. DRSP-EE) was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||-0.2|-10.0|0.041
91060131|NCT01277211|182002630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages, Cycle 11|-3.8||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|-0.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||For Cycle 11, a two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage between the treatment groups (ENG-EE vs. DRSP-EE) was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||-0.1|-8.9|0.046
90820585|NCT00799266|181519816|OTHER|Presented by treatment group and evaluated using a logistic regression model with treatment, pooled centers, underlying condition treated with glucocorticoids and baseline pain score as explanatory variables.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.52||||0.6019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|6.22|||Regression, Logistic|||Reduction in Pain at Month 9||6.22|0.04|0.6019
90820586|NCT00799266|181519816|OTHER|Presented by treatment group and evaluated using a logistic regression model with treatment, pooled centers, underlying condition treated with glucocorticoids and baseline pain score as explanatory variables.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.45||||0.9652|TWO_SIDED|0.9652|0.01|999.99||0.45 (\<0.01, \>999.99)|Regression, Logistic|||Reduction in Pain at Month 12||999.99|0.01|0.9652
90820587|NCT00799266|181519817|OTHER|Difference in least squares (LS) = LS mean for the zoledronic acid group-LS mean for the placebo group.|Difference in LS mean|-0.04||||0.5165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.09|||ANCOVA|||2nd metacarpal cortical width at Month 12||0.09|-0.17|0.5165
90820588|NCT00265317|181519833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.898||||0.3206|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.575|1.404||Primary analysis was based on an unstratified 1-sided log rank test with alpha=0.1|Log Rank|||Sample size for randomized portion of study determined based on these assumptions: median PFS (erlotinib)=10 weeks, accrual time=12 months. With 6 months follow-up, study was powered to detect a difference in PFS of 5 weeks. 1-sided log rank test comparing the 2 treatment groups with 115 events of PD or death among a target sample size of 126 participants (63 per group) achieved 80% power at a 10% significance level to detect a 50% improvement in PFS from 10 to 15 weeks.||1.404|0.575|0.3206
90820589|NCT00265317|181519834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.546||||0.6251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.267|8.954|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||95% confidence interval (CI) calculated based on f-distribution||8.954|0.267|0.6251
90820590|NCT00265317|181519835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.921||||0.3732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.572|1.485||1-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||||1.485|0.572|0.3732
90820591|NCT00265317|181519837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.066||||0.6171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.705|1.612||p-value from 1-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||||1.612|0.705|0.6171
90820592|NCT00265317|181519838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|32.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.7|44.3||||||Percentage of participants surviving at 1 year in the Sunitinib + Erlotinib Treatment Group, estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method||44.3|19.7|
90820593|NCT00265317|181519838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|42.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.1|54.2||||||Percentage of participants surviving at 1 year in the Erlotinib + Placebo Treatment Group, estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method||54.2|30.1|
91060132|NCT01277211|182002630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages, Cycle 12|-4.4||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|-0.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||For Cycle 12, a two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage between the treatment groups (ENG-EE vs. DRSP-EE) was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||-0.2|-9.9|0.037
90820594|NCT00265317|181519866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio, log|0.748||||0.2247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.351|1.591|||Log Rank|||Positive EGFR Expression||1.591|0.351|0.2247
90820595|NCT00265317|181519866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.184||||0.6797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.581|2.414|||Log Rank|||Negative EGFR Expression||2.414|0.581|0.6797
90820596|NCT00265317|181519866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.632||||0.1693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.245|1.627|||Log Rank|||Unmeasured EGFR Expression||1.627|0.245|0.1693
90820597|NCT00265317|181519868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.864||||0.3223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.458|1.628|||Log Rank|||Positive EGFR Expression||1.628|0.458|0.3223
90820598|NCT00265317|181519868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.946||||0.4608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.362|2.474|||Log Rank|||Negative EGFR Expression||2.474|0.362|0.4608
90820599|NCT00265317|181519868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.632||||0.1693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.245|1.627|||Log Rank|||Unmeasured EGFR Expression||1.627|0.245|0.1693
90820600|NCT00265317|181519870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.049||||0.5526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.542|2.031|||Log Rank|||No EGFR Gene Copy Number Increase||2.031|0.542|0.5526
90820601|NCT00265317|181519870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.715||||0.1529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.344|||Log Rank|||Unmeasured EGFR Gene Copy Number Increase||1.344|0.380|0.1529
90820602|NCT00265317|181519872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.078||||0.5839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.557|2.085|||Log Rank|||No EGFR Gene Amplification||2.085|0.557|0.5839
90820603|NCT00265317|181519872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.715||||0.1529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.344|||Log Rank|||Unmeasured EGFR Gene Amplification||1.344|0.380|0.1529
90820604|NCT00265317|181519874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||0.6324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.516|2.608|||Log Rank|||Wild Type EGFR Gene Mutation||2.608|0.516|0.6324
90820605|NCT00265317|181519874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.813||||0.2413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.464|1.424|||Log Rank|||Indeterminate EGFR Gene Mutation||1.424|0.464|0.2413
90820606|NCT00265317|181519876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.481||||0.2077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.079|2.91|||Log Rank|||Mutated KRAS Gene Mutation||2.910|0.079|0.2077
90820607|NCT00265317|181519876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.162||||0.6439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.534|2.531|||Log Rank|||Wild Type KRAS Gene Mutation||2.531|0.534|0.6439
90820608|NCT00265317|181519876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.825||||0.2664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.457|1.489|||Log Rank|||Indeterminate KRAS Gene Mutation||1.489|0.457|0.2664
90820609|NCT00265317|181519878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.7423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.541|2.36||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs1531289 Genotype: C/C||2.360|0.541|0.7423
90820610|NCT00265317|181519878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.598||||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.236||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs1531289 Genotype: C/T||1.236|0.290|0.1570
90820611|NCT00265317|181519878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.794||||0.7954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.131|4.819||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs1531289 Genotype: T/T||4.819|0.131|0.7954
90820612|NCT00265317|181519878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.833||||0.621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.401|1.732||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs2305945 Genotype: G/G||1.732|0.401|0.6210
90820613|NCT00265317|181519878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.794||||0.5268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.385|1.64||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs2305945 Genotype: G/T||1.640|0.385|0.5268
90820614|NCT00265317|181519878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.011||||0.9753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.504|2.027||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs1870377 Genotype: T/T||2.027|0.504|0.9753
90820615|NCT00265317|181519878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.378||||0.0141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.168|0.85||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs1870377 Genotype: T/A||0.850|0.168|0.0141
90820616|NCT00265317|181519878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.236||||0.5596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.139|35.9||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs1870377 Genotype: A/A||35.90|0.139|0.5596
90820617|NCT00265317|181519878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.738||||0.2788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.422|1.288||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs2305948 Genotype: C/C||1.288|0.422|0.2788
90820618|NCT00265317|181519878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.075||||0.8971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.352|3.286||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs2305948 Genotype: C/T||3.286|0.352|0.8971
90820619|NCT00265317|181519878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.775||||0.6559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.251|2.388||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs7692791 Genotype: C/C||2.388|0.251|0.6559
90820620|NCT00265317|181519878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.939||||0.8563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.466|1.889||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs7692791 Genotype: C/T||1.889|0.466|0.8563
90820621|NCT00265317|181519878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.382||||0.668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.12||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs7692791 Genotype: T/T||1.120|0.130|0.668
90820622|NCT00265317|181519878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.3681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.488|1.309||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs35636987 Genotype: C/C||1.309|0.488|0.3681
90820623|NCT00265317|181519878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.331|2.237||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs7667298 Genotype: C/C||2.237|0.331|0.7520
90820624|NCT00265317|181519878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.551||||0.0833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.276|1.098||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs7667298 Genotype: C/T||1.098|0.276|0.0833
90820625|NCT00265317|181519878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.564||||0.4772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.444|5.506||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs7667298 Genotype: T/T||5.506|0.444|0.4772
90820626|NCT00265317|181519878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.034||||0.9235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.522|2.048||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs41408948 Genotype: G/G||2.048|0.522|0.9235
90820627|NCT00265317|181519878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.501||||0.0845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.223|1.126||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs41408948 Genotype: G/A||1.126|0.223|0.0845
90820628|NCT00265317|181519878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.724||||0.5493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.284|10.47||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs41408948 Genotype: A/A||10.47|0.284|0.5493
90820629|NCT00265317|181519878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.4||||0.521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.492|3.987||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs2071559 Genotype: G/G||3.987|0.492|0.5210
90820630|NCT00265317|181519878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.538||||0.0854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.261|1.108||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs2071559 Genotype: G/A||1.108|0.261|0.0854
90820631|NCT00265317|181519878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.953||||0.9198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.365|2.489||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs2071559 Genotype: A/A||2.489|0.365|0.9198
90820632|NCT00265317|181519879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.977||||0.9486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.473|2.014||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs1531289 Genotype: C/C||2.014|0.473|0.9486
90820633|NCT00265317|181519879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.961||||0.9084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.487|1.897||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs1531289 Genotype: C/T||1.897|0.487|0.9084
90820634|NCT00265317|181519879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.876||||0.2009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.534|15.48||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs1531289 Genotype: T/T||15.48|0.534|0.2009
90820635|NCT00265317|181519879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.098||||0.7863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.554|2.175||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs2305845 Genotype: G/G||2.175|0.554|0.7863
90820636|NCT00265317|181519879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.243||||0.5267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.633|2.442||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEFR2/rs2305945 Genotype: G/T||2.442|0.633|0.5267
90820637|NCT00265317|181519879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.55||||0.624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.049|6.208||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs2305945 Genotype: T/T||6.208|0.049|0.6240
90820638|NCT00265317|181519879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.254||||0.4882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.384||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEFR/rs1870377 Genotype: T/T||2.384|0.660|0.4882
90820639|NCT00265317|181519879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.587||||0.1307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.189||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs1870377 Genotype: T/A||1.189|0.290|0.1307
90820640|NCT00265317|181519879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.236||||0.5596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.139|35.9||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs1870377 Genotype: A/A||35.90|0.139|0.5596
90820641|NCT00265317|181519879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.073||||0.7966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.628|1.833||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs2305948 Genotype: C/C||1.833|0.628|0.7966
90820642|NCT00265317|181519879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.954||||0.9224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.366|2.484||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs2305948 Genotype: C/T||2.484|0.366|0.9224
90820643|NCT00265317|181519879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.047||||0.9317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.363|3.025||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs7692791 Genotype: C/C||3.025|0.363|0.9317
90820644|NCT00265317|181519879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.057||||0.8696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.546|2.044||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs7692791 Genotype: C/T||2.044|0.546|0.8696
90820645|NCT00265317|181519879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.075||||0.8694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.453|2.554||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs7692791 Genotype: T/T||2.554|0.453|0.8694
90820646|NCT00265317|181519879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.039||||0.8708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.654|1.652||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs3563987 Genotype: C/C||1.652|0.654|0.8708
90820647|NCT00265317|181519879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.157||||0.7667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.442|3.026||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs7667298 Genotype: C/C||3.026|0.442|0.7667
90820648|NCT00265317|181519879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.755||||0.3822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.401|1.422||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs7667298 Genotype: C/T||1.422|0.401|0.3822
90820649|NCT00265317|181519879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.419||||0.5089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.498|4.04||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs7667298 Genotype: T/T||4.040|0.498|0.5089
90820650|NCT00265317|181519879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.326||||0.3944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.691|2.544||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs41408948 Genotype: G/G||2.544|0.691|0.3944
90820651|NCT00265317|181519879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.692||||0.3103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.339|1.416||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs41408948 Genotype: G/A||1.416|0.339|0.3103
90820652|NCT00265317|181519879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.857||||0.8942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.089|8.294||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs41408948 Genotype: A/A||8.294|0.089|0.8942
90820653|NCT00265317|181519879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.24||||0.665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.466|3.304||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs2071559 Genotype: G/G||3.304|0.466|0.6650
90820654|NCT00265317|181519879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.779||||0.4415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.412|1.475||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs2071559 Genotype: G/A||1.475|0.412|0.4415
90820655|NCT00265317|181519879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.458||||0.4682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.523|4.06||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs2071559 Genotype: A/A||4.060|0.523|0.4682
90820656|NCT00265317|181519881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.289||||0.7301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.304|5.47||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs2304060 Genotype: C/C||5.470|0.304|0.7301
90820657|NCT00265317|181519881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.788||||0.5013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.592||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||PDGFRB/rs2304060 C/A||1.592|0.390|0.5013
90820658|NCT00265317|181519881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.686||||0.368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.298|1.578||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs2304060 Genotype: A/A||1.578|0.298|0.3680
90820659|NCT00265317|181519881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.738||||0.3804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.371|1.467||2-sided, unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs17656204 Genotype: C/C||1.467|0.371|0.3804
90820660|NCT00265317|181519881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57||||0.1507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.261|1.247||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs17656204 Genotype: C/T||1.247|0.261|0.1507
90820661|NCT00265317|181519881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0772||||||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus PDGFRB/rs17656204 Genotype: T/T||||0.0772
90820662|NCT00265317|181519881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.2149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.339|1.284||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs2304061 Genotype: G/G||1.284|0.339|0.2149
90820663|NCT00265317|181519881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.026||||0.9491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.466|2.26||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/RS2304061 Genotype: G/A||2.260|0.466|0.9491
90820664|NCT00265317|181519881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.917||||0.8114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.447|1.881||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs1077724 Genotype: A/A||1.881|0.447|0.8114
90820665|NCT00265317|181519881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.577||||0.1379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.273|1.221||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs1077724 Genotype: A/T||1.221|0.273|0.1379
90820666|NCT00265317|181519881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.859||||0.5341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.256|13.51||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs1077724 Genotype: T/T||13.51|0.256|0.5341
90820667|NCT00265317|181519881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.932||||0.8564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.431|2.014||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs919751 Genotype: A/A||2.014|0.431|0.8564
90820668|NCT00265317|181519881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.797||||0.5766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.355|1.788||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs919751 Genotype: A/G||1.788|0.355|0.5766
90820669|NCT00265317|181519881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.467||||0.2043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|1.557||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs919751 Genotype: G/G||1.557|0.140|0.2043
90820670|NCT00265317|181519881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.531||||0.1626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.214|1.317||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs2304058 Genotype: G/G||1.317|0.214|0.1626
90820671|NCT00265317|181519881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.986||||0.968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.484|2.006||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs2304058 Genotype: G/C||2.006|0.484|0.9680
90820672|NCT00265317|181519881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.573||||0.3587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.171|1.92||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs2304058 Genotype: C/C||1.920|0.171|0.3587
90820673|NCT00265317|181519881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.742||||0.4635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.331|1.662||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs1864972 Genotype: G/G||1.662|0.331|0.4635
90820674|NCT00265317|181519881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.992||||0.9834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.476|2.069||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs1864972 Genotype: G/A||2.069|0.476|0.9834
90820675|NCT00265317|181519881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.353||||0.1764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.072|1.725||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs1864972 Genotype: A/A||1.725|0.072|0.1764
90820676|NCT00265317|181519881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.715||||0.2018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.422|1.209||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs3733678 Genotype: G/G||1.209|0.422|0.2018
90820677|NCT00265317|181519881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.85||||0.4592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.354|9.673||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs3733678 Genotype: G/A||9.673|0.354|0.4592
90820678|NCT00265317|181519881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.665||||0.1593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.373|1.184||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs246396 Genotype: T/T||1.184|0.373|0.1593
90820679|NCT00265317|181519881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.327||||0.5897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.469|3.755||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs246396 Genotype: T/C||3.755|0.469|0.5897
90820680|NCT00265317|181519881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.3681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.488|1.309||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs34586048 Genotype: C/C||1.309|0.488|0.3681
90820681|NCT00265317|181519881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.752||||0.3235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.423|1.336||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs11740355 Genotype: T/T||1.336|0.423|0.3235
90820682|NCT00265317|181519881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.845||||0.7463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.303|2.355||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs11740355 Genotype: T/G||2.355|0.303|0.7463
90820683|NCT00265317|181519881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.724||||0.4179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.593||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: rs740751 Genotype: C/C||1.593|0.330|0.4179
90820684|NCT00265317|181519881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.973||||0.9423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.462|2.05||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs740751 Genotype: C/T||2.050|0.462|0.9423
90820685|NCT00265317|181519881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.353||||0.1764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.072|1.725||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs7407451 Genotype: T/T||1.725|0.072|0.1764
90820686|NCT00265317|181519881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.549||||0.2352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.201|1.501||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs4705415 Genotype: G/G||1.501|0.201|0.2352
90820687|NCT00265317|181519881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.986||||0.9674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.485|2.003||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs4705415 Genotype: G/A||2.003|0.485|0.9674
90820688|NCT00265317|181519881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.629||||0.3524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.235|1.686||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs4705415 Genotype: A/A||1.686|0.235|0.3524
90820689|NCT00265317|181519881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.809||||0.6652|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.308|2.124||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs3776075 Genotype: T/T||2.124|0.308|0.6652
90820690|NCT00265317|181519881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.839||||0.5931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.436|1.618||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs3776075 Genotype: T/G||1.618|0.436|0.5931
90820691|NCT00265317|181519881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.475||||0.2625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.125|1.813||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs3776075 Genotype: G/G||1.813|0.125|0.2625
90820692|NCT00265317|181519881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.704||||0.2168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.239||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs17708574 Genotype: G/G||1.239|0.400|0.2168
90820693|NCT00265317|181519881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.987||||0.9802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.353|2.759||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs17708574 Genotype: G/A||2.759|0.353|0.9802
90820694|NCT00265317|181519881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.652||||0.1145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.378|1.122||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs10063714 Genotype: T/T||1.122|0.378|0.1145
90820695|NCT00265317|181519881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.192||||0.7725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|3.946||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs10063714 Genotype: T/A||3.946|0.360|0.7725
90820696|NCT00265317|181519881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.687||||0.3286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.321|1.473||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs3776081 Genotype: A/A||1.473|0.321|0.3286
90820697|NCT00265317|181519881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.976||||0.948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|2.028||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs3776081 Genotype: A/G||2.028|0.470|0.9480
90820698|NCT00265317|181519881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.531||||0.3844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.125|2.282||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs3776081 Genotype: G/G||2.282|0.125|0.3844
90820699|NCT00265317|181519881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.662||||0.1373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.381|1.153||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs2007637 Genotype: G/G||1.153|0.381|0.1373
90820700|NCT00265317|181519881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.114||||0.8586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.339|3.667||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs2007637 Genotype: G/A||3.667|0.339|0.8586
90820701|NCT00265317|181519881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.935||||0.8478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.861||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs2302273 Genotype: G/G||1.861|0.470|0.8478
90820702|NCT00265317|181519881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.634||||0.2445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.287|1.401||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs2302273 Genotype: G/A||1.401|0.287|0.2445
90820703|NCT00265317|181519881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.155||||0.9191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.072|18.59||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs2302273 Genotype: A/A||18.59|0.072|0.9191
90820704|NCT00265317|181519882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.121||||0.8563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.326|3.847||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs2304060 Genotype: C/C||3.847|0.326|0.8563
90820705|NCT00265317|181519882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.111||||0.7375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.599|2.064||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs2304060 Genotype: C/A||2.064|0.599|0.7375
90820706|NCT00265317|181519882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.897||||0.8066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.375|2.147||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs234060 Genotype: A/A||2.147|0.375|0.8066
90820707|NCT00265317|181519882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.875||||0.6945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.449|1.708||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs17656204 Genotype: C/C||1.708|0.449|0.6945
90820708|NCT00265317|181519882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.067||||0.8536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.536|2.122||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs17656204 Genotype: C/T||2.122|0.536|0.8536
90820709|NCT00265317|181519882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.732||||0.3657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.283|26.42||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs17656204 Genotype: T/T||26.42|0.283|0.3657
90820710|NCT00265317|181519882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.793||||0.4657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.424|1.483||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs2304061 Genotype: G/G||1.483|0.424|0.4657
90820711|NCT00265317|181519882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.364||||0.4168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.641|2.9||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs2304061 Genotype: G/A||2.900|0.641|0.4168
90820712|NCT00265317|181519882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.908||||0.7836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.456|1.809||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs1077724 Genotype: A/A||1.809|0.456|0.7836
90820713|NCT00265317|181519882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.938||||0.8531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.472|1.863||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs1077724 Genotype: A/T||1.863|0.472|0.8531
90820714|NCT00265317|181519882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.32||||0.3272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.412|13.07||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs1077724 Genotype: T/T||13.07|0.412|0.3272
90820715|NCT00265317|181519882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.984||||0.963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.491|1.972||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs919751 Genotype: A/A||1.972|0.491|0.9630
90820716|NCT00265317|181519882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.227||||0.6003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.567|2.656||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs919751 Genotype: A/G||2.656|0.567|0.6003
90820717|NCT00265317|181519882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.769||||0.6703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.229|2.58||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs919751 Genotype: G/G||2.580|0.229|0.6703
90820718|NCT00265317|181519882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.106||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.485|2.525||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs2304058 Genotype: G/G||2.525|0.485|0.8100
90820719|NCT00265317|181519882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.076||||0.8335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.541|2.141||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs2304058 Genotype: G/C||2.141|0.541|0.8335
90820720|NCT00265317|181519882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.758||||0.598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.268|2.141||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs2304058 Genotype: C/C||2.141|0.268|0.5980
90820721|NCT00265317|181519882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.035||||0.9287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.487|2.199||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs1864972 Genotype: G/G||2.199|0.487|0.9287
90820722|NCT00265317|181519882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.053||||0.8842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.526|2.106||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs1864972 Genotype: G/A||2.106|0.526|0.8842
90820723|NCT00265317|181519882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.129||||0.8501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.316|4.028||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs1864972 Genotype: A/A||4.028|0.316|0.8501
90820724|NCT00265317|181519882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.229||||0.4118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.749|2.017||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs3733678 Genotype: G/G||2.017|0.749|0.4118
90820725|NCT00265317|181519882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.286||||0.1299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.051|1.596||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs3733678 Genotype: G/A||1.596|0.051|0.1299
90820726|NCT00265317|181519882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.692||||0.1859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.399|1.2||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs246396 Genotype: T/T||1.200|0.399|0.1859
90820727|NCT00265317|181519882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.672||||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.291|10.44||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs246396 Genotype: T/C||10.44|1.291|0.0091
90820728|NCT00265317|181519882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.039||||0.8708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.654|1.652||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs34586048 Genotype: C/C||1.652|0.654|0.8708
90820729|NCT00265317|181519882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.996||||0.9888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.681||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs11740355 Genotype: T/T||1.681|0.590|0.9888
90820730|NCT00265317|181519882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.9702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|2.891||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs11740355 Genotype: T/G||2.891|0.360|0.9702
90820731|NCT00265317|181519882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.973||||0.9419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.466|2.032||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs740751 Genotype: C/C||2.032|0.466|0.9419
90820732|NCT00265317|181519882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.112||||0.7677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.549|2.252||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs740751 Genotype: C/T||2.252|0.549|0.7677
90820733|NCT00265317|181519882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.129||||0.8501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.316|4.028||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs740751 Genotype: T/T||4.028|0.316|0.8501
90820734|NCT00265317|181519882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.758||||0.5233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.322|1.782||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs4705415 Genotype: G/G||1.782|0.322|0.5233
90820735|NCT00265317|181519882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.123||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.549|2.297||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs4705415 Genotype: G/A||2.297|0.549|0.7500
90820736|NCT00265317|181519882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.232||||0.6614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.483|3.142||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs4705415 Genotype: A/A||3.142|0.483|0.6614
90820737|NCT00265317|181519882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.779||||0.2552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.652|4.855||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs3776075 Genotype: T/T||4.855|0.652|0.2552
90820738|NCT00265317|181519882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.088||||0.7931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.577|2.052||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs3776075 Genotype: T/G||2.052|0.577|0.7931
90820739|NCT00265317|181519882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.449||||0.1365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.152|1.331||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs3776075 Genotype: G/G||1.331|0.152|0.1365
90820740|NCT00265317|181519882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.854||||0.5544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.504|1.447||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs17708574 Genotype: G/G||1.447|0.504|0.5544
91060133|NCT01277211|182002630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages, Cycle 13|-4.5||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|0.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||For Cycle 13, a two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage between the treatment groups (ENG-EE vs. DRSP-EE) was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||-0.0|-10.4|0.048
90820741|NCT00265317|181519882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.721||||0.3132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|5.021||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs17708574 Genotype: G/A||5.021|0.590|0.3132
90820742|NCT00265317|181519882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.263||||0.3698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.755|2.113||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs10063714 Genotype: T/T||2.113|0.755|0.3698
90820743|NCT00265317|181519882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.411||||0.1495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.119|1.423||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs10063714 Genotype: T/A||1.423|0.119|0.1495
90820744|NCT00265317|181519882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.613||||0.1911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.781|3.332||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs3776081 Genotype: A/A||3.332|0.781|0.1911
90820745|NCT00265317|181519882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.793||||0.5259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.384|1.636||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs3776081 Genotype: A/G||1.636|0.384|0.5259
90820746|NCT00265317|181519882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.331||||0.0996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.082|1.339||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs3776081 Genotype: G/G||1.339|0.082|0.0996
91060134|NCT01277211|182002631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages, Cycle 1|-6.0||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|-1.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||For Cycle 1, a two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage between the treatment groups (ENG-EE vs. DRSP-EE) was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||-1.1|-12.0|0.015
90820747|NCT00265317|181519882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.752||||0.2755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.259||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs2007637 Genotype: G/G||1.259|0.450|0.2755
90820748|NCT00265317|181519882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.85||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.253|18.78||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs2007637 Genotype: G/A||18.78|1.253|0.0120
90820749|NCT00265317|181519882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.274||||0.4663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.661|2.457||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs2302273 Genotype: G/G||2.457|0.661|0.4663
90820750|NCT00265317|181519882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.867||||0.7097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.406|1.848||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs2302273 Genotype: G/A||1.848|0.406|0.7097
90820751|NCT00265317|181519882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.607||||0.534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.117|3.158||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs2302273 Genotype: A/A||3.158|0.117|0.5340
90820752|NCT00265317|181519885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2702|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||VEGF-C Ratio to Baseline for Cycle 2, Day 1||||0.2702
90820753|NCT00265317|181519885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7354||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||VEGF-C ratio to Baseline for Cycle 3, Day 1||||0.7354
90820754|NCT00265317|181519887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||VEGFR-2 Ratio to Baseline for Cycle 2, Day 1||||<0.0001
90820755|NCT00265317|181519887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||VEGFR-2 Ratio to Baseline for Cycle 3, Day 1||||<0.0001
90820756|NCT00265317|181519888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.553||||0.1667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.159|1.921||1-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||High CSF-1R expression||1.921|0.159|0.1667
90820757|NCT00265317|181519888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.451||||0.7688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.534|3.944||1-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Low CSF-1R expression||3.944|0.534|0.7688
90820758|NCT00265317|181519888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.3498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.503|1.574||1-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Indeterminate CSF-1R expression||1.574|0.503|0.3498
90820759|NCT00265317|181519888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.687||||0.9497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|9.143||1-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||High PDGFRalpha expression||9.143|0.790|0.9497
90820760|NCT00265317|181519888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.386||||0.0401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.127|1.173||1-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Low PDGFRalpha expression||1.173|0.127|0.0401
90820761|NCT00265317|181519888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.862||||0.3128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.487|1.524||1-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Indeterminate PDGFRalpha expression||1.524|0.487|0.3128
90820762|NCT00265317|181519888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.823||||0.365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.273|2.488||1-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||High PDGFRbeta expression||2.488|0.273|0.3650
90820763|NCT00265317|181519888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.192||||0.6105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.408|3.48||1-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Low PDGFRbeta expression||3.480|0.408|0.6105
90820764|NCT00265317|181519888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.856||||0.3027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.488|1.502||1-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Indeterminate PDGFRbeta expression||1.502|0.488|0.3027
90820765|NCT00265317|181519888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.914||||0.4436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.262|3.184||1-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||High VEGF expression||3.184|0.262|0.4436
90820766|NCT00265317|181519888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.953||||0.4582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.296|3.062||1-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Low VEGF expression||3.062|0.296|0.4582
90820767|NCT00265317|181519888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.911||||0.372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.536|1.548||1-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Indeterminate VEGF expression||1.548|0.536|0.3720
90820768|NCT00265317|181519888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.5586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|3.397||1-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||High VEGF-C expression||3.397|0.350|0.5586
90820769|NCT00265317|181519888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.842||||0.3652|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.313|2.266||1-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Low VEGF-C expression||2.266|0.313|0.3652
90820770|NCT00265317|181519888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.875||||0.3301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.493|1.554||1-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Indeterminate VEGF-C expression||1.554|0.493|0.3301
90820771|NCT00265317|181519888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.097||||0.5605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.331|3.636||1-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||High VEGFR1 expression||3.636|0.331|0.5605
90820772|NCT00265317|181519888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.599||||0.2132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|2.236||1-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Low VEGFR1 expression||2.236|0.160|0.2132
90820773|NCT00265317|181519888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.902||||0.3605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.537||1-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Indeterminate VEGFR1 expression||1.537|0.530|0.3605
90820774|NCT00265317|181519888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.921||||0.4438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.304|2.784||1-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||High VEGFR2 expression||2.784|0.304|0.4438
90820775|NCT00265317|181519888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.122||||0.5699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.403|3.125||1-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Low VEGFR2 expression||3.125|0.403|0.5699
90820776|NCT00265317|181519888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.864||||0.3147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.489|1.528||1-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Indeterminate VEGFR2 expression||1.528|0.489|0.3147
90820777|NCT00265317|181519888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.002||||0.5015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.281|3.581||1-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||High VEGFR3 expression||3.581|0.281|0.5015
90820778|NCT00265317|181519888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.005||||0.4887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.334|3.025||1-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Low VEGFR3 expression||3.025|0.334|0.4887
90820779|NCT00265317|181519888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.818||||0.2432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.473|1.414||1-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Indeterminate VEGFR3 expression||1.414|0.473|0.2432
90820780|NCT00265317|181519888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.446||||0.2321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.048|4.101||1-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Detected FGF expression||4.101|0.048|0.2321
90820781|NCT00265317|181519888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.316||||0.7143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.526|3.292||1-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||No detected FGF expression||3.292|0.526|0.7143
90820782|NCT00265317|181519888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.844||||0.2812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.486|1.465||1-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Indeterminate FGF expression||1.465|0.486|0.2812
90820783|NCT00265317|181519888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.406||||0.6504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.248|7.96||1-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Detected FLT3 expression||7.960|0.248|0.6504
90820784|NCT00265317|181519888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.838||||0.3266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.375|1.876||1-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||No detected FLT3 expression||1.876|0.375|0.3266
90820785|NCT00265317|181519888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.896||||0.3597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.502|1.598||1-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Indeterminate FLT3 expression||1.598|0.502|0.3597
90820786|NCT00265317|181519888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.342||||0.6907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.419|4.297||1-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Detected KIT expression||4.297|0.419|0.6907
90820787|NCT00265317|181519888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.677||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.265|1.731||1-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Participants with no detected KIT expression||1.731|0.265|0.1990
90820788|NCT00265317|181519888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.896||||0.3597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.502|1.598||1-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Indeterminate KIT expression||1.598|0.502|0.3597
90820789|NCT00265317|181519888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.693||||0.3757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.071|6.765||1-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Detected RET expression||6.765|0.071|0.3757
90820790|NCT00265317|181519888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.874||||0.3723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.358|2.13||1-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||No detected RET expression||2.130|0.358|0.3723
90820791|NCT00265317|181519888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.874||||0.3263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.501|1.523||1-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Indeterminate RET expression||1.523|0.501|0.3263
90820792|NCT00265317|181519889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||VEGFR-3 Ratio to Baseline for Cycle 2, Day 1||||<0.0001
90820793|NCT00265317|181519889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||VEGFR-3 Ratio to Baseline for Cycle 3, Day 1||||<0.0001
91060135|NCT01277211|182002631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages, Cycle 2|-4.9||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|-1.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||For Cycle 2, a two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage between the treatment groups (ENG-EE vs. DRSP-EE) was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||-1.0|-10.1|0.012
91060136|NCT01277211|182002631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages, Cycle 3|-6.5||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|-2.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||For Cycle 3, a two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage between the treatment groups (ENG-EE vs. DRSP-EE) was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||-2.2|-12.0|0.002
91060137|NCT01277211|182002631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages, Cycle 4|-3.6||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|-0.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||For Cycle 4, a two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage between the treatment groups (ENG-EE vs. DRSP-EE) was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||-0.1|-8.5|0.044
90820794|NCT00265317|181519891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||sKIT Ratio to Baseline for Cycle 2, Day 1||||<0.0001
90820795|NCT00265317|181519891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||sKIT Ratio to Baseline for Cycle 3, Day 1||||<0.0001
90820796|NCT00265317|181519896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3681||95.0||||2-sided normal approximated p-value|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.3681
90820797|NCT00265317|181519897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5982||95.0||||2-sided normal approximated p-value|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.5982
90820798|NCT00265317|181519898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9807||95.0||||2-sided normal approximated p-value|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.9807
90820799|NCT00265317|181519899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3945||||||2-sided normal approximated p-value|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.3945
90820800|NCT02510001|181519910|OTHER||||||||||||||||||"The primary dose escalation analysis was to find the MTD, which was defined as the dose of PF-02341066 in combination with PD-0325901 at which no more than one out of six patients experience a DLT (dose limiting toxicity). The DLT was based on observed toxicity in cycle 1, and was defined as an almost certainly or probably drug-related adverse event to PF-02341066 and/or PD-0325901.~The MTD for the PD 0325901/PF-02341066 combination was 8mg BD(days1-21) and 200mg BD continuously in a 28 day cycle (Dose Level 4)."|||
90820801|NCT02510001|181519912|OTHER|||||||||||||||||The primary dose escalation analysis was to find the MTD, which was defined as the dose of PF-02341066 in combination with Binimetinib at which no more than one out of six patients experience a DLT (dose limiting toxicity). The DLT was based on observed toxicity in cycle 1, and was defined as an almost certainly or probably drug-related adverse event to PF-02341066 and/or Binimetinib.|"Binimetinib 30mg BD on days 1 - 21 every 28 days with Crizotinib 250 mg OD continuously is the MTD, the recommended dose and schedule for further evaluation in our and other trials.~This was as only one DLT was experienced in 6 evaluable patients at this final dose escalation level."|||
90820802|NCT01336140|181519943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|||||||Chi-squared|||"We calculated that a minimum of 248 subjects are needed to attain 80% power to detect 70% reduction in the incidence of the primary endpoint (diarrhea), assuming an event rate of 15% in the control group (2-tailed α = 0.05). We targeted enrolling 300 patients to allow some room for error in our assumptions.~null hypothesis: incidence of diarrhea is no different between the aminophylline arm and the placebo arm."||||0.002
90820803|NCT01336140|181519944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
90820804|NCT01336140|181519945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||< 0.001
91060138|NCT01277211|182002631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages, Cycle 5|-1.0||||0.609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|2.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||For Cycle 5, a two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage between the treatment groups (ENG-EE vs. DRSP-EE) was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||2.5|-5.7|0.609
91060139|NCT01277211|182002631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages, Cycle 6|-3.9||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|0.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||For Cycle 6, a two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage between the treatment groups (ENG-EE vs. DRSP-EE) was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||0.2|-9.3|0.062
90820805|NCT01336140|181519946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1
90820806|NCT01504841|181519948|OTHER||%|36.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.9|69.2|||||Exact Binomial (Clopper-Pearson) confidence intervals for Cohort I, percentage of participants who experienced a grade 3+ AE.|||69.2|10.9|
90820807|NCT01504841|181519948|OTHER||%|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.8|100.0|||||Exact Binomial (Clopper-Pearson) confidence intervals for Cohort II, percentage of participants who experienced a grade 3+ AE.|||100|39.8|
90820808|NCT01504841|181519951|OTHER||%|18.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|51.8|||||Exact Binomial (Clopper-Pearson) confidence intervals for Cohort I, percentage of participants who experienced a grade 3+ AE at least possibly related to study medications.|||51.8|2.5|
90820809|NCT01504841|181519951|OTHER||%|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|60.2|||||Exact Binomial (Clopper-Pearson) confidence intervals for Cohort II, percentage of participants who experienced a grade 3+ AE at least possibly related to study medication.|||60.2|0|
90820810|NCT01504841|181519952|OTHER||%|18.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|51.8|||||Exact Binomial (Clopper-Pearson) confidence intervals for Cohort I Week 24, percentage of participants who experienced Virologic Failure.|Week 24 time point.||51.8|2.3|
90820811|NCT01504841|181519952|OTHER||%|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|80.6|||||Exact Binomial (Clopper-Pearson) confidence intervals for Cohort II Week 24, percentage of participants who experienced Virologic Failure.|Week 24 time point.||80.6|0.6|
90820812|NCT01504841|181519952|OTHER||%|27.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|61.0|||||Exact Binomial (Clopper-Pearson) confidence intervals for Cohort I Week 48, percentage of participants who experienced Virologic Failure.|Week 48 time point.||61|6|
90820813|NCT01504841|181519952|OTHER||%|75.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.4|99.4|||||Exact Binomial (Clopper-Pearson) confidence intervals for Cohort II Week 48, percentage of participants who experienced Virologic Failure.|Week 48 time point.||99.4|19.4|
90820814|NCT01504841|181519956|OTHER||%|9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|41.3|||||Exact Binomial (Clopper-Pearson) confidence intervals for Cohort I Week 12, percentage of participants with a \>5% decline in absolute CD4 %.|Week 12 time point.||41.3|0.2|
91060140|NCT01277211|182002631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages, Cycle 7|-4.1||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|-0.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||For Cycle 7, a two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage between the treatment groups (ENG-EE vs. DRSP-EE) was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||-0.6|-9.0|0.019
90820815|NCT01504841|181519956|OTHER||%|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|93.2|||||Exact Binomial (Clopper-Pearson) confidence intervals for Cohort II Week 12, percentage of participants with a \>5% decline in absolute CD4 %.|Week 12 time point.||93.2|6.8|
90820816|NCT01504841|181519956|OTHER||%|9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|41.3|||||Exact Binomial (Clopper-Pearson) confidence intervals for Cohort I Week 24, percentage of participants with a \>5% decline in absolute CD4 %.|Week 24 time point.||41.3|0.2|
90820817|NCT01504841|181519956|OTHER||%|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|80.6|||||Exact Binomial (Clopper-Pearson) confidence intervals for Cohort II Week 24, percentage of participants with a \>5% decline in absolute CD4 %.|Week 24 time point.||80.6|0.6|
90820818|NCT01504841|181519956|OTHER||%|18.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|51.8|||||Exact Binomial (Clopper-Pearson) confidence intervals for Cohort I Week 48, percentage of participants with a \>5% decline in absolute CD4 %.|Week 48 time point.||51.8|2.3|
90820819|NCT01504841|181519956|OTHER||%|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|93.2|||||Exact Binomial (Clopper-Pearson) confidence intervals for Cohort II Week 48, percentage of participants with a \>5% decline in absolute CD4 %.|Week 48 time point.||93.2|6.8|
90820820|NCT04756804|181519957|OTHER|This was a descriptive study, no hypothesis testing was performed.|||||||||||||||||This was a descriptive study, no hypothesis testing was performed.|||
90820821|NCT00660179|181519966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.704||||0.0108|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.516|0.96|||Log Rank|||||0.960|0.516|0.0108
90820822|NCT00660179|181519966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.547|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.392|0.762|||Log Rank|||||0.762|0.392|<0.0001
90820823|NCT00660179|181519967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.669||||0.0146|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.462|0.97|||Log Rank|||||0.970|0.462|0.0146
90820824|NCT00660179|181519967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.335|0.747|||Log Rank|||||0.747|0.335|<0.0001
90820825|NCT00660179|181519968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.971||||0.9249|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.477|1.976|||Log Rank|||||1.976|0.477|0.9249
90820826|NCT00660179|181519968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.638||||0.2037|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.287|1.418|||Log Rank|||||1.418|0.287|0.2037
90820827|NCT00660179|181519969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.046||||0.8312|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.653|1.673|||Log Rank|||||1.673|0.653|0.8312
90820828|NCT00660179|181519969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.771||||0.2509|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.464|1.282|||Log Rank|||||1.282|0.464|0.2509
90820829|NCT05362058|181520018|NON_INFERIORITY|0.4% noninferiority margin (NIM)|LS Mean Difference|-0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.04|||ANCOVA|||||0.04|-0.22|
91060141|NCT01277211|182002631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages, Cycle 8|-1.9||||0.308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|1.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||For Cycle 8, a two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage between the treatment groups (ENG-EE vs. DRSP-EE) was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||1.6|-6.7|0.308
90820830|NCT05362058|181520019|NON_INFERIORITY|0.4% noninferiority margin (NIM)|LS Mean Difference|-0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.13|||ANCOVA|||||0.13|-0.26|
90820831|NCT05362058|181520020|NON_INFERIORITY|0.4% noninferiority margin (NIM)|LS Mean Difference|-0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.07|||ANCOVA|||||0.07|-0.28|
90820832|NCT05362058|181520021|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.09||||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.04|||ANCOVA|||||0.04|-0.22|0.188
90820833|NCT05362058|181520022|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.09||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|6.08|||ANCOVA|||||6.08|0.09|0.043
90820834|NCT05362058|181520023|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.06||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.05|||ANCOVA|||||0.05|-0.17|0.260
90820835|NCT05362058|181520024|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.27||||0.848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|3.02|||ANCOVA|||||3.02|-2.48|0.848
90820836|NCT05362058|181520025|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.18||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|9.3|||ANCOVA|||Week 26 (Statistical Analysis) - LS mean was determined using ANCOVA model with Baseline + Country + HbA1c Stratum at Baseline + GLP-1 RA Use at Randomization + SU Use at Randomization + Treatment (Type III sum of squares) as variables. Missing data at Baseline were imputed with multiple imputation with assumption of missing at random. Missing data at week 26 were imputed by return-to-baseline multiple imputations approach.||9.30|1.06|0.014
90820837|NCT05362058|181520025|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.65|4.06|||ANCOVA|||Week 52 (Statistical Analysis) - LS mean was determined using ANCOVA model with Baseline + Country + HbA1c Stratum at Baseline + GLP-1 RA Use at Randomization + SU Use at Randomization + Treatment (Type III sum of squares) as variables. Missing data at Baseline were imputed with multiple imputation with assumption of missing at random. Missing data at week 52 were imputed by return-to-baseline multiple imputations approach.||4.06|-3.65|0.918
90820838|NCT05362058|181520026|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.36||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 22 to Week 26 (Statistical Analysis)||0.34|-1.06|0.310
90820839|NCT05362058|181520026|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.51||||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48 to Week 52 (Statistical Analysis)||0.17|-1.19|0.138
90820840|NCT05362058|181520027|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-13.2||||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.5|4.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 26 (Statistical Analysis)||4.1|-30.5|0.136
90820841|NCT05362058|181520027|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-19.7||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.0|-2.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52 (Statistical Analysis)||-2.4|-37.0|0.026
90820842|NCT05362058|181520028|SUPERIORITY||Relative Rate|1.3||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.78|||Negative binomial model|||||1.78|0.94|0.111
90820843|NCT05362058|181520029|SUPERIORITY||Relative Rate|1.01||||0.983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.89|||Negative binomial model|||||1.89|0.53|0.983
90820844|NCT05362058|181520030|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.5||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.064|0.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 26 (Statistical Analysis)||0.94|0.064|0.025
90820845|NCT05362058|181520030|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.056||||0.801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52 (Statistical Analysis)||0.50|-0.38|0.801
90820846|NCT05362058|181520031|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.13||||0.374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8 to Week 12 (Statistical Analysis)||0.41|-0.15|0.374
90820847|NCT05362058|181520031|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.29||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 22 to Week 26 (Statistical Analysis)||0.67|-0.09|0.130
90820848|NCT05362058|181520031|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48 to Week 52 (Statistical Analysis)||0.72|-0.12|0.162
90820849|NCT05362058|181520032|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.03||||0.594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8 to Week 12 (Statistical Analysis)||0.08|-0.15|0.594
90820850|NCT05362058|181520032|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.06||||0.266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 22 to Week 26 (Statistical Analysis)||0.16|-0.04|0.266
90820851|NCT05362058|181520032|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.02||||0.791|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48 to Week 52 (Statistical Analysis)||0.14|-0.10|0.791
90820852|NCT05362058|181520033|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.41||||0.757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|2.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8 to Week 12 (Statistical Analysis)||2.18|-3.00|0.757
90820853|NCT05362058|181520033|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.93||||0.511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.72|1.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 22 to Week 26 (Statistical Analysis)||1.85|-3.72|0.511
90820854|NCT05362058|181520033|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.39||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.39|-0.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48 to Week 52 (Statistical Analysis)||-0.39|-6.39|0.027
90820855|NCT05362058|181520034|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.66||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|3.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 26 (Statistical Analysis)||3.07|0.26|0.021
90820856|NCT05362058|181520034|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.0||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|3.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52 (Statistical Analysis)||3.44|0.57|0.006
90820857|NCT05362058|181520035|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|0.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Physical Component Score at Week 26 (Statistical Analysis) -LS mean was determined using MMRM model with Baseline + HbA1c Stratum at Baseline + Country + GLP-1 RA Use at Randomization Flag + SU Use at Randomization Flag + Treatment + Time + Treatment\*Time (Type III sum of squares) as variables.||0.63|-1.03|0.638
90820858|NCT05362058|181520035|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.32||||0.499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mental Component Score at Week 26 (Statistical Analysis) - LS mean was determined using MMRM model with Baseline + HbA1c Stratum at Baseline + Country + GLP-1 RA Use at Randomization Flag + SU Use at Randomization Flag + Treatment + Time + Treatment\*Time (Type III sum of squares) as variables.||0.60|-1.24|0.499
90820859|NCT05362058|181520035|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.17||||0.695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|1.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Physical Component Score at Week 52 (Statistical Analysis) - LS mean was determined using MMRM model with Baseline + HbA1c Stratum at Baseline + Country + GLP-1 RA Use at Randomization Flag + SU Use at Randomization Flag + Treatment + Time + Treatment\*Time (Type III sum of squares) as variables.||1.01|-0.68|0.695
90820860|NCT05362058|181520035|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.23||||0.626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|0.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mental Component Score at Week 52 (Statistical Analysis) -LS mean was determined using MMRM model with Baseline + HbA1c Stratum at Baseline + Country + GLP-1 RA Use at Randomization Flag + SU Use at Randomization Flag + Treatment + Time + Treatment\*Time (Type III sum of squares) as variables.||0.71|-1.17|0.626
91060142|NCT01277211|182002631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages, Cycle 9|-4.2||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|-0.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||For Cycle 9, a two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage between the treatment groups (ENG-EE vs. DRSP-EE) was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||-0.4|-9.3|0.027
90820861|NCT05362058|181520036|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.015||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.034|0.004|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EQ-5D-5L Health State Index Score at Week 26 (Statistical Analysis) - LS mean was determined using MMRM model with Baseline + HbA1c Stratum at Baseline + Country + GLP-1 RA Use Randomization Flag + SU Use at Randomization Flag + Treatment + Time + Treatment\*Time (Type III sum of squares) as variables.||0.004|-0.034|0.128
90820862|NCT05362058|181520036|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.11||||0.196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|0.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EQ VAS Score at Week 26 (Statistical Analysis) - LS mean was determined using MMRM model with Baseline + HbA1c Stratum at Baseline + Country + GLP-1 RA Use Randomization Flag + SU Use at Randomization Flag + Treatment + Time + Treatment\*Time (Type III sum of squares) as variables.||0.58|-2.80|0.196
90820863|NCT05362058|181520036|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01||||0.285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.029|0.008|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EQ-5D-5L Health State Index Score at Week 52 (Statistical Analysis) - LS mean was determined using MMRM model with Baseline + HbA1c Stratum at Baseline + Country + GLP-1 RA Use Randomization Flag + SU Use at Randomization Flag + Treatment + Time + Treatment\*Time (Type III sum of squares) as variables.||0.008|-0.029|0.285
90820864|NCT05362058|181520036|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.35||||0.701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|1.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EQ VAS Score at Week 52 (Statistical Analysis) - LS mean was determined using MMRM model with Baseline + HbA1c Stratum at Baseline + Country + GLP-1 RA Use Randomization Flag + SU Use at Randomization Flag + Treatment + Time + Treatment\*Time (Type III sum of squares) as variables.||1.44|-2.15|0.701
90820865|NCT00887549|181520038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.015|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.008|1.021|||Regression, Cox|The Cox model, based upon participant level data, included PFS as dependent variable and TS score in the nucleus as independent variable.||||1.021|1.008|<0.0001
90820866|NCT04765202|181520272|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|14.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.64|40.21|||Fisher Exact||Difference was calculated as (percent area of wound closure in SOMA Tx site) - ((percent area of wound closure in AG Tx site). 95% CI was derived using the normal approximation to binomial distribution.|Comparison of complete wound closure without additional autografting at Month 2 in AG TX site and SOMA TX site in Cohort 1 Group 1.||40.21|-11.64|1.0000
90820867|NCT04765202|181520272|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||||Difference was calculated as (percent area of wound closure in SOMA Tx site) - ((percent area of wound closure in AG Tx site). 95% CI was derived using the normal approximation to binomial distribution.|Comparison of complete wound closure without additional autografting at Month 2 in AG TX site and SOMA TX site in Cohort 1 Group 2.||0|0|
90820868|NCT04929249|181520274|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-53.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-60.0|-46.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-46.0|-60.0|<0.001
90820869|NCT04929249|181520275|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was declared if the upper limit of the one-sided 98.75% confidence interval did not exceed the non-inferiority margin of 15%.|Difference in percentage|-10.6|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-18.3|-3.0|||Normal approx. to binomial distribution||||Upper limit of one-sided 98.75% CI (-3.0%)|-3.0|-18.3|
90820870|NCT04929249|181520276|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-47.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.8|-42.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-42.3|-52.8|<0.001
91060143|NCT01277211|182002631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages, Cycle 10|-2.9||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|0.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||For Cycle 10, a two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage between the treatment groups (ENG-EE vs. DRSP-EE) was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||0.5|-7.6|0.098
90820871|NCT04929249|181520277|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-54.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.0|-49.8|||Regression, Linear|||||-49.8|-59.0|<0.001
90820872|NCT04929249|181520278|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-48.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.9|-44.9|||Regression, Linear|||||-44.9|-52.9|<0.001
90820873|NCT04929249|181520279|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|42.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.07|81.16|||Regression, Logistic|||||81.16|22.07|<0.001
90820874|NCT04929249|181520280|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|17.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.72|44.66|||Regression, Logistic|||||44.66|6.72|<0.001
90820875|NCT04929249|181520281|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|24.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.18|42.19|||Regression, Logistic|||||42.19|14.18|<0.001
90820876|NCT04929249|181520282|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|35.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.51|63.24|||Regression, Logistic|||||63.24|19.51|<0.001
90820877|NCT04929249|181520283|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-30.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.8|-26.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Total Cholesterol||-26.3|-33.8|<0.001
90820878|NCT04929249|181520283|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|6.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.6|9.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||HDL Cholesterol||9.5|3.6|<0.001
90820879|NCT04929249|181520283|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-44.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.1|-39.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Non-HDL Cholesterol||-39.3|-49.1|<0.001
90820880|NCT04929249|181520283|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-16.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.8|-10.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||VLDL Cholesterol||-10.0|-23.8|<0.001
90820881|NCT04929249|181520283|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-17.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.7|-10.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Triglycerides||-10.9|-24.7|<0.001
90820882|NCT04929249|181520283|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-42.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.5|-37.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Apolipoprotein B||-37.8|-47.5|<0.001
90820883|NCT04929249|181520283|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-21.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.8|-18.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Lipoprotein(a)||-18.0|-25.8|<0.001
90820884|NCT04929249|181520284|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-49.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.0|-43.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Total Cholesterol||-43.9|-56.0|<0.001
90820885|NCT04929249|181520284|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|4.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||HDL Cholesterol||4.4|1.8|<0.001
90820886|NCT04929249|181520284|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-52.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.1|-46.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Non-HDL Cholesterol||-46.7|-58.1|<0.001
90820887|NCT04929249|181520284|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-4.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|-2.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||VLDL Cholesterol||-2.8|-6.5|<0.001
90820888|NCT04929249|181520284|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-25.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.8|-15.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Triglycerides||-15.8|-34.8|<0.001
90820889|NCT04929249|181520284|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-36.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.7|-32.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Apolipoprotein B||-32.9|-39.7|<0.001
90820890|NCT04929249|181520284|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-8.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|-6.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Lipoprotein(a)||-6.8|-10.7|<0.001
90820891|NCT04929249|181520285|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|2.61|||proportional odds model|||||2.61|0.43|0.899
90820892|NCT04929249|181520286|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.008||||0.727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.055|0.039|||Regression, Linear|||||0.039|-0.055|0.727
90820893|NCT01009086|181520296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||re-randomization test|||||||<0.001
90820894|NCT01009086|181520296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||re-randomization test|||||||<0.001
90820895|NCT01009086|181520296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||re-randomization test|||||||<0.001
90820896|NCT01009086|181520297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||re-randomization test|||||||<0.001
90820897|NCT01009086|181520297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||re-randomization test|||||||<0.001
90820898|NCT01009086|181520297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||re-randomization test|||||||<0.001
90820899|NCT01009086|181520298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||re-randomization test|||||||<0.001
90820900|NCT01009086|181520298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||re-randomization test|||||||<0.001
90820901|NCT01009086|181520298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||re-randomization test|||||||<0.001
90820902|NCT01009086|181520299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||re-randomization test|||||||<0.001
90820903|NCT01009086|181520299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||re-randomization test|||||||<0.001
90820904|NCT01009086|181520299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||re-randomization test|||||||<0.001
90820905|NCT01009086|181520300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||re-randomization test|||||||<0.001
90820906|NCT01009086|181520300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||re-randomization test|||||||<0.001
90820907|NCT01009086|181520300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||re-randomization test|||||||<0.001
90820908|NCT01009086|181520301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017|||||||re-randomization test|||||||0.017
90820909|NCT01009086|181520301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||re-randomization test|||||||<0.001
90820910|NCT01009086|181520301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||re-randomization test|||||||<0.001
90820911|NCT01853878|181520302|EQUIVALENCE|P-value of the Wald test from a Cox regression model to test H0 = { HR=1} (Y = Time to Event)|Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.592||||0.1422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|35.167|||Regression, Cox|||Estimates of Hazard Ratio (HR) and their 95% Confidence Interval (CI) were obtained by Cox regression modelling.The Likelihood ratio test was used to compare the groups. The Cox proportional hazard regression was stratified by previous treatment \[Chemotherapy (CT) vs. no-CT\] and disease stage.||35.167|0.600|0.1422
90820912|NCT01846741|181520317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Baseline to 3 months||||0.008
90820913|NCT01846741|181520317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero||Baseline to 6 months||||0.040
91060144|NCT01277211|182002631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages, Cycle 11|-4.4||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|-1.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||For Cycle 11, a two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage between the treatment groups (ENG-EE vs. DRSP-EE) was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||-1.0|-9.4|0.009
91060145|NCT01277211|182002631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages, Cycle 12|-6.2||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|-2.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||For Cycle 12, a two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage between the treatment groups (ENG-EE vs. DRSP-EE) was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||-2.1|-11.7|0.002
91060146|NCT01277211|182002631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages, Cycle 13|-4.5||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|-0.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||For Cycle 13, a two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage between the treatment groups (ENG-EE vs. DRSP-EE) was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||-0.1|-10.2|0.043
91060147|NCT04614246|182002647|OTHER||LS-Mean|-1.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38|||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.13|-1.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||80% confidence interval (CI) for change in mean worst EAPP from baseline to Week 12||-1.14|-2.13|
91060148|NCT04614246|182002647|OTHER||LS-Mean|-2.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.66|-1.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||80% confidence interval (CI) for change in mean worst EAPP from baseline to Week 12||-1.61|-2.66|
91060149|NCT04614246|182002647|OTHER||LS-Mean|-1.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.48|-1.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||80% confidence interval (CI) for change in mean worst EAPP from baseline to Week 12||-1.43|-2.48|
91060150|NCT04614246|182002647|OTHER||LS-Mean|-1.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38|||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.44|-1.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||80% confidence interval (CI) for change in mean worst EAPP from baseline to Week 12||-1.45|-2.44|
91060151|NCT04614246|182002648|OTHER|mixed model repeated measures|Difference of least square-mean|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|1.35||||||Difference of least square-mean (95% Confidence Interval, CI) - Eliapixant arms vs Placebo arm (pairwise comparison) - change in mean worst EAPP from baseline to Week 12 - pPPS||1.35|-0.77|
91060152|NCT04614246|182002648|OTHER|mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|Difference of least square-mean|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|0.91||||||Difference of least square-mean (95% Confidence Interval, CI) - Eliapixant arms vs Placebo arm (pairwise comparison) - change in mean worst EAPP from baseline to Week 12 - pPPS||0.91|-1.27|
91060153|NCT04614246|182002648|OTHER|mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|Difference of least square-mean|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56|||TWO_SIDED|98.0|-1.17|1.02||||||Difference of least square-mean (95% Confidence Interval, CI) - Eliapixant arms vs Placebo arm (pairwise comparison) - change in mean worst EAPP from baseline to Week 12 - pPPS||1.02|-1.17|
91060154|NCT04614246|182002648|OTHER|mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|Difference of least square-mean|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54|||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.4|0.98||||||Difference of least square-mean (80% Confidence Interval, CI) - Eliapixant arms vs Placebo arm (pairwise comparison) - change in mean worst EAPP from baseline to Week 12 - pPPS||0.98|-0.4|
91060155|NCT04614246|182002648|OTHER|mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|Difference of least square-mean|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55|||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.89|0.53||||||Difference of least square-mean (80% Confidence Interval, CI) - Eliapixant arms vs Placebo arm (pairwise comparison) - change in mean worst EAPP from baseline to Week 12 - pPPS||0.53|-0.89|
91060156|NCT04614246|182002648|OTHER|mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|Difference of least square-mean|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56|||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.79|0.64||||||Difference of least square-mean (80% Confidence Interval, CI) - Eliapixant arms vs Placebo arm (pairwise comparison) - change in mean worst EAPP from baseline to Week 12 - pPPS||0.64|-0.79|
91060157|NCT02521376|182002657|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|43.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|24.59|77.62||||||||77.62|24.59|
91060158|NCT02521376|182002657|OTHER||GMR|233.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|141.85|384.79||||||||384.79|141.85|
91060159|NCT02521376|182002657|OTHER||GMR|219.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|139.74|343.84||||||||343.84|139.74|
90820914|NCT01846741|181520317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero||Baseline to 12 months||||0.033
91060160|NCT02521376|182002657|OTHER||GMR|108.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.2|152.48||||||||152.48|77.20|
91060161|NCT02521376|182002658|OTHER||GMR|55.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|34.7|89.42||||||||89.42|34.70|
91060162|NCT02521376|182002658|OTHER||GMR|211.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|132.49|339.03||||||||339.03|132.49|
91060163|NCT02521376|182002658|OTHER||GMR|171.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|108.17|271.37||||||||271.37|108.17|
91060164|NCT02521376|182002658|OTHER||GMR|107.35|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|72.71|158.51||||||||158.51|72.71|
91060165|NCT04205812|182002723|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.93||The p-value was based on a stratified log-rank test at an overall 1-sided 2.5% level of significance, using O'Brien and Fleming boundary to adjust for alpha spending at interim analysis.|Log Rank||A stratified Cox regression with Efron's method for tie handling was used to estimate the hazard ratio.|||0.93|0.60|0.0042
91060166|NCT04205812|182002724|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.79|||Log Rank|The p-value was based on the stratified log-rank test for PFS.|A stratified Cox regression with Efron's method for tie handling was used to estimate the hazard ratio.|||0.79|0.52|<0.0001
91060167|NCT04205812|182002725|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0012||||||The p-value was calculated at the 1-sided 2.5% level from stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0012
91060168|NCT03367572|182002754|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.7056||||0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.008
91060169|NCT03367572|182002754|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.1486|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91060170|NCT03367572|182002755|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4468||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.010
91060171|NCT03367572|182002755|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5632||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.001
91060172|NCT03367572|182002756|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.59||||0.019|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Secondary Aim 1 is to determine if olanzapine is more effective than prochlorperazine in controlling nausea at Cycle 2 in participants who experienced CINV at Cycle 1 when used in combination with netupitant, palonosetron and dexamethasone.~This will be assessed by estimating the contrast D = (3 - 1) - (2 - 1), where 3 is the Arm 3 mean, 2 is the Arm 2 mean, and 1 is the Control mean, and testing whether D = 0 versus the one-sided alternative hypothesis that D \> 0."||||0.019
91060173|NCT03367572|182002757|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.386|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.65|2.66||prochlorperazine arm statistics|Regression, Logistic|||||2.66|0.65|0.386
91060174|NCT03367572|182002757|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.16||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.02|1.13||olanzapine arm statistics|Regression, Logistic|||||1.13|0.02|0.036
91060175|NCT05026177|182002776|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45||||0.5335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|1.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.86|-0.96|0.5335
91060176|NCT05026177|182002776|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38||||0.5836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|1.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.76|-0.99|0.5836
91060177|NCT05026177|182002777|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.57||||0.0763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.17|-3.30|0.0763
91060178|NCT05026177|182002777|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.24||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.93|0.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.46|-2.93|0.1530
91060179|NCT00733005|182002919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.102||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.102
91060180|NCT00733005|182002920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.019||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.019
91060181|NCT01769456|182002922|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Reported p-value is the calculated value provided by SAS output.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||< 0.0001
91060182|NCT01769456|182002923|OTHER|||||||0.0236|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.0236
91060183|NCT01769456|182002924|OTHER|||||||0.0003|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.0003
91060184|NCT01769456|182002925|OTHER|||||||0.0236|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.0236
91060185|NCT03860974|182002957|NON_INFERIORITY|"We tested the non-inferiority of serratus block compared with PVB using the 95% CI associated with the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test with continuity correction. If the lower limit of the 95% CI for median average PACU pain scores was greater than -1.25 , we would conclude non-inferiority. The non-inferiority of serratus blocks with regard to opioid consumption was similarly tested to a predefined non-inferiority margin of 2 mg intravenous morphine equivalents."|Median Difference (Final Values)|4.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
91060186|NCT02969382|182002982|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.23||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|-3.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.0|-11.9|0.001
91060187|NCT02969382|182002983|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.2|-0.7|<0.001
91060188|NCT02969382|182002984|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.3|-3.1|0.019
91060189|NCT02969382|182002985|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.4|-2.6|0.008
90820915|NCT01846741|181520317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Baseline to 3 months||||0.500
91060190|NCT02969382|182002986|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|-2.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.0|-6.6|<0.001
91060191|NCT02969382|182002987|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|-1.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.8|-6.8|<0.001
91060192|NCT02969382|182002988|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.3|-3.2|0.020
91060193|NCT02969382|182002989|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.645||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.422|4.921|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.921|1.422|0.002
91060194|NCT02969382|182002991|OTHER|||||||0.498|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.498
91060195|NCT02969382|182002992|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
91060196|NCT02969382|182002993|OTHER|||||||0.498|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.498
91060197|NCT00886015|182003038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.93||||||||1.93|0.96|
91060198|NCT00886015|182003039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.98||||||||0.98|0.46|
91060199|NCT00886015|182003040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.18||||||||1.18|0.66|
91060200|NCT00886015|182003041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.98||||||||0.98|0.44|
91060201|NCT00886015|182003042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.97||||||Mild ECA compared with Normal||0.97|0.42|
91060202|NCT00886015|182003042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.01||||||Moderate ECA compared with Normal||1.01|0.39|
91060203|NCT00886015|182003042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.1||||||Severe ECA compared with Normal||1.10|0.35|
91060204|NCT00886015|182003043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.53||||||||1.53|0.97|
91060205|NCT05992623|182003057|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.565|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.565
91060206|NCT05992623|182003058|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.617|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.617
91060207|NCT05992623|182003059|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
91060208|NCT02839772|182003079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.581|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.296|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.997|2.164|||Mixed Models Analysis|t=5.341, df=89.347||"The null hypothesis was that an evidence-based skin care intervention with added glycerine does not improve skin barrier function (SBF) in the legs/feet or enhance the disease related quality of life of Ethiopian people with podoconiosis when compared to the control group using the current skin care regimen.~Statistical analysis compared the changes in TEWL at the top of the outer lower legs by group from baseline after 3 months of interventions."||2.164|0.997|<0.001
91060209|NCT02839772|182003080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.684|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.346|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.002|2.367|||Mixed Models Analysis|t=4.871, df=189.789||"The null hypothesis was that an evidence-based skin care intervention with added glycerine does not improve skin barrier function in the legs/feet or enhance the disease related quality of life of Ethiopian people with podoconiosis when compared to the control group using the current skin care regimen.~Statistical analysis compared the changes in TEWL at the mid-point of the outer lower legs by group from baseline after 3 months of interventions."||2.367|1.002|<0.001
91078420|NCT01642485|182042722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||The relevant confirmatory null hypotheses could all be rejected on the 5% level (one sided), i.e. a difference in QTcF between continental breakfast and placebo; between FDA breakfast and placebo could be ascertained.||||0.05
91078421|NCT01642485|182042722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.4|-5.5||||||||-5.5|-10.4|
91060210|NCT02839772|182003081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.386|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|2.731|||Mixed Models Analysis|t=5.111, df=189.620||"The null hypothesis was that an evidence-based skin care intervention with added glycerine does not improve skin barrier function in the legs/feet or enhance the disease related quality of life of Ethiopian people with podoconiosis when compared to the control group using the current skin care regimen.~Statistical analysis compared the changes in TEWL at the base of the outer lower legs by group from baseline after 3 months of interventions."||2.731|1.210|<0.001
91060211|NCT02839772|182003082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.751|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.656|2.846|||Mixed Models Analysis|t=3.154, df=189.580||"The null hypothesis was that an evidence-based skin care intervention with added glycerine does not improve skin barrier function in the legs/feet or enhance the disease related quality of life of Ethiopian people with podoconiosis when compared to the control group using the current skin care regimen.~Statistical analysis compared the changes in TEWL at the top of the feet by group from baseline after 3 months of interventions."||2.846|0.656|0.002
91060212|NCT02839772|182003083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.075|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.515|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.042|-1.1078|||Mixed Models Analysis|t=-4.236,df=165.310||"The null hypothesis was that an evidence-based skin care intervention with added glycerine does not improve skin barrier function in the legs/feet or enhance the disease related quality of life of Ethiopian people with podoconiosis when compared to the control group using the current skin care regimen.~Statistical analysis compared the changes in SCH at the top of the outer lower legs by group from baseline after 3 months of interventions."||-1.1078|-3.042|<0.001
91060213|NCT02839772|182003084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.658|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.467|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.581|-0.736|||Mixed Models Analysis|t=-3.549, df=180.923||"The null hypothesis was that an evidence-based skin care intervention with added glycerine does not improve skin barrier function in the legs/feet or enhance the disease related quality of life of Ethiopian people with podoconiosis when compared to the control group using the current skin care regimen.~Statistical analysis compared the changes in SCH at the mid-point of the outer lower legs by group from baseline after 3 months of interventions."||-0.736|-2.581|<0.001
91060214|NCT02839772|182003085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.641|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.473||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.574|-0.708|||Mixed Models Analysis|t=-3.471, df=186.308||"The null hypothesis was that an evidence-based skin care intervention with added glycerine does not improve skin barrier function in the legs/feet or enhance the disease related quality of life of Ethiopian people with podoconiosis when compared to the control group using the current skin care regimen.~Statistical analysis compared the changes in SCH at the base of the outer lower legs by group from baseline after 3 months of interventions."||-0.708|-2.574|0.001
91060215|NCT02839772|182003086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.041|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.572|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.168|-0.911|||Mixed Models Analysis|t=-3.565, df=186.739||"The null hypothesis was that an evidence-based skin care intervention with added glycerine does not improve skin barrier function in the legs/feet or enhance the disease related quality of life of Ethiopian people with podoconiosis when compared to the control group using the current skin care regimen.~Statistical analysis compared the changes in SCH at the base of the top of the feet by group from baseline after 3 months of interventions."||-0.911|-3.168|<0.001
91060216|NCT02839772|182003087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|0.452|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.255||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.048|0.952||A cumulative logistic link function was used|Generalized estimating equation analysis|Wald Chi squared=3.138, df=1||"The null hypothesis was that an evidence-based skin care intervention with added glycerine does not improve skin barrier function in the legs/feet or enhance the disease related quality of life of Ethiopian people with podoconiosis when compared to the control group using the current skin care regimen.~Statistical analysis calculated the odds of the stage of podoconiosis by group being more severe at the 4th visit."||0.952|-0.048|0.076
91060217|NCT02839772|182003088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|-0.224||||0.527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.469|0.917||A Bernouilli distribution with a logistic link function was used.|Generalized estimating equation analysis|Wald chi-square=0.410, df=1||"The null hypothesis was that an evidence-based skin care intervention with added glycerine does not improve skin barrier function in the legs/feet or enhance the disease related quality of life of Ethiopian people with podoconiosis when compared to the control group using the current skin care regimen.~Statistical analysis calculated the odds of mossy changes being present in the lower legs/feet by group at the 4th visit."||0.917|-0.469|0.527
91060218|NCT02839772|182003089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|-1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.446||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.161|-0.411||A Bernouilli distribution with a logistic link function was used|Generalized estimating equation analysis|Wald chi-square=8.304, df=1||"The null hypothesis was that an evidence-based skin care intervention with added glycerine does not improve skin barrier function in the legs/feet or enhance the disease related quality of life of Ethiopian people with podoconiosis when compared to the control group using the current skin care regimen.~Statistical analysis calculated the odds of participants having a bad odour emanating from their lower legs/feet by group at the 4th visit. Bad odour results in a decease in quality of life."||-0.411|-2.161|0.031
91060219|NCT02839772|182003090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|2.062|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.741||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|3.514||A Poisson distribution with a logarithmic link function was used|Generalized estimating equation analysis|Wald chi-square=7.745, df=1||"The null hypothesis was that an evidence-based skin care intervention with added glycerine does not improve skin barrier function in the legs/feet or enhance the disease related quality of life of Ethiopian people with podoconiosis when compared to the control group using the current skin care regimen.~Statistical analysis calculated the odds of wounds being present on the lower legs/feet of participants by group at the 4th visit."||3.514|0.610|0.005
90820916|NCT01846741|181520317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Baseline to 6 months||||0.750
90820917|NCT01846741|181520317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.156|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Baseline to 12 months||||0.156
90820918|NCT01846741|181520317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.938|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Baseline to 3 months||||0.938
91060220|NCT02839772|182003091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Group ratio estimate|2.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.102||0.058|TWO_SIDED|0.058|-0.069|4.25||A Poisson distribution with a logarithmic link function was used.|Generalized estimation equation|df=1|Those in the experimental group were expected to have fewer work days lost due to ADL.|"The null hypothesis was that an evidence-based skin care intervention with added glycerine does not improve skin barrier function in the legs/feet or enhance the disease related quality of life of Ethiopian people with podoconiosis when compared to the control group using the current skin care regimen.~Statistical analysis calculated the odds by group of having had fewer work days lost in the previous month at the 4th visit due to ADL."||4.250|-0.069|0.058
91060221|NCT02839772|182003092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The p value was \< 0.001 at all time points.|Spearman's correlation coefficient|The correlation at the 1st visit was 0.252, at the 2nd 0.306, at the 3rd 0.291 and at the 4th 0.265.||The null hypothesis was that an evidence-based skin care intervention with added glycerine does not improve skin barrier function in the legs/feet or enhance the disease related quality of life of Ethiopian people with podoconiosis when compared to the control group using the current skin care regimen.||||<0.001
91060222|NCT02839772|182003093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.288|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.204||0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.113|0.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|df=185.386||"The null hypothesis was that an evidence-based skin care intervention with added glycerine does not improve skin barrier function in the legs/feet or enhance the disease related quality of life of Ethiopian people with podoconiosis when compared to the control group using the current skin care regimen.~A reduction in leg circumference indicates an improvement in the disease."||0.690|-0.113|0.158
91060223|NCT02839772|182003094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.575|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.162|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.255|0.895|||Mixed Models Analysis|df=169.916, t=3.550||"The null hypothesis was that an evidence-based skin care intervention with added glycerine does not improve skin barrier function in the legs/feet or enhance the disease related quality of life of Ethiopian people with podoconiosis when compared to the control group using the current skin care regimen.~A reduction in foot circumference indicates an improvement in the disease."||0.895|0.255|<0.001
91060224|NCT02839772|182003095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.063|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.129|1.002|||Mixed Models Analysis|t=-0.117, df=178.814||"The null hypothesis was that an evidence-based skin care intervention with added glycerine does not improve skin barrier function in the legs/feet or enhance the disease related quality of life of Ethiopian people with podoconiosis when compared to the control group using the current skin care regimen.~Podoconiosis has a large effect on a person's quality of life. abnormal looking legs/feet, wounds and the related bad odour plus social isolation result in stigma and social isolation.."||1.002|-1.129|0.907
91060225|NCT01569295|182003096|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.45|||Stratified log-rank test||Hazard Ratio is estimated using Cox proportional hazard model, adjusted for randomization stratification factors.|||0.45|0.27|< 0.0001
91060226|NCT01569295|182003097|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.98|4.62||Odds ratio,p-value and 95% Confidence Interval(CI) were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel(CMH) Chi-square test stratified by stratification factor in EDC(del17p/TP53,immunoglobulin heavy chain variable region(IgHV) mutation and disease status).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.62|1.98|<0.0001
91060227|NCT01569295|182003098|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|28.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.5|79.02||Odds ratio, p-value and 95% CI were calculated from the CMH Chi-square test stratified by stratification factors in EDC (del17p/TP53, IgHV mutation and disease status).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||79.02|10.50|<0.0001
91060228|NCT01569295|182003099|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.03|||Stratified log-rank test|||||1.03|0.59|0.098
91060229|NCT01569295|182003100|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.55||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|76.81||Odds ratio, 95% CI and p-value are calculated from the CMH Chi-square test stratified by stratification factors in EDC (del17p/TP53, IgHV mutation and disease status).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||76.81|1.19|0.011
91060230|NCT02064296|182003110|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.333|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Salience co-activation pattern at rest vs. with pressure pain.||||0.3330
91060231|NCT02064296|182003110|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6474|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This statistical analysis covers the sensorimotor co-activation pattern at rest vs. with pressure pain for Healthy controls||||0.6474
91060232|NCT02064296|182003110|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Salience co-activation pattern at rest vs. with pressure pain||||<0.0001
91060233|NCT02064296|182003110|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This statistical analysis covers the sensorimotor co-activation pattern at rest vs. with pressure pain for Fibromyalgia patients||||0.0004
91060234|NCT02064296|182003111|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0653|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This is a comparison of Mock Laser Acupuncture pre-and post 4 weeks of treatment.||||0.0653
91060235|NCT02064296|182003111|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This is a P value for the change in Traditional Acupuncture, pre and post 4 weeks of treatment.||||<0.0001
90820919|NCT01846741|181520317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Baseline to 6 months||||0.250
91060236|NCT02064296|182003112|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7399|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Glx statistical comparison||||0.7399
91060237|NCT02064296|182003112|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6226|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Glx statistical comparison||||0.6226
91060238|NCT02064296|182003113|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6344|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||GABA statistical comparison||||0.6344
91060239|NCT02064296|182003113|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7985|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||GABA statistical comparison||||0.7985
91060240|NCT01406444|182003147|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Linear random effects model|||||||0.03
91060241|NCT01406444|182003148|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Linear random effects model|||||||0.002
91060242|NCT01406444|182003148|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Linear random effects model|||||||0.04
91060243|NCT02800642|182003184|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Exact one-sided 1-sample binomial test|||"The null hypothesis the proportion of participants with a ≥ 15-letter gain in BCVA at Week 76 is ≤ 40% on the 2.5% level of significance (one-sided) was performed using the following criterion: If the p value is less than 2.5%, the null hypothesis will be rejected. Otherwise, the null hypothesis will be regarded as not rejected and may still be true"||||<0.0001
91078422|NCT01642485|182042722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-6.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.3|-4.3||||||||-4.3|-9.3|
91060244|NCT02800642|182003185|OTHER||||||=|0.8822|||||||Exact one-sided 1-sample binomial test|||"The null hypothesis the proportion of participants with a mean treatment interval of ≥ 8 weeks is ≤ 50% on the 2.5% level of significance (one-sided) was performed using the following criterion: If the p value is less than 2.5%, the null hypothesis will be rejected. Otherwise, the null hypothesis will be regarded as not rejected and may still be true"||||=0.8822
91060245|NCT02027428|182003193|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.3486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.19||Stratification factors evaluated in the sparse strata elimination algorithm: stage of disease (IIIB or IV) at diagnosis, ECOG performance status (0 or 1) at end of Induction, and tumor response (CR/PR or SD) at end of Induction.|stratified log-rank test||Hazard ratio: nab-paclitaxel + BSC / BSC Alone|5% level of significance. Hazard ratio is based on stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model. The following stratification factors were evaluated in the sparse strata elimination algorithm: stage of disease (IIIB or IV) at diagnosis, ECOG performance status (0 or 1) at end of Induction, and tumor response (CR/PR or SD) at the end of Induction.||1.19|0.61|0.3486
91060246|NCT02027428|182003194|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.0365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.98||Stratification factors evaluated in the sparse strata elimination algorithm: stage of disease (IIIB or IV) at diagnosis, ECOG performance status (0 or 1) at end of Induction, and tumor response (CR/PR or SD) at end of Induction.|stratified log-rank test||Hazard ratio: nab-paclitaxel + BSC / BSC Alone|5% level of significance. Hazard ratio is based on stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model. The following stratification factors were evaluated in the sparse strata elimination algorithm: stage of disease (IIIB or IV) at diagnosis, ECOG performance status (0 or 1) at end of Induction, and tumor response (CR/PR or SD) at the end of Induction.||0.98|0.47|0.0365
91060247|NCT02027428|182003195|SUPERIORITY||Overall response rate ratio|1.2||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.948|1.519||Stratification factors evaluated in the sparse strata elimination algorithm: stage of disease (IIIB or IV) at diagnosis, ECOG performance status (0 or 1) at the end of Induction, and tumor response (CR/PR or SD) at the end of Induction.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||response ratio: nab-paclitaxel + BSC / BSC Alone|5% level of significance. The rate ratio and its 95% CI were based on the non-stratified analysis.||1.519|0.948|0.0870
91060248|NCT02027428|182003196|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.4164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.22||Stratification factors evaluated in the sparse strata elimination algorithm: stage of disease (IIIB or IV) at diagnosis, ECOG performance status (0 or 1) at end of Induction, and tumor response (CR/PR or SD) at end of Induction.|stratified log-rank test||Hazard ratio: nab-paclitaxel + BSC / BSC Alone|5% level of significance. Hazard ratio is based on stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model. The following stratification factors were evaluated in the sparse strata elimination algorithm: stage of disease (IIIB or IV) at diagnosis, ECOG performance status (0 or 1) at end of Induction, and tumor response (CR/PR or SD) at the end of Induction.||1.22|0.62|0.4164
91060249|NCT02027428|182003197|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.0381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.98||Stratification factors evaluated in the sparse strata elimination algorithm: stage of disease (IIIB or IV) at diagnosis, ECOG performance status (0 or 1) at end of Induction, and tumor response (CR/PR or SD) at end of Induction.|stratified log-rank test||Hazard ratio: nab-paclitaxel + BSC / BSC Alone|5% level of significance. Hazard ratio is based on stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model. The following stratification factors were evaluated in the sparse strata elimination algorithm: stage of disease (IIIB or IV) at diagnosis, ECOG performance status (0 or 1) at end of Induction, and tumor response (CR/PR or SD) at the end of Induction.||0.98|0.47|0.0381
91060250|NCT02027428|182003198|SUPERIORITY||Overall response rate ratio|3.15||||0.0978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.733|13.574||5% level of significance.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Response rate ratio: nab-paclitaxel + BSC / BSC Alone|||13.574|0.733|0.0978
91060251|NCT02027428|182003199|SUPERIORITY||disease control rate ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.978|1.007|||||Disease control rate ratio: nab-paclitaxel + BSC / BSC Alone|The rate ratio and its 95% confidence interval are based on non-stratified analysis.||1.007|0.978|
91060252|NCT02027428|182003201|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.47|||||Hazard ratio: nab-paclitaxel + BSC / BSC Alone|Hazard ratio was based on stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model. The following stratification factors were evaluated in the sparse strata elimination algorithm: stage of disease (IIIB or IV) at diagnosis, ECOG performance status (0 or 1) at the end of Induction, and tumor response (CR/PR or SD) at the end of Induction.||1.47|0.59|
91060253|NCT00490841|182003215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||1-sided exact binomial test|||"objective is to demonstrate the binary restenosis rate at 9 months is \< 28.6% OPC. Assumptions for the primary endpoint analysis:~* H0: Restenosis Rate ≥ 28.6%~* HA: Restenosis Rate \< 28.6%~* Assumed binary restenosis rate = 20%~* Power = 80%~* One-sided type I error = 5%~With the above assumptions, 161 samples would be required. To account for approximately 20% lost to follow-up rate, 202 subjects will be enrolled in the study. The sample size calculation was performed using PASS 2005."||||< 0.0001
91060254|NCT03452943|182003232|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.7||||0.692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|2.8||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.8|-4.1|0.692
91060255|NCT02924727|182003306|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9012||||0.1659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7778|1.0441|||Cox's Proportional Hazard Model|||Primary Composite||1.0441|0.7778|0.1659
91060256|NCT02924727|182003306|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.874||||0.2031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7104|1.0754|||Cox's Proportional Hazard Model|||CV Death||1.0754|0.7104|0.2031
91060257|NCT02924727|182003306|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8653||||0.1679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7044|1.0629|||Cox's Proportional Hazard Model|||First HF Hospitalization||1.0629|0.7044|0.1679
91060258|NCT02924727|182003306|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6831||||0.0667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4546|1.0266|||Cox's Proportional Hazard Model|||First Outpatient HF||1.0266|0.4546|0.0667
90820920|NCT01846741|181520317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.999|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Baseline to 12 months||||0.999
90820921|NCT01846741|181520317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.057|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Baseline to 18 Months||||0.057
91060259|NCT02924727|182003307|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9133||||0.2507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7824|1.0662|||Cox's Proportional Hazard Model|||CV death or HF hospitalization||1.0662|0.7824|0.2507
91060260|NCT02924727|182003308|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8422||||0.0732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6979|1.0163|||Cox's Proportional Hazard Model|||HF hospitalization or Outpatient HF||1.0163|0.6979|0.0732
91060261|NCT02924727|182003309|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9007||||0.1785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7734|1.0489|||Cox's Proportional Hazard Model|||CV death, Non-fatal spontaneous MI or Non-fatal stroke||1.0489|0.7734|0.1785
91060262|NCT02924727|182003310|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.8361||||0.0452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7018|0.9961|||Negative Binomial regression model|||Total Number of Confirmed Composite Endpoints||0.9961|0.7018|0.0452
91060263|NCT02924727|182003311|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8751||||0.1556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7279|1.052|||Cox's Proportional Hazard Model|||All-Cause Death||1.0520|0.7279|0.1556
91060264|NCT04803305|182003355|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.01|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.38|1.18|||||Week 4|||1.18|-2.38|
91060265|NCT04803305|182003356|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.07|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.75|3.15|||||Week 1|||3.15|-0.75|
91060266|NCT04803305|182003356|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.28|2.49|||||Week 2|||2.49|-0.28|
91060267|NCT04803305|182003356|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.93|2.99|||||Week 3|||2.99|-0.93|
91060268|NCT04803305|182003356|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.02|2.02|||||Week 5|||2.02|-2.02|
91060269|NCT04803305|182003356|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.11|1.51|||||Week 6|||1.51|-3.11|
91060270|NCT04803305|182003357|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.98|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.18|3.53|||||Week 1|||3.53|-4.18|
91060271|NCT04803305|182003357|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.58|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.49|1.16|||||Week 2|||1.16|-5.49|
91060272|NCT04803305|182003357|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.62|2.06|||||Week 3|||2.06|-0.62|
91060273|NCT04803305|182003357|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.29|2.2|||||Week 4|||2.20|-1.29|
91060274|NCT04803305|182003357|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.21|2.57|||||Week 5|||2.57|-1.21|
91060275|NCT04803305|182003357|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.34|3.39|||||Week 6|||3.39|0.34|
91060276|NCT00754546|182003360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||"ANOVA was used to examine the interaction between mode of exercise and treatment effect.~Twenty patients were considered adequate to provide a power of 85% with an alpha of 0.05."||||< 0.05
91060277|NCT00754546|182003360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparing arformoterol with placebo with treadmill exercise||||0.024
91060278|NCT00754546|182003360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Arformoterol versus normal saline with cycle exercise||||0.038
90820922|NCT01846741|181520317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Baseline to 18 Months||||0.031
91060279|NCT00993421|182003462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hypothesis: Treatment with a combination of LY377604 + sibutramine for 24 weeks would result in weight loss that was significantly greater than treatment with either sibutramine or LY377604 alone.||||<0.001
91060280|NCT00993421|182003462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hypothesis: Treatment with a combination of LY377604 + sibutramine for 24 weeks would result in weight loss that was significantly greater than treatment with either sibutramine or LY377604 alone.||||<0.001
91060281|NCT00993421|182003462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hypothesis: Treatment with a combination of LY377604 + sibutramine for 24 weeks would result in weight loss that was significantly greater than treatment with either sibutramine or LY377604 alone.||||<0.001
91060282|NCT00993421|182003462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hypothesis: Treatment with a combination of LY377604 + sibutramine for 24 weeks would result in weight loss that was significantly greater than treatment with either sibutramine or LY377604 alone.||||<0.001
91060283|NCT00993421|182003462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.041||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hypothesis: Treatment with a combination of LY377604 + sibutramine for 24 weeks would result in weight loss that was significantly greater than treatment with either sibutramine or LY377604 alone.||||0.041
91060284|NCT00993421|182003462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.668||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hypothesis: Treatment with a combination of LY377604 + sibutramine for 24 weeks would result in weight loss that was significantly greater than treatment with either sibutramine or LY377604 alone.||||0.668
91060285|NCT00993421|182003462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.437||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hypothesis: Treatment with a combination of LY377604 + sibutramine for 24 weeks would result in weight loss that was significantly greater than treatment with either sibutramine or LY377604 alone.||||0.437
91060286|NCT00993421|182003462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.249||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hypothesis: Treatment with a combination of LY377604 + sibutramine for 24 weeks would result in weight loss that was significantly greater than treatment with either sibutramine or LY377604 alone.||||0.249
91060287|NCT04140032|182003505|SUPERIORITY||Difference between groups in change in B|-0.18|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.06||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|-0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|p \< 0.05 considered significant||||-0.06|-0.31|0.003
91060288|NCT04140032|182003506|SUPERIORITY||Odds ratio for difference between groups|1.29||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.034|4.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|p \< 0.05 considered significant|Reported dispersion parameter is standard error of log(OR)|||4.91|.034|0.7
91060289|NCT04140032|182003507|SUPERIORITY||Difference between groups in change in f|-0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.19||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.17|-0.58|0.3
91060290|NCT04140032|182003511|SUPERIORITY||Odds ratio for difference between groups|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|2.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|p \< 0.05 considered significant|Reported dispersion parameter is standard error of log(OR)|||2.16|0.56|0.8
91060291|NCT04140032|182003511|SUPERIORITY||Odds ratio for difference between groups|1.1||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|2.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|p \< 0.05 considered significant|Reported dispersion parameter is standard error of log(OR)|||2.16|0.56|0.8
91060292|NCT02514447|182003512|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||A Hochberg-based gatekeeping procedure was used to control the global familywise error rate across the multiple null hypotheses (primary and key secondary myelosuppression efficacy endpoints) in a strong sense at a 1-sided 0.10 level.|non-parametric ANCOVA|Hochberg-based gatekeeping procedure||Analysis was for Part 2 data: Treatment difference was evaluated using a nonparametric analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). The nonparametric ANCOVA included study baseline ANC value as covariate, stratification factors of ECOG performance status (0 to 1 versus 2) and sensitivity to first line treatment (sensitive or resistant) and treatment as fixed effects.||||<0.0001
90820923|NCT01846741|181520317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.625|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Baseline to 18 Months||||0.625
90820924|NCT01846741|181520318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||SSQ Total Score||||0.0008
90820925|NCT01846741|181520318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0544|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Activity During Seizure Score||||0.0544
90820926|NCT01846741|181520318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0207|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Overall Recovery Score||||0.0207
90820927|NCT01846741|181520318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0163|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Overall Severity Score||||0.0163
90820928|NCT01846741|181520318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0156|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Postictal Emotional Recovery Score||||0.0156
90820929|NCT01846741|181520318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0742|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Postictal Physical Recovery Score||||0.0742
90820930|NCT01846741|181520318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0884|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Postictal Cognitive Recovery Score||||0.0884
91060293|NCT02514447|182003513|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016||||||A Hochberg-based gatekeeping procedure was used to control the global familywise error rate across the multiple null hypotheses (primary and key secondary myelosuppression efficacy endpoints) in a strong sense at a 1-sided 0.10 level.|Modified Poisson|Hochberg-based gatekeeping procedure||The occurrence of SN was a binary variable. Treatment group difference was analyzed using modified Poisson regression to account for the variable duration of the Treatment Period for each patient. The model included baseline ANC as a covariate, stratification factors of ECOG performance status (0 or 1 vs 2), sensitivity to 1st line treatment (sensitive or resistant), and treatment as fixed effects. The logarithm transformation of # of cycles was included as an offset variable in the modeling.||||0.0160
91060294|NCT05351164|182003535|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004
91060295|NCT05351164|182003536|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90820931|NCT01846741|181520318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||SSQ Total Score||||0.0007
90820932|NCT01846741|181520318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1173|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Activity During Seizure||||0.1173
90820933|NCT01846741|181520318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0214|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Overall Recovery||||0.0214
90820934|NCT01846741|181520318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0114|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Overall Severity||||0.0114
90820935|NCT01846741|181520318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Postictal Emotional Recovery||||0.0078
90820936|NCT01846741|181520318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0875|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Postictal Physical Recovery||||0.0875
90820937|NCT01846741|181520318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1526|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Postictal Cognitive Recovery||||0.1526
90820938|NCT01846741|181520318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||SSQ Total Score||||0.0031
91079202|NCT03240406|182044061|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|14.83||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.78|36.45||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|ANCOVA|MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|||36.45|-6.78|0.18
90820939|NCT01846741|181520318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0828|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Activity During Seizure||||0.0828
90820940|NCT01846741|181520318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0092|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Overall Recovery||||0.0092
90820941|NCT01846741|181520318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0096|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Overall Severity||||0.0096
90820942|NCT01846741|181520318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0234|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Postictal Emotional Recovery||||0.0234
91077836|NCT02913105|182041135|OTHER|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.96||||0.739|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.77|1.19|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||HA: Day 42||1.19|0.77|0.7390
90820943|NCT01846741|181520318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0284|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Postictal Physical Recovery||||0.0284
90820944|NCT01846741|181520318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0679|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Postictal Cognitive Recovery||||0.0679
90820945|NCT01846741|181520318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||SSQ Total Score||||0.0003
90820946|NCT01846741|181520318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0728|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Activity During Seizures Score||||0.0728
90820947|NCT01846741|181520318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Overall Recovery Score||||0.0005
90820948|NCT01846741|181520318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Overall Severity Score||||0.0005
90820949|NCT01846741|181520318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Postictal Emotional Recovery Score||||0.0078
90820950|NCT01846741|181520318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Postictal Physical Recovery Score||||0.0078
90820951|NCT01846741|181520318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0273|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Postictal Cognitive Recovery Score||||0.0273
90820952|NCT01846741|181520319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0192|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||QOLIE Overall Total||||0.0192
90820953|NCT01846741|181520319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8069|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Energy/Fatigue||||0.8069
90820954|NCT01846741|181520319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2416|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Emotional well being||||0.2416
90820955|NCT01846741|181520319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1111|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Social Functioning||||0.1111
90820956|NCT01846741|181520319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Cognitive Functioning||||0.0014
90820957|NCT01846741|181520319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3247|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Medication Effects||||0.3247
90820958|NCT01846741|181520319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0826|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Seizure Worry||||0.0826
90820959|NCT01846741|181520319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.104|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Overall Quality of Life||||0.1040
90820960|NCT01846741|181520319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0094|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||QOLIE Overall Total||||0.0094
90820961|NCT01846741|181520319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5874|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Energy/Fatigue||||0.5874
90820962|NCT01846741|181520319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1508|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Emotional well being||||0.1508
90820963|NCT01846741|181520319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0136|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Social Functioning||||0.0136
90820964|NCT01846741|181520319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Cognitive Functioning||||0.0015
90820965|NCT01846741|181520319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3522|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Medication Effects||||0.3522
90820966|NCT01846741|181520319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Seizure Worry||||0.0240
90820967|NCT01846741|181520319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0353|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Overall Quality of Life||||0.0353
91078423|NCT00956631|182042741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.29|4.13|||t-test, 2 sided|||The mean change from baseline was assessed for VAS using a paired t-test. The resulting p-values are to be considered as descriptive statistics. Two-sided test with 5% Type I error was used throughout. A hypothetical average improvement of zero was used.||4.13|2.29|<0.0001
90820968|NCT01846741|181520319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0361|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||QOLIE Overall Total Score||||0.0361
90820969|NCT01846741|181520319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1921|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Energy/Fatigue||||0.1921
90820970|NCT01846741|181520319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1639|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Emotional well being||||0.1639
90820971|NCT01846741|181520319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1738|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Social Functioning||||0.1738
90820972|NCT01846741|181520319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0401|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Cognitive Functioning||||0.0401
90820973|NCT01846741|181520319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2753|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Medication Effects||||0.2753
90820974|NCT01846741|181520319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0056|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Seizure Worry||||0.0056
90820975|NCT01846741|181520319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1173|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Overall Quality of Life||||0.1173
90820976|NCT01846741|181520319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0268|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||QOLIE Overall Total||||0.0268
90820977|NCT01846741|181520319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4406|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Energy/Fatigue Final||||0.4406
90820978|NCT01846741|181520319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7926|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Emotional Well Being Final||||0.7926
90820979|NCT01846741|181520319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0987|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Social Functioning Final||||0.0987
90820980|NCT01846741|181520319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0361|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Cognitive Functioning Final||||0.0361
90820981|NCT01846741|181520319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0615|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Medication Effects Final||||0.0615
90820982|NCT01846741|181520319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Seizure Worry||||0.0024
90820983|NCT01846741|181520319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0155|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Overall Quality of Life||||0.0155
90820984|NCT01846741|181520321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0625|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||3 months||||0.0625
90820985|NCT01846741|181520321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1094|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||6 months||||0.1094
90820986|NCT01846741|181520321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0342|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||12 months||||0.0342
90820987|NCT01846741|181520321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5417|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero||18 Months||||0.5417
90820988|NCT01399866|181520332|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.574|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.574
90820989|NCT01399866|181520332|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.747|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.747
90820990|NCT01399866|181520333|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.94
90820991|NCT01399866|181520334|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.818|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.818
90820992|NCT01399866|181520335|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.123|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.123
90820993|NCT01399866|181520336|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.473|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.473
90820994|NCT04038567|181520354|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|1.2||||||Values are change in model-estimated means for therapist vs. app introduction. Intervention components are coded as follows: introduction method (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]), dose (high \[1\] vs low \[-1\]), and symptom management (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]).||1.20|-1.14|
90820995|NCT04038567|181520354|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.39|-0.04||||||Values are change in model-estimated means for his vs. standard dose. Intervention components are coded as follows: introduction method (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]), dose (high \[1\] vs low \[-1\]), and symptom management (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]).||-0.04|-2.39|
90820996|NCT04038567|181520354|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|1.23||||||Values are change in model-estimated means for therapist vs. app response. Intervention components are coded as follows: introduction method (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]), dose (high \[1\] vs low \[-1\]), and symptom management (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]).||1.23|-1.12|
91060296|NCT01983566|182003537|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The actual number of subjects analyzed is 16. No formal statistical hypothesis was tested.|Geometric mean ratio (%)|115.8||||0.3944|TWO_SIDED|90.0|63.52|211.11||The p-value relates to the null hypothesis of non-equivalence (bioequivalence test). P-value for ratio outside interval 80-125%.|ANOVA||This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequence', 'period', and 'treatment'. The statistical analysis result is based on the adjusted means.|"The difference between the expected means for log(Dele low fat) and log(Dele fasted) was estimated by the differences in the adjusted means (Least Squares Means), and a 2 sided 90% confidence interval (CI) based on the t-distribution was computed.~These were then back transformed. The estimation model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequence', 'period', and 'treatment'."||211.11|63.52|0.3944
91060297|NCT01983566|182003538|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The actual number of subjects analyzed is 16. No formal statistical hypothesis was tested.|Geometric mean ratio (%)|114.83||||0.3674|TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.803|176.281||The p-value relates to the null hypothesis of non-equivalence (bioequivalence test). P-value for ratio outside interval 80-125%.|ANOVA||This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequence', 'period', and 'treatment'. The statistical analysis result is based on the adjusted means.|"The difference between the expected means for log(Dele low fat) and log(Dele fasted) was estimated by the differences in the adjusted means (Least Squares Means), and a 2 sided 90% CI based on the t-distribution was computed.~These were then back transformed. This estimation model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequence', 'period', and 'treatment'."||176.281|74.803|0.3674
91060298|NCT02794870|182003549|OTHER||% vaccine recipients with solicited AEs|60.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|39.0|78.0||||||||78|39|
91060299|NCT02794870|182003549|OTHER||% placebo recipients with solicited AEs|27.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.0|56.0||||||||56|8|
91060300|NCT02794870|182003550|OTHER||% vaccinees with unsolicited AEs|35.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|18.0|56.0||||||||56|18|
91060301|NCT02794870|182003550|OTHER||% placebo with unsolicited AEs|18.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.0|47.0||||||||47|3|
91060302|NCT02794870|182003555|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||Due to unequal sample sizes, a 1-sided Fisher's exact test was used to test the hypothesis that proportions of greater than or equal to 4-fold rises were higher in the vaccinated than in the placebo group. Statistical significance level was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.01
91060303|NCT02794870|182003556|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Log Rank|||||||<0.001
91060304|NCT03277066|182003660|SUPERIORITY||Lest-Squared Mean Differences|0.011||||0.011|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0110
91060305|NCT03277066|182003660|SUPERIORITY||Lest-Squared Mean Differences|0.2835||||0.2835|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2835
91060306|NCT01153425|182003665|OTHER|unpaired t-test for the difference of the means between the two arms|||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t-test for change from baseline to 24 months||||>0.05
91060307|NCT00911300|182003677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|0.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|3.1|||Fisher Exact||The estimated value is the absolute percent difference between Fondaparinux and UFH/VKA.|||3.1|-2.0|1.000
91060308|NCT01565356|182003687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Kappa statistic|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.0||||||Cohen's (simple) kappa statistic||1.00|1.00|
91060309|NCT02288325|182003701|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56||||0.0212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.92|||Log Rank|||||0.92|0.33|0.0212
91060310|NCT04138823|182003779|OTHER||Probability of DLT rate in [0.16,0.33)|0.172|||||||||||Bayesian logistic regression model|||Probability of DLT rate was determined using a Bayesian 2-parameter logistic regression model with overdose control.||||
91060311|NCT04138823|182003779|OTHER||Probability of DLT rate in [0.33, 1.00]|0.01||||||||||||||Probability of DLT rate was determined using a Bayesian 2-parameter logistic regression model with overdose control.||||
91060312|NCT04138823|182003779|OTHER||Probabilty of DLT rate in [0.16, 0.33)|0.362||||||||||||||Probability of DLT rate was determined using a Bayesian 2-parameter logistic regression model with overdose control.||||
91060313|NCT04138823|182003779|OTHER||Probability of DLT rate in [0.33, 1.00]|0.046||||||||||||||Probability of DLT rate was determined using a Bayesian 2-parameter logistic regression model with overdose control.||||
91060314|NCT04138823|182003779|OTHER||Probability of DLT rate in [0.16, 0.33)|0.478||||||||||||||"Probability of DLT rate was determined using a Bayesian 2-parameter logistic regression model with overdose control.~The 200 mg BI 891065 BID dose was modelled as equivalent to a 300 mg QD dose in terms of dose-toxicity relationship."||||
91060315|NCT04138823|182003779|OTHER||Probability of DLT rate in [0.33, 1.00]|0.118||||||||||||||"Probability of DLT rate was determined using a Bayesian 2-parameter logistic regression model with overdose control.~The 200 mg BI 891065 BID dose was modelled as equivalent to a 300 mg QD dose in terms of dose-toxicity relationship."||||
91060316|NCT02466685|182003830|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.4|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
91060317|NCT02006732|182003866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.299|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.261|0.336|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.336|0.261|<0.0001
91060318|NCT02006732|182003866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.105|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.069|0.141|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.141|0.069|<0.0001
91060319|NCT02006732|182003866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.284|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.246|0.323|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.323|0.246|<0.0001
91060320|NCT02006732|182003866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.091|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.053|0.128|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.128|0.053|<0.0001
91060321|NCT02006732|182003866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.194|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.156|0.232|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.232|0.156|<0.0001
91060322|NCT02006732|182003866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.014|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.4499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.023|0.051|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.051|-0.023|0.4499
91060323|NCT02006732|182003867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.166|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.129|0.203|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.203|0.129|<0.0001
91060324|NCT02006732|182003867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.039|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.0395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.002|0.076|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.076|0.002|0.0395
90820997|NCT04038567|181520355|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|-0.16||||||Values are change in model-estimated means for therapist vs. app introduction. Intervention components are coded as follows: introduction method (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]), dose (high \[1\] vs low \[-1\]), and symptom management (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]).||-0.16|-2.12|
90820998|NCT04038567|181520355|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.49||||||Values are change in model-estimated means for high vs. standard dose. Intervention components are coded as follows: introduction method (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]), dose (high \[1\] vs low \[-1\]), and symptom management (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]).||1.49|-1.80|
90820999|NCT04038567|181520355|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|1.49||||||Values are change in model-estimated means for therapist vs. app response. Intervention components are coded as follows: introduction method (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]), dose (high \[1\] vs low \[-1\]), and symptom management (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]).||1.49|-0.48|
90821000|NCT04038567|181520356|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|1.01||||||Values are change in model-estimated means for therapist vs. app introduction. Intervention components are coded as follows: introduction method (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]), dose (high \[1\] vs low \[-1\]), and symptom management (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]).||1.01|-1.66|
90821001|NCT04038567|181520356|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.81|-0.14||||||Values are change in model-estimated means for high vs. standard dose. Intervention components are coded as follows: introduction method (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]), dose (high \[1\] vs low \[-1\]), and symptom management (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]).||-0.14|-2.81|
90821002|NCT04038567|181520356|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|2.15||||||Values are change in model-estimated means for therapist vs. app response to symptoms. Intervention components are coded as follows: introduction method (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]), dose (high \[1\] vs low \[-1\]), and symptom management (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]).||2.15|-0.52|
90821003|NCT04038567|181520357|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|0.91||||||||0.91|-1.23|
90821004|NCT04038567|181520357|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|-0.15||||||||-0.15|-2.29|
90821005|NCT04038567|181520357|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|0.37||||||||0.37|-1.77|
90821006|NCT04038567|181520358|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.41|1.25||||||Values are change in model-estimated means for therapist vs. app introduction. Intervention components are coded as follows: introduction method (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]), dose (high \[1\] vs low \[-1\]), and symptom management (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]).||1.25|-4.41|
90821007|NCT04038567|181520358|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.26|2.42||||||Values are change in model-estimated means for hig vs. standard dose. Intervention components are coded as follows: introduction method (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]), dose (high \[1\] vs low \[-1\]), and symptom management (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]).||2.42|-3.26|
90821008|NCT04038567|181520358|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|4.33||||||Values are change in model-estimated means for therapist vs. app response. Intervention components are coded as follows: introduction method (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]), dose (high \[1\] vs low \[-1\]), and symptom management (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]).||4.33|-1.35|
90821009|NCT04038567|181520363|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|1.78||||||Values are change in model-estimated means for therapist vs. app introduction. Intervention components are coded as follows: introduction method (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]), dose (high \[1\] vs low \[-1\]), and symptom management (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]).||1.78|-0.62|
90821010|NCT04038567|181520363|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|1.92||||||Values are change in model-estimated means for high vs. standard dose. Intervention components are coded as follows: introduction method (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]), dose (high \[1\] vs low \[-1\]), and symptom management (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]).||1.92|-0.47|
90821011|NCT04038567|181520363|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.39||||||Values are change in model-estimated means for therapist vs. app response. Intervention components are coded as follows: introduction method (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]), dose (high \[1\] vs low \[-1\]), and symptom management (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]).||1.39|-1.00|
90821012|NCT04038567|181520364|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|2.27||||||Values are change in model-estimated means for therapist vs. app introduction. Intervention components are coded as follows: introduction method (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]), dose (high \[1\] vs low \[-1\]), and symptom management (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]).||2.27|-0.45|
90821013|NCT04038567|181520364|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|1.38||||||Values are change in model-estimated means for high vs. standard dose. Intervention components are coded as follows: introduction method (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]), dose (high \[1\] vs low \[-1\]), and symptom management (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]).||1.38|-1.33|
90821014|NCT04038567|181520364|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|0.99||||||Values are change in model-estimated means for therapist vs. app response. Intervention components are coded as follows: introduction method (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]), dose (high \[1\] vs low \[-1\]), and symptom management (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]).||0.99|-1.72|
90821015|NCT04038567|181520365|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.3||||||Values are change in model-estimated means for therapist vs. app introduction. Intervention components are coded as follows: introduction method (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]), dose (high \[1\] vs low \[-1\]), and symptom management (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]).||0.30|-1.30|
90821016|NCT04038567|181520365|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|0.27||||||Values are change in model-estimated means for high vs. standard dose. Intervention components are coded as follows: introduction method (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]), dose (high \[1\] vs low \[-1\]), and symptom management (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]).||0.27|-1.33|
90821017|NCT04038567|181520365|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|1.05||||||Values are change in model-estimated means for therapist vs. app response. Intervention components are coded as follows: introduction method (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]), dose (high \[1\] vs low \[-1\]), and symptom management (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]).||1.05|-.55|
90821018|NCT04038567|181520366|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|0.41||||||||0.41|-1.41|
90821019|NCT04038567|181520366|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|0.55||||||||0.55|-1.27|
90821020|NCT04038567|181520366|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.42||||||Values are change in model-estimated means for therapist vs. app response. Intervention components are coded as follows: introduction method (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]), dose (high \[1\] vs low \[-1\]), and symptom management (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]).||1.42|-0.40|
90821021|NCT04038567|181520367|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.25|7.91||||||Values are change in model-estimated means for therapist vs. app introduction. Intervention components are coded as follows: introduction method (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]), dose (high \[1\] vs low \[-1\]), and symptom management (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]).||7.91|-3.25|
90821022|NCT04038567|181520367|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|10.4||||||Values are change in model-estimated means for high vs. standard dose. Intervention components are coded as follows: introduction method (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]), dose (high \[1\] vs low \[-1\]), and symptom management (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]).||10.40|-0.76|
90821023|NCT04038567|181520367|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|5.56||||||Values are change in model-estimated means for therapist vs. app response. Intervention components are coded as follows: introduction method (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]), dose (high \[1\] vs low \[-1\]), and symptom management (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]).||5.56|-5.60|
90821024|NCT04038567|181520368|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.01|9.37||||||Values are change in model-estimated means for therapist vs. app introduction. Intervention components are coded as follows: introduction method (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]), dose (high \[1\] vs low \[-1\]), and symptom management (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]).||9.37|-3.01|
90821025|NCT04038567|181520368|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.92|7.47||||||Values are change in model-estimated means for high vs. standard dose. Intervention components are coded as follows: introduction method (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]), dose (high \[1\] vs low \[-1\]), and symptom management (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]).||7.47|-4.92|
90821026|NCT04038567|181520368|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.09|6.3||||||Values are change in model-estimated means for therapist vs. app response. Intervention components are coded as follows: introduction method (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]), dose (high \[1\] vs low \[-1\]), and symptom management (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]).||6.30|-6.09|
90821027|NCT04038567|181520375|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.26|-0.13||||||Values are change in model-estimated means for therapist vs. app introduction. Intervention components are coded as follows: introduction method (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]), dose (high \[1\] vs low \[-1\]), and symptom management (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]).||-0.13|-5.26|
90821028|NCT04038567|181520375|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.46|0.67||||||Values are change in model-estimated means for high vs. standard dose. Intervention components are coded as follows: introduction method (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]), dose (high \[1\] vs low \[-1\]), and symptom management (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]).||0.67|-4.46|
91060325|NCT02006732|182003867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.169|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.132|0.207|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.207|0.132|<0.0001
90821029|NCT04038567|181520375|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.31|1.83||||||Values are change in model-estimated means for therapist vs. app response. Intervention components are coded as follows: introduction method (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]), dose (high \[1\] vs low \[-1\]), and symptom management (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]).||1.83|-3.31|
90821030|NCT02726022|181520378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.647|||||||Fisher Exact|||The statistical significance of change from baseline to EOT between gender status (male vs female) was tested using Fisher's exact test.||||0.647
90821031|NCT02726022|181520378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.373|||||||Fisher Exact|||The statistical significance of change from baseline to EOT between drug addiction status (yes vs no) was tested using Fisher's exact test.||||0.373
90821032|NCT02726022|181520379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049|||||||Fisher Exact|||The statistical significance of change from baseline to 24 weeks after EOT between gender status (male vs female) was tested using Fisher's exact test.||||0.049
90821033|NCT02726022|181520379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86|||||||Fisher Exact|||The statistical significance of change from baseline to 24 weeks after EOT between drug addiction status (yes vs no) was tested using Fisher's exact test.||||0.860
90821034|NCT02726022|181520380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.921|||||||Fisher Exact|||The statistical significance of change from baseline to EOT between gender status (male vs female) was tested using Fisher's exact test.||||0.921
90821035|NCT02726022|181520380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.962|||||||Fisher Exact|||The statistical significance of change from baseline to EOT between drug addiction status (yes vs no) was tested using Fisher's exact test.||||0.962
90821036|NCT02726022|181520381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.052|||||||Fisher Exact|||The statistical significance of change from baseline to 24 weeks after EOT between gender status (male vs female) was tested using Fisher's exact test.||||0.052
90821037|NCT02726022|181520381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.677|||||||Fisher Exact|||The statistical significance of change from baseline to 24 weeks after EOT between drug addiction status (yes vs no) was tested using Fisher's exact test.||||0.677
90821038|NCT02726022|181520382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72|||||||Fisher Exact|||The statistical significance of change from baseline to EOT between gender status (male vs female) was tested using Fisher's exact test.||||0.720
90821039|NCT02726022|181520382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.237|||||||Fisher Exact|||The statistical significance of change from baseline to EOT between drug addiction status (yes vs no) was tested using Fisher's exact test.||||0.237
90821040|NCT02726022|181520383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.184|||||||Fisher Exact|||The statistical significance of change from baseline to 24 weeks after EOT between gender status (male vs female) was tested using Fisher's exact test.||||0.184
91060326|NCT02006732|182003867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.0269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.005|0.079|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.079|0.005|0.0269
91060327|NCT02006732|182003867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.127|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.165|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.165|0.090|<0.0001
90821041|NCT02726022|181520383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.889|||||||Fisher Exact|||The statistical significance of change from baseline to 24 weeks after EOT between drug addiction status (yes vs no) was tested using Fisher's exact test.||||0.889
90821042|NCT01124955|181520390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||,|0|||||||ANOVA|||||||0,05
90821043|NCT03274518|181520394|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin was defined as difference within 20% in comparison to reference method (olHDF)||||||0.4534|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4534
90821044|NCT03274518|181520395|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin was defined as difference within 20% in comparison to reference method (olHDF)||||||0.1179|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1179
90821045|NCT03274518|181520396|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin was defined as difference within 20% in comparison to reference method (olHDF)||||||0.3054|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3054
90821046|NCT03274518|181520397|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower the ECW/TBW ratio, the lower pre-dialysis excess fluid. A non-inferiority margin was defined as difference within 10% from reference method (olHDF)||||||0.045|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.045
90821047|NCT00622388|181520417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response rate|11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|20.0|||||Response rate is calculated as the number of responses divided by the number of participants treated, expressed as a percentage.|||20|5|
91060328|NCT02006732|182003867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.8669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.034|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.034|-0.040|0.8669
91060329|NCT02006732|182003868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.564|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.986|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.499|-2.629|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-2.629|-6.499|<0.0001
91060330|NCT02006732|182003868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.717|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.974||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.628|0.193|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.193|-3.628|0.0780
91060331|NCT02006732|182003868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.666|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.991||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.611|-1.721|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-1.721|-5.611|0.0002
91060332|NCT02006732|182003868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.979||0.4028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.741|1.102|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||1.102|-2.741|0.4028
91060333|NCT02006732|182003868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.846|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.993||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.796|-0.897|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-0.897|-4.796|0.0042
91060334|NCT02006732|182003868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.898|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.971||0.3555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.804|1.008|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||1.008|-2.804|0.3555
90821048|NCT01504412|181520453|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|-0.42||||0.1995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.15||Dunnett method was used for adjustment of multiple testing.|ANCOVA|||||0.15|-0.99|0.1995
90821049|NCT01504412|181520453|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|-0.37||||0.2886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.2||Dunnett method was used for adjustment of multiple testing.|ANCOVA|||||0.20|-0.93|0.2886
90821050|NCT01504412|181520453|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|-0.3||||0.4704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.27||Dunnett method was used for adjustment of multiple testing.|ANCOVA|||||0.27|-0.87|0.4704
90821051|NCT01504412|181520454|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-5.2||||0.0691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|0.4|||ANCOVA|||This analysis assessed placebo vs DS-5565 10 mg/day for the visual analog scale.||0.4|-10.8|0.0691
90821052|NCT01504412|181520454|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-5.4||||0.0577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|0.2|||ANCOVA|||This analysis assessed placebo vs DS-5565 20 mg/day for the visual analog scale.||0.2|-10.9|0.0577
90821053|NCT01504412|181520454|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-7.4||||0.0093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|-1.8|||ANCOVA|||This analysis assessed placebo vs DS-5565 30 mg/day for the visual analog scale.||-1.8|-13.0|0.0093
90821054|NCT01393639|181520503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|60.0|5.0|15.0|||||Superiority criterion versus placebo: Lower bound of 60% credible interval \>20%. Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts at Week 8.|Bayesian 4 Parameter Emax Model Based Estimates are provided.||15|5|
90821055|NCT01393639|181520503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.0|||||TWO_SIDED|60.0|18.0|31.0|||||Superiority criterion versus placebo: Lower bound of 60% credible interval \>20%. Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts at Week 8.|Bayesian 4 Parameter Emax Model Based Estimates are provided.||31|18|
90821056|NCT01393639|181520503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.0|||||TWO_SIDED|60.0|25.0|39.0|||||Superiority criterion versus placebo: Lower bound of 60% credible interval \>20%. Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts at Week 8.|Bayesian 4 Parameter Emax Model Based Estimates are provided.||39|25|
90821057|NCT01393639|181520503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|36.0|||||TWO_SIDED|60.0|29.0|43.0|||||Superiority criterion versus placebo: Lower bound of 60% credible interval \>20%. Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts at Week 8.|Bayesian 4 Parameter Emax Model Based Estimates are provided.||43|29|
90821058|NCT01393639|181520503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.0|||||TWO_SIDED|60.0|6.0|22.0|||||Superiority criterion versus placebo: Lower bound of 60% credible interval \>20%. Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts at Week 8.|Bayesian 4 Parameter Emax Model Based Estimates are provided.||22|6|
90821059|NCT01393639|181520503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|34.0|||||TWO_SIDED|60.0|27.0|42.0|||||Superiority criterion versus placebo: Lower bound of 60% credible interval \>20%. Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts at Week 8.|Bayesian 4 Parameter Emax Model Based Estimates are provided.||42|27|
90821060|NCT01393639|181520503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.0|||||TWO_SIDED|60.0|-32.0|-17.0|||||Non inferiority criterion versus prednisone 10 mg: Lower bound of 60% credible interval \>-5%. Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts at Week 8.|Bayesian 4 Parameter Emax Model Based Estimates are provided.||-17|-32|
91060335|NCT02006732|182003869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.668|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.06|-3.276|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-3.276|-6.060|<0.0001
91060336|NCT02006732|182003869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.097|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.701||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.471|-0.723|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-0.723|-3.471|0.0028
91060337|NCT02006732|182003869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.846|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.711|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.24|-2.451|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-2.451|-5.240|<0.0001
91060338|NCT02006732|182003869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.274|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.702||0.0696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.651|0.102|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.102|-2.651|0.0696
91060339|NCT02006732|182003869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.571|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.714||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.971|-1.171|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-1.171|-3.971|0.0003
91060340|NCT02006732|182003869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.822|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.698||0.2387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.191|0.546|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.546|-2.191|0.2387
91060341|NCT02006732|182003870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.252|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.187|0.317|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.317|0.187|<0.0001
91060342|NCT02006732|182003870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.061|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033||0.0614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.003|0.125|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.125|-0.003|0.0614
91060343|NCT02006732|182003870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.305|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.37|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.370|0.240|<0.0001
91060344|NCT02006732|182003870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.114|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.049|0.178|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.178|0.049|0.0005
91060345|NCT02006732|182003870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.191|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.126|0.256|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.256|0.126|<0.0001
91060346|NCT02006732|182003870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.053|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033||0.1089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.117|0.012|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.012|-0.117|0.1089
91060347|NCT02006732|182003871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.195|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.665|1.725|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||1.725|0.665|<0.0001
91060348|NCT02006732|182003871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.582|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.267||0.0296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.058|1.106|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||1.106|0.058|0.0296
91060349|NCT02006732|182003871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.263|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.272|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.796|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||1.796|0.730|<0.0001
91060350|NCT02006732|182003871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.269||0.0159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.122|1.178|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||1.178|0.122|0.0159
91060351|NCT02006732|182003871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.613|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.273||0.0248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.078|1.148|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||1.148|0.078|0.0248
91060352|NCT02006732|182003871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.068|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.266||0.7984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.454|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.454|-0.590|0.7984
91060353|NCT02006732|182003872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.623|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.193|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.245|2.0|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||2.000|1.245|<0.0001
91060354|NCT02006732|182003872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.594|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.967|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.967|0.220|0.0019
91060355|NCT02006732|182003872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.611|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.193|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.232|1.989|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||1.989|1.232|<0.0001
91060356|NCT02006732|182003872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.582|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.191||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.207|0.956|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.956|0.207|0.0023
91060357|NCT02006732|182003872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.029|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.194|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.649|1.41|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||1.410|0.649|<0.0001
91060358|NCT02006732|182003872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.189||0.9494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.359|0.383|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.383|-0.359|0.9494
91060359|NCT02006732|182003873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.432|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.366|0.498|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.498|0.366|<0.0001
91060360|NCT02006732|182003873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.148|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.084|0.212|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.212|0.084|<0.0001
91060361|NCT02006732|182003873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.455|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.387|0.522|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.522|0.387|<0.0001
91060362|NCT02006732|182003873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.171|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.105|0.236|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.236|0.105|<0.0001
91060363|NCT02006732|182003873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.284|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.217|0.35|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.350|0.217|<0.0001
91060364|NCT02006732|182003873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033||0.4974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.087|0.042|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.042|-0.087|0.4974
91060365|NCT02969044|182003880|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.75|-3.79|||ANCOVA|||||-3.79|-14.75|<0.001
91060366|NCT01330303|182003901|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This is a bioequivalence study performed to support the register of tamsulosin hydrochloride, produced by Synthon BV, as a branded generic, to be marketed by GlaxoSmithKline Brasil Ltda., according to the requirements of the Brazilian Regulatory Agency - National Agency of Sanitary Surveillance (ANVISA).|Ratio T formulation/R formulation|101.89||||||90.0|94.91|109.39|||||The ratios between the geometric means of the test (T) and reference (R) formulations were calculated.|||109.39|94.91|
91060367|NCT01330303|182003902|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This is a bioequivalence study performed to support the register of tamsulosin hydrochloride, produced by Synthon BV, as a branded generic, to be marketed by GlaxoSmithKline Brasil Ltda., according to the requirements of the Brazilian Regulatory Agency - National Agency of Sanitary Surveillance (ANVISA).|Ratio T formulation/R formulation|101.91||||||90.0|95.0|109.33|||||The ratios between the geometric means of the test (T) and reference (R) formulations were calculated.|||109.33|95.00|
91060368|NCT01330303|182003903|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This is a bioequivalence study performed to support the register of tamsulosin hydrochloride, produced by Synthon BV, as a branded generic, to be marketed by GlaxoSmithKline Brasil Ltda., according to the requirements of the Brazilian Regulatory Agency - National Agency of Sanitary Surveillance (ANVISA).|Ratio T formulation/R formulation|94.04||||||90.0|86.33|102.44|||||The ratios between the geometric means of the test (T) and reference (R) formulations were calculated.|||102.44|86.33|
90821061|NCT01393639|181520503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|60.0|-16.0|-4.0|||||Non inferiority criterion versus prednisone 10 mg: Lower bound of 60% credible interval \>-5%. Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts at Week 8.|Bayesian 4 Parameter Emax Model Based Estimates are provided.||-4|-16|
90821062|NCT01393639|181520503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|60.0|-9.0|4.0|||||Non inferiority criterion versus prednisone 10 mg: Lower bound of 60% credible interval \>-5%. Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts at Week 8.|Bayesian 4 Parameter Emax Model Based Estimates are provided.||4|-9|
90821063|NCT01393639|181520503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|60.0|-5.0|8.0|||||Non inferiority criterion versus prednisone 10 mg: Lower bound of 60% credible interval \>-5%. Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts at Week 8.|Bayesian 4 Parameter Emax Model Based Estimates are provided.||8|-5|
90821064|NCT01393639|181520504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.75|17.03|||||Statistical analysis was performed using a repeated measures mixed model with fixed effects for treatment and visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.|||17.03|-13.75|
90821065|NCT01393639|181520504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.16|8.75|||||Statistical analysis was performed using a repeated measures mixed model with fixed effects for treatment and visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.|||8.75|-22.16|
90821066|NCT01393639|181520504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.45|10.3|||||Statistical analysis was performed using a repeated measures mixed model with fixed effects for treatment and visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.|||10.30|-20.45|
90821067|NCT01393639|181520504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.19|3.72|||||Statistical analysis was performed using a repeated measures mixed model with fixed effects for treatment and visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.|||3.72|-27.19|
90821068|NCT01393639|181520505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.92|19.61|||||Statistical analysis was performed using a repeated measures mixed model with fixed effects for treatment and visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.|||19.61|-12.92|
90821069|NCT01393639|181520505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.86|9.81|||||Statistical analysis was performed using a repeated measures mixed model with fixed effects for treatment and visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.|||9.81|-22.86|
91060369|NCT03516513|182003913|SUPERIORITY|t-tests||||||0.905|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.905
91060370|NCT03516513|182003913|SUPERIORITY|t-test||||||0.32|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.320
90821070|NCT01393639|181520505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.11|20.55|||||Statistical analysis was performed using a repeated measures mixed model with fixed effects for treatment and visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.|||20.55|-12.11|
90821071|NCT01393639|181520505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.49|29.15|||||Statistical analysis was performed using a repeated measures mixed model with fixed effects for treatment and visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.|||29.15|-3.49|
90821072|NCT01393639|181520506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|11.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.84|29.56|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||29.56|-6.84|
90821073|NCT01393639|181520506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|12.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.88|30.19|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||30.19|-5.88|
90821074|NCT01393639|181520506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|19.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|38.17|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||38.17|0.91|
90821075|NCT01393639|181520506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|22.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.6|40.58|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||40.58|3.60|
90821076|NCT01393639|181520506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|8.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.38|26.25|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||26.25|-9.38|
90821077|NCT01393639|181520506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|16.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|34.84|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||34.84|-1.84|
90821078|NCT01393639|181520506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-8.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.58|10.8|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||10.80|-28.58|
90821079|NCT01393639|181520506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|15.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.85|35.49|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||35.49|-4.85|
90821080|NCT01393639|181520506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|26.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|46.53|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||46.53|6.80|
90821081|NCT01393639|181520506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|13.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.01|33.4|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||33.40|-7.01|
90821082|NCT01393639|181520506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|8.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.56|29.33|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||29.33|-11.56|
91060371|NCT03516513|182003914|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.155||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.155
91060372|NCT03516513|182003914|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.974||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.974
90821083|NCT01393639|181520506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|25.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.35|45.07|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 4 comparisons presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||45.07|5.35|
90821084|NCT01393639|181520506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|2.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.4|21.85|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 12 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||21.85|-17.40|
90821085|NCT01393639|181520506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|15.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.24|35.45|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 12 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||35.45|-4.24|
90821086|NCT01393639|181520506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|22.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|42.23|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 12 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||42.23|2.20|
90821087|NCT01393639|181520506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|4.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|24.53|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 12 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||24.53|-14.60|
90821088|NCT01393639|181520506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|15.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.51|35.63|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 12 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||35.63|-4.51|
90821089|NCT01393639|181520506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|23.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.31|43.06|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 12 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||43.06|3.31|
90821090|NCT01393639|181520506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-5.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.73|14.45|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||14.45|-24.73|
90821091|NCT01393639|181520506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-4.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.79|15.09|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||15.09|-23.79|
90821092|NCT01393639|181520506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|3.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.94|23.02|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||23.02|-16.94|
91060373|NCT03516513|182003916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.212|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.212
91060374|NCT03516513|182003917|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.507|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.507
91060375|NCT03516513|182003918|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.091|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.091
91060376|NCT02593110|182003924|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.41||||0.1107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.59|5.78|||ANCOVA|||||5.78|-54.59|0.1107
91060377|NCT02593110|182003924|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.78||||0.5378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.84|41.39|||ANCOVA|||||41.39|-21.84|0.5378
90821093|NCT01393639|181520506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|5.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.26|25.45|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||25.45|-14.26|
90821094|NCT01393639|181520506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-34.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.4|-14.8|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||-14.80|-53.40|
90821095|NCT01393639|181520506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-9.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.68|9.88|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||9.88|-29.68|
90821096|NCT01393639|181520506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|1.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.02|20.92|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||20.92|-18.02|
90821097|NCT01393639|181520506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-12.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.84|7.79|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||7.79|-31.84|
90821098|NCT01393639|181520506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-20.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.98|-0.94|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 12 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||-0.94|-40.98|
90821099|NCT01393639|181520506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-7.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.82|12.65|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 12 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||12.65|-27.82|
90821100|NCT01393639|181520506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.36|19.43|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 12 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||19.43|-21.36|
90821101|NCT01393639|181520506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-18.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.18|1.73|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 12 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||1.73|-38.18|
90821102|NCT01393639|181520507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-2.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.93|7.38|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||7.38|-11.93|
90821103|NCT01393639|181520507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|1.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.15|12.91|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||12.91|-9.15|
90821104|NCT01393639|181520507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|2.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.09|13.23|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||13.23|-9.09|
90821105|NCT01393639|181520507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|18.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.19|33.23|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||33.23|4.19|
91060378|NCT02593110|182003924|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.71||||0.956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.96|26.38|||ANCOVA|||||26.38|-24.96|0.9560
91060379|NCT02593110|182003925|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|31.35||||0.6121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-92.42|155.12|||ANCOVA|||||155.12|-92.42|0.6121
91060380|NCT02593110|182003925|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|141.78||||0.0116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.14|250.42|||ANCOVA|||||250.42|33.14|0.0116
90821106|NCT01393639|181520507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-4.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.19|4.0|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||4.00|-13.19|
90821107|NCT01393639|181520507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|12.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|26.41|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||26.41|-0.92|
90821108|NCT01393639|181520507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-2.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|10.16|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||10.16|-14.60|
90821109|NCT01393639|181520507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|12.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|27.48|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||27.48|-2.90|
90821110|NCT01393639|181520507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|24.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.71|41.17|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||41.17|7.71|
90821111|NCT01393639|181520507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|16.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|32.29|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||32.29|0.80|
90821112|NCT01393639|181520507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.98|12.98|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||12.98|-12.98|
90821113|NCT01393639|181520507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|19.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.16|35.48|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||35.48|3.16|
90821114|NCT01393639|181520507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-4.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.46|9.57|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||9.57|-18.46|
90821115|NCT01393639|181520507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|12.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.49|28.7|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||28.70|-4.49|
90821116|NCT01393639|181520507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|24.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.63|42.24|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||42.24|6.63|
90821117|NCT01393639|181520507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|26.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.33|44.65|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||44.65|9.33|
90821118|NCT01393639|181520507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|8.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.53|25.31|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||25.31|-7.53|
90821119|NCT01393639|181520507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|21.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.88|38.91|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||38.91|3.88|
90821120|NCT01393639|181520507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|8.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|24.57|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||24.57|-6.80|
90821121|NCT01393639|181520507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|18.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.96|35.2|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||35.20|1.96|
90821122|NCT01393639|181520507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|35.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.89|53.21|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||53.21|17.89|
90821123|NCT01393639|181520507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|29.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.94|46.49|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||46.49|11.94|
90821124|NCT01393639|181520507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|13.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.96|29.63|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||29.63|-2.96|
90821125|NCT01393639|181520507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|32.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.83|49.8|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||49.80|14.83|
90821126|NCT01393639|181520507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.79|15.79|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 12 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||15.79|-15.79|
90821127|NCT01393639|181520507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|3.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.67|19.67|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 12 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||19.67|-12.67|
90821128|NCT01393639|181520507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|6.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.13|23.47|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 12 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||23.47|-10.13|
90821129|NCT01393639|181520507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.25|14.74|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 12 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||14.74|-16.25|
90821130|NCT01393639|181520507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|8.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.19|25.96|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 12 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||25.96|-8.19|
90821131|NCT01393639|181520507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|6.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|22.77|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 12 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||22.77|-10.50|
90821132|NCT01393639|181520507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-15.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.03|-2.0|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||-2.00|-28.03|
90821133|NCT01393639|181520507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-10.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.93|3.19|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||3.19|-24.93|
91060381|NCT02593110|182003925|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.75||||0.8146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-140.89|111.39|||ANCOVA|||||111.39|-140.89|0.8146
91060382|NCT02593110|182003926|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.92||||0.8755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.84|12.68|||ANCOVA|||||12.68|-10.84|0.8755
91060383|NCT02593110|182003926|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.44||||0.7651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.83|18.7|||ANCOVA|||||18.70|-13.83|0.7651
90821134|NCT01393639|181520507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-10.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.83|3.48|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||3.48|-24.83|
90821135|NCT01393639|181520507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|5.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.96|22.9|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||22.90|-10.96|
90821136|NCT01393639|181520507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-21.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.22|-5.86|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||-5.86|-37.22|
90821137|NCT01393639|181520507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-7.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.01|10.95|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||10.95|-25.01|
90821138|NCT01393639|181520507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|5.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.17|24.41|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||24.41|-14.17|
90821139|NCT01393639|181520507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-2.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.22|15.67|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||15.67|-21.22|
90821140|NCT01393639|181520507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-25.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.54|-9.14|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||-9.14|-42.54|
90821141|NCT01393639|181520507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-9.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.22|9.62|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||9.62|-28.22|
90821142|NCT01393639|181520507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|3.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.94|23.02|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||23.02|-16.94|
90821143|NCT01393639|181520507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|5.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.26|25.45|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||25.45|-14.26|
90821144|NCT01393639|181520507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-23.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.26|-4.59|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||-4.59|-42.26|
91060384|NCT02593110|182003926|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.88||||0.3776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.65|22.41|||ANCOVA|||||22.41|-8.65|0.3776
91060385|NCT02593110|182003927|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.06||||0.1782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.91|3.79|||ANCOVA|||||3.79|-19.91|0.1782
91060386|NCT02593110|182003927|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.27||||0.3555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.61|6.07|||ANCOVA|||||6.07|-16.61|0.3555
91060387|NCT02593110|182003927|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.75||||0.3294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.99|17.49|||ANCOVA|||||17.49|-5.99|0.3294
91060388|NCT02593110|182003928|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.72||||0.1569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.91|3.47|||ANCOVA|||||3.47|-20.91|0.1569
91060389|NCT02593110|182003928|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.07||||0.7692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.16|12.02|||ANCOVA|||||12.02|-16.16|0.7692
91060390|NCT02593110|182003928|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.09||||0.6306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.74|15.91|||ANCOVA|||||15.91|-9.74|0.6306
91060391|NCT02593110|182003929|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.86||||0.3542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.74|9.02|||ANCOVA|||||9.02|-24.74|0.3542
90821145|NCT01393639|181520507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-13.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.35|5.87|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||5.87|-33.35|
90821146|NCT01393639|181520507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|3.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.26|23.74|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||23.74|-17.26|
90821147|NCT01393639|181520507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-3.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.27|17.07|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||17.07|-23.27|
90821148|NCT01393639|181520507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-6.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.77|10.5|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 12 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||10.50|-22.77|
90821149|NCT01393639|181520507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-2.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.63|14.35|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 12 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||14.35|-19.63|
90821150|NCT01393639|181520507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.06|18.12|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 12 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||18.12|-17.06|
90821151|NCT01393639|181520507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-6.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.24|9.46|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 12 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||9.46|-23.24|
90821152|NCT01393639|181520508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||0.00|0.00|
90821153|NCT01393639|181520508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|4.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|10.24|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||10.24|-1.54|
90821154|NCT01393639|181520508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|2.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.08|6.52|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||6.52|-2.08|
91060392|NCT02593110|182003929|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.64||||0.9417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.98|16.71|||ANCOVA|||||16.71|-17.98|0.9417
91060393|NCT02593110|182003929|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.45||||0.4508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.96|19.86|||ANCOVA|||||19.86|-8.96|0.4508
91060394|NCT01130597|182003950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of Participants|90.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|80.4|96.4|||||Clopper-Pearson was used to arrive at the 95% Confidence Interval|||96.4|80.4|
91060395|NCT01130597|182003955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of Participants|84.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|72.7|92.1|||||Clopper-Pearson was used to arrive at the 95% Confidence Interval|||92.1|72.7|
91060396|NCT00307437|182004004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi square|Stratified by baseline weight \[less than or equal to 90 kg vs greater than 90 kg)\].||||||<0.001
91060397|NCT00307437|182004004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||To control for the multiplicity for the primary endpoint analysis, the Holm's procedure was used at an overall significance level of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi square|Stratified by baseline weight \[less than or equal 90 kg vs greater than 90 kg)\].||Null Hypothesis: No difference between ustekinumab 90 mg or 45 mg and placebo at an overall significance level of 0.05. Sample Size: With 1200 participants (400 in each treatment group), simulation studies were conducted to calculate the power to detect a treatment difference in the primary endpoint between ustekinumab groups and placebo using a CMH test stratified by baseline weight \[\<=90kg vs \> 90 kg). For all the scenarios evaluated, the power is \>99% at an overall significance level of 0.05.||||<0.001
91060398|NCT00307437|182004005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi square|Stratified by baseline weight \[less than or equal 90 kg vs greater than 90 kg)\].||||||<0.001
91060399|NCT00307437|182004005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||To control the multiplicity for the primary and the secondary endpoint analyses, Holm's procedure was used but the two comparisons for the primary endpoint need to be significant first.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi square|Stratified by baseline weight \[less than or equal 90 kg vs greater than 90 kg)\].||Null Hypothesis: No difference between ustekinumab 90 mg or 45 mg and placebo at an overall significancd level of 0.05.||||<0.001
91060400|NCT00307437|182004006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores|Analysis of variance on van der Waerden normal scores (Conover, 1980) with treatment and baseline weight (≤ 90kg vs \> 90 kg) as factors in the model||||||<0.001
91060401|NCT00307437|182004006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||To control the multiplicity for the primary and the secondary endpoint analyses, Holm's procedure was used but the two comparisons for the primary endpoint and the two comparisons for the 1st second endpoint analyses need to be significant first.|ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores|Analysis of varianceon van der Waerden normal scores (Conover, 1980) with treatment and baseline weight (≤90 kg vs \>90 kg) as factors in the model||Null Hypothesis: No difference between ustekinumab 90 mg or 45 mg and placebo at an overall significance level of 0.05.||||<0.001
91060402|NCT00307437|182004007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.468||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (row mean score)|Stratified by baseline weight \[less than or equal to 90 kg vs greater than 90 kg)\].||||||0.468
91060403|NCT00307437|182004007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (row mean score)|Stratified by baseline weight \[less than or equal to 90 kg vs greater than 90 kg)\].||||||0.210
91060404|NCT00307437|182004007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014||95.0||||To control the overall multiplicity, the combined groups was tested first and each dose will then be tested; but the primary and the 1st 2 secondary endpoint analyses need to be significant before this endpoint can be tested.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (row mean score)|Stratified by baseline weight \[less than or equal to 90 kg vs greater than 90 kg)\].||Null Hypothesis: No difference between combined q8 group and the combined q12 group, 45 mg q8 and 45 mg q12, 90 mg q8 and 90 mg q12 at an overall significance level of 0.05.||||0.014
91060405|NCT03022370|182004047|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92|||=|0.686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.37|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.37|0.62|=0.686
91060406|NCT03022370|182004047|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71|||=|0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.97|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.97|0.51|=0.032
91060407|NCT03022370|182004048|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.28|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.28|0.64|0.555
91060408|NCT03022370|182004048|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.03|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.03|0.54|0.072
91060409|NCT03022370|182004049|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.31|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.31|0.66|0.672
91060410|NCT03022370|182004049|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.94|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.94|0.52|0.019
91060411|NCT03022370|182004050|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.01||||0.984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.86|||Regression, Linear|||||0.86|-0.88|0.984
91060412|NCT03022370|182004050|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.06||||0.839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.63|||Regression, Linear|||||0.63|-0.51|0.839
91060413|NCT03022370|182004051|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.97|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.51|||Tobit|Log + 1 performed on data||||1.51|0.43|<0.0001
91060414|NCT03022370|182004051|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.21||||0.521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.83|||Tobit|Log plus 1 to transform data||||0.83|-0.42|0.521
91060415|NCT03022370|182004052|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.25||||0.718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|1.58|||Regression, Linear|||||1.58|-1.09|0.718
91060416|NCT03022370|182004052|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.3||||0.712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|1.28|||Regression, Linear|||||1.28|-1.87|0.712
91060417|NCT03022370|182004053|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.52||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.14|0.11|||Regression, Linear|||||0.11|-3.14|0.067
91060418|NCT03022370|182004053|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.75||||0.398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|0.99|||Regression, Linear|||||0.99|-2.48|0.398
91060419|NCT03022370|182004054|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.97|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.97|0.85|0.228
91060420|NCT03022370|182004054|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.41|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.41|0.53|0.558
91060421|NCT03022370|182004055|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.14||||0.679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.8|||Regression, Linear|||||0.80|-0.52|0.679
91060422|NCT03022370|182004055|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.55||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|1.16|||Regression, Linear|||||1.16|-0.07|0.08
91060423|NCT03022370|182004056|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.13||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|0.95|||Regression, Linear|||||0.95|-1.21|0.810
91060424|NCT03022370|182004056|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.03||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.01|-0.04|||Regression, Linear|||||-0.04|-2.01|0.041
91060425|NCT03022370|182004057|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.92|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.92|0.67|0.635
91060426|NCT03022370|182004057|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.27|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.27|0.41|0.256
91060427|NCT03022370|182004058|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.84|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.84|0.73|0.526
90821155|NCT01393639|181520508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|6.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|13.37|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||13.37|-0.60|
90821156|NCT01393639|181520508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|2.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.08|6.52|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||6.52|-2.08|
90821157|NCT01393639|181520508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|8.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|16.83|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||16.83|0.55|
90821158|NCT01393639|181520508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||0.00|0.00|
90821159|NCT01393639|181520508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|8.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|16.48|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||16.48|0.53|
90821160|NCT01393639|181520508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|15.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.96|26.14|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||26.14|4.96|
90821161|NCT01393639|181520508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|17.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.27|27.76|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||27.76|6.27|
90821162|NCT01393639|181520508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|4.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|10.46|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||10.46|-1.57|
90821163|NCT01393639|181520508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|15.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.83|25.59|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||25.59|4.83|
90821164|NCT01393639|181520508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-2.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.62|5.18|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||5.18|-9.62|
90821165|NCT01393639|181520508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|8.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.96|19.6|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||19.60|-2.96|
90821166|NCT01393639|181520508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|8.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.72|20.5|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||20.50|-2.72|
91060428|NCT03022370|182004058|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.56|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.56|0.67|0.931
91060429|NCT03022370|182004059|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.36|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.36|0.63|0.691
91060430|NCT03022370|182004059|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.40|0.60|0.692
91060431|NCT03022370|182004060|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.31||||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.24|||Regression, Linear|||||0.24|-0.72|0.137
90821167|NCT01393639|181520508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|12.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|24.89|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||24.89|0.26|
90821168|NCT01393639|181520508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|2.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.23|11.67|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||11.67|-7.23|
90821169|NCT01393639|181520508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|17.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.94|30.64|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||30.64|3.94|
90821170|NCT01393639|181520508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-2.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|10.16|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||10.16|-14.60|
90821171|NCT01393639|181520508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|5.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.22|20.04|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||20.04|-8.22|
90821172|NCT01393639|181520508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|15.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|31.4|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||31.40|-0.29|
90821173|NCT01393639|181520508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|10.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|25.03|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||25.03|-4.70|
90821174|NCT01393639|181520508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-4.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.16|7.27|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||7.27|-16.16|
90821175|NCT01393639|181520508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|14.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|30.63|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||30.63|-0.68|
90821176|NCT01393639|181520508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|10.3|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 12 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||10.30|-10.30|
90821177|NCT01393639|181520508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|6.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|18.1|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 12 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||18.10|-5.90|
90821178|NCT01393639|181520508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|10.3|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 12 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||10.30|-10.30|
90821179|NCT01393639|181520508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|1.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.96|12.64|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 12 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||12.64|-8.96|
91060432|NCT03022370|182004060|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.09||||0.721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.4|||Regression, Linear|||||0.40|-0.58|0.721
91060433|NCT03022370|182004061|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.23||||0.332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.24|||Regression, Linear|||||0.24|-0.70|0.332
91060434|NCT03022370|182004061|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.19||||0.468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.32|||Regression, Linear|||||0.32|-0.71|0.468
91060435|NCT03022370|182004062|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.9|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.90|0.89|0.174
91060436|NCT03022370|182004062|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|2.5|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.50|0.89|0.129
91060437|NCT03022370|182004063|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.9|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.90|0.89|0.174
91060438|NCT03022370|182004063|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.43|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.43|0.64|0.836
91060439|NCT01965860|182004131|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||ANOVA|||"Prior to the study a power analysis was performed to calculate the number of participants required in each of the three groups. Previous work comparing OSATS derived scores in endovascular interventions shows a Cohen D of two. Using a of .05, a power of .80, and an expected dropout rate of 10%, the minimum number of surgical trainees required per group was seven.~Null hypothesis for primary outcome: no difference in technical performance during real life procedures between the three groups"||||0.001
91060440|NCT01965860|182004131|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||ANOVA|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in Pre and Post test MCQ score||||0.003
91060441|NCT01965860|182004131|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in Pre and Post test MCQ score||||0.001
91060442|NCT01965860|182004131|OTHER|||||||0.228|||||||ANOVA|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in Pre and Post test MCQ score||||0.228
91060443|NCT01965860|182004131|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in Pre and Post test GRS score||||0.001
91060444|NCT01965860|182004131|OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||ANOVA|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in Pre and Post test GRS score||||0.008
91060445|NCT01965860|182004131|OTHER|||||||0.164|||||||ANOVA|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in Pre and Post test GRS score||||0.164
91060446|NCT01965860|182004131|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in Pre and Post test Examiner's checklist score||||0.001
91060447|NCT01965860|182004131|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in Pre and Post test Examiner's checklist score||||0.001
91060448|NCT01965860|182004131|OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||ANOVA|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in Pre and Post test Examiner's checklist score||||0.190
91060449|NCT01894087|182004133|SUPERIORITY||Incidence Rate Ratio|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.87|||||Numerator is Therapist-led Brief Intervention, Denominator is Enhanced Usual Care only.|Multivariable Poisson regression of outcome of overdose risk behavior sum score at 6 months, adjusting for baseline level of the outcome||0.87|0.59|
91060450|NCT01894087|182004134|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.4|||||Numerator is the Therapist-Led Brief Intervention and Denominator is Enhanced Usual Care only|Multivariable linear regression of the outcome of standardized sum score of overdose symptom knowledge at 6 months follow-up, adjusted for baseline level of overdose symptom knowledge.||0.40|-0.20|
91060451|NCT01894087|182004135|SUPERIORITY||Incidence Rate Ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.33|||||This item was reverse coded; higher scores indicate lower intention to avoid overdose risk (for the strategy of using opioids as prescribed). Numerator was the Therapist-Led Brief Intervention and the denominator was Enhanced Usual Care only.|Multivariable Poisson regression of the outcome of intention to use opioids as prescribed, adjusting for baseline level of the outcome.||1.33|0.93|
91060452|NCT01894087|182004135|SUPERIORITY||Incidence Rate Ratio|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.9|||||This item was reverse coded; higher scores indicate lower intention to avoid overdose risk (for the strategy of reducing or avoiding opioid use). Numerator was the Therapist-Led Brief Intervention and the denominator was Enhanced Usual Care only.|Multivariable Poisson regression of the outcome of intention to avoid or reduce opioid use, adjusting for baseline level of the outcome.||0.90|0.65|
91060453|NCT01894087|182004135|SUPERIORITY||Incidence Rate Ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.19|||||This item was reverse coded; higher scores indicate lower intention to avoid overdose risk (for the strategy of not combining opioids with other drugs). Numerator was Therapist-Led Brief Intervention and denominator was Enhanced Usual Care only.|Multivariable Poisson regression of the outcome of intention to avoid combining opioids with other substances, adjusting for baseline level of the outcome.||1.19|0.80|
91060454|NCT01894087|182004136|SUPERIORITY||Incidence Rate Ratio|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.92|||||Numerator is Therapist-Led Brief Intervention, Denominator is Enhanced Usual Care only|Multivariable Poisson regression for the outcome of total COMM score at follow-up, adjusting for baseline level of the outcome||0.92|0.70|
91060455|NCT04020887|182004138|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.01|18.01||||||Difference in time to PACU discharge determination from observation to interaction phase \[ Time Frame: 6 months\]: The difference in discharge readiness time between the observation and interaction phases will be compared.||18.01|-6.01|
91060456|NCT04020887|182004139|SUPERIORITY||Difference Between Proportions|29.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.82|35.66||||||||35.66|23.82|
91060457|NCT04020887|182004140|SUPERIORITY||Difference Between Proportions|-2.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.18|3.02||||||||3.02|-8.18|
91060458|NCT04020887|182004141|SUPERIORITY||Difference Between Proportions|13.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.16|20.79||||||||20.79|5.16|
91060459|NCT04020887|182004142|SUPERIORITY||Difference Between Proportions|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|3.07||||||||3.07|-1.63|
91060460|NCT04020887|182004143|SUPERIORITY||Difference Between Proportions|7.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.13|12.71||||||||12.71|3.13|
91060461|NCT03901092|182004167|OTHER||Fleiss' kappa|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|0.91||||||Fleiss' kappa is a statistical measure for assessing the reliability of agreement between a fixed number of raters when assigning categorical ratings to a number of items or classifying items. The primary hypothesis to be tested was that the lower bound of two-sided 95% confidence interval of Fleiss' Kappa will be greater than or equal to 0.6.||0.91|0.83|
91060462|NCT03901092|182004170|OTHER||Fleiss' kappa|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.88||||||Fleiss' kappa is a statistical measure for assessing the reliability of agreement between a fixed number of raters when assigning categorical ratings to a number of items or classifying items. The primary hypothesis to be tested was that the lower bound of two-sided 95% confidence interval of Fleiss' Kappa will be greater than or equal to 0.6.||0.88|0.80|
91060463|NCT03901092|182004171|OTHER||Fleiss' kappa|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|0.95||||||Fleiss' kappa is a statistical measure for assessing the reliability of agreement between a fixed number of raters when assigning categorical ratings to a number of items or classifying items. The hypothesis to be tested was that the lower bound of two-sided 95% confidence interval of Fleiss' Kappa will be greater than or equal to 0.6.||0.95|0.85|
91060464|NCT03901092|182004172|OTHER||Cohen's kappa|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.0||||||Cohen's kappa statistic for Reader 1||1.00|0.69|
91060465|NCT03901092|182004172|OTHER||Cohen's kappa|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.0||||||Cohen's kappa statistic for Reader 2||1.00|0.41|
91060466|NCT03901092|182004172|OTHER||Cohen's kappa|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.95||||||Cohen's kappa statistic for Reader 3||0.95|0.24|
91060467|NCT03901092|182004172|OTHER||Cohen's kappa|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.0||||||Cohen's kappa statistic for Reader 4||1.00|0.67|
91060468|NCT03901092|182004172|OTHER||Cohen's kappa|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.0||||||Cohen's kappa statistic for Reader 5||1.00|0.52|
91060469|NCT03097991|182004226|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86||0.32|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group x Timepoint Effect|||||.32
91060470|NCT03097991|182004226|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.33||0.53|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group Effect|||||.53
91060471|NCT03097991|182004227|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-3.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group x Timepoint Effect|||||.07
91060472|NCT03097991|182004227|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||||Group Effect|||.69
91060473|NCT03097991|182004228|SUPERIORITY||Slope|2.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.22|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group x Timepoint Effect|||||.22
91060474|NCT03097991|182004228|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.33||0.53|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group effect|||||.53
91060475|NCT03097991|182004229|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.76||0.33|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group x Timepoint Effect|||||.33
91060476|NCT03097991|182004229|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group Effect|||||.69
91060477|NCT03097991|182004230|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.81|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group Effect|||||.81
91060478|NCT03097991|182004230|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.56|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group x Timepoint Effect|||||.56
91060479|NCT03097991|182004231|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.77|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group Effect|||||.77
91060480|NCT03097991|182004231|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.85|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group x Timepoint Effect|||||.85
91060481|NCT03097991|182004232|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.56|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group x Timepoint Effect|||||.56
91060482|NCT03097991|182004232|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.81|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group Effect|||||.81
91060483|NCT03097991|182004233|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.85|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group x Timepoint effect|||||.85
91060484|NCT03097991|182004233|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.77|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group Effect|||||.77
91060485|NCT03097991|182004234|SUPERIORITY||Slope|21.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.91|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group x Timepoint|||||<.001
91060486|NCT03097991|182004234|SUPERIORITY||Slope|2.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.75|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group|||||<.001
91060487|NCT03097991|182004235|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|linear mixed effects|Group|||||<.05
91060488|NCT03097991|182004235|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group x Timepoint|||||<.05
91060489|NCT03097991|182004236|SUPERIORITY||Slope|3.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.14||0.39|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group|"We analyzed the CTS scales Psychological Aggression and Physical Assault. Inspection of the latter in the raw data and descriptives showed extremely consistent selection of the lowest value of the scale (no incidents of assault) across all respondents, so we did not conduct inferential tests."||||.39
91060490|NCT03097991|182004236|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-13.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.86|<|0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group x Time|||||<.005
91060491|NCT03097991|182004237|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25||0.24|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group|||||.24
91060492|NCT03097991|182004237|EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA found a main effect of group, F(1, 155) = 6.85, p \< .05, η2G = .04.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.85|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA||Group|||||<.05
91060493|NCT03097991|182004238|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Parent x Group|||||.02
91060494|NCT03097991|182004238|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.56|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group|||||.56
91060495|NCT03097991|182004239|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Parent x Group|||||.30
91060496|NCT03097991|182004239|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67||0.36|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group|||||.36
91060497|NCT03097991|182004240|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.17|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Parent x Group|||||.17
91060498|NCT03097991|182004240|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.48|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group|||||.48
91060499|NCT03097991|182004241|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.34||0.88|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group|||||.88
91060500|NCT03097991|182004241|SUPERIORITY||Slope|7.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.0||0.38|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group x Time|||||.38
91060501|NCT03097991|182004242|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Parent x Group|||||.07
91060502|NCT03097991|182004242|SUPERIORITY||Slope|2.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group|||||<.001
91060503|NCT03097991|182004243|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.92|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group|||||.92
91060504|NCT03097991|182004243|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group x Timepoint|||||.05
91060505|NCT03097991|182004244|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.81|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group|||||.81
91060506|NCT03097991|182004244|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group x Timepoint|||||.34
91060507|NCT03097991|182004245|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.76|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group|||||.76
90821180|NCT01393639|181520508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|4.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.27|16.16|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 12 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||16.16|-7.27|
90821181|NCT01393639|181520508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.37|15.77|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 12 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||15.77|-7.37|
90821182|NCT01393639|181520508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-8.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.83|-0.55|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||-0.55|-16.83|
90821183|NCT01393639|181520508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-4.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.39|5.7|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||5.70|-14.39|
90821184|NCT01393639|181520508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-6.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.68|2.73|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||2.73|-15.68|
90821185|NCT01393639|181520508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-2.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.04|8.41|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||8.41|-13.04|
90821186|NCT01393639|181520508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-15.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.59|-4.83|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||-4.83|-25.59|
90821187|NCT01393639|181520508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.79|6.38|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||6.38|-19.79|
90821188|NCT01393639|181520508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.49|15.16|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||15.16|-14.49|
90821189|NCT01393639|181520508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.13|16.74|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||16.74|-13.13|
90821190|NCT01393639|181520508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-19.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.19|-6.84|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||-6.84|-32.19|
90821191|NCT01393639|181520508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-8.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.24|6.29|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||6.29|-24.24|
90821192|NCT01393639|181520508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-8.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.92|7.1|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||7.10|-23.92|
90821193|NCT01393639|181520508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-4.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.76|11.32|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||11.32|-20.76|
90821194|NCT01393639|181520508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-17.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.36|-2.02|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||-2.02|-32.36|
90821195|NCT01393639|181520508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-9.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.69|7.56|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||7.56|-25.69|
90821196|NCT01393639|181520508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.53|18.68|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||18.68|-17.53|
90821197|NCT01393639|181520508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-4.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.07|12.45|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||12.45|-22.07|
90821198|NCT01393639|181520508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.77|7.37|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 12 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||7.37|-15.77|
90821199|NCT01393639|181520508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|1.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.21|15.0|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 12 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||15.00|-11.21|
90821200|NCT01393639|181520508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.77|7.37|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 12 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||7.37|-15.77|
90821201|NCT01393639|181520508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-2.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.38|9.66|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 12 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||9.66|-14.38|
90821202|NCT01393639|181520509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.19|-0.07||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.07|-4.19|
90821203|NCT01393639|181520509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.63|-1.57||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-1.57|-5.63|
90821204|NCT01393639|181520509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.06|-0.97||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.97|-5.06|
90821205|NCT01393639|181520509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.73|-1.68||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-1.68|-5.73|
91060508|NCT03097991|182004245|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.53|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group x Timepoint|||||.53
91060509|NCT03097991|182004246|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.88|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group|||||.88
91060510|NCT03097991|182004246|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.95|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group x Timepoint|||||.95
91060511|NCT03097991|182004247|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.13||0.47|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group x Timepoint|||||.47
91060512|NCT03097991|182004247|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group|||||.07
91060513|NCT03097991|182004248|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32||0.68|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group x Timepoint|||||.68
91060514|NCT03097991|182004248|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group|||||.07
91060515|NCT03097991|182004249|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.65|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group|||||.65
91060516|NCT03097991|182004249|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.44||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group x Timepoint|||||.50
91060517|NCT03097991|182004250|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.48|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group|||||.48
91060518|NCT03097991|182004250|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.72||0.27|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group x Timepoint|||||.27
91060519|NCT03097991|182004251|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.22||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group|||||.01
91060520|NCT03097991|182004251|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.96||0.58|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group x Timepoint|||||.58
91060521|NCT00207883|182004290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91060522|NCT02374138|182004305|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93||||||By repeated measures, p-value adjusted for age and gender|Generalized Linear Model Analysis|||At 6 Months||||0.93
91060523|NCT02374138|182004306|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87||||||By repeated measures, p-value adjusted for age and gender|Generalized Linear Model Analysis|||At 6 month follow up||||0.87
91060524|NCT02374138|182004306|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25||||||By repeated measures, p-value adjusted for age and gender|Generalized Linear Model Analysis|||At 12 month follow up||||0.25
91060525|NCT02374138|182004308|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35||||||By repeated measures, p-value adjusted for age and gender|Generalized Linear Model Analysis|||ICS Use at 6 Month Follow Up||||0.35
91060526|NCT02374138|182004308|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34||||||By repeated measures, p-value adjusted for age and gender|Generalized Linear Model Analysis|||ICS Use at 12 Month Follow Up||||0.34
91060527|NCT02374138|182004308|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35||||||By repeated measures, p-value adjusted for age and gender|Generalized Linear Model Analysis|||LTRA Use at 6 Months||||0.35
91060528|NCT02374138|182004308|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62||||||By repeated measures, p-value adjusted for age and gender|Generalized Linear Model Analysis|||LTRA use at 12 Month Follow Up||||0.62
91060529|NCT02374138|182004309|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63||||||Adjusted for child age, gender, and baseline value|Generalized Linear Model Analysis|||ED visits over 6 months||||0.63
91060530|NCT02374138|182004309|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44||||||Adjusted for child age, gender, and baseline value|Generalized Linear Model Analysis|||ED Visits between 6 and 12 Month follow up||||0.44
91060531|NCT02374138|182004310|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98||||||Adjusted for child age, gender, and baseline value|Generalized Linear Model Analysis|||Courses of systemic steroids over 6 months||||0.98
91060532|NCT02374138|182004310|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48||||||Adjusted for child age, gender, and baseline value|Generalized Linear Model Analysis|||Courses of systemic steroids between 6m and 12m FU||||0.48
91060533|NCT02374138|182004311|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32||||||By repeated measures, p-value adjusted for age and gender|Generalized Linear Model Analysis|||At 6 Month Follow Up||||0.32
91060534|NCT02374138|182004311|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06||||||By repeated measures, p-value adjusted for age and gender|Generalized Linear Model Analysis|||At 12 Month Follow Up||||0.06
91060535|NCT02374138|182004312|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32||||||By repeated measures, p-value adjusted for age and gender|Generalized Linear Model Analysis|||At 6 Month follow up||||0.32
91060536|NCT02374138|182004312|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44||||||By repeated measures, p-value adjusted for age and gender|Generalized Linear Model Analysis|||At 12 month follow up||||0.44
91060537|NCT02374138|182004313|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7||||||Repeated measures, p-value adjusted for age and gender|Generalized Linear Model Analysis|||At 6 Month Follow Up||||0.70
91060538|NCT02374138|182004313|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8||||||Repeated measures, p-value adjusted for age and gender|Generalized Linear Model Analysis|||At 12 Month Follow Up||||0.80
91060539|NCT02374138|182004314|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53||||||Repeated measures, p-value adjusted for age and gender|Generalized Linear Model Analysis|||6 Month Follow Up||||0.53
91060540|NCT02374138|182004314|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77||||||Repeated measures, p-value adjusted for age and gender|Generalized Linear Model Analysis|||12 Month Follow up||||0.77
91060541|NCT02374138|182004315|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53||||||Repeated measures, p-value adjusted for age and gender|Generalized Linear Model Analysis|||Quality of Life at 6 Month Follow up||||0.53
91060542|NCT02374138|182004315|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57||||||Repeated measures, p-value adjusted for age and gender|Generalized Linear Model Analysis|||Quality of Life at 12 Month Follow up||||0.57
91060543|NCT02374138|182004316|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
91060544|NCT02374138|182004319|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58||||||Repeated measures, p-value adjusted for age and gender|Generalized Linear Model Analysis|||Score on Brief COPE at 12 Months||||0.58
91060545|NCT02374138|182004321|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46||||||Repeated measures, p-value adjusted for age and gender|Generalized Linear Model Analysis|||Score on LOT-R at 6 Month Follow Up||||0.46
91060546|NCT02374138|182004321|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62||||||Repeated measures, p-value adjusted for age and gender|Generalized Linear Model Analysis|||Score on LOT-R at 12 Month Follow Up||||0.62
91060547|NCT02374138|182004323|SUPERIORITY|By repeated measures, p-value adjusted for age and gender||||||0.35|||||||Generalized Linear Model Analysis|||||||0.35
91060548|NCT02374138|182004324|SUPERIORITY|Daytime asthma symptoms in prior 14d at 6-month follow up||||||0.54|||||||Generalized Linear Model Analysis|By repeated measures, p-value adjusted for age and gender||||||0.54
90821206|NCT01393639|181520509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.97|0.12||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.12|-3.97|
90821207|NCT01393639|181520509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.46|-1.39||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-1.39|-5.46|
90821208|NCT01393639|181520509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.03|0.42||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.42|-4.03|
90821209|NCT01393639|181520509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.04|-0.62||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.62|-5.04|
90821210|NCT01393639|181520509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.07|-0.64||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.64|-5.07|
90821211|NCT01393639|181520509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.98|-0.56||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.56|-4.98|
90821212|NCT01393639|181520509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.85|0.59||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.59|-3.85|
90821213|NCT01393639|181520509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.48|-1.06||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-1.06|-5.48|
90821214|NCT01393639|181520509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.66|0.2||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.20|-4.66|
90821215|NCT01393639|181520509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.62|-1.77||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-1.77|-6.62|
91060549|NCT02374138|182004324|SUPERIORITY|Daytime Asthma Symptoms at 12 month follow up||||||0.11|||||||Generalized Linear Model Analysis|By repeated measures, p-value adjusted for age and gender||||||0.11
90821216|NCT01393639|181520509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.15|-1.31||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-1.31|-6.15|
90821217|NCT01393639|181520509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.09|-1.26||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-1.26|-6.09|
90821218|NCT01393639|181520509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.69|0.16||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.16|-4.69|
90821219|NCT01393639|181520509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.52|-1.7||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-1.70|-6.52|
90821220|NCT01393639|181520509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.34|-0.25||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.25|-5.34|
90821221|NCT01393639|181520509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.93|-1.83||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-1.83|-6.93|
90821222|NCT01393639|181520509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.74|-2.66||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-2.66|-7.74|
90821223|NCT01393639|181520509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.43|-2.36||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-2.36|-7.43|
91060550|NCT02374138|182004324|SUPERIORITY|Days of Activity Limitations at 6 month follow up||||||0.82|||||||Generalized Linear Model Analysis|By repeated measures, p-value adjusted for age and gender||||||0.82
91060551|NCT02374138|182004324|SUPERIORITY|Days of Activity Limitations at 12 month follow up||||||0.84|||||||Generalized Linear Model Analysis|By repeated measures, p-value adjusted for age and gender||||||0.84
91060552|NCT02374138|182004324|SUPERIORITY|Days of Quick Relief Medicine Use at 6 month follow up||||||0.7|||||||Generalized Linear Model Analysis|By repeated measures, p-value adjusted for age and gender||||||0.70
91060553|NCT02374138|182004324|SUPERIORITY|Days of Quick Relief Medicine Use at 12 month follow up||||||0.58|||||||Generalized Linear Model Analysis|By repeated measures, p-value adjusted for age and gender||||||0.58
91060554|NCT02374138|182004325|OTHER|Univariate test||||||0.2|||||||Chi-squared|||Parent education||||0.20
91060555|NCT02374138|182004326|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91||||||Repeated measures, p-value adjusted for age and gender|Generalized Linear Model Analysis|||ETS exposure at 6 Month Follow Up||||0.91
91060556|NCT02374138|182004326|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98||||||Repeated measures, p-value adjusted for age and gender|Generalized Linear Model Analysis|||ETS Exposure at 12 Month Follow up||||0.98
91060557|NCT02374138|182004327|OTHER|Univariate test||||||0.94|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.94
91060558|NCT02374138|182004328|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||p-value adjusted for age and gender|Generalized Linear Model Analysis|||Parent use of mental health resources at 6 Months||||0.02
91060559|NCT02374138|182004328|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85||||||p-value adjusted for age and gender|Generalized Linear Model Analysis|||Parent use of mental health resources at 12 Months||||0.85
91060560|NCT02374138|182004329|OTHER|Univariate test||||||0.9|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.90
91060561|NCT02766283|182004360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.90
91060562|NCT02766283|182004361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.022
91060563|NCT02448368|182004371|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size is not based on formal power calculations, as this study is designed only to provide an initial assessment of the Pharmacokinetics (PK), Pharmacodynamics (PD), and safety profile of RDEA3170.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|232.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|202.0|266.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed PK parameters Cmax, AUClast, and AUC∞ with fixed effect for treatment.||||266|202|
91060564|NCT02448368|182004371|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size is not based on formal power calculations, as this study is designed only to provide an initial assessment of the PK, PD, and safety profile of RDEA3170.|Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|181.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|164.0|200.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed PK parameters Cmax, AUClast, and AUC∞ with fixed effect for treatment.||||200|164|
91060565|NCT02448368|182004371|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size is not based on formal power calculations, as this study is designed only to provide an initial assessment of the PK, PD, and safety profile of RDEA3170.|Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|106.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.5|124.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed PK parameters Cmax, AUClast, and AUC∞ with fixed effect for treatment.||||124|91.5|
91060566|NCT02448368|182004373|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size is not based on formal power calculations, as this study is designed only to provide an initial assessment of the PK, PD, and safety profile of RDEA3170.|Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|170.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|147.0|195.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed PK parameters Cmax, AUClast, and AUC∞ with fixed effect for treatment.||||195|147|
91060567|NCT02448368|182004373|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size is not based on formal power calculations, as this study is designed only to provide an initial assessment of the PK, PD, and safety profile of RDEA3170.|Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|170.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|146.0|199.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed PK parameters Cmax, AUClast, and AUC∞ with fixed effect for treatment.||||199|146|
91060568|NCT02448368|182004373|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size is not based on formal power calculations, as this study is designed only to provide an initial assessment of the PK, PD, and safety profile of RDEA3170.|Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|129.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|114.0|146.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed PK parameters Cmax, AUClast, and AUC∞ with fixed effect for treatment.||||146|114|
91060569|NCT02448368|182004374|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size is not based on formal power calculations, as this study is designed only to provide an initial assessment of the PK, PD, and safety profile of RDEA3170.|Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|161.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|139.0|187.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed PK parameters Cmax, AUClast, and AUC∞ with fixed effect for treatment.||||187|139|
91060570|NCT02448368|182004374|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size is not based on formal power calculations, as this study is designed only to provide an initial assessment of the PK, PD, and safety profile of RDEA3170.|Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|159.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|135.0|188.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed PK parameters Cmax, AUClast, and AUC∞ with fixed effect for treatment.||||188|135|
91060571|NCT02448368|182004374|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size is not based on formal power calculations, as this study is designed only to provide an initial assessment of the PK, PD, and safety profile of RDEA3170.|Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|131.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|116.0|147.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed PK parameters Cmax, AUClast, and AUC∞ with fixed effect for treatment.||||147|116|
91060572|NCT02448368|182004376|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size is not based on formal power calculations, as this study is designed only to provide an initial assessment of the PK, PD, and safety profile of RDEA3170.|Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|99.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.3|112.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed PK parameters Cmax, AUClast, and AUC∞ with fixed effect for treatment.||||112|88.3|
91060573|NCT02448368|182004376|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size is not based on formal power calculations, as this study is designed only to provide an initial assessment of the PK, PD, and safety profile of RDEA3170.|Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|99.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.5|117.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed PK parameters Cmax, AUClast, and AUC∞ with fixed effect for treatment.||||117|85.5|
90821224|NCT01393639|181520509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.28|-0.2||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.20|-5.28|
90821225|NCT01393639|181520509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|-2.05||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-2.05|-7.10|
90821226|NCT01393639|181520509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|3.33||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||3.33|-0.73|
90821227|NCT01393639|181520509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|1.84||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.84|-2.18|
90821228|NCT01393639|181520509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|2.44||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.44|-1.61|
90821229|NCT01393639|181520509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.27|1.73||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.73|-2.27|
90821230|NCT01393639|181520509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|3.68||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||3.68|-0.74|
90821231|NCT01393639|181520509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|2.65||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.65|-1.76|
90821232|NCT01393639|181520509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.79|2.63||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.63|-1.79|
90821233|NCT01393639|181520509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|2.7||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.70|-1.69|
90821234|NCT01393639|181520509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|4.29||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||4.29|-0.53|
90821235|NCT01393639|181520509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|2.33||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.33|-2.50|
90821236|NCT01393639|181520509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.03|2.79||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.79|-2.03|
90821237|NCT01393639|181520509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.97|2.84||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.84|-1.97|
90821238|NCT01393639|181520509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|4.3||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||4.30|-0.75|
90821239|NCT01393639|181520509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|2.73||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.73|-2.34|
90821240|NCT01393639|181520509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.14|1.89||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.89|-3.14|
90821241|NCT01393639|181520509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.84|2.19||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.19|-2.84|
90821242|NCT01393639|181520511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.91|0.56||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.56|-2.91|
90821243|NCT01393639|181520511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.17|-0.73||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.73|-4.17|
90821244|NCT01393639|181520511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.76|-0.29||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.29|-3.76|
90821245|NCT01393639|181520511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.82|-1.4||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-1.40|-4.82|
90821246|NCT01393639|181520511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.13|0.33||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.33|-3.13|
90821247|NCT01393639|181520511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.52|-1.07||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-1.07|-4.52|
90821248|NCT01393639|181520511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.63|0.29||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.29|-3.63|
90821249|NCT01393639|181520511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.94|-0.01||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.01|-3.94|
90821250|NCT01393639|181520511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.03|-0.11||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.11|-4.03|
90821251|NCT01393639|181520511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.09|-1.17||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-1.17|-5.09|
90821252|NCT01393639|181520511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.85|0.09||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.09|-3.85|
90821253|NCT01393639|181520511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.79|-0.88||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.88|-4.79|
90821254|NCT01393639|181520511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.25|0.6||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.60|-3.25|
90821255|NCT01393639|181520511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|-0.04||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.04|-3.90|
90821256|NCT01393639|181520511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.35|-0.5||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.50|-4.35|
90821257|NCT01393639|181520511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.66|-0.83||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.83|-4.66|
90821258|NCT01393639|181520511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.88|-0.03||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.03|-3.88|
90821259|NCT01393639|181520511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|-1.17||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-1.17|-5.00|
91060574|NCT02448368|182004376|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size is not based on formal power calculations, as this study is designed only to provide an initial assessment of the PK, PD, and safety profile of RDEA3170.|Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|116.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.8|143.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed PK parameters Cmax, AUClast, and AUC∞ with fixed effect for treatment.||||143|94.8|
91060575|NCT02448368|182004377|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size is not based on formal power calculations, as this study is designed only to provide an initial assessment of the PK, PD, and safety profile of RDEA3170.|Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|107.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.3|116.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed PK parameters Cmax, AUClast, and AUC∞ with fixed effect for treatment.||||116|98.3|
91060576|NCT02448368|182004377|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size is not based on formal power calculations, as this study is designed only to provide an initial assessment of the PK, PD, and safety profile of RDEA3170.|Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|104.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.0|113.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed PK parameters Cmax, AUClast, and AUC∞ with fixed effect for treatment.||||113|95.0|
91060577|NCT02448368|182004377|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size is not based on formal power calculations, as this study is designed only to provide an initial assessment of the PK, PD, and safety profile of RDEA3170|Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|115.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.3|140.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed PK parameters Cmax, AUClast, and AUC∞ with fixed effect for treatment.||||140|95.3|
91060578|NCT02448368|182004378|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size is not based on formal power calculations, as this study is designed only to provide an initial assessment of the PK, PD, and safety profile of RDEA3170|Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|107.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.1|116.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed PK parameters Cmax, AUClast, and AUC∞ with fixed effect for treatment.||||116|98.1|
91060579|NCT02448368|182004378|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size is not based on formal power calculations, as this study is designed only to provide an initial assessment of the PK, PD, and safety profile of RDEA3170|Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|103.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.6|113.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed PK parameters Cmax, AUClast, and AUC∞ with fixed effect for treatment.||||113|94.6|
91060580|NCT02448368|182004378|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size is not based on formal power calculations, as this study is designed only to provide an initial assessment of the PK, PD, and safety profile of RDEA3170|Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|113.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.3|137.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed PK parameters Cmax, AUClast, and AUC∞ with fixed effect for treatment.||||137|93.3|
91060581|NCT03086551|182004384|OTHER||Effect Size - Cohen's d|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Cohen's d was calculated as time to complete the sequence at the pre-baseline assessment minus the time it took to complete the sequence at the post-intervention assessment. The denominator reflected pooled variance.|Magnitude of change in sequence completion time from pre-baseline to post-intervention for the Active arm. Cohen's d was calculated as a measure of effect size.||||
91060582|NCT03086551|182004384|OTHER||Effect Size - Cohen's d|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Cohen's d was calculated as time to complete the sequence at the pre-baseline assessment minus the time it took to complete the sequence at the post-intervention assessment. The denominator reflected pooled variance.|Magnitude of change in sequence completion time from pre-baseline to post-intervention for the Sham arm. Cohen's d was calculated as a measure of effect size.||||
91060583|NCT03086551|182004384|OTHER|Cohen's d effect size was calculated to compare the magnitude of change in time to complete the movement sequence from pre-baseline to post-intervention across the Active and Sham arms.|Effect Size - Cohen's d|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Cohen's d was calculated as the change from pre- to post-intervention for the Active arm minus change from pre- to post-intervention for the Sham arm. The denominator reflected pooled variance.|||||
91060584|NCT03086551|182004385|OTHER||Effect Size - Cohen's d|-0.08|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Cohen's d was calculated as aggregate time to complete all elements at the pre-baseline assessment minus the aggregate time it took to complete all elements at the post-intervention assessment. The denominator reflected pooled variance.|The magnitude of transfer of the task specific practice to functional activities of daily live for the stroke affected limb was assessed by calculating the magnitude of change (Cohen's d) in time to complete the activities of the Jebsen-Taylor Hand Function Test from pre-baseline to post-intervention in the Active arm.||||
91060585|NCT03086551|182004385|OTHER||Effect Size - Cohen's d|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Cohen's d was calculated as aggregate time to complete all elements at the pre-baseline assessment minus the aggregate time it took to complete all elements at the post-intervention assessment. The denominator reflected pooled variance.|The magnitude of transfer of the task specific practice to functional activities of daily live for the stroke affected limb was assessed by calculating the magnitude of change (Cohen's d) in time to complete the activities of the Jebsen-Taylor Hand Function Test from pre-baseline to post-intervention in the Sham arm.||||
91060586|NCT03086551|182004385|OTHER||Effect Size - Cohen's d|-1.84|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Cohen's d was calculated as the change from pre- to post-intervention for the Active arm minus the change from pre- to post-intervention for the Sham arm. The denominator reflected pooled variance.|Comparison across study arm of the magnitude of improvement in aggregate time to complete all elements of the Jebsen-Taylor Hand Function Test for the stroke affected limb. Cohen's d was calculated as a measure of effect size.||||
91060587|NCT03086551|182004385|OTHER||Effect Size - Cohen's d|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Cohen's d was calculated as aggregate time to complete all elements at the pre-baseline assessment minus the aggregate time it took to complete all elements at the post-intervention assessment. The denominator reflected pooled variance.|The magnitude of transfer of the task specific practice to functional activities of daily live for the non-stroke affected limb was assessed by calculating the magnitude of change (Cohen's d) in time to complete the activities of the Jebsen-Taylor Hand Function Test from pre-baseline to post-intervention in the Active arm.||||
91060588|NCT03086551|182004385|OTHER||Effect Size - Cohen's d|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Cohen's d was calculated as aggregate time to complete all elements at the pre-baseline assessment minus the aggregate time it took to complete all elements at the post-intervention assessment. The denominator reflected pooled variance.|The magnitude of transfer of the task specific practice to functional activities of daily live for the non-stroke affected limb was assessed by calculating the magnitude of change (Cohen's d) in time to complete the activities of the Jebsen-Taylor Hand Function Test from pre-baseline to post-intervention in the Sham arm.||||
91060589|NCT03086551|182004385|OTHER||Effect Size - Cohen's d|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Cohen's d was calculated as the change from pre- to post-intervention for the Active arm minus the change from pre- to post-intervention for the Sham arm. The denominator reflected pooled variance.|Comparison across study arm of the magnitude of improvement in aggregate time to complete all elements of the Jebsen-Taylor Hand Function Test for the non-stroke affected limb. Cohen's d was calculated as a measure of effect size.||||
91060590|NCT03086551|182004386|OTHER||Effect Size - Cohen's d|-0.86|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Cohen's d was calculated as the change from pre- to immediately post-stimulation (within the same session) for the Active arm minus the change from pre- to immediately post-stimulation for the Sham arm. The denominator reflected pooled variance.|The immediate effect of continuous theta burst stimulation over dorsolateral prefrontal cortex prior to practice was assessed by determining the magnitude of the effect of Active stimulation from pre-intervention to immediately post-intervention in Session 1 of the intervention. Cohen's d was used to derive effect size. The Sham stimulation change was used as the control.||||
91060591|NCT03086551|182004386|OTHER||Effect Size - Cohen's d|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Cohen's d was calculated as the change from pre- to immediately post-stimulation (within the same session) for the Active arm minus the change from pre- to immediately post-stimulation for the Sham arm. The denominator reflected pooled variance.|The immediate effect of continuous theta burst stimulation over dorsolateral prefrontal cortex prior to practice was assessed by determining the magnitude of the effect of Active stimulation from pre-intervention to immediately post-intervention in Session 2 of the intervention. Cohen's d was used to derive effect size. The Sham stimulation change was used as the control.||||
91060592|NCT03086551|182004386|OTHER||Effect Size - Cohen's d|-0.69|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Cohen's d was calculated as the change from pre- to immediately post-stimulation (within the same session) for the Active arm minus the change from pre- to immediately post-stimulation for the Sham arm. The denominator reflected pooled variance.|The immediate effect of continuous theta burst stimulation over dorsolateral prefrontal cortex prior to practice was assessed by determining the magnitude of the effect of Active stimulation from pre-intervention to immediately post-intervention in Session 3 of the intervention. Cohen's d was used to derive effect size. The Sham stimulation change was used as the control.||||
91060593|NCT03086551|182004386|OTHER||Effect Size - Cohen's d|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Cohen's d was calculated as the change from pre- to immediately post-stimulation (within the same session) for the Active arm minus the change from pre- to immediately post-stimulation for the Sham arm. The denominator reflected pooled variance.|The immediate effect of continuous theta burst stimulation over dorsolateral prefrontal cortex prior to practice was assessed by determining the magnitude of the effect of Active stimulation from pre-intervention to immediately post-intervention in Session 4 of the intervention. Cohen's d was used to derive effect size. The Sham stimulation change was used as the control.||||
91060594|NCT03086551|182004387|OTHER||Effect Size - Cohen's d|-0.31|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Cohen's d was calculated as the amplitude of the motor evoked potential at the post-intervention assessment minus the amplitude of the motor evoked potential at the pre-baseline assessment. The denominator reflected pooled variance.|Comparison of first dorsal interosseous motor evoked potential (MEP) amplitude elicited from the ipsilesional motor cortex pre-baseline to post-intervention for the Active arm when transcranial magnetic stimulator intensity was set to 120% of resting motor threshold. Estimate of effect size was derived using Cohen's d.||||
91060595|NCT03086551|182004387|OTHER||Effect Size - Cohen's d|-0.85|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Cohen's d was calculated as the amplitude of the motor evoked potential at the post-intervention assessment minus the amplitude of the motor evoked potential at the pre-baseline assessment. The denominator reflected pooled variance.|Comparison of first dorsal interosseous motor evoked potential (MEP) amplitude elicited from the ipsilesional motor cortex pre-baseline to post-intervention for the Sham arm when transcranial magnetic stimulator intensity was set to 120% of resting motor threshold. Estimate of effect size was derived using Cohen's d.||||
91060596|NCT03086551|182004387|OTHER||Effect Size - Cohen's d|-0.35|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Cohen's d was calculated as the amplitude of the motor evoked potential at the post-intervention assessment minus the amplitude of the motor evoked potential at the pre-baseline assessment. The denominator reflected pooled variance.|Comparison of the first dorsal interosseous motor evoked potential (MEP) amplitude elicited from the ipsilesional motor cortex pre-baseline to post-intervention for the Active arm when transcranial magnetic stimulator intensity was set to 150% of resting motor threshold. Estimate of effect size was derived using Cohen's d.||||
90821260|NCT01393639|181520511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|0.21||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.21|-4.20|
91060597|NCT03086551|182004387|OTHER||Effect Size - Cohen's d|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Cohen's d was calculated as the amplitude of the motor evoked potential at the post-intervention assessment minus the amplitude of the motor evoked potential at the pre-baseline assessment. The denominator reflected pooled variance.|Comparison of the first dorsal interosseous motor evoked potential (MEP) amplitude elicited from the ipsilesional motor cortex pre-baseline to post-intervention for the Sham arm when transcranial magnetic stimulator intensity was set to 150% of resting motor threshold. Estimate of effect size was derived using Cohen's d.||||
91060598|NCT03086551|182004388|OTHER||Effect Size - Cohen's d|-0.15|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Cohen's d was calculated as the change from pre- to post-intervention for the Active arm minus the change from pre- to post-intervention for the Sham arm. The denominator reflected pooled variance.|Comparison of the first dorsal interosseous motor evoked potential (MEP) amplitude elicited from the ipsilesional motor cortex pre-baseline to post-intervention across the Active and Sham arms when transcranial magnetic stimulator intensity was set to 120% of resting motor threshold. Comparison quantified as effect size using Cohen's d.||||
91060599|NCT03086551|182004388|OTHER||Effect Size - Cohen's d|-1.46|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Cohen's d was calculated as the change from pre- to post-intervention for the Active arm minus the change from pre- to post-intervention for the Sham arm. The denominator reflected pooled variance.|Comparison of the first dorsal interosseous motor evoked potential (MEP) amplitude elicited from the ipsilesional motor cortex pre-baseline to post-intervention across the Active and Sham arms when transcranial magnetic stimulator intensity was set to 150% of resting motor threshold. Comparison quantified as effect size using Cohen's d.||||
91060600|NCT03736031|182004392|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||two-sample independent t-test|An alpha of 0.05 was used.||||||0.09
90821261|NCT01393639|181520511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.17|-0.72||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.72|-5.17|
90821262|NCT01393639|181520511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.65|-1.23||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-1.23|-5.65|
90821263|NCT01393639|181520511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.52|-1.12||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-1.12|-5.52|
90821264|NCT01393639|181520511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|-0.18||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.18|-4.60|
90821265|NCT01393639|181520511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.07|-1.68||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-1.68|-6.07|
90821266|NCT01393639|181520511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|3.34||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||3.34|-0.10|
90821267|NCT01393639|181520511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|2.05||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.05|-1.36|
90821268|NCT01393639|181520511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|2.48||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.48|-0.94|
90821269|NCT01393639|181520511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.01|1.38||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.38|-2.01|
91060601|NCT03736031|182004393|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||two-sample independent t-test|An alpha of 0.05 was used.||||||0.81
91060602|NCT03736031|182004394|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.33
91060603|NCT03736031|182004395|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
91060604|NCT00451178|182004405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.989|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.223|4.393|||||Hazard ratio comparing PFS of participants with a high expression of EIF4EBP1 Cytoplasm \[(R-CHOP and Enzastaurin) and (R-CHOP) combined\] versus participants with a low expression of EIF4EBP1 Cytoplasm \[(R-CHOP and Enzastaurin) and (R-CHOP) combined\].|The correlation of biomarker EIF4EBP1 Cytoplasm with PFS.||4.393|0.223|
90821270|NCT01393639|181520511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|3.12||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||3.12|-0.79|
90821271|NCT01393639|181520511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.82||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.82|-1.10|
90821272|NCT01393639|181520511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|2.72||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.72|-1.19|
90821273|NCT01393639|181520511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.24|1.66||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.66|-2.24|
90821274|NCT01393639|181520511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|3.67||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||3.67|-0.16|
90821275|NCT01393639|181520511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|3.04||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||3.04|-0.81|
90821276|NCT01393639|181520511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|2.57||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.57|-1.26|
91060605|NCT00451178|182004405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.071|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.316|3.628|||||Hazard ratio comparing PFS of participants with a high expression of EIF4E Cytoplasm \[(R-CHOP and Enzastaurin) and (R-CHOP) combined\] versus participants with a low expression of EIF4E Cytoplasm \[(R-CHOP and Enzastaurin) and (R-CHOP) combined\].|The correlation of biomarker EIF4E Cytoplasm with PFS.||3.628|0.316|
91060606|NCT00451178|182004405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.658|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.454|6.053|||||Hazard ratio comparing PFS of participants with a high expression of HDAC2 Nucleus \[(R-CHOP and Enzastaurin) and (R-CHOP) combined\] versus participants with a low expression of HDAC2 Nucleus \[(R-CHOP and Enzastaurin) and (R-CHOP) combined\].|The correlation of biomarker HDAC2 Nucleus with PFS.||6.053|0.454|
91060607|NCT00451178|182004405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.082|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.455|36.628|||||Hazard ratio comparing PFS of participants with a high expression of PCREB Nucleus \[(R-CHOP and Enzastaurin) and (R-CHOP) combined\] versus participants with a low expression of PCREB Nucleus \[(R-CHOP and Enzastaurin) and (R-CHOP) combined\].|The correlation of biomarker PCREB Nucleus with PFS.||36.628|0.455|
91060608|NCT00451178|182004405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.636|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|2.253|||||Hazard ratio comparing PFS of participants with a high expression of PEIF3746 Cytoplasm \[(R-CHOP and Enzastaurin) and (R-CHOP) combined\] versus participants with a low expression of PEIF3746 Cytoplasm \[(R-CHOP and Enzastaurin) and (R-CHOP) combined\].|The correlation of biomarker PEIF3746 Cytoplasm with PFS.||2.253|0.180|
91060609|NCT00451178|182004405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.362|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.083|1.576|||||Hazard ratio comparing PFS of participants with a high expression of PEIF3746 Nucleus \[(R-CHOP and Enzastaurin) and (R-CHOP) combined\] versus participants with a low expression of PEIF3746 Nucleus \[(R-CHOP and Enzastaurin) and (R-CHOP) combined\].|The correlation of biomarker PEIF3746 Nucleus with PFS.||1.576|0.083|
91060610|NCT00451178|182004405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.522|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.473|4.901|||||Hazard ratio comparing PFS of participants with a high expression of PEIFS209 Cytoplasm \[(R-CHOP and Enzastaurin) and (R-CHOP) combined\] versus participants with a low expression of PEIFS209 Cytoplasm \[(R-CHOP and Enzastaurin) and (R-CHOP) combined\].|The correlation of biomarker PEIFS209 Cytoplasm with PFS.||4.901|0.473|
91060611|NCT00451178|182004405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.908|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.223|3.699|||||Hazard ratio comparing PFS of participants with a high expression of PEIFS65 Nucleus \[(R-CHOP and Enzastaurin) and (R-CHOP) combined\] versus participants with a low expression of PEIFS65 Nucleus \[(R-CHOP and Enzastaurin) and (R-CHOP) combined\].|The correlation of biomarker PEIFS65 Nucleus with PFS.||3.699|0.223|
91060612|NCT00451178|182004405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.843|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.432|7.867|||||Hazard ratio comparing PFS of participants with a high expression of PEIFT70 Nucleus \[(R-CHOP and Enzastaurin) and (R-CHOP) combined\] versus participants with a low expression of PEIFT70 Nucleus \[(R-CHOP and Enzastaurin) and (R-CHOP) combined\].|The correlation of biomarker PEIFT70 Nucleus with PFS.||7.867|0.432|
91060613|NCT00451178|182004405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.926|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.276|3.109|||||Hazard ratio comparing PFS of participants with a high expression of P GSK3B Cytoplasm \[(R-CHOP and Enzastaurin) and (R-CHOP) combined\] versus participants with a low expression of P GSK3B Cytoplasm \[(R-CHOP and Enzastaurin) and (R-CHOP) combined\].|The correlation of biomarker P GSK3B Cytoplasm with PFS.||3.109|0.276|
91060614|NCT00451178|182004405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.985|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|3.033|||||Hazard ratio comparing PFS of participants with a high expression of PKCb2 Cytoplasm \[(R-CHOP and Enzastaurin) and (R-CHOP) combined\] versus participants with a low expression of PKCb2 Cytoplasm \[(R-CHOP and Enzastaurin) and (R-CHOP) combined\].|The correlation of biomarker PKCb2 Cytoplasm with PFS.||3.033|0.320|
90821277|NCT01393639|181520511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|2.25||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.25|-1.57|
91060615|NCT00451178|182004405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.817|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.242|2.758|||||Hazard ratio comparing PFS of participants with a high expression of PTEN Cytoplasm \[(R-CHOP and Enzastaurin) and (R-CHOP) combined\] versus participants with a low expression of PTEN Cytoplasm \[(R-CHOP and Enzastaurin) and (R-CHOP) combined\].|The correlation of biomarker PTEN Cytoplasm with PFS.||2.758|0.242|
91060616|NCT06360081|182004406|EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based on two-sided 90% CIs for the ratios of the geometric means (gMean) (T/R) using an acceptance range of 80.0 to 125.0%.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means (T/R)|99.89|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.08|102.78||p-value was calculated for ratios outside the 80.0 to 125.0% interval.|ANOVA||Ratio as percentage \[%\] Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 9.0%.|PK endpoints were back transformed to the original scale to provide the point estimate and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for each endpoint. The model included effects accounting for variation in sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the others were considered as fixed. Confidence intervals were calculated based on the residual error from the ANOVA.||102.78|97.08|<0.0001
91060617|NCT06360081|182004407|EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based on two-sided 90% CIs for the ratios of the geometric means (gMean) (T/R) using an acceptance range of 80.0 to 125.0%.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means (T/R)|100.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.43|105.44||p-value was calculated for ratios outside the 80.0 to 125.0% interval.|ANOVA||Ratio as percentage \[%\] Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 14.2%.|PK endpoints were back transformed to the original scale to provide the point estimate and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for each endpoint. The model included effects accounting for variation in sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the others were considered as fixed. Confidence intervals were calculated based on the residual error from the ANOVA.||105.44|96.43|<0.0001
91060618|NCT00352417|182004409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Satterthwaite's method||||||0.97
91060619|NCT00352417|182004410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Satterthwaite's method||||||0.37
91060620|NCT00352417|182004411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91060621|NCT00352417|182004412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA was performed on the natural log transformed data||||||<0.01
91060622|NCT00352417|182004413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.01
91060623|NCT04856917|182004464|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.21||0.3757|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.47|8.19|||LRMM|||Least square (LS) Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a linear repeated measures model (LRMM) which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate.||8.19|-2.47|0.3757
91060624|NCT04856917|182004464|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.22||0.6183|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.73|6.95|||LRMM|||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate.||6.95|-3.73|0.6183
91060625|NCT04856917|182004465|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.249|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.85|4.8||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 2||4.80|-0.85|0.2490
91060626|NCT04856917|182004465|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.72||0.0708|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.28|5.99||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 2||5.99|0.28|0.0708
91060627|NCT04856917|182004465|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|7.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.68||0.004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.44|12.34||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 4||12.34|3.44|0.0040
91060628|NCT04856917|182004465|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.71||0.206|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.05|7.94||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 4||7.94|-1.05|0.2060
91060629|NCT04856917|182004465|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.66||0.4341|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.33|6.51||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 8||6.51|-2.33|0.4341
91060630|NCT04856917|182004465|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.73||0.7307|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.59|5.48||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 8||5.48|-3.59|0.7307
91060631|NCT04856917|182004465|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.93||0.3261|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.97|7.77||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 20||7.77|-1.97|0.3261
91060632|NCT04856917|182004465|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.95||0.8221|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.56|4.23||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 20||4.23|-5.56|0.8221
91060633|NCT04856917|182004466|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.2||0.3008|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.84|16.73||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 2||16.73|-3.84|0.3008
91060634|NCT04856917|182004466|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|10.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.27||0.0878|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|21.19||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 2||21.19|0.40|0.0878
90821278|NCT01393639|181520511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|4.07||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||4.07|-0.31|
91060635|NCT04856917|182004466|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|26.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.42||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|12.64|40.57||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 4||40.57|12.64|0.0020
91060636|NCT04856917|182004466|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|14.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.5||0.1029|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.12|28.09||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 4||28.09|-0.12|0.1029
91060637|NCT04856917|182004466|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.82||0.5427|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.25|20.02||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 8||20.02|-9.25|0.5427
90821279|NCT01393639|181520511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|3.13||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||3.13|-1.28|
90821280|NCT01393639|181520511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|2.62||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.62|-1.76|
90821281|NCT01393639|181520511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|2.74||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.74|-1.63|
90821282|NCT01393639|181520513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.52|3.55||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||3.55|-12.52|
90821283|NCT01393639|181520513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.1|-2.2||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-2.20|-18.10|
90821284|NCT01393639|181520513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.94|-2.92||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-2.92|-18.94|
90821285|NCT01393639|181520513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.01|-8.24||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-8.24|-24.01|
90821286|NCT01393639|181520513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.45|2.56||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.56|-13.45|
90821287|NCT01393639|181520513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.09|-6.11||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-6.11|-22.09|
90821288|NCT01393639|181520513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.13|4.29||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||4.29|-11.13|
90821289|NCT01393639|181520513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.7|-0.26||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.26|-15.70|
90821290|NCT01393639|181520513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.93|2.59||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.59|-12.93|
90821291|NCT01393639|181520513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.9|-2.54||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-2.54|-17.90|
90821292|NCT01393639|181520513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.32|10.19||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||10.19|-5.32|
90821293|NCT01393639|181520513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.83|-3.45||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-3.45|-18.83|
90821294|NCT01393639|181520513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.44|1.59||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.59|-12.44|
90821295|NCT01393639|181520513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.27|-5.2||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-5.20|-19.27|
90821296|NCT01393639|181520513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.11|-2.14||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-2.14|-16.11|
91060638|NCT04856917|182004466|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.06||0.5833|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.05|20.02||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 8||20.02|-10.05|0.5833
90821297|NCT01393639|181520513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.89|-2.88||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-2.88|-16.89|
90821298|NCT01393639|181520513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.63|4.4||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||4.40|-9.63|
90821299|NCT01393639|181520513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.88|-5.98||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-5.98|-19.88|
90821300|NCT01393639|181520513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.03|3.83||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||3.83|-10.03|
90821301|NCT01393639|181520513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.06|-3.13||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-3.13|-17.06|
90821302|NCT01393639|181520513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.57|-3.77||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-3.77|-17.57|
90821303|NCT01393639|181520513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.72|-0.86||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.86|-14.72|
90821304|NCT01393639|181520513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.98|3.89||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||3.89|-9.98|
90821305|NCT01393639|181520513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.27|-6.54||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-6.54|-20.27|
90821306|NCT01393639|181520513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.62|17.61||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||17.61|1.62|
90821307|NCT01393639|181520513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.96|11.85||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||11.85|-3.96|
90821308|NCT01393639|181520513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|11.13||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||11.13|-4.80|
90821309|NCT01393639|181520513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.86|5.81||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||5.81|-9.86|
90821310|NCT01393639|181520513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|15.42||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||15.42|0.03|
90821311|NCT01393639|181520513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.54|10.87||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||10.87|-4.54|
91060639|NCT04856917|182004466|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|10.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.98||0.3293|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.46|28.99||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 12||28.99|-7.46|0.3293
91060640|NCT04856917|182004466|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|14.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.99||0.19|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.74|32.74||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 12||32.74|-3.74|0.1900
90821312|NCT01393639|181520513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|13.71||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||13.71|-1.77|
90821313|NCT01393639|181520513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.75|8.59||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||8.59|-6.75|
90821314|NCT01393639|181520513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|14.43||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||14.43|0.57|
90821315|NCT01393639|181520513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.26|7.64||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||7.64|-6.26|
90821316|NCT01393639|181520513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|10.7||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||10.70|-3.09|
90821317|NCT01393639|181520513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.87|9.96||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||9.96|-3.87|
90821318|NCT01393639|181520513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.43|17.18||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||17.18|3.43|
90821319|NCT01393639|181520513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.59|10.22||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||10.22|-3.59|
90821320|NCT01393639|181520513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|9.57||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||9.57|-4.10|
90821321|NCT01393639|181520513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|12.48||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||12.48|-1.25|
90821322|NCT01393639|181520515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.56|8.31||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||8.31|-7.56|
90821323|NCT01393639|181520515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.01|-0.3||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.30|-16.01|
90821324|NCT01393639|181520515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.01|-6.2||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-6.20|-22.01|
90821325|NCT01393639|181520515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|-4.06||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-4.06|-19.70|
90821326|NCT01393639|181520515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.33|8.48||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||8.48|-7.33|
90821327|NCT01393639|181520515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.8|-4.98||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-4.98|-20.80|
90821328|NCT01393639|181520515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.31|8.58||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||8.58|-9.31|
90821329|NCT01393639|181520515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.43|-0.53||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.53|-18.43|
91060641|NCT04856917|182004466|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|11.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.38||0.2168|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.91|27.23||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 20||27.23|-3.91|0.2168
91060642|NCT04856917|182004466|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|7.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.42||0.4089|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.82|23.45||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 20||23.45|-7.82|0.4089
91060643|NCT04856917|182004467|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.53||0.4229|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.16|6.24||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial non-inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 2||6.24|-2.16|0.4229
91060644|NCT04856917|182004467|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.56||0.6027|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.91|5.59||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial non-inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 2||5.59|-2.91|0.6027
91060645|NCT04856917|182004467|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.2655|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.35|6.95||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial non-inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 4||6.95|-1.35|0.2655
91060646|NCT04856917|182004467|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.53||0.6229|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.95|5.44||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial non-inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 4||5.44|-2.95|0.6229
91060647|NCT04856917|182004467|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.74||0.4091|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.1|9.3||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial non-inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 8||9.30|-3.10|0.4091
91060648|NCT04856917|182004467|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.83||0.1274|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.47|12.25||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial non-inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 8||12.25|-0.47|0.1274
91060649|NCT04856917|182004467|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.76||0.2075|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.47|11.01||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial non-inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 12||11.01|-1.47|0.2075
91060650|NCT04856917|182004467|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.77||0.2484|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.88|10.64||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial non-inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 12||10.64|-1.88|0.2484
91060651|NCT04856917|182004467|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.61||0.3399|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.53|9.45||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial non-inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 20||9.45|-2.53|0.3399
91060652|NCT04856917|182004467|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.62||0.0545|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.03|13.05||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial non-inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 20||13.05|1.03|0.0545
91060653|NCT04856917|182004468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.69||0.9679|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-19.86|18.91||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial non-inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 2||18.91|-19.86|0.9679
91060654|NCT04856917|182004468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.83||0.9152|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.87|18.35||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial non-inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 2||18.35|-20.87|0.9152
91060655|NCT04856917|182004468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|7.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.64||0.449|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.67|23.32||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial non-inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 4||23.32|-8.67|0.4490
91060656|NCT04856917|182004468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.74||0.7246|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.72|19.6||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial non-inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 4||19.60|-12.72|0.7246
91060657|NCT04856917|182004468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|13.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.88||0.4655|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.49|45.14||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial non-inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 8||45.14|-17.49|0.4655
91060658|NCT04856917|182004468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|30.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.33||0.1178|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.59|62.54||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial non-inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 8||62.54|-1.59|0.1178
91060659|NCT04856917|182004468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|23.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.71||0.1938|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.22|52.52||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial non-inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 12||52.52|-6.22|0.1938
91060660|NCT04856917|182004468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|29.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.85||0.0991|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.08|59.29||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial non-inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 12||59.29|0.08|0.0991
91060661|NCT04856917|182004468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|15.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.44||0.3337|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.62|40.59||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial non-inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 20||40.59|-10.62|0.3337
91060662|NCT04856917|182004468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|31.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.48||0.0465|TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.5|56.87||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial non-inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 20||56.87|5.50|0.0465
91060663|NCT04856917|182004469|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.95||0.215|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.21|8.56||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline total facial lesion count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 2||8.56|-1.21|0.2150
91060664|NCT04856917|182004469|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.97||0.0864|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.21|10.05||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline total facial lesion count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 2||10.05|0.21|0.0864
91060665|NCT04856917|182004469|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|10.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.88||0.0084|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.97|16.85||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline total facial lesion count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 4||16.85|3.97|0.0084
91060666|NCT04856917|182004469|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.91||0.16|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.95|12.01||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline total facial lesion count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 4||12.01|-0.95|0.1600
91060667|NCT04856917|182004469|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.23||0.3671|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.94|13.41||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline total facial lesion count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 8||13.41|-3.94|0.3671
91060668|NCT04856917|182004469|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.35||0.1587|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.28|16.46||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline total facial lesion count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 8||16.46|-1.28|0.1587
91060669|NCT04856917|182004469|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.8||0.1932|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.03|17.21||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline total facial lesion count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 12||17.21|-2.03|0.1932
91060670|NCT04856917|182004469|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.82||0.2518|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.95|16.37||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline total facial lesion count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 12||16.37|-2.95|0.2518
91060671|NCT04856917|182004469|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.53||0.232|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.53|15.83||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline total facial lesion count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 20||15.83|-2.53|0.2320
90821330|NCT01393639|181520515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.39|-4.44||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-4.44|-22.39|
90821331|NCT01393639|181520515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.48|0.33||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.33|-17.48|
90821332|NCT01393639|181520515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.57|6.38||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||6.38|-11.57|
90821333|NCT01393639|181520515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.73|-4.78||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-4.78|-22.73|
90821334|NCT01393639|181520515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.32|8.88||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||8.88|-9.32|
90821335|NCT01393639|181520515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.39|-3.17||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-3.17|-21.39|
90821336|NCT01393639|181520515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.53|-7.36||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-7.36|-25.53|
90821337|NCT01393639|181520515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.42|-0.34||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.34|-18.42|
90821338|NCT01393639|181520515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.61|4.57||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||4.57|-13.61|
90821339|NCT01393639|181520515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.87|-4.69||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-4.69|-22.87|
90821340|NCT01393639|181520515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|11.6||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||11.60|-7.90|
90821341|NCT01393639|181520515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.51|-0.93||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.93|-20.51|
90821342|NCT01393639|181520515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.28|-8.77||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-8.77|-28.28|
90821343|NCT01393639|181520515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.67|-3.25||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-3.25|-22.67|
90821344|NCT01393639|181520515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.21|2.3||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.30|-17.21|
90821345|NCT01393639|181520515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.0|-6.48||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-6.48|-26.00|
90821346|NCT01393639|181520515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.34|21.2||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||21.20|5.34|
90821347|NCT01393639|181520515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.12|12.59||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||12.59|-3.12|
90821348|NCT01393639|181520515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|6.68||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||6.68|-9.10|
90821349|NCT01393639|181520515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.79|8.81||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||8.81|-6.79|
90821350|NCT01393639|181520515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.39|22.38||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||22.38|4.39|
90821351|NCT01393639|181520515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.73|13.27||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||13.27|-4.73|
90821352|NCT01393639|181520515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.68|9.35||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||9.35|-8.68|
90821353|NCT01393639|181520515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.77|14.12||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||14.12|-3.77|
90821354|NCT01393639|181520515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.44|22.68||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||22.68|4.44|
90821355|NCT01393639|181520515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.64|10.64||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||10.64|-7.64|
90821356|NCT01393639|181520515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.76|6.44||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||6.44|-11.76|
90821357|NCT01393639|181520515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.65|13.46||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||13.46|-4.65|
90821358|NCT01393639|181520515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.34|27.84||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||27.84|8.34|
90821359|NCT01393639|181520515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.27|15.32||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||15.32|-4.27|
91060672|NCT04856917|182004469|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.55||0.2014|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.08|16.35||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline total facial lesion count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 20||16.35|-2.08|0.2014
90821360|NCT01393639|181520515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.03|7.46||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||7.46|-12.03|
90821361|NCT01393639|181520515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.42|12.98||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||12.98|-6.42|
90821362|NCT01393639|181520517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.07|-0.06||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.06|-14.07|
90821363|NCT01393639|181520517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.34|-5.56||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-5.56|-19.34|
90821364|NCT01393639|181520517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.79|-5.91||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-5.91|-19.79|
91060673|NCT04856917|182004470|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.94||0.4361|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.34|12.06||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline total facial lesion count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 2||12.06|-4.34|0.4361
90821365|NCT01393639|181520517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.79|-9.06||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-9.06|-22.79|
90821366|NCT01393639|181520517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.89|2.99||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.99|-10.89|
90821367|NCT01393639|181520517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.44|-6.57||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-6.57|-20.44|
90821368|NCT01393639|181520517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.65|0.16||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.16|-14.65|
90821369|NCT01393639|181520517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.38|-4.68||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-4.68|-19.38|
90821370|NCT01393639|181520517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.1|-8.35||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-8.35|-23.10|
90821371|NCT01393639|181520517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.27|-6.63||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-6.63|-21.27|
90821372|NCT01393639|181520517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.31|1.43||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.43|-13.31|
90821373|NCT01393639|181520517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.54|-8.79||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-8.79|-23.54|
90821374|NCT01393639|181520517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|1.32||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.32|-13.50|
90821375|NCT01393639|181520517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.46|-5.65||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-5.65|-20.46|
90821376|NCT01393639|181520517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.69|-7.93||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-7.93|-22.69|
90821377|NCT01393639|181520517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.66|-5.96||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-5.96|-20.66|
90821378|NCT01393639|181520517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.44|-1.68||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-1.68|-16.44|
90821379|NCT01393639|181520517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.82|-7.06||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-7.06|-21.82|
90821380|NCT01393639|181520517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.53|3.09||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||3.09|-12.53|
90821381|NCT01393639|181520517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.21|-4.59||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-4.59|-20.21|
90821382|NCT01393639|181520517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.25|-8.71||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-8.71|-24.25|
91060674|NCT04856917|182004470|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|8.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.98||0.1018|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.04|16.48||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline total facial lesion count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 2||16.48|-0.04|0.1018
91060675|NCT04856917|182004470|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|16.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.79||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.66|25.88||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline total facial lesion count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 4||25.88|6.66|0.0059
91060676|NCT04856917|182004470|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|9.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.83||0.0913|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.26|19.59||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline total facial lesion count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 4||19.59|0.26|0.0913
91060677|NCT04856917|182004470|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.7||0.4921|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.47|18.09||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline total facial lesion count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 8||18.09|-7.47|0.4921
91060678|NCT04856917|182004470|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|11.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.89||0.1607|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.95|24.24||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline total facial lesion count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 8||24.24|-1.95|0.1607
90821383|NCT01393639|181520517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.94|-4.44||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-4.44|-19.94|
90821384|NCT01393639|181520517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5|0.04||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.04|-15.50|
90821385|NCT01393639|181520517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.75|-6.21||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-6.21|-21.75|
90821386|NCT01393639|181520517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|13.42||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||13.42|-0.53|
90821387|NCT01393639|181520517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.81|7.92||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||7.92|-5.81|
90821388|NCT01393639|181520517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.25|7.57||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||7.57|-6.25|
90821389|NCT01393639|181520517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.26|4.42||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||4.42|-9.26|
91060679|NCT04856917|182004470|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|14.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.19||0.1244|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.02|29.48||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline total facial lesion count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 12||29.48|-1.02|0.1244
91060680|NCT04856917|182004470|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|15.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.2||0.1004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.02|30.51||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline total facial lesion count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 12||30.51|-0.02|0.1004
91060681|NCT04856917|182004470|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|12.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.64||0.2015|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.61|28.39||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline total facial lesion count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 20||28.39|-3.61|0.2015
91060682|NCT04856917|182004470|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|15.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.66||0.1057|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.27|31.81||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline total facial lesion count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 20||31.81|-0.27|0.1057
91060683|NCT04856917|182004471|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.5157|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.08|0.19||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial IGA as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 2||0.19|-0.08|0.5157
90821390|NCT01393639|181520517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|16.35||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||16.35|1.48|
90821391|NCT01393639|181520517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.24|11.51||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||11.51|-3.24|
90821392|NCT01393639|181520517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.96|7.84||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||7.84|-6.96|
90821393|NCT01393639|181520517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.14|9.56||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||9.56|-5.14|
90821394|NCT01393639|181520517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|15.77||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||15.77|0.92|
90821395|NCT01393639|181520517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.03|8.8||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||8.80|-6.03|
90821396|NCT01393639|181520517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.26|6.52||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||6.52|-8.26|
90821397|NCT01393639|181520517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.23|8.49||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||8.49|-6.23|
90821398|NCT01393639|181520517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|17.06||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||17.06|1.46|
90821399|NCT01393639|181520517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.23|9.38||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||9.38|-6.23|
90821400|NCT01393639|181520517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.27|5.27||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||5.27|-10.27|
90821401|NCT01393639|181520517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.95|9.53||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||9.53|-5.95|
90821402|NCT01393639|181520519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.89|5.14||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||5.14|-10.89|
90821403|NCT01393639|181520519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|1.08||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.08|-14.80|
90821404|NCT01393639|181520519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.34|-6.38||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-6.38|-22.34|
90821405|NCT01393639|181520519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.22|-4.41||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-4.41|-20.22|
90821406|NCT01393639|181520519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.12|5.85||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||5.85|-10.12|
90821407|NCT01393639|181520519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.05|-6.04||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-6.04|-22.05|
91060684|NCT04856917|182004471|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.0178|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.06|0.34||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial IGA as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 2||0.34|0.06|0.0178
91060685|NCT04856917|182004471|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.12||0.0132|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.1|0.48||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial IGA as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 4||0.48|0.10|0.0132
91060686|NCT04856917|182004471|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.16|0.54||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial IGA as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 4||0.54|0.16|0.0034
91060687|NCT04856917|182004471|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.051|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.04|0.47||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial IGA as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 8||0.47|0.04|0.0510
90821408|NCT01393639|181520519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.83|7.3||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||7.30|-9.83|
90821409|NCT01393639|181520519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.67|-1.53||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-1.53|-18.67|
90821410|NCT01393639|181520519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.01|-6.82||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-6.82|-24.01|
90821411|NCT01393639|181520519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.33|-3.26||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-3.26|-20.33|
90821412|NCT01393639|181520519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.57|2.62||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.62|-14.57|
90821413|NCT01393639|181520519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.98|-6.76||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-6.76|-23.98|
90821414|NCT01393639|181520519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.49|9.03||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||9.03|-9.49|
90821415|NCT01393639|181520519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.64|-1.08||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-1.08|-19.64|
90821416|NCT01393639|181520519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.83|-6.32||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-6.32|-24.83|
91060688|NCT04856917|182004471|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0608|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.03|0.47||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial IGA as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 8||0.47|0.03|0.0608
91060689|NCT04856917|182004471|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.2702|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|0.48||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial IGA as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 12||0.48|-0.10|0.2702
91060690|NCT04856917|182004471|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0249|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.11|0.69||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial IGA as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 12||0.69|0.11|0.0249
91060691|NCT04856917|182004471|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.1853|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.06|0.55||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial IGA as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 20||0.55|-0.06|0.1853
91060692|NCT04856917|182004471|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.2974|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.11|0.5||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial IGA as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 20||0.50|-0.11|0.2974
90821417|NCT01393639|181520519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.56|-2.13||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-2.13|-20.56|
90821418|NCT01393639|181520519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.61|3.89||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||3.89|-14.61|
90821419|NCT01393639|181520519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.15|-6.61||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-6.61|-25.15|
90821420|NCT01393639|181520519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.32|8.94||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||8.94|-10.32|
90821421|NCT01393639|181520519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.95|-0.59||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.59|-19.95|
90821422|NCT01393639|181520519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.34|-10.06||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-10.06|-29.34|
90821423|NCT01393639|181520519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.25|-3.04||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-3.04|-22.25|
91060693|NCT04856917|182004472|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.5||||0.339|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.62|1.63||P-value for the adjusted risk difference between imsidolimab and placebo was obtained from generalized Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (ANOVA for row means), adjusting for facial IGA score at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 4||1.63|-6.62|0.3390
90821424|NCT01393639|181520519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.24|2.04||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.04|-17.24|
90821425|NCT01393639|181520519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.99|-9.68||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-9.68|-28.99|
90821426|NCT01393639|181520519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.18|19.16||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||19.16|3.18|
90821427|NCT01393639|181520519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|15.15||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||15.15|-0.78|
90821428|NCT01393639|181520519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.28|7.65||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||7.65|-8.28|
90821429|NCT01393639|181520519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.14|9.61||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||9.61|-6.14|
90821430|NCT01393639|181520519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.51|22.71||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||22.71|5.51|
90821431|NCT01393639|181520519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.38|13.92||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||13.92|-3.38|
90821432|NCT01393639|181520519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.68|8.59||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||8.59|-8.68|
91060694|NCT04856917|182004472|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.6||||0.3243|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.79|1.59||P-value for the adjusted risk difference between imsidolimab and placebo was obtained from generalized Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (ANOVA for row means), adjusting for facial IGA score at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 4||1.59|-6.79|0.3243
91060695|NCT04856917|182004472|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.91|5.91||P-value for the adjusted risk difference between imsidolimab and placebo was obtained from generalized Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (ANOVA for row means), adjusting for facial IGA score at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 8||5.91|-5.91|1.0000
91060696|NCT04856917|182004472|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.66||||0.332|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.96|1.63||P-value for the adjusted risk difference between imsidolimab and placebo was obtained from generalized Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (ANOVA for row means), adjusting for facial IGA score at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 8||1.63|-6.96|0.3320
91060697|NCT04856917|182004472|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.45||||0.7595|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.5|10.59||P-value for the adjusted risk difference between imsidolimab and placebo was obtained from generalized Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (ANOVA for row means), adjusting for facial IGA score at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 12||10.59|-15.50|0.7595
91060698|NCT04856917|182004472|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-14.11||||0.0209|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.66|-4.57||P-value for the adjusted risk difference between imsidolimab and placebo was obtained from generalized Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (ANOVA for row means), adjusting for facial IGA score at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 12||-4.57|-23.66|0.0209
91060699|NCT04856917|182004472|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.56||||0.6094|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.99|9.87||P-value for the adjusted risk difference between imsidolimab and placebo was obtained from generalized Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (ANOVA for row means), adjusting for facial IGA score at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 20||9.87|-18.99|0.6094
91060700|NCT04856917|182004472|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.28||||0.2076|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.34|2.78||P-value for the adjusted risk difference between imsidolimab and placebo was obtained from generalized Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (ANOVA for row means), adjusting for facial IGA score at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 20||2.78|-23.34|0.2076
91060701|NCT04856917|182004473|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.1||||0.4482|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|0.29||Adjusted P-value obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (ANOVA for row means), adjusting for facial IGA at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Somers'D statistic and tanh\^(-1) transformed 90% CI.|Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 2||0.29|-0.10|0.4482
91060702|NCT04856917|182004473|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.14||||0.4529|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.05|0.33||Adjusted P-value obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (ANOVA for row means), adjusting for facial IGA at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Somers'D statistic and tanh\^(-1) transformed 90% CI.|Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 2||0.33|-0.05|0.4529
91060703|NCT04856917|182004473|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.01||||0.932|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|0.18||Adjusted P-value obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (ANOVA for row means), adjusting for facial IGA at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Somers'D statistic and tanh\^(-1) transformed 90% CI.|Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 4||0.18|-0.20|0.9320
91060704|NCT04856917|182004473|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.03||||0.3151|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.22|0.16||Adjusted P-value obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (ANOVA for row means), adjusting for facial IGA at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Somers'D statistic and tanh\^(-1) transformed 90% CI.|Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 4||0.16|-0.22|0.3151
91060705|NCT04856917|182004473|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.14||||0.2908|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.32|0.06||Adjusted P-value obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (ANOVA for row means), adjusting for facial IGA at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Somers'D statistic and tanh\^(-1) transformed 90% CI.|Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 8||0.06|-0.32|0.2908
91060706|NCT04856917|182004473|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.05||||0.7277|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.15|0.24||Adjusted P-value obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (ANOVA for row means), adjusting for facial IGA at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Somers'D statistic and tanh\^(-1) transformed 90% CI.|Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 8||0.24|-0.15|0.7277
91060707|NCT04856917|182004473|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.03||||0.8463|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.23|0.17||Adjusted P-value obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (ANOVA for row means), adjusting for facial IGA at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Somers'D statistic and tanh\^(-1) transformed 90% CI.|Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 12||0.17|-0.23|0.8463
91060708|NCT04856917|182004473|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.08||||0.5281|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.28|0.11||Adjusted P-value obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (ANOVA for row means), adjusting for facial IGA at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Somers'D statistic and tanh\^(-1) transformed 90% CI.|Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 12||0.11|-0.28|0.5281
91060709|NCT04856917|182004473|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.09||||0.5747|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.28|0.11||Adjusted P-value obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (ANOVA for row means), adjusting for facial IGA at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Somers'D statistic and tanh\^(-1) transformed 90% CI.|Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 20||0.11|-0.28|0.5747
91060710|NCT04856917|182004473|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.05||||0.5081|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.24|0.14||Adjusted P-value obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (ANOVA for row means), adjusting for facial IGA at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Somers'D statistic and tanh\^(-1) transformed 90% CI.|Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 20||0.14|-0.24|0.5081
91060711|NCT04856917|182004474|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.01||||0.8338|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.19|0.2||Adjusted P-value obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (ANOVA for row means), adjusting for facial IGA at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Somers'D statistic and tanh\^(-1) transformed 90% CI.|Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 2||0.20|-0.19|0.8338
91060712|NCT04856917|182004474|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.12||||0.1142|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.31|0.09||Adjusted P-value obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (ANOVA for row means), adjusting for facial IGA at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Somers'D statistic and tanh\^(-1) transformed 90% CI.|Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 2||0.09|-0.31|0.1142
91060713|NCT04856917|182004474|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.2||||0.3433|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.38|0.0||Adjusted P-value obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (ANOVA for row means), adjusting for facial IGA at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Somers'D statistic and tanh\^(-1) transformed 90% CI.|Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 4||0.00|-0.38|0.3433
91060714|NCT04856917|182004474|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.17||||0.1129|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.37|0.04||Adjusted P-value obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (ANOVA for row means), adjusting for facial IGA at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Somers'D statistic and tanh\^(-1) transformed 90% CI.|Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 2||0.04|-0.37|0.1129
90821433|NCT01393639|181520519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.99|12.15||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||12.15|-4.99|
90821434|NCT01393639|181520519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.38|24.93||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||24.93|6.38|
90821435|NCT01393639|181520519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.81|14.86||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||14.86|-3.81|
90821436|NCT01393639|181520519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.97|9.59||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||9.59|-8.97|
90821437|NCT01393639|181520519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.69|13.77||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||13.77|-4.69|
90821438|NCT01393639|181520519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.03|28.27||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||28.27|9.03|
90821439|NCT01393639|181520519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|18.78||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||18.78|-0.64|
91060715|NCT04856917|182004474|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.2||||0.2842|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.38|0.0||Adjusted P-value obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (ANOVA for row means), adjusting for facial IGA at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Somers'D statistic and tanh\^(-1) transformed 90% CI.|Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 8||0.00|-0.38|0.2842
90821440|NCT01393639|181520519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|9.28||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||9.28|-10.00|
90821441|NCT01393639|181520519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.91|16.29||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||16.29|-2.91|
90821442|NCT01393639|181520521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.02||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.02|-0.37|
90821443|NCT01393639|181520521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.11||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.11|-0.46|
90821444|NCT01393639|181520521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.1||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.10|-0.45|
90821445|NCT01393639|181520521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.18||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.18|-0.52|
90821446|NCT01393639|181520521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.0||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.00|-0.35|
90821447|NCT01393639|181520521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.18||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.18|-0.53|
90821448|NCT01393639|181520521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.07||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.07|-0.31|
91060716|NCT04856917|182004474|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.34||||0.0212|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.52|-0.13||Adjusted P-value obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (ANOVA for row means), adjusting for facial IGA at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Somers'D statistic and tanh\^(-1) transformed 90% CI.|Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 8||-0.13|-0.52|0.0212
91060717|NCT04856917|182004474|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.07||||0.7665|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.28|0.14||Adjusted P-value obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (ANOVA for row means), adjusting for facial IGA at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Somers'D statistic and tanh\^(-1) transformed 90% CI.|Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 12||0.14|-0.28|0.7665
91060718|NCT04856917|182004474|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.22||||0.1777|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.42|0.0||Adjusted P-value obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (ANOVA for row means), adjusting for facial IGA at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Somers'D statistic and tanh\^(-1) transformed 90% CI.|Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 12||-0.00|-0.42|0.1777
90821449|NCT01393639|181520521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.17||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.17|-0.54|
90821450|NCT01393639|181520521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.09||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.09|-0.47|
90821451|NCT01393639|181520521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.18||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.18|-0.56|
90821452|NCT01393639|181520521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|-0.01||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.01|-0.39|
90821453|NCT01393639|181520521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.25||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.25|-0.63|
90821454|NCT01393639|181520521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.05||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.05|-0.34|
90821455|NCT01393639|181520521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.2||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.20|-0.59|
90821456|NCT01393639|181520521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.12||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.12|-0.51|
90821457|NCT01393639|181520521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.16||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.16|-0.55|
90821458|NCT01393639|181520521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.01||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.01|-0.38|
90821459|NCT01393639|181520521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.27||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.27|-0.67|
90821460|NCT01393639|181520521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.15||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.15|-0.30|
90821461|NCT01393639|181520521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.18||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.18|-0.63|
90821462|NCT01393639|181520521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|-0.18||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.18|-0.64|
90821463|NCT01393639|181520521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.14||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.14|-0.59|
90821464|NCT01393639|181520521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.09||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.09|-0.54|
90821465|NCT01393639|181520521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.35||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.35|-0.81|
91060719|NCT04856917|182004474|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.12||||0.3741|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.33|0.09||Adjusted P-value obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (ANOVA for row means), adjusting for facial IGA at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Somers'D statistic and tanh\^(-1) transformed 90% CI.|Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 20||0.09|-0.33|0.3741
90821466|NCT01393639|181520521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.34||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.34|-0.01|
90821467|NCT01393639|181520521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.24||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.24|-0.10|
90821468|NCT01393639|181520521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.25||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.25|-0.10|
90821469|NCT01393639|181520521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.18||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.18|-0.17|
90821470|NCT01393639|181520521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.51||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.51|0.13|
90821471|NCT01393639|181520521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.27||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.27|-0.11|
90821472|NCT01393639|181520521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.34||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.34|-0.04|
90821473|NCT01393639|181520521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.25||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.25|-0.13|
90821474|NCT01393639|181520521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.52||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.52|0.13|
90821475|NCT01393639|181520521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.27||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.27|-0.12|
90821476|NCT01393639|181520521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.35||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.35|-0.05|
90821477|NCT01393639|181520521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.31||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.31|-0.08|
90821478|NCT01393639|181520521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.73||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.73|0.28|
90821479|NCT01393639|181520521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.4||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.40|-0.05|
90821480|NCT01393639|181520521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.4||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.40|-0.06|
90821481|NCT01393639|181520521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.44||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.44|-0.01|
90821482|NCT01393639|181520523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.04||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.04|-0.78|
90821483|NCT01393639|181520523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|-0.39||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.39|-1.12|
90821484|NCT01393639|181520523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|-0.44||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.44|-1.18|
90821485|NCT01393639|181520523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|-0.74||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.74|-1.48|
90821486|NCT01393639|181520523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.02||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.02|-0.72|
90821487|NCT01393639|181520523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|-0.46||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.46|-1.19|
90821488|NCT01393639|181520523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.0||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.00|-0.85|
90821489|NCT01393639|181520523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|-0.31||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.31|-1.15|
90821490|NCT01393639|181520523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|-0.52||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.52|-1.37|
90821491|NCT01393639|181520523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|-0.54||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.54|-1.39|
90821492|NCT01393639|181520523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.18||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.18|-0.67|
90821493|NCT01393639|181520523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.49||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.49|-1.33|
90821494|NCT01393639|181520523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.02||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.02|-0.90|
90821495|NCT01393639|181520523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|-0.41||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.41|-1.32|
90821496|NCT01393639|181520523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|-0.62||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.62|-1.53|
90821497|NCT01393639|181520523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|-0.6||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.60|-1.51|
90821498|NCT01393639|181520523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.03||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.03|-0.89|
90821499|NCT01393639|181520523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.59||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.59|-1.50|
90821500|NCT01393639|181520523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.03||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.03|-1.00|
90821501|NCT01393639|181520523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.43||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.43|-1.40|
91060720|NCT04856917|182004474|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.13||||0.3321|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.33|0.09||Adjusted P-value obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (ANOVA for row means), adjusting for facial IGA at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Somers'D statistic and tanh\^(-1) transformed 90% CI.|Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 20||0.09|-0.33|0.3321
91060721|NCT04856917|182004475|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.7932|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.56|2.14||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline DLQI as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 2||2.14|-1.56|0.7932
91060722|NCT04856917|182004475|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12||0.4365|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.99|2.73||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline DLQI as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 2||2.73|-0.99|0.4365
91060723|NCT04856917|182004475|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.8543|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.92|1.54||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline DLQI as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 4||1.54|-1.92|0.8543
91060724|NCT04856917|182004475|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.8726|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.91|1.58||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline DLQI as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 4||1.58|-1.91|0.8726
90821502|NCT01393639|181520523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|-0.8||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.80|-1.77|
90821503|NCT01393639|181520523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|-0.72||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.72|-1.69|
90821504|NCT01393639|181520523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.01||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.01|-0.98|
90821505|NCT01393639|181520523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|-0.73||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.73|-1.69|
90821506|NCT01393639|181520523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.78||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.78|0.04|
91060725|NCT04856917|182004475|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.07||0.5983|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.22|2.35||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline DLQI as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 8||2.35|-1.22|0.5983
91060726|NCT04856917|182004475|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09||0.3396|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.77|2.86||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline DLQI as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 8||2.86|-0.77|0.3396
91060727|NCT04856917|182004475|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||0.5305|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.23|1.01||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline DLQI as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 12||1.01|-2.23|0.5305
91060728|NCT04856917|182004475|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96||0.0819|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.09|3.29||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline DLQI as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 12||3.29|0.09|0.0819
91060729|NCT04856917|182004475|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09||0.0243|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|4.31||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline DLQI as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 20||4.31|0.69|0.0243
90821507|NCT01393639|181520523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.44||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.44|-0.29|
90821508|NCT01393639|181520523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.38||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.38|-0.35|
91060730|NCT04856917|182004475|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.1061|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.03|3.46||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline DLQI as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 20||3.46|-0.03|0.1061
90821509|NCT01393639|181520523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.08||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.08|-0.65|
90821510|NCT01393639|181520523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.91||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.91|0.06|
90821511|NCT01393639|181520523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.6||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.60|-0.24|
90821512|NCT01393639|181520523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.38||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.38|-0.46|
90821513|NCT01393639|181520523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.37||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.37|-0.48|
90821514|NCT01393639|181520523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.06||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.06|0.15|
90821515|NCT01393639|181520523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.63||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.63|-0.28|
90821516|NCT01393639|181520523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.42||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.42|-0.49|
90821517|NCT01393639|181520523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.44||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.44|-0.47|
90821518|NCT01393639|181520523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.18||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.18|0.22|
90821519|NCT01393639|181520523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.78||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.78|-0.18|
90821520|NCT01393639|181520523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.4||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.40|-0.55|
90821521|NCT01393639|181520523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.49||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.49|-0.47|
90821522|NCT01393639|181520525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.03||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.03|-0.76|
90821523|NCT01393639|181520525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|-0.39||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.39|-1.17|
90821524|NCT01393639|181520525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|-0.54||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.54|-1.32|
90821525|NCT01393639|181520525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|-0.78||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.78|-1.56|
90821526|NCT01393639|181520525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.09||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.09|-0.70|
90821527|NCT01393639|181520525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|-0.55||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.55|-1.34|
91060731|NCT04856917|182004476|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.67||0.9333|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.69|2.97||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline CDLQI as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 2||2.97|-2.69|0.9333
91060732|NCT04856917|182004476|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.67||0.3972|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.4|4.27||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline CDLQI as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 2||4.27|-1.40|0.3972
90821528|NCT01393639|181520525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.07||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.07|-0.84|
90821529|NCT01393639|181520525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|-0.32||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.32|-1.23|
90821530|NCT01393639|181520525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|-0.61||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.61|-1.52|
90821531|NCT01393639|181520525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|-0.54||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.54|-1.45|
90821532|NCT01393639|181520525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.21||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.21|-0.71|
90821533|NCT01393639|181520525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|-0.57||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.57|-1.48|
90821534|NCT01393639|181520525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.11||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.11|-0.89|
90821535|NCT01393639|181520525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|-0.45||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.45|-1.44|
91060733|NCT04856917|182004476|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.0662|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.23|3.99||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline CDLQI as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 4||3.99|0.23|0.0662
91060734|NCT04856917|182004476|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.8898|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.73|2.04||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline CDLQI as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 4||2.04|-1.73|0.8898
91060735|NCT04856917|182004476|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06||0.3664|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.85|2.82||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline CDLQI as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 8||2.82|-0.85|0.3664
91060736|NCT04856917|182004476|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.0655|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.25|4.05||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline CDLQI as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 8||4.05|0.25|0.0655
90821536|NCT01393639|181520525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|-0.71||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.71|-1.71|
90821537|NCT01393639|181520525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|-0.59||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.59|-1.59|
90821538|NCT01393639|181520525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.05||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.05|-0.95|
90821539|NCT01393639|181520525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|-0.66||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.66|-1.65|
90821540|NCT01393639|181520525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.08||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.08|-0.96|
90821541|NCT01393639|181520525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|-0.44||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.44|-1.48|
90821542|NCT01393639|181520525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|-0.91||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.91|-1.94|
90821543|NCT01393639|181520525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.76||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.76|-1.80|
90821544|NCT01393639|181520525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.03||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.03|-1.06|
90821545|NCT01393639|181520525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|-0.81||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.81|-1.85|
90821546|NCT01393639|181520525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.98||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.98|0.19|
90821547|NCT01393639|181520525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.56||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.56|-0.22|
90821548|NCT01393639|181520525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.41||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.41|-0.38|
91060737|NCT04856917|182004476|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.6921|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.61|2.57||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline CDLQI as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 12||2.57|-1.61|0.6921
91060738|NCT04856917|182004476|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.23||0.0406|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.59|4.88||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline CDLQI as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 12||4.88|0.59|0.0406
90821549|NCT01393639|181520525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.16||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.16|-0.62|
90821550|NCT01393639|181520525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.09||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.09|0.18|
90821551|NCT01393639|181520525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.7||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.70|-0.21|
90821552|NCT01393639|181520525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.42||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.42|-0.50|
90821553|NCT01393639|181520525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.48||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.48|-0.43|
90821554|NCT01393639|181520525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.26||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.26|0.26|
91060739|NCT04856917|182004476|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.6872|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.24|1.38||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline CDLQI as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 20||1.38|-2.24|0.6872
91060740|NCT04856917|182004476|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08||0.3392|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.81|2.92||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline CDLQI as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 20||2.92|-0.81|0.3392
91060741|NCT00486525|182004478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.075|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.058||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.039|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger adjustment to the degrees of freedom was used to control Type I error rates.|Yoga minus Control immediately post-treatment|Mixed effect models were used to test the intervention's effect on primary outcomes. Fixed effects included visit, intervention group, their interaction, and baseline outcome levels. Random effects included a subject-specific random intercept, accounting for within-subject correlation, and a random effect for yoga-group, accounting for the partially-nested data arising from small groups being present in the intervention arm but not in the control arm.||0.039|-0.19|0.20
91060742|NCT00486525|182004478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|-0.015|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger adjustment to the degrees of freedom was used to control Type I error rates.|Yoga minus Control 3 months post-treatment|Mixed effect models were used to test the intervention's effect on primary outcomes. Fixed effects included visit, intervention group, their interaction, and baseline outcome levels. Random effects included a subject-specific random intercept, accounting for within-subject correlation, and a random effect for yoga-group, accounting for the partially-nested data arising from small groups being present in the intervention arm but not in the control arm.||-0.015|-0.25|0.027
91060743|NCT00486525|182004478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.018|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger adjustment to the degrees of freedom was used to control Type I error rates.|Model used continuous yoga practice frequency in place of group assignment to predict primary outcomes immediately post-treatment.|Secondary analysis on change of ln (TNF-a) for each 10 minute increase in yoga practice frequency, adjusting for baseline outcome levels, age, and SAD.||0.018|-0.060|0.28
91060744|NCT00486525|182004478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.038|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.079|0.0021|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger adjustment to the degrees of freedom was used to control Type I error rates.|Model used continuous yoga practice frequency in place of group assignment to predict primary outcomes 3 months post-treatment.|Secondary analysis on change of ln (TNF-a) for each 10 minute increase in yoga practice frequency, adjusting for baseline outcome levels, age, and SAD.||0.0021|-0.079|0.063
91060745|NCT00486525|182004479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.079|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|-0.042|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger adjustment to the degrees of freedom was used to control Type I error rates.|Yoga minus Control immediately post-treatment|Mixed effect models were used to test the intervention's effect on primary outcomes. Fixed effects included visit, intervention group, their interaction, and baseline outcome levels. Random effects included a subject-specific random intercept, accounting for within-subject correlation, and a random effect for yoga-group, accounting for the partially-nested data arising from small groups being present in the intervention arm but not in the control arm.||-0.042|-0.2|0.2
91060746|NCT00486525|182004479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.064||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|-0.031|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger adjustment to the degrees of freedom was used to control Type I error rates.|Yoga minus Control 3 months post-treatment|Mixed effect models were used to test the intervention's effect on primary outcomes. Fixed effects included visit, intervention group, their interaction, and baseline outcome levels. Random effects included a subject-specific random intercept, accounting for within-subject correlation, and a random effect for yoga-group, accounting for the partially-nested data arising from small groups being present in the intervention arm but not in the control arm.||-0.031|-0.28|0.015
91060747|NCT00486525|182004479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.063|0.019|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger adjustment to the degrees of freedom was used to control Type I error rates.|Model used continuous yoga practice frequency in place of group assignment to predict primary outcomes immediately post-treatment.|Secondary analysis on change of ln (IL-6) for each 10 minute increase in yoga practice frequency, adjusting for baseline outcome levels, age, and SAD.||0.019|-0.063|0.3
91060748|NCT00486525|182004479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.056|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.098|-0.013|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger adjustment to the degrees of freedom was used to control Type I error rates.|Model used continuous yoga practice frequency in place of group assignment to predict primary outcomes 3 months post-treatment.|Secondary analysis on change of ln (IL-6) for each 10 minute increase in yoga practice frequency, adjusting for baseline outcome levels, age, and SAD.||-0.013|-0.098|0.01
91060749|NCT00486525|182004480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger adjustment to the degrees of freedom was used to control Type I error rates.|Yoga minus Control immediately post-treatment|Mixed effect models were used to test the intervention's effect on primary outcomes. Fixed effects included visit, intervention group, their interaction, and baseline outcome levels. Random effects included a subject-specific random intercept, accounting for within-subject correlation, and a random effect for yoga-group, accounting for the partially-nested data arising from small groups being present in the intervention arm but not in the control arm.||0.11|-0.31|0.33
91060750|NCT00486525|182004480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.014|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger adjustment to the degrees of freedom was used to control Type I error rates.|Yoga minus Control 3 months post-treatment|Mixed effect models were used to test the intervention's effect on primary outcomes. Fixed effects included visit, intervention group, their interaction, and baseline outcome levels. Random effects included a subject-specific random intercept, accounting for within-subject correlation, and a random effect for yoga-group, accounting for the partially-nested data arising from small groups being present in the intervention arm but not in the control arm.||-0.014|-0.44|0.037
90821555|NCT01393639|181520525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.7||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.70|-0.29|
90821556|NCT01393639|181520525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.44||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.44|-0.55|
90821557|NCT01393639|181520525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.56||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.56|-0.43|
90821558|NCT01393639|181520525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.41||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.41|0.37|
90821559|NCT01393639|181520525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.89||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.89|-0.15|
90821560|NCT01393639|181520525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.42||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.42|-0.61|
90821561|NCT01393639|181520525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.57||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.57|-0.46|
90821562|NCT01393639|181520527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.94|2.17||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.17|-4.94|
90821563|NCT01393639|181520527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.98|3.08||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||3.08|-3.98|
90821564|NCT01393639|181520527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.34|3.82||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||3.82|-3.34|
90821565|NCT01393639|181520527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.75|4.28||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||4.28|-2.75|
90821566|NCT01393639|181520527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.88|2.27||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.27|-4.88|
90821567|NCT01393639|181520527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|5.82||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||5.82|-1.32|
90821568|NCT01393639|181520527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.89|1.87||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.87|-5.89|
90821569|NCT01393639|181520527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|5.4||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||5.40|-2.41|
90821570|NCT01393639|181520527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|5.34||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||5.34|-2.44|
90821571|NCT01393639|181520527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|5.76||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||5.76|-1.98|
90821572|NCT01393639|181520527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.16|4.61||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||4.61|-3.16|
90821573|NCT01393639|181520527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|8.06||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||8.06|0.29|
90821574|NCT01393639|181520527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.21|-0.06||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.06|-7.21|
90821575|NCT01393639|181520527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.25|0.85||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.85|-6.25|
90821576|NCT01393639|181520527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.63|1.6||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.60|-5.63|
90821577|NCT01393639|181520527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.02|2.05||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.05|-5.02|
90821578|NCT01393639|181520527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.07|-2.31||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-2.31|-10.07|
90821579|NCT01393639|181520527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|1.23||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.23|-6.60|
90821580|NCT01393639|181520527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.64|1.18||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.18|-6.64|
90821581|NCT01393639|181520527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.16|1.58||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.58|-6.16|
90821582|NCT01393639|181520529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|4.3||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||4.30|-0.83|
90821583|NCT01393639|181520529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|5.45||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||5.45|0.35|
90821584|NCT01393639|181520529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.54|8.7||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||8.70|3.54|
90821585|NCT01393639|181520529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.19|7.26||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||7.26|2.19|
90821586|NCT01393639|181520529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|4.76||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||4.76|-0.39|
90821587|NCT01393639|181520529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.83|7.99||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||7.99|2.83|
90821588|NCT01393639|181520529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|4.65||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||4.65|-1.08|
90821589|NCT01393639|181520529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|7.28||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||7.28|1.52|
90821590|NCT01393639|181520529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.33|9.07||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||9.07|3.33|
90821591|NCT01393639|181520529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|6.55||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||6.55|0.85|
90821592|NCT01393639|181520529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|6.47||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||6.47|0.74|
90821593|NCT01393639|181520529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.29|9.04||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||9.04|3.29|
90821594|NCT01393639|181520529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.27|-1.09||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-1.09|-6.27|
90821595|NCT01393639|181520529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.07|0.05||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.05|-5.07|
90821596|NCT01393639|181520529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|3.3||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||3.30|-1.88|
90821597|NCT01393639|181520529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.23|1.87||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.87|-3.23|
90821598|NCT01393639|181520529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.26|-1.5||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-1.50|-7.26|
91060751|NCT00486525|182004480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.034|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0235||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.035|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger adjustment to the degrees of freedom was used to control Type I error rates.|Model used continuous yoga practice frequency in place of group assignment to predict primary outcomes immediately post-treatment.|Secondary analysis on change of ln (IL-1b) for each 10 minute increase in yoga practice frequency, adjusting for baseline outcome levels, age, and SAD.||0.035|-0.10|0.33
90821599|NCT01393639|181520529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.65|1.12||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.12|-4.65|
90821600|NCT01393639|181520529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.84|2.91||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.91|-2.84|
90821601|NCT01393639|181520529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.33|0.39||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.39|-5.33|
90821602|NCT03626545|181520532|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.48|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox Proportional Hazards regression model stratified by line of therapy and histology|||1.48|0.76|0.633
90821603|NCT00793325|181520561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.575|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was Age. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between \<15 years and \>=15 years in the frequency of treatment related adverse events."||||=0.575
90821604|NCT00793325|181520562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.206|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was Gender. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between Male and Female in the frequency of treatment related adverse events."||||=0.206
90821605|NCT00793325|181520563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.033|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was Severity. The null hypothesis is that there is no association between mild, moderate and severe in the frequency of treatment related adverse events."||||=0.033
90821606|NCT00793325|181520563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.207|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Armitage Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Severity. The null hypothesis is that there is no linear trend in the frequency of treatment related adverse events across increasing levels of severity."||||=0.207
90821607|NCT00793325|181520564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.013|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was Past history of any disease. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between With past history of any disease and Without past history any disease in the frequency of treatment related adverse events."||||=0.013
90821608|NCT00793325|181520565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was Complication(s). The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between With complication(s) and Without complication(s)in the frequency of treatment related adverse events."||||=0.009
90821609|NCT00793325|181520566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was Hepatic Function Disorder. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between with Hepatic Function Disorder and without Hepatic Function Disorder in the frequency of treatment related adverse events."||||<0.001
90821610|NCT00793325|181520567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was Renal Impairment. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between With Renal Impairment and Without Renal Impairment in the frequency of treatment related adverse events."||||<0.001
90821611|NCT00793325|181520568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was Concomitant Drug(s). The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between With Concomitant Drug(s) and Without Concomitant Drug(s) in the frequency of treatment related adverse events."||||=0.003
90821612|NCT00793325|181520569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|A one-sided paired t-test was performed to test the hypothesis.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the mean value of the change in the growth rate SD score for calendar age between SGA at one year and SGA at baseline.||||<0.001
90821613|NCT00793325|181520569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|A one-sided paired t-test was performed to test the null hypothesis.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the mean value of the change in the growth rate SD score for calendar age between SGA at two years and SGA at baseline.||||<0.001
90821614|NCT00793325|181520569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|A one-sided paired t-test was performed to test the null hypothesis.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the mean value of the change in the growth rate SD score for calendar age between SGA at three years and SGA at baseline.||||<0.001
90821615|NCT00793325|181520570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|A one-sided paired t-test was performed to test the null hypothesis.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the mean value of the change in the height SD score for calendar age between SGA at one year and SGA at baseline.||||<0.001
90821616|NCT00793325|181520570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|A one-sided paired t-test was performed to test the null hypothesis.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the mean value of the change in the height SD score for calendar age between SGA at two years and SGA at baseline.||||<0.001
90821617|NCT00793325|181520570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|A one-sided paired t-test was performed to test the hypothesis.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the mean value of the change in the height SD score for calendar age between SGA at three years and SGA at baseline.||||<0.001
90821618|NCT05173012|181520616|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.623||0.5325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|1.62|||MMRM|MMRM model included treatment, baseline score, assessment timepoint, and timepoint-by-treatment as explanatory variables, treated as fixed effects.|Difference was calculated as Monotherapy: SAGE-324 15 mg - placebo.|||1.62|-0.84|0.5325
90821619|NCT05173012|181520616|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.634||0.6549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|0.97|||MMRM|MMRM model included treatment, baseline score, assessment timepoint, and timepoint-by-treatment as explanatory variables, treated as fixed effects.|Difference was calculated as Monotherapy: SAGE-324 30 mg - placebo.|||0.97|-1.54|0.6549
90821620|NCT05173012|181520616|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.1462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|2.41|||MMRM|MMRM model included treatment, baseline score, assessment timepoint, and timepoint-by-treatment as explanatory variables, treated as fixed effects.|Difference was calculated as Monotherapy: SAGE-324 60 mg - placebo.|||2.41|-0.36|0.1462
90821621|NCT05173012|181520617|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.326||0.1271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|4.67|||MMRM|MMRM model included treatment, baseline score, assessment timepoint, and timepoint-by-treatment as explanatory variables, treated as fixed effects.||||4.67|0.59|0.1271
90821622|NCT05173012|181520617|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.347||0.5642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.45|1.89|||MMRM|MMRM model included treatment, baseline score, assessment timepoint, and timepoint-by-treatment as explanatory variables, treated as fixed effects.||||1.89|-3.45|0.5642
90821623|NCT05173012|181520617|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.439||0.486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|3.85|||MMRM|MMRM model included treatment, baseline score, assessment timepoint, and timepoint-by-treatment as explanatory variables, treated as fixed effects.||||3.85|-1.84|0.4860
90821624|NCT03668613|181520623|SUPERIORITY||Predicted Log-OR|4.862|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.422|6.782|||Bayesian method using (MAP)|||Compared to historical placebo||6.782|3.422|
90821625|NCT03668613|181520623|SUPERIORITY||Predicted log-OR|4.836|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.422|6.772|||Bayesian method using (MAP)|||Compared to historical placebo||6.772|3.422|
90821626|NCT03668613|181520624|SUPERIORITY||Predicted log -OR|4.292|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.638|6.513|||Bayesian method using (MAP)|||Compared to historical placebo||6.513|2.638|
90821627|NCT03668613|181520624|SUPERIORITY||Predicted log-OR|4.606|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.919|6.78|||Bayesian method using (MAP)|||Compared to historical placebo||6.780|2.919|
90821628|NCT03668613|181520625|SUPERIORITY||Predicted log-OR|4.367|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.916|6.202|||Bayesian method using (MAP)|||||6.202|2.916|
90821629|NCT03668613|181520625|SUPERIORITY||Predicted log-OR|4.709|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.201|6.58|||Bayesian method using (MAP)|||||6.580|3.201|
90821630|NCT00286494|181520680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.28||A step-down strategy was used for the primary analysis. First, the 25mg dose was compared to placebo at the 2-sided 0.05 significance level. The 12.5 mg dose was compared to placebo only if the comparison of the 25mg dose to placebo was significant.|ANCOVA|Treatment, treatment regimen and geographic region as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and baseline value for the endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|Null Hypothesis: No difference between treatment and placebo arms in change from baseline in glycosylated hemoglobin at wk 26. Sample size calculated based on normally distributed means. For comparison of either dose vs. placebo (2-sample t-test), study sample size \>=500 subjects had 95% power to detect a treatment difference as small as 0.4% in the supportive per protocol analysis set assuming SD=0.8%, 2-sided \>0.05 significance level and \>=80% of subjects meeting per protocol criteria.||-0.28|-0.67|<0.001
91060752|NCT00486525|182004480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.078|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|-0.0074|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger adjustment to the degrees of freedom was used to control Type I error rates.|Model used continuous yoga practice frequency in place of group assignment to predict primary outcomes 3 months post-treatment.|Secondary analysis on change of ln (IL-1b) for each 10 minute increase in yoga practice frequency, adjusting for baseline outcome levels, age, and SAD.||-0.0074|-0.15|0.03
90821631|NCT00286494|181520680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.41||A step-down strategy was used for the primary analysis. First, the 25mg dose was compared to placebo at the 2-sided 0.05 significance level. The 12.5 mg dose was compared to placebo only if the comparison of the 25mg dose to placebo was significant.|ANCOVA|Treatment, treatment regimen and geographic region as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and baseline value for the endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|Null Hypothesis: No difference between treatment and placebo arms in change from baseline in glycosylated hemoglobin at wk 26. Sample size calculated based on normally distributed means. For comparison of either dose vs. placebo (2-sample t-test), study sample size \>=500 subjects had 95% power to detect a treatment difference as small as 0.4% in the supportive per protocol analysis set assuming SD=0.8%, 2-sided \>0.05 significance level and \>=80% of subjects meeting per protocol criteria.||-0.41|-0.80|<0.001
90821632|NCT00286494|181520681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.16||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.16|-0.36|<0.001
90821633|NCT00286494|181520681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.21||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.21|-0.41|<0.001
90821634|NCT00286494|181520682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.27||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.27|-0.56|<0.001
90821635|NCT00286494|181520682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.4||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.40|-0.69|<0.001
90821636|NCT00286494|181520683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.3||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.30|-0.63|<0.001
90821637|NCT00286494|181520683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.43||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.43|-0.75|<0.001
90821638|NCT00286494|181520684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.26||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.26|-0.63|<0.001
90821639|NCT00286494|181520684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.4||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.40|-0.76|<0.001
90821640|NCT00286494|181520685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.22||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.22|-0.60|<0.001
90821641|NCT00286494|181520685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.36||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.36|-0.74|<0.001
90821642|NCT00286494|181520686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.4||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9|-3.9||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-3.9|-18.9|0.003
90821643|NCT00286494|181520686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.0|-8.0||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-8.0|-23.0|<0.001
90821644|NCT00286494|181520687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.4|-11.9||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-11.9|-26.4|<0.001
90821645|NCT00286494|181520687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.6|-12.3||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-12.3|-26.6|<0.001
90821646|NCT00286494|181520688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.5|-13.6||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-13.6|-27.5|<0.001
90821647|NCT00286494|181520688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.9|-16.0||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-16.0|-29.9|<0.001
90821648|NCT00286494|181520689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.4|-8.7||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-8.7|-24.4|<0.001
90821649|NCT00286494|181520689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.9|-13.3||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-13.3|-28.9|<0.001
90821650|NCT00286494|181520690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.4||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.5|-2.4||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-2.4|-18.5|0.011
90821651|NCT00286494|181520690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.3|-8.3||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-8.3|-24.3|<0.001
90821652|NCT00286494|181520691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.0||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9|-1.0||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-1.0|-18.9|0.029
90821653|NCT00286494|181520691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.4||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.3|-5.5||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-5.5|-23.3|0.002
90821654|NCT00286494|181520692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.2|-6.9||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-6.9|-24.2|<0.001
90821655|NCT00286494|181520692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.8|-6.7||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-6.7|-23.8|<0.001
90821656|NCT00286494|181520693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.9||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.1|-4.8||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-4.8|-23.1|0.003
90821657|NCT00286494|181520693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.1||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.3|-5.0||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-5.0|-23.3|0.003
90821658|NCT00286494|181520694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.271|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.147|0.499||No multiplicity adjustments.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline pioglitazone dose, baseline treatment regimen, \& baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||0.499|0.147|<0.001
90821659|NCT00286494|181520694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.235|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.126|0.438||No multiplicity adjustments.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline pioglitazone dose, baseline treatment regimen, \& baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||0.438|0.126|<0.001
90821660|NCT00286494|181520695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.628||||0.266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.277|1.425||No multiplicity adjustments.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline pioglitazone dose, baseline treatment regimen \& baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||1.425|0.277|0.266
90821661|NCT00286494|181520695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.658||||0.315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.292|1.487|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline pioglitazone dose, baseline treatment regimen \& baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||1.487|0.292|0.315
90821662|NCT00286494|181520696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.4||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|-2.1||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-2.1|-10.6|0.003
90821663|NCT00286494|181520696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.9||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|-0.7||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.7|-9.1|0.023
90821664|NCT00286494|181520697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.2||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|-0.1||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.1|-8.3|0.043
90821665|NCT00286494|181520697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0.489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|2.6||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||2.6|-5.5|0.489
90821666|NCT00286494|181520698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.2||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|0.3||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.3|-8.8|0.068
90821667|NCT00286494|181520698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.4||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|0.1||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.1|-8.9|0.056
90821668|NCT00286494|181520699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|4.2||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||4.2|-4.9|0.884
90821669|NCT00286494|181520699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|4.5||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||4.5|-4.5|0.993
90821670|NCT00286494|181520700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.3||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|-1.3||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-1.3|-9.4|0.009
90821671|NCT00286494|181520700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0||||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|1.0||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||1.0|-7.0|0.143
90821672|NCT00286494|181520701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.1||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|0.5||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.5|-8.6|0.080
90821673|NCT00286494|181520701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|3.9||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||3.9|-5.2|0.782
90821674|NCT00286494|181520702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.99||||0.249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.68|0.7||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.70|-2.68|0.249
90821675|NCT00286494|181520702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.88||||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.56|0.8||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.80|-2.56|0.303
90821676|NCT00286494|181520703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.65||||0.478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.46|1.15||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||1.15|-2.46|0.478
90821677|NCT00286494|181520703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38||||0.674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|2.17||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||2.17|-1.41|0.674
90821678|NCT00286494|181520704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44||||0.743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|3.06||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||3.06|-2.18|0.743
90821679|NCT00286494|181520704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.58||||0.662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.18|2.02||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||2.02|-3.18|0.662
90821680|NCT00286494|181520705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.75||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|2.45||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||2.45|-0.96|0.390
90821681|NCT00286494|181520705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.69||||0.423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.38||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||2.38|-1.00|0.423
90821682|NCT00286494|181520706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21||||0.807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|1.46||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||1.46|-1.87|0.807
90821683|NCT00286494|181520706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.79|1.51||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||1.51|-1.79|0.867
90821684|NCT00286494|181520707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.61||||0.483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.33||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||2.33|-1.10|0.483
90821685|NCT00286494|181520707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.81||||0.352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|2.51||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||2.51|-0.89|0.352
90821686|NCT00286494|181520708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.057||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.092|-0.022||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.022|-0.092|0.001
90821687|NCT00286494|181520708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.059||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.093|-0.024||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.024|-0.093|0.001
90821688|NCT00286494|181520709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.049||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.084|-0.014||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.014|-0.084|0.006
90821689|NCT00286494|181520709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.051||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.086|-0.016||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.016|-0.086|0.004
90821690|NCT00286494|181520710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.046||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.092|0.0||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.000|-0.092|0.050
90821691|NCT00286494|181520710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.057||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.102|-0.012||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.012|-0.102|0.014
90821692|NCT00286494|181520711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.027||||0.144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.064|0.009||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.009|-0.064|0.144
90821693|NCT00286494|181520711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.067|0.006||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.006|-0.067|0.105
90821694|NCT00286494|181520712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.059||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|-0.019||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.019|-0.100|0.004
90821695|NCT00286494|181520712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.051||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.092|-0.011||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.011|-0.092|0.012
90821696|NCT00286494|181520713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.095|-0.005||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.005|-0.095|0.028
90821697|NCT00286494|181520713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.038||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.082|0.006||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.006|-0.082|0.093
90821698|NCT00286494|181520714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.012||||0.928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.255||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.255|-0.280|0.928
90821699|NCT00286494|181520714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.056||||0.683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.212|0.324||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.324|-0.212|0.683
90821700|NCT00286494|181520715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.006||||0.967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.277|0.265||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.265|-0.277|0.967
90821701|NCT00286494|181520715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.135||||0.327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.135|0.405||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.405|-0.135|0.327
90821702|NCT00286494|181520716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.068||||0.649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.363|0.226||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.226|-0.363|0.649
91060753|NCT00486525|182004481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger adjustment to the degrees of freedom was used to control Type I error rates.|Yoga minus Control immediately post-treatment|Mixed effect models were used to test the intervention's effect on primary outcomes. Fixed effects included visit, intervention group, their interaction, and baseline outcome levels. Random effects included a subject-specific random intercept, accounting for within-subject correlation, and a random effect for yoga-group, accounting for the partially-nested data arising from small groups being present in the intervention arm but not in the control arm.||0.15|-8.5|0.058
91078424|NCT00956631|182042742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.33|22.83|||t-test, 2 sided|||The mean change from baseline was assessed for ODI using a paired t-test. The resulting p-values are to be considered as descriptive statistics. Two-sided test with 5% Type I error was used. A hypothetical average improvement of zero was used.||22.83|12.33|<0.0001
90821703|NCT00286494|181520716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.051||||0.735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.344|0.243||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.243|-0.344|0.735
90821704|NCT00286494|181520717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.053|0.492||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.492|-0.053|0.114
90821705|NCT00286494|181520717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.238||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.033|0.51||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.510|-0.033|0.086
90821706|NCT00286494|181520718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.026||||0.835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.221|0.273||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.273|-0.221|0.835
90821707|NCT00286494|181520718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.131||||0.296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.115|0.378||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.378|-0.115|0.296
90821708|NCT00286494|181520719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.123||||0.349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.134|0.38||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.380|-0.134|0.349
90821709|NCT00286494|181520719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.223||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.034|0.479||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.479|-0.034|0.089
90821710|NCT00286494|181520720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.815||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.736|13.358|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline pioglitazone dose, baseline treatment regimen \& baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||13.358|1.736|0.003
90821711|NCT00286494|181520720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.533|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.017|15.176|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline pioglitazone dose, baseline treatment regimen \& baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||15.176|2.017|<0.001
90821712|NCT00286494|181520721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.903||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.067|3.393|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline pioglitazone dose, baseline treatment regimen \& baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||3.393|1.067|0.029
90821713|NCT00286494|181520721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.301||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.291|4.1|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline pioglitazone dose, baseline treatment regiment \& baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||4.100|1.291|0.005
90821714|NCT00286494|181520722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.783|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.547|5.005|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline pioglitazone dose, baseline treatment regimen \& baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||5.005|1.547|<0.001
90821715|NCT00286494|181520722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.917|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.147|7.146|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline pioglitazone dose, baseline treatment regimen \& baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||7.146|2.147|<0.001
90821716|NCT00286494|181520723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.134|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.392|7.146|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline pioglitazone dose, baseline treatment regimen \& baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||7.146|2.392|<0.001
90821717|NCT00286494|181520723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.247|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.027|9.094|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline pioglitazone dose, baseline treatment regimen \& baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||9.094|3.027|<0.001
90821718|NCT00286494|181520724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.789|7.532|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline pioglitazone dose, baseline treatment regimen \& baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||7.532|1.789|<0.001
91078425|NCT00904839|182042782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.8|11.5|||Kaplan-Meier||Difference in Kaplan-Meier Progression-free Survival Rates at 9 Months using Peto´s variance estimate.|||11.5|-27.8|
90821719|NCT00286494|181520724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.693|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.303|9.56|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline pioglitazone dose, baseline treatment regimen \& baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||9.560|2.303|<0.001
90821720|NCT00286494|181520725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.8||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|11.107|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline pioglitazone dose, baseline treatment regimen \& baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||11.107|1.300|0.015
90821721|NCT00286494|181520725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.196||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.806|14.95|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline pioglitazone dose, baseline treatment regimen \& baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||14.950|1.806|0.002
90821722|NCT00286494|181520726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.959||||0.364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.459|8.362|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline pioglitazone dose, baseline treatment regimen \& baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||8.362|0.459|0.364
90821723|NCT00286494|181520726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.849||||0.146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.696|11.672|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline pioglitazone dose, baseline treatment regimen \& baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||11.672|0.696|0.146
90821724|NCT00286494|181520727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.65||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose,baseline value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.65|-0.45|0.718
90821725|NCT00286494|181520727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.58||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.58|-0.52|0.906
90821726|NCT00286494|181520728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.78||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.78|-0.50|0.672
90821727|NCT00286494|181520728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.67||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.67|-0.61|0.922
90821728|NCT00286494|181520729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.96||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.96|-0.56|0.607
90821729|NCT00286494|181520729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.76||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.76|-0.77|0.985
90821730|NCT00286494|181520730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.42||||0.294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|1.22||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||1.22|-0.37|0.294
90821731|NCT00286494|181520730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.84||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.84|-0.74|0.900
90821732|NCT00774800|181520874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Means Ratio|1.54||||0.0011||||||Statistical testing was considered exploratory, with no adjustment for inflation of Type 1 error due to multiplicity of testing.|ANOVA|||Due to the exploratory nature of this study, the sample size is not based on a formal calculation.||||0.0011
90821733|NCT00774800|181520874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Means Ratio|3.06|||<|0.0001||||||Statistical testing was considered exploratory, with no adjustment for inflation of Type 1 error due to multiplicity of testing.|ANOVA|||Due to the exploratory nature of this study, the sample size is not based on a formal calculation.||||<0.0001
90821734|NCT00774800|181520875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Means Ratio|1.35||||0.0057||||||Statistical testing was considered exploratory, with no adjustment for inflation of Type 1 error due to multiplicity of testing.|ANOVA|||Due to the exploratory nature of this study, the sample size is not based on a formal calculation.||||0.0057
91078426|NCT00904839|182042787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.3|5.2|||Kaplan-Meier||confidence interval includes 0, meaning that the null hypothesis (no difference between the 2 groups) cannot be rejected (i.e. pvalue \> 0.05). The pvalue was not computed. Difference in Kaplan-Meier Resection Rates using Peto´s variance estimate.|||5.2|-15.3|
90821735|NCT00774800|181520875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Means Ratio|1.66|||<|0.0001||||||Statistical testing was considered exploratory, with no adjustment for inflation of Type 1 error due to multiplicity of testing.|ANOVA|||Due to the exploratory nature of this study, the sample size is not based on a formal calculation.||||<0.0001
90821736|NCT00774800|181520876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Means Difference|-18.33|||<|0.0001||||||Statistical testing was considered exploratory, with no adjustment for inflation of Type 1 error due to multiplicity of testing.|ANOVA|||Due to the exploratory nature of this study, the sample size is not based on a formal calculation.||||<0.0001
90821737|NCT00774800|181520876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Means Difference|-62.46||||0.0018|||||||ANOVA|Statistical testing was considered exploratory, with no adjustment for inflation of Type 1 error due to multiplicity of testing.||Due to the exploratory nature of this study, the sample size is not based on a formal calculation.||||0.0018
90821738|NCT00479856|181520890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|33.3||||||95.0|7.5|70.1||||||||70.1|7.5|
90821739|NCT04164732|181520901|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.61||||0.5506|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.71|1.94|||longitudinal mixed effects (MMRM) model|||||1.94|-0.71|0.5506
90821740|NCT05758402|181520924|OTHER||Rate difference|1.21||||0.544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.71|5.13|||Chi-squared||Rate difference = detection rate of PsA in EARP group - detection rate of PsA in routine practice group|||5.13|-2.71|0.544
90821741|NCT05758402|181520925|OTHER|||||||0.256|||||||Chi-squared|||Sensitivity||||0.256
90821742|NCT05758402|181520925|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||Specificity||||<0.001
90821743|NCT05758402|181520925|OTHER|||||||0.336|||||||Fisher Exact|||Positive Predictive Value (PPV)||||0.336
90821744|NCT05758402|181520925|OTHER|||||||0.49|||||||Chi-squared|||Negative Predictive Value (NPV)||||0.490
90821745|NCT05758402|181520926|OTHER|||||||0.101|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Age characteristics||||0.101
90821746|NCT05758402|181520927|OTHER|||||||0.836|||||||Chi-squared|||Gender characteristics||||0.836
90821747|NCT05758402|181520928|OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Body Mass Index (BMI) characteristics||||0.520
90821748|NCT05758402|181520929|OTHER|||||||0.216|||||||Chi-squared|||Drinking history characteristics||||0.216
90821749|NCT05758402|181520929|OTHER|||||||0.719|||||||Chi-squared|||Smoking history characteristics||||0.719
90821750|NCT05758402|181520930|OTHER|||||||0.831|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Duration of Psoriasis (PsO) characteristics||||0.831
90821751|NCT05758402|181520931|OTHER|||||||0.274|||||||Fisher Exact|||Family history of psoriasis (PsO) characteristics||||0.274
90821752|NCT05758402|181520931|OTHER|||||||0.272|||||||Fisher Exact|||Family history of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) characteristics||||0.272
90821753|NCT05758402|181520932|OTHER|||||||0.622|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) score characteristics||||0.622
90821754|NCT05758402|181520933|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||Status of hard-to-treat area involvement characteristics||||<0.001
90821755|NCT05758402|181520933|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||Status of musculoskeletal symptoms characteristics||||<0.001
90821756|NCT05758402|181520934|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||NAPSI score of left hand characteristics||||<0.001
90821757|NCT05758402|181520934|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||NAPSI score of right hand characteristics||||0.010
90821758|NCT05758402|181520934|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||NAPSI score of left foot characteristics||||0.001
90821759|NCT05758402|181520934|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||NAPSI score of right foot characteristics||||<0.001
90821760|NCT05758402|181520934|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Total NAPSI score characteristics||||0.001
90821761|NCT05758402|181520935|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||SJC66 total joint count characteristics||||<0.001
90821762|NCT05758402|181520935|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||TJC68 total joint count characteristics||||<0.001
90821763|NCT05758402|181520935|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||SJC66/TJC68 total joint count characteristics||||<0.001
90821764|NCT05758402|181520936|OTHER|||||||0.043|||||||Fisher Exact|||Heart diseases||||0.043
90821765|NCT05758402|181520936|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Stroke||||1.000
90821766|NCT05758402|181520936|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Diabetes||||1.000
90821767|NCT05758402|181520936|OTHER|||||||0.019|||||||Chi-squared|||Hyperlipidemia||||0.019
90821768|NCT05758402|181520936|OTHER|||||||0.073|||||||Chi-squared|||Hypertension||||0.073
90821769|NCT05758402|181520936|OTHER|||||||0.377|||||||Fisher Exact|||Fatty liver||||0.377
90821770|NCT02332291|181520938|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.8642|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.475||0.0689|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analyses utilized a logistic regression model with remission status (defined as final MADRS \<= 7) as the dependent variable. The independent variable of interest was treatment arm assignment, and the model included age, sex, and baseline depression severity by MADRS as covariates.||||0.0689
90821771|NCT02332291|181520939|SUPERIORITY||Slope, fixed effect|-1.066|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.264||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|344 degrees of freedom||Statistical analyses utilized mixed model. MADRS score was the repeated measures dependent variable. Independent variables included time, age, sex, and treatment assignment. The primary variable of interest for this analysis was an interaction term between time and treatment assignment. A statistically significant interaction term would indicate that one treatment arm experienced a greater change in MADRS score over time than the other treatment arm.||||0.0001
90821772|NCT02332291|181520940|SUPERIORITY||Slope, fixed effects|-0.3117|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1566||0.0483|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|150 degrees of freedom||Statistical analyses utilized mixed models, with QIDS score being the repeated measures dependent variable. Independent variables included time, age, sex, and treatment assignment. The primary variable of interest was an interaction term between time and treatment assignment.||||0.0483
91078427|NCT00553358|182042803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of participants with pCR|-4.85||||0.3416|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-17.6|8.16|||Binomial|Binomial p-value for Trastuzumab 2 mg/kg versus Lapatinib 1500 mg|Estimation Comments: Estimated value is the difference in the percentage of participants with pCR: Arm1 (Lapatinib 1500 mg) minus Arm2 (Trastuzumab 2 mg/kg).|||8.16|-17.6|0.3416
91060754|NCT00486525|182004481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|-2.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger adjustment to the degrees of freedom was used to control Type I error rates.|Yoga minus Control 3 months post-treatment|Mixed effect models were used to test the intervention's effect on primary outcomes. Fixed effects included visit, intervention group, their interaction, and baseline outcome levels. Random effects included a subject-specific random intercept, accounting for within-subject correlation, and a random effect for yoga-group, accounting for the partially-nested data arising from small groups being present in the intervention arm but not in the control arm.||-2.7|-11.4|0.002
90821773|NCT02332291|181520941|OTHER|Analyses tested for effects of time in this one-arm, open-label study phase.|Slope, fixed effect|-1.186|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.181|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|128 degrees of freedom||Statistical analyses utilized mixed models, with MADRS score being the repeated measures dependent variable. Independent variables included time, age, and sex. The primary variable of interest was time, to indicate a change in depression severity over time with open-label treatment.||||<0.0001
90821774|NCT02332291|181520942|OTHER|Analyses tested for effects of time in this one-arm, open-label study phase.|Slope, fixed effects|-0.2342|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0908||0.0123|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|61 degrees of freedom||Statistical analyses utilized mixed models, with QIDS score being the repeated measures dependent variable. Independent variables included time, age, and sex. The primary variable of interest was time, to indicate a change in depression severity over time with open-label treatment.||||0.0123
90821775|NCT02332291|181520943|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.636|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.924||0.742|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||Statistical analyses used a linear model. Final AES score at week 8 was the dependent variable. Independent variables included age, sex, baseline AES score, baseline MADRS score, and treatment assignment. Treatment assignment was the independent variable of interest.||||0.742
90821776|NCT02332291|181520944|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-5.4705|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.352||0.0232|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||Statistical analyses used a linear regression model. Final RRS score at week 8 was the dependent variable. Independent variables included age, sex, baseline RRS score, baseline MADRS score, and treatment assignment. Treatment assignment was the independent variable of interest.||||0.0232
90821777|NCT00395850|181520947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-1.02|||<|0.05|||||||Repeated Measures Logistic Regression|Repeated Measures Generalized Linear Models on a Binomial distribution, thus a Repeated Measures Logistic Regression||Used placebo group as contrast to determine whether slopes of disulfiram groups differed from slope of placebo group data||||<0.05
90821778|NCT00395850|181520948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5|||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
90821779|NCT01424228|181520952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.367|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.367
90821780|NCT01868334|181520976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-square tests for comparisons between-arm changes in vaccination rates between Baseline and Year 1 for RCCT study period||||||0.05
90821781|NCT01868334|181520976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.05||||||Cochran-Armitage trend tests for percentage point difference between Baseline and Year 1 for RCCT study period|Cochran-Armitage trend test|||||||0.05
90821782|NCT01868334|181520977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-square tests for comparisons between-arm changes in vaccination rates between pre and post intervention for Pre-post study period||||||0.05
90821783|NCT01868334|181520977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.05||||||Cochran-Armitage trend tests for difference between pre and post changes in vaccination rates for Pre-Post study period|Cochran-Armitage trend test|||||||0.05
90821784|NCT02951429|181520981|SUPERIORITY||Difference of percentage of participants|3.06||||0.6527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|17.97|||Chi-squared|||||17.97|-11.30|0.6527
90821785|NCT02951429|181520982|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.7568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.34|||Log Rank|Log-rank test based on the time to the first event to compare the two treatment arms.||||1.34|0.67|0.7568
90821786|NCT02951429|181520983|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.15|||Log Rank|Log-rank test based on the time to the first event to compare the two treatment arms.||||1.15|0.68|0.3760
90821787|NCT02951429|181520984|SUPERIORITY||Difference (95% CI)|2.85||||0.7046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.13|17.84|||Chi-squared|||||17.84|-12.13|0.7046
90821788|NCT02951429|181520985|SUPERIORITY||Difference (95% CI)|0.94||||0.755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.41|||Log Rank|||||1.41|0.62|0.7550
90821789|NCT02951429|181520986|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.9174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.61|||Log Rank|||||1.61|0.65|0.9174
90821790|NCT02951429|181520987|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.7748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.62|||Log Rank|||||1.62|0.70|0.7748
90821791|NCT02951429|181520988|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.4258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.5|||Log Rank|||||1.50|0.38|0.4258
90821792|NCT02951429|181520990|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.3161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.47|||Log Rank|||||1.47|0.31|0.3161
90821793|NCT02951429|181521000|SUPERIORITY||Difference in mean change from baseline|-206.59||||0.5646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-920.03|506.85|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|||||506.85|-920.03|0.5646
90821794|NCT02951429|181521001|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-3.33||||0.5255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.98|2.36|||ANCOVA|Difference in mean change in total score: -4.22||||2.36|-9.98|0.5255
90821795|NCT02951429|181521002|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-6.0||||0.4263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|6.0|||ANCOVA|Difference in mean change in total score: -5.07||||6.00|-18.00|0.4263
90821796|NCT04569357|181521009|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0199|||||||Fisher Exact|||Test for comparison percentage of patients with reduction ≥ 25%.||||0.0199
90821797|NCT04569357|181521010|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0096|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mean changes of ADHD-RS-V scores after 8 weeks of treatment were compared.||||0.0096
91060755|NCT00486525|182004481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger adjustment to the degrees of freedom was used to control Type I error rates.|Model used continuous yoga practice frequency in place of group assignment to predict primary outcomes immediately post-treatment.|Secondary analysis on change of MFSI-SF Fatigue for each 10 minute increase in yoga practice frequency, adjusting for baseline outcome levels, age, and SAD.||-0.28|-3.1|0.019
91060756|NCT00486525|182004481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|-1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger adjustment to the degrees of freedom was used to control Type I error rates.|Model used continuous yoga practice frequency in place of group assignment to predict primary outcomes 3 months post-treatment.|Secondary analysis on change of MFSI-SF fatigue for each 10 minute increase in yoga practice frequency, adjusting for baseline outcome levels, age, and SAD.||-1.4|-4.2|0.0001
91060757|NCT00486525|182004482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|11.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger adjustment to the degrees of freedom was used to control Type I error rates.|Yoga minus Control immediately post-treatment|Mixed effect models were used to test the intervention's effect on primary outcomes. Fixed effects included visit, intervention group, their interaction, and baseline outcome levels. Random effects included a subject-specific random intercept, accounting for within-subject correlation, and a random effect for yoga-group, accounting for the partially-nested data arising from small groups being present in the intervention arm but not in the control arm.||11.4|1.4|0.01
91060758|NCT00486525|182004482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|11.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger adjustment to the degrees of freedom was used to control Type I error rates.|Yoga minus Control 3 months post-treatment|Mixed effect models were used to test the intervention's effect on primary outcomes. Fixed effects included visit, intervention group, their interaction, and baseline outcome levels. Random effects included a subject-specific random intercept, accounting for within-subject correlation, and a random effect for yoga-group, accounting for the partially-nested data arising from small groups being present in the intervention arm but not in the control arm.||11.6|1.5|0.01
91060759|NCT00486525|182004482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger adjustment to the degrees of freedom was used to control Type I error rates.|Model used continuous yoga practice frequency in place of group assignment to predict primary outcomes immediately post-treatment.|Secondary analysis on change of vitality (SF-36) for each 10 minute increase in yoga practice frequency, adjusting for baseline outcome levels, age, and SAD.||3.75|0.40|0.016
91060760|NCT00486525|182004482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|4.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger adjustment to the degrees of freedom was used to control Type I error rates.|Model used continuous yoga practice frequency in place of group assignment to predict primary outcomes 3 months post-treatment.|Secondary analysis on change of vitality (SF-36) for each 10 minute increase in yoga practice frequency, adjusting for baseline outcome levels, age, and SAD.||4.14|0.77|0.0045
91060761|NCT00486525|182004483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|0.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger adjustment to the degrees of freedom was used to control Type I error rates.|Yoga minus Control immediately post-treatment|Mixed effect models were used to test the intervention's effect on primary outcomes. Fixed effects included visit, intervention group, their interaction, and baseline outcome levels. Random effects included a subject-specific random intercept, accounting for within-subject correlation, and a random effect for yoga-group, accounting for the partially-nested data arising from small groups being present in the intervention arm but not in the control arm.||0.88|-3.0|0.28
91060762|NCT00486525|182004483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|0.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger adjustment to the degrees of freedom was used to control Type I error rates.|Yoga minus Control 3 months post-treatment|Mixed effect models were used to test the intervention's effect on primary outcomes. Fixed effects included visit, intervention group, their interaction, and baseline outcome levels. Random effects included a subject-specific random intercept, accounting for within-subject correlation, and a random effect for yoga-group, accounting for the partially-nested data arising from small groups being present in the intervention arm but not in the control arm.||0.69|-3.2|0.21
91060763|NCT00486525|182004483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.0039|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger adjustment to the degrees of freedom was used to control Type I error rates.|Model used continuous yoga practice frequency in place of group assignment to predict primary outcomes immediately post-treatment.|Secondary analysis on change of CES-D for each 10 minute increase in yoga practice frequency, adjusting for baseline outcome levels, age, and SAD.||0.0039|-1.3|0.051
91060764|NCT00486525|182004483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger adjustment to the degrees of freedom was used to control Type I error rates.|Model used continuous yoga practice frequency in place of group assignment to predict primary outcomes 3 months post-treatment.|Secondary analysis on change of CESD for each 10 minute increase in yoga practice frequency, adjusting for baseline outcome levels, age, and SAD.||0.10|-1.2|0.098
91060765|NCT03573830|182004484|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.2||Threshold for significance: \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.20|0.04|0.002
91060766|NCT03573830|182004485|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.22||Threshold for significance: 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.22|0.07|0.000
91060767|NCT03573830|182004486|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.07||Threshold for significance: 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.07|-0.03|0.352
91060768|NCT03573830|182004487|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.56||Threshold for significance: \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.56|0.34|0.000
91060769|NCT03573830|182004488|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.22||Threshold for significance: 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.22|0.05|0.002
91060770|NCT03573830|182004489|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.56||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.65|62.46||Threshold for significance: \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||62.46|2.65|0.033
90821798|NCT04569357|181521011|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0063|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mean changes of ADHD-RS-V scores (attention deficit subscale) after 8 weeks of treatment were compared.||||0.0063
90821799|NCT04569357|181521012|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0525|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mean changes of ADHD-RS-V scores (hyperactivity/impulsivity subscale) after 8 weeks of treatment were compared.||||0.0525
90821800|NCT04569357|181521013|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0024|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Therapeutic effect analysis.||||0.0024
90821801|NCT04569357|181521013|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1722|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Side effects analysis.||||0.1722
90821802|NCT04569357|181521013|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0012|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Efficacy index analysis.||||0.0012
90821803|NCT04569357|181521014|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13||||||"The p-value associated with treatment\*visit interaction of changes from baseline visit 1 to visit 2 and 3 endpoint between Prospekta and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|ANOVA|||||||0.13
90821804|NCT04569357|181521015|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81||||||"The p-value associated with treatment\*visit interaction of changes from baseline visit 1 to visit 2 and 3 endpoint between Prospekta and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|ANOVA|||This analysis applies to Systolic pressure data.||||0.81
90821805|NCT04569357|181521015|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22||||||"The p-value associated with treatment\*visit interaction of changes from baseline visit 1 to visit 2 and 3 endpoint between Prospekta and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|ANOVA|||This analysis applies to Diastolic pressure data.||||0.22
90821806|NCT04569357|181521016|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13||||||"The p-value associated with treatment\*visit interaction of changes from baseline visit 1 to visit 2 and 3 endpoint between Prospekta and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|ANOVA|||||||0.13
90821807|NCT04569357|181521017|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2
90821808|NCT04569357|181521018|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.62
91060771|NCT03573830|182004491|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.19||Threshold for significance: \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.19|0.00|0.065
91060772|NCT03573830|182004492|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.28||Threshold for significance: \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.28|0.01|0.030
90821809|NCT04569357|181521019|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.5
90821810|NCT04569357|181521020|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0254|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0254
90821811|NCT01122849|181521021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) Mean difference|-0.12||||0.5456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.28||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison of Q1 at Day 7||0.28|-0.52|0.5456
90821812|NCT01122849|181521021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.34||||0.1029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.07||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison of Q1 at Day 7||0.07|-0.75|0.1029
90821813|NCT01122849|181521021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.22||||0.2879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.62||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison of Q1 at Day 7||0.62|-0.19|0.2879
90821814|NCT01122849|181521021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.06||||0.8213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.56||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison for Q3 at Day 7||0.56|-0.45|0.8213
91060773|NCT00266630|182004493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|-1.9||||||||-1.90|-4.10|
90821815|NCT01122849|181521021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.24||||0.3457||95.0|-0.74|0.27||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison for Q3 at Day 7||0.27|-0.74|0.3457
90821816|NCT01122849|181521021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.2364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.79|||ANCOVA|||Comparison for Q3 at Day 7||0.79|-0.20|0.2364
90821817|NCT01122849|181521021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.18||||0.3553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.57||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison for Q17 at Day 7||0.57|-0.21|0.3553
90821818|NCT01122849|181521021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.19||||0.3369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.2||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison for Q17 at Day 7||0.20|-0.58|0.3369
90821819|NCT01122849|181521021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.37||||0.0591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.76||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison for Q17 at Day 7||0.76|-0.01|0.0591
90821820|NCT01122849|181521021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.05||||0.7686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.31||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals.|ANCOVA|||Comparison of Q18 at Day 7||0.31|-0.42|0.7686
90821821|NCT01122849|181521021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.46||||0.0151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.09|||ANCOVA|||Comparison of Q18 at Day 7||-0.09|-0.83|0.0151
90821822|NCT01122849|181521021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.41||||0.0256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.77||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison of Q18 at Day 7||0.77|0.05|0.0256
90821823|NCT01122849|181521022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.11||||0.5958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.3||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison of Q1at Day 14||0.30|-0.52|0.5958
90821824|NCT01122849|181521022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.31||||0.1429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.11||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison of Q1 at Day 14||0.11|-0.73|0.1429
90821825|NCT01122849|181521022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.3348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.62|||ANCOVA|||Comparison of Q1 at Day 14||0.62|-0.21|0.3348
90821826|NCT01122849|181521022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.4425||95.0|-0.32|0.72||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison of Q3 at Day 14||0.72|-0.32|0.4425
90821827|NCT01122849|181521022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.19||||0.4795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.34|||ANCOVA|||Comparison of Q3 at Day 14||0.34|-0.71|0.4795
90821828|NCT01122849|181521022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.39||||0.1375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.9||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison of Q3 at Day 14||0.90|-0.13|0.1375
90821829|NCT01122849|181521022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.12||||0.575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.31||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison of Q17 at Day 14||0.31|-0.56|0.5750
91060774|NCT00266630|182004497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.58|-14.06||||||||-14.06|-25.58|
91060775|NCT00879255|182004558|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|We used a noninferiority design to test the hypothesis that VTC is noninferior to in-person treatment delivery. The noninferiority margin was determined to be 10 CAPS points. We analyzed means differences in CAPS scores between the two treatment conditions (VTC minus in-person) with positive values indicating greater reductions in VTC condition. Power was estimated to be 90% with alpha = .20, and a between-group difference equaling an effect size of d = .50 (estimated 10 CAPS points).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.75|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.92|2.42||"The noninferiority margin is the maximum clinically meaningful amount by which VTC can be worse than the in-person delivery to allow for a conclusion of noninferiority (a priori set to 10 CAPS points)."|noninferiority analysis|We hypothesized that VTC is noninferior to in-person condition, which is supported if upper limit of 95% CI is less than preset noninferiority margin.|The noninferiority hypothesis would be supported if the 95% Confidence Interval of the difference in CAPS scores between the 2 conditions (VTC minus in-person scores) is less than the present noninferiority margin (10 CAPS points).|||2.42|-11.92|> .05
91060776|NCT00879255|182004559|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|We used a noninferiority design to test the hypothesis that VTC is noninferior to in-person treatment delivery. The noninferiority margin was determined to be 10 CAPS points. We analyzed means differences in CAPS scores between the two treatment conditions (VTC minus in-person) with positive values indicating greater reductions in VTC condition. Power was estimated to be 90% with alpha = .20, and a between-group difference equaling an effect size of d = .50 (estimated 10 CAPS points).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.76|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.65|2.13||"The noninferiority margin is the maximum clinically meaningful amount by which VTC can be worse than the in-person delivery to allow for a conclusion of noninferiority (a priori set to 10 CAPS points)."|noninferiority design|We hypothesized that VTC is noninferior to in-person condition, which is supported if upper limit of 95% CI is less than preset noninferiority margin.|The noninferiority hypothesis would be supported if the 95% Confidence Interval of the difference in CAPS scores between the 2 conditions (VTC minus in-person scores) is less than the present noninferiority margin (10 CAPS points).|||2.13|-11.65|> .05
91060777|NCT00879255|182004560|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|We used a noninferiority design to test the hypothesis that VTC is noninferior to in-person treatment delivery. The noninferiority margin was determined to be 10 CAPS points. We analyzed means differences in CAPS scores between the two treatment conditions (VTC minus in-person) with positive values indicating greater reductions in VTC condition. Power was estimated to be 90% with alpha = .20, and a between-group difference equaling an effect size of d = .50 (estimated 10 CAPS points).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.56|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.26|5.14||"The noninferiority margin is the maximum clinically meaningful amount by which VTC can be worse than the in-person delivery to allow for a conclusion of noninferiority (a priori set to 10 CAPS points)."|noninferiority test|We hypothesized that VTC is noninferior to in-person condition, which is supported if upper limit of 95% CI is less than preset noninferiority margin.|The noninferiority hypothesis would be supported if the 95% Confidence Interval of the difference in CAPS scores between the 2 conditions (VTC minus in-person scores) is less than the present noninferiority margin (10 CAPS points).|||5.14|-16.26|> .05
91060778|NCT01499095|182004568|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|"Stepwise closed testing approach was to assess non-inferiority and superiority sequentially:~1. Non-inferiority of HOE901-U300 vs Lantus: Upper bound of two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of difference between HOE901-U300 and Lantus on mITT population is \<0.4%.~2. Superiority (only if non-inferiority has been demonstrated): Upper bound of two-sided 95% CI for difference in mean change in HbA1c from baseline to endpoint between HOE901-U300 and Lantus on mITT population is \<0."|Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.139|0.119||||||Analysis was performed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, strata of screening HbA1c (\<8.0 and \>=8.0%), and country as fixed effects and using the HbA1c baseline value as a covariate.||0.119|-0.139|
91060779|NCT01499095|182004569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.77||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.99|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A one-sided test (at alpha=0.025) for superiority of HOE901-U300 over Lantus was to be performed in case the non-inferiority of HOE901-U300 vs Lantus for the primary endpoint was demonstrated. Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method with treatment as a factor and stratified on strata of screening HbA1c (\<8.0 and \>=8.0%).||0.99|0.61|0.0380
91060780|NCT01499095|182004570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.201||0.8279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.438|0.35|||ANCOVA|||Change in pre-injection SMPG was analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment, strata of screening HbA1c (\<8.0 and \>=8.0%), and country as fixed effects and using the pre-injection SMPG baseline value as a covariate. A test for superiority of HOE901-U300 over Lantus was to be performed one-sided at level alpha = 0.025 if previous analysis for nocturnal hypoglycaemia was significant.||0.350|-0.438|0.8279
91060781|NCT01499095|182004579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.142|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.152|0.415||||||Analysis was performed using Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment regimen and country as fixed effects and baseline (Month 6) HbA1c value as a covariate.||0.415|-0.152|
91060782|NCT02099786|182004667|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|8.8|||Regression, Logistic|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference in the number of participants with ASHA-significant threshold shifts between treatment arms.||8.8|.55|.27
91060783|NCT02099786|182004667|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|5.9|||Regression, Logistic|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference in the number of participants with CTCAE grade 1 or greater hearing loss between treatment arms.||5.9|.3|.67
90821830|NCT01122849|181521022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.48||||0.0337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|-0.04||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison of Q17 at Day 14||-0.04|-0.92|0.0337
90821831|NCT01122849|181521022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.35||||0.1061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.79||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison of Q17 at Day 14||0.79|-0.08|0.1061
90821832|NCT01122849|181521022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.08||||0.7092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.34||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison of Q18 at Day 14||0.34|-0.50|0.7092
90821833|NCT01122849|181521022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.49||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.06||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison of Q18 at Day14||-0.06|-0.91|0.0250
90821834|NCT01122849|181521022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.41||||0.0503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.82||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison for Q18 at Day 14||0.82|0.00|0.0503
90821835|NCT01122849|181521023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.84||||0.5462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.92|3.59||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison for sleep problems at Day 7||3.59|-1.92|0.5462
90821836|NCT01122849|181521023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.37||||0.0942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.16|0.42||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals.|ANCOVA|||Comparison for sleep problems at Day 7||0.42|-5.16|0.0942
90821837|NCT01122849|181521023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.2||||0.0221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|5.93||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison of sleep problems at Day 7||5.93|0.48|0.0221
90821838|NCT01122849|181521023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.72||||0.6731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.11|2.68||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison of Sleep Time problems at Day 7||2.68|-4.11|0.6731
90821839|NCT01122849|181521023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.57||||0.1354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.98|0.83||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison for Sleep time problems at Day 7||0.83|-5.98|0.1354
90821840|NCT01122849|181521023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|1.86||||0.2722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|5.21||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison of sleep time problems at Day 7||5.21|-1.50|0.2722
90821841|NCT01122849|181521023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.71||||0.6195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.55|2.14||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison for symptoms on walking in the morning at Day 7||2.14|-3.55|0.6195
90821842|NCT01122849|181521023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.83||||0.0099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|-0.96||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison at day 7 for symptoms for walking in the morning||-0.96|-6.70|0.0099
90821843|NCT01122849|181521023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.12||||0.0298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|5.93||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison for symptoms on waking in the morning at Day 7||5.93|0.32|0.0298
90821844|NCT01122849|181521023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.3||||0.7211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.01|1.4||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison for practical problems at Day 7||1.40|-2.01|0.7211
90821845|NCT01122849|181521023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.8||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|0.9||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison for practical problems at Day 7||0.90|-2.51|0.3500
90821846|NCT01122849|181521023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.5||||0.5564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|2.18||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison for practical problems at Day 7||2.18|-1.19|0.5564
90821847|NCT01122849|181521024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.57||||0.6804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|3.35||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals.|ANCOVA|||Comparison for Sleep Problems at Day 14||3.35|-2.20|0.6804
90821848|NCT01122849|181521024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.31||||0.3524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.12|1.49||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison for sleep problems at Day 14||1.49|-4.12|0.3524
91060784|NCT02099786|182004668|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|2.9|||Regression, Logistic|||Null hypothesis is no difference in audiology clinic use between treatment arms.||2.9|.29|.88
90821849|NCT01122849|181521024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.89||||0.1739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|4.63||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison for sleep problems at Day 14||4.63|-0.86|0.1739
90821850|NCT01122849|181521024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|1.98||||0.2463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|5.36||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals||Comparison for Sleep time problems at Day 14||5.36|-1.41|0.2463
90821851|NCT01122849|181521024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.28||||0.8677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.11|3.68|||ANCOVA|||Comparison for sleep time problems at Day 14||3.68|-3.11|0.8677
90821852|NCT01122849|181521024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.7||||0.3136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|5.04||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison for sleep time problems at Day 14||5.04|-1.65|0.3136
90821853|NCT01122849|181521024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.14||||0.9183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.93|2.65||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison for symptoms on waking in the morning at Day 14||2.65|-2.93|0.9183
90821854|NCT01122849|181521024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-2.68||||0.0614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|0.13||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison for symptoms on waking in the morning at Day 14||0.13|-5.50|0.0614
90821855|NCT01122849|181521024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.54||||0.0695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|5.29||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison for symptoms on waking in the morning at Day 14||5.29|-0.21|0.0695
90821856|NCT01122849|181521024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.54||||0.4947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|2.1||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison for practical problems at Day14||2.10|-1.03|0.4947
90821857|NCT01122849|181521024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.15||||0.8454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|1.72||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison for practical problems at Day 14||1.72|-1.42|0.8454
90821858|NCT01122849|181521024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.38||||0.6223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|1.93||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison for practical problems at Day 14||1.93|-1.17|0.6223
90821859|NCT01122849|181521025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-1.34||||0.4258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.68|2.01||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|LS Mean Difference|||Comparison at Day 7||2.01|-4.68|0.4258
90821860|NCT01122849|181521025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.05||||0.0764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.43|0.33||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison at Day 7||0.33|-6.43|0.0764
90821861|NCT01122849|181521025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.71||||0.2986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|4.97||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison at Day 7||4.97|-1.56|0.2986
91060785|NCT02099786|182004669|NON_INFERIORITY|We require a non-inferiority margin of no more than 1.1 mortality odds among COMP-VA patients relative to Usual Care patients. This means that the upper 95% confidence bound for the fitted odds ratio must be less than 1.1 to reject the null hypothesis that COMP-VA induces extra mortality risk.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9|||||ONE_SIDED|||||||||||||
91060786|NCT02099786|182004670|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is .05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.72
91060787|NCT03052751|182004671|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference vs Placebo|-0.7|||=|0.221|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.8||One-sided p-value was presented for difference.|MMRM||Estimate included treatment and treatment by visit interaction effects.|"Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model included fixed terms for treatment group, visit, interaction between treatment group and visit, covariate of Baseline QMG score, and random effect for participant.~The differences presented was 'UCB7665 (7 mg/kg) minus Placebo'."||0.8||=0.221
91060788|NCT03052751|182004672|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference vs Placebo|-1.8|||=|0.089|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.4||One-sided p-value was presented for difference.|MMRM||Estimate included treatment and treatment by visit interaction effects.|"MMRM ANCOVA model included fixed terms for treatment group, visit, interaction between treatment group and visit, covariate of Baseline MG-composite score, and random effect for participant.~The differences presented was 'UCB7665 (7 mg/kg) minus Placebo'."||0.4||=0.089
91060789|NCT03052751|182004673|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference vs Placebo|-1.4|||=|0.036|ONE_SIDED|95.0||-0.1||One-sided p-value was presented for difference.|ANCOVA||Estimate included treatment effect.|ANCOVA model included fixed terms for treatment group, covariate of Baseline MGADL score.||-0.1||=0.036
91060790|NCT03071692|182004709|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.16||||||||1.16|0.92|
91060791|NCT03071692|182004710|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.2||||||||1.20|0.92|
91060792|NCT03071692|182004711|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.18||||||||1.18|0.89|
91060793|NCT03071692|182004712|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.16||||||||1.16|0.93|
91060794|NCT03071692|182004713|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.13||||||||1.13|0.93|
91060795|NCT03071692|182004714|SUPERIORITY||Event Rate Ration|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.13||||||||1.13|0.87|
91060796|NCT03071692|182004715|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.09||||||||1.09|0.69|
91060797|NCT03071692|182004716|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.41||||||||1.41|0.95|
91060798|NCT03071692|182004717|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.19||||||||1.19|0.69|
91060799|NCT03071692|182004718|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.14||||||||1.14|0.84|
90821862|NCT01122849|181521026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.12||||0.482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|4.29||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||||4.29|-2.05|0.4820
90821863|NCT01122849|181521026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.81||||0.2607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.02|1.39||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||||1.39|-5.02|0.2607
91060800|NCT03071692|182004719|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.32||||||||1.32|0.83|
91060801|NCT03071692|182004720|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.26||||||TT Variant||1.26|0.75|
91060802|NCT03071692|182004720|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.47||||||CT Variant||1.47|0.96|
91060803|NCT03071692|182004720|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.39||||||CC Variant||1.39|0.69|
91060804|NCT03071692|182004721|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13496|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.13496
90821864|NCT01122849|181521026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.93||||0.0623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|6.02||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||||6.02|-0.16|0.0623
91060805|NCT03071692|182004722|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91060806|NCT03071692|182004723|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91060807|NCT03071692|182004724|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96689|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.96689
91060808|NCT03071692|182004725|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91060809|NCT03071692|182004726|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09178|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.09178
91060810|NCT03071692|182004727|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91060811|NCT03071692|182004728|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91060812|NCT03071692|182004729|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91060813|NCT01473407|182004734|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|An equivalence margin of +/- 0.5 was considered relevant to demonstrate the equivalence of the two products.|LS Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.01||||||Least Square (LS) mean and 95 percent confidence interval (CI) were derived from an ANCOVA model with fixed effect of treatment.||0.01|-0.25|
91060814|NCT01473407|182004735|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|An equivalence margin of +/- 0.5 was considered relevant to demonstrate the equivalence of the two products.|LS Mean Difference|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.483|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|11.13||||||LS mean and 95 percent CI were derived from an ANCOVA model with fixed effect of treatment.||11.13|-10.40|
91060815|NCT01473407|182004736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7563||||||P-value was calculated from a Wilcoxon Rank Sum test and t-approximation was used.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|||||||0.7563
91060816|NCT01473407|182004737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1061||||||P-value was calculated from a Wilcoxon Rank Sum test and t-approximation was used.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|||||||0.1061
91060817|NCT01473407|182004738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3369||||||P-value was calculated from a Wilcoxon Rank Sum test and t-approximation was used.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|||||||0.3369
91060818|NCT02422797|182004758|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was concluded if the lower bound of a two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in response rates between the two treatment arms was greater than -10%.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|4.2|||||Estimates based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel stratified analysis adjusting for Baseline stratification factors: Age group (\< or \>=50 years old) and Baseline third agent (PI, NNRTI, INSTI).|||4.2|-3.9|
91060819|NCT02422797|182004760|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|1.8|||||Cochran-Mantel Haenszel stratified analysis adjusting for Baseline stratification factors: Age group (\< or \>=50 years old) and Baseline third agent (PI, NNRTI, INSTI). No formal non-inferiority margin has been pre-specified for secondary endpoints.|||1.8|-4.0|
91060820|NCT02422797|182004771|OTHER|||||||0.007||||||P-value for interaction between treatment group and Baseline third agent (25 hydroxy-vitamin D)|ANCOVA|||||||0.007
91060821|NCT02422797|182004771|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.861||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.767|0.967||P value assessed the difference between treatment groups (25 hydroxy-vitamin D - INSTI)|ANCOVA||Estimates were calculated from an ANCOVA model adjusting for Baseline third agent class, age, sex, BMI category, smoking status and Baseline biomarker level.|||0.967|0.767|0.011
91060822|NCT02422797|182004771|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.012||||0.745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.943|1.085||P value assessed the difference between treatment groups (25 hydroxy-vitamin D - NNRTI)|ANCOVA||Estimates were calculated from an ANCOVA model adjusting for Baseline third agent class, age, sex, BMI category, smoking status and Baseline biomarker level.|||1.085|0.943|0.745
90821865|NCT01122849|181521027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.36||||0.5278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.1|9.39||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||||9.39|-18.1|0.5278
90821866|NCT01122849|181521027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|10.14||||0.1458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.64|23.93||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||||23.93|-3.64|0.1458
90821867|NCT01122849|181521027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-14.5||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.1|-0.91||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals.|ANCOVA|||||-0.91|-28.1|0.0370
90821868|NCT01122849|181521028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.1||||0.4483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.5|8.29|||ANCOVA|Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals||||8.29|-18.5|0.4483
90821869|NCT01122849|181521028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|14.28||||0.0385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|27.77|||ANCOVA|Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals||||27.77|0.79|0.0385
90821870|NCT01122849|181521028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-19.37||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.5|-6.23|||ANCOVA|Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals||||-6.23|-32.5|0.0046
90821871|NCT01122849|181521029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|15.24||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.45|25.02||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||||25.02|5.45|0.0029
90821872|NCT01122849|181521029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.74||||0.4683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.53|14.01||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||||14.01|-6.53|0.4683
90821873|NCT01122849|181521029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|11.5||||0.0259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|21.55||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||||21.55|1.44|0.0259
90821874|NCT01122849|181521030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.79||||0.1764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.62|19.19||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||||19.19|-3.62|0.1764
90821875|NCT01122849|181521030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.63||||0.9183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|12.94||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||||12.94|-11.7|0.9183
90821876|NCT01122849|181521030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.16||||0.2313||95.0|-4.7|19.01||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||||19.01|-4.70|0.2313
90821877|NCT01122849|181521031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.27||||0.1345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.63||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison for Q2 at Day 7||0.63|-0.09|0.1345
90821878|NCT01122849|181521031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.32||||0.0815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.04||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison for Q2 at Day 7||0.04|-0.68|0.0815
90821879|NCT01122849|181521031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.59||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.94||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison for Q2 at Day 7||0.94|0.24|0.0015
90821880|NCT01122849|181521031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean differnence|-1.03||||0.0292||95.0|-1.96|-0.11||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison for Q4 at Day 7||-0.11|-1.96|0.0292
90821881|NCT01122849|181521031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.54||||0.2497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|1.47||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison of Q4 at Day 7||1.47|-0.39|0.2497
90821882|NCT01122849|181521031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-1.57||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|-0.66||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison for Q4 at Day 7||-0.66|-2.48|0.0011
90821883|NCT01122849|181521032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.06||||0.8063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.51||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison for Q2 at Day 14||0.51|-0.40|0.8063
90821884|NCT01122849|181521032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differnence|-0.35||||0.1356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.11||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison for Q2 at Day 14||0.11|-0.82|0.1356
90821885|NCT01122849|181521032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean Difference|0.41||||0.0786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.87|||ANCOVA|||Comparison for Q2 at Day 14||0.87|-0.05|0.0786
90821886|NCT01122849|181521032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.72||||0.1693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|0.32||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparisons for Q4 at Day 14||0.32|-1.75|0.1693
90821887|NCT01122849|181521032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|1.08||||0.0438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|2.13||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison for Q4 at Day 14||2.13|0.03|0.0438
90821888|NCT01122849|181521032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-1.8||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.82|-0.78||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison for Q4 at Day 14||-0.78|-2.82|0.0009
90821889|NCT01122849|181521033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.24||||0.1991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.13||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison for Q2 at Day 7||0.13|-0.62|0.1991
90821890|NCT01122849|181521033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.21||||0.2964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.19||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison of Q2 at Day 7||0.19|-0.60|0.2964
90821891|NCT01122849|181521033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.04||||0.8495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.35||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison of Q2 at Day 7||0.35|-0.42|0.8495
90821892|NCT01122849|181521033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.35||||0.0381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|2.62||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison for Q4 at Day 7||2.62|0.08|0.0381
90821893|NCT01122849|181521033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.54||||0.4005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|1.82||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison of Q4 at Day 7||1.82|-0.74|0.4005
90821894|NCT01122849|181521033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.81||||0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|2.07||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison of Q4 at Day 7||2.07|-0.45|0.2020
90821895|NCT01122849|181521034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.09||||0.5741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.23||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison for Q2 at Day 14||0.23|-0.41|0.5741
90821896|NCT01122849|181521034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.06||||0.6935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.39||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison for Q2 at Day 14||0.39|-0.26|0.6935
90821897|NCT01122849|181521034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.15||||0.333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.16||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals.|ANCOVA|||Comparison of Q2 at Day 14||0.16|-0.47|0.3330
90821898|NCT01122849|181521034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|1.39||||0.0434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|2.73||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison for Q4 at Day 14||2.73|0.04|0.0434
90821899|NCT01122849|181521034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.32||||0.6333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|1.67||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison for Q4 at Day 14||1.67|-1.02|0.6333
90821900|NCT01122849|181521034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.06||||0.1091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|2.37||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals.|ANCOVA|||Comparison for Q4 at Day 14||2.37|-0.25|0.1091
90821901|NCT03997825|181521048|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.001
90821902|NCT03997825|181521049|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.001
90821903|NCT05546229|181521101|OTHER|||||||0.0049|||||||t-test, 2 sided|8 degrees of freedom||patient plasma versus isf value for methadone||||.0049
90821904|NCT05546229|181521102|OTHER|||||||0.0025|||||||t-test, 2 sided|8 degrees of freedom||||||.0025
90821905|NCT00847197|181521114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|4.3||The significance test was 2-tailed with α=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The test for the treatment difference in terms of percentage change from baseline to a given time point was done using the contrast statement.||For the analysis of percent change from baseline in LDL-C at study endpoint, a Longitudinal Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) method was used. The repeated measures model included terms for treatment, time (Day 15, 29), and the interaction of time-by-treatment. The analysis model also adjusted for baseline, baseline-by-time interaction, region and gender.||4.3|-3.9|0.926
90821906|NCT00847197|181521115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|8.1||The significance test was 2-tailed with α=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The test for the treatment difference in terms of percentage change from baseline to a given time point was done using the contrast statement.||For the analysis of percent change from baseline in LDL-C at study endpoint, a Longitudinal Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) method was used. The repeated measures model included terms for treatment, time (Day 15, 29), and the interaction of time-by-treatment. The analysis model also adjusted for baseline, baseline-by-time interaction, region and gender.||8.1|1.0|0.013
90821907|NCT00847197|181521116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-10.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.6||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9|-1.9|||Wilcoxon's Rank Sum Test|The significance test was 2-tailed with α=0.05.||Triglycerides was analyzed by non-parametric methods with terms for treatment, gender and region. Specifically, the analysis of variance (ANOVA) model was applied to the Tukey's normal scores of the percent change from baseline. The estimate of the difference in medians between MK1903 and the placebo groups utilizing the Hodges-Lehmann estimate and a distribution-free 95% CI for the difference based on Wilcoxon's rank sum test was provided.||-1.9|-18.9|0.02
90821908|NCT01743040|181521123|NON_INFERIORITY|15% equivalency margin against performance of SPECT nuclear stress test OPC. Both sensitivity and specificity were measured and the equivalency margin was set the same for both parameters.The goal was to test the Sensitivity and specificity of CADence as compared to SPECT nuclear stress test OPC. Both were measured and reported in this study. The Sensitivity of CADence was 78% (95% CI 76.1-90.8%) while the specificity was 36% (95% CI 32-39%).||||||0.012|||||||Exact binomial test|||The goal was to test the Sensitivity and specificity of CADence as compared to SPECT nuclear stress test OPC. Both were measured and reported in this study. The Sensitivity of CADence was 78% (95% CI 76.1-90.8%) while the specificity was 36% (95% CI 32-39%).||||0.012
90821909|NCT03824587|181521124|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.182||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-1.13|-0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.18|-1.13|0.0004
90821910|NCT03824587|181521125|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1||||0.0097|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0097
90821911|NCT03824587|181521126|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0027|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0027
90821912|NCT03824587|181521127|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0011|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0011
90821913|NCT00571974|181521129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0||||One-sided exact binomial test to compare the observed response rate to the 20% rate envisioned under the original null hypothesis.|One-sided exact binomial test|Because all but one subject responded to treatment, the Fisher's exact test was addedd.||The Simon two-stage minimax design with 9 subjects in the first stage and 8 subjects in the second stage, yielding 17 subjects overall. This design's early termination rule was ≤3/9 responses in the first stage, and its success criterion was ≥7/17 responses overall. This design had 80% power at 5% alpha to distinguish an efficacious 50% response rate from a null-hypothesis 20% response rate.||||0.0001
90821914|NCT02813889|181521130|SUPERIORITY|Two-Factor ANOVA in repeated measures|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0146||||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0261|-0.0031||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|p Values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using Tukey-Kramer tests.|Difference = Path Length (Full-Term) - Path Length (Pre-Term)|||-0.0031|-0.0261|0.0054
90821915|NCT02813889|181521131|SUPERIORITY|Two-Factor ANOVA in repeated measures|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0331|-0.007||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|p Values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using Tukey-Kramer tests.|Difference = Path Length (Full-Term) - Path Length (Pre-Term)|||-0.0070|-0.0331|0.0005
90821916|NCT02813889|181521132|SUPERIORITY|Two-Factor ANOVA in repeated measures|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0146||||0.0088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0267|-0.0026||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|p Values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using Tukey-Kramer tests.|Difference = Path Length (Full-Term) - Path Length (Pre-Term)|||-0.0026|-0.0267|0.0088
90821917|NCT02813889|181521133|SUPERIORITY|Two-Factor ANOVA in repeated measures|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0059||||0.7624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.018|0.0062||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|p Values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using Tukey-Kramer tests.|Difference = Path Length (Full-Term) - Path Length (Pre-Term)|||0.0062|-0.0180|0.7624
91060823|NCT02422797|182004771|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.877||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.787|0.977||P value assessed the difference between treatment groups (25 hydroxy-vitamin D - PI)|ANCOVA||Estimates were calculated from an ANCOVA model adjusting for Baseline third agent class, age, sex, BMI category, smoking status and Baseline biomarker level.|||0.977|0.787|0.018
91060824|NCT02422797|182004773|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||P-value for interaction between treatment group and Baseline third agent (bone-specific alkaline phosphatase)|ANCOVA|||||||0.001
91060825|NCT02422797|182004773|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.728|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.686|0.773||P value assessed the difference between treatment groups (bone-specific alkaline phosphatase - NNRTI)|ANCOVA||Estimates were calculated from an ANCOVA model adjusting for Baseline third agent class, age, sex, BMI category, smoking status and Baseline biomarker level.|||0.773|0.686|<.001
91060826|NCT02422797|182004773|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.865||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.785|0.954||P value assessed the difference between treatment groups (bone-specific alkaline phosphatase - INSTI)|ANCOVA||Estimates were calculated from an ANCOVA model adjusting for Baseline third agent class, age, sex, BMI category, smoking status and Baseline biomarker level.|||0.954|0.785|0.004
91060827|NCT02422797|182004773|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.788|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.719|0.864||P value assessed the difference between treatment groups (bone-specific alkaline phosphatase - PI)|ANCOVA||Estimates were calculated from an ANCOVA model adjusting for Baseline third agent class, age, sex, BMI category, smoking status and Baseline biomarker level.|||0.864|0.719|<.001
91060828|NCT02422797|182004773|OTHER|||||||0.677||||||P-value for interaction between treatment group and Baseline third agent (procollagen type 1-N-propeptide)|ANCOVA|||||||0.677
91060829|NCT02422797|182004773|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.867|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.823|0.914||P value assessed the difference between treatment groups (procollagen type 1-N-propeptide)|ANCOVA||Estimates were calculated from an ANCOVA model adjusting for Baseline third agent class, age, sex, BMI category, smoking status and Baseline biomarker level.|||0.914|0.823|<.001
91060830|NCT02422797|182004773|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value for interaction between treatment group and Baseline third agent (osteocalcin)|ANCOVA|||||||<.001
91060831|NCT02422797|182004773|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.853|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.799|0.91||P value assessed the difference between treatment groups (osteocalcin - NNRTI)|ANCOVA||Estimates were calculated from an ANCOVA model adjusting for Baseline third agent class, age, sex, BMI category, smoking status and Baseline biomarker level.|||0.910|0.799|<.001
91060832|NCT02422797|182004773|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.886||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.796|0.987||P value assessed the difference between treatment groups (osteocalcin - INSTI)|ANCOVA||Estimates were calculated from an ANCOVA model adjusting for Baseline third agent class, age, sex, BMI category, smoking status and Baseline biomarker level.|||0.987|0.796|0.028
91060833|NCT02422797|182004773|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.743|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.672|0.822||P value assessed the difference between treatment groups (osteocalcin - PI)|ANCOVA||Estimates were calculated from an ANCOVA model adjusting for Baseline third agent class, age, sex, BMI category, smoking status and Baseline biomarker level.|||0.822|0.672|<.001
91060834|NCT02422797|182004773|OTHER|||||||0.782||||||P-value for interaction between treatment group and Baseline third agent (type 1 collagen cross-linked C-telopeptide)|ANCOVA|||||||0.782
91060835|NCT02422797|182004773|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.818|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.751|0.891||P value assessed the difference between treatment groups (type 1 collagen cross-linked C-telopeptide)|ANCOVA||Estimates were calculated from an ANCOVA model adjusting for Baseline third agent class, age, sex, BMI category, smoking status and Baseline biomarker level.|||0.891|0.751|<.001
91060836|NCT02422797|182004786|OTHER|||||||0.179||||||One-sided p-value from weighted least squares chi-squared statistic. A p-value \<=0.10 was used to indicate statistically significant evidence of heterogeneity in the difference in proportions across levels of each analysis strata.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.179
91060837|NCT02422797|182004786|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|8.6|||||NNRTI: No formal non-inferiority margin has been pre-specified for secondary endpoints.|||8.6|-1.6|
91060838|NCT02422797|182004786|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|7.4|||||INSTI: No formal non-inferiority margin has been pre-specified for secondary endpoints.|||7.4|-12.1|
91060839|NCT02422797|182004786|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|3.1|||||PI: No formal non-inferiority margin has been pre-specified for secondary endpoints.|||3.1|-13.9|
91060840|NCT02422797|182004794|OTHER|||||||0.43||||||P-value for interaction between treatment group and Baseline symptom bother score (Week 4)|ANCOVA|||||||0.430
91060841|NCT02422797|182004794|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.239||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.414|-0.064||P value assessed the difference between treatment groups (Symptom Bother Score - Week 4)|ANCOVA||Estimates were calculated from an ANCOVA model adjusting for age, Baseline third agent, gender, race and Baseline score.|||-0.064|-2.414|0.039
91060842|NCT02422797|182004794|OTHER|||||||0.542||||||P-value for interaction between treatment group and Baseline symptom bother score (Week 24)|ANCOVA|||||||0.542
91060843|NCT02422797|182004794|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.528||||0.448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.896|0.84||P value assessed the difference between treatment groups (Symptom Bother Score - Week 24)|ANCOVA||Estimates were calculated from an ANCOVA model adjusting for age, Baseline third agent, gender, race and Baseline score.|||0.840|-1.896|0.448
91060844|NCT02422797|182004794|OTHER|||||||0.402||||||P-value for interaction between treatment group and Baseline symptom bother score (Week 48)|ANCOVA|||||||0.402
91060845|NCT02422797|182004794|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.037||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.501|0.426||P value assessed the difference between treatment groups (Symptom Bother Score - Week 48)|ANCOVA||Estimates were calculated from an ANCOVA model adjusting for age, Baseline third agent, gender, race and Baseline score.|||0.426|-2.501|0.164
91060846|NCT02422797|182004797|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.037||||||P-value assessed the HIVTSQs Total Score difference between treatment groups (Week 4)|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.037
91060847|NCT02422797|182004797|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.101||||||P-value assessed the HIVTSQs Total Score difference between treatment groups (Week 24)|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.101
90821918|NCT02813889|181521134|SUPERIORITY|Two-Factor ANOVA in repeated measures|Mean Difference (Net)|0.0129||||0.0326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0007|0.0251||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|p Values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using Tukey-Kramer tests.|Difference = Path Length per second (Typical) - Path Length per second (Atypical)|||0.0251|0.0007|0.0326
91060848|NCT02422797|182004797|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.042||||||P-value assessed the HIVTSQs Total score difference between treatment groups (Week 48)|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.042
91060849|NCT02422797|182004797|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.132||||||P-value assessed the HIVTSQs lifestyle/ease sub- score difference between treatment groups (Week 4)|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.132
91060850|NCT02422797|182004797|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022||||||P-value assessed the HIVTSQs lifestyle/ease sub- score difference between treatment groups (Week 24)|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.022
90821919|NCT02813889|181521135|SUPERIORITY|Two-Factor ANOVA in repeated measures|Mean Difference (Net)|0.0309|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0138|0.048||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|p Values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using Tukey-Kramer tests.|Difference = Path Length per second (Typical) - Path Length per second (Atypical)|||0.0480|0.0138|<0.0001
90821920|NCT02813889|181521136|SUPERIORITY|Two-Factor ANOVA in repeated measures|Mean Difference (Net)|0.017||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0045|0.0295||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|p Values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using Tukey-Kramer tests.|Difference = Path Length per second (Typical) - Path Length per second (Atypical)|||0.0295|0.0045|0.0025
90821921|NCT02813889|181521137|SUPERIORITY|Two-Factor ANOVA in repeated measures|Mean Difference (Net)|0.0066||||0.6782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0059|0.0191||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|p Values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using Tukey-Kramer tests.|Difference = Path Length per second (Typical) - Path Length per second (Atypical)|||0.0191|-0.0059|0.6782
90821922|NCT02813889|181521138|SUPERIORITY|Two-Factor ANOVA in repeated measures|Mean Difference (Net)|1.064||||0.0479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.006|2.122||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|p Values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using Tukey-Kramer tests.|Difference = StdDevY (Full-Term) - StdDevY (Pre-Term)|||2.122|0.006|0.0479
90821923|NCT02813889|181521139|SUPERIORITY|Two-Factor ANOVA in repeated measures|Mean Difference (Net)|0.278||||0.9947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.921|1.477||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|p Values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using Tukey-Kramer tests.|Difference = StdDevY (Full-Term) - StdDevY (Pre-Term)|||1.477|-0.921|0.9947
90821924|NCT02813889|181521140|SUPERIORITY|Two-Factor ANOVA in repeated measures|Mean Difference (Net)|0.835||||0.2614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.274|1.945||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|p Values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using Tukey-Kramer tests.|Difference = StdDevY (Full-Term) - StdDevY (Pre-Term)|||1.945|-0.274|0.2614
90821925|NCT02813889|181521141|SUPERIORITY|Two-Factor ANOVA in repeated measures|Mean Difference (Net)|1.176||||0.0314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.066|2.286||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|p Values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using Tukey-Kramer tests.|Difference = StdDevY (Full-Term) - StdDevY (Pre-Term)|||2.286|0.066|0.0314
90821926|NCT02813889|181521142|SUPERIORITY|Two-Factor ANOVA in repeated measures|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.074||||0.0958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.255|0.1059||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|p Values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using Tukey-Kramer tests.|Difference = StdDevY (Typical) - StdDevY (Atypical)|||0.1059|-2.255|0.0958
90821927|NCT02813889|181521143|SUPERIORITY|Two-Factor ANOVA in repeated measures|Mean Difference (Net)|0.5248||||0.966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1243|2.1739||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|p Values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using Tukey-Kramer tests.|Difference = StdDevY (Typical) - StdDevY (Atypical)|||2.1739|-1.1243|0.9660
90821928|NCT02813889|181521144|SUPERIORITY|Two-Factor ANOVA in repeated measures|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4198||||0.9462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6278|0.7882||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|p Values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using Tukey-Kramer tests.|Difference = StdDevY (Typical) - StdDevY (Atypical)|||0.7882|-1.6278|0.9462
90821929|NCT02813889|181521145|SUPERIORITY|Two-Factor ANOVA in repeated measures|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0705||||0.1129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2785|0.1375||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|p Values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using Tukey-Kramer tests.|Difference = StdDevY (Typical) - StdDevY (Atypical)|||0.1375|-2.2785|0.1129
90821930|NCT05224453|181521165|SUPERIORITY|Parametric t test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.21|-3.78|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-3.78|-6.21|<0.05
90821931|NCT05224453|181521166|SUPERIORITY|Parametric t test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.7|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.53|-0.86|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.86|-6.53|<0.05
90821932|NCT05224453|181521166|SUPERIORITY|Parametric t test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.84|0.44|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.44|-3.84|<0.05
90821933|NCT01128244|181521169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for significance P\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.20
91060851|NCT02422797|182004797|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||P-value assessed the HIVTSQs lifestyle/ease sub- score difference between treatment groups (Week 48)|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.004
91060852|NCT02422797|182004797|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.076||||||P-value assessed the HIVTSQs General satisfaction/CS sub- score difference between treatment groups (Week 4)|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.076
91060853|NCT02422797|182004797|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.073||||||P-value assessed the HIVTSQs General satisfaction/CS sub- score difference between treatment groups (Week 24)|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.073
91060854|NCT02422797|182004797|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.547||||||P-value assessed the HIVTSQs General satisfaction/CS sub- score difference between treatment groups (Week 48)|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.547
91060855|NCT05044195|182004840|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority criteria for the GMT ratio: upper limit (UL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the inter-group GMT ratio is ≤1.5 for each vaccine strain|GMT ratio|0.802|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.738|0.871||||||A/H1N1||0.871|0.738|
91060856|NCT05044195|182004840|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority criteria for the GMT ratio: UL of the 95% CI for the inter-group GMT ratio is ≤1.5 for each vaccine strain|GMT ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.819|0.989||||||A/H3N2||0.989|0.819|
91060857|NCT05044195|182004840|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority criteria for the GMT ratio: UL of the 95% CI for the inter-group GMT ratio is ≤1.5 for each vaccine strain|GMT ratio|0.944|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.012||||||B/Yamagata||1.012|0.880|
91060858|NCT05044195|182004840|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority criteria for the GMT ratio: UL of the 95% CI for the inter-group GMT ratio is ≤1.5 for each vaccine strain|GMT ratio|0.992|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.923|1.067||||||B/Victoria||1.067|0.923|
91060859|NCT05044195|182004841|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority criteria for the SCR difference: UL of the 95% CI for the difference in SCR is ≤10% for each vaccine strain|SCR difference|-4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.97|-0.74||||||A/H1N1||-0.74|-7.97|
91060860|NCT05044195|182004841|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority criteria for the SCR difference: UL of the 95% CI for the difference in SCR is ≤10% for each vaccine strain|SCR difference|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.14|2.48||||||A/H3N2||2.48|-6.14|
91060861|NCT05044195|182004841|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority criteria for the SCR difference: UL of the 95% CI for the difference in SCR is ≤10% for each vaccine strain|SCR difference|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.77|2.0||||||B/Yamagata||2.00|-6.77|
91060862|NCT05044195|182004841|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority criteria for the SCR difference: UL of the 95% CI for the difference in SCR is ≤10% for each vaccine strain|SCR difference|-3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.31|0.45||||||B/Victoria||0.45|-8.31|
91060863|NCT05044195|182004842|SUPERIORITY||GMT ratio|0.808|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.745|0.876||||||A/H1N1||0.876|0.745|
91060864|NCT05044195|182004842|SUPERIORITY||GMT ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.829|0.998||||||A/H3N2||0.998|0.829|
91060865|NCT05044195|182004842|SUPERIORITY||GMT ratio|0.947|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.884|1.014||||||B/Yamagata||1.014|0.884|
91060866|NCT05044195|182004842|SUPERIORITY||GMT ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.931|1.075||||||B/Victoria||1.075|0.931|
90821934|NCT01128244|181521170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for significance, P\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.62
90821935|NCT01128244|181521171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for significance, P\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||<0.001
90821936|NCT01128244|181521172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for significance, P\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.45
91060867|NCT05044195|182004843|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.803|0.944||||||A/H1N1||0.944|0.803|
91060868|NCT05044195|182004843|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.953|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.032||||||A/H3N2||1.032|0.880|
91060869|NCT05044195|182004843|OTHER||GMT ratio|1.013|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.953|1.077||||||B/Yamagata||1.077|0.953|
91060870|NCT05044195|182004843|OTHER||GMT ratio|1.028|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.963|1.098||||||B/Victoria||1.098|0.963|
91060871|NCT05044195|182004851|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.838|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.751|0.936||||||A/H1N1 (50 to 59 years)||0.936|0.751|
91060872|NCT05044195|182004851|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.924|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.821|1.04||||||A/H3N2 (50 to 59 years)||1.040|0.821|
91060873|NCT05044195|182004851|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.926|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.845|1.015||||||B/Yamagata (50 to 59 years)||1.015|0.845|
91060874|NCT05044195|182004851|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.989|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.901|1.087||||||B/Victoria (50 to 59 years)||1.087|0.901|
91060875|NCT05044195|182004851|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.767|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.681|0.864||||||A/H1N1 (60 to 64 years)||0.864|0.681|
91060876|NCT05044195|182004851|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.766|1.033||||||A/H3N2 (60 to 64 years)||1.033|0.766|
91060877|NCT05044195|182004851|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.974|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.879|1.079||||||B/Yamagata (60 to 64 years)||1.079|0.879|
91060878|NCT05044195|182004851|OTHER||GMT ratio|1.013|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.905|1.133||||||B/Victoria (60 to 64 years)||1.133|0.905|
91060879|NCT05044195|182004852|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.844|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.761|0.935||||||A/H1N1 (yes)||0.935|0.761|
91060880|NCT05044195|182004852|OTHER||GMT ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.904|1.128||||||A/H3N2 (yes)||1.128|0.904|
91060881|NCT05044195|182004852|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.948|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.883|1.016||||||B/Yamagata (yes)||1.016|0.883|
91060882|NCT05044195|182004852|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.997|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.926|1.073||||||B/Victoria (yes)||1.073|0.926|
91060883|NCT05044195|182004852|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.772|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.677|0.88||||||A/H1N1 (no)||0.880|0.677|
91060884|NCT05044195|182004852|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.801|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.683|0.941||||||A/H3N2 (no)||0.941|0.683|
91060885|NCT05044195|182004852|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.945|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.831|1.076||||||B/Yamagata (no)||1.076|0.831|
91060886|NCT05044195|182004852|OTHER||GMT ratio|1.007|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.881|1.151||||||B/Victoria (no)||1.151|0.881|
91060887|NCT05044195|182004853|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.752|0.894||||||A/H1N1 (Comorbidity Risk Score \<50)||0.894|0.752|
91060888|NCT05044195|182004853|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.933|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.846|1.029||||||A/H3N2 (Comorbidity Risk Score \<50)||1.029|0.846|
90821937|NCT01128244|181521173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test of treatment effect.|0.05|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Data were analyzed by paired t-test adjusted for multiple testing by Sidak methods.|t-test, 2 sided|||Data were analyzed by paired t-test adjusted for multiple testing by Sidak methods.||||<0.05
91060889|NCT05044195|182004853|OTHER||GMTratio|0.972|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.904|1.046||||||B/Yamagata (Comorbidity Risk Score \<50)||1.046|0.904|
91060890|NCT05044195|182004853|OTHER||GMT ratio|1.013|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.938|1.094||||||B/Victoria (Comorbidity Risk Score \<50)||1.094|0.938|
91060891|NCT05044195|182004853|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.706|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.553|0.902||||||A/H1N1 (Comorbidity Risk Score ≥50)||0.902|0.553|
91060892|NCT05044195|182004853|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.734|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.549|0.982||||||A/H3N2 (Comorbidity Risk Score ≥50)||0.982|0.549|
91060893|NCT05044195|182004853|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.773|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.638|0.935||||||B/Yamagata (Comorbidity Risk Score ≥50)||0.935|0.638|
91060894|NCT05044195|182004853|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.905|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.739|1.107||||||B/Victoria (Comorbidity Risk Score ≥50)||1.107|0.739|
91060895|NCT01027702|182004854|OTHER|||||||||||||||||"This was a dose-escalation study to determine a target DLI dose at which the:~1. Probability of CD4+ cells \> 100/µL by Day +120 is at least 66% and~2. Probability of grade II and III GVHD is at most 33%, probability of grade III GVHD is at most 17%, and no grade IV GVHD occurs Patients were assigned in cohorts of 3."|"The study design consisted of two phases, a dose-escalation phase and a dose-confirmation phase. In the dose-escalation phase, patients were assigned in cohorts of 3. The dose escalation plan was:~* If a grade IV acute GVHD event was observed at any dose, no more patients were assigned to this or higher dose levels unless the methotrexate dosing was modified.~* If none of the initial three patients at a dose level experienced grade II/III GVHD and \< 2/3 had a CD4+ count \> 100 at Day +120, the next three patients were assigned to the next higher dose level.~* If 1 out of 3 patients had grade III GVHD or 1 - 2 out of 3 patients had grade II GVHD and/or \> 2/3 have a CD4+ count \> 100 at Day +120, the dose was repeated for the next 3 patients.~The dose of 5 x 10\^4 CD3+ cells/kg was determined to be the optimal dose."|||
91077837|NCT02913105|182041135|OTHER|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.88||||0.3086|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.72|1.08|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||HA: Day 84||1.08|0.72|0.3086
91060896|NCT01027702|182004855|OTHER|||||||||||||||||"This was a dose-escalation study to determine a target DLI dose at which the:~1. Probability of CD4+ cells \> 100/µL by Day +120 is at least 66% and~2. Probability of grade II and III GVHD is at most 33%, probability of grade III GVHD is at most 17%, and no grade IV GVHD occurs Patients were assigned in cohorts of 3."|"The study design consisted of two phases, a dose-escalation phase and a dose-confirmation phase. In the dose-escalation phase, patients were assigned in cohorts of 3. The dose escalation plan was:~If a grade IV acute GVHD event was observed at any dose, no more patients were assigned to this or higher dose levels unless the methotrexate dosing was modified.~If none of the initial three patients at a dose level experienced grade II/III GVHD and \< 2/3 had a CD4+ count \> 100 at Day +120, the next three patients were assigned to the next higher dose level.~If 1 out of 3 patients had grade III GVHD or 1 - 2 out of 3 patients had grade II GVHD and/or \> 2/3 have a CD4+ count \> 100 at Day +120, the dose was repeated for the next 3 patients.~The dose of 5 x 10\^4 CD3+ cells/kg was determined to be the optimal dose."|||
91060897|NCT00403585|182004857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The p value represents the comparison between baseline data and data at Week 156.|Wilcoxon signed rank|||||||<0.001
91060898|NCT02604407|182004863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference of LS Mean|-8.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|-4.4|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure||Between treatment groups of SHP465 12.5 mg and Placebo.|||-4.4|-11.7|<0.001
91060899|NCT02604407|182004863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference of LS Mean|-13.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|-9.7|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure||Between treatment groups of SHP465 37.5 mg and Placebo.|||-9.7|-17.1|<0.001
91060900|NCT02276807|182004906|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.345|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|2 (Condition: TAU, BA-PC) X 2 (Time: Baseline vs. Week 12) repeated measures ANOVA||||||<0.05
91060901|NCT02276807|182004907|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.046|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|2 (Condition: TAU vs. BA-PC) X 2 (time: Baseline vs. week 12) repeated measures ANOVA||||||<0.05
91060902|NCT02276807|182004908|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.666|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|2 (Condition: TAU, BA-PC) X 2 (Time: Baseline, Week 12) Repeated Measures ANOVA||||||<0.05
91060903|NCT02276807|182004909|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.014|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|2 (Condition: TAU vs. BA-PC) X 2 (Time: Baseline, Week 12) Repeated Measures ANOVA||||||<0.05
91060904|NCT02276807|182004910|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.722|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|2 (Condition: TAU vs. BA-PC) X 2 (Time: Baseline vs. Week 12) Repeated Measures ANOVA||||||<0.05
91060905|NCT00629018|182005009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||Log Rank|||The minimal sample size for the study was calculated using a pre-specified power of 90% and P value of 0.05.||||0.01
91060906|NCT03417778|182005015|OTHER|If the upper bound of the 2-sided 90% CIs of the GLSM ratio for AUClast of filgotinib falls within the \[50%, 200%\] bound, the null hypothesis that participants with hepatic impairment exhibit AUClast change of at least 2-fold for filgotinib compared with participants with normal liver function will be rejected.|GLSM Ratio|161.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.77|321.48||||||An analysis of variance (ANOVA) model was fitted to the natural logarithmic transformed values of the AUClast. Two-sided 90% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for the geometric least-squares mean (GLSM) ratio of AUClast between hepatic impairment group versus the matched control (normal hepatic function) group.||321.48|80.77|
91060907|NCT03417778|182005016|OTHER|If the upper bound of the 2-sided 90% CIs of the GLSM ratio for AUClast of GS-829845 falls within the \[50%, 200%\] bound, the null hypothesis that participants with hepatic impairment exhibit AUClast change of at least 2-fold for GS-829845 compared with participants with normal liver function will be rejected.|GLSM Ratio|122.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|69.67|213.89||||||An ANOVA model was fitted to the natural logarithmic transformed values of the AUClast. Two-sided 90% CI were calculated for the GLSM ratio of AUClast between hepatic impairment group versus the matched control (normal hepatic function) group.||213.89|69.67|
91060908|NCT03417778|182005017|OTHER|If the upper bound of the 2-sided 90% CIs of the GLSM ratio for AUCinf of filgotinib falls within the \[50%, 200%\] bound, the null hypothesis that participants with hepatic impairment exhibit AUCinf change of at least 2-fold for filgotinib compared with participants with normal liver function will be rejected.|GLSM Ratio|159.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.22|308.06||||||An ANOVA model was fitted to the natural logarithmic transformed values of the AUCinf. Two-sided 90% CI were calculated for the GLSM ratio of AUCinf between hepatic impairment group versus the matched control (normal hepatic function) group.||308.06|82.22|
91060909|NCT03417778|182005018|OTHER|If the upper bound of the 2-sided 90% CIs of the GLSM ratio for AUCinf of GS-829845 falls within the \[50%, 200%\] bound, the null hypothesis that participants with hepatic impairment exhibit AUCinf change of at least 2-fold for GS-829845 compared with participants with normal liver function will be rejected.|GLSM Ratio|122.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|69.9|214.07||||||An ANOVA model was fitted to the natural logarithmic transformed values of the AUCinf. Two-sided 90% CI were calculated for the GLSM ratio of AUCinf between hepatic impairment group versus the matched control (normal hepatic function) group.||214.07|69.90|
91060910|NCT03417778|182005019|OTHER|If the upper bound of the 2-sided 90% CIs of the GLSM ratio for Cmax of filgotinib falls within the \[50%, 200%\] bound, the null hypothesis that participants with hepatic impairment exhibit Cmax change of at least 2-fold for filgotinib compared with participants with normal liver function will be rejected.|GLSM Ratio|115.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|58.75|228.98||||||An ANOVA model was fitted to the natural logarithmic transformed values of the Cmax. Two-sided 90% CI were calculated for the GLSM ratio of Cmax between hepatic impairment group versus the matched control (normal hepatic function) group.||228.98|58.75|
91060911|NCT03417778|182005020|OTHER|If the upper bound of the 2-sided 90% CIs of the GLSM ratio for Cmax of GS-829845 falls within the \[50%, 200%\] bound, the null hypothesis that participants with hepatic impairment exhibit Cmax change of at least 2-fold for GS-829845 compared with participants with normal liver function will be rejected.|GLSM Ratio|102.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.12|175.98||||||An ANOVA model was fitted to the natural logarithmic transformed values of the Cmax. Two-sided 90% CI were calculated for the GLSM ratio of Cmax between hepatic impairment group versus the matched control (normal hepatic function) group.||175.98|60.12|
91060912|NCT01995513|182005036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.828||||0.2176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.612|1.119||P-value was based on log-rank test stratified by PSA response (greater than or equal to \[\>=\] 0 percent \[%\] to less than \[\<\] 30% vs \>=30%) at Week 13 in the open-label period.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio was based on a Cox regression model (with treatment as the only covariate) stratified by PSA response (\>=0% to \<30% vs \>=30%) at Week 13 in the open-label period and is relative to Enzalutamide-placebo with \< 1 favoring Enzalutamide.|||1.119|0.612|0.2176
90821938|NCT02974257|181521174|OTHER|Linear mixed-effects model with an independent variance-covariance matrix to account for the correlation of within-patient repeated measures was used and linear contrasts were used to estimate the mean difference between treatment arms at 48 hours.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|6.1||Global p-value from the mixed model.|Mixed Models Analysis|If patients died before 48 hours lactate levels were imputed by carrying forward the last known value before the event with a 20% increase||||6.1|-3.1|0.9
90821939|NCT02974257|181521175|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|0.56|||Regression, Linear|||AUC-VO2 normally distributed, used a linear regression model to compare mean AUC-VO2 between treatment groups controlling for average temperature.||0.56|-1.29|0.42
90821940|NCT02974257|181521176|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.3||Mixed model controlling for repeated measures within patients used to get a mean difference in PDH specific activity between thiamine and placebo groups at 48 hours.|Mixed Models Analysis|P-value is the global p-value from the mixed model.||||0.3|-0.9|0.07
90821941|NCT04273893|181521190|OTHER|||||||0.05||||||Changes from baseline ALC were conducted using repeated measures models with an unstructured covariance matrix and model terms for tumor location, follow-up time. Adjustments for stratification factors were made using least squares means.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
90821942|NCT02936843|181521207|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||t-test, 2 sided|2-sided||TTEST, two sided||||0.41
90821943|NCT01393821|181521222|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6311|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.6311
90821944|NCT01318408|181521228|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assessing effects on cognition over time.||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The intent-to-treat group included all individuals who initiated levetiracetam. The Mann-Whitney U test was used to determine changes in participants' scores for cognition, function, and behavior between baseline and 12 weeks.Change in MMSE test scores was the primary outcome measure.||||.01
90821945|NCT01318408|181521229|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assessing cognitive effects over time.||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Lower scores (negative change) indicate improvements on the ADAS-cog.||||||.02
90821946|NCT02920749|181521252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||The P value less than 0.05 was considered to be significant. With type I α = 5% and with type II (power) of 90%, we therefore needed 27 patients/group.|ANOVA|||Statistical analysis was carried out with SPSS version 21 for Windows (IBM Corporation) software. All data are expressed as means ± SD. Mann-Whitney test was performed to assess the differences between patient subgroups.||||<0.05
90821947|NCT02920749|181521253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||The P value less than 0.05 was considered to be significant. With type I α = 5% and with type II (power) of 90%, we therefore needed 27 patients/group.|ANOVA|||Statistical analysis was carried out with SPSS version 21 for Windows (IBM Corporation) software. All data are expressed as means ± SD. Mann-Whitney test was performed to assess the differences between patient subgroups.||||<0.05
90821948|NCT05438576|181521254|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.12||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|4.27|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.27|1.05|0.032
90821949|NCT05438576|181521259|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.64|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.64|0.74|0.621
90821950|NCT02881762|181521264|OTHER|Comparison of mean change analyzed with unpaired t-test for parametric data. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).||||||0.13|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in HCV viral load between Maraviroc and No Maraviroc||||0.13
90821951|NCT02881762|181521265|OTHER|Comparison of difference in mean analyzed with paired t-test for parametric data. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).|||||>|0.5|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in HCV viral load between baseline and 7 days of maraviroc.||||>0.5
90821952|NCT02932748|181521291|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||A global one-way ANOVA was followed by two pairwise t-tests on the comparisons of interest, i.e., IP vs. EUC, and GP vs IP for weight change across 6 months, evaluated at p ≤ 0.025, using both intent-to-treat and completer only data.|ANOVA|||||||<.0001
90821953|NCT00475904|181521299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.547|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2709||0.0441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|1.08||a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|ANOVA|||In the initial analysis, the efficacy of the test treatment NP-1 cream was compared with placebo using an analysis of variance (ANOVA). The analysis was conducted using the ITT population to compare the mean changes in pain scores from baseline to endpoint for the 2 treatments; the LOCF approach was employed for patients who did not complete the trial.||1.08|0.01|0.0441
90821954|NCT00475904|181521300|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To conclude that the NP-1 was not inferior to gabapentin, the upper limit of the 2-sided 90% CI for the difference between treatments for the endpoint mean pain score was required to be below the non-inferiority margin of 0.70.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.046|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2311||0.8409|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.33|0.43||To conclude that the NP-1 was not inferior to gabapentin, the upper limit of the 2-sided 90% CI for the difference between treatments for the endpoint mean pain score was required to be below the non-inferiority margin of 0.70.|ANCOVA|||the primary hypothesis of this study was that NP-1 topical cream (amitriptyline 4%/ketamine 2%) administered twice daily in doses of 4 gm for 4 weeks is not inferior to the standard treatment (oral gabapentin 600 mg 3 times daily) for relieving the pain of adult patients with PHN.||0.43|-0.33|0.8409
90821955|NCT00880191|181521301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2344|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Complete Responders by Arm - Days 2-6, the primary analysis utilizes Fisher's exact test to compare the percentage of complete responders in each group (dex/gabapentin vs. dex/placebo), with complete response being defined as no emetic episodes and no use of rescue therapy for days 2 through 6. If a patient does not complete the study or does not provide complete data, they will be assumed to be a non-responder.||||0.2344
90821956|NCT00880191|181521302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3694|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||The primary analysis described above was repeated using a slightly different alternate definition of complete response: no emetic episodes, no more than a mean of 2.5 on the nausea numeric analogue scale, and no rescue agents.||||0.3694
90821957|NCT01843062|181521310|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.8205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.87||The primary endpoint was to be considered statistically significant if the 2-sided p-value was less than 0.05. P-value and confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using profile likelihood.|Regression, Logistic|||Selumetinib in combination with RAI was compared with placebo in combination with RAI. The analysis was performed using a logistic regression model including treatment as the only covariate. An odds ratio \>1 favours selumetinib in combination with RAI.||1.87|0.61|0.8205
90821958|NCT01843062|181521311|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.6549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.73||P-value and CIs were calculated using profile likelihood.|Regression, Logistic|||Selumetinib in combination with RAI was compared with placebo in combination with RAI. The analysis was performed using a logistic regression model including treatment as the only covariate. An odds ratio \>1 favours selumetinib in combination with RAI.||1.73|0.42|0.6549
90821959|NCT01843062|181521312|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.8205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.87||P-value and CIs were calculated using profile likelihood.|Regression, Logistic|||Selumetinib in combination with RAI was compared with placebo in combination with RAI. The analysis was performed using a logistic regression model including treatment as the only covariate. An odds ratio \>1 favours selumetinib in combination with RAI.||1.87|0.61|0.8205
90821960|NCT01843062|181521313|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.6549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.73||P-value and CIs were calculated using profile likelihood.|Regression, Logistic|||Selumetinib in combination with RAI was compared with placebo in combination with RAI. The analysis was performed using a logistic regression model including treatment as the only covariate. An odds ratio \>1 favours selumetinib in combination with RAI.||1.73|0.42|0.6549
90821961|NCT00066963|181521314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|7.6|||Mantel Haenszel|2 d.f.|Counseling Only vs FV 2x/yr+Counseling|Planned sample size of 384 participants (128/study arm) (alpha = 0.05, power = 90%, 50% attrition, χ2 test) to detect caries incidence differences, based on caries incidence in the literature (20% to 50% over two years). 50% attrition in the sample size calculation was selected based on the literature (e.g. Weinstein et al., 1994 reported 53% attrition in six months.)||7.6|1.9|<0.001
90821962|NCT03549104|181521334|OTHER||||||||||||||||||We will evaluate the effects of within-group and between-group differences from baseline (Week 0) to program completion (Week 8) to calculate effect sizes for sample size estimation for a future larger study.|||
90821963|NCT03549104|181521335|OTHER||||||||||||||||||We will evaluate the effects of within-group and between-group differences from baseline (Week 0) to program completion (Week 8) to calculate effect sizes for sample size estimation for a future larger study.|||
90821964|NCT03549104|181521336|OTHER||||||||||||||||||We will evaluate the effects of within-group and between-group differences from baseline (Week 0) to program completion (Week 8) to calculate effect sizes for sample size estimation for a future larger study.|||
90821965|NCT04124705|181521337|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for stratified response rate difference was greater than the non-inferiority margin, the null hypothesis would be rejected and the noninferiority of Armour Thyroid to levothyroxine would be declared.|Stratified Response Rate Difference|-15.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.1|-4.23|||||The response rate difference (Armour Thyroid group minus Levothyroxine group) and the 95% confidence interval were calculated using the Mantel-Haenszel-weighted method with the age group (age \< 65 years or ≥ 65 years) as a stratification factor.|The null hypothesis was that Armour Thyroid would be inferior to levothyroxine for the primary efficacy endpoint, sustained TSH response. The non-inferiority hypothesis test was performed at a 1-sided 2.5% level of significance (equivalent to a two-sided 5% level of significance).||-4.23|-26.10|
90821966|NCT04124705|181521338|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for stratified response rate difference was greater than the non-inferiority margin, the null hypothesis would be rejected and the noninferiority of Armour Thyroid to levothyroxine would be declared.|Stratified Response Rate Difference|-10.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.65|-2.38|||||The response rate difference (Armour Thyroid group minus Levothyroxine group) and the 95% confidence interval were calculated using the Mantel-Haenszel-weighted method with the age group (age \< 65 years or ≥ 65 years) as a stratification factor.|The null hypothesis was that Armour Thyroid would be inferior to levothyroxine for titration TSH response. The non-inferiority hypothesis test was performed at a 1-sided 2.5% level of significance.||-2.38|-18.65|
90821967|NCT03422536|181521339|EQUIVALENCE|The pre-specified significance criteria were met by exclusion of the historical control PFS of 2.0 months. As confirmation, the one-sample log rank test was computed with expected survival estimated using an exponential distribution of 2.0 months.||||||0.04||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<.05|Log Rank|||||||.04
90821968|NCT03422536|181521344|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Regression, Cox|||c-Met positivity was compared across groups: HPV+ vs HPV-||||.005
90821969|NCT03422536|181521344|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.3||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.8|||Log Rank|||Post-hoc comparison of progression free survival (PFS) in cMet positive vs. c-Met negative patients.||0.8|0.1|.02
90821970|NCT03422536|181521344|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.1||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.8|||Log Rank|||Post hoc comparison of PFS in the combination arm by HPV subgroup, adjusted for prognostic factors marginally associated with HPV status (P , .10), was assessed using Cox proportional hazards models. Here we are looking at cMet positivity in HPV- patients in the combination arm.||0.8|0.03|0.03
90821971|NCT03422536|181521344|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|3.2||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|17.5|||Log Rank|||Post hoc comparison of PFS in the combination arm by HPV subgroup, adjusted for prognostic factors marginally associated with HPV status (P , .10), was assessed using Cox proportional hazards models. Here we are looking at cMet positivity in HPV+ patients in the combination arm.||17.5|0.6|.20
90821972|NCT03422536|181521344|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.4||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.0|||Log Rank|||Post-hoc comparison of progression free survival (PFS) in HGF positive vs. HGF negative patients.||2.0|0.9|.10
91078428|NCT00553358|182042803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of participants with pCR|21.79||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|9.08|34.23|||Binomial|Binomial p-value for Trastuzumab 2 mg/kg versus Lapatinib 1000/750 mg + Trastuzumab 2 mg/kg|Estimation Comments: Estimated value is the difference in the percentage of participants with pCR: Arm3 (Lapatinib 1000/750 mg + Trastuzumab 2 mg/kg) minus Arm2 (Trastuzumab 2 mg/kg)|||34.23|9.08|0.0001
90821973|NCT03422536|181521344|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.4||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|4.7|||Log Rank|||Post hoc comparison of PFS in the combination arm by HPV subgroup, adjusted for prognostic factors marginally associated with HPV status (P , .10), was assessed using Cox proportional hazards models. Here we are looking at HGF expression in HPV- patients in the combination arm.||4.7|0.4|.60
90821974|NCT03422536|181521344|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|3.4||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|13.1|||Log Rank|||Post hoc comparison of PFS in the combination arm by HPV subgroup, adjusted for prognostic factors marginally associated with HPV status (P \< .10), was assessed using Cox proportional hazards models. Here we are looking at HGF expression in HPV+ patients in the combination arm.||13.1|0.9|.07
91060913|NCT01995513|182005037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.874||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.617|1.239||P-value was based on log-rank test stratified by PSA response (\>=0% to \<30% vs \>=30%) at Week 13 in the open-label period.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio was based on a Cox regression model (with treatment as the only covariate) stratified by PSA response (\>=0% to \<30% vs \>=30%) at Week 13 in the open-label period and is relative to Enzalutamide-placebo with \< 1 favoring Enzalutamide.|||1.239|0.617|0.4500
91060914|NCT01995513|182005038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Response Rate|-1.65||||0.3101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.82|1.51||P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel mean score test stratified by PSA response (\>=0% to \<30% vs \>=30%) at Week 13 in the open-label period.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in response rate was based upon standard normal approximation.|This analysis is reported for participants with \>=50% decrease from baseline in PSA response.||1.51|-4.82|0.3101
91060915|NCT01995513|182005038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Response Rate|-0.04||||0.9917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|3.82||P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel mean score test stratified by PSA response (\>=0% to \<30% vs \>=30%) at Week 13 in the open-label period.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in response rate was based upon standard normal approximation.|This analysis is reported for participants with \>=30% decrease from baseline in PSA response.||3.82|-3.90|0.9917
91060916|NCT01995513|182005039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Objective Response Rate|-5.0||||0.1653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.75|1.75||P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel mean score test stratified by PSA response (\>=0% to \<30% vs \>=30%) at Week 13 in the open-label period.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in objective response rate was based upon standard normal approximation.|This analysis is reported for participants with CR+PR.||1.75|-11.75|0.1653
91060917|NCT01995513|182005039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Objective Response Rate|10.92||||0.3216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.37|32.21||P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel mean score test stratified by PSA response (\>=0% to \<30% vs \>=30%) at Week 13 in the open-label period.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in objective response rate was based upon standard normal approximation.|This analysis is reported for participants with CR+PR+SD.||32.21|-10.37|0.3216
91060918|NCT01995513|182005040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Progression Rate|9.09||||0.2963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.69|25.87||P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel mean score test stratified by PSA response (\>=0% to \<30% vs \>=30%) at Week 13 in the open-label period.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in Progression Rate was based upon normal approximation.|||25.87|-7.69|0.2963
91060919|NCT01995513|182005041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.861||||0.3818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.616|1.204||P-value was based on log-rank test stratified by PSA response (\>=0% to \<30% vs \>=30%) at Week 13 in the open-label period.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio was based on a Cox regression model (with treatment as the only covariate) stratified by PSA response (\>=0% to \<30% vs \>=30%) at Week 13 in the open-label period and is relative to Enzalutamide-placebo with \< 1 favoring Enzalutamide.|||1.204|0.616|0.3818
91060920|NCT01995513|182005048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.399||||0.0739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.967|2.025||P-value was based on log-rank test stratified by PSA response (\>=0% to \<30% vs \>=30%) at Week 13 in the open-label period|Log Rank||Hazard ratio was based on a Cox regression model (with treatment as the only covariate) stratified by PSA response (\>=0% to \<30% vs \>=30%) at Week 13 in the open-label period and is relative to Enzalutamide-placebo with \< 1 favoring Enzalutamide.|||2.025|0.967|0.0739
91060921|NCT01232452|182005053|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.47|||Log Rank|||||1.47|0.73|0.848
90821975|NCT01973998|181521348|EQUIVALENCE|The primary outcome is time from randomization to a composite outcome of all cause re-hospitalization and all-cause mortality, whichever comes first. The primary analysis will be a log-ranked test and associated Kaplan-Meier plot, unadjusted for any covariates|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.654|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.4789|<|0.1|TWO_SIDED|10.0|1.175|2.133||Because this is a pilot study the intent is to see if there is a signal that would justify a larger clinical trial. Therefore the significance level has been set to 0.1 and the power has been set at 0.7.|Log Rank|||||2.133|1.175|<0.1
91060922|NCT01232452|182005054|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.338|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.338
91060923|NCT00247676|182005071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||clinical benefit response rate|37.8||||||95.0|22.5|55.2|||||Clinical benefit response rate: percent of patients with confirmed CR, confirmed PR, or SD for at least 12 weeks according to RECIST, relative to total treated patients.|||55.2|22.5|
91060924|NCT00247676|182005076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||objective response rate|2.7||||||95.0|0.1|14.2|||||percentage of patients with confirmed CR or confirmed PR according to RECIST, relative to the total number of treated patients.|||14.2|0.1|
91060925|NCT00247676|182005080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||probability|0.324||||||95.0|0.168|0.479|||||probability derived from Kaplan-Meier estimate.|||0.479|0.168|
91060926|NCT05219448|182005102|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.4||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|18.0||Unadjusted p value presented. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||Null hypothesis: The change in added sugar intake from baseline to 6-months will be the same when compared to children in the no-treatment control arm (measured through hair biomarker).||18.0|-3.2|0.17
91060927|NCT05219448|182005103|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.1||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.3|14.0||Unadjusted P-value. The threshold for significance is 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||Null hypothesis: The change in added sugar intake from baseline to 6-months will be the same for caregivers in community A arm when compared to caregivers in the no-treatment control arm (measured through hair biomarker).||14.0|-24.3|0.60
91060928|NCT05219448|182005103|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.7||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.1|-5.4||The P-value is unadjusted. The threshold for significance is 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||Null hypothesis: The change in added sugar intake from baseline to 6-months will be the same for caregivers in community B when compared to caregivers in the no-treatment control arm (measured through hair biomarker).||-5.4|-44.1|0.013
91060929|NCT01750190|182005104|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|1.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.735|1.967|||ANCOVA|MI (Multiple Imputation) ANCOVA|Roxadustat - Placebo Treatment Difference|Treatment comparison was made using the multiple imputation strategy by combining the results of analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline Hb and baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) as covariates and treatment and other randomization stratification factors, except baseline Hb (≤8 g/dL versus \>8 g/dL) and eGFR (\<30 versus ≥30 milliliters \[mL\]/minutes \[min\]/1.73 meters \[m\]\^2), as fixed effects.||1.967|1.735|<0.0001
91060930|NCT01750190|182005105|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|77.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.73|134.48|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Roxadustat/Placebo Odds ratio|||134.48|44.73|<0.0001
91060931|NCT01750190|182005106|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|1.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.88|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.73|2.037|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM Analysis|Roxadustat - placebo treatment difference|Treatment comparison was made using MMRM with baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as covariates, and treatment, visit, visit-by-treatment interaction, and the randomization stratification factors, except baseline Hb (≤8 g/dL versus \>8 g/dL) and eGFR (\<30 versus ≥30 mL/min/1.73m\^2), as fixed effects.||2.037|1.730|<0.0001
91060932|NCT01750190|182005107|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.122|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.663|2.143|||ANCOVA|MI ANCOVA|Roxadustat - placebo treatment difference|Treatment comparison was made using the multiple imputation strategy by combining the results of ANCOVA model with baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as covariates , and treatment and other randomization stratification factors, except baseline Hb (≤8 g/dL versus \>8 g/dL) and eGFR (\<30 versus ≥30 mL/min/1.73m\^2 ), as fixed effects.||2.143|1.663|<0.0001
91060933|NCT01750190|182005108|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|15.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.79|22.189|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Roxadustat/placebo odds ratio|||22.189|10.79|<0.0001
91060934|NCT01750190|182005109|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-17.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.73|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.65|-13.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM Analysis|Roxadustat- placebo treatment difference|Treatment comparison was made using MMRM with baseline LDL cholesterol as a covariate, and treatment, visit, visit-by-treatment interaction, and the randomization stratification factors as fixed effects.||-13.87|-20.65|<0.0001
91060935|NCT01750190|182005110|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.528||0.6924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.827|1.245|||ANCOVA|MI ANCOVA|Roxadustat - placebo treatment difference|||1.245|-0.827|0.6924
91060936|NCT01750190|182005111|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.165|0.406||From a Cox Proportional hazards model adjusting for baseline Hb, baseline eGFR and other randomization stratification factors, except baseline Hb (≤8 g/dL versus \>8 g/dL) and eGFR (\<30 versus ≥30 mL/min/1.73 m\^2).|Cox Proportional hazards model|||||0.406|0.165|<0.0001
91060937|NCT01750190|182005112|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.108|0.267||From a Cox Proportional hazards model adjusting for baseline Hb, baseline eGFR and the randomization stratification factors, except baseline Hb (\<=8 g/dL versus \>8 g/dL) and eGFR (\<30 versus \>=30 mL/min/1.73m\^2).|Cox Proportional hazards model|||First 24 Weeks of Treatment||0.267|0.108|<0.0001
91060938|NCT01750190|182005112|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.138|0.276||From a Cox Proportional hazards model adjusting for baseline Hb, baseline eGFR and other randomization stratification factors, except baseline Hb (≤8 g/dL versus \>8 g/dL) and eGFR (\<30 versus ≥30 mL/min/1.73 m\^2).|Cox Proportional hazards model|||First 52 Weeks of Treatment||0.276|0.138|<0.0001
90821976|NCT01973998|181521348|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.654|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.4789||0.1|TWO_SIDED|10.0|1.175|2.133|||Log Rank|||A total of 100 patients is required in a 2 treatment parallel-design study. There is a 70% probability that the study will detect a treatment difference at a 2-sided 10% significance level, if the true hazard ratio is 1.654. This is based on the assumption that the accrual period will be 36 months and the follow up period will be 6 months and the median time to event is 8 months. The total number of events will be 73.||2.133|1.175|0.1
91060939|NCT05387889|182005137|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|||<|0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The threshold for the level of significance is set at less than or equal to 0.05|ANCOVA|||||||< 0.054
91060940|NCT05387889|182005138|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|||<|0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The threshold for the level of significance is set at less than or equal to 0.05|ANCOVA|||||||< 0.25
91060941|NCT05387889|182005139|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|||<|0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The threshold for the level of significance is set at less than or equal to 0.05|ANCOVA|||||||< 0.07
91060942|NCT01526655|182005140|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011||||||Main effect over time p\<0.001; Interaction effect p=0.65. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.011
91060943|NCT01526655|182005141|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||"P-value main effect between groups. Effect over time p \< 0.0001. Interaction effect p 0.02.~Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05."|ANOVA||||Tukey post hoc test (p-values): hsCRP time 4 p 0.02; hsCRP time 5 p \<0.001.|||0.03
91060944|NCT01526655|182005142|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||"P-value main effect between groups. Effect over time p \< 0.0001. Interaction effect p \< 0.0001.~Threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05."|ANOVA||||Tukey post hoc test (p-value): WBC time 3 p \< 0.0001.|||<0.01
91060945|NCT01526655|182005143|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||ANOVA||||Tukey post hoc test (p-value): IL-6 time 3 p \< 0.01.|||0.03
91060946|NCT01526655|182005144|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||"P-value main effect between groups. Effect over time p \< 0.0001. Interaction effect p \< 0.01.~Threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05."|ANOVA||||Tukey post hoc test (p-value): CK time 4 p \< 0.0001.|||0.03
91060947|NCT01526655|182005145|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06||||||"P-value main effect between groups. Effect over time p \< 0.0001. Interaction effect p \< 0.01.~Threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05."|ANOVA||||Tukey post hoc test (p-value): cortisol time 3 p \< 0.0001.|||0.06
91060948|NCT01526655|182005146|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.06
90821977|NCT02540993|181521361|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.825|||=|0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.732|0.928||P-value from stratified log-rank test. Significance was considered to be achieved if p-value ≤ 0.03282695.|Log Rank|Stratified log rank test|A stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model was used to provide a point estimate of the hazard ratio and a corresponding two-sided 95% confidence interval.|||0.928|0.732|= 0.0014
91060949|NCT01526655|182005147|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04
91060950|NCT03762239|182005179|SUPERIORITY||Relative (percent) changes in the median|1.37||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.81|5.56|||Conditional linear regression|Class group as strata. Adjusted for year of birth, sex as well as average temperature, relative humidity and CO2 concentration during the experiment.|Change comparing the filter group to the non-filter group|The hypothesis was that air filtration could result in better performance, relative to the classroom without air filter (normal air), in attention measures among adolescents in high schools.||5.56|-2.81|0.52
91060951|NCT03762239|182005180|SUPERIORITY||Beta coefficient|0.013||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0607|0.0865|||Regression, Linear|Using multiple imputation by chained equations. Adjusted for a rich set or relevant controls. Standard errors clustered at the high school level.|Change comparing the filter group to the non-filter group|The hypothesis was that air filtration could result in higher riskloving behavior, relative to the classroom without air filter (normal air), in the combined risk taking measures among adolescents in high schools.||0.0865|-0.0607|0.72
91060952|NCT03762239|182005181|SUPERIORITY||Beta coefficient|-0.029||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.117|0.0584|||Regression, Linear|Using multiple imputation by chained equations. Adjusted for a rich set or relevant controls. Standard errors clustered at the high school level|Change comparing the filter group to the non-filter group|The hypothesis was that air filtration could result in higher level of patience, relative to the classroom without air filter (normal air), in the combined patience measures among adolescents in high schools.||0.0584|-0.1170|0.50
91060953|NCT03762239|182005182|SUPERIORITY||Beta coefficient|0.06||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0184|0.1394|||Regression, Linear|Using multiple imputation by chained equations. Adjusted for a rich set or relevant controls. Standard errors clustered at the high school level.|Change comparing the filter group to the non-filter group|The hypothesis was that air filtration could result in higher level of positive reciprocity behavior, relative to the classroom without air filter (normal air), in the positive reciprocity measures among adolescents in high schools||0.1394|-0.0184|0.13
91060954|NCT03762239|182005183|SUPERIORITY||Beta coefficient|0.022||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0595|0.1035|||Regression, Linear|Using multiple imputation by chained equations. Adjusted for a rich set or relevant controls. Standard errors clustered at the high school level.|Change comparing the filter group to the non-filter group|The hypothesis was that air filtration could result in higher Altruism behavior, relative to the classroom without air filter (normal air), in the Altruism measures among adolescents in high schools.||0.1035|-0.0595|0.58
91060955|NCT03762239|182005184|SUPERIORITY||Beta coefficient|0.013||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1786|0.2049|||Ordered logistic regression|Using multiple imputation by chained equations. Adjusted for a rich set or relevant controls. Standard errors clustered at the high school level.|Change comparing the filter group to the non-filter group|The hypothesis was that air filtration could result in higher trust, relative to the classroom without air filter (normal air), in the subjective trust measure among adolescents in high schools.||0.2049|-0.1786|0.89
91060956|NCT03762239|182005185|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.24|||Conditional linear regression|Class group as strata. Adjusted for year of birth, sex as well as average temperature, relative humidity and CO2 concentration during the experiment.|Change comparing the filter group to the non-filter group|||0.24|-0.49|0.50
91060957|NCT03762239|182005186|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||Conditional linear regression|Class group as strata. Adjusted for year of birth, sex as well as average temperature, relative humidity and CO2 concentration during the experiment.|Change comparing the filter group to the non-filter group|||0.10|-0.20|0.47
91060958|NCT03762239|182005187|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.38||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.51|1.74|||Conditional linear regression|Class group as strata. Adjusted for year of birth, sex as well as average temperature, relative humidity and CO2 concentration during the experiment.||||1.74|-8.51|0.20
91060959|NCT03762239|182005188|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|4.6|||Conditional linear regression|Class group as strata. Adjusted for year of birth, sex as well as average temperature, relative humidity and CO2 concentration during the experiment.||||4.60|-5.10|0.92
91060960|NCT03762239|182005189|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.36||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.94|2.22|||Conditional linear regression|Class group as strata. Adjusted for year of birth, sex as well as average temperature, relative humidity and CO2 concentration during the experiment.||||2.22|-4.94|0.46
91060961|NCT03762239|182005190|SUPERIORITY||Beta coefficient|-0.1446||||0.232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.382|0.0928|||Ordered logistic regression|Adjusted for a rich set or relevant controls. Standard errors clustered at the high school level.|Change comparing the filter group to the non-filter group|The hypothesis was that air filtration could result in higher assessment of math skills, relative to the classroom without air filter (normal air), in the self assessed math skills measure among adolescents in high schools.||0.0928|-0.3820|0.232
91060962|NCT00825786|182005191|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.09|||Log Rank||group 2 vs. group 1 (sequential vs combined)|||1.09|0.46|0.14
91060963|NCT00825786|182005192|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.02
91060964|NCT00825786|182005193|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.66
91060965|NCT00825786|182005194|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.60
91060966|NCT00825786|182005195|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.34
91060967|NCT00825786|182005196|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.15
91060968|NCT00825786|182005197|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.88
91060969|NCT02359994|182005219|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was assessed with a pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 10%, such that the endpoint is successfully met if the non-inferiority one-sided p-value is less than 0.025 or, equivalently, if the lower bound of a two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference between PerClot and Arista hemostasis rates is greater than -10%.|Difference in percentage of participants|-1.4||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|4.8|||Farrington-Manning score test||Directionality for difference in the percentage of participants achieving endpoint: PerClot - Arista|The primary efficacy hypothesis is that the percentage of participants achieving hemostasis of the treated bleeding site at 7 minutes in the overall PerClot group is non-inferior to the percentage of participants achieving hemostasis at 7 minutes in the Arista group, the active control.||4.8|-7.5|0.005
91060970|NCT02359994|182005220|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was assessed with a pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 10%, such that the endpoint is successfully met if the non-inferiority one-sided p-value is less than 0.025 or, equivalently, if the lower bound of a two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference between PerClot and Arista hemostasis rates is greater than -10%.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|4.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|12.0|||Farrington-Manning score test||Directionality for difference in the percentage of participants achieving endpoint: PerClot - Arista|The secondary efficacy hypothesis is that the percentage of participants achieving hemostasis of the treated bleeding site at 5 minutes in the overall PerClot group is non-inferior to the percentage of participants achieving hemostasis at 5 minutes in the Arista group, the active control.||12.0|-2.4|<0.001
91060971|NCT02933255|182005224|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD8+T cell infiltration within the total tissue at time of prostatectomy compared to baseline.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||<0.0001
91060972|NCT02933255|182005224|OTHER|||||||0.04||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD8+T cell infiltration in the center of the tumor at time of prostatectomy compared to baseline.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.04
91060973|NCT02933255|182005224|OTHER|||||||0.002||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD8+T cell infiltration in the invasive margin at time of prostatectomy compared to baseline.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.002
91060974|NCT02933255|182005224|OTHER|||||||0.46||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD8+T cell infiltration in the normal region at time of prostatectomy compared to baseline.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.46
91060975|NCT02933255|182005224|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD4 T cell helper infiltration in the total tissue at time of prostatectomy compared to baseline.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||<0.0001
91060976|NCT02933255|182005224|OTHER|||||||0.016||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD4 T cell helper infiltration in the center of the tumor at time of prostatectomy compared to baseline.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.016
91060977|NCT02933255|182005224|OTHER|||||||0.002||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD4 T cell helper infiltration in the invasive margin at time of prostatectomy compared to baseline.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.002
91060978|NCT02933255|182005224|OTHER|||||||0.38||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD4 T cell helper infiltration in the normal region at time of prostatectomy compared to baseline.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.38
91060979|NCT02933255|182005226|OTHER|The reported p-value is representative of changes in soluble factors at 4 weeks of therapy compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) cohort.||||||0.064|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.064
91060980|NCT02933255|182005226|OTHER|The reported p-value is representative of changes in soluble factors at 4 weeks of therapy compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.001
91060981|NCT02933255|182005226|OTHER|||||||0.003||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in soluble factors at 10 weeks of therapy compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.003
91060982|NCT02933255|182005226|OTHER|||||||0.003||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in soluble factors at 10 weeks of therapy compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.003
91060983|NCT02933255|182005226|OTHER|||||||0.004||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in soluble factors at 20 weeks of therapy compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.004
91060984|NCT02933255|182005226|OTHER|||||||0.004||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in soluble factors at 20 weeks of therapy compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.004
91060985|NCT02933255|182005227|OTHER|||||||0.002||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in TNFα at 4 weeks of therapy compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.002
91060986|NCT02933255|182005227|OTHER|||||||0.042||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in TNFα at 4 weeks of therapy compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.042
91060987|NCT02933255|182005227|OTHER|||||||0.233||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in TNFα at 10 weeks of therapy compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.233
91060988|NCT02933255|182005227|OTHER|||||||0.052||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in TNFα at 10 weeks of therapy compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.052
91060989|NCT02933255|182005227|OTHER|||||||0.055||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in TNFα at 20 weeks of therapy compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.055
91060990|NCT02933255|182005227|OTHER|||||||0.203||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in TNFα at 20 weeks of therapy compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.203
91060991|NCT02933255|182005227|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in IL-10 at 4 weeks of therapy compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||<0.001
91060992|NCT02933255|182005227|OTHER|||||||0.034||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in IL-10 at 4 weeks of therapy compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.034
91060993|NCT02933255|182005227|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in IL-10 at 10 weeks of therapy compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||<0.001
91060994|NCT02933255|182005227|OTHER|||||||0.034||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in IL-10 at 10 weeks of therapy compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.034
91060995|NCT02933255|182005227|OTHER|||||||0.004||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in IL-10 at 20 weeks of therapy compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.004
91060996|NCT02933255|182005227|OTHER|||||||0.129||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in IL-10 at 20 weeks of therapy compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.129
91060997|NCT02933255|182005229|OTHER|||||||0.339||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD4+ T cells at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.339
91060998|NCT02933255|182005229|OTHER|||||||0.037||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD4+ T cells at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.037
91060999|NCT02933255|182005229|OTHER|||||||0.009||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD4+ T cells at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.009
91061000|NCT02933255|182005229|OTHER|||||||0.844||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD4+ T cells at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.844
90821978|NCT02540993|181521362|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86|||=|0.0339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.747|0.989||P-value from stratified log-rank test. Significance was considered to be achieved if p-value ≤ 0.04967388.|Log Rank|Stratified log rank test|A stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model was used to provide a point estimate of the hazard ratio and a corresponding two-sided 95% confidence interval.|||0.989|0.747|= 0.0339
90821979|NCT02540993|181521363|SUPERIORITY|If treatment effect on both primary and key secondary endpoint is significant, other secondary efficacy endpoints (i.e. all-cause mortality, all-cause hospitalization, change in UACR from baseline to Month 4, and secondary renal composite endpoint) will be tested hierarchically, starting with all-cause mortality. If treatment effect on all-cause mortality was not significant, all other endpoints would be tested in an exploratory manner.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.895|||=|0.2348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.746|1.075||P-value from stratified log-rank test. Significance was considered to be achieved if p-value ≤ 0.04967388.|Log Rank|Stratified log rank test|A stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model was used to provide a point estimate of the hazard ratio and a corresponding two-sided 95% confidence interval.|||1.075|0.746|= 0.2348
90821980|NCT02540993|181521364|SUPERIORITY|If treatment effect on both primary and key secondary endpoint is significant, other secondary efficacy endpoints (i.e. all-cause mortality, all-cause hospitalization, change in UACR from baseline to Month 4, and secondary renal composite endpoint) will be tested hierarchically, starting with all-cause mortality. If treatment effect on all-cause mortality was not significant, all other endpoints would be tested in an exploratory manner.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.946|||=|0.1623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.876|1.022||P-value from stratified log-rank test.|Log Rank|Stratified log rank test|A stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model was used to provide a point estimate of the hazard ratio and a corresponding two-sided 95% confidence interval.|||1.022|0.876|= 0.1623
90821981|NCT02540993|181521365|SUPERIORITY|If treatment effect on both primary and key secondary endpoint is significant, other secondary efficacy endpoints (i.e. all-cause mortality, all-cause hospitalization, change in UACR from baseline to Month 4, and secondary renal composite endpoint) will be tested hierarchically, starting with all-cause mortality. If treatment effect on all-cause mortality was not significant, all other endpoints would be tested in an exploratory manner.|Ratio of least squares means|0.688|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.662|0.715||P-value from F-test of equal means between the treatment groups.|ANCOVA|||||0.715|0.662|< 0.0001
90821982|NCT02540993|181521366|SUPERIORITY|If treatment effect on both primary and key secondary endpoint is significant, other secondary efficacy endpoints (i.e. all-cause mortality, all-cause hospitalization, change in UACR from baseline to Month 4, and secondary renal composite endpoint) will be tested hierarchically, starting with all-cause mortality. If treatment effect on all-cause mortality was not significant, all other endpoints would be tested in an exploratory manner.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.763|||=|0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.648|0.9||P-value from stratified log-rank test.|Log Rank|Stratified log rank test|A stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model was used to provide a point estimate of the hazard ratio and a corresponding two-sided 95% confidence interval.|||0.900|0.648|= 0.0012
90821983|NCT01620528|181521378|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||< 0.001
90821984|NCT01620528|181521378|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||< 0.001
90821985|NCT01620528|181521379|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||< 0.001
91061001|NCT02933255|182005229|OTHER|||||||0.204||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD8+ T cells at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.204
91061002|NCT02933255|182005229|OTHER|||||||0.084||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD8+ T cells at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.084
91061003|NCT02933255|182005229|OTHER|||||||0.042||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD8+ T cells at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.042
90821986|NCT01620528|181521379|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||< 0.001
90821987|NCT01620528|181521380|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean Change|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.155|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed-effects model|||Ranked secondary efficacy endpoint 1 of 7.||||< 0.001
90821988|NCT01620528|181521380|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean Change|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.156|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed-effects model|||Ranked secondary efficacy endpoint 1 of 7.||||< 0.001
90821989|NCT01620528|181521381|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean Change|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.074|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||mixed-effects model|||Ranked secondary efficacy endpoint 2 of 7.||||< 0.001
90821990|NCT01620528|181521381|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-1.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.076|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed-effects model|||Ranked secondary efficacy endpoint 2 of 7.||||< 0.001
90821991|NCT01620528|181521382|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean Change|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056||0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed-effects model|||Ranked secondary efficacy endpoint 3 of 7.||||0.004
90821992|NCT01620528|181521382|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed-effects model|||Ranked secondary efficacy endpoint 3 of 7.||||< 0.001
90821993|NCT01620528|181521383|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean Change|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.051||0.91|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed-effects model|||Ranked secondary efficacy endpoint 4 of 7.||||0.910
90821994|NCT01620528|181521383|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean Change|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.051|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed-effects model|||Ranked secondary efficacy endpoint 4 of 7.||||< 0.001
90821995|NCT01620528|181521384|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean Change|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056||0.185|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed-effects model|||Ranked secondary efficacy endpoint 5 of 7.||||0.185
91061004|NCT02933255|182005229|OTHER|||||||0.688||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD8+ T cells at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.688
91061005|NCT02933255|182005229|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in Treg cells at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||<0.001
91061006|NCT02933255|182005229|OTHER|||||||0.733||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in Treg cells at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.733
91061007|NCT02933255|182005229|OTHER|||||||0.519||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in Treg cells at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.519
90821996|NCT01620528|181521384|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed-effects model|||Ranked secondary efficacy endpoint 5 of 7.||||< 0.001
90821997|NCT01620528|181521385|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean Change|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.065||0.144|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed-effects model|||Ranked secondary efficacy endpoint 6 of 7.||||0.144
90821998|NCT01620528|181521385|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean Change|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed-effects model|||Ranked secondary efficacy endpoint 6 of 7.||||0.003
90821999|NCT01620528|181521386|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean Change|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.424|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed-effects model|||Ranked secondary efficacy endpoint 7 of 7.||||0.424
90822000|NCT01620528|181521386|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean Change|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed-effects model|||Ranked secondary efficacy endpoint 7 of 7.||||0.002
90822001|NCT01620528|181521387|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||< 0.001
90822002|NCT01620528|181521387|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||< 0.001
90822003|NCT01620528|181521388|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||< 0.001
90822004|NCT01620528|181521388|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||< 0.001
91061008|NCT02933255|182005229|OTHER|||||||0.695||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in Treg cells at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.695
90822005|NCT01620528|181521389|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||< 0.001
90822006|NCT01620528|181521389|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||< 0.001
91061009|NCT02933255|182005229|OTHER|||||||0.034||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in cDC cells at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.034
91061010|NCT02933255|182005229|OTHER|||||||0.301||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in cDC cells at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.301
90822007|NCT01620528|181521390|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||< 0.001
90822008|NCT01620528|181521390|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||< 0.001
90822009|NCT01620528|181521391|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||< 0.001
90822010|NCT01620528|181521391|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||< 0.001
90822011|NCT01620528|181521392|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.103|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.103
90822012|NCT01620528|181521392|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.023|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.023
90822013|NCT01620528|181521393|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.031|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.031
90822014|NCT01620528|181521393|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||< 0.001
90822015|NCT01620528|181521394|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||< 0.001
90822016|NCT01620528|181521394|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||< 0.001
90822017|NCT01620528|181521395|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.005
90822018|NCT01620528|181521395|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||< 0.001
90822019|NCT01620528|181521396|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.008
90822020|NCT01620528|181521396|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||< 0.001
90822021|NCT01620528|181521397|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.306|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.306
90822022|NCT01620528|181521397|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.239|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.239
90822023|NCT01620528|181521398|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.855|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.855
90822024|NCT01620528|181521398|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.012
90822025|NCT01620528|181521399|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.010
90822026|NCT01620528|181521399|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||< 0.001
90822027|NCT01620528|181521400|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.061|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.061
90822028|NCT01620528|181521400|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||< 0.001
90822029|NCT01620528|181521401|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.126|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.126
90822030|NCT01620528|181521401|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||< 0.001
90822031|NCT01620528|181521402|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.65|-0.34|||mixed-effects model|||||-0.34|-0.65|< 0.001
90822032|NCT01620528|181521402|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.81|-0.49|||mixed-effects model|||||-0.49|-0.81|< 0.001
90822033|NCT01620528|181521403|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.79|-0.49|||mixed-effects model|||||-0.49|-0.79|< 0.001
90822034|NCT01620528|181521403|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.51|-1.2|||mixed-effects model|||||-1.20|-1.51|< 0.001
90822035|NCT01620528|181521404|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.83|-0.53|||mixed-effects model|||||-0.53|-0.83|< 0.001
90822036|NCT01620528|181521404|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.069|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.54|-1.23|||mixed-effects model|||||-1.23|-1.54|< 0.001
90822037|NCT01620528|181521405|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.071|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.81|-0.49|||mixed-effects model|||||-0.49|-0.81|< 0.001
90822038|NCT01620528|181521405|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.072|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.49|-1.16|||mixed-effects model|||||-1.16|-1.49|< 0.001
90822039|NCT01620528|181521406|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.071|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.75|-0.43|||mixed-effects model|||||-0.43|-0.75|< 0.001
90822040|NCT01620528|181521406|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.072|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.58|-1.25|||mixed-effects model|||||-1.25|-1.58|< 0.001
90822041|NCT01620528|181521407|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-24.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.288|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-31.45|-16.69|||mixed-effects model|||||-16.69|-31.45|< 0.001
90822042|NCT01620528|181521407|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-31.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.299|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-38.41|-23.6|||mixed-effects model|||||-23.60|-38.41|< 0.001
90822043|NCT01620528|181521408|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-30.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.107||-30.79|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-37.77|-23.82|||mixed-effects model|||||-23.82|-37.77|-30.79
90822044|NCT01620528|181521408|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-63.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.148|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-70.85|-56.71|||mixed-effects model|||||-56.71|-70.85|< 0.001
90822045|NCT01620528|181521409|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-32.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.177|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-39.35|-25.08|||mixed-effects model|||||-25.08|-39.35|< 0.001
90822046|NCT01620528|181521409|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-64.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.23|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-72.19|-57.68|||mixed-effects model|||||-57.68|-72.19|< 0.001
90822047|NCT01620528|181521410|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-29.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.272|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-37.28|-22.59|||mixed-effects model|||||-22.59|-37.28|< 0.001
90822048|NCT01620528|181521410|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-61.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.356|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-69.44|-54.36|||mixed-effects model|||||-54.36|-69.44|< 0.001
90822049|NCT01620528|181521411|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-28.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-35.96|-21.31|||mixed-effects model|||||-21.31|-35.96|< 0.001
90822050|NCT01620528|181521411|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-66.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.321|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-73.95|-59.04|||mixed-effects model|||||-59.04|-73.95|< 0.001
90822051|NCT01620528|181521412|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-21.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.479|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-29.2|-13.57|||mixed-effects model|||||-13.57|-29.20|< 0.001
91061011|NCT02933255|182005229|OTHER|||||||0.38||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in cDC cells at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.38
90822052|NCT01620528|181521412|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-60.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.557|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-68.77|-52.79|||mixed-effects model|||||-52.79|-68.77|< 0.001
90822053|NCT01620528|181521413|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||0.111|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.14|0.02|||mixed-effects model|||||0.02|-0.14|0.111
91061012|NCT02933255|182005229|OTHER|||||||0.014||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in cDC cells at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.014
91061013|NCT02933255|182005229|OTHER|||||||0.791||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in monocytes at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.791
91061014|NCT02933255|182005229|OTHER|||||||0.042||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in monocytes at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.042
90822054|NCT01620528|181521413|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||0.008|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.18|-0.01|||mixed-effects model|||||-0.01|-0.18|0.008
90822055|NCT01620528|181521414|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045||0.092|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.18|0.02|||mixed-effects model|||||0.02|-0.18|0.092
90822056|NCT01620528|181521414|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.28|-0.08|||mixed-effects model|||||-0.08|-0.28|< 0.001
90822057|NCT01620528|181521415|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.017|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.23|-0.01|||mixed-effects model|||||-0.01|-0.23|0.017
90822058|NCT01620528|181521415|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.41|-0.18|||mixed-effects model|||||-0.18|-0.41|< 0.001
90822059|NCT01620528|181521416|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.31|-0.07|||mixed-effects model|||||-0.07|-0.31|< 0.001
90822060|NCT01620528|181521416|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.51|-0.27|||mixed-effects model|||||-0.27|-0.51|< 0.001
90822061|NCT01620528|181521417|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053||0.004|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.27|-0.03|||mixed-effects model|||||-0.03|-0.27|0.004
90822062|NCT01620528|181521417|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.52|-0.27|||mixed-effects model|||||-0.27|-0.52|< 0.001
90822063|NCT01620528|181521418|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-6.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.748||0.024|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-12.4|-0.06|||mixed-effects model|||||-0.06|-12.40|0.024
90822064|NCT01620528|181521418|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-7.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.756||0.005|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-13.9|-1.53|||mixed-effects model|||||-1.53|-13.90|0.005
90822065|NCT01620528|181521419|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-5.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.226||0.078|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-12.93|1.56|||mixed-effects model|||||1.56|-12.93|0.078
90822066|NCT01620528|181521419|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-13.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.249|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-21.01|-6.42|||mixed-effects model|||||-6.42|-21.01|< 0.001
90822067|NCT01620528|181521420|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-8.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.475||0.015|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-16.27|-0.66|||mixed-effects model|||||-0.66|-16.27|0.015
90822068|NCT01620528|181521420|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-22.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.514|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-30.38|-14.6|||mixed-effects model|||||-14.60|-30.38|< 0.001
90822069|NCT01620528|181521421|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-14.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.673|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-22.36|-5.87|||mixed-effects model|||||-5.87|-22.36|< 0.001
90822070|NCT01620528|181521421|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-30.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.729|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-38.78|-22.04|||mixed-effects model|||||-22.04|-38.78|< 0.001
90822071|NCT01620528|181521422|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-11.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.736||0.002|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-19.94|-3.16|||mixed-effects model|||||-3.16|-19.94|0.002
90822072|NCT01620528|181521422|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-29.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.788|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-38.19|-21.18|||mixed-effects model|||||-21.18|-38.19|< 0.001
90822073|NCT01620528|181521423|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-12.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.805||0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-20.92|-3.83|||mixed-effects model|||||-3.83|-20.92|0.001
90822074|NCT01620528|181521423|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-29.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.868|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-38.66|-21.28|||mixed-effects model|||||-21.28|-38.66|< 0.001
90822075|NCT01620528|181521424|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.038|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.22|0.01|||mixed-effects model|||||0.01|-0.22|0.038
90822076|NCT01620528|181521424|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053||0.488|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.16|0.08|||mixed-effects model|||||0.08|-0.16|0.488
90822077|NCT01620528|181521425|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.252|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.2|0.07|||mixed-effects model|||||0.07|-0.20|0.252
90822078|NCT01620528|181521425|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061||0.058|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.25|0.02|||mixed-effects model|||||0.02|-0.25|0.058
90822079|NCT01620528|181521426|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.069||0.009|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.34|-0.03|||mixed-effects model|||||-0.03|-0.34|0.009
90822080|NCT01620528|181521426|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.071|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.5|-0.18|||mixed-effects model|||||-0.18|-0.50|< 0.001
90822081|NCT01620528|181521427|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.073||0.06|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.3|0.03|||mixed-effects model|||||0.03|-0.30|0.060
90822082|NCT01620528|181521427|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.076|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.44|-0.1|||mixed-effects model|||||-0.10|-0.44|< 0.001
90822083|NCT01620528|181521428|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.074||0.118|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.28|0.05|||mixed-effects model|||||0.05|-0.28|0.118
90822084|NCT01620528|181521428|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.078|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.48|-0.13|||mixed-effects model|||||-0.13|-0.48|< 0.001
90822085|NCT01620528|181521429|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044||0.313|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.14|0.05|||mixed-effects model|||||0.05|-0.14|0.313
90822086|NCT01620528|181521429|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044||0.006|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.22|-0.02|||mixed-effects model|||||-0.02|-0.22|0.006
90822087|NCT01620528|181521430|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047||0.519|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.13|0.07|||mixed-effects model|||||0.07|-0.13|0.519
90822088|NCT01620528|181521430|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.32|-0.11|||mixed-effects model|||||-0.11|-0.32|< 0.001
90822089|NCT01620528|181521431|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053||0.037|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.23|0.01|||mixed-effects model|||||0.01|-0.23|0.037
90822090|NCT01620528|181521431|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.41|-0.17|||mixed-effects model|||||-0.17|-0.41|< 0.001
90822091|NCT01620528|181521432|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053||0.2|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.19|0.05|||mixed-effects model|||||0.05|-0.19|0.200
90822092|NCT01620528|181521432|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.42|-0.18|||mixed-effects model|||||-0.18|-0.42|< 0.001
90822093|NCT01620528|181521433|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.34|||ANOVA|||||-0.34|-0.72|< 0.001
90822094|NCT01620528|181521433|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.095|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|-0.56|||ANOVA|||||-0.56|-0.93|< 0.001
90822095|NCT01620528|181521434|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.098|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|-0.19|||ANOVA|||||-0.19|-0.58|< 0.001
90822096|NCT01620528|181521434|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|-0.82|||ANOVA|||||-0.82|-1.21|< 0.001
90822097|NCT01620528|181521435|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.101|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.41|||ANOVA|||||-0.41|-0.81|< 0.001
90822098|NCT01620528|181521435|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.102|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|-0.92|||ANOVA|||||-0.92|-1.32|< 0.001
90822099|NCT01620528|181521436|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.106|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.42|||ANOVA|||||-0.42|-0.83|< 0.001
91061015|NCT02933255|182005229|OTHER|||||||0.424||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in monocytes at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.424
90822100|NCT01620528|181521436|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.107|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|-1.05|||ANOVA|||||-1.05|-1.47|< 0.001
90822101|NCT01620528|181521437|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.111|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.48|||ANOVA|||||-0.48|-0.91|< 0.001
90822102|NCT01620528|181521437|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.112|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|-1.1|||ANOVA|||||-1.10|-1.54|< 0.001
90822103|NCT01620528|181521438|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.122|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.48|||ANOVA|||||-0.48|-0.96|< 0.001
90822104|NCT01620528|181521438|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.123|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|-1.11|||ANOVA|||||-1.11|-1.59|< 0.001
90822105|NCT01620528|181521439|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.109||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.03|||mixed-effects model|||||-0.03|-0.52|0.011
90822106|NCT01620528|181521439|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.65|-0.16|||mixed-effects model|||||-0.16|-0.65|< 0.001
90822107|NCT01620528|181521440|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.77|-0.16|||mixed-effects model|||||-0.16|-0.77|<0.001
90822108|NCT01620528|181521440|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.138||-0.96|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.27|-0.65|||mixed-effects model|||||-0.65|-1.27|-0.96
90822109|NCT01620528|181521441|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.163|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.17|-0.44|||mixed-effects model|||||-0.44|-1.17|< 0.001
90822110|NCT01620528|181521441|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.165|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.98|-1.24|||mixed-effects model|||||-1.24|-1.98|< 0.001
90822111|NCT01620528|181521442|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.167|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.05|-0.3|||mixed-effects model|||||-0.30|-1.05|< 0.001
90822112|NCT01620528|181521442|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.99|-1.23|||mixed-effects model|||||-1.23|-1.99|< 0.001
90822113|NCT01620528|181521443|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.176|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.04|-0.25|||mixed-effects model|||||-0.25|-1.04|< 0.001
90822114|NCT01620528|181521443|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.179|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.0|-1.2|||mixed-effects model|||||-1.20|-2.00|< 0.001
90822115|NCT01620528|181521444|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-6.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.57|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.37|-3.21|||ANCOVA|||||-3.21|-9.37|< 0.001
90822116|NCT01620528|181521444|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-9.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.91|-6.61|||ANCOVA|||||-6.61|-12.91|< 0.001
90822117|NCT01620528|181521445|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-9.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.72|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.66|-5.91|||ANCOVA|||||-5.91|-12.66|< 0.001
90822118|NCT01620528|181521445|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-18.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.77|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.22|-15.27|||ANCOVA|||||-15.27|-22.22|< 0.001
90822119|NCT01620528|181521446|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-12.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.99|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.48|-8.66|||ANCOVA|||||-8.66|-16.48|< 0.001
90822120|NCT01620528|181521446|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-25.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.12|-21.09|||ANCOVA|||||-21.09|-29.12|< 0.001
90822121|NCT01620528|181521447|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.94||0.685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.59|3.02|||ANCOVA|||||3.02|-4.59|0.685
90822122|NCT01620528|181521447|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-5.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.03||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.04|-1.05|||ANCOVA|||||-1.05|-9.04|0.013
90822123|NCT01620528|181521448|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-4.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.39||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.43|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||||-0.05|-9.43|0.047
90822124|NCT01620528|181521448|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-13.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.56|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.89|-8.84|||ANCOVA|||||-8.84|-18.89|< 0.001
90822125|NCT01620528|181521449|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-4.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.91||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.43|1.02|||ANCOVA|||||1.02|-10.43|0.107
90822126|NCT01620528|181521449|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-17.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.52|-11.5|||ANCOVA|||||-11.50|-23.52|< 0.001
90822127|NCT01620528|181521450|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.85|||ANCOVA|||||0.85|-0.61|0.741
90822128|NCT01620528|181521450|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.42|||ANCOVA|||||-0.42|-1.90|0.002
90822129|NCT01620528|181521451|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.21|||ANCOVA|||||0.21|-1.16|0.172
90822130|NCT01620528|181521451|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.97|-0.57|||ANCOVA|||||-0.57|-1.97|< 0.001
90822131|NCT01620528|181521452|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.19|||ANCOVA|||||-0.19|-1.90|0.016
90822132|NCT01620528|181521452|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.65|-0.91|||ANCOVA|||||-0.91|-2.65|< 0.001
90822133|NCT01620528|181521453|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|0.09|||ANCOVA|||||0.09|-1.63|0.080
90822134|NCT01620528|181521453|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|-0.48|||ANCOVA|||||-0.48|-2.25|0.003
91061016|NCT02933255|182005229|OTHER|||||||0.77||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in monocytes at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.77
90822135|NCT01620528|181521454|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|0.14|||ANCOVA|||||0.14|-1.44|0.106
90822136|NCT01620528|181521454|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.67|-1.02|||ANCOVA|||||-1.02|-2.67|< 0.001
91061017|NCT02933255|182005229|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD4+ki67+ T cells at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.001
90822137|NCT01620528|181521455|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.97|0.48|||ANCOVA|||||0.48|-1.97|0.232
90822138|NCT01620528|181521455|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-2.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.48|-0.93|||ANCOVA|||||-0.93|-3.48|< 0.001
90822139|NCT01620528|181521456|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||||-0.20|-1.65|0.013
90822140|NCT01620528|181521456|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|-0.9|||ANCOVA|||||-0.90|-2.35|< 0.001
90822141|NCT01620528|181521457|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.24|-0.41|||ANCOVA|||||-0.41|-2.24|0.005
90822142|NCT01620528|181521457|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.56|-0.71|||ANCOVA|||||-0.71|-2.56|< 0.001
90822143|NCT01620528|181521458|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.53|-0.72|||ANCOVA|||||-0.72|-2.53|< 0.001
90822144|NCT01620528|181521458|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.02|-1.19|||ANCOVA|||||-1.19|-3.02|< 0.001
90822145|NCT01620528|181521459|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|-0.38|||ANCOVA|||||-0.38|-2.05|0.004
90822146|NCT01620528|181521459|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-2.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.06|-1.4|||ANCOVA|||||-1.40|-3.06|< 0.001
90822147|NCT01620528|181521460|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||||-0.20|-1.74|0.013
90822148|NCT01620528|181521460|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.58|-1.04|||ANCOVA|||||-1.04|-2.58|< 0.001
91061018|NCT02933255|182005229|OTHER|||||||0.105||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD4+ki67+ T cells at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.105
90822149|NCT01620528|181521461|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|-0.34|||ANCOVA|||||-0.34|-2.22|0.007
90822150|NCT01620528|181521461|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-2.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.44|-1.54|||ANCOVA|||||-1.54|-3.44|< 0.001
90822151|NCT01620528|181521462|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.57|0.85|||ANCOVA|||||0.85|-2.57|0.326
90822152|NCT01620528|181521462|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.67|-0.18|||ANCOVA|||||-0.18|-3.67|0.031
90822153|NCT01620528|181521463|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.13|0.31|||ANCOVA|||||0.31|-3.13|0.107
90822154|NCT01620528|181521463|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-3.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.28|-1.75|||ANCOVA|||||-1.75|-5.28|< 0.001
90822155|NCT01620528|181521464|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.63|0.6|||ANCOVA|||||0.60|-2.63|0.219
90822156|NCT01620528|181521464|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-2.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.59|-1.28|||ANCOVA|||||-1.28|-4.59|< 0.001
90822157|NCT01620528|181521465|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.01|-0.19|||ANCOVA|||||-0.19|-3.01|0.026
90822158|NCT01620528|181521465|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-3.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.34|-2.43|||ANCOVA|||||-2.43|-5.34|< 0.001
91061019|NCT02933255|182005229|OTHER|||||||0.622||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD4+ki67+ T cells at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.622
91061020|NCT02933255|182005229|OTHER|||||||0.313||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD4+ki67+ T cells at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.313
90822159|NCT01620528|181521466|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.98|||ANCOVA|||||0.98|-2.00|0.502
90822160|NCT01620528|181521466|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-3.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|-1.56|||ANCOVA|||||-1.56|-4.70|< 0.001
90822161|NCT01620528|181521467|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.02|0.3|||ANCOVA|||||0.30|-3.02|0.108
90822162|NCT01620528|181521467|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-4.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.19|-2.74|||ANCOVA|||||-2.74|-6.19|< 0.001
90822163|NCT01620528|181521468|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.48|||ANCOVA|||||-0.48|-1.90|0.001
90822164|NCT01620528|181521468|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|-0.34|||ANCOVA|||||-0.34|-1.76|0.004
91061021|NCT02933255|182005229|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD4+ EM ki67+ T cells at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||<0.001
91061022|NCT02933255|182005229|OTHER|||||||0.049||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD4+ EM ki67+ T cells at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.049
90822165|NCT01620528|181521469|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|-0.02|||mixed-effects model|||||-0.02|-1.49|0.045
90822166|NCT01620528|181521469|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|-0.31|||ANCOVA|||||-0.31|-1.81|0.006
90822167|NCT01620528|181521470|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|0.11|||ANCOVA|||||0.11|-1.19|0.103
90822168|NCT01620528|181521470|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|-0.32|||ANCOVA|||||-0.32|-1.64|0.003
90822169|NCT01620528|181521471|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|0.4|||ANCOVA|||||0.40|-1.01|0.390
90822170|NCT01620528|181521471|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|-0.35|||ANCOVA|||||-0.35|-1.75|0.003
90822171|NCT01620528|181521472|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.32|||ANCOVA|||||0.32|-0.72|0.460
90822172|NCT01620528|181521472|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|-0.52|||ANCOVA|||||-0.52|-1.57|< 0.001
90822173|NCT01620528|181521473|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.10|-1.28|0.095
90822174|NCT01620528|181521473|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.01|-0.59|||ANCOVA|||||-0.59|-2.01|< 0.001
90822175|NCT01620528|181521474|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||0.462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|1.19|||ANCOVA|||||1.19|-2.61|0.462
90822176|NCT01620528|181521474|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-3.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.16|-1.3|||ANCOVA|||||-1.30|-5.16|0.001
90822177|NCT01620528|181521475|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-2.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.93|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||||-0.11|-3.93|0.039
90822178|NCT01620528|181521475|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-4.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.82|-2.9|||ANCOVA|||||-2.90|-6.82|< 0.001
90822179|NCT01620528|181521476|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.21|-0.18|||ANCOVA|||||-0.18|-4.21|0.032
90822180|NCT01620528|181521476|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-4.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.95|-2.86|||ANCOVA|||||-2.86|-6.95|< 0.001
90822181|NCT01620528|181521477|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-2.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.26|-0.58|||ANCOVA|||||-0.58|-4.26|0.010
90822182|NCT01620528|181521477|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-5.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.14|-3.36|||ANCOVA|||||-3.36|-7.14|< 0.001
90822183|NCT01620528|181521478|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.02|0.68|||ANCOVA|||||0.68|-3.02|0.215
90822184|NCT01620528|181521478|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-5.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.06|-3.2|||ANCOVA|||||-3.20|-7.06|< 0.001
90822185|NCT01620528|181521479|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-2.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.53|0.03|||ANCOVA|||||0.03|-4.53|0.053
90822186|NCT01620528|181521479|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-6.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.17|-4.41|||ANCOVA|||||-4.41|-9.17|< 0.001
90822187|NCT01620528|181521480|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-2.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.24|-1.01|||ANCOVA|||||-1.01|-3.24|< 0.001
90822188|NCT01620528|181521480|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.71|-1.49|||ANCOVA|||||-1.49|-3.71|< 0.001
90822189|NCT01620528|181521481|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-2.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-0.78|||ANCOVA|||||-0.78|-3.40|0.002
90822190|NCT01620528|181521481|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-2.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.98|-1.32|||ANCOVA|||||-1.32|-3.98|< 0.001
90822191|NCT01620528|181521482|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-2.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.39|-0.95|||ANCOVA|||||-0.95|-3.39|< 0.001
90822192|NCT01620528|181521482|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.23|-1.76|||ANCOVA|||||-1.76|-4.23|< 0.001
90822193|NCT01620528|181521483|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-0.27|||ANCOVA|||||-0.27|-2.80|0.017
90822194|NCT01620528|181521483|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-3.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|-1.98|||ANCOVA|||||-1.98|-4.50|< 0.001
90822195|NCT01620528|181521484|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|-0.07|||ANCOVA|||||-0.07|-2.22|0.038
90822196|NCT01620528|181521484|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-2.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.91|-1.74|||ANCOVA|||||-1.74|-3.91|< 0.001
91061023|NCT02933255|182005229|OTHER|||||||0.47||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD4+ EM ki67+ T cells at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.47
90822197|NCT01620528|181521485|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.13|-0.54|||ANCOVA|||||-0.54|-3.13|0.006
90822198|NCT01620528|181521485|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-3.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.06|-2.44|||ANCOVA|||||-2.44|-5.06|< 0.001
90822199|NCT01457846|181521489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.57||||0.9581|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.12|2.21||1-sided|Regression, Cox|||||2.21|1.12|0.9581
91061024|NCT02933255|182005229|OTHER|||||||0.313||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD4+ EM ki67+ T cells at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.313
90822200|NCT01457846|181521490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.31||||0.8156|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.89|1.95||1-sided|Regression, Cox|||||1.95|0.89|0.8156
90822201|NCT01457846|181521491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.09||||0.997|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.02|0.35||1-sided|Regression, Logistic|||||0.35|0.02|0.9970
90822202|NCT03368235|181521518|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.472|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4569||0.315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.487|1.431||Based on MMRM model with the baseline DAS28-CRP score as a continuous covariate and country, visit and treatment group as categorical fixed effects, as well as visit interaction with treatment group, using unstructured covariance matrix.|MMRM|||MMRM = mixed model repeated measures.||1.431|-0.487|0.315
90822203|NCT03368235|181521519|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.807||||0.807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|5.34||Logistic regression model with the treatment group, country and baseline DAS28-CRP as covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Treatment comparison ACR20: AZD9567 Vs prednisolone||5.34|0.12|0.807
90822204|NCT03368235|181521519|OTHER|||||||0.198|||||||Fisher Exact|||Treatment comparison ACR50: AZD9567 Vs prednisolone||||0.198
90822205|NCT03368235|181521519|OTHER|||||||0.183|||||||Fisher Exact|||Treatment comparison ACR70: AZD9567 Vs prednisolone||||0.183
90822206|NCT03368235|181521520|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.136||0.717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|2.81||The MMRM with the baseline SJC66 score as a continuous covariate and country, visit and treatment group as categorical fixed effects, as well as visit interaction with treatment group, using unstructured covariance matrix.|MMRM|||||2.81|-1.98|0.717
90822207|NCT03368235|181521521|OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.115||0.724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.69|5.46||The MMRM with the baseline TJC68 score as a continuous covariate and country, visit and treatment group as categorical fixed effects, as well as visit interaction with treatment group, using unstructured covariance matrix.|MMRM|||||5.46|-7.69|0.724
90822208|NCT03368235|181521522|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.43|3.32||The MMRM with the baseline TJC28 score as a continuous covariate and country, visit and treatment group as categorical fixed effects, as well as visit interaction with treatment group, using unstructured covariance matrix.|MMRM|||||3.32|-3.43|0.973
90822209|NCT03368235|181521523|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.837||0.757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.03||The MMRM with the baseline SJC28 score as a continuous covariate and country, visit and treatment group as categorical fixed effects, as well as visit interaction with treatment group, using unstructured covariance matrix.|MMRM|||||2.03|-1.50|0.757
90822210|NCT03368235|181521524|OTHER||LS mean difference|9.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.67||0.325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|30.1||The MMRM with the baseline GH score as a continuous covariate and country, visit and treatment group as categorical fixed effects, as well as visit interaction with treatment group, using unstructured covariance matrix.|MMRM|||||30.1|-10.5|0.325
90822211|NCT03368235|181521525|OTHER||LS mean difference|4.756|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4725||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.514|12.025||The MMRM with the baseline CRP score as a continuous covariate and country, visit and treatment group as categorical fixed effects, as well as visit interaction with treatment group, using unstructured covariance matrix.|MMRM|||||12.025|-2.514|0.187
91061025|NCT02933255|182005229|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD4+ ICOS+ T cells at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.001
90822212|NCT03368235|181521526|OTHER||LS mean difference|16.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.49||0.144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|38.1||The MMRM with the baseline participant's assessment of pain score as a continuous covariate and country, visit and treatment group as categorical fixed effects, as well as visit interaction with treatment group, using unstructured covariance matrix.|MMRM|||||38.1|-6.0|0.144
90822213|NCT03368235|181521527|OTHER||LS mean difference|3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.73||0.512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|16.0||The MMRM with the baseline disease activity score as a continuous covariate and country, visit and treatment group as categorical fixed effects, as well as visit interaction with treatment group, using unstructured covariance matrix.|MMRM|||||16.0|-8.3|0.512
90822214|NCT03368235|181521528|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.131|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2381||0.589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.631||The MMRM with the baseline physical function score as a continuous covariate and country, visit and treatment group as categorical fixed effects, as well as visit interaction with treatment group, using unstructured covariance matrix.|MMRM|||||0.631|-0.370|0.589
90822215|NCT02828020|181521704|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.83||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|2.66||P-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons across primary and secondary endpoints and multiple doses.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, historical triptan response, medication use for migraine prevention, baseline headache severity were explanatory variables in model.||||2.66|1.25|0.0023
90822216|NCT02828020|181521704|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.04||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|2.95||P-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons across primary and secondary endpoints and multiple doses.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, historical triptan response, medication use for migraine prevention, baseline headache severity were explanatory variables in model.||||2.95|1.41|0.0003
90822217|NCT02828020|181521705|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|2.28||P-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons across primary and secondary endpoints and multiple doses.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, historical triptan response, migraine prevention medication, baseline headache severity, underlying symptom as explanatory variables.||||2.28|1.27|0.0023
90822218|NCT02828020|181521705|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|2.17||P-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons across primary and secondary endpoints and multiple doses.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, historical triptan response, migraine prevention medication, baseline headache severity, underlying symptom as explanatory variables.||||2.17|1.22|0.0023
90822219|NCT02828020|181521706|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.69||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|2.23||P-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons across primary and secondary endpoints and multiple doses.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, historical triptan response, medication use for migraine prevention, baseline headache severity were explanatory variables in model.||||2.23|1.28|0.0023
90822220|NCT02828020|181521706|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.69||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|2.21||P-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons across primary and secondary endpoints and multiple doses.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, historical triptan response, medication use for migraine prevention, baseline headache severity were explanatory variables in model.||||2.21|1.28|0.0023
91061026|NCT02933255|182005229|OTHER|||||||0.092||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD4+ ICOS+ T cells at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.092
91061027|NCT02933255|182005229|OTHER|||||||0.176||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD4+ ICOS+ T cells at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.176
91061028|NCT02933255|182005229|OTHER|||||||0.232||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD4+ ICOS+ T cells at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.232
91061029|NCT02933255|182005229|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD8+ ki67+ T cells at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||<0.001
91061030|NCT02933255|182005229|OTHER|||||||0.131||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD8+ ki67+ T cells at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.131
91061031|NCT02933255|182005229|OTHER|||||||0.424||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD8+ ki67+ T cells at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.424
91061032|NCT02933255|182005229|OTHER|||||||0.438||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD8+ ki67+ T cells at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.438
91061033|NCT02933255|182005229|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in Treg ICOS+ cells at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||<0.001
91061034|NCT02933255|182005229|OTHER|||||||0.151||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in Treg ICOS+ cells at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.151
90822221|NCT02828020|181521707|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.25||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|3.07||P-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons across primary and secondary endpoints and multiple doses.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, historical triptan response, medication use for migraine prevention, baseline headache severity were explanatory variables in model.||||3.07|1.65|0.0023
90822222|NCT02828020|181521707|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.39||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|3.24||P-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons across primary and secondary endpoints and multiple doses.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, historical triptan response, medication use for migraine prevention, baseline headache severity were explanatory variables in model.||||3.24|1.77|0.0023
90822223|NCT02828020|181521708|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.57||||0.0577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|2.44||P-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons across primary and secondary endpoints and multiple doses.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, historical triptan response, medication use for migraine prevention, baseline headache severity were explanatory variables in model.||||2.44|1.01|0.0577
91061035|NCT02933255|182005229|OTHER|||||||0.569||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in Treg ICOS+ cells at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.569
91061036|NCT02933255|182005229|OTHER|||||||0.105||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in Treg ICOS+ cells at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.105
91061037|NCT02933255|182005229|OTHER|||||||0.012||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in NK ki67+ cells at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.012
91061038|NCT02933255|182005229|OTHER|||||||0.677||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in NK ki67+ cells at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.677
91061039|NCT02933255|182005229|OTHER|||||||0.424||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in NK ki67+ cells at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.424
91061040|NCT02933255|182005229|OTHER|||||||0.432||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in NK ki67+ cells at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.432
91061041|NCT02933255|182005229|OTHER|||||||0.016||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in NK NKG2D+ cells at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.016
91061042|NCT02933255|182005229|OTHER|||||||0.733||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in NK NKG2D+ cells at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.733
91061043|NCT02933255|182005229|OTHER|||||||0.519||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in NK NKG2D+ cells at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.519
91061044|NCT02933255|182005229|OTHER|||||||0.557||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in NK NKG2D+ cells at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.557
91061045|NCT02933255|182005229|OTHER|||||||0.034||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in NK NKp46+ cells at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.034
91061046|NCT02933255|182005229|OTHER|||||||0.092||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in NK NKp46+ cells at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.092
91061047|NCT02933255|182005229|OTHER|||||||0.733||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in NK NKp46+ cells at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.733
91061048|NCT02933255|182005229|OTHER|||||||0.922||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in NK NKp46+ cells at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.922
91061049|NCT02933255|182005229|OTHER|||||||0.176||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD8+ naive T cells at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.176
91061050|NCT02933255|182005229|OTHER|||||||0.049||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD8+ naive T cells at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.049
91061051|NCT02933255|182005229|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD8+ naive T cells at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.001
91061052|NCT02933255|182005229|OTHER|||||||0.563||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD8+ naive T cells at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.563
91061053|NCT02933255|182005229|OTHER|||||||0.012||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD8+ CM T cells at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.012
91061054|NCT02933255|182005229|OTHER|||||||0.084||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD8+ CM T cells at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.084
91061055|NCT02933255|182005229|OTHER|||||||0.016||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD8+ CM T cells at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.016
91061056|NCT02933255|182005229|OTHER|||||||0.688||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD8+ CM T cells at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.688
91061057|NCT02933255|182005229|OTHER|||||||0.38||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in gMDSC at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.38
91061058|NCT02933255|182005229|OTHER|||||||0.021||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in gMDSC at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.021
91061059|NCT02933255|182005229|OTHER|||||||0.91||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in gMDSC at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.91
91061060|NCT02933255|182005229|OTHER|||||||0.084||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in gMDSC at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.084
91061061|NCT02933255|182005229|OTHER|||||||0.151||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in intermediate monocytes at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.151
91061062|NCT02933255|182005229|OTHER|||||||0.042||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in intermediate monocytes at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.042
91061063|NCT02933255|182005229|OTHER|||||||0.424||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in intermediate monocytes at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.424
90822224|NCT02828020|181521708|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.95||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|2.97||P-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons across primary and secondary endpoints and multiple doses.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, historical triptan response, medication use for migraine prevention, baseline headache severity were explanatory variables in model.||||2.97|1.28|0.0037
90822225|NCT02828020|181521709|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.0577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|2.19||P-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons across primary and secondary endpoints and multiple doses.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, historical triptan response, migraine prevention medication, baseline headache severity, photophobia were explanatory variables.||||2.19|1.22|0.0577
90822226|NCT02828020|181521709|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.81||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|2.42||P-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons across primary and secondary endpoints and multiple doses.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, historical triptan response, migraine prevention medication, baseline headache severity, photophobia were explanatory variables.||||2.42|1.36|0.0037
90822227|NCT02828020|181521710|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.0577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|2.09||P-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons across primary and secondary endpoints and multiple doses.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, historical triptan response, migraine prevention medication, baseline headache severity, phonophobia were explanatory variables.||||2.09|1.16|0.0577
90822228|NCT02828020|181521710|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.0577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.95||P-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons across primary and secondary endpoints and multiple doses.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, historical triptan response, migraine prevention medication, baseline headache severity, phonophobia were explanatory variables.||||1.95|1.10|0.0577
90822229|NCT02828020|181521711|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.0962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.79||P-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons across primary and secondary endpoints and multiple doses.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, historical triptan response, migraine prevention medication, baseline headache severity, nausea were explanatory variables.||||1.79|0.96|0.0962
90822230|NCT02828020|181521711|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.0962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.83||P-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons across primary and secondary endpoints and multiple doses.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, historical triptan response, migraine prevention medication, baseline headache severity, nausea were explanatory variables.||||1.83|1.00|0.0962
90822231|NCT01736618|181521769|OTHER||Kaplan-Meier|92.9|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|91.4|||||||"Ho: The Type I Complication Free Rate at 60 months (p1) does not exceed the performance goal of 85.0%.~Ho: p1 ≤ 85.0% Ha: The Type I Complication Free Rate at 60 months (p1) does exceed the performance goal of 85.0%.~Ha: p1 \> 85.0% The null hypothesis will be rejected if the lower one-sided 95% confidence bound of the proportional means model estimate, using the Peto method for standard error, exceeds the performance goal of 85.0%."|||91.4|
90822232|NCT01736618|181521770|OTHER||Clopper-Pearson exact confidence bound|98.6|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|97.4|||||||"Ho: Overall Shock Effectiveness in Converting Spontaneous Discrete Episodes of VT/VF through 60 months (p1) does not exceed the performance goal of 94.0%.~Ho: p1 ≤ 94.0% Ha: Overall Shock Effectiveness in Converting Spontaneous Discrete Episodes of VT/VF through 60 months (p1) does exceed the performance goal of 94.0%.~Ha: p1 \>94.0% The null hypothesis will be rejected if the lower one-sided 95% exact confidence bound of the estimate exceeds the performance goal of 94.0%."|||97.4|
90822233|NCT01736618|181521771|OTHER||Kaplan-Meier|99.2|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|98.8|||||||"Ho: The Electrode-Related Complication Free Rate at 60 months (p1) does not exceed the performance goal of 92.5%.~Ho: p1 ≤ 92.5% Ha: The Electrode-Related Complication Free Rate at 60 months (p1) does exceed the performance goal of 92.5%.~Ha: p1 \> 92.5% The null hypothesis will be rejected if the lower one-sided 95% confidence bound of the proportional means model estimate, using the Peto method for standard error, exceeds the performance goal of 92.5%."|||98.8|
91061064|NCT02933255|182005229|OTHER|||||||0.846||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in intermediate monocytes at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.846
91061065|NCT02933255|182005229|OTHER|||||||0.339||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in non-classical monocytes at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.339
91061066|NCT02933255|182005229|OTHER|||||||0.012||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in non-classical monocytes at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.012
91061067|NCT02933255|182005229|OTHER|||||||0.622||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in non-classical monocytes at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.622
90822234|NCT01736618|181521772|OTHER||Clopper-Pearson exact confidence bound|94.4|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|93.5|||||||"Ho: The 1st Shock Effectiveness in Converting Induced (Acute) \& Spontaneous Discrete VT/VF Episodes to 60 months (p1) does not exceed the performance goal of 84.0%.~Ho: p1 ≤ 84.0% Ha: The 1st Shock Effectiveness in Converting Induced (Acute) \& Spontaneous Discrete VT/VF Episodes to 60 months (p1) does exceed the performance goal of 84.0%.~Ha: p1 \>84.0% The null hypothesis will be rejected if lower one-sided 95% exact confidence bound of the estimate exceeds the performance goal of 84.0%."|||93.5|
90822235|NCT02714283|181521816|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.14|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for propensity score decile, oral corticosteroid use.|ICS (numerator) compared to macrolide monotherapy (denominator)|Due to the small sample size in the macrolide monotherapy group, for this outcome, the results are considered exploratory/descriptive only.||1.14|0.51|0.19
91061068|NCT02933255|182005229|OTHER|||||||0.492||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in non-classical monocytes at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.492
91061069|NCT02933255|182005229|OTHER|||||||0.11||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD4+ CM T cells at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.11
91061070|NCT02933255|182005229|OTHER|||||||0.02||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD4+ CM T cells at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.02
91061071|NCT02933255|182005229|OTHER|||||||0.052||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD4+ CM T cells at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.052
91061072|NCT02933255|182005229|OTHER|||||||0.844||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD4+ CM T cells at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.844
91061073|NCT02933255|182005229|OTHER||||||>|0.999||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD4+ naive T cells at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||>0.999
91061074|NCT02933255|182005229|OTHER|||||||0.049||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD4+ naive T cells at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.049
91061075|NCT02933255|182005229|OTHER|||||||0.339||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD4+ naive T cells at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.339
91061076|NCT02933255|182005229|OTHER||||||>|0.999||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD4+ naive T cells at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||>0.999
91061077|NCT01579747|182005241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Normality of distribution was assessed with the Shapiro-Wilk test. For normally-distributed continuous variables, the groups' distributions were described as means and standard deviations (SD). Student's t-test was used to compare groups in these cases with statistically-significant differences summarized using 95% confidence intervals as appropriate. For all comparisons, two-tailed p\<0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||<0.05
91061078|NCT06473519|182005301|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority of immune responses induced by MDVRSV preF compared to SDVRSV preF, assessed for RSVA\&B at 1month after vaccination. Null hypotheses(H0): RSVA(H0A)=ln(μMDV)-ln(μSDV)\<=-ln(1.5);RSVB(H0B):ln(μMDV)-ln(μSDV)\<=-ln(1.5), where ln(μMDV)\&ln(μSDV) are means of natural log-transformed antibody concentrations 1month after vaccination for MDV and SDV groups, respectively. Noninferiority=if lower bounds of 2-sided95%CI for GMT ratios (MDV/SDV) were \>0.67(noninferiority margin=1.5)for RSVA\&B.|Geometric mean ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.1|||||GMR was calculated as group mean difference of logarithmically transformed antibody levels, back transformed to original units.|RSV A||1.10|0.84|
91061079|NCT06473519|182005301|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority of immune responses induced by MDVRSV preF compared to SDVRSV preF, assessed for RSVA\&B at 1 month after vaccination. Null hypotheses(H0):RSVA(H0A)=ln(μMDV)-ln(μSDV)\<=-ln(1.5);RSVB(H0B):ln(μMDV)-ln(μSDV)\<=-ln(1.5), where ln(μMDV)\&ln(μSDV) are means of natural log-transformed antibody concentrations 1 month after vaccination for MDV and SDV groups, respectively. Noninferiority=if lower bounds of 2-sided 95%CI for GMT ratios(MDV/SDV) were \>0.67(noninferiority margin=1.5)for RSVA\&B.|Geometric mean ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.06|||||GMR was calculated as group mean difference of logarithmically transformed antibody levels, back transformed to original units.|RSV B||1.06|0.79|
91061080|NCT03620708|182005331|SUPERIORITY||chi-square|3.492|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
91061081|NCT03620708|182005332|SUPERIORITY||chi-square|4.36||||0.113|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||.113
91061082|NCT03620708|182005333|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.661||||0.032|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.032
91061083|NCT03620708|182005334|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.543||||0.227|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Examination of differences between groups at follow-up on a measure of confidence in ability to quit.||||.227
91061084|NCT03620708|182005334|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.338||||0.715|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Examination of differences between groups at follow-up on a measure of self-reported importance of quitting smoking.||||.715
90822236|NCT02714283|181521817|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|1.57|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for propensity score decile, oral corticosteroid use, and NTM history.|ICS (numerator) compared to macrolide monotherapy (denominator)|||1.57|1.23|<0.0001
90822237|NCT02714283|181521818|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.09|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for propensity score decile, oral corticosteroid use, and NTM history.|ICS (numerator) compared to macrolide monotherapy (denominator)|||1.09|0.67|0.21
90822238|NCT02714283|181521819|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.82|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for propensity score decile, oral corticosteroid use, and NTM history|ICS (numerator) compared to macrolide monotherapy (denominator)|||0.82|0.64|<0.0001
91061085|NCT03620708|182005334|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.712||||0.19|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Examination of differences between groups at follow-up on a measure of self-reported readiness to quit smoking.||||.190
91061086|NCT03620708|182005335|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.728||||0.188|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.188
91061087|NCT02548156|182005400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of LS mean|1.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||From ANCOVA of log transformed data: subject (random), treatment (fixed) and period (fixed) as factors, participant-level baseline and period-level baseline minus participant-level baseline as covariates.|ANCOVA||Treatment difference from ANCOVA of log transformed data. This therefore represents the ratio of the first named treatment to the second named treatment. A ratio \>1 favors the first named treatment.|Test and Reference dentifrice combined vs. Comparator dentifrice||||<0.0001
91061088|NCT02964312|182005509|SUPERIORITY||Proportion|89.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|83.5|93.9||||||The null hypothesis was that the proportion of responders at 6 months would be 50%. Since there was not direct comparison group, the hypothesis was set as a superiority comparison to a target proportion (66%) with a power level \>90%.||93.9|83.5|
91061089|NCT02964312|182005512|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P values are based on paired t-tests for change from baseline with p\<0.05 indicating significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91061090|NCT03288714|182005523|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.814|||||||Fisher Exact|The proportion of patients is compared across treatment groups using Fisher's Exact.||Null hypothesis is that the active sTMS treatment group does not differ from the sham group with respect to the proportion of patients with clinical response at Week 6.||||.814
90822239|NCT02714283|181521820|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.32|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for propensity score decile, oral corticosteroid use, and NTM history|ICS (numerator) compared to macrolide monotherapy (denominator)|||1.32|0.80|0.87
90822240|NCT02714283|181521821|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.07|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for propensity score decile, oral corticosteroid use, and NTM history.|ICS (numerator) compared to macrolide monotherapy (denominator)|||1.07|0.76|0.23
90822241|NCT02714283|181521822|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.25|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for propensity score decile, oral corticosteroid use, and NTM history.|ICS (numerator) compared to macrolide monotherapy (denominator)|||1.25|0.96|0.20
90822242|NCT02714283|181521823|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.21|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for propensity score decile, oral corticosteroid use, and NTM history|ICS (numerator) compared to macrolide monotherapy (denominator)|||1.21|1.08|<0.0001
90822243|NCT02714283|181521824|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.51|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for propensity score decile, oral corticosteroid use, and NTM history|ICS (numerator) compared to macrolide monotherapy (denominator)|||1.51|0.66|0.99
90822244|NCT02714283|181521825|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.25|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for propensity score decile, oral corticosteroid use, and NTM history|ICS (numerator) compared to macrolide monotherapy (denominator)|||1.25|1.07|0.0005
90822245|NCT02921087|181521830|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Least-squares adjusted means were obtained and compared.||In order to analyze the 2 x 2 crossover design for the primary outcome (change in overall VAS at day 7) mixed model analysis was utilized, allowing the sequences of each subject to be modeled as repeated measures within PROC Mixed.||||0.07
90822246|NCT02921087|181521832|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Least-squares adjusted means were obtained and compared.||In order to analyze the 2 x 2 crossover design for accommodative response mixed model analysis was utilized, allowing the sequences of each subject to be modeled as repeated measures within PROC Mixed.||||0.01
90822247|NCT02921087|181521833|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Least-squares adjusted means were obtained and compared.||In order to analyze the 2 x 2 crossover design for the change in CISS, mixed model analysis was utilized, allowing the sequences of each subject to be modeled as repeated measures within PROC Mixed.||||0.77
90822248|NCT02921087|181521834|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Least-squares adjusted means were obtained and compared.||In order to analyze the 2 x 2 crossover design for the CLDEQ-8, mixed model analysis was utilized, allowing the sequences of each subject to be modeled as repeated measures within PROC Mixed.||||0.69
90822249|NCT02921087|181521835|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Least-squares adjusted means were obtained and compared.||In order to analyze the 2 x 2 crossover design for phoria, mixed model analysis was utilized, allowing the sequences of each subject to be modeled as repeated measures within PROC Mixed.||||0.87
90822250|NCT02964767|181521839|OTHER||||||<|0.049|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.049
90822251|NCT04255862|181521840|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence (BE) was concluded if the 90% CIs for the ratio of the respective comparison are fully included in the acceptance range from 80 to 125 for AUC.|Geometric Mean Ratio|103.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.4|123.8||||||||123.8|86.4|
90822252|NCT04255862|181521840|EQUIVALENCE|BE was concluded if the 90% CIs for the ratio of the respective comparison are fully included in the acceptance range from 80 to 125 for AUC.|Geometric Mean Ratio|115.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.9|135.0||||||||135.0|97.9|
91061091|NCT03288714|182005524|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.872|||||||ANCOVA|P-value is from analysis of covariance adjusting for baseline.||Null hypothesis is that the active sTMS treatment group does not differ from the sham group with respect to the proportion of patients with clinical response at Week 6.||||.872
91061092|NCT03288714|182005525|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.641|||||||ANCOVA|P-value is from analysis of covariance adjusting for baseline.||The null hypothesis is that the active sTMS treatment group does not differ||||.641
91061093|NCT03288714|182005526|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.032||||||Alpha level: .05|ANCOVA|P-value is from analysis of covariance adjusting for baseline||||||.032
90822253|NCT04255862|181521841|EQUIVALENCE|BE was concluded if the 90% CIs for the ratio of the respective comparison are fully included in the acceptance range from 80 to 125 for AUC0-t.|Geometric Mean Ratio|102.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.0|121.5||||||||121.5|87.0|
90822254|NCT04255862|181521841|EQUIVALENCE|BE was concluded if the 90% CIs for the ratio of the respective comparison are fully included in the acceptance range from 80 to 125 for AUC0-t.|Geometric Mean Ratio|113.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.4|131.9||||||||131.9|97.4|
90822255|NCT04255862|181521842|EQUIVALENCE|BE was concluded if the 90% CIs for the ratio of the respective comparison are fully included in the acceptance range from 80 to 125 for Cmax.|Geometric Mean Ratio|104.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.3|119.7||||||||119.7|90.3|
90822256|NCT04255862|181521842|EQUIVALENCE|BE was concluded if the 90% CIs for the ratio of the respective comparison are fully included in the acceptance range from 80 to 125 for Cmax.|Geometric Mean Ratio|114.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.5|131.4||||||||131.4|99.5|
90822257|NCT00555880|181521870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Sign Statistic|3.0||||0.146|TWO_SIDED||||||Sign test||Sign test was performed per analysis plan.|||||0.1460
90822258|NCT00555880|181521871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Sign statistic|2.5||||0.2266|TWO_SIDED||||||Sign test||Sign test was performed per analysis plan.|||||0.2266
90822259|NCT00555880|181521872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|97.9||||0.0418|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is based on type III sum of squares for treatment group from a mixed effect ANOVA model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects, and subject within sequence as a random effect|ANOVA||Least squares mean for treatment difference (Midodrine HCL-Placebo)|Analysis of treatment difference||||0.0418
91061094|NCT03288714|182005527|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015||||||Alpha level: .05|ANCOVA|P-value is from analysis of covariance adjusting for baseline||||||.015
91061095|NCT03288714|182005528|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028||||||Alpha level: .05|Fisher Exact|The proportion of patients is compared across treatment groups using Fisher's Exact.||||||.028
91061096|NCT03127514|182005584|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||A two-tailed P value of 0.05 or less was considered to indicate statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random-slope, shared-baseline, linear mixed model was adjusted for age and prebaseline ALSFRS-R slope||||||0.03
91061097|NCT01288807|182005628|OTHER|repeated measure ANOVA|||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||< 0.01
91061098|NCT01288807|182005629|OTHER|two-tailed paired t-test|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This analysis looks at the cold threshold measured in degrees celcius before and after treatment.||||< 0.05
91061099|NCT01288807|182005630|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This analysis looks at the pressure threshold measured in pounds per square inch before and after treatment||||> 0.05
91061100|NCT01288807|182005631|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||one-way repeated measure ANOVA|ANOVA|||||||> 0.05
91061101|NCT03852537|182005645|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.494|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.494
91061102|NCT03852537|182005646|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.666|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.666
90822260|NCT00555880|181521873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|91.1||||0.1928|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is based on type III sum of squares for treatment group from a one-way ANOVA model|ANOVA||Least squares mean for treatment difference (Midodrine HCL-Placebo)|||||0.1928
90822261|NCT00555880|181521874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9479|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is from a 2-sample t-test for difference in mean|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9479
90822262|NCT00555880|181521875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|-5.7||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is based on type III sum of squares for treatment group from a mixed effect ANOVA model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect.|ANOVA||Least squares mean for treatment difference (Midodrine HCl - Placebo)|Analysis of treatment||||0.0590
90822263|NCT00555880|181521876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0633|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is based on type III sum of squares for treatment group from a mixed effect ANOVA model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect.|ANOVA|||Item Dizziness, Lightheadedness, and Feeling Faint-Analysis of treatment||||0.0633
90822264|NCT00555880|181521876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0191|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is based on type III sum of squares for treatment group from a mixed effect ANOVA model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect.|ANOVA|||Item Problems with Vision-Analysis of treatment||||0.0191
90822265|NCT00555880|181521876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0727|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is based on type III sum of squares for treatment group from a mixed effect ANOVA model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect.|ANOVA|||Item Weakness-Analysis of treatment||||0.0727
90822266|NCT00555880|181521876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.282|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is based on type III sum of squares for treatment group from a mixed effect ANOVA model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect.|ANOVA|||Item Fatigue-Analysis of treatment||||0.2820
90822267|NCT00555880|181521876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is based on type III sum of squares for treatment group from a mixed effect ANOVA model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect.|ANOVA|||Item Trouble Concentrating-Analysis of treatment||||0.0880
90822268|NCT00555880|181521876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6439|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is based on type III sum of squares for treatment group from a mixed effect ANOVA model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect.|ANOVA|||Item Head/Neck Discomfort-Analysis of treatment||||0.6439
91061103|NCT03852537|182005647|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
91061104|NCT03852537|182005649|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.477|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.477
91061105|NCT03852537|182005650|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.000
91061106|NCT03852537|182005651|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
90822269|NCT00555880|181521879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0378|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is based on type III sum of squares for treatment group from a mixed effect ANOVA model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect.|ANOVA|||Final systolic pressure-Analysis of treatment||||0.0378
91061107|NCT03852537|182005652|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.011
91061108|NCT03852537|182005653|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
90822270|NCT00555880|181521879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0108|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Final diastolic pressure-Analysis of treatment||||0.0108
90822271|NCT00555880|181521881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|92.4||||0.0296|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is based on type III sum of squares for treatment group from a mixed effect ANOVA model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect.|ANOVA||Least squares mean for treatment difference (Midodrine HCl - Placebo)|Analysis of treatment difference||||0.0296
90822272|NCT00555880|181521886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0342|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|||Analysis of treatment||||0.0342
90822273|NCT03004911|181521888|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.740
90822274|NCT03004911|181521889|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.890
90822275|NCT03004911|181521890|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.747|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.747
90822276|NCT03004911|181521891|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||1.000
90822277|NCT03004911|181521892|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.459|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.459
90822278|NCT02610777|181521900|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.861||||0.464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.577|1.286||P-value is from an unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Hazard Ratio (HR) was based on an unstratified Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment as a factor.|||1.286|0.577|0.464
91061109|NCT03852537|182005655|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.213|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.213
91061110|NCT05534061|182005657|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.56||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<.05.|Regression, Logistic|A multilevel logistic regression model was specified.|Contingency Management Alone coded as the reference group.|||1.56|0.62|.944
91061111|NCT05534061|182005658|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.65||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<.05.|Regression, Logistic|A multilevel logistic regression model was specified.|Contingency Management Alone coded as the reference group.|||1.65|0.62|.952
91061112|NCT05534061|182005659|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|3.11||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<.05.|Regression, Logistic|A multilevel logistic regression model was specified.|Contingency Management Alone coded as the reference group.|||3.11|0.43|.768
91061113|NCT05534061|182005660|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.96||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|10.94||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<.05.|Regression, Logistic|A multilevel logistic regression model was specified.|Contingency Management Alone coded as the reference group.|||10.94|1.43|.008
91061114|NCT00535405|182005667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4|<|0.001||95.0|-17.5|-12.0||Reported p-value is multiplicity-adjusted. Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, baseline LDL-C, study week, treatment by study week interaction, and a random subject effect.||||-12.0|-17.5|<0.001
91061115|NCT00535405|182005667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4|<|0.001||95.0|-10.3|-4.8||Reported p-value is multiplicity-adjusted. Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, baseline LDL-C, study week, treatment by study week interaction, and a random subject effect.||||-4.8|-10.3|<0.001
91061116|NCT00535405|182005667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4|<|0.001||95.0|-11.0|-5.5||Reported p-value is multiplicity-adjusted. Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, baseline LDL-C, study week, treatment by study week interaction, and a random subject effect.||||-5.5|-11.0|<0.001
91061117|NCT00535405|182005668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of odds|12.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.23|<|0.001||95.0|7.64|20.83||Reported p-value is multiplicity-adjusted. Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Logistic Regression using GEE|"Model include terms for treatment, baseline LDL-C, study week and treatment by study week interaction.~Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE)"|Ratio of odds of achieving pre-specified LDL-C level on EZ/Simva versus Atorva|||20.83|7.64|<0.001
91061118|NCT00535405|182005668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of odds|3.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83|<|0.001||95.0|2.51|5.85||Reported p-value is multiplicity-adjusted. Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Logistic Regression using GEE|Model include terms for treatment, baseline LDL-C, study week and treatment by study week interaction.|Ratio of odds of achieving pre-specified LDL-C level on EZ/Simva versus Atorva|||5.85|2.51|<0.001
91061119|NCT00535405|182005668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of odds|3.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79|<|0.001||95.0|2.39|5.6|||Logistic Regression using GEE|Model include terms for treatment, baseline LDL-C, study week and treatment by study week interaction.|Ratio of odds of achieving pre-specified LDL-C level on EZ/Simva versus Atorva|||5.60|2.39|<0.001
91061120|NCT00535405|182005669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of odds|3.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62|<|0.001||95.0|2.04|4.55||Reported p-value is multiplicity-adjusted. Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Logistic Regression using GEE|Model include terms for treatment, baseline LDL-C, study week and treatment by study week interaction.|Ratio of odds of achieving pre-specified LDL-C level on EZ/Simva versus Atorva|||4.55|2.04|<0.001
91061121|NCT00535405|182005669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of odds|1.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.039||95.0|1.02|2.32||Reported p-value is multiplicity-adjusted. Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Logistic Regression using GEE|Model include terms for treatment, baseline LDL-C, study week and treatment by study week interaction.|Ratio of odds of achieving pre-specified LDL-C level on EZ/Simva versus Atorva|||2.32|1.02|0.039
91061122|NCT00535405|182005669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of odds|1.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.023||95.0|1.14|2.87||Reported p-value is multiplicity-adjusted. Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Logistic Regression using GEE|Model include terms for treatment, baseline LDL-C, study week and treatment by study week interaction.|Ratio of odds of achieving pre-specified LDL-C level on EZ/Simva versus Atorva|||2.87|1.14|0.023
91061123|NCT00535405|182005670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of odds|4.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|<|0.001||95.0|2.76|7.24||Reported p-value is multiplicity-adjusted. Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Logistic Regression using GEE|Model include terms for treatment, baseline LDL-C, study week and treatment by study week interaction.|Ratio of odds of achieving pre-specified LDL-C level on EZ/Simva versus Atorva|||7.24|2.76|<0.001
91061124|NCT00535405|182005670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of odds|1.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.026||95.0|1.07|2.94||Reported p-value is multiplicity-adjusted. Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Logistic Regression using GEE|Model include terms for treatment, baseline LDL-C, study week and treatment by study week interaction.|Ratio of odds of achieving pre-specified LDL-C level on EZ/Simva versus Atorva|||2.94|1.07|0.026
91061125|NCT00535405|182005670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of odds|2.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.017||95.0|1.23|4.18||Reported p-value is multiplicity-adjusted. Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Logistic Regression using GEE|Model include terms for treatment, baseline LDL-C, study week and treatment by study week interaction.|Ratio of odds of achieving pre-specified LDL-C level on EZ/Simva versus Atorva|||4.18|1.23|0.017
91061126|NCT00535405|182005671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of odds|7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2|<|0.001||95.0|4.31|13.42||Reported p-value is multiplicity-adjusted. Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Logistic Regression using GEE|Model include terms for treatment, baseline LDL-C, study week and treatment by study week interaction.|Ratio of odds of achieving pre-specified LDL-C level on EZ/Simva versus Atorva|||13.42|4.31|<0.001
91061127|NCT00535405|182005671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of odds|2.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69|<|0.001||95.0|1.86|4.67||Reported p-value is multiplicity-adjusted. Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Logistic Regression using GEE|Model include terms for treatment, baseline LDL-C, study week and treatment by study week interaction.|Ratio of odds of achieving pre-specified LDL-C level on EZ/Simva versus Atorva|||4.67|1.86|<0.001
91061128|NCT00535405|182005671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of odds|2.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46|<|0.001||95.0|1.42|3.27||Reported p-value is multiplicity-adjusted. Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Logistic Regression using GEE|Model include terms for treatment, baseline LDL-C, study week and treatment by study week interaction.|Ratio of odds of achieving pre-specified LDL-C level on EZ/Simva versus Atorva|||3.27|1.42|<0.001
91061129|NCT00535405|182005672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of odds|6.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.45|<|0.001||95.0|2.71|13.38||Reported p-value is multiplicity-adjusted. Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Logistic Regression using GEE|Model include terms for treatment, baseline LDL-C, study week and treatment by study week interaction.|Ratio of odds of achieving pre-specified LDL-C level on EZ/Simva versus Atorva|||13.38|2.71|<0.001
91061130|NCT00535405|182005672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of odds|1.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.069||95.0|0.96|2.6||Reported p-value is multiplicity-adjusted. Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Logistic Regression using GEE|Model include terms for treatment, baseline LDL-C, study week and treatment by study week interaction.|Ratio of odds of achieving pre-specified LDL-C level on EZ/Simva versus Atorva|||2.60|0.96|0.069
90822279|NCT02610777|181521901|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.706|||=|0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.469|1.061||P-value comparing EFS between treatment groups was based on the unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||HR:unadjusted stratified Cox proportional hazard regression with stratification(low-blast AML,IPSS-R risk groups=very high,high,or intermediate for HRMDS/CMML),treatment as factor.HR\<1:better prevention of EFS in combination arm than azacitidine arm.|Event-Free Survival (EFS)||1.061|0.469|=0.092
90822280|NCT02610777|181521904|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.562|||=|0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.579||P-value is from an unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio (HR) is based on an unstratified Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment as a factor.|||1.579|0.200|=0.267
90822281|NCT02610777|181521905|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Rate Difference|9.61|||=|0.312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.83|28.04||P-value is from an unstratified Cochran-Mantel Haenszel chi-square test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Absolute difference \>0 represent better response achieved on pevonedistat combination compared to azacitidine treatment alone.|||28.04|-8.83|=0.312
90822282|NCT02610777|181521906|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Rate Difference|5.63||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.19|24.44||P-value is from an unstratified Cochran-Mantel Haenszel chi-square test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Absolute difference \>0 represent better response achieved on pevonedistat combination compared to azacitidine treatment alone.|||24.44|-13.19|0.560
90822283|NCT02610777|181521907|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Rate Difference|8.64|||=|0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.09|26.38||P-value is from an unstratified Cochran-Mantel Haenszel chi-square test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Absolute difference \>0 represent better response achieved on pevonedistat combination compared to azacitidine treatment alone.|||26.38|-9.09|=0.343
90822284|NCT02610777|181521908|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Rate Difference|-18.82|||=|0.296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.91|15.26||P-value is from an unstratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Absolute difference \>0 represent better response achieved on pevonedistat combination compared to azacitidine treatment alone.|||15.26|-52.91|=0.296
90822285|NCT02610777|181521909|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Rate Difference|13.16|||=|0.152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.49|30.81||P-value is from an unstratified Cochran-Mantel Haenszel chi-square test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Absolute difference \>0 represent better response achieved on pevonedistat combination compared to azacitidine treatment alone.|||30.81|-4.49|=0.152
90822286|NCT02610777|181521910|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Rate Difference|10.53|||=|0.301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.13|30.18||P-value is from an unstratified Cochran-Mantel Haenszel chi-square test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Absolute difference \>0 represent better response achieved on pevonedistat combination compared to azacitidine treatment alone.|||30.18|-9.13|=0.301
90822287|NCT02610777|181521911|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Rate Difference|13.16|||=|0.254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.12|35.44||P-value is from an unstratified Cochran-Mantel Haenszel chi-square test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Absolute difference \>0 represent better response achieved on pevonedistat combination compared to azacitidine treatment alone.|||35.44|-9.12|=0.254
90822288|NCT02610777|181521912|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Rate Difference|-4.71|||=|0.787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.33|28.92||P-value is from an unstratified Cochran-Mantel Haenszel chi-square test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Absolute difference \>0 represent better response achieved on pevonedistat combination compared to azacitidine treatment alone.|||28.92|-38.33|=0.787
90822289|NCT02610777|181521913|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.789|||=|0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.308|2.02||P-value is from an unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio was based on an unstratified Cox proportional hazard regression model and treatment as a factor in the model.|||2.020|0.308|=0.620
90822290|NCT02610777|181521914|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.719|||=|0.436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.313|1.653||P-value is from an unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio was based on an unstratified Cox proportional hazard regression model and treatment as a factor in the model.|||1.653|0.313|=0.436
90822291|NCT02610777|181521915|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81|||=|0.565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.395|1.662||P-value is from an unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio was based on an unstratified Cox proportional hazard regression model and treatment as a factor in the model.|||1.662|0.395|=0.565
90822292|NCT02610777|181521916|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.42|||=|0.383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.057|3.109||P-value comparing duration of CR in low blast AML between treatment groups is based on unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio was based on an unstratified Cox proportional hazard regression model and treatment as a factor in the model.|||3.109|0.057|=0.383
90822293|NCT02610777|181521917|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.206|||=|0.498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.699|2.081||P-value is from an unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||HR is based on an unstratified Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment as a factor. HR\>1 for the treatment indicates a shorter time to first CR, CRi or PR in the Pevonedistat Combination arm compared to the Azacitidine only arm.|||2.081|0.699|=0.498
90822294|NCT02610777|181521918|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.905|||=|0.888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.226|3.62||P-value is from an unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||HR is based on an unstratified Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment as a factor. HR\<1for the treatment indicates a longer time to Subsequent Therapy in the Pevonedistat Combination arm compared to the Azacitidine only arm.|||3.620|0.226|=0.888
90822295|NCT02610777|181521919|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Rate Difference|19.231|||=|0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.925|45.386||P-value is from an unstratified Cochran-Mantel Haenszel chi-square test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage of Participants With RBCs-transfusion Independence||45.386|-6.925|=0.162
90822296|NCT02610777|181521919|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Rate Difference|20.0|||=|0.454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.381|66.381||P-value is from an unstratified Cochran-Mantel Haenszel chi-square test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage of Participants With Platelet-transfusion Independence||66.381|-26.381|=0.454
91061131|NCT00535405|182005672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of odds|1.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.9||Reported p-value is multiplicity-adjusted. Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Logistic Regression using GEE|Model include terms for treatment, baseline LDL-C, study week and treatment by study week interaction.|Ratio of odds of achieving pre-specified LDL-C level on EZ/Simva versus Atorva|||2.90|1.10|0.039
90822297|NCT02610777|181521921|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79|||=|0.266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.521|1.198||P-value is from an unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||HR is based on an unstratified Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment as a factor. HR\<1for the treatment indicates a longer time to PD, Relapse, or Death in the Pevonedistat Combination arm compared to the Azacitidine only arm.|||1.198|0.521|=0.266
91061132|NCT03295630|182005680|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.7|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Difference (steps) between accelerometer quantified step count (thigh placement) and observed step count||||
91061133|NCT03295630|182005680|OTHER||Intraclass Correlation Coefficient|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.78||||||Correlation between accelerometer quantified step count (thigh placement) and observed step count||0.78|-0.1|
91061134|NCT03295630|182005680|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Difference (steps) between accelerometer quantified steps (ankle placement) and observed step count||||
91061135|NCT03295630|182005680|OTHER||Intraclass Correlation Coefficient|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.0||||||Correlation between accelerometer quantified steps (ankle placement) and observed steps||1.0|0.99|
91061136|NCT03091179|182005700|EQUIVALENCE|P value was calculated using the means and standard deviations for each of the patient characteristics.||||||0.006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.006
91061137|NCT03164616|182005724|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.00093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.885||Analysis was performed using a stratified log-rank test adjusting for PD-L1 tumor expression (TC ≥50% vs \<50%), histology (squamous vs non-squamous) and disease stage (IVA vs IVB) and using the Breslow approach for handling ties.|Log Rank||The HR and confidence interval (CI) were estimated from a stratified Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for PD-L1 (TC ≥50% vs \<50%), histology (squamous vs non-squamous) and disease stage (IVA vs IVB) and using Efron method to control for ties.|D + SoC vs SoC alone. A hazard ratio (HR) \<1 favors D + SoC to be associated with a longer PFS than SoC alone.||0.885|0.620|0.00093
91061138|NCT03164616|182005725|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.07581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.724|1.016||Analysis was performed using a stratified log-rank test adjusting for PD-L1 tumor expression (TC ≥50% vs \<50%), histology (squamous vs non-squamous) and disease stage (IVA vs IVB) and using the Breslow approach for handling ties.|Log Rank||The HR and CI were estimated from a stratified Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for PD-L1 (TC ≥50% vs \<50%), histology (squamous vs non-squamous) and disease stage (IVA vs IVB) and using Efron method to control for ties.|D + SoC vs SoC alone. An HR \<1 favors D + SoC to be associated with a longer OS than SoC alone.||1.016|0.724|0.07581
91061139|NCT03164616|182005726|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.00031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.86||Analysis was performed using a stratified log-rank test adjusting for PD-L1 tumor expression (TC ≥50% vs \<50%), histology (squamous vs non-squamous) and disease stage (IVA vs IVB) and using the Breslow approach for handling ties.|Log Rank||The HR and CI were estimated from a stratified Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for PD-L1 (TC ≥50% vs \<50%), histology (squamous vs non-squamous) and disease stage (IVA vs IVB) and using Efron method to control for ties.|T + D + SoC vs SoC alone. An HR \<1 favors T + D + SoC to be associated with a longer PFS than SoC alone.||0.860|0.600|0.00031
91061140|NCT03164616|182005727|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.00304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.916||Analysis was performed using a stratified log-rank test adjusting for PD-L1 tumor expression (TC ≥50% vs \<50%), histology (squamous vs non-squamous) and disease stage (IVA vs IVB) and using the Breslow approach for handling ties.|Log Rank||The HR and CI were estimated from a stratified Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for PD-L1 (TC ≥50% vs \<50%), histology (squamous vs non-squamous) and disease stage (IVA vs IVB) and using Efron method to control for ties.|T + D + SoC vs SoC alone. An HR \<1 favors T + D + SoC to be associated with a longer OS than SoC alone.||0.916|0.650|0.00304
91061141|NCT03164616|182005728|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.382|2.619||||||D + SoC vs SoC alone. An odds ratio \>1 favors D + SoC compared to SoC alone. Analysis was performed using logistic regression adjusting for PD-L1 tumor expression (TC ≥50% vs \<50%), histology (squamous vs non-squamous) and disease stage (IVA vs IVB), with the CI calculated using a profile likelihood approach.||2.619|1.382|
91061142|NCT03164616|182005728|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|2.367||||||T + D + SoC vs SoC alone. An odds ratio \>1 favors T + D + SoC compared to SoC alone. Analysis was performed using logistic regression adjusting for PD-L1 tumor expression (TC ≥50% vs TC \<50%), histology (squamous vs non-squamous) and disease stage (IVA vs IVB), with the CI calculated using a profile likelihood approach.||2.367|1.260|
91061143|NCT03164616|182005731|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.666|0.928|||||The HR and CI were estimated from a stratified Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for PD-L1 (TC ≥50% vs \<50%), histology (squamous vs non-squamous) and disease stage (IVA vs IVB) and using Efron method to control for ties.|D + SoC vs SoC alone. An HR \<1 favors D + SoC to be associated with a longer PFS2 than SoC alone.||0.928|0.666|
91061144|NCT03164616|182005731|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.632|0.883|||||The HR and CI were estimated from a stratified Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for PD-L1 (TC ≥50% vs \<50%), histology (squamous vs non-squamous) and disease stage (IVA vs IVB) and using Efron method to control for ties.|T + D + SoC vs SoC alone. An HR \<1 favors T + D + SoC to be associated with a longer PFS2 than SoC alone.||0.883|0.632|
91061145|NCT02503787|182005761|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A negative value for change in pain represents a reduction (improvement) of the subject's pain score. The null hypothesis was that the mean change from baseline to 3 months equals 0. The sample provided over 90% power, with two-sided significance level of 0.05, to detect a change of 2 points.||||<0.01
91061146|NCT00174954|182005789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.785||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|paired t-test|||||||0.785
91061147|NCT00174954|182005790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|paired t-test|||||||0.020
91061148|NCT00839254|182005791|SUPERIORITY|VE (defined as 1 minus Relative Risk (RR)) was calculated by comparing numbers of culture-confirmed IPD. The number of subjects with IPD in each cluster was compared between groups (10PN3+1 vs Control). This comparison was done using a negative binomial log-linear model with correction for dispersion group- and cluster-related effect.|VE (1-RR)|100.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|82.8|100.0||P-value was calculated using a classical log linear Poisson regression with strata, without taking into account the multiplicity of the endpoints.|Regression, Linear|||Analysis aimed at providing an estimate of vaccine effectiveness (VE) at preventing culture-confirmed IPD by comparing PYARs between groups taking into account the following parameters: T, n, n+ (number of clusters with at least one event culture-confirmed ID), and n/T. VE of the 10Pn vaccine in preventing culture-confirmed IPD due to the 10 vaccine serotypes was demonstrated if the 2-sided p-value calculated for the null hypothesis H0 = (vaccine-type \[VT\] IPD VE = 0%) was lower than (\<) 5%.||100|82.8|<0.0001
91061149|NCT00839254|182005792|SUPERIORITY|VE (defined as 1 minus Relative Risk (RR)) was calculated by comparing numbers of culture-confirmed IPD. The number of subjects with IPD in each cluster was compared between groups (10PN2+1 vs Control). This comparison was done using a negative binomial log-linear model with correction for dispersion group- and cluster-related effect.|VE (1-RR)|91.8|||=|0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.3|99.6||p-value was calculated using a classical log linear Poisson regression with strata, without taking into account the multiplicity of the endpoints.|Regression, Linear|||Analysis aimed at providing an estimate of vaccine effectiveness (VE) at preventing culture-confirmed IPD by comparing PYARs between groups taking into account the following parameters: T, n, n+ (number of clusters with at least one event culture-confirmed ID), and n/T. VE of the 10Pn vaccine in preventing culture-confirmed IPD due to the 10 vaccine serotypes was demonstrated if the 2-sided p-value calculated for the null hypothesis H0 = (vaccine-type \[VT\] IPD VE = 0%) was lower than (\<) 5%.||99.6|58.3|= 0.0009
91061150|NCT00509795|182005913|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was set at 10%. The power is 90% according to the sample size estimation of the study protocol. Although not in the analysis plan for the study, in a separate communication, the FDA further explained that, whereas the 10% non-inferiority margin would be used to assess non-inferiority, a 5% non-inferiority margin would be used to assess clinical equivalence.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.1|-4.4|3.1|||||The difference is calculated as ranibizumab minus IAI. A positive value favors IAI 2.0Q4. As adjustment of multiple comparisons as conditional sequence of statistical hypotheses is used with alpha = 0.049.|The statistical approach included a conditional sequence of calculations of the 95.1% CI using normal approximation of the difference between the proportion of patients with maintained vision at Week 52 for the group treated with 0.5 mg ranibizumab and the proportion of patients with maintained vision for each of the groups treated with IAI.||3.1|-4.4|
91061151|NCT00509795|182005913|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was set at 10%. The power is 90% according to the sample size estimation of the study protocol. Although not in the analysis plan for the study, in a separate communication, the FDA further explained that, whereas the 10% non-inferiority margin would be used to assess non-inferiority, a 5% non-inferiority margin would be used to assess clinical equivalence.|Risk Difference (RD)|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.1|-5.1|2.1|||||The difference is calculated as ranibizumab minus IAI. A negative value favors the IAI 0.5Q4 group. As adjustment of multiple comparisons as conditional sequence of statistical hypotheses is used with alpha = 0.049.|The statistical approach included a conditional sequence of calculations of the 95.1% CI using normal approximation of the difference between the proportion of patients with maintained vision at Week 52 for the group treated with 0.5 mg ranibizumab and the proportion of patients with maintained vision for each of the groups treated with IAI (EYLEA, VEGF Trap-Eye).||2.1|-5.1|
91061152|NCT00509795|182005913|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was set at 10%. The power is 90% according to the sample size estimation of the study protocol. Although not in the analysis plan for the study, in a separate communication, the FDA further explained that, whereas the 10% non-inferiority margin would be used to assess non-inferiority, a 5% non-inferiority margin would be used to assess clinical equivalence.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.1|-4.5|3.1|||||The difference is calculated as ranibizumab minus IAI. A negative value favors the IAI 2.0Q8 group. As adjustment of multiple comparisons as conditional sequence of statistical hypotheses is used with alpha = 0.049.|The statistical approach included a conditional sequence of calculations of the 95.1% CI using normal approximation of the difference between the proportion of patients with maintained vision at Week 52 for the group treated with 0.5 mg ranibizumab and the proportion of patients with maintained vision for each of the groups treated with IAI (EYLEA, VEGF Trap-Eye).||3.1|-4.5|
91061153|NCT00509795|182005914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Differences in Least Squares means|3.15||||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.1|0.92|5.37||As adjustment of multiple comparisons, a conditional sequence of statistical hypotheses is used with alpha = 0.049|ANCOVA||The difference is calculated as IAI minus ranibizumab. A positive value favors IAI 2.0Q4.|The pairwise comparison is performed as contrast statement in the analysis of covariance model with treatment group as fixed factor (all 4 treatment groups) and the baseline measure as covariate. The null hypothesis is that both mean changes are equal.||5.37|0.92|0.0054
91061154|NCT00509795|182005914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Differences in Least Squares means|0.8||||0.4793|TWO_SIDED|95.1|-3.03|1.43||As adjustment of multiple comparisons, a conditional sequence of statistical hypotheses is used with alpha = 0.049|ANCOVA||The difference is calculated as IAI minus ranibizumab. A positive value favors IAI 0.5Q4.|The pairwise comparison is performed as contrast statement in the analysis of covariance model with treatment group as fixed factor (all 4 treatment groups) and the baseline measure as covariate. The null hypothesis is that both mean changes are equal.||1.43|-3.03|0.4793
91061155|NCT00509795|182005914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Differences in Least Squares Means|0.26||||0.8179|TWO_SIDED|95.1|-1.97|2.49||As adjustment of multiple comparisons, a conditional sequence of statistical hypotheses is used with alpha = 0.049|ANCOVA||The difference is calculated as IAI minus ranibizumab. A positive value favors IAI 2.0Q8.|The pairwise comparison is performed as contrast statement in the analysis of covariance model with treatment group as fixed factor (all 4 treatment groups) and the baseline measure as covariate. The null hypothesis is that both mean changes are equal.||2.49|-1.97|0.8179
91061156|NCT00509795|182005915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|6.6||||0.1042|TWO_SIDED|95.1|-1.0|14.1||As adjustment of multiple comparisons, a conditional sequence of statistical hypotheses is used with alpha = 0.049.|Chi-squared||The difference is calculated as IAI minus ranibizumab. A positive value favors IAI 2.0Q4.|The null hypothesis is that both percentages are equal.||14.1|-1.0|0.1042
91061157|NCT00509795|182005915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.0||||0.1037|TWO_SIDED|95.1|-13.2|1.2||As adjustment of multiple comparisons, a conditional sequence of statistical hypotheses is used with alpha = 0.049.|Chi-squared||The difference is calculated as IAI minus ranibizumab. A positive value favors IAI 0.5Q4.|The null hypothesis is that both percentages are equal.||1.2|-13.2|0.1037
90822298|NCT01173601|181521931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.338||||||In order to test the primary outcome between each LY2216684 dose and placebo while controlling the overall Type I error at 0.05, the significance level was a priori partitioned equally between the 2 LY2216684 dose-placebo comparisons at 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.338
91061158|NCT00509795|182005915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.4||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.1|-7.7|7.0||As adjustment of multiple comparisons, a conditional sequence of statistical hypotheses is used with alpha = 0.049.|Chi-squared||The difference is calculated as VEGF Trap-Eye minus ranibizumab. A positive value favors VEGF Trap-Eye 2.0Q8.|The pairwise The null hypothesis is that both percentages are equal.||7.0|-7.7|0.93
91061159|NCT00509795|182005916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Differences Least Squares means|1.28||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.1|-0.73|3.28||As adjustment of multiple comparisons, a conditional sequence of statistical hypotheses is used with alpha = 0.049|ANCOVA||The difference is calculated as IAI minus ranibizumab. A positive value favors IAI 2.0Q4.|The pairwise comparison is performed as contrast statement in the analysis of covariance model with treatment group as fixed factor (all 4 treatment groups) and the baseline measure as covariate. The null hypothesis is that both mean changes are equal.||3.28|-0.73|0.2090
91061160|NCT00509795|182005916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Differences in Least Squares means|-0.67||||0.5128|TWO_SIDED|95.1|-2.69|1.35||As adjustment of multiple comparisons, a conditional sequence of statistical hypotheses is used with alpha = 0.049|ANCOVA||The difference is calculated as IAI minus ranibizumab. A positive value favors IAI 0.5Q4.|The pairwise comparison is performed as contrast statement in the analysis of covariance model with treatment group as fixed factor (all 4 treatment groups) and the baseline measure as covariate. The null hypothesis is that both mean changes are equal.||1.35|-2.69|0.5128
91061161|NCT00509795|182005916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Differences in Least Squares means|-0.6||||0.5579|TWO_SIDED|95.1|-2.61|1.42||As adjustment of multiple comparisons, a conditional sequence of statistical hypotheses is used with alpha = 0.049|ANCOVA||The difference is calculated as IAI minus ranibizumab. A positive value favors IAI 2.0Q8.|The pairwise comparison is performed as contrast statement in the analysis of covariance model with treatment group as fixed factor (all 4 treatment groups) and the baseline measure as covariate. The null hypothesis is that both mean changes are equal.||1.42|-2.61|0.5579
91061162|NCT00509795|182005917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Differences in Least Squares means|-0.33||||0.3575|TWO_SIDED|95.1|-1.04|0.38||As adjustment of multiple comparisons, a conditional sequence of statistical hypotheses is used with alpha = 0.049|ANCOVA||The difference is calculated as IAI minus ranibizumab. A negative value favors IAI 2.0Q4|The pairwise comparison is performed as contrast statement in the analysis of covariance model with treatment group as fixed factor (all 4 treatment groups) and the baseline measure as covariate. The null hypothesis is that both mean changes are equal.||0.38|-1.04|0.3575
91061163|NCT00509795|182005917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Differences in Least Squares means|0.71||||0.0507|TWO_SIDED|95.1|-0.01|1.42||As adjustment of multiple comparisons, a conditional sequence of statistical hypotheses is used with alpha = 0.049|ANCOVA||The difference is calculated as IAI minus ranibizumab. A negative value favors IAI 0.5Q4|The pairwise comparison is performed as contrast statement in the analysis of covariance model with treatment group as fixed factor (all 4 treatment groups) and the baseline measure as covariate. The null hypothesis is that both mean changes are equal.||1.42|-0.01|0.0507
91061164|NCT00509795|182005917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Differences in Least Squares means|0.86||||0.0173|TWO_SIDED|95.1|0.15|1.58||As adjustment of multiple comparisons, a conditional sequence of statistical hypotheses is used with alpha = 0.049|ANCOVA||The difference is calculated as IAI minus ranibizumab. A negative value favors IAI 2.0Q8|The pairwise comparison is performed as contrast statement in the analysis of covariance model with treatment group as fixed factor (all 4 treatment groups) and the baseline measure as covariate. The null hypothesis is that both mean changes are equal.||1.58|0.15|0.0173
91061165|NCT02213289|182005974|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0024|||||||One-sided Z-test|This was a test of whether the observed 1-year survival rate was significantly different from historical 50% rate.||||||0.0024
91061166|NCT02687529|182005983|EQUIVALENCE|The number of positive and negative CST001 assay results for each subject, across all sites and operators were compared. In order for a subject to have a concordant result, the same assay call must be observed for all replicates across all sites (6/6).|proportion of concordant calls|83.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|72.13|91.38||||||||91.38|72.13|
91061167|NCT02517463|182005986|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The PPP from a previous study was 67.2%. Assuming the PPP in the preovulatory and post-ovulatory groups were equivalent, and taking 10% to be the maximum permitted difference for equivalence, a minimum of 273 subjects in each group would be required to confirm equivalence between the two groups with a power of 80% and type I error of 0.05. Therefore, our recruitment of 700 subjects with more than 300 in each group was sufficient."|||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
91061168|NCT02517463|182005987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.564|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.564
91061169|NCT02517463|182005988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91061170|NCT06075277|182005998|OTHER||Ratios of adjusted geometric means [%]|126.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|112.09|143.08|||||Ratio calculated as test/reference\*100. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 19.8|Relative bioavailability of Zongertinib administered in fed state (Test) compared with Zongertinib administered in fasted state (Reference) was estimated by the ratios of the gMeans (Test/Reference). Their corresponding 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were provided. This method corresponds to 2 one-sided t-test procedures, each at the 5% significance level.||143.08|112.09|
91061171|NCT06075277|182005999|OTHER||Ratios of adjusted geometric means [%]|126.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|106.34|149.58|||||Ratio calculated as test/reference\*100. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 27.9.|Relative bioavailability of Zongertinib administered in fed state (Test) compared with Zongertinib administered in fasted state (Reference) was estimated by the ratios of the gMeans (Test/Reference). Their corresponding 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were provided. This method corresponds to 2 one-sided t-test procedures, each at the 5% significance level.||149.58|106.34|
90822299|NCT01173601|181521931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.201||||||In order to test the primary outcome between each LY2216684 dose and placebo while controlling the overall Type I error at 0.05, the significance level was a priori partitioned equally between the 2 LY2216684 dose-placebo comparisons at 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.201
90822300|NCT04737278|181521952|OTHER|test of the hypothesis that the score on day 28 is different from the baseline score in the Placebo group|||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
91061172|NCT06075277|182006000|OTHER||Ratios of adjusted geometric means [%]|126.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|111.7|142.21|||||Ratio calculated as test/reference\*100. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 19.6.|Relative bioavailability of Zongertinib administered in fed state (Test) compared with Zongertinib administered in fasted state (Reference) was estimated by the ratios of the gMeans (Test/Reference). Their corresponding 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were provided. This method corresponds to 2 one-sided t-test procedures, each at the 5% significance level.||142.21|111.70|
91061173|NCT02603146|182006001|OTHER||Cumulative Probability|0.336|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.213|0.459|||||Using Kaplan-Meier product-limit method (and Greenwood's formula for confidence interval), estimated the cumulative probability of development of CL-RA by Month 36 for HCQ.|||0.459|0.213|
91061174|NCT02603146|182006001|OTHER||Cumulative Probability|0.394|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.268|0.519|||||Using Kaplan-Meier product-limit method (and Greenwood's formula for confidence interval), estimated the cumulative probability of development of CL-RA by Month 36 for Placebo.|||0.519|0.268|
91061175|NCT02603146|182006001|SUPERIORITY|"The analysis is based on the KM estimated risk of CL- RA at 36 months, where risk = (1-KM estimated probability of survival). Survival for this analysis is defined as absence of CL-RA. Estimated risks were derived from a Kaplan-Meier curve using censored time-to-event data to account for attrition under the assumption of non-informative censoring."|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.058||||0.522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.336|0.22||The test statistic is a Wald-type chi-square statistic derived by dividing the difference of the logit-transformed KM survival estimates for each arm by the associated variance derived using the delta-method \[Klein, et. al. 2007\].|Chi-squared||Risk difference for HCQ - Placebo|||0.220|-0.336|0.522
91061176|NCT02603146|182006002|OTHER||Cumulative Probability|0.165|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.076|0.225|||||Using Kaplan-Meier product-limit method (and Greenwood's formula for confidence interval), estimated the cumulative probability of development of CL-RA by Month 12 for HCQ.|||0.225|0.076|
91061177|NCT02603146|182006002|OTHER||Cumulative Probability|0.194|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.099|0.289|||||Using Kaplan-Meier product-limit method (and Greenwood's formula for confidence interval), estimated the cumulative probability of development of CL-RA by Month 12 for Placebo.|||0.289|0.099|
91061178|NCT02603146|182006002|SUPERIORITY|"The analysis is based on the KM estimated risk of CL- RA at 12 months, where risk = (1-KM estimated probability of survival). Survival for this analysis is defined as absence of CL-RA. Estimated risks were derived from a Kaplan-Meier curve using censored time-to-event data to account for attrition under the assumption of non-informative censoring."|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.029||||0.668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.188|0.131||The test statistic is a Wald-type chi-square statistic derived by dividing the difference of the logit-transformed KM survival estimates for each arm by the associated variance derived using the delta-method \[Klein, et. al. 2007\].|Chi-squared||Risk difference for HCQ - Placebo|||0.131|-0.188|0.668
91061179|NCT02603146|182006003|OTHER||Cumulative Probability|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.088|0.273|||||Using Kaplan-Meier product-limit method (and Greenwood's formula for confidence interval), estimated the cumulative probability of development of IA by Month 12 for HCQ.|||0.273|0.088|
91061180|NCT02603146|182006003|OTHER||Cumulative Probability|0.194|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.099|0.289|||||Using Kaplan-Meier product-limit method (and Greenwood's formula for confidence interval), estimated the cumulative probability of development of IA by Month 12 for Placebo.|||0.289|0.099|
91061181|NCT02603146|182006003|SUPERIORITY|"The analysis is based on the KM estimated risk of IA at 12 months, where risk = (1-KM estimated probability of survival). Survival for this analysis is defined as absence of IA. Estimated risks were derived from a Kaplan-Meier curve using censored time-to-event data to account for attrition under the assumption of non-informative censoring."|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.014||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.177|0.15||The test statistic is a Wald-type chi-square statistic derived by dividing the difference of the logit-transformed KM survival estimates for each arm by the associated variance derived using the delta-method \[Klein, et. al. 2007\].|Chi-squared||Risk difference for HCQ - Placebo|||0.150|-0.177|0.840
91061182|NCT02603146|182006004|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.652|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.652
91061183|NCT02603146|182006005|OTHER||Cumulative Probability|0.356|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.482|||||Using Kaplan-Meier product-limit method (and Greenwood's formula for confidence interval), estimated the cumulative probability of development of IA by Month 36 for HCQ.|||0.482|0.230|
91061184|NCT02603146|182006005|OTHER||Cumulative Probability|0.425|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.298|0.551|||||Using Kaplan-Meier product-limit method (and Greenwood's formula for confidence interval), estimated the cumulative probability of development of IA by Month 36 for Placebo.|||0.551|0.298|
91061185|NCT02603146|182006005|SUPERIORITY|"The analysis is based on the KM estimated risk of IA at 36 months, where risk = (1-KM estimated probability of survival). Survival for this analysis is defined as absence of IA. Estimated risks were derived from a Kaplan-Meier curve using censored time-to-event data to account for attrition under the assumption of non-informative censoring."|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.069||||0.452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.363|0.226||The test statistic is a Wald-type chi-square statistic derived by dividing the difference of the logit-transformed KM survival estimates for each arm by the associated variance derived using the delta-method \[Klein, et. al. 2007\].|Chi-squared||Risk difference for HCQ - Placebo|||0.226|-0.363|0.452
91061186|NCT02603146|182006006|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.928||||||Week 52 results|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.928
91061187|NCT02603146|182006006|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.076||||||Month 36 results|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.076
91061188|NCT02603146|182006007|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.781||||||Week 52 results|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.781
91061189|NCT02603146|182006007|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.457||||||Month 36 results|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.457
91061190|NCT02603146|182006008|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.576||||||Week 52 results|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.576
91061191|NCT02603146|182006008|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.323||||||Month 36 results|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.323
91061192|NCT02603146|182006009|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.865||||||Week 52 results|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.865
91061193|NCT02603146|182006009|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.179||||||Month 36 results|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.179
91061194|NCT02603146|182006010|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.634||||||Week 52 results|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.634
91061195|NCT02603146|182006010|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.574||||||Month 36 results|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.574
91061196|NCT02603146|182006011|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.724||||||Week 52 results|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.724
91061197|NCT02603146|182006011|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.149||||||Month 36 results|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.149
91061198|NCT02603146|182006015|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.809|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.809
90822301|NCT04737278|181521952|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||test of the hypothesis that the score on day 28 is different than the baseline score||||0.01
90822302|NCT04737278|181521953|OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 28. Between group comparison was made using ANCOVA accounting for baseline values, no significance at p\<0.05. Within group comparisons were made using the paired Student's t test.||||0.15
90822303|NCT04737278|181521954|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.01
90822304|NCT04737278|181521954|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||comparison made between placebo and Cunermuspir at baseline||||0.03
90822305|NCT04737278|181521954|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||comparison made at day 28||||0.01
90822306|NCT04737278|181521954|OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparison between baseline and day 28||||0.07
90822307|NCT04737278|181521955|OTHER|||||||0.54|||||||Fisher Exact|||base line between group comparisons||||0.54
90822308|NCT04737278|181521955|OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.14
90822309|NCT04737278|181521956|OTHER|||||||0.54|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.54
90822310|NCT04737278|181521957|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANCOVA|||The original report from KGK Synergize/Science did not specify if the results are ANCOVA or a between group comparison at 2ay 28||||<0.01
91061199|NCT05016960|182006033|OTHER|one group paired samples t test to compare scores at pre vs. post treatment||||||0.503|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.503
90822311|NCT04737278|181521958|OTHER|||||||0.31|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.31
90822312|NCT04737278|181521959|OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.48
90822313|NCT04737278|181521960|OTHER|||||||0.84|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.84
90822314|NCT04737278|181521961|OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.63
90822315|NCT04737278|181521962|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.05
90822316|NCT04737278|181521963|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.01
90822317|NCT04737278|181521964|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.01
90822318|NCT04737278|181521965|OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.48
90822319|NCT04737278|181521966|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.06
90822320|NCT04737278|181521967|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.02
90822321|NCT04737278|181521968|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.03
90822322|NCT04737278|181521968|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparison of neutrophils from baseline to day 28||||0.05
90822323|NCT04737278|181521969|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.01
90822324|NCT04737278|181521970|OTHER|||||||0.47|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||comparison of baseline values||||0.47
90822325|NCT04737278|181521970|OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||comparison performed on data from day 28||||0.24
90822326|NCT04737278|181521971|OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||comparison of eosinophil counts at day 28||||0.11
90822327|NCT04737278|181521972|OTHER|||||||0.98|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The day 28 basophil counts on day 28 were compared between the two arms of this study.||||0.98
90822328|NCT04737278|181521973|OTHER|||||||0.025||||||This p value is for the treatment source. Visits (p=0.422) and visits x treatments (p=0.153) did not meet the threshold of significance.|ANOVA|||"All other statistical analyses were performed by KGK Synergize. This site was used to determine that the NLR were normally distributed https://www.gigacalculator.com/calculators/normality-test-calculator.php~Because these data fulfilled the assumptions of ANOVA, the data were analyzed using this site:~http://vassarstats.net/anova2u.html"||||0.025
90822329|NCT04737278|181521974|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of blood glucose in the Cunermuspir arm between enrollment baseline and day 28.||||0.06
90822330|NCT04737278|181521974|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of enrollment baseline blood glucose and day 28 in the placebo arm||||0.04
90822331|NCT04737278|181521974|OTHER|||||||0.92|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.92
90822332|NCT04737278|181521975|OTHER|||||||0.51|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.51
90822333|NCT04737278|181521976|OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.38
90822334|NCT04737278|181521977|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.01
90822335|NCT04737278|181521978|OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.23
90822336|NCT04737278|181521978|OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.18
90822337|NCT04737278|181521978|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Blood sodium concentration between baseline and day 28 in the Placebo group.||||0.01
90822338|NCT04737278|181521979|OTHER|||||||0.58|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.58
90822339|NCT04737278|181521979|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparison of blood potassium concentration upon enrollment and day 28 in the Cunermuspir participants||||<0.001
90822340|NCT04737278|181521979|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparison of blood potassium concentrations from enrollment to day 28 in participants in the Placebo arm.||||<0.001
90822341|NCT04737278|181521980|OTHER|||||||0.87|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.87
90822342|NCT04737278|181521980|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparison between baseline and day 28 chloride concentrations in the Cunermuspir group||||0.003
90822343|NCT04737278|181521980|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparison of blood chloride concentrations between baseline and day 28 in Placebo Arm participants||||0.003
90822344|NCT04737278|181521981|OTHER|||||||0.36|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Bilirubin concentrations between Placebo and Cunermuspir compared at day 28||||0.36
90822345|NCT04737278|181521981|OTHER|||||||0.72|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank||comparison of bilirubin concentrations between baseline and day 28 in the Cunermuspir Arm||||0.72
90822346|NCT04737278|181521981|OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||bilirubin concentrations compared between baseline and Day 28 in the Placebo Arm||||0.35
90822347|NCT04737278|181521982|OTHER|||||||0.95|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.95
90822348|NCT04737278|181521982|OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||comparison between baseline and day 28 values in Cunermuspir group||||0.4
90822349|NCT04737278|181521982|OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||comparison between baseline and day 28 values for the Placebo Arm||||0.8
90822350|NCT04737278|181521983|OTHER|||||||0.62|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||comparison of AST enzyme activity in blood on day 28 between Cunermuspir and Placebo||||0.62
90822351|NCT04737278|181521983|OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||baseline to day 28 comparison||||0.24
90822352|NCT04737278|181521983|OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||baseline to day 28 comparison of AST activity in Placebo group||||0.11
90822353|NCT04737278|181521984|OTHER|||||||0.11||||||Comparison of GGT activities in blood of two arms: Cunermuspir and Placebo on Day 28|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||comparison between placebo and Cunermuspir at day 28||||0.11
91061200|NCT05016960|182006034|NON_INFERIORITY|one group paired samples t test||||||0.23|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.230
91061201|NCT05016960|182006035|OTHER|one group paired samples t test||||||0.061|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.061
91061202|NCT05016960|182006036|OTHER|one group paired samples t test|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
91061203|NCT05016960|182006037|OTHER|one group paired samples t test||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.01
91061204|NCT05016960|182006038|OTHER|one group paired samples t test||||||0.625|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.625
91061205|NCT05016960|182006039|OTHER|one group paired samples t test||||||0.134|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.134
91061206|NCT05016960|182006040|OTHER|one group paired samples t test||||||0.515|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.515
91061207|NCT05016960|182006041|OTHER|one group paired samples t test||||||0.41|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.410
91061208|NCT05016960|182006042|OTHER|one group paired samples t test||||||0.706|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.706
90822354|NCT04737278|181521984|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank|||Comparison of GGT activities in participants' blood at baseline and on day 28||||0.01
91061209|NCT05016960|182006043|OTHER|one group paired samples t test||||||0.062|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.062
91061210|NCT05016960|182006044|OTHER|one group paired samples t test||||||0.39|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.390
91061211|NCT05016960|182006045|OTHER|one group paired samples t test||||||0.38|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.38
91061212|NCT05016960|182006046|OTHER|One group paired samples t test||||||0.064|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.064
91061213|NCT03300817|182006069|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6834|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test|||||||0.6834
91061214|NCT03713593|182006100|OTHER|Descriptive assessment|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.834|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.712|0.978|||||Based on Cox model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region, MPVI or extrahepatic spread or both, AFP and ECOG PS.|||0.978|0.712|
91061215|NCT03713593|182006101|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.0227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.708|0.997|||Log Rank|Onesided p-value based on logrank test stratified by geographic region, portal vein invasion/extrahepatic spread/both AFP status,ECOG status.|Based on Cox model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region, MPVI or extrahepatic spread or both, AFP and ECOG PS.|||0.997|0.708|0.0227
91061216|NCT03713593|182006102|OTHER|Descriptive assessment|Difference in percentage|8.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|14.2|||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by geographic region, MPVI or extrahepatic spread or both, AFP and ECOG PS.|||14.2|2.8|
91061217|NCT03713593|182006105|OTHER|Descriptive assessment|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.93|||||Based on Cox model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region, MPVI or extrahepatic spread or both, AFP and ECOG PS.|||0.93|0.66|
91061218|NCT03713593|182006106|OTHER|Descriptive assessment|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.94|||||Based on Cox model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region, MPVI or extrahepatic spread or both, AFP and ECOG PS.|||0.94|0.68|
91061219|NCT03713593|182006107|OTHER|Descriptive assessment|Difference in percentage|6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|13.4|||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by geographic region, MPVI or extrahepatic spread or both, AFP and ECOG PS.|||13.4|0.0|
91061220|NCT03713593|182006110|OTHER|Descriptive assessment|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.88|||||Based on Cox model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region, MPVI or extrahepatic spread or both, AFP and ECOG PS.|||0.88|0.61|
91061221|NCT03631199|182006173|EQUIVALENCE|Nominal p-values are presented without any statistical inference since there was no adjustment for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.00164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.86|||Log Rank|||Chest pain||0.86|0.45|0.00164
91061222|NCT03631199|182006173|EQUIVALENCE|Nominal p-values are presented without any statistical inference since there was no adjustment for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59||||0.00069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.82|||Log Rank|||Cough||0.82|0.43|0.00069
91061223|NCT03631199|182006173|EQUIVALENCE|Nominal p-values are presented without any statistical inference since there was no adjustment for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.00045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.84|||Log Rank|||Dyspnea||0.84|0.51|0.00045
91061224|NCT03631199|182006174|EQUIVALENCE|Nominal p-values are presented without any statistical inference since there was no adjustment for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.1|||Log Rank|||Quality of Life||1.10|0.66|0.113
91061225|NCT03631199|182006174|EQUIVALENCE|Nominal p-values are presented without any statistical inference since there was no adjustment for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.00433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.91|||Log Rank|||Shortness of Breath||0.91|0.51|0.00433
91061226|NCT03631199|182006174|EQUIVALENCE|Nominal p-values are presented without any statistical inference since there was no adjustment for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.2|||Log Rank|||Pain||1.20|0.72|0.294
91061227|NCT03690388|182006266|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|96.0|0.13|0.36|||Log Rank|||||0.36|0.13|< 0.0001
91061228|NCT03765788|182006268|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.54|26.29|||||Odd Ratio (posterior median) median and 95% credibility interval calculated using the Bayesian inference|Odds Ratio||26.29|3.54|
91061229|NCT01130532|182006304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91061230|NCT01130532|182006304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91061231|NCT01130532|182006305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69|<|0.001||95.0||||Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91061232|NCT01130532|182006305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68|<|0.001||95.0||||Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91061233|NCT01130532|182006306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.001||95.0||||Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91061234|NCT01130532|182006306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.001||95.0||||Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90822355|NCT04737278|181521984|OTHER|||||||0.97|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank|||Comparison of GGT activity in blood between Placebo Arm participants at baseline and on day 28||||0.97
90822356|NCT04737278|181521985|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||ANCOVA|||Between group comparisons were made using ANCOVA||||0.03
90822357|NCT04737278|181521985|OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparison of baseline with day 28||||0.10
90822358|NCT04737278|181521985|OTHER|||||||0.89|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparison between baseline and day 28 serum copper concentrations in the Placebo Arm||||0.89
90822359|NCT03928717|181521989|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
90822360|NCT03928717|181521990|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
90822361|NCT01363908|181522016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0781|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value was from the analysis of Wilcoxon signed rank test at post-treatment time point vs baseline.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Analysis of 6 to \<12 year olds at 24 weeks||||0.0781
90822362|NCT01363908|181522016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value was from the analysis of Wilcoxon signed rank test at post-treatment time point vs baseline.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Analysis of 6 to \<12 year olds at 48 weeks||||0.5000
90822363|NCT01363908|181522016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2609|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value was from the analysis of Wilcoxon signed rank test at post-treatment time point vs baseline.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Analysis of 12 to \<18 year olds at 24 weeks||||0.2609
90822364|NCT01363908|181522016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9219|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value was from the analysis of Wilcoxon signed rank test at post-treatment time point vs baseline.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Analysis of 12 to \<18 year olds at 48 weeks||||0.9219
91061235|NCT01130532|182006307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.001||95.0||||Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91061236|NCT01130532|182006307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.001||95.0||||Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90822365|NCT01363908|181522018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6875|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value was from analysis of Wilcoxon signed-rank test at post-treatment time point vs. baseline.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Analysis of 6 to \<12 year olds at 24 weeks||||0.6875
90822366|NCT01363908|181522018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value was from analysis of Wilcoxon signed-rank test at post-treatment time point vs. baseline.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Analysis of 6 to \<12 year olds at 48 weeks||||1.0000
90822367|NCT01363908|181522018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8181|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value was from analysis of Wilcoxon signed-rank test at post-treatment time point vs. baseline.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Analysis of 12 to \<18 year olds at 24 weeks||||0.8181
90822368|NCT01363908|181522018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5566|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was from analysis of Wilcoxon signed-rank test at post-treatment time point vs. baseline.|Wilcoxon signed-rank|||Analysis of 12 to \<18 year olds at 48 weeks||||0.5566
90822369|NCT01363908|181522020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0475|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value was from paired t test for log-transformed data at post-treatment time point vs. baseline.|paired t test|||Analysis of 6 to \<12 year olds at 24 weeks||||0.0475
90822370|NCT01363908|181522020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.441|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value was from paired t test for log-transformed data at post-treatment time point vs. baseline.|paired t test|The P-value was from paired t test for log-transformed data at post-treatment time point vs. baseline.||Analysis of 6 to \<12 year olds at 48 weeks||||0.4410
90822371|NCT01363908|181522020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0417|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value was from paired t test for log-transformed data at post-treatment time point vs. baseline.|paired t test|||Analysis of 12 to \<18 year olds at 24 weeks||||0.0417
90822372|NCT01363908|181522020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0409|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value was from paired t test for log-transformed data at post-treatment time point vs. baseline.|paired t test|||Analysis of 12 to \<18 year olds at 48 weeks||||0.0409
90822373|NCT01363908|181522021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9901|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value was from paired t test for log-transformed data at post-treatment time point vs. baseline.|paired t test|||Analysis of 6 to \<12 year olds at 24 weeks||||0.9901
90822374|NCT01363908|181522021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3039|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value was from paired t test for log-transformed data at post-treatment time point vs. baseline.|paired t test|||Analysis of 6 to \<12 year olds at 48 weeks||||0.3039
90822375|NCT01363908|181522021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value was from paired t test for log-transformed data at post-treatment time point vs. baseline.|paired t test|||Analysis of 12 to \<18 year olds at 24 weeks||||0.0044
90822376|NCT01363908|181522021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0395|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value was from paired t test for log-transformed data at post-treatment time point vs. baseline.|paired t test|||Analysis of 12 to \<18 year olds at 48 weeks||||0.0395
90822377|NCT05258149|181522023|SUPERIORITY|A superiority margin of 1 was used.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.46|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger Method was used for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Odds Ratio was calculated as senofilcon A C3 over delefilcon A|||2.46|1.10|
90822378|NCT05258149|181522024|SUPERIORITY|A superiority margin of 1 was used.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|2.79|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger Method was used for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Odds Ratio was calculated as senofilcon A C3 over delefilcon A|||2.79|1.27|
90822379|NCT05258149|181522025|NON_INFERIORITY|A Non-Inferiority margin of 10% was used.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|98.33|0.42|1.3|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger Method was used for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Odds Ratio was calculated as senofilcon A C3 over delefilcon A||confidence intervals were adjusted using 98.33% per each secondary endpoint|1.30|0.42|
91061237|NCT01130532|182006308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|10.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.28|<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Question 1. Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91061238|NCT01130532|182006308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|9.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26|<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Question 1. Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91061239|NCT01130532|182006308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|19.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.14|<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Question 2. Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90822380|NCT05258149|181522026|SUPERIORITY|A superiority margin of 1 was used.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.58|||||TWO_SIDED|98.33|0.91|2.75|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger Method was used for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Odds Ratio was calculated as senofilcon A C3 over delefilcon A||confidence intervals were adjusted using 98.33% per each secondary endpoint|2.75|0.91|
90822381|NCT05258149|181522027|SUPERIORITY|A superiority margin of 1 was used.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.08|||||TWO_SIDED|98.33|1.24|3.5|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger Method was used for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Odds Ratio was calculated as senofilcon A C3 over delefilcon A||confidence intervals were adjusted using 98.33% per each secondary endpoint|3.50|1.24|
90822382|NCT01013194|181522028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.434|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4340
90822383|NCT01013194|181522029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0076|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison at 1 year Follow-up||||0.0076
90822384|NCT01013194|181522030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0437|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison at 1 year Follow-up||||0.0437
90822385|NCT00536471|181522031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.051||95.0||||Repeated Measures Analysis for Group A change from baseline to 8 week endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit||||||0.051
90822386|NCT00536471|181522031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Repeated Measures Analysis for Group B change from baseline to 8 week endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit||||||<0.001
90822387|NCT00536471|181522032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013||95.0||||P-value for Total Score 12 Week Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.013
90822388|NCT00536471|181522032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Total Score 12 Week Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
90822389|NCT00536471|181522032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026||95.0||||P-value for Maier 8 Week Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.026
91061240|NCT01130532|182006308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|19.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.12|<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Question 2. Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90822390|NCT00536471|181522032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Maier 8 Week Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
90822391|NCT00536471|181522032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.202||95.0||||P-value for Anxiety/Somatization 12 Week Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.202
90822392|NCT00536471|181522032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Anxiety/Somatization 12 Week Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
90822393|NCT00536471|181522032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027||95.0||||P-value for Bech 12 Week Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.027
90822394|NCT00536471|181522032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Bech 12 Week Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
90822395|NCT00536471|181522032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.076||95.0||||P-value for Retardation 12 Week Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.076
90822396|NCT00536471|181522032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Retardation 12 Week Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
90822397|NCT00536471|181522032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.149||95.0||||P-value for Sleep 12 Week Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.149
90822398|NCT00536471|181522032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.062||95.0||||P-value for Sleep 12 Week Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.062
90822399|NCT00536471|181522032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.629||95.0||||P-value for Total Score 9 Month Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.629
90822400|NCT00536471|181522032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.194||95.0||||P-value for Total Score 9 Month Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.194
90822401|NCT00536471|181522032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.525||95.0||||P-value for Maier 9 Month Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.525
90822402|NCT00536471|181522032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.595||95.0||||P-value for Maier 9 Month Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.595
90822403|NCT00536471|181522032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.736||95.0||||P-value for Anxiety/Somatization 9 Month Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.736
90822404|NCT00536471|181522032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.368||95.0||||P-value for Anxiety/Somatization 9 Month Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.368
90822405|NCT00536471|181522032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66||95.0||||P-value for Bech 9 Month Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.660
90822406|NCT00536471|181522032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.334||95.0||||P-value for Bech 9 Month Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.334
91061241|NCT01130532|182006308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|24.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.53|<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Question 3. Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91061242|NCT01130532|182006308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|26.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5|<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Question 3. Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91061243|NCT01130532|182006308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|32.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.82|<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Question 4. Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91061244|NCT01130532|182006308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|31.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.79|<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Question 4. Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91061245|NCT01130532|182006308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|33.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.78|<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Question 5. Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91061246|NCT01130532|182006308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|30.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.75|<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Question 5. Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91061247|NCT01130532|182006309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|23.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.49|<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for confidence to complete sexual activity. Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91061248|NCT01130532|182006309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|25.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.48|<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for confidence to complete sexual activity. Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91061249|NCT01130532|182006309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|19.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.36|<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for ease of erection. Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91061250|NCT01130532|182006309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|20.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.35|<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for ease of erection. Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91061251|NCT01130532|182006309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|19.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.21|<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for pleasure from sexual activity. Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91061252|NCT01130532|182006309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|19.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2|<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for pleasure from sexual activity. Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91061253|NCT01130532|182006309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|26.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.54|<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for erectile function satisfaction. Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91061254|NCT01130532|182006309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|28.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.53|<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for erectile function satisfaction. Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91061255|NCT01130532|182006309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|19.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.65|<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for satisfaction with orgasm. Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91061256|NCT01130532|182006309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|20.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.64|<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for satisfaction with orgasm. Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91061257|NCT01130532|182006310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|28.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.77|<|0.001||95.0||||Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91061258|NCT01130532|182006310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|31.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.76|<|0.001||95.0||||Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91061259|NCT01130532|182006311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.001||95.0||||Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91061260|NCT01130532|182006311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.001||95.0||||Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91061261|NCT01130532|182006312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|21.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.81|<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for confidence to complete sexual activity. Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91061262|NCT01130532|182006312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|25.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.78|<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for confidence to complete sexual activity. Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91061263|NCT01130532|182006312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|22.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.46|<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for ease of erection. Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91061264|NCT01130532|182006312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|24.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.44|<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for ease of erection. Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91061265|NCT01130532|182006312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|16.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.37|<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for pleasure from sexual activity. Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90822407|NCT00536471|181522032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.568||95.0||||P-value for Retardation 9 Month Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.568
90822408|NCT00536471|181522032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.216||95.0||||P-value for Retardation 9 Month Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.216
90822409|NCT00536471|181522032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.646||95.0||||P-value for Sleep 9 Month Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.646
90822410|NCT00536471|181522032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.275||95.0||||P-value for Sleep 9 Month Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.275
90822411|NCT00536471|181522033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011||95.0||||P-value for 12 Week Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.011
90822412|NCT00536471|181522033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for 12 Week Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. (Change=Endpoint minus baseline)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
90822413|NCT00536471|181522033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.449||95.0||||P-value for 9 Month Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.449
90822414|NCT00536471|181522033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.167||95.0||||P-value for 9 Month Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.167
90822415|NCT00536471|181522034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.016
90822416|NCT00536471|181522034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91061266|NCT01130532|182006312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|17.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.35|<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for pleasure from sexual activity. Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90822417|NCT00536471|181522034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.653||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.653
90822418|NCT00536471|181522034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.417||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.417
90822419|NCT00536471|181522035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.204||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change(Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.204
90822420|NCT00536471|181522035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.011
90822421|NCT00536471|181522035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.571||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.571
90822422|NCT00536471|181522035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.133||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.133
90822423|NCT00536471|181522036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.023
90822424|NCT00536471|181522036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.100
90822425|NCT00536471|181522036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.571||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.571
90822426|NCT00536471|181522036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.133||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.133
90822427|NCT00536471|181522037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.332||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.332
90822428|NCT00536471|181522037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.041||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.041
90822429|NCT00536471|181522037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.775||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.775
90822430|NCT00536471|181522037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.588||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.588
90822431|NCT00536471|181522038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.624||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.624
91061267|NCT01130532|182006312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|25.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.57|<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for erectile function satisfaction. Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90822432|NCT00536471|181522038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.473||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.473
90822433|NCT00536471|181522038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.787||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.787
90822434|NCT00536471|181522038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.086||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.086
90822435|NCT00536471|181522039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.099||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.099
90822436|NCT00536471|181522039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.223||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.223
90822437|NCT00536471|181522039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.473||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.473
90822438|NCT00536471|181522039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.233||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.233
90822439|NCT00536471|181522040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.577||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.577
90822440|NCT00536471|181522040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.567||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.567
91061268|NCT01130532|182006312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|25.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.56|<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for erectile function satisfaction. Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90822441|NCT00536471|181522041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.670
90822442|NCT00536471|181522041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.059||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.059
90822443|NCT00536471|181522041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.930
90822444|NCT00536471|181522041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.567||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.567
90822445|NCT00536471|181522042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.896||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.896
90822446|NCT00536471|181522042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.796||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.796
90822447|NCT00536471|181522042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.571||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.571
90822448|NCT00536471|181522042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.381||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.381
90822449|NCT00536471|181522043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.038
90822450|NCT00536471|181522043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.002
90822451|NCT00536471|181522043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.665||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.665
90822452|NCT00536471|181522043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.253||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.253
90822453|NCT00536471|181522044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.723||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.723
90822454|NCT00536471|181522044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.312||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.312
91061269|NCT01130532|182006312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|15.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.88|<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for satisfaction with orgasm. Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90822455|NCT00536471|181522044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.853||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.853
90822456|NCT00536471|181522044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.913||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.913
90822457|NCT00536471|181522045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.234||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.234
90822458|NCT00536471|181522045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.216||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.216
90822459|NCT00536471|181522045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.853||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.853
90822460|NCT00536471|181522045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.908||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.908
90822461|NCT00536471|181522046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.789||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.789
90822462|NCT00536471|181522046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.012
90822463|NCT00536471|181522046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.414||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.414
90822464|NCT00536471|181522046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.717||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.717
91061270|NCT01130532|182006312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|17.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.86|<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for satisfaction with orgasm. Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90822465|NCT00536471|181522047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.780
90822466|NCT00536471|181522047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.152||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.152
90822467|NCT00536471|181522047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.637||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.637
90822468|NCT00536471|181522047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.024
90822469|NCT00536471|181522048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.517||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.517
90822470|NCT00536471|181522048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.256||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.256
90822471|NCT00536471|181522048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||1.000
90822472|NCT00536471|181522048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.268||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.268
90822473|NCT00536471|181522049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.741||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.741
90822474|NCT00536471|181522049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.722||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.722
90822475|NCT00536471|181522049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||1.000
90822476|NCT00536471|181522049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.268||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.268
90822477|NCT00536471|181522050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.723||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.723
90822478|NCT00536471|181522050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.949||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.949
90822479|NCT00536471|181522050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||1.000
91061271|NCT01130532|182006313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|25.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.76|<|0.001||95.0||||Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91061272|NCT01130532|182006313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|28.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.74|<|0.001||95.0||||Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91061273|NCT01130532|182006315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Comparison of Week 16 to Week 12. Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
91061274|NCT01130532|182006315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Comparison of Week 16 to Week 12. Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
91061275|NCT01130532|182006315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Comparison of Week 16 to Week 12. Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
91061276|NCT01130532|182006316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||Comparison of Week 16 to Week 12. Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|Paired t-test|||||||0.002
91061277|NCT01130532|182006316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0||||Comparison of Week 16 to Week 12. Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|Paired t-test|||||||0.004
91061278|NCT01130532|182006316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Comparison of Week 16 to Week 12. Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
91061279|NCT03041311|182006329|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||||A Hochberg-based gatekeeping procedure was used to control the global familywise error rate across the multiple null hypotheses (for 2 primary and 3 key secondary endpoints) in a strong sense at a 1-sided 0.025 level.|non-parametric ANCOVA|Hochberg-based gatekeeping procedure||Treatment difference was evaluated using a nonparametric analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). The nonparametric ANCOVA included study baseline ANC value as covariate, stratification factors of ECOG performance status (0 to 1 versus 2) and brain metastases (Yes versus No), and treatment as a fixed effect.||||<0.0001
91061280|NCT03041311|182006330|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||A Hochberg-based gatekeeping procedure was used to control the global familywise error rate across the multiple null hypotheses (for 2 primary and 3 key secondary endpoints) in a strong sense at a 1-sided 0.025 level.|Modified Poisson|Hochberg-based gatekeeping procedure||The occurrence of SN was a binary variable. Treatment group difference was analyzed using a modified Poisson regression model to account for the variable duration of the Induction Period for each patient. The model included baseline ANC count as a covariate, the stratification factors of ECOG performance status (0 to1 vs. 2) and brain metastases (Yes vs. No), and treatment as a fixed effect. The logarithm transformation of # of Induction cycles was included as an offset variable in the modeling.||||<0.0001
90822480|NCT00536471|181522050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.268||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.268
91061281|NCT03041311|182006331|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0195||||||A Hochberg-based gatekeeping procedure was used to control the global familywise error rate across the multiple null hypotheses (for 2 primary and 3 key secondary endpoints) in a strong sense at a 1-sided 0.025 level.|negative binomial regression|Hochberg-based gatekeeping procedure||||||0.0195
91061282|NCT03041311|182006332|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1335||||||A Hochberg-based gatekeeping procedure was used to control the global familywise error rate across the multiple null hypotheses (for 2 primary and 3 key secondary endpoints) in a strong sense at a 1-sided 0.025 level.|Modified Poisson|Hochberg-based gatekeeping procedure||Treatment group difference was analyzed using a modified Poisson regression model. The model included baseline hemoglobin as a covariate, the stratification factors of ECOG performance status (0 to 1 versus 2) and brain metastases (Yes versus No) and treatment as a fixed effect. The logarithm transformation of the number of weeks on treatment was included as an offset variable in the model.||||0.1335
91061283|NCT03041311|182006333|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0686||||||A Hochberg-based gatekeeping procedure was used to control the global familywise error rate across the multiple null hypotheses (for 2 primary and 3 key secondary endpoints) in a strong sense at a 1-sided 0.025 level.|Modified Poisson|Hochberg-based gatekeeping procedure||Treatment group difference was analyzed using a modified Poisson regression model to account for the variable duration of the Induction Period for each patient. The model included baseline absolute neutrophil count as a covariate, the stratification factors of ECOG performance status (0 to 1 versus 2) and brain metastases (Yes versus No), and treatment as a fixed effect. The logarithm transformation of number of Induction cycles was included as an offset variable in the modeling.||||0.0686
91061284|NCT03041311|182006334|SUPERIORITY|For time-to-event variable, the Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate its within group median value, 25% and 75% percentile values.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.218||0.9942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.52||The 2-sided p-value was obtained from the stratified log-rank test to account for the stratification factors.|Log Rank|stratified log-rank test|The HR and its 95% CI were calculated using the Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment and stratification factors of ECOG performance status (0 to 1 versus 2) and presence of brain metastases (Yes versus No).|||1.52|0.64|0.9942
91061285|NCT04909853|182006359|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|129.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.93|165.25|||||Analysis used one-way ANOVA model with renal function as a fixed effect. The ratio of adjusted geometric means (test \[impaired\]/reference \[normal\]) and 90% confidence interval (CI) were expressed as percentages.|||165.25|101.93|
91061286|NCT04909853|182006359|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|138.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|113.18|168.55|||||Analysis used one-way ANOVA model with renal function as a fixed effect. The ratio of adjusted geometric means (test \[impaired\]/reference \[normal\]) and 90% confidence interval (CI) were expressed as percentages.|||168.55|113.18|
91061287|NCT04909853|182006359|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|148.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|111.4|196.68|||||Analysis used one-way ANOVA model with renal function as a fixed effect. The ratio of adjusted geometric means (test \[impaired\]/reference \[normal\]) and 90% confidence interval (CI) were expressed as percentages.|||196.68|111.40|
90822481|NCT00536471|181522051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.682||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.682
90822482|NCT00536471|181522051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.001
90822483|NCT00536471|181522051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.200
90822484|NCT00536471|181522051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.813||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.813
90822485|NCT00536471|181522052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.438||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.438
90822486|NCT00536471|181522052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.018
90822487|NCT00536471|181522052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.692||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.692
90822488|NCT00536471|181522052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.668||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.668
90822489|NCT00536471|181522053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.588||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.588
91061288|NCT04909853|182006360|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|123.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.64|153.91|||||Analysis used one-way ANOVA model with renal function as a fixed effect. The ratio of adjusted geometric means (test \[impaired\]/reference \[normal\]) and 90% confidence interval (CI) were expressed as percentages.|||153.91|99.64|
91061289|NCT04909853|182006360|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|187.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|148.52|236.46|||||Analysis used one-way ANOVA model with renal function as a fixed effect. The ratio of adjusted geometric means (test \[impaired\]/reference \[normal\]) and 90% confidence interval (CI) were expressed as percentages.|||236.46|148.52|
90822490|NCT00536471|181522053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.758||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.758
90822491|NCT00536471|181522053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.692||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.692
90822492|NCT00536471|181522053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.668||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.668
90822493|NCT00536471|181522054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.507||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.507
90822494|NCT00536471|181522054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.466||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.466
90822495|NCT00536471|181522054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.692||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.692
90822496|NCT00536471|181522054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.668||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.668
90822497|NCT00536471|181522055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.487||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.487
90822498|NCT00536471|181522055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.678||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.678
90822499|NCT00536471|181522055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.692||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.692
90822500|NCT00536471|181522055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.668||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.668
90822501|NCT00536471|181522056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.505||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.505
91061290|NCT04909853|182006360|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|304.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|237.6|390.21|||||Analysis used one-way ANOVA model with renal function as a fixed effect. The ratio of adjusted geometric means (test \[impaired\]/reference \[normal\]) and 90% confidence interval (CI) were expressed as percentages.|||390.21|237.60|
91061291|NCT04882241|182006386|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.39528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.7||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|||1.70|0.50|0.39528
91061292|NCT04882241|182006387|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|1.9||||0.33244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|12.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Based on unstratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method||||12.0|-7.7|0.33244
90822502|NCT00536471|181522056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.135||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.135
90822503|NCT00536471|181522056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.175||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.175
90822504|NCT00536471|181522056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||1.000
90822505|NCT00536471|181522057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.175||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.175
90822506|NCT00536471|181522057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.002
90822507|NCT00536471|181522057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.576||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.576
90822508|NCT00536471|181522057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.676||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.676
90822509|NCT00536471|181522058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.675||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.675
90822510|NCT00536471|181522058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.139||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.139
90822511|NCT00536471|181522058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.576||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.576
91061293|NCT04882241|182006388|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.52903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|2.22||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate|||2.22|0.48|0.52903
90822512|NCT00536471|181522058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.676||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.676
90822513|NCT00536471|181522059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Total Score (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.007
90822514|NCT00536471|181522059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Total Score (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.031
90822515|NCT00536471|181522059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Tension-Anxiety (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.020
90822516|NCT00536471|181522059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.324||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Tension-Anxiety (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.324
90822517|NCT00536471|181522059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Depression-Dejection (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.010
90822518|NCT00536471|181522059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Depression-Dejection (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.005
90822519|NCT00536471|181522059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Anger-Hostility (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.010
90822520|NCT00536471|181522059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Anger-Hostility (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.019
90822521|NCT00536471|181522059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.201||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Vigor-Activity (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.201
90822522|NCT00536471|181522059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.069||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Vigor-Activity (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.069
90822523|NCT00536471|181522059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.368||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Fatigue-Inertia (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.368
90822524|NCT00536471|181522059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.435||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Fatigue-Inertia (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.435
90822525|NCT00536471|181522059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Confusion-Bewilderment (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.090
91061294|NCT04882241|182006393|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.34632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|2.05||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate|||2.05|0.34|0.34632
90822526|NCT00536471|181522059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.313||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Confusion-Bewilderment (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.313
90822527|NCT00536471|181522060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.639||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Total Score (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.639
90822528|NCT00536471|181522060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.584||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Total Score (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.584
90822529|NCT00536471|181522060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.251||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Tension-Anxiety (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.251
90822530|NCT00536471|181522060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.265||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Tension-Anxiety (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.265
90822531|NCT00536471|181522060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.366||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Depression-Dejection (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.366
90822532|NCT00536471|181522060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.257||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Depression-Dejection (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.257
90822533|NCT00536471|181522060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.426||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Anger-Hostility (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.426
90822534|NCT00536471|181522060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.234||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Anger-Hostility (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.234
90822535|NCT00536471|181522060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.765||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Vigor-Activity (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.765
90822536|NCT00536471|181522060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.522||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Vigor-Activity (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.522
91061295|NCT02543944|182006396|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|-0.0944|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.53|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.53|-0.72|0.77
91061296|NCT02543944|182006397|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.3||||0.58|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.58
90822537|NCT00536471|181522060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.986||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Fatigue-Inertia (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.986
90822538|NCT00536471|181522060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.602||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Fatigue-Inertia (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.602
90822539|NCT00536471|181522060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Confusion-Bewilderment (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.110
90822540|NCT00536471|181522060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.505||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Confusion-Bewilderment(Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.505
90822541|NCT00536471|181522061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.366||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Work Life (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.366
90822542|NCT00536471|181522061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.065||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Work Life (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.065
90822543|NCT00536471|181522061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.229||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Social Life (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.229
90822544|NCT00536471|181522061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.044||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Social Life (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.044
90822545|NCT00536471|181522061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.092||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Family Life (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.092
90822546|NCT00536471|181522061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Family Life (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.002
90822547|NCT00536471|181522061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.142||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Total Score(Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.142
90822548|NCT00536471|181522061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Total Score (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.005
90822549|NCT00536471|181522062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.921||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Work Life (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.921
91061297|NCT02543944|182006398|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.16||||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.69
91061298|NCT02543944|182006399|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.32|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.32
91061299|NCT02413229|182006410|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3571|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3571
90822550|NCT00536471|181522062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.895||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Work Life (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.895
90822551|NCT00536471|181522062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.789||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Social Life (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.789
90822552|NCT00536471|181522062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.761||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Social Life (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.761
90822553|NCT00536471|181522062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.519||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Family Life (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.519
90822554|NCT00536471|181522062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.755||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Family Life (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.755
90822555|NCT00536471|181522062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.829||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Total Score (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.829
90822556|NCT00536471|181522062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.723||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Total Score (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.723
90822557|NCT00536471|181522063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.753||95.0||||P-value for Direct Treatment Effect|Regression, Linear|||||||0.753
90822558|NCT00536471|181522063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036||95.0||||P-value for Direct Treatment Effect|Regression, Linear|||||||0.036
90822559|NCT00536471|181522065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.342||95.0||||P-value for Direct Treatment Effect|Regression, Linear|||||||0.342
91061300|NCT02413229|182006410|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5224|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.5224
90822560|NCT00536471|181522065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.111||95.0||||P-value for Direct Treatment Effect|Regression, Linear|||||||0.111
90822561|NCT00536471|181522067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.302||95.0||||P-value for 12 Week Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.302
90822562|NCT00536471|181522067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029||95.0||||P-value for 12 Week Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.029
90822563|NCT00536471|181522067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.325||95.0||||P-value for 9 Month Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.325
90822564|NCT00536471|181522067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.423||95.0||||P-value for 9 Month Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.423
90822565|NCT00536471|181522068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.731||95.0||||P-value for 12 Week HAMD-17. Model=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, and Treatment\*Visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.731
90822566|NCT00536471|181522068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022||95.0||||P-value for 12 Week HAMD-17. Model=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, and Treatment\*Visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.022
90822567|NCT00536471|181522068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.948||95.0||||P-value for 12 Week QIDS16. Model=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, and Treatment\*Visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.948
90822568|NCT00536471|181522068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022||95.0||||P-value for 12 Week QIDS16. Model=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, and Treatment\*Visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.022
90822569|NCT00536471|181522068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95||95.0||||P-value for 9 Month HAMD-17. Model=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, and Treatment\*Visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.950
90822570|NCT00536471|181522068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.442||95.0||||P-value for 9 Month HAMD-17. Model=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, and Treatment\*Visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.442
90822571|NCT00536471|181522068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.218||95.0||||P-value for 9 Month QIDS16. Model=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, and Treatment\*Visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.218
90822572|NCT00536471|181522068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.648||95.0||||P-value for 9 Month QIDS16. Model=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, and Treatment\*Visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.648
90822573|NCT00536471|181522069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.653||95.0||||P-value for 12 week HAMD-17. Model=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, and Treatment\*Visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.653
90822574|NCT00536471|181522069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016||95.0||||P-value for 12 week HAMD-17. Model=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, and Treatment\*Visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.016
90822575|NCT00536471|181522069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.665||95.0||||P-value for 12 week QIDS16. Model=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, and Treatment\*Visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.665
90822576|NCT00536471|181522069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.127||95.0||||P-value for 12 week QIDS16. Model=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, and Treatment\*Visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.127
90822577|NCT00536471|181522070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.475||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Item 1 Average Pain Severity 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.475
91061301|NCT02413229|182006410|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.389|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3890
91061302|NCT02413229|182006410|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0325|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||.0325
91061303|NCT02932462|182006411|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4557|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4557
91061304|NCT02932462|182006412|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8096|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.8096
91061305|NCT02932462|182006413|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7652|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.7652
91061306|NCT02091856|182006414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at .05|ANOVA|Changes in primary outcome measures were evaluated using repeated measures ANOVA for three groups: C-CBT, R-CBT, WLCG and two time points: pre \& post||It was hypothesized that regardless of the CBT version received (conventional or religious), those in the active treatments would achieve a greater reduction in depressive and associated symptoms than participants in the wait-list condition.||||<0.001
91061307|NCT02091856|182006415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at .05|ANOVA|Changes in secondary outcome measures were evaluated using repeated measures ANOVA (C-CBT, R-CBT, WLCG at pre- and post-intervention).||||||>0.05
91061308|NCT02091856|182006416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at .05|ANOVA|||||||<0.01
91061309|NCT02091856|182006417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at .05|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91061310|NCT02091856|182006418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at .05|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.01
90822578|NCT00536471|181522070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.561||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Item 1 Average Pain Severity 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.561
90822579|NCT00536471|181522070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.213||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Item 7 How Bothered by Pain 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.213
90822580|NCT00536471|181522070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.536||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Item 7 How Bothered by Pain 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.536
90822581|NCT00536471|181522070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.158||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Item 1 Average Pain Severity 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.158
90822582|NCT00536471|181522070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.759||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Item 1 Average Pain Severity 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.759
91061311|NCT05024747|182006419|OTHER||Ratio T/R|96.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.0|103.85||||||Statistical comparison was analyzed between Test vs Reference based on Baseline Adjusted Data.||103.85|90.00|
91061312|NCT05024747|182006420|OTHER||Ratio T/R|92.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.45|99.84||||||Statistical comparison was analyzed between Test vs Reference based on Baseline Adjusted Data.||99.84|85.45|
90822583|NCT00536471|181522070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Item 7 How Bothered by Pain 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.190
90822584|NCT00536471|181522070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.852||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Item 7 How Bothered by Pain 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.852
90822585|NCT00536471|181522071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.032||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.032
90822586|NCT00536471|181522071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
90822587|NCT00536471|181522071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.705||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.705
90822588|NCT00536471|181522071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.388||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.388
91061313|NCT05024747|182006421|OTHER||Ratio T/R|92.54|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.63|100.01||||||Statistical comparison was analyzed between Test vs Reference based on Baseline Adjusted Data.||100.01|85.63|
91061314|NCT05024747|182006422|OTHER||Hodges- Lehmann's median difference|-0.0192||||0.0833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0542|0.0044|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Statistical comparison was analyzed between Test vs Reference.||0.0044|-0.0542|0.0833
91061315|NCT05024747|182006423|OTHER||Hodges- Lehmann's median difference|-6.0||||0.0205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|0.0|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Statistical comparison was analyzed between Test vs Reference.||0.0000|-10.5000|0.0205
91061316|NCT05024747|182006424|OTHER||Hodges- Lehmann's median difference|0.3225||||0.0946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0949|0.681|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Statistical comparison was analyzed between Test vs Reference.||0.6810|-0.0949|0.0946
91061317|NCT04584684|182006437|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||SARS CoV-2 N1||||0.89
91061318|NCT04584684|182006437|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||SARS CoV-2 N1||||0.88
91061319|NCT04584684|182006437|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||SARS CoV-2 N1||||0.82
91061320|NCT04584684|182006437|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||SARS CoV-2 N1||||0.65
91061321|NCT04584684|182006437|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||SARS CoV-2 N1||||0.77
91061322|NCT04584684|182006437|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||SARS CoV-2 N2||||0.76
91061323|NCT04584684|182006437|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||SARS CoV-2 N2||||0.80
91061324|NCT04584684|182006437|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||SARS CoV-2 N2||||0.71
90822589|NCT00536471|181522072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.161||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.161
90822590|NCT00536471|181522072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.198||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.198
90822591|NCT00536471|181522072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.982||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.982
90822592|NCT00536471|181522072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.407||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.407
90822593|NCT00536471|181522073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.001
90822594|NCT00536471|181522073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.006
90822595|NCT00536471|181522073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.231||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.231
90822596|NCT00536471|181522073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.040
90822597|NCT00536471|181522074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.914||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Systolic Blood Pressure 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.914
90822598|NCT00536471|181522074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Systolic Blood Pressure 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.011
90822599|NCT00536471|181522074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.296||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Diastolic Blood Pressure 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.296
91061325|NCT04584684|182006437|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||SARS CoV-2 N2||||0.60
91061326|NCT04584684|182006437|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||SARS CoV-2 N2||||0.80
90822600|NCT00536471|181522074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Diastolic Blood Pressure 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.034
90822601|NCT00536471|181522074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.874||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Systolic Blood Pressure (SBP) 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.874
90822602|NCT00536471|181522074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.614||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Systolic Blood Pressure (SBP) 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.614
90822603|NCT00536471|181522074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.146||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Diastolic Blood Pressure (DBP) 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.146
90822604|NCT00536471|181522074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.877||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Diastolic Blood Pressure (DBP) 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.877
90822605|NCT00536471|181522075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.012
90822606|NCT00536471|181522075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.045||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.045
90822607|NCT00536471|181522075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.701||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.701
90822608|NCT00536471|181522075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.081||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.081
90822609|NCT00536471|181522076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.013
90822610|NCT00536471|181522076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.672||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.672
91061327|NCT02955212|182006452|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|40.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.5|50.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of country.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||50.0|30.5|<0.001
91061328|NCT02955212|182006453|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-1.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|-1.36|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including treatment as the fixed factor, and Baseline value and the stratification factor country as the covariates.|LS Mean Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-1.36|-1.86|<0.001
90822611|NCT00536471|181522076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.874||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.874
90822612|NCT00536471|181522076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.390
90822613|NCT00536471|181522081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.046||95.0||||P-value for Bilirubin - 12 Week Change.|ANOVA|||||||0.046
90822614|NCT00536471|181522081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031||95.0||||P-value for Creatinine - 12 Week Change.|ANOVA|||||||0.031
90822615|NCT00536471|181522081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||P-value for Uric Acid - 12 Week Change.|ANOVA|||||||0.003
90822616|NCT00536471|181522081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033||95.0||||P-value for Bilirubin - 9 Month Change.|ANOVA|||||||0.033
90822617|NCT00536471|181522081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013||95.0||||P-value for Uric Acid - 9 Month Change.|ANOVA|||||||0.013
90822618|NCT00536471|181522082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.037||95.0||||P-value for Hematocrit - 12 Week Change.|ANOVA|||||||0.037
90822619|NCT00536471|181522082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029||95.0||||P-value for Hematocrit - 9 Month Change.|ANOVA|||||||0.029
90822620|NCT00536471|181522083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013||95.0||||P-value for MCV - 12 Week Change.|ANOVA|||||||0.013
90822621|NCT00536471|181522083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014||95.0||||P-value for MCV - 9 Month Change.|ANOVA|||||||0.014
90822622|NCT00536471|181522084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022||95.0||||P-value for Chloride - 12 Week Change.|ANOVA|||||||0.022
90822623|NCT00536471|181522084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.044||95.0||||P-value for Urea Nitrogen - 12 Week Change.|ANOVA|||||||0.044
90822624|NCT00536471|181522084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0||||P-value for Chloride - 9 Month Change.|ANOVA|||||||0.004
90822625|NCT00536471|181522084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.045||95.0||||P-value for Cholesterol - 9 Month Change.|ANOVA|||||||0.045
90822626|NCT00536471|181522084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.043||95.0||||P-value for Sodium - 9 Month Change.|ANOVA|||||||0.043
90822627|NCT00536471|181522085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017||95.0||||P-value for 12 Week Change.|ANOVA|||||||0.017
90822628|NCT00536471|181522085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||P-value for 9 Month Change.|ANOVA|||||||0.003
90822629|NCT00536471|181522086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.033
90822630|NCT00536471|181522087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.045||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.045
90822631|NCT00536471|181522088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.041||95.0||||P-value for Lymphocytes - High.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.041
90822632|NCT00536471|181522088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048||95.0||||P-value for Potassium - Low.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.048
90822633|NCT00536471|181522089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||95.0||||P-value for Lymphocytes - High.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.012
90822634|NCT00536471|181522089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049||95.0||||P-value for Potassium - Low.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.049
90822635|NCT00536471|181522090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||95.0||||P-value for Lymphocytes - High.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.012
90822636|NCT00536471|181522090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038||95.0||||P-value for Hemoglobin - Low.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.038
90822637|NCT01979952|181522136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|3.176|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.237|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.227|15.579|||ANCOVA|As per the Clinical Trial Protocol, this is an exploratory trial hence p-values were not calculated.||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline HRCT QLF score as covariate||15.579|-9.227|
90822638|NCT01979952|181522137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|2.519|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.3829|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.258|15.296|||ANCOVA|As per the Clinical Trial Protocol, this is an exploratory trial hence p-values were not calculated||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline HRCT QLF score as covariate||15.296|-10.258|
90822639|NCT01979952|181522138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|69.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|39.182|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.74|146.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|As per the Clinical Trial Protocol, this is an exploratory trial hence p-values were not calculated.||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, gender, age, height, treatment-by-visit, baseline FVC, baseline FVC-by-visit and random effect for patient. Within-patient errors are modelled by unstructured covariance matrix.||146.75|-8.74|
90822640|NCT01979952|181522139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|2.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|5.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|As per the Clinical Trial Protocol, this is an exploratory trial hence p-values were not calculated.||MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, gender, age, height, treatment-by-visit, baseline FVC, baseline FVC-by-visit and random effect for patient. Within-patient errors are modelled by unstructured covariance matrix.||5.00|-0.29|
90822641|NCT01979952|181522141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.434|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.89|4.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM model included treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment-by-visit and baseline-by-visit as fixed effects and patient as random effect. Unstructured covariance was assumed for within patient variation||4.79|-4.89|
90822642|NCT01979952|181522142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|17.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.19|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.21|50.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM model included treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment-by-visit and baseline-by-visit as fixed effects and patient as random effect. Unstructured covariance was assumed for within patient variation||50.09|-14.21|
90822643|NCT01979952|181522143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|4.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|11.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM model included treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment-by-visit and baseline-by-visit as fixed effects and patient as random effect. Unstructured covariance was assumed for within patient variation||11.25|-1.47|
90822644|NCT01053988|181522153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.053||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.003|0.104||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.104|0.003|0.040
90822645|NCT01053988|181522153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.103|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.052|0.153|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.153|0.052|<0.001
90822646|NCT01053988|181522153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.192|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.141|0.243||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.243|0.141|<0.001
90822647|NCT01053988|181522153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.173|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.123|0.224|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.224|0.123|<0.001
90822648|NCT01053988|181522153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.170|0.070|<0.001
90822649|NCT01053988|181522153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.039|0.14||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.140|0.039|<0.001
90822650|NCT01053988|181522153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.071||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.021|0.121||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.121|0.021|0.006
90822651|NCT01053988|181522154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.033||||0.241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.022|0.088|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.088|-0.022|0.241
90822652|NCT01053988|181522154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.067||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.012|0.121|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.121|0.012|0.017
90822653|NCT01053988|181522154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.129|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.074|0.184||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.184|0.074|<0.001
90822654|NCT01053988|181522154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.115|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.169|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.169|0.060|<0.001
90822655|NCT01053988|181522154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.082||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.028|0.136||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.136|0.028|0.003
90822656|NCT01053988|181522154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.062||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.008|0.117||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.117|0.008|0.025
90822657|NCT01053988|181522154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.048||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.006|0.102|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.102|-0.006|0.082
90822658|NCT00719355|181522167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.25|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.4||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||A priori level of significance was set at p \<0.05.|ANCOVA|Repeated-measures ANCOVA using intent-to-treat procedures, was used for the primary outcome variable. Analyses were adjusted for age.||Observed power for our primary analysis was 0.64.||||0.033
90822659|NCT00719355|181522168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.65||0.109||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Repeated measures ANCOVA was used with intent to treat analysis. The co-variant was age.||||||0.109
90822660|NCT00773747|181522183|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.774|||=|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.636|0.941|||Regression, Cox|||Cox model stratified by myeloma stage at enrollment, history of a bone marrow transplant, and number of prior treatment regimens, with a single treatment covariate.||0.941|0.636|= 0.0100
90822661|NCT00773747|181522185|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.858||||0.3496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.622|1.184|||Regression, Cox|||Cox model stratified by myeloma stage at enrollment, history of a bone marrow transplant, and number of prior treatment regimens, with a single treatment covariate.||1.184|0.622|0.3496
90822662|NCT04260347|181522188|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.064||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.345|1.784|||Chi-squared||Actilyse® (alteplase) pre-approval participants were used as reference group.|||1.784|0.345|1.000
90822663|NCT04260347|181522189|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.889||||0.254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.699|1.08|||Chi-squared||Actilyse® (alteplase) pre-approval participants were used as reference group.|||1.08|0.699|0.254
90822664|NCT04260347|181522190|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.089||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.942|1.237|||Chi-squared||Actilyse® (alteplase) pre-approval participants were used as reference group.|||1.237|0.942|0.280
90822665|NCT04260347|181522191|OTHER||Standardized Mean Difference (SMD)|0.016||||0.916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.096|0.128|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||SMD = Difference in the mean between groups / Standard deviation Actilyse® (alteplase) pre-approval participants were used as reference group.|||0.128|-0.096|0.916
90822666|NCT04260347|181522192|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.066||||0.561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.872|1.261|||Chi-squared||Actilyse® (alteplase) pre-approval participants were used as reference group.|||1.261|0.872|0.561
90822667|NCT04260347|181522193|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.231||||0.522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.707|1.756|||Chi-squared||Actilyse® (alteplase) pre-approval participants were used as reference group.|||1.756|0.707|0.522
90822668|NCT04260347|181522194|OTHER||Standardized Mean Difference (SMD)|-0.021||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.133|0.091|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||SMD = Difference in mean between groups / Standard deviation Actilyse® (alteplase) pre-approval participants were used as reference group.|||0.091|-0.133|0.810
90822669|NCT04260347|181522195|OTHER||Standardized Mean Difference (SMD)|-0.085||||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.199|0.03|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||SMD = Difference in mean between groups / Standard deviation Actilyse® (alteplase) pre-approval participants were used as reference group.|||0.03|-0.199|0.179
90822670|NCT04260347|181522196|OTHER||Standardized Mean Difference (SMD)|0.042||||0.275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.072|0.156|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||SMD = Difference in mean between groups / Standard deviation Actilyse® (alteplase) pre-approval participants were used as reference group.|||0.156|-0.072|0.275
90822671|NCT02160145|181522226|OTHER||Treatment difference|1.271|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.859|1.684||A 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was applied to the primary analysis of the primary endpoint.|ANCOVA|Weighted Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) with effects of treatment and randomization stratification factors and covariate baseline.||Tolvaptan versus placebo. Treatment difference in the change of eGFR assessed the efficacy of tolvaptan treatment as compared with placebo in subjects with late-stage CKD due to ADPKD who tolerated tolvaptan during an initial run-in period.||1.684|0.859|<0.0001
90822672|NCT02160145|181522227|OTHER||Treatment difference|1.011|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.618|1.403||A two-sided alpha of 0.05 was applied when the primary endpoint reached a two-sided alpha of 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference in treatment effect was derived from a linear mixed model with effects of treatment, time, treatment ime interaction, acute haemodynamic effect, pretreatment baseline, and randomization stratification factors. An unstructured variance matrix was assumed for the random intercept and time.||1.403|0.618|<0.0001
91061329|NCT02955212|182006454|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.33|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including treatment as the fixed factor, and Baseline value and the stratification factor country as the covariates.|LS Mean Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-0.33|-0.55|<0.001
90822673|NCT00383162|181522239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.5|||<|0.001||95.0|2.17|9.36|||Generalized Estimating Equations|||||9.36|2.17|<0.001
90822674|NCT03533244|181522283|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.218||||||To reserve the family-wise error rate, the main treatment effect will be first assessed at the global level at alpha = 0.05. If this is significant, then pairwise comparisons will be conducted using the Bonferroni adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||An empirical sample size estimation was used as this was an exploratory study. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between AG-86893 and AG-86893 Vehicle. It is expected that the active group is at least 50% better than the vehicle.||||0.218
90822675|NCT03533244|181522283|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.290
90822676|NCT03533244|181522284|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.193|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.193
90822677|NCT03533244|181522284|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.399|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.399
90822678|NCT03533244|181522285|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.015
90822679|NCT03533244|181522285|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.022
90822680|NCT02578186|181522308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0312|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0312
90822681|NCT02713659|181522320|EQUIVALENCE|0.05||||||0.85|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Auditory standard score between infants at 6 months and 24 months of age in the Early literacy arm and the standard literacy arm||||0.85
90822682|NCT02713659|181522320|EQUIVALENCE|0.05||||||0.53|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Expressive standard score between infants at 6 months and 24 months of age in the Early literacy arm and the standard literacy arm||||0.53
91061330|NCT02955212|182006455|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.13|7.01|||Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|MMRM model with treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and stratification factor of country as fixed effects and Baseline value as covariate|LS Mean Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||7.01|4.13|<0.001
90822683|NCT02713659|181522320|EQUIVALENCE|0.05||||||0.49|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Total standard score between infants at 6 months and 24 months of age in the Early literacy arm and the standard literacy arm||||0.49
90822684|NCT02713659|181522321|EQUIVALENCE|0.05||||||0.57|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Total read scale score between infants at 6 months and 24 months of age in the early literacy arm and the standard literacy arm||||0.57
90822685|NCT02713659|181522322|EQUIVALENCE|0.05||||||0.23|||||||Chi-squared|||Number of up to date child well visits between the early literacy arm and the standard literacy arm at 6 months of age||||0.23
90822686|NCT02713659|181522322|EQUIVALENCE|0.05||||||0.71|||||||Chi-squared|||Number of up to date child vaccinations between the early literacy arm and the standard literacy arm at 6 months of age||||0.71
90822687|NCT00825812|181522333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean time to recovery|5.7||||||95.0|4.9|6.6|||ANOVA|ANOVA, adjusted for center effects, on log transformed times from start of administration of IMP to recovery of the T4/T1 ratio to 0.9.|Ratio of time to recovery of 0.9 T4/T1 ratio (neostigmine time / sugammadex time).|The primary analysis was the comparison of the two treatments among Chinese subjects.||6.6|4.9|
90822688|NCT00825812|181522333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean time to recovery|4.8||||||97.5|3.7|6.0|||ANOVA|ANOVA, adjusted for center effects, on log transformed times from start of administration of IMP to recovery of the T4/T1 ratio to 0.9.|Ratio of time to recovery of 0.9 T4/T1 ratio (neostigmine time / sugammadex time).|A key secondary analysis was the comparison of the two treatments among Caucasian subjects.||6.0|3.7|
90822689|NCT00825812|181522333|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was considered if the 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for median difference in recovery time (T4/T1 ratio to 0.9) was within the pre-specified range of -60 to +60 seconds.|median difference (seconds)|7.0||||||97.5|-5.0|21.0|||||Estimated median difference (Chinese - Caucasian) in seconds for the time to recovery of the T4/T1 ratio to 0.9 (after sugammadex).|A key secondary analysis was the comparison for equivalence between Chinese subjects and Caucasian subjects.||21|-5|
90822690|NCT00986362|181522340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.613||||0.679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|4.509|||Fisher Exact|||||4.509|0.070|0.679
90822691|NCT03755661|181522349|OTHER|pilot data to estimate effect size f-squared as the parameter as primary outcome||||||0.048||||||provide inferential statistics for data completion. Study is not designed to detect significant differences between groups|Regression, Linear|R-square change = .12; F-change (1, 20) = 4.44||pilot study to calculate effect size, study is not powered to detect significant group differences|"Computed f-squared as effect size estimate where baseline value of heavy drinking episodes entered in step 1 and condition in step 2~f- squared = .22"|||.048
90822692|NCT03755661|181522350|SUPERIORITY|"The main outcome variable is f-squared as an estimate of differences between conditions controlling for baseline value.~A statistical test is provided only for completeness as this study is not powered to detect significant effects"||||||0.34||||||F-change (1, 20) = 0.97|Regression, Linear|||pilot trial to compute effect size estimate|Computed f-squared as effect size estimate where baseline value of CAI entered in step 1 and condition in step 2 f- squared = .05, r-squared change = .04|||.34
90822693|NCT03755661|181522351|SUPERIORITY|This is a pilot trial to estimate effect sizes and not powered to detect significant differences||||||0.2||||||data provided for completeness, not powered to test differences|Regression, Linear|F-change (1, 20) = 1.80|||Computed f-squared as effect size estimate where baseline value of CAI entered in step 1 and condition in step 2 f- squared = .09, r-squared change = .058|||.20
90822694|NCT03755661|181522352|SUPERIORITY|Pilot trial not powered to detect significant group differences. Data from analyses presented for completeness. Primary outcome is effect size estimates||||||0.19|||||||Regression, Linear|F-change (1, 20) = 1.83||Pilot trial not powered to detect significant group differences|Computed f-squared as effect size estimate where baseline value of CAI entered in step 1 and condition in step 2 f- squared = .09, r-squared change = .048|||.19
91061331|NCT02955212|182006456|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|32.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.4|41.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor country.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||41.7|23.4|<0.001
91061332|NCT02955212|182006457|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|24.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|24.3|16.6|31.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of country.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||31.9|16.6|<0.001
91061333|NCT02955212|182006458|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|24.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.6|32.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of country.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||32.9|15.6|<0.001
91061334|NCT02955212|182006459|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|32.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.0|41.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of country.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||41.0|24.0|<0.001
91061335|NCT02955212|182006460|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|17.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|24.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of country.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||24.5|11.0|<0.001
91061336|NCT02955212|182006461|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|19.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.1|27.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of country|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||27.0|12.1|<0.001
91061337|NCT01311687|182006469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.59|||Stratified Log Rank Test|Stratified by age, disease population, and prior number of anti myeloma therapy.|Hazard ratio is for Pomalidomide Plus Low-Dose Dexamethasone : High Dose Dexamethasone|||0.59|0.35|<0.001
91061338|NCT01311687|182006470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.61|||Stratified log-rank test|Stratified by age, disease population, and prior number of anti myeloma therapy.|Hazard ratio is for Pomalidomide Plus Low-Dose Dexamethasone : High Dose Dexamethasone|||0.61|0.39|<0.001
91061339|NCT01311687|182006472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.74|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio is for Pomalidomide Plus Low-Dose Dexamethasone : High Dose Dexamethasone|||0.74|0.37|<0.001
91061340|NCT01311687|182006473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.92|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio is for Pomalidomide Plus Low-Dose Dexamethasone : High Dose Dexamethasone|||0.92|0.54|0.009
91061341|NCT01311687|182006474|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.91|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio is for Pomalidomide Plus Low-Dose Dexamethasone : High Dose Dexamethasone|||0.91|0.60|0.005
91061342|NCT01311687|182006475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.19|17.77|||Fisher Exact||Odds ratio is for pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone : high dose dexamethasone|||17.77|3.19|< 0.001
90822695|NCT03755661|181522353|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26||||||F-change (1, 19) = 1.34|Regression, Linear|||Not powered to test significant differences. provide data on effect size estimate below|Computed f-squared as effect size estimate where baseline value of CAI entered in step 1 and condition in step 2 f- squared = .05, r-squared change = .04|||.26
91061343|NCT01311687|182006476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.32|21.42|||Fisher Exact||Odds ratio is for Pomalidomide Plus Low-Dose Dexamethasone : High Dose Dexamethasone|||21.42|3.32|< 0.001
91061344|NCT01311687|182006477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.59|||Stratified Log Rank Test|Stratified by age, diseases population, and prior number of anti myeloma therapy.|Hazard ratio is for Pomalidomide Plus Low-Dose Dexamethasone : High Dose Dexamethasone|||0.59|0.36|< 0.001
91061345|NCT04090125|182006511|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0.485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.43|-0.90|0.485
91061346|NCT04090125|182006512|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53||||0.0887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.08|-1.13|0.0887
91061347|NCT04090125|182006513|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.13|-0.05|0.296
91061348|NCT04090125|182006514|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.01|-0.15|0.094
91061349|NCT04090125|182006515|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.85||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|8.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.62|-0.91|0.11
91061350|NCT04090125|182006516|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.74||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|7.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.59|-4.10|0.55
91061351|NCT04090125|182006517|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.05|-0.34|0.134
91061352|NCT04090125|182006518|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.03|-0.38|0.09
91061353|NCT04090125|182006519|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.04|-0.16|0.25
91061354|NCT04090125|182006520|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.04|-0.22|0.16
91061355|NCT04090125|182006521|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.36||||0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.29|52.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||52.02|-9.29|0.167
91061356|NCT04090125|182006522|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.15||||0.189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.85|63.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||63.14|-12.85|0.189
91061357|NCT04090125|182006527|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.51||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.65|8.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pain subscale||8.67|-3.65|0.42
91061358|NCT04090125|182006527|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.14||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.29|8.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Symptoms subscale||8.57|-6.29|0.76
91061359|NCT04090125|182006527|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.54||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|6.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Quality of life subscale||6.12|-13.20|0.46
91061360|NCT04090125|182006527|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.54||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|6.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Function in daily life||6.69|-1.61|0.22
91061361|NCT04090125|182006528|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.43||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.98|7.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pain subscale||7.85|-4.98|0.65
91061362|NCT04090125|182006528|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.95||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.93|11.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Symptoms subscale||11.83|-3.93|0.32
91061363|NCT04090125|182006528|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.64||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.61|12.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Quality of life||12.89|-9.61|0.77
91061364|NCT04090125|182006528|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.25||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|8.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Function in daily life||8.17|-1.67|0.19
91061365|NCT04090125|182006529|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.95||||0.191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.92|1.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.01|-4.92|0.191
91061366|NCT04090125|182006530|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.45||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.28|-2.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.62|-8.28|0.0004
91061367|NCT01342081|182006531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-1.3|||ANCOVA|||||-1.3|-2.1|< 0.001
91061368|NCT01342081|182006531|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin of 1.5 mmHg was used. Non-inferiority was claimed if the upper limit of the confidence interval of the difference is 1.5 mmHg or less.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.1||||||Non-inferiority was evaluated after superiority to tafluprost was confirmed.||0.1|-0.7|
91061369|NCT03440840|182006536|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.68||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Estimated marginal means comparisons, Tukey adjustment||||||0.40
91061370|NCT03440840|182006537|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04||0.37|TWO_SIDED|||||Estimated marginal means comparisons, Tukey adjustment|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.37
91061371|NCT03440840|182006538|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04||0.37|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Comparison of estimated marginal means, Tukey adjustment for multiple comparisons||||||0.37
91061372|NCT03440840|182006539|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.77||0.61|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Differences between estimated marginal means, Tukey correction for multiple comparisons.|||||0.61
91061373|NCT01349192|182006566|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference (Final Values)|0.56||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.74||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Chi-squared||Proportion difference was calculated as proportion negative for MRSA in the treatment group minus the proportion negative for MRSA in the observation group. 95% CI calculated using the Newcombe-Wilson method without continuity correction.|||0.74|0.25|0.0005
91061374|NCT01349192|182006566|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference (Final Values)|0.525||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.8||Test includes adjustment for two interim reviews of efficacy data. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Chi-squared||Proportion difference was calculated as proportion negative for MRSA in the treatment group minus the proportion negative for MRSA in the observation group.|||0.80|0.23|0.0004
91061375|NCT01349192|182006567|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.5463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.34||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Chi-squared||Proportion difference was calculated as proportion using antibiotics in the treatment group minus the proportion using antibiotics in the observation group. 95% CI calculated using the Newcombe-Wilson method without continuity correction.|||0.34|-0.18|0.5463
90822696|NCT02038075|181522354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.38||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.87|||Regression, Cox|||To determine the effectiveness of brief CBT compared with treatment as usual, univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazard regression models were used to analyze time to the first suicide attempt. Time to suicide attempt was measured by calculating the total number of days from enrollment to the first suicide attempt. For participants without a suicide attempt, the total number of days from enrollment to the last assessment was calculated.||.87|.16|.02
90822697|NCT04000581|181522364|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.329|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the mean change is equal between the groups, while the alternative is that an increased difference is observed in arm 2. The hypotheses are evaluated using a one-sided, two-sample t-test.||||0.329
90822698|NCT02519595|181522378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.2
91061376|NCT01349192|182006568|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.42||||0.3683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.3|11.47||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference was calculated as mean days of antibiotic use in the treatment group minus the mean days of antibiotic use in the observation group.|||11.47|-30.3|0.3683
91061377|NCT01349192|182006569|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.1205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.03||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Chi-squared||Difference was calculated as proportion with a PE treated with MRSA active antibiotics in the treatment group minus the analogous proportion in the observation group. 95% CI calculated using the Newcombe-Wilson method without continuity correction.|||0.03|-0.42|0.1205
91061378|NCT03749330|182006582|EQUIVALENCE|test of difference between pre and post|||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91061379|NCT02023983|182006583|OTHER|||||||0.765|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.765
91061380|NCT02023983|182006584|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
91061381|NCT02105467|182006585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||One-sided, one-sample exact test|||Superiority of SVR12 in the Immediate Treatment group was tested against the historical response rate of 73%.||||<0.001
91061382|NCT02105467|182006586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|9.6|||||Between-treatment difference (Immediate Treatment Group - Deferred Treatment Group) was analyzed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.6|-10.8|
91061383|NCT02105467|182006587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|2.0|||||Between-treatment difference (Immediate Treatment Group - Deferred Treatment Group) was analyzed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||2.0|-4.4|
91061384|NCT00770328|182006631|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0005
91061385|NCT00770328|182006632|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0114|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0114
91061386|NCT01776632|182006635|SUPERIORITY||difference of adjusted means|0.15||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||generalized linear mixed effects|||||||.03
91061387|NCT01776632|182006636|SUPERIORITY||difference of adjusted means|0.39||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||generalized linear mixed effects|||||||.003
91061388|NCT01776632|182006637|SUPERIORITY||difference of adjusted means|-0.43||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effects models|||||||.04
91061389|NCT01776632|182006638|SUPERIORITY||difference of adjusted means|-1.27||||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effects models|||||||.09
91061390|NCT04604795|182006699|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.833|1.331|||||Log transformed Cmax was analyzed using a mixed model with fixed effects for regimen and period, and participants as random effect.|||1.331|0.833|
91061391|NCT04604795|182006699|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean|6.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.916|8.474|||||Log transformed Cmax was analyzed using a mixed model with regimen, period, and regimen by period as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||8.474|4.916|
91061392|NCT04604795|182006708|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean|1.53|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.268|1.847|||||AUC(0-inf) was analyzed using a mixed model with fixed effects for regimen and period, and participants as random effect.|||1.847|1.268|
91061393|NCT04604795|182006708|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean|12.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|10.141|15.423|||||Log transformed AUC(0-inf) was analyzed using a mixed model with regimen, period, and regimen by period as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||15.423|10.141|
90822699|NCT02519595|181522379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.09
90822700|NCT02519595|181522380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.2
90822701|NCT02519595|181522382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||Chi-squared|||Adverse events in ED||||0.8
90822702|NCT02519595|181522382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Chi-squared|||Post discharge Emesis||||0.5
90822703|NCT02519595|181522383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.011
90822704|NCT00387036|181522384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||||90.0|-1.59|-0.25||||||||-0.25|-1.59|
90822705|NCT00387036|181522385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||||90.0|-0.28|6.61||||||||6.61|-0.28|
90822706|NCT03188510|181522386|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares means|0.971|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.805|1.17||||||||1.17|0.805|
90822707|NCT03188510|181522386|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares means|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.841|1.22||||||||1.22|0.841|
90822708|NCT03188510|181522386|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares means|0.985|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.819|1.18||||||||1.18|0.819|
90822709|NCT03188510|181522387|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares means|0.978|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.811|1.18||||||||1.18|0.811|
90822710|NCT03188510|181522387|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares means|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.833|1.21||||||||1.21|0.833|
90822711|NCT03188510|181522387|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares means|0.982|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.817|1.18||||||||1.18|0.817|
90822712|NCT04167137|181522396|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Because only 1 participant experienced a DLT (Grade 3 cytokine release syndrome in Arm 1 Cohort 6), no MTD could be reached.|Because only 1 participant experienced a DLT (Grade 3 cytokine release syndrome in Arm 1 Cohort 6), no MTD could be reached.|||
90822713|NCT03058692|181522407|OTHER|||||||0.53||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.53
90822714|NCT03058692|181522407|OTHER|||||||0.56||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD8+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.56
90822715|NCT03058692|181522408|OTHER|||||||0.74||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.74
90822716|NCT03058692|181522408|OTHER|||||||0.73||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD8+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.73
90822717|NCT03058692|181522409|OTHER|||||||0.66||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.66
90822718|NCT03058692|181522409|OTHER|||||||0.48||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD8+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.48
91061394|NCT04604795|182006745|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.318|0.693|||||Day 5 (High fat meal) versus (vs) Day 3 (fasted)|||0.693|0.318|
90822719|NCT03058692|181522410|OTHER|||||||0.32||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.32
91061395|NCT04604795|182006745|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.405|0.882|||||Day 7 (Standard meal) vs Day 3 (fasted)|||0.882|0.405|
91061396|NCT04604795|182006745|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean|0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.194|0.427|||||Day 5 (High fat meal) vs Day 3 (fasted)|||0.427|0.194|
91061397|NCT04604795|182006745|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean|0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.292|0.643|||||Day 7 (Standard meal) vs Day 3 (fasted)|||0.643|0.292|
91061398|NCT04604795|182006745|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.28|0.617|||||Day 5 (High fat meal) vs Day 3 (fasted)|||0.617|0.280|
91061399|NCT04604795|182006745|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.41|0.903|||||Day 7 (Standard meal) vs Day 3 (fasted)|||0.903|0.410|
91061400|NCT04604795|182006747|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.867|1.205|||||Day 5 (High fat meal) vs Day 3 (fasted)|||1.205|0.867|
91061401|NCT04604795|182006747|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.941|1.308|||||Day 7 (Standard meal) vs Day 3 (fasted)|||1.308|0.941|
91061402|NCT04604795|182006747|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.671|0.933|||||Day 5 (High fat meal) vs Day 3 (fasted)|||0.933|0.671|
91061403|NCT04604795|182006747|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.724|1.007|||||Day 7 (Standard meal) vs Day 3 (fasted)|||1.007|0.724|
91061404|NCT04604795|182006747|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.713|0.992|||||Day 5 (High fat meal) vs Day 3 (fasted)|||0.992|0.713|
91061405|NCT04604795|182006747|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.837|1.165|||||Day 7 (Standard meal) vs Day 3 (fasted)|||1.165|0.837|
91061406|NCT04386616|182006770|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.9266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.36||p\<0.05 threshold for statistical significance|Unstratified Log Rank||The hazard ratio was calculated as the MSTT1041A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||1.36|0.75|0.9266
91061407|NCT04386616|182006770|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||0.357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.54||p\<0.05 threshold for statistical significance|Unstratified Log Rank||The hazard ratio was calculated as the UTTR1147A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||1.54|0.86|0.3570
91061408|NCT04386616|182006770|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.9812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.36||p\<0.05 threshold for statistical significance|Stratified Log Rank|The analysis was adjusted for the baseline characteristics of region of enrollment and need for mechanical ventilation.|The hazard ratio was calculated as the MSTT1041A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||1.36|0.74|0.9812
91061409|NCT04386616|182006770|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.5151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.49||p\<0.05 threshold for statistical significance|Stratified Log Rank|The analysis was adjusted for the baseline characteristics of region of enrollment and need for mechanical ventilation.|The hazard ratio was calculated as the UTTR1147A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||1.49|0.82|0.5151
91061410|NCT04386616|182006771|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.8373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.39|||Unstratified Log Rank||The hazard ratio was calculated as the MSTT1041A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||1.39|0.77|0.8373
91061411|NCT04386616|182006771|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||0.3396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.55|||Unstratified Log Rank||The hazard ratio was calculated as the UTTR1147A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||1.55|0.86|0.3396
91061412|NCT04386616|182006771|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.8619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.39|||Stratified Log Rank|The analysis was adjusted for the baseline characteristics of region of enrollment and need for mechanical ventilation.|The hazard ratio was calculated as the MSTT1041A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||1.39|0.76|0.8619
91061413|NCT04386616|182006771|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.4913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.5|||Stratified Log Rank|The analysis was adjusted for the baseline characteristics of region of enrollment and need for mechanical ventilation.|The hazard ratio was calculated as the UTTR1147A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||1.50|0.82|0.4913
91061414|NCT04386616|182006772|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.4711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.49|||Unstratified Log Rank||The hazard ratio was calculated as the MSTT1041A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||1.49|0.83|0.4711
91061415|NCT04386616|182006772|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||0.3135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.56|||Unstratified Log Rank||The hazard ratio was calculated as the UTTR1147A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||1.56|0.87|0.3135
91061416|NCT04386616|182006772|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.5735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.48|||Stratified Log Rank|The analysis was adjusted for the baseline characteristics of region of enrollment and need for mechanical ventilation.|The hazard ratio was calculated as the MSTT1041A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||1.48|0.81|0.5735
91061417|NCT04386616|182006772|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.5973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.46|||Stratified Log Rank|The analysis was adjusted for the baseline characteristics of region of enrollment and need for mechanical ventilation.|The hazard ratio was calculated as the UTTR1147A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||1.46|0.80|0.5973
91061418|NCT04386616|182006773|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.5304|||||||Van Elteren||The median difference was calculated as the MSTT1041A Arm minus the Placebo Arm.|||||0.5304
91061419|NCT04386616|182006773|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-4.5||||0.5058|||||||Van Elteren||The median difference was calculated as the UTT1147A Arm minus the Placebo Arm.|||||0.5058
91061420|NCT04386616|182006774|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.8451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.72|||Chi-squared||The odds ratio was calculated as the MSTT1041A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||1.72|0.64|0.8451
91061421|NCT04386616|182006774|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.7267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.79|||Chi-squared||The odds ratio was calculated as the UTTR1147A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||1.79|0.67|0.7267
91061422|NCT04386616|182006774|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.8458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.79|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was adjusted for the baseline characteristics of region of enrollment and need for mechanical ventilation.|The odds ratio was calculated as the MSTT1041A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||1.79|0.63|0.8458
91061423|NCT04386616|182006774|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.7907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.81|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was adjusted for the baseline characteristics of region of enrollment and need for mechanical ventilation.|The odds ratio was calculated as the UTTR1147A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||1.81|0.64|0.7907
91061424|NCT04386616|182006775|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.5273|||||||Van Elteren||The median difference was calculated as the MSTT1041A Arm minus the Placebo Arm.|||||0.5273
91061425|NCT04386616|182006775|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.6515|||||||Van Elteren||The median difference was calculated as the UTT1147A Arm minus the Placebo Arm.|||||0.6515
91061426|NCT04386616|182006775|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.5475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.91|||Proportional Odds Model|The analysis was adjusted for the baseline characteristics of region of enrollment and need for mechanical ventilation.|The odds ratio was calculated as the MSTT1041A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||1.91|0.71|0.5475
90822720|NCT03058692|181522410|OTHER||||||>|0.99||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||>0.99
90822721|NCT03058692|181522411|OTHER|||||||0.0078||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.0078
90822722|NCT03058692|181522411|OTHER|||||||0.94||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD8+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.94
90822723|NCT03058692|181522412|OTHER|||||||||||||||||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.|No non-zero results were reported for either group so statistical testing was not performed.|||
90822724|NCT03058692|181522412|OTHER|||||||0.5||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD8+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.5
90822725|NCT03058692|181522413|OTHER|||||||||||||||||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.|No non-zero results were reported for either group so statistical testing was not performed.|||
90822726|NCT03058692|181522413|OTHER|||||||||||||||||This reports the analysis for response in CD8+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.|No non-zero results were reported for either group so statistical testing was not performed.|||
90822727|NCT03058692|181522414|OTHER|||||||||||||||||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.|No non-zero results were reported for either group so statistical testing was not performed.|||
90822728|NCT03058692|181522415|OTHER|||||||||||||||||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.|No non-zero results were reported for either group so statistical testing was not performed.|||
91061427|NCT04386616|182006775|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.5652|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.89|||Proportional Odds Model|The analysis was adjusted for the baseline characteristics of region of enrollment and need for mechanical ventilation.|The odds ratio was calculated as the UTTR1147A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||1.89|0.71|0.5652
91061428|NCT04386616|182006776|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.3401|||||||Van Elteren||The median difference was calculated as the MSTT1041A Arm minus the Placebo Arm.|||||0.3401
91061429|NCT04386616|182006776|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.4676|||||||Van Elteren||The median difference was calculated as the UTT1147A Arm minus the Placebo Arm.|||||0.4676
91061430|NCT04386616|182006776|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.3408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.29|||Proportional Odds Model|The analysis was adjusted for the baseline characteristics of region of enrollment and need for mechanical ventilation.|The odds ratio was calculated as the MSTT1041A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||2.29|0.75|0.3408
91061431|NCT04386616|182006776|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.29|||Proportional Odds Model|The analysis was adjusted for the baseline characteristics of region of enrollment and need for mechanical ventilation.|The odds ratio was calculated as the UTTR1147A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||2.29|0.76|0.3320
91061432|NCT04386616|182006777|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|3.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.57|15.24|||||The difference in percentage of participants was calculated as the MSTT1041A Arm minus the Placebo Arm.|||15.24|-7.57|
91061433|NCT04386616|182006777|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.46|10.7|||||The difference in percentage of participants was calculated as the UTTR1147A Arm minus the Placebo Arm.|||10.70|-11.46|
91061434|NCT04386616|182006777|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.4804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.1|||Chi-squared||The odds ratio was calculated as the MSTT1041A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||2.10|0.70|0.4804
91061435|NCT04386616|182006777|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.9418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.71|||Chi-squared||The odds ratio was calculated as the UTTR1147A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||1.71|0.56|0.9418
91061436|NCT04386616|182006777|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.4988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|2.44|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was adjusted for the baseline characteristics of region of enrollment and need for mechanical ventilation.|The odds ratio was calculated as the MSTT1041A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||2.44|0.68|0.4988
91061437|NCT04386616|182006777|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.9043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.96|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was adjusted for the baseline characteristics of region of enrollment and need for mechanical ventilation.|The odds ratio was calculated as the UTTR1147A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||1.96|0.54|0.9043
91061438|NCT04386616|182006778|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.8007|||||||Van Elteren||Median difference was calculated as the MSTT1041A Arm minus the Placebo Arm.|||||0.8007
91061439|NCT04386616|182006778|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.8633|||||||Van Elteren||Median difference was calculated as the UTTR1147A Arm minus the Placebo Arm.|||||0.8633
91061440|NCT04386616|182006779|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-3.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.31|9.12|||||The difference in percentage of participants was calculated as the MSTT1041A Arm minus the Placebo Arm.|||9.12|-16.31|
91061441|NCT04386616|182006779|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.67|0.67|||||The difference in percentage of participants was calculated as the UTTR1147A Arm minus the Placebo Arm.|||0.67|-24.67|
91061442|NCT04386616|182006779|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.41|||Chi-squared||The odds ratio was calculated as the MSTT1041A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||1.41|0.53|0.5560
91061443|NCT04386616|182006779|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.62||||0.0502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.0|||Chi-squared||The odds ratio was calculated as the UTTR1147A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||1.00|0.38|0.0502
91061444|NCT04386616|182006779|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.7002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was adjusted for the baseline characteristics of region of enrollment and need for mechanical ventilation.|The odds ratio was calculated as the MSTT1041A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||1.60|0.51|0.7002
91061445|NCT04386616|182006779|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.57||||0.0448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.99|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was adjusted for the baseline characteristics of region of enrollment and need for mechanical ventilation.|The odds ratio was calculated as the UTTR1147A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||0.99|0.32|0.0448
91061446|NCT04386616|182006780|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.48||||0.4845|||||||Van Elteren||Median difference was calculated as the MSTT1041A Arm minus the Placebo Arm.|||||0.4845
91061447|NCT04386616|182006780|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-3.1||||0.057|||||||Van Elteren||Median difference was calculated as the UTTR1147A Arm minus the Placebo Arm.|||||0.0570
91061448|NCT04386616|182006781|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19||||0.4456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.88|||Unstratified Log Rank||The hazard ratio was calculated as the MSTT1041A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||1.88|0.76|0.4456
91061449|NCT04386616|182006781|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.7213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.48|||Unstratified Log Rank||The hazard ratio was calculated as the UTTR1147A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||1.48|0.57|0.7213
91061450|NCT04386616|182006781|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.22||||0.3963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.96|||Stratified Log Rank|The analysis was adjusted for the baseline characteristics of region of enrollment and need for mechanical ventilation.|The hazard ratio was calculated as the MSTT1041A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||1.96|0.77|0.3963
91061451|NCT04386616|182006781|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.9174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.58|||Stratified Log Rank|The analysis was adjusted for the baseline characteristics of region of enrollment and need for mechanical ventilation.|The hazard ratio was calculated as the UTTR1147A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||1.58|0.60|0.9174
91061452|NCT04386616|182006782|OTHER||Difference in Mortality Rates|2.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.51|9.49|||||The difference in mortality rates is calculated as the MSTT1041A Arm minus the Placebo Arm.|||9.49|-4.51|
91061453|NCT04386616|182006782|OTHER||Difference in Mortality Rates|2.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.58|9.31|||||The difference in mortality rates is calculated as the UTTR1147A Arm minus the Placebo Arm.|||9.31|-4.58|
91061454|NCT04386616|182006782|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46||||0.4336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|3.74|||Chi-squared||The odds ratio was calculated as the MSTT1041A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||3.74|0.57|0.4336
91061455|NCT04386616|182006782|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.4543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|3.68|||Chi-squared||The odds ratio was calculated as the UTTR1147A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||3.68|0.56|0.4543
91061456|NCT04386616|182006782|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|3.97|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was adjusted for the baseline characteristics of region of enrollment and need for mechanical ventilation.|The odds ratio was calculated as the MSTT1041A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||3.97|0.54|0.4900
91061457|NCT04386616|182006782|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.58||||0.3595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|4.28|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was adjusted for the baseline characteristics of region of enrollment and need for mechanical ventilation.|The odds ratio was calculated as the UTTR1147A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||4.28|0.58|0.3595
91061458|NCT04386616|182006783|OTHER||Difference in Mortality Rates|3.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.42|12.26|||||The difference in mortality rates is calculated as the MSTT1041A Arm minus the Placebo Arm.|||12.26|-5.42|
91061459|NCT04386616|182006783|OTHER||Difference in Mortality Rates|1.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.89|10.26|||||The difference in mortality rates is calculated as the UTTR1147A Arm minus the Placebo Arm.|||10.26|-6.89|
91061460|NCT04386616|182006783|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.4067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.8|||Chi-squared||The odds ratio was calculated as the MSTT1041A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||2.80|0.66|0.4067
91061461|NCT04386616|182006783|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.6728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|2.46|||Chi-squared||The odds ratio was calculated as the UTTR1147A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||2.46|0.56|0.6728
91061462|NCT04386616|182006783|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.5495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.87|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was adjusted for the baseline characteristics of region of enrollment and need for mechanical ventilation.|The odds ratio was calculated as the MSTT1041A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||2.87|0.62|0.5495
91061463|NCT04386616|182006783|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.5551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|2.71|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was adjusted for the baseline characteristics of region of enrollment and need for mechanical ventilation.|The odds ratio was calculated as the UTTR1147A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||2.71|0.57|0.5551
90822729|NCT03058692|181522415|OTHER|||||||0.5||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD8+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.5
90822730|NCT03058692|181522416|OTHER||||||>|0.99||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||>0.99
90822731|NCT03058692|181522416|OTHER|||||||0.74||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD8+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.74
90822732|NCT03058692|181522417|OTHER|||||||0.5||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.50
90822733|NCT03058692|181522417|OTHER|||||||0.9||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD8+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.90
90822734|NCT03058692|181522418|OTHER|||||||0.87||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.87
90822735|NCT03058692|181522418|OTHER|||||||0.57||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD8+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.57
90822736|NCT03058692|181522419|OTHER|||||||0.82||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.82
90822737|NCT03058692|181522419|OTHER|||||||0.076||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD8+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.076
91061464|NCT04386616|182006784|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.31||||0.3831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.4|||Unstratified Log Rank||The hazard ratio was calculated as the MSTT1041A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||2.40|0.71|0.3831
91061465|NCT04386616|182006784|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18||||0.5925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|2.15|||Unstratified Log Rank||The hazard ratio was calculated as the UTTR1147A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||2.15|0.65|0.5925
91061466|NCT04386616|182006784|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.7487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.05|||Stratified Log Rank|The analysis was adjusted for the baseline characteristics of region of enrollment and need for mechanical ventilation.|The hazard ratio was calculated as the MSTT1041A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||2.05|0.60|0.7487
91061467|NCT04386616|182006784|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18||||0.6092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.21|||Stratified Log Rank|The analysis was adjusted for the baseline characteristics of region of enrollment and need for mechanical ventilation.|The hazard ratio was calculated as the UTTR1147A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||2.21|0.63|0.6092
91061468|NCT01377012|182006795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.21||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|3.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.4|1.4|0.0004
91061469|NCT01377012|182006795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.21||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|3.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.4|1.4|0.0004
91061470|NCT03176134|182006837|OTHER||Estimated Difference|6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|25.3|||||The estimated difference in the clinical success rate and 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using the unstratified method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|||25.3|-12.2|
91061471|NCT03176134|182006837|OTHER||Estimated Difference|-12.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.7|3.7|||||The estimated difference in the clinical success rate and 2-sided 95% CI were calculated using the unstratified method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|||3.7|-28.7|
91061472|NCT03176134|182006837|OTHER||Estimated Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||||The estimated difference in the clinical success rate and 2-sided 95% CI were calculated using the unstratified method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|||0.0|0.0|
91061473|NCT03176134|182006837|OTHER||Estimated Difference|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|13.4|||||The estimated difference in the clinical success rate and 2-sided 95% CI were calculated using the unstratified method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|||13.4|-10.7|
91061474|NCT03176134|182006838|OTHER||Estimated Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||||The estimated difference in the clinical success rate and 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using the unstratified method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|||0.0|0.0|
91061475|NCT03176134|182006838|OTHER||Estimated Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||||The estimated difference in the clinical success rate and 2-sided 95% CI were calculated using the unstratified method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|||0.0|0.0|
91061476|NCT03176134|182006838|OTHER||Estimated Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||||The estimated difference in the clinical success rate and 2-sided 95% CI were calculated using the unstratified method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|||0.0|0.0|
91061477|NCT03176134|182006838|OTHER||Estimated Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||||The estimated difference in the clinical success rate and 2-sided 95% CI were calculated using the unstratified method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|||0.0|0.0|
91061478|NCT03915652|182006839|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.93||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.88|1.02|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Waves 1 and 2 were combined and appointment nonadherence during the intervention was compared with the 12 months prior.||1.02|-2.88|0.34
91061479|NCT03915652|182006840|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|0.39|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Waves 1 and 2 were combined and emergency department visits and hospitalizations during the intervention was compared with the 12 months prior.||0.39|-1.08|0.34
91061480|NCT03915652|182006841|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.73|||t-test, 1 sided|One sided t-test of percent of needs remaining from 100%.||Wave 1 and Wave 2 were combined and the quality metric at the end of the 12-month intervention was compared to the metric from the start of the intervention.||0.73|0.45|<0.001
91061481|NCT03915652|182006842|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.5||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.8|34.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||||34.8|-19.8|0.51
91061482|NCT03915652|182006843|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.74||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|1.92|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Waves 1 and 2 combined, compared post to pre.||1.92|-0.43|0.17
91061483|NCT03915652|182006844|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.92|6.52|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Waves 1 and 2 combined, compared pre/post intervention||6.52|-4.92|0.72
91061484|NCT03915652|182006845|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.22|10.22|||t-test, 2 sided|||Waves 1 and 2 are combined; pre/post survey analysis||10.22|-6.22|0.50
91061485|NCT03915652|182006846|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.77||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|6.47|||t-test, 2 sided|||Waves 1 and 2 combined; pre/post analysis||6.47|1.06|0.01
91061486|NCT03915652|182006847|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|0.98|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Waves 1 and 2 combined, pre/post test||0.98|-1.27|0.77
91061487|NCT03915652|182006848|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.14||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.23|7.52|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Waves 1 and 2 combined; pre/post analysis||7.52|-3.23|0.37
91061488|NCT05736861|182006849|SUPERIORITY|Decision rule based on Bayesian posterior probability of efficacy. The decision threshold was a posterior probability of 0.95. A prespecified skeptical prior for the treatment effect was used to preserve type I error below 0.05.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.17|||||The interval is a highest-density credible interval. Adjustment variables: randomization, age, sex, duration of symptoms prior to study drug, calendar time, vaccination status, geographic region, call center indicator, and baseline symptom severity.|||1.17|0.96|
91061489|NCT05736861|182006850|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.6|||||The interval is a highest-density credible interval. Descriptive analysis is a maximum partial likelihood proportional hazards regression model. Low event rate precluded covariate adjustment.|||2.6|0.4|
91061490|NCT05736861|182006853|SUPERIORITY|Statistical analysis was a Bayesian proportional hazards regression model with covariate adjustment and weakly informative priors.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.8|||||The interval is a highest-density credible interval. Adjustment variables: randomization, age, sex, duration of symptoms prior to study drug, calendar time, vaccination status, geographic region, call center indicator, and baseline symptom severity.|||1.8|0.6|
91061491|NCT05736861|182006854|SUPERIORITY|Statistical analysis was a Bayesian cumulative probability ordinal regression model with covariate adjustment and weakly informative priors.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.13|||||The interval is a highest-density credible interval on the log relative odds scale. Odds ratio estimate from a Bayesian cumulative probability ordinal regression model with weakly informative priors.|||1.13|0.50|
91061492|NCT05736861|182006855|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.13|||||The interval is a highest-density credible interval on the log relative odds scale. Odds ratio estimate from a Bayesian cumulative probability ordinal regression model with weakly informative priors.|||1.13|0.39|
91061493|NCT05736861|182006856|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.91|||||||The interval is a highest-density credible interval on the log relative odds scale. Odds ratio estimate from a Bayesian cumulative probability ordinal regression model with weakly informative priors.|1.91|0.52|
91061494|NCT05736861|182006857|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.25|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||1.25|0.82|
91061495|NCT05736861|182006857|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.23|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.23|0.78|
91061496|NCT05736861|182006857|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.41|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||1.41|0.82|
91061497|NCT05736861|182006857|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.01|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.01|0.57|
91061498|NCT05736861|182006858|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.32|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||1.32|0.92|
91061499|NCT05736861|182006858|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.22|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.22|0.83|
91061500|NCT05736861|182006858|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.24|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||1.24|0.83|
91061501|NCT05736861|182006858|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.1||||||Day 90|Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|1.10|0.72|
90822738|NCT03058692|181522420|OTHER||||||>|0.99||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||>0.99
91061502|NCT05736861|182006859|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.2|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||1.20|0.80|
91061503|NCT05736861|182006859|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.25|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.25|0.78|
91061504|NCT05736861|182006859|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.43|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||1.43|0.86|
91061505|NCT05736861|182006859|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.12|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.12|0.66|
91061506|NCT05736861|182006860|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.35|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||1.35|0.87|
91061507|NCT05736861|182006860|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.57|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.57|0.96|
91061508|NCT05736861|182006860|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.54|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||1.54|0.92|
91061509|NCT05736861|182006860|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.18|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.18|0.71|
91061510|NCT05736861|182006861|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.47|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||1.47|0.97|
91061511|NCT05736861|182006861|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.33|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.33|0.84|
91061512|NCT05736861|182006861|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.55|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||1.55|0.95|
91061513|NCT05736861|182006861|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.19|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.19|0.73|
91061514|NCT05736861|182006862|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.26|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||1.26|0.86|
91061515|NCT05736861|182006862|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.29|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.29|0.85|
91061516|NCT05736861|182006862|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.34|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||1.34|0.85|
91061517|NCT05736861|182006862|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.28|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.28|0.80|
91061518|NCT05736861|182006863|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.27|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||1.27|0.88|
91061519|NCT05736861|182006863|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.14|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.14|0.79|
91061520|NCT05736861|182006863|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.09|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||1.09|0.75|
91061521|NCT05736861|182006863|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.36|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.36|0.93|
91061522|NCT05736861|182006864|SUPERIORITY||Difference in model estimate time unwell|-0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.15|||||The interval is a highest-density credible interval.|||-0.15|-0.82|
91061523|NCT05736861|182006865|SUPERIORITY||Difference in model estimated means|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.99|||||The interval is a highest-density credible interval.|Analysis is exploratory. No hypothesis test or decision rule was evaluated.||0.99|0.18|
91061524|NCT01783990|182006890|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||Fisher Exact|||The primary analysis compared the frequency of worsening spleen function (from normal to decreased or absent, or from decreased to absent).||||0.33
91061525|NCT01783990|182006891|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Fisher Exact|||The primary analysis compared the frequency of worsening spleen function (from normal to decreased or absent, or from decreased to absent).||||0.80
91061526|NCT01783990|182006892|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test was used to test if there were a statistically significant difference between the two treatment groups.||||0.87
91061527|NCT01783990|182006893|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test was used to test if there were a statistically significant difference between the two treatment groups.||||0.28
91061528|NCT01783990|182006894|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test was used to test if there were a statistically significant difference between the two treatment groups.||||0.31
91061529|NCT01783990|182006895|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test was used to test if there were a statistically significant difference between the two treatment groups.||||0.04
91061530|NCT01038336|182006896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.289|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.289
91061531|NCT01038336|182006897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.004
91061532|NCT01038336|182006898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.072|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.072
91061533|NCT01038336|182006899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.030
91061534|NCT01038336|182006900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.092|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.092
91061535|NCT01038336|182006901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.832|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.832
91061536|NCT01038336|182006902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.454|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.454
91061537|NCT01038336|182006903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.128|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.128
91061538|NCT02366689|182006904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.04
91061539|NCT02366689|182006905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||< 0.001
91061540|NCT02366689|182006906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||<0.001
91061541|NCT02366689|182006907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.432|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.432
91061542|NCT02366689|182006908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||<0.001
91061543|NCT02366689|182006909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||<0.001
91061544|NCT03718832|182006910|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0333487|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1943638||0.8638688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.415628|0.3489306||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 6 months after trial enrollment||0.3489306|-0.415628|0.8638688
91061545|NCT03718832|182006910|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0066385|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1853917||0.9714571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.371329|0.358052||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 6 months after trial enrollment||0.358052|-0.371329|0.9714571
91061546|NCT03718832|182006911|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1409446|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2106711||0.5039565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2735162|0.5554053||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 12 months after trial enrollment||0.5554053|-0.2735162|0.5039565
91061547|NCT03718832|182006911|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1213915|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2126328||0.5684854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2970052|0.5397882||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 12 months after trial enrollment||0.5397882|-0.2970052|0.5684854
91061548|NCT03718832|182006912|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.26835|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.90353||0.2247426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.73804|8.201347||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 6 months after trial enrollment||8.201347|-34.73804|0.2247426
91061549|NCT03718832|182006912|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.20164|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.25555||0.2794015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.37119|9.9679||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 6 months after trial enrollment||9.9679|-34.37119|0.2794015
91061550|NCT03718832|182006912|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|13.12548|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.550462||0.1708328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.703702|31.95466||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 12 months after trial enrollment||31.95466|-5.703702|0.1708328
91061551|NCT03718832|182006912|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|11.47577|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.59479||0.2801138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.422762|32.3743||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 12 months after trial enrollment||32.3743|-9.422762|0.2801138
91061552|NCT03718832|182006913|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.135585|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.325031||0.1991028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.57023|4.299061||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 6 months after trial enrollment||4.299061|-20.57023|0.1991028
90822739|NCT03058692|181522420|OTHER|||||||0.75||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD8+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.75
91061553|NCT03718832|182006913|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.493798|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.761916||0.0480884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0295297|6.958066||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 6 months after trial enrollment||6.958066|0.0295297|0.0480884
91061554|NCT03718832|182006913|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.681804|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.34136||0.1276817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.15188|2.788269||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 12 months after trial enrollment||2.788269|-22.15188|0.1276817
91061555|NCT03718832|182006913|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.658257|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.706497||0.3318554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.698022|5.014535||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 12 months after trial enrollment||5.014535|-1.698022|0.3318554
91061556|NCT03718832|182006914|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8749266|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9355095||0.3502313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.714084|0.9642311||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 6 months after trial enrollment||0.9642311|-2.714084|0.3502313
91061557|NCT03718832|182006914|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5608222|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2708671||0.0390797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0282451|1.093399||Adjusted mean difference for full controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 6 months after trial enrollment||1.093399|0.0282451|0.0390797
91061558|NCT03718832|182006914|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.450197|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9508997||0.1281032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.320109|0.419716||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 12 months after trial enrollment||0.419716|-3.320109|0.1281032
91061559|NCT03718832|182006914|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2794625|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2717457||0.3044732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2549974|0.8139224||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 12 months after trial enrollment||0.8139224|-0.2549974|0.3044732
91061560|NCT03718832|182006915|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|9.768353|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.933945||0.1007463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.907847|21.44455||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 6 months after trial enrollment||21.44455|-1.907847|0.1007463
91061561|NCT03718832|182006915|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.472004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.150772||0.3859868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.66534|14.60935||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 6 months after trial enrollment||14.60935|-5.66534|0.3859868
91061562|NCT03718832|182006915|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5461143|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.440905||0.9324908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.22545|12.13323||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Unadjusted mean difference, 12 months after trial enrollment||12.13323|-13.22545|0.9324908
91061563|NCT03718832|182006915|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.752831|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.754947||0.6328075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.08487|8.579205||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 12 months after trial enrollment||8.579205|-14.08487|0.6328075
91061564|NCT03718832|182006916|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|8.352141|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.663846||0.0743062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8250086|17.52929||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 6 months after trial enrollment.||17.52929|-0.8250086|0.0743062
91061565|NCT03718832|182006916|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.971188|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.902349||0.1270654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.709219|13.65159||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 6 months after trial enrollment||13.65159|-1.709219|0.1270654
91061566|NCT03718832|182006916|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.637485|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.443227||0.553277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.110146|11.38512||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 12 months after trial enrollment||11.38512|-6.110146|0.553277
91061567|NCT03718832|182006916|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.53149|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.925307||0.519562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.198658|10.26164||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 12 months after trial enrollment||10.26164|-5.198658|0.519562
91061568|NCT03718832|182006917|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.555117|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.427417||0.6976216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.363839|2.253605||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 6 months after trial enrollment||2.253605|-3.363839|0.6976216
91061569|NCT03718832|182006917|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4977997|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.041102||0.6329035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.546815|1.551216||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 6 months after trial enrollment||1.551216|-2.546815|0.6329035
91061570|NCT03718832|182006917|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.386111|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.812939||0.445181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.954999|2.182777||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 12 months after trial enrollment||2.182777|-4.954999|0.445181
91061571|NCT03718832|182006917|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.101914|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.860687||0.5542241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.765783|2.561956||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 12 months after trial enrollment||2.561956|-4.765783|0.5542241
91061572|NCT03718832|182006918|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|22.55812|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.74244||0.2045348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.35316|57.4694||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 6 months after trial enrollment||57.4694|-12.35316|0.2045348
91061573|NCT03718832|182006918|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|13.49781|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.95579||0.3675252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.93658|42.9322||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 6 months after trial enrollment||42.9322|-15.93658|0.3675252
91061574|NCT03718832|182006918|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.35256|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|26.69115||0.6709307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.8992|41.19407||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 12 months after trial enrollment||41.19407|-63.8992|0.6709307
91061575|NCT03718832|182006918|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.912496|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.34891||0.6766844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.95358|33.12859||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 12 months after trial enrollment||33.12859|-50.95358|0.6766844
91061576|NCT03718832|182006919|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.870464|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.024497||0.356123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.851219|2.110291||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 6 months after trial enrollment||2.110291|-5.851219|0.356123
91061577|NCT03718832|182006919|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8636408|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.941141||0.6566494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.681041|2.95376||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 6 months after trial enrollment||2.95376|-4.681041|0.6566494
91061578|NCT03718832|182006919|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.772051|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.905125||0.0484944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.519021|-0.0250809||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 12 months after trial enrollment||-0.0250809|-7.519021|0.0484944
91061579|NCT03718832|182006919|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.167034|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.821244||0.234947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.749627|1.415558||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 12 months after trial enrollment||1.415558|-5.749627|0.234947
91061580|NCT03718832|182006920|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5561156|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.086759||0.6091477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.693002|1.58077||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 6 months after trial enrollment||1.58077|-2.693002|0.6091477
91061581|NCT03718832|182006920|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3787962|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.032547||0.713942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.409379|1.651786||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 6 months after trial enrollment||1.651786|-2.409379|0.713942
91061582|NCT03718832|182006920|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4989275|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.053869||0.6362064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.573807|2.571662||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 12 months after trial enrollment||2.571662|-1.573807|0.6362064
91061583|NCT03718832|182006920|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.146286|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.048105||0.2748884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9154561|3.208027||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 12 months after trial enrollment||3.208027|-0.9154561|0.2748884
91061584|NCT03718832|182006921|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3232407|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3695066||0.3823224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4036366|1.050118||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 6 months after trial enrollment||1.050118|-0.4036366|0.3823224
91061585|NCT03718832|182006921|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2619965|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3729922||0.4829339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4718566|0.9958495||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 6 months after trial enrollment||0.9958495|-0.4718566|0.4829339
91061586|NCT03718832|182006921|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6983982|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3476441||0.045506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.382737|-0.0140597||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 12 months after trial enrollment||-0.0140597|-1.382737|0.045506
91061587|NCT03718832|182006921|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6239824|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3336405||0.0625551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.280906|0.0329412||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 12 months after trial enrollment||0.0329412|-1.280906|0.0625551
91061588|NCT03718832|182006922|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.276579|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.636162||0.1650343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9420086|5.495166||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 6 months after trial enrollment||5.495166|-0.9420086|0.1650343
90822740|NCT03058692|181522421|OTHER|||||||0.5||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.50
90822741|NCT03058692|181522421|OTHER|||||||0.5||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD8+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.50
91061589|NCT03718832|182006922|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.989458|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.359013||0.1442126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6843682|4.663284||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 6 months after trial enrollment||4.663284|-0.6843682|0.1442126
91061590|NCT03718832|182006922|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.579811|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.739612||0.0335498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.03574|-0.1238828||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 12 months after trial enrollment.||-0.1238828|-3.03574|0.0335498
91061591|NCT03718832|182006922|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.764632|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8545352||0.0398937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.447175|-0.0820899||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 12 months after trial enrollment||-0.0820899|-3.447175|0.0398937
91061592|NCT03718832|182006923|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6294078|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4409795||0.1544491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.496923|0.238107||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 6 months after trial enrollment||0.238107|-1.496923|0.1544491
91061593|NCT03718832|182006923|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6081765|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.451915||0.1793486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.497352|0.2809987||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 6 months after trial enrollment||0.2809987|-1.497352|0.1793486
91061594|NCT03718832|182006923|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1731023|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4024787||0.6674618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9653829|0.6191784||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 12 months after trial enrollment||0.6191784|-0.9653829|0.6674618
91061595|NCT03718832|182006923|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2208031|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4196435||0.5992113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.047063|0.6054567||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 12 months after trial enrollment||0.6054567|-1.047063|0.5992113
91061596|NCT03718832|182006924|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4824561|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.423027||0.2549037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.349686|1.314598||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 6 months after trial enrollment||1.314598|-0.349686|0.2549037
91061597|NCT03718832|182006924|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3545817|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4230741||0.4025977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4777863|1.186949||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 6 months after trial enrollment||1.186949|-0.4777863|0.4025977
90822742|NCT03058692|181522422|OTHER||||||>|0.99||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||>.99
90822743|NCT03058692|181522422|OTHER||||||>|0.99||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD8+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||>.99
90822744|NCT03058692|181522423|OTHER|||||||0.81||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.81
90822745|NCT03058692|181522423|OTHER|||||||0.47||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD8+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.47
90822746|NCT03058692|181522424|OTHER|||||||0.0061||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.0061
90822747|NCT03058692|181522424|OTHER|||||||0.28||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD8+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.28
90822748|NCT03058692|181522425|OTHER|||||||0.36||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.36
91061598|NCT03718832|182006924|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0102657|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4695747||0.9825739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9346107|0.9140792||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 12 months after trial enrollment||0.9140792|-0.9346107|0.9825739
90822749|NCT03058692|181522425|OTHER|||||||0.32||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD8+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.32
91061599|NCT03718832|182006924|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0340184|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4869778||0.9443607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9928399|0.9248032||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 12 months after trial enrollment||0.9248032|-0.9928399|0.9443607
91061600|NCT03718832|182006925|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.160997|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0376773||2.52e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0868814|0.2351126||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 6 months after trial enrollment||0.2351126|0.0868814|0.0000252
91061601|NCT03718832|182006925|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1691707|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0391132||2.04e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0922183|0.2461232||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 6 months after trial enrollment||0.2461232|0.0922183|0.0000204
91061602|NCT03718832|182006925|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0028595|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0261733||0.9130816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0486635|0.0543825||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 12 months after trial enrollment||0.0543825|-0.0486635|0.9130816
91061603|NCT03718832|182006925|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0166325|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0271062||0.5400053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0367394|0.0700045||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 12 months after trial enrollment||0.0700045|-0.0367394|0.5400053
91061604|NCT03718832|182006926|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0511555|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016316||0.0018721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0190582|0.0832528||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 6 months after trial enrollment||0.0832528|0.0190582|0.0018721
91061605|NCT03718832|182006926|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0433081|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0168497||0.0106231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0101555|0.0764607||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 6 months after trial enrollment||0.0764607|0.0101555|0.0106231
90822750|NCT03058692|181522426|OTHER|||||||0.42||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.42
90822751|NCT03058692|181522426|OTHER|||||||0.26||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD8+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.26
90822752|NCT03058692|181522427|OTHER|||||||0.53||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.53
90822753|NCT03058692|181522427|OTHER|||||||0.56||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.56
91061606|NCT03718832|182006926|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0138256|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0171112||0.4197898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0198584|0.0475096||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 12 months after trial enrollment||0.0475096|-0.0198584|0.4197898
91061607|NCT03718832|182006926|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0179852|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0171811||0.2961479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0158442|0.0518147||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 12 months after trial enrollment||0.0518147|-0.0158442|0.2961479
91061608|NCT03718832|182006927|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4018522|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1001575||7.43e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2048311|0.5988733||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 6 months after trial enrollment||0.5988733|0.2048311|0.0000743
91061609|NCT03718832|182006927|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3643095|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1026922||0.0004471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16227|0.566349||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 6 months after trial enrollment||0.566349|0.16227|0.0004471
91061610|NCT03718832|182006927|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0006229|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1095781||0.9954683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2150785|0.2163243||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 12 months after trial enrollment||0.2163243|-0.2150785|0.9954683
91061611|NCT03718832|182006927|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0161147|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1115322||0.8852268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2357129|0.2034834||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 12 months after trial enrollment||0.2034834|-0.2357129|0.8852268
91061612|NCT03718832|182006928|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9013876|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4414753||0.0417413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0338441|1.768931||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 6 months after trial enrollment||1.768931|0.0338441|0.0417413
91061613|NCT03718832|182006928|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8939751|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3896126||0.0222222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1282798|1.65967||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 6 months after trial enrollment||1.65967|0.1282798|0.0222222
91061614|NCT03718832|182006928|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0276596|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7606961||0.9710103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.467185|1.522504||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 12 months after trial enrollment||1.522504|-1.467185|0.9710103
91061615|NCT03718832|182006928|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0377244|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6523585||0.9539117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.244338|1.319787||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 12 months after trial enrollment||1.319787|-1.244338|0.9539117
91061616|NCT03718832|182006929|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1045328|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1417549||0.4612408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3830955|0.1740299||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 6 months after trial enrollment||0.1740299|-0.3830955|0.4612408
91061617|NCT03718832|182006929|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0552724|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1181649||0.6401864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2874987|0.176954||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 6 months after trial enrollment||0.176954|-0.2874987|0.6401864
91061618|NCT03718832|182006929|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2761332|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2593125||0.2874913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7857084|0.2334419||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 12 months after trial enrollment||0.2334419|-0.7857084|0.2874913
91061619|NCT03718832|182006929|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.155843|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2092772||0.4568601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56713|0.2554439||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 12 months after trial enrollment||0.2554439|-0.56713|0.4568601
91061620|NCT03718832|182006930|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0539315|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0267347||0.0442418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0013953|0.1064678||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 6 months after trial enrollment||0.1064678|0.0013953|0.0442418
90822754|NCT03058692|181522428|OTHER|||||||0.97||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.97
91061621|NCT03718832|182006930|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0546574|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0272506||0.0454857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0011025|0.1082124||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 6 months after trial enrollment||0.1082124|0.0011025|0.0454857
91061622|NCT03718832|182006930|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0076781|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0188378||0.683764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0293401|0.0446963||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 6 months after trial enrollment||0.0446963|-0.0293401|0.683764
91061623|NCT03718832|182006930|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0053342|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0183059||0.7708852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0306419|0.0413103||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 12 months after trial enrollment||0.0413103|-0.0306419|0.7708852
91061624|NCT03718832|182006931|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.053099|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0436586||0.2245167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1388926|0.0326946||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 6 months after trial enrollment||0.0326946|-0.1388926|0.2245167
91061625|NCT03718832|182006931|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0815933|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0424438||0.0551913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1650069|0.0018204||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 6 months after trial enrollment||0.0018204|-0.1650069|0.0551913
91061626|NCT03718832|182006931|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0506938|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0461078||0.2721373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1413002|0.0399126||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 12 months after trial enrollment||0.0399126|-0.1413002|0.2721373
91061627|NCT03718832|182006931|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.079563|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0428514||0.0640071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1637776|0.0046516||Adjusted mean difference for full controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 12 months after trial enrollment||0.0046516|-0.1637776|0.0640071
91061628|NCT03718832|182006932|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|13.79692|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|808.862||0.9864081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1581.244|1608.838||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 6 months after trial enrollment||1608.838|-1581.244|0.9864081
91061629|NCT03718832|182006932|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|119.3302|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|885.2058||0.8929133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1627.128|1865.789||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 6 months after trial enrollment||1865.789|-1627.128|0.8929133
91061630|NCT03718832|182006932|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1260.452|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1327.743||0.343724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3880.298|1359.393||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 12 months after trial enrollment||1359.393|-3880.298|0.343724
91061631|NCT03718832|182006932|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1206.216|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1344.574||0.3709654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3860.887|1448.455||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 12 months after trial enrollment||1448.455|-3860.887|0.3709654
91061632|NCT03718832|182006933|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1290.605|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|732.2306||0.0795087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-153.3215|2734.532||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 6 months after trial enrollment||2734.532|-153.3215|0.0795087
91061633|NCT03718832|182006933|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1207.762|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|874.6068||0.1689786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-517.7854|2933.309||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 6 months after trial enrollment||2933.309|-517.7854|0.1689786
91061634|NCT03718832|182006933|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1209.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|957.1006||0.2080145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-679.1596|3097.86||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 12 months after trial enrollment||3097.86|-679.1596|0.2080145
91061635|NCT03718832|182006933|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1258.587|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1077.807||0.2445904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-869.3893|3386.563||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 12 months after trial enrollment||3386.563|-869.3893|0.2445904
91061636|NCT03718832|182006934|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.035245|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1415551|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.757075|2.313415||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 6 months after trial enrollment||2.313415|1.757075|<0.001
91061637|NCT03718832|182006934|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.0087|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1395364|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.734473|2.282927||"Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05.~Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors."|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 6 months after trial enrollment||2.282927|1.734473|<0.001
91061638|NCT03718832|182006934|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.619982|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2663507|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.096575|2.143388||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 12 months after trial enrollment.||2.143388|1.096575|<0.001
91061639|NCT03718832|182006934|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.559642|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2680774|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.032797|2.086488||"Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05.~Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors."|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 12 months after trial enrollment.||2.086488|1.032797|<0.001
91061640|NCT03718832|182006935|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.881776|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1057965|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.673875|2.089677||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 6 months after trial enrollment.||2.089677|1.673875|<0.001
91061641|NCT03718832|182006935|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.868221|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1036609|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.664499|2.071943||"Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05.~Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors."|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 6 months after trial enrollment.||2.071943|1.664499|<0.001
91061642|NCT03718832|182006935|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.650879|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2057239|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.246611|2.055147||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 12 months after trial enrollment.||2.055147|1.246611|<0.001
91061643|NCT03718832|182006935|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.636306|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2052192|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.232994|2.039618||"Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05.~Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors."|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 12 months after trial enrollment.||2.039618|1.232994|<0.001
91061644|NCT03718832|182006936|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1104533|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0769621||0.1519153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.040785|0.2616915||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 6 months after trial enrollment.||0.2616915|-0.040785|0.1519153
91061645|NCT03718832|182006936|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0594575|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0654489||0.3641254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0691675|0.1880824||"Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05.~Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors."|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 6 months after trial enrollment.||0.1880824|-0.0691675|0.3641254
91061646|NCT03718832|182006936|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2062905|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1288363||0.1100186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0468859|0.4594669||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 12 months after trial enrollment.||0.4594669|-0.0468859|0.1100186
91061647|NCT03718832|182006936|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1162375|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1015839||0.2531303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0834025|0.3158775||"Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05.~Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors."|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 12 months after trial enrollment.||0.3158775|-0.0834025|0.2531303
91061648|NCT03718832|182006937|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0584644|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.040837||0.152918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1387132|0.0217844||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 6 months after trial enrollment||0.0217844|-0.1387132|0.152918
91061649|NCT03718832|182006937|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0585771|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0304262||0.0548344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1183728|0.0012186||"Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05.~Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors."|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 6 months after trial enrollment.||0.0012186|-0.1183728|0.0548344
91061650|NCT03718832|182006937|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1691027|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0673022||0.0123238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3013583|-0.036847||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 12 months after trial enrollment.||-0.036847|-0.3013583|0.0123238
91061651|NCT03718832|182006937|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1701425|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0575065||0.0032534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2831584|-0.0571266||"Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05.~Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors."|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 12 months after trial enrollment.||-0.0571266|-0.2831584|0.0032534
91061652|NCT01996241|182006954|OTHER|Odds ratio (95% CI), p-value for all the outcomes.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.38||Adjusted models controlled for cluster, village strata, village type, caste, household literacy status, stratum (individual-level data endline) and poor learning environment at school, school dropout, and marriage (cluster-level summaries baseline)|Regression, Logistic|Mixed-effects||||1.38|0.7|0.98
91061653|NCT01996241|182006955|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.4||Adjusted models controlled for cluster, village strata, village type, caste, household literacy status, stratum (individual-level data endline) and poor learning environment at school, school dropout, and marriage (cluster-level summaries baseline)|Regression, Logistic|Mixed-effects||||1.4|0.7|0.98
91061654|NCT01996241|182006956|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.31||Adjusted for village strata and cluster, village type, caste, household literacy status, stratum using individual-level data and poor learning environment at school, school dropout, and marriage (in the form of cluster-level summaries).|Regression, Logistic|Mixed-effects||||2.31|0.2|0.331
91061655|NCT01996241|182006957|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.15||Adjusted models controlled for cluster, village strata, village type, caste, household literacy status, stratum (individual-level data endline) and poor learning environment at school, school dropout, and marriage (cluster-level summaries baseline)|Regression, Logistic|Mixed-effects||||1.15|0.6|0.26
91061656|NCT01996241|182006958|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.55||Adjusted models controlled for cluster, village strata, village type, caste, household literacy status, stratum (individual-level data endline) and poor learning environment at school, school dropout, and marriage (cluster-level summaries baseline)|Regression, Logistic|Mixed-effects||||1.55|0.7|0.79
91061657|NCT01996241|182006959|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.34||Adjusted models controlled for cluster, village strata, village type, caste, household literacy status, stratum (individual-level data endline) and poor learning environment at school, school dropout, and marriage (cluster-level summaries baseline)|Regression, Logistic|Mixed-effects||||1.34|0.5|0.45
91061658|NCT01295112|182006961|SUPERIORITY|||||||2e-05|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.00002
91061659|NCT01295112|182006962|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority will be described by the 95% upper bound of the confidence interval on the difference in the improvement from baseline in BCVA|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.51|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.96||0.53|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.43|9.74||The p-value is assume superiority. The 95% upper confidence (upper end of the 90% Confidence interval) interval for the non-inferiority analysis is provided below.|t-test, 1 sided|||||9.74|-4.43|0.53
91061660|NCT01068262|182006963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|69.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|50.9|80.2|||Linear mixed effect model|Back-transformed least squares estimates and confidence intervals from a linear mixed effect model were performed on natural log-transformed values.||||80.2|50.9|
91061661|NCT01068262|182006963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.7|14.9|||Linear mixed effects model|Back-transformed least squares estimates and confidence intervals from a linear mixed effect model were performed on natural log-transformed values.||||14.9|-14.7|
91061662|NCT01068262|182006964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimate|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.75|1.07||Hypothesis: Following 4 weeks of Qw oral dosing of Odanacatib 50 mg, there is no clinically important difference in the true GMR (male/postmenopausal female) of the AUC0-168hr. The GMR is contained within the interval (0.4, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR); male/female|||||1.07|0.75|
91061663|NCT01068262|182006965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.82|1.04|||GMR|||||1.04|0.82|
91061664|NCT01068262|182006966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimate|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.66|1.35|||GMR|||||1.35|0.66|
91061665|NCT01811472|182006974|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The power calculation was largely driven by the maximum true response assumed in the candidate response shapes, which is a difference of -5.2% for pradigastat vs placebo for the primary endpoint.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.69||||0.3128|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.46|1.09|||Mixed Model of Repeated Measurements|Degrees of freedom are adjusted using the Kenward-Roger method.||Hypothesis was tested at the 1-sided 5% significance level to assess if LCQ908 5mg/10mg was different from placebo.||1.09|-4.46|0.3128
91061666|NCT01811472|182006974|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The power calculation was largely driven by the maximum true response assumed in the candidate response shapes, which is a difference of -5.2% for pradigastat vs placebo for the primary endpoint.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.89||||0.0457|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.25|-0.53|||Mixed Model of Repeated Measurements|Degrees of freedom are adjusted using the Kenward-Roger method.||Hypothesis was tested at the 1-sided 5% significance level to assess if LCQ908 10mg/20mg was different from placebo.||-0.53|-5.25|0.0457
91061667|NCT03105518|182006992|SUPERIORITY||1 way test, chisquare approximation|7.188||||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||VAS at Time 0; Follicles ≤10 vs. \> 10||||0.007
91061668|NCT03105518|182006992|SUPERIORITY||1 way Test, ChiSquare Approximation|3.6396||||0.056|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||VAS at Time 15; Follicles ≤10 vs. \> 10||||0.056
91061669|NCT03105518|182006992|SUPERIORITY||1 way Test, ChiSquare Approximation|15.971|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||VAS at Time 30; Follicles ≤10 vs. \> 10||||<0.0001
91061670|NCT03105518|182006992|SUPERIORITY||1-way Test, ChiSquare Approximation|16.0972|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||VAS at Time 60; Follicles ≤10 vs. \> 10||||<0.0001
91061671|NCT03105518|182006993|SUPERIORITY||1-way Test, ChiSquare Approximation|2.7205||||0.0991|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||VAS at Post Operative Day 1; Follicles ≤10 vs. \> 10||||0.0991
91061672|NCT03105518|182006993|SUPERIORITY||1 way Test, ChiSquare Approximation|1.5654||||0.2109|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||VAS at Post Operative Day 2; Follicles ≤10 vs. \> 10||||0.2109
91061673|NCT03105518|182006993|SUPERIORITY||1-way Test, ChiSquare Approximation|0.008||||0.9287|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||VAS at Post Operative Day 3; Follicles ≤10 vs. \> 10||||0.9287
91061674|NCT04807400|182007095|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|-31.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.91|-25.77||p-values are adjusted using Holm's procedure.|ANCOVA|||||-25.77|-37.91|<0.001
91061675|NCT04807400|182007095|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|-32.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.35|-25.94||p-values are adjusted using Holm's procedure.|ANCOVA|||||-25.94|-38.35|<0.001
91061676|NCT04807400|182007097|SUPERIORITY||Least-squares Mean|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.13|||ANOVA|||||2.13|0.62|<0.001
91061677|NCT04807400|182007097|SUPERIORITY||Least-squares Mean|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.1|||ANOVA|||||2.10|0.60|<0.001
91061678|NCT04807400|182007098|SUPERIORITY||Least-squares Mean|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.326||0.9347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.61|||ANOVA|||||0.61|-0.67|0.9347
91061679|NCT04807400|182007099|SUPERIORITY||Least-squares Mean|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.34||0.6759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.62|5.58|||ANCOVA|||||5.58|-3.62|0.6759
91061680|NCT04807400|182007099|SUPERIORITY||Least-squares Mean|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.31||0.5756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.25|5.84|||ANCOVA|||||5.84|-3.25|0.5756
91061681|NCT04807400|182007100|SUPERIORITY||Least-squares Mean|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.69||0.858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.02|3.62|||ANCOVA|||||3.62|-3.02|0.8580
91061682|NCT04194645|182007109|OTHER|The statistical model used for the analysis of the endpoint was an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA ) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|Ratio of geometric mean (T2/R)|97.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.45|104.4|||ANOVA||Intra- individual coefficient of variation (gCV %) = 8.9|No formal hypothesis was tested.||104.40|91.45|
91061683|NCT04194645|182007109|OTHER|The statistical model used for the analysis of the endpoint was an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA ) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|Ratio of geometric mean (T1/T2)|112.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.82|128.94|||ANOVA||Intra- individual coefficient of variation (gCV %) = 16.8|No formal hypothesis was tested.||128.94|98.82|
91061684|NCT04194645|182007110|OTHER|The statistical model used for the analysis of the endpoint was an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA ) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|Ratio of geometric mean (T2/R)|48.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|41.86|55.09|||ANOVA||Intra- individual coefficient of variation (gCV %) = 18.5|No formal hypothesis was tested.||55.09|41.86|
91061685|NCT04194645|182007110|OTHER|The statistical model used for the analysis of the endpoint was an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA ) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|Ratio of geometric mean (T1/T2)|122.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|105.04|143.56|||ANOVA||Intra- individual coefficient of variation (gCV %) = 19.8|No formal hypothesis was tested.||143.56|105.04|
91061686|NCT04194645|182007113|OTHER|The statistical model used for the analysis of the endpoint was an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA ) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|Ratio of geometric mean (T2/R)|98.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.98|105.09|||ANOVA||Intra- individual coefficient of variation (gCV %) = 8.9|No formal hypothesis was tested.||105.09|91.98|
91061687|NCT04194645|182007113|OTHER|The statistical model used for the analysis of the endpoint was an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA ) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|Ratio of geometric mean (T1/T2)|112.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.75|129.18|||ANOVA||Intra- individual coefficient of variation (gCV %) = 16.9|No formal hypothesis was tested.||129.18|98.75|
91061688|NCT03656744|182007114|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.199|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.199
91061689|NCT03656744|182007114|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.011
91061690|NCT03656744|182007115|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.152|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.152
91061691|NCT03656744|182007115|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.109|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.109
91061692|NCT03656744|182007116|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.034|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.034
91061693|NCT03656744|182007116|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.004
91061694|NCT03656744|182007117|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.884|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.884
91061695|NCT03656744|182007117|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.236|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.236
91061696|NCT03656744|182007118|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.196|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.196
91061697|NCT03656744|182007118|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.016
91061698|NCT03656744|182007119|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.294|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.294
91061699|NCT03656744|182007120|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.287|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.287
91061700|NCT03656744|182007120|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.090
91061701|NCT03656744|182007121|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.201|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.201
91061702|NCT03656744|182007121|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.534|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.534
91061703|NCT03656744|182007122|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.955|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.955
91061704|NCT03656744|182007122|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.072|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.072
91061705|NCT03656744|182007123|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.041|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.041
91061706|NCT03656744|182007123|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.120
91061707|NCT03656744|182007124|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.955|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.955
91061708|NCT03656744|182007124|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.072|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.072
91061709|NCT03656744|182007125|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.488|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.488
91061710|NCT03656744|182007125|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.022
91061711|NCT03656744|182007126|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.674|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.674
91061712|NCT03656744|182007126|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.030
91061713|NCT03656744|182007127|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.588|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.588
91061714|NCT03656744|182007127|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.103|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.103
91061715|NCT03656744|182007128|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.236|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.236
91061716|NCT03656744|182007128|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.944|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.944
91061717|NCT03656744|182007129|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.267|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.267
91061718|NCT03656744|182007129|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.911|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.911
91061719|NCT03656744|182007130|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.387|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.387
91061720|NCT03656744|182007130|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.855|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.855
91061721|NCT03656744|182007131|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.107|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.107
91061722|NCT03656744|182007131|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.489|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.489
91061723|NCT03656744|182007132|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.515|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.515
91061724|NCT03656744|182007132|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.887|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.887
91061725|NCT03656744|182007133|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.003
91061726|NCT03656744|182007133|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.016
91061727|NCT03656744|182007134|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.124|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.124
91061728|NCT03656744|182007134|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.171|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.171
91061729|NCT03076775|182007136|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.97
91061730|NCT03076775|182007137|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.24
91061731|NCT03076775|182007138|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.15
91061732|NCT03076775|182007139|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.55
91061733|NCT03076775|182007140|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.83
91061734|NCT03076775|182007141|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.79
91061735|NCT03076775|182007142|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.97
91061736|NCT03076775|182007143|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.44
91061737|NCT03076775|182007144|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.16
91061738|NCT03076775|182007145|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.59
91061739|NCT01783886|182007151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|10.9|17.2|||ANCOVA||Least Square (LS) mean difference from ANCOVA. The estimate is calculated as EYLEA minus Laser.|||17.2|10.9|<0.0001
91061740|NCT01783886|182007151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|10.2|16.9|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference from ANCOVA. The estimate is calculated as EYLEA minus Laser.|||16.9|10.2|<0.0001
91061741|NCT01783886|182007152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted difference|47.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|35.0|59.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH). The estimate is calculated as EYLEA minus Laser.|||59.9|35.0|<0.0001
91061742|NCT01783886|182007152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted difference|39.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|26.3|52.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The estimate is calculated as EYLEA minus Laser.|||52.1|26.3|<0.0001
91061743|NCT01783886|182007153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted difference|31.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|19.2|43.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The estimate is calculated as EYLEA minus Laser.|||43.0|19.2|<0.0001
91061744|NCT01783886|182007153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted difference|24.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|12.6|35.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The estimate is calculated as EYLEA minus Laser.|||35.9|12.6|<0.0001
91061745|NCT01783886|182007154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted difference|39.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|26.0|52.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The estimate is calculated as EYLEA minus Laser.|||52.2|26.0|<0.0001
91061746|NCT01783886|182007154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted difference|40.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|27.6|53.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The estimate is calculated as EYLEA minus Laser.|||53.7|27.6|<0.0001
91061747|NCT01783886|182007155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-130.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-171.2|-89.9|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference from ANCOVA. The estimate is calculated as EYLEA minus Laser.|||-89.9|-171.2|<0.0001
91061748|NCT01783886|182007155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-131.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-172.8|-89.9|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference from ANCOVA. The estimate is calculated as EYLEA minus Laser.|||-89.9|-172.8|<0.0001
91061749|NCT01783886|182007156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.78||||0.0364|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.41|11.97|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference from ANCOVA. The estimate is calculated as EYLEA minus Laser.|||11.97|-0.41|0.0364
91061750|NCT01783886|182007156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.87||||0.0113|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.8|12.94|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference from ANCOVA. The estimate is calculated as EYLEA minus Laser.|||12.94|0.80|0.0113
91061751|NCT01783886|182007157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.81||||0.2688|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.9|8.53|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference from ANCOVA. The estimate is calculated as EYLEA minus Laser.|||8.53|-2.90|0.2688
91061752|NCT01783886|182007157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.01||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|97.5|2.64|13.37|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference from ANCOVA. The estimate is calculated as EYLEA minus Laser.|||13.37|2.64|0.0009
91061753|NCT03541317|182007210|SUPERIORITY|A test of the null hypothesis that there is no difference between these two strategies on the sum of the average number of CBT sessions delivered to students by SPs over the four post-randomization phases during Stages 1 and 2|Difference in sum of means*|9.7||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.03|49.4|||weighted least squares regression|Marginal means under each implementation strategy estimated after each of 4 post-randomization phases (NeCamp, Kilbourne, \& Almirall 2017)|\*Difference in the sum of the means estimated at each post-randomization phase.|||49.40|-30.03|0.63
91061754|NCT03541317|182007211|SUPERIORITY|A test of the null hypothesis that there is no difference between these two strategies on the sum of the average number of brief individual CBT sessions (\<15 min.) delivered to students by SPs over the four post-randomization phases occurring during Stages 1 and 2.|Difference in sum of means*|3.78||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.88|24.44|||weighted least squares regression|Marginal means under each embedded implementation strategy estimated after each of 4 post-randomization phases (NeCamp, Kilbourne \& Almirall 2017)|\*Difference in the sum of the means estimated at each post-randomization phase|||24.44|-16.88|0.72
91061755|NCT03541317|182007212|SUPERIORITY|A test of the null hypothesis that there is no difference between these two strategies on the sum of the average number of brief individual CBT sessions (\>15 min.) delivered to students by SPs over the four post-randomization phases occurring during Stages 1 and 2.|Difference in sum of means*|7.85||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|28.91|||Weighted Least Squares Regression|Marginal means under each embedded implementation strategy estimated after each of 4 post-randomization phases (NeCamp, Kilbourne \& Almirall 2017).|Difference in the sum of the means estimated at each post-randomization phase|||28.91|-13.20|0.46
91061756|NCT03541317|182007213|SUPERIORITY||Difference in sum of means*|-0.66||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.49|7.16|||Weighted Least Squares Regression|Marginal means under each embedded implementation strategy estimated after each of 4 post-randomization phases (NeCamp, Kilbourne \& Almirall 2017).|Difference in the sum of the means estimated at each post-randomization phase|A test of the null hypothesis that there is no difference between these two strategies on the sum of the average number of group CBT sessions delivered to students by SPs over the four post-randomization phase occurring during Stages 1 and 2.||7.16|-8.49|0.87
91061757|NCT00879086|182007214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions|-16.7|||=|0.0941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.1|2.4||The two treatment groups were compared, controlling for baseline pre-existing neuropathy (CTCAE Grade 0 or 1) and number of prior chemotherapy regimens (less than or equal to 3 or greater than 3), with both covariates included as binary variables.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Extended Mantel-Haenszel test statistics with stratification adjustment for pre-existing baseline neuropathy (CTCAE Grade 0 or 1) and number of prior chemotherapy regimens (greater than or equal to 3 or greater than 3)|||2.4|-36.1|=0.0941
91061758|NCT00879086|182007215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions|-18.4||||0.0492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.0|-0.3||Controlled for baseline pre-existing neuropathy (CTCAE Grade 0 or 1) and number of prior chemotherapy regimens (greater than or equal to 3 or greater than 3), with both covariates included as binary variables.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Extended Mantel-Haenszel test statistics with stratification adjustment for pre-existing baseline neuropathy (CTCAE Grade 0 or 1) and number of prior chemotherapy regimens (greater than or equal to 3 or greater than 3)|||-0.3|-36.0|0.0492
91061759|NCT00719186|182007233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.007
91061760|NCT04700137|182007241|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|1.0||p\<0.05 = a priori threshold for statistical significance|Regression, Linear|Linear regression with robust standard errors, adjusting for the baseline score as a precision variable.|A T-score of 50 represents the mean of the US general population (based on the 2010 Census) and 10 T-score units represents one standard deviation. Higher T-score indicates higher loneliness.|Difference in loneliness among patients by intervention arm at follow-up (6 months).||1.0|-3.0|0.31
91061761|NCT04700137|182007241|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|2.2||p\<0.05 = a priori threshold for statistical significance|Regression, Linear|Linear regression with robust standard errors, adjusting for the baseline score as a precision variable.|A T-score of 50 represents the mean of the US general population (based on the 2010 Census) and 10 T-score units represents one standard deviation. Higher T-score indicates higher loneliness.|Difference in loneliness among healthcare providers/staff by intervention arm at follow-up (6 months).||2.2|-1.8|0.83
91061762|NCT04700137|182007242|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.5||p\<0.05 = a priori threshold for statistical significance|Regression, Linear|Linear regression with robust standard errors, adjusting for the baseline score as a precision variable.||Difference in suicidal ideation and behavior (C-SSRS) among patients by intervention arm at follow-up (6 months).||0.5|0.0|0.05
91061763|NCT04700137|182007242|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1||p\<0.05 = a priori threshold for statistical significance|Regression, Linear|Linear regression with robust standard errors, adjusting for the baseline score as a precision variable.||Difference in suicidal ideation and behavior (C-SSRS) among healthcare providers/staff by intervention arm at follow-up (6 months).||0.1|-0.4|0.2
91061764|NCT04700137|182007243|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.7||p\<0.05 = a priori threshold for statistical significance|Regression, Linear|Linear regression with robust standard errors, adjusting for the baseline score as a precision variable.||Difference in depression (PHQ-9) among patients by intervention arm at follow-up (6 months).||0.7|-1.5|0.45
91061765|NCT04700137|182007243|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.3||p\<0.05 = a priori threshold for statistical significance|Regression, Linear|Linear regression with robust standard errors, adjusting for the baseline score as a precision variable.||Difference in depression (PHQ-9) among healthcare providers/staff by intervention arm at follow-up (6 months).||1.3|-0.7|0.51
90822755|NCT03058692|181522428|OTHER|||||||0.62||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD8+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.62
91061766|NCT04700137|182007244|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.7||p\<0.05 = a priori threshold for statistical significance|Regression, Linear|Linear regression with robust standard errors, adjusting for the baseline score as a precision variable.||Difference in anxiety (GAD-7) among patients by intervention arm at follow-up (6 months).||0.7|-1.3|0.54
91061767|NCT04700137|182007244|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.0||p\<0.05 = a priori threshold for statistical significance|Regression, Linear|Linear regression with robust standard errors, adjusting for the baseline score as a precision variable.||Difference in anxiety (GAD-7) among healthcare providers/staff by intervention arm at follow-up (6 months).||2.0|0.1|0.04
91061768|NCT04700137|182007245|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.7||p\<0.05 = a priori threshold for statistical significance|Regression, Linear|Linear regression with robust standard errors.|T-score of 50 = mean of the US general population (2010 Census); 10 T-score units = one standard deviation. Higher T-scores = higher stress. T-scores equal to or greater than 60.5 (adults) or 60.8 (adolescents) are moderate or high risk.|Change in stress from baseline to 6 months among patients.||1.7|-2.1|0.84
90822756|NCT03058692|181522429|OTHER|||||||0.15||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.15
90822757|NCT03058692|181522429|OTHER|||||||0.18||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD8+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.18
90822758|NCT03058692|181522430|OTHER|||||||0.94||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.94
90822759|NCT03058692|181522430|OTHER|||||||||||||||||This reports the analysis for response in CD8+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.|No non-zero results were reported for either group so statistical testing was not performed.|||
90822760|NCT03058692|181522431|OTHER|||||||0.14||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.14
90822761|NCT03058692|181522431|OTHER|||||||0.26||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD8+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.26
90822762|NCT03058692|181522432|OTHER|||||||0.72||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.72
90822763|NCT03058692|181522432|OTHER|||||||0.31||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD8+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.31
90822764|NCT03058692|181522433|OTHER|||||||0.31||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.31
90822765|NCT03058692|181522433|OTHER|||||||0.22||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD8+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.22
91061769|NCT04700137|182007245|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|3.7||p\<0.05 = a priori threshold for statistical significance|Regression, Linear|Linear regression with robust standard errors.|T-score of 50 = mean of the US general population (2010 Census); 10 T-score units = one standard deviation. Higher T-scores = higher stress. T-scores equal to or greater than 60.5 (adults) or 60.8 (adolescents) are moderate or high risk.|Change in stress from baseline to 6 months among healthcare providers/staff.||3.7|-0.7|0.18
91061770|NCT04700137|182007246|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.6||p\<0.05 = a priori threshold for statistical significance|Regression, Linear|Linear regression with robust standard errors, adjusting for the baseline score as a precision variable.||Difference in perceived burdensomeness (INQ15) among patients by intervention arm at follow-up (6 months).||1.6|-0.6|0.38
90822766|NCT03058692|181522434|OTHER|||||||0.16||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.16
90822767|NCT03058692|181522434|OTHER|||||||0.44||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD8+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.44
90822768|NCT03058692|181522435|OTHER|||||||0.67||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.67
90822769|NCT03058692|181522435|OTHER|||||||0.48||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD8+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.48
90822770|NCT03058692|181522436|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||<0.001
90822771|NCT03058692|181522436|OTHER|||||||0.62||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD8+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.62
90822772|NCT03058692|181522437|OTHER|||||||0.0093||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.0093
90822773|NCT03058692|181522437|OTHER|||||||0.51||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD8+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.51
90822774|NCT03058692|181522438|OTHER|||||||0.54||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.54
91061771|NCT04700137|182007246|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.0||p\<0.05 = a priori threshold for statistical significance|Regression, Linear|Linear regression with robust standard errors, adjusting for the baseline score as a precision variable.||Difference in perceived burdensomeness (INQ15) among healthcare providers/staff by intervention arm at follow-up (6 months).||1.0|-0.8|0.81
91061772|NCT04700137|182007246|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|1.8||p\<0.05 = a priori threshold for statistical significance|Regression, Linear|Linear regression with robust standard errors, adjusting for the baseline score as a precision variable.||Difference in thwarted belongingness (INQ15) among patients by intervention arm at follow-up (6 months).||1.8|-2.6|0.73
91061773|NCT04700137|182007246|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|3.2||p\<0.05 = a priori threshold for statistical significance|Regression, Linear|Linear regression with robust standard errors, adjusting for the baseline score as a precision variable.||Difference in thwarted belongingness (INQ15) among healthcare providers/staff by intervention arm at follow-up (6 months).||3.2|-0.8|0.24
91061774|NCT04700137|182007248|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.6||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|1.4||p\<0.05 = a priori threshold for statistical significance|GLM|Generalized linear model (GLM) with an identity link and binomial variance||Number of participants with increased tobacco use among patients randomized to CC+ vs CC||1.4|-12.5|0.12
91061775|NCT04700137|182007248|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.1||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|-0.7||p\<0.05 = a priori threshold for statistical significance|GLM|Generalized linear model (GLM) with an identity link and binomial variance||Number of participants with increased tobacco use among healthcare providers/staff randomized to CC+ vs CC||-0.7|-11.5|0.03
91061776|NCT04700137|182007248|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.1||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|8.5||p\<0.05 = a priori threshold for statistical significance|GLM|Generalized linear model (GLM) with an identity link and binomial variance||Number of participants with increased alcohol use among patients randomized to CC+ vs CC||8.5|-10.7|0.83
91061777|NCT04700137|182007248|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.2||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|12.5||p\<0.05 = a priori threshold for statistical significance|GLM|Generalized linear model (GLM) with an identity link and binomial variance||Number of participants with increased alcohol use among healthcare providers/staff randomized to CC+ vs CC||12.5|-8.0|0.67
91061778|NCT04700137|182007248|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.9||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|9.9||p\<0.05 = a priori threshold for statistical significance|GLM|Generalized linear model (GLM) with an identity link and binomial variance||Number of participants with increased marijuana/cannabis use among patients randomized to CC+ vs CC||9.9|-4.1|0.42
91061779|NCT04700137|182007248|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.1||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|4.5||p\<0.05 = a priori threshold for statistical significance|GLM|Generalized linear model (GLM) with an identity link and binomial variance||Number of participants with increased marijuana/cannabis use among healthcare providers/staff randomized to CC+ vs CC||4.5|-8.7|0.53
91061780|NCT04700137|182007248|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.5||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|1.4||p\<0.05 = a priori threshold for statistical significance|GLM|Generalized linear model (GLM) with an identity link and binomial variance||Number of participants with increased illicit drug use among patients randomized to CC+ vs CC||1.4|-6.3|0.20
91061781|NCT04700137|182007248|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.7||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|2.0||p\<0.05 = a priori threshold for statistical significance|GLM|Generalized linear model (GLM) with an identity link and binomial variance||Number of participants with increased illicit drug use among healthcare providers/staff randomized to CC+ vs CC||2.0|-3.4|0.62
91061782|NCT04700137|182007249|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.5||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|6.3||p\<0.05 = a priori threshold for statistical significance|GLM|Generalized linear model (GLM) with an identity link and binomial variance||Difference in proportion of patients attending mental healthcare appointments by intervention arm at follow-up (6 months).||6.3|-15.4|0.41
91061783|NCT04700137|182007249|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.5||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|16.2||p\<0.05 = a priori threshold for statistical significance|GLM|Generalized linear model (GLM) with an identity link and binomial variance||Difference in proportion of healthcare providers/staff attending mental healthcare appointments by intervention arm at follow-up (6 months).||16.2|-5.2|0.31
91061784|NCT03449446|182007253|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|0.6||||0.9449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6|18.8||The p-value between each pair of treatment groups presented were obtained by the stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel (MH) method, with baseline diabetes mellitus status and baseline cirrhosis status as stratification factors.|Mantel Haenszel||The percentage difference and 95% C.I. presented were obtained by the stratum-adjusted MH method, with baseline diabetes mellitus status and baseline cirrhosis status as stratification factors.|||18.8|-17.6|0.9449
91061785|NCT03449446|182007253|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|0.4||||0.9646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6|18.4||The p-value between each pair of treatment groups presented were obtained by the stratum-adjusted MH method, with baseline diabetes mellitus status and baseline cirrhosis status as stratification factors.|Mantel Haenszel||The percentage difference and 95% C.I. presented were obtained by the stratum-adjusted MH method, with baseline diabetes mellitus status and baseline cirrhosis status as stratification factors.|||18.4|-17.6|0.9646
91061786|NCT03449446|182007253|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|3.7||||0.6219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|18.3||The p-value between each pair of treatment groups presented were obtained by the stratum-adjusted MH method, with baseline diabetes mellitus status and baseline cirrhosis status as stratification factors.|Mantel Haenszel||The percentage difference and 95% C.I. presented were obtained by the stratum-adjusted MH method, with baseline diabetes mellitus status and baseline cirrhosis status as stratification factors.|||18.3|-10.9|0.6219
91061787|NCT03449446|182007253|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|8.8||||0.2554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|24.1||The p-value between each pair of treatment groups presented were obtained by the stratum-adjusted MH method, with baseline diabetes mellitus status and baseline cirrhosis status as stratification factors.|Mantel Haenszel||The percentage difference and 95% C.I. presented were obtained by the stratum-adjusted MH method, with baseline diabetes mellitus status and baseline cirrhosis status as stratification factors.|||24.1|-6.4|0.2554
91061788|NCT03449446|182007253|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|10.8||||0.1658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|26.1||The p-value between each pair of treatment groups presented were obtained by the stratum-adjusted MH method, with baseline diabetes mellitus status and baseline cirrhosis status as stratification factors.|Mantel Haenszel||The percentage difference and 95% C.I. presented were obtained by the stratum-adjusted MH method, with baseline diabetes mellitus status and baseline cirrhosis status as stratification factors.|||26.1|-4.5|0.1658
91061789|NCT03449446|182007253|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|3.2||||0.6963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|19.4||The p-value between each pair of treatment groups presented were obtained by the stratum-adjusted MH method, with baseline diabetes mellitus status and baseline cirrhosis status as stratification factors.|Mantel Haenszel||The percentage difference and 95% C.I. presented were obtained by the stratum-adjusted MH method, with baseline diabetes mellitus status and baseline cirrhosis status as stratification factors.|||19.4|-12.9|0.6963
91061790|NCT03449446|182007253|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|10.0||||0.2441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|26.8||The p-value between each pair of treatment groups presented were obtained by the stratum-adjusted MH method, with baseline diabetes mellitus status and baseline cirrhosis status as stratification factors.|Mantel Haenszel||The percentage difference and 95% C.I. presented were obtained by the stratum-adjusted MH method, with baseline diabetes mellitus status and baseline cirrhosis status as stratification factors.|||26.8|-6.8|0.2441
91061791|NCT03449446|182007253|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|5.2||||0.5229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|21.0||The p-value between each pair of treatment groups presented were obtained by the stratum-adjusted MH method, with baseline diabetes mellitus status and baseline cirrhosis status as stratification factors.|Mantel Haenszel||The percentage difference and 95% C.I. presented were obtained by the stratum-adjusted MH method, with baseline diabetes mellitus status and baseline cirrhosis status as stratification factors.|||21.0|-10.7|0.5229
91061792|NCT03449446|182007253|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|10.4||||0.2149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|26.9||The p-value between each pair of treatment groups presented were obtained by the stratum-adjusted MH method, with baseline diabetes mellitus status and baseline cirrhosis status as stratification factors.|Mantel Haenszel||The percentage difference and 95% C.I. presented were obtained by the stratum-adjusted MH method, with baseline diabetes mellitus status and baseline cirrhosis status as stratification factors.|||26.9|-6.0|0.2149
91061793|NCT03048552|182007267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.148|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.148
91061794|NCT03048552|182007268|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.01
91061795|NCT03048552|182007269|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.818|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.818
91061796|NCT03048552|182007271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.625|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.625
91061797|NCT03180645|182007273|OTHER||Least square (LS) mean difference|-1.07||||0.0638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|0.06|||ANCOVA|Analysis model (ANCOVA) included participant as random effect, treatment arm and side of the face as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.|Difference is the first named treatment adjusted (LS) mean change from baseline minus the second named treatment adjusted mean change from baseline.|||0.06|-2.21|0.0638
91061798|NCT04208750|182007285|OTHER|Difference between independent proportions||||||||||||||||Added the number of participants from each study arm who preferred each refraction type and then converted it to the proportions|For each outcome, we compared the proportion of participants from both study arms who preferred the VR800 refraction to the proportion of participants who preferred the Standard refraction using a 2-sample test for equality of proportions.|||
91061799|NCT02201277|182007286|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A Fisher's exact test was used to determine if there was a difference in the numbers of filters with penetration for each type. The numbers were not powered enough to make extensive tests in this area meaningful.||||1.0
91061800|NCT02201277|182007286|EQUIVALENCE|rate of penetration||||||1|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||1.0
91061801|NCT02972892|182007294|NON_INFERIORITY|Using t-test, comparison of the weighted average percent duration between the Et Control and control device was performed by calculating the difference and its 95% 2-sided confidence interval between the two arms. Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval is ≥ -5% for both EtAA.|Mean Difference (Net)|10.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.89|15.01|||t-test, 2 sided|||Using t-test, comparison of the weighted average percent duration between the Et Control and control device was performed by calculating the difference and its 95% 2-sided confidence interval between the two arms. Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval is ≥ -5% for both EtAA.||15.01|6.89|<.001
91061802|NCT02972892|182007295|NON_INFERIORITY|Using t-test, comparison of the weighted average percent duration between the Et Control and control device was performed by calculating the difference and its 95% 2-sided confidence interval between the two arms. Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval is ≥ -5% for both EtAA.|Mean Difference (Net)|52.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.25|57.95|||t-test, 2 sided|||Using t-test, comparison of the weighted average percent duration between the Et Control and control device was performed by calculating the difference and its 95% 2-sided confidence interval between the two arms. Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval is ≥ -5% for both EtAA.||57.95|46.25|<.001
91061803|NCT02972892|182007296|NON_INFERIORITY|Using t-test, comparison of the weighted average percent duration between the Et Control and control device will be performed by calculating the difference and its 95% 2-sided confidence interval between the two arms. Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval is ≥ -5% for EtO2.|Mean Difference (Net)|5.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.64|8.04|||t-test, 2 sided|||Using t-test, comparison of the weighted average percent duration between the Et Control and control device will be performed by calculating the difference and its 95% 2-sided confidence interval between the two arms. Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval is ≥ -5% for EtO2.||8.04|2.64|<.001
91061804|NCT02972892|182007297|NON_INFERIORITY|Using t-test, comparison of the weighted average percent duration between the Et Control and control device will be performed by calculating the difference and its 95% 2-sided confidence interval between the two arms. Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval is ≥ -5% for EtO2.|Mean Difference (Net)|44.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.56|53.41|||t-test, 2 sided|||Using t-test, comparison of the weighted average percent duration between the Et Control and control device will be performed by calculating the difference and its 95% 2-sided confidence interval between the two arms. Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval is ≥ -5% for EtO2.||53.41|35.56|<.001
91061805|NCT01625091|182007329|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.36
91061806|NCT01625091|182007330|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.36
91061807|NCT01625091|182007331|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.70
91061808|NCT01625091|182007332|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.98
91061809|NCT03503669|182007348|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>0.05
91061810|NCT03503669|182007349|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.008
91061811|NCT03503669|182007350|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>0.05
91061812|NCT03503669|182007351|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>0.05
91061813|NCT03503669|182007352|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>0.05
91061814|NCT05262387|182007380|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.32||||0.0494|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.52|17.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||17.1|1.52|0.0494
91061815|NCT05262387|182007380|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.1||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.38|21.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||21.9|6.38|0.0028
91061816|NCT05262387|182007381|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-44.5||||0.1998|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-102.0|12.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||12.8|-102|0.1998
91061817|NCT05262387|182007381|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.16||||0.9041|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-53.1|61.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||61.4|-53.1|0.9041
91061818|NCT02045446|182007382|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.304||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.113|0.815|||Log Rank|||||0.815|0.113|.01
91061819|NCT05274178|182007387|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>.05
91061820|NCT05274178|182007387|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>.05
91061821|NCT02515331|182007389|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.555|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9077||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.388|-2.722||1-sided p-value|Longitudinal repeated measures mixed eff|||||-2.722|-14.388|0.002
91061822|NCT02515331|182007389|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.727|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0548|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.852|-8.602||1-sided p-value|Longitudinal repeated measures mixed eff|||||-8.602|-20.852|<0.001
91061823|NCT04688671|182007476|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.302||0.5605|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.32|0.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.68|-0.32|0.5605
90822775|NCT03058692|181522438|OTHER|||||||0.43||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD8+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.43
91061824|NCT01525329|182007486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||< 0.007
91061825|NCT01525329|182007486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.080
91061826|NCT01525329|182007487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91061827|NCT01525329|182007487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91061828|NCT00780338|182007489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|||||The model included three fixed effect terms: group (AGTO vs. control), time (Baseline=0 years, Mid=1 year, Post=2 years), and an interaction between group and time. We report the interaction p value here.|Linear Growth Models|||We first conducted an intent-to-treat analysis by fitting a model with two sets of random effects, one for matched coalitions and one with random intercepts and linear functions of time to account for trajectories of repeated observations within respondent. The model included three fixed effect terms: group (AGTO vs. control), time (Baseline=0 years, Mid=1 year, Post=2 years), and an interaction between group and time. We report the interaction p value here.||||.58
91061829|NCT00780338|182007491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|||||The model included three fixed effect terms: group (AGTO vs. control), time (Baseline=0 years, Mid=1 year, Post=2 years), and an interaction between group and time. We report the interaction p value here.|Linear Growth Models|||We first conducted an intent-to-treat analysis by fitting a model with two sets of random effects, one for matched coalitions and one with random intercepts and linear functions of time to account for trajectories of repeated observations within respondent. The model included three fixed effect terms: group (AGTO vs. control), time (Baseline=0 years, Mid=1 year, Post=2 years), and an interaction between group and time. We report the interaction p value here.||||.61
91061830|NCT00780338|182007492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|||||The model included three fixed effect terms: group (AGTO vs. control), time (Baseline=0 years, Mid=1 year, Post=2 years), and an interaction between group and time. We report the interaction p value here.|Linear Growth Models|||Mirroring the intent-to-treat analysis (but comparing AGTO users to AGTO non users instead), we fitted a model with two sets of random effects, one for matched coalitions and one with random intercepts and linear functions of time to account for trajectories of repeated observations within respondent. The model included three fixed effect terms: group (AGTO vs. control), time (Baseline=0 years, Mid=1 year, Post=2 years), and an interaction between group and time.||||.09
91061831|NCT00780338|182007493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||The model included three fixed effect terms: group (AGTO vs. control), time (Baseline=0 years, Mid=1 year, Post=2 years), and an interaction between group and time. We report the interaction p value here.|Linear Growth Models|||Mirroring the intent-to-treat analysis (but comparing AGTO users to AGTO non users instead), we fitted a model with two sets of random effects, one for matched coalitions and one with random intercepts and linear functions of time to account for trajectories of repeated observations within respondent. The model included three fixed effect terms: group (AGTO vs. control), time (Baseline=0 years, Mid=1 year, Post=2 years), and an interaction between group and time.||||.01
91061832|NCT00780338|182007494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED|||||The model included three fixed effect terms: group (AGTO vs. control), time (Baseline=0 years, Mid=1 year, Post=2 years), and an interaction between group and time. We report the interaction p value here.|Linear Growth Models|||Mirroring the intent-to-treat analysis (but comparing AGTO users to AGTO non users instead), we fitted a model with two sets of random effects, one for matched coalitions and one with random intercepts and linear functions of time to account for trajectories of repeated observations within respondent. The model included three fixed effect terms: group (AGTO vs. control), time (Baseline=0 years, Mid=1 year, Post=2 years), and an interaction between group and time.||||.00
91061833|NCT00780338|182007495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|||||The model included three fixed effect terms: group (AGTO vs. control), time (Baseline=0 years, Mid=1 year, Post=2 years), and an interaction between group and time. We report the interaction p value here.|Linear Growth Models|||We first conducted an intent-to-treat analysis by fitting a model with two sets of random effects, one for matched coalitions and one with random intercepts and linear functions of time to account for trajectories of repeated observations within respondent. The model included three fixed effect terms: group (AGTO vs. control), time (Baseline=0 years, Mid=1 year, Post=2 years), and an interaction between group and time. We report the interaction p value here.||||.45
91061834|NCT00780338|182007496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|||||The model included three fixed effect terms: group (AGTO vs. control), time (Baseline=0 years, Mid=1 year, Post=2 years), and an interaction between group and time. We report the interaction p value here.|Linear Growth Models|||We first conducted an intent-to-treat analysis by fitting a model with two sets of random effects, one for matched coalitions and one with random intercepts and linear functions of time to account for trajectories of repeated observations within respondent. The model included three fixed effect terms: group (AGTO vs. control), time (Baseline=0 years, Mid=1 year, Post=2 years), and an interaction between group and time. We report the interaction p value here.||||.65
91061835|NCT00780338|182007497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED|||||The model included three fixed effect terms: group (AGTO vs. control), time (Baseline=0 years, Mid=1 year, Post=2 years), and an interaction between group and time. We report the interaction p value here.|Linear Growth Models|||Mirroring the intent-to-treat analysis (but comparing AGTO users to AGTO non users instead), we fitted a model with two sets of random effects, one for matched coalitions and one with random intercepts and linear functions of time to account for trajectories of repeated observations within respondent. The model included three fixed effect terms: group (AGTO vs. control), time (Baseline=0 years, Mid=1 year, Post=2 years), and an interaction between group and time.||||.00
91061836|NCT00780338|182007498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|||||The model included three fixed effect terms: group (AGTO vs. control), time (Baseline=0 years, Mid=1 year, Post=2 years), and an interaction between group and time. We report the interaction p value here.|Linear Growth Models|||We first conducted an intent-to-treat analysis by fitting a model with two sets of random effects, one for matched coalitions and one with random intercepts and linear functions of time to account for trajectories of repeated observations within respondent. The model included three fixed effect terms: group (AGTO vs. control), time (Baseline=0 years, Mid=1 year, Post=2 years), and an interaction between group and time. We report the interaction p value here.||||.61
91061837|NCT00780338|182007499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||The model included three fixed effect terms: group (AGTO vs. control), time (Baseline=0 years, Mid=1 year, Post=2 years), and an interaction between group and time. We report the interaction p value here.|Linear Growth Models|||Mirroring the intent-to-treat analysis (but comparing AGTO users to AGTO non users instead), we fitted a model with two sets of random effects, one for matched coalitions and one with random intercepts and linear functions of time to account for trajectories of repeated observations within respondent. The model included three fixed effect terms: group (AGTO vs. control), time (Baseline=0 years, Mid=1 year, Post=2 years), and an interaction between group and time.||||.02
91061838|NCT02676882|182007501|OTHER|A Chi Squared analysis was performed to determine how the rate of relapse in Group 1 (27.3%) compared to that of historical controls in the literature (67.7%). (Cohen, JAMA 2006)||||||0.005||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|Chi-squared|||||||0.005
90822776|NCT03058692|181522439|OTHER|||||||0.44||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.44
90822777|NCT03058692|181522439|OTHER|||||||0.014||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD8+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.014
90822778|NCT03058692|181522440|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||<0.001
90822779|NCT03058692|181522440|OTHER|||||||0.96||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD8+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.96
90822780|NCT03058692|181522441|OTHER|||||||0.65||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.65
91061839|NCT02676882|182007502|OTHER|A one-way repeated measures ANOVA was used to examine the overall course of Group 2 participants' MADRS scores. (F(6, 29)=5.16, p=0.001).||||||0.001||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance: p \<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.001
91061840|NCT00811733|182007508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|47.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.3|73.4|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with OR.|||73.4|21.3|
91061841|NCT00811733|182007508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|68.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.1|86.1|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with OR.|||86.1|45.1|
91061842|NCT00811733|182007509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|33.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.8|61.6|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with OR.|||61.6|11.8|
90822781|NCT03058692|181522441|OTHER|||||||0.53||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.53
90822782|NCT03058692|181522442|OTHER|||||||0.35||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.35
90822783|NCT03058692|181522442|OTHER|||||||0.66||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD8+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.66
90822784|NCT03058692|181522443|OTHER|||||||0.86||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.86
90822785|NCT03058692|181522443|OTHER|||||||0.53||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.53
90822786|NCT01724866|181522487|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper CI was \< 1 day.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.72||||0.296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.27|||Bootstrap method|||A 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in mean DSN between any 2 arms was calculated. Non-inferiority p-value was calculated as two times the proportion of treatment difference greater than 1 in the resampling.||1.27|0.19|0.296
90822787|NCT01724866|181522487|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper CI was \< 1 day.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.64|||Bootstrap method|||A 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in mean DSN between any 2 arms was calculated. Non-inferiority p-value was calculated as two times the proportion of treatment difference greater than 1 in the resampling.||0.64|-0.28|0.002
90822788|NCT01724866|181522487|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper CI was \< 1 day.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.06|||Bootstrap method|||A 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in mean DSN between any 2 arms was calculated. Non-inferiority p-values was calculated as two times the proportion of treatment difference greater than 1 in the resampling.||-0.06|-0.56|<0.001
90822789|NCT01724866|181522488|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper CI was \< 1 day.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.74|||Bootstrap method|||A 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in mean DSN between any 2 arms was calculated. Non-inferiority p-value was calculated as two times the proportion of treatment difference greater than 1 in the resampling.||0.74|0.06|0.001
90822790|NCT01724866|181522488|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper CI was \< 1 day.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.24|||Bootstrap method|||A 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in mean DSN between any 2 arms was calculated. Non-inferiority p-value was calculated as two times the proportion of treatment difference greater than 1 in the resampling.||0.24|-0.16|<0.001
90822791|NCT01724866|181522488|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper CI was \< 1 day.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.06|||Bootstrap method|||A 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in mean DSN between any 2 arms was calculated. Non-inferiority p-value was calculated as two times the proportion of treatment difference greater than 1 in the resampling.||0.06|-0.19|<0.001
90822792|NCT01724866|181522489|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper CI was \< 1 day.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.72|||Bootstrap method|||A 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in mean DSN between any 2 arms was calculated. Non-inferiority p-value was calculated as two times the proportion of treatment difference greater than 1 in the resampling.||0.72|-0.07|0.002
90822793|NCT01724866|181522489|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper CI was \< 1 day.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.3|||Bootstrap method|||A 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in mean DSN between any 2 arms was calculated. Non-inferiority p-value was calculated as two times the proportion of treatment difference greater than 1 in the resampling.||0.30|-0.27|<0.001
91061843|NCT00811733|182007509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|64.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.7|82.8|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with OR.|||82.8|40.7|
91061844|NCT03885661|182007549|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||mixed effects regression|testing for the outcome employed mixed effects regression. The key fixed effects were group assignment, period, and the group X period interaction.||||||0.65
91061845|NCT00129545|182007613|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The posterior probability of non-inferiority is defined as the probability that the event rate for the Device group is less than twice that for the Control group. This probability was required to be greater than 0.975 for a finding of non-inferiority. The criterion for non-inferiority was consistently met at each analysis time point demonstrating the Device group is non-inferior to the Control group.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.07|||||Relative Risk calculated as Device Rate over Control rate, with 95% Credible Intervals|||1.07|0.42|
91061846|NCT04660331|182007619|OTHER||||||||||||||||||2-sided t-test conducted for pre- and post-training results.|||
91061847|NCT04660331|182007620|OTHER||||||||||||||||||We grouped pharmacy data on vaccines delivered pre/post intervention into six categories: HPV vaccine, Tdap, Meningococcal, Influenza, COVID-19, and other vaccines. We then compared the counts of total vaccines that were conducted in each group pre- and post-training.|||
91061848|NCT04660331|182007621|OTHER||||||||||||||||||We grouped pharmacy data on vaccines delivered pre/post intervention into six categories: HPV vaccine, Tdap, Meningococcal, Influenza, COVID-19, and other vaccines. We then compared the counts of total vaccines that were conducted in each group pre- and post-training.|||
91061849|NCT03282916|182007627|SUPERIORITY|Linear mixed-effects models (LMM) were used to assess the treatment effects on the outcome with change score from baseline as the dependent variable and treatment, study time point, and their interaction as predictors, adjusting for baseline value of the outcome.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.91|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|6.8||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusting for baseline value of ADAS-Cog11||"Null hypothesis: there is no difference in change in ADAS-Cog11 between valacyclovir and placebo treatment.~A sample size of 130 participants (65 per arm) was originally projected to detect Cohen's d of 0.50 with 80% power at 5% significance level. Recruitment target was reduced to 120 participants due to pandemic-related recruitment delays and required study completion within the extended funding timeline. For n=120, the minimum detectable effect size increased slightly to Cohen's d of 0.52."||6.80|1.03|<0.05
91061850|NCT02096744|182007649|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means Catapres-TTS-3(Oppanol/Vistanex) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted Geometric Mean ratio|102.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.74|109.37|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'Group', 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|"The estimated value is actually the ratio of Catapres-TTS-3 with Oppanol and Catapres-TTS-3 with Vistanex.~The value in parameter dispersion type and dispersion value is actually the intra-individual gCV."|||109.37|95.74|<0.0001
91061851|NCT02096744|182007650|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means Catapres-TTS-3(Oppanol/Vistanex) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted Geometric Means ratio|104.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.367|110.487|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'Group', 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|"The estimated value is actually the ratio of Catapres-TTS-3 with Oppanol and Catapres-TTS-3 with Vistanex.~The value in parameter dispersion type and dispersion value is actually the intra-individual gCV."|||110.487|98.367|<0.0001
91061852|NCT02096744|182007651|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means Catapres-TTS-3(Oppanol/Vistanex) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted Geometric Means ratio|102.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.8|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.25|108.63|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'Group', 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|"The estimated value is actually the ratio of Catapres-TTS-3 with Oppanol and Catapres-TTS-3 with Vistanex.~The value in parameter dispersion type and dispersion value is actually the intra-individual gCV."|||108.63|97.25|<0.0001
91061853|NCT02096744|182007652|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means Catapres-TTS-3(Oppanol/Vistanex) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted Geometric Means ratio|104.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.7|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.148|110.294|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'Group','sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|"The estimated value is actually the ratio of Catapres-TTS-3 with Oppanol and Catapres-TTS-3 with Vistanex.~The value in parameter dispersion type and dispersion value is actually the intra-individual gCV."|||110.294|98.148|<0.0001
91061854|NCT05724589|182007659|SUPERIORITY|A repeated measures ANOVA was selected to analyze changes in skin hydration across four time points within the same participants..|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.671||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value reflects the overall test for difference in hydration over time and is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The pre-defined threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|ANOVA|No additional adjustments were applied. Degrees of freedom and sphericity assumptions were checked.|The mean difference was calculated based on changes in skin hydration from baseline to Week 16 using repeated measures ANOVA, in accordance with the pre-specified statistical analysis plan.|Skin hydration was evaluated longitudinally using repeated measures ANOVA at Baseline, Week 8, Week 12, and Week 16. This pre-specified statistical test assessed within-subject changes over time to determine the efficacy of the serum.|The overall p-value corresponds to the repeated measures ANOVA evaluating changes over four time points. No multiplicity adjustments were applied.|||1.000
91061855|NCT05724589|182007660|SUPERIORITY|The statistical analysis in this study to assess changes in Transepidermal Water Loss (TEWL) after serum application involved a repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA). This approach allows for the examination of differences in TEWL across multiple time points (baseline, 8 weeks, 12 weeks, and 16 weeks) within the same individuals. The use of repeated measures ANOVA accounts for the correlated nature of the data, as multiple measurements are obtained from each participant over time.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.656||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|||||A repeated measures ANOVA was used to assess changes in hydration over time. The mean difference between baseline and 16 weeks was -3.656 (arbitrary units). Results are presented in the corresponding outcome measure table.|ANOVA|||||||0.096
91079203|NCT03240406|182044062|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|436.14||||0.379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-534.05|1406.33||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|ANCOVA|MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|||1406.33|-534.05|0.379
91061856|NCT05724589|182007661|SUPERIORITY|The chosen test was designed to assess whether application of the intervention resulted in any statistically significant differences over time in the primary outcome measure, assuming superiority.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.043||||0.169|TWO_SIDED|||||The pre-specified significance threshold was set at p \< 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were applied.|ANOVA|Sphericity tested; Greenhouse-Geisser applied if needed. Repeated measures ANOVA accounted for within-subject correlations.|The estimation parameter reflects the change in the R2 elasticity measure from baseline to 16 weeks. The direction of change is based on the final minus baseline value, with baseline serving as the reference point.|The statistical analysis utilized repeated measures ANOVA to evaluate changes in facial skin elasticity (R2 parameter) across multiple time points (Baseline, Week 8, Week 12, and Week 16) within the same participants. This approach accounts for the correlation of repeated measures over time.||||0.169
91061857|NCT05724589|182007662|SUPERIORITY|This study aimed to evaluate changes in wrinkle scores using a 4-grade percentage wrinkle improvement scale across different time points, including baseline, 8 weeks, 12 weeks, and 16 weeks|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA||The Mean Difference represents the change in wrinkle scores from baseline (Day 0) to follow-up at Week 8, Week 12, or Week 16. For example, a Mean Difference of 1.0 indicates a 1-point improvement from baseline to Week 16 (Week 16 - baseline score).|||||1.000
91061858|NCT05724589|182007663|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures ANOVA was used to detect any change in facial melanin levels due to the intervention.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.458||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value indicates no statistically significant change in facial melanin index over time. The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Statistical significance was pre-specified at p \< 0.05.|ANOVA|Sphericity assumptions were checked and addressed as needed (e.g., Greenhouse-Geisser correction).|The estimation parameter reflects the mean change in melanin index from baseline to week 16. Baseline was used as the reference point in the analysis.|The statistical analysis assessed changes in facial melanin index after serum application using repeated measures ANOVA. This method evaluated differences across multiple time points (Baseline, Week 8, Week 12, and Week 16) within the same participants, accounting for the correlated nature of repeated measures.||||1.000
91061859|NCT05724589|182007664|SUPERIORITY|A descriptive analysis was performed. No hypothesis testing or power calculation was conducted for this outcome.|percentage of participants at week 16|44.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value reflects descriptive analysis of SGAIS improvement scores; no statistical testing for significance was conducted.|Descriptive|The evaluation involved categorical SGAIS ratings assigned by two independent dermatologists.|This estimate reflects the proportion of participants rated as showing mild improvement on the SGAIS at Week 16, as detailed in the tabular data.|Improvement in facial appearance was assessed using the Subject Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale (SGAIS), rated independently by two board-certified dermatologists at multiple time points (8, 12, and 16 weeks).||||1.000
91061860|NCT05724589|182007665|SUPERIORITY|Descriptive summary statistics were used to report satisfaction at multiple time points. No inferential testing was performed.|percentage of participants at week 16|75.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Descriptive|No formal statistical hypothesis testing was performed.|The estimated percentage reflects participants who reported a satisfaction score of 2 or 3 at week 16.|"Satisfaction was assessed at weeks 8, 12, and 16 using a quartile scale:~0 = Unsatisfied, 1 = Slightly satisfied, 2 = Satisfied, 3 = Very satisfied. One participant was lost to follow-up after week 12."||||
91061861|NCT05724589|182007666|SUPERIORITY|This was a descriptive safety analysis. No inferential hypothesis testing was conducted.|Percentage adverse events by week 16|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Descriptive|No formal statistical test was conducted.|Descriptive summaries of adverse event incidence are reported in the results tables.|The analysis population includes 28 participants. One subject was lost to follow-up at week 12. Adverse events were assessed through video calls at weeks 2 and 4, and in-person visits at 2, 3, and 4 months.||||
91061862|NCT00125515|182007703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||all statistical analysis were two tailed and employed an alpha significance level of 0.05.||||0.32
91061863|NCT02730663|182007705|NON_INFERIORITY|The number and percentage of patients who achieved clinical success at the time of stent removal are presented. A one-sided 97.5% confidence interval is to be calculated to confirm the degree of non-inferiority for the reference value (96%) and the difference (Investigational device - reference value) and if the lower limit of the confidence interval is -10% or higher, the noninferiority will be considered to be confirmed.|Reference value|-0.07||||0.05|ONE_SIDED|97.5||||A two-tail test was performed for statistics at a significance level of 0.05 unless otherwise specified.|t-test, 2 sided|||The clinical success rate at the time point of stent removal is reported 86.2% according to the approval data of the commercially available AXIOS stent submitted to the US FDA. The clinical success rates of EUS-guided transluminal drainage using a lumen-appending stent were 93.3% (29 cases), 100% (8 cases) and 100% (7 cases) respectively in the studies performed afterwards by Shah RJ (2015), Gornals JB (2012) and Moon JH (2014). The weighted average calculated for each study was about 96%.||||0.05
91061864|NCT00866359|182007712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.9|||ANCOVA||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the number of ulcers at Day 85, with treatment group and gender as factors and the baseline ulcer number as a covariate.|||-0.9|-2.4|<0.0001
91061865|NCT00866359|182007713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares mean difference|-26.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.5|-18.0|||ANCOVA||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the oral ulcer pain VAS at Day 85, with treatment group and gender as factors and the baseline oral ulcer pain VAS as a covariate.|||-18.0|-35.5|<0.0001
91061866|NCT00866359|182007716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-90.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-125.32|-54.82||The last post-baseline observation was carried forward to Day 85 for participants who discontinued the study before Day 85. For participants who did not have Day 85 visit on the targeted date, the total AUC was adjusted by the actual study days.|ANCOVA||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the number of ulcers at Day 85, with treatment group, gender, and interaction of treatment group and gender as factors and the baseline ulcer number as a covariate.|||-54.82|-125.32|<0.0001
91061867|NCT00866359|182007719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.8|||ANCOVA||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the number of ulcers at Day 85, with treatment group, gender, and interaction of treatment group and gender as factors and the baseline ulcer number as a covariate.|||-0.8|-2.7|0.0007
91061868|NCT00866359|182007720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||adjusted difference (percentage)|39.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.6|54.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Two-sided p-value was based on the CMH test adjusting for gender.|Adjusted difference in proportions = weighted average of treatment differences across gender with the CMH weights.|||54.5|23.6|<0.0001
91061869|NCT00866359|182007721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.5|||ANCOVA||Based on an Ancova model for change from baseline with treatment group, gender and interaction of treatment group and gender as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.|||-0.5|-1.7|0.0007
91061870|NCT04182334|182007743|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.775|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.775
91061871|NCT04182334|182007744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.995|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.995
91061872|NCT04182334|182007745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.674|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.674
90822794|NCT01724866|181522489|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper CI was \< 1 day.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.28|||Bootstrap method|||A 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in mean DSN between any 2 arms was calculated. Non-inferiority p-value was calculated as two times the proportion of treatment difference greater than 1 in the resampling.||0.28|-0.27|<0.001
90822795|NCT01724866|181522490|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper CI was \< 1 day.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.94||||0.781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|2.47|||Bootstrap method|||A 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in mean DSN between any 2 arms was calculated. Non-inferiority p-value was calculated as two times the proportion of treatment difference greater than 1 in the resampling.||2.47|-0.01|0.781
90822796|NCT01724866|181522490|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper CI was \< 1 day.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.38|||Bootstrap method|||A 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in mean DSN between any 2 arms was calculated. Non-inferiority p-value was calculated as two times the proportion of treatment difference greater than 1 in the resampling.||0.38|-0.17|<0.001
91061873|NCT04182334|182007746|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.326|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.326
91061874|NCT04182334|182007747|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.463|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.463
91061875|NCT04182334|182007748|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.449|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.449
90822797|NCT01724866|181522490|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper CI was \< 1 day.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.22|||Bootstrap method|||A 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in mean DSN between any 2 arms was calculated. Non-inferiority p-value was calculated as two times the proportion of treatment difference greater than 1 in the resampling.||0.22|-0.23|<0.001
90822798|NCT01724866|181522491|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.4||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.8|||Log Rank|||A Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate the hazard ratio and its two-sided 95% CI.||1.8|1.1|0.002
90822799|NCT01724866|181522491|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.4|||Log Rank|||A Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate the hazard ratio and its two-sided 95% CI.||1.4|0.6|0.711
90822800|NCT01724866|181522491|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.3||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.9|||Log Rank|||A Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate the hazard ratio and its two-sided 95% CI.||0.9|0.1|0.028
91061876|NCT04182334|182007749|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.505|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.505
91061877|NCT04182334|182007750|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.612|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.612
91061878|NCT04182334|182007751|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.058|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.058
91061879|NCT04182334|182007752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.196|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.196
91061880|NCT04917861|182007760|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|7.002|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.451|8.992|||||GMR (mRNA-1893 Low Dose \[2-Dose Regimen\] vs. Placebo) for all participants|||8.992|5.451|
91061881|NCT04917861|182007760|OTHER||GMR|7.123|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.467|9.279|||||GMR (mRNA-1893 High Dose \[2-Dose Regimen\] vs. Placebo) for all participants|||9.279|5.467|
91061882|NCT04917861|182007760|OTHER||GMR|2.674|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.961|3.646|||||GMR (mRNA-1893 High Dose \[1-Dose Regimen\] vs. Placebo) for all participants|||3.646|1.961|
91061883|NCT04917861|182007760|OTHER||GMR|7.208|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.428|9.571|||||GMR (mRNA-1893 Low Dose \[2-Dose Regimen\] vs. Placebo) for flavivirus-seronegative participants|||9.571|5.428|
91061884|NCT04917861|182007760|OTHER||GMR|7.979|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.106|10.425|||||GMR (mRNA-1893 High Dose \[2-Dose Regimen\] vs. Placebo) for flavivirus-seronegative participants|||10.425|6.106|
91061885|NCT04917861|182007760|OTHER||GMR|1.516|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.229|1.869|||||GMR (mRNA-1893 High Dose \[1-Dose Regimen\] vs. Placebo) for flavivirus-seronegative participants|||1.869|1.229|
91061886|NCT04917861|182007760|OTHER||GMR|6.785|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.562|10.092|||||GMR (mRNA-1893 Low Dose \[2-Dose Regimen\] vs. Placebo) for flavivirus-seropositive participants|||10.092|4.562|
91061887|NCT04917861|182007760|OTHER||GMR|6.319|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.03|9.909|||||GMR (mRNA-1893 High Dose \[2-Dose Regimen\] vs. Placebo) for flavivirus-seropositive participants|||9.909|4.030|
91061888|NCT04917861|182007760|OTHER||GMR|7.028|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.056|12.18|||||GMR (mRNA-1893 High Dose \[1-Dose Regimen\] vs. Placebo) for flavivirus-seropositive participants|||12.180|4.056|
91061889|NCT04917861|182007761|OTHER||GMR|5.312|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.149|6.802|||||GMR (mRNA-1893 Low Dose \[2-Dose Regimen\] vs. Placebo) for all participants|||6.802|4.149|
91061890|NCT04917861|182007761|OTHER||GMR|5.346|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.128|6.922|||||GMR (mRNA-1893 High Dose \[2-Dose Regimen\] vs. Placebo) for all participants|||6.922|4.128|
91061891|NCT04917861|182007761|OTHER||GMR|2.325|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.721|3.14|||||GMR (mRNA-1893 High Dose \[1-Dose Regimen\] vs. Placebo) for all participants|||3.140|1.721|
91061892|NCT04917861|182007761|OTHER||GMR|4.221|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.322|5.363|||||GMR (mRNA-1893 Low Dose \[2-Dose Regimen\] vs. Placebo) for flavivirus-negative participants|||5.363|3.322|
91061893|NCT04917861|182007761|OTHER||GMR|5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.243|6.62|||||GMR (mRNA-1893 High Dose \[2-Dose Regimen\] vs. Placebo) for flavivirus-negative participants|||6.620|4.243|
91061894|NCT04917861|182007761|OTHER||GMR|1.206|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.033|1.407|||||GMR (mRNA-1893 High Dose \[1-Dose Regimen\] vs. Placebo) for flavivirus-negative participants|||1.407|1.033|
91061895|NCT04917861|182007761|OTHER||GMR|6.493|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.358|9.674|||||GMR (mRNA-1893 Low Dose \[2-Dose Regimen\] vs. Placebo) for flavivirus-positive participants|||9.674|4.358|
91061896|NCT04917861|182007761|OTHER||GMR|5.452|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.43|8.665|||||GMR (mRNA-1893 High Dose \[2-Dose Regimen\] vs. Placebo) for flavivirus-positive participants|||8.665|3.430|
91061897|NCT04917861|182007761|OTHER||GMR|6.804|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.928|11.784|||||GMR (mRNA-1893 High Dose \[1-Dose Regimen\] vs. Placebo) for flavivirus-positive participants|||11.784|3.928|
91061898|NCT04917861|182007762|OTHER||percentage difference|76.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|69.1|82.68|||||Percentage Difference (mRNA-1893 Low Dose \[2-Dose Regimen\] vs. Placebo) for all participants|||82.68|69.10|
91061899|NCT04917861|182007762|OTHER||percentage difference|77.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|70.29|83.67|||||Percentage Difference (mRNA-1893 High Dose \[2-Dose Regimen\] vs. Placebo) for all participants|||83.67|70.29|
91061900|NCT04917861|182007762|OTHER||percentage difference|35.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.47|43.74|||||Percentage Difference (mRNA-1893 High Dose \[1-Dose Regimen\] vs. Placebo) for all participants|||43.74|27.47|
91061901|NCT04917861|182007762|OTHER||percentage difference|86.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|76.25|92.29|||||Percentage Difference (mRNA-1893 Low Dose \[2-Dose Regimen\] vs. Placebo) for flavivirus-negative participants|||92.29|76.25|
91061902|NCT04917861|182007762|OTHER||percentage difference|87.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.71|93.17|||||Percentage Difference (mRNA-1893 High Dose \[2-Dose Regimen\] vs. Placebo) for flavivirus-negative participants|||93.17|78.71|
91061903|NCT04917861|182007762|OTHER||percentage difference|20.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.47|29.75|||||Percentage Difference (mRNA-1893 High Dose \[1-Dose Regimen\] vs. Placebo) for flavivirus-negative participants|||29.75|13.47|
91061904|NCT04917861|182007762|OTHER||percentage difference|67.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.69|77.07|||||Percentage Difference (mRNA-1893 Low Dose \[2-Dose Regimen\] vs. Placebo) for flavivirus-positive participants|||77.07|55.69|
91061905|NCT04917861|182007762|OTHER||percentage difference|67.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.36|77.44|||||Percentage Difference (mRNA-1893 High Dose \[2-Dose Regimen\] vs. Placebo) for flavivirus-positive participants|||77.44|55.36|
90822801|NCT01724866|181522492|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.4|||Log Rank|||A Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate the hazard ratio and its two-sided 95% CI.||1.4|0.8|0.672
91061906|NCT04917861|182007762|OTHER||percentage difference|57.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.81|69.08|||||Percentage Difference (mRNA-1893 High Dose \[1-Dose Regimen\] vs. Placebo) for flavivirus-positive participants|||69.08|43.81|
91061907|NCT04917861|182007763|OTHER||percentage difference|75.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.12|81.49|||||Percentage Difference (mRNA-1893 Low Dose \[2-Dose Regimen\] vs. Placebo) for all participants|||81.49|68.12|
91061908|NCT04917861|182007763|OTHER||percentage difference|75.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.94|81.38|||||Percentage Difference (mRNA-1893 High Dose \[2-Dose Regimen\] vs. Placebo) for all participants|||81.38|67.94|
90822802|NCT01724866|181522492|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.3|||Log Rank|||A Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate the hazard ratio and its two-sided 95% CI.||1.3|0.5|0.348
90822803|NCT01724866|181522492|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.9|||Log Rank|||A Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate the hazard ratio and its two-sided 95% CI.||2.9|0.4|0.973
91061909|NCT04917861|182007763|OTHER||percentage difference|31.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.23|38.96|||||Percentage Difference (mRNA-1893 High Dose \[1-Dose Regimen\] vs. Placebo) for all participants|||38.96|24.23|
91061910|NCT04917861|182007763|OTHER||percentage difference|77.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|66.87|85.85|||||Percentage Difference (mRNA-1893 Low Dose \[2-Dose Regimen\] vs. Placebo) for flavivirus-negative participants|||85.85|66.87|
91061911|NCT04917861|182007763|OTHER||percentage difference|82.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|73.02|89.43|||||Percentage Difference (mRNA-1893 High Dose \[2-Dose Regimen\] vs. Placebo) for flavivirus-negative participants|||89.43|73.02|
91061912|NCT04917861|182007763|OTHER||percentage difference|9.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.63|17.41|||||Percentage Difference (mRNA-1893 High Dose \[1-Dose Regimen\] vs. Placebo) for flavivirus-negative participants|||17.41|4.63|
91061913|NCT04917861|182007763|OTHER||percentage difference|72.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.56|80.83|||||Percentage Difference (mRNA-1893 Low Dose \[2-Dose Regimen\] vs. Placebo) for flavivirus-positive participants|||80.83|61.56|
91061914|NCT04917861|182007763|OTHER||percentage difference|67.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.72|76.78|||||Percentage Difference (mRNA-1893 High Dose \[2-Dose Regimen\] vs. Placebo) for flavivirus-positive participants|||76.78|55.72|
91061915|NCT04917861|182007763|OTHER||percentage difference|63.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.75|74.0|||||Percentage Difference (mRNA-1893 High Dose \[1-Dose Regimen\] vs. Placebo) for flavivirus-positive participants|||74.00|50.75|
91061916|NCT00720382|182007784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.783||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA was used as a model containing treatment group and site as fixed effects with the baseline value used as covariate||Overall baseline score||||0.783
91061917|NCT00720382|182007784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA was used as a model containing treatment group and site as fixed effects with the baseline value used as covariate||Change from baseline to Month 1||||0.971
91061918|NCT00720382|182007784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA was used as a model containing treatment group and site as fixed effects with the baseline value used as covariate||Change from baseline to Month 3||||0.206
91061919|NCT00720382|182007784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.111||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA was used as a model containing treatment group and site as fixed effects with the baseline value used as covariate||Change from baseline to Month 6||||0.111
91061920|NCT00720382|182007784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.181||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA was used as a model containing treatment group and site as fixed effects with the baseline value used as covariate||Change from baseline to Month 9||||0.181
91061921|NCT00720382|182007784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.037|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA was used as a model containing treatment group and site as fixed effects with the baseline value used as covariate||Change from Baseline to Month 12/Early Term||||0.037
91077838|NCT02913105|182041135|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.86||||0.288|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|1.08|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||HA: Day 42||1.08|0.69|0.2880
91077839|NCT02913105|182041135|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.91||||0.4446|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.73|1.12|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||HA: Day 84||1.12|0.73|0.4446
90822804|NCT01724866|181522493|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.4|||Log Rank|||A Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate the hazard ratio and its two-sided 95% CI.||1.4|0.8|0.618
90822805|NCT01724866|181522493|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.6|||Log Rank|||A Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate the hazard ratio and its two-sided 95% CI.||1.6|0.5|0.661
90822806|NCT01724866|181522493|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.8|||Log Rank|||A Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate the hazard ratio and its two-sided 95% CI.||2.8|0.3|0.754
90822807|NCT01724866|181522494|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.4||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.7|||Log Rank|||A Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate the hazard ratio and its two-sided 95% CI.||1.7|1.1|0.009
90822808|NCT01724866|181522494|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.8|||Log Rank|||A Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate the hazard ratio and its two-sided 95% CI.||1.8|0.7|0.527
90822809|NCT01724866|181522494|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.9|||Log Rank|||A Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate the hazard ratio and its two-sided 95% CI.||3.9|0.4|0.815
90822810|NCT01724866|181522495|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||Asymptotic Normality Assumption|P-values was obtained based upon asymptotic normality assumption on the log10 transformed data.||||||0.008
90822811|NCT01724866|181522495|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.911|||||||Asymptotic Normality Assumption|P-values was obtained based upon asymptotic normality assumption on the log10 transformed data.||||||0.911
90822812|NCT01724866|181522495|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Asymptotic Normality Assumption|P-values was obtained based upon asymptotic normality assumption on the log10 transformed data.||||||0.002
90822813|NCT01724866|181522496|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Asymptotic Normality Assumption|P-values was obtained based upon asymptotic normality assumption on the log10 transformed data.||||||0.005
90822814|NCT01724866|181522496|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.633|||||||Asymptotic Normality Assumption|P-values was obtained based upon asymptotic normality assumption on the log10 transformed data.||||||0.633
90822815|NCT01724866|181522496|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027|||||||Asymptotic Normality Assumption|P-values was obtained based upon asymptotic normality assumption on the log10 transformed data.||||||0.027
91061922|NCT05287230|182007795|OTHER|||||||0.061||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.061
90822816|NCT01724866|181522497|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015|||||||Asymptotic Normality Assumption|P-values was obtained based upon asymptotic normality assumption on the log10 transformed data.||||||0.015
90822817|NCT01724866|181522497|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.571|||||||Asymptotic Normality Assumption|P-values was obtained based upon asymptotic normality assumption on the log10 transformed data.||||||0.571
90822818|NCT01724866|181522497|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.066|||||||Asymptotic Normality Assumption|P-values was obtained based upon asymptotic normality assumption on the log10 transformed data.||||||0.066
90822819|NCT01724866|181522498|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.106|||||||Asymptotic Normality Assumption|P-values was obtained based upon asymptotic normality assumption on the log10 transformed data.||||||0.106
90822820|NCT01724866|181522498|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.156|||||||Asymptotic Normality Assumption|P-values was obtained based upon asymptotic normality assumption on the log10 transformed data.||||||0.156
90822821|NCT01724866|181522498|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Asymptotic Normality Assumption|P-values was obtained based upon asymptotic normality assumption on the log10 transformed data.||||||0.005
90822822|NCT01724866|181522499|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.8||||||||0.80|0.25|
90822823|NCT01724866|181522499|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|2.04||||||||2.04|0.53|
90822824|NCT01724866|181522499|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|4.54||||||||4.54|1.40|
90822825|NCT01724866|181522500|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.8||||||||0.80|0.30|
90822826|NCT01724866|181522500|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.79||||||||1.79|0.70|
90822827|NCT01724866|181522500|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|2.79||||||||2.79|1.07|
90822828|NCT01724866|181522501|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.89||||||||0.89|0.34|
90822829|NCT01724866|181522501|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.85||||||||1.85|0.71|
90822830|NCT01724866|181522501|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|2.49||||||||2.49|0.97|
90822831|NCT01724866|181522502|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.1||||||||1.10|0.40|
90822832|NCT01724866|181522502|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|2.38||||||||2.38|0.87|
90822833|NCT01724866|181522502|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|2.96||||||||2.96|1.23|
90822834|NCT01724866|181522507|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|2.1||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.2|24.9|||Fisher Exact|||||24.9|-20.2|1.000
90822835|NCT01724866|181522507|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|-2.8||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.7|21.4|||Fisher Exact|||||21.4|-26.7|1.000
90822836|NCT01724866|181522507|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|-2.8||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.7|21.4|||Fisher Exact|||||21.4|-26.7|1.000
90822837|NCT01724866|181522509|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|-6.2||||0.469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.5|16.9|||Fisher Exact|||||16.9|-28.5|0.469
90822838|NCT01724866|181522509|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|-5.6||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.3|18.7|||Fisher Exact|||||18.7|-29.3|0.710
90822839|NCT01724866|181522509|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|-11.1||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.6|13.3|||Fisher Exact|||||13.3|-34.6|0.199
90822840|NCT01340586|181522515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.787|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.616|1.006||||||Geometric Mean Ratio: ESRD Dose before hemodialysis over Normal Renal Function||1.006|0.616|
90822841|NCT01340586|181522515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.904|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.697|1.173||||||Geometric Mean Ratio: ESRD Dose after hemodialysis over Normal Renal Function||1.173|0.697|
90822842|NCT01340586|181522515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.871|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.723|1.049||||||Geometric Mean Ratio: ESRD Dose before hemodialysis over ESRD Dose after hemodialysis||1.049|0.723|
91061923|NCT02360215|182007817|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.96|||Gray's test|||Null hypothesis: the addition of HA-WBRT as compared to WBRT will increase time to neurocognitive failure from 53.8% in the WBRT arm to 42.8% in the HA-WBRT arm at 6 months. Treating death as a competing risk and using a Gray's test with two-sided α=0.05 to test for statistically significant difference in the distribution of neurocognitive failure times, it was calculated that 230 events over both arms would provide 90% statistical power.||0.96|0.59|0.029
91061924|NCT02360215|182007818|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0586|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A mixed effects model was run with HVLT-R Symptom Score (baseline, 2, 4, 6, and 12 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, RPA class, prior radiosurgery, prior surgical resection were the covariates considered in each model along with interaction terms treatment\*time, time\*time, time\*time\*time and remained if p\<0.05. Baseline score, treatment arm, and time were forced into the model. Treatment Arm (WBRT+Memantine vs. HA-WBRT Memantine) is reported here.||||0.0586
91061925|NCT02360215|182007818|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0048|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A mixed effects model was run with HVLT-R Symptom Score (baseline, 2, 4, 6, and 12 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, RPA class, prior radiosurgery, prior surgical resection were the covariates considered in each model along with interaction terms treatment\*time, time\*time, time\*time\*time and remained if p\<0.05. Baseline score, treatment arm, and time were forced into the model. Age (\>61 year vs. \<= 61 years) is reported here.||||0.0048
91061926|NCT02360215|182007818|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A mixed effects model was run with HVLT-R Symptom Score (baseline, 2, 4, 6, and 12 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, RPA class, prior radiosurgery, prior surgical resection were the covariates considered in each model along with interaction terms treatment\*time, time\*time, time\*time\*time and remained if p\<0.05. Baseline score, treatment arm, and time were forced into the model. Baseline Total Recall is reported here.||||<0.0001
91061927|NCT02360215|182007819|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2656|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A mixed effects model was run with HVLT-R Delayed Recall Score (baseline, 2, 4, 6, and 12 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, RPA class, prior radiosurgery, prior surgical resection were the covariates considered in each model along with interaction terms treatment\*time, time\*time, time\*time\*time and remained if p\<0.05. Baseline score, treatment arm, and time were forced into the model. Treatment Arm (WBRT+Memantine vs. HA-WBRT Memantine) is reported here.||||0.2656
91061928|NCT02360215|182007819|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0067|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A mixed effects model was run with HVLT-R Delayed Recall Score (baseline, 2, 4, 6, and 12 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, RPA class, prior radiosurgery, prior surgical resection were the covariates considered in each model along with interaction terms treatment\*time, time\*time, time\*time\*time and remained if p\<0.05. Baseline score, treatment arm, and time were forced into the model. Age (\> 61 years vs. \<= 61 years) is reported here.||||0.0067
91061929|NCT02360215|182007819|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A mixed effects model was run with HVLT-R Delayed Recall Score (baseline, 2, 4, 6, and 12 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, RPA class, prior radiosurgery, prior surgical resection were the covariates considered in each model along with interaction terms treatment\*time, time\*time, time\*time\*time and remained if p\<0.05. Baseline score, treatment arm, and time were forced into the model. Baseline Delayed Recall is reported here.||||<0.0001
91061930|NCT02360215|182007820|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0993|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A mixed effects model was run with HVLT-R Delayed Recognition Score (baseline, 2, 4, 6, and 12 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, RPA class, prior radiosurgery, prior surgical resection were the covariates considered in each model along with interaction terms treatment\*time, time\*time, time\*time\*time and remained if p\<0.05. Baseline score, treatment arm, and time were forced into the model. Treatment Arm (WBRT+Memantine vs. HA-WBRT Memantine) is reported here.||||0.0993
91061931|NCT02360215|182007820|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A mixed effects model was run with HVLT-R Delayed Recognition Score (baseline, 2, 4, 6, and 12 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, RPA class, prior radiosurgery, prior surgical resection were the covariates considered in each model along with interaction terms treatment\*time, time\*time, time\*time\*time and remained if p\<0.05. Baseline score, treatment arm, and time were forced into the model. Age (\> 61 years vs. \<= 61 years) is reported here.||||<0.0001
91061932|NCT02360215|182007820|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A mixed effects model was run with HVLT-R Delayed Recognition Score (baseline, 2, 4, 6, and 12 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, RPA class, prior radiosurgery, prior surgical resection were the covariates considered in each model along with interaction terms treatment\*time, time\*time, time\*time\*time and remained if p\<0.05. Baseline score, treatment arm, and time were forced into the model. Baseline Delayed Recognition is reported here.||||<0.0001
91061933|NCT02360215|182007821|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5988|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A mixed effects model was run with TMT Part A (baseline, 2, 4, 6, and 12 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, RPA class, prior radiosurgery, prior surgical resection were the covariates considered in each model along with interaction terms treatment\*time, time\*time, time\*time\*time and remained if p\<0.05. Baseline score, treatment arm, and time were forced into the model. Treatment Arm (WBRT+Memantine vs. HA-WBRT Memantine) is reported here.||||0.5988
91061934|NCT02360215|182007821|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A mixed effects model was run with TMT Part A (baseline, 2, 4, 6, and 12 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, RPA class, prior radiosurgery, prior surgical resection were the covariates considered in each model along with interaction terms treatment\*time, time\*time, time\*time\*time and remained if p\<0.05. Baseline score, treatment arm, and time were forced into the model. Age (\> 61 years vs. \<= 61 years) is reported here.||||0.0005
91061935|NCT02360215|182007821|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||McNemar|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A mixed effects model was run with TMT Part A (baseline, 2, 4, 6, and 12 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, RPA class, prior radiosurgery, prior surgical resection were the covariates considered in each model along with interaction terms treatment\*time, time\*time, time\*time\*time and remained if p\<0.05. Baseline score, treatment arm, and time were forced into the model. Baseline TMT Part A is reported here.||||<0.0001
91061936|NCT02360215|182007822|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9226|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A mixed effects model was run with TMT Part B (baseline, 2, 4, 6, and 12 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, RPA class, prior radiosurgery, prior surgical resection were the covariates considered in each model along with interaction terms treatment\*time, time\*time, time\*time\*time and remained if p\<0.05. Baseline score, treatment arm, and time were forced into the model. Treatment Arm (WBRT+Memantine vs. HA-WBRT Memantine) is reported here.||||0.9226
91061937|NCT02360215|182007822|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0024|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A mixed effects model was run with TMT Part B (baseline, 2, 4, 6, and 12 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, RPA class, prior radiosurgery, prior surgical resection were the covariates considered in each model along with interaction terms treatment\*time, time\*time, time\*time\*time and remained if p\<0.05. Baseline score, treatment arm, and time were forced into the model. Age (\> 61 years vs. \<= 61 years) is reported here.||||<0.0024
91061938|NCT02360215|182007822|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Cox|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A mixed effects model was run with TMT Part B (baseline, 2, 4, 6, and 12 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, RPA class, prior radiosurgery, prior surgical resection were the covariates considered in each model along with interaction terms treatment\*time, time\*time, time\*time\*time and remained if p\<0.05. Baseline score, treatment arm, and time were forced into the model. Baseline TMT Part B is reported here.||||<0.0001
91061939|NCT02360215|182007823|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A mixed effects model was run with COWA (baseline, 2, 4, 6, and 12 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, RPA class, prior radiosurgery, prior surgical resection were the covariates considered in each model along with interaction terms treatment\*time, time\*time, time\*time\*time and remained if p\<0.05. Baseline score, treatment arm, and time were forced into the model. Baseline COWA is reported here.||||<0.0001
91061940|NCT02360215|182007823|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9749|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A mixed effects model was run with COWA (baseline, 2, 4, 6, and 12 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, RPA class, prior radiosurgery, prior surgical resection were the covariates considered in each model along with interaction terms treatment\*time, time\*time, time\*time\*time and remained if p\<0.05. Baseline score, treatment arm, and time were forced into the model. Treatment Arm (WBRT+Memantine vs. HA-WBRT Memantine) is reported here.||||0.9749
91061941|NCT02360215|182007823|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A mixed effects model was run with COWA (baseline, 2, 4, 6, and 12 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, RPA class, prior radiosurgery, prior surgical resection were the covariates considered in each model along with interaction terms treatment\*time, time\*time, time\*time\*time and remained if p\<0.05. Baseline score, treatment arm, and time were forced into the model. Age (\> 61 years vs. \<= 61 years) is reported here. is reported here.||||<0.0001
91061942|NCT02360215|182007824|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2552|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A mixed effects model was run with the neurocognitive composite score (baseline, 2, 4, 6, and 12 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, RPA class, prior radiosurgery, prior surgical resection were the covariates considered in each model along with interaction terms treatment\*time, time\*time, time\*time\*time and remained if p\<0.05. Baseline score, treatment arm, and time were forced into the model. Treatment Arm (WBRT+Memantine vs. HA-WBRT Memantine) is reported here.||||0.2552
91061943|NCT02360215|182007824|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A mixed effects model was run with the neurocognitive composite score (baseline, 2, 4, 6, and 12 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, RPA class, prior radiosurgery, prior surgical resection were the covariates considered in each model along with interaction terms treatment\*time, time\*time, time\*time\*time and remained if p\<0.05. Baseline score, treatment arm, and time were forced into the model. Age (\> 61 years vs. \<= 61 years) is reported here.||||<0.0001
91061944|NCT02360215|182007824|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A mixed effects model was run with the neurocognitive composite score (baseline, 2, 4, 6, and 12 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, RPA class, prior radiosurgery, prior surgical resection were the covariates considered in each model along with interaction terms treatment\*time, time\*time, time\*time\*time and remained if p\<0.05. Baseline score, treatment arm, and time were forced into the model. Baseline composite score is reported here.||||<0.0001
91061945|NCT02360215|182007825|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A mixed effects model was run with MDASI-BT Symptom Score (baseline, 2, 4, 6, and 12 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, RPA class, prior radiosurgery, prior surgical resection were the covariates considered in each model along with interaction terms treatment\*time, time\*time, time\*time\*time and remained if p\<0.05. Baseline score, treatment arm, and time were forced into the model. Treatment Arm (WBRT+Memantine vs. HA-WBRT Memantine) is reported here.||||0.57
91061946|NCT02360215|182007825|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A mixed effects model was run with MDASI-BT Symptom Severity score (baseline, 2, 4, 6, and 12 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, RPA class, prior radiosurgery, prior surgical resection were the covariates considered in each model along with interaction terms treatment\*time, time\*time, time\*time\*time and remained if p\<0.05. Baseline score, treatment arm, and time were forced into the model. Baseline symptom severity is reported here.||||<0.0001
91061947|NCT02360215|182007825|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.083|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A two-sample t-test with a 2-sided type I error of 0.05 provides \>90% statistical power to detect a medium effect size of 0.5 for a comparison of the change from baseline to 6 months from the start of treatment. The comparison at six months was tested within a mixed effects model with covariates age, RPA class, prior radiosurgery, prior surgical resection, baseline score, treatment arm, and time was used.||||0.083
90822843|NCT01340586|181522517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.187|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.907|1.553||||||Geometric Mean Ratio: ESRD Dose before hemodialysis over Normal Renal Function||1.553|0.907|
90822844|NCT01340586|181522517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.389|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.097|1.758||||||Geometric Mean Ratio: ESRD Dose after hemodialysis over Normal Renal Function||1.758|1.097|
90822845|NCT01340586|181522517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.855|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.707|1.033||||||Geometric Mean Ratio: ESRD Dose before hemodialysis over ESRD Dose after hemodialysis||1.033|0.707|
90822846|NCT01340586|181522519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.165|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.543||||||Geometric Mean Ratio: ESRD Dose before hemodialysis over Normal Renal Function||1.543|0.880|
90822847|NCT01340586|181522519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.357|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.066|1.728||||||Geometric Mean Ratio: ESRD Dose after hemodialysis over Normal Renal Function||1.728|1.066|
90822848|NCT01340586|181522519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.858|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.707|1.042||||||Geometric Mean Ratio: ESRD Dose before hemodialysis over ESRD Dose after hemodialysis||1.042|0.707|
90822849|NCT03671213|181522544|SUPERIORITY|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the 90% LB \> -10.0%. If non-inferiority was met, superiority could be tested. Superiority is demonstrated if 97.5% LB \> 0.0%.||||||||||||||||For missing data in both Arms/Groups, multiple imputation was performed for the primary CCS analysis|Device group differences and two-sided 90% and 97.5% confidence interval lower bounds (LB) adjusting for propensity score (PS) subclass based on PS subclass weights (ATT). Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the 90% LB \> -10.0%. Superiority is demonstrated if 97.5% LB \> 0.0%. Two-sided 97.5% LB is evaluated rather than two-sided 95.0% LB since the superiority type 1 error is split between testing superiority in terms of Month 24 CCS and then separately for a set of superiority secondary endpoints with type 1 error control maintained through the use of Hochberg approach (following demonstration of non-inferiority).|||
90822850|NCT03223337|181522553|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square(LS) Mean|1.9973|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1063|3.6057|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK1278863 (Moderate hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||3.6057|1.1063|
90822851|NCT03223337|181522553|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.6471|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1267|2.4079|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2391220 (M2) (Moderate hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||2.4079|1.1267|
90822852|NCT03223337|181522553|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.6404|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0744|2.5048|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2487818 (M4) (Moderate hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||2.5048|1.0744|
90822853|NCT03223337|181522553|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.4931|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0876|2.0498|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2506102 (M5) (Moderate hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||2.0498|1.0876|
90822854|NCT03223337|181522553|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.6222|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1594|2.2696|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2531398 (M6) (Moderate hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||2.2696|1.1594|
90822855|NCT03223337|181522553|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.3145|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9896|1.7462|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2531401 (M13) (Moderate hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||1.7462|0.9896|
90822856|NCT03223337|181522554|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.4574|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.035|2.0523|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK1278863 (Mild hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||2.0523|1.0350|
90822857|NCT03223337|181522554|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.9375|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.3919|2.6968|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2391220 (M2) (Mild hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||2.6968|1.3919|
90822858|NCT03223337|181522554|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.8312|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.3342|2.5133|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2506104 (M3) (Mild hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||2.5133|1.3342|
90822859|NCT03223337|181522554|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|2.003|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.4654|2.7378|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2487818 (M4) (Mild hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||2.7378|1.4654|
90822860|NCT03223337|181522554|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.7113|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.2818|2.2847|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2506102 (M5) (Mild hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||2.2847|1.2818|
90822861|NCT03223337|181522554|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.974|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.5365|2.536|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2531398 (M6) (Mild hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||2.5360|1.5365|
90822862|NCT03223337|181522554|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.4603|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9081|2.3484|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2531401 (M13) (Mild hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||2.3484|0.9081|
90822863|NCT03223337|181522557|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.9973|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1061|3.6066|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK1278863 (Moderate hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||3.6066|1.1061|
90822864|NCT03223337|181522557|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.6509|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1285|2.415|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2391220 (M2) (Moderate hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||2.4150|1.1285|
90822865|NCT03223337|181522557|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.6421|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0732|2.5125|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2487818 (M4) (Moderate hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||2.5125|1.0732|
90822866|NCT03223337|181522557|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.5169|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0994|2.093|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2506102 (M5) (Moderate hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||2.0930|1.0994|
90822867|NCT03223337|181522557|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.624|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1599|2.2736|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2531398 (M6) (Moderate hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||2.2736|1.1599|
90822868|NCT03223337|181522557|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.3143|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9887|1.747|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2531401 (M13) (Moderate hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||1.7470|0.9887|
90822869|NCT03223337|181522558|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.4566|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0344|2.0513|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK1278863 (Mild hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||2.0513|1.0344|
90822870|NCT03223337|181522558|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.9478|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.3935|2.7224|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2391220 (M2) (Mild hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||2.7224|1.3935|
90822871|NCT03223337|181522558|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.8392|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.335|2.534|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2506104 (M3) (Mild hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||2.5340|1.3350|
90822872|NCT03223337|181522558|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|2.0161|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.4711|2.763|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2487818 (M4) (Mild hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||2.7630|1.4711|
90822873|NCT03223337|181522558|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.7303|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.2932|2.3151|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2506102 (M5) (Mild hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||2.3151|1.2932|
90822874|NCT03223337|181522558|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.987|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.5426|2.5594|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2531398 (M6) (Mild hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||2.5594|1.5426|
90822875|NCT03223337|181522558|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.4646|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9086|2.3609|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2531401 (M13) (Mild hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||2.3609|0.9086|
90822876|NCT03223337|181522559|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.9786|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0557|3.7084|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK1278863 (Moderate hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||3.7084|1.0557|
90822877|NCT03223337|181522559|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.2791|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9241|1.7705|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2391220 (M2) (Moderate hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||1.7705|0.9241|
90822878|NCT03223337|181522559|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.2487|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8675|1.7974|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2487818 (M4) (Moderate hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||1.7974|0.8675|
90822879|NCT03223337|181522559|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.1802|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9165|1.5197|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2506102 (M5) (Moderate hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||1.5197|0.9165|
90822880|NCT03223337|181522559|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.2726|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.952|1.7012|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2531398 (M6) (Moderate hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||1.7012|0.9520|
90822881|NCT03223337|181522559|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.0409|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7927|1.3668|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2531401 (M13) (Moderate hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||1.3668|0.7927|
90822882|NCT03223337|181522560|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.0097|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7122|1.4316|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK1278863 (Mild hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||1.4316|0.7122|
91078429|NCT00553358|182042811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.878||||0.548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.34||The two-sided stratified log-rank test was implemented as the score test from the Cox model.|Regression, Cox||Cox models (Cox, 1972), with the stratification factors entered as strata variables, were used to calculate hazard ratios and corresponding confidence intervals for the pairwise comparisons of individual treatment arms with the trastuzumab alone arm.|||1.34|0.57|0.548
90822883|NCT03223337|181522560|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.7852|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.2498|2.5498|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2391220 (M2) (Mild hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||2.5498|1.2498|
90822884|NCT03223337|181522560|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.7337|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.2343|2.4353|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2506104 (M3) (Mild hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||2.4353|1.2343|
90822885|NCT03223337|181522560|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.7628|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.2898|2.4092|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2487818 (M4) (Mild hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||2.4092|1.2898|
90822886|NCT03223337|181522560|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.6413|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.2055|2.2347|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2506102 (M5) (Mild hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||2.2347|1.2055|
90822887|NCT03223337|181522560|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.8289|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.3992|2.3904|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2531398 (M6) (Mild hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||2.3904|1.3992|
90822888|NCT03223337|181522560|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.3367|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8288|2.1557|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2531401 (M13) (Mild hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||2.1557|0.8288|
90822889|NCT03223337|181522561|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|0.905|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|1.1869|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK1278863 (Moderate hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||1.1869|0.6900|
90822890|NCT03223337|181522561|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|0.7415|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5617|0.9787|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2391220 (M2) (Moderate hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||0.9787|0.5617|
90822891|NCT03223337|181522561|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|0.7299|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4387|1.2145|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2487818 (M4) (Moderate hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||1.2145|0.4387|
90822892|NCT03223337|181522561|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.1703|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.5219|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2506102 (M5) (Moderate hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||1.5219|0.9000|
90822893|NCT03223337|181522561|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|0.9585|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6664|1.3786|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2531398 (M6) (Moderate hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||1.3786|0.6664|
90822894|NCT03223337|181522561|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.0004|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7833|1.2778|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2531401 (M13) (Moderate hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||1.2778|0.7833|
90822895|NCT03223337|181522562|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.0574|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7876|1.4197|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK1278863 (Mild hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||1.4197|0.7876|
90822896|NCT03223337|181522562|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.0143|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7332|1.4032|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2391220 (M2) (Mild hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||1.4032|0.7332|
90822897|NCT03223337|181522562|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.038|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7695|1.4002|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2506104 (M3) (Mild hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||1.4002|0.7695|
90822898|NCT03223337|181522562|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.3427|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7635|2.3615|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2487818 (M4) (Mild hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||2.3615|0.7635|
90822899|NCT03223337|181522562|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.0296|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6996|1.5151|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2506102 (M5) (Mild hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||1.5151|0.6996|
90822900|NCT03223337|181522562|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.2721|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8409|1.9245|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2531398 (M6) (Mild hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||1.9245|0.8409|
90822901|NCT03223337|181522562|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.2072|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9398|1.5508|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2531401 (M13) (Mild hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||1.5508|0.9398|
90822902|NCT03223337|181522563|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.6822|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|0.5||P-value was based on Mann-Whitney U test (exact Wilcoxon rank sum test).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Median Difference in GSK1278863 (Moderate hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||0.50|-1.00|0.6822
90822903|NCT03223337|181522563|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.5767|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|1.0||P-value was based on Mann-Whitney U test (exact Wilcoxon rank sum test).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Median Difference in GSK2391220 (M2)(Moderate hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||1.00|-1.00|0.5767
91061948|NCT02360215|182007826|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9118|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A mixed effects model was run with MDASI-BT Interference Score (baseline, 2, 4, 6, and 12 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, RPA class, prior radiosurgery, prior surgical resection were the covariates considered in each model along with interaction terms treatment\*time, time\*time, time\*time\*time and remained if p\<0.05. Baseline score, treatment arm, and time were forced into the model. Treatment Arm (WBRT+Memantine vs. HA-WBRT Memantine) is reported here.||||0.9118
91061949|NCT02360215|182007826|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A mixed effects model was run with MDASI-BT Interference Score (baseline, 2, 4, 6, and 12 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, RPA class, prior radiosurgery, prior surgical resection were the covariates considered in each model along with interaction terms treatment\*time, time\*time, time\*time\*time and remained if p\<0.05. Baseline score, treatment arm, and time were forced into the model. Baseline interference score is reported here.||||<0.0001
91061950|NCT02360215|182007827|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1964|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A mixed effects model was run with MDASI-BT Cognitive Factor Score (baseline, 2, 4, 6, and 12 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, RPA class, prior radiosurgery, prior surgical resection were the covariates considered in each model along with interaction terms treatment\*time, time\*time, time\*time\*time and remained if p\<0.05. Baseline score, treatment arm, and time were forced into the model. Treatment Arm (WBRT+Memantine vs. HA-WBRT Memantine) is reported here.||||0.1964
90822904|NCT03223337|181522563|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.588|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|1.5||P-value was based on Mann-Whitney U test (exact Wilcoxon rank sum test).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Median Difference in GSK2487818 (M4)(Moderate hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||1.50|-1.00|0.5880
90822905|NCT03223337|181522563|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.7716|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|1.0||P-value was based on Mann-Whitney U test (exact Wilcoxon rank sum test).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Median Difference in GSK2506102 (M5)(Moderate hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||1.00|-1.00|0.7716
90822906|NCT03223337|181522563|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.4093|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|2.0||P-value was based on Mann-Whitney U test (exact Wilcoxon rank sum test).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Median Difference in GSK2531398 (M6) (Moderate hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||2.00|-1.00|0.4093
90822907|NCT03223337|181522563|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.9837|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|1.0||P-value was based on Mann-Whitney U test (exact Wilcoxon rank sum test).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Median Difference in GSK2531401 (M13) (Moderate hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||1.00|-1.00|0.9837
90822908|NCT03223337|181522564|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.6224|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|0.5||P-value was based on Mann-Whitney U test (exact Wilcoxon rank sum test).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Median Difference in GSK1278863 (Mild hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||0.50|-1.00|0.6224
90822909|NCT03223337|181522564|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.8042|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|0.0||P-value was based on Mann-Whitney U test (exact Wilcoxon rank sum test).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Median Difference in GSK2391220 (M2) (Mild hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||0.00|-1.00|0.8042
90822910|NCT03223337|181522564|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.8423|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|1.0||P-value was based on Mann-Whitney U test (exact Wilcoxon rank sum test).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Median Difference in GSK2506104 (M3) (Mild hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||1.00|-1.00|0.8423
90822911|NCT03223337|181522564|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.5207|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|1.0||P-value was based on Mann-Whitney U test (exact Wilcoxon rank sum test).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Median Difference in GSK2487818 (M4) (Mild hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||1.00|-1.00|0.5207
90822912|NCT03223337|181522564|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.8423|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|1.0||P-value was based on Mann-Whitney U test (exact Wilcoxon rank sum test).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Median Difference in GSK2506102 (M5) (Mild hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||1.00|-1.00|0.8423
90822913|NCT03223337|181522564|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|1.0||P-value was based on Mann-Whitney U test (exact Wilcoxon rank sum test).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Median Difference in GSK2531398 (M6) (Mild hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||1.00|-1.00|1.0000
90822914|NCT03223337|181522564|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.8042|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|1.0||P-value was based on Mann-Whitney U test (exact Wilcoxon rank sum test).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Median Difference in GSK2531401 (M13) (Mild hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||1.00|0.00|0.8042
90822915|NCT03688074|181522583|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LSMeans|0.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.06|0.35||Nominal p-values were reported. No adjustment of multiplicity was performed.|ANCOVA|Model includes treatment+log transformed baseline value+stratification factor (screening eos count \[\<150, 150-\<300, \>=300 cells/uL\])|Parameter : Eosinophils (cells/mm\^2)||95% CI (0.05, 0.41)|0.35|0.06|<0.001
90822916|NCT03688074|181522583|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LSMeans|1.36||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.99|1.86||Nominal p-values were reported. No adjustment of multiplicity was performed.|ANCOVA|Model includes treatment+log transformed baseline value+stratification factor (screening eos count \[\<150, 150-\<300, \>=300 cells/uL\])|Parameter: Neutrophils (cells/mm\^2)||95% CI (0.94, 1.97)|1.86|0.99|0.106
90822917|NCT03688074|181522583|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LSMeans|1.12||||0.389|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.4||Nominal p-values were reported. No adjustment of multiplicity was performed.|ANCOVA|Model includes treatment+log transformed baseline value+stratification factor (screening eos count \[\<150, 150-\<300, \>=300 cells/uL\])|Parameter: T cells CD3+ (cells/mm\^2)||95% CI (0.86, 1.46)|1.40|0.90|0.389
90822918|NCT03688074|181522583|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LSMeans|1.18||||0.216|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|1.48||Nominal p-values were reported. No adjustment of multiplicity was performed.|ANCOVA|Model includes treatment+log transformed baseline value+stratification factor (screening eos count \[\<150, 150-\<300, \>=300 cells/uL\])|Parameter: T cells CD4+ (cells/mm\^2)||95% CI (0.90, 1.55)|1.48|0.94|0.216
90822919|NCT03688074|181522583|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LSMeans|0.83||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.64|1.09||Nominal p-values were reported. No adjustment of multiplicity was performed.|ANCOVA|Model includes treatment+log transformed baseline value+stratification factor (screening eos count \[\<150, 150-\<300, \>=300 cells/uL\])|Parameter: Mast cells Tryptase+ (cells/mm\^2)||95% CI (0.61, 1.15)|1.09|0.64|0.260
90822920|NCT03688074|181522583|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LSMeans|1.19||||0.546|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.74|1.92||Nominal p-values were reported. No adjustment of multiplicity was performed.|ANCOVA|Model includes treatment+log transformed baseline value+stratification factor (screening eos count \[\<150, 150-\<300, \>=300 cells/uL\])|Parameter: Mast cells Chymase+ (cells/mm\^2)||95% CI (0.67, 2.10)|1.92|0.74|0.546
90822921|NCT01362608|181522586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.2|-11.2|||ANCOVA|||||-11.2|-28.2|<0.0001
90822922|NCT01362608|181522587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.26||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.71|||Regression, Cox|||||0.71|0.10|0.0043
91061951|NCT02360215|182007827|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A mixed effects model was run with MDASI-BT Cognitive Factor Score (baseline, 2, 4, 6, and 12 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, RPA class, prior radiosurgery, prior surgical resection were the covariates considered in each model along with interaction terms treatment\*time, time\*time, time\*time\*time and remained if p\<0.05. Baseline score, treatment arm, and time were forced into the model. Baseline cognitive factor score is reported here.||||<0.0001
90822923|NCT03350815|181522635|OTHER|Statistical hypothesis tests were not performed for this study|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|2.25||No P value as no hypothesis was tested|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis (logistic regression) of ASDAS inactive disease response by visit - in Treatment Period 2 (nonresponder imputation)||2.25|0.28|
90822924|NCT03350815|181522636|OTHER|Statistical hypothesis tests were not performed for this study|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|8.66||No P value as no hypothesis was tested|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis (logistic regression) of reduction in ASDAS \>= 1.1 response by visit - in Treatment Period 2 (nonresponder imputation)||8.66|0.50|
90822925|NCT03350815|181522637|OTHER|Statistical hypothesis tests were not performed for this study|Least Square Mean of Treatment Differenc|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.263|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.75||Least squares means (LSMs) of the treatment groups, LSM treatment difference and 95% confidence interval for treatment difference are from mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment, visit and TNF-alpha inhibitor status as factors|Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of total BASDAI change from Week 16 using MMRM - in Treatment Period 2 (FAS)||0.75|-0.29|
90822926|NCT03350815|181522638|OTHER|Statistical hypothesis tests were not performed for this study|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.24||Odds ratio and 95% confidence interval for odds ratio are from a logistic regression model with treatment (2 treatment groups), TNF-alpha inhibitor status (naive, inadequate responder) and Week 16 body weight (kg) as explanatory variables.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis (logistic regression) of BASDAI50 response by visit - in Treatment Period 2 (nonresponder imputation) (FAS)||3.24|0.50|
90822927|NCT03350815|181522639|OTHER|Statistical hypothesis tests were not performed for this study|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.73||Odds ratio and 95% confidence interval for odds ratio are from a logistic regression model with treatment (2 treatment groups), TNF-alpha inhibitor status (naive, inadequate responder) and Week 16 body weight (kg) as explanatory variables|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis (logistic regression) of BASDAI20 response by visit - in Treatment Period 2 (nonresponder imputation) (FAS)||1.73|0.43|
90822928|NCT03350815|181522640|OTHER|Statistical hypothesis tests were not performed for this study|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|3.46||Odds ratio and 95% confidence interval for odds ratio are from a logistic regression model with treatment (2 treatment groups), TNF-alpha inhibitor status (naive, inadequate responder) and Week 16 body weight (kg) as explanatory variables.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis (logistic regression) of ASAS40 response by visit - in Treatment Period 2 (nonresponder imputation) (FAS)||3.46|0.49|
90822929|NCT03350815|181522641|OTHER|Statistical hypothesis tests were not performed for this study|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|2.41||Odds ratio and 95% confidence interval for odds ratio are from a logistic regression model with treatment (2 treatment groups), TNF-alpha inhibitor status(naive, inadequate responder) and Week 16 body weight (kg) as explanatory variables.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis (logistic regression) of ASAS partial remission response by visit - in Treatment Period 2 (nonresponder imputation) (FAS)||2.41|0.44|
90822930|NCT03350815|181522642|OTHER|Statistical hypothesis tests were not performed for this study|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|1.01||Least squares means (LSMs) of the treatment groups, LSM treatment difference and 95% confidence interval for treatment difference are from mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment, visit and TNF-alpha inhibitor status as factors|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis of change from Week 16 in ASAS-Health Index using MMRM by visit - in Treatment Period 2 (FAS)||1.01|-0.74|
91061952|NCT02360215|182007827|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0032|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A mixed effects model was run with MDASI-BT Cognitive Factor Score (baseline, 2, 4, 6, and 12 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, RPA class, prior radiosurgery, prior surgical resection were the covariates considered in each model along with interaction terms treatment\*time, time\*time, time\*time\*time and remained if p\<0.05. Baseline score, treatment arm, and time were forced into the model. Prior radiotherapy (yes vs. no) is reported here.||||0.0032
91061953|NCT02360215|182007828|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8877|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A mixed effects model was run with MDASI-BT Neurologic Factor Score (baseline, 2, 4, 6, and 12 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, RPA class, prior radiosurgery, prior surgical resection were the covariates considered in each model along with interaction terms treatment\*time, time\*time, time\*time\*time and remained if p\<0.05. Baseline score, treatment arm, and time were forced into the model. Treatment Arm (WBRT+Memantine vs. HA-WBRT Memantine) is reported here.||||0.8877
91061954|NCT02360215|182007828|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A mixed effects model was run with MDASI-BT Neurologic Factor Score (baseline, 2, 4, 6, and 12 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, RPA class, prior radiosurgery, prior surgical resection were the covariates considered in each model along with interaction terms treatment\*time, time\*time, time\*time\*time and remained if p\<0.05. Baseline score, treatment arm, and time were forced into the model. Baseline neurologic factor is reported here.||||<0.0001
91061955|NCT02360215|182007828|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0078|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A mixed effects model was run with MDASI-BT Neurologic Factor Score (baseline, 2, 4, 6, and 12 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, RPA class, prior radiosurgery, prior surgical resection were the covariates considered in each model along with interaction terms treatment\*time, time\*time, time\*time\*time and remained if p\<0.05. Baseline score, treatment arm, and time were forced into the model. Age (\> 61 years vs. \<= 61 years) is reported here.||||0.0078
91061956|NCT02360215|182007829|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86||||||Significance level = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.86
91061957|NCT02360215|182007831|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95||||||Significance level = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.95
91061958|NCT02360215|182007832|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66||||||Significance level = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.66
91061959|NCT02360215|182007833|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18||||||Significance level = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.18
91061960|NCT02360215|182007834|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64||||||Significance level = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.64
91061961|NCT02360215|182007835|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91||||||Significance level = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.91
91061962|NCT02360215|182007836|OTHER|||||||0.92||||||Significance level = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.92
91061963|NCT02360215|182007837|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.47||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Log Rank||Reference level = WBRT + Memantine|||1.47|0.98|0.076
91061964|NCT02360215|182007838|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.43||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Log Rank||Reference level = WBRT + Memantin|||1.43|0.91|0.242
91061965|NCT02360215|182007839|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47||||||Two-sided p-value = 0.05|Chi-squared|||||||0.47
91061966|NCT05411991|182007851|SUPERIORITY||Net treatment benefit|10.5||||0.357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|31.9|||General pairwaise comparison|||||31.9|-11.9|0.357
91061967|NCT04467840|182007872|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.86||||0.391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.93|12.65||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Opaganib - Placebo|||12.65|-4.93|0.391
91061968|NCT04467840|182007873|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.91||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.78|12.6||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05, only if the primary endpoint was significant. This p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons because the primary endpoint was not met.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||12.60|-4.78|0.380
91061969|NCT04467840|182007874|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||0.231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.45||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05, only if the primary endpoint was significant. This p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons because the primary endpoint was not met.|Log Rank|||||1.45|0.91|0.231
91061970|NCT04467840|182007875|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio, log|1.08||||0.472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.33||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05, only if the primary endpoint was significant. This p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons because the primary endpoint was not met.|Log Rank|||||1.33|0.87|0.472
91061971|NCT04467840|182007876|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.846|1.378||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05, only if the primary endpoint was significant. This p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons because the primary endpoint was not met.|Log Rank|||||1.378|0.846|0.521
91061972|NCT04467840|182007877|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.51||||0.701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.19|6.18||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05, only if the primary endpoint was significant. This p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons because the primary endpoint was not met.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||6.18|-9.19|0.701
91061973|NCT04467840|182007878|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05, only if the primary endpoint was significant. This p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons because the primary endpoint was not met.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.34||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.82|||Log Rank|||||1.82|0.99|0.043
91061974|NCT04467840|182007879|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05, only if the primary endpoint was significant. This p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons because the primary endpoint was not met.|Risk Difference (RD)|8.3||||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|18.65|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||18.65|-2.05|0.118
91061975|NCT04467840|182007883|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.28||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|23.5||unadjusted p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||23.50|1.06|0.033
91061976|NCT04467840|182007884|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.75||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.67|9.17|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||9.17|-18.67|0.500
91061977|NCT04467840|182007885|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.75||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|23.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||23.60|1.90|0.023
91061978|NCT04467840|182007886|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.12||||0.561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.07|9.82|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||9.82|-18.07|0.561
91061979|NCT04467840|182007887|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.44||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.93|||Log Rank|||||1.93|1.07|0.01
91061980|NCT04467840|182007888|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.34|||Log Rank|||||1.34|0.58|0.545
91061981|NCT04467840|182007889|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.276||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.732|||Log Rank|||||1.732|0.940|0.100
91061982|NCT04467840|182007891|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.5||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.44|-2.57|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-2.57|-18.44|0.012
91061983|NCT04467840|182007892|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.2||||0.304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.46|20.86|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||20.86|-6.46|0.304
91061984|NCT04467840|182007893|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-9.22||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.63|-1.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-1.80|-16.63|0.019
91061985|NCT04467840|182007894|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.37||||0.273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.66|20.39|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||20.39|-5.66|0.273
91061986|NCT06418529|182007897|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.05||||||||1.05|0.85|
91061987|NCT06418529|182007898|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.07||||||||1.07|0.83|
91061988|NCT06418529|182007899|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.99||||||||0.99|0.79|
91061989|NCT06418529|182007900|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.04||||||||1.04|0.79|
91061990|NCT06418529|182007901|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.05||||||||1.05|0.81|
91061991|NCT06418529|182007902|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.09||||||||1.09|0.79|
91061992|NCT02719184|182007958|OTHER|The analysis was based on a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach with diagnosis group-by-visit and baseline ALD value-by-visit terms, and unstructured covariance matrix structure for repeated measurements within subject.|Adjusted mean difference|-2.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.23||0.0202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.32|-0.45|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||The mean difference was calculated as value from COPD GOLD I group - value from Healthy subjects group.|||-0.45|-5.32|0.0202
91061993|NCT02719184|182007958|OTHER|The analysis was based on a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach with diagnosis group-by-visit and baseline ALD value-by-visit terms, and unstructured covariance matrix structure for repeated measurements within subject.|Adjusted mean difference|-4.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.31||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.36|-2.19|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||The mean difference was calculated as value from COPD GOLD II group - value from Healthy subjects group.|||-2.19|-7.36|0.0003
91061994|NCT02719184|182007958|OTHER|The analysis was based on a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach with diagnosis group-by-visit and baseline ALD value-by-visit terms, and unstructured covariance matrix structure for repeated measurements within subject.|Adjusted mean difference|-4.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.51||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.44|-1.5|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||The mean difference was calculated as value from COPD GOLD III group - value from Healthy subjects group.|||-1.50|-7.44|0.0033
91061995|NCT02719184|182007958|OTHER|The analysis was based on a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach with diagnosis group-by-visit and baseline ALD value-by-visit terms, and unstructured covariance matrix structure for repeated measurements within subject.|Adjusted mean difference|-5.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.74||0.0334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.26|-0.47|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||The mean difference was calculated as value from COPD and A1AT group - value from Healthy subjects group.|||-0.47|-11.26|0.0334
91061996|NCT02719184|182007959|OTHER|A random slope and intercept model with fixed categorical effects of diagnosis group, fixed continuous effects of time, and including diagnosis group-by-time interaction was applied. Random effect was included for subject specific intercept and time. Within-subject errors are modelled by an unstructured variance-covariance matrix.|Unadjusted mean difference|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.4||0.9306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.2|29.7|||Random slope and intercept model||The mean difference was calculated as value from COPD GOLD I group - value from Healthy subjects group.|||29.7|-27.2|0.9306
91061997|NCT02719184|182007959|OTHER|A random slope and intercept model with fixed categorical effects of diagnosis group, fixed continuous effects of time, and including diagnosis group-by-time interaction was applied. Random effect was included for subject specific intercept and time. Within-subject errors are modelled by an unstructured variance-covariance matrix.|Unadjusted mean difference|-19.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.9||0.1983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.5|10.1|||Random slope and intercept model|The mean difference was calculated as value from COPD GOLD II group - value from Healthy subjects group.||||10.1|-48.5|0.1983
91061998|NCT02719184|182007959|OTHER|A random slope and intercept model with fixed categorical effects of diagnosis group, fixed continuous effects of time, and including diagnosis group-by-time interaction was applied. Random effect was included for subject specific intercept and time. Within-subject errors are modelled by an unstructured variance-covariance matrix.|Unadjusted mean difference|-33.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.1||0.0381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.4|-1.9|||Random slope and intercept model||The mean difference was calculated as value from COPD GOLD III group - value from Healthy subjects group.|||-1.9|-65.4|0.0381
91061999|NCT02719184|182007959|OTHER|A random slope and intercept model with fixed categorical effects of diagnosis group, fixed continuous effects of time, and including diagnosis group-by-time interaction was applied. Random effect was included for subject specific intercept and time. Within-subject errors are modelled by an unstructured variance-covariance matrix.|Unadjusted mean difference|-61.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|30.3||0.0419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-121.3|-2.3|||Random slope and intercept model||The mean difference was calculated as value from COPD and A1AT group - value from Healthy subjects group.|||-2.3|-121.3|0.0419
91062000|NCT02556801|182008002|SUPERIORITY||Test statistic|1.823||||0.057|ONE_SIDED||||||MCP-Mod Method|The primary dose-response analysis was performed by applying linear, Emax, logistic and exponential models.The p-value was based on Emax model.||||||0.057
91062001|NCT02556801|182008002|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|-1.96|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.17|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.89|-0.03||||||||-0.03|-3.89|
91062002|NCT02556801|182008002|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|-1.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.72|0.06||||||||0.06|-3.72|
91062003|NCT02556801|182008002|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|-2.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.23|-0.43||||||||-0.43|-4.23|
91062004|NCT02556801|182008003|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|-1.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17|=|0.051|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.85|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.01|-3.85|=0.051
91062005|NCT02556801|182008003|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|-1.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14||0.059|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.68|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.10|-3.68|0.059
91062006|NCT02556801|182008003|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15||0.024|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.2|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.40|-4.20|0.024
90822931|NCT03350815|181522643|OTHER|Statistical hypothesis tests were not performed for this study|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.62|1.61||Least squares means (LSMs) of the treatment groups, LSM treatment difference and 95% confidence interval for treatment difference are from mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment, visit and TNF-alpha inhibitor status as factors|Regression, Logistic|||||1.61|-3.62|
90822932|NCT03526146|181522644|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.002
90822933|NCT03526146|181522645|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.047|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.047
90822934|NCT03526146|181522646|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.006
90822935|NCT03526146|181522647|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.05
90822936|NCT03526146|181522648|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.009
90822937|NCT02214290|181522668|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|post-hoc comparisons were used to determine within-group and between-group differences.||||||<0.001
90822938|NCT02214290|181522669|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|post-hoc comparisons were used to determine within-group and between-group differences.||||||<0.001
90822939|NCT02214290|181522670|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|post-hoc comparisons were used to determine within-group and between-group differences.||||||<0.001
90822940|NCT00699608|181522672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.99||||0.267||95.0|-2.74|0.76|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA used (fixed effects: adjusted period baseline, participant baseline, age, gender, period and treatment group; random effect: participant).||||0.76|-2.74|0.267
90822941|NCT04112303|181522752|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||2-sided exact 1-sample binomial test|||The SVR12 rate was compared to the pre-specified efficacy threshold of 78% using a 2-sided exact 1-sample binomial test at the 0.05 significance level.||||<0.001
90822942|NCT03781414|181522791|NON_INFERIORITY|The primary objective would be demonstrated, if the composite efficacy failure rate difference between any of the two CFZ533 arms and the TAC arm is less than the pre-defined non-inferiority margin (0.15) with probability \>80%.|Rate difference|0.0759|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0729|0.2165||||||||0.2165|-0.0729|
90822943|NCT03781414|181522791|NON_INFERIORITY|The primary objective would be demonstrated, if the composite efficacy failure rate difference between any of the two CFZ533 arms and the TAC arm is less than the pre-defined non-inferiority margin (0.15) with probability \>80%.|Rate difference|0.1696|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0072|0.3276||||||||0.3276|0.0072|
90822944|NCT01496846|181522835|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.901|||||||Chi-squared|We used the Chi-Square Test or Fisher's Exact test on the raw data depending on the number of data points in the table cells.||||||.901
90822945|NCT01496846|181522835|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Chi-squared|We used the Chi-Square Test or Fisher's Exact test on the raw data depending on the number of data points in the table cells.||||||.004
90822946|NCT01496846|181522836|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.437|||||||Chi-squared|We used the Chi-Square Test or Fisher's Exact test on the raw data depending on the number of data points in the table cells.||||||.437
90822947|NCT02024724|181522837|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-30.0||||0.196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.0|10.0|||Chi-squared|||||10.00|-45.00|.196
90822948|NCT02467842|181522847|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of GMTs was concluded if the upper limit of 95% confidence interval of the GMR (active comparator/experimental) was ≤1.5 for each strain.|GMR (pooled TIV/QIV)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.1||||||GMR of A/H1N1 strain (GMTs of pooled TIV/QIV)||1.10|0.94|
90822949|NCT02467842|181522847|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of GMTs was concluded if the upper limit of 95% confidence interval of the GMR (active comparator/experimental) was ≤1.5 for each strain.|GMR (pooled TIV/QIV)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.01||||||GMR of A/H3N2 strain (GMTs of pooled TIV/QIV)||1.01|0.87|
90822950|NCT02467842|181522847|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of GMTs was concluded if the upper limit of 95% confidence interval of the GMR (active comparator/experimental) was ≤1.5 for each strain.|GMR (TIV/QIV)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|0.95||||||GMR of B/Yamagata strain (GMTs of TIV/QIV)||0.95|0.82|
90822951|NCT02467842|181522847|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of GMTs was concluded if the upper limit of 95% confidence interval of the GMR (active comparator/experimental) was ≤1.5 for each strain.|GMR (TIV/QIV)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|0.97||||||GMR of A/H1N1 strain (GMTs of TIV/QIV)||0.97|0.83|
90822952|NCT02467842|181522848|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of SCR was concluded if the upper limit of 95% confidence interval for Diff. SCR (active comparator minus experimental) ≤10% for each strain.|Difference in percentage|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.07|4.06||||||Diff. SCR of A/H1N1 strain (SCR of pooled TIV minus QIV)||4.06|-6.07|
90822953|NCT02467842|181522848|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of SCR was concluded if the upper limit of 95% confidence interval for Diff. SCR (active comparator minus experimental) ≤10% for each strain.|Difference in percentage|-5.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.08|0.04||||||Diff. SCR of A/H3N2 strain (SCR of pooled TIV minus QIV)||0.04|-10.08|
90822954|NCT02467842|181522848|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of SCR was concluded if the upper limit of 95% confidence interval for Diff. SCR (active comparator minus experimental) ≤10% for each strain.|Difference in percentage|-7.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.12|-1.0||||||Diff. SCR of B/Yamaga strain (SCR of TIV minus QIV)||-1.00|-13.12|
90822955|NCT02467842|181522848|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of SCR was concluded if the upper limit of 95% confidence interval for Diff. SCR (active comparator minus experimental) ≤10% for each strain.|Difference in percentage|-3.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.26|3.09||||||Diff. SCR of B/Victoria (SCR of TIV minus QIV)||3.09|-9.26|
90822956|NCT02467842|181522852|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of GMTs was concluded if the upper limit of 95% confidence interval for GMR (active comparator/experimental) was ≤1.0 for each B strain.|GMR (TIV/QIV)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.81||||||GMR of B/Yamagata strain (GMTs of TIV/QIV)||0.81|0.70|
90822957|NCT02467842|181522852|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of GMTs was concluded if the upper limit of 95% confidence interval for GMR (active comparator/experimental) was ≤1.0 for each B strain.|GMR (TIV/QIV)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.81||||||GMR of B/Victoria (GMTs of TIV/QIV)||0.81|0.69|
91062007|NCT02556801|182008004|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08||0.291|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.39|1.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.19|-2.39|0.291
91062008|NCT02556801|182008004|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|-1.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06|=|0.042|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.6|-0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.09|-3.60|=0.042
91062009|NCT02556801|182008004|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|-1.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.56|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.00|-3.56|0.050
91062010|NCT02556801|182008005|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|-0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63|=|0.079|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.93|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.15|-1.93|=0.079
91062011|NCT02556801|182008005|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|-0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61|=|0.076|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.89|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.13|-1.89|=0.076
91062012|NCT02556801|182008005|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|-1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62|=|0.038|TWO_SIDED|0.62|-2.13|-0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.08|-2.13|=0.038
91062013|NCT02556801|182008006|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58|=|0.451|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.03|0.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.88|-1.03|=0.451
91062014|NCT02556801|182008006|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56|=|0.137|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.55|0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.32|-1.55|=0.137
91062015|NCT02556801|182008006|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57|=|0.195|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.45|0.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.46|-1.45|=0.195
91062016|NCT02556801|182008007|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|-0.354|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.183|=|0.028|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.657|-0.05|||ANOVA|||||-0.050|-0.657|=0.028
91062017|NCT02556801|182008007|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|-0.394|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.186|=|0.018|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.702|-0.086|||ANOVA|||||-0.086|-0.702|=0.018
91062018|NCT02556801|182008007|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.182|=|0.063|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.581|0.021|||ANOVA|||||0.021|-0.581|=0.063
91062019|NCT02556801|182008008|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|1.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.41|2.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgE levels after 5 months (Visit 4)||2.60|1.41|<0.001
91062020|NCT02556801|182008008|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|2.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.8|3.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgE levels after 5 months (Visit 4)||3.27|1.80|<0.001
90822958|NCT02467842|181522853|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the upper limit of 95% confidence interval for Diff. SCR (active comparator-experimental) was ≤0% in each B strain.|Difference in percentage|-18.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.61|-13.36||||||Diff. SCR of B/Yamaga strain (SCR of TIV minus QIV)||-13.36|-24.61|
91062021|NCT02556801|182008008|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|2.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.73|3.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgE levels after 5 months (Visit 4)||3.15|1.73|<0.001
91062022|NCT02556801|182008008|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|1.42||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.05|1.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgE levels after 10 months (Visit 6)||1.93|1.05|0.029
90822959|NCT02467842|181522853|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the upper limit of 95% confidence interval for Diff. SCR (active comparator-experimental) was ≤0% in each B strain.|Difference in percentage|-12.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.79|-6.45||||||Diff. SCR of B/Victoria strain (SCR of TIV minus QIV)||-6.45|-18.79|
91062023|NCT02556801|182008008|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|1.67||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.24|2.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgE levels after 10 months (Visit 6)||2.25|1.24|0.003
91062024|NCT02556801|182008008|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|1.37||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.01|1.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgE levels after 10 months (Visit 6)||1.85|1.01|0.042
91062025|NCT02556801|182008009|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|1.11||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgG ATG levels after 5 months (Visit 4)||1.23|1.00|0.057
91062026|NCT02556801|182008009|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|1.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.17|1.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgG ATG levels after 5 months (Visit 4)||1.43|1.17|<0.001
91062027|NCT02556801|182008009|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|1.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.12|1.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgG ATG levels after 5 months (Visit 4)||1.37|1.12|<0.001
91062028|NCT02556801|182008009|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|1.23||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.05|1.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgG ATG levels after 10 months (Visit 6)||1.45|1.05|0.015
91062029|NCT02556801|182008009|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|1.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.37|1.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgG ATG levels after 10 months (Visit 6)||1.87|1.37|<0.001
91062030|NCT02556801|182008009|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|1.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.19|1.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgG ATG levels after 10 months (Visit 6)||1.62|1.19|<0.001
91062031|NCT02556801|182008009|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|0.99||||0.341|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|1.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgG AP1 levels after 5 months (Visit 4)||1.04|0.93|0.341
91062032|NCT02556801|182008009|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|1.1||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.04|1.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgG AP1 levels after 5 months (Visit 4)||1.16|1.04|0.003
91062033|NCT02556801|182008009|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|1.02||||0.269|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgG AP1 levels after 5 months (Visit 4)||1.08|0.97|0.269
91062034|NCT02556801|182008009|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|1.02||||0.312|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgG AP1 levels after 10 months (Visit 6)||1.10|0.95|0.312
91062035|NCT02556801|182008009|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|1.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.13|1.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgG AP1 levels after 10 months (Visit 6)||1.31|1.13|<0.001
91062036|NCT02556801|182008009|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|1.11||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.03|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgG AP1 levels after 10 months (Visit 6)||1.20|1.03|0.008
91062037|NCT02556801|182008009|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|1.04||||0.212|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgG AP5 levels after 5 months (Visit 4)||1.14|0.96|0.212
91062038|NCT02556801|182008009|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|1.16||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.07|1.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgG AP5 levels after 5 months (Visit 4)||1.27|1.07|0.002
91062039|NCT02556801|182008009|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|1.15||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.06|1.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgG AP5 levels after 5 months (Visit 4)||1.25|1.06|0.004
91062040|NCT02556801|182008009|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|1.09||||0.126|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgG AP5 levels after 10 months (Visit 6)||1.24|0.96|0.126
91062041|NCT02556801|182008009|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|1.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.13|1.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgG AP5 levels after 10 months (Visit 6)||1.45|1.13|<0.001
91062042|NCT02556801|182008009|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|1.26||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.11|1.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgG AP5 levels after 10 months (Visit 6)||1.43|1.11|0.002
91062043|NCT02556801|182008010|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|1.33||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.03|1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgG4 ATG levels after 5 months (Visit 4)||1.70|1.03|0.032
91062044|NCT02556801|182008010|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|2.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.68|2.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgG4 ATG levels after 5 months (Visit 4)||2.74|1.68|<0.001
91062045|NCT02556801|182008010|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|2.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.59|2.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgG4 ATG levels after 5 months (Visit 4)||2.59|1.59|<0.001
91062046|NCT02556801|182008010|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|1.48||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.07|2.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgG4 ATG levels after 10 months (Visit 6)||2.06|1.07|0.024
91062047|NCT02556801|182008010|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|2.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.09|3.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgG4 ATG levels after 10 months (Visit 6)||3.98|2.09|<0.001
91062048|NCT02556801|182008010|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|2.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.54|2.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgG4 ATG levels after 10 months (Visit 6)||2.93|1.54|<0.001
91062049|NCT02556801|182008010|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|1.18||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|1.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgG4 AP1 levels after 5 months (Visit 4)||1.47|0.95|0.102
91062050|NCT02556801|182008010|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|1.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.61|2.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgG4 AP1 levels after 5 months (Visit 4)||2.46|1.61|<0.001
91062051|NCT02556801|182008010|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|1.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.27|1.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgG4 AP1 levels after 5 months (Visit 4)||1.94|1.27|<0.001
91062052|NCT02556801|182008010|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|1.39||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.07|1.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgG4 AP1 levels after 10 months (Visit 6)||1.81|1.07|0.019
91062053|NCT02556801|182008010|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|2.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.84|3.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgG4 AP1 levels after 10 months (Visit 6)||3.08|1.84|<0.001
90822960|NCT01211340|181522874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The first analysis examined change from baseline to last available measure prior to death or the end of the study. The pre/post change was calculated for each participant and the Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to compare usual care and intervention groups with respect to changes. All randomized caregivers with at least 1 post baseline measure were included in the analysis.||||.18
91062054|NCT02556801|182008010|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|1.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.31|2.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgG4 AP1 levels after 10 months (Visit 6)||2.19|1.31|<0.001
91062055|NCT02556801|182008010|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|1.52||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.01|2.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgG4 AP5 levels after 5 months (Visit 4)||2.31|1.01|0.048
91062056|NCT02556801|182008010|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|2.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.56|3.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgG4 AP5 levels after 5 months (Visit 4)||3.53|1.56|<0.001
91062057|NCT02556801|182008010|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|2.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.88|4.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgG4 AP5 levels after 5 months (Visit 4)||4.24|1.88|<0.001
91062058|NCT02556801|182008010|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|1.67||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.03|2.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgG4 AP5 levels after 10 months (Visit 6)||2.69|1.03|0.040
91062059|NCT02556801|182008010|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|2.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.67|4.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgG4 AP5 levels after 10 months (Visit 6)||4.30|1.67|<0.001
91062060|NCT02556801|182008010|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|2.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.8|4.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgG4 AP5 levels after 10 months (Visit 6)||4.62|1.80|<0.001
91062061|NCT01339403|182008016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|166.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|123.4|223.5|||Poisson Regression|||Kaposi's sarcoma: Poisson regression models were used to analyze rates of clinical events by HIV and unadjusted incidence rate ratios compared risk in HIV-uninfected persons to HIV-infected persons.||223.5|123.4|<0.001
91062062|NCT01339403|182008016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|12.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.3|14.2|||Poisson Regression|||Invasive non-Hodgkin's lymphoma: Poisson regression models were used to analyze rates of clinical events by HIV and unadjusted incidence rate ratios compared risk in HIV-uninfected persons to HIV-infected persons.||14.2|10.3|<0.001
91062063|NCT01339403|182008016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|3.4||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|12.3|||Poisson Regression|||Invasive cervical cancer: Poisson regression models were used to analyze rates of clinical events by HIV and unadjusted incidence rate ratios compared risk in HIV-uninfected persons to HIV-infected persons.||12.3|1.0|0.059
91062064|NCT01339403|182008016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|1.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|1.8|||Poisson Regression|||Non-AIDS-defining cancers: Poisson regression models were used to analyze rates of clinical events by HIV and unadjusted incidence rate ratios compared risk in HIV-uninfected persons to HIV-infected persons.||1.8|1.5|<0.001
91062065|NCT01339403|182008016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|166.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|123.4|223.5|||Poisson Regression|||AIDS-defining cancer: Poisson regression models were used to analyze rates of clinical events by HIV and unadjusted incidence rate ratios compared risk in HIV-uninfected persons to HIV-infected persons.||223.5|123.4|<0.001
90822961|NCT01211340|181522874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|No significant difference found between groups||The secondary analysis used a linear mixed model to test for groups differences over time. To account for repeated- measures nature of the data and the varying duration of participation, both participant specific intercept and slopes were treated as random effects. To minimize the leverage of relatively small number of participants with extremely long follow-up times we limited the number of days followed to 122, which was the 75th percentile of the days in the combined study.||||.18
90822962|NCT01211340|181522874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Spearmans rank|No differences found||To test the effects of the dose of meetings on association with overall Caregiver Perceptions of Pain Medicine Questionaire (CPMQ) change we used Spearman rank correlation coefficient||||.18
90822963|NCT01211340|181522875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcxon Rank Sum Test|||The first analysis examined change from baseline to last available measure prior to death or the end of the study. The pre/post change was calculated for each participant and the Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to compare usual care and intervention groups with respect to changes. All randomized caregivers with at least 1 post baseline measure were included in the analysis.||||.15
90822964|NCT01211340|181522875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.15|||||||Regression, Linear|||The secondary analysis used a linear mixed model to test for groups differences over time. To account for repeated- measures nature of the data and the varying duration of participation, both participant specific intercept and slopes were treated as random effects. To minimize the leverage of relatively small number of participants with extremely long follow-up times we limited the number of days followed to 122, which was the 75th percentile of the days in the combined study.||||.15
90822965|NCT01211340|181522876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.89|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The first analysis examined change from baseline to last available measure prior to death or the end of the study. The pre/post change was calculated for each participant and the Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to compare usual care and intervention groups with respect to changes. All randomized caregivers with at least 1 post baseline measure were included in the analysis.||||.89
90822966|NCT01211340|181522876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.89|||||||Regression, Linear|||The secondary analysis used a linear mixed model to test for groups differences over time. To account for repeated- measures nature of the data and the varying duration of participation, both participant specific intercept and slopes were treated as random effects. To minimize the leverage of relatively small number of participants with extremely long follow-up times we limited the number of days followed to 122, which was the 75th percentile of the days in the combined study.||||.89
90822967|NCT03139344|181522881|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90822968|NCT03139344|181522881|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90822969|NCT03139344|181522882|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90822970|NCT03139344|181522882|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91062066|NCT01339403|182008017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|1.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|1.5|||Poisson Regression|||Poisson regression models were used to analyze rates of clinical events by HIV and unadjusted incidence rate ratios compared risk in HIV-uninfected persons to HIV-infected persons.||1.5|1.3|<0.001
91062067|NCT01339403|182008018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|65.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.1|75.7|||Poisson Regression|||Wasting syndrome: Poisson regression models were used to analyze rates of clinical events by HIV and unadjusted incidence rate ratios compared risk in HIV-uninfected persons to HIV-infected persons.||75.7|57.1|<0.001
90822971|NCT03139344|181522883|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.011
90822972|NCT03139344|181522883|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90822973|NCT03139344|181522884|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.148|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.148
90822974|NCT03139344|181522884|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.005
90822975|NCT03139344|181522885|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.069|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.069
90822976|NCT03139344|181522885|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.003
90822977|NCT03139344|181522886|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.118|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.118
90822978|NCT03139344|181522886|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.010
90822979|NCT03139344|181522887|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.059|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.059
90822980|NCT03139344|181522887|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.015
90822981|NCT03139344|181522888|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.010
90822982|NCT03139344|181522888|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.001
90822983|NCT03139344|181522889|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.036
90822984|NCT03139344|181522890|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.345|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.345
90822985|NCT03139344|181522891|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.264|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.264
90822986|NCT03139344|181522892|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.266|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.266
90822987|NCT03139344|181522893|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.040
90822988|NCT03139344|181522894|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.109|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.109
90822989|NCT03139344|181522895|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.895|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.895
90822990|NCT03139344|181522896|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.573|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||||0.573
90822991|NCT03139344|181522897|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.858|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||||0.858
90822992|NCT02748070|181522908|OTHER|||||||0.819|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of baseline and 1 week||||0.819
91062068|NCT01339403|182008018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|428.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|292.2|628.5|||Poisson Regression|||Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia: Poisson regression models were used to analyze rates of clinical events by HIV and unadjusted incidence rate ratios compared risk in HIV-uninfected persons to HIV-infected persons.||628.5|292.2|<0.001
91062069|NCT01339403|182008018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|8.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.9|9.5|||Poisson Regression|||Pneumonia, recurrent: Poisson regression models were used to analyze rates of clinical events by HIV and unadjusted incidence rate ratios compared risk in HIV-uninfected persons to HIV-infected persons.||9.5|7.9|<0.001
90822993|NCT02748070|181522908|OTHER|||||||0.665|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of baseline and 1 month||||0.665
91062070|NCT01339403|182008018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|97.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|75.5|124.8|||Poisson Regression|||Cytomegalovirus: Poisson regression models were used to analyze rates of clinical events by HIV and unadjusted incidence rate ratios compared risk in HIV-uninfected persons to HIV-infected persons.||124.8|75.5|<0.001
90822994|NCT02748070|181522908|OTHER|||||||0.071|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of baseline and 3 months||||0.071
90822995|NCT02748070|181522908|OTHER|||||||0.097|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of baseline and 6 months||||0.097
90822996|NCT02748070|181522909|OTHER|||||||0.376|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of baseline and 1 week||||0.376
90822997|NCT02748070|181522909|OTHER|||||||0.685|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of baseline and 1 month||||0.685
90822998|NCT02748070|181522909|OTHER|||||||0.388|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of baseline and 3 months||||0.388
90822999|NCT02748070|181522909|OTHER|||||||0.233|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of baseline and 6 months||||0.233
90823000|NCT00534976|181522910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least square means|-4.65||||0.02||95.0|||||ANOVA||Montelukast minus placebo|||||0.020
90823001|NCT00534976|181522911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least square means|-4.33||||0.005||95.0|||||ANOVA||Montelukast minus placebo|||||0.005
90823002|NCT00534976|181522912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least square means|-120.86||||0.022||95.0|||||ANOVA||Montelukast minus placebo|||||0.022
90823003|NCT00534976|181522913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least square means|-122.82||||0.013||95.0|||||ANOVA||Montelukast minus placebo|||||0.013
90823004|NCT00534976|181522914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least square means|-8.27||||0.064||95.0|||||ANOVA||Montelukast minus placebo|||||0.064
91062071|NCT01339403|182008018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|60.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.3|74.9|||Poisson Regression|||Esophageal Candidiasis: Poisson regression models were used to analyze rates of clinical events by HIV and unadjusted incidence rate ratios compared risk in HIV-uninfected persons to HIV-infected persons.||74.9|48.3|<0.001
90823005|NCT00534976|181522915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least square means|-7.06||||0.054||95.0|||||ANOVA||Montelukast minus Placebo|||||0.054
90823006|NCT00534976|181522916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Proportions|-1.6||||1||95.0||||P-value provided is for comparison between the two proportions: Montelukast versus placebo.|McNemar||Montelukast minus placebo|||||1.000
90823007|NCT00534976|181522917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Proportions|-3.2||||||95.0|||||||Montelukast minus placebo|||||
90823008|NCT03777059|181522922|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.291|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|-0.64||MMRM model included Baseline monthly migraine days as a covariate, treatment group and visit (month) as fixed factors, and treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit as interaction terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix.|Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-0.64|-1.78|<.0001
90823009|NCT03777059|181522922|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.287|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|-0.82||MMRM model included Baseline monthly migraine days as a covariate, treatment group and visit (month) as fixed factors, and treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit as interaction terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix.|Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-0.82|-1.94|<.0001
90823010|NCT03777059|181522922|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.288|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28|-1.15||MMRM model included Baseline monthly migraine days as a covariate, treatment group and visit (month) as fixed factors, and treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit as interaction terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix.|Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-1.15|-2.28|<.0001
90823011|NCT03777059|181522923|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.311|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.03|-0.81||MMRM model included Baseline monthly migraine days as a covariate, treatment group and visit (month) as fixed factors, and treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit as interaction terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix.|Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-0.81|-2.03|<.0001
90823012|NCT03777059|181522923|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.307|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|-0.92||MMRM model included Baseline monthly migraine days as a covariate, treatment group and visit (month) as fixed factors, and treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit as interaction terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix.|Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-0.92|-2.13|<.0001
90823013|NCT03777059|181522923|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.309|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.32|-1.1||MMRM model included Baseline monthly migraine days as a covariate, treatment group and visit (month) as fixed factors, and treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit as interaction terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix.|Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-1.10|-2.32|<.0001
90823014|NCT03777059|181522924|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.254|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|-0.82||MMRM model included Baseline monthly migraine days as a covariate, treatment group and visit (month) as fixed factors, and treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit as interaction terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix.|Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-0.82|-1.81|<.0001
90823015|NCT03777059|181522924|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.251|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|-0.83||MMRM model included Baseline monthly migraine days as a covariate, treatment group and visit (month) as fixed factors, and treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit as interaction terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix.|Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-0.83|-1.82|<.0001
90823016|NCT03777059|181522924|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.252|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-1.01||MMRM model included Baseline monthly migraine days as a covariate, treatment group and visit (month) as fixed factors, and treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit as interaction terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix.|Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-1.01|-2.00|<.0001
90823017|NCT03777059|181522925|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.05|4.56||Odds ratio and p-value was based on logistic regression with treatment group, Baseline value, and prior exposure to a migraine prevention medications with proven efficacy as explanatory variables.|Regression, Logistic|||||4.56|2.05|<.0001
91062072|NCT01339403|182008018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|98.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|70.8|136.8|||Poisson Regression|||Mycobacterium avium complex: Poisson regression models were used to analyze rates of clinical events by HIV and unadjusted incidence rate ratios compared risk in HIV-uninfected persons to HIV-infected persons.||136.8|70.8|<0.001
90823018|NCT03777059|181522925|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.37|5.26||Odds ratio and p-value was based on logistic regression with treatment group, Baseline value, and prior exposure to a migraine prevention medications with proven efficacy as explanatory variables.|Regression, Logistic|||||5.26|2.37|<.0001
90823019|NCT03777059|181522925|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.56|5.71||Odds ratio and p-value was based on logistic regression with treatment group, Baseline value, and prior exposure to a migraine prevention medications with proven efficacy as explanatory variables.|Regression, Logistic|||||5.71|2.56|<.0001
90823020|NCT03777059|181522926|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|9.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.27|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.45|14.36||MMRM model included Baseline monthly migraine days as a covariate, treatment group and visit (month) as fixed factors, and treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit as interaction terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix.|Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||14.36|5.45|<.0001
90823021|NCT03777059|181522926|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|10.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.229|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.71|14.46||MMRM model included Baseline monthly migraine days as a covariate, treatment group and visit (month) as fixed factors, and treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit as interaction terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix.|Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||14.46|5.71|<.0001
90823022|NCT03777059|181522926|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|10.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.231|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.42|15.18||MMRM model included Baseline monthly migraine days as a covariate, treatment group and visit (month) as fixed factors, and treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit as interaction terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix.|Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||15.18|6.42|<.0001
90823023|NCT03777059|181522927|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.693||0.0856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.56|0.17||MMRM model included Baseline monthly migraine days as a covariate, treatment group and visit (month) as fixed factors, and treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit as interaction terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix.|Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.17|-2.56|0.0856
90823024|NCT03777059|181522927|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.694||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.91|-1.18||MMRM model included Baseline monthly migraine days as a covariate, treatment group and visit (month) as fixed factors, and treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit as interaction terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix.|Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-1.18|-3.91|0.0003
90823025|NCT03777059|181522927|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.694|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.68|-1.96||MMRM model included Baseline monthly migraine days as a covariate, treatment group and visit (month) as fixed factors, and treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit as interaction terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix.|Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-1.96|-4.68|<.0001
90823026|NCT03777059|181522928|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.605||0.0743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.27|0.11||MMRM model included Baseline monthly migraine days as a covariate, treatment group and visit (month) as fixed factors, and treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit as interaction terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix.|Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.11|-2.27|0.0743
90823027|NCT03777059|181522928|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.606||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.18|-0.8||MMRM model included Baseline monthly migraine days as a covariate, treatment group and visit (month) as fixed factors, and treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit as interaction terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix.|Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-0.80|-3.18|0.0011
90823028|NCT03777059|181522928|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.605|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.65|-1.28||MMRM model included Baseline monthly migraine days as a covariate, treatment group and visit (month) as fixed factors, and treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit as interaction terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix.|Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-1.28|-3.65|<.0001
90823029|NCT01449006|181522931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||||||This pilot study was conducted to generate effect sizes for a potential larger investigation. The study design and small sample size had limited power to detect a statistically significant effect at p\<0.05, so no p-value threshold was strictly set.|Mixed Models Analysis|41 data points included (control n=14; maraviroc: n=27); n=1 control did not attend 12-month visit.||The primary outcome was analysed using a mixed-effect regression model with arm and time as fixed linear effects, arm\*time interaction as a non-linear fixed effect and participant as a random effect to account for participant attrition.||||0.05
90823030|NCT01449006|181522931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.19|1.71|||||Positive value reflects improved neurocognitive functioning in maraviroc arm compared to control arm.|Clinical relevance of the effect size observed at 6-months was assessed by generating Cohen's d statistic and 90% confidence interval (CI) around the estimate.||1.71|-0.19|
90823031|NCT01449006|181522931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.47|1.55|||||Positive value reflects improved neurocognitive functioning in maraviroc arm compared to control arm.|Clinical relevance of the effect size observed at 12-months was assessed by generating Cohen's d statistic and 90%CI around the estimate.||1.55|-0.47|
90823032|NCT01449006|181522932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82|||||||ANOVA|||Change in CSF neopterin levels was analysed using repeated-measures ANOVA with arm, time, and arm\*time interaction as fixed effects.||||0.82
90823033|NCT01449006|181522933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49|||||||ANOVA|||Change in NAA/H20 levels were analysed using repeated-measures ANOVA with arm, time, and arm\*time interaction as fixed effects.||||0.49
90823034|NCT01449006|181522933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.94|||||||ANOVA|||Change in Cr/H20 levels were analysed using repeated-measures ANOVA with arm, time, and arm\*time interaction as fixed effects.||||0.94
90823035|NCT01449006|181522933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||ANOVA|||Change in Cho/H20 levels were analysed using repeated-measures ANOVA with arm, time, and arm\*time interaction as fixed effects.||||0.80
90823036|NCT01449006|181522933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72|||||||ANOVA|||Change in mIo/H20 levels were analysed using repeated-measures ANOVA with arm, time, and arm\*time interaction as fixed effects.||||0.72
90823037|NCT01449006|181522934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|||||||ANOVA|||Change in NAA/H20 levels were analysed using repeated-measures ANOVA with arm, time, and arm\*time interaction as fixed effects.||||0.95
91062073|NCT01339403|182008018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|189.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|112.3|319.5|||Poisson Regression|||Cryptococcosis: Poisson regression models were used to analyze rates of clinical events by HIV and unadjusted incidence rate ratios compared risk in HIV-uninfected persons to HIV-infected persons.||319.5|112.3|<0.001
90823038|NCT01449006|181522934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66|||||||ANOVA|||Change in Cr/H20 levels were analysed using repeated-measures ANOVA with arm, time, and arm\*time interaction as fixed effects.||||0.66
90823039|NCT01449006|181522934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.56|||||||ANOVA|||Change in Cho/H20 levels were analysed using repeated-measures ANOVA with arm, time, and arm\*time interaction as fixed effects.||||0.56
90823040|NCT01449006|181522934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||ANOVA|||Change in mIo/H20 levels were analysed using repeated-measures ANOVA with arm, time, and arm\*time interaction as fixed effects.||||0.29
90823041|NCT01449006|181522934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|||||||ANOVA|||Change in Glx/H20 levels were analysed using repeated-measures ANOVA with arm, time, and arm\*time interaction as fixed effects.||||0.95
90823042|NCT03369249|181522960|SUPERIORITY||log ratio of rate ratios|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.75||A priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|generalized estimating equations||Standard error of the Beta regression coefficient.|||0.75|-0.46|0.635
90823043|NCT02206035|181522976|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison at Baseline||||0.95
90823044|NCT02206035|181522976|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison at Day 28||||0.26
91062074|NCT01339403|182008018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|6.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.2|7.4|||Poisson Regression|||Mycobacterium tuberculosis: Poisson regression models were used to analyze rates of clinical events by HIV and unadjusted incidence rate ratios compared risk in HIV-uninfected persons to HIV-infected persons.||7.4|5.2|<0.001
91062075|NCT01339403|182008018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|594.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|146.5|2411.7|||Poisson Regression|||Progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy: Poisson regression models were used to analyze rates of clinical events by HIV and unadjusted incidence rate ratios compared risk in HIV-uninfected persons to HIV-infected persons.||2411.7|146.5|<0.001
91062076|NCT01339403|182008018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|10.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.8|14.4|||Poisson Regression|||Lung Candidiasis: Poisson regression models were used to analyze rates of clinical events by HIV and unadjusted incidence rate ratios compared risk in HIV-uninfected persons to HIV-infected persons.||14.4|7.8|<0.001
91062077|NCT01339403|182008018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|51.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.3|87.5|||Poisson Regression|||Toxoplasmosis of brain: Poisson regression models were used to analyze rates of clinical events by HIV and unadjusted incidence rate ratios compared risk in HIV-uninfected persons to HIV-infected persons.||87.5|30.3|<0.001
91062078|NCT01339403|182008018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|6.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|12.9|||Poisson Regression|||Coccidiomycosis: Poisson regression models were used to analyze rates of clinical events by HIV and unadjusted incidence rate ratios compared risk in HIV-uninfected persons to HIV-infected persons.||12.9|3.0|<0.001
91062079|NCT01339403|182008018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|13.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|23.1|||Poisson Regression|||Histoplasmosis: Poisson regression models were used to analyze rates of clinical events by HIV and unadjusted incidence rate ratios compared risk in HIV-uninfected persons to HIV-infected persons.||23.1|7.4|<0.0001
90823045|NCT02206035|181522976|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison at Day 100||||0.63
90823046|NCT02206035|181522976|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison at Day 180||||0.76
90823047|NCT02206035|181522977|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison at Baseline||||0.99
90823048|NCT02206035|181522977|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison at Day 28||||0.48
90823049|NCT02206035|181522977|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.35
90823050|NCT02206035|181522977|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison at Day 180||||0.96
90823051|NCT02206035|181522978|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison at Baseline||||<0.001
90823052|NCT02206035|181522978|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison at Day 28||||0.75
90823053|NCT02206035|181522978|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison at Day 100||||0.28
90823054|NCT02206035|181522978|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison at Day 180||||0.82
90823055|NCT02206035|181522979|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison at Baseline||||0.54
90823056|NCT02206035|181522979|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison at Day 28||||0.61
90823057|NCT02206035|181522979|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison at Day 100||||0.42
90823058|NCT02206035|181522979|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison at Day 180||||0.38
90823059|NCT02206035|181522980|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison at Baseline||||0.10
90823060|NCT02206035|181522980|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison at Day 28||||0.32
90823061|NCT02206035|181522980|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison at Day 100||||0.63
90823062|NCT02206035|181522980|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison at Day 180||||0.30
90823063|NCT01934010|181522981|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.128|||||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test to assess if there is a difference in deterioration of hearing threshold between subjects that received 1 treatment cycle with AM-101 or others who received 2 treatment cycles.||||0.128
90823064|NCT01934010|181522981|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.075|||||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test to assess if there is a difference in deterioration of hearing threshold between subjects that received 1 treatment cycle with AM-101 or others who received 3 treatment cycles.||||0.075
90823065|NCT01934010|181522981|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test to assess if there is a difference in deterioration of hearing threshold between subjects that received 2 treatment cycles with AM-101 or others who received 3 treatment cycles.||||1
90823066|NCT01934010|181522982|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4403|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4403
90823067|NCT01934010|181522984|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2401|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2401
90823068|NCT01934010|181522984|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0022|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0022
90823069|NCT01934010|181522984|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1001
90823070|NCT01934010|181522985|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
91062080|NCT01339403|182008019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|4.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|5.1|||Poisson Regression|||Poisson regression models were used to analyze rates of clinical events by HIV and unadjusted incidence rate ratios compared risk in HIV-uninfected persons to HIV-infected persons.||5.1|4.3|<0.001
91062081|NCT01339403|182008020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|7.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|8.2|||Poisson Regression|||Poisson regression models were used to analyze rates of clinical events by HIV and unadjusted incidence rate ratios compared risk in HIV-uninfected persons to HIV-infected persons.||8.2|6.0|<0.001
91062082|NCT01339403|182008021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|8.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.1|9.6|||Poisson Regression|||Poisson regression models were used to analyze rates of clinical events by HIV and unadjusted incidence rate ratios compared risk in HIV-uninfected persons to HIV-infected persons.||9.6|7.1|<0.001
91062083|NCT01339403|182008022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|5.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|5.9|||Poisson Regression|||Poisson regression models were used to analyze rates of clinical events by HIV and unadjusted incidence rate ratios compared risk in HIV-uninfected persons to HIV-infected persons.||5.9|5.3|<0.001
91062084|NCT01339403|182008023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|19.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.2|35.2|||Poisson Regression|||Poisson regression models were used to analyze rates of clinical events by HIV and unadjusted incidence rate ratios compared risk in HIV-uninfected persons to HIV-infected persons.||35.2|11.2|<0.001
91062085|NCT03983980|182008024|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|6.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91062086|NCT03983980|182008025|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|6.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91062087|NCT03983980|182008026|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|4.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91062088|NCT03983980|182008027|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-4.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91062089|NCT03983980|182008028|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|7.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91062090|NCT00114140|182008100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Z-test|||Assuming exponential distribution of survival times, the null hypothesis was a 43% increase in median survival time (40.5 mo. to 57.9 mo.) and a 21% increase in 3-year survival rate (54% to 65%). Assuming 5% ineligibility, 72 patients were required to be accrued over 3 years with 3-years of follow-up resulting in 80% power and 1-sided 0.10 significance level. (N later increased to 135 to accommodate an additional separate analysis of O-6-Methylguanine-DNA Methyltransferase (MGMT) status.)||||<0.001
91062091|NCT00114140|182008102|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.52||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.64|7.56||Two-sided significance level of 0.05|Log Rank||Reference level = Methylated|Overall survival: The sample size was increased to 135 to ensure adequate power to detect a hazard ratio (HR) of 2.5 for MGMT status, at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05 with an MGMT prevalence rate of at least 30%||7.56|1.64|0.0006
91062092|NCT00114140|182008102|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.06||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|6.04||Two-sided significance level of 0.05|Log Rank||Reference level = Methylated|Progression-free survival||6.04|1.55|0.0007
91062093|NCT02414958|182008142|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.66|-0.41|||Mixed effect Model Repeated Measures||Mean Difference= Empagliflozin 10 milligram (mg) adjusted mean - Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted mean.|Model Mixed effect Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) included the fixed categorical effects of treatment, pre-existing insulin therapy, visit , and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline HbA1c, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), and baseline HbA1c-by- visit interaction. Patient was included as random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within-patient measurements.||-0.41|-0.66|<0.0001
91062094|NCT02414958|182008142|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.66|-0.41|||MMRM||Mean Difference= Empagliflozin 25 milligram (mg) adjusted mean - Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted mean|Model MMRM included the fixed categorical effects of treatment, pre-existing insulin therapy, visit, and treatment-by- visit interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline HbA1c, baseline eGFR, and baseline HbA1c-by- visit interaction. Patient was included as random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within-patient measurements.||-0.41|-0.66|<0.0001
91062095|NCT02414958|182008143|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.65|-0.4|||MMRM||Mean Difference= Empagliflozin 10 milligram (mg) adjusted mean - Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted mean.|Model MMRM includes baseline HbA1c, baseline eGFR as linear covariates and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy, treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, baseline HbA1c by visit interaction as fixed effects. Patient is included as random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within-patient measurements.||-0.40|-0.65|<0.0001
91062096|NCT02414958|182008143|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.64|-0.39|||MMRM||Mean Difference= Empagliflozin 25 milligram (mg) adjusted mean - Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted mean.|Model MMRM includes baseline HbA1c, baseline eGFR as linear covariates and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy, treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, baseline HbA1c by visit interaction as fixed effects. Patient is included as random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within-patient measurements||-0.39|-0.64|<0.0001
91062097|NCT02414958|182008144|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Rate Ratio (%)|0.744||||0.0623|TWO_SIDED|97.75|0.518|1.069|||Negative binomial model||Empagliflozin 10 milligram (mg) adjusted rate/Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted rate.|For week 5 to 26, negative binomial model includes baseline rate of hypoglycaemia, baseline HbA1c, and baseline eGFR as linear covariates and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy and treatment as fixed effects. Log (time at risk \[days\]) was used as offset.||1.069|0.518|0.0623
91062098|NCT02414958|182008144|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Rate Ratio (%)|0.726||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|97.75|0.502|1.501|||Negative binomial model||Empagliflozin 25 milligram (mg) adjusted rate/Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted rate.|For week 5 to 26, negative binomial model includes baseline rate of hypoglycaemia, baseline HbA1c, and baseline eGFR as linear covariates and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy and treatment as fixed effects. Log (time at risk \[days\]) was used as offset||1.501|0.502|0.0480
90823071|NCT00377858|181522987|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority margin of 0.3% based on prior studies indicating an HbA1c difference of 0.6% in patients treated with lispro and sulfonylurea compared with those treated with sulfonylurea and metformin.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.17||||0.097||95.0|-0.03|0.37|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline HbA1c Stratum + Sulfonylurea stratum + Country + Baseline HbA1c Stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for (Insulin Lispro Mid Mixture minus Insulin Glargine).|Assuming 15% drop-out rate after randomization, remaining 213 patients in each treatment group would allow confirmation of noninferiority with no treatment difference and a noninferiority limit of 0.3% using upper limit of 2-sided confidence interval at significance level of 0.05 with 80% power.||0.37|-0.03|0.097
90823072|NCT00377858|181522988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.16||||0.047||95.0|0.0|0.33||P-value for 12 Week Interval.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline HbA1c + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Sulfonylurea stratum + Country.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.33|0.00|0.047
90823073|NCT00377858|181522988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.18||||0.043||95.0|0.01|0.35||P-value for 24 Week Interval.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline HbA1c + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Sulfonylurea stratum + Country.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.35|0.01|0.043
90823074|NCT00377858|181522988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.343||95.0|-0.1|0.29||P-value for 36 Week Interval.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline HbA1c + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Sulfonylurea stratum + Country.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.29|-0.10|0.343
90823075|NCT00377858|181522989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.432||95.0||||P-value for Week 12: HbA1c ≤7.0%.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline HbA1c + Country + Sulfonylurea Stratum.||||||0.432
90823076|NCT00377858|181522989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.602||95.0||||P-value for 12 Week: HbA1c \<7.0%.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline HbA1c + Country + Sulfonylurea Stratum.||||||0.602
91062099|NCT02414958|182008144|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Rate Ratio (%)|0.774||||0.0972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.572|1.048||This is a nominal p-value.|Negative binomial model||Empagliflozin 10 milligram (mg) adjusted rate/Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted rate.|For week 1 to 26, negative binomial model includes baseline rate of hypoglycaemia, baseline HbA1c, and baseline eGFR as linear covariates and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy and treatment as fixed effects. Log (time at risk \[days\]) was used as offset.||1.048|0.572|0.0972
91062100|NCT02414958|182008144|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Rate Ratio (%)|0.782||||0.118|TWO_SIDED|97.75|0.575|1.064||Negative binomial model|MMRM||Empagliflozin 25 milligram (mg) adjusted rate/Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted rate.|For week 1 to 26, negative binomial model includes baseline rate of hypoglycaemia, baseline HbA1c, and baseline eGFR as linear covariates and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy and treatment as fixed effects. Log (time at risk \[days\]) was used as offset.||1.064|0.575|0.1180
90823077|NCT00377858|181522989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37||95.0||||P-value for 12 Week: HbA1c ≤6.5%.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline HbA1c + Country + Sulfonylurea Stratum.||||||0.370
90823078|NCT00377858|181522989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.198||95.0||||P-value for 24 Week: HbA1c ≤7.0%.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline HbA1c + Country + Sulfonylurea Stratum.||||||0.198
90823079|NCT00377858|181522989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.636||95.0||||P-value for 24 Week: HbA1c \<7.0%.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline HbA1c + Country + Sulfonylurea Stratum.||||||0.636
90823080|NCT00377858|181522989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.185||95.0||||P-value for 24 Week: HbA1c ≤6.5%.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline HbA1c + Country + Sulfonylurea Stratum.||||||0.185
90823081|NCT00377858|181522989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.393||95.0||||P-value for 36 Week: HbA1c ≤7.0%.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline HbA1c + Country + Sulfonylurea Stratum.||||||0.393
90823082|NCT00377858|181522989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.739||95.0||||P-value for 36 Week: HbA1c \<7.0%.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline HbA1c + Country + Sulfonylurea Stratum.||||||0.739
90823083|NCT00377858|181522989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.396||95.0||||P-value for 36 Week: HbA1c ≤6.5%.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline HbA1c + Country + Sulfonylurea Stratum.||||||0.396
90823084|NCT00377858|181522989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.227||95.0||||P-value for Endpoint (LOCF): HbA1c ≤7.0%.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline HbA1c + Country + Sulfonylurea Stratum.||||||0.227
90823085|NCT00377858|181522989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.482||95.0||||P-value for Endpoint (LOCF): HbA1c \<7.0%.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline HbA1c + Country + Sulfonylurea Stratum.||||||0.482
90823086|NCT00377858|181522989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.108||95.0||||P-value for Endpoint (LOCF): HbA1c ≤6.5%.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline HbA1c + Country + Sulfonylurea Stratum.||||||0.108
90823087|NCT00377858|181522990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.58||||0.014||95.0|0.12|1.04||P-value for Baseline: Morning Pre-Meal.|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||1.04|0.12|0.014
90823088|NCT00377858|181522990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.11||||0.735||95.0|-0.51|0.72||P-value for Baseline: Morning Postprandial Meal.|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.72|-0.51|0.735
90823089|NCT00377858|181522990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.54||||0.051||95.0|0.0|1.08||P-value for Baseline: Midday Pre-Meal.|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||1.08|-0.00|0.051
90823090|NCT00377858|181522990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.18||||0.536||95.0|-0.39|0.75||P-value for Baseline: Midday Postprandial Meal.|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.75|-0.39|0.536
90823091|NCT00377858|181522990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07||||0.793||95.0|-0.48|0.62||P-value for Baseline: Evening Pre-Meal.|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.62|-0.48|0.793
90823092|NCT00377858|181522990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.11||||0.693||95.0|-0.43|0.64||P-value for Baseline: Evening Postprandial Meal.|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.64|-0.43|0.693
90823093|NCT00377858|181522990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.499||95.0|-0.38|0.77||P-value for Baseline: 0300 Hours.|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.77|-0.38|0.499
90823094|NCT00377858|181522990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.59|||<|0.001||95.0|0.26|0.92||P-value for 12 Week: Morning Pre-Meal.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.92|0.26|<0.001
90823095|NCT00377858|181522990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.28||||0.278||95.0|-0.22|0.78||P-value for 12 Week: Morning Postprandial Meal.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.78|-0.22|0.278
91062101|NCT02414958|182008145|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.75|-3.57|-1.8|||MMRM||Mean Difference= Empagliflozin 10 milligram (mg) adjusted mean - Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted mean.|Model MMRM includes baseline weight, baseline eGFR, baseline HbA1c as linear covariate and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy, treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, baseline weight by visit interaction as fixed effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within-patient measurements.||-1.80|-3.57|<0.0001
91062102|NCT02414958|182008145|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.75|-4.15|-2.39|||MMRM||Mean Difference= Empagliflozin 25 milligram (mg) adjusted mean - Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted mean.|Model MMRM includes baseline weight, baseline eGFR, baseline HbA1c as linear covariate and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy, treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, baseline weight by visit interaction as fixed effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within-patient measurements.||-2.39|-4.15|<0.0001
91079204|NCT03240406|182044063|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|784.06||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-99.73|1667.85||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|ANCOVA|MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|||1667.85|-99.73|0.083
90823096|NCT00377858|181522990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.53||||0.009||95.0|0.14|0.93||P-value for 12 Week: Midday Pre-Meal.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.93|0.14|0.009
90823097|NCT00377858|181522990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.49||||0.049||95.0|0.0|0.97||P-value for 12 Week: Midday Postprandial Meal.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.97|0.00|0.049
90823098|NCT00377858|181522990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.77|||<|0.001||95.0|0.35|1.18||P-value for 12 Week: Evening Pre-Meal.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||1.18|0.35|<0.001
90823099|NCT00377858|181522990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.17|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.63|-0.7||P-value for 12 Week: Evening Postprandial Meal.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||-0.70|-1.63|<0.001
90823100|NCT00377858|181522990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15||||0.506||95.0|-0.59|0.29||P-value for 12 Week: 0300 Hours.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.29|-0.59|0.506
90823101|NCT00377858|181522990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.65|||<|0.001||95.0|0.31|0.99||P-value for 24 Week: Morning Pre-Meal.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.99|0.31|<0.001
90823102|NCT00377858|181522990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.42||||0.094||95.0|-0.07|0.91||P-value for 24 Week: Morning Postprandial Meal.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.91|-0.07|0.094
90823103|NCT00377858|181522990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17||||0.408||95.0|-0.24|0.59||P-value for 24 Week: Midday Pre-Meal.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.59|-0.24|0.408
91062103|NCT02414958|182008146|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.75|8.78|14.93|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference= Empagliflozin 10 milligram (mg) adjusted mean - Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted mean|The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model includes baseline time in the target range, baseline HbA1c, and baseline eGFR as linear covariates and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy and treatment as fixed effects.||14.93|8.78|<0.0001
91062104|NCT02414958|182008146|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.01|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.75|9.81|15.93|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference= Empagliflozin 25 milligram (mg) adjusted mean - Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted mean|||15.93|9.81|<0.0001
91062105|NCT02414958|182008147|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.68|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.75|-22.04|-11.81|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference= Empagliflozin 10 milligram (mg) adjusted mean - Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted mean.|The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model includes model includes baseline IQR of glucose, baseline HbA1c, and baseline eGFR as linear covariates and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy and treatment as fixed effects.||-11.81|-22.04|<0.0001
91062106|NCT02414958|182008147|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.68|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.75|-24.13|-13.95|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference= Empagliflozin 25 milligram (mg) adjusted mean - Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted mean.|The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model includes model includes baseline IQR of glucose, baseline HbA1c, and baseline eGFR as linear covariates and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy and treatment as fixed effects.||-13.95|-24.13|<0.0001
91062107|NCT02414958|182008148|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.092|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.009|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.75|-0.121|-0.063|||MMRM||Mean Difference= Empagliflozin 10 milligram (mg) adjusted mean - Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted mean.|Model MMRM includes baseline total daily insulin dose, baseline estimated eGFR, baseline HbA1c as linear covariate and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy, treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, baseline total daily insulin dose by visit interaction as fixed effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within-patient measurements.||-0.063|-0.121|<0.0001
91062108|NCT02414958|182008148|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.009|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.75|-0.119|-0.062|||MMRM||Mean Difference= Empagliflozin 25 milligram (mg) adjusted mean - Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted mean.|Model MMRM includes baseline total daily insulin dose, baseline estimated eGFR, baseline HbA1c as linear covariate and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy, treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, baseline total daily insulin dose by visit interaction as fixed effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within-patient measurements.||-0.062|-0.119|<0.0001
91062109|NCT02414958|182008149|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.0397|TWO_SIDED|99.75|-5.2|1.0|||MMRM||Mean Difference= Empagliflozin 10 milligram (mg) adjusted mean - Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted mean.|For SBP, the model MMRM includes baseline SBP seated, baseline estimated eGFR, baseline HbA1c as linear covariate and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline SBP seated by visit interaction as fixed effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within-patient measurements.||1.0|-5.2|0.0397
91062110|NCT02414958|182008149|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|99.75|-6.8|-0.6|||MMRM||Mean Difference= Empagliflozin 25 milligram (mg) adjusted mean - Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted mean.|For SBP, the model includes baseline SBP seated, baseline estimated eGFR, baseline HbA1c as linear covariate and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline SBP seated by visit interaction as fixed effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within-patient measurements.||-0.6|-6.8|0.0003
91062111|NCT02414958|182008149|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.0457|TWO_SIDED|99.75|-2.7|0.0||Nominal p-value|MMRM||Mean Difference= Empagliflozin 10 milligram (mg) adjusted mean - Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted mean.|For DBP, the model MMRM includes baseline DBP seated, baseline eGFR baseline HbA1c as linear covariate and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline DBP seated by visit interaction as fixed effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within-patient measurements.||0.0|-2.7|0.0457
91062112|NCT02414958|182008149|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|99.75|-4.3|-0.3|||MMRM||Mean Difference= Empagliflozin 25 milligram (mg) adjusted mean - Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted mean.|For DBP, the model MMRM includes baseline DBP seated, baseline estimated eGFR, baseline HbA1c as linear covariate and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline DBP seated by visit interaction as fixed effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within-patient measurements.||-0.3|-4.3|0.0006
91062113|NCT01269918|182008150|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|We used a noninferiority delta of 7.5 mmHg. If noninferiority was detected, we proceeded to test for superiority.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|-5.0|||t-test, 1 sided|||Dexmedetomidine versus remifentanyl on MAP collapsed over time was estimated using a 1-tailed t test from a repeated measures ANOVA model.||-5|-13|< 0.001
91062114|NCT01269918|182008150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-13.0|-4.0|||t-test, 1 sided|||Dexmedetomidine versus remifentanyl on MAP collapsed over time was estimated using a 1-tailed t test from a repeated measures ANOVA model.||-4|-13|< 0.001
91062115|NCT01269918|182008151|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|We used a noninferiority delta of 1 point. If noninferiority was detected, we proceeded to test for superiority.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-1.1|||t-test, 1 sided|||Dexmedetomidine versus remifentanyl on VAS pain score estimated from a 1-tailed t test from a repeated measures ANOVA model.||-1.1|-2.7|< 0.001
91062116|NCT01269918|182008151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.8|-0.9|||t-test, 1 sided|||Dexmedetomidine versus remifentanyl on VAS pain score estimated from a 1-tailed t test from a repeated measures ANOVA model.||-0.9|-2.8|< 0.001
91062117|NCT01269918|182008152|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority delta = 2 mg opioid|Median Difference (Final Values)|-5.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|-5.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Dexmedetomidine versus remifentanyl on opioid consumption estimated from a Wilcoxon rank sum test||-5|-10|< 0.001
91062118|NCT01269918|182008152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-5.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-10.0|-3.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Dexmedetomidine versus remifentanyl on opioid consumption estimated from a Wilcoxon rank sum test||-3|-10|< 0.001
91062119|NCT01269918|182008153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|3.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Dexmedetomidine versus remifentanyl on heart rate was assessed using a linear mixed effects model adjusting for baseline heart rate.||3|-10|< 0.001
91062120|NCT01269918|182008154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Dexmedetomidine versus remifentanyl on SOMCT estimated using a linear mixed effects model adjusting for baseline SOMCT score.||0.5|-2.6|0.16
91062121|NCT01269918|182008155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Dexmedetomidine versus remifentanyl on Aldrete score estimated using a linear mixed effects model adjusting for baseline Aldrete score.||0.03|-0.6|0.07
91062122|NCT01269918|182008156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.001|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Dexmedetomidine versus remifentanyl on Nursing workload comparison estimated using a Wilcoxon rank sum test.||-0.001|-1|0.009
91062123|NCT01269918|182008157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.18|||Regression, Cox|||Remifentanyl versus Dexmedetomidine on time to open eyes estimated using Cox regression.||0.18|0.07|< 0.001
91062124|NCT01269918|182008158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.19|||Regression, Cox|||Remifentanyl versus dexmedetomidine on time to recall assessed using Cox regression.||0.19|0.07|< 0.001
91062125|NCT01269918|182008159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.95|||Regression, Cox|||Remifentanyl versus Dexmedetomidine on time to fitness discharge estimated using Cox regression.||0.95|0.48|0.022
91062126|NCT01269918|182008160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.62|||Regression, Cox|||Remifentanyl versus Dexmedetomidine on time to PACU discharge estimated using Cox proportional hazard regression||1.62|0.81|0.45
91062127|NCT01269918|182008161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.2|||Chi-squared|||Dexmedetomidine versus remifentanyl on postoperative nausea estimated from chi squared test.||2.2|0.5|0.91
91062128|NCT01269918|182008162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.4||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.7|||Chi-squared|||Dexmedetomidine versus remifentanyl on postoperative vomiting estimated from a chi square test.||1.7|0.07|0.16
91062129|NCT01269918|182008163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.4||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.7|||Chi-squared|||Dexmedetomidine versus remifentanyl on incidence of shivering estimated from a chi square test.||1.7|0.1|0.21
91062130|NCT04542057|182008166|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.0941|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01501|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0647|0.1236||The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used to model the change from baseline FEV1 to average FEV1 AUC0-12h with treatment, region, background medication strata and smoking strata as fixed effects and baseline FEV1 as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.1236|0.0647|<0.0001
91062131|NCT02273388|182008227|OTHER||Difference of adjusted means|-4.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.61|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.59|1.48|||||Comparison vs. 1 hour infusion \[2h-1h\]|Change from baseline to 5 minutes before infusion end. Linear mixed model with sequence, course, treatment (both infusion types i.e. 1 hour duration and 2 hour duration) and time as fixed effects and treatment\*time as interaction effect, as well as the continuous , fixed covariate of baseline value.||1.48|-10.59|
91062132|NCT02273388|182008227|OTHER||Difference of adjusted means|-7.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.61|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.18|-1.11|||||Comparison vs. 1hour infusion \[2h-1h\]|Change from baseline to 1 hour after infusion end. Linear mixed model with sequence, course, treatment (both infusion types i.e. 1 hour duration and 2 hour duration) and time as fixed effects and treatment\*time as interaction effect, as well as the continuous , fixed covariate of baseline value.||-1.11|-13.18|
91062133|NCT02273388|182008227|OTHER||Difference of adjusted means|-3.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.61|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.61|2.46|||||Comparison vs. 1 hour infusion \[2h-1h\]|Change from baseline to 4 hours after infusion start. Linear mixed model with sequence, course, treatment (both infusion types i.e. 1 hour duration and 2 hour duration) and time as fixed effects and treatment\*time as interaction effect, as well as the continuous , fixed covariate of baseline value.||2.46|-9.61|
91062134|NCT02273388|182008227|OTHER||Difference of adjusted means|-8.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.61|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.7|-2.63|||||Comparison vs. 1 hour \[2h-1h\]|Change from baseline to 24 hours after infusion start. Linear mixed model with sequence, course, treatment (both infusion types i.e. 1 hour duration and 2 hour duration) and time as fixed effects and treatment\*time as interaction effect, as well as the continuous , fixed covariate of baseline value.||-2.63|-14.70|
91062135|NCT04331808|182008248|SUPERIORITY||Median posterior absolute risk differenc|-9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.0|3.1||Posterior probability|Bayesian analysis|Adjusted for age and centre|% Confidence Interval is % Credibility interval here|||3.1|-21.0|
91062136|NCT04331808|182008249|SUPERIORITY||Median posterior Hazard Ratio|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.33|1.0||Posterior probability|Bayesian analysis|HR adjusted for age and centre|% Confidence interval is % Credible Interval here|||1.00|0.33|
91062137|NCT04331808|182008250|SUPERIORITY||Median posterior absolute risk differenc|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.6|17.1||Posterior probability|Bayesian analysis|Adjusted for age and centre|% Confidence Interval is % Credible Interval here Results are presented as the proportion not improved, so that an effective treatment would be associated with a decrease in proportion.|||17.1|-13.6|
91062138|NCT04331808|182008251|SUPERIORITY||Median posterior Hazard Ratio|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.71|2.04||Posterior probability|Bayesian analysis|HR adjusted for age and centre|% Confidence interval is % Credible Interval here|||2.04|0.71|
91062139|NCT04331808|182008252|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.55|||Regression, Cox|adjusted for age and sex||Day 14||3.55|0.40|
91062140|NCT04331808|182008252|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|2.53|||Regression, Cox|adjusted for age and centre||Day 28||2.53|0.33|
91062141|NCT04331808|182008252|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.65|||Regression, Cox|adjusted for age and centre||Day 90||1.65|0.25|
91062142|NCT04331808|182008252|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|1.15|||Regression, Cox|adjusted for age and centre||Day 14||1.15|0.12|
91062143|NCT04331808|182008252|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.47|||Regression, Cox|adjusted for age and centre||Day 28||1.47|0.32|
91062144|NCT04331808|182008252|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.49|||Regression, Cox|adjusted for age and centre||Day 90||1.49|0.30|
91062145|NCT04331808|182008253|SUPERIORITY||Median posterior OR|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.28|||Proportionnal odds model|Bayesian analysis. Adjusted for age and centre|% Confidence Interval is % Credible Interval here|Day 4||1.28|0.27|
91062146|NCT04331808|182008253|SUPERIORITY||Median posterior OR|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.71|||Proportionnal odds model|Bayesian analysis. Adjusted for age and centre||Day 7|% Confidence Interval is % Credible Interval here|1.71|0.43|
91062147|NCT04331808|182008253|SUPERIORITY||Median posterior OR|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.42|||Proportionnal odds model|Bayesian analysis. Adjusted for age and sex|% Confidence Interval is % Credible Interval here|Day 14||1.42|0.40|
91062148|NCT04331808|182008253|SUPERIORITY||Median posterior OR|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.82|||Proportionnal odds model|Bayesian analysis. Adjusted for age and centre||Day 4|% Confidence Interval is % Credible Interval here|1.82|0.39|
91062149|NCT04331808|182008253|SUPERIORITY||Median posterior OR|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.47|||Proportionnal odds model|Bayesian analysis. Adjusted for age and centre|% Confidence Interval is % Credible Interval here|Day 7||1.47|0.32|
91062150|NCT04331808|182008253|SUPERIORITY||Median posterior OR|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.43|||Proportionnal odds model|Bayesian analysis. Adjusted for age and centre|% Confidence Interval is % Credible Interval here|Day 14||1.43|0.32|
91062151|NCT04331808|182008254|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|1.7||adjusted on age and centre||||||1.7|-6.9|
91062152|NCT04331808|182008255|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|2.01|||Fine-Gray model|adjusted for age and centre||Day 28||2.01|0.98|
91062153|NCT04331808|182008255|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|2.52|||Fine-Gray model|||Day 28||2.52|0.82|
91062154|NCT04331808|182008255|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.03|||Fine-Gray model|adjusted on age and centre||Day 90||2.03|0.80|
91062155|NCT04331808|182008256|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|2.27|||Fine-Gray model|adjusted on age and centre||Day 28||2.27|1.02|
91062156|NCT04331808|182008256|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.63|||Fine-Gray model|adjusted for age and centre||Day 28||2.63|0.80|
91062157|NCT04331808|182008256|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.17|||Fine-Gray model|adjusted for age and centre||Day 90||2.17|0.84|
91062158|NCT04331808|182008257|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.81|||Fine-Gray model|adjusted on age and centre||Day 28||1.81|0.73|
91062159|NCT04331808|182008257|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.24|||Fine-Gray model|adjusted on age and centre||Day 90||2.24|0.73|
91062160|NCT00625872|182008303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.7232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.93|3.08||The statistical test was 2-sided and performed at the 5 percent significance level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) method was used to calculate p-value with treatment, baseline value, study duration and site as covariates.||3.08|-3.93|0.7232
91062161|NCT00625872|182008304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.1941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.04|4.82||The statistical test was 2-sided and performed at the 5 percent significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA method was used to calculate p-value with treatment, baseline value, study duration and site as covariates.||4.82|-8.04|0.1941
91062162|NCT00625872|182008306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0532||95.0||||The statistical test was 2-sided and performed at the 5 percent significance level.|Kruskal-Wallis|||For K-ABC Test (Sequential Processing): Kruskal-Wallis Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model was used to calculate p-value.||||0.0532
91062163|NCT00625872|182008306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3383||95.0||||The statistical test was 2-sided and performed at the 5 percent significance level.|Kruskal-Wallis|||For K-ABC Test (Simultaneous Processing): Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA model was used to calculate p-value.||||0.3383
91062164|NCT00625872|182008306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.683||95.0||||The statistical test was 2-sided and performed at the 5 percent significance level.|Kruskal-Wallis|||For K-ABC Test (Achievement): Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA model was used to calculate p-value.||||0.6830
91062165|NCT00625872|182008306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4935||95.0||||The statistical test was 2-sided and performed at the 5 percent significance level.|Kruskal-Wallis|||For K-ABC Test (Non-Verbal): Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA model was used to calculate p-value.||||0.4935
91062166|NCT00625872|182008306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3458||95.0||||The statistical test was 2-sided and performed at the 5 percent significance level.|Kruskal-Wallis|||For K-ABC Test (Mental Processing Composite): Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA model was used to calculate p-value.||||0.3458
91062167|NCT00625872|182008308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6256||95.0||||The statistical test was 2-sided and performed at the 5 percent significance level.|Kruskal-Wallis|||For KITAP Test (Distractibility): Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA model was used to calculate p-value.||||0.6256
91062168|NCT00625872|182008308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.859||95.0||||The statistical test was 2-sided and performed at the 5 percent significance level.|Kruskal-Wallis|||For KITAP Test (Alertness): Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA model was used to calculate p-value.||||0.8590
91062169|NCT00625872|182008308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||The statistical test was 2-sided and performed at the 5 percent significance level.|Kruskal-Wallis|||For KITAP Test (Flexibility): Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA model was used to calculate p-value.||||1.0000
91062170|NCT00625872|182008308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1234||95.0||||The statistical test was 2-sided and performed at the 5 percent significance level.|Kruskal-Wallis|||For KITAP Test (Go/No Go): Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA model was used to calculate p-value.||||0.1234
91062171|NCT00625872|182008308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3291||95.0||||The statistical test was 2-sided and performed at the 5 percent significance level.|Kruskal-Wallis|||For KITAP Test (Vigilance): Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA model was used to calculate p-value.||||0.3291
91062172|NCT00625872|182008327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.54||0.956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.71|6.0||The statistical test was 2-sided and performed at the 5 percent significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA method was used to calculate p-value with treatment, baseline value, study duration and site as covariates.||6.00|-5.71|0.9560
91062173|NCT00625872|182008343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.1107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|1.25||The statistical test was 2-sided and performed at the 5 percent significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA method was used to calculate p-value with treatment, baseline value, study duration and site as covariates.||1.25|-0.15|0.1107
90823104|NCT00377858|181522990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.23||||0.351||95.0|-0.25|0.71||P-value for 24 Week: Midday Postprandial Meal.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.71|-0.25|0.351
90823105|NCT00377858|181522990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.56||||0.01||95.0|0.13|0.98||P-value for 24 Week: Evening Pre-Meal.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.98|0.13|0.010
90823106|NCT00377858|181522990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.48||||0.029||95.0|-0.92|-0.05||P-value for 24 Week: Evening Postprandial Meal.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||-0.05|-0.92|0.029
90823107|NCT00377858|181522990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05||||0.816||95.0|-0.45|0.35||P-value for 24 Week: 0300 Hours.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.35|-0.45|0.816
90823108|NCT00377858|181522990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.49||||0.008||95.0|0.13|0.85||P-value for 36 Week: Morning Pre-Meal.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.85|0.13|0.008
90823109|NCT00377858|181522990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.438||95.0|-0.71|0.31||P-value for 36 Week: Morning Postprandial Meal.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.31|-0.71|0.438
90823110|NCT00377858|181522990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13||||0.548||95.0|-0.54|0.29||P-value for 36 Week: Midday Pre-Meal.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.29|-0.54|0.548
91062174|NCT00625872|182008345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|4.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.54||0.0161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|8.21||The statistical test was 2-sided and performed at the 5 percent significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA method was used to calculate p-value with treatment, baseline value, study duration and site as covariates.||8.21|1.13|0.0161
90823111|NCT00377858|181522990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.964||95.0|-0.5|0.52||P-value for 36 Week: Midday Postprandial Meal.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.52|-0.50|0.964
91062175|NCT00625872|182008354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.2||The statistical test was 2-sided and performed at the 5 percent significance level.|ANCOVA|||Triceps SDS: ANCOVA method was used to calculate p-value with treatment, baseline value, study duration and site as covariates.||0.20|-0.89|0.1870
90823112|NCT00377858|181522990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.16||||0.453||95.0|-0.27|0.6||P-value for 36 Week: Evening Pre-Meal.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.60|-0.27|0.453
90823113|NCT00377858|181522990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.39||||0.096||95.0|-0.84|0.07||P-value for 36 Week: Evening Postprandial Meal.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.07|-0.84|0.096
90823114|NCT00377858|181522990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07||||0.77||95.0|-0.51|0.37||P-value for 36 Week: 0300 Hours.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.37|-0.51|0.770
90823115|NCT00377858|181522990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.45||||0.01||95.0|0.11|0.8||P-value for Endpoint: Morning Pre-Meal. (last observation carried forward)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.80|0.11|0.010
90823116|NCT00377858|181522990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.31||||0.201||95.0|-0.8|0.17||P-value for Endpoint: Morning Postprandial Meal. (last observation carried forward)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.17|-0.80|0.201
90823117|NCT00377858|181522990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.16||||0.43||95.0|-0.57|0.24||P-value for Endpoint: Midday Pre-Meal. (last observation carried forward)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.24|-0.57|0.430
91062176|NCT00625872|182008354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.3494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.19||The statistical test was 2-sided and performed at the 5 percent significance level.|ANCOVA|||Subscapular SDS: ANCOVA method was used to calculate p-value with treatment, baseline value, study duration and site as covariates.||0.19|-0.49|0.3494
91062177|NCT00625872|182008354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.01||The statistical test was 2-sided and performed at the 5 percent significance level.|ANCOVA|||Suprailiac SDS: ANCOVA method was used to calculate p-value with treatment, baseline value, study duration and site as covariates.||-0.01|-0.54|0.0458
90823118|NCT00377858|181522990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06||||0.814||95.0|-0.52|0.41||P-value for Endpoint: Midday Postprandial Meal. (last observation carried forward)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.41|-0.52|0.814
90823119|NCT00377858|181522990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17||||0.427||95.0|-0.24|0.57||P-value for Endpoint: Evening Pre-Meal. (last observation carried forward)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.57|-0.24|0.427
90823120|NCT00377858|181522990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.57||||0.009||95.0|-1.0|-0.14||P-value for Endpoint: Evening Postprandial Meal. (last observation carried forward)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||-0.14|-1.00|0.009
90823121|NCT00377858|181522990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12||||0.569||95.0|-0.51|0.28||P-value for Endpoint: 0300 Hours. (last observation carried forward)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.28|-0.51|0.569
90823122|NCT00377858|181522991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02||||0.776||95.0|-0.14|0.19||P-value for Baseline MODD.|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.19|-0.14|0.776
91062178|NCT01512160|182008369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.3|2.2||||||Analysis of co-variance (ANCOVA) model was used with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline pain intensity as a covariate. LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 90 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) was presented.||2.2|-4.3|
91062179|NCT01512160|182008369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.1|2.3||||||ANCOVA model was used with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline pain intensity as a covariate. LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 90% CI was presented.||2.3|-4.1|
90823123|NCT00377858|181522991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.27||||0.737||95.0|-6.14|8.68||P-value for Baseline M-Value.|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||8.68|-6.14|0.737
90823124|NCT00377858|181522991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03||||0.701||95.0|-0.19|0.13||P-value for 12 Week MODD.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.13|-0.19|0.701
90823125|NCT00377858|181522991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.58||||0.4||95.0|-2.11|5.27||P-value for 12 Week M-Value.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||5.27|-2.11|0.400
90823126|NCT00377858|181522991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09||||0.321||95.0|-0.26|0.09||P-value for 24 Week MODD.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.09|-0.26|0.321
90823127|NCT00377858|181522991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.52||||0.179||95.0|-1.16|6.21||P-value for 24 Week M-Value.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||6.21|-1.16|0.179
90823128|NCT00377858|181522991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05||||0.573||95.0|-0.22|0.12||P-value for 36 Week MODD.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.12|-0.22|0.573
90823129|NCT00377858|181522991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.95||||0.629||95.0|-4.79|2.9||P-value for 36 Week M-Value.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||2.90|-4.79|0.629
90823130|NCT00377858|181522991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09||||0.25||95.0|-0.26|0.07||P-value for Endpoint MODD. (last observation carried forward)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.07|-0.26|0.250
91062180|NCT01512160|182008369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.3|6.7||||||ANCOVA model was used with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline pain intensity as a covariate. LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 90% CI was presented.||6.7|0.3|
91062181|NCT01512160|182008373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.8|1.9||||||SPID 0-6: LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 90% CI were based on ANCOVA model including treatment as a fixed effect and baseline pain intensity as a covariate.||1.9|-2.8|
90823131|NCT00377858|181522991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.72||||0.362||95.0|-5.44|1.99||P-value for Endpoint M-Value.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||1.99|-5.44|0.362
90823132|NCT00377858|181522992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.094||95.0||||P-value for Endpoint Hypoglycemic Episodes.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.094
90823133|NCT00377858|181522992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||P-value for Overall Hypoglycemic Episodes.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
90823134|NCT00377858|181522992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43||95.0||||P-value for Endpoint Nocturnal Hypoglycemic Episodes.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.430
90823135|NCT00377858|181522992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||P-value for Overall Nocturnal Hypoglycemic Episodes.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
90823136|NCT00377858|181522992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013||95.0||||P-value for Endpoint Non-Nocturnal Hypoglycemic Episodes.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.013
90823137|NCT00377858|181522992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.756||95.0||||P-value for Overall Non-Nocturnal Hypoglycemic Episodes.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.756
90823138|NCT00377858|181522993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022||95.0||||P-value for Endpoint Hypoglycemic Rate.|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Rank of Variable = Treatment + Sufonylurea Stratum + Country + Baseline HbA1c Stratum.||||||0.022
90823139|NCT00377858|181522993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.218||95.0||||P-value for Overall Hypoglycemic Rate.|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Rank of Variable = Treatment + Sufonylurea Stratum + Country + Baseline HbA1c Stratum.||||||0.218
90823140|NCT00377858|181522993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.311||95.0||||P-value for Endpoint Nocturnal Hypoglycemic Rate.|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Rank of Variable = Treatment + Sufonylurea Stratum + Country + Baseline HbA1c Stratum.||||||0.311
90823141|NCT00377858|181522993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.615||95.0||||P-value for Overall Nocturnal Hypoglycemic Rate.|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Rank of Variable = Treatment + Sufonylurea Stratum + Country + Baseline HbA1c Stratum.||||||0.615
90823142|NCT00377858|181522993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018||95.0||||P-value for Endpoint Non-Nocturnal Hypoglycemic Rate.|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Rank of Variable = Treatment + Sufonylurea Stratum + Country + Baseline HbA1c Stratum.||||||0.018
90823143|NCT00377858|181522993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.255||95.0||||P-value for Overall Non-Nocturnal Hypoglycemic Rate.|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Rank of Variable = Treatment + Sufonylurea Stratum + Country + Baseline HbA1c Stratum.||||||0.255
90823144|NCT00377858|181522994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.416||95.0||||P-value for Overall Severe Hypoglycemic Episodes.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.416
90823145|NCT00377858|181522995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.12|-0.05||P-value for Daily Basal.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Country + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||-0.05|-0.12|<0.001
90823146|NCT00377858|181522995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07|||<|0.001||95.0|0.04|0.11||P-value for Daily Prandial.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Country + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.11|0.04|<0.001
90823147|NCT00377858|181522995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07||||0.017||95.0|0.01|0.12||P-value for Daily Total.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Country + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.12|0.01|0.017
90823148|NCT00377858|181522996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.96|||<|0.001||95.0|-9.65|-4.26||P-value for Daily Basal.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Country + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||-4.26|-9.65|<0.001
90823149|NCT00377858|181522996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.05|||<|0.001||95.0|3.39|8.71||P-value for Daily Prandial.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Country + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||8.71|3.39|<0.001
90823150|NCT00377858|181522996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.2||||0.017||95.0|0.93|9.46||P-value for Daily Total.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Country + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||9.46|0.93|0.017
90823151|NCT00377858|181522997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.33|||<|0.001||95.0|0.24|0.42||P-value for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Sulfonylurea stratum + Country.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.42|0.24|<0.001
90823152|NCT00377858|181522997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.22||||0.003||95.0|0.07|0.36||P-value for Week 24.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Sulfonylurea stratum + Country.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.36|0.07|0.003
90823153|NCT00377858|181522997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.24||||0.002||95.0|0.09|0.4||P-value for Week 30.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.40|0.09|0.002
90823154|NCT00377858|181522997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.22||||0.005||95.0|0.07|0.38||P-value for Week 36.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Sulfonylurea stratum + Country.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.38|0.07|0.005
90823155|NCT00377858|181522997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.19||||0.011||95.0|0.04|0.34||P-value for Endpoint. (last observation carried forward)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Sulfonylurea stratum + Country.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.34|0.04|0.011
90823156|NCT00377858|181522998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09||||0.803||95.0|-0.8|0.62||P-value for Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Sulfonylurea stratum + Country + Baseline HbA1c stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.62|-0.80|0.803
90823157|NCT01147055|181523029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|18.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|16.14|20.54||||||Natural log transformed AUC (0-∞) of crizotinib was analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the differences was exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||20.54|16.14|
90823158|NCT01147055|181523030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|31.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|26.43|37.51||||||Natural log transformed Cmax of crizotinib was analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences was exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||37.51|26.43|
90823159|NCT01147055|181523031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|17.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|15.48|20.02||||||Natural log transformed AUClast of crizotinib was analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences was exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||20.02|15.48|
90823160|NCT01147055|181523036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|5.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.64|6.49||||||Natural log transformed AUClast of PF-06260182 was analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences was exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||6.49|4.64|
90823161|NCT01147055|181523037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|5.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.86|6.81||||||Natural log transformed AUC (0 - ∞) of PF-06260182 was analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences was exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||6.81|4.86|
90823162|NCT01147055|181523039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|11.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.02|13.45||||||Natural log transformed Cmax of PF-06260182 was analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences was exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||13.45|9.02|
91062182|NCT01512160|182008373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.7|2.0||||||SPID 0-6: LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 90% CI were based on ANCOVA model including treatment as a fixed effect and baseline pain intensity as a covariate.||2.0|-2.7|
90823163|NCT02123823|181523116|OTHER||Hazard Ratio, log|0.97||||0.9057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.65|||Log Rank|Two-sided log-rank test stratified for visceral involvement.|Cox proportional hazards model stratified for visceral involvement.|||1.65|0.57|0.9057
90823164|NCT02123823|181523119|OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|0.7||||0.5598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.32|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio and p-value are obtained from logistic regression model adjusted for visceral involvement at screening.|An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit to the xentuzumab arm.|||2.32|0.20|0.5598
90823165|NCT02123823|181523120|OTHER||Hazard Ratio, log|1.03||||0.9146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.8|||Log Rank|Two-sided log-rank test stratified for visceral involvement.|Cox proportional hazards model stratified for visceral involvement.|||1.80|0.59|0.9146
90823166|NCT02123823|181523121|OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|0.7||||0.4008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.59|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio and p-value are obtained from logistic regression model adjusted for visceral involvement.|An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit to the xentuzumab arm.|||1.59|0.31|0.4008
90823167|NCT01635855|181523129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||One-sided binomial|8.5|||<|0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|13.6||Ho (null): Ps \>= 22% versus Ha (alternate): Ps \< 22% where Ps is the proportion of subjects with common severe adverse events in the post-approval study. Ho is rejected if upper limit of the 95% CI of Ps \< 22% and the one-sided p-value \<= 0.025.|One sided binomial distribution|The upper limit of the 95% two-sided CI for a proportion is equivalent to the 97.5% one-sided CI for that proportion for normal approximations.||The analysis was performed by comparing the proportion of subjects with severe common adverse events in the post-market study to that occurred in the pre-market studies. It was pre-specified in the protocol that the proportion of subjects with severe common adverse events in the pre-market studies was 22%.||13.6|3.5|< 0.025
90823168|NCT00095173|181523140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.31||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.59|||Log Rank||Abatacept over placebo|||0.59|0.16|0.0002
90823169|NCT00095173|181523141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
90823170|NCT02161757|181523159|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was that the exacerbation rate during the 52-week double-blind treatment period on tralokinumab was equal to the corresponding exacerbation rate on placebo.|Rate ratio|0.93||||0.5859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.21|||Negative binomial||Covariates in the model included treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group at baseline and number of exacerbations in the year before the study.|Comparison of AAER (rate ratio): Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.||1.21|0.72|0.5859
90823171|NCT02161757|181523159|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was that the exacerbation rate during the 52-week double-blind treatment period on tralokinumab was equal to the corresponding exacerbation rate on placebo.|Rate ratio|0.9||||0.4406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.17|||Negative binomial||Covariates in the model included treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group at baseline and number of exacerbations in the year before the study.|Comparison of AAER (rate ratio): Tralo 300 mg Q4W vs placebo.||1.17|0.70|0.4406
91062183|NCT01512160|182008373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|5.1||||||SPID 0-6: LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 90% CI were based on ANCOVA model including treatment as a fixed effect and baseline pain intensity as a covariate.||5.1|0.4|
91062184|NCT01512160|182008373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.6|10.5||||||SPID 0-24: LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 90% CI were based on ANCOVA model including treatment as a fixed effect and baseline pain intensity as a covariate.||10.5|-12.6|
91062185|NCT01512160|182008373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.5|11.4||||||SPID 0-24: LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 90% CI were based on ANCOVA model including treatment as a fixed effect and baseline pain intensity as a covariate.||11.4|-11.5|
91062186|NCT01512160|182008373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.0|19.1||||||SPID 0-24: LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 90% CI were based on ANCOVA model including treatment as a fixed effect and baseline pain intensity as a covariate.||19.1|-4.0|
90823172|NCT02161757|181523159|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was that the exacerbation rate during the 52-week double-blind treatment period on tralokinumab was equal to the corresponding exacerbation rate on placebo.|Rate reduction|7.01||||0.5859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.76|28.39|||Negative binominal||Covariates in the model included treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group at baseline and number of exacerbations in the year before the study.|Comparison of AAER (rate reduction): Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.||28.39|-20.76|0.5859
90823173|NCT02161757|181523159|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was that the exacerbation rate during the 52-week double-blind treatment period on tralokinumab was equal to the corresponding exacerbation rate on placebo.|Rate reduction|9.76||||0.4406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.16|30.5|||Negative binominal||Covariates in the model included treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group at baseline and number of exacerbations in the year before the study.|Comparison of AAER (rate reduction): Tralo 300 mg Q4W vs placebo.||30.50|-17.16|0.4406
90823174|NCT02161757|181523160|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) Mean difference|6.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.34|9.73|||||Fixed categorical effects of treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as a fixed covariate.|"Comparison of percent change from baseline in pre-dose/pre-BD FEV1 at Week 52: Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.~Restricted maximum likelihood (REML) based repeated measures analysis performed on patients with a baseline pre-dose/pre-BD FEV1 assessment."||9.73|2.34|
91062187|NCT01512160|182008374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.6|16.1||||||LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 90% CI were based on ANCOVA model including treatment as a fixed effect and baseline pain intensity as a covariate.||16.1|-15.6|
91062188|NCT01512160|182008374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.5|14.8||||||LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 90% CI were based on ANCOVA model including treatment as a fixed effect and baseline pain intensity as a covariate.||14.8|-16.5|
91062189|NCT01512160|182008374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|9.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.6|25.1||||||LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 90% CI were based on ANCOVA model including treatment as a fixed effect and baseline pain intensity as a covariate.||25.1|-6.6|
91062190|NCT01512160|182008375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|1.5||||||Hazard Ratio (HR) estimates of the treatment difference along with 90% CI were based Cox proportional hazards model including treatment and baseline pain intensity as fixed effects.||1.5|0.5|
90823175|NCT02161757|181523160|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|5.77|||||Fixed categorical effects of treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as a fixed covariate.|"Comparison of percent change from baseline in pre-dose/pre-BD FEV1 at Week 52: Tralo 300 mg Q4W vs placebo.~REML based repeated measures analysis performed on patients with a baseline pre-dose/pre-BD FEV1 assessment."||5.77|-1.58|
90823176|NCT02161757|181523161|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.04|||||Fixed categorical effects of baseline asthma symptom score, treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as a fixed covariate.|"Comparison of mean change from baseline in total asthma symptom score at Week 52: Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.~REML based repeated measures analysis."||0.04|-0.23|
90823177|NCT02161757|181523161|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.12|||||Fixed categorical effects of baseline asthma symptom score, treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as a fixed covariate.|"Comparison of mean change from baseline in total asthma symptom score at Week 52: Tralo 300 mg Q4W vs placebo.~REML based repeated measures analysis."||0.12|-0.15|
91062191|NCT01512160|182008375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7|2.1||||||HR estimates of the treatment difference along with 90% CI were based Cox proportional hazards model including treatment and baseline pain intensity as fixed effects.||2.1|0.7|
91062192|NCT01512160|182008375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6|2.0||||||HR estimates of the treatment difference along with 90% CI were based Cox proportional hazards model including treatment and baseline pain intensity as fixed effects.||2.0|0.6|
91062193|NCT01512160|182008376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|2.1||||||HR estimates of the treatment difference along with 90% CI were based Cox proportional hazards model including treatment and baseline pain intensity as fixed effects.||2.1|0.5|
91062194|NCT01512160|182008376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|1.8||||||HR estimates of the treatment difference along with 90% CI were based Cox proportional hazards model including treatment and baseline pain intensity as fixed effects.||1.8|0.4|
91062195|NCT01512160|182008376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7|2.9||||||HR estimates of the treatment difference along with 90% CI were based Cox proportional hazards model including treatment and baseline pain intensity as fixed effects.||2.9|0.7|
91062196|NCT01512160|182008377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6|1.9||||||HR estimates of the treatment difference along with 90% CI were based Cox proportional hazards model including treatment and baseline pain intensity as fixed effects.||1.9|0.6|
91062197|NCT01512160|182008377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7|2.4||||||HR estimates of the treatment difference along with 90% CI were based Cox proportional hazards model including treatment and baseline pain intensity as fixed effects.||2.4|0.7|
90823178|NCT02161757|181523162|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.31|||||Fixed categorical effects of baseline AQLQ(S)+12 score, treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as a fixed covariate.|"Comparison of change in mean score from baseline for AQLQ(S)+12 at Week 52: Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.~REML based repeated measures analysis."||0.31|-0.01|
90823179|NCT02161757|181523162|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.28|||||Fixed categorical effects of baseline AQLQ(S)+12 score, treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as a fixed covariate.|"Comparison of change in mean score from baseline for AQLQ(S)+12 at Week 52: Tralo 300 mg Q4W vs placebo.~REML based repeated measures analysis."||0.28|-0.03|
90823180|NCT02161757|181523163|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|-0.02|||||Fixed categorical effects of baseline ACQ-6 score, treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as a fixed covariate.|"Comparison of change in mean score from baseline for ACQ-6 at Week 52: Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.~REML based repeated measures analysis."||-0.02|-0.29|
90823181|NCT02161757|181523163|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.01|||||Fixed categorical effects of baseline ACQ-6 score, treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as a fixed covariate.|"Comparison of change in mean score from baseline for ACQ-6 at Week 52: Tralo 300 mg Q4W vs placebo.~REML based repeated measures analysis."||0.01|-0.26|
90823182|NCT02161757|181523164|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.54||||0.0369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.96|||Negative binomial||Covariates in the model included treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group at baseline and number of exacerbations resulting in hospitalisation or ER treatment (yes/no) in the year before the study.|Comparison of AAER associated with an ER/UC visit or hospitalisation: Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.||0.96|0.30|0.0369
90823183|NCT02161757|181523164|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.78||||0.3603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.33|||Negative binomial||Covariates in the model included treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group at baseline and number of exacerbations resulting in hospitalisation or ER treatment (yes/no) in the year before the study.|Comparison of AAER associated with an ER/UC visit or hospitalisation: Tralo 300 mg Q4W vs placebo.||1.33|0.46|0.3603
91062198|NCT01512160|182008377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|1.3||||||HR estimates of the treatment difference along with 90% CI were based Cox proportional hazards model including treatment and baseline pain intensity as fixed effects.||1.3|0.4|
91062199|NCT02729909|182008395|SUPERIORITY||Median Value of confidence interval (CI)|1.0||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.9||Spontaneous bowel movement was analyzed using Van Elteren Test stratified by center. Centers with less participants were pooled based on geographical proximity.|Van Elteren Test|||||1.9|0.1|0.020
91062200|NCT02729909|182008396|SUPERIORITY||Median Value of CI|1.0||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.9||Spontaneous bowel movement was analyzed using Van Elteren Test stratified by center. Centers with less participants were pooled based on geographical proximity.|Van Elteren Test|||Week 2||1.9|0.0|0.051
90823184|NCT02161757|181523166|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.29|||||Fixed categorical effects of baseline rescue medication use, treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as a fixed covariate.|Comparison of mean change from baseline in rescue medication use at Week 52: Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo. REML based repeated measures analysis.||0.29|-0.51|
90823185|NCT02161757|181523166|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.24|||||Fixed categorical effects of baseline rescue medication use, treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as a fixed covariate.|Comparison of mean change from baseline in rescue medication use at Week 52: Tralo 300 mg Q4W vs placebo. REML based repeated measures analysis.||0.24|-0.56|
90823186|NCT02161757|181523167|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|6.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.53|16.03|||||Fixed categorical effects of baseline PEF (morning), treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as a fixed covariate.|"Comparison of mean change from baseline in morning PEF at Week 52: Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.~REML based repeated measures analysis."||16.03|-3.53|
90823187|NCT02161757|181523167|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|1.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.99|11.53|||||Fixed categorical effects of baseline PEF (morning), treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as a fixed covariate.|"Comparison of mean change from baseline in morning PEF at Week 52: Tralo 300 mg Q4W vs placebo.~REML based repeated measures analysis."||11.53|-7.99|
90823188|NCT02161757|181523167|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|7.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|16.87|||||Fixed categorical effects of baseline PEF (evening), treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as a fixed covariate.|"Comparison of mean change from baseline in evening PEF at Week 52: Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.~REML based repeated measures analysis."||16.87|-2.60|
90823189|NCT02161757|181523167|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.13|10.35|||||Fixed categorical effects of baseline PEF (evening), treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as a fixed covariate.|"Comparison of mean change from baseline in evening PEF at Week 52: Tralo 300 mg Q4W vs placebo.~REML based repeated measures analysis."||10.35|-9.13|
91062201|NCT02729909|182008396|SUPERIORITY||Median Value of CI|1.5||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.0||Spontaneous bowel movement was analyzed using Van Elteren Test stratified by center. Centers with less participants were pooled based on geographical proximity.|Van Elteren Test|||Week 3||2.0|1.0|0.003
91062202|NCT02729909|182008396|SUPERIORITY||Median Value of CI|1.0||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.9||Spontaneous bowel movement was analyzed using Van Elteren Test stratified by center. Centers with less participants were pooled based on geographical proximity.|Van Elteren Test|||Week 4||1.9|0.1|0.009
90823190|NCT02161757|181523168|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.29|1.69|||||Fixed categorical effects of baseline number (%) of awakenings, treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as a fixed covariate.|"Comparison of mean change from baseline in number (%) of awakenings at Week 52: Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.~REML based repeated measures analysis."||1.69|-5.29|
90823191|NCT02161757|181523168|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-2.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.84|1.12|||||Fixed categorical effects of baseline number (%) of awakenings, treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as a fixed covariate.|"Comparison of mean change from baseline in number (%) of awakenings at Week 52: Tralo 300 mg Q4W vs placebo.~REML based repeated measures analysis."||1.12|-5.84|
90823192|NCT02161757|181523169|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.28|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The estimate of each odds ratio was obtained from two separate models, from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test controlling for geographical region, age group and periostin group at baseline.|Comparison of number of patients with ≥ 1 asthma exacerbations up to Week 52: Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.||1.28|0.71|0.732
90823193|NCT02161757|181523169|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.19|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The estimate of each odds ratio was obtained from two separate models, from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test controlling for geographical region, age group and periostin group at baseline.|Comparison of number of patients with ≥ 1 asthma exacerbations up to Week 52: Tralo 300 mg Q4W vs placebo.||1.19|0.65|0.421
90823194|NCT02106403|181523194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.46||||0.0659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|11.29|||ANOVA|Calculated from mixed effect ANOVA analysis with treatment and assessment site as fixed effects and subject as random effect.|Difference was calculated as the prototype disinfectant spray formulation minus negative control such that a positive difference showed improved cooling in the prototype disinfectant spray formulation.|The null and alternative hypotheses were: H0: product difference was null vs. Ha: product difference was not null.||11.29|-0.37|0.0659
90823195|NCT02106403|181523194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.99||||0.0928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|10.81|||ANCOVA|Calculated from mixed effect ANOVA analysis with treatment and assessment site as fixed effects and subject as random effect.|Difference was calculated as the reference product minus negative control such that a positive difference showed improved cooling in the reference product.|The null and alternative hypotheses were: H0: product difference was null vs. Ha: product difference was not null.||10.81|-0.84|0.0928
90823196|NCT02106403|181523194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.48||||0.8711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.35|6.31|||ANOVA|Calculated from mixed effect ANOVA analysis with treatment and assessment site as fixed effects and subject as random effect.|Difference was calculated as the prototype disinfectant spray formulation minus reference product such that a positive difference showed improved cooling in the prototype disinfectant spray formulation.|The null and alternative hypotheses were: H0: product difference was null vs. Ha: product difference was not null.||6.31|-5.35|0.8711
91062203|NCT02729909|182008397|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.08||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|3.62||The proportion of participants with an SBM within 24 hours after first dose in Week 1 is analyzed by a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by center. Centers with less participants were pooled based on geographical proximity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.62|1.19|0.009
91062204|NCT02729909|182008398|SUPERIORITY||Median Value of CI|-0.4||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.2||Average Degree of Straining was analyzed using Van Elteren Test stratified by center. Centers with less participants were pooled based on geographical proximity.|Van Elteren Test|||Week 1||-0.2|-0.6|0.001
90823197|NCT02106403|181523195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|11.43||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.43|18.42|||ANOVA|Calculated from mixed effect ANOVA analysis with treatment and assessment site as fixed effects and subject as random effect.|Difference was calculated as the prototype disinfectant spray formulation minus negative control such that a positive difference showed improved cooling in the prototype disinfectant spray formulation.|The null and alternative hypotheses were: H0: product difference was null vs. Ha: product difference was not null.||18.42|4.43|0.0016
90823198|NCT02106403|181523195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.69||||0.6323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.31|8.69|||ANOVA|Calculated from mixed effect ANOVA analysis with treatment and assessment site as fixed effects and subject as random effect.|Difference was calculated as the reference product minus negative control such that a positive difference showed improved cooling in the reference product.|The null and alternative hypotheses were: H0: product difference was null vs. Ha: product difference was not null.||8.69|-5.31|0.6323
90823199|NCT02106403|181523195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.73||||0.0069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.74|16.73|||ANOVA|Calculated from mixed effect ANOVA analysis with treatment and assessment site as fixed effects and subject as random effect.|Difference was calculated as the prototype disinfectant spray formulation minus reference product such that a positive difference showed improved cooling in the prototype disinfectant spray formulation.|The null and alternative hypotheses were: H0: product difference was null vs. Ha: product difference was not null.||16.73|2.74|0.0069
90823200|NCT02106403|181523196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|12.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.23|18.04|||ANOVA|Calculated from mixed effect ANOVA analysis with treatment and assessment site as fixed effects and subject as random effect.|Difference was calculated as the prototype disinfectant spray formulation minus negative control such that a positive difference showed improved cooling in the prototype disinfectant spray formulation.|The null and alternative hypotheses were: H0: product difference was null vs. Ha: product difference was not null.||18.04|6.23|<0.0001
90823201|NCT02106403|181523196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.18||||0.4645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.09|3.72|||ANOVA|Calculated from mixed effect ANOVA analysis with treatment and assessment site as fixed effects and subject as random effect.|Difference was calculated as the reference product minus negative control such that a positive difference showed improved cooling in the reference product.|The null and alternative hypotheses were: H0: product difference was null vs. Ha: product difference was not null.||3.72|-8.09|0.4645
91062205|NCT02729909|182008398|SUPERIORITY||Median Value of CI|-0.3||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.1||Average Degree of Straining was analyzed using Van Elteren Test stratified by center. Centers with less participants were pooled based on geographical proximity.|Van Elteren Test|||Week 2||-0.1|-0.5|0.004
90823202|NCT02106403|181523196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|14.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.41|20.22|||ANOVA|Calculated from mixed effect ANOVA analysis with treatment and assessment site as fixed effects and subject as random effect.|Difference was calculated as the prototype disinfectant spray formulation minus reference product such that a positive difference showed improved cooling in the prototype disinfectant spray formulation.|The null and alternative hypotheses were: H0: product difference was null vs. Ha: product difference was not null.||20.22|8.41|<0.0001
90823203|NCT02106403|181523197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.41||||0.0357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|12.38|||ANOVA|Calculated from mixed effect ANOVA analysis with treatment and assessment site as fixed effects and subject as random effect.|Difference was calculated as the prototype disinfectant spray formulation minus negative control such that a positive difference showed improved cooling in the prototype disinfectant spray formulation.|The null and alternative hypotheses were: H0: product difference was null vs. Ha: product difference was not null.||12.38|0.44|0.0357
90823204|NCT02106403|181523197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.02||||0.503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.95|8.0|||ANOVA|Calculated from mixed effect ANOVA analysis with treatment and assessment site as fixed effects and subject as random effect.|Difference was calculated as the reference product minus negative control such that a positive difference showed improved cooling in the reference product.|The null and alternative hypotheses were: H0: product difference was null vs. Ha: product difference was not null.||8.00|-3.95|0.5030
90823205|NCT02106403|181523197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.39||||0.1482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|10.36|||ANOVA|Calculated from mixed effect ANOVA analysis with treatment and assessment site as fixed effects and subject as random effect.|Difference was calculated as the prototype disinfectant spray formulation minus reference product such that a positive difference showed improved cooling in the prototype disinfectant spray formulation.|The null and alternative hypotheses were: H0: product difference was null vs. Ha: product difference was not null.||10.36|-1.59|0.1482
90823206|NCT02019875|181523205|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.2|18.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||18.3|-21.2|0.884
90823207|NCT02019875|181523205|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.5|20.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||20.7|-19.5|0.955
91062206|NCT02729909|182008398|SUPERIORITY||Median Value of CI|-0.2||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.1||Average Degree of Straining was analyzed using Van Elteren Test stratified by center. Centers with less participants were pooled based on geographical proximity.|Van Elteren Test|||Week 3||-0.1|-0.4|0.024
91062207|NCT02729909|182008398|SUPERIORITY||Median Value of CI|-0.3||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.1||Average Degree of Straining was analyzed using Van Elteren Test stratified by center. Centers with less participants were pooled based on geographical proximity.|Van Elteren Test|||Week 4||-0.1|-0.5|0.010
91062208|NCT02729909|182008399|SUPERIORITY||Median Value of CI|0.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.0||Mean Degree of Stool Consistency was analyzed using Van Elteren Test stratified by center. Centers with less participants were pooled based on geographical proximity.|Van Elteren Test|||Week 1||1.0|0.4|<0.001
90823208|NCT02019875|181523205|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.4||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.5|13.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||13.6|-26.5|0.53
90823209|NCT02019875|181523205|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.9||||0.434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.6|11.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.9|-27.6|0.434
90823210|NCT02019875|181523205|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.8||||0.796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.2|18.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||18.6|-24.2|0.796
90823211|NCT02019875|181523206|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|3.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.6|-6.0|0.62
90823212|NCT02019875|181523206|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8||||0.482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|6.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.7|-3.1|0.482
90823213|NCT02019875|181523206|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5||||0.559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|6.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.4|-3.4|0.559
90823214|NCT02019875|181523206|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.7||||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|8.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.5|-1.2|0.138
90823215|NCT02019875|181523206|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||0.477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|3.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.3|-7.1|0.477
90823216|NCT02019875|181523207|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|11.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.3|-11.0|0.98
90823217|NCT02019875|181523207|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|12.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||12.7|-10.0|0.81
90823218|NCT02019875|181523207|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|12.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||12.2|-10.8|0.91
90823219|NCT02019875|181523207|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|13.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||13.8|-8.9|0.68
90823220|NCT02019875|181523207|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|12.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||12.6|-11.9|0.96
90823221|NCT02019875|181523208|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.5|-2.7|0.17
90823222|NCT02019875|181523208|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.2|-1.0|0.44
90823223|NCT02019875|181523208|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.6|-1.7|0.94
90823224|NCT02019875|181523208|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|5.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.2|2.1|<0.0001
90823225|NCT02019875|181523208|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|5.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.6|2.2|<0.0001
90823226|NCT02019875|181523209|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.008||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.027|0.012|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.012|-0.027|0.43
91062209|NCT02729909|182008399|SUPERIORITY||Median Value of CI|0.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.9||Mean Degree of Stool Consistency was analyzed using Van Elteren Test stratified by center. Centers with less participants were pooled based on geographical proximity.|Van Elteren Test|||Week 2||0.9|0.4|<0.001
91062210|NCT02729909|182008399|SUPERIORITY||Median Value of CI|0.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.8||Mean Degree of Stool Consistency was analyzed using Van Elteren Test stratified by center. Centers with less participants were pooled based on geographical proximity.|Van Elteren Test|||Week 3||0.8|0.4|<0.001
90823227|NCT02019875|181523209|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.017||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.037|0.003|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.003|-0.037|0.09
90823228|NCT02019875|181523209|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.011||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.031|0.009|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.009|-0.031|0.29
90823229|NCT02019875|181523209|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.005||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.025|0.015|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.015|-0.025|0.61
90823230|NCT02019875|181523209|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.008||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.014|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.014|-0.03|0.46
90823231|NCT02019875|181523210|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.6||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.0|26.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||26.7|-52.0|0.53
90823232|NCT02019875|181523210|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-44.5||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.5|-4.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.5|-84.5|0.03
91062211|NCT02729909|182008399|SUPERIORITY||Median Value of CI|0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.7||Mean Degree of Stool Consistency was analyzed using Van Elteren Test stratified by center. Centers with less participants were pooled based on geographical proximity.|Van Elteren Test|||Week 4||0.7|0.2|<0.001
91062212|NCT02729909|182008400|SUPERIORITY||Median Value of CI|-0.5||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.1||Abdominal Bloating was analyzed using Van Elteren Test stratified by center. Centers with less participants were pooled based on geographical proximity.|Van Elteren Test|||Week 1||-0.1|-0.9|0.020
90823233|NCT02019875|181523210|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.2||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.3|32.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||32.8|-47.3|0.72
90823234|NCT02019875|181523210|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.6|42.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||42.2|-36.6|0.89
90823235|NCT02019875|181523210|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|38.0||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|80.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||80.6|-4.7|0.08
90823236|NCT02019875|181523211|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-104.5|110.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||110.2|-104.5|0.96
90823237|NCT02019875|181523211|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.0||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-94.2|124.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||124.2|-94.2|0.79
90823238|NCT02019875|181523211|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|71.3||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.9|180.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||180.5|-37.9|0.20
90823239|NCT02019875|181523211|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-110.1|104.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||104.7|-110.1|0.96
90823240|NCT02019875|181523211|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|51.8||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.7|168.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||168.2|-64.7|0.38
90823241|NCT03202134|181523214|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
90823242|NCT03202134|181523215|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
90823243|NCT03202134|181523216|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90823244|NCT03202134|181523217|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90823245|NCT03202134|181523218|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.048|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.048
90823246|NCT00966550|181523220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
90823247|NCT01128946|181523221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|23.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.63|26.48||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period and subject (random effect).|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means for treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to percent SMH recovery. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||26.48|19.63|<0.0001
90823248|NCT01128946|181523222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|10.75|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.33|14.17||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period and subject (random effect).|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means for treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to percent SMH recovery. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||14.17|7.33|<0.0001
90823249|NCT01128946|181523222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|12.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.74|15.67||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period and subject (random effect).|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means for treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to percent SMH recovery. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||15.67|8.74|<0.0001
90823250|NCT01128946|181523222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|12.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.9|15.72||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period and subject (random effect).|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means for treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to percent SMH recovery. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||15.72|8.90|<0.0001
90823251|NCT01128946|181523222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.46||||0.407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|4.91||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period and subject (random effect).|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means for treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to percent SMH recovery. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||4.91|-2.00|0.4070
91062213|NCT02729909|182008400|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.072||||||Abdominal Bloating was analyzed using Van Elteren Test stratified by center. Centers with less participants were pooled based on geographical proximity.|Van Elteren Test|||Week 2||||0.072
91062214|NCT02729909|182008400|SUPERIORITY||Median Value of CI|-0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.1||Abdominal Bloating was analyzed using Van Elteren Test stratified by center. Centers with less participants were pooled based on geographical proximity.|Van Elteren Test|||Week 3||-0.1|-0.9|<0.001
90823252|NCT01128946|181523222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-10.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|-7.4||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period and subject (random effect).|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means for treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to percent SMH recovery. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||-7.40|-14.30|<0.0001
90823253|NCT01128946|181523223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|13.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.46|14.96||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period and subject (random effect).|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means for treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to enamel fluoride uptake. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||14.96|11.46|<0.0001
90823254|NCT01128946|181523223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|8.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.04|10.55||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period and subject (random effect).|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means for treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to enamel fluoride uptake. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||10.55|7.04|<0.0001
90823255|NCT01128946|181523223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|8.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.25|9.8||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period and subject (random effect).|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means for treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to enamel fluoride uptake. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||9.80|6.25|<0.0001
90823256|NCT01128946|181523223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|4.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.66|6.16||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period and subject (random effect).|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means for treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to enamel fluoride uptake. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||6.16|2.66|<0.0001
90823257|NCT01128946|181523223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.77||||0.3942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|1.0||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period and subject (random effect).|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means for treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to enamel fluoride uptake. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||1.00|-2.54|0.3942
90823258|NCT01128946|181523223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-5.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.95|-3.41||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period and subject (random effect).|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means for treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to enamel fluoride uptake. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||-3.41|-6.95|<0.0001
90823259|NCT01371734|181523238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.85||||0.587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|3.94|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|Hochberg procedure was used to control for multiplicity||Adjusted mean difference = Placebo - DVS SR Low Dose||3.94|-2.23|0.587
90823260|NCT01371734|181523238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.52||||0.333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|4.61|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|Hochberg procedure was used to control for multiplicity||Adjusted mean difference = Placebo - DVS SR High Dose||4.61|-1.56|0.333
90823261|NCT01371734|181523239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.015||||0.923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.32|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|Hochberg procedure was used to control for multiplicity||Adjusted mean difference = Placebo - DVS SR Low Dose||0.32|-0.29|0.923
90823262|NCT01371734|181523239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.161||||0.302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.47|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|Hochberg procedure was used to control for multiplicity||Adjusted mean difference = Placebo - DVS SR High Dose||0.47|-0.14|0.302
90823263|NCT01371734|181523240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.729|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1||||0.729
90823264|NCT01371734|181523240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.756|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1||||0.756
90823265|NCT01371734|181523240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.765|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||||0.765
90823266|NCT01371734|181523240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.475|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||||0.475
90823267|NCT01371734|181523240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 3||||0.310
90823268|NCT01371734|181523240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.105|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Week 3||||0.105
90823269|NCT01371734|181523240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.254|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||||0.254
90823270|NCT01371734|181523240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.887|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||||0.887
90823271|NCT01371734|181523240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.475|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6||||0.475
90823272|NCT01371734|181523240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.407|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6||||0.407
90823273|NCT01371734|181523240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.696|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||||0.696
90823274|NCT01371734|181523240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.462|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||||0.462
90823275|NCT01371734|181523241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.806||||0.633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.333|1.951|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||1.951|0.333|0.633
90823276|NCT01371734|181523241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.561||||0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.245|1.285|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||1.285|0.245|0.172
91062215|NCT02729909|182008400|SUPERIORITY||Median Value of CI|-0.5||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.1||Abdominal Bloating was analyzed using Van Elteren Test stratified by center. Centers with less participants were pooled based on geographical proximity.|Van Elteren Test|||Week 4||-0.1|-0.9|0.004
91062216|NCT01128179|182008401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1121||||0.3186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3389|0.1146||The a priori significance level was 5%. There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Assuming that the natural logarithm transformed serum intact FGF-23 is normally distributed with a mean of 3.5 and a standard deviation of 0.46, 33 subjects randomised 2:1 (lanthanum carbonate to placebo) will be sufficient to detect with 80% power at the 5% 2-sided significance level a decrease of 0.5 in the mean difference (placebo minus lanthanum carbonate) of the log-transformed data at Week 12.||0.1146|-0.3389|0.3186
91062217|NCT01128179|182008402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.54||||0.2995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.15|19.23||The p-value was unadjusted and had no a priori significance level.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was that there would be no difference between the 2 treatment groups in the mean change from baseline of serum iPTH at Week 12 (LOCF) in an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline iPTH as a covariate. The study was not powered for the analysis of this parameter.||19.23|-6.15|0.2995
91062218|NCT01128179|182008403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.11||||0.3252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.36|15.57||The p-value was unadjusted and had no a priori significance level.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was that there would be no difference between the 2 treatment groups in the mean change from baseline of 1,25-Dihydroxy Vitamin D at Week 12 (LOCF) when utilizing an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline 1,25-Dihydroxy Vitamin D as a covariate. The study was not powered for the analysis of this parameter.||15.57|-5.36|0.3252
91062219|NCT01128179|182008404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.7||||0.1459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.845|1.403||The p-value was unadjusted and had no a priori significance level.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was that there would be no difference between the 2 treatment groups in the mean change from baseline of Urinary Fractional Excretion of Phosphate at Week 12 (LOCF) when utilizing an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline Urinary Fractional Excretion of Phosphate as a covariate. The study was not powered for the analysis of this parameter.||1.403|-8.845|0.1459
91062220|NCT01128179|182008405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0297||||0.6134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1492|0.0897||The p-value was unadjusted and had no a priori significance level.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was that there would be no difference between the 2 treatment groups in the mean change from baseline of Serum Phosphate at Week 12 (LOCF) in an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline Serum Phosphate as a covariate. The study was not powered for the analysis of this parameter||0.0897|-0.1492|0.6134
91062221|NCT01128179|182008406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0294||||0.5636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0739|0.1328||The p-value was unadjusted and had no a priori significance level.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was that there would be no difference between the 2 treatment groups in the mean change from baseline of Serum Total Calcium at Week 12 (LOCF) in an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline Serum Total Calcium as a covariate. The study was not powered for the analysis of this parameter.||0.1328|-0.0739|0.5636
91062222|NCT01128179|182008407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0129||||0.922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2811|0.2553||The p-value was unadjusted and had no a priori significance level.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was that there would be no difference between the 2 treatment groups in the mean change from baseline of Calcium-Phosphate Product at Week 12 (LOCF) in an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline Calcium-Phosphate Product as a covariate.||0.2553|-0.2811|0.9220
91062223|NCT04479852|182008426|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||A negative difference favors the SP-624 treatment group, i.e., a greater reduction in MADRS score from baseline.|||0.5|-4.1|0.133
91062224|NCT04479852|182008427|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||A negative difference favors the SP-624 treatment group, i.e., a greater reduction in CGI-S score from baseline.|||0.0|-0.5|0.059
91062225|NCT04479852|182008428|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||A negative difference favors the SP-624 treatment group, i.e., a greater reduction in HAM-D score from baseline.|||0.4|-2.7|0.159
91062226|NCT04479852|182008429|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||A negative difference favors the SP-624 treatment group, i.e., a greater reduction in SDS score from baseline.|||0.5|-2.5|0.188
91062227|NCT04479852|182008430|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||A negative difference favors the SP-624 treatment group, i.e., a greater reduction in QIDS score from baseline.|||0.2|-2.0|0.091
90823277|NCT01371734|181523241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.939||||0.826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.536|1.644|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||1.644|0.536|0.826
91062228|NCT04479852|182008431|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7||||0.243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|4.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||A positive difference favors the SP-624 treatment group, i.e., a greater increase in Q-LES-Q score from baseline.|||4.6|-1.2|0.243
91062229|NCT04479852|182008432|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.9||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|-1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||A negative difference favors the SP-624 treatment group, i.e., a greater reduction in MADRS score from baseline.|||-1.0|-6.8|.008
91062230|NCT04479852|182008433|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||A negative difference favors the SP-624 treatment group, i.e., a greater reduction in CGI-S score from baseline.|||-0.1|-0.8|0.006
91062231|NCT04479852|182008434|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.7||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|6.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||A negative difference favors the SP-624 treatment group, i.e., a greater reduction in MADRS score from baseline.|||6.3|-0.8|0.134
91062232|NCT04479852|182008435|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||A negative difference favors the SP-624 treatment group, i.e., a greater reduction in CGI-S score from baseline.|||0.6|-0.3|0.437
91062233|NCT03283566|182008444|EQUIVALENCE|Assuming a 20-30% difference in outcome (CP/G quotient) between study arms, which is equivalent to 0.08-0.12 CP/G difference and a 0.07 standard deviation, a sample size of 6 subjects (1:1 randomization) will detect a CP/G difference of at least 0.12, assuming 80% power, with a 0.05 significance level.||||||0.739|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.739
91062234|NCT01050530|182008478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.08|-0.93|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.93|-2.08|<0.0001
91062235|NCT01050530|182008479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-300.7||||0.0093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-526.2|-75.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-75.1|-526.2|0.0093
91062236|NCT00116779|182008494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|86.0||||||95.0|73.0|94.0|||||The 95% confidence interval was calculated by Clopper-Pearson method.|||94|73|
91062237|NCT00116779|182008494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|77.0||||||95.0|64.0|88.0|||||The 95% confidence interval was calculated by Clopper-Pearson method.|||88|64|
91062238|NCT00116779|182008495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|90.0||||||95.0|79.0|96.0|||||The 95% confidence interval was calculated by Clopper-Pearson method.|||96|79|
91062239|NCT00116779|182008495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|89.0||||||95.0|78.0|95.0|||||The 95% confidence interval was calculated by Clopper-Pearson method.|||95|78|
91062240|NCT00116779|182008495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8413||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.8413
91062241|NCT00116779|182008496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|93.0||||||95.0|82.0|99.0|||||The 95% confidence interval was calculated by Clopper-Pearson method.|||99|82|
91062242|NCT00116779|182008496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|98.0||||||95.0|87.0|100.0|||||The 95% confidence interval was calculated by Clopper-Pearson method.|||100|87|
91062243|NCT00116779|182008497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.904||95.0|||||Log Rank|||Time to 50% reduction||||.904
91062244|NCT00116779|182008497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.778||95.0|||||Log Rank|||Days to 90% reduction||||.778
90823278|NCT01371734|181523241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.489|1.511|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||1.511|0.489|0.599
90823279|NCT01371734|181523241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.713||||0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.402|1.265|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||1.265|0.402|0.248
90823280|NCT01371734|181523241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.564||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.995|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||0.995|0.320|0.048
90823281|NCT01371734|181523241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.708||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.412|1.216|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||1.216|0.412|0.210
91062245|NCT01690117|182008507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.83|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.82|11.12||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||11.12|3.82|<0.001
91062246|NCT01690117|182008508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.21|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|9.86||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||9.86|1.00|<0.05
91062247|NCT01690117|182008509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|4.97||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. For the secondary outcomes inference statistics were explorative. Therefore the p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||4.97|1.01|<0.01
91062248|NCT01690117|182008510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|3.45||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. For the secondary outcomes inference statistics were explorative. Therefore the p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||3.45|-0.05|0.06
91062249|NCT01690117|182008511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.22||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|2.07||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. For the secondary outcomes inference statistics were explorative. Therefore the p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||2.07|-0.65|0.30
91062250|NCT01690117|182008512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|2.59||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. For the secondary outcomes inference statistics were explorative. Therefore the p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||2.59|-0.66|0.24
91062251|NCT01690117|182008513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.62||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. For the secondary outcomes inference statistics were explorative. Therefore the p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||1.62|-2.50|<0.05
91062252|NCT01690117|182008514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.86||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.63|2.25||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. For the secondary outcomes inference statistics were explorative. Therefore the p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||2.25|-2.63|0.88
91062253|NCT01690117|182008515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-4.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.92|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.74|-1.11||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. For the secondary outcomes inference statistics were explorative. Therefore the p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||-1.11|-8.74|<0.05
91062254|NCT01690117|182008516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.41|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.31|-3.66||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. For the secondary outcomes inference statistics were explorative. Therefore the p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||-3.66|-13.31|<0.001
91062255|NCT01690117|182008517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.98||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.86|0.04||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. For the secondary outcomes inference statistics were explorative. Therefore the p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.04|-7.86|0.05
91062256|NCT01690117|182008518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.96|4.45||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. For the secondary outcomes inference statistics were explorative. Therefore the p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||4.45|-3.96|0.91
91062257|NCT01690117|182008519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.47||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|5.81||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. For the secondary outcomes inference statistics were explorative. Therefore the p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||5.81|-0.01|0.05
91062258|NCT01690117|182008520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|8.33||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. For the secondary outcomes inference statistics were explorative. Therefore the p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||8.33|0.68|<0.05
91062259|NCT01690117|182008521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.95|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|-0.65||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. For the secondary outcomes inference statistics were explorative. Therefore the p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.65|-8.40|<0.01
91062260|NCT01690117|182008522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.78|10.83||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. For the secondary outcomes inference statistics were explorative. Therefore the p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||10.83|4.78|<0.01
91062261|NCT02321111|182008532|OTHER|ANOVA||||||0.02|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.02
91062262|NCT01400477|182008537|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89||||||A priori vape was \<0.05|ANOVA|df 1, 37||||||0.89
91062263|NCT04583735|182008609|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.396||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28|-0.69||MMRM analysis with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix including change from Baseline value as dependent variable \& covariates: Baseline value, treatment group, visit, visit-by-treatment \& visit-by-Baseline value interactions.|MMRM|||||-0.69|-2.28|0.0004
91062264|NCT00708110|182008641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-1.07|||ANCOVA|||||-1.07|-2.00|<0.001
91062265|NCT00708110|182008641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|-1.55|||ANCOVA|||||-1.55|-2.52|<0.001
91062266|NCT00708110|182008641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.94|-2.02|||ANCOVA|||||-2.02|-2.94|<0.001
91062267|NCT01197911|182008721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least-Squares Mean Ratio|1.148|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9293|1.4182||||||This statistical analysis consisted of all evaluable hepatic impaired participants for whom at least one evaluable matching healthy participant was available.||1.4182|0.9293|
91062268|NCT01197911|182008721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least-Squares Mean Ratio|1.5518|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.2468|1.9314||||||This statistical analysis consisted of all evaluable hepatic impaired participants for whom at least one evaluable matching healthy participant was available. One Participant with moderate hepatic impairment was not included in the statistical analysis of the PK parameters as there was no appropriate participant with normal hepatic function match.||1.9314|1.2468|
90823282|NCT01371734|181523241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.964||||0.893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.564|1.646|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||1.646|0.564|0.893
90823283|NCT01371734|181523241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.714||||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.413|1.235|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||1.235|0.413|0.228
90823284|NCT01371734|181523241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.916||||0.751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.531|1.579|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||1.579|0.531|0.751
90823285|NCT01371734|181523241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.974||||0.925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.561|1.689|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||1.689|0.561|0.925
91062269|NCT01197911|182008723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least-Squares Mean Ratio|0.9477|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7908|1.1356||||||This statistical analysis consisted of all evaluable hepatic impaired participants for whom at least one evaluable matching healthy participant was available.||1.1356|0.7908|
91062270|NCT01197911|182008723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least-Squares Mean Ratio|1.0782|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8941|1.3002||||||This statistical analysis consisted of all evaluable hepatic impaired participants for whom at least one evaluable matching healthy participant was available. One Participant with moderate hepatic impairment was not included in the statistical analysis of the PK parameters as there was no appropriate participant with normal hepatic function match.||1.3002|0.8941|
91062271|NCT01197911|182008737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least-Squares Mean Ratio|1.2323|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9618|1.5789||||||This statistical analysis consisted of all evaluable hepatic impaired participants for whom at least one evaluable matching healthy participant was available.||1.5789|0.9618|
91062272|NCT01197911|182008737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least-Squares Mean Ratio|1.5587|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.2165|1.9971||||||This statistical analysis consisted of all evaluable hepatic impaired participants for whom at least one evaluable matching healthy participant was available. One participant with moderate hepatic impairment was not included in the statistical analysis of the PK parameters as there was no appropriate participant with normal hepatic function match.||1.9971|1.2165|
91062273|NCT01197911|182008738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least-Squares Mean Ratio|1.0027|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8049|1.2492||||||This statistical analysis consisted of all evaluable hepatic impaired participants for whom at least one evaluable matching healthy participant was available.||1.2492|0.8049|
91062274|NCT01197911|182008738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GeometricLeast-Squares Mean Ratio|1.2254|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9836|1.5266||||||This statistical analysis consisted of all evaluable hepatic impaired participants for whom at least one evaluable matching healthy participant was available. One participant with moderate hepatic impairment was not included in the statistical analysis of the PK parameters as there was no appropriate participant with normal hepatic function match.||1.5266|0.9836|
91062275|NCT03737357|182008749|NON_INFERIORITY|The tolerance range or non-inferiority margin characterizes the largest absolute difference which is considered to be dismissible. A MBL of less than 0.5mm within the first year after implant loading constitutes an acceptable clinical standard(10, 18, 19). In this clinical trial, a non-inferiority margin of 20% of the acceptable clinical standard was chosen, which amounts to 0.1mm.|paired difference|0.01||||0.074|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|Non-inferiority one-sided paired t-tests using a non-inferiority margin of -0.10mm.|The paired difference is (SLActive® bone level change from baseline (CFB) - SLA® CFB (i.e. resorption))||In the PP population, the paired difference between SLActive® and SLA® bone level change from baseline (CFB) was estimated at 0.01 mm with a standard deviation of 0.444 mm (95% CI: -Inf, 0.11; p = 0.074), based on a one-sided paired t-test with a non-inferiority margin of 0.10 mm.|||0.074
91062276|NCT01526057|182008754|EQUIVALENCE|PK similarity for a given test-to-reference comparison would be demonstrated if the 90% CI for the test-to-reference ratios in Cmax and area under the serum concentration-time curve (AUC) from time 0 extrapolated to infinite time (AUC 0-inf) are within the 80.00% to 125.00% range.|Test-to-reference ratio: adjusted means|105.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.91|115.21|||||Rituximab-Pfizer is the numerator.|A 90% CI on the estimated difference between 2 treatment groups was constructed using a 1-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) model based on natural log-transformed data. The estimated differences for the log-transformed PK parameters were then transformed to relative ratios of PK parameters by exponentiation.||115.21|96.91|
91062277|NCT01526057|182008754|EQUIVALENCE|PK similarity for a given test-to-reference comparison would be demonstrated if the 90% CI for the test-to-reference ratios in Cmax and AUC 0-inf are within the 80.00% to 125.00% range.|Test-to-reference ratio: adjusted means|106.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.65|116.41|||||Rituximab-Pfizer is the numerator.|A 90% CI on the estimated difference between 2 treatment groups was constructed using a 1-way ANOVA model based on natural log-transformed data. The estimated differences for the log-transformed PK parameters were then transformed to relative ratios of PK parameters by exponentiation.||116.41|97.65|
91062278|NCT01526057|182008754|EQUIVALENCE|PK similarity for a given test-to-reference comparison would be demonstrated if the 90% CI for the test-to-reference ratios in Cmax and AUC 0-inf are within the 80.00% to 125.00% range.|Test-to-reference ratio: adjusted means|100.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.38|110.2|||||Rituximab-EU is the numerator.|A 90% CI on the estimated difference between 2 treatment groups was constructed using a 1-way ANOVA model based on natural log-transformed data. The estimated differences for the log-transformed PK parameters were then transformed to relative ratios of PK parameters by exponentiation.||110.20|92.38|
91062279|NCT01526057|182008755|EQUIVALENCE|PK similarity for a given test-to-reference comparison would be demonstrated if the 90% CI for the test-to-reference ratios in Cmax and AUC0-inf are within the 80.00% to 125.00% range.|Test-to-reference ratio: adjusted means|104.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.75|117.06||||||A 90% CI on the estimated difference between 2 treatment groups was constructed using a 1-way ANOVA model based on natural log-transformed data. The estimated differences for the log-transformed PK parameters were then transformed to relative ratios of PK parameters by exponentiation.||117.06|92.75|
91062280|NCT01526057|182008755|EQUIVALENCE|PK similarity for a given test-to-reference comparison would be demonstrated if the 90% CI for the test-to-reference ratios in Cmax and AUC0-inf are within the 80.00% to 125.00% range.|Test-to-reference ratio: adjusted means|100.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.2|113.11||||||A 90% CI on the estimated difference between 2 treatment groups was constructed using a 1-way ANOVA model based on natural log-transformed data. The estimated differences for the log-transformed PK parameters were then transformed to relative ratios of PK parameters by exponentiation.||113.11|89.20|
91062281|NCT01526057|182008755|EQUIVALENCE|PK similarity for a given test-to-reference comparison would be demonstrated if the 90% CI for the test-to-reference ratios in Cmax and AUC0-inf are within the 80.00% to 125.00% range.|Test-to-reference ratio: adjusted means|96.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.57|108.6||||||A 90% CI on the estimated difference between 2 treatment groups was constructed using a 1-way ANOVA model based on natural log-transformed data. The estimated differences for the log-transformed PK parameters were then transformed to relative ratios of PK parameters by exponentiation.||108.60|85.57|
91062282|NCT01526057|182008756|SUPERIORITY||Test-to-reference ratio: adjusted means|103.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.1|113.12|||||Rituximab-Pfizer is the numerator.|A 90% CI on the estimated difference between 2 treatment groups was constructed using a 1-way ANOVA model based on natural log-transformed data. The estimated differences for the log-transformed PK parameters were then transformed to relative ratios of PK parameters by exponentiation.||113.12|95.10|
91062283|NCT01526057|182008756|SUPERIORITY||Test-to-reference ratio: adjusted means|105.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.64|115.3|||||Rituximab-Pfizer is the numerator.|A 90% CI on the estimated difference between 2 treatment groups was constructed using a 1-way ANOVA model based on natural log-transformed data. The estimated differences for the log-transformed PK parameters were then transformed to relative ratios of PK parameters by exponentiation.||115.30|96.64|
91062284|NCT01526057|182008756|SUPERIORITY||Test-to-reference ratio: adjusted means|101.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.13|111.18|||||Rituximab-EU is the numerator.|A 90% CI on the estimated difference between 2 treatment groups was constructed using a 1-way ANOVA model based on natural log-transformed data.||111.18|93.13|
91062285|NCT01526057|182008757|SUPERIORITY||Test-to-reference ratio: adjusted means|103.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.81|115.12||||||A 90% CI on the estimated difference between 2 treatment groups was constructed using a 1-way ANOVA model based on natural log-transformed data. The estimated differences for the log-transformed PK parameters were then transformed to relative ratios of PK parameters by exponentiation.||115.12|92.81|
90823286|NCT01371734|181523241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.764||||0.342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.438|1.331|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||1.331|0.438|0.342
90823287|NCT00766051|181523251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.76|<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|11.0||The P value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons or for statistical significance|t-test, 2 sided|||The expected outcome was that infants in the intervention group would exhibit significantly less number of days to attain oral feeding.||11|5|<0.005
90823288|NCT00766051|181523252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.275|||<|0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|This correlation is between the intervention groups' initial level of relaxation and final level of relaxation during the oral feeding period.||Pearson Correlation, 2-tailed||||< 0.01
90823289|NCT00766051|181523253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.2|<|0.02|ONE_SIDED|95.0||6.7|||t-test, 1 sided||An increase in this test scale score means more parent confidence.|"Parent pre-post one sided t test of parents' global confidence, measured parental confidence in feeding, handling, and interacting with their infant."||6.7||< .02
90823290|NCT00766051|181523254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.3|<|0.03|ONE_SIDED|95.0||4.54|||t-test, 1 sided||An increase in this test scale score means an increase in the parents' perception of their infants' easiness during caregiving.|Parent pre-post one sided t test on the Easiness Scale of the Mother and Baby Scales in how parents percieve their interactions (alert-responsiveness, mood) with their infant and infant sleep patterns .||4.54||< .03
91062286|NCT01526057|182008757|SUPERIORITY||Test-to-reference ratio: adjusted means|101.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.82|113.04||||||A 90% CI on the estimated difference between 2 treatment groups was constructed using a 1-way ANOVA model based on natural log-transformed data. The estimated differences for the log-transformed PK parameters were then transformed to relative ratios of PK parameters by exponentiation.||113.04|90.82|
90823291|NCT02669121|181523255|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|99.99|-13.181|0.997|||||||The vaccine efficacy was met if lower bound of confidence interval (CI) for vaccine efficacy was above 0. Vaccine efficacy (VE) was defined as 1-(hazard rate for NoV vaccine arm / hazard rate for placebo arm), where the hazard ratio is from the Cox proportional hazard (PH) model. The 99.99% CI for the VE was obtained by taking 1 minus the 99.99% CI of the hazard ratio from the PH model.|0.997|-13.181|
90823292|NCT02669121|181523256|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.618|||||TWO_SIDED|95.01|0.208|0.816|||||||The vaccine efficacy was met if lower bound of CI for vaccine efficacy was above 0. Vaccine efficacy (VE) was defined as 1-(hazard rate for NoV vaccine arm / hazard rate for placebo arm), where the hazard ratio is from the PH model. The 95.01% CI for the VE was obtained by taking 1 minus the 95.01% CI of the hazard ratio from the PH model.|0.816|0.208|
90823293|NCT02669121|181523257|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.618|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.208|0.816|||||||The vaccine efficacy was met if lower bound of CI for vaccine efficacy was above 0. Vaccine efficacy (VE) was defined as 1-(hazard rate for NoV vaccine arm / hazard rate for placebo arm), where the hazard ratio is from the PH model. The 95% CI for the VE was obtained by taking 1 minus the 95% CI of the hazard ratio from the PH model.|0.816|0.208|
90823294|NCT02669121|181523258|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.711|0.977|||||||The vaccine efficacy was met if lower bound of CI for vaccine efficacy was above 0. Vaccine efficacy (VE) was defined as 1-(hazard rate for NoV vaccine arm / hazard rate for placebo arm), where the hazard ratio is from the PH model. The 95% CI for the VE was obtained by taking 1 minus the 95% CI of the hazard ratio from the PH model.|0.977|-0.711|
90823295|NCT02708355|181523260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.028||||0.0442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.001|1.055|||Regression, Logistic|||Association between percentage of time with intragastric pH\>4 and relief of 24 -hour heartburn was assessed using logistic regression model with relief of 24- hour heartburn at Day 14 as dependent variable and change in percentage of time with intragastric pH\>4 as the independent variable, controlling for age, sex, and body mass index (BMI).||1.055|1.001|0.0442
90823296|NCT03216746|181523264|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.001
91062287|NCT01526057|182008757|SUPERIORITY||Test-to-reference ratio: adjusted means|98.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.83|109.4||||||A 90% CI on the estimated difference between 2 treatment groups was constructed using a 1-way ANOVA model based on natural log-transformed data. The estimated differences for the log-transformed PK parameters were then transformed to relative ratios of PK parameters by exponentiation.||109.40|87.83|
91062288|NCT01526057|182008776|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.78|||||Rituximab-EU is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-EU versus rituximab-Pfizer at Week 3.||1.78|0.31|
91062289|NCT01526057|182008776|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.88|||||Rituximab-EU is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-EU versus rituximab-Pfizer at Week 5.||1.88|0.60|
90823297|NCT01320202|181523265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means between SFP & PBO|3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.011|TWO_SIDED|||||LS Mean (SE) and p-value are from ANCOVA model with baseline Hgb as covariate. Model also includes indicator variable for baseline ESA dose stratum.|ANCOVA|||||||0.011
90823298|NCT00635882|181523280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||"Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment and baseline eNO as a covariate was used.~Standard deviation is a Pooled Standard deviation from ANCOVA Model with treatment effect and baseline eNO as a covariate."||||<0.001
90823299|NCT00635882|181523280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.003|||||||ANCOVA|||"ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline eNO as a covariate was used.~Standard deviation is a Pooled Standard deviation from ANCOVA Model with treatment effect and baseline eNO as a covariate."||||0.003
90823300|NCT00635882|181523280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.018|||||||ANCOVA|||"ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline eNO as a covariate was used.~Standard deviation is a Pooled Standard deviation from ANCOVA Model with treatment effect and baseline eNO as a covariate."||||0.018
90823301|NCT00635882|181523281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||"ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline eNO as a covariate was used.~Standard deviation is a Pooled Standard deviation from ANCOVA Model with treatment effect and baseline eNO as a covariate."||||<0.001
90823302|NCT00635882|181523281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|||||||ANCOVA|||"ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline eNO as a covariate was used.~Standard deviation is a Pooled Standard deviation from ANCOVA Model with treatment effect and baseline eNO as a covariate."||||0.002
90823303|NCT00635882|181523281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|||||||ANCOVA|||"ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline eNO as a covariate was used.~Standard deviation is a Pooled Standard deviation from ANCOVA Model with treatment effect and baseline eNO as a covariate."||||0.002
90823304|NCT00635882|181523282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.024|||||||ANCOVA|||"ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline eosinophils as a covariate was used.~Standard deviation is a Pooled Standard deviation from ANCOVA Model with treatment effect and baseline EOS as a covariate."||||0.024
90823305|NCT00635882|181523282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.051|||||||ANCOVA|||"ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline eosinophils as a covariate was used.~Standard deviation is a Pooled Standard deviation from ANCOVA Model with treatment effect and baseline EOS as a covariate."||||0.051
90823306|NCT00635882|181523282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.336|||||||ANCOVA|||"ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline eosinophils as a covariate was used.~Standard deviation is a Pooled Standard deviation from ANCOVA Model with treatment effect and baseline EOS as a covariate."||||0.336
90823307|NCT00635882|181523283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.12|||||||ANCOVA|Analysis applies to Mean Change from Baseline to Day 15.||"ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline PD15 as a covariate was used.~Standard deviation is a Pooled Standard deviation from ANCOVA Model with treatment effect and baseline PD15 as a covariate."||||0.120
91062290|NCT01526057|182008776|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.73|||||Rituximab-EU is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-EU versus rituximab-Pfizer at Week 9.||1.73|0.66|
91062291|NCT01526057|182008776|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.56|||||Rituximab-EU is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-EU versus rituximab-Pfizer at Week 13.||1.56|0.73|
91062292|NCT01526057|182008776|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.62|||||Rituximab-EU is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-EU versus rituximab-Pfizer at Week 17.||1.62|0.68|
91062293|NCT01526057|182008776|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.69|||||Rituximab-EU is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-EU versus rituximab-Pfizer at Week 21.||1.69|0.66|
90823308|NCT00635882|181523283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.103|||||||ANCOVA|Analysis applies to Mean Change from Baseline to Day 15.||"ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline PD15 as a covariate was used.~Standard deviation is a Pooled Standard deviation from ANCOVA Model with treatment effect and baseline PD15 as a covariate."||||0.103
90823309|NCT00635882|181523283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.048|||||||ANCOVA|Analysis applies to Mean Change from Baseline to Day 15.||"ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline PD15 as a covariate was used.~Standard deviation is a Pooled Standard deviation from ANCOVA Model with treatment effect and baseline PD15 as a covariate."||||0.048
90823310|NCT00635882|181523284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.018|||||||ANOVA|Analysis applies to Mean Change from Baseline to Days 2-15.||"One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with treatment effect was used.~Standard deviation is a Pooled Standard deviation from the one-way ANOVA model with treatment effect."||||0.018
90823311|NCT00635882|181523284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.261|||||||ANOVA|Analysis applies to Mean Change from Baseline to Days 2-15.||"One-way ANOVA model with treatment effect was used.~Standard deviation is a Pooled Standard deviation from the one-way ANOVA model with treatment effect."||||0.261
90823312|NCT00635882|181523284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.334|||||||ANOVA|Analysis applies to Mean Change from Baseline to Days 2-15.||"One-way ANOVA model with treatment effect was used.~Standard deviation is a Pooled Standard deviation from the one-way ANOVA model with treatment effect."||||0.334
90823313|NCT00635882|181523285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.037|||||||ANOVA|Analysis applies to Mean Change from Baseline to Days 1-15.||"One-way ANOVA model with treatment effect was used.~Standard deviation is a Pooled Standard deviation from the one-way ANOVA model with treatment effect."||||0.037
91062294|NCT01526057|182008776|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.0|||||Rituximab-EU is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-EU versus rituximab-Pfizer at Week 25 (EOT).||2.00|0.70|
91062295|NCT01526057|182008776|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.73|||||Rituximab-US is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-US versus rituximab-Pfizer at Week 3.||1.73|0.28|
91062296|NCT01526057|182008776|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.54|||||Rituximab-US is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-US versus rituximab-Pfizer at Week 5.||1.54|0.43|
90823314|NCT00635882|181523285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.643|||||||ANOVA|Analysis applies to Mean Change from Baseline to Days 1-15.||"One-way ANOVA model with treatment effect was used.~Standard deviation is a Pooled Standard deviation from the one-way ANOVA model with treatment effect."||||0.643
90823315|NCT00635882|181523285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.963|||||||ANOVA|Analysis applies to Mean Change from Baseline to Days 1-15.||"One-way ANOVA model with treatment effect was used.~Standard deviation is a Pooled Standard deviation from the one-way ANOVA model with treatment effect."||||0.963
90823316|NCT00635882|181523286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|Analysis applies to Mean Change from Baseline to Days 2-15.||"One-way ANOVA model with treatment effect was used.~Standard deviation is a Pooled Standard deviation from the one-way ANOVA model with treatment effect."||||<0.001
90823317|NCT00635882|181523286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|||||||ANOVA|Analysis applies to Mean Change from Baseline to Days 2-15.||"One-way ANOVA model with treatment effect was used.~Standard deviation is a Pooled Standard deviation from the one-way ANOVA model with treatment effect."||||0.002
90823318|NCT00635882|181523286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|Analysis applies to Mean Change from Baseline to Days 2-15.||"One-way ANOVA model with treatment effect was used.~Standard deviation is a Pooled Standard deviation from the one-way ANOVA model with treatment effect."||||<0.001
90823319|NCT00635882|181523287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|Analysis applies to Mean Change from Baseline to Days 1-15.||"One-way ANOVA model with treatment effect was used.~Standard deviation is a Pooled Standard deviation from the one-way ANOVA model with treatment effect."||||<0.001
90823320|NCT00635882|181523287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.057|||||||ANOVA|Analysis applies to Mean Change from Baseline to Days 1-15.||"One-way ANOVA model with treatment effect was used.~Standard deviation is a Pooled Standard deviation from the one-way ANOVA model with treatment effect."||||0.057
90823321|NCT00635882|181523287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.005|||||||ANOVA|Analysis applies to Mean Change from Baseline to Days 1-15.||"One-way ANOVA model with treatment effect was used.~Standard deviation is a Pooled Standard deviation from the one-way ANOVA model with treatment effect."||||0.005
90823322|NCT06037408|181523303|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-57.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.759||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.99|-50.27||Sidak's test was used to adjust for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|Degrees of freedom, 42.19||||-50.27|-63.99|0.0001
90823323|NCT06037408|181523304|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.459|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.26|36.99|||ANOVA|Degrees of freedom, 28.16.||||36.99|13.26|<0.0001
90823324|NCT03637517|181523306|EQUIVALENCE|2 comparisons performed: Reg. B vs. Reg. A, \& Reg.C vs. Reg. B. Bioavailability of each test reg. relative to that of each reference reg. assessed via 90% CI. CI obtained by taking the antilog of the upper and lower limits of CI for the difference of the least squares means on the log scale within the ANOVA framework model. Bioequivalence between a test reg. and the reference reg. is concluded if the 90% CI from the analyses of the natural log of Cmax and AUC are within 0.80 to 1.25 range.|Least Squares Means Log scale|0.926||||0.4847|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.771|1.113|||ANOVA|||||1.113|0.771|0.4847
91062297|NCT01526057|182008776|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.42|||||Rituximab-US is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-US versus rituximab-Pfizer at Week 9.||1.42|0.49|
91062298|NCT01526057|182008776|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.22|||||Rituximab-US is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-US versus rituximab-Pfizer at Week 13.||1.22|0.50|
91062299|NCT01526057|182008776|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.44|||||Rituximab-US is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-US versus rituximab-Pfizer at Week 17.||1.44|0.57|
91062300|NCT01526057|182008776|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.1|||||Rituximab-US is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-US versus rituximab-Pfizer at Week 21.||2.10|0.88|
91062301|NCT01526057|182008776|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.18|||||Rituximab-US is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-US versus rituximab-Pfizer at Week 25 (EOT).||2.18|0.78|
91062302|NCT01526057|182008776|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|2.45|||||Rituximab-US is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-US versus rituximab-EU at Week 3.||2.45|0.36|
90823325|NCT03637517|181523306|EQUIVALENCE|2 comparisons performed: Reg. B vs. Reg. A, \& Reg.C vs. Reg. B. Bioavailability of each test reg. relative to that of each reference reg. assessed via 90% CI. CI obtained by taking the antilog of the upper and lower limits of CI for the difference of the least squares means on the log scale within the ANOVA framework model. Bioequivalence between a test reg. and the reference reg. is concluded if the 90% CI from the analyses of the natural log of Cmax and AUC are within 0.80 to 1.25 range.|Least Squares Means Log scale|0.79||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.658|0.95|||ANOVA|||||0.950|0.658|0.0370
90823326|NCT03637517|181523307|EQUIVALENCE|Bioavailability of each test reg. relative to each reference reg will be assessed via 90% CI obtained from the analyses of the natural logs of Cmax and AUC. These CI are obtained by taking the antilog of the upper \& lower CI for the difference of the least squares means on the log scale within the ANOVA model. Bioequivalence between a test reg and the respective reference reg will be concluded if the 90% CI from the analyses of the natural log of Cmax and AUC are within the 0.80 to 1.25 range.|Sum of squares|0.899||||0.1135|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.805|1.004|||ANOVA|||||1.004|0.805|0.1135
90823327|NCT03637517|181523307|EQUIVALENCE|Bioavailability of each test reg. relative to each reference reg will be assessed via 90% CI obtained from the analyses of the natural logs of Cmax and AUC. These CI are obtained by taking the antilog of the upper \& lower CI for the difference of the least squares means on the log scale within the ANOVA model. Bioequivalence between a test reg and the respective reference reg will be concluded if the 90% CI from the analyses of the natural log of Cmax and AUC are within the 0.80 to 1.25 range.|Sum of squares|1.175||||0.0192|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.051|1.312|||ANOVA|||||1.312|1.051|0.0192
90823328|NCT03637517|181523308|EQUIVALENCE|Bioavailability of each test reg. relative to each reference reg will be assessed via 90% CI obtained from the analyses of the natural logs of Cmax and AUC. These CI are obtained by taking the antilog of the upper \& lower CI for the difference of the least squares means on the log scale within the ANOVA model. Bioequivalence between a test reg and the respective reference reg will be concluded if the 90% CI from the analyses of the natural log of Cmax and AUC are within the 0.80 to 1.25 range.|Sum of squares|0.898||||0.1759|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.787|1.024|||ANOVA||Regimen B to A|||1.024|0.787|0.1759
90823329|NCT03637517|181523308|EQUIVALENCE|Bioavailability of each test reg. relative to each reference reg will be assessed via 90% CI obtained from the analyses of the natural logs of Cmax and AUC. These CI are obtained by taking the antilog of the upper \& lower CI for the difference of the least squares means on the log scale within the ANOVA model. Bioequivalence between a test reg and the respective reference reg will be concluded if the 90% CI from the analyses of the natural log of Cmax and AUC are within the 0.80 to 1.25 range.|Sum of squares|1.172||||0.0496|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.027|1.338|||ANOVA||Regimen C to B|||1.338|1.027|0.0496
90823330|NCT03637517|181523309|EQUIVALENCE|Bioavailability of each test reg. relative to each reference reg will be assessed via 90% CI obtained from the analyses of the natural logs of Cmax and AUC. These CI are obtained by taking the antilog of the upper \& lower CI for the difference of the least squares means on the log scale within the ANOVA model. Bioequivalence between a test reg and the respective reference reg will be concluded if the 90% CI from the analyses of the natural log of Cmax and AUC are within the 0.80 to 1.25 range.|Least Squares Means|-0.2857|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.866979|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.4313|2.8599||||||||2.8599|-3.4313|
90823331|NCT03637517|181523309|EQUIVALENCE|Bioavailability of each test reg. relative to each reference reg will be assessed via 90% CI obtained from the analyses of the natural logs of Cmax and AUC. These CI are obtained by taking the antilog of the upper \& lower CI for the difference of the least squares means on the log scale within the ANOVA model. Bioequivalence between a test reg and the respective reference reg will be concluded if the 90% CI from the analyses of the natural log of Cmax and AUC are within the 0.80 to 1.25 range.|Least Squares Means|9.3571|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.866979|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.2115|12.5028|||||Regimen C to B|||12.5028|6.2115|
91062303|NCT01526057|182008776|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.44|||||Rituximab-US is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-US versus rituximab-EU at Week 5.||1.44|0.41|
91062304|NCT01526057|182008776|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.31|||||Rituximab-US is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-US versus rituximab-EU at Week 9.||1.31|0.47|
90823332|NCT03637517|181523311|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence between a test regimen and the respective reference regimen will be concluded if the 90% confidence intervals from the analyses of the natural logarithms of Cmax and AUC are within the 0.80 to 1.25 range.|Sum of squares|0.866||||0.1745|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.727|1.032|||ANOVA|||(ANOVA) will be performed for Tmax, the terminal phase elimination rate constant β, and the natural logarithms of Cmax, AUCt, AUC168, AUCinf, and C168. The model will include the effects for regimen. For the tests on regimen effects, the denominator sum of squares will be the residual sum of squares for error. Within the ANOVA modeling framework, the test regimen will be compared to the respective reference regimen by a test with a significance level of 0.05.||1.032|0.727|0.1745
90823333|NCT03637517|181523311|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence between a test regimen and the respective reference regimen will be concluded if the 90% confidence intervals from the analyses of the natural logarithms of Cmax and AUC are within the 0.80 to 1.25 range.|Sum of squares|1.185||||0.1105|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.995|1.411||For tests on regimen effects, the denominator sum of squares is the residual sum of squares for error. Within the ANOVA modeling framework, the test regimen is compared to the respective reference regimen by a test with a significance level of 0.05.|ANOVA|||||1.411|0.995|0.1105
90823334|NCT03637517|181523312|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence between a test regimen and the respective reference regimen will be concluded if the 90% confidence intervals from the analyses of the natural logarithms of Cmax and AUC are within the 0.80 to 1.25 range.|LEAST SQUARES MEANS FOR LOGARITHMS.|0.901||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.759|1.069|||ANOVA|||||1.069|0.759|0.3100
91062305|NCT01526057|182008776|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.13|||||Rituximab-US is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-US versus rituximab-EU at Week 13.||1.13|0.48|
91062306|NCT01526057|182008776|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.36|||||Rituximab-US is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-US versus rituximab-EU at Week 17.||1.36|0.55|
91062307|NCT01526057|182008776|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.95|||||Rituximab-US is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-US versus rituximab-EU at Week 21.||1.95|0.85|
91062308|NCT01526057|182008776|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.73|||||Rituximab-US is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-US versus rituximab-EU at Week 25 (EOT).||1.73|0.70|
90823335|NCT03637517|181523312|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence between a test regimen and the respective reference regimen will be concluded if the 90% confidence intervals from the analyses of the natural logarithms of Cmax and AUC are within the 0.80 to 1.25 range.|LEAST SQUARES MEANS FOR LOGARITHMS.|1.156||||0.1619|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.974|1.371|||ANOVA|||||1.371|0.974|0.1619
90823336|NCT02697435|181523315|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||P-value is calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
90823337|NCT04230213|181523367|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was to be determined if the 90% confidence interval of the geometric mean ratio falls within the 80% to 125% range.|Geometric mean ratio (percentage)|102.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.78|117.17|||||Analysis was performed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) model.|||117.17|89.78|
90823338|NCT04230213|181523368|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was to be determined if the 90% confidence interval of the geometric mean ratio falls within the 80% to 125% range.|Geometric mean ratio (Percentage)|105.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.16|124.39|||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA model.|||124.39|89.16|
90823339|NCT00524472|181523398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.62||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.97||"P-values for combined sites: significant if P \< 0.0085 for efficacy. Adjusted for interim analysis.~Confidence intervals adjusted for interim analysis."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Hyperinsulinemic-normoglycemic clamp|||0.97|0.39|0.0043
90823340|NCT00524472|181523399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.92||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.13|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||HN vs. standard|||1.13|0.75|0.29
90823341|NCT00524472|181523400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.21|||Regression, Cox|||||1.21|0.91|0.99
90823342|NCT00524472|181523401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.13||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.31|||Regression, Cox||HN vs. Standard|||1.31|0.98|0.025
90823343|NCT00524472|181523402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.52||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|3.11|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||HN vs. standard|||3.11|0.74|0.12
90823344|NCT00524472|181523403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.88||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.07|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||HN vs. Standard|||1.07|0.72|0.085
90823345|NCT00928694|181523414|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence bounds = (0.80, 1.25) Study Primary Hypothesis: Single 160 mg doses of the U.S. and UK formulations of fenofibrate following consumption of a standard breakfast are bioequivalent (the true geometric mean ratios (GMRs) \[U.S./UK\] for the AUC(0 to infinity) and maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) of fenofibric acid after administration of the U.S. and UK formulations of fenofibrate with food are contained in the interval \[0.80, 1.25\]).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.96||||||90.0|0.9|1.02||||||||1.02|0.90|
90823346|NCT00928694|181523415|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence bounds = (0.80, 1.25) Study Primary Hypothesis: Single 160 mg doses of the U.S. and UK formulations of fenofibrate following consumption of a standard breakfast are bioequivalent (the true GMRs \[U.S./UK\] for the AUC(0 to infinity) and Cmax of fenofibric acid after administration of the U.S. and UK formulations of fenofibrate with food are contained in the interval \[0.80, 1.25\]).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.98||||||90.0|0.9|1.06||||||||1.06|0.90|
91062309|NCT01526057|182008777|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|1.79|||||Rituximab-EU is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-EU versus rituximab-Pfizer at Week 3.||1.79|0.12|
90823347|NCT00118430|181523424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||This reported p-value was calculated (and does not merely represent the threshold for significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
90823348|NCT00118430|181523425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||This reported p-value was calculated (and does not merely represent the threshold for significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.001
90823349|NCT00118430|181523426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
90823350|NCT00118430|181523427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Poisson|||||||<0.001
90823351|NCT04412707|181523492|EQUIVALENCE|The condition for similarity was if the 90% CI for the GMR was within the bioequivalence limits of 0.8 and 1.25.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.946|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.849|1.053|||||CVC vs. PVC, where CVC is numerator and PVC is denominator. Linear Mixed Effect Model included terms for period, sequence and administration route (PVC or CVC) as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|Based on a geometric mean ratio (GMR) peripheral vs. central of 0.95, a 90% confidence interval (CI) for the ratio of geometric means within bioequivalence limits of 0.8 and 1.25, and 80% power, a sample size of 20 patients (10 per sequence) was required assuming a within-patient variability for period differences (in log scale) of 0.29. Approximately 25 patients were to be enrolled to achieve 20 PK- and local tolerance-evaluable patients.||1.053|0.849|
90823352|NCT04412707|181523493|EQUIVALENCE|The condition for similarity was if the 90% CI for the GMR was within the bioequivalence limits of 0.8 and 1.25.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.952|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.861|1.053|||||CVC vs. PVC, where CVC is numerator and PVC is denominator. Linear Mixed Effect Model included terms for period, sequence and administration route (PVC or CVC) as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|Based on a geometric mean ratio (GMR) peripheral vs. central of 0.95, a 90% confidence interval (CI) for the ratio of geometric means within bioequivalence limits of 0.8 and 1.25, and 80% power, a sample size of 20 patients (10 per sequence) was required assuming a within-patient variability for period differences (in log scale) of 0.29. Approximately 25 patients were to be enrolled to achieve 20 PK- and local tolerance-evaluable patients.||1.053|0.861|
90823353|NCT04412707|181523494|EQUIVALENCE|The condition for similarity was if the 90% CI for the GMR was within the bioequivalence limits of 0.8 and 1.25.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.955|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.863|1.058|||||CVC vs. PVC, where CVC is numerator and PVC is denominator. Linear Mixed Effect Model included terms for period, sequence and administration route (PVC or CVC) as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|Based on a geometric mean ratio (GMR) peripheral vs. central of 0.95, a 90% confidence interval (CI) for the ratio of geometric means within bioequivalence limits of 0.8 and 1.25, and 80% power, a sample size of 20 patients (10 per sequence) was required assuming a within-patient variability for period differences (in log scale) of 0.29. Approximately 25 patients were to be enrolled to achieve 20 PK- and local tolerance-evaluable patients.||1.058|0.863|
91062310|NCT01526057|182008777|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.26|||||Rituximab-EU is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-EU versus rituximab-Pfizer at Week 5.||1.26|0.20|
91062311|NCT01526057|182008777|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.41|||||Rituximab-EU is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-EU versus rituximab-Pfizer at Week 9.||1.41|0.43|
91062312|NCT01526057|182008777|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.74|||||Rituximab-EU is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-EU versus rituximab-Pfizer at Week 13.||1.74|0.61|
91062313|NCT01526057|182008777|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.74|||||Rituximab-EU is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-EU versus rituximab-Pfizer at Week 17.||1.74|0.56|
91062314|NCT01526057|182008777|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.36|||||Rituximab-EU is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-EU versus rituximab-Pfizer at Week 21.||1.36|0.34|
91062315|NCT01526057|182008777|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.63|||||Rituximab-EU is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-EU versus rituximab-Pfizer at Week 25 (EOT).||1.63|0.46|
91062316|NCT01526057|182008777|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|2.6|||||Rituximab-US is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-US versus rituximab-Pfizer at Week 3.||2.60|0.27|
91062317|NCT01526057|182008777|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.62|||||Rituximab-US is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-US versus rituximab-Pfizer at Week 5.||1.62|0.31|
91062318|NCT01526057|182008777|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.4|||||Rituximab-US is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-US versus rituximab-Pfizer at Week 9.||1.40|0.41|
91062319|NCT01526057|182008777|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.57|||||Rituximab-US is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-US versus rituximab-Pfizer at Week 13.||1.57|0.51|
91062320|NCT01526057|182008777|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.68|||||Rituximab-US is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-US versus rituximab-Pfizer at Week 17.||1.68|0.51|
91062321|NCT01526057|182008777|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|2.19|||||Rituximab-US is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-US versus rituximab-Pfizer at Week 21.||2.19|0.68|
91062322|NCT01526057|182008777|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.62|||||Rituximab-US is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-US versus rituximab-Pfizer at Week 25 (EOT).||1.62|0.44|
90823354|NCT04412707|181523496|EQUIVALENCE|The condition for similarity was if the 90% CI for the GMR was within the bioequivalence limits of 0.8 and 1.25.|adjusted geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.948|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.736|1.222|||||CVC vs PVC CVC is numerator and PVC is denominator. Linear Mixed Effect Model included terms for period, sequence and administration route (PVC or CVC) as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|For melflufen: Based on a geometric mean ratio (GMR) peripheral vs central of 0.95, a 90% confidence interval (CI) for the ratio of geometric means within bioequivalence limits of 0.8 and 1.25, and 80% power, a sample size of 20 patients (10 per sequence) was required assuming a within-patient variability for period differences (in log scale) of 0.29. Approximately 25 patients were to be enrolled to achieve 20 PK- and local tolerance-evaluable patients.||1.222|0.736|
91062323|NCT01526057|182008777|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|7.2|||||Rituximab-US is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-US versus rituximab-EU at Week 3.||7.20|0.44|
91062324|NCT01526057|182008777|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|3.86|||||Rituximab-US is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-US versus rituximab-EU at Week 5.||3.86|0.52|
91062325|NCT01526057|182008777|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.87|||||Rituximab-US is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-US versus rituximab-EU at Week 9.||1.87|0.51|
91062326|NCT01526057|182008777|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.5|||||Rituximab-US is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-US versus rituximab-EU at Week 13.||1.50|0.50|
91062327|NCT01526057|182008777|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.69|||||Rituximab-US is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-US versus rituximab-EU at Week 17.||1.69|0.52|
91062328|NCT01526057|182008777|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|3.5|||||Rituximab-US is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-US versus rituximab-EU at Week 21.||3.50|0.93|
91062329|NCT01526057|182008777|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.89|||||Rituximab-US is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-US versus rituximab-EU at Week 25 (EOT).||1.89|0.51|
91062330|NCT01184079|182008835|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Sample size: (1 + 1/u)(Zα + Zβ)2 σ2 /\[log (RGMT) -δ0\] u= ratio of the size of the Standard schedule to Alternate schedule groups (u =1, for equal size groups); one-sided alpha (0.025)/4 for multiplicity of serotypes. Average log-transformed and geometric mean titers (GMTs) with a two-sided 95% confidence interval of the ratio of the GMTs were used.~Non-inferiority is determined if upper bound GMT ratio of standard group to alternate group \< 1.5."|largest upper bound GMT ratio|0.82|||||||||||||Non-inferiority is determined if upper bound GMT ratio of standard 6 month group to alternate 12 month group \< 1.5.|The primary endpoint would demonstrate noninferiority if the upper bound of the 95% two-sided confidence interval (CI) of the ratio of GMT for Standard schedule group divided by that of Alternate schedule group is \<1.5.||||
91062331|NCT01184079|182008837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||null hypothsesis: no difference in proportion of side effects reported between groups||||0.26
91062332|NCT03172494|182008838|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of insulin degludec/liraglutide versus insulin degludec was considered as confirmed if the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the mean treatment difference lied entirely below 0.4%. Non-inferiority was investigated on the FAS.|Mean treatment difference|-0.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.46|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline in HbA1c after 26 weeks of treatment was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment and previous oral anti-diabetic (OAD) treatment as fixed factors and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Missing values were imputed by last observation carried forward (LOCF).||-0.46|-0.73|<0.0001
91062333|NCT03172494|182008838|SUPERIORITY||Mean treatment difference|-0.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.49|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline in HbA1c after 26 weeks of treatment was analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment and previous OAD treatment as fixed factors and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Missing values were imputed by LOCF.||-0.49|-0.76|<0.0001
91062334|NCT00143390|182008913|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of exemestane to anastrozole was to be concluded if the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval on the hazard ratio (exemestane/anastrozole) was ≤1.25.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.007|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.771|1.317|||||Disease sites, use of postoperative adjuvant antiestrogen agents therapy, and pamidronate disodium were covariates for adjustment.|95% Confidence Interval based on the Brookmeyer and Crowley method||1.317|0.771|
91062335|NCT00143390|182008914|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of exemestane to anastrozole was to be concluded if the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval on the hazard ratio (exemestane/anastrozole) was ≤1.25.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.059|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.816|1.374|||||Disease sites, use of postoperative adjuvant antiestrogen agents therapy, and pamidronate disodium were covariates for adjustment.|95% Confidence Interval based on the Brookmeyer and Crowley method||1.374|0.816|
91062336|NCT00681031|182008964|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Acceptability was demonstrated if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the Geometric Mean Fold Rise (CMFR) from pre-vaccination to 4 weeks postvaccination is \>1.4.|GMFR|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|3.8|||||GMFR = GMT postdose divided by GMT predose|||3.8|2.6|
91062337|NCT04779879|182008986|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares mean|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|1.09|||||Analysis was performed using an Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with covariates of treatment and Baseline logarithm (base 10) viral load.|||1.09|0.98|
91062338|NCT04779879|182008987|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares mean|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|1.11|||||Analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model with covariates of treatment, and Baseline logarithm (base10) viral load and randomization stratification factor (prior exposure to an authorized or approved SARS-CoV-2 vaccine).|||1.11|0.94|
91062339|NCT04779879|182009016|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares mean|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.11|||||Analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model with covariates of treatment and Baseline logarithm (base 10) viral load.|||1.11|1.00|
91062340|NCT04779879|182009017|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares mean|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.07|||||Analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model with covariates of treatment and Baseline logarithm (base 10) viral load.|||1.07|0.97|
91062341|NCT04779879|182009018|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares mean|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|1.09|||||Analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model with covariates of treatment, Baseline logarithm (base 10) viral load and randomization stratification factor (prior exposure to an authorized or approved SARS-CoV-2 vaccine).|||1.09|0.93|
91062342|NCT04779879|182009019|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares mean|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|1.1|||||Analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model with covariates of treatment, Baseline logarithm (base 10) viral load and randomization stratification factor (prior exposure to an authorized or approved SARS-CoV-2 vaccine).|||1.10|0.94|
91062343|NCT04779879|182009080|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares mean|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.48|0.89|||||Drug bioavailability was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment and weight at Baseline as covariates.|||0.89|0.48|
91062344|NCT04779879|182009080|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares mean|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.43|0.79|||||Drug bioavailability was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment and weight at Baseline as covariates.|||0.79|0.43|
91062345|NCT04779879|182009081|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares mean|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.67|1.95|||||Dose proportionality was analyzed using an ANOVA model with treatment (250mg, 500mg) as a covariate, for each parameter of interest.|||1.95|0.67|
91062346|NCT04779879|182009082|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares mean|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|1.62|||||Dose proportionality was analyzed using an ANOVA model with treatment (250mg, 500mg) as a covariate, for each parameter of interest.|||1.62|0.69|
91062347|NCT04779879|182009083|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares mean|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.68|1.82|||||Dose proportionality was analyzed using an ANOVA model with treatment (250mg, 500mg) as a covariate, for each parameter of interest.|||1.82|0.68|
91062348|NCT04779879|182009084|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares mean|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.77|2.12|||||Dose proportionality was analyzed using an ANOVA model with treatment (250mg, 500mg) as a covariate, for each parameter of interest.|||2.12|0.77|
91062349|NCT02854527|182009109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Geometric mean ratio (T/R1) (%)|96.39|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.22|105.33|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale including effects: 'sequence', 'subject within sequence', 'period' and 'treatment'.|Least square estimates of log-transformed PK endpoint for T and R1 were back transformed to original scale to get adjusted gMean ratio (T/R1) and its 2-sided 90% CI. Standard deviation is intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|This statistical analysis assess the effect of the other cocktail compounds in treatment T on the first primary outcome measure of treatment R1.||105.33|88.22|
91062350|NCT02854527|182009110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Geometric mean ratio (T/R1) (%)|93.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|24.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.49|103.97|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale including effects: 'sequence', 'subject within sequence', 'period' and 'treatment'.|Least square estimates of log-transformed PK endpoint for T and R1 were back transformed to original scale to get adjusted gMean ratio (T/R1) and its 2-sided 90% CI. Standard deviation is intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|This statistical analysis assess the effect of the other cocktail compounds in treatment T on the second primary outcome measure of treatment R1.||103.97|83.49|
91062351|NCT02854527|182009111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Geometric mean ratio (T/R2) (%)|102.62|STANDARD_DEVIATION|20.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.82|112.25|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale including effects: 'sequence', 'subject within sequence', 'period' and 'treatment'.|Least square estimates of log-transformed PK endpoint for T and R2 were back transformed to original scale to get adjusted gMean ratio (T/R2) and its 2-sided 90% CI. Standard deviation is intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|This statistical analysis assess the effect of the other cocktail compounds in treatment T on the first primary outcome measure of treatment R2.||112.25|93.82|
91062352|NCT02854527|182009112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Geometric mean ratio (T/R2) (%)|103.96|STANDARD_DEVIATION|24.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.6|115.46|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale including effects: 'sequence', 'subject within sequence', 'period' and 'treatment'.|Least square estimates of log-transformed PK endpoint for T and R2 were back transformed to original scale to get adjusted gMean ratio (T/R2) and its 2-sided 90% CI. Standard deviation is intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|This statistical analysis assess the effect of the other cocktail compounds in treatment T on the second primary outcome measure of treatment R2.||115.46|93.60|
91078430|NCT00553358|182042811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.005||||0.981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.52||The two-sided stratified log-rank test was implemented as the score test from the Cox model.|Regression, Cox||Cox models (Cox, 1972), with the stratification factors entered as strata variables, were used to calculate hazard ratios and corresponding confidence intervals for the pairwise comparisons of individual treatment arms with the trastuzumab alone arm.|||1.52|0.66|0.981
91062353|NCT02854527|182009113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Geometric mean ratio (T/R3) (%)|97.49|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.54|101.61|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale including effects: 'sequence', 'subject within sequence', 'period' and 'treatment'.|Least square estimates of log-transformed PK endpoint for T and R3 were back transformed to original scale to get adjusted gMean ratio (T/R3) and its 2-sided 90% CI. Standard deviation is intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|This statistical analysis assess the effect of the other cocktail compounds in treatment T on the first primary outcome measure of treatment R3.||101.61|93.54|
91062354|NCT02854527|182009114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Geometric mean ratio (T/R3) (%)|98.25|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.85|105.09|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale including effects: 'sequence', 'subject within sequence', 'period' and 'treatment'.|Least square estimates of log-transformed PK endpoint for T and R3 were back transformed to original scale to get adjusted gMean ratio (T/R3) and its 2-sided 90% CI. Standard deviation is intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|This statistical analysis assess the effect of the other cocktail compounds in treatment T on the second primary outcome measure of treatment R3.||105.09|91.85|
90823355|NCT04412707|181523496|EQUIVALENCE|The condition for similarity was if the 90% CI for the GMR was within the bioequivalence limits of 0.8 and 1.25.|[adjusted geometric mean ratio (GMR)]|0.846|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.748|0.957|||||CVC vs PVC CVC is numerator and PVC is denominator. Linear Mixed Effect Model included terms for period, sequence and administration route (PVC or CVC) as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|For desmethyl-melflufen: Based on a geometric mean ratio (GMR) peripheral vs central of 0.95, a 90% confidence interval (CI) for the ratio of geometric means within bioequivalence limits of 0.8 and 1.25, and 80% power, a sample size of 20 patients (10 per sequence) was required assuming a within-patient variability for period differences (in log scale) of 0.29. Approximately 25 patients were to be enrolled to achieve 20 PK- and local tolerance-evaluable patients.||0.957|0.748|
91062355|NCT02854527|182009115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Geometric mean ratio (T/R4) (%)|105.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|18.8|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.39|114.4|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale including effects: 'sequence', 'subject within sequence', 'period' and 'treatment'.|Least square estimates of log-transformed PK endpoint for T and R4 were back transformed to original scale to get adjusted gMean ratio (T/R4) and its 2-sided 90% CI. Standard deviation is intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|This statistical analysis assess the effect of the other cocktail compounds in treatment T on the first primary outcome measure of treatment R4.||114.40|96.39|
91062356|NCT02854527|182009116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Geometric mean ratio (T/R4) (%)|104.28|STANDARD_DEVIATION|20.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.95|114.53|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale including effects: 'sequence', 'subject within sequence', 'period' and 'treatment'.|Least square estimates of log-transformed PK endpoint for T and R4 were back transformed to original scale to get adjusted gMean ratio (T/R4) and its 2-sided 90% CI. Standard deviation is intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|This statistical analysis assess the effect of the other cocktail compounds in treatment T on the second primary outcome measure of treatment R4.||114.53|94.95|
91062357|NCT02854527|182009117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Geometric mean ratio (T/R1) (%)|96.53|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.08|101.2|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale including effects: 'sequence', 'subject within sequence', 'period' and 'treatment'.|Least square estimates of log-transformed PK endpoint for T and R1 were back transformed to original scale to get adjusted gMean ratio (T/R1) and its 2-sided 90% CI. Standard deviation is intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|This statistical analysis assess the effect of the other cocktail compounds in treatment T on the secondary outcome measure of treatment R1.||101.20|92.08|
91062358|NCT02854527|182009118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Geometric mean ratio (T/R2) (%)|97.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.87|104.41|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale including effects: 'sequence', 'subject within sequence', 'period' and 'treatment'.|Least square estimates of log-transformed PK endpoint for T and R2 were back transformed to original scale to get adjusted gMean ratio (T/R2) and its 2-sided 90% CI. Standard deviation is intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|This statistical analysis assess the effect of the other cocktail compounds in treatment T on the secondary outcome measure of treatment R2.||104.41|90.87|
91062359|NCT02854527|182009119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Geometric mean ratio (T/R3) (%)|97.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.58|101.58|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale including effects: 'sequence', 'subject within sequence', 'period' and 'treatment'.|Least square estimates of log-transformed PK endpoint for T and R3 were back transformed to original scale to get adjusted gMean ratio (T/R3) and its 2-sided 90% CI. Standard deviation is intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|This statistical analysis assess the effect of the other cocktail compounds in treatment T on the secondary outcome measure of treatment R3.||101.58|93.58|
91062360|NCT02854527|182009120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Geometric mean ratio (T/R4) (%)|107.63|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.04|119.39|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale including effects: 'sequence', 'subject within sequence', 'period' and 'treatment'.|Least square estimates of log-transformed PK endpoint for T and R4 were back transformed to original scale to get adjusted gMean ratio (T/R4) and its 2-sided 90% CI. Standard deviation is intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|This statistical analysis assess the effect of the other cocktail compounds in treatment T on the secondary outcome measure of treatment R4.||119.39|97.04|
91062361|NCT01959295|182009121|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5086|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||The superiority of ASP2151 200mg to ASP2151 placebo was assessed by Mantel-Haenszel method, adjusted by disease type (labial/facial herpes and recurrent genital herpes) .||||0.5086
91062362|NCT01682811|182009131|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||One-sample t-test comparing the absolute value to an alternate expected value of zero.||||0.0001
91062363|NCT01682811|182009134|OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired comparisons between treated and placebo lesions within subject.||||0.24
91062364|NCT01682811|182009137|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.002
91062365|NCT02694328|182009140|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.765||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.88|-0.88||P-value was adjusted using the Cui, Hung, and Wang (CHW) method to account for the unblinded interim analysis for sample size re-estimation.|ANCOVA|Missing values at Week 24 were imputed using multiple imputation.||||-0.88|-3.88|0.003
90823356|NCT04412707|181523497|EQUIVALENCE|The condition for similarity was if the 90% CI for the GMR was within the bioequivalence limits of 0.8 and 1.25.|adjusted geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.877|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.684|1.126|||||Data above refer to meflufen. CVC vs PVC CVC is numerator, PVC is denominator. Linear Mixed Effect Model included terms for period, sequence and administration route (PVC or CVC) as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|Based on a geometric mean ratio (GMR) peripheral vs central of 0.95, a 90% confidence interval (CI) for the ratio of geometric means within bioequivalence limits of 0.8 and 1.25, and 80% power, a sample size of 20 patients (10 per sequence) was required assuming a within-patient variability for period differences (in log scale) of 0.29. Approximately 25 patients were to be enrolled to achieve 20 PK- and local tolerance-evaluable patients.||1.126|0.684|
90823357|NCT04412707|181523497|EQUIVALENCE|The condition for similarity was if the 90% CI for the GMR was within the bioequivalence limits of 0.8 and 1.25.|adjusted geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.897|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.819|0.982|||||Data above refer to desethyl-melflufen. CVC vs PVC CVC is numerator, PVC is denominator. Linear Mixed Effect Model included terms for period, sequence and administration route as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|Based on a geometric mean ratio (GMR) peripheral vs central of 0.95, a 90% confidence interval (CI) for the ratio of geometric means within bioequivalence limits of 0.8 and 1.25, and 80% power, a sample size of 20 patients (10 per sequence) was required assuming a within-patient variability for period differences (in log scale) of 0.29. Approximately 25 patients were to be enrolled to achieve 20 PK- and local tolerance-evaluable patients.||0.982|0.819|
90823358|NCT04412707|181523498|EQUIVALENCE|The condition for similarity was if the 90% CI for the GMR was within the bioequivalence limits of 0.8 and 1.25.|adjusted geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.877|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.684|1.124|||||Data above refer to melflufen. CVC vs PVC CVC is numerator, PVC is denominator. Linear Mixed Effect Model included terms for period, sequence \& administration route (PVC or CVC) as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|Based on a geometric mean ratio (GMR) peripheral vs central of 0.95, a 90% confidence interval (CI) for the ratio of geometric means within bioequivalence limits of 0.8 and 1.25, and 80% power, a sample size of 20 patients (10 per sequence) was required assuming a within-patient variability for period differences (in log scale) of 0.29. Approximately 25 patients were to be enrolled to achieve 20 PK- and local tolerance-evaluable patients.||1.124|0.684|
90823359|NCT04412707|181523498|EQUIVALENCE|The condition for similarity was if the 90% CI for the GMR was within the bioequivalence limits of 0.8 and 1.25.|adjusted geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.908|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.833|0.989|||||Data above refer to desethyl-melflufen. CVC vs PVC CVC is numerator, PVC is denominator. Linear Mixed Effect Model included terms for period, sequence \& administration route as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|Based on a geometric mean ratio (GMR) peripheral vs central of 0.95, a 90% confidence interval (CI) for the ratio of geometric means within bioequivalence limits of 0.8 and 1.25, and 80% power, a sample size of 20 patients (10 per sequence) was required assuming a within-patient variability for period differences (in log scale) of 0.29. Approximately 25 patients were to be enrolled to achieve 20 PK- and local tolerance-evaluable patients.||0.989|0.833|
90823360|NCT00264537|181523512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.053||||||A positive test is concluded if there is a significant difference between golimumab+MTX and placebo+MTX and at least one of the pair-wise comparisons at a 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by screening CRP (\< 1.5 mg/dL; \>= 1.5 mg/dL)||Null hypothesis: No difference in ACR 50 response comparing Group 1 vs combined Groups 3 and 4. The sample size of 150 patients per treatment group will provide \>98% power to detect a difference in ACR 50 response between treatment groups at alpha=0.05, assuming 50% of patients with screening C-reactive protein (CRP)\<1.5mg/dL, and the difference in ACR 50 response of 15-20% in patients with screening CRP\<1.5mg/dL and 20-25% in subjects with screening CRP\>=1.5mg/dL, between Groups 1 vs 3 or 4||||0.053
90823361|NCT00264537|181523512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.042|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by screening C-reactive protein (CRP) (\< 1.5 mg/dL; \>= 1.5 mg/dL)||Null hypothesis: No difference in ACR 50 response comparing Groups 1 vs 3.||||0.042
90823362|NCT00264537|181523512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.177|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by screening C-reactive protein (CRP) (\< 1.5 mg/dL; \>= 1.5 mg/dL)||Null hypothesis: No difference in ACR 50 response comparing Groups 1 vs 4.||||0.177
90823363|NCT00264537|181523512|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This sample size (150 patients per treatment group) will provide approximately 85% power to claim non-inferiority of golimumab alone (Group 2) compared with MTX alone (Group 1) at alpha= 0.05 using a one-sided equivalence test assuming the proportion of golimumab alone (Group 2) treated patients with ACR 50 response is not less than 10% compared with proportion of patients with ACR 50 response in MTX alone (Group 1) treated group.|Difference in ACR 50 Response Rate(%)|3.3||||0.521||95.0|-6.8||The upper bound of 95% CI was not produced because it was not relevant to the pre-specified analysis||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by screening C-reactive protein (CRP) (\< 1.5 mg/dL; \>= 1.5 mg/dL)|The positive difference indicates in favor of golimumab+placebo compared to placebo+MTX; The upper bound of CI is not applicable.|"Null hypothesis: Group 2 is inferior to Group 1. Noninferiority of golimumab will be demonstrated if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI is above -10%. The 10% non-inferiority margin was chosen because this difference is not clinically admissible. Under the above noted assumed response rates, this corresponds to preservation of at least 70% \[(33% - 10%)/33%\*100\] of the expected MTX benefit."|||-6.8|0.521
90823364|NCT00264537|181523513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel(CMH) test stratified by screening C-reactive protein (CRP) (\< 1.5 mg/dL; \>= 1.5 mg/dL)||||||0.011
90823365|NCT00264537|181523513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by screening CRP (\< 1.5 mg/dL; \>= 1.5 mg/dL)||||||0.028
90823366|NCT00264537|181523513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by screening CRP (\< 1.5 mg/dL; \>= 1.5 mg/dL)||||||0.028
90823367|NCT00264537|181523513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.677||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by screening CRP (\< 1.5 mg/dL; \>= 1.5 mg/dL)||||||0.677
90823368|NCT00264537|181523514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.178||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by screening C-reactive protein (CRP) (\< 1.5 mg/dL; \>= 1.5 mg/dL)||||||0.178
90823369|NCT00264537|181523514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by screening C-reactive protein (CRP) (\< 1.5 mg/dL; \>= 1.5 mg/dL)||||||0.250
90823370|NCT00264537|181523514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel(CMH) test stratified by screening C-reactive protein (CRP) (\< 1.5 mg/dL; \>= 1.5 mg/dL)||||||0.240
90823371|NCT00264537|181523514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.339||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel(CMH) test stratified by screening C-reactive protein (CRP) (\< 1.5 mg/dL; \>= 1.5 mg/dL)||||||0.339
90823372|NCT00264537|181523515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||||||If this test is significant, a pairwise comparison between Group 3 and Group 1, and between Group 4 and Group 1 will be performed|ANOVA|A 2-sided ANOVA on the van der Waerden normal scores with 1 factor: screening CRP (\< 1.5 mg/dL; ≥ 1.5 mg/dL)||Null Hypothesis: No difference in vdH-S score comparing Groups 1 vs Groups 3 and 4 combined. The sample size of 150 subjects in each treatment group (Group 1, Group 3, Group 4) will provide \> 95% power to detect a difference in the vdH-S score between treatment groups using a 2-sided t-test on van der Waerden normal scores of change from baseline in vdH-S score at α = 0.05, assuming a mean change from baseline in vdH-S score of 3.5 for the placebo group and 1 for Groups 3 and 4.||||0.006
90823373|NCT00264537|181523515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||ANOVA|A 2-sided ANOVA on the van der Waerden normal scores with 1 factor: screening CRP (\< 1.5 mg/dL; \>= 1.5 mg/dL)||Null hypothesis: No difference in vdH-S score comparing Groups 1 vs 3.||||0.015
90823374|NCT00264537|181523515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025|||||||ANOVA|A 2-sided ANOVA on the van der Waerden normal scores with 1 factor: screening CRP (\< 1.5 mg/dL; \>= 1.5 mg/dL)||Null hypothesis: No difference in vdH-S score comparing Groups 1 vs 4.||||0.025
90823375|NCT00264537|181523516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||ANOVA|2-sided ANOVA on the van der Waerden normal scores||||||0.003
90823376|NCT00264537|181523516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|2-sided ANOVA on the van der Waerden normal scores||||||0.010
90823377|NCT00264537|181523516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014|||||||ANOVA|2-sided ANOVA on the van der Waerden normal scores||||||0.014
90823378|NCT00264537|181523516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.545|||||||ANOVA|2-sided ANOVA on the van der Waerden normal scores||||||0.545
90823379|NCT00997594|181523520|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Just a comparison of the percentage of hypertension between the 2 patient groups.|||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||<0.05
90823380|NCT03329092|181523582|OTHER||Difference in clinical cure rate|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|12.4|||||The confidence interval (CI) for the difference was calculated using the unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||12.4|-6.6|
90823381|NCT03329092|181523583|OTHER||Difference in clinical cure rate|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|13.2|||||The CI for the difference was calculated using the unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||13.2|-7.0|
90823382|NCT03329092|181523584|OTHER||Difference in clinical cure rate|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|12.1|||||CI for the difference was calculated using the unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||12.1|-10.2|
90823383|NCT03329092|181523585|OTHER||Difference in clinical cure rate|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|14.7|||||CI for the difference was calculated using the unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||14.7|-8.4|
90823384|NCT03329092|181523586|OTHER||Difference in clinical cure rate|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|13.0|||||CI for the difference was calculated using the unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method.|cIAI||13.0|-7.4|
90823385|NCT03329092|181523586|OTHER||Difference in clinical cure rate|4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5|23.1|||Difference||CI for the difference was calculated using the unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method.|HAP/VAP||23.1|-15.5|
90823386|NCT03329092|181523587|OTHER||Difference in clinical cure rate|5.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|16.6|||||CI for the difference was calculated using the unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method.|cIAI||16.6|-4.0|
90823387|NCT03329092|181523587|OTHER||Difference in clinical cure rate|-7.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.9|17.3|||||CI for the difference was calculated using the unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method.|HAP/VAP||17.3|-31.9|
90823388|NCT03329092|181523614|OTHER||Difference in clinical cure rate|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|11.5|||||CI for the difference was calculated using the unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||11.5|-6.2|
90823389|NCT03329092|181523615|OTHER||Difference in clinical cure|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|9.4|||||CI for the difference was calculated using the unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.4|-10.7|
90823390|NCT03329092|181523616|OTHER||Difference in clinical cure|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|9.9|||||CI for the difference was calculated using the unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.9|-8.3|
90823391|NCT03329092|181523617|OTHER||Difference in clinical cure rate|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|12.0|||||CI for the difference was calculated using the unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||12.0|-8.5|
90823392|NCT03329092|181523618|OTHER||Difference in clinical cure rate|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|11.9|||||CI for the difference was calculated using the unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method.|cIAI||11.9|-6.9|
90823393|NCT03329092|181523618|OTHER||Difference in clinical cure rate|3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|23.4|||||CI for the difference was calculated using the unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method.|HAP/VAP||23.4|-15.2|
90823394|NCT03329092|181523619|OTHER||Difference in clinical cure rate|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|13.2|||||CI for the difference was calculated using the unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method.|cIAI||13.2|-5.2|
90823395|NCT03329092|181523619|OTHER||Difference in clinical cure rate|-10.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.6|14.9|||||CI for the difference was calculated using the unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method.|HAP/VAP||14.9|-32.6|
90823396|NCT00856544|181523668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|27.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.94|36.13||A step-down procedure was used to control for multiple comparisons. In order for the comparison to 5 mg to be statistically significant, the comparison to 10 mg had to be statistically significant.|Normal approximation|||Normal approximation to the binomial distribution was used to test the superiority of each dose of CP-690,550 10 mg to placebo and 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was evaluated for the difference in percentages.||36.13|17.94|<0.0001
90823397|NCT00856544|181523668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|21.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.39|30.65||A step-down procedure was used to control for multiple comparisons. In order for the comparison to 5 mg to be statistically significant, the comparison to 10 mg had to be statistically significant.|Normal Approximation|||Normal approximation to the binomial distribution was used to test the superiority of each dose of CP-690,550 5 mg to placebo and 2-sided 95% CI was evaluated for the difference in percentages.||30.65|12.39|<0.0001
91062366|NCT02694328|182009141|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-13.7||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.8|-4.6||P-value was adjusted using the CHW method to account for the unblinded interim analysis for sample size re-estimation.|Regression, Logistic|Missing values at Week 24 were imputed using multiple imputation.|Risk difference (RD) of ALKS 3831 vs. Olanzapine|||-4.6|-22.8|0.003
91062367|NCT02694328|182009142|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-15.9||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.3|-6.5|||Regression, Logistic|Missing values at Week 24 were imputed using multiple imputation.|Risk difference (RD) ALKS 3831 vs. Olanzapine|||-6.5|-25.3|0.001
91062368|NCT04653454|182009149|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.129||||||Hypoglycemic Episodes \<54 mg/dL|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.129
91062369|NCT04653454|182009149|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008||||||Hypoglycemic Episodes \<70 mg/dL|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.008
91062370|NCT04653454|182009150|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.203||||||Hypoglycemic Episodes \<54 mg/dL|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.203
91062371|NCT04653454|182009150|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Hypoglycemic Episodes \<70 mg/dL|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90823398|NCT00856544|181523669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.26||A step-down procedure was used to control for multiple comparisons. For the comparison of 10 mg to placebo to be statistically significant, the comparison of 10 mg to placebo in ACR20 had to be significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Least squares mean difference (LS Mean Difference) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated using a mixed effect repeated measure model with treatments, visits and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and participants as a random effect.||-0.26|-0.44|<0.0001
90823399|NCT00856544|181523669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.16||A step-down procedure was used to control for multiple comparisons. For comparison of 5 mg to placebo to be statistically significant, comparison of 10 mg to placebo and comparison of 5 mg to placebo in ACR20 had to be statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|||LS Mean Difference and corresponding 95% CI was calculated using a mixed effect repeated measure model with treatments, visits and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and participants as a random effect.||-0.16|-0.35|<0.0001
91062372|NCT04653454|182009152|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.076||||||Hyperglycemic Episodes \>180 mg/dL|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.076
90823400|NCT00856544|181523670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|10.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.8|15.45||A step-down procedure was used to control for multiple comparisons. For the comparison of 10 mg to placebo to be statistically significant, the comparison of 10 mg to placebo in HAQ-DI had to be significant.|Normal Approximation|||Normal approximation to the binomial distribution was used to test the superiority of each dose of CP-690,550 10 mg to placebo and 2-sided 95% CI was evaluated for the difference in percentages.||15.45|5.80|<0.0001
90823401|NCT00856544|181523670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|6.42||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.07|10.77||A step-down procedure was used to control for multiple comparisons. For comparison of 5 mg to placebo to be statistically significant, comparison of 10 mg to placebo and comparison of 5 mg to placebo in HAQ-DI had to be statistically significant.|Normal Approximation|||Normal approximation to the binomial distribution was used to test the superiority of each dose of CP-690,550 5 mg to placebo and 2-sided 95% CI was evaluated for the difference in percentages.||10.77|2.07|0.0038
90823402|NCT04808141|181523721|EQUIVALENCE|For a power of 80% and a two-sided 0.05 significance level, we calculated that 102 individuals would be necessary to detect a 10-point difference between the two groups. To guarantee that the study was adequately powered to detect equivalence, a posteriori analysis was conducted using the Two One-Sided Test (TOST) methodology (simulation-based power analysis).|Median Difference (Net)|-0.55||||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.42|5.81||the threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Quantile mixed-effects model|robust method on the medians||||5.81|-2.42|0.412
90823403|NCT04808141|181523721|EQUIVALENCE||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.926||||0.849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|2.05||The threshold for statistical analysis was set at 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.05|0.42|0.849
90823404|NCT04808141|181523722|EQUIVALENCE||Median Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|1.1||The threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Quantile mixed-effects model|robust method on the medians||||1.10|-0.71|0.666
91062373|NCT04653454|182009152|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038||||||Hyperglycemic Episodes \>250 mg/dL|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.038
91062374|NCT04653454|182009153|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Creatinine|Spearman Correlation coefficients|||||||<0.0001
91062375|NCT04653454|182009153|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002||||||139GFR|Spearman Correlation coefficients|||||||0.0002
91062376|NCT04653454|182009153|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22||||||Bicarbonate|Spearman Correlation coefficients|||||||0.22
91062377|NCT04653454|182009153|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48||||||Hemoglobin|Spearman Correlation coefficients|||||||0.48
91062378|NCT04653454|182009153|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77||||||MAP|Spearman Correlation coefficients|||||||0.77
91062379|NCT04653454|182009153|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0516||||||SpO2|Spearman Correlation coefficients|||||||0.0516
91062380|NCT05525520|182009158|EQUIVALENCE|two-sided equivalence test|Least square mean difference (LSMD)|0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.609||0.4577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|1.68|||MMRM|Treatment, type of cholestatic disease, week, and treatment-by-week interaction were fixed effects, and Baseline WI-NRS score was a covariate.|LSMD=EP547 minus placebo|||1.68|-0.77|0.4577
91062381|NCT05878093|182009176|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical procedure was used to control type I error and handle primary and first 4 secondary endpoints (reported sequentially) analyses at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Least square mean difference|-1.84|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.53|-1.15|||ANCOVA||Data was analyzed by fitting an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with the corresponding baseline value, treatment group, and screening blood eosinophil count strata as covariates.|||-1.15|-2.53|<0.0001
91062382|NCT05878093|182009177|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical procedure was used to control type I error and handle primary and first 4 secondary endpoints (reported sequentially) analyses at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Least square mean difference|-0.54||||0.0126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.12|||ANCOVA||Data was analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with the corresponding baseline value, treatment group, and screening blood eosinophil count strata as covariates.|||-0.12|-0.97|0.0126
91062383|NCT05878093|182009178|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical procedure was used to control type I error and handle primary and first 4 secondary endpoints (reported sequentially) analyses at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Least square mean difference|-1.68||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.67|-0.69|||ANCOVA||Data was analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with the corresponding baseline value, treatment group, and screening blood eosinophil count strata as covariates.|||-0.69|-2.67|0.0008
90823405|NCT04808141|181523723|EQUIVALENCE||Median Difference (Net)|-2.62||||0.122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.87|4.8||The threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Quantile mixed-effects model|Robust test on the medians||||4.80|-14.87|0.122
90823406|NCT04808141|181523724|EQUIVALENCE||Median Difference (Net)|3.32||||0.788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.11|5.9||The threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Quantile mixed-effects model|Robust method on the medians||||5.90|-3.11|0.788
90823407|NCT04808141|181523725|EQUIVALENCE||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.23||The threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|LR to assess the odds between groups for consuming analgesics at 8 weeks using the CG as a reference.||||1.23|0.00|0.081
90823408|NCT04808141|181523725|EQUIVALENCE||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.26||||0.985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.71||The threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|LR to assess the odds between groups for consuming opioids at 8 weeks using the CG as a reference.||||1.71|0.00|0.985
90823409|NCT04808141|181523726|EQUIVALENCE||Median Difference (Net)|-0.42||||0.871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.78||the threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Quantile mixed-effects model|Robust method on the medians||||1.78|-2.10|0.871
90823410|NCT04808141|181523727|EQUIVALENCE||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.43||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|1.59||The threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Quantile mixed-effects model|Robust method on the medians||||1.59|-0.59|0.360
90823411|NCT04808141|181523728|EQUIVALENCE||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.837|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.837
90823412|NCT04808141|181523729|EQUIVALENCE||Z-score|-1.28||||0.886|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Ordinal Regression|||||||0.886
90823413|NCT04808141|181523730|EQUIVALENCE||Median Difference (Net)|1.33||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|2.46||The threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Quantile mixed-effects model|Robust method on the medians||||2.46|-2.20|0.095
90823414|NCT04808141|181523732|EQUIVALENCE||Mean Difference (Final Values)|65.8||||0.662|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.662
90823415|NCT04808141|181523733|EQUIVALENCE||Median Difference (Net)|-1.97||||0.246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.69|3.33|||Quantile mixed-effects model|Robust method on the medians||||3.33|-12.69|0.246
91062384|NCT05878093|182009179|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical procedure was used to control type I error and handle primary and first 4 secondary endpoints (reported sequentially) analyses at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Least square mean difference|-0.62||||0.0072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.17|||ANCOVA||Data was analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with the corresponding baseline value, treatment group, and screening blood eosinophil count strata as covariates.|||-0.17|-1.08|0.0072
90823416|NCT04808141|181523734|EQUIVALENCE||Median Difference (Net)|-0.73||||0.408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|2.69||the threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05|Quantile mixed-effects model|Robust method on the medians.||||2.69|-6.50|0.408
90823417|NCT04808141|181523735|EQUIVALENCE||Median Difference (Net)|0.35||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.22|9.87||The threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Quantile mixed-effects model|Robust method on the medians||||9.87|-6.22|0.650
90823418|NCT04808141|181523736|EQUIVALENCE||Difference in proportions|18.6||||0.019|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.019
90823419|NCT00394706|181523743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.2||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.7||Two sided test with an a priori threshold of 0.05 for declaring statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimate of the rate of MRS \<= 3 in Analyze Later arm minus rate in Analyze early arm.|Comparison of the rates of MRS \<=3 in Analyze Early vs. Analyze Later arms using a linear mixed effect model with an identity link and random effects to account for the cluster randomization.||0.7|-1.1|0.59
90823420|NCT00394706|181523743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.8||To adjust for group sequential monitoring, the point estimate was bias-adjusted (Whitehead 1986) and confidence intervals and P values calculated from the maximum likelihood based ordering of the outcome(Emerson and Fleming, 1990)|t-test, 2 sided||Estimate of the rate of MRS \<= 3 in the active ITD arm minus the rate in the Sham ITD arm.|Comparison of the rates of MRS \<=3 in Active ITD and Sham treatment arms, adjusted for sequential monitoring.||0.8|-1.1|0.71
90823421|NCT00394706|181523744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.1||Two sided test with an a priori threshold of 0.05 for declaring statistical significance.|GEE||Estimate of the rate of survival to hospital discharge in Analyze Later arm minus rate in Analyze early arm.|Comparison of the rates of survival to hospital discharge in Analyze Early vs. Analyze Later arms using a generalized estimating equations model with an identity link, grouping on cluster.||1.1|-1.2|0.92
90823422|NCT00394706|181523744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.1|||t-test, 2 sided||Estimate of the rate of survival to hospital discharge in the active ITD arm minus rate in the Sham ITD arm.|Comparison of the rates of survival to hospital discharge in Active ITD and Sham treatment arms.||1.1|-1.2|0.99
90823423|NCT00394706|181523745|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.34|||||Mean MRS for Analyze Later minus mean MRS for Analyze Early (i.e. positive values favor Analyze Later).|Linear regression was used to assess associations between post-discharge measures and treatment group comparisons with adjustment for baseline characteristics. Site was adjusted for to accommodate clustering of patients within sites. All regression analyses used robust standard errors to accommodate non-constant variances.||0.34|-0.20|
90823424|NCT00394706|181523745|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.44|||||Mean MRS for Active ITD minus mean MRS for Sham ITD (i.e. positive values favor the active device).|Linear regression was used to assess associations between post-discharge measures and treatment group comparisons with adjustment for baseline characteristics. Site was adjusted for to accommodate clustering of patients within sites. All regression analyses used robust standard errors to accommodate non-constant variances.||0.44|-0.17|
90823425|NCT00394706|181523746|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.83|||||Mean ALFI-MMSE for Analyze Later minus mean ALFI-MMSE for Analyze Early (i.e. positive values favor Analyze Later).|Linear regression was used to assess associations between post-discharge measures and treatment group comparisons with adjustment for baseline characteristics. Site was adjusted for to accommodate clustering of patients within sites. All regression analyses used robust standard errors to accommodate non-constant variances.||0.83|-0.71|
91062385|NCT05878093|182009180|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical procedure was used to control type I error and handle primary and first 4 secondary endpoints (reported sequentially) analyses at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Least square mean difference|-9.52||||0.0104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.81|-2.24|||ANCOVA||Data was analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with the corresponding baseline value, treatment group, and screening blood eosinophil count strata as covariates.|||-2.24|-16.81|0.0104
90823426|NCT00394706|181523746|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|0.28|||||Mean ALFI-MMSE for Active ITD minus mean ALFI-MMSE for Sham ITD (i.e. positive values favor the active device).|Linear regression was used to assess associations between post-discharge measures and treatment group comparisons with adjustment for baseline characteristics. Site was adjusted for to accommodate clustering of patients within sites. All regression analyses used robust standard errors to accommodate non-constant variances.||0.28|-1.61|
90823427|NCT00394706|181523747|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.05|||||Mean HUI for Analyze Later minus mean HUI for Analyze Early (i.e. positive values favor Analyze Later).|Linear regression was used to assess associations between post-discharge measures and treatment group comparisons with adjustment for baseline characteristics. Site was adjusted for to accommodate clustering of patients within sites. All regression analyses used robust standard errors to accommodate non-constant variances.||0.05|-0.06|
90823428|NCT00394706|181523747|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.05|||||Mean HUI for Active ITD minus mean HUI for Sham ITD (i.e. positive values favor the active device).|Linear regression was used to assess associations between post-discharge measures and treatment group comparisons with adjustment for baseline characteristics. Site was adjusted for to accommodate clustering of patients within sites. All regression analyses used robust standard errors to accommodate non-constant variances.||0.05|-0.08|
90823429|NCT04042909|181523767|SUPERIORITY||beta coefficient|-0.309|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.632|1.013||This is the p-value of the CAA vs AO factor in the model.|Regression, Linear|We used linear regression, controlling for baseline value of outcome and sex, to determine change in the outcome as a function of condition.||Our main hypothesis is that, relative to Assessment-Only control, the Counter Attitudinal Advocacy intervention will decrease alcohol consumption (drinks per week) from baseline to 6-months.||1.013|-1.632|.646
90823430|NCT04042909|181523768|SUPERIORITY||beta coefficient|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.41|-0.39|||Regression, Linear|We used regression, controlling for baseline value of outcome and sex, to determine pre-post change in the outcome as a function of condition.||Our main hypothesis is that, relative to Assessment-Only control, the Counter Attitudinal Advocacy intervention will decrease alcohol problems from baseline to 6-months.||-0.39|-3.41|.014
90823431|NCT02343406|181523793|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.71|||=|0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.02||2-sided|Log Rank|||Stratified at randomization by regions of the world (North America, Europe and Australia, Asia/Other Regions), WHO performance status (0, \> 0), timing of relapse (\< 16 weeks, ≥ 16 weeks after first day of last TMZ cycle).||1.02|0.5|= 0.062
90823432|NCT02343406|181523793|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.04|||=|0.835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.48||2-sided|Log Rank|||Stratified at randomization by regions of the world (North America, Europe and Australia, Asia/Other Regions), WHO performance status (0, \> 0), timing of relapse (\< 16 weeks, ≥ 16 weeks after first day of last TMZ cycle).||1.48|0.73|= 0.835
90823433|NCT02343406|181523794|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.77|||=|0.123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.07||2-sided|Log Rank|||||1.07|0.55|= 0.123
90823434|NCT02343406|181523794|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.31|||=|0.117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.84||2-sided|Log Rank|||||1.84|0.93|= 0.117
90823435|NCT02343406|181523802|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.1|||=|0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|16.16||2-sided|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison is based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method with stratification factors. Stratified at randomization by regions of the world (North America, Europe and Australia, Asia/Other Regions), WHO performance status (0, \> 0), timing of relapse (\< 16 weeks, ≥ 16 weeks after first day of last TMZ cycle).||16.16|0.6|= 0.06
90823436|NCT02343406|181523802|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21|||=|0.767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|12.49||2-sided|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison is based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method with stratification factors. Stratified at randomization by regions of the world (North America, Europe and Australia, Asia/Other Regions), WHO performance status (0, \> 0), timing of relapse (\< 16 weeks, ≥ 16 weeks after first day of last TMZ cycle).||12.49|0.12|= 0.767
90823437|NCT02343406|181523803|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.67|||=|0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.13||2-sided|Log Rank|||||1.13|0.4|= 0.127
90823438|NCT02343406|181523803|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.88|||=|0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.49||2-sided|Log Rank|||||1.49|0.52|= 0.64
90823439|NCT00874848|181523813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2895|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2895
90823440|NCT03089541|181523819|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.17||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.52|||Regression, Logistic|||Comparison on Eating/Drinking using a model adjusted for timing of the assessment (weekend, time of day (am vs. pm), and day of study (1 to 7). The significance level was 0.05.||0.52|0.06|0.002
90823441|NCT03089541|181523819|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.65||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|7.65|||Regression, Logistic|||Comparison on Traveling using a model adjusted for timing of the assessment (weekend, time of day (am vs. pm), and day of study (1 to 7)). The significance level was 0.05.||7.65|0.92|0.07
90823442|NCT03089541|181523819|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|3.64|||Regression, Logistic|||Comparison on Working/Reading/Studying using a model adjusted for timing of the assessment (weekend, time of day (am vs. pm), and day of study (1 to 7). The significance level was 0.05.||3.64|0.59|0.40
90823443|NCT03089541|181523819|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|3.53|||Regression, Logistic|||Comparison on Socializing using a model adjusted for timing of the assessment (weekend, time of day (am vs. pm), and day of study (1 to 7). The significance level was 0.05.||3.53|0.51|0.60
90823444|NCT03089541|181523819|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|3.38|||Regression, Logistic|||Model on Public Space adjusted for timing of the assessment (weekend, time of day (am vs. pm), and day of study (1 to 7)). The significance level was 0.05.||3.38|0.96|0.06
90823445|NCT05169424|181523820|OTHER|Comparison of Stiolto (reference group) versus Trelegy for incidence rate of exacerbation.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.133||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.993|1.293|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression was for time to first exacerbation and cohort as covariate.||||1.293|0.993|0.064
91062386|NCT04100018|182009192|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.96||||0.5901|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.77|1.19||Boundary for statistical significance p-value \< 0.01|Log Rank|Stratification factor is visceral disease (YES vs NO) as entered in the IRT.||||1.19|0.77|0.5901
90823446|NCT05169424|181523820|OTHER|||||||0.045|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.045
90823447|NCT05169424|181523820|OTHER|||||||0.063|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.063
90823448|NCT05169424|181523821|OTHER|Comparison of Stiolto (reference group) versus Trelegy.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.169||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.996|1.372|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression was for time to first exacerbation and cohort as covariate.||||1.372|0.996|0.057
90823449|NCT05169424|181523822|OTHER|Comparison of Stiolto (reference group) versus Trelegy.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.116||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.974|1.279|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression was for time to first exacerbation and cohort as covariate.||||1.279|0.974|0.114
90823450|NCT05169424|181523823|OTHER|Comparison of Stiolto (reference group) versus Trelegy.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.374||||0.273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.779|2.424|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression was for time to first exacerbation and cohort as covariate.||||2.424|0.779|0.273
90823451|NCT05169424|181523824|OTHER|Comparison of Stiolto (reference) versus Trelegy for incidence rate of pneumonia hospitalization.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.183||||0.429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.792|||Regression, Cox|||||1.792|0.780|0.429
90823452|NCT05169424|181523824|OTHER|||||||0.896|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.896
90823453|NCT05169424|181523824|OTHER|||||||0.932|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.932
90823454|NCT05169424|181523825|OTHER|Comparison of Stiolto (reference) versus Trelegy for incidence rate of pneumonia hospitalization.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.979||||0.935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.582|1.645|||Regression, Cox|||||1.645|0.582|0.935
90823455|NCT05169424|181523826|OTHER|Comparison of Stiolto (reference) versus Trelegy for incidence rate of pneumonia hospitalization.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.159||||0.507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.79|||Regression, Cox|||||1.790|0.750|0.507
90823456|NCT05169424|181523827|OTHER|Comparison of Stiolto (reference) versus Trelegy for incidence rate of pneumonia hospitalization.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.291||||0.726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.309|5.405|||Regression, Cox|||||5.405|0.309|0.726
90823457|NCT05169424|181523828|OTHER|||||||0.874|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.874
90823458|NCT05169424|181523828|OTHER||Exponential estimate|0.895||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.823|0.974|||ZINB regression with log link|The costs were modeled using Zero Inflated Negative Binomial (ZINB) regression with log link with cohort as the only covariate.|The analysis was for Stiolto versus Trlegy (Trelegy was the reference group).|||0.974|0.823|0.01
90823459|NCT05169424|181523829|OTHER|||||||0.899|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.899
90823460|NCT05169424|181523829|OTHER||Exponential estimate|0.897||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.824|0.976|||ZINB regression with log link|The costs were modeled using Zero Inflated Negative Binomial (ZINB) regression with log link with cohort as the only covariate.|The analysis was for Stiolto versus Trlegy (Trelegy was the reference group).|||0.976|0.824|0.012
90823461|NCT05169424|181523830|OTHER|||||||0.974|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.974
90823462|NCT05169424|181523830|OTHER||Exponential estimate|1.135||||0.595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.711|1.812|||ZINB regression with log link|The costs were modeled using Zero Inflated Negative Binomial (ZINB) regression with log link with cohort as the only covariate.|The analysis was for Stiolto versus Trlegy (Trelegy was the reference group).|||1.812|0.711|0.595
90823463|NCT05169424|181523831|OTHER|||||||0.622|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.622
90823464|NCT05169424|181523831|OTHER||Exponential estimate|1.008||||0.855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.928|1.094|||ZINB regression with log link|The costs were modeled using Zero Inflated Negative Binomial (ZINB) regression with log link with cohort as the only covariate.|The analysis was for Stiolto versus Trlegy (Trelegy was the reference group).|||1.094|0.928|0.855
90823465|NCT05169424|181523832|OTHER|||||||0.328|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.328
90823466|NCT00621140|181523848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.85|-0.53|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin vs. Placebo||-0.53|-0.85|<0.0001
90823467|NCT00621140|181523849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.58|-0.34|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin vs. Placebo||-0.34|-0.58|<0.0001
90823468|NCT00621140|181523850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.76|-0.47|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin vs. Placebo||-0.47|-0.76|<0.0001
90823469|NCT00621140|181523851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.82|-0.49|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin vs. Placebo||-0.49|-0.82|<0.0001
90823470|NCT00621140|181523852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.59|<|0.0001||95.0|-30.37|-16.26|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin vs. Placebo||-16.26|-30.37|<0.0001
90823471|NCT00621140|181523853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.81|<|0.0001||95.0|-23.11|-12.08|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin vs. Placebo||-12.08|-23.11|<0.0001
90823472|NCT00621140|181523854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.17|<|0.0001||95.0|-27.21|-14.75|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin vs. Placebo||-14.75|-27.21|<0.0001
90823473|NCT00621140|181523855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4|<|0.0001||95.0|-27.05|-13.68|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin vs. Placebo||-13.68|-27.05|<0.0001
90823474|NCT00621140|181523856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.869||||0.0006||95.0|1.575|5.225|||Regression, Logistic|||"Linagliptin vs. Placebo~The odds-ratio is based on a logistic regression model including baseline HbA1c and previous antidiabetic medication."||5.225|1.575|0.0006
90823475|NCT00621140|181523858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.436||||0.0323||95.0|1.078|5.507|||Regression, Logistic|||"Linagliptin vs. Placebo~The odds-ratio is based on a logistic regression model including baseline HbA1c and previous antidiabetic medication."||5.507|1.078|0.0323
90823476|NCT00621140|181523860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.243|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.665|6.755|||Regression, Logistic|||"Linagliptin vs. Placebo~The odds-ratio is based on a logistic regression model including baseline HbA1c and previous antidiabetic medication."||6.755|2.665|<0.0001
90823477|NCT00621140|181523861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-58.38|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.05|<|0.0001||95.0|-82.33|-34.43|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin vs. Placebo||-34.43|-82.33|<0.0001
91062387|NCT04100018|182009193|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.09||||0.3572|TWO_SIDED|99.41|0.84|1.43||Boundary for statistical significance p-value \< 0.0059. Additional accuracy for p-value: 0.005866.|Log Rank||Stratification factor is visceral disease (YES vs NO) as entered in the IRT.|||1.43|0.84|0.3572
90823478|NCT00145574|181523863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1122|||||||ANCOVA|||The primary null hypotheses were tested sequentially in the following order: 1) no difference between the high-dose colesevelam HCl and placebo for percent change in LDL-C from study baseline to Week 8 endpoint with the last observation carried forward (LOCF) and 2) no difference between the low-dose colesevelam HCl and placebo for percent change in LDL-C from study baseline to Week 8 endpoint with LOCF. The hypotheses were tested at a 2-sided significance level of 5%.||||0.1122
90823479|NCT00145574|181523863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
90823480|NCT00145574|181523864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.526||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.5260
90823481|NCT00145574|181523864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0085||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0085
90823482|NCT00145574|181523865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
90823483|NCT00145574|181523865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0008||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0008
90823484|NCT00145574|181523866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0155||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0155
90823485|NCT00145574|181523866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
90823486|NCT00145574|181523867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3482||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3482
91062388|NCT04100018|182009194|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|12.1|||||Strata adjusted difference in objective response rate based on DerSimonian and Laird method. Stratified by visceral disease (YES vs NO) as entered in the IRT.|||12.1|-4.5|
90823487|NCT00145574|181523867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0006
90823488|NCT00145574|181523868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0002
91062389|NCT04100018|182009197|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|7.0|||||Strata adjusted difference in objective response rate based on DerSimonian and Laird method. Stratified by visceral disease (YES vs NO) as entered in the IRT.|||7.0|-5.2|
90823489|NCT00145574|181523868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
90823490|NCT00145574|181523869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7433||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.7433
90823491|NCT00145574|181523869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0003
90823492|NCT04090242|181523899|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16||||0.392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.21||The p value is for the comparison between interventional and control group on change of DES score between baseline and end of study.|Mixed Models Analysis|||With assumptions made in statistical analysis plan, a sample size of 43 subjects per arm had \>80% power to detect a significant difference between the two arms (based on a 2-sided t-test, 95% CI for DES difference between groups). Adding a 10% buffer, planned enrollment was 96 subjects. However, enrollment ended early with about 25 subjects in each arm (56 subjects total). Thus, power decreased to 56%. The study was not sufficiently powered under these conditions.||0.21|-0.53|0.392
90823493|NCT00195663|181523939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical tests were performed in a hierarchical manner. If there was a statistically significant difference in favor of adalimumab + MTX combination treatment, the second primary analysis of the modified Total Sharp Score was to be performed.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||The study was powered to demonstrate the superiority of adalimumab + MTX combination therapy vs. MTX monotherapy in the proportion of subjects who achieved an ACR50 response at 52 weeks. Power calculations were based on 250 subjects in each group using a chi-squared test with a continuity correction and an alpha = 0.05 significance level. With 250 subjects in each group, a difference of 0.13 in response rates could be detected with 80% power.||||<0.001
90823494|NCT00195663|181523940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Statistical tests were performed in a hierarchical manner. If there was a statistically significant difference in favor of adalimumab + MTX combination treatment on the ACR50 response, the second primary analysis of modified TSS would be performed.||||<0.001
90823495|NCT00195663|181523941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90823496|NCT00195663|181523942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
90823497|NCT00195663|181523943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||< 0.001
90823498|NCT00195663|181523944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
90823499|NCT00195663|181523945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||< 0.001
90823500|NCT00195663|181523946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
90823501|NCT00195663|181523947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5402||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5402
90823502|NCT01100775|181523995|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.898|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of RVIP Practice Mean Target Hits between Galantamine and Placebo Arms||||0.898
90823503|NCT01100775|181523995|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.701|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of RVIP Practice Mean False Alarms between Galantamine and Placebo Arms||||0.701
90823504|NCT01100775|181523995|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of RVIP First Half Mean Target Hits between Galantamine and Placebo Arms||||0.16
90823505|NCT01100775|181523995|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.701|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of RVIP First Half Mean False Alarms between Galantamine and Placebo Arms||||0.701
90823506|NCT01100775|181523996|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.161|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of RVIP Practice Mean Target Reaction Time between Galantamine and Placebo Arms||||0.161
90823507|NCT01100775|181523996|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of RVIP Practice Mean False Alarm Reaction Time between Galantamine and Placebo Arms||||0.028
90823508|NCT01100775|181523996|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.899|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of RVIP First Half Mean Target Reaction Time between Galantamine and Placebo Arms||||0.899
90823509|NCT01100775|181523996|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.521|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of RVIP First Half Mean False Alarms Reaction Time between Galantamine and Placebo Arms||||0.521
90823510|NCT01100775|181523997|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the mean total amount offered during the trust game between the galantamine and placebo groups||||0.67
91062390|NCT04100018|182009198|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.16|||||Stratification factor is visceral disease (YES vs NO) as entered in the IRT.|||1.16|0.86|
91062391|NCT03103087|182009249|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|56.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.45|66.49||P-value was stratified by baseline MBL volume (\< 225 mL or ≥ 225 mL) and geographic region (North America or Rest of World). Assessed at a 2-sided α = 0.05 significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Treatment difference is relugolix plus E2/NETA minus placebo.|||66.49|46.45|<0.0001
90823511|NCT01100775|181523998|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the mean correct responses between galantamine and placebo||||0.32
90823512|NCT01100775|181523999|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.659|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the number of correct response on Trial 1 between galantamine and placebo||||0.659
90823513|NCT01100775|181523999|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.541|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the number of correct response on Trial 2 between galantamine and placebo||||0.541
90823514|NCT01100775|181523999|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.838|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the number of correct response on Trial 3 between galantamine and placebo||||0.838
90823515|NCT01100775|181524000|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.548|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A comparison the mean correct responses between galantamine and placebo||||0.548
90823516|NCT01100775|181524001|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.871|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.871
90823517|NCT01100775|181524002|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.626|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of Overall Affect between galantamine and placebo||||0.626
90823518|NCT01100775|181524002|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.234|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of Overall Social Skill between galantamine and placebo||||0.234
90823519|NCT01100775|181524003|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.797|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of Facial Affect Total Responses between galantamine and placebo||||0.797
90823520|NCT01100775|181524003|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.669|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of Facial Affect Total Hits between galantamine and placebo||||0.669
90823521|NCT01100775|181524003|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.668|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of Facial Affect Total False Alarms between galantamine and placebo||||0.668
90823522|NCT04677504|181524010|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.14|||Regression, Cox|||"Stratified analysis. Stratification factors are: Location of primary tumor (iCCA vs.~eCCA vs. GBC), Geographic region (Asia vs. Rest of the World)."||1.14|0.51|
90823523|NCT04677504|181524011|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.8857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.47|||Log Rank|||"Stratified analysis. Stratification factors are: Location of primary tumor (iCCA vs.~eCCA vs. GBC), Geographic region (Asia vs. Rest of the World)."||1.47|0.64|0.8857
90823524|NCT04677504|181524015|SUPERIORITY|Stratified analysis. Stratification factors are: Location of primary tumor (iCCA vs. eCCA vs. GBC), Geographic region (Asia vs. Rest of the World).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|2.63|||Regression, Cox|||Quality of Life||2.63|0.93|
90823525|NCT04677504|181524015|SUPERIORITY|Stratified analysis. Stratification factors are: Location of primary tumor (iCCA vs. eCCA vs. GBC), Geographic region (Asia vs. Rest of the World).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.36|||Regression, Cox|||Physical Function Scale||1.36|0.48|
90823526|NCT04677504|181524015|SUPERIORITY|Stratified analysis. Stratification factors are: Location of primary tumor (iCCA vs. eCCA vs. GBC), Geographic region (Asia vs. Rest of the World).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.85|||Regression, Cox|||Role Function Scale||1.85|0.68|
90823527|NCT03182907|181524020|OTHER|The AUC0-inf of bezlotoxumab in Cohort 1 was compared to the AUC0-inf of bezlotoxumab in adults using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model. The comparison adult PK dataset used was based on participants from 2 adult trials (NCT01241552 and NCT01513239) as a historical control.|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|1.18|||||GMR was calculated as the Cohort 1 geometric mean (GM) AUC0-inf / Adult GM AUC0-inf.|||1.18|0.95|
90823528|NCT03182907|181524020|OTHER|The AUC0-inf of bezlotoxumab in Cohort 2 was compared to the AUC0-inf of bezlotoxumab in adults using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model. The comparison adult PK dataset used was based on participants from 2 adult trials (NCT01241552 and NCT01513239) as a historical control.|GMR|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.75|0.89|||||GMR was calculated as the Cohort 2 GM AUC0-inf / Adult GM AUC0-inf.|||0.89|0.75|
90823529|NCT03182907|181524021|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method was used to generate the estimated difference in percentage and associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs) in bezlotoxumab versus placebo arms.|Difference in percentage|-5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|7.7||||||||7.7|-14.5|
90823530|NCT03182907|181524022|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method was used to generate the estimated difference in percentage and associated 95% CIs in bezlotoxumab versus placebo arms.|Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|3.5||||||||3.5|-9.7|
90823531|NCT03182907|181524023|OTHER|Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by age cohort (12 to \<18 years of age, 1 to \<12 years of age) with a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weight was used to generate the treatment difference, associated 95% CIs and a 2-sided p-value.|Adjusted difference|-3.7|||=|0.5701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|8.0|||Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen method|||||8.0|-20.0|= 0.5701
90823532|NCT03182907|181524024|OTHER|Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by age cohort (12 to \<18 years of age, 1 to \<12 years of age) with a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weight was used to generate the treatment difference, associated 95% CIs and a 2-sided p-value.|Adjusted difference|0.8|||=|0.9165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|17.6|||Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen method|||||17.6|-11.8|= 0.9165
90823533|NCT03182907|181524025|OTHER|Unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method was used to generate the treatment difference, associated 95% CIs and a 2-sided p-value.|Adjusted Difference|-3.1|||=|0.6542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.9|9.0|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||9.0|-19.9|= 0.6542
90823534|NCT03182907|181524026|OTHER|Unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method was used to generate treatment difference, associated 95% CIs and a 2-sided p-value.|Adjusted difference|0.1|||=|0.9873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|17.4|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||17.4|-13.0|= 0.9873
90823535|NCT02218008|181524112|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.5||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.3||Hypothesis tests were two-sided with an alpha of 0.05. Control of type 1 error inflation due to multiplicity was achieved by pre-specifying a fixed sequence for statistical tests.|Mixed Models Analysis|ALKS 5461 was compared to pbo using stage-specific MMRM for MADRS-10 Change from Baseline. Model-derived estimates were combined using equal weights.|Estimates below zero favor ALKS 5461.|Analysis was conducted for each stage separately and overall efficacy was based on combined stage analysis where stage-specific estimates were combined using pre-specified equal weights. Within each stage ALKS 5461 2mg/2mg was compared to placebo (i.e., ALKS 5461 2mg/2mg S1 vs Placebo S1; and ALKS 5461 2mg/2mg S2 vs Placebo S2. The pre-specified order of hypothesis tests was ALKS 5461 2/2 compared to placebo followed by ALKS 5461 1/1 compared to placebo.||-0.3|-2.7|0.018
91062392|NCT03103087|182009250|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|47.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.04|56.56||P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline MBL volume (\< 225 mL, ≥ 225 mL) and geographic region (North America or Rest of World). Assessed at a 2-sided α = 0.05 significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Treatment difference was relugolix plus E2/NETA minus placebo. 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference is based on the normal approximation.||||56.56|38.04|<0.0001
90823536|NCT02218008|181524113|SUPERIORITY|Hypothesis tests were two-sided with an alpha of 0.05. Control of type 1 error inflation due to multiplicity was achieved by pre-specifying a fixed sequence for statistical tests.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.9||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|-0.2||ALKS 5461 was compared to pbo using stage-specific MMRM for MADRS-10 Change from Baseline. Model-derived estimates were combined using equal weights.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimates below zero favor ALKS 5461.|Analysis was conducted for each stage separately and overall efficacy was based on combined stage analysis where stage-specific estimates were combined using pre-specified equal weights. Within each stage ALKS 5461 2mg/2mg was compared to placebo (i.e., ALKS 5461 2mg/2mg S1 vs Placebo S1; and ALKS 5461 2mg/2mg S2 vs Placebo S2. The pre-specified order of hypothesis tests was ALKS 5461 2/2 compared to placebo followed by ALKS 5461 1/1 compared to placebo.||-0.2|-3.6|0.026
90823537|NCT02218008|181524114|SUPERIORITY|The primary hypotheses were evaluated using a 6-step, fixed sequence approach to adjust for multiple comparisons. Using this method, hypothesis testing (using alpha=0.05) continued through the sequence until statistical significance was not achieved. Steps 1-3 included testing the ALKS 5461 2mg/2mg dose vs placebo for the 3 primary endpoints.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.7||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|0.2||ALKS 5461 is compared to placebo within each of the 2 stages, and resulting treatment effects from each stage are combined for a single hypothesis test using equal weights of 0.5 for both stages.|Mixed Models Analysis|||ALKS 5461 is compared to placebo within each of the 2 stages (i.e., ALKS 5461 2/2 S1 vs Placebo S1; and ALKS 5461 2/2 S2 vs Placebo S2). Efficacy was estimated as a weighted average across 2 stages using equal weights.||0.2|-3.6|0.076
91062393|NCT03103087|182009251|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-69.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.58|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.1|-54.3||Treatment, visit, region, Baseline MBL and treatment by visit interaction included as fixed effects. Assessed at a 2-sided α = 0.05 significance.|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference was relugolix plus E2/NETA minus placebo.|||-54.3|-84.1|<0.0001
90823538|NCT03304873|181524123|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0004
90823539|NCT03304873|181524124|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.99
90823540|NCT00620113|181524135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|5.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.16|6.64||The stepwise linear trend test adjusted for multiplicity within the family of comparisons of active doses with placebo and preserved the Type I error rate. P-value is for Placebo through Odanacatib 50 mg dose.|ANCOVA|||Analysis for percent change from baseline to Week 52 in BMD was performed using a stepwise linear contrast test based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with terms for treatment and study center. Treatment effect was assessed by Least-Squares means (LS mean) and the associated 95% confidence intervals. Estimated difference from placebo = odanacatib dose minus placebo dose. Positive mean treatment differences were in favor of odanacatib.||6.64|4.16|<0.001
90823541|NCT00620113|181524135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|5.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|6.35||The stepwise linear trend test adjusted for multiplicity within the family of comparisons of active doses with placebo and preserved the Type I error rate. P-value is for Placebo through Odanacatib 25 mg dose.|ANCOVA|||Analysis for percent change from baseline to Week 52 in BMD was performed using a stepwise linear contrast test based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and study center. Treatment effect was assessed by LS mean and the associated 95% confidence intervals. Estimated difference from placebo = odanacatib dose minus placebo dose. Positive mean treatment differences were in favor of odanacatib.||6.35|3.90|<0.001
90823542|NCT00620113|181524135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|3.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.33|4.75||The stepwise linear trend test adjusted for multiplicity within the family of comparisons of active doses with placebo and preserved the Type I error rate. P-value is for Placebo through Odanacatib 10 mg dose.|ANCOVA|||Analysis for percent change from baseline to Week 52 in BMD was performed using a stepwise linear contrast test based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and study center. Treatment effect was assessed by LS mean and the associated 95% confidence intervals. Estimated difference from placebo = odanacatib dose minus placebo dose. Positive mean treatment differences were in favor of odanacatib.||4.75|2.33|<0.001
90823543|NCT00620113|181524136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|3.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.14|3.98||The stepwise linear trend test adjusted for multiplicity within the family of comparisons of active doses with placebo and preserved the Type I error rate. P-value is for Placebo through Odanacatib 50 mg dose.|ANCOVA|||Analysis for percent change from baseline to Week 52 in BMD was performed using a stepwise linear contrast test based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and study center. Treatment effect was assessed by LS mean and the associated 95% confidence intervals. Estimated difference from placebo = odanacatib dose minus placebo dose. Positive mean treatment differences were in favor of odanacatib.||3.98|2.14|<0.001
90823544|NCT00620113|181524136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|2.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|3.12||The stepwise linear trend test adjusted for multiplicity within the family of comparisons of active doses with placebo and preserved the Type I error rate. P-value is for Placebo through Odanacatib 25 mg dose.|ANCOVA|||Analysis for percent change from baseline to Week 52 in BMD was performed using a stepwise linear contrast test based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and study center. Treatment effect was assessed by LS mean and the associated 95% confidence intervals. Estimated difference from placebo = odanacatib dose minus placebo dose. Positive mean treatment differences were in favor of odanacatib.||3.12|1.29|<0.001
91062394|NCT03103087|182009252|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|55.88|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.25|74.52||P-value is based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline MBL volume (\< 225 mL, ≥ 225 mL). Assessed at a 2-sided α = 0.05 significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Treatment difference is relugolix plus E2/NETA minus placebo. 95% CI for difference is based on the normal approximation.|||74.52|37.25|<0.0001
90823545|NCT00620113|181524136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.57||The stepwise linear trend test adjusted for multiplicity within the family of comparisons of active doses with placebo and preserved the Type I error rate. P-value is for Placebo through Odanacatib 10 mg dose.|ANCOVA|||Analysis for percent change from baseline to Week 52 in BMD was performed using a stepwise linear contrast test based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and study center. Treatment effect was assessed by LS mean and the associated 95% confidence intervals. Estimated difference from placebo = odanacatib dose minus placebo dose. Positive mean treatment differences were in favor of odanacatib.||2.57|0.77|<0.001
90823546|NCT00620113|181524139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|3.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.85|4.31||The stepwise linear trend test adjusted for multiplicity within the family of comparisons of active doses with placebo and preserved the Type I error rate. P-value is for Placebo through Odanacatib 50 mg dose.|ANCOVA|||Analysis for percent change from baseline to Week 52 in BMD was performed using a stepwise linear contrast test based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and study center. Treatment effect was assessed by LS mean and the associated 95% confidence intervals. Estimated difference from placebo = odanacatib dose minus placebo dose. Positive mean treatment differences were in favor of odanacatib.||4.31|1.85|<0.001
90823547|NCT00620113|181524139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.86||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|3.08||The stepwise linear trend test adjusted for multiplicity within the family of comparisons of active doses with placebo and preserved the Type I error rate. P-value is for Placebo through Odanacatib 25 mg dose.|ANCOVA|||Analysis for percent change from baseline to Week 52 in BMD was performed using a stepwise linear contrast test based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and study center. Treatment effect was assessed by LS mean and the associated 95% confidence intervals. Estimated difference from placebo = odanacatib dose minus placebo dose. Positive mean treatment differences were in favor of odanacatib.||3.08|0.64|0.003
90823548|NCT00620113|181524139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|2.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|3.43||The stepwise linear trend test adjusted for multiplicity within the family of comparisons of active doses with placebo and preserved the Type I error rate. P-value is for Placebo through Odanacatib 10 mg dose.|ANCOVA|||Analysis for percent change from baseline to Week 52 in BMD was performed using a stepwise linear contrast test based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and study center. Treatment effect was assessed by LS mean and the associated 95% confidence intervals. Estimated difference from placebo = odanacatib dose minus placebo dose. Positive mean treatment differences were in favor of odanacatib.||3.43|1.03|<0.001
90823549|NCT00620113|181524140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|4.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.18|6.14||The stepwise linear trend test adjusted for multiplicity within the family of comparisons of active doses with placebo and preserved the Type I error rate. P-value is for Placebo through Odanacatib 50 mg dose.|ANCOVA|||Analysis for percent change from baseline to Week 52 in BMD was performed using a stepwise linear contrast test based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and study center. Treatment effect was assessed by LS mean and the associated 95% confidence intervals. Estimated difference from placebo = odanacatib dose minus placebo dose. Positive mean treatment differences were in favor of odanacatib.||6.14|3.18|<0.001
90823550|NCT00620113|181524140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|3.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.37|5.3||The stepwise linear trend test adjusted for multiplicity within the family of comparisons of active doses with placebo and preserved the Type I error rate. P-value is for Placebo through Odanacatib 25 mg dose.|ANCOVA|||Analysis for percent change from baseline to Week 52 in BMD was performed using a stepwise linear contrast test based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and study center. Treatment effect was assessed by LS mean and the associated 95% confidence intervals. Estimated difference from placebo = odanacatib dose minus placebo dose. Positive mean treatment differences were in favor of odanacatib.||5.30|2.37|<0.001
90823551|NCT00620113|181524140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|2.43||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|3.88||The stepwise linear trend test adjusted for multiplicity within the family of comparisons of active doses with placebo and preserved the Type I error rate. P-value is for Placebo through Odanacatib 10 mg dose.|ANCOVA|||Analysis for percent change from baseline to Week 52 in BMD was performed using a stepwise linear contrast test based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and study center. Treatment effect was assessed by LS mean and the associated 95% confidence intervals. Estimated difference from placebo = odanacatib dose minus placebo dose. Positive mean treatment differences were in favor of odanacatib.||3.88|0.99|0.002
90823552|NCT00620113|181524141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-50.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.43|-34.84||The stepwise linear trend test adjusted for multiplicity within the family of comparisons of active doses with placebo and preserved the Type I error rate. P-value is for Placebo through Odanacatib 50 mg dose.|ANCOVA|||The log-transformed fraction from baseline in biomarker levels was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and study center, using a stepwise linear contrast test based on the ANCOVA model. The geometric mean percent change from baseline (back-transformation from the mean log-transformed fraction) and the associated 95% confidence intervals were presented.||-34.84|-66.43|<0.001
90823553|NCT00620113|181524141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-44.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.42|-28.21||The stepwise linear trend test adjusted for multiplicity within the family of comparisons of active doses with placebo and preserved the Type I error rate. P-value is for Placebo through Odanacatib 25 mg dose.|ANCOVA|||The log-transformed fraction from baseline in biomarker levels was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and study center, using a stepwise linear contrast test based on the ANCOVA model. The geometric mean percent change from baseline (back-transformation from the mean log-transformed fraction) and the associated 95% confidence intervals were presented.||-28.21|-60.42|<0.001
90823554|NCT00620113|181524141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-35.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.33|-19.16||The stepwise linear trend test adjusted for multiplicity within the family of comparisons of active doses with placebo and preserved the Type I error rate. P-value is for Placebo through Odanacatib 10 mg dose.|ANCOVA|||The log-transformed fraction from baseline in biomarker levels was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and study center, using a stepwise linear contrast test based on the ANCOVA model. The geometric mean percent change from baseline (back-transformation from the mean log-transformed fraction) and the associated 95% confidence intervals were presented.||-19.16|-52.33|<0.001
91062395|NCT03103087|182009253|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|29.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.6|44.38||P-value is based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline MBL volume (\< 225 mL, ≥ 225 mL). Assessed at a 2-sided α = 0.05 significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Treatment difference is relugolix plus E2/NETA minus placebo. 95% CI for difference is based on the normal approximation.|||44.38|15.6|<0.0001
90823555|NCT00620113|181524142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-60.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-85.7|-35.13||The stepwise linear trend test adjusted for multiplicity within the family of comparisons of active doses with placebo and preserved the Type I error rate. P-value is for Placebo through Odanacatib 50 mg dose.|ANCOVA|||The log-transformed fraction from baseline in biomarker levels was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and study center, using a stepwise linear contrast test based on the ANCOVA model. The geometric mean percent change from baseline (back-transformation from the mean log-transformed fraction) and the associated 95% confidence intervals were presented.||-35.13|-85.70|<0.001
90823556|NCT00620113|181524142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-60.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-85.91|-35.49||The stepwise linear trend test adjusted for multiplicity within the family of comparisons of active doses with placebo and preserved the Type I error rate. P-value is for Placebo through Odanacatib 25 mg dose.|ANCOVA|||The log-transformed fraction from baseline in biomarker levels was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and study center, using a stepwise linear contrast test based on the ANCOVA model. The geometric mean percent change from baseline (back-transformation from the mean log-transformed fraction) and the associated 95% confidence intervals were presented.||-35.49|-85.91|<0.001
90823557|NCT00620113|181524142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-38.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.94|-11.52||The stepwise linear trend test adjusted for multiplicity within the family of comparisons of active doses with placebo and preserved the Type I error rate. P-value is for Placebo through Odanacatib 10 mg dose.|ANCOVA|||The log-transformed fraction from baseline in biomarker levels was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and study center, using a stepwise linear contrast test based on the ANCOVA model. The geometric mean percent change from baseline (back-transformation from the mean log-transformed fraction) and the associated 95% confidence intervals were presented.||-11.52|-65.94|<0.001
90823558|NCT00620113|181524143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-42.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.55|-20.27||The stepwise linear trend test adjusted for multiplicity within the family of comparisons of active doses with placebo and preserved the Type I error rate. P-value is for Placebo through Odanacatib 50 mg dose.|ANCOVA|||The log-transformed fraction from baseline in biomarker levels was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and study center, using a stepwise linear contrast test based on the ANCOVA model. The geometric mean percent change from baseline (back-transformation from the mean log-transformed fraction) and the associated 95% confidence intervals were presented.||-20.27|-65.55|<0.001
90823559|NCT00620113|181524143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-37.45||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.32|-14.59||The stepwise linear trend test adjusted for multiplicity within the family of comparisons of active doses with placebo and preserved the Type I error rate. P-value is for Placebo through Odanacatib 25 mg dose.|ANCOVA|||The log-transformed fraction from baseline in biomarker levels was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and study center, using a stepwise linear contrast test based on the ANCOVA model. The geometric mean percent change from baseline (back-transformation from the mean log-transformed fraction) and the associated 95% confidence intervals were presented.||-14.59|-60.32|0.001
90823560|NCT00620113|181524143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-26.77||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.37|-3.16||The stepwise linear trend test adjusted for multiplicity within the family of comparisons of active doses with placebo and preserved the Type I error rate. P-value is for Placebo through Odanacatib 10 mg dose.|ANCOVA|||The log-transformed fraction from baseline in biomarker levels was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and study center, using a stepwise linear contrast test based on the ANCOVA model. The geometric mean percent change from baseline (back-transformation from the mean log-transformed fraction) and the associated 95% confidence intervals were presented.||-3.16|-50.37|0.017
90823561|NCT00620113|181524144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-15.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.11|-5.93||The stepwise linear trend test adjusted for multiplicity within the family of comparisons of active doses with placebo and preserved the Type I error rate. P-value is for Placebo through Odanacatib 50 mg dose.|ANCOVA|||The log-transformed fraction from baseline in biomarker levels was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and study center, using a stepwise linear contrast test based on the ANCOVA model. The geometric mean percent change from baseline (back-transformation from the mean log-transformed fraction) and the associated 95% confidence intervals were presented.||-5.93|-25.11|<0.001
90823562|NCT00620113|181524144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-12.55||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.16|-2.94||The stepwise linear trend test adjusted for multiplicity within the family of comparisons of active doses with placebo and preserved the Type I error rate. P-value is for Placebo through Odanacatib 25 mg dose.|ANCOVA|||The log-transformed fraction from baseline in biomarker levels was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and study center, using a stepwise linear contrast test based on the ANCOVA model. The geometric mean percent change from baseline (back-transformation from the mean log-transformed fraction) and the associated 95% confidence intervals were presented.||-2.94|-22.16|0.009
90823563|NCT00620113|181524144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|2.48||||0.598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.79|12.74||The stepwise linear trend test adjusted for multiplicity within the family of comparisons of active doses with placebo and preserved the Type I error rate. P-value is for Placebo through Odanacatib 10 mg dose.|ANCOVA|||The log-transformed fraction from baseline in biomarker levels was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and study center, using a stepwise linear contrast test based on the ANCOVA model. The geometric mean percent change from baseline (back-transformation from the mean log-transformed fraction) and the associated 95% confidence intervals were presented.||12.74|-7.79|0.598
91062396|NCT03103087|182009254|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-10.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.03|=|0.2153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.8|5.8||LS Means based on analysis of covariance model including treatment, randomization stratification factors, Baseline MBL volume (\< 225 mL, ≥ 225 mL) and geographic region (North America, Rest of World), and Baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||5.8|-25.8|=0.2153
90823564|NCT00620113|181524145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-26.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.3|-10.42||The stepwise linear trend test adjusted for multiplicity within the family of comparisons of active doses with placebo and preserved the Type I error rate. P-value is for Placebo through Odanacatib 50 mg dose.|ANCOVA|||The log-transformed fraction from baseline in biomarker levels was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and study center, using a stepwise linear contrast test based on the ANCOVA model. The geometric mean percent change from baseline (back-transformation from the mean log-transformed fraction) and the associated 95% confidence intervals were presented.||-10.42|-43.30|<0.001
90823565|NCT00620113|181524145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-28.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.97|-12.75||The stepwise linear trend test adjusted for multiplicity within the family of comparisons of active doses with placebo and preserved the Type I error rate. P-value is for Placebo through Odanacatib 25 mg dose.|ANCOVA|||The log-transformed fraction from baseline in biomarker levels was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and study center, using a stepwise linear contrast test based on the ANCOVA model. The geometric mean percent change from baseline (back-transformation from the mean log-transformed fraction) and the associated 95% confidence intervals were presented.||-12.75|-44.97|<0.001
90823566|NCT00620113|181524145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-5.61||||0.458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.79|12.56||The stepwise linear trend test adjusted for multiplicity within the family of comparisons of active doses with placebo and preserved the Type I error rate. P-value is for Placebo through Odanacatib 10 mg dose.|ANCOVA|||The log-transformed fraction from baseline in biomarker levels was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and study center, using a stepwise linear contrast test based on the ANCOVA model. The geometric mean percent change from baseline (back-transformation from the mean log-transformed fraction) and the associated 95% confidence intervals were presented.||12.56|-23.79|0.458
90823567|NCT00042991|181524149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
90823568|NCT00042991|181524150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0546||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||19 patients had Enhancing tumor at both Baseline and Post-RT time points. Thus, the following test was based on these 19 patients.||||0.0546
90823569|NCT00042991|181524151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
90823570|NCT00042991|181524152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.18
90823571|NCT03334812|181524197|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.18||||0.1219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.51|||Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||SCD/HNWB||0.51|-0.15|0.1219
90823572|NCT03334812|181524197|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.5438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.25|||Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||DTBT/HWB||0.25|-0.28|0.5438
90823573|NCT03334812|181524198|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.3067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.31|||Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||0.31|-0.19|0.3067
90823574|NCT03334812|181524200|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|26.23||||0.0404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.86|56.32|||Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||Week 4||56.32|-3.86|0.0404
90823575|NCT03334812|181524200|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|27.82||||0.1381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.5|82.1|||Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||Week 12||82.10|-26.5|0.1381
90823576|NCT03334812|181524200|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|23.8||||0.1168|TWO_SIDED|96.0|-19.3|66.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 28 (EOS)||66.89|-19.3|0.1168
90823577|NCT03334812|181524201|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.5175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.25|||Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||SCD/HNWB - Week 12||0.25|-0.26|0.5175
90823578|NCT03334812|181524201|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.19||||0.1476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.6|||Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||SCD/HNWB - Week 28||0.60|-0.22|0.1476
90823579|NCT02508428|181524206|EQUIVALENCE|Differences in survivorship among the Marathon and Enduron liners were evaluated with a Log Rank test.|||||<|0.001||||||A p-value of 0.05 was used as the threshold for statistical significance.|Log Rank|||Survivorship was evaluated using liner revision for wear/osteolysis as an endpoint using a Kaplan-Meier analysis.||||<0.001
90823580|NCT02508428|181524207|EQUIVALENCE|"Since the null hypothesis assumed that the wear rates were not different, Equivalence has been specified for the Type of Statistical Test"|Mean Difference (Net)|0.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.27||A p-value of 0.05 was used as the threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.27|0.17|<0.001
90823581|NCT02508428|181524208|EQUIVALENCE|"Since the null hypothesis assumed that the incidences of clinically important osteolysis were not different, Equivalence has been specified for the Type of Statistical Test"|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.006|0.3||A p-value of 0.05 was used as the threshold for statistical significance.|Fisher Exact|||||0.30|0.006|<0.001
90823582|NCT02508428|181524209|EQUIVALENCE|"Since the null hypothesis assumed that the rate of satisfaction among the groups were not different, Equivalence has been specified for the Type of Statistical Test"||||||0.48||||||A p-value of 0.05 was used as the threshold for statistical significance.|Fisher Exact|||Since there were no patients with Marathon liners who were unsatisfied with the outcome of their hip replacement, a relative risk and the associated confidence interval could not be calculated.||||0.48
90823583|NCT02508428|181524210|EQUIVALENCE|"Since the null hypothesis assumed that the Harris Hip Scores among the groups were not different, Equivalence has been specified for the Type of Statistical Test"||||||0.4||||||A p-value of 0.05 was used as the threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.40
90823584|NCT00806988|181524211|OTHER|An intention-to-treat analysis using a two-tailed Wilcoxon rank-sum test, at a 0.05 alpha level was used. This analysis accommodated missing LVESVI outcomes owing to death by assigning deceased patients the worst ranks in order according to the time of death. In the case of data that were missing for reasons other than death, we used multiple imputation to calculate the 12-month LVESVI on the assumption that the data were missing at random.||||||0.61|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The primary null hypothesis was that there would be no significant between-group difference in the LVESVI at 12 months.||||0.61
90823585|NCT00806988|181524212|OTHER|||||||0.83|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.83
91062397|NCT03103087|182009255|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-12.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.57|=|0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.3|-3.2||LS Means based on analysis of covariance model including treatment, randomization stratification factors, Baseline MBL volume (\< 225 mL, ≥ 225 mL) and geographic region (North America, Rest of World), and Baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-3.2|-21.3|=0.0078
90823586|NCT04775953|181524219|SUPERIORITY|For participants with the same DOOR, quality-of-life (QoL) was used as a tiebreaker and was calculated as change from baseline QoL to Day 70 QoL score, as assessed by questions from the PROMIS physical function item bank (PROMIS Item Bank v2.0, short form 6b) on the Antibacterial Resistance Leadership Group (ARLG) Bloodstream Infection QoL Measure. Superiority of dalbavancin is concluded if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval for the DOOR probability is greater than 50%.|Pr(Better DOOR in dalbavancin arm)|47.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.84|55.68|||||The DOOR probability is calculated using the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney statistic corrected for ties.|Null Hypothesis: Probability that a participant in the dalbavancin arm has a better DOOR than a participant in the standard of care arm plus one-half the probability of equal DOOR is 50% (i.e., no difference in DOOR).||55.68|39.84|
90823587|NCT04775953|181524220|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is -20%. Non-inferiority of dalbavancin is concluded if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the difference in proportions of clinical efficacy is greater than -20%.|Risk Difference (RD)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|14.0|||||Difference in proportions of clinical efficacy for dalbavancin compared to standard of care and 95% confidence interval obtained from a linear regression model.|Null Hypothesis: The proportion of clinical efficacy in the dalbavancin arm minus the proportion of clinical efficacy in the standard of care arm is -20%.||14|-12|
90823588|NCT01980095|181524258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|||||||One-sample Z-test, RHB-105 subjects only|||||||0.001
90823589|NCT05274269|181524261|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|9.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.2|11.3|||Mixed Models for Repeated Measures|||||11.3|7.2|< 0.0001
90823590|NCT05274269|181524262|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-28.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.1|-24.5|||Mixed Models for Repeated Measures|||||-24.5|-32.1|< 0.0001
90823591|NCT05274269|181524263|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|19.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.5|23.5|||Mixed Models for Repeated Measures|||||23.5|15.5|< 0.0001
90823592|NCT05274269|181524264|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|0.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.69|||Mixed Models for Repeated Measures|||||0.69|0.24|< 0.0001
91062398|NCT03103087|182009256|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-33.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.98|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.2|-25.5||Assessed at a 2-sided α = 0.05 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Relugolix plus E2/NETA minus placebo. Treatment, visit, region, Baseline MBL and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects.|||-25.5|-41.2|<0.0001
91062399|NCT03103087|182009259|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.33|||Fisher Exact|||||0.33|0.07|<0.0001
91062400|NCT03103087|182009264|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value is based on Log-rank test stratified by Baseline MBL volume (\< 225 mL, ≥ 225 mL) and geographic region (North America, Rest of World) from the proportional hazard regression model comparing relugolix plus E2/NETA with placebo.|Log Rank|||||||< 0.0001
90823593|NCT05274269|181524265|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|1.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.9|||Mixed Models for Repeated Measures|||||1.9|0.6|< 0.0001
90823594|NCT00709618|181524278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|41.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.4|55.4|||||The estimated value respresents the percentage of participants with a complete response or a partial response.|||55.4|26.4|
90823595|NCT04759157|181524289|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||mixed model|||||||.30
90823596|NCT04759157|181524290|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.05||0.206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.63|1.43|||Mixed Models Analysis||This estimate is comparing intervention to control from baseline to 3 month for both patients and partners|We conducted multilevel models evaluating sleep disturbance score by assessment, group and patient versus partner status.||1.43|-6.63|.206
90823597|NCT02324816|181524307|OTHER||success proportion|73.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.8|90.9||||||||90.9|48.8|
90823598|NCT01746225|181524308|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons; One-sided .05 alpha-level test|Log Rank|One-sided test||For each arm separately, PFS was compared to the historic PFS of first-line docetaxel using a one-sample one-sided log-rank test, of the null hypothesis, H0: median PFS≤7 months vs. H1: median PFS\>7 months.||||0.12
90823599|NCT01746225|181524308|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons; One-sided .05 alpha-level test|Log Rank|One-sided test||For each arm separately, PFS was compared to the historic PFS of first-line docetaxel using a one-sample one-sided log-rank test, of the null hypothesis, H0: median PFS≤7 months vs. H1: median PFS\>7 months.||||.03
90823600|NCT01746225|181524308|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons; One-sided .05 alpha-level test|Log Rank|One-sided test||For each arm separately, PFS was compared to the historic PFS of first-line docetaxel using a one-sample one-sided log-rank test, of the null hypothesis, H0: median PFS≤7 months vs. H1: median PFS\>7 months.||||.20
90823601|NCT00595478|181524314|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|2.18|||Poisson regression|Chi-square test with 1 degree of freedom|Odds ratio for 0 ETG-positive samples for MET/CBT+CM/BPT (numerator) vs. MET/CTB (denominator)|||2.18|0.29|0.66
90823602|NCT00595478|181524314|SUPERIORITY||mean ratio|0.93||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.22|||Poisson regression|Chi-square test with 1 degree of freedom|Mean ratio for number of ETG-positive samples, if \>0 ETG-positive samples: MET/CBT+CM/BPT (numerator) vs. MET/CTB (denominator)|||1.22|0.71|0.61
90823603|NCT00595478|181524315|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|2.62|||Poisson regression|Chi-square test with 1 degree of freedom|Odds ratio for 0% days using alcohol during the 36 week follow-up period: MET/CBT+CM/BPT (numerator) vs. MET/CTB (denominator)|||2.62|0.26|0.74
90823604|NCT00595478|181524315|SUPERIORITY||mean ratio|0.74||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.92|||Poisson regression|Chi-square test with 1 degree of freedom|Mean ratio for percentage of days with alcohol use during the 36 week follow-up period, if alcohol was used: MET/CBT+CM/BPT (numerator) vs. MET/CTB (denominator)|||.92|.59|0.007
90823605|NCT03401671|181524316|OTHER|Analysis was performed for estimation of least square means only. Descriptive statistical analysis was the main analysis.|Ratio of Geometric least squares Means|1.0229|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8473|1.2349||||||An analysis of variance was performed with the natural log-transformed PK parameters as the dependent variable and ethnic group as a fixed effect.||1.2349|0.8473|
91062401|NCT03103087|182009265|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value for testing difference between relugolix plus E2/NETA and placebo is based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline MBL volume (\< 225 mL, ≥ 225 mL) and geographic region (North America, Rest of World).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91062402|NCT03103087|182009266|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value is based on Log-rank test stratified by Baseline MBL volume (\< 225 mL, ≥ 225 mL) and geographic region (North America, Rest of World) from the proportional hazard regression model comparing relugolix plus E2/NETA with placebo.|Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
91062403|NCT03103087|182009267|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value is based on Log-rank test stratified by Baseline MBL volume (\< 225 mL, ≥ 225 mL) and geographic region (North America, Rest of World) from the proportional hazard regression model comparing relugolix plus E2/NETA with placebo.|Log Rank|||||||< 0.0001
91062404|NCT03103087|182009268|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline MBL volume (\< 225 mL, ≥ 225 mL).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91062405|NCT03103087|182009269|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||LS means and p-value for test of difference is relugolix plus E2/NETA minus Placebo based on mixed-effect model with treatment, visit, region, Baseline MBL and treatment by visit interaction included as fixed effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
91062406|NCT03103087|182009270|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline MBL volume (\< 225 mL, ≥ 225 mL) and geographic region (North America, Rest of World). Lower limit of normal is Hgb \< 11.6 g/dL.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91062407|NCT03103087|182009271|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||LS means and p-value for test of difference is relugolix plus E2/NETA minus placebo based on mixed-effect model with treatment, visit, region, Baseline MBL, and treatment by visit interaction included.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
91062408|NCT03103087|182009272|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||LS means and p-value for test of difference is relugolix plus E2/NETA minus placebo based on mixed-effect model with treatment, visit, region, Baseline MBL, and treatment by visit interaction included as fixed effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
91062409|NCT03103087|182009273|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||LS means and p-value for test of difference is relugolix plus E2/NETA minus placebo based on mixed-effect model with treatment, visit, region, Baseline MBL, and treatment by visit interaction included as fixed effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
91062410|NCT03103087|182009274|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||LS means and p-value for test of difference is relugolix plus E2/NETA minus placebo based on mixed-effect model with treatment, visit, region, Baseline MBL, and treatment by visit interaction included as fixed effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
90823606|NCT03401671|181524318|OTHER|Analysis was performed for estimation of least square means only. Descriptive statistical analysis was the main analysis.|Ratio of Geometric least squares Means|0.9324|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8016|1.0846||||||An analysis of variance was performed with the natural log-transformed PK parameters as the dependent variable and ethnic group as a fixed effect.||1.0846|0.8016|
90823607|NCT03401671|181524319|OTHER|Analysis was performed for estimation of least square means only. Descriptive statistical analysis was the main analysis.|Ratio of Geometric least squares Means|0.9318|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8005|1.0846||||||An analysis of variance was performed with the natural log-transformed PK parameters as the dependent variable and ethnic group as a fixed effect.||1.0846|0.8005|
90823608|NCT02305238|181524342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square (LS) mean difference|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|3.0||||||||3.0|-3.8|
91062411|NCT03103087|182009275|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline MBL volume (\< 225 mL, ≥ 225 mL) and geographic region (North America, Rest of World).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91062412|NCT03103087|182009276|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||LS means and p-value for test of difference is relugolix plus E2/NETA minus placebo based on mixed-effect model with treatment, visit, region, Baseline MBL, and treatment by visit interaction included.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
90823609|NCT02305238|181524343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mantel-Haenszel (MH) adjusted difference|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|4.0||||||||4.0|-5.7|
90823610|NCT02305238|181524344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||MH adjusted difference|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|9.8||||||||9.8|-12.7|
90823611|NCT02305238|181524345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-5.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.3|12.7||||||||12.7|-24.3|
90823612|NCT02305238|181524346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||MH adjusted difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|12.7||||||||12.7|-10.6|
90823613|NCT01898013|181524362|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.02
90823614|NCT01898013|181524363|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.26|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.26
90823615|NCT01898013|181524364|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.79|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.79
90823616|NCT01898013|181524365|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.23
90823617|NCT01898013|181524366|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.63|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.63
90823618|NCT01898013|181524367|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.62|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.62
91062413|NCT03103087|182009277|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline MBL volume (\< 225 mL, ≥ 225 mL) and geographic region (North America, Rest of World).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91062414|NCT03103087|182009278|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||LS means and p-value for test of difference is relugolix plus E2/NETA minus placebo based on mixed-effect model with treatment, visit, region, Baseline MBL, and treatment by visit interaction included as fixed effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
91062415|NCT03103087|182009279|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||LS means and p-value for test of difference is relugolix plus E2/NETA minus placebo based on mixed-effect model with treatment, visit, region, Baseline MBL, and treatment by visit interaction included as fixed effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
91062416|NCT03103087|182009281|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||LS means and p-value for test of difference is relugolix plus E2/NETA minus placebo based on mixed-effect model with treatment, visit, region, Baseline MBL, and treatment by visit interaction included as fixed effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
91062417|NCT03103087|182009288|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004||||||P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline MBL volume (\< 225 mL, ≥ 225 mL) and geographic region (North America, Rest of World).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0004
91062418|NCT01495000|182009298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.91|4.19|||ANCOVA|||||4.19|1.91|<0.0001
90823619|NCT02058563|181524388|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criteria for the determination of non-inferiority for measles, mumps, and rubella viruses: Lower limit (LL) of the 2-sided 95% Confidence Interval (CI) on GMC ratio (INV\_MMR over COM\_MMR) was to be equal to or above 0.67 for anti-measles, anti-mumps, and anti rubella antibodies.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.11|||||Number of subjects in the INV-MMR Group and in the COM-MMR Group considered for calculating the adjusted GMC ratio, are respectively 432 and 435 and adjusted GMCs = 1790.2 (LL=1669.6;UL=1919.5) and 1781.5 (LL=1661.8;UL=1909.7) respectively|Non-inferiority of INV\_MMR vaccine to COM\_MMR vaccine in terms of Geometric Mean Concentration (GMCs) for anti measles, anti mumps and anti rubella antibodies at Day 42.The 95% CI for adjusted geometric mean concentrations (GMCs) and the adjusted GMC ratio were obtained using an ANCOVA model on the logarithm-transformed concentrations including the vaccine group (for adjusted GMC ratio) as fixed effect, gender, age and country groups as continuous effects and the pre-vaccination log-transformed||1.11|0.91|
90823620|NCT02058563|181524389|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criteria for the determination of non-inferiority for measles, mumps, and rubella viruses: Lower limit (LL) of the 2-sided 95% Confidence Interval (CI) on GMC ratio (INV\_MMR over COM\_MMR) was to be equal to or above 0.67 for anti-measles, anti-mumps, and anti rubella antibodies.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.16|||||Number of subjects in the INV-MMR Group and in the COM-MMR Group considered for calculating the adjusted GMC ratio, are respectively 432 and 435 and adjusted GMCs = 113.5 (LL=106.0;UL=121.6) and 107.8 (LL=100.7;UL=115.4) respectively.|Non-inferiority of INV\_MMR vaccine to COM\_MMR vaccine in terms of Geometric Mean Concentration (GMCs) for anti measles, anti mumps and anti rubella antibodies at Day 42.The 95% CI for adjusted geometric mean concentrations (GMCs) and the adjusted GMC ratio were obtained using an ANCOVA model on the logarithm-transformed concentrations including the vaccine group (for adjusted GMC ratio) as fixed effect, gender, age and country groups as continuous effects and the pre-vaccination log-transformed.||1.16|0.96|
90823621|NCT02058563|181524390|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criteria for the determination of non-inferiority for measles, mumps, and rubella viruses: Lower limit (LL) of the 2-sided 95% Confidence Interval (CI) on GMC ratio (INV\_MMR over COM\_MMR) was to be equal to or above 0.67 for anti-measles, anti-mumps, and anti rubella antibodies.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.11|||||Number of subjects in the INV-MMR Group and in the COM-MMR Group considered for calculating the adjusted GMC ratio, are respectively 432 and 435 and adjusted GMCs = 76.1 (LL=71.5;UL=81.0) and 74.6 (LL=70.2;UL=79.4) respectively.|Non-inferiority of INV\_MMR vaccine to COM\_MMR vaccine in terms of Geometric Mean Concentration (GMCs) for anti measles, anti mumps and anti rubella antibodies at Day 42.The 95% CI for adjusted geometric mean concentrations (GMCs) and the adjusted GMC ratio were obtained using an ANCOVA model on the logarithm-transformed concentrations including the vaccine group (for adjusted GMC ratio) as fixed effect, gender, age and country groups as continuous effects and the pre-vaccination log-transformed||1.11|0.93|
90823622|NCT00483938|181524409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51|||||||Fisher Exact|||SVR: Group A versus Group B||||0.510
90823623|NCT00483938|181524410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||SVR: Group C versus Group D||||1.000
90823624|NCT00483938|181524410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||SVR: Group E versus Group F||||1.000
90823625|NCT00483938|181524411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.792|||||||Fisher Exact|||ETR: Group A versus Group B||||0.792
91062419|NCT00276484|182009328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6|<|0.001||95.0|-19.4|-13.2|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment and baseline LDL-C value||||-13.2|-19.4|<0.001
90823626|NCT00483938|181524411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.612|||||||Fisher Exact|||ETR: Group C versus Group D||||0.612
90823627|NCT00483938|181524411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49|||||||Fisher Exact|||ETR: Group E versus Group F||||0.490
90823628|NCT00483938|181524411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.363|||||||Fisher Exact|||Complete EVR: Group C versus Group D||||0.363
90823629|NCT00483938|181524411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Complete EVR: Group E versus Group F||||1.000
90823630|NCT01278797|181524464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test/Reference ratio of geometric means|94.51||||0.005||90.0|91.6|97.51|||ANOVA|ANOVA was applied to log-transformed AUC72 and Included treatment, sequence, period and subject-within-sequence effects.||Telmisartan/Amlodipine 80 mg/10 mg versus Telmisartan 80 mg + Amlodipine 10 mg The two formulations are shown to be bioequivalent since the 90% confidence interval of the test to reference ratio is entirely contained within the 80-125% bioequivalence range.||97.51|91.60|0.005
90823631|NCT01278797|181524465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test/Reference ratio of geometric means|94.1||||0.0093||90.0|90.7|97.63|||ANOVA|ANOVA was applied to log-transformed CMAX and Included treatment, sequence, period and subject-within-sequence effects.||Telmisartan/Amlodipine 80 mg/10 mg versus Telmisartan 80 mg + Amlodipine 10 mg The two formulations are shown to be bioequivalent since the 90% confidence interval of the test to reference ratio is entirely contained within the 80-125% bioequivalence range.||97.63|90.70|0.0093
90823632|NCT01278797|181524466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.58||||0.153|||||||ANOVA|ANOVA was applied to TMAX and Included treatment, sequence, period and subject-within-sequence effects.||Telmisartan/Amlodipine 80 mg/10 mg versus Telmisartan 80 mg + Amlodipine 10 mg||||0.153
90823633|NCT00588354|181524467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|3.6|||ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline value included as a covariate.||3.60|-0.52|0.159
90823634|NCT00588354|181524468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.79|2.01|||ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline value included as a covariate.||2.01|-1.79|0.910
90823635|NCT00588354|181524469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|6.96|||ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline value included as a covariate.||6.96|-1.04|0.162
90823636|NCT00588354|181524470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.27||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|10.12|||ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline value included as a covariate.||10.12|1.22|0.022
90823637|NCT00588354|181524471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|5.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.28||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|12.29|||ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline value included as a covariate.||12.29|-0.57|0.089
90823638|NCT00588354|181524472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.17||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|13.25|||ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline value included as a covariate.||13.25|0.83|0.038
90823639|NCT00588354|181524473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.53||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.75|2.09|||ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline value included as a covariate.||2.09|-11.75|0.186
90823640|NCT00588354|181524474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.37||0.918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.96|6.26|||ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline value included as a covariate.||6.26|-6.96|0.918
90823641|NCT03364309|181524475|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|99.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.57|99.99|||Regression, Logistic|||||99.99|33.57|<0.0001
90823642|NCT03364309|181524475|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|99.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.49|99.99|||Regression, Logistic|||||99.99|52.49|<0.001
90823643|NCT03364309|181524476|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|79.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.76|99.99|||Regression, Logistic|||||99.99|32.76|<0.001
90823644|NCT03364309|181524476|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|99.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.87|99.99|||Regression, Logistic|||||99.99|64.87|<0.001
90823645|NCT03364309|181524478|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|99.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.88|99.99|||Regression, Logistic|||||99.99|31.88|<0.001
90823646|NCT03364309|181524478|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|99.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.96|99.99|||Regression, Logistic|||||99.99|46.96|<0.001
90823647|NCT03364309|181524480|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|37.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.68|99.99|||Regression, Logistic|||||99.99|13.68|<0.001
90823648|NCT03364309|181524480|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|41.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.09|99.99|||Regression, Logistic|||||99.99|15.09|<0.001
90823649|NCT03364309|181524481|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-9.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.604|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.71|-8.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.33|-10.71|<0.001
90823650|NCT03364309|181524481|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-9.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.603|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.96|-8.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.59|-10.96|<0.001
90823651|NCT03364309|181524482|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-10.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.673|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.38|-6.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-6.79|-13.38|<0.001
90823652|NCT03364309|181524482|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-8.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.677|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.11|-5.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.51|-12.11|<0.001
90823653|NCT03364309|181524483|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-34.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.023|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.94|-30.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-30.98|-38.94|<0.001
90823654|NCT03364309|181524483|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-36.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.018|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.3|-32.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-32.37|-40.30|<0.001
90823655|NCT03364309|181524484|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-16.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.957|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.62|-14.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-14.86|-18.62|<0.001
90823656|NCT03364309|181524484|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-17.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.954|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.8|-16.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-16.05|-19.80|<0.001
90823657|NCT03364309|181524485|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|6.228|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6681|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.915|7.541|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.541|4.915|<0.001
90823658|NCT03364309|181524485|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|6.536|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6668|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.225|7.847|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.847|5.225|<0.001
90823659|NCT03364309|181524486|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|5.193|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9489|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.328|7.058|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.058|3.328|<0.001
90823660|NCT03364309|181524486|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|5.362|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.946|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.503|7.222|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.222|3.503|<0.001
90823661|NCT03364309|181524487|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-2.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.4|-2.9|<0.001
90823662|NCT03364309|181524487|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.3|-2.9|<0.001
90823663|NCT03364309|181524488|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-3.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.56|-1.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.15|-5.56|0.003
90823664|NCT03364309|181524488|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-4.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.064|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|-2.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.67|-6.90|<0.001
90823665|NCT03364309|181524489|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-27.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.07||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.5|-4.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.3|-50.5|0.022
90823666|NCT03364309|181524489|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-25.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.87||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.8|-2.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.5|-47.8|0.031
90823667|NCT04522141|181524509|OTHER|||||||0.038||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, race, self-reported functional health, and self-reported health status.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Main effect||||0.038
90823668|NCT04522141|181524509|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.941||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, race, self-reported functional health, and self-reported health status.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Time by condition interaction||||0.941
90823669|NCT04522141|181524510|OTHER|||||||0.003||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, race, self-reported functional health, and self-reported health status.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Main effect||||0.003
90823670|NCT04522141|181524510|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, race, self-reported functional health, and self-reported health status.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Time by condition interaction||||0.027
90823671|NCT04522141|181524511|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, race, self-reported functional health, and self-reported health status.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Main effect||||< .001
90823672|NCT04522141|181524511|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.411||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, race, self-reported functional health, and self-reported health status.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Time by condition interaction||||0.411
90823673|NCT04522141|181524512|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, race, self-reported functional health, and self-reported health status|Mixed Models Analysis|||Main effect weekly self-control||||< .001
90823674|NCT04522141|181524512|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.176||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, race, self-reported functional health, and self-reported health status|Mixed Models Analysis|||Time by condition interaction weekly self-control||||0.176
90823675|NCT04522141|181524513|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Analyses are controlled for age, sex, education, race, self-reported functional health, and self-reported health status.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Main effect||||> .05
90823676|NCT04522141|181524513|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Analyses are controlled for age, sex, education, race, self-reported functional health, and self-reported health status.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Time by condition interaction||||> .05
90823677|NCT04522141|181524514|OTHER|||||||0.031||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, race, self-reported functional health, and self-reported health status.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Main effect||||0.031
90823678|NCT04522141|181524514|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Controlled for age, sex, education, race, self-reported functional health, and self-reported health status.||Time by condition interaction||||0.260
90823679|NCT04522141|181524515|OTHER|||||||0.016||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, race, self-reported functional health, and self-reported health status.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Main effect||||0.016
90823680|NCT04522141|181524515|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.363||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, race, self-reported functional health, and self-reported health status.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Time by condition interaction||||0.363
90823681|NCT04522141|181524516|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Analyses are controlled for age, sex, education, race, self-reported functional health, and self-reported health status.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Main effect||||> .05
90823682|NCT04522141|181524516|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Analyses are controlled for age, sex, education, race, self-reported functional health, and self-reported health status.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Time by condition interaction||||> .05
90823683|NCT04522141|181524517|OTHER|||||||0.389||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, race, self-reported functional health, and self-reported health status.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Main effect||||0.389
90823684|NCT04522141|181524517|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.516||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, race, self-reported functional health, and self-reported health status.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Time by condition interaction||||0.516
90823685|NCT04522141|181524518|OTHER|||||||0.005||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, race, self-reported functional health, and self-reported health status.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Main effect||||0.005
90823686|NCT04522141|181524518|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.555||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, race, self-reported functional health, and self-reported health status.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Time by condition interaction||||0.555
90823687|NCT04522141|181524519|OTHER|||||||0.206||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, race, self-reported functional health, and self-reported health status.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Main effect||||0.206
90823688|NCT04522141|181524519|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.026||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, race, self-reported functional health, and self-reported health status.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Time by condition interaction||||0.026
90823689|NCT03052049|181524520|OTHER|t-test|p value|0.05||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|0.0||||P value was calculated with threshold of significance \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||P value was calculated with threshold of significance \<0.05.|||||0.05
90823690|NCT03052049|181524521|OTHER|||||||0.05||||||P value was calculated and a value of \<0.05 was considered significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
90823691|NCT03052049|181524522|OTHER|||||||0.05||||||P value was calculated and a value of \<0.05 was considered significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
90823692|NCT03052049|181524523|OTHER|||||||0.05||||||P value was calculated and a value of \<0.05 was considered significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
90823693|NCT03052049|181524524|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||P value was calculated and a value of \<0.05 was considered significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
90823694|NCT01868477|181524546|OTHER|difference|Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.0|48.16||||||||48.16|-24.0|
90823695|NCT04072887|181524572|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0235||0.628|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.027|0.05|||ANCOVA|||||0.050|-0.027|0.628
90823696|NCT04072887|181524572|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0144||0.425|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.012|0.035|||ANCOVA|||||0.035|-0.012|0.425
90823697|NCT04072887|181524572|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.013|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0174||0.463|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.016|0.041|||ANCOVA|||||0.041|-0.016|0.463
90823698|NCT04072887|181524572|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0173||0.244|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.008|0.049|||ANCOVA|||||0.049|-0.008|0.244
90823699|NCT04072887|181524572|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0176||0.793|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.024|0.034|||ANCOVA|||||0.034|-0.024|0.793
90823700|NCT01153724|181524586|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Relative bioavailability|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|113.29|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.6||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|90.0|105.893|121.197||P-value for ratio outside interval 0.8-1.25|ANOVA|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|Ratio Olodaterol plus Fluconazole and Olodaterol||121.197|105.893|0.0101
90823701|NCT01153724|181524587|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Relative bioavailability|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|108.78|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.5||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.59|116.487||P-value for ratio outside interval 0.8-1.25|ANOVA|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|Ratio Olodaterol plus Fluconazole and Olodaterol for the category Olodaterol||116.487|101.590|0.0009
90823702|NCT01153724|181524587|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Relative bioavailability|Adjusted geometric mean|85.98|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.4||0.0711|TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.277|93.253||P-value for ratio outside interval 0.8-1.25|ANOVA|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|Ratio Olodaterol plus Fluconazole and Olodaterol for the category Olodaterol glucuronide||93.253|79.277|0.0711
90823703|NCT01153724|181524590|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Relative bioavailability|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|114.83|STANDARD_DEVIATION|33.5||0.1539|TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.94|131.932||P-value for ratio outside interval 0.8-1.25|ANOVA|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|Ratio Olodaterol plus Fluconazole and Olodaterol for the category Olodaterol||131.932|99.940|0.1539
90823704|NCT01153724|181524590|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Relative bioavailability|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|74.48|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.068||0.8574|TWO_SIDED|90.0|66.619|83.266||P-value for ratio outside interval 0.8-1.25|ANOVA|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|Ratio Olodaterol plus Fluconazole and Olodaterol for the category Olodaterol glucuronide||83.266|66.619|0.8574
91062420|NCT00276484|182009329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.551||95.0|-1.1|2.1|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment and baseline HDL-C value||||2.1|-1.1|0.551
90823705|NCT01153724|181524591|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Relative bioavailability|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|74.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.6||0.9646|TWO_SIDED|90.0|69.105|79.418||P-value for ratio outside interval 0.8-1.25|ANOVA|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|Ratio Olodaterol plus Fluconazole and Olodaterol||79.418|69.105|0.9646
90823706|NCT01979133|181524594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.012
90823707|NCT01979133|181524595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.005
90823708|NCT01979133|181524596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.017
90823709|NCT01979133|181524597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.038
90823710|NCT01979133|181524598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.034
90823711|NCT01979133|181524599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.231|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.231
90823712|NCT01979133|181524600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.066|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.066
90823713|NCT00486824|181524601|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.004
90823714|NCT04371666|181524628|OTHER||Least square (LS) Mean Difference|0.083|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5494||0.8802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|1.176||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Random coefficient model|||||1.176|-1.010|0.8802
90823715|NCT00445770|181524633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Based on rank transformed data: rank of change = rank baseline+treatment +pooled study center+prior methotrexate use. If overall treatment effect statistically significant, 3 pairwise comparisons conducted, otherwise no further testing was made.|ANCOVA|||It was estimated that with 180 participants per group, there would be 81% power for the overall test. With this sample size and 0.05 (2-sided) type I error, there was 88% power to detect a 1.33 difference for the change of mTSS from baseline to 52 weeks between the etanercept 25 mg twice weekly group and Methotrexate group, assuming that the common standard deviation of the change of mTSS from baseline was 4.||||<0.0001
90823716|NCT00445770|181524633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model based on rank transformed data: rank of change = rank baseline + treatment + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
90823717|NCT00445770|181524633|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|An outcome showing that etanercept 10 mg was superior to methotrexate and the presence of numerical difference ≤0.5 mTSS units between etanercept 25 mg and etanercept 10 mg would support non-inferiority for the 2 etanercept treatments.||||||0.2634|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model based on rank transformed data: rank of change = rank baseline + treatment + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use.|ANCOVA|||||||0.2634
90823718|NCT00445770|181524634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model based on rank transformed data: rank of change = rank baseline + treatment + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
90823719|NCT00445770|181524634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model based on rank transformed data: rank of change = rank baseline + treatment + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
90823720|NCT00445770|181524634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2248|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model based on rank transformed data: rank of change = rank baseline + treatment + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use.|ANCOVA|||||||0.2248
90823721|NCT00445770|181524635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model based on rank transformed data: rank of change = rank baseline + treatment + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||<0.0001
90823722|NCT00445770|181524635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model based on rank transformed data: rank of change = rank baseline + treatment + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||<0.0001
90823723|NCT00445770|181524635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.726|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model based on rank transformed data: rank of change = rank baseline + treatment + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.7260
90823724|NCT00445770|181524635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model based on rank transformed data: rank of change = rank baseline + treatment + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||<0.0001
90823725|NCT00445770|181524635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model based on rank transformed data: rank of change = rank baseline + treatment + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||<0.0001
90823726|NCT00445770|181524635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5717|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model based on rank transformed data: rank of change = rank baseline + treatment + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||0.5717
90823727|NCT00445770|181524636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model based on rank transformed data: rank of change = rank baseline + treatment + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||<0.0001
90823728|NCT00445770|181524636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model based on rank transformed data: rank of change = rank baseline + treatment + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.0013
90823729|NCT00445770|181524636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0186|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model based on rank transformed data: rank of change = rank baseline + treatment + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.0186
90823730|NCT00445770|181524636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model based on rank transformed data: rank of change = rank baseline + treatment + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||<0.0001
90823731|NCT00445770|181524636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model based on rank transformed data: rank of change = rank baseline + treatment + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||0.0006
90823732|NCT00445770|181524636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1123|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model based on rank transformed data: rank of change = rank baseline + treatment + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||0.1123
90823733|NCT00445770|181524637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52 for progression \<=0.5||||<0.0001
90823734|NCT00445770|181524637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|||||Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52 for progression \<=0.5||||0.0002
91062421|NCT00276484|182009330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4|<|0.001||95.0|-17.1|-11.6|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment and baseline non-HDL-C value||||-11.6|-17.1|<0.001
90823735|NCT00445770|181524637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3022|TWO_SIDED|||||Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52 for progression \<=0.5||||0.3022
90823736|NCT00445770|181524637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52 for progression \<=3.0||||0.0001
90823737|NCT00445770|181524637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|||||Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52 for progression \<=3.0||||0.0002
90823738|NCT00445770|181524637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.312|TWO_SIDED|||||Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52 for progression \<=3.0||||0.3120
90823739|NCT00445770|181524637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52 for progression \<=SDD||||0.0010
90823740|NCT00445770|181524637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0285|TWO_SIDED|||||Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52 for progression \<=SDD||||0.0285
90823741|NCT00445770|181524637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0433|TWO_SIDED|||||Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52 for progression \<=SDD||||0.0433
90823742|NCT00445770|181524638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||||0.0032
90823743|NCT00445770|181524638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||||<0.0001
90823744|NCT00445770|181524638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1224|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||||0.1224
90823745|NCT00445770|181524638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||||<0.0001
90823746|NCT00445770|181524638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||||<0.0001
90823747|NCT00445770|181524638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8037|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||||0.8037
90823748|NCT00445770|181524638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||||<0.0001
90823749|NCT00445770|181524638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||||<0.0001
90823750|NCT00445770|181524638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5495|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||||0.5495
90823751|NCT00445770|181524638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||||<0.0001
90823752|NCT00445770|181524638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||||<0.0001
90823753|NCT00445770|181524638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4948|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.4948
90823754|NCT00445770|181524638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||||<0.0001
90823755|NCT00445770|181524638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||||<0.0001
90823756|NCT00445770|181524638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4663|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||||0.4663
90823757|NCT00445770|181524638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||||<0.0001
90823758|NCT00445770|181524638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||||<0.0001
90823759|NCT00445770|181524638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9357|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||||0.9357
90823760|NCT00445770|181524638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||<0.0001
90823761|NCT00445770|181524638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||<0.0001
90823762|NCT00445770|181524638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7439|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.7439
90823763|NCT00445770|181524638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 32||||<0.0001
90823764|NCT00445770|181524638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 32||||<0.0001
90823765|NCT00445770|181524638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8611|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 32||||0.8611
90823766|NCT00445770|181524638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||||<0.0001
91062422|NCT00276484|182009331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0|<|0.001||95.0|-12.0|-7.9|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment and baseline Total-C value||||-7.9|-12.0|<0.001
90823767|NCT00445770|181524638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||||<0.0001
90823768|NCT00445770|181524638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6731|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||||0.6731
90823769|NCT00445770|181524638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||||<0.0001
90823770|NCT00445770|181524638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||||<0.0001
90823771|NCT00445770|181524638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2616|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||||0.2616
90823772|NCT00445770|181524638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||<0.0001
90823773|NCT00445770|181524638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||0.0001
90823774|NCT00445770|181524638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1158|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||0.1158
90823775|NCT00445770|181524639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||||<0.0001
90823776|NCT00445770|181524639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||||<0.0001
90823777|NCT00445770|181524639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4237|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||||0.4237
90823778|NCT00445770|181524639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||||<0.0001
90823779|NCT00445770|181524639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||||0.0002
90823780|NCT00445770|181524639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5738|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||||0.5738
90823781|NCT00445770|181524639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||||<0.0001
90823782|NCT00445770|181524639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||||<0.0001
90823783|NCT00445770|181524639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1606|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||||0.1606
90823784|NCT00445770|181524639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||||<0.0001
90823785|NCT00445770|181524639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.0016
90823786|NCT00445770|181524639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2412|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.2412
90823787|NCT00445770|181524639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||||<0.0001
90823788|NCT00445770|181524639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||||<0.0001
90823789|NCT00445770|181524639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5882|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||||0.5882
90823790|NCT00445770|181524639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||||<0.0001
90823791|NCT00445770|181524639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||||0.0001
90823792|NCT00445770|181524639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2257|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||||0.2257
90823793|NCT00445770|181524639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||<0.0001
90823794|NCT00445770|181524639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.0003
90823795|NCT00445770|181524639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2075|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.2075
90823796|NCT00445770|181524639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 32||||<0.0001
90823797|NCT00445770|181524639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 32||||0.0050
90823798|NCT00445770|181524639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0461|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 32||||0.0461
90823799|NCT00445770|181524639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||||0.0002
90823800|NCT00445770|181524639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||||0.0101
91062423|NCT00276484|182009332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-7.3|||<|0.001||95.0|-11.5|-3.1|||Nonparametric ANCOVA|ANCOVA using ranks based on normal scores (Tukey method) with model terms for treatment and baseline triglycerides value.|The median difference is based on the Hodges-Lehmann estimates of shift; The distribution-free 95% CI is based on Wilcoxon's rank sum test statistic.|||-3.1|-11.5|<0.001
91062424|NCT00276484|182009333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3|<|0.001||95.0|-12.7|-7.6|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment and baseline Apo B value||||-7.6|-12.7|<0.001
91062425|NCT00276484|182009334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.313||95.0|-0.8|2.5|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment and baseline Apo A-I value||||2.5|-0.8|0.313
91062426|NCT00276484|182009335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|<|0.001||95.0|-12.6|-8.2|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment and baseline Total-C:HDL-C value||||-8.2|-12.6|<0.001
91062427|NCT00276484|182009336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7|<|0.001||95.0|-19.9|-13.1|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment and baseline LDL-C:HDL-C value||||-13.1|-19.9|<0.001
91062428|NCT00276484|182009337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4|<|0.001||95.0|-13.8|-8.2|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment and baseline Apo B:Apo A-I value||||-8.2|-13.8|<0.001
91062429|NCT00276484|182009338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|-1.6|<|0.001||95.0|-17.7|-11.3|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment and baseline non-HDL-C:HDL-C value||||-11.3|-17.7|<0.001
91062430|NCT00276484|182009339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.8||||0.174||95.0|-17.1|3.4|||Longitudinal Data Analysis (LDA)|LDA method of Liang and Zeger with model terms: treatment, time, and the interaction of time by treatment.|Data for analysis was transformed by the natural log and the difference in geometric mean % change from BL calculated based on the difference in the back-transformed least squares means.|||3.4|-17.1|0.174
91062431|NCT00276484|182009340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.37|||<|0.001||95.0|5.45|12.84|||Regression, Logistic|Model terms: treatment and baseline LDL-C value||||12.84|5.45|<0.001
91062432|NCT01608100|182009345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Area Under the Curve|0.9326|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9048|0.9604||||||Time point: 0-2 hours||0.9604|0.9048|
91062433|NCT01608100|182009345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Area Under the Curve|0.9431|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9081|0.9782||||||Time point: 2-4 hours||0.9782|0.9081|
91062434|NCT01608100|182009345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Area Under the Curve|0.9503|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9419|0.9857||||||Time point: 4-9 hours||0.9857|0.9419|
91062435|NCT01608100|182009345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Area Under the Curve|0.9197|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8914|0.948||||||Time point: 0-2 hours||0.9480|0.8914|
91062436|NCT01608100|182009345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Area Under the Curve|0.9349|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8986|0.9712||||||Time point: 2-4 hours||0.9712|0.8986|
91062437|NCT01608100|182009345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Area Under the Curve|0.9498|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.919|0.9805||||||Time point: 4-9 hours||0.9805|0.9190|
91062438|NCT01608100|182009345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Area Under the Curve|0.9412|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9102|0.9722||||||Time point: 0-2 hours||0.9722|0.9102|
90823801|NCT00445770|181524639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2351|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||||0.2351
90823802|NCT00445770|181524639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||||0.0002
91062439|NCT01608100|182009345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Area Under the Curve|0.9419|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9041|0.9796||||||Time point: 2-4 hours||0.9796|0.9041|
91062440|NCT01608100|182009345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Area Under the Curve|0.9449|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9046|0.9852||||||Time point: 4-9 hours||0.9852|0.9046|
91062441|NCT01608100|182009346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion Percentage|7.0||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank||Proportion percentage for subjects with ARCHITECT Troponin value greater than the cutoff|Kaplan-Meier||||0.0004
91062442|NCT01608100|182009346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion Percentage|2.31||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank||Proportion percentage for subjects with ARCHITECT Troponin value less than or equal to the cutoff|Kaplan-Meier||||0.0004
91062443|NCT01608100|182009346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.09||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|5.95||Likelihood Ratio|Regression, Cox|||Hazard Ratio||5.95|1.59|0.0011
91062444|NCT01608100|182009346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion Percentage|12.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank||Proportion percentage for subjects with ARCHITECT Troponin value greater than the cutoff|Kaplan-Meier||||<0.0001
91062445|NCT01608100|182009346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion Percentage|3.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank||Proportion percentage for subjects with ARCHITECT Troponin value less than or equal to the cutoff|Kaplan-Meier||||<0.0001
91062446|NCT01608100|182009346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.21|6.05||Likelihood Ratio|Regression, Cox|||Hazard Ratio||6.05|2.21|<0.0001
91062447|NCT01608100|182009346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion Percentage|7.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank||Proportion percentage for subjects with ARCHITECT Troponin value greater than the cutoff|Kaplan-Meier||||<0.0001
91062448|NCT01608100|182009346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion Percentage|2.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank||Proportion percentage for subjects with ARCHITECT Troponin value less than or equal to the cutoff|Kaplan-Meier||||<0.0001
91062449|NCT01608100|182009346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.54||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.84|6.87||Likelihood Ratio|Regression, Cox|||Hazard Ratio||6.87|1.84|0.0002
91062450|NCT01608100|182009346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion Percentage|12.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank||Proportion percentage for subjects with ARCHITECT Troponin value greater than the cutoff|Kaplan-Meier||||<0.0001
91062451|NCT01608100|182009346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion Percentage|3.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank||Proportion percentage for subjects with ARCHITECT Troponin value less than or equal to the cutoff|Kaplan-Meier||||<0.0001
91062452|NCT01608100|182009346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.25|6.05||Likelihood Ratio|Regression, Cox|||Hazard Ratio||6.05|2.25|<0.0001
91062453|NCT01608100|182009346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion Percentage|6.07||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank||Proportion percentage for subjects with ARCHITECT Troponin value greater than the cutoff|Kaplan-Meier||||0.0020
91062454|NCT01608100|182009346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion Percentage|2.09||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank||Proportion percentage for subjects with ARCHITECT Troponin value less than or equal to the cutoff|Kaplan-Meier||||0.0020
91062455|NCT01608100|182009346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.95||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|6.05||Likelihood Ratio|Regression, Cox|||Hazard Ratio||6.05|1.41|0.0050
91062456|NCT01608100|182009346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion Percentage|12.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank||Proportion percentage for subjects with ARCHITECT Troponin value greater than the cutoff|Kaplan-Meier||||<0.0001
91062457|NCT01608100|182009346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion Percentage|3.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank||Proportion percentage for subjects with ARCHITECT Troponin value less than or equal to the cutoff|Kaplan-Meier||||<0.0001
91062458|NCT01608100|182009346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.08|6.03||Likelihood Ratio|Regression, Cox|||Hazard Ratio||6.03|2.08|<0.0001
91062459|NCT01608100|182009347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Sensitivity|84.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|75.28|91.23||||||Time point: 0-2 hours||91.23|75.28|
91062460|NCT01608100|182009347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Sensitivity|92.21|||||TWO_SIDED|83.81|83.81|97.09||||||Time point: 2-4 hours||97.09|83.81|
91062461|NCT01608100|182009347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Sensitivity|93.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.34|97.99||||||Time point: 4-9 hours||97.99|86.34|
91062462|NCT01608100|182009347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Sensitivity|85.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|76.51|91.7||||||Time point: 0-2 hours||91.70|76.51|
91062463|NCT01608100|182009347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Sensitivity|91.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|83.95|96.66||||||Time point: 2-4 hours||96.66|83.95|
91062464|NCT01608100|182009347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Sensitivity|94.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|88.61|98.34||||||Time point: 4-9 hours||98.34|88.61|
91062465|NCT01608100|182009347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Sensitivity|87.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|77.3|94.04||||||Time point: 0-2 hours||94.04|77.30|
91062466|NCT01608100|182009347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Sensitivity|92.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|83.4|97.01||||||Time point: 2-4 hours||97.01|83.40|
91062467|NCT01608100|182009347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Sensitivity|93.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|84.74|97.74||||||Time point: 4-9 hours||97.74|84.74|
91062468|NCT01608100|182009348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Specificity|85.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|83.18|88.03||||||Time point: 0-2 hours||88.03|83.18|
91062469|NCT01608100|182009348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Specificity|85.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|82.66|87.5||||||Time point: 2-4 hours||87.50|82.66|
90823803|NCT00445770|181524639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1179|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||||0.1179
91062470|NCT01608100|182009348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Specificity|82.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|79.99|85.4||||||Time point: 4-9 hours||85.40|79.99|
90823804|NCT00445770|181524639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0214|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||||0.0214
90823805|NCT00445770|181524639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||<0.0001
91062471|NCT01608100|182009348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Specificity|83.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|81.12|86.17||||||Time point: 0-2 hours||86.17|81.12|
91062472|NCT01608100|182009348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Specificity|83.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|81.09|86.11||||||Time point: 2-4 hours||86.11|81.09|
91062473|NCT01608100|182009348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Specificity|80.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|77.82|83.39||||||Time point: 4-9 hours||83.39|77.82|
91062474|NCT01608100|182009348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Specificity|86.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|83.79|88.63||||||Time point: 0-2 hours||88.63|83.79|
91062475|NCT01608100|182009348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Specificity|85.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|83.31|88.07||||||Time point: 2-4 hours||88.07|83.31|
91062476|NCT01608100|182009348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Specificity|84.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|81.31|86.54||||||Time point: 4-9 hours||86.54|81.31|
91062477|NCT01608100|182009349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Negative Predictive Value|98.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.82|98.95||||||Time point: 0-2 hours||98.95|96.82|
91062478|NCT01608100|182009349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Negative Predictive Value|99.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.25|99.7||||||Time point: 2-4 hours||99.70|98.25|
91062479|NCT01608100|182009349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Negative Predictive Value|99.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.22|99.75||||||Time point: 4-9 hours||99.75|98.22|
91062480|NCT01608100|182009349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Negative Predictive Value|98.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.81|98.95||||||Time point: 0-2 hours||98.95|96.81|
91062481|NCT01608100|182009349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Negative Predictive Value|99.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.05|99.62||||||Time point: 2-4 hours||99.62|98.05|
91062482|NCT01608100|182009349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Negative Predictive Value|99.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.22|99.75||||||Time point: 4-9 hours||99.75|98.22|
91062483|NCT01608100|182009349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Negative Predictive Value|98.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|97.61|99.42||||||Time point: 0-2 hours||99.42|97.61|
91062484|NCT01608100|182009349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Negative Predictive Value|99.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.27|99.71||||||Time point: 2-4 hours||99.71|98.27|
91062485|NCT01608100|182009349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Negative Predictive Value|99.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.26|99.76||||||Time point: 4-9 hours||99.76|98.26|
91062486|NCT01608100|182009350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Positive Predictive Value|38.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.92|45.98||||||Time point: 0-2 hours||45.98|31.92|
91062487|NCT01608100|182009350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Positive Predictive Value|35.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.03|42.76||||||Time point: 2-4 hours||42.76|29.03|
91062488|NCT01608100|182009350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Positive Predictive Value|36.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.99|43.38||||||Time point: 4-9 hours||43.38|29.99|
91062489|NCT01608100|182009350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Positive Predictive Value|36.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.43|43.56||||||Time point: 0-2 hours||43.56|30.43|
91062490|NCT01608100|182009350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Positive Predictive Value|35.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.43|42.45||||||Time point: 2-4 hours||42.45|29.43|
91062491|NCT01608100|182009350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Positive Predictive Value|37.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.71|44.09||||||Time point: 4-9 hours||44.09|31.71|
91062492|NCT01608100|182009350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Positive Predictive Value|35.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.7|43.47||||||Time point: 0-2 hours||43.47|28.70|
91062493|NCT01608100|182009350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Positive Predictive Value|35.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.16|43.16||||||Time point: 2-4 hours||43.16|29.16|
91062494|NCT01608100|182009350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Positive Predictive Value|35.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.36|42.21||||||Time point: 4-9 hours||42.21|28.36|
91062495|NCT04055740|182009358|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2201|||||||Spearman Correlation Coefficient|This test measures correlation of avg ILA grade per patient with total time of lead extraction. Average ILA grade of all patients in outcome measures.||H0: rho = 0 Spearman correlation coefficient calculated between average ILA grade and total time of lead extraction||||0.2201
91062496|NCT04055740|182009358|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5157|||||||Spearman Correlation Coefficient|This measures correlation of avg ILA grade per patient with total laser pulsations used for extraction. Avg ILA grade of patients in outcome measures.||H0: rho = 0 Spearman Correlation coefficient calculated between average ILA grades and laser pulsations||||0.5157
91062497|NCT00707239|182009395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|70.0|-21.6|10.9||||||Cure: Confidence interval (CI) was calculated using the Wilson score method, with continuity correction. Clinical response (rates of cure) by using a 2-sided 70 percent (%) CI for the true difference in efficacy (tigecycline regimen minus imipenem/cilastatin regimen) was calculated. Statistical testing was done at 15% alpha.||10.9|-21.6|
90823806|NCT00445770|181524639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||0.0790
90823807|NCT00445770|181524639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0168|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||0.0168
90823808|NCT00445770|181524640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||||<0.0001
90823809|NCT00445770|181524640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||||<0.0001
90823810|NCT00445770|181524640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6337|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||||0.6337
90823811|NCT00445770|181524640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||||<0.0001
91062498|NCT00707239|182009395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|70.0|-6.1|24.8||||||Cure: CI was calculated using the Wilson score method, with continuity correction. Clinical response (rates of cure) by using a 2-sided 70% CI for the true difference in efficacy (tigecycline regimen minus imipenem/cilastatin regimen) was calculated. Statistical testing was done at 15% alpha.||24.8|-6.1|
90823812|NCT00445770|181524640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||||<0.0001
90823813|NCT00445770|181524640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7407|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||||0.7407
90823814|NCT00445770|181524640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||||<0.0001
90823815|NCT00445770|181524640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||||<0.0001
90823816|NCT00445770|181524640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3473|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||||0.3473
90823817|NCT00445770|181524640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||||<0.0001
90823818|NCT00445770|181524640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||||<0.0001
90823819|NCT00445770|181524640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7529|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.7529
90823820|NCT00445770|181524640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||||<0.0001
90823821|NCT00445770|181524640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||||<0.0001
90823822|NCT00445770|181524640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5216|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||||0.5216
90823823|NCT00445770|181524640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||||<0.0001
90823824|NCT00445770|181524640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||||<0.0001
90823825|NCT00445770|181524640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1078|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||||0.1078
90823826|NCT00445770|181524640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||<0.0001
90823827|NCT00445770|181524640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||<0.0001
90823828|NCT00445770|181524640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.1280
90823829|NCT00445770|181524640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 32||||<0.0001
90823830|NCT00445770|181524640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 32||||<0.0001
90823831|NCT00445770|181524640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0291|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 32||||0.0291
91062499|NCT00707239|182009396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|70.0|-14.3|14.0||||||Cure: CI was calculated using the Wilson score method, with continuity correction. Clinical response (rates of cure) by using a 2-sided 70% CI for the true difference in efficacy (tigecycline regimen minus imipenem/cilastatin regimen) was calculated. Statistical testing was done at 15% alpha.||14.0|-14.3|
91062500|NCT00707239|182009396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|18.5|||||TWO_SIDED|70.0|4.3|31.8||||||Cure: CI was calculated using the Wilson score method, with continuity correction. Clinical response (rates of cure) by using a 2-sided 70% CI for the true difference in efficacy (tigecycline regimen minus imipenem/cilastatin regimen) was calculated. Statistical testing was done at 15% alpha.||31.8|4.3|
91062501|NCT00707239|182009399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-18.5|||||TWO_SIDED|70.0|-39.6|4.2||||||Eradication: CI was calculated using the Wilson score method, with continuity correction. Microbiological response (rates of eradication) by using a 2-sided 70% CI for the true difference in efficacy (tigecycline regimen minus imipenem/cilastatin regimen) was calculated. Statistical testing was done at 15% alpha.||4.2|-39.6|
91062502|NCT00707239|182009399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|70.0|-23.8|20.9||||||Eradication: CI was calculated using the Wilson score method, with continuity correction. Microbiological response (rates of eradication) by using a 2-sided 70% CI for the true difference in efficacy (tigecycline regimen minus imipenem/cilastatin regimen) was calculated. Statistical testing was done at 15% alpha.||20.9|-23.8|
91062503|NCT00707239|182009400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.527|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at 5% alpha.|Fisher Exact|||Nausea: p-value was calculated using 2-tail Fischer's exact test.||||0.527
91062504|NCT00707239|182009400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at 5% alpha.|Fisher Exact|||Vomiting: p-value was calculated using 2-tail Fischer's exact test.||||0.390
91062505|NCT00707239|182009401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at 5% alpha.|Fisher Exact|||p-value was calculated using 2-tail Fischer's exact test.||||1.000
91062506|NCT00707239|182009402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at 5% alpha.|Fisher Exact|||p-value was calculated using 2-tail Fischer's exact test.||||1.000
91062507|NCT00707239|182009408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0479||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.754|1.46|||Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, experienced nausea and did not experience nausea.||1.46|0.754|0.78
91062508|NCT00707239|182009408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84644||||0.356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.593|1.21|||Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, experienced vomiting and did not experience vomiting.||1.21|0.593|0.356
91062509|NCT00707239|182009409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0054||||0.836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.956|1.06|||Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, cure and failure/indeterminate.||1.06|0.956|0.836
91062510|NCT00707239|182009413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.245|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at 5% alpha.|ANOVA|||Intravenous antibiotic treatment: One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with treatment as factor was used to calculate p-value.||||0.245
91062511|NCT00707239|182009413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.484|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at 5% alpha.|ANOVA|||Hospital stay: One-way ANOVA with treatment as factor was used to calculate p-value.||||0.484
91062512|NCT00707239|182009413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.192|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at 5% alpha.|ANOVA|||ICU stay: One-way ANOVA with treatment as factor was used to calculate p-value.||||0.192
91062513|NCT01518322|182009414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Kappa Statistics|0.049|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0895|0.1875||||||Kappa statistics were used to determine the level of agreement between FeNO measurements and asthma diagnosis using the a dichotomous schemes a measurement greater than 35 ppb for children under the age of 12 years or greater than 50 ppb for subjects at least 12 years of age was considered high.||0.1875|-0.0895|
90823832|NCT00445770|181524640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||||<0.0001
91062514|NCT01958437|182009425|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.048|||||||ANCOVA|||RM ANCOVA (covarying order) for cognitively intact groups||||.048
90823833|NCT00445770|181524640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||||<0.0001
91062515|NCT01958437|182009425|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.063|||||||ANCOVA|||RM ANCOVA (covarying order) for MCI group||||.063
91062516|NCT01958437|182009426|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||ANCOVA|Main effect of stimulation covarying session order||Change between active and sham tDCS sessions for allocentric blocks||||.27
91062517|NCT01958437|182009426|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<.001
91062518|NCT01958437|182009427|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|Main effect of session using repeated measures ANCOVA covarying stimulation order||||||<.001
91062519|NCT01958437|182009427|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046|||||||ANCOVA|Main effect of session using repeated measures ANCOVA covarying stimulation order||||||.046
91062520|NCT01958437|182009428|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.497|||||||ANCOVA|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA (covarying stimulation order)||||.497
91062521|NCT01958437|182009428|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.599|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.599
91062522|NCT02200055|182009448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|This measurement was collected for each participant. A pre-operative and post-operative bioimpedance measurement was taken.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.53|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.01
91062523|NCT00776035|182009454|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.005|||||||Student's t-test|||Average myocardial blood flow, men versus women||||<0.005
91062524|NCT00776035|182009455|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Average myocardial fatty acid utilization, men versus women||||<0.05
91062525|NCT03442751|182009456|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||Repeated measures mixed analysis of covariance model||-0.4|-1.5|0.0004
91062526|NCT03442751|182009457|SUPERIORITY|last observation carried forward was used to impute missing Month 12 data|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.6|||ANCOVA|||repeated measures mixed analysis of covariance model||-0.6|-1.6|<0.0001
91062527|NCT04620746|182009474|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.98
91062528|NCT04620746|182009475|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.95
91062529|NCT02777372|182009485|OTHER|||||||0.139|||||||Regression, Linear|||Effect of group on differences in ASR t scores from follicular to luteal.||||0.139
91062530|NCT02777372|182009486|OTHER|||||||0.843||||||Effect of group on ASR t score in the first luteal phase (no medication) to the second luteal phase (sertraline).|Regression, Linear|||||||0.843
90823834|NCT00445770|181524640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0729|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||||0.0729
90823835|NCT00445770|181524640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||||<0.0001
90823836|NCT00445770|181524640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||||<0.0001
90823837|NCT00445770|181524640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0271|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||||0.0271
90823838|NCT00445770|181524640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||<0.0001
90823839|NCT00445770|181524640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||<0.0001
90823840|NCT00445770|181524640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0453|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||0.0453
91062531|NCT02777372|182009487|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.06
90823841|NCT00445770|181524641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||||<0.0001
90823842|NCT00445770|181524641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||||<0.0001
90823843|NCT00445770|181524641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7488|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||||0.7488
90823844|NCT00445770|181524641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||||<0.0001
90823845|NCT00445770|181524641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||||<0.0001
90823846|NCT00445770|181524641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.568|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||||0.5680
90823847|NCT00445770|181524641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||||<0.0001
90823848|NCT00445770|181524641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||||<0.0001
90823849|NCT00445770|181524641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9241|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||||0.9241
90823850|NCT00445770|181524641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||||<0.0001
90823851|NCT00445770|181524641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||||<0.0001
90823852|NCT00445770|181524641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7146|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.7146
90823853|NCT00445770|181524641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||||<0.0001
90823854|NCT00445770|181524641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||||0.0001
90823855|NCT00445770|181524641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6574|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||||0.6574
90823856|NCT00445770|181524641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||||<0.0001
90823857|NCT00445770|181524641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||||0.0004
90823858|NCT00445770|181524641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2936|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||||0.2936
90823859|NCT00445770|181524641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||<0.0001
90823860|NCT00445770|181524641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.0005
90823861|NCT00445770|181524641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2179|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.2179
90823862|NCT00445770|181524641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 32||||<0.0001
90823863|NCT00445770|181524641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 32||||<0.0001
91062532|NCT05767905|182009489|OTHER||ratio|108.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.55|117.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|"Mixed Model was fitted to obtain:~1.Ratio of geometric means 2.90% CI of ratio of geometric means"||Part 1 PF-06821497 Form 1 250 mg Fasted was the Reference treatment and Part 1 PF-06821497 Form 3 250 mg Fasted was the Test treatment.||117.05|100.55|
91062533|NCT05767905|182009489|OTHER||ratio|106.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.39|114.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model was fitted to obtain:1.Ratio of geometric means 2.90% CI of ratio of geometric means||Part 1 PF-06821497 Form 3 250 mg Fasted was the Test treatment and Part 1 PF-06821497 Form 2 250 mg Fasted was the Reference treatment.||114.54|98.39|
91062534|NCT05767905|182009489|OTHER||ratio|228.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|178.67|293.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model was fitted to obtain:1.Ratio of geometric means 2.90% CI of ratio of geometric means||Part 2 PF-06821497 Form 2 1250 mg Fed High-fat was the Test treatment and Part 2 PF-06821497 Form 2 1250 mg Fasted was the Reference treatment.||293.48|178.67|
91062535|NCT05767905|182009489|OTHER||ratio|207.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|164.41|261.09||||||Part 2 PF-06821497 Form 2 1250 mg Fed Low-fat was the Test treatment and Part 2 PF-06821497 Form 2 1250 mg Fasted was the Reference treatment.||261.09|164.41|
91062536|NCT05767905|182009489|OTHER||ratio|102.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.55|109.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model was fitted to obtain:1.Ratio of geometric means 2.90% CI of ratio of geometric means||Part 1 PF-06821497 Form 1 250 mg Fasted was the Reference treatment, and Part 1 PF-06821497 Form 2 250 mg Fasted was the Test treatment||109.30|95.55|
91062537|NCT05767905|182009490|OTHER||ratio|145.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|121.29|174.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model was fitted to obtain:1.Ratio of geometric means 2.90% CI of ratio of geometric means||Part 1 PF-06821497 Form 3 250 mg Fasted was the Test treatment and Part 1 PF-06821497 Form 1 250 mg Fasted was the Reference treatment.||174.53|121.29|
91062538|NCT05767905|182009490|OTHER||ratio|122.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.24|147.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model was fitted to obtain:1.Ratio of geometric means 2.90% CI of ratio of geometric means||Part 1 PF-06821497 Form 3 250 mg Fasted was the Test treatment and Part 1 PF-06821497 Form 2 250 mg Fasted was the Reference treatment.||147.12|102.24|
91062539|NCT05767905|182009490|OTHER||ratio|284.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|226.39|358.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model was fitted to obtain:1.Ratio of geometric means 2.90% CI of ratio of geometric means||Part 2 PF-06821497 Form 2 1250 mg Fed Low-fat was the Test treatment and Part 2 PF-06821497 Form 2 1250 mg Fasted was the Reference treatment.||358.06|226.39|
91062540|NCT05767905|182009490|OTHER||ratio|327.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|256.9|418.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model was fitted to obtain:1.Ratio of geometric means 2.90% CI of ratio of geometric means||Part 2 PF-06821497 Form 2 1250 mg Fed High-fat was the Test treatment and Part 2 PF-06821497 Form 2 1250 mg Fasted was the Reference treatment.||418.44|256.90|
91062541|NCT05767905|182009490|OTHER||ratio|118.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.36|146.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model was fitted to obtain:1.Ratio of geometric means 2.90% CI of ratio of geometric means||Part 1 PF-06821497 Form 1 250 mg Fasted was the Reference treatment, and Part 1 PF-06821497 Form 2 250 mg Fasted was the Test treatment.||146.06|96.36|
91062542|NCT05807828|182009494|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|7.5|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The median difference between the cup angle of the Control Group for Cup Training and the cup angle of VR Group for Cup Training.||||<0.05
91062543|NCT05807828|182009494|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|291.5|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The median difference between the stem angle of the Control Group for Stem Training and the stem angle of VR Group for Stem Training.||||<0.05
91062544|NCT05807828|182009495|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|54.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|106.6|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Each medical student carried out an implantation following VR training and without VR training. Therefore, there was a deviation (mean difference) between the predefined target and the implanted inclination for the cup or the stem version for the same medical student with VR training.||||<0.05
91062545|NCT05807828|182009495|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|89.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|133.9|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Each medical student carried out an implantation following VR training and without VR training. Therefore, there was a deviation (mean difference) between the predefined target and the implanted inclination for the cup or the stem version for the same medical student without VR training (control).||||<0.05
91062546|NCT05807828|182009496|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|14.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Median difference between the time needed for cup implantation for Control cup group and the time needed for cup implantation for VR cup group||||<0.05
91062547|NCT05807828|182009496|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Median difference between the time needed for stem implantation for Control stem group and the time needed for stem implantation for VR stem group||||<0.05
91062548|NCT02635984|182009530|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Chi-squared|||Based on an 80 % power and an alpha of 0.05, we estimated a need for 49 patients in each treatment arm. From a review of existing literature, the sample size was based on an estimated CR achieved in 65 % of patients on triplet therapy alone and a hypothesized clinically relevant increase of 25 % for the treatment group to 90 %.||||0.003
90823864|NCT00445770|181524641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3704|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 32||||0.3704
90823865|NCT00445770|181524641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||||<0.0001
90823866|NCT00445770|181524641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||||<0.0001
90823867|NCT00445770|181524641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8047|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||||0.8047
91062549|NCT02635984|182009531|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.001
91062550|NCT02635984|182009532|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.11
91062551|NCT02635984|182009533|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.28
91062552|NCT02635984|182009534|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.002
91062553|NCT02635984|182009535|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.006
91062554|NCT02635984|182009536|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.13
91062555|NCT02635984|182009537|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.001
91062556|NCT03135015|182009539|OTHER||Percentage Change from Control|-14.09||||0.1146|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The blinded AUC results for the 6 treatments will be subjected to repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) examining for the main effects of treatment and participant-group, and treatment\*group interaction. After demonstration of significant heterogeneity among the 6 coded treatments, differences between individual means will be assessed using Tukey's test to adjust for multiple comparisons.||||0.1146
90823868|NCT00445770|181524641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||||<0.0001
90823869|NCT00445770|181524641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||||<0.0001
90823870|NCT00445770|181524641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5277|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||||0.5277
90823871|NCT00445770|181524641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||<0.0001
90823872|NCT00445770|181524641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||<0.0001
90823873|NCT00445770|181524641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9371|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||0.9371
90823874|NCT00445770|181524642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||||0.0027
91062557|NCT03135015|182009539|OTHER||Percentage Change from Control|-17.42||||0.0519|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The blinded AUC results for the 6 treatments will be subjected to repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) examining for the main effects of treatment and participant-group, and treatment\*group interaction. After demonstration of significant heterogeneity among the 6 coded treatments, differences between individual means will be assessed using Tukey's test to adjust for multiple comparisons.||||0.0519
90823875|NCT00445770|181524642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||||0.0015
90823876|NCT00445770|181524642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8875|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||||0.8875
90823877|NCT00445770|181524642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||||0.0015
90823878|NCT00445770|181524642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||||0.0011
90823879|NCT00445770|181524642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9694|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||||0.9694
90823880|NCT00445770|181524642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||||0.0020
90823881|NCT00445770|181524642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||||0.0005
90823882|NCT00445770|181524642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7271|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||||0.7271
90823883|NCT00445770|181524642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0235|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.0235
90823884|NCT00445770|181524642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.0061
90823885|NCT00445770|181524642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6427|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.6427
90823886|NCT00445770|181524642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||||0.0036
90823887|NCT00445770|181524642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||||0.0029
90823888|NCT00445770|181524642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9713|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||||0.9713
90823889|NCT00445770|181524642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||||0.0060
90823890|NCT00445770|181524642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||||0.0060
90823891|NCT00445770|181524642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9762|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||||0.9762
90823892|NCT00445770|181524642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0554|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.0554
90823893|NCT00445770|181524642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0181|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.0181
90823894|NCT00445770|181524642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6642|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.6642
90823895|NCT00445770|181524642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0073|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 32||||0.0073
90823896|NCT00445770|181524642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 32||||0.0290
90823897|NCT00445770|181524642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5919|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 32||||0.5919
90823898|NCT00445770|181524642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0371|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||||0.0371
90823899|NCT00445770|181524642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0346|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||||0.0346
91062558|NCT03135015|182009539|OTHER||Percentage Change from Control|-8.95|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||The blinded AUC results for the 6 treatments will be subjected to repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) examining for the main effects of treatment and participant-group, and treatment\*group interaction. After demonstration of significant heterogeneity among the 6 coded treatments, differences between individual means will be assessed using Tukey's test to adjust for multiple comparisons.||||
91062559|NCT03135015|182009540|OTHER|||||||0.1146|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The blinded AUC results for the 6 treatments will be subjected to repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) examining for the main effects of treatment and participant-group, and treatment\*group interaction. After demonstration of significant heterogeneity among the 6 coded treatments, differences between individual means will be assessed using Tukey's test to adjust for multiple comparisons||||0.1146
91062560|NCT03135015|182009540|OTHER|||||||0.0519|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The blinded AUC results for the 6 treatments will be subjected to repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) examining for the main effects of treatment and participant-group, and treatment\*group interaction. After demonstration of significant heterogeneity among the 6 coded treatments, differences between individual means will be assessed using Tukey's test to adjust for multiple comparisons||||0.0519
91062561|NCT03135015|182009541|OTHER|||||||0.5827|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The blinded AUC results for the 6 treatments will be subjected to repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) examining for the main effects of treatment and participant-group, and treatment\*group interaction. After demonstration of significant heterogeneity among the 6 coded treatments, differences between individual means will be assessed using Tukey's test to adjust for multiple comparisons.||||0.5827
91062562|NCT03135015|182009541|OTHER|||||||0.5485|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The blinded AUC results for the 6 treatments will be subjected to repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) examining for the main effects of treatment and participant-group, and treatment\*group interaction. After demonstration of significant heterogeneity among the 6 coded treatments, differences between individual means will be assessed using Tukey's test to adjust for multiple comparisons.||||0.5485
91062563|NCT03135015|182009542|OTHER||Percentage Change from Control|-8.53||||0.5827|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The blinded AUC results for the 6 treatments will be subjected to repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) examining for the main effects of treatment and participant-group, and treatment\*group interaction. After demonstration of significant heterogeneity among the 6 coded treatments, differences between individual means will be assessed using Tukey's test to adjust for multiple comparisons.||||0.5827
91062564|NCT03135015|182009542|OTHER||Percentage Change from Control|9.32||||0.5485|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The blinded AUC results for the 6 treatments will be subjected to repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) examining for the main effects of treatment and participant-group, and treatment\*group interaction. After demonstration of significant heterogeneity among the 6 coded treatments, differences between individual means will be assessed using Tukey's test to adjust for multiple comparisons.||||0.5485
91062565|NCT03135015|182009543|OTHER|||||||0.1234|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1234
91062566|NCT03135015|182009543|OTHER|||||||0.0331|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0331
91062567|NCT03135015|182009544|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0500
91062568|NCT03135015|182009544|OTHER|||||||0.0568|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0568
91062569|NCT03135015|182009545|OTHER|||||||0.0509|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0509
91062570|NCT03135015|182009545|OTHER|||||||0.5016|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5016
91062571|NCT03135015|182009546|OTHER|||||||0.8444|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.8444
91062572|NCT03135015|182009546|OTHER|||||||0.9681|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9681
91062573|NCT03135015|182009546|OTHER|||||||0.1022|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.1022
90823900|NCT00445770|181524642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9955|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||||0.9955
90823901|NCT00445770|181524642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0187|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||||0.0187
91062574|NCT03135015|182009546|OTHER|||||||0.3738|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.3738
91062575|NCT03135015|182009546|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.123|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.55|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Percentage Change from Control|||||
91062576|NCT03135015|182009546|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.362|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.387|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Percentage Change from Control|||||
91062577|NCT03135015|182009546|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.738|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.463|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Percentage Change from Control|||||
91062578|NCT03135015|182009546|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.929|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.282|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Percentage Change from Control|||||
91062579|NCT03135015|182009547|OTHER|||||||0.0111|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0111
91062580|NCT03135015|182009547|OTHER|||||||0.1684|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1684
91062581|NCT03135015|182009547|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.604|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.722|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Percentage Change from Control|||||
91062582|NCT03135015|182009547|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|12.755|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.489|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Percentage Change from Control|||||
91062583|NCT03135015|182009547|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.293|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.664|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Percentage Change from Control|||||
91062584|NCT03135015|182009547|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.526|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.813|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Percentage Change from Control|||||
91062585|NCT03135015|182009548|OTHER||Percentage Change from Control|-21.09||||0.0374|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0374
91062586|NCT03135015|182009549|OTHER||Percentage Change from Control|-24.22||||0.0098|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0098
91062587|NCT03135015|182009549|OTHER||Percentage Change from Control|-25.02||||0.0391|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0391
91062588|NCT03135015|182009550|OTHER||Percentage Change from Control|-36.28||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline (CFB) in blood glucose will be computed at 90 minutes. The CFB results for the capsule treatments and the water control will be subjected to a paired t-test examining whether the mean difference between the two sets of observations is equal to zero.||||0.0034
91062589|NCT03135015|182009550|OTHER||Percentage Change from Control|-33.21||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline (CFB) in blood glucose will be computed at 90 minutes. The CFB results for the capsule treatments and the water control will be subjected to a paired t-test examining whether the mean difference between the two sets of observations is equal to zero.||||0.0058
90823902|NCT00445770|181524642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0645|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||||0.0645
90823903|NCT00445770|181524642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.592|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||||0.5920
90823904|NCT00445770|181524642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||0.0095
90823905|NCT00445770|181524642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2112|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||0.2112
90823906|NCT00445770|181524642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1649|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||0.1649
90823907|NCT00445770|181524643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||||<0.0001
90823908|NCT00445770|181524643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||||<0.0001
91062590|NCT03135015|182009550|OTHER||Percentage Change from Control|-53.27||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline (CFB) in blood glucose will be computed at 120 minutes. The CFB results for the capsule treatments and the water control will be subjected to a paired t-test examining whether the mean difference between the two sets of observations is equal to zero.||||0.0016
90823909|NCT00445770|181524643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8972|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||||0.8972
90823910|NCT00445770|181524643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||||<0.0001
90823911|NCT00445770|181524643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||||<0.0001
90823912|NCT00445770|181524643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3736|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||||0.3736
90823913|NCT00445770|181524643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||||<0.0001
90823914|NCT00445770|181524643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||||<0.0001
90823915|NCT00445770|181524643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9324|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||||0.9324
90823916|NCT00445770|181524643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||||<0.0001
90823917|NCT00445770|181524643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||||<0.0001
90823918|NCT00445770|181524643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8982|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.8982
90823919|NCT00445770|181524643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||||<0.0001
90823920|NCT00445770|181524643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||||0.0007
90823921|NCT00445770|181524643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.318|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||||0.3180
90823922|NCT00445770|181524643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||||<0.0001
90823923|NCT00445770|181524643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||||0.0011
90823924|NCT00445770|181524643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3302|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||||0.3302
90823925|NCT00445770|181524643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||<0.0001
90823926|NCT00445770|181524643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.0002
90823927|NCT00445770|181524643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6563|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.6563
90823928|NCT00445770|181524643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 32||||<0.0001
90823929|NCT00445770|181524643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 32||||<0.0001
90823930|NCT00445770|181524643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8894|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 32||||0.8894
90823931|NCT00445770|181524643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||||<0.0001
90823932|NCT00445770|181524643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||||<0.0001
90823933|NCT00445770|181524643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7826|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||||0.7826
91062591|NCT03135015|182009550|OTHER||Percentage Change from Control|-46.19||||0.0125|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline (CFB) in blood glucose will be computed at 120 minutes. The CFB results for the capsule treatments and the water control will be subjected to a paired t-test examining whether the mean difference between the two sets of observations is equal to zero.||||0.0125
91062592|NCT03135015|182009551|OTHER||Percentage Change from Control|-31.36||||0.0788|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline (CFB) in blood glucose will be computed at 90 minutes. The CFB results for the capsule treatments and the water control will be subjected to a paired t-test examining whether the mean difference between the two sets of observations is equal to zero.||||0.0788
91062593|NCT03135015|182009551|OTHER||Percentage Change from Control|-30.32||||0.0887|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline (CFB) in blood glucose will be computed at 90 minutes. The CFB results for the capsule treatments and the water control will be subjected to a paired t-test examining whether the mean difference between the two sets of observations is equal to zero.||||0.0887
91062594|NCT03135015|182009551|OTHER||Percentage Change from Control|-39.96||||0.0266|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline (CFB) in blood glucose will be computed at 120 minutes. The CFB results for the capsule treatments and the water control will be subjected to a paired t-test examining whether the mean difference between the two sets of observations is equal to zero.||||0.0266
91062595|NCT03135015|182009551|OTHER||Percentage Change from Control|-41.8||||0.0455|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline (CFB) in blood glucose will be computed at 120 minutes. The CFB results for the capsule treatments and the water control will be subjected to a paired t-test examining whether the mean difference between the two sets of observations is equal to zero.||||0.0455
91062596|NCT03135015|182009552|OTHER||Percentage Change from Control|-41.82||||0.0261|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline (CFB) in blood glucose will be computed at 90 minutes. The CFB results for the capsule treatments and the water control will be subjected to a paired t-test examining whether the mean difference between the two sets of observations is equal to zero.||||0.0261
91062597|NCT03135015|182009552|OTHER||Percentage Change from Control|-36.45||||0.0391|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline (CFB) in blood glucose will be computed at 90 minutes. The CFB results for the capsule treatments and the water control will be subjected to a paired t-test examining whether the mean difference between the two sets of observations is equal to zero.||||0.0391
91062598|NCT03135015|182009552|OTHER||Percentage Change from Control|-82.11||||0.0372|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline (CFB) in blood glucose will be computed at 120 minutes. The CFB results for the capsule treatments and the water control will be subjected to a paired t-test examining whether the mean difference between the two sets of observations is equal to zero.||||0.0372
91062599|NCT03135015|182009552|OTHER||Percentage Change from Control|-55.81||||0.1631|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline (CFB) in blood glucose will be computed at 120 minutes. The CFB results for the capsule treatments and the water control will be subjected to a paired t-test examining whether the mean difference between the two sets of observations is equal to zero.||||0.1631
91062600|NCT03135015|182009553|OTHER||Percentage Change from Control|-46.43||||0.0303|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline (CFB) in insulin will be computed at 90 minutes. The CFB results for the capsule treatments and the water control will be subjected to a paired t-test examining whether the mean difference between the two sets of observations is equal to zero.||||0.0303
91062601|NCT03135015|182009553|OTHER||Percentage Change from Control|-19.64||||0.4283|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline (CFB) in insulin will be computed at 90 minutes. The CFB results for the capsule treatments and the water control will be subjected to a paired t-test examining whether the mean difference between the two sets of observations is equal to zero.||||0.4283
91062602|NCT03649347|182009563|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Interaction effect: p\<.001, np2=.720|ANOVA|Main effect of time: p\<.001, np2=.798; main effect of group: p\<.001, np2=.711||A repeated measures ANOVA was conducted to assess main effects of group (AR therapy intervention versus no treatment control), time (baseline, one week follow up, and one month follow up) as well as an interaction effect. The P-Value shown below is for the interaction effect. Post-hoc power analysis indicated actual power 99%, critical F=4.76.||||<.001
91062603|NCT03649347|182009564|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Interaction effect: p\<.001, np2=.542|ANOVA|Main effect of time: p\<.001, np2=.598; and main effect of group: p\<.001, np2=.439||A repeated measures ANOVA was conducted to assess main effects of group (AR therapy intervention versus no treatment control), time (baseline, one week follow up, and one month follow up) as well as an interaction effect. The P-Value shown below is for the interaction effect. Post-hoc power analysis indicated actual power 96%, critical F=4.76.||||<.001
91062604|NCT03649347|182009566|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.005||||||Interaction effect: p\<.005, np2=.481|ANOVA|Main effect of time: p\<.001, np2=.572; and main effect of group p\<.001, np2=.626||A repeated measures ANOVA was conducted to assess main effects of group (AR therapy intervention versus no treatment control), time (baseline, one week follow up, and one month follow up) as well as an interaction effect. The P-Value shown below is for the interaction effect. Post-hoc power analysis indicated actual power 99%, critical F=3.49.||||<.005
91062605|NCT01866098|182009567|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Estimated treatment differences between groups analyzed using mixed-model analysis. Model includes the baseline value age; sex; compliance; ethnicity.||||||0.83
91062606|NCT01866098|182009568|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.10
91062607|NCT01866098|182009569|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Estimated treatment differences between groups analyzed using mixed-model analysis. Model includes the baseline value age; sex; compliance; ethnicity.||||||0.19
90823934|NCT00445770|181524643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||||<0.0001
91062608|NCT01866098|182009570|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Estimated treatment differences between groups analyzed using mixed-model analysis. Model includes the baseline value age; sex; compliance; ethnicity.||||||0.96
91062609|NCT01866098|182009571|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Estimated treatment differences between groups analyzed using mixed-model analysis. Model includes the baseline value age; sex; compliance; ethnicity.||||||0.92
91062610|NCT01866098|182009572|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Estimated treatment differences between groups analyzed using mixed-model analysis. Model includes the baseline value age; sex; compliance; ethnicity.||||||0.98
91062611|NCT01866098|182009573|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Estimated treatment differences between groups analyzed using mixed-model analysis. Model includes the baseline value age; sex; compliance; ethnicity.||||||0.95
91062612|NCT01866098|182009574|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Estimated treatment differences between groups analyzed using mixed-model analysis. Model includes the baseline value age; sex; compliance; ethnicity.||||||0.43
91062613|NCT03417687|182009590|EQUIVALENCE|The 2 methods were considered equivalent if the 95% confidence interval for the mean within subject difference between 129Xe MRI and 133Xe scintigraphy measurements was contained within the equivalence margin (-14.7%, +14.7%).|Mean Difference (Net)|1.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|3.6||||||The primary efficacy analysis tested the mean difference in the predicted percentage of remaining pulmonary function as measured by 129Xe MRI relative to the value as measured by 133Xe scintigraphy (reference standard) if a pre-defined section of lung were resected.||3.60|-0.75|
91062614|NCT03417687|182009592|EQUIVALENCE|The 2 methods were considered equivalent if the 95% confidence interval for the mean within subject difference between 129Xe MRI and 133Xe scintigraphy measurements was contained within the equivalence margin (-5.0%, +5.0%).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.71|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.39|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.12|5.29||||||||5.29|2.12|
91062615|NCT03417687|182009593|EQUIVALENCE|The 2 methods were considered equivalent if the 95% confidence interval for the mean within subject difference between 129Xe MRI and 133Xe scintigraphy measurements was contained within the equivalence margin (-5.0%, +5.0%).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.39|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.476|1.26||||||||1.26|-0.476|
91062616|NCT03417687|182009594|EQUIVALENCE|The 2 methods were considered equivalent if the 95% confidence interval for the mean within subject difference between 129Xe MRI and 133Xe scintigraphy measurements was contained within the equivalence margin (-5.0%, +5.0%).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.35|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.22|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.184|2.505||||||||2.505|0.184|
91062617|NCT03417687|182009595|EQUIVALENCE|The 2 methods were considered equivalent if the 95% confidence interval for the mean within subject difference between 129Xe MRI and 133Xe scintigraphy measurements was contained within the equivalence margin (-5.0%, +5.0%).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.96|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.101|0.181||||||||0.181|-2.101|
91062618|NCT03417687|182009596|EQUIVALENCE|The 2 methods were considered equivalent if the 95% confidence interval for the mean within subject difference between 129Xe MRI and 133Xe scintigraphy measurements was contained within the equivalence margin (-5.0%, +5.0%).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.721|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.82|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.096|-1.345||||||||-1.345|-4.096|
91062619|NCT03417687|182009597|EQUIVALENCE|The 2 methods were considered equivalent if the 95% confidence interval for the mean within subject difference between 129Xe MRI and 133Xe scintigraphy measurements was contained within the equivalence margin (-5.0%, +5.0%).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.76|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.96|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.192|-0.335||||||||-0.335|-3.192|
91062620|NCT00619060|182009609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Binomial|||||||0.01
91062621|NCT02487225|182009610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5796|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Admission (baseline)||||0.5796
91062622|NCT02487225|182009610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8415|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Day 5||||0.8415
91062623|NCT02487225|182009611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1109|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Admission (baseline)||||0.1109
90823935|NCT00445770|181524643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||||0.0003
91062624|NCT02487225|182009611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4619|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.4619
91062625|NCT02487225|182009612|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1236|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Admission (baseline)||||0.1236
91062626|NCT02487225|182009612|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9468|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Day 5||||0.9468
90823936|NCT00445770|181524643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5343|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||||0.5343
90823937|NCT00445770|181524643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||<0.0001
91062627|NCT02487225|182009613|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.157|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Admission (baseline)||||0.157
91062628|NCT02487225|182009613|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3173|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Day 5||||0.3173
91062629|NCT03953612|182009623|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed effects||||||<.001
91062630|NCT03953612|182009624|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed effects||||||<.001
91062631|NCT03953612|182009625|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed effects||||||0.7
91062632|NCT03953612|182009626|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0001
91062633|NCT03953612|182009627|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.042|||||||. Negative binomial regression models|||||||0.042
91062634|NCT03953612|182009628|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.125|||||||. Negative binomial regression models|||||||0.125
91062635|NCT00489255|182009629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.43||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.11|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for treatment was stratified by site.||The null hypothesis was no difference between treatments.||1.11|0.17|0.09
91062636|NCT00489255|182009630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.44||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.90|0.21|0.025
91062637|NCT00489255|182009631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.25||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.70|0.09|0.005
91062638|NCT00489255|182009632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|2.48|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.48|0.23|0.65
91062639|NCT00489255|182009633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.21||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.21|||ANOVA|Treatment effect in ANOVA was adjusted for site.||||0.21|-0.64|0.32
91062640|NCT00489255|182009634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-1.07||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|-0.43|||ANOVA|||||-0.43|-1.71|0.001
91062641|NCT00489255|182009635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.19|||ANOVA|||||0.19|-0.20|0.95
91062642|NCT00489255|182009636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (row mean score) with rigid scores, stratified by site||||||0.88
91062643|NCT00489255|182009637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (row mean score) with rigid scores, stratified by site||||||0.019
91062644|NCT00489255|182009638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.29
91062645|NCT00489255|182009639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.1||Cox's proportional hazards model with site and treatment (Tigan/placebo) as factors.|Regression, Cox|||||1.1|0.5|0.17
91062646|NCT00489255|182009640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.3||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.7||Cox's proportional hazards model with site and treatment (Tigan/placebo) as factors.|Regression, Cox|||||0.7|0.1|0.008
91062647|NCT00489255|182009641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.3||Cox's proportional hazards model with site and treatment (Tigan/placebo) as factors.|Regression, Cox|||||1.3|0.6|0.49
91062648|NCT00489255|182009642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.1|||Regression, Cox|||||2.1|0.7|0.4
91062649|NCT00489255|182009643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.62||95.0|0.6|2.3||Cox's proportional hazards model with site and treatment (Tigan/placebo) as factors.|Regression, Cox|||||2.3|0.6|0.62
91062650|NCT00489255|182009644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.08||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.59|3.76|||ANOVA|ANCOVA model with baseline score (score at Visit 1/Screening) as a covariate, and site and treatment as factors.||||3.76|-3.59|0.96
91062651|NCT00489255|182009645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.18||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.37|4.02|||ANOVA|||||4.02|-4.37|0.93
91062652|NCT00489255|182009646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.39||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.12|3.34|||ANOVA|||||3.34|-4.12|0.84
91062653|NCT00489255|182009647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.97||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.17|8.11|||ANOVA|||||8.11|-2.17|0.25
91062654|NCT00489255|182009648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.47||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.47|5.4|||ANOVA|||||5.40|-2.47|0.46
91062655|NCT00489255|182009649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.96||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.13|9.06|||ANOVA|||||9.06|-3.13|0.33
91062656|NCT00489255|182009650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.27||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.57|6.11|||ANOVA|||||6.11|-5.57|0.93
91062657|NCT03051672|182009714|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||The study terminated at stage 1 and no p-value was estimated.||||The study uses a Simon 2-stage design. In stage 1, if \>/=1 of 8 achieved OR then continue to stage 2 (enroll 19 more). If \>/= 3 of 27 respond, the regimen would be considered promising. The null ORR\<= 3% and alternative ORR\>/=20%. With this design, the probability of stopping the trial early is 58% if the true ORR is 3%. This design at 80% power to declare the combination effective, while controlling for less than 5% 1-sided type I error under the null hypothesis.|The study terminated at stage 1 and no p-value was estimated.|||
91062658|NCT00610428|182009719|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.084||||||p-values calculated by Log-rank Test in step-down sequence (10 mg to 5 mg)|Survival|||Survival time is defined as time to the first successful headache relief.||||0.0840
91062659|NCT00610428|182009719|SUPERIORITY|Survival time is defined as time to the first successful headache relief.||||||0.0383||||||p-values calculated by Log-rank Test in step-down sequence (10 mg to 5 mg)|Survival|||||||0.0383
90823938|NCT00445770|181524643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||<0.0001
90823939|NCT00445770|181524643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9313|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||0.9313
90823940|NCT00445770|181524644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||||<0.0001
91062660|NCT01328184|182009723|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ratio calculated as Microgynon plus empa divided by Microgynon|Geometric Mean Ratio|102.82|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.58|108.35|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with fixed term for treatment and random term for subject.|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV)|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability.||108.35|97.58|
91062661|NCT01328184|182009724|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ratio calculated as Microgynon plus empa divided by Microgynon|Geometric Mean Ratio|101.94|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.54|105.47|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with fixed term for treatment and random term for subject.|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV)|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability.||105.47|98.54|
91062662|NCT01328184|182009725|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ratio calculated as Microgynon plus empa divided by Microgynon|Geometric Mean Ratio|99.22|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.4|105.39|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with fixed term for treatment and random term for subject.|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV).|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability.||105.39|93.40|
91062663|NCT01328184|182009726|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ratio calculated as Microgynon plus empa divided by Microgynon|Geometric Mean Ratio|105.81|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.47|112.55|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with fixed term for treatment and random term for subject.|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV)|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability.||112.55|99.47|
91062664|NCT04927845|182009743|SUPERIORITY||between-group effect size Cohen's d|0.24||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.41|||linear mixed effects, groupXtime term|||||0.41|0.06|.008
91062665|NCT04927845|182009743|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.75||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||linear mixed effects, groupXtime term|||Per Protocol Analyses of Intervention Effects: comparing the waitlist condition versus only intervention group participants who were program initiators||||.03
91062666|NCT04927845|182009743|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||linear mixed effects, groupXtime term|||Per Protocol Analyses of Intervention Effects: concurrent service use was added as a covariate to models.||||.009
91062667|NCT04927845|182009744|SUPERIORITY||between-group effect size Cohen's d|0.11||||0.21|TWO_SIDED||||||linear mixed effects, groupXtime term|||||||.21
91062668|NCT04927845|182009745|SUPERIORITY||between-group effect size Cohen's d|0.19||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.36|||linear mixed effects, groupXtime term|||||0.36|0.02|.046
91062669|NCT03493685|182009748|OTHER||Slope difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.7491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|2.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.41|-1.74|0.7491
91062670|NCT03493685|182009749|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|16.0||||0.0094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.96|28.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||28.04|3.96|0.0094
91062671|NCT03493685|182009750|OTHER||Slope difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09||0.4203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|3.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.04|-1.27|0.4203
90823941|NCT00445770|181524644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||||<0.0001
90823942|NCT00445770|181524644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8044|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||||0.8044
90823943|NCT00445770|181524644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||||<0.0001
90823944|NCT00445770|181524644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||||0.0003
90823945|NCT00445770|181524644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4652|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||||0.4652
90823946|NCT00445770|181524644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||||<0.0001
90823947|NCT00445770|181524644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||||<0.0001
91062672|NCT03493685|182009751|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8||||0.2708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|4.93|||ANCOVA|||||4.93|-1.39|0.2708
91062673|NCT02218463|182009754|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.206|||||||Fisher Exact|||Assessment of complete resolution between the 2 study arms.||||0.206
90823948|NCT00445770|181524644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5612|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||||0.5612
90823949|NCT00445770|181524644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.0002
90823950|NCT00445770|181524644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.0002
90823951|NCT00445770|181524644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9749|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.9749
90823952|NCT00445770|181524644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||||0.0001
90823953|NCT00445770|181524644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||||0.0004
90823954|NCT00445770|181524644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.729|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||||0.7290
90823955|NCT00445770|181524644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||||<0.0001
90823956|NCT00445770|181524644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||||0.0003
90823957|NCT00445770|181524644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5004|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||||0.5004
90823958|NCT00445770|181524644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||<0.0001
90823959|NCT00445770|181524644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||<0.0001
90823960|NCT00445770|181524644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5727|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.5727
90823961|NCT00445770|181524644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 32||||<0.0001
90823962|NCT00445770|181524644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 32||||<0.0001
90823963|NCT00445770|181524644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6713|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 32||||0.6713
90823964|NCT00445770|181524644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||||<0.0001
90823965|NCT00445770|181524644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||||0.0001
90823966|NCT00445770|181524644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7663|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||||0.7663
90823967|NCT00445770|181524644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||||<0.0001
90823968|NCT00445770|181524644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||||0.0002
90823969|NCT00445770|181524644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7073|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||||0.7073
90823970|NCT00445770|181524644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||<0.0001
91062674|NCT02218463|182009755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Time Effect||||0.0001
91062675|NCT02218463|182009755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||ANOVA|||Treatment Effect||||0.370
91062676|NCT02218463|182009755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.425|||||||ANOVA|||Treatment by time interaction||||0.425
91062677|NCT03511105|182009826|OTHER||Absolute Difference|-30.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|48.662|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-127.07|65.51|||||Absolute difference (GSK2798745 - Placebo) and 95% CrI has been presented.|||65.51|-127.07|
91062678|NCT03511105|182009826|OTHER||Percentage change|8.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.453|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.41|31.3|||||Percentage change on GSK2798745 relative to placebo has been presented.|||31.30|-21.41|
91062679|NCT03511105|182009827|OTHER||Absolute Difference|-4.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.679|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.49|22.87|||||Absolute difference (GSK2798745 - Placebo) and 95% CrI have been presented.|||22.87|-31.49|
91062680|NCT03511105|182009827|OTHER||Percentage change|7.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.837|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.2|41.64|||||Percentage change on GSK2798745 relative to placebo has been presented.|||41.64|-48.20|
91062681|NCT03511105|182009828|OTHER||Absolute Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.178|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.28|6.2|||||Absolute difference (GSK2798745 - Placebo) and 95% CrI have been presented.|||6.20|-6.28|
91062682|NCT03511105|182009828|OTHER||Percentage change|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.429|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.15|10.16|||||Percentage change on GSK2798745 relative to placebo has been presented.|||10.16|-11.15|
91062683|NCT02810457|182009852|EQUIVALENCE|A 90% CI for the ORR ratio between FKB238 and Avastin was estimated and compared to the margin (0.73 to 1.38), which was deemed to represent a clinically acceptable difference with respect to ORR. If the 90% CI was within the equivalence margin (0.73 to 1.38), an equivalence between FKB238 and Avastin, with respect to the ORR, was confirmed.|Ratio in ORR|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.86|1.08||||||||1.08|0.86|
91062684|NCT02810457|182009853|OTHER|Ratio in ORR analysis of FKB238 versus Avastin.|Ratio in ORR|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|1.06||||||Comparison between groups: Risk ratio in ORR at Week 19 by BICR.||1.06|0.83|
90823971|NCT00445770|181524644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||0.0001
90823972|NCT00445770|181524644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7973|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||0.7973
90823973|NCT00445770|181524645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 2||||<0.0001
90823974|NCT00445770|181524645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 2||||<0.0001
91062685|NCT02810457|182009854|OTHER|Hazard ratio analysis of FKB238 versus Avastin.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.16|||||Treatment hazard ratio \<1 favors FKB238.|Hazard ratio and its 95% CI were calculated using the Cox regression model adjusting for baseline characteristics (randomization stratification factors, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status at baseline, gender, smoking history and age) with ties handled by the Efron method.||1.16|0.82|
90823975|NCT00445770|181524645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1053|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 2||||0.1053
90823976|NCT00445770|181524645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 4||||<0.0001
90823977|NCT00445770|181524645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 4||||<0.0001
90823978|NCT00445770|181524645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0144|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 4||||0.0144
90823979|NCT00445770|181524645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 8||||<0.0001
90823980|NCT00445770|181524645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 8||||<0.0001
90823981|NCT00445770|181524645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1851|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 8||||0.1851
90823982|NCT00445770|181524645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 12||||<0.0001
90823983|NCT00445770|181524645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 12||||0.0001
90823984|NCT00445770|181524645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2883|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 12||||0.2883
90823985|NCT00445770|181524645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 16||||<0.0001
90823986|NCT00445770|181524645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 16||||0.0007
90823987|NCT00445770|181524645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2221|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 16||||0.2221
90823988|NCT00445770|181524645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 20||||<0.0001
90823989|NCT00445770|181524645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0147|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 20||||0.0147
91062686|NCT02810457|182009855|OTHER|Hazard ratio analysis of FKB238 versus Avastin.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.45|||||Treatment hazard ratio \<1 favors FKB238.|Hazard ratio and its 95% CI were calculated using the Cox regression model adjusting for baseline characteristics (randomization stratification factors, ECOG performance status at baseline, gender, smoking history and age) with ties handled by the Efron method.||1.45|0.96|
91062687|NCT02810457|182009856|OTHER|Hazard ratio analysis of FKB238 versus Avastin.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.23|||||Treatment hazard ratio \<1 favors FKB238.|Hazard ratio and its 95% CI were calculated using the Cox regression model adjusting for baseline characteristics (randomization stratification factors, ECOG performance status at baseline, gender, smoking history and age) with ties handled by the Efron method.||1.23|0.74|
91062688|NCT02810457|182009857|OTHER|Comparison between arms: Odds ratio.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.58|||||Odds ratio \>1 favors FKB238.|The DCR was compared between treatment arms using logistic regression adjusting for baseline characteristics (randomization stratification factors, ECOG performance status at baseline, gender, smoking history and age).||1.58|0.64|
90823990|NCT00445770|181524645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0201|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 20||||0.0201
90823991|NCT00445770|181524645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 24||||<0.0001
90823992|NCT00445770|181524645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 24||||0.0036
90823993|NCT00445770|181524645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0789|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 24||||0.0789
90823994|NCT00445770|181524645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 32||||<0.0001
90823995|NCT00445770|181524645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 32||||0.0008
90823996|NCT00445770|181524645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1903|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 32||||0.1903
91062689|NCT04179838|182009892|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||Corrected for multiple comparisons in piriform cortex|t-test, 1 sided|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in decoding accuracy between sleep-deprived and non-sleep deprived interventions. Paired t-test on decoding accuracy from both phases (sleep-deprived minus non-sleep deprived) against the null hypothesis of no difference.||||0.001
90823997|NCT00445770|181524645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 40||||<0.0001
90823998|NCT00445770|181524645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 40||||0.0048
90823999|NCT00445770|181524645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1059|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 40||||0.1059
90824000|NCT00445770|181524645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 48||||<0.0001
90824001|NCT00445770|181524645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 48||||0.0018
90824002|NCT00445770|181524645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2589|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 48||||0.2589
90824003|NCT00445770|181524645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 52||||<0.0001
90824004|NCT00445770|181524645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 52||||0.0040
90824005|NCT00445770|181524645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2326|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 52||||0.2326
90824006|NCT00445770|181524646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 2||||<0.0001
90824007|NCT00445770|181524646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 2||||<0.0001
90824008|NCT00445770|181524646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4751|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 2||||0.4751
90824009|NCT00445770|181524646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 4||||<0.0001
90824010|NCT00445770|181524646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 4||||<0.0001
90824011|NCT00445770|181524646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4653|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 4||||0.4653
90824012|NCT00445770|181524646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 8||||<0.0001
90824013|NCT00445770|181524646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 8||||<0.0001
90824014|NCT00445770|181524646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7953|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 8||||0.7953
90824015|NCT00445770|181524646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 12||||<0.0001
90824016|NCT00445770|181524646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 12||||<0.0001
90824017|NCT00445770|181524646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0848|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 12||||0.0848
90824018|NCT00445770|181524646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 16||||<0.0001
90824019|NCT00445770|181524646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 16||||<0.0001
90824020|NCT00445770|181524646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6112|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 16||||0.6112
90824021|NCT00445770|181524646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 20||||<0.0001
90824022|NCT00445770|181524646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 20||||0.0002
91062690|NCT04179838|182009893|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.021|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Null hypothesis is that there was no change after the sleep-deprived relative to the non-sleep deprived intervention. One sample t-test on percentage change in the sleep-deprived relative to non-sleep deprived phase.||||0.021
91062691|NCT04179838|182009894|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis is that there was no change after the sleep-deprived relative to the non-sleep deprived intervention. One sample t-test on percentage change in the sleep-deprived relative to non-sleep deprived phase.||||0.63
91062692|NCT04179838|182009895|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis is that there was no change after the sleep-deprived relative to the non-sleep deprived intervention. One sample t-test on percentage change in the sleep-deprived relative to non-sleep deprived phase.||||0.08
91062693|NCT04179838|182009896|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis is that there was no change after the sleep-deprived relative to the non-sleep deprived intervention. One sample t-test on percentage change in the sleep-deprived relative to non-sleep deprived phase.||||0.28
91062694|NCT04179838|182009897|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis is that there was no change after the sleep-deprived relative to the non-sleep deprived intervention. One sample t-test on percentage change in the sleep-deprived relative to non-sleep deprived phase.||||0.50
91062695|NCT04179838|182009898|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis is that there was no change after the sleep-deprived relative to the non-sleep deprived intervention. One sample t-test on percentage change in the sleep-deprived relative to non-sleep deprived phase.||||0.58
91062696|NCT02750618|182009899|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.96|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.19|||GEE model|||||1.19|0.73|< 0.0001
91062697|NCT02750618|182009901|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|2.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.07|2.35|||GEE model|||||2.35|2.07|< 0.0001
91062698|NCT02750618|182009902|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|2.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.01|2.45|||GEE model|||The GEE model includes the RGI-C score as the dependent variable, visit as a factor, age and RSS at baseline as covariates, with exchangeable covariance structure. The least squares (LS) mean, standard error (SE), 95% confidence interval (CI) and 2-sided p-value are from the GEE model.||2.45|2.01|< 0.0001
91062699|NCT02750618|182009903|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.75|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|-1.53|||GEE model|||||-1.53|-1.98|< 0.0001
91062700|NCT02750618|182009904|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-2.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|-1.8||The GEE model includes the change from baseline in RSS as the dependent variable, visit as a factor, age and RSS at baseline as covariates, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||||-1.80|-2.25|< 0.0001
91062701|NCT02750618|182009905|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|1.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.51|||GEE model|||||1.51|0.90|< 0.0001
91062702|NCT02750618|182009906|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|1.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|1.76||The GEE model includes the RGI-C score as the dependent variable, visit as a factor, age and RSS at baseline as covariates, with exchangeable covariance structure. The LS Mean, SE, 95% CI and 2-sided p-value are from the GEE model.|GEE|||||1.76|1.27|< 0.0001
91062703|NCT02750618|182009910|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-82.91||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-128.68|-37.15|||GEE model|||Week 4||-37.15|-128.68|0.0004
90824023|NCT00445770|181524646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3671|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 20||||0.3671
91062704|NCT02750618|182009910|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-83.84||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-172.55|4.88|||GEE model|||Week 12||4.88|-172.55|0.0640
91062705|NCT02750618|182009910|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-161.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-186.7|-136.05|||GEE model|||Week 20||-136.05|-186.70|< 0.0001
90824024|NCT00445770|181524646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 24||||<0.0001
90824025|NCT00445770|181524646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 24||||<0.0001
90824026|NCT00445770|181524646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7618|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 24||||0.7618
91062706|NCT02750618|182009910|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-214.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-241.7|-188.28|||GEE model|||Week 40||-188.28|-241.70|< 0.0001
91062707|NCT02750618|182009910|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-226.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-249.11|-204.06|||GEE model|||Week 48||-204.06|-249.11|< 0.0001
91062708|NCT02750618|182009910|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-216.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-248.13|-184.77|||GEE model|||Week 56||-184.77|-248.13|< 0.0001
91062709|NCT02750618|182009910|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-216.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-241.66|-191.86|||GEE model|||Week 64||-191.86|-241.66|< 0.0001
91062710|NCT02750618|182009910|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-231.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-262.51|-199.93|||GEE|||Week 76||-199.93|-262.51|< 0.0001
91062711|NCT02750618|182009910|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-237.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-262.94|-212.62|||GEE|||Week 88||-212.62|-262.94|< 0.0001
91062712|NCT02750618|182009910|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-218.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-248.21|-188.08|||GEE|||Week 100||-188.08|-248.21|< 0.0001
91062713|NCT02750618|182009910|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-233.91|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-255.66|-212.16|||GEE|||Week 112||-212.16|-255.66|< 0.0001
91062714|NCT02750618|182009910|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-252.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-268.51|-235.93|||GEE|||Week 124||-235.93|-268.51|< 0.0001
91062715|NCT02750618|182009910|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-267.89|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-293.61|-242.16|||GEE|||Week 136||-242.16|-293.61|< 0.0001
91062716|NCT02750618|182009910|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-248.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-272.85|-223.25|||GEE|||Week 148||-223.25|-272.85|< 0.0001
91062717|NCT02750618|182009910|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-248.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-270.01|-226.93|||GEE|||Week 160||-226.93|-270.01|< 0.0001
91062718|NCT02763046|182009917|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.3512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|2.36|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.36|0.74|0.3512
91062719|NCT02763046|182009918|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|2.6|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||2.60|0.68|0.4010
91062720|NCT02763046|182009918|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.4382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|2.55|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||2.55|0.67|0.4382
91062721|NCT02763046|182009918|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.78||||0.0934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|3.5|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16||3.50|0.91|0.0934
91062722|NCT02763046|182009918|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.2619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.9|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16||2.90|0.75|0.2619
91062723|NCT02763046|182009919|SUPERIORITY||LS (least square) Mean|-10.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.25||0.0997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.55|1.96|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||1.96|-22.55|0.0997
91062724|NCT02763046|182009919|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-12.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.23||0.0888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.47|1.87|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||1.87|-26.47|0.0888
91062725|NCT02763046|182009919|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-8.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.18||0.2484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.36|5.79|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||5.79|-22.36|0.2484
91062726|NCT02763046|182009920|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-2.06||||0.7735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.11|11.98|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||delayed tapering (W12) vs early tapering (W16)||11.98|-16.11|0.7735
91062727|NCT02763046|182009921|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.1926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.2|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 12||0.20|-0.99|0.1926
91062728|NCT02763046|182009921|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.1914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|0.23|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 12||0.23|-1.14|0.1914
91062729|NCT02763046|182009921|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.3397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|0.35|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 12||0.35|-1.01|0.3397
91062730|NCT02763046|182009921|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.0384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.04|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 16||-0.04|-1.33|0.0384
91062731|NCT02763046|182009921|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.2116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|0.23|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 16||0.23|-1.05|0.2116
91062732|NCT02763046|182009922|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02||0.5384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|2.63|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||2.63|-1.38|0.5384
91062733|NCT02763046|182009922|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18||0.9251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.43|2.21|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||2.21|-2.43|0.9251
91062734|NCT02763046|182009922|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16||0.2432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|3.66|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||3.66|-0.93|0.2432
91062735|NCT00080912|182009923|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The original sample size was determined based on the non-inferiority. The original sample size is based on assumption of response rate on the multiple fraction arm is 70%, 260 patients were required in each treatment arm to have 80% power to exclude, with a one sided alpha of 0.05, a response rate of 60% or less in the single fraction radiation group (non-inferiority margin =10%). Given an inevaluability rate of 30%, 850 patients (425 for each treatment arm) were randomized to the study.|Risk Difference (RD)|4.0||||0.03|ONE_SIDED|95.0||9.2||p-value is for one-sided non-inferiority test|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The upper limit of one-sided 95% CI for the response rate difference was 9.2%, which was below the pre-specified 10% non-inferiority boundary|||9.2||0.03
91062736|NCT00818766|182009927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.3||||0.26||95.0|-11.3|2.7|||Fisher Exact|||||2.7|-11.3|.26
91062737|NCT00818766|182009928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.93||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|4.3|||Fisher Exact|||||4.3|-6.1|0.77
90824027|NCT00445770|181524646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 32||||<0.0001
90824028|NCT00445770|181524646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 32||||<0.0001
90824029|NCT00445770|181524646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4358|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 32||||0.4358
91062738|NCT00818766|182009929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.4||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|1.6|||Fisher Exact|||||1.6|-8.3|.21
91062739|NCT00818766|182009930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.49
91062740|NCT00818766|182009932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||.25
91062741|NCT00818766|182009933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||.25
91062742|NCT01111318|182009972|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio|123.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|29.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.89|153.36|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with fixed effect for treatment (corresponding to hepatic impairment status).|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|Ratio calculated as mild divided by healthy||153.36|98.89|
91062743|NCT01111318|182009972|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio|146.97|STANDARD_DEVIATION|29.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|118.02|183.02|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with fixed effect for treatment (corresponding to hepatic impairment status).|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|Ratio calculated as moderate divided by healthy||183.02|118.02|
91062744|NCT01111318|182009972|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio|174.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|29.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|140.29|217.55|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with fixed effect for treatment (corresponding to hepatic impairment status).|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|Ratio calculated as severe divided by healthy||217.55|140.29|
91062745|NCT01111318|182009973|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio|103.81|STANDARD_DEVIATION|30.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.29|130.95|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with fixed effect for treatment (corresponding to hepatic impairment status).|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|Ratio calculated as mild divided by healthy||130.95|82.29|
91062746|NCT01111318|182009973|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio|123.31|STANDARD_DEVIATION|30.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.74|155.55|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with fixed effect for treatment (corresponding to hepatic impairment status).|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|Ratio calculated as moderate divided by healthy||155.55|97.74|
91062747|NCT01111318|182009973|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio|148.41|STANDARD_DEVIATION|30.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|117.65|187.23|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with fixed effect for treatment (corresponding to hepatic impairment status).|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|Ratio calculated as severe divided by healthy||187.23|117.65|
91062748|NCT00725491|182010013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Whitehead|||||||<0.001
91062749|NCT01641640|182010015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Binomial exact test|||Superiority would be demonstrated if the SVR12 rate was higher than the 60% null SVR rate based on historical control data.||||< 0.001
91062750|NCT00860795|182010024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||.17
91062751|NCT00860795|182010025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||.72
91062752|NCT00860795|182010026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||.2
91062753|NCT00860795|182010028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||.51
91062754|NCT00860795|182010029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||.43
91062755|NCT00860795|182010030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||.61
91062756|NCT02792517|182010054|OTHER||Least Squares Geometric Mean Ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.22|||||Ratio of EE/norgestimate + erenumab to EE/norgestimate alone|The log-transformed Cmax was analyzed using a linear mixed effects model with treatment as a fixed effect and subject as a random effect.||1.22|0.88|
90824030|NCT00445770|181524646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 40||||0.0008
90824031|NCT00445770|181524646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 40||||<0.0001
91062757|NCT02792517|182010055|OTHER||Least Squares Geometric Mean Ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.14|||||Ratio of EE/norgestimate + erenumab to EE/norgestimate alone|The log-transformed AUCtau was analyzed using a linear mixed effects model with treatment as a fixed effect and subject as a random effect.||1.14|0.91|
91062758|NCT02792517|182010056|OTHER||Least Squares Geometric Mean Ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.16|||||Ratio of EE/norgestimate + erenumab to EE/norgestimate alone|The log-transformed Cmax was analyzed using a linear mixed effects model with treatment as a fixed effect and subject as a random effect.||1.16|0.97|
91062759|NCT02792517|182010057|OTHER||Least Squares Geometric Mean Ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.1|||||Ratio of EE/norgestimate + erenumab to EE/norgestimate alone|The log-transformed AUCtau was analyzed using a linear mixed effects model with treatment as a fixed effect and subject as a random effect.||1.10|0.96|
91062760|NCT02792517|182010058|OTHER||Least Squares Geometric Mean Ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.23|||||Ratio of EE/norgestimate + erenumab to EE/norgestimate alone|The log-transformed Cmax was analyzed using a linear mixed effects model with treatment as a fixed effect and subject as a random effect.||1.23|0.90|
91062761|NCT02792517|182010059|OTHER||Least Squares Geometric Mean Ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|1.12|||||Ratio of EE/norgestimate + erenumab to EE/norgestimate alone|The log-transformed AUCtau was analyzed using a linear mixed effects model with treatment as a fixed effect and subject as a random effect.||1.12|0.94|
91062762|NCT03535740|182010087|OTHER|||||||0.0763||||||P-value was based on the comparison of the confirm ORR among the 90/180mg group against a fixed response rate of 20%.|Exact Binomial Test|The calculation was based on an exact binomial test with a total 1-sided alpha level of 0.025 at primary analysis.||||||0.0763
90824032|NCT00445770|181524646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6267|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 40||||0.6267
90824033|NCT00445770|181524646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 48||||<0.0001
90824034|NCT00445770|181524646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 48||||0.0004
90824035|NCT00445770|181524646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3564|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 48||||0.3564
90824036|NCT00445770|181524646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 52||||0.0007
90824037|NCT00445770|181524646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 52||||0.0035
91062763|NCT01870778|182010107|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.3857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.15||Adjusted alpha p-value based on multiple testing procedure.|Log Rank|One-sided p-value||||1.15|0.83|0.3857
91062764|NCT01870778|182010108|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.0968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.07||Adjusted p-value based on multiple testing procedure|Gehan's generalized Wilcoxon test|One-sided p-value||||1.07|0.75|0.0968
91062765|NCT01870778|182010109|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.08|||Log Rank|2-sided p-value||||1.08|0.81|0.3890
91062766|NCT01870778|182010110|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2204||||||Based on multiple testing procedure|Wilcoxon rank sum test|One-sided p-value||||||0.2204
91062767|NCT01870778|182010111|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.2744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.07||Adjusted p-value based on multiple testing procedure|Log Rank|||||1.07|0.88|0.2744
91062768|NCT01870778|182010112|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2103|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|2-sided p-value||||||0.2103
91062769|NCT01870778|182010113|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.14|||Log Rank|2-sided p-value||Exertional dyspnea||1.14|1.02|0.0050
91062770|NCT01870778|182010113|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.14|||Log Rank|2-sided p-value||Orthopnea||1.14|1.02|0.0051
91062771|NCT01870778|182010113|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.9962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.05|||Log Rank|2-sided p-value||Rales||1.05|0.95|0.9962
91062772|NCT01870778|182010113|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.0196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.15|||Log Rank|2-sided p-value||Jugular venous pressure||1.15|1.01|0.0196
91062773|NCT01870778|182010113|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.2158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.1|||Log Rank|2-sided p-value||Peripheral edema, pre-sacral edema||1.10|0.98|0.2158
91062774|NCT01870778|182010114|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of RLX030 to placebo|0.9401||||0.0209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8921|0.9907|||Repeated measures model|||Day 2||0.9907|0.8921|0.0209
91062775|NCT01870778|182010114|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of RLX030 to placebo|0.898||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8358|0.9649|||Repeated measures model|||Day 5||0.9649|0.8358|0.0034
91062776|NCT01870778|182010114|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of RLX030 to placebo|0.9074||||0.0209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8355|0.9854|||Repeated measures model|||Day 14||0.9854|0.8355|0.0209
91062777|NCT01870778|182010115|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of RLX030 to placebo|0.8597||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7876|0.9385|||Repeated measures model|||Day 2||0.9385|0.7876|0.0007
91062778|NCT01870778|182010115|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of RLX030 to placebo|0.9539||||0.3709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.0579|||Repeated measures model|||Day 5||1.0579|0.8600|0.3709
91062779|NCT01870778|182010115|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of RLX030 to placebo|0.9543||||0.3893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8578|1.0617|||Repeated measures model|||Day 14||1.0617|0.8578|0.3893
91062780|NCT01870778|182010116|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of RLX030 to placebo|0.9637||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9447|0.983|||Repeated measures model|||Day 2||0.9830|0.9447|0.0003
91062781|NCT01870778|182010116|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of RLX030 to placebo|0.9922||||0.5361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9677|1.0172|||Repeated measures model|||Day 5||1.0172|0.9677|0.5361
91062782|NCT01870778|182010116|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of RLX030 to placebo|0.9863||||0.375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9567|1.0169|||Repeated measures model|||Day 14||1.0169|0.9567|0.3750
91062783|NCT01805089|182010117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91062784|NCT02015611|182010120|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||ANCOVA|adjusted for age, sex, race, season (time-varying)||||||0.63
91062785|NCT02015611|182010121|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||Regression, Linear|adjusted for age, sex, race, season, and baseline value||||||0.64
91062786|NCT02015611|182010122|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||ANCOVA|adjusted for age, sex, race, season (time-varying)||||||0.08
90824038|NCT00445770|181524646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4749|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 52||||0.4749
91062787|NCT02015611|182010123|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53|||||||ANCOVA|adjusted for age, sex, race, season (time-varying)||||||0.53
91062788|NCT02015611|182010124|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||ANCOVA|adjusted for age, sex, race, season (time-varying)||||||0.75
91062789|NCT02015611|182010125|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||ANCOVA|adjusted for age, sex, race, season (time-varying)||||||0.92
90824039|NCT00445770|181524647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 2||||<0.0001
91062790|NCT02015611|182010126|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||ANCOVA|adjusted for age, sex, race, season (time-varying)||||||0.94
91062791|NCT02015611|182010127|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||ANCOVA|adjusted for age, sex, race, season (time-varying)||||||0.61
90824040|NCT00445770|181524647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 2||||0.0001
90824041|NCT00445770|181524647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4376|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 2||||0.4376
90824042|NCT00445770|181524647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 4||||<0.0001
90824043|NCT00445770|181524647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 4||||<0.0001
90824044|NCT00445770|181524647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3947|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 4||||0.3947
90824045|NCT00445770|181524647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 8||||<0.0001
91062792|NCT02015611|182010128|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||ANCOVA|adjusted for age, sex, race, season (time-varying)||||||0.59
91062793|NCT02015611|182010129|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||ANCOVA|adjusted for age, sex, race, season (time-varying)||||||0.21
91062794|NCT01875978|182010131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||P-value \<0.05 is significance meaningful.|t-test, 1 sided|Student's t-test, 1 sided||Hypothesis: phytosterols improve metabolic status||||<0.05
91062795|NCT01875978|182010132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||P value \<0.05 for statistical significance|t-test, 1 sided|Student's t test, 1 sided||Hypothesis: phytosterols increase the anti-oxidative capacity.||||<0.05
91062796|NCT01875978|182010133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||P\<0.05 for statistical significance|t-test, 1 sided|Student's t test, 1 sided||Phytosterols increase IGF-1||||<0.05
91062797|NCT01875978|182010134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||P value \<0.05 for statistical significance|t-test, 1 sided|Student's t-test, 1 sided||Hypothesis:phytosterols increase endothelial progenitor cells to provide endothelial repair and vessel protection||||<0.05
91062798|NCT04870710|182010142|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Friedman||||Non-parametric tests were used consisting of Friedman and Durbin Conover tests|||0.10
91062799|NCT01808573|182010167|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.762||||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.626|0.926|||Log Rank|Stratified by hormone receptor status, number of prior HER2-directed regimens in the metastatic setting, and visceral disease vs. non-visceral.|Lapatinib Plus Capecitabine is the reference. Stratified by hormone receptor status, number of prior HER2-directed regimens in the metastatic setting, and visceral disease vs. non-visceral.|||0.926|0.626|0.0059
91062800|NCT01808573|182010168|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.881||||0.2086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.723|1.073|||Log Rank|Stratified by hormone receptor status, number of prior HER2-directed regimens in the metastatic setting, and visceral disease vs. non-visceral.|Lapatinib plus Capecitabine is the reference. Stratified by hormone receptor status, number of prior HER2-directed regimens in the metastatic setting, and visceral disease vs. non-visceral.|||1.073|0.723|0.2086
91062801|NCT01808573|182010169|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.043|||||||Gray's test|Stratified by hormone receptor status, number of prior HER2-directed regimens in the metastatic setting and visceral disease vs. non-visceral disease.||||||0.043
91062802|NCT01808573|182010170|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1201|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by hormone receptor status, number of prior HER2-directed regimens in the metastatic setting and visceral disease vs. non-visceral.||||||0.1201
91062803|NCT01808573|182010171|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0328|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by hormone receptor status, number of prior HER2-directed regimens in the metastatic setting and visceral disease vs. non-visceral.||||||0.0328
91062804|NCT01808573|182010172|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.495||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.332|0.736|||Log Rank||Lapatinib Plus Capecitabine is the reference.|||0.736|0.332|0.0004
91062805|NCT02028676|182010174|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Upper 95% confidence interval for the hazard ratio was 1.64, see other analysis for this endpoint for details|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.73|||Log Rank|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Hazard ratio is CDM vs LCM|||1.73|0.73|0.59
91062806|NCT02028676|182010174|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|With assumptions detailed above, \>90% power and one-sided alpha=0.05, 1160 children would be required to exclude an increase in progression rate of 1.6% from 2.5% to 4.1% per year in the CDM arm (upper 95% confidence limit of LCM: CDM hazard ratio 1.64).|Risk Difference (RD)|0.32||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|1.12|||Comparison of poisson rates|Statistical analysis plan specified that p-value was to be calculated from the log-rank test, so not provided for the risk difference|Difference is CDM minus LCM|"Assumptions:~* control group (LCM) event rate 3% per year~* rates are reduced to 2% per year in the best of the induction-maintenance arms leading to an overall rate of progression to new WHO stage 4 or death of 2.5%~* recruitment is over 1.5 years and follow-up for a minimum further 3.5 years.~* cumulative loss to follow-up is 10% at 5 years. See below for rest of sample size as this box is not big enough."||1.12|-0.47|0.43
90824046|NCT00445770|181524647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 8||||<0.0001
90824047|NCT00445770|181524647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7378|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 8||||0.7378
90824048|NCT00445770|181524647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 12||||0.0001
90824049|NCT00445770|181524647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 12||||<0.0001
90824050|NCT00445770|181524647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.568|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 12||||0.5680
90824051|NCT00445770|181524647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 16||||0.0003
90824052|NCT00445770|181524647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 16||||<0.0001
91062807|NCT02028676|182010175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.16|||Log Rank|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Hazard ratio is CDM vs LCM|||1.16|0.83|0.83
90824053|NCT00445770|181524647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3978|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 16||||0.3978
90824054|NCT00445770|181524647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 20||||<0.0001
90824055|NCT00445770|181524647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 20||||0.0001
90824056|NCT00445770|181524647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7229|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 20||||0.7229
90824057|NCT00445770|181524647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 24||||<0.0001
90824058|NCT00445770|181524647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 24||||<0.0001
90824059|NCT00445770|181524647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7236|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 24||||0.7236
90824060|NCT00445770|181524647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 32||||<0.0001
90824061|NCT00445770|181524647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 32||||<0.0001
90824062|NCT00445770|181524647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9719|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 32||||0.9719
90824063|NCT00445770|181524647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 40||||<0.0001
90824064|NCT00445770|181524647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 40||||<0.0001
90824065|NCT00445770|181524647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9349|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 40||||0.9349
90824066|NCT00445770|181524647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 48||||<0.0001
90824067|NCT00445770|181524647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 48||||0.0002
90824068|NCT00445770|181524647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7226|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 48||||0.7226
90824069|NCT00445770|181524647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 52||||<0.0001
90824070|NCT00445770|181524647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 52||||<0.0001
90824071|NCT00445770|181524647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5512|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 52||||0.5512
90824072|NCT00445770|181524648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0162|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 2||||0.0162
90824073|NCT00445770|181524648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 2||||0.0035
90824074|NCT00445770|181524648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8928|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 2||||0.8928
90824075|NCT00445770|181524648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 4||||0.0009
90824076|NCT00445770|181524648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 4||||0.0007
90824077|NCT00445770|181524648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6348|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 4||||0.6348
90824078|NCT00445770|181524648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 8||||0.0026
90824079|NCT00445770|181524648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 8||||<0.0001
90824080|NCT00445770|181524648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4629|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 8||||0.4629
90824081|NCT00445770|181524648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0841|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 12||||0.0841
90824082|NCT00445770|181524648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 12||||0.0007
90824083|NCT00445770|181524648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1957|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 12||||0.1957
90824084|NCT00445770|181524648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0093|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 16||||0.0093
90824085|NCT00445770|181524648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0326|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 16||||0.0326
91079205|NCT03240406|182044064|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.33||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|2.35||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|ANCOVA|MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|||2.35|0.32|0.011
90824086|NCT00445770|181524648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7426|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 16||||0.7426
90824087|NCT00445770|181524648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 20||||0.0013
90824088|NCT00445770|181524648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 20||||0.0015
90824089|NCT00445770|181524648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6552|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 20||||0.6552
90824090|NCT00445770|181524648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 24||||0.0005
90824091|NCT00445770|181524648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 24||||0.0004
90824092|NCT00445770|181524648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6294|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 24||||0.6294
90824093|NCT00445770|181524648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 32||||<0.0001
90824094|NCT00445770|181524648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 32||||0.0001
90824095|NCT00445770|181524648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4652|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 32||||0.4652
90824096|NCT00445770|181524648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 40||||<0.0001
90824097|NCT00445770|181524648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 40||||0.0002
90824098|NCT00445770|181524648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2233|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 40||||0.2233
90824099|NCT00445770|181524648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 48||||<0.0001
90824100|NCT00445770|181524648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 48||||0.0003
90824101|NCT00445770|181524648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6772|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 48||||0.6772
90824102|NCT00445770|181524648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 52||||<0.0001
90824103|NCT00445770|181524648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 52||||<0.0001
90824104|NCT00445770|181524648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.616|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 52||||0.6160
90824105|NCT00445770|181524649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 2||||<0.0001
90824106|NCT00445770|181524649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 2||||<0.0001
90824107|NCT00445770|181524649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4929|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 2||||0.4929
90824108|NCT00445770|181524649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 4||||<0.0001
90824109|NCT00445770|181524649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 4||||<0.0001
90824110|NCT00445770|181524649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9693|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 4||||0.9693
90824111|NCT00445770|181524649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 8||||<0.0001
90824112|NCT00445770|181524649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 8||||<0.0001
90824113|NCT00445770|181524649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4139|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 8||||0.4139
90824114|NCT00445770|181524649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 12||||<0.0001
91078431|NCT00553358|182042813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.788||||0.379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.34||The two-sided stratified log-rank test was implemented as the score test from the Cox model.|Regression, Cox||Cox models (Cox, 1972), with the stratification factors entered as strata variables, were used to calculate hazard ratios and corresponding confidence intervals for the pairwise comparisons of individual treatment arms with the trastuzumab alone arm.|||1.34|0.46|0.379
90824115|NCT00445770|181524649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 12||||<0.0001
90824116|NCT00445770|181524649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8905|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 12||||0.8905
90824117|NCT00445770|181524649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 16||||<0.0001
90824118|NCT00445770|181524649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 16||||<0.0001
90824119|NCT00445770|181524649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6877|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 16||||0.6877
90824120|NCT00445770|181524649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 20||||<0.0001
90824121|NCT00445770|181524649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 20||||<0.0001
90824122|NCT00445770|181524649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4511|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 20||||0.4511
90824123|NCT00445770|181524649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 24||||<0.0001
90824124|NCT00445770|181524649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 24||||<0.0001
90824125|NCT00445770|181524649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2786|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 24||||0.2786
90824126|NCT00445770|181524649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 32||||<0.0001
90824127|NCT00445770|181524649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 32||||<0.0001
90824128|NCT00445770|181524649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.123|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 32||||0.1230
90824129|NCT00445770|181524649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 40||||<0.0001
90824130|NCT00445770|181524649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 40||||<0.0001
90824131|NCT00445770|181524649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5061|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 40||||0.5061
90824132|NCT00445770|181524649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 48||||<0.0001
90824133|NCT00445770|181524649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 48||||<0.0001
90824134|NCT00445770|181524649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1354|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 48||||0.1354
90824135|NCT00445770|181524649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 52||||<0.0001
90824136|NCT00445770|181524649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 52||||<0.0001
90824137|NCT00445770|181524649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1734|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 52||||0.1734
90824138|NCT00445770|181524650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||||<0.0001
90824139|NCT00445770|181524650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||||<0.0001
90824140|NCT00445770|181524650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6417|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||||0.6417
90824141|NCT00445770|181524650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||||<0.0001
90824142|NCT00445770|181524650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||||<0.0001
90824143|NCT00445770|181524650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4698|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||||0.4698
90824144|NCT00445770|181524650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||||<0.0001
90824145|NCT00445770|181524650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||||<0.0001
90824146|NCT00445770|181524650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1214|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||||0.1214
91062808|NCT02028676|182010176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||Regression, Linear|Global test with 2df, adjusted for randomization stratification factors||Assuming a standard deviation for the change in CD4 percentage from baseline to 72 weeks of 10% (slightly higher than that observed in the PENTA 5 trial) 1200 children would provide at least 80% power to detect a difference in change in CD4% from baseline of more than 2.5% across the 3 groups (F-test with 2-sided alpha=0.05) assuming 20% missing data (loss to follow-up during the first year plus failure to attend the week 72 visit/missing sample).||||0.33
91062809|NCT02028676|182010177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69|||||||Regression, Linear|Global test with 2df, adjusted for randomization stratification factors||||||0.69
91062810|NCT02028676|182010178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Log Rank|Global test with 2df, adjusted for randomization stratification factors||||||0.0001
91062811|NCT02028676|182010178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.32||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.63|||Regression, Cox||HR is Arm B vs A|||1.63|1.07|0.01
91062812|NCT02028676|182010178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|1.94|||Regression, Cox|||||1.94|1.29|<0.001
91062813|NCT02028676|182010179|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|631 children would be required to exclude a 12% lower suppression rate in the once daily group with at least 90% power and two-sided alpha=0.05 (lower 95% confidence limit of difference between once and twice daily -12%, the non-inferiority margin). 630 children retains at least 80% (rather than 90%) power to exclude a 10% (rather than 12%) lower suppression rate in the once daily group with one-sided alpha=0.05 (lower 90% confidence limit of difference between once and twice daily -10%).|Risk Difference (RD)|-1.6||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|5.2|||Chi-squared||Difference in suppression \<80 copies/ml in once-daily minus twice-daily|||5.2|-8.4|0.65
91062814|NCT02028676|182010181|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|With assumptions above, at least 80% power and one-sided alpha=0.05, 947 children would be required in the stop/continue cotrimoxazole prophylaxis comparison to exclude an increase in hospitalisation/death rate of 3% from 5% to 8% per year in the stop cotrimoxazole arm (upper 95% confidence limit of stop:continue hazard ratio 1.6).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.64||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|2.37|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio is stop vs continue.|"Assumptions~* 5% of children receiving daily cotrimoxazole prophylaxis have a new hospitalisation or death per year~* recruitment starts 1 July 2009 with 10% children (those already on ART for \>96 weeks) entering immediately, and then the remaining children recruited over the following 15 months as they reach 96 weeks on ART. Follow-up is until March 2012.~* cumulative loss to follow-up at March 2012 is 10%. See below for further details as box is not big enough"||2.37|1.14|0.007
91062815|NCT02028676|182010181|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|With assumptions above, at least 80% power and one-sided alpha=0.05, 947 children would be required in the stop/continue cotrimoxazole prophylaxis comparison to exclude an increase in hospitalisation/death rate of 3% from 5% to 8% per year in the stop cotrimoxazole arm (upper 95% confidence limit of stop:continue hazard ratio 1.6).|Risk Difference (RD)|4.0||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|7.2|||Poisson regression for risk difference||Risk difference is stop vs continue.|"Assumptions~* 5% of children receiving daily cotrimoxazole prophylaxis have a new hospitalisation or death per year~* recruitment starts 1 July 2009 with 10% children (those already on ART for \>96 weeks) entering immediately, and then the remaining children recruited over the following 15 months as they reach 96 weeks on ART. Follow-up is until March 2012.~* cumulative loss to follow-up at March 2012 is 10%. See below for further details as box is not big enough."||7.2|0.8|0.006
91062816|NCT02028676|182010182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.72|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio is stop vs continue.|||1.72|0.83|0.33
91062817|NCT02028676|182010183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.44|||Log Rank|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Hazard ratio is CDM vs LCM|||1.44|0.49|0.45
91062818|NCT02028676|182010183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|||||||Log Rank|Global test with 2df, adjusted for randomization stratification factors||||||0.43
91062819|NCT02028676|182010183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.31|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Hazard ratio is Arm B vs A|||1.31|0.33|0.23
91062820|NCT02028676|182010183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.81|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Hazard ratio is Arm C vs A|||1.81|0.52|0.93
91062821|NCT02028676|182010184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89|||||||Log Rank|Global test with 2df, adjusted for randomization stratification factors||||||0.89
91062822|NCT02028676|182010184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.48|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Hazard ratio is Arm B vs A|||1.48|0.53|0.64
91062823|NCT02028676|182010184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.52|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Hazard ratio is Arm C vs A|||1.52|0.54|0.71
91062824|NCT02028676|182010185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.38|||Log Rank|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Hazard ratio is CDM vs LCM|||1.38|0.73|0.98
91062825|NCT02028676|182010185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44|||||||Log Rank|Global test with 2df, adjusted for randomization stratification factors||||||0.44
91062826|NCT02028676|182010185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.2|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Hazard ratio is Arm B vs A|||1.20|0.55|0.30
91062827|NCT02028676|182010185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.17|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Hazard ratio is Arm C vs A|||1.17|0.54|0.24
91062828|NCT02028676|182010186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.49|||Log Rank|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Hazard ratio is CDM vs LCM.|||1.49|0.82|0.52
91062829|NCT02028676|182010186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34||||||Global test with 2df, adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Log Rank|||||||0.34
91062830|NCT02028676|182010186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.13|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Hazard ratio is Arm B vs A|||1.13|0.54|0.19
91062831|NCT02028676|182010186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.16|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Hazard ratio is Arm C vs A|||1.16|0.56|0.25
91062832|NCT02028676|182010187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71|||||||Generalized estimating equations|Generalised estimating equations with independent correlation structure and robust standard errors, calculated over all post-randomization visit weeks||||||0.71
91062833|NCT02028676|182010187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58|||||||Generalized estimating equations|Generalised estimating equations with independent correlation structure and robust standard errors, calculated over all post-randomization visit weeks||||||0.58
91062834|NCT02028676|182010188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||Generalized estimating equations|Generalised estimating equations with independent correlation structure and robust standard errors, calculated over all post-randomization visit weeks||||||0.07
91062835|NCT02028676|182010188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||Generalized estimating equations|Generalised estimating equations with independent correlation structure and robust standard errors, calculated over all post-randomization visit weeks||||||0.90
91062836|NCT02028676|182010189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64|||||||Generalized estimating equations|Generalised estimating equations with independent correlation structure and robust standard errors, calculated over all post-randomization visit weeks||||||0.64
91062837|NCT02028676|182010189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||Generalized estimating equations|Generalised estimating equations with independent correlation structure and robust standard errors, calculated over all post-randomization visit weeks||||||0.30
91062838|NCT02028676|182010190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45|||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors||||||0.45
91062839|NCT02028676|182010191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors||||||0.70
91062840|NCT02028676|182010192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59||0.0|||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors||||||0.59
91062841|NCT02028676|182010192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Regression, Linear|Global test with 2df, adjusted for randomization stratification factors||||||0.01
91062842|NCT02028676|182010193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81|||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors||||||0.81
91062843|NCT02028676|182010193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Regression, Linear|Global test with 2df, adjusted for randomization stratification factors||||||0.03
91062844|NCT02028676|182010194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.86
91062845|NCT02028676|182010194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.02
91062846|NCT02028676|182010195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.20
90824147|NCT00445770|181524650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||||<0.0001
91062847|NCT02028676|182010195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.002
91062848|NCT02028676|182010196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.29|||Log Rank|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Hazard ratio is CDM vs LCM|||1.29|0.48|0.22
91062849|NCT02028676|182010197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.672||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.075|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio is CDM vs LCM|||1.075|0.420|0.09
91062850|NCT02028676|182010197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Log Rank|Global test with 2df, adjusted for randomization stratification factors||||||0.04
91062851|NCT02028676|182010197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.16||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|4.08|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Hazard ratio is Arm B vs A|||4.08|1.15|0.017
91062852|NCT02028676|182010197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.0||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|3.8|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Hazard ratio is Arm C vs A|||3.80|1.05|0.034
91062853|NCT02028676|182010198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.66|||Log Rank|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Hazard ratio is CDM vs LCM|||1.66|1.02|0.04
91062854|NCT02028676|182010198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||Log Rank|Global test with 2df, adjusted for randomization stratification factors||||||0.53
90824148|NCT00445770|181524650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||||<0.0001
90824149|NCT00445770|181524650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4654|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.4654
90824150|NCT00445770|181524650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||||<0.0001
91062855|NCT02028676|182010198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.25|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Hazard ratio is Arm B vs A|||1.25|0.68|0.60
91062856|NCT02028676|182010198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.46|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Hazard ratio is Arm C vs A|||1.46|0.81|0.56
91062857|NCT02028676|182010199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.56|||Log Rank|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Hazard ratio is CDM vs LCM|||1.56|0.58|0.84
91062858|NCT02028676|182010199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Log Rank|Global test with 2df, adjusted for randomization stratification factors||||||0.002
91062859|NCT02028676|182010199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.8||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.74|8.29|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Hazard ratio is Arm B vs A|||8.29|1.74|0.001
91062860|NCT02028676|182010199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.09||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|6.85|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Hazard ratio is Arm C vs A|||6.85|1.39|0.006
91062861|NCT02028676|182010200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||Generalized estimating equations|Generalised estimating equations with independent correlation structure and robust standard errors, calculated over all post-randomization visit weeks||||||0.53
91062862|NCT02028676|182010200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46|||||||Generalized estimating equations|Generalised estimating equations with independent correlation structure and robust standard errors, calculated over all post-randomization visit weeks||||||0.46
91062863|NCT02028676|182010201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.3||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|4.7|||Chi-squared|||||4.7|-9.3|0.52
91062864|NCT02028676|182010202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.5|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Difference is once-daily minus twice-daily|||0.5|-1.2|0.39
91062865|NCT02028676|182010203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.9|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Difference is once-daily minus twice-daily|||0.9|-0.9|0.98
91062866|NCT02028676|182010204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.2|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Difference is once-daily minus twice-daily|||0.2|-1.9|0.12
91062867|NCT02028676|182010205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.0||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.0|76.0|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Difference is once-daily minus twice-daily|||76|-60|0.82
91062868|NCT02028676|182010206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-33.0||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-104.0|38.0|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Difference is once-daily minus twice-daily|||38|-104|0.36
91062869|NCT02028676|182010207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-87.0||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-220.0|46.0|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Difference is once-daily minus twice-daily|||46|-220|0.20
91062870|NCT02028676|182010209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.43||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|1.64|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio is once-daily vs twice-daily|||1.64|0.11|0.20
91062871|NCT02028676|182010210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.77|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio is once-daily vs twice-daily|||1.77|0.31|0.51
91062872|NCT02028676|182010211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||Generalized estimating equations|Generalised estimating equations with independent correlation structure and robust standard errors, calculated over all post-randomization visit weeks||||||0.16
91062873|NCT02028676|182010212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54|||||||Generalized estimating equations|Generalised estimating equations with independent correlation structure and robust standard errors, calculated over all post-randomization visit weeks||||||0.54
91062874|NCT02028676|182010213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Generalised estimating equations|Generalised estimating equations with independent correlation structure and robust standard errors, calculated over all post-randomization visit weeks||||||0.08
91062875|NCT02028676|182010214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.52|||Log Rank|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Hazard ratio is once-daily vs twice-daily|||1.52|0.72|0.82
91062876|NCT02028676|182010215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.27|||Log Rank|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Hazard ratio is once-daily vs twice-daily|||1.27|0.48|0.31
90824151|NCT00445770|181524650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||||<0.0001
91062877|NCT02028676|182010216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.74
91062878|NCT02028676|182010217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.90
91062879|NCT02028676|182010218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93|||||||Generalized estimating equations|Generalised estimating equation with independent correlation structure and robust standard errors, calculated over all post-randomization visit weeks||||||0.93
91062880|NCT02028676|182010219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|3.25|||Log Rank|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Hazard ratio is stop vs continue|||3.25|1.50|<0.001
91062881|NCT02028676|182010220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.47||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|3.85|||Log Rank|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Hazard ratio is stop vs continue|||3.85|0.56|0.44
91062882|NCT02028676|182010221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.4||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|5.48|||Log Rank|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Hazard ratio is stop vs continue|||5.48|1.05|0.03
91062883|NCT02028676|182010222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.98||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|35.7|||Log Rank|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Hazard ratio is stop vs continue|||35.7|0.44|0.18
91062884|NCT02028676|182010223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.8||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|6.17|||Log Rank|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Hazard ratio is stop vs continue|||6.17|0.53|0.34
91062885|NCT02028676|182010224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|4.15|||Log Rank|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Hazard ratio is stop vs continue|||4.15|0.12|0.68
91062886|NCT02028676|182010225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||Generalised estimating equations|Generalised estimating equations with independent correlation structure and robust standard errors, calculated over all post-randomization visit weeks||||||0.07
91062887|NCT02028676|182010226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||Generalised estimating equations|Generalised estimating equations with independent correlation structure and robust standard errors, calculated over all post-randomization visit weeks||||||0.19
91062888|NCT02028676|182010227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34|||||||Generalised estimating equations|Generalised estimating equations with independent correlation structure and robust standard errors, calculated over all post-randomization visit weeks||||||0.34
91062889|NCT02028676|182010228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.2|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Difference is stop minus continue|||0.2|-1.4|0.13
91062890|NCT02028676|182010229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.0||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.0|42.0|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Difference is stop minus continue|||42|-65|0.68
91062891|NCT02028676|182010230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.6||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|2.5|||Log Rank|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Hazard ratio is stop vs continue|||2.50|1.02|0.04
91062892|NCT02028676|182010231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21||||||Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Generalised estimating equation|Generalised estimating equation with independent correlation structure and robust standard errors, calculated over all post-randomization visit weeks||||||0.21
91062893|NCT00852202|182010236|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7408|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.7408
91062894|NCT00852202|182010236|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9961|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.9961
91062895|NCT00852202|182010237|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3441|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3441
91062896|NCT00852202|182010237|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2683|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2683
91078432|NCT00553358|182042813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.962||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.6||The two-sided stratified log-rank test was implemented as the score test from the Cox model.|Regression, Cox||Cox models (Cox, 1972), with the stratification factors entered as strata variables, were used to calculate hazard ratios and corresponding confidence intervals for the pairwise comparisons of individual treatment arms with the trastuzumab alone arm.|||1.60|0.58|0.880
90824152|NCT00445770|181524650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4006|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||||0.4006
90824153|NCT00445770|181524650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||||<0.0001
90824154|NCT00445770|181524650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||||<0.0001
90824155|NCT00445770|181524650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1636|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||||0.1636
90824156|NCT00445770|181524650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||<0.0001
90824157|NCT00445770|181524650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||<0.0001
90824158|NCT00445770|181524650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2635|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.2635
90824159|NCT00445770|181524650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 32||||<0.0001
90824160|NCT00445770|181524650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 32||||<0.0001
90824161|NCT00445770|181524650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0965|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 32||||0.0965
90824162|NCT00445770|181524650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||||<0.0001
90824163|NCT00445770|181524650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||||<0.0001
90824164|NCT00445770|181524650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4437|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||||0.4437
90824165|NCT00445770|181524650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||||<0.0001
90824166|NCT00445770|181524650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||||<0.0001
90824167|NCT00445770|181524650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1663|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||||0.1663
90824168|NCT00445770|181524650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||<0.0001
90824169|NCT00445770|181524650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||<0.0001
90824170|NCT00445770|181524650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1049|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||0.1049
90824171|NCT00445770|181524651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment||Week 2||||<0.0001
90824172|NCT00445770|181524651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment||Week 2||||<0.0001
90824173|NCT00445770|181524651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0442|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment||Week 2||||0.0442
90824174|NCT00445770|181524651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 4||||<0.0001
90824175|NCT00445770|181524651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 4||||<0.0001
90824176|NCT00445770|181524651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0681|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 4||||0.0681
90824177|NCT00445770|181524651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 8||||<0.0001
90824178|NCT00445770|181524651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 8||||<0.0001
90824179|NCT00445770|181524651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0966|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 8||||0.0966
90824180|NCT00445770|181524651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 12||||<0.0001
90824181|NCT00445770|181524651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 12||||0.0006
90824182|NCT00445770|181524651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1242|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 12||||0.1242
90824183|NCT00445770|181524651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 16||||<0.0001
91062897|NCT01263938|182010346|OTHER|||||||0.625||||||Threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|Wilcoxon signed rank|||Sample size calculations were based on having sufficient power to detect a change in each of the outcome variables from baseline to week 12.The effect size was calculated as (detectable difference in change in outcome) / (SD of the change). Based on preliminary in vitro data, the smallest effect size was 1.88. Assuming that only 40% of this effect will be present in vivo (effect size=0.75), alpha = 0.05 and 80% power, n=16 is needed to complete the study.||||0.625
91062898|NCT01263938|182010346|OTHER|||||||0.813||||||Threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|Wilcoxon signed rank|||Sample size calculations were based on having sufficient power to detect a change in each of the outcome variables from baseline to week 12.The effect size was calculated as (detectable difference in change in outcome) / (SD of the change). Based on preliminary in vitro data, the smallest effect size was 1.88. Assuming that only 40% of this effect will be present in vivo (effect size=0.75), alpha = 0.05 and 80% power, n=16 is needed to complete the study.||||0.813
91062899|NCT01263938|182010346|OTHER||||||>|0.999||||||Threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|Wilcoxon signed rank|||Sample size calculations were based on having sufficient power to detect a change in each of the outcome variables from baseline to week 12.The effect size was calculated as (detectable difference in change in outcome) / (SD of the change). Based on preliminary in vitro data, the smallest effect size was 1.88. Assuming that only 40% of this effect will be present in vivo (effect size=0.75), alpha = 0.05 and 80% power, n=16 is needed to complete the study.||||>0.999
91062900|NCT01263938|182010347|OTHER||||||>|0.999||||||Threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|Wilcoxon signed rank|||Sample size calculations were based on having sufficient power to detect a change in each of the outcome variables from baseline to week 12.The effect size was calculated as (detectable difference in change in outcome) / (SD of the change). Based on preliminary in vitro data, the smallest effect size was 1.88. Assuming that only 40% of this effect will be present in vivo (effect size=0.75), alpha = 0.05 and 80% power, n=16 is needed to complete the study.||||>0.999
91062901|NCT01263938|182010348|OTHER|||||||0.813||||||Threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|Wilcoxon signed rank|||Sample size calculations were based on having sufficient power to detect a change in each of the outcome variables from baseline to week 12.The effect size was calculated as (detectable difference in change in outcome) / (SD of the change). Based on preliminary in vitro data, the smallest effect size was 1.88. Assuming that only 40% of this effect will be present in vivo (effect size=0.75), alpha = 0.05 and 80% power, n=16 is needed to complete the study.||||0.813
91062902|NCT01263938|182010349|OTHER|||||||0.625||||||Threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|Wilcoxon signed rank|||Sample size calculations were based on having sufficient power to detect a change in each of the outcome variables from baseline to week 12.The effect size was calculated as (detectable difference in change in outcome) / (SD of the change). Based on preliminary in vitro data, the smallest effect size was 1.88. Assuming that only 40% of this effect will be present in vivo (effect size=0.75), alpha = 0.05 and 80% power, n=16 is needed to complete the study.||||0.625
91062903|NCT00141778|182010350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Discrete variables were compared among treatment groups with a chi-square test.||||0.95
91062904|NCT00141778|182010351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.006
91062905|NCT00141778|182010352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.15
91062906|NCT00141778|182010353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.14
91062907|NCT00141778|182010354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.56||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.56
91062908|NCT00141778|182010355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.15
91062909|NCT00141778|182010356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.38
91062910|NCT00141778|182010357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.65
91062911|NCT04211831|182010361|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-1.29|||=|0.1722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.16|0.58|||mixed model for repeated measures||Treatment comparison between Placebo and URO-902 24 mg using least sqaure mean difference and 95% confidence interval (CI) has been presented.|||0.58|-3.16|=0.1722
91062912|NCT04211831|182010361|OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.24|||=|0.0159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.04|-0.43|||Mixed model for repeated measures||Treatment comparison between Placebo and URO-902 48 mg using least sqaure mean difference and 95% CI has been presented.|||-0.43|-4.04|=0.0159
91062913|NCT04796961|182010363|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.7||||||||0.7|0.1|
91062914|NCT04796961|182010364|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.1||||||smoking screening||1.1|-0.1|
91062915|NCT04796961|182010364|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.2||||||readiness to quit assessments||1.2|-0.1|
91062916|NCT04796961|182010364|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.0||||||smoking cessation counseling||2.0|0.8|
91062917|NCT04796961|182010364|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.7||||||smoking cessation pharmacotherapy||1.7|-0.5|
91062918|NCT03848715|182010376|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.16
91062919|NCT03514459|182010388|SUPERIORITY||Prevalence ratio|1.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|2.2|||Poisson regression|Robust standard errors||||2.20|1.54|<0.001
91062920|NCT01321749|182010427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||5.0|||||Log Rank|||||||<0.05
91062921|NCT00970593|182010472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.526|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.79|0.29||||||The Mixed model used fixed effects of treatment, study day and treatment by study day interaction.||0.29|-1.79|
91062922|NCT00970593|182010472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.543|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.98|-0.83||||||The Mixed model used fixed effects of treatment, study day and treatment by study day interaction.||-0.83|-2.98|
91062923|NCT00970593|182010472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-2.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.458|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.06|-1.24||||||The Mixed model used fixed effects of treatment, study day and treatment by study day interaction.||-1.24|-3.06|
91062924|NCT00970593|182010473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-2.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.52|-1.22||||||The Mixed model used fixed effects of treatment, study day and treatment by study day interaction.||-1.22|-3.52|
91062925|NCT00970593|182010473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-3.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.495|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.16|-2.2||||||The Mixed model used fixed effects of treatment, study day and treatment by study day interaction.||-2.20|-4.16|
90824184|NCT00445770|181524651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 16||||<0.001
90824185|NCT00445770|181524651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1521|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 16||||0.1521
90824186|NCT00445770|181524651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 20||||<0.0001
90824187|NCT00445770|181524651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 20||||0.0070
90824188|NCT00445770|181524651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 20||||0.0140
90824189|NCT00445770|181524651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 24||||<0.0001
90824190|NCT00445770|181524651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 24||||<0.0001
91062926|NCT00970593|182010473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-3.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.437|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.01|-2.28||||||The Mixed model used fixed effects of treatment, study day and treatment by study day interaction.||-2.28|-4.01|
90824191|NCT00445770|181524651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0815|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 24||||0.0815
90824192|NCT00445770|181524651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 32||||<0.0001
90824193|NCT00445770|181524651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 32||||0.0002
90824194|NCT00445770|181524651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0886|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 32||||0.0886
90824195|NCT00445770|181524651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 40||||<0.0001
90824196|NCT00445770|181524651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 40||||0.0003
90824197|NCT00445770|181524651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1488|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 40||||0.1488
90824198|NCT00445770|181524651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 48||||<0.0001
90824199|NCT00445770|181524651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 48||||0.0006
90824200|NCT00445770|181524651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0979|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 48||||0.0979
90824201|NCT00445770|181524651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 52||||<0.0001
90824202|NCT00445770|181524651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 52||||0.0001
90824203|NCT00445770|181524651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.174|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 52||||0.1740
90824204|NCT00445770|181524652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior Methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 2||||<0.0001
90824205|NCT00445770|181524652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior MTX use + treatment.||Week 2||||<0.0001
90824206|NCT00445770|181524652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0274|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior MTX use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||||0.0274
90824207|NCT00445770|181524652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior MTX use + treatment.||Week 4||||<0.0001
90824208|NCT00445770|181524652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior MTX use + treatment.||Week 4||||<0.0001
90824209|NCT00445770|181524652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0344|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior MTX use + treatment.||Week 4||||0.0344
90824210|NCT00445770|181524652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior MTX use + treatment.||Week 8||||<0.0001
90824211|NCT00445770|181524652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior MTX use + treatment.||Week 8||||<0.0001
90824212|NCT00445770|181524652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0293|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior MTX use + treatment.||Week 8||||0.0293
90824213|NCT00445770|181524652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior MTX use + treatment.||Week 12||||<0.0001
90824214|NCT00445770|181524652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior MTX use + treatment.||Week 12||||<0.0001
90824215|NCT00445770|181524652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0452|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior MTX use + treatment.||Week 12||||0.0452
90824216|NCT00445770|181524652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior MTX use + treatment.||Week 16||||<0.0001
91062927|NCT02203357|182010478|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance.|ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91062928|NCT02002221|182010484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.73|||ANCOVA|||H0: δ vildagliptin 50 mg bid = δ placebo versus H1: δ Vildagliptin 50 mg bid \< δ placebo,||-0.73|-1.08|< 0.001
91062929|NCT01998919|182010489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|17.0|||||Approximate 95% CI for difference of two rates using Hauck-Anderson method.|||17.0|-10.3|
91062930|NCT01998919|182010490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|26.8|||||Approximate 95% CI for difference of two rates using Hauck-Anderson method.|||26.8|-5.6|
91062931|NCT01998919|182010491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|27.7|||||Approximate 95% CI for difference of two rates using Hauck-Anderson method.|||27.7|-2.7|
91062932|NCT01998919|182010492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0075|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0075
91062933|NCT01998919|182010492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.42||||0.0099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.81|||Wald test|||||0.81|0.22|0.0099
91062934|NCT01998919|182010493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0004
91062935|NCT01998919|182010493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.48||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.7|||Wald Test|||||0.70|0.33|0.0001
91062936|NCT01998919|182010494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0001
91062937|NCT01998919|182010494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.68|||Wald test|||||0.68|0.33|<0.0001
91062938|NCT01998919|182010495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5991|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.5991
91062939|NCT01998919|182010495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.3774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.23|||Wald test|||||1.23|0.58|0.3774
91062940|NCT00897715|182010498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|||||0.05 is the a priori threshold for statistical significance|ANCOVA|||For the primary specific aim, we will compare the mean percent change on hsCRP between the intervention arm and the placebo arm using linear regression. We anticipate that the intervention will conservatively decrease hsCRP by 54%; whereas, placebo will have no effect. Accordingly, we have estimated that we will need 24 subjects in the experimental arm and 24 controls to have an 80% power, with an alpha of 0.05 to detect the above mentioned effect size.||||0.03
91062941|NCT00897715|182010499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||0.05 is the a priori threshold for statistical significance|ANCOVA|||||||0.01
91062942|NCT03743051|182010534|SUPERIORITY|The Multiple Imputation process (N=100) was performed leading to least squares mean (LSM) and standard error (SE) estimates using the ANOVA model (including treatment group and the 3 stratification factors at randomization as categorical covariates). The estimates were pooled using Rubin rule, with corresponding p-value for difference between treatment groups. The 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated for each treatment group and for the pooled difference between the groups.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.345|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.718|1.971|||ANOVA|||"To declare anamorelin superior to placebo, both co-primary endpoints had to be significant.~The null hypothesis for mean change in body weight from baseline over 12 weeks (H0w) and the corresponding alternative hypothesis (H1w) were:~H0w: MWa = MW; H1w: MWa ≠ MWp~Where MWa is the mean change in body weight from baseline over 12 weeks for the anamorelin arm and MWp is the mean change in body weight from baseline over 12 weeks for the placebo arm."||1.971|0.718|<0.0001
91062943|NCT03743051|182010535|SUPERIORITY|The Multiple Imputation process (N=100) was performed leading to least squares mean (LSM) and standard error (SE) estimates using the ANOVA model (including treatment group and the 3 stratification factors at randomization as categorical covariates). The estimates were pooled using Rubin rule, with corresponding p-value for difference between treatment groups. The 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated for each treatment group and for the pooled difference between the groups.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.622|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.434||0.1514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.228|1.472|||ANOVA|||"To declare anamorelin superior to the placebo, both co-primary endpoints had to be significant.~The null hypothesis for mean change from baseline over 12 weeks in patient 5-IASS (H0A) and the corresponding alternative (H1A) were:~H0A: MAa = MAp; H1A: MAa ≠ MAp~Where MAa is the mean change from baseline over 12 weeks in 5-IASS for the anamorelin arm and MAp is the mean change from baseline over 12 weeks in 5-IASS for the placebo arm."||1.472|-0.228|0.1514
91062944|NCT03743051|182010536|SUPERIORITY|All secondary endpoints were analyzed using the same statistical model and multiple imputation approach as for the co-primary efficacy endpoints.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.532|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.367|3.453|||ANOVA|||||3.453|1.367|<0.0001
91062945|NCT03743051|182010537|SUPERIORITY|All secondary endpoints were analyzed using the same statistical model and multiple imputation approach as for the co-primary efficacy endpoints.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.336|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.484||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.388|2.284|||ANOVA|||||2.284|0.388|0.0057
91062946|NCT03743051|182010538|SUPERIORITY|All secondary endpoints were analyzed using the same statistical model and multiple imputation approach as for the co-primary efficacy endpoints.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.027|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.403||0.0108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.238|1.816|||ANOVA|||||1.816|0.238|0.0108
91062947|NCT03743051|182010539|SUPERIORITY|All secondary endpoints were analyzed using the same statistical model and multiple imputation approach as for the co-primary efficacy endpoints.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.535|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.475||0.2605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.397|1.466|||ANOVA|||||1.466|-0.397|0.2605
91062948|NCT01422200|182010541|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.05
91062949|NCT02550561|182010556|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.317||||||Subjects that reported either moderately or markedly improved on the GRA scale at 6 weeks compared to 12 weeks.|McNemar|||||||0.317
91062950|NCT02550561|182010557|OTHER|||||||0.47|||||||paired t-tests|||The mean change in Visual Analog Scale (VAS) score for bladder pain||||0.47
91062951|NCT02550561|182010557|OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||paired t-test|||The mean change in Pelvis Pain and Urgency/Frequency Patient Symptom (PUF) score||||0.17
91062952|NCT02550561|182010557|OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||paired t-test|||The mean change for O'Leary-Sant Interstitial Cystitis Symptom Index (ICSI)||||.08
91062953|NCT02550561|182010557|OTHER|||||||0.51|||||||paired t-test|||The mean change O'Leary-Sant Interstitial Cystitis Problem Index (ICPI)||||0.51
91062954|NCT02550561|182010557|OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||paired t-test|||The mean change in 24-h urinary frequency||||0.22
91062955|NCT05317312|182010585|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.08||0.123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|42.7|||Emax||The estimated difference between 1.25mg bid and placebo is based on the Emax model. The values that appear in the Outcome Measure Data Table are observed values.|||42.7|-5.2|0.123
91062956|NCT05317312|182010585|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|34.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.25|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.4|55.0|||Emax||||The estimated difference between 5mg bid and placebo is based on the Emax model. The values that appear in the Outcome Measure Data Table are observed values.|55.0|14.4|<0.001
91062957|NCT05317312|182010585|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|42.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.53|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.9|61.7|||Emax||The estimated difference between 15mg bid and placebo is based on the Emax model. The values that appear in the Outcome Measure Data Table are observed values.|||61.7|23.9|<0.001
91062958|NCT05317312|182010586|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.2|||||The estimated difference between 1.5mg bid and placebo is based on Mixed Model Repeated Measures.The values in the Outcome Measure Data are observed mean values.|||0.2|-2.0|
91062959|NCT05317312|182010586|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.4|||||The estimated difference between 5mg bid and placebo is based on Mixed Model Repeated Measures. The values in the Outcome Measure Data are observed mean values|||0.4|-1.8|
90824217|NCT00445770|181524652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior MTX use + treatment.||Week 16||||<0.0001
91062960|NCT05317312|182010586|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.3|||||The estimated difference between 15mg bid and placebo is based on Mixed Model Repeated Measures.. The values in the Outcome Measure Data are observed mean values|||0.3|-1.9|
91062961|NCT05317312|182010587|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.036
91062962|NCT05317312|182010587|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.006
91062963|NCT05317312|182010587|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.001
91062964|NCT05317312|182010588|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.411|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.411
91062965|NCT05317312|182010588|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.383|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.383
91062966|NCT05317312|182010588|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.001
91062967|NCT05317312|182010589|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|27.4||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|52.7|||Chi-squared|||||52.7|2.0|0.042
91062968|NCT05317312|182010589|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|34.5||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.7|59.3|||Chi-squared|||||59.3|9.7|0.01
91062969|NCT05317312|182010589|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|51.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.6|74.1|||Chi-squared|||||74.1|29.6|<0.001
91062970|NCT05317312|182010590|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-31.2||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.9|-6.5|||Chi-squared|||||-6.5|-55.9|0.019
91062971|NCT05317312|182010590|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-16.9||||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.6|7.8|||Chi-squared|||||7.8|-41.6|0.187
91062972|NCT05317312|182010590|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-44.4||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.3|20.6|||Chi-squared|||||20.6|-68.3|0.001
91062973|NCT00262028|182010591|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|MenACWY-CRM was considered to be noninferior to the licensed comparator if the lower limit (LL) of the 95% confidence intervals (CI) of the difference (MenACWY minus licensed comparator)in the percentage of the subjects with hSBA titer ≥ 1:4 at one month post vaccination was \> -10% against each serogroup|Vaccine group difference|37.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.0|44.0||||||Noninferiority of immune responses of MenACWY-CRM to licensed comparator against serogroup A||44|29|
91062974|NCT00262028|182010591|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|MenACWY-CRM was considered to be noninferior to the licensed comparator if the lower LL of the 95% CI of the difference (MenACWY minus licensed comparator)in the percentage of the subjects with hSBA titer ≥ 1:4 at one month post vaccination was \> -10% against each serogroup|Vaccine group difference|19.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|26.0||||||Noninferiority of immune responses of MenACWY-CRM to licensed comparator against serogroup C||26|12|
91062975|NCT00262028|182010591|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|MenACWY-CRM was considered to be noninferior to the licensed comparator if the LL of the 95% CI of the difference (MenACWY minus licensed comparator)in the percentage of the subjects with hSBA titer ≥ 1:4 at one month post vaccination was \> -10% against each serogroup|Vaccine group difference|23.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.0|29.0||||||Noninferiority of immune responses of MenACWY-CRM to licensed comparator against serogroup W||29|17|
91062976|NCT00262028|182010591|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|MenACWY-CRM was considered to be noninferior to the licensed comparator if the LL of the 95% CI of the difference (MenACWY minus licensed comparator)in the percentage of the subjects with hSBA titer ≥ 1:4 at one month post vaccination was \> -10% against each serogroup|Vaccine group difference|31.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.0|38.0||||||No inferiority of immune responses of MenACWY-CRM to licensed comparator against serogroup Y||38|25|
91062977|NCT00262028|182010591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine group difference|37.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.0|44.0||||||"Superiority of immune responses of MenACWY-CRM to licensed comparator against serogroup A~MenACWY-CRM was considered to be superior to the licensed comparator if the LL of the 95% CI of the difference (MenACWY minus licensed comparator) in the percentage of the subjects with hSBA titer ≥ 1:4 at one month post vaccination was \> 0% against each serogroup"||44|29|
91062978|NCT00262028|182010591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine group difference|19.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|26.0||||||"Superiority of immune responses of MenACWY-CRM to licensed comparator against serogroup C~MenACWY-CRM was considered to be superior to the licensed comparator if the LL of the 95% CI of the difference (MenACWY minus licensed comparator) in the percentage of the subjects with hSBA titer ≥ 1:4 at one month post vaccination was \> 0% against each serogroup"||26|12|
90824218|NCT00445770|181524652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0313|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior MTX use + treatment.||Week 16||||0.0313
90824219|NCT00445770|181524652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior MTX use + treatment.||Week 20||||<0.0001
90824220|NCT00445770|181524652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior MTX use + treatment.||Week 20||||0.0019
90824221|NCT00445770|181524652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0781|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior MTX use + treatment.||Week 20||||0.0781
91062979|NCT00262028|182010591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine group difference|23.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.0|29.0||||||"Superiority of immune responses of MenACWY-CRM to licensed comparator against serogroup W~MenACWY-CRM was considered to be superior to the licensed comparator if the LL of the 95% CI of the difference (MenACWY minus licensed comparator) in the percentage of the subjects with hSBA titer ≥ 1:4 at one month post vaccination was \> 0% against each serogroup"||29|17|
91062980|NCT00262028|182010591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine group difference|31.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.0|38.0||||||"Superiority of immune responses of MenACWY-CRM to licensed comparator against serogroup Y~MenACWY-CRM was considered to be superior to the licensed comparator if the LL of the 95% CI of the difference (MenACWY minus licensed comparator) in the percentage of the subjects with hSBA titer ≥ 1:4 at one month post vaccination was \> 0% against each serogroup"||38|25|
91062981|NCT01015534|182010630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.9||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|12.9||The sample size was calculated with a two-sided test,a type-I error probability of 0.05 and a power of 0.80,Twenty- eight patients in each treatment arm were required to detect a difference in ORR of 0.29|Chi-squared|||||12.9|1.3|0.019
91062982|NCT01015534|182010631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.688||||0.704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.138|3.422|||Fisher Exact|||||3.422|.138|.704
90824222|NCT00445770|181524652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior MTX use + treatment.||Week 24||||<0.0001
90824223|NCT00445770|181524652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior MTX use + treatment.||Week 24||||0.0001
91062983|NCT01015534|182010632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.84
91062984|NCT01422213|182010634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.363|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.072|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.5||To adjust for multiplicity, the 10 and 20 mg doses of vortioxetine were tested separately versus placebo in the primary and key secondary efficacy analyses at a Bonferroni-corrected significance level of 0.05/2 = 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Based on the FAS, the composite z-score was analysed using the mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM) with an unstructured covariance structure. The model included terms for grouped site, baseline composite z-score, baseline composite z-score-by-visit interaction, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||0.50|0.22|<0.0001
91062985|NCT01422213|182010634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.071|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.47||To adjust for multiplicity, the 10 and 20 mg doses of vortioxetine were tested separately versus placebo in the primary and key secondary efficacy analyses at a Bonferroni-corrected significance level of 0.05/2 = 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Based on the FAS, the composite z-score was analysed using the MMRM with an unstructured covariance structure. The model included terms for grouped site, baseline composite z-score, baseline composite z-score-by-visit interaction, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||0.47|0.19|<0.0001
91062986|NCT01422213|182010635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|5.9||To adjust for multiplicity, the 10 and 20 mg doses of vortioxetine were tested separately versus placebo in the primary and key secondary efficacy analyses at a Bonferroni-corrected significance level of 0.05/2 = 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Based on the FAS, the DSST (number of correct symbols) was analysed using the MMRM with an unstructured covariance structure. The model included terms for grouped site, baseline value, baseline value-by-visit interaction, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||5.90|2.50|<0.0001
91062987|NCT01422213|182010635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.57|5.94||To adjust for multiplicity, the 10 and 20 mg doses of vortioxetine were tested separately versus placebo in the primary and key secondary efficacy analyses at a Bonferroni-corrected significance level of 0.05/2 = 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Based on the FAS, the DSST (number of correct symbols) was analysed using the MMRM with an unstructured covariance structure. The model included terms for grouped site, baseline value, baseline value-by-visit interaction, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||5.94|2.57|<0.0001
91062988|NCT01422213|182010636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.0287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|1.93||To adjust for multiplicity, the 10 and 20 mg doses of vortioxetine were tested separately versus placebo in the primary and key secondary efficacy analyses at a Bonferroni-corrected significance level of 0.05/2 = 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Based on the FAS, the RAVLT (acquisition) was analysed using the MMRM with an unstructured covariance structure. The model included terms for grouped site, baseline value, baseline value-by-visit interaction, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||1.93|0.11|0.0287
91062989|NCT01422213|182010636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.1988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|1.5||To adjust for multiplicity, the 10 and 20 mg doses of vortioxetine were tested separately versus placebo in the primary and key secondary efficacy analyses at a Bonferroni-corrected significance level of 0.05/2 = 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Based on the FAS, the RAVLT (acquisition) was analysed using the MMRM with an unstructured covariance structure. The model included terms for grouped site, baseline value, baseline value-by-visit interaction, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||1.50|-0.31|0.1988
90824224|NCT00445770|181524652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1279|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior MTX use + treatment.||Week 24||||0.1279
90824225|NCT00445770|181524652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior MTX use + treatment.||Week 32||||<0.0001
90824226|NCT00445770|181524652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior MTX use + treatment.||Week 32||||0.0004
90824227|NCT00445770|181524652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0807|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior MTX use + treatment.||Week 32||||0.0807
90824228|NCT00445770|181524652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior MTX use + treatment.||Week 40||||<0.0001
90824229|NCT00445770|181524652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior MTX use + treatment.||Week 40||||0.0002
90824230|NCT00445770|181524652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.418|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior MTX use + treatment.||Week 40||||0.4180
91062990|NCT01422213|182010637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|1.19||Since the p-value for RAVLT acquisition for 10 mg was \>0.025, the p-value for this test is nominal.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Based on the FAS, the RAVLT (delayed recall) was analysed using the MMRM with an unstructured covariance structure. The model included terms for grouped site, baseline value, baseline value-by-visit interaction, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||1.19|0.24|0.0033
91062991|NCT01422213|182010637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.12||Since the p-value for RAVLT acquisition for 20 mg was \>0.025, the p-value for this test is nominal.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Based on the FAS, the RAVLT (delayed recall) was analysed using the MMRM with an unstructured covariance structure. The model included terms for grouped site, baseline value, baseline value-by-visit interaction, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||1.12|0.17|0.0073
91062992|NCT01422213|182010638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.37||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.45|-1.08||No adjustment for multiplicity was made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Based on the FAS, the TMT A (Speed of Processing) was analysed using the MMRM with an unstructured covariance structure. The model included terms for grouped site, baseline value, baseline value-by-visit interaction, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||-1.08|-6.45|0.0061
91062993|NCT01422213|182010638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.35||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.46|-1.14||No adjustment for multiplicity was made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Based on the FAS, the TMT A (Speed of Processing) was analysed using the MMRM with an unstructured covariance structure. The model included terms for grouped site, baseline value, baseline value-by-visit interaction, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||-1.14|-6.46|0.0052
91062994|NCT01422213|182010639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.73||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.93|-2.2||No adjustment for multiplicity was made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Based on the FAS, the TMT B (Executive Function) was analysed using the MMRM with an unstructured covariance structure. The model included terms for grouped site, baseline value, baseline value-by-visit interaction, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||-2.20|-12.93|0.0058
91062995|NCT01422213|182010639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.32|-3.7||No adjustment for multiplicity was made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Based on the FAS, the TMT B (Executive Function) was analysed using the MMRM with an unstructured covariance structure. The model included terms for grouped site, baseline value, baseline value-by-visit interaction, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||-3.70|-14.32|0.0009
91062996|NCT01422213|182010640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.28||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|-1.49||No adjustment for multiplicity was made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Based on the FAS, the Congruent STROOP Time to Complete (Executive Function) was analysed using the MMRM with an unstructured covariance structure. The model included terms for grouped site, baseline value, baseline value-by-visit interaction, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||-1.49|-6.50|0.0018
91062997|NCT01422213|182010640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.93|-1.97||No adjustment for multiplicity was made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Based on the FAS, the Congruent STROOP Time to Complete (Executive Function) was analysed using the MMRM with an unstructured covariance structure. The model included terms for grouped site, baseline value, baseline value-by-visit interaction, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||-1.97|-6.93|0.0005
91062998|NCT01422213|182010641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.76|-2.74||No adjustment for multiplicity was made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Based on the FAS, the Incongruent STROOP Time to Complete (Executive Function) was analysed using the MMRM with an unstructured covariance structure. The model included terms for grouped site, baseline value, baseline value-by-visit interaction, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||-2.74|-10.76|0.0010
91062999|NCT01422213|182010641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.02||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.49|-2.54||No adjustment for multiplicity was made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Based on the FAS, the Incongruent STROOP Time to Complete (Executive Function) was analysed using the MMRM with an unstructured covariance structure. The model included terms for grouped site, baseline value, baseline value-by-visit interaction, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||-2.54|-10.49|0.0013
91063000|NCT01422213|182010642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.046|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|-0.02||No adjustment for multiplicity was made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Based on the FAS, the SRT (Speed of Processing) was analysed using the MMRM with an unstructured covariance structure. The model included terms for grouped site, baseline value, baseline value-by-visit interaction, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||-0.02|-0.07|0.0002
91063001|NCT01422213|182010642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.029|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.0157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|-0.01||No adjustment for multiplicity was made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Based on the FAS, the SRT (Speed of Processing) was analysed using the MMRM with an unstructured covariance structure. The model included terms for grouped site, baseline value, baseline value-by-visit interaction, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||-0.01|-0.05|0.0157
91063002|NCT01422213|182010643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.032|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.009||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|-0.01||No adjustment for multiplicity was made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Based on the FAS, the CRT (Attention) was analysed using the MMRM with an unstructured covariance structure. The model included terms for grouped site, baseline value, baseline value-by-visit interaction, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||-0.01|-0.05|0.0005
90824231|NCT00445770|181524652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior MTX use + treatment.||Week 48||||<0.0001
90824232|NCT00445770|181524652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0061|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior MTX use + treatment.||Week 48||||0.0061
90824233|NCT00445770|181524652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1615|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior MTX use + treatment.||Week 48||||0.1615
90824234|NCT00445770|181524652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior MTX use + treatment.||Week 52||||<0.0001
90824235|NCT00445770|181524652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior MTX use + treatment.||Week 52||||0.0130
90824236|NCT00445770|181524652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0948|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior MTX use + treatment.||Week 52||||0.0948
90824237|NCT01807299|181524687|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.0||||0.05|ONE_SIDED|5.0|||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.05
90824238|NCT01938040|181524703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.001
90824239|NCT00412893|181524726|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The upper bound of the 95% CI for the treatment difference was compared to the protocol prespecified non-inferiority margin of 10%. If the upper bound was smaller than 10%, isavuconazole was declared as non-inferior to voriconazole with respect to the primary outcome measure.|Adjusted Treatment Difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.759|5.683|||||The treatment difference (isavuconazole minus voriconazole) was calculated using a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method. The strata included Geographical Regions, Allogeneic BMT Status and Uncontrolled Malignancy Status.|Approximately 255 patients per group were to be enrolled to ensure at least 80% power to demonstrate that the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for a treatment difference in favor of the comparator was no larger than 10%.||5.683|-7.759|
90824240|NCT00412893|181524727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.336|12.572|||||The adjusted treatment difference (Voriconazole-Isavuconazole) was calculated by a stratified CMH method with the strata of Geographical Region, Allogeneic BMT Status and Uncontrolled Malignancy Status.|End of Treatment comparison||12.572|-9.336|
90824241|NCT00412893|181524727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.277|10.329|||||The adjusted treatment difference (Voriconazole-Isavuconazole) was calculated by a stratified CMH method with the strata of Geographical Region, Allogeneic BMT Status and Uncontrolled Malignancy Status.|Day 42 comparison||10.329|-11.277|
90824242|NCT00412893|181524727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|8.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.993|18.379|||||The adjusted treatment difference (Voriconazole-Isavuconazole) was calculated by a stratified CMH method with the strata of Geographical Region, Allogeneic BMT Status and Uncontrolled Malignancy Status.|Day 84 comparison||18.379|-1.993|
90824243|NCT00412893|181524728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.15|6.34|||||The treatment difference (isavuconazole minus voriconazole) was calculated using a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method. The strata included Geographical Regions, Allogeneic BMT Status and Uncontrolled Malignancy Status.|||6.340|-9.150|
91063003|NCT01422213|182010643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.009||0.3549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.01||No adjustment for multiplicity was made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Based on the FAS, the CRT (Attention) was analysed using the MMRM with an unstructured covariance structure. The model included terms for grouped site, baseline value, baseline value-by-visit interaction, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||0.01|-0.03|0.3549
91063004|NCT01422213|182010644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.45|-2.96||No adjustment for multiplicity was made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Based on the FAS, the MADRS Total Score was analysed using the MMRM with an unstructured covariance structure. The model included terms for grouped site, baseline value, baseline value-by-visit interaction, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||-2.96|-6.45|<0.0001
91063005|NCT01422213|182010644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.43|-4.98||No adjustment for multiplicity was made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Based on the FAS, the MADRS Total Score was analysed using the MMRM with an unstructured covariance structure. The model included terms for grouped site, baseline value, baseline value-by-visit interaction, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||-4.98|-8.43|<0.0001
91063006|NCT01422213|182010645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.42||No adjustment for multiplicity was made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Based on the FAS, the CGI-S Score was analysed using the MMRM with an unstructured covariance structure. The model included terms for grouped site, baseline value, baseline value-by-visit interaction, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||-0.42|-0.88|<0.0001
90824244|NCT00412893|181524730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.64|11.531|||||The adjusted treatment difference (Voriconazole-Isavuconazole) was calculated by a stratified CMH method with the strata of Geographical Region, Allogeneic BMT Status and Uncontrolled Malignancy Status.|End of Treatment Comparison||11.531|-10.640|
90824245|NCT00412893|181524730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|-5.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.368|5.802|||||The adjusted treatment difference (Voriconazole-Isavuconazole) was calculated by a stratified CMH method with the strata of Geographical Region, Allogeneic BMT Status and Uncontrolled Malignancy Status.|Day 42 comparison||5.802|-17.368|
90824246|NCT00412893|181524730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.116|11.758|||||The adjusted treatment difference (Voriconazole-Isavuconazole) was calculated by a stratified CMH method with the strata of Geographical Region, Allogeneic BMT Status and Uncontrolled Malignancy Status.|Day 84 comparison||11.758|-11.116|
90824247|NCT00412893|181524731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.429|15.087|||||The adjusted treatment difference (Voriconazole-Isavuconazole) was calculated by a stratified CMH method with the strata of Geographical Region, Allogeneic BMT Status and Uncontrolled Malignancy Status.|End of Treatment comparison||15.087|-7.429|
90824248|NCT00412893|181524731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.917|10.586|||||The adjusted treatment difference (Voriconazole-Isavuconazole) was calculated by a stratified CMH method with the strata of Geographical Region, Allogeneic BMT Status and Uncontrolled Malignancy Status.|Day 42 Comparison||10.586|-11.917|
90824249|NCT00412893|181524731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.624|19.83|||||The adjusted treatment difference (Voriconazole-Isavuconazole) was calculated by a stratified CMH method with the strata of Geographical Region, Allogeneic BMT Status and Uncontrolled Malignancy Status.|Day 84 Comparison||19.830|-1.624|
90824250|NCT00412893|181524732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.936|16.268|||||The adjusted treatment difference (Voriconazole-Isavuconazole) was calculated by a stratified CMH method with the strata of Geographical Region, Allogeneic BMT Status and Uncontrolled Malignancy Status.|End of Treatment comparison||16.268|-4.936|
91063007|NCT01422213|182010645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.62||No adjustment for multiplicity was made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Based on the FAS, the CGI-S Score was analysed using the MMRM with an unstructured covariance structure. The model included terms for grouped site, baseline value, baseline value-by-visit interaction, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||-0.62|-1.08|<0.0001
91063008|NCT01422213|182010646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.4||No adjustment for multiplicity was made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Based on the FAS, the CGI-I Score was analysed using the MMRM with an unstructured covariance structure. The model included terms for grouped site and treatment-by-visit interaction.||-0.40|-0.81|<0.0001
91063009|NCT01422213|182010646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.65||No adjustment for multiplicity was made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Based on the FAS, the CGI-I Score was analysed using the MMRM with an unstructured covariance structure. The model included terms for grouped site and treatment-by-visit interaction.||-0.65|-1.06|<0.0001
91063010|NCT01422213|182010647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.19||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|3.33||Wald's Test. No adjustment for multiplicity was made.|Regression, Logistic|||||3.33|1.44|0.0002
91063011|NCT01422213|182010647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.43|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.26|5.21||Wald's Test. No adjustment for multiplicity was made.|Regression, Logistic|||||5.21|2.26|<0.0001
90824251|NCT00412893|181524732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.338|16.032|||||The adjusted treatment difference (Voriconazole-Isavuconazole) was calculated by a stratified CMH method with the strata of Geographical Region, Allogeneic BMT Status and Uncontrolled Malignancy Status.|Day 42 comparison||16.032|-5.338|
90824252|NCT00412893|181524732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.231|19.186|||||The adjusted treatment difference (Voriconazole-Isavuconazole) was calculated by a stratified CMH method with the strata of Geographical Region, Allogeneic BMT Status and Uncontrolled Malignancy Status.|Day 84 comparison||19.186|-1.231|
90824253|NCT00412893|181524733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.043|16.026|||||The adjusted treatment difference (Voriconazole-Isavuconazole) was calculated by a stratified CMH method with the strata of Geographical Region, Allogeneic BMT Status and Uncontrolled Malignancy Status.|End of Treatment comparison||16.026|-6.043|
90824254|NCT00412893|181524733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted treatment Difference|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.873|11.22|||||The adjusted treatment difference (Voriconazole-Isavuconazole) was calculated by a stratified CMH method with the strata of Geographical Region, Allogeneic BMT Status and Uncontrolled Malignancy Status.|Day 42 comparison||11.220|-10.873|
90824255|NCT00412893|181524733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted treatment Difference|4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.533|15.939|||||The adjusted treatment difference (Voriconazole-Isavuconazole) was calculated by a stratified CMH method with the strata of Geographical Region, Allogeneic BMT Status and Uncontrolled Malignancy Status.|Day 84 comparison||15.939|-6.533|
91063012|NCT01422213|182010648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.09||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|3.41||Wald's Test. No adjustment for multiplicity was made.|Regression, Logistic|||||3.41|1.29|0.0030
91063013|NCT01422213|182010648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.95|5.03||Wald's Test. No adjustment for multiplicity was made.|Regression, Logistic|||||5.03|1.95|<0.0001
91063014|NCT01422213|182010649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059||0.0393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.24||No adjustment for multiplicity was made.|ANCOVA|||||0.24|0.01|0.0393
91063015|NCT01422213|182010650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.36||No adjustment for multiplicity was made.|ANCOVA|||||0.36|0.10|0.0007
91063016|NCT01422213|182010650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068||0.0246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.29||No adjustment for multiplicity was made.|ANCOVA|||||0.29|0.02|0.0246
90824256|NCT00412893|181524734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.429|17.218|||||The adjusted treatment difference (Voriconazole-Isavuconazole) was calculated by a stratified CMH method with the strata of Geographical Region, Allogeneic BMT Status and Uncontrolled Malignancy Status.|End of Treatment comparison||17.218|-8.429|
90824257|NCT00412893|181524734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.071|10.073|||||The adjusted treatment difference (Voriconazole-Isavuconazole) was calculated by a stratified CMH method with the strata of Geographical Region, Allogeneic BMT Status and Uncontrolled Malignancy Status.|Day 42 comparison||10.073|-15.071|
91063017|NCT00951496|182010657|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Study was designed to provide 80% power when arm II reduces the progression free survival event rate 20%. The critical p-value accounts for correlation between 2 primary hypotheses.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.09||P value not adjusted for multiplicity. Significance Threshold = 0.027|Log Rank|Stratified by stage of disease and size of residual disease.|Progression free survival of arm II relative to arm I. Adjusted for stage of disease and residual size.|P value.(an P value is used to determine statistical significance in a hypothesis test). from a stratified log rank test to assess equality of progression free survival hazards of arm II and arm I||1.09|0.81|0.341
91063018|NCT00951496|182010657|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Study was designed to provide 80% power when arm III reduced the true progression free survival event rate. 20% compared to arm I. Critical p value accounts for correlation between 2 primary hypotheses.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.15||P value not adjusted for multiplicity. Significance threshold = 0.027 accounting for 2 correlated primary hypotheses.|Log Rank|Stratified by stage of disease and size of residual disease.|Progression free survival hazard of arm III to arm I. Adjusted for stage of disease and residual disease size.|P value from a log rank test comparing the progression free survival hazards of arm III to arm I.||1.15|0.86|0.587
91063019|NCT01998841|182010684|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Annualized Rate of Change|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|1.13|||RCRM|||Analysis was based on random coefficient regression model (RCRM) using unstructured covariance matrix: API Composite Endpoint=Treatment \* Analysis Year + interactive voice or Web-based response system (IxRS) defined Age Group + IxRS defined Education History + IxRS defined apolipoprotein E4 (APOE4) Carrier Status + IxRS defined CDR Global Score.||1.13|-0.48|0.43
90824258|NCT00412893|181524734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.633|14.499|||||The adjusted treatment difference (Voriconazole-Isavuconazole) was calculated by a stratified CMH method with the strata of Geographical Region, Allogeneic BMT Status and Uncontrolled Malignancy Status.|Day 84 comparison||14.499|-8.633|
90824259|NCT00412893|181524735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.145|17.696|||||The adjusted treatment difference (Voriconazole-Isavuconazole) was calculated by a stratified CMH method with the strata of Geographical Region, Allogeneic BMT Status and Uncontrolled Malignancy Status.|End of Treatment comparison||17.696|-5.145|
90824260|NCT00412893|181524735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.335|19.356|||||The adjusted treatment difference (Voriconazole-Isavuconazole) was calculated by a stratified CMH method with the strata of Geographical Region, Allogeneic BMT Status and Uncontrolled Malignancy Status.|Day 42 comparison||19.356|-3.335|
90824261|NCT00412893|181524735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.187|16.332|||||The adjusted treatment difference (Voriconazole-Isavuconazole) was calculated by a stratified CMH method with the strata of Geographical Region, Allogeneic BMT Status and Uncontrolled Malignancy Status.|Day 84 comparison||16.332|-6.187|
90824262|NCT03951077|181524737|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|-5.9||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.38|3.49|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Across the strata, 90% confidence interval (CI) for adjusted difference and p-value were calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for strata (Baseline FG score \[\< 8, ≥ 8\], and baseline normal/obese status \[BMI \< 30, ≥ 30\]) for the comparison of between each elagolix group and placebo. If zero frequency occurred, the zero count was replaced by 0.1 to prevent dividing by zero.||3.49|-15.38|0.300
90824263|NCT03951077|181524737|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|-5.9||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.65|3.86|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Across the strata, 90% CI for adjusted difference and p-value were calculated according to the CMH test adjusted for strata (Baseline FG score \[\< 8, ≥ 8\], and baseline normal/obese status \[BMI \< 30, ≥ 30\]) for the comparison of between each elagolix group and placebo. If zero frequency occurred, the zero count was replaced by 0.1 to prevent dividing by zero.||3.86|-15.65|0.320
90824264|NCT03951077|181524737|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|-5.6||||0.315|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.87|3.59|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Across the strata, 90% CI for adjusted difference and p-value were calculated according to the CMH test adjusted for strata (Baseline FG score \[\< 8, ≥ 8\], and baseline normal/obese status \[BMI \< 30, ≥ 30\]) for the comparison of between each elagolix group and placebo. If zero frequency occurred, the zero count was replaced by 0.1 to prevent dividing by zero.||3.59|-14.87|0.315
91063020|NCT01998841|182010685|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Annualized Rate of Change|0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.006||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.003|0.02|||RCRM|||Analysis was based on RCRM using unstructured covariance matrix: FCSRT Cueing Index = Treatment \* Analysis Year + IxRS defined Age Group + IxRS defined Education History + IxRS defined APOE4 Carrier Status + IxRS defined CDR Global Score.||0.02|-0.003|0.16
91063021|NCT01998841|182010686|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.52|||Stratified Log Rank||Hazard ratios were estimated by Cox regression|Stratification factors used: Age Group, Education History, APOE4 Carrier Status, Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR) Global Score.||1.52|0.41|0.48
90824265|NCT03951077|181524737|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|-6.7||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.63|3.19|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Across the strata, 90% CI for adjusted difference and p-value were calculated according to the CMH test adjusted for strata (Baseline FG score \[\< 8, ≥ 8\], and baseline normal/obese status \[BMI \< 30, ≥ 30\]) for the comparison of between each elagolix group and placebo. If zero frequency occurred, the zero count was replaced by 0.1 to prevent dividing by zero.||3.19|-16.63|0.265
90824266|NCT03951077|181524737|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|-0.8||||0.914|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.1|11.48|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Across the strata, 90% CI for adjusted difference and p-value were calculated according to the CMH test adjusted for strata (Baseline FG score \[\< 8, ≥ 8\], and baseline normal/obese status \[BMI \< 30, ≥ 30\]) for the comparison of between each elagolix group and placebo. If zero frequency occurred, the zero count was replaced by 0.1 to prevent dividing by zero.||11.48|-13.10|0.914
90824267|NCT03951077|181524738|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean of Difference|-5.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.429||0.087|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.628|-0.231|||MMRM|||P-value is from mixed-effect model repeated measure (MMRM) with the fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline FG score (\< 8, ≥ 8), and baseline normal/obese status (BMI \< 30, ≥ 30), participant as a random effect, and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline measurement. Model is based on unstructured variance covariance structure.||-0.231|-11.628|0.087
90824268|NCT03951077|181524738|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-8.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.435||0.012|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.533|-3.118|||MMRM|||P-value is from MMRM with the fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline FG score (\< 8, ≥ 8), and baseline normal/obese status (BMI \< 30, ≥ 30), participant as a random effect, and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline measurement. Model is based on unstructured variance covariance structure.||-3.118|-14.533|0.012
90824269|NCT03951077|181524738|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-16.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.356|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.673|-10.519|||MMRM|||P-value is from MMRM with the fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline FG score (\< 8, ≥ 8), and baseline normal/obese status (BMI \< 30, ≥ 30), participant as a random effect, and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline measurement. Model is based on unstructured variance covariance structure.||-10.519|-21.673|<0.001
90824270|NCT03951077|181524738|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-6.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.593||0.091|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.116|-0.176|||MMRM|||P-value is from MMRM with the fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline FG score (\< 8, ≥ 8), and baseline normal/obese status (BMI \< 30, ≥ 30), participant as a random effect, and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline measurement. Model is based on unstructured variance covariance structure.||-0.176|-12.116|0.091
91063022|NCT01998841|182010687|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.59|||Stratified Log Rank||Hazard ratios were estimated by Cox regression.|Stratification factors used: Age Group, Education History, APOE4 Carrier Status.||1.59|0.53|0.76
90824271|NCT03951077|181524738|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-11.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.431|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.418|-6.016|||MMRM|||P-value is from MMRM with the fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline FG score (\< 8, ≥ 8), and baseline normal/obese status (BMI \< 30, ≥ 30), participant as a random effect, and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline measurement. Model is based on unstructured variance covariance structure.||-6.016|-17.418|< 0.001
90824272|NCT01915173|181524779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||All 4 arms were combined to compare the Standard Interview groups to the Expanded Interview groups. We calculated that we had 45-74% power to detect a 30-40% difference in responders between groups in the pre-specified primary outcome measure, the percent of subjects with a 50% or greater improvement in GERD symptom severity.||||0.01
90824273|NCT01915173|181524779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||All 4 arms were combined to compare the Placebo groups to the Supplement groups. We calculated that we had 45-74% power to detect a 30-40% difference in responders between groups in the pre-specified primary outcome measure, the percent of subjects with a 50% or greater improvement in GERD symptom severity.||||0.33
90824274|NCT00108862|181524801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.08|-2.0|8.0||The analysis was stratified by screening CD4 (\<50 cells/mm3 vs =\>50). Interim reviews employed group sequential monitoring using an O'Brien-Fleming use function. At final analysis, the a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.0492.|Z-test, 2-sided|A 2-sided Z-test was used to compare the two percents. The test was weighted by the inverse of the Greenwood's variance in each CD4 stratum.|The difference in percents was calculated as the percent failed in the Deferred ART arm minus the percent failed in the Immediate ART arm.|Assuming that immediate ART was better than deferred ART and that the combined rate in the deferred ART arm was 25% compared to 15% in the immediate ART arm (a 40% reduction), and assuming 10% loss to follow-up in a two-sided, two-sample 0.05-level asymptotically-normal test with 400 participants in each arm, there was 90% power. The percents tested were Kaplan-Meier estimators at week 48 with the associated Greenwood's variance.||8|-2|0.45
90824275|NCT00108862|181524802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.08|2.0|21.0||Interim reviews employed group sequential monitoring using an\> O'Brien-Fleming use function. At final analysis, the a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.0492.|Z-test, 2-sided||The difference in percents was calculated as the percent failed in the Deferred ART arm minus the percent failed in the Immediate ART arm.|The study was not powered for this pre-specified subgroup analysis.||21|2|0.02
90824276|NCT00108862|181524803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.08|-7.0|4.0||Interim reviews employed group sequential monitoring using an O'Brien-Fleming use function. At final analysis, the a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.0492.|Z-test, 2-sided||The difference in percents was calculated as the percent failed in the Deferred ART arm minus the percent failed in the Immediate ART arm.|The study was not powered for this pre-specified subgroup analysis.||4|-7|0.67
91063023|NCT01998841|182010688|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Annualized Rate of Change|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.09|||RCRM|||Analysis was based on RCRM using unstructured covariance matrix: CDR-SB = Treatment \* Analysis Year + IxRS defined Age Group + IxRS defined Education History + IxRS defined APOE4 Carrier Status + IxRS defined CDR Global Score.||0.09|-0.15|0.64
90824277|NCT00900666|181524815|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|a priori power calculation suggested N=26 for each group.||||||0.761|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||p\<0.05 threshold|ANOVA|Correlations with walking speed and time since injury were initially performed to determine whether ANCOVA would be be more appropriate.||ANOVA||||0.761
91063024|NCT01998841|182010689|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Annualized Rate of Change|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.75|||RCRM|||Analysis was based on RCRM using unstructured covariance matrix: RBANS Total Score = Treatment \* Analysis Year + IxRS defined Age Group + IxRS defined Education History + IxRS defined APOE4 Carrier Status + IxRS defined CDR Global Score.||0.75|-0.40|0.55
91063025|NCT01998841|182010690|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Annualized Rate of Change|-0.0006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.002||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0037|0.0024|||RCRM|||Analysis was based on RCRM using unstructured covariance matrix: PET SUVR = Treatment \* Analysis Year + IxRS defined Age Group + IxRS defined Education History + IxRS defined APOE4 Carrier Status + IxRS defined CDR Global Score.||0.0024|-0.0037|0.69
90824278|NCT00900666|181524816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.896||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||.896
90824279|NCT01664182|181524824|OTHER|Two sided hypothesis. Wilcoxon rank-sum test comparing the two arms in terms of the ratio of the post-treatment levels divided by the baseline.||||||0.86||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. A-priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Arm A vs Arm B shift test on Angiopoietin -- 2 prior to cycle 2. Wilcoxon rank-sum test p-value.||||0.86
90824280|NCT01664182|181524824|OTHER|Two sided hypothesis. Wilcoxon rank-sum test comparing the two arms in terms of the ratio of the post-treatment levels divided by the baseline.||||||0.76||||||Angiopoietin -- 2 prior to cycle 3.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Angiopoietin -- 2 prior to cycle 3||||0.76
90824281|NCT01664182|181524824|OTHER|Two sided hypothesis. Wilcoxon rank-sum test comparing the two arms in terms of the ratio of the post-treatment levels divided by the baseline.||||||0.14||||||No adjustment for multiple comparison. A-priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Tie--2 Prior to cycle 2||||0.14
90824282|NCT01664182|181524824|OTHER|Two sided hypothesis. Wilcoxon rank-sum test comparing the two arms in terms of the ratio of the post-treatment levels divided by the baseline.||||||0.069||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. A-priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Tie -- 2 prior to cycle 3||||0.069
90824283|NCT01664182|181524824|OTHER|Two sided hypothesis. Wilcoxon rank-sum test comparing the two arms in terms of the ratio of the post-treatment levels divided by the baseline.||||||0.19||||||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A-priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||VEGF -- A prior to cycle 2||||0.19
90824284|NCT01664182|181524824|OTHER|Two sided hypothesis. Wilcoxon rank-sum test comparing the two arms in terms of the ratio of the post-treatment levels divided by the baseline.||||||0.046||||||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a-priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||VEGF--A prior to cycle 3||||0.046
90824285|NCT01664182|181524824|OTHER|Two sided hypothesis. Wilcoxon rank-sum test comparing the two arms in terms of the ratio of the post-treatment levels divided by the baseline.||||||0.029||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A-priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PIGF Prior to Cycle 2||||0.029
90824286|NCT01664182|181524824|OTHER|Two sided hypothesis. Wilcoxon rank-sum test comparing the two arms in terms of the ratio of the post-treatment levels divided by the baseline.||||||0.2||||||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PIGF prior to cycle 3||||0.20
90824287|NCT01664182|181524824|OTHER|Two sided hypothesis. Wilcoxon rank-sum test comparing the two arms in terms of the ratio of the post-treatment levels divided by the baseline.||||||0.11||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a-priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||VEGFR--3 prior to cycle 2||||0.11
90824288|NCT01664182|181524824|OTHER|Two sided hypothesis. Wilcoxon rank-sum test comparing the two arms in terms of the ratio of the post-treatment levels divided by the baseline.||||||0.068||||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a-priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||VEGFR--3 prior to cycle 3||||0.068
90824289|NCT01664182|181524824|OTHER|Two sided hypothesis. Wilcoxon rank-sum test comparing the two arms in terms of the ratio of the post-treatment levels divided by the baseline.||||||0.61||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a-priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||VEGF--C prior to cycle 2||||0.61
90824290|NCT01664182|181524824|OTHER|Two sided hypothesis. Wilcoxon rank-sum test comparing the two arms in terms of the ratio of the post-treatment levels divided by the baseline.||||||0.27||||||Two sided hypothesis. Wilcoxon rank-sum test comparing the two arms in terms of the ratio of the post-treatment levels divided by the baseline.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||VEGF--C prior to cycle 3||||0.27
90824291|NCT01664182|181524824|OTHER|Two sided hypothesis. Wilcoxon rank-sum test comparing the two arms in terms of the ratio of the post-treatment levels divided by the baseline.||||||0.61||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a-priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||IL--8 prior to cycle 2||||0.61
90824292|NCT01664182|181524824|OTHER|Two sided hypothesis. Wilcoxon rank-sum test comparing the two arms in terms of the ratio of the post-treatment levels divided by the baseline.||||||0.49||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons, and the a-priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||IL--8 prior to cycle 3||||0.49
90824293|NCT01664182|181524824|OTHER|Two sided hypothesis. Wilcoxon rank-sum test comparing the two arms in terms of the ratio of the post-treatment levels divided by the baseline.||||||0.82||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a-priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||ICAM--1 prior to cycle 2||||0.82
90824294|NCT01664182|181524824|OTHER|Two sided hypothesis. Wilcoxon rank-sum test comparing the two arms in terms of the ratio of the post-treatment levels divided by the baseline.||||||0.069||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||ICAM--1 prior to cycle 3||||0.069
90824295|NCT01664182|181524824|OTHER|Two sided hypothesis. Wilcoxon rank-sum test comparing the two arms in terms of the ratio of the post-treatment levels divided by the baseline.||||||0.34||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||VCAM--1 prior to cycle 2||||0.34
90824296|NCT01664182|181524824|OTHER|Two sided hypothesis. Wilcoxon rank-sum test comparing the two arms in terms of the ratio of the post-treatment levels divided by the baseline.||||||0.046||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set to 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||VCAM--1 prior to cycle 3||||0.046
90824297|NCT01664182|181524824|OTHER|Two sided hypothesis. Wilcoxon rank-sum test comparing the two arms in terms of the ratio of the post-treatment levels divided by the baseline.||||||0.11||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set to 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||FGF2 prior to cycle 2||||0.11
90824298|NCT01664182|181524824|OTHER|Two sided hypothesis. Wilcoxon rank-sum test comparing the two arms in terms of the ratio of the post-treatment levels divided by the baseline.||||||0.23||||||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a prior threshold for statistical significance was set to 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||FGF2 prior to cycle 3||||0.23
90824299|NCT01664182|181524824|OTHER|Two sided hypothesis. Wilcoxon rank-sum test comparing the two arms in terms of the ratio of the post-treatment levels divided by the baseline.||||||0.37||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set to 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PDGF--AA prior to cycle 2||||0.37
90824300|NCT01664182|181524824|OTHER|Two sided hypothesis. Wilcoxon rank-sum test comparing the two arms in terms of the ratio of the post-treatment levels divided by the baseline.||||||0.35||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set to 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PDGF--AA prior to cycle 3||||0.35
90824301|NCT05292131|181524845|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence (BE) was concluded if the 90% CIs for the ratio of the respective comparison are fully included in the acceptance range from 0.8 to 1.25 for AUC.|Geometric Mean Ratio (percentage [%])|97.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.2|105.4||||||||105.40|90.20|
90824302|NCT05292131|181524846|EQUIVALENCE|BE was concluded if the 90% CIs for the ratio of the respective comparison are fully included in the acceptance range from 0.8 to 1.25 for AUC0-t.|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|97.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.1|104.55||||||||104.55|90.10|
90824303|NCT05292131|181524847|EQUIVALENCE|BE was concluded if the 90% CIs for the ratio of the respective comparison are fully included in the acceptance range from 0.8 to 1.25 for Cmax.|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|96.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.6|104.47||||||||104.47|88.60|
90824304|NCT05292131|181524850|EQUIVALENCE|BE was concluded if the 90% CIs for the ratio of the respective comparison are fully included in the acceptance range from 0.8 to 1.25 for t½.|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|101.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.18|108.59||||||||108.59|94.18|
90824305|NCT05292131|181524851|EQUIVALENCE|The point estimate and the 90% CI for the median treatment differences for tmax was computed according to the Hodges-Lehmann's method.|Hodges-Lehman Estimate|0.4897|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0073|0.9567||||||||0.9567|-0.0073|
90824306|NCT01345188|181524862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.058|||||||Paired t test|||||||0.058
90824307|NCT01345188|181524863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.048|||||||Paired t test|||||||0.048
91063026|NCT01998841|182010691|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Annualized Rate of Change|0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.002||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.002|0.007|||RCRM|||Analysis was based on RCRM using unstructured covariance matrix: FDG-PET = Treatment \* Analysis Year + IxRS defined Age Group + IxRS defined Education History + IxRS defined APOE4 Carrier Status + IxRS defined CDR Global Score.||0.007|-0.002|0.25
90824308|NCT01345188|181524864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed rank|||||||>0.05
90824309|NCT00684775|181524887|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.0|||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|25.0|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||25.0|1.44|=0.002
90824310|NCT00684775|181524888|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0081|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0081
90824311|NCT00684775|181524889|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.6|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||3.6|.5|0.56
90824312|NCT00684775|181524890|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45|||=|0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.53|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||3.53|.6|=0.41
90824313|NCT00684775|181524891|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|3.36|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||3.36|.42|0.75
90824314|NCT00684775|181524892|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1543|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1543
90824315|NCT00684775|181524893|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.82||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|4.1|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||4.1|.81|0.15
90824316|NCT00555672|181524902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Objective Response Rate (ORR) (percent)|27.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.3|45.5|||Fisher Exact|Exact Method based on the F Distribution.||||45.5|13.3|
90824317|NCT05236257|181524915|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.21||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.63|||Cox Proportional Hazards model|Unweighted||||0.63|0.07|0.0058
90824318|NCT05236257|181524915|OTHER|||||||0.0023|||||||Log Rank|Unweighted||||||0.0023
90824319|NCT05236257|181524916|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.23||||0.0703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|1.13|||Cox Proportional Hazards model|Unweighted||||1.13|0.05|0.0703
90824320|NCT05236257|181524916|OTHER|||||||0.0486|||||||Log Rank|Unweighted||||||0.0486
90824321|NCT05236257|181524917|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.23||||0.696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|1.12|||Cox Proportional Hazards model|Unweighted||||1.12|0.05|0.696
90824322|NCT05236257|181524917|OTHER|||||||0.0476|||||||Log Rank|Unweighted||||||0.0476
90824323|NCT05236257|181524919|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.5713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.77|||Cox Proportional Hazards model|Unweighted||||1.77|0.36|0.5713
90824324|NCT05236257|181524919|OTHER|||||||0.5695|||||||Log Rank|Unweighted||||||0.5695
90824325|NCT05236257|181524920|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.32||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|3.06|||Cox Proportional Hazards model|Unweighted||||3.06|0.03|0.3200
91078433|NCT00553358|182042814|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.481||||0.00079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.73|||Regression, Cox||Cox models (Cox, 1972), with the stratification factors entered as strata variables, were used to calculate a hazard ratio and corresponding confidence interval comparing pCR and no pCR.|Overall - All subjects in the EFS landmark analysis||0.73|0.31|0.00079
90824326|NCT05236257|181524920|OTHER|||||||0.294|||||||Log Rank|Unweighted||||||0.2940
90824327|NCT05870865|181524922|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.28||||0.5483|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.5483
90824328|NCT05870865|181524922|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.89||||0.4123|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.4123
90824329|NCT05870865|181524922|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.66||||0.8177|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8177
90824330|NCT05870865|181524923|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.66||||0.4601|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4601
90824331|NCT05870865|181524923|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.64||||0.0804|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0804
90824332|NCT05870865|181524923|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06|||>|0.9999|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.9999
90824333|NCT05870865|181524924|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.72||||0.2146|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2146
90824334|NCT05870865|181524924|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.8851|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8851
90824335|NCT05870865|181524924|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.81||||0.1835|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1835
90824336|NCT05870865|181524925|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.7982|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7982
90824337|NCT05870865|181524925|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.564|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.5640
90824338|NCT05870865|181524925|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.2939|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2939
90824339|NCT05870865|181524926|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4||||0.3579|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.3579
90824340|NCT05870865|181524926|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0.3466|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.3466
90824341|NCT05870865|181524926|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.9527|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.9527
90824342|NCT03828019|181524936|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.86||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|3.25|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for the 2 stratification variables (initial prednisone dose and immunosuppression use at baseline).|Estimated parameter is the Odds Ratios (ADA/CID). Result greater than 1 indicates ADA is superior in achieving successful corticosteroid sparing|The sample size estimation: Adalimumab was estimated to be successful in 75% of patients. The overall success rate with conventional immunosuppression was estimated to be 51%. A sample size of 222 (111 per treatment group) provided 90% power to detect a difference in cumulative percent of 75% versus 51%||3.25|1.06|0.029
90824343|NCT03828019|181524937|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.91||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|3.86|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ADA/ Odds CID|Generalized estimating equations were used to fit logistic regression models to compare the cumulative proportion of corticosteroid sparing between the two treatment groups over time while accounting for correlation between replicate measurements on the same individual with an unstructured covariance matrix. 2 stratification variables (initial prednisone dose and immunosuppression use at baseline) were included||3.86|0.94|0.072
90824344|NCT03828019|181524938|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|3.46|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio is ADA/CID where value greater than 1 indicates ADA is superior for corticosteroid (prednisone) discontinuation|Generalized estimating equations were used to fit logistic regression models to compare the cumulative proportion of corticosteroid sparing between the two treatment groups over time while accounting for correlation between replicate measurements on the same individual with an unstructured covariance matrix. 2 stratification variables (initial prednisone dose and immunosuppression use at baseline) were included||3.46|0.67|0.30
91063027|NCT01998841|182010692|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Annualized Rate of Change|107.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|92.28||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.5|290.05|||RCRM|||Whole Brain: Analysis was based on RCRM using unstructured covariance matrix: MRI Whole Brain (Derived) = Treatment \* Analysis Year + IxRS defined Age Group + IxRS defined Education History + IxRS defined APOE4 Carrier Status + IxRS defined CDR Global Score.||290.05|-74.5|0.25
91063028|NCT01998841|182010692|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Annualized Rate of Change|9.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.39||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.74|43.94|||RCRM|||Bilateral Hippocampus: Analysis was based on RCRM using unstructured covariance matrix: MRI Bilateral Hippocampus = Treatment \* Analysis Year + IxRS defined Age Group + IxRS defined Education History + IxRS defined APOE4 Carrier Status + IxRS defined CDR Global Score.||43.94|-24.74|0.58
91063029|NCT01998841|182010692|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Annualized Rate of Change|19.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|213.08||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-400.78|440.62|||RCRM|||Ventricles: Analysis was based on RCRM using unstructured covariance matrix: MRI Ventricles = Treatment \* Analysis Year + IxRS defined Age Group + IxRS defined Education History + IxRS defined APOE4 Carrier Status + IxRS defined CDR Global Score.||440.62|-400.78|0.93
91063030|NCT01998841|182010693|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Annualized Rate of Change|-1.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.09||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.17|4.23|||RCRM|||tTau: Analysis was based on RCRM using unstructured covariance matrix: CSF tTau = Treatment \* Analysis Year + IxRS defined Age Group + IxRS defined Education History + IxRS defined APOE4 Carrier Status + IxRS defined CDR Global Score.||4.23|-8.17|0.53
91063031|NCT01998841|182010693|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Annualized Rate of Change|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|0.43|||RCRM|||pTau: Analysis was based on RCRM using unstructured covariance matrix: CSF pTau = Treatment \* Analysis Year + IxRS defined Age Group + IxRS defined Education History + IxRS defined APOE4 Carrier Status + IxRS defined CDR Global Score.||0.43|-1.43|0.28
91063032|NCT01998841|182010701|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Annualized Rate of Change|7522.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|313.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6903.44|8141.65|||RCRM|||Aβ1-40: Analysis was based on RCRM using unstructured covariance matrix: APlasma Amyloid Beta 1-40 =Treatment \* Analysis Year + IxRS defined Age Group + IxRS defined Education History + IxRS defined APOE4 Carrier Status + IxRS defined CDR Global Score.||8141.65|6903.44|<0.0001
91063033|NCT01998841|182010701|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Annualized Rate of Change|556.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|23.98|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|508.63|603.44|||RCRM|||Aβ1-42: Analysis was based on RCRM using unstructured covariance matrix: Plasma Amyloid Peptid Beta 42 =Treatment \* Analysis Year + IxRS defined Age Group + IxRS defined Education History + IxRS defined APOE4 Carrier Status + IxRS defined CDR Global Score.||603.44|508.63|<0.0001
91063034|NCT00972595|182010706|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Study Primary Hypothesis: A single dose of the U.K. ZOFRAN™ (ondansetron) 8 mg tablet over-encapsulated is bioequivalent to a single dose of the U.K. ZOFRAN™ (ondansetron) 8-mg tablet. That is, the true geometric mean ratios (U.K. ZOFRAN™ tablet over-encapsulated/U.K. ZOFRAN™ tablet) of AUC0-∞ and Cmax for ondansetron each lie within the interval 0.80 to 1.25.|Least-Squares Mean Ratio|0.98||||||90.0|0.93|1.03||||||Least-Squares Mean Ratio (OE U.K. tablet / U.K. tablet): an over-encapsulated single 8 mg tablet of United Kingdom (U.K.) ZOFRAN™ (ondansetron) taken orally; a single 8 mg tablet of ZOFRAN™ (ondansetron) which is marketed in the United Kingdom (U.K.) taken orally||1.03|0.93|
90824345|NCT03828019|181524939|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.85||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|3.19|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ADA/ Odds CID where value greater than 1 indicate greater corticosteroid sparing success in the ADA group|Generalized estimating equations were used to fit logistic regression models to compare the cumulative proportion of corticosteroid discontinuation between the two treatment groups over time while accounting for correlation between replicate measurements on the same individual with an unstructured covariance matrix. 2 stratification variables (initial prednisone dose and immunosuppression use at baseline) were included||3.19|1.06|0.028
90824346|NCT03828019|181524940|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of rate of steroid (mg/day ADA/CID|0.86||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.01|||negative binomial model||Number greater than 1 would indicate rate of steroid use is higher in participants assigned to ADA|||1.01|0.73|0.061
90824347|NCT03828019|181524941|SUPERIORITY||Difference in mean change from BL|0.4||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|3.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects models were used with a linear link. The fixed effects included initial steroid dose and immunosuppression use at baseline. Additional visit indicators (months 1-12) and corresponding treatment by visit interaction terms. An unstructured correlation was used to model repeated measurements by eye . A person-level random intercept was added to account for between-eye correlations.||3.1|-2.3|0.77
90824348|NCT03828019|181524942|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of odds ratios|0.55||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.94|||Regression, Logistic||estimate is the ratio of odds ratios - OR ADA / OR CID. Value less than 1 indicates ADA is better at reducing macular edema.|Mixed effects models with a log link were used to assess treatment differences . The outcome measure was the odds ratio of having macular edema (OCT central subfield thickness \> 300 um) at 12 months compared to baseline (BL). The treatment effect was the ratio of Odds ratios (ADA/CID) at 12 months. Values less than one indicate improvement in macular edema for the ADA treatment group relative to the CID group. Decrease in subfield thickness is good||0.94|0.31|0.028
91063035|NCT00972595|182010707|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Study Primary Hypothesis: A single dose of the U.K. ZOFRAN™ (ondansetron) 8 mg tablet over-encapsulated is bioequivalent to a single dose of the U.K. ZOFRAN™ (ondansetron) 8 mg tablet. That is, the true geometric mean ratios (U.K. ZOFRAN™ tablet over-encapsulated/U.K. ZOFRAN™ tablet) of AUC0-∞ and Cmax for ondansetron each lie within the interval 0.80 to 1.25.|Least-Squares Mean Ratio|0.99||||||90.0|0.93|1.05||||||"Least-Squares Mean Ratio (OE U.K. tablet / U.K. tablet): an over-encapsulated single 8 mg tablet of United Kingdom~(U.K.) ZOFRAN™ (ondansetron) taken orally; a single 8 mg tablet of ZOFRAN™ (ondansetron) which is marketed in the~United Kingdom (U.K.) taken orally"||1.05|0.93|
91063036|NCT02085447|182010708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||.012
91063037|NCT02085447|182010709|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||.028
91063038|NCT02085447|182010710|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.162|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||.162
91063039|NCT02085447|182010711|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.021|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||.021
90824349|NCT03828019|181524943|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.98|||negative binomial model|||||1.98|0.61|0.76
90824350|NCT03828019|181524944|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.16||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.7|||Regression, Cox|||. Kaplan Meier techniques and Cox proportional hazards models were used to evaluate time to event outcomes||0.70|0.04|0.014
91063040|NCT02085447|182010712|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||.005
91063041|NCT02085447|182010713|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<.001
91063042|NCT02085447|182010714|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.197|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||.197
91063043|NCT02085447|182010715|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<.001
91063044|NCT02085447|182010716|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<.001
91063045|NCT02085447|182010717|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<.001
91063046|NCT02085447|182010718|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.053|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||.053
91063047|NCT02085447|182010719|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<.001
90824351|NCT03828019|181524945|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.89||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.82|||Regression, Cox|||||1.82|0.43|0.74
90824352|NCT03828019|181524946|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.34|||Ratio of odds ratios||Treatment comparison is the ratio of the odds ratios for each treatment group (ADA/CID) at 12 months. Values greater than one indicate greater improvement in health for the ADA treatment group relative to the CID group.|||1.34|0.43|0.35
90824353|NCT03828019|181524947|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.39||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|3.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.73|-0.95|0.24
90824354|NCT03828019|181524948|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.59||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.43|3.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.61|-2.43|0.70
90824355|NCT03828019|181524949|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.6||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|4.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.6|-1.4|0.28
90824356|NCT03828019|181524950|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.21||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.67|||Regression, Cox|||||0.67|0.07|0.009
90824357|NCT02211456|181524990|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.7|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|6.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The data derived from this study was complex multi-level data with errors due to patient-level and intra-patient repeat factors. Accordingly, we used generalized multi-level modelling (GLMM) with random effects.||6.3|1|<0.05
90824358|NCT02910102|181524991|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||0.3565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.04|2.23||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Each co-primary endpoint was tested at two-sided 5% level of significance, with no adjustments for multiplicity.||||2.23|-6.04|0.3565
90824359|NCT02910102|181524992|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.73|3.38||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Each co-primary endpoint was tested at two-sided 5% level of significance, with no adjustments for multiplicity.||||3.38|-3.73|0.9220
90824360|NCT02863328|181525001|NON_INFERIORITY|This hypothesis was controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the in-trial observation period. The estimated treatment effect includes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (treatment policy estimand). A value of 0.4% (the non-inferiority margin) was added to imputed values at week 26 for the oral semaglutide treatment arm only.|Treatment difference|-0.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.3||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from the non-inferiority margin (non-inferiority). The non-inferiority margin was 0.4%.|Pattern mixture model||Oral semaglutide 14 mg - Empagliflozin 25 mg|The analysis was based on a pattern mixture model using multiple imputation to handle missing week 26 data, assuming that data were missing at random within the groups used for imputation. The imputed data sets were analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c value as covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete data sets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||-0.3|-0.6|< 0.0001
90824361|NCT02863328|181525001|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the in-trial observation period. The estimated treatment effect includes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (treatment policy estimand).|Treatment difference|-0.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.3||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0 (superiority).|Pattern mixture model||Oral semaglutide 14 mg - Empagliflozin 25 mg|The analysis was based on a pattern mixture model using multiple imputation to handle missing week 26 data, assuming that data were missing at random within the groups used for imputation. The imputed data sets were analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c value as covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete data sets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||-0.3|-0.6|< 0.0001
90824362|NCT02863328|181525001|NON_INFERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The estimated treatment effect excludes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (hypothetical estimand).|Treatment difference|-0.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.4||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from the non-inferiority margin (non-inferiority). The non-inferiority margin was 0.4%.|MMRM||Oral semaglutide 14 mg - Empagliflozin 25 mg|The analysis was based on a mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM) that assumed data to be missing at random. As dependent variables, the MMRM model included all post-baseline values collected at scheduled visits up to and including week 26. The independent effects were treatment and region as categorical fixed effects and the baseline HbA1c value as a covariate, all nested within visit, and an unstructured residual covariance matrix.||-0.4|-0.7|<0.0001
91063048|NCT02085447|182010720|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.821|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||.821
91063049|NCT02085447|182010721|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||.330
91063050|NCT02085447|182010722|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.425|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||.425
91063051|NCT02085447|182010723|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.577|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||.577
91063052|NCT02085447|182010724|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||.330
91063053|NCT02085447|182010725|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.706|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||.706
91063054|NCT02085447|182010726|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.481|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||.481
91063055|NCT02085447|182010727|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||.020
91063056|NCT02085447|182010728|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.103|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||.103
91063057|NCT02085447|182010729|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.063|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||.063
91063058|NCT01112059|182010736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.128|0.633|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.633|0.128|<0.05
91063059|NCT00395161|182010748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29||95.0|||||Log Rank|Two-sided logrank test was used, stratified by immune compromised status at study entry (a factor also used to stratify the study randomization)||Null hypothesis was equal median time in both arms. Sample size calculated to yield 90% power to detect a significant effect, assuming inverse hazard rate of 1.5 using two-sided logrank test with alpha=0.05. This required recruitment until 263 patients with an event were enrolled (though the study was terminated early for futility by the DSMB).||||0.29
91063060|NCT00395161|182010749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81||95.0|||||Rate analysis (see comments)|95% CIs were calculated for rates in each arm, and rates compared between arms, via approach of DR Cox, Biometrika (1953), vol 40, pp. 354-60.||Null hypothesis of equal event rates in the two study arms.||||0.81
91063061|NCT00395161|182010750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.09
91063062|NCT00395161|182010751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.07
91063063|NCT00395161|182010752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.16
91063064|NCT01610492|182010763|OTHER||Geometric Mean|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.01||||||||1.01|0.57|
91063065|NCT01610492|182010764|OTHER||Geometric Mean|0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.58||||||||0.58|0.12|
91063066|NCT02575833|182010821|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin was -90 seconds.|Treatment Difference|-11.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-44.9|22.9||||||The primary endpoint was analyzed using an analysis of variance model with terms for treatment group and randomization strata (\< 7 or ≥ 7 minutes). If the lower bound of the 90% confidence interval (CI) of the difference in change from baseline in exercise duration was above the non-inferiority margin of -90 seconds, then the hypothesis that erenumab does not decrease exercise duration would be supported.||22.9|-44.9|
91063067|NCT02575833|182010822|SUPERIORITY|The log-rank test statistic was used to compare the two treatment groups at a significance level of 0.10.|Normal score|1.55||||0.69|||||||Stratified Log Rank|Log rank test stratified by baseline total exercise time strata (\< 7 minutes or ≥ 7 minutes).|A normal score \< 0 indicates fewer than expected events for erenumab 140 mg relative to placebo and therefore a longer survival time.|||||0.69
91063068|NCT02575833|182010822|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.73|1.69|||Cox Proportional Hazard|Adjusted by stratified baseline total exercise time strata (\< 7 or ≥ 7 minutes)|Hazard ratio estimates were obtained from the Cox Proportional Hazard Model. A hazard ratio \< 1.0 indicates a lower average event rate and a longer exercise-induced angina free survival for erenumab 140 mg relative to placebo.|||1.69|0.73|0.69
91063069|NCT02575833|182010822|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.52|1.26|||Cox Proportional Hazard|Adjusted by continuous baseline total exercise time|Hazard ratio estimates were obtained from the Cox Proportional Hazard Model. A hazard ratio \< 1.0 indicates a lower average event rate and a longer exercise-induced angina free survival for erenumab 140 mg relative to placebo.|||1.26|0.52|0.44
91063070|NCT02575833|182010822|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.52|1.28|||Cox Proportional Hazard|Adjusted by baseline total exercise time strata (\< 7 or ≥ 7 minutes), age group (\< 65, ≥ 65), and sex.|Hazard ratio estimates were obtained from the Cox Proportional Hazard Model. A hazard ratio \< 1.0 indicates a lower average event rate and a longer exercise-induced angina free survival for erenumab 140 mg relative to placebo.|||1.28|0.52|0.47
91063071|NCT02575833|182010823|SUPERIORITY|The log-rank test statistic was used to compare the two treatment groups at a significance level of 0.10.|Normal score|2.2||||0.59|||||||Stratified Log Rank|Log rank test stratified by baseline total exercise time strata (\< 7 minutes or ≥ 7 minutes).|A normal score \< 0 indicates fewer than expected events for erenumab 140 mg relative to placebo and therefore a longer survival time.|||||0.59
91063072|NCT02575833|182010823|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.76|1.69|||Cox Proportional Hazard|Adjusted by stratified baseline total exercise time strata (\< 7 or ≥ 7 minutes)|Hazard ratio estimates were obtained from the Cox Proportional Hazard Model. A hazard ratio \< 1.0 indicates a lower average event rate and a longer exercise-induced ST-segment depression free survival for erenumab 140 mg relative to placebo.|||1.69|0.76|0.59
91063073|NCT02575833|182010823|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.73|1.6|||Cox Proportional Hazard|Adjusted by continuous baseline total exercise time|Hazard ratio estimates were obtained from the Cox Proportional Hazard Model. A hazard ratio \< 1.0 indicates a lower average event rate and a longer exercise-induced ST-segment depression free survival for erenumab 140 mg relative to placebo.|||1.60|0.73|0.75
91063074|NCT02575833|182010823|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.24||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.82|1.87|||Cox Proportional Hazard|Adjusted by baseline total exercise time strata (\< 7 or ≥ 7 minutes), age group (\< 65, ≥ 65), and sex.|Hazard ratio estimates were obtained from the Cox Proportional Hazard Model. A hazard ratio \< 1.0 indicates a lower average event rate and a longer exercise-induced ST-segment depression free survival for erenumab 140 mg relative to placebo.|||1.87|0.82|0.39
91063075|NCT03093259|182010833|OTHER|One-sided 10% significance level||||||0.2096|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2096
91063076|NCT03093259|182010834|OTHER|||||||0.1588|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1588
91063077|NCT03093259|182010835|OTHER|||||||0.483|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.4830
91063078|NCT03093259|182010836|OTHER|||||||0.0742|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0742
91063079|NCT03093259|182010837|OTHER|||||||0.0462|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0462
91063080|NCT00967330|182010845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
91063081|NCT00967330|182010846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.588||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.423|0.817|||Chi-squared|||||0.817|0.423|0.0012
91063082|NCT00967330|182010847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.963||||0.8283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.684|1.354|||Chi-squared|||||1.354|0.684|0.8283
91063083|NCT00967330|182010849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rate|0.06||||0.34745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.14|||Fisher Exact|||Response rate based on participants with CR at 4 weeks after RT.||0.14|-0.02|0.34745
91063084|NCT00967330|182010849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rate|0.09||||0.17923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.17|||Fisher Exact|||The response rate based on participants with CR at \>4 weeks after RT.||0.17|0.00|0.17923
91063085|NCT00967330|182010849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rate|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.08|||Fisher Exact|||The response rate based on participants with CR at Month 6.||0.08|-0.08|1.00000
91063086|NCT00967330|182010849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rate|0.25||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.38|||Fisher Exact|||Response rate based on participants with CR or PR at 4 weeks after RT.||0.38|0.12|0.00210
90824363|NCT02863328|181525001|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The estimated treatment effect excludes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (hypothetical estimand).|Treatment difference|-0.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.4||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0 (superiority).|MMRM||Oral semaglutide 14 mg - Empagliflozin 25 mg|The analysis was based on a MMRM that assumed data to be missing at random. As dependent variables, the MMRM model included all post-baseline values collected at scheduled visits up to and including week 26. The independent effects were treatment and region as categorical fixed effects and the baseline HbA1c value as a covariate, all nested within visit, and an unstructured residual covariance matrix.||-0.4|-0.7|<0.0001
90824364|NCT02863328|181525002|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the in-trial observation period. The estimated treatment effect includes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (treatment policy estimand).|Treatment difference|-0.1|||=|0.7593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.5||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0 (superiority).|Pattern mixture model||Oral semaglutide 14 mg - Empagliflozin 25 mg|The analysis was based on a pattern mixture model using multiple imputation to handle missing week 26 data, assuming that data were missing at random within the groups used for imputation. The imputed data sets were analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline body weight value as covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete data sets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||0.5|-0.7|= 0.7593
90824365|NCT02863328|181525002|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The estimated treatment effect excludes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (hypothetical estimand).|Treatment difference|-0.4|||=|0.1358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.1||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0 (superiority).|MMRM||Oral semaglutide 14 mg - Empagliflozin 25 mg|The analysis was based on a MMRM that assumed data to be missing at random. As dependent variables, the MMRM model included all post-baseline values collected at scheduled visits up to and including week 26. The independent effects were treatment and region as categorical fixed effects and the baseline body weight value as a covariate, all nested within visit, and an unstructured residual covariance matrix.||0.1|-1.0|= 0.1358
90824366|NCT02863328|181525030|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.3552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.2||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox||Oral semaglutide 14 mg / Empagliflozin 25 mg|Time to initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Withdrawal for any reason or lost to follow-up contributed to the analysis as events (initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication). Censoring time was one day before planned end of treatment.||1.20|0.60|0.3552
90824367|NCT02863328|181525031|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.19||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Cox proportional hazards model||Oral semaglutide 14 mg / Empagliflozin 25 mg|Time to initiation of rescue medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Censoring time was one day before last day on trial product.||1.19|0.47|0.2250
90824368|NCT00429169|181525076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||regression coefficient|-0.29||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.023||The p-value applies to the interaction term of Treatment X Baseline Suicidal Ideation severity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Generalized least squares model of Scale for Suicidal Ideation score during 8-week acute treatment of major depressive disorder.||-0.023|-0.57|0.03
90824369|NCT02815644|181525082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||T/R ratio|55.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.087|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|48.22|64.33|||||Standard Error of the mean is actually geometric Standard Error of the mean.|"Relative bioavailability of linagliptin after food intake compared to while in the fasting state was assessed using an ANOVA on the basis of the log transformed PK parameters. This model for the evaluation of effect of food on bioavailability included the effects: sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment (i.e., feeding status). The effect subjects within sequences was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed."||64.33|48.22|
91063087|NCT00967330|182010849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rate|0.1||||0.18761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.23|||Fisher Exact|||Response rate based on participants with CR and PR at \>4 weeks after RT.||0.23|-0.02|0.18761
90824370|NCT02815644|181525083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||T/R ratio|74.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.073|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|66.27|84.64|||||Standard Error of the mean is actually geometric Standard Error of the mean|"Relative bioavailability of empagliflozin was assessed using an ANOVA on the basis of the log transformed PK parameters. This model for the evaluation of effect of food on bioavailability included the effects: sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment (i.e., feeding status). The effect subjects within sequences was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed."||84.64|66.27|
90824371|NCT02815644|181525084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||T/R ratio|82.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.028|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.38|86.18|||||Standard Error of the mean is actually geometric Standard Error of the mean|"Relative bioavailability of linagliptin was assessed using an ANOVA on the basis of the log transformed PK parameters. This model for the evaluation of effect of food on bioavailability included the effects: sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment (i.e., feeding status). The effect subjects within sequences was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed."||86.18|78.38|
91063088|NCT00967330|182010849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rate|-0.05||||0.38974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.07|||Fisher Exact|||Response rate based on participants with CR or PR at Month 6.||0.07|-0.18|0.38974
91063089|NCT00967330|182010851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|2.1002||||0.4975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9855|8.186|||ANOVA|||Physical Functioning. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) included all post-baseline data (Months 3 through 21).||8.1860|-3.9855|0.4975
91063090|NCT00967330|182010851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.4704||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9358|7.9951|||ANOVA|||Role Functioning. ANOVA included all post-baseline data (Months 3 through 21).||7.9951|-10.9358|0.7600
91063091|NCT00967330|182010851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.02278||||0.9949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.035|6.9895|||ANOVA|||Emotional Functioning. ANOVA included all post-baseline data (Months 3 through 21).||6.9895|-7.0350|0.9949
90824372|NCT02815644|181525085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||T/R ratio|85.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.018|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.38|88.68|||||Standard Error of the mean is actually geometric Standard Error of the mean|"Relative bioavailability of empagliflozin was assessed using an ANOVA on the basis of the log transformed PK parameters. This model for the evaluation of effect of food on bioavailability included the effects: sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment (i.e., feeding status). The effect subjects within sequences was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed."||88.68|83.38|
90824373|NCT02815644|181525086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||T/R ratio|88.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.051|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.89|96.03|||||Standard Error of the mean is actually geometric Standard Error of the mean|"Relative bioavailability of linagliptin was assessed using an ANOVA on the basis of the log transformed PK parameters. This model for the evaluation of effect of food on bioavailability included the effects: sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment (i.e., feeding status). The effect subjects within sequences was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed."||96.03|80.89|
90824374|NCT02815644|181525087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||T/R ratio|86.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.019|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.61|89.13|||||Standard Error of the mean is actually geometric Standard Error of the mean|"Relative bioavailability of empagliflozin was assessed using an ANOVA on the basis of the log transformed PK parameters. This model for the evaluation of effect of food on bioavailability included the effects: sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment (i.e., feeding status). The effect subjects within sequences was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed."||89.13|83.61|
90824375|NCT02815644|181525088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||T/R Ratio|82.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.028|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.38|86.18|||||Standard Error of the mean is actually geometric Standard Error of the mean|"Relative bioavailability of linagliptin was assessed using an ANOVA on the basis of the log transformed PK parameters. This model for the evaluation of effect of food on bioavailability included the effects: sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment (i.e., feeding status). The effect subjects within sequences was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed."||86.18|78.38|
90824376|NCT03228212|181525124|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of -5 points was used. This margin is based on a 10% shift in the distribution of CLUE scores.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|9.09|||Bayesian multivariate normal random-effe|A 95% Credible Interval for the Posterior mean difference between the Test and Control was used to test for non-inferiority.|Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|It was calculated that 60 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the two sequences would have at least 80% power to detect a 5 points difference in mean overall comfort at the 2-week follow-up. Sample size was determined using Stroup's Method (alpha=0.05).||9.09|1.16|
90824377|NCT03228212|181525125|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 0.05 logmar was used. This margin corresponds to a half line difference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.00621|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.03|||Bayesian multivariate normal random-effe|A 95% Credible Interval for the Posterior mean difference between the Test and Control was used to test for non-inferiority.|Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|It was calculated that 40 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the two sequences would have at least 80% power to detect a 0.05 difference in LogMAR visual acuity at the 2-week follow-up. Sample size was determined using simulations methods for repeated measures.||0.03|0.01|
90824378|NCT03228212|181525126|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 90% was used. Lower limit of 95% credible interval was compared to 90%|proportion|0.992|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.0|||Bayesian Methods|Bayesian Methods-Jefferys prior for binomial proportion was used to calculate 95% credible interval.||It was calculated that 70 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the two sequences would have at least 80% power to detect a the 2-week follow-up. Sample size was determined using simulations methods for repeated measures. Analysis was only performed on eyes wearing the Tesl lens.||1|0.96|
90824379|NCT03228212|181525127|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 5% was used. Upper limit of the 95% credible interval was compared to 5%|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0043|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0089|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0237|0.0129|||Bayesian beta-binomial model|Bayesian beta-binomial model for correlated binary data|Mean difference calculated as Test - Control|It was calculated that 120 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the two sequences would have at least 80% power to detect 5% difference between the Test and Control lens with respect to the proportion of eyes with Grade 3 or higher slit lamp findings across all study visits. Sample size was determined using simulations methods. Sample size for this study was primarily driven by the slit lamp findings.||0.0129|-0.0237|
90824380|NCT03228212|181525128|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of -5 points was used. This margin is based on a 10% shift in the distribution of CLUE scores.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.69|10.74|||Bayesian multivariate normal random-effe|A 95% Credible Interval for the Posterior mean difference between the Test and Control was used to test for non-inferiority.|Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|Sample size calculations were based on the primary endpoints.||10.74|3.69|
90824381|NCT03228212|181525129|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of -5 points was used. This margin is based on a 10% shift in the distribution of CLUE scores.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|6.29|||Bayesian multivariate normal random-effe|A 95% Credible Interval for the Posterior mean difference between the Test and Control was used to test for non-inferiority.|Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|Sample size calculations were based on the primary endpoints.||6.29|0.36|
90824382|NCT02309944|181525138|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Negative Pressure Wound Therapy vs. Standard Wound Closure||||0.27
91063092|NCT00967330|182010851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.8213||||0.6253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.155|5.5125|||ANOVA|||Cognitive Functioning. ANOVA included all post-baseline data (Months 3 through 21).||5.5125|-9.1550|0.6253
90824383|NCT02309944|181525138|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||Regression, Logistic|Multivariate Model (adjusted for ascites and previous laparotomy)||Negative Pressure Wound Therapy vs. Standard Wound Closure||||0.24
90824384|NCT02848222|181525179|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||Threshold for significance was p \< 0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.02
90824385|NCT02451943|181525197|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.047||||0.6945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.841|1.303|||Log Rank|Stratified||||1.303|0.841|0.6945
90824386|NCT02451943|181525198|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.951||||0.7618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.312|||Log Rank|Stratified||||1.312|0.690|0.7618
90824387|NCT02451943|181525199|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.231||||0.0422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.009|1.502|||Log Rank|Stratified||||1.502|1.009|0.0422
90824388|NCT02451943|181525205|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.616||||0.0934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.347|1.093|||Log Rank|Stratified||||1.093|0.347|0.0934
90824389|NCT02451943|181525206|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.123||||0.3347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.892|1.413|||Log Rank|Stratified||||1.413|0.892|0.3347
90824390|NCT03937713|181525209|OTHER|Calculations were approximated by those of a simple two-sample t-test for mean differences in PSQI in response to BBTI||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The sample size selected for this preliminary trial was based on the analysis of the PSQI as the primary outcome. Assuming a correlation coefficient of 0.7 between pre-and post-treatment, 21 patients per arm were needed to achieve 80% power at a significance level of 5% in order to detect a clinically significant difference of 3 units in PSQI. To compensate for an anticipated attrition rate of 25%, the recruitment target was set at 52 participants.||||0.05
90824391|NCT03652181|181525215|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is that the year 1 change is equivalent to year 2 change in mean QSM||||||0.033|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.033
90824392|NCT03652181|181525216|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is that the year 1 change is equivalent to year 2 change in mean DCEQP||||||0.3459|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3459
90824393|NCT03652181|181525217|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is that the year 1 change is equivalent to year 2 numbers||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.0
90824394|NCT02451917|181525238|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A sample size of 34 participants (16randomized to sequence IGlar/INPH and 18randomized to sequence INPH/IGlar) provided 90% power to detect a mean difference of 0.7% in the primary endpoint(A1c), considering a 15% dropout rate and assuming an SD of 0.85%, and a type I error of 5%.||||||0.00045||||||The intention-to-treat population consisted of all randomized participants.|ANOVA|||A sample size of 34 participants (16 randomized to sequence IGlar/INPH and 18 randomized to sequence INPH/IGlar) provided 90% power to detect a mean difference of 0.7% in the primary endpoint (A1c), considering a 15% dropout rate and assuming an SD of 0.85%, and a type I error of 5%. Test for data normality (Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistics) was performed at baseline for each sequence of the therapy.||||0.00045
90824395|NCT02451917|181525239|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A sample size of 34 participants (16 randomized to sequence IGlar/INPH and 18 randomized to sequence INPH/IGlar) provided 90% power and assuming an SD of 0.85%, and a type I error of 5%. Test for data normality (Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistics) was performed at baseline for each sequence of the therapy.|number of total events per patient|0.0||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|||||Analysis of covariance (ANOVA) model - total hypoglycemic events per patient during 24 weeks|ANOVA||The calculated value for the estimation parameter was zero, since the best treatment option for those with diabetes is reach a good glycemic control without hypoglycemia.|Analysis of covariance (ANOVA) model - total hypoglycemic events per patient during 24 weeks||||0.35
90824396|NCT02451917|181525239|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A sample size of 34 participants (16randomized to sequence IGlar/INPH and 18 randomized to sequence INPH/IGlar) provided 90% power and assuming an SD of 0.85%, and a type I error of 5%.|number of nocturnal events per patient|0.0||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|||||Analysis of covariance (ANOVA) model - number of nocturnal hypoglycemic events per patient during 24 weeks|ANOVA||The calculated value for the estimation parameter was zero, since the best treatment option for those with diabetes is reach a good glycemic control without hypoglycemia.|A sample size of 34 participants (16randomized to sequence IGlar/INPH and 18 randomized to sequence INPH/IGlar) provided 90% power and assuming an SD of 0.85%, and a type I error of 5%.||||0.047
90824397|NCT02451917|181525240|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|t-test was applied to compare percentages of the time spent in hypoglycemia, hyperglycemia and euglycemia on CGM readings.|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||A sample size of 34 participants (16 randomized to sequence IGlar/INPH and 18 randomized to sequence INPH/IGlar) provided 90% power and assuming an SD of 0.85%, and a type I error of 5%.||||<0.05
90824398|NCT02451917|181525241|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A sample size of 34 participants (16randomized to sequence IGlar/INPH and 18 randomized to sequence INPH/IGlar) provided 90% power and assuming an SD of 0.85%, and a type I error of 5%.||||||0.668|||||||ANOVA|||A sample size of 34 participants (16randomized to sequence IGlar/INPH and 18 randomized to sequence INPH/IGlar) provided 90% power and assuming an SD of 0.85%, and a type I error of 5%.||||0.668
90824399|NCT02451917|181525242|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A sample size of 34 participants (16 randomized to sequence IGlar/INPH and 18r andomized to sequence INPH/IGlar) provided 90% power and assuming an SD of 0.85%, and a type I error of 5%.||||||0.999|||||||ANOVA|||A sample size of 34 participants (16 randomized to sequence IGlar/INPH and 18r andomized to sequence INPH/IGlar) provided 90% power and assuming an SD of 0.85%, and a type I error of 5%.||||0.999
90824400|NCT02451917|181525243|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A sample size of 34 participants (16randomized to sequence IGlar/INPH and 18 randomized to sequence INPH/IGlar) provided 90% power and assuming an SD of 0.85%, and a type I error of 5%.||||||0.999|||||||ANOVA|||A sample size of 34 participants (16randomized to sequence IGlar/INPH and 18 randomized to sequence INPH/IGlar) provided 90% power and assuming an SD of 0.85%, and a type I error of 5%.||||0.999
90824401|NCT02451917|181525244|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A sample size of 34 participants (16randomized to sequence IGlar/INPH and 18 randomized to sequence INPH/IGlar) provided 90% power and assuming an SD of 0.85%, and a type I error of 5%.||||||0.994|||||||ANOVA|||A sample size of 34 participants (16randomized to sequence IGlar/INPH and 18 randomized to sequence INPH/IGlar) provided 90% power and assuming an SD of 0.85%, and a type I error of 5%.||||0.994
90824402|NCT02871635|181525245|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.945|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|1.028|||||BI 695501 as numerator Humira EU as denominator|Was analyzed using a log-linked binomial model, described as: response to treatment at Week 4 = treatment+prior infliximab exposure+screening Simple Endoscopic Score for Crohn's Disease (SES-CD)||1.028|0.870|
90824403|NCT02871635|181525245|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.945|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.856|1.044|||||BI 695501 as numerator Humira EU as denominator|Was to be analyzed using a log-linked binomial model, described as: response to treatment at Week 4 = treatment+prior infliximab exposure+screening Simple Endoscopic Score for Crohn's Disease (SES-CD)||1.044|0.856|
90824404|NCT02871635|181525246|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.871|1.148|||||BI 695501 as numerator Humira EU as denominator|Was to be analyzed using a log-linked binomial model, described as: response to treatment at Week 24 = treatment+prior infliximab exposure+screening Simple Endoscopic Score for Crohn's Disease (SES-CD)||1.148|0.871|
91063093|NCT00967330|182010851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.6126||||0.7219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2953|10.5205|||ANOVA|||Social Functioning. ANOVA included all post-baseline data (Months 3 through 21).||10.5205|-7.2953|0.7219
90824405|NCT02871635|181525246|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.848|1.178|||||BI 695501 as numerator Humira EU as denominator|Was to be analyzed using a log-linked binomial model, described as: response to treatment at Week 24 = treatment+prior infliximab exposure+screening Simple Endoscopic Score for Crohn's Disease (SES-CD)||1.178|0.848|
90824406|NCT02871635|181525247|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.751|1.078|||||BI 695501 as numerator Humira EU as denominator|Was to be analyzed using a log-linked binomial model, described as: response to treatment at Week 24 = treatment+prior infliximab exposure+screening Simple Endoscopic Score for Crohn's Disease (SES-CD)||1.078|0.751|
90824407|NCT02871635|181525247|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.725|1.116|||||BI 695501 as numerator Humira EU as denominator|Was to be analyzed using a log-linked binomial model, described as: response to treatment at Week 24 = treatment+prior infliximab exposure+screening Simple Endoscopic Score for Crohn's Disease (SES-CD)||1.116|0.725|
90824408|NCT00086047|181525298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.39|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.8||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|9.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.22|1.57|0.007
90824409|NCT01395901|181525301|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For the primary efficacy analysis, the confidence interval (CI) was built on the FAS using the stratum adjusted Mantel-Haenszel (MH) method with correction of continuity. The non-inferiority margin was -10%.|Risk Difference (RD)|-4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|1.7||||||"The null hypothesis (H0) was stated as:~• H0 : CR 0-24 hr palonosetron - CR 0-24 hr ondansetron \<-10%~The alternative hypothesis (H1) was stated as:~• H1 : CR 0-24 hr palonosetron - CR 0-24 hr ondansetron \>-10%~A power of 80% was used for sample size computation."||1.7|-10.5|
90824410|NCT03726489|181525326|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical inference was based on non-inferiority principles using a non-inferiority margin of 15%.|Risk Difference (RD)|7.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|13.5||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. All p-values below 0.001 are reported as \<0.001.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Overall analysis including all skin phototypes||13.5|0.8|<0.001
90824411|NCT03726489|181525326|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical inference was based on non-inferiority principles using a non-inferiority margin of 15%.|Risk Difference (RD)|4.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|13.8||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. All p-values below 0.001 are reported as \<0.001.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes I/II||13.8|-5.4|<0.001
90824412|NCT03726489|181525326|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical inference was based on non-inferiority principles using a non-inferiority margin of 15%.|Risk Difference (RD)|7.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|17.0||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. All p-values below 0.001 are reported as \<0.001.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes III/IV||17.0|-2.2|<0.001
90824413|NCT03726489|181525326|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical inference was based on non-inferiority principles using a non-inferiority margin of 15%. The sample size for this subgroup did not meet our a priori sample size required for 80% power.|Risk Difference (RD)|18.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|36.6||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. All p-values below 0.001 are reported as \<0.001.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes V/VI||36.6|0.8|<0.001
90824414|NCT03726489|181525326|OTHER|HTE was assessed using an omnibus Wald test of all interaction regression parameters in order to minimize multiple testing and consequent alpha inflation.||||||0.347||||||HTE was assessed using an omnibus Wald test of all interaction regression parameters in order to minimize multiple testing and consequent alpha inflation.|Regression, Logistic|We fit models for each of the two primary outcomes with skin type, treatment arm, and their interaction as predictors.||Analysis for heterogeneity of treatment effects (HTE) including all skin phototypes.||||0.347
90824415|NCT03726489|181525327|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical inference was based on non-inferiority principles using a non-inferiority margin of 15%.|Risk Difference (RD)|18.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.8|25.3||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. All p-values below 0.001 are reported as \<0.001.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Overall analysis including all skin phototypes||25.3|11.8|<0.001
90824416|NCT03726489|181525327|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical inference was based on non-inferiority principles using a non-inferiority margin of 15%.|Risk Difference (RD)|21.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|31.5||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. All p-values below 0.001 are reported as \<0.001.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes I/II||31.5|11.0|<0.001
90824417|NCT03726489|181525327|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical inference was based on non-inferiority principles using a non-inferiority margin of 15%.|Risk Difference (RD)|16.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.4|26.6||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. All p-values below 0.001 are reported as \<0.001.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes III/IV||26.6|6.4|<0.001
90824418|NCT03726489|181525327|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical inference was based on non-inferiority principles using a non-inferiority margin of 15%. The sample size for this subgroup did not meet our a priori sample size required for 80% power.|Risk Difference (RD)|16.1||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|35.9||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. All p-values below 0.001 are reported as \<0.001.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes V/VI||35.9|-3.7|0.001
90824419|NCT03726489|181525327|OTHER|||||||0.873||||||HTE was assessed using an omnibus Wald test of all interaction regression parameters in order to minimize multiple testing and consequent alpha inflation.|Regression, Logistic|We fit models for each of the two primary outcomes with skin type, treatment arm, and their interaction as predictors.||Analysis for heterogeneity of treatment effects (HTE) including all skin phototypes.||||0.873
91063094|NCT00967330|182010851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.4989||||0.2443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4046|9.4023|||ANOVA|||Global Health Status /QoL. ANOVA included all post-baseline data (Months 3 through 21).||9.4023|-2.4046|0.2443
91063095|NCT00967330|182010851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.3449||||0.3287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0739|3.3841|||ANOVA|||Fatigue. ANOVA included all post-baseline data (Months 3 through 21).||3.3841|-10.0739|0.3287
91063096|NCT00967330|182010851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.196||||0.0485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3635|-0.0285|||ANOVA|||Nausea/Vomiting. ANOVA included all post-baseline data (Months 3 through 21).||-0.02850|-8.3635|0.0485
91063097|NCT00967330|182010851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-9.095||||0.0354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5629|-0.6271|||ANOVA|||Pain. ANOVA included all post-baseline data (Months 3 through 21).||-0.6271|-17.5629|0.0354
91063098|NCT00967330|182010851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.2088||||0.3724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2784|3.8608|||ANOVA|||Dyspnoea. ANOVA included all post-baseline data (Months 3 through 21).||3.8608|-10.2784|0.3724
91063099|NCT00967330|182010851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.876||||0.2884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9002|4.1482|||ANOVA|||Insomnia. ANOVA included all post-baseline data (Months 3 through 21).||4.1482|-13.9002|0.2884
91063100|NCT00967330|182010851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.782||||0.4081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3926|3.8282|||ANOVA|||Appetite loss. ANOVA included all post-baseline data (Months 3 through 21).||3.8282|-9.3926|0.4081
91063101|NCT00967330|182010851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.9375||||0.275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0245|3.1495|||ANOVA|||Constipation. ANOVA included all post-baseline data (Months 3 through 21).||3.1495|-11.0245|0.2750
91063102|NCT00967330|182010851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.1685||||0.0213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4129|-0.9241|||ANOVA|||Diarrhoea. ANOVA included all post-baseline data (Months 3 through 21).||-0.9241|-11.4129|0.0213
91063103|NCT00967330|182010851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.7295||||0.5201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0727|5.6137|||ANOVA|||Financial Problems. ANOVA included all post-baseline data (Months 3 through 21).||5.6137|-11.0727|0.5201
91063104|NCT00967330|182010852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.2699||||0.3613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2983|3.7585|||ANOVA|||Future uncertainty. ANOVA included all post-baseline data (Months 3 through 21).||3.7585|-10.2983|0.3613
91063105|NCT00967330|182010852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.1159||||0.6146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4654|3.2336|||ANOVA|||Visual disorder. ANOVA included all post-baseline data (Months 3 through 21).||3.2336|-5.4654|0.6146
91063106|NCT00967330|182010852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.1014||||0.686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2449|6.4477|||ANOVA|||Motor dysfunction. ANOVA included all post-baseline data (Months 3 through 21).||6.4477|-4.2449|0.6860
91063107|NCT00967330|182010852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1009||||0.9706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.468|5.2663|||ANOVA|||Communication deficit. ANOVA included all post-baseline data (Months 3 through 21).||5.2663|-5.4680|0.9706
91063108|NCT00967330|182010852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-8.3294||||0.0124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.855|-1.8037|||ANOVA|||Headaches. ANOVA included all post-baseline data (Months 3 through 21).||-1.8037|-14.8550|0.0124
91063109|NCT00967330|182010852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.0054||||0.5997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7654|2.7545|||ANOVA|||Seizures. ANOVA included all post-baseline data (Months 3 through 21).||2.7545|-4.7654|0.5997
91063110|NCT00967330|182010852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.4399||||0.3458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6002|3.7204|||ANOVA|||Drowsiness. ANOVA included all post-baseline data (Months 3 through 21).||3.7204|-10.6002|0.3458
91063111|NCT00967330|182010852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.5908||||0.2383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2279|3.0464|||ANOVA|||Hair loss. ANOVA included all post-baseline data (Months 3 through 21).||3.0464|-12.2279|0.2383
91063112|NCT00967330|182010852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.9807||||0.7491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0373|6.9988|||ANOVA|||Itchy skin. ANOVA included all post-baseline data (Months 3 through 21).||6.9988|-5.0373|0.7491
91063113|NCT00967330|182010852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.0341||||0.7755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1508|6.0827|||ANOVA|||Weakness of legs. ANOVA included all post-baseline data (Months 3 through 21).||6.0827|-8.1508|0.7755
91063114|NCT00967330|182010852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.469||||0.841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1211|5.0591|||ANOVA|||Bladder control. ANOVA included all post-baseline data (Months 3 through 21).||5.0591|-4.1211|0.8410
91063115|NCT00967330|182010853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1933||||0.0817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.411|0.02438|||ANOVA|||Orientation to time and place. ANOVA included all post-baseline data (Months 3 through 21).||0.02438|-0.4110|0.0817
91063116|NCT00967330|182010853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.02955||||0.0773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06234|0.003241|||ANOVA|||Immediate recall. ANOVA included all post-baseline data (Months 3 through 21).||0.003241|-0.06234|0.0773
91063117|NCT00967330|182010853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1429||||0.2608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1065|0.3924|||ANOVA|||Repetitions required. ANOVA included all post-baseline data (Months 3 through 21).||0.3924|-0.1065|0.2608
91063118|NCT00967330|182010853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.003262||||0.9836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3092|0.3158|||ANOVA|||Calculations. ANOVA included all post-baseline data (Months 3 through 21).||0.3158|-0.3092|0.9836
91063119|NCT00967330|182010853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.03782||||0.661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2071|0.1315|||ANOVA|||Short-term verbal memory. ANOVA included all post-baseline data (Months 3 through 21).||0.1315|-0.2071|0.6610
91063120|NCT00967330|182010853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.08037||||0.4464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2875|0.1268|||ANOVA|||Language and construct ability. ANOVA included all post-baseline data (Months 3 through 21).||0.1268|-0.2875|0.4464
91063121|NCT00967330|182010853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3128||||0.4717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1658|0.5402|||ANOVA|||Total score. ANOVA included all post-baseline data (Months 3 through 21).||0.5402|-1.1658|0.4717
91063122|NCT00967330|182010854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.151||||0.2078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4983|1.1963|||ANOVA|||KPS score. ANOVA included all post-baseline data (Months 3 through 21).||1.1963|-5.4983|0.2078
91077840|NCT02913105|182041135|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.9||||0.4127|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.73|1.11|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||HA: Day 42||1.11|0.73|0.4127
90824420|NCT03726489|181525328|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.1|10.4||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for skin phototype||Overall analysis adjusted for all skin phototypes||10.4|7.1|<0.0001
90824421|NCT03726489|181525328|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.05|11.71||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||Analysis for Phototypes I/II||11.71|7.05|<0.0001
90824422|NCT03726489|181525328|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.48|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.82|11.14||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||Analysis for Phototypes III/IV||11.14|5.82|<0.0001
90824423|NCT03726489|181525328|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.82||||0.0213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|12.58||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||Analysis for Phototypes V/VI||12.58|1.06|0.0213
90824424|NCT03726489|181525329|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.4|18.7||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for skin phototype||Overall analysis adjusted for all skin phototypes||18.7|10.4|<0.0001
90824425|NCT03726489|181525329|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.93|16.01||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||Analysis for Phototypes I/II||16.01|6.93|<0.0001
90824426|NCT03726489|181525329|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.77|19.98||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||Analysis for Phototypes III/IV||19.98|7.77|<0.0001
90824427|NCT03726489|181525329|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.84||||0.0127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.32|58.35||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||Analysis for Phototypes V/VI||58.35|7.32|0.0127
90824428|NCT03726489|181525330|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.81||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|-0.35||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for skin phototype||Overall analysis adjusted for all skin phototypes||-0.35|-1.27|0.001
90824429|NCT03726489|181525330|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.84||||0.0158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|-0.16||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||Analysis for Phototypes I/II||-0.16|-1.51|0.0158
91078434|NCT00553358|182042814|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.35||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.71|||Regression, Cox||Cox models (Cox, 1972), with the stratification factors entered as strata variables, were used to calculate a hazard ratio and corresponding confidence interval comparing pCR and no pCR.|Subjects in the EFS landmark analysis in the lapatinib + trastuzumab arm||0.71|0.16|0.004
90824430|NCT03726489|181525330|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.88||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|-0.19||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||Analysis for Phototypes III/IV||-0.19|-1.58|0.0130
90824431|NCT03726489|181525330|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41||||0.591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|1.11||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||Analysis for Phototypes V/VI||1.11|-1.94|0.5910
90824432|NCT03726489|181525330|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25||||0.395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.82||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for skin phototype||Overall analysis adjusted for all skin phototypes at Week 24||0.82|-0.33|0.395
90824433|NCT03726489|181525330|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.93||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||Analysis for Phototypes I/II at Week 24||0.93|-0.69|0.774
90824434|NCT03726489|181525330|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.53||||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|1.41||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||Analysis for Phototypes III/IV at Week 24||1.41|-0.36|0.242
90824435|NCT03726489|181525330|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44||||0.692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.72|1.83||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||Analysis for Phototypes V/VI at Week 24||1.83|-2.72|0.692
90824436|NCT03726489|181525331|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.59||||0.1209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.86|0.68||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal Standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Overall analysis adjusted for all skin phototypes - Initiation||0.68|-5.86|0.1209
90824437|NCT03726489|181525331|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.13||||0.2581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|1.75||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes I/II - Initiation||1.75|-6.0|0.2581
90824438|NCT03726489|181525331|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.04||||0.2952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.73|2.65||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes III/IV - Initiation||2.65|-8.73|0.2952
90824439|NCT03726489|181525331|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.61||||0.6324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.12|7.89||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes V/VI - Initiation||7.89|-13.12|0.6324
90824440|NCT03726489|181525331|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.15||||0.9163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.56|2.85||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Overall analysis adjusted for all skin phototypes - Discontinuation||2.85|-2.56|0.9163
90824441|NCT03726489|181525331|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.31||||0.8551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.03|3.66||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal Standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes I/II - Discontinuation||3.66|-3.03|0.8551
90824442|NCT03726489|181525331|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.72||||0.7678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.05|5.48||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes III/IV - Discontinuation||5.48|-4.05|0.7678
91063123|NCT05120193|182010878|NON_INFERIORITY|The primary safety analysis is performed at a one-sided Type I error rate of α = 0.05. The Farrington-Manning method is used to calculate the upper 95% confidence bound for the difference (QI - QC) between the rate of the primary safety endpoint in the investigational arm (QI) and the rate of the primary safety endpoint in the control arm (QC). If the upper confidence bound is less than 0.08, the study is considered to have demonstrated safety of the investigational device.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.005|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.028|0.037|||Farrington-Manning|||"The null hypothesis (H0) for the primary safety analysis is that the true rate of primary safety events for the investigational device (QI) is equal to or greater than the true rate for the control device (QC) plus a non-inferiority margin (NIM) of 0.08. The alternative hypothesis (HA) is that the rate of primary safety events for the investigational arm (QI) is less than the rate of primary safety events for the control arm (QC) plus the NIM of 0.08.~H0: QI ≥ QC + 0.08 HA: QI \< QC + 0.08"||0.037|-0.028|<0.0001
91063124|NCT05120193|182010879|NON_INFERIORITY|The primary effectiveness analysis (PSE) is performed at a one-sided Type I error rate of α = 0.025. The Farrington-Manning method is used to calculate the lower 97.5% confidence bound for the difference (PI - PC) between the rate of the PSE in the investigational arm (PI) and the rate of the PSE in the control arm (PC). If the lower confidence bound is greater than -0.15, the study is considered to have demonstrated effectiveness of the investigational device.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.08||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.009|0.168|||Farrington-Manning|||"The null hypothesis (H0) is that the true rate of primary effectiveness endpoint success (no failures through Day 360) for the investigational device (PI) is less than or equal to the true rate for the control device (PC) minus the NIM of 0.15. The alternative hypothesis (HA) is that the success rate for the investigational arm (PI) is greater than the success rate for the control device (PC) minus the NIM of 0.15.~H0: PI ≤ PC - 0.15 HA: PI \> PC - 0.15"||0.168|-0.009|0.025
91063125|NCT05120193|182010880|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.7|-26.8|||t-test, 1 sided|||"The null hypothesis (H0) is that the mean total energy application time during the ablation procedure for the investigational device (ETI) is greater than or equal to the mean time for the control device (ETC). The alternative hypothesis (HA) is that the mean total energy application time for the investigational device is less.~H0: ETI ≥ ETC versus HA: ETI \< ETC"||-26.8|-31.7|<0.0001
91063126|NCT05120193|182010881|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.2|-21.4|||t-test, 1 sided|||"The null hypothesis (H0) is that the mean treatment time for the investigational device (TTI) is greater than or equal to the mean treatment time for the control device (TTC). The alternative hypothesis (HA) is that the mean treatment time for the investigational device is less.~H0: TTI ≥ TTC versus HA: TTI \< TTC"||-21.4|-32.2|<0.0001
91063127|NCT05120193|182010882|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.1||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.0|-17.3|||t-test, 1 sided|||"The null hypothesis (H0) is that the mean procedure time for the investigational device (PTI) is greater than or equal to the mean procedure time for the control device (PTC). The alternative hypothesis (HA) is that the mean procedure time for the investigational device is less.~H0: PTI ≥ PTC versus HA: PTI \< PTC"||-17.3|-33.0|0.025
90824443|NCT03726489|181525331|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.03||||0.3446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.88|2.82||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes V/VI - Discontinuation||2.82|-8.88|0.3446
90824444|NCT03726489|181525331|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.26||||0.5716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.64|3.11||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal Standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Overall analysis adjusted for all skin phototypes - Initiation at Week 24||3.11|-5.64|0.5716
90824445|NCT03726489|181525331|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.44||||0.8756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.03|5.14||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes I/II - Initiation at Week 24||5.14|-6.03|0.8756
91063128|NCT00070564|182010890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.32||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.68|||Log Rank|||||1.68|1.04|0.022
91063129|NCT00070564|182010890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.24||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.59|||Log Rank|||||1.59|0.98|0.072
91063130|NCT00070564|182010890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.44|||Log Rank|||||1.44|0.87|0.38
91063131|NCT00070564|182010890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.11|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.11
91063132|NCT00070564|182010890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.41|||Log Rank|||||1.41|0.61|0.733
91063133|NCT00070564|182010891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.44||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.93|||Log Rank|||||1.93|1.08|0.013
91063134|NCT00070564|182010891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.46||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.95|||Log Rank|||||1.95|1.09|0.011
91063135|NCT00070564|182010891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.24||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.68|||Log Rank|||||1.68|0.91|0.17
90824446|NCT03726489|181525331|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.07||||0.5686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.18|5.04||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes III/IV - Initiation at Week 24||5.04|-9.18|0.5686
90824447|NCT03726489|181525331|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.39||||0.866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|14.7||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes V/VI - Initiation at Week 24||14.7|-17.5|0.8660
91063136|NCT00070564|182010891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.04|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.040
91063137|NCT00070564|182010891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.53|||Log Rank|||||1.53|0.54|0.724
91063138|NCT00070564|182010893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.67|||||||Log Rank|||Overall treatment differences.||||0.67
91063139|NCT00070564|182010893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.42|||||||Log Rank|||Test of interaction of two treatments: AC and paclitaxel.||||0.42
90824448|NCT03726489|181525331|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.19||||0.8779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.24|2.62||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Overall analysis adjusted for all skin phototypes - Discontinuation at Week 24||2.62|-2.24|0.8779
90824449|NCT03726489|181525331|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.38||||0.7985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|3.28||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal Standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes I/II - Discontinuation at Week 24||3.28|-2.52|0.7985
90824450|NCT03726489|181525331|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.69||||0.7585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.71|5.09||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes III/IV - Discontinuation at Week 24||5.09|-3.71|0.7585
90824451|NCT03726489|181525331|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.78||||0.3422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.15|2.59||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes V/VI - Discontinuation at Week 24||2.59|-8.15|0.3422
90824452|NCT03726489|181525332|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.2||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.95|0.55||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for skin phototype||Overall analysis adjusted for all skin phototypes||0.55|-6.95|0.094
90824453|NCT03726489|181525332|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.26||||0.0393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.26|-0.26||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||Analysis for Phototypes I/II||-0.26|-10.26|0.0393
90824454|NCT03726489|181525332|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.92||||0.1505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.28|1.44||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||Analysis for Phototypes III/IV||1.44|-9.28|0.1505
90824455|NCT03726489|181525332|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.42||||0.284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|29.84||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||Analysis for Phototypes V/VI||29.84|-9.0|0.2840
90824456|NCT03726489|181525333|OTHER||Mean|19.87|STANDARD_DEVIATION|61.6|||TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is not applicable.||||Overall analysis adjusted for all skin phototypes||||
90824457|NCT03726489|181525333|OTHER||Mean|18.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|57.04|||TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is not applicable.||||Analysis for Phototypes I/II||||
91063140|NCT00070564|182010894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9|||||||Log Rank|||Test of overall treatment differences.||||0.90
90824458|NCT03726489|181525333|OTHER||Mean|23.46|STANDARD_DEVIATION|70.71|||TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is not applicable.||||Analysis for Phototypes III/IV||||
90824459|NCT03726489|181525333|OTHER||Mean|9.22|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.66|||TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is not applicable.||||Analysis for Phototypes V/VI||||
90824460|NCT03726489|181525334|OTHER||Mean|50.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|46.7|||TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is not applicable.||||Overall analysis adjusted for all skin phototypes||||
90824461|NCT03726489|181525334|OTHER||Mean|53.19|STANDARD_DEVIATION|50.05|||TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is not applicable.||||Analysis for Phototypes I/II||||
90824462|NCT03726489|181525334|OTHER||Mean|49.82|STANDARD_DEVIATION|47.43|||TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is not applicable.||||Analysis for Phototypes III/IV||||
90824463|NCT03726489|181525334|OTHER||Mean|39.72|STANDARD_DEVIATION|20.47|||TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is not applicable.||||Analysis for Phototypes V/VI||||
90824464|NCT03726489|181525335|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical inference was based on non-inferiority principles using a non-inferiority margin of 15%.|Risk Difference (RD)|11.97|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.52|17.42||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Overall analysis adjusted for all skin phototypes||17.42|6.52|<0.0001
90824465|NCT03726489|181525335|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical inference was based on non-inferiority principles using a non-inferiority margin of 15%.|Risk Difference (RD)|16.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.54|24.75||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes I/II||24.75|7.54|<0.0001
90824466|NCT03726489|181525335|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical inference was based on non-inferiority principles using a non-inferiority margin of 15%.|Risk Difference (RD)|5.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|13.46||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes III/IV||13.46|-2.35|<0.0001
90824467|NCT03726489|181525335|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical inference was based on non-inferiority principles using a non-inferiority margin of 15%.|Risk Difference (RD)|21.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.65|35.09||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes V/VI||35.09|7.65|<0.0001
90824468|NCT03726489|181525336|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.68||||0.0065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.27|20.08||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Overall analysis adjusted for all skin phototypes||20.08|3.27|0.0065
90824469|NCT03726489|181525336|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.31||||0.0478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|24.49||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes I/II||24.49|0.03|0.0478
90824470|NCT03726489|181525336|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.25||||0.0431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|25.98||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes III/IV||25.98|0.52|0.0431
91063141|NCT00070564|182010894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.52|||||||Log Rank|||Test of interaction of two treatments: AC and paclitaxel.||||0.52
91063142|NCT00070564|182010895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.076|||||||Log Rank|||Test of overall treatment differences.||||0.076
91063143|NCT00070564|182010895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.018|||||||Log Rank|||Test of interaction of two treatments: AC and paclitaxel.||||0.018
91063144|NCT00070564|182010896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.062|||||||Log Rank|||Test of overall treatment differences.||||0.062
91063145|NCT00070564|182010896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.01|||||||Log Rank|||Test of interaction of two treatments: AC and paclitaxel.||||0.010
91063146|NCT00070564|182010897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.69|||||||Log Rank|||Test of overall treatment differences.||||0.69
91063147|NCT00070564|182010897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.66|||||||Log Rank|||Test of interaction two treatments: AC and paclitaxel.||||0.66
91063148|NCT00070564|182010898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4|||||||Log Rank|||Test of overall treatment differences||||0.40
91063149|NCT00070564|182010898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.28|||||||Log Rank|||Test of interaction of two treatments: AC and paclitaxel.||||0.28
91063150|NCT00931528|182010979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|5.0||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|9.0|||Chi-squared|||Sample size calculations were based on the hypothesis that the use of tadalafil would statistically significant increase the proportion of patients maintaining spontaneous erectile function compared to the use of placebo. Based on a 2-sided Fisher exact test with alpha=0.05, 91 patients/arm would provide 80% statistical power to detect an increase from 20% to 40% in spontaneous erectile response at weeks 28-30. Although designed for the Fisher exact test, Chi-square was used and reported.||9|1|0.49
91063151|NCT00931528|182010979|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2386|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression using generalized estimating equations was performed modeling the probability of non-responders. Only treatment arm (Placebo vs. Tadalafil), age (\> 65 vs. other), RT method (External RT vs. brachytherapy), and significant pretreatment characteristics \[N stage (NX vs. N0)\] were retained in the model. (Dropped: ethnicity, Zubrod, T stage, prostate-specific antigen (PSA).) The results for each explanatory variable are reported separately. Treatment arm is reported here.||||0.2386
91063152|NCT00931528|182010979|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7908|||||||Regression, Linear|||Logistic regression using generalized estimating equations was performed modeling the probability of non-responders. Only treatment arm (Placebo vs. Tadalafil), age (\> 65 vs. other), RT method (External RT vs. brachytherapy), and significant pretreatment characteristics \[N stage (NX vs. N0)\] were retained in the model. (Dropped pretreatment characteristics: ethnicity, Zubrod, T stage, PSA.)The results for each explanatory variable are reported separately. RT method is reported here.||||0.7908
90824471|NCT03726489|181525336|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.5||||0.9133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.5|28.5||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes V/VI||28.50|-25.50|0.9133
91063153|NCT00931528|182010979|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0467|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression using generalized estimating equations was performed modeling the probability of non-responders. Only treatment arm (Placebo vs. Tadalafil), age (\> 65 vs. other), RT method (External RT vs. brachytherapy), and significant pretreatment characteristics \[N stage (NX vs. N0)\] were retained in the model. (Dropped pretreatment characteristics: ethnicity, Zubrod, T stage, PSA.) The results for each explanatory variable are reported separately. Age is reported here.||||0.0467
91063154|NCT00931528|182010979|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0068|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression using generalized estimating equations was performed modeling the probability of non-responders. Only treatment arm (Placebo vs. Tadalafil), age (\> 65 vs. other), RT method (External RT vs. brachytherapy), and significant pretreatment characteristics \[N stage (NX vs. N0)\] were retained in the model. (Dropped pretreatment characteristics: ethnicity, Zubrod, T stage, PSA.) The results for each explanatory variable are reported separately. N Stage is reported here.||||0.0068
91063155|NCT00931528|182010980|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93|||||||Chi-squared|2-sided significance level = 0.05||Year 1||||0.93
91063156|NCT00931528|182010980|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||Chi-squared|2-sided significance level = 0.05||Year 2||||0.58
91063157|NCT00931528|182010980|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9501|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Year 1: Logistic regression using generalized estimating equations was performed modeling the probability of non-responders. Only treatment arm (Placebo vs. Tadalafil), age (\> 65 vs. other), RT method (External RT vs. brachytherapy), and significant pretreatment characteristics \[none\] were retained in the model. (Dropped pretreatment characteristics: ethnicity, Zubrod, N stage, T stage, PSA.) The results for each explanatory variable are reported separately. Treatment arm is reported here.||||0.9501
91063158|NCT00931528|182010980|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.102|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Year 1: Logistic regression using generalized estimating equations was performed modeling the probability of non-responders. Only treatment arm (Placebo vs. Tadalafil), age (\> 65 vs. other), RT method (External RT vs. brachytherapy), and significant pretreatment characteristics \[none\] were retained in the model. (Dropped pretreatment characteristics: ethnicity, Zubrod, N stage, T stage, PSA.) The results for each explanatory variable are reported separately. RT method is reported here.||||0.1020
91063159|NCT00931528|182010980|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1855|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Year 1: Logistic regression using generalized estimating equations was performed modeling the probability of non-responders. Only treatment arm (Placebo vs. Tadalafil), age (\> 65 vs. other), RT method (External RT vs. brachytherapy), and significant pretreatment characteristics \[none\] were retained in the model. (Dropped pretreatment characteristics: ethnicity, Zubrod, N stage, T stage, PSA.) The results for each explanatory variable are reported separately. Age is reported here.||||0.1855
90824472|NCT03726489|181525337|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.9||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.73|-0.07||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for skin phototype||Overall analysis adjusted for all skin phototypes||-0.07|-15.73|0.048
90824473|NCT03726489|181525337|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.67||||0.1199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.15|2.8||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||Analysis for Phototypes I/II||2.80|-24.15|0.1199
91078435|NCT00553358|182042814|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.532||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.16|||Regression, Cox||Cox models (Cox, 1972), with the stratification factors entered as strata variables, were used to calculate a hazard ratio and corresponding confidence interval comparing pCR and no pCR.|Subjects in the EFS landmark analysis in the lapatinib arm||1.16|0.21|0.134
90824474|NCT03726489|181525337|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.3||||0.2953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.26|4.66||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||Analysis for Phototypes III/IV||4.66|-15.26|0.2953
90824475|NCT03726489|181525337|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.83||||0.5124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.77|18.11||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||Analysis for Phototypes V/VI||18.11|-35.77|0.5124
91078436|NCT00553358|182042814|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.601||||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.2|||Regression, Cox||Cox models (Cox, 1972), with the stratification factors entered as strata variables, were used to calculate a hazard ratio and corresponding confidence interval comparing pCR and no pCR.|Subjects in the EFS landmark analysis in the trastuzumab arm||1.20|0.28|0.163
90824476|NCT03726489|181525338|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.9||||0.0173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.93|19.87||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Overall analysis adjusted for all skin phototypes||19.87|1.93|0.0173
90824477|NCT03726489|181525338|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.06||||0.0662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|26.94||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes I/II||26.94|-0.81|0.0662
90824478|NCT03726489|181525338|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.58||||0.1976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.42|21.57||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes III/IV||21.57|-4.42|0.1976
90824479|NCT03726489|181525338|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.04||||0.3595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|40.69||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes V/VI||40.69|-14.60|0.3595
90824480|NCT03726489|181525339|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.55||||0.0853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|16.14||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Overall analysis adjusted for all skin phototypes||16.14|-1.05|0.0853
90824481|NCT03726489|181525339|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.26||||0.7488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.54|16.06||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes I/II||16.06|-11.54|0.7488
90824482|NCT03726489|181525339|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.12||||0.1051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.03|22.26||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes III/IV||22.26|-2.03|0.1051
90824483|NCT03726489|181525339|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.39||||0.1792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.48|42.27||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes V/VI||42.27|-7.48|0.1792
90824484|NCT03726489|181525340|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.07||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|7.5||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for skin phototype||Overall analysis adjusted for all skin phototypes||7.50|-1.37|0.175
90824485|NCT03726489|181525340|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41||||0.8904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.34|5.51||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||Analysis for Phototypes I/II||5.51|-6.34|0.8904
90824486|NCT03726489|181525340|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.59||||0.0412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|14.88||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||Analysis for Phototypes III/IV||14.88|0.31|0.0412
90824487|NCT03726489|181525340|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.5||||0.5481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.38|24.38||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||Analysis for Phototypes V/VI||24.38|-13.38|0.5481
90824488|NCT03726489|181525340|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.813||||0.458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.471|1.403|||Regression, Cox|Failure event corresponds to DLQI assessment greater than 5. Model adjusted for skin phototype.|Office phototherapy is the reference group.|Cox proportional hazards model for maintaining treatment response after week 12.||1.403|0.471|0.458
90824489|NCT03726489|181525341|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|38.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.34|45.86||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal Standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Overall analysis adjusted for all skin phototypes||45.86|30.34|<0.0001
90824490|NCT03726489|181525341|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|38.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.39|50.33||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal Standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes I/II||50.33|27.39|<0.0001
90824491|NCT03726489|181525341|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|42.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.73|53.68||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal Standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes III/IV||53.68|30.73|<0.0001
90824492|NCT03726489|181525341|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.74||||0.234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.63|41.11||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal Standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes V/VI||41.11|-9.63|0.2340
90824493|NCT03726489|181525342|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|43.96|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.25|50.66||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Overall analysis including all skin phototypes||50.66|37.25|<0.0001
91063160|NCT00931528|182010980|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5739|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Year 2: Logistic regression using generalized estimating equations was performed modeling the probability of non-responders. Only treatment arm (Placebo vs. Tadalafil), age (\> 65 vs. other), RT method (External RT vs. brachytherapy), and significant pretreatment characteristics \[N stage (NX)\] were retained in the model. (Dropped pretreatment characteristics: ethnicity, Zubrod, T stage, PSA.) The results for each explanatory variable are reported separately. Treatment arm is reported here.||||0.5739
90824494|NCT03726489|181525342|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|39.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.0|49.7||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal Standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes I/II||49.70|30.0|<0.0001
91063161|NCT00931528|182010980|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0422|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Year 2: Logistic regression using generalized estimating equations was performed modeling the probability of non-responders. Only treatment arm (Placebo vs. Tadalafil), age (\> 65 vs. other), RT method (External RT vs. brachytherapy), and significant pretreatment characteristics \[N stage (NX)\] were retained in the model. (Dropped pretreatment characteristics: ethnicity, Zubrod, T stage, PSA.) The results for each explanatory variable are reported separately. RT method is reported here.||||0.0422
91063162|NCT00931528|182010980|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5237|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Year 2: Logistic regression using generalized estimating equations was performed modeling the probability of non-responders. Only treatment arm (Placebo vs. Tadalafil), age (\> 65 vs. other), RT method (External RT vs. brachytherapy), and significant pretreatment characteristics \[N stage (NX)\] were retained in the model. (Dropped pretreatment characteristics: ethnicity, Zubrod, T stage, PSA.) The results for each explanatory variable are reported separately. Age is reported here.||||0.5237
91063163|NCT00931528|182010980|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.477|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Year 2: Logistic regression using generalized estimating equations was performed modeling the probability of non-responders. Only treatment arm (Placebo vs. Tadalafil), age (\> 65 vs. other), RT method (External RT vs. brachytherapy), and significant pretreatment characteristics \[N stage (NX)\] were retained in the model. (Dropped pretreatment characteristics: ethnicity, Zubrod, T stage, PSA.) The results for each explanatory variable are reported separately. N Stage is reported here.||||0.4770
91063164|NCT00931528|182010981|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Significance level = 0.05||Week 30||||0.97
90824495|NCT03726489|181525342|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|50.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.09|60.27||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes III/IV||60.27|40.09|<0.0001
90824496|NCT03726489|181525342|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|36.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.35|57.87||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes V/VI||57.87|14.35|<0.0001
90824497|NCT03726489|181525343|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical inference was based on non-inferiority principles using a non-inferiority margin of 15%.|Risk Difference (RD)|-5.2||||0.1773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|9.0||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Overall analysis including all skin phototypes||9.0|-19.4|0.1773
90824498|NCT03726489|181525343|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical inference was based on non-inferiority principles using a non-inferiority margin of 15%.|Risk Difference (RD)|-6.88||||0.4073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.09|12.33||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes I/II||12.33|-26.09|0.4073
90824499|NCT03726489|181525343|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical inference was based on non-inferiority principles using a non-inferiority margin of 15%.|Risk Difference (RD)|-12.42||||0.8247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.24|10.41||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes III/IV||10.41|-35.24|0.8247
90824500|NCT03726489|181525343|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical inference was based on non-inferiority principles using a non-inferiority margin of 15%.|Risk Difference (RD)|37.88||||0.0133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.01|79.77||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes V/VI||79.77|-4.01|0.0133
90824501|NCT03726489|181525344|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical inference was based on non-inferiority principles using a non-inferiority margin of 15%.|Risk Difference (RD)|6.52||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.11|20.14||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Overall analysis including all skin phototypes||20.14|-7.11|0.002
90824502|NCT03726489|181525344|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical inference was based on non-inferiority principles using a non-inferiority margin of 15%.|Risk Difference (RD)|7.77||||0.0137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.35|25.89||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes I/II||25.89|-10.35|0.0137
90824503|NCT03726489|181525344|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical inference was based on non-inferiority principles using a non-inferiority margin of 15%.|Risk Difference (RD)|1.0||||0.1656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.61|23.61||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes III/IV||23.61|-21.61|0.1656
90824504|NCT03726489|181525344|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical inference was based on non-inferiority principles using a non-inferiority margin of 15%.|Risk Difference (RD)|22.73||||0.1225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.16|70.62||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes V/VI||70.62|-25.16|0.1225
91063165|NCT00931528|182010981|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Significance level = 0.05||Year 1||||0.99
91063166|NCT00931528|182010981|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Significance level = 0.05||Year 2||||0.24
91063167|NCT00931528|182010982|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Significance level = 0.05||Week 30||||0.70
91063168|NCT00931528|182010982|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Significance level = 0.05||Year 1||||0.65
90824505|NCT03726489|181525345|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.105||||0.0183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.018|0.192|||Marginal contrast||Positive values indicate higher proportion in the home group.|Difference of proportion at week 16. Calculated using contrasts of predictive margins following logistic regression with robust variance estimators via generalized estimating equations and exchangeable correlation. Missing data for DLQI are imputed using multiple imputation via chained equations (10 imputations), and the estimates are combined using standard rules.||0.192|0.018|0.0183
90824506|NCT03726489|181525345|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.064||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.029|0.158|||Marginal contrast||Positive values indicate higher proportion in the home group.|Difference of proportion at week 20. Calculated using contrasts of predictive margins following logistic regression with robust variance estimators via generalized estimating equations and exchangeable correlation. Missing data for DLQI are imputed using multiple imputation via chained equations (10 imputations), and the estimates are combined using standard rules.||0.158|-0.029|0.177
90824507|NCT03726489|181525345|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.011||||0.815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.101|0.079|||Marginal contrast||Positive values indicate higher proportion in the home group.|Difference of proportion at week 24. Calculated using contrasts of predictive margins following logistic regression with robust variance estimators via generalized estimating equations and exchangeable correlation. Missing data for DLQI are imputed using multiple imputation via chained equations (10 imputations), and the estimates are combined using standard rules.||0.079|-0.101|0.815
90824508|NCT00853151|181525346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.623||90.0||||p-value is for LY2428757 plus TT223 3 mg versus LY2428757 plus TT223 placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model included treatment, baseline therapy, strata, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, and continuous fixed covariate of baseline HbA1c.||||||0.623
90824509|NCT00853151|181525346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.809||95.0||||p-value is for LY2428757 plus TT223 2 mg versus LY2428757 plus TT223 placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model included treatment, baseline therapy, strata, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, and continuous fixed covariate of baseline HbA1c.||||||0.809
90824510|NCT01751984|181525386|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-28.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.4|-22.1|||ANCOVA||The least squares mean difference was calculated as the value for the ETC-1002 60 mg arm minus the value for the placebo arm.|||-22.1|-35.4|<0.0001
90824511|NCT01751984|181525387|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-18.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.3|-11.8|||ANCOVA||Estimation from Week 2. The least squares mean difference was calculated as the value for the ETC-1002 60 mg arm minus the value for the placebo arm.|||-11.8|-24.3|<0.0001
90824512|NCT01751984|181525387|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-30.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.2|-24.7|||ANCOVA||Estimation from Week 4. The least squares mean difference was calculated as the value for the ETC-1002 60 mg arm minus the value for the placebo arm.|||-24.7|-35.2|<0.0001
90824513|NCT01751984|181525387|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-28.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.9|-20.8|||ANCOVA||Estimation from Week 6. The least squares mean difference was calculated as the value for the ETC-1002 60 mg arm minus the value for the placebo arm.|||-20.8|-36.9|<0.0001
90824514|NCT01751984|181525387|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-28.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.2|-19.8|||ANCOVA||Estimation from Week 8. The least squares mean difference was calculated as the value for the ETC-1002 60 mg arm minus the value for the placebo arm.|||-19.8|-37.2|<0.0001
90824515|NCT01751984|181525388|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-5.8||||0.1892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|2.9|||ANCOVA||The least squares mean difference was calculated as the value for the ETC-1002 60 mg arm minus the value for the placebo arm.|||2.9|-14.5|0.1892
90824516|NCT01751984|181525389|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-20.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.0|-13.9|||ANCOVA||The least squares mean difference was calculated as the value for the ETC-1002 60 mg arm minus the value for the placebo arm.|||-13.9|-28.0|<0.0001
90824517|NCT01751984|181525390|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-18.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.2|-12.7|||ANCOVA||The least squares mean difference was calculated as the value for the ETC-1002 60 mg arm minus the value for the placebo arm.|||-12.7|-24.2|<0.0001
90824518|NCT01751984|181525391|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|18.7|||=|0.0962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|40.8|||ANCOVA||The least squares mean difference was calculated as the value for the ETC-1002 60 mg arm minus the value for the placebo arm.|||40.8|-3.5|=0.0962
90824519|NCT01751984|181525392|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-15.3|||=|0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.6|-6.0|||ANCOVA||The least squares mean difference was calculated as the value for the ETC-1002 60 mg arm minus the value for the placebo arm.|||-6.0|-24.6|=0.0019
90824520|NCT01751984|181525393|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-4.2|||=|0.2555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|3.2|||ANCOVA||The least squares mean difference was calculated as the value for the ETC-1002 60 mg arm minus the value for the placebo arm.|||3.2|-11.7|=0.2555
90824521|NCT01751984|181525394|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|11.7||||0.2563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|32.1|||ANCOVA||The least squares mean difference was calculated as the value for the ETC-1002 60 mg arm minus the value for the placebo arm.|||32.1|-8.8|0.2563
90824522|NCT01751984|181525395|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-23.7||||0.2565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.4|18.0|||ANCOVA||The least squares mean difference was calculated as the value for the ETC-1002 60 mg arm minus the value for the placebo arm.|||18.0|-65.4|0.2565
91063169|NCT00931528|182010982|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Significance level = 0.05||||||0.72
91063170|NCT00931528|182010983|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Significance level = 0.05||Week 30||||0.14
91063171|NCT00931528|182010983|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Significance level = 0.05||Year 1||||0.64
91063172|NCT00931528|182010983|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Significance level = 0.05||Year 2||||0.18
91063173|NCT00931528|182010984|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Significance level = 0.05||Week 30||||0.67
91063174|NCT00931528|182010984|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Significance level = 0.05||Year 1||||0.98
91063175|NCT00931528|182010984|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Significance level = 0.05||Year 2||||0.96
91063176|NCT00931528|182010985|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Significance level = 0.05||Week 30||||0.86
90824523|NCT01751984|181525396|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|4.0||||0.776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.1|32.0|||ANCOVA||The least squares mean difference was calculated as the value for the ETC-1002 60 mg arm minus the value for the placebo arm.|||32.0|-24.1|0.7760
90824524|NCT01751984|181525397|SUPERIORITY||Clopper-Pearson methodology|61.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.4|78.1||Based on Fisher's exact test comparing the proportion of participants who achieved LDL-C goal at Week 8 (End of Study) in the ETC-1002 and placebo groups.|Fisher Exact||ETC-1002 minus placebo for the proportion of participants who achieved LDL-C goal at Week 8 (End of Study). The confidence interval was based on a normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||78.1|45.4|<0.0001
90824525|NCT00587158|181525400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0005
90824526|NCT00587158|181525401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4571||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4571
90824527|NCT00587158|181525402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.229||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2290
90824528|NCT00587158|181525403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The median PTH level at baseline was compared between the two treatment groups.||||0.17
90824529|NCT00587158|181525403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The median PTH level at 21 days was compared between the two treatment groups.||||0.005
90824530|NCT00587158|181525403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The median PTH level at 90 days was compared between the two treatment groups.||||<0.0001
90824531|NCT00587158|181525403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The median PTH level at one year was compared between the two treatment groups.||||0.0004
90824532|NCT00587158|181525404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.833||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The median BAP level at baseline was compared between the two treatment groups.||||0.833
90824533|NCT00587158|181525404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.553||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The median BAP level at 21 days was compared between the two treatment groups.||||0.553
90824534|NCT00587158|181525404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The median BAP level at 90 days was compared between the two treatment groups.||||0.035
90824535|NCT00587158|181525404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.171||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The median BAP level at one year was compared between the two treatment groups.||||0.171
90824536|NCT00587158|181525405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.98
90824537|NCT00587158|181525406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.41
90824538|NCT00587158|181525409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.66
90824539|NCT00587158|181525410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.66
90824540|NCT00587158|181525411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.11
90824541|NCT00587158|181525412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The number of subjects with mild interstitial fibrosis (Banff ci score \> 0 and \< 2) at one year was compared between treatment groups.||||1.0
90824542|NCT00587158|181525412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The number of subjects with moderate to mild interstitial fibrosis (Banff ci score greater than or equal to 2) at one year was compared between treatment groups.||||0.04
90824543|NCT01510158|181525431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.36|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.36|0.17|<0.0001
90824544|NCT01510158|181525431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.41|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.41|0.22|<0.0001
90824545|NCT01510158|181525432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99||||0.9796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.61|||Negative Binomial Regression|||||1.61|0.61|0.9796
90824546|NCT01510158|181525432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.88||||0.6125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.43|||Negative Binomial Regression|||||1.43|0.54|0.6125
90824547|NCT01510158|181525433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.29||||0.0183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.08|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-0.08|-0.51|0.0183
90824548|NCT01510158|181525433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.08||||0.5974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.2|-0.37|0.5974
90824549|NCT03078556|181525434|OTHER||Ratio|1.271|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1894|1.3582|||||Ratio (B/A) of plasma DTG has been presented.|||1.3582|1.1894|
90824550|NCT03078556|181525434|OTHER||Ratio|1.0341|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0097|1.0591|||||Ratio (B/A) of plasma 3TC has been presented.|||1.0591|1.0097|
90824551|NCT03078556|181525435|OTHER||Ratio|1.155|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0699|1.2468|||||Ratio (C/A) of plasma DTG has been presented.|||1.2468|1.0699|
90824552|NCT03078556|181525435|OTHER||Ratio|1.0635|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0413|1.0861|||||Ratio (C/A) of plasma 3TC has been presented.|||1.0861|1.0413|
90824553|NCT03078556|181525436|OTHER||Ratio|1.2756|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1919|1.3651|||||Ratio (B/A) of plasma DTG has been presented.|||1.3651|1.1919|
90824554|NCT03078556|181525436|OTHER||Ratio|1.0372|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0116|1.0634|||||Ratio (B/A) of plasma 3TC has been presented.|||1.0634|1.0116|
90824555|NCT03078556|181525437|OTHER||Ratio|1.1578|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0718|1.2507|||||Ratio (C/A) of plasma DTG has been presented.|||1.2507|1.0718|
90824556|NCT03078556|181525437|OTHER||Ratio|1.0702|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0464|1.0946|||||Ratio (C/A) of plasma 3TC has been presented.|||1.0946|1.0464|
90824557|NCT03078556|181525438|OTHER||Ratio|1.2805|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.189|1.379|||||Ratio (B/A) of plasma DTG has been presented.|||1.3790|1.1890|
90824558|NCT03078556|181525438|OTHER||Ratio|1.1956|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1437|1.2498|||||Ratio (B/A) of plasma 3TC has been presented.|||1.2498|1.1437|
90824559|NCT03078556|181525439|OTHER||Ratio|1.141|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0533|1.2361|||||Ratio (C/A) of plasma DTG has been presented.|||1.2361|1.0533|
90824560|NCT03078556|181525439|OTHER||Ratio|1.3176|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.2616|1.376|||||Ratio (C/A) of plasma 3TC has been presented.|||1.3760|1.2616|
91063177|NCT00931528|182010985|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Significance level = 0.05||Year 1||||0.93
91063178|NCT00931528|182010985|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Significance level = 0.05||Year 2||||0.52
91078437|NCT00553358|182042816|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.366||||0.00041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.63|||Regression, Cox||Cox models (Cox, 1972), with the stratification factors entered as strata variables, were used to calculate a hazard ratio and corresponding confidence interval comparing pCR and no pCR.|Overall - All subjects in the OS landmark analysis||0.63|0.20|0.00041
90824561|NCT03078556|181525440|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.0|||||Median Difference of plasma DTG has been presented.|||0.000|0.000|
90824562|NCT03078556|181525440|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.0|||||Median Difference of plasma 3TC has been presented.|||0.000|0.000|
90824563|NCT03078556|181525441|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.004|0.0|||||Median Difference of plasma DTG has been presented.|||0.000|-0.004|
90824564|NCT03078556|181525441|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.0|||||Median Difference of plasma 3TC has been presented.|||0.000|0.000|
90824565|NCT03078556|181525442|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.127|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|0.248|||||Median Difference of plasma DTG has been presented.|||0.248|-0.500|
90824566|NCT03078556|181525442|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.126|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.253|-0.001|||||Median Difference of plasma 3TC has been presented.|||-0.001|-0.253|
90824567|NCT03078556|181525443|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.127|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.497|0.132|||||Median Difference of plasma DTG has been presented.|||0.132|-0.497|
90824568|NCT03078556|181525443|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.248|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.376|-0.001|||||Median Difference of plasma 3TC has been presented.|||-0.001|-0.376|
90824569|NCT03078556|181525452|OTHER||Ratio|1.2774|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1931|1.3676|||||Ratio (B/A) of plasma DTG has been presented.|||1.3676|1.1931|
90824570|NCT03078556|181525452|OTHER||Ratio|1.0475|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0185|1.0773|||||Ratio (B/A) of plasma 3TC has been presented.|||1.0773|1.0185|
90824571|NCT03078556|181525453|OTHER||Ratio|1.1599|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0711|1.256|||||Ratio (C/A) of plasma DTG has been presented.|||1.2560|1.0711|
90824572|NCT03078556|181525453|OTHER||Ratio|1.0807|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0539|1.1081|||||Ratio (C/A) of plasma 3TC has been presented.|||1.1081|1.0539|
90824573|NCT03078556|181525454|OTHER||Ratio|0.7868|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7363|0.8408|||||Ratio (B/A) of plasma DTG has been presented.|||0.8408|0.7363|
90824574|NCT03078556|181525454|OTHER||Ratio|0.967|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9442|0.9904|||||Ratio (B/A) of plasma 3TC has been presented.|||0.9904|0.9442|
90824575|NCT03078556|181525455|OTHER||Ratio|0.8658|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8021|0.9347|||||Ratio (C/A) of plasma DTG has been presented.|||0.9347|0.8021|
90824576|NCT03078556|181525455|OTHER||Ratio|0.9403|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9207|0.9604|||||Ratio (C/A) of plasma 3TC has been presented.|||0.9604|0.9207|
90824577|NCT03078556|181525456|OTHER||Ratio|0.7859|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7318|0.844|||||Ratio (B/A) of plasma DTG has been presented.|||0.8440|0.7318|
90824578|NCT03078556|181525456|OTHER||Ratio|0.9704|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9157|1.0284|||||Ratio (B/A) of plasma 3TC has been presented.|||1.0284|0.9157|
90824579|NCT03078556|181525457|OTHER||Ratio|0.8571|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7914|0.9282|||||Ratio (C/A) of plasma DTG has been presented.|||0.9282|0.7914|
90824580|NCT03078556|181525457|OTHER||Ratio|0.9153|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8613|0.9728|||||Ratio (C/A) of plasma 3TC has been presented.|||0.9728|0.8613|
90824581|NCT03078556|181525458|OTHER||Ratio|1.2632|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1811|1.3511|||||Ratio (B/A) of plasma DTG has been presented.|||1.3511|1.1811|
90824582|NCT03078556|181525458|OTHER||Ratio|0.9598|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9268|0.9941|||||Ratio (B/A) of plasma 3TC has been presented.|||0.9941|0.9268|
90824583|NCT03078556|181525459|OTHER||Ratio|1.1425|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0597|1.2317|||||Ratio (C/A) of plasma DTG has been presented.|||1.2317|1.0597|
90824584|NCT03078556|181525459|OTHER||Ratio|0.9548|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9299|0.9804|||||Ratio (C/A) of plasma 3TC has been presented.|||0.9804|0.9299|
90824585|NCT03078556|181525460|OTHER||Ratio|1.1839|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0921|1.2834|||||Ratio (B/A) of plasma DTG has been presented|||1.2834|1.0921|
90824586|NCT03078556|181525460|OTHER||Ratio|0.8874|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.834|0.9443|||||Ratio (B/A) of plasma 3TC has been presented|||0.9443|0.8340|
90824587|NCT03078556|181525461|OTHER||Ratio|1.078|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9958|1.167|||||Ratio (B/A) of plasma DTG has been presented|||1.1670|0.9958|
90824588|NCT03078556|181525461|OTHER||Ratio|0.9049|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8474|0.9663|||||Ratio (B/A) of plasma 3TC has been presented|||0.9663|0.8474|
90824589|NCT03078556|181525462|OTHER||Ratio|1.1545|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0208|1.3058|||||Ratio (Bfed/B) of plasma DTG has been presented|||1.3058|1.0208|
90824590|NCT03078556|181525462|OTHER||Ratio|0.9577|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9126|1.0049|||||Ratio (Bfed/B) of plasma 3TC has been presented|||1.0049|0.9126|
90824591|NCT03078556|181525463|OTHER||Ratio|1.3256|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1837|1.4845|||||Ratio (Cfed/C) of plasma DTG has been presented|||1.4845|1.1837|
90824592|NCT03078556|181525463|OTHER||Ratio|0.9114|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8658|0.9593|||||Ratio (Cfed/C) of plasma 3TC has been presented|||0.9593|0.8658|
90824593|NCT03078556|181525464|OTHER||Ratio|1.1481|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0154|1.2982|||||Ratio (Bfed/B) of plasma DTG has been presented|||1.2982|1.0154|
90824594|NCT03078556|181525464|OTHER||Ratio|0.9524|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9086|0.9983|||||Ratio (Bfed/B) of plasma 3TC has been presented|||0.9983|0.9086|
90824595|NCT03078556|181525465|OTHER||Ratio|1.3176|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.175|1.4775|||||Ratio (Cfed/C) of plasma DTG has been presented|||1.4775|1.1750|
90824596|NCT03078556|181525465|OTHER||Ratio|0.9048|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8592|0.9528|||||Ratio (Cfed/C) of plasma 3TC has been presented|||0.9528|0.8592|
90824597|NCT03078556|181525466|OTHER||Ratio|1.0808|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9527|1.2261|||||Ratio (Bfed/B) of plasma DTG has been presented|||1.2261|0.9527|
90824598|NCT03078556|181525466|OTHER||Ratio|0.7097|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6474|0.7779|||||Ratio (Bfed/B) of plasma 3TC has been presented|||0.7779|0.6474|
90824599|NCT03078556|181525467|OTHER||Ratio|1.2096|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0521|1.3908|||||Ratio (Cfed/C) of plasma DTG has been presented|||1.3908|1.0521|
90824600|NCT03078556|181525467|OTHER||Ratio|0.6826|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5861|0.795|||||Ratio (Cfed/C) of plasma 3TC has been presented|||0.7950|0.5861|
90824601|NCT03078556|181525468|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.254|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.25|0.378|||||Median Difference of plasma DTG has been presented|||0.378|0.250|
90824602|NCT03078556|181525468|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.125|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.127|||||Median Difference of plasma 3TC has been presented|||0.127|0.000|
90824603|NCT03078556|181525469|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.126|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.25|||||Median Difference of plasma DTG has been presented|||0.250|0.000|
90824604|NCT03078556|181525469|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.125|||||Median Difference of plasma 3TC has been presented|||0.125|0.000|
90824605|NCT03078556|181525470|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|3.017|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.872|4.496|||||Median Difference of plasma DTG has been presented|||4.496|1.872|
90824606|NCT03078556|181525470|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.113|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.5|2.751|||||Median Difference of plasma 3TC has been presented|||2.751|1.500|
90824607|NCT03078556|181525471|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.748|3.751|||||Median Difference of plasma DTG has been presented|||3.751|1.748|
90824608|NCT03078556|181525471|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.503|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.998|2.252|||||Median Difference of plasma 3TC has been presented|||2.252|0.998|
90824609|NCT03078556|181525480|OTHER||Ratio|1.0849|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9613|1.2245|||||Ratio (Bfed/B) of plasma DTG has been presented|||1.2245|0.9613|
90824610|NCT03078556|181525480|OTHER||Ratio|0.9363|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8913|0.9836|||||Ratio (Bfed/B) of plasma 3TC has been presented|||0.9836|0.8913|
90824611|NCT03078556|181525481|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.2477|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1013|1.4136|||||Median Difference of plasma DTG has been presented|||1.4136|1.1013|
90824612|NCT03078556|181525481|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.8836|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8351|0.935|||||Median Difference of plasma 3TC has been presented|||0.9350|0.8351|
90824613|NCT03078556|181525482|OTHER||Ratio|0.8661|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7658|0.9796|||||Ratio (Bfed/B) of plasma DTG has been presented|||0.9796|0.7658|
90824614|NCT03078556|181525482|OTHER||Ratio|1.0442|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9951|1.0957|||||Ratio (Bfed/B) of plasma 3TC has been presented|||1.0957|0.9951|
90824615|NCT03078556|181525483|OTHER||Ratio|0.7544|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6736|0.8448|||||Ratio (Cfed/C) of plasma DTG has been presented|||0.8448|0.6736|
90824616|NCT03078556|181525483|OTHER||Ratio|1.0972|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0424|1.155|||||Ratio (Cfed/C) of plasma 3TC has been presented|||1.1550|1.0424|
90824617|NCT03078556|181525486|OTHER||Ratio|0.8654|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7629|0.9816|||||Ratio (Bfed/B) of plasma DTG has been presented|||0.9816|0.7629|
90824618|NCT03078556|181525486|OTHER||Ratio|1.0841|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9139|1.286|||||Ratio (Bfed/B) of plasma 3TC has been presented|||1.2860|0.9139|
90824619|NCT03078556|181525487|OTHER||Ratio|0.7657|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6702|0.8749|||||Ratio (Cfed/C) of plasma DTG has been presented|||0.8749|0.6702|
90824620|NCT03078556|181525487|OTHER||Ratio|1.197|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0869|1.3182|||||Ratio (Cfed/C) of plasma 3TC has been presented|||1.3182|1.0869|
90824621|NCT03078556|181525488|OTHER||Ratio|1.2929|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1281|1.4819|||||Ratio (Bfed/B) of plasma DTG has been presented|||1.4819|1.1281|
90824622|NCT03078556|181525488|OTHER||Ratio|1.2015|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1074|1.3036|||||Ratio (Bfed/B) of plasma 3TC has been presented|||1.3036|1.1074|
90824623|NCT03078556|181525489|OTHER||Ratio|1.469|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.3009|1.6588|||||Ratio (Cfed/C) of plasma DTG has been presented|||1.6588|1.3009|
90824624|NCT03078556|181525489|OTHER||Ratio|1.1935|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1142|1.2785|||||Ratio (Cfed/C) of plasma 3TC has been presented|||1.2785|1.1142|
90824625|NCT01466127|181525513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.28
90824626|NCT00571038|181525514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2417|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2417
90824627|NCT00571038|181525515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8586|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8586
90824628|NCT00571038|181525516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0432|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0432
90824629|NCT00571038|181525517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0604|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0604
90824630|NCT00571038|181525518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0438|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0438
90824631|NCT00571038|181525519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1418|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.1418
90824632|NCT00571038|181525520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|Two-sided Pr \<= P||||||0.0070
90824633|NCT00571038|181525521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8395|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.8395
90824634|NCT00571038|181525522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2194|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.2194
90824635|NCT00571038|181525523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9191|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.9191
90824636|NCT00571038|181525524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9633|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.9633
90824637|NCT00571038|181525525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5901|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.5901
90824638|NCT00571038|181525526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.982|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.9820
90824639|NCT00571038|181525527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3979|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.3979
90824640|NCT00571038|181525528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1471|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.1471
90824641|NCT00571038|181525529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6123|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.6123
90824642|NCT00571038|181525530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5861|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.5861
90824643|NCT00571038|181525531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4489|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.4489
90824644|NCT00571038|181525532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2527|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.2527
90824645|NCT00571038|181525533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7314|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.7314
90824646|NCT00571038|181525534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9839|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.9839
90824647|NCT02588261|181525547|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.611||||0.992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.086|2.391|||Log Rank|||Comparison between ASP8273 and Erlotinib or Gefitinib treatment groups was performed using log-rank test stratified by ECOG (0 and 1 vs 2), EGFR mutation type (exon 19 deletion or exon 21 L858R) and TKI chosen by the site (erlotinib or gefitinib) before randomization. Comparison was tested at 1-sided significance level of 0.025. Hazard ratio based on Cox proportional hazards model. Assuming proportional hazards, HR \< 1 indicated a reduction in hazard rate in favor of ASP8273 treatment group.||2.391|1.086|0.992
90824648|NCT02588261|181525549|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison between ASP8273 and Erlotinib or Gefitinib treatment groups was performed using stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, stratified by ECOG (0 and 1 vs 2), EGFR mutation type (exon 19 deletion or exon 21 L858R) and TKI chosen by the site (erlotinib or gefitinib) before randomization. Comparison was tested at 1-sided significance level of 0.025.||||1.000
90824649|NCT02588261|181525550|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.674||||0.998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.165|2.406|||Log Rank|||Comparison between ASP8273 and Erlotinib or Gefitinib treatment groups was performed using log-rank test stratified by ECOG (0 and 1 vs 2), EGFR mutation type (exon 19 deletion or exon 21 L858R) and TKI chosen by the site (erlotinib or gefitinib) before randomization. Comparison was tested at 1-sided significance level of 0.025. Hazard ratio based on Cox proportional hazards model. Assuming proportional hazards, HR \< 1 indicated a reduction in hazard rate in favor of ASP8273 treatment group.||2.406|1.165|0.998
90824650|NCT02588261|181525551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.839|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison between ASP8273 and Erlotinib or Gefitinib treatment groups was performed using stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, stratified by ECOG (0 and 1 vs 2), EGFR mutation type (exon 19 deletion or exon 21 L858R) and TKI chosen by the site (erlotinib or gefitinib) before randomization. Comparison was tested at 1-sided significance level of 0.025.||||0.839
91063179|NCT05842967|182011007|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if both the null hypothesis of GMR and the null hypothesis of difference in seroresponse rates were rejected for both RSV A and RSV B serum NTs, with a type I error (2-sided) of 5%.|GMR|1.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.396|1.759|||||GMRs (ratio of GMTs from C3671023 SSA to C3671013 immunogenicity subset), 2-sided CI were calculated by exponentiating difference in LS means, corresponding CIs based on regression model. Data reported here is for RSV A.|||1.759|1.396|
90824651|NCT02588261|181525552|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.298||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.661|2.548|||Log Rank|||Comparison between ASP8273 and Erlotinib or Gefitinib treatment groups was performed using log-rank test stratified by ECOG (0 and 1 vs 2), EGFR mutation type (exon 19 deletion or exon 21 L858R) and TKI chosen by the site (erlotinib or gefitinib) before randomization. Comparison was tested at 1-sided significance level of 0.025. Hazard ratio based on Cox proportional hazards model. Assuming proportional hazards, HR \< 1 indicated a reduction in hazard rate in favor of ASP8273 treatment group.||2.548|0.661|0.780
90824652|NCT03393494|181525583|EQUIVALENCE|provides 85% power of success|Equivalence ratio|107.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.8|112.2|||Fieller's method|||||112.2|97.8|
90824653|NCT03393494|181525584|EQUIVALENCE|provides 85% power of success|Equivalence ratio|104.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.1|108.5|||Fieller's method|||||108.5|94.1|0.05
90824654|NCT04034004|181525585|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pain ratings were collected while lying in the supine and after each straight leg rasise test (SLR 1; SLR 2). A 2 (group) X 2 (SLR 1-rest vs. SLR 2-meditation) X 2 (supine vs. SLR) X 3 (session) repeated measure mixed model ANOVA was conducted to determine if mindfulness and non-mindfulness meditation attenuate SLR induced pain through endogenous opioids. Simple effects tests tested significant main effects and interactions to test primary study hypotheses and between-group differences.||||.05
90824655|NCT01397461|181525591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Chi-squared|||"The treatment comparison was done using only the outcomes of Clinical success and Clinical failure. The p value of the chi square test (without continuity correction) and corresponding 95% asymptotic (Wald) CI for the difference in success rates for the ozenoxacin versus placebo were provided. The analysis was performed to test the superiority of ozenoxacin versus placebo.~Text extracted from the statistical analysis plan. No additional data was pre-specified for the statistical comparison"||||0.003
90824656|NCT04531241|181525643|NON_INFERIORITY|It was calculated that 120 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the two sequences would have at least 80% power to detect a 5 points difference in mean overall comfort and vision at the 1-week follow-up. Sample size was determined using Stroup's Method (alpha=0.05). A non-inferiority margin of -5 points was used.|Least-Square Mean Difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.01|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|||1.1|-6.8|
90824657|NCT04531241|181525644|NON_INFERIORITY|It was calculated that 120 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the two sequences would have a 0.05 logMAR unit difference in logMAR visual acuity at LLHC and HLLC lighting conditions at the 1-week follow-up. Sample size was determined using Stroup's Method (alpha=0.05). A non-inferiority margin of 0.05 logMAR units was used.|Least-Square Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.005|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0199|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|Low Luminance High Contrast||0.0|-0.0199|
90824658|NCT04531241|181525644|NON_INFERIORITY|It was calculated that 120 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the two sequences would have a 0.05 logMAR unit difference in logMAR visual acuity at LLHC and HLLC lighting conditions at the 1-week follow-up. Sample size was determined using Stroup's Method (alpha=0.05). A non-inferiority margin of 0.05 logMAR units was used.|Least-Square Mean Difference|-0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0066|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0173|0.0087|||Mixed Model Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|High Luminance Low Contrast||0.0087|-0.0173|
90824659|NCT04531241|181525645|NON_INFERIORITY|It was calculated that 120 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the two sequences would have a 1 hour difference in average daily wear time at the 1-week follow-up. Sample size was determined using Stroup's Method (alpha=0.05). A non-inferiority margin of 1 hour was used.|Least-Square Mean Difference|-0.052|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0731|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1968|0.0933|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|||0.0933|-0.1968|
91063180|NCT05842967|182011007|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if both the null hypothesis of GMR and the null hypothesis of difference in seroresponse rates were rejected for both RSV A and RSV B serum NTs, with a type I error (2-sided) of 5%.|GMR|1.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.333|1.725|||||GMRs (ratio of GMTs from C3671023 SSA to C3671013 immunogenicity subset), 2-sided CI were calculated by exponentiating difference in LS means, corresponding CIs based on regression model. Data reported here is for RSV B.|||1.725|1.333|
91063181|NCT05842967|182011008|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if both the null hypothesis of GMR and the null hypothesis of difference in seroresponse rates were rejected for both RSV A and RSV B serum NTs, with a type I error (2-sided) of 5%.|Difference in percentage|5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|9.2|||||Difference (C3671023 SSA, compared to C3671013 immunogenicity subset) in proportions, expressed as a percentage; 95% CIs for percentage difference were calculated using exact method based on Miettinen and Nurminen. Data reported here is for RSV A.|||9.2|1.2|
90824660|NCT04531241|181525646|NON_INFERIORITY|It was calculated that 120 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the two sequences would have at least 80% power to detect a 5 points difference in mean overall comfort and vision at the 1-week follow-up. Sample size was determined using Stroup's Method (alpha=0.05). A non-inferiority margin of -5 points was used.|Least-Square Mean Difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.47|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|||0.3|-5.5|
91063182|NCT05842967|182011008|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if both the null hypothesis of GMR and the null hypothesis of difference in seroresponse rates were rejected for both RSV A and RSV B serum NTs, with a type I error (2-sided) of 5%.|Difference in percentage|8.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|12.6|||||Difference (C3671023 SSA, compared to C3671013 immunogenicity subset) in proportions, expressed as a percentage; 95% CIs for percentage difference were calculated using exact method based on Miettinen and Nurminen. Data reported here is for RSV B.|||12.6|4.2|
91063183|NCT01866826|182011027|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.51
90824661|NCT01702246|181525650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|||||Wilcoxon matched pairs signed rank test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.005
90824662|NCT01702246|181525651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
90824663|NCT01702246|181525652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
90824664|NCT04607837|181525664|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.35||||0.2524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.24|19.94|||Mantel Haenszel|||Difference (%) for etrasimod minus placebo was based on estimated common risk difference using the Mantel- Haenszel weights. The 2-sided p-value was used to test the hypothesis of the risk difference being 0.||19.94|-5.24|0.2524
90824665|NCT04607837|181525665|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.61||||0.0068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.31|26.91|||Mantel Haenszel|||Difference (%) for etrasimod minus placebo was based on estimated common RD using the Mantel- Haenszel weights. The 2-sided p-value was used to test the hypothesis of the RD being 0.||26.91|4.31|0.0068
90824666|NCT04607837|181525666|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.24||||0.2302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.22|21.71|||Mantel Haenszel|||Difference (%) for etrasimod minus placebo was based on estimated common RD using the Mantel- Haenszel weights. The 2-sided p-value was used to test the hypothesis of the RD being 0.||21.71|-5.22|0.2302
90824667|NCT04607837|181525667|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.12||||0.3339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.32|21.55|||Mantel Haenszel|||Difference (%) for etrasimod minus placebo was based on estimated common RD using the Mantel- Haenszel weights, where only participants with an assessment at Baseline and the corresponding visit are included. The 2-sided Nominal p-value was used to test the hypothesis of the RD being 0.||21.55|-7.32|0.3339
90824668|NCT04607837|181525668|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.68||||0.9141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.76|13.13|||Mantel Haenszel|||Difference (%) for etrasimod minus placebo was based on estimated common RD using the Mantel- Haenszel weights, where only participants with an assessment at Baseline and the corresponding visit are included. The 2-sided Nominal p-value was used to test the hypothesis of the RD being 0.||13.13|-11.76|0.9141
90824669|NCT04607837|181525669|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.56||||0.1089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|21.25|||Mantel Haenszel|||Difference (%) for etrasimod minus placebo was based on estimated common RD using the Mantel- Haenszel weights. The 2-sided p-value was used to test the hypothesis of the RD being 0.||21.25|-2.13|0.1089
90824670|NCT04607837|181525670|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.19||||0.0104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.63|19.75|||Mantel Haenszel|||Difference (%) for etrasimod minus placebo was based on estimated common RD using the Mantel- Haenszel weights. The 2-sided p-value was used to test the hypothesis of the RD being 0.||19.75|2.63|0.0104
90824671|NCT04607837|181525671|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.07||||0.9203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.06|19.92|||Mantel Haenszel|||Difference (%) for etrasimod minus placebo was based on estimated common RD using the Mantel- Haenszel weights. The 2-sided p-value was used to test the hypothesis of the RD being 0.||19.92|-22.06|0.9203
90824672|NCT04607837|181525672|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.49||||0.1726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.71|20.68|||Mantel Haenszel|||Difference (%) for etrasimod minus placebo was based on estimated common RD using the Mantel- Haenszel weights. The 2-sided p-value was used to test the hypothesis of the RD being 0.||20.68|-3.71|0.1726
90824673|NCT04607837|181525673|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.71||||0.9272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.31|34.9|||Mantel Haenszel|||Difference (%) for etrasimod minus placebo was based on estimated common RD using the Mantel- Haenszel weights. The 2-sided p-value was used to test the hypothesis of the RD being 0.||34.90|-38.31|0.9272
90824674|NCT04607837|181525674|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.49||||0.1726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.71|20.68|||Mantel Haenszel|||Difference (%) for etrasimod minus placebo was based on estimated common RD using the Mantel- Haenszel weights. The 2-sided p-value was used to test the hypothesis of the RD being 0.||20.68|-3.71|0.1726
90824675|NCT04607837|181525675|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.64||||0.0151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.61|33.67|||Mantel Haenszel|||Difference (%) for etrasimod minus placebo was based on estimated common RD using the Mantel- Haenszel weights. The 2-sided p-value was used to test the hypothesis of the RD being 0.||33.67|3.61|0.0151
90824676|NCT04607837|181525676|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.96||||0.4419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.22|21.13|||Mantel Haenszel|||Difference (%) for etrasimod minus placebo was based on estimated common RD using the Mantel- Haenszel weights. The 2-sided p-value was used to test the hypothesis of the RD being 0.||21.13|-9.22|0.4419
90824677|NCT04607837|181525677|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|23.33||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.78|36.89|||Mantel Haenszel|||Difference (%) for etrasimod minus placebo was based on estimated common RD using the Mantel- Haenszel weights. The 2-sided p-value was used to test the hypothesis of the RD being 0.||36.89|9.78|0.0007
90824678|NCT04607837|181525678|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.99||||0.0128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.19|26.79|||Mantel Haenszel|||Difference (%) for etrasimod minus placebo was based on estimated common RD using the Mantel- Haenszel weights. The 2-sided p-value was used to test the hypothesis of the RD being 0.||26.79|3.19|0.0128
90824679|NCT04607837|181525679|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.24||||0.1492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.67|24.14|||Mantel Haenszel|||Difference (%) for etrasimod minus placebo was based on estimated common RD using the Mantel- Haenszel weights, where only participants with an assessment at Baseline and the corresponding visit are included. The 2-sided Nominal p-value was used to test the hypothesis of the RD being 0.||24.14|-3.67|0.1492
90824680|NCT04607837|181525680|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.18||||0.9774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.18|12.53|||Mantel Haenszel|||Difference (%) for etrasimod minus placebo was based on estimated common RD using the Mantel- Haenszel weights, where only participants with an assessment at Baseline and the corresponding visit are included. The 2-sided Nominal p-value was used to test the hypothesis of the RD being 0.||12.53|-12.18|0.9774
90824681|NCT04607837|181525681|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|22.83||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.17|36.49|||Mantel Haenszel|||Difference (%) for etrasimod minus placebo was based on estimated common RD using the Mantel- Haenszel weights, where only participants with an assessment at Baseline and the corresponding visit are included. The 2-sided Nominal p-value was used to test the hypothesis of the RD being 0.||36.49|9.17|0.0011
90824682|NCT04607837|181525682|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.8||||0.1513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.95|25.56|||Mantel Haenszel|||Difference (%) for etrasimod minus placebo was based on estimated common RD using the Mantel- Haenszel weights, where only participants with an assessment at Baseline and the corresponding visit are included. The 2-sided Nominal p-value was used to test the hypothesis of the RD being 0.||25.56|-3.95|0.1513
91063184|NCT01866826|182011028|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||We calculated the proportion of pts with elevated viral levels \>50 copies/ml at each phase of the study.|We estimated that four of the seven patients would have an elevation in viral Ribonucleic Acid (RNA) level \>50 copies/ml.|||
90824683|NCT04607837|181525683|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.07||||0.1823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.73|24.87|||Mantel Haenszel|||Difference (%) for etrasimod minus placebo was based on estimated common RD using the Mantel- Haenszel weights, where only participants with an assessment at Baseline and the corresponding visit are included. The 2-sided Nominal p-value was used to test the hypothesis of the RD being 0.||24.87|-4.73|0.1823
90824684|NCT04209205|181525704|SUPERIORITY||Marginal difference|25.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.61|32.43|||Regression, Logistic|||||32.43|17.61|<.0001
90824685|NCT04209205|181525705|SUPERIORITY||Marginal difference|30.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.14|40.05|||Regression, Logistic|||||40.05|21.14|<.0001
90824686|NCT04209205|181525706|SUPERIORITY||Marginal difference|17.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.48|23.85|||Regression, Logistic|||||23.85|10.48|<.0001
90824687|NCT04209205|181525707|SUPERIORITY||Marginal difference|41.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.64|52.13|||Regression, Logistic|||||52.13|30.64|<.0001
90824688|NCT04209205|181525708|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean|-1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|0.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.87|-1.38|<.0001
90824689|NCT04209205|181525709|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|-0.043|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.15|-0.32|<.0001
90824690|NCT04209205|181525710|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean|4.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.676|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|5.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.46|2.80|<.0001
91063185|NCT01866826|182011030|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.7872|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||We calculated the percentage of total lymphocytes that were expressing activation markers at each time point, and compared the differences in the percentages in the Rifaximin and control groups. We used the Wilcoxon test to detect differences between the differences in percentages in the control and Rifaximin groups.||||
91063186|NCT01866826|182011030|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Wilcoxon|||We calculated the percentage of total lymphocytes that were expressing the activation markers at each time point, and compared the differences in the percentages in the Rifaximin and control groups. We used the T-test to detect differences between the differences in percentages in the control group and Rifaximin groups.||||0.54
90824691|NCT04209205|181525711|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean|2.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.933||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|4.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.68|1.01|0.0024
90824692|NCT04209205|181525712|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean|-6.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.447|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.96|-3.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.26|-8.96|<.0001
90824693|NCT04209205|181525713|SUPERIORITY||Marginal difference|27.49||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.43|42.55|||Regression, Logistic|||||42.55|12.43|0.0003
90824694|NCT04209205|181525714|SUPERIORITY||Marginal difference|16.35||||0.0102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.88|28.82|||Regression, Logistic|||||28.82|3.88|0.0102
90824695|NCT00999544|181525715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||"Area-under-the-curve (AUC) scores were derived from time course data and analyzed using two-factor ANOVA \[aprepitant dose (3 levels)x oxycodone dose (3 levels)\].~All analyses were conducted using SAS 9.1 for Windows (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA) and were considered significant when P 0.05."||||<.05
90824696|NCT02936635|181525725|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.619||0.2821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.035|3.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.23|-11.035|0.2821
90824697|NCT02936635|181525726|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-5.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.242||0.2118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.711|3.067|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.067|-13.711|0.2118
90824698|NCT02936635|181525727|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.205||0.6354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.946|1.801|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.801|-2.946|0.6354
90824699|NCT02936635|181525728|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.509||0.8887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.186|2.763|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.763|-3.186|0.8887
90824700|NCT02287467|181525779|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.97|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline clinical status, region, and participation in the pilot study.|Odds ratio is hIVIG vs. placebo. A value greater than 1 favors the hIVIG group.|Odds ratio of being in a better category, as assessed using a proportional odds model. Multiple imputation techniques were used to impute an outcome for 4 patients for whom the outcome was unknown.||1.97|0.79|.33
90824701|NCT02287467|181525780|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.48|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline clinical status, region, and participation in the pilot study.|Odds ratio is for hIVIG vs placebo. An odds ratio greater than 1 favors the hIVIG group.|Odds ratio for being in a better category, from a proportional odds model||1.48|0.61|.84
90824702|NCT02287467|181525781|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.33|||Regression, Cox|adjusted for baseline clinical status, region, and participation in the pilot study.|Odds ratio is for hIVIG vs. placebo. An odds ratio \> 1 favors the hIVIG group.|Odds ratio for being in a better group, from a proportional odds model.||1.33|0.57|.52
90824703|NCT02287467|181525782|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.74|||Regression, Logistic|adjusted for baseline clinical status, region, and participation in the pilot study.|Odds ratio for hIVIG vs placebo. An odds ratio \> 1.0 favors the hIVIG group.|||2.74|0.81|.20
91063187|NCT01999920|182011040|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.064|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.064
91063188|NCT01999920|182011041|SUPERIORITY||Standard error|5.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.13||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|12.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||12.32|-1.32|0.11
91063189|NCT01999920|182011042|SUPERIORITY||Standard error|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.44||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.85|5.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Confidence variable||5.53|-4.85|0.89
91063190|NCT01999920|182011042|SUPERIORITY||Standard error|1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.41||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.21|10.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Discomfort with Closeness variable||10.58|-8.21|0.79
91063191|NCT01999920|182011042|SUPERIORITY||Standard error|3.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.79||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.12|12.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Relationships as Secondary variable||12.01|-4.12|0.31
91063192|NCT01999920|182011042|SUPERIORITY||Standard error|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.49||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.79|0.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Need for Approval variable||0.58|-5.79|0.10
90824704|NCT02287467|181525783|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.45|||Regression, Cox|Stratified by baseline clinical status, region, and participation in the pilot study.|hazard ratio is hIVIG vs placebo; a hazard ratio \>1 favors the hIVIG group.|Deaths during hospitalization are censored after day 7.||1.45|.85|.44
90824705|NCT02287467|181525784|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.72||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|6.15|||Regression, Cox|stratified by baseline clinical status, region, and participation in pilot study|hazard ratio is for hIVIG vs placebo; a hazard ratio \< 1.0 favors the hIVIG group.|||6.15|.48|.40
90824706|NCT02287467|181525785|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.98|||Regression, Logistic|adjusted for baseline clinical status, region, and participation in pilot study|odds ratio is for hIVIG vs placebo; an odds ratio \> 1.0 favors hIVIG|||1.98|.38|.74
90824707|NCT02287467|181525786|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.14||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.54|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline RNA, geographic region, and influenza subtype|Change is calculated as day 3 - baseline. Difference in changes is hIVIG - placebo.|||.54|-.26|.49
90824708|NCT02287467|181525787|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.97|||Regression, Logistic|adjusted for baseline clinical status, region, and participation in pilot study.|Odds ratio is for hIVIG vs placebo.|||1.97|0.5|.93
90824709|NCT02287467|181525788|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.82|||Regression, Logistic|adjusted for baseline clinical status, region, and participation in pilot study|odds ratio is for hIVIG group vs placebo|||1.82|0.5|.81
90824710|NCT02287467|181525789|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.95|||Regression, Logistic|adjusted for baseline clinical status, region, and participation in the pilot study|Odds ratio (hIVIG vs placebo) of being in a better category. An odds ratio \> 1 favors the hIVIG group.|Proportional odds for being in a better category||1.95|0.70|.55
90824711|NCT02287467|181525790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.31|||Regression, Logistic|adjusted for baseline clinical status, region, and participation in pilot study|odds ratio is for hIVIG vs placebo|||2.31|.5|.77
90824712|NCT02287467|181525791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.34|||Regression, Logistic|adjusted for baseline clinical status, region, and participation in pilot study|odds ratio is expressed as hIVIG vs placebo|||2.34|0.7|.34
90824713|NCT02287467|181525792|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.62||adjusted for baseline clinical status, region, and participation in pilot study|Regression, Logistic|adjusted for baseline clinical status, region, and participation in pilot study|odds ratio (hIVIG vs placebo) is for being in a better category. An odds ratio \>1 favors the hIVIG group.|||1.62|.50|.73
90824714|NCT02287467|181525793|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.59|||Regression, Logistic|adjusted for baseline clinical status, region, and participation in the pilot study.|Odds ratio (hIVIG vs placebo) is for being in a better category.|Multiple imputation was used to estimate the outcome for 3 participants for whom the outcome was partially unknown.||1.59|0.55|.82
91063193|NCT01999920|182011042|SUPERIORITY||Standard error|0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.82||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|6.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Preoccupation with Relationships variable||6.72|-5.30|0.80
90824715|NCT02287467|181525794|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.19||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|8.42|||Regression, Logistic|adjusted for baseline clinical status, region, and participation in pilot study|Odds ratio (hIVIG vs placebo) for a better outcome. An odds ratio \> 1 favors the hIVIG group.|Multiple imputation was used to estimate the outcome for one participant.||8.42|1.21|.02
90824716|NCT02287467|181525795|SUPERIORITY||ratio of geometric means|1.5||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|longitudinal regression with adjustment for baseline titer|Ratio of hIVIG group to placebo group. A ratio \> 1.0 indicates higher titers for the hIVIG group.|HAI measurements were log-transformed to compute treatment differences and the model was adjusted for baseline titer.||2.7|0.84|.18
90824717|NCT02287467|181525796|SUPERIORITY||ratio of geometric means|1.31||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|longitudinal analysis of log-transformed titers adjust for baseline titer.|Ratio of geometric means of hIVIG vs placebo. A ratio \>1.0 indicates higher titers in the hIVIG group on day 7.|||1.8|0.93|.13
90824718|NCT02287467|181525797|SUPERIORITY||ratio of geometric means|0.94||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|log-transformed titers adjusted for baseline titer|ratio of geometric mean for hIVIG vs placebo. A ratio \> 1.0 indicates higher titers at day 7 for the hIVIG group.|||1.5|0.58|.78
90824719|NCT01456169|181525806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-14.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6|-11.8|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline trough, sitting, clinic SBP as a covariate.||The type I error was controlled using a 2-step hierarchical testing procedure. In the first step, the high dose (40/25 mg) of Azilsartan medoxomil + chlorthalidone was compared to Azilsartan medoxomil alone. If the comparison in step 1 was statistically significant at a significance level of 5%, then step 2 was performed by comparing the low dose (40/12.5 mg) and monotherapy at the 5% significance level.||-11.8|-17.6|<0.001
90824720|NCT01456169|181525806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-9.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|-6.5|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline trough, sitting, clinic SBP as a covariate||||-6.5|-12.4|<0.001
90824721|NCT00570310|181525854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.42||||0.003||90.0|-2.25|-0.6||1-sided, alpha = 0.05|ANOVA||Primary Hypothesis: In 'primary responder population', pregabalin is superior to placebo in maintaining pain control measured by change (3-day average: end of the randomization period versus end of maintenance period) in evening pain intensity.|||-0.60|-2.25|0.003
90824722|NCT00570310|181525855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.67|||<|0.001||95.0|5.26|10.08||1-sided, alpha = 0.05|ANOVA|||||10.08|5.26|<0.001
90824723|NCT00759161|181525864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||2-sided sign test|||||||< 0.001
91063194|NCT01999920|182011043|SUPERIORITY||Standard error|-19.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.99||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.23|-5.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.58|-34.23|0.008
91063195|NCT01999920|182011044|SUPERIORITY||Standard error|3.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.43||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|6.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.16|0.42|0.026
91063196|NCT01999920|182011045|SUPERIORITY||Standard error|21.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.65||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.64|37.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||37.11|5.64|0.01
91063197|NCT02058069|182011048|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The Alternative Hypothesis: The Investigational Device (RIO) true event rate is non-inferior to 0.066 (event rate for manual TKA) with a non-inferiority margin of 0.06. The 0.066 rate is based on literature and 0.06 was determined in consultation with FDA.|Rare Adverse Event Rate|0.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.0331|||||If the upper bound is \<0.126 then the primary composite safety endpoint is met. After the surgeon completed the procedure, at the conclusion of the participant's hospital stay, and 3 months post-operative were used in this single analysis.|||0.0331||
91063198|NCT02058069|182011050|OTHER|The analysis was performed using standard OC curves generated using Sample Size Analyzer® version 2.0 by Taylor Enterprise Inc. (Dr. Wayne A. Taylor).|Alignment Difference <4.38 Degrees|1.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.966||||||Estimation Parameter is: proportion of participants with limb alignment difference \<4.38 degrees If the lower bound is \>0.95 then the assessment passes.||||0.966|
90824724|NCT00479336|181525876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.3167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.061|0.02|||Regression, Linear|||A linear regression model using change in body weight from baseline at the final timepoint as the criterion variable and dose as the explanatory variable was fitted to the dataset. The null hypothesis of whether the regression coefficient is zero (analysis using t-statistics) was tested at a two-tailed significance level of 0.05, and estimated values for the slope and 95% confidence interval were calculated.||0.020|-0.061|0.3167
90824725|NCT02631551|181525884|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||GSP 301 NS vs GSP 301 placebo NS comparison for rTNSS was tested at 0.05 significance level.||||<0.0001
90824726|NCT02631551|181525884|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0029|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||GSP 301 NS vs Olopatadine HCl NS comparison for rTNSS was tested at 0.05 significance level.||||0.0029
90824727|NCT02631551|181525884|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0587|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||GSP 301 NS vs Mometasone furoate NS comparison for rTNSS was tested at 0.05 significance level.||||0.0587
90824728|NCT02631551|181525884|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0755|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Olopatadine HCl NS vs GSP 301 Placebo NS comparison for rTNSS was tested at 0.05 significance level.||||0.0755
90824729|NCT02631551|181525884|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0043|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mometasone furoate NS vs GSP 301 Placebo NS comparison for rTNSS was tested at 0.05 significance level.||||0.0043
90824730|NCT01284517|181525885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08||0.176|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis (H0) assumes equal values between analysis groups in mean change from baseline in MADRS score, alternative hypothesis (HA) assumes unequal values between groups. Sample size determined by two-sample t-test. A mean difference of 3.25 units in change in MADRS score for the Lurasdone 20-120 mg arm over placebo with common standard deviation of 9 units was used. N=162 subjects per arm (total N=324) yields power of 90%. A 5% adjustment for drop-outs gives N=340, or N=170 per arm.||||0.176
90824731|NCT01284517|181525886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141||0.095|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.095
90824732|NCT01284517|181525887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.992|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.992
90824733|NCT01521507|181525900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Stage 1 primary and secondary outcomes were tested in order under a closed form testing method. Secondary outcome was tested only if primary outcome was statistically significant. If both outcomes were significant, overall study alpha was 0.025.|z-statistic|p-value was based on z-statistic of the sum of weighted average of difference in scores between groups at each site divided by the sum of the weights.||The null and alternative hypotheses are H0: µt ≤ µc vs. Ha: µt \> µc, where µt and µc are the mean changes in total meibomian gland scores from Baseline to 3 Months for the LipiFlow (test) and Warm Compress and Lid Hygiene (active control) groups, respectively. For the Stage 1 Primary Outcome, the minimum sample size was 24 subjects per group with a power of 90% and a one-sided alpha of 0.025.||||<0.0001
90824734|NCT01521507|181525900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Supportive multivariate mixed model was also performed for this outcome controlling for significant demographic and baseline characteristics.||||0.0020
90824735|NCT01521507|181525901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9098|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Stage 2 Primary Outcome was analyzed with a multivariate mixed model with the subgroup as a fixed effect while controlling for other covariates.||The null and alternative hypotheses for the Stage 2 Primary Outcome was: H0: µi= µj for all i and j where i≠j versus Ha: µi ≠ µj for at least one i and j, where µi is the mean total meibomian gland score at 12 Months for the ith subgroup. The null hypothesis was tested with a two-sided test at alpha=0.05. Since Stage 2 was an observational design, no minimum sample size was calculated for Stage 2.||||0.9098
90824736|NCT01521507|181525902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0068|TWO_SIDED|||||Stage 1 primary and secondary outcomes were tested in order under a closed form testing method. Secondary outcome was tested only if primary outcome was statistically significant. If both outcomes were significant, overall study alpha was 0.025.|t-test, 2 sided|||The null and alternative hypotheses are H0: µt ≤ µc vs. Ha: µt \> µc, where µt and µc are the mean changes in total OSDI scores from Baseline to 3 Months for the LipiFlow (test) and Warm Compress and Lid Hygiene (active control) groups, respectively. For the Stage 1 Secondary Outcome, the minimum sample size was 84 per group with a power of 80% and a one-sided alpha of 0.025.||||0.0068
90824737|NCT01521507|181525902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0419|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Supportive multivariate mixed model was also performed for this outcome controlling for significant demographic and baseline characteristics.||||0.0419
90824738|NCT01521507|181525903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0237|TWO_SIDED|||||Stage 2 Secondary Outcome was analyzed with a multivariate mixed model with the subgroup as a fixed effect while controlling for other covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The null and alternative hypotheses for the Stage 2 Secondary Outcome was: H0: µi= µj for all i and j where i≠j versus Ha: µi ≠ µj for at least one i and j, where µi is the mean total OSDI score at 12 Months for the ith subgroup. The null hypothesis was tested with a two-sided test at alpha=0.05. Since Stage 2 was an observational design, no minimum sample size was calculated for Stage 2.||||0.0237
91063199|NCT02058069|182011051|NON_INFERIORITY|The upper bound for the one-sided 95% confidence interval will be compared with -9. If the upper bound is less than -9, then non-inferiority holds.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-33.1|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||-29.6|||t-test, 2 sided||If the upper bound is less than -9, then non-inferiority holds.|Change from pre-op to 3 months||-29.6||<0.001
91063200|NCT02222922|182011097|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|79.38||||0.3105|TWO_SIDED|90.0|54.01|116.65|||ANOVA|||Test: PF-06647020 1.4 mg/kg + Fluconazole(Q3W-DDI) group; Reference: PF-06647020 2.8 mg/kg (Q3W-DDI) group.||116.65|54.01|0.3105
90824739|NCT04317040|181525904|OTHER|Hazard ratio (HR) and the associated 95% CIs were calculated based on Cox Regression model and p-value was calculated based on log-rank test, in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.398||||0.0367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.918|||Log Rank||Cox-Regression Model|||1.918|1.020|0.0367
90824740|NCT04317040|181525906|OTHER|Risk difference (RD) and the associated 95% CIs were calculated based on Mantel-Haenszel method and p-value was calculated based on Chi-squared test, in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.0555||||0.3281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1665|0.0555|||Chi-squared||Mantel-Haenszel method|||0.0555|-0.1665|0.3281
90824741|NCT04317040|181525907|OTHER|Hazard ratio (HR) and the associated 95% CIs were calculated based on Cox Regression model and p-value was calculated based on log-rank test, in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.558||||0.0306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.327|0.954|||Log Rank||Cox Regression Model|||0.954|0.327|0.0306
90824742|NCT04317040|181525908|OTHER|Risk difference (RD) and the associated 95% CIs were calculated based on Mantel-Haenszel method and p-value was calculated based on Chi-squared test, in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.027||||0.4491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.043|0.097|||Chi-squared||Mantel-Haenszel method used to report all-cause mortality by Day 15|Day 15||0.0970|-0.0430|0.4491
90824743|NCT04317040|181525908|OTHER|Risk difference (RD) and the associated 95% CIs were calculated based on Mantel-Haenszel method and p-value was calculated based on Chi-squared test, in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.0146||||0.7512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1049|0.0756|||Chi-squared||Mantel-Haenszel method used to report all-cause mortality by Day 29|Day 29||0.0756|-0.1049|0.7512
90824744|NCT04317040|181525911|OTHER|Hazard ratio (HR) and the associated 95% CIs were calculated based on Cox Regression model and p-value was calculated based on log-rank test, in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.416||||0.0311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.031|1.945|||Log Rank||Cox Regression model|||1.945|1.031|0.0311
90824745|NCT00799903|181525928|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.1|0.85|1.03||Hazard ratio and p-value are estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment as the only covariate. A hazard ratio \< 1 indicates a lower risk with this treatment compared to Placebo.|Regression, Cox|||||1.03|0.85|0.199
90824746|NCT00799903|181525929|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.0||Hazard ratio and p-value are estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment as the only covariate. A hazard ratio \< 1 indicates a lower risk with this treatment compared to Placebo.|Regression, Cox|||||1.00|0.82|0.045
90824747|NCT00799903|181525930|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|0.98||Hazard ratio and p-value are estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment as the only covariate. A hazard ratio \< 1 indicates a lower risk with this treatment compared to Placebo.|Regression, Cox|||||0.98|0.84|0.019
90824748|NCT00799903|181525931|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.11||Hazard ratio and p-value are estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment as the only covariate. A hazard ratio \< 1 indicates a lower risk with this treatment compared to Placebo.|Regression, Cox|||||1.11|0.83|0.594
90824749|NCT00799903|181525932|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.03||Hazard ratio and p-value are estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment as the only covariate. A hazard ratio \< 1 indicates a lower risk with this treatment compared to Placebo.|Regression, Cox|||||1.03|0.77|0.108
90824750|NCT00799903|181525933|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.27||Hazard ratio and p-value are estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment as the only covariate. A hazard ratio \< 1 indicates a lower risk with this treatment compared to Placebo.|Regression, Cox|||||1.27|0.81|0.920
90824751|NCT00799903|181525934|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.05||Hazard ratio and p-value are estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment as the only covariate. A hazard ratio \< 1 indicates a lower risk with this treatment compared to Placebo.|Regression, Cox|||||1.05|0.88|0.397
90824752|NCT00799903|181525935|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.13||Hazard ratio and p-value are estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment as the only covariate. A hazard ratio \< 1 indicates a lower risk with this treatment compared to Placebo.|Regression, Cox|||||1.13|0.90|0.870
90824753|NCT02518971|181525936|OTHER|||||||0.345|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.345
90824754|NCT02518971|181525937|OTHER|||||||0.378|||||||Student T-Test|||||||.378
90824755|NCT02518971|181525938|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
90824756|NCT02518971|181525939|OTHER|||||||0.497|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.497
90824757|NCT02518971|181525940|OTHER|||||||0.207|||||||Student T-test|||||||.207
90824758|NCT00757237|181525947|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The treatment difference (TIS-AZLI) and standard error from the ANCOVA model were used to compute the two-sided 95% confidence interval. If the 95% upper boundary was less than the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 4%, then the null hypothesis was rejected.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.8||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.73|-3.86||Based on the Benjamini \& Hochberg method, non-inferiority at Day 28 for relative change in FEV1 percent predicted was assessed at the 0.05 level, given the significance of the coprimary endpoint (p\<0.05).|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included treatment, Day 0 FEV1 percent predicted, and previous inhaled tobramycin use for all participants.|Treatment difference refers to TIS-AZLI.|Null hypothesis: AZLI was inferior to TIS by more than 4% in the mean relative change of FEV1 percent predicted at Day 28. With 120 subjects per treatment group there was at least 85% power to declare noninferiority based on relative change from baseline at Day 28 in FEV1 percent predicted using the upper bound of a 2-tailed 95% CI for the difference in means with a noninferiority margin of 4, assuming a common standard deviation of 18% and true difference in means \[TIS-AZLI\] of -3.2%.||-3.86|-11.73|0.0001
91063201|NCT02222922|182011098|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|77.23||||0.2316|TWO_SIDED|90.0|53.8|110.87|||ANOVA|||Test: PF-06647020 1.4 mg/kg + Fluconazole(Q3W-DDI) group; Reference: PF-06647020 2.8 mg/kg (Q3W-DDI) group.||110.87|53.80|0.2316
90824759|NCT00757237|181525948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7||||0.0023||||||Based on the Benjamini \& Hochberg method, superiority at Weeks 4, 12, and 20 of actual change in FEV1 percent predicted was tested at the 0.05 level, given the significance of the coprimary endpoint (p\<0.05).|MMRM analysis|MMRM analysis included Day 0 FEV1 percent predicted, previous inhaled tobramycin use, treatment, visit, and treatment/visit interaction.|Treatment difference refers to TIS-AZLI.|"Null hypothesis: there was no difference between AZLI and TIS treatment groups in the mean actual change of FEV1 percent predicted across 3 treatment courses among all participants.~With 120 subjects per treatment group, there was at least 90% power at a 5% significance level to detect differences based upon actual change from baseline in FEV1 percent predicted (3.61%, 2.98%, 2.32%) between AZLI and TIS at Weeks 4, 12, and 20 with a common standard deviation of 9%."||||0.0023
90824760|NCT00757237|181525949|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The treatment difference (TIS-AZLI) and standard error from the ANCOVA model were used to compute the two-sided 95% confidence interval. If the 95% upper boundary was less than the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 4%, then the null hypothesis was rejected.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.86|-5.14||Secondary endpoints were tested sequentially by the closed testing procedure initiated by the significance of the primary endpoints. Given the coprimary endpoints were met at the 0.05 level, this non-inferiority endpoint was tested at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included treatment and Day 0 FEV1 percent predicted.|Treatment difference refers to TIS-AZLI.|Null hypothesis: AZLI was inferior to TIS by more than 4% in terms of the participant means in relative change of FEV1 percent predicted at Day 28 among all participants having \>= 84 days of inhaled tobramycin use in the previous 12 months.||-5.14|-13.86|<0.0001
90824761|NCT00757237|181525950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.47||||0.0002||||||Secondary endpoints were tested sequentially to control the Type I error rate based on the closed testing procedure. Given the significance of the coprimary endpoints and previous secondary endpoint, this endpoint was also tested at the 0.05 level.|MMRM analysis|MMRM analysis included treatment, Day 0 FEV1 percent predicted, visit, treatment, and treatment/visit interaction for all participants.|Treatment difference refers to TIS-AZLI|Null hypothesis: there was no difference between AZLI and TIS treatment groups in the mean actual change of FEV1 percent predicted across 3 treatment courses in the stratum of subjects having \>=84 days of inhaled tobramycin use in the previous 12 months.||||0.0002
90824762|NCT00757237|181525951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|||||Secondary endpoints were tested sequentially to control the Type I error rate based on the closed testing procedure. Given the significance of the coprimary endpoints and previous secondary endpoint, this endpoint was also tested at the 0.05 level.|Log Rank|||Null hypothesis: there was no difference between AZLI and TIS treatment groups with respect to time to need for IV antipseudomonal antibiotics for respiratory events.||||0.0025
90824763|NCT00757237|181525952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1114||||||Secondary endpoints were tested sequentially to control the Type I error rate based on the closed testing procedure. Given the significance of the coprimary endpoints and previous secondary endpoint, this endpoint was also tested at the 0.05 level.|Log Rank|||Null hypothesis: there was no difference between AZLI and TIS treatment groups with respect to time to first respiratory hospitalization.||||0.1114
90824764|NCT00757237|181525953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.61||||0.0048||0.0||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included treatment, Day 0 FEV1 percent predicted, Day 0 CFQ-R RSS score, and previous inhaled tobramycin use.|Treatment difference refers to TIS-AZLI.|Null hypothesis: there was no difference between AZLI and TIS treatment groups in change from baseline in CFQ-R RSS scores at Day 28.||||0.0048
90824765|NCT00757237|181525954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.13||||0.0189||0.0||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included treatment, Day 0 FEV1 percent predicted, Day 0 CFQ-R RSS score, and previous inhaled tobramycin use.|Treatment difference refers to TIS-AZLI.|Null hypothesis: there was no difference between AZLI and TIS treatment groups in the average actual change in respiratory symptoms at the end of each treatment course (Weeks 4, 12, and 20).||||0.0189
90824766|NCT00757237|181525955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.12||||0.0097||0.0||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included treatment, Day 0 FEV1 percent predicted, and previous inhaled tobramycin use.|Treatment difference refers to TIS-AZLI.|Null hypothesis: there was no difference between AZLI and TIS treatment groups in the global satisfaction results of the TSQM at Week 20 (Day 140).||||0.0097
90824767|NCT00757237|181525956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.044||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|negative binomial regression method|||Null hypothesis: there was no difference between AZLI and TIS treatment groups in the total number of respiratory hospitalizations from Day 0 to Day 168 (end of study).||||0.044
90824768|NCT00757237|181525957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||0.0||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|negative binomial regression method|||Null hypothesis: there was no difference between AZLI and TIS treatment groups in the total number of respiratory events requiring IV and/or inhaled antipseudomonal antibiotics (other than randomized treatment) from Day 0 to Day 168 (end of study).||||0.004
90824769|NCT00757237|181525958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|||Null hypothesis: there was no difference between AZLI and TIS treatment groups with respect to time to need for inhaled and/or IV antipseudomonal antibiotics for respiratory events.||||0.0004
90824770|NCT01843023|181525988|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.558|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
90824771|NCT01843023|181525990|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.722|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
90824772|NCT01514201|181526000|OTHER|This was descriptive in nature. Two of the first 5 patients who were escalated to 175 mg/m2 of temozolomide during the maintenance intra-patient dose escalation had dose-modifying toxicities (DMTs). Since the ad hoc stopping rule was met, intra-patient dose escalation was halted and all subsequent patients were to receive 135 mg/m2 of temozolomide during maintenance.|Percentage of patients with DMTs|40.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Intra-patient dose escalation of temozolomide during maintenance was assessed based on similar rules employed in traditional 3+3 designs. For example intra-patient dose escalation would be halted if at any time 2 out of first 2-6 patients experienced dose-modifying toxicities at a given dose level or if 4 out of first 12 patients experienced dose-modifying toxicities at a given dose level.||||
91063202|NCT02222922|182011099|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|84.97||||0.4264|TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.05|120.22|||ANOVA|||Test: PF-06647020 1.4 mg/kg + Fluconazole(Q3W-DDI) group; Reference: PF-06647020 2.8 mg/kg (Q3W-DDI) group.||120.22|60.05|0.4264
91063203|NCT02222922|182011100|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|88.32||||0.5123|TWO_SIDED|90.0|64.03|121.82|||ANOVA|||Test: PF-06647020 1.4 mg/kg + Fluconazole(Q3W-DDI) group; Reference: PF-06647020 2.8 mg/kg (Q3W-DDI) group.||121.82|64.03|0.5123
91063204|NCT02222922|182011101|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|91.15||||0.824|TWO_SIDED|90.0|44.79|185.5|||ANOVA|||Test: PF-06647020 1.4 mg/kg + Fluconazole(Q3W-DDI) group; Reference: PF-06647020 2.8 mg/kg (Q3W-DDI) group.||185.50|44.79|0.8240
91063205|NCT02222922|182011102|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|89.58||||0.7922|TWO_SIDED|90.0|43.94|182.62|||ANOVA|||Test: PF-06647020 1.4 mg/kg + Fluconazole(Q3W-DDI) group; Reference: PF-06647020 2.8 mg/kg (Q3W-DDI) group.||182.62|43.94|0.7922
91063206|NCT02222922|182011103|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|91.17||||0.824|TWO_SIDED|90.0|44.87|185.25|||ANOVA|||Test: PF-06647020 1.4 mg/kg + Fluconazole(Q3W-DDI) group; Reference: PF-06647020 2.8 mg/kg (Q3W-DDI) group.||185.25|44.87|0.8240
91063207|NCT02222922|182011104|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|102.31||||0.9553|TWO_SIDED|90.0|51.08|204.9|||ANOVA|||Test: PF-06647020 1.4 mg/kg + Fluconazole(Q3W-DDI) group; Reference: PF-06647020 2.8 mg/kg (Q3W-DDI) group.||204.90|51.08|0.9553
91063208|NCT02222922|182011105|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|81.14||||0.2951|TWO_SIDED|90.0|57.99|113.54|||ANOVA|||Test: PF-06647020 1.4 mg/kg + Fluconazole(Q3W-DDI) group; Reference: PF-06647020 2.8 mg/kg (Q3W-DDI) group.||113.54|57.99|0.2951
90824773|NCT00566852|181526020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.059||||||Significance level was 0.025.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: patients on memantine will experience less decline than patients receiving placebo. Based on a one-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test with alpha=0.025, 221 patients per arm would be required to have 80% statistical power to detect a mean difference of 0.87 in the HVLT-R change scores between the two treatment arms. Assuming that 20% of patients may be ineligible, or die prior to the 24 week assessment, the target sample size for randomization was set to 536.||||0.059
91063209|NCT02222922|182011106|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|84.02||||0.3769|TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.24|117.19|||ANOVA|||Test: PF-06647020 1.4 mg/kg + Fluconazole(Q3W-DDI) group; Reference: PF-06647020 2.8 mg/kg (Q3W-DDI) group.||117.19|60.24|0.3769
91063210|NCT02222922|182011107|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|86.15||||0.4385|TWO_SIDED|90.0|62.2|119.32|||ANOVA|||Test: PF-06647020 1.4 mg/kg + Fluconazole(Q3W-DDI) group; Reference: PF-06647020 2.8 mg/kg (Q3W-DDI) group.||119.32|62.20|0.4385
90824774|NCT00566852|181526021|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0692||||||One-sided significance level of 0.025|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||8 weeks||||0.0692
90824775|NCT00566852|181526021|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4541||||||One-sided significance level of 0.025|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||16 weeks||||0.4541
90824776|NCT00566852|181526021|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.397||||||One-sided significance level of 0.025|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||52 weeks||||0.3970
91063211|NCT02222922|182011108|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|88.75||||0.5678|TWO_SIDED|90.0|62.24|126.56|||ANOVA|||Test: PF-06647020 1.4 mg/kg + Fluconazole(Q3W-DDI) group; Reference: PF-06647020 2.8 mg/kg (Q3W-DDI) group.||126.56|62.24|0.5678
91063212|NCT02568072|182011154|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.44
91063213|NCT02568072|182011155|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.71
91063214|NCT02568072|182011156|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.37
91063215|NCT02714218|182011165|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59||||0.0144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Two-sided p-value CMH Test for comparison of odds ratio of NIVO 3 + IPI 1 over NIVO 1 + IPI 3||||0.90|0.38|0.0144
91063216|NCT02714218|182011165|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Difference of rates|-12.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.7|-2.6|||||Estimate of NIVO 3 + IPI 1- NIVO 1 + IPI 3 is based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method of weighting, adjusting for PD-L1 expression and M stage at screening as entered into the IVRS|||-2.6|-22.7|
91063217|NCT02714218|182011166|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.55||||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.84|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Two-sided p-value CMH Test for comparison of odds ratio of NIVO 3 + IPI 1 over NIVO 1 + IPI 3||||0.84|0.36|0.0059
91063218|NCT02714218|182011166|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Difference of rates|-14.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.5|-4.3|||||Estimate of NIVO 3 + IPI 1- NIVO 1 + IPI 3 is based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method of weighting, adjusting for PD-L1 expression and M stage at screening as entered into the IVRS|||-4.3|-24.5|
91063219|NCT02714218|182011167|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.2923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.21|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||p-value from CMH Test for the comparison of the odds ratio of N3I1 over N1I3|||1.21|0.53|0.2923
91063220|NCT02714218|182011168|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.47|||||Hazard Ratio is N3I1 over N1I3. (NIVO 3 + IPI 1 (N3I1) over NIVO 1 + IPI 3 (N1I3))|||1.47|0.79|
91063221|NCT02714218|182011169|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.4512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.48|||Log Rank|||||1.48|0.84|0.4512
91063222|NCT01113892|182011187|NON_INFERIORITY|"The non-inferiority margin was 15%. The following null hypothesis (H0) and alternative hypothesis (HA) were tested, with the primary patency rate at 6 months for FUSION Bioline (PF), and the primary patency rate at 6 months for EXXCEL (PE).~H0: PF - PE \< - 0.15; HA: PF - PE \> - 0.15 An exact 1-sided test was used for the observed difference of patency rates between the FUSION Bioline (test) and EXXCEL (control) products."|Mean Difference (Net)|16.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|29.9||The threshold for significance was p = .05|Exact 1-sided test||Difference = Patency (Fusion Bioline) - Patency (EXXCEL)|It was calculated that 200 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion would have at least 80% power to detect a difference of 15% in the number of participants with primary patency between FUSION Bioline and EXXCEL groups at 6 months. It was assumed that the ratio of Above-Knee to Below-Knee procedures was 60:40; based on this, the primary patency rate for the combined Above-Knee and Below-Knee patients was 79%. Assumptions included a 10% withdrawal rate prior to the 6-month evaluation.||29.9|2.7|<.0001
90824777|NCT00566852|181526022|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.99|||Gray's test|||A one-sided log-rank test with alpha 0.025 accruing 221 patients/arm with 12 months of follow-up would ensure 98% statistical power to detect a 33% relative reduction in the monthly hazard rate with the use of memantine. Gray's test was used to test for a statistically significant difference in the distribution of neurocognitive failure times and Cox proportional hazards regression model was used to determine hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals for the treatment difference.||0.99|0.62|0.01
90824778|NCT00566852|181526023|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Assuming normally distributions, the two sample t-test assuming equal variances would be used to compare the arms at the 0.025 significance level. If normality assumptions were not met, the Wilcoxon rank sum would be used.||||0.77
90824779|NCT00566852|181526024|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.3|||Log Rank|||The stratified log-rank test was used to test for a statistically significant difference in survival distributions with a one-sided alpha of 0.025 . In addition, the Cox proportional hazards regression model was used to determine hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals for the treatment difference.||1.3|0.87|0.27
90824780|NCT00566852|181526025|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.31|||Log Rank|||The stratified log-rank test was used to test for a statistically significant difference in survival distributions with a one-sided alpha of 0.025 . In addition, the Cox proportional hazards regression model was used to determine hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals for the treatment difference.||1.31|0.86|0.025
90824781|NCT00286429|181526054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.3||A step-down strategy was used for the primary analysis. First, the 25mg dose was compared to placebo at the 2-sided 0.05 significance level. The 12.5 mg dose was compared to placebo only if the comparison of the 25mg dose to placebo was significant.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and HbA1c).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in HbA1c at Week 26. For comparison of either alogliptin dose vs. placebo (2-sample t test), study sample size \>=390 participants had 95% power to detect a treatment difference as small as 0.4% in the per protocol analysis set assuming a standard deviation of 0.8%, a 2-sided test at 0.05 significance level and \>=80% of subjects meeting the per protocol criteria.||-0.30|-0.72|<0.001
90824782|NCT00286429|181526054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.37||A step-down strategy was used for the primary analysis. First, the 25mg dose was compared to placebo at the 2-sided 0.05 significance level. The 12.5 mg dose was compared to placebo only if the comparison of the 25mg dose to placebo was significant.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and HbA1c).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in HbA1c at Week 26. For comparison of either alogliptin dose vs. placebo (2-sample t test), study sample size \>=390 participants had 95% power to detect a treatment difference as small as 0.4% in the per protocol analysis set assuming a standard deviation of 0.8%, a 2-sided test at 0.05 significance level and \>=80% of subjects meeting the per protocol criteria.||-0.37|-0.80|<0.001
90824783|NCT00286429|181526055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|-0.09||No multiplicity adjustments|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and HbA1c).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in HbA1c at Week 4. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||-0.09|-0.34|<0.001
90824784|NCT00286429|181526055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.2||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and HbA1c).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in HbA1c at Week 4. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||-0.20|-0.45|<0.001
90824785|NCT00286429|181526056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.31||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and HbA1c).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in HbA1c at Week 8. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||-0.31|-0.65|<0.001
91063223|NCT01113892|182011188|EQUIVALENCE|Fisher's Exact test was used to evaluate whether subjects with any MALE event or POD were homogeneous across the treatment arms.||||||0.033|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||The number and percentage of subjects with a MALE or POD event were summarized by treatment group.||||.033
91063224|NCT01113892|182011189|OTHER|||||||0.017|||||||Chi-squared|Proportion of subjects who achieved primary assisted patency for both treatment groups were compared using a Chi-Square test||||||.017
91063225|NCT01113892|182011190|OTHER|||||||0.137|||||||Chi-squared|Proportion of subjects who achieve secondary patency for both treatment groups will be compared using a Chi-Square test||||||.137
91063226|NCT01113892|182011191|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference between groups were compared with the Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test||||<.0001
91063227|NCT01113892|182011193|NON_INFERIORITY|"Repeated 6 month analyses for 12 month results.The non-inferiority margin was 15%. The following null hypothesis (H0) and alternative hypothesis (HA) were tested, with the primary patency rate for FUSION Bioline (PF), and the primary patency rate for EXXCEL (PE).~H0: PF - PE \< - 0.15; HA: PF - PE \> - 0.15 An exact 1-sided test was used for the observed difference of patency rates between the FUSION Bioline (test) and EXXCEL (control) products, with a p-value ≤ .05 indicating significance."|Mean Difference (Net)|9.5||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|23.0|||Exact 1-sided test|||||23.0|-4.8|.0001
91063228|NCT01113892|182011195|OTHER|||||||0.181|||||||Chi-squared|Proportion of subjects who achieve primary assisted patency for both treatment groups will be compared using a Chi-Square test||||||.181
90824786|NCT00286429|181526056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.39||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and HbA1c).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in HbA1c at Week 8. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||-0.39|-0.73|<0.001
90824787|NCT00286429|181526057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.37||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and HbA1c).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in HbA1c at Week 12. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||-0.37|-0.77|<0.001
90824788|NCT00286429|181526057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.34||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and HbA1c).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in HbA1c at Week 12. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||-0.34|-0.75|<0.001
90824789|NCT00286429|181526058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.37||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and HbA1c).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in HbA1c at Week 16. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||-0.37|-0.79|<0.001
90824790|NCT00286429|181526058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.33||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and HbA1c).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in HbA1c at Week 16. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||-0.33|-0.75|<0.001
90824791|NCT00286429|181526059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.37||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and HbA1c).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in HbA1c at Week 20. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||-0.37|-0.80|<0.001
90824792|NCT00286429|181526059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.35||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and HbA1c).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in HbA1c at Week 20. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||-0.35|-0.79|<0.001
90824793|NCT00286429|181526060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.3||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.9|3.3||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and FPG).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in FPG at Week 1. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||3.3|-25.9|0.128
91063229|NCT01113892|182011197|OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||Chi-squared|Proportion of subjects who achieve secondary patency for both treatment groups will be compared using a Chi Square test||||||.68
90824794|NCT00286429|181526060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.1||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.1|-1.2||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and FPG).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in FPG at Week 1. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||-1.2|-31.1|0.034
90824795|NCT00286429|181526061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.1||||0.563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.9|9.7||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and FPG).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in FPG at Week 2. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||9.7|-17.9|0.563
90824796|NCT00286429|181526061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.4||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.4|1.7||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and FPG).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in FPG at Week 2. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||1.7|-26.4|0.084
90824797|NCT00286429|181526062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.3||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.7|4.1||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and FPG).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in FPG at Week 4. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||4.1|-24.7|0.160
90824798|NCT00286429|181526062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.4||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.1|-2.8||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and FPG).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in FPG at Week 4. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||-2.8|-32.1|0.020
90824799|NCT00286429|181526063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.9||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.7|-4.0||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and FPG).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in FPG at Week 8. The treatment effect was be evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||-4.0|-33.7|0.013
90824800|NCT00286429|181526063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.5||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.5|-4.5||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and FPG).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in FPG at Week 8. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||-4.5|-34.5|0.011
90824801|NCT00286429|181526064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.8||||0.624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9|11.3||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and FPG).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in FPG at Week 12. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||11.3|-18.9|0.624
90824802|NCT00286429|181526064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0.853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.7|13.8||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and FPG).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in FPG at Week 12. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||13.8|-16.7|0.853
91077841|NCT02913105|182041135|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.03||||0.8074|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|1.25|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||HA: Day 84||1.25|0.85|0.8074
91077842|NCT02913105|182041135|OTHER|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.98||||0.6935|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.08|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||PIIINP: Day 42||1.08|0.88|0.6935
90824803|NCT00286429|181526065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.9||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.7|4.9||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and FPG).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in FPG at Week 16. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||4.9|-24.7|0.190
90824804|NCT00286429|181526065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.9||||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.8|4.1||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and FPG).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in FPG at Week 16. The treatment effect was be evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||4.1|-25.8|0.154
90824805|NCT00286429|181526066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.7||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.8|2.3||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and FPG).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in FPG at Week 20. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||2.3|-27.8|0.097
90824806|NCT00286429|181526066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.9||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.1|-4.7||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and FPG).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in FPG at Week 20. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||-4.7|-35.1|0.010
90824807|NCT00286429|181526067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.5||||0.662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.2|12.2||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and FPG).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in FPG at Week 26. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||12.2|-19.2|0.662
90824808|NCT00286429|181526067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.6||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.4|-1.7||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and FPG).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in FPG at Week 26. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||-1.7|-33.4|0.030
90824809|NCT00286429|181526068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.551||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.286|1.063||No multiplicity adjustments.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline metformin regimen, baseline insulin dose, and baseline HbA1c.|Odds Ratio (OR) is alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|The null hypothesis that there is no treatment effect between alogliptin and placebo arms in number of participants with marked hyperglycemia. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a Wald test at the 0.05 significance level.||1.063|0.286|0.075
90824810|NCT00286429|181526068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.364||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.191|0.695||No multiplicity adjustments.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline metformin regimen, baseline insulin dose, and baseline HbA1c.|Odds Ratio (OR) is alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|The null hypothesis that there is no treatment effect between alogliptin and placebo arms in number of participants with marked hyperglycemia. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a Wald test at the 0.05 significance level.||0.695|0.191|0.002
90824811|NCT00286429|181526069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.198|0.619||No multiplicity adjustments.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline metformin regimen, baseline insulin dose, and baseline HbA1c.|Odds Ratio (OR) is alogliptin arm versus placebo arm. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|The null hypothesis that there is no treatment effect between alogliptin and placebo arms in number of participants requiring rescue. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a Wald test at the 0.05 significance level.||0.619|0.198|<0.001
91063230|NCT00789854|182011202|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The non-inferiority margin for differences was set to 3 units in the MADRS total score.~A power set to 80% and using a Bonferroni-adjusted one-sided alpha\* = alpha/3 = 0.0083 yields a planned sample size of 192 patients per study group. With a drop out of 4% a total of 600 randomized patients were required to obtain 192 efficacy evaluable patients per treatment group."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.322||||||97.5|-4.6|-0.05||The CI is for comparing add-on quetiapine versus add-on Lithium. The CI = confidence interval was adjusted for multiple comparisons. The -0.05 value should have been +3 or above to fail to reject the null hypothesis.|ANCOVA|Non-inferiority between add-on quetiapine XR and add-on lithium was shown in the Per Protocol analysis set.||Add-on quetiapine XR was tested versus add-on lithium for non-inferiority. The null hypothesis was that the add-on quetiapine treatment was non-inferior to add-on lithium.||-0.05|-4.6|
91063231|NCT00789854|182011202|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The non-inferiority margin for differences was set to 3 units in the MADRS total score.~A power set to 80% and using a Bonferroni-adjusted one-sided alpha\* = alpha/3 = 0.0083 yields a planned sample size of 192 patients per study group. With a drop out of 4% a total of 600 randomized patients were required to obtain 192 efficacy evaluable patients per treatment group."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.639||||||97.5|-3.24|1.312||The CI is for comparing quetiapine XR mono versus add-on Lithium. The CI = confidence interval was adjusted for multiple comparisons. The 1.312 value should have been +3 or above to fail to reject the null hypothesis.|ANCOVA|Non-inferiority between quetiapine XR mono and add-on lithium was shown in the Per Protocol analysis set.||Quetiapine XR mono was tested versus add-on lithium for non-inferiority. The null hypothesis was that the quetiapine XR mono treatment was non-inferior to add-on lithium.||1.312|-3.24|
90824812|NCT00286429|181526069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.339|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.189|0.608||No multiplicity adjustments.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline metformin regimen, baseline insulin dose, and baseline HbA1c.|Odds Ratio (OR) is alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|The null hypothesis that there is no treatment effect between alogliptin and placebo arms in number of participants requiring rescue. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a Wald test at the 0.05 significance level.||0.608|0.189|<0.001
90824813|NCT00286429|181526070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.156||||0.286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.131|0.443||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and C-peptide).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in C-Peptide at Week 4. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||0.443|-0.131|0.286
90824814|NCT00286429|181526070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.477||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.188|0.765||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and C-peptide).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in C-peptide at Week 4. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||0.765|0.188|0.001
90824815|NCT00286429|181526071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.202||||0.236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.132|0.536||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and C-peptide).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in C-Peptide at Week 8. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||0.536|-0.132|0.236
90824816|NCT00286429|181526071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.372||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.032|0.712||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and C-peptide).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in C-Peptide at Week 8. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||0.712|0.032|0.032
90824817|NCT00286429|181526072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.126||||0.562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.302|0.554||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and C-peptide).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in C-peptide at Week 12. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||0.554|-0.302|0.562
90824818|NCT00286429|181526072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.183||||0.407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.251|0.616||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and C-peptide).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in C-peptide at Week 12. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||0.616|-0.251|0.407
91063232|NCT00789854|182011203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0489||95.0||||Adjustment for multiplicity was done, alpha = 0.025|ANCOVA|Superiority testing of primary outcome showed no significant difference in the Modified Intention To Treat (ITT) population||The null hypothesis was that the add-on quetiapine XR treatment was not different to the add-on lithium treatment. The power calculation was done for the primary non-inferior analysis. This superiority analysis was only done if the non-inferior analysis was successful.||||0.0489
91063233|NCT00789854|182011203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4368||95.0||||Adjustment for multiplicity was done, alpha = 0.025|ANCOVA|Superiority testing of primary outcome showed no significant difference in the Modified Intention To Treat (ITT) population||The null hypothesis was that the quetiapine XR mono treatment was not different from the add-on lithium treatment. The power calculation was done for the primary non-inferior analysis. This superiority analysis was only done if the non-inferior analysis was successful.||||0.4368
91063234|NCT02756611|182011277|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Binomial test|||The null hypothesis stated that the CR rate for BCRi-naïve participants would be ≤ 6%, based on the CR rate reported for current therapies at the time the study was designed, with an alternative hypothesis that the CR rate would be \> 6%. If the p-value for this test was \< 0.025, the null hypothesis would be rejected.||||<0.001
91063235|NCT02756611|182011288|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Binomial test|||The null hypothesis stated that the CR rate for BCRi-naïve participants would be ≤ 6%, based on the CR rate reported for current therapies at the time the study was designed, with an alternative hypothesis that the CR rate would be \> 6%. If the p-value for this test was \< 0.025, the null hypothesis would be rejected.||||<0.001
91063236|NCT04782076|182011338|OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.33|1.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Mean (LS Mean)||||1.55|1.33|
91063237|NCT04782076|182011339|OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.3|1.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.46|1.30|
91063238|NCT02189837|182011348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|88.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|36.67||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.73|161.8|||ANCOVA|Model includes terms for the 2 factors in the factorial design (placebo or evolocumab and oral placebo or statin), their interaction, and LDL-C level.||The superiority of evolocumab monotherapy to placebo was tested using a 2-sided p-value at a significance level of 0.05.||161.80|15.73|0.018
91063239|NCT02189837|182011348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|236.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|36.32|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|164.02|308.69|||ANCOVA|Model includes terms for the 2 factors in the factorial design (placebo or evolocumab and oral placebo or statin), their interaction, and LDL-C level.||The treatment effect of evolocumab plus atorvastatin compared with placebo plus atorvastatin was estimated and a nominal p-value is provided.||308.69|164.02|<0.001
91063240|NCT02189837|182011348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Effect|147.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|51.61||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.8|250.38|||ANCOVA|Model includes terms for the 2 factors in the factorial design (placebo or evolocumab and oral placebo or statin), their interaction, and LDL-C level.||To assess whether the treatment effect of evolocumab compared with placebo depended on being administered alone or combined with atorvastatin, the interaction was tested, i.e., the difference between the treatment difference versus the respective placebo group for the evolocumab+atorvastatin group and the evolocumab group was calculated.||250.38|44.80|0.005
91063241|NCT02189837|182011349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-57.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.4|<|0.001||95.0|-65.91|-48.38|||ANCOVA|Model includes terms for the 2 factors in the factorial design (placebo or evolocumab and oral placebo or statin), their interaction, and LDL-C level.||||-48.38|-65.91|<0.001
91063242|NCT02189837|182011349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-37.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.31|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.55|-29.34|||ANCOVA|Model includes terms for the 2 factors in the factorial design (placebo or evolocumab and oral placebo or statin), their interaction, and LDL-C level.||||-29.34|-46.55|<0.001
91063243|NCT02189837|182011349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Effect|19.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.15||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.93|31.47|||ANCOVA|Model includes terms for the 2 factors in the factorial design (placebo or evolocumab and oral placebo or statin), their interaction, and LDL-C level.||||31.47|6.93|0.003
91063244|NCT02189837|182011350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-16.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.41||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.37|4.08|||ANCOVA|Model includes terms for the 2 factors in the factorial design (placebo or evolocumab and oral placebo or statin), their interaction, and LDL-C level.||||4.08|-37.37|0.11
91063245|NCT02189837|182011350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-32.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.31||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.19|-12.13|||ANCOVA|Model includes terms for the 2 factors in the factorial design (placebo or evolocumab and oral placebo or statin), their interaction, and LDL-C level.||||-12.13|-53.19|0.002
91063246|NCT02189837|182011350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Effect|-16.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.65||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.18|13.16|||ANCOVA|Model includes terms for the 2 factors in the factorial design (placebo or evolocumab and oral placebo or statin), their interaction, and LDL-C level.||||13.16|-45.18|0.28
91063247|NCT02189837|182011351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-2.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.4||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.94|24.7|||ANCOVA|Model includes terms for the 2 factors in the factorial design (placebo or evolocumab and oral placebo or statin), their interaction, and LDL-C level.||The superiority of evolocumab monotherapy to placebo was tested using a 2-sided p-value at a significance level of 0.05.||24.70|-28.94|0.87
91063248|NCT02189837|182011351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|39.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.76||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.52|64.59|||ANCOVA|Model includes terms for the 2 factors in the factorial design (placebo or evolocumab and oral placebo or statin), their interaction, and LDL-C level.||The treatment effect of evolocumab plus atorvastatin compared with placebo plus atorvastatin was estimated and a nominal p-value is provided.||64.59|13.52|0.003
91063249|NCT02189837|182011351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Effect|41.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.5||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.15|78.2|||ANCOVA|Model includes terms for the 2 factors in the factorial design (placebo or evolocumab and oral placebo or statin), their interaction, and LDL-C level.||To assess whether the treatment effect of evolocumab compared with placebo depended on being administered alone or combined with atorvastatin, the interaction was tested, i.e., the difference between the treatment difference versus the respective placebo group for the evolocumab+atorvastatin group and the evolocumab group was calculated.||78.20|4.15|0.030
91063250|NCT02189837|182011352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-39.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.6||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.66|-16.21|||ANCOVA|Model includes terms for the 2 factors in the factorial design (placebo or evolocumab and oral placebo or statin), their interaction, and LDL-C level.||||-16.21|-62.66|0.001
91063251|NCT02189837|182011352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|23.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.05||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|45.4|||ANCOVA|Model includes terms for the 2 factors in the factorial design (placebo or evolocumab and oral placebo or statin), their interaction, and LDL-C level.||||45.40|1.16|0.039
91063252|NCT02189837|182011352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Effect|62.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.02|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.65|94.79|||ANCOVA|Model includes terms for the 2 factors in the factorial design (placebo or evolocumab and oral placebo or statin), their interaction, and LDL-C level.||||94.79|30.65|<0.001
91063253|NCT04052620|182011353|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority criteria: if the upper 95% Confidence Interval (CI) of Least Square (LS) mean difference was less than 13 mm then DDEA 2.32% gel BID was concluded as non-inferior.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.09||0.595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|5.22|||ANCOVA|||||5.22|-3.00|0.5950
91063254|NCT04052620|182011355|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.12||0.2536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.61|1.75|||ANCOVA||DDEA 2.32% gel vs DDEA 1.16% gel, Day 3|||1.75|-6.61|0.2536
91063255|NCT04052620|182011355|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.76||0.6643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.23|2.7|||ANCOVA||DDEA 2.32% gel vs DDEA 1.16% gel, Day 8|||2.70|-4.23|0.6643
91063256|NCT04052620|182011356|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.19||0.3118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|3.54|||ANCOVA||DDEA 2.32% gel vs DDEA 1.16% gel, Day 3|||3.54|-1.13|0.3118
91063257|NCT04052620|182011356|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.35||0.4937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|1.74|||ANCOVA||DDEA 2.32% gel vs DDEA 1.16% gel, Day 5|||1.74|-3.60|0.4937
91063258|NCT04052620|182011356|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.67||0.3825|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|4.74|||ANCOVA||DDEA 2.32% gel vs DDEA 1.16% gel, Day 8|||4.74|-1.83|0.3825
91063259|NCT04052620|182011357|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26||0.836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|2.75|||ANCOVA||DDEA 2.32% gel vs DDEA 1.16% gel, Day 3|||2.75|-2.23|0.8360
91063260|NCT04052620|182011357|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.24||0.3119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.69|1.18|||ANCOVA||DDEA 2.32% gel vs DDEA 1.16% gel, Day 5|||1.18|-3.69|0.3119
90824819|NCT00286429|181526073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.078||||0.716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.344|0.5||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and C-peptide).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in C-peptide at Week 16. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||0.500|-0.344|0.716
91063261|NCT04052620|182011357|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45||0.2535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|4.52|||ANCOVA||DDEA 2.32% gel vs DDEA 1.16% gel, Day 8|||4.52|-1.20|0.2535
91063262|NCT04052620|182011358|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.51||0.6242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|3.71|||ANCOVA||DDEA 2.32% gel vs DDEA 1.16% gel, Day 3|||3.71|-2.23|0.6242
91063263|NCT04052620|182011358|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.06||0.8905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.33|3.77|||ANCOVA||DDEA 2.32% gel vs DDEA 1.16% gel, Day 5|||3.77|-4.33|0.8905
91063264|NCT04052620|182011358|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.24||0.3439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|6.54|||ANCOVA||DDEA 2.32% gel vs DDEA 1.16% gel, Day 8|||6.54|-2.29|0.3439
91063265|NCT04052620|182011359|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.1554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.07|||ANCOVA||DDEA 2.32% gel vs DDEA 1.16% gel, Day 3|||0.07|-0.44|0.1554
91063266|NCT04052620|182011359|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.12|||ANCOVA||DDEA 2.32% gel vs DDEA 1.16% gel, Day 5|||-0.12|-0.66|0.0047
91063267|NCT04052620|182011359|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.1|||ANCOVA||DDEA 2.32% gel vs DDEA 1.16% gel, Day 8|||-0.10|-0.66|0.0082
91063268|NCT04052620|182011360|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.2182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.07|||ANCOVA||DDEA 2.32% gel vs DDEA 1.16% gel, Day 3|||0.07|-0.30|0.2182
91063269|NCT04052620|182011360|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.01|||ANCOVA||DDEA 2.32% gel vs DDEA 1.16% gel, Day 5|||0.01|-0.36|0.0574
91063270|NCT04052620|182011360|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.0194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.03|||ANCOVA||DDEA 2.32% gel vs DDEA 1.16% gel, Day 8|||-0.03|-0.37|0.0194
91063271|NCT04052620|182011361|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.821||0.6545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|1.986|||ANCOVA||DDEA 2.32% gel vs DDEA 1.16% gel, Day 1|||1.986|-1.250|0.6545
91063272|NCT04052620|182011361|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.721||0.4924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.915|0.924|||ANCOVA||DDEA 2.32% gel vs DDEA 1.16% gel, Day 5|||0.924|-1.915|0.4924
91063273|NCT04052620|182011362|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.823||0.9491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.675|1.57|||ANCOVA||DDEA 2.32% gel vs DDEA 1.16% gel, Day 1|||1.570|-1.675|0.9491
91063274|NCT04052620|182011362|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.451||0.582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.059|3.659|||ANCOVA||DDEA 2.32% gel vs DDEA 1.16% gel, Day 5|||3.659|-2.059|0.5820
91077843|NCT02913105|182041135|OTHER|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.99||||0.9145|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.09|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||PIIINP: Day 84||1.09|0.90|0.9145
91063275|NCT00550459|182011382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.23|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.55||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.5||Secondary endpoints were ordered in 5 tiers to be analyzed only when \>=1 of the endpoints in the prior tier were significant. Since primary endpoint not stat significant, analyses of secondary endpoint tiers presented for exploratory purposes only|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors of treatment, disease severity, age(6 Degrees of Freedom), and covariate baseline to fit primary endpoint using the ITT dataset.||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with factors of treatment,disease severity (\<130mEq/L \[mmol/L\] or ≥130mEq/L \[mmol/L\] at baseline),age (\<65, ≥65 to \<75,and ≥75 years) (factor with 6 Degrees of Freedom), and covariate baseline used to fit primary endpoint using the intent-to-treat (ITT) dataset. Estimated treatment effect and its 95% confidence interval (CI) provided under the model with p-value. A 2-sided alpha (0.05) applied to the primary analysis. Primary analysis based on observed cases (OC).||0.50|-0.03|0.08
91063276|NCT00550459|182011383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.63||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.51||ANCOVA with factors of treatment, disease severity, age, and severity by age interaction, and baseline as covariate. The estimated treatment and its 95% CI were provided under the model along with the p-value.|ANCOVA|||Per-protocol, secondary endpoints were ordered in 5 tiers and were to be analyzed only when at least 1 of the endpoints in the previous tier was significant. As the primary endpoint was not statistically significant, the analyses of subsequent secondary endpoint tiers are presented for exploratory purposes only.||0.51|-0.12|0.21
91063277|NCT00550459|182011384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.27|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.41||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.51||ANCOVA with factors of treatment, disease severity, age, and severity by age interaction, and baseline as covariate. The estimated treatment and its 95% CI were provided under the model along with the p-value.|ANCOVA|||Per-protocol, secondary endpoints were ordered in 5 tiers and were to be analyzed only when at least 1 of the endpoints in the previous tier was significant. As the primary endpoint was not statistically significant, the analyses of subsequent secondary endpoint tiers are presented for exploratory purposes only.||0.51|0.04|0.02
91063278|NCT00550459|182011385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.83||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.67||ANCOVA with factors of treatment, disease severity, age, and severity by age interaction, and baseline as covariate. The estimated treatment and its 95% CI were provided under the model along with the p-value.|ANCOVA|||Per-protocol, secondary endpoints were ordered in 5 tiers and were to be analyzed only when at least 1 of the endpoints in the previous tier was significant. As the primary endpoint was not statistically significant, the analyses of subsequent secondary endpoint tiers are presented for exploratory purposes only.||0.67|-0.15|0.21
91063279|NCT00550459|182011386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.39||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.3||ANCOVA with factors of treatment, disease severity, age, and severity by age interaction, and baseline as covariate. The estimated treatment and its 95% CI were provided under the model along with the p-value.|ANCOVA|||Per-protocol, secondary endpoints were ordered in 5 tiers and were to be analyzed only when at least 1 of the endpoints in the previous tier was significant. As the primary endpoint was not statistically significant, the analyses of subsequent secondary endpoint tiers are presented for exploratory purposes only.||0.30|-0.05|0.16
91063280|NCT00550459|182011387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.51|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.53||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.02|1.0||ANCOVA with factors of treatment, disease severity, age, and severity by age interaction, and baseline as covariate. The estimated treatment and its 95% CI were provided under the model along with the p-value.|ANCOVA|||Per-protocol, secondary endpoints were ordered in 5 tiers and were to be analyzed only when at least 1 of the endpoints in the previous tier was significant. As the primary endpoint was not statistically significant, the analyses of subsequent secondary endpoint tiers are presented for exploratory purposes only.||1.00|-4.02|0.23
91063281|NCT00550459|182011388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.83|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.51||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|0.38||ANCOVA with factors of treatment, disease severity, age, and severity by age interaction, and baseline as covariate. The estimated treatment and its 95% CI were provided under the model along with the p-value.|ANCOVA|||Per-protocol, secondary endpoints were ordered in 5 tiers and were to be analyzed only when at least 1 of the endpoints in the previous tier was significant. As the primary endpoint was not statistically significant, the analyses of subsequent secondary endpoint tiers are presented for exploratory purposes only.||0.38|-2.04|0.18
91063282|NCT00550459|182011389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.45|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.89|6.6||ANCOVA with factors of treatment, disease severity, age, and severity by age interaction, and baseline as covariate. The estimated treatment and its 95% CI were provided under the model along with the p-value.|ANCOVA|||Per-protocol, secondary endpoints were ordered in 5 tiers and were to be analyzed only when at least 1 of the endpoints in the previous tier was significant. As the primary endpoint was not statistically significant, the analyses of subsequent secondary endpoint tiers are presented for exploratory purposes only.||6.60|2.89|<0.0001
91063283|NCT01459783|182011436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.91||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.13|6.95||We adopted Bonferroni adjustment for multiple testing and used a significance level of .05/3 = 0.017 to interpret the results for our primary outcomes.|Regression, Linear|Multivariate analyses included non-response weights and controlled for study arm, stratification variables, baseline values, \& intervention duration.|The difference in differences at 12 months is reported as in-person arm minus phone arm values from a multivariable analysis. A positive adjusted difference means worse burden for the in-person arm compared to the phone arm.|Analyses were intention-to-treat. Due to attrition and those ineligible for 12-month follow-up due to study ending before that time, we created survey non-response weights for each wave. Prior to the study, a sample size of 125 participants per group was based on the two primary outcomes, with a Type I Error of 0.025 (Bonferroni adjustment), setting a 0.5-SD difference in outcomes as clinically important, 80% power, 0.45 SD difference in difference in outcomes between groups, and 25% attrition.||6.95|-5.13|0.76
91077844|NCT02913105|182041135|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.01||||0.9131|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.12|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||PIIINP: Day 42||1.12|0.91|0.9131
91063284|NCT01459783|182011437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|3.55||We used Bonferroni adjustment for multiple testing and a significance level of .05/3 = 0.017 to interpret the results for our primary outcomes. The behavior measure is analyzed two ways: total number of problems (reported here), and reaction score.|Regression, Linear|Multivariate analyses included non-response weights and controlled for study arm, stratification variables, baseline values, \& intervention duration.|The difference in differences at 12 months is reported as in-person arm minus phone arm values from a multivariable analysis. A positive adjusted difference means worse problems for the in-person arm compared to the phone arm.|Analyses were intention-to-treat. Due to attrition and those ineligible for 12-month follow-up due to study ending before that time, we created survey non-response weights for each wave. Prior to the study, a sample size of 125 participants per group was based on the two primary outcomes, with a Type I Error of 0.025 (Bonferroni adjustment), setting a 0.5-SD difference in outcomes as clinically important, 80% power, 0.45 SD difference in difference in outcomes between groups, and 25% attrition.||3.55|-1.74|0.49
91063285|NCT05620082|182011465|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.01
91063286|NCT05620082|182011466|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
91063287|NCT05620082|182011467|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.003
91063288|NCT05620082|182011468|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparing Appearance of supplements||||0.10
91063289|NCT05620082|182011468|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparing Smell of supplements between groups||||0.10
91063290|NCT05620082|182011468|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparing Taste of supplements||||0.08
91063291|NCT05620082|182011468|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparing Sweetness of supplements||||0.70
91063292|NCT05620082|182011468|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparing Texture of supplements||||0.02
91063293|NCT05620082|182011468|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparing Thickness of supplements||||0.45
91063294|NCT05620082|182011468|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparing Aftertaste of supplements||||0.25
91063295|NCT05620082|182011468|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparing 'Feeling in mouth' of supplements||||0.45
91063296|NCT05620082|182011468|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparing 'Future choice' of supplements||||0.06
91063297|NCT05620082|182011469|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||Pairwise comparisons with Bonferroni correction revealed a significant increase in total daily energy intake from baseline to porridge timepoints (p\<0.001).|Related samples Friedman's Two-Way ANOVA|||||||0.004
91063298|NCT04199104|182011478|SUPERIORITY||point estimate|19.3||||1.9e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.2|27.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||||27.3|11.2|0.0000019
91063299|NCT04199104|182011479|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.0001129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.83|||Regression, Cox|||||0.83|0.55|0.0001129
91063300|NCT04199104|182011480|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||0.8819584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.45|||Regression, Cox|||||1.45|0.91|0.8819584
91063301|NCT05201794|182011573|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|67.3|||=|0.1409|ONE_SIDED|80.0|15.2|||One-sided p-value|Exact logistic regression model|P-value was obtained from an exact logistic regression model adjusted for stratification factor region (America, Asia).|1-sided odds-ratio and 80% CI were obtained from exact logistic regression model adjusted for region (America, Asia).|The study was prematurely terminated before reaching the number of laboratory-confirmed DENV infections that were planned for the interim analysis. The 1-sided 20% significance level was described in the protocol as the significance level for proof-of-concept (PoC) when the planned interim analysis would have been performed.|||15.2|=0.1409
91063302|NCT05201794|182011573|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|67.2|||=|0.1418|ONE_SIDED|80.0|14.9|||One-sided p-value|Exact logistic regression model|P-value was obtained from an exact logistic regression model adjusted for stratification factor region (America, Asia).|1-sided odds-ratio and 80% CI were obtained from exact logistic regression model adjusted for region (America, Asia).|The study was prematurely terminated before reaching the number of laboratory-confirmed DENV infections that were planned for the interim analysis. The 1-sided 20% significance level was described in the protocol as the significance level for PoC when the planned interim analysis would have been performed.|||14.9|=0.1418
91063303|NCT05201794|182011574|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|87.8|||=|0.0192|ONE_SIDED|80.0|58.1|||One-sided p-value|Exact logistic regression model|P-value was obtained from an exact logistic regression model adjusted for stratification factor region (America, Asia).|1-sided odds-ratio and 80% CI were obtained from exact logistic regression model adjusted for region (America, Asia).|The study was prematurely terminated before reaching the number of laboratory-confirmed DENV infections that were planned for the interim analysis. The 1-sided 20% significance level was described in the protocol as the significance level for PoC when the planned interim analysis would have been performed.|||58.1|=0.0192
91063304|NCT05201794|182011574|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|62.9|||=|0.1131|ONE_SIDED|80.0|20.0|||One-sided p-value|Exact logistic regression model|P-value was obtained from an exact logistic regression model adjusted for stratification factor region (America, Asia).|1-sided odds-ratio and 80% CI were obtained from exact logistic regression model adjusted for region (America, Asia).|The study was prematurely terminated before reaching the number of laboratory-confirmed DENV infections that were planned for the interim analysis. The 1-sided 20% significance level was described in the protocol as the significance level for PoC when the planned interim analysis would have been performed.|||20|=0.1131
91063305|NCT05201794|182011575|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|85.4|||=|0.0302|ONE_SIDED|80.0|62.6|||One-sided p-value|Exact logistic regression model|P-value was obtained from an exact logistic regression model adjusted for stratification factor region (America, Asia).|1-sided odds-ratio and 80% CI were obtained from exact logistic regression model adjusted for region (America, Asia).|The study was prematurely terminated before reaching the number of laboratory-confirmed DENV infections that were planned for the interim analysis. The 1-sided 20% significance level was described in the protocol as the significance level for PoC when the planned interim analysis would have been performed.|||62.6|=0.0302
91078438|NCT00553358|182042816|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.223||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.58|||Regression, Cox||Cox models (Cox, 1972), with the stratification factors entered as strata variables, were used to calculate a hazard ratio and corresponding confidence interval comparing pCR and no pCR.|Subjects in the OS landmark analysis in the lapatinib + trastuzumab arm||0.58|0.07|0.002
91063306|NCT05201794|182011575|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|60.5|||=|0.2239|ONE_SIDED|80.0|-6.3|||One-sided p-value|Exact logistic regression model|P-value was obtained from an exact logistic regression model adjusted for stratification factor region (America, Asia).|1-sided odds-ratio and 80% CI were obtained from exact logistic regression model adjusted for region (America, Asia).|The study was prematurely terminated before reaching the number of laboratory-confirmed DENV infections that were planned for the interim analysis. The 1-sided 20% significance level was described in the protocol as the significance level for PoC when the planned interim analysis would have been performed.|||-6.3|=0.2239
90824820|NCT00286429|181526073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.156||||0.474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.272|0.583||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and C-peptide).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in C-peptide at Week 16. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||0.583|-0.272|0.474
90824821|NCT00286429|181526074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.079||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.324|0.482||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and C-peptide).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in C-peptide at Week 20. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||0.482|-0.324|0.700
90824822|NCT00286429|181526074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.042||||0.839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.366|0.45||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and C-peptide).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in C-peptide at Week 20. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||0.450|-0.366|0.839
90824823|NCT00286429|181526075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.282||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.045|0.61||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and C-peptide).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in C-peptide at Week 26. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||0.610|-0.045|0.091
90824824|NCT00286429|181526075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.125||||0.459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.207|0.457||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and C-peptide).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in C-peptide at Week 26. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||0.457|-0.207|0.459
90824825|NCT00286429|181526077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.65||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.589|100.682||No multiplicity adjustments.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline metformin regimen, baseline insulin dose, and baseline HbA1c.|Odds Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \>1.0 indicates higher incidence of response compared to placebo.|The null hypothesis that there is no treatment effect between alogliptin and placebo arms in incidence of HbA1c ≤7.0%. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a Wald test at the 0.05 significance level.||100.682|1.589|0.016
90824826|NCT00286429|181526077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.255||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.401|90.379||No multiplicity adjustments.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline metformin regimen, baseline insulin dose, and baseline HbA1c.|Odds Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \>1.0 indicates higher incidence of response compared to placebo.|The null hypothesis that there is no treatment effect between alogliptin and placebo arms in incidence of HbA1c ≤7.0%. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo was evaluated inferentially with a Wald test at the 0.05 significance level||90.379|1.401|0.023
90824827|NCT00286429|181526078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.777|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.047|16.305||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline metformin regimen, baseline insulin dose, and baseline HbA1c|Odds Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \>1.0 indicates higher incidence of response compared to placebo.|The null hypothesis that there is no treatment effect between alogliptin and placebo arms in incidence of HbA1c ≤7.5%. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a Wald test at the 0.05 significance level.||16.305|2.047|<0.001
90824828|NCT00286429|181526078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.784|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.54|27.039||No multiplicity adjustments.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline metformin regimen, baseline insulin dose, and baseline HbA1c|Odds Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \>1.0 indicates higher incidence of response compared to placebo.|The null hypothesis that there is no treatment effect between alogliptin and placebo arms in incidence of HbA1c ≤7.5%. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a Wald test at the 0.05 significance level.||27.039|3.540|<0.001
90824829|NCT00286429|181526079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.674|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.579|4.53||No multiplicity adjustments.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline metformin regimen, baseline insulin dose, and baseline HbA1c.|Odds Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \>1.0 indicates higher incidence of response compared to placebo.|The null hypothesis that there is no treatment effect between alogliptin and placebo arms in incidence of HbA1c decrease from baseline ≥0.5%. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a Wald test at the 0.05 significance level.||4.530|1.579|<0.001
90824830|NCT00286429|181526079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.819|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.653|4.808||No multiplicity adjustments.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline metformin regimen, baseline insulin dose, and baseline HbA1c.|Odds Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \>1.0 indicates higher incidence of response compared to placebo.|The null hypothesis that there is no treatment effect between alogliptin and placebo arms in incidence of HbA1c decrease from baseline ≥0.5%. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a Wald test at the 0.05 significance level.||4.808|1.653|<0.001
90824831|NCT00286429|181526080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.163|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.651|6.06||No multiplicity adjustments.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline metformin regimen, baseline insulin dose, and baseline HbA1c.|Odds Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \>1.0 indicates higher incidence of response compared to placebo.|The null hypothesis that there is no treatment effect between alogliptin and placebo arms in incidence of HbA1c decrease from baseline ≥1.0%. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a Wald test at the 0.05 significance level.||6.060|1.651|<0.001
90824832|NCT00286429|181526080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.989|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.083|7.64||No multiplicity adjustments.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline metformin regimen, baseline insulin dose, and baseline HbA1c.|Odds Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \>1.0 indicates higher incidence of response compared to placebo.|The null hypothesis that there is no treatment effect between alogliptin and placebo arms in incidence of HbA1c decrease from baseline ≥1.0%. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a Wald test at the 0.05 significance level.||7.640|2.083|<0.001
90824833|NCT00286429|181526081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.55||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.732|11.953||No multiplicity adjustments.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline metformin regimen, baseline insulin dose, and baseline HbA1c.|Odds Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \>1.0 indicates higher incidence of response compared to placebo.|The null hypothesis that there is no treatment effect between alogliptin and placebo arms in incidence of HbA1c decrease from baseline ≥1.5%. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a Wald test at the 0.05 significance level.||11.953|1.732|0.002
90824834|NCT00286429|181526081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.58||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.74|12.052||No multiplicity adjustments.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline metformin regimen, baseline insulin dose, and baseline HbA1c.|Odds Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \>1.0 indicates higher incidence of response compared to placebo.|The null hypothesis that there is no treatment effect between alogliptin and placebo arms in incidence of HbA1c decrease from baseline ≥1.5%. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a Wald test at the 0.05 significance level.||12.052|1.740|0.002
90824835|NCT00286429|181526083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28||||0.291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.24||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and weight).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in body weight at Week 8. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||0.24|-0.81|0.291
90824836|NCT00286429|181526083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21||||0.439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.32||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and weight).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in body weight at Week 8. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||0.32|-0.74|0.439
90824837|NCT00286429|181526084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.55||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and weight).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in body weight at Week 12. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||0.55|-0.67|0.841
90824838|NCT00286429|181526084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.43||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and weight).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in body weight at Week 12. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||0.43|-0.80|0.556
90824839|NCT00286429|181526085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.46||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and weight).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in body weight at Week 20. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||0.46|-0.81|0.586
90824840|NCT00286429|181526085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27||||0.404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.37||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and weight).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in body weight at Week 20. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||0.37|-0.91|0.404
90824841|NCT00286429|181526086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.72||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and weight).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in body weight at Week 26. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||0.72|-0.62|0.874
90824842|NCT00286429|181526086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.65||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and weight).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in body weight at Week 26. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||0.65|-0.70|0.948
90824843|NCT02451514|181526090|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.12|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup B, M14459.||2.12|1.03|
90824844|NCT02451514|181526090|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.28|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup B, M14459.||1.28|0.67|
90824845|NCT02451514|181526090|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.96|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup B, M14459.||1.96|0.97|
90824846|NCT02451514|181526090|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|3.09|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup B, M01-0240364.||3.09|1.27|
90824847|NCT02451514|181526090|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.37|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup B, M01-0240364.||1.37|0.63|
90824848|NCT02451514|181526090|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.84|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup B, M01-0240364.||2.84|1.20|
90824849|NCT02451514|181526090|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.85|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup B, NZ98/254.||1.85|0.96|
90824850|NCT02451514|181526090|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.25|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup B, NZ98/254.||1.25|0.70|
90824851|NCT02451514|181526090|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.72|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup B, NZ98/254.||1.72|0.91|
90824852|NCT02451514|181526090|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.53|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup B, M10713.||2.53|0.81|
90824853|NCT02451514|181526090|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.37|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup B, M10713.||1.37|0.49|
90824854|NCT02451514|181526090|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|2.06|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup B, M10713.||2.06|0.67|
90824855|NCT02451514|181526090|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|2.78|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup B, H44/76.||2.78|1.33|
90824856|NCT02451514|181526090|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.17|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup B, H44/76.||1.17|0.61|
90824857|NCT02451514|181526090|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|2.32|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup B, H44/76.||2.32|1.13|
90824858|NCT02451514|181526090|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|7.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.25|12.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup B, 5/99.||12|4.25|
90824859|NCT02451514|181526090|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup B, 5/99.||1.50|0.59|
90824860|NCT02451514|181526090|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|6.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.03|11.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup B, 5/99.||11|4.03|
90824861|NCT02451514|181526090|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.23|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup A.||1.23|0.30|
90824862|NCT02451514|181526090|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|5.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.96|10.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup A.||10|2.96|
90824863|NCT02451514|181526090|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|3.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|6.73|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup A.||6.73|1.70|
90824864|NCT02451514|181526090|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|2.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|5.54|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup C.||5.54|1.20|
90824865|NCT02451514|181526090|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.56|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup C.||2.56|0.66|
90824866|NCT02451514|181526090|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|3.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|7.11|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup C.||7.11|1.57|
90824867|NCT02451514|181526090|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|2.59|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup W.||2.59|0.51|
90824868|NCT02451514|181526090|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|2.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|6.12|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup W.||6.12|1.40|
90824869|NCT02451514|181526090|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|3.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.49|7.57|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup W.||7.57|1.49|
90824870|NCT02451514|181526090|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.18|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup Y.||1.18|0.23|
90824871|NCT02451514|181526090|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|5.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.84|12.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup Y.||12|2.84|
90824872|NCT02451514|181526090|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|3.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|6.92|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup Y.||6.92|1.38|
90824873|NCT02451514|181526094|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|8.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.41|16.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup B, M14459.||16|4.41|
90824874|NCT02451514|181526094|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.27|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup B, M14459.||1.27|0.39|
90824875|NCT02451514|181526094|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|5.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.14|11.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup B, M14459.||11|3.14|
90824876|NCT02451514|181526094|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|197.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.0|452.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup B, M01-0240364.||452|86|
90824877|NCT02451514|181526094|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|2.07|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup B, M01-0240364.||2.07|0.47|
90824878|NCT02451514|181526094|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|193.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|84.0|442.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup B, M01-0240364.||442|84|
90824879|NCT02451514|181526094|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|3.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.96|6.27|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup B, NZ98/254.||6.27|1.96|
90824880|NCT02451514|181526094|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup B, NZ98/254.||1.0|0.37|
90824881|NCT02451514|181526094|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|2.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|3.85|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup B, NZ98/254.||3.85|1.23|
90824882|NCT02451514|181526094|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|3.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.84|6.92|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup B, M10713.||6.92|1.84|
90824883|NCT02451514|181526094|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.29|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup B, M10713.||1.29|0.40|
90824884|NCT02451514|181526094|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|2.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|4.89|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup B, M10713.||4.89|1.33|
90824885|NCT02451514|181526094|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|17.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.18|35.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup B, H44/76.||35|8.18|
90824886|NCT02451514|181526094|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.53|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup B, H44/76.||1.53|0.41|
90824887|NCT02451514|181526094|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.59|28.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup B, H44/76.||28|6.59|
90824888|NCT02451514|181526094|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|74.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.0|160.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup B, 5/99.||160|34|
90824889|NCT02451514|181526094|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.53|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup B, 5/99.||1.53|0.38|
90824890|NCT02451514|181526094|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|57.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.0|121.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup B, 5/99.||121|27|
90824891|NCT02451514|181526094|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|2.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|4.83|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup A.||4.83|1.46|
90824892|NCT02451514|181526094|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|6.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.96|12.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup A.||12|3.96|
90824893|NCT02451514|181526094|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|18.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|32.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup A.||32|10|
90824894|NCT02451514|181526094|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.71|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup C.||2.71|0.72|
90824895|NCT02451514|181526094|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|21.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|37.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup C.||37|12|
90824896|NCT02451514|181526094|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|29.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.0|55.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup C.||55|15|
90824897|NCT02451514|181526094|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.38|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup W.||1.38|0.47|
90824898|NCT02451514|181526094|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|19.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|31.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup W.||31|12|
90824899|NCT02451514|181526094|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|16.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.27|26.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup W.||26|9.27|
90824900|NCT02451514|181526094|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.28|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup Y.||1.28|0.17|
90824901|NCT02451514|181526094|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.2|48.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup Y.||48|8.20|
90824902|NCT02451514|181526094|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|9.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.78|22.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup Y.||22|3.78|
90824903|NCT02451514|181526107|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.87|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group GMT ratios against N. meningitidis Serogroup B, M14459||0.87|0.28|
90824904|NCT02451514|181526107|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.11|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group GMT ratios against N. meningitidis Serogroup B, M01-0240364||2.11|0.40|
91063307|NCT06700512|182011593|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|paired||"H0 (Objective 1) SRT (study HA) is either not significantly different from SRT without HAs or significantly worse than SRT without HAs.~H1(Objective 1) SRT(study HA) is significantly better than SRT without HAs. A mean difference in SRT of 1 dB measured with the Oldenburg sentence test can be assumed as a typical difference in speech intelligibility to show a clinically meaningful improvement."||||<0.001
90824905|NCT02451514|181526107|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.38|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group GMT ratios against N. meningitidis serogroup B, NZ98/254||1.38|0.50|
90824906|NCT02451514|181526107|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.44|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group GMT ratios against N. meningitidis serogroup B, M10713||1.44|0.44|
90824907|NCT02451514|181526107|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.07|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group GMT ratios against N. meningitidis serogroup B, H44/76||1.07|0.34|
90824908|NCT02451514|181526107|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.12|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group GMT ratios against N. meningitidis serogroup B, 5/99||1.12|0.52|
90824909|NCT02451514|181526107|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|2.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.89|4.75|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group GMT ratios against N. meningitidis serogroup A||4.75|1.89|
90824910|NCT02451514|181526107|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|4.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.01|7.31|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group GMT ratios against N. meningitidis serogroup C||7.31|3.01|
90824911|NCT02451514|181526107|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|8.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.84|13.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group GMT ratios against N. meningitidis serogroup W||13|5.84|
90824912|NCT02451514|181526107|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|7.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.96|12.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group GMT ratios against N. meningitidis serogroup Y||12|3.96|
90824913|NCT03197376|181526116|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the GMC of IgG antibody at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for each serotype 1, Lot 1 and Lot 2 would be equivalent with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot|Pn IgG type 1 GMC Ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.05||||||The 3 lots were to be considered equivalent if, for each serotype, all 3 CIs for IgG GMC ratios 4 weeks after the primary vaccination series lay within the interval (0.5, 2)||1.05|0.88|
90824914|NCT03197376|181526116|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the GMC of IgG antibody at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for serotype 5, Lot 1 and Lot 2 would be equivalent with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot|Pn IgG type 5 GMC Ratio|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.81||||||The 3 lots were to be considered equivalent if, for each serotype, all 3 CIs for IgG GMC ratios 4 weeks after the primary vaccination series lay within the interval (0.5, 2)||0.81|0.69|
90824915|NCT03197376|181526116|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the GMC of IgG antibody at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for serotype 6A, Lot 1 and Lot 2 would be equivalent with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot|Pn IgG type 6A GMC Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.26||||||The 3 lots were to be considered equivalent if, for each serotype, all 3 CIs for IgG GMC ratios 4 weeks after the primary vaccination series lay within the interval (0.5, 2)||1.26|0.96|
90824916|NCT03197376|181526116|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the GMC of IgG antibody at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for serotype 6B, Lot 1 and Lot 2 would be equivalent with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot|Pn IgG type 6B GMC Ratio|1.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|1.69||||||The 3 lots were to be considered equivalent if, for each serotype, all 3 CIs for IgG GMC ratios 4 weeks after the primary vaccination series lay within the interval (0.5, 2)||1.69|1.18|
91077845|NCT02913105|182041135|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.0||||0.9988|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.1|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||PIIINP: Day 84||1.10|0.91|0.9988
91063308|NCT06700512|182011593|NON_INFERIORITY|A mean difference in SRT of 1 dB measured with the Oldenburg sentence test (Wagener et al, 1999a-c), can be assumed as a typical difference in speech intelligibility to show a clinically meaningful improvement (Kollmeier et al, 2011). Thus if SRT with study hearing aids is 1dB or more worse than with subjects' own hearing aids and the difference is significant (p\<0.05), inferiority of study hearing aid is assumed otherwise study hearing aids are considered non-inferior|||||<|0.001||||||paired|t-test, 1 sided|||H0 (Objective 2) SRT (study HA) is significantly worse than SRT(own HAs). H1(Objective 2) There is no difference between SRT(study HA) and SRT(own HAs) or SRT (study HA) is significantly better than SRT (own HAs) SRT= Speech Reception Threshold in dB||||<0.001
91063309|NCT03657797|182011599|NON_INFERIORITY|LS mean, the difference in LS mean (NCX 470 minus latanoprost), and the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference was obtained. Non-inferiority could be claimed if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI around the difference between the LS mean for NCX 470 and the LS mean for latanoprost was \< 1.5 mmHg. If non-inferiority was met, superiority was tested which could be claimed if the p-value for treatment difference was \<= 0.05 and the LS mean difference in change from baseline was \< 0.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.2666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|0.31||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|||NCX 470 0.21% was compared to latanoprost.||0.31|-1.11|0.2666
91063310|NCT03657797|182011599|NON_INFERIORITY|LS mean, the difference in LS mean (NCX 470 minus latanoprost), and the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference was obtained. Non-inferiority could be claimed if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI around the difference between the LS mean for NCX 470 and the LS mean for latanoprost was \< 1.5 mmHg. If non-inferiority was met, superiority was tested which could be claimed if the p-value for treatment difference was \<= 0.05 and the LS mean difference in change from baseline was \< 0.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.81||||0.0281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|-0.09||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|||NCX 0.042% was compared to latanoprost.||-0.09|-1.52|0.0281
91063311|NCT03657797|182011599|NON_INFERIORITY|LS mean, the difference in LS mean (NCX 470 minus latanoprost), and the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference was obtained. Non-inferiority could be claimed if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI around the difference between the LS mean for NCX 470 and the LS mean for latanoprost was \< 1.5 mmHg. If non-inferiority was met, superiority was tested which could be claimed if the p-value for treatment difference was \<= 0.05 and the LS mean difference in change from baseline was \< 0.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.23||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|-0.51||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|||NCX 0.065% was compared to latanoprost.||-0.51|-1.96|0.0009
91063312|NCT03657797|182011600|NON_INFERIORITY|NCX 470 0.021% was compared to latanoprost 0.005% at each visit. The LS mean, LS mean difference and the 95% CIs for the difference was calculated. Non-inferiority at each visit could be claimed if the upper limit of the 95% CI was \<1.5 mmHg. If non-inferiority was established, superiority could be claimed if the upper limit of the 95% CI was \<0 and p\<0.05.|||||<|0.9788||||||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|Upper 95% CIs were 0.51 (week 1), 0.68 (week 2), 0.75 (exit visit); p-values were 0.5560 (week 1), 0.9788 (week 2), 0.8796 (exit visit)||NCX 470 0.021% was compared to latanoprost.||||<0.9788
91063313|NCT03657797|182011600|NON_INFERIORITY|NCX 470 0.042% was compared to latanoprost 0.005% at each visit. The LS mean, LS mean difference and the 95% CIs for the difference was calculated. Non-inferiority at each visit could be claimed if the upper limit of the 95% CI was \<1.5 mmHg. If non-inferiority was established, superiority could be claimed if the upper limit of the 95% CI was \<0 and p\<0.05.|||||<|0.3863||||||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|Upper 95% CIs were 0.20 (week 1), 0.38 (week 2), 0.11 (exit visit); p-values were 0.1556 (week 1), 0.3863 (week 2), 0.0912 (exit visit)||NCX 470 0.042% was compared to latanoprost.||||<0.3863
91063314|NCT03657797|182011600|NON_INFERIORITY|NCX 470 0.065% was compared to latanoprost 0.005% at each visit. The LS mean, LS mean difference and the 95% CIs for the difference was calculated. Non-inferiority at each visit could be claimed if the upper limit of the 95% CI was \<1.5 mmHg. If non-inferiority was established, superiority could be claimed if the upper limit of the 95% CI was \<0 and p\<0.05.|||||<|0.0174||||||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|Upper 95% CIs were -0.35 (week 1), -0.15 (week 2), -0.27 (exit visit); p-values were 0.0040 (week 1), 0.0174 (week 2), 0.0093 (exit visit)||NCX 470 0.065% was compared to latanoprost.||||<0.0174
91063315|NCT01402570|182011622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||REML|0.17||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.95||Time was predictor of interest, controlling for age, gender, baseline PROMIS physical functioning, and overall functional status.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed modeling (LMM) with random effects for intercept and repeated effects for assessment period was used to analyze change over time for study outcomes. The primary predictor of interest in this study was the relationship of time to each of the outcomes to evaluate the potential effect of the intervention. Independent LMMs were used to study outcomes.||0.95|-0.67|0.66
91063316|NCT01402570|182011623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||REML|0.0||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.02||Time was predictor of interest, controlling for age, gender, baseline sleep efficiency, and overall functional status.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed modeling (LMM) with random effects for intercept and repeated effects for assessment period was used to analyze change over time for study outcomes. The primary predictor of interest in this study was the relationship of time to each of the outcomes to evaluate the potential effect of the intervention. Independent LMMs were used to study outcomes.||0.02|-0.01|0.44
91063317|NCT01402570|182011624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||REML|145.54||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-178.93|470.02||Time was predictor of interest, controlling for age, gender, baseline steps per day, and overall functional status.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed modeling (LMM) with random effects for intercept and repeated effects for assessment period was used to analyze change over time for study outcomes. The primary predictor of interest in this study was the relationship of time to each of the outcomes to evaluate the potential effect of the intervention. Independent LMMs were used to study outcomes.||470.02|-178.93|0.35
91063318|NCT01402570|182011625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||REML|-1.05||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|0.1||Time was predictor of interest, controlling for age, gender, baseline fatigue, and overall functional status.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed modeling (LMM) with random effects for intercept and repeated effects for assessment period was used to analyze change over time for study outcomes. The primary predictor of interest in this study was the relationship of time to each of the outcomes to evaluate the potential effect of the intervention. Independent LMMs were used to study outcomes.||0.10|-2.21|0.07
91063319|NCT02019472|182011639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.46|||ANCOVA|||||-0.46|-1.07|< 0.001
90824917|NCT03197376|181526116|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the GMC of IgG antibody at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for serotype 7F, Lot 1 and Lot 2 would be equivalent with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot|Pn IgG type 7F GMC Ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.2||||||The 3 lots were to be considered equivalent if, for each serotype, all 3 CIs for IgG GMC ratios 4 weeks after the primary vaccination series lay within the interval (0.5, 2)||1.20|0.99|
90824918|NCT03197376|181526116|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the GMC of IgG antibody at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for serotype 9V, Lot 1 and Lot 2 would be equivalent with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot|Pn IgG type 9V GMC Ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.18||||||The 3 lots were to be considered equivalent if, for each serotype, all 3 CIs for IgG GMC ratios 4 weeks after the primary vaccination series lay within the interval (0.5, 2)||1.18|0.98|
90824919|NCT03197376|181526116|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the GMC of IgG antibody at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for serotype 14, Lot 1 and Lot 2 would be equivalent with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot|Pn IgG type 14 GMC Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.07||||||The 3 lots were to be considered equivalent if, for each serotype, all 3 CIs for IgG GMC ratios 4 weeks after the primary vaccination series lay within the interval (0.5, 2)||1.07|0.81|
90824920|NCT03197376|181526116|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the GMC of IgG antibody at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for serotype 19A, Lot 1 and Lot 2 would be equivalent with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot|Pn IgG type 19A GMC Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.04||||||The 3 lots were to be considered equivalent if, for each serotype, all 3 CIs for IgG GMC ratios 4 weeks after the primary vaccination series lay within the interval (0.5, 2)||1.04|0.83|
90824921|NCT03197376|181526116|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the GMC of IgG antibody at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for serotype 19F, Lot 1 and Lot 2 would be equivalent with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot|Pn IgG type 19F GMC Ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.92||||||The 3 lots were to be considered equivalent if, for each serotype, all 3 CIs for IgG GMC ratios 4 weeks after the primary vaccination series lay within the interval (0.5, 2)||0.92|0.76|
90824922|NCT03197376|181526116|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the GMC of IgG antibody at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for serotype 23F, Lot 1 and Lot 2 would be equivalent with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot|Pn IgG type 23F GMC Ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.15||||||The 3 lots were to be considered equivalent if, for each serotype, all 3 CIs for IgG GMC ratios 4 weeks after the primary vaccination series lay within the interval (0.5, 2)||1.15|0.91|
90824923|NCT03197376|181526116|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the GMC of IgG antibody at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for serotype 1, Lot 1 and Lot 3 would be equivalent with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot|Pn IgG type 1 GMC Ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|0.97||||||The 3 lots were to be considered equivalent if, for each serotype, all 3 CIs for IgG GMC ratios 4 weeks after the primary vaccination series lay within the interval (0.5, 2)||0.97|0.82|
90824924|NCT03197376|181526116|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the GMC of IgG antibody at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for serotype 5, Lot 1 and Lot 3 would be equivalent with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot|Pn IgG type 5 GMC Ratio|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.8||||||The 3 lots were to be considered equivalent if, for each serotype, all 3 CIs for IgG GMC ratios 4 weeks after the primary vaccination series lay within the interval (0.5, 2||0.80|0.67|
90824925|NCT03197376|181526116|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the GMC of IgG antibody at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for serotype 6A, Lot 1 and Lot 3 would be equivalent with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot|Pn IgG type 6A GMC Ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.2||||||The 3 lots were to be considered equivalent if, for each serotype, all 3 CIs for IgG GMC ratios 4 weeks after the primary vaccination series lay within the interval (0.5, 2||1.20|0.91|
90824926|NCT03197376|181526116|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the GMC of IgG antibody at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for serotype 6B, Lot 1 and Lot 3 would be equivalent with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot|Pn IgG type 6B GMC Ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.04||||||The 3 lots were to be considered equivalent if, for each serotype, all 3 CIs for IgG GMC ratios 4 weeks after the primary vaccination series lay within the interval (0.5, 2)||1.04|0.74|
90824927|NCT03197376|181526116|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the GMC of IgG antibody at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for serotype 7F, Lot 1 and Lot 3 would be equivalent with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot|Pn IgG type 7F GMC Ratio|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.83||||||The 3 lots were to be considered equivalent if, for each serotype, all 3 CIs for IgG GMC ratios 4 weeks after the primary vaccination series lay within the interval (0.5, 2)||0.83|0.68|
90824928|NCT03197376|181526116|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the GMC of IgG antibody at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for serotype 9V, Lot 1 and Lot 3 would be equivalent with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot|Pn IgG type 9V GMC Ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.97||||||The 3 lots were to be considered equivalent if, for each serotype, all 3 CIs for IgG GMC ratios 4 weeks after the primary vaccination series lay within the interval (0.5, 2)||0.97|0.80|
91063320|NCT02019472|182011639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|-0.39|||=|0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.08|||ANCOVA|||||-0.08|-0.69|=0.013
91063321|NCT02019472|182011640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|-4.8||||0.306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|4.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.4|-14.1|0.306
91063322|NCT02019472|182011640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|3.6||||0.464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|13.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||13.1|-6|0.464
91063323|NCT02019472|182011641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|5.4||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|11.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||11.4|-0.7|0.086
91063324|NCT02019472|182011641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|12.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.9|19.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||19.7|5.9|< 0.001
91063325|NCT02019472|182011642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|-2.7||||0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|7.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||7.4|-12.8|0.603
91063326|NCT02019472|182011642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|2.4||||0.644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|12.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||12.3|-7.6|0.644
91063327|NCT03861390|182011643|OTHER|||||||0.24||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.24
91063328|NCT03861390|182011644|OTHER|||||||0.17||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.17
91063329|NCT03861390|182011645|OTHER|||||||0.7||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||4 hours post WSP exposure||||0.70
90824929|NCT03197376|181526116|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the GMC of IgG antibody at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for serotype 14, Lot 1 and Lot 3 would be equivalent with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot|Pn IgG type 14 GMC Ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.09||||||The 3 lots were to be considered equivalent if, for each serotype, all 3 CIs for IgG GMC ratios 4 weeks after the primary vaccination series lay within the interval (0.5, 2)||1.09|0.83|
90824930|NCT03197376|181526116|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the GMC of IgG antibody at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for serotype 19A, Lot 1 and Lot 3 would be equivalent with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot|Pn IgG type 19A GMC Ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.98||||||The 3 lots were to be considered equivalent if, for each serotype, all 3 CIs for IgG GMC ratios 4 weeks after the primary vaccination series lay within the interval (0.5, 2)||0.98|0.79|
90824931|NCT03197376|181526116|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the GMC of IgG antibody at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for serotype 19F, Lot 1 and Lot 3 would be equivalent with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot|Pn IgG type 19F GMC Ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.2||||||The 3 lots were to be considered equivalent if, for each serotype, all 3 CIs for IgG GMC ratios 4 weeks after the primary vaccination series lay within the interval (0.5, 2)||1.20|0.97|
90824932|NCT03197376|181526116|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the GMC of IgG antibody at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for serotype 24F, Lot 1 and Lot 3 would be equivalent with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot|Pn IgG type 23F GMC Ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.15||||||The 3 lots were to be considered equivalent if, for each serotype, all 3 CIs for IgG GMC ratios 4 weeks after the primary vaccination series lay within the interval (0.5, 2)||1.15|0.92|
90824933|NCT03197376|181526116|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the GMC of IgG antibody at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for serotype 1, Lot 2 and Lot 3 would be equivalent with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot|Pn IgG type 1 GMC Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.01||||||The 3 lots were to be considered equivalent if, for each serotype, all 3 CIs for IgG GMC ratios 4 weeks after the primary vaccination series lay within the interval (0.5, 2)||1.01|0.85|
90824934|NCT03197376|181526116|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the GMC of IgG antibody at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for serotype 5, Lot 2 and Lot 3 would be equivalent with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot|Pn IgG type 5 GMC Ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.07||||||The 3 lots were to be considered equivalent if, for each serotype, all 3 CIs for IgG GMC ratios 4 weeks after the primary vaccination series lay within the interval (0.5, 2)||1.07|0.90|
91063330|NCT03861390|182011645|OTHER|||||||0.37||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||24 hours post WSP exposure||||0.37
91063331|NCT03861390|182011646|OTHER|||||||0.77||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||4 hours post WSP exposure||||0.77
91063332|NCT03861390|182011646|OTHER|||||||0.48||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||24 hours post WSP exposure||||0.48
91063333|NCT03861390|182011647|OTHER|||||||0.96||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||4 hours post WSP exposure||||0.96
91063334|NCT03861390|182011647|OTHER|||||||0.91||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||24 hours post WSP exposure||||0.91
91063335|NCT03861390|182011648|OTHER|||||||0.46||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||4 hours post WSP exposure||||0.46
91063336|NCT03861390|182011648|OTHER|||||||0.46||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||24 hours post WSP exposure||||0.46
91063337|NCT03861390|182011649|OTHER|||||||0.82||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||4 hours post WSP exposure||||0.82
91063338|NCT03861390|182011649|OTHER|The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.||||||0.99|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||24 hours post WSP exposure||||0.99
91063339|NCT03861390|182011650|OTHER|||||||0.38||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||4 hours post WSP exposure||||0.38
91063340|NCT03861390|182011650|OTHER|||||||0.84||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||24 hours post WSP exposure||||0.84
91063341|NCT03861390|182011651|OTHER|||||||0.49||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||4 hours post WSP exposure||||0.49
91063342|NCT03861390|182011651|OTHER|||||||0.52||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||24 hours post WSP exposure||||0.52
91063343|NCT02157935|182011659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.76||||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.92|||Negative binomial model|||||0.92|0.62|0.0059
91063344|NCT02157935|182011660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.0164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.96|||Regression, Cox|||||0.96|0.64|0.0164
91063345|NCT02157935|182011661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.343||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.318|-0.368|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.368|-2.318|0.0070
91063346|NCT02157935|182011662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.008|0.053|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.053|0.008|0.0091
91063347|NCT02157935|182011663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.203||||0.0082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.353|-0.053|||ANCOVA|||||-0.053|-0.353|0.0082
91063348|NCT02157935|182011664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.028||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.048|-0.009|||ANCOVA|||||-0.009|-0.048|0.0048
91063349|NCT03192488|182011670|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.06||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|2.11|||ANOVA|"The overall model was adjusted for the co-variate VO2max."||||2.11|0.01|0.047
91063350|NCT03192488|182011671|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.327|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.327
91063351|NCT03192488|182011671|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.557|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.557
91063352|NCT00611923|182011677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.57|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t-test analysis comparing change from baseline PMTS score at month 1 between flutamide and placebo groups||||= 0.57
91063353|NCT00611923|182011677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.27|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t-test analysis comparing change from baseline PMTS score at month 2 between flutamide and placebo groups.||||= .27
91063354|NCT00611923|182011678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.52|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t-test comparing change in DRSP scores from baseline to Month 1 of treatment Larger positive change score indicates a greater reduction in symptoms from baseline.||||= 0.52
91063355|NCT00611923|182011678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.2|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t-test comparing change in DRSP scores from baseline to Month 2 of treatment Larger positive change score indicates a greater reduction in symptoms from baseline.||||= 0.2
91063356|NCT00611923|182011679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.8|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||= 0.8
91063357|NCT00611923|182011679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||= 0.1
91063358|NCT00611923|182011680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.15|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t-test was performed comparing the Clinical Global Improvement score at month 1 between placebo and flutamide groups||||=.15
91063359|NCT00611923|182011680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test was performed comparing the Clinical Global Improvement score at month 2 between placebo and flutamide groups||||= .05
91063360|NCT00611923|182011681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Comparison of change from baseline score to treatment month 1 between placebo and flutamide treated subjects.|||||=|0.5|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.5
91063361|NCT00611923|182011681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|paired t-test analysis comparing change from baseline CGI severity score at month 2 between flutamide and placebo groups|||||<|0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.04
91063362|NCT00611923|182011682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.2|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t-test was performed comparing the Patient Global Improvement score at month 1 between placebo and flutamide groups||||=0.2
91063363|NCT00611923|182011682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|paired t-test was performed comparing the Patient Globall Improvement score at treatment month 2 between placebo and flutamide groups|||||=|0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.06
91063364|NCT00572936|182011685|EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA was performed to compare the results between the three interventions.|||||<|0.05||||||threshold for significance was \<0.05|ANOVA|||||||<.05
91063365|NCT00572936|182011686|EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA was performed to compare the results between the three interventions.|||||<|0.05||||||threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91063366|NCT00572936|182011687|EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA was performed to compare the results between the three interventions.||||||0.93||||||threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.93
91063367|NCT00572936|182011688|EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA was performed to compare the results between the three interventions.||||||0.84||||||threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.84
91063368|NCT00572936|182011689|EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA was performed to compare the results between the three interventions.|||||<|0.05||||||threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91063369|NCT00572936|182011690|EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA was performed to compare the results between the three interventions.||||||0.89||||||threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.89
91063370|NCT00572936|182011691|EQUIVALENCE|Kruskal-Wallis test was used to compare the differences between outflow facility for the three interventions|||||<|0.05||||||threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.05
91063371|NCT00572936|182011692|EQUIVALENCE|Kruskal-Wallis test was used to compare the differences in uveoscleral outflow between the three interventions|||||<|0.05||||||threshold for statistical analysis was \<0.05|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.05
91063372|NCT02806908|182011693|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0022|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0022
91063373|NCT02806908|182011694|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0416|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0416
91063374|NCT02806908|182011695|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0963|||||||McNemar|||||||0.0963
91063375|NCT02806908|182011696|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3018|||||||McNemar|||||||0.3018
91063376|NCT02806908|182011697|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.424|||||||McNemar|||||||0.4240
91063377|NCT02806908|182011698|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7539|||||||McNemar|||||||0.7539
91063378|NCT02806908|182011699|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7539|||||||McNemar|||||||0.7539
91063379|NCT02806908|182011700|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||||||1.0000
91063380|NCT02806908|182011701|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6291|||||||McNemar|||||||0.6291
91063381|NCT02806908|182011702|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||||||1.0000
91063382|NCT02806908|182011703|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||||||1.0000
91063383|NCT02806908|182011704|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||||||1.0000
91063384|NCT02806908|182011705|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7744|||||||McNemar|||||||0.7744
91063385|NCT02806908|182011706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7539|||||||McNemar|||||||0.7539
91063386|NCT02806908|182011707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1141|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.1141
91063387|NCT02806908|182011708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4441|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.4441
91063388|NCT02806908|182011709|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3423|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.3423
91063389|NCT02806908|182011710|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9384|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.9384
91063390|NCT02806908|182011711|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0939|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0939
91063391|NCT02806908|182011712|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0246|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0246
91063392|NCT02806908|182011713|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1475|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.1475
91063393|NCT02806908|182011714|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1513|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.1513
91063394|NCT02806908|182011715|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0002
91063395|NCT02806908|182011716|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0005
91063396|NCT02806908|182011717|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4774|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.4774
91063397|NCT02806908|182011718|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3801|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.3801
91063398|NCT02806908|182011719|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91063399|NCT01760304|182011720|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.769|||||||2-sided paired t-test|||a paired t-test was calculated comparing baseline measures and post intervention||||0.769
91063400|NCT01760304|182011720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired T-test|||a paired t-test was calculated comparing baseline measures and post intervention||||<0.0001
91063401|NCT01760304|182011722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||paired t-test|||||||<0.05
91063402|NCT04429503|182011724|NON_INFERIORITY|p-value for one-sided non-inferiority (NI) test at a margin of 4 letters|Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-0.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|1.13|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measurements||HDq12 minus 2q8|||1.13|-2.26|<0.0001
91063403|NCT04429503|182011724|NON_INFERIORITY|p-value for one-sided non-inferiority (NI) test at a margin of 4 letters|LS Mean Difference|-1.44||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.27|0.39|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measurements||HDq16 minus 2q8|||0.39|-3.27|0.0031
91063404|NCT04429503|182011725|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin was set at 15%|Adjusted Difference (%)|1.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.61|10.57|||||Difference with confidence interval (CI) was calculated using Mantel-Haenszel weighting scheme adjusted for stratification factors|||10.57|-6.61|
91063405|NCT04429503|182011725|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin was set at 15%.|Adjusted Difference (%)|-7.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.88|1.84|||||Difference with confidence interval (CI) was calculated using Mantel-Haenszel weighting scheme adjusted for stratification factors|||1.84|-16.88|
90824935|NCT03197376|181526116|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the GMC of IgG antibody at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for serotype 6A, Lot 2 and Lot 3 would be equivalent with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot|Pn IgG type 6A GMC Ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.09||||||The 3 lots were to be considered equivalent if, for each serotype, all 3 CIs for IgG GMC ratios 4 weeks after the primary vaccination series lay within the interval (0.5, 2)||1.09|0.82|
91063406|NCT05516108|182011746|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Stata mixed||time (pre, post, follow-up) x condition (mindfulness, coping)||||.004
91063407|NCT05516108|182011747|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||time (pre, post, follow-up) x condition (mindfulness, coping)||||.020
91063408|NCT05516108|182011748|OTHER|||||||0.74|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Stata melogit||time (pre, post, follow-up) x condition (mindfulness, coping)||||.74
91063409|NCT05516108|182011749|OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||time (pre, post, follow-up) x condition (mindfulness, coping)||||.10
91063410|NCT05516108|182011750|OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Stata mixed||time (pre, post, follow-up) x condition (mindfulness, coping)||||.009
91063411|NCT03664232|182011790|SUPERIORITY||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|=|0.284|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.17|0.07|||Mixed effects model for repeatedmeasures|||||0.07|-0.17|=0.284
91063412|NCT03664232|182011791|SUPERIORITY||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|=|0.29|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.18|0.07|||MMRM|||||0.07|-0.18|=0.290
91063413|NCT03664232|182011792|SUPERIORITY||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|=|0.231|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.21|0.06|||MMRM|||||0.06|-0.21|=0.231
91063414|NCT02717507|182011810|OTHER||Slope|0.163|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.112||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.057|0.383|||Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)|The treatment effect was determined by testing the significance of the group by time interaction in GEE using a one degree-of-freedom (df) test.|The treatment was considered efficacious if the group by time interaction for LVWT/Dz was statistically significant at a two-sided p\<0.05 and the expected LVWT/Dz was higher for carvedilol than placebo over time.|The null hypothesis is that change in LVWT/Dz across time do not vary by arm. Assuming a type I error=0.05, 2-sided test, 15% attrition/year, and correlation range of 0.6-0.8 between measurements, we projected that a sample size of 125/arm would provide 80% power to detect an effect size of 0.23-0.32 for LVWT/Dz at 24m.||0.383|-0.057|0.15
91063415|NCT02717507|182011811|OTHER||Slope|-3.764|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.705||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.105|-0.424|||Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)|The treatment effect was determined by testing the significance of the group by time interaction in GEE using a one degree-of-freedom (df) test.||||-0.424|-7.105|0.03
91063416|NCT02717507|182011812|OTHER||Slope|-0.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.001|||Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)|The treatment effect was determined by testing the significance of the group by time interaction in GEE using a one degree-of-freedom (df) test.||||0.001|-0.09|0.05
91063417|NCT02717507|182011813|OTHER||Slope|-2.194|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.605||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.34|0.951|||Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)|The treatment effect was determined by testing the significance of the group by time interaction in GEE using a one degree-of-freedom (df) test.|The treatment was considered efficacious if the group by time interaction for LVESV was statistically significant at a two-sided p\<0.05 and the expected LVESV was lower for carvedilol than placebo over time.|||0.951|-5.34|0.17
91063418|NCT02717507|182011814|OTHER||Slope|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-141.0|-0.024|||Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)|The treatment effect was determined by testing the significance of the group by time interaction in GEE using a one degree-of-freedom (df) test.||||-0.024|-0141|0.01
91063419|NCT02717507|182011815|OTHER||Slope|-2.397|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.603||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.499|2.704|||Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)|The treatment effect was determined by testing the significance of the group by time interaction in GEE using a one degree-of-freedom (df) test.|The treatment was considered efficacious if the group by time interaction for LVEDV was statistically significant at a two-sided p\<0.05 and the expected LVEDV was lower for carvedilol than placebo over time.|||2.704|-7.499|0.36
91063420|NCT02717507|182011816|OTHER||Slope|0.433|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.799||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.134|1.999|||Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)|The treatment effect was determined by testing the significance of the group by time interaction in GEE using a one degree-of-freedom (df) test.||||1.999|-1.134|0.59
91063421|NCT02717507|182011817|OTHER||Slope|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.302||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.652|0.532|||Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)|The treatment effect was determined by testing the significance of the group by time interaction in GEE using a one degree-of-freedom (df) test.|The treatment can be considered beneficial if the mean difference (treatment - control) slope is positive|||0.532|-0.652|0.84
91078439|NCT00553358|182042816|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.433||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|1.17|||Regression, Cox||Cox models (Cox, 1972), with the stratification factors entered as strata variables, were used to calculate a hazard ratio and corresponding confidence interval comparing pCR and no pCR.|Subjects in the OS landmark analysis in the lapatinib arm||1.17|0.12|0.125
90824936|NCT03197376|181526116|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the GMC of IgG antibody at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for serotype 6B, Lot 2 and Lot 3 would be equivalent with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot|Pn IgG type 6B GMC Ratio|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.74||||||The 3 lots were to be considered equivalent if, for each serotype, all 3 CIs for IgG GMC ratios 4 weeks after the primary vaccination series lay within the interval (0.5, 2)||0.74|0.52|
90824937|NCT03197376|181526116|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the GMC of IgG antibody at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for serotype 7F, Lot 2 and Lot 3 would be equivalent with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot|Pn IgG type 7F GMC Ratio|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.76||||||The 3 lots were to be considered equivalent if, for each serotype, all 3 CIs for IgG GMC ratios 4 weeks after the primary vaccination series lay within the interval (0.5, 2)||0.76|0.62|
90824938|NCT03197376|181526116|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the GMC of IgG antibody at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for serotype 9V, Lot 2 and Lot 3 would be equivalent with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot|Pn IgG type 9V GMC Ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.9||||||The 3 lots were to be considered equivalent if, for each serotype, all 3 CIs for IgG GMC ratios 4 weeks after the primary vaccination series lay within the interval (0.5, 2)||0.90|0.74|
90824939|NCT03197376|181526116|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the GMC of IgG antibody at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for serotype 14, Lot 2 and Lot 3 would be equivalent with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot|Pn IgG type 14 GMC Ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.17||||||The 3 lots were to be considered equivalent if, for each serotype, all 3 CIs for IgG GMC ratios 4 weeks after the primary vaccination series lay within the interval (0.5, 2)||1.17|0.89|
90824940|NCT03197376|181526116|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the GMC of IgG antibody at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for serotype 19A, Lot 2 and Lot 3 would be equivalent with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot|Pn IgG type 19A GMC Ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.06||||||The 3 lots were to be considered equivalent if, for each serotype, all 3 CIs for IgG GMC ratios 4 weeks after the primary vaccination series lay within the interval (0.5, 2)||1.06|0.85|
90824941|NCT03197376|181526116|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the GMC of IgG antibody at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for serotype 19F, Lot 2 and Lot 3 would be equivalent with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot|Pn IgG type 19F GMC Ratio|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|1.44||||||The 3 lots were to be considered equivalent if, for each serotype, all 3 CIs for IgG GMC ratios 4 weeks after the primary vaccination series lay within the interval (0.5, 2)||1.44|1.16|
90824942|NCT03197376|181526116|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the GMC of IgG antibody at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for serotype 23F, Lot 2 and Lot 3 would be equivalent with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot|Pn IgG type 23F GMC Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.13||||||The 3 lots were to be considered equivalent if, for each serotype, all 3 CIs for IgG GMC ratios 4 weeks after the primary vaccination series lay within the interval (0.5, 2)||1.13|0.89|
90824943|NCT03197376|181526117|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be shown if either the lower limit of the 97.5% CI for the difference in proportions of IgG responders (PNEUMOSIL-Synflorix) exceeded -10%, for 7 or more of the 10 serotypes in PNEUMOSIL|Absolute Difference for Type 1|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.0|1.9||||||||1.9|-0.0|
90824944|NCT03197376|181526117|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be shown if either the lower limit of the 97.5% CI for the difference in proportions of IgG responders (PNEUMOSIL-Synflorix) exceeded -10% for 7 or more of the 10 serotypes in PNEUMOSIL|Absolute Difference for Type 5|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.2|5.0||||||||5.0|1.2|
90824945|NCT03197376|181526117|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be shown if either the lower limit of the 97.5% CI for the difference in proportions of IgG responders (PNEUMOSIL-Synflorix) exceeded -10% for 7 or more of the 10 serotypes in PNEUMOSIL|Absolute Difference for Type 6A|5.2|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.1|9.5||||||Synflorix proportion of responders for serotype 6A was operationally defined as the lowest observed proportion of responders among the 8 serotypes in common with PNEUMOSIL||9.5|1.1|
90824946|NCT03197376|181526117|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be shown if either the lower limit of the 97.5% CI for the difference in proportions of IgG responders (PNEUMOSIL-Synflorix) exceeded -10% for 7 or more of the 10 serotypes in PNEUMOSIL|Absolute Difference for Type 6B|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.2|6.4||||||||6.4|-2.2|
90824947|NCT03197376|181526117|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be shown if either the lower limit of the 97.5% CI for the difference in proportions of IgG responders (PNEUMOSIL-Synflorix) exceeded -10% for 7 or more of the 10 serotypes in PNEUMOSIL|Absolute Difference for Type 7F|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.1|2.7||||||||2.7|-0.1|
90824948|NCT03197376|181526117|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be shown if either the lower limit of the 97.5% CI for the difference in proportions of IgG responders (PNEUMOSIL-Synflorix) exceeded -10% for 7 or more of the 10 serotypes in PNEUMOSIL|Absolute Difference for Type 9V|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.9|2.5||||||||2.5|-1.9|
90824949|NCT03197376|181526117|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be shown if either the lower limit of the 97.5% CI for the difference in proportions of IgG responders (PNEUMOSIL-Synflorix) exceeded -10% for 7 or more of the 10 serotypes in PNEUMOSIL|Absolute Difference for Type 14|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.4|1.0||||||||1.0|-1.4|
90824950|NCT03197376|181526117|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be shown if either the lower limit of the 97.5% CI for the difference in proportions of IgG responders (PNEUMOSIL-Synflorix) exceeded -10% for 7 or more of the 10 serotypes in PNEUMOSIL|Absolute Difference for Type 19A|18.7|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|15.1|22.5||||||Synflorix proportion of responders for serotype 19A was operationally defined as the lowest observed proportion of responders among the 8 serotypes in common with PNEUMOSIL||22.5|15.1|
90824951|NCT03197376|181526117|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be shown if either the lower limit of the 97.5% CI for the difference in proportions of IgG responders (PNEUMOSIL-Synflorix) exceeded -10% for 7 or more of the 10 serotypes in PNEUMOSIL|Absolute Difference for Type 19F|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.9|0.5||||||||0.5|-1.9|
90824952|NCT03197376|181526117|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be shown if either the lower limit of the 97.5% CI for the difference in proportions of IgG responders (PNEUMOSIL-Synflorix) exceeded -10% for 7 or more of the 10 serotypes in PNEUMOSIL|Absolute Difference for Type 23F|17.2|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|13.6|21.1||||||||21.1|13.6|
90824953|NCT03197376|181526118|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be shown if the lower limit of the 97.5% CI for the GMC ratio (PNEUMOSIL/Synflorix) exceeded 0.5, for 7 or more of the 10 serotypes in PNEUMOSIL|Pn IgG type 1 GMC Ratio|2.15|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|2.0|2.32||||||||2.32|2.00|
90824954|NCT03197376|181526118|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be shown if the lower limit of the 97.5% CI for the GMC ratio (PNEUMOSIL/Synflorix) exceeded 0.5, for 7 or more of the 10 serotypes in PNEUMOSIL|Pn IgG type 5 GMC Ratio|1.37|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.28|1.47||||||||1.47|1.28|
90824955|NCT03197376|181526118|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be shown if the lower limit of the 97.5% CI for the GMC ratio (PNEUMOSIL/Synflorix) exceeded 0.5, for 7 or more of the 10 serotypes in PNEUMOSIL|Pn IgG type 6A GMC Ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.78|1.01||||||Synflorix proportion of responders for serotype 6A was operationally defined as the lowest observed proportion of responders among the 8 serotypes in common with PNEUMOSIL||1.01|0.78|
90824956|NCT03197376|181526118|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be shown if the lower limit of the 97.5% CI for the GMC ratio (PNEUMOSIL/Synflorix) exceeded 0.5, for 7 or more of the 10 serotypes in PNEUMOSIL|Pn IgG type 6B GMC Ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.93|1.24||||||||1.24|0.93|
90824957|NCT03197376|181526118|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be shown if the lower limit of the 97.5% CI for the GMC ratio (PNEUMOSIL/Synflorix) exceeded 0.5, for 7 or more of the 10 serotypes in PNEUMOSIL|Pn IgG type 7F GMC Ratio|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.19|1.41||||||||1.41|1.19|
90824958|NCT03197376|181526118|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be shown if the lower limit of the 97.5% CI for the GMC ratio (PNEUMOSIL/Synflorix) exceeded 0.5, for 7 or more of the 10 serotypes in PNEUMOSIL|Pn IgG type 9V GMC Ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.85|1.0||||||||1.00|0.85|
90824959|NCT03197376|181526118|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be shown if the lower limit of the 97.5% CI for the GMC ratio (PNEUMOSIL/Synflorix) exceeded 0.5, for 7 or more of the 10 serotypes in PNEUMOSIL|Pn IgG type 14 GMC Ratio|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.1|1.37||||||||1.37|1.10|
90824960|NCT03197376|181526118|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be shown if the lower limit of the 97.5% CI for the GMC ratio (PNEUMOSIL/Synflorix) exceeded 0.5, for 7 or more of the 10 serotypes in PNEUMOSIL|Pn IgG type 19A GMC Ratio|1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.3|1.63||||||Synflorix proportion of responders for serotype 19A was operationally defined as the lowest observed proportion of responders among the 8 serotypes in common with PNEUMOSIL||1.63|1.30|
91063422|NCT02717507|182011818|OTHER||Slope|0.259|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.373||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.472|0.991|||Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)|The treatment effect was determined by testing the significance of the group by time interaction in GEE using a one degree-of-freedom (df) test.|The treatment was considered efficacious if the group by time interaction for LVEF was statistically significant at a two-sided p\<0.05 and the expected LVEF was higher for carvedilol than placebo over time.|The null hypothesis is that change in LVEF across time do not vary by arm. Assuming a type I error=0.05, 2-sided test, 15% attrition/year, and correlation range of 1.2-1.6 between measurements, we projected that a sample size of 125/arm would provide 80% power to detect an effect size of 0.23-0.32 for LVEF at 24m.||0.991|-0.472|0.49
90824961|NCT03197376|181526118|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be shown if the lower limit of the 97.5% CI for the GMC ratio (PNEUMOSIL/Synflorix) exceeded 0.5, for 7 or more of the 10 serotypes in PNEUMOSIL|Pn IgG type 19F GMC Ratio|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.67|0.8||||||||0.80|0.67|
90824962|NCT03197376|181526118|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be shown if the lower limit of the 97.5% CI for the GMC ratio (PNEUMOSIL/Synflorix) exceeded 0.5, for 7 or more of the 10 serotypes in PNEUMOSIL|Pn IgG type 23F GMC Ratio|1.81|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.63|2.01||||||||2.01|1.63|
90824963|NCT03197376|181526119|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be shown if the lower limit of the 95% CI exceeded -10% (for comparisons based on the difference in proportions of antibody responders to EPI vaccines between PNEUMOSIL and Synflorix)|Absolute difference for diphtheria|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||CI could not be computed due to 100% response rate|||||
90824964|NCT03197376|181526119|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be shown if the lower limit of the 95% CI exceeded -10% (for comparisons based on the difference in proportions of antibody responders to EPI vaccines between PNEUMOSIL and Synflorix)|Absolute difference for Tetanus|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||CI could not be computed due to 100% response rate|||||
90824965|NCT03197376|181526119|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be shown if the lower limit of the 95% CI exceeded -10% (for comparisons based on the difference in proportions of antibody responders to EPI vaccines between PNEUMOSIL and Synflorix)|Absolute difference for Hepatitis B|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|2.5||||||||2.5|-0.4|
90824966|NCT03197376|181526119|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be shown if the lower limit of the 95% CI exceeded -10% (for comparisons based on the difference in proportions of antibody responders to EPI vaccines between PNEUMOSIL and Synflorix)|Absolute difference for Hib|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.2||||||||1.2|-2.5|
90824967|NCT03197376|181526119|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be shown if the lower limit of the 95% CI exceeded -10% (for comparisons based on the difference in proportions of antibody responders to EPI vaccines between PNEUMOSIL and Synflorix)|Absolute difference for Polio type 1|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.5||||||||1.5|-1.3|
90824968|NCT03197376|181526119|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be shown if the lower limit of the 95% CI exceeded -10% (for comparisons based on the difference in proportions of antibody responders to EPI vaccines between PNEUMOSIL and Synflorix)|Absolute difference for Polio type 2|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|9.3||||||||9.3|-3.2|
90824969|NCT03197376|181526119|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be shown if the lower limit of the 95% CI exceeded -10% (for comparisons based on the difference in proportions of antibody responders to EPI vaccines between PNEUMOSIL and Synflorix)|Absolute difference for Polio type 3|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|1.8||||||||1.8|-3.0|
90824970|NCT03197376|181526119|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be shown if the lower limit of the 95% CI exceeded -10% (for comparisons based on the difference in proportions of antibody responders to EPI vaccines between PNEUMOSIL and Synflorix)|Absolute difference for Rotavirus|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|7.1||||||||7.1|-7.1|
91063423|NCT02717507|182011819|OTHER||Slope|0.009|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.065|0.082|||Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)|The treatment effect was determined by testing the significance of the group by time interaction in GEE using a one degree-of-freedom (df) test.||||0.082|-0.065|0.82
90824971|NCT03197376|181526120|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be shown if the lower limit of the 95% CI for the GMC ratio exceeded 0.5 (for pertussis antigens).|GMC Ratio for anti-pertussis toxoid|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.09||||||||1.09|0.62|
90824972|NCT03197376|181526121|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be shown if the lower limit of the 95% CI for the GMC ratio exceeded 0.5 (for pertussis antigens).|GMC Ratio for anti-fimbriae 2/3|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.25||||||||1.25|0.77|
90824973|NCT03197376|181526128|SUPERIORITY|Proportions with IgG concentration ≥ 0.35 µg/mL will be compared using a z-test for proportions. The test will be done at the two-sided 2.5% significance level to adjust for the two superiority tests. 97.5% CIs for treatment-group differences in response, will also be reported|Difference for Type 6A|73.3|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|69.8|76.3||||||||76.3|69.8|
90824974|NCT03197376|181526128|SUPERIORITY|Proportions with IgG concentration ≥ 0.35 µg/mL will be compared using a z-test for proportions. The test will be done at the two-sided 2.5% significance level to adjust for the two superiority tests. 97.5% CIs for treatment-group differences in response, will also be reported|Difference for Type 19A|54.7|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|50.3|58.9||||||||58.9|50.3|
90824975|NCT03197376|181526129|SUPERIORITY|For each of the two serotypes, GMCs are compared by a two-sample t-test on the difference between means of log10 (antibody). The test was done at the two-sided 2.5% significance level to adjust for the two superiority tests. 97.5% CIs for treatment-group differences in response, are also be reported|Pn IgG type 6A GMC Ratio|8.51|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|7.68|9.43||||||||9.43|7.68|
90824976|NCT03197376|181526129|SUPERIORITY|For each of the two serotypes, GMCs are compared by a two-sample t-test on the difference between means of log10 (antibody). The test was done at the two-sided 2.5% significance level to adjust for the two superiority tests. 97.5% CIs for treatment-group differences in response, are also be reported|Pn IgG type 19A GMC Ratio|5.64|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|5.14|6.18||||||||6.18|5.14|
90824977|NCT03197376|181526130|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA titer to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes|OPA Type 1|17.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|23.6||||||||23.6|11.0|
90824978|NCT03197376|181526130|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA titer to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes|OPA Type 5|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|6.2||||||||6.2|-0.0|
91063424|NCT02717507|182011820|OTHER||Slope|2.121|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.79||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.387|5.63|||Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)|The treatment effect was determined by testing the significance of the group by time interaction in GEE using a one degree-of-freedom (df) test.|The treatment can be considered beneficial if the mean difference (treatment - control) slope is negative|||5.63|-1.387|0.24
91063425|NCT02717507|182011821|OTHER||Slope|5.113|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.532||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.608|21.835|||Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)|The treatment effect was determined by testing the significance of the group by time interaction in GEE using a one degree-of-freedom (df) test.|The treatment can be considered beneficial if the mean difference (treatment - control) slope is negative|||21.835|-11.608|0.55
91063426|NCT02717507|182011822|OTHER||Slope|-0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.002|||Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)|The treatment effect was determined by testing the significance of the group by time interaction in GEE using a one degree-of-freedom (df) test.||||0.002|-0.004|0.51
90824979|NCT03197376|181526130|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA titer to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes|OPA Type 6A|82.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|76.7|86.6||||||||86.6|76.7|
90824980|NCT03197376|181526130|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA titer to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes|OPA Type 6B|9.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|14.6||||||||14.6|4.5|
90824981|NCT03197376|181526130|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA titer to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes|OPA Type 7F|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.2||||||||2.2|-1.1|
90824982|NCT03197376|181526130|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA titer to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes|OPA Type 9V|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||CI could not be computed due to 100% response rate|||||
90824983|NCT03197376|181526130|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA titer to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes|OPA Type14|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|2.2||||||||2.2|-4.0|
91063427|NCT02717507|182011823|OTHER||Slope|-0.022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.228||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.468|0.424|||Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)|The treatment effect was determined by testing the significance of the group by time interaction in GEE using a one degree-of-freedom (df) test.||||0.424|-0.468|0.92
90824984|NCT03197376|181526130|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA titer to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes|OPA Type 19A|53.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.0|60.1||||||||60.1|46.0|
90824985|NCT03197376|181526130|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA titer to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes|OPA Type 19F|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|1.2||||||||1.2|-4.9|
90824986|NCT03197376|181526130|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA titer to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes|OPA Type 23F|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||CI could not be computed due to 100% response rate|||||
90824987|NCT03197376|181526131|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes (GMT Ratio)|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 1|3.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|3.98||||||||3.98|2.40|
90824988|NCT03197376|181526131|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes (GMT Ratio)|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 5|1.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.72||||||||1.72|1.12|
90824989|NCT03197376|181526131|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes (GMT Ratio)|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 6A|186.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|144.0|241.0||||||||241|144|
90824990|NCT03197376|181526131|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes (GMT Ratio)|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 6B|1.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|2.69||||||||2.69|1.42|
91063428|NCT02717507|182011825|OTHER||Slope|0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.104||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.229|||Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)|The treatment effect was determined by testing the significance of the group by time interaction in GEE using a one degree-of-freedom (df) test.|The treatment can be considered beneficial if the mean difference (treatment - control) slope is negative.|||0.229|-0.18|0.82
91063429|NCT02717507|182011826|OTHER||Slope|-0.096|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.439||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.877|4.685|||Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)|The treatment effect was determined by testing the significance of the group by time interaction in GEE using a one degree-of-freedom (df) test.||||4.685|-4.877|0.97
91063430|NCT02717507|182011827|OTHER||Slope|1.248|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.491||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.595|8.091|||Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)|The treatment effect was determined by testing the significance of the group by time interaction in GEE using a one degree-of-freedom (df) test.|The treatment can be considered beneficial if the mean difference (treatment - control) slope is negative.|The null hypothesis is that change in Average Alanine aminotransferase across time-points described above does not differ by treatment arm, tested using a longitudinal GEE analysis of Average Alanine aminotransferase with a treatment by time interaction.||8.091|-5.595|0.72
91063431|NCT05017246|182011830|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-44.9||||0.0249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.0|-5.8|||Two-sample t-test|Unadjusted analysis|Intrathecal - Epidural|||-5.8|-84.0|0.0249
91063432|NCT05017246|182011831|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.04||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|3.01|||Chi-squared||Estimated probability of having the event in Intrathecal group divided by that in Epidural group|||3.01|0.36|0.94
91063433|NCT05017246|182011832|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|0.48|||Bootstrap resampling method|Bootstrap resampling method based on raw data was applied for due to highly right-skewed data (5,000 Bootstrap samples were selected).|Intrathecal - Epidural|||0.48|-1.01|0.59
91063434|NCT05017246|182011833|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.95||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.48|||Chi-squared||Estimated probability of having the event in Intrathecal group divided by that in Epidural group|||1.48|0.61|0.82
91063435|NCT05017246|182011836|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.56||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|8.95|||Fisher Exact||Estimated probability of having the event in Intrathecal group divided by that in Epidural group|||8.95|0.27|0.67
91063436|NCT05017246|182011837|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.08||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|22.2|||Fisher Exact||Estimated probability of having the event in Intrathecal group divided by that in Epidural group|||22.2|0.19|0.61
91063437|NCT02493660|182011859|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin was 10% for all composite endpoints. The primary analysis method was a multilinear regression model for month 12 success with age (\<65 years, ≥65 years), gender, and treatment as the model covariates for the PP population for noninferiority testing.||||||0.0049|||||||Regression, Logistic|Primary analysis method was for month 12 success with age (\<65 years, ≥65 years), sex, and treatment as the model covariates.||||||0.0049
91063438|NCT02493660|182011862|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin was 10% for all composite endpoints.|||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Results from logistic regression model.||||<0.05
91063439|NCT03500198|182011895|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||< 0.0001
91063440|NCT03500198|182011897|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
91063441|NCT03500198|182011898|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||1-sided logistic regression|||||||<0.0001
91063442|NCT02440464|182011907|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified one-sided threshold of 0.10.|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in progression-free survival time post-randomization among randomized subjects receiving Ixazomib vs Placebo maintenance therapy during the 21 month period post-randomization. This was compared between treatment arms using a log rank test.||||1.0
91063443|NCT02440464|182011908|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified one-sided threshold of 0.05.|Gray's Test|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the proportions of participants with acute grade III-IV GVHD between the Ixazomib and Placebo arms during 100 days post-randomization, with death prior to acute GVHD treated as a competing risk. Cumulative incidences are compared between treatment arms using Gray's test.||||1.0
91063444|NCT02440464|182011909|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified one-sided threshold of 0.05.|Gray's Test|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the proportions of participants with chronic GVHD between the Ixazomib and Placebo arms during 21 months post-randomization, with death prior to chronic GVHD treated as a competing risk. Cumulative incidences are compared between treatment arms using Gray's test.||||1.0
91063445|NCT02440464|182011910|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the proportions of participants in the best response to treatment categories between the Ixazomib and Placebo arms during 2 years post-transplant among participants in sCR/CR at randomization. These proportions were compared using Fisher's Exact test.||||||0.89|||||||Fisher Exact|Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified one-sided threshold of 0.05.||Participants in sCR/CR at Randomization||||0.890
91063446|NCT02440464|182011910|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.754||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified one-sided threshold of 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the proportions of participants in the best response to treatment categories between the Ixazomib and Placebo arms during 2 years post-transplant among participants not in sCR/CR at randomization. These proportions were compared using Fisher's Exact test.||||0.754
91063447|NCT02440464|182011912|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified one-sided threshold of 0.05.|Gray's Test|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the proportions of participants with progression between the Ixazomib and Placebo arms during 21 months post-randomization, with death prior to progression treated as a competing risk. Cumulative incidences are compared between treatment arms using Gray's test.||||1.0
91063448|NCT02440464|182011913|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.174||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified one-sided threshold of 0.05.|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in overall survival time post-randomization among randomized subjects receiving Ixazomib vs Placebo maintenance therapy during the 21 month period post-randomization. This was compared between treatment arms using a log rank test.||||0.174
91063449|NCT02440464|182011914|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.173||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified one-sided threshold of 0.05.|Gray's Test|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the proportions of participants with treatment-related mortality between the Ixazomib and Placebo arms during 21 months post-randomization, with progression treated as a competing risk. Cumulative incidences are compared between treatment arms using Gray's test.||||0.173
91063450|NCT02440464|182011916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.258||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified one-sided threshold of 0.05.|Z test|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the proportions of participants with Grade 3-5 toxicities between the Ixazomib and Placebo arms during 6 months post-randomization, with death from a cause other than toxicity treated as a competing risk. Cumulative incidences are estimated at 6, 12 and 18 months post randomization using Aalen-Johansen estimators for each treatment group. Comparison of cumulative incidence between treatment arms was done using a Z test at fixed time points.||||0.258
91063451|NCT02440464|182011916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.252||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified one-sided threshold of 0.05.|Z test|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the proportions of participants with Grade 3-5 toxicities between the Ixazomib and Placebo arms during 12 months post-randomization, with death from a cause other than toxicity treated as a competing risk. Cumulative incidences are estimated at 6, 12 and 18 months post randomization using Aalen-Johansen estimators for each treatment group. Comparison of cumulative incidence between treatment arms was done using a Z test at fixed time points.||||0.252
91063452|NCT02440464|182011916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.258||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified one-sided threshold of 0.05.|Z test|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the proportions of participants with Grade 3-5 toxicities between the Ixazomib and Placebo arms during 18 months post-randomization, with death from a cause other than toxicity treated as a competing risk. Cumulative incidences are estimated at 6, 12 and 18 months post randomization using Aalen-Johansen estimators for each treatment group. Comparison of cumulative incidence between treatment arms was done using a Z test at fixed time points.||||0.258
91063453|NCT02440464|182011918|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified one-sided threshold of 0.05.|Z test|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the proportions of participants with Grade 3 infections between the Ixazomib and Placebo arms during 6 months post-randomization, with death from a cause other than infection treated as a competing risk. Cumulative incidences are estimated at 6, 12 and 18 months post randomization using Aalen-Johansen estimators for each treatment group. Comparison of cumulative incidence between treatment arms was done using a Z test at fixed time points.||||1.0
91063454|NCT02440464|182011918|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified one-sided threshold of 0.05.|Z test|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the proportions of participants with Grade 3 infections between the Ixazomib and Placebo arms during 12 months post-randomization, with death from a cause other than infection treated as a competing risk. Cumulative incidences are estimated at 6, 12 and 18 months post randomization using Aalen-Johansen estimators for each treatment group. Comparison of cumulative incidence between treatment arms was done using a Z test at fixed time points.||||1.0
91063455|NCT02440464|182011918|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified one-sided threshold of 0.05.|Z test|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the proportions of participants with Grade 3 infections between the Ixazomib and Placebo arms during 18 months post-randomization, with death from a cause other than infection treated as a competing risk. Cumulative incidences are estimated at 6, 12 and 18 months post randomization using Aalen-Johansen estimators for each treatment group. Comparison of cumulative incidence between treatment arms was done using a Z test at fixed time points.||||1.0
91063456|NCT03290378|182012039|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<.005
91063457|NCT01037218|182012040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|3.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|5.07|||ANCOVA|Baseline domain score and pooled site as covariates.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001 (NCT00282607).||5.07|1.70|<0.0001
91063458|NCT01037218|182012040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|5.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.05|7.43|||ANCOVA|Baseline domain score and pooled site as covariates.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001 (NCT00282607).||7.43|4.05|<0.0001
91063459|NCT01037218|182012040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|7.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.86|9.2|||ANCOVA|Baseline domain score and pooled site as covariates.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001 (NCT00282607).||9.20|5.86|<0.0001
91063460|NCT01037218|182012041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|20.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.44|26.93|||ANCOVA|"P-values were obtained from ANCOVA model with proportion of yes responses during the baseline period and pooled site as covariates."||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001 (NCT00282607).||26.93|13.44|<0.0001
90824991|NCT03197376|181526131|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes (GMT Ratio)|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 7F|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.39||||||||1.39|0.96|
91063461|NCT01037218|182012041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|25.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.32|31.81|||ANCOVA|"P-values were obtained from ANCOVA model with proportion of yes responses during the baseline period and pooled site as covariates."||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001 (NCT00282607).||31.81|18.32|<0.0001
91063462|NCT01037218|182012041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|32.84|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.18|39.5|||ANCOVA|"P-values were obtained from ANCOVA model with proportion of yes responses during the baseline period and pooled site as covariates."||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001 (NCT00282607).||39.50|26.18|<0.0001
91063463|NCT01037218|182012042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|21.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.19|29.24|||ANCOVA|"P-values were obtained from ANCOVA model with proportion of yes responses during the baseline period and pooled site as covariates."||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001 (NCT00282607).||29.24|14.19|<0.0001
91063464|NCT01037218|182012042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|26.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.27|34.37|||ANCOVA|"P-values were obtained from ANCOVA model with proportion of yes responses during the baseline period and pooled site as covariates."||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001 (NCT00282607).||34.37|19.27|<0.0001
91063465|NCT01037218|182012042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|35.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.98|42.83|||ANCOVA|"P-values were obtained from ANCOVA model with proportion of yes responses during the baseline period and pooled site as covariates."||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001 (NCT00282607).||42.83|27.98|<0.0001
91063466|NCT01037218|182012043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.23|||ANCOVA|P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with Baseline domain score and pooled site as covariates.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001 (NCT00282607).||2.23|0.81|<0.0001
91063467|NCT01037218|182012043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|2.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|3.0|||ANCOVA|P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with Baseline domain score and pooled site as covariates.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001 (NCT00282607).||3.00|1.58|<0.0001
91063468|NCT01037218|182012043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|2.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|3.6|||ANCOVA|P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with Baseline domain score and pooled site as covariates.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001 (NCT00282607).||3.60|2.20|<0.0001
91063469|NCT01037218|182012044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.59||||0.0673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|1.22|||ANCOVA|P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with Baseline domain score and pooled site as covariates.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001 (NCT00282607).||1.22|-0.04|0.0673
91063470|NCT01037218|182012044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.16|||ANCOVA|P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with Baseline domain score and pooled site as covariates.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001 (NCT00282607).||2.16|0.90|<0.0001
91063471|NCT01037218|182012044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|2.15|||ANCOVA|P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with Baseline domain score and pooled site as covariates.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001 (NCT00282607).||2.15|0.91|<0.0001
91063472|NCT01037218|182012045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.36||||0.0566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.73|||ANCOVA|P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with Baseline domain score and pooled site as covariates.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001 (NCT00282607).||0.73|-0.01|0.0566
91063473|NCT01037218|182012045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.71||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.08|||ANCOVA|P-values obtained from ANCOVA model with Baseline domain score and pooled site as covariates.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001 (NCT00282607).||1.08|0.34|0.0002
91063474|NCT01037218|182012045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.71||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.07|||ANCOVA|P-values obtained from ANCOVA model with Baseline domain score and pooled site as covariates.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001 (NCT00282607).||1.07|0.34|0.0001
91063475|NCT01037218|182012046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.86||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.4|||ANCOVA|P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with Baseline domain score and pooled site as covariates.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001 (NCT00282607).||1.40|0.32|0.0019
91063476|NCT01037218|182012046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|2.09|||ANCOVA|P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with Baseline domain score and pooled site as covariates.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001 (NCT00282607).||2.09|1.01|<0.0001
91063477|NCT01037218|182012046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|2.09|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|2.62|||ANCOVA|P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with Baseline domain score and pooled site as covariates.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001 (NCT00282607).||2.62|1.55|<0.0001
91063478|NCT01037218|182012047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Armitage test|||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001 (NCT00282607).||||<0.0001
91063479|NCT01037218|182012047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001 (NCT00282607).||||<0.0001
91063480|NCT01037218|182012047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001 (NCT00282607).||||<0.0001
90824992|NCT03197376|181526131|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes (GMT Ratio)|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 9V|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.49||||||||0.49|0.29|
90824993|NCT03197376|181526131|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes (GMT Ratio)|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 14|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.27||||||||1.27|0.67|
90824994|NCT03197376|181526131|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes (GMT Ratio)|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 19A|13.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.2|17.7||||||||17.7|10.2|
91063481|NCT01037218|182012047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001 (NCT00282607).||||<0.0001
90824995|NCT03197376|181526131|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes (GMT Ratio)|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 19F|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.81||||||||0.81|0.54|
90824996|NCT03197376|181526131|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes (GMT Ratio)|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 23F|3.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.25|4.09||||||||4.09|2.25|
90824997|NCT03197376|181526132|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC post-booster to the IgG GMC post-primary series in the Booster Cohort restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points.|Pn IgG type 1 GMC Ratio|1.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|1.52||||||||1.52|1.31|
90824998|NCT03197376|181526132|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC post-booster to the IgG GMC post-primary series in the Booster Cohort restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points.|Pn IgG type 5 GMC Ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|0.95||||||||0.95|0.81|
90824999|NCT03197376|181526132|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC post-booster to the IgG GMC post-primary series in the Booster Cohort restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points.|Pn IgG type 6A GMC Ratio|4.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.01|4.96||||||||4.96|4.01|
90825000|NCT03197376|181526132|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC post-booster to the IgG GMC post-primary series in the Booster Cohort restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points.|Pn IgG type 6B GMC Ratio|6.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|7.26||||||||7.26|5.70|
90825001|NCT03197376|181526132|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC post-booster to the IgG GMC post-primary series in the Booster Cohort restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points.|Pn IgG type 7F GMC Ratio|2.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.89|2.19||||||||2.19|1.89|
90825002|NCT03197376|181526132|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC post-booster to the IgG GMC post-primary series in the Booster Cohort restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points.|Pn IgG type 9V GMC Ratio|1.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|1.5||||||||1.50|1.29|
91063482|NCT01037218|182012048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|12.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.01|18.29|||ANOVA|P-values are obtained from ANOVA model with pooled site as a covariate.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001 (NCT00282607).||18.29|7.01|<0.0001
91063483|NCT01037218|182012048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|19.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.95|25.27|||ANOVA|P-values are obtained from ANOVA model with pooled site as a covariate.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001 (NCT00282607).||25.27|13.95|<0.0001
90825003|NCT03197376|181526132|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC post-booster to the IgG GMC post-primary series in the Booster Cohort restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points.|Pn IgG type 14 GMC Ratio|1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|1.51||||||||1.51|1.21|
90825004|NCT03197376|181526132|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC post-booster to the IgG GMC post-primary series in the Booster Cohort restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points.|Pn IgG type 19A GMC Ratio|2.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|2.91||||||||2.91|2.40|
90825005|NCT03197376|181526132|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC post-booster to the IgG GMC post-primary series in the Booster Cohort restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points.|Pn IgG type 19F GMC Ratio|1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|1.63||||||||1.63|1.36|
90825006|NCT03197376|181526132|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC post-booster to the IgG GMC post-primary series in the Booster Cohort restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points.|Pn IgG type 23F GMC Ratio|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.29|2.72||||||||2.72|2.29|
90825007|NCT03197376|181526132|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC post-booster to the IgG GMC post-primary series in the Booster Cohort restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points.|Pn IgG type 1 GMC Ratio|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.28||||||||1.28|1.06|
90825008|NCT03197376|181526132|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC post-booster to the IgG GMC post-primary series in the Booster Cohort restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points.|Pn IgG type 5 GMC Ratio|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.74||||||||0.74|0.61|
90825009|NCT03197376|181526132|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC post-booster to the IgG GMC post-primary series in the Booster Cohort restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points.|Pn IgG type 6A GMC Ratio|3.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.97|4.11||||||||4.11|2.97|
90825010|NCT03197376|181526132|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC post-booster to the IgG GMC post-primary series in the Booster Cohort restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points.|Pn IgG type 6B GMC Ratio|3.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.23|4.59||||||||4.59|3.23|
90825011|NCT03197376|181526132|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC post-booster to the IgG GMC post-primary series in the Booster Cohort restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points.|Pn IgG type 7F GMC Ratio|1.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|1.82||||||||1.82|1.47|
90825012|NCT03197376|181526132|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC post-booster to the IgG GMC post-primary series in the Booster Cohort restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points.|Pn IgG type 9V GMC Ratio|1.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|1.62||||||||1.62|1.31|
90825013|NCT03197376|181526132|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC post-booster to the IgG GMC post-primary series in the Booster Cohort restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points.|Pn IgG type 14 GMC Ratio|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.42||||||||1.42|1.03|
90825014|NCT03197376|181526132|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC post-booster to the IgG GMC post-primary series in the Booster Cohort restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points.|Pn IgG type 19A GMC Ratio|3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.99|4.33||||||||4.33|2.99|
90825015|NCT03197376|181526132|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC post-booster to the IgG GMC post-primary series in the Booster Cohort restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points.|Pn IgG type 19F GMC Ratio|1.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|1.75||||||||1.75|1.38|
90825016|NCT03197376|181526132|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC post-booster to the IgG GMC post-primary series in the Booster Cohort restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points.|Pn IgG type 23F GMC Ratio|2.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.98|2.65||||||||2.65|1.98|
90825017|NCT03197376|181526133|OTHER|The vaccines were compared using the ratios of the GMC ratios for the two treatment groups, i.e., the PNEUMOSIL ratio divided by the Synflorix ratio, and the corresponding 95% CIs based on log linear random effects models|Pn IgG type 1 GMC Ratio|2.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|2.71||||||||2.71|2.02|
90825018|NCT03197376|181526133|OTHER|The vaccines were compared using the ratios of the GMC ratios for the two treatment groups, i.e., the PNEUMOSIL ratio divided by the Synflorix ratio, and the corresponding 95% CIs based on log linear random effects models|Pn IgG type 5 GMC Ratio|1.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|1.79||||||||1.79|1.38|
90825019|NCT03197376|181526133|OTHER|The vaccines were compared using the ratios of the GMC ratios for the two treatment groups, i.e., the PNEUMOSIL ratio divided by the Synflorix ratio, and the corresponding 95% CIs based on log linear random effects models|Pn IgG type 6A GMC Ratio|11.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.67|14.0||||||||14.0|9.67|
91063484|NCT01037218|182012048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|27.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.44|32.59|||ANOVA|P-values are obtained from ANOVA model with pooled site as a covariate.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001 (NCT00282607).||32.59|21.44|<0.0001
90825020|NCT03197376|181526133|OTHER|The vaccines were compared using the ratios of the GMC ratios for the two treatment groups, i.e., the PNEUMOSIL ratio divided by the Synflorix ratio, and the corresponding 95% CIs based on log linear random effects models|Pn IgG type 6B GMC Ratio|1.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|2.15||||||||2.15|1.65|
90825021|NCT03197376|181526133|OTHER|The vaccines were compared using the ratios of the GMC ratios for the two treatment groups, i.e., the PNEUMOSIL ratio divided by the Synflorix ratio, and the corresponding 95% CIs based on log linear random effects models|Pn IgG type 7F GMC Ratio|1.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|1.8||||||||1.80|1.37|
90825022|NCT03197376|181526133|OTHER|The vaccines were compared using the ratios of the GMC ratios for the two treatment groups, i.e., the PNEUMOSIL ratio divided by the Synflorix ratio, and the corresponding 95% CIs based on log linear random effects models|Pn IgG type 9V GMC Ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.99||||||||0.99|0.76|
90825023|NCT03197376|181526133|OTHER|The vaccines were compared using the ratios of the GMC ratios for the two treatment groups, i.e., the PNEUMOSIL ratio divided by the Synflorix ratio, and the corresponding 95% CIs based on log linear random effects models|Pn IgG type 14 GMC Ratio|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|1.82||||||||1.82|1.21|
90825024|NCT03197376|181526133|OTHER|The vaccines were compared using the ratios of the GMC ratios for the two treatment groups, i.e., the PNEUMOSIL ratio divided by the Synflorix ratio, and the corresponding 95% CIs based on log linear random effects models|Pn IgG type 19A GMC Ratio|4.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.52|5.06||||||||5.06|3.52|
90825025|NCT03197376|181526133|OTHER|The vaccines were compared using the ratios of the GMC ratios for the two treatment groups, i.e., the PNEUMOSIL ratio divided by the Synflorix ratio, and the corresponding 95% CIs based on log linear random effects models|Pn IgG type 19F GMC Ratio|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.73||||||||0.73|0.55|
90825026|NCT03197376|181526133|OTHER|The vaccines were compared using the ratios of the GMC ratios for the two treatment groups, i.e., the PNEUMOSIL ratio divided by the Synflorix ratio, and the corresponding 95% CIs based on log linear random effects models|Pn IgG type 23F GMC Ratio|1.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.63|2.24||||||||2.24|1.63|
90825027|NCT03197376|181526134|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post primary series and 4 weeks post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort. It was restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 1|3.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.72|4.44||||||||4.44|2.72|
90825028|NCT03197376|181526134|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post primary series and 4 weeks post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort. It was restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 5|2.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.06|3.13||||||||3.13|2.06|
90825029|NCT03197376|181526134|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post primary series and 4 weeks post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort. It was restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 6A|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.83|3.42||||||||3.42|1.83|
90825030|NCT03197376|181526134|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post primary series and 4 weeks post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort. It was restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 6B|3.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.48|5.69||||||||5.69|2.48|
90825031|NCT03197376|181526134|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post primary series and 4 weeks post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort. It was restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 7F|3.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.92|5.18||||||||5.18|2.92|
90825032|NCT03197376|181526134|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post primary series and 4 weeks post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort. It was restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 9V|6.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.45|10.52||||||||10.52|4.45|
91063485|NCT01037218|182012049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.57|||ANCOVA|P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with baseline PSAE score and pooled site as covariates.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001 (NCT00282607).||0.57|0.30|<0.0001
90825033|NCT03197376|181526134|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post primary series and 4 weeks post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort. It was restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 14|2.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.64|3.65||||||||3.65|1.64|
90825034|NCT03197376|181526134|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post primary series and 4 weeks post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort. It was restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 19A|3.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.47|5.36||||||||5.36|2.47|
90825035|NCT03197376|181526134|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post primary series and 4 weeks post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort. It was restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 19F|2.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|3.14||||||||3.14|1.80|
90825036|NCT03197376|181526134|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post primary series and 4 weeks post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort. It was restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 23F|4.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.49|7.06||||||||7.06|3.49|
90825037|NCT03197376|181526134|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post primary series and 4 weeks post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort. It was restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 1|6.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.97|7.96||||||||7.96|4.97|
90825038|NCT03197376|181526134|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post primary series and 4 weeks post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort. It was restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 5|3.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.56|3.98||||||||3.98|2.56|
90825039|NCT03197376|181526134|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post primary series and 4 weeks post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort. It was restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 6A|6.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.55|10.84||||||||10.84|3.55|
90825040|NCT03197376|181526134|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post primary series and 4 weeks post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort. It was restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 6B|3.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.25|4.7||||||||4.70|2.25|
90825041|NCT03197376|181526134|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post primary series and 4 weeks post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort. It was restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 7F|2.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.13|3.69||||||||3.69|2.13|
90825042|NCT03197376|181526134|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post primary series and 4 weeks post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort. It was restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 9V|2.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.15|4.04||||||||4.04|2.15|
90825043|NCT03197376|181526134|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post primary series and 4 weeks post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort. It was restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 14|1.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.46||||||||2.46|1.06|
90825044|NCT03197376|181526134|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post primary series and 4 weeks post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort. It was restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 19A|5.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.88|9.21||||||||9.21|3.88|
91063486|NCT01037218|182012049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.68|||ANCOVA|P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with baseline PSAE score and pooled site as covariates.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001 (NCT00282607).||0.68|0.40|<0.0001
90825045|NCT03197376|181526134|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post primary series and 4 weeks post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort. It was restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 19F|1.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|2.68||||||||2.68|1.45|
90825046|NCT03197376|181526134|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post primary series and 4 weeks post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort. It was restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 23F|5.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|8.63||||||||8.63|3.80|
90825047|NCT03197376|181526135|OTHER|The vaccines will be compared using the ratios of the GMT ratios for the two treatment groups, i.e., the PNEUMOSIL ratio divided by the Synflorix ratio, and the corresponding 95% CIs based on log linear random effects models|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 1|1.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|2.72||||||||2.72|1.25|
90825048|NCT03197376|181526135|OTHER|The vaccines will be compared using the ratios of the GMT ratios for the two treatment groups, i.e., the PNEUMOSIL ratio divided by the Synflorix ratio, and the corresponding 95% CIs based on log linear random effects models|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 5|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.64||||||||1.64|0.79|
90825049|NCT03197376|181526135|OTHER|The vaccines will be compared using the ratios of the GMT ratios for the two treatment groups, i.e., the PNEUMOSIL ratio divided by the Synflorix ratio, and the corresponding 95% CIs based on log linear random effects models|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 6A|68.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.07|125.09||||||||125.09|37.07|
90825050|NCT03197376|181526135|OTHER|The vaccines will be compared using the ratios of the GMT ratios for the two treatment groups, i.e., the PNEUMOSIL ratio divided by the Synflorix ratio, and the corresponding 95% CIs based on log linear random effects models|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 6B|1.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|2.46||||||||2.46|1.25|
90825051|NCT03197376|181526135|OTHER|The vaccines will be compared using the ratios of the GMT ratios for the two treatment groups, i.e., the PNEUMOSIL ratio divided by the Synflorix ratio, and the corresponding 95% CIs based on log linear random effects models|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 7F|1.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|2.34||||||||2.34|1.28|
90825052|NCT03197376|181526135|OTHER|The vaccines will be compared using the ratios of the GMT ratios for the two treatment groups, i.e., the PNEUMOSIL ratio divided by the Synflorix ratio, and the corresponding 95% CIs based on log linear random effects models|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 9V|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.32||||||||1.32|0.65|
90825053|NCT03197376|181526135|OTHER|The vaccines will be compared using the ratios of the GMT ratios for the two treatment groups, i.e., the PNEUMOSIL ratio divided by the Synflorix ratio, and the corresponding 95% CIs based on log linear random effects models|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 14|2.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|3.51||||||||3.51|1.38|
90825054|NCT03197376|181526135|OTHER|The vaccines will be compared using the ratios of the GMT ratios for the two treatment groups, i.e., the PNEUMOSIL ratio divided by the Synflorix ratio, and the corresponding 95% CIs based on log linear random effects models|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 19A|12.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.36|21.37||||||||21.37|7.36|
90825055|NCT03197376|181526135|OTHER|The vaccines will be compared using the ratios of the GMT ratios for the two treatment groups, i.e., the PNEUMOSIL ratio divided by the Synflorix ratio, and the corresponding 95% CIs based on log linear random effects models|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 19F|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.46||||||||1.46|0.70|
90825056|NCT03197376|181526135|OTHER|The vaccines will be compared using the ratios of the GMT ratios for the two treatment groups, i.e., the PNEUMOSIL ratio divided by the Synflorix ratio, and the corresponding 95% CIs based on log linear random effects models|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 23F|3.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.21|4.45||||||||4.45|2.21|
90825057|NCT03197376|181526136|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority will be shown if a two-sided 95% CI for the treatment-group difference in response proportions (proportion with Synflorix co-administration minus proportion with PNEUMOSIL co-administration) has an upper limit of \< 0.10.|Absolute difference for measles|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|7.4||||||||7.4|-3.3|
90825058|NCT03197376|181526136|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority will be shown if a two-sided 95% CI for the treatment-group difference in response proportions (proportion with Synflorix co-administration minus proportion with PNEUMOSIL co-administration) has an upper limit of \< 0.10.|Absolute difference for rubella|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|4.0||||||||4.0|-0.9|
90825059|NCT03197376|181526136|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority will be shown if a two-sided 95% CI for the treatment-group difference in response proportions (proportion with Synflorix co-administration minus proportion with PNEUMOSIL co-administration) has an upper limit of \< 0.10.|Absolute difference for yellow fever|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|5.9||||||||5.9|0.2|
91063487|NCT01037218|182012049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.97|||ANCOVA|P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with baseline PSAE score and pooled site as covariates.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001 (NCT00282607).||0.97|0.69|<0.0001
91078440|NCT00553358|182042816|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.414||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.0|||Regression, Cox||Cox models (Cox, 1972), with the stratification factors entered as strata variables, were used to calculate a hazard ratio and corresponding confidence interval comparing pCR and no pCR.|Subjects in the OS landmark analysis in the trastuzumab arm||1.00|0.15|0.058
90825060|NCT03197376|181526137|OTHER|Treatment group difference in proportions|Absolute Difference for Type 1|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|23.7||||||||23.7|8.0|
90825061|NCT03197376|181526137|OTHER|Treatment group difference in proportions|Absolute Difference for Type 5|7.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|15.8||||||||15.8|-1.4|
90825062|NCT03197376|181526137|OTHER|Treatment group difference in proportions|Absolute Difference for Type 6A|30.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.8|38.1||||||||38.1|21.8|
90825063|NCT03197376|181526137|OTHER|Treatment group difference in proportions|Absolute Difference for Type 6B|16.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.1|23.6||||||||23.6|10.1|
90825064|NCT03197376|181526137|OTHER|Treatment group difference in proportions|Absolute Difference for Type 7F|16.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.4|24.5||||||||24.5|8.4|
90825065|NCT03197376|181526137|OTHER|Treatment group difference in proportions|Absolute Difference for Type 9V|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|8.5||||||||8.5|-8.8|
90825066|NCT03197376|181526137|OTHER|Treatment group difference in proportions|Absolute Difference for Type 14|14.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.5|22.3||||||||22.3|7.5|
90825067|NCT03197376|181526137|OTHER|Treatment group difference in proportions|Absolute Difference for Type 19A|14.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.3|22.5||||||||22.5|7.3|
90825068|NCT03197376|181526137|OTHER|Treatment group difference in proportions|Absolute Difference for Type 19F|-13.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|-8.0||||||||-8.0|-19.0|
90825069|NCT03197376|181526137|OTHER|Treatment group difference in proportions|Absolute Difference for Type 23F|16.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.2|25.4||||||||25.4|8.2|
90825070|NCT03197376|181526138|OTHER|The vaccines were compared using the ratios of the GMC ratios for the two treatment groups, i.e., the PNEUMOSIL ratio divided by the Synflorix ratio, and the corresponding 95% CIs|Pn IgG type 1 GMC Ratio|1.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|1.89||||||||1.89|1.42|
90825071|NCT03197376|181526138|OTHER|The vaccines were compared using the ratios of the GMC ratios for the two treatment groups, i.e., the PNEUMOSIL ratio divided by the Synflorix ratio, and the corresponding 95% CIs|Pn IgG type 5 GMC Ratio|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.4||||||||1.40|1.03|
90825072|NCT03197376|181526138|OTHER|The vaccines were compared using the ratios of the GMC ratios for the two treatment groups, i.e., the PNEUMOSIL ratio divided by the Synflorix ratio, and the corresponding 95% CIs|Pn IgG type 6A GMC Ratio|2.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.01|2.78||||||||2.78|2.01|
90825073|NCT03197376|181526138|OTHER|The vaccines were compared using the ratios of the GMC ratios for the two treatment groups, i.e., the PNEUMOSIL ratio divided by the Synflorix ratio, and the corresponding 95% CIs|Pn IgG type 6B GMC Ratio|1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|1.66||||||||1.66|1.27|
90825074|NCT03197376|181526138|OTHER|The vaccines were compared using the ratios of the GMC ratios for the two treatment groups, i.e., the PNEUMOSIL ratio divided by the Synflorix ratio, and the corresponding 95% CIs|Pn IgG type 7F GMC Ratio|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.49||||||||1.49|1.12|
91063488|NCT01037218|182012050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|15.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.21|20.14|||ANCOVA|"P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with proportion of yes responses during the baseline period and pooled site as covariates."||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001 (NCT00282607).||20.14|10.21|<0.0001
91063489|NCT01037218|182012050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|14.94|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.96|19.92|||ANCOVA|"P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with proportion of yes responses during the baseline period and pooled site as covariates."||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001 (NCT00282607).||19.92|9.96|<0.0001
91078613|NCT01937884|182043058|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.68
90825075|NCT03197376|181526138|OTHER|The vaccines were compared using the ratios of the GMC ratios for the two treatment groups, i.e., the PNEUMOSIL ratio divided by the Synflorix ratio, and the corresponding 95% CIs|Pn IgG type 9V GMC Ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.09||||||||1.09|0.81|
90825076|NCT03197376|181526138|OTHER|The vaccines were compared using the ratios of the GMC ratios for the two treatment groups, i.e., the PNEUMOSIL ratio divided by the Synflorix ratio, and the corresponding 95% CIs|Pn IgG type 14 GMC Ratio|1.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|1.72||||||||1.72|1.15|
90825077|NCT03197376|181526138|OTHER|The vaccines were compared using the ratios of the GMC ratios for the two treatment groups, i.e., the PNEUMOSIL ratio divided by the Synflorix ratio, and the corresponding 95% CIs|Pn IgG type 19A GMC Ratio|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.68||||||||1.68|1.14|
90825078|NCT03197376|181526138|OTHER|The vaccines were compared using the ratios of the GMC ratios for the two treatment groups, i.e., the PNEUMOSIL ratio divided by the Synflorix ratio, and the corresponding 95% CIs|Pn IgG type 19F GMC Ratio|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.74||||||||0.74|0.50|
90825079|NCT03197376|181526138|OTHER|The vaccines were compared using the ratios of the GMC ratios for the two treatment groups, i.e., the PNEUMOSIL ratio divided by the Synflorix ratio, and the corresponding 95% CIs|Pn IgG type 23F GMC Ratio|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|1.81||||||||1.81|1.24|
90825080|NCT03197376|181526139|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC one year post-booster to the IgG GMC 4 weeks post booster in the Booster Cohort.|Pn IgG type 1 GMC Ratio|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.06||||||||0.06|0.05|
90825081|NCT03197376|181526139|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC one year post-booster to the IgG GMC 4 weeks post booster in the Booster Cohort.|Pn IgG type 5 GMC Ratio|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.33||||||||0.33|0.27|
90825082|NCT03197376|181526139|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC one year post-booster to the IgG GMC 4 weeks post booster in the Booster Cohort.|Pn IgG type 6A GMC Ratio|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.16||||||||0.16|0.13|
90825083|NCT03197376|181526139|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC one year post-booster to the IgG GMC 4 weeks post booster in the Booster Cohort.|Pn IgG type 6B GMC Ratio|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.11||||||||0.11|0.10|
91078614|NCT01937884|182043059|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Student's t-test on log-transformed change in IFABP.||||||0.27
91078615|NCT01937884|182043060|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Student's t-test on log-transformed citrulline concentration on study day 5, by treatment group||||||0.04
90825084|NCT03197376|181526139|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC one year post-booster to the IgG GMC 4 weeks post booster in the Booster Cohort.|Pn IgG type 7F GMC Ratio|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.11||||||||0.11|0.09|
90825085|NCT03197376|181526139|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC one year post-booster to the IgG GMC 4 weeks post booster in the Booster Cohort.|Pn IgG type 9V GMC Ratio|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.23||||||||0.23|0.19|
90825086|NCT03197376|181526139|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC one year post-booster to the IgG GMC 4 weeks post booster in the Booster Cohort.|Pn IgG type 14 GMC Ratio|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.17||||||||0.17|0.13|
90825087|NCT03197376|181526139|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC one year post-booster to the IgG GMC 4 weeks post booster in the Booster Cohort.|Pn IgG type 19A GMC Ratio|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.26||||||||0.26|0.20|
90825088|NCT03197376|181526139|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC one year post-booster to the IgG GMC 4 weeks post booster in the Booster Cohort.|Pn IgG type 19F GMC Ratio|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.15||||||||0.15|0.12|
90825089|NCT03197376|181526139|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC one year post-booster to the IgG GMC 4 weeks post booster in the Booster Cohort.|Pn IgG type 23F GMC Ratio|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.12||||||||0.12|0.10|
90825090|NCT03197376|181526139|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC one year post-booster to the IgG GMC 4 weeks post booster in the Booster Cohort.|Pn IgG type 1 GMC Ratio|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.08||||||||0.08|0.06|
90825091|NCT03197376|181526139|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC one year post-booster to the IgG GMC 4 weeks post booster in the Booster Cohort.|Pn IgG type 5 GMC Ratio|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.45||||||||0.45|0.35|
90825092|NCT03197376|181526139|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC one year post-booster to the IgG GMC 4 weeks post booster in the Booster Cohort.|Pn IgG type 6A GMC Ratio|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.86||||||||0.86|0.62|
90825093|NCT03197376|181526139|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC one year post-booster to the IgG GMC 4 weeks post booster in the Booster Cohort.|Pn IgG type 6B GMC Ratio|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.16||||||||0.16|0.12|
90825094|NCT03197376|181526139|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC one year post-booster to the IgG GMC 4 weeks post booster in the Booster Cohort.|Pn IgG type 7F GMC Ratio|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.13||||||||0.13|0.11|
90825095|NCT03197376|181526139|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC one year post-booster to the IgG GMC 4 weeks post booster in the Booster Cohort.|Pn IgG type 9V GMC Ratio|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.22||||||||0.22|0.18|
91063490|NCT01037218|182012050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|21.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.15|25.96|||ANCOVA|"P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with proportion of yes responses during the baseline period and pooled site as covariates."||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001 (NCT00282607).||25.96|16.15|<0.0001
91063491|NCT01037218|182012051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|17.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.22|24.81|||ANCOVA|"P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with proportion of yes responses during the baseline period and pooled site as covariates."||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001 (NCT00282607).||24.81|10.22|<0.0001
91063492|NCT01037218|182012051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|28.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.01|35.62|||ANCOVA|"P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with proportion of yes responses during the baseline period and pooled site as covariates."||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001 (NCT00282607).||35.62|21.01|<0.0001
91063493|NCT01037218|182012051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|33.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.61|41.02|||ANCOVA|"P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with proportion of yes responses during the baseline period and pooled site as covariates."||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001 (NCT00282607).||41.02|26.61|<0.0001
90825096|NCT03197376|181526139|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC one year post-booster to the IgG GMC 4 weeks post booster in the Booster Cohort.|Pn IgG type 14 GMC Ratio|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.19||||||||0.19|0.13|
90825097|NCT03197376|181526139|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC one year post-booster to the IgG GMC 4 weeks post booster in the Booster Cohort.|Pn IgG type 19A GMC Ratio|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.78||||||||0.78|0.52|
90825098|NCT03197376|181526139|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC one year post-booster to the IgG GMC 4 weeks post booster in the Booster Cohort.|Pn IgG type 19F GMC Ratio|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.16||||||||0.16|0.12|
90825099|NCT03197376|181526139|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC one year post-booster to the IgG GMC 4 weeks post booster in the Booster Cohort.|Pn IgG type 23F GMC Ratio|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.16||||||||0.16|0.12|
90825100|NCT03197376|181526140|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA titer to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes one year post booster|OPA Type 1|24.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|42.1||||||||42.1|4.5|
90825101|NCT03197376|181526140|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA titer to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes one year post booster|OPA Type 5|9.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|25.5||||||||25.5|-5.8|
91078616|NCT01937884|182043061|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Student's t-test on log-transformed percent change of claudin 3||||||0.43
91078617|NCT01937884|182043062|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.88
91078618|NCT01937884|182043063|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.43
91078619|NCT01937884|182043064|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.06
90825102|NCT03197376|181526140|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA titer to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes one year post booster|OPA Type 6A|65.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.3|78.0||||||||78.0|48.3|
90825103|NCT03197376|181526140|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA titer to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes one year post booster|OPA Type 6B|23.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.4|39.4||||||||39.4|6.4|
90825104|NCT03197376|181526140|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA titer to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes one year post booster|OPA Type 7F|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|10.8||||||||10.8|-5.2|
90825105|NCT03197376|181526140|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA titer to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes one year post booster|OPA Type 9V|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||CI could not be computed due to 100% response rate|||||
90825106|NCT03197376|181526140|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA titer to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes one year post booster|OPA Type14|4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|18.3||||||||18.3|-8.5|
90825107|NCT03197376|181526140|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA titer to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes one year post booster|OPA Type 19A|34.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.5|50.8||||||||50.8|16.5|
90825108|NCT03197376|181526140|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA titer to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes one year post booster|OPA Type 19F|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|19.2||||||||19.2|-8.4|
90825109|NCT03197376|181526140|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA titer to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes one year post booster|OPA Type 23F|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||CI could not be computed due to 100% response rate|||||
90825110|NCT03197376|181526141|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes (GMT Ratio) one year post booster dose|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 1|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.1||||||||2.1|0.8|
91063494|NCT01037218|182012052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|18.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.23|26.23|||ANCOVA|"P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with proportion of yes responses during the baseline period and pooled site as covariates."||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001 (NCT00282607).||26.23|11.23|<0.0001
90825111|NCT03197376|181526141|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes (GMT Ratio) one year post booster dose|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 5|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.4||||||||2.4|0.7|
90825112|NCT03197376|181526141|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes (GMT Ratio) one year post booster dose|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 6A|14.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|32.1||||||||32.1|6.3|
90825113|NCT03197376|181526141|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes (GMT Ratio) one year post booster dose|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 6B|3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|6.8||||||||6.8|2.1|
90825114|NCT03197376|181526141|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes (GMT Ratio) one year post booster dose|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 7F|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.6||||||||1.6|0.6|
90825115|NCT03197376|181526141|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes (GMT Ratio) one year post booster dose|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 9V|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.7||||||||1.7|0.3|
90825116|NCT03197376|181526141|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes (GMT Ratio) one year post booster dose|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 14|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.4||||||||2.4|0.5|
90825117|NCT03197376|181526141|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes (GMT Ratio) one year post booster dose|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 19A|5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|10.8||||||||10.8|2.4|
90825118|NCT03197376|181526141|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes (GMT Ratio) one year post booster dose|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 19F|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.3||||||||2.3|0.4|
90825119|NCT03197376|181526141|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes (GMT Ratio) one year post booster dose|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 23F|4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|9.4||||||||9.4|2.0|
90825120|NCT03197376|181526142|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post booster and one year post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort.|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 1|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.06||||||||0.06|0.03|
90825121|NCT03197376|181526142|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post booster and one year post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort.|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 5|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.14||||||||0.14|0.09|
90825122|NCT03197376|181526142|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post booster and one year post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort.|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 6A|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.08||||||||0.08|0.03|
90825123|NCT03197376|181526142|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post booster and one year post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort.|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 6B|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.07||||||||0.07|0.03|
90825124|NCT03197376|181526142|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post booster and one year post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort.|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 7F|0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.38||||||||0.38|0.18|
90825125|NCT03197376|181526142|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post booster and one year post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort.|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 9V|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.23||||||||0.23|0.06|
90825126|NCT03197376|181526142|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post booster and one year post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort.|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 14|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.11||||||||0.11|0.05|
90825127|NCT03197376|181526142|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post booster and one year post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort.|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 19A|0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.3||||||||0.30|0.09|
90825128|NCT03197376|181526142|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post booster and one year post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort.|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 19F|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.18||||||||0.18|0.05|
90825129|NCT03197376|181526142|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post booster and one year post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort.|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 23F|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.18||||||||0.18|0.08|
90825130|NCT03197376|181526142|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post booster and one year post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort.|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 1|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.06||||||||0.06|0.03|
90825131|NCT03197376|181526142|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post booster and one year post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort.|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 5|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.1||||||||0.10|0.05|
90825132|NCT03197376|181526142|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post booster and one year post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort.|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 6A|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.48||||||||0.48|0.09|
90825133|NCT03197376|181526142|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post booster and one year post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort.|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 6B|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.03||||||||0.03|0.01|
90825134|NCT03197376|181526142|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post booster and one year post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort.|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 7F|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.65||||||||0.65|0.30|
90825135|NCT03197376|181526142|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post booster and one year post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort.|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 9V|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.2||||||||0.20|0.06|
90825136|NCT03197376|181526142|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post booster and one year post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort.|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 14|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.22||||||||0.22|0.06|
90825137|NCT03197376|181526142|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post booster and one year post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort.|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 19A|0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.49||||||||0.49|0.14|
90825138|NCT03197376|181526142|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post booster and one year post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort.|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 19F|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.14||||||||0.14|0.06|
90825139|NCT03197376|181526142|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post booster and one year post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort.|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 23F|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.12||||||||0.12|0.05|
90825140|NCT00999518|181526153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.35||||||The 3 parameter E max dose-response model, including baseline as a covariate, was fitted to estimate mean difference (tanezumab minus placebo) and associated 95% confidence interval (CI).||0.35|-0.40|
90825141|NCT00999518|181526153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.68||||||The 3 parameter E max dose-response model, including baseline as a covariate, was fitted to estimate mean difference (tanezumab minus placebo) and associated 95% CI.||0.68|-0.80|
90825142|NCT00999518|181526153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|0.83||||||The 3 parameter E max dose-response model, including baseline as a covariate, was fitted to estimate mean difference (tanezumab minus placebo) and associated 95% CI.||0.83|-1.15|
91063495|NCT01037218|182012052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|29.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.86|36.92|||ANCOVA|"P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with proportion of yes responses during the baseline period and pooled site as covariates."||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001 (NCT00282607).||36.92|21.86|<0.0001
91063496|NCT01037218|182012052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|34.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.94|41.75|||ANCOVA|"P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with proportion of yes responses during the baseline period and pooled site as covariates."||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001(NCT00282607).||41.75|26.94|<0.0001
90825143|NCT00999518|181526153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.47||||||The 3 parameter E max dose-response model, including baseline as a covariate, was fitted to estimate mean difference (tanezumab minus placebo) and associated 95% CI.||0.47|-0.93|
90825144|NCT00999518|181526155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.259|1.683||||||Week 8, at least 30% Reduction: Logistic regression analysis with treatment as independent variable was used for the analysis.||1.683|0.259|
90825145|NCT00999518|181526155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.975|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.387|2.457||||||Week 8, at least 30% Reduction: Logistic regression analysis with treatment as independent variable was used for the analysis.||2.457|0.387|
90825146|NCT00999518|181526155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.969|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.392|2.398||||||Week 8, at least 30% Reduction: Logistic regression analysis with treatment as independent variable was used for the analysis.||2.398|0.392|
90825147|NCT00999518|181526155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.969|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.392|2.398||||||Week 8, at least 30% Reduction: Logistic regression analysis with treatment as independent variable was used for the analysis.||2.398|0.392|
90825148|NCT00999518|181526155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.629|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.202|1.96||||||Week 8, at least 50% Reduction: Logistic regression analysis with treatment as independent variable was used for the analysis.||1.960|0.202|
90825149|NCT00999518|181526155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.179|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.411|3.376||||||Week 8, at least 50% Reduction: Logistic regression analysis with treatment as independent variable was used for the analysis.||3.376|0.411|
90825150|NCT00999518|181526155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.222|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.438|3.414||||||Week 8, at least 50% Reduction: Logistic regression analysis with treatment as independent variable was used for the analysis.||3.414|0.438|
90825151|NCT00999518|181526155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.778|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.259|2.335||||||Week 8, at least 50% Reduction: Logistic regression analysis with treatment as independent variable was used for the analysis.||2.335|0.259|
90825152|NCT00999518|181526155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.929|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|2.327||||||Week 16, at least 30% Reduction: Logistic regression analysis with treatment as independent variable was used for the analysis.||2.327|0.370|
90825153|NCT00999518|181526155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.083|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.427|2.749||||||Week 16, at least 30% Reduction: Logistic regression analysis with treatment as independent variable was used for the analysis.||2.749|0.427|
90825154|NCT00999518|181526155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.759|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.295|1.952||||||Week 16, at least 30% Reduction: Logistic regression analysis with treatment as independent variable was used for the analysis.||1.952|0.295|
90825155|NCT00999518|181526155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.759|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.295|1.952||||||Week 16, at least 30% Reduction: Logistic regression analysis with treatment as independent variable was used for the analysis.||1.952|0.295|
90825156|NCT00999518|181526155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.875|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.285|2.682||||||Week 16, at least 50% Reduction: Logistic regression analysis with treatment as independent variable was used for the analysis.||2.682|0.285|
90825157|NCT00999518|181526155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.366|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.466|4.006||||||Week 16, at least 50% Reduction: Logistic regression analysis with treatment as independent variable was used for the analysis.||4.006|0.466|
90825158|NCT00999518|181526155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.235|2.394||||||Week 16, at least 50% Reduction: Logistic regression analysis with treatment as independent variable was used for the analysis.||2.394|0.235|
90825159|NCT00999518|181526155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.063|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.356|3.168||||||Week 16, at least 50% Reduction: Logistic regression analysis with treatment as independent variable was used for the analysis.||3.168|0.356|
90825160|NCT00999518|181526158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.263||||0.5731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|2.848|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8: Proportional odds logistic regression analysis with treatment as independent variable was used for the analysis.||2.848|0.560|0.5731
90825161|NCT00999518|181526158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.656||||0.2592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.689|3.98|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8: Proportional odds logistic regression analysis with treatment as independent variable was used for the analysis.||3.980|0.689|0.2592
90825162|NCT00999518|181526158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9181||||1.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.452|2.417|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8: Proportional odds logistic regression analysis with treatment as independent variable was used for the analysis.||2.417|0.452|1.045
90825163|NCT00999518|181526158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.306||||0.5289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.569|2.997|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8: Proportional odds logistic regression analysis with treatment as independent variable was used for the analysis.||2.997|0.569|0.5289
90825164|NCT00999518|181526158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.893||||0.793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.385|2.074|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16: Proportional odds logistic regression analysis with treatment as independent variable was used for the analysis. For Week 16, data scores were combined into 3 categories: Improved ('slightly improved', 'moderately improved', 'markedly improved'), No Change ('no change') and Worse ('markedly worse', 'moderately worse', 'slightly worse') for comparison.||2.074|0.385|0.7930
90825165|NCT00999518|181526158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.167||||0.7386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.471|2.892|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16: Proportional odds logistic regression analysis with treatment as independent variable was used for the analysis. For Week 16, data scores were combined into 3 categories: Improved ('slightly improved', 'moderately improved', 'markedly improved'), No Change ('no change') and Worse ('markedly worse', 'moderately worse', 'slightly worse') for comparison.||2.892|0.471|0.7386
90825166|NCT00999518|181526158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.036||||0.9354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.437|2.46|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16: Proportional odds logistic regression analysis with treatment as independent variable was used for the analysis. For Week 16, data scores were combined into 3 categories: Improved ('slightly improved', 'moderately improved', 'markedly improved'), No Change ('no change') and Worse ('markedly worse', 'moderately worse', 'slightly worse') for comparison.||2.460|0.437|0.9354
90825167|NCT00999518|181526158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.805||||0.6207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.341|1.899|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16: Proportional odds logistic regression analysis with treatment as independent variable was used for the analysis. For Week 16, data scores were combined into 3 categories: Improved ('slightly improved', 'moderately improved', 'markedly improved'), No Change ('no change') and Worse ('markedly worse', 'moderately worse', 'slightly worse') for comparison.||1.899|0.341|0.6207
90825168|NCT00122369|181526190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014||95.0||||Bonferoni correction was made so that results with p\<0.0167 are considered significant|t-test, 2 sided|||The impact of knowing or not knowing the diagnosis became so overwhelming and group composition with regard of whether and which result had been communicated changed daily in the post-biopsy follow-up, so that the originally planned analysis of the impact of Self-Hynotic Relaxation or Empathic Attention on cortisol measures became underpowered. Therefore we focused on the analysis of the impact of diagnosis.||||0.014
90825169|NCT00122369|181526190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.421||95.0||||Bonferoni correction was made so that results with p\<0.0167 are considered significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.421
91063497|NCT07034820|182012064|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|56.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.0|64.0||A priori statistical significance threshold for the primary endpoint was set at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was applied to the primary outcome analysis, as it was the sole primary endpoint.|Chi-squared||The Risk Difference (RD) indicates the absolute difference in hemorrhoid regression rates between the Nimsai Herbal Group and the Placebo Group. Calculation: Nimsai Herbal (78%) - Placebo (22%) = 56%.|Powered for 56% difference (80% power, alpha=0.05) to detect the anticipated difference in hemorrhoid regression rates between groups. The sample size of N=300 (150 participants per arm) was calculated based on an expected regression rate of 22% in the placebo group and 78% in the Nimsai Herbal group. This ensured sufficient statistical power for the primary efficacy analysis.||64|48|<0.001
90825170|NCT00122369|181526190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.138||95.0||||Bonferoni correction was made so that results with p\<0.0167 are considered significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.138
90825171|NCT00122369|181526191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.56|||||||ANOVA|||The null-hypothesis was that there would be no difference among groups.||||0.56
90825172|NCT00122369|181526203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Ordinal regression|||||||<0.001
90825173|NCT00122369|181526203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45||95.0|||||Ordinal regression|||||||0.45
90825174|NCT00122369|181526203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Ordinal regression|||||||<0.001
90825175|NCT00122369|181526203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||Proportional odds model|||||||<0.01
90825176|NCT00122369|181526203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Proportional odds model|||||||<0.001
90825177|NCT00122369|181526203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||Proportional odds model|||||||<0.01
90825178|NCT00122369|181526216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Ordinal regression|||||||<0.001
90825179|NCT00122369|181526216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Ordinal regression|||||||<0.001
90825180|NCT00122369|181526216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Ordinal regression|||||||<0.001
90825181|NCT00122369|181526216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024||95.0|||||Proportional odds model|||||||0.024
90825182|NCT00122369|181526216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018||95.0|||||Proportional odds model|||||||0.018
90825183|NCT00122369|181526216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73||95.0|||||Proportional odds model|||||||0.73
90825184|NCT00870545|181526231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||||||P values less than or equal to .05 were considered statistically significant, and those between .05 and .10 were considered to document trends that approached, but did not attain, statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in scores measured across three time points (baseline, 6 and 12 months)||||.003
90825185|NCT00870545|181526232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2||95.0||||P values less than or equal to .05 were considered statistically significant, and those between .05 and .10 were considered to document trends that approached, but did not attain, statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was change in score over time (baseline, 6 and 12 months)||||.20
90825186|NCT00870545|181526233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P values less than or equal to .05 were considered statistically significant, and those between .05 and .10 were considered to document trends that approached, but did not attain, statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in scores measured across three time points (baseline, 6 and 12 months)||||<.001
90825187|NCT00870545|181526234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26||95.0||||P values less than or equal to .05 were considered statistically significant, and those between .05 and .10 were considered to document trends that approached, but did not attain, statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was change in score over time (baseline, 6 months, 12 months)||||.26
90825188|NCT00870545|181526235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0||||P values less than or equal to .05 were considered statistically significant, and those between .05 and .10 were considered to document trends that approached, but did not attain, statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was change in scores over time (baseline, 6 months, and 12 months)||||.04
90825189|NCT00870545|181526236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1||95.0||||P values less than or equal to .05 were considered statistically significant, and those between .05 and .10 were considered to document trends that approached, but did not attain, statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was change in score over time (baseline, 6 months, and 12 months)||||.10
90825190|NCT02178696|181526237|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.31|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.016|0.23||A p\<0.001 was established for regions a priori hypothesized (e.g. nucleus accumbens).|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.23|0.016|<0.001
90825191|NCT03857542|181526291|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|15.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|22.7||P-value was adjusted for multiplicity control.|Chi-squared||Analysis was done using Chi-square test. The 95% confidence intervals for the proportion differences were calculated based on the normal approximation based on pooled variance without continuity correction.|||22.7|7.7|<.0001
90825192|NCT03857542|181526292|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|6.5||||0.0548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|13.1||P-value was adjusted for multiplicity control.|Chi-squared||Analysis was done using Chi-square test. The 95% confidence intervals for the proportion difference was calculated based on the normal approximation based on pooled variance without continuity correction.|||13.1|-0.1|0.0548
90825193|NCT03857542|181526293|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|5.9||||0.0693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|12.2||P-value was adjusted for multiplicity control.|Chi-squared||Analysis was done using Chi-square test. The 95% confidence intervals for the proportion difference was calculated based on the normal approximation based on pooled variance without continuity correction.|||12.2|-0.5|0.0693
90825194|NCT03857542|181526294|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|5.2||MMRM with study intervention group, visit, visit by study intervention group interaction, age group, Baseline binocular DCNVA severity, iris color, emmetrope/non-emmetrope, Baseline value; Baseline value by visit interaction as fixed effects.|MMRM|P-value was adjusted for multiplicity control.||||5.2|2.9|<.0001
90825195|NCT03857542|181526295|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|9.9||||0.0141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|16.3||P-value was adjusted for multiplicity control.|Chi-squared||Analysis was done using chi-square test. The 95% confidence intervals was calculated based on normal approximation based on pooled variance without continuity correction.|||16.3|3.5|0.0141
90825196|NCT03857542|181526296|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.0||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with study intervention group, age group, Baseline binocular DCNVA severity, iris color (brown/non-brown), emmetrope/non-emmetrope, and Baseline domain score as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|P-value was adjusted for multiplicity control||||1.0|0.5|<.0001
90825197|NCT03857542|181526297|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|4.4||MMRM with study intervention group, visit, visit by study intervention group interaction, age group, Baseline binocular DCNVA severity, iris color, emmetrope/non-emmetrope, Baseline value, and Baseline value by visit interaction as fixed effects.|MMRM|P-value was adjusted for multiplicity control.||||4.4|2.4|<.0001
90825198|NCT03857542|181526298|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|3.8||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|10.0||P-value was adjusted for multiplicity control.|Chi-squared||Analysis was done using chi-square test. The 95% confidence intervals for the proportion differences were calculated based on the normal approximation based on pooled variance without continuity correction.|||10.0|-2.3|0.2200
91063498|NCT00683657|182012110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.16||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.1|-8.5||Between-group comparisons significant at alpha = 0.05, significance testing based on hierarchical testing. Primary and secondary endpoints are presented in order of testing.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: post - pre = pre treatment|Mean difference = adjusted mean change for saxagliptin 5 mg + Metformin - adjusted mean change for Placebo + Metformin.|With 39 subjects per treatment group, there was a 93% power for the primary endpoint to detect a difference in 24-hour mean weighted glucose of 16 mg/dL between saxagliptin and placebo, assuming a standard deviation of 20 mg/dL. Assuming a dropout rate of 15%, a total of 92 subjects (46 subjects per treatment arm) needed to be randomized.||-8.5|-25.1|0.0001
90825199|NCT03857542|181526299|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|3.7||MMRM with study intervention group, visit, visit by study intervention group interaction, age group, Baseline binocular DCNVA severity, iris color, emmetrope/non-emmetrope, Baseline value, and Baseline value by visit interaction as fixed effects.|MMRM|P-value was adjusted for multiplicity control.||||3.7|1.5|<.0001
90825200|NCT03857542|181526300|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|12.4||||0.0141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.2|19.5||P-value was adjusted for multiplicity control.|Chi-squared||Analysis was done using chi-square test. The 95% confidence intervals was calculated based on normal approximation based on pooled variance without continuity correction.|||19.5|5.2|0.0141
90825201|NCT03857542|181526301|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.0||ANCOVA with study intervention group, age group, Baseline binocular DCNVA severity, iris color (brown/non-brown), emmetrope/non-emmetrope, and Baseline domain score as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|P-value was adjusted for multiplicity control.||||1.0|0.5|<.0001
91063499|NCT00683657|182012111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-30.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.4|-16.1||Between-group comparisons significant at alpha = 0.05, significance testing based on hierarchical testing. Primary and secondary endpoints are presented in order of testing.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: post - pre = pretreatment|Mean difference = adjusted mean change for saxagliptin 5 mg + Metformin - adjusted mean change for Placebo + Metformin|With 39 subjects per treatment group, there was a 93% power for the primary endpoint to detect a difference in 24-hour mean weighted glucose of 16 mg/dL between saxagliptin and placebo, assuming a standard deviation of 20 mg/dL. Assuming a dropout rate of 15%, a total of 92 subjects (46 subjects per treatment arm) needed to be randomized.||-16.1|-44.4|<0.0001
91063500|NCT00683657|182012112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-35.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.41||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.2|-14.7||Between-group comparisons significant at alpha = 0.05, significance testing based on hierarchical testing. Primary and secondary endpoints are presented in order of testing.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: post - pre = pretreatment|Mean difference = adjusted mean change for saxagliptin 5 mg + Metformin - adjusted mean change for Placebo + Metformin|With 39 subjects per treatment group, there was a 93% power for the primary endpoint to detect a difference in 24-hour mean weighted glucose of 16 mg/dL between saxagliptin and placebo, assuming a standard deviation of 20 mg/dL. Assuming a dropout rate of 15%, a total of 92 subjects (46 subjects per treatment arm) needed to be randomized.||-14.7|-56.2|0.0010
91063501|NCT00683657|182012113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.22|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.1|-10.3||Between-group comparisons significant at alpha = 0.05, significance testing based on hierarchical testing. Primary and secondary endpoints are presented in order of testing.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: post - pre = pretreatment|Mean difference = adjusted mean change for saxagliptin 5 mg + Metformin - adjusted mean change for Placebo + Metformin|With 39 subjects per treatment group, there was a 93% power for the primary endpoint to detect a difference in 24-hour mean weighted glucose of 16 mg/dL between saxagliptin and placebo, assuming a standard deviation of 20 mg/dL. Assuming a dropout rate of 15%, a total of 92 subjects (46 subjects per treatment arm) needed to be randomized.||-10.3|-27.1|<0.0001
91063502|NCT00683657|182012114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.3|-7.4||Between-group comparisons significant at alpha = 0.05, significance testing based on hierarchical testing. Primary and secondary endpoints are presented in order of testing.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: post - pre = pretreatment|Mean difference = adjusted mean change for saxagliptin 5 mg + Metformin - adjusted mean change for Placebo + Metformin|With 39 subjects per treatment group, there was a 93% power for the primary endpoint to detect a difference in 24-hour mean weighted glucose of 16 mg/dL between saxagliptin and placebo, assuming a standard deviation of 20 mg/dL. Assuming a dropout rate of 15%, a total of 92 subjects (46 subjects per treatment arm) needed to be randomized.||-7.4|-23.3|0.0002
91063503|NCT02586155|182012122|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.823||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.649|1.044|||Stratified long-rank|||||1.044|0.649|0.1070
91063504|NCT02586155|182012123|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.849||||0.1495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.679|1.061|||Stratified long-rank|||||1.061|0.679|0.1495
91063505|NCT02586155|182012124|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.94|||Stratified long-rank|||||0.94|0.38|0.03
91063506|NCT02586155|182012125|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.24|||Stratified long-rank|||||1.24|0.62|0.44
91063507|NCT02586155|182012136|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.78||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.98|||Log Rank|||||0.98|0.63|0.03
91063508|NCT02899962|182012186|SUPERIORITY|The primary endpoint was time to first relapse during the maintenance phase. This was calculated as the number of days from randomisation to the day where the subject had the first relapse confirmed. For subjects who either did not encounter a relapse or were withdrawn from the trial, the number of days was treated as a censored observation at the day of end of trial visit.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.69|||Regression, Cox||Estimates are obtained from a proportional hazards model with treatment group,pooled trial site,disease severity at maintenance baseline (Week 4; determined by PGA) as factors.|All randomized subjects were considered for statistical analysis.||0.69|0.47|<0.001
91063509|NCT02899962|182012187|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.14|||ANOVA|Factors adjusted for in the ANOVA model were treatment group, pooled trial site, and disease severity at maintenance baseline (PGA).|Multiple imputation of data for withdrawn subjects was done using 100 imputations and depended on whether the subject's reason for withdrawal potentially was related to treatment. Length of the maintenance phase was assumed to be 52 weeks (364 days)|The number of days in remission was calculated as the sum of days where the subject was in remission periods. The proportion of days in remission was calculated as the number of days in remission divided by the length of the maintenance phase in days.||0.14|0.08|<0.001
91063510|NCT02899962|182012188|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.63|||Poisson regression||The number of relapses was analysed using a Poisson regression model with treatment group,pooled sites,disease severity at maintenance baseline as factors, subject as random effect, and time at risk as an offset.|||0.63|0.46|<0.001
91063511|NCT00473590|182012191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.956||||0.9179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.404|2.261|||Log Rank|The strata were number of prior cancer treatments (1, \> 1) and β2-microglobulin level (\< 3.5, ≥ 3.5 mg/L).|The hazard ratios were estimated using Cox regression.|Stratified analysis||2.261|0.404|0.9179
91063512|NCT00473590|182012191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.836||||0.6665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.369|1.893||The tests were exploratory because patients were not randomized to the two arms with respect to response status.|Log Rank||The hazard ratios were estimated using Cox regression.|Unstratified analysis.||1.893|0.369|0.6665
91063513|NCT00473590|182012192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.633||||0.3134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.258|1.552|||Log Rank||The hazard ratios were estimated using Cox regression. The strata were number of prior cancer treatments (1, \> 1) and β2-microglobulin level (\< 3.5, ≥ 3.5 mg/L).|Stratified analysis||1.552|0.258|0.3134
91063514|NCT00473590|182012192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.608||||0.2634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.251|1.468|||Log Rank||The hazard ratios were estimated using Cox regression.|Unstratified analysis||1.468|0.251|0.2634
91078620|NCT02191046|182043065|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|power of study = 90%|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.38|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.89|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.41|5.37|||t-test, 2 sided|||compare the mean 5S-score between before and after treatment in syringe group||5.37|3.41|<0.05
91063515|NCT00473590|182012193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.743||||0.2804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.432|1.276|||Log Rank|The analysis was stratified for number of prior cancer treatments (1, \> 1) and β2-microglobulin level (\< 3.5, ≥ 3.5 mg/L).|The hazard ratio was estimated using Cox regression. The hazard ratio is relative to BORT + P.|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the 2 treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was that progression-free survival was longer in the BORT + BV group. Stratified Analysis.||1.276|0.432|0.2804
91063516|NCT00473590|182012193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.713||||0.2009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.424|1.2|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio relative to BORT + P was estimated using Cox regression.|Unstratified Analysis.||1.200|0.424|0.2009
91063517|NCT02623725|182012246|NON_INFERIORITY|The overall non-inferiority of the booster dose was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95 percent (%) Confidence Interval (CI) of the Geometric mean of titer ratios (GMTRs) (booster vs post-dose 3) was greater than (\>) 1/2 for each serotype.|Geometric mean of titer ratio|1.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|2.06||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 1||2.06|1.33|
91063518|NCT02623725|182012246|NON_INFERIORITY|The overall non-inferiority of the booster dose was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the GMTRs (booster vs post-dose 3) was \>1/2 for each serotype.|Geometric mean of titer ratio|1.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|2.31||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 2||2.31|1.43|
91063519|NCT02623725|182012246|NON_INFERIORITY|The overall non-inferiority of the booster dose was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the GMTRs (booster vs post-dose 3) was \>1/2 for each serotype.|Geometric mean of titer ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.841|1.27||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 3||1.27|0.841|
91063520|NCT02623725|182012246|NON_INFERIORITY|The overall non-inferiority of the booster dose was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the GMTRs (booster vs post-dose 3) was \>1/2 for each serotype.|Geometric mean of titer ratio|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.74||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 4||1.74|1.01|
90825202|NCT03857542|181526302|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.2||ANCOVA with study intervention group, age group, Baseline binocular DCNVA severity, iris color (brown/non-brown), emmetrope/non-emmetrope, and Baseline domain score as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|P-value was adjusted for multiplicity control.||||-0.2|-0.5|0.0002
90825203|NCT03857542|181526303|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.2||ANCOVA with study intervention group, age group, Baseline binocular DCNVA severity, iris color (brown/non-brown), emmetrope/non-emmetrope, and Baseline domain score as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|P-value was adjusted for multiplicity control.||||-0.2|-0.4|0.0002
90825204|NCT00797277|181526385|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|There was no previous study comparing these 2 treatments. We hypothesized that the mean difference between the 2 treatments would be small.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||we hypothesized that there would be no statistical significant difference between the 2 groups in the primary outcome.||||<0.05
91063521|NCT02623725|182012247|SUPERIORITY|The superiority was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio was \>1.|Geometric mean of titer ratio|1.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|2.05||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 1||2.05|1.34|
91063522|NCT02623725|182012247|SUPERIORITY|The superiority was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio was \>1.|Geometric mean of titer ratio|1.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.49|2.41||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 2||2.41|1.49|
91063523|NCT02623725|182012247|SUPERIORITY|The superiority was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio was \>1.|Geometric mean of titer ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.3||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 3||1.30|0.860|
91063524|NCT02623725|182012247|SUPERIORITY|The superiority was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio was \>1.|Geometric mean of titer ratio|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.73||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 4||1.73|1.02|
91063525|NCT03918629|182012260|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority objective was achieved if the lower limit of the 95% CI for geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \>0.67 for both Toxin A and Toxin B.|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.9|||||Adjusted geometric mean ratio (GMR) was estimated by the ratio of the adjusted GMCs (adjusted for baseline concentrations). CIs based on the student t distribution for the mean or the mean difference in logarithmic scale.|Toxin A||0.90|0.74|
91063526|NCT03918629|182012260|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority objective was achieved if the lower limit of the 95% CI for GMR was \>0.67 for both Toxin A and Toxin B.|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.66|||||Adjusted GMR was estimated by the ratio of the adjusted GMCs (adjusted for baseline concentrations). CIs based on the student t distribution for the mean difference in logarithmic scale.|Toxin B||0.66|0.49|
91063527|NCT03918629|182012261|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority objective was achieved if the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference was \>-10% for both Toxin A and Toxin B.|Percentage difference|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|2.9|||||The difference (2-Dose - 3-Dose) and the associated 95% CIs for the difference were calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Toxin A||2.9|-6.4|
91063528|NCT03918629|182012261|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority objective was achieved if the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference was \>-10% for both Toxin A and Toxin B.|Percentage difference|-16.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.3|-12.2|||||The difference (2-Dose - 3-Dose) and the associated 95% CIs for the difference were calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Toxin B||-12.2|-21.3|
91063529|NCT03918629|182012270|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority objective was achieved if the lower limit of the 95% CI for GMR was \>0.67 for both Toxin A and Toxin B.|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.95|||||Adjusted GMR was estimated by the ratio of the adjusted GMCs (adjusted for baseline concentrations). CIs based on the student t distribution for the mean or the mean difference in logarithmic scale.|Toxin A||0.95|0.80|
91063530|NCT03918629|182012270|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority objective was achieved if the lower limit of the 95% CI for GMR was \>0.67 for both Toxin A and Toxin B.|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.81|||||Adjusted GMR was estimated by the ratio of the adjusted GMCs (adjusted for baseline concentrations). CIs based on the student t distribution for the mean or the mean difference in logarithmic scale.|Toxin B||0.81|0.62|
90825205|NCT00786799|181526387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.1||0.4|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the mean change in Aberrant Behavior Checklist Hyperactivity subscale (ABC-H) score is the same for both groups.||||0.40
91063531|NCT03918629|182012271|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority objective was achieved if the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference was \>-10% for both Toxin A and Toxin B.|Percentage difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|1.7|||||The difference (2-Dose - 3-Dose) and the associated 95% CIs for the difference were calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Toxin A||1.7|-3.7|
91063532|NCT03918629|182012271|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority objective was achieved if the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference was \>-10% for both Toxin A and Toxin B.|Percentage difference|-10.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.1|-5.5|||||The difference (2-Dose - 3-Dose) and the associated 95% CIs for the difference were calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Toxin B||-5.5|-15.1|
91063533|NCT01243957|182012272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.61|2.0|||ANOVA|||||2.00|1.61|
91063534|NCT01243957|182012273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.49|1.79|||ANOVA|||||1.79|1.49|
91063535|NCT01243957|182012274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.5459|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|0.5|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.50|-0.50|0.5459
91063536|NCT01243957|182012275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.99|1.04|||ANOVA|||Ratio of Geometric LS Means of AUCτ for fluoxetine alone and fluoxetine + LY2216684.||1.04|0.99|
91063537|NCT01243957|182012275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.01|1.06|||ANOVA|||Ratio of Geometric LS Means of AUCτ for norfluoxetine alone and norfluoxetine + LY2216684.||1.06|1.01|
91063538|NCT01243957|182012276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.03|||ANOVA|||Ratio of Geometric LS Means of Cmax for fluoxetine alone and fluoxetine + LY2216684||1.03|0.97|
91063539|NCT01243957|182012276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.07|||ANOVA|||Ratio of Geometric LS Means of Cmax for norfluoxetine alone and norfluoxetine + LY2216684.||1.07|1.00|
91063540|NCT01243957|182012277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.423|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.0|1.42|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Ratio of Geometric LS Means of Tmax for fluoxetine alone and fluoxetine + LY2216684.||1.42|-3.00|0.4230
91063541|NCT01243957|182012277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-4.0||||0.0293|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.5|-1.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Ratio of Geometric LS Means of Tmax for norfluoxetine alone and norfluoxetine + LY2216684.||-1.00|-6.50|0.0293
91063542|NCT02456740|182012278|SUPERIORITY|The primary endpoint was tested independently for each erenumab dose at an alpha level of 0.04 for 70 mg and of 0.01 for 140 mg to maintain the type 1 error rate at an alpha level of 0.05.|LS Mean Difference|-1.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|-0.92|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||The primary endpoint was analyzed using a generalized linear mixed model which includes treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factors (region and prior/current treatment with migraine prophylactic medication), and baseline value as covariates.||-0.92|-1.88|< 0.001
91063543|NCT02456740|182012278|SUPERIORITY|The primary endpoint was tested independently for each erenumab dose at an alpha level of 0.04 for 70 mg and of 0.01 for 140 mg to maintain the type 1 error rate at an alpha level of 0.05.|LS Mean Difference|-1.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|-1.37|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||The primary endpoint was analyzed using a generalized linear mixed model which includes treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factors (region and prior/current treatment with migraine prophylactic medication), and baseline value as covariates.||-1.37|-2.33|< 0.001
91063544|NCT02456740|182012279|SUPERIORITY|If the primary endpoint was statistically significant for the erenumab 70 mg group, using a gate-keeping strategy, the first two (first tier) secondary endpoints were tested using the Hochberg method at an alpha level of 0.04.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|2.98|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analyzed using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by the randomization stratification factors (region and prior/current treatment with migraine prophylactic medication).||2.98|1.52|< 0.001
91063545|NCT02456740|182012279|SUPERIORITY|If the primary endpoint was statistically significant for the erenumab 140 mg group, using a gate-keeping strategy, the first two (first tier) secondary endpoints were tested using the Hochberg method at an alpha level of 0.01.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.01|3.94|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analyzed using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by the randomization stratification factors (region and prior/current treatment with migraine prophylactic medication).||3.94|2.01|< 0.001
91063546|NCT02456740|182012280|SUPERIORITY|If the primary endpoint was statistically significant for the erenumab 70 mg group, using a gate-keeping strategy, the first two (first tier) secondary endpoints were tested using the Hochberg method at an alpha level of 0.04.|LS Mean Difference|-0.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|-0.64|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||Analyzed using a generalized linear mixed model which includes treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factors (region and prior/current treatment with migraine prophylactic medication), and baseline value as covariates.||-0.64|-1.23|< 0.001
91063547|NCT02456740|182012280|SUPERIORITY|If the primary endpoint was statistically significant for the erenumab 140 mg group, using a gate-keeping strategy, the first two (first tier) secondary endpoints were tested using the Hochberg method at an alpha level of 0.01.|LS Mean Difference|-1.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|-1.12|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||Analyzed using a generalized linear mixed model which includes treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, (stratification factors region and prior/current treatment with migraine prophylactic medication), and baseline value as covariates.||-1.12|-1.71|< 0.001
91063548|NCT02456740|182012281|SUPERIORITY|If the first tier secondary endpoints were statistically significant for both erenumab doses the erenumab 140 mg group for the 2 remaining MPFID secondary endpoints was tested using the Hochberg method at a level of 0.05; If only the erenumab 70 mg group or 140 mg group showed statistical significance for the first tier secondary endpoints then the erenumab 140 group for the 2 remaining MPFID secondary endpoints was tested for significance at a level of either 0.04 or 0.01 respectively.|LS Mean Difference|-2.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.51|-1.35|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||Analyzed using a generalized linear mixed model which includes treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factors (region and prior/current treatment with migraine prophylactic medication), and baseline value as covariates.||-1.35|-3.51|< 0.001
91078621|NCT02191046|182043065|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|power of study = 90%|Mean Difference (Net)|0.93|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.42|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.094|1.76|||t-test, 2 sided|||compare the mean 5S-score between 2 groups at 2 weeks after treatment||1.76|0.094|<0.05
91063549|NCT02456740|182012281|SUPERIORITY|If the erenumab 140 mg group for both remaining MPFID secondary endpoints were statistically significant, then the erenumab 70 mg group for the two remaining MPFID secondary endpoints was tested for significance using the Hochberg method with the same alpha level carried over from 140 mg group.|LS Mean Difference|-1.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.95|-0.77|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||Analyzed using a generalized linear mixed model which includes treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factors (region and prior/current treatment with migraine prophylactic medication), and baseline value as covariates.||-0.77|-2.95|< 0.001
91063550|NCT02456740|182012282|SUPERIORITY|If the first tier secondary endpoints were statistically significant for both erenumab doses the erenumab 140 mg group for the 2 remaining MPFID secondary endpoints was tested using the Hochberg method at a level of 0.05; If only the erenumab 70 mg group or 140 mg group showed statistical significance for the first tier secondary endpoints then the erenumab 140 group for the 2 remaining MPFID secondary endpoints was tested for significance at a level of either 0.04 or 0.01 respectively.|LS Mean Difference|-2.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.62|-1.51|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||Analyzed using a generalized linear mixed model which includes treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factors (region and prior/current treatment with migraine prophylactic medication), and baseline value as covariates.||-1.51|-3.62|< 0.001
91063551|NCT02456740|182012282|SUPERIORITY|If the erenumab 140 mg group for both remaining MPFID secondary endpoints were statistically significant, then the erenumab 70 mg group for the two remaining MPFID secondary endpoints was tested for significance using the Hochberg method with the same alpha level carried over from 140 mg group.|LS Mean Difference|-2.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.28|-1.16|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||Analyzed using a generalized linear mixed model which includes treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factors (region and prior/current treatment with migraine prophylactic medication), and baseline value as covariates.||-1.16|-3.28|< 0.001
91063552|NCT01891864|182012295|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin for the comparison of GP2015 with Enbrel with respect to PASI 75 response at Week 12 was based on response rates reported in two pivotal placebo controlled trials (Leonardi et al 2003; Papp et al 2005). Based on the observed effect size of 45-46%, an equivalence margin of 18% was chosen so that at least 60% of the treatment effect seen for Enbrel was maintained. A response rate of 49% was assumed for the comparator treatment Enbrel.|Risk Difference (RD)|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.85|5.3||||||PASI 75 response rate (proportion of patients showing at least a 75% improvement in PASI) after the first 12 weeks of treatment (Treatment Period 1) was the primary endpoint to assess equivalence between GP2015 and Enbrel®. Therapeutic equivalence in terms of PASI75 could be concluded if the exact 95% confidence interval for the difference in the PASI75 rates is completely contained within the interval \[-18%; 18%\]. A logistic regression model was to be employed.||5.3|-9.85|
91063553|NCT01891864|182012296|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A MMRM (Mixed Model Repeated Method) was performed on the percentage change from baseline in PASI score from baseline to Week 12. Therapeutic equivalence in terms of the % change from baseline in PASI score was to be determined if the 95% CI for the difference between GP2015 and Enbrel was contained within the interval \[-15%; 15%\].|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.474|2.204||||||||2.204|-3.474|
91063554|NCT01891864|182012296|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The mean averaged treatment effect (ATE) of percent change from baseline in PASI score up to week 12 was derived for each patient and analyzed using an ANCOVA approach. Therapeutic equivalence in terms of the % change from baseline in PASI score was to be determined if the 95% CI for the difference between GP2015 and Enbrel was contained within the interval \[-15%; 15%\].|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.61|1.845||||||||1.845|-3.61|
91063555|NCT02513160|182012320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|150.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.8|213.2||a priori threshold for significance of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Difference of LS means, 95% CI, and p-value represent ANCOVA results adjusted for baseline, sex, age, current asthma therapy, and treatment.|Active - placebo|A fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure was implemented to interpret the results from the primary analysis while controlling the family-wise error rate at 5%. The 640-mcg/day BAI dose was tested first. If the comparison to placebo resulted in p≤0.05, the 320-mcg/day BAI dose was then tested.||213.2|86.8|<0.0001
91063556|NCT02513160|182012320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|144.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|80.7|206.6||a priori threshold for significance of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Difference of LS means, 95% CI, and p-value represent ANCOVA results adjusted for baseline, sex, age, current asthma therapy, and treatment.|Active - placebo|A fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure was implemented to interpret the results from the primary analysis while controlling the family-wise error rate at 5%. The 640-mcg/day BAI dose was tested first. If the comparison to placebo resulted in p≤0.05, the 320-mcg/day BAI dose was then tested.||206.6|80.7|<0.0001
90825206|NCT04640311|181526402|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.028|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9699|1.09|||||Geometric mean ratio of Daprodustat Process 1 to Process 2 Dissolution Profile 1 has been presented.|||1.090|0.9699|
91063557|NCT02513160|182012320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|148.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|84.7|211.4||a priori threshold for significance of 0.05. The p-value was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|Difference of LS means and 95% CI represent ANCOVA results adjusted for baseline, sex, age, current asthma therapy, and treatment.|Active - placebo|||211.4|84.7|<0.0001
91077846|NCT02913105|182041135|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.03||||0.5873|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|1.13|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||PIIINP: Day 42||1.13|0.94|0.5873
90825207|NCT04640311|181526402|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.019|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9602|1.081|||||Geometric mean ratio of Daprodustat Process 1 to Process 2 Dissolution Profile 2 has been presented.|||1.081|0.9602|
90825208|NCT04640311|181526403|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was to be determined if the 90 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) of ratio's of geometric means (geometric mean of Process 2/Process 1) falls within a range of 0.80 to 1.25.|Geometric mean ratio|1.029|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.977|1.083|||||Geometric mean ratio of Daprodustat 1 mg Process 2 to Process 1 has been presented.|||1.083|0.9770|
91063558|NCT02513160|182012321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|21.9||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.11|33.71||a priori threshold for significance of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|MMRM analysis with covariates for baseline, sex, age, current asthma therapy, treatment, week, and treatment by week interaction.|Active - placebo|Treatment comparisons began with am PEF for BAI 640 mcg/day vs placebo. If the p-value was ≤0.05, the next comparisons of interest were made 1) the next secondary outcome comparison for BAI 640 mcg/day vs placebo 2) the am PEF for BAI 320 mcg/day vs placebo. This procedure allowed for control of the Type I error for comparisons at a particular BAI treatment over the 5 secondary endpoints, as well as comparisons within an endpoint. It did not control the overall Type I error.||33.71|10.11|0.0003
90825209|NCT04640311|181526403|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was to be determined if the 90% CI of ratio's of geometric means (geometric mean of Process 2/Process 1) falls within a range of 0.80 to 1.25.|Geometric mean ratio|0.9496|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8914|1.012|||||Geometric mean ratio of Daprodustat 2 mg Process 2 to Process 1 has been presented.|||1.012|0.8914|
90825210|NCT04640311|181526403|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was to be determined if the 90% CI of ratio's of geometric means (geometric mean of Process 2/Process 1) falls within a range of 0.80 to 1.25.|Geometric mean ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9533|1.07|||||Geometric mean ratio of Daprodustat 4 mg Process 2 to Process 1 has been presented.|||1.070|0.9533|
90825211|NCT04640311|181526403|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was to be determined if the 90% CI of ratio's of geometric means (geometric mean of Process 2/Process 1) falls within a range of 0.80 to 1.25.|Geometric mean ratio|0.9679|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9115|1.028|||||Geometric mean ratio of Daprodustat 6 mg Process 2 to Process 1 has been presented.|||1.028|0.9115|
90825212|NCT04640311|181526403|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was to be determined if the 90% CI of ratio's of geometric means (geometric mean of Process 2/Process 1) falls within a range of 0.80 to 1.25.|Geometric mean ratio|0.9511|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8948|1.011|||||Geometric mean ratio of Daprodustat 8 mg Process 2 to Process 1 has been presented.|||1.011|0.8948|
91078622|NCT02191046|182043065|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|power of study = 90%|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.47|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.17|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.12|||t-test, 2 sided|||satisfaction score between two groups at 2 weeks after treatment||-0.12|-0.82|<0.05
90825213|NCT04640311|181526404|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.042|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9308|1.166|||||Geometric mean ratio of Daprodustat Process 1 to Process 2 Dissolution Profile 1 has been presented.|||1.166|0.9308|
90825214|NCT04640311|181526404|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.048|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9349|1.175|||||Geometric mean ratio of Daprodustat Process 1 to Process 2 Dissolution Profile 2 has been presented.|||1.175|0.9349|
90825215|NCT04640311|181526405|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was to be determined if the 90% CI of ratio's of geometric means (geometric mean of Process 2/Process 1) falls within a range of 0.80 to 1.25.|Geometric mean ratio|0.9716|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8936|1.056|||||Geometric mean ratio of Daprodustat 1 mg Process 2 to Process 1 has been presented.|||1.056|0.8936|
90825216|NCT04640311|181526405|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was to be determined if the 90% CI of ratio's of geometric means (geometric mean of Process 2/Process 1) falls within a range of 0.80 to 1.25.|Geometric mean ratio|0.9006|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8107|1.0|||||Geometric mean ratio of Daprodustat 2 mg Process 2 to Process 1 has been presented.|||1.000|0.8107|
90825217|NCT04640311|181526405|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was to be determined if the 90% CI of ratio's of geometric means (geometric mean of Process 2/Process 1) falls within a range of 0.80 to 1.25.|Geometric mean ratio|0.9703|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8665|1.087|||||Geometric mean ratio of Daprodustat 4 mg Process 2 to Process 1 has been presented.|||1.087|0.8665|
90825218|NCT04640311|181526405|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was to be determined if the 90% CI of ratio's of geometric means (geometric mean of Process 2/Process 1) falls within a range of 0.80 to 1.25.|Geometric mean ratio|0.9675|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8778|1.066|||||Geometric mean ratio of Daprodustat 6 mg Process 2 to Process 1 has been presented.|||1.066|0.8778|
90825219|NCT04640311|181526405|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was to be determined if the 90% CI of ratio's of geometric means (geometric mean of Process 2/Process 1) falls within a range of 0.80 to 1.25.|Geometric mean ratio|0.8606|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.777|0.9532|||||Geometric mean ratio of Daprodustat 8 mg Process 2 to Process 1 has been presented.|||0.9532|0.7770|
90825220|NCT02178995|181526430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.037||||||HRTSD p-value = 0.037; p \< 0.05 considered significant|ANOVA|Within-subjects contrasts, n=31, df=1||||||0.037
90825221|NCT02178995|181526430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.055||||||D' p = 0.055. p \< 0.05 considered significant.|ANOVA|Within-subjects contrasts, placebo v 10mg v 20mg.||||||0.055
90825222|NCT02178995|181526430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.758|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||HRTSD 10mg vs 20mg||||0.758
90825223|NCT02178995|181526430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.499|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||d' 10mg vs 20mg||||0.499
90825224|NCT02178995|181526431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.008
90825225|NCT02178995|181526431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.071|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||SDMT 10mg vs 20mg||||0.071
90825226|NCT02178995|181526432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.154|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.154
90825227|NCT02178995|181526432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.779|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||MCG 10mg vs 20mg||||0.779
90825228|NCT02178995|181526433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||HRTSD P\<0.0001|t-test, 2 sided|||Intra-group comparison, HRTSD||||<0.0001
90825229|NCT02178995|181526433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||||||HRTSD p \<0.001 for healthy controls|t-test, 2 sided|||Intra-group comparison, HRTSD, healthy controls||||0.001
90825230|NCT02178995|181526433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.322|||||||ANOVA|||Between-group comparisons by 2-way ANOVA, HRTSD||||0.322
90825231|NCT02178995|181526433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Intra-group comparison, epilepsy, D'||||<0.0001
90825232|NCT02178995|181526433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.037|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Intra-group analysis, healthy controls, d'||||0.037
90825233|NCT02178995|181526433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||ANOVA|||Intra-group analysis by 2-way ANOVA, d'||||0.08
90825234|NCT02178995|181526434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
90825235|NCT02178995|181526434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.022
90825236|NCT02178995|181526434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.443|||||||ANOVA|||Group x time interaction by 2-way ANOVA||||0.443
90825237|NCT02178995|181526435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90825238|NCT02178995|181526435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004
90825239|NCT02178995|181526435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.906|||||||ANOVA|||Between-groups analysis by 2-way ANOVA||||0.906
90825240|NCT02178995|181526436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.274|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.274
90825241|NCT02178995|181526437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90825242|NCT02178995|181526438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||||||Hits p = 0.04|ANOVA|||||||0.04
90825243|NCT02178995|181526438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038||||||Omissions p = 0.038|ANOVA|||||||0.038
90825244|NCT02178995|181526438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.329||||||Commissions p = 0.329|ANOVA|||||||0.329
90825245|NCT02178995|181526438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.876|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Hits 10mg vs 20mg||||0.876
90825246|NCT02178995|181526438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.932|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Omissions 10mg vs 20mg||||0.932
90825247|NCT02178995|181526438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.898|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Commissions 10mg vs 20mg||||0.898
90825248|NCT02178995|181526439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7116|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of baseline rate of seizures (expressed as seizures per 28 days) pre-trial against the rate experienced during the double-blind portion of our trial.||||0.7116
90825249|NCT02178995|181526440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Attention/Concentration subscale||||<0.0001
90825250|NCT02178995|181526440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Memory subscale||||<0.0001
90825251|NCT02178995|181526440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Language subscale||||0.002
90825252|NCT02178995|181526440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Energy/fatigue subscale||||0.001
90825253|NCT02178995|181526441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Hits v1 vs v5 epilepsy||||0.003
90825254|NCT02178995|181526441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Hits v1 vs v5 healthy||||0.033
90825255|NCT02178995|181526441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.079|||||||ANOVA|||2-way ANOVA epilepsy vs healthy hits||||0.079
91078623|NCT02191046|182043065|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|power fo study = 90%|Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.66|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.16|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.62|6.69|||t-test, 2 sided|||compare the mean 5s-score between before and after treatment in squeezable bottle group||6.69|4.62|<0.05
90825256|NCT02178995|181526441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Omissions epilepsy v1 vs v5||||0.001
90825257|NCT02178995|181526441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Omissions v1 vs v5 healthy||||0.029
90825258|NCT02178995|181526441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Epilepsy v healthy ANOVA Omissions||||0.048
90825259|NCT02178995|181526441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Commissions v1 vs v5 epilepsy||||<0.0001
90825260|NCT02178995|181526441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Commissions v1 vs v5 healthy||||0.42
90825261|NCT02178995|181526441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019|||||||ANOVA|||Healthy vs epilepsy ANOVA (2-way) commissions||||0.019
90825262|NCT02178995|181526442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90825263|NCT02178995|181526443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||||||Note: Stimulant side-effect score \*decreased\* with addition of open-label stimulant.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
90825264|NCT02178995|181526444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||BDI epilepsy v1 vs v5||||0.014
90825265|NCT02178995|181526444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Healthy controls BDI v1 vs v5||||0.04
90825266|NCT02178995|181526444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.191|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Between-group comparison 2-way ANOVA BDI||||0.191
90825267|NCT02178995|181526444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||BAI visit 1 vs visit 5 epilepsy||||0.42
90825268|NCT02178995|181526444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.477|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||BAI visit 1 vs visit 5 healthy controls||||0.477
90825269|NCT02178995|181526444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.792|||||||ANOVA|||Between-groups comparison 2-way ANOVA BAI||||0.792
90825270|NCT02178995|181526444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.045|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||AES visit 1 vs visit 5 epilepsy||||0.045
90825271|NCT02178995|181526444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.646|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||AES visit 1 vs visit 5 healthy controls||||0.646
90825272|NCT02178995|181526444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.222|||||||ANOVA|||Between-groups comparison 2-way ANOVA AES||||0.222
90825273|NCT02178995|181526445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Health Perceptions||||0.011
90825274|NCT02178995|181526445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Overall QOL (subjectively rated by participants on the scale)||||0.01
90825275|NCT02178995|181526445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.164|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Physical Function||||0.164
90825276|NCT02178995|181526445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.065|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Role Limitations (Emotional)||||0.065
90825277|NCT02178995|181526445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Role Limitations (Physical)||||0.014
90825278|NCT02178995|181526445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.128|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pain||||0.128
90825279|NCT02178995|181526445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Work/Driving/Social||||0.026
90825280|NCT02178995|181526445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.077|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Emotional Wellbeing||||0.077
90825281|NCT02178995|181526445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Health Discouragement||||0.007
90825282|NCT02178995|181526445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.063|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Seizure Worry||||0.063
90825283|NCT02178995|181526445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.609|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Medication Effects||||0.609
90825284|NCT02178995|181526445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.626|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Social Support||||0.626
90825285|NCT02178995|181526445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.103|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Social Isolation||||0.103
90825286|NCT02178995|181526446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Variability v1 vs v5 epilepsy||||<0.0001
90825287|NCT02178995|181526446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.096|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Variability v1 vs v5 healthy||||0.096
90825288|NCT02178995|181526446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.136|||||||ANOVA|||Variability 2-way ANOVA healthy vs epilepsy||||0.136
90825289|NCT02178995|181526446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Perseverations v1 vs v5 epilepsy||||0.17
90825290|NCT02178995|181526446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.104|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Perseverations v1 vs v5 healthy||||0.104
90825291|NCT02178995|181526446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.661|||||||ANOVA|||Perseverations 2-way ANOVA healthy vs epilepsy||||0.661
90825292|NCT02178995|181526447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.397|||||||ANOVA|||Variability ANOVA||||0.397
90825293|NCT02178995|181526447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.745|||||||ANOVA|||Perseverations ANOVA||||0.745
90825294|NCT02178995|181526447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.362|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||10mg vs 20mg variability||||0.362
90825295|NCT02178995|181526447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.745|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||10mg vs 20mg perseverations||||0.745
90825296|NCT02178995|181526448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||ANOVA|||HRT ANOVA||||0.48
90825297|NCT02178995|181526448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.793|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||HRT 10mg vs 20mg||||0.793
90825298|NCT02178995|181526449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||HRT v1 vs v5 epilepsy||||0.5
90825299|NCT02178995|181526449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.075|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||HRT v1 vs v5 healthy||||0.075
90825300|NCT02178995|181526449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||ANOVA|||HRT epilepsy vs healthy ANOVA||||0.2
90825301|NCT00287222|181526450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage progression free at 27 weeks|28.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.97||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|53.0|||one-sided exact binomial test|||Estimating the percentage of participants that remain free of disease progression at 27 weeks from the onset of treatment, and testing that proportion against a null-hypothesis proportion of 0.04 using the one-sided exact binomial test at 5% alpha, based upon historical data from the literature.||53|10|0.0006
90825302|NCT02114606|181526452|OTHER|Overall agreement was calculated using Cohen's Kappa, with endoscopic biopsy as the gold standard.||||||0.0001||||||A p-value of \<0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Cohen's Kappa|||All participants enrolled (EoE Patients) provided both a Cytosponge specimen and endoscopic biopsy. The results of these specimens were compared to examine overall agreement.||||0.0001
90825303|NCT01910402|181526469|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Hypothesis was to show that the antiviral effect of the DTG/ABC/3TC FDC administered QD was non-inferior to QD ATV+RTV+TDF/FTC FDC. Non-inferiority was concluded if the lower bound of a two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in response rates between the two treatment arms was greater than -12%|Adjusted difference in proportion|10.5||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|17.8||If the primary and PP analyses both demonstrated non-inferiority, then as per pre-specified analysis, superiority of DTG/ABC/3TC FDC versus ATV+RTV+TDF/FTC FDC was tested in the ITT-E population at the 2-sided 5% level of significance.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||17.8|3.1|0.005
90825304|NCT01910402|181526491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.026||||0.7053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.159|0.107|||Multiple Imputed Dataset - MAR|||||0.107|-0.159|0.7053
90825305|NCT01910402|181526492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.106||||0.3165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.313|0.101|||Multiple Imputed Dataset - MAR|||||0.101|-0.313|0.3165
90825306|NCT01910402|181526507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of ratio|0.729|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.683|0.779|||ANCOVA||BSAP ratio of Week 48 result over Baseline|||0.779|0.683|<0.001
90825307|NCT01910402|181526507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of ratio|0.693|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.647|0.741|||ANCOVA||PTP ratio of Week 48 result over Baseline|||0.741|0.647|<0.001
90825308|NCT01910402|181526507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of ratio|0.629|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.581|0.68|||ANCOVA||Osteocalcin ratio of Week 48 result over Baseline|||0.680|0.581|<0.001
90825309|NCT01910402|181526507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of ratio|0.655|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.609|0.706|||ANCOVA||Type 1 Collagen C-Telopeptide ratio of Week 48 result over Baseline|||0.706|0.609|<0.0001
90825310|NCT01910402|181526507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of ratio|0.852|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.794|0.914|||ANCOVA||Vitamin D ratio of Week 48 result over Baseline|||0.914|0.794|<0.0001
90825311|NCT01910402|181526509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.016||95.0||||Week 4|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.016
90825312|NCT01910402|181526509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Week 12|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90825313|NCT01910402|181526509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002||95.0||||Week 24|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
90825314|NCT01910402|181526509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.007||95.0||||Week 48|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.007
90825315|NCT01957202|181526542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.255|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.895|-1.616|||Mixed Model ANOVA|||||-1.616|-2.895|<0.0001
90825316|NCT01957202|181526542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.566|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.208|-1.925|||Mixed Model ANOVA|||||-1.925|-3.208|<0.0001
90825317|NCT01957202|181526542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.531||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.342|-0.719|||Mixed Model ANOVA|||||-0.719|-2.342|0.0003
90825318|NCT01957202|181526542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.842|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.654|-1.029|||Mixed Model ANOVA|||||-1.029|-2.654|<0.0001
90825319|NCT01957202|181526542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.097|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.857|-3.337|||Mixed Model ANOVA|||||-3.337|-4.857|<0.0001
90825320|NCT01957202|181526542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.311||||0.3699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.994|0.372|||Mixed Model ANOVA|||||0.372|-0.994|0.3699
90825321|NCT01957202|181526543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.364|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.853|-0.874|||Mixed Model ANOVA|||||-0.874|-1.853|<0.0001
90825322|NCT01957202|181526543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32||||0.1975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.169|0.809|||Mixed Model ANOVA|||||0.809|-0.169|0.1975
90825323|NCT01957202|181526543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.252|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|-0.635|||Mixed Model ANOVA|||||-0.635|-1.870|<0.0001
90825324|NCT01957202|181526543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.432||||0.1648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.179|1.042|||Mixed Model ANOVA|||||1.042|-0.179|0.1648
90825325|NCT01957202|181526543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.932||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.506|-0.358|||Mixed Model ANOVA|||||-0.358|-1.506|0.0016
90825326|NCT01957202|181526543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.684|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|2.208|||Mixed Model ANOVA|||||2.208|1.160|<0.0001
90825327|NCT01957202|181526544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.174||||0.3052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.508|0.16|||Mixed Model ANOVA|||||0.160|-0.508|0.3052
90825328|NCT01957202|181526544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.187||||0.2725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.149|0.523|||Mixed Model ANOVA|||||0.523|-0.149|0.2725
90825329|NCT01957202|181526544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.536||||0.0118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.952|-0.12|||Mixed Model ANOVA|||||-0.120|-0.952|0.0118
91063559|NCT02513160|182012321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|30.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.33|41.9||a priori threshold for significance of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|MMRM analysis with covariates for baseline, sex, age, current asthma therapy, treatment, week, and treatment by week interaction.|Active - placebo|Sequential order of analyses described in previous analysis.||41.90|18.33|<0.0001
91063560|NCT02513160|182012321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|21.0||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.14|32.83||a priori threshold for significance of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|MMRM analysis with covariates for baseline, sex, age, current asthma therapy, treatment, week, and treatment by week interaction.|Active - placebo|Comparisons for MDI dose versus placebo for the secondary efficacy endpoints were used for assay sensitivity.||32.83|9.14|0.0006
91063561|NCT02513160|182012322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|143.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.7|214.1||a priori threshold for significance of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|MMRM analysis with covariates for baseline, sex, age, current asthma therapy, treatment, week, and treatment by week interaction.|Active - placebo|Sequential order of analyses described in Outcome #2, analysis #1.||214.1|71.7|<0.0001
91063562|NCT02513160|182012322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|170.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.5|240.5||a priori threshold for significance of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|MMRM analysis with covariates for baseline, sex, age, current asthma therapy, treatment, week, and treatment by week interaction.|Active - placebo|Sequential order of analyses described in Outcome #2, analysis #1.||240.5|98.5|<0.0001
90825330|NCT01957202|181526544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.175||||0.4049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.588|0.239|||Mixed Model ANOVA|||||0.239|-0.588|0.4049
90825331|NCT01957202|181526544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.349||||0.0793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.739|0.041|||Mixed Model ANOVA|||||0.041|-0.739|0.0793
90825332|NCT01957202|181526544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.361||||0.0478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|0.719|||Mixed Model ANOVA|||||0.719|0.004|0.0478
90825333|NCT01957202|181526545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.215||||0.1502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.509|0.079|||Mixed Model ANOVA|||||0.079|-0.509|0.1502
90825334|NCT01957202|181526545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.075||||0.6177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.221|||Mixed Model ANOVA|||||0.221|-0.370|0.6177
90825335|NCT01957202|181526545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.701||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.322|||Mixed Model ANOVA|||||-0.322|-1.080|0.0004
90825336|NCT01957202|181526545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.934|-0.187|||Mixed Model ANOVA|||||-0.187|-0.934|0.0035
90825337|NCT01957202|181526545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.775|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.123|-0.428|||Mixed Model ANOVA|||||-0.428|-1.123|<0.0001
90825338|NCT01957202|181526545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.3807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.175|0.456|||Mixed Model ANOVA|||||0.456|-0.175|0.3807
90825339|NCT02660853|181526546|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.745|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline versus during exacerbation.||||0.745
90825340|NCT02660853|181526550|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.326|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.326
90825341|NCT03594773|181526556|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.496|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.56||0.752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.62|2.63|||t-test, 2 sided|df=56, equal variances assumed||||2.63|-3.62|.752
90825342|NCT03594773|181526557|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.62||0.633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.01|6.52|||t-test, 2 sided|df=49, equal variances assumed||||6.52|-4.01|.633
90825343|NCT03594773|181526558|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.73||0.586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.53|4.44|||t-test, 2 sided|df=49, equal variances assumed||||4.44|-2.53|.586
90825344|NCT01200368|181526588|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower confidence interval for the percent difference was greater than (\>) -0.10.|Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|2.1||||||Serotype 4: Difference (\[13vPnC + DTaP\] - \[7vPnC + DTaP\]) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI).||2.1|-2.2|
90825345|NCT01200368|181526588|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower confidence interval for the percent difference was \>-0.10.|Percent difference|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|1.1||||||Serotype 6B: Difference (\[13vPnC + DTaP\] - \[7vPnC + DTaP\]) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||1.1|-5.2|
90825346|NCT01200368|181526588|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower confidence interval for the percent difference was \>-0.10.|Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.1||||||Serotype 9V: Difference (\[13vPnC + DTaP\] - \[7vPnC + DTaP\]) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||2.1|-2.1|
90825347|NCT01200368|181526588|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower confidence interval for the percent difference was \>-0.10.|Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.1||||||Serotype 14: Difference (\[13vPnC + DTaP\] - \[7vPnC + DTaP\]) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||2.1|-2.1|
90825348|NCT01200368|181526588|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower confidence interval for the percent difference was \>-0.10.|Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.1||||||Serotype 18C: Difference (\[13vPnC + DTaP\] - \[7vPnC + DTaP\]) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||2.1|-2.1|
90825349|NCT01200368|181526588|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower confidence interval for the percent difference was \>-0.10.|Percent difference|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|6.3||||||Serotype 19F: Difference (\[13vPnC + DTaP\] - \[7vPnC + DTaP\]) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||6.3|-1.1|
91063563|NCT02513160|182012322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|133.0||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.3|204.3||a priori threshold for significance of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|MMRM analysis with covariates for baseline, sex, age, current asthma therapy, treatment, week, and treatment by week interaction.|Active - placebo|Comparisons for MDI dose versus placebo for the secondary efficacy endpoints were used for assay sensitivity.||204.3|61.3|0.0003
91063564|NCT02513160|182012323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|-1.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.408|-0.64||a priori threshold for significance of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|MMRM analysis with covariates for baseline, sex, age, current asthma therapy, treatment, week, and treatment by week interaction.|Active - placebo|Sequential order of analyses described in Outcome #2, analysis #1.||-0.640|-1.408|<0.0001
90825350|NCT01200368|181526588|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower confidence interval for the percent difference was \>-0.10.|Percent difference|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|2.9||||||Serotype 23F: Difference (\[13vPnC + DTaP\] - \[7vPnC + DTaP\]) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||2.9|-4.2|
90825351|NCT01200368|181526588|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower confidence interval for the percent difference was \>-0.10.|Percent difference|3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|7.3||||||Serotype 1: Difference (\[13vPnC + DTaP\] - \[7vPnC + DTaP\]) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95% CI. Difference in proportions was calculated using the serotype with the lowest proportion among the 7 common serotypes in the 7vPnC + DTaP group as reference.||7.3|0.9|
90825352|NCT01200368|181526588|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower confidence interval for the percent difference was \>-0.10.|Percent difference|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|6.7||||||Serotype 3: Difference (\[13vPnC + DTaP\] - \[7vPnC + DTaP\]) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95% CI. Difference in proportions was calculated using the serotype with the lowest proportion among the 7 common serotypes in the 7vPnC + DTaP group as reference.||6.7|-0.2|
90825353|NCT01200368|181526588|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower confidence interval for the percent difference was \>-0.10.|Percent difference|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|6.7||||||Serotype 5: Difference (\[13vPnC + DTaP\] - \[7vPnC + DTaP\]) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95% CI. Difference in proportions was calculated using the serotype with the lowest proportion among the 7 common serotypes in the 7vPnC + DTaP group as reference.||6.7|-0.2|
90825354|NCT01200368|181526588|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower confidence interval for the percent difference was \>-0.10.|Percent difference|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|5.8||||||Serotype 6A: Difference (\[13vPnC + DTaP\] - \[7vPnC + DTaP\]) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95% CI. Difference in proportions was calculated using the serotype with the lowest proportion among the 7 common serotypes in the 7vPnC + DTaP group as reference.||5.8|-1.9|
90825355|NCT01200368|181526588|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower confidence interval for the percent difference was \>-0.10.|Percent difference|3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|7.3||||||Serotype 7F: Difference (\[13vPnC + DTaP\] - \[7vPnC + DTaP\]) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95% CI. Difference in proportions was calculated using the serotype with the lowest proportion among the 7 common serotypes in the 7vPnC + DTaP group as reference.||7.3|0.9|
90825356|NCT01200368|181526588|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower confidence interval for the percent difference was \>-0.10.|Percent difference|3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|7.3||||||Serotype 19A: Difference (\[13vPnC + DTaP\] - \[7vPnC + DTaP\]) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95% CI. Difference in proportions was calculated using the serotype with the lowest proportion among the 7 common serotypes in the 7vPnC + DTaP group as reference.||7.3|1.0|
90825357|NCT01200368|181526589|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the IgG GMC ratio was \>0.5.|GMC ratio|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.94||||||Serotype 4: Ratio of IgG GMCs (\[13vPnC + DTaP\]/\[7vPnC + DTaP\]) was calculated along with 2-sided 95% CI.||0.94|0.71|
90825358|NCT01200368|181526589|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided, 95% CI for IgG GMC ratio was \>0.5.|GMC ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.97||||||Serotype 6B: Ratio of IgG GMCs (\[13vPnC + DTaP\]/\[7vPnC + DTaP\]) was calculated along with 2-sided 95% CI.||0.97|0.64|
90825359|NCT01200368|181526589|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided, 95% CI for IgG GMC ratio was \>0.5.|GMC ratio|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.86||||||Serotype 9V: Ratio of IgG GMCs (\[13vPnC + DTaP\]/\[7vPnC + DTaP\]) was calculated along with 2-sided 95% CI.||0.86|0.64|
90825360|NCT01200368|181526589|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided, 95% CI for IgG GMC ratio was \>0.5.|GMC ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.98||||||Serotype 14: Ratio of IgG GMCs (\[13vPnC + DTaP\]/\[7vPnC + DTaP\]) was calculated along with 2-sided 95% CI.||0.98|0.70|
90825361|NCT01200368|181526589|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided, 95% CI for IgG GMC ratio was \>0.5.|GMC ratio|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.85||||||Serotype 18C: Ratio of IgG GMCs (\[13vPnC + DTaP\]/\[7vPnC + DTaP\]) was calculated along with 2-sided 95% CI.||0.85|0.63|
91063565|NCT02513160|182012323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|-1.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.482|-0.717||a priori threshold for significance of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|MMRM analysis with covariates for baseline, sex, age, current asthma therapy, treatment, week, and treatment by week interaction.|Active - placebo|Sequential order of analyses described in Outcome #2, analysis #1.||-0.717|-1.482|<0.0001
90825362|NCT01200368|181526589|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided, 95% CI for IgG GMC ratio was \>0.5.|GMC ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.08||||||Serotype 19F: Ratio of IgG GMCs (\[13vPnC + DTaP\]/\[7vPnC + DTaP\]) was calculated along with 2-sided 95% CI.||1.08|0.72|
90825363|NCT01200368|181526589|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided, 95% CI for IgG GMC ratio was \>0.5.|GMC ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.98||||||Serotype 23F: Ratio of IgG GMCs (\[13vPnC + DTaP\]/\[7vPnC + DTaP\]) was calculated along with 2-sided 95% CI.||0.98|0.66|
90825364|NCT01200368|181526590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|1.6||||||Difference in percentage of participants achieving predefined antibody levels for diphtheria toxoid and corresponding 2-sided 95% CI were calculated.||1.6|-3.1|
90825365|NCT01200368|181526590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.2||||||Difference in percentage of participants achieving predefined antibody levels for tetanus toxoid and corresponding 2-sided 95% CI were calculated.||2.2|-2.1|
91063566|NCT02513160|182012323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|-1.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.415|-0.643||a priori threshold for significance of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|MMRM analysis with covariates for baseline, sex, age, current asthma therapy, treatment, week, and treatment by week interaction.|Active - placebo|Comparisons for MDI dose versus placebo for the secondary efficacy endpoints were used for assay sensitivity.||-0.643|-1.415|<0.0001
91063567|NCT02513160|182012324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|-0.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.203||a priori threshold for significance of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|MMRM analysis with covariates for baseline, sex, age, current asthma therapy, treatment, week, and treatment by week interaction.|Active - placebo|Sequential order of analyses described in Outcome #2, analysis #1.||-0.203|-0.440|<0.0001
90825366|NCT01200368|181526590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|1.6||||||Difference in percentage of participants achieving predefined antibody levels for pertussis toxoid and corresponding 2-sided 95% CI were calculated.||1.6|-3.1|
90825367|NCT01200368|181526590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|1.6||||||Difference in percentage of participants achieving predefined antibody levels for filamentous hemagglutinin and corresponding 2-sided 95% CI were calculated.||1.6|-3.1|
90825368|NCT01200368|181526591|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided, 95% CI for IgG GMC ratio was \>0.5.|GMC ratio|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|2.15||||||Serotype 1: Ratio of IgG GMCs (\[13vPnC + DTaP\]/\[7vPnC + DTaP\]) was calculated along with 2-sided 95% CI. GMC ratio was calculated using the serotype with the lowest GMC among the 7 common serotypes in the 7vPnC + DTaP group as reference.||2.15|1.50|
90825369|NCT01200368|181526591|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided, 95% CI for IgG GMC ratio was \>0.5.|GMC ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.28||||||Serotype 3: Ratio of IgG GMCs (\[13vPnC + DTaP\]/\[7vPnC + DTaP\]) was calculated along with 2-sided 95% CI. GMC ratio was calculated using the serotype with the lowest GMC among the 7 common serotypes in the 7vPnC + DTaP group as reference.||1.28|0.92|
90825370|NCT01200368|181526591|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided, 95% CI for IgG GMC ratio was \>0.5.|GMC ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.22||||||Serotype 5: Ratio of IgG GMCs (\[13vPnC + DTaP\]/\[7vPnC + DTaP\]) was calculated along with 2-sided 95% CI. GMC ratio was calculated using the serotype with the lowest GMC among the 7 common serotypes in the 7vPnC + DTaP group as reference.||1.22|0.86|
90825371|NCT01200368|181526591|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided, 95% CI for IgG GMC ratio was \>0.5.|GMC ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.25||||||Serotype 6A: Ratio of IgG GMCs (\[13vPnC + DTaP\]/\[7vPnC + DTaP\]) was calculated along with 2-sided 95% CI. GMC ratio was calculated using the serotype with the lowest GMC among the 7 common serotypes in the 7vPnC + DTaP group as reference.||1.25|0.87|
90825372|NCT01200368|181526591|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided, 95% CI for IgG GMC ratio was \>0.5.|GMC ratio|1.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|2.16||||||Serotype 7F: Ratio of IgG GMCs (\[13vPnC + DTaP\]/\[7vPnC + DTaP\]) was calculated along with 2-sided 95% CI. GMC ratio was calculated using the serotype with the lowest GMC among the 7 common serotypes in the 7vPnC + DTaP group as reference.||2.16|1.54|
90825373|NCT01200368|181526591|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided, 95% CI for IgG GMC ratio was \>0.5.|GMC ratio|1.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|2.25||||||Serotype 19A: Ratio of IgG GMCs (\[13vPnC + DTaP\]/\[7vPnC + DTaP\]) was calculated along with 2-sided 95% CI. GMC ratio was calculated using the serotype with the lowest GMC among the 7 common serotypes in the 7vPnC + DTaP group as reference.||2.25|1.59|
90825374|NCT01200368|181526592|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower confidence interval for the percent difference was \>-0.10.|Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|2.4||||||Serotype 4: Difference (\[13vPnC + DTaP\] - \[7vPnC + DTaP\]) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||2.4|-2.4|
91063568|NCT02513160|182012324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|-0.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.365|-0.128||a priori threshold for significance of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|MMRM analysis with covariates for baseline, sex, age, current asthma therapy, treatment, week, and treatment by week interaction.|Active - placebo|Sequential order of analyses described in Outcome #2, analysis #1.||-0.128|-0.365|<0.0001
90825375|NCT01200368|181526592|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower confidence interval for the percent difference was \>-0.10.|Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|2.4||||||Serotype 6B: Difference (\[13vPnC + DTaP\] - \[7vPnC + DTaP\]) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||2.4|-2.4|
90825376|NCT01200368|181526592|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower confidence interval for the percent difference was \>-0.10.|Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|2.4||||||Serotype 9V: Difference (\[13vPnC + DTaP\] - \[7vPnC + DTaP\]) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||2.4|-2.4|
90825377|NCT01200368|181526592|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower confidence interval for the percent difference was \>-0.10.|Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|2.4||||||Serotype 14: Difference (\[13vPnC + DTaP\] - \[7vPnC + DTaP\]) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||2.4|-2.4|
90825378|NCT01200368|181526592|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower confidence interval for the percent difference was \>-0.10.|Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|2.4||||||Serotype 18C: Difference (\[13vPnC + DTaP\] - \[7vPnC + DTaP\]) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||2.4|-2.4|
91063569|NCT02513160|182012324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|-0.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.423|-0.185||a priori threshold for significance of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|MMRM analysis with covariates for baseline, sex, age, current asthma therapy, treatment, week, and treatment by week interaction.|Active - placebo|Comparisons for MDI dose versus placebo for the secondary efficacy endpoints were used for assay sensitivity.||-0.185|-0.423|<0.0001
90825379|NCT01200368|181526592|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower confidence interval for the percent difference was \>-0.10.|Percent difference|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|2.4||||||Serotype 19F: Difference (\[13vPnC + DTaP\] - \[7vPnC + DTaP\]) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||2.4|-3.9|
91063570|NCT02513160|182012325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0058|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0058
91063571|NCT02513160|182012325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0014|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0014
91063572|NCT02513160|182012325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0062|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0062
91063573|NCT04581824|182012347|OTHER||Difference in Response Rate|9.32|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.46|17.18|||||Mantel and Haenszel method with Sato's variance estimator was used for between arms comparison and was stratified by PD-L1 status and smoking status based on the strata data collected in interactive response technology (IRT) at randomization|||17.18|1.46|
90825380|NCT01200368|181526592|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower confidence interval for the percent difference was \>-0.10.|Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|2.4||||||Serotype 23F: Difference (\[13vPnC + DTaP\] - \[7vPnC + DTaP\]) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||2.4|-2.4|
90825381|NCT01200368|181526592|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower confidence interval for the percent difference was \>-0.10.|Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|3.0||||||Serotype 1: Difference (\[13vPnC + DTaP\] - \[7vPnC + DTaP\]) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95% CI. Difference in proportions was calculated using the serotype with the lowest proportion among the 7 common serotypes in the 7vPnC + DTaP group as reference.||3.0|-2.9|
90825382|NCT01200368|181526592|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower confidence interval for the percent difference was \>-0.10.|Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|3.0||||||Serotype 3: Difference (\[13vPnC + DTaP\] - \[7vPnC + DTaP\]) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95% CI. Difference in proportions was calculated using the serotype with the lowest proportion among the 7 common serotypes in the 7vPnC + DTaP group as reference.||3.0|-2.9|
90825383|NCT01200368|181526592|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower confidence interval for the percent difference was \>-0.10.|Percent difference|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|3.6||||||Serotype 5: Difference (\[13vPnC + DTaP\] - \[7vPnC + DTaP\]) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95% CI. Difference in proportions was calculated using the serotype with the lowest proportion among the 7 common serotypes in the 7vPnC + DTaP group as reference.||3.6|-1.7|
90825384|NCT01200368|181526592|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower confidence interval for the percent difference was \>-0.10.|Percent difference|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|3.6||||||Serotype 6A: Difference (\[13vPnC + DTaP\] - \[7vPnC + DTaP\]) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95% CI. Difference in proportions was calculated using the serotype with the lowest proportion among the 7 common serotypes in the 7vPnC + DTaP group as reference.||3.6|-1.7|
90825385|NCT01200368|181526592|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower confidence interval for the percent difference was \>-0.10.|Percent difference|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|3.6||||||Serotype 7F: Difference (\[13vPnC + DTaP\] - \[7vPnC + DTaP\]) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95% CI. Difference in proportions was calculated using the serotype with the lowest proportion among the 7 common serotypes in the 7vPnC + DTaP group as reference.||3.6|-1.7|
90825386|NCT01200368|181526592|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower confidence interval for the percent difference was \>-0.10.|Percent difference|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|3.6||||||Serotype 19A: Difference (\[13vPnC + DTaP\] - \[7vPnC + DTaP\]) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95% CI. Difference in proportions was calculated using the serotype with the lowest proportion among the 7 common serotypes in the 7vPnC + DTaP group as reference.||3.6|-1.7|
90825387|NCT01200368|181526593|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided, 95% CI for IgG GMC ratio was \>0.5.|GMC ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.15||||||Serotype 4: Ratio of IgG GMCs (\[13vPnC + DTaP\]/\[7vPnC + DTaP\]) was calculated along with 2-sided 95% CI.||1.15|0.77|
90825388|NCT01200368|181526593|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided, 95% CI for IgG GMC ratio was \>0.5.|GMC ratio|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.53||||||Serotype 6B: Ratio of IgG GMCs (\[13vPnC + DTaP\]/\[7vPnC + DTaP\]) was calculated along with 2-sided 95% CI.||1.53|0.98|
90825389|NCT01200368|181526593|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided, 95% CI for IgG GMC ratio was \>0.5.|GMC ratio|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.98||||||Serotype 9V: Ratio of IgG GMCs (\[13vPnC + DTaP\]/\[7vPnC + DTaP\]) was calculated along with 2-sided 95% CI.||0.98|0.67|
90825390|NCT01200368|181526593|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided, 95% CI for IgG GMC ratio was \>0.5.|GMC ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.12||||||Serotype 14: Ratio of IgG GMCs (\[13vPnC + DTaP\]/\[7vPnC + DTaP\]) was calculated along with 2-sided 95% CI.||1.12|0.81|
90825391|NCT01200368|181526593|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided, 95% CI for IgG GMC ratio was \>0.5.|GMC ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.01||||||Serotype 18C: Ratio of IgG GMCs (\[13vPnC + DTaP\]/\[7vPnC + DTaP\]) was calculated along with 2-sided 95% CI.||1.01|0.67|
90825392|NCT01200368|181526593|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided, 95% CI for IgG GMC ratio was \>0.5.|GMC ratio|1.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|2.21||||||Serotype 19F: Ratio of IgG GMCs (\[13vPnC + DTaP\]/\[7vPnC + DTaP\]) was calculated along with 2-sided 95% CI.||2.21|1.39|
90825393|NCT01200368|181526593|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided, 95% CI for IgG GMC ratio was \>0.5.|GMC ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.07||||||Serotype 23F: Ratio of IgG GMCs (\[13vPnC + DTaP\]/\[7vPnC + DTaP\]) was calculated along with 2-sided 95% CI.||1.07|0.70|
90825394|NCT01200368|181526593|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided, 95% CI for IgG GMC ratio was \>0.5.|GMC ratio|1.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|1.99||||||Serotype 1: Ratio of IgG GMCs (\[13vPnC + DTaP\]/\[7vPnC + DTaP\]) was calculated along with 2-sided 95% CI. GMC ratio was calculated using the serotype with the lowest GMC among the 7 common serotypes in the 7vPnC + DTaP group as reference.||1.99|1.31|
90825395|NCT01200368|181526593|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided, 95% CI for IgG GMC ratio was \>0.5.|GMC ratio|0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.35||||||Serotype 3: Ratio of IgG GMCs (\[13vPnC + DTaP\]/\[7vPnC + DTaP\]) was calculated along with 2-sided 95% CI. GMC ratio was calculated using the serotype with the lowest GMC among the 7 common serotypes in the 7vPnC + DTaP group as reference.||0.35|0.24|
90825396|NCT01200368|181526593|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided, 95% CI for IgG GMC ratio was \>0.5.|GMC ratio|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.54||||||Serotype 5: Ratio of IgG GMCs (\[13vPnC + DTaP\]/\[7vPnC + DTaP\]) was calculated along with 2-sided 95% CI. GMC ratio was calculated using the serotype with the lowest GMC among the 7 common serotypes in the 7vPnC + DTaP group as reference.||1.54|1.07|
91063574|NCT03593473|182012354|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test comparing mean cortisol by study arm at -40 minutes.||||0.37
91063575|NCT03593473|182012354|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test comparing mean cortisol by study arm at -20 minutes.||||0.40
90825397|NCT01200368|181526593|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided, 95% CI for IgG GMC ratio was \>0.5.|GMC ratio|1.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|2.12||||||Serotype 6A: Ratio of IgG GMCs (\[13vPnC + DTaP\]/\[7vPnC + DTaP\]) was calculated along with 2-sided 95% CI. GMC ratio was calculated using the serotype with the lowest GMC among the 7 common serotypes in the 7vPnC + DTaP group as reference.||2.12|1.46|
90825398|NCT01200368|181526593|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided, 95% CI for IgG GMC ratio was \>0.5.|GMC ratio|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.52||||||Serotype 7F: Ratio of IgG GMCs (\[13vPnC + DTaP\]/\[7vPnC + DTaP\]) was calculated along with 2-sided 95% CI. GMC ratio was calculated using the serotype with the lowest GMC among the 7 common serotypes in the 7vPnC + DTaP group as reference.||1.52|1.04|
90825399|NCT01200368|181526593|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided, 95% CI for IgG GMC ratio was \>0.5.|GMC ratio|1.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|2.24||||||Serotype 19A: Ratio of IgG GMCs (\[13vPnC + DTaP\]/\[7vPnC + DTaP\]) was calculated along with 2-sided 95% CI. GMC ratio was calculated using the serotype with the lowest GMC among the 7 common serotypes in the 7vPnC + DTaP group as reference.||2.24|1.54|
90825400|NCT01200368|181526594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|2.3||||||Difference in percentage of participants achieving predefined antibody levels for diphtheria toxoid and corresponding 2-sided 95% CI were calculated.||2.3|-2.4|
90825401|NCT01200368|181526594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|2.3||||||Difference in percentage of participants achieving predefined antibody levels for tetanus toxoid and corresponding 2-sided 95% CI were calculated.||2.3|-2.4|
90825402|NCT01200368|181526594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|2.3||||||Difference in percentage of participants achieving predefined antibody levels for pertussis toxoid and corresponding 2-sided 95% CI were calculated.||2.3|-2.4|
90825403|NCT01200368|181526594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|2.3||||||Difference in percentage of participants achieving predefined antibody levels for filamentous hemagglutinin and corresponding 2-sided 95% CI were calculated.||2.3|-2.4|
90825404|NCT01200368|181526595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.24||||||GMC ratio for diphtheria toxoid and corresponding 2-sided 95% CI were calculated.||1.24|0.97|
90825405|NCT01200368|181526595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.06||||||GMC ratio for tetanus toxoid and corresponding 2-sided 95% CI were calculated.||1.06|0.77|
90825406|NCT01200368|181526596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.1||||||GMC ratio for pertussis toxoid and corresponding 2-sided 95% CI were calculated.||1.10|0.87|
90825407|NCT01200368|181526596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.05||||||GMC ratio for filamentous hemagglutinin and corresponding 2-sided 95% CI were calculated.||1.05|0.81|
90825408|NCT01200368|181526597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.15||||||GMC ratio for diphtheria toxoid and corresponding 2-sided 95% CI were calculated.||1.15|0.88|
90825409|NCT01200368|181526597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.19||||||GMC ratio for tetanus toxoid and corresponding 2-sided 95% CI were calculated.||1.19|0.85|
90825410|NCT01200368|181526598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.11||||||GMC ratio for pertussis toxoid and corresponding 2-sided 95% CI were calculated.||1.11|0.84|
90825411|NCT01200368|181526598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.91||||||GMC ratio for filamentous hemagglutinin and corresponding 2-sided 95% CI were calculated.||0.91|0.70|
90825412|NCT01290757|181526607|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence (BE). Scaled average BE is rejected, if the calculated upper 95% confidence limit of the linearized criterion is positive.|Upper 95% CI of the linearized criterion|-0.082|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis||Linearized regulatory criterion according to Tothfalusi et al (Pharmaceutical Research, 2001). The square of the difference in treatment responses divided by within-subject variance of the reference formulation minus square of ln(1.25)/0.25|Capsugel minus Qualicaps||||
90825413|NCT01290757|181526607|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence (BE). Bioequivalence is accepted if 90% confidence interval lies within the common BE margins (80% and 125%).|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|126.33||||||90.0|119.45|133.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Capsugel vs Qualicaps||133.60|119.45|
90825414|NCT01290757|181526608|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence (BE). Scaled average BE is rejected, if the calculated upper 95% confidence limit of the linearized criterion is positive.|Upper 95% CI of the linearized criterion|-0.085|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis||Linearized regulatory criterion according to Tothfalusi et al (Pharmaceutical Research, 2001). The square of the difference in treatment responses divided by within-subject variance of the reference formulation minus square of ln(1.25)/0.25|Capsugel minus Qualicaps||||
90825415|NCT01290757|181526608|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence (BE). Bioequivalence is accepted if 90% confidence interval lies within the common BE margins (80% and 125%).|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|125.49||||||90.0|118.69|132.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Capsugel vs Qualicaps||132.67|118.69|
90825416|NCT01290757|181526609|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence (BE). Bioequivalence is accepted if 90% confidence interval lies within the common BE margins (80% and 125%).|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|124.74||||||90.0|118.32|131.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Capsugel vs Qualicaps||131.51|118.32|
90825417|NCT01290757|181526610|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence (BE). Bioequivalence is accepted if 90% confidence interval lies within the common BE margins (80% and 125%).|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|126.22||||||90.0|119.36|133.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Capsugel vs Qualicaps||133.47|119.36|
90825418|NCT01290757|181526611|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence (BE). Bioequivalence is accepted if 90% confidence interval lies within the common BE margins (80% and 125%).|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|125.3||||||90.0|118.42|132.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Capsugel vs Qualicaps||132.59|118.42|
90825419|NCT01290757|181526612|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence (BE). Bioequivalence is accepted if 90% confidence interval lies within the common BE margins (80% and 125%).|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|124.49||||||90.0|118.11|131.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Capsugel vs Qualicaps||131.21|118.11|
91063576|NCT03593473|182012354|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test comparing mean cortisol by study arm at 0 minutes.||||0.63
91063577|NCT03593473|182012354|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test comparing mean cortisol by study arm at 10 minutes.||||0.72
91063578|NCT03593473|182012354|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test comparing mean cortisol by study arm at 15 minutes.||||0.88
90825420|NCT00080301|181526614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.0003||95.17|0.64|0.88||Test was stratified by 1) presence of visceral metastases in liver or lung, 2) minimum of either doxorubicin 420 mg/m2 or epirubicin 360 mg/m2, and relapse \> 6 months in adjuvant setting, and 3) prior chemotherapy for metastatic disease. (yes/no)|Log Rank|95.17% confidence interval is adjusted for the interim analysis.||Study required 615 events to achieve 90% power to detect a hazard ratio of 0.77 using a 2-sided α = 0.05 log-rank test. The analysis was a comparison between the 2 treatment arms using a 2-sided α=0.0483 log-rank test (adjusted for an interim analysis using the O'Brien Fleming spending function) to reject the null hypothesis of equality of progression free survival. The analysis was conducted when 639 events (310 in combination:329 in capecitabine) were observed from the 752 randomized patients.||0.88|0.64|.0003
90825421|NCT00080301|181526615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.15|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.2|4.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The study had 95 percent power to detect a significant difference in ORR if the true response rate was 32 percent in the combination arm and 20 percent in the capecitabine arm.||4.50|2.20|<.0001
90825422|NCT00080301|181526618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.1936||95.17|0.77|1.05||Test was stratified by presence of visceral metastases in liver or lung (y/n), minimum of either doxorubicin 420 mg/m2 or epirubicin 360 mg/m2, and relapse \> 6 months in adjuvant setting (y/n), and prior chemotherapy for metastatic disease (y/n).|Log Rank|Test was conducted at the α=0.05 level and no adjustments were performed.|Confidence Interval adjusted for interim analysis.|Study required 631 deaths to achieve 80% power to detect a Hazard ratio of 0.8 using a 2-sided α = 0.05 log rank test. The analysis was a comparison between the 2 treatment arms using a 2-sided α=0.05 log-rank test to reject the null hypothesis of equality of survival. The analysis was conducted when 639 deaths (318 in combination:321 in capecitabine) were observed from the 752 randomized patients.||1.05|0.77|0.1936
90825423|NCT00080301|181526620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0002||95.0|||||Wei-Lachin|||There was a statistically significant difference between groups in change from baseline FBSI score favoring capecitabine. A mean change from baseline of 2.5 was considered a clinically meaningful difference (minimally important difference or MID). On-treatment mean changes in the FBSI did not reach the MID in either group.||||.0002
90825424|NCT00991939|181526621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of proportions|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.975|0.708|||Fisher Exact||The estimated value is the proportion of success in the high dose pulse dexamethasone group minus the proportion of success in the standard prednisone group.|Four subjects were not included in this analysis because not enough data was available to assess the primary outcome at the time the study was terminated.||0.708|-0.975|1.00
90825425|NCT01337336|181526640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.002||95.0|1.08|1.56|||Chi-squared||Estimated value obtained from logistic regression model controlling for differences between cohorts at baseline on demographic variables, proxy measures of COPD severity, and measures of overall disease burden.|||1.56|1.08|0.002
90825426|NCT01337336|181526641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.002||95.0|1.02|2.38||COPD-related hospitalization|Chi-squared||Estimated value obtained from logistic regression model controlling for differences between cohorts at baseline on demographic variables, proxy measures of COPD severity, and measures of overall disease burden.|||2.38|1.02|0.002
90825427|NCT01337336|181526641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.65||||0.002||95.0|1.14|2.39||COPD-related ER visit|Chi-squared||Estimated value obtained from logistic regression model controlling for differences between cohorts at baseline on demographic variables, proxy measures of COPD severity, and measures of overall disease burden.|||2.39|1.14|0.002
90825428|NCT01337336|181526641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.503||95.0|0.93|1.4|||Chi-squared|COPD-related physician + Rx visit|Estimated value obtained from logistic regression model controlling for differences between cohorts at baseline on demographic variables, proxy measures of COPD severity, and measures of overall disease burden.|||1.40|0.93|0.503
90825429|NCT01337336|181526641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71|||<|0.001||95.0|1.26|2.31|||Chi-squared|COPD-related hospitalization/ER visit|Estimated value obtained from logistic regression model controlling for differences between cohorts at baseline on demographic variables, proxy measures of COPD severity, and measures of overall disease burden.|||2.31|1.26|<0.001
90825430|NCT01337336|181526643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incident Rate Ratio|1.46||||0.0004||95.0|1.01|2.09||COPD-related hospitalization|t-test, 2 sided||Estimated value obtained from zero-inflated negative binomial model controlling for differences between cohorts at baseline on demographic variables, proxy measures of COPD severity, and measures of overall disease burden.|||2.09|1.01|0.0004
90825431|NCT01337336|181526643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incident Rate Ratio|1.27||||0.208||95.0|0.89|1.82||COPD-related ER visit|t-test, 2 sided||Estimated value obtained from zero-inflated negative binomial model controlling for differences between cohorts at baseline on demographic variables, proxy measures of COPD severity, and measures of overall disease burden.|||1.82|0.89|0.208
90825432|NCT01337336|181526643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incident Rate Ratio|1.09||||0.671||95.0|0.9|1.32||COPD-related physician + Rx visit|t-test, 2 sided||Estimated value obtained from zero-inflated negative binomial model controlling for differences between cohorts at baseline on demographic variables, proxy measures of COPD severity, and measures of overall disease burden.|||1.32|0.90|0.671
90825433|NCT01337336|181526643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incident Rate Ratio|1.31||||0.009||95.0|1.05|1.72||COPD-related hospitalization/ER visit|t-test, 2 sided||Estimated value obtained from zero-inflated negative binomial model controlling for differences between cohorts at baseline on demographic variables, proxy measures of COPD severity, and measures of overall disease burden.|||1.72|1.05|0.009
90825434|NCT01337336|181526643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incident Rate Ratio|1.16||||0.052||95.0|0.98|1.37||COPD-related hospitalization/ER visit/physician + Rx visit|t-test, 2 sided||Estimated value obtained from zero-inflated negative binomial model controlling for differences between cohorts at baseline on demographic variables, proxy measures of COPD severity, and measures of overall disease burden.|||1.37|0.98|0.052
90825435|NCT01965704|181526644|OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2
90825436|NCT01965704|181526645|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|4.3|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test||The 95% confidence interval between the ondansetron group and the placebo group was calculated with the use of Hodges-Lehmann estimator.|Difference in overall length of stay.||4.3|-8.0|0.56
91063579|NCT03593473|182012354|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test comparing mean cortisol by study arm at 28 minutes.||||0.85
90825437|NCT01965704|181526645|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|0.2|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test||The 95% confidence interval between the ondansetron group and the placebo group was calculated with the use of Hodges-Lehmann estimator.|Difference in length of stay as calculated with maximum length capped at 15 days.||0.2|-4.0|0.07
90825438|NCT01965704|181526646|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|2.7|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test||The 95% confidence interval between the ondansetron group and the placebo group was calculated with the use of Hodges-Lehmann estimator.|||2.7|-8.8|0.31
90825439|NCT02524171|181526653|SUPERIORITY||Time x Condition at 6 mo.(Beta value)|-0.1|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Models adjusted for covariates (yielded estimated mean values of the outcome) and non-response weights based on completion of follow-up interviews.||||||>0.05
90825440|NCT02524171|181526653|SUPERIORITY||Time x Condition at 6 mo.(Beta value)|-0.88|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Models adjusted for covariates (yielded estimated mean values of the outcome) and non-response weights based on completion of follow-up interviews.||Per protocol analysis, which included all UC participants (n=169) and only those in the MRT condition who had received the minimum recommended dose of the intervention - i.e., Step 3 or higher of MRT (n=63)||||>0.05
90825441|NCT02524171|181526654|SUPERIORITY||Time x Condition at 6 mo.(Beta value)|0.06|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Models adjusted for covariates (yielded estimated mean values of the outcome) and non-response weights based on completion of follow-up interviews.||||||>0.05
90825442|NCT02524171|181526654|SUPERIORITY||Time x Condition at 6 mo.(Beta value)|0.02|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Models adjusted for covariates (yielded estimated mean values of the outcome) and non-response weights based on completion of follow-up interviews.||Per protocol analysis, which included all UC participants (n=169) and only those in the MRT condition who had received the minimum recommended dose of the intervention - i.e., Step 3 or higher of MRT (n=63)||||>0.05
90825443|NCT02524171|181526655|SUPERIORITY||Time x Condition at 6 mo.(Beta value)|10.98|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Models adjusted for covariates (yielded estimated mean values of the outcome) and non-response weights based on completion of follow-up interviews.||||||>0.05
90825444|NCT02524171|181526655|SUPERIORITY||Time x Condition at 6 mo.(Beta value)|14.64|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Models adjusted for covariates (yielded estimated mean values of the outcome) and non-response weights based on completion of follow-up interviews.||Per protocol analysis, which included all UC participants (n=169) and only those in the MRT condition who had received the minimum recommended dose of the intervention - i.e., Step 3 or higher of MRT (n=63)||||>0.05
90825445|NCT02524171|181526656|SUPERIORITY||Time x Condition at 6 mo.(Beta value)|1.45|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Models adjusted for covariates (yielded estimated mean values of the outcome) and non-response weights based on completion of follow-up interviews||||||>0.05
90825446|NCT02524171|181526656|SUPERIORITY||Time x Condition at 6 mo.(Beta value)|1.22|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Models adjusted for covariates (yielded estimated mean values of the outcome) and non-response weights based on completion of follow-up interviews.||Per protocol analysis, which included all UC participants (n=169) and only those in the MRT condition who had received the minimum recommended dose of the intervention - i.e., Step 3 or higher of MRT (n=63)||||>0.05
90825447|NCT02524171|181526657|SUPERIORITY||Time x Condition at 6 mo.(Beta value)|0.04|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Models adjusted for covariates (yielded estimated mean values of the outcome) and non-response weights based on completion of follow-up interviews.||||||>0.05
90825448|NCT02524171|181526657|SUPERIORITY||Time x Condition at 6 mo.(Beta value)|0.02|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Models adjusted for covariates (yielded estimated mean values of the outcome) and non-response weights based on completion of follow-up interviews.||Per protocol analysis, which included all UC participants (n=169) and only those in the MRT condition who had received the minimum recommended dose of the intervention - i.e., Step 3 or higher of MRT (n=63).||||>0.05
91063580|NCT03593473|182012354|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test comparing mean cortisol by study arm at 38 minutes.||||0.72
90825449|NCT02524171|181526658|SUPERIORITY||Time x Condition at 6mo.(Beta value)|0.04|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Models adjusted for covariates (yielded estimated mean values of the outcome) and non-response weights based on completion of follow-up interviews.||||||>0.05
90825450|NCT02524171|181526658|SUPERIORITY||Time x Condition at 6 mo.(Beta value)|0.02|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Models adjusted for covariates (yielded estimated mean values of the outcome) and non-response weights based on completion of follow-up interviews.||Per protocol analysis, which included all UC participants (n=169) and only those in the MRT condition who had received the minimum recommended dose of the intervention - i.e., Step 3 or higher of MRT (n=63)||||>0.05
90825451|NCT02524171|181526659|SUPERIORITY||Time x Condition at 6 mo.(Beta value)|0.02|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Models adjusted for covariates (yielded estimated mean values of the outcome) and non-response weights based on completion of follow-up interviews.||||||>0.05
91063581|NCT03593473|182012354|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test comparing mean cortisol by study arm at 48 minutes.||||0.57
91063582|NCT03593473|182012354|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed effects model with random intercept and slope was used to model cortisol as the outcome variable with time, study arm, and an interaction between time and study arm as the exposure variables. Times are restricted to times 0, +10, +15, and +28, which reflect the measures taken during the Trier Social Stress Test. The p-value presented below is for the interaction term between time and study arm.||||0.96
91063583|NCT03593473|182012355|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test comparing mean ACTH by study arm at -40 minutes.||||0.71
91063584|NCT03593473|182012355|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test comparing mean ACTH by study arm at -20 minutes.||||0.92
90825452|NCT02524171|181526659|SUPERIORITY||Time x Condition at 6 mo.(Beta value)|-0.08|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Models adjusted for covariates (yielded estimated mean values of the outcome) and non-response weights based on completion of follow-up interviews.||Per protocol analysis, which included all UC participants (n=169) and only those in the MRT condition who had received the minimum recommended dose of the intervention - i.e., Step 3 or higher of MRT (n=63)||||<0.05
90825453|NCT02524171|181526660|SUPERIORITY||Time x Condition at 6 mo.(Beta value)|0.06|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Models adjusted for covariates (yielded estimated mean values of the outcome) and non-response weights based on completion of follow-up interviews.||||||<0.05
90825454|NCT02524171|181526660|SUPERIORITY||Time x Condition at 6 mo.(Beta value)|0.06|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Models adjusted for covariates (yielded estimated mean values of the outcome) and non-response weights based on completion of follow-up interviews.||Per protocol analysis, which included all UC participants (n=169) and only those in the MRT condition who had received the minimum recommended dose of the intervention - i.e., Step 3 or higher of MRT (n=63)||||>0.05
90825455|NCT02524171|181526661|SUPERIORITY||Other[Time x Condition at 12 mo.(Beta|0.69|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Models adjusted for covariates (yielded estimated mean values of the outcome) and non-response weights based on completion of follow-up interviews.||||||>0.05
90825456|NCT02524171|181526661|SUPERIORITY||Other[Time x Condition at 12 mo.(Beta v|-0.89|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Models adjusted for covariates (yielded estimated mean values of the outcome) and non-response weights based on completion of follow-up interviews.||Per protocol analysis, which included all UC participants (n=169) and only those in the MRT condition who had received the minimum recommended dose of the intervention - i.e., Step 3 or higher of MRT (n=63)||||>0.05
90825457|NCT02524171|181526662|SUPERIORITY||Other[Time x Condition at 12 mo.(Beta v|0.07|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Models adjusted for covariates (yielded estimated mean values of the outcome) and non-response weights based on completion of follow-up interviews.||||||>0.05
90825458|NCT02524171|181526662|SUPERIORITY||Other[Time x Condition at 12 mo.(Beta v|0.01|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Models adjusted for covariates (yielded estimated mean values of the outcome) and non-response weights based on completion of follow-up interviews.||Per protocol analysis, which included all UC participants (n=169) and only those in the MRT condition who had received the minimum recommended dose of the intervention - i.e., Step 3 or higher of MRT (n=63)||||>0.05
90825459|NCT02524171|181526663|SUPERIORITY||Other[Time x Condition at 12 mo.(Beta v|6.53|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Models adjusted for covariates (yielded estimated mean values of the outcome) and non-response weights based on completion of follow-up interviews.||||||>0.05
90825460|NCT02524171|181526663|SUPERIORITY||Other[Time x Condition at 12 mo.(Beta v|5.68|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Models adjusted for covariates (yielded estimated mean values of the outcome) and non-response weights based on completion of follow-up interviews.||Per protocol analysis, which included all UC participants (n=169) and only those in the MRT condition who had received the minimum recommended dose of the intervention - i.e., Step 3 or higher of MRT (n=63||||>0.05
90825461|NCT02524171|181526664|SUPERIORITY||Other[Time x Condition at 12 mo.(Beta v|0.83|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Models adjusted for covariates (yielded estimated mean values of the outcome) and non-response weights based on completion of follow-up interviews.||||||>0.05
90825462|NCT02524171|181526664|SUPERIORITY||Other[Time x Condition at 12 mo.(Beta v|0.46|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Models adjusted for covariates (yielded estimated mean values of the outcome) and non-response weights based on completion of follow-up interviews.||Per protocol analysis, which included all UC participants (n=169) and only those in the MRT condition who had received the minimum recommended dose of the intervention - i.e., Step 3 or higher of MRT (n=63).||||<0.01
90825463|NCT02524171|181526665|SUPERIORITY||Other[Time x Condition at 12 mo.(Beta)|0.02|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Models adjusted for covariates (yielded estimated mean values of the outcome) and non-response weights based on completion of follow-up interviews.||||||>0.05
90825464|NCT02524171|181526665|SUPERIORITY||Other[Time x Condition at 12 mo.(Beta)|-0.08|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Models adjusted for covariates (yielded estimated mean values of the outcome) and non-response weights based on completion of follow-up interviews.||Per protocol analysis, which included all UC participants (n=169) and only those in the MRT condition who had received the minimum recommended dose of the intervention - i.e., Step 3 or higher of MRT (n=63).||||>0.05
90825465|NCT02524171|181526666|SUPERIORITY||Other[Time x Condition at 12 mo.(Beta)]|-0.03|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Models adjusted for covariates (yielded estimated mean values of the outcome) and non-response weights based on completion of follow-up interviews.||||||>0.05
91063585|NCT03593473|182012355|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test comparing mean ACTH by study arm at 0 minutes.||||0.92
91063586|NCT03593473|182012355|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test comparing mean ACTH by study arm at 10 minutes.||||0.40
91063587|NCT03593473|182012355|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test comparing mean ACTH by study arm at 15 minutes.||||0.97
91063588|NCT03593473|182012355|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test comparing mean ACTH by study arm at 28 minutes.||||0.71
91063589|NCT03593473|182012355|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test comparing mean ACTH by study arm at 38 minutes.||||0.78
91063590|NCT03593473|182012355|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test comparing mean ACTH by study arm at 48 minutes.||||0.63
91063591|NCT03593473|182012355|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed effects model with random intercept and slope was used to model cortisol as the outcome variable with time, study arm, and an interaction between time and study arm as the exposure variables. This is the p-value for the interaction term between time and study arm.||||0.11
91063592|NCT03593473|182012356|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Fisher's Z test|||Fisher's Z test for correlation between ACTH at -40 minutes and Cortisol at -20 minutes.||||0.07
91063593|NCT03593473|182012356|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||Fisher's Z test|||Fisher's Z test for correlation between ACTH at -20 minutes and Cortisol at 0 minutes.||||0.22
91063594|NCT03593473|182012356|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||Fisher's Z test|||Fisher's Z test for correlation between ACTH at 0 minutes and Cortisol at +10 minutes.||||0.14
91063595|NCT03593473|182012356|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||Fisher's Z test|||Fisher's Z test for correlation between ACTH at +10 minutes and Cortisol at +15 minutes.||||0.14
91063596|NCT03593473|182012356|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Fisher's Z test|||Fisher's Z test for correlation between ACTH at +15 minutes and Cortisol at +28 minutes.||||0.05
91063597|NCT03593473|182012356|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Fisher's Z test|||Fisher's Z test for correlation between ACTH at +28 minutes and Cortisol at +38 minutes.||||0.10
91063598|NCT03593473|182012356|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Fisher's Z test|||Fisher's Z test for correlation between ACTH at +38 minutes and Cortisol at +48 minutes.||||0.90
91063599|NCT03593473|182012356|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed effects model with random intercept and slope was used to model cortisol at time j+1 as the outcome with ACTH at time j, study arm, and an interaction term between ACTH at time j and study arm as the exposure variables. The p-value presented below is for the interaction term between ACTH at time j and study arm.||||0.21
91063600|NCT03593473|182012357|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8441|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||High frequency heart rate variability at minutes -40 to -35||||0.8441
91063601|NCT03593473|182012357|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7919|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||High frequency heart rate variability at minutes -35 to -30||||0.7919
91063602|NCT03593473|182012357|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5639|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||High frequency heart rate variability at minutes -30 to -25||||0.5639
91063603|NCT03593473|182012357|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3139|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||High frequency heart rate variability at minutes -25 to -20||||0.3139
91063604|NCT03593473|182012357|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4222|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||High frequency heart rate variability at minutes -20 to -15||||0.4222
91063605|NCT03593473|182012357|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.834|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||High frequency heart rate variability at minutes -15 to -10||||0.834
91063606|NCT03593473|182012357|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7562|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||High frequency heart rate variability at minutes -10 to -5||||0.7562
91063607|NCT03593473|182012357|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4245|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||High frequency heart rate variability at minutes -5 to 0||||0.4245
91063608|NCT03593473|182012357|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1425|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||High frequency heart rate variability at minutes 5 to 8||||0.1425
91063609|NCT03593473|182012357|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7175|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||High frequency heart rate variability at minutes 8 to 13||||0.7175
91063610|NCT03593473|182012357|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1417|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||High frequency heart rate variability at minutes 13 to 18||||0.1417
91063611|NCT03593473|182012357|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0514|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||High frequency heart rate variability at minutes 18 to 23||||0.0514
91063612|NCT03593473|182012357|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1507|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||High frequency heart rate variability at minutes 23 to 28||||0.1507
91063613|NCT03593473|182012357|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4204|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||High frequency heart rate variability at minutes 8 to 33||||0.4204
91063614|NCT03593473|182012357|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4209|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||High frequency heart rate variability at minutes 33 to 38||||0.4209
91063615|NCT03593473|182012357|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2569|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||High frequency heart rate variability at minutes 38 to 43||||0.2569
91063616|NCT03593473|182012357|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0828|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||High frequency heart rate variability at minutes 43 to 48||||0.0828
91063617|NCT03593473|182012358|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6452|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre-ejection period at minutes -40 to -35||||0.6452
91063618|NCT03593473|182012358|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3228|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre-ejection period at minutes -35 to -30||||0.3228
91063619|NCT03593473|182012358|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3541|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre-ejection period at minutes -30 to -25||||0.3541
91063620|NCT03593473|182012358|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4311|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre-ejection period at minutes -25 to -20||||0.4311
91063621|NCT03593473|182012358|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3349|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre-ejection period at minutes -20 to -15||||0.3349
91063622|NCT03593473|182012358|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2646|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre-ejection period at minutes -15 to -10||||0.2646
91063623|NCT03593473|182012358|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1095|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre-ejection period at minutes -10 to -5||||0.1095
91063624|NCT03593473|182012358|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0194|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre-ejection period at minutes -5 to 0||||0.0194
91063625|NCT03593473|182012358|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.473|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre-ejection period at minutes 5 to 8||||0.473
91063626|NCT03593473|182012358|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5768|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre-ejection period at minutes 8 to 13||||0.5768
91063627|NCT03593473|182012358|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3477|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre-ejection period at minutes 13 to 18||||0.3477
91063628|NCT03593473|182012358|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1413|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre-ejection period at minutes 18 to 23||||0.1413
91063629|NCT03593473|182012358|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2128|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre-ejection period at minutes 23 to 28||||0.2128
91063630|NCT03593473|182012358|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1415|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre-ejection period at minutes 28 to 33||||0.1415
91063631|NCT03593473|182012358|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1126|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre-ejection period at minutes 33 to 38||||0.1126
91063632|NCT03593473|182012358|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1647|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre-ejection period at minutes 38 to 43||||0.1647
91063633|NCT03593473|182012358|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.088|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre-ejection period at minutes 43 to 48||||0.088
91063634|NCT00813150|182012371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.19|||Regression, Cox|||Null Hypothesis: The (median) time to progression is equal in both treatment groups||1.19|0.43|0.196
91063635|NCT00813150|182012372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.19|||Regression, Cox|||||1.19|0.43|0.196
91063636|NCT00813150|182012373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.73|||Regression, Cox|||||1.73|0.41|0.645
91063637|NCT00813150|182012374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.814|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.814
91063638|NCT05085834|182012375|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations were used while adjusting for age and sex, and examining interactions between time and treatment. Combining linear coefficients in the equation while accounting for the multiplicative effects of treatment and time were considered to assess the true effect size of zinc supplementation on biomarkers.|β coefficient|0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.98|||linear combination of coefficients|||effect of Zinc supplementation on ln(Zinc, μg/dL)||0.98|0.43|<0.01
91063639|NCT05085834|182012376|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations were used while adjusting for age and sex, and examining interactions between time and treatment. Combining linear coefficients in the equation while accounting for the multiplicative effects of treatment and time were considered to assess the true effect size of zinc supplementation on biomarkers.|β coefficient|-0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.57|||linear combination of coefficients|||effect of Zinc supplementation on ln(hsCRP ng/mL)||0.57|-0.57|1.00
91063640|NCT05085834|182012376|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations were used while adjusting for age and sex, and examining interactions between time and treatment. Combining linear coefficients in the equation while accounting for the multiplicative effects of treatment and time were considered to assess the true effect size of zinc supplementation on biomarkers.|β coefficient|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.01|||linear combination of coefficients|||effect of Zinc supplementation on ln(sCD14, ng/mL)||0.01|-0.18|0.08
91063641|NCT05085834|182012376|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations were used while adjusting for age and sex, and examining interactions between time and treatment. Combining linear coefficients in the equation while accounting for the multiplicative effects of treatment and time were considered to assess the true effect size of zinc supplementation on biomarkers.|β coefficient|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.15|||linear combination of coefficients|||effect of Zinc supplementation on ln(sCD163, ng/mL)||0.15|-0.21|0.77
91063642|NCT05085834|182012376|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations were used while adjusting for age and sex, and examining interactions between time and treatment. Combining linear coefficients in the equation while accounting for the multiplicative effects of treatment and time were considered to assess the true effect size of zinc supplementation on biomarkers.|β coefficient|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.5|||linear combination of coefficients|||effect of Zinc supplementation on ln(D-dimer, ng/mL)||0.50|-0.10|0.19
91063643|NCT05085834|182012376|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations were used while adjusting for age and sex, and examining interactions between time and treatment. Combining linear coefficients in the equation while accounting for the multiplicative effects of treatment and time were considered to assess the true effect size of zinc supplementation on biomarkers.|β coefficient|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.04|||linear combination of coefficients|||effect of Zinc supplementation on ln(VCAM, ng/mL)||0.04|-0.41|0.10
91063644|NCT05085834|182012376|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations were used while adjusting for age and sex, and examining interactions between time and treatment. Combining linear coefficients in the equation while accounting for the multiplicative effects of treatment and time were considered to assess the true effect size of zinc supplementation on biomarkers.|β coefficient|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.19||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.16|39.98|||linear combination of coefficients|||effect of Zinc supplementation on ln(ICAM, ng/mL)||39.98|-39.16|0.98
91063645|NCT05085834|182012377|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations were used while adjusting for age and sex, and examining interactions between time and treatment. Combining linear coefficients in the equation while accounting for the multiplicative effects of treatment and time were considered to assess the true effect size of zinc supplementation on biomarkers.|β coefficient|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.16|||linear combination of coefficients|||effect of Zinc supplementation on ln(sTNF-RI , pg/mL)||0.16|-0.09|0.55
91063646|NCT05085834|182012377|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations were used while adjusting for age and sex, and examining interactions between time and treatment. Combining linear coefficients in the equation while accounting for the multiplicative effects of treatment and time were considered to assess the true effect size of zinc supplementation on biomarkers.|β coefficient|-0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.13|||linear combination of coefficients|||effect of Zinc supplementation on ln(sTNF-RII, pg/m)||0.13|-0.13|0.95
91063647|NCT05085834|182012377|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations were used while adjusting for age and sex, and examining interactions between time and treatment. Combining linear coefficients in the equation while accounting for the multiplicative effects of treatment and time were considered to assess the true effect size of zinc supplementation on biomarkers.|β coefficient|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.43|||linear combination of coefficients|||effect of Zinc supplementation on ln(IL-6, pg/mL)||0.43|-0.30|0.73
91063648|NCT05085834|182012377|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations were used while adjusting for age and sex, and examining interactions between time and treatment. Combining linear coefficients in the equation while accounting for the multiplicative effects of treatment and time were considered to assess the true effect size of zinc supplementation on biomarkers.|β coefficient|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.47|||linear combination of coefficients|||effect of Zinc supplementation on ln(IP-10, pg/mL)||0.47|-0.22|0.48
91063649|NCT05085834|182012378|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations were used while adjusting for age and sex, and examining interactions between time and treatment. Combining linear coefficients in the equation while accounting for the multiplicative effects of treatment and time were considered to assess the true effect size of zinc supplementation on biomarkers.|β coefficient|1819.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8530.03||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14899.37|18537.74|||linear combination of coefficients|||effect of Zinc supplementation on ln(OxLDL, U/L)||18537.74|-14899.37|0.83
91063650|NCT05085834|182012379|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations were used while adjusting for age and sex, and examining interactions between time and treatment. Combining linear coefficients in the equation while accounting for the multiplicative effects of treatment and time were considered to assess the true effect size of zinc supplementation on biomarkers.|β coefficient|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.15|||linear combination of coefficients|||effect of Zinc supplementation on ln(Non-HDL Cholesterol (mg/dL))||0.15|-0.12|0.84
91079206|NCT03240406|182044065|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07||||0.541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.31||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|ANCOVA|MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|||0.31|-0.16|0.541
91063651|NCT05085834|182012379|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations were used while adjusting for age and sex, and examining interactions between time and treatment. Combining linear coefficients in the equation while accounting for the multiplicative effects of treatment and time were considered to assess the true effect size of zinc supplementation on biomarkers.|β coefficient|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.04|||linear combination of coefficients|||effect of Zinc supplementation on ln(HDL (mg/dL))||0.04|-0.19|0.18
91063652|NCT05085834|182012379|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations were used while adjusting for age and sex, and examining interactions between time and treatment. Combining linear coefficients in the equation while accounting for the multiplicative effects of treatment and time were considered to assess the true effect size of zinc supplementation on biomarkers.|β coefficient|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.15|||linear combination of coefficients|||effect of Zinc supplementation on ln(LDL (mg/dL))||0.15|-0.19|0.84
91063653|NCT05085834|182012379|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations were used while adjusting for age and sex, and examining interactions between time and treatment. Combining linear coefficients in the equation while accounting for the multiplicative effects of treatment and time were considered to assess the true effect size of zinc supplementation on biomarkers.|β coefficient|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.29|||linear combination of coefficients|||effect of Zinc supplementation on ln(VLDL (mg/dL))||0.29|-0.15|0.55
91063654|NCT05085834|182012379|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations were used while adjusting for age and sex, and examining interactions between time and treatment. Combining linear coefficients in the equation while accounting for the multiplicative effects of treatment and time were considered to assess the true effect size of zinc supplementation on biomarkers.|β coefficient|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.09|||linear combination of coefficients|||effect of Zinc supplementation on ln(Cholesterol (mg/dl))||0.09|-0.11|0.78
91063655|NCT05085834|182012379|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations were used while adjusting for age and sex, and examining interactions between time and treatment. Combining linear coefficients in the equation while accounting for the multiplicative effects of treatment and time were considered to assess the true effect size of zinc supplementation on biomarkers.|β coefficient|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.31|||linear combination of coefficients|||effect of Zinc supplementation on ln(Triglycerides (mg/dL))||0.31|-0.17|0.58
91063656|NCT05085834|182012379|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations were used while adjusting for age and sex, and examining interactions between time and treatment. Combining linear coefficients in the equation while accounting for the multiplicative effects of treatment and time were considered to assess the true effect size of zinc supplementation on biomarkers.|β coefficient|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|0.48|||linear combination of coefficients|||effect of Zinc supplementation on Metabolic Syndrome||0.48|-1.36|0.35
91063657|NCT05085834|182012380|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations were used while adjusting for age and sex, and examining interactions between time and treatment. Combining linear coefficients in the equation while accounting for the multiplicative effects of treatment and time were considered to assess the true effect size of zinc supplementation on biomarkers.|β coefficient|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.2|||linear combination of coefficients|||effect of Zinc supplementation on ln(Chol:HDL Ratio)||0.20|-0.07|0.36
91063658|NCT05085834|182012381|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations were used while adjusting for age and sex, and examining interactions between time and treatment. Combining linear coefficients in the equation while accounting for the multiplicative effects of treatment and time were considered to assess the true effect size of zinc supplementation on biomarkers.|β coefficient|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.01||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.29|3.6|||linear combination of coefficients|||effect of Zinc supplementation on BMI (kg/m2)||3.60|-4.29|0.86
90825466|NCT02524171|181526666|SUPERIORITY||Other[Time x Condition at 12 mo.(Beta)]|-0.07|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Models adjusted for covariates (yielded estimated mean values of the outcome) and non-response weights based on completion of follow-up interviews.||Per protocol analysis, which included all UC participants (n=169) and only those in the MRT condition who had received the minimum recommended dose of the intervention - i.e., Step 3 or higher of MRT (n=63).||||<0.05
90825467|NCT02524171|181526667|SUPERIORITY||Other[Time x Condition at 12 mo.(Beta)]|0.01|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Models adjusted for covariates (yielded estimated mean values of the outcome) and non-response weights based on completion of follow-up interviews.||||||>0.05
90825468|NCT02524171|181526667|SUPERIORITY||Other[Time x Condition at 12 mo.(Beta)]|-0.08|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Models adjusted for covariates (yielded estimated mean values of the outcome) and non-response weights based on completion of follow-up interviews.||Per protocol analysis, which included all UC participants (n=169) and only those in the MRT condition who had received the minimum recommended dose of the intervention - i.e., Step 3 or higher of MRT (n=63).||||<0.05
90825469|NCT02524171|181526668|SUPERIORITY||Other[Time x Condition at 12 mo.(Beta)]|0.07|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Models adjusted for covariates (yielded estimated mean values of the outcome) and non-response weights based on completion of follow-up interviews.||||||<0.05
90825470|NCT02524171|181526668|SUPERIORITY||Other[Time x Condition at 12 mo.(Beta)]|0.08|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Models adjusted for covariates (yielded estimated mean values of the outcome) and non-response weights based on completion of follow-up interviews.||Per protocol analysis, which included all UC participants (n=169) and only those in the MRT condition who had received the minimum recommended dose of the intervention - i.e., Step 3 or higher of MRT (n=63).||||>0.05
91063659|NCT05085834|182012382|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations were used while adjusting for age and sex, and examining interactions between time and treatment. Combining linear coefficients in the equation while accounting for the multiplicative effects of treatment and time were considered to assess the true effect size of zinc supplementation on biomarkers.|β coefficient|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.05|||linear combination of coefficients|||effect of Zinc supplementation on ln(Waist-umbilicus (cm))||0.05|-0.08|0.74
91063660|NCT05085834|182012383|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations were used while adjusting for age and sex, and examining interactions between time and treatment. Combining linear coefficients in the equation while accounting for the multiplicative effects of treatment and time were considered to assess the true effect size of zinc supplementation on biomarkers.|β coefficient|-2.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.23||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.97|20.99|||linear combination of coefficients|||effect of Zinc supplementation on Weight (lbs)||20.99|-26.97|0.81
91063661|NCT05085834|182012384|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations were used while adjusting for age and sex, and examining interactions between time and treatment. Combining linear coefficients in the equation while accounting for the multiplicative effects of treatment and time were considered to assess the true effect size of zinc supplementation on biomarkers.|β coefficient|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.03|||linear combination of coefficients|||effect of Zinc supplementation on ln(Systolic blood pressure (mmHg))||0.03|-0.07|0.41
91063662|NCT05085834|182012384|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations were used while adjusting for age and sex, and examining interactions between time and treatment. Combining linear coefficients in the equation while accounting for the multiplicative effects of treatment and time were considered to assess the true effect size of zinc supplementation on biomarkers.|β coefficient|-1.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.06||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.71|2.36|||linear combination of coeff|||effect of Zinc supplementation on Diastolic blood pressure (mmHg)||2.36|-5.71|0.42
91063663|NCT05085834|182012385|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations were used while adjusting for age and sex, and examining interactions between time and treatment. Combining linear coefficients in the equation while accounting for the multiplicative effects of treatment and time were considered to assess the true effect size of zinc supplementation on biomarkers.|β coefficient|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.17|||linear combination of coefficients|||effect of Zinc supplementation on ln(10 year ASCVD (%))||0.17|-0.26|0.70
91063664|NCT05085834|182012386|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations were used while adjusting for age and sex, and examining interactions between time and treatment. Combining linear coefficients in the equation while accounting for the multiplicative effects of treatment and time were considered to assess the true effect size of zinc supplementation on biomarkers.|β coefficient|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.1|||linear combination of coefficients|||effect of Zinc supplementation on Reactive Hyperemic Index||0.10|-0.17|0.62
91063665|NCT05085834|182012386|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations were used while adjusting for age and sex, and examining interactions between time and treatment. Combining linear coefficients in the equation while accounting for the multiplicative effects of treatment and time were considered to assess the true effect size of zinc supplementation on biomarkers.|β coefficient|0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.43||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.19|5.36|||linear combination of coefficients|||effect of Zinc supplementation on Augmentation Index||5.36|-4.19|0.81
91063666|NCT05085834|182012387|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations were used while adjusting for age and sex, and examining interactions between time and treatment. Combining linear coefficients in the equation while accounting for the multiplicative effects of treatment and time were considered to assess the true effect size of zinc supplementation on biomarkers.|β coefficient|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.3|||linear combination of coefficients|||effect of Zinc supplementation on ln(IFAB (pg/mL))||0.30|-0.26|0.90
91063667|NCT05085834|182012387|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations were used while adjusting for age and sex, and examining interactions between time and treatment. Combining linear coefficients in the equation while accounting for the multiplicative effects of treatment and time were considered to assess the true effect size of zinc supplementation on biomarkers.|β coefficient|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.47|||linear combination of coefficients|||effect of Zinc supplementation on ln(BDG (pg/mL))||0.47|-0.12|0.24
91063668|NCT05085834|182012388|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations were used while adjusting for age and sex, and examining interactions between time and treatment. Combining linear coefficients in the equation while accounting for the multiplicative effects of treatment and time were considered to assess the true effect size of zinc supplementation on biomarkers.|β coefficient|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.32|||v|||effect of Zinc supplementation on ln(LBP (ng/mL))||0.32|-0.21|0.69
91063669|NCT05085834|182012388|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations were used while adjusting for age and sex, and examining interactions between time and treatment. Combining linear coefficients in the equation while accounting for the multiplicative effects of treatment and time were considered to assess the true effect size of zinc supplementation on biomarkers.|β coefficient|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.34|||linear combination of coefficients|||effect of Zinc supplementation on ln(Zonulin (ng/mL)||0.34|-0.16|0.49
91063670|NCT02547428|182012400|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-8.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.48|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|-5.1|||ANCOVA||Sample size of 60 participants (30 per treatment sequence) was needed to provide minimum 85% power to detect 5 point difference between treatments at a 2-sided significance level of 5% using a paired t-test.|Null hypothesis was that there was no difference in ADHD-RS-IV total score change from Baseline between CTN SR and placebo. The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model included terms for period, sequence, and treatment as fixed effects, and Baseline score as a covariate, and a participate-within-sequence term as a random effect.||-5.1|-11.0|<0.001
91063671|NCT02547428|182012401|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.74|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|-3.6|||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis was that there was no difference in ADHD-RS-IV total score change from Baseline between CTN SR 400 mg/day and placebo.||-3.6|-10.7|<0.001
91063672|NCT01634048|182012423|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91063673|NCT06192589|182012427|OTHER|A difference in exposure was concluded if the 2-sided 90% CI of the geometric mean ratio excluded 1, which is standard in pharmacokinetic studies|Geometric mean ratio|1.43|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.34|1.52||Analyses are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis||Comparison was the effect of cannabidiol on citalopram compared to citalopram alone.|Area under the curve was log-transformed and the values between groups were compared using a linear mixed effects model with group as a categorical variable and subject as a random effect||1.52|1.34|<0.01
91063674|NCT06192589|182012428|OTHER|A difference in exposure was concluded if the 2-sided 90% CI of the geometric mean ratio excluded 1, which is standard in pharmacokinetic studies|Geometric mean ratio|1.12|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.06|1.17||Analyses are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis||Comparison was the effect of cannabidiol on citalopram compared to citalopram alone.|Maximum concentration was log-transformed and the values between groups were compared using a linear mixed effects model with group as a categorical variable and subject as a random effect||1.17|1.06|<0.01
91063675|NCT06192589|182012429|OTHER|A difference in exposure was concluded if the 2-sided 90% CI of the geometric mean ratio excluded 1, which is standard in pharmacokinetic studies|Geometric mean ratio|1.06||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Comparison was the effect of a single dose of cannabidiol on morphine compared to morphine alone.|Area under the curve was log-transformed and the values between groups were compared using a linear mixed effects model with group as a categorical variable and subject as a random effect||1.16|0.96|0.34
91063676|NCT06192589|182012429|OTHER|A difference in exposure was concluded if the 2-sided 90% CI of the geometric mean ratio excluded 1, which is standard in pharmacokinetic studies|Geometric mean ratio|1.12||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Comparison was the effect of a multiple doses of cannabidiol on morphine compared to morphine alone.|Area under the curve was log-transformed and the values between groups were compared using a linear mixed effects model with group as a categorical variable and subject as a random effect.||1.26|1.00|0.10
91063677|NCT06192589|182012430|OTHER|A difference in exposure was concluded if the 2-sided 90% CI of the geometric mean ratio excluded 1, which is standard in pharmacokinetic studies|Geometric mean ratio|1.19||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.05|1.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Comparison was the effect of a single dose of cannabidiol on morphine compared to morphine alone.|Maximum concentration was log-transformed and the values between groups were compared using a linear mixed effects model with group as a categorical variable and subject as a random effect||1.35|1.05|0.02
91063678|NCT06192589|182012430|OTHER|A difference in exposure was concluded if the 2-sided 90% CI of the geometric mean ratio excluded 1, which is standard in pharmacokinetic studies|Geometric mean ratio|1.11||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Comparison was the effect of multiple doses of cannabidiol on morphine compared to morphine alone.|Maximum concentration was log-transformed and the values between groups were compared using a linear mixed effects model with group as a categorical variable and subject as a random effect||1.30|0.94|0.29
91063679|NCT06192589|182012437|OTHER|A difference in exposure was concluded if the 2-sided 90% CI of the geometric mean ratio excluded 1, which is standard in pharmacokinetic studies|Geometric mean ratio|1.01||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|1.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Comparison was the effect of a single dose of cannabidiol on morphine compared to morphine alone.|Area under the curve was log-transformed and the values between groups were compared using a linear mixed effects model with group as a categorical variable and subject as a random effect||1.05|0.98|0.47
91063680|NCT06192589|182012437|OTHER|A difference in exposure was concluded if the 2-sided 90% CI of the geometric mean ratio excluded 1, which is standard in pharmacokinetic studies|Geometric mean ratio|0.99||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Comparison was the effect of multiple doses of cannabidiol on morphine compared to morphine alone.|Area under the curve was log-transformed and the values between groups were compared using a linear mixed effects model with group as a categorical variable and subject as a random effect||1.03|0.96|0.73
91063681|NCT06192589|182012438|OTHER|A difference in exposure was concluded if the 2-sided 90% CI of the geometric mean ratio excluded 1, which is standard in pharmacokinetic studies|Geometric mean ratio|1.12||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.03|1.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Comparison was the effect of a single dose of cannabidiol on morphine compared to morphine alone.|Maximum concentration was log-transformed and the values between groups were compared using a linear mixed effects model with group as a categorical variable and subject as a random effect||1.21|1.03|0.03
91063682|NCT06192589|182012438|OTHER|A difference in exposure was concluded if the 2-sided 90% CI of the geometric mean ratio excluded 1, which is standard in pharmacokinetic studies|Geometric mean ratio|0.98||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Comparison was the effect of multiple doses of cannabidiol on morphine compared to morphine alone.|Maximum concentration was log-transformed and the values between groups were compared using a linear mixed effects model with group as a categorical variable and subject as a random effect||1.06|0.91|0.66
91063683|NCT06192589|182012439|OTHER|A difference in exposure was concluded if the 2-sided 90% CI of the geometric mean ratio excluded 1, which is standard in pharmacokinetic studies.|Geometric mean ratio|1.08||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.99|1.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Comparison was the effect of a single dose of cannabidiol on morphine compared to morphine alone.|Area under the curve was log-transformed and the values between groups were compared using a linear mixed effects model with group as a categorical variable and subject as a random effect.||1.18|0.99|0.13
91063684|NCT06192589|182012439|OTHER|A difference in exposure was concluded if the 2-sided 90% CI of the geometric mean ratio excluded 1, which is standard in pharmacokinetic studies|Geometric mean ratio|1.26|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.17|1.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Comparison was the effect of multiple doses of cannabidiol on morphine compared to morphine alone.|Area under the curve was log-transformed and the values between groups were compared using a linear mixed effects model with group as a categorical variable and subject as a random effect||1.36|1.17|<0.01
91063685|NCT06192589|182012440|OTHER|A difference in exposure was concluded if the 2-sided 90% CI of the geometric mean ratio excluded 1, which is standard in pharmacokinetic studies|Geometric mean ratio|1.08||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Comparison was the effect of a single dose of cannabidiol on morphine compared to morphine alone.|Maximum concentration was log-transformed and the values between groups were compared using a linear mixed effects model with group as a categorical variable and subject as a random effect||1.17|1.00|0.12
91063686|NCT06192589|182012440|OTHER|A difference in exposure was concluded if the 2-sided 90% CI of the geometric mean ratio excluded 1, which is standard in pharmacokinetic studies|Geometric mean ratio|1.11||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.01|1.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Comparison was the effect of multiple doses of cannabidiol on morphine compared to morphine alone.|Maximum concentration was log-transformed and the values between groups were compared using a linear mixed effects model with group as a categorical variable and subject as a random effect||1.21|1.01|0.07
90825471|NCT00632619|181526674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.106|||||||ANOVA|||A 2 x 2 repeated measures analysis (with time as within-subject factor and group as between-subject factor) was performed to compare the two groups on this measure at two time points (i.e., baseline at week 0 and endpoint at week 12) and infer treatment success accordingly. The null hypothesis signified that there would be no difference between the groups over time, thus, there would be no difference in treatments. Statistical power was calculated as Cohen's d.||||0.106
90825472|NCT00632619|181526675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||ANOVA|||A 2 x 2 repeated measures analysis (with time as within-subject factor and group as between-subject factor) was performed to compare the two groups on this measure at two time points (i.e., baseline which was week 0 and endpoint at week 12) and infer treatment success accordingly. The null hypothesis signified that there would be no difference between the groups over time, thus, there would be no difference in treatments. Statistical power was calculated as Cohen's d.||||0.015
90825473|NCT00632619|181526676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38||95.0|||||ANOVA|||A 2 x 2 repeated measures analysis (with time as within-subject factor and group as between-subject factor) was conducted to compare the two groups on this measure at two time points (i.e., baseline at week 0 and endpoint at week 12) and infer treatment success accordingly. The null hypothesis signified that there would be no difference between the groups over time, thus, there would be no difference in treatments. Statistical power was calculated as Cohen's d.||||0.38
90825474|NCT00632619|181526677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016|||||||ANOVA|||A 2 x 2 repeated measures analysis (with time as within-subject factor and group as between-subject factor) was performed to compare the two groups on this measure at two time points (i.e., baseline at week 0 and endpoint at week 12) and infer treatment success accordingly. The null hypothesis signified that there would be no difference between the groups over time, thus, there would be no difference in treatments. Statistical power was calculated as Cohen's d.||||0.016
90825475|NCT00632619|181526678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.095|||||||ANOVA|||A 2 x 2 repeated measures analysis (with time as within-subject factor and group as between-subject factor) was performed to compare the two groups on this measure at two time points (i.e., baseline at week 0 and endpoint at week 12) and infer treatment success accordingly. The null hypothesis signified that there would be no difference between the groups over time, thus, there would be no difference in treatments. Statistical power was calculated as Cohen's d.||||0.095
90825476|NCT02204072|181526692|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.9549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.7|||Two-sided log-rank test.||Cox proportional hazard model. Hazard ratio: Comparison vs Enzalutamide|||1.70|0.57|0.9549
90825477|NCT02204072|181526695|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19||||0.5425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|2.06|||Two-sided log-rank test.||Cox proportional hazards model. Hazard ratio: Comparison vs. Enzaludamide.|||2.06|0.68|0.5425
90825478|NCT02204072|181526696|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||0.5534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.9|||Two-sided log-rank test.||Cox proportional hazards model. Hazard ratio: Comparison vs. Enzalutamide.|||1.90|0.71|0.5534
90825479|NCT02204072|181526697|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64||||0.1514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.18|||Two-sided log-rank test.||Cox proportional hazards model. Hazard ratio: Comparison vs. Enzalutamide.|||1.18|0.35|0.1514
90825480|NCT02204072|181526701|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.579||||0.6186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.269|12.515|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio, p-value and confidence interval were obtained from logistic regression model.||||12.515|0.269|0.6186
90825481|NCT02204072|181526703|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.891||||0.192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.727|5.059|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio, p-value and confidence interval were obtained from logistic regression model.|||5.059|0.727|0.1920
91063687|NCT00742209|182012450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference versus placebo|0.3||||0.579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.1||A combination of a sequential method and the Hochberg procedure has been used to maintain the overall experiment-size alphas level of 0.05 for the comparison of GEn vs. placebo.|ANCOVA|An ANCOVA model with baseline number of MHD and IHS Headache Classification for presence or absence of aura as covariates was used.|Adjusted mean difference versus placebo|||1.1|-0.6|0.579
91063688|NCT01332487|182012480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||Acute Urinary Retention|Chi-squared|||||||0.002
91063689|NCT01332487|182012480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0||95.0||||Surgery|Chi-squared|||||||0.000
91063690|NCT01332487|182012480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.597||95.0||||Emergency Surgery|Chi-squared|||||||0.597
90825482|NCT00367835|181526743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90825483|NCT00367835|181526744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90825484|NCT00367835|181526745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90825485|NCT00367835|181526746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90825486|NCT00367835|181526747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90825487|NCT00367835|181526748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.002
90825488|NCT00367835|181526749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90825489|NCT03453489|181526755|OTHER|||||||0.837|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.837
90825490|NCT04346654|181526758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5133|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.5133
90825491|NCT04346654|181526759|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5133|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.5133
90825492|NCT03375489|181526771|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was established for patient-reported quality of life if the 90% confidence interval for the estimated difference in means was within the margin of ±4 points on the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Lung Questionnaire.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.1|3.9||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||The difference in week-24 means between groups was estimated using a linear regression model with a main effect for group assignment and controlling for baseline Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Lung Questionnaire scores.||3.9|0.1|0.04
91063691|NCT01514461|182012495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% change from reference treatment|-28.78||||0.0538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.69|14.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model of Repeated Measurements||||14.46|-55.69|0.0538
91063692|NCT01514461|182012495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% change from reference treatment|-40.88||||0.0182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.99|-2.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model of Repeated Measurements||||-2.94|-63.99|0.0182
91063693|NCT01062425|182012542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.005||||||One-sided test with significance level of 0.15.|Z-test|||The null hypothesis was that the 6m PFS rates for both arms are 50%, and the alternative hypothesis was that patients receiving the experimental regimen would have a 6-month PFS rate of 66%. With 150 eligible patients, there would be an 80% statistical power to detect the 16% absolute increase in 6m PFS at a significance level of 0.15, using a one-sided Z test for two proportions.||||0.005
91063694|NCT01062425|182012543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.24||Significance level 0.05, two-sided test.|Log Rank||Placebo is the reference arm for the hazard ratio.|||1.24|0.6|0.44
91063695|NCT01062425|182012543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.34|||Regression, Cox||Placebo is reference level for the hazard ratio.|Multivariate analysis with the Cox proportional hazard model for overall survival was performed with the stratification variables as fixed variables to assess the treatment effect adjusting patient-specific risk factors. The covariates evaluated for the multivariate models were assigned protocol treatment, MGMT methylation status, and RPA risk class.||1.34|0.62|0.648
91063696|NCT01062425|182012544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.95||Significance level 0.05, two-sided test.|Log Rank||Placebo is the reference arm for the hazard ratio.|||0.95|0.47|0.03
91063697|NCT01062425|182012544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.97|||Regression, Cox||Placebo is the reference arm.|Multivariate analysis with the Cox proportional hazard model for progression-free survival was performed with the stratification variables as fixed variables to assess the treatment effect adjusting patient-specific risk factors. The covariates evaluated for the multivariate models were assigned protocol treatment, MGMT methylation status, and recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) risk class.||0.97|0.46|0.036
91063698|NCT01062425|182012545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.02||||||Significance level 0.05, two-sided test.|Chi-squared|||||||0.02
91063699|NCT01234350|182012559|OTHER||IRR|0.829||||0.4007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.536|1.283||Poisson-mixture regression was used to model the influence of age, stage of disease, and relevant medical history along with the treatment group effect on the number of events adjusted for individual study exposures measured in 100 PYE.|Wald test|The IRs for each treatment arm with 95% confidence interval (CI), and incidence rate ratio (IRRs) with 95% CI and p-values were based on Wald test.|IRR for treatment with the lower 95% confidence limit \>1 suggest increased risk of AESI; upper confidence limit \<1 suggest decreased risk of AESI with the use of FIRMAGON. The limit including 1 suggests no difference b/w treatment groups.|The IRs were estimated using a Poisson-mixture regression model.||1.283|0.536|0.4007
91063700|NCT01234350|182012560|OTHER||IRR|0.874||||0.671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.626||Poisson-mixture regression was used to model the influence of age, stage of disease, and relevant medical history along with the treatment group effect on the number of events adjusted for individual study exposures measured in 100 PYE.|Wald test|The IRs for each treatment arm with 95% CI, and IRRs with 95% CI and p-values were based on Wald test.|IRR for treatment with the lower 95% confidence limit \>1 suggest increased risk of AESI; upper confidence limit \<1 suggest decreased risk of AESI with the use of FIRMAGON. The limit including 1 suggests no difference b/w treatment groups.|For osteoporosis and osteopenia events. The IRs were estimated using Poisson-mixture regression model.||1.626|0.470|0.6710
91063701|NCT01234350|182012560|OTHER||IRR|1.857||||0.4544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.367|9.403||Poisson-mixture regression was used to model the influence of age, stage of disease, and relevant medical history along with the treatment group effect on the number of events adjusted for individual study exposures measured in 100 PYE.|Wald test|The IRs for each treatment arm with 95% CI, and IRRs with 95% CI and p-values were based on Wald test.|IRR for treatment with the lower 95% confidence limit \>1 suggest increased risk of AESI; upper confidence limit \<1 suggest decreased risk of AESI with the use of FIRMAGON. The limit including 1 suggests no difference b/w treatment groups.|For bone fracture events. The IRs were estimated using Poisson-mixture regression model.||9.403|0.367|0.4544
91063702|NCT01234350|182012561|OTHER||IRR|1.193||||0.2529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.882|1.613||Poisson mixture regression was used to model the influence of age, stage of disease, and history of diabetes mellitus along with the treatment group effect on the number of events adjusted for individual study exposures measured in 100 PYE.|Wald test|The IRs for each treatment arm with 95% CI, and IRRs with 95% CI and p-values were based on Wald test.|IRR for treatment with the lower 95% confidence limit \>1 suggest increased risk of AESI; upper confidence limit \<1 suggest decreased risk of AESI with the use of FIRMAGON. The limit including 1 suggests no difference b/w treatment groups.|For glucose intolerance. The IRs were estimated using Poisson-mixture regression model.||1.613|0.882|0.2529
91063703|NCT01234350|182012561|OTHER||IRR|2.623||||0.0208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.158|5.944||Poisson-mixture regression is used to model the influence of age, stage of disease, and relevant medical history along with the treatment group effect on the number of events adjusted for individual trial exposures measured in 100 PYE.|Wald test|The IRs for each treatment arm with 95% CI, and IRRs with 95% CI and p-values were based on Wald test.|IRR for treatment with the lower 95% confidence limit \>1 suggest increased risk of AESI; upper confidence limit \<1 suggest decreased risk of AESI with the use of FIRMAGON. The limit including 1 suggests no difference b/w treatment groups.|For T2DM. The IRs were estimated using Poisson-mixture regression model.||5.944|1.158|0.0208
91063704|NCT01234350|182012568|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.747||||0.0821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.537|1.038||A logistic regression was used to model the influence of age, stage of disease and relevant medical history along with the treatment group on the time to event for all-cause mortality.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression was used to model the influence of age, stage of disease and relevant medical history along with the treatment group.||The analyses of all-cause mortality was based on logistic regressions.||1.038|0.537|0.0821
91063705|NCT00289848|182012569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.08|<|0.001||95.0|-1.23|-0.83|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with terms of treatment, country, prior diabetes pharmacotherapy (not on AHA or on AHA), and baseline A1C as a covariate||||-0.83|-1.23|<0.001
91063706|NCT00289848|182012570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-31.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|39.8|<|0.001||95.0|-38.4|-23.7|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with terms of treatment, country, prior diabetes pharmacotherapy (not on AHA or on AHA), and baseline FPG as a covariate||||-23.7|-38.4|<0.001
91063707|NCT00289848|182012571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-56.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|59.2|<|0.001||95.0|-68.8|-44.3|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with terms of treatment, country, prior diabetes pharmacotherapy (not on AHA or on AHA), and baseline 2-hr PMG as a covariate||||-44.3|-68.8|<0.001
91063708|NCT01839708|182012572|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>0.05
91063709|NCT01839708|182012573|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>0.05
91063710|NCT01839708|182012574|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
91063711|NCT01839708|182012575|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>0.05
91063712|NCT01839708|182012576|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
91063713|NCT01839708|182012577|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.03
91063714|NCT01839708|182012578|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
91063715|NCT01839708|182012579|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
90825493|NCT03375489|181526772|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was established for patient-reported communication with their clinicians about their end-of-life care preferences if the 90% confidence interval for the estimated difference in proportions was within the margin of ±8%.|Estimated Difference in Proportions|3.1||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.8|8.1||Bonferroni-adjusted p-value|binomial generalized estimating equation|||The difference between groups in the proportions of patients reporting that they communicated with their clinicians about their end-of-life care preferences was estimated using a binomial generalized estimating equation model with robust standard errors, the identity link function, and a main effect for group assignment.||8.1|-1.8|0.26
91063716|NCT01839708|182012580|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
91063717|NCT01839708|182012581|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
91063718|NCT01839708|182012582|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
91063719|NCT01839708|182012583|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
91063720|NCT01839708|182012584|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
91063721|NCT01839708|182012585|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
91063722|NCT02857816|182012628|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This is a single arm study. The primary objective was to demonstrate a statistically significant reduction between baseline and following the 12th PTNM therapy sessions in the number of UUI episodes per day.||||<0.0001
91063723|NCT02291237|182012635|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference(Eleclazine - Placebo)|-0.55||||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|0.78|||ANCOVA|P-value and Least Squares (LS) Means are from model with terms for sex, age (continuous), and treatment group and baseline peak VO2 as the covariate.||The analysis evaluated the change in Peak VO2 from baseline to Week 24 for the eleclazine group compared with that of the placebo group using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including terms for baseline Peak VO2, sex, and age (continuous).||0.78|-1.87|0.416
91063724|NCT02291237|182012636|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference(Eleclazine - Placebo)|-0.42||||0.517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|0.85||P-value and LS Means are from model with terms for sex, age (continuous), and treatment group and baseline peak VO2 as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||The analysis evaluated the change in Peak VO2 from baseline to Week 12 for the eleclazine group compared with that of the placebo group using ANCOVA including terms for baseline Peak VO2, sex, and age (continuous).||0.85|-1.68|0.517
91063725|NCT02291237|182012637|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference(Eleclazine - Placebo)|1.54||||0.513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.11|6.19|||ANCOVA|P-value and LS Means are from model with terms for sex, age (continuous), and treatment group and baseline score as the covariate.||The analysis evaluated the change in MLHFQ from baseline to Week 24 for the eleclazine group compared with that of the placebo group using ANCOVA including terms for baseline treadmill exercise time, sex, and age (continuous).||6.19|-3.11|0.513
91063726|NCT02291237|182012638|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference(Eleclazine - Placebo)|0.1||||0.964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.36|4.56|||ANCOVA|P-value and LS Means are from model with terms for sex, age (continuous), and treatment group and baseline score as the covariate.||The analysis evaluated the change in MLHFQ from baseline to Week 12 for the eleclazine group compared with that of the placebo group using ANCOVA including terms for baseline treadmill exercise time, sex, and age (continuous).||4.56|-4.36|0.964
91063727|NCT02291237|182012639|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference(Eleclazine - Placebo)|-0.04||||0.944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|1.1|||ANCOVA|P-value and LS Means are from model with terms for sex, age (continuous), and treatment group and baseline score as the covariate.||The analysis evaluated the change in treadmill exercise time from baseline to Week 24 for the eleclazine group compared with that of the placebo group using ANCOVA including terms for baseline treadmill exercise time, sex, and age (continuous).||1.10|-1.18|0.944
91063728|NCT02291237|182012640|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference(Eleclazine - Placebo)|0.0||||0.993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.97|||ANCOVA|P-value and LS Means are from model with terms for sex, age (continuous), and treatment group and baseline score as the covariate.||The analysis evaluated the change in treadmill exercise time from baseline to Week 12 for the eleclazine group compared with that of the placebo group using ANCOVA including terms for baseline treadmill exercise time, sex, and age (continuous).||0.97|-0.96|0.993
91063729|NCT03787134|182012656|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.335|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||cued memory item reconstruction - test of reconstruction strength against 0||||.335
91063730|NCT03787134|182012656|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||uncued memory item reconstruction - test of reconstruction strength against 0||||.016
91063731|NCT03281876|182012682|OTHER|Vaccine Efficacy is defined as 1 minus the risk ratio (Rvacc / Rcon) based on the number of moderate and severe AECOPD observed in 1 year , with Rvacc = average yearly incidence rate of AECOPD events per subject in the GSK3277511A Group and Rcon = average yearly incidence rate of AECOPD events per subject in the Control group. The objective is to be considered a success if the lower limit of the 87% CI is above 0%.|Other: Vaccine Efficacy rate|-2.26||||0.8157|TWO_SIDED|87.0|-18.27|11.58|||Negative Binomial regression|Negative Binomial model with arm, country, gold grade, history of exacerbation and age category as covariates and log time as offset variable||To assess efficacy of the investigational vaccine as compared to the placebo control with respect to the rate of moderate and severe AECOPDs||11.58|-18.27|0.8157
91063732|NCT03281876|182012683|OTHER|Vaccine Efficacy is defined as 1 minus the risk ratio (Rvacc / Rcon) based on the number of moderate and severe AECOPD observed in 1 year , with Rvacc = average yearly incidence rate of AECOPD events per subject in the GSK3277511A Group and Rcon = average yearly incidence rate of AECOPD events per subject in the Control group.|Other: Vaccine Efficacy rate|-2.26||||0.8157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.45|15.29|||Negative Binomial regression|Negative Binomial model with arm, country, gold grade, history of exacerbation and age category as covariates and log time as offset variable||To assess efficacy of the investigational vaccine as compared to the placebo control with respect to the rate of moderate and severe AECOPDs||15.29|-23.45|0.8157
91063733|NCT03281876|182012690|OTHER|Vaccine Efficacy is defined as 1 minus the risk ratio (Rvacc / Rcon) based on the number of moderate and severe AECOPD observed in 1 year , with Rvacc = average yearly incidence rate of AECOPD events per subject in the GSK3277511A Group and Rcon = average yearly incidence rate of AECOPD events per subject in the control group.|Vaccine efficacy rate|-2.72||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.95|14.19|||Negative Binomial regression|||To assess efficacy of the investigational vaccine as compared to the placebo control with respect to the rate of AECOPDs of any severity- upto 12 months follow up period||14.19|-22.95|0.7700
91063734|NCT03281876|182012692|OTHER|The dependent variable is the time to first occurrence of the event. The reference is the Placebo.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.5751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.758|1.166|||Regression, Cox|Analysis using Cox proportional hazard regression including history of exacerbation, study treatment, GOLD grade and age group as covariate.||Hazard rate for moderate or severe AECOPDs, one year follow-up starting 1 month post dose 2||1.166|0.758|0.5751
91063735|NCT03281876|182012693|OTHER|The dependent variable is the time to first occurrence of the event. The reference is the Placebo.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.934||||0.5194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.758|1.15|||Regression, Cox|Analysis using Cox proportional hazard regression including history of exacerbation, study treatment, GOLD grade and age group as covariate.||Hazard rate for any AECOPDs, one year follow-up starting 1 month post dose 2||1.15|0.758|0.5194
91063736|NCT03281876|182012694|OTHER|The dependent variable is the time to first occurrence of the event. The reference is the Placebo.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.8581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.616|1.791|||Regression, Cox|Analysis using Cox proportional hazard regression including history of exacerbation, study treatment, GOLD grade and age group as covariate.||Hazard rate for mild AECOPDs, one year follow-up starting 1 month post dose 2||1.791|0.616|0.8581
91063737|NCT03281876|182012694|OTHER|The dependent variable is the time to first occurrence of the event. The reference is the Placebo.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.995||||0.9634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.792|1.249|||Regression, Cox|Analysis using Cox proportional hazard regression including history of exacerbation, study treatment, GOLD grade and age group as covariate.||Hazard rate for moderate AECOPDs, one year follow-up starting 1 month post dose 2||1.249|0.792|0.9634
91063738|NCT03281876|182012694|OTHER|The dependent variable is the time to first occurrence of the event. The reference is the Placebo.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.722||||0.1755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.157|||Regression, Cox|Analysis using Cox proportional hazard regression including history of exacerbation, study treatment, GOLD grade and age group as covariate.||Hazard rate for severe AECOPDs, one year follow-up starting 1 month post dose 2||1.157|0.45|0.1755
91063739|NCT03281876|182012701|OTHER|The dependent variable is the time to first occurrence of the event. The reference is the Placebo.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.038||||0.9463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.477|||Regression, Cox|Analysis using Cox proportional hazard regression including history of exacerbation, study treatment, GOLD grade and age group as covariate.||Hazard rate for moderate or severe NTHi-associated and/or Mcat-associated AECOPDs, one year follow-up starting 1 month post dose 2||1.477|0.73|0.9463
91063740|NCT03281876|182012702|OTHER|The dependent variable is the time to first occurrence of the event. The reference is the Placebo.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.093||||0.6042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.782|1.528|||Regression, Cox|Analysis using Cox proportional hazard regression including history of exacerbation, study treatment, GOLD grade and age group as covariate.||Hazard rate for any NTHi-associated and/or Mcat-associated AECOPDs, one year follow-up starting 1 month post dose 2||1.528|0.782|0.6042
91063741|NCT03281876|182012703|OTHER|The dependent variable is the time to first occurrence of the event. The reference is the Placebo.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.243||||0.0777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.914|5.504|||Regression, Cox|Analysis using Cox proportional hazard regression including history of exacerbation, study treatment, GOLD grade and age group as covariate.||Hazard rate for mild NTHi-associated and/or Mcat-associated AECOPDs, one year follow-up starting 1 month post dose 2||5.504|0.914|0.0777
91063742|NCT03281876|182012703|OTHER|The dependent variable is the time to first occurrence of the event. The reference is the Placebo.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.021||||0.9121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.467|||Regression, Cox|Analysis using Cox proportional hazard regression including history of exacerbation, study treatment, GOLD grade and age group as covariate.||Hazard rate for moderate NTHi-associated and/or Mcat-associated AECOPDs, one year follow-up starting 1 month post dose 2||1.467|0.71|0.9121
91063743|NCT03281876|182012703|OTHER|The dependent variable is the time to first occurrence of the event. The reference is the Placebo.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.8737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.278|4.502|||Regression, Cox|Analysis using Cox proportional hazard regression including history of exacerbation, study treatment, GOLD grade and age group as covariate.||Hazard rate for severe NTHi-associated and/or Mcat-associated AECOPDs, one year follow-up starting 1 month post dose 2||4.502|0.278|0.8737
91063744|NCT02208089|182012715|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis = TransPRK produced no gains in vision over and above those produced by CXL only||||0.03
91063745|NCT02208089|182012716|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Chi-squared|||Null hypothesis = an equal proportion of patients in both study arms have clinically significant visual gains||||0.005
91063746|NCT02208089|182012717|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority = no significant difference between rates of clinically significant visual loss between groups at the p≤0.05 level||||||0.13|||||||Chi-squared|||null hypothesis = rates of clinically significant visual loss are equal for TransPRKCXL and CXL only||||0.13
91063747|NCT01074944|182012747|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Eliglustat QD treatment was declared non-inferior to BID treatment if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference was within the non-inferiority margin of -0.15 (or -15%).|Difference in Percentage Stable|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|11.9||||||||11.9|-17.7|
91063748|NCT03741400|182012792|OTHER|||||||0.88||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance, 0.05|ANCOVA|Nonparametric ANCOVA using Quade's test with adjustments for age, sex, and NIHSS||Analysis of change in total seconds||||0.88
91063749|NCT03741400|182012792|OTHER|||||||0.99||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance, 0.05|ANCOVA|Nonparametric ANCOVA using Quade's test with adjustments for age, sex, and NIHSS||Analysis of change in fine motor skill assessment||||0.99
91063750|NCT03741400|182012792|OTHER|||||||0.8||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance, 0.05|ANCOVA|Nonparametric ANCOVA using Quade's test with adjustments for age, sex, and NIHSS||Analysis of change in gross motor skills assessment||||0.80
91063751|NCT03741400|182012793|OTHER|||||||0.61||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance, 0.05|ANCOVA|Nonparametric ANCOVA using Quade's test with adjustments for age, sex, and NIHSS||||||0.61
91063752|NCT03741400|182012794|OTHER|||||||0.47||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance, 0.05|ANCOVA|Nonparametric ANCOVA using Quade's test with adjustments for age, sex, and NIHSS||Analysis of change in total seconds||||0.47
91063753|NCT03741400|182012794|OTHER|||||||0.55||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance, 0.05|ANCOVA|Nonparametric ANCOVA using Quade's test with adjustments for age, sex, and NIHSS||Analysis of change in fine motor skill assessment||||0.55
91063754|NCT03741400|182012794|OTHER|||||||0.38||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance, 0.05|ANCOVA|Nonparametric ANCOVA using Quade's test with adjustments for age, sex, and NIHSS||Analysis of change in gross motor skills assessment||||0.38
91063755|NCT03741400|182012795|OTHER|||||||0.24||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance, 0.05|ANCOVA|Nonparametric ANCOVA using Quade's test with adjustments for age, sex, and NIHSS||||||0.24
91063756|NCT03741400|182012796|OTHER|||||||0.18||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance, 0.05|Mann-Whitney U test|||||||0.18
91063757|NCT03741400|182012797|OTHER|||||||0.926||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance, 0.05|ANCOVA|Nonparametric ANCOVA using Quade's test with adjustments for age, sex, and NIHSS||Analysis at week 12||||0.926
90825494|NCT03375489|181526773|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was established for patient length of stay in hospice if the 90% confidence interval for the estimated difference in mean days was within the margin of ±6 days.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.0|7.4||Bonferroni-adjusted p-value|Regression, Linear|||The difference in mean length of stay in hospice between groups was estimated using a linear regression model with a main effect for group assignment.||7.4|-7.0|0.46
90825495|NCT03375489|181526774|SUPERIORITY||Difference in estimated proportions|-13.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6|-8.6||Bonferroni-adjusted p-value|binomial generalized estimating equation|||The proportion of palliative care visits with caregiver participation was compared using a binomial generalized estimating equation model with robust standard errors, the identity link function, and a main effect for group assignment.||-8.6|-17.6|<0.001
91063758|NCT03741400|182012797|OTHER|||||||0.828||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance, 0.05|ANCOVA|Nonparametric ANCOVA using Quade's test with adjustments for age, sex, and NIHSS||Analysis at week 24||||0.828
91063759|NCT03296813|182012943|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.022||||0.765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.885|1.18||P-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox|||To determine whether torsemide is superior to furosemide with respect to all-cause mortality among patients hospitalized for heart failure.|P-value from a Cox proportional hazards regression model including the assigned treatment (torsemide vs. furosemide as the reference group) as well as age, sex, baseline ejection fraction (\<40%, 41-49%, \>50%, unknown), and loop diuretic treatment prior to index hospital admission as covariates.|1.180|0.885|0.765
91063760|NCT03296813|182012944|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.918||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.826|1.02||For secondary analyses, a statistically significant p-value \< 0.005 was pre-specified to address the multiple planned analyses and help control the overall type I error rate.|Regression, Cox|||To determine whether torsemide is superior to furosemide with respect to all-cause mortality or first all-cause hospitalization through month 12 among patients hospitalized for heart failure.|P-value from a Cox proportional hazards regression model including the assigned treatment (torsemide vs. furosemide as the reference group) as well as age, sex, baseline ejection fraction (\<40%, 41-49%, \>50%, unknown), and loop diuretic treatment prior to index hospital admission as covariates.|1.020|0.826|0.113
91063761|NCT03296813|182012945|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.945||||0.366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.836|1.068||For secondary analyses, a statistically significant p-value \< 0.005 was pre-specified to address the multiple planned analyses and help control the overall type I error rate.|Regression, Linear|||To determine whether torsemide is superior to furosemide with respect to total all-cause hospitalizations through month 12 among patients hospitalized for heart failure.|P-value from a negative binomial regression of the frequency of re-hospitalizations with an offset term of the log of each subject's months to last re-hospitalization assessment through month 12. Re-hospitalizations greater than or equal to 5 were combined and analyzed with re-hospitalizations = 5 (i.e., one category \>=5) and for the subjects with \>=5 re-hospitalizations, the offset term was the log of the months to the 5th re-hospitalization.|1.068|0.836|0.366
91063762|NCT03296813|182012946|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.943||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.753|1.181||For secondary analyses, a statistically significant p-value \< 0.005 was pre-specified to address the multiple planned analyses and help control the overall type I error rate.|Regression, Cox|||To determine whether torsemide is superior to furosemide with respect to all-cause mortality or first all-cause hospitalization through day 30 among patients hospitalized for heart failure.|P-value from a Cox proportional hazards regression model including the assigned treatment (torsemide vs. furosemide as the reference group) as well as age, sex, baseline ejection fraction (\<40%, 41-49%, \>50%, unknown), and loop diuretic treatment prior to index hospital admission as covariates.|1.181|0.753|0.610
91077847|NCT02913105|182041135|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.01||||0.905|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.1|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||PIIINP: Day 84||1.10|0.92|0.9050
90825496|NCT03375489|181526775|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.7||Bonferroni-adjusted p-value|Regression, Linear|||The difference in week-24 means between groups was estimated using a linear regression model with a main effect for group assignment.||1.7|-1.0|>0.99
91063763|NCT03296813|182012947|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|3.26||For secondary analyses, a statistically significant p-value \< 0.005 was pre-specified to address the multiple planned analyses and help control the overall type I error rate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||To determine whether torsemide improves the QOL at 1 month compared to Furosemide as assessed by the KCCQ among patients hospitalized for heart failure.|Least squares means results from mixed-model repeated measures analysis of the KCCQ score change from baseline with terms for treatment, time (visit) from randomization, treatment x time (visit) interaction as well as the baseline KCCQ score, age, sex, baseline ejection fraction (\<40%, 41-49%, \>50%, unknown), and loop diuretic treatment prior to index hospital admission as covariates.|3.26|-0.66|0.194
90825497|NCT03375489|181526776|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.3||Bonferroni-adjusted p-value|Regression, Linear|||The difference in week-24 means between groups was estimated using a linear regression model with a main effect for group assignment.||2.3|-1.5|>0.99
90825498|NCT03838978|181526787|SUPERIORITY|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the 90% LB \> -10.0%. If non-inferiority was met, superiority could be tested. Superiority is demonstrated if 97.5% LB \> 0.0%.||||||||||||||||For missing data in both Arms/Groups, multiple imputation was performed for the primary CCS analysis.|Device group differences and two-sided 90% and 97.5% confidence interval lower bounds (LB) adjusting for propensity score (PS) subclass based on PS subclass weights (ATT). Noninferiority is demonstrated if the 90% LB \> -10.0%. Superiority is demonstrated if 97.5% LB \>0.0%. Two-sided 97.5% LB is evaluated rather than two-sided 95.0% LB since the superiority type 1 error is split between testing superiority in terms of Month 24 CCS and then separately for a set of superiority secondary endpoints with type 1 error control maintained through the use of Hochberg approach (following demonstration of non-inferiority).|||
90825499|NCT03071393|181526805|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
90825500|NCT03071393|181526806|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
90825501|NCT03071393|181526807|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
90825502|NCT03071393|181526808|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||Uncorrected p values are reported.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
90825503|NCT03868254|181526809|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||||||<.0001
90825504|NCT03868254|181526809|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||||||<.0001
90825505|NCT03868254|181526810|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||||||<.0001
90825506|NCT03868254|181526810|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.0001
90825507|NCT03868254|181526811|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.0030
91078624|NCT01964716|182043067|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for a given antibody was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 97.5% confidence interval, computed using the Chan and Zhang procedure, for the difference in proportions (13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS) was greater than -0.10.|percent difference|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.4|1.2||||||Serotype 1: Exact 2-sided confidence interval (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, 13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS, expressed as a percentage was analyzed.||1.2|-3.4|
90825508|NCT03868254|181526811|OTHER|||||||0.0018|||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.0018
90825509|NCT03868254|181526812|OTHER|||||||0.0053|||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.0053
90825510|NCT03868254|181526812|OTHER|||||||0.0472|||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.0472
90825511|NCT01525615|181526818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment ratio|1.138|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063||0.0209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.269||Mixed effects Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) with fixed effects of treatment, test day, treatment by test day interaction, log10 (baseline endurance time), log10 (baseline endurance time) by test day interaction, and patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mean and 95% confidence limits were transformed from log10 back to the original scale. SE was calculated using the delta method.||Treatment ratio between Tio+Olo 5.0/5.0 and placebo. This treatment comparison is the first one in the alpha-protected hierarchical testing chain.||1.269|1.020|0.0209
90825512|NCT01525615|181526818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment ratio|1.086|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061||0.1419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.973|1.213||MMRM model for log10 (endurance time \[s\]) with fixed effects of treatment, test day, treatment by test day interaction, log10 (baseline endurance time \[s\]), log10 (baseline endurance time \[s\]) by test day interaction, patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mean and 95% confidence limits were transformed from log10 back to the original scale. SE was calculated using the delta method.||Treatment ratio between Tio+Olo 2.5/5.0 and placebo. This treatment comparison is the second one in the alpha-protected hierarchical testing chain. Since the p-value for this treatment comparison is \>0.05, the hierarchical testing chain is broken and all of the following hypothesis tests in this hierarchical chain are considered as descriptive only.||1.213|0.973|0.1419
90825513|NCT01525615|181526818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment ratio|1.047|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057||0.397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.941|1.166||MMRM model for log10 (endurance time \[s\]) with fixed effects of treatment, test day, treatment by test day interaction, log10 (baseline endurance time \[s\]), log10 (baseline endurance time \[s\]) by test day interaction, patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mean and 95% confidence limits were transformed from log10 back to the original scale. SE was calculated using the delta method.||Treatment ratio between Tio+Olo 5.0/5.0 and Tio+Olo 2.5/5.0. This treatment comparison is not included in the alpha-protected hierarchical testing chain.||1.166|0.941|0.3970
90825514|NCT01525615|181526819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Tretament ratio|1.209|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.119||0.0552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.996|1.467||MMRM model for log10 (endurance time \[s\]) with fixed effects of treatment, test day, treatment by test day interaction, log10 (baseline endurance time \[s\]), log10 (baseline endurance time \[s\]) by test day interaction, patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mean and 95% confidence limits were transformed from log10 back to the original scale. SE was calculated using the delta method.||Treatment ratio between Tio+Olo 5.0/5.0 and placebo. Since the hierarchical testing chain has been broken, even though this treatment comparison is included as the 3rd one in the alpha-protected hierarchical testing chain, this hypothesis test is descriptive only.||1.467|0.996|0.0552
90825515|NCT01525615|181526819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment ratio|1.211|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121||0.0562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.995|1.475||MMRM model for log10 (endurance time \[s\]) with fixed effects of treatment, test day, treatment by test day interaction, log10 (baseline endurance time \[s\]), log10 (baseline endurance time \[s\]) by test day interaction, patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mean, 95% confidence limits transformed from log10 to original scale. SE was calculated using the delta method. This hypothesis test is descriptive.||Treatment ratio between Tio+Olo 2.5/5.0 and placebo||1.475|0.995|0.0562
90825516|NCT01525615|181526819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment ratio|0.998|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.095||0.9822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.826|1.205||MMRM model for log10 (endurance time \[s\]) with fixed effects of treatment, test day, treatment by test day interaction, log10 (baseline endurance time \[s\]), log10 (baseline endurance time \[s\]) by test day interaction, patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mean and 95% confidence limits were transformed from log10 back to the original scale. SE was calculated using the delta method.||Treatment ratio between Tio+Olo 5.0/5.0 and Tio+Olo 2.5/5.0. This treatment comparison is not included in the alpha-protected hierarchical testing chain.||1.205|0.826|0.9822
90825517|NCT01525615|181526820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference-Final Values|0.234|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.133|0.336||MMRM model for inspiratory capacity with fixed effects of treatment, test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline inspiratory capacity, baseline inspiratory capacity by test day interaction, and patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|This hypothesis test is descriptive.|LSMean=Least square mean.|||0.336|0.133|<0.0001
90825518|NCT01525615|181526820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference-Final Values|0.207|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.105|0.309||MMRM model for inspiratory capacity with fixed effects of treatment, test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline inspiratory capacity, baseline inspiratory capacity by test day interaction, and patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|This hypothesis test is descriptive.||||0.309|0.105|<0.0001
90825519|NCT01525615|181526820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference-Final Values|0.027|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.5892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.072|0.126||MMRM model for inspiratory capacity with fixed effects of treatment, test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline inspiratory capacity, baseline inspiratory capacity by test day interaction, and patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|This hypothesis test is descriptive.||||0.126|-0.072|0.5892
90825520|NCT01525615|181526821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment ratio|1.126|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059||0.0245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.015|1.248||ANCOVA model for log10 (endurance time \[s\]) with categorical effects of treatment and (log10-transformed) baseline as continuous covariate.|ANCOVA|This hypothesis test is descriptive.||Treatment ratio between Tio+Olo 5.0/5.0 and placebo||1.248|1.015|0.0245
90825521|NCT01525615|181526821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment ratio|1.103|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.058||0.0655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.994|1.223|||ANCOVA|Descriptive||Treatment ratio between Tio+Olo 2.5/5.0 and placebo||1.223|0.994|0.0655
90825522|NCT01525615|181526821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment ratio|1.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053||0.6912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.921|1.132|||ANCOVA|Descriptive||Treatment ratio between Tio+Olo 5.0/5.0 and Tio+Olo 2.5/5.0||1.132|0.921|0.6912
90825523|NCT01525615|181526822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment ratio|1.229|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.103|1.37||MMRM model for log10 (endurance time \[s\]) with fixed effects of treatment, test day, treatment by test day interaction, log10 (baseline endurance time \[s\]), log10 (baseline endurance time \[s\]) by test day interaction, patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mean and 95% confidence limits were transformed from log10 back to the original scale. SE was calculated using the delta method.||Treatment ratio between Tio+Olo 5.0/5.0 and placebo. Hypothesis test is descriptive||1.370|1.103|0.0002
91063764|NCT03296813|182012947|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39||||0.718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.53|1.74||For secondary analyses, a statistically significant p-value \< 0.005 was pre-specified to address the multiple planned analyses and help control the overall type I error rate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||To determine whether torsemide improves the QOL at 6 months compared to Furosemide as assessed by the KCCQ among patients hospitalized for heart failure.|Least squares means results from mixed-model repeated measures analysis of the KCCQ score change from baseline with terms for treatment, time (visit) from randomization, treatment x time (visit) interaction as well as the baseline KCCQ score, age, sex, baseline ejection fraction (\<40%, 41-49%, \>50%, unknown), and loop diuretic treatment prior to index hospital admission as covariates.|1.74|-2.53|0.718
91077848|NCT02913105|182041135|OTHER|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.05||||0.1458|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.99|1.11|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||TIMP-1: Day 42||1.11|0.99|0.1458
90825524|NCT01525615|181526822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment ratio|1.221|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.095|1.362||MMRM model for log10 (endurance time \[s\]) with fixed effects of treatment, test day, treatment by test day interaction, log10 (baseline endurance time \[s\]), log10 (baseline endurance time \[s\]) by test day interaction, patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mean and 95% confidence limits were transformed from log10 back to the original scale. SE was calculated using the delta method.||Treatment ratio between Tio+Olo 2.5/5.0 and placebo. Hypothesis test is descriptive.||1.362|1.095|0.0004
90825525|NCT01525615|181526822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment ratio|1.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055||0.9062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.905|1.12||MMRM model for log10 (endurance time \[s\]) with fixed effects of treatment, test day, treatment by test day interaction, log10 (baseline endurance time \[s\]), log10 (baseline endurance time \[s\]) by test day interaction, patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mean and 95% confidence limits were transformed from log10 back to the original scale. SE was calculated using the delta method.||Treatment ratio between Tio+Olo 5.0/5.0 and Tio+Olo 2.5/5.0. Hypothesis test is descriptive.||1.12|0.905|0.9062
90825526|NCT01525615|181526823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference-Final Values|0.165|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.058||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.051|0.279||ANCOVA model for inspiratory capacity (liters) with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as continuous covariate.|ANCOVA|Descriptive||||0.279|0.051|0.0049
90825527|NCT01525615|181526823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference-Final Values|0.202|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.058||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.088|0.316||ANCOVA model for inspiratory capacity (liters) with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as continuous covariate.|ANCOVA|Descriptive||||0.316|0.088|0.0006
90825528|NCT01525615|181526823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference-Final Values|-0.037|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.058||0.5162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.151|0.076||ANCOVA model for inspiratory capacity (liters) with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as continuous covariate.|ANCOVA|Descriptive||||0.076|-0.151|0.5162
91063765|NCT03296813|182012947|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|2.3||For secondary analyses, a statistically significant p-value \< 0.005 was pre-specified to address the multiple planned analyses and help control the overall type I error rate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||To determine whether torsemide improves the QOL at 12 months compared to Furosemide as assessed by the KCCQ among patients hospitalized for heart failure.|Least squares means results from mixed-model repeated measures analysis of the KCCQ score change from baseline with terms for treatment, time (visit) from randomization, treatment x time (visit) interaction as well as the baseline KCCQ score, age, sex, baseline ejection fraction (\<40%, 41-49%, \>50%, unknown), and loop diuretic treatment prior to index hospital admission as covariates.|2.30|-2.26|0.987
91063766|NCT03296813|182012948|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.904||||||For secondary analyses, a statistically significant p-value \< 0.005 was pre-specified to address the multiple planned analyses and help control the overall type I error rate.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||To determine whether torsemide reduces symptoms of depression at 1 month compared to Furosemide as assessed by the PHQ-2 among patients hospitalized for heart failure.||||0.904
91063767|NCT03296813|182012948|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.829||||||For secondary analyses, a statistically significant p-value \< 0.005 was pre-specified to address the multiple planned analyses and help control the overall type I error rate.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||To determine whether torsemide reduces symptoms of depression at 6 months compared to Furosemide as assessed by the PHQ-2 among patients hospitalized for heart failure.||||0.829
91063768|NCT03296813|182012948|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.342||||||For secondary analyses, a statistically significant p-value \< 0.005 was pre-specified to address the multiple planned analyses and help control the overall type I error rate.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||To determine whether torsemide reduces symptoms of depression at 12 months compared to Furosemide as assessed by the PHQ-2 among patients hospitalized for heart failure.||||0.342
91063769|NCT02546986|182012949|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.374||||0.1789|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.926|2.038|||Stratified Log-Rank Test|Stratified by squamous cell carcinoma versus non-squamous cell carcinoma|Hazard ratio and associated 2-sided 90% CIs were estimated using a Cox proportional hazard model|||2.038|0.926|0.1789
91063770|NCT02546986|182012950|SUPERIORITY||Disease Control Rate Difference|-13.3||||0.1572|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-29.0|3.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by squamous cell carcinoma vs non-squamous cell carcinoma||||3.5|-29.0|0.1572
91063771|NCT02546986|182012951|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.375||||0.2968|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|2.276|||Stratified Log Rank|Stratified by squamous cell carcinoma vs non-squamous cell carcinoma).|Hazard ratio and associated 2-sided 90% CIs were estimated using Cox proportional hazard model.|||2.276|0.830|0.2968
91063772|NCT02546986|182012952|SUPERIORITY||Overall Response Rate (ORR) Difference|5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.5|21.3|||||The 90% exact unconditional confidence interval was used for ORR difference.|||21.3|-11.5|
91063773|NCT02546986|182012954|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.352||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.914|2.0|||Stratified Log-Rank Test|Stratified by squamous cell carcinoma versus non-squamous cell carcinoma|Hazard ratio and associated 2-sided 90% CIs were estimated using a Cox proportional hazard model|||2.000|0.914|0.1990
91063774|NCT02059512|182012968|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.24
91063775|NCT02059512|182012969|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Length of hospital stay.||||0.1
91063776|NCT02059512|182012969|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Length of stay in the intensive care unit.||||0.1
91063777|NCT02059512|182012970|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.4
90825529|NCT01525615|181526824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference-Final Values|0.225|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.051|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.124|0.326||MMRM model for inspiratory capacity with fixed effects of treatment, test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline inspiratory capacity, baseline inspiratory capacity by test day interaction, and patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Descriptive||||0.326|0.124|<0.0001
91063778|NCT02059512|182012970|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Analysis of leukocytes 0-6 hours of the postoperative period.||||0.8
91063779|NCT02059512|182012970|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Analysis of leukocytes 12-18 hours of the postoperative period.||||0.9
91063780|NCT02059512|182012970|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Analysis of leukocytes 18-24 hours of the postoperative period.||||0.2
91063781|NCT02059512|182012970|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Analysis of leukocytes 48 hours of the postoperative period.||||0.5
91063782|NCT02059512|182012970|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Analysis of leukocytes 72 hours of the postoperative period.||||0.4
91063783|NCT02059512|182012970|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Analysis of leukocytes 96 hours of the postoperative period/||||0.6
91063784|NCT02059512|182012970|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Analysis of leukocytes 7 days of the postoperative period.||||0.4
91063785|NCT02059512|182012970|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Analysis of leukocytes 14 days of the postoperative period.||||0.5
91063786|NCT02059512|182012971|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||CRP initially.||||0.1
91063787|NCT02059512|182012971|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||CRP postoperative 4-6 days.||||0.4
91063788|NCT02059512|182012971|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||CRP postoperative 12-14 days.||||0.99
91063789|NCT02059512|182012972|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The volume of discharge through the drains on the first day after surgery.||||0.2
91063790|NCT02059512|182012972|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||RepeatedMeasures ANOVA|||The volume of discharge through the drains on the second day after the operation.||||0.3
91063791|NCT02059512|182012973|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Troponin I postoperative day 1.||||0.6
91063792|NCT02059512|182012973|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Troponin I postoperative day 3.||||0.4
91063793|NCT02059512|182012973|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Myoglobin postoperative day 1.||||0.8
91063794|NCT02059512|182012973|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Myoglobin postoperative day 3.||||0.7
91063795|NCT02059512|182012974|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||CPK-MB postoperative day 1.||||0.7
91063796|NCT02059512|182012974|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||CPK-MB postoperative day 3.||||0.8
91063797|NCT02059512|182012975|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Hb intraoperatively before turning off the cardiopulmonary bypass(CPB).||||1.0
91063798|NCT02059512|182012975|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Hb at the end of the operation.||||0.4
91063799|NCT02059512|182012976|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||HCT intraoperatively before turning off the cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB).||||0.8
91063800|NCT02059512|182012976|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||HCT at the end of the operation.||||0.3
91063801|NCT02059512|182012977|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||K+ intraoperatively before turning off the cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB).||||0.4
91063802|NCT02059512|182012977|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||K+ at the end of the operation.||||0.1
91063803|NCT02059512|182012978|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.1
91063804|NCT02059512|182012979|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.1
91063805|NCT02059512|182012980|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Chi-squared|||Hydrothorax / postoperative period.||||0.6
91063806|NCT02059512|182012980|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Chi-squared|||Hydropericardium / postoperative period.||||0.2
91063807|NCT02059512|182012980|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Chi-squared|||Resternotomy / postoperative period.||||0.6
91063808|NCT02059512|182012980|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Chi-squared|||Atrial fibrillation / postoperative period.||||0.06
91063809|NCT02059512|182012980|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Chi-squared|||Atrial flutter / postoperative period.||||0.06
90825530|NCT01525615|181526824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference-Final Values|0.187|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.086|0.288||MMRM model for inspiratory capacity with fixed effects of treatment, test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline inspiratory capacity, baseline inspiratory capacity by test day interaction, and patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Descriptive||||0.288|0.086|0.0003
90825531|NCT01525615|181526824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference-Final Values|0.038|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.4541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.061|0.137||MMRM model for inspiratory capacity with fixed effects of treatment, test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline inspiratory capacity, baseline inspiratory capacity by test day interaction, and patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Descriptive||||0.137|-0.061|0.4541
91063810|NCT02059512|182012981|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||RepeatedMeasures ANOVA|||||||0.4
91063811|NCT02059512|182012982|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||RepeatedMeasures ANOVA|||Lvd ind. (Lvd mm./BSA kg / cm) - Evaluation of the left ventricular end-diastolic size index.||||0.5
91063812|NCT02059512|182012982|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||RepeatedMeasures ANOVA|||Lvs ind. (Lvs mm./BSA kg / cm) - Evaluation of the left ventricular end-systolic size index.||||0.5
91063813|NCT02059512|182012982|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||RepeatedMeasures ANOVA|||LAind. (LA mm./BSA kg / cm) - Left Atrial Size Index Assessment.||||0.6
91063814|NCT02059512|182012983|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||RepeatedMeasures ANOVA|||LVEDV MOD BP ind. (LVEDV MOD BP ml./BSA kg / cm) - Evaluation of the left ventricular end-diastolic volume index.||||0.4
91063815|NCT02059512|182012983|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||RepeatedMeasures ANOVA|||Evaluation of the left ventricular end-systolic volume index (LVESV MOD BP ind.)||||0.3
91063816|NCT02059512|182012984|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.6
91063817|NCT02059512|182012986|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||RepeatedMeasures ANOVA|||Physical Functioning SF-36. Comparison of patients of group 1 and group 2 with the control group - group 0.||||0.7
91063818|NCT02059512|182012986|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||RepeatedMeasures ANOVA|||Role-Physical Functioning SF-36||||0.8
91063819|NCT02059512|182012986|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||RepeatedMeasures ANOVA|||Bodily pain SF-36||||0.7
91063820|NCT02059512|182012986|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||RepeatedMeasures ANOVA|||General Health SF-36.||||0.6
91063821|NCT02059512|182012986|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||RepeatedMeasures ANOVA|||Vitality SF-36.||||0.8
91063822|NCT02059512|182012986|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||RepeatedMeasures ANOVA|||Social Functioning SF-36.||||0.7
91063823|NCT02059512|182012986|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||RepeatedMeasures ANOVA|||Role- Emotional SF-36.||||0.7
91063824|NCT02059512|182012986|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||RepeatedMeasures ANOVA|||Mental Health SF-36.||||0.96
91063825|NCT02059512|182012986|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||RepeatedMeasures ANOVA|||Minnesota Quality of Life (MHFLQ).||||0.7
91063826|NCT02059512|182012986|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||RepeatedMeasures ANOVA|||Seattle QuestionnairePhysical limitation.||||0.6
91063827|NCT02059512|182012986|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||RepeatedMeasures ANOVA|||SeattleQuestionnaireAngina stability.||||0.4
91063828|NCT02059512|182012986|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||RepeatedMeasures ANOVA|||SeattleQuestionnaireAngina frequency.||||0.6
91063829|NCT02059512|182012986|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||RepeatedMeasures ANOVA|||SeattleQuestionnaireTreatment satisfaction.||||0.7
91063830|NCT02059512|182012986|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||RepeatedMeasures ANOVA|||SeattleQuestionnaire Disease perception.||||0.3
91063831|NCT02059512|182012987|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.001
91063832|NCT02059512|182012988|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.13
91063833|NCT02059512|182012989|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||RepeatedMeasures ANOVA|||||||0.35
91063834|NCT02059512|182012990|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||RepeatedMeasures ANOVA|||Lvd ind. (Lvd mm./BSA) - left ventricular end-diastolic size index. All patients included in the study.||||0.2
91063835|NCT02059512|182012990|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||RepeatedMeasures ANOVA|||Lvs ind. (Lvs mm./BSA kg / cm) - left ventricular end-systolic size index.||||0.2
91063836|NCT02059512|182012990|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||RepeatedMeasures ANOVA|||LAind. (LA mm./BSA kg / cm) - left atrial index.||||0.5
91063837|NCT02059512|182012991|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||RepeatedMeasures ANOVA|||LVEDV MOD BP ind. (LVEDV MOD BP ml./BSA kg / cm) - left ventricular end-diastolic volume index.||||0.6
91063838|NCT02059512|182012991|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||RepeatedMeasures ANOVA|||LVESV MOD BP ind. (LVESV MOD BP ml./BSA kg / cm) - left ventricular end-systolic volume index.||||0.2
91063839|NCT02059512|182012992|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||RepeatedMeasures ANOVA|||Peak E of transmitral flow||||0.35
91063840|NCT02059512|182012992|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||RepeatedMeasures ANOVA|||Peak A of transmitral flow.||||0.7
91063841|NCT02059512|182012993|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||RepeatedMeasures ANOVA|||Peak E of transmitral flow/ Peak A of transmitral flow (E/A).||||0.5
91063842|NCT02059512|182012994|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||RepeatedMeasures ANOVA|||DT (Half-time of wave E).||||0.9
91063843|NCT02059512|182012994|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||RepeatedMeasures ANOVA|||time of isovolumic relaxation of the left ventricle||||0.9
91063844|NCT02059512|182012995|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0367|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0367
91063845|NCT02059512|182012996|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Chi-squared|||Assessment of the functioning of grafts. Patency of grafts within a specified time of treatment (angiography).||||0.04
91063846|NCT02059512|182012997|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.05
91063847|NCT02059512|182012998|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Discriminant Analysis|||||||0.05
91063848|NCT02059512|182012999|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Discriminant Analysis|Data were analyzed by 1, 2, and 3 sections according to the study design.||Mononuclear fraction %||||0.05
91063849|NCT02059512|182012999|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.057|||||||Discriminant Analysis|Data were analyzed by 1, 2, and 3 sections according to the study design.||CD34+ %||||0.057
91063850|NCT02059512|182012999|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Discriminant Analysis|||CD133+ %||||0.05
91063851|NCT02059512|182013000|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046|||||||Factor analysis|||Factor analysis - determining the influence of a factor, in this case, smoking, on the deficit in the number of meters passed according to the test with a 6-minute walk.||||0.046
91063852|NCT03349060|182013005|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|15.8||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|24.8||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The estimate and confidence interval (CI) for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||24.8|6.8|0.0037
91063853|NCT03349060|182013005|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|36.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.2|45.7||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||45.7|26.2|<0.0001
91063854|NCT03349060|182013006|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|27.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.4|38.3||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||38.3|17.4|<0.0001
91063855|NCT03349060|182013006|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|51.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.5|61.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||61.5|40.5|<0.0001
90825532|NCT01525615|181526825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference-Final Values|-0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001||0.0468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.0||ANCOVA model for mean slope of the intensity of breathing discomfort with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as continuous covariate.|ANCOVA|Descriptive||||-0.000|-0.004|0.0468
90825533|NCT01525615|181526825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference-Final Values|-0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|0.0||ANCOVA model for mean slope of the intensity of breathing discomfort with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as continuous covariate.|ANCOVA|Descriptive||||-0.000|-0.005|0.0180
90825534|NCT01525615|181526825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference-Final Values|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001||0.6856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.002|0.002||ANCOVA model for mean slope of the intensity of breathing discomfort with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as continuous covariate.|ANCOVA|Descriptive||||0.002|-0.002|0.6856
90825535|NCT01525615|181526826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference-Final Values|-0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|-0.001||MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, baseline by test day interaction, and patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Descriptive||||-0.001|-0.005|0.0081
91063856|NCT03349060|182013007|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|18.0||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.2|25.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: Each complete imputed data set was analyzed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) risk difference method adjusting by randomization strata, separately for each week. Results from multiply imputed data sets were combined using Rubin's rules to obtain treatment difference, 95% CI and p-value.||25.8|10.2|0.0004
91063857|NCT03349060|182013007|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|42.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.6|51.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: Each complete imputed data set was analyzed using the CMH risk difference method adjusting by randomization strata, separately for each week. Results from multiply imputed data sets were combined using Rubin's rules to obtain treatment difference, 95% CI and p-value.||51.4|33.6|<0.0001
91063858|NCT03349060|182013007|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|15.0||||0.0251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|28.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: Each complete imputed data set was analyzed using the CMH risk difference method adjusting by randomization strata, separately for each week. Results from multiply imputed data sets were combined using Rubin's rules to obtain treatment difference, 95% CI and p-value.||28.0|1.9|0.0251
91063859|NCT03349060|182013007|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|41.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.8|54.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: Each complete imputed data set was analyzed using the CMH risk difference method adjusting by randomization strata, separately for each week. Results from multiply imputed data sets were combined using Rubin's rules to obtain treatment difference, 95% CI and p-value.||54.4|27.8|<0.0001
91063860|NCT03349060|182013007|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|20.0||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|32.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: Each complete imputed data set was analyzed using the CMH risk difference method adjusting by randomization strata, separately for each week. Results from multiply imputed data sets were combined using Rubin's rules to obtain treatment difference, 95% CI and p-value.||32.7|7.4|0.0019
91063861|NCT03349060|182013007|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|45.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.7|57.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: Each complete imputed data set was analyzed using the CMH risk difference method adjusting by randomization strata, separately for each week. Results from multiply imputed data sets were combined using Rubin's rules to obtain treatment difference, 95% CI and p-value.||57.8|32.7|<0.0001
91063862|NCT03349060|182013007|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|22.5||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.3|34.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: Each complete imputed data set was analyzed using the CMH risk difference method adjusting by randomization strata, separately for each week. Results from multiply imputed data sets were combined using Rubin's rules to obtain treatment difference, 95% CI and p-value.||34.8|10.3|0.0003
91063863|NCT03349060|182013007|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|41.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.6|53.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: Each complete imputed data set was analyzed using the CMH risk difference method adjusting by randomization strata, separately for each week. Results from multiply imputed data sets were combined using Rubin's rules to obtain treatment difference, 95% CI and p-value.||53.9|29.6|<0.0001
91063864|NCT03349060|182013008|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|16.3||||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|25.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: Each complete imputed data set was analyzed using the CMH risk difference method adjusting by randomization strata, separately for each week. Results from multiply imputed data sets were combined using Rubin's rules to obtain treatment difference, 95% CI and p-value.||25.2|7.4|0.0055
91063865|NCT03349060|182013008|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|43.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.1|53.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: Each complete imputed data set was analyzed using the CMH risk difference method adjusting by randomization strata, separately for each week. Results from multiply imputed data sets were combined using Rubin's rules to obtain treatment difference, 95% CI and p-value.||53.6|33.1|<0.0001
91063866|NCT03349060|182013008|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|12.5||||0.1138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|28.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: Each complete imputed data set was analyzed using the CMH risk difference method adjusting by randomization strata, separately for each week. Results from multiply imputed data sets were combined using Rubin's rules to obtain treatment difference, 95% CI and p-value.||28.0|-3.0|0.1138
91063867|NCT03349060|182013008|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|41.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.2|57.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: Each complete imputed data set was analyzed using the CMH risk difference method adjusting by randomization strata, separately for each week. Results from multiply imputed data sets were combined using Rubin's rules to obtain treatment difference, 95% CI and p-value.||57.4|26.2|<0.0001
91063868|NCT03349060|182013008|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|28.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.3|42.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: Each complete imputed data set was analyzed using the CMH risk difference method adjusting by randomization strata, separately for each week. Results from multiply imputed data sets were combined using Rubin's rules to obtain treatment difference, 95% CI and p-value.||42.1|15.3|<0.0001
91063869|NCT03349060|182013008|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|47.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.6|61.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: Each complete imputed data set was analyzed using the CMH risk difference method adjusting by randomization strata, separately for each week. Results from multiply imputed data sets were combined using Rubin's rules to obtain treatment difference, 95% CI and p-value.||61.1|34.6|<0.0001
91063870|NCT03349060|182013009|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares (LS) mean|-1.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.6|-1.4|<0.0001
91063871|NCT03349060|182013009|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-1.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.2|-2.0|<0.0001
91063872|NCT03349060|182013009|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-1.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.6|-1.6|<0.0001
91063873|NCT03349060|182013009|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-2.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.7|-2.8|<0.0001
91063874|NCT03349060|182013009|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.9||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.3|-1.5|0.0035
90825536|NCT01525615|181526826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference-Final Values|-0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001||0.0099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|-0.001||MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, baseline by test day interaction, and patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Descriptive||||-0.001|-0.005|0.0099
91063875|NCT03349060|182013009|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-1.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.3|-2.5|<0.0001
91063876|NCT03349060|182013009|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-1.1||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.4|-1.7|0.0010
91063877|NCT03349060|182013009|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-2.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.4|-2.7|<0.0001
91063878|NCT03349060|182013010|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-1.3||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.6|-2.0|0.0002
91063879|NCT03349060|182013010|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-2.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.6|-3.0|<0.0001
91063880|NCT03349060|182013011|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0071||||||P-value was controlled by randomization strata.|Log Rank|||||||0.0071
91063881|NCT03349060|182013011|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was controlled by randomization strata.|Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
91063882|NCT03349060|182013012|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|6.5||||0.0869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|13.3||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||13.3|-0.3|0.0869
91063883|NCT03349060|182013012|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|20.3||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|28.6||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||28.6|12.0|0.0001
91063884|NCT03349060|182013012|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|13.1||||0.0259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|23.6||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||23.6|2.6|0.0259
91063885|NCT03349060|182013012|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|33.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.7|44.2||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||44.2|21.7|<0.0001
91063886|NCT03349060|182013012|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|25.0||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.2|35.8||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||35.8|14.2|0.0001
91063887|NCT03349060|182013012|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|44.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.6|55.6||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||55.6|33.6|<0.0001
91063888|NCT03349060|182013013|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|3.9||||0.0802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|8.5||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||8.5|-0.7|0.0802
91063889|NCT03349060|182013013|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|9.8||||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|15.7||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||15.7|4.0|0.0045
91063890|NCT03349060|182013013|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|5.2||||0.1888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.4||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||12.4|-1.9|0.1888
91063891|NCT03349060|182013013|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|21.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.0|30.5||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||30.5|13.0|<0.0001
91063892|NCT03349060|182013013|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|13.8||||0.0071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.2|22.4||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||22.4|5.2|0.0071
91063893|NCT03349060|182013013|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|29.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.8|38.7||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||38.7|19.8|<0.0001
90825537|NCT01525615|181526826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference-Final Values|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001||0.9626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.002|0.002||MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, baseline by test day interaction, and patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Descriptive||||0.002|-0.002|0.9626
91063894|NCT03349060|182013014|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|3.8||P-value could not be calculated since percentage of participants with event was 0.||||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||3.8|-3.8|
91063895|NCT03349060|182013014|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|3.8||P-value could not be calculated since percentage of participants with event was 0.||||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||3.8|-3.8|
91063896|NCT03349060|182013014|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|3.9||P-value could not be calculated since percentage of participants with event was 0.||||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||3.9|-3.9|
91063897|NCT03349060|182013014|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|6.5||||0.0234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|11.7||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||11.7|1.3|0.0234
91063898|NCT03349060|182013014|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|4.6||||0.0592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|9.5||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||9.5|-0.3|0.0592
91063899|NCT03349060|182013014|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|11.7||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.5|17.9||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||17.9|5.5|0.0022
91063900|NCT03349060|182013014|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|7.0||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|12.3||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||12.3|1.7|0.0190
91063901|NCT03349060|182013014|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|13.1||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.7|19.4||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||19.4|6.7|0.0010
91063902|NCT03349060|182013015|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|24.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.9|34.1||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||34.1|13.9|<0.0001
91063903|NCT03349060|182013015|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|45.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.7|55.5||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||55.5|34.7|<0.0001
91063904|NCT03349060|182013015|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|33.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.6|45.4||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||45.4|21.6|<0.0001
91063905|NCT03349060|182013015|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|52.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.2|64.2||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||64.2|41.2|<0.0001
91063906|NCT03349060|182013015|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|34.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.9|46.3||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||46.3|21.9|<0.0001
91063907|NCT03349060|182013015|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|52.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.3|64.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||64.6|41.3|<0.0001
91063908|NCT03349060|182013015|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|35.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.3|47.4||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||47.4|23.3|<0.0001
91063909|NCT03349060|182013015|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|53.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.0|65.0||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||65.0|42.0|<0.0001
91063910|NCT03349060|182013016|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|0.6||||0.7285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|5.2||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||5.2|-3.9|0.7285
91063911|NCT03349060|182013016|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|4.0||||0.1448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|9.2||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||9.2|-1.2|0.1448
91063912|NCT03349060|182013016|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|3.9||||0.2576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|10.5||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||10.5|-2.6|0.2576
91063913|NCT03349060|182013016|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|20.4||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|28.9||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||28.9|12.0|0.0001
91063914|NCT03349060|182013016|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|9.0||||0.0423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|16.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||16.8|1.3|0.0423
91063915|NCT03349060|182013016|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|28.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.7|37.2||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||37.2|18.7|<0.0001
91063916|NCT03349060|182013016|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|13.3||||0.0066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.4|21.2||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||21.2|5.4|0.0066
91063917|NCT03349060|182013016|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|33.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.3|42.5||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||42.5|24.3|<0.0001
91063918|NCT03349060|182013017|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|3.8||P-value could not be calculated since percentage of participants with events was 0.||||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||3.8|-3.8|
91063919|NCT03349060|182013017|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|3.8||P-value could not be calculated since percentage of participants with events was 0.||||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||3.8|-3.8|
90825538|NCT01525615|181526827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference-Final Values|-0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001||0.0598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.0||MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, baseline by test day interaction, and patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Descriptive||||0.000|-0.004|0.0598
91063920|NCT03349060|182013017|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|3.9||P-value could not be calculated since percentage of participants with events was 0.||||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||3.9|-3.9|
91063921|NCT03349060|182013017|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|6.5||||0.0234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|11.7||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||11.7|1.3|0.0234
91063922|NCT03349060|182013017|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|4.6||||0.0604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|9.5||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||9.5|-0.3|0.0604
91063923|NCT03349060|182013017|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|11.7||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.5|17.9||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||17.9|5.5|0.0022
91063924|NCT03349060|182013017|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|6.4||||0.0255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|11.6||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||11.6|1.2|0.0255
91063925|NCT03349060|182013017|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|13.1||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.7|19.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||19.4|6.7|0.0010
90825539|NCT01525615|181526827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference-Final Values|-0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001||0.0218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|0.0||MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, baseline by test day interaction, and patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Descriptive||||-0.000|-0.005|0.0218
91063926|NCT03349060|182013018|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-5.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|-3.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-3.3|-8.2|<0.0001
91063927|NCT03349060|182013018|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-10.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|-8.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-8.1|-13.0|<0.0001
91063928|NCT03349060|182013018|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-7.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|-5.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-5.0|-10.7|<0.0001
91063929|NCT03349060|182013018|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-12.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.6|-9.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-9.9|-15.6|<0.0001
91063930|NCT03349060|182013018|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-8.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|-5.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-5.5|-11.6|<0.0001
91063931|NCT03349060|182013018|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-13.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|-10.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-10.4|-16.5|<0.0001
91063932|NCT03349060|182013018|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-8.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|-5.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-5.1|-11.6|<0.0001
91063933|NCT03349060|182013018|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-14.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|-10.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-10.8|-17.3|<0.0001
91063934|NCT03349060|182013019|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-7.8||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|-3.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-3.5|-12.1|0.0004
91063935|NCT03349060|182013019|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-14.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|-10.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-10.5|-19.0|<0.0001
91063936|NCT03349060|182013019|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-11.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|-6.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-6.9|-16.6|<0.0001
91063937|NCT03349060|182013019|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-18.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.4|-13.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-13.6|-23.4|<0.0001
91063938|NCT03349060|182013019|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-14.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|-9.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-9.0|-19.7|<0.0001
91063939|NCT03349060|182013019|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-22.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.0|-17.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-17.3|-28.0|<0.0001
91063940|NCT03349060|182013019|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-13.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.3|-8.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-8.2|-19.3|<0.0001
91063941|NCT03349060|182013019|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-22.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.6|-16.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-16.5|-27.6|<0.0001
91063942|NCT03349060|182013020|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|1.3||||0.521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|6.0||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||6.0|-3.4|0.5210
91063943|NCT03349060|182013020|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|4.0||||0.1416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|9.3||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||9.3|-1.3|0.1416
91063944|NCT03349060|182013020|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|4.6||||0.2002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|11.2||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||11.2|-2.1|0.2002
91063945|NCT03349060|182013020|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|23.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.1|32.2||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||32.2|15.1|<0.0001
91063946|NCT03349060|182013020|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|9.6||||0.0434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|17.9||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||17.9|1.3|0.0434
91063947|NCT03349060|182013020|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|26.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.1|36.2||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||36.2|17.1|<0.0001
91063948|NCT03349060|182013020|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|15.8||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.5|24.0||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||24.0|7.5|0.0019
90825540|NCT01525615|181526827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference-Final Values|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001||0.6549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.002|0.003||MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, baseline by test day interaction, and patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Descriptive||||0.003|-0.002|0.6549
90825541|NCT01525615|181526828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference-Final Values|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.116|0.224||MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, baseline by test day interaction, and patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Descriptive||||0.224|0.116|<0.0001
90825542|NCT01525615|181526828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference-Final Values|0.184|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.129|0.239||MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, baseline by test day interaction, and patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Descriptive||||0.239|0.129|<0.0001
90825543|NCT01525615|181526828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference-Final Values|-0.014|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.6105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.067|0.04||MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, baseline by test day interaction, and patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Descriptive||||0.040|-0.067|0.6105
90825544|NCT01525615|181526829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference-Final Values|0.246|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.192|0.3||MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, baseline by test day interaction, and patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Descriptive||||0.300|0.192|<0.0001
91063949|NCT03349060|182013020|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|33.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.0|42.7||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||42.7|24.0|<0.0001
90825545|NCT01525615|181526829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference-Final Values|0.273|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.218|0.328||MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, baseline by test day interaction, and patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Descriptive||||0.328|0.218|<0.0001
90825546|NCT01525615|181526829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference-Final Values|-0.027|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.3236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.027||MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, baseline by test day interaction, and patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Descriptive||||0.027|-0.080|0.3236
90825547|NCT01525615|181526830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference-Final Values|0.251|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.196|0.305||MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, baseline by test day interaction, and patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Descriptive||||0.305|0.196|<0.0001
90825548|NCT01525615|181526830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference-Final Values|0.257|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.202|0.312||MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, baseline by test day interaction, and patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Descriptive||||0.312|0.202|<0.0001
90825549|NCT01525615|181526830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference-Final Values|-0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.8156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.047||MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, baseline by test day interaction, and patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Descriptive||||0.047|-0.060|0.8156
90825550|NCT01101035|181526878|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the upper 1-sided CI for the hazard ratio was less than 1.3. Critical boundary of 2.359 (75% interim) based on the Lan-DeMets-O'Brien-Fleming alpha spending function was used for CI estimation.|Cox Proportional Hazard|0.99|||||ONE_SIDED|97.0||1.23|||||Time from randomization to the first occurrence of any MACE was fitted using Cox Proportional Hazard model with treatment as a covariate and Baseline renal function as a stratification factor.|Statistical analysis for the primary endpoint was based on 1-sided repeated confidence intervals (CIs), using critical values from a 1-sided stopping boundary for a group sequential design (GSD), to preserve an overall false-rejection rate of 2.5%, to assess non-inferiority at each interim analysis and the final analysis.||1.23||
90825551|NCT01101035|181526879|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.28|||||Time from randomization to the first occurrence of any APTC event was fitted using Cox Proportional Hazard model with treatment as a covariate and Baseline renal function status as a stratification factor.|||1.28|0.92|
90825552|NCT01101035|181526880|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.73|||||Time from randomization to the first occurrence of cardiovascular death was fitted using Cox Proportional Hazard model with factors including treatment and baseline renal function.|||1.73|1.03|
90825553|NCT01101035|181526881|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.21|||||Time from randomization to the first occurrence of non-fatal MI was fitted using Cox Proportional Hazard model with factors including treatment and baseline renal function.|||1.21|0.72|
90825554|NCT01101035|181526882|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.41|||||Time from randomization to the first occurrence of non-fatal stroke was fitted using Cox Proportional Hazard model with factors including treatment and baseline renal function.|||1.41|0.73|
90825555|NCT01101035|181526883|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.26|||||Time from randomization to the first occurrence of unstable angina with urgent coronary revascularization was fitted using Cox Proportional Hazard model with factors including treatment and baseline renal function.|||1.26|0.59|
91063950|NCT03349060|182013021|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|10.8||||0.0151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|18.3||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||18.3|3.3|0.0151
91063951|NCT03349060|182013021|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|30.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.0|39.0||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||39.0|21.0|<0.0001
91063952|NCT03349060|182013021|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|21.2||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.2|32.3||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||32.3|10.2|0.0010
91063953|NCT03349060|182013021|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|37.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.6|49.3||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||49.3|26.6|<0.0001
91063954|NCT03349060|182013021|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|23.5||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.6|34.3||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||34.3|12.6|0.0003
91063955|NCT03349060|182013021|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|41.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.7|52.7||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||52.7|30.7|<0.0001
91063956|NCT03349060|182013021|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|19.6||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.1|31.1||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||31.1|8.1|0.0026
91063957|NCT03349060|182013021|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|40.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.3|51.7||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||51.7|28.3|<0.0001
91063958|NCT03349060|182013022|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|1.3||||0.3151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|5.6||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||5.6|-2.9|0.3151
91063959|NCT03349060|182013022|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|6.0||||0.0292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|11.3||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||11.3|0.7|0.0292
91063960|NCT03349060|182013022|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|-0.2||||0.9402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|5.5||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||5.5|-5.9|0.9402
91063961|NCT03349060|182013022|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|15.3||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.3|23.2||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||23.2|7.3|0.0019
91063962|NCT03349060|182013022|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|10.8||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|17.4||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||17.4|4.2|0.0078
91063963|NCT03349060|182013022|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|22.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.2|30.1||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||30.1|14.2|<0.0001
91063964|NCT03349060|182013022|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|8.2||||0.0528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|15.3||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||15.3|1.0|0.0528
91063965|NCT03349060|182013022|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|26.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.6|35.3||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||35.3|17.6|<0.0001
91063966|NCT03349060|182013023|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-1.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.6|-1.9|<0.0001
91063967|NCT03349060|182013023|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-2.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.7|-3.0|<0.0001
91063968|NCT03349060|182013023|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-1.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.9|-2.2|<0.0001
91063969|NCT03349060|182013023|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-2.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-2.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-2.0|-3.4|<0.0001
91063970|NCT03349060|182013023|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-1.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.8|-2.3|<0.0001
91063971|NCT03349060|182013023|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-2.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-1.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.8|-3.2|<0.0001
91063972|NCT03349060|182013023|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-1.3||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.6|-2.1|0.0005
91063973|NCT03349060|182013023|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-2.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.4|-2.9|<0.0001
91063974|NCT03349060|182013024|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-10.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|-7.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-7.0|-14.8|<0.0001
91063975|NCT03349060|182013024|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-18.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.7|-15.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-15.1|-22.7|<0.0001
91063976|NCT03349060|182013024|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-12.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|-7.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-7.8|-17.3|<.0001
91063977|NCT03349060|182013024|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-22.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.8|-17.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-17.3|-26.8|<.0001
91063978|NCT03349060|182013024|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-14.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.5|-9.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-9.0|-19.5|<.0001
91063979|NCT03349060|182013024|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-22.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.2|-16.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-16.7|-27.2|<.0001
91063980|NCT03349060|182013024|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-13.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|-7.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-7.7|-19.0|<0.0001
91063981|NCT03349060|182013024|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-21.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.5|-16.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-16.3|-27.5|<.0001
91063982|NCT03349060|182013025|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|22.3||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.7|35.9||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||35.9|8.7|0.0028
91063983|NCT03349060|182013025|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|40.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.1|53.2||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||53.2|27.1|<0.0001
91063984|NCT03349060|182013025|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|17.1||||0.0217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|31.4||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||31.4|2.8|0.0217
91063985|NCT03349060|182013025|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|32.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.5|45.9||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||45.9|18.5|<0.0001
91063986|NCT03349060|182013025|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|15.7||||0.0363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|30.0||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||30.0|1.4|0.0363
91063987|NCT03349060|182013025|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|23.7||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.8|37.7||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||37.7|9.8|0.0011
91063988|NCT03349060|182013025|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|20.1||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.8|34.5||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||34.5|5.8|0.0080
91063989|NCT03349060|182013025|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|29.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.0|43.3||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||43.3|15.0|<0.0001
91063990|NCT03349060|182013026|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-3.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|-2.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-2.2|-5.4|<0.0001
91063991|NCT03349060|182013026|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-5.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|-3.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-3.9|-7.1|<0.0001
91063992|NCT03349060|182013026|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-3.3||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|-1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.7|-5.0|0.0001
91063993|NCT03349060|182013026|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-6.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|-4.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-4.5|-7.8|<.0001
91063994|NCT03349060|182013026|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-2.8||||0.0075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|-0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.7|-4.8|0.0075
91063995|NCT03349060|182013026|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-5.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|-3.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-3.3|-7.4|<0.0001
91063996|NCT03349060|182013026|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-2.8||||0.0072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|-0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.8|-4.8|0.0072
91063997|NCT03349060|182013026|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-4.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|-2.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-2.9|-6.9|<0.0001
91063998|NCT03349060|182013027|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-1.3||||0.275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.0|-3.5|0.2750
91063999|NCT03349060|182013027|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-2.5||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.3|-4.8|0.0280
91064000|NCT03349060|182013027|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-3.5||||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|-1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.1|-5.9|0.0051
91064001|NCT03349060|182013027|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-6.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|-4.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-4.0|-8.8|<0.0001
91064002|NCT03349060|182013027|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-2.1||||0.1706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.9|-5.1|0.1706
91064003|NCT03349060|182013027|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-4.4||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|-1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.4|-7.4|0.0048
91064004|NCT03349060|182013027|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-2.5||||0.0629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.1|-5.2|0.0629
91064005|NCT03349060|182013027|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-3.6||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|-0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.9|-6.2|0.0100
91064006|NCT03349060|182013028|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|6.6||||0.1238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|13.9||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||13.9|-0.7|0.1238
91064007|NCT03349060|182013028|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|20.1||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|29.2||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||29.2|11.0|0.0008
91064008|NCT03349060|182013028|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|6.8||||0.2091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|16.4||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||16.4|-2.8|0.2091
91064009|NCT03349060|182013028|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|24.0||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.9|35.0||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||35.0|12.9|0.0005
91064010|NCT03349060|182013028|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|9.1||||0.1161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|19.1||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||19.1|-0.9|0.1161
91064011|NCT03349060|182013028|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|26.5||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.3|37.7||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||37.7|15.3|0.0002
91064012|NCT03349060|182013028|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|8.1||||0.1837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|19.1||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||19.1|-2.8|0.1837
91064013|NCT03349060|182013028|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|19.8||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.1|31.6||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||31.6|8.1|0.0046
91064014|NCT03349060|182013029|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|3.2||||0.4795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|16.6||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||16.6|-10.3|0.4795
91064015|NCT03349060|182013029|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|12.7||P-value could not be calculated since percentage of participants with events was 0.||||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||12.7|-12.7|
91064016|NCT03349060|182013029|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|13.3||||0.1452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|30.3||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||30.3|-3.6|0.1452
91064017|NCT03349060|182013029|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|9.7||||0.2232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|25.4||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||25.4|-6.1|0.2232
91064018|NCT03349060|182013029|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|5.8||||0.5707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|25.4||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||25.4|-13.7|0.5707
91064019|NCT03349060|182013029|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|5.8||||0.5777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|25.1||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||25.1|-13.6|0.5777
91064020|NCT03349060|182013029|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|19.3||||0.0744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|37.5||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||37.5|1.0|0.0744
91064021|NCT03349060|182013029|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|9.7||||0.2232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|25.4||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||25.4|-6.1|0.2232
91064022|NCT03349060|182013030|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|31.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.2|46.0||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||46.0|17.2|<0.0001
91064023|NCT03349060|182013030|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|35.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.5|49.9||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||49.9|21.5|<0.0001
91064024|NCT03349060|182013030|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|20.4||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.2|35.6||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||35.6|5.2|0.0090
91064025|NCT03349060|182013030|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|33.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.0|47.7||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||47.7|19.0|<0.0001
91064026|NCT03349060|182013030|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|16.5||||0.0421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|32.4||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||32.4|0.6|0.0421
91064027|NCT03349060|182013030|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|33.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.9|48.8||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||48.8|18.9|<0.0001
91064028|NCT03349060|182013030|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|23.5||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.2|38.8||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||38.8|8.2|0.0035
91064029|NCT03349060|182013030|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|28.8||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.8|43.9||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||43.9|13.8|0.0002
91064030|NCT03349060|182013031|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|17.1||||0.2497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|43.2||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||43.2|-9.1|0.2497
91064031|NCT03349060|182013031|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|17.1||||0.2371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|43.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||43.3|-9.0|0.2371
91064032|NCT03349060|182013031|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|28.8||||0.0697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|58.3||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||58.3|-0.8|0.0697
91064033|NCT03349060|182013031|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|43.9||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.2|71.7||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||71.7|16.2|0.0030
91064034|NCT03349060|182013031|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|31.0||||0.0583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|59.9||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||59.9|2.0|0.0583
91064035|NCT03349060|182013031|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|41.2||||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.2|69.1||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||69.1|13.2|0.0085
91064036|NCT03349060|182013031|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|19.3||||0.1948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|48.5||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||48.5|-9.8|0.1948
91064037|NCT03349060|182013031|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|30.6||||0.0296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|58.5||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||58.5|2.8|0.0296
91064038|NCT03349060|182013032|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.5||||0.1718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.2|-1.1|0.1718
91064039|NCT03349060|182013032|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-1.1||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.4|-1.7|0.0018
91064040|NCT03349060|182013032|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-1.3||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.6|-2.0|0.0005
91064041|NCT03349060|182013032|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-1.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.1|-2.5|<0.0001
91064042|NCT03349060|182013032|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.7||||0.0476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.0|-1.5|0.0476
91064043|NCT03349060|182013032|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-1.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.0|-2.4|<0.0001
91064044|NCT03349060|182013032|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-1.1||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.4|-1.9|0.0028
91064045|NCT03349060|182013032|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-1.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.9|-2.3|<0.0001
91064046|NCT03349060|182013033|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.2||||0.6134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.5|-0.9|0.6134
91064047|NCT03349060|182013033|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.7||||0.0422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.0|-1.4|0.0422
91064048|NCT03349060|182013033|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.5||||0.205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.3|-1.2|0.2050
91064049|NCT03349060|182013033|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-1.2||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.5|-1.9|0.0012
91064050|NCT03349060|182013033|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.4||||0.2657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.3|-1.2|0.2657
91064051|NCT03349060|182013033|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-1.2||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.5|-2.0|0.0019
91064052|NCT03349060|182013033|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.5||||0.1675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.2|-1.3|0.1675
91064053|NCT03349060|182013033|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-1.0||||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.3|-1.8|0.0085
91064054|NCT03349060|182013034|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|8.8||||0.5539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.6|37.2||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||37.2|-19.6|0.5539
91064055|NCT03349060|182013034|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|27.9||||0.0561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|55.1||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||55.1|0.8|0.0561
91064056|NCT03349060|182013034|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|-4.9||||0.746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.4|23.7||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||23.7|-33.4|0.7460
91064057|NCT03349060|182013034|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.3|28.3||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||28.3|-28.3|1.0000
91064058|NCT03349060|182013034|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|20.8||||0.1474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|46.2||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||46.2|-4.5|0.1474
91064059|NCT03349060|182013034|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|37.3||||0.0123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.1|62.5||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||62.5|12.1|0.0123
91064060|NCT03349060|182013034|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|-0.4||||0.976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.5|27.6||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||27.6|-28.5|0.9760
91064061|NCT03349060|182013034|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|7.8||||0.5965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.4|36.1||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||36.1|-20.4|0.5965
91064062|NCT03349060|182013035|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|24.0||||0.2278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|58.0||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||58.0|-9.9|0.2278
91064063|NCT03349060|182013035|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|35.2||||0.0996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|72.4||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||72.4|-2.0|0.0996
91064064|NCT03349060|182013035|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|14.5||||0.4449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.6|50.6||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||50.6|-21.6|0.4449
91064065|NCT03349060|182013035|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|16.9||||0.4139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.6|55.5||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||55.5|-21.6|0.4139
91064066|NCT03349060|182013035|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|-6.7||||0.729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.7|27.4||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||27.4|-40.7|0.7290
91064067|NCT03349060|182013035|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|8.7||||0.6585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.3|44.6||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||44.6|-27.3|0.6585
91064068|NCT03349060|182013035|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|18.2||||0.3638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.7|55.1||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||55.1|-18.7|0.3638
91064069|NCT03349060|182013035|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|40.5||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|78.5||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||78.5|2.4|0.0550
91064070|NCT03349060|182013036|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|-18.8||||0.4036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.4|20.9||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||20.9|-58.4|0.4036
91064071|NCT03349060|182013036|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|-35.3||||0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.9|5.3||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||5.3|-75.9|0.1580
91064072|NCT03349060|182013036|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|-14.2||||0.514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.5|25.1||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||25.1|-53.5|0.5140
91064073|NCT03349060|182013036|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|-19.8||||0.4149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.3|23.7||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||23.7|-63.3|0.4149
91064074|NCT03349060|182013036|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|-18.8||||0.4036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.4|20.9||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||20.9|-58.4|0.4036
91064075|NCT03349060|182013036|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|-30.7||||0.2092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.9|9.6||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||9.6|-70.9|0.2092
91064076|NCT03349060|182013036|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|11.9||||0.5982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.1|53.0||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||53.0|-29.1|0.5982
91064077|NCT03349060|182013036|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|4.2||||0.8647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.3|44.7||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||44.7|-36.3|0.8647
91064078|NCT03349060|182013037|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|-78.6||||0.0546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-117.5|-39.6||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||-39.6|-117.5|0.0546
91064079|NCT03349060|182013037|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|-27.9||||0.3573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.5|6.7||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||6.7|-62.5|0.3573
91064080|NCT03349060|182013037|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|-3.6||||0.9219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.6|48.5||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||48.5|-55.6|0.9219
91064081|NCT03349060|182013037|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|24.6||||0.3173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|63.6||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||63.6|-14.4|0.3173
91064082|NCT03349060|182013037|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|-25.0||||0.5408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.0|27.0||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||27.0|-77.0|0.5408
91064083|NCT03349060|182013037|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|24.6||||0.3173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|63.6||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||63.6|-14.4|0.3173
91064084|NCT03349060|182013037|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|-25.0||||0.5408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.0|27.0||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||27.0|-77.0|0.5408
91064085|NCT03349060|182013037|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|24.6||||0.3173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|63.6||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||63.6|-14.4|0.3173
91064086|NCT03349060|182013038|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-2.8||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|-1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.2|-4.4|0.0006
91064087|NCT03349060|182013038|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-6.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|-4.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-4.7|-7.9|<0.0001
91064088|NCT03349060|182013038|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-3.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|-2.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-2.0|-5.6|<0.0001
91064089|NCT03349060|182013038|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-8.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|-6.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-6.6|-10.2|<0.0001
91064090|NCT03349060|182013038|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-2.7||||0.0096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|-0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.7|-4.7|0.0096
91064091|NCT03349060|182013038|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-7.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|-5.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-5.2|-9.3|<0.0001
91064092|NCT03349060|182013038|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-3.1||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|-0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.9|-5.2|0.0049
91064093|NCT03349060|182013038|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-6.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|-4.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-4.7|-9.0|<0.0001
91064094|NCT03349060|182013039|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.4||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.1|-0.6|0.0020
91064095|NCT03349060|182013039|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.6|-1.0|<0.0001
91064096|NCT03349060|182013039|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.5||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.2|-0.7|0.0011
90825556|NCT01101035|181526884|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the upper 1-sided CI for the hazard ratio was less than 1.3. Critical boundary of 2.014 (final analysis) based on the Lan-DeMets-O'Brien-Fleming alpha spending function was used for CI estimation.|Cox Proportional Hazard|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|97.0|0.87|1.23|||||Time from randomization to the first occurrence of any MACE was fitted using Cox Proportional Hazard model with treatment as a covariate and Baseline renal function as a stratification factor.|Statistical analysis for the primary endpoint was based on 1-sided repeated confidence intervals (CIs), using critical values from a 1-sided stopping boundary for a group sequential design (GSD), to preserve an overall false-rejection rate of 2.5%, to assess non-inferiority at each interim analysis and the final analysis.||1.23|0.87|
90825557|NCT00330759|181526901|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|A synthesis approach was used for a non-inferiority test of the hypothesis that denosumab preserves at least 50% of the effect of zoledronic acid vs. placebo.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.0007||95.0|0.71|0.98|||Regression, Cox|Stratified by tumor type, previous skeletal-related event, and systematic anti-cancer therapy||||0.98|0.71|0.0007
90825558|NCT00330759|181526902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.06||95.0|0.71|0.98|||Regression, Cox|P-value was adjusted for multiplicity according to a hierarchical testing strategy and Hochberg procedure.|Stratified by tumor type, previous skeletal-related event, and systematic anti-cancer therapy|||0.98|0.71|0.060
90825559|NCT00330759|181526903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.145||95.0|0.77|1.04|||Anderson-Gill model|P-value was adjusted for multiplicity according to a hierarchical testing strategy and Hochberg procedure.|Stratified by tumor type, previous skeletal-related event, and systematic anti-cancer therapy|||1.04|0.77|0.145
91064097|NCT03349060|182013039|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-1.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.7|-1.2|<0.0001
90825560|NCT04473963|181526917|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority between subjects Randomized to Treatment vs subjects Randomized to Control||||||0.277|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.277
90825561|NCT04473963|181526919|EQUIVALENCE|"Equivalence between subjects Randomized to Control and subjects Randomized to Treatment"||||||0.042|||||||Kaplan-Meyer Log Rank|||||||0.042
90825562|NCT04473963|181526924|EQUIVALENCE|"Equivalence between procedure time of subjects Randomized to Treatment and subjects Randomized to Control. The Not-Randomized group was not included in the analysis."|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
90825563|NCT02123849|181526928|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is 10% of the coefficient of variation (i.e., standard deviation divided by mean) which means that the changes in the signature score in the intermittent arm is no less than 90% of the coefficient of variation of the changes in the signature score in the continuous arm.||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.04
91064098|NCT03349060|182013039|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.5||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.2|-0.8|0.0020
90825564|NCT02123849|181526929|OTHER|||||||0.84|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.84
90825565|NCT02123849|181526930|OTHER|||||||0.61|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.61
90825566|NCT02123849|181526931|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
90825567|NCT02123849|181526932|OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.42
90825568|NCT02123849|181526933|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is 10% of the coefficient of variation (i.e., standard deviation divided by mean) which means that the changes in the signature score in the intermittent arm is no less than 90% of the coefficient of variation of the changes in the signature score in the continuous arm.||||||0.97|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.97
91064099|NCT03349060|182013039|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.6|-1.2|<0.0001
91064100|NCT03349060|182013039|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.5||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.2|-0.8|0.0014
91064101|NCT03349060|182013039|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.6|-1.3|<0.0001
90825569|NCT02123849|181526934|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is 10% of the coefficient of variation (i.e., standard deviation divided by mean) which means that the changes in the signature score in the intermittent arm is no less than 90% of the coefficient of variation of the changes in the signature score in the continuous arm.||||||0.97|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.97
90825570|NCT02123849|181526935|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is 10% of the coefficient of variation (i.e., standard deviation divided by mean) which means that the changes in the signature score in the intermittent arm is no less than 90% of the coefficient of variation of the changes in the signature score in the continuous arm.||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.06
91064102|NCT03349060|182013040|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|6.0||||0.0575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|11.7||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||11.7|0.3|0.0575
91064103|NCT03349060|182013040|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|18.1||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.7|25.5||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||25.5|10.7|0.0002
91064104|NCT03349060|182013040|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|9.2||||0.0411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|17.1||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||17.1|1.3|0.0411
91064105|NCT03349060|182013040|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|26.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.9|35.5||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||35.5|16.9|<0.0001
90825571|NCT01717872|181526938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||MAC blade lifting the tongue versus Miller blade lifting the epiglottis||||>0.05
90825572|NCT01717872|181526939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
91064106|NCT03349060|182013040|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|8.9||||0.0781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|18.0||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||18.0|-0.1|0.0781
91064107|NCT03349060|182013040|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|26.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.2|36.3||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||36.3|16.2|<0.0001
91064108|NCT03349060|182013040|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|14.2||||0.0075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|23.2||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||23.2|5.3|0.0075
91064109|NCT03349060|182013040|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|29.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.6|38.9||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||38.9|19.6|<0.0001
91064110|NCT03349060|182013041|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.034||||0.0453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.066|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.066|0.001|0.0453
90825573|NCT01717872|181526940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0004
91064111|NCT03349060|182013041|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.068|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.036|0.101|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.101|0.036|<0.0001
91064112|NCT03349060|182013041|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.025||||0.1821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.012|0.062|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.062|-0.012|0.1821
90825574|NCT02152761|181526941|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Group Ratio (BYM - Placebo)|1.057|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.037|1.076|||Mixed Models Analysis||Holm-Bonferroni method: Used to adjust the Type I error for two comparisons (BYM338 700 mg/Placebo) at Week 24. No control for multiplicity was made at Week 12.|week 12||1.076|1.037|<.0001
91064113|NCT03349060|182013041|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.055||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.018|0.092|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.092|0.018|0.0038
91064114|NCT03349060|182013041|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.048||||0.0241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.006|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.090|0.006|0.0241
91064115|NCT03349060|182013041|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.093|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.051|0.134|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.134|0.051|<0.0001
90825575|NCT02152761|181526941|SUPERIORITY||Treatment group rratio (BYM - Placebo)|1.043|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.024|1.064|||Mixed Models Analysis||Holm-Bonferroni method: Used to adjust the Type I error for two comparisons (BYM338 700 mg/Placebo) at Week 24. No control for multiplicity was made at Week 12.|week 12||1.064|1.024|<.0001
90825576|NCT02152761|181526942|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Treatment Difference|-0.071||||0.1829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.175|0.034||Treatment Difference (BYM-Placebo)|Mixed Models Analysis|||week 24||0.034|-0.175|0.1829
90825577|NCT02152761|181526942|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Treatment Difference|0.011||||0.8365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.096|0.119|||Mixed Models Analysis|||week 24||0.119|-0.096|0.8365
90825578|NCT02152761|181526943|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Treatment Difference|-0.371||||0.5802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.311|1.053|||Mixed Models Analysis|||week 24||1.053|-1.311|0.5802
90825579|NCT02152761|181526943|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of the Treatment Difference|0.833||||0.0913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.135|1.801|||Mixed Models Analysis|||week 24||1.801|-0.135|0.0913
90825580|NCT02152761|181526944|SUPERIORITY||Falls Rate Ratio|1.08||||0.8353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|2.21|||Negative binomial regression|||||2.21|0.53|0.8353
90825581|NCT02152761|181526944|SUPERIORITY||Falls Rate Ratio|1.58||||0.2015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|3.18|||Negative binomial regression|||||3.18|0.78|0.2015
90825582|NCT02152761|181526944|SUPERIORITY||Falls Rate Ratio|1.25||||0.3999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|3.0|||Negative binomial regression|||week 24||3.00|0.52|0.3999
90825583|NCT03369418|181526977|SUPERIORITY|One tailed t-tests for independent groups were performed to test the hypothesis that active device will be superior to sham in decreasing the combined HAD score. This was accomplished by Contrast analysis within the framework of a random effects general linear mixed effects (RE GLMM) model.||||||0.013||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<.05.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||.013
90825584|NCT03369418|181526978|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||.33
90825585|NCT01426958|181526991|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Relative bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio|119.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.5||0.1009|TWO_SIDED|90.0|112.239|126.811||P-value for ratio outside interval 0.8-1.25|ANOVA|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|||126.811|112.239|0.1009
90825586|NCT01426958|181526991|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Relative bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio|110.23|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.9||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.837|117.006||P-value for ratio outside interval 0.8-1.25|ANOVA|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|||117.006|103.837|0.0009
90825587|NCT01426958|181526991|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Relative bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio|91.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.6||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.519|97.614||P-value for ratio outside interval 0.8-1.25|ANOVA|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|||97.614|86.519|0.0004
90825588|NCT01426958|181526992|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Relative bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio|104.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.2||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.681|112.002||P-value for ratio outside interval 0.8-1.25|ANOVA|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|||112.002|96.681|0.0002
90825589|NCT01426958|181526992|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Relative bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio|105.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.1||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.425|114.53||P-value for ratio outside interval 0.8-1.25|ANOVA|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|||114.530|96.425|0.0012
90825590|NCT01426958|181526992|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Relative bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio|99.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.8||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.328|106.61||P-value for ratio outside interval 0.8-1.25|ANOVA|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|||106.610|93.328|0.0000
90825591|NCT01426958|181526993|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Relative bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio|118.56|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.5||0.0702|TWO_SIDED|90.0|111.712|125.822||P-value for ratio outside interval 0.8-1.25|ANOVA|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|||125.822|111.712|0.0702
90825592|NCT01426958|181526993|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Relative bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio|110.76|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.0||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|104.936|116.913||P-value for ratio outside interval 0.8-1.25|ANOVA|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|||116.913|104.936|0.0005
90825593|NCT01426958|181526993|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Relative bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio|92.46|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.9||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.928|98.341||P-value for ratio outside interval 0.8-1.25|ANOVA|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|||98.341|86.928|0.0003
90825594|NCT02968368|181526996|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.102|0.93|||ANCOVA|||||0.930|0.102|0.0149
91064116|NCT03349060|182013041|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.044||||0.0461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.087|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.087|0.001|0.0461
90825595|NCT02968368|181527001|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|39.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.097||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.07|60.992|||ANCOVA|||||60.992|17.070|0.0006
90825596|NCT02968368|181527004|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.282||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.928|7.001|||ANCOVA|||||7.001|1.928|0.0007
90825597|NCT02968368|181527005|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.708||0.0098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.457|3.261|||ANCOVA|||||3.261|0.457|0.0098
90825598|NCT02859246|181527008|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.04||||||A two tail P value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.04
90825599|NCT02859246|181527009|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.2||||||A two tail P value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||< 0.2
90825600|NCT05280717|181527010|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.9821|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8825|1.093|||||The ratio estimate and 90% confidence interval were obtained from an Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model, with AUC(D1- 29) as the dependent variable, and sex, baseline body mass index and treatment as covariates.|||1.0930|0.8825|
90825601|NCT05280717|181527011|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.1258|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0108|1.2539|||||The ratio estimate and 90% confidence interval were obtained from an ANCOVA model, with Cmax as the dependent variable, and sex, baseline body mass index and treatment as covariates.|||1.2539|1.0108|
90825602|NCT05280717|181527014|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.876|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.6391|2.1472|||||The ratio estimate and 90% confidence interval were obtained from an ANCOVA model, with AUC(D1-29) as the dependent variable, and sex, baseline body mass index and treatment as covariates.|||2.1472|1.6391|
90825603|NCT05280717|181527014|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.5991|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.4086|1.8153|||||The ratio estimate and 90% confidence interval were obtained from an ANCOVA model, with AUC(D1-29) as the dependent variable, and sex, baseline body mass index and treatment as covariates.|||1.8153|1.4086|
91064117|NCT03349060|182013041|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.064||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.021|0.107|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.107|0.021|0.0037
91064118|NCT03349060|182013042|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|4.548||||0.0319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.397|8.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||8.700|0.397|0.0319
90825604|NCT05280717|181527015|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|2.0798|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.8223|2.3737|||||The ratio estimate and 90% confidence interval were obtained from an ANCOVA model, with Cmax as the dependent variable, and sex, baseline body mass index and treatment as covariates.|||2.3737|1.8223|
90825605|NCT05280717|181527015|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.6955|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.4913|1.9276|||||The ratio estimate and 90% confidence interval were obtained from an ANCOVA model, with Cmax as the dependent variable, and sex, baseline body mass index and treatment as covariates.|||1.9276|1.4913|
90825606|NCT05280717|181527020|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.9476|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8578|1.0469|||||The ratio estimate and 90% confidence interval were obtained from an ANCOVA model, with AUCinf as the dependent variable, and sex, baseline body mass index and treatment as covariates.|||1.0469|0.8578|
90825607|NCT05280717|181527020|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.5482|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.377|1.7407|||||The ratio estimate and 90% confidence interval were obtained from an ANCOVA model, with AUCinf as the dependent variable, and sex, baseline body mass index and treatment as covariates.|||1.7407|1.3770|
90825608|NCT05280717|181527020|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.4167|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.2627|1.5894|||||The ratio estimate and 90% confidence interval were obtained from an ANCOVA model, with AUCinf as the dependent variable, and sex, baseline body mass index and treatment as covariates.|||1.5894|1.2627|
90825609|NCT00855816|181527041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for significance: p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model based on intent to treat sample.||Null hypothesis: there will be no differences in PTSD hyperarousal symptom changes in individuals who did receive the experimental intervention vs. those who did not .||||.27
90825610|NCT01526213|181527042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean AUC Ratio (GFJ/mGFJ)|0.96||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|1.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||For juice comparisons, fexofenadine + furanocoumarin-free grapefruit juice will be the test agent (numerator) and fexofenadine + grapefruit juice will be the reference standard (denominator).||1.5|0.4|0.78
90825611|NCT02868554|181527087|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.07
90825612|NCT02868554|181527088|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.02
90825613|NCT05282927|181527091|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|0.98|||Regression, Linear|||Models included the arm indicator variable in addition to the stratification variables used in randomization: site complexity level (high complexity '1a', '1b' or '1c' vs. all others) and rurality (high sites serving ≥50% rural/highly rural Veterans vs. low sites serving \<50% rural/highly rural Veterans)||0.98|-1.07|0.92
90825614|NCT05282927|181527092|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.94||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|1.9|||Regression, Linear|||Models included the arm indicator variable in addition to the stratification variables used in randomization: site complexity level (high complexity '1a', '1b' or '1c' vs. all others) and rurality (high sites serving ≥50% rural/highly rural Veterans vs. low sites serving \<50% rural/highly rural Veterans).||1.90|-0.03|0.056
90825615|NCT01100320|181527109|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A mixed-model analysis of variance was used to compare (test vs reference) and the 90% confidence intervals were estimated for the ratios (test/reference).|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|99.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.4|104.52|||ANOVA||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80%-125%.|||104.52|95.40|
90825616|NCT01100320|181527110|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A mixed-model analysis of variance was used to compare (test vs reference) and the 90% confidence intervals were estimated for the ratios (test/reference).|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|92.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.11|95.09|||ANOVA||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80%-125%.|||95.09|90.11|
90825617|NCT01100320|181527111|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A mixed-model analysis of variance was used to compare (test vs reference) and the 90% confidence intervals were estimated for the ratios (test/reference)|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|92.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.13|95.13|||ANOVA||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80%-125%.|||95.13|90.13|
91064119|NCT03349060|182013042|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|8.659|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.496|12.822|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||12.822|4.496|<0.0001
91064120|NCT03349060|182013042|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|4.361||||0.0702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.362|9.084|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||9.084|-0.362|0.0702
91064121|NCT03349060|182013042|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|10.085|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.349|14.821|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||14.821|5.349|<0.0001
90825618|NCT04181762|181527112|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.7||||0.0662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.3|0.9|||Regression, Logistic||Difference from placebo and 95% CI are from a logistic regression model with treatment group, stratification factor (SoC) and race as factors and baseline UPCR as a covariate using marginal standardization method.|Complete Renal Response (CRR) at Week 52||0.9|-26.3|0.0662
90825619|NCT04181762|181527114|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.7|8.4|||||95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) are constructed using the exact binomial test.|Partial Renal Response (PRR) at Week 52||8.4|-23.7|
90825620|NCT02534909|181527161|OTHER|Bayesian analysis of response rate in serum LDH (period 1 completers only)|Median response rate|99.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|81.9|100.0|||||95% Credibility Interval for Response Rate|Up to Week 4||100.0|81.9|
91064122|NCT03349060|182013042|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|6.045||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.589|11.501|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||11.501|0.589|0.0300
91064123|NCT03349060|182013042|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|9.803||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.368|15.237|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||15.237|4.368|0.0005
91064124|NCT03349060|182013042|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|7.569||||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.119|13.019|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||13.019|2.119|0.0067
91064125|NCT03349060|182013042|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|9.374||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.933|14.815|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||14.815|3.933|0.0008
91064126|NCT03349060|182013043|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.004||||0.9568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.137|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.130|-0.137|0.9568
91064127|NCT03349060|182013043|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.09||||0.1782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.042|0.223|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.223|-0.042|0.1782
91064128|NCT03349060|182013043|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.174||||0.0491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.347|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.347|0.001|0.0491
91064129|NCT03349060|182013043|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.284||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.112|0.456|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.456|0.112|0.0015
91064130|NCT03349060|182013043|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.004||||0.9638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.185|0.194|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.194|-0.185|0.9638
91064131|NCT03349060|182013043|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.08||||0.4016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.109|0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.270|-0.109|0.4016
91064132|NCT03349060|182013043|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.007||||0.9429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.184|0.198|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.198|-0.184|0.9429
91064133|NCT03349060|182013043|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.062||||0.5212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.254|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.254|-0.130|0.5212
91064134|NCT03349060|182013044|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|2.131||||0.6467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.095|11.358|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||11.358|-7.095|0.6467
91064135|NCT03349060|182013044|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|11.549||||0.0147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.338|20.761|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||20.761|2.338|0.0147
91064136|NCT03349060|182013044|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|6.853||||0.1894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.453|17.159|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||17.159|-3.453|0.1894
91064137|NCT03349060|182013044|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|16.99||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.699|27.281|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||27.281|6.699|0.0015
91064138|NCT03349060|182013044|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|8.672||||0.1267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.518|19.862|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||19.862|-2.518|0.1267
91064139|NCT03349060|182013044|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|9.354||||0.1009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.866|20.573|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||20.573|-1.866|0.1009
91064140|NCT03349060|182013044|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|6.071||||0.1915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.107|15.249|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||15.249|-3.107|0.1915
90825621|NCT02534909|181527162|OTHER||Geometric LS mean Ratio to Baseline|0.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis||The longitudinal mixed effects model included timepoint, log baseline as a covariate and the log baseline by timepoint interaction. C5 variant status was included as a categorical covariate.|Period 1 Day 29 serum LDH levels||0.23|0.15|<0.001
90825622|NCT02534909|181527162|OTHER||Geometric LS mean Ratio to Baseline|0.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis||The longitudinal mixed effects model included timepoint, log baseline as a covariate and the log baseline by timepoint interaction. C5 variant status was included as a categorical covariate.|Period 2 Day 365 serum LDH levels||0.23|0.15|<0.001
90825623|NCT02534909|181527162|OTHER||Geometric LS mean Ratio to Baseline|0.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||The longitudinal mixed effects model included timepoint, log baseline as a covariate and the log baseline by timepoint interaction. C5 variant status was included as a categorical covariate.|Period 3 Day 1429 serum LDH levels||0.20|0.14|<0.001
90825624|NCT02534909|181527162|OTHER||Geometric LS mean Ratio to Baseline|0.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis||The longitudinal mixed effects model included timepoint, log baseline as a covariate and the log baseline by timepoint interaction. C5 variant status was included as a categorical covariate.|Period 4 Day 141 serum LDH levels||0.24|0.15|<0.001
90825625|NCT00676013|181527208|OTHER|ANOVA and all pairwise comparisons using Tukey test.|Multiple pairwise comparisons|0.05||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||0.05 is a threshold for statistical significance.|ANOVA|||We conducted a multiple four group comparison (all pairwise comparisons were conducted). An Anova was conducted to assess statistical significance.|0.05|||0.05
90825626|NCT00428948|181527209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.708|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.269|-2.147|||Linear mixed model||The variance of the random effect intercept was zero and resulted in a non-positive, definite variance-covariance matrix for the random effects.|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the percentage change per year in total kidney volume between the tolvaptan group and the placebo group.||-2.147|-3.269|<0.0001
90825627|NCT00428948|181527210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.865||||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.775|0.965|||Recurrent event analysis||Tolvaptan divided by placebo.|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the ADPKD clinical progression events/100 follow-up years between the tolvaptan group and the placebo group.||0.965|0.775|0.0095
90825628|NCT00428948|181527211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in slope|0.977|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.597|1.357|||Mixed Models Analysis|Derived from testing the time treatment interaction using linear mixed model in which both intercept and slope are fixed and random effects.||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the change in renal function per year between the tolvaptan group and the placebo group.||1.357|0.597|<0.0001
90825629|NCT00428948|181527212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in slope|-0.246||||0.552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.059|0.566|||Mixed Models Analysis|Derived from testing the time treatment interaction using linear mixed model in which both intercept and slope are fixed and random effects.|Placebo minus tolvaptan.|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in mean arterial blood pressure in non-hypertensive participants between the tolvaptan group and the placebo group.||0.566|-1.059|0.5520
90825630|NCT00428948|181527213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.1604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.03|||ANCOVA|The analysis included baseline renal pain as a covariate.|Derived from ANCOVA with factors of treatment and baseline stratification factor interaction and covariate renal pain baseline.|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the change in renal pain between the tolvaptan group and the placebo group.||0.03|-0.20|0.1604
90825631|NCT00428948|181527214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.996||||0.9704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.805|1.233|||Recurrent event analysis||Derived from rate and mean model of time to recurrent event analysis with factor treatment.|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the hypertensive events per 100 follow-up years in non-hypertensive participants between the tolvaptan group and the placebo group.||1.233|0.805|0.9704
90825632|NCT00428948|181527215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1||||0.7532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.602|2.017|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Tolvaptan divided by placebo.|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the percentage of participants with a clinically sustained decrease of blood pressure leading to a sustained reduction in antihypertensive therapy between the tolvaptan group and the placebo group.||2.017|0.602|0.7532
90825633|NCT00577824|181527216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Bonferroni's method was used to adjustment for multiplicity, and significant level was set to 2.5%(two-sided).|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline value as the covariate.||||||<0.001
90825634|NCT00577824|181527217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Armitage|||||||<0.001
90825635|NCT00577824|181527218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Armitage|||||||<0.001
90825636|NCT00577824|181527219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.002||95.0||||No adjustment for multiplicity. Significance level was 5% (two-sided).|ANCOVA|||||||<0.002
90825637|NCT00577824|181527220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026||95.0||||No adjustment for multiplicity. Significance level was 5% (two-sided).|ANCOVA|||||||0.026
90825638|NCT00577824|181527221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.672||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.672
90825639|NCT00577824|181527222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.580
90825640|NCT00577824|181527223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.014
90825641|NCT00577824|181527224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.490
90825642|NCT00577824|181527225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
90825643|NCT00577824|181527226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.208||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.208
90825644|NCT00577824|181527228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.708||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.708
90825645|NCT00577824|181527229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.974||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.974
90825646|NCT00577824|181527231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.200
90825647|NCT00577824|181527232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91064141|NCT03349060|182013044|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|12.948||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.754|22.143|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||22.143|3.754|0.0064
91064142|NCT03349060|182013045|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|3.6||||0.0102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|6.4||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used including treatment as main effect and randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||6.4|0.9|0.0102
91064143|NCT03349060|182013045|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|4.5||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|7.3||ANCOVA model was used including treatment as main effect and randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||7.3|1.8|0.0013
91064144|NCT03349060|182013046|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|1.0||||0.5241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|4.2||ANCOVA model was used including treatment as main effect and randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||4.2|-2.1|0.5241
91064145|NCT03349060|182013046|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.9||||0.5821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|4.1||ANCOVA model was used including treatment as main effect and randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||4.1|-2.3|0.5821
91064146|NCT03349060|182013047|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|3.8||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|6.1||ANCOVA model was used including treatment as main effect and randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||6.1|1.5|0.0013
91064147|NCT03349060|182013047|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|4.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|7.0||ANCOVA model was used including treatment as main effect and randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||7.0|2.4|<0.0001
91064148|NCT03349060|182013048|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|1.7||||0.2256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|4.4||ANCOVA model was used including treatment as main effect and randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||4.4|-1.0|0.2256
91064149|NCT03349060|182013048|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|3.0||||0.0275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|5.8||ANCOVA model was used including treatment as main effect and randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||5.8|0.3|0.0275
91064150|NCT02861586|182013050|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|3.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|7.7||Pairwise comparisons were adjusted for multiple tests according to Tukey-Kramer. The threshold for significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|Analysis of variance was conducted with treatment group as a fixed factor.||||7.7|2.0|<0.0001
91064151|NCT02861586|182013050|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.6||Pairwise comparisons were adjusted for multiple tests according to Tukey-Kramer. The threshold for significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|Analysis of variance was conducted with treatment group as a fixed factor.||||0.6|0.1|<0.0001
91064152|NCT02861586|182013050|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|1.5||||0.6334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|3.0||Pairwise comparisons were adjusted for multiple tests according to Tukey-Kramer. The threshold for significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|Analysis of variance was conducted with treatment group as a fixed factor.||||3.0|0.8|0.6334
91064153|NCT02861586|182013050|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.6||||0.8065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.6||Pairwise comparisons were adjusted for multiple tests according to Tukey-Kramer. The threshold for significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|Analysis of variance was conducted with treatment group as a fixed factor.||||1.6|0.2|0.8065
91064154|NCT02861586|182013050|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|10.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|26.6||Pairwise comparisons were adjusted for multiple tests according to Tukey-Kramer. The threshold for significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|Analysis of variance was conducted with treatment group as a fixed factor.||||26.6|3.8|<0.0001
91064155|NCT02861586|182013050|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.3||Pairwise comparisons were adjusted for multiple tests according to Tukey-Kramer. The threshold for significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|Analysis of variance was conducted with treatment group as a fixed factor.||||0.3|0.0|<0.0001
91064156|NCT02861586|182013050|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.3||Pairwise comparisons were adjusted for multiple tests according to Tukey-Kramer. The threshold for significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|Analysis of variance was conducted with treatment group as a fixed factor.||||0.3|0.0|<0.0001
91064157|NCT02861586|182013050|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.1||Pairwise comparisons were adjusted for multiple tests according to Tukey-Kramer. The threshold for significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|Analysis of variance was conducted with treatment group as a fixed factor.||||0.1|0.0|<0.0001
91064158|NCT02861586|182013050|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.4||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.8||Pairwise comparisons were adjusted for multiple tests according to Tukey-Kramer. The threshold for significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|Analysis of variance was conducted with treatment group as a fixed factor.||||0.8|0.2|0.0011
91064159|NCT02861586|182013050|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.4||Pairwise comparisons were adjusted for multiple tests according to Tukey-Kramer. The threshold for significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|Analysis of variance was conducted with treatment group as a fixed factor.||||0.4|0.1|<0.0001
91064160|NCT02861586|182013050|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|2.6||||0.0718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|6.9||Pairwise comparisons were adjusted for multiple tests according to Tukey-Kramer. The threshold for significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|Analysis of variance was conducted with treatment group as a fixed factor.||||6.9|1.0|0.0718
91064161|NCT02861586|182013050|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.4||||0.0593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.0||Pairwise comparisons were adjusted for multiple tests according to Tukey-Kramer. The threshold for significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|Analysis of variance was conducted with treatment group as a fixed factor.||||1.0|0.1|0.0593
91064162|NCT02861586|182013050|SUPERIORITY||Gemetric mean ratio|0.4||||0.0593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.0||Pairwise comparisons were adjusted for multiple tests according to Tukey-Kramer. The threshold for significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|Analysis of variance was conducted with treatment group as a fixed factor.||||1.0|0.1|0.0593
91064163|NCT02861586|182013050|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|5.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|10.4||Pairwise comparisons were adjusted for multiple tests according to Tukey-Kramer. The threshold for significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|Analysis of variance was conducted with treatment group as a fixed factor.||||10.4|2.6|<0.0001
91064164|NCT02861586|182013050|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|2.2||||0.2005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|5.7||Pairwise comparisons were adjusted for multiple tests according to Tukey-Kramer. The threshold for significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|Analysis of variance was conducted with treatment group as a fixed factor.||||5.7|0.8|0.2005
90825648|NCT00362648|181527233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Efficacy = 1-Relative Risk|39.3|||<|0.001||95.0|19.1|54.7||Efficacy\>0%. Based on p\< 1/(1+k), where p is proportion of subjects with outcome in vaccine group relative to total number of subjects with outcome, and k is ratio of follow-up time; placebo / vaccine. Based on conditional binomial approach.|Exact binomial test||Efficacy = 1-RR, expressed as a percentage; the RR is the incidence in the vaccine group / the incidence in the placebo group.|The number randomized is different from the number analyzed because some data were excluded from the analysis: subjects were classified as unevaluable due to wildtype rotavirus in stool before 14 days Postdose 3, incomplete clinical and/or laboratory results, or stool samples collected out of day range. Rotavirus gastroenteritis cases are subjects with one or more positive episodes. The most severe positive episode is used for the date of the case.||54.7|19.1|<0.001
90825649|NCT00362648|181527233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Efficacy = 1-Relative Risk|48.3|||<|0.001||95.0|22.3|66.1||Efficacy\>0%. Based on p\< 1/(1+k), where p is proportion of subjects with outcome in vaccine group relative to total number of subjects with outcome, and k is ratio of follow-up time; placebo / vaccine. Based on conditional binomial approach.|Exact binomial test||Efficacy = 1-RR, expressed as a percentage; the RR is the incidence in the vaccine group / the incidence in the placebo group.|The number randomized is different from the number analyzed because some data were excluded from the analysis: subjects were classified as unevaluable due to wildtype rotavirus in stool before 14 days Postdose 3, incomplete clinical and/or laboratory results, or stool samples collected out of day range. Rotavirus gastroenteritis cases are subjects with one or more positive episodes. The most severe positive episode is used for the date of the case.||66.1|22.3|<0.001
90825650|NCT00362648|181527234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|78.3||||||95.0|71.7|84.0||||||Anti-rotavirus IgA||84.0|71.7|
90825651|NCT00362648|181527234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|18.5||||||95.0|13.3|24.8||||||Serotype G1||24.8|13.3|
90825652|NCT00362648|181527234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|9.0||||||95.0|5.3|14.0||||||Serotype G2||14.0|5.3|
90825653|NCT00362648|181527234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|6.3||||||95.0|3.3|10.8||||||Serotype G3||10.8|3.3|
90825654|NCT00362648|181527234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|26.5||||||95.0|20.3|33.3||||||Serotype G4||33.3|20.3|
90825655|NCT00362648|181527234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|14.4||||||95.0|9.7|20.2||||||Serotype P1A\[8\]||20.2|9.7|
90825656|NCT00362648|181527234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|20.1||||||95.0|14.4|27.0||||||Anti-rotavirus IgA||27.0|14.4|
90825657|NCT00362648|181527234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|0.0||||||95.0|0.0|2.2||||||Serotype G1||2.2|0.0|
90825658|NCT00362648|181527234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|3.0||||||95.0|1.0|6.8||||||Serotype G2||6.8|1.0|
90825659|NCT00362648|181527234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|2.4||||||95.0|0.6|5.9||||||Serotype G3||5.9|0.6|
90825660|NCT00362648|181527234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|2.4||||||95.0|0.6|5.9||||||Serotype G4||5.9|0.6|
90825661|NCT00362648|181527234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|4.7||||||95.0|2.1|9.1||||||Serotype P1A\[8\]||9.1|2.1|
90825662|NCT00362648|181527235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|87.8||||||95.0|80.9|92.9||||||Anti-rotavirus IgA||92.9|80.9|
90825663|NCT00362648|181527235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|32.1||||||95.0|24.2|40.8||||||Serotype G1||40.8|24.2|
90825664|NCT00362648|181527235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|9.9||||||95.0|5.4|16.4||||||Serotype G2||16.4|5.4|
90825665|NCT00362648|181527235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|28.2||||||95.0|20.7|36.8||||||Serotype G3||36.8|20.7|
90825666|NCT00362648|181527235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|18.3||||||95.0|12.1|26.0||||||Serotype G4||26.0|12.1|
90825667|NCT00362648|181527235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|27.5||||||95.0|20.0|36.0||||||Serotype P1A\[8\]||36.0|20.0|
90825668|NCT00362648|181527235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|18.2||||||95.0|12.0|25.8||||||Anti-rotavirus IgA||25.8|12.0|
90825669|NCT00362648|181527235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|2.3||||||95.0|0.5|6.5||||||Serotype G1||6.5|0.5|
90825670|NCT00362648|181527235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|0.8||||||95.0|0.0|4.1||||||Serotype G2||4.1|0.0|
90825671|NCT00362648|181527235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|3.0||||||95.0|0.8|7.6||||||Serotype G3||7.6|0.8|
90825672|NCT00362648|181527235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|0.0||||||95.0|0.0|2.8||||||Serotype G4||2.8|0.0|
90825673|NCT00362648|181527235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|5.3||||||95.0|2.2|10.6||||||Serotype P1A\[8\]||10.6|2.2|
90825674|NCT01773187|181527248|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||Fisher Exact|||Pre-specified||||0.0003
90825675|NCT01773187|181527249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2368|||||||Fisher Exact|||Pre-specified||||0.2368
90825676|NCT00112125|181527256|NON_INFERIORITY|The primary safety analysis was a test of the non-inferiority of CCM therapy compared to OMT with respect to the proportion of subjects experiencing death or hospitalization within 50 weeks using the Blackwelder non-inferiority test12 with a prespecified non-inferiority margin of 0.125.||||||0.31|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.31
90825677|NCT00112125|181527257|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority margin was selected to be 12.5% and α was set at .05, which resulted in a sample size of 198 subjects per group. A percentage of subjects (∼7%) were expected to be lost to followup, so that a total sample size of 428 subjects (214 per group) was selected.||||||0.125|||||||Blackwelder|||||||0.125
90825678|NCT00186901|181527265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.86||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Test|||Baseline where N=134||||0.86
90825679|NCT00186901|181527265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.99||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Test|||12 Month BMD Z-Score Calculation where N=109||||0.99
90825680|NCT00186901|181527265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.54||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Test|||24 Month BMD Z-Score calculation where N=91||||0.54
90825681|NCT00186901|181527265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.31||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Test|||36 Month (End of Study) BMD Z-Score calculation where N=84||||0.31
90825682|NCT00186901|181527266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.32||||0.0004||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0004
90825683|NCT00186901|181527267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.69||||0.0023||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0023
90825684|NCT00186901|181527268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0092||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0092
90825685|NCT00186901|181527269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Correlation coefficient|0.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.55|||Z-test|||275 received a QCT and 121 received a DXA scan. 121 paired scans were evaluated.||0.55|0.25|<0.0001
91064165|NCT02861586|182013050|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|35.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.1|93.1||Pairwise comparisons were adjusted for multiple tests according to Tukey-Kramer. The threshold for significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|Analysis of variance was conducted with treatment group as a fixed factor.||||93.1|13.1|<0.0001
91064166|NCT02861586|182013050|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.1||Pairwise comparisons were adjusted for multiple tests according to Tukey-Kramer. The threshold for significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|Analysis of variance was conducted with treatment group as a fixed factor.||||0.1|0.0|<0.0001
91064167|NCT02861586|182013050|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|0.0|0.0|0.1|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance was conducted with treatment group as a fixed factor.||||0.1|0.0|<0.0001
91064168|NCT02861586|182013050|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.4||||0.1138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.1||Pairwise comparisons were adjusted for multiple tests according to Tukey-Kramer. The threshold for significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|Analysis of variance was conducted with treatment group as a fixed factor.||||1.1|0.2|0.1138
91064169|NCT02861586|182013050|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|6.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|18.1||Pairwise comparisons were adjusted for multiple tests according to Tukey-Kramer. The threshold for significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|Analysis of variance was conducted with treatment group as a fixed factor.||||18.1|2.5|<0.0001
91064170|NCT02861586|182013050|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.4||Pairwise comparisons were adjusted for multiple tests according to Tukey-Kramer. The threshold for significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|Analysis of variance was conducted with treatment group as a fixed factor.||||0.4|0.1|<0.0001
91064171|NCT02861586|182013050|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.4||Pairwise comparisons were adjusted for multiple tests according to Tukey-Kramer. The threshold for significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|Analysis of variance was conducted with treatment group as a fixed factor.||||0.4|0.1|<0.0001
91064172|NCT02861586|182013050|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|16.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|52.4||Pairwise comparisons were adjusted for multiple tests according to Tukey-Kramer. The threshold for significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|Analysis of variance was conducted with treatment group as a fixed factor.||||52.4|4.9|<0.0001
91064173|NCT02861586|182013050|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.2||Pairwise comparisons were adjusted for multiple tests according to Tukey-Kramer. The threshold for significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|Analysis of variance was conducted with treatment group as a fixed factor.||||0.2|0.0|<0.0001
91064174|NCT02861586|182013050|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.2||Pairwise comparisons were adjusted for multiple tests according to Tukey-Kramer. The threshold for significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|Analysis of variance was conducted with treatment group as a fixed factor.||||0.2|0.0|<0.0001
91064175|NCT02861586|182013050|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.3||Pairwise comparisons were adjusted for multiple tests according to Tukey-Kramer. The threshold for significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|Analysis of variance was conducted with treatment group as a fixed factor.||||3.3|0.3|1.0000
91064176|NCT02861586|182013050|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.3||Pairwise comparisons were adjusted for multiple tests according to Tukey-Kramer. The threshold for significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|Analysis of variance was conducted with treatment group as a fixed factor.||||3.3|0.3|1.0000
91064177|NCT02861586|182013050|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.2||Pairwise comparisons were adjusted for multiple tests according to Tukey-Kramer. The threshold for significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|Analysis of variance was conducted with treatment group as a fixed factor.||||3.2|0.3|1.0000
91064178|NCT02861586|182013059|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.9||||0.9775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.0|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance was performed with baseline measles titer group as a fixed factor.||||2.0|0.4|0.9775
91064179|NCT02861586|182013059|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|1.3||||0.8366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.1|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance was performed with baseline measles titer group as a fixed factor.||||3.1|0.6|0.8366
91064180|NCT02861586|182013059|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|1.5||||0.5625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|3.6|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance was performed with baseline measles titer group as a fixed factor.||||3.6|0.7|0.5625
91064181|NCT02861586|182013059|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|1.5||||0.5924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.5|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance was performed with baseline measles titer group as a fixed factor.||||3.5|0.6|0.5924
91064182|NCT02861586|182013059|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|1.8||||0.3122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|4.1|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance was performed with baseline measles titer group as a fixed factor.||||4.1|0.8|0.3122
91064183|NCT02861586|182013059|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|1.2||||0.9665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.8|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance was performed with baseline measles titer group as a fixed factor.||||2.8|0.5|0.9665
91064184|NCT00803790|182013060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||least square mean ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.11||||||||1.11|0.92|
91064185|NCT00803790|182013061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.89|1.0||||||Least squares mean ratio for AUC 0-80 hr for vitamin D following administration of combination tablet and vitamin D alone. No correction for endogenous Vitamin D concentration pre-treatment was made in the analysis.||1.00|0.89|
91064186|NCT00803790|182013062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.0||||||"Least squares mean ratio for Cmax for vitamin D following administration of combination tablet and vitamin D alone.~No correction for endogenous Vitamin D concentration pre-treatment was made in the analysis."||1.00|0.88|
91064187|NCT04796909|182013081|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Repeated-measures ANCOVA|||||||0.05
91064188|NCT04796909|182013082|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Repeated-Measures ANCOVA|||||||0.05
91064189|NCT04796909|182013083|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Repeated-Measures ANCOVA|||||||0.05
91064190|NCT04796909|182013084|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Repeated-Measures ANCOVA|||||||0.05
91064191|NCT04796909|182013085|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Repeated-Measures ANCOVA|||||||0.05
91064192|NCT04796909|182013086|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Repeated-Measures ANCOVA|||||||0.05
91064193|NCT04796909|182013087|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Repeated-Measures ANCOVA|||||||0.05
91064194|NCT04796909|182013088|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
91064195|NCT04796909|182013089|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
91064196|NCT04796909|182013090|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.05
90825686|NCT00186901|181527270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Correlation coefficient|0.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.67|||Z-test|||218 patients were assessed at 12 months and received a QCT Scan. 94 patients were also assessed using the DEXA Scan. Comparison of the two methods used 94 paired studies to arrive at a correlation coefficient.||0.67|0.38|<0.0001
90825687|NCT00186901|181527271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Correlation coefficient|0.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.66|||Z-test|||188 patients were assessed at baseline and received a QCT Scan. 90 patients were also assessed using the DEXA Scan. Comparison of the two methods used 90 paired studies to arrive at a correlation coefficient.||0.66|0.36|<0.0001
90825688|NCT00186901|181527272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Correlation coefficient|0.48|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.63|||Z-test|||180 patients were assessed at 36 months and received a QCT Scan. 89 patients were also assessed using the DXA Scan. Comparison of the two methods used 89 paired studies to arrive at a correlation coefficient.||0.63|0.30|<0.0001
90825689|NCT00186901|181527273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4||95.0|||||Kruskal Wallis|||||||0.40
90825690|NCT00186901|181527274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21||95.0|||||Kruskal Wallis|||||||0.21
90825691|NCT01052077|181527279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.18||||0.1416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.75|0.39||ANCOVA model, with treatment and study center as main effects and Week 8 value as convariate, is used for change from Week 8 comparisons.|ANCOVA|Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: brexpiprazole - placebo.||Week 14||0.39|-2.75|0.1416
90825692|NCT01052077|181527280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22||||0.3778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.26||ANCOVA model, with treatment and study center as main effects and Week 8 value as covariate, is used for change from Week 8 comparisons.|ANCOVA|Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: brexpiprazole - placebo.||Week 14||0.26|-0.69|0.3778
90825693|NCT01052077|181527281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.31||||0.0162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.38|-0.24||ANCOVA model, with treatment and trial center as main effects and Week 8 value as covariate, was used for change from Week 8 comparisons.|ANCOVA|Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: brexpiprazole - placebo.||Week 9||-0.24|-2.38|0.0162
90825694|NCT01052077|181527281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.15|-0.65||ANCOVA model, with treatment and trial center as main effects and Week 8 value as covariate, was used for change from Week 8 comparisons.|ANCOVA|Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: brexpiprazole - placebo.||Week 10||-0.65|-3.15|0.0031
90825695|NCT01052077|181527281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.01||||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.44|-0.58||ANCOVA model, with treatment and trial center as main effects and Week 8 value as covariate, was used for change from Week 8 comparisons.|ANCOVA|Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: brexpiprazole - placebo.||Week 11||-0.58|-3.44|0.0061
90825696|NCT01052077|181527281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.21||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.69|-0.72||ANCOVA model, with treatment and trial center as main effects and Week 8 value as covariate, was used for change from Week 8 comparisons.|ANCOVA|Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: brexpiprazole - placebo.||Week 12||-0.72|-3.69|0.0038
90825697|NCT01052077|181527281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.82||||0.0174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.32|-0.32||ANCOVA model, with treatment and trial center as main effects and Week 8 value as covariate, was used for change from Week 8 comparisons.|ANCOVA|Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: brexpiprazole - placebo.||Week 13||-0.32|-3.32|0.0174
90825698|NCT01052077|181527281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.18||||0.1416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.75|0.39||ANCOVA model, with treatment and trial center as main effects and Week 8 value as covariate, was used for change from Week 8 comparisons.|ANCOVA|Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: brexpiprazole - placebo.||Week 14||0.39|-2.75|0.1416
90825699|NCT01052077|181527282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.1481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.03||ANCOVA model, with treatment and study center as main effects and Week 8 value as covariate, is used for change from Week 8 comparisons.|ANCOVA|Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: brexpiprazole - placebo.||Week 9||0.03|-0.21|0.1481
90825700|NCT01052077|181527282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.0691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.01||ANCOVA model, with treatment and trial center as main effects and Week 8 value as covariate, was used for change from Week 8 comparisons.|ANCOVA|Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: brexpiprazole - placebo.||Week 10||0.01|-0.28|0.0691
90825701|NCT01052077|181527282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.0457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.0||ANCOVA model, with treatment and trial center as main effects and Week 8 value as covariate, was used for change from Week 8 comparisons.|ANCOVA|Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: brexpiprazole - placebo.||Week 11||-0.00|-0.35|0.0457
90825702|NCT01052077|181527282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26||||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.08||ANCOVA model, with treatment and trial center as main effects and Week 8 value as covariate, was used for change from Week 8 comparisons.|ANCOVA|Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: brexpiprazole - placebo.||Week 12||-0.08|-0.45|0.0061
90825703|NCT01052077|181527282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.0572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.01||ANCOVA model, with treatment and trial center as main effects and Week 8 value as covariate, was used for change from Week 8 comparisons.|ANCOVA|Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: brexpiprazole - placebo.||Week 13||0.01|-0.38|0.0572
90825704|NCT01052077|181527282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.3318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.1||ANCOVA model, with treatment and trial center as main effects and Week 8 value as covariate, was used for change from Week 8 comparisons.|ANCOVA|Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: brexpiprazole - placebo.||Week 14||0.10|-0.29|0.3318
90825705|NCT01052077|181527283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34||||0.6272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|1.69||ANCOVA model, with treatment and trial center as main effects and Week 8 value as covariate, was used for change from Week 8 comparisons.|ANCOVA|Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: brexpiprazole - placebo.||Week 9||1.69|-1.02|0.6272
90825706|NCT01052077|181527283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.9697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|1.54||ANCOVA model, with treatment and trial center as main effects and Week 8 value as covariate, was used for change from Week 8 comparisons.|ANCOVA|Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: brexpiprazole - placebo||Week 10||1.54|-1.48|0.9697
90825707|NCT01052077|181527283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28||||0.749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.44||ANCOVA model, with treatment and trial center as main effects and Week 8 value as covariate, was used for change from Week 8 comparisons.|ANCOVA|Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: brexpiprazole - placebo.||Week 11||1.44|-2.00|0.7490
90825708|NCT01052077|181527283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.9459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|1.81||ANCOVA model, with treatment and trial center as main effects and Week 8 value as covariate, was used for change from Week 8 comparisons.|ANCOVA|Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: brexpiprazole - placebo.||Week 12||1.81|-1.94|0.9459
90825709|NCT01052077|181527283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.9893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|1.88||ANCOVA model, with treatment and trial center as main effects and Week 8 value as covariate, was used for change from Week 8 comparisons.|ANCOVA|Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: brexpiprazole - placebo.||Week 13||1.88|-1.91|0.9893
90825710|NCT01052077|181527283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.8918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|2.17||ANCOVA model, with treatment and trial center as main effects and Week 8 value as covariate, was used for change from Week 8 comparisons.|ANCOVA|Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: brexpiprazole - placebo.||Week 14||2.17|-1.89|0.8918
90825711|NCT01052077|181527284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57||||0.3247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|0.57||ANCOVA model, with treatment and trial center as main effects and Week 8 value as covariate, was used for change from Week 8 comparisons.|ANCOVA|Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: brexpiprazole - placebo.||Week 14||0.57|-1.71|0.3247
90825712|NCT01052077|181527285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5616||||||Cohran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) row mean scores differ test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean: brexpiprazole - placebo.||Week 9||||0.5616
90825713|NCT01052077|181527285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19||||||CMH row mean scores differ test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: brexpiprazole - placebo.||Week 10||||0.1900
90825714|NCT01052077|181527285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0501||||||CMH row mean scores differ test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: brexpiprazole - placebo.||Week 11||||0.0501
90825715|NCT01052077|181527285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0137||||||CMH row mean scores differ test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: brexpiprazole - placebo.||Week 12||||0.0137
90825716|NCT01052077|181527285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0711||||||CMH row mean scores differ test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: brexpiprazole - placebo.||Week 13||||0.0711
90825717|NCT01052077|181527285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3438||||||CMH row mean scores differ test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: brexpiprazole - placebo.||Week 14||||0.3438
90825718|NCT01052077|181527286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response rate|2.79||||0.0679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|8.81|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH general association test controlling for trial center.||Week 9||8.81|0.88|0.0679
90825719|NCT01052077|181527286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.78||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|3.14|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH general association test controlling for trial center.||Week 10||3.14|1.01|0.0360
90825720|NCT01052077|181527286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.53||||0.0521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|2.35|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH general association test controlling for trial center.||Week 11||2.35|0.99|0.0521
91064197|NCT00437021|182013096|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is 1. Non-inferiority of Group A is concluded if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval for the mean difference in the log2 transformed peak titers between groups is less than 1.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.99|||||Estimate and corresponding 95% confidence interval are calculated on the log2 scale.|Null hypothesis: The mean difference in log2 transformed titers between Group B and Group A \>= 1.||1.99|0.97|
90825721|NCT01052077|181527286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.93||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|2.86|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH general association test controlling for trial center.||Week 12||2.86|1.31|0.0008
90825722|NCT01052077|181527286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.64||||0.0074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|2.38|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH general association test controlling for trial center.||Week 13||2.38|1.14|0.0074
90825723|NCT01052077|181527286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.47||||0.0339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.08|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH general association test controlling for trial center.||Week 14||2.08|1.03|0.0339
90825724|NCT01052077|181527287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Remission Rate|2.27||||0.2404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|9.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH general association test controlling for trial center.||Week 9||9.30|0.55|0.2404
90825725|NCT01052077|181527287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Remission Rate|2.04||||0.0983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|4.98|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH general association test controlling for trial center.||Week 10||4.98|0.83|0.0983
90825726|NCT01052077|181527287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Remission Rate|1.67||||0.0496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|2.82|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH general association test controlling for trial center.||Week 11||2.82|0.99|0.0496
90825727|NCT01052077|181527287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Remission Rate|2.12||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|3.46|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH general association test controlling for trial center.||Week 12||3.46|1.31|0.0019
90825728|NCT01052077|181527287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.77||||0.0068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|2.67|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH general association test controlling for trial center.||Week 13||2.67|1.17|0.0068
90825729|NCT01052077|181527287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Remission Rate|1.71||||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|2.57||The CMH general association test controlling for trial center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: brexpiprazole - placebo.||Week 14||2.57|1.14|0.0089
90825730|NCT01052077|181527288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.23||||0.4605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.18|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for study center.||Week 9||2.18|0.70|0.4605
91064198|NCT00437021|182013097|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is 1. Non-inferiority of Group A is concluded if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval for the mean difference in the log2 transformed peak titers between groups is less than 1.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.895|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.22|3.69|||||Estimate and corresponding 95% confidence interval are calculated on the log2 scale.|Null hypothesis: The mean difference in log2 transformed titers between Group B and Group A \>= 1.||3.69|2.22|
91064199|NCT00437021|182013105|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is 1. Non-inferiority of Group A is concluded if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval for the mean difference in the log2 transformed peak titers between groups is less than 1.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|2.76|||||Estimate and corresponding 95% confidence interval are calculated on the log2 scale.|Null hypothesis: The mean difference in log2 transformed titers between Group B and Group A \>= 1.||2.76|1.65|
91064200|NCT00437021|182013106|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is 1. Non-inferiority of Group A is concluded if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval for the mean difference in the log2 transformed peak titers between groups is less than 1.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.57|3.59|||||Estimate and corresponding 95% confidence interval are calculated on the log2 scale.|Null hypothesis: The mean difference in log2 transformed titers between Group B and Group A \>= 1.||3.59|2.57|
91064201|NCT04162847|182013107|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.1|||Regression, Logistic|||Baseline||1.10|.88|.76
91064202|NCT04162847|182013107|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.93|||Regression, Logistic|||6 week follow-up||.93|.76|.001
91064203|NCT04162847|182013107|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.9|||Regression, Logistic|||6 month follow-up||.90|.74|.000
91064204|NCT04162847|182013107|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.95|||Regression, Logistic|||2 year||.95|.77|.002
91064205|NCT04162847|182013108|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.7||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.98|7.5|||Chi-squared|||A comparison of service uptake between the intervention and control groups over the 6-month follow-up period.||7.50|5.98|.000
91064206|NCT04162847|182013108|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.83||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.64|2.04|||Chi-squared|||A secondary analysis using the same criterion for the intervention group (access to the digital intervention during the 6-month follow-up) but expanding the control group definition to include individuals who reported having psychotherapy or starting a new medication at any point during the full 2-year follow-up period.||2.04|1.64|.000
91064207|NCT04162847|182013109|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||multilevel modeling methods|Multilevel modeling was used to examine differences in changes in each outcome measure between the two conditions.||PHQ-9 6 week||||.000
91064208|NCT04162847|182013109|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||multilevel modeling methods|Multilevel modeling was used to examine differences in changes in each outcome measure between the two conditions.||PHQ-9 6 months||||.000
91064209|NCT04162847|182013109|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||multilevel modeling methods|Multilevel modeling was used to examine differences in changes in each outcome measure between the two conditions.||PHQ-9 2 year||||.02
91064210|NCT04162847|182013109|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||multilevel modeling methods|Multilevel modeling was used to examine differences in changes in each outcome measure between the two conditions.||GADQ-IV 6 week||||.002
91064211|NCT04162847|182013109|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||multilevel modeling methods|Multilevel modeling was used to examine differences in changes in each outcome measure between the two conditions.||GADQ-IV 6 month||||.80
91064212|NCT04162847|182013109|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||multilevel modeling methods|Multilevel modeling was used to examine differences in changes in each outcome measure between the two conditions.||GADQ-IV 2 year||||.51
90825731|NCT01052077|181527288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.2||||0.3267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.72|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for study center.||Week 10||1.72|0.83|0.3267
90825732|NCT01052077|181527288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.37||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for study center.||Week 11||1.80|1.05|0.0230
91064213|NCT04162847|182013109|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||multilevel modeling methods|Multilevel modeling was used to examine differences in changes in each outcome measure between the two conditions.||SPDQ 6 week||||.004
91064214|NCT04162847|182013109|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||multilevel modeling methods|Multilevel modeling was used to examine differences in changes in each outcome measure between the two conditions.||SPDQ 6 month||||.02
91064215|NCT04162847|182013109|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||multilevel modeling methods|Multilevel modeling was used to examine differences in changes in each outcome measure between the two conditions.||SPDQ 2 year||||.09
91064216|NCT04162847|182013109|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||multilevel modeling methods|Multilevel modeling was used to examine differences in changes in each outcome measure between the two conditions.||PDSR 6 week||||.66
91064217|NCT04162847|182013109|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||multilevel modeling methods|Multilevel modeling was used to examine differences in changes in each outcome measure between the two conditions.||PDSR 6 month||||.85
91064218|NCT04162847|182013109|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||multilevel modeling methods|Multilevel modeling was used to examine differences in changes in each outcome measure between the two conditions.||PDSR 2 year||||.97
91064219|NCT04162847|182013109|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||multilevel modeling methods|Multilevel modeling was used to examine differences in changes in each outcome measure between the two conditions.||EDE-Q Global 6 week||||.000
91064220|NCT04162847|182013109|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||multilevel modeling methods|Multilevel modeling was used to examine differences in changes in each outcome measure between the two conditions.||EDE-Q Global 6 month||||.000
91064221|NCT04162847|182013109|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||multilevel modeling methods|Multilevel modeling was used to examine differences in changes in each outcome measure between the two conditions.||EDE-Q Global 2 year||||.54
91064222|NCT04162847|182013110|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||multilevel modeling methods|Multilevel modeling was used to examine differences in changes in each outcome measure between the two conditions.||Mental component summary 6 months||||.48
91064223|NCT04162847|182013110|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||multilevel modeling methods|Multilevel modeling was used to examine differences in changes in each outcome measure between the two conditions.||Mental component summary 2 years||||.04
91064224|NCT04162847|182013110|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||multilevel modeling methods|Multilevel modeling was used to examine differences in changes in each outcome measure between the two conditions.||Physical component summary 6 months||||.97
91064225|NCT04162847|182013110|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||multilevel modeling methods|Multilevel modeling was used to examine differences in changes in each outcome measure between the two conditions.||Physical component summary 2 years||||.80
91064226|NCT03985800|182013117|SUPERIORITY|We calculated statistical power for the target sample size of 675 (\~337 in each of TEAM and TECH arms). After adjusting for the multiple testing in Aim 1 (2 tests) and considering 25% attrition, a sample size of 505 (\~252 per treatment group) will provide over 99.9% power for the hypothesis test for Aim 1.|Type III Wald chi-squared|1.26||||0.53||||||The threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Chi-squared statistic for the group\*time interaction term is 1.26 with two degrees of freedom.||Null hypothesis: The trajectory of IBD complexity score does not differ by treatment group.||||0.53
91064227|NCT03985800|182013117|SUPERIORITY|Considering a range of effect sizes for B1, B2, and B3, we estimated the outcome Y as Y=B1\*X+B2\*M+B3\*X\*M+ε, where ε\~N(0,1). Using Monte Carlo methods, we averaged across scenarios to determine the typical effect of B3 that can be detected with our current and projected sample sizes after 25% attrition. With our projected sample sizes we expect 0.80 power to detect a significant interaction when the magnitude of B3 is at least 0.50.|Type III Wald chi-squared|1.14||||0.57||||||The threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Chi-squared statistic for the group\*time\*age interaction term is 1.14 with two degrees of freedom.||Aim 2b., moderation by age. Null hypothesis: Age does not moderate the trajectory of complexity score by treatment group.||||0.57
91064228|NCT03985800|182013117|SUPERIORITY|Considering a range of effect sizes for B1, B2, and B3, we estimated the outcome Y as Y=B1\*X+B2\*M+B3\*X\*M+ε, where ε\~N(0,1). Using Monte Carlo methods, we averaged across scenarios to determine the typical effect of B3 that can be detected with our current and projected sample sizes after 25% attrition. With our projected sample sizes we expect 0.80 power to detect a significant interaction when the magnitude of B3 is at least 0.50.|Type III Wald chi-squared|0.08||||0.96||||||The threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Chi-squared statistic for the group\*time\*diagnosis interaction term is 0.08 with two degrees of freedom.||Aim 2b., moderation by diagnosis. Null hypothesis: Diagnosis does not moderate the trajectory of complexity score by treatment group.||||0.96
91064229|NCT03985800|182013117|SUPERIORITY|Considering a range of effect sizes for B1, B2, and B3, we estimated the outcome Y as Y=B1\*X+B2\*M+B3\*X\*M+ε, where ε\~N(0,1). Using Monte Carlo methods, we averaged across scenarios to determine the typical effect of B3 that can be detected with our current and projected sample sizes after 25% attrition. With our projected sample sizes we expect 0.80 power to detect a significant interaction when the magnitude of B3 is at least 0.50.|Type III Wald chi-squared|6.41||||0.17||||||The threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Chi-squared statistic for the group\*time\*site interaction term is 6.41 with two degrees of freedom.||Aim 2b., moderation by site. Null hypothesis: Site does not moderate the trajectory of complexity score by treatment group.||||0.17
91064230|NCT03985800|182013117|SUPERIORITY|Considering a range of effect sizes for B1, B2, and B3, we estimated the outcome Y as Y=B1\*X+B2\*M+B3\*X\*M+ε, where ε\~N(0,1). Using Monte Carlo methods, we averaged across scenarios to determine the typical effect of B3 that can be detected with our current and projected sample sizes after 25% attrition. With our projected sample sizes we expect 0.80 power to detect a significant interaction when the magnitude of B3 is at least 0.50.|Type III Wald chi-squared|2.6||||0.27||||||The threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Chi-squared statistic for the group\*time\*site interaction term is 2.6 with two degrees of freedom.||Aim 2b., moderation by eHealth literacy. Null hypothesis: eHealth literacy does not moderate the trajectory of complexity score by treatment group.||||0.27
91064231|NCT03985800|182013118|SUPERIORITY|We calculated statistical power for the target sample size of 675 (\~337 in each of TEAM and TECH arms). After adjusting for the multiple testing in Aim 1 (2 tests) and considering 25% attrition, a sample size of 505 (\~252 per treatment group) will provide over 99.9% power for the hypothesis test for Aim 1.|Type III Wald chi-squared|0.21||||0.9||||||The threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Chi-squared statistic for the group\*time interaction term is 0.21 with two degrees of freedom.||Aim 1. The trajectory of PHQ-ADS does not differ by treatment group.||||0.90
91064232|NCT03985800|182013118|SUPERIORITY|Considering a range of effect sizes for B1, B2, and B3, we estimated the outcome Y as Y=B1\*X+B2\*M+B3\*X\*M+ε, where ε\~N(0,1). Using Monte Carlo methods, we averaged across scenarios to determine the typical effect of B3 that can be detected with our current and projected sample sizes after 25% attrition. With our projected sample sizes we expect 0.80 power to detect a significant interaction when the magnitude of B3 is at least 0.50.|Type III Wald chi-squared|1.21||||0.55||||||Threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Aim 2a, moderation by disease activity. Null hypothesis: Disease activity does not moderate the trajectory of behavioral health score by treatment group.||||0.55
91064233|NCT03985800|182013118|SUPERIORITY|Considering a range of effect sizes for B1, B2, and B3, we estimated the outcome Y as Y=B1\*X+B2\*M+B3\*X\*M+ε, where ε\~N(0,1). Using Monte Carlo methods, we averaged across scenarios to determine the typical effect of B3 that can be detected with our current and projected sample sizes after 25% attrition. With our projected sample sizes we expect 0.80 power to detect a significant interaction when the magnitude of B3 is at least 0.50.|Type III Wald chi-squared|1.37||||0.5||||||Threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Chi-squared statistic for the group\*time\*age interaction term is 1.37 with two degrees of freedom.||Aim 2b, moderation by age. Null hypothesis: Age does not moderate the trajectory of behavioral health score by treatment group.||||0.50
91064234|NCT03985800|182013118|SUPERIORITY|Considering a range of effect sizes for B1, B2, and B3, we estimated the outcome Y as Y=B1\*X+B2\*M+B3\*X\*M+ε, where ε\~N(0,1). Using Monte Carlo methods, we averaged across scenarios to determine the typical effect of B3 that can be detected with our current and projected sample sizes after 25% attrition. With our projected sample sizes we expect 0.80 power to detect a significant interaction when the magnitude of B3 is at least 0.50.|Type III Wald chi-squared|5.16||||0.08||||||Threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Chi-squared statistic for the group\*time\*diagnosis interaction term is 5.16 with two degrees of freedom.||Aim 2b, moderation by diagnosis. Null hypothesis: Diagnosis does not moderate the trajectory of behavioral health score by treatment group.||||0.08
91064235|NCT03985800|182013118|SUPERIORITY|Considering a range of effect sizes for B1, B2, and B3, we estimated the outcome Y as Y=B1\*X+B2\*M+B3\*X\*M+ε, where ε\~N(0,1). Using Monte Carlo methods, we averaged across scenarios to determine the typical effect of B3 that can be detected with our current and projected sample sizes after 25% attrition. With our projected sample sizes we expect 0.80 power to detect a significant interaction when the magnitude of B3 is at least 0.50.|Type III Wald chi-squared|0.11||||1||||||Threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Chi-squared statistic for the group\*time\*site interaction term is 0.11 with two degrees of freedom.||Aim 2b, moderation by site. Null hypothesis: Site does not moderate the trajectory of behavioral health score by treatment group.||||1.0
90825733|NCT01052077|181527288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.36||||0.0105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.71|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for study center.||Week 12||1.71|1.08|0.0105
90825734|NCT01052077|181527288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.26||||0.0417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.58|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for study center.||Week 13||1.58|1.01|0.0417
90825735|NCT01052077|181527288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.15||||0.2345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.44||CMH general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: brexpiprazole - placebo.||Week 14||1.44|0.91|0.2345
90825736|NCT02709330|181527317|OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test|||Matched historical controls will be identified from the PatientsLikeMe database.||||0.99
90825737|NCT02709330|181527318|OTHER|||||||0.0748|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0748
90825738|NCT02709330|181527319|OTHER||||||<|1e-05|||||||Lin's Concordance|||||||<0.00001
90825739|NCT02709330|181527323|OTHER||||||<|1e-05|||||||Lin's Concordance|||||||<0.00001
90825740|NCT03152591|181527324|OTHER||Ratio LIK066/Placebo|0.88||||0.353|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7|1.11|||t-test, 2 sided|Two-sided test at the 0.1 significance level|||Log transformed ratio of Day 15 to baseline in average fasting free testosterone was analyzed using an analysis of covariance model which included treatment as a categorical factor, baseline body weight and log transformed baseline average fasting free testosterone as a covariate.|1.11|0.70|0.353
90825741|NCT03152591|181527325|OTHER||Ratio LIK066/Placebo|1.25||||0.218|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.68|||t-test, 2 sided|Two-sided test at the 0.1 significance level|||Log transformed ratio of Day 15 to baseline was analyzed using an analysis of covariance model which will include treatment as a categorical factor and log transformed baseline as a covariate.|1.68|0.92|0.218
90825742|NCT03152591|181527326|OTHER||Ratio LIK066/Placebo|1.27||||0.249|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.78|||t-test, 2 sided|Two-sided test at the 0.1 significance level|||Log transformed ratio of Day 15 to baseline was analyzed using an analysis of covariance model which will include treatment as a categorical factor and log transformed baseline as a covariate.|1.78|0.90|0.249
90825743|NCT03152591|181527327|OTHER||Ratio LIK066/Placebo|1.15||||0.173|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.36|||t-test, 2 sided|Two-sided test at the 0.1 significance level|Values \< LLOQ and values \> ULOQ are imputed as LLOQ/2 and ULOQ respectively.||Log transformed ratio of Day 15 to baseline was analyzed using an analysis of covariance model which will include treatment as a categorical factor and log transformed baseline as a covariate.|1.36|0.97|0.173
90825744|NCT03152591|181527328|OTHER||Ratio LIK066/Placebo|0.82||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.68|0.99|||t-test, 2 sided|Two-sided test at the 0.1 significance level|Values \< LLOQ and values \> ULOQ are imputed as LLOQ/2 and ULOQ respectively||Log transformed ratio of Day 15 to baseline was analyzed using an analysis of covariance model which will include treatment as a categorical factor and log transformed baseline as a covariate.|0.99|0.68|0.089
90825745|NCT03152591|181527329|OTHER||Ration LIK066/Placebo|0.69||||0.109|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.48|1.01|||t-test, 2 sided|Two-sided test at the 0.1 significance level|Values \< LLOQ and values \> ULOQ are imputed as LLOQ/2 and ULOQ respectively.||Log transformed ratio of Day 15 to baseline was analyzed using an analysis of covariance model which will include treatment as a categorical factor and log transformed baseline as a covariate.|1.01|0.48|0.109
90825746|NCT03152591|181527330|OTHER||Ration LIK066/Placebo|0.76||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.65|0.89|||t-test, 2 sided|Two-sided test at the 0.1 significance level|Values \< LLOQ and values \> ULOQ are imputed as LLOQ/2 and ULOQ respectively.||Log transformed ratio of Day 15 to baseline was analyzed using an analysis of covariance model which will include treatment as a categorical factor and log transformed baseline as a covariate.|0.89|0.65|0.008
90825747|NCT03152591|181527331|OTHER||Ratio LIK066/Placebo|0.91||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.77|1.07|||t-test, 2 sided|Two-sided test at the 0.1 significance level|||Log transformed ratio of Day 15 to baseline was analyzed using an analysis of covariance model which will include treatment as a categorical factor and log transformed baseline as a covariate.|1.07|0.77|0.340
90825748|NCT03152591|181527332|OTHER||Ratio LIK066/Placebo|0.79||||0.204|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.58|1.08|||t-test, 2 sided|Two-sided test at the 0.1 significance level|Values \< LLOQ and values \> ULOQ are imputed as LLOQ/2 and ULOQ respectively.||Log transformed ratio of Day 15 to baseline was analyzed using an analysis of covariance model which will include treatment as a categorical factor and log transformed baseline as a covariate.|1.08|0.58|0.204
90825749|NCT06083987|181527400|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|0.01||||0.86|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|false discovery rate q-value calculated with Yekutieli method in Stata||||||0.86
90825750|NCT06083987|181527401|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|0.32||||0.31|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.31
90825751|NCT06083987|181527402|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|0.1||||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.34
90825752|NCT06083987|181527403|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|0.45||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.04
90825753|NCT06083987|181527404|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|0.41||||0.22|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.22
90825754|NCT03187119|181527458|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.41||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|||||The results listed here are for the main effect of time. Please see Analyses 2 and 3 for the main effect of group and the time x group interaction.|linear mixed model|||The reference group for this model is the Pictorial Asthma Action Plan Group.||||0.42
90825755|NCT03187119|181527458|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-14.31||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|||||The results listed here are for the main effect of group. Please see Analyses 1 and 3 for the main effect of time and the time x group interaction.|multiple linear regression.|||The reference group for this analysis is the Pictorial Asthma Action Plan group.||||0.03
91064236|NCT03985800|182013118|SUPERIORITY|Considering a range of effect sizes for B1, B2, and B3, we estimated the outcome Y as Y=B1\*X+B2\*M+B3\*X\*M+ε, where ε\~N(0,1). Using Monte Carlo methods, we averaged across scenarios to determine the typical effect of B3 that can be detected with our current and projected sample sizes after 25% attrition. With our projected sample sizes we expect 0.80 power to detect a significant interaction when the magnitude of B3 is at least 0.50.|Type III Wald chi-squared|3.23||||0.2||||||Threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|The Chi-squared statistic for the group\*time\*eHealth literacy interaction term is 3.23 with two degrees of freedom.||Aim 2b, moderation by eHealth literacy. Null hypothesis: eHealth literacy does not moderate the trajectory of behavioral health score by treatment group.||||0.20
91064237|NCT03985800|182013119|SUPERIORITY|Considering a range of effect sizes for B1, B2, and B3, we estimated the outcome Y as Y=B1\*X+B2\*M+B3\*X\*M+ε, where ε\~N(0,1). Using Monte Carlo methods, we averaged across scenarios to determine the typical effect of B3 that can be detected with our current and projected sample sizes after 25% attrition. With our projected sample sizes we expect 0.80 power to detect a significant interaction when the magnitude of B3 is at least 0.50.|Type III Wald chi-squared|3.09||||0.53||||||The threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Chi-squared statistic for the group\*time interaction term is 3.09 with two degrees of freedom.||Null hypothesis: The trajectory of functional impairment does not differ by treatment group.||||0.53
91064238|NCT03985800|182013120|SUPERIORITY|We calculated statistical power for the target sample size of 675 (\~337 in each of TEAM and TECH arms). After adjusting for the multiple testing in Aim 1 (2 tests) and considering 25% attrition, a sample size of 505 (\~252 per treatment group) will provide over 99.9% power for the hypothesis test for Aim 1.|Type III Wald chi-squared|6.01||||0.05||||||The threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Chi-squared statistic for the group\*time interaction term is 6.01 with two degrees of freedom.||Null hypothesis: The trajectory of IBD-IBS symptom severity does not differ by treatment group.||||0.05
91064239|NCT03985800|182013121|SUPERIORITY|We calculated statistical power for the target sample size of 675 (\~337 in each of TEAM and TECH arms). After adjusting for the multiple testing in Aim 1 (2 tests) and considering 25% attrition, a sample size of 505 (\~252 per treatment group) will provide over 99.9% power for the hypothesis test for Aim 1.|Type III Wald chi-squared|4.14||||0.13||||||The threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|For hospitalizations, the Chi-squared statistic for the group\*time interaction term is 4.14 with two degrees of freedom||Null hypothesis: The trajectory of hospitalizations does not differ by treatment group.||||0.13
91064240|NCT03985800|182013121|SUPERIORITY|We calculated statistical power for the target sample size of 675 (\~337 in each of TEAM and TECH arms). After adjusting for the multiple testing in Aim 1 (2 tests) and considering 25% attrition, a sample size of 505 (\~252 per treatment group) will provide over 99.9% power for the hypothesis test for Aim 1.|Type III Wald chi-squared|0.82||||0.67||||||The threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|For ED visits, the Chi-squared statistic for the group\*time interaction term is 0.82 with two degrees of freedom.||Null hypothesis: The trajectory of ED visits does not differ by treatment group.||||0.67
91064241|NCT03985800|182013122|SUPERIORITY|We calculated statistical power for the target sample size of 675 (\~337 in each of TEAM and TECH arms). After adjusting for the multiple testing in Aim 1 (2 tests) and considering 25% attrition, a sample size of 505 (\~252 per treatment group) will provide over 99.9% power for the hypothesis test for Aim 1.|Type III Wald chi-squared|1.98||||0.37||||||The threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Chi-squared statistic for the group\*time interaction term is 1.98 with two degrees of freedom.||Null hypothesis: The trajectory of self-efficacy does not differ by treatment group.||||0.37
91064242|NCT03985800|182013123|SUPERIORITY|We calculated statistical power for the target sample size of 675 (\~337 in each of TEAM and TECH arms). After adjusting for the multiple testing in Aim 1 (2 tests) and considering 25% attrition, a sample size of 505 (\~252 per treatment group) will provide over 99.9% power for the hypothesis test for Aim 1.|Type III Wald chi-squared|5.57||||0.06||||||The threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Chi-squared statistic for the group\*time interaction term is 5.57 with two degrees of freedom.||Null hypothesis: The trajectory of quality of life does not differ by treatment group.||||0.06
91064243|NCT05258773|182013127|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference Arm A - Arm B|-11.0||||0.1406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.9|3.9||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used to assess changes from baseline at 500Hz at the Day 49 visit comparing the treatment groups.The treatment group was included as a fixed factor, with baseline values as a covariate.|ANCOVA||The change in hearing threshold from baseline was expected to be smaller in the treated group (arm A) than in the control group (arm B).|||3.9|-25.9|0.1406
90825756|NCT03187119|181527458|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.33||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|||||The results listed here are for the time x group interaction. Please see Analyses 1 and 2 for the main effects of group and time.|multiple linear regression.|||The reference group for this analysis is the Pictorial Asthma Action Plan group.||||0.89
91064244|NCT05258773|182013127|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference Arm A - Arm B|-14.4||||0.0567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.24|0.45||An ANCOVA model was used to assess changes from baseline at the average across three frequencies (250-750 Hz) at the Day 49 visit comparing the treatment groups. The treatment group was included as a fixed factor, with baseline values as a covariate.|ANCOVA||The change in hearing threshold from baseline was expected to be smaller in the treated group (arm A) than in the control group (arm B).|||0.45|-29.24|0.0567
91064245|NCT05258773|182013127|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference Arm A - Arm B|-9.0||||0.2588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.0|7.1||An ANCOVA model was used to assess changes from baseline at 500Hz at EOS on Day 105 comparing the treatment groups.The treatment group was included as a fixed factor, with baseline values as a covariate.|ANCOVA||The change in hearing threshold from baseline was expected to be smaller in the treated group (arm A) than in the control group (arm B).|||7.1|-25.0|0.2588
91079207|NCT03240406|182044066|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.03||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|ANCOVA|MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|||0.03|-0.01|0.273
90825757|NCT03187119|181527459|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.59||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|||||The results listed here are for the main effect of time. Please see Analyses 2 and 3 for the main effect of group and the time x group interaction.|multiple linear regression.|||The reference group for this analysis is the Pictorial Asthma Action Plan group.||||0.31
91064246|NCT05258773|182013127|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference Arm A - Arm B|-13.84||||0.0979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.49|2.8||An ANCOVA model was used to assess changes from baseline at the average across three frequencies (250-750 Hz) at EOS on Day 105, comparing the treatment groups. The treatment group was included as a fixed factor, with baseline values as a covariate.|ANCOVA||The change in hearing threshold from baseline was expected to be smaller in the treated group (arm A) than in the control group (arm B).|||2.80|-30.49|0.0979
91064247|NCT05277922|182013129|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.9999|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8313|1.2025||||||||1.2025|0.8313|
91064248|NCT05277922|182013129|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|1.2454|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0355|1.4979||||||||1.4979|1.0355|
91064249|NCT05277922|182013129|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|1.2392|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0304|1.4904||||||||1.4904|1.0304|
91064250|NCT05277922|182013129|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|1.2394|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0305|1.4906||||||||1.4906|1.0305|
91064251|NCT05277922|182013129|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.995|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8273|1.1967||||||||1.1967|0.8273|
91064252|NCT05277922|182013129|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|1.5058|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.252|1.811||||||||1.8110|1.2520|
91064253|NCT05277922|182013129|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|1.506|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2522|1.8113||||||||1.8113|1.2522|
90825758|NCT03187119|181527459|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.9||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|||||The results listed here are for the main effect of group. Please see Analyses 1 and 3 for the main effect of time and the time x group interaction.|multiple linear regression.|||The reference for group for this analysis is the Pictorial Asthma Action Plan group.||||0.73
91064254|NCT05277922|182013129|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|1.2091|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0053|1.4541||||||||1.4541|1.0053|
91064255|NCT05277922|182013129|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|1.2151|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0103|1.4614||||||||1.4614|1.0103|
91064256|NCT05277922|182013129|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|1.2456|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0357|1.4981||||||||1.4981|1.0357|
91064257|NCT01730053|182013205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-34.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.75|-49.2|-19.3||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.0125.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Alirocumab group was compared to the corresponding active control group using an appropriate contrast statement.||-19.3|-49.2|<0.0001
91064258|NCT01730053|182013205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-36.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.75|-51.5|-20.7||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.0125.|Mixed Models Analysis|||As described in statistical analysis 1 of the endpoint.||-20.7|-51.5|<0.0001
91064259|NCT01730053|182013205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-20.3|||=|0.0453|TWO_SIDED|98.75|-45.8|5.1||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.0125.|Mixed Models Analysis|||As described in statistical analysis 1 of the endpoint.||5.1|-45.8|=0.0453
91064260|NCT01730053|182013205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-25.3|||=|0.0136|TWO_SIDED|98.75|-50.9|0.3||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.0125.|Mixed Models Analysis|||As described in statistical analysis 1 of the endpoint.||0.3|-50.9|=0.0136
91064261|NCT01730053|182013206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-35.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.75|-47.4|-23.0||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.0125.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 1.25 % level.||-23.0|-47.4|<0.0001
91064262|NCT01730053|182013206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-33.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.75|-45.9|-20.5||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.0125.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-20.5|-45.9|<0.0001
91064263|NCT01730053|182013206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-24.5|||=|0.0131|TWO_SIDED|98.75|-49.2|0.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.0125.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||0.2|-49.2|=0.0131
91064264|NCT01730053|182013207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-35.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.75|-47.4|-17.9||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.0125.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant for rosuvastatin 10 mg baseline stratification).||-17.9|-47.4|<0.0001
91064265|NCT01730053|182013207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-32.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.75|-47.0|-17.5||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.0125.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-17.5|-47|<0.0001
91064266|NCT01730053|182013208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-35.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.75|-48.2|-22.5||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.0125.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant for rosuvastatin 10 mg baseline stratification).||-22.5|-48.2|<0.0001
91064267|NCT01730053|182013208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-32.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.75|-45.6|-19.0||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.0125.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-19.0|-45.6|<0.0001
91064268|NCT01730053|182013209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-29.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.75|-40.1|-18.3||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.0125.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant for rosuvastatin 10 mg baseline stratification).||-18.3|-40.1|<0.0001
91064269|NCT01730053|182013209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-26.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.75|-37.9|-15.7||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.0125.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-15.7|-37.9|<0.0001
91064270|NCT01730053|182013210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-30.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.75|-40.1|-21.3||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.0125.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant for rosuvastatin 10 mg baseline stratification).||-21.3|-40.1|<0.0001
91064271|NCT01730053|182013210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-28.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.75|-38.0|-18.7||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.0125.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-18.7|-38.0|<0.0001
91064272|NCT01730053|182013211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-31.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.75|-43.9|-18.9||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.0125.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant for rosuvastatin 10 mg baseline stratification).||-18.9|-43.9|<0.0001
91064273|NCT01730053|182013211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-29.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.75|-42.1|-16.4||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.0125.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-16.4|-42.1|<0.0001
91064274|NCT01730053|182013212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-32.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.75|-43.2|-22.4||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.0125.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant for rosuvastatin 10 mg baseline stratification).||-22.4|-43.2|<0.0001
91064275|NCT01730053|182013212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-28.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.75|-39.1|-17.3||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.0125.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-17.3|-39.1|<0.0001
91064276|NCT01730053|182013213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-20.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.75|-29.4|-11.8||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.0125.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant for rosuvastatin 10 mg baseline stratification).||-11.8|-29.4|<0.0001
91064277|NCT01730053|182013213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-20.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.75|-29.3|-11.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.0125.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-11.2|-29.3|<0.0001
91064278|NCT01730053|182013214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-28.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.75|-39.7|-16.5||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.0125.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant for rosuvastatin 10 mg baseline stratification).||-16.5|-39.7|<0.0001
91064279|NCT01730053|182013214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-24.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.75|-35.7|-12.3||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.0125.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-12.3|-35.7|<0.0001
91064280|NCT01730053|182013215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-29.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.75|-42.1|-16.9||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.0125.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant for rosuvastatin 10 mg baseline stratification).||-16.9|-42.1|<0.0001
91064281|NCT01730053|182013215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-24.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.75|-37.7|-12.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.0125.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-12.2|-37.7|<0.0001
91064282|NCT01730053|182013216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-20.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.75|-29.4|-10.7||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.0125.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant for rosuvastatin 10 mg baseline stratification).||-10.7|-29.4|<0.0001
91064283|NCT01730053|182013216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-17.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.75|-26.7|-7.7||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.0125.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-7.7|-26.7|<0.0001
91064284|NCT01730053|182013217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.75|2.6|59.5||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.0125.|Regression, Logistic|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant for rosuvastatin 10 mg baseline stratification). Statistical analysis used a multiple imputation approach followed by a Logistic regression model.||59.5|2.6|<0.0001
90825759|NCT03187119|181527459|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.21||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|||||The results listed here are for the time x group interaction. Please see Analyses 1 and 2 for the main effects of group and time.|multiple linear regression.|||The reference for group for this analysis is the Pictorial Asthma Action Plan group.||||0.92
91064285|NCT01730053|182013217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.4|||=|0.0007|TWO_SIDED|98.75|1.8|40.5||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.0125.|Regression, Logistic|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||40.5|1.8|=0.0007
91064286|NCT01730053|182013218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|15.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.75|2.58|88.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.0125.|Regression, Logistic|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant for rosuvastatin 10 mg baseline stratification). Statistical analysis used a multiple imputation approach followed by a Logistic regression model.||88.2|2.58|<0.0001
91064287|NCT01730053|182013218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.9|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|98.75|1.7|56.7||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.0125.|Regression, Logistic|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||56.7|1.7|=0.001
91064288|NCT01730053|182013219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|18.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.75|3.6|96.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.0125.|Regression, Logistic|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant for rosuvastatin 10 mg baseline stratification). Statistical analysis used a multiple imputation approach followed by a Logistic regression model.||96.2|3.6|<0.0001
91064289|NCT01730053|182013219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.75|2.5|53.1||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.0125.|Regression, Logistic|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||53.1|2.5|<0.0001
91064290|NCT01730053|182013220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|20.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.75|2.4|67.7||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.0125.|Regression, Logistic|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant for rosuvastatin 10 mg baseline stratification). Statistical analysis used a multiple imputation approach followed by a Logistic regression model.||67.7|2.4|<0.0001
91064291|NCT01730053|182013220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.7|||=|0.0002|TWO_SIDED|98.75|2.4|67.7||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.0125.|Regression, Logistic|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||67.7|2.4|=0.0002
91064292|NCT01730053|182013221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-23.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.75|-38.6|-9.1||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.0125.|Regression, Robust|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant for rosuvastatin 10 mg baseline stratification). Statistical analysis used a multiple imputation approach followed by a robust regression model.||-9.1|-38.6|<0.0001
90825760|NCT03187119|181527460|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.52||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|||||The results listed here are for the main effect of time. Please see Analyses 2 and 3 for the main effect of group and the time x group interaction.|generalized linear mixed model|||The reference for group for this analysis is the Pictorial Asthma Action Plan group.||||0.06
90825761|NCT03187119|181527460|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.57||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|||||The results listed here are for the main effect of group. Please see Analyses 1 and 2 for the main effect of group and the time x group interaction.|generalized linear mixed model|||The reference for group for this analysis is the Pictorial Asthma Action Plan group.||||0.07
90825762|NCT03187119|181527460|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.37||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|||||The results listed here are for the time x group interaction. Please see Analyses 2 and 3 for the main effects of group and time.|generalized linear mixed model|||The reference for group for this analysis is the Pictorial Asthma Action Plan group.||||0.33
90825763|NCT03187119|181527461|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.01||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||The results listed here are for the main effect of time. Please see Analyses 2-3 for the main effects of time and prescription and Analyses 4-6 for interactions.|generalized linear mixed model||The analyses are modeling lower adherence.|The reference group for this analysis is the Pictorial Asthma Action Plan group.||||.002
90825764|NCT03187119|181527461|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.16||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|||||The results listed here are for the main effect of group. Please see Analyses 1 and 3 for the main effects of time and prescription and Analyses 4-6 for interactions.|generalized linear mixed model||The analyses are modeling lower adherence.|The reference group for this analysis is the Pictorial Asthma Action Plan group.||||0.07
90825765|NCT03187119|181527461|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.43||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|||||The results listed here are for the main effect of prescription. Please see Analyses 1-2 for the main effects of time and group and Analyses 4-6 for interactions.|generalized linear mixed model||The analyses are modeling lower adherence.|The reference group for this analysis is the Pictorial Asthma Action Plan group.||||.69
90825766|NCT03187119|181527461|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.02||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|||||The results listed here are for the time x group interaction. Please see Analyses 1-3 for the main effects of group, time and prescription and Analyses 5-7 for other interactions.|generalized linear mixed model||The analyses are modeling lower adherence.|The reference group for this analysis is the Pictorial Asthma Action Plan group.||||0.37
90825767|NCT03187119|181527461|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.14||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|||||The results listed here are for the prescription x group interaction. Please see Analyses 1-3 for the main effects of group, time and prescription and Analyses 4 and 6 for other interactions.|generalized linear mixed model||The analyses are modeling lower adherence.|The reference group for this analysis is the Pictorial Asthma Action Plan group.||||0.12
90825768|NCT03187119|181527461|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.01||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|||||The results listed here are for the time x PAAP group x prescription interaction. Please see Analyses 1-3 for the main effects of group, time and prescription and Analyses 4-5 for interactions.|generalized linear mixed model||The analyses are modeling lower adherence.|The reference groups for this analysis is the 2x per day group.||||0.006
90825769|NCT03187119|181527461|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.04||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|||||The results listed here are for the time x WAAP group x prescription interaction. Please see Analyses 1-3 for the main effects of group, time and prescription and Analyses 4-5 for interactions.|generalized linear mixed model||These analyses are modeling lower adherence.|The reference group for this analysis is 2x per day group.||||0.006
90825770|NCT03187119|181527462|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.08||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|||||The results listed here are for the main effect of time. Please see Analyses 2 and 3 for the main effect of group and the time x group interaction.|multiple linear regression.|||The reference for group for this analysis is the Pictorial Asthma Action Plan group.||||0.18
90825771|NCT03187119|181527462|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.09||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|||||The results listed here are for the main effect of group. Please see Analyses 1 and 3 for the main effect of time and the time x group interaction.|multiple linear regression.|||The reference for group for this analysis is the Pictorial Asthma Action Plan group.||||0.71
90825772|NCT03187119|181527462|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.007||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|||||The results listed here are for the time x group interaction. Please see Analyses 1 and 2 for the main effects of time and group.|multiple linear regression.|||The reference for group for this analysis is the Pictorial Asthma Action Plan group.||||0.96
90825773|NCT03187119|181527464|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.02||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|||||The results listed here are for the main effect of time. Please see Analyses 2 and 3 for the main effect of group and the time x group interaction.|multiple linear regression.|||The reference for group for this analysis is the Pictorial Asthma Action Plan group.||||0.74
90825774|NCT03187119|181527464|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.02||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|||||The results listed here are for the main effect of group. Please see Analyses 1 and 3 for the main effect of time and the time x group interaction|multiple linear regression.|||The reference for group for this analysis is the Pictorial Asthma Action Plan group.||||0.83
90825775|NCT03187119|181527464|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.21||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|||||The results listed here are for the time x group interaction. Please see Analyses 1 and 2 for the main effects of time and group.|multiple linear regression.|||The reference for group for this analysis is the Pictorial Asthma Action Plan group.||||0.03
90825776|NCT03187119|181527465|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.12||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|||||The results listed here are for the main effect of time. Please see Analyses 2 and 3 for the main effect of group and the time x group interaction.|multiple linear regression.|||The reference for group for this analysis is the Pictorial Asthma Action Plan group.||||0.08
90825777|NCT03187119|181527465|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.12||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|||||The results listed here are for the main effect of group. Please see Analyses 1 and 3 for the main effect of time and the time x group interaction.|multiple linear regression.|||The reference for group for this analysis is the Pictorial Asthma Action Plan group.||||0.25
90825778|NCT03187119|181527465|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.21||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|||||The results listed here are for the time x group interaction. Please see Analyses 1 and 2 for the main effects of time and group.|multiple linear regression.|||The reference for group for this analysis is the Pictorial Asthma Action Plan group.||||0.03
91064293|NCT01730053|182013221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-23.6|||=|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.75|-39.0|-8.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.0125.|Regression, Robust|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-8.2|-39.0|=0.0001
91064294|NCT01730053|182013222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|7.4|||=|0.0311|TWO_SIDED|98.75|-1.2|16.1||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.0125.|Regression, Robust|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant for rosuvastatin 10 mg baseline stratification). Statistical analysis used a multiple imputation approach followed by a robust regression model.||16.1|-1.2|=0.0311
91064295|NCT04231825|182013276|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.55
91064296|NCT04231825|182013277|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.51
91064297|NCT04231825|182013278|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.80
91064298|NCT04231825|182013279|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.02
91064299|NCT04231825|182013280|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.03
91064300|NCT01662635|182013281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Continuous variables were summarized as arithmetic means, medians and standard deviations; and categorical variables were reported as proportions with 95% confidence intervals. Inferential comparisons were performed using Student's t test. The x2 or Fisher's exact tests were used to assess significance among categorical variables.||||< 0.05
91064301|NCT01217112|182013282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044||0.766|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.09|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.06|-0.09|0.766
91064302|NCT01217112|182013282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.424|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.04|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.11|-0.04|0.424
91064303|NCT01217112|182013282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041||0.412|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|0.04|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.04|-0.10|0.412
91064304|NCT01217112|182013282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.668|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.05|0.09|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.09|-0.05|0.668
90825779|NCT00824473|181527466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4286|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.351|<|0.001||95.0|-2.12|-0.74|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA is being used due to a covariate being included in the model. The covariate is baseline TNSS score.||Overall change from baseline||-0.74|-2.12|<0.001
91064305|NCT01217112|182013283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.046||0.978|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.08|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.08|-0.08|0.978
91064306|NCT01217112|182013283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045||0.864|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.08|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.07|-0.08|0.864
91064307|NCT01217112|182013283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.537|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.12|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.05|-0.12|0.537
91064308|NCT01217112|182013283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045||0.26|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.02|0.13|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.13|-0.02|0.260
90825780|NCT00824473|181527467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6063|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1697|<|0.001||95.0|-0.94|-0.27|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA is being used due to a covariate being included in the model. The covariate is baseline TNSS score.||||-0.27|-0.94|<0.001
90825781|NCT00824473|181527468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3947|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3391|<|0.001||95.0|-2.06|-0.73|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA is being used due to a covariate being included in the model. The covariate is baseline TNSS score.||Overall change from baseline||-0.73|-2.06|<0.001
91064309|NCT01217112|182013284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.088|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.61|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||-0.01|-0.61|0.088
91064310|NCT01217112|182013284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.177||0.583|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|0.39|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.39|-0.20|0.583
91064311|NCT01217112|182013284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.169||0.388|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.14|0.43|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.43|-0.14|0.388
91064312|NCT01217112|182013284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.58|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.19|0.38|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.38|-0.19|0.580
91064313|NCT01217112|182013285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.198||0.829|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.29|0.37|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.37|-0.29|0.829
91064314|NCT01217112|182013285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.196||0.575|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.22|0.44|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.44|-0.22|0.575
91064315|NCT01217112|182013285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.203||0.356|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.15|0.53|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.53|-0.15|0.356
91064316|NCT01217112|182013285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.188||0.472|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.18|0.45|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.45|-0.18|0.472
91064317|NCT01217112|182013286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.181||0.115|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.59|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.01|-0.59|0.115
91064318|NCT01217112|182013286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.177||0.782|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.25|0.35|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.35|-0.25|0.782
91064319|NCT01217112|182013286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.173||0.902|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.27|0.31|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.31|-0.27|0.902
91064320|NCT01217112|182013286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.166||0.993|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.28|0.28|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.28|-0.28|0.993
91064321|NCT01217112|182013287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.143||0.956|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.23|0.25|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.25|-0.23|0.956
91064322|NCT01217112|182013287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.144||0.705|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.19|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.30|-0.19|0.705
91064323|NCT01217112|182013287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.148||0.466|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.14|0.36|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.36|-0.14|0.466
91064324|NCT01217112|182013287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136||0.876|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.21|0.25|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.25|-0.21|0.876
91064325|NCT01217112|182013288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034||0.408|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.03|0.09|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.09|-0.03|0.408
91064326|NCT01217112|182013288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032||0.714|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.04|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.07|-0.04|0.714
91064327|NCT01217112|182013288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032||0.267|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.09|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.02|-0.09|0.267
91064328|NCT01217112|182013288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032||0.484|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.03|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.08|-0.03|0.484
91064329|NCT01217112|182013289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.56|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.09|0.04|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.04|-0.09|0.560
91064330|NCT01217112|182013289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.956|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.06|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.06|-0.06|0.956
91064331|NCT01217112|182013289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.403|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.03|-0.10|0.403
91064332|NCT01217112|182013289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.617|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.04|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.08|-0.04|0.617
91064333|NCT01217112|182013290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.108||0.815|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.16|0.21|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.21|-0.16|0.815
91064334|NCT01217112|182013290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.105||0.418|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.09|0.26|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.26|-0.09|0.418
91064335|NCT01217112|182013290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.111||0.236|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.05|0.32|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.32|-0.05|0.236
91064336|NCT01217112|182013290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.103||0.556|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.11|0.23|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.23|-0.11|0.556
91064337|NCT01217112|182013291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.241||0.329|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.64|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.17|-0.64|0.329
91064338|NCT01217112|182013291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.236||0.232|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.11|0.68|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.68|-0.11|0.232
91064339|NCT01217112|182013291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.222||0.164|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.06|0.68|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.68|-0.06|0.164
91064340|NCT01217112|182013291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.232||0.302|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.15|0.63|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.63|-0.15|0.302
91064341|NCT01217112|182013292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.231||0.614|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|0.27|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.27|-0.50|0.614
90825782|NCT00824473|181527469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9284|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2741|<|0.001||95.0|-1.47|-0.39|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA is being used due to a covariate being included in the model. The covariate is baseline TNSS score.||reflective TOSS change in baseline||-0.39|-1.47|<0.001
91064342|NCT01217112|182013292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.227||0.669|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.28|0.48|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.48|-0.28|0.669
91064343|NCT01217112|182013292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.621|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.28|0.52|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.52|-0.28|0.621
91064344|NCT01217112|182013292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.222||0.867|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.33|0.41|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.41|-0.33|0.867
91064345|NCT01217112|182013293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.624||0.335|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.84|6.95|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||6.95|-1.84|0.335
91064346|NCT01217112|182013293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.545||0.358|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.9|6.62|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||6.62|-1.90|0.358
91064347|NCT01217112|182013293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.406||0.9|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.72|4.33|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||4.33|-3.72|0.900
91064348|NCT01217112|182013293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.486||0.019|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.86|10.19|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||10.19|1.86|0.019
90825783|NCT00824473|181527470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA is being used due to a covariate being included in the model. The covariate is baseline TNSS score.||change from baseline||||0.010
90825784|NCT03906071|181527472|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.05||The p-value is based on a unstratified log-rank test. (2-Sided)|Log Rank||Based on the unstratified cox proportional hazards model.|||1.05|0.70|0.144
90825785|NCT01359904|181527486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.027
90825786|NCT01359904|181527487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||post intervention hemoglobin A1c levels||||0.67
90825787|NCT01359904|181527488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.20
90825788|NCT01359904|181527489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.32
90825789|NCT00040443|181527490|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.05
90825790|NCT03573323|181527506|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90825791|NCT03573323|181527507|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90825792|NCT03573323|181527508|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90825793|NCT03573323|181527509|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90825794|NCT03573323|181527510|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90825795|NCT03573323|181527511|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90825796|NCT03573323|181527512|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90825797|NCT03573323|181527513|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90825798|NCT03573323|181527514|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.414|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.414
90825799|NCT00413218|181527517|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower bound of the 95% CI for the adjusted treatment difference was compared to the protocol prespecified noninferiority margin (NIM) value of -15%. If the lower bound were greater than -15%, isavuconazole would be declared as noninferior to caspofungin.|Adjusted Treatment Difference (%)|-10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.9|-1.8|||||The 95% CI for the adjusted treatment difference was calculated based on a normal approximation.|The adjusted treatment difference (ISA-CAS) was calculated by a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method with the strata of geographical region and baseline neutropenic status.||-1.8|-19.9|
90825800|NCT00413218|181527518|OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference (%)|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|6.8|||||The 95% CI for the adjusted treatment difference was calculated based on a normal approximation.|The adjusted treatment difference (ISA-CAS) was calculated by a stratified CMH method with the strata of geographical region and baseline neutropenic status.||6.8|-12.2|
90825801|NCT00413218|181527519|OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference %|-10.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.9|-1.9|||||The 95% CI for the adjusted treatment difference was calculated based on a normal approximation.|Statistical analysis of adjusted treatment difference (ISA-CAS) at EOT (Day 56). The adjusted treatment difference (ISA-CAS) was calculated by a stratified CMH method with the strata of geographical region and baseline neutropenic status.||-1.9|-19.9|
90825802|NCT00413218|181527519|OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference %|-5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|4.2|||||The 95% CI for the adjusted treatment difference was calculated based on a normal approximation.|Statistical analysis of adjusted treatment difference (ISA-CAS) at FU2 (6 weeks after end of treatment). The adjusted treatment difference (ISA-CAS) was calculated by a stratified CMH method with the strata of geographical region and baseline neutropenic status.||4.2|-15.00|
90825803|NCT00413218|181527520|OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference (%)|-8.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|-0.9|||||The 95% CI for the adjusted treatment difference was calculated based on a normal approximation.|Statistical analysis of adjusted treatment difference (ISA-CAS) at EOIV (Days 11-56).The adjusted treatment difference (ISA-CAS) was calculated by a stratified CMH method with the strata of geographical region and baseline neutropenic status.||-0.9|-15.4|
90825804|NCT00413218|181527520|OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference (%)|-8.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.8|-1.5|||||The 95% CI for the adjusted treatment difference was calculated based on a normal approximation.|Statistical analysis of adjusted treatment difference (ISA-CAS) at EOT (Day 56). The adjusted treatment difference (ISA-CAS) was calculated by a stratified CMH method with the strata of geographical region and baseline neutropenic status.||-1.5|-15.8|
90825805|NCT00413218|181527520|OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference (%)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|8.3|||||The 95% CI for the adjusted treatment difference was calculated based on a normal approximation.|Statistical analysis of adjusted treatment difference (ISA-CAS) at FU1 (2 weeks after end of treatment). The adjusted treatment difference (ISA-CAS) was calculated by a stratified CMH method with the strata of geographical region and baseline neutropenic status.||8.3|-9.1|
90825806|NCT00413218|181527520|OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference (%)|-5.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.3|3.6|||||The 95% CI for the adjusted treatment difference was calculated based on a normal approximation.|Statistical analysis of adjusted treatment difference (ISA-CAS) at FU2 (6 weeks after end of treatment).The adjusted treatment difference (ISA-CAS) was calculated by a stratified CMH method with the strata of geographical region and baseline neutropenic status.||3.6|-15.3|
90825807|NCT00413218|181527521|OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference (%)|-14.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.7|-7.0|||||The 95% CI for the adjusted treatment difference was calculated based on a normal approximation.|Statistical analysis of adjusted treatment difference (ISA-CAS) at EOIV (Days 11-56). The adjusted treatment difference (ISA-CAS) was calculated by a stratified CMH method with the strata of geographical region and baseline neutropenic status.||-7.0|-22.7|
90825808|NCT00413218|181527521|OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference (%)|-15.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.5|-8.4|||||The 95% CI for the adjusted treatment difference was calculated based on a normal approximation.|Statistical analysis of adjusted treatment difference (ISA-CAS) at EOT (Day 56). The adjusted treatment difference (ISA-CAS) was calculated by a stratified CMH method with the strata of geographical region and baseline neutropenic status.||-8.4|-23.5|
90825809|NCT00413218|181527521|OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference (%)|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|9.6|||||The 95% CI for the adjusted treatment difference was calculated based on a normal approximation.|Statistical analysis of adjusted treatment difference (ISA-CAS) at FU1 (2 weeks after end of treatment).The adjusted treatment difference (ISA-CAS) was calculated by a stratified CMH method with the strata of geographical region and baseline neutropenic status.||9.6|-8.1|
90825810|NCT00413218|181527521|OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference (%)|-5.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|4.3|||||The 95% CI for the adjusted treatment difference was calculated based on a normal approximation.|Statistical analysis of adjusted treatment difference (ISA-CAS) at FU2 (6 weeks after end of treatment).The adjusted treatment difference (ISA-CAS) was calculated by a stratified CMH method with the strata of geographical region and baseline neutropenic status.||4.3|-14.7|
90825811|NCT00413218|181527522|OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference (%)|-11.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.4|-2.5|||||The 95% CI for the adjusted treatment difference was calculated based on a normal approximation.|Statistical analysis of adjusted treatment difference (ISA-CAS) at Day 7. The adjusted treatment difference (ISA-CAS) was calculated by a stratified CMH method with the strata of geographical region and baseline neutropenic status.||-2.5|-20.4|
90825812|NCT00413218|181527522|OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference (%)|-8.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|-0.4|||||The 95% CI for the adjusted treatment difference was calculated based on a normal approximation.|Statistical analysis of adjusted treatment difference (ISA-CAS) at EOT (Day 56). The adjusted treatment difference (ISA-CAS) was calculated by a stratified CMH method with the strata of geographical region and baseline neutropenic status.||-0.4|-16.5|
90825813|NCT00413218|181527523|OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference (%)|-11.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.3|-1.9|||||The 95% CI for the adjusted treatment difference was calculated based on a normal approximation.|Statistical analysis of adjusted treatment difference (ISA-CAS) at Day 7. The adjusted treatment difference (ISA-CAS) was calculated by a stratified CMH method with the strata of geographical region and baseline neutropenic status.||-1.9|-20.3|
90825814|NCT00413218|181527523|OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference (%)|-8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|0.1|||||The 95% CI for the adjusted treatment difference was calculated based on a normal approximation.|Statistical analysis of adjusted treatment difference (ISA-CAS) at EOT (Day 56). The adjusted treatment difference (ISA-CAS) was calculated by a stratified CMH method with the strata of geographical region and baseline neutropenic status.||0.1|-16.3|
90825815|NCT00413218|181527524|OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference (%)|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|8.9||||||Statistical analysis of all-cause mortality on Day 14. Adjusted treatment difference (Isavuconazole-Caspofungin) is calculated by a stratified CMH method with the strata of geographical regions, and baseline neutropenic status.||8.9|-3.8|
90825816|NCT00413218|181527524|OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference (%)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|10.0||||||Statistical analysis of all-cause mortality on Day 56. Adjusted treatment difference (Isavuconazole-Caspofungin) is calculated by a stratified CMH method with the strata of geographical regions, and baseline neutropenic status.||10.0|-7.1|
90825817|NCT04502290|181527526|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test was used, where null hypothesis stated that the percent change in the number of blocks after intervention will be not statistically significant.||||.04
90825818|NCT04502290|181527527|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test was used, where null hypothesis stated that the percent change in the motor evoked potnetial after intervention will be not statistically significant.||||.02
90825819|NCT04502290|181527528|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test was used, where null hypothesis stated that the percent change in the force after intervention will be not statistically significant.||||.04
90825820|NCT01290614|181527544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.57
90825821|NCT01290614|181527545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
90825822|NCT01379183|181527547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
90825823|NCT01379183|181527548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.27
90825824|NCT01379183|181527549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.96
90825825|NCT01379183|181527550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.71
90825826|NCT01379183|181527551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.37
90825827|NCT01379183|181527552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.12
90825828|NCT02562716|181527553|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Log Rank|||For each arm, the observed 2-year overall survival (OS) was compared to the null hypothesis of 40%, assuming a 58% alternative hypothesis, 88% power, and a 1-sided significance of 0.05.||||.15
90825829|NCT02562716|181527553|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||Log Rank|||For each arm, the observed 2-year overall survival (OS) was compared to the null hypothesis of 40%, assuming a 58% alternative hypothesis, 88% power, and a 1-sided significance of 0.05.||||.14
90825830|NCT00216671|181527569|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of early initiation was inferred if the upper 95% confidence boundary for the difference of change in PANSS total score from baseline in favor of the routine approach is less than 6.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1||0.784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.24|6.99||An ANCOVA model with treatment as factor was used. The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was performed based on the least-squares means obtained from the ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|||Assuming a difference of 3 points in favor of early initiation of treatment with Risperdal Consta, a sample size of 87 subjects per treatment arm has a power of 80% to demonstrate non-inferiority at the 0.025-level (1-sided). It was expected that about 20% of randomized subjects had to be excluded from the per-protocol (PP) analysis. Therefore, 220 subjects were to be included.||6.99|-9.24|0.784
90825831|NCT00216671|181527572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8||||||The statistical test was interpreted at the 5% significance level.|Wilcoxon two sample test|||Between-group comparison of the change in CGI-S from baseline to endpoint was analyzed as is with no derived calculations. CGI-S scores were coded as follows: 0=normal, not at all ill, 1=borderline, etc. and 6=among the most extremely ill patients.The endpoint of the study was based on the Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF) principle, i.e., it was defined as the last available visit during the study with non-missing data for a parameter (excluding the baseline value).||||0.800
90825832|NCT00216671|181527572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The statistical test was interpreted at the 5% significance level.|Wilcoxon-signed-rank test|||Within-group comparison of the change in CGI-S from baseline to endpoint was analyzed as is with no derived calculations. CGI-S scores were coded as follows: 0=normal, not at all ill, 1=borderline, etc. and 6=among the most extremely ill patients.||||<0.001
90825833|NCT00216671|181527572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The statistical test was interpreted at the 5% significance level.|Wilcoxon-signed-rank test|||Within-group comparison of the change in CGI-S from baseline to endpoint was analyzed as is with no derived calculations. CGI-S scores were coded as follows: 0=normal, not at all ill, 1=borderline, etc. and 6=among the most extremely ill patients.||||<0.001
90825834|NCT00216671|181527573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.798||||||The statistical test was interpreted at the 5% significance level.|Wilcoxon two sample test|||Between-group comparison of the change in GAF from baseline to endpoint. The endpoint of the study was based on the Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF) principle, i.e., it was defined as the last available visit during the study with non-missing data for a parameter (excluding the baseline value).||||0.798
90825835|NCT00216671|181527573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The statistical test was interpreted at the 5% significance level.|Wilcoxon-signed-rank test|||Within-group comparison of the change in GAF from baseline to endpoint. The endpoint of the study was based on the Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF) principle, i.e., it was defined as the last available visit during the study with non-missing data for a parameter (excluding the baseline value).||||<0.001
90825836|NCT00216671|181527573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The statistical test was interpreted at the 5% significance level.|Wilcoxon-signed-rank test|||Within-group comparison of the change in GAF from baseline to endpoint. The endpoint of the study was based on the Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF) principle, i.e., it was defined as the last available visit during the study with non-missing data for a parameter (excluding the baseline value).||||<0.001
90825837|NCT00216671|181527574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.519||||||The statistical test was interpreted at the 5% significance level.|Wilcoxon two sample test|||Between-group comparison of the change in SF-12 PCS score from baseline to endpoint. The endpoint of the study was based on the Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF) principle, i.e., it was defined as the last available visit during the study with non-missing data for a parameter (excluding the baseline value).||||0.519
90825838|NCT00216671|181527574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The statistical test was interpreted at the 5% significance level.|Wilcoxon-signed-rank test|||Within-group comparison of the change in SF-12 PCS score from baseline to endpoint. The endpoint of the study was based on the Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF) principle, i.e., it was defined as the last available visit during the study with non-missing data for a parameter (excluding the baseline value).||||<0.001
90825839|NCT00216671|181527574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The statistical test was interpreted at the 5% significance level.|Wilcoxon-signed-rank test|||Within-group comparison of the change in SF-12 PCS score from baseline to endpoint. The endpoint of the study was based on the Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF) principle, i.e., it was defined as the last available visit during the study with non-missing data for a parameter (excluding the baseline value).||||<0.001
90825840|NCT00216671|181527574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.721||||||The statistical test was interpreted at the 5% significance level.|Wilcoxon two sample test|||Between-group comparison of the change in SF-12 MCS score from baseline to endpoint. The endpoint of the study was based on the Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF) principle, i.e., it was defined as the last available visit during the study with non-missing data for a parameter (excluding the baseline value).||||0.721
90825841|NCT00216671|181527574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The statistical test was interpreted at the 5% significance level.|Wilcoxon-signed-rank test|||Within-group comparison of the change in SF-12 MCS score from baseline to endpoint. The endpoint of the study was based on the Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF) principle, i.e., it was defined as the last available visit during the study with non-missing data for a parameter (excluding the baseline value).||||<0.001
90825842|NCT00216671|181527574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The statistical test was interpreted at the 5% significance level.|Wilcoxon-signed-rank test|||Within-group comparison of the change in SF-12 MCS score from baseline to endpoint. The endpoint of the study was based on the Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF) principle, i.e., it was defined as the last available visit during the study with non-missing data for a parameter (excluding the baseline value).||||<0.001
90825843|NCT02714569|181527576|NON_INFERIORITY|Analyses were based on a pre-defined non-inferiority margin|Least Square Means Percentage|204.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|161.9|259.0|||||Analysis was the estimate of the ratio fasted versus fed.|Geometric Mean Fed/Fasted Ratio of LY3202328 Cmax at 30 mg||259.0|161.9|
90825844|NCT02714569|181527578|NON_INFERIORITY|Analyses were based on a pre-defined non-inferiority margin|Least Squares Mean Percentage|193.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|144.7|258.2||||||Geometric Mean Fed/Fasted Ratio of LY3202328 AUC(0-inf) at 30 mg||258.2|144.7|
90825845|NCT02714569|181527590|OTHER|Ratio estimate without hypothesis testing|Geometric Least Square Means Ratio (%)|141.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|67.9|293.0||||||Part B Placebo||293.0|67.9|
90825846|NCT02714569|181527590|OTHER|Ratio estimate without hypothesis testing|Geometric Least Square Means Ratio (%)|70.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|31.9|157.1||||||Part B 5 mg LY||157.1|31.9|
90825847|NCT02714569|181527590|OTHER|Ratio estimate without hypothesis testing|Geometric Least Square Means Ratio (%)|109.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.8|119.5||||||Part B 20 mg LY||119.5|99.8|
90825848|NCT02714569|181527590|OTHER|Ratio estimate without hypothesis testing|Geometric Least Square Means Ratio (%)|107.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|68.1|170.4||||||Part B 100 mg LY||170.4|68.1|
90825849|NCT02714569|181527590|OTHER|Ratio estimate without hypothesis testing|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|213.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|200.3|227.1||||||Part B 300 mg LY||227.1|200.3|
90825850|NCT02714569|181527590|OTHER|Ratio estimate without hypothesis testing|Geometric Least Square Means Ratio (%)|115.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.2|146.2||||||Part B Overall||146.2|91.2|
90825851|NCT02714569|181527591|OTHER|Ratio estimate without hypothesis testing|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|155.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.6|274.2||||||Part B Placebo||274.2|87.6|
90825852|NCT02714569|181527591|OTHER|Ratio estimate without hypothesis testing|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|71.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|40.7|125.3||||||Part B 5 mg LY||125.3|40.7|
90825853|NCT02714569|181527591|OTHER|Ratio estimate without hypothesis testing|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratios (%)|122.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.7|165.1||||||Part B 20 mg LY||165.1|90.7|
90825854|NCT02714569|181527591|OTHER|Ratio estimate without hypothesis testing|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|136.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.8|207.7||||||Part B 100 mg LY||207.7|89.8|
90825855|NCT02714569|181527591|OTHER|Ratio estimate without hypothesis testing|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|132.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.5|194.4||||||Part B 300 mg LY||194.4|90.5|
90825856|NCT02714569|181527591|OTHER|Ratio estimate without hypothesis|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|112.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.2|135.1||||||Part B Overall||135.1|93.2|
91064349|NCT01217112|182013294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.245||0.325|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.65|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.17|-0.65|0.325
91064350|NCT01217112|182013294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.238||0.438|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.21|0.59|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.59|-0.21|0.438
91064351|NCT01217112|182013294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.226||0.701|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.29|0.47|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.47|-0.29|0.701
91064352|NCT01217112|182013294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.232||0.624|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|0.27|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.27|-0.50|0.624
91064353|NCT01217112|182013295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.058||0.233|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.17|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.03|-0.17|0.233
91064354|NCT01217112|182013295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056||0.727|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.07|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.11|-0.07|0.727
91064355|NCT01217112|182013295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053||0.593|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.06|0.12|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.12|-0.06|0.593
91064356|NCT01217112|182013295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056||0.075|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||-0.01|-0.20|0.075
91064357|NCT01217112|182013296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.084||0.236|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.04|0.24|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.24|-0.04|0.236
91064358|NCT01217112|182013296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.082||0.579|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.09|0.18|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.18|-0.09|0.579
91064359|NCT01217112|182013296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.077||0.837|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.15|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.11|-0.15|0.837
91064360|NCT01217112|182013296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.081||0.467|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.08|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.19|-0.08|0.467
90825857|NCT02714569|181527592|OTHER|Ratio estimate without hypothesis testing|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|97.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.4|117.8||||||Part B Placebo||117.8|80.4|
91064361|NCT01217112|182013297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.613||0.533|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.41|0.64|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.64|-1.41|0.533
91064362|NCT01217112|182013297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.585||0.804|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.84|1.13|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||1.13|-0.84|0.804
91064363|NCT01217112|182013297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.556||0.916|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.87|0.99|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.99|-0.87|0.916
91064364|NCT01217112|182013297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.583||0.04|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.2|-0.25|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||-0.25|-2.20|0.040
91064365|NCT01217112|182013298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.838||0.366|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-28.06|8.27|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||8.27|-28.06|0.366
90825858|NCT02714569|181527592|OTHER|Ratio estimate without hypothesis testing|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|57.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|31.3|106.0||||||||106.0|31.3|
91064366|NCT01217112|182013298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.692||0.844|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.81|20.03|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||20.03|-15.81|0.844
91064367|NCT01217112|182013298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.026||0.118|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-32.76|0.84|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.84|-32.76|0.118
90825859|NCT02714569|181527592|OTHER|Ratio estimate without hypothesis testing|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|96.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|66.8|138.7||||||Part B 20 mg LY||138.7|66.8|
90825860|NCT02714569|181527592|OTHER|Ratio estimate without hypothesis testing|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|80.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|45.8|142.7||||||Part B 100 mg LY||142.7|45.8|
90825861|NCT02714569|181527592|OTHER|Ratio estimate without hypothesis testing|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|108.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|40.2|291.2||||||Part B 300 mg LY||291.2|40.2|
90825862|NCT02714569|181527592|OTHER|Ratio estimate without hypothesis|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|87.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|67.4|114.7||||||Part B Overall||114.7|67.4|
90825863|NCT02714569|181527593|OTHER|Ratio estimate without hypothesis testing|Geometric Least Square Means Ratio (%)|96.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.2|102.1||||||Part B Placebo||102.1|90.2|
90825864|NCT02714569|181527593|OTHER|Ratio estimate without hypothesis testing|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|90.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|59.8|137.6||||||Part B 5 mg LY||137.6|59.8|
90825865|NCT02714569|181527593|OTHER|Ratio estimate without hypothesis testing|Geometric Least Square Means Ratio (%)|99.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.9|131.5||||||Part B 20 mg LY||131.5|75.9|
90825866|NCT02714569|181527593|OTHER|Ratio estimate without hypothesis testing|Geometric Least Square Means Ratio (%)|91.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|67.5|122.7||||||Part B 100 mg LY||122.7|67.5|
90825867|NCT02714569|181527593|OTHER|Ratio estimate without hypothesis testing|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|87.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|42.0|180.5||||||Part B 300 mg LY||180.5|42.0|
90825868|NCT02714569|181527593|OTHER|Ratio estimate without hypothesis|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|93.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.8|106.9||||||Part B Overall||106.9|81.8|
90825869|NCT04915729|181527594|NON_INFERIORITY|pre-specified non-inferiority margin for risk ratio = 0.937|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0278|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9678|1.0915|||Modified Possion Regression Model|treatment = main effect; baseline NHISS, age + time to drug administration since stroke symptoms onset = continuous covariates|tenecteplase versus alteplase|||1.0915|0.9678|
90825870|NCT04915729|181527595|OTHER|log-binomial regression model|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0671||||0.2412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9573|1.1895||p-value was for superiority testing|Regression, Linear|treatment = main effect; baseline NHISS, age + time to drug administration since stroke symptoms onset = covariates|tenecteplase versus alteplase|||1.1895|0.9573|0.2412
90825871|NCT04915729|181527596|OTHER|Modified Poisson regression model|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0078||||0.748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9614|1.0564||p-value was for superiority testing|Regression, Linear|treatment = main effect; baseline NHISS, age + time to drug administration since stroke symptoms onset = continuous covariates|tenecteplase versus alteplase|||1.0564|0.9614|0.7480
90825872|NCT04915729|181527597|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.3511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|baseline NIHSS, age, time to administration since stroke symptoms onset = linear covariates; treatment = fixed effects|Difference in LSmean tenecteplase vs alteplase|||0.50|-1.40|0.3511
91064368|NCT01217112|182013298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.256||0.518|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.86|10.51|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||10.51|-23.86|0.518
91064369|NCT01217112|182013299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.294||0.576|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.66|0.33|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.33|-0.66|0.576
90825873|NCT04915729|181527598|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0418||||0.4806|||||||Regression, Logistic|Assumption-free ordinal analysis|tenecteplase versus alteplase|||||0.4806
90825874|NCT04915729|181527599|OTHER|Poisson regression model|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0189||||0.5116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9635|1.0774|||Regression, Linear|treatment = main effect; baseline NHISS, age + time to drug administration since stroke symptoms onset = covariates|tenecteplase versus alteplase|||1.0774|0.9635|0.5116
90825875|NCT04915729|181527600|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.005||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|2.701|||Suissa-Shuster test||tenecteplase versus alteplase|||2.701|0.370|1.000
90825876|NCT04915729|181527601|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.795||||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.513|1.232|||Chi-squared||tenecteplase versus alteplase|||1.232|0.513|0.303
90825877|NCT04915729|181527602|OTHER|Modified Poisson regression model|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9215||||0.6345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6578|1.2908||p-value was for superiority testing|Regression, Linear|treatment = main effect; baseline NHISS, age + time to drug administration since stroke symptoms onset = continuous covariates|tenecteplase versus alteplase|||1.2908|0.6578|0.6345
90825878|NCT03710642|181527736|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.008096||||0.9904|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.9904
90825879|NCT03710642|181527737|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.54||||0.30328|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.30328
90825880|NCT03710642|181527738|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.31122||||0.21981|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.21981
90825881|NCT03710642|181527739|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|-0.36277||||0.6366|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.6366
90825882|NCT03710642|181527740|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.12842|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.39602||0.9267|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.9267
90825883|NCT03710642|181527741|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.0694||||0.2038|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.2038
90825884|NCT03710642|181527742|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.388||||0.54133|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.54133
90825885|NCT00226811|181527747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CBR rate (percentage)|7.7||||||95.0|2.9|16.0|||||Clinical benefit response rate: percent of patients with confirmed complete response, confirmed partial response or stable disease for at least 24 wks according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, relative to total treated patients|||16.0|2.9|
90825886|NCT00226811|181527752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||OR rate (percentage)|2.6||||||95.0|0.3|9.0|||||Percentage of patients with confirmed complete response or confirmed partial response according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST), relative to the total number of treated patients.|||9.0|0.3|
91064370|NCT01217112|182013299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.283||0.648|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|0.34|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.34|-0.60|0.648
91064371|NCT01217112|182013299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.269||0.447|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.66|0.24|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.24|-0.66|0.447
91064372|NCT01217112|182013299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.283||0.273|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.79|0.16|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.16|-0.79|0.273
91064373|NCT01217112|182013300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.097||0.615|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.4|1.29|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||1.29|-2.40|0.615
90825887|NCT01010971|181527777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.45||The p-value from primary outcome was adjusted at alpha=0.025.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in primary outcome when compare active to placebo group. The alternative hypothesis is that there is a difference in primary outcome when compare active to placebo group. It was estimated that 200 subjects per group will provide at least 85% power to detect a difference between treatment groups of 0.7 in the change from baseline in rTNSS with a two-sided alpha level of 0.025.||1.45|0.59|<0.0001
90825888|NCT01010971|181527777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.46||The p-value from primary outcome was adjusted at alpha=0.025.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in primary outcome when compare active to placebo group. The alternative hypothesis is that there is a difference in primary outcome when compare active to placebo group. It was estimated that 200 subjects per group will provide at least 85% power to detect a difference between treatment groups of 0.7 in the change from baseline in rTNSS with a two-sided alpha level of 0.025.||1.46|0.61|<0.0001
90825889|NCT01010971|181527778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.29|||ANCOVA|||Dmitrienko's tree-structured gatekeeping method was used for multiple comparisons||0.29|0.07|<0.0001
90825890|NCT01010971|181527778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.29|||ANCOVA|||Dmitrienko's tree-structured gatekeeping method was used for multiple comparisons||0.29|0.08|<0.0001
90825891|NCT01010971|181527779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34||||0.1444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.71||Dmitrienko's tree-structured gatekeeping method was used for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|||Dmitrienko's tree-structured gatekeeping method was used for multiple comparisons||0.71|-0.03|0.1444
90825892|NCT01010971|181527779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.52||||0.0124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.89||Dmitrienko's tree-structured gatekeeping method was used for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|||Dmitrienko's tree-structured gatekeeping method was used for multiple comparisons||0.89|0.15|0.0124
91064374|NCT01217112|182013300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.973||0.342|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|2.57|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||2.57|-0.70|0.342
91064375|NCT01217112|182013300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.934||0.314|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.52|0.62|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.62|-2.52|0.314
91064376|NCT01217112|182013300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.964||0.889|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.48|1.75|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||1.75|-1.48|0.889
91064377|NCT01217112|182013301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|50.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|168.459||0.764|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-232.02|333.8|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||333.80|-232.02|0.764
90825893|NCT01010971|181527780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.62||||0.0124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.94||Dmitrienko's tree-structured gatekeeping method was used for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|||||0.94|0.30|0.0124
91064378|NCT01217112|182013301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-70.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|156.72||0.654|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-333.96|192.44|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||192.44|-333.96|0.654
91064379|NCT01217112|182013301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-111.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|146.276||0.45|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-357.17|134.16|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||134.16|-357.17|0.450
90825894|NCT01010971|181527780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.95||Dmitrienko's tree-structured gatekeeping method was used for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|||||0.95|0.33|
90825895|NCT00773513|181527805|NON_INFERIORITY|The critical alpha level for the non-inferiority test was 0.025.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.15|||Regression, Cox||The pre-specified upper non-inferiority limit was 95% CI \<1.20.|||1.15|0.93|0.0039
90825896|NCT00773513|181527806|NON_INFERIORITY|The critical alpha level for the non-inferiority test was 0.025|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.0166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.19|||Regression, Cox|||||1.19|0.94|0.0166
90825897|NCT00773513|181527807|NON_INFERIORITY|The critical alpha level for the non-inferiority test was 0.025|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.0219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.19|||Regression, Cox|||||1.19|0.76|0.0219
90825898|NCT00773513|181527808|NON_INFERIORITY|The critical alpha level for the non-inferiority test was 0.025|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.0459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.25|||Regression, Cox|||||1.25|0.70|0.0459
90825899|NCT00773513|181527809|NON_INFERIORITY|The critical alpha level for the non-inferiority test was 0.025|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.12|||Regression, Cox|||||1.12|0.74|0.0048
90825900|NCT01128426|181527813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Abnormal involuntary movements: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.98
90825901|NCT01128426|181527813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute bronchiolitis due to RSV: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||<0.01
90825902|NCT01128426|181527813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute febrile mucocutaneous lymph node syndrome: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0 .99
91064380|NCT01217112|182013301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|97.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|149.124||0.517|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-153.02|347.86|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||347.86|-153.02|0.517
90825903|NCT01128426|181527813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute otitis media: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.05
90825904|NCT01128426|181527813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute pyelonephritis without RMN lesion: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0 .20
90825905|NCT01128426|181527813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Alkalosis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.79
90825906|NCT01128426|181527813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Apnea: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.16
90825907|NCT01128426|181527813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Apparent life threatening event infant: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.03
90825908|NCT01128426|181527813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Asthma, unspecified, unspecified status: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0 .03
90825909|NCT01128426|181527813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchiolitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.05
90825910|NCT01128426|181527813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.50
90825911|NCT01128426|181527813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchospasm: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.50
90825912|NCT01128426|181527813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Candidiasis of mouth: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.18
90825913|NCT01128426|181527813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Cellulitis and abscess of trunk: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.98
90825914|NCT01128426|181527813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Constipation: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.21
90825915|NCT01128426|181527813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Croup: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.03
90825916|NCT01128426|181527813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dehydration: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.01
90825917|NCT01128426|181527813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dermatitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.21
90825918|NCT01128426|181527813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dyspnea: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.38
90825919|NCT01128426|181527813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Failure to thrive: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.70
90825920|NCT01128426|181527813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Fever: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||<0.01
90825921|NCT01128426|181527813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Fussy infant: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.33
90825922|NCT01128426|181527813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Gastroenteritis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.03
90825923|NCT01128426|181527813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Hypopotassemia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.67
90825924|NCT01128426|181527813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Lipoma of other specified sites: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.50
90825925|NCT01128426|181527813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Methicillin susceptible Staphylococcus aureus: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.52
91064381|NCT01217112|182013302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|40.94||0.84|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-60.28|76.94|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||76.94|-60.28|0.840
91064382|NCT01217112|182013302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|39.521||0.834|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-57.92|74.55|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||74.55|-57.92|0.834
91064383|NCT01217112|182013302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|39.044||0.767|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-77.06|53.81|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||53.81|-77.06|0.767
91064384|NCT01217112|182013302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|42.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|39.68||0.289|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.99|109.01|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||109.01|-23.99|0.289
91064385|NCT01217112|182013303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.106||0.569|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.24|0.12|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.12|-0.24|0.569
91064386|NCT01217112|182013303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.101||0.984|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.17|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.17|-0.17|0.984
91064387|NCT01217112|182013303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.098||0.176|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|0.03|||ANCOVA|||v Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.03|-0.30|0.176
91064388|NCT01217112|182013303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099||0.895|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.15|0.18|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.18|-0.15|0.895
91064389|NCT01217112|182013304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.745||0.871|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.13|1.37|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||1.37|-1.13|0.871
91064390|NCT01217112|182013304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.721||0.826|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.05|1.37|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||1.37|-1.05|0.826
91064391|NCT01217112|182013304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.703||0.693|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.46|0.9|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.90|-1.46|0.693
91064392|NCT01217112|182013304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.722||0.536|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.76|1.66|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||1.66|-0.76|0.536
90825926|NCT01128426|181527813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Nausea and vomiting: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.50
91064393|NCT01217112|182013305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.633||0.878|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.8|13.13|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||13.13|-15.80|0.878
91064394|NCT01217112|182013305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.377||0.919|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.18|14.89|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||14.89|-13.18|0.919
91064395|NCT01217112|182013305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.989||0.557|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.67|18.11|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||18.11|-8.67|0.557
90825927|NCT01128426|181527813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Neonatal bradycardia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||<0.01
91064396|NCT01217112|182013305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.328||0.275|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.76|23.16|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||23.16|-4.76|0.275
90825928|NCT01128426|181527813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Neonatal candida infection: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.03
91064397|NCT01217112|182013306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.445||0.528|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.12|38.01|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||38.01|-17.12|0.528
91064398|NCT01217112|182013306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.825||0.99|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-26.32|26.72|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||26.72|-26.32|0.990
91064399|NCT01217112|182013306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.369||0.776|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.37|30.15|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||30.15|-21.37|0.776
91064400|NCT01217112|182013306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|44.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.834||0.007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|17.98|71.05|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||71.05|17.98|0.007
91064401|NCT01217112|182013307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.536||0.717|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|1.09|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||1.09|-0.70|0.717
91064402|NCT01217112|182013307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.531||0.218|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.23|1.55|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||1.55|-0.23|0.218
91064403|NCT01217112|182013307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.514||0.378|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|1.32|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||1.32|-0.40|0.378
91064404|NCT01217112|182013307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.532||0.361|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|1.38|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||1.38|-0.40|0.361
91064405|NCT01217112|182013308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.417|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.01|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.03|-0.01|0.417
91064406|NCT01217112|182013308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.34|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.01|0.04|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.04|-0.01|0.340
90825929|NCT01128426|181527813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Other diseases of nasal cavity and sinuses: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.26
90825930|NCT01128426|181527813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Other specified cardiac dysrhythmias: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.98
91064407|NCT01217112|182013308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.915|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.02|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.02|-0.02|0.915
91064408|NCT01217112|182013308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.465|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.01|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.03|-0.01|0.465
91064409|NCT01217112|182013309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.616||0.646|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.96|3.45|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||3.45|-1.96|0.646
91064410|NCT01217112|182013309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.598||0.219|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.69|4.66|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||4.66|-0.69|0.219
90825931|NCT01128426|181527813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Pilonidal cyst without mention of abscess: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||<0.01
90825932|NCT01128426|181527813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Pneumonia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.09
90825933|NCT01128426|181527813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Primary apnea of newborn: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||<0.01
90825934|NCT01128426|181527813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Rash: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.04
91064411|NCT01217112|182013309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.563||0.307|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|4.23|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||4.23|-1.00|0.307
91064412|NCT01217112|182013309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.612||0.348|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.17|4.22|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||4.22|-1.17|0.348
91064413|NCT01217112|182013310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.299||0.187|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.44|3.91|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||3.91|-0.44|0.187
91064414|NCT01217112|182013310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.28||0.578|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.43|2.86|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||2.86|-1.43|0.578
91064415|NCT01217112|182013310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.249||0.368|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.96|3.22|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||3.22|-0.96|0.368
91064416|NCT01217112|182013310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.304||0.696|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.67|2.69|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||2.69|-1.67|0.696
91064417|NCT01217112|182013311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32||0.327|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.9|3.51|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||3.51|-0.90|0.327
91064418|NCT01217112|182013311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.303||0.851|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.93|2.43|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||2.43|-1.93|0.851
91064419|NCT01217112|182013311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.281||0.672|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.6|2.69|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||2.69|-1.60|0.672
91064420|NCT01217112|182013311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.327||0.978|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.26|2.18|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||2.18|-2.26|0.978
91064421|NCT01217112|182013312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.512||0.857|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.95|0.76|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.76|-0.95|0.857
91064422|NCT01217112|182013312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.549||0.543|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.58|1.26|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||1.26|-0.58|0.543
91064423|NCT01217112|182013312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.495||0.859|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.74|0.92|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.92|-0.74|0.859
91064424|NCT01217112|182013312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.526||0.467|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.27|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.50|-1.27|0.467
91064425|NCT01217112|182013313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.406||0.124|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.32|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.05|-1.32|0.124
91064426|NCT01217112|182013313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.439||0.909|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.68|0.79|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.79|-0.68|0.909
91064427|NCT01217112|182013313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.392||0.245|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.12|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.20|-1.12|0.245
91064428|NCT01217112|182013313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.412||0.382|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.05|0.33|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.33|-1.05|0.382
91064429|NCT01217112|182013314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.837||0.376|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.15|0.66|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.66|-2.15|0.376
91064430|NCT01217112|182013314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.908||0.688|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.15|1.89|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||1.89|-1.15|0.688
91064431|NCT01217112|182013314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.803||0.637|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.73|0.96|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.96|-1.73|0.637
91064432|NCT01217112|182013314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.849||0.355|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.22|0.63|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.63|-2.22|0.355
91064433|NCT01217112|182013315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.391||0.482|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.39|0.95|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.95|-0.39|0.482
91064434|NCT01217112|182013315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.489||0.708|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.65|1.02|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||1.02|-0.65|0.708
91064435|NCT01217112|182013315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.434||0.166|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.12|1.37|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||1.37|-0.12|0.166
91064436|NCT01217112|182013315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.408||0.424|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.37|1.03|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||1.03|-0.37|0.424
91064437|NCT01217112|182013316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26||0.022|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|5.25|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||5.25|0.94|0.022
91064438|NCT01217112|182013316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.532||0.014|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.44|6.69|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||6.69|1.44|0.014
91064439|NCT01217112|182013316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.053|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.45|5.25|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||5.25|0.45|0.053
91064440|NCT01217112|182013316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.299||0.012|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.33|5.78|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||5.78|1.33|0.012
91064441|NCT01217112|182013317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.463||0.032|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|5.85|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||5.85|0.84|0.032
91064442|NCT01217112|182013317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.798||0.026|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.18|7.35|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||7.35|1.18|0.026
91064443|NCT01217112|182013317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.626||0.046|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.65|6.22|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||6.22|0.65|0.046
91064444|NCT01217112|182013317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.512||0.018|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.26|6.45|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||6.45|1.26|0.018
91064445|NCT01217112|182013318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.806||0.294|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.52|2.25|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||2.25|-0.52|0.294
91064446|NCT01217112|182013318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.988||0.092|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.05|3.43|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||3.43|0.05|0.092
91064447|NCT01217112|182013318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.893||0.173|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.28|2.79|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||2.79|-0.28|0.173
91064448|NCT01217112|182013318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.837||0.545|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.92|1.95|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||1.95|-0.92|0.545
91064449|NCT01217112|182013319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.214||0.038|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.59|4.75|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||4.75|0.59|0.038
91064450|NCT01217112|182013319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.486||0.004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.16|7.26|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||7.26|2.16|0.004
91064451|NCT01217112|182013319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.35||0.088|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.09|4.72|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||4.72|0.09|0.088
91064452|NCT01217112|182013319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.252||0.01|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.39|5.68|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||5.68|1.39|0.010
91064453|NCT01217112|182013320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.814||0.064|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.42|6.64|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||6.64|0.42|0.064
91064454|NCT01217112|182013320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.237||0.008|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.72|10.38|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||10.38|2.72|0.008
91064455|NCT01217112|182013320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.016||0.084|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.19|7.1|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||7.10|0.19|0.084
91064456|NCT01217112|182013320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.871||0.041|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|7.25|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||7.25|0.84|0.041
91064457|NCT01217112|182013321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044||0.129|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.14|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.01|-0.14|0.129
91064458|NCT01217112|182013321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.051||0.961|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.08|0.09|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.09|-0.08|0.961
90825935|NCT01128426|181527813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Respiratory syncytial virus: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.02
91064459|NCT01217112|182013321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.128|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.16|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.01|-0.16|0.128
91064460|NCT01217112|182013321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045||0.3|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.12|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.03|-0.12|0.300
91064461|NCT01217112|182013322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.38||0.625|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.37|11.67|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||11.67|-6.37|0.625
91064462|NCT01217112|182013322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.519||0.226|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.48|16.02|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||16.02|-2.48|0.226
90825936|NCT01128426|181527813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Retinopathy of prematurity stage 2: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.71
90825937|NCT01128426|181527813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Single seizure: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.83
90825938|NCT01128426|181527813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Stridor: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.74
91064463|NCT01217112|182013322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.103||0.904|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.94|9.18|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||9.18|-7.94|0.904
91064464|NCT01217112|182013322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.71||0.285|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.41|15.75|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||15.75|-3.41|0.285
91064465|NCT01217112|182013323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.568||0.138|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.81|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.10|-1.81|0.138
91064466|NCT01217112|182013323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.547||0.505|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.28|0.55|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.55|-1.28|0.505
91064467|NCT01217112|182013323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.743|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.73|1.08|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||1.08|-0.73|0.743
91064468|NCT01217112|182013323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.565||0.54|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|1.29|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||1.29|-0.60|0.540
91064469|NCT01217112|182013325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.664||0.701|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.14|3.43|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||3.43|-2.14|0.701
91064470|NCT01217112|182013325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.662||0.006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.99|7.55|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||7.55|1.99|0.006
91064471|NCT01217112|182013325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.589||0.542|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.68|3.64|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||3.64|-1.68|0.542
91064472|NCT01217112|182013325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.627||0.827|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.36|3.08|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||3.08|-2.36|0.827
91064473|NCT00127231|182013329|EQUIVALENCE||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.42|||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Drinking frequency was analyzed using a generalized binomial mixed-effects model with the logit link function and a random intercept. The use of a binomial distribution was indicated for this analysis because the outcome was assessed using a 90-day TLFB interview, which has a cap at 90 days.||0.75|0.23|<0.005
91064474|NCT03588910|182013348|SUPERIORITY|Wilcoxon rank-sum tests||||||0.87|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.87
90825939|NCT01128426|181527813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Umbilical hernia without obstruction/gangrene: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.05
91064475|NCT03588910|182013349|SUPERIORITY|Wilcoxon rank-sum tests||||||0.36|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.36
91064476|NCT03588910|182013350|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.91
91064477|NCT03588910|182013351|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.29
91064478|NCT03588910|182013352|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.36
91064479|NCT03096314|182013353|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Generalized linear model|||||||0.26
91064480|NCT03096314|182013354|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|8.6||||||||8.6|-0.1|
91064481|NCT03096314|182013355|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|8.0||||||||8.0|-0.5|
91064482|NCT03096314|182013356|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|6.0||||||||6.0|-5.4|
91064483|NCT03096314|182013357|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|0.0||||||||0.0|-2.7|
91064484|NCT03096314|182013358|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|0.4||||||||0.4|-4.8|
91064485|NCT03096314|182013359|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.5||||||||0.5|-2.1|
91064486|NCT03096314|182013360|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.1||||||||0.1|0|
91064487|NCT03096314|182013361|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|3.6||||||||3.6|-2.1|
91064488|NCT03096314|182013362|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|34.9||||||Mild ARDS||34.9|-22.0|
91064489|NCT03096314|182013362|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-25.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.3|5.1||||||Moderate ARDS||5.1|-56.3|
91064490|NCT03096314|182013362|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|19.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|41.1||||||Severe ARDS||41.1|-2.9|
91064491|NCT03096314|182013363|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|5.0||||||No AKI||5.0|-7.3|
91064492|NCT03096314|182013363|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|3.4||||||Mild AKI||3.4|-5.6|
91064493|NCT03096314|182013363|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|3.2||||||Moderate AKI||3.2|-4.4|
91064494|NCT03096314|182013363|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|7.3||||||Severe AKI||7.3|-1.7|
91064495|NCT03096314|182013364|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|2.9||||||||2.9|-1.9|
91064496|NCT03096314|182013365|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1||||||||0.1|-0.2|
91064497|NCT03096314|182013366|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|5.1||||||||5.1|-4.4|
91064498|NCT03096314|182013367|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.0||||||||0.0|-0.3|
91064499|NCT03096314|182013368|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|35.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.5|39.6||||||||39.6|31.5|
91064500|NCT03096314|182013369|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004
90825940|NCT01128426|181527813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Unspecified bacterial pneumonia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.23
90825941|NCT01128426|181527813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Unspecified septicemia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.79
90825942|NCT01128426|181527813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Urinary tract infection: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||<0.01
90825943|NCT01128426|181527813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Viral syndrome: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.04
91064501|NCT03096314|182013370|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.67
91064502|NCT03096314|182013371|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.51
91064503|NCT03096314|182013372|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.25
91064504|NCT03096314|182013373|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.69
91064505|NCT03096314|182013374|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.24
91064506|NCT01479465|182013395|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.45||||0.0395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|2.06|||Log Rank|||"The null hypothesis was that the hazard ratio (HR) equals to 1 between SIM treatment arm and placebo, while the alternative hypothesis was that HR was less than 1.~The HR (95% confidence interval \[CI\]) and p-value (for comparison between SIM treatment arm and placebo) were based on two-sided log-rank test, stratified based on the 2-level Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (0 or \> 0) at randomization."||2.06|1.01|0.0395
91064507|NCT01479465|182013395|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.32||||0.1042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.89|||Log Rank|||"The null hypothesis was that the HR equals to 1 between SIM treatment arm and placebo, while the alternative hypothesis was that HR was less than 1.~The HR (95% CI) and p-value (for comparison between SIM treatment arm and placebo) were based on two-sided log-rank test, stratified based on the 2-level ECOG performance status (0 or \> 0) at randomization."||1.89|0.92|0.1042
91064508|NCT02562066|182013431|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.63||||0.085|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Results show the difference in mean CFB at the end of Study Period 1.|A Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon test for equality of the change from baseline (CFB) in the two treatments in Period 1 will be presented.||||0.085
91064509|NCT02562066|182013431|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|2.09|||Mixed Models Analysis||Results show the LSMeans for the estimated difference between treatments in Period 1 along with a 95% confidence interval for this difference.|A mixed effects linear model will be fit to the data with SGI raw scores as the response and fixed effect terms for treatment, period, age group, mutation type and sequence\*period, and a random effect for patient. The LSMeans for the estimated difference between treatments in Period 1 along with a 95% confidence interval for this difference.||2.09|-0.97|
91064510|NCT02562066|182013432|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.17||||0.376|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Results show the difference in mean CFB at the end of Study Period 1.|A Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon test for equality of the change from baseline (CFB) in the two treatments in Period 1 will be presented.||||0.376
91064511|NCT02562066|182013432|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.31|4.58|||Mixed Models Analysis||Results show the LSMeans for the estimated difference between treatments in Period 1 along with a 95% confidence interval for this difference.|A mixed effects linear model will be fit to the data with Overall MFM-32 scores as the response and fixed effect terms for treatment, period, age group, mutation type and sequence\*period, and a random effect for patient. The LSMeans for the estimated difference between treatments in Period 1 along with a 95% confidence interval for this difference.||4.58|-2.31|
91064512|NCT02562066|182013433|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Results show the difference in mean CFB at the end of Study Period 1.|A Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon test for equality of the change from baseline (CFB) in the two treatments in Period 1 will be presented.||||0.800
91064513|NCT02562066|182013433|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.25|6.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||Results show the LSMeans for the estimated difference between treatments in Period 1 along with a 95% confidence interval for this difference.|A mixed effects linear model will be fit to the data with Overall MFM-20 scores as the response and fixed effect terms for treatment, period, age group, mutation type and sequence\*period, and a random effect for patient. The LSMeans for the estimated difference between treatments in Period 1 along with a 95% confidence interval for this difference.||6.50|-5.25|
91064514|NCT01836471|182013442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038||0.7269|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.08|-0.5|0.7269
91064515|NCT01836471|182013443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least sqares mean|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.08|0.09||||||||0.09|-0.08|
91064516|NCT01836471|182013443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.04|0.13||||||||0.13|-0.04|
91064517|NCT01836471|182013443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.13|0.05||||||||0.05|-0.13|
91064518|NCT01836471|182013444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9179|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.9179
91064519|NCT01836471|182013445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.098|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.17||||||||0.17|-0.22|
91064520|NCT01836471|182013445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least sqares mean|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.128|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.19||||||||0.19|-0.32|
91064521|NCT01836471|182013445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.134|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.37||||||||0.37|-0.16|
91064522|NCT01836471|182013445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.134|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.09||||||||0.09|-0.43|
91064523|NCT01836471|182013446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.793|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7930
91064524|NCT00191477|182013456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.946||||0.777||95.0|0.643|1.392||Only 87 recurrences and 7 deaths were documented at planned end of follow-up. The study was stopped early for futility reasons based on an interim analysis using pre-defined stopping boundaries for the hazard ratio (HR) of RFS.|Log Rank|||Sample-size calculation based on estimated 1-year recurrence-free survival (RFS) rates of 63% (gemcitabine) and 50% (placebo). 191 critical events were required to detect a difference in RFS (80% power, log-rank test, alpha=0.050). Sample size of 328 patients with clinical evidence of superficial bladder cancer needed to observe these 191 events within a 24-month follow-up period, assuming 246 of these patients would receive instillation and have histopathological diagnosis of pTa/pT1(G1-3/Gx).||1.392|0.643|0.777
91064525|NCT02224157|182013482|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority analysis based on CI instead of p-value, hence no p-value calculated for this analysis. Upper limit of the 1-sided 95% confidence limit \<1.2 indicates Symbicort 'as needed' is non-inferior to Pulmicort bid|Rate ratio|0.97|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||1.16|||Negative binomial model|Adjusted for randomised treatment, pre-study treatment and region. Logarithm of follow-up time is used as an offset variable.|A rate ratio less than 1 indicates a lower rate of exacerbations in the Symbicort 'as needed' treatment group.|||1.16||
91064526|NCT02224157|182013483|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.955||||0.664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.777|1.174|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression model with randomised treatment, pre-study treatment and region as covariates.|A hazard ratio less than 1 indicates that Symbicort 'as needed' prolongs the time to first severe exacerbation.|||1.174|0.777|0.664
91064527|NCT02224157|182013484|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-32.6||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.7|-11.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Rand treatment,pre-study treatment,region,visit,rand treatment by visit; fixed effects. Patient; random effect, baseline FEV1; covariate.|Mean difference greater than 0 favours Symbicort 'as needed'. Estimate corresponds to average treatment effect across all treatment visits.|||-11.4|-53.7|0.003
91064528|NCT02224157|182013486|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.07||No p-value was calculated for this efficacy variable|ANCOVA|Model with randomised treatment, pre-study treatment and region as factors, and no. of 'as needed' inhalations at baseline as continuous covariate|A mean difference less than zero indicates a larger mean reduction in number of 'as needed' inhalations in the Symbicort 'as needed' group.|||0.07|0.00|
91064529|NCT02224157|182013487|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-6.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.37|-5.34|||ANCOVA|adjusted for randomised treatment, pre-study treatment and region as factors and the percent 'as needed' free days during run-in as a cont covariate.|An estimate of difference \>0 means that there was a larger increase in the % of 'as needed' free days in the Symbicort 'as-needed' arm.|||-5.34|-8.37|< 0.001
91064530|NCT02224157|182013488|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-37.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.18|-35.77|||ANOVA|model adjusted for: randomised treatment, pre-study treatment and region.|An estimate of difference \>0 means that there was a higher % of controller use days in the Symbicort 'as-needed' group.|||-35.77|-39.18|<0.001
91064531|NCT02224157|182013489|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.109|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.068|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|rand treatment, pre-study treatment, region, visit, rand treat by visit as fixed, patient as random, and baseline ACQ-5 as covariate.|Mean difference less than 0 favours Symbicort 'as needed'.|||0.150|0.068|<0.001
91064532|NCT02224157|182013490|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.096|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.137|-0.054|||Mixed Models Analysis|rand treatment, pre-study treatment, region, visit, rand treat by visit as fixed, patient as random and baseline AQLQ as covariate.|Mean difference greater than 0 favours Symbicort 'as needed'.|||-0.054|-0.137|<0.001
91064533|NCT02224157|182013491|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.97||||0.754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.2|||Negative binomial model|Adjusted for randomised treatment, pre-study treatment and region. Logarithm of follow-up time is used as an offset variable.|A rate ratio less than 1 indicates a lower rate of exacerbations in the Symbicort 'as needed' treatment group.|||1.20|0.78|0.754
91064534|NCT05906628|182013492|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.48|21.49|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by stratification factors IGA-CHE score (3 or 4) and region (North America or outside of North America).||||21.49|4.48|<0.0001
91064535|NCT05906628|182013492|SUPERIORITY||Response rate difference|42.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.7|54.36||||||||54.36|30.70|
91064536|NCT05906628|182013493|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.14|8.38|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by stratification factors IGA-CHE score (3 or 4) and region (North America or outside of North America).||Week 4||8.38|2.14|<0.0001
91064537|NCT05906628|182013493|SUPERIORITY||Response rate difference|29.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.52|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.69|42.24||||||Week 4||42.24|16.69|
91064538|NCT05906628|182013493|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|7.51|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by stratification factors IGA-CHE score (3 or 4) and region (North America or outside of North America).||Week 16||7.51|2.02|<0.0001
91064539|NCT05906628|182013493|SUPERIORITY||Response rate difference|29.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.69|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.34|42.57||||||Week 16||42.57|16.34|
91064540|NCT05906628|182013494|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.06||||0.1789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.718|5.923|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by stratification factors IGA-CHE score (3 or 4) and region (North America or outside of North America).||Day 3||5.923|0.718|0.1789
91064541|NCT05906628|182013494|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.79||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.603|8.951|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by stratification factors IGA-CHE score (3 or 4) and region (North America or outside of North America).||Week 1 (Day 7)||8.951|1.603|0.0024
90825944|NCT01128426|181527813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Weakness: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.25
91064542|NCT05906628|182013495|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.91|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.44|22.13|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by stratification factors IGA-CHE score (3 or 4) and region (North America or outside of North America).||Week 16||22.13|4.44|<0.0001
91064543|NCT05906628|182013495|SUPERIORITY||Response rate difference|45.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.49|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.83|58.27||||||Week 16||58.27|32.83|
91064544|NCT05906628|182013497|SUPERIORITY||Cox regression model|1.719||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.211|2.44|||Log Rank|stratified by randomization stratification factors|Cox regression model stratified by stratification factors (Baseline IGA-CHE 3/4, Region : North America or outside of North America) was conducted to compare the difference in hazard rate between treatment and vehicle.|||2.440|1.211|0.0025
91064545|NCT05906628|182013500|SUPERIORITY||Cox regression model|1.279||||0.1319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.931|1.759|||Log Rank|stratified by randomization stratification factors|Cox regression model stratified by stratification factors (Baseline IGA-CHE 3/4, Region : North America or outside of North America) was conducted to compare the difference in hazard rate between treatment and vehicle.|||1.759|0.931|0.1319
91064546|NCT01108718|182013514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate of Preference|0.45|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.5|>|0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.47|||McNemar||Rate of preference refers specifically to Tempur-Pedic Mattress.|h0: Rate Preference Tempur-pedic mattress = Rate Preference control mattress h1: Rate Preference Tempur-pedic mattress = Rate Preference control mattress||.47|.43|>0.1
91064547|NCT02443740|182013524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio.|39.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|30.14|51.99|||||Values have been back-transformed from the log scale.|||51.99|30.14|
91064548|NCT02443740|182013525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|80.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|59.74|108.75|||||Values have been back-transformed from the log scale.|||108.75|59.74|
91064549|NCT02443740|182013526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|80.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|58.92|108.94|||||Values have been back-transformed from the log scale.|||108.94|58.92|
91064550|NCT02443740|182013531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|65.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|62.18|69.16|||||Values have been back-transformed from the log scale.|||69.16|62.18|
91064551|NCT02443740|182013532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|68.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|63.27|74.41|||||Values have been back-transformed from the log scale.|||74.41|63.27|
91064552|NCT02443740|182013533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio.|29.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|24.17|36.64|||||Values have been back-transformed from the log scale.|||36.64|24.17|
91064553|NCT02443740|182013535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|16.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|15.35|18.18|||||Values were back-transformed from the log scale.|||18.18|15.35|
91064554|NCT02443740|182013537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|15.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|13.29|17.42|||||Values were back-transformed from the log scale.|||17.42|13.29|
91064555|NCT02892331|182013540|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006||||||VO2 testing was not performed for one participant in the HIGH-INT group.|ANCOVA|||Comparison between the CON and the HIGH-INT group||||0.006
91064556|NCT02892331|182013540|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.045||||||VO2 testing was not performed for one participant in the HIGH-INT group.|ANCOVA|||Comparison between the CON and MOD-INT group||||0.045
91064557|NCT02892331|182013540|SUPERIORITY|VO2 testing was not performed for one participant in the HIGH-INT group.||||||0.449|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between MOD-INT and High-INT groups||||0.449
91064558|NCT02892331|182013541|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.276|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between the CON and High-INT groups||||0.276
91064559|NCT02892331|182013541|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.633|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between the CON and MOD-INT groups||||0.633
91064560|NCT02892331|182013541|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.555|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between the MOD-INT and HIGH-INT groups||||0.555
91064561|NCT02892331|182013542|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between the CON group and the HIGH-INT group||||0.370
91064562|NCT02892331|182013542|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.383|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between the CON and the MOD-INT group||||0.383
91064563|NCT02892331|182013542|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0972|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison for the MOD-INT and HIGH-INT groups||||0.0972
91064564|NCT02892331|182013543|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.932|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between the CON and the HIGH-INT groups||||0.932
91064565|NCT02892331|182013543|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.307|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between the CON and MOD-INT groups||||0.307
91064566|NCT02892331|182013543|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.376|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between the MOD-INT and the HIGH-INT groups||||0.376
91064567|NCT02892331|182013544|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.136|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between the CON and the HIGH-INT groups||||0.136
91064568|NCT02892331|182013544|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.262|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between the CON and the MOD-INT group||||0.262
91064569|NCT02892331|182013544|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.715|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between the MOD-INT group and the HIGH-INT groups||||0.715
91064570|NCT02892331|182013545|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.056|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between the CON and High-INT groups||||0.056
91064571|NCT02892331|182013545|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.349|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between the CON and MOD-INT groups||||0.349
91064572|NCT02892331|182013545|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.359|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between the MOD-INT and HIGH-INT groups||||0.359
91064573|NCT02892331|182013546|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.224|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between the CON and HIGH-INT groups||||0.224
91064574|NCT02892331|182013546|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.199|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between the CON and MOD-INT groups||||0.199
91064575|NCT02892331|182013546|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.952|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between the MOD-INT and the HIGH-INT groups||||0.952
91064576|NCT02892331|182013547|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.783|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between the CON and HIGH-INT groups||||0.783
91064577|NCT02892331|182013547|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.098|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between the CON and MOD-INT groups||||0.098
91064578|NCT02892331|182013547|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.071|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between the MOD and HIGH-INT groups||||0.071
91064579|NCT02892331|182013548|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between the CON and the HIGH-INT groups||||0.940
91064580|NCT02892331|182013548|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.994|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between the CON and MOD-INT groups||||0.994
91064581|NCT02892331|182013548|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between the MOD-INT and HIGH-INT groups||||0.940
91064582|NCT02892331|182013549|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.769|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison of the CON and HIGH-INT groups||||0.769
91064583|NCT02892331|182013549|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison of the CON and MOD-INT groups||||0.800
91064584|NCT02892331|182013549|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.769|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.769
91064585|NCT02892331|182013550|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between the CON and the MOD groups||||1.000
91064586|NCT02892331|182013550|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.993|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison of HIGH-INT and CON groups||||0.993
91064587|NCT02892331|182013550|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.994|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between the MOD-INT and the HIGH-INT groups||||0.994
91064588|NCT02892331|182013551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.821|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in insulin sensitivity (CON vs. HIGH-INT)||||0.821
91064589|NCT02892331|182013551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.985|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in insulin sensitivity (CON vs. MOD-INT)||||0.985
91064590|NCT02892331|182013551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.856|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in insulin sensitivity (MOD-INT vs. HIGH-INT)||||0.856
91064591|NCT02892331|182013552|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.093|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between the CON and HIGH-INT groups||||0.093
91064592|NCT02892331|182013552|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.033|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between the CON and the MOD-INT groups||||0.033
91064593|NCT02892331|182013552|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.602|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between the MOD-INT and HIGH-INT groups||||0.602
91064594|NCT02892331|182013553|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.424|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in PGC1A (CON vs. HIGH-INT)||||0.424
91064595|NCT02892331|182013553|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.308|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in PGC1A (CON vs. MOD-INT)||||0.308
91064596|NCT02892331|182013553|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.844|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in PGC1a (MOD-INT vs. HIGH-INT)||||0.844
91064597|NCT02892331|182013553|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.135|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in citrate synthase (CON vs. HIGH-INT)||||0.135
91064598|NCT02892331|182013553|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in Citrate synthase (CON vs. MOD-INT)||||0.800
91064599|NCT02892331|182013553|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.195|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in citrate synthase||||0.195
91064600|NCT02892331|182013553|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.459|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in complex I||||0.459
91064601|NCT02892331|182013553|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.213|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in complex 1 (CON vs. MOD-INT groups)||||0.213
91064602|NCT02892331|182013553|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.971|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in complex II (MOD-INT vs. HIGH-INT)||||0.971
91064603|NCT02892331|182013553|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.634|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in complex III (CON vs. HIGH-INT)||||0.634
91064604|NCT02892331|182013553|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.919|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in Complex III (CON vs. MOD-INT groups)||||0.919
91064605|NCT02892331|182013553|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.574|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in complex III||||0.574
91064606|NCT02892331|182013553|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.295|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in Complex IV (CON vs. HIGH-INT)||||0.295
91064607|NCT02892331|182013553|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.097|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in complex IV (CON vs. MOD-INT)||||0.097
91064608|NCT02892331|182013553|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.468|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in complex IV||||0.468
91064609|NCT02892331|182013553|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.589|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in complex V||||0.589
91064610|NCT02892331|182013553|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.196|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in complex V (CON vs. MOD-INT)||||0.196
91064611|NCT02892331|182013553|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.436|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in Complex V (MOD-INT vs. HIGH-INT)||||0.436
91064612|NCT02892331|182013554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.756|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison of general health subscale (CON vs. HIGH INT)||||0.756
91064613|NCT02892331|182013554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.115|||||||ANCOVA|||General Health Subscale (CON vs. MOD-INT)||||0.115
91064614|NCT02892331|182013554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.225|||||||ANCOVA|||General Health Subscale (MOD-INT vs. HIGH-INT)||||0.225
91064615|NCT02892331|182013554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.758|||||||ANCOVA|||Physical health Sub-scale (CON vs. HIGH-INT)||||0.758
91064616|NCT02892331|182013554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.759|||||||ANCOVA|||Physical health subscale (CON vs. MOD-INT)||||0.759
91064617|NCT02892331|182013554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.465|||||||ANCOVA|||Physical Health subscale (MOD-INT vs. HIGH-INT)||||0.465
91064618|NCT02892331|182013554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.549|||||||ANCOVA|||Role Physical subscale (CON vs. HIGH-INT)||||0.549
91064619|NCT02892331|182013554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.679|||||||ANCOVA|||Role Physical Subscale (CON vs. MOD-INT)||||0.679
91064620|NCT02892331|182013554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.334|||||||ANCOVA|||Role Physical Subscale (MOD-INT vs. HIGH-INT)||||0.334
91064621|NCT02892331|182013554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.273|||||||ANCOVA|||Bodily pain subscale (CON vs. HIGH-INT)||||0.273
91064622|NCT02892331|182013554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.642|||||||ANCOVA|||Bodily pain subscale (CON vs. MOD-INT)||||0.642
91064623|NCT02892331|182013554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||ANCOVA|||Bodily Pain Subscale (MOD-INT vs. HIGH-INT)||||0.520
91064624|NCT02892331|182013554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||ANCOVA|||Vitality subscale (CON vs. HIGH-INT)||||0.460
91064625|NCT02892331|182013554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.203|||||||ANCOVA|||Vitality sub-scale (CON vs. MOD-INT group)||||0.203
91064626|NCT02892331|182013554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.058|||||||ANCOVA|||Vitality subscale (MOD-INT vs. HIGH-INT)||||0.058
91064627|NCT02892331|182013554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.739|||||||ANCOVA|||Social Function subscale (CON vs. HIGH-INT)||||0.739
91064628|NCT02892331|182013554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.059|||||||ANCOVA|||Social Function subscale (CON vs. MOD-INT)||||0.059
91064629|NCT02892331|182013554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038|||||||ANCOVA|||Social Function sub-scale (HIGH-INT vs. MOD-INT)||||0.0380
91064630|NCT02892331|182013554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison of mental health subscale (CON vs. HIGH-INT)||||0.950
91064631|NCT02892331|182013554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.096|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in mental health subscale (CON Vs. MOD INT)||||0.096
91064632|NCT02892331|182013554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.127|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in mental health subscale (MOD-INT vs. HIGH-INT)||||0.127
91064633|NCT02892331|182013554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.373|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in role emotional subscale (CON vs HIGH-INT)||||0.373
91064634|NCT02892331|182013554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in role emotional sub-scale||||0.630
91064635|NCT02892331|182013554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.034|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in role emotional subscale (MOD vs. HIGH-INT)||||0.034
91064636|NCT02892331|182013554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in role emotional subscale (CON vs. MOD-INT)||||0.070
91064637|NCT02892331|182013554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.945|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in physical health sub-scale (MOD-INT vs. HIGH-INT)||||0.945
91064638|NCT02892331|182013555|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in the mental health sum scale (CON vs. HIGH-INT)||||0.650
91064639|NCT02892331|182013555|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.034|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in mental health (sum) subscale (MOD-INT vs. HIGH-INT)||||0.034
91064640|NCT02892331|182013555|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in physical health (sum)||||0.330
91064641|NCT02892331|182013555|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.297|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in physical health (sum) subscale||||0.297
91064642|NCT02892331|182013556|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.109|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in steps (CON vs. HIGH-INT)||||0.109
91064643|NCT02892331|182013556|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.099|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in steps (CON vs. MOD-INT)||||0.099
91064644|NCT02892331|182013556|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.947|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in steps (MOD-INT vs. HIGH-INT)||||0.947
90825945|NCT01128426|181527814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Abnormal involuntary movements: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.63
90825946|NCT01128426|181527814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute bronchiolitis due to RSV: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||<0.01
90825947|NCT01128426|181527814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute otitis media: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.04
90825948|NCT01128426|181527814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute pyelonephritis without RMN lesion: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.50
90825949|NCT01128426|181527814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Adverse drug reaction: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.99
90825950|NCT01128426|181527814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Alkalosis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.50
90825951|NCT01128426|181527814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Apnea: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.61
90825952|NCT01128426|181527814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Apparent life threatening event infant: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.42
90825953|NCT01128426|181527814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Asthma with acute exacerbation: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.50
90825954|NCT01128426|181527814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Asthma, unspecified, unspecified status: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.71
91064645|NCT04871776|182013558|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.14|||||How vs Usual Care|We used generalized estimating equations with a logit link function and binary-distributed errors, adjusting for clinic-day clustering and including clinic as an adjustment variable for all models. This analysis is otherwise unadjusted.||1.14|0.67|
90825955|NCT01128426|181527814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchiolitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.36
90825956|NCT01128426|181527814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.37
90825957|NCT01128426|181527814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchospasm: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.19
90825958|NCT01128426|181527814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Candidiasis of mouth: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||<0.01
90825959|NCT01128426|181527814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Constipation: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||<0.01
90825960|NCT01128426|181527814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Croup: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||<0.01
90825961|NCT01128426|181527814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dehydration: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.77
90825962|NCT01128426|181527814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dermatitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.07
90825963|NCT01128426|181527814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dyspnea: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.41
90825964|NCT01128426|181527814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Failure to thrive: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.63
90825965|NCT01128426|181527814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Fever: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||<0.01
90825966|NCT01128426|181527814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Fussy infant: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.04
90825967|NCT01128426|181527814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Gastroenteritis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.75
90825968|NCT01128426|181527814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Hematoma: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.99
90825969|NCT01128426|181527814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Methicillin susceptible Staphylococcus aureus: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.50
90825970|NCT01128426|181527814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Nausea and vomiting: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||<0.01
90825971|NCT01128426|181527814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Neonatal candida infection: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.01
90825972|NCT01128426|181527814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Other diseases of nasal cavity and sinuses: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||<0.01
90825973|NCT01128426|181527814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Other specified cardiac dysrhythmias: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.12
90825974|NCT01128426|181527814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Pneumonia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.83
90825975|NCT01128426|181527814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Primary apnea of newborn: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.12
90825976|NCT01128426|181527814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Rash: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.26
90825977|NCT01128426|181527814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Respiratory syncytial virus: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.83
90825978|NCT01128426|181527814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Single seizure: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.98
90825979|NCT01128426|181527814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Stomatitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.50
90825980|NCT01128426|181527814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Stridor: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.06
90825981|NCT01128426|181527814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Subconjunctival hemorrhage: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.63
90825982|NCT01128426|181527814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Umbilical hernia without obstruction/gangrene: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||<0.01
90825983|NCT01128426|181527814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Unspecified septicemia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.74
91064646|NCT04871776|182013558|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.28||||||We used generalized estimating equations with a logit link function and binary-distributed errors, adjusting for clinic-day clustering and including clinic as an adjustment variable for all models. This analysis is otherwise unadjusted.||1.28|0.81|
90825984|NCT01128426|181527814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Urinary tract infection: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.66
90825985|NCT01128426|181527814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Urticaria: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.13
90825986|NCT01128426|181527814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Vaccines adverse reaction: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.13
90825987|NCT01128426|181527814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Viral syndrome: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.53
90825988|NCT01128426|181527814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Weakness: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.62
90825989|NCT01128426|181527814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Wheezing: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.77
90825990|NCT01128426|181527815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Abnormal involuntary movements: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.77
90825991|NCT01128426|181527815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute bronchiolitis due to RSV: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||<0.01
90825992|NCT01128426|181527815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute febrile mucocutaneous lymph node syndrome: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.99
90825993|NCT01128426|181527815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute otitis media: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.63
90825994|NCT01128426|181527815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute pyelonephritis without RMN lesion: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.20
90825995|NCT01128426|181527815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Adverse drug reaction: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.99
90825996|NCT01128426|181527815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Alkalosis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.79
90825997|NCT01128426|181527815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Apnea: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.09
90825998|NCT01128426|181527815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Apparent life threatening event infant: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.03
90825999|NCT01128426|181527815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Asthma with acute exacerbation: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.50
90826000|NCT01128426|181527815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Asthma, unspecified, unspecified status: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.40
90826001|NCT01128426|181527815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchiolitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.07
90826002|NCT01128426|181527815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.67
91064647|NCT04871776|182013558|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.51||||||We used generalized estimating equations with a logit link function and binary-distributed errors, adjusting for clinic-day clustering and including clinic as an adjustment variable for all models. This analysis is otherwise unadjusted.||1.51|0.96|
91064648|NCT04871776|182013559|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.01||||||We used generalized estimating equations with a logit link function and binary-distributed errors, adjusting for clinic-day clustering and including clinic as an adjustment variable for all models. This analysis is otherwise unadjusted.||1.01|0.67|
91064649|NCT04871776|182013559|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.23||||||We used generalized estimating equations with a logit link function and binary-distributed errors, adjusting for clinic-day clustering and including clinic as an adjustment variable for all models. This analysis is otherwise unadjusted.||1.23|0.87|
91064650|NCT04871776|182013559|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.49||||||We used generalized estimating equations with a logit link function and binary-distributed errors, adjusting for clinic-day clustering and including clinic as an adjustment variable for all models. This analysis is otherwise unadjusted.||1.49|1.06|
91064651|NCT02502149|182013598|OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|1.24|||||The adjusted geometric mean ratio is calculated as 15K (PK2)/2K (PK1).|||1.24|0.93|
91064652|NCT02502149|182013599|OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|1.16|||||The adjusted geometric mean ratio is calculated as 15K (PK2)/2K (PK1).|||1.16|0.87|
91064653|NCT03207776|182013665|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.99|0.64|0.041
91064654|NCT03207776|182013666|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.42|0.69|0.952
91064655|NCT03207776|182013667|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.17|0.71|0.472
91064656|NCT03207776|182013668|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.77|0.74|0.544
90826003|NCT01128426|181527815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchospasm: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.36
90826004|NCT01128426|181527815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Candidiasis of mouth: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||<0.01
90826005|NCT01128426|181527815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Cellulitis and abscess of trunk: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.98
90826006|NCT01128426|181527815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Constipation: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||<0.01
90826007|NCT01128426|181527815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Croup: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||<0.01
90826008|NCT01128426|181527815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dehydration: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.03
90826009|NCT01128426|181527815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dermatitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.04
90826010|NCT01128426|181527815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dyspnea: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.33
91064657|NCT03871543|182013688|OTHER|Statistical Difference|Mean difference|0.159|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.287|||ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.402||||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward and Roger Method was used for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as Symptomatic minus Asymptomatic|Upper Lid|||-0.402|
91064658|NCT03871543|182013688|OTHER|Statistical Difference|Mean Difference|0.236|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.289|||ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.328||||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward and Roger Method was used for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as Symptomatic minus Asymptomatic|Lower Lid|||-0.328|
91064659|NCT03871543|182013689|OTHER|Statistical difference|Mean Ratio|0.918|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||1.227|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|The Kenward and Roger Method was used for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean ratio was calculated as Symptomatic divided by Asymptomatic|||1.227||
91064660|NCT03871543|182013690|OTHER|Statistical difference|Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.022|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward and Roger Method was used for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as Symptomatic minus Asymptomatic|||0.022||
91064661|NCT03871543|182013691|OTHER|Statistical difference|Mean Difference|1.185|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.483|||ONE_SIDED|95.0|-4.613||||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward and Roger Method was used for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as Symptomatic minus Asymptomatic||||-4.613|
91064662|NCT03871543|182013692|OTHER|Statistical difference|Mean Ratio|1.984|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|1.198||||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|The Kenward and Roger Method was used for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean Ratio was calculated as Symptomatic divided by Asymptomatic|Upper Lid|||1.198|
91064663|NCT03871543|182013692|OTHER|Statistical Difference|Mean Ratio|1.8|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|1.093||||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|The Kenward and Roger Method was used for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean Ratio was calculated as Symptomatic divided by Asymptomatic|Lower Lid|||1.093|
91064664|NCT03871543|182013693|OTHER|Statistical significance correlation: Statistically Significant correlations were concluded if the upper CL is below 0 or the lower CL is above 0|Correlation Coefficient|-0.1416||||0.3446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4148|0.1551|||Pearson correlation|Pearson correlation statistics using Fisher's z transformation||||0.1551|-0.4148|0.3446
91064665|NCT03871543|182013694|OTHER|Statistical significance correlation: Statistically Significant correlations were concluded if the upper CL is below 0 or the lower CL is above 0|Correlation Coefficient|0.0887||||0.5556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.207|0.3694|||Pearson correlation|Pearson correlation statistics using Fisher's z transformation||||0.3694|-0.2070|0.5556
91064666|NCT03871543|182013695|OTHER|Statistical significance correlation: Statistically Significant correlations were concluded if the upper CL is below 0 or the lower CL is above 0|Correlation Coefficient|-0.2052||||0.1676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4676|0.0905|||Pearson correlation|Pearson correlation statistics using Fisher's z transformation||||0.0905|-0.4676|0.1676
91064667|NCT03871543|182013696|OTHER|Statistical significance correlation: Statistically Significant correlations were concluded if the upper CL is below 0 or the lower CL is above 0|Correlation Coefficient|0.0903||||0.5483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2054|0.3709|||Pearson correlation|Pearson correlation statistics using Fisher's z transformation||||0.3709|-0.2054|0.5483
90826011|NCT01128426|181527815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Failure to thrive: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.71
90826012|NCT01128426|181527815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Fever: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||<0.01
90826013|NCT01128426|181527815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Fussy infant: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.02
90826014|NCT01128426|181527815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Gastroenteritis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.13
90826015|NCT01128426|181527815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Hematoma: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.99
90826016|NCT01128426|181527815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Hypopotassemia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.67
90826017|NCT01128426|181527815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Lipoma of other specified sites: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.50
90826018|NCT01128426|181527815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Methicillin susceptible Staphylococcus aureus: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.77
90826019|NCT01128426|181527815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Nausea and vomiting: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||<0.01
90826020|NCT01128426|181527815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Neonatal bradycardia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||<0.01
90826021|NCT01128426|181527815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Neonatal candida infection: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||<0.01
90826022|NCT01128426|181527815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Other diseases of nasal cavity and sinuses: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||<0.01
90826023|NCT01128426|181527815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Other specified cardiac dysrhythmias: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.61
90826024|NCT01128426|181527815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Pilonidal cyst without mention of abscess: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||<0.01
90826025|NCT01128426|181527815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Pneumonia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.33
90826026|NCT01128426|181527815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Primary apnea of newborn: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||<0.01
91064668|NCT03871543|182013697|OTHER|Statistical significance correlation: Statistically Significant correlations were concluded if the upper CL is below 0 or the lower CL is above 0|Correlation Coefficient|-0.2679||||0.0719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5205|0.0278|||Pearson correlation|Pearson correlation statistics using Fisher's z transformation||||0.0278|-0.5205|0.0719
90826027|NCT01128426|181527815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Rash: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.05
90826028|NCT01128426|181527815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Respiratory syncytial virus: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.38
90826029|NCT01128426|181527815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Retinopathy of prematurity stage 2: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.71
90826030|NCT01128426|181527815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Single seizure: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.97
90826031|NCT01128426|181527815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Stomatitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.50
90826032|NCT01128426|181527815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Stridor: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.26
90826033|NCT01128426|181527815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Subconjunctival hemorrhage: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.63
90826034|NCT01128426|181527815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Umbilical hernia without obstruction/gangrene: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||<0.01
90826035|NCT01128426|181527815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Unspecified bacterial pneumonia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.23
90826036|NCT01128426|181527815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Unspecified septicemia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.85
91064669|NCT03871543|182013698|OTHER|Statistical significance correlation: Statistically Significant correlations were concluded if the upper CL is below 0 or the lower CL is above 0|Correlation Coefficient|-0.3434||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5786|0.0554|||Pearson correlation|Pearson correlation statistics using Fisher's z transformation||||0.0554|-0.5786|0.0190
90826037|NCT01128426|181527815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Urinary tract infection: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.02
90826038|NCT01128426|181527815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Urticaria: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.13
90826039|NCT01128426|181527815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Vaccines adverse reaction: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.13
90826040|NCT01128426|181527815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Viral syndrome: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.09
90826041|NCT01128426|181527815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Weakness: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.99
90826042|NCT01128426|181527815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Wheezing: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.77
90826043|NCT01128426|181527816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Abnormal involuntary movements: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.14
90826044|NCT01128426|181527816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute bronchiolitis due to RSV: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||<0.01
90826045|NCT01128426|181527816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute febrile mucocutaneous lymph node syndrome: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.95
90826046|NCT01128426|181527816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.91|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute otitis media: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.91
90826047|NCT01128426|181527816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute pyelonephritis without RMN lesion: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.86
90826048|NCT01128426|181527816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Alkalosis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.02
90826049|NCT01128426|181527816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Apnea: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.13
90826050|NCT01128426|181527816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Apparent life threatening event infant: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.11
90826051|NCT01128426|181527816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Asthma, unspecified, unspecified status: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.04
90826052|NCT01128426|181527816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchiolitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.27
90826053|NCT01128426|181527816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.52
90826054|NCT01128426|181527816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Candidiasis of mouth: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.05
90826055|NCT01128426|181527816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Cellulitis and abscess of trunk: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.42
90826056|NCT01128426|181527816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Constipation: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.33
90826057|NCT01128426|181527816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Croup: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.88
90826058|NCT01128426|181527816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dehydration: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.79
90826059|NCT01128426|181527816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dermatitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.57
90826060|NCT01128426|181527816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dyspnea: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.24
90826061|NCT01128426|181527816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Failure to thrive: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.25
90826062|NCT01128426|181527816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Fever: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.14
90826063|NCT01128426|181527816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Fussy infant: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.42
90826064|NCT01128426|181527816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Gastroenteritis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.23
90826065|NCT01128426|181527816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Hypopotassemia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.27
90826066|NCT01128426|181527816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Lipoma of other specified sites: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.57
90826067|NCT01128426|181527816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Methicillin susceptible Staphylococcus aureus: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.15
90826068|NCT01128426|181527816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Nausea and vomiting: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.48
91064670|NCT03871543|182013699|OTHER|Statistical significance correlation: Statistically Significant correlations were concluded if the upper CL is below 0 or the lower CL is above 0|Correlation Coefficient|-0.2975||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.541|-0.0078|||Pearson correlation|Pearson correlation statistics using Fisher's z transformation||||-0.0078|-0.5410|0.0420
90826069|NCT01128426|181527816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Neonatal bradycardia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.08
90826070|NCT01128426|181527816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Other diseases of nasal cavity and sinuses: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.46
90826071|NCT01128426|181527816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Other specified cardiac dysrhythmias: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.14
90826072|NCT01128426|181527816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Pilonidal cyst without mention of abscess: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||<0.01
90826073|NCT01128426|181527816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Pneumonia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.88
90826074|NCT01128426|181527816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Primary apnea of newborn: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.04
90826075|NCT01128426|181527816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Rash: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.93
90826076|NCT01128426|181527816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Respiratory syncytial virus: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.95
90826077|NCT01128426|181527816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Retinopathy of prematurity stage 2: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.14
90826078|NCT01128426|181527816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Single seizure: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.38
90826079|NCT01128426|181527816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Stridor: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.90
90826080|NCT01128426|181527816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Umbilical hernia without obstruction/gangrene: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.11
90826081|NCT01128426|181527816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Unspecified bacterial pneumonia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.08
90826082|NCT01128426|181527816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Unspecified septicemia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.09
90826083|NCT01128426|181527816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Urinary tract infection: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.34
90826084|NCT01128426|181527816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Viral syndrome: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.92
90826085|NCT01128426|181527816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Weakness: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.27
90826086|NCT01128426|181527817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Abnormal involuntary movements: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.62
90826087|NCT01128426|181527817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute bronchiolitis due to RSV: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.49
90826088|NCT01128426|181527817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute otitis media: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.15
90826089|NCT01128426|181527817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Adverse drug reaction: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.52
90826090|NCT01128426|181527817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Alkalosis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.52
90826091|NCT01128426|181527817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Apnea: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.14
90826092|NCT01128426|181527817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Apparent life threatening event infant: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.11
90826093|NCT01128426|181527817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Asthma with acute exacerbation: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.52
90826094|NCT01128426|181527817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Asthma, unspecified, unspecified status: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.01
90826095|NCT01128426|181527817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchiolitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.05
90826096|NCT01128426|181527817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.95
91064671|NCT03871543|182013700|OTHER|Statistical significance correlation: Statistically Significant correlations were concluded if the upper CL is below 0 or the lower CL is above 0|Correlation Coefficient|0.127||||0.3973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1696|0.4024|||Pearson correlation|Pearson correlation statistics using Fisher's z transformation||||0.4024|-0.1696|0.3973
90826097|NCT01128426|181527817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchospasm: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.35
90826098|NCT01128426|181527817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Candidiasis of mouth: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.68
90826099|NCT01128426|181527817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Constipation: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.51
90826100|NCT01128426|181527817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Croup: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.14
90826101|NCT01128426|181527817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dehydration: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.35
90826102|NCT01128426|181527817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dermatitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.01
90826103|NCT01128426|181527817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dyspnea: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.30
90826104|NCT01128426|181527817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Failure to thrive: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.27
90826105|NCT01128426|181527817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Fever: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.02
90826106|NCT01128426|181527817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Fussy infant: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.45
90826107|NCT01128426|181527817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Gastroenteritis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.66
90826108|NCT01128426|181527817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Hand, foot and mouth disease: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.48
90826109|NCT01128426|181527817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Hematoma: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.95
90826110|NCT01128426|181527817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Nausea and vomiting: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.17
90826111|NCT01128426|181527817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Neonatal candida infection: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.68
90826112|NCT01128426|181527817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Other diseases of nasal cavity and sinuses: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.23
90826113|NCT01128426|181527817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Other specified cardiac dysrhythmias: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.48
90826114|NCT01128426|181527817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Pneumonia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.12
90826115|NCT01128426|181527817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Rash: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.92
90826116|NCT01128426|181527817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Respiratory syncytial virus: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.09
90826117|NCT01128426|181527817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Single seizure: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.87
90826118|NCT01128426|181527817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Stridor: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.48
90826119|NCT01128426|181527817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Subconjunctival hemorrhage: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.27
90826120|NCT01128426|181527817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Umbilical hernia without obstruction/gangrene: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.68
90826121|NCT01128426|181527817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Unspecified septicemia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.52
90826122|NCT01128426|181527817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Urinary tract infection: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||<0.01
90826123|NCT01128426|181527817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.91|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Urticaria: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.91
90826124|NCT01128426|181527817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Vaccines adverse reaction: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.14
90826125|NCT01128426|181527817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Viral syndrome: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.03
90826126|NCT01128426|181527817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Weakness: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.52
90826127|NCT01128426|181527817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Wheezing: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.25
90826128|NCT01128426|181527818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Abnormal involuntary movements: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.59
90826129|NCT01128426|181527818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute bronchiolitis due to RSV: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.02
90826130|NCT01128426|181527818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute febrile mucocutaneous lymph node syndrome: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.95
90826131|NCT01128426|181527818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute otitis media: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.28
90826132|NCT01128426|181527818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute pyelonephritis without RMN lesion: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.86
90826133|NCT01128426|181527818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Adverse drug reaction: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.52
90826134|NCT01128426|181527818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Alkalosis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.02
90826135|NCT01128426|181527818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Apnea: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.10
90826136|NCT01128426|181527818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Apparent life threatening event infant: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.06
90826137|NCT01128426|181527818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Asthma with acute exacerbation: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.52
90826138|NCT01128426|181527818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Asthma, unspecified, unspecified status: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.19
90826139|NCT01128426|181527818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchiolitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.18
91064672|NCT03871543|182013701|OTHER|Statistical significance correlation: Statistically Significant correlations were concluded if the upper CL is below 0 or the lower CL is above 0|Correlation Coefficient|-0.021||||0.8894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3094|0.271|||Pearson correlation|Pearson correlation statistics using Fisher's z transformation||||0.2710|-0.3094|0.8894
90826140|NCT01128426|181527818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.68
90826141|NCT01128426|181527818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchospasm: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.35
90826142|NCT01128426|181527818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Candidiasis of mouth: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.05
90826143|NCT01128426|181527818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Cellulitis and abscess of trunk: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.42
90826144|NCT01128426|181527818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Constipation: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.29
90826145|NCT01128426|181527818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Croup: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.11
90826146|NCT01128426|181527818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dehydration: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||1.00
90826147|NCT01128426|181527818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dermatitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||<0.01
90826148|NCT01128426|181527818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dyspnea: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.16
90826149|NCT01128426|181527818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Failure to thrive: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.19
90826150|NCT01128426|181527818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Fever: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||<0.01
90826151|NCT01128426|181527818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Fussy infant: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.40
90826152|NCT01128426|181527818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Gastroenteritis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.33
90826153|NCT01128426|181527818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Hand, foot and mouth disease: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.48
90826154|NCT01128426|181527818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Hematoma: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.95
90826155|NCT01128426|181527818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Hypopotassemia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.27
90826156|NCT01128426|181527818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Lipoma of other specified sites: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.57
90826157|NCT01128426|181527818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Methicillin susceptible Staphylococcus aureus: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.15
90826158|NCT01128426|181527818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Nausea and vomiting: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.14
90826159|NCT01128426|181527818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Neonatal bradycardia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.08
90826160|NCT01128426|181527818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Neonatal candida infection: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.68
90826161|NCT01128426|181527818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Other diseases of nasal cavity and sinuses: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.15
90826162|NCT01128426|181527818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Other specified cardiac dysrhythmias: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.14
90826163|NCT01128426|181527818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Pilonidal cyst without mention of abscess: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||<0.01
90826164|NCT01128426|181527818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Pneumonia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.06
90826165|NCT01128426|181527818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Primary apnea of newborn: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.04
90826166|NCT01128426|181527818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Rash: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.96
90826167|NCT01128426|181527818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Respiratory syncytial virus: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.13
90826168|NCT01128426|181527818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Retinopathy of prematurity stage 2: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.14
90826169|NCT01128426|181527818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Single seizure: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.67
90826170|NCT01128426|181527818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Stridor: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.65
90826171|NCT01128426|181527818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Subconjunctival hemorrhage: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.27
90826172|NCT01128426|181527818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Umbilical hernia without obstruction/gangrene: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.10
90826173|NCT01128426|181527818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Unspecified bacterial pneumonia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.08
90826174|NCT01128426|181527818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Unspecified septicemia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.08
90826175|NCT01128426|181527818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Urinary tract infection: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||<0.01
90826176|NCT01128426|181527818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.91|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Urticaria: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.91
90826177|NCT01128426|181527818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Vaccines adverse reaction: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.14
90826178|NCT01128426|181527818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Viral syndrome: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.05
90826179|NCT01128426|181527818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Weakness: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.27
90826180|NCT01128426|181527818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Wheezing: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.25
90826181|NCT01128426|181527819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Abnormal involuntary movements: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.15
90826182|NCT01128426|181527819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute bronchiolitis due to RSV: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.87
90826183|NCT01128426|181527819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute febrile mucocutaneous lymph node syndrome: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.96
90826184|NCT01128426|181527819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute otitis media: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.33
90826185|NCT01128426|181527819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute pyelonephritis without RMN lesion: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.27
90826186|NCT01128426|181527819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Alkalosis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.52
90826187|NCT01128426|181527819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Apnea: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.23
90826188|NCT01128426|181527819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Apparent life threatening event infant: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.19
90826189|NCT01128426|181527819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Asthma with acute exacerbation: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.96
90826190|NCT01128426|181527819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Asthma, unspecified, unspecified status: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.66
90826191|NCT01128426|181527819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchiolitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.28
90826192|NCT01128426|181527819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.96
90826193|NCT01128426|181527819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchospasm: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.52
90826194|NCT01128426|181527819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Cellulitis and abscess of trunk: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.96
90826195|NCT01128426|181527819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Constipation: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.41
90826196|NCT01128426|181527819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Croup: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.80
90826197|NCT01128426|181527819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dehydration: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.98
90826198|NCT01128426|181527819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dermatitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.51
90826199|NCT01128426|181527819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dyspnea: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.92
90826200|NCT01128426|181527819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Failure to thrive: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.76
90826201|NCT01128426|181527819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.91|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Fever: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.91
90826202|NCT01128426|181527819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Fussy infant: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.23
90826203|NCT01128426|181527819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Gastroenteritis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.95
90826204|NCT01128426|181527819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Hypopotassemia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.52
90826205|NCT01128426|181527819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Lipoma of other specified sites: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.27
90826206|NCT01128426|181527819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Methicillin susceptible Staphylococcus aureus: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.14
90826207|NCT01128426|181527819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Nausea and vomiting: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.48
90826208|NCT01128426|181527819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Other diseases of nasal cavity and sinuses: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.34
90826209|NCT01128426|181527819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Other specified cardiac dysrhythmias: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.41
90826210|NCT01128426|181527819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Pilonidal cyst without mention of abscess: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.07
90826211|NCT01128426|181527819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Pneumonia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.69
90826212|NCT01128426|181527819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Primary apnea of newborn: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.52
90826213|NCT01128426|181527819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Rash: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.48
90826214|NCT01128426|181527819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Retinopathy of prematurity stage 2: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.52
90826215|NCT01128426|181527819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Single seizure: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.40
90826216|NCT01128426|181527819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Stridor: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.25
90826217|NCT01128426|181527819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Umbilical hernia without obstruction/gangrene: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.25
90826218|NCT01128426|181527819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Unspecified bacterial pneumonia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.96
90826219|NCT01128426|181527819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Unspecified septicemia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.96
91064673|NCT03871543|182013702|OTHER|Statistical significance correlation: Statistically Significant correlations were concluded if the upper CL is below 0 or the lower CL is above 0|Correlation Coefficient|0.0762||||0.6129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.219|0.3585|||Pearson correlation|Pearson correlation statistics using Fisher's z transformation||||0.3585|-0.2190|0.6129
91064674|NCT03871543|182013703|OTHER|Statistical significance correlation: Statistically Significant correlations were concluded if the upper CL is below 0 or the lower CL is above 0|Correlation Coefficient|-0.1402||||0.3493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4137|0.1565|||Pearson correlation|Pearson correlation statistics using Fisher's z transformation||||0.1565|-0.4137|0.3493
91064675|NCT03871543|182013704|OTHER|Statistical significance correlation: Statistically Significant correlations were concluded if the upper CL is below 0 or the lower CL is above 0|Correlation Coefficient|-0.1192||||0.427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3958|0.1772|||Pearson correlation|Pearson correlation statistics using Fisher's z transformation||||0.1772|-0.3958|0.4270
91064676|NCT00663793|182013735|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A sample size of 8 per group was estimated to confer an 80% power to detect a 40% difference in testosterone AUC with a standard deviation of 20% at an alpha of 0.05|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon sign-rank|||||||<0.05
91064677|NCT00663793|182013736|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No power calculation was performed for this pilot study.|||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon sign-rank|||||||<0.05
91064678|NCT00663793|182013737|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No power calculation was performed for this pilot study||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Area-under-the-curve for serum estradiol||||0.05
91064679|NCT02069015|182013787|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|0.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.781|6.906|||paired t-test|||||6.906|-4.781|<0.001
91064680|NCT03051100|182013792|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-60.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.67|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.0|-53.0|||ANCOVA||Triplet therapy minus placebo|||-53.0|-68.0|<0.001
91064681|NCT03051100|182013793|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-58.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.02|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.9|-52.6|||ANCOVA||Triplet therapy minus placebo|non-HDL-C||-52.6|-64.9|<0.001
91064682|NCT03051100|182013793|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-46.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.77|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.6|-40.4|||ANCOVA||Triplet therapy minus placebo|TC||-40.4|-51.6|<0.001
91064683|NCT03051100|182013793|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-54.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.74|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.7|-48.6|||ANCOVA|||apoB||-48.6|-59.7|<0.001
91064684|NCT03051100|182013793|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-36.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.58|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.7|-22.8|||ANCOVA|||TG||-22.8|-49.7|<0.001
91064685|NCT03051100|182013793|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7|=|0.588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|4.0|||ANCOVA|||HDL-C||4.0|-7.0|=0.588
91064686|NCT03051100|182013794|SUPERIORITY||Median treatment difference|-41.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.86|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.0|-21.4|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||-21.4|-60.0|<0.001
91064687|NCT03051100|182013795|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91064688|NCT03051100|182013796|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91064689|NCT03335475|182013832|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.24
91064690|NCT03335475|182013833|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.70
91064691|NCT03335475|182013834|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.21
91064692|NCT04886596|182013835|OTHER|VE is demonstrated if the lower limit (LL) of the 2-sided confidence interval (CI) for vaccine efficacy (VE) is above 20%.|VE|82.58|||||TWO_SIDED|96.95|57.89|94.08|||Poisson regression method||VE in terms of occurrence of RSV-confirmed LRTD was evaluated using the conditional exact binomial method based on the Poisson model|To demonstrate the vaccine efficacy (VE) efficacy of a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD during the first season in adults ≥ 60 YOA||94.08|57.89|
91064693|NCT04886596|182013836|OTHER|VE is demonstrated if the LL of the 2-sided CI for VE is above 20%.|VE|62.91|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|46.74|74.79|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (%) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To demonstrate the vaccine efficacy of a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD in adults ≥ 60 YOA over three seasons.||74.79|46.74|
91064694|NCT04886596|182013836|OTHER|VE is demonstrated if the LL of the 2-sided CI for VE is above 20%.|VE|67.18|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|48.19|80.04|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (%) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To demonstrate the vaccine efficacy of a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD in adults ≥ 60 YOA over two seasons.||80.04|48.19|
91064695|NCT04886596|182013837|OTHER|VE is demonstrated if the LL of the 2-sided CI for VE is above 20%.|VE|67.76|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|51.82|79.11|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (%) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To demonstrate the vaccine efficacy of a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine followed by 1 annual revaccination before Season 2 in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD in adults ≥ 60 YOA over three seasons.||79.11|51.82|
91064696|NCT04886596|182013837|OTHER|VE is demonstrated if the LL of the 2-sided CI for VE is above 20%.|VE|67.12|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|48.09|80.0|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (%) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To demonstrate the vaccine efficacy of a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine followed by 1 annual revaccination before Season 2 in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD in adults ≥ 60 YOA over two seasons.||80.00|48.09|
91064697|NCT04886596|182013838|OTHER|VE is demonstrated if the LL of the 2-sided CI for VE is above 0%.|VE|69.83|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|42.18|85.72|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To demonstrate the vaccine efficacy of a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD for RSV subtype A in adults ≥ 60 YOA over 3 seasons.||85.72|42.18|
90826220|NCT01128426|181527819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Urinary tract infection: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.50
90826221|NCT01128426|181527819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Urticaria: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.48
90826222|NCT01128426|181527819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Viral syndrome: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.80
90826223|NCT01128426|181527819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Weakness: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.52
90826224|NCT01128426|181527820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Abnormal involuntary movements: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.27
90826225|NCT01128426|181527820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute bronchiolitis due to RSV: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.04
90826226|NCT01128426|181527820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute otitis media: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.01
90826227|NCT01128426|181527820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Adverse drug reaction: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.95
90826228|NCT01128426|181527820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Apnea: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.23
90826229|NCT01128426|181527820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Apparent life threatening event infant: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.34
90826230|NCT01128426|181527820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Asthma with acute exacerbation: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.48
90826231|NCT01128426|181527820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Asthma, unspecified, unspecified status: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.87
90826232|NCT01128426|181527820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchiolitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.35
90826233|NCT01128426|181527820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.84
90826234|NCT01128426|181527820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchospasm: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.64
90826235|NCT01128426|181527820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Candidiasis of mouth: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.95
90826236|NCT01128426|181527820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Constipation: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.41
90826237|NCT01128426|181527820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Croup: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.51
90826238|NCT01128426|181527820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dehydration: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.95
90826239|NCT01128426|181527820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dermatitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.13
90826240|NCT01128426|181527820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dyspnea: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.70
90826241|NCT01128426|181527820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Failure to thrive: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.52
90826242|NCT01128426|181527820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Fever: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.25
90826243|NCT01128426|181527820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Fussy infant: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.33
90826244|NCT01128426|181527820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Gastroenteritis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.90
90826245|NCT01128426|181527820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Hand, foot and mouth disease: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.67
90826246|NCT01128426|181527820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Hematoma: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.48
90826247|NCT01128426|181527820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Nausea and vomiting: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.07
90826248|NCT01128426|181527820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Neonatal candida infection: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.27
90826249|NCT01128426|181527820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Other diseases of nasal cavity and sinuses: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||<0.01
90826250|NCT01128426|181527820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Pneumonia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.27
90826251|NCT01128426|181527820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Rash: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.38
91064698|NCT04886596|182013838|OTHER|VE is demonstrated if the LL of the 2-sided CI for VE is above 0%.|VE|58.57|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|35.9|74.11|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To demonstrate the vaccine efficacy of a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD for RSV subtype B in adults ≥ 60 YOA over 3 seasons.||74.11|35.90|
91064699|NCT04886596|182013839|OTHER|VE is demonstrated if the LL of the 2-sided CI for VE is above 0%.|VE|55.12|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|16.52|77.52|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To demonstrate the vaccine efficacy of a single dose and 1 annual revaccination before Season 2 of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD for RSV subtype A in adults ≥ 60 YOA over 3 seasons.||77.52|16.52|
91064700|NCT04886596|182013839|OTHER|VE is demonstrated if the LL of the 2-sided CI for VE is above 0%.|VE|73.58|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|55.1|85.4|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To demonstrate the vaccine efficacy of a single dose and 1 annual revaccination before Season 2 of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD for RSV subtype B in adults ≥ 60 YOA over 3 seasons.||85.40|55.10|
91064701|NCT04886596|182013840|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|18.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.1|44.33|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season)|To evaluate vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of hMPV-confirmed LRTD in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine up to the end of Season 1.||44.33|-19.10|
91064702|NCT04886596|182013841|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|58.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.73|71.96|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD by \>=65YOA, following a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||71.96|40.73|
91064703|NCT04886596|182013841|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|65.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.32|80.16|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD by \>=70YOA, following a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||80.16|44.32|
91064704|NCT04886596|182013841|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|36.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-93.99|82.47|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD by \>=80YOA, following a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||82.47|-93.99|
91064705|NCT04886596|182013841|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|66.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.33|78.64|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD by \>=65YOA, following annual revaccination of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||78.64|49.33|
91064706|NCT04886596|182013841|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|64.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.49|79.55|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD by \>=70YOA, following annual revaccination of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine at end of season 3.||79.55|40.49|
91064707|NCT04886596|182013841|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|32.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-108.42|81.73|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD by \>=80YOA, following annual revaccination of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine at end of season 3.||81.73|-108.42|
90826252|NCT01128426|181527820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Respiratory syncytial virus: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.34
90826253|NCT01128426|181527820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Single seizure: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.54
90826254|NCT01128426|181527820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Stomatitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.48
90826255|NCT01128426|181527820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Stridor: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.52
90826256|NCT01128426|181527820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Subconjunctival hemorrhage: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.27
90826257|NCT01128426|181527820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Umbilical hernia without obstruction/gangrene: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.52
90826258|NCT01128426|181527820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Unspecified septicemia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.48
90826259|NCT01128426|181527820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Urinary tract infection: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.57
90826260|NCT01128426|181527820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Urticaria: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.70
90826261|NCT01128426|181527820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Vaccines adverse reaction: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.52
90826262|NCT01128426|181527820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Viral syndrome: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.03
90826263|NCT01128426|181527820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Weakness: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.52
90826264|NCT01128426|181527820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Wheezing: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.48
90826265|NCT01128426|181527821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Abnormal involuntary movements: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.05
90826266|NCT01128426|181527821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute bronchiolitis due to RSV: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.22
90826267|NCT01128426|181527821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute febrile mucocutaneous lymph node syndrome: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.96
90826268|NCT01128426|181527821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute otitis media: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||<0.01
90826269|NCT01128426|181527821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute pyelonephritis without RMN lesion: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.27
90826270|NCT01128426|181527821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Adverse drug reaction: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.95
91064708|NCT04886596|182013842|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|80.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.9|92.73|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, and region).|To evaluate the efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD over season 1 in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||92.73|55.90|
90826271|NCT01128426|181527821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Alkalosis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.52
90826272|NCT01128426|181527821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Apnea: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.05
90826273|NCT01128426|181527821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Apparent life threatening event infant: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.15
90826274|NCT01128426|181527821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Asthma with acute exacerbation: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.58
90826275|NCT01128426|181527821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Asthma, unspecified, unspecified status: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.57
90826276|NCT01128426|181527821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchiolitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.39
90826277|NCT01128426|181527821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.87
90826278|NCT01128426|181527821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchospasm: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.51
90826279|NCT01128426|181527821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Candidiasis of mouth: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.95
90826280|NCT01128426|181527821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Cellulitis and abscess of trunk: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.96
90826281|NCT01128426|181527821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Constipation: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.71
90826282|NCT01128426|181527821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Croup: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.51
91064709|NCT04886596|182013842|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|61.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.44|77.7|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, and region).|To evaluate the efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD over season 2 in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||77.70|36.44|
91064710|NCT04886596|182013842|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|47.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.06|71.59|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, and region).|To evaluate the efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD over season 3 in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||71.59|7.06|
91064711|NCT04886596|182013842|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|54.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.85|72.98|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, and region).|To evaluate the efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD over season 2 in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following annual revaccination of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||72.98|27.85|
91064712|NCT04886596|182013842|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|67.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.35|88.79|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, and region).|To evaluate the efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD over season 3 in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following annual revaccination of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||88.79|22.35|
91064713|NCT04886596|182013843|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|78.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.62|90.48|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, and region).|To evaluate the efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD over Year 1 in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||90.48|57.62|
91064714|NCT04886596|182013843|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|58.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.0|75.1|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, and region).|To evaluate the efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD over Year 2 in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||75.10|34.00|
90826283|NCT01128426|181527821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dehydration: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.48
90826284|NCT01128426|181527821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dermatitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.32
91064715|NCT04886596|182013843|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|47.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.51|71.97|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, and region).|To evaluate the efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD over Year 3 in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||71.97|8.51|
91064716|NCT04886596|182013843|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|58.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.59|74.94|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, and region).|To evaluate the efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD over Year 2 in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following annual revaccination of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||74.94|33.59|
90826285|NCT01128426|181527821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dyspnea: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.71
91064717|NCT04886596|182013843|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|68.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.64|89.08|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, and region).|To evaluate the efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD over Year 3 in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following annual revaccination of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||89.08|24.64|
91079208|NCT03240406|182044067|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03||||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.06||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|ANCOVA|MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|||0.06|-0.01|0.116
90826286|NCT01128426|181527821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Failure to thrive: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.76
90826287|NCT01128426|181527821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Fever: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.29
90826288|NCT01128426|181527821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Fussy infant: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.58
90826289|NCT01128426|181527821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Gastroenteritis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.92
90826290|NCT01128426|181527821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Hand, foot and mouth disease: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.67
90826291|NCT01128426|181527821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Hematoma: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.48
90826292|NCT01128426|181527821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Hypopotassemia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.52
90826293|NCT01128426|181527821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Lipoma of other specified sites: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.27
90826294|NCT01128426|181527821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Methicillin susceptible Staphylococcus aureus: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.14
90826295|NCT01128426|181527821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Nausea and vomiting: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.07
90826296|NCT01128426|181527821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Neonatal candida infection: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.27
90826297|NCT01128426|181527821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Other diseases of nasal cavity and sinuses: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.04
90826298|NCT01128426|181527821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Other specified cardiac dysrhythmias: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.41
90826299|NCT01128426|181527821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Pilonidal cyst without mention of abscess: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.07
90826300|NCT01128426|181527821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Pneumonia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.35
90826301|NCT01128426|181527821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Primary apnea of newborn: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.52
90826302|NCT01128426|181527821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Rash: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.30
90826303|NCT01128426|181527821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Respiratory syncytial virus: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.34
90826304|NCT01128426|181527821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Retinopathy of prematurity stage 2: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.52
90826305|NCT01128426|181527821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Single seizure: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.70
90826306|NCT01128426|181527821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Stomatitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.48
90826307|NCT01128426|181527821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Stridor: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.25
90826308|NCT01128426|181527821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Subconjunctival hemorrhage: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.27
90826309|NCT01128426|181527821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Umbilical hernia without obstruction/gangrene: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.15
90826310|NCT01128426|181527821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Unspecified bacterial pneumonia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.96
90826311|NCT01128426|181527821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Unspecified septicemia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.96
90826312|NCT01128426|181527821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Urinary tract infection: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.76
90826313|NCT01128426|181527821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Urticaria: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.54
90826314|NCT01128426|181527821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Vaccines adverse reaction: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.52
90826315|NCT01128426|181527821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Viral syndrome: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.03
90826316|NCT01128426|181527821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Weakness: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.52
90826317|NCT01128426|181527821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Wheezing: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.48
90826318|NCT01128426|181527822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Abnormal involuntary movements: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0 .63
91064718|NCT04886596|182013844|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|78.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.95|89.26|||Regression, Cox||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (%) = Vaccine Efficacy (Piecewise Cox model with time-varying efficacy - adjusted by age and region).|To evaluate the evolution of efficacy of a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD in adults ≥ 60 YOA over Season 1.||89.26|57.95|
91064719|NCT04886596|182013844|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|67.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.47|77.95|||Regression, Cox||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (%) = Vaccine Efficacy (Piecewise Cox model with time-varying efficacy - adjusted by age and region).|To evaluate the evolution of efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD in adults ≥ 60 YOA over Season 2, following a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||77.95|52.47|
91064720|NCT04886596|182013844|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|62.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.76|74.11|||Regression, Cox||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (%) = Vaccine Efficacy (Piecewise Cox model with time-varying efficacy - adjusted by age and region).|To evaluate the evolution of efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD in adults ≥ 60 YOA over Season 3, following a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||74.11|46.76|
91064721|NCT04886596|182013844|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|67.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.27|77.86|||Regression, Cox||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (%) = Vaccine Efficacy (Piecewise Cox model with time-varying efficacy - adjusted by age and region).|To evaluate the evolution of efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD in adults ≥ 60 YOA over Season 2, following annual revaccination of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||77.86|52.27|
90826319|NCT01128426|181527822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute bronchiolitis due to RSV: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.73
90826320|NCT01128426|181527822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute febrile mucocutaneous lymph node syndrome: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.03
90826321|NCT01128426|181527822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute otitis media: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.60
90826322|NCT01128426|181527822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute pyelonephritis without RMN lesion: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.38
90826323|NCT01128426|181527822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Alkalosis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.50
90826324|NCT01128426|181527822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Apnea: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.99
90826325|NCT01128426|181527822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Apparent life threatening event infant: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.13
91064722|NCT04886596|182013844|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|67.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.71|78.34|||Regression, Cox||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (%) = Vaccine Efficacy (Piecewise Cox model with time-varying efficacy - adjusted by age and region).|To evaluate the evolution of efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD in adults ≥ 60 YOA over Season 3, following annual revaccination of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||78.34|51.71|
90826326|NCT01128426|181527822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Asthma with acute exacerbation: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.25
90826327|NCT01128426|181527822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Asthma, unspecified, unspecified status: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.11
90826328|NCT01128426|181527822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchiolitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.53
90826329|NCT01128426|181527822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.50
90826330|NCT01128426|181527822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Candidiasis of mouth: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.63
90826331|NCT01128426|181527822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Cellulitis and abscess of trunk: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.25
90826332|NCT01128426|181527822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Constipation: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.53
90826333|NCT01128426|181527822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Croup: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.70
90826334|NCT01128426|181527822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dehydration: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.36
90826335|NCT01128426|181527822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dermatitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.98
90826336|NCT01128426|181527822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dyspnea: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.04
90826337|NCT01128426|181527822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Failure to thrive: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.81
90826338|NCT01128426|181527822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Fever: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.75
90826339|NCT01128426|181527822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Fussy infant: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.99
90826340|NCT01128426|181527822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Gastroenteritis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.13
90826341|NCT01128426|181527822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Hand, foot and mouth disease: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.50
90826342|NCT01128426|181527822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Hypopotassemia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.25
90826343|NCT01128426|181527822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Lipoma of other specified sites: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.37
90826344|NCT01128426|181527822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Methicillin susceptible Staphylococcus aureus: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.12
90826345|NCT01128426|181527822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Nausea and vomiting: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.50
90826346|NCT01128426|181527822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Other diseases of nasal cavity and sinuses: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.99
90826347|NCT01128426|181527822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Other specified cardiac dysrhythmias: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.63
90826348|NCT01128426|181527822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Pilonidal cyst without mention of abscess: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.78
90826349|NCT01128426|181527822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Pneumonia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.84
90826350|NCT01128426|181527822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Rash: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.44
90826351|NCT01128426|181527822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Respiratory syncytial virus: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.50
90826352|NCT01128426|181527822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Single seizure: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.41
90826353|NCT01128426|181527822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Stridor: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.99
90826354|NCT01128426|181527822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Subconjunctival hemorrhage: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.50
90826355|NCT01128426|181527822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Umbilical hernia without obstruction/gangrene: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.63
90826356|NCT01128426|181527822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Unspecified bacterial pneumonia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.99
90826357|NCT01128426|181527822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Unspecified septicemia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.50
90826358|NCT01128426|181527822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Urinary tract infection: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.28
90826359|NCT01128426|181527822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Viral syndrome: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.21
90826360|NCT01128426|181527822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Wheezing: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.98
90826361|NCT01128426|181527823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Abnormal involuntary movements: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.50
90826362|NCT01128426|181527823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute bronchiolitis due to RSV: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.77
90826363|NCT01128426|181527823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute febrile mucocutaneous lymph node syndrome: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.50
90826364|NCT01128426|181527823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute otitis media: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.55
90826365|NCT01128426|181527823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute pyelonephritis without RMN lesion: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.50
90826366|NCT01128426|181527823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Adverse drug reaction: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.62
91064723|NCT04886596|182013845|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|66.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.54|79.4|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD in adults ≥ 60 YOA by baseline comorbidities with low/medium risk (Charlson Comorbidity Index), following a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||79.40|47.54|
91064724|NCT04886596|182013845|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|58.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.81|74.98|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD in adults ≥ 60 YOA by baseline comorbidities with high risk (Charlson Comorbidity Index), following a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||74.98|34.81|
91064725|NCT04886596|182013845|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|72.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.34|84.37|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD in adults ≥ 60 YOA by baseline comorbidities with low/medium risk (Charlson Comorbidity Index), following annual revaccination of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||84.37|54.34|
91064726|NCT04886596|182013845|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|61.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.17|78.01|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD in adults ≥ 60 YOA by baseline comorbidities with high risk (Charlson Comorbidity Index), following annual revaccination of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||78.01|37.17|
91064727|NCT04886596|182013846|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|61.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.62|76.74|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD in adults ≥ 60 YOA with no pre-existing comorbidity of interest, following a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||76.74|38.62|
91064728|NCT04886596|182013846|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|64.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.1|78.14|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD in adults ≥ 60 YOA with at least 1 pre-existing comorbidity of interest, following a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||78.14|45.10|
90826367|NCT01128426|181527823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Apnea: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.50
90826368|NCT01128426|181527823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Apparent life threatening event infant: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.50
90826369|NCT01128426|181527823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Asthma with acute exacerbation: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.25
91064729|NCT04886596|182013846|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|68.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.71|82.33|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD in adults ≥ 60 YOA with at least 1 pre-existing cardiorespiratory condition, following a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||82.33|45.71|
91064730|NCT04886596|182013846|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|63.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.35|82.48|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD in adults ≥ 60 YOA with at least 1 pre-existing endocrinometabolic condition, following a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||82.48|31.35|
91078625|NCT01964716|182043067|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for a given antibody was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 97.5% confidence interval, computed using the Chan and Zhang procedure, for the difference in proportions (13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS) was greater than -0.10.|percent difference|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.7|1.6||||||Serotype 3: Exact 2-sided confidence interval (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, 13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS, expressed as a percentage was analyzed.||1.6|-3.7|
90826370|NCT01128426|181527823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Asthma, unspecified, unspecified status: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.43
90826371|NCT01128426|181527823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchiolitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.22
91064731|NCT04886596|182013846|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|64.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.08|79.17|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD in adults ≥ 60 YOA with no pre-existing comorbidity of interest, following annual revaccination of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||79.17|41.08|
91064732|NCT04886596|182013846|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|71.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.92|83.65|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD in adults ≥ 60 YOA with at least 1 pre-existing comorbidity of interest, following annual revaccination of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||83.65|51.92|
91064733|NCT04886596|182013846|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|75.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.11|88.54|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD in adults ≥ 60 YOA with at least 1 pre-existing cardiorespiratory condition,following annual revaccination of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||88.54|54.11|
91064734|NCT04886596|182013846|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|69.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.51|87.05|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD in adults ≥ 60 YOA with at least 1 pre-existing endocrinometabolic condition, following annual revaccination of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||87.05|37.51|
91064735|NCT04886596|182013847|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|-153.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16322.97|88.0|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD by baseline frailty status (frail) in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||88.00|-16322.97|
91064736|NCT04886596|182013847|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|70.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.89|85.33|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD by baseline frailty status (pre-frail) in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||85.33|43.89|
90826372|NCT01128426|181527823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.22
90826373|NCT01128426|181527823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchospasm: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.14
90826374|NCT01128426|181527823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Candidiasis of mouth: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.21
91064737|NCT04886596|182013847|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|61.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.89|74.08|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD by baseline frailty status (fit) in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||74.08|42.89|
90826375|NCT01128426|181527823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Cellulitis and abscess of trunk: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.50
91064738|NCT04886596|182013847|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|13.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6751.38|98.91|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD by baseline frailty status (frail) in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following annual revaccination of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||98.91|-6751.38|
90826376|NCT01128426|181527823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Constipation: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.85
90826377|NCT01128426|181527823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Croup: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.28
90826378|NCT01128426|181527823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dehydration: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.70
90826379|NCT01128426|181527823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dermatitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.28
90826380|NCT01128426|181527823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dyspnea: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.15
90826381|NCT01128426|181527823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Failure to thrive: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.99
90826382|NCT01128426|181527823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Fever: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.51
90826383|NCT01128426|181527823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Fussy infant: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.67
90826384|NCT01128426|181527823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Gastroenteritis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.06
90826385|NCT01128426|181527823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Hand, foot and mouth disease: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.74
90826386|NCT01128426|181527823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Hematoma: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.99
90826387|NCT01128426|181527823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Nausea and vomiting: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.50
90826388|NCT01128426|181527823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Neonatal candida infection: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.25
90826389|NCT01128426|181527823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Other diseases of nasal cavity and sinuses: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.82
90826390|NCT01128426|181527823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Other specified cardiac dysrhythmias: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.25
90826391|NCT01128426|181527823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Pneumonia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.55
90826392|NCT01128426|181527823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Rash: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.26
90826393|NCT01128426|181527823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Respiratory syncytial virus: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.33
90826394|NCT01128426|181527823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Single seizure: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.81
90826395|NCT01128426|181527823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Stomatitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.50
90826396|NCT01128426|181527823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Stridor: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.06
90826397|NCT01128426|181527823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Umbilical hernia without obstruction/gangrene: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.50
90826398|NCT01128426|181527823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Unspecified septicemia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.25
90826399|NCT01128426|181527823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Urinary tract infection: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.64
90826400|NCT01128426|181527823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Urticaria: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.97
90826401|NCT01128426|181527823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Viral syndrome: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.31
90826402|NCT01128426|181527823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Weakness: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.25
90826403|NCT01128426|181527823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Wheezing: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.03
90826404|NCT01128426|181527824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Abnormal involuntary movements: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.38
90826405|NCT01128426|181527824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute bronchiolitis due to RSV: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.78
90826406|NCT01128426|181527824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute febrile mucocutaneous lymph node syndrome: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method.The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.13
90826407|NCT01128426|181527824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute otitis media: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.73
90826408|NCT01128426|181527824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute pyelonephritis without RMN lesion: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.23
90826409|NCT01128426|181527824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Adverse drug reaction: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.62
90826410|NCT01128426|181527824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Alkalosis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.50
90826411|NCT01128426|181527824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Apnea: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.99
91064739|NCT04886596|182013847|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|74.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.33|88.31|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD by baseline frailty status (pre-frail) in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following annual revaccination of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||88.31|49.33|
91064740|NCT04886596|182013847|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|64.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.1|77.75|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD by baseline frailty status (fit) in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following annual revaccination of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||77.75|46.10|
91064741|NCT04886596|182013848|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|67.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.43|82.68|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of severe RSV-confirmed LRTD in adults ≥ 60 YOA according to any case definition, following a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||82.68|42.43|
91064742|NCT04886596|182013848|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|67.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.43|82.68|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of severe RSV-confirmed LRTD in adults ≥ 60 YOA according to case definition 1, following a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||82.68|42.43|
91064743|NCT04886596|182013848|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|59.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-119.6|95.93|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of severe RSV-confirmed LRTD in adults ≥ 60 YOA according to the case definition 2, following a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||95.93|-119.60|
91064744|NCT04886596|182013848|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|78.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.05|90.75|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of severe RSV-confirmed LRTD in adults ≥ 60 YOA according to any case definition, following annual revaccination of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||90.75|57.05|
91064745|NCT04886596|182013848|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|78.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.05|90.75|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of severe RSV-confirmed LRTD in adults ≥ 60 YOA according to case definition 1, following annual revaccination of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||90.75|57.05|
91064746|NCT04886596|182013848|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.27|100.0|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of severe RSV-confirmed LRTD in adults ≥ 60 YOA according to case definition 2, following annual revaccination of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||100.00|20.27|
91064747|NCT04886596|182013849|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|51.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.31|60.21|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed ARI in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||60.21|40.31|
91064748|NCT04886596|182013849|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|58.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.1|66.96|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed ARI in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following annual revaccination of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||66.96|48.10|
91064749|NCT04886596|182013850|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|2.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|5.99|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of any ARI in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||5.99|-1.47|
90826412|NCT01128426|181527824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Apparent life threatening event infant: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.13
90826413|NCT01128426|181527824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Asthma with acute exacerbation: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.06
90826414|NCT01128426|181527824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Asthma, unspecified, unspecified status: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.15
90826415|NCT01128426|181527824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchiolitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.14
90826416|NCT01128426|181527824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.14
90826417|NCT01128426|181527824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchospasm: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.14
90826418|NCT01128426|181527824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Candidiasis of mouth: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.28
90826419|NCT01128426|181527824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Cellulitis and abscess of trunk: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.12
90826420|NCT01128426|181527824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Constipation: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.68
90826421|NCT01128426|181527824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Croup: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.24
90826422|NCT01128426|181527824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dehydration: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.61
90826423|NCT01128426|181527824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dermatitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.28
90826424|NCT01128426|181527824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dyspnea: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.62
90826425|NCT01128426|181527824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Failure to thrive: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.63
90826426|NCT01128426|181527824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Fever: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.66
90826427|NCT01128426|181527824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Fussy infant: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.68
90826428|NCT01128426|181527824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Gastroenteritis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.18
90826429|NCT01128426|181527824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Hand, foot and mouth disease: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.52
90826430|NCT01128426|181527824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Hematoma: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.99
90826431|NCT01128426|181527824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Hypopotassemia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.25
90826432|NCT01128426|181527824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Lipoma of other specified sites: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.37
90826433|NCT01128426|181527824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Methicillin susceptible Staphylococcus aureus: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.12
90826434|NCT01128426|181527824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Nausea and vomiting: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.50
90826435|NCT01128426|181527824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Neonatal candida infection: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.25
90826436|NCT01128426|181527824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Other diseases of nasal cavity and sinuses: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.82
90826437|NCT01128426|181527824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Other specified cardiac dysrhythmias: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.38
90826438|NCT01128426|181527824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Pilonidal cyst without mention of abscess: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.78
90826439|NCT01128426|181527824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Pneumonia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.65
90826440|NCT01128426|181527824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Rash: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.17
90826441|NCT01128426|181527824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Respiratory syncytial virus: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.22
90826442|NCT01128426|181527824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Single seizure: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.81
90826443|NCT01128426|181527824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Stomatitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.50
90826444|NCT01128426|181527824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Stridor: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.13
90826445|NCT01128426|181527824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Subconjunctival hemorrhage: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.50
90826446|NCT01128426|181527824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Umbilical hernia without obstruction/gangrene: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.99
90826447|NCT01128426|181527824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Unspecified bacterial pneumonia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.99
90826448|NCT01128426|181527824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Unspecified septicemia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.25
90826449|NCT01128426|181527824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Urinary tract infection: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.96
90826450|NCT01128426|181527824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Urticaria: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.97
90826451|NCT01128426|181527824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Viral syndrome: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.19
90826452|NCT01128426|181527824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Weakness: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.25
90826453|NCT01128426|181527824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Wheezing: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.03
90826454|NCT01128426|181527825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Abnormal involuntary movements: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.03
90826455|NCT01128426|181527825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute bronchiolitis due to RSV: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.03
90826456|NCT01128426|181527825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute febrile mucocutaneous lymph node syndrome: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.13
90826457|NCT01128426|181527825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute otitis media: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.73
90826458|NCT01128426|181527825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute pyelonephritis without RMN lesion: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.26
90826459|NCT01128426|181527825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Alkalosis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.05
90826460|NCT01128426|181527825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Apnea: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.40
90826461|NCT01128426|181527825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Apparent life threatening event infant: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.20
90826462|NCT01128426|181527825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Asthma with acute exacerbation: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.41
90826463|NCT01128426|181527825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Asthma, unspecified, unspecified status: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.59
90826464|NCT01128426|181527825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchiolitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.10
90826465|NCT01128426|181527825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.95
90826466|NCT01128426|181527825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchospasm: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.52
90826467|NCT01128426|181527825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Candidiasis of mouth: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.05
90826468|NCT01128426|181527825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Cellulitis and abscess of trunk: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.93
90826469|NCT01128426|181527825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.56|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Constipation: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.56
90826470|NCT01128426|181527825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Croup: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.79
90826471|NCT01128426|181527825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dehydration: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.46
90826472|NCT01128426|181527825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dermatitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.92
90826473|NCT01128426|181527825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dyspnea: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.73
90826474|NCT01128426|181527825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Failure to thrive: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.27
90826475|NCT01128426|181527825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Fever: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.40
90826476|NCT01128426|181527825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Fussy infant: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.93
90826477|NCT01128426|181527825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Gastroenteritis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.82
90826478|NCT01128426|181527825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Hand, foot and mouth disease: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.52
90826479|NCT01128426|181527825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Hypopotassemia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.04
90826480|NCT01128426|181527825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Lipoma of other specified sites: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.69
90826481|NCT01128426|181527825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Methicillin susceptible Staphylococcus aureus: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.53
90826482|NCT01128426|181527825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Nausea and vomiting: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.59
90826483|NCT01128426|181527825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Neonatal bradycardia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.07
90826484|NCT01128426|181527825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Other diseases of nasal cavity and sinuses: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.27
90826485|NCT01128426|181527825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Other specified cardiac dysrhythmias: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.06
90826486|NCT01128426|181527825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Pilonidal cyst without mention of abscess: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||<0.01
90826487|NCT01128426|181527825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Pneumonia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.85
90826488|NCT01128426|181527825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Primary apnea of newborn: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.02
90826489|NCT01128426|181527825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||mid-p exact binomial method]|||Rash: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.33
90826490|NCT01128426|181527825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Respiratory syncytial virus: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.59
90826491|NCT01128426|181527825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Retinopathy of prematurity stage 2: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.07
90826492|NCT01128426|181527825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Single seizure: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.14
90826493|NCT01128426|181527825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Stridor: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.53
90826494|NCT01128426|181527825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Subconjunctival hemorrhage: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.48
90826495|NCT01128426|181527825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Umbilical hernia without obstruction/gangrene: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.03
90826496|NCT01128426|181527825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Unspecified bacterial pneumonia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.21
90826497|NCT01128426|181527825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Unspecified septicemia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.27
90826498|NCT01128426|181527825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Urinary tract infection: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.73
90826499|NCT01128426|181527825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Urticaria: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.48
90826500|NCT01128426|181527825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Viral syndrome: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.73
90826501|NCT01128426|181527825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Weakness: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.14
90826502|NCT01128426|181527825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.94|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Wheezing: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.94
90826503|NCT01128426|181527826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.56|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Abnormal involuntary movements: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.56
90826504|NCT01128426|181527826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute bronchiolitis due to RSV: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.43
90826505|NCT01128426|181527826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute febrile mucocutaneous lymph node syndrome: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.48
90826506|NCT01128426|181527826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute otitis media: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.01
90826507|NCT01128426|181527826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute pyelonephritis without RMN lesion: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.52
90826508|NCT01128426|181527826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Adverse drug reaction: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.93
90826509|NCT01128426|181527826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Alkalosis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.52
90826510|NCT01128426|181527826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Apnea: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.32
90826511|NCT01128426|181527826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Apparent life threatening event infant: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.24
90826512|NCT01128426|181527826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Asthma with acute exacerbation: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.41
90826513|NCT01128426|181527826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Asthma, unspecified, unspecified status: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.06
90826514|NCT01128426|181527826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchiolitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.31
90826515|NCT01128426|181527826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.43
90826516|NCT01128426|181527826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchospasm: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.50
90826517|NCT01128426|181527826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Candidiasis of mouth: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.51
90826518|NCT01128426|181527826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Cellulitis and abscess of trunk: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.48
91078626|NCT01964716|182043067|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for a given antibody was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 97.5% confidence interval, computed using the Chan and Zhang procedure, for the difference in proportions (13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS) was greater than -0.10.|percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.3|2.4||||||Serotype 4: Exact 2-sided confidence interval (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, 13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS, expressed as a percentage was analyzed.||2.4|-2.3|
90826519|NCT01128426|181527826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Constipation: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.44
90826520|NCT01128426|181527826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Croup: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.70
90826521|NCT01128426|181527826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dehydration: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.87
90826522|NCT01128426|181527826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dermatitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.05
90826523|NCT01128426|181527826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dyspnea: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.24
90826524|NCT01128426|181527826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Failure to thrive: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.24
90826525|NCT01128426|181527826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Fever: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.03
90826526|NCT01128426|181527826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Fussy infant: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.37
90826527|NCT01128426|181527826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Gastroenteritis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.16
90826528|NCT01128426|181527826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Hand, foot and mouth disease: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.85
90826529|NCT01128426|181527826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Hematoma: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.67
90826530|NCT01128426|181527826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Nausea and vomiting: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.18
90826531|NCT01128426|181527826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Neonatal candida infection: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.08
90826532|NCT01128426|181527826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Other diseases of nasal cavity and sinuses: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.63
90826533|NCT01128426|181527826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Other specified cardiac dysrhythmias: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.66
90826534|NCT01128426|181527826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Pneumonia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.31
90826535|NCT01128426|181527826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Rash: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.22
90826536|NCT01128426|181527826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Respiratory syncytial virus: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.96
90826537|NCT01128426|181527826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Single seizure: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.67
90826538|NCT01128426|181527826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Stomatitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.23
90826539|NCT01128426|181527826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Stridor: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.14
90826540|NCT01128426|181527826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Subconjunctival hemorrhage: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.07
90826541|NCT01128426|181527826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Umbilical hernia without obstruction/gangrene: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.74
90826542|NCT01128426|181527826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Unspecified septicemia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.69
90826543|NCT01128426|181527826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Urinary tract infection: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.01
90826544|NCT01128426|181527826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Urticaria: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.72
90826545|NCT01128426|181527826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Vaccines adverse reaction: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.07
90826546|NCT01128426|181527826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Viral syndrome: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||<0.01
90826547|NCT01128426|181527826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Weakness: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.07
90826548|NCT01128426|181527826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Wheezing: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.73
90826549|NCT01128426|181527827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Abnormal involuntary movements: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.04
90826550|NCT01128426|181527827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute bronchiolitis due to RSV: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.02
90826551|NCT01128426|181527827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute febrile mucocutaneous lymph node syndrome: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.27
90826552|NCT01128426|181527827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute otitis media: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.02
90826553|NCT01128426|181527827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute pyelonephritis without RMN lesion: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.18
90826554|NCT01128426|181527827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Adverse drug reaction: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.93
90826555|NCT01128426|181527827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Alkalosis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.05
90826556|NCT01128426|181527827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Apnea: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.52
90826557|NCT01128426|181527827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Apparent life threatening event infant: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.17
90826558|NCT01128426|181527827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Asthma with acute exacerbation: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.21
90826559|NCT01128426|181527827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Asthma, unspecified, unspecified status: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.05
90826560|NCT01128426|181527827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchiolitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.63
90826561|NCT01128426|181527827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.46
90826562|NCT01128426|181527827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchospasm: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.42
90826563|NCT01128426|181527827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Candidiasis of mouth: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.49
90826564|NCT01128426|181527827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Cellulitis and abscess of trunk: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.69
90826565|NCT01128426|181527827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Constipation: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.28
90826566|NCT01128426|181527827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Croup: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.69
91064750|NCT04886596|182013850|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|3.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|6.98|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of any ARI in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following annual revaccination of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||6.98|-0.50|
91064751|NCT04886596|182013850|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|3.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|8.63|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of any LRTD in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||8.63|-1.55|
91064752|NCT04886596|182013850|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|6.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.81|11.9|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of any LRTD in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following annual revaccination of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||11.90|1.81|
91064753|NCT04886596|182013851|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|50.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-184.45|95.19|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of hospitalization due to RT-PCR-confirmed RSV respiratory disease during the study period in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||95.19|-184.45|
91064754|NCT04886596|182013851|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|50.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-184.45|95.19|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of hospitalization due to RT-PCR-confirmed RSV respiratory disease or complication related to RT-PCR-confirmed RSV ARI during the study period in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||95.19|-184.45|
91064755|NCT04886596|182013851|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.56|100.0|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of hospitalization due to RT-PCR-confirmed RSV respiratory disease during the study period in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following annual revaccination of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||100.00|11.56|
90826567|NCT01128426|181527827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dehydration: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.95
90826568|NCT01128426|181527827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dermatitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.13
91064756|NCT04886596|182013851|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.56|100.0|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of hospitalization due to RT-PCR-confirmed RSV respiratory disease or complication related to RT-PCR-confirmed RSV ARI during the study period in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following annual revaccination of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||100.00|11.56|
91078627|NCT01964716|182043067|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for a given antibody was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 97.5% confidence interval, computed using the Chan and Zhang procedure, for the difference in proportions (13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS) was greater than -0.10.|percent difference|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-5.4|2.8||||||Serotype 5: Exact 2-sided confidence interval (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, 13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS, expressed as a percentage was analyzed.||2.8|-5.4|
90826569|NCT01128426|181527827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dyspnea: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.57
90826570|NCT01128426|181527827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Failure to thrive: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.18
90826571|NCT01128426|181527827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Fever: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.03
90826572|NCT01128426|181527827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Fussy infant: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.45
90826573|NCT01128426|181527827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Gastroenteritis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.21
90826574|NCT01128426|181527827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Hand, foot and mouth disease: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.66
90826575|NCT01128426|181527827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Hematoma: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.67
91064757|NCT04886596|182013851|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|22.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-457.67|93.12|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of hospitalization due to RT-PCR-confirmed RSV respiratory disease during the RSV seson in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||93.12|-457.67|
91064758|NCT04886596|182013851|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|22.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-457.67|93.12|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of hospitalization due to RT-PCR-confirmed RSV respiratory disease or complication related to RT-PCR-confirmed RSV ARI during the RSV season in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||93.12|-457.67|
91064759|NCT04886596|182013851|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.53|100.0|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of hospitalization due to RT-PCR-confirmed RSV respiratory disease during the RSV season in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following annual revaccination of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||100.00|-54.53|
91064760|NCT04886596|182013851|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.53|100.0|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of hospitalization due to RT-PCR-confirmed RSV respiratory disease or complication related to RT-PCR-confirmed RSV ARI during the RSV season in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following annual revaccination of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||100.00|-54.53|
91064761|NCT04886596|182013852|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|-1.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.43|17.49|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of hospitalization due to any respiratory diseases during the study period in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||17.49|-25.43|
90826576|NCT01128426|181527827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Hypopotassemia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.04
90826577|NCT01128426|181527827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Lipoma of other specified sites: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.69
90826578|NCT01128426|181527827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Methicillin susceptible Staphylococcus aureus: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.53
91064762|NCT04886596|182013852|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|-4.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.26|14.61|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of hospitalization due to any respiratory diseases or complication related to any respiratory disease during the study period in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||14.61|-28.26|
91064763|NCT04886596|182013852|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|-3.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.2|16.38|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of hospitalization due to any respiratory diseases during the study period in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following annual revaccination of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine||16.38|-28.20|
90826579|NCT01128426|181527827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Nausea and vomiting: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.16
90826580|NCT01128426|181527827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Neonatal bradycardia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.07
90826581|NCT01128426|181527827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Neonatal candida infection: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.08
90826582|NCT01128426|181527827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Other diseases of nasal cavity and sinuses: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.98
90826583|NCT01128426|181527827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Other specified cardiac dysrhythmias: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.04
90826584|NCT01128426|181527827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Pilonidal cyst without mention of abscess: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||<0.01
90826585|NCT01128426|181527827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Pneumonia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.22
90826586|NCT01128426|181527827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Primary apnea of newborn: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.02
90826587|NCT01128426|181527827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Rash: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.17
90826588|NCT01128426|181527827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Respiratory syncytial virus: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.87
90826589|NCT01128426|181527827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Retinopathy of prematurity stage 2: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.07
90826590|NCT01128426|181527827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Single seizure: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.54
91064764|NCT04886596|182013852|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|-3.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.55|15.98|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of hospitalization due to any respiratory diseases or complication related to any respiratory diseases during the study period in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following annual revaccination of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||15.98|-27.55|
90826591|NCT01128426|181527827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Stomatitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.23
90826592|NCT01128426|181527827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Stridor: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.24
90826593|NCT01128426|181527827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Subconjunctival hemorrhage: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.24
90826594|NCT01128426|181527827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Umbilical hernia without obstruction/gangrene: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.04
90826595|NCT01128426|181527827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Unspecified bacterial pneumonia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.21
90826596|NCT01128426|181527827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Unspecified septicemia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.29
90826597|NCT01128426|181527827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Urinary tract infection: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.06
90826598|NCT01128426|181527827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Urticaria: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.61
90826599|NCT01128426|181527827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Vaccines adverse reaction: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.07
90826600|NCT01128426|181527827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Viral syndrome: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||<0.01
90826601|NCT01128426|181527827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Weakness: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.04
90826602|NCT01128426|181527827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Wheezing: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.68
90826603|NCT05729568|181527850|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least-squares means|-56.0||||0.1436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-132.0|20.0|||ANCOVA||Difference in least-squares means (Diff in LSM), and its 95% CI were from ANCOVA model of change from baseline CD4 cell count with treatment as fixed effect and baseline CD4 cell count as a covariate.|||20|-132|0.1436
90826604|NCT00550953|181527863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.41|9.63|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as telmisartan 40 mg plus amlodipine 5 mg fixed-dose combination minus telmisartan 40 mg monotherapy|||9.63|6.41|<0.0001
90826605|NCT04739436|181527902|SUPERIORITY||Slope|5.29||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|8.79||Multiple comparisons were not conducted, so no adjustment of the p-value was necessary.|Regression, Linear|||A linear regression model was fit with outcome change in APHAB score between 3 months and baseline, predictor hearing aid fitting group (reference=bilateral), and covariate clinical site.||8.79|1.80|0.003
90826606|NCT04739436|181527903|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.584||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were done.|Kruskal-Wallis|||The null hypothesis is there is no difference in the GHABP question means between the groups at 3 months for the question: In this situation, what proportion of the time do you wear your hearing aid?||||0.584
90826607|NCT04739436|181527903|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.233|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The null hypothesis is there is no difference in the GHABP question means between the groups at 3 months for the question: In this situation, how much does your hearing aid help you?||||0.233
90826608|NCT04739436|181527903|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The null hypothesis is there is no difference in the GHABP question means between the groups at 3 months for the question: In this situation, with your hearing aid, how much difficulty do you now have?||||0.010
90826609|NCT04739436|181527903|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.129|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The null hypothesis is there is no difference in the GHABP question means between the groups at 3 months for the question: For this situation, how satisfied are you with your hearing aid?||||0.129
90826610|NCT04739436|181527904|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.946|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|No adjustments for multiple comparisons were done.||The null hypothesis is there is no difference in the change from baseline to 3 months in the co-located BKB SIN test scores between the groups.||||0.946
90826611|NCT04739436|181527905|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|No adjustments for multiple comparisons were done.||The null hypotheses are there are no differences in the change from baseline to 3 months in WARRM recognition scores between the groups.||||0.490
90826612|NCT04739436|181527905|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.323||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were done.|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypotheses are there are no differences in the change from baseline to 3 months in WARRM recall scores between the groups.||||0.323
90826613|NCT04739436|181527906|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.933||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were done.|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is there is no difference in the SADL scores between the groups at 3 months.||||0.933
90826614|NCT04739436|181527906|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.929||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were done.|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is there is no difference in the SADL scores between the groups at 6 months.||||0.929
90826615|NCT04739436|181527908|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is there is no difference in the change from baseline to 3 months in SSQ scores between the groups.||||0.015
90826616|NCT04739436|181527908|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.886|||||||t-test, 2 sided|No adjustments for multiple comparisons were done.||The null hypothesis is there is no difference in the change from baseline to 6 months in SSQ scores between the groups.||||0.886
90826617|NCT04739436|181527909|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.137|||||||t-test, 2 sided|No adjustments for multiple comparisons were done.||The null hypothesis is there is no difference in the number of hours of hearing aid use between the groups in the right ear.||||0.137
90826618|NCT04739436|181527909|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.612|||||||t-test, 2 sided|No adjustments for multiple comparisons were done.||The null hypothesis is there is no difference in the number of hours of hearing aid use between the groups in the left ear.||||0.612
90826619|NCT04739436|181527911|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.108|||||||t-test, 2 sided|No adjustments for multiple comparisons were done.||The null hypothesis is there is no difference in the IOI-HA total score between the groups at 3 months.||||0.108
90826620|NCT04739436|181527911|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.988||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were done.|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is there is no difference in the IOI-HA total score between the groups at 6 months.||||0.988
90826621|NCT04739436|181527914|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.264|||||||t-test, 2 sided|No adjustments for multiple comparisons were done.||The null hypothesis is there is no difference in the change in APHAB score from baseline to 6 months between the groups.||||0.264
90826622|NCT05919888|181527915|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.275|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.275
90826623|NCT05919888|181527916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0056|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0056
90826624|NCT05919888|181527917|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.286|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.286
90826625|NCT02915978|181527919|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89||0.0505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.61|0.0|||ANCOVA|||NRS PID at 1 hour||0.00|-3.61|0.0505
90826626|NCT02915978|181527919|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.2493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.89|0.77|||ANCOVA|||NRS PID at 1 hour||0.77|-2.89|0.2493
90826627|NCT02915978|181527919|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.95|-0.94|||ANCOVA|||NRS PID at 16 hours||-0.94|-4.95|0.0052
90826628|NCT02915978|181527919|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||0.0926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.62|0.29|||ANCOVA|||NRS PID at 16 hours||0.29|-3.62|0.0926
90826629|NCT02915978|181527919|OTHER||LS Means Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.0951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.06|0.26|||ANCOVA|||NRS PID at 24 hours||0.26|-3.06|0.0951
90826630|NCT02915978|181527919|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.9866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.63|||ANCOVA|||NRS PID at 24 hours||1.63|-1.60|0.9866
90826631|NCT03559933|181527937|SUPERIORITY||Logistic regression model|95.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0152||0.0125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.15|96.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|Subject and stimulation within subject as random effects with multiple observations per subject was accounted for.||The proportion of successful capture was analyzed using a generalized linear mixed model accounting for subject and stimulation within subject as random effects with multiple observations per subject. The null hypothesis was tested comparing the lower bound of the 98.75% two-sided confidence interval for the estimated percent diaphragm capture rate to the performance goal of 80%. If the lower bound was greater than 80%, the null hypothesis was rejected, and the endpoint was considered met.||96.66|93.15|0.0125
90826632|NCT02119663|181527942|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.584|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.886|2.83||||||||2.830|0.886|
90826633|NCT01099397|181527982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41||||||P-value at baseline|McNemar|McNemar was used at each of three time points to compare prediabetes diagnosis by fasting versus 2-hour OGTT||p\<0.05 was considered significant at baseline; the null hypothesis was that there was no difference between prediabetes diagnosis (by 2-hour glucose or fasting glucose), the alternative hypothesis was that there was a significant difference between prediabetes diagnosis (by 2-hour glucose or fasting glucose)||||0.41
90826634|NCT01099397|181527982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59||95.0||||P-value at 9 weeks|McNemar|McNemar was used at each of three time points to compare prediabetes diagnosis by fasting versus 2-hour OGTT||p\<0.05 was considered significant at 9 week assessment; the null hypothesis was that there was no difference between prediabetes diagnosis (by 2-hour glucose or fasting glucose), the alternative hypothesis was that there was a significant difference between prediabetes diagnosis (by 2-hour glucose or fasting glucose)||||0.59
90826635|NCT01099397|181527982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41||95.0||||P-value at 18 weeks|McNemar|McNemar was used at each of three time points to compare prediabetes diagnosis by fasting versus 2-hour OGTT||p\<0.05 was considered significant at 18 week assessment; the null hypothesis was that there was no difference between prediabetes diagnosis (by 2-hour glucose or fasting glucose), the alternative hypothesis was that there was a significant difference between prediabetes diagnosis (by 2-hour glucose or fasting glucose)||||0.41
90826636|NCT02363959|181527983|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
90826637|NCT02363959|181527984|OTHER|||||||0.39|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.39
90826638|NCT02363959|181527985|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
90826639|NCT02363959|181527986|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
90826640|NCT02363959|181527987|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
90826641|NCT02363959|181527988|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
91064765|NCT04886596|182013852|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|2.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.52|23.99|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of hospitalization due to any respiratory diseases during the RSV season in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||23.99|-23.52|
91064766|NCT04886596|182013852|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|-1.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.56|19.7|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of hospitalization due to any respiratory diseases or complication related to any respiratory disease during the RSV seasons in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||19.70|-28.56|
91064767|NCT04886596|182013852|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.14|26.0|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of hospitalization due to any respiratory diseases during the RSV seasons in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following annual revaccination of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||26.00|-22.14|
91064768|NCT04886596|182013852|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|4.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.73|25.48|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of hospitalization due to any respiratory diseases or complication related to any respiratory diseases during the RSV seasons in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following annual revaccination of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||25.48|-21.73|
91064769|NCT04886596|182013853|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|62.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.91|82.15|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of complications related to RSV- ARI during the study period in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||82.15|28.91|
91064770|NCT04886596|182013853|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|63.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.5|83.2|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of complications related to RSV-ARI during the study period in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following annual revaccination of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||83.20|28.50|
91064771|NCT04886596|182013853|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|65.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.56|85.47|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of complications related to RSV- ARI during the RSV seasons in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||85.47|28.56|
91064772|NCT04886596|182013853|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|62.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.45|84.29|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of complications related to RSV-ARI during the RSV seasons in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following annual revaccination of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||84.29|21.45|
91064773|NCT04886596|182013854|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|2.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.29|12.42|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of complications related to any ARI during the study period in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||12.42|-8.29|
91064774|NCT04886596|182013854|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.05|16.39|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of complications related to any ARI during the study period in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following annual revaccination of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||16.39|-4.05|
90826642|NCT03421106|181527990|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.53||||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.23
90826643|NCT00650845|181528028|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assuming that in both MRI groups approximately 12% of the patients would have an increase in serum creatinine of at least 25% with respect to baseline values after imaging procedures, 120 evaluable patients (2 x 60) were needed to ensure with 80% power, at 5% one-sided significance level, that the difference between the two MRI procedures was less than 15% which was the non-inferiority clinical limit of the difference established for this study.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|6.7||||||The clinical non-inferiority limit of (non-enhanced - Dotarem®-enhanced) was fixed at -15%. The exact 95%Confidence Interval (CI) of the difference (non-enhanced - Dotarem®-enhanced) was \[-7.9%; +6.7%\]||6.7|-7.9|
90826644|NCT00650845|181528029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.291|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value for main effect (difference between groups) adjusted on centers.|t-test, 2 sided|||Serum creatinine level fluctuation in terms of difference between baseline and 72 ±24hours after imaging procedure values was computed for both MRI procedures and compared between the 2 groups. A linear regression model was used to model the serum creatinine changes from baseline as a function of the MRI procedure with adjustment on centers.||||0.291
90826645|NCT00650845|181528030|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assuming that in both MRI groups approximately 12% of the patients would have an increase in serum creatinine of at least 25% with respect to baseline values after imaging procedures, 120 evaluable patients (2 x 60) were needed to ensure with 80% power, at 5% one-sided significance level, that the difference between the two MRI procedures was less than 15% which was the non-inferiority clinical limit of the difference established for this study.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|8.9||||||The clinical non-inferiority limit of (non-enhanced - Dotarem®-enhanced) was fixed at -15%. The exact 95%CI of the difference (non-enhanced - Dotarem®-enhanced) was \[-14.1%; +8.9%\]||8.9|-14.1|
90826646|NCT00650845|181528031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value for main effect (difference between groups) adjusted on centers.|t-test, 2 sided|||Serum creatinine level fluctuation in terms of difference between baseline and 72 ±24hours after imaging procedure values was computed for both MRI procedures and compared between the 2 groups. A linear regression model was used to model the serum creatinine changes from baseline as a function of the MRI procedure with adjustment on centers.||||0.040
90826647|NCT00650845|181528032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.301|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value for main effect (difference between groups) adjusted on centers.|t-test, 2 sided|||eGFR fluctuation in terms of percentage and mean difference between baseline and 72 ±24hours after imaging procedure values was computed for both MRI procedures and compared between the 2 groups. A linear regression model was used to model the relative or absolute eGFR variation from baseline as a function of the MRI procedure with adjustment on centers.||||0.301
90826648|NCT00650845|181528033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value for main effect (difference between groups) adjusted on centers.|t-test, 2 sided|||eGFR fluctuation in terms of percentage and mean difference between baseline and 72 ±24hours after imaging procedure values was computed for both MRI procedures and compared between the 2 groups. A linear regression model was used to model the relative or absolute eGFR variation from baseline as a function of the MRI procedure with adjustment on centers.||||0.051
90826649|NCT01618669|181528049|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the lower confidence bound of the 1-sided alpha level of 0.025 of the difference in the proportion of participants with majority reader self-agreement exceeded -0.075, non-inferiority would be demonstrated.|Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.0|||||Difference equals Regadenoson After Peak Exercise minus Regadenoson Alone|||-0.00|-0.06|
90826650|NCT01618669|181528051|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The lower confidence bound of the 1-sided alpha level of 0.025 of the difference in agreement rates must exceed -0.10 in order to demonstrate non-inferiority.|Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.11|||||Difference equals Regadenoson After Peak Exercise minus Regadenoson Alone|||0.11|-0.14|
90826651|NCT01618669|181528052|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The lower confidence bound of the 1-sided alpha level of 0.025 of the difference in agreement rates must exceed -0.133 in order to demonstrate non-inferiority. Non-inferiority could not be assessed because of insufficient data in the Regadenoson Alone group.|Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.04||||||||0.04|-0.07|
90826652|NCT01618669|181528053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.06||||||||0.06|-0.03|
90826653|NCT01825187|181528065|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.523|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.523
90826654|NCT01825187|181528066|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.371|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Nasa Mental Demand||||0.371
90826655|NCT01825187|181528066|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.122|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||NASA Physical Demand||||0.122
90826656|NCT01825187|181528066|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.325|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||NASA Temporal Demand||||0.325
90826657|NCT01825187|181528066|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0451|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||NASA Peformance||||0.0451
90826658|NCT02109640|181528072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Absolute percentage difference|17.1||||0.264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|40.7||Absolute % difference 17.1 (95% CI -10.0,40.7)|Fisher Exact|||||40.7|-10.0|0.264
90826659|NCT02109640|181528073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.222|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.222
90826660|NCT02109640|181528074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.676|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.676
90826661|NCT02336230|181528077|OTHER|||||||0.0003||||||P-value was calculated from the binomial distribution under the assumption of a 0.45 success rate for the null hypothesis.|Binomial Distribution|||||||0.0003
90826662|NCT02336230|181528079|OTHER|||||||0.0032||||||P-value was from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by baseline aGVHD grade.|CHM test|||||||0.0032
90826663|NCT01695135|181528089|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.528||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.376|0.74|||Log Rank|||||0.740|0.376|0.0002
90826664|NCT01775371|181528149|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.5||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Z-test 2-sided||The direction of the comparison is the Patient Controlled Analgesia minus the standard care group|The rate of change of NRS pain scores per hour was calculated using a mixed effects linear model. Time is represented as a linear spline with knot at 30 minutes to support the separate estimation of early and late phase rates of change. Fixed effects in the analysis includes study-group indicator, early and late phase time, and interactions between study-group and time. The principal hypothesis test was a z-test of the coefficient of the study group late phase interaction term.||1.5|0.6|<0.001
90826665|NCT01775371|181528150|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.025|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.025
90826666|NCT01775371|181528151|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.003
90826667|NCT01775371|181528152|OTHER|Responses occur with equal probability|||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|One-sample chi-squared test of hypothesis that the responses occur with equal probability||These outcomes are based on the nurses who took care of patients in the study||||<0.001
90826668|NCT01775371|181528153|OTHER|All responses occur with equal probability|||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|One-sample chi-squared test of hypothesis that the responses occur with equal probability||This outcome is based on the physicians who took care of the patients in the study||||<0.001
90826669|NCT00587678|181528188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32||95.0|||||Linear repeated measures model|||||||0.32
90826670|NCT00587678|181528188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0||||vs. baseline|Linear repeated measures model|||||||<0.01
90826671|NCT00587678|181528189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31||95.0|||||Linear repeated measures model|||||||0.31
90826672|NCT00587678|181528189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0||||vs. baseline|Linear repeated measures model|||||||<0.05
90826673|NCT00587678|181528190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71||95.0|||||Linear repeated measures model|||||||0.71
90826674|NCT00587678|181528191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67||95.0|||||Linear repeated measures model|||||||0.67
90826675|NCT00587678|181528192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37||95.0|||||Linear repeated measures model|||||||0.37
90826676|NCT00587678|181528192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0||||vs. baseline|Linear repeated measures model|||||||<0.05
90826677|NCT00587678|181528193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78||95.0|||||Linear repeated measures model|||||||0.78
90826678|NCT00587678|181528194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68||95.0|||||Linear repeated measures model|||||||0.68
90826679|NCT00587678|181528195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Linear repeated measures model|||||||<0.05
90826680|NCT00587678|181528196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.67||95.0|||||linear repeated measures model|||||||=0.67
90826681|NCT00587678|181528197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77||95.0|||||Linear repeated measures model|||||||0.77
90826682|NCT00587678|181528198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85||95.0|||||Linear repeated measures model|||||||0.85
90826683|NCT00666406|181528232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the geometric means|1.173|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.089|1.262||||||||1.262|1.089|
90826684|NCT00666406|181528233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the geometric means|1.139|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.043|1.243||||||||1.243|1.043|
90826685|NCT00666406|181528234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the geometric means|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.866|1.297||||||||1.297|0.866|
90826686|NCT00666406|181528235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the geometric means|1.071|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.972|1.179||||||||1.179|0.972|
90826687|NCT00666406|181528236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the geometric means|1.171|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.099|1.247||||||||1.247|1.099|
90826688|NCT00666406|181528237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the geometric means|1.135|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.092|1.18||||||||1.180|1.092|
90826689|NCT00666406|181528238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the geometric means|1.036|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.857|1.253||||||||1.253|0.857|
90826690|NCT00666406|181528239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the geometric means|1.093|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.007|1.186||||||||1.186|1.007|
90826691|NCT00666406|181528240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the geometric means|0.854|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.798|0.913||||||||0.913|0.798|
90826692|NCT00666406|181528241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the geometric means|0.881|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.847|0.916||||||||0.916|0.847|
90826693|NCT00666406|181528242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the geometric means|0.964|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.799|1.164||||||||1.164|0.799|
90826694|NCT00666406|181528243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the geometric means|0.915|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.841|0.995||||||||0.995|0.841|
90826695|NCT00666406|181528244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the geometric means|1.177|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.104|1.256||||||||1.256|1.104|
90826696|NCT00666406|181528245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the geometric means|1.152|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.039|1.277||||||||1.277|1.039|
90826697|NCT00666406|181528246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the geometric means|1.182|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.029|1.359||||||||1.359|1.029|
90826698|NCT00666406|181528247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the geometric means|1.133|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.01|1.27||||||||1.270|1.010|
90826699|NCT00666406|181528248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the geometric means|1.008|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.969|1.05||||||||1.050|0.969|
90826700|NCT00666406|181528249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the geometric means|0.964|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.843|1.102||||||||1.102|0.843|
90826701|NCT00666406|181528250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the geometric means|1.038|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.926|1.163||||||||1.163|0.926|
90826702|NCT00666406|181528251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the geometric means|1.015|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.901|1.144||||||||1.144|0.901|
90826703|NCT00666406|181528252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the geometric means|1.178|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.106|1.254||||||||1.254|1.106|
90826704|NCT00666406|181528253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the geometric means|1.152|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.038|1.279||||||||1.279|1.038|
90826705|NCT00666406|181528254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the geometric means|1.183|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.027|1.362||||||||1.362|1.027|
90826706|NCT00666406|181528255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the geometric means|1.133|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.012|1.27||||||||1.270|1.012|
90826707|NCT00666406|181528256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the geometric means|1.009|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.964|1.056||||||||1.056|0.964|
90826708|NCT00666406|181528257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the geometric means|0.971|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.849|1.112||||||||1.112|0.849|
90826709|NCT00666406|181528258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the geometric means|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.938|1.109||||||||1.109|0.938|
90826710|NCT00666406|181528259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the geometric means|0.996|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.894|1.111||||||||1.111|0.894|
90826711|NCT00666406|181528260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the geometric means|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.0||||||||1.000|1.000|
90826712|NCT00666406|181528261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the geometric means|1.303|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.841|2.02||||||||2.020|0.841|
90826713|NCT00666406|181528262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the geometric means|0.724|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.304|1.728||||||||1.728|0.304|
90826714|NCT00666406|181528263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the geometric means|1.059|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.442|2.539||||||||2.539|0.442|
90826715|NCT00666406|181528264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the geometric means|0.862|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.807|0.92||||||||0.920|0.807|
90826716|NCT00666406|181528265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the geometric means|0.855|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.73|1.002||||||||1.002|0.730|
90826717|NCT00666406|181528266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the geometric means|0.984|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.788|1.228||||||||1.228|0.788|
90826718|NCT00666406|181528267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the geometric means|0.911|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|1.039||||||||1.039|0.800|
90826719|NCT02905266|181528278|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference in incidence rates|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||||Fixed Ratio Combination over Sequential Combination|||0.0|0.0|
90826720|NCT02905266|181528286|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference of ORRs|-7.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.1|11.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method of weighting|||11.0|-26.1|
90826721|NCT02905266|181528286|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.58||||||||1.58|0.35|
90826722|NCT02905266|181528287|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.37|||||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|||2.37|0.78|
90826723|NCT02905266|181528288|SUPERIORITY||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Odds Ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.49|||||Fixed Ratio Combination over Sequential Combination|||2.49|0.30|
90826724|NCT02905266|181528288|SUPERIORITY||Percent difference in incidence rates|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|12.2|||||Fixed Ratio Combination over Sequential Combination|||12.2|-16.0|
90826725|NCT00596752|181528293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2587||||||For confirmatory hypothesis testing the p-values of the normal approximation test for comparing two rates was used as input for the weighted inverse normal method. The 1-sided boundary p-value for stage 1 is given by p1=0.00587.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2 primary endpoints were tested at one-sided 0.0125 each so that the overall type I error rate of 0.025 was controlled in a strong sense.||"Primary goal was to test the following null hypothesis:~H01: πhealingPGE1≤ πhealingPlacebo, with πhealing=proportion of subjects with complete ulcer healing. The planned information rate for stage 1 of the two-stage group sequential test design with an overall one-sided comparison-wise α=0.0125 for this co-primary endpoint is given by 0.83.~This is the statistical analysis of stage 1."||||0.2587
90826726|NCT00596752|181528293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3463||||||For confirmatory hypothesis testing the p-values of the normal approximation test for comparing two rates was used as input for the weighted inverse normal method. The 1-sided boundary p-value for stage 1 and 2 combined is given by p2=0.01085.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2 primary endpoints were tested at one-sided 0.0125 each so that the overall type I error rate of 0.025 was controlled in a strong sense.||"Primary goal was to test the following null hypothesis:~H01: πhealingPGE1≤ πhealingPlacebo, with πhealing=proportion of subjects with complete ulcer healing.~This is the statistical analysis of stage 1 and stage 2 combined."||||0.3463
90826727|NCT00596752|181528294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0173||||||For confirmatory hypothesis testing the p-values of the normal approximation test for comparing two rates was used as input for the weighted inverse normal method. The 1-sided boundary p-value for stage 1 is given by p1=0.00587.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2 primary endpoints were tested at one-sided 0.0125 each so that the overall type I error rate of 0.025 was controlled in a strong sense.||"Primary goal was to test the following null hypothesis:~H02: πampPGE1≥ πampPlacebo, with πamp=proportion of subjects with major amputations.~The planned information rate for stage 1 of the two-stage group sequential test design with an overall one-sided comparison-wise α=0.0125 for this co-primary endpoint is given by 0.83.~This is the statistical analysis of stage 1."||||0.0173
90826728|NCT00596752|181528294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1154||||||For confirmatory hypothesis testing the p-values of the normal approximation test for comparing two rates was used as input for the weighted inverse normal method. The 1-sided boundary p-value for stage 1 and 2 combined is given by p2=0.01085.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2 primary endpoints were tested at one-sided 0.0125 each so that the overall type I error rate of 0.025 was controlled in a strong sense.||"Primary goal was to test the following null hypothesis:~H02: πampPGE1≥ πampPlacebo, with πamp=proportion of subjects with major amputations.~This is the statistical analysis of stage 1 and stage 2 combined."||||0.1154
90826729|NCT02538042|181528305|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.39
90826730|NCT04445662|181528311|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.71
90826731|NCT04445662|181528312|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.48
90826732|NCT01973413|181528342|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Significance level of 0.05, 90% power, required 48 nights of OCL and 48 control nights to detect a 20% improvement.|||||=|0.037|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||=0.037
90826733|NCT01973413|181528343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||=0.340
90826734|NCT03691571|181528356|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||Esophageal thermal injury was detected in 13/44 (30%) patients.||||>.05
90826735|NCT03691571|181528358|OTHER|feasibility/pilot study||||||0.11|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.11
90826736|NCT03691571|181528359|OTHER|feasibility/pilot study||||||0.73|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.73
90826737|NCT03691571|181528360|OTHER|feasibility/pilot study||||||0.1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.10
90826738|NCT00250276|181528386|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The first primary objective was reached as the 95% Confidence Interval (CI) of the GMC ratio between lots was within \[0.5;2\] for the anti-HPV-16 antibodies.|GMC ratio for anti-HPV-16 antibody|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.34|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model on the logarithm (log)10 transformation of the concentrations. The ANOVA model included the vaccine group as fixed effect.||To demonstrate lot-to-lot consistency in terms of immunogenicity between the 3 industrial production lots (600L scale) of the Cervarix™ vaccine, one month post dose 3 (Month 7). If consistency was demonstrated the 3 lots would be pooled and non-inferiority of the 600L scale lot vaccine versus the 80L scale would be evaluated as a second primary objective.||1.34|0.81|
90826739|NCT00250276|181528386|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The first primary objective was reached as the 95% CIs of the GMC ratio between lots were within \[0.5;2\] for the anti-HPV-18 antibodies.|GMC ratio for anti-HPV-18 antibody|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.49|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model on the log10 transformation of theconcentrations. The ANOVA model included the vaccine group as fixed effect.||To demonstrate lot-to-lot consistency in terms of immunogenicity between the 3 industrial production lots (600L scale) of the Cervarix™ vaccine, one month post dose 3 (Month 7). If consistency was demonstrated the 3 lots would be pooled and non-inferiority of the 600L scale lot vaccine versus the 80L scale would be evaluated as a second primary objective.||1.49|0.95|
91064775|NCT04886596|182013854|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|10.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|21.31|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of complications related to any ARI during the RSV seasons in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||21.31|-0.68|
91064776|NCT04886596|182013854|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|12.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|22.58|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of complications related to any ARI during the RSV seasons in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following annual revaccination of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||22.58|0.32|
91064777|NCT05921903|182013895|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|GMT Ratio|3.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.26|5.48|||ANCOVA||The comparison is done using the group ratio of adjusted GMT (RSV\_HA/Pooled RSV\_IC) (ANCOVA model applied to the log10- transformed titers). The ANCOVA model included the group as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|To evaluate the humoral immune response to the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in participants that received lung or kidney solid organ transplant (Pooled RSV\_IC group) and healthy participants (RSV\_HA group) for the RSV-A strain at Visit 2.||5.48|2.26|
91064778|NCT05921903|182013895|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|GMT Ratio|1.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|2.04|||ANCOVA||The comparison is done using the group ratio of adjusted GMT (RSV\_HA/Pooled RSV\_IC) (ANCOVA model applied to the log10- transformed titers). The ANCOVA model included the group as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|To evaluate the humoral immune response to the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in participants that received lung or kidney solid organ transplant (Pooled RSV\_IC group) and healthy participants (RSV\_HA group) for the RSV-A strain at Visit 3.||2.04|1.28|
91064779|NCT05921903|182013896|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|GMT Ratio|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.69|||ANCOVA||The comparison is done using the group ratio of adjusted GMT (RSV\_IC\_2/RSV\_IC\_1) (ANCOVA model applied to the log10- transformed titers). ANCOVA model included the group as fixed effect, and SOT type and baseline log10-transformed titer as covariate.|To evaluate the humoral immune response to the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in participants that received lung or kidney solid organ transplant and 1 dose of vaccine (RSV\_IC\_1 group) and participants that received lung or kidney solid organ transplant and 2 doses of vaccine (RSV\_IC\_2 group) for the RSV-A strain at Visit 4.||1.69|0.94|
91064780|NCT05921903|182013897|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|GMT Ratio|1.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.68|||ANCOVA||The comparison is done using the group ratio of adjusted GMT (RSV\_HA/RSV\_IC\_1) (ANCOVA model applied to the log10- transformed titers). The ANCOVA model included the group as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|To evaluate the humoral immune response to the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in participants that received lung or kidney solid organ transplant and 1 dose of study intervention (RSV\_IC\_1 group) and healthy participants (RSV\_HA group) for the RSV-A strain at Visit 4.||1.68|1.01|
91064781|NCT05921903|182013898|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|GMT Ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.3|||ANCOVA||The comparison is done using the group ratio of adjusted GMT (RSV\_HA/RSV\_IC\_2) (ANCOVA model applied to the log10- transformed titers). The ANCOVA model included the group as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|To evaluate the humoral immune response to the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in participants that received lung or kidney solid organ transplant and 2 doses of study intervention (RSV\_IC\_2 group) and healthy participants (RSV\_HA group) for the RSV-A strain at Visit 4.||1.30|0.80|
91064782|NCT05921903|182013900|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|GMT Ratio|3.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.28|4.98|||ANCOVA||The comparison is done using the group ratio of adjusted GMT (RSV\_HA/Pooled RSV\_IC) (ANCOVA model applied to the log10- transformed titers). The ANCOVA model included the group as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|To evaluate the humoral immune response to the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in participants that received lung or kidney solid organ transplant (Pooled RSV\_IC group) and healthy participants (RSV\_HA group) for the RSV-B strain at Visit 2.||4.98|2.28|
91064783|NCT05921903|182013900|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|GMT Ratio|1.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|2.13|||ANCOVA||The comparison is done using the group ratio of adjusted GMT (RSV\_HA/Pooled RSV\_IC) (ANCOVA model applied to the log10- transformed titers). The ANCOVA model included the group as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|To evaluate the humoral immune response to the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in participants that received lung or kidney solid organ transplant (Pooled RSV\_IC group) and healthy participants (RSV\_HA group) for the RSV-B strain at Visit 3.||2.13|1.32|
91064784|NCT05921903|182013901|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|GMT Ratio|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.7|||ANCOVA||The comparison is done using the group ratio of adjusted GMT (RSV\_IC\_2/RSV\_IC\_1) (ANCOVA model applied to the log10- transformed titers). ANCOVA model included the group as fixed effect, and SOT type and baseline log10-transformed titer as covariate.|To evaluate the humoral immune response to the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in participants that received lung or kidney solid organ transplant and 1 dose of vaccine (RSV\_IC\_1 group) and participants that received lung or kidney solid organ transplant and 2 doses of vaccine (RSV\_IC\_2 group) for the RSV-B strain at Visit 4.||1.70|0.97|
91064785|NCT05921903|182013902|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|GMT Ratio|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.65|||ANCOVA||The comparison is done using the group ratio of adjusted GMT (RSV\_HA/RSV\_IC\_1) (ANCOVA model applied to the log10- transformed titers). The ANCOVA model included the group as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|To evaluate the humoral immune response to the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in participants that received lung or kidney solid organ transplant and 1 dose of study intervention (RSV\_IC\_1 group) and healthy participants (RSV\_HA group) for the RSV-B strain at Visit 4.||1.65|1.00|
91064786|NCT05921903|182013903|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|GMT Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.26|||ANCOVA||The comparison is done using the group ratio of adjusted GMT (RSV\_HA/RSV\_IC\_2) (ANCOVA model applied to the log10- transformed titers). The ANCOVA model included the group as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|To evaluate the humoral immune response to the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in participants that received lung or kidney solid organ transplant and 2 doses of study intervention (RSV\_IC\_2 group) and healthy participants (RSV\_HA group) for the RSV-B strain at Visit 4.||1.26|0.80|
91064787|NCT02301169|182013963|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: no difference in mean change from baseline to day 42 of pain severity as measured by weekly means of the daily Average Pain Score (APS), T4P1001 compared with placebo|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3748299||||0.4162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5479411|1.297601||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment group comparisons|t-test, 2 sided|Welch two sample t-test||||1.2976010|-0.5479411|0.4162
91064788|NCT02301169|182013964|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: no difference in mean change from baseline to day 42 of pain severity as measured by weekly means of the daily Worst Pain Score (WPS), T4P1001 compared with placebo.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1255102||||0.7887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8152493|1.0662697||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|Welch two sample t-test||||1.0662697|-0.8152493|0.7887
91064789|NCT02301169|182013965|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: no difference in mean change from baseline to day 42 of pain severity as measured by Investigator Global Assessment of Change, T4P1001 compared with Placebo|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.802381||||0.2353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5457743|2.1505362||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|Welch two sample t-test||||2.1505362|-0.5457743|0.2353
91064790|NCT02301169|182013966|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: no difference in mean change from baseline to day 42 of pain intensity measured after heat pain stimuli, T4P1001 compared with placebo.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7656429||||0.06204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0406744|1.5719601||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|Welch two sample t-test||||1.5719601|-0.0406744|0.06204
91064791|NCT02301169|182013967|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: no difference in mean change from baseline to day 42 of pain severity as measured by the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI), T4P1001 compared with placebo.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.683333||||0.3386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83119|5.197857||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|Welch two sample t-test||||5.197857|-1.831190|0.3386
91064792|NCT03762265|182013968|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|5.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.535||0.4469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.037|20.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value and 95% confidence interval (CI) were based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test stratified by disease type (PV or PF) and disease history (newly diagnosed \[\<=6 months prior to screening\] or relapsing \[diagnosed greater than \[\>\] 6 months prior to screening\]).||20.500|-9.037|0.4469
91064793|NCT03762265|182013969|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|8.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.085||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.752|22.019|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value and 95% CI were based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test stratified by disease type (PV or PF) and disease history (newly diagnosed \[\<=6 months prior to screening\] or relapsing \[diagnosed \>6 months prior to screening\]).||22.019|-5.752|0.2510
91064794|NCT02289729|182014036|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test|||||||< 0.0001
90826740|NCT00250276|181528386|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The first primary objective was reached as the 95% CIs of the GMC ratio between lots were within \[0.5;2\] for the anti-HPV-16 antibodies.|GMC ratio for anti-HPV-16 antibody|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.63|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model on the log10 transformation of the concnetration. The ANOVA model included the vaccine group as fixed effect.||To demonstrate lot-to-lot consistency in terms of immunogenicity between the 3 industrial production lots (600L scale) of the Cervarix™ vaccine, one month post dose 3 (Month 7). If consistency was demonstrated the 3 lots would be pooled and non-inferiority of the 600L scale lot vaccine versus the 80L scale would be evaluated as a second primary objective.||1.63|0.98|
91064795|NCT02289729|182014037|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test|||||||< 0.0001
91064796|NCT02289729|182014038|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test|||||||< 0.0001
91064797|NCT02289729|182014039|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test|||||||< 0.0001
91064798|NCT02289729|182014040|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0328|||||||t-test|||||||0.0328
91064799|NCT02289729|182014041|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4183|||||||t-test|||||||0.4183
91064800|NCT02289729|182014042|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test|||||||< 0.0001
91064801|NCT02289729|182014043|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||t-test|||||||0.0003
91064802|NCT02289729|182014044|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0109|||||||t-test|||||||0.0109
91064803|NCT02289729|182014045|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||t-test|||||||0.0002
91064804|NCT02289729|182014046|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test|||||||< 0.0001
91064805|NCT02289729|182014047|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||signed-rank test|||||||0.0002
91064806|NCT02289729|182014048|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test|||||||< 0.0001
91064807|NCT02289729|182014049|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0038|||||||t-test|||||||0.0038
91064808|NCT02289729|182014050|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||signed-rank test|||||||< 0.0001
91064809|NCT02289729|182014051|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0274|||||||signed-rank test|||||||0.0274
91064810|NCT02289729|182014052|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||signed-rank test|||||||< 0.0001
91064811|NCT02289729|182014053|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0006|||||||t-test|||||||0.0006
91064812|NCT02289729|182014054|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||signed-rank test|||||||0.0010
90826741|NCT00250276|181528386|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The first primary objective was reached as the 95% CIs of the GMC ratio between lots were within \[0.5;2\] for the anti-HPV-18 antibodies.|GMC ratio for anti-HPV-18 antibody|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|1.85|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model on the log10 transformation of the concnetration. The ANOVA model included the vaccine group as fixed effect.||To demonstrate lot-to-lot consistency in terms of immunogenicity between the 3 industrial production lots (600L scale) of the Cervarix™ vaccine, one month post dose 3 (Month 7). If consistency was demonstrated the 3 lots would be pooled and non-inferiority of the 600L scale lot vaccine versus the 80L scale would be evaluated as a second primary objective.||1.85|1.18|
90826742|NCT00250276|181528386|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The first primary objective was reached as the 95% CIs of the GMC ratio between lots were within \[0.5;2\] for the anti-HPV-16 antibodies.|GMT ratio for anti-HPV-16 antibody|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.55|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model on the log10 transformation of the concentration. The ANOVA model included the vaccine group as fixed effect.||To demonstrate lot-to-lot consistency in terms of immunogenicity between the 3 industrial production lots (600L scale) of the Cervarix™ vaccine, one month post dose 3 (Month 7). If consistency was demonstrated the 3 lots would be pooled and non-inferiority of the 600L scale lot vaccine versus the 80L scale would be evaluated as a second primary objective.||1.55|0.94|
90826743|NCT00250276|181528386|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The first primary objective was reached as the 95% CIs of the GMC ratio between lots were within \[0.5;2\] for the anti-HPV-18 antibodies.|GMC ratio for anti-HPV-18 antibody|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.55|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model on the log10 transformation of the concentration. The ANOVA model included the vaccine group as fixed effect.||To demonstrate lot-to-lot consistency in terms of immunogenicity between the 3 industrial production lots (600L scale) of the Cervarix™ vaccine, one month post dose 3 (Month 7). If consistency was demonstrated the 3 lots would be pooled and non-inferiority of the 600L scale lot vaccine versus the 80L scale would be evaluated as a second primary objective.||1.55|1.00|
90826744|NCT00250276|181528386|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The second primary objective was reached as the upper limit of the 95% CI of the difference in seroconversion rates for anti-HPV-16 antibodies was below 5%.|Difference in seroconversion rate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.63|1.02|||Proc StatXact 5.0|||To demonstrate that the Cervarix™ vaccine produced at 600L manufacturing scale was non-inferior in terms of immunogenicity to the Cervarix™ vaccine produced at 80L scale, one month after the third dose (Month 7).||1.02|-3.63|
90826745|NCT00250276|181528386|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The second primary objective was reached as the upper limit of the 95% CI of the difference in seroconversion rates for anti-HPV-18 antibodies was below 5%.|Difference in seroconversion rate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.18|0.94|||Proc StatXact 5.0|||To demonstrate that the Cervarix™ vaccine produced at 600L manufacturing scale was non-inferior in terms of immunogenicity to the Cervarix™ vaccine produced at 80L scale, on month after the third dose (Month 7).||0.94|-3.18|
90826746|NCT00250276|181528386|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The second primary objective was reached as the upper limit of the 95% CI of the GMC rates for anti-HPV-16 was below 2%.|GMC ratio for anti-HPV-16 antibody|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.08|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model on the log10 transformation of the concentration, included the vaccine groups as fixed effect (pooled 600L lot versus 80L lot).||To demonstrate that the Cervarix™ vaccine produced at 600L manufacturing scale was non-inferior in terms of immunogenicity to the Cervarix™ vaccine produced at 80L scale, on month after the third dose (Month 7).||1.08|0.70|
90826747|NCT00250276|181528386|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The second primary objective was reached as the upper limit of the 95% CI of the GMC rates anti-HPV-18 antibodies was below 2%.|GMC ratio for anti-HPV-18 antibody|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.97|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model on the log10 transformation of the concentration, included the vaccine groups as fixed effect (pooled 600L lot versus 80L lot).||To demonstrate that the Cervarix™ vaccine produced at 600L manufacturing scale was non-inferior in terms of immunogenicity to the Cervarix™ vaccine produced at 80L scale, on month after the third dose (Month 7).||0.97|0.66|
90826748|NCT00555217|181528402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.88||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.12|||Log Rank||Combination ARB and ACEI vs. mono therapy ARB|||1.12|0.70|0.30
90826749|NCT00555217|181528403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.05|||Log Rank||Combination ARB and ACEI vs. mono therapy ARB|||1.05|0.58|0.10
90826750|NCT03543137|181528408|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was determined if the 90% CIs of the GMRs for AUC0-t fell completely within the 0.80 - 1.25 range.|Geometric mean ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.02|||||GMR= (Prototype mini Lozenge/ Nicorette mini Lozenge)|||1.02|0.88|
90826751|NCT03543137|181528409|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was determined if the 90% CIs of the GMRs for AUC0-inf fell completely within the range.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.01|||||GMR = (Prototype mini Lozenge/Nicorette mini Lozenge)|||1.01|0.88|
90826752|NCT03543137|181528414|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was determined if the 90% CIs of the GMRs for Cmax fell completely within the range.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.04|||||GMR = (Prototype mini Lozenge/Nicorette mini Lozenge)|||1.04|0.90|
90826753|NCT02781610|181528416|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is -3.5%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.0164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|2.0|||ANOVA|Adjusted for four dichotomous randomization strata.||The ERR non-inferiority test was a priori designed to be conducted on the per-protocol (PP) population for 93% power assuming 2-sided alpha=0.05 with 155 PP participants per arm. Difference between ERR treatment duration arms is ERR-10 - ERR-14.||2.0|-3.3|0.0164
90826754|NCT02781610|181528417|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.1|||ANOVA|Adjusted for four dichotomous randomization strata.||The NERR superiority test was a priori designed to be conducted on the Intent-to-Treat (ITT) population for 91% power to detect a 2.5% difference, assuming 2-sided alpha=0.05 with 285 ITT participants per arm. Difference between NERR treatment duration arms is NERR-21 - NERR-14.||1.1|-1.3|0.568
91064813|NCT02289729|182014055|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||t-test|||||||0.0002
91064814|NCT02289729|182014056|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0297|||||||t-test|||||||0.0297
91064815|NCT02289729|182014057|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0279|||||||t-test|||||||0.0279
91064816|NCT02289729|182014058|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2777|||||||t-test|||||||0.2777
91064817|NCT02289729|182014059|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0047|||||||t-test|||||||0.0047
91064818|NCT02289729|182014060|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||t-test|||||||0.0003
91064819|NCT02289729|182014061|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.5877|||||||t-test|||||||<0.5877
90826755|NCT02781610|181528418|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|4.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference between ERR treatment duration arms is ERR-10 - ERR-14.||4.6|-2.4|0.546
90826756|NCT02781610|181528419|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|0.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference between NERR treatment duration arms is NERR-21 - NERR-14.||0.5|-3.7|0.140
90826757|NCT02781610|181528420|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17||||0.563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.77|||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference between ERR treatment duration arms is ERR-10 - ERR-14.||0.77|-0.42|0.563
90826758|NCT02781610|181528421|SUPERIORITY|Difference between NERR treatment duration arms is NERR-21 - NERR-14.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.61|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.61|-0.04|0.083
90826759|NCT01657292|181528425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||1-sided, significance level = 0.025|Binomial test|||"All patients received both treatments and treatments were intra-individually compared.~Hypotheses tested: H0: s0 ≤0.5 and H1: s0 \>0.5 (with s0=rate of superiority of Oleogel-S10)."||||<0.0001
90826760|NCT02663622|181528501|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.13||||0.0274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.62|||Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified by the matched sets||A hazard ratio was calculated based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model with treatment as a factor using the robust sandwich covariance estimator, comparing the CD24Fc 960 mg arm to a matched control group consisting of 92 participants from the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) observational databases of clinical information on HCT, whose mean grade III-IV AGFS in days was 135.8 with an SD of 64.66.||0.62|0.01|0.0274
90826761|NCT02663622|181528502|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.57||||0.0988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.08|||Log Rank|||A hazard ratio was calculated based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model with treatment as a factor using the robust sandwich covariance estimator, comparing the CD24Fc 960 mg arm to a matched control group consisting of 92 participants from the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) observational databases of clinical information on HCT, whose mean grade II-IV AGFS in days was 104.7 with an SD of 72.28.||1.08|0.30|0.0988
90826762|NCT02663622|181528508|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.12||||0.9088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|2.88|||Log Rank|||A hazard ratio was calculated based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model with treatment as a factor using the robust sandwich covariance estimator, comparing the CD24Fc 960 mg arm to a matched control group consisting of 92 participants from the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) observational databases of clinical information on HCT, whose mean OS in days was 319.3 with an SD of 93.83.||2.88|0.43|0.9088
90826763|NCT02663622|181528510|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.27||||0.6131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.46|||Log Rank|||A hazard ratio was calculated based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model with treatment as a factor using the robust sandwich covariance estimator, comparing the CD24Fc 960 mg arm to a matched control group consisting of 92 participants from the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) observational databases of clinical information on HCT, whose mean RFS in days was 296.0 with an SD of 115.32.||2.46|0.66|0.6131
90826764|NCT00857857|181528511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1033|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.031|0.449||||||||0.449|0.031|
90826765|NCT00857857|181528511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.265|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1048|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.053|0.477||||||||0.477|0.053|
90826766|NCT00857857|181528511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.456|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0993|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.255|0.657||||||||0.657|0.255|
90826767|NCT00857857|181528511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.526|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1025|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.319|0.733||||||||0.733|0.319|
90826768|NCT00857857|181528512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0975|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.013|0.407||||||||0.407|0.013|
90826769|NCT00857857|181528512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.154|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0988|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.046|0.354||||||||0.354|-0.046|
90826770|NCT00857857|181528512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.303|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0937|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.113|0.492||||||||0.492|0.113|
90826771|NCT00857857|181528512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.404|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0966|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.209|0.599||||||||0.599|0.209|
90826772|NCT00857857|181528513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.025|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1372|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.302|0.253|||||Comparison of Minimum FEV1 between Placebo and GW870086 0.25 mg.|||0.253|-0.302|
90826773|NCT00857857|181528513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.106|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1391|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.176|0.387|||||Comparison of Minimum FEV1 between Placebo and GW870086 1 mg.|||0.387|-0.176|
90826774|NCT00857857|181528513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.239|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1319|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.028|0.506|||||Comparison of Minimum FEV1 between Placebo and GW870086 3 mg.|||0.506|-0.028|
90826775|NCT00857857|181528513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.534|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1359|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.809|||||Comparison of Minimum FEV1 between Placebo and fluticasone propionate 0.25 mg BID.|||0.809|0.260|
90826776|NCT00857857|181528513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.054|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0984|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.145|0.253|||||Comparison of Weighted Mean FEV1 between Placebo and GW870086 0.25 mg.|||0.253|-0.145|
90826777|NCT00857857|181528513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.026|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0998|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.176|0.228|||||Comparison of Weighted Mean FEV1 between Placebo and GW870086 1 mg.|||0.228|-0.176|
90826778|NCT00857857|181528513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0945|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.011|0.371|||||Comparison of Weighted Mean FEV1 between Placebo and GW870086 3 mg.|||0.371|-0.011|
90826779|NCT00857857|181528513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0978|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.153|0.548|||||Comparison of Weighted Mean FEV1 between Placebo and fluticasone propionate 0.25 mg BID.|||0.548|0.153|
90826780|NCT00857857|181528514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.9||||||||0.90|0.56|
90826781|NCT00857857|181528514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.107|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.82||||||||0.82|0.53|
90826782|NCT00857857|181528514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.112|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.74||||||||0.74|0.47|
90826783|NCT00857857|181528514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.107|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.55||||||||0.55|0.36|
90826784|NCT00857857|181528520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1086|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.199|0.24|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 0.25 mg OD at 5 minutes|||0.240|-0.199|
91064820|NCT02289729|182014062|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||t-test|||||||0.0002
91064821|NCT02289729|182014063|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test|||||||<0.0001
91064822|NCT02289729|182014064|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test|||||||< 0.0001
91064823|NCT02289729|182014065|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||signed-rank test|||||||< 0.0001
91064824|NCT02289729|182014066|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test|||||||< 0.0001
91064825|NCT02289729|182014067|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||t-test|||||||0.0001
91064826|NCT02289729|182014068|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||signed-rank test|||||||< 0.0001
91064827|NCT02289729|182014069|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2428|||||||signed-rank test|||||||0.2428
91064828|NCT02289729|182014070|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0687|||||||t-test|||||||0.0687
90826785|NCT00857857|181528520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.164|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1285|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.096|0.424|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 0.25 mg OD at 10 minutes|||0.424|-0.096|
90826786|NCT00857857|181528520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1526|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.285|0.333|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 0.25 mg OD at 15 minutes|||0.333|-0.285|
91064829|NCT02289729|182014071|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3126|||||||t-test|||||||0.3126
91064830|NCT02289729|182014072|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1533|||||||t-test|||||||0.1533
91064831|NCT02289729|182014073|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8145|||||||t-test|||||||0.8145
91064832|NCT02289729|182014074|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4048|||||||t-test|||||||0.4048
91064833|NCT02289729|182014075|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8321|||||||t-test|||||||0.8321
91064834|NCT02289729|182014076|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1945|||||||signed-rank test|||||||0.1945
91064835|NCT02289729|182014077|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7937|||||||t-test|||||||0.7937
91064836|NCT02289729|182014078|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0234|||||||signed-rank test|||||||0.0234
91064837|NCT02289729|182014079|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5922|||||||t-test|||||||0.5922
91064838|NCT02289729|182014080|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test|||||||1.000
91064839|NCT02289729|182014081|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6481|||||||t-test|||||||0.6481
91064840|NCT02289729|182014082|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6741|||||||t-test|||||||0.6741
91064841|NCT02289729|182014083|OTHER||Fisher's z|0.27846||||0.0389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.014175|0.495059|||Fisher's z Transformation|||PDQ-39 with UPDRS-III||0.495059|0.014175|0.0389
91064842|NCT02289729|182014083|OTHER||Fisher's z|0.07359||||0.5852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.188409|0.32558|||Fisher's z Transformation|||PDQ-39 with UPDRS-IV||0.325580|-0.188409|0.5852
91064843|NCT02289729|182014083|OTHER||Fisher's z|0.21311||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.051127|0.444152|||Fisher's z Transformation|||PDQ-39 with NMSS||0.444152|-0.051127|0.1140
90826787|NCT00857857|181528520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.069|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1471|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.229|0.366|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 0.25 mg OD at 20 minutes|||0.366|-0.229|
90826788|NCT00857857|181528520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1313|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.277|0.254|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 0.25 mg OD at 30 minutes|||0.254|-0.277|
90826789|NCT00857857|181528520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.269|0.302|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 0.25 mg OD at 45 minutes|||0.302|-0.269|
90826790|NCT00857857|181528520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.046|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1265|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.301|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 0.25 mg OD at 1 hour|||0.301|-0.210|
90826791|NCT00857857|181528520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1102|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.178|0.268|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 0.25 mg OD at 1.5 hours|||0.268|-0.178|
91064844|NCT02289729|182014083|OTHER||Fisher's z|0.29062||||0.0311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.026334|0.504186|||Fisher's z Transformation|||PDQ-39 with BAI||0.504186|0.026334|0.0311
91064845|NCT02289729|182014083|OTHER||Fisher's z|0.49952||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.230995|0.643312|||Fisher's z Transformation|||PDQ-39 with BDI-II||0.643312|0.230995|0.0002
91064846|NCT02289729|182014083|OTHER||Fisher's z|0.08869||||0.5146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.176169|0.341163|||Fisher's z Transformation|||PDQ-39 with AS||0.341163|-0.176169|0.5146
91064847|NCT02289729|182014083|OTHER||Fisher's z|0.34688||||0.0108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.079996|0.546657|||Fisher's z Transformation|||PDQ-39 with PFS||0.546657|0.079996|0.0108
91064848|NCT02289729|182014083|OTHER||Fisher's z|0.22455||||0.0989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.042139|0.455224|||Fisher's z Transformation|||PDQ-39 with NBL A-S||0.455224|-0.042139|0.0989
91064849|NCT02289729|182014083|OTHER||Fisher's z|0.35742||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.106797|0.565335|||Fisher's z Transformation|||PDQ-39 with NBL C-D||0.565335|0.106797|0.0060
91064850|NCT02289729|182014083|OTHER||Fisher's z|0.00011||||0.9993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.260462|0.260673|||Fisher's z Transformation|||PDQ-39 with NBL C-R||0.260673|-0.260462|0.9993
91064851|NCT02289729|182014083|OTHER||Fisher's z|-0.36687||||0.0088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.565795|-0.092154|||Fisher's z Transformation|||PDQ-39 with ZBI||-0.092154|-0.565795|0.0088
91064852|NCT02289729|182014083|OTHER||Fisher's z|0.21643||||0.1222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.057959|0.454911|||Fisher's z Transformation|||PDQ-39 with Goldberg-Anxiety||0.454911|-0.057959|0.1222
91064853|NCT02289729|182014083|OTHER||Fisher's z|0.57423||||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.180247|0.74704|||Fisher's z Transformation|||PDQ-39 with Goldberg-Depression||0.747040|0.180247|0.0041
91064854|NCT02289729|182014084|OTHER||Fisher's z|0.31946||||0.0239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.042257|0.534657|||Fisher's z Transformation|||PDQ-39 with UPDRS-III||0.534657|0.042257|0.0239
91064855|NCT02289729|182014084|OTHER||Fisher's z|0.36796||||0.0093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.090528|0.568388|||Fisher's z Transformation|||PDQ-39 with UPDRS-IV||0.568388|0.090528|0.0093
91064856|NCT02289729|182014084|OTHER||Fisher's z|0.38627||||0.0069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.105875|0.582517|||Fisher's z Transformation|||PDQ-39 with NMSS||0.582517|0.105875|0.0069
91064857|NCT02289729|182014084|OTHER||Fisher's z|0.70289|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.40173|0.753097|||Fisher's z Transformation|||PDQ-39 with BAI||0.753097|0.401730|< 0.0001
91064858|NCT02289729|182014084|OTHER||Fisher's z|0.63758|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.345567|0.72341|||Fisher's z Transformation|||PDQ-39 with BDI-II||0.723410|0.345567|<0.0001
91064859|NCT02289729|182014084|OTHER||Fisher's z|0.24114||||0.0882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.036024|0.476404|||Fisher's z Transformation|||PDQ-39 with AS||0.476404|-0.036024|0.0882
91064860|NCT02289729|182014084|OTHER||Fisher's z|0.67113|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.374757|0.739016|||Fisher's z Transformation|||PDQ-39 with PFS||0.739016|0.374757|< 0.0001
91064861|NCT02289729|182014084|OTHER||Fisher's z|0.60612|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.317572|0.708072|||Fisher's z Transformation|||PDQ-39 with NBL A-S||0.708072|0.317572|< 0.0001
91064862|NCT02289729|182014084|OTHER||Fisher's z|0.60613|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31758|0.708076|||Fisher's z Transformation|||PDQ-39 with NBL C-D||0.708076|0.317580|< 0.0001
91064863|NCT02289729|182014084|OTHER||Fisher's z|0.41143||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.133445|0.597087|||Fisher's z Transformation|||PDQ-39 with NBL C-R||0.597087|0.133445|0.0036
91064864|NCT02289729|182014084|OTHER||Fisher's z|-0.33661||||0.0239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.557217|-0.044411|||Fisher's z Transformation|||PDQ-39 with ZBI||-0.044411|-0.557217|0.0239
91064865|NCT02289729|182014084|OTHER||Fisher's z|0.64565|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.339454|0.734221|||Fisher's z Transformation|||PDQ-39 with Goldberg-Anxiety||0.734221|0.339454|< 0.0001
91064866|NCT02289729|182014084|OTHER||Fisher's z|0.10898||||0.7058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.427482|0.588111|||Fisher's z Transformation|||PDQ-39 with Goldberg-Depression||0.588111|-0.427482|0.7058
91064867|NCT02289729|182014085|OTHER||Fisher's z|-0.57271|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.689585|-0.289724|||Fisher's z Transformation|||SQLC with ZBI||-0.289724|-0.689585|< 0.0001
91064868|NCT02289729|182014085|OTHER||Fisher's z|-0.16332||||0.4142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.504489|0.224771|||Fisher's z Transformation|||SQLC with Goldberg Anxiety||0.224771|-0.504489|0.4142
91064869|NCT02289729|182014085|OTHER||Fisher's z|-0.48143||||0.0239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.715956|-0.063481|||Fisher's z Transformation|||SQLC with Goldberg Depression||-0.063481|-0.715956|0.0239
91064870|NCT02289729|182014085|OTHER||Fisher's z|0.06326||||0.6546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.210715|0.327872|||Fisher's z Transformation|||SQLC with NBL A-S||0.327872|-0.210715|0.6546
91064871|NCT02289729|182014085|OTHER||Fisher's z|0.17674||||0.2114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.100105|0.425116|||Fisher's z Transformation|||SQLC with NBL C-D||0.425116|-0.100105|0.2114
91064872|NCT02289729|182014085|OTHER||Fisher's z|0.2944||||0.0374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.017222|0.516523|||Fisher's z Transformation|||SQLC with NBL C-R||0.516523|0.017222|0.0374
91064873|NCT02289729|182014085|OTHER||Fisher's z|-0.36687||||0.0088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.565795|-0.092154|||Fisher's z Transformation|||SQLC with Global PDQ-39||-0.092154|-0.565795|0.0088
91064874|NCT02289729|182014085|OTHER||Fisher's z|-0.13433||||0.3374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.387439|0.139207|||Fisher's z Transformation|||SQLC with UPDRS-III||0.139207|-0.387439|0.3374
91064875|NCT02289729|182014085|OTHER||Fisher's z|0.17846||||0.2025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.095693|0.424291|||Fisher's z Transformation|||SQLC with UPDRS-IV||0.424291|-0.095693|0.2025
91064876|NCT02289729|182014085|OTHER||Fisher's z|0.01625||||0.9076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.252613|0.282777|||Fisher's z Transformation|||SQLC with Global NMSS||0.282777|-0.252613|0.9076
91064877|NCT02289729|182014086|OTHER||Fisher's z|-0.7468|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.777482|-0.425693|||Fisher's z Transformation|||SQLC with ZBI||-0.425693|-0.777482|< 0.0001
91064878|NCT02289729|182014086|OTHER||Fisher's z|0.17924||||0.5347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.368382|0.632178|||Fisher's z Transformation|||SQLC with Goldberg Anxiety||0.632178|-0.368382|0.5347
91064879|NCT02289729|182014086|OTHER||Fisher's z|-0.06987||||0.8251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.597767|0.500464|||Fisher's z Transformation|||SQLC with Goldberg Depression||0.500464|-0.597767|0.8251
91064880|NCT02289729|182014086|OTHER||Fisher's z|-0.1106||||0.4581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.382323|0.179601|||Fisher's z transformation|||SQLC with NBL A-S||0.179601|-0.382323|0.4581
91064881|NCT02289729|182014086|OTHER||Fisher's z|0.00326||||0.9826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.281136|0.287128|||Fisher's z Transformation|||SQLC with NBL C-D||0.287128|-0.281136|0.9826
91064882|NCT02289729|182014086|OTHER||Fisher's z|-0.10293||||0.4899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.375749|0.187021|||Fisher's z Transformation|||SQLC with NBL C-R||0.187021|-0.375749|0.4899
91064883|NCT02289729|182014086|OTHER||Fisher's z|-0.33661||||0.0239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.557217|-0.044411|||Fisher's z Transformation|||SQLC with Global PDQ-39||-0.044411|-0.557217|0.0239
91064884|NCT02289729|182014086|OTHER||Fisher's z|-0.23658||||0.1125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.484427|0.055538|||Fisher's z Transformation|||SQLC with UPDRS-III||0.055538|-0.484427|0.1125
91064885|NCT02289729|182014086|OTHER||Fisher's z|-0.13015||||0.3826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.398887|0.16062|||Fisher's z Transformation|||SQLC with UPDRS-IV||0.160620|-0.398887|0.3826
91064886|NCT02289729|182014086|OTHER||Fisher's z|0.11688||||0.4382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.176724|0.390468|||Fisher's z Transformation|||SQLC with Global NMSS||0.390468|-0.176724|0.4382
91064887|NCT03123068|182014097|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Mann Whitney U test|||||||>0.05
91064888|NCT02329015|182014105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.58||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|2.41|||Regression, Logistic|||Model 1: An intent to treat analyses was performed determining effect of group assignment on academic performance while controlling for previous year GPA.||2.41|-1.25|0.54
91064889|NCT02329015|182014105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.67||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|3.55|||Regression, Linear|||Model 2: As active participation between groups was significantly different a second intent to treat analysis was performed which added to Model 1 (controlling for previous year GPA) by controlling for active participation.||3.55|-0.21|0.08
91064890|NCT02329015|182014105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|2.7||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|4.71|||Regression, Linear|||Model 3: Per Protocol Analysis: it was hypothesized that any benefit of yoga education would only accrue if the student was assigned to yoga classes and actively participated in the class. A third Model was fit with an interaction term for class assignment and class participation.||4.71|0.69|0.009
91064891|NCT02329015|182014106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.301|||||||Regression, Linear|||Analysis of the Voluntary subscale of the Response to Stress Questionnaire||||0.301
91064892|NCT02845700|182014137|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||ANOVA|2 (time) x 2 (group) x 5 (dilution %) repeated measures ANOVA||||||.08
91064893|NCT02845700|182014138|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t(4) = -1.19, p = .39||Post-hoc estimates of observed power for the difference between group means was calculated to be .15.||||.39
91064894|NCT02845700|182014141|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t(4) = 0.66, p = .54||Post-hoc estimates of observed power for the difference between group means was calculated to be .08.||||.54
91064895|NCT02452476|182014149|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.44|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|||"Day 1, 30 min post dose.~SpO2/FiO2 and FiO2 (%) over the first 24 hours: analyzed using a linear mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) including treatment, timepoint, treatment by timepoint interaction, investigational site and gestational age (GA) group as fixed effects, and predose values as covariates. The adjusted mean difference between treatments, and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) at each timepoint and averaged over the first 24 hours were estimated by the model."||0.44|-0.40|0.930
91064896|NCT02452476|182014149|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.21|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|||Day 1, 1 h post dose||0.21|-0.59|0.346
91064897|NCT02452476|182014149|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.23|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|||Day 1, 3 h post dose||0.23|-0.43|0.549
90826792|NCT00857857|181528520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.096|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0985|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.103|0.295|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 0.25 mg OD at 2 hours|||0.295|-0.103|
90826793|NCT00857857|181528520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0826|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.121|0.212|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 0.25 mg OD at 2.5 hours|||0.212|-0.121|
90826794|NCT00857857|181528520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.027|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0832|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.141|0.196|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 0.25 mg OD at 3 hours|||0.196|-0.141|
90826795|NCT00857857|181528520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0888|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.138|0.221|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 0.25 mg OD at 3.5 hours|||0.221|-0.138|
90826796|NCT00857857|181528520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.027|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0934|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.215|0.162|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 0.25 mg OD at 4 hour|||0.162|-0.215|
90826797|NCT00857857|181528520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.139|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1065|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.076|0.354|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 0.25 mg OD at 4.5 hours|||0.354|-0.076|
90826798|NCT00857857|181528520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.149|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0955|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.044|0.342|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 0.25 mg OD at 5 hours|||0.342|-0.044|
90826799|NCT00857857|181528520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.084|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1005|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.119|0.288|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 0.25 mg OD at 5.5 hours|||0.288|-0.119|
90826800|NCT00857857|181528520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.212|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1122|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.015|0.438|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 0.25 mg OD at 6 hours|||0.438|-0.015|
90826801|NCT00857857|181528520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.162|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1051|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.051|0.374|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 0.25 mg OD at 6.5 hours|||0.374|-0.051|
90826802|NCT00857857|181528520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.222|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1181|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.017|0.461|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 0.25 mg OD at 7 hour|||0.461|-0.017|
90826803|NCT00857857|181528520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.185|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1355|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.089|0.458|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 0.25 mg OD at 7.5 hours|||0.458|-0.089|
91064898|NCT02452476|182014149|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.23|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|||Day 1, 6 h post dose||0.23|-0.43|0.539
91064899|NCT02452476|182014149|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.43|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|||Day 1, 12 h post dose||0.43|-0.21|0.491
90826804|NCT00857857|181528520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.247|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1187|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.007|0.487|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 0.25 mg OD at 8 hours|||0.487|0.007|
90826805|NCT00857857|181528520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.244|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1313|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.021|0.509|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 0.25 mg OD at 8.5 hours|||0.509|-0.021|
90826806|NCT00857857|181528520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.154|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1189|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.086|0.394|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 0.25 mg OD at 9 hours|||0.394|-0.086|
90826807|NCT00857857|181528520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.175|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1085|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.044|0.394|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 0.25 mg OD at 9.5 hours|||0.394|-0.044|
90826808|NCT00857857|181528520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.085|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1024|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.122|0.292|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 0.25 mg OD at 10 hours|||0.292|-0.122|
90826809|NCT00857857|181528520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.072|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1125|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.155|0.3|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 1 mg OD at 5 minutes|||0.300|-0.155|
90826810|NCT00857857|181528520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.051|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1303|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.213|0.314|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 1 mg OD at 10 minutes|||0.314|-0.213|
90826811|NCT00857857|181528520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.142|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1572|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.176|0.461|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 1 mg OD at 15 minutes|||0.461|-0.176|
90826812|NCT00857857|181528520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.094|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1494|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.208|0.396|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 1 mg OD at 20 minutes|||0.396|-0.208|
90826813|NCT00857857|181528520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.058|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1332|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.212|0.327|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 1 mg OD at 30 minutes|||0.327|-0.212|
90826814|NCT00857857|181528520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.065|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.143|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.224|0.354|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 1 mg OD at 45 minutes|||0.354|-0.224|
90826815|NCT00857857|181528520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1283|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.276|0.243|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 1 mg OD at 1 hour|||0.243|-0.276|
90826816|NCT00857857|181528520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.017|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1118|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.209|0.244|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 1 mg OD at 1.5 hours|||0.244|-0.209|
90826817|NCT00857857|181528520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.148|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0998|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.053|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 1 mg OD at 2 hours|||0.053|-0.350|
90826818|NCT00857857|181528520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.086|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0829|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.253|0.082|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 1 mg OD at 2.5 hours|||0.082|-0.253|
90826819|NCT00857857|181528520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0843|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.211|0.13|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 1 mg OD at 3 hours|||0.130|-0.211|
90826820|NCT00857857|181528520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.161|0.202|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 1 mg OD at 3.5 hours|||0.202|-0.161|
90826821|NCT00857857|181528520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0947|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.196|0.186|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 1 mg OD at 4 hour|||0.186|-0.196|
90826822|NCT00857857|181528520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.113|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1079|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.105|0.33|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 1 mg OD at 4.5 hours|||0.330|-0.105|
91064900|NCT02452476|182014149|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.37|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|||Day 1, 18 h post dose||0.37|-0.22|0.623
91064901|NCT02452476|182014149|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.43|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|||Day 1, 24 h post dose||0.43|-0.25|0.608
91064902|NCT02452476|182014149|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 2, post dose~SpO2/FiO2 was compared between treatments at the remaining post-treatment time points (i.e., Days 2, 3, 5, 7): analyzed using mixed model including treatment, investigational site and gestational age group as fixed effects and pre-dose ratio as covariate."||0.30|-0.35|0.869
91064903|NCT02452476|182014149|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 3, post dose||0.31|-0.38|0.833
91064904|NCT02452476|182014149|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 5, post dose||0.29|-0.39|0.772
91064905|NCT02452476|182014149|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, post dose||0.35|-0.33|0.963
91064906|NCT02452476|182014150|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.94||||0.519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.87|3.99|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|||Day 1, 30 min post dose||3.99|-7.87|0.519
90826823|NCT00857857|181528520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0968|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.065|0.326|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 1 mg OD at 5 hours|||0.326|-0.065|
91064907|NCT02452476|182014150|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.45||||0.282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|6.93|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|||Day 1, 1 h post dose||6.93|-2.04|0.282
91064908|NCT02452476|182014150|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41||||0.854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.04|4.86|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|||Day 1, 3 h post dose||4.86|-4.04|0.854
91064909|NCT02452476|182014150|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41||||0.861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|4.19|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|||Day 1, 6 h post dose||4.19|-5.00|0.861
91064910|NCT02452476|182014150|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.77||||0.117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.24|0.7|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|||Day 1, 12 h post dose||0.70|-6.24|0.117
91064911|NCT02452476|182014150|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.92||||0.185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.79|0.94|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|||Day 1, 18 h post dose||0.94|-4.79|0.185
91064912|NCT02452476|182014150|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.01||||0.678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.82|3.8|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|||Day 1, 24 h post dose||3.80|-5.82|0.678
91064913|NCT02452476|182014150|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.49|3.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 2, post dose~SpO2/FiO2 was compared between treatments at the remaining post-treatment time points (i.e., Days 2, 3, 5, 7): analyzed using mixed model including treatment, investigational site and gestational age group as fixed effects and pre-dose ratio as covariate."||3.67|-3.49|0.961
91064914|NCT02452476|182014150|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.53||||0.544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.53|3.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 3, post dose||3.46|-6.53|0.544
91064915|NCT02452476|182014150|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.74||||0.492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.28|6.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 5, post dose||6.76|-3.28|0.492
91064916|NCT02452476|182014150|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.23||||0.634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|6.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, post dose||6.36|-3.90|0.634
91064917|NCT02452476|182014151|SUPERIORITY|Mortality or BPD incidence at 36-week PMA was compared by treatment, using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH), adjusting for stratification gestational age (GA) group. Relative risk (RR) and its 95% confidence interval are also provided.|Relative risk|1.03||||0.811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.32|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 36 PMA Incidence of BPD||1.32|0.81|0.811
91064918|NCT02452476|182014151|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk|1.0||||0.972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.25|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 36 PMA Incidence of Mortality/BPD||1.25|0.81|0.972
91064919|NCT02452476|182014151|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk|0.74||||0.619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|2.42|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 36 PMA Mortality||2.42|0.23|0.619
91064920|NCT02452476|182014151|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk|1.46||||0.602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|6.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 28 PNA Mortality||6.09|0.35|0.602
91064921|NCT02452476|182014151|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk|0.56||||0.606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|5.29|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 14 PNA RDS-associated mortality in 14 days of life||5.29|0.06|0.606
91064922|NCT02452476|182014152|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||0.409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.57|||Fisher Exact|||||1.57|0.30|0.409
91064923|NCT02452476|182014153|SUPERIORITY|The percentage of patients requiring at least one rescue surfactant dose were compared by treatment group using the Fisher's exact test at 5% significance interval. Odds ratio (OR) and related exact 95% CI are also provided.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|2.67|||Fisher Exact|||The percentage of patients requiring at least one rescue surfactant dose.||2.67|0.55|0.689
91064924|NCT02452476|182014154|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.935|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.935
91064925|NCT02348112|182014157|NON_INFERIORITY|The number and proportion of subjects experiencing a 50% or greater reduction in pad weight at 6 months were compared, and non-inferiority assessed using a normal approximation test (Z-test) for a difference in binomial proportion. Non-inferiority was considered achieved if the 95% confidence interval for the difference in proportions (Comparator - Altis) was less than 0.15.|Difference in Proportions|-0.054||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.139|0.031|||Normal approximation test (Z-test)|||||0.031|-0.139|0.013
91064926|NCT02348112|182014158|NON_INFERIORITY|The number and proportion of subjects experiencing device- and/or procedure-related serious adverse events were tabulated for each study group. Non-inferiority through 36 months was calculated using a normal approximation test (Z-test) for a difference in binomial proportion. Non-inferiority was considered achieved if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the difference in proportions (Comparator - Altis) is greater than -0.10 in the mITT analysis population.|Difference in Proportions|0.013|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.023|0.048|||Normal approximation test (Z-test)|||||0.048|-0.023|<0.0001
90826824|NCT00857857|181528520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1019|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.213|0.199|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 1 mg OD at 5.5 hours|||0.199|-0.213|
90826825|NCT00857857|181528520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.178|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1138|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.052|0.407|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 1 mg OD at 6 hours|||0.407|-0.052|
91064927|NCT03714828|182014171|OTHER||Overall Response Rate|100.0||||0.0005|ONE_SIDED|95.0|76.2||||One-sample binomial test|One-sample binomial test versus null hypothesis value of 0.50.|||||76.2|0.0005
91064928|NCT03714828|182014173|OTHER|Descriptive statistics|Mean|48.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|29.2|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90826826|NCT00857857|181528520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.135|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1065|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.351|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 1 mg OD at 6.5 hours|||0.351|-0.080|
90826827|NCT00857857|181528520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.179|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1198|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.062|0.421|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 1 mg OD at 7 hour|||0.421|-0.062|
90826828|NCT00857857|181528520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.146|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1373|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.131|0.423|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 1 mg OD at 7.5 hours|||0.423|-0.131|
90826829|NCT00857857|181528520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.168|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1203|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.075|0.411|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 1 mg OD at 8 hours|||0.411|-0.075|
90826830|NCT00857857|181528520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.222|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1331|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.047|0.49|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 1 mg OD at 8.5 hours|||0.490|-0.047|
90826831|NCT00857857|181528520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.143|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1206|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.387|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 1 mg OD at 9 hours|||0.387|-0.100|
90826832|NCT00857857|181528520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.187|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.035|0.41|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 1 mg OD at 9.5 hours|||0.410|-0.035|
90826833|NCT00857857|181528520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.168|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1039|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.042|0.378|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 1 mg OD at 10 hours|||0.378|-0.042|
90826834|NCT00857857|181528520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.221|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1036|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.011|0.431|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 3 mg OD at 5 minutes|||0.431|0.011|
91064929|NCT03714828|182014175|OTHER|Binomial proportion of TILs|Percentage|83.3|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91064930|NCT03714828|182014178|OTHER|Counts of TILs|Percentage|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91064931|NCT03714828|182014179|OTHER||Percentage|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91064932|NCT00946920|182014182|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority limit for the difference between treatments (degarelix versus goserelin acetate) was chosen to be -5 percentage points.|Kaplan-Meier estimate|79.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|75.6|83.7||||||The cumulative probability of testosterone ≤0.5 ng/mL from Day 3 to Day 364 was estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method. Only testosterone measurements taken at scheduled trial visits from Day 3 to Day 364 were included in the analysis. The hypothesis to test was the following: a non-inferiority assessment determined whether degarelix was non-inferior to goserelin with respect to the cumulative probability of testosterone ≤0.5 ng/mL from Day 3 to Day 364.||83.7|75.6|
91064933|NCT01709500|182014201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-51.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.1|-44.8||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Alirocumab group was compared to the placebo group using an appropriate contrast statement.||-44.8|-58.1|<0.0001
90826835|NCT00857857|181528520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.244|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1236|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.006|0.494|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 3 mg OD at 10 minutes|||0.494|-0.006|
90826836|NCT00857857|181528520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.255|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1445|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.038|0.548|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 3 mg OD at 15 minutes|||0.548|-0.038|
90826837|NCT00857857|181528520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.233|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1436|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.057|0.524|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 3 mg OD at 20 minutes|||0.524|-0.057|
90826838|NCT00857857|181528520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.219|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1262|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.036|0.474|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 3 mg OD at 30 minutes|||0.474|-0.036|
90826839|NCT00857857|181528520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.294|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1355|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.019|0.568|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 3 mg OD at 45 minutes|||0.568|0.019|
90826840|NCT00857857|181528520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.227|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1216|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.019|0.473|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 3 mg OD at 1 hour|||0.473|-0.019|
90826841|NCT00857857|181528520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.204|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1059|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.418|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 3 mg OD at 1.5 hours|||0.418|-0.010|
90826842|NCT00857857|181528520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.116|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0947|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.075|0.308|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 3 mg OD at 2 hours|||0.308|-0.075|
90826843|NCT00857857|181528520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.027|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0805|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.136|0.19|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 3 mg OD at 2.5 hours|||0.190|-0.136|
90826844|NCT00857857|181528520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.046|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0801|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.116|0.208|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 3 mg OD at 3 hours|||0.208|-0.116|
90826845|NCT00857857|181528520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.074|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0855|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.099|0.247|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 3 mg OD at 3.5 hour|||0.247|-0.099|
90826846|NCT00857857|181528520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.131|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.051|0.313|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 3 mg OD at 4 hours|||0.313|-0.051|
90826847|NCT00857857|181528520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.204|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1025|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.411|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 3 mg OD at 4.5 hours|||0.411|-0.004|
90826848|NCT00857857|181528520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.181|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0918|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.367|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 3 mg OD at 5 hours|||0.367|-0.004|
90826849|NCT00857857|181528520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.178|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0967|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.018|0.373|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 3 mg OD at 5.5 hours|||0.373|-0.018|
91064934|NCT01709500|182014202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-52.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.7|-45.6||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 5% level.||-45.6|-58.7|<0.0001
91064935|NCT01709500|182014203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-48.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.7|-42.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant).||-42.2|-54.7|<0.0001
91064936|NCT01709500|182014204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-48.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.0|-42.5||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant).||-42.5|-55|<0.0001
91064937|NCT01709500|182014205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-39.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.1|-34.5||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant).||-34.5|-44.1|<0.0001
91064938|NCT01709500|182014206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-39.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.5|-35.1||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant).||-35.1|-44.5|<0.0001
91064939|NCT01709500|182014207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-45.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.8|-39.7||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant).||-39.7|-51.8|<0.0001
91064940|NCT01709500|182014208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-46.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.3|-40.4||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant).||-40.4|-52.3|<0.0001
91064941|NCT01709500|182014209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-32.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.4|-28.1||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant).||-28.1|-37.4|<0.0001
90826850|NCT00857857|181528520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.288|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1079|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.506|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 3 mg OD at 6 hours|||0.506|0.070|
90826851|NCT00857857|181528520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.283|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1011|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.079|0.488|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 3 mg OD at 6.5 hours|||0.488|0.079|
90826852|NCT00857857|181528520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.386|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1137|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.157|0.616|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 3 mg OD at 7 hour|||0.616|0.157|
90826853|NCT00857857|181528520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.372|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1306|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.108|0.636|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 3 mg OD at 7.5 hours|||0.636|0.108|
90826854|NCT00857857|181528520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.458|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1142|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.227|0.688|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 3 mg OD at 8 hours|||0.688|0.227|
91064942|NCT01709500|182014210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-34.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.2|-29.8||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant).||-29.8|-39.2|<0.0001
91064943|NCT01709500|182014211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-42.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.8|-36.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant).||-36.2|-47.8|<0.0001
91064944|NCT01709500|182014212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-29.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.5|-25.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant).||-25.4|-34.5|<0.0001
91064945|NCT01709500|182014213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-58.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.8|-50.8||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant).||-50.8|-66.8|<0.0001
91064946|NCT01709500|182014214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|52.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.9|130.0||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant). Statistical analysis used a multiple imputation approach followed by a Logistic regression model.||130|20.9|<0.0001
91064947|NCT01709500|182014215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|53.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.4|132.6||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant). Statistical analysis used a multiple imputation approach followed by a Logistic regression model.||132.6|21.4|<0.0001
91064948|NCT01709500|182014216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|239.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.6|1820.3||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant). Statistical analysis used a multiple imputation approach followed by a Logistic regression model.||1820.3|31.6|<0.0001
90826855|NCT00857857|181528520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.509|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1264|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.254|0.765|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 3 mg OD at 8.5 hours|||0.765|0.254|
90826856|NCT00857857|181528520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.492|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1144|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.261|0.723|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 3 mg OD at 9 hours|||0.723|0.261|
90826857|NCT00857857|181528520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.414|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1042|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.203|0.625|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 3 mg OD at 9.5 hours|||0.625|0.203|
90826858|NCT00857857|181528520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0984|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.241|0.639|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 3 mg OD at 10 hours|||0.639|0.241|
90826859|NCT00857857|181528520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.348|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1056|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.135|0.562|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and fluticasone propionate 0.25 mg BID at 5 minutes|||0.562|0.135|
90826860|NCT00857857|181528520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.494|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1273|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.237|0.751|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and fluticasone propionate 0.25 mg BID at 10 minutes|||0.751|0.237|
90826861|NCT00857857|181528520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.499|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1484|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.199|0.8|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and fluticasone propionate 0.25 mg BID at 15 minutes|||0.800|0.199|
91064949|NCT01709500|182014217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|240.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.4|1841.7||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant). Statistical analysis used a multiple imputation approach followed by a Logistic regression model.||1841.7|31.4|<0.0001
91064950|NCT01709500|182014218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-20.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.4|-14.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Robust|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant). Statistical analysis used a multiple imputation approach followed by a robust regression model.||-14.2|-26.4|<0.0001
91064951|NCT01709500|182014219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.8|||=|0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|10.7||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant).||10.7|2.8|= 0.0009
91064952|NCT01709500|182014220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-10.9|||=|0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|-4.3||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Robust|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure. Statistical analysis used a multiple imputation approach followed by a robust regression model.||-4.3|-17.5|= 0.0012
91064953|NCT01709500|182014221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.4|||=|0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|7.5||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant).||7.5|1.3|= 0.0062
91064954|NCT01709500|182014222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-19.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.0|-13.1||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Robust|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant). Statistical analysis used a multiple imputation approach followed by a robust regression model.||-13.1|-25|<0.0001
91064955|NCT01709500|182014223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.3|||=|0.0147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|7.8||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant).||7.8|0.9|= 0.0147
91064956|NCT01709500|182014224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-8.6|||=|0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.1|-1.1||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Robust|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant). Statistical analysis used a multiple imputation approach followed by a robust regression model.||-1.1|-16.1|= 0.024
91064957|NCT01709500|182014225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.3|||=|0.1475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|5.5||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant).||5.5|-0.8|= 0.1475
91064958|NCT02654054|182014240|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|56.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.002|140.227||The P value for test of difference is by pooling the results from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline MBL volume as a covariate in each data set from multiple imputation.|Regression, Logistic|||||140.227|23.002|< 0.001
91064959|NCT02654054|182014240|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|22.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.466|50.451||The P value for test of difference is by pooling the results from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline MBL volume as a covariate in each data set from multiple imputation.|Regression, Logistic|||||50.451|10.466|< 0.001
91064960|NCT02654054|182014241|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-222.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.77|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The P value for test of difference between each elagolix treatment group and placebo is by pooling the results from an ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline MBL volume as a covariate in each dataset from multiple imputation.|ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
91064961|NCT02654054|182014241|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-177.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The P value for test of difference between each elagolix treatment group and placebo is by pooling the results from an ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline MBL volume as a covariate in each dataset from multiple imputation.|ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
91064962|NCT02654054|182014242|SUPERIORITY||Between-Group Difference (%)|79.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.13|88.16||The P value is calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if ≥ 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-square or Fisher's exact test|||||88.16|71.13|< 0.001
91064963|NCT02654054|182014242|SUPERIORITY||Between-Group Difference (%)|52.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.11|60.76||The P value is calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if ≥ 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-square or Fisher's exact test|||||60.76|44.11|< 0.001
91064964|NCT02654054|182014243|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-234.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The P value is from mixed models repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment, month, and an interaction between treatment and month as fixed effect factors, and baseline MBL volume as a covariate comparing each elagolix treatment group with placebo.|mixed model repeated measures|||||||< 0.001
91064965|NCT02654054|182014243|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-192.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The P value is from mixed models repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment, month, and an interaction between treatment and month as fixed effect factors, and baseline MBL volume as a covariate comparing each elagolix treatment group with placebo.|mixed model repeated measures|||||||< 0.001
91064966|NCT02654054|182014244|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-240.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.69|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The P value is from MMRM with treatment, month, and an interaction between treatment and month as fixed effect factors, and baseline MBL volume as a covariate comparing each elagolix treatment group with placebo.|mixed model repeated measures|||||||< 0.001
91064967|NCT02654054|182014244|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-198.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.76|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The P value is from MMRM with treatment, month, and an interaction between treatment and month as fixed effect factors, and baseline MBL volume as a covariate comparing each elagolix treatment group with placebo.|mixed model repeated measures|||||||< 0.001
90826862|NCT00857857|181528520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.573|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1481|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.274|0.872|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and fluticasone propionate 0.25 mg BID at 20 minutes|||0.872|0.274|
91064968|NCT02654054|182014245|SUPERIORITY||Between-Group Difference (%)|49.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.27|69.18||The P value is calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if ≥ 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|chi-square or Fisher's exact test|||||69.18|30.27|< 0.001
91064969|NCT02654054|182014245|SUPERIORITY||Between-Group Difference (%)|45.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.9|63.92||The P value is calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if ≥ 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|chi-square or Fisher's exact test|||||63.92|26.90|< 0.001
91064970|NCT02654054|182014246|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-190.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.59|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The P value is from MMRM with treatment, month, and an interaction between treatment and month as fixed effect factors, and baseline MBL volume as a covariate comparing each elagolix treatment group with placebo.|mixed model repeated measures|||||||< 0.001
91064971|NCT02654054|182014246|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-116.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The P value is from MMRM with treatment, month, and an interaction between treatment and month as fixed effect factors, and baseline MBL volume as a covariate comparing each elagolix treatment group with placebo.|mixed model repeated measures|||||||< 0.001
90826863|NCT00857857|181528520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.488|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1303|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.225|0.751|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and fluticasone propionate 0.25 mg BID at 30 minutes|||0.751|0.225|
90826864|NCT00857857|181528520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1398|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.098|0.663|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and fluticasone propionate 0.25 mg BID at 45 minutes|||0.663|0.098|
90826865|NCT00857857|181528520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.342|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1254|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.089|0.596|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and fluticasone propionate 0.25 mg BID at 1 hour|||0.596|0.089|
90826866|NCT00857857|181528520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.218|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1094|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.003|0.439|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and fluticasone propionate 0.25 mg BID at 1.5 hours|||0.439|-0.003|
90826867|NCT00857857|181528520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.127|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0974||||95.0|-0.07|0.323|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and fluticasone propionate 0.25 mg BID at 2 hours|||0.323|-0.070|
90826868|NCT00857857|181528520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.058|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0818|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.107|0.223|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and fluticasone propionate 0.25 mg BID at 2.5 hours|||0.223|-0.107|
90826869|NCT00857857|181528520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.027|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0821|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.192|0.139|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and fluticasone propionate 0.25 mg BID at 3 hours|||0.139|-0.192|
90826870|NCT00857857|181528520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.091|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0876|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.085|0.268|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and fluticasone propionate 0.25 mg BID at 3.5 hours|||0.268|-0.085|
91064972|NCT02490631|182014247|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.456|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.456
91064973|NCT02490631|182014248|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.019
91064974|NCT06389487|182014249|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-Inferiority (NI) was to be demonstrated if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the group GMT ratio between Part A:RSV-OA Group over Part A:RSV-A-AIR Group at 1 month post RSVPreF3 OA vaccine administration was less than or equal to (≤) 1.5.|GMT Ratio|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.81|||||The comparison is done using the group ratio of adjusted GMT (Part A:RSV-OA/ Part A:RSV-A-AIR) (ANCOVA model applied to the log10- transformed titers). The ANCOVA model included the group as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the humoral immune response in participants aged 18-49 YOA at increased risk for RSV disease (Part A:RSV-A-AIR Group) compared to older adults aged ≥60 YOA (Part A:RSV-OA Group) for the RSV-A strain after RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine administration.||0.81|0.64|
91079209|NCT03240406|182044068|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.01||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|ANCOVA|MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|||0.01|0|0.213
90826871|NCT00857857|181528520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.084|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0921|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.102|0.269|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and fluticasone propionate 0.25 mg BID at 4 hour|||0.269|-0.102|
90826872|NCT00857857|181528520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.249|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.105|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.038|0.461|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and fluticasone propionate 0.25 mg BID at 4.5 hours|||0.461|0.038|
90826873|NCT00857857|181528520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.238|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0945|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.047|0.429|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and fluticasone propionate 0.25 mg BID at 5 hours|||0.429|0.047|
90826874|NCT00857857|181528520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.315|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0995|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.114|0.516|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and fluticasone propionate 0.25 mg BID at 5.5 hours|||0.516|0.114|
90826875|NCT00857857|181528520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.367|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1111|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.143|0.591|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and fluticasone propionate 0.25 mg BID at 6 hours|||0.591|0.143|
90826876|NCT00857857|181528520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.361|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.104|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.151|0.571|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and fluticasone propionate 0.25 mg BID at 6.5 hours|||0.571|0.151|
90826877|NCT00857857|181528520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.367|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1168|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.131|0.602|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and fluticasone propionate 0.25 mg BID at 7 hour|||0.602|0.131|
90826878|NCT00857857|181528520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.424|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1336|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.155|0.694|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and fluticasone propionate 0.25 mg BID at 7.5 hours|||0.694|0.155|
90826879|NCT00857857|181528520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.556|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1174|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.319|0.793|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and fluticasone propionate 0.25 mg BID at 8 hours|||0.793|0.319|
90826880|NCT00857857|181528520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.593|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1297||||95.0|0.331|0.854|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and fluticasone propionate 0.25 mg BID at 8.5 hours|||0.854|0.331|
90826881|NCT00857857|181528520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.559|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1177|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.322|0.797|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and fluticasone propionate 0.25 mg BID at 9 hours|||0.797|0.322|
90826882|NCT00857857|181528520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.522|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1076||||95.0|0.304|0.739|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and fluticasone propionate 0.25 mg BID at 9.5 hours|||0.739|0.304|
90826883|NCT00857857|181528520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.514|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1017||||95.0|0.308|0.719|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and fluticasone propionate 0.25 mg BID at 10 hours|||0.719|0.308|
90826884|NCT00857857|181528522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.295|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1038||||95.0|0.086|0.503|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 0.25 mg OD at Day 7|||0.503|0.086|
90826885|NCT00857857|181528522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.185|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0884|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.007|0.363|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 0.25 mg OD at Day 13|||0.363|0.007|
90826886|NCT00857857|181528522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.144|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1026|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.062|0.351|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 0.25 mg OD at Day 14|||0.351|-0.062|
90826887|NCT00857857|181528522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0979|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.133|0.527|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 1 mg OD at Day 7|||0.527|0.133|
90826888|NCT00857857|181528522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.081|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0856|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.092|0.253|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 1 mg OD at Day 13|||0.253|-0.092|
90826889|NCT00857857|181528522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.126|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.076|0.327|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 1 mg OD at Day 14|||0.327|-0.076|
90826890|NCT00857857|181528522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.297|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0976|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.493|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 3 mg OD at Day 7|||0.493|0.100|
90826891|NCT00857857|181528522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.256|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0859|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.083|0.429|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 3 mg OD at Day 13|||0.429|0.083|
90826892|NCT00857857|181528522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.462|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0991|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.262|0.662|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 3 mg OD at Day 14|||0.662|0.262|
90826893|NCT00857857|181528522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.323|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0982|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.125|0.52|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and fluticasone propionate 0.25 mg BID at Day 7|||0.520|0.125|
90826894|NCT00857857|181528522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.229|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0858|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.057|0.402|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and fluticasone propionate 0.25 mg BID at Day 13|||0.402|0.057|
90826895|NCT00857857|181528522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.372|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0991|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.172|0.572|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and fluticasone propionate 0.25 mg BID at Day 14|||0.572|0.172|
90826896|NCT00857857|181528532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.482|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.66|||||Doubling dose differences, that is a treatment doubling dose difference of 1 indicates that the concentration of methacholine required to cause a 20% fall in FEV1 in one treatment is twice that in the other (log2\[2\] = 1).|||0.66|-1.30|
90826897|NCT00857857|181528532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.495|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|1.28|||||Doubling dose differences, that is a treatment doubling dose difference of 1 indicates that the concentration of methacholine required to cause a 20% fall in FEV1 in one treatment is twice that in the other (log2\[2\] = 1).|||1.28|-0.73|
90826898|NCT00857857|181528532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|2.19|||||Doubling dose differences, that is a treatment doubling dose difference of 1 indicates that the concentration of methacholine required to cause a 20% fall in FEV1 in one treatment is twice that in the other (log2\[2\] = 1).|||2.19|0.36|
90826899|NCT00857857|181528532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.469|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.75|||||Doubling dose differences, that is a treatment doubling dose difference of 1 indicates that the concentration of methacholine required to cause a 20% fall in FEV1 in one treatment is twice that in the other (log2\[2\] = 1).|||2.75|0.84|
91079210|NCT03240406|182044069|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.09||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|ANCOVA|MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|||0.09|0|0.036
90826900|NCT00997035|181528610|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.18|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional hazards regression to estimate the hazard of perforation or need for TPK.||The sample size was determined based on the primary end point: perforation or the need for TPK within 3 months. Simulation-based analyses estimated that a sample sizeof 240 study participants (120 per arm) would provide 80% power to detect a 15% difference in the 3-month perforation or need for TPK rate between topical antifungal plus oral voriconazole vs topical antifungal alone,with a 2-tailed α value of .05 and approximately 15%loss to follow-up.||1.18|0.57|0.29
90826901|NCT00997035|181528615|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.57|||Regression, Cox|||||1.57|.49|0.65
90826902|NCT00997035|181528617|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Statistically significant after Holms-Šidák correction for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
90826903|NCT01072188|181528626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
90826904|NCT01072188|181528627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
90826905|NCT03456076|181528634|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.24||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.45|||Log Rank|||||0.45|0.13|.0001
90826906|NCT03456076|181528634|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.24||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.43|||Log Rank|||||0.43|0.13|.0001
90826907|NCT03187132|181528643|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.15|0.43|||Mixed Models Analysis||The estimate is for the Digital Pain Reduction Kit arm.|We used a repeated measures linear mixed model featuring fixed effects for time, study arm, and score at week 1, and random effects to account for within subject variation.||.43|-4.15|.111
90826908|NCT03187132|181528644|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.27||0.612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|3.12|||Mixed Models Analysis||The estimate is for the Digital Pain Reduction Kit arm.|We used a repeated measures linear mixed model featuring fixed effects for time, study arm, and score at week 1, and random effects to account for within subject variation.||3.12|-1.84|.612
91064975|NCT06389487|182014250|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the upper limit of the 95% CI of the group SRR difference between Part A:RSV-OA Group and Part A:RSV-A-AIR Group at 1 month post RSVPreF3 OA vaccine administration was ≤10%.|Difference in percentage|-9.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.55|-4.1|||||The comparison is done using the difference of SRR (Part A:RSV-OA - Part A:RSV-A-AIR).|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the humoral immune response in participants aged 18-49 YOA at increased risk for RSV disease (Part A:RSV-A-AIR Group) compared to older adults aged ≥60 YOA (Part A:RSV-OA Group) for the RSV-A strain after RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine administration.||-4.10|-14.55|
91064976|NCT06389487|182014251|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the upper limit of the 95% CI of the group GMT ratio between Part A:RSV-OA Group over Part A:RSV-A-AIR Group at 1 month post RSVPreF3 OA vaccine administration was ≤1.5.|GMT Ratio|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.82|||||The comparison is done using the group ratio of adjusted GMT (Part A:RSV-OA/ Part A:RSV-A-AIR) (ANCOVA model applied to the log10- transformed titers). The ANCOVA model included the group as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the humoral immune response in participants aged 18-49 YOA at increased risk for RSV disease (Part A:RSV-A-AIR Group) compared to older adults aged ≥60 YOA (Part A:RSV-OA Group) for the RSV-B strain after RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine administration.||0.82|0.65|
91064977|NCT06389487|182014252|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the upper limit of the 95% CI of the group SRR difference between Part A:RSV-OA Group and Part A:RSV-A-AIR Group at 1 month post RSVPreF3 OA vaccine administration was ≤10%.|Difference in percentage|-10.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.26|-4.8|||||The comparison is done using the difference of SRR (Part A:RSV-OA - Part A:RSV-A-AIR).|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the humoral immune response in participants aged 18-49 YOA at increased risk for RSV disease (Part A:RSV-A-AIR Group) compared to older adults aged ≥60 YOA (Part A:RSV-OA Group) for the RSV-B strain after RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine administration.||-4.80|-15.26|
91064978|NCT03851406|182014361|OTHER||||||>|0.99||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||> 0.99
91064979|NCT03851406|182014362|OTHER||||||>|0.99||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||> 0.99
91064980|NCT03851406|182014363|OTHER||||||>|0.99||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||4 hours post WSP exposure||||> 0.99
91064981|NCT03851406|182014363|OTHER||||||>|0.99||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||24 hours post WSP exposure||||> 0.99
91064982|NCT03851406|182014364|OTHER|||||||0.38||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||4 hours post WSP exposure||||0.38
91064983|NCT03851406|182014364|OTHER|||||||0.38||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||24 hours post WSP exposure||||0.38
91064984|NCT03851406|182014365|OTHER|||||||0.25||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||4 hours post WSP exposure||||0.25
91064985|NCT03851406|182014365|OTHER|||||||0.63||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||24 hours post WSP exposure||||0.63
91064986|NCT03851406|182014366|OTHER|||||||0.88||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||4 hours post WSP exposure||||0.88
91064987|NCT03851406|182014366|OTHER||||||>|0.99||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||24 hours post WSP exposure||||>0.99
91064988|NCT03851406|182014367|OTHER|||||||0.88||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||4 hours post WSP exposure||||0.88
91064989|NCT03851406|182014367|OTHER|||||||0.25||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||24 hours post WSP exposure||||0.25
91064990|NCT03851406|182014368|OTHER||||||>|0.99||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||4 hours post WSP exposure||||>0.99
91064991|NCT03851406|182014368|OTHER||||||>|0.99||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||24 hours post WSP exposure||||>0.99
91064992|NCT03851406|182014369|OTHER|||||||0.75||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||4 hours post WSP exposure||||0.75
91064993|NCT03851406|182014369|OTHER|||||||0.38||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||24 hours post WSP exposure||||0.38
91064994|NCT01120184|182014398|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The study was powered for superiority with target hazard ratio (HR) equal to 0.75, as well as for non-inferiority with HR equal to 1.1765 for comparison between each of the trastuzumab emtansine-containing arms and the trastuzumab + taxane arm. Non-inferiority was established if the upper bound of the 97.5% CI was less than (\<) 1.1765. Superiority was achieved if the upper bound of the 97.5% CI was \<1.00.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.3125|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.73|1.13||Test and p-value apply for superiority test. Two-sided significance level of 2.5% was used to adjust for independent comparison between each of the trastuzumab emtansine-containing arms and the trastuzumab + taxane arm.|Log Rank||Direction of comparison: Trastuzumab Emtansine + Placebo vs. Trastuzumab + Taxane|Stratified Analysis: Stratification factors included world region (United States, Western Europe/Canada/Australia-Pacific, Eastern Europe, Asia, others); prior adjuvant/neoadjuvant therapy (no, yes \[trastuzumab and/or lapatinib\], yes \[no trastuzumab and/or lapatinib\]), and visceral disease (present, absent).||1.13|0.73|0.3125
91077849|NCT02913105|182041135|OTHER|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.05||||0.2048|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|1.12|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||TIMP-1: Day 84||1.12|0.98|0.2048
90826909|NCT03187132|181528645|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.58||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.51|4.66|||t-test, 2 sided|||For work productivity measures, self-reported opioid utilization, and post-study measures of satisfaction, we used t-tests for normally distributed data and Wilcoxon Rank-Sum tests for non-normally distributed data.||4.66|-5.51|.87
91064995|NCT01120184|182014398|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The study was powered for superiority with target HR equal to 0.75, as well as for non-inferiority with HR equal to 1.1765 for comparison between each of the trastuzumab emtansine-containing arms and the trastuzumab + taxane arm. Non-inferiority was established if the upper bound of the 97.5% CI was \<1.1765. Superiority was achieved if the upper bound of the 97.5% CI was \<1.00.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.1407|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.69|1.08||Test and p-value apply for superiority test. Two-sided significance level of 2.5% was used to adjust for independent comparison between each of the trastuzumab emtansine-containing arms and the trastuzumab + taxane arm.|Log Rank||Direction of comparison: Trastuzumab Emtansine + Pertuzumab vs. Trastuzumab + Taxane|Stratified Analysis: Stratification factors included world region (United States, Western Europe/Canada/Australia-Pacific, Eastern Europe, Asia, others); prior adjuvant/neoadjuvant therapy (no, yes \[trastuzumab and/or lapatinib\], yes \[no trastuzumab and/or lapatinib\]), and visceral disease (present, absent).||1.08|0.69|0.1407
91064996|NCT01120184|182014398|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The study was powered for superiority with target HR equal to 0.75, as well as for non-inferiority with HR equal to 1.1765 for comparison between each of the trastuzumab emtansine-containing arms and the trastuzumab + taxane arm.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.3075|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.73|1.13||Test and p-value apply for superiority test. Primary endpoint did not meet superiority of PFS for trastuzumab emtansine + pertuzumab versus trastuzumab + taxane (two-sided significance level 2.5%); thus, tests and p-value are considered descriptive.|Log Rank||Direction of comparison: Trastuzumab Emtansine + Pertuzumab vs. Trastuzumab Emtansine + Placebo|Stratified Analysis: Stratification factors included world region (United States, Western Europe/Canada/Australia-Pacific, Eastern Europe, Asia, others); prior adjuvant/neoadjuvant therapy (no, yes \[trastuzumab and/or lapatinib\], yes \[no trastuzumab and/or lapatinib\]), and visceral disease (present, absent).||1.13|0.73|0.3075
91064997|NCT01120184|182014400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.6568|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.73|1.2|||Log Rank||Direction of comparison: Trastuzumab Emtansine + Placebo vs Trastuzumab + Taxane|Stratified Analysis: Stratification factors included world region (United States, Western Europe/Canada/Australia-Pacific, Eastern Europe, Asia, others); prior adjuvant/neoadjuvant therapy (no, yes \[trastuzumab and/or lapatinib\], yes \[no trastuzumab and/or lapatinib\]), and visceral disease (present, absent).||1.20|0.73|0.6568
91064998|NCT01120184|182014400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.5691|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.67|1.11|||Log Rank||Direction of comparison: Trastuzumab Emtansine + Pertuzumab vs Trastuzumab + Taxane|Stratified Analysis: Stratification factors included world region (United States, Western Europe/Canada/Australia-Pacific, Eastern Europe, Asia, others); prior adjuvant/neoadjuvant therapy (no, yes \[trastuzumab and/or lapatinib\], yes \[no trastuzumab and/or lapatinib\]), and visceral disease (present, absent).||1.11|0.67|0.5691
91064999|NCT01120184|182014402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.69|1.04|||||Direction of comparison: Trastuzumab Emtasine + Placebo vs Trastuzumab + Taxane|Stratified Analysis: Stratification factors included world region (United States, Western Europe/Canada/Australia-Pacific, Eastern Europe, Asia, others); prior adjuvant/neoadjuvant therapy (no, yes \[trastuzumab and/or lapatinib\], yes \[no trastuzumab and/or lapatinib\]), and visceral disease (present, absent).||1.04|0.69|
91065000|NCT01120184|182014402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.63|0.95|||||Direction of comparison: Trastuzumab Emtansine + Pertuzumab vs Trastuzumab + Taxane|Stratified Analysis: Stratification factors included world region (United States, Western Europe/Canada/Australia-Pacific, Eastern Europe, Asia, others); prior adjuvant/neoadjuvant therapy (no, yes \[trastuzumab and/or lapatinib\], yes \[no trastuzumab and/or lapatinib\]), and visceral disease (present, absent).||0.95|0.63|
91065001|NCT01120184|182014404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.66|0.97|||||Direction of comparison: Trastuzumab Emtansine + Placebo vs Trastuzumab + Taxane|Stratified Analysis: Stratification factors included world region (United States, Western Europe/Canada/Australia-Pacific, Eastern Europe, Asia, others); prior adjuvant/neoadjuvant therapy (no, yes \[trastuzumab and/or lapatinib\], yes \[no trastuzumab and/or lapatinib\]), and visceral disease (present, absent).||0.97|0.66|
91065002|NCT01120184|182014404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.65|0.95|||||Direction of comparison: Trastuzumab Emtansine + Pertuzumab vs Trastuzumab + Taxane|Stratified Analysis: Stratification factors included world region (United States, Western Europe/Canada/Australia-Pacific, Eastern Europe, Asia, others); prior adjuvant/neoadjuvant therapy (no, yes \[trastuzumab and/or lapatinib\], yes \[no trastuzumab and/or lapatinib\]), and visceral disease (present, absent).||0.95|0.65|
91065003|NCT01120184|182014414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Response Rate|-8.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.9|-0.5|||||Direction of comparison: Trastuzumab Emtansine + Placebo vs Trastuzumab + Taxane|||-0.5|-15.9|
91065004|NCT01120184|182014414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Response Rate|-3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|3.9|||||Direction of comparison: Trastuzumab Emtansine + Pertuzumab vs Trastuzumab + Taxane|||3.9|-11.4|
91065005|NCT01120184|182014414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Response Rate|4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|12.2|||||Direction of comparison: Trastuzumab Emtansine + Pertuzumab vs Trastuzumab Emtansine + Placebo|||12.2|-3.3|
91065006|NCT01120184|182014415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Response Rate|-4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|2.8|||||Direction of comparison: Trastuzumab Emtansine + Placebo vs Trastuzumab + Taxane|||2.8|-12.1|
91065007|NCT01120184|182014415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Response Rate|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|5.7|||||Direction of comparison: Trastuzumab Emtansine + Pertuzumab vs Trastuzumab + Taxane|||5.7|-9.2|
91065008|NCT01120184|182014415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Response Rate|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|10.3|||||Direction of comparison: Trastuzumab Emtansine + Pertuzumab vs Trastuzumab Emtansine + Placebo|||10.3|-4.5|
91065009|NCT01120184|182014416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.43|0.84|||||Direction of comparison: Trastuzumab Emtansine + Placebo vs Trastuzumab + Taxane|Stratified Analysis: Stratification factors included world region (United States, Western Europe/Canada/Australia-Pacific, Eastern Europe, Asia, others); prior adjuvant/neoadjuvant therapy (no, yes \[trastuzumab and/or lapatinib\], yes \[no trastuzumab and/or lapatinib\]), and visceral disease (present, absent).||0.84|0.43|
91079211|NCT03240406|182044070|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17||||0.223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.43||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|ANCOVA|MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|||0.43|-0.1|0.223
91065010|NCT01120184|182014416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.45|0.85|||||Direction of comparison: Trastuzumab Emtansine + Pertuzumab vs Trastuzumab + Taxane|Stratified Analysis: Stratification factors included world region (United States, Western Europe/Canada/Australia-Pacific, Eastern Europe, Asia, others); prior adjuvant/neoadjuvant therapy (no, yes \[trastuzumab and/or lapatinib\], yes \[no trastuzumab and/or lapatinib\]), and visceral disease (present, absent).||0.85|0.45|
91065011|NCT01120184|182014418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Symptom Rate|-32.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.0|-24.0|||||Direction of comparison: Trastuzumab Emtansine + Placebo vs Trastuzumab + Taxane|Stratified Analysis: Stratification factors included world region (United States, Western Europe/Canada/Australia-Pacific, Eastern Europe, Asia, others); prior adjuvant/neoadjuvant therapy (no, yes \[trastuzumab and/or lapatinib\], yes \[no trastuzumab and/or lapatinib\]), and visceral disease (present, absent).||-24|-40|
91065012|NCT01120184|182014418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Symptom Rate|-24.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.0|-16.0|||||Direction of comparison: Trastuzumab Emtansine + Pertuzumab vs Trastuzumab + Taxane|Stratified Analysis: Stratification factors included world region (United States, Western Europe/Canada/Australia-Pacific, Eastern Europe, Asia, others); prior adjuvant/neoadjuvant therapy (no, yes \[trastuzumab and/or lapatinib\], yes \[no trastuzumab and/or lapatinib\]), and visceral disease (present, absent).||-16|-32|
91065013|NCT01120184|182014418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Symptom Rate|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|18.4|||||Direction of comparison: Trastuzumab Emtansine + Pertuzumab vs Trastuzumab Emtansine + Placebo|Stratified Analysis: Stratification factors included world region (United States, Western Europe/Canada/Australia-Pacific, Eastern Europe, Asia, others); prior adjuvant/neoadjuvant therapy (no, yes \[trastuzumab and/or lapatinib\], yes \[no trastuzumab and/or lapatinib\]), and visceral disease (present, absent).||18.4|-2.3|
91065014|NCT01120184|182014422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.86|||||Direction of comparison: Trastuzumab Emtansine + Placebo vs Trastuzumab + Taxane|Stratified Analysis: Stratification factors included world region (United States, Western Europe/Canada/Australia-Pacific, Eastern Europe, Asia, others); prior adjuvant/neoadjuvant therapy (no, yes \[trastuzumab and/or lapatinib\], yes \[no trastuzumab and/or lapatinib\]), and visceral disease (present, absent).||0.86|0.57|
91065015|NCT01120184|182014422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.84|||||Direction of comparison: Trastuzumab Emtansine + Pertuzumab vs Trastuzumab + Taxane|Stratified Analysis: Stratification factors included world region (United States, Western Europe/Canada/Australia-Pacific, Eastern Europe, Asia, others); prior adjuvant/neoadjuvant therapy (no, yes \[trastuzumab and/or lapatinib\], yes \[no trastuzumab and/or lapatinib\]), and visceral disease (present, absent).||0.84|0.55|
91065016|NCT01120184|182014426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.15|||||Direction of comparison: Trastuzumab Emtansine + Placebo vs Trastuzumab + Taxane|||1.15|0.40|
91065017|NCT01120184|182014427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.07|||||Direction of comparison: Trastuzumab Emtansine + Placebo vs Trastuzumab + Taxane|||1.07|0.41|
91065018|NCT01120184|182014429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.65|1.25|||||Direction of comparison: Trastuzumab Emtansine + Placebo vs Trastuzumab + Taxane|||1.25|0.65|
91065019|NCT01120184|182014431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.74|1.34|||||Direction of comparison: Trastuzumab Emtansine + Placebo vs Trastuzumab + Taxane|||1.34|0.74|
91065020|NCT03190993|182014436|OTHER|Linear mixed effect models were used to test if changes (Day 28 - Baseline) were equal between treatment groups (primary outcome).|Mean Difference (Net)|0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|=|0.22|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||=0.22
91065021|NCT02954601|182014493|OTHER|Values obtained using a Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance with an unstructured covariance matrix. Treatment, Period and Baseline value (for change and percent change) are factors in the model with repeated values for a subject.||||||0.1311|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1311
91065022|NCT02954601|182014496|OTHER|||||||0.3061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Values obtained using a Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance with an unstructured covariance matrix. Treatment period and Baseline value (for change and percent change) are factors in the model with repeated values for subject.||||0.3061
91065023|NCT00471081|182014506|SUPERIORITY||Percentage of subjects with hSBA titers|88.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|81.9|93.2|||||Immunogenecity of GSK134612 was demonstrated if the lower limit (LL) of the 2-sided exact 95% confidence interval (CI) was higher than the pre-defined clinical limit of 80%.|To demonstrate the immunogenicity of GSK134612 administered on a 2-dose schedule at 9 and 12 months of age with respect to serum bactericidal assay using human complement (hSBA) titers ≥1:8 for each discrete N. meningitidis serogroup A.||93.2|81.9|
91065024|NCT00471081|182014506|SUPERIORITY||Percentage of subjects with hSBA titers|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|97.3|100.0|||||Immunogenecity of GSK134612 was demonstrated if the lower limit (LL) of the 2-sided exact 95% confidence interval (CI) was higher than the pre-defined clinical limit of 90%.|To demonstrate the immunogenicity of GSK134612 administered on a 2-dose schedule at 9 and 12 months of age with respect to serum bactericidal assay using human complement (hSBA) titers ≥1:8 for each discrete N. meningitidis serogroup C.||100|97.3|
90826910|NCT03187132|181528645|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.274||0.787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.54|||t-test, 2 sided|||For work productivity measures, self-reported opioid utilization, and post-study measures of satisfaction, we used t-tests for normally distributed data and Wilcoxon Rank-Sum tests for non-normally distributed data.||.54|-.54|.787
91065025|NCT00471081|182014506|SUPERIORITY||Percentage of subjects with hSBA titers|99.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.2|100.0|||||Immunogenecity of GSK134612 was demonstrated if the lower limit (LL) of the 2-sided exact 95% confidence interval (CI) was higher than the pre-defined clinical limit of 80%.|To demonstrate the immunogenicity of GSK134612 administered on a 2-dose schedule at 9 and 12 months of age with respect to serum bactericidal assay using human complement (hSBA) titers ≥1:8 for each discrete N. meningitidis serogroup W-135.||100|96.2|
91065026|NCT00471081|182014506|SUPERIORITY||Percentage of subjects with hSBA titers|99.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.2|100.0|||||Immunogenecity of GSK134612 was demonstrated if the lower limit (LL) of the 2-sided exact 95% confidence interval (CI) was higher than the pre-defined clinical limit of 80%.|To demonstrate the immunogenicity of GSK134612 administered on a 2-dose schedule at 9 and 12 months of age with respect to serum bactericidal assay using human complement (hSBA) titers ≥1:8 for each discrete N. meningitidis serogroup Y.||100|96.2|
91065027|NCT01168427|182014702|OTHER|There was no formal statistical hypothesis tested. The goal was to estimate the procedure-related complications 90 days post implant using the Kaplan-Meier method.|Rate|0.034|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.1292||||||||0.1292||
91065028|NCT01256879|182014708|OTHER|Each CimTest-A, CimTest-B, and Commercial Cimetidine Solution are compared to Active Comparator (i.e. Sorbitol-free Cimetidine Solution), as a percentage of Active Comparator, per routine FDA bioequivalence testing of AUC.|||||||||||||||||Bioequivalence testing of AUC, per FDA guidance, is applied. Each CimTest-A, CimTest-B, and Commercial Cimetidine Solution are compared to Active Comparator (i.e. Sorbitol-free Cimetidine Solution), as a percentage of Active Comparator, per routine FDA bioequivalence testing of AUC. The upper and lower 90% Confidence Interval for CimTest-A is 104.4% to 120.6%. The upper and lower 90% Confidence Interval for CimTest-B is 97.9% to 113.0%. The upper and lower 90% Confidence Interval for Commercial Cimetidine Solution is 93.2% to 107.7%.|||
91065029|NCT02964247|182014770|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.48|||pattern mixture model||Liraglutide - Placebo|Statistical analysis for the primary estimand. Primary estimand: treatment effect (effectiveness) based on the FAS using week 26 measurements from the in-trial observation period. The change in HbA1c from baseline to week 26 were analysed using a pattern mixture model with multiple imputation to impute missing data, with treatment, country and the stratification factor (metformin use at baseline: yes vs. no) as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate.||-0.48|-0.89|<.001
91065030|NCT02964247|182014770|SUPERIORITY|Test was not controlled for type I error. Secondary estimand: treatment effect (efficacy) based on the FAS using post baseline measurements up to and including week 26 from the on-treatment without rescue medication obs. period.|Treatment difference|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.53|||Mixed Models Analysis||Liraglutide - Placebo|Statistical analysis for the secondary estimand.The change in HbA1c from baseline up to and including week 26 at scheduled time points were analysed using MMRM with treatment, country and the stratification factor (metformin use at baseline: yes vs. no) as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate, all nested within visit.||-0.53|-0.94|<.001
91065031|NCT02964247|182014771|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|0.09|||pattern mixture model||Liraglutide - Placebo|Statistical analysis for the primary estimand. Primary estimand: treatment effect (effectiveness) based on the FAS using week 26 measurements from the in-trial observation period. The change in body weight from baseline to week 26 were analysed using a pattern mixture model with multiple imputation to impute missing data, with treatment, country and the stratification factor (metformin use at baseline: yes vs. no) as categorical fixed effects and baseline body weight as covariate.||0.09|-1.73|0.077
91065032|NCT02964247|182014771|SUPERIORITY|Test was not controlled for type I error. Secondary estimand: treatment effect (efficacy) based on the FAS using post baseline measurements up to and including week 26 from the on-treatment without rescue medication obs. period.|Treatment difference|-0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis||Liraglutide - Placebo|Statistical analysis for the secondary estimand. The change in body weight from baseline up to and including week 26 at scheduled time points were analysed using MMRM with treatment, country and the stratification factor (metformin use at baseline: yes vs. no) as categorical fixed effects and baseline body weight as covariate, all nested within visit.||0.04|-1.77|0.062
91065033|NCT00725920|182014796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0076||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0076
91065034|NCT00856492|182014843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.019
90826911|NCT03187132|181528645|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.48|||t-test, 2 sided|||For work productivity measures, self-reported opioid utilization, and post-study measures of satisfaction, we used t-tests for normally distributed data and Wilcoxon Rank-Sum tests for non-normally distributed data.||.48|-.88|.569
90826912|NCT03187132|181528646|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.49|||t-test, 2 sided|||For work productivity measures, self-reported opioid utilization, and post-study measures of satisfaction, we used t-tests for normally distributed data and Wilcoxon Rank-Sum tests for non-normally distributed data.||.49|-.23|.467
91065035|NCT00856492|182014844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.64
91065036|NCT00856492|182014845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.71
91065037|NCT03832686|182014862|OTHER|||||||0.86||||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant.|Logistic Regression|||||||0.86
91065038|NCT03832686|182014863|OTHER|||||||0.69||||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant.|Logistic Regression|||||||0.69
91065039|NCT03832686|182014864|OTHER|||||||0.47||||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant.|Logistic Regression|||Comparison of Eating in Public Score||||0.47
90826913|NCT03187132|181528647|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.986||0.852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|9.07|||Regression, Logistic|||We used a multilevel logistic regression with random effects at the individual level and fixed effects for week and study-arm.||9.07|.07|.852
91065040|NCT03832686|182014864|OTHER|||||||0.73||||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant.|Logistic Regression|||Comparison of Normalcy of Diet score||||0.73
91065041|NCT03832686|182014865|OTHER|||||||0.65||||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant.|Logistic Regression|||Comparison of MBSImP Oral score||||0.65
91065042|NCT03832686|182014865|OTHER|||||||0.24||||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant.|Logistic Regression|||Comparison of MBSImP Pharyngeal score||||0.24
91065043|NCT03832686|182014866|OTHER|||||||0.53||||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant.|Logistic Regression|||||||0.53
91065044|NCT03832686|182014867|OTHER|||||||0.5||||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant.|Logistic Regression|||||||0.50
91065045|NCT01415518|182014886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.069|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.043|1.096|||ANCOVA|multiplicative ANCOVA model with treatment and centre as fixed factors and baseline value as a (log-transformed) covariate||||1.096|1.043|<.0001
91065046|NCT01415518|182014887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.067|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.044|1.09|||ANCOVA|Multiplicative ANCOVA model with treatment and centre as fixed factors and baseline value as a (log-transformed) covariate||||1.090|1.044|<.0001
91065047|NCT01415518|182014888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.068|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.043|1.092|||ANCOVA|Multiplicative ANCOVA model with treatment and centre as fixed factors and baseline value as a (log-transformed) covariate||||1.092|1.043|<.0001
91065048|NCT01415518|182014889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.04||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.017|1.064|||ANCOVA|Multiplicative ANCOVA model with treatment and centre as fixed factors and baseline value as a (log-transformed) covariate||||1.064|1.017|0.0007
91065049|NCT01415518|182014890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.045|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.024|1.065|||ANCOVA|Multiplicative ANCOVA model with treatment and centre as fixed factors and baseline value as a (log-transformed) covariate||||1.065|1.024|<.0001
91065050|NCT01415518|182014891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.038||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.017|1.06|||ANCOVA|Multiplicative ANCOVA model with treatment and centre as fixed factors and baseline value as a (log-transformed) covariate||||1.060|1.017|0.0003
91065051|NCT01415518|182014892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.035||||0.0248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.004|1.066|||ANCOVA|Multiplicative ANCOVA model with treatment and centre as fixed factors and baseline value as a (log-transformed) covariate||||1.066|1.004|0.0248
91065052|NCT01415518|182014893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.038||||0.0074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.067|||ANCOVA|Multiplicative ANCOVA model with treatment and centre as fixed factors and baseline value as a (log-transformed) covariate||||1.067|1.010|0.0074
91065053|NCT01415518|182014894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|25.172||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.733|37.611|||ANCOVA|Additive ANCOVA model with treatment and centre as fixed factors and the run-in mean of pre-dose morning PEF as a covariate||||37.611|12.733|0.0001
91065054|NCT01415518|182014895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|21.136|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.163|30.11|||ANCOVA|Additive ANCOVA model with treatment and centre as fixed factors and the run-in mean of pre-dose morning PEF as a covariate||||30.110|12.163|<.0001
91065055|NCT01415518|182014896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|23.044|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.927|31.161|||ANCOVA|Additive ANCOVA model with treatment and centre as fixed factors and the run-in mean of pre-dose morning PEF as a covariate||||31.161|14.927|<.0001
91065056|NCT01415518|182014897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|31.513|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.74|44.286|||ANCOVA|Additive ANCOVA model with treatment and centre as fixed factors and the run-in mean of pre-dose morning PEF as a covariate||||44.286|18.740|<.0001
91065057|NCT01415518|182014898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|24.322|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.425|34.22|||ANCOVA|Additive ANCOVA model with treatment and centre as fixed factors and the run-in mean of pre-dose morning PEF as a covariate||||34.220|14.425|<.0001
91065058|NCT01415518|182014899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|27.168|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.906|35.431|||ANCOVA|Additive ANCOVA model with treatment and centre as fixed factors and the run-in mean of pre-dose morning PEF as a covariate||||35.431|18.906|<.0001
91065059|NCT01415518|182014900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.297||||0.0102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.522|-0.071|||ANCOVA|Additive ANCOVA model with treatment and centre as fixed factors and the run-in mean of reliever medication as a covariate||||-0.071|-0.522|0.0102
91065060|NCT01415518|182014901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.343||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.533|-0.153|||ANCOVA|Additive ANCOVA model with treatment and centre as fixed factors and the run-in mean of reliever medication as a covariate||||-0.153|-0.533|0.0004
91065061|NCT01415518|182014902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.342||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.523|-0.162|||ANCOVA|Additive ANCOVA model with treatment and centre as fixed factors and the run-in mean of reliever medication as a covariate||||-0.162|-0.523|0.0002
90826914|NCT01450761|181528681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.936||||0.3775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.807|1.085|||Log Rank||HR = ipilimumab over placebo|||1.085|0.807|0.3775
91065062|NCT01415518|182014903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.279|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.381|-0.177|||ANCOVA|Additive ANCOVA model with treatment and centre as fixed factors and the run-in mean of score as a covariate||||-0.177|-0.381|<.0001
90826915|NCT01450761|181528682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.961||||0.5678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.838|1.102|||Log Rank||HR = ipilimumab over placebo|||1.102|0.838|0.5678
90826916|NCT01450761|181528683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.851||||0.0161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.747|0.971|||Log Rank||HR = ipilimumab over placebo|||0.971|0.747|0.0161
90826917|NCT03801174|181528684|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.92||0.804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.6|-2.0|.804
90826918|NCT03801174|181528685|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|50.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|93.0||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-132.0|233.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||233|-132|.590
90826919|NCT03801174|181528686|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|806.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|443.0||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.0|1675.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1675|-64|.069
91065063|NCT01415518|182014904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.193||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.294|-0.092|||ANCOVA|Additive ANCOVA model with treatment and centre as fixed factors and the run-in mean of score as a covariate||||-0.092|-0.294|0.0002
91065064|NCT01415518|182014905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.208||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.308|-0.108|||ANCOVA|Additive ANCOVA model with treatment and centre as fixed factors and the run-in mean of score as a covariate||||-0.108|-0.308|0.0001
91065065|NCT01415518|182014906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.565||||0.0425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.325|0.981|||Poisson regression|Poisson regression model with treatment as a factor and the duration time in study as an offset variable||||0.981|0.325|0.0425
91065066|NCT01415518|182014906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.604||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.339|1.078|||Regression, Cox|Time to the first COPD exacerbation||||1.078|0.339|0.0880
91065067|NCT01415518|182014906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0845|||||||Log Rank|Time to the first COPD exacerbation||||||0.0845
91065068|NCT01415518|182014907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.055||||0.2281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.144|0.035|||ANCOVA|Additive ANCOVA model with treatment and centre as fixed factors and the run-in mean of reliever medication as a covariate||||0.035|-0.144|0.2281
91065069|NCT01415518|182014908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.122||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.194|-0.049|||ANCOVA|Additive ANCOVA model with treatment and centre as fixed factors and the run-in mean of reliever medication as a covariate||||-0.049|-0.194|0.0010
91065070|NCT01415518|182014909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.106||||0.0073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.183|-0.029|||ANCOVA|Additive ANCOVA model with treatment and centre as fixed factors and the run-in mean of reliever medication as a covariate||||-0.029|-0.183|0.0073
91079212|NCT03240406|182044071|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17||||0.119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.04||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|ANCOVA|MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|||0.04|-0.38|0.119
91065071|NCT02999269|182014910|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||p-value for time by amplitude interaction|Regression, Linear|||For the primary outcomes (change in HDRS24), we performed a full longitudinal model with an unstructured repeated measures covariance matrix on subjects who completed the study in the assigned treatment arm. The dependent variable was HDRS at each visit and the independent variables included progress (time within the ECT series: pre-, mid-, and post-ECT), amplitude, age, sex, pulse width and the following interactions: progress/amplitude, progress/sex, and progress/pulse width.|Time-by-amplitude interaction (F4, 72 = 2.65, p = 0.04).|||0.04
91065072|NCT02999269|182014910|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.0001
91065073|NCT02999269|182014911|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.37
91065074|NCT02999269|182014911|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5||||||p-value is time-by-amplitude interaction|Regression, Linear|||||||0.50
91065075|NCT02999269|182014911|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||Progress (F2,71 = 11.15, p \< 0.01)|Regression, Linear|||||||< 0.01
91065076|NCT03976362|182014918|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.93||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by Eastern Cooperative Cancer Group (ECOG) at pre-randomization visit, response at randomization and baseline PD-L1 status.|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling and with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG at pre-randomization visit, response at randomization and baseline PD-L1 status.|||0.93|0.63|0.0040
91065077|NCT03976362|182014919|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.5481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.24||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG at pre-randomization visit, response at randomization and baseline PD-L1 status.|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling and with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG at pre-randomization visit, response at randomization and baseline PD-L1 status.|||1.24|0.83|0.5481
91065078|NCT03976362|182014922|OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.37||||0.8238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.91|3.66||Based on cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors, response at randomization, and baseline PD-L1 expression as covariates.|t-test, 2 sided||Based on cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors, response at randomization, and baseline PD-L1 expression as covariates.|||3.66|-2.91|0.8238
91065079|NCT03976362|182014923|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.3083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.14||Two-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG at pre-randomization Visit, response at randomization, and baseline PD-L1 expression.|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG at pre-randomization Visit, response at randomization, and baseline PD-L1 expression.|||1.14|0.66|0.3083
91065080|NCT03976362|182014924|OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|1.68||||0.4686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.87|6.23||Based on cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors, response at randomization, and baseline PD-L1 expression as covariates.|t-test, 2 sided||Based on cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors, response at randomization, and baseline PD-L1 expression as covariates.|||6.23|-2.87|0.4686
91065081|NCT03976362|182014925|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.9174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.35||Two-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG at pre-randomization visit, response at randomization, and baseline PD-L1 expression.|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG at pre-randomization visit, response at randomization, and baseline PD-L1 expression.|||1.35|0.76|0.9174
91065082|NCT03976362|182014926|OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|3.83||||0.0245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|7.16||Based on cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors, response at randomization, and baseline PD-L1 expression as covariates.|t-test, 2 sided||Based on cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors, response at randomization, and baseline PD-L1 expression as covariates.|||7.16|0.50|0.0245
91065083|NCT03976362|182014927|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.24||||0.2133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.75||Two-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG at pre-randomization visit, response at randomization, and baseline PD-L1 expression.|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG at pre-randomization visit, response at randomization, and baseline PD-L1 expression.|||1.75|0.88|0.2133
91065084|NCT03976362|182014928|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.18||||0.9381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.27|4.62||Based on cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors, response at randomization, and baseline PD-L1 expression as covariates.|t-test, 2 sided||Based on cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors, response at randomization, and baseline PD-L1 expression as covariates.|||4.62|-4.27|0.9381
91065085|NCT03976362|182014929|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.8464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.31||Two-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG at pre-randomization visit, response at randomization, and baseline PD-L1 expression.|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG at pre-randomization visit, response at randomization, and baseline PD-L1 expression.|||1.31|0.72|0.8464
91065086|NCT03976362|182014930|OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|-2.81||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.02|0.41||Based on cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors, response at randomization, and baseline PD-L1 expression as covariates.|t-test, 2 sided||Based on cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors, response at randomization, and baseline PD-L1 expression as covariates.|||0.41|-6.02|0.0870
91065087|NCT03976362|182014931|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.6||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|2.16||Two-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG at pre-randomization visit, response at randomization, and baseline PD-L1 expression.|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG at pre-randomization visit, response at randomization, and baseline PD-L1 expression.|||2.16|1.18|0.0020
91065088|NCT04846569|182014933|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.004|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.39||||||||0.39|-0.38|
91065089|NCT04846569|182014934|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.47||||||||0.47|-0.78|
91065090|NCT04846569|182014935|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||All participants who we were able to obtain records for were virally suppressed thus an effect size was unable to be calculated.|All participants who we were able to obtain records for were virally suppressed thus an effect size was unable to be calculated as originally planned.|||
91065091|NCT04846569|182014936|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.53||||||||0.53|-0.20|
91065092|NCT04846569|182014937|OTHER|Qualitative data analysis|||||||||||||||||Thematic qualitative data analysis was conducted to determine the count of participants reporting positively about the intervention|||
91065093|NCT02211209|182015005|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-94.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-121.7|-66.6|||ANCOVA|||||-66.6|-121.7|< 0.0001
91065094|NCT02211209|182015007|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1804.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|251.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2306.0|-1302.0|||ANCOVA|||||-1302|-2306|< 0.0001
91065095|NCT02211209|182015008|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|186.16||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.86||NA indicates that the upper limit of 95% CI was not estimable. The upper limit of the odds ratio estimate from the logistic regression model was \>999.999, and it was reported as NA per statistical reporting convention.||Regression, Logistic||||||12.86|0.0001
91065096|NCT02211209|182015009|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|99.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.75|631.06|||Regression, Logistic|||||631.06|15.75|<0.0001
91065097|NCT02211209|182015011|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6131|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6131
91065098|NCT02211209|182015012|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|138.0||||0.1206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.0|312.0|||ANCOVA|||||312|-36|0.1206
91065099|NCT03889418|182015040|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|-0.009|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.153||0.956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.309|0.292|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.292|-0.309|0.956
91065100|NCT03889418|182015041|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio, log|-0.103|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|-0.005|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-.005|-0.200|0.039
91065101|NCT03889418|182015042|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio, log|0.049|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.282||0.864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.506|0.603|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.603|-0.506|0.864
91065102|NCT03889418|182015043|SUPERIORITY||rate ratio, log|0.018|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.148||0.901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.272|0.308|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.308|-0.272|0.901
91065103|NCT01416636|182015072|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.002
91065104|NCT01416636|182015072|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0003
91065105|NCT01416636|182015073|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.605|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.605
91065106|NCT01416636|182015074|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.307|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.307
91065107|NCT01416636|182015075|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0019|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0019
91065108|NCT01416636|182015076|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.557|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.557
91065109|NCT01416636|182015077|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.032|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.032
91065110|NCT01416636|182015078|SUPERIORITY|||||||1e-05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.00001
91065111|NCT01416636|182015079|SUPERIORITY|||||||3e-06|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.000003
91065112|NCT01416636|182015080|SUPERIORITY|||||||8e-05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.00008
91065113|NCT01416636|182015081|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.04
91065114|NCT01416636|182015082|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.227|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.227
91065115|NCT00793455|182015095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|3.1|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|6.2|||Chi-squared|||We compared the outcomes in the intervention and control groups using rate ratios and chi square test at 3 and 6 months, a 2 sided test with a p value \< .05 was used to determine significance. The study was powered to detect a 10-percentage point difference in screening completion between intervention and control groups if the control rate of completion as 20% or less with 80% power.||6.2|1.5|<0.05
91065116|NCT00793455|182015096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.5|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.2|||Chi-squared|||Same as primary outcome.||2.2|1.03|<0.05
91065117|NCT04910100|182015116|NON_INFERIORITY|To demonstrate noninferiority, the upper limits of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference between each comparison must be lower than 1.5 mmHg at all timepoints and lower than 1.0 mmHg for the majority of the timepoints (i.e. at least 5 of 9). This was a Phase 2 study and so the sample size was not based on a formal sample size calculation. The study was planned to provide sufficient data to power a Phase 3 study.|Timepoints with Mean IOP < 1.5 mm Hg|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||The primary efficacy analysis was the between group comparison of the mean IOP values in the study eye at each time point at each visit (a total of 9 between-group comparisons). A hierarchical analysis was conducted to compare each of the investigational products against the comparator, timolol 0.5% as follows: (1) Timolol Suspensions 0.5% (2) Nebivolol Suspension 1% (3) Nebivolol Suspension 0.5%.||||
91065118|NCT04910100|182015116|NON_INFERIORITY|To demonstrate noninferiority, the upper limits of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference between each comparison must be lower than 1.5 mmHg at all timepoints and lower than 1.0 mmHg for the majority of the timepoints (i.e. at least 5 of 9). This was a Phase 2 study and so the sample size was not based on a formal sample size calculation. The study was planned to provide sufficient data to power a Phase 3 study.|Timepoints with Mean IOP < 1.0 mm Hg|9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||The primary efficacy analysis was the between group comparison of the mean IOP values in the study eye at each time point at each visit (a total of 9 between-group comparisons). A hierarchical analysis was conducted to compare each of the investigational products against the comparator, timolol 0.5% as follows: (1) Timolol Suspensions 0.5% (2) Nebivolol Suspension 1% (3) Nebivolol Suspension 0.5%.||||
91065119|NCT04910100|182015116|NON_INFERIORITY|To demonstrate noninferiority, the upper limits of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference between each comparison must be lower than 1.5 mmHg at all timepoints and lower than 1.0 mmHg for the majority of the timepoints (i.e. at least 5 of 9). This was a Phase 2 study and so the sample size was not based on a formal sample size calculation. The study was planned to provide sufficient data to power a Phase 3 study.|Timepoints with Mean IOP < 1.5 mm Hg|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||The primary efficacy analysis was the between group comparison of the mean IOP values in the study eye at each time point at each visit (a total of 9 between-group comparisons). A hierarchical analysis was conducted to compare each of the investigational products against the comparator, timolol 0.5% as follows: (1) Timolol Suspensions 0.5% (2) Nebivolol Suspension 1% (3) Nebivolol Suspension 0.5%.||||
91065120|NCT04910100|182015116|NON_INFERIORITY|To demonstrate noninferiority, the upper limits of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference between each comparison must be lower than 1.5 mmHg at all timepoints and lower than 1.0 mmHg for the majority of the timepoints (i.e. at least 5 of 9). This was a Phase 2 study and so the sample size was not based on a formal sample size calculation. The study was planned to provide sufficient data to power a Phase 3 study.|Timepoints with Mean IOP < 1.0 mm Hg|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||The primary efficacy analysis was the between group comparison of the mean IOP values in the study eye at each time point at each visit (a total of 9 between-group comparisons). A hierarchical analysis was conducted to compare each of the investigational products against the comparator, timolol 0.5% as follows: (1) Timolol Suspensions 0.5% (2) Nebivolol Suspension 1% (3) Nebivolol Suspension 0.5%.||||
91065121|NCT04910100|182015116|NON_INFERIORITY|To demonstrate noninferiority, the upper limits of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference between each comparison must be lower than 1.5 mmHg at all timepoints and lower than 1.0 mmHg for the majority of the timepoints (i.e. at least 5 of 9). This was a Phase 2 study and so the sample size was not based on a formal sample size calculation. The study was planned to provide sufficient data to power a Phase 3 study.|Timepoints with Mean IOP < 1.5 mm Hg|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||The primary efficacy analysis was the between group comparison of the mean IOP values in the study eye at each time point at each visit (a total of 9 between-group comparisons). A hierarchical analysis was conducted to compare each of the investigational products against the comparator, timolol 0.5% as follows: (1) Timolol Suspensions 0.5% (2) Nebivolol Suspension 1% (3) Nebivolol Suspension 0.5%.||||
91065122|NCT04910100|182015116|NON_INFERIORITY|To demonstrate noninferiority, the upper limits of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference between each comparison must be lower than 1.5 mmHg at all timepoints and lower than 1.0 mmHg for the majority of the timepoints (i.e. at least 5 of 9). This was a Phase 2 study and so the sample size was not based on a formal sample size calculation. The study was planned to provide sufficient data to power a Phase 3 study.|Timepoints with Mean IOP < 1.0 mm Hg|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||The primary efficacy analysis was the between group comparison of the mean IOP values in the study eye at each time point at each visit (a total of 9 between-group comparisons). A hierarchical analysis was conducted to compare each of the investigational products against the comparator, timolol 0.5% as follows: (1) Timolol Suspensions 0.5% (2) Nebivolol Suspension 1% (3) Nebivolol Suspension 0.5%.||||
91065123|NCT00699998|182015201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.915||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.793|1.055||Two-sided p-value based on a log-rank test stratified by clopidogrel status at randomization.|Log Rank||HR and two-sided 95% CI derived using Cox proportional hazards model with treatment and clopidogrel status at randomization as fixed effects.|||1.055|0.793|0.210
91065124|NCT00699998|182015201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.029||||0.731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.865|1.225||Two-sided p-value based on a log-rank test stratified by clopidogrel status at randomization.|Log Rank||HR and two-sided 95% CI derived using Cox proportional hazards model with treatment and clopidogrel status at randomization as fixed effects.|||1.225|0.865|0.731
91065125|NCT00699998|182015202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.812|1.088|||Log Rank|Two-sided p-value based on a log-rank test stratified by clopidogrel status at randomization.|HR and two-sided 95% CI derived using Cox proportional hazards model with treatment and clopidogrel status at randomization as fixed effects.|||1.088|0.812|0.388
91065126|NCT00699998|182015202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.998||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.833|1.195||Two-sided p-value based on a log-rank test stratified by clopidogrel status at randomization.|Log Rank||HR and two-sided 95% CI derived using Cox proportional hazards model with treatment and clopidogrel status at randomization as fixed effects.|||1.195|0.833|0.990
91065127|NCT00699998|182015203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.941||||0.353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.826|1.073||Two-sided p-value based on a log-rank test stratified by clopidogrel status at randomization.|Log Rank||HR and two-sided 95% CI derived using Cox proportional hazards model with treatment and clopidogrel status at randomization as fixed effects.|||1.073|0.826|0.353
91065128|NCT00699998|182015203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.029||||0.719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.869|1.218||Two-sided p-value based on a log-rank test stratified by clopidogrel status at randomization.|Log Rank||HR and two-sided 95% CI derived using Cox proportional hazards model with treatment and clopidogrel status at randomization as fixed effects.|||1.218|0.869|0.719
91065129|NCT00699998|182015204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.928||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.063||Two-sided p-value based on a log-rank test stratified by clopidogrel status at randomization.|Log Rank||HR and two-sided 95% CI derived using Cox proportional hazards model with treatment and clopidogrel status at randomization as fixed effects.|||1.063|0.810|0.270
91065130|NCT00699998|182015204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.017||||0.831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.862|1.2||Two-sided p-value based on a log-rank test stratified by clopidogrel status at randomization.|Log Rank||HR and two-sided 95% CI derived using Cox proportional hazards model with treatment and clopidogrel status at randomization as fixed effects.|||1.200|0.862|0.831
91065131|NCT00699998|182015205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-100.208|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-107.872|-92.545||p-value is for Day 30 comparison. ANCOVA Model: Measurement = treatment + baseline value + clopidogrel status at randomization.|ANCOVA||Estimated Mean Difference (Final Values) for Day 30 comparison|||-92.545|-107.872|<0.001
91065132|NCT00699998|182015205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-104.475|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-115.383|-93.566||p-value is for 12 month comparison. ANCOVA Model: Measurement = treatment + baseline value + clopidogrel status at randomization.|ANCOVA||Estimated Mean Difference (Final Values) for 12 month comparison.|||-93.566|-115.383|<0.001
91065133|NCT00699998|182015205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-48.413|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.718|-33.108||p-value is for 30 day comparison. ANCOVA Model: Measurement = treatment + baseline value + clopidogrel status at randomization.|ANCOVA||Estimated Mean Difference (Final Values) is for the 30 day comparison.|||-33.108|-63.718|<0.001
91065134|NCT00699998|182015205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-46.264|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.061|-23.468||p-value is for the 12 month comparison. ANCOVA Model: Measurement = treatment + baseline value + clopidogrel status at randomization.|ANCOVA||Estimated Mean Difference (Final Values) is for the 12 month comparison.|||-23.468|-69.061|<0.001
91065135|NCT00699998|182015206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Ratio Estimate|0.982||||0.631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.059||p-value is for the 30 day comparison. ANCOVA Model: Measurement = treatment + baseline value + clopidogrel status at randomization.|ANCOVA||Geometric Ratio Estimate is for the 30 day comparison.|||1.059|0.910|0.631
91065136|NCT00699998|182015206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Ratio Estimate|1.01||||0.844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.916|1.113||p-value is for the 6 month comparison. ANCOVA Model: Measurement = treatment + baseline value + clopidogrel status at randomization.|ANCOVA||Geometric Ratio Estimate is for the 6 month comparison.|||1.113|0.916|0.844
91065137|NCT00699998|182015206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Ratio Estimate|1.138||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.977|1.325||p-value is for the 30 day comparison. ANCOVA Model: Measurement = treatment + baseline value + clopidogrel status at randomization.|ANCOVA||Geometric Ratio Estimate is for the 30 day comparison.|||1.325|0.977|0.098
91065138|NCT00699998|182015206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Ratio Estimate|1.066||||0.545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.867|1.31||p-value is for the 6 month comparison. ANCOVA Model: Measurement = treatment + baseline value + clopidogrel status at randomization.|ANCOVA||Geometric Ratio Estimate is for the 6 month comparison.|||1.310|0.867|0.545
91065139|NCT00699998|182015207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Ratio Estimate|1.018||||0.727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.919|1.129||p-value is for the 30 day comparison. ANCOVA Model: Measurement = treatment + baseline value + clopidogrel status at randomization.|ANCOVA||Geometric Ratio Estimate is for the 30 day comparison.|||1.129|0.919|0.727
91065140|NCT00699998|182015207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Ratio Estimate|1.057||||0.346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.942|1.187||p-value is for the 6 month comparison. ANCOVA Model: Measurement = treatment + baseline value + clopidogrel status at randomization.|ANCOVA||Geometric Ratio Estimate is for the 6 month comparison.|||1.187|0.942|0.346
91065141|NCT00699998|182015207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Ratio Estimate|1.096||||0.458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.859|1.399||p-value is for the 30 day comparison. ANCOVA Model: Measurement = treatment + baseline value + clopidogrel status at randomization.|ANCOVA||Geometric Ratio Estimate is for the 30 day comparison.|||1.399|0.859|0.458
91065142|NCT00699998|182015207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Ratio Estimate|1.033||||0.802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.803|1.329||p-value is for the 6 month comparison. ANCOVA Model: Measurement = treatment + baseline value + clopidogrel status at randomization.|ANCOVA||Geometric Ratio Estimate is for the 6 month comparison.|||1.329|0.803|0.802
91065143|NCT00699998|182015209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5||95.0||||p-value is for the comparison of physical limitations at baseline. p-values are from a regression model with treatment group and the respective baseline quality-of-life measure as predictors.|ANCOVA|||||||0.5
91065144|NCT00699998|182015209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72||95.0||||p-value is for the comparison of angina frequency at baseline. p-values are from a regression model with treatment group and the respective baseline quality-of-life measure as predictors.|ANCOVA|||||||0.72
91065145|NCT00699998|182015209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63||95.0||||p-value is for the comparison of physical limitations at 24 months. p-values are from a regression model with treatment group and the respective baseline quality-of-life measure as predictors.|ANCOVA|||||||0.63
91065146|NCT00699998|182015209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53||95.0||||p-value is for the comparison of angina frequency at at 24 months. p-values are from a regression model with treatment group and the respective baseline quality-of-life measure as predictors.|ANCOVA|||||||0.53
91065147|NCT04616612|182015217|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.04
91065148|NCT04616612|182015218|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.04
91065149|NCT04616612|182015219|OTHER||||||||||||||||||"Qualitative data evaluated from interviews tailored after the acceptability scale questionnaire. These interview questions specifically asked participant to rate from strongly disagree to strongly agree on each question and then rationalize answers.~Mobile support: 77% of participants agreed that mobile messages supported their health behaviors.~Time required: 85% disagreed that the intervention took too much time to learn.~Program effectiveness: 92% enjoyed this learning approach, with 100% agreeing they could use the information to improve health behaviors.~Rationalization feedback found participants in rural areas reported difficulties accessing texts."|||
91065150|NCT04616612|182015220|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.11
91065151|NCT04616612|182015221|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.11
91065152|NCT04616612|182015222|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.66
91065153|NCT04616612|182015223|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.66
91065154|NCT04616612|182015224|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.84
91065155|NCT04616612|182015225|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.84
91065156|NCT01451463|182015227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.009
91065157|NCT01451463|182015228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.114|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.114
91065158|NCT04740918|182015229|SUPERIORITY|Cox proportional hazards model, stratified by local hormonal status (estrogen receptors (ER) and/or progesterone receptor (PgR) positive vs. ER and PgR negative/unknown) and Disease status (visceral metastasis without brain metastasis vs. non-visceral metastasis only without brain metastasis \[including locally advanced disease\] vs. Brain metastasis) were used to estimate the Hazard Ratio (HR).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.2876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.28|||Log Rank|||||1.28|0.44|0.2876
91065159|NCT04740918|182015230|SUPERIORITY|Cox proportional hazards model, stratified by local hormonal status (ER and/or PgR positive vs. ER and PgR negative/unknown) and Disease status (visceral metastasis without brain metastasis vs. non-visceral metastasis only without brain metastasis \[including locally advanced disease\] vs. Brain metastasis) were used to estimate the HR.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.59||||0.5151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|6.43|||Log Rank|||||6.43|0.39|0.5151
91065160|NCT04740918|182015231|SUPERIORITY|A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test, stratified by local hormonal status (ER and/or PgR positive vs. ER and PgR negative/unknown) and Disease status (visceral metastasis without brain metastasis vs. non-visceral metastasis only without brain metastasis \[including locally advanced disease\] vs. Brain metastasis), was used to test for difference in response rates.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.70|0.50|0.7240
91065161|NCT04740918|182015232|SUPERIORITY|Cox proportional hazards model, stratified by local hormonal status (ER and/or PgR positive vs. ER and PgR negative/unknown) and Disease status (visceral metastasis without brain metastasis vs. non-visceral metastasis only without brain metastasis \[including locally advanced disease\] vs. Brain metastasis) were used to estimate the HR.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||0.3531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.61|||Log Rank|||||1.61|0.26|0.3531
90826920|NCT04435366|181528697|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.056|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.016|0.096||Nominal p-value was used for the comparison between avacincaptad pegol versus sham.|MMRM|||Difference in least squares mean between groups calculated as (sham) minus (avacincaptad pegol). Mixed Model for repeated measures (MMRM) was used to compare the treatment groups.||0.096|0.016|0.0064
90826921|NCT04435366|181528698|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.362|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.066|0.657||Nominal p-value was used for the comparison between avacincaptad pegol versus sham.|MMRM|||Difference in least squares mean between groups calculated as (sham) minus (avacincaptad pegol).||0.657|0.066|0.0165
90826922|NCT04435366|181528698|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.488|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.152||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.189|0.788||Nominal p-value was used for the comparison between avacincaptad pegol and sham versus sham.|MMRM|||Difference in least squares mean between groups calculated as (sham) minus (avacincaptad pegol and sham).||0.788|0.189|0.0015
90826923|NCT04435366|181528699|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.79|2.12||Nominal p-value was used for the comparison between avacincaptad pegol versus sham.|MMRM|||Difference in least squares mean between groups calculated as (sham) minus (avacincaptad pegol).||2.12|-3.79|0.58
90826924|NCT04435366|181528700|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.68||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.79|1.81||Nominal p-value was used for the comparison between avacincaptad pegol versus sham.|MMRM|||Difference in least squares mean between groups calculated as (sham) minus (avacincaptad pegol).||1.81|-4.79|0.38
90826925|NCT04435366|181528702|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.712|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.33||0.5929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.326|1.903|||MMRM|||||1.903|-3.326|0.5929
90826926|NCT04435366|181528704|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.6424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.42|||Log Rank|||||1.42|0.57|0.6424
90826927|NCT04152772|181528709|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||Significant Group (3 levels) by Stimulus (CS- vs CS+ extinguished) interaction. A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of groups (3) on skin conductance reactivity to the previously extinguished stimulus versus never conditioned stimulus during extinction recall||||0.02
90826928|NCT05963022|181528710|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|-1.07|||ANCOVA|||||-1.07|-1.76|<0.001
90826929|NCT05963022|181528710|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|-0.63|||ANCOVA|||||-0.63|-1.34|<0.001
90826930|NCT05963022|181528710|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|-0.92|||ANCOVA|||||-0.92|-1.61|<0.001
90826931|NCT05963022|181528711|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|17.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.62|51.73|||Regression, Logistic|||||51.73|5.62|<0.001
90826932|NCT05963022|181528711|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.77|20.37|||Regression, Logistic|||||20.37|2.77|<0.001
90826933|NCT05963022|181528711|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.74|19.14|||Regression, Logistic|||||19.14|2.74|<0.001
90826934|NCT05963022|181528712|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-24.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.3|-16.3|||ANCOVA|||||-16.3|-33.3|<0.001
90826935|NCT05963022|181528712|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-24.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.2|-15.9|||ANCOVA|||||-15.9|-33.2|<0.001
90826936|NCT05963022|181528712|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-25.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.7|-16.7|||ANCOVA|||||-16.7|-33.7|<0.001
90826937|NCT05963022|181528713|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|25.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.7|75.36|||Regression, Logistic|||||75.36|8.70|<0.001
90826938|NCT05963022|181528713|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.88|18.25|||Regression, Logistic|||||18.25|2.88|<0.001
90826939|NCT05963022|181528713|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.23|28.34|||Regression, Logistic|||||28.34|4.23|<0.001
90826940|NCT05963022|181528714|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|-2.9|||ANCOVA|||||-2.9|-6.7|<0.001
90826941|NCT05963022|181528714|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|-2.3|||ANCOVA|||||-2.3|-6.2|<0.001
90826942|NCT05963022|181528714|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|-5.4|||ANCOVA|||||-5.4|-9.3|<0.001
90826943|NCT05963022|181528715|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|76.62||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|1333.29|||Regression, Logistic|||||1333.29|4.40|0.003
90826944|NCT05963022|181528715|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|49.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|868.67|||Regression, Logistic|||||868.67|2.80|<0.001
90826945|NCT05963022|181528715|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|118.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|2055.04|||Regression, Logistic|||||2055.04|6.80|<0.001
90826946|NCT05963022|181528716|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-44.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.5|-31.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-31.5|-57.5|<0.001
90826947|NCT05963022|181528716|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-44.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.6|-31.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-31.1|-57.6|<0.001
90826948|NCT05963022|181528716|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-46.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.1|-33.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-33.7|-60.1|<0.001
90826949|NCT05963022|181528717|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|18.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.27|62.73|||Regression, Logistic|||||62.73|5.27|<0.001
90826950|NCT05963022|181528717|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|30.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.87|108.05|||Regression, Logistic|||||108.05|8.87|<0.001
90826951|NCT05963022|181528717|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|73.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.36|278.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||278.40|19.36|<0.001
90826952|NCT05963022|181528718|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|39.04||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.29|664.36|||Regression, Logistic|||||664.36|2.29|0.011
90826953|NCT05963022|181528718|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|56.34||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.34|949.59|||Regression, Logistic|||||949.59|3.34|0.005
90826954|NCT05963022|181528718|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|127.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.58|2145.42|||Regression, Logistic|||||2145.42|7.58|<0.001
90826955|NCT05963022|181528719|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.86||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|254.78|||Regression, Logistic|||||254.78|0.75|0.077
90826956|NCT05963022|181528719|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|15.65||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|281.74|||Regression, Logistic|||||281.74|0.87|0.062
90826957|NCT05963022|181528719|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|66.69||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|1140.13|||Regression, Logistic|||||1140.13|3.90|0.004
90826958|NCT02501590|181528720|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
91065162|NCT04740918|182015233|SUPERIORITY|Cox proportional hazards model, stratified by local hormonal status (ER and/or PgR positive vs. ER and PgR negative/unknown) and Disease status (visceral metastasis without brain metastasis vs. non-visceral metastasis only without brain metastasis \[including locally advanced disease\] vs. Brain metastasis) were used to estimate the HR.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.35||||0.7175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|6.81|||Log Rank|||||6.81|0.27|0.7175
91065163|NCT04740918|182015234|SUPERIORITY|Cox proportional hazards model, stratified by local hormonal status (ER and/or PgR positive vs. ER and PgR negative/unknown) and Disease status (visceral metastasis without brain metastasis vs. non-visceral metastasis only without brain metastasis \[including locally advanced disease\] vs. Brain metastasis) were used to estimate the HR.||||||0.3173|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.3173
91065164|NCT04740918|182015235|SUPERIORITY|Cox proportional hazards model, stratified by local hormonal status (ER and/or PgR positive vs. ER and PgR negative/unknown) and Disease status (visceral metastasis without brain metastasis vs. non-visceral metastasis only without brain metastasis \[including locally advanced disease\] vs. Brain metastasis) were used to estimate the HR.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19||||0.8658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|8.6|||Log Rank|||||8.60|0.16|0.8658
91065165|NCT04740918|182015236|SUPERIORITY|Cox proportional hazards model, stratified by local hormonal status (ER and/or PgR positive vs. ER and PgR negative/unknown) and Disease status (visceral metastasis without brain metastasis vs. non-visceral metastasis only without brain metastasis \[including locally advanced disease\] vs. Brain metastasis) were used to estimate the HR.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||0.8407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|4.99|||Log Rank|||||4.99|0.27|0.8407
91065166|NCT00359424|182015255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|1.5||||0.7031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|9.1||The CMH statistic is tested at the two-sided alpha level of 0.05. For the interim analyses of the primary efficacy analysis, the alpha spending function method (Lan and DeMets, 1987) with O'Brien and Fleming (1979) stopping boundaries were adopted.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusting for the dichotomized baseline NIHSS score (\<20 or ≥20).|Positive adjusted risk difference indicates greater risk in the Endovascular group, while negative adjusted risk difference indicates greater risk in the IV Only group.|Test of null hypothesis (equal proportions of subjects with mRS of 0-2 at 90 days post-randomization in IV Only and Endovascular treatment arms) versus alternative hypothesis (unequal proportions of subjects with mRS of 0-2 at 90 days post-randomization in IV Only and Endovascular treatment arms).||9.1|-6.1|.7031
91065167|NCT00359424|182015256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.0||||0.5241|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-10.3|6.2||The CMH statistic is tested at the two-sided alpha level of 0.01.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusting for the dichotomized baseline NIHSS score (\<20 or ≥20).|Positive adjusted risk difference indicates greater risk in the Endovascular group, while negative adjusted risk difference indicates greater risk in the IV Only group.|Test of null hypothesis (equal proportions of subjects with mortality within 90 days post-randomization in IV Only and Endovascular treatment arms) versus alternative hypothesis (unequal proportions of subjects with mortality within 90 days post-randomization in IV Only and Endovascular treatment arms).||6.2|-10.3|.5241
91065168|NCT00359424|182015257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.4||||0.8275|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-4.6|5.5||The CMH statistic is tested at the two-sided alpha level of 0.01.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusting for the dichotomized baseline NIHSS score (\<20 or ≥20).|Positive adjusted risk difference indicates greater risk in the Endovascular group, while negative adjusted risk difference indicates greater risk in the IV Only group.|Test of null hypothesis (equal proportions of subjects with sICH within 30 hours post IV tPA initiation in IV Only and Endovascular treatment arms) versus alternative hypothesis (unequal proportions of subjects with sICH within 30 hours post IV tPA initiation in IV Only and Endovascular treatment arms).||5.5|-4.6|.8275
91065169|NCT05479435|182015283|OTHER|||||||0.83|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.830
91065170|NCT05479435|182015284|OTHER|||||||0.654|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.654
91065171|NCT05479435|182015285|OTHER|||||||0.803|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.803
91065172|NCT05479435|182015286|OTHER|||||||0.398|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.398
91065173|NCT05479435|182015287|OTHER|||||||0.132|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.132
91065174|NCT05479435|182015288|OTHER|||||||0.991|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.991
91065175|NCT05479435|182015289|OTHER|||||||0.278|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.278
91065176|NCT05479435|182015290|OTHER|||||||0.479|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.479
91065177|NCT05479435|182015291|OTHER|||||||0.849|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.849
91065178|NCT05479435|182015292|OTHER|||||||0.504|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.504
91065179|NCT05479435|182015293|OTHER|||||||0.017|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.017
91065180|NCT05479435|182015294|OTHER|||||||0.025|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.025
91065181|NCT05479435|182015295|OTHER|||||||0.016|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.016
91065182|NCT05479435|182015296|OTHER|||||||0.041|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.041
91065183|NCT05479435|182015297|OTHER|||||||0.352|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.352
91065184|NCT05479435|182015298|OTHER|||||||0.39|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.390
91065185|NCT05479435|182015299|OTHER|||||||0.928|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.928
91065186|NCT05479435|182015300|OTHER|||||||0.558|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.558
91065187|NCT05479435|182015301|OTHER|||||||0.133|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.133
91065188|NCT05479435|182015302|OTHER|||||||0.367|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.367
91065189|NCT05479435|182015303|OTHER|||||||0.631|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.631
91065190|NCT05479435|182015304|OTHER|||||||0.056|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.056
91065191|NCT05479435|182015305|OTHER|||||||0.979|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.979
91065192|NCT05479435|182015306|OTHER|||||||0.377|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.377
91065193|NCT05479435|182015307|OTHER|||||||0.979|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.979
91065194|NCT05479435|182015308|OTHER|||||||0.055|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.055
91065195|NCT01609790|182015333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.98|||||||Z-test|One-sided test, significance level 0.15||Assuming a 36% 6-month (6m) rate in the placebo arm \[from the March 2009 Food and Drug Administration (FDA) briefing\], a 55% rate in the AMG 386 arm, and an exponential distribution corresponds to median PFS of 4.1 and 7 months, respectively, with a hazard ratio of 0.59 (AMG 386 arm vs. placebo arm). A total of 114 patients (57 per arm) will yield 85% power to detect an absolute 19% difference of 6m PFS rate at a 1-sided alpha level of 0.15 based on a 2-sample proportion test.||||0.98
91065196|NCT01609790|182015334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.85|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.85
91065197|NCT01609790|182015335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.46||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.27|||Log Rank|||||2.27|0.95|0.09
91065198|NCT01609790|182015336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.51||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|2.24|||Log Rank|||||2.24|1.02|0.04
91065199|NCT01609790|182015337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7
91065200|NCT03055338|182015380|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|2.6||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|9.2|||Longitudinal ANCOVA|Includes terms for treatment, baseline PANSS total score, age, duration of illness, week, and the interaction of week by treatment.|Difference in LSM = MK-8189 - Risperidone|||9.2|-4.0|0.440
91065201|NCT03055338|182015380|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-4.7||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|0.5|||Longitudinal ANCOVA|Includes terms for treatment, baseline PANSS total score, age, duration of illness, week, and the interaction of week by treatment.|Difference in LSM = MK-8189 - Placebo|||0.5|-9.8|0.074
91065202|NCT03055338|182015380|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-7.3||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|-0.6|||Longitudinal ANCOVA|Includes terms for treatment, baseline PANSS total score, age, duration of illness, week, and the interaction of week by treatment.|Difference in LSM = Risperidone - Placebo|||-0.6|-14.0|0.033
91065203|NCT03055338|182015381|OTHER||Difference in % versus Placebo|17.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|30.8|||||Difference in % = MK-8918 - Placebo||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|30.8|3.0|
91065204|NCT03055338|182015382|OTHER||Difference in % versus Placebo|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|7.0|||||Difference in % = MK-8918 - Placebo||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|7.0|-9.6|
91065205|NCT03055338|182015383|OTHER||Difference in LSM|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.6|||||Difference in LSM = MK-8189 - Risperidone|||0.6|-0.2|
91065206|NCT03055338|182015383|OTHER||Difference in LSM|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.2|||||Difference in LSM = MK-8189 - Placebo|||0.2|-0.5|
91065207|NCT03055338|182015383|OTHER||Difference in LSM|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.1|||||Difference in LSM = Risperidone - Placebo|||0.1|-0.8|
91065208|NCT01256164|182015402|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|With 90 subjects, randomized on a 2:1 ratio into the Fibrocaps plus gelatin sponge active arm or the gelatin sponge arm, and assuming a mean TTH of 3.5 minutes with a standard deviation of 2.5 minutes in the active arm and a mean TTH of 6 minutes in the control arm, this translates in a power of 99.4% at a two-sided significance level alpha of 5%, using a two-sample t-test.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91065209|NCT01256164|182015403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||1.00
91065210|NCT01256164|182015404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Intent-to-treat analysis||||<0.001
91065211|NCT01256164|182015405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||intent-to- treat analysis||||0.001
91065212|NCT01256164|182015406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||intent-to-treat analysis||||0.003
91065213|NCT01102257|182015414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
90826959|NCT01702558|181528851|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|8.2||||0.336|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.5|20.9|||Fisher Exact||90% CI was estimated using Hauck-Anderson approach.|||20.9|-4.5|0.336
90826960|NCT03259087|181528915|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.07|1.47|||||GMR is ratio of Experimental Group / Healthy Group|||1.47|1.07|
90826961|NCT03259087|181528915|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.42|2.02|||||GMR is ratio of Experimental Group / Healthy Group|||2.02|1.42|
91065214|NCT03752970|182015416|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.609|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.186||||||||-0.186|-0.880|
91065215|NCT03752970|182015417|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.509|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.816|-0.087||||||||-0.087|-0.816|
91065216|NCT03752970|182015418|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.509|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.816|-0.087||||||||-0.087|-0.816|
91065217|NCT01467713|182015440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.286|TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.42|1.39|||Log Rank||Cox proportional hazards model with only treatment in the model.|||1.39|0.42|0.286
90826962|NCT03259087|181528915|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (GMR)|2.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.2|4.04|||||GMR is ratio of Experimental Group / Healthy Group|||4.04|2.20|
91065218|NCT01467713|182015440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.332|TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.43|1.43|||Log Rank||Cox proportional hazards model with only treatment in the model.|||1.43|0.43|0.332
91065219|NCT01467713|182015440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.808|TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.6|1.86|||Log Rank||Cox proportional hazards model with only treatment in the model.|||1.86|0.60|0.808
91065220|NCT01467713|182015440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.286|TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.48|1.61|||Log Rank||Cox proportional hazards model with treatment, pooled center, age, gender, and baseline MADRS score in the model.|||1.61|0.48|0.286
91065221|NCT01467713|182015440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.332|TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.42|1.49|||Log Rank||Cox proportional hazards model with treatment, pooled center, age, gender, and baseline MADRS score in the model.|||1.49|0.42|0.332
91065222|NCT01467713|182015440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.808|TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.6|1.95|||Log Rank||Cox proportional hazards model with treatment, pooled center, age, gender, and baseline MADRS score in the model.|||1.95|0.60|0.808
91065223|NCT05251337|182015493|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.462|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.462
91065224|NCT05251337|182015494|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.285|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.285
91065225|NCT05251337|182015496|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.091|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.091
91065226|NCT02342678|182015609|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|2.2|||ANCOVA|||||2.2|-0.3|0.13
91065227|NCT02342678|182015610|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.1|||ANCOVA|||||1.1|-0.2|0.18
91065228|NCT02342678|182015611|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.3|||ANCOVA|||||1.3|-1.2|0.89
91065229|NCT02342678|182015612|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|2.0|||ANCOVA|||||2.0|-0.3|0.13
91065230|NCT02342678|182015613|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.4|||ANCOVA|||||0.4|-0.3|0.73
91065231|NCT02342678|182015614|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.3||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.9|24.3|||ANCOVA|||||24.3|-62.9|0.38
91065232|NCT02342678|182015615|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.6||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|14.8|||ANCOVA|||||14.8|-3.7|0.24
91065233|NCT02342678|182015616|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.9|||ANCOVA|||||0.9|-0.4|0.46
91065234|NCT00460603|182015617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.585||||0.9726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.332|1.031|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||One-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test of treatment stratified by prior adjuvant chemotherapy (yes versus \[vs.\] no) and prior pelvic irradiation (yes vs. no) was used for the analysis.||1.031|0.332|0.9726
91065235|NCT00460603|182015617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.735||||0.8391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.399|1.352|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||One-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test of treatment stratified by prior adjuvant chemotherapy (yes vs. no) and prior pelvic irradiation (yes vs. no) was used for the analysis.||1.352|0.399|0.8391
91065236|NCT00460603|182015617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.797||||0.8192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.489|1.299|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||One-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test of treatment stratified by prior adjuvant chemotherapy (yes vs. no) and prior pelvic irradiation (yes vs. no) was used for the analysis.||1.299|0.489|0.8192
91065237|NCT00460603|182015649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.5699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|2.45|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated based on the Cox proportional hazards model stratified by prior adjuvant chemotherapy (yes vs. no) and prior pelvic irradiation (yes vs. no). One-sided p-value was derived from the log-rank test stratified by prior adjuvant chemotherapy (yes vs. no) and prior pelvic irradiation (yes vs. no).||2.45|0.47|0.5699
91065238|NCT00460603|182015649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.2167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.61|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on the Cox proportional hazards model stratified by prior adjuvant chemotherapy (yes vs. no) and prior pelvic irradiation (yes vs. no). One-sided p-value was derived from the log-rank test stratified by prior adjuvant chemotherapy (yes vs. no) and prior pelvic irradiation (yes vs. no).||1.61|0.33|0.2167
91065239|NCT00460603|182015649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.49||||0.8746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.98|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on the Cox proportional hazards model stratified by prior adjuvant chemotherapy (yes vs. no) and prior pelvic irradiation (yes vs. no). One-sided p-value was derived from the log-rank test stratified by prior adjuvant chemotherapy (yes vs. no) and prior pelvic irradiation (yes vs. no).||2.98|0.75|0.8746
91065240|NCT00460603|182015650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.4||||0.8884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.41|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on the Cox proportional hazards model stratified by prior adjuvant chemotherapy (yes vs. no) and prior pelvic irradiation (yes vs. no). One-sided p-value was derived from the log-rank test stratified by prior adjuvant chemotherapy (yes vs. no) and prior pelvic irradiation (yes vs. no).||2.41|0.81|0.8884
91065241|NCT00460603|182015650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.6648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.89|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on the Cox proportional hazards model stratified by prior adjuvant chemotherapy (yes vs. no) and prior pelvic irradiation (yes vs. no). One-sided p-value was derived from the log-rank test stratified by prior adjuvant chemotherapy (yes vs. no) and prior pelvic irradiation (yes vs. no).||1.89|0.66|0.6648
91065242|NCT00460603|182015650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.25||||0.8065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.07|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on the Cox proportional hazards model stratified by prior adjuvant chemotherapy (yes vs. no) and prior pelvic irradiation (yes vs. no). One-sided p-value was derived from the log-rank test stratified by prior adjuvant chemotherapy (yes vs. no) and prior pelvic irradiation (yes vs. no).||2.07|0.75|0.8065
91065243|NCT00460603|182015651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.155||||0.6904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.656|2.033|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on the Cox proportional hazards model stratified by prior adjuvant chemotherapy (yes vs. no) and prior pelvic irradiation (yes vs. no). One-sided p-value was derived from the log-rank test stratified by prior adjuvant chemotherapy (yes vs. no) and prior pelvic irradiation (yes vs. no).||2.033|0.656|0.6904
91065244|NCT00460603|182015651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.203||||0.7364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.676|2.141|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on the Cox proportional hazards model stratified by prior adjuvant chemotherapy (yes vs. no) and prior pelvic irradiation (yes vs. no). One-sided p-value was derived from the log-rank test stratified by prior adjuvant chemotherapy (yes vs. no) and prior pelvic irradiation (yes vs. no).||2.141|0.676|0.7364
91065245|NCT00460603|182015651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.941||||0.414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.535|1.653|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on the Cox proportional hazards model stratified by prior adjuvant chemotherapy (yes vs. no) and prior pelvic irradiation (yes vs. no). One-sided p-value was derived from the log-rank test stratified by prior adjuvant chemotherapy (yes vs. no) and prior pelvic irradiation (yes vs. no).||1.653|0.535|0.4140
91065246|NCT01651117|182015664|EQUIVALENCE|Mixed methods ANCOVA with patient random effects, to compare change in HbA1c from baseline to 6 months between treatment and control groups.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3268|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1739||0.0611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.669|0.0154||Subject random effect included because same model was used for analyses of 2 separate follow up periods (baseline to 6 month, and baseline to 12 month, reported separately).|Mixed Models Analysis|Multiple imputation used for intent-to-treat analysis.|Negative parameter estimate means decrease in HbA1c was greater for treatment group than for control group.|||0.0154|-0.6690|0.0611
91065247|NCT03808948|182015699|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.62||||0.4842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|1.97|||Regression, Logistic|||Binary logistic regression with mGFR/eGFR ratio as independent variate, AKI as binary outcome||1.97|0.08|0.4842
91065248|NCT03982511|182015775|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.73|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT, primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. P-values will be provided in addition to effect size.|ANOVA|Repeated measures|Effect size: 0.17|Difference on difference from T2 to T1 for BMI z-score||||.73
91065249|NCT03982511|182015775|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.98|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|Repeated measures||Difference on difference for BMI z-score from T3 to T1|Effect size: -0.01|||.98
91065250|NCT03982511|182015775|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.97||0.63|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|Repeated measures||Difference on difference for BMI percentile from T2 to T1|Effect size: 0.24|||0.63
90826963|NCT03259087|181528916|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.06|1.46|||||GMR is ratio of Experimental Group / Healthy Group|||1.46|1.06|
90826964|NCT03259087|181528916|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.41|1.99|||||GMR is ratio of Experimental Group / Healthy Group|||1.99|1.41|
90826965|NCT03259087|181528916|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (GMR)|2.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.17|3.9|||||GMR is ratio of Experimental Group / Healthy Group|||3.90|2.17|
90826966|NCT03259087|181528917|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.04|1.4|||||GMR is ratio of Experimental Group / Healthy Group|||1.40|1.04|
90826967|NCT03259087|181528917|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.59|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.36|1.86|||||GMR is ratio of Experimental Group / Healthy Group|||1.86|1.36|
90826968|NCT03259087|181528917|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (GMR)|2.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.82|2.97|||||GMR is ratio of Experimental Group / Healthy Group|||2.97|1.82|
90826969|NCT03259087|181528918|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|1.16|||||GMR is ratio of Experimental Group / Healthy Group|||1.16|0.84|
90826970|NCT03259087|181528918|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.18|||||GMR is ratio of Experimental Group / Healthy Group|||1.18|0.90|
90826971|NCT03259087|181528918|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|1.29|||||GMR is ratio of Experimental Group / Healthy Group|||1.29|0.95|
90826972|NCT03259087|181528920|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.68|0.94|||||GMR is ratio of Experimental Group / Healthy Group|||0.94|0.68|
90826973|NCT03259087|181528920|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.49|0.7|||||GMR is ratio of Experimental Group / Healthy Group|||0.70|0.49|
90826974|NCT03259087|181528920|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.25|0.45|||||GMR is ratio of Experimental Group / Healthy Group|||0.45|0.25|
90826975|NCT03259087|181528924|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (GMR)|3.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.26|4.82|||||GMR is ratio of Experimental Group / Healthy Group|||4.82|3.26|
90826976|NCT03259087|181528924|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.3|1.92|||||GMR is ratio of Experimental Group / Healthy Group|||1.92|1.30|
90826977|NCT03259087|181528925|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (GMR)|3.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.03|4.36|||||GMR is ratio of Experimental Group / Healthy Group|||4.36|3.03|
90826978|NCT03259087|181528925|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.22|1.75|||||GMR is ratio of Experimental Group / Healthy Group|||1.75|1.22|
90826979|NCT03259087|181528926|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (GMR)|2.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.23|3.06|||||GMR is ratio of Experimental Group / Healthy Group|||3.06|2.23|
90826980|NCT03259087|181528926|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|1.25|||||GMR is ratio of Experimental Group / Healthy Group|||1.25|0.95|
90826981|NCT03259087|181528927|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|1.14|||||GMR is ratio of Experimental Group / Healthy Group|||1.14|0.84|
90826982|NCT03259087|181528927|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.75|1.2|||||GMR is ratio of Experimental Group / Healthy Group|||1.20|0.75|
90826983|NCT03259087|181528928|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|1.16|||||GMR is ratio of Experimental Group / Healthy Group|||1.16|0.85|
90826984|NCT03259087|181528928|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.75|1.2|||||GMR is ratio of Experimental Group / Healthy Group|||1.20|0.75|
90826985|NCT03259087|181528929|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.21|0.31|||||GMR is ratio of Experimental Group / Healthy Group|||0.31|0.21|
90826986|NCT03259087|181528929|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.77|||||GMR is ratio of Experimental Group / Healthy Group|||0.77|0.52|
90826987|NCT03259087|181528933|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.74|1.11|||||GMR is ratio of Experimental Group / Healthy Group|||1.11|0.74|
90826988|NCT03259087|181528933|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.47|0.88|||||GMR is ratio of Experimental Group / Healthy Group|||0.88|0.47|
90826989|NCT03259087|181528933|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.21|0.43|||||GMR is ratio of Experimental Group / Healthy Group|||0.43|0.21|
90826990|NCT03259087|181528934|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.57|0.98|||||GMR is ratio of Experimental Group / Healthy Group|||0.98|0.57|
90826991|NCT03259087|181528934|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.31|0.53|||||GMR is ratio of Experimental Group / Healthy Group|||0.53|0.31|
90826992|NCT03259087|181528934|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.08|0.22|||||GMR is ratio of Experimental Group / Healthy Group|||0.22|0.08|
90826993|NCT03259087|181528935|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.74|1.11|||||GMR is ratio of Experimental Group / Healthy Group|||1.11|0.74|
90826994|NCT03259087|181528935|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.47|0.88|||||GMR is ratio of Experimental Group / Healthy Group|||0.88|0.47|
90826995|NCT03259087|181528935|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.21|0.43|||||GMR is ratio of Experimental Group / Healthy Group|||0.43|0.21|
90826996|NCT01623115|181528972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-57.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.3|-52.6||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs Placebo|Alirocumab group was compared to placebo group using an appropriate contrast statement.||-52.6|-63.3|<0.0001
90826997|NCT01623115|181528973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-58.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.5|-52.7||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs Placebo|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||-52.7|-63.5|<0.0001
90826998|NCT01623115|181528974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-49.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.9|-44.5||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-44.5|-53.9|<0.0001
90826999|NCT01623115|181528975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-49.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.2|-44.8||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant)||-44.8|-54.2|<0.0001
90827000|NCT01623115|181528976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-45.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.8|-41.8||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-41.8|-49.8|<0.0001
90827001|NCT01623115|181528977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-45.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.9|-41.8||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-41.8|-49.9|<0.0001
90827002|NCT01623115|181528978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-52.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.2|-47.6||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-47.6|-57.2|<0.0001
90827003|NCT01623115|181528979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-52.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.5|-47.8||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-47.8|-57.5|<0.0001
90827004|NCT01623115|181528980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-38.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.4|-35.0||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-35|-42.4|<0.0001
90827005|NCT01623115|181528981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-37.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.2|-33.9||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-33.9|-41.2|<0.0001
91065251|NCT03982511|182015775|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.51||0.96|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|Repeated measures||Difference on difference for BMI percentile from T3 to T1|Effect size: 0.03|||0.96
91065252|NCT03982511|182015776|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.12|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|Repeated measures||Difference on difference for Emotion regulation subscale from T2 to T1|Effect size: 0.79|||0.12
90827006|NCT01623115|181528982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-43.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.0|-39.4||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-39.4|-48|<0.0001
90827007|NCT01623115|181528983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-32.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.7|-29.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-29.2|-35.7|<0.0001
90827008|NCT01623115|181528984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-56.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.4|-50.0||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-50|-62.4|<0.0001
91065253|NCT03982511|182015776|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.96|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|Repeated measures||Difference on difference for emotion regulation subscale from T3 to T1|Effect size: -0.02|||0.96
91065254|NCT03982511|182015777|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.42||0.28|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|Repeated measures||Difference on difference for child weekly screen time from T2 to T1|Effect size: -0.41|||0.28
90827009|NCT01623115|181528985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|156.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.9|498.1||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model|Alirocumab vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||498.1|48.9|<0.0001
90827010|NCT01623115|181528986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|156.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.7|493.7||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model.|Alirocumab vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||493.7|49.7|<0.0001
90827011|NCT01623115|181528987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|244.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.4|1744.4||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model.|Alirocumab vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||1744.4|34.4|<0.0001
90827012|NCT01623115|181528988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|240.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.9|1700.7||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model.|Alirocumab vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||1700.7|33.9|<0.0001
90827013|NCT01623115|181528989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-17.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.6|-12.9||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Robust|Multiple imputation approach followed by robust regression model.|Alirocumab vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-12.9|-22.6|<0.0001
91065255|NCT03982511|182015777|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.17||0.43|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|Repeated measures||Difference on difference for child weekly screen time from T3 to T1|Effect size: 0.42|||0.43
91065256|NCT03982511|182015778|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|35.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|23.86||0.16|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|Repeated measures||Difference on difference score for MVPA minutes from T2 to T1|Effect size: 0.85|||0.16
91065257|NCT03982511|182015778|SUPERIORITY|Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|Mean Difference (Net)|16.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|30.32||0.61|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures||Difference on difference score for MVPA minutes from T3 to T1|Effect size: 0.35|||0.61
90827014|NCT01623115|181528990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|8.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|11.0||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||11|5|<0.0001
90827015|NCT01623115|181528991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-16.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.3|-10.6||Threshold for significance was ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Robust|Multiple imputation approach followed by robust regression model.|Alirocumab vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-10.6|-21.3|<0.0001
90827016|NCT01623115|181528992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|4.7|||=|0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|7.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||7.2|2.3|= 0.0002
90827017|NCT01623115|181528993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-17.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.5|-13.0||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Robust|Multiple imputation approach followed by robust regression model.|Alirocumab vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-13|-21.5|<0.0001
90827018|NCT01623115|181528994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|4.3||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|7.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||7.2|1.5|0.0031
90827019|NCT01623115|181528995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-9.7||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|-4.4||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Robust|Multiple imputation approach followed by robust regression model.|Alirocumab vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-4.4|-15|0.0003
90827020|NCT01623115|181528996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.8||||0.0187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|5.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||5.2|0.5|0.0187
90827021|NCT04950465|181529000|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.2639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.43|||ANCOVA|||||0.43|-0.12|0.2639
90827022|NCT04950465|181529001|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6978|||||||Van Elteren Test|Due to non-normal residual analyses from ANCOVA a Van Elteren Test was performed.||Week 4||||0.6978
90827023|NCT04950465|181529001|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.813|||||||Van Elteren Test|Due to non-normal residual analyses from ANCOVA a Van Elteren Test was performed.||Week 8||||0.8130
90827024|NCT04950465|181529002|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.115||0.7645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.19|||ANCOVA|||||0.19|-0.26|0.7645
90827025|NCT04950465|181529003|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.114||0.9728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.22|||ANCOVA|||Week 4||0.22|-0.23|0.9728
90827026|NCT04950465|181529003|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.2968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.42|||ANCOVA|||Week 8||0.42|-0.13|0.2968
90827027|NCT04950465|181529004|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1682|||||||Van Elteren Test|Due to non-normal residual analyses from ANCOVA a Van Elteren Test was performed.||Week 4||||0.1682
90827028|NCT04950465|181529004|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3937|||||||Van Elteren Test|Due to non-normal residual analyses from ANCOVA a Van Elteren Test was performed.||Week 8||||0.3937
90827029|NCT02888106|181529016|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0022|||||||Fisher Exact|||The proportions of negative HDV RNA response at week 72 in each of the MXB treatment groups were compared with the control group of PEG-IFNα by using Fisher's exact test and by presenting exact unconditional 95%-confidence intervals (CI) based on scores for the proportion differences.||||0.0022
90827030|NCT02888106|181529016|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0996|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0996
90827031|NCT02888106|181529016|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
90827032|NCT02888106|181529016|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
90827033|NCT02888106|181529016|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0421|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0421
90827034|NCT02888106|181529017|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0052|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 24||||0.0052
90827035|NCT02888106|181529017|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0052|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 24||||0.0052
90827036|NCT02888106|181529017|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 24||||1.0000
90827037|NCT02888106|181529017|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0017|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 24||||0.0017
90827038|NCT02888106|181529017|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3295|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 24||||0.3295
90827039|NCT02888106|181529017|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0007|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 48||||0.0007
90827040|NCT02888106|181529017|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 48||||0.0001
90827041|NCT02888106|181529017|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 48||||1.0000
90827042|NCT02888106|181529017|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0007|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 48||||0.0007
90827043|NCT02888106|181529017|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1086|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 48||||0.1086
90827044|NCT02888106|181529018|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 24||||1.0000
90827045|NCT02888106|181529018|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2241|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 24||||0.2241
90827046|NCT02888106|181529018|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 24||||0.0002
90827047|NCT02888106|181529018|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2241|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 24||||0.2241
90827048|NCT02888106|181529018|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0007|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 24||||0.0007
90827049|NCT02888106|181529018|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 48||||1.0000
90827050|NCT02888106|181529018|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4497|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 48||||0.4497
90827051|NCT02888106|181529018|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0268|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 48||||0.0268
91065258|NCT03982511|182015778|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-64.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|54.5||0.26|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|Repeated measures||Difference on difference score for sedentary minutes from T2 to T1|Effect size: -0.68|||0.26
91065259|NCT03982511|182015778|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|66.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|66.43||0.34|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference score for sedentary minutes from T3 to T1|effect size: 0.66|||0.34
90827052|NCT02888106|181529018|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 48||||1.0000
90827053|NCT02888106|181529018|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6999|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 48||||0.6999
90827054|NCT02888106|181529018|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0743|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 72||||0.0743
90827055|NCT02888106|181529018|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3449|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Week 72||||0.3449
90827056|NCT02888106|181529018|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6036|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 72||||0.6036
91065260|NCT03982511|182015779|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.41|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for parent-reported sleep time from T2 to T1|effect size: -0.41|||0.41
90827057|NCT02888106|181529018|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3408|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 72||||0.3408
90827058|NCT02888106|181529018|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3408|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 72||||0.3408
90827059|NCT02888106|181529019|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 24||||1.0000
90827060|NCT02888106|181529019|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2241|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 24||||0.2241
90827061|NCT02888106|181529019|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4828|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 24||||0.4828
90827062|NCT02888106|181529019|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4828|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 24||||0.4828
90827063|NCT02888106|181529019|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4828|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 24||||0.4828
90827064|NCT02888106|181529019|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5977|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 48||||0.5977
90827065|NCT02888106|181529019|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1686|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 48||||0.1686
90827066|NCT02888106|181529019|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 48||||1.0000
90827067|NCT02888106|181529019|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5977|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 48||||0.5977
90827068|NCT02888106|181529019|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 48||||1.0000
90827069|NCT02888106|181529019|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0063|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 72||||0.0063
90827070|NCT02888106|181529019|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4828|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 72||||0.4828
90827071|NCT02888106|181529019|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 72||||1.0000
90827072|NCT02888106|181529019|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 72||||1.0000
90827073|NCT02888106|181529019|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4828|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 72||||0.4828
90827074|NCT02888106|181529020|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0801|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 24||||0.0801
90827075|NCT02888106|181529020|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 24||||1.0000
90827076|NCT02888106|181529020|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 24||||1.0000
90827077|NCT02888106|181529020|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 24||||1.0000
90827078|NCT02888106|181529020|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 24||||1.0000
90827079|NCT02888106|181529020|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0063|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 48||||0.0063
90827080|NCT02888106|181529020|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2241|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 48||||0.2241
90827081|NCT02888106|181529020|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 48||||1.0000
90827082|NCT02888106|181529020|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0169|||||||Regression, Cox|||Week 72||||0.0169
90827083|NCT02888106|181529020|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4828|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 72||||0.4828
90827084|NCT02888106|181529020|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4828|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 72||||0.4828
90827085|NCT02888106|181529021|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4828|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 48||||0.4828
90827086|NCT02888106|181529021|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 48||||1.0000
90827087|NCT02888106|181529021|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2292|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 72||||0.2292
90827088|NCT02888106|181529021|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 72||||1.0000
90827089|NCT02888106|181529022|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4621|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 24||||0.4621
90827090|NCT02888106|181529022|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Week 24||||1.0000
90827091|NCT02888106|181529022|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 24||||1.0000
90827092|NCT02888106|181529022|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4621|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 24||||0.4621
90827093|NCT02888106|181529022|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0253|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 24||||0.0253
90827094|NCT02888106|181529022|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0268|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 48||||0.0268
90827095|NCT02888106|181529022|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6999|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 48||||0.6999
90827096|NCT02888106|181529022|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 48||||1.0000
90827097|NCT02888106|181529022|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0656|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 48||||0.0656
90827098|NCT02888106|181529022|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 48||||0.0005
90827099|NCT02888106|181529022|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1431|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 72||||0.1431
90827100|NCT02888106|181529022|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 72||||1.0000
91065261|NCT03982511|182015779|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.16|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for parent-reported sleep time from T3 to T1|effect size: 0.76|||0.16
91065262|NCT03982511|182015780|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.84||0.42|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for actigraphy-recorded sleep time from T2 to T1|effect size: -0.54|||0.42
91065263|NCT03982511|182015780|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-38.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.61||0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for actigraphy-recorded sleep time from T3 to T1|effect size: -1.56|||0.04
91065264|NCT03982511|182015781|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.77|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for problematic media use from T2 to T1|effect size: 0.15|||0.77
91065265|NCT03982511|182015781|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.47|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for problematic media use from T3 to T1|effect size: -0.38|||0.47
91065266|NCT03982511|182015782|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|9.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.76||0.005|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for child-centered skills from T2 to T1|effect size: 1.65|||0.005
91065267|NCT03982511|182015782|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|8.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.81||0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for child-centered skills from T3 to T1|effect size: 1.20|||0.05
91065268|NCT03982511|182015783|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-17.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.93||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for PCDI scores from T2 to T1.|effect size: -1.21|||0.02
91065269|NCT03982511|182015783|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-19.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.4||0.008|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for PCDI scores from T3 to T1|effect size: -1.57|||0.008
91065270|NCT03982511|182015784|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.5|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|Repeated measures||Difference on difference for pressure to eat scores from T2 to T1|effect size: -0.34|||0.50
91065271|NCT03982511|182015784|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.98|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for pressure to eat scores from T3 to T1|effect size: -0.01|||0.98
91065272|NCT03982511|182015785|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.17|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for restrictive feeding scores from T2 to T1|effect size: -0.70|||0.17
91065273|NCT03982511|182015785|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.34|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for restrictive feeding scores from T3 to T1|effect size: -0.51|||0.34
91065274|NCT03982511|182015786|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.91|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for emotional feeding scores from T2 to T1|effect size: -0.06|||0.91
91065275|NCT03982511|182015786|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.45|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for emotional feeding scores from T3 to T1|effect size: -0.40|||0.45
91065276|NCT03982511|182015787|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.03|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for instrumental feeding scores from T2 to T1.|effect size: -1.12|||0.03
91065277|NCT03982511|182015787|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.03|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for instrumental feeding scores from T3 to T1|effect size: -1.25|||0.03
91065278|NCT03982511|182015788|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06||0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for active mediation from T2 to T1|effect size: 1.02|||0.05
90827101|NCT02888106|181529022|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 72||||1.0000
90827102|NCT02888106|181529022|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 72||||1.0000
91065279|NCT03982511|182015788|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.47||0.11|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for active mediation scores from T3 to T1|effect size: 0.88|||0.11
91065280|NCT03982511|182015789|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for restrictive mediation scores from T2 to T1|effect size: 1.77|||0.002
91065281|NCT03982511|182015789|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08||0.24|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for restrictive mediation scores from T3 to T1|effect size: 0.63|||0.24
91065282|NCT03982511|182015790|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.53|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for social coviewing from T2 to T1|effect size: 0.31|||0.53
91065283|NCT03982511|182015790|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.77|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for social coviewing from T3 to T1|effect size: 0.15|||0.77
91065284|NCT03982511|182015791|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.23||0.91|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for number of screens in the home from T2 to T1|effect size: 0.04|||0.91
91065285|NCT03982511|182015791|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36||0.64|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for number of screens in the home from T3 to T1|effect size: 0.17|||0.64
91065286|NCT03982511|182015791|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.31|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for number of screens in child bedroom from T2 to T1|effect size: -0.36|||0.31
91065287|NCT03982511|182015791|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for number of screens in child bedroom from T3 to T1|effect size: -0.85|||0.04
91065288|NCT03982511|182015792|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.03|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for TV on during mealtime from T2 to T1|effect size: -1.25|||0.03
91065289|NCT03982511|182015792|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.1|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for TV on during mealtime from T3 to T1|effect size: -1.08|||0.10
91065290|NCT03982511|182015792|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.41|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for mobile device present during mealtime from T2 to T1|effect size: -0.44|||0.41
91065291|NCT03982511|182015792|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.21|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for mobile device present during mealtime from T3 to T1|effect size: -0.80|||0.21
91065292|NCT03982511|182015792|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for other media present during mealtime from T2 to T1|effect size: -1.29|||0.02
91065293|NCT03982511|182015792|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.2|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for other media present during mealtime from T3 to T1|effect size: -0.82|||0.20
91065294|NCT03982511|182015793|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.009|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for mealtime task accomplishment scores from T2 to T1|effect size: 1.55|||0.009
91065295|NCT03982511|182015793|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.84|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for mealtime task accomplishment scores from T3 to T1|effect size: -0.13|||0.84
91065296|NCT03982511|182015793|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.24|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for mealtime behavior control scores from T2 to T1|effect size: 0.63|||0.24
90827103|NCT02888106|181529022|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7104|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 72||||0.7104
91065297|NCT03982511|182015793|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.84|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for mealtime behavior control scores from T3 to T1.|effect size: -0.13|||0.84
91065298|NCT03982511|182015794|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.17||0|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for ECBI intensity t-scores from T2 to T1|effect size: -1.50|||0.00
91065299|NCT03982511|182015794|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.48||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for ECBI intensity t-scores from T3 to T1|effect size: -1.12|||0.01
91065300|NCT03982511|182015795|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.63||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for internalizing symptoms from T2 to T1|effect size: -0.93|||0.02
91065301|NCT03982511|182015795|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.56||0.08|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for internalizing symptoms from T3 to T1|effect size: -0.68|||0.08
91065302|NCT03982511|182015795|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.92||0.36|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for adaptive skills from T2 to T1|effect size: -0.33|||0.36
90827104|NCT01425801|181529044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean DIfference|0.405|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.353|0.458|||ANCOVA|Sequence, treatment and period as fixed effect factors, patient within sequence as random effect and baseline peak FEV1 at each period as a covariate||||0.458|0.353|<0.0001
90827105|NCT01425801|181529044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.371|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.318|0.424|||ANCOVA|Sequence, treatment and period as fixed effect factors, patient within sequence as random effect and baseline peak FEV1 at each period as a covariate||||0.424|0.318|<0.0001
90827106|NCT01425801|181529044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.322|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.269|0.375|||ANCOVA|Sequence, treatment and period as fixed effect factors, patient within sequence as random effect and baseline peak FEV1 at each period as a covariate||||0.375|0.269|<0.0001
90827107|NCT01425801|181529044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.274|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.221|0.327|||ANCOVA|Sequence, treatment and period as fixed effect factors, patient within sequence as random effect and baseline peak FEV1 at each period as a covariate||||0.327|0.221|<0.0001
90827108|NCT03066596|181529060|SUPERIORITY|A generalized linear model (GLM) with logit link function was used to compare the percentage of participants with corrected actions taken and GEE method was used to account for within-clinic correlation. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between groups in the the percentage of participants with corrected actions taken. With 530 participants at baseline, ≤10% attrition at 12 months, the study has greater than 80% power to detect a difference of 15 percentage points.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.98|6.08||The p-values reported above represented the calculated value rather than predetermined thresholds for significance. Statistical significance was defined as a p-value less than 0.05.|GLM with GEE|||||6.08|1.98|<.001
91065303|NCT03982511|182015795|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.83||0.69|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|Repeated measures||Difference on difference for adaptive skills from T3 to T1|effect size: -0.15|||0.69
91065304|NCT03982511|182015796|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|35.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.21||0|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for PSICA intensity scores from T2 to T1 (higher scores indicate better outcomes).|effect size: 1.70|||0.000
91065305|NCT03982511|182015796|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|21.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.64||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for PSICA intensity scores from T3 to T1|effect size: 1.04|||0.01
91065306|NCT03982511|182015797|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.73|TWO_SIDED|||||Given this is a pilot RCT, primary aim is to estimate effect size for a more fully-powered RCT. P-values will be provided in addition to effect size.|ANOVA|Repeated measures|Effect size: 0.17|Difference on difference from T2 to T1 for BMI z-score||||.73
91065307|NCT03982511|182015797|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.98|TWO_SIDED|||||Given this is a pilot RCT, primary aim is to estimate effect size for a more fully-powered RCT. P-values will be provided in addition to effect size.|ANOVA|Repeated measures||Difference on difference for BMI z-scores from T3 to T1.|Effect size: -0.01|||.98
91065308|NCT00568451|182015800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median|12.5|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|4.5||||Kaplan-Meier||||||4.5|
91065309|NCT00607620|182015830|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.98||||||||0.98|0.79|
91065310|NCT00607620|182015831|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.3|||||The data represented refers to the group mean difference (intervention versus control) of the change score between baseline to 12-months.|||-0.3|-2.1|
91065311|NCT00607620|182015832|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|6.4|||||The data represented refers to the group mean difference (intervention versus control) of the change score between 6-months and 12-months.|||6.4|0.4|
91065312|NCT00607620|182015833|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|1.9|||||The data represented refers to the group mean difference (intervention versus control) of the change score between 6-months and 12-months.|||1.9|-3.3|
91065313|NCT00607620|182015834|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|0.99|||||The data represented refers to the group mean difference (intervention versus control) of the change score between 6-months and 12-months.|||0.99|-1.02|
91065314|NCT00791778|182015841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.63|||Log Rank|Two treatment groups compared using a log-rank test with one-sided alpha of 0.10 stratified by the same factors as randomization|Sorafenib compared to Placebo|Sample size based on the primary efficacy endpoint of PFS. Clinically meaningful improvement defined as 65% increase in median PFS. With one-sided alpha of 0.10, power of 90% and a randomization ratio of 1:1 between Sorafenib and Placebo, a total of 105 PFS events were required.||1.63|0.72|0.655
91065315|NCT00791778|182015842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.43||||0.951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|2.2|||Log Rank|Two treatment groups compared using a log-rank test with one-sided alpha of 0.10 stratified by the same factors as randomization|Sorafenib compared to Placebo|||2.20|0.93|0.951
91065316|NCT00791778|182015843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.49||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|3.23|||Log Rank|Two treatment groups compared using a log-rank test with one-sided alpha of 0.10 stratified by the same factors as randomization.|Sorafenib compared to Placebo|||3.23|0.69|0.84
91065317|NCT01169064|182015887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.365|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.365
91065318|NCT01169064|182015888|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.282|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.282
91065319|NCT03759392|182015905|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.447|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2931||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.024|0.131|||ANCOVA|Using multiple imputation||||0.131|-1.024|0.13
91065320|NCT03759392|182015906|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-5.388|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3937||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.108|-0.0668|||ANCOVA|Using multiple imputation||||-0.0668|-10.108|0.025
91065321|NCT03759392|182015907|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.414|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6215||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|1.639|||ANCOVA|Using multiple imputation||||1.639|-0.810|0.51
91065322|NCT03759392|182015908|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.1|||Repeated measures mixed model|||||1.1|-0.6|0.54
91065323|NCT01288079|182015909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.95||0.617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.35|4.39|||MMRM|||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) includes treatment, pooled center, visit, treatment by visit interaction, region, responsiveness, and region by responsiveness as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit treatment by visit interaction, region, responsiveness, and region by responsiveness are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||4.39|-7.35|0.617
91065324|NCT01288079|182015909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.26||0.277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.06|2.91|||MMRM|||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) includes treatment, pooled center, visit, treatment by visit interaction, region, responsiveness, and region by responsiveness as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, region, responsiveness, and region by responsiveness are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||2.91|-10.06|0.277
91065325|NCT01288079|182015909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.95||0.194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.72|2.0|||MMRM|||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) includes treatment, pooled center, visit, treatment by visit interaction, region, responsiveness, and region by responsiveness as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, region, responsiveness, and region by responsiveness are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||2.00|-9.72|0.194
91065326|NCT02387840|182015912|OTHER|This test was a two-sample test using non-parametric data. A predefined margin was not used because no gold standard exists. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically different||||||0.0002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of T1 values||||0.0002
91065327|NCT02387840|182015912|OTHER|This test was a two-sample test using non-parametric data. A predefined margin was not used because no gold standard exists. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically different||||||0.0003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of T2 values||||0.0003
91065328|NCT02387840|182015913|OTHER|This test was a two-sample test using non-parametric data. A predefined margin was not used because no gold standard exists. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically different||||||0.081|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of T1 values||||0.081
91065329|NCT02387840|182015913|OTHER|This test was a two-sample test using non-parametric data. A predefined margin was not used because no gold standard exists. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically different||||||0.081|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of T2 values||||0.081
91065330|NCT02387840|182015914|OTHER|This test was a two-sample test using non-parametric data. A predefined margin was not used because no gold standard exists. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically different||||||0.12|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of T1 values||||0.12
91065331|NCT02387840|182015914|OTHER|This test was a two-sample test using non-parametric data. A predefined margin was not used because no gold standard exists. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically different||||||0.14|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of T2 values||||0.14
91065332|NCT03170544|182015919|OTHER||Mean|1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.326|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.04|||||Mean (SE) and 95% CI were based on a linear fixed effects model containing a fixed effect for treatment (MK1092 Doses, Glargine).||The primary hypothesis would be supported if the Bayesian posterior probability of the true mean of GIRmax of MK-1092 lying within 1.5 and 4.5 mg/kg/min exceeded the prespecified threshold of 70% (in Part 3).|2.04|0.63|
91065333|NCT03170544|182015919|OTHER||Mean|2.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.326|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.03|3.44|||||Mean (SE) and 95% CI were based on a linear fixed effects model containing a fixed effect for treatment (MK1092 Doses, Glargine).||The primary hypothesis would be supported if the Bayesian posterior probability of the true mean of GIRmax of MK-1092 lying within 1.5 and 4.5 mg/kg/min exceeded the prespecified threshold of 70% (in Part 3).|3.44|2.03|
91065334|NCT01213966|182015942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||PPR24 was summarized descriptively. No statistical test was performed. The PRR24 values were summarised when the corresponding regression fit had a p-value of p ≤0.01 and an adjusted coefficient of determination (R2) ≥0.85.|Regression, Linear|||PPR24 was summarised descriptively. No statistical test was performed.||||0.01
91065335|NCT03888469|182015956|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin = 0.05|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.0|||Mixed effects repeated measures model|Mixed effects repeated measures model with terms for lens, period and sequence as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.|Difference = DDT2 - Moist|||0.00||
91065336|NCT05161481|182015989|OTHER|"The adjusted mean values for percentage change at Week 24 are derived for each group using the MMRM. The mean difference for the Comparison vs Placebo, is the adjusted mean of the treatment group subtracted from the adjusted mean of the placebo group."|Difference of adjusted means|-8.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.25|9.45||||||Model includes baseline HVPG as linear covariate and treatment and use of NSBBs or carvedilol as fixed effects, treatment by visit interaction and baseline HVPG by visit interaction. The following covariance structure has been used to fit the mixed model: Unstructured.||9.45|-26.25|
91065337|NCT05161481|182015989|OTHER|"The adjusted mean values for percentage change at Week 24 are derived for each group using the MMRM. The mean difference for the Comparison vs Placebo, is the adjusted mean of the treatment group subtracted from the adjusted mean of the placebo group."|Difference of adjusted means|-14.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.93|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.09|5.72||||||Model includes baseline HVPG as linear covariate and treatment and use of NSBBs or carvedilol as fixed effects, treatment by visit interaction and baseline HVPG by visit interaction. The following covariance structure has been used to fit the mixed model: Unstructured.||5.72|-34.09|
91065338|NCT05161481|182015990|OTHER|"The adjusted mean values for percentage change at Week 8 are derived for each group using the MMRM. The mean difference for the Comparison vs Placebo, is the adjusted mean of the treatment group subtracted from the adjusted mean of the placebo group."|Difference of adjusted means|3.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.23|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.94|15.96||||||The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model includes baseline hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) as a linear covariate, with treatment and use of non-selective beta-blockers (NSBBs) or carvedilol as fixed effects. All intercurrent events (ICEs) will be handled using the treatment policy for the primary objective as a sensitivity analysis. That is, all data collected after the intercurrent events will be included in the analysis.||15.96|-8.94|
91065339|NCT05161481|182015990|OTHER|"The adjusted mean values for percentage change at Week 8 are derived for each group using the MMRM. The mean difference for the Comparison vs Placebo, is the adjusted mean of the treatment group subtracted from the adjusted mean of the placebo group."|Difference of adjusted means|2.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.82|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.94|16.33||||||ANCOVA) model includes baseline hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) as a linear covariate, with treatment and use of non-selective beta-blockers (NSBBs) or carvedilol as fixed effects. All intercurrent events (ICEs) will be handled using the treatment policy for the primary objective as a sensitivity analysis. That is, all data collected after the intercurrent events will be included in the analysis.||16.33|-10.94|
91065340|NCT00838903|182015998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|-0.65|||ANCOVA|||||-0.65|-1.16|
91065341|NCT00838903|182015998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.17|||ANCOVA|||||-0.17|-0.53|
91065342|NCT00838903|182015998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.09|||ANCOVA|||||-0.09|-0.45|
91065343|NCT00838903|182015998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value is for superiority testing of albiglutide over placebo at 0.05 level.|t-test, 2 sided|The p-value is from a two-sided t-test to test whether the difference of least square means (albiglutide - placebo) is equal to zero||||||<0.0001
91065344|NCT00838903|182015998|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To test whether the difference of least square means (albiglutide - sitagliptin) is equal to the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 0.3%.|||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value is for non-inferiority testing of albiglutide versus sitagliptin at 0.0125 level.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
91065345|NCT00838903|182015998|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To test whether the difference of least square means (albiglutide - glimepiride) is equal to the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 0.3%.|||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value is for non-inferiority testing of albiglutide versus glimepiride at 0.0125 level.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
91065346|NCT00838903|182015998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||||||The p-value is for superiority testing of albiglutide versus sitagliptin at 0.025 level.|t-test, 2 sided|The p-value is from a two-sided t-test to test whether the difference of least square means (albiglutide - sitagliptin) is equal to zero.||||||0.0001
91065347|NCT00838903|182015998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0033||||||The p-value is for superiority testing of albiglutide versus glimepiride at 0.025 level.|t-test, 2 sided|The p-value is from a two-sided t-test to test whether the difference of least square means (albiglutide - glimepiride) is equal to zero.||||||0.0033
91065348|NCT01894841|182016007|SUPERIORITY||Partial eta squared|0.03||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted for change in depression from baseline to 1yr (measured via QIDS).|RMANOVA|||||||.13
91065349|NCT01894841|182016008|SUPERIORITY||Partial eta squared|0.01||||0.79|TWO_SIDED||||||RMANOVA|Adjusted for change in depression from baseline to 1yr (measured via QIDS).||||||.79
91065350|NCT01894841|182016009|SUPERIORITY||Partial eta squared|0.02||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted for change in depression from baseline to 1yr (measured via QIDS).|RMANOVA|||||||.49
91065351|NCT01894841|182016010|SUPERIORITY||Partial eta-squared|0.003||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted for change in depression from baseline to 1yr (measured via QIDS).|RMANOVA|||||||.96
91065352|NCT01894841|182016011|SUPERIORITY||Partial eta squared|0.01||||0.62|TWO_SIDED||||||RMANOVA|Adjusted for change in depression from baseline to 1yr (measured via QIDS).||||||.62
91065353|NCT01100086|182016013|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A mixed-model analysis of variance was used to compare (test vs reference) and the 90% confidence intervals were estimated for the ratios (test/reference)|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|102.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.35|105.42|||ANOVA||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80%-125%.|||105.42|99.35|
91065354|NCT01100086|182016014|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A mixed-model analysis of variance was used to compare (test vs reference) and the 90% confidence intervals were estimated for the ratios (test/reference)|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|98.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.94|101.19|||ANOVA||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80%-125%.|||101.19|94.94|
91065355|NCT01100086|182016015|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A mixed-model analysis of variance was used to compare (test vs reference) and the 90% confidence intervals were estimated for the ratios (test/reference)|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|98.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.2|101.48|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80%-125%.|||101.48|95.20|
91065356|NCT01100086|182016015|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A mixed-model analysis of variance was used to compare (test vs reference) and the 90% confidence intervals were estimated for the ratios (test/reference).|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|98.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.2|101.48|||ANOVA||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80%-125%.|||101.48|95.20|
91065357|NCT05344560|182016052|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of -5 points was used.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.018|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.92|1.07|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger Method was used for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as Test \[senofilcon A (C3) HEV chromophore\] minus Control \[senofilcon A (C3)\]|||1.07|-6.92|
91065358|NCT01051960|182016060|OTHER|comparison of means|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-93.0||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|||||significant at p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Whether change from baseline to 24-weeks is significantly different from zero||||.0008
91065359|NCT01051960|182016061|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|44.5||||7e-05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||change from baseline to 24 weeks||||0.00007
91065360|NCT02996968|182016065|NON_INFERIORITY|"Non-inferiority was declared if the POUR rate at 1-week with self-discontinuation was no worse than the POUR rate at 1-week with office-discontinuation, by a pre-specified margin of 15%.~A sample size was calculated to be 74 patients in each arm based on the following:~* The estimated POUR requiring indwelling urinary catheter at 1-week postoperative is 16%~* The non-inferiority margin was set at 15%.~* The power was set at 80%"|Proportion Difference|0.002||||0.5|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.095||2-sample test for equality of proportions with continuity correction|Two proportions Z-test|||||0.095||0.5
91065361|NCT02275819|182016106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.14
91065362|NCT02275819|182016107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.22
91065363|NCT02275819|182016108|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.12
91065364|NCT02275819|182016109|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.08
91065365|NCT02275819|182016110|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.43
91065366|NCT02025725|182016124|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.881|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.881
91065367|NCT02025725|182016125|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.201||||0.036|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Change in mean daily GSA total score from Baseline to Week 1: metoclopramide nasal spray minus placebo.||||0.036
91065368|NCT02025725|182016125|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.336||||0.025|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Change in mean daily GSA total score from Baseline to Week 2: metoclopramide nasal spray minus placebo||||0.025
90827109|NCT03066596|181529060|SUPERIORITY|This analysis is similar to analysis 1, however, the model adjusting for sex, age, race/ethnicity, symptom free days (at baseline), nurse screening results, clinic characteristics, visit type, caregiver education, and smoking exposure (at baseline).|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.97|6.82||The p-values reported above represented the calculated value rather than predetermined thresholds for significance. Statistical significance was defined as a p-value less than 0.05.|GLM with GEE|||||6.82|1.97|<.001
91065369|NCT02025725|182016125|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.347||||0.039|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Change in mean daily GSA total score from Baseline to Week 3: metoclopramide nasal spray minus placebo.||||0.039
91065370|NCT02025725|182016125|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.364||||0.085|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Change in mean daily GSA total score from Baseline to Week 4: metoclopramide nasal spray minus placebo.||||0.085
91065371|NCT03810092|182016151|OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|-0.04||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.42|||Regression, Linear|||Relationship between ADL score evolution and hemoglobine rate, in the no transfusion group||0.42|-0.55|0.05
91065372|NCT03810092|182016151|OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|0.39||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.2|||Regression, Logistic|||Relationship between ADL score evolution and hemoglobine rate, in the transfusion group||2.2|-1|0.05
91065373|NCT00235755|182016168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Non-parametric rank analysis of covariance adjusted for baseline 28-seizure frequency and stratified by baseline seizure frequency category and region|Non-parametric rank ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91065374|NCT00235755|182016168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0||||Non-parametric rank analysis of covariance adjusted for baseline 28-seizure frequency and stratified by baseline seizure frequency category and region|Non-parametric rank ANCOVA|||||||0.007
91065375|NCT00235755|182016169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91065376|NCT00235755|182016169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91065377|NCT02816736|182016188|SUPERIORITY||ratio of the AUCs|0.95||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.08|||Regression, Linear|||AUC was normalized for time; With the log-scale, the value of 0 indicates, on average, no change in NTproBNP from baseline.||1.08|0.84|0.45
91065378|NCT02816736|182016189|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.22||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.4|3.97|||general linear model|||||3.97|-26.4|0.15
91065379|NCT02816736|182016190|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.68|||ordinal logistic regression|||||1.68|0.78|0.51
91065380|NCT02816736|182016191|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.87|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.87|0.84|0.16
91065381|NCT02816736|182016192|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|2.91|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.91|0.34|0.99
91065382|NCT02816736|182016193|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.05||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|4.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.00|1.05|0.035
91065383|NCT00806403|182016215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.56||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis:there is no difference in ST resolution at 120 minutes after inclusion between thrombolysis and primary PCI. The power calculation was based on the aim to prove a 50% reduction of failure to achive at least a 50% ST resolution (40% failure in thrombolysis group and 20% failure in Primary PCI group). With a power of 80% and a significance level of 0.05 (2-sided test), a total of 166 patients would be required.||||0.56
91065384|NCT00806403|182016216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
91065385|NCT00806403|182016217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis:there is no difference in number of patients with TIMI 3 flow at 5-7 days after inclusion between thrombolysis and primary PCI. The power calculation was based on the aim to prove a 65% reduction of failure to achive TIMI 3 flow (30% failure in thrombolysis group and 10% failure in Primary PCI group). With a power of 90% and a significance level of 0.05 (2-sided test), a total of 180 patients would be required.||||0.04
91065386|NCT00806403|182016218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.50
91065387|NCT00806403|182016219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.21
91065388|NCT01320293|182016223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Null hypothesis: Percent change in endothelial function from baseline visit to end of treatment/month 6 will be zero change. (percent change=0)||||<0.05
91065389|NCT01320293|182016224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Null hypothesis: change in IL-6 levels from baseline visit to end of treatment/month 6 will be zero change. (percent change=0)||||<0.05
91065390|NCT01320293|182016225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Null hypothesis: change in adiponectin levels from baseline visit to end of treatment/month 6 will be zero change. (percent change=0)||||0.05
91065391|NCT01787292|182016231|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||To account for sequence carryover, we employed analysis of covariance inclusive of sequence by period covariates against treatment effects.|ANCOVA|Least square means were adjusted for carryover from the crossover design and between subjects effects were analyzed using Kenward-Roger df estimation||||||.001
91065392|NCT01787292|182016232|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||ANCOVA|||To account for sequence carryover, we employed analysis of covariance inclusive of sequence by period covariates against treatment effects.||||.8
91065393|NCT01787292|182016233|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||To account for sequence carryover, we employed analysis of covariance inclusive of sequence by period covariates against treatment effects.|ANCOVA|||||||.05
91065394|NCT01787292|182016234|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||To account for sequence carryover, we employed analysis of covariance inclusive of sequence by period covariates against treatment effects.|ANCOVA|A Kenward-Rogers adjustment for degrees of freedom was made to account for carryover effects.||||||.05
91065395|NCT01787292|182016235|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.01
91065396|NCT01787292|182016236|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.01
91065397|NCT01787292|182016237|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.01
91065398|NCT01787292|182016238|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.5
91065399|NCT01787292|182016239|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||t-test, 2 sided|A Kenward-Rogers adjustment for df was made to account for carryover effects.||||||.6
91065400|NCT01787292|182016240|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.4
91065401|NCT01787292|182016241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.05
91065402|NCT01787292|182016242|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.25
91065403|NCT01787292|182016243|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.01
91065404|NCT01532934|182016244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||||||As stated, the p-value reflects the Factor 1 by treatment interaction term and its effect on percent days abstinent/month.|Regression, Linear|||A priori hypothesis. Psychopathy Factor 1 (F1) X treatment interaction to predict higher substance use among people high in F1 + who get treatment relative to individuals with high F1 who get standard care.||||.02
91065405|NCT01532934|182016245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34||||||As stated, the p-value reflects the F1 X treatment interaction term and its effect on substance use consequences. A priori threshold for significance was p\<.05.|Regression, Linear|||Experimental hypothesis: The F1 X treatment interaction will show that individuals low on F1 who get treatment will reduce substance use consequences at six months relative to those low on F1 who get standard care.||||.34
91065406|NCT01532934|182016246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69||||||a priori threshold p\<.05|Regression, Logistic|||Experimental hypothesis: Treatment X F1 interaction will predict fewer charges at one-year follow-up for individuals low on F1 who got treatment relative to individuals low on F1 who did not.||||.69
91065407|NCT01597778|182016266|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Kaplan-Meier estimates|6.1||||0.4092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|17.4||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05. Final p-value is adjusted for the interim looks per study design.|Z-test to compare the Kaplan-Meier Est.|||The primary null hypothesis of the study is that there is no difference between the 2 year PFS probabilities for dUCB vs. haplo-BM.||17.4|-5.2|0.4092
91065408|NCT01597778|182016266|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.7||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Regression, Cox|||The null hypothesis of the study is that there is no difference between the 2 year PFS probabilities for dUCB vs. haplo-BM after adjustment for age, performance score, and disease type.||1.70|0.99|0.060
91065409|NCT01597778|182016268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|Estimate cumulative incidence functions from competing risks data and test equality of 2 trt grps. Death before neutrophil recovery is competing risk.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the neutrophil engraftment post-transplantation for dUCB vs. haplo-BM.||||0.046
91065410|NCT01597778|182016269|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|Estimate cumulative incidence functions from competing risks data and test equality of 2 trt grps. Death before Platelet recovery is competing risk.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the platelet engraftment to 20k post-transplantation for dUCB vs. haplo-BM.||||0.160
91065411|NCT01597778|182016269|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.146||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|Estimate cumulative incidence functions from competing risks data and test equality of 2 trt grps. Death before Platelet recovery is competing risk.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the platelet engraftment to 50k post-transplantation for dUCB vs. haplo-BM.||||0.146
91065412|NCT01597778|182016271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.693||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|Estimate cumulative incidence functions from competing risks data and test equality of 2 trt grps. Death before 2nd graft failure is competing risk.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the secondary graft failure probabilities post-transplantation for dUCB vs. haplo-BM.||||0.693
91065413|NCT01597778|182016272|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.142||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|Estimate cumulative incidence functions from competing risks data and test equality of 2 trt grps. Death prior to aGVHD is competing risk.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the aGVHD grade II - IV probabilities post-transplantation for dUCB vs. haplo-BM.||||0.142
91065414|NCT01597778|182016272|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.604||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|Estimate cumulative incidence functions from competing risks data and test equality of 2 trt grps. Death prior to aGVHD is competing risk.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the aGVHD grade III - IV probabilities post-transplantation for dUCB vs. haplo-BM.||||0.604
91065415|NCT01597778|182016273|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.361||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|Estimate cumulative incidence functions from competing risks data and test equality of 2 trt grps. Death before cGVHD is competing risk.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the cGVHD probabilities post-transplantation for dUCB vs. haplo-BM.||||0.361
91065416|NCT01597778|182016274|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0373||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the OS probabilities at year 2 post-randomization for dUCB vs. haplo-BM.||||0.0373
91065417|NCT01597778|182016274|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0235||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the OS probabilities at year 2 post-transplant for dUCB vs. haplo-BM.||||0.0235
91065418|NCT01597778|182016275|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.039||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|Estimate cumulative incidence functions from competing risks data and test equality across the two treatment groups.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the TRM probabilities post-randomization for dUCB vs. haplo-BM.||||0.039
91065419|NCT01597778|182016275|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|Estimate cumulative incidence functions from competing risks data and test equality across the two treatment groups.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the TRM probabilities post-transplantation for dUCB vs. haplo-BM||||0.030
91065420|NCT01597778|182016276|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.968||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|Estimate cumulative incidence functions from competing risks data and test equality of 2 trt grps. Death prior to relapse is competing risk.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the relapse/progression probabilities post-randomization for dUCB vs. haplo-BM.||||0.968
91065421|NCT01597778|182016276|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.907||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|Estimate cumulative incidence functions from competing risks data and test equality of 2 trt grps. Death prior to relapse is competing risk.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the relapse/progression probabilities post- transplantation for dUCB vs. haplo-BM.||||0.907
91065422|NCT01597778|182016279|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the total duration of hospitalization within 6 months post-randomization for dUCB vs. haplo-BM.||||0.0003
91065423|NCT05691712|182016281|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-16.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.9|-12.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-12.36|-19.9|<0.001
91065424|NCT05691712|182016281|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-15.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|-12.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-12.10|-19.7|<0.001
91065425|NCT05691712|182016282|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-13.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.8|-9.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-9.34|-16.8|<0.001
91065426|NCT05691712|182016283|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|-2.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.9|-5.8|<0.001
91065427|NCT05691712|182016283|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|-5.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.0|-8.0|<0.001
91065428|NCT05691712|182016283|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|-4.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.5|-7.5|<0.001
91065429|NCT05691712|182016285|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-21.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.4|-11.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-11.3|-32.4|<0.001
91065430|NCT05691712|182016285|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-28.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.6|-18.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-18.1|-39.6|<0.001
91065431|NCT05691712|182016285|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-27.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.2|-16.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-16.5|-38.2|<0.001
91065432|NCT00226499|182016317|OTHER|To demonstrate at least 60% VE, with respect to confirmed varicella disease over at least a two-year period of follow-up (beginning 42 days post dose 2) of Priorix-Tetra as compared to Priorix).|Vaccine Efficacy|94.943|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|92.446|96.615|||Regression, Cox|||Vaccine Efficacy (VE) was measured by calculating the relative risk of a confirmed varicella case in a vaccine group compared to a confirmed varicella case in the control group.||96.615|92.446|<0.0001
91065433|NCT00226499|182016317|OTHER|To demonstrate at least 60% VE, with respect to confirmed varicella disease over at least a two-year period of follow-up (beginning 42 days post dose 2) of Varilrix as compared to Priorix).|Vaccine Efficacy|65.428||||0.1265|TWO_SIDED|97.5|57.182|72.086|||Regression, Cox|||Vaccine Efficacy (VE) was measured by calculating the relative risk of a confirmed varicella case in a vaccine group compared to a confirmed varicella case in the control group.||72.086|57.182|0.1265
91065434|NCT00226499|182016318|OTHER|To demonstrate at least 60% VE, with respect to confirmed varicella disease over at least a two-year period of follow-up (beginning 42 days post dose 2) of Priorix-Tetra as compared to Priorix).|Vaccine Efficacy|99.498||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|97.522|99.898|||Regression, Cox|||VE was measured by calculating the relative risk of a moderate or severe confirmed varicella case in a vaccine group compared to a moderate or severe confirmed varicella case in the control group.||99.898|97.522|0.0001
91065435|NCT00226499|182016318|OTHER|To demonstrate at least 60% VE, with respect to confirmed varicella disease over at least a two-year period of follow-up (beginning 42 days post dose 2) of Varilrix as compared to Priorix).|Vaccine Efficacy|90.741||||0.1265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|85.866|93.934|||Regression, Cox|||VE was measured by calculating the relative risk of a moderate or severe confirmed varicella case in a vaccine group compared to a moderate or severe confirmed varicella case in the control group.||93.934|85.866|0.1265
91065436|NCT00226499|182016319|OTHER|To demonstrate at least 60% VE, with respect to confirmed varicella disease over at least a two-year period of follow-up (beginning 42 days post dose 2) of Priorix-Tetra as compared to Priorix).|Vaccine Efficacy|92.487|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.927|94.396|||Regression, Cox|||VE was measured by calculating the relative risk of a probable or confirmed varicella case in a vaccine group compared to a probable or confirmed varicella case in the control group.||94.396|89.927|<0.0001
91065437|NCT00226499|182016319|OTHER|To demonstrate at least 60% VE, with respect to confirmed varicella disease over at least a two-year period of follow-up (beginning 42 days post dose 2) of Varilrix as compared to Priorix).|Vaccine Efficacy|64.585||||0.1265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.503|70.486|||Regression, Cox|||VE was measured by calculating the relative risk of a probable or confirmed varicella case in a vaccine group compared to a probable or confirmed varicella case in the control group.||70.486|57.503|0.1265
91065438|NCT00226499|182016339|OTHER|To demonstrate at least 60% VE, with respect to confirmed varicella disease over at least a two-year period of follow-up (beginning 42 days post dose 2) of Priorix-Tetra as compared to Priorix).|Vaccine Efficacy|95.855|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.075|97.101|||Regression, Cox|||VE was measured by calculating the relative risk of a confirmed varicella case in a vaccine group compared to a confirmed varicella case in the control group.||97.101|94.075|<0.0001
91065439|NCT00226499|182016339|OTHER|To demonstrate at least 60% VE, with respect to confirmed varicella disease over at least a two-year period of follow-up (beginning 42 days post dose 2) of Varilrix as compared to Priorix).|Vaccine Efficacy|69.812||||0.1265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.848|75.47|||Regression, Cox|||VE was measured by calculating the relative risk of a confirmed varicella case in a vaccine group compared to a confirmed varicella case in the control group.||75.470|62.848|0.1265
91065440|NCT00226499|182016340|OTHER|To demonstrate at least 60% VE, with respect to confirmed varicella disease over at least a two-year period of follow-up (beginning 42 days post dose 2) of Priorix-Tetra as compared to Priorix).|Vaccine Efficacy|99.072|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|97.907|99.589|||Regression, Cox|||VE was measured by calculating the relative risk of a moderate or severe confirmed varicella case in a vaccine group compared to a moderate or severe confirmed varicella case in the control group.||99.589|97.907|<0.0001
91065441|NCT00226499|182016340|OTHER|To demonstrate at least 60% VE, with respect to confirmed varicella disease over at least a two-year period of follow-up (beginning 42 days post dose 2) of Varilrix as compared to Priorix).|Vaccine Efficacy|89.532||||0.1265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.126|92.102|||Regression, Cox|||VE was measured by calculating the relative risk of a moderate or severe confirmed varicella case in a vaccine group compared to a moderate or severe confirmed varicella case in the control group.||92.102|86.126|0.1265
91065442|NCT00226499|182016341|OTHER|To demonstrate at least 60% VE, with respect to confirmed varicella disease over at least a two-year period of follow-up (beginning 42 days post dose 2) of Priorix-Tetra as compared to Priorix).|Vaccine Efficacy|94.816|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|92.838|96.248|||Regression, Cox|||VE was measured by calculating the relative risk of a probable or confirmed varicella case in a vaccine group compared to a probable or confirmed varicella case in the control group.||96.248|92.838|<0.0001
91065443|NCT00226499|182016341|OTHER|To demonstrate at least 60% VE, with respect to confirmed varicella disease over at least a two-year period of follow-up (beginning 42 days post dose 2) of Varilrix as compared to Priorix).|Vaccine Efficacy|68.932||||0.1265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.893|74.671|||Regression, Cox|||VE was measured by calculating the relative risk of a probable or confirmed varicella case in a vaccine group compared to a probable or confirmed varicella case in the control group.||74.671|61.893|0.1265
91065444|NCT02723344|182016376|OTHER|||||||0.056|||||||Wilcoxon-rank sum|||||||.056
91065445|NCT02723344|182016377|OTHER|||||||0.26||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.26
91065446|NCT02723344|182016379|OTHER|||||||0.64|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum|||||||.64
91065447|NCT03473184|182016384|OTHER|p-values are from an ANOVA of the average numerical score (sum of erythema and edema) at 24 and 48 hours post irradiation (Days 3 and 4) with effects of subject and treatment, using Fisher's least significant differences.||||||1|||||||ANOVA|||Irradiated vehicle and untreated irradiated sites versus irradiated diacerein site, and non-irradiated vehicle site versus non-irradiated diacerein site and untreated irradiated site versus irradiated vehicle site.||||1.0000
91065448|NCT03473184|182016384|OTHER|p-values are from an ANOVA of the average numerical score (sum of erythema and edema) at 24 and 48 hours post irradiation (Days 3 and 4) with effects of subject and treatment, using Fisher's least significant differences.||||||0.0008|||||||ANOVA|||Non-irradiated diacerein and vehicle sites versus irradiated diacerein site, and irradiated vehicle and untreated irradiated sites versus non-irradiated diacerein site, and non-irradiated vehicle site versus irradiated vehicle site, and untreated irradiated site versus non-irradiated vehicle site.||||0.0008
91065449|NCT02524847|182016385|OTHER||Overall response rate (%)|55.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.7|73.6|||t-test, 2 sided|2-sided p-value for testing the null hypothesis H0: Standard therapy has a CR+PR rate = 10% after 4 weeks, using the exact Binomial test.||||73.6|35.7|<.001
91065450|NCT01268527|182016400|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM (vehicle - E6201 gel)|711.4||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|292.5|1130.3|||ANCOVA|||The following hypotheses were based on the Full Analysis Population: null Hypothesis and alternative hypothesis. P values, Least Squares Means (LSM), and Confidence Intervals (CI) were obtained from ANCOVA model with factors for treatment and baseline psoriatic infiltrate thickness as a continuous covariate.||1130.3|292.5|0.0038
91065451|NCT01268527|182016400|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM (vehicle - E6201 gel)|1119.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|858.9|1380.6|||ANCOVA|||The following hypotheses were based on the Full Analysis Population: null Hypothesis and alternative hypothesis. P values, LSM, and CI were obtained from ANCOVA model with factors for treatment and baseline psoriatic infiltrate thickness as a continuous covariate.||1380.6|858.9|<0.0001
91065452|NCT01268527|182016400|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM (vehicle - E6201 gel)|780.0||||0.0523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|1568.5|||ANCOVA|||The following hypotheses were based on the Full Analysis Population: null Hypothesis and alternative hypothesis. P values, LSM, and CI were obtained from ANCOVA model with factors for treatment and baseline psoriatic infiltrate thickness as a continuous covariate.||1568.5|-8.5|0.0523
91065453|NCT01268527|182016400|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM (vehicle - E6201 gel)|1775.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1392.3|2158.0|||ANCOVA|||The following hypotheses were based on the Full Analysis Population: null Hypothesis and alternative hypothesis. P values, LSM, and CI were obtained from ANCOVA model with factors for treatment and baseline psoriatic infiltrate thickness as a continuous covariate.||2158.0|1392.3|<0.0001
91065454|NCT01268527|182016400|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM (vehicle - E6201 gel)|921.4||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|515.7|1327.1|||ANCOVA|||The following hypotheses were based on the Full Analysis Population: null Hypothesis and alternative hypothesis. P values, LSM, and CI were obtained from ANCOVA model with factors for treatment and baseline psoriatic infiltrate thickness as a continuous covariate.||1327.1|515.7|0.0002
91065455|NCT01268527|182016400|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM (vehicle - E6201 gel)|937.8||||0.0115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|267.6|1607.9|||ANCOVA|||The following hypotheses were based on the Full Analysis Population: null Hypothesis and alternative hypothesis. P values, LSM, and CI were obtained from ANCOVA model with factors for treatment and baseline psoriatic infiltrate thickness as a continuous covariate.||1607.9|267.6|0.0115
91065456|NCT01268527|182016401|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM (vehicle - E6201 gel)|101.5||||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.0|167.0|||ANCOVA|||The following hypotheses were based on the Full Analysis Population: null Hypothesis and alternative hypothesis. P values, LSM, and CI were obtained from ANCOVA model with factors for treatment and baseline psoriatic infiltrate thickness as a continuous covariate.||167.0|36.0|0.0042
91065457|NCT01268527|182016401|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM (vehicle - E6201 gel)|182.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|140.3|224.4|||ANCOVA|||The following hypotheses were based on the Full Analysis Population: null Hypothesis and alternative hypothesis. P values, LSM, and CI were obtained from ANCOVA model with factors for treatment and baseline psoriatic infiltrate thickness as a continuous covariate.||224.4|140.3|<0.0001
91065458|NCT01268527|182016401|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM (vehicle - E6201 gel)|169.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|127.4|211.5|||ANCOVA|||The following hypotheses were based on the Full Analysis Population: null Hypothesis and alternative hypothesis. P values, LSM, and CI were obtained from ANCOVA model with factors for treatment and baseline psoriatic infiltrate thickness as a continuous covariate.||211.5|127.4|<0.0001
91065459|NCT01268527|182016401|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM (vehicle - E6201 gel)|246.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|185.0|308.1|||ANCOVA|||The following hypotheses were based on the Full Analysis Population: null Hypothesis and alternative hypothesis. P values, LSM, and CI were obtained from ANCOVA model with factors for treatment and baseline psoriatic infiltrate thickness as a continuous covariate.||308.1|185.0|<0.0001
91065460|NCT01268527|182016401|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM (vehicle - E6201 gel)|132.3||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.9|210.7|||ANCOVA|||The following hypotheses were based on the Full Analysis Population: null Hypothesis and alternative hypothesis. P values, LSM, and CI were obtained from ANCOVA model with factors for treatment and baseline psoriatic infiltrate thickness as a continuous covariate.||210.7|53.9|0.0043
91065461|NCT01268527|182016401|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM (vehicle - E6201 gel)|145.0||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.2|225.8|||ANCOVA|||The following hypotheses were based on the Full Analysis Population: null Hypothesis and alternative hypothesis. P values, LSM) and CI were obtained from ANCOVA model with factors for treatment and baseline psoriatic infiltrate thickness as a continuous covariate.||225.8|64.2|0.0036
91065462|NCT01268527|182016402|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM (vehicle - E6201 gel)|80.7||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.6|126.7|||ANCOVA|||The following hypotheses were based on the Full Analysis Population: null Hypothesis and alternative hypothesis. P values, LSM, and CI were obtained from ANCOVA model with factors for treatment and baseline psoriatic infiltrate thickness as a continuous covariate.||126.7|34.6|0.0013
91065463|NCT01268527|182016402|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM (vehicle - E6201 gel)|127.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|92.4|163.5|||ANCOVA|||The following hypotheses were based on the Full Analysis Population: null Hypothesis and alternative hypothesis. P values, LSM, and CI were obtained from ANCOVA model with factors for treatment and baseline psoriatic infiltrate thickness as a continuous covariate.||163.5|92.4|<0.0001
91065464|NCT01268527|182016402|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM (vehicle - E6201 gel)|110.2||||0.0458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|218.0|||ANCOVA|||The following hypotheses were based on the Full Analysis Population: null Hypothesis and alternative hypothesis. P values, LSM, and CI were obtained from ANCOVA model with factors for treatment and baseline psoriatic infiltrate thickness as a continuous covariate.||218.0|2.4|0.0458
91065465|NCT01268527|182016402|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM (vehicle - E6201 gel)|207.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|155.2|259.9|||ANCOVA|||The following hypotheses were based on the Full Analysis Population: null Hypothesis and alternative hypothesis. P values, LSM, and CI were obtained from ANCOVA model with factors for treatment and baseline psoriatic infiltrate thickness as a continuous covariate.||259.9|155.2|<0.0001
91065466|NCT01268527|182016402|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM (vehicle - E6201 gel)|125.3||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.5|179.0|||ANCOVA|||The following hypotheses were based on the Full Analysis Population: null Hypothesis and alternative hypothesis. P values, LSM, and CI were obtained from ANCOVA model with factors for treatment and baseline psoriatic infiltrate thickness as a continuous covariate.||179.0|71.5|0.0003
91065467|NCT01268527|182016402|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM (vehicle - E6201 gel)|128.6||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.9|163.3|||ANCOVA|||The following hypotheses were based on the Full Analysis Population: null Hypothesis and alternative hypothesis. P values, LSM, and CI were obtained from ANCOVA model with factors for treatment and baseline psoriatic infiltrate thickness as a continuous covariate.||163.3|93.9|0.0029
91065468|NCT01008605|182016406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Lower limit, 95% one-sided CI|95.83|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|87.46||||||||||87.46|
91065469|NCT00420420|182016475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.283||95.0||||A longitudinal mixed model was used to compare groups, including factors for week, strata (MMSE score and concomitant AD therapy), treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||comparison at Week 4||||0.283
91065470|NCT00420420|182016476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||95.0||||A longitudinal mixed model was used to compare groups, including factors for week, strata (MMSE score and concomitant AD therapy), treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||comparison at week 4||||0.180
91065471|NCT00420420|182016477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.716||95.0||||A longitudinal mixed model was used to compare groups, including factors for week, strata (MMSE score and concomitant AD therapy), treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||comparison at Week 4||||0.716
91077850|NCT02913105|182041135|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.06||||0.1051|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.12|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||TIMP-1: Day 42||1.12|1.00|0.1051
91065472|NCT00273182|182016481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Overall survival rate at 36 month|71.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.6|73.2||No p values for the analysis.|Kaplan-Meier (product limit) estimates|Survival curves of cause-specific mortality were created based on Kaplan-Meier (product limit) estimates.|The estimate is the overall survival rate at 36 month. left-truncation methods were used in the survival analysis for previously implanted subjects.|For overall mortality, the endpoint is the proportion of subjects alive during three years post-implant. Survival curves of overall mortality and cause-specific mortality were created based on Kaplan-Meier (product limit) estimates. Confidence intervals will be calculated on a log-log scale.||73.2|68.6|
91065473|NCT00273182|182016481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cause specific survival rate at 36 month|85.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|83.3|87.1||No p value for this analysis.|Kaplan-Meier (product limit) estimates|Cause specific survival rate at 36 month.|left-truncation methods were used in the survival analysis for previously implanted subjects.|For cause-specific mortality, the endpoint is the proportion of patients who are alive or do not die due to the progressive heart failure or sudden cardiac death causes during 3 years post-implant. Survival curves of cause-specific mortality were created based on Kaplan-Meier (product limit) estimates. Confidence intervals were calculated on a log-log scale.||87.1|83.3|
91065474|NCT00273182|182016485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||event free rate|89.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|88.3|91.2||No p value for this analysis.|Kaplan-Meier (product limit) estimate|||Kaplan-Meier (product limit) estimate of the curve representing the time to first post-implant LV lead related complication were calculated to the first time point where fewer than 50 patients are still at risk. Confidence intervals will be calculated on a log-log scale.||91.2|88.3|
91065475|NCT03817190|182016501|SUPERIORITY||Proportion of participants|-0.2277||||0.688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0415|0.586|||GLMM|||||0.5860|-1.0415|0.6880
91065476|NCT03817190|182016502|SUPERIORITY||Proportion of participants|-0.276||||0.4321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9185|0.3665|||GLMM|||||0.3665|-0.9185|0.4321
91065477|NCT02996227|182016514|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority was defined as no more than 25% greater opioid consumption and no worse than 1-point higher pain score at rest. Non-inferiority of TAP with liposomal bupivacaine to epidural could be claimed if the upper limit of the 95.2% CI for the mean difference of pain scores at rest was less than 1 point and the CI for the ratio of geometric means in opioid consumption was less than 1.25.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.2|-0.12|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.30|-0.12|<0.001
91065478|NCT02996227|182016515|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority was defined as no more than 25% greater opioid consumption and no worse than 1-point higher pain score at rest. Non-inferiority of TAP with liposomal bupivacaine to epidural could be claimed if the upper limit of the 95.2% CI for the mean difference of pain scores at rest was less than 1 point and the CI for the ratio of geometric means in opioid consumption was less than 1.25.|Ratio of Geometric means|1.37||||0.754|TWO_SIDED|95.2|1.05|1.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.79|1.05|0.754
91065479|NCT02996227|182016516|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.53|2.76|||Regression, Linear|linear regression after logarithm transformation||||2.76|0.53|0.560
91065480|NCT02996227|182016517|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.36||||0.357|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-0.65|1.37|||Regression, Linear||Difference in means between two groups was assessed using mixed effects model with repeated measurements with unstructured correlation structure|||1.37|-0.65|0.357
91065481|NCT02996227|182016518|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.64||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.42|0.98|||generalized linear regression|||||0.98|0.42|0.006
91065482|NCT02996227|182016519|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.77||||0.695|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-4.31|5.85|||Regression, Linear||Difference in means between two groups was assessed using mixed effects model with repeated measurements with unstructured correlation structure.|||5.85|-4.31|0.695
91065483|NCT02996227|182016520|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric means|0.98||||0.738|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.86|1.12|||Regression, Linear|linear regression after logarithmic transformation||||1.12|0.86|0.738
91065484|NCT00868530|182016527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.120
91065485|NCT05142722|182016572|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-32.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.602|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.79|-29.5|||ANCOVA|||||-29.50|-35.79|<.0001
91065486|NCT05142722|182016573|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-33.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.678|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.07|-30.49|||ANCOVA|||||-30.49|-37.07|<.0001
91065487|NCT05142722|182016574|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-23.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.979|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.87|-20.09||The hierarchical testing procedure would only be conducted if the previous secondary efficacy endpoint reached a statistically significant treatment effect at p-value\<0.05|ANCOVA|||||-20.09|-27.87|<.0001
91065488|NCT05142722|182016575|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-18.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.936|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.76|-17.09||The hierarchical testing procedure would only be conducted if the previous secondary efficacy endpoint reached a statistically significant treatment effect at p-value\<0.05|ANCOVA|||||-17.09|-20.76|<.0001
91065489|NCT05142722|182016576|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-18.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.057|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.38|-16.23||The hierarchical testing procedure would only be conducted if the previous secondary efficacy endpoint reached a statistically significant treatment effect at p-value\<0.05|ANCOVA|||||-16.23|-20.38|<.0001
91065490|NCT05142722|182016577|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-13.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.219|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|-11.41||The hierarchical testing procedure would only be conducted if the previous secondary efficacy endpoint reached a statistically significant treatment effect at p-value\<0.05|ANCOVA|||||-11.41|-16.20|<.0001
91065491|NCT05142722|182016578|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-29.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.251|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.89|-26.99||The hierarchical testing procedure would only be conducted if the previous secondary efficacy endpoint reached a statistically significant treatment effect at p-value\<0.05|ANCOVA|||||-26.99|-31.89|<.0001
91065492|NCT05142722|182016579|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-28.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.339|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.94|-25.69||The hierarchical testing procedure would only be conducted if the previous secondary efficacy endpoint reached a statistically significant treatment effect at p-value\<0.05|ANCOVA|||||-25.69|-30.94|<.0001
91065493|NCT05142722|182016580|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-23.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.564|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.09|-19.95||The hierarchical testing procedure would only be conducted if the previous secondary efficacy endpoint reached a statistically significant treatment effect at p-value\<0.05|ANCOVA|||||-19.95|-26.09|<.0001
91065494|NCT05142722|182016581|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|136.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.939|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|132.46|140.07||The hierarchical testing procedure would only be conducted if the previous secondary efficacy endpoint reached a statistically significant treatment effect at p-value\<0.05|ANCOVA|||||140.07|132.46|<.0001
90827110|NCT03066596|181529061|SUPERIORITY|A generalized linear model (GLM) with generalized estimating equations (GEE) was used to compare changes over time between the two groups in symptom-free days (SFDs) during the past two weeks, accounting for within-subject correlation. The null hypothesis at each time point was that there is no difference between groups in the change in SFDs. With 530 participants at baseline, ≤10% attrition at 12 months, the study has 80% power to detect a standardized effect size \>0.29.|Ratio of Rate Ratios|1.13||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.34|||GLM with GEE|||3 month follow up||1.34|0.95|0.174
90827111|NCT03066596|181529061|SUPERIORITY|A generalized linear model (GLM) with generalized estimating equations (GEE) was used to compare changes over time between the two groups in symptom-free days (SFDs) during the past two weeks, accounting for within-subject correlation. The null hypothesis at each time point was that there is no difference between groups in the change in SFDs. With 530 participants at baseline, ≤10% attrition at 12 months, the study has 80% power to detect a standardized effect size \>0.29.|Ratio of Rate Ratios|1.04||||0.741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.27|||GLM with GEE|||6 month follow up||1.27|0.85|0.741
90827112|NCT03066596|181529061|SUPERIORITY|A generalized linear model (GLM) with generalized estimating equations (GEE) was used to compare changes over time between the two groups in symptom-free days (SFDs) during the past two weeks, accounting for within-subject correlation. The null hypothesis at each time point was that there is no difference between groups in the change in SFDs. With 530 participants at baseline, ≤10% attrition at 12 months, the study has 80% power to detect a standardized effect size \>0.29.|Ratio of Rate Ratios|1.03||||0.724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.25|||GLM with GEE|||9 month follow up||1.25|0.85|0.724
90827113|NCT03066596|181529061|SUPERIORITY|A generalized linear model (GLM) with generalized estimating equations (GEE) was used to compare changes over time between the two groups in symptom-free days (SFDs) during the past two weeks, accounting for within-subject correlation. The null hypothesis at each time point was that there is no difference between groups in the change in SFDs. With 530 participants at baseline, ≤10% attrition at 12 months, the study has 80% power to detect a standardized effect size \>0.29.|Ratio of Rate Ratios|1.12||||0.229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.34|||GLM with GEE|||12 month follow up||1.34|0.93|0.229
90827114|NCT03066596|181529061|SUPERIORITY|This analysis is similar to Analysis 1, with adjustment for baseline outcome (symptom-free days) and seasonality.|Ratio of Rate Ratios|1.13||||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.34|||GLM with GEE|||3 month follow up||1.34|0.94|0.186
90827115|NCT03066596|181529061|SUPERIORITY|This analysis is similar to Analysis 2, with adjustment for baseline outcome (symptom-free days) and seasonality.|Ratio of Rate Ratios|1.04||||0.744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.27|||GLM with GEE|||6 month follow up||1.27|0.84|0.744
90827116|NCT03066596|181529061|SUPERIORITY|This analysis is similar to Analysis 3, with adjustment for baseline outcome (symptom-free days) and seasonality.|Ratio of Rate Ratios|1.03||||0.765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.25|||GLM with GEE|||9 month follow up||1.25|0.85|0.765
90827117|NCT03066596|181529061|SUPERIORITY|This analysis is similar to Analysis 4, with adjustment for baseline outcome (symptom-free days) and seasonality.|Ratio of Rate Ratios|1.11||||0.241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.33|||GLM with GEE|||12 month follow up||1.33|0.93|0.241
90827118|NCT01369784|181529142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.812|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.812
90827119|NCT01369784|181529143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.612|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.612
90827120|NCT01369784|181529144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.402|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.402
90827121|NCT01369784|181529145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.557|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.557
90827122|NCT01369784|181529146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.234|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.234
90827123|NCT01369784|181529147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.057|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.057
90827124|NCT01369784|181529148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.117|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.117
90827125|NCT01219985|181529150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||McNemar|||We performed a McNemar test to compare the sensitivities obtained for each PET image method||||<0.001
90827126|NCT01219985|181529151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis was : lesions' SUVmax are equivalent with our without application of the CT-Based respiratory-gated PET method.||||<0.001
90827127|NCT04797780|181529158|SUPERIORITY||Difference in CR Rate|5.06||||0.2084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|17.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||17.2|-7.1|0.2084
90827128|NCT02940496|181529168|SUPERIORITY||Correlation Coefficient (2 sided test)|0.081||||0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.008
90827129|NCT02940496|181529169|SUPERIORITY||Correlation Coefficient (2-sided test)|0.88||||0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.009
90827130|NCT02940496|181529170|SUPERIORITY||Correlation Coefficient (2-sided test)|0.79||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
90827131|NCT01895946|181529280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference (LSM)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.86|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.20|0.86|
90827132|NCT01895946|181529280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square means difference (LSM)|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.55|0.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.82|0.55|
90827133|NCT01895946|181529281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square means difference (LSM)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.77|1.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.06|0.77|
90827134|NCT01895946|181529281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square means difference (LSM)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.76|1.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.05|0.76|
90827135|NCT00892775|181529298|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority with respect to seroconversion rates for measles 42-56 days after vaccination was concluded if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval around the difference in seroconversion rates between groups would be \[-10%\] or higher.|Difference in percentage|-0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|1.76||||||||1.76|-2.29|
91065495|NCT05142722|182016582|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|134.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.343|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|129.84|139.03||The hierarchical testing procedure would only be conducted if the previous secondary efficacy endpoint reached a statistically significant treatment effect at p-value\<0.05|ANCOVA|||||139.03|129.84|<.0001
91065496|NCT05142722|182016583|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|122.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.299|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|117.53|126.55||The hierarchical testing procedure would only be conducted if the previous secondary efficacy endpoint reached a statistically significant treatment effect at p-value\<0.05|ANCOVA|||||126.55|117.53|<.0001
91065497|NCT05142722|182016584|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-14.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.183||0.4841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.68|25.44||The hierarchical testing procedure would only be conducted if the previous secondary efficacy endpoint reached a statistically significant treatment effect at p-value\<0.05; therefore hierarchical testing was stopped for subsequent secondary endpoints|ANCOVA|||||25.44|-53.68|0.4841
91065498|NCT04227197|182016635|SUPERIORITY|The p value compares the trend in the number of indicated or completed evaluations in the Intervention arm versus Control arm.||||||0.018|||||||Cochran-Armitage trend test|Two tailed; no continuity correction||||||0.018
91065499|NCT04227197|182016637|SUPERIORITY|The p value compares the change from baseline on quality of life measures between the Intervention group and Control group.||||||0.468|||||||ANOVA|||This is the p value for the PedsQL Psychosocial Health Score||||0.468
91065500|NCT04227197|182016637|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.802|||||||ANOVA|||This p value is for the PedsQL Physical Functioning Score||||0.802
91065501|NCT04227197|182016637|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.761|||||||ANOVA|||This is the p value for the PedsQL Total Scale Score||||0.761
91065502|NCT04227197|182016637|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.965|||||||ANOVA|||This is the p value for the PedsQL FIM Parental HRQL Summary Score||||0.965
91065503|NCT04227197|182016637|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.619|||||||ANOVA|||This is the p value for the PedsQL FIM Family Functioning Summary Score||||0.619
91065504|NCT04227197|182016637|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.469|||||||ANOVA|||This is the p value for the PedsQL FIM Total Scale Score||||0.469
91065505|NCT04227197|182016638|SUPERIORITY|The p value compares the change from baseline on quality of life measures between the Intervention group and Control group||||||0.068|||||||ANOVA|||This is for the change from baseline on PedsQL Psychosocial Health Score||||0.068
91065506|NCT04227197|182016638|SUPERIORITY|The p value compares the change from baseline on quality of life measures between the Intervention group and Control group||||||0.907|||||||ANOVA|||This is for the change from baseline for PedsQL Physical Functioning Score||||0.907
91065507|NCT04227197|182016638|SUPERIORITY|The p value compares the change from baseline on quality of life measures between the Intervention group and Control group||||||0.196|||||||ANOVA|||This is for the change from baseline for PedsQL Total Scale Score||||0.196
91065508|NCT04227197|182016638|SUPERIORITY|The p value compares the change from baseline on quality of life measures between the Intervention group and Control group||||||0.112|||||||ANOVA|||This is for the change from baseline for PedsQL FIM Parental HRQL Summary Score||||0.112
91065509|NCT04227197|182016638|SUPERIORITY|The p value compares the change from baseline on quality of life measures between the Intervention group and Control group||||||0.245|||||||ANOVA|||This is for change from baseline for PedsQL FIM Family Functioning Summary Score||||0.245
91065510|NCT04227197|182016638|SUPERIORITY|The p value compares the change from baseline on quality of life measures between the Intervention group and Control group||||||0.219|||||||ANOVA|||This is for change from baseline for PedsQL FIM Total Scale Score||||0.219
91065511|NCT02992236|182016644|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
91065512|NCT02549859|182016647|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91065513|NCT02549859|182016648|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
91065514|NCT02549859|182016649|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
91065515|NCT02549859|182016650|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91065516|NCT02549859|182016651|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91065517|NCT02549859|182016652|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91065518|NCT02549859|182016653|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91065519|NCT02549859|182016654|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
91065520|NCT02549859|182016655|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91065521|NCT02549859|182016656|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91065522|NCT02549859|182016657|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
91065523|NCT02549859|182016658|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91065524|NCT02549859|182016659|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91065525|NCT02549859|182016660|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91065526|NCT02549859|182016661|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91065527|NCT02549859|182016662|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91065528|NCT02549859|182016663|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91065529|NCT02549859|182016664|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91065530|NCT02549859|182016665|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91065531|NCT02549859|182016666|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91065532|NCT03446027|182016667|OTHER|"Prespecified Tobit Regression mode: the model included the AWD baseline measurement, a treatment indicator and the type of centre (SET versus non-SET) as covariates. As the data collected for AWD showed a right-skewed distribution, a square root transformation was used to normalise the data and used for the regression Tobit model. This resulted in the unit of measure being units rather than meters."|square root transformation|0.835||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.674|2.343|||Tobit Regression|||"Right censored Tobit regression model for AWD at 3 months for the ITT population.~Difference between arms (between baseline and 3 months) - the primary analysis estimates the difference in the AWD at 3 months between the two treatment groups control vs. device. Control group includes both BMT and BMT + SET and the treatment group includes NMES + BMT and NMES + BMT + SET Included participants with both baseline and 3 month treadmill data."||2.343|-0.674|0.28
91065533|NCT03446027|182016668|OTHER|"Right censored, Tobit Regression model to assess the effects of baseline characteristics for ICD at 3 months for the ITT Population. This resulted in the unit of measure being units and not meters.~Included participants with both baseline and 3 month treadmill data. Calculation between arms - estimates the difference in the ICD at 3 months between the two treatment groups.~Control group includes both BMT and BMT + SET and the treatment group includes NMES + BMT and NMES + BMT + SET"|square root transformation|0.972||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|2.546|||Right censored, Tobit Regression|||||2.546|-0.600|0.23
91065534|NCT03446027|182016672|OTHER|"Linear Regression Model for Duplex ultrasonography (Volume flow - measured in one leg) at 3 months for the ITT population.~Difference (calculation) between the two groups and not per arm (control vs treatment). Unit of measure is Units due to the use of a linear regression model rather than cc/min."|Linear regression|0.483||||0.516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.984|1.95|||Regression, Linear|||||1.950|-0.984|0.516
91065535|NCT00708552|182016722|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.1||||0.159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|2.7|||Mixed model repeated measures|||ADAS-Cog Total Score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-15mg at Week 24||2.7|-0.4|0.159
91065536|NCT00708552|182016722|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.7||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|2.3|||Mixed model repeated measures|||ADAS-Cog Total Score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-35mg at Week 24||2.3|-0.9|0.410
91065537|NCT00708552|182016722|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.2|||Mixed model repeated measures|||ADAS-Cog Total Score, Placebo Vs Donepezil at Week 24||1.2|-1.6|0.821
91065538|NCT00708552|182016723|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.5|||Mixed model repeated measures|||CIBIC+ Score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-15mg at Week 24||0.5|-0.1|0.254
91065539|NCT00708552|182016723|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2|||Mixed model repeated measures|||CIBIC+ Score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-35mg at Week 24||0.2|-0.4|0.394
91065540|NCT00708552|182016723|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.0|||Mixed model repeated measures|||CIBIC+ Score, Placebo Vs Donepezil at Week 24||-0.0|-0.6|0.049
91065541|NCT00708552|182016724|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.6||||0.423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|2.3|||Mixed model repeated measures|||RBANS Total Score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-15mg at Week 24||2.3|-5.6|0.423
91065542|NCT00708552|182016724|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.1||||0.305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|1.9|||Mixed model repeated measures|||RBANS Total Score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-35mg at Week 24||1.9|-6.1|0.305
91065543|NCT00708552|182016724|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.0||||0.282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|5.7|||Mixed model repeated measures|||RBANS Total Score, Placebo Vs Donepezil at Week 24||5.7|-1.7|0.282
91065544|NCT00708552|182016725|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.4||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|3.1|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Baseline MMSE score of 16-26 on ADAS-Cog Total score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-15mg at Week 24||3.1|-0.3|0.096
90827136|NCT00892775|181529298|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority with respect to seroconversion rates for mumps 42-56 days after vaccination was concluded if the lower limit of the 95% CI around the difference in seroconversion rates between groups would be \[-10%\] or higher.|Difference in percentage|-0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.14|5.58||||||||5.58|-6.14|
90827137|NCT00892775|181529298|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority with respect to seroconversion rates for rubella 42-56 days after vaccination was concluded if the lower limit of the 95% CI around the difference in seroconversion rates between groups would be \[-10%\] or higher.|Difference in percentage|-0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|2.08||||||||2.08|-1.78|
91065545|NCT00708552|182016725|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0||||0.281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|2.8|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Baseline MMSE score of 16-26 on ADAS-Cog Total score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-35mg at Week 24||2.8|-0.8|0.281
91065546|NCT00708552|182016725|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.9|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Baseline MMSE score of 16-26 on ADAS-Cog Total score, Placebo Vs Donepezil at Week 24||1.9|-1.1|0.630
91065547|NCT00708552|182016725|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1||||0.655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|3.6|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Baseline MMSE score of 16-26 on RBANS Total score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-15mg at Week 24||3.6|-5.7|0.655
91065548|NCT00708552|182016725|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.5||||0.545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|3.3|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Baseline MMSE score of 16-26 on RBANS Total score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-35mg at Week 24||3.3|-6.2|0.545
91065549|NCT00708552|182016725|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.4||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|6.8|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Baseline MMSE score of 16-26 on RBANS Total score, Placebo Vs Donepezil at Week 24||6.8|-1.9|0.270
91065550|NCT00708552|182016726|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.5||||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|3.6|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Baseline MMSE score of 10-20 on ADAS-Cog Total score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-15mg at Week 24||3.6|-0.5|0.138
91065551|NCT00708552|182016726|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.3||||0.216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|3.2|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Baseline MMSE score of 10-20 on ADAS-Cog Total score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-35mg at Week 24||3.2|-0.7|0.216
91065552|NCT00708552|182016726|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.7|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Baseline MMSE score of 10-20 on ADAS-Cog Total score, Placebo Vs Donepezil at Week 24||1.7|-1.9|0.921
91065553|NCT00708552|182016726|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.1||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|2.9|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Baseline MMSE score of 10-20 on RBANS Total score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-15mg at Week 24||2.9|-7.0|0.410
91065554|NCT00708552|182016726|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1||||0.667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|3.8|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Baseline MMSE score of 10-20 on RBANS Total score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-35mg at Week 24||3.8|-5.9|0.667
91065555|NCT00708552|182016726|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.7||||0.246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|7.2|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Baseline MMSE score of 10-20 on RBANS Total score, Placebo Vs Donepezil at Week 24||7.2|-1.9|0.246
91065556|NCT00708552|182016727|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.6|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Baseline MMSE score of 16-26 on CBIC+ score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-15mg at Week 24||0.6|-0.1|0.146
91065557|NCT00708552|182016727|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.3|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Baseline MMSE score of 16-26 on CBIC+ score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-35mg at Week 24||0.3|-0.4|0.733
91065558|NCT00708552|182016727|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Baseline MMSE score of 16-26 on CBIC+ score, Placebo Vs Donepezil at Week 24||0.1|-0.5|0.145
91065559|NCT00708552|182016728|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.6|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Baseline MMSE score of 16-26 on CBIC+, Placebo Vs SB-742457-15mg at Week 24||0.6|-0.2|0.295
91065560|NCT00708552|182016728|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.2|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Baseline MMSE score of 16-26 on CBIC+, Placebo Vs SB-742457-35mg at Week 24||0.2|-0.5|0.495
91065561|NCT00708552|182016728|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.1|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Baseline MMSE score of 16-26 on CBIC+, Placebo Vs Donepezil at Week 24||0.1|-0.6|0.166
91065562|NCT00708552|182016729|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.4|||Mixed model repeated measures|||ADAS-Cog Total Score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-15mg at Week 12||1.4|-1.1|0.847
91065563|NCT00708552|182016729|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||ADAS-Cog Total Score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-35mg at Week 12||1.1|-1.4|0.833
91065564|NCT00708552|182016729|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.7|||Mixed model repeated measures|||ADAS-Cog Total Score, Placebo Vs Donepzil at Week 12||0.7|-1.6|0.443
91065565|NCT00708552|182016730|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.3|||Mixed model repeated measures|||CIBIC+ Score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-15mg at Week 12||0.3|-0.1|0.320
91065566|NCT00708552|182016730|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2|||Mixed model repeated measures|||CIBIC+ Score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-35mg at Week 12||0.2|-0.2|0.927
91065567|NCT00708552|182016730|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.0|||Mixed model repeated measures|||CIBIC+ Score, Placebo Vs Donepzil at Week 12||0.0|-0.4|0.059
91065568|NCT00708552|182016731|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.9||||0.257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|1.4|||Mixed model repeated measures|||RBANS total score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-15mg at Week 12||1.4|-5.2|0.257
91065569|NCT00708552|182016731|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|4.0|||Mixed model repeated measures|||RBANS total score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-35mg at Week 12||4.0|-2.2|0.570
91065570|NCT00708552|182016731|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.4||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|6.4|||Mixed model repeated measures|||RBANS total score, Placebo Vs Donepzil at Week 12||6.4|0.3|0.031
91065571|NCT00708552|182016732|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.5|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Baseline MMSE score of 16-26 on ADAS-Cog Total score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-15mg at Week 12||1.5|-1.1|0.798
91065572|NCT00708552|182016732|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.4|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Baseline MMSE score of 16-26 on ADAS-Cog Total score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-35mg at Week 12||1.4|-1.3|0.918
91065573|NCT00708552|182016732|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.3|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Baseline MMSE score of 16-26 on ADAS-Cog Total score, Placebo Vs Donepezil at Week 12||1.3|-1.2|0.924
91065574|NCT00708552|182016732|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8||||0.676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|3.0|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Baseline MMSE score of 16-26 on RBANS Total score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-15mg at Week 12||3.0|-4.7|0.676
91065575|NCT00708552|182016732|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.1||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|6.7|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Baseline MMSE score of 16-26 on RBANS Total score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-35mg at Week 12||6.7|-0.4|0.086
91065576|NCT00708552|182016732|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.2||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|7.7|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Baseline MMSE score of 16-26 on RBANS Total score, Placebo Vs Donepezil at Week 12||7.7|0.6|0.021
91065577|NCT00708552|182016733|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.7|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Baseline MMSE score of 10-20 on ADAS-Cog Total score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-15mg at Week 12||1.7|-1.5|0.908
91065578|NCT00708552|182016733|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.4|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Baseline MMSE score of 10-20 on ADAS-Cog Total score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-35mg at Week 12||1.4|-1.7|0.826
91065579|NCT00708552|182016733|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|0.2|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Baseline MMSE score of 10-20 on ADAS-Cog Total score, Placebo Vs Donepezil at Week 12||0.2|-2.7|0.088
91065580|NCT00708552|182016733|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.6||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|0.0|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Baseline MMSE score of 10-20 on RBANS Total score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-15mg at Week 12||0.0|-7.3|0.053
91065581|NCT00708552|182016733|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|3.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline MMSE score of 10-20 on RBANS Total score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-35mg at Week 12||3.3|-4.0|0.848
91065582|NCT00708552|182016733|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.7||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|8.2|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Baseline MMSE score of 10-20 on RBANS Total score, Placebo Vs Donepezil at Week 12||8.2|1.1|0.011
91065583|NCT00708552|182016734|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.3|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Baseline MMSE score of 16-26 on CIBIC+ score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-15mg at Week 12||0.3|-0.2|0.671
91065584|NCT00708552|182016734|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Baseline MMSE score of 16-26 on CIBIC+ Total score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-35mg at Week 12||0.2|-0.4|0.413
91065585|NCT00708552|182016734|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Baseline MMSE score of 16-26 on CIBIC+ Total score, Placebo Vs Donepezil at Week 12||0.1|-0.4|0.245
91065586|NCT00708552|182016735|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.4|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Baseline MMSE score of 10-20 on CIBIC+ score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-15mg at Week 12||0.4|-0.2|0.369
91065587|NCT00708552|182016735|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.4|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Baseline MMSE score of 10-20 on CIBIC+ Total score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-35mg at Week 12||0.4|-0.2|0.550
91065588|NCT00708552|182016735|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.0|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Baseline MMSE score of 10-20 on CIBIC+ Total score, Placebo Vs Donepezil at Week 12||0.0|-0.5|0.082
91065589|NCT00708552|182016736|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.0|||Mixed model repeated measures|||ADCS-ADL Total score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-15mg at Week 12||1.0|-2.4|0.417
91065590|NCT00708552|182016736|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|2.0|||Mixed model repeated measures|||ADCS-ADL Total score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-35mg at Week 12||2.0|-1.4|0.725
91065591|NCT00708552|182016736|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6||||0.506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.2|||Mixed model repeated measures|||ADCS-ADL Total score, Placebo Vs Donepezil at Week 12||2.2|-1.1|0.506
91065592|NCT00708552|182016736|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.6|||Mixed model repeated measures|||ADCS-ADL Total score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-15mg at Week 24||1.6|-2.3|0.723
91065593|NCT00708552|182016736|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|2.0|||Mixed model repeated measures|||ADCS-ADL Total score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-35mg at Week 24||2.0|-2.2|0.919
91065594|NCT00708552|182016736|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|2.0|||Mixed model repeated measures|||ADCS-ADL Total score, Placebo Vs Donepezil at Week 24||2.0|-2.3|0.896
91065595|NCT00708552|182016737|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.5|||ANCOVA|||CSDD Total score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-15mg at Week 24||0.5|-0.9|0.594
91065596|NCT00708552|182016737|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.9|||ANCOVA|||CSDD Total score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-35mg at Week 24||0.9|-0.5|0.523
91065597|NCT00708552|182016737|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.0|||ANCOVA|||CSDD Total score, Placebo Vs Donepezil at Week 24||1.0|-0.4|0.429
91065598|NCT00708552|182016738|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.8|||ANCOVA|||MMSE Total score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-15mg at Week 24||0.8|-0.8|0.966
91065599|NCT00708552|182016738|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.1|||ANCOVA|||MMSE Total score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-35mg at Week 24||1.1|-0.5|0.505
91065600|NCT00708552|182016738|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.6|||ANCOVA|||MMSE Total score, Placebo Vs Donepezil at Week 24||1.6|0.0|0.044
91065601|NCT00708552|182016739|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Basic Score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-15mg at Week 12||0.5|-0.5|0.869
91065602|NCT00708552|182016739|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.8|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Basic Score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-35mg at Week 12||0.8|-0.4|0.500
91065603|NCT00708552|182016739|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.8|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Basic Score, Placebo Vs Donepezil at Week 12||0.8|-0.1|0.140
90827138|NCT00892775|181529298|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority with respect to seroconversion rates for varicella 42-56 days after vaccination was concluded if the lower limit of the 95% CI around the difference in seroconversion rates between groups would be \[-10%\] or higher.|Difference in percentage|4.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|10.34||||||||10.34|0.72|
91065604|NCT00708552|182016739|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.5|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Basic Score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-15mg at Week 24||0.5|-0.6|0.910
91065605|NCT00708552|182016739|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.7|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Basic Score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-35mg at Week 24||0.7|-0.5|0.774
91065606|NCT00708552|182016739|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.5|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Basic Score, Placebo Vs Donepezil at Week 24||0.5|-0.7|0.726
91065607|NCT00708552|182016739|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8||||0.292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.7|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Instrumental Score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-15mg at Week 12||0.7|-2.2|0.292
91065608|NCT00708552|182016739|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.4|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Instrumental Score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-35mg at Week 12||1.4|-1.3|0.946
91065609|NCT00708552|182016739|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.6|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Instrumental Score, Placebo Vs Donepezil at Week 12||1.6|-1.3|0.802
91065610|NCT00708552|182016739|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.3|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Instrumental Score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-15mg at Week 24||1.3|-2.1|0.636
91065611|NCT00708552|182016739|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.5|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Instrumental Score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-35mg at Week 24||1.5|-2.0|0.752
91065612|NCT00708552|182016739|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.7|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Instrumental Score, Placebo Vs Donepezil at Week 24||1.7|-1.9|0.920
91065613|NCT00708552|182016739|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.6|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Total Independence Score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-15mg at Week 12||0.6|-0.7|0.972
91065614|NCT00708552|182016739|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.9|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Total Independence Score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-35mg at Week 12||0.9|-0.4|0.378
91065615|NCT00708552|182016739|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.9|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Total Independence Score, Placebo Vs Donepezil at Week 12||0.9|-0.3|0.346
91065616|NCT00708552|182016739|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.9|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Total Independence Score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-15mg at Week 24||0.9|-0.6|0.720
91065617|NCT00708552|182016739|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.0|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Total Independence Score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-35mg at Week 24||1.0|-0.6|0.598
91065618|NCT00708552|182016739|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.1|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Total Independence Score, Placebo Vs Donepezil at Week 24||1.1|-0.5|0.480
91065619|NCT03971071|182016787|SUPERIORITY||Common odds ratio|1.37||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.05|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Erenumab 70 mg versus Placebo. Common odds ratio and p-value were obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by concomitant oral migraine preventive treatment initiated before screening and taken during baseline (Yes or No).|||2.05|0.92|0.13
91065620|NCT03971071|182016787|SUPERIORITY||Common odds ratio|2.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|3.05|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Erenumab 140 mg versus Placebo. Common odds ratio and p-value were obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by concomitant oral migraine preventive treatment initiated before screening and taken during baseline (Yes or No).|||3.05|1.33|<0.001
91065621|NCT03971071|182016788|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-1.23||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|-0.1||Nominal p-value is presented without multiplicity adjustment.|Linear Mixed Model||Erenumab 70 mg versus Placebo. Covariates: treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, concomitant oral migraine preventive treatment initiated before screening and taken during baseline (Yes or No), and baseline value.|||-0.10|-2.35|0.033
91065622|NCT03971071|182016788|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-2.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.87|-1.62||Nominal p-value is presented without multiplicity adjustment.|Linear Mixed Model||Erenumab 140 mg versus Placebo. Covariates: treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, concomitant oral migraine preventive treatment initiated before screening and taken during baseline (Yes or No), and baseline value.|||-1.62|-3.87|<0.001
91065623|NCT03971071|182016789|SUPERIORITY||Common odds ratio|1.62||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|2.43|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Erenumab 70 mg versus Placebo. Common odds ratio and p-value were obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by concomitant oral migraine preventive treatment initiated before screening and taken during baseline (Yes or No).|||2.43|1.08|0.019
91065624|NCT03971071|182016789|SUPERIORITY||Common odds ratio|2.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.75|3.96|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Erenumab 140 mg versus Placebo. Common odds ratio and p-value were obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by concomitant oral migraine preventive treatment initiated before screening and taken during baseline (Yes or No).|||3.96|1.75|<0.001
91065625|NCT03971071|182016790|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-3.25||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.62|-0.88||Nominal p-value is presented without multiplicity adjustment.|Linear Mixed Model||Erenumab 70 mg versus Placebo. Covariates: treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, concomitant oral migraine preventive treatment initiated before screening and taken during baseline (Yes or No), and baseline value.|||-0.88|-5.62|0.007
91065626|NCT03971071|182016790|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-2.13||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.48|0.22||Nominal p-value is presented without multiplicity adjustment.|Linear Mixed Model||Erenumab 140 mg versus Placebo. Covariates: treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, concomitant oral migraine preventive treatment initiated before screening and taken during baseline (Yes or No), and baseline value.|||0.22|-4.48|0.075
91065627|NCT03971071|182016791|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-2.61||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.92|-0.29||Nominal p-value is presented without multiplicity adjustment.|Linear Mixed Model||Erenumab 70 mg versus Placebo. Covariates: treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, concomitant oral migraine preventive treatment initiated before screening and taken during baseline (Yes or No), and baseline value.|||-0.29|-4.92|0.028
91065628|NCT03971071|182016791|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-2.37||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.67|-0.07||Nominal p-value is presented without multiplicity adjustment.|Linear Mixed Model||Erenumab 140 mg versus Placebo. Covariates: treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, concomitant oral migraine preventive treatment initiated before screening and taken during baseline (Yes or No), and baseline value.|||-0.07|-4.67|0.043
91065629|NCT00360282|182016793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||Sign test|||||||0.007
91065630|NCT00360282|182016794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.549|TWO_SIDED||||||Sign test|||||||.549
91065631|NCT04537078|182016805|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.5||||0.254|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.254
91065632|NCT04537078|182016806|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|9.48||||0.219|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.219
91065633|NCT04537078|182016807|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.269|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.269
90827139|NCT03678311|181529324|OTHER|The correlation between the outcome and AHI was tested by Spearman's correlation.|Spearman's correlation|0.13||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|1.0|||Spearman's correlation|||Spearman's correlation was used to evaluate the relationship between the outcome and the apnea hypopnea index.||1.00|-0.75|0.73
91065634|NCT04537078|182016808|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.072|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.072
91065635|NCT04537078|182016809|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
91065636|NCT04537078|182016810|OTHER|||||||0.72|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.720
91065637|NCT04537078|182016811|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
91065638|NCT04537078|182016812|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|600.0||||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.007
91065639|NCT04537078|182016813|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
91065640|NCT04537078|182016814|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|33.33||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.04
91065641|NCT04537078|182016815|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91065642|NCT04537078|182016816|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.851|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.851
91065643|NCT04537078|182016817|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|25.0||||0.304|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.304
90827140|NCT01389882|181529342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.007|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.015||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.036|1.978|||Paired t-test|||||1.978|0.036|0.043
91065644|NCT04537078|182016818|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.486|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.486
91065645|NCT03207815|182016819|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Treatment Failure Rate|-30.1||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.2|-4.1||P-value was estimated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, adjusted for the stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Participants with missing values on treatment failure status were analyzed as treatment failures using a nonresponder imputation (NRI) method.||||-4.1|-56.2|0.0064
91065646|NCT03207815|182016820|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio|0.309||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.144|0.663||P-value was derived from the log rank test stratified by the stratification factors.|Stratified Log-Rank Test||Stratified hazard ratio (95% confidence interval \[CI\]) were derived from the Cox model stratified by the stratification factors.|||0.663|0.144|0.0014
91065647|NCT03207815|182016821|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Treatment Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2||P-value was estimated using a repeated measure Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model which included treatment, eye, interaction of treatment and eye, stratification factors and best state value.|Repeated Measure ANCOVA|The repeated measure ANCOVA model was used to control for the clustered observations from each eye of a participant.|Treatment difference in Least Squares (LS)-means (95% CI) were obtained from the repeated measure ANCOVA model.|||0.2|-0.4|0.3550
91065648|NCT03207815|182016822|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.1||P-value was estimated using a repeated measure ANCOVA model which included treatment, eye, interaction of treatment and eye, stratification factors and best state value.|Repeated Measure ANCOVA|The repeated measure ANCOVA model was used to control for the clustered observations from each eye of a participant.|Treatment difference in LS-means (95% CI) were obtained from the repeated measure ANCOVA model.|||-0.1|-0.8|0.0145
91065649|NCT03207815|182016823|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.0||P-value was estimated using a repeated measure ANCOVA model which included treatment, eye, interaction of treatment and eye, stratification factors and best state value.|Repeated Measure ANCOVA|The repeated measure ANCOVA model was used to control for the clustered observations from each eye of a participant.|Treatment difference in LS-means (95% CI) were obtained from the repeated measure ANCOVA model.|||-0.00|-0.10|0.0389
91065650|NCT03207815|182016824|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.0||P-value was estimated using a repeated measure ANCOVA model which included treatment, eye, interaction of treatment and eye, OCT machine, and best state value.|Repeated Measure ANCOVA|The repeated measure ANCOVA model was used to control for the clustered observations from each eye of a participant.|Treatment difference in LS-means (95% CI) were obtained from the repeated measure ANCOVA model.|||-0.00|-0.05|0.0340
91065651|NCT03207815|182016825|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio|1.193||||0.5893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.625|2.277||P-value was derived from the log rank test stratified by the stratification factors.|Stratified Log-Rank Test||Stratified hazard ratio (95% CI) were derived from the Cox model stratified by the stratification factors.|||2.277|0.625|0.5893
91065652|NCT00391768|182016845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation|||||||0.07
91065653|NCT00391768|182016845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation|||||||0.60
91065654|NCT00391768|182016845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation|||||||0.27
91065655|NCT00391768|182016845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation|||||||0.77
90827141|NCT01389882|181529343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.232|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.841||0.245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.637|0.174|||Paired t-test|||||0.174|-0.637|0.245
91065656|NCT00391768|182016845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation|||||||0.47
91065657|NCT00391768|182016845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation|||||||0.96
91065658|NCT01620138|182016847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91065659|NCT00444535|182016861|OTHER|Clopper-Pearson exact test (binomial)|Exact binomial procedure|69.2||||||95.0|54.9|81.3||||||||81.3|54.9|
91065660|NCT01568892|182016868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|-0.8|||ANCOVA||The estimated value represents the adjusted mean difference between the two treatment arms.|||-0.80|-1.52|<0.001
90827142|NCT01389882|181529344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.026|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.095||0.257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.714|||Paired t-test|||||0.714|-0.020|0.257
91065661|NCT01697748|182016917|SUPERIORITY|With an SSI rate of 15% at Tampa General Hospital at the time of study design, a sample size of 600 patients was determined to provide a power of 80% to detect a 50% absolute reduction (15 vs. 7.5%) surgical site infection at a two sided alpha = 0.05. Assuming an approximate 10% dropout loss to follow up rate, the total sample size was adjusted to 660.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.96||Variables with at least a borderline association with a treatment arm (P≤ .10) were included in a multiple logistic regression model to verify which is independently associated with the outcome of interest||No P values were reported for the association between dressing type and infection, only relative risk and 95% confidence intervals were reported.||With an SSI rate of 15% at Tampa General Hospital at the time of study design, a sample size of 600 patients was determined to provide a power of 80% to detect a 50% absolute reduction (15 vs. 7.5%) surgical site infection at a two sided alpha = 0.05. Assuming an approximate 10% dropout loss to follow up rate, the total sample size was adjusted to 660.|Besides the Chi Square, Fisher's Exact test, Student T-test, Mann Whitney U test, and logistic regression were utilized where appropriate|1.96|0.44|
91065662|NCT01697748|182016917|SUPERIORITY|With an SSI rate of 15% at Tampa General Hospital at the time of study design, a sample size of 600 patients was determined to provide a power of 80% to detect a 50% absolute reduction (15% vs. 7.5%) surgical site infection at a two side alpha = 0.05. Assuming an approximate 10% dropout loss to follow up rate, the total sample size was adjusted to 660.|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Variables with at least a borderline association (P≤.10) were then included in a multiple logistic regression model to verify which is independently associated with the outcome of interest|Mixed Models Analysis|In addition to the Chi-Square, Fisher's exact test, Student T-Test, Mann Whitney U test and logistic regression were utilized when appropriate.||||||<0.05
91065663|NCT01697748|182016918|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||see below|Chi square, Fisher Exact, Student t-test, Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test where appropriate|||In addition to Chi-Square, Fisher's Exact test, Student T-test, Wilcoxon-Mann Whitney test were utilized where appropriate|||<.05
91065664|NCT01697748|182016919|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Chi Square, Fisher's Exact, Student's T test, Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test and logistic regression when appropriate,|||Besides the Chi Square, Fisher's Exact test, Student T-test, Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney Test, and logistic regression were utilized where appropriate|||<.05
91065665|NCT01697748|182016919|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Chi Square, Fisher Exact, Student t-test, Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test|||Besides the Chi Square, Fisher's Exact test, Student T-test, Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test and logistic regression were utilized where appropriate|||<.05
91065666|NCT01697748|182016921|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis||||Besides the Chi Square, Fisher's Exact test, Student T-test, Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test, and logistic regression were utilized where appropriate|||<0.05
91065667|NCT01697748|182016922|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis||||In addition to the Chi-square, Fisher's exact test, Student T-Test, Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test and logistic regression were utilized where approprate|||<0.05
91065668|NCT01256450|182016927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14||||0.587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.646|0.366|||ANCOVA|||||0.366|-0.646|.5870
90827143|NCT01389882|181529345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.188|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.541||0.601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.554|0.931|||Paired t-test|||||0.931|-0.554|0.601
90827144|NCT01389882|181529346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.149|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.355||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.023|||Paired t-test|||||0.023|-0.320|0.085
90827145|NCT01389882|181529347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.516|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.786||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.799|11.232|||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||11.232|1.799|0.002
91065669|NCT01704495|182016937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.56||||0.119|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|2.49||2-sided p-value|Poisson regression|Correction for overdispersion made by Pearson chi-square|AZD5069 45 mg BID vs Placebo|||2.49|0.98|0.119
91065670|NCT01704495|182016937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.53||||0.141|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|2.46||2-sided|Poisson Regression|Correction for overdispersion made by Pearson chi-square|AZD5069 15 mg BID vs Placebo|||2.46|0.95|0.141
91065671|NCT01704495|182016937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.29||||0.397|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.79|2.11||2-sided|Poisson Regression|Correction for overdispersion made by Pearson chi-square|AZD5069 5 mg BID vs Placebo|||2.11|0.79|0.397
91065672|NCT02104219|182016979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0755|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value is based on a nonparametric sign test used to determine whether the median RGI-C score differs from 0 for each time interval. No multiple comparisons or multiplicity adjustments were conducted.|Sign test|||Pairs of radiographs were centrally evaluated by 3 independent, blinded pediatric radiologists trained in the assessment of the skeletal manifestations of HPP. The mean RGI-C score across the 3 radiologists was calculated and served as the patient's RGI-C score for a specific time point||||0.0755
91065673|NCT02104219|182016980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6344|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value is based on a nonparametric sign test used to determine whether the median change in height Z-score from baseline to last assessment differs from 0. No multiple comparisons or multiplicity adjustments were conducted.|Sign test|||The earliest documented height measurement that was abstracted within the period from 5 to 15 years of age, inclusive, was defined as the baseline height. Height measurements were assigned to Z-scores calculated using Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2000 growth charts and methodology. Changes in height Z-score from Baseline were computed by subtracting baseline height Z-score from post baseline height Z-scores. The post baseline time points were grouped by time intervals.||||0.6344
91065674|NCT02104219|182016981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.452|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value is based on a nonparametric sign test used to determine whether the median change in weight Z-score from baseline to last assessment differs from 0. No multiple comparisons or multiplicity adjustments were conducted.|Sign test|||The earliest documented weight measurement that was abstracted within the period from 5 to 15 years of age, inclusive, was defined as the baseline weight. Weight measurements were assigned to Z-scores calculated using Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2000 growth charts and methodology. Changes in weight Z-score from Baseline were computed by subtracting baseline weight Z-score from post baseline weight Z-scores. The post baseline time points were grouped by time intervals.||||0.4520
91065675|NCT02104219|182016982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4545|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value is based on a nonparametric sign test used to determine whether change from baseline in the median RSS score differs from 0 for each time interval. No multiple comparisons or multiplicity adjustments were conducted.|Sign test|||The Baseline x-ray set defined for RGI-C, which was compared with its subsequent x-ray sets, was also used as the Baseline x-ray set for the RSS reading. Changes from Baseline were computed based on this baseline RSS score, and postbaseline time points were grouped by intervals of time from Baseline.||||0.4545
91065676|NCT02375971|182016983|SUPERIORITY|The primary efficacy variable was treatment success, defined as the absence of active ROP and absence of unfavorable structural outcomes in both eyes 24 weeks after starting study treatment.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.19||||0.0254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9932|4.8235|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.8235|0.9932|0.0254
91065677|NCT02667704|182017005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means in percentage|98.85|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.32|107.01|||ANOVA||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the ratio (T/R) of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient of variation.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the log scale including treatment as fixed effect and subject as a random effect||107.010|91.320|
91065678|NCT02667704|182017006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means in percentage|103.36|STANDARD_DEVIATION|26.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.134|124.025|||ANOVA||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the ratio (T/R) of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient of variation.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the log scale including treatment as fixed effect and subject as a random effect||124.025|86.134|
91065679|NCT02667704|182017007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means in percentage|101.98|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.909|109.57|||ANOVA||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the ratio (T/R) of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient of variation.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the log scale including treatment as fixed effect and subject as a random effect||109.570|94.909|
91065680|NCT00997373|182017029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0373|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0373
91065681|NCT00832455|182017030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||McNemar|||||||<0.001
91065682|NCT00832455|182017030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||McNemar|||||||<0.001
91065683|NCT00832455|182017032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||McNemar-Bowker|The McNemar-Bowker test is a statistical procedure used to compare the proportion of physician satisfaction at week 0 compared to week 12.||||||<0.001
91065684|NCT00832455|182017032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||McNemar-Bowker|The McNemar-Bowker test is a statistical procedure used to compare the proportion of physician satisfaction at week 0 compared to week 8.||||||<0.001
91065685|NCT00832455|182017033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||McNemar-Bowker|The McNemar-Bowker test is a statistical procedure used to compare the proportion of patient satisfaction at week 0 compared to week 12.||||||<0.001
91065686|NCT00832455|182017034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Change in PACQLQ score between Week 12 and baseline is statistically different than zero||||||<0.001
91065687|NCT02883062|182017055|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||Generalized estimating equation (GEE)|||||||0.36
91065688|NCT02883062|182017056|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.018
91079213|NCT03240406|182044072|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04||||0.841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.33||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|ANCOVA|MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|||0.33|-0.41|0.841
90827146|NCT01389882|181529348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.69|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.516||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.478|2.904|||Paired t-test, 2-sided|||||2.904|0.478|0.009
91065689|NCT00380874|182017066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.2536||||||Cycle 1. No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|ANCOVA|Model terms include treatment, study center, and baseline score.|LS means and corresponding standard errors derived from ANCOVA model were used.|Cycle 1. Sample size was based on original primary efficacy parameter (PEP) of time to persistent paresthesia symptoms (symptoms developing in 35% of subjects taking pregabalin and 60% taking placebo symptoms). Assuming Type I error rate of 0.05 and a 2-sided log-rank test for equality of time to persistent symptoms survival curves, the study would have had at least 90% power using 100 subjects per treatment group. The original PEP was modified to secondary due to lack of symptom emergence.||||0.2536
91065690|NCT00380874|182017066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.5757||||||No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|ANCOVA|Model terms include treatment, study center, and baseline score.|LS means and corresponding standard errors derived from ANCOVA model were used.|Cycle 2. Sample size was based on original primary efficacy parameter (PEP) of time to persistent paresthesia symptoms (symptoms developing in 35% of subjects taking pregabalin and 60% taking placebo symptoms). Assuming Type I error rate of 0.05 and a 2-sided log-rank test for equality of time to persistent symptoms survival curves, the study would have had at least 90% power using 100 subjects per treatment group. The original PEP was modified to secondary due to lack of symptom emergence.||||0.5757
91077851|NCT02913105|182041135|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.08||||0.0717|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.01|1.15|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||TIMP-1: Day 84||1.15|1.01|0.0717
90827147|NCT01389882|181529349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.692|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.192||0.314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.364|1.749|||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||1.749|-0.364|0.314
90827148|NCT01389882|181529350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.007|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.047||0.515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.016|||Paired t-test|||||0.016|-0.030|0.515
90827149|NCT01389882|181529351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1105|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.501||0.949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.505|3.726|||Paired t-test|||||3.726|-3.505|0.949
90827150|NCT01389882|181529352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.053|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.081||0.709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.77|6.875|||Paired t-test|||||6.875|-4.770|0.709
90827151|NCT01389882|181529353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.274|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.233||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|0.802|||Paired t-test|||||0.802|-1.350|0.600
90827152|NCT01045967|181529356|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|105.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.7|122.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||122|90.7|
90827153|NCT01045967|181529357|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|97.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.1|110.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||110|86.1|
90827154|NCT01045967|181529358|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|97.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.3|110.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||110|86.3|
90827155|NCT03057496|181529414|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.627|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.536|0.734||Since the outcome (contacts) represented over-dispersed count data and there were repeated measurements per subject, a generalized mixed effects model with a negative binomial family was used with each subject treated as a random intercept.|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed factors were included in the model to account for factors other than device operating mode that might affect collision rates.|Silent mode is the denominator for the rate ratio.|A within-subject comparison was performed. Each subject included in the analysis used the device in both the active and the silent mode. Comparison was between the two device operating modes. The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the rate of contacts between active and silent modes.||0.734|0.536|< 0.001
90827156|NCT00896298|181529459|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2572|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2572
90827157|NCT00896298|181529460|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.71
90827158|NCT00896298|181529461|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.68
90827159|NCT00896298|181529462|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0256|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0256
90827160|NCT00790192|181529471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
90827161|NCT00790192|181529472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
90827162|NCT00466440|181529473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.52|12.95|||Chi-squared||The objective response rates and the 90% confidence intervals were estimated for the qualified participants using unadjusted normal approximation for binomial proportions (z approximation).|||12.95|-12.52|1.0000
90827163|NCT00466440|181529474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.6||||0.3606|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-28.21|4.95|||Chi-squared|||||4.95|-28.21|0.3606
91065691|NCT00380874|182017066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.6065||||||No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|ANCOVA|Model terms include treatment, study center, and baseline score.|LS means and corresponding standard errors derived from ANCOVA model were used.|Cycle 3. Sample size was based on original primary efficacy parameter (PEP) of time to persistent paresthesia symptoms (symptoms developing in 35% of subjects taking pregabalin and 60% taking placebo symptoms). Assuming Type I error rate of 0.05 and a 2-sided log-rank test for equality of time to persistent symptoms survival curves, the study would have had at least 90% power using 100 subjects per treatment group. The original PEP was modified to secondary due to lack of symptom emergence.||||0.6065
91065692|NCT00380874|182017066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.4301||||||No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|ANCOVA|Model terms include treatment, study center, and baseline score.|LS means and corresponding standard errors derived from ANCOVA model were used.|Cycle 4. Sample size was based on original primary efficacy parameter (PEP) of time to persistent paresthesia symptoms (symptoms developing in 35% of subjects taking pregabalin and 60% taking placebo symptoms). Assuming Type I error rate of 0.05 and a 2-sided log-rank test for equality of time to persistent symptoms survival curves, the study would have had at least 90% power using 100 subjects per treatment group. The original PEP was modified to secondary due to lack of symptom emergence.||||0.4301
91065693|NCT00380874|182017066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.3125||||||No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|ANCOVA|Model terms include treatment, study center, and baseline score.|LS means and corresponding standard errors derived from ANCOVA model were used.|Cycle 5. Sample size was based on original primary efficacy parameter (PEP) of time to persistent paresthesia symptoms (symptoms developing in 35% of subjects taking pregabalin and 60% taking placebo symptoms). Assuming Type I error rate of 0.05 and a 2-sided log-rank test for equality of time to persistent symptoms survival curves, the study would have had at least 90% power using 100 subjects per treatment group. The original PEP was modified to secondary due to lack of symptom emergence.||||0.3125
91065694|NCT00380874|182017066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.8169||||||No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|ANCOVA|Model terms include treatment, study center, and baseline score.|LS means and corresponding standard errors derived from ANCOVA model were used.|Cycle 6.Sample size was based on original primary efficacy parameter (PEP) of time to persistent paresthesia symptoms (symptoms developing in 35% of subjects taking pregabalin and 60% taking placebo symptoms). Assuming Type I error rate of 0.05 and a 2-sided log-rank test for equality of time to persistent symptoms survival curves, the study would have had at least 90% power using 100 subjects per treatment group. The original PEP was modified to secondary due to lack of symptom emergence.||||0.8169
91065695|NCT00380874|182017066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.9359|||||||ANCOVA|Model terms include treatment, study center, and baseline score.|LS means and corresponding standard errors derived from ANCOVA model were used.|Cycle 7. Sample size was based on original primary efficacy parameter (PEP) of time to persistent paresthesia symptoms (symptoms developing in 35% of subjects taking pregabalin and 60% taking placebo symptoms). Assuming Type I error rate of 0.05 and a 2-sided log-rank test for equality of time to persistent symptoms survival curves, the study would have had at least 90% power using 100 subjects per treatment group. The original PEP was modified to secondary due to lack of symptom emergence.||||0.9359
91065696|NCT00380874|182017066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.6233|||||||ANCOVA|Model terms include treatment, study center, and baseline score.|LS means and corresponding standard errors derived from ANCOVA model were used.|Cycle 8. Sample size was based on original primary efficacy parameter (PEP) of time to persistent paresthesia symptoms (symptoms developing in 35% of subjects taking pregabalin and 60% taking placebo symptoms). Assuming Type I error rate of 0.05 and a 2-sided log-rank test for equality of time to persistent symptoms survival curves, the study would have had at least 90% power using 100 subjects per treatment group. The original PEP was modified to secondary due to lack of symptom emergence.||||0.6233
91065697|NCT00380874|182017066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.1569||||||No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|ANCOVA|Model terms include treatment, study center, and baseline score.|LS means and corresponding standard errors derived from ANCOVA model were used.|Cycle 9.Sample size was based on original primary efficacy parameter (PEP) of time to persistent paresthesia symptoms (symptoms developing in 35% of subjects taking pregabalin and 60% taking placebo symptoms). Assuming Type I error rate of 0.05 and a 2-sided log-rank test for equality of time to persistent symptoms survival curves, the study would have had at least 90% power using 100 subjects per treatment group. The original PEP was modified to secondary due to lack of symptom emergence.||||0.1569
91065698|NCT00380874|182017067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.7207||95.0|-0.25|0.17||Model terms include treatment, study center, and baseline score.|ANCOVA|Cycle 1. No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|LS means and corresponding standard errors derived from ANCOVA model were used.|Cycle 1.||0.17|-0.25|0.7207
91065699|NCT00380874|182017067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.3111||95.0|-0.36|1.1||No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|ANCOVA|Model terms include treatment, study center, and baseline score.|LS means and corresponding standard errors derived from ANCOVA model were used.|Cycle 2.||1.10|-0.36|0.3111
91065700|NCT00380874|182017067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.5925||95.0|-0.7|1.22||No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|ANCOVA|Model terms include treatment, study center, and baseline score.|LS means and corresponding standard errors derived from ANCOVA model were used.|Cycle 3.||1.22|-0.70|0.5925
91065701|NCT00380874|182017067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.5812||95.0|-0.8|1.41||No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|ANCOVA|Model terms include treatment, study center, and baseline score.|LS means and corresponding standard errors derived from ANCOVA model were used.|Cycle 4.||1.41|-0.80|0.5812
90827164|NCT00466440|181529475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.02|0.55|||t-test, 1 sided|||||0.55|-0.02|0.0720
90827165|NCT00466440|181529476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.1697|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.07|0.37|||t-test, 1 sided|||||0.37|-0.07|0.1697
91065702|NCT00380874|182017067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.2925||95.0|-0.67|2.16||No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|ANCOVA|Model terms include treatment, study center, and baseline score.|LS means and corresponding standard errors derived from ANCOVA model were used.|Cycle 5.||2.16|-0.67|0.2925
91065703|NCT00380874|182017067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.9276||95.0|-1.15|1.05||No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|ANCOVA|Model terms include treatment, study center, and baseline score.|LS means and corresponding standard errors derived from ANCOVA model were used.|Cycle 6.||1.05|-1.15|0.9276
91065704|NCT00380874|182017067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.9952||95.0|-1.06|1.07|||ANCOVA|Model terms include treatment, study center, and baseline score.||Cycle 7.||1.07|-1.06|0.9952
91065705|NCT00380874|182017067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.6265||95.0|-0.85|1.38|||ANCOVA|Model terms include treatment, study center, and baseline score.|LS means and corresponding standard errors derived from ANCOVA model were used.|Cycle 8.||1.38|-0.85|0.6265
91065706|NCT00380874|182017067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.4209||95.0|-1.77|0.76||No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|ANCOVA|Model terms include treatment, study center, and baseline score.|LS means and corresponding standard errors derived from ANCOVA model were used.|Cycle 9.||0.76|-1.77|0.4209
91065707|NCT00380874|182017067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.9657||95.0|-1.06|1.11||No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|ANCOVA|Model terms include treatment, study center, and baseline score.|LS means and corresponding standard errors derived from ANCOVA model were used.|Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF)endpoint.||1.11|-1.06|0.9657
91065708|NCT00380874|182017068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.5392||95.0|-0.24|0.12|||ANCOVA|||Cycle 1.||0.12|-0.24|0.5392
91065709|NCT00380874|182017068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.5412||95.0|-0.3|0.57|||ANCOVA|||Cycle 2.||0.57|-0.30|0.5412
91065710|NCT00380874|182017068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.5358||95.0|-0.48|0.9|||ANCOVA|||Cycle 3.||0.90|-0.48|0.5358
91065711|NCT00380874|182017068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.4059||95.0|-0.48|1.17|||ANCOVA|||Cycle 4.||1.17|-0.48|0.4059
91065712|NCT00380874|182017068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.2712||95.0|-0.44|1.52|||ANCOVA|||Cycle 5.||1.52|-0.44|0.2712
91065713|NCT00380874|182017068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.9181||95.0|-0.81|0.73|||ANCOVA|||Cycle 6.||0.73|-0.81|0.9181
91065714|NCT00380874|182017068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.4357||95.0|-0.52|1.17|||ANCOVA|||Cycle 7.||1.17|-0.52|0.4357
91065715|NCT00380874|182017068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.5103||95.0|-0.67|1.33|||ANCOVA|||||1.33|-0.67|0.5103
91065716|NCT00380874|182017068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.8499||95.0|-1.29|1.07|||ANCOVA|||Cycle 9.||1.07|-1.29|0.8499
90827166|NCT00466440|181529477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.4|||Log Rank|||||1.4|0.5|0.5240
91065717|NCT00380874|182017068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.7359||95.0|-0.9|0.64|||ANCOVA|||LOCF endpoint.||0.64|-0.90|0.7359
91065718|NCT00380874|182017069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.2034||95.0|-0.06|0.29|||ANCOVA|||Burning Spontaneous Pain Cycle 3||0.29|-0.06|0.2034
90827167|NCT00466440|181529478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.4407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.6|||Log Rank|||||1.6|0.3|0.4407
90827168|NCT00466440|181529479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.3449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.4|||Log Rank|||||1.4|0.4|0.3449
91065719|NCT00380874|182017069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.3062||95.0|-0.4|0.13|||ANCOVA|||Burning Spontaneous Pain Cycle 4||0.13|-0.40|0.3062
91065720|NCT00380874|182017069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.2787||95.0|-0.37|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Burning Spontaneous Pain Cycle 5||0.11|-0.37|0.2787
91065721|NCT00380874|182017069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.4124||95.0|-0.2|0.47|||ANCOVA|||Burning Spontaneous Pain Cycle 6||0.47|-0.20|0.4124
91065722|NCT00380874|182017069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.9541||95.0|-0.68|0.73|||ANCOVA|||Burning Spontaneous Pain Cycle 7||0.73|-0.68|0.9541
91065723|NCT00380874|182017069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.3383||95.0|-0.33|0.92|||ANOVA|||Burning Spontaneous Pain Cycle 8||0.92|-0.33|0.3383
91065724|NCT00380874|182017069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.8918||95.0|-0.84|0.74|||ANCOVA|||Burning Spontaneous Pain||0.74|-0.84|0.8918
91065725|NCT00380874|182017069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.9614||95.0|-0.54|0.51|||ANCOVA|||Burning Spontaneous Pain LOCF endpoint||0.51|-0.54|0.9614
91065726|NCT00380874|182017069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.3022||95.0|-0.17|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Pressing Spontaneous Pain Cycle 2||0.05|-0.17|0.3022
91065727|NCT00380874|182017069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.3747||95.0|-0.04|0.12|||ANCOVA|||Pressing Spontaneous Pain Cycle 3||0.12|-0.04|0.3747
91065728|NCT00380874|182017069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.163||95.0|-0.4|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Pressing Spontaneous Pain Cycle 4||0.07|-0.40|0.1630
91065729|NCT00380874|182017069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.9568||95.0|-0.12|0.11|||ANOVA|||Pressing Spontaneous Pain Cycle 5||0.11|-0.12|0.9568
91065730|NCT00380874|182017069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.9793||95.0|-0.13|0.13|||ANCOVA|||Pressing Spontaneous Pain Cycle 6||0.13|-0.13|0.9793
91065731|NCT00380874|182017069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.25||0.885||95.0|-0.54|0.47|||ANCOVA|||Pressing Spontaneous Pain Cycle 7||0.47|-0.54|0.8850
91065732|NCT00380874|182017069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.2199||95.0|-0.17|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Pressing Spontaneous Pain Cycle 8||0.70|-0.17|0.2199
91065733|NCT00380874|182017069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.4017||95.0|-0.14|0.35|||ANCOVA|||Pressing Spontaneous Pain Cycle 9||0.35|-0.14|0.4017
91065734|NCT00380874|182017069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.4113||95.0|-0.1|0.24|||ANCOVA|||Pressing Spontaneous Pain LOCF Endpoint||0.24|-0.10|0.4113
91065735|NCT00380874|182017069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.3011||95.0|-0.06|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Paroxysmal Pain Cycle 3||0.02|-0.06|0.3011
91065736|NCT00380874|182017069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.4482||95.0|-0.26|0.12|||ANCOVA|||Paroxysmal Pain Cycle 4||0.12|-0.26|0.4482
91065737|NCT00380874|182017069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.3058||95.0|-0.31|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Paroxysmal Pain Cycle 5||0.10|-0.31|0.3058
91065738|NCT00380874|182017069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.3035||95.0|-0.38|0.12|||ANCOVA|||Paroxysmal Pain Cycle 6||0.12|-0.38|0.3035
91065739|NCT00380874|182017069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.9636||95.0|-0.46|0.48|||ANCOVA|||Paroxysmal Pain Cycle 7||0.48|-0.46|0.9636
91065740|NCT00380874|182017069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.366||95.0|-0.38|1.02|||ANCOVA|||Paroxysmal Pain Cycle 8||1.02|-0.38|0.3660
91065741|NCT00380874|182017069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.4093||95.0|-0.69|0.29|||ANCOVA|||Paroxysmal Pain Cycle 9||0.29|-0.69|0.4093
91065742|NCT00380874|182017069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.5208||95.0|-0.39|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Paroxysmal Pain LOCF Endpoint||0.20|-0.39|0.5208
90827169|NCT02707146|181529488|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||
90827170|NCT01588561|181529523|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Increased signal: Insula, Putamen, Cingulate, Paracingulate, Calcarine cortex, Lingual gyrus, Frontal pole, Fusiform gyrus, Cerebellum. Decreased signal:Thalamus, Temporal gyri, Hippocampus (left), Caudate, Cerebellum|||
90827171|NCT01588561|181529524|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Increased signal: Insula, Putamen, Pallidum, Cingulate, Thalamus, Operculum, OBF cortex, Lingual gyrus, Cerebellum. Decreased signal: Hippocampus (left), Parahippocampus (left), Caudate, Cerebellum|||
91065743|NCT00380874|182017069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.9931||95.0|-0.17|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Evoke Pain Cycle 2||0.17|-0.17|0.9931
91065744|NCT00380874|182017069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.5867||95.0|-0.25|0.44|||ANCOVA|||Evoke Pain Cycle 3||0.44|-0.25|0.5867
91065745|NCT00380874|182017069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.2748||95.0|-0.37|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Evoke Pain Cycle 4||0.11|-0.37|0.2748
91065746|NCT00380874|182017069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.5521||95.0|-0.51|0.28|||ANCOVA|||Evoke Pain Cycle 5||0.28|-0.51|0.5521
91065747|NCT00380874|182017069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.6734||95.0|-0.96|0.62|||ANCOVA|||Evoke Pain Cycle 6||0.62|-0.96|0.6734
91065748|NCT00380874|182017069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.1214||95.0|-0.16|1.33|||ANCOVA|||Evoke Pain Cycle 7||1.33|-0.16|0.1214
91065749|NCT00380874|182017069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.1845||95.0|-0.34|1.72|||ANCOVA|||Evoke Pain Cycle 8||1.72|-0.34|0.1845
91065750|NCT00380874|182017069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.6863||95.0|-0.6|0.9|||ANCOVA|||Evoke Pain Cycle 9||0.90|-0.60|0.6863
91065751|NCT00380874|182017069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.9273||95.0|-0.51|0.56|||ANCOVA|||Evoke Pain LOCF Endpoint||0.56|-0.51|0.9273
91065752|NCT00380874|182017069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0416||95.0|0.01|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Parethesia/Dysesthesia Pain Cycle 2||0.50|0.01|0.0416
91065753|NCT00380874|182017069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.1819||95.0|-0.1|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Parethesia/Dysesthesia Pain Cycle 3||0.50|-0.10|0.1819
91065754|NCT00380874|182017069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0331||95.0|0.03|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Parethesia/Dysesthesia Pain Cycle 4||0.70|0.03|0.0331
91065755|NCT00380874|182017069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0608||95.0|-0.02|0.83|||ANCOVA|||Parethesia/Dysesthesia Pain Cycle 5||0.83|-0.02|0.0608
91065756|NCT00380874|182017069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.2809||95.0|-0.31|1.03|||ANCOVA|||Parethesia/Dysesthesia Pain Cycle 6||1.03|-0.31|0.2809
91065757|NCT00380874|182017069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.3445||95.0|-0.34|0.95|||ANCOVA|||Parethesia/Dysesthesia Pain Cycle 7||0.95|-0.34|0.3445
91065758|NCT00380874|182017069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.2806||95.0|-0.44|1.46|||ANCOVA|||Parethesia/Dysesthesia Pain Cycle 8||1.46|-0.44|0.2806
91065759|NCT00380874|182017069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.5217||95.0|-0.68|1.33|||ANCOVA|||Parethesia/Dysesthesia Pain Cycle 9||1.33|-0.68|0.5217
91065760|NCT00380874|182017069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.3628||95.0|-0.37|1.0|||ANCOVA|||Parethesia/Dysesthesia Pain LOCF Endpoint||1.00|-0.37|0.3628
91065761|NCT00380874|182017069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0.3557||95.0|0.0|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Total Score Cycle 2||0.01|-0.00|0.3557
91065762|NCT00380874|182017069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0.2824||95.0|0.0|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Total Score Cycle 3||0.01|-0.00|0.2824
91065763|NCT00380874|182017069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0.5931||95.0|-0.01|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Total Score Cycle 4||0.01|-0.01|0.5931
91065764|NCT00380874|182017069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0.9865||95.0|-0.01|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Total Score Cycle 5||0.01|-0.01|0.9865
91065765|NCT00380874|182017069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.9854||95.0|-0.02|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Total Score Cycle 6||0.02|-0.02|0.9854
91065766|NCT00380874|182017069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.3403||95.0|-0.01|0.04|||ANCOVA|||Total Score Cycle 7||0.04|-0.01|0.3403
91065767|NCT00380874|182017069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.2226||95.0|-0.01|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Total Score Cycle 8||0.05|-0.01|0.2226
91065768|NCT00380874|182017069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.9694||95.0|-0.03|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Total Score Cycle 9||0.03|-0.03|0.9694
91065769|NCT00380874|182017069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.8957||95.0|-0.02|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Total Score LOCF Endpoint||0.02|-0.02|0.8957
91065770|NCT00380874|182017071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.7489||95.0||||No multiple comparisons adjustment was necessary.|ANCOVA|Model terms include treatment, study center, and baseline score.|Least squares (LS) means and corresponding standard errors derived from ANCOVA model were used.|LOCF cycle endpoint. Sample size based on original primary efficacy parameter (PEP) of time to persistent symptoms (developing in 35% of pregabalin subjects \& 60% of placebo subjects). Assuming Type I error rate of 0.05 and a 2-sided log-rank test for equality of time to persistent symptoms survival curves, study would have had at least 90% power using 100 subjects per treatment group. Original PEP was modified to secondary due to lack of persistent paresthetic symptom emergence.||||0.7489
91065771|NCT03380429|182017072|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.2|18.8||p-value was calculated using ANCOVA.|ANCOVA||Analysis was performed by ANCOVA adjusted for randomized treatment arm, Baseline adherence, duration of run-in (visits), country, gender and age.|||18.8|5.2|<0.001
91065772|NCT03380429|182017073|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.2||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|14.9||p-value was calculated using ANCOVA.|ANCOVA||Analysis was performed by ANCOVA adjusted for randomized treatment arm, Baseline adherence, duration of run-in (visits), country, gender and age.|||14.9|1.6|0.016
91065773|NCT03380429|182017073|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.3||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|16.0||p-value was calculated using ANCOVA.|ANCOVA||Analysis was performed by ANCOVA adjusted for randomized treatment arm, Baseline adherence, duration of run-in (visits), country, gender and age.|||16.0|2.7|0.006
90827172|NCT01588561|181529525|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Increased signal: Insula (bilateral), Cingulate, Pretcentralgyrus, Thalamus (bilateral), Putamen (bilateral), Pallidum (bilateral), Amygdala (bilateral), Ventral tegmental area, Accumbens Nuclei. Decreased signal: Insula (left inferior), OBF cortex, Frontal\&Temporal poles, Hippocampus (bilateral), Parahippocampus (bilateral), Accumbens nuclei, Cerebellum|||
91065774|NCT03380429|182017073|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.1||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|14.8||p-value was calculated using ANCOVA.|ANCOVA||Analysis was performed by ANCOVA adjusted for randomized treatment arm, Baseline adherence, duration of run-in (visits), country, gender and age.|||14.8|1.4|0.018
91065775|NCT03380429|182017074|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.3||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|15.3||p-value was calculated using ANCOVA.|ANCOVA||Analysis was performed by ANCOVA adjusted for randomized treatment arm, Baseline adherence, duration of run-in (visits), country, gender and age.|||15.3|3.2|0.003
91065776|NCT03380429|182017074|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.7||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|13.7||p-value was calculated using ANCOVA.|ANCOVA||Analysis was performed by ANCOVA adjusted for randomized treatment arm, Baseline adherence, duration of run-in (visits), country, gender and age.|||13.7|1.8|0.011
91065777|NCT03380429|182017074|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.5||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|11.4||p-value was calculated using ANCOVA.|ANCOVA||Analysis was performed by ANCOVA adjusted for randomized treatment arm, Baseline adherence, duration of run-in (visits), country, gender and age.|||11.4|-0.4|0.066
91065778|NCT03380429|182017074|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8||||0.359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|8.7||p-value was calculated using ANCOVA.|ANCOVA||Analysis was performed by ANCOVA adjusted for randomized treatment arm, Baseline adherence, duration of run-in (visits), country, gender and age.|||8.7|-3.1|0.359
91065779|NCT03380429|182017075|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.7||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|16.3||p-value was calculated using ANCOVA.|ANCOVA||Analysis was performed by ANCOVA adjusted for randomized treatment arm, Baseline adherence, duration of run-in (visits), country, gender and age.|||16.3|3.1|0.004
91065780|NCT03380429|182017075|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.1||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|13.5||p-value was calculated using ANCOVA.|ANCOVA||Analysis was performed by ANCOVA adjusted for randomized treatment arm, Baseline adherence, duration of run-in (visits), country, gender and age.|||13.5|0.6|0.032
91065781|NCT03380429|182017075|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.9||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|12.4||p-value was calculated using ANCOVA.|ANCOVA||Analysis was performed by ANCOVA adjusted for randomized treatment arm, Baseline adherence, duration of run-in (visits), country, gender and age.|||12.4|-0.5|0.070
91065782|NCT03380429|182017075|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.4||||0.294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|9.9||p-value was calculated using ANCOVA.|ANCOVA||Analysis was performed by ANCOVA adjusted for randomized treatment arm, Baseline adherence, duration of run-in (visits), country, gender and age.|||9.9|-3.0|0.294
91065783|NCT03380429|182017076|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.8||||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|10.8||p-value was calculated using ANCOVA.|ANCOVA||Analysis was performed by ANCOVA adjusted for randomized treatment arm, Baseline rescue use, duration of run-in (visits), country, gender and age.|||10.8|-1.2|0.118
91065784|NCT03380429|182017076|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.8||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|10.7||p-value was calculated using ANCOVA.|ANCOVA||Analysis was performed by ANCOVA adjusted for randomized treatment arm, Baseline rescue use, duration of run-in (visits), country, gender and age.|||10.7|-1.0|0.105
91065785|NCT03380429|182017076|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.2||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|15.1||p-value was calculated using ANCOVA.|ANCOVA||Analysis was performed by ANCOVA adjusted for randomized treatment arm, Baseline rescue use, duration of run-in (visits), country, gender and age.|||15.1|3.3|0.002
91065786|NCT03380429|182017076|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.3||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|13.2||p-value was calculated using ANCOVA.|ANCOVA||Analysis was performed by ANCOVA adjusted for randomized treatment arm, Baseline rescue use, duration of run-in (visits), country, gender and age.|||13.2|1.5|0.015
91065787|NCT03380429|182017078|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.6||p-value was calculated using Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM).|MMRM||Analysis was performed by MMRM adjusted for randomized treatment arm,Baseline ACT total score,randomized treatment arm-by-visit interaction,Baseline ACT total score-by-visit interaction,gender,age,country and participant fitted as a random factor.|||0.6|-1.6|0.400
91065788|NCT03380429|182017078|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4||||0.441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.5||p-value was calculated using MMRM.|MMRM||Analysis was performed by MMRM adjusted for randomized treatment arm,Baseline ACT total score,randomized treatment arm-by-visit interaction,Baseline ACT total score-by-visit interaction,gender,age,country and participant fitted as a random factor.|||1.5|-0.7|0.441
91065789|NCT03380429|182017078|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.9||p-value was calculated using MMRM.|MMRM||Analysis was performed by MMRM adjusted for randomized treatment arm,Baseline ACT total score,randomized treatment arm-by-visit interaction,Baseline ACT total score-by-visit interaction,gender,age,country and participant fitted as a random factor.|||1.9|-0.3|0.164
91065790|NCT03380429|182017078|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.4||p-value was calculated using MMRM.|MMRM||Analysis was performed by MMRM adjusted for randomized treatment arm,Baseline ACT total score,randomized treatment arm-by-visit interaction,Baseline ACT total score-by-visit interaction,gender,age,country and participant fitted as a random factor.|||1.4|-0.9|0.661
91065791|NCT03380429|182017079|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.44||p-value was calculated using logistic regression|Regression, Logistic||Analysis was performed by logistic regression adjusted for randomized treatment arm, Baseline ACT total score, country, gender and age.|||1.44|0.39|0.385
91065792|NCT03380429|182017079|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|2.42||p-value was calculated using logistic regression|Regression, Logistic||Analysis was performed by logistic regression adjusted for randomized treatment arm, Baseline ACT total score, country, gender and age.|||2.42|0.64|0.517
91065793|NCT03380429|182017079|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.85||p-value was calculated using logistic regression|Regression, Logistic||Analysis was performed by logistic regression adjusted for randomized treatment arm, Baseline ACT total score, country, gender and age.|||1.85|0.51|0.921
90890493|NCT03086447|181645725|OTHER|It was deemed that a total of 135 subjects in the Test group is sufficient to demonstrate statistical acceptance of lens fit with a minimum of 90% statistical power using the reference incidence rate of 95% with a correlation of 0.8 between eyes.|Proportion|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.5|100.0||All primary hypotheses were simultaneously evaluated using a significance level of 0.05 following the intersection-union principal. All primary hypotheses must be met to claim success of the study objectives.|Binomial proportion with Agrestic-Coull||All eyes (100%) in the Test group had acceptable lens fit at fitting (visit 1).|Proportion of eyes with acceptable lens fit assessed at fitting (visit 1) in the Test group was compared to the historical control rate of 80%. Lower 95% confidence limit was compared to 0.8.||100.0|96.5|
91065794|NCT03380429|182017079|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72||||0.321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.38||p-value was calculated using logistic regression|Regression, Logistic||Analysis was performed by logistic regression adjusted for randomized treatment arm, Baseline ACT total score, country, gender and age.|||1.38|0.38|0.321
91065795|NCT03380429|182017080|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.98||p-value was calculated using logistic regression|Regression, Logistic||Analysis was performed by logistic regression adjusted for randomized treatment arm, Baseline ACT total score, country, gender and age.|||1.98|0.54|0.911
91065796|NCT03380429|182017080|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.54||p-value was calculated using logistic regression|Regression, Logistic||Analysis was performed by logistic regression adjusted for randomized treatment arm, Baseline ACT total score, country, gender and age.|||2.54|0.70|0.383
91065797|NCT03380429|182017080|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|2.04||p-value was calculated using logistic regression|Regression, Logistic||Analysis was performed by logistic regression adjusted for randomized treatment arm, Baseline ACT total score, country, gender and age.|||2.04|0.57|0.814
91065798|NCT03380429|182017080|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.89||p-value was calculated using logistic regression|Regression, Logistic||Analysis was performed by logistic regression adjusted for randomized treatment arm, Baseline ACT total score, country, gender and age.|||1.89|0.53|0.986
91065799|NCT03380429|182017081|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.81||p-value was calculated using logistic regression|Regression, Logistic||Analysis was performed by logistic regression adjusted for randomized treatment arm, Baseline ACT total score, country, gender and age.|||1.81|0.48|0.833
91065800|NCT03380429|182017081|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|2.67||p-value was calculated using logistic regression|Regression, Logistic||Analysis was performed by logistic regression adjusted for randomized treatment arm, Baseline ACT total score, country, gender and age.|||2.67|0.69|0.383
91065801|NCT03380429|182017081|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.63||p-value was calculated using logistic regression|Regression, Logistic||Analysis was performed by logistic regression adjusted for randomized treatment arm, Baseline ACT total score, country, gender and age.|||1.63|0.44|0.628
91065802|NCT03380429|182017081|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.8||p-value was calculated using logistic regression|Regression, Logistic||Analysis was performed by logistic regression adjusted for randomized treatment arm, Baseline ACT total score, country, gender and age.|||1.80|0.49|0.844
91065803|NCT01139775|182017094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Bayesian Posterior Probability|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Pemetrexed + cisplatin + LY2603618 was considered superior to pemetrexed + cisplatin if the posterior probability of superiority exceeded 0.85.|The analysis for comparing progression-free survival time between the treatment arms used a Bayesian Augmented Control model with a hierarchical random-effects distribution on treatment effects. The final model incorporated historical data from a completed Phase 3 study (NCT00789373) to augment the prospective control arm data.||||
91065804|NCT01139775|182017096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2294|TWO_SIDED|||||The test of treatment effect was conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10.|Log Rank|||||||0.2294
91065805|NCT01139775|182017097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0824|TWO_SIDED|||||The test of treatment effect was conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10.|Chi-squared|||||||0.0824
91065806|NCT01139775|182017098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4924|TWO_SIDED|||||The test of treatment effect was conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4924
91065807|NCT01139775|182017109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0946|TWO_SIDED|||||The test of treatment effect was conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10.|Chi-squared|||||||0.0946
91065808|NCT03197389|182017116|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91065809|NCT04129125|182017121|OTHER|The study sample size of 260 subjects was selected to have at least 90 percent power for primary safety and efficacy endpoints and all-cause mortality|Event rate|83.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.0|88.0||The p-value a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.025|Fisher Exact|||The FDA agreed performance goal for the primary efficacy endpoint was for the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI to be \>69%||88|78|<0.0001
91065810|NCT04129125|182017122|OTHER|The study sample size of 260 subjects was selected to have at least 90 percent power for primary safety and efficacy endpoints and all-cause mortality|Event rate|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|4.4||||||The FDA agreed performance goal for the primary safety endpoint was for the observed rate to be ≤6.0%||4.4|0.6|
91065811|NCT04129125|182017123|OTHER|The study sample size of 260 subjects was selected to have at least 90 percent power for primary safety and efficacy endpoints and all-cause mortality|Event rate|84.0||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.0|89.0||The p-value a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.025|Fisher Exact|||The FDA agreed performance goal for the primary efficacy endpoint was for the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI to be \>69%||89|78|0.0001
90890494|NCT03086447|181645726|OTHER|It was deemed that a total of 135 subjects in the Test group is sufficient to demonstrate statistical acceptance of lens stability with a minimum of 90% statistical power using the reference incidence rate of 95% with a correlation of 0.8 between eyes.|Proportion|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.5|100.0||All primary hypotheses were simultaneously evaluated using a significance level of 0.05 following the intersection-union principal. All primary hypotheses must be met to claim success of the study objectives.|Binomial proportion with Agrestic-Coull||All eyes (100%) in the Test group had acceptable stability at fitting.|Proportion of eyes with acceptable stability assessed at fitting (visit 1) in the Test group was compared to the historical control rate of 80%. Lower 95% confidence limit was compared to 0.8.||100.0|96.5|
91065812|NCT04129125|182017124|OTHER|The study sample size of 260 subjects was selected to have at least 90 percent power for primary safety and efficacy endpoints and all-cause mortality|Event rate|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|3.4||||||The FDA agreed performance goal for the primary safety endpoint was for the observed rate to be ≤6.0%||3.4|0.1|
91065813|NCT04129125|182017133|OTHER|The study sample size of 260 subjects was selected to have at least 90 percent power for primary safety and efficacy endpoints and all-cause mortality|Event rate|12.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.5|16.7|||||Event and CI estimated using Kaplan-Meier method|The FDA agreed performance goal for the all-cause mortality endpoint was for the observed rate to be ≤20.3%||16.7|8.5|
91065814|NCT04129125|182017144|OTHER|The study sample size of 260 subjects was selected to have at least 90 percent power for primary safety and efficacy endpoints and all-cause mortality|Event rate|12.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.1|17.2|||||Event and CI estimated using Kaplan-Meier method|The FDA agreed performance goal for the primary safety endpoint was for the observed rate to be ≤20.3%||17.2|8.1|
91065815|NCT04955691|182017187|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
91065816|NCT04955691|182017188|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||\<54 mg/dL||||0.57
91065817|NCT04955691|182017188|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||54-69 mg/dL||||0.43
91065818|NCT04955691|182017189|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||181-250 mg/dL||||0.006
91065819|NCT04955691|182017189|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||\>250 mg/dL||||<0.001
91065820|NCT04042467|182017245|SUPERIORITY||Estimated intervention effect at 24 mo.|-0.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.09||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons, and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test (4 DoF) of intervention main effect and 3 intervention by age interaction parameters equal 0 vs. alternative that at least one was not 0.|The p-value is for the Wald test (4 DoF) evaluating whether the Greenlight Plus and Greenlight group trajectories were significantly different. The estimation parameter is the model-estimated intervention effect at 24 months (kg/m).|"Linear mixed-effects model (random intercepts and slopes for clinics and participants within clinics). A priori adjustment for baseline variables: child birth weight and biological sex, race/ethnicity, health literacy, language, education, income, and food insecurity. Child age and birth weight were included using natural splines with 3 DoF.~Effect evaluated using Wald test with a 2-sided, 0.05 significance level. Null hypothesis: Equal weight-for-length growth trajectories in the two groups."||-0.09|-0.57|<0.001
91065821|NCT04225715|182017275|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rate|7.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|16.4|||||95% CI for difference of two proportions was calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method.|||16.4|-2.1|
91065822|NCT04225715|182017275|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rate|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|10.0|||||95% CI for difference of two proportions was calculated using CMH method.|||10|-3.1|
91065823|NCT04225715|182017275|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rate|24.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.0|39.5|||||95% CI for difference of two proportions was calculated using CMH method.|||39.5|9|
91065824|NCT04225715|182017275|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rate|12.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|23.3|||||95% CI for difference of two proportions was calculated using CMH method.|||23.3|1.3|
91065825|NCT04225715|182017275|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||||95% CI for difference of two proportions was calculated using CMH method.|||0|0|
91065826|NCT04225715|182017275|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rate|6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|15.7|||||95% CI for difference of two proportions was calculated using CMH method.|||15.7|-2.2|
91065827|NCT04225715|182017276|SUPERIORITY||6.2|6.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|14.5|||||95% CI for difference of two proportions was calculated using CMH method.|Combo 7: Week 24||14.5|-2|
91065828|NCT04225715|182017276|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rate|13.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|25.6|||||95% CI for difference of two proportions was calculated using CMH method.|Combo 8: Week 36||25.6|1.2|
91065829|NCT04225715|182017276|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rate|7.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|16.4|||||95% CI for difference of two proportions was calculated using CMH method.|Combo 2: Week 48||16.4|-2.1|
91065830|NCT04225715|182017276|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rate|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|10.0|||||95% CI for difference of two proportions was calculated using CMH method.|Combo 3: Week 48||10|-3.1|
91065831|NCT04225715|182017276|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rate|31.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.7|47.6|||||95% CI for difference of two proportions was calculated using CMH method.|Combo 4: Week 48||47.6|14.7|
91065832|NCT04225715|182017276|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rate|18.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.4|31.4|||||95% CI for difference of two proportions was calculated using CMH method.|Combo 6: Week 48||31.4|5.4|
91065833|NCT04225715|182017276|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rate|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|20.1|||||95% CI for difference of two proportions was calculated using CMH method.|Combo 2: FUW 48||20.1|-3.9|
91065834|NCT04225715|182017276|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rate|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|2.7|||||95% CI for difference of two proportions was calculated using CMH method.|Combo 3: FUW 48||2.7|-8.1|
91065835|NCT04225715|182017276|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rate|14.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|28.8|||||95% CI for difference of two proportions was calculated using CMH method.|Combo 4: FUW 48||28.8|0.4|
91065836|NCT04225715|182017276|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rate|9.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|21.5|||||95% CI for difference of two proportions was calculated using CMH method.|Combo 6: FUW 48||21.5|-2.5|
91065837|NCT03158038|182017300|SUPERIORITY||Rate difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|1.9||||||||1.9|-6.7|
91065838|NCT03158038|182017301|SUPERIORITY||Rate difference|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|13.2||||||Statistical analysis up to Day 8||13.2|-12.8|
91065839|NCT03158038|182017301|SUPERIORITY||Rate difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|13.2||||||Statistical analysis up to Day 15||13.2|-14.1|
91065840|NCT00925704|182017366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.171||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Exogenous calcitriol was analyzed using a mixed linear effects model. This model contained sequence group, period, and treatment as fixed effects. The subject within sequence effect was included as a random effect.||||0.171
91065841|NCT00925704|182017366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.024||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Exogenous calcitriol was analyzed using a mixed linear effects model. This model contained sequence group, period, and treatment as fixed effects. The subject within sequence effect was included as a random effect.||||0.024
91065842|NCT00925704|182017367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.313||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Exogenous calcitriol was analyzed using a mixed linear effects model. This model contained sequence group, period, and treatment as fixed effects. The subject within sequence effect was included as a random effect.||||0.313
91065843|NCT00925704|182017367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Exogenous calcitriol was analyzed using a mixed linear effects model. This model contained sequence group, period, and treatment as fixed effects. The subject within sequence effect was included as a random effect.||||< 0.001
91065844|NCT00925704|182017368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.039||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Hodges-Lehmann)|||Analysis for Tmax used the Hodges-Lehmann estimate for Wilcoxon's Signed Rank Test.||||0.039
91065845|NCT00925704|182017368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.305||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Hodges-Lehmann)|||Analysis for Tmax used the Hodges-Lehmann estimate for Wilcoxon's Signed Rank Test.||||0.305
91065846|NCT02632409|182017488|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|98.22|0.55|0.9|||Stratified Cox Proportional hazard model|||||0.90|0.55|0.0008
91065847|NCT02632409|182017489|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|98.72|0.35|0.84|||Stratified Cox Proportional hazard model|||||0.84|0.35|0.0005
91065848|NCT03296527|182017555|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower-limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was greater than the non-inferiority limit (-10.0%), the null hypothesis was rejected. In that case, it would be claimed that FE 999049 was non-inferior to GONAL-F with respect to ongoing pregnancy rate in women undergoing controlled ovarian stimulation.|Risk Difference (RD)|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|11.0|||||The difference (FE 999049 - GONAL-F) in rates was estimated and a two-sided 95% Cl was constructed using the Mantel-Haenszel method to combine results across age strata.|Percentage of participants with ongoing pregnancy rate||11.0|-0.2|
91065849|NCT03296527|182017556|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|12.3|||||The difference (FE 999049 - GONAL-F) in rates was estimated and a two-sided 95% Cl was constructed using the Mantel-Haenszel method to combine results across age strata.|Percentage of participants with positive beta-hCG||12.3|0.3|
91065850|NCT03296527|182017557|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|10.7|||||The difference (FE 999049 - GONAL-F) in rates was estimated and a two-sided 95% Cl was constructed using the Mantel-Haenszel method to combine results across age strata.|Percentage of participants with at least one gestational sac 5-6 weeks after transfer||10.7|-0.9|
91065851|NCT03296527|182017558|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|9.8|||||The difference (FE 999049 - GONAL-F) in rates was estimated and a two-sided 95% Cl was constructed using the Mantel-Haenszel method to combine results across age strata.|Percentage of participants with at least one intrauterine gestational sac with fetal heart beat 5-6 weeks after transfer||9.8|-1.5|
91065852|NCT03296527|182017559|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|9.5|||||The difference (FE 999049 - GONAL-F) in rates was estimated and a two-sided 95% Cl was constructed using the Mantel-Haenszel method to combine results across age strata.|Percentage of implanted embryos 5-6 weeks after transfer||9.5|-1.6|
91065853|NCT03296527|182017560|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|9.7|||||The difference (FE 999049 - GONAL-F) in rates was estimated and a two-sided 95% Cl was constructed using the Mantel-Haenszel method to combine results across age strata.|Percentage of participants with ongoing implantation rate||9.7|-0.9|
91065854|NCT03296527|182017561|SUPERIORITY|Logistic regression including AMH group as a factor.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.03||The p-value is based on the likelihood ratio test.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio is equal to FE 999049/GONAL-F.|Proportion of participants with \<4 or \>=15 oocytes retrieved||1.03|0.60|0.083
91065855|NCT03296527|182017561|OTHER|Logistic regression including AMH group as a factor.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.23||The p-value is based on the likelihood ratio test.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio is equal to FE 999049/GONAL-F.|Proportion of participants with \<4 or \>=20 oocytes retrieved||1.23|0.65|0.489
91065856|NCT03296527|182017562|OTHER|Treatment groups were compared using a logistic regression model including age stratum as factor.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.06||The p-value is based on the likelihood ratio test.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio is equal to FE 999049/GONAL-F.|Proportion of participants with early OHSS (any grade)||1.06|0.34|0.075
91065857|NCT03296527|182017562|OTHER|Treatment groups were compared using a logistic regression model including age stratum as factor.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.4||The p-value is based on the likelihood ratio test.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio is equal to FE 999049/GONAL-F.|Proportion of participants with early OHSS (moderate/severe)||1.40|0.40|0.365
91065858|NCT03296527|182017562|OTHER|Treatment groups were compared using a logistic regression model including age stratum as factor.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.33||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.83||The p-value is based on the likelihood ratio test.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio is equal to FE 999049/GONAL-F.|Proportion of participants with any preventive intervention||0.83|0.13|0.012
91065859|NCT03296527|182017562|OTHER|Treatment groups were compared using a logistic regression model including age stratum as factor.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.49||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.81||The p-value is based on the likelihood ratio test.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio is equal to FE 999049/GONAL-F.|Proportion of participants with early OHSS (any grade) and/or preventive interventions||0.81|0.30|0.004
91065860|NCT03296527|182017562|OTHER|Treatment groups were compared using a logistic regression model including age stratum as factor.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.56||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.95|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio is equal to FE 999049/GONAL-F.|Proportion of participants with early OHSS (moderate/severe) and/or preventive interventions||0.95|0.33|0.029
91065861|NCT03296527|182017563|OTHER|Treatment groups were compared using a logistic regression model including age stratum as factor.|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.58||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|13.74||The p-value is based on the likelihood ratio test.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio is equal to FE 999049/GONAL-F.|Proportion of participants with cycle cancellation due to poor response||13.74|1.52|0.002
91065862|NCT03296527|182017563|OTHER|Treatment groups were compared using a logistic regression model including age stratum as factor.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.62||The p-value is based on the likelihood ratio test.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio is equal to FE 999049/GONAL-F.|Proportion of participants with transfer cancellation due to excessive ovarian response/OHSS risk||0.62|0.24|<0.001
91065863|NCT03296527|182017563|OTHER|Treatment groups were compared using a logistic regression model including age stratum as factor.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.62||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.93||The p-value is based on the likelihood ratio test.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio is equal to FE 999049/GONAL-F.|Proportion of participants with cycle cancellation due to poor or excessive response, or transfer cancellation due to excessive response/OHSS risk||0.93|0.42|0.020
91065864|NCT03296527|182017564|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||2-sided|van Elteren test|p-value based on van Elteren test adjusted for age stratum.||Number of follicles \>= 10 mm||||<.001
91065865|NCT03296527|182017564|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||2-sided|van Elteren test|p-value based on van Elteren test adjusted for age stratum.||Number of follicles \>= 12 mm||||<.001
91065866|NCT03296527|182017564|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.568||||||2-sided|van Elteren test|p-value based on van Elteren test adjusted for age stratum.||Number of follicles \>= 15 mm||||0.568
91065867|NCT03296527|182017564|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.839||||||2-sided|van Elteren test|p-value based on van Elteren test adjusted for age stratum.||Number of follicles \>= 17 mm||||0.839
91065868|NCT03296527|182017565|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||van Elteren test|p-value based on van Elteren test adjusted for age stratum.||Number of follicles \>= 10 mm||||<.001
91065869|NCT03296527|182017565|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||van Elteren test|p-value based on van Elteren test adjusted for age stratum.||Number of follicles \>= 12 mm||||<.001
91065870|NCT03296527|182017565|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||van Elteren test|p-value based on van Elteren test adjusted for age stratum.||Number of follicles \>= 15 mm||||<.001
91065871|NCT03296527|182017565|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||van Elteren test|p-value based on van Elteren test adjusted for age stratum.||Number of follicles \>= 17 mm||||0.011
91065872|NCT03296527|182017566|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||van Elteren test|p-value based on van Elteren test adjusted for age stratum.||Largest follicle (mm)||||0.140
91065873|NCT03296527|182017566|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.155|||||||van Elteren test|p-value based on van Elteren test adjusted for age stratum.||Average follicle size (mm)||||0.155
91065874|NCT03296527|182017566|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.159|||||||van Elteren test|p-value based on van Elteren test adjusted for age stratum.||Treatment comparison: Average size of 3 largest follicles (mm)||||0.159
91065875|NCT03296527|182017567|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.848|||||||van Elteren test|p-value based on van Elteren test adjusted for age stratum.||Largest follicle (mm)||||0.848
91065876|NCT03296527|182017567|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.629|||||||van Elteren test|p-value based on van Elteren test adjusted for age stratum.||Average follicle size (mm)||||0.629
91065877|NCT03296527|182017567|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.768|||||||van Elteren test|p-value based on van Elteren test adjusted for age stratum.||Average size of 3 largest follicles (mm)||||0.768
91065878|NCT03296527|182017568|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||van Elteren test|p-value based on van Elteren test adjusted for age stratum.||Mean number of oocytes retrieved||||<.001
91065879|NCT03296527|182017570|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.197|||||||van Elteren test|p-value based on van Elteren test adjusted for age stratum.||Percentage of MII oocytes / oocytes retrieved||||0.197
91065880|NCT03296527|182017571|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||van Elteren test|p-value based on van Elteren test adjusted for age stratum.||Fertilization rate relative to oocytes retrieved||||0.790
91065881|NCT03296527|182017572|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||van Elteren test|p-value based on van Elteren test adjusted for age stratum.||Number of embryos on day 3||||<.001
91065882|NCT03296527|182017572|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||van Elteren test|p-value based on van Elteren test adjusted for age stratum.||Number of good-quality embryos on Day 3||||<.001
91065883|NCT03296527|182017573|SUPERIORITY||Mean ratio|0.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.88||The p-value corresponds to F-test of treatment effect.|ANCOVA|The multiplicative ANCOVA model included treatment and age stratum as fixed factors.|Mean ratio is equal to FE 999049/GONAL-F.|Circulating concentrations of LH on stimulation Day 6||0.88|0.74|<0.001
91065884|NCT03296527|182017574|SUPERIORITY||Mean ratio|0.9||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|0.98||The p-value corresponds to F-test of treatment effect.|ANCOVA|The multiplicative ANCOVA model included treatment and age stratum as fixed factors.||Circulating concentrations of LH at end-of-stimulation||0.98|0.82|0.018
91065885|NCT03296527|182017575|SUPERIORITY||Mean ratio|0.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.84||The p-value corresponds to F-test of treatment effect.|ANCOVA|The multiplicative ANCOVA model included treatment and age stratum as fixed factors.|Mean ratio is equal to FE 999049/GONAL-F.|Circulating concentrations of Estradiol on stimulation Day 6||0.84|0.70|<0.001
91065886|NCT03296527|182017576|SUPERIORITY||Mean ratio|0.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.81||The p-value corresponds to F-test of treatment effect.|ANCOVA|The multiplicative ANCOVA model included treatment and age stratum as fixed factors.|Mean ratio is equal to FE 999049/GONAL-F.|Circulating concentrations of Estradiol at end-of-stimulation||0.81|0.68|<0.001
91065887|NCT03296527|182017577|SUPERIORITY||Mean Ratio|0.89||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|0.96||The p-value corresponds to the two-sided F-test of treatment effect.|ANCOVA|The multiplicative ANCOVA model included treatment and age stratum as fixed factors.|Mean ratio is equal to FE 999049/GONAL-F.|Circulating concentrations of Progesterone on stimulation Day 6||0.96|0.82|0.003
91065888|NCT03296527|182017578|SUPERIORITY||Mean ratio|0.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.79||The p-value corresponds to F-test of treatment effect.|ANCOVA|The multiplicative ANCOVA model included treatment and age stratum as fixed factors.|Mean ratio is equal to FE 999049/GONAL-F.|Circulating concentrations of Progesterone at end-of-stimulation||0.79|0.68|<0.001
91065889|NCT03296527|182017579|SUPERIORITY||Mean ratio|0.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.83||The p-value corresponds to F-test of treatment effect.|ANCOVA|The multiplicative ANCOVA model included treatment and age stratum as fixed factors.||Circulating concentrations of Inhibin A on stimulation Day 6||0.83|0.70|<0.001
91065890|NCT03296527|182017580|SUPERIORITY||Mean ratio|0.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.83||The p-value corresponds to F-test of treatment effect.|ANCOVA|The multiplicative ANCOVA model included treatment and age stratum as fixed factors.|Mean ratio is equal to FE 999049/GONAL-F.|Circulating concentrations of Inhibin A at end-of-stimulation||0.83|0.71|<0.001
91065891|NCT03296527|182017581|SUPERIORITY||Mean ratio|0.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.89||The p-value corresponds to F-test of treatment effect.|ANCOVA|The multiplicative ANCOVA model included treatment and age stratum as fixed factors.|Mean ratio is equal to FE 999049/GONAL-F.|Circulating concentrations of Inhibin B on stimulation Day 6||0.89|0.77|<0.001
91065892|NCT03296527|182017582|SUPERIORITY||Mean ratio|0.87||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.95||The p-value corresponds to F-test of treatment effect.|ANCOVA|The multiplicative ANCOVA model included treatment and age stratum as fixed factors.|Mean ratio is equal to FE 999049/GONAL-F.|Circulating concentrations of Inhibin B at end-of-stimulation||0.95|0.80|0.001
91065893|NCT03296527|182017583|SUPERIORITY||Mean ratio|1.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.12||The p-value corresponds to F-test of treatment effect.|ANCOVA|The multiplicative ANCOVA model included treatment and age stratum as fixed factors.|Mean ratio is equal to FE 999049/GONAL-F.|Circulating concentrations of FSH on stimulation Day 6||1.12|1.04|<0.001
91065894|NCT03296527|182017584|SUPERIORITY||Mean ratio|0.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|0.95||The p-value corresponds to F-test of treatment effect.|ANCOVA|The multiplicative ANCOVA model included treatment and age stratum as fixed factors.|Mean ratio is equal to FE 999049/GONAL-F.|Circulating concentrations of FSH at end-of-stimulation||0.95|0.89|<0.001
91065895|NCT03296527|182017585|SUPERIORITY||Mean ratio|1.03||||0.184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.07||The p-value corresponds to the two-sided F-test of treatment effect.|ANCOVA|The multiplicative ANCOVA model included treatment and age stratum as fixed factors.|Mean ratio is equal to FE 999049/GONAL-F.|Circulating concentrations of FSH at oocyte retrieval visit||1.07|0.99|0.184
91065896|NCT03296527|182017586|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||van Elteren test|p-value is based on van Elteren test adjusted for AMH group.||Total gonadotropin dose||||<.001
91065897|NCT03296527|182017588|SUPERIORITY|Treatment groups were compared using the van Elteren test.||||||0.001|||||||van Elteren|p-value is based on van Elteren test adjusted for AMH group.||Number of stimulation days||||0.001
91065898|NCT01597973|182017616|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.21
91065899|NCT01597973|182017617|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.583|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5830
91065900|NCT01597973|182017618|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.07
91065901|NCT01597973|182017619|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.255|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.255
91065902|NCT01597973|182017620|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||Chi-squared|||nephrotoxicity analysis||||0.59
91065903|NCT01597973|182017620|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||Fisher Exact|||Hypersensitivity analysis||||0.22
91065904|NCT01597973|182017620|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||Chi-squared|||Hepatoxicity analysis||||0.94
91065905|NCT01597973|182017620|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Seizures analysis||||1.00
91065906|NCT01597973|182017620|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Fisher Exact|||Neurotoxicity analysis||||0.20
91065907|NCT00204490|182017640|OTHER|||||||0.071|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||(FGBT% at 1 year of treatment minus FGBT% at baseline) divided by FGBT% at baseline.||||0.071
91065908|NCT00204490|182017640|OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||(FGBT% at 2 year of treatment minus FGBT% at baseline) divided by FGBT% at baseline.||||0.080
91065909|NCT00204490|182017640|OTHER||Slope|-0.107|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045||0.019|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Mixed model|slope for interaction of treatment and time, placebo was the reference group; square root transformed outcome.|Intention to treat||||0.019
91065910|NCT03477006|182017643|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.91
91065911|NCT03477006|182017644|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.23
91065912|NCT03477006|182017645|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.76
91065913|NCT02174627|182017646|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of roxadustat compared with placebo would be declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the difference between roxadustat and placebo exceeded 0 g/dL.|LS Mean Difference|1.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|1.43|||ANCOVA|||Difference between groups (roxadustat minus placebo) in LS mean changes; MAR-based multiple imputation ANCOVA model.||1.43|1.27|<0.001
91065914|NCT02174627|182017647|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk|9.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.63|10.89|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of the percentage of responders for roxadustat versus placebo was analysed using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for baseline Hb, baseline eGFR, geographic region and CV history.||10.89|7.63|<0.001
91065915|NCT02174627|182017648|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of roxadustat compared with placebo would be declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between roxadustat and placebo exceeded 0 g/dL.|LS Mean Difference|1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.112|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.35|||ANCOVA|||Difference between groups (roxadustat minus placebo) in LS mean changes; MAR-based multiple imputation ANCOVA model.||1.35|0.91|<0.001
91065916|NCT02174627|182017649|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of roxadustat compared with placebo would be declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between roxadustat and placebo exceeded 0.|LS Mean Difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.52|||ANCOVA|||Difference between groups (roxadustat minus placebo) in LS mean changes; ANCOVA model.||0.52|0.47|<0.001
91065917|NCT02174627|182017650|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of roxadustat compared with placebo would be declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between roxadustat and placebo exceeded 0.|LS Mean Difference|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.45|||ANCOVA|||Difference between groups (roxadustat minus placebo) in LS mean changes; ANCOVA model.||0.45|0.40|<0.001
91065918|NCT02174627|182017651|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of roxadustat compared with placebo would be declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between roxadustat and placebo exceeded 0.|LS Mean Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.29|||ANCOVA|||Difference between groups (roxadustat minus placebo) in LS mean changes; ANCOVA model.||-0.29|-0.42|<0.001
91065919|NCT02174627|182017652|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of roxadustat compared with placebo would be declared if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the HR was ≤1.0.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.31|||Regression, Cox|||Treatments were compared using a Cox proportional hazards model, with baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables used as covariates, and treatment group, CV history and geographic region as fixed effects. The Efron method was used for ties and p-values were calculated using the Wald test.||0.31|0.23|<0.001
91065920|NCT02174627|182017653|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of roxadustat compared with placebo would be declared if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the HR was ≤1.0.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.44|||Regression, Cox|||Treatments were compared using a Cox proportional hazards model, with baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables used as covariates, and treatment group, CV history and geographic region as fixed effects. The Efron method was used for ties and p-values were calculated using the Wald test.||0.44|0.30|<0.001
91065921|NCT02174627|182017654|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of roxadustat compared with placebo would be declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between roxadustat and placebo exceeded 0.|LS Mean Difference|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.283||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference between groups (roxadustat minus placebo) in LS mean changes; MMRM analysis.||0.99|-0.11|0.120
91065922|NCT02174627|182017655|OTHER||Rate of Change Difference|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.254||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.01||Nominal p-value (as prior sequential outcome measure p-value did not meet \< 0.05.|Random Effects Analysis|||Difference between groups (roxadustat minus placebo) in rate of change in eGFR; random effects analysis.||-0.01|-1.00|0.046
91065923|NCT02174627|182017656|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of roxadustat compared with placebo would be declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between roxadustat and placebo exceeded 0.|LS Mean Difference|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.269||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.05||Nominal p-value (as prior sequential outcome measure p-value did not meet \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference between groups (roxadustat minus placebo) in LS mean changes; MMRM analysis.||1.05|0.00|0.051
91065924|NCT02166333|182017657|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.15||The P value is nominal and two-sided.|Log Rank||The Experience on Best Dose versus 200 IU/day hazard ratio and its 95% confidence interval were derived from a Cox regression model with dose group as the single model variable.|The Experience on Best Dose group includes all participants assigned or switched to best dose (1000 IU/day) and excludes 41 participants randomized to 2000 or 4000 IU/day who were never issued a bottle of best dose. For those randomized to 2000 or 4000 IU/day, at-risk time and events are measured from the date of their switch to best dose. 150 Experience on Best Dose participants (median follow-up, 10.2 mos) and 125 200 IU/day participants (median follow-up, 20.3 mos) were censored.||1.15|0.76|0.54
91065925|NCT02166333|182017657|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.25|||||The comparison of the Pooled Higher Doses group versus the 200 IU/d group is a sensitivity analysis.|||1.25|0.86|
91065926|NCT02166333|182017658|SUPERIORITY|The overall P tests for difference between groups in differential change from baseline over time and is from a 3 degree of freedom test of the combined 3 treatment-by-time interaction terms from the longitudinal mixed effects model.||||||0.15||||||The P value is nominal and not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|3 degree of freedom interaction test||The two groups were assessed for differential change over time in change from baseline using a longitudinal mixed effects regression model with gait speed as the outcome and fixed effects including a single treatment term, 3 time point terms and 3 treatment-by-time interaction terms and a random intercept for participant.||||0.15
91065927|NCT00503698|182017664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.97||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.57|||Regression, Cox|Time to all-cause death analysed using stratified Cox regression model with treatment and sex as fixed factors, age and time in dialysis as covariates||||1.57|0.60|0.91
91065928|NCT00503698|182017665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.88||||0.4977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.28|||Regression, Cox|Time to all-cause death analysed using stratified Cox regression model with treatment and sex as fixed factors, age and time in dialysis as covariates||||1.28|0.60|0.4977
91065929|NCT00503698|182017666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|1.13||||0.4409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.53|||Negative binomial regression|||||1.53|0.83|0.4409
91065930|NCT01766076|182017669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Mann Whitney test was used for nonparametric variables||||||<0.05
91065931|NCT03655405|182017724|SUPERIORITY||Incidence Rate Ratio|0.972||||0.723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.138|||Regression, Poisson|Number of PIMs at follow-up, adjusted for baseline value||||1.138|0.830|0.723
91065932|NCT03655405|182017725|SUPERIORITY||Incidence Rate Ratio|0.763||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.594|0.979|||Regression, Poisson|Number of potentially inappropriate DDD at follow-up, adjusted for baseline value||||0.979|0.594|0.033
91065933|NCT03655405|182017726|SUPERIORITY||Incidence Rate Ratio|0.915||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.834|1.005|||Regression, Poisson|Number of chronic drugs at follow-up, adjusted for baseline value||||1.005|0.834|0.064
91065934|NCT03655405|182017727|SUPERIORITY||Incidence Rate Ratio|1.019||||0.857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.833|1.246|||Regression, Poisson|Number of chronic drugs at follow-up, adjusted for baseline value||||1.246|0.833|0.857
91065935|NCT03655405|182017729|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.36||||0.769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|7.89|||Regression, Linear|Scale value at follow-up, adjusted for baseline value||Analysis for the scale component||7.89|-10.60|0.769
91065936|NCT03655405|182017729|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.096||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.202|0.01|||Regression, Linear|Scale value at follow-up, adjusted for baseline value||Analysis for the index component||0.01|-0.202|0.075
91065937|NCT03655405|182017730|SUPERIORITY||Incidence Rate Ratio|1.237||||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.886|1.727|||Mixed-effect regression, Poisson|Number at follow-up, adjusted for baseline value||||1.727|0.886|0.212
91065938|NCT03655405|182017731|SUPERIORITY||p-value|0.675||||0.675|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.675
91065939|NCT03655405|182017732|SUPERIORITY||p-value|0.615||||0.615|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.615
91065940|NCT03655405|182017733|SUPERIORITY||p-value|0.366||||0.366|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.366
91065941|NCT03655405|182017734|SUPERIORITY||p-value|0.738||||0.738|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.738
91065942|NCT03655405|182017735|SUPERIORITY||p-value|0.781||||0.781|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.781
91065943|NCT03655405|182017736|SUPERIORITY||p-value|0.958||||0.958|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.958
91065944|NCT03655405|182017737|SUPERIORITY||p-value|0.911||||0.911|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.911
91065945|NCT05151744|182017752|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|3.4||||0.0625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|7.0|||MMRM|||||7.0|-0.2|0.0625
91065946|NCT05151744|182017754|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|2.7||||0.2052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|7.0|||MMRM|||||7.0|-1.5|0.2052
91065947|NCT05151744|182017755|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|3.3||||0.0192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|6.0|||MMRM|||||6.0|0.5|0.0192
91065948|NCT05151744|182017756|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|2.5||||0.0637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|5.2|||MMRM|||||5.2|-0.1|0.0637
91065949|NCT05151744|182017757|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|0.8||||0.7091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|4.9|||MMRM|||||4.9|-3.3|0.7091
91065950|NCT05151744|182017758|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|1.8||||0.1107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|4.1|||MMRM|||||4.1|-0.4|0.1107
91065951|NCT05151744|182017759|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|2.1||||0.1498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|5.0|||MMRM|||||5.0|-0.8|0.1498
91065952|NCT05151744|182017760|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|1.8||||0.3783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|6.0|||MMRM|||||6.0|-2.3|0.3783
91065953|NCT05151744|182017761|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|1.9||||0.1036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|4.3|||MMRM|||||4.3|-0.4|0.1036
91065954|NCT05151744|182017768|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|-10.0||||0.4968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.9|18.9|||MMRM|||||18.9|-38.9|0.4968
91065955|NCT05151744|182017769|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|-23.2||||0.3951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.8|30.5|||MMRM|||||30.5|-76.8|0.3951
91065956|NCT05151744|182017770|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|-22.8||||0.0521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.8|0.2|||MMRM|||||0.2|-45.8|0.0521
91065957|NCT05151744|182017771|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|-17.5||||0.2227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.7|10.7|||MMRM|||||10.7|-45.7|0.2227
91065958|NCT05151744|182017772|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|-27.2||||0.2972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.6|24.2|||MMRM|||||24.2|-78.6|0.2972
91065959|NCT05151744|182017773|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|-19.4||||0.1071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.9|4.2|||MMRM|||||4.2|-42.9|0.1071
91065960|NCT05151744|182017774|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|-14.6||||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.4|13.2|||MMRM|||||13.2|-42.4|0.3030
91065961|NCT05151744|182017775|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|-43.0||||0.0878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-92.4|6.4|||MMRM|||||6.4|-92.4|0.0878
91065962|NCT05151744|182017776|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|-22.3||||0.1111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.8|5.2|||MMRM|||||5.2|-49.8|0.1111
91065963|NCT02565628|182017781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-5.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.49||0.6382|ONE_SIDED|90.0||8.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.97||0.6382
91065964|NCT03771898|182017799|SUPERIORITY|Survival probability free of loss of locomotion estimated up to Week 106 (or two years).|Difference in survival probability (%)|-2.2|||=|0.585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.2|17.7||One-sided, over time intervals during entire follow-up. Stratified generalized log-rank test was used, where matching identification created from matching process in SAS PSMATCH Procedure used as strata.|Log Rank||For the shared time interval up to Week 106 (or two years).|Interval censoring survival analysis.||17.7|-22.2|=0.585
91065965|NCT03123120|182017821|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.232|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.568|0.118|||||Risk difference was calculated as the observed proportion of response from Spesolimab minus the one from Placebo. Newcombe method was used in the calculation of the 95% confidence interval around the risk difference.|||0.118|-0.568|
91065966|NCT03123120|182017822|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.054|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.404|0.21|||||Risk difference was calculated as the observed proportion of response from Spesolimab minus the one from Placebo. Newcombe method was used in the calculation of the 95% confidence interval around the risk difference.|||0.210|-0.404|
91065967|NCT03123120|182017823|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.286|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.602|0.101|||||Risk difference was calculated as the observed proportion of response from Spesolimab minus the one from Placebo. Newcombe method was used in the calculation of the 95% confidence interval around the risk difference.|||0.101|-0.602|
91065968|NCT03123120|182017824|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.143|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.197|0.399|||||Risk difference was calculated as the observed proportion of response from Spesolimab minus the one from Placebo. Newcombe method was used in the calculation of the 95% confidence interval around the risk difference.|||0.399|-0.197|
91065969|NCT03135548|182017827|OTHER|No formal hypothesis testing was performed in this trial.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.078|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.338|||Wilson/Newcombe|95% confidence intervals (CI) are calculated using the method of Wilson/Newcombe.|Unadjusted absolute risk difference versus placebo was calculated as the difference in the observed proportion of patients with ppPASI50 at Week 16 for each treatment scenario, for the FAS.|||0.338|-0.190|
91065970|NCT03135548|182017827|OTHER|No formal hypothesis testing was performed in this trial.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.078|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.338|||Wilson/Newcombe|95% CIs are calculated using the method of Wilson/Newcombe.|Unadjusted absolute risk difference versus placebo was calculated as the difference in the observed proportion of patients with ppPASI50 at Week 16 for each treatment scenario, for the FAS.|||0.338|-0.190|
91065971|NCT03135548|182017829|OTHER|No formal hypothesis testing was performed in this trial.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.095|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.289|0.086|||Wilson/Newcombe|95% CIs are calculated using the method of Wilson/Newcombe.|Unadjusted absolute risk difference versus placebo was calculated as the difference in the observed proportion of patients with ppPASI50 at Week 16 for each treatment scenario, for the FAS.|||0.086|-0.289|
91065972|NCT03135548|182017829|OTHER|No formal hypothesis testing was performed in this trial.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.115|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.116|0.348|||Wilson/Newcombe|95% CIs are calculated using the method of Wilson/Newcombe.|Unadjusted absolute risk difference versus placebo was calculated as the difference in the observed proportion of patients with ppPASI50 at Week 16 for each treatment scenario, for the FAS.|||0.348|-0.116|
91065973|NCT03135548|182017830|OTHER|No formal hypothesis testing was performed in this trial.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.01|34.48|||Student's t-distribution|CIs were based on Student's t-distribution.||||34.48|-20.01|
91065974|NCT03135548|182017830|OTHER|No formal hypothesis testing was performed in this trial.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.35|16.7|||Student's t-distribution|CIs were based on Student's t-distribution.||||16.70|-28.35|
91065975|NCT03135548|182017831|OTHER|No formal hypothesis testing was performed in this trial.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.143|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.346|0.049|||Wilson/Newcombe|95% CIs are calculated using the method of Wilson/Newcombe.||||0.049|-0.346|
91065976|NCT03135548|182017831|OTHER|No formal hypothesis testing was performed in this trial.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.015|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.213|0.252|||Wilson/Newcombe|95% CIs are calculated using the method of Wilson/Newcombe.||||0.252|-0.213|
91065977|NCT05022667|182017885|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3
91065978|NCT05022667|182017886|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.5
91065979|NCT05022667|182017887|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.2
91065980|NCT05022667|182017888|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3
91065981|NCT05022667|182017889|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.4
91065982|NCT05022667|182017891|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.3
91065983|NCT03521154|182017894|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.24|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio \< 1 favours osimertinib|||0.24|0.10|<0.001
91065984|NCT03521154|182017895|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.29|||Cox proportional hazard model||A hazard ratio \< 1 favours osimertinib|PFS in Ex19Del positive patients||0.29|0.10|
91065985|NCT03521154|182017895|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.32||||||95.0|0.19|0.56|||Cox proportional hazard model||A hazard ratio \< 1 favours osimertinib|PFS in L858R positive patients||0.56|0.19|
91065986|NCT03521154|182017896|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.34|||Cox proportional hazard model||A hazard ratio \< 1 favours osimertinib|Negative at screening||0.34|0.15|
91065987|NCT03521154|182017897|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.32|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio \< 1 favours osimertinib|||0.32|0.09|<0.001
91065988|NCT03521154|182017899|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.56|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio \< 1 favours osimertinib|||1.56|0.42|0.530
91065989|NCT03521154|182017900|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|5.08|||Regression, Logistic||An odds ratio \> 1 favours osimertinib|||5.08|1.54|<0.001
91065990|NCT03521154|182017902|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.06||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|4.47|||Regression, Logistic||An odds ratio \> 1 favours osimertinib.|||4.47|0.94|0.069
91065991|NCT03521154|182017905|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.38|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio \< 1 favours osimertinib|||0.38|0.11|<0.001
91065992|NCT03521154|182017906|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.32|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio \< 1 favours osimertinib|||0.32|0.14|<0.001
91065993|NCT03521154|182017907|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.21|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio \< 1 favours osimertinib|||0.21|0.08|<0.001
91065994|NCT03521154|182017908|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.91|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio \< 1 favours osimertinib|||0.91|0.28|0.022
91065995|NCT03521154|182017909|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.08|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio \< 1 favours osimertinib|||1.08|0.35|0.088
91065996|NCT04632927|182017910|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.647||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.601|8.311|||Regression, Logistic|The OR was calculated using a logistic regression model with treatment group, baseline HAQ-DI and strata (body weight) as independent variables||||8.311|1.601|0.002
91065997|NCT04795466|182017935|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.069|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1442||0.6386|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.178|0.316|||Mixed Models Analysis|||NTB Total z-score - day 171||0.316|-0.178|0.6386
91065998|NCT04795466|182017936|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1739||0.9917|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|0.296|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Memory function - day 171||0.296|-0.300|0.9917
91065999|NCT04795466|182017937|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean difference|0.186|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1958||0.351|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.148|0.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Executive function- day 171||0.520|-0.148|0.3510
91066000|NCT04795466|182017938|SUPERIORITY||Repeated measures analysis|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.787|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.56|2.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||DSST - day 171||2.58|-3.56|0.7870
91066001|NCT01624740|182017961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Period effect p=0.11||||||0.74
91066002|NCT00529087|182018002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|24.4|||<|0.001||95.0|17.3|31.4|||Chi-squared|||||31.4|17.3|<0.001
91066003|NCT00529087|182018003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|19.5|||<|0.001||95.0|15.1|24.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||24.0|15.1|<0.001
91066004|NCT00529087|182018003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|20.9|||<|0.001||95.0|16.1|25.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||||25.7|16.1|<0.001
91066005|NCT00529087|182018004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|Log-rank test for comparisons of survival distributions||||||<0.001
91066006|NCT00529087|182018005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|1.6|||<|0.001||95.0|1.1|2.1|||ANCOVA|Treatment as factor and baseline weekly RFBM as covariate||||2.1|1.1|<0.001
91066007|NCT00529087|182018005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|0.7||||0.011||95.0|0.2|1.2|||ANCOVA|Treatment as factor and baseline weekly RFBM as covariate||||1.2|0.2|0.011
91066008|NCT00529087|182018007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|20.4|||<|0.001||95.0|9.5|31.3|||Chi-squared|||||31.3|9.5|<0.001
91066009|NCT00529087|182018007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|7.0||||0.212||95.0|-4.0|18.0|||Chi-squared|||||18.0|-4.0|0.212
91066010|NCT00529087|182018008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The statistical analysis for all time points (1, 2, 3 and 6 hours) is only shown once as the p value is the same for all time points.||||<0.001
91066011|NCT00529087|182018008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The statistical analysis for all time points (1, 2, 3 and 6 hours) is only shown once as the p value is the same for all time points.||||<0.001
91066012|NCT00529087|182018009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.5|||<|0.001||95.0|11.2|17.9|||ANOVA|Treatment as a factor||1 hour||17.9|11.2|<0.001
91066013|NCT00529087|182018009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.0|||<|0.001||95.0|4.6|11.4|||ANOVA|Treatment as a factor||1 hour||11.4|4.6|<0.001
91066014|NCT00529087|182018009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.5|||<|0.001||95.0|14.4|22.5|||ANOVA|Treatment as a factor||2 hours||22.5|14.4|<0.001
91066015|NCT00529087|182018009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.4|||<|0.001||95.0|6.3|14.5|||ANOVA|Treatment as a factor||2 hours||14.5|6.3|<0.001
91066016|NCT00529087|182018009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.3|||<|0.001||95.0|15.0|23.5|||ANOVA|Treatment as a factor||3 hours||23.5|15.0|<0.001
91066017|NCT00529087|182018009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.0|||<|0.001||95.0|6.7|15.3|||ANOVA|Treatment as a factor||3 hours||15.3|6.7|<0.001
91066018|NCT00529087|182018009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.5|||<|0.001||95.0|15.2|23.9|||ANOVA|Treatment as a factor||4 hours||23.9|15.2|<0.001
91066019|NCT00529087|182018009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.0|||<|0.001||95.0|6.6|15.4|||ANOVA|Treatment as a factor||4 hours||15.4|6.6|<0.001
91066020|NCT00529087|182018009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.7|||<|0.001||95.0|15.2|24.1|||ANOVA|Treatment as a factor||6 hours||24.1|15.2|<0.001
91066021|NCT00529087|182018009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.7|||<|0.001||95.0|6.2|15.2|||ANOVA|Treatment as a factor||6 hours||15.2|6.2|<0.001
91066022|NCT00529087|182018010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|21.0|||<|0.001||95.0|10.2|31.9|||Chi-squared|||||31.9|10.2|<0.001
91066023|NCT00529087|182018010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|5.6||||0.316||95.0|-5.3|16.5|||Chi-squared|||||16.5|-5.3|0.316
91066024|NCT00529087|182018011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|19.7|||<|0.001||95.0|9.4|30.1|||Chi-squared|||||30.1|9.4|<0.001
91066025|NCT00529087|182018011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|13.3||||0.016||95.0|2.6|24.0|||Chi-squared|||||24.0|2.6|0.016
91066026|NCT00529087|182018012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4|||<|0.001||95.0|1.0|1.9|||ANCOVA|Treatment as factor, Baseline as covariate||||1.9|1.0|<0.001
91066027|NCT00529087|182018012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.102||95.0|-0.1|0.8|||ANCOVA|Treatment as factor, Baseline as covariate||||0.8|-0.1|0.102
91066028|NCT00529087|182018013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|1.1|||<|0.001||95.0|0.6|1.5|||ANCOVA|||||1.5|0.6|<0.001
91066029|NCT00529087|182018013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|0.4|||<|0.001||95.0|0.0|0.9|||ANCOVA|||||0.9|0.0|<0.001
91066030|NCT00529087|182018014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|||<|0.001||95.0|0.8|1.6|||ANCOVA|Treatment as factor, Baseline as covariate||||1.6|0.8|<0.001
91066031|NCT00529087|182018014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.012||95.0|0.1|0.9|||ANCOVA|Treatment as factor, Baseline as covariate||||0.9|0.1|0.012
91066032|NCT00529087|182018015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.002||95.0|0.2|0.7|||ANCOVA|Treatment as factor, Baseline as covariate||||0.7|0.2|0.002
91066033|NCT00529087|182018015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.119||95.0|-0.1|0.5|||ANCOVA|Treatment as factor, Baseline as covariate||||0.5|-0.1|0.119
91066034|NCT00529087|182018016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|-0.3||||0.008||95.0|-0.5|-0.1|||ANCOVA|Treatment as factor, Baseline as covariate||||-0.1|-0.5|0.008
91066035|NCT00529087|182018016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|-0.2||||0.015||95.0|-0.5|0.0|||ANCOVA|Treatment as factor, Baseline as covariate||||0.0|-0.5|0.015
91066036|NCT00529087|182018019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.731||95.0|-5.4|7.7|||ANCOVA|Treatment as factor, Baseline as covariate||||7.7|-5.4|0.731
91066037|NCT00529087|182018019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.779||95.0|-5.6|7.5|||ANCOVA|Treatment as factor, Baseline as covariate||||7.5|-5.6|0.779
91066038|NCT00529087|182018020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|5.6||||0.023||95.0|0.8|10.4|||ANCOVA|Treatment as factor, baseline as covariate||||10.4|0.8|0.023
91066039|NCT00529087|182018020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|2.8||||0.258||95.0|-2.0|7.6|||ANCOVA|Treatment as factor, baseline as covariate||||7.6|-2.0|0.258
91066040|NCT00529087|182018022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.0||||0.071||95.0|-0.6|14.5|||ANCOVA|Treatment as factor, baseline as covariate||||14.5|-0.6|0.071
91066041|NCT00529087|182018022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.6||||0.087||95.0|-1.0|14.2|||ANCOVA|Treatment as factor, baseline as covariate||||14.2|-1.0|0.087
91066042|NCT00529087|182018023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.6||||0.038||95.0|0.4|14.7|||ANCOVA|Treatment as factor, baseline as covariate||||14.7|0.4|0.038
91066043|NCT00529087|182018023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.3||||0.237||95.0|-2.8|11.5|||ANCOVA|Treatment as factor, baseline as covariate||||11.5|-2.8|0.237
91066044|NCT01598064|182018024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.25
91066045|NCT02612623|182018063|OTHER||LSM Difference|-0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.08|0.96|||||Gefapixant minus Placebo|Least squares mean (LSM) difference: Mixed effect repeated measures model (MMRM) uses the change from baseline as the dependent variable, and includes the treatment group, visit day, and the interaction between treatment and visit as fixed factors, and baseline as a covariate.||0.96|-2.08|
91066046|NCT02612623|182018063|OTHER||LSM Difference|-0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|0.92|||||Gefapixant minus Placebo|LSM difference: MMRM uses the change from baseline as the dependent variable, and includes the treatment group, visit day, and the interaction between treatment and visit as fixed factors, and baseline as a covariate.||0.92|-2.34|
91066047|NCT02612623|182018063|OTHER||LSM Difference|-1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.99|0.3|||||Gefapixant minus Placebo|LSM difference: MMRM uses the change from baseline as the dependent variable, and includes the treatment group, visit day, and the interaction between treatment and visit as fixed factors, and baseline as a covariate.||0.30|-2.99|
91066048|NCT02612623|182018063|OTHER||Percentage Change|-42.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-87.5|162.3|||||100 x \[(Exponent of LSM Difference) minus 1\]|Estimated Percentage Change: MMRM uses the change from baseline as the dependent variable, and includes the treatment group, visit day, and the interaction between treatment and visit as fixed factors, and baseline as a covariate.||162.3|-87.5|
91066049|NCT02612623|182018063|OTHER||Percentage Change|-50.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-90.3|151.1|||||100 x \[(Exponent of LSM Difference) minus 1\]|Estimated Percentage Change: MMRM uses the change from baseline as the dependent variable, and includes the treatment group, visit day, and the interaction between treatment and visit as fixed factors, and baseline as a covariate.||151.1|-90.3|
91066050|NCT02612623|182018063|OTHER||Percentage Change|-74.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-95.0|34.7|||||100 x \[(Exponent of LSM Difference) minus 1\]|Estimated Percentage Change: MMRM uses the change from baseline as the dependent variable, and includes the treatment group, visit day, and the interaction between treatment and visit as fixed factors, and baseline as a covariate.||34.7|-95.0|
91066051|NCT02535026|182018102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||Chi-squared|||ER status association with age groups||||0.280
91066052|NCT02535026|182018103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||ER status association with nuclear grade.||||<0.001
91066053|NCT02535026|182018104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.03|||||||Chi-squared|||ER status association with lymphovascular invasion.||||=0.03
91066054|NCT02535026|182018105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.004|||||||Chi-squared|||PR status association with age groups||||=0.004
91066055|NCT02535026|182018106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||PR status association with nuclear grade.||||<0.001
91066056|NCT02535026|182018107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.025|||||||ANOVA|||PR status association with lymphovascular invasion.||||=0.025
91066057|NCT02535026|182018108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.056|||||||ANOVA|||HER2 status association with age groups.||||=0.056
91066058|NCT02535026|182018109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||HER2 status association with nuclear grade.||||<0.001
91066059|NCT02535026|182018110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.129|||||||Chi-squared|||||||=0.129
91066060|NCT02535026|182018111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.003|||||||ANOVA|||Breast cancer phenotypes association with age groups.||||=0.003
91066061|NCT02535026|182018112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Breast cancer phenotypes association with nuclear grades.||||<0.001
91066062|NCT02535026|182018113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||phenotypes of breast cancer association with lymphovascular invasion.||||=0.001
91066063|NCT02535026|182018114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||phenotypes of breast cancer association with ER status.||||<0.001
91066064|NCT02535026|182018115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Phenotypes of breast cancer association with PR status.||||<0.001
91066065|NCT02535026|182018116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||phenotypes of breast cancer association with HER2 status.||||<0.001
91066066|NCT01671007|182018118|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.08|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio of dabigatran versus vitamin K antagonist (vitamin K antagonist as reference).|A multivariable Cox regression model was performed including variables of treatment, age, gender, prior bleed, previous stroke/transient ischaemic attack/systemic embolism, previous myocardial infarction, abnormal kidney function and concomitant antiplatelets use.||1.08|0.64|
91066067|NCT01671007|182018119|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.27|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio of dabigatran versus vitamin K antagonist (vitamin K antagonist as reference).|A multivariable Cox regression model was performed including variables of treatment, age, gender, prior bleed, previous stroke/transient ischaemic attack/systemic embolism, previous myocardial infarction, abnormal kidney function and concomitant antiplatelets use.||1.27|0.70|
91066068|NCT01671007|182018120|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.06|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio of dabigatran versus vitamin K antagonist (vitamin K antagonist as reference).|A multivariable Cox regression model was performed including variables of treatment, age, gender, prior bleed, previous stroke/transient ischaemic attack/systemic embolism, previous myocardial infarction, abnormal kidney function and concomitant antiplatelets use.||1.06|0.43|
91066069|NCT01671007|182018121|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.09|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio of dabigatran versus vitamin K antagonist (vitamin K antagonist as reference).|A multivariable Cox regression model was performed including variables of treatment, age, gender, prior bleed, previous stroke/transient ischaemic attack/systemic embolism, previous myocardial infarction, abnormal kidney function and concomitant antiplatelets use.||1.09|0.43|
91066070|NCT01671007|182018125|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.88|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio of dabigatran versus vitamin K antagonist (vitamin K antagonist as reference).|A multivariable Cox regression model was performed including variables of treatment, age, gender, prior bleed, previous myocardial infarction, abnormal kidney function, concomitant antiplatelets use and concomitant use of drugs related to bleeding.||0.88|0.38|
91066071|NCT01671007|182018128|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.84|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio of dabigatran versus vitamin K antagonist (vitamin K antagonist as reference).|A multivariable Cox regression model was performed including variables of treatment, age, gender, prior bleed, previous myocardial infarction, concomitant antiplatelets use, concomitant use of drugs related to bleeding, hypertension, and diabetes.||1.84|0.49|
91066072|NCT01671007|182018129|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.01|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio of dabigatran versus vitamin K antagonist (vitamin K antagonist as reference).|A multivariable Cox regression model was performed including variables of treatment, age, gender, prior bleed, previous stroke/transient ischaemic attack/systemic embolism, previous myocardial infarction, abnormal kidney function and concomitant antiplatelets use.||1.01|0.60|
91066073|NCT00449865|182018147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45|TWO_SIDED||||||Global Statistical Test|The global statistical test yielded t = -0.75 (2-sided p-value = .45, df=1865.8).||||||0.45
91066074|NCT00406367|182018148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.5||No type I-error adjustment was necessary in this study.|ANCOVA|Indepent variables in the model were treatment, baseline JRS-Severity score, gender, age, dose, and pooled center.||The null hypothesis in the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was the absence of difference in the change from baseline in the JRS severity subscore between incobotulinumtoxinA (Xeomin) and placebo. The ANCOVA model was performed 2-sided (type-I error=5 percent) and change from baseline in the JRS Severity subscore assessed by a blinded Independent Rater as dependent variable. The independent variables were treatment, baseline JRS Severity subscore, gender, age, dose group, and pooled center.||-0.5|-1.4|<0.001
91066075|NCT01262872|182018168|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Vaccine efficacy (VE) estimated as \[(1-Relative Risk (i.e. investigational vaccine over control vaccine))\*100\] with 95% CI was calculated. Denominator considered for deriving VE at a considered time point was the number of subjects with swabs cultured at this time point. Power using 2 independent proportions, 1:1 randomization ratio, 1-sided test to detect group difference, 1-sided alpha=2.5%.|VE|-7.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.3|14.6||||||VE-10PP-LD 3+0d vs Synflorix 3+0d - 1M post-Dose 3. The analysis aimed to compare occurrences in terms of percentage of subjects with positive nasopharyngeal sample out of the number of subjects with swabs cultured, between 2 groups, one month (M) post-dose 3 of pneumococcal vaccine administered (10PP vaccine or Synflorix™).||14.6|-36.3|
91066076|NCT01262872|182018168|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Vaccine efficacy (VE) estimated as \[(1-Relative Risk (i.e. investigational vaccine over control vaccine))\*100\] with 95% CI was calculated. Denominator considered for deriving VE at a considered time point was the number of subjects with swabs cultured at this time point. Power using 2 independent proportions, 1:1 randomization ratio, 1-sided test to detect group difference, 1-sided alpha=2.5%.|VE|6.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|25.7||||||VE-10PP-LD 3+0d vs Synflorix 3+0d - 5M post-Dose 3. The analysis aimed to compare occurrences in terms of percentage of subjects with positive nasopharyngeal sample out of the number of subjects with swabs cultured, between 2 groups, five months (M) post-dose 3 of pneumococcal vaccine administered (10PP vaccine or Synflorix™).||25.7|-17.8|
91066077|NCT01262872|182018168|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Vaccine efficacy (VE) estimated as \[(1-Relative Risk (i.e. investigational vaccine over control vaccine))\*100\] with 95% CI was calculated. Denominator considered for deriving VE at a considered time point was the number of subjects with swabs cultured at this time point. Power using 2 independent proportions, 1:1 randomization ratio, 1-sided test to detect group difference, 1-sided alpha=2.5%.|VE|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.6|22.5||||||VE-10PP-LD 3+0d vs Synflorix 3+0d - 8M post-Dose 3. The analysis aimed to compare occurrences in terms of percentage of subjects with positive nasopharyngeal sample out of the number of subjects with swabs cultured, between 2 groups, eight months (M) post-dose 3 of pneumococcal vaccine administered (10PP vaccine or Synflorix™).||22.5|-22.6|
91066078|NCT01262872|182018168|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Vaccine efficacy (VE) estimated as \[(1-Relative Risk (i.e. investigational vaccine over control vaccine))\*100\] with 95% CI was calculated. Denominator considered for deriving VE at a considered time point was the number of subjects with swabs cultured at this time point. Power using 2 independent proportions, 1:1 randomization ratio, 1-sided test to detect group difference, 1-sided alpha=2.5%.|VE|4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.4|25.0||||||VE-10PP-HD 3+0d vs Synflorix 3+0d - 1M post-Dose 3. The analysis aimed to compare occurrences in terms of percentage of subjects with positive nasopharyngeal sample out of the number of subjects with swabs cultured, between 2 groups, one month (M) post-dose 3 of pneumococcal vaccine administered (10PP vaccine or Synflorix™).||25.0|-21.4|
91066079|NCT01262872|182018168|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Vaccine efficacy (VE) estimated as \[(1-Relative Risk (i.e. investigational vaccine over control vaccine))\*100\] with 95% CI was calculated. Denominator considered for deriving VE at a considered time point was the number of subjects with swabs cultured at this time point. Power using 2 independent proportions, 1:1 randomization ratio, 1-sided test to detect group difference, 1-sided alpha=2.5%.|VE|5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.2|24.8||||||VE-10PP-HD 3+0d vs Synflorix 3+0d - 5M post-Dose 3. The analysis aimed to compare occurrences in terms of percentage of subjects with positive nasopharyngeal sample out of the number of subjects with swabs cultured, between 2 groups, five months (M) post-dose 3 of pneumococcal vaccine administered (10PP vaccine or Synflorix™).||24.8|-19.2|
91066080|NCT01262872|182018168|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Vaccine efficacy (VE) estimated as \[(1-Relative Risk (i.e. investigational vaccine over control vaccine))\*100\] with 95% CI was calculated. Denominator considered for deriving VE at a considered time point was the number of subjects with swabs cultured at this time point. Power using 2 independent proportions, 1:1 randomization ratio, 1-sided test to detect group difference, 1-sided alpha=2.5%.|VE|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.9|20.9||||||VE-10PP-HD 3+0d vs Synflorix 3+0d - 8M post-Dose 3. The analysis aimed to compare occurrences in terms of percentage of subjects with positive nasopharyngeal sample out of the number of subjects with swabs cultured, between 2 groups, eight months (M) post-dose 3 of pneumococcal vaccine administered (10PP vaccine or Synflorix™).||20.9|-24.9|
91066081|NCT01262872|182018169|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Vaccine efficacy (VE) estimated as \[(1-Relative Risk (i.e. investigational vaccine over control vaccine))\*100\] with 95% CI was calculated. Denominator considered for deriving VE at a considered time point was the number of subjects with swabs cultured at this time point. Power using 2 independent proportions, 1:1 randomization ratio, 1-sided test to detect group difference, 1-sided alpha=2.5%.|VE (see above)|6.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.2|26.2||||||VE-10PP-HD 2+1d vs Synflorix 2+1d - 1M post-Dose 2. The analysis aimed to compare occurrences in terms of percentage of subjects with positive nasopharyngeal sample out of the number of subjects with swabs cultured, between 2 groups, one month (M) post-dose 2 of pneumococcal vaccine administered (10PP vaccine or Synflorix™).||26.2|-18.2|
91066082|NCT01262872|182018169|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Vaccine efficacy (VE) estimated as \[(1-Relative Risk (i.e. investigational vaccine over control vaccine))\*100\] with 95% CI was calculated. Denominator considered for deriving VE at a considered time point was the number of subjects with swabs cultured at this time point. Power using 2 independent proportions, 1:1 randomization ratio, 1-sided test to detect group difference, 1-sided alpha=2.5%.|VE (see above)|6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|25.7||||||VE-10PP-HD 2+1d vs Synflorix 2+1d - 5M post-Dose 2. The analysis aimed to compare occurrences in terms of percentage of subjects with positive nasopharyngeal sample out of the number of subjects with swabs cultured, between 2 groups, five months (M) post-dose 2 of pneumococcal vaccine administered (10PP vaccine or Synflorix™).||25.7|-18.0|
91066083|NCT01262872|182018169|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Vaccine efficacy (VE) estimated as \[(1-Relative Risk (i.e. investigational vaccine over control vaccine))\*100\] with 95% CI was calculated. Denominator considered for deriving VE at a considered time point was the number of subjects with swabs cultured at this time point. Power using 2 independent proportions, 1:1 randomization ratio, 1-sided test to detect group difference, 1-sided alpha=2.5%.|VE (see above)|-3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.3|17.2||||||VE-10PP-HD 2+1d vs Synflorix 2+1d - 3M post-Dose 3. The analysis aimed to compare occurrences in terms of percentage of subjects with positive nasopharyngeal sample out of the number of subjects with swabs cultured, between 2 groups, three months (M) post-dose 3 of pneumococcal vaccine administered (10PP vaccine or Synflorix™).||17.2|-29.3|
91066084|NCT00720213|182018279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.98|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.03||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|6.51|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||Each participant was treated with the BiPAP autoSV2 (ASV2) and autoSV Advanced (ASV3) on two separate nights; therefore, the data were analyzed as paired samples. Depending on normality, each endpoint was analyzed with either a paired t-test or the nonparametric Wilcoxon Signed Ranks test. All comparisons were 2-sided conducted at a 5% level of significance.||6.51|1.44|0.0054
91066085|NCT02949973|182018307|OTHER||Percentage|70.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91066086|NCT02949973|182018308|OTHER||Percentage|40.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91066087|NCT02949973|182018309|OTHER||Percentage|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91066088|NCT02949973|182018310|OTHER||Percentage|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91066089|NCT02949973|182018311|OTHER||Percentage|70.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.8|93.3||||||||93.3|34.8|
91066090|NCT02949973|182018312|OTHER||Percentage|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.7|84.3||||||||84.3|15.7|
91066091|NCT01420068|182018314|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.31||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.74|3.37||p-value for statistical significance at 0.05 level for 2-sided superiority testing.|ANCOVA|Treatment regimen, region, age strata, and hypertension etiology (primary, secondary) as factors, and Baseline weight as covariates.||||3.37|-2.74|0.840
91066092|NCT01420068|182018315|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.69||||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|2.02||p-value for statistical significance at 0.05 level for 2-sided superiority testing.|ANCOVA|Treatment regimen, region, age strata, and hypertension etiology (primary, secondary) as factors, and Baseline height as covariates.||||2.02|-0.63|0.303
91066093|NCT01420068|182018316|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03||||0.957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|1.12||p-value for statistical significance at 0.05 level for 2-sided superiority testing.|ANCOVA|Treatment regimen, region, age strata, and hypertension etiology (primary, secondary) as factors, and Baseline BMI as covariates.||||1.12|-1.06|0.957
91066094|NCT01420068|182018318|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02||||0.992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.29|3.33||p-value for statistical significance at 0.05 level for 2-sided superiority testing.|ANCOVA|Treatment regimen, region, age strata, and Baseline weight as covariates||Primary Hypertension group (at LT Visit 18 \[Week 104\])||3.33|-3.29|0.992
91066095|NCT01420068|182018318|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.06||||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.22|2.1||p-value for statistical significance at 0.05 level for 2-sided superiority testing.|ANCOVA|Treatment regimen, region, age strata, and Baseline weight as covariates.||Secondary hypertension group (at LT Visit 19 \[Week 156\])||2.10|-8.22|0.215
91066096|NCT01420068|182018319|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.62||||0.403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|2.09||p-value for statistical significance at 0.05 level for 2-sided superiority testing.|ANCOVA|Treatment regimen, region, age strata, and Baseline height as covariates||Primary Hypertension group (at LT Visit 18 \[Week 104\])||2.09|-0.85|0.403
91066097|NCT01420068|182018319|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.92||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.74|5.57||p-value for statistical significance at 0.05 level for 2-sided superiority testing.|ANCOVA|Treatment regimen, region, age strata, and Baseline height as covariates.||Secondary hypertension group (at LT Visit 19 \[Week 156\])||5.57|-3.74|0.670
91066098|NCT01420068|182018320|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|1.08||p-value for statistical significance at 0.05 level for 2-sided superiority testing.|ANCOVA|Treatment regimen, region, age strata, and Baseline BMI as covariates||Primary Hypertension group (at LT Visit 18 \[Week 104\])||1.08|-1.29|0.860
91066099|NCT01420068|182018320|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.17||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.66|1.32||p-value for statistical significance at 0.05 level for 2-sided superiority testing.|ANCOVA|Treatment regimen, region, age strata, and Baseline BMI as covariates.||Secondary hypertension group (at LT Visit 19 \[Week 156\])||1.32|-3.66|0.320
91066100|NCT00365794|182018322|OTHER|||||||0.77|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Total body mass||||0.77
91066101|NCT00365794|182018322|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Total fat mass||||0.003
91066102|NCT00365794|182018322|OTHER|||||||0.0007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis is for change in trunk fat mass after 20 weeks of testosterone gel.||||0.0007
91066103|NCT00365794|182018322|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis is for change in extremity fat mass after 20 weeks of testosterone gel.||||0.01
91066104|NCT00365794|182018323|OTHER|||||||0.12||||||No adjustment in p for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.12
91066105|NCT00365794|182018324|OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.008
91066106|NCT00365794|182018325|OTHER|||||||0.0002||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0002
91066107|NCT00365794|182018326|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for change in whole body insulin sensitivity after treatment with testosterone gel for 20 weeks.||||0.04
91066108|NCT00365794|182018326|OTHER|||||||0.59|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for change in hepatic glucose output (measure of central insulin sensitivity) after treatment with testosterone gel for 20 weeks||||0.59
91066109|NCT00365794|182018326|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for change in rate of peripheral glucose disposal (test of peripheral insulin sensitivity) after treatment with testosterone gel for 20 weeks||||0.03
91066110|NCT00365794|182018327|OTHER|||||||0.0006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in DEXA extremity (appendicular) lean tissue, a measure of extremity muscle mass after 20 weeks ot treatent with testosterone gel.||||0.0006
91066111|NCT00365794|182018328|OTHER|Test for fasting triglycerides||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A change in 20 plasma lipids (fasting triglycerides and lipid fractions) after 20 weeks of treatment with testosterone gel.||||0.02
91066112|NCT00365794|182018328|OTHER|Test for total cholesterol||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A change in 20 plasma lipids (fasting triglycerides and lipid fractions) after 20 weeks of treatment with testosterone gel||||0.004
91066113|NCT00365794|182018328|OTHER|Test for LDL cholesterol||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||nts A change in 20 plasma lipids (fasting triglycerides and lipid fractions) after 20 weeks of treatment with testosterone gel||||.02
91066114|NCT00365794|182018328|OTHER|Test for HDL cholesterol||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A change in 20 plasma lipids (fasting triglycerides and lipid fractions) after 20 weeks of treatment with testosterone gel||||0.004
91066115|NCT00365794|182018329|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.06
91066116|NCT00365794|182018330|OTHER|||||||0.97|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.97
91066117|NCT00365794|182018331|OTHER|||||||0.83|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.83
91066118|NCT04760626|182018334|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of insulin icodec was considered confirmed if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for mean treatment difference (insulin icodec with doseguide minus once daily basal insulin analogue) was strictly below 0.3 percent point.|Treatment difference|-0.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.09|||ANCOVA|||The response and change from baseline in response after 52 weeks were analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with region and randomised treatment as fixed factors, and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||-0.09|-0.66|<0.0001
91066119|NCT02554682|182018343|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.906|||||||Generalized Linear Model|||||||.906
91066120|NCT02554682|182018343|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.796|||||||Generalized Linear Model|||||||.796
91066121|NCT02554682|182018343|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.886|||||||Generalized Linear Model|||||||.886
91066122|NCT02554682|182018343|OTHER|||||||0.082|||||||Generalized Linear Model|||||||.082
91066123|NCT02554682|182018344|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.677|||||||Generalized Linear Model|||||||0.677
91066124|NCT02554682|182018344|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Generalized Linear Model|||||||0.020
91066125|NCT02554682|182018344|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.952|||||||Generalized Linear Model|||||||.952
91066126|NCT02554682|182018344|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||Generalized Linear Model|||||||0.210
91066127|NCT02554682|182018345|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.505|||||||Generalized Linear Model|||||||0.505
91066128|NCT02554682|182018345|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.176|||||||Generalized Linear Model|||||||.176
91066129|NCT02554682|182018345|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.134|||||||Generalized Linear Model|||||||0.134
91066130|NCT02554682|182018345|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029|||||||Generalized Linear Model|||||||0.029
91066131|NCT02554682|182018346|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.037|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.037
91066132|NCT02554682|182018347|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.003
91066133|NCT02554682|182018348|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
91066134|NCT02554682|182018349|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.571|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.571
91066135|NCT02554682|182018350|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.394|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.394
91066136|NCT02554682|182018351|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.008
91066137|NCT02554682|182018352|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
91066138|NCT02554682|182018353|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.001
91066139|NCT02554682|182018354|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.159|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.159
91066140|NCT02554682|182018355|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.112|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.112
91066141|NCT02554682|182018356|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.165|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.165
91066142|NCT02554682|182018357|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.006
91066143|NCT00758290|182018358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.05
91066144|NCT00884117|182018369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.0001
91066145|NCT00884117|182018369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Pairwise Wilcoxon|||||||<0.01
91066146|NCT00884117|182018369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Pairwise Wilcoxon|||||||<0.01
91066147|NCT00884117|182018370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.015
91066148|NCT00884117|182018370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||Pairwise Wilcoxon|||||||0.009
91066149|NCT00884117|182018370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Pairwise Wilcoxon|||||||0.03
91066150|NCT00884117|182018371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0005
91066151|NCT00884117|182018371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||Pairwise Wilcoxon|||||||0.008
91066152|NCT00884117|182018371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Pairwise Wilcoxon|||||||<0.0001
91066153|NCT00884117|182018372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0002
91066154|NCT00884117|182018372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||Pairwise Wilcoxon|||||||0.008
91066155|NCT00884117|182018372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Pairwise Wilcoxon|||||||<0.0001
91066156|NCT00884117|182018375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4464|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Resistant versus Susceptible||||0.4464
91066157|NCT00884117|182018376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Resistant versus Susceptible||||<0.0001
91066158|NCT00884117|182018377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2499|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Resistant versus Susceptible||||0.2499
91066159|NCT02946463|182018384|NON_INFERIORITY|LDH-N was analyzed using a generalized estimating equation (GEE) approach. The model included the following terms: treatment group, history of transfusion (as a categorical variable based on the stratification factor levels), and baseline LDH level (as a continuous variable). Noninferiority margin was based on the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the odds ratio (OR) of ravulizumab versus eculizumab for LDH normalization being greater than an OR of 0.39.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.187|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.796|1.769||||||A minimum of 142 participants were estimated to provide 80% power to demonstrate noninferiority of ravulizumab to eculizumab.||1.769|0.796|
91079214|NCT03240406|182044073|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.25||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.53||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|ANCOVA|MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|||0.53|-0.04|0.088
91066160|NCT02946463|182018385|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority margin was based on the lower bound of the 95% CI. Noninferiority margin was -20%.|Treatment difference|6.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.66|18.14|||||Treatment difference was estimated for ravulizumab - eculizumab.|A minimum of 193 participants were estimated to provide 80% power to demonstrate noninferiority of ravulizumab to eculizumab. The difference of percentages were calculated using stratified Newcombe CI method. Stratification factors were: observed stratification groups of packed red blood cells (pRBC)/whole blood units transfused in the 1 year prior to first dose of study drug and screening LDH levels.||18.14|-4.66|
91066161|NCT02946463|182018386|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority margin was based on the upper bound of the 95% CI. Noninferiority margin was 20%.|Treatment difference|-6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.21|0.18|||||Treatment difference was estimated for ravulizumab - eculizumab.|The difference of percentages was calculated using stratified Newcombe CI method. The stratification factors were: observed stratification groups of pRBC units transfused in the 1 year prior to first dose of study drug and screening LDH levels.||0.18|-14.21|
91066162|NCT02946463|182018387|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority margin was based on the upper bound of the 95% CI. Noninferiority margin was 20%.|Treatment difference|-0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.21|3.56|||||Treatment difference was estimated for ravulizumab - eculizumab.|||3.56|-5.21|
90827173|NCT01818596|181529538|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|30 participants with evaluable aGFR (measured by iohexol clearance) in either cohort would provide at least 90% power to show that aGFR change is \< 20% after participants were administered E/C/F/TAF. In this sample size/power computation, it was assumed that the intra-participant variation for aGFR is 0.17 mL/min on natural logarithm scale and a clinical meaningful boundary in aGFR change is 80% to 125%.|Difference in GLSM Ratio|98.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.71|104.46|||||A parametric analysis of variance model using a mixed-effects model with repeated statement was fitted to the natural logarithm transferred aGFR obtained at postbaseline visits and baseline.|Comparison is made between the baseline value and the value from the Week 2, 4, or 8 visit and presented as a geometric least squares mean (GLSM) ratio with 90% confidence interval (CI). Postbaseline value and baseline value were used as test and reference, respectively.||104.46|93.71|
90827174|NCT01818596|181529538|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|30 participants with evaluable aGFR (measured by iohexol clearance) in either cohort would provide at least 90% power to show that aGFR change is \< 20% after participants were administered E/C/F/TAF. In this sample size/power computation, it was assumed that the intra-participant variation for aGFR is 0.17 mL/min on natural logarithm scale and a clinical meaningful boundary in aGFR change is 80% to 125%.|Difference in GLSM Ratio|102.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.11|108.53|||||A parametric analysis of variance model using a mixed-effects model with repeated statement was fitted to the natural logarithm transferred aGFR obtained at postbaseline visits and baseline.|Comparison is made between the baseline value and the value from the Week 24 visit and presented as a GLSM ratio with 90% CI. Week 24 value and baseline value were used as test and reference, respectively.||108.53|97.11|
90827175|NCT00123123|181529558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.675||95.0|||||ANOVA|||A mixed effect model was used to compare overall treatment effects between groups for repeated measures data. The group comparison for each time point was performed using ANOVA.||||0.6750
90827176|NCT02073682|181529564|NON_INFERIORITY|Edoxaban Group was considered non-inferior to the Dalteparin Group if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the Hazard Ratio (\[LMW\] Edoxaban Group to Dalteparin Group) was less than 1.5.|Cox Proportional Hazard|0.97||||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.696|1.359|||Cox proportional hazard|||||1.359|0.696|0.0056
90827177|NCT02073682|181529564|SUPERIORITY|The hazard ratio (HR), two-sided confidence interval (CI) and p-value are based on the Cox proportional hazard model including treatment and the two stratification factors as covariates: the dichotomized bleeding risk and the dichotomized dose-adjustment factor.||||||0.8712|||||||Cox proportional hazard|||||||0.8712
90827178|NCT02073682|181529565|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.0||||0.0254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.089|3.657|||Regression, Cox|||The HR, 2-sided CI and p-value are based on the Cox regression model with counting process approach for on-treatment including treatment and the 2 stratification factors as covariates: the dichotomized bleeding risk and the dichotomized dose-adjustment factor.||3.657|1.089|0.0254
90827179|NCT02073682|181529566|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.71||||0.0931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.476|1.059|||Cox proportional hazard|||The HR, 2-sided CI, and p-value are based on the Cox proportional hazard model including treatment and the 2 stratification factors as covariates: the dichotomized bleeding risk and the dichotomized dose-adjustment factor.||1.059|0.476|0.0931
90827180|NCT02073682|181529567|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.56||||0.0394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.318|0.972|||Cox proportional hazard|||The HR, 2-sided CI, and p-value are based on the Cox proportional hazard model including treatment and the 2 stratification factors as covariates: the dichotomized bleeding risk and the dichotomized dose-adjustment factor.||0.972|0.318|0.0394
90827181|NCT02073682|181529568|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.9||||0.7324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.502|1.624|||Cox proportional hazard|||The HR, 2-sided CI, and p-value are based on the Cox proportional hazard model including treatment and the 2 stratification factors as covariates: the dichotomized bleeding risk and the dichotomized dose-adjustment factor.||1.624|0.502|0.7324
90827182|NCT02073682|181529569|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.56||||0.4873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.444|5.505|||Cox proportional hazard|||The HR, 2-sided CI, and p-value are based on the Cox proportional hazard model including treatment and the 2 stratification factors as covariates: the dichotomized bleeding risk and the dichotomized dose-adjustment factor.||5.505|0.444|0.4873
90827183|NCT02073682|181529570|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.08||||0.4199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.898|1.293|||Cox proportional hazard|||The HR, 2-sided CI, and p-value are based on the Cox proportional hazard model including treatment and the 2 stratification factors as covariates: the dichotomized bleeding risk and the dichotomized dose-adjustment factor.||1.293|0.898|0.4199
91066163|NCT02946463|182018388|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority margin was based on the lower bound of the 95% CI. Noninferiority margin was -5%.|Treatment difference|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|2.55|||||Treatment difference was estimated for ravulizumab - eculizumab.|||2.55|-1.21|
91066164|NCT02946463|182018389|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority margin was based on the lower bound of the 95% CI. Noninferiority margin was -20%.|Treatment difference|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|14.64|||||Treatment difference was estimated for ravulizumab - eculizumab.|The difference of percentages was calculated using stratified Newcombe CI method. The stratification factors were: observed stratification groups of pRBC units transfused in the 1 year prior to first dose of study drug and screening LDH levels.||14.64|-8.80|
91066165|NCT00122382|182018417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Difference between ABA and PLA|15.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|24.2||p-value of \<0.05: probability for testing the difference between ABA and PLA.|Chi-squared, Continuity-Corrected|||Estimated Difference between ABA and PLA is the estimated difference between ABA and PLA in the proportion of subjects achieving an ACR 50 response.||24.2|6.0|<0.001
91066166|NCT00122382|182018418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Difference between ABA and PLA|15.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.2|22.8||p-value of \<0.05: probability for testing the difference between ABA and PLA.|Chi-squared, Continuity-Corrected|||Estimated Difference between ABA and PLA is the estimated difference between ABA and PLA in the proportion of subjects achieving MCR.||22.8|8.2|<0.001
91066167|NCT00122382|182018419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimate of/Adjusted Difference|-0.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.48||p-value of \<0.05: probability for testing the difference between ABA and PLA.|ANCOVA|Adjustment based on ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline value as covariate.||||-0.48|-0.98|<0.001
91066168|NCT00122382|182018420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Difference between ABA and PLA|9.8||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|18.4||p-value of \<0.05: probability for testing the difference between ABA and PLA.|Chi-squared, Continuity-Corrected|||Estimated Difference between ABA and PLA is the estimated difference between ABA and PLA in the proportion of subjects achieving HAQ response.||18.4|1.3|0.024
91066169|NCT00122382|182018421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimate of/Adjusted Difference|2.5||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|4.23||p-value of \<0.05: probability for testing the difference between ABA and PLA.|ANCOVA|Adjustment based on ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline value as covariate.||PCS Adjusted Mean Change from Baseline to Month 12||4.23|0.77|0.005
91066170|NCT00122382|182018421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimate of/Adjusted Difference|1.81||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|3.6||p-value of \<0.05: probability for testing the difference between ABA and PLA.|ANCOVA|Adjustment based on ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline value as covariate.||MCS Adjusted Mean Change from Baseline to Month 12||3.60|0.03|0.046
91066171|NCT00122382|182018422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033||95.0||||P-value of \<0.05: probability for comparison of change in radiographic scores between abatacept and placebo.|Nonparametric ANCOVA|||comparison of change in erosion scores between abatacept and placebo||||0.033
91066172|NCT00122382|182018422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.353||95.0||||P-value of \<0.05: probability for comparison of change in radiographic scores between abatacept and placebo.|Nonparametric ANCOVA|||comparison of change in JSN scores between abatacept and placebo||||0.353
91066173|NCT00122382|182018424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Difference between ABA and PLA|18.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.6|26.6||Total score was tested only if there was statistical significance in remission rate. For each test, the nominal type I error rate is set at 5%; this sequential testing procedure preserves the overall type I error rate at 5%.|Chi-squared, Continuity-Corrected|||Estimated Difference between ABA and PLA is the estimated difference between ABA and PLA in the proportion of subjects achieving DAS28-CRP remission.||26.6|9.6|<0.001
91066174|NCT00122382|182018425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.04||95.0||||Total score was tested only if there was statistical significance in remission rate. For each test, the nominal type I error rate is set at 5%; this sequential testing procedure preserves the overall type I error rate at 5%.|non-parametric ANCOVA|||||||<0.040
91066175|NCT00122382|182018440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||signed rank test|||||||<0.001
91066176|NCT02040805|182018443|NON_INFERIORITY|Margin based on clinically meaningful change of \>= 5 points.||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Test of non-inferiority.||||0.04
91066177|NCT02040805|182018444|NON_INFERIORITY|Margin based on clinically meaningful change of \>= 2.5 points.||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Test of non-inferiority.||||0.05
91066178|NCT02040805|182018445|OTHER|linear mixed models analysis|||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|df=1||||||<0.0001
91066179|NCT02040805|182018446|OTHER|linear mixed model|||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|df=1||||||<0.0001
91066180|NCT00908544|182018448|OTHER|Changes (within CHI group) in HIV DNA in PBMC from Baseline (BL) will be tested for statistical significance using one-tailed paired t-test or Wilcoxon signed rank test as appropriate on distribution of data at months 36.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.4|||t-test, 1 sided|||||0.4|0.0|0.98
91066181|NCT00908544|182018448|OTHER|Changes (within PHI group) in HIV DNA in PBMC from Baseline (BL) will be tested for statistical significance using one-tailed paired t-test or Wilcoxon signed rank test as appropriate on distribution of data at months 36.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-1.1|||t-test, 1 sided|||||-1.1|-1.7|<0.01
91066182|NCT00908544|182018448|OTHER|Changes (within CHI group) in HIV DNA in PBMC from Baseline (BL) will be tested for statistical significance using one-tailed paired t-test or Wilcoxon signed rank test as appropriate on distribution of data at months 84.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.3|||t-test, 1 sided|||||0.3|-0.1|0.93
91066183|NCT00908544|182018448|OTHER|Changes (within PHI group) in HIV DNA in PBMC from Baseline (BL) will be tested for statistical significance using one-tailed paired t-test or Wilcoxon signed rank test as appropriate on distribution of data at months 84.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-1.0|||t-test, 1 sided|||||-1.0|-1.6|<0.01
91066184|NCT00908544|182018449|OTHER|Changes (within CHI Group) in HIV DNA in CD4+T cells from Baseline (BL) will be tested for statistical significance using one-tailed paired t-test or Wilcoxon signed rank test as appropriate on distribution of data at month 36.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.4|||t-test, 1 sided|||||0.4|0.0|0.99
91066185|NCT00908544|182018449|OTHER|Changes (within PHI Group) in HIV DNA in CD4+T cells from Baseline (BL) will be tested for statistical significance using one-tailed paired t-test or Wilcoxon signed rank test as appropriate on distribution of data at month 36.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-1.5|||t-test, 1 sided|||||-1.5|-2.0|<0.01
91066186|NCT00908544|182018449|OTHER|Changes (within CHI Group) in HIV DNA in CD4+T cells from Baseline (BL) will be tested for statistical significance using one-tailed paired t-test or Wilcoxon signed rank test as appropriate on distribution of data at month 84.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.3|||t-test, 1 sided|||||0.3|-0.0|0.97
91066187|NCT00908544|182018449|OTHER|Changes (within PHI Group) in HIV DNA in CD4+T cells from Baseline (BL) will be tested for statistical significance using one-tailed paired t-test or Wilcoxon signed rank test as appropriate on distribution of data at month 84.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-1.4|||t-test, 1 sided|||||-1.4|-2.0|<0.01
91066188|NCT02259010|182018465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.82|1.19|||||Estimates were obtained using a mixed effects model of log (PK parameter) with fixed terms for the itraconazole effect and random terms for participant within period.|||1.19|0.82|
91066189|NCT02259010|182018466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.02|1.79|||||Estimates were obtained using a mixed effects model of log (PK parameter) with fixed terms for the itraconazole effect and random terms for participant within period.|||1.79|1.02|
91066190|NCT02259010|182018467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.99|1.95|||||Estimates were obtained using a mixed effects model of log (PK parameter) with fixed terms for the itraconazole effect and random terms for participant within period.|||1.95|0.99|
91066191|NCT00333983|182018571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025||||||P value was set at .025 to adjust for 2 treatment comparisons and for interim monitoring for the treatment effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||An analysis of all robot interventions compared with intensive conventional exercise for Fugl-Meyer change were completed using linear mixed models.||||.025
91066192|NCT00833105|182018572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.025|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Random subject effect||||||<0.025
91066193|NCT00833105|182018573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.299|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Random subject effect||||||0.299
91066194|NCT00833105|182018574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.459|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Random subject effect||||||0.459
91066195|NCT00833105|182018575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.343|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Random subject effect||||||0.343
91066196|NCT00833105|182018576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.951|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Random subject effects||||||0.951
91066197|NCT00833105|182018577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.371|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Random subject effect||||||0.371
91066198|NCT00833105|182018578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.164|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Random subject effect||||||0.164
91066199|NCT00833105|182018579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank|No multiple comparison procedure||Pre-training score is average of a total of 9 efforts, including 3 efforts from the first 3 days of training. Post-training score is average of a total of 9 efforts, including 3 efforts from the last 3 days of training.||||<0.01
91066200|NCT00833105|182018580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No multiple comparison procedure performed|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||<0.05
91066201|NCT00833105|182018581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||No multiple comparison procedure|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||<0.0001
91066202|NCT00833105|182018582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|||||No multiple comparison adjustment.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||<0.005
91066203|NCT00833105|182018583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||No multiple comparison adjustment.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||<0.001
91066204|NCT00833105|182018584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||No multiple comparisons adjustment.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||<0.001
91066205|NCT02898597|182018585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.31|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|110.3|||Regression, Logistic|||||110.30|1.37|< 0.05
91066206|NCT02898597|182018585|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher Exact test was performed, comparing the proportion of participants whose abstinence was verified with salivary cotinine test between the two arms, which was significant (p = 0.02).||||<0.05
91066207|NCT03656068|182018597|OTHER|Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used for statistical inference.|Median Difference (Net)|0.003||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value for testing median = 0|Sign test|||||||0.0039
91066208|NCT03656068|182018598|OTHER|Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used for statistical inference.|Median Difference (Net)|10.0||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value for testing median = 0|Sign test|||||||0.0026
91066209|NCT03656068|182018599|OTHER|Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used for statistical inference.|Median Difference (Net)|0.002||||0.5555|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value for testing median = 0|Sign test|||||||0.5555
91066210|NCT03656068|182018600|OTHER|Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used for statistical inference.|Median Difference (Net)|1.72||||0.3778|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value for testing median = 0|Sign test|||||||0.3778
91066211|NCT03656068|182018601|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|-8.1||||0.4638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.0|14.8||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||14.8|-31.0|0.4638
91066212|NCT03656068|182018602|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.65||||0.6532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.26|5.97||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||5.97|-9.26|0.6532
91066213|NCT03656068|182018603|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.38||||0.7254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|2.61||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||2.61|-1.86|0.7254
91066214|NCT03656068|182018604|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|8.77||||0.3772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|29.25||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||29.25|-11.70|0.3772
91066215|NCT03656068|182018605|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12||||0.5799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.33||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.33|-0.56|0.5799
91066216|NCT03656068|182018606|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.89||||0.7088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.65|8.87||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||8.87|-12.65|0.7088
91066217|NCT03656068|182018607|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.35||||0.0609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.02||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.02|-0.72|0.0609
91066218|NCT03656068|182018608|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|-6.61||||0.1556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.16|2.94||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||2.94|-16.16|0.1556
91066219|NCT03656068|182018609|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|-14.6||||0.0709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.6|1.4||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||1.4|-30.6|0.0709
91066220|NCT03656068|182018610|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.61||||0.1799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.02|1.81||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||1.81|-9.02|0.1799
91066221|NCT03656068|182018611|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|-6.8||||0.3306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.2|7.6||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||7.6|-21.2|0.3306
91066222|NCT03656068|182018612|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.94||||0.4504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.25|3.37||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||3.37|-7.25|0.4504
91066223|NCT03656068|182018613|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|33.8||||0.1349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|79.0||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||79.0|-11.5|0.1349
91066224|NCT03656068|182018614|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|76.24||||0.0117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.04|133.43||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||133.43|19.04|0.0117
91066225|NCT03656068|182018615|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|31.3||||0.4281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.3|112.9||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||112.9|-50.3|0.4281
91066226|NCT03656068|182018616|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|117.37||||0.0407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.6|229.14||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||229.14|5.60|0.0407
91066227|NCT03656068|182018617|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|47.28||||0.7065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-210.9|305.46||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||305.46|-210.90|0.7065
91066228|NCT03656068|182018618|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|43.11||||0.1693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.95|106.17||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||106.17|-19.95|0.1693
91066229|NCT03656068|182018619|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|-48.14||||0.7099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-317.64|221.36||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||221.36|-317.64|0.7099
91066230|NCT03656068|182018620|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|30.03||||0.3597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.48|97.55||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||97.55|-37.48|0.3597
91066231|NCT03656068|182018621|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|169.0||||0.9893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25908.2|26246.2||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||26246.2|-25908.2|0.9893
91066232|NCT03656068|182018622|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|13.82||||0.1454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.21|32.85||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||32.85|-5.21|0.1454
91066233|NCT03656068|182018623|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|3016.8||||0.8089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22996.2|29029.7||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||29029.7|-22996.2|0.8089
91066234|NCT03656068|182018624|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|12.78||||0.1365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|30.06||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||30.06|-4.50|0.1365
91066235|NCT03656068|182018625|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|28.954||||0.1322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.525|67.433||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||67.433|-9.525|0.1322
91066236|NCT03656068|182018626|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|23.99||||0.1062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.59|53.57|||t-test, 2 sided|p-value for testing mean = 0||||53.57|-5.59|0.1062
91066237|NCT03656068|182018627|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|28.311||||0.0831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.151|60.774||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||60.774|-4.151|0.0831
91066238|NCT03656068|182018628|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|32.72||||0.0543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|66.13||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||66.13|-0.69|0.0543
91066239|NCT03656068|182018629|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.056||||0.6325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.185|0.298||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.298|-0.185|0.6325
91066240|NCT03656068|182018630|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.46||||0.6925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|2.87||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||2.87|-1.94|0.6925
91066241|NCT03656068|182018631|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.161||||0.2733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.462|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.462|-0.140|0.2733
91066242|NCT03656068|182018632|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.47||||0.3288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|4.56||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||4.56|-1.63|0.3288
91066243|NCT03656068|182018633|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|5.649||||0.9271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-121.923|133.22||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||133.220|-121.923|0.9271
91066244|NCT03656068|182018634|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.89||||0.9244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.58|20.37||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||20.37|-18.58|0.9244
91066245|NCT03656068|182018635|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|-30.244||||0.7288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-211.93|151.441||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||151.441|-211.930|0.7288
91066246|NCT03656068|182018636|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|3.34||||0.7824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.85|28.52||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||28.52|-21.85|0.7824
91066247|NCT03656068|182018637|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|-47.629||||0.6448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-260.433|165.176||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||165.176|-260.433|0.6448
91066248|NCT03656068|182018638|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.38||||0.9806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.04|32.8||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||32.80|-32.04|0.9806
91066249|NCT03656068|182018639|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|-113.616||||0.3256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-351.124|123.891||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||123.891|-351.124|0.3256
91066250|NCT03656068|182018640|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|8.78||||0.6582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.52|50.09||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||50.09|-32.52|0.6582
91066251|NCT03656068|182018641|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2438||||0.5459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0847|0.5972||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.5972|-1.0847|0.5459
91066252|NCT03656068|182018642|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|23.91||||0.286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.15|69.97|||t-test, 2 sided|||||69.97|-22.15|0.2860
91066253|NCT03656068|182018643|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2893||||0.4887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.158|0.5794||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.5794|-1.1580|0.4887
91066254|NCT03656068|182018644|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|30.27||||0.361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.21|98.75||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||98.75|-38.21|0.3610
91066255|NCT03656068|182018645|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.63||||0.4945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|1.26||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||1.26|-2.51|0.4945
91066256|NCT03656068|182018646|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.99||||0.8191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.94|7.95||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||7.95|-9.94|0.8191
91066257|NCT03656068|182018647|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.22||||0.0243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.96|-0.47||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.47|-5.96|0.0243
91066258|NCT03656068|182018648|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|-9.94||||0.0493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.84|-0.04||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.04|-19.84|0.0493
91066259|NCT03656068|182018649|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.6||||0.3066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|1.79||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||1.79|-0.59|0.3066
91066260|NCT03656068|182018650|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|3.4||||0.2671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.82|9.63||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||9.63|-2.82|0.2671
91066261|NCT03656068|182018651|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.11||||0.8241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|1.16||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||1.16|-0.94|0.8241
91066262|NCT03656068|182018652|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.1||||0.7587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.37|8.57||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||8.57|-6.37|0.7587
91066263|NCT03656068|182018653|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.567||||0.3784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|0.746||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.746|-1.880|0.3784
91066264|NCT03656068|182018654|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|-4.64||||0.3526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|5.53||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||5.53|-14.80|0.3526
91066265|NCT03656068|182018655|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.098||||0.9218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.978|2.173||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||2.173|-1.978|0.9218
91066266|NCT03656068|182018656|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.15||||0.9833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.71|15.01||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||15.01|-14.71|0.9833
91066267|NCT03656068|182018657|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|12.68||||0.3957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.79|43.16||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||43.16|-17.79|0.3957
91066268|NCT03656068|182018658|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|3.81||||0.344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.39|12.01||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||12.01|-4.39|0.3440
91066269|NCT03656068|182018659|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|15.22||||0.0607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|31.21||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||31.21|-0.77|0.0607
91066270|NCT03656068|182018660|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|5.83||||0.0644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|12.05||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||12.05|-0.39|0.0644
91066271|NCT03656068|182018661|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3665||||0.0487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7306|-0.0023||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.0023|-0.7306|0.0487
91066272|NCT03656068|182018662|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|16.64||||0.5919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.25|80.54||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||80.54|-47.25|0.5919
91066273|NCT03656068|182018663|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2679||||0.1272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.634|0.0983||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.0983|-0.6340|0.1272
91066274|NCT03656068|182018664|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|15.02||||0.5881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.55|77.59||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||77.59|-47.55|0.5881
91066275|NCT03656068|182018665|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.18||||0.1458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.07|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.07|-0.42|0.1458
91066276|NCT03656068|182018666|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|-11.53||||0.1495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.61|4.54||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||4.54|-27.61|0.1495
91066277|NCT03656068|182018667|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12||||0.3174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.15||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.15|-0.40|0.3174
91066278|NCT03656068|182018668|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|-8.02||||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.86|6.82||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||6.82|-22.86|0.2420
91066279|NCT01436370|182018677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.145|||||||Fisher Exact|||This is the comparison for the B/Brisbane/60/2008 strain.||||0.145
91066280|NCT01436370|182018677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.145|||||||Fisher Exact|||This is the comparison for the A/Perth/16/2009 (A/H3N2) strain||||0.145
91066281|NCT01436370|182018677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||This is the comparison for the A/California/7/2009 (A/H1N1) strain.||||0.999
91066282|NCT01436370|182018685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.182|||||||Fisher Exact|||This is the comparison for the B/Wisconsin/1/2010 strain||||0.182
91066283|NCT01436370|182018685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Fisher Exact|||This is the comparison for the A/Victoria/361/2011 (A/H3N2) strain.||||0.500
91066284|NCT01436370|182018685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.087|||||||Fisher Exact|||This is the comparison for the A/California/7/2009 (A/H1N1) strain.||||0.087
91066285|NCT01436370|182018686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.234|||||||Fisher Exact|||This is the comparison for the B/Brisbane/60/2008 strain at Day 7.||||0.234
91066286|NCT01436370|182018686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Fisher Exact|||This is the comparison for the B/Brisbane/60/2008 strain at Day 180.||||0.250
91066287|NCT01436370|182018686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.145|||||||Fisher Exact|||This is the comparison for the A/Perth/16/2009 (A/H3N2) strain at Day 7.||||0.145
91066288|NCT01436370|182018686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Fisher Exact|||This is the comparison for the A/Perth/16/2009 (A/H3N2) strain at Day 180.||||0.500
91066289|NCT01436370|182018686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||This is the comparison for the A/California/7/2009 (A/H1N1) strain at Day 7.||||0.999
91066290|NCT01436370|182018686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Fisher Exact|||This is the comparison for the A/California/7/2009 (A/H1N1) strain at Day 180.||||0.500
91066291|NCT01436370|182018687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.716|||||||Fisher Exact|||This is the comparison for the B/Wisconsin/1/2010 strain at Day 7.||||0.716
91066292|NCT01436370|182018687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||This is the comparison for the B/Wisconsin/1/2010 strain at Day 180.||||0.999
91066293|NCT01436370|182018687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.503|||||||Fisher Exact|||This is the comparison for the A/Victoria/361/2011 (A/H3N2) strain at Day 7.||||0.503
91066294|NCT01436370|182018687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.475|||||||Fisher Exact|||This is the comparison for the A/Victoria/361/2011 (A/H3N2) strain at Day 180.||||0.475
91066295|NCT01436370|182018687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.182|||||||Fisher Exact|||This is the comparison for the A/California/7/2009 (A/H1N1) strain at Day 7.||||0.182
91066296|NCT01436370|182018687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014|||||||Fisher Exact|||This is the comparison for the A/California/7/2009 (A/H1N1) strain at Day 180.||||0.014
91066297|NCT01436370|182018689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.317|||||||McNemar|||This is the comparison for the B/Brisbane/60/2008 strain at Day 21.||||0.317
91066298|NCT01436370|182018689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.564|||||||McNemar|||This is the comparison for the A/Perth/16/2009 (A/H3N2) strain at Day 21.||||0.564
91066299|NCT01436370|182018689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.999|||||||McNemar|||This is the comparison for the A/California/7/2009 (A/H1N1) strain at Day 21.||||0.999
91066300|NCT01436370|182018689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.564|||||||McNemar|||This is the comparison for the B/Brisbane/60/2008 strain at Day 21.||||0.564
91066301|NCT01436370|182018689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.999|||||||McNemar|||This is the comparison for the A/Perth/16/2009 (A/H3N2) strain at Day 21.||||0.999
91066302|NCT01436370|182018689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.655|||||||McNemar|||This is the comparison for the A/California/7/2009 (A/H1N1) strain at Day 21.||||0.655
91066303|NCT01436370|182018690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||McNemar|||This is the comparison for the B/Wisconsin/1/2010 strain at Day 21.||||0.180
91066304|NCT01436370|182018690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.763|||||||McNemar|||This is the comparison for the A/Victoria/361/2011 (A/H3N2) strain at Day 21.||||0.763
91066305|NCT01436370|182018690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.096|||||||McNemar|||This is the comparison for the A/California/7/2009 (A/H1N1) strain at Day 21.||||0.096
91066306|NCT01436370|182018690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.157|||||||McNemar|||This is the comparison for the B/Wisconsin/1/2010 strain at Day 21||||0.157
91066307|NCT01436370|182018690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.705|||||||McNemar|||This is the comparison for the A/Victoria/361/2011 (A/H3N2) strain at Day 21.||||0.705
91066308|NCT01436370|182018690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.132|||||||McNemar|||This is the comparison for the A/California/7/2009 (A/H1N1) strain at Day 21.||||0.132
91066309|NCT02770170|182018745|OTHER|||||||0.7271||||||An alpha of 0.20 was used for one-sided test. The MCPMod procedure adjusts for multiplicity.|MCPMod quadratic model fit|||Multiple comparison procedures and modelling (MCPmod) techniques for logistic regression was used.||||0.7271
91066310|NCT02770170|182018745|OTHER|||||||0.6415||||||An alpha of 0.20 was used for one-sided test. The MCPMod procedure adjusts for multiplicity.|MCPMod sigmoidal Emax model fit|||Multiple comparison procedures and modelling (MCPmod) techniques for logistic regression was used.||||0.6415
91066311|NCT02770170|182018745|OTHER|||||||0.7367||||||An alpha of 0.20 was used for one-sided test. The MCPMod procedure adjusts for multiplicity.|MCPMod Emax model fit|||Multiple comparison procedures and modelling (MCPmod) techniques for logistic regression was used.||||0.7367
91066312|NCT02770170|182018745|OTHER|||||||0.6624||||||An alpha of 0.20 was used for one-sided test. The MCPMod procedure adjusts for multiplicity.|MCPMod exponential model fit|||Multiple comparison procedures and modelling (MCPmod) techniques for logistic regression was used.||||0.6624
91066313|NCT02770170|182018745|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.0||||0.4645|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-27.292|7.288|||Regression, Logistic|include treatment and covariates, race (Asian or non-Asian), proteinuria at screening (\<3g/day or \>= 3g/day)|Confidence intervals calculated using delta method|||7.288|-27.292|0.4645
91066314|NCT02770170|182018745|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.38||||0.8084|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-21.204|14.451|||Regression, Logistic|include treatment and covariates, race (Asian or non-Asian), proteinuria at screening (\<3g/day or \>= 3g/day)|Confidence intervals calculated using delta method|||14.451|-21.204|0.8084
91066315|NCT02770170|182018745|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.77||||0.7398|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-18.364|10.832|||Regression, Logistic|include treatment and covariates, race (Asian or non-Asian), proteinuria at screening (\<3g/day or \>= 3g/day)|Confidence intervals calculated using delta method|||10.832|-18.364|0.7398
91066316|NCT02770170|182018746|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.93||||0.5773|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-23.66|7.64|||Barnard test of association||Unadjusted absolute risk difference; Confidence intervals calculated using Newcombe method|||7.64|-23.66|0.5773
91066317|NCT02770170|182018746|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|12.5||||0.4013|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.59|29.03|||Barnard test of association||Unadjusted absolute risk difference; Confidence intervals calculated using Newcombe method|||29.03|-4.59|0.4013
91066318|NCT02770170|182018746|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.5||||0.8965|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-15.98|11.1|||Barnard test of association||Unadjusted absolute risk difference; Confidence intervals calculated using Newcombe method|||11.10|-15.98|0.8965
91066319|NCT02770170|182018747|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-19.64||||0.1476|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-35.38|-2.48|||Barnard test of association||Unadjusted absolute risk difference; Confidence intervals calculated using Newcombe method|||-2.48|-35.38|0.1476
91066320|NCT02770170|182018747|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|12.5||||0.4013|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.2|26.86|||Barnard test of association||Unadjusted absolute risk difference; Confidence intervals calculated using Newcombe method|||26.86|-4.20|0.4013
91066321|NCT02770170|182018747|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-13.63|13.63|||Barnard test of association||Unadjusted absolute risk difference; Confidence intervals calculated using Newcombe method|||13.63|-13.63|
91066322|NCT02770170|182018748|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-26.67||||0.0512|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-41.52|-9.42|||Barnard test of association||Unadjusted absolute risk difference; Confidence intervals calculated using Newcombe method|||-9.42|-41.52|0.0512
91066323|NCT02770170|182018748|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.0||||0.7597|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-12.1|20.74|||Barnard test of association||Unadjusted absolute risk difference; Confidence intervals calculated using Newcombe method|||20.74|-12.10|0.7597
91066324|NCT02770170|182018748|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.0||||0.7505|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-18.74|9.02|||Barnard test of association||Unadjusted absolute risk difference; Confidence intervals calculated using Newcombe method|||9.02|-18.74|0.7505
91066325|NCT02770170|182018749|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-21.43||||0.1269|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-36.03|-4.41|||Barnard test of association||Unadjusted absolute risk difference; Confidence intervals calculated using Newcombe method|||-4.41|-36.03|0.1269
91066326|NCT02770170|182018749|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.0||||0.7889|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-12.24|21.62|||Barnard test of association||Unadjusted absolute risk difference; Confidence intervals calculated using Newcombe method|||21.62|-12.24|0.7889
91066327|NCT02770170|182018749|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-12.5||||0.2906|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-25.99|1.68|||Barnard test of association||Unadjusted absolute risk difference; Confidence intervals calculated using Newcombe method|||1.68|-25.99|0.2906
91066328|NCT02770170|182018750|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-9.64||||0.5687|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-25.79|7.45|||Barnard test of association||Unadjusted absolute risk difference; Confidence intervals calculated using Newcombe method|||7.45|-25.79|0.5687
91066329|NCT02770170|182018750|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.5||||0.9217|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-14.67|19.17|||Barnard test of association||Unadjusted absolute risk difference; Confidence intervals calculated using Newcombe method|||19.17|-14.67|0.9217
91066330|NCT02770170|182018750|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-14.03|14.03|||Barnard test of association||Unadjusted absolute risk difference; Confidence intervals calculated using Newcombe method|||14.03|-14.03|
91066331|NCT00162981|182018754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0182||95.0|||||1-sided Wilcoxon signed rank test|1-sided Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to assess the difference from baseline.||||||<0.0182
91066332|NCT00162981|182018754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0||||1-sided Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to assess the difference from baseline.|1-sided Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0001
91066333|NCT00162981|182018757|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assuming a standard deviation of 50%, one-tailed significance at 0.05 and a power of 80% to detect a reduction of at least 25% (baseline to final in a within-subjects design), then approximately 27 subjects would have been required in each treatment arm. Assuming a 10% drop-out rate, then approximately 30 subjects per treatment were to be enrolled in the study.|||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||1-sided Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|1-sided Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test was used to compare the high dose group to the low dose group.||||||<0.0001
91066334|NCT00216125|182018759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|10.0||||0.883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.883
91066335|NCT03187301|182018782|NON_INFERIORITY|For each post-dose time point, change from baseline (ΔQTcF) was compared between APL-130277 and placebo (ΔΔQTcF). The hypothesis of no clinical difference was accepted, if all upper limits of the two-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for APL-130277 versus placebo fell below 10 msec.|Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.11|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|7.4||||||15 mins post-dose: time-matched, baseline-corrected comparison between APL-130277 and placebo using the ΔΔQTcF approach. The mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM) included region, gender, planned sequence, period, treatment, time, and interaction between treatment and time as fixed factors, and baseline QTcF as a covariate. The patient nested within sequence was included as a random effect.||7.4|0.5|
91066336|NCT03187301|182018782|NON_INFERIORITY|For each post-dose time point, change from baseline (ΔQTcF) was compared between APL-130277 and placebo (ΔΔQTcF). The hypothesis of no clinical difference was accepted, if all upper limits of the two-sided 90% CIs for APL-130277 versus placebo fell below 10 msec.|Least Square (LS) Mean difference|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.11|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|6.5||||||30 mins post-dose: time-matched, baseline-corrected comparison between APL-130277 and placebo using the ΔΔQTcF approach. The MMRM included region, gender, planned sequence, period, treatment, time, and interaction between treatment and time as fixed factors, and baseline QTcF as a covariate. The patient nested within sequence was included as a random effect.||6.5|-0.5|
91066337|NCT03187301|182018782|NON_INFERIORITY|For each post-dose time point, change from baseline (ΔQTcF) was compared between APL-130277 and placebo (ΔΔQTcF). The hypothesis of no clinical difference was accepted, if all upper limits of the two-sided 90% CIs for APL-130277 versus placebo fell below 10 msec.|Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.11|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.2|7.2||||||45 mins post-dose: time-matched, baseline-corrected comparison between APL-130277 and placebo using the ΔΔQTcF approach. The MMRM included region, gender, planned sequence, period, treatment, time, and interaction between treatment and time as fixed factors, and baseline QTcF as a covariate. The patient nested within sequence was included as a random effect.||7.2|0.2|
91066338|NCT03187301|182018782|NON_INFERIORITY|For each post-dose time point, change from baseline (ΔQTcF) was compared between APL-130277 and placebo (ΔΔQTcF). The hypothesis of no clinical difference was accepted, if all upper limits of the two-sided 90% CIs for APL-130277 versus placebo fell below 10 msec.|Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|6.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.11|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.7|9.7||||||60 mins post-dose: time-matched, baseline-corrected comparison between APL-130277 and placebo using the ΔΔQTcF approach. The MMRM included region, gender, planned sequence, period, treatment, time, and interaction between treatment and time as fixed factors, and baseline QTcF as a covariate. The patient nested within sequence was included as a random effect.||9.7|2.7|
91066339|NCT03187301|182018782|NON_INFERIORITY|For each post-dose time point, change from baseline (ΔQTcF) was compared between APL-130277 and placebo (ΔΔQTcF). The hypothesis of no clinical difference was accepted, if all upper limits of the two-sided 90% CIs for APL-130277 versus placebo fell below 10 msec.|Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.11|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.3|8.3||||||2 hours post-dose: time-matched, baseline-corrected comparison between APL-130277 and placebo using the ΔΔQTcF approach. The MMRM included region, gender, planned sequence, period, treatment, time, and interaction between treatment and time as fixed factors, and baseline QTcF as a covariate. The patient nested within sequence was included as a random effect.||8.3|1.3|
91066340|NCT03187301|182018782|NON_INFERIORITY|For each post-dose time point, change from baseline (ΔQTcF) was compared between APL-130277 and placebo (ΔΔQTcF). The hypothesis of no clinical difference was accepted, if all upper limits of the two-sided 90% CIs for APL-130277 versus placebo fell below 10 msec.|Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.12|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.7|5.3||||||3 hours post-dose: time-matched, baseline-corrected comparison between APL-130277 and placebo using the ΔΔQTcF approach. The MMRM included region, gender, planned sequence, period, treatment, time, and interaction between treatment and time as fixed factors, and baseline QTcF as a covariate. The patient nested within sequence was included as a random effect.||5.3|-1.7|
91066341|NCT03187301|182018782|NON_INFERIORITY|For each post-dose time point, change from baseline (ΔQTcF) was compared between APL-130277 and placebo (ΔΔQTcF). The hypothesis of no clinical difference was accepted, if all upper limits of the two-sided 90% CIs for APL-130277 versus placebo fell below 10 msec.|Least Sqaure (LS) Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.12||||90.0|-4.2|2.8||||||4 hours post-dose: time-matched, baseline-corrected comparison between APL-130277 and placebo using the ΔΔQTcF approach. The MMRM included region, gender, planned sequence, period, treatment, time, and interaction between treatment and time as fixed factors, and baseline QTcF as a covariate. The patient nested within sequence was included as a random effect.||2.8|-4.2|
91066342|NCT03187301|182018787|NON_INFERIORITY|15 mins post-dose: time-matched, baseline-corrected comparison between APL-130277 and placebo using the ΔΔQTcB approach. The MMRM included region, gender, planned sequence, period, treatment, time, and interaction between treatment and time as fixed factors, and baseline QTcB as a covariate. The patient nested within sequence was included as a random effect|Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.54|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.3|8.6||||||||8.6|0.3|
91066343|NCT03187301|182018787|NON_INFERIORITY|30 mins post-dose: time-matched, baseline-corrected comparison between APL-130277 and placebo using the ΔΔQTcB approach. The MMRM included region, gender, planned sequence, period, treatment, time, and interaction between treatment and time as fixed factors, and baseline QTcB as a covariate. The patient nested within sequence was included as a random effect|Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.54|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.6|6.7||||||||6.7|-1.6|
91066344|NCT03187301|182018787|NON_INFERIORITY|45 mins post-dose: time-matched, baseline-corrected comparison between APL-130277 and placebo using the ΔΔQTcB approach. The MMRM included region, gender, planned sequence, period, treatment, time, and interaction between treatment and time as fixed factors, and baseline QTcB as a covariate. The patient nested within sequence was included as a random effect|Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.54|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.9|7.4||||||||7.4|-0.9|
91066345|NCT03187301|182018787|NON_INFERIORITY|60 mins post-dose: time-matched, baseline-corrected comparison between APL-130277 and placebo using the ΔΔQTcB approach. The MMRM included region, gender, planned sequence, period, treatment, time, and interaction between treatment and time as fixed factors, and baseline QTcB as a covariate. The patient nested within sequence was included as a random effect|Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.54|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.9|7.5||||||||7.5|-0.9|
91066346|NCT03187301|182018787|NON_INFERIORITY|2 hours post-dose: time-matched, baseline-corrected comparison between APL-130277 and placebo using the ΔΔQTcB approach. The MMRM included region, gender, planned sequence, period, treatment, time, and interaction between treatment and time as fixed factors, and baseline QTcB as a covariate. The patient nested within sequence was included as a random effect|Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.54|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|9.2||||||||9.2|0.8|
91066347|NCT03187301|182018787|NON_INFERIORITY|3 hours post-dose: time-matched, baseline-corrected comparison between APL-130277 and placebo using the ΔΔQTcB approach. The MMRM included region, gender, planned sequence, period, treatment, time, and interaction between treatment and time as fixed factors, and baseline QTcB as a covariate. The patient nested within sequence was included as a random effect|Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.55|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|8.8||||||||8.8|0.4|
91066348|NCT03187301|182018787|NON_INFERIORITY|4 hours post-dose: time-matched, baseline-corrected comparison between APL-130277 and placebo using the ΔΔQTcB approach. The MMRM included region, gender, planned sequence, period, treatment, time, and interaction between treatment and time as fixed factors, and baseline QTcB as a covariate. The patient nested within sequence was included as a random effect|Least Square (LS) Mean Differeence|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.56|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.6|6.9||||||||6.9|-1.6|
91066349|NCT03187301|182018791|NON_INFERIORITY|The hypothesis of assay sensitivity(difference in QTcF time between moxifloxacin and placebo)was evaluated by observing if any of the 4 post-dose evaluation time points had a one-sided(Bonferroni-corrected)95% lower confidence limit which was equal to, or exceeded, 5 msec.|Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|10.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.11|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.3|14.8||||||60 mins post-dose: time-matched, baseline-corrected comparison between moxifloxacin and placebo using the ΔΔQTcF approach. The MMRM included region, gender, planned sequence, period, treatment, time, and interaction between treatment and time as fixed factors, and baseline QTcF as a covariate. The patient nested within sequence was included as a random effect.||14.8|5.3|
91066350|NCT03187301|182018791|NON_INFERIORITY|The hypothesis of assay sensitivity(difference in QTcF time between moxifloxacin and placebo)was evaluated by observing if any of the 4 post-dose evaluation time points had a one-sided(Bonferroni-corrected)95% lower confidence limit which was equal to, or exceeded, 5 msec.|Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|12.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.12|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.5|17.1||||||2 hours post-dose: time-matched, baseline-corrected comparison between moxifloxacin and placebo using the ΔΔQTcF approach. The MMRM included region, gender, planned sequence, period, treatment, time, and interaction between treatment and time as fixed factors, and baseline QTcF as a covariate. The patient nested within sequence was included as a random effect.||17.1|7.5|
91066351|NCT03187301|182018791|NON_INFERIORITY|The hypothesis of assay sensitivity(difference in QTcF time between moxifloxacin and placebo)was evaluated by observing if any of the 4 post-dose evaluation time points had a one-sided(Bonferroni-corrected)95% lower confidence limit which was equal to, or exceeded, 5 msec.|Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|10.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.12|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.1|15.7||||||3 hours post-dose: time-matched, baseline-corrected comparison between moxifloxacin and placebo using the ΔΔQTcF approach. The MMRM included region, gender, planned sequence, period, treatment, time, and interaction between treatment and time as fixed factors, and baseline QTcF as a covariate. The patient nested within sequence was included as a random effect.||15.7|6.1|
91066352|NCT03187301|182018791|NON_INFERIORITY|The hypothesis of assay sensitivity(difference in QTcF time between moxifloxacin and placebo)was evaluated by observing if any of the 4 post-dose evaluation time points had a one-sided(Bonferroni-corrected)95% lower confidence limit which was equal to, or exceeded, 5 msec.|Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.12|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.2|13.8||||||4 hours post-dose: time-matched, baseline-corrected comparison between moxifloxacin and placebo using the ΔΔQTcF approach. The MMRM included region, gender, planned sequence, period, treatment, time, and interaction between treatment and time as fixed factors, and baseline QTcF as a covariate. The patient nested within sequence was included as a random effect.||13.8|4.2|
91066353|NCT02158585|182018799|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.93||||0.5618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.49|21.35|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: no difference between groups in average total number of vertigo attacks||21.35|-3.49|0.5618
91066354|NCT02158585|182018800|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03429|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: no difference between average total number of vertigo attacks in pre-treatment and treatment||||0.03429
91066355|NCT02158585|182018801|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.57||||0.0092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|8.29|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: no difference in total average number of vertigo attacks during 3 week time periods||8.29|0.85|0.0092
91066356|NCT02158585|182018804|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|11.14||||0.0385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.64|37.92|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||37.92|-15.64|0.0385
91066357|NCT03809663|182018859|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.686||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|9.809||Nominal p-value|Regression, Logistic|||||9.809|0.290|0.56
91066358|NCT03809663|182018859|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.011||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.135|7.551||Nominal p-value|Regression, Logistic|||||7.551|0.135|0.99
91066359|NCT03809663|182018859|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.146||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|11.8||Nominal p-value|Regression, Logistic|||||11.800|0.390|0.38
91066360|NCT03809663|182018860|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.982||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.344|2.803||Nominal p-value|Regression, Logistic|||||2.803|0.344|0.97
91066361|NCT03809663|182018860|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.217||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.441|3.356||Nominal p-value|Regression, Logistic|||||3.356|0.441|0.70
91066362|NCT03809663|182018860|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.243|2.197||Nominal p-value|Regression, Logistic|||||2.197|0.243|0.58
91066363|NCT02792062|182018884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Ratio (%)|113.06||||0.659|TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.37|181.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effect model with natural log-transformed Cmax of unchanged TAK-385 as dependent variables, arm, treatment period and dosing condition as fixed effects, and participants as a random effect was used to calculate the difference between the dosing conditions (value before breakfast - value in fasted condition without breakfast).||181.67|70.37|0.659
91066364|NCT02792062|182018884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Ratio (%)|45.43||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|90.0|27.86|74.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effect model with natural log-transformed Cmax of unchanged TAK-385 as dependent variables, arm, treatment period and dosing condition as fixed effects, and participants as a random effect was used to calculate the difference between the dosing conditions (value after breakfast - value in fasted condition without breakfast).||74.07|27.86|0.012
91066365|NCT02792062|182018885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Ratio (%)|84.28||||0.238|TWO_SIDED|90.0|66.09|107.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effect model with natural log-transformed AUC∞ of unchanged TAK-385 as dependent variables, arm, treatment period and dosing condition as fixed effects, and participants as a random effect was used to calculate the difference between the dosing conditions (value before breakfast - value in fasted condition without breakfast).||107.47|66.09|0.238
91066366|NCT02792062|182018885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Ratio (%)|53.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|41.39|68.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effect model with natural log-transformed AUC∞ of unchanged TAK-385 as dependent variables, arm, treatment period and dosing condition as fixed effects, and participants as a random effect was used to calculate the difference between the dosing conditions (value after breakfast - value in fasted condition without breakfast).||68.37|41.39|<0.001
91066367|NCT02792062|182018886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Ratio (%)|84.68||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|90.0|66.23|108.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effect model with natural log-transformed AUC(0-120) of unchanged TAK-385 as dependent variables, arm, treatment period and dosing condition as fixed effects, and participants as a random effect was used to calculate the difference between the dosing conditions (value before breakfast - value in fasted condition without breakfast).||108.27|66.23|0.256
91066368|NCT02792062|182018886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Ratio (%)|52.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|40.78|67.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effect model with natural log-transformed AUC(0-120) of unchanged TAK-385 as dependent variables, arm, treatment period and dosing condition as fixed effects, and participants as a random effect was used to calculate the difference between the dosing conditions (value after breakfast - value in fasted condition without breakfast).||67.74|40.78|<0.001
91066369|NCT02792062|182018887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Ratio (%)|84.68||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|90.0|66.23|108.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effect model with natural log-transformed AUClast of unchanged TAK-385 as dependent variables, arm, treatment period and dosing condition as fixed effects, and participants as a random effect was used to calculate the difference between the dosing conditions (value before breakfast - value in fasted condition without breakfast).||108.27|66.23|0.256
91066370|NCT02792062|182018887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Ratio (%)|52.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|40.78|67.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effect model with natural log-transformed AUClast of unchanged TAK-385 as dependent variables, arm, treatment period and dosing condition as fixed effects, and participants as a random effect was used to calculate the difference between the dosing conditions (value after breakfast - value in fasted condition without breakfast).||67.74|40.78|<0.001
91066371|NCT03309943|182018894|SUPERIORITY|Mixed model analysis examining the effects of drug condition on response to smoking vs. non-smoking cues (collapsed across category - proximal, standard environment, personal environment). Data were analyzed using the underlying raw values versus collapsing them together.||||||0.019|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for FTCD. Carried out using SPSS Mixed Models with a repeated statement and compound symmetry covariance structure.||||||.019
91066372|NCT03309943|182018895|SUPERIORITY|Mixed model analysis examining the effects of drug condition on response to smoking vs. non-smoking cues (collapsed across category - proximal, standard environment, personal environment). Data were analyzed using the underlying raw values versus collapsing them together.||||||0.83|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for FTCD||||||.830
91066373|NCT03309943|182018896|SUPERIORITY|Mixed model analysis examining the effects of drug condition on response to smoking vs. non-smoking cues (collapsed across category - proximal, standard environment, personal environment). Data were analyzed using the underlying raw values versus collapsing them together.||||||0.006|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.006
91066374|NCT03309943|182018897|SUPERIORITY|Mixed model analysis examining the effects of drug condition on response to smoking vs. non-smoking cues (collapsed across category - proximal, standard environment, personal environment). Data were analyzed using the underlying raw values versus collapsing them together.||||||0.653|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.653
91066375|NCT03309943|182018898|SUPERIORITY|Mixed model analysis examining the effects of drug condition on response to smoking vs. non-smoking cues (collapsed across category - proximal, standard environment, personal environment). Data were analyzed using the underlying raw values versus collapsing them together.||||||0.012|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for FTCD||||||.012
91066376|NCT03309943|182018899|SUPERIORITY|Mixed model analysis examining the effects of drug condition on PPI indexes while viewing proximal smoking cues (which drove activation effects).||||||0.013|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.013
91066377|NCT03309943|182018900|SUPERIORITY|Repeated Measures ANCOVA analysis examining condition differences (adjusting for FTCD score)||||||0.024|||||||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Adjusted for FTCD.||||||.024
91066378|NCT03309943|182018901|SUPERIORITY|Repeated Measures ANCOVA analysis examining condition differences (adjusting for FTCD score)||||||0.086|||||||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Adjusted for FTCD score||||||.086
91066379|NCT03309943|182018902|SUPERIORITY|Repeated Measures ANCOVA analysis examining condition differences (adjusting for FTCD score)||||||0.14|||||||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Adjusted for FTCD score||||||.140
91066380|NCT03309943|182018903|SUPERIORITY|Standard ANCOVA analysis examining condition differences (adjusting for baseline craving and FTCD score).||||||0.556|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline craving and FTCD score||||||.556
91066381|NCT03309943|182018904|SUPERIORITY|Standard ANCOVA analysis examining condition differences (adjusting for FTCD score).||||||0.463||||||Adjusted for FTCD score only.|ANCOVA|||||||.463
91066382|NCT02230904|182018918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.115|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.635|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||The change in average adhesiveness score was average score for Treatment B minus average score for Treatment A.||||
91066383|NCT02230904|182018925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.442|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.895|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||The change in average adhesiveness score was average score for Treatment B minus average score for Treatment A.||||
91066384|NCT03331796|182018970|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|7.9|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline||||7.9|-4.8|0.63
91066385|NCT03331796|182018970|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3||0.0476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|13.7|||Regression, Linear|||||13.7|0.1|0.0476
91066386|NCT03331796|182018971|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|5.2|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .05||5.2|-11.4|0.45
91066387|NCT03331796|182018971|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.4||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|14.8|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .05||14.8|-3.3|0.21
91066388|NCT03331796|182018972|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|1.19|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .05||1.19|-0.36|0.29
91066389|NCT03331796|182018972|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|1.08|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .05||1.08|-0.55|0.51
91066390|NCT03331796|182018973|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|3.0|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .05||3.0|-1.0|.33
91066391|NCT03331796|182018973|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|5.3|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .05||5.3|1.1|0.0038
91066392|NCT03331796|182018974|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.0|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .05||2.0|-1.1|0.58
91066393|NCT03331796|182018974|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.3|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline||||1.3|-2.2|0.59
91066394|NCT03331796|182018975|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.2||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|16.1|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .05||16.1|-5.2|0.30
91066395|NCT03331796|182018975|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.9||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|5.3|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .05||5.3|-14.9|0.34
91066396|NCT03331796|182018976|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.6||0.996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|22.1|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .05||22.1|-22.0|0.996
91066397|NCT03331796|182018976|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.8||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.6|24.3|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .05||24.3|-20.6|0.87
91066398|NCT03331796|182018977|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.14|2.22|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .05||2.22|-2.14|0.97
91066399|NCT03331796|182018977|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|2.41|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .05||2.41|-2.15|0.91
91066400|NCT03331796|182018978|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.0||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.9|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .05||1.9|-2.3|0.84
91066401|NCT03331796|182018978|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|2.4|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .05||2.4|-1.9|0.80
91066402|NCT03331796|182018979|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|2.6|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .05||2.6|-5.5|0.48
91066403|NCT03331796|182018979|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|1.3|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .05||1.3|-6.8|0.18
91066404|NCT03331796|182018980|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|0.3|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .05||0.3|-5.7|0.075
91066405|NCT03331796|182018980|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|1.1|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .05||1.1|-5.4|0.195
91066406|NCT03331796|182018981|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|3.4|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .05||3.4|-1.0|0.28
91066407|NCT03331796|182018981|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|3.6|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .05||3.6|-0.8|0.21
91066408|NCT03331796|182018982|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|2.1|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .05||2.1|-3.2|0.66
91066409|NCT03331796|182018982|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|0.5|||Regression, Linear|||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .05||0.5|-4.9|0.11
91066410|NCT03331796|182018983|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.17|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .05||0.17|-0.29|0.59
91066411|NCT03331796|182018983|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.28|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .05||0.28|-0.17|0.64
91066412|NCT03331796|182018986|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.768||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .05|ANOVA|||||||0.768
91066413|NCT01786993|182018991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Event-Free Probability|0.932|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.904|0.951||||||"The hypothesis is formally expressed as:~H0: Freedom from system-related complications through 9 months ≤ 75% Ha: Freedom from system-related complications through 9 months \> 75%"||0.951|0.904|
91066414|NCT01786993|182018992|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assuming a binomial distribution with a 44% probability for non-responders between 3 months and 9 months in both study arms, the sample size required for 85% power to reject the null hypothesis at the 5% significance level is 394. To adjust for a potential net crossover of 15% and an overall attrition rate of 20%, the total number of patients required to be enrolled in this study is 506.|Difference of proportions|-0.049||||0.0131|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-0.138||||normal approximation for binomial dist|||"H0: (Non-responder rate in the BiV arm between 3 M randomization and 9 M) - (Non-responder rate in the MPP arm between 3 M randomization and 9 M) ≤ -0.15~Ha: (Non-responder rate in the BiV arm between 3 M randomization and 9 M) - (Non-responder rate in the MPP arm between 3 M randomization and 9 M) \> -0.15~The null hypothesis will be rejected at the 2.5% significance level if the lower one-sided 97.5% confidence bound for the difference in the proportions is above -0.15."|||-0.138|0.0131
91066415|NCT00450437|182018993|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the hSBA GMT at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain A with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|hSBA GMT ratios|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.16|||ANOVA|||The study would be considered a success if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the hSBA GMT ratios comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain A at 1 month after vaccination was contained within the equivalence interval (0.5, 2.0).||1.16|0.68|
91066416|NCT00450437|182018993|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the hSBA GMT at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain A with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|hSBA GMT ratios|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.23|||ANOVA|||The study would be considered a success if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the hSBA GMT ratios comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain A at 1 month after vaccination was contained within the equivalence interval (0.5, 2.0).||1.23|0.73|
91066417|NCT00450437|182018993|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the hSBA GMT at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain A with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|hSBA GMT ratios|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.38|||ANOVA|||The study would be considered a success if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the hSBA GMT ratios comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain A at 1 month after vaccination was contained within the equivalence interval (0.5, 2.0).||1.38|0.81|
91066418|NCT00450437|182018993|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the hSBA GMT at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain C with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|hSBA GMT ratios|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.6|||ANOVA|||The study would be considered a success if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the hSBA GMT ratios comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain C at 1 month after vaccination was contained within the equivalence interval (0.5, 2.0).||1.6|0.9|
91066419|NCT00450437|182018993|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the hSBA GMT at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain C with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|hSBA GMT ratios|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.77|||ANOVA|||The study would be considered a success if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the hSBA GMT ratios comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain C at 1 month after vaccination was contained within the equivalence interval (0.5, 2.0).||1.77|1|
91066420|NCT00450437|182018993|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the hSBA GMT at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain C with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|hSBA GMT ratios|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.2|||ANOVA|||The study would be considered a success if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the hSBA GMT ratios comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain C at 1 month after vaccination was contained within the equivalence interval (0.5, 2.0).||1.2|0.68|
91066421|NCT00450437|182018993|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the hSBA GMT at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain W with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|hSBA GMT ratios|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.97|||ANOVA|||The study would be considered a success if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the hSBA GMT ratios comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain W at 1 month after vaccination was contained within the equivalence interval (0.5, 2.0).||0.97|0.63|
91066422|NCT00450437|182018993|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the hSBA GMT at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain W with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|hSBA GMT ratios|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.13|||ANOVA|||The study would be considered a success if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the hSBA GMT ratios comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain W at 1 month after vaccination was contained within the equivalence interval (0.5, 2.0).||1.13|0.86|
91066423|NCT00450437|182018993|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the hSBA GMT at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval for all pairs of vaccine lots, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain W with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|hSBA GMT ratios|1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.67|||ANOVA|||The study would be considered a success if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the hSBA GMT ratios comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain W at 1 month after vaccination was contained within the equivalence interval (0.5, 2.0).||1.67|1.09|
91066424|NCT00450437|182018993|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the hSBA GMT at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain Y with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|hSBA GMT ratios|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.02|||ANOVA|||The study would be considered a success if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the hSBA GMT ratios comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain Y at 1 month after vaccination was contained within the equivalence interval (0.5, 2.0).||1.02|0.61|
91066425|NCT00450437|182018993|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the hSBA GMT at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain Y with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|hSBA GMT ratios|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.18|||ANOVA|||The study would be considered a success if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the hSBA GMT ratios comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain Y at 1 month after vaccination was contained within the equivalence interval (0.5, 2.0).||1.18|0.7|
91066426|NCT00450437|182018993|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the hSBA GMT at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain Y with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|hSBA GMT ratios|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.5|||ANOVA|||The study would be considered a success if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the hSBA GMT ratios comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain Y at 1 month after vaccination was contained within the equivalence interval (0.5, 2.0).||1.5|0.89|
91066427|NCT00450437|182018994|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Immunogenicity of the Investigational MenACWY vaccine would be considered non-inferior to that of the Licensed MenACWY vaccine if the lower limit of the two-sided CI for the between group difference (investigational vaccine minus licensed vaccine) in percentage of seroresponders one month after vaccination is \> -10%.|Vaccine group difference|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|14.0|||ANOVA|||Vaccine group difference Investigational MenACWY vaccine vs. Licensed MenaCWY vaccine, MenA.||14|3|
91066428|NCT00450437|182018994|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Immunogenicity of the Investigational MenACWY vaccine would be considered non-inferior to that of the Licensed MenACWY vaccine if the lower limit of the two-sided CI for the between group difference (investigational vaccine minus licensed vaccine) in percentage of seroresponders one month after vaccination is \> -10%.|Vaccine group difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|7.0|||ANOVA|||Vaccine group difference Investigational MenACWY vaccine vs. Licensed MenaCWY vaccine, MenC.||7|-2|
91066429|NCT00450437|182018994|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Immunogenicity of the Investigational MenACWY vaccine would be considered non-inferior to that of the Licensed MenACWY vaccine if the lower limit of the two-sided CI for the between group difference (investigational vaccine minus licensed vaccine) in percentage of seroresponders one month after vaccination is \> -10%.|Vaccine group difference|12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|18.0|||ANOVA|||Vaccine group difference Investigational MenACWY vaccine vs. Licensed MenaCWY vaccine, MenW.||18|6|
91079215|NCT03240406|182044074|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.11||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|ANCOVA|MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|||0.11|-0.13|0.893
91066430|NCT00450437|182018994|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Immunogenicity of the Investigational MenACWY vaccine would be considered non-inferior to that of the Licensed MenACWY vaccine if the lower limit of the two-sided CI for the between group difference (investigational vaccine minus licensed vaccine) in percentage of seroresponders one month after vaccination is \> -10%.|Vaccine group difference|27.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.0|33.0|||ANOVA|||Vaccine group difference Investigational MenACWY vaccine vs. Licensed MenaCWY vaccine, MenY.||33|20|
91066431|NCT00450437|182018995|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|MenACWY was considered noninferior to Menactra if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the difference in the percentage of subjects experiencing at least one severe systemic reaction \[MenACWY minus Menactra\] was less than 6%.|Vaccine group difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.0|||ANOVA|||Vaccine group difference Investigational MenACWY vaccine vs. Licensed MenaCWY vaccine, safety.||2|-1|
91066432|NCT00450437|182018996|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs for percentage of subjects with seroresponse at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain A with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|Vaccine group difference|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|3.0|||ANOVA|||Lot-to-lot consistency would be concluded if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the percentage of subjects with seroresponse comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain A were contained within the equivalence interval (-10%, 10%).||3|-10|
91066433|NCT00450437|182018996|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs for percentage of subjects with seroresponse at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain A with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|Vaccine group difference|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|0.0|||ANOVA|||Lot-to-lot consistency would be concluded if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the percentage of subjects with seroresponse comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain A were contained within the equivalence interval (-10%, 10%).||0|-12|
91066434|NCT00450437|182018996|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs for percentage of subjects with seroresponse at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain A with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|Vaccine group difference|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|4.0|||ANOVA|||Lot-to-lot consistency would be concluded if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the percentage of subjects with seroresponse comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain A were contained within the equivalence interval (-10%, 10%).||4|-9|
91066435|NCT00450437|182018996|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs for percentage of subjects with seroresponse at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain C with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|Vaccine group difference|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|10.0|||ANOVA|||Lot-to-lot consistency would be concluded if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the percentage of subjects with seroresponse comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain C were contained within the equivalence interval (-10%, 10%).||10|0|
91066436|NCT00450437|182018996|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs for percentage of subjects with seroresponse at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain C with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|Vaccine group difference|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|10.0|||ANOVA|||Lot-to-lot consistency would be concluded if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the percentage of subjects with seroresponse comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain C were contained within the equivalence interval (-10%, 10%).||10|-1|
91066437|NCT00450437|182018996|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs for percentage of subjects with seroresponse at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain C with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|Vaccine group difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|5.0|||ANOVA|||Lot-to-lot consistency would be concluded if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the percentage of subjects with seroresponse comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain C were contained within the equivalence interval (-10%, 10%).||5|-6|
90827184|NCT01687296|181529593|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was demonstrated at the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (5%, 2-sided significance level) for the treatment difference (FP minus prednisone) in the mean morning PEF on diary card over the treatment assessment period was greater than -12L/min.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.46||||0.931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.85|10.76|||ANCOVA|||250 par were to be enrolled to achieve 200 total evaluable par or 100 evaluable par per group. Sample size was based on the primary efficacy endpoint (AM PEF) and had 80% power to reject the null hypothesis: nebulized FP (1 mg BID) was inferior to oral prednisone with regard to AM PEF using one-side t test at significance level 2.5%, and assuming true treatment difference (FP minus predisone) was 3.6 L/min, noninferiority margin was -12L/min, and common standard deviation was 39 L/min.||10.76|-9.85|0.931
90827185|NCT01687296|181529594|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was demonstrated at the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (5%, 2-sided significance level) for the treatment difference (FP minus prednisone) in the mean morning PEF on diary card over the treatment assessment period was greater than -12L/min.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.64|10.65|||ANCOVA|||||10.65|-9.64|0.922
90827186|NCT01687296|181529595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.16||||0.822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.02|11.34|||ANCOVA|||||11.34|-9.02|0.822
91066438|NCT00450437|182018996|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs for percentage of subjects with seroresponse at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain W with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|Vaccine group difference|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|0.0|||ANOVA|||Lot-to-lot consistency would be concluded if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the percentage of subjects with seroresponse comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain W were contained within the equivalence interval (-10%, 10%).||0|-13|
91066439|NCT00450437|182018996|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs for percentage of subjects with seroresponse at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain W with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|Vaccine group difference|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|11.0|||ANOVA|||Lot-to-lot consistency would be concluded if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the percentage of subjects with seroresponse comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain W were contained within the equivalence interval (-10%, 10%).||11|-3|
91066440|NCT00450437|182018996|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs for percentage of subjects with seroresponse at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval for all pairs of vaccine lots, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain W with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|Vaccine group difference|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|17.0|||ANOVA|||Lot-to-lot consistency would be concluded if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the percentage of subjects with seroresponse comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain W were contained within the equivalence interval (-10%, 10%).||17|4|
91066441|NCT00450437|182018996|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs for percentage of subjects with seroresponse at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain Y with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|Vaccine group difference|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|1.0|||ANOVA|||Lot-to-lot consistency would be concluded if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the percentage of subjects with seroresponse comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain Y were contained within the equivalence interval (-10%, 10%).||1|-13|
91066442|NCT00450437|182018996|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs for percentage of subjects with seroresponse at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain Y with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|Vaccine group difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|8.0|||ANOVA|||Lot-to-lot consistency would be concluded if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the percentage of subjects with seroresponse comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain Y were contained within the equivalence interval (-10%, 10%).||8|-6|
91066443|NCT00450437|182018996|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs for percentage of subjects with seroresponse at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain Y with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|Vaccine group difference|7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|14.0|||ANOVA|||Lot-to-lot consistency would be concluded if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the percentage of subjects with seroresponse comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain Y were contained within the equivalence interval (-10%, 10%).||14|0|
91066444|NCT00450437|182018996|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:8 at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain A with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|Vaccine group difference|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|3.0|||ANOVA|||Lot-to-lot consistency would be concluded if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:8 comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain A were contained within the equivalence interval (-10%, 10%).||3|-10|
90827187|NCT01687296|181529596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.717||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Fluticasone propionate versus Prednisone for day-time symptom score||||0.717
90827188|NCT01687296|181529596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.683||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Fluticasone propionate versus Prednisone for night-time symptom score||||0.683
91066445|NCT00450437|182018996|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:8 at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain A with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|Vaccine group difference|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|0.0|||ANOVA|||Lot-to-lot consistency would be concluded if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:8 comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain A were contained within the equivalence interval (-10%, 10%).||0|-12|
91077852|NCT02913105|182041135|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.01||||0.8083|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.06|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||TIMP-1: Day 42||1.06|0.96|0.8083
90827189|NCT01687296|181529597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.996||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.996
91066446|NCT00450437|182018996|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:8 at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain A with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|Vaccine group difference|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|4.0|||ANOVA|||Lot-to-lot consistency would be concluded if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:8 comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain A were contained within the equivalence interval (-10%, 10%).||4|-9|
91066447|NCT00450437|182018996|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:8 at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain C with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|Vaccine group difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|6.0|||ANOVA|||Lot-to-lot consistency would be concluded if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:8 comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain C were contained within the equivalence interval (-10%, 10%).||6|-3|
91066448|NCT00450437|182018996|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:8 at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval for all pairs of vaccine lots, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain C with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|Vaccine group difference|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|7.0|||ANOVA|||Lot-to-lot consistency would be concluded if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:8 comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain C were contained within the equivalence interval (-10%, 10%).||7|-2|
91066449|NCT00450437|182018996|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:8 at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain C with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|Vaccine group difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|6.0|||ANOVA|||Lot-to-lot consistency would be concluded if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:8 comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain C were contained within the equivalence interval (-10%, 10%).||6|-3|
91066450|NCT00450437|182018996|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:8 at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval for all pairs of vaccine lots, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain W with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|Vaccine group difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|1.0|||ANOVA|||Lot-to-lot consistency would be concluded if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:8 comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain W were contained within the equivalence interval (-10%, 10%).||1|-5|
91066451|NCT00450437|182018996|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:8 at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain W with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|Vaccine group difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|2.0|||ANOVA|||Lot-to-lot consistency would be concluded if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:8 comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain W were contained within the equivalence interval (-10%, 10%).||2|-4|
91066452|NCT00450437|182018996|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:8 at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval for all pairs of vaccine lots, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain W with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|Vaccine group difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|4.0|||ANOVA|||Lot-to-lot consistency would be concluded if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:8 comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain W were contained within the equivalence interval (-10%, 10%).||4|-2|
91066453|NCT00450437|182018996|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:8 at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain Y with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|Vaccine group difference|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|2.0|||ANOVA|||Lot-to-lot consistency would be concluded if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:8 comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain Y were contained within the equivalence interval (-10%, 10%).||2|-8|
91077853|NCT02913105|182041135|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.02||||0.5361|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.09|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||TIMP-1: Day 84||1.09|0.96|0.5361
90827190|NCT01687296|181529598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.044||||0.348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.135|0.048|||ANCOVA|||Fluticasone propionate versus Prednisone for FEV1 on Day 5||0.048|-0.135|0.348
91066454|NCT00450437|182018996|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:8 at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain Y with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|Vaccine group difference|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|2.0|||ANOVA|||Lot-to-lot consistency would be concluded if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:8 comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain Y were contained within the equivalence interval (-10%, 10%).||2|-8|
91066455|NCT00450437|182018996|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:8 at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain Y with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|Vaccine group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|5.0|||ANOVA|||Lot-to-lot consistency would be concluded if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:8 comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain Y were contained within the equivalence interval (-10%, 10%).||5|-5|
91066456|NCT00450437|182018996|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:4 at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain A with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|Vaccine group difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|4.0|||ANOVA|||Lot-to-lot consistency would be concluded if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:4 comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain A were contained within the equivalence interval (-10%, 10%).||4|-9|
91066457|NCT00450437|182018996|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:4 at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain A with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|Vaccine group difference|-5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|1.0|||ANOVA|||Lot-to-lot consistency would be concluded if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:4 comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain A were contained within the equivalence interval (-10%, 10%).||1|-11|
91066458|NCT00450437|182018996|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:4 at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain A with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|Vaccine group difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|4.0|||ANOVA|||Lot-to-lot consistency would be concluded if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:4 comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain A were contained within the equivalence interval (-10%, 10%).||4|-8|
91066459|NCT00450437|182018996|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:4 at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain C with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|Vaccine group difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|5.0|||ANOVA|||Lot-to-lot consistency would be concluded if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:4 comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain C were contained within the equivalence interval (-10%, 10%)||5|-3|
91066460|NCT00450437|182018996|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:4 at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain C with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|Vaccine group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|4.0|||ANOVA|||Lot-to-lot consistency would be concluded if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:4 comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain C were contained within the equivalence interval (-10%, 10%).||4|-4|
91066461|NCT00450437|182018996|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:4 at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain C with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|Vaccine group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|4.0|||ANOVA|||Lot-to-lot consistency would be concluded if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:4 comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain C were contained within the equivalence interval (-10%, 10%).||4|-4|
91066462|NCT00450437|182018996|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:4 at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval for all pairs of vaccine lots, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain W with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|Vaccine group difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|1.0|||ANOVA|||Lot-to-lot consistency would be concluded if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:4 comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain W were contained within the equivalence interval (-10%, 10%).||1|-5|
91066463|NCT00450437|182018996|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:4 at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval for all pairs of vaccine lots, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain W with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|Vaccine group difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|2.0|||ANOVA|||Lot-to-lot consistency would be concluded if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:4 comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain W were contained within the equivalence interval (-10%, 10%).||2|-4|
91066464|NCT00450437|182018996|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:4 at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval for all pairs of vaccine lots, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain W with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|Vaccine group difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|3.0|||ANOVA|||Lot-to-lot consistency would be concluded if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:4 comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain W were contained within the equivalence interval (-10%, 10%).||3|-2|
91066465|NCT00450437|182018996|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:4 at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval for all pairs of vaccine lots, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain Y with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|Vaccine group difference|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|1.0|||ANOVA|||Lot-to-lot consistency would be concluded if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:4 comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain Y were contained within the equivalence interval (-10%, 10%).||1|-8|
91066466|NCT00450437|182018996|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:4 at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain Y with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|Vaccine group difference|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|0.0|||ANOVA|||Lot-to-lot consistency would be concluded if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:4 comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain Y were contained within the equivalence interval (-10%, 10%).||0|-9|
91066467|NCT00450437|182018996|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:4 at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain Y with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|Vaccine group difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|3.0|||ANOVA|||Lot-to-lot consistency would be concluded if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:4 comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain Y were contained within the equivalence interval (-10%, 10%).||3|-5|
91066468|NCT00450437|182018997|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Immunogenicity of the Investigational MenACWY vaccine would be considered non-inferior to that of the Licensed MenACWY vaccine if the lower limit of the two-sided CI for percentage of subjects with seroresponse one month after vaccination is \> -10%.|Vaccine group difference|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|8.0|||ANOVA|||Vaccine group difference Investigational MenACWY vaccine vs. Licensed MenaCWY vaccine, MenA.||8|0|
91066469|NCT00450437|182018997|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Immunogenicity of the Investigational MenACWY vaccine would be considered non-inferior to that of the Licensed MenACWY vaccine if the lower limit of the two-sided CI for percentage of subjects with seroresponse one month after vaccination is \> -10%.|Vaccine group difference|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|9.0|||ANOVA|||Vaccine group difference Investigational MenACWY vaccine vs. Licensed MenaCWY vaccine, MenC.||9|1|
91066470|NCT00450437|182018997|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Immunogenicity of the Investigational MenACWY vaccine would be considered non-inferior to that of the Licensed MenACWY vaccine if the lower limit of the two-sided CI for percentage of subjects with seroresponse one month after vaccination is \> -10%.|Vaccine group difference|15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|20.0|||ANOVA|||Vaccine group difference Investigational MenACWY vaccine vs.Licensed MenaCWY vaccine, MenW.||20|11|
91066471|NCT00450437|182018997|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Immunogenicity of the Investigational MenACWY vaccine would be considered non-inferior to that of the Licensed MenACWY vaccine if the lower limit of the two-sided CI for percentage of subjects with seroresponse one month after vaccination is \> -10%.|Vaccine group difference|23.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.0|28.0|||ANOVA|||Vaccine group difference Investigational MenACWY vaccine vs. Licensed MenaCWY vaccine, MenY.||28|19|
90827191|NCT01687296|181529598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.004||||0.914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.074|0.083|||ANCOVA|||Fluticasone propionate versus Prednisone for FEV1 on Day 8||0.083|-0.074|0.914
90827192|NCT01687296|181529598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.067||||0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.187|0.054|||ANCOVA|||Fluticasone propionate versus Prednisone for FVC on Day 5||0.054|-0.187|0.276
90827193|NCT01687296|181529598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.039||||0.384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.126|0.049|||ANCOVA|||Fluticasone propionate versus Prednisone for FVC on Day 8||0.049|-0.126|0.384
90827194|NCT01687296|181529599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.507||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Fluticasone propionate versus Prednisone for clinical scoring index on Day 5||||0.507
91066472|NCT00450437|182018997|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Immunogenicity of the Investigational MenACWY vaccine would be considered non-inferior to that of the Licensed MenACWY vaccine if the lower limit of the two-sided CI for percentage of subjects with hSBA ≥ 1:8 one month after vaccination is \> -10%.|Vaccine group difference|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|8.0|||ANOVA|||Vaccine group difference Investigational MenACWY vaccine vs. Licensed MenaCWY vaccine, MenA.||8|0|
91066473|NCT00450437|182018997|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Immunogenicity of the Investigational MenACWY vaccine would be considered non-inferior to that of the Licensed MenACWY vaccine if the lower limit of the two-sided CI for percentage of subjects with hSBA ≥ 1:8 one month after vaccination is \> -10%.|Vaccine group difference|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|7.0|||ANOVA|||Vaccine group difference Investigational MenACWY vaccine vs. Licensed MenaCWY vaccine, MenC.||7|0|
91066474|NCT00450437|182018997|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Immunogenicity of the Investigational MenACWY vaccine would be considered non-inferior to that of the Licensed MenACWY vaccine if the lower limit of the two-sided CI for percentage of subjects with with hSBA ≥ 1:8 one month after vaccination is \> -10%.|Vaccine group difference|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|9.0|||ANOVA|||Vaccine group difference Investigational MenACWY vaccine vs. Licensed MenaCWY vaccine, MenW.||9|4|
91066475|NCT00450437|182018997|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Immunogenicity of the Investigational MenACWY vaccine would be considered non-inferior to that of the Licensed MenACWY vaccine if the lower limit of the two-sided CI for percentage of subjects with hSBA ≥ 1:8 one month after vaccination is \> -10%.|Vaccine group difference|15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|20.0|||ANOVA|||Vaccine group difference Investigational MenACWY vaccine vs. Licensed MenaCWY vaccine, MenY.||20|12|
91066476|NCT00450437|182018997|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Immunogenicity of the Investigational MenACWY vaccine would be considered non-inferior to that of the Licensed MenACWY vaccine if the lower limit of the two-sided CI for percentage of subjects with hSBA ≥ 1:4 one month after vaccination is \> -10%.|Vaccine group difference|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|7.0|||ANOVA|||Vaccine group difference Investigational MenACWY vaccine vs. Licensed MenaCWY vaccine, MenA.||7|-1|
91066477|NCT00450437|182018997|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Immunogenicity of the Investigational MenACWY vaccine would be considered non-inferior to that of the Licensed MenACWY vaccine if the lower limit of the two-sided CI for percentage of subjects with hSBA ≥ 1:4 one month after vaccination is \> -10%.|Vaccine group difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|4.0|||ANOVA|||Vaccine group difference Investigational MenACWY vaccine vs. Licensed MenaCWY vaccine, MenC.||4|-1|
91066478|NCT00450437|182018997|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Immunogenicity of the Investigational MenACWY vaccine would be considered non-inferior to that of the Licensed MenACWY vaccine if the lower limit of the two-sided CI for percentage of subjects with hSBA ≥ 1:4 one month after vaccination is \> -10%.|Vaccine group difference|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|8.0|||ANOVA|||Vaccine group difference Investigational MenACWY vaccine vs. Licensed MenaCWY vaccine, MenW.||8|3|
91066479|NCT00450437|182018997|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Immunogenicity of the Investigational MenACWY vaccine would be considered non-inferior to that of the Licensed MenACWY vaccine if the lower limit of the two-sided CI for percentage of subjects with hSBA ≥ 1:4 one month after vaccination is \> -10%.|Vaccine group difference|12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.0|16.0|||ANOVA|||Vaccine group difference Investigational MenACWY vaccine vs. Licensed MenaCWY vaccine, MenY.||16|9|
91066480|NCT00450437|182018998|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence lower limit was 0.5. If the lower limit of two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the hSBA GMT (GMT for investigational vaccine / GMT for licensed vaccine) at one month following vaccination was above this limit, Investigational MenACWY vaccine would be non-inferior to Licensed MenACWY vaccine for Neisseria Meningitidis strain A with respect to the immune response.|hSBA GMT ratios|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.56|||ANOVA|||"Non-inferiority of Investigational MenACWY Vaccine vs. Licensed MenACWY vaccine, MenA.~The study would be considered a success if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CIs for the hSBA GMT ratios comparing Investigational MenACWY vaccine to Licensed MenACWY vaccine for Neisseria Meningitidis strain A at 1 month after vaccination was to be above 0.5."||1.56|1.12|
91066481|NCT00450437|182018998|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence lower limit was 0.5. If the lower limit of two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the hSBA GMT (GMT for investigational vaccine / GMT for licensed vaccine) at one month following vaccination was above this limit, Investigational MenACWY vaccine would be non-inferior to Licensed MenACWY vaccine for Neisseria Meningitidis strain C with respect to the immune response.|hSBA GMT ratios|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|1.67|||ANOVA|||"Non-inferiority of Investigation MenACWY vaccine vs. Licensed MenACWY vaccine, MenC.~The study would be considered a success if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CIs for the hSBA GMT ratios comparing Investigational MenACWY vaccine to Licensed MenACWY vaccine for Neisseria Meningitidis strain C at 1 month after vaccination was to be above 0.5."||1.67|1.17|
90827195|NCT01687296|181529599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Fluticasone propionate versus Prednisone for clinical scoring index on Day 8||||0.700
90827196|NCT01687296|181529600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.633||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Fluticasone propionate versus Prednisone for participant/parent global evaluation||||0.633
90827197|NCT01687296|181529600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.323||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Fluticasone propionate versus Prednisone for investigator global evaluation||||0.323
90827198|NCT00945282|181529627|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.932||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.812|-0.053|||ANCOVA|||||-0.053|-1.812|0.042
91066482|NCT00450437|182018998|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence lower limit was 0.5. If the lower limit of two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the hSBA GMT (GMT for investigational vaccine / GMT for licensed vaccine) at one month following vaccination was above this limit, Investigational MenACWY vaccine would be non-inferior to Licensed MenACWY vaccine for Neisseria Meningitidis strain W with respect to the immune response.|hSBA GMT ratios|1.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|2.05|||ANOVA|||"Non-inferiority of Investigational MenACWY vaccine vs. Licensed MenACWY vaccine, MenW.~The study would be considered a success if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CIs for the hSBA GMT ratios comparing Investigational MenACWY vaccine to Licensed MenACWY vaccine for Neisseria Meningitidis strain W at 1 month after vaccination was to be above 0.5."||2.05|1.51|
91066483|NCT00450437|182018998|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence lower limit was 0.5. If the lower limit of two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the hSBA GMT (GMT for investigational vaccine / GMT for licensed vaccine) at one month following vaccination was above this limit, Investigational MenACWY vaccine would be non-inferior to Licensed MenACWY vaccine for Neisseria Meningitidis strain Y with respect to the immune response.|hSBA GMT ratios|2.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.11|2.95|||ANOVA|||"Non-inferiority of Investigational MenACWY Vaccine vs. Licensed MenACWY vaccine, MenY.~The study would be considered a success if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CIs for the hSBA GMT ratios comparing Investigational MenACWY vaccine to Licensed MenACWY vaccine for Neisseria Meningitidis strain Y at 1 month after vaccination was to be above 0.5."||2.95|2.11|
91066484|NCT00450437|182019000|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Immunogenicity of the Investigational MenACWY vaccine would be considered non-inferior to that of the Licensed MenACWY vaccine if the lower limit of the two-sided CI for the between group difference (investigational vaccine minus licensed vaccine) in percentage of seroresponders one month after vaccination is \> -10%.|Vaccine group difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|5.0|||ANOVA|||Vaccine group difference Investigational MenACWY vaccine vs. Licensed MenaCWY vaccine, MenA.||5|-7|
91066485|NCT00450437|182019000|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Immunogenicity of the Investigational MenACWY vaccine would be considered non-inferior to that of the Licensed MenACWY vaccine if the lower limit of the two-sided CI for the between group difference (investigational vaccine minus licensed vaccine) in percentage of seroresponders one month after vaccination is \> -10%.|Vaccine group difference|9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|15.0|||ANOVA|||Vaccine group difference Investigational MenACWY vaccine vs. Licensed MenaCWY vaccine. MenC.||15|3|
91066486|NCT00450437|182019000|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Immunogenicity of the Investigational MenACWY vaccine would be considered non-inferior to that of the Licensed MenACWY vaccine if the lower limit of the two-sided CI for the between group difference (investigational vaccine minus licensed vaccine) in percentage of seroresponders one month after vaccination is \> -10%.|Vaccine group difference|9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|17.0|||ANOVA|||Vaccine group difference Investigational MenACWY vaccine vs. Licensed MenaCWY vaccine, MenW.||17|2|
91066487|NCT00450437|182019000|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Immunogenicity of the Investigational MenACWY vaccine would be considered non-inferior to that of the Licensed MenACWY vaccine if the lower limit of the two-sided CI for the between group difference (investigational vaccine minus licensed vaccine) in percentage of seroresponders one month after vaccination is \> -10%.|Vaccine group difference|16.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.0|23.0|||ANOVA|||Vaccine group difference Investigational MenACWY vaccine vs. Licensed MenaCWY vaccine, MenY.||23|9|
91066488|NCT01890122|182019001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.107|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.278||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used with treatment and country as fixed effects, and Baseline HbA1c as a continuous covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-0.278|-0.700|< 0.0001
91066489|NCT01890122|182019001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.108|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.889|-0.467||An ANCOVA model was used with treatment and country as fixed effects, and Baseline HbA1c as a continuous covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-0.467|-0.889|< 0.0001
91066490|NCT04025879|182019015|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.58||||0.00025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.78|||Log Rank||Stratified by randomization stratification factors: PD-L1 Status (\>=1% vs \<1%/not evaluable/indeterminate), disease stage (II vs III), histology (squamous vs non-squamous).|||0.78|0.43|0.00025
91066491|NCT04025879|182019017|SUPERIORITY||DIFFERENCE OF PCR|20.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.3|26.6|||||Strata adjusted difference based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method of weighting.|||26.6|14.3|
91066492|NCT04025879|182019017|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|12.97|||||Strata adjusted odds ratio using Mantel-Haenszel method.|||12.97|3.40|
91066493|NCT04025879|182019018|SUPERIORITY||DIFFERENCE OF MPR|23.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.8|30.6|||||Strata adjusted difference based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method of weighting.|||30.6|15.8|
90827199|NCT00945282|181529628|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.413||||0.221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.173|0.347|||ANCOVA|||||0.347|-1.173|0.221
90827200|NCT00945282|181529629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value is the value for GSK2248761 30 mg, at Day 1 to Day 8|Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1 to Day 8||||<0.0001
90827201|NCT00945282|181529629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6922||||||The p-value is the value for placebo, at Day 1 to Day 8|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo, Day 1 to Day 8||||0.6922
90827202|NCT00940901|181529659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis: there would be no difference in the number of participants who experienced at least a 50% reduction in the frequency of priapic episodes between baseline and 8 weeks post intervention, between the sildenafil and placebo groups||||1
90827203|NCT00940901|181529660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.55
91066494|NCT04025879|182019018|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.01||||||95.0|2.48|6.49|||||Strata adjusted odds ratio using Mantel-Haenszel method.|||6.49|2.48|
91066495|NCT00071110|182019031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32||95.0||||Statistic (t): -1.00|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.32
91066496|NCT00071110|182019032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09||95.0||||Statistic (t): 1.56|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.09
91066497|NCT00071110|182019033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17||95.0||||Statistic (t): 1.40|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.17
91066498|NCT02640664|182019047|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.93|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|10.5||primary endpoint in the extension study does not have p-values. It's a descriptive analysis.|ANOVA|||||10.5|-1.1|
91066499|NCT02640664|182019047|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.96|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|8.3||primary endpoint in the extension study does not have p-values. It's a descriptive analysis.|ANOVA|||||8.3|-3.4|
91066500|NCT02640664|182019047|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.79|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|7.8||primary endpoint in the extension study does not have p-values. It's a descriptive analysis.|ANOVA|||||7.8|-3.3|
91066501|NCT02640664|182019050|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.42|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|16.7||P value not applicable because it's a descriptive analysis.|ANOVA|||||16.7|-0.8|
91066502|NCT02640664|182019050|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.49|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|10.5||P value not applicable because it's a descriptive analysis.|ANOVA|||||10.5|-7.3|
91066503|NCT02640664|182019050|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.24|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|14.8|||ANOVA|||||14.8|-2.0|
91066504|NCT03175536|182019072|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.4||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|12.1|||GEE models|Negative binomial regression with GEE model; term of interest was interaction between study group and time period (baseline vs follow-up year).|Using terms from the regression model, we applied marginal effects methods to calculate mean adjusted baseline and follow-up PDC and absolute changes|||12.1|-5.2|0.05
91066505|NCT03175536|182019073|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.3||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|7.0|||GEE model|Negative binomial regression with GEE model; term of interest was interaction between study group and time period (baseline vs follow-up year).|Using terms from the regression model, we applied marginal effects methods to calculate mean adjusted baseline and follow-up PDC and absolute changes|||7.0|-4.4|0.05
91066506|NCT03175536|182019074|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|11.3|||GEE model|Binomial regression with GEE model; term of interest was interaction between study group and time period (baseline vs follow-up year).|Using terms from the regression model, we applied marginal effects methods to calculate mean adjusted baseline and follow-up PDC and absolute changes.|||11.3|0.7|0.05
91066507|NCT03175536|182019075|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.16||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|1.06|||GEE model|Negative binomial regression with GEE model; term of interest was interaction between study group and time period (baseline vs follow-up year).|Using terms from the regression model, we applied marginal effects methods to calculate mean adjusted baseline and follow-up PDC and absolute changes|||1.06|-0.74|0.05
91066508|NCT03175536|182019076|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-34.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.0|-21.0|||GEE model|Negative binomial regression with GEE model; term of interest was interaction between study group and time period (baseline vs follow-up year).|Using terms from the regression model, we applied marginal effects methods to calculate mean adjusted baseline and follow-up PDC and absolute changes.|||-21|-47|0.05
91066509|NCT05514873|182019081|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of Week 12 MG-ADL over Baseline was shown if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) is less than 2.|||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||||<0.001
91066510|NCT02729025|182019085|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.24||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|1.39|||Multivariate regression model||Treatment difference used placebo as the reference|A multivariate regression was modelled on the primary endpoint as well as three other response variables (percent change in Lp\[a\] at Weeks 8 and 16, baseline MDS TBR, and baseline Lp\[a\]). The primary endpoint was regressed on the treatment group and statin stratification factor; baseline MDS TBR and Lp(a) were regressed on the statin stratification factor, and percent changes in Lp(a) were regressed on the treatment group, statin stratification factor, visit, and treatment group by visit.||1.39|-7.40|0.18
91066511|NCT02729025|182019086|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-13.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.73|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.29|-8.49|||Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, statin stratification, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Treatment difference used placebo as the reference|||-8.49|-19.29|<0.0001
91066512|NCT02729025|182019087|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-60.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.81|-55.51|||Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, statin stratification, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Treatment difference used placebo as the reference|||-55.51|-65.81|<0.0001
91066513|NCT02729025|182019088|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-51.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.85|-47.33|||Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, statin stratification, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Treatment difference used placebo as the reference|||-47.33|-55.85|<0.0001
91066514|NCT03782792|182019194|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.487||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.215|0.672||One-sided P Value.|Suissa-Shuster Z-pooled test||Risk difference=Response rate of spesolimab - response rate of placebo.|The Suissa-Shuster Z-pooled test was implemented to test the treatment effect on the primary endpoint on the RS (estimand EN) at a 1-sided, alpha level of 0.025. Confidence intervals (95%) around the risk difference were produced using the Chan and Zhang method.||0.672|0.215|0.0004
91066515|NCT03782792|182019195|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.317||||0.0118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.022|0.527||One-sided P Value.|Suissa-Shuster Z-pooled test||Risk difference=Response rate of spesolimab - response rate of placebo.|The Suissa-Shuster Z-pooled test was implemented to test the treatment effect on the RS (estimand EN) at a 1-sided, alpha level of 0.025. Confidence intervals (95%) around the risk difference were produced using the Chan and Zhang method.||0.527|0.022|0.0118
90827204|NCT00740207|181529668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.7142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test to compare difference between the investigational product's mean change from predose to postdose||0.9|-1.3|0.7142
90827205|NCT00740207|181529669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-40.0||||0.1698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-79.2|-0.8|||Fisher Exact|||Paired t-test to compare the difference in percentage between the portions of patients who had motion artifacts.||-0.8|-79.2|0.1698
90827206|NCT00740207|181529670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.6|8.6|||Fisher Exact|||Paired t-test to compare difference in percentage between the number of participants requiring repeat injections||8.6|-28.6|1.000
91066516|NCT03782792|182019196|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.346||||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.058|0.554||One-sided P Value.|Suissa-Shuster Z-pooled test||Risk difference=Response rate of spesolimab - response rate of placebo.|The Suissa-Shuster Z-pooled test was implemented to test the treatment effect on the RS (estimand EN) at a 1-sided, alpha level of 0.025. Confidence intervals (95%) around the risk difference were produced using the Chan and Zhang method.||0.554|0.058|0.0081
91066517|NCT03782792|182019197|OTHER|||||||0.0012||||||One-sided P Value.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The effect of spesolimab was evaluated by a Wilcoxon rank test using the RS. Any assessments after death, the use of escape medication (before or after Day 8), open label spesolimab on Day 8, or rescue medication with spesolimab after Day 8 were assigned worst ranks for the testing. Missing data at Week 4 were imputed and handled via assessment of ranks.|The difference between treatments, based on the RS, using a modified Hodges-Lehmann (HL) estimate of the median difference and 95% Confidence Intervals could not be calculated due to lack of valid data.|||0.0012
91066518|NCT03782792|182019198|OTHER|||||||0.0044||||||One-sided P Value.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The effect of spesolimab was evaluated by a Wilcoxon rank test using the RS. Any assessments after death, the use of escape medication (before or after Day 8), open label spesolimab on Day 8, or rescue medication with spesolimab after Day 8 were assigned worst ranks for the testing. Missing data at Week 4 were imputed and handled via assessment of ranks.|The difference between treatments, based on the RS, using a modified Hodges-Lehmann (HL) estimate of the median difference and 95% Confidence Intervals could not be calculated due to lack of valid data.|||0.0044
91079216|NCT03240406|182044075|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.43||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.81|-0.06||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|ANCOVA|MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|||-0.06|-2.81|0.042
91066519|NCT03782792|182019199|OTHER|||||||0.0012||||||One-sided P Value.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The effect of spesolimab was evaluated by a Wilcoxon rank test using the RS. Any assessments after death, the use of escape medication (before or after Day 8), open label spesolimab on Day 8, or rescue medication with spesolimab after Day 8 were assigned worst ranks for the testing. Missing data at Week 4 were imputed and handled via assessment of ranks.|The difference between treatments, based on the RS, using a modified Hodges-Lehmann (HL) estimate of the median difference and 95% Confidence Intervals could not be calculated due to lack of valid data.|||0.0012
91066520|NCT03782792|182019200|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.375|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.058|0.581|||||Risk difference=Response rate of spesolimab - response rate of placebo.|Confidence intervals (95%) around the risk difference were produced using the Chan and Zhang method.||0.581|0.058|
91066521|NCT03782792|182019201|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.403|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.096|0.607|||||Risk difference=Response rate of spesolimab - response rate of placebo.|Confidence intervals (95%) around the risk difference were produced using the Chan and Zhang method.||0.607|0.096|
91066522|NCT03782792|182019202|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.432|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.096|0.636|||||Risk difference=Response rate of spesolimab - response rate of placebo.|Confidence intervals (95%) around the risk difference were produced using the Chan and Zhang method.||0.636|0.096|
91066523|NCT03782792|182019204|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.151|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.138|0.401|||||Risk difference=Response rate of spesolimab - response rate of placebo.|Confidence intervals (95%) around the risk difference were produced using the Chan and Zhang method.||0.401|-0.138|
91066524|NCT03782792|182019205|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-16.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.32|12.76|||||Median difference was calculated by modified Hodges-Lehmann method.|Any assessments after death, the use of escape medication (before or after Day 8), open label spesolimab on Day 8, or rescue medication with spesolimab after Day 8 and assigned with the worst possible outcomes in rank analysis. Missing data at Week 4 were imputed and handled via assessment of ranks.||12.76|-67.32|
91066525|NCT00427648|182019243|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.588|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||null hypothesis - no difference in average number of voids between the 2 groups, power calculation estimated 40 participants needed per arm to show a 2 void difference between lidocaine and saline placebo.||||0.588
91066526|NCT00427648|182019244|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.617|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.617
91066527|NCT00427648|182019245|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.441|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.441
91066528|NCT00427648|182019246|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.189|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.189
91066529|NCT00427648|182019247|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.342|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.342
91066530|NCT00427648|182019248|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.802|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.802
91066531|NCT00427648|182019249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.366|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.366
91066532|NCT00343044|182019413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|||||Standard statistical methods (log-rank tests) were used in post hoc analyses that compared efficacy parameters in patients who received 1 vs 2 prior treatment regimens.|Log Rank|||Planned enrollment of 40 patients was determined assuming a median progression free survival (PFS) of 9 months (based on a median PFS of 7.2 months for low-dose, metronomic cyclophosphamide plus bevacizumab in a phase 2 study) and an analysis calculating the sample size at which the narrowing of its 95% confidence interval (CI) became greater than .2 for every 2 patients added. Progression free survival was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method.||||.08
90827207|NCT04378270|181529692|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.61||0.0796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3687|6.2287|||t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of Freedom (DF)- 28||This procedure calculates the difference between the observed means in two independent samples (two collected assessment timepoints, screening and 4 week follow up visits). A significance value (P-value) and 95% Confidence Interval (CI) of the difference is reported. The P-value is the probability of obtaining the observed difference between the samples if the null hypothesis were true. The null hypothesis is the hypothesis that the difference is 0.||6.2287|-0.3687|0.0796
91066533|NCT00343044|182019414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||Standard statistical methods (log-rank tests) were used in post hoc analyses that compared efficacy parameters in patients who received 1 vs 2 prior treatment regimens.|Log Rank|||Overall survival(OS)was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method.||||.02
91066534|NCT01511978|182019417|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
91066535|NCT01511978|182019418|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0001
91066536|NCT03321968|182019419|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted GMT Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.18|||||Adjusted GMT/GMT Ratio based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with vaccine lot as main effect and the baseline titer (log-transformed) as covariate.|A/H1N1 (California)||1.18|0.87|
91066537|NCT03321968|182019419|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted GMT Ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.12|||||Adjusted GMT/GMT Ratio based on ANCOVA model with vaccine lot as main effect and the baseline titer (log-transformed) as covariate.|A/H1N1 (California)||1.12|0.82|
91066538|NCT03321968|182019419|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted GMT Ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.1|||||Adjusted GMT/GMT Ratio based on ANCOVA model with vaccine lot as main effect and the baseline titer (log-transformed) as covariate.|A/H1N1 (California)||1.10|0.81|
91066539|NCT03321968|182019419|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted GMT Ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.13|||||Adjusted GMT/GMT Ratio based on ANCOVA model with vaccine lot as main effect and the baseline titer (log-transformed) as covariate.|A/H3N2 (Hong Kong)||1.13|0.77|
91066540|NCT03321968|182019419|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted GMT Ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.32|||||Adjusted GMT/GMT Ratio based on ANCOVA model with vaccine lot as main effect and the baseline titer (log-transformed) as covariate.|A/H3N2 (Hong Kong)||1.32|0.91|
91066541|NCT03321968|182019419|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted GMT Ratio|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.41|||||Adjusted GMT/GMT Ratio based on ANCOVA model with vaccine lot as main effect and the baseline titer (log-transformed) as covariate.|A/H3N2 (Hong Kong)||1.41|0.97|
91066542|NCT03321968|182019419|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted GMT Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.15|||||Adjusted GMT/GMT Ratio based on ANCOVA model with vaccine lot as main effect and the baseline titer (log-transformed) as covariate.|B/Brisbane||1.15|0.87|
91066543|NCT03321968|182019419|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted GMT Ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.26|||||Adjusted GMT/GMT Ratio based on ANCOVA model with vaccine lot as main effect and the baseline titer (log-transformed) as covariate.|B/Brisbane||1.26|0.95|
91066544|NCT03321968|182019419|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted GMT Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.26|||||Adjusted GMT/GMT Ratio based on ANCOVA model with vaccine lot as main effect and the baseline titer (log-transformed) as covariate.|B/Brisbane||1.26|0.95|
91066545|NCT03321968|182019419|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted GMT Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.09|||||Adjusted GMT/GMT Ratio based on ANCOVA model with vaccine lot as main effect and the baseline titer (log-transformed) as covariate.|B/Phuket||1.09|0.80|
91066546|NCT03321968|182019419|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted GMT Ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.07|||||Adjusted GMT/GMT Ratio based on ANCOVA model with vaccine lot as main effect and the baseline titer (log-transformed) as covariate.|B/Phuket||1.07|0.78|
91066547|NCT03321968|182019419|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted GMT Ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.15|||||Adjusted GMT/GMT Ratio based on ANCOVA model with vaccine lot as main effect and the baseline titer (log-transformed) as covariate.|B/Phuket||1.15|0.84|
91066548|NCT02282813|182019437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1041|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1041
91066549|NCT02282813|182019438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0503|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||.0503
91066550|NCT02282813|182019439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4817|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4817
91066551|NCT02282813|182019440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8086|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.8086
91066552|NCT06509438|182019447|OTHER|Compare 4 weeks after the last injection to baseline|Difference of medians|-0.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91066553|NCT06509438|182019447|OTHER|Compare 12 weeks after the last injection to baseline|Difference of medians|-0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91066554|NCT00745901|182019453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9698||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.9698
91066555|NCT00745901|182019454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0715||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0715
91066556|NCT00745901|182019455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0050
91066557|NCT00745901|182019456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0006
91066558|NCT00745901|182019457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0031||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0031
91066559|NCT00745901|182019458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0013||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0013
91066560|NCT00745901|182019459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91066561|NCT00745901|182019460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91066562|NCT00745901|182019461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91066563|NCT00745901|182019462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91066564|NCT00745901|182019463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0033||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0033
91066565|NCT00745901|182019464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0060
91066566|NCT00745901|182019465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91066567|NCT00745901|182019466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91066568|NCT00745901|182019467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.912||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.912
91066569|NCT00745901|182019468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.003
91066570|NCT00745901|182019469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.002
91066571|NCT00745901|182019470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.816||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.816
91066572|NCT00745901|182019471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.012
91066573|NCT00745901|182019472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.003
91066574|NCT01753310|182019474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|-8.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.95|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.17|-4.47|||t-test, 2 sided|The 2 sided t-test was on weighted overall treatment difference.|Based on the sample size weighted overall treatment difference.|The superiority of Dysport® to placebo was tested at a two-tailed 5% level by using a stratified analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline TWSTRS total score as covariate and stratified by the randomisation stratification factor (BoNT-A naïve versus BoNT-A non-naïve).||-4.47|-12.17|<0.001
91066575|NCT01753310|182019475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|-5.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.65|=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.67|-2.14|||t-test, 2 sided|The 2 sided t-test was on weighted overall treatment difference.|Based on the sample size weighted overall treatment difference.|The superiority of Dysport® to placebo was tested at a two-tailed 5% level by using a stratified ANCOVA with baseline TWSTRS total score as covariate and stratified by the randomisation stratification factor (BoNT-A naïve versus BoNT-A non-naïve).||-2.14|-8.67|=0.001
91066576|NCT01753310|182019476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||The superiority of Dysport® to placebo on CGIC of CD was tested at a two-tailed 5% level by using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) with treatment and randomisation stratification factor as main effects.||||<0.001
91066577|NCT01753310|182019477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.033|||||||Mantel-Haenszel chi-squared test|||The superiorty of Dysport® to placebo on treatment response was tested at a two-tailed 5% level by using a Mantel-Haenszel chi-squared test stratified by the randomisation factor.||||=0.033
91066578|NCT01753310|182019478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||The superiority of Dysport® to placebo on CGIC of CD was tested at a two-tailed 5% level by using an ANOVA with treatment and randomisation stratification factor as main effects.||||<0.001
91066579|NCT01753310|182019479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mantel-Haenszel chi-squared test|||The superiorty of Dysport® to placebo on treatment response was tested at a two-tailed 5% level by using a Mantel-Haenszel chi-squared test stratified by the randomisation factor.||||<0.001
91066580|NCT01753310|182019480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.174|||||||ANOVA|||The superiority of Dysport® to placebo on CDIP-58 was tested at a two-tailed 5% level by using an ANOVA with treatment and randomisation stratification factor as main effects.||||=0.174
91066581|NCT01753310|182019481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.583|||||||ANOVA|||The superiority of Dysport® to placebo on CDIP-58 was tested at a two-tailed 5% level by using an ANOVA with treatment and randomisation stratification factor as main effects.||||=0.583
91066582|NCT04390763|182019492|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7|||||ONE_SIDED|90.0||1.04|||Bayesian two-piece hazard model||Estimated posterior median of the HR after the risk changing timepoint and one-sided 90% credible interval are reported.|||1.04||
91066583|NCT04390763|182019492|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.41|||||ONE_SIDED|90.0||1.96|||Bayesian two-piece hazard model||Estimated posterior median of the HR after the risk changing timepoint and one-sided 90% credible interval are reported.|||1.96||
91066584|NCT04390763|182019493|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.46|ONE_SIDED|90.0||1.37|||Regression, Cox|||||1.37||0.46
91066585|NCT04390763|182019493|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.38|ONE_SIDED|90.0||1.44|||Regression, Cox|||||1.44||0.38
91066586|NCT01383174|182019546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value represents the significance of the time by treatment group interaction from the repeated-measures linear regression model. For consistency with the manuscript, we report here the absolute means and standard deviations.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.015
91066587|NCT01383174|182019547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.465|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value represents the significance of the time by treatment group interaction from the repeated-measures linear regression model. For consistency with the manuscript, we report here the absolute means and standard deviations.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.465
91066588|NCT01383174|182019548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value represents the significance of the time by treatment group interaction from the repeated-measures linear regression model. For consistency with the manuscript, we report here the absolute means and standard deviations.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.025
91066589|NCT01383174|182019549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value represents the significance of the time by treatment group interaction from the repeated-measures linear regression model. For consistency with the manuscript, we report here the absolute means and standard deviations.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.004
91066590|NCT01383174|182019550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value represents the significance of the time by treatment group interaction from the repeated-measures linear regression model. For consistency with the manuscript, we report here the absolute means and standard deviations.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.013
91066591|NCT01383174|182019551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.267|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value represents the significance of the time by treatment group interaction from the repeated-measures linear regression model. For consistency with the manuscript, we report here the absolute means and standard deviations.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.267
91066592|NCT01383174|182019552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value represents the significance of the time by treatment group interaction from the repeated-measures linear regression model. For consistency with the manuscript, we report here the absolute means and standard deviations.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.030
91066593|NCT01383174|182019553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value represents the significance of the time by treatment group interaction from the repeated-measures linear regression model. For consistency with the manuscript, we report here the absolute means and standard deviations.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.045
91066594|NCT01383174|182019554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value represents the significance of the time by treatment group interaction from the repeated-measures linear regression model. For consistency with the manuscript, we report here the absolute means and standard deviations.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.005
91066595|NCT01383174|182019555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.226|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value represents the significance of the time by treatment group interaction from the repeated-measures linear regression model. For consistency with the manuscript, we report here the absolute means and standard deviations.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.226
91066596|NCT01153815|182019556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Exact Smirnov test|||||||<0.001
91066597|NCT03859427|182019614|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin was 0.87 for the estimated ORR risk ratio.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.954||||0.0666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.882|1.032||P-value (2.5% significance level) of the non-inferiority test via the synthesis approach (FDA, 2016) for non-inferiority comparison of ORR between treatment arms.|Synthesis approach||Risk ratio and 95% CIs were estimated by a stratified analysis using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method.|||1.032|0.882|0.0666
91066598|NCT03859427|182019616|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.049|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.653|1.683|||||Odds ratio and 95% CIs were estimated by a stratified analysis using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method.|||1.683|0.653|
90827208|NCT04378270|181529693|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.879||0.0634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5014|0.1014|||t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of Freedom (DF)- 28||This procedure calculates the difference between the observed means in two independent samples (two collected assessment timepoints, screening and 4 week follow up visits). A significance value (P-value) and 95% Confidence Interval (CI) of the difference is reported. The P-value is the probability of obtaining the observed difference between the samples if the null hypothesis were true. The null hypothesis is the hypothesis that the difference is 0.||0.1014|-3.5014|0.0634
90827209|NCT04378270|181529694|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.492||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4498|29.9502|||t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of Freedom (DF)- 28||This procedure calculates the difference between the observed means in two independent samples (two collected assessment timepoints, screening and 4 week follow up visits). A significance value (P-value) and 95% confidence interval (CI) of the difference is reported. The P value is the probability of obtaining the observed difference between the samples if the null hypothesis were true. The null hypothesis is the hypothesis that the difference is 0.||29.9502|7.4498|0.0020
90827210|NCT04378270|181529695|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|16.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.327||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.8069|25.5331|||t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom (DF)- 28||||25.5331|7.8069|0.0006
91066599|NCT03859427|182019622|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.235|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.775|1.97|||||Odds ratio and 95% CIs were estimated by a stratified analysis using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method.|||1.970|0.775|
91066600|NCT03859427|182019623|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.657|1.711|||||Odds ratio and 95% CIs were estimated by a stratified analysis using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method.|||1.711|0.657|
91066601|NCT03859427|182019624|OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|2.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|4.69|||||Analysis was based on repeated measures analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model, including arm, baseline scale score, randomization stratification factors and visit as repeated measure.|||4.69|0.38|
91066602|NCT03859427|182019625|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|4.72|||||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model, including arm, baseline scale score, randomization stratification factors and visit as repeated measure.|||4.72|-1.26|
91066603|NCT03859427|182019626|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|2.03|||||Treatment difference at Cycle 5|||2.03|-2.54|
91066604|NCT03859427|182019626|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.24|2.28|||||Treatment difference at Cycle 12|||2.28|-3.24|
91066605|NCT03859427|182019626|OTHER||LS Mean difference|1.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.59|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|4.58|||||Treatment difference at safety follow-up|||4.58|-1.69|
91066606|NCT00722137|182019627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.79|||Log Rank|Based on Log rank test stratified with International Prognostic Index (IPI) risk and stage of disease.|Hazards ratio estimate is based on a Cox´s model stratified by IPI risk and stage of disease. A hazard ratio \< 1 indicates an advantage for VcR-CAP.|||0.79|0.50|<0.001
91066607|NCT00722137|182019628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.74|||Log Rank|Based on Log rank test stratified with IPI risk and stage of disease.|Hazards ratio estimate is based on a Cox´s model stratified by IPI risk and stage of disease. A hazard ratio \< 1 indicates an advantage for VcR-CAP.|||0.74|0.45|<0.001
91066608|NCT00722137|182019630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.65|||Log Rank|Based on Log rank test stratified with IPI risk and stage of disease.|Hazards ratio estimate is based on a Cox´s model stratified by IPI risk and stage of disease. A hazard ratio \< 1 indicates an advantage for VcR-CAP.|||0.65|0.38|<0.001
91066609|NCT00722137|182019631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.65|||Log Rank|||||0.65|0.38|=0.001
91066610|NCT00722137|182019632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.428||||0.275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.749|2.722|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Chi-Square||Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the common odds ratio for stratified tables is used, with IPI risk and Stage of Disease as stratification factors. An odds ratio (OR) \> 1 indicates an advantage for VcR-CAP.|||2.722|0.749|0.275
91066611|NCT00722137|182019633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.688|||<|0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.148|2.481|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Chi-Square||Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the common odds ratio for stratified tables is used, with IPI risk and Stage of Disease as stratification factors. An odds ratio (OR) \> 1 indicates an advantage for VcR-CAP.|||2.481|1.148|<0.007
91066612|NCT00722137|182019634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.1|||Log Rank|Based on Log rank test stratified with IPI risk and stage of disease.|Hazards ratio estimate is based on a Cox´s model stratified by IPI risk and stage of disease. A hazard ratio \< 1 indicates an advantage for VcR-CAP.|||1.10|0.59|0.173
91066613|NCT01267019|182019638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is a statistical analysis to determine the training effect of social cognitive skills training (in vivo and social cog versus control).||||< .05
90827211|NCT04378270|181529698|OTHER||Mean pain scale|17.87|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.39||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.5465|19.1935|||t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom (DF)- 14||This procedure calculates the difference of an observed mean (from the assessment collected at the 4 week visit) with a hypothesized mean value (10, a mid level scale score). A significance value (P-value) and 95% Confidence Interval (CI) of the observed mean is reported. The P-value is the probability of obtaining the observed mean in the sample if the null hypothesis value were the true value.||19.1935|16.5465|0.0001
90827212|NCT03890588|181529708|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.51|.91|.21
90827213|NCT03890588|181529709|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.18|.76|.61
91066614|NCT01267019|182019639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.05
91066615|NCT01267019|182019640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.05
91066616|NCT04506463|182019667|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.850
91066617|NCT04506463|182019667|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.085|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.085
91066618|NCT04506463|182019667|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.850
90827214|NCT03890588|181529710|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.15|0.84|.84
90827215|NCT03890588|181529711|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.24|.8|.99
90827216|NCT03890588|181529712|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.32|.79|.86
91066619|NCT04506463|182019668|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.062|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.062
91066620|NCT04506463|182019668|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.007
91066621|NCT04506463|182019668|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.936|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.936
91066622|NCT04506463|182019669|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.042|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.042
91066623|NCT04506463|182019669|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.037|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.037
91066624|NCT04506463|182019669|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.648|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.648
91066625|NCT04229095|182019694|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-4.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.82||0.007|ONE_SIDED|95.0||-1.01|||Mixed Models Analysis||The effect of the drug on lowering VAS was limited to individuals with impaired sleep at baseline (PSQI \> or = to 5).|Mixed effect model with directional hypothesis that drug reduces strength of craving (VAS). Principle predictors were drug condition, and baseline sleep disturbance (Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index {PSQI} total score less than 5 or 5 and greater). Arms were combined for this analysis.||-1.01||.007
91066626|NCT04229095|182019696|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.0025|ONE_SIDED|95.0||-0.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effect model with directional hypothesis that drug reduces number of drinks per day. Principle predictors were drug condition and sex. Arms were combined for this analysis.||-0.46||.0025
91066627|NCT01780038|182019698|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Frequencies and percentages were used to determine this secondary outcome.|||
91066628|NCT01609010|182019704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3023|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.3023
91066629|NCT01609010|182019705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3362|||||||Chi-squared|||Week 10, Cycle 1||||0.3362
91066630|NCT01609010|182019705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1157|||||||Chi-squared|||Week 16, Cycle 2||||0.1157
91066631|NCT01609010|182019706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.854|||||||Chi-squared|||Week 10, Cycle 1||||0.8540
91066632|NCT01609010|182019706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0051|||||||Chi-squared|||Week 16, Cycle 2||||0.0051
91066633|NCT01609010|182019708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.784|||||||Log Rank|Stratification by previous treatment for lymphoma (yes or no).||CR+CRu+PR||||0.7840
91066634|NCT01609010|182019708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4419|||||||Log Rank|Stratification by previous treatment for lymphoma (yes or no).||CR+CRu||||0.4419
91066635|NCT01609010|182019708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5942|||||||Log Rank|Stratification by previous treatment for lymphoma (yes or no).||CR only||||0.5942
91066636|NCT01609010|182019710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8946|||||||Log Rank|Stratified by previous treatment for lymphoma (yes or no).||||||0.8946
91066637|NCT01609010|182019712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4963|||||||Log Rank|Stratified by previous treatment for lymphoma (yes or no).||||||0.4963
91066638|NCT01134107|182019713|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin of 0.6 mmol/L was used.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.66|||||Least Squares Mean Difference = Insulin Lispro 6 Day minus Insulin Aspart 6 Day; adjusted for Treatment + Sequence + Period + Baseline HbA1c|This was the primary gated analysis.||0.66|0.06|
91066639|NCT01134107|182019714|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin of 0.6 mmol/L was used.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.47|||||Least Squares Mean Difference = Insulin Lispro 6 Day (Day 1-6) minus Insulin Aspart 6 Day (Day 1-6); adjusted for Treatment + Sequence + Period + Baseline HbA1c|||0.47|-0.10|
91066640|NCT01134107|182019714|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin of 0.6 mmol/L was used.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.58|||||Least Squares Mean Difference = Insulin Lispro 6 Day (Day 6) minus Insulin Lispro 6 Day (Day 2); adjusted for DayGroup + Period + Baseline HbA1c|||0.58|0.25|
91066641|NCT01134107|182019715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.88|||||Daily Total Insulin: Least Squares Mean Difference = Insulin Lispro 6 Day minus Insulin Aspart 6 Day; adjusted for Treatment + Sequence + Period + Baseline Insulin Basal/Bolus/Total Dose|||0.88|-0.13|
91066642|NCT01134107|182019715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.31|||||Daily Basal Insulin: Least Squares Mean Difference = Insulin Lispro 6 Day minus Insulin Aspart 6 Day; adjusted for Treatment + Sequence + Period + Baseline Insulin Basal/Bolus/Total Dose|||0.31|-0.26|
90827217|NCT03201419|181529713|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.07||||||Based on a Bayesian analysis of a sigmoidal dose-response relationship.||-0.07|-0.54|
90827218|NCT03201419|181529713|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.02||||||Based on a Bayesian analysis of a sigmoidal dose-response relationship.||-0.02|-0.46|
91066643|NCT01134107|182019715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.6|||||Daily Bolus Insulin: Least Squares Mean Difference = Insulin Lispro 6 Day minus Insulin Aspart 6 Day; adjusted for Treatment + Sequence + Period + Baseline Insulin Basal/Bolus/Total Dose|||0.60|-0.15|
91066644|NCT01134107|182019716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.24|||||Least Squares Mean Difference = Insulin Lispro 6 Day minus Insulin Aspart 6 Day; adjusted for Treatment + Period + Sequence + Baseline HbA1c|||0.24|0.08|
91066645|NCT01134107|182019717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.63|||||Odds Ratio of HbA1c ≤6.5% for Insulin Lispro 6 Day versus Insulin Aspart 6 Day.|||1.63|0.39|
91066646|NCT01134107|182019717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.63|||||Odds Ratio of HbA1c \<7% for Insulin Lispro 6 Day versus Insulin Aspart 6 Day.|||0.63|0.20|
91066647|NCT01134107|182019718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.595||95.0||||P-value for Total Insulin Dose computed using Crossover model: Variable = Treatment + Sequence + Period + Baseline Insulin Total Dose.|Crossover Model|||||||0.595
91066648|NCT01134107|182019718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.506||95.0||||P-value for Basal Insulin Dose computed using Crossover model: Variable = Treatment + Sequence + Period + Baseline Insulin Basal Dose.|Crossover Model|||||||0.506
91066649|NCT01134107|182019718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79||95.0||||P-value for Bolus Insulin Dose computed using Crossover model: Variable = Treatment + Sequence + Period + Baseline Insulin Bolus Dose.|Crossover Model|||||||0.790
90827219|NCT03201419|181529713|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.0||||||Based on a Bayesian analysis of a sigmoidal dose-response relationship.||-0.00|-0.36|
90827220|NCT03201419|181529713|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.0||||||Based on a Bayesian analysis of a sigmoidal dose-response relationship.||-0.00|-0.23|
90827221|NCT03201419|181529713|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.0||||||Based on a Bayesian analysis of a sigmoidal dose-response relationship.||-0.00|-0.14|
91066650|NCT01134107|182019720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.059||95.0|||||negative binomial test|P-value computed using a negative binomial test including factors for treatment, period and sequence.||||||0.059
91066651|NCT01134107|182019721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||P-value for overall pump complications associated with a premature reservoir change computed using Gart's Test. Participants represented in both treatment groups and with non-missing incidence value in each treatment period are used.|Gart's Test|||||||1.00
91066652|NCT01134107|182019721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.472||95.0||||P-value for overall pump complications associated with a premature infusion set change computed using Gart's Test. Participants represented in both treatment groups and with non-missing incidence value in each treatment period are used.|Gart's Test|||||||0.472
91066653|NCT01134107|182019722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.383||95.0||||P-value for Premature Reservoir Change computed using negative binomial test including factors for treatment, period and sequence.|negative binomial test|||||||0.383
91066654|NCT01134107|182019722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.499||95.0||||P-value for Premature Infusion Set Change computed using negative binomial test including factors for treatment, period and sequence.|negative binomial test|||||||0.499
90827222|NCT03201419|181529713|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.0||||||Based on a Bayesian analysis of a sigmoidal dose-response relationship.||-0.00|-0.07|
90827223|NCT03201419|181529714|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.139||||0.4214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.201||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.201|-0.480|0.4214
91066655|NCT01134107|182019723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||The p-value is for the Documented Hypoglycemic Episodes category treatment arm comparison. The p-value for the All Reported Hypoglycemic Episodes category could not be generated using Gart's Test.|Gart's Test|Participants represented in both treatment groups, and with non-missing incidence value in each treatment period, were used for p-value calculation.||||||1.00
91066656|NCT01134107|182019724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Negative Binomial Test|P-value computed using a negative binomial test including factors for treatment, period and sequence.||||||<0.001
91066657|NCT01134107|182019725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Crossover Model|P-value computed using crossover model. Response = treatment + sequence + period + baseline body weight||||||<0.001
91066658|NCT01134107|182019726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.147||95.0||||P-value for the Systolic Blood Pressure (SBP) computed using crossover model. Response = treatment + sequence + period + baseline systolic blood pressure.|Crossover Model|||||||0.147
91066659|NCT01134107|182019726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.894||95.0||||P-value for Diastolic Blood Pressure (DBP) computed using crossover model. Response = treatment + sequence + period + baseline diastolic blood pressure.|Crossover Model|||||||0.894
91066660|NCT02314260|182019727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.917|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0318||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.854|0.979||Under the nonparametric assumption. P-value \<0.05, means statistical significance|t-test, 2 sided||The positive actual state is failed induction and performing Caesarean Section, So as the numbers approaches 1, induction fails. the Y-axis of the curve is sensitivity and the x- axis is (1-Specificity).|Null hypothesis: true area = 0.5 The positive actual state is failed induction, the true positive rate (Sensitivity) is plotted in function of the false positive rate (100-Specificity)||0.979|0.854|0.000
91066661|NCT02314260|182019728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.806|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0578||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.693|0.919||Under the nonparametric assumption P value \<0.05 is statistically significant|t-test, 2 sided||The positive actual state is failed induction and performing Caesarean Section, So as the numbers approaches 1, induction fails. the Y-axis of the curve is sensitivity and the x- axis is (1-specificity).|Null hypothesis: true area = 0.5 The positive actual state is failed induction, the true positive rate (Sensitivity) is plotted in function of the false positive rate (100-Specificity)||0.919|0.693|0.000
91066662|NCT02314260|182019729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0318||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|10.0||P\<0.05 is significant|t-test, 2 sided||at a cutoff value of 4.5, the sensitivity for failure to labour induction is 0.83 (83%), with a specificity of 0.87(87%).|The smallest cutoff value is the minimum observed test value minus 1, and the largest cutoff value is the maximum observed test value plus 1. All the other cutoff values are the averages of two consecutive ordered observed test values.||10|0.00|0.000
91066663|NCT02314260|182019730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0578||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|10.0||P\<0.05 is significant|t-test, 2 sided||at a cutoff value of 5.5, the sensitivity for failure to labour induction is 0.83 (83%), with a specificity of 0.73 (73%).|The smallest cutoff value is the minimum observed test value minus 1, and the largest cutoff value is the maximum observed test value plus 1. All the other cutoff values are the averages of two consecutive ordered observed test values.||10|0.00|0.000
91066664|NCT01543178|182019736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0232|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method was adjusted for analysis center and time to recurrence during Maintenance Phase 1.||A worst case analysis was performed, in which patients with \< 4 days of IBS symptom data in a given week were considered as non-responders for that week.||||0.0232
90827224|NCT03201419|181529714|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.587||||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.034|-0.141||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||-0.141|-1.034|0.0101
90827225|NCT03201419|181529714|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.148||||0.5203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.599|0.304||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.304|-0.599|0.5203
90827226|NCT03201419|181529714|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|0.055||||0.8483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.508|0.617||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.617|-0.508|0.8483
90827227|NCT03201419|181529714|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.147||||0.6357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.759|0.464||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.464|-0.759|0.6357
91066665|NCT03581123|182019748|OTHER|Omnibus test for equality of means across the 4 treatment groups||||||0.16||||||Threshold for significance: 0.025 (0.05/2)|ANOVA|Adjusted for site, time period (pre-COVID, COVID, post-COVID), risk for chronicity (medium vs. high), and baseline pain intensity||The null hypothesis here is that the means are equal across the 4 treatment groups. A significant p value indicates rejection of the null.||||0.16
91066666|NCT03581123|182019748|OTHER|Estimation|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.0|||||SSM - MC|Adjusted for site, time period, risk of chronicity, and baseline pain intensity.||0.0|-0.5|
91066667|NCT03581123|182019748|OTHER|Estimation|Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3|||||SMT - MC|Adjusted for site, time period, risk of chronicity, and baseline pain intensity.||0.3|-0.3|
91066668|NCT03581123|182019748|OTHER|Estimation|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1|||||SSM/SMT - MC|Adjusted for site, time period, risk of chronicity, and baseline pain intensity.||0.1|-0.4|
91066669|NCT03581123|182019749|OTHER|Omnibus test for equality of means across the 4 treatment groups.||||||0.001||||||Threshold for significance: 0.025 (0.05/2)|ANOVA|Adjusted for site, time period (pre-COVID, COVID, post-COVID), risk for chronicity (medium vs. high), and baseline disability||The null hypothesis here is that the means are equal across the 4 treatment groups. A significant p value indicates rejection of the null.||||0.001
91066670|NCT03581123|182019749|OTHER|Estimation|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.5|||||SSM - MC|Adjusted for site, time period, risk of chronicity, and baseline RMDQ.||-0.5|-1.9|
90827228|NCT03201419|181529714|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|0.25||||0.2222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.152|0.652||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.652|-0.152|0.2222
90827229|NCT03201419|181529715|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.166||||0.2909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.474|0.143||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.143|-0.474|0.2909
90827230|NCT03201419|181529715|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.418||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.824|-0.011||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||-0.011|-0.824|0.0440
90827231|NCT03201419|181529715|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|0.128||||0.5438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.288|0.545||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.545|-0.288|0.5438
90827232|NCT03201419|181529715|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|0.441||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.079|0.962||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.962|-0.079|0.0960
90827233|NCT03201419|181529715|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.04||||0.8826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.568|0.488||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.488|-0.568|0.8826
90827234|NCT03201419|181529715|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|0.394||||0.0344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.029|0.759||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.759|0.029|0.0344
90827235|NCT03201419|181529716|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.132||||0.4732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.496|0.231||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.231|-0.496|0.4732
91066671|NCT03581123|182019749|OTHER|Estimation|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.4|||||SMT - MC|Adjusted for site, time period, risk of chronicity, and baseline RMDQ.||0.4|-1.2|
91066672|NCT03581123|182019749|OTHER|Estimation|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.3|||||SSM/SMT - MC|Adjusted for site, time period, risk of chronicity, and baseline RMDQ.||-0.3|-1.9|
91066673|NCT03581123|182019750|OTHER|Omnibus test for equality of means across the 4 treatment groups.||||||0.006||||||Threshold for significance: 0.05|ANOVA|Adjusted for site, time period (pre-COVID, COVID, post-COVID), risk for chronicity (medium vs. high), and baseline LBP impact score.||The null hypothesis here is that the means are equal across the 4 treatment groups. A significant p value indicates rejection of the null.||||0.006
91066674|NCT03581123|182019750|OTHER|Estimation|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.6|||||SSM - MC|Adjusted for site, time period, risk of chronicity, and baseline LBP impact score.||-0.6|-2.7|
91066675|NCT03581123|182019750|OTHER|Estimation|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.0|||||SMT - MC|Adjusted for site, time period, risk of chronicity, and baseline LBP impact score.||1.0|-1.5|
91066676|NCT03581123|182019750|OTHER|Estimation|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.0|||||SSM/SMT - MC|Adjusted for site, time period, risk of chronicity, and baseline LBP impact score.||-0.0|-2.5|
91066677|NCT03581123|182019752|OTHER|Estimation (percent difference)|Risk Difference (RD)|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|-1.0|||||SSM - MC|Adjusted for site, time period, and risk of chronicity.||-1|-11|
91066678|NCT03581123|182019752|OTHER|Estimation (percentage difference)|Risk Difference (RD)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|5.0|||||SMT - MC|Adjusted for site, time period, and risk of chronicity.||5|-7|
91066679|NCT03581123|182019752|OTHER|Estimation (percentage difference)|Risk Difference (RD)|-8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|2.0|||||SSM/SMT - MC|Adjusted for site, time period, and risk of chronicity.||2|-13|
91066680|NCT03581123|182019753|OTHER|Estimation (percentage difference)|Risk Difference (RD)|-15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.0|-7.0|||||SSM - MC|Adjusted for site, time period, and risk of chronicity.||-7|-23|
90827236|NCT03201419|181529716|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.224||||0.3394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.685|0.237||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.237|-0.685|0.3394
90827237|NCT03201419|181529716|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.012||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.488|0.463||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.463|-0.488|0.9600
91066681|NCT03581123|182019753|OTHER|Estimation (percentage difference)|Risk Difference (RD)|-11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|2.0|||||SMT - MC|Adjusted for site, time period, and risk of chronicity.||2|-20|
91066682|NCT03581123|182019753|OTHER|Estimation (percentage difference)|Risk Difference (RD)|-18.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.0|-9.0|||||SSM/SMT - MC|Adjusted for site, time period, and risk of chronicity.||-9|-27|
91066683|NCT03581123|182019754|OTHER|Estimation (percentage difference)|Risk Difference (RD)|-16.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.0|-10.0|||||SSM - MC|Adjusted for site, time period, and risk of chronicity.||-10|-23|
91066684|NCT03581123|182019754|OTHER|Estimation (percentage difference)|Risk Difference (RD)|-14.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|-7.0|||||SMT - MC|Adjusted for site, time period, and risk of chronicity.||-7|-22|
91066685|NCT03581123|182019754|OTHER|Estimation (percentage difference)|Risk Difference (RD)|-17.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.0|-9.0|||||SSM/SMT - MC|Adjusted for site, time period, and risk of chronicity.||-9|-24|
90827238|NCT03201419|181529716|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|0.463||||0.1131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.111|1.037||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||1.037|-0.111|0.1131
90827239|NCT03201419|181529716|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.124||||0.6853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.729|0.48||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.480|-0.729|0.6853
90827240|NCT03201419|181529716|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|0.166||||0.4364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.254|0.587||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.587|-0.254|0.4364
91066686|NCT03581123|182019755|OTHER|Estimation (percentage difference)|Risk Difference (RD)|-8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|-3.0|||||SSM - MC|Adjusted for site, time period, and risk of chronicity.||-3|-13|
91066687|NCT03581123|182019755|OTHER|Estimation (percentage difference)|Risk Difference (RD)|-5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|1.0|||||SMT - MC|Adjusted for site, time period, and risk of chronicity.||1|-12|
91066688|NCT03581123|182019755|OTHER|Estimation (percentage difference)|Risk Difference (RD)|-8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|-1.0|||||SSM/SMT - MC|Adjusted for site, time period, and risk of chronicity.||-1|-15|
91066689|NCT03581123|182019762|OTHER|Estimation (percentage difference)|Risk Difference (RD)|-12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|-4.0|||||SSM - MC|Adjusted for site, time period, and risk of chronicity.||-4|-21|
91066690|NCT03581123|182019762|OTHER|Estimation (percentage difference)|Risk Difference (RD)|-12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|-3.0|||||SMT - MC|Adjusted for site, time period, and risk of chronicity.||-3|-22|
91066691|NCT03581123|182019762|OTHER|Estimation (percentage difference)|Risk Difference (RD)|-12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|-3.0|||||SSM/SMT - MC|Adjusted for site, time period, and risk of chronicity.||-3|-22|
91066692|NCT03581123|182019763|OTHER|Estimation (percentage difference)|Risk Difference (RD)|-20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.0|-12.0|||||SSM - MC|Adjusted for site, time period, and risk of chronicity.||-12|-28|
91066693|NCT03581123|182019763|OTHER|Estimation (percentage difference)|Risk Difference (RD)|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|6.0|||||SMT - MC|Adjusted for site, time period, and risk of chronicity.||6|-13|
91066694|NCT03581123|182019763|OTHER|Estimation (percentage difference)|Risk Difference (RD)|-16.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.0|-7.0|||||SSM/SMT - MC|Adjusted for site, time period, and risk of chronicity.||-7|-26|
91066695|NCT03581123|182019764|OTHER|Estimation (percentage difference)|Risk Difference (RD)|-8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|-1.0|||||SSM - MC|Adjusted for site, time period, and risk of chronicity.||-1|-15|
91066696|NCT03581123|182019764|OTHER|Estimation (percentage difference)|Risk Difference (RD)|-7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|-3.0|||||SMT - MC|Adjusted for site, time period, and risk of chronicity.||-3|-22|
90827241|NCT03201419|181529717|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.299||||0.1106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.667|0.069||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.069|-0.667|0.1106
90827242|NCT03201419|181529717|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.163||||0.5005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.639|0.313||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.313|-0.639|0.5005
90827243|NCT03201419|181529717|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|0.107||||0.6604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.372|0.586||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.586|-0.372|0.6604
91066697|NCT03581123|182019764|OTHER|Estimation (percentage difference)|Risk Difference (RD)|-12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|-3.0|||||SSM/SMT - MC|Adjusted for site, time period, and risk of chronicity.||-3|-22|
91066698|NCT03581123|182019765|OTHER|Estimation (percentage difference)|Risk Difference (RD)|-12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|-5.0|||||SSM - MC|Adjusted for site, time period, and risk of chronicity.||-5|-19|
91066699|NCT03581123|182019765|OTHER|Estimation (percentage difference)|Risk Difference (RD)|-8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|-1.0|||||SMT - MC|Adjusted for site, time period, and risk of chronicity.||-1|-16|
91066700|NCT03581123|182019765|OTHER|Estimation (percentage difference)|Risk Difference (RD)|-8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|1.0|||||SSM/SMT - MC|Adjusted for site, time period, and risk of chronicity.||1|-16|
91066701|NCT04195685|182019785|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|14.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||The primary endpoint was evaluated by assessing the change in severity scores from baseline to the end of treatment, comparing the NFB and control groups. A two-sample t-test was used to test the mean change in severity scores between treatment arms. Statistical tests were two-sided with a 5% significance level (Type I error rate).||14.4|7.0|<.0001
91066702|NCT04195685|182019786|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|14.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||The primary endpoint was evaluated by assessing the change in severity scores from baseline to the end of treatment, comparing the NFB and control groups. A two-sample t-test was used to test the mean change in severity scores between treatment arms. Statistical tests were two-sided with a 5% significance level (Type I error rate).||14.0|4.9|<.0001
91066703|NCT04195685|182019787|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|13.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||The primary endpoint was evaluated by assessing the change in severity scores from baseline to the end of treatment, comparing the NFB and control groups. A two-sample t-test was used to test the mean change in severity scores between treatment arms. Statistical tests were two-sided with a 5% significance level (Type I error rate).||13.2|7.4|<.0001
91066704|NCT04195685|182019788|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|10.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||The primary endpoint was evaluated by assessing the change in severity scores from baseline to the end of treatment, comparing the NFB and control groups. A two-sample t-test was used to test the mean change in severity scores between treatment arms. Statistical tests were two-sided with a 5% significance level (Type I error rate).||10.6|4.2|<.0001
91066705|NCT04195685|182019789|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-32.5||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.3|-11.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||The primary endpoint was evaluated by assessing the change in severity scores from baseline to the end of treatment, comparing the NFB and control groups. A two-sample t-test was used to test the mean change in severity scores between treatment arms. Statistical tests were two-sided with a 5% significance level (Type I error rate).||-11.7|-53.3|0.0022
91066706|NCT04195685|182019790|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-32.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.0|-19.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||The primary endpoint was evaluated by assessing the change in severity scores from baseline to the end of treatment, comparing the NFB and control groups. A two-sample t-test was used to test the mean change in severity scores between treatment arms. Statistical tests were two-sided with a 5% significance level (Type I error rate).||-19.4|-45.0|<.0001
91066707|NCT04195685|182019791|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.3||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|-3.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||The primary endpoint was evaluated by assessing the change in severity scores from baseline to the end of treatment, comparing the NFB and control groups. A two-sample t-test was used to test the mean change in severity scores between treatment arms. Statistical tests were two-sided with a 5% significance level (Type I error rate).||-3.4|-11.1|0.0002
91066708|NCT04195685|182019792|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|-3.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||The primary endpoint was evaluated by assessing the change in severity scores from baseline to the end of treatment, comparing the NFB and control groups. A two-sample t-test was used to test the mean change in severity scores between treatment arms. Statistical tests were two-sided with a 5% significance level (Type I error rate).||-3.4|-9.0|<.0001
90827244|NCT03201419|181529717|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|0.283||||0.3178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.275|0.842||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.842|-0.275|0.3178
91066709|NCT04195685|182019793|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.5||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|-1.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-1.5|-7.4|0.0033
91066710|NCT04195685|182019794|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.0||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|15.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||The primary endpoint was evaluated by assessing the change in severity scores from baseline to the end of treatment, comparing the NFB and control groups. A two-sample t-test was used to test the mean change in severity scores between treatment arms. Statistical tests were two-sided with a 5% significance level (Type I error rate).||15.6|4.4|0.0005
91066711|NCT04195685|182019795|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|9.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||The primary endpoint was evaluated by assessing the change in severity scores from baseline to the end of treatment, comparing the NFB and control groups. A two-sample t-test was used to test the mean change in severity scores between treatment arms. Statistical tests were two-sided with a 5% significance level (Type I error rate).||9.2|3.5|<.0001
91066712|NCT04195685|182019796|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.2||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.1|21.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||The primary endpoint was evaluated by assessing the change in severity scores from baseline to the end of treatment, comparing the NFB and control groups. A two-sample t-test was used to test the mean change in severity scores between treatment arms. Statistical tests were two-sided with a 5% significance level (Type I error rate).||21.4|7.1|0.0001
91066713|NCT04195685|182019797|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|68.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.9|99.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||The primary endpoint was evaluated by assessing the change in severity scores from baseline to the end of treatment, comparing the NFB and control groups. A two-sample t-test was used to test the mean change in severity scores between treatment arms. Statistical tests were two-sided with a 5% significance level (Type I error rate).||99.2|36.9|<.0001
90827245|NCT03201419|181529717|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.096||||0.7561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.701|0.51||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.510|-0.701|0.7561
90827246|NCT03201419|181529717|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|0.037||||0.8614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.378|0.452||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.452|-0.378|0.8614
90827247|NCT03201419|181529718|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.759||||0.117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.869|3.56||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|||||3.560|0.869|0.117
91066714|NCT00455403|182019802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.7279|TWO_SIDED|||||"Applies to row Title year 1"|Mixed Models Analysis||"applies to row title year 1"|||||0.7279
90827248|NCT03201419|181529718|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.505||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|6.214||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|||||6.214|1.010|0.048
90827249|NCT03201419|181529718|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|3.602||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|||||3.602|0.560|0.460
91066715|NCT04630002|182019804|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square means|1.137|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.999|1.293|||||A linear mixed-effects model with period as a fixed effect, participant as a random effect, and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the log-transformed parameter AUC(0-tau).|||1.293|0.9990|
91066716|NCT04630002|182019805|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square means|1.068|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9185|1.242|||||A linear mixed-effects model with period as a fixed effect, participant as a random effect, and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the log-transformed parameter Cmax.|||1.242|0.9185|
91066717|NCT04630002|182019806|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square means|0.9891|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9313|1.051|||||A linear mixed-effects model with period as a fixed effect, participant as a random effect, and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the log-transformed parameter AUC(0-tau).|||1.051|0.9313|
91066718|NCT04630002|182019807|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square means|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9816|1.122|||||A linear mixed-effects model with period as a fixed effect, participant as a random effect, and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the log-transformed parameter Cmax.|||1.122|0.9816|
91066719|NCT04630002|182019808|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square means|1.102|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.025|1.185|||||A linear mixed-effects model with period as a fixed effect, participant as a random effect, and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the log-transformed parameter AUC(0-tau).|||1.185|1.025|
91066720|NCT04630002|182019809|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square means|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9947|1.26|||||A linear mixed-effects model with period as a fixed effect, participant as a random effect, and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the log-transformed parameter Cmax.|||1.260|0.9947|
91066721|NCT04630002|182019810|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square means|0.5299|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4801|0.5848|||||A linear mixed-effects model with period as a fixed effect, participant as a random effect, and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the log-transformed parameter AUC(0-tau).|||0.5848|0.4801|
91066722|NCT04630002|182019811|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square means|0.6001|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5271|0.6833|||||A linear mixed-effects model with period as a fixed effect, participant as a random effect, and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the log-transformed parameter Cmax.|||0.6833|0.5271|
91066723|NCT04630002|182019812|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square means|1.144|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.082|1.21|||||A linear mixed-effects model with period as a fixed effect, participant as a random effect, and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the log-transformed parameter AUC(0-tau).|||1.210|1.082|
91066724|NCT04630002|182019813|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square means|1.104|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.026|1.187|||||A linear mixed-effects model with period as a fixed effect, participant as a random effect, and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the log-transformed parameter Cmax.|||1.187|1.026|
91066725|NCT04630002|182019814|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square means|0.9435|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8147|1.093|||||A linear mixed-effects model with period as a fixed effect, participant as a random effect, and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the log-transformed parameter AUC(0-tau).|||1.093|0.8147|
91066726|NCT04630002|182019815|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square means|0.8928|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7467|1.068|||||A linear mixed-effects model with period as a fixed effect, participant as a random effect, and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the log-transformed parameter Cmax.|||1.068|0.7467|
91066727|NCT00442897|182019853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.714||||||95.0|1.77|7.78|||||Odds ratio was adjusted by baseline LDL strata.|||7.78|1.77|
91066728|NCT00442897|182019854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.579||||||95.0|1.32|5.06|||||Odds ratio was adjusted by baseline LDL strata.|||5.06|1.32|
91066729|NCT04498182|182019865|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.81||0.2305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|2.2|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||2.2|-8.9|0.2305
91066730|NCT04498182|182019865|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.81||0.7436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|6.4|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||6.4|-4.6|0.7436
91066731|NCT04498182|182019866|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.4936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.9|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||0.9|-1.9|0.4936
91066732|NCT04498182|182019866|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.7131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.6|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||1.6|-1.1|0.7131
91066733|NCT04498182|182019867|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.81||0.2305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|2.2|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||2.2|-8.9|0.2305
91066734|NCT04498182|182019867|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.81||0.7436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|6.4|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||6.4|-4.6|0.7436
91066735|NCT04498182|182019868|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.17||0.0281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|-0.8|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||-0.8|-13.2|0.0281
91066736|NCT04498182|182019868|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.18||0.9186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|6.6|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||6.6|-5.9|0.9186
91066737|NCT04498182|182019869|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.17||0.0281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|-0.8|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||-0.8|-13.2|0.0281
91066738|NCT04498182|182019869|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.18||0.9186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|6.6|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||6.6|-5.9|0.9186
91066739|NCT04498182|182019870|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.9846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.5|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||1.5|-1.5|0.9846
91066740|NCT04498182|182019870|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.6508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.8|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||1.8|-1.1|0.6508
91066741|NCT04498182|182019871|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.9846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.5|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||1.5|-1.5|0.9846
91066742|NCT04498182|182019871|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.6508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.8|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||1.8|-1.1|0.6508
91066743|NCT04498182|182019872|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.4936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.9|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||0.9|-1.9|0.4936
91066744|NCT04498182|182019872|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.7131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.6|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||1.6|-1.1|0.7131
91066745|NCT04498182|182019873|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.38||0.0786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|0.7|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||0.7|-12.6|0.0786
91066746|NCT04498182|182019873|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.39||0.9477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|6.5|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||6.5|-6.9|0.9477
91066747|NCT04498182|182019874|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.38||0.0786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|0.7|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||0.7|-12.6|0.0786
91066748|NCT04498182|182019874|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.39||0.9477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|6.5|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||6.5|-6.9|0.9477
91066749|NCT04498182|182019875|SUPERIORITY||LS Means Difference|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.16||0.1153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|1.2|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||1.2|-11.2|0.1153
91066750|NCT04498182|182019875|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.15||0.9975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|6.2|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||6.2|-6.2|0.9975
91066751|NCT04498182|182019876|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.16||0.1153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|1.2|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||1.2|-11.2|0.1153
90827250|NCT03201419|181529718|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.704||||0.367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.535|5.427||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|||||5.427|0.535|0.367
91066752|NCT04498182|182019876|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.15||0.9975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|6.2|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||6.2|-6.2|0.9975
91066753|NCT04498182|182019877|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.82||0.1518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|2.0|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||2.0|-13.0|0.1518
91066754|NCT04498182|182019877|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.87||0.407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|10.8|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||10.8|-4.4|0.4070
91066755|NCT04498182|182019878|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.82||0.1518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|2.0|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||2.0|-13.0|0.1518
91066756|NCT04498182|182019878|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.87||0.407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|10.8|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||10.8|-4.4|0.4070
91066757|NCT04498182|182019879|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.56||0.756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|5.9|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||5.9|-8.1|0.7560
91066758|NCT04498182|182019879|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.62||0.8308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|6.4|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||6.4|-7.9|0.8308
91066759|NCT04498182|182019880|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.56||0.756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|5.9|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||5.9|-8.1|0.7560
91066760|NCT04498182|182019880|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.62||0.8308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|6.4|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||6.4|-7.9|0.8308
91066761|NCT04498182|182019881|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|-3.5|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||-3.5|-12.4|0.0005
90827251|NCT03201419|181529718|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.689||||0.407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.489|5.825||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|||||5.825|0.489|0.407
90827252|NCT03201419|181529718|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.069||||0.876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.462|2.473||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.473|0.462|0.876
91066762|NCT04498182|182019881|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26||0.0585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|0.2|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||0.2|-8.7|0.0585
91066763|NCT04498182|182019882|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|-3.5|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||-3.5|-12.4|0.0005
91066764|NCT04498182|182019882|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26||0.0585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|0.2|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||0.2|-8.7|0.0585
91066765|NCT04498182|182019883|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-8.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.77||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|-3.4|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||-3.4|-14.3|0.0015
91066766|NCT04498182|182019883|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.78||0.6812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|4.3|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||4.3|-6.6|0.6812
91066767|NCT04498182|182019884|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-8.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.77||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|-3.4|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||-3.4|-14.3|0.0015
91066768|NCT04498182|182019884|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.78||0.6812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|4.3|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||4.3|-6.6|0.6812
91066769|NCT04498182|182019885|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|1.3|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||1.3|-8.5|0.1520
91066770|NCT04498182|182019885|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.49||0.8515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|4.4|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||4.4|-5.4|0.8515
91066771|NCT04498182|182019886|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|1.3|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||1.3|-8.5|0.1520
90827253|NCT03201419|181529719|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.971||||0.937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|2.005||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.005|0.470|0.937
90827254|NCT03201419|181529719|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.738||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.183|18.968||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|||||18.968|1.183|0.028
91066772|NCT04498182|182019886|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.49||0.8515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|4.4|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||4.4|-5.4|0.8515
91066773|NCT04498182|182019887|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.91||0.0302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|-0.6|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||-0.6|-12.1|0.0302
91066774|NCT04498182|182019887|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.92||0.8013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|5.0|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||5.0|-6.5|0.8013
91066775|NCT04498182|182019888|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.91||0.0302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|-0.6|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||-0.6|-12.1|0.0302
91066776|NCT04498182|182019888|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.92||0.8013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|5.0|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||5.0|-6.5|0.8013
91066777|NCT04498182|182019889|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.52||0.8166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|5.5|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||5.5|-4.4|0.8166
91066778|NCT04498182|182019889|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.52||0.3371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.4|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||7.4|-2.5|0.3371
91066779|NCT04498182|182019890|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3365|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3365
91066780|NCT04498182|182019890|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7323|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7323
91066781|NCT04498182|182019891|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1557|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1557
91066782|NCT04498182|182019891|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6845|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6845
91066783|NCT04498182|182019892|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.52||0.8166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|5.5|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||5.5|-4.4|0.8166
91066784|NCT04498182|182019892|SUPERIORITY|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center|LS Mean Difference|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.52||0.3371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.4|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||7.4|-2.5|0.3371
91066785|NCT04498182|182019893|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.81||0.5215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|7.3|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||7.3|-3.7|0.5215
91066786|NCT04498182|182019893|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.81||0.1312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|9.8|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||9.8|-1.3|0.1312
91066787|NCT04498182|182019894|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.81||0.5215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|7.3|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||7.3|-3.7|0.5215
91066788|NCT04498182|182019894|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.81||0.1312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|9.8|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||9.8|-1.3|0.1312
91066789|NCT04498182|182019895|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.99||0.0254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|-0.6|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||-0.6|-8.4|0.0254
91066790|NCT04498182|182019895|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.99||0.1362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|0.9|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||0.9|-6.9|0.1362
91066791|NCT04498182|182019896|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.99||0.0254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|-0.6|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||-0.6|-8.4|0.0254
91066792|NCT04498182|182019896|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.99||0.1362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|0.9|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||0.9|-6.9|0.1362
91066793|NCT04498182|182019897|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.06||0.0573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|0.1|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||0.1|-8.0|0.0573
91066794|NCT04498182|182019897|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.06||0.993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|4.1|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||4.1|-4.0|0.9930
91066795|NCT04498182|182019898|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.06||0.0573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|0.1|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||0.1|-8.0|0.0573
91066796|NCT04498182|182019898|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.06||0.993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|4.1|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||4.1|-4.0|0.9930
91066797|NCT04498182|182019899|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.3068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|3.15|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted by analysis center||||3.15|0.70|0.3068
91066798|NCT04498182|182019899|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.6167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|2.68|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted by analysis center||||2.68|0.56|0.6167
91066799|NCT04498182|182019900|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.64||||0.2867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.46|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted by analysis center||||1.46|0.28|0.2867
91066800|NCT04498182|182019900|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.3803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.57|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted by analysis center||||1.57|0.32|0.3803
91066801|NCT04498182|182019901|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.4375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|3.58|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted by analysis center||||3.58|0.58|0.4375
91066802|NCT04498182|182019901|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|3.27|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted by analysis center||||3.27|0.51|0.5840
91066803|NCT04498182|182019902|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73||||0.5046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.84|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted by analysis center||||1.84|0.29|0.5046
91066804|NCT04498182|182019902|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.5751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|2.88|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted by analysis center||||2.88|0.56|0.5751
91066805|NCT01339260|182019916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|1.87||If superiority of netupitant/palonosetron was established for the CR delayed, CR acute and then CR overall at cycle 1 were to be tested according to a hierarchical procedure;no adjustment for multiplicity was needed.The a priori threshold was 0.050|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test including treatment, age class and region as strata. All missing data were to be imputed as treatment failures.|The null hypothesis was rejected if the 2 sided p value from the Cochran Mantel Haenszel test was less than or equal to 0.050 and in the right direction i.e., the Odds Ratio (OR) was in favor of netupitant/palonosetron. Power was 90%.||1.87|1.16|0.001
90827255|NCT03201419|181529719|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.513||||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.318||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.318|0.200|0.166
90827256|NCT03201419|181529719|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.433||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.129|1.447||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.447|0.129|0.174
91066806|NCT01339260|182019917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.87||If the null hypothesis for CR delayed was rejected, analysis of the first key secondary endpoint CR acute was to be performed. Since the analysis was performed according to a hierarchical procedure, no further adjustment for multiplicity was needed.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test including treatment, age class and region as strata. All missing data were to be imputed as treatment failures.||CR in the acute phase was to be tested using the same 2 sided CMH test as for the primary endpoint. netupitant/palonosetron combination was to be considered superior to palonosetron in the acute phase if the 2 sided p value from the CMH was less than or equal to 0.050 and in the right direction.||1.87|1.0|0.047
91066807|NCT01339260|182019918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|1.85||If the null hypothesis for CR acute was rejected, analysis of the 2nd key secondary endpoint CR overall was to be performed. Since the analysis was performed according to a hierarchical procedure, no further adjustment for multiplicity was needed.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test including treatment, age class and region as strata. All missing data were to be imputed as treatment failures.||CR in the overall phase was to be tested using the same 2 sided CMH test as for the primary endpoint. netupitant/palonosetron combination was to be considered superior to palonosetron in the overall phase if the 2 sided p value from the CMH was less than or equal to 0.050 and in the right direction.||1.85|1.17|0.001
91066808|NCT03137160|182019919|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||This is the Investigator Global Assessment comparing the proportion of subjects who achieved a 2 pt reduction at study close (0).||||1
91066809|NCT03448419|182019930|SUPERIORITY||Median difference (HL-estimate)|-4.0||||0.4236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|6.0|||Wilcoxon rank test, normal approximation||Empagliflozin vs. Placebo. For estimation of effect, the non-parametric Hodge-Lehman (HL) estimate for the median difference was calculated.|H0: There is no difference between the effect of placebo and the effect of empagliflozin.||6.0|-16.0|0.4236
91066810|NCT03448419|182019931|SUPERIORITY||Median difference (HL-estimate)|3.13||||0.0893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|7.29|||Wilcoxon rank test, normal approximation||Empagliflozin vs. Placebo. For estimation of effect, the non-parametric Hodge-Lehman (HL) estimate for the median difference was calculated.|H0: There is no difference between the effect of placebo and the effect of empagliflozin.||7.29|0.00|0.0893
91066811|NCT03448419|182019932|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (HL-estimate)|0.1||||0.4702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.4|||Wilcoxon rank test, normal approximation||Empagliflozin vs. Placebo. For estimation of effect, the non-parametric Hodge-Lehman (HL) estimate for the median difference was calculated.|H0: There is no difference between the effect of placebo and the effect of empagliflozin.||0.40|-0.20|0.4702
91066812|NCT03448419|182019933|SUPERIORITY||Median difference (HL-estimate)|0.0||||0.983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|9.0|||Wilcoxon rank test, normal approximation||Empagliflozin vs. Placebo. For estimation of effect, the non-parametric Hodge-Lehman (HL) estimate for the median difference was calculated.|H0: There is no difference between the effect of placebo and the effect of empagliflozin.||9.0|-9.0|0.9830
90827257|NCT03201419|181529719|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.425||||0.608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.369|5.512||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|||||5.512|0.369|0.608
91066813|NCT03448419|182019934|OTHER||Difference of adjusted means|-0.31||||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.09|||Mixed Model repeated Measures (MMRM)|Covariates: visit-by-treatment interaction, baseline-by-visit interaction. Unstructured covariance structure was used to model within-patient errors.||||-0.09|-0.53|0.0053
91066814|NCT03448419|182019935|OTHER|||||||0.6189|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test|Test on difference in mean treatment scores, based on modified ridit scores.||||||0.6189
91066815|NCT03448419|182019936|OTHER|||||||0.6672|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test|Test on difference in mean treatment scores, based on modified ridit scores.||||||0.6672
91066816|NCT03448419|182019937|OTHER|||||||0.5147|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test|Test on difference in mean treatment scores, based on modified ridit scores.||||||0.5147
91066817|NCT03448419|182019938|OTHER|||||||0.863|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test|Test on difference in mean treatment scores, based on modified ridit scores.||||||0.8630
91066818|NCT03448419|182019939|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|0.91||||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.03|||Mixed Model repeated Measures (MMRM)|Covariates: NT-proBNP-by-visit interaction and visit-by-treatment interaction. Unstructured covariance structure to model within-patient errors.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio \[Empagliflozin/Placebo\] of relative change to baseline.|The endpoint 'relative change from baseline in NT-proBNP at Week 12' (after log-transformation) was evaluated using an MMRM analysis over time with baseline log-transformed NT-proBNP-by-visit interaction and visit-by-treatment interaction as covariates.Unstructured covariance structure was used to model within-patient errors.||1.03|0.81|0.1410
91066819|NCT04548193|182019943|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.14||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.72|17.99|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||17.99|-5.72|0.28
91066820|NCT04548193|182019944|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.72||||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|1.38|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.38|0.06|.0054
91066821|NCT04548193|182019946|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.94||||0.0098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|1.65|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.65|0.24|.0098
91066822|NCT00630825|182019947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-values ≤0.05 were considered significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91066823|NCT00630825|182019947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-values ≤0.05 were considered significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91066824|NCT00630825|182019947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-values ≤0.05 were considered significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91066825|NCT00630825|182019948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-values ≤0.05 were considered significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90827258|NCT03201419|181529719|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.553||||0.171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.237|1.292||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.292|0.237|0.171
90827259|NCT03201419|181529720|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.928||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|2.003||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.003|0.430|0.850
90827260|NCT03201419|181529720|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.261||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.745|6.862||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|||||6.862|0.745|0.150
90827261|NCT03201419|181529720|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.283||||0.632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.462|3.566||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|||||3.566|0.462|0.632
91066826|NCT00630825|182019948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-values ≤0.05 were considered significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91066827|NCT00630825|182019948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-values ≤0.05 were considered significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91066828|NCT00630825|182019949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison at Week 16. P-values ≤0.05 were considered significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91066829|NCT00630825|182019949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047||||||Treatment comparison at Week 16. P-values ≤0.05 were considered significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.|ANCOVA|||||||0.047
90827262|NCT03201419|181529720|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.583||||0.363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.183|1.863||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.863|0.183|0.363
90827263|NCT03201419|181529720|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.691||||0.555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.203|2.359||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.359|0.203|0.555
90827264|NCT03201419|181529720|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.991||||0.984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.408|2.405||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.405|0.408|0.984
91066830|NCT00630825|182019949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025||||||Treatment comparison at Week 16. P-values ≤0.05 were considered significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.|ANCOVA|||||||0.025
91066831|NCT00630825|182019950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison at Week 4. P-values ≤0.05 were considered significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91066832|NCT00630825|182019950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison at Week 4. P-values ≤0.05 were considered significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91066833|NCT00630825|182019950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison at Week 4. P-values ≤0.05 were considered significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91066834|NCT00630825|182019950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison at Week 8. P-values ≤0.05 were considered significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91066835|NCT00630825|182019950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison at Week 8. P-values ≤0.05 were considered significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91066836|NCT00630825|182019950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison at Week 8. P-values ≤0.05 were considered significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91066837|NCT00630825|182019950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison at Week 16. P-values ≤0.05 were considered significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91066838|NCT00630825|182019950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison at Week 16. P-values ≤0.05 were considered significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91066839|NCT00630825|182019950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison at Week 16. P-values ≤0.05 were considered significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91066840|NCT00630825|182019951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison of HOMA2-%B. P-values ≤0.05 were considered significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91066841|NCT00630825|182019951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison of HOMA2-%B. P-values ≤0.05 were considered significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91066842|NCT00630825|182019951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||||||Treatment comparison of HOMA2-%B. P-values ≤0.05 were considered significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.|ANCOVA|||||||0.004
91066843|NCT00630825|182019951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.904||||||Treatment comparison of HOMA2-%S. P-values ≤0.05 were considered significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.|ANCOVA|||||||0.904
91066844|NCT00630825|182019951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.138|||||||ANCOVA|Treatment comparison of HOMA2-%S. P-values ≤0.05 were considered significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.||||||0.138
91066845|NCT00630825|182019951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.729||||||Treatment comparison of HOMA2-%S. P-values ≤0.05 were considered significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.|ANCOVA|||||||0.729
91066846|NCT00630825|182019953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison at 4 weeks. P-values ≤0.05 were considered significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91066847|NCT00630825|182019953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison at 4 weeks. P-values ≤0.05 were considered significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91066848|NCT00630825|182019953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.113||||||Treatment comparison at 4 weeks. P-values ≤0.05 were considered significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.|ANCOVA|||||||0.113
91066849|NCT00630825|182019953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison at 8 weeks. P-values ≤0.05 were considered significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90827265|NCT03201419|181529721|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.462||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.017|5.961||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|||||5.961|1.017|0.046
91066850|NCT00630825|182019953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison at 8 weeks. P-values ≤0.05 were considered significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91066851|NCT00630825|182019953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison at 8 weeks. P-values ≤0.05 were considered significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91066852|NCT00630825|182019953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison at 16 weeks. P-values ≤0.05 were considered significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91066853|NCT00630825|182019953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||||||Treatment comparison at 16 weeks. P-values ≤0.05 were considered significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.|ANCOVA|||||||0.004
91066854|NCT00630825|182019953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||||||Treatment comparison at 16 weeks. P-values ≤0.05 were considered significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.|ANCOVA|||||||0.001
91066855|NCT00630825|182019954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||||||P-values ≤0.05 were considered significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.|ANCOVA|||||||0.009
91066856|NCT00630825|182019954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028||||||P-values ≤0.05 were considered significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.|ANCOVA|||||||0.028
91066857|NCT00630825|182019954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047||||||P-values ≤0.05 were considered significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.|ANCOVA|||||||0.047
91066858|NCT01011816|182019963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||Fisher Exact|||Null: No differenc between the percent success of Saline and BIOSTAT BIOLOGX||||0.52
91066859|NCT01081769|182019966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0191|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0191
91066860|NCT01081769|182019980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0323|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0323
91066861|NCT01575834|182019996|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.47||A fixed-sequence testing procedure was used for multiplicity adjustment of the coprimary and a subset of secondary efficacy endpoints to maintain the overall significance level at 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Based on logistic regression model adjusted for age and prevalent vertebral fracture stratification variables; p-value based on score test.|Values \< 1 for odds ratio favor romosozumab.|||0.47|0.15|< 0.001
91066862|NCT01575834|182019997|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.39||A fixed-sequence testing procedure was used for multiplicity adjustment of the coprimary and a subset of secondary efficacy endpoints to maintain the overall significance level at 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Based on logistic regression model adjusted for age and prevalent vertebral fracture stratification variables; p-value based on score test.|Values \< 1 for odds ratio favor romosozumab.|||0.39|0.15|< 0.001
91066863|NCT01575834|182019998|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.89||A fixed-sequence testing procedure was used for multiplicity adjustment of the coprimary and a subset of secondary efficacy endpoints to maintain the overall significance level at 0.05.|Cox proportional hazards|Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for age and prevalent vertebral fracture stratification variables.|Hazard ratio \< 1 favors romosozumab.|||0.89|0.46|0.008
91066864|NCT01575834|182019999|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.05||A fixed-sequence testing procedure was used for multiplicity adjustment of the coprimary and a subset of secondary efficacy endpoints to maintain the overall significance level at 0.05.|Cox proportional hazards|Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for age and prevalent vertebral fracture stratification variables.|Hazard ratio \< 1 favors romosozumab.|||1.05|0.53|0.096
91066865|NCT01575834|182020000|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.97||A fixed-sequence testing procedure was used for multiplicity adjustment of the coprimary and a subset of secondary efficacy endpoints to maintain the overall significance level at 0.05.|Cox proportional hazards|Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for age and prevalent vertebral fracture stratification variables.|Hazard ratio \< 1 favors romosozumab.|||0.97|0.57|0.057
91066866|NCT01575834|182020001|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.87||A fixed-sequence testing procedure was used for multiplicity adjustment of the coprimary and a subset of secondary efficacy endpoints to maintain the overall significance level at 0.05.|Cox proportional hazards|Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for age and prevalent vertebral fracture stratification variables.|Hazard ratio \< 1 favors romosozumab.|||0.87|0.52|0.096
91066867|NCT01575834|182020002|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.02||A fixed-sequence testing procedure was used for multiplicity adjustment of the coprimary and a subset of secondary efficacy endpoints to maintain the overall significance level at 0.05.|Cox proportional hazards|Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for age and prevalent vertebral fracture stratification variables.|Hazard ratio \< 1 favors romosozumab.|||1.02|0.44|0.096
91066868|NCT01575834|182020003|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.91||A fixed-sequence testing procedure was used for multiplicity adjustment of the coprimary and a subset of secondary efficacy endpoints to maintain the overall significance level at 0.05.|Cox proportional hazards|Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for age and prevalent vertebral fracture stratification variables.|Hazard ratio \< 1 favors romosozumab|||0.91|0.49|0.096
91066869|NCT01575834|182020004|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.28||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.49||A fixed-sequence testing procedure was used for multiplicity adjustment of the coprimary and a subset of secondary efficacy endpoints to maintain the overall significance level at 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Based on logistic regression model adjusted for age and prevalent vertebral fracture stratification variables; p-value based on score test.|Values \< 1 for odds ratio favor romosozumab.|||0.49|0.17|0.096
91066870|NCT01575834|182020005|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.26||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.41||A fixed-sequence testing procedure was used for multiplicity adjustment of the coprimary and a subset of secondary efficacy endpoints to maintain the overall significance level at 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Based on logistic regression model adjusted for age and prevalent vertebral fracture stratification variables; p-value based on score test|Values \< 1 for odds ratio favor romosozumab.|||0.41|0.16|0.096
91066871|NCT01575834|182020006|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.35||A fixed-sequence testing procedure was used for multiplicity adjustment of the coprimary and a subset of secondary efficacy endpoints to maintain the overall significance level at 0.05.|Cox proportional hazards|Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for age and prevalent vertebral fracture stratification variables.|Hazard ratio \< 1 favors romosozumab.|||1.35|0.22|0.18
91066872|NCT01575834|182020007|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|1.04||A fixed-sequence testing procedure was used for multiplicity adjustment of the coprimary and a subset of secondary efficacy endpoints to maintain the overall significance level at 0.05.|Cox proportional hazards|Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for age and prevalent vertebral fracture stratification variables.|Hazard ratio \< 1 favors romosozumab.|||1.04|0.24|0.12
91066873|NCT01575834|182020008|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.9|||Cox proportional hazards|Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for age and prevalent vertebral fracture stratification variables.|Hazard ratio \< 1 favors romosozumab.|||0.90|0.40|0.012
91066874|NCT01575834|182020009|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.84|||Cox proportional hazards|Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for age and prevalent vertebral fracture stratification variables.|Hazard ratio \< 1 favors romosozumab.|||0.84|0.46|0.002
91066875|NCT01575834|182020010|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.11||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.87|||Regression, Logistic|Based on logistic regression model adjusted for age and prevalent vertebral fracture stratification variables; p-value based on score test.|Values \< 1 for odds ratio favor romosozumab.|||0.87|0.01|0.011
91066876|NCT01575834|182020011|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.44|||Regression, Logistic|Based on logistic regression model adjusted for age and prevalent vertebral fracture stratification variables; p-value based on score test.|Values \< 1 for odds ratio favor romosozumab.|||0.44|0.01|< 0.001
91066877|NCT01575834|182020012|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|12.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.4|12.9|||ANCOVA|||The treatment comparison of BMD at the lumbar spine was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model which included treatment, age and prevalent vertebral fracture stratification variables, and baseline value of the endpoint, machine type and machine type-by-baseline value interaction.||12.9|12.4|< 0.001
90827266|NCT03201419|181529721|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.418|3.386||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|||||3.386|0.418|0.745
91066878|NCT01575834|182020013|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|11.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.8|11.4|||ANCOVA|||The treatment comparison of BMD at the lumbar spine was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model which included treatment, age and prevalent vertebral fracture stratification variables, and baseline value of the endpoint, machine type and machine type-by-baseline value interaction.||11.4|10.8|< 0.001
91066879|NCT01575834|182020014|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.6|6.0|||ANCOVA|||The treatment comparison of BMD at the total hip was analyzed using an ANCOVA model which included treatment, age and prevalent vertebral fracture stratification variables, and baseline value of the endpoint, machine type and machine type-by-baseline value interaction.||6.0|5.6|< 0.001
91066880|NCT01575834|182020015|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.1|5.5|||ANCOVA|||The treatment comparison of BMD at the total hip was analyzed using an ANCOVA model which included treatment, age and prevalent vertebral fracture stratification variables, and baseline value of the endpoint, machine type and machine type-by-baseline value interaction.||5.5|5.1|< 0.001
91066881|NCT01575834|182020016|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|5.4|||ANCOVA|||The treatment comparison of BMD at the femoral neck was analyzed using an ANCOVA model which included included treatment, age and prevalent vertebral fracture stratification variables, and baseline value of the endpoint, machine type and machine type-by-baseline value interaction.||5.4|4.9|< 0.001
91066882|NCT01575834|182020017|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|5.2|||ANCOVA|||The treatment comparison of BMD at the femoral neck was analyzed using an ANCOVA model which included included treatment, age and prevalent vertebral fracture stratification variables, and baseline value of the endpoint, machine type and machine type-by-baseline value interaction.||5.2|4.7|< 0.001
90827267|NCT03201419|181529721|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.147||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.417|3.155||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|||||3.155|0.417|0.790
91066883|NCT01804946|182020088|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The pre-determined margin of 20% of the control group effect was used.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0||||One-sided, p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons using the adaptive Holm method|Wald method of Z statistics calculation|Wald method of Z statistics computed a confidence interval of proportion difference.||PP set was analyzed||||0.05
91066884|NCT01804946|182020089|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The pre-determined margin of 20% of the control group effect was used.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0||||One-sided, p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons using the adaptive Holm method|Wald method of Z statistics calculation|Wald method of Z statistics computed a confidence interval of proportion difference.||PP set was analyzed||||<0.05
91066885|NCT01804946|182020090|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The clinically significant margin was assumed to be 0.2 of Oseltamivir effect|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0||||To adjust for multiple comparisons, the adaptive Holm method was used as a way to control type 1 error|t-test, 1 sided|Means were compared using the modified two-sample Student t-test including computation of a confidence interval for a difference between means||PP set was analyzed||||<0.05
91066886|NCT01804946|182020091|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The clinically significant margin was assumed to be 0.2°C|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.5|<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0||||To adjust for multiple comparisons, the adaptive Holm method was used as a way to control type 1 error|t-test, 1 sided|Means were compared using the modified two-sample Student t-test including computation of a confidence interval for a difference between means.||PP set was analyzed||||<0.05
91066887|NCT01804946|182020092|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The margin of no clinical importance was assumed to be 0.5 point or less to assess any symptom based on 4 point scale.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0||||To adjust for multiple comparisons the adaptive Holm method was used as a way to control type 1 error|t-test, 1 sided|Means were compared using the modified two-sample Student t-test including computation of a confidence interval for a difference between means||PP set was analyzed||||<0.05
91066888|NCT01804946|182020093|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To compare the number of antipyretic intake the margin of no clinical importance was assumed to be 0.2|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.5|<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0||||To adjust for multiple comparisons, the adaptive Holm method was used as a way to control type 1 error|t-test, 1 sided|Means were compared using the modified two-sample Student t-test including computation of a confidence interval for a difference between means||PP set was analyzed||||<0.05
91066889|NCT01804946|182020094|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To compare the quality of life total score the margin of no clinical importance was assumed to be 0.2 of Oseltamivir group value|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.2|<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0||||To adjust for multiple comparisons, the adaptive Holm method was used as a way to control type 1 error|t-test, 1 sided|The changes of means (Day 7 vs Day 1) were compared using the modified two-sample Student t-test including computation of a confidence interval||PP set was analyzed||||<0.05
91066890|NCT01804946|182020095|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To compare the patient subjective health status assessment the margin of no clinical importance was assumed to be 0.2 of Oseltamivir group value|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|18.2|<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0||||To adjust for multiple comparisons, the adaptive Holm method was used as a way to control type 1 error|t-test, 1 sided|Changes of means (Day 7 vs Day 1) were compared using the modified two-sample Student t-test including computation of a confidence interval||PP set was analyzed||||<0.05
91066891|NCT01804946|182020096|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The clinically significant difference (margin) between two percentages was assumed to be 20% or more of the effect of Oseltamivir|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||The Wald method of Z statistics calcul|The Wald method of Z statistics calculation was performed including computation a confidence interval for a difference between proportions||PP set was analyzed||||<0.05
91066892|NCT03830333|182020110|NON_INFERIORITY|Ceftolozane/tazobactam + metronidazole is concluded to be non-inferior to meropenem + placebo if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the treatment difference in percent response is above -12.5 percentage points.|Difference in percentages|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|8.8||||||Difference in percentage was based on Miettinen and Nurminen method with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weighting stratified by anatomic site of infection (bowel \[small or large\] versus other site of cIAI).||8.8|-4.7|
90827268|NCT03201419|181529721|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.537||||0.293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.169|1.71||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.710|0.169|0.293
91066893|NCT03830333|182020111|OTHER||Difference in percentages|-4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|3.7||||||Difference in percentage was based on Miettinen and Nurminen method with the CMH weighting stratified by anatomic site of infection (bowel \[small or large\] versus other site of cIAI).||3.7|-12.6|
91066894|NCT03830333|182020112|OTHER||Difference in percentages|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|6.7||||||Difference in percentage was based on Miettinen and Nurminen method with the CMH weighting stratified by anatomic site of infection (bowel \[small or large\] versus other site of cIAI).||6.7|-3.8|
91066895|NCT03830333|182020113|OTHER||Difference in percentages|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|4.8||||||Difference in percentage was based on Miettinen and Nurminen method with the CMH weighting stratified by anatomic site of infection (bowel \[small or large\] versus other site of cIAI).||4.8|-8.0|
90827269|NCT03201419|181529721|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.881||||0.843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.252|3.076||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|||||3.076|0.252|0.843
90827270|NCT03201419|181529721|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.877||||0.763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.375|2.053||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.053|0.375|0.763
91066896|NCT03830333|182020114|OTHER||Difference in percentages|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|10.4||||||Difference in percentage based on Miettinen and Nurminen method with the CMH weighting stratified by anatomic site of infection (bowel \[small or large\] versus other site of cIAI).||10.4|-9.2|
91066897|NCT03830333|182020115|OTHER|Difference in percentage was based on unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method. Confidence Interval is displayed only when there are at least 4 participants in at least one treatment group.|Difference in percentages|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|8.7||||||Gram-negative aerobes comparison: Based on unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method.||8.7|-11.9|
91066898|NCT03830333|182020115|OTHER|Difference in percentage was based on unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method. Confidence Interval is displayed only when there are at least 4 participants in at least one treatment group.|Difference in percentages|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|8.5||||||All enterobacteriaceae comparison: Based on unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method.||8.5|-12.5|
91066899|NCT03830333|182020115|OTHER|Difference in percentage was based on unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method. Confidence Interval is displayed only when there are at least 4 participants in at least one treatment group.|Difference in percentages|-8.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.2|20.0||||||Gram-positive aerobes comparison: Based on unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method.||20.0|-42.2|
91066900|NCT03830333|182020116|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|11.2||||||Difference in percentage was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.||11.2|-12.6|
91066901|NCT03830333|182020117|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|4.4||||||Difference in percentage was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.||4.4|-4.4|
91066902|NCT04390113|182020138|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.6253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.55|||Log Rank|||||1.55|0.55|0.6253
91066903|NCT04031846|182020148|OTHER|Difference in % and 95 % confidence interval (CI) are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Percentage Difference|0.6|||=|0.824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|6.3|||Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Difference in % : Injection site erythema||6.3|-5.0|= 0.824
91066904|NCT04031846|182020148|OTHER|Difference in % and 95 % CI are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Percentage Difference|2.8|||=|0.324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|8.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Difference in %: Injection site induration||8.4|-2.8|= 0.324
91066905|NCT04031846|182020148|OTHER|Difference in % and 95 % CI are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Percentage Difference|11.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.8|16.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Difference in %: Injection site pain||16.6|5.8|< 0.001
90827271|NCT03201419|181529722|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.422|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.868|2.597||||||Based on a Bayesian analysis of a sigmoidal dose-response relationship.||2.597|0.868|
90827272|NCT03201419|181529722|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.373|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.905|2.45||||||Based on a Bayesian analysis of a sigmoidal dose-response relationship.||2.450|0.905|
90827273|NCT03201419|181529722|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.284|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.927|2.264||||||Based on a Bayesian analysis of a sigmoidal dose-response relationship.||2.264|0.927|
90827274|NCT03201419|181529722|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.145|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.957|1.896||||||Based on a Bayesian analysis of a sigmoidal dose-response relationship.||1.896|0.957|
90827275|NCT03201419|181529722|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.079|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.972|1.638||||||Based on a Bayesian analysis of a sigmoidal dose-response relationship.||1.638|0.972|
90827276|NCT03201419|181529722|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.023|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.991|1.313||||||Based on a Bayesian analysis of a sigmoidal dose-response relationship.||1.313|0.991|
91066906|NCT04031846|182020148|OTHER|Difference in % and 95 % CI are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Percentage Difference|4.1|||=|0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|9.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Difference in %: Injection site swelling||9.4|-1.2|= 0.128
91066907|NCT04031846|182020149|OTHER|Difference in % and 95 % CI are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Percentage Difference|0.4|||=|0.885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|5.8|||Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Difference in %: Decreased appetite||5.8|-5.0|= 0.885
91066908|NCT04031846|182020149|OTHER|Difference in % and 95 % CI are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Percentage Difference|5.4|||=|0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|10.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Difference in %: Irritability||10.7|0.1|= 0.045
91066909|NCT04031846|182020149|OTHER|Difference in % and 95 % CI are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Percentage Difference|4.4|||=|0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|10.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Difference in %: Somnolence||10.0|-1.3|= 0.131
91066910|NCT04031846|182020149|OTHER|Difference in % and 95 % CI are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Percentage Difference|-0.1|||=|0.898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|2.1|||Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Difference in %: Urticaria||2.1|-2.4|= 0.898
91066911|NCT04031846|182020150|OTHER|Difference in % and 95 % CI are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Percentage Difference|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.5|||||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Difference in %||0.5|-1.0|
91066912|NCT04031846|182020151|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevenar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|0.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.68||1-sided p-value|t-distribution||V114/Prevenar 13™|Serotype 1 GMC Ratio: CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.68|0.57|< 0.001
91066913|NCT04031846|182020151|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevenar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|1.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|1.39||1-sided p-value|t-distribution||V114/Prevenar 13™|Serotype 3 GMC Ratio: CI and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||1.39|1.17|< 0.001
91066914|NCT04031846|182020151|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevenar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|0.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.82||1-sided p-value|t-distribution||V114/Prevenar 13™|Serotype 4 GMC Ratio: CI and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.82|0.68|< 0.001
91066915|NCT04031846|182020151|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevenar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|0.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.7||1-sided p-value|t-distribution||V114/Prevenar 13™|Serotype 5 GMC Ratio: CI and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.70|0.59|< 0.001
91066916|NCT04031846|182020151|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevenar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|0.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.76||1-sided p-value|t-distribution||V114/Prevenar 13™|Serotype 6A GMC Ratio: CI and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.76|0.61|< 0.001
91066917|NCT04031846|182020151|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevenar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|0.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.07||1-sided p-value|t-distribution||V114/Prevenar 13™|Serotype 6B GMC Ratio: CI and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||1.07|0.85|< 0.001
91066918|NCT04031846|182020151|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevenar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|0.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.85||1-sided p-value|t-distribution||V114/Prevenar 13™|Serotype 7F GMC Ratio: CI and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.85|0.72|< 0.001
91066919|NCT04031846|182020151|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevenar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|0.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.78||1-sided p-value|t-distribution||V114/Prevenar 13™|Serotype 9V GMC Ratio: CI and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.78|0.66|< 0.001
91066920|NCT04031846|182020151|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevenar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|0.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.83||1-sided p-value|t-distribution||V114/Prevenar 13™|Serotype 14 GMC Ratio: CI and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.83|0.67|< 0.001
91066921|NCT04031846|182020151|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevenar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|0.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.95||1-sided p-value|t-distribution||V114/Prevenar 13™|Serotype 18C GMC Ratio: CI and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.95|0.80|< 0.001
91066922|NCT04031846|182020151|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevenar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|0.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|0.91||1-sided p-value|t-distribution||V114/Prevenar 13™|Serotype 19A GMC Ratio: CI and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.91|0.75|< 0.001
91066923|NCT04031846|182020151|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevenar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|0.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.97||1-sided p-value|t-distribution||V114/Prevenar 13™|Serotype 19F GMC Ratio: CI and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.97|0.80|< 0.001
91066924|NCT04031846|182020151|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevenar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|0.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.97||1-sided p-value|t-distribution||V114/Prevenar 13™|Serotype 23F GMC Ratio: CI and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.97|0.79|< 0.001
90827277|NCT03201419|181529723|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|0.52||||0.8463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.75|5.78||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||5.78|-4.75|0.8463
90827278|NCT03201419|181529723|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-13.85||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.89|-6.81||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||-6.81|-20.89|0.0001
90827279|NCT03201419|181529723|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-2.84||||0.4355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.99|4.32||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||4.32|-9.99|0.4355
90827280|NCT03201419|181529723|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.87||||0.8483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.79|8.06||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||8.06|-9.79|0.8483
90827281|NCT03201419|181529723|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-1.61||||0.7336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.91|7.69||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||7.69|-10.91|0.7336
90827282|NCT03201419|181529723|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.69||||0.8347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.15|5.78||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||5.78|-7.15|0.8347
91066925|NCT04031846|182020151|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevenar 13™) being \>2.0 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|71.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.16|79.1||1-sided p-value|t-distribution||V114/Prevenar 13™|Serotype 22F GMC Ratio: CI and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||79.10|65.16|< 0.001
91078628|NCT01964716|182043067|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for a given antibody was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 97.5% confidence interval, computed using the Chan and Zhang procedure, for the difference in proportions (13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS) was greater than -0.10.|percent difference|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-5.3|2.6||||||Serotype 6A: Exact 2-sided confidence interval (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, 13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS, expressed as a percentage was analyzed.||2.6|-5.3|
91066926|NCT04031846|182020151|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevenar 13™) being \>2.0 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|46.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.19|51.42||1-sided p-value|t-distribution||V114/Prevenar 13™|Serotype 33F GMC Ratio: CI and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||51.42|42.19|< 0.001
91066927|NCT04031846|182020152|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Difference|-2.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|-1.3||1-sided p-value|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: Serotype 1|95% CI is based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|-1.3|-4.7|< 0.001
91066928|NCT04031846|182020152|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Difference|8.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|12.2||1-sided p-value|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: Serotype 3|95% CI is based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|12.2|4.4|< 0.001
91066929|NCT04031846|182020152|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Difference|-2.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|-0.1||1-sided p-value|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: Serotype 4|95% CI is based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|-0.1|-4.5|< 0.001
91066930|NCT04031846|182020152|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Difference|-0.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.2||1-sided p-value|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: Serotype 5|95% CI is based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|-0.2|-2.2|< 0.001
91066931|NCT04031846|182020152|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Difference|-0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.1||1-sided p-value|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: Serotype 6A|95% CI is based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|1.1|-1.9|< 0.001
91066932|NCT04031846|182020152|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Difference|-1.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-0.1||1-sided p-value|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: Serotype 6B|95% CI is based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|-0.1|-3.5|< 0.001
91066933|NCT04031846|182020152|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Difference|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.9||1-sided p-value|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: Serotype 7F|95% CI is based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|0.9|-0.9|< 0.001
91066934|NCT04031846|182020152|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Difference|-1.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.4||1-sided p-value|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: Serotype 9V|95% CI is based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|-0.4|-2.4|< 0.001
91066935|NCT04031846|182020152|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Difference|-0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.5||1-sided p-value|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: Serotype 14|95% CI is based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|0.5|-1.0|< 0.001
90827283|NCT03201419|181529724|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|1.59||||0.5695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|7.07||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||7.07|-3.90|0.5695
91066936|NCT04031846|182020152|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Difference|-0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.9||1-sided p-value|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: Serotype 18C|95% CI is based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|0.9|-1.8|< 0.001
91066937|NCT04031846|182020152|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Difference|-0.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.2||1-sided p-value|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: Serotype 19A|95% CI is based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|-0.2|-2.2|< 0.001
90827284|NCT03201419|181529724|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-3.23||||0.3784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.46|3.99||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||3.99|-10.46|0.3784
90827285|NCT03201419|181529724|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.17||||0.9653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.67|7.34||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||7.34|-7.67|0.9653
90827286|NCT03201419|181529724|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|2.97||||0.5304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.35|12.29||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||12.29|-6.35|0.5304
91066938|NCT04031846|182020152|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Difference|-0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.3||1-sided p-value|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: Serotype 19F|95% CI is based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|0.3|-1.3|< 0.001
90827287|NCT03201419|181529724|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-8.02||||0.0968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.51|1.46||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||1.46|-17.51|0.0968
91066939|NCT04031846|182020152|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Difference|-0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|1.5||1-sided p-value|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: Serotype 23F|95% CI is based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|1.5|-2.7|< 0.001
91066940|NCT04031846|182020152|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being \>10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Difference|93.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.5|95.6||1-sided p-value|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: Serotype 22F|95% CI is based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|95.6|91.5|< 0.001
91066941|NCT04031846|182020152|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being \>10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Difference|94.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|92.7|96.5||1-sided p-value|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: Serotype 33F|95% CI is based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|96.5|92.7|< 0.001
91066942|NCT04031846|182020153|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of Infanrix™ hexa administered concomitantly with V114 to Infanrix™ hexa administered concomitantly with Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being greater than the -10% specified non-inferiority margin (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Difference|-0.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.4||1-sided p-value|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: Diphtheria toxoid|95% CI is based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|0.4|-1.7|< 0.001
91066943|NCT04031846|182020153|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of Infanrix™ hexa administered concomitantly with V114 to Infanrix™ hexa administered concomitantly with Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being greater than the -5% specified non-inferiority margin (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Difference|-0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.3||1-sided p-value|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: Tetanus toxoid|95% CI is based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|0.3|-1.3|< 0.001
91066944|NCT04031846|182020153|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of Infanrix™ hexa administered concomitantly with V114 to Infanrix™ hexa administered concomitantly with Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being greater than the -10% specified non-inferiority margin (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Difference|-0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.9||1-sided p-value|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: Pertussis PT|95% CI is based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|0.9|-1.3|< 0.001
90827288|NCT03201419|181529724|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|0.91||||0.7885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.79|7.62||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||7.62|-5.79|0.7885
90827289|NCT03201419|181529725|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-1.2||||0.6792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.89|4.5||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||4.50|-6.89|0.6792
91066945|NCT04031846|182020153|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of Infanrix™ hexa administered concomitantly with V114 to Infanrix™ hexa administered concomitantly with Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being greater than the -10% specified non-inferiority margin (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Difference|-0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.5||1-sided p-value|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: Pertussis FHA|95% CI is based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|0.5|-1.0|< 0.001
91066946|NCT04031846|182020153|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of Infanrix™ hexa administered concomitantly with V114 to Infanrix™ hexa administered concomitantly with Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being greater than the -10% specified non-inferiority margin (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Difference|-0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.3||1-sided p-value|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: Pertussis PRN|95% CI is based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|0.3|-1.3|< 0.001
91066947|NCT04031846|182020153|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of Infanrix™ hexa administered concomitantly with V114 to Infanrix™ hexa administered concomitantly with Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being greater than the -10% specified non-inferiority margin (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Difference|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|2.1||1-sided p-value|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: Hib PRP|95% CI is based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|2.1|-1.3|< 0.001
91066948|NCT04031846|182020153|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of Infanrix™ hexa administered concomitantly with V114 to Infanrix™ hexa administered concomitantly with Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being greater than the -10% specified non-inferiority margin (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Difference|-0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.0||1-sided p-value|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: HBsAg|95% CI is based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|-0.0|-2.0|< 0.001
91066949|NCT04031846|182020153|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of Infanrix™ hexa administered concomitantly with V114 to Infanrix™ hexa administered concomitantly with Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being greater than the -5% specified non-inferiority margin (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Difference|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.7||1-sided p-value|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: Poliovirus 1|95% CI is based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|0.7|-0.7|< 0.001
90827290|NCT03201419|181529725|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-8.39||||0.0276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.84|-0.93||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||-0.93|-15.84|0.0276
90827291|NCT03201419|181529725|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.27||||0.9445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.97|7.42||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||7.42|-7.97|0.9445
90827292|NCT03201419|181529725|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|2.79||||0.5637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.71|12.28||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||12.28|-6.71|0.5637
90827293|NCT03201419|181529725|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-4.4||||0.387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.39|5.6||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||5.60|-14.39|0.3870
90827294|NCT03201419|181529725|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|0.72||||0.8373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.19|7.63||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||7.63|-6.19|0.8373
91066950|NCT04031846|182020153|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of Infanrix™ hexa administered concomitantly with V114 to Infanrix™ hexa administered concomitantly with Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being greater than the -5% specified non-inferiority margin (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Difference|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.7||1-sided p-value|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: Poliovirus 2|95% CI is based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|0.7|-0.7|< 0.001
91066951|NCT04031846|182020153|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of Infanrix™ hexa administered concomitantly with V114 to Infanrix™ hexa administered concomitantly with Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being greater than the -5% specified non-inferiority margin (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Difference|0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.1||1-sided p-value|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: Poliovirus 3|95% CI is based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|1.1|-0.5|< 0.001
91066952|NCT04031846|182020154|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of Rotarix™ administered concomitantly with V114 to Rotarix™ administered concomitantly with Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMT ratio (V114/Prevenar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|0.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.16||1-sided p-value|t-distribution||V114/Prevenar 13™|GMT Ratio: CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group||1.16|0.80|< 0.001
91066953|NCT04031846|182020155|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.88|||||V114 / Prevenar 13™|GMC Ratio Serotype 1: CI are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.88|0.73|
91066954|NCT04031846|182020155|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|2.02|||||V114 / Prevenar 13™|GMC Ratio Serotype 3: CI are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||2.02|1.70|
91066955|NCT04031846|182020155|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.19|||||V114 / Prevenar 13™|GMC Ratio Serotype 4: CI are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||1.19|0.98|
91066956|NCT04031846|182020155|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.94|||||V114 / Prevenar 13™|GMC Ratio Serotype 5: CI are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.94|0.74|
91066957|NCT04031846|182020155|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.52|||||V114 / Prevenar 13™|GMC Ratio Serotype 6A: CI are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.52|0.40|
91066958|NCT04031846|182020155|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.41|||||V114 / Prevenar 13™|GMC Ratio Serotype 6B: CI are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||1.41|1.00|
91066959|NCT04031846|182020155|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.91|||||V114 / Prevenar 13™|GMC Ratio Serotype 7F: CI are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.91|0.76|
91066960|NCT04031846|182020155|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.96|||||V114 / Prevenar 13™|GMC Ratio Serotype 9V: CI are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.96|0.77|
91066961|NCT04031846|182020155|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.86|||||V114 / Prevenar 13™|GMC Ratio Serotype 14: CI are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.86|0.66|
91066962|NCT04031846|182020155|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.95|||||V114 / Prevenar 13™|GMC Ratio Serotype 18C: CI are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.95|0.77|
90827295|NCT03201419|181529726|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|0.53||||0.8646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.54|6.59||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||6.59|-5.54|0.8646
90827296|NCT03201419|181529726|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-6.99||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|1.02||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||1.02|-15.00|0.0870
91066963|NCT04031846|182020155|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.87|||||V114 / Prevenar 13™|GMC Ratio Serotype 19A: CI are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.87|0.70|
91066964|NCT04031846|182020155|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.85|||||V114 / Prevenar 13™|GMC Ratio Serotype 19F: CI are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.85|0.70|
91066965|NCT04031846|182020155|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.4|||||V114 / Prevenar 13™|GMC Ratio Serotype 23F: CI are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||1.40|1.07|
91066966|NCT04031846|182020155|OTHER||GMC Ratio|57.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.2|65.0|||||V114 / Prevenar 13™|GMC Ratio Serotype 22F: CI are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||65.00|51.20|
90827297|NCT03201419|181529726|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|2.77||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|11.04||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||11.04|-5.50|0.5100
91066967|NCT04031846|182020155|OTHER||GMC Ratio|6.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.46|7.14|||||V114 / Prevenar 13™|GMC Ratio Serotype 33F: CI are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||7.14|5.46|
91066968|NCT04031846|182020156|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|0.3|||||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: Serotype 1|95% CI are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|0.3|-4.4|
91066969|NCT04031846|182020156|OTHER||Percentage Difference|25.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.1|30.3|||||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: Serotype 3|95% CI are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|30.3|21.1|
91066970|NCT04031846|182020156|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|-0.3|||||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: Serotype 4|95% CI are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|-0.3|-5.7|
91066971|NCT04031846|182020156|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|0.3|||||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: Serotype 5|95% CI are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|0.3|-8.1|
91066972|NCT04031846|182020156|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-19.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.9|-15.0|||||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: Serotype 6A|95% CI are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|-15.0|-23.9|
91066973|NCT04031846|182020156|OTHER||Percentage Difference|4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|10.7|||||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: Serotype 6B|95% CI are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|10.7|-1.5|
91066974|NCT04031846|182020156|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|0.5|||||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: Serotype 7F|95% CI are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|0.5|-2.9|
91066975|NCT04031846|182020156|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|-3.5|||||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: Serotype 9V|95% CI are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|-3.5|-10.1|
91066976|NCT04031846|182020156|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|1.7|||||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: Serotype 14|95% CI are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|1.7|-2.6|
91066977|NCT04031846|182020156|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|2.6|||||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: Serotype 18C|95% CI are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|2.6|-3.9|
91066978|NCT04031846|182020156|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|1.0|||||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: Serotype 19A|95% CI are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|1.0|-3.5|
91066979|NCT04031846|182020156|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.7|||||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: Serotype 19F|95% CI are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|0.7|-2.0|
90827298|NCT03201419|181529726|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|7.32||||0.1535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.75|17.39||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||17.39|-2.75|0.1535
90827299|NCT03201419|181529726|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-5.14||||0.3369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.66|5.38||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||5.38|-15.66|0.3369
90827300|NCT03201419|181529726|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|0.27||||0.9417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.05|7.59||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||7.59|-7.05|0.9417
91066980|NCT04031846|182020156|OTHER||Percentage Difference|6.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|11.9|||||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: Serotype 23F|95% CI are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|11.9|1.3|
91066981|NCT04031846|182020156|OTHER||Percentage Difference|90.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|87.4|92.7|||||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: Serotype 22F|95% CI are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|92.7|87.4|
90827301|NCT03201419|181529727|SUPERIORITY||Median difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|5.47||||||Based on a Bayesian analysis of a sigmoidal dose-response relationship.||5.47|-1.41|
91066982|NCT04031846|182020156|OTHER||Percentage Difference|45.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.3|50.3|||||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: Serotype 33F|95% CI are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|50.3|41.3|
91066983|NCT04031846|182020159|OTHER|Percentage difference and CI are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Percentage Difference|15.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.9|19.2|||||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: V114 Serotype 22F minus Prevenar 13™ Serotype 3||19.2|12.9|
91066984|NCT04031846|182020159|OTHER|Percentage difference and CI are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Percentage Difference|15.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.2|18.7|||||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: V114 Serotype 33F minus Prevenar 13™ Serotype 3||18.7|12.2|
91066985|NCT01622673|182020180|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis will be supported if the lower limit of the 90% confidence interval (CI) falls above 0.4 for the geometric least squares mean ratio for TUMS® + raltegravir versus raltegravir alone|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.678|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.531|0.866|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis incorporated fixed effect for treatment and treatment period and random effect for participant|The parameter estimated, geometric least squares mean ratio, is geometric least squares mean C12hrs for TUMS® + raltegravir / geometric least squares mean C12hrs for raltegravir alone|||0.866|0.531|
91066986|NCT01622673|182020180|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis will be supported if the lower limit of the 90% CI falls above 0.4 for the geometric least squares mean ratio for MINTOX® + raltegravir versus raltegravir alone|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.373|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.293|0.475|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis incorporated fixed effect for treatment and treatment period and random effect for participant|The parameter estimated, geometric least squares mean ratio, is the geometric least squares mean C12hrs for MINTOX® + raltegravir / geometric least squares mean C12hrs for raltegravir alone|||0.475|0.293|
91066987|NCT01622673|182020181|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis will be supported if the lower limit of the 90% confidence interval (CI) falls above 0.4 for the geometric least squares mean ratio for MINTOX® before raltegravir versus raltegravir alone|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.437|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.344|0.554|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis incorporated fixed effect for treatment and random effect for participant|The parameter estimated, geometric least squares mean ratio, is geometric least squares mean C12hrs for MINTOX® before raltegravir / geometric least squares mean C12hrs for raltegravir alone|||0.554|0.344|
91078629|NCT01964716|182043067|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for a given antibody was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 97.5% confidence interval, computed using the Chan and Zhang procedure, for the difference in proportions (13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS) was greater than -0.10.|percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-4.7|4.7||||||Serotype 6B: Exact 2-sided confidence interval (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, 13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS, expressed as a percentage was analyzed.||4.7|-4.7|
91066988|NCT01622673|182020181|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis will be supported if the lower limit of the 90% confidence interval (CI) falls above 0.4 for the geometric least squares mean ratio for MINTOX® after raltegravir versus raltegravir alone|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.433|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.341|0.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis incorporated fixed effect for treatment and random effect for participant|The parameter estimated, geometric least squares mean ratio, is geometric least squares mean C12hrs for MINTOX® after raltegravir / geometric least squares mean C12hrs for raltegravir alone|||0.550|0.341|
91066989|NCT01622673|182020182|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis will be supported if the lower limit of the 90% confidence interval (CI) falls above 0.4 for the geometric least squares mean ratio for TUMS® + raltegravir versus raltegravir alone|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.445|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.35|0.565|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis incorporated fixed effect for treatment and treatment period and random effect for participant|The parameter estimated, geometric least squares mean ratio, is geometric least squares mean AUC0-12hrs for TUMS® + raltegravir / geometric least squares mean AUC0-12hrs for raltegravir alone|||0.565|0.350|
91066990|NCT01622673|182020182|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis will be supported if the lower limit of the 90% confidence interval (CI) falls above 0.4 for the geometric least squares mean ratio for MINTOX® + raltegravir versus raltegravir alone|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.402|0.646|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis incorporated fixed effect for treatment and treatment period and random effect for participant|The parameter estimated, geometric least squares mean ratio, is geometric least squares mean AUC0-12hrs for MINTOX® + raltegravir / geometric least squares mean AUC0-12hrs for raltegravir alone|||0.646|0.402|
91066991|NCT01622673|182020183|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis will be supported if the lower limit of the 90% confidence interval (CI) falls above 0.4 for the geometric least squares mean ratio for MINTOX® before raltegravir versus raltegravir alone|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.485|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.351|0.669|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis incorporated fixed effect for treatment and random effect for participant|The parameter estimated, geometric least squares mean ratio, is geometric least squares mean AUC0-12hrs for MINTOX® before raltegravir / geometric least squares mean AUC0-12hrs for raltegravir alone|||0.669|0.351|
91066992|NCT01622673|182020183|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis will be supported if the lower limit of the 90% confidence interval (CI) falls above 0.4 for the geometric least squares mean ratio for MINTOX® after raltegravir versus raltegravir alone|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.696|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.504|0.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis incorporated fixed effect for treatment and random effect for participant|The parameter estimated, geometric least squares mean ratio, is geometric least squares mean AUC0-12hrs for MINTOX® after raltegravir / geometric least squares mean AUC0-12hrs for raltegravir alone|||0.960|0.504|
91066993|NCT01622673|182020184|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis will be supported if the lower limit of the 90% confidence interval (CI) falls above 0.4 for the geometric least squares mean ratio for TUMS® + raltegravir versus raltegravir alone|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.476|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.362|0.627|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis incorporated fixed effect for treatment and treatment period and random effect for participant|The parameter estimated, geometric least squares mean ratio, is geometric least squares mean Cmax for TUMS® + raltegravir / geometric least squares mean Cmax for raltegravir alone|||0.627|0.362|
91066994|NCT01622673|182020184|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis will be supported if the lower limit of the 90% CI falls above 0.4 for the geometric least squares mean ratio for MINTOX® + raltegravir versus raltegravir alone|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.555|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.423|0.729|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis incorporated fixed effect for treatment and treatment period and random effect for participant|The parameter estimated, geometric least squares mean ratio, is the geometric least squares mean Cmax for MINTOX® + raltegravir / geometric least squares mean Cmax for raltegravir alone|||0.729|0.423|
91066995|NCT01622673|182020185|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis will be supported if the lower limit of the 90% confidence interval (CI) falls above 0.4 for the geometric least squares mean ratio for MINTOX® before raltegravir versus raltegravir alone|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.485|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.332|0.709|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis incorporated fixed effect for treatment and random effect for participant|The parameter estimated, geometric least squares mean ratio, is geometric least squares mean Cmax for MINTOX® before raltegravir / geometric least squares mean Cmax for raltegravir alone|||0.709|0.332|
91066996|NCT01622673|182020185|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis will be supported if the lower limit of the 90% confidence interval (CI) falls above 0.4 for the geometric least squares mean ratio for MINTOX® after raltegravir versus raltegravir alone|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.775|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.53|1.132|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis incorporated fixed effect for treatment and random effect for participant|The parameter estimated, geometric least squares mean ratio, is geometric least squares mean Cmax for MINTOX® after raltegravir / geometric least squares mean Cmax for raltegravir alone|||1.132|0.530|
91066997|NCT01540487|182020188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted gMean ratio|99.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.7|104.5|||ANOVA|||||104.5|94.7|
91066998|NCT01540487|182020188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted gMean ratio|100.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.1|106.8|||ANOVA|||||106.8|95.1|
91066999|NCT01540487|182020189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted gMean ratio|101.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.4|109.0|||ANOVA|||||109.0|95.4|
91067000|NCT01540487|182020189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted gMean ratio|111.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.4|123.5|||ANOVA|||||123.5|100.4|
90827302|NCT03201419|181529727|SUPERIORITY||Median difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|1.19||||||Based on a Bayesian analysis of a sigmoidal dose-response relationship.||1.19|-0.43|
90827303|NCT03201419|181529727|SUPERIORITY||Median difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.5||||||Based on a Bayesian analysis of a sigmoidal dose-response relationship.||0.50|-0.16|
91067001|NCT01540487|182020190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted gMean ratio|97.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.6|103.8|||ANOVA|||||103.8|90.6|
91067002|NCT01540487|182020190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusteg gMean ratio|103.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.2|110.1|||ANOVA|||||110.1|96.2|
91067003|NCT01540487|182020191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted gMean ratio|94.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.4|104.8|||ANOVA|||||104.8|85.4|
90827304|NCT03201419|181529727|SUPERIORITY||Median difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.15||||||Based on a Bayesian analysis of a sigmoidal dose-response relationship.||0.15|-0.03|
91067004|NCT01540487|182020191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted gMean ratio|102.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.2|113.9|||ANOVA|||||113.9|92.2|
91067005|NCT01540487|182020192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted gMean ratio|110.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.5|120.6|||ANOVA|||||120.6|100.5|
91067006|NCT01540487|182020192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted gMean ratio|89.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.2|99.3|||ANOVA|||||99.3|80.2|
91067007|NCT01540487|182020193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted gMean ratio|98.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.0|104.5|||ANOVA|||||104.5|92.0|
91067008|NCT01540487|182020193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted gMean ratio|102.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.0|109.0|||ANOVA|||||109.0|97.0|
91067009|NCT01540487|182020194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted gMean ratio|99.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.7|104.6|||ANOVA|||||104.6|94.7|
91067010|NCT01540487|182020194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted gMean ratio|100.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.1|106.8|||ANOVA|||||106.8|95.1|
91067011|NCT03503370|182020195|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.8|||||Hazard ratio from Cox Proportional Hazard comparing the chlorhexidine group to the placebo group.|||1.80|0.39|
91067012|NCT03503370|182020196|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.97
91067013|NCT03503370|182020197|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.77|||||Hazard ratio from Cox Proportional Hazard comparing the chlorhexidine group to the placebo group.|||1.77|0.34|
91067014|NCT03483961|182020198|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0015||||||All tests were carried out at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05 and no adjustment for multiplicity was applied, since the goal was to rank different formulations rather than to establish inferential values.|ANOVA|ANOVA model including site and treatment group as fixed effects assuming normality of log titers. P-value is for Group 2 vs. Group 1.||Groups 2-8 are compared to Group 1.||||0.0015
91067015|NCT03483961|182020198|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0761||||||All tests were carried out at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05 and no adjustment for multiplicity was applied, since the goal was to rank different formulations rather than to establish inferential values.|ANOVA|ANOVA model including site and treatment group as fixed effects assuming normality of log titers. P-value is for Group 3 vs. Group 1.||Groups 2-8 are compared to Group 1||||0.0761
91067016|NCT03483961|182020198|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9317||||||All tests were carried out at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05 and no adjustment for multiplicity was applied, since the goal was to rank different formulations rather than to establish inferential values.|ANOVA|ANOVA model including site and treatment group as fixed effects assuming normality of log titers. P-value is for Group 4 vs. Group 1.||Groups 2-8 are compared to Group 1.||||0.9317
91067017|NCT03483961|182020198|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||All tests were carried out at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05 and no adjustment for multiplicity was applied, since the goal was to rank different formulations rather than to establish inferential values.|ANOVA|ANOVA model including site and treatment group as fixed effects assuming normality of log titers. P-value is for Group 5 vs. Group 1.||Groups 2-8 are compared to Group 1.||||<.0001
91067018|NCT03483961|182020198|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0045||||||All tests were carried out at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05 and no adjustment for multiplicity was applied, since the goal was to rank different formulations rather than to establish inferential values.|ANOVA|ANOVA model including site and treatment group as fixed effects assuming normality of log titers. P-value is for Group 6 vs. Group 1.||Groups 2-8 are compared to Group 1.||||0.0045
90827305|NCT03201419|181529727|SUPERIORITY||Median difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.05||||||Based on a Bayesian analysis of a sigmoidal dose-response relationship.||0.05|-0.01|
90827306|NCT03201419|181529727|SUPERIORITY||Median difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.01||||||Based on a Bayesian analysis of a sigmoidal dose-response relationship.||0.01|-0.00|
90827307|NCT03201419|181529728|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|5.2||||0.3328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|15.7||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||15.7|-5.3|0.3328
91067019|NCT03483961|182020198|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1437||||||All tests were carried out at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05 and no adjustment for multiplicity was applied, since the goal was to rank different formulations rather than to establish inferential values.|ANOVA|ANOVA model including site and treatment group as fixed effects assuming normality of log titers. P-value is for Group 7 vs. Group 1.||Groups 2-8 are compared to Group 1.||||0.1437
91067020|NCT03483961|182020198|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3216||||||All tests were carried out at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05 and no adjustment for multiplicity was applied, since the goal was to rank different formulations rather than to establish inferential values.|ANOVA|ANOVA model including site and treatment group as fixed effects assuming normality of log titers. P-value is for Group 8 vs. Group 1.||Groups 2-8 are compared to Group 1.||||0.3216
91067021|NCT01237041|182020203|SUPERIORITY|Univariate ANOVA||||||0.016||||||A priori threshold p\<0.05|ANOVA|Comparison of 3 dose-finding groups. Post-hoc comparisons between groups also done.||ANOVA to compare AUC of GH among groups||||.016
91067022|NCT01237041|182020204|SUPERIORITY|ANOVA of the 3 dose-finding groups. Data transformed using log(10) for analysis||||||0.043||||||A priori threshold for significance p\<0.05|ANOVA|||Analysis of FFA Area Under Curve in dose-finding studies. Data were log-transformed before analysis.||||.043
91067023|NCT01237041|182020205|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.543|||||||ANOVA|||ANOVA, 3 dose-finding groups||||0.543
91067024|NCT01237041|182020206|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.113|||||||ANOVA|||ANOVA, 2 groups, essentially an unpaired t-test.||||.113
91067025|NCT00651261|182020234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.96|||1-sided stratified log-rank|||||0.96|0.63|0.009
91067026|NCT00651261|182020235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.93|||1-sided stratified log rank|||||0.93|0.66|0.0024
91067027|NCT00651261|182020237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.15|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.15
91067028|NCT00651261|182020238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0049|||||||1-sided stratified log rank|||||||0.0049
91067029|NCT00300235|182020240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||proportion of subjects|35.2||||||95.0|32.5|37.9||||||This was a survey designed to estimate prevalence, no formal comparisons between age or genotype groups were performed.||37.9|32.5|
91067030|NCT03351608|182020252|SUPERIORITY||GM Ratio (SUG 2 mg / NEO + [GLY or ATR])|0.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.32|||ANOVA|||||0.32|0.16|< 0.0001
91067031|NCT02877004|182020255|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.723|||||||ANCOVA|Data were analyzed using analysis of covariance with the baseline value included as the covariate.||||||0.723
91067032|NCT02877004|182020256|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.368|||||||ANCOVA|Data were analyzed using analysis of covariance with the baseline value included as the covariate||||||.368
91067033|NCT02727478|182020257|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||< 0.001
91067034|NCT02727478|182020258|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||=0.001
91067035|NCT02727478|182020259|OTHER|||||||0.254|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.254
91067036|NCT02727478|182020260|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.065|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||=0.065
91067037|NCT02727478|182020261|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.301|||||||ANOVA|||||||=0.301
91067038|NCT02727478|182020262|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.792|||||||ANOVA|||||||=0.792
91067039|NCT02727478|182020263|OTHER|||||||0.039|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.039
91067040|NCT00502242|182020287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.228||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.099|0.528||2-sided p-value; alpha equals (=) 0.05|Log Rank|Stratified log-rank test with region and race strata|Stratified Cox proportional hazard model with region and race strata|||0.528|0.099|0.0002
91067041|NCT00502242|182020288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.425||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.237|0.763||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Log Rank|Stratified log-rank test with region and race strata|Stratified Cox proportional hazard model with region and race strata|||0.763|0.237|0.0031
91067042|NCT00502242|182020289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||Up to 24 weeks post-conversion||||0.002
91067043|NCT00502242|182020289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||Up to 52 weeks post-conversion||||0.074
91067044|NCT00502242|182020290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||Up to 24 weeks post-conversion||||0.093
91067045|NCT00502242|182020290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.219|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||Up to 52 weeks post-conversion||||0.219
91067046|NCT00502242|182020291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||Up to 24 weeks post-conversion||||0.002
91067047|NCT00502242|182020291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||Up to 52 weeks post-conversion||||0.121
91067048|NCT00502242|182020292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Fold Change|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Adjusted for baseline|Change from Baseline at Week 3, Ramipril||||
91067049|NCT00502242|182020292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Fold Change|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Adjusted for baseline|Change from Baseline at Week 3, Placebo||||
90827308|NCT03201419|181529728|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|15.5||||0.0255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|29.2||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||29.2|1.9|0.0255
91067050|NCT00502242|182020292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratio|0.85||||0.0098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.96||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with change in the logarithmic Up/c as dependent variable, treatment and region/race as factors, and logarithmic baseline as covariate.|Treatment ratio (Ramipril/Placebo) in the geometric mean fold-change.|Change from baseline at Week 3, Ramipril versus (vs.) Placebo||0.96|0.76|0.0098
91067051|NCT00502242|182020292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Fold Change|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Adjusted for baseline|Change from baseline at Week 4, Ramipril||||
91067052|NCT00502242|182020292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Fold Change|1.52|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Adjusted for baseline|Change from baseline at Week 4, Placebo||||
91067053|NCT00502242|182020292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratio|0.78||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.89||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with change in the logarithmic Up/c as dependent variable, treatment and region/race as factors, and logarithmic baseline as covariate.|Treatment ratio (Ramipril/Placebo) in the geometric mean fold-change.|Change from baseline at Week 4, Ramipril vs. Placebo||0.89|0.68|0.0003
91067054|NCT00502242|182020292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Fold Change|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Adjusted for baseline|Change from baseline at Week 8, Ramipirl||||
91067055|NCT00502242|182020292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Fold Change|1.61|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Adjusted for baseline|Change from baseline at Week 8, Placebo||||
91067056|NCT00502242|182020292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratio|0.79||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.91||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with change in the logarithmic Up/c as dependent variable, treatment and region/race as factors, and logarithmic baseline as covariate.|Treatment ratio (Ramipril/Placebo) in the geometric mean fold-change.|Change from Baseline at Week 8, Ramipril vs. Placebo||0.91|0.68|0.0016
91067057|NCT00502242|182020292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Fold Change|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Adjusted for baseline|Change from Baseline at Week 12, Ramipril||||
91067058|NCT00502242|182020292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Fold Change|1.63|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Adjusted for baseline|Change from Baseline at Week 12, Placebo||||
91067059|NCT00502242|182020292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratio|0.82||||0.0165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.96||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with change in the logarithmic Up/c as dependent variable, treatment and region/race as factors, and logarithmic baseline as covariate.|Treatment ratio (Ramipril/Placebo) in the geometric mean fold-change.|Change from Baseline at Week 12, Ramipril vs. Placebo||0.96|0.70|0.0165
91067060|NCT00502242|182020292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Fold Change|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Adjusted for baseline|Change from Baseline at Week 24, Ramipril||||
91067061|NCT00502242|182020292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Fold Change|1.78|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Adjusted for baseline|Change from Baseline at Week 24, Placebo||||
91067062|NCT00502242|182020292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratio|0.83||||0.0264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.98||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with change in the logarithmic Up/c as dependent variable, treatment and region/race as factors, and logarithmic baseline as covariate.|Treatment ratio (Ramipril/Placebo) in the geometric mean fold-change.|Change from Baseline at Week 24, Ramipril vs. Placebo||0.98|0.70|0.0264
91067063|NCT00502242|182020292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Fold Change|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Adjusted for baseline|Change from Baseline at Week 30, Ramipril||||
91067064|NCT00502242|182020292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Fold Change|1.82|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Adjusted for baseline|Change from Baseline at Week 30, Placebo||||
91067065|NCT00502242|182020292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratio|0.79||||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.93||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with change in the logarithmic Up/c as dependent variable, treatment and region/race as factors, and logarithmic baseline as covariate.|Treatment ratio (Ramipril/Placebo) in the geometric mean fold-change.|Change from Baseline at Week 30, Ramipril vs. Placebo||0.93|0.66|0.0062
91067066|NCT00502242|182020292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Fold Change|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Adjusted for baseline|Change from Baseline at Week 36, Ramipril||||
91067067|NCT00502242|182020292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Fold Change|1.67|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Adjusted for baseline|Change from Baseline at Week 36, Placebo||||
91067068|NCT00502242|182020292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratio|0.84||||0.0341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.99||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with change in the logarithmic Up/c as dependent variable, treatment and region/race as factors, and logarithmic baseline as covariate.|Treatment ratio (Ramipril/Placebo) in the geometric mean fold-change.|Change from Baseline at Week 36, Ramipril vs. Placebo||0.99|0.72|0.0341
91067069|NCT00502242|182020292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Fold Change|1.56|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Adjusted for baseline|Change from Baseline at Week 52, Ramipril||||
91067070|NCT00502242|182020292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Fold Change|1.86|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Adjusted for baseline|Change from Baseline at Week 52, Placebo||||
91067071|NCT00502242|182020292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratio|0.84||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.01||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with change in the logarithmic Up/c as dependent variable, treatment and region/race as factors, and logarithmic baseline as covariate.|Treatment ratio (Ramipril/Placebo) in the geometric mean fold-change.|Change from Baseline at Week 52, Ramipril vs. Placebo||1.01|0.70|0.0600
91067072|NCT00502242|182020293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Fold Change|1.46|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Adjusted for baseline|Change from Baseline at Week 3, Ramipril||||
91067073|NCT00502242|182020293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Fold Change|2.05|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Adjusted for baseline|Change from Baseline at Week 3, Placebo||||
91067074|NCT00502242|182020293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratio|0.71||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.89||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with change in the logarithmic U alb/c as dependent variable, treatment and region/race as factors, and logarithmic baseline as covariate|Treatment ratio (Ramipril/Placebo) in the geometric mean fold-change.|Change from Baseline at Week 3, Ramipril vs. Placebo||0.89|0.57|0.0034
91067075|NCT00502242|182020293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Fold Change|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Adjusted for baseline|Change from Baseline at Week 4, Ramipril||||
91067076|NCT00502242|182020293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Fold Change|2.37|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Adjusted for baseline|Change from Baseline at Week 4, Placebo||||
91067077|NCT00502242|182020293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratio|0.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.76||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with change in the logarithmic U alb/c as dependent variable, treatment and region/race as factors, and logarithmic baseline as covariate|Treatment ratio (Ramipril/Placebo) in the geometric mean fold-change.|Change from Baseline at Week 4, Ramipril vs. Placebo||0.76|0.47|<0.0001
91067078|NCT00502242|182020293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Fold Change|1.67|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Adjusted for baseline|Change from Baseline at Week 8, Ramipril||||
91067079|NCT00502242|182020293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Fold Change|2.74|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Adjusted for baseline|Change from Baseline at Week 8, Placebo||||
91067080|NCT00502242|182020293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratio|0.61||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.79||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with change in the logarithmic U alb/c as dependent variable, treatment and region/race as factors, and logarithmic baseline as covariate|Treatment ratio (Ramipril/Placebo) in the geometric mean fold-change.|Change from Baseline at Week 8, Ramipril vs. Placebo||0.79|0.47|0.0002
90827309|NCT03201419|181529728|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|2.5||||0.7296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|16.7||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||16.7|-11.7|0.7296
91067081|NCT00502242|182020293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Fold Change|1.91|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Adjusted for baseline|Change from Baseline at Week 12, Ramipril||||
91067082|NCT00502242|182020293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Fold Change|2.92|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Adjusted for baseline|Change from Baseline at Week 12, Placebo||||
91067083|NCT00502242|182020293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratio|0.65||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.87||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with change in the logarithmic U alb/c as dependent variable, treatment and region/race as factors, and logarithmic baseline as covariate|Treatment ratio (Ramipril/Placebo) in the geometric mean fold-change.|Change from Baseline at Week 12, Ramipril vs. Placebo||0.87|0.49|0.0032
91067084|NCT00502242|182020293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Fold Change|2.33|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Adjusted for baseline|Change from Baseline at Week 24, Ramipril||||
91067085|NCT00502242|182020293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Fold Change|3.39|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Adjusted for baseline|Change from Baseline at Week 24, Placebo||||
91067086|NCT00502242|182020293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratio|0.69||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.92||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with change in the logarithmic U alb/c as dependent variable, treatment and region/race as factors, and logarithmic baseline as covariate|Treatment ratio (Ramipril/Placebo) in the geometric mean fold-change.|Change from Baseline at Week 24, Ramipril vs. Placebo||0.92|0.51|0.0130
91067087|NCT00502242|182020293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Fold Change|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Adjusted for baseline|Change from Baseline at Week 30, Ramipril||||
91067088|NCT00502242|182020293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Fold Change|3.39|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Adjusted for baseline|Change from Baseline at Week 30, Placebo||||
91067089|NCT00502242|182020293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratio|0.74||||0.0577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.01||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with change in the logarithmic U alb/c as dependent variable, treatment and region/race as factors, and logarithmic baseline as covariate|Treatment ratio (Ramipril/Placebo) in the geometric mean fold-change.|Change from Baseline at Week 30, Ramipril vs. Placebo||1.01|0.54|0.0577
91067090|NCT00502242|182020293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Fold Change|2.52|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Adjusted for baseline|Change from Baseline at Week 36, Ramipril||||
91067091|NCT00502242|182020293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Fold Change|3.27|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Adjusted for baseline|Change from Baseline at Week 36, Placebo||||
91067092|NCT00502242|182020293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratio|0.77||||0.1146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.07||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with change in the logarithmic U alb/c as dependent variable, treatment and region/race as factors, and logarithmic baseline as covariate|Treatment ratio (Ramipril/Placebo) in the geometric mean fold-change.|Change from Baseline at Week 36, Ramipril vs. Placebo||1.07|0.56|0.1146
91067093|NCT00502242|182020293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Fold Change|2.92|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Adjusted for baseline|Change from Baseline at Week 52, Ramipril||||
91067094|NCT00502242|182020293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Fold Change|3.45|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Adjusted for baseline|Change from Baseline at Week 52, Placebo||||
91067095|NCT00502242|182020293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratio|0.85||||0.3496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.2||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with change in the logarithmic U alb/c as dependent variable, treatment and region/race as factors, and logarithmic baseline as covariate|Treatment ratio (Ramipril/Placebo) in the geometric mean fold-change.|Change from Baseline at Week 52, Ramipril vs. Placebo||1.20|0.60|0.3496
91067096|NCT00502242|182020294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||Up to 24 weeks post-conversion||||1.0000
91067097|NCT00502242|182020294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1115|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||Up to 52 weeks post-conversion||||0.1115
91067098|NCT00502242|182020295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted LS Mean Difference|-0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26||0.4933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.33|1.61||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with MDRD change as dependent variable, treatment and region/race as factors, and baseline as covariate.|Adjusted for baseline|Change from Baseline at Week 12||1.61|-3.33|0.4933
91067099|NCT00502242|182020295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted LS Mean Difference|2.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45||0.0888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|5.33||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with MDRD change as dependent variable, treatment and region/race as factors, and baseline as covariate.|Adjusted for baseline|Change from Baseline at Week 24||5.33|-0.38|0.0888
91067100|NCT00502242|182020295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted LS Mean Difference|2.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.46||0.1475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|4.99||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with MDRD change as dependent variable, treatment and region/race as factors, and baseline as covariate|Adjusted for baseline|Change from Baseline at Week 52||4.99|-0.75|0.1475
91067101|NCT00502242|182020296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratio|0.84||||0.1167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.04||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|Log (Fraction of albumin to protein in urine) as dependent variable, treatment and region/race as factor, and Log(baseline) as covariate.|Treatment ratio (Ramipril/Placebo) in the geometric mean.|Week 24||1.04|0.68|0.1167
91067102|NCT00502242|182020296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratio|1.04||||0.7519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.31||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|Log (Fraction of albumin to protein in urine) as dependent variable, treatment and region/race as factor, and Log(baseline) as covariate.|Treatment ratio (Ramipril/Placebo) in the geometric mean.|Week 52||1.31|0.82|0.7519
90827310|NCT03201419|181529728|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-6.7||||0.4586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.5|11.1||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||11.1|-24.5|0.4586
91067103|NCT00502242|182020297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||Pre-SRL, Low DBP ≤50 mmHg||||0.470
91067104|NCT00502242|182020297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||Pre-SRL, High DBP ≥110 mmHg||||0.220
90827311|NCT03201419|181529728|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|11.2||||0.2327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|29.5||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||29.5|-7.2|0.2327
90827312|NCT03201419|181529728|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|12.1||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||12.1|-13.3|0.9240
90827313|NCT03201419|181529729|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|0.3||||0.9499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|8.5||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||8.5|-7.9|0.9499
90827314|NCT03201419|181529729|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|5.8||||0.2842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|16.4||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||16.4|-4.8|0.2842
90827315|NCT03201419|181529729|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-5.7||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.8|5.4||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||5.4|-16.8|0.3100
91067105|NCT00502242|182020297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||Pre-SRL, Low SBP: ≤90 mmHg||||0.470
90827316|NCT03201419|181529729|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-10.1||||0.1499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.9|3.7||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||3.7|-23.9|0.1499
91067106|NCT00502242|182020297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||Pre-SRL, High SBP: ≥180 mmHg||||1.000
91067107|NCT00502242|182020297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.725|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||On Therapy, Low DBP ≤50 mmHg||||0.725
91067108|NCT00502242|182020297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.227|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||On Therapy, High DBP ≥110 mmHg||||0.227
91067109|NCT00502242|182020297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||On Therapy, Low SBP: ≤90 mmHg||||1.000
91067110|NCT00502242|182020297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||On Therapy, High SBP: ≥180 mmHg||||0.106
91067111|NCT00502242|182020297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||Off Therapy, High DBP ≥110 mmHg||||1.000
91067112|NCT00502242|182020297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||Off Therapy, Low SBP: ≤90 mmHg||||1.000
91067113|NCT00502242|182020297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.475|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||Baseline, Low DBP ≤50 mmHg||||0.475
91067114|NCT00502242|182020297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.475|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||Baseline, Low SBP: ≤90 mmHg||||0.475
91067115|NCT00502242|182020299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||Baseline||||1.000
91067116|NCT00502242|182020299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.626|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||Pre-SRL||||0.626
91067117|NCT00502242|182020299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.297|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||On-Therapy||||0.297
91067118|NCT00502242|182020299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.356|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||Off-Therapy||||0.356
91067119|NCT00502242|182020300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||Baseline||||0.064
91067120|NCT00502242|182020300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||Pre-SRL||||0.069
91067121|NCT00502242|182020300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.752|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||On-Therapy||||0.752
91067122|NCT00502242|182020300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.261|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||Off-Therapy||||0.261
91067123|NCT00502242|182020301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.381|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate||TC, Week 4||||0.381
91067124|NCT00502242|182020301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.956|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate||TC, Week 12||||0.956
91067125|NCT00502242|182020301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in adjusted means|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.903|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate||TC, Week 24||||0.903
91067126|NCT00502242|182020301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.503|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate||TC, Week 52||||0.503
91067127|NCT00502242|182020301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.451|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate||HDL-C, Week 4||||0.451
90827317|NCT03201419|181529729|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-8.2||||0.2571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.5|6.0||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||6.0|-22.5|0.2571
90827318|NCT03201419|181529729|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-1.5||||0.7629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|8.3||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||8.3|-11.4|0.7629
91067128|NCT00502242|182020301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.919|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate||HDL-C, Week 12||||0.919
91067129|NCT00502242|182020301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.637|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate||HDL-C, Week 24||||0.637
90827319|NCT03201419|181529730|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|2.48||||0.4846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|9.46||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||9.46|-4.50|0.4846
90827320|NCT03201419|181529730|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-16.93||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.26|-7.6||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||-7.60|-26.26|0.0004
91067130|NCT00502242|182020301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.229|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate||HDL-C, Week 52||||0.229
91067131|NCT00502242|182020301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.766|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate||LDL-C, Week 4||||0.766
91067132|NCT00502242|182020301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.217|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate||LDL-C, Week 12||||0.217
91067133|NCT00502242|182020301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.457|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate||LDL-C, Week 24||||0.457
91067134|NCT00502242|182020301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.041|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate||LDL-C, Week 52||||0.041
91067135|NCT00502242|182020301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.044|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate||Triglycerides, Week 4||||0.044
91067136|NCT00502242|182020301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.18|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate||Triglycerides, Week 12||||0.180
91067137|NCT00502242|182020301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.264|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate||Triglycerides, Week 24||||0.264
91067138|NCT00502242|182020301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.408|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate||Triglycerides, Week 52||||0.408
91067139|NCT00502242|182020302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.487||||0.0732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.887|6.978||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Log Rank||Hazard ratio was based on the Cox proportional hazards model.|||6.978|0.887|0.0732
91067140|NCT00502242|182020304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7165|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean test||Post-SRL, AM BCAR||||0.7165
91067141|NCT00502242|182020304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4795|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean test||Post-SRL (On-Therapy), AM BCAR||||0.4795
91067142|NCT00502242|182020305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4773|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||Week 52||||0.4773
90827321|NCT03201419|181529730|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-2.05||||0.6685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.47|7.37||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||7.37|-11.47|0.6685
90827322|NCT03201419|181529730|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|1.69||||0.7772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.07|13.46||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||13.46|-10.07|0.7772
91067143|NCT00502242|182020306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||Baseline||||0.124
91067144|NCT00502242|182020306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||Pre-SRL||||0.410
91067145|NCT00502242|182020306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.423|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||On-Therapy||||0.423
91067146|NCT00502242|182020306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.297|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||Off-Therapy||||0.297
91067147|NCT00502242|182020307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.726|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||||||0.726
91067148|NCT00502242|182020308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
91067149|NCT00502242|182020309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.753|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||||||0.753
91067150|NCT00502242|182020310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.224|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||Baseline||||0.224
91067151|NCT00502242|182020310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.179|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||Pre-SRL||||0.179
91067152|NCT00502242|182020310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.604|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||On-Therapy||||0.604
91067153|NCT00502242|182020310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.486|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||Off-Therapy||||0.486
91067154|NCT00375973|182020429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.23
91067155|NCT00375973|182020430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.05
90827323|NCT03201419|181529730|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|10.67||||0.0895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|23.0||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||23.00|-1.66|0.0895
91067156|NCT00375973|182020431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.67
91067157|NCT00375973|182020432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.02
91067158|NCT00375973|182020433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.06
91067159|NCT00375973|182020434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.02
91067160|NCT00375973|182020435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.24
91067161|NCT01691560|182020436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.09||||0.4553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.32|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline included as covariate.|Difference is First named treatment minus Second named treatment that negative difference implies the mean of the second named treatment is larger than that of the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for treatments in comparison.||0.32|-0.14|0.4553
91067162|NCT01691560|182020436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.07||||0.5689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.3|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline included as covariate.|Difference is First named treatment minus Second named treatment that negative difference implies the mean of the second named treatment is larger than that of the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for treatments in comparison.||0.30|-0.16|0.5689
91067163|NCT01691560|182020436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.04||||0.7517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.27|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline included as covariate.|Difference is First named treatment minus Second named treatment that negative difference implies the mean of the second named treatment is larger than that of the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for treatments in comparison.||0.27|-0.20|0.7517
91067164|NCT01691560|182020436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.02||||0.8549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.25|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline included as covariate.|Difference is First named treatment minus Second named treatment that negative difference implies the mean of the second named treatment is larger than that of the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for treatments in comparison.||0.25|-0.21|0.8549
91067165|NCT01691560|182020436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.05||||0.6685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.29|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline included as covariate.|Difference is First named treatment minus Second named treatment that negative difference implies the mean of the second named treatment is larger than that of the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for treatments in comparison.||0.29|-0.18|0.6685
91067166|NCT01691560|182020436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.03||||0.8031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.2|||ANCOVA||Difference is First named treatment minus Second named treatment that negative difference implies the mean of the second named treatment is larger than that of the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for treatments in comparison.||0.20|-0.26|0.8031
91067167|NCT01691560|182020437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.0467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|5.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Hodges-Lehmann Wilcoxon non-parametric test|Difference is First named treatment minus Second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for treatments in comparison.||5|0|0.0467
91067168|NCT01691560|182020437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.1133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|5.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Hodges-Lehmann Wilcoxon non-parametric test.|Difference is First named treatment minus Second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for treatments in comparison.||5|0|0.1133
91067169|NCT01691560|182020437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.2579||95.0|0.0|5.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Hodges-Lehmann Wilcoxon non-parametric test|Difference is First named treatment minus Second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for treatments in comparison.||5|0|0.2579
90827324|NCT03201419|181529730|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|1.2||||0.782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.34|9.74|||MMRM|||||9.74|-7.34|0.7820
90827325|NCT03201419|181529731|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.41||||0.9175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.25|7.42||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||7.42|-8.25|0.9175
91067170|NCT01691560|182020437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.6149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Hodges-Lehmann Wilcoxon non-parametric test.|Difference is First named treatment minus Second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for treatments in comparison.||0|0|0.6149
91067171|NCT01691560|182020437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.3259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|5.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Hodges-Lehmann Wilcoxon non-parametric test|Difference is First named treatment minus Second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for treatments in comparison.||5|0|0.3259
91067172|NCT01691560|182020437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.5721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Hodges-Lehmann Wilcoxon non-parametric test|Difference is First named treatment minus Second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for treatments in comparison.||0|0|0.5721
91067173|NCT01691560|182020438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.36||||0.0292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.69|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline included as covariate.|Difference is First named treatment minus Second named treatment that negative difference implies the mean of the second named treatment is larger than that of the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for treatments in comparison.||0.69|0.04|0.0292
91067174|NCT01691560|182020438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.12||||0.4484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.2|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline included as covariate.|Difference is First named treatment minus Second named treatment that negative difference implies the mean of the second named treatment is larger than that of the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for treatments in comparison.||0.20|-0.44|0.4484
91067175|NCT01691560|182020438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.12||||0.4537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.2|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline included as covariate.|Difference is First named treatment minus Second named treatment that negative difference implies the mean of the second named treatment is larger than that of the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for treatments in comparison.||0.20|-0.45|0.4537
91067176|NCT01691560|182020438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.49||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.81|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline included as covariate.|Difference is First named treatment minus Second named treatment that negative difference implies the mean of the second named treatment is larger than that of the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for treatments in comparison.||0.81|0.16|0.0037
91067177|NCT01691560|182020438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.48||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.81|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline included as covariate.|Treatment as fixed factor, baseline Schiff score as covariate. Difference is First named treatment minus Second named treatment that negative difference implies the mean of the second named treatment is larger than that of the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for treatments in comparison.||0.81|0.16|0.0040
91067178|NCT01691560|182020438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.0||||0.9974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.32|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline included as covariate.|Difference is First named treatment minus Second named treatment that negative difference implies the mean of the second named treatment is larger than that of the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for treatments in comparison.||0.32|-0.32|0.9974
91067179|NCT01691560|182020439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.8861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|5.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Hodges-Lehmann Wilcoxon non-parametric test|Difference is First named treatment minus Second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for treatments in comparison.||5|-5|0.8861
91067180|NCT01691560|182020439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.0641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|5.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Hodges-Lehmann Wilcoxon non-parametric test|Difference is First named treatment minus Second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for treatments in comparison.||5|0|0.0641
91067181|NCT01691560|182020439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.1831||95.0|0.0|5.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Hodges-Lehmann Wilcoxon non-parametric test|Difference is First named treatment minus Second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for treatments in comparison.||5|0|0.1831
90827326|NCT03201419|181529731|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-4.32||||0.4098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.62|5.98||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||5.98|-14.62|0.4098
90827327|NCT03201419|181529731|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|2.41||||0.6566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.25|13.06||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||13.06|-8.25|0.6566
91067182|NCT01691560|182020439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.0871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Hodges-Lehmann Wilcoxon non-parametric test|Difference is First named treatment minus Second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for treatments in comparison.||0|-10|0.0871
90827328|NCT03201419|181529731|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|3.39||||0.6144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.85|16.63||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||16.63|-9.85|0.6144
90827329|NCT03201419|181529731|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|3.8||||0.5798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.71|17.31||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||17.31|-9.71|0.5798
90827330|NCT03201419|181529731|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|0.35||||0.9417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.17|9.88||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||9.88|-9.17|0.9417
90827331|NCT03201419|181529732|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-2.81||||0.5148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.31|5.68||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||5.68|-11.31|0.5148
90827332|NCT03201419|181529732|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-9.65||||0.0879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.75|1.44||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||1.44|-20.75|0.0879
91067183|NCT01691560|182020439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Hodges-Lehmann Wilcoxon non-parametric test|Difference is First named treatment minus Second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for treatments in comparison.||0|-10|0.1690
91067184|NCT01691560|182020439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.3829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Hodges-Lehmann Wilcoxon non-parametric test|Difference is First named treatment minus Second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for treatments in comparison.||0|-5|0.3829
91067185|NCT01691560|182020440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.03||||0.9421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.8|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and Schiff stratification as factors and baseline VRS as covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment that a negative difference implies the mean of second named treatment is larger than that of the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for treatments in comparison.||0.80|-0.74|0.9421
91067186|NCT01691560|182020440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.15||||0.6918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.6|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and Schiff stratification as factors and baseline VRS as covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment that a negative difference implies the mean of second named treatment is larger than that of the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for treatments in comparison.||0.60|-0.90|0.6918
91067187|NCT01691560|182020440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.13||||0.7421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.88|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA with treatment and Schiff stratification as factors and baseline VRS as covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment that a negative difference implies the mean of second named treatment is larger than that of the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for treatments in comparison.||0.88|-0.63|0.7421
91067188|NCT01691560|182020440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.18||||0.6433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.94|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA with treatment and Schiff stratification as factors and baseline VRS as covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment that a negative difference implies the mean of second named treatment is larger than that of the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for treatments in comparison.||0.94|-0.58|0.6433
91067189|NCT01691560|182020440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.67|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA with treatment and Schiff stratification as factors and baseline VRS as covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment that a negative difference implies the mean of second named treatment is larger than that of the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for treatments in comparison.||0.67|-0.86|0.8010
91067190|NCT01691560|182020440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.28||||0.4692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|1.03|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA with treatment and Schiff stratification as factors and baseline VRS as covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment that a negative difference implies the mean of second named treatment is larger than that of the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for treatments in comparison.||1.03|-0.48|0.4692
91067191|NCT01691560|182020441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.31||||0.4797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|1.16|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA with treatment and Schiff stratification as factors and baseline VRS as covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment that a negative difference implies the mean of second named treatment is larger than that of the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for treatments in comparison.||1.16|-0.55|0.4797
91067192|NCT01691560|182020441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.54||||0.2023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|0.29|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA with treatment and Schiff stratification as factors and baseline VRS as covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment that a negative difference implies the mean of second named treatment is larger than that of the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for treatments in comparison.||0.29|-1.37|0.2023
91067193|NCT01691560|182020441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.45||||0.2917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|0.39|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA with treatment and Schiff stratification as factors and baseline VRS as covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment that a negative difference implies the mean of second named treatment is larger than that of the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for treatments in comparison.||0.39|-1.29|0.2917
91067194|NCT01691560|182020441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.85||||0.0503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.69|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA with treatment and Schiff stratification as factors and baseline VRS as covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment that a negative difference implies the mean of second named treatment is larger than that of the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for treatments in comparison.||1.69|0.00|0.0503
91067195|NCT01691560|182020441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.76||||0.0811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|1.61|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA with treatment and Schiff stratification as factors and baseline VRS as covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment that a negative difference implies the mean of second named treatment is larger than that of the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for treatments in comparison.||1.61|-0.09|0.0811
91067196|NCT01691560|182020441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.09||||0.8322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.93|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA with treatment and Schiff stratification as factors and baseline VRS as covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment that a negative difference implies the mean of second named treatment is larger than that of the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for treatments in comparison.||0.93|-0.75|0.8322
91067197|NCT00558467|182020472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares mean difference|0.01||||0.996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.95|4.97|||ANCOVA|||||4.97|-4.95|0.996
91067198|NCT00558467|182020473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square means difference|-3.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.81|-2.08|||Repeated Measures|||||-2.08|-5.81|
91067199|NCT00558467|182020474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square means difference|-5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.21|-3.39|||Repeated measures|||||-3.39|-7.21|
91067200|NCT00558467|182020476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square means difference|-5.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.88|-4.06|||Repeated measures|||||-4.06|-7.88|
91067201|NCT00558467|182020477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean differnce|-0.15||||0.978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.05|10.75|||ANCOVA|||||10.75|-11.05|0.9780
91067202|NCT00558467|182020482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1052|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1052
91067203|NCT00558467|182020483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2274|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2274
91067204|NCT00558467|182020484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7691|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.7691
91067205|NCT00558467|182020485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0674|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0674
91067206|NCT00558467|182020486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4944|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4944
91067207|NCT00558467|182020487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.162|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.162
91067208|NCT00558467|182020488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6375|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.6375
91067209|NCT00558467|182020489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6625|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.6625
91067210|NCT00558467|182020490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2664|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2664
91067211|NCT00558467|182020491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7302|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.7302
90827333|NCT03201419|181529732|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|3.61||||0.5335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.79|15.0||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||15.00|-7.79|0.5335
91067212|NCT00558467|182020492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7723|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.7723
91067213|NCT00558467|182020493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4852|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4852
91067214|NCT00558467|182020494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4607|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4607
91067215|NCT00558467|182020495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7723|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.7723
91067216|NCT00558467|182020496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9389|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.9389
91067217|NCT02019264|182020507|NON_INFERIORITY|Hazard ratio was based on Cox-regression model including treatment and CV strata as covariates. MACE met non-inferiority when the one-sided upper bound of 97.5% confidence interval of the HR was less than 1.4 (the non-inferiority margin).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.005||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.842|1.198|||Primary Analytic Method|||||1.198|0.842|0.0001
91067218|NCT02019264|182020508|SUPERIORITY|Hazard ratio was based on Cox-regression model including treatment and CV strata as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.969||||0.5464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.873|1.074|||Primary Analytic Method|||||1.074|0.873|0.5464
91067219|NCT02019264|182020509|SUPERIORITY|Hazard ratio was based on Cox-regression model including treatment as covariate.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.807||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.659|0.988|||Primary Analytic Method|||||0.988|0.659|0.0380
91067220|NCT02019264|182020510|NON_INFERIORITY|Myocardial Infarction: Hazard ratio was based on Cox-regression model including treatment and CV strata as covariates. 97.5% confidence interval refers to the upper limit of the displayed 2-sided 95% confidence interval.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.991||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.824|1.191|||Primary Analytic Method|||||1.191|0.824|0.0001
91067221|NCT02019264|182020510|NON_INFERIORITY|Time to Stroke: Hazard ratio was based on Cox-regression model including treatment and CV strata as covariates. 97.5% CI refers to the upper limit of the displayed 2-sided 95% CI.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.856||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.639|1.145|||Primary Analytic Method|||||1.145|0.639|0.0005
90827334|NCT03201419|181529732|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|6.29||||0.3787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.76|20.34||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||20.34|-7.76|0.3787
91067222|NCT02019264|182020510|NON_INFERIORITY|Cardiovascular Death: Hazard ratio was based on Cox-regression model including treatment and CV strata as covariates. 97.5% confidence interval refers to the upper limit of the displayed 2-sided 95% confidence interval.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.045||||0.0262|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.778|1.404|||Primary Analytic Method|||||1.404|0.778|0.0262
91067223|NCT02019264|182020510|SUPERIORITY|Hospitalization for Unstable Angina: Hazard ratio was based on Cox-regression model including treatment and CV strata as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.163||||0.3243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.861|1.571|||Primary Analytic Method|||||1.571|0.861|0.3243
91067224|NCT02019264|182020510|SUPERIORITY|Heart Failure: Hazard ratio was based on Cox-regression model including treatment and CV strata as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.952||||0.6758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.757|1.197|||Primary Analytic Method|||||1.197|0.757|0.6758
91067225|NCT02019264|182020510|SUPERIORITY|Coronary Revascularization: Hazard ratio was based on Cox-regression model including treatment and CV strata as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.981||||0.7817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.856|1.125|||Primary Analytic Method|||||1.125|0.856|0.7817
91067226|NCT02019264|182020511|SUPERIORITY|Hazard ratio was based on Cox-regression model including treatment and CV strata as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.082||||0.4212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.893|1.31|||Primary Analytic Method|||||1.310|0.893|0.4212
91067227|NCT02019264|182020512|SUPERIORITY|Hazard ratio was based on a Cox regression model including treatment as covariate.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.124||||0.181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.947|1.333|||Primary Analytic Method|||||1.333|0.947|0.1810
91067228|NCT02019264|182020513|SUPERIORITY|Hazard ratio was based on a Cox regression model including treatment as covariate.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.773||||0.0116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.633|0.944|||Primary Analytic Method|||||0.944|0.633|0.0116
91067229|NCT02019264|182020514|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) Mean Difference (Net)|-0.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.35||P-value was based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment and stratification variable (presence of established CV disease or CV risk factors without established CV disease) as factors, and baseline HbA1c, as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-0.35|-0.43|<0.0001
91067230|NCT02019264|182020515|SUPERIORITY|Hazard ratio was based on Cox-regression model including treatment and CV strata as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.869||||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.787|0.959|||Primary Analytic Method|||||0.959|0.787|0.0054
91067231|NCT02019264|182020516|SUPERIORITY|Hazard ratio on a Cox regression model including treatment as covariate.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.904||||0.3661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.727|1.125|||Primary Analytic Method|||||1.125|0.727|0.3661
91067232|NCT02019264|182020517|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.855||||0.0082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.762|0.96|||Primary Analytic Method|||||0.960|0.762|0.0082
91067233|NCT02019264|182020518|SUPERIORITY|Hazard ratio was based on Cox-regression model including treatment and CV strata as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.182||||0.0297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.017|1.375|||Primary Analytic Method|||||1.375|1.017|0.0297
90827335|NCT03201419|181529732|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|1.48||||0.8448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.41|16.38||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||16.38|-13.41|0.8448
90827336|NCT03201419|181529732|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|4.62||||0.3751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.63|14.87||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||14.87|-5.63|0.3751
91067234|NCT02019264|182020519|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.5015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|2.11||P-value was based on logistic regression including treatment as a factor and baseline body mass index (BMI) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.11|0.69|0.5015
91067235|NCT02019264|182020520|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.7249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|5.98||P-value was based on logistic regression including treatment as a factor and baseline BMI as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||5.98|0.29|0.7249
91067236|NCT02019264|182020521|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9036||||0.2976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2908|-0.5163||P value was based on a mixed-effects model (unstructured covariance matrix) with repeated measures with treatment, month and treatment by month interaction as factors and baseline pulmonary arterial systolic pressure and baseline BMI as covariates.|Mixed-effects model|||||-0.5163|-1.2908|0.2976
91067237|NCT00676364|182020594|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|We determined that we will need to enroll 43 children in each group, for a power of .80, alpha=0.05. We used a per protocol analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1||||0.71|||||||Chi-squared||To assess the association between pain and anxiety with intervention group while controlling for other factors, linear regression was used.|P-value determined from linear regression models that include age, gender, number of needle sticks in previous 2 years and nurse reported difficulty in performing venipuncture.||||0.71
91067238|NCT01514292|182020625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||"Hence, the hypothesis is established as:~Ho: pi \< 71.5% Ha: pi \>71.5% Thus, the objective is to conclude that the proportion of G4 Sensor-YSI points in the present study meeting the 20 mg/dL/20% criterion is no worse than the existing FDA-approved SEVEN PLUS System. The null hypothesis will be rejected if pi observed in this study is greater than 71.5%, the G4 System performance is no worse than the historical performance of the existing FDA approved CGM system will be concluded."||||0.0001
91067239|NCT03858998|182020626|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.004||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.07|||Chi-squared||Direction = Linkage minus SOC|||0.07|-0.06|0.91
91067240|NCT04157348|182020684|SUPERIORITY||Difference in remission rates|0.0121||||0.8773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1411|0.1653|||Regression, Logistic|marginal standardization method|The difference of remission rates (Benralizumab - Mepolizumab) are estimated using marginal standardization method in a logistic regression model. The covariates include treatment arm, baseline dose of prednisone, baseline BVAS and region.|||0.1653|-0.1411|0.8773
91067241|NCT04157348|182020685|SUPERIORITY||difference in remission rates|0.0544|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0746|0.1834|||Regression, Logistic|marginal standardization method||||0.1834|-0.0746|
91067242|NCT04157348|182020686|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.4|||Proportional Odds Model||The odds ratio (Benralizumab vs. Mepolizumab) and its 95% CI are estimated with a proportional odds model. The covariates include treatment arm, baseline dose of prednisone, baseline BVAS and region. A \>1 odds ratio means Benralizumab is favored.|main remission||2.40|0.72|
91067243|NCT04157348|182020686|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|2.29|||Proportional Odds Model||The odds ratio (Benralizumab vs. Mepolizumab) and its 95% CI are estimated with a proportional odds model. The covariates include treatment arm, baseline dose of prednisone, baseline BVAS and region. A \>1 odds ratio means Benralizumab is favored.|supportive remission||2.29|0.55|
91067244|NCT04157348|182020687|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|2.44|||Proportional Odds Model||The odds ratio (Benralizumab vs. Mepolizumab) and its 95% CI are estimated with a proportional odds model. The covariates include treatment arm, baseline dose of prednisone, baseline BVAS and region.|sustained main remission||2.44|0.74|
91067245|NCT04157348|182020687|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|2.34|||Proportional Odds Model||The odds ratio (Benralizumab vs. Mepolizumab) and its 95% CI are estimated with a proportional odds model. The covariates include treatment arm, baseline dose of prednisone, baseline BVAS and region. A \>1 odds ratio means Benralizumab is favored.|sustained supportive remission||2.34|0.64|
91067246|NCT04157348|182020688|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.82|||Regression, Cox||The HR (Benralizumab vs. Mepolizumab) and 95% CI are estimated using a Cox regression model with Efron method to control for ties. The covariates include treatment arm, baseline dose of prednisone, baseline BVAS and region.|relapse||1.82|0.53|
91067247|NCT04157348|182020689|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.9|||negative binomial model|marginal standardization method|The rate ratio (Benralizumab/Mepolizumab) and the corresponding 95% CI are calculated using a negative binomial model. The covariates in the model include treatment arm, baseline dose of prednisone, baseline BVAS and region.|relapse||1.90|0.56|
91067248|NCT04157348|182020691|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.54|||proportional odds model||The odds ratio (Benralizumab 30 mg vs. Mepolizumab 300 mg) and 95% CI are estimated using a proportional odds model. The covariates in the model include treatment arm, baseline dose of prednisone, baseline BVAS and region.|||2.54|0.75|
91067249|NCT04157348|182020692|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|3.22|||proportional odds model||The odds ratio (Benralizumab 30 mg vs. Mepolizumab 300 mg) for higher % reduction and 95% CI are estimated using a proportional odds model. The covariates in the model include treatment arm, baseline dose of prednisone, baseline BVAS and region.|||3.22|0.96|
91067250|NCT04157348|182020693|SUPERIORITY||difference in proportions|0.1079|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0225|0.2383|||Regression, Logistic|marginal standardization method|The difference of proportions (Benralizumab - Mepolizumab) and 95% CI are estimated using marginal standardization method in a logistic regression model. The covariates include treatment arm, baseline dose of prednisone, baseline BVAS and region.|\>=50% reduction||0.2383|-0.0225|
91067251|NCT04157348|182020693|SUPERIORITY||difference in proportions|0.1569|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0067|0.3017|||Regression, Logistic|marginal standardization method|The difference of proportions (Benralizumab - Mepolizumab) and 95% CI are estimated using marginal standardization method in a logistic regression model. The covariates include treatment arm, baseline dose of prednisone, baseline BVAS and region.|100% reduction||0.3017|0.0067|
91067252|NCT04157348|182020693|SUPERIORITY||difference in proportions|-0.0068|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1555|0.1418|||Regression, Logistic|marginal standardization method|The difference of proportions (Benralizumab - Mepolizumab) and 95% CI are estimated using marginal standardization method in a logistic regression model. The covariates include treatment arm, baseline dose of prednisone, baseline BVAS and region.|OCS dose \<=4 mg/day||0.1418|-0.1555|
90827337|NCT03201419|181529733|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.43||||0.9245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.43|8.57||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||8.57|-9.43|0.9245
91067253|NCT04157348|182020694|SUPERIORITY||difference in response rates|0.046|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0422|0.1341|||Regression, Logistic|marginal standardization method|The difference of response rates (Benralizumab - Mepolizumab) and 95% CI are estimated using marginal standardization method in a logistic regression model. The covariates include treatment arm, baseline dose of prednisone, baseline BVAS and region.|any clinical response-definition 1||0.1341|-0.0422|
91067254|NCT04157348|182020694|SUPERIORITY||difference in response rates|0.079|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0732|0.2312|||Regression, Logistic|marginal standardization method|The difference of response rates (Benralizumab - Mepolizumab) and 95% CI are estimated using marginal standardization method in a logistic regression model. The covariates include treatment arm, baseline dose of prednisone, baseline BVAS and region.|complete response-definition 1||0.2312|-0.0732|
91067255|NCT04157348|182020695|SUPERIORITY||difference in remission rates|0.0554|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.093|0.2037|||Regression, Logistic|marginal standardization method|The difference of remission rates (Benralizumab - Mepolizumab) and 95% CI are estimated using marginal standardization method in a logistic regression model. The covariates include treatment arm, baseline dose of prednisone, baseline BVAS and region.|main remission||0.2037|-0.0930|
91067256|NCT04157348|182020695|SUPERIORITY||difference in remission rates|0.0467|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1021|0.1956|||Regression, Logistic|marginal standardization method|The difference of remission rates (Benralizumab - Mepolizumab) and 95% CI are estimated using marginal standardization method in a logistic regression model. The covariates include treatment arm, baseline dose of prednisone, baseline BVAS and region.|supportive remission||0.1956|-0.1021|
91067257|NCT02220764|182020735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Null hypothesis: The chipping rates between tooth- and implant- supoorted FDPs are equally distributed.||||0.03
91067258|NCT04205643|182020737|SUPERIORITY||Difference estimated using CMH weights|21.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.8|29.3||If the primary endpoint is significant, a fixed sequence procedure was employed to control the overall type I error rate of the key secondary endpoints.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Previous biologic agent and/or JAK inhibitors exposure, Use of oral corticosteroids treatment at Week 0, Clinical remission at Week 10.|The 95% stratified Newcombe CI with CMH weights|||29.3|11.8|<0.0001
91067259|NCT02712554|182020757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91067260|NCT02712554|182020757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91067261|NCT02712554|182020757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2344|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.2344
91067262|NCT02712554|182020757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4737|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.4737
91067263|NCT02712554|182020757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91067264|NCT02712554|182020757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91067265|NCT02712554|182020761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Emax: Treatment C (low-dose M366) - Placebo||||<.0001
90827338|NCT03201419|181529733|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-6.72||||0.2657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.59|5.15||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||5.15|-18.59|0.2657
90827339|NCT03201419|181529733|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|9.2||||0.1383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.99|21.38||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||21.38|-2.99|0.1383
91067266|NCT02712554|182020761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Emax: Treatment D (high-dose M366) - Placebo||||<.0001
91067267|NCT02712554|182020761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1267|||||||ANOVA|||Emax: Treatment A (low-dose CL-108) - Treatment C (low-dose M366)||||0.1267
91067268|NCT02712554|182020761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1767|||||||ANOVA|||Emax: Treatment B (high-dose CL-108) - Treatment D (high-dose M366)||||0.1767
91067269|NCT02712554|182020761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Emax: Treatment A (low-dose CL-108) - Placebo||||<.0001
91067270|NCT02712554|182020761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Emax: Treatment B (high-dose CL-108) - Placebo||||<.0001
90827340|NCT03201419|181529733|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|14.72||||0.0523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|29.59||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||29.59|-0.15|0.0523
90827341|NCT03201419|181529733|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|1.14||||0.8855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.47|16.75||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||16.75|-14.47|0.8855
90827342|NCT03201419|181529733|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|2.91||||0.5972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.91|13.72||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||13.72|-7.91|0.5972
91067271|NCT02712554|182020761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0119|||||||ANOVA|||Emin: Treatment C (low-dose M366) - Placebo||||0.0119
91067272|NCT02712554|182020761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0025|||||||ANOVA|||Emin: Treatment D (high-dose M366) - Placebo||||0.0025
91067273|NCT02712554|182020761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1679|||||||ANOVA|||Emin: Treatment A (low-dose CL-108) - Treatment C (low-dose M366)||||0.1679
91067274|NCT02712554|182020761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0318|||||||ANOVA|||Emin: Treatment B (high-dose CL-108) - Treatment D (high-dose M366)||||0.0318
91067275|NCT02712554|182020761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0002|||||||ANOVA|||Emin: Treatment A (low-dose CL-108) - Placebo||||0.0002
91067276|NCT02712554|182020761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<.0001
91067277|NCT02712554|182020762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Emax: Treatment C (low-dose M366) - Placebo||||<.0001
91067278|NCT02712554|182020762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Emax: Treatment D (high-dose M366) - Placebo||||<.0001
91067279|NCT02712554|182020762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0858|||||||ANOVA|||Emax: Treatment A (low-dose CL-108) - Treatment C (low-dose M366)||||0.0858
91067280|NCT02712554|182020762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2877|||||||ANOVA|||Emax: Treatment B (high-dose CL-108) - Treatment D (high-dose M366)||||0.2877
91067281|NCT02712554|182020762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Emax: Treatment A (low-dose CL-108) - Placebo||||<.0001
91067282|NCT02712554|182020762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Emax: Treatment B (high-dose CL-108) - Placebo||||<.0001
91067283|NCT02712554|182020762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0009|||||||ANOVA|||Emin: Treatment C (low-dose M366) - Placebo||||0.0009
91067284|NCT02712554|182020762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Emin: Treatment D (high-dose M366) - Placebo||||0.0001
91067285|NCT02712554|182020762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.113|||||||ANOVA|||Emin: Treatment A (low-dose CL-108) - Treatment C (low-dose M366)||||0.1130
91067286|NCT02712554|182020762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0575|||||||ANOVA|||Emin: Treatment B (high-dose CL-108) - Treatment D (high-dose M366)||||0.0575
91067287|NCT02712554|182020762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Emin: Treatment A (low-dose CL-108) - Placebo||||<.0001
91067288|NCT02712554|182020762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Emin: Treatment B (high-dose CL-108) - Placebo||||<.0001
91067289|NCT02712554|182020763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Emax: Treatment C (low-dose M366) - Placebo||||<.0001
91067290|NCT02712554|182020763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Emax: Treatment D (high-dose M366) - Placebo||||<.0001
91067291|NCT02712554|182020763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4025|||||||ANOVA|||Emax: Treatment A (low-dose CL-108) - Treatment C (low-dose M366)||||0.4025
91067292|NCT02712554|182020763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3184|||||||ANOVA|||Emax: Treatment B (high-dose CL-108) - Treatment D (high-dose M366)||||0.3184
91067293|NCT02712554|182020763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Emax: Treatment A (low-dose CL-108) - Placebo||||<.0001
91067294|NCT02712554|182020763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Emax: Treatment B (high-dose CL-108) - Placebo||||<.0001
91067295|NCT02712554|182020764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||TA\_AUE0-8hr: Treatment C (low-dose M366) - Placebo||||<.0001
91067296|NCT02712554|182020764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||TA\_AUE0-8hr: Treatment D (high-dose M366) - Placebo||||<.0001
91067297|NCT02712554|182020764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2628|||||||ANOVA|||TA\_AUE0-8hr: Treatment A (low-dose CL-108) - Treatment C (low-dose M366)||||0.2628
90827343|NCT03201419|181529734|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.09|2.28||||||Based on a Bayesian analysis of a sigmoidal dose-response relationship.||2.28|-6.09|
90827344|NCT03201419|181529734|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|0.75||||||Based on a Bayesian analysis of a sigmoidal dose-response relationship.||0.75|-4.30|
91067298|NCT02712554|182020764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2262|||||||ANOVA|||TA\_AUE0-8hr: Treatment B (high-dose CL-108) - Treatment D (high-dose M366)||||0.2262
91067299|NCT02712554|182020764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||TA\_AUE0-8hr: Treatment A (low-dose CL-108) - Placebo||||<.0001
91067300|NCT02712554|182020764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||TA\_AUE0-8hr: Treatment B (high-dose CL-108) - Placebo||||<.0001
91067301|NCT02712554|182020765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Emax: Treatment C (low-dose M366) - Placebo||||<.0001
91067302|NCT02712554|182020765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Emax: Treatment D (high-dose M366) - Placebo||||<.0001
91067303|NCT02712554|182020765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1839|||||||ANOVA|||Emax: Treatment A (low-dose CL-108) - Treatment C (low-dose M366)||||0.1839
91067304|NCT02712554|182020765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1751|||||||ANOVA|||Emax: Treatment B (high-dose CL-108) - Treatment D (high-dose M366)||||0.1751
90827345|NCT03201419|181529734|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|0.33||||||Based on a Bayesian analysis of a sigmoidal dose-response relationship.||0.33|-2.44|
90827346|NCT03201419|181529734|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.07||||||Based on a Bayesian analysis of a sigmoidal dose-response relationship.||0.07|-0.92|
90827347|NCT03201419|181529734|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.02||||||Based on a Bayesian analysis of a sigmoidal dose-response relationship.||0.02|-0.48|
91067305|NCT02712554|182020765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Emax: Treatment A (low-dose CL-108) - Placebo||||<.0001
91067306|NCT02712554|182020765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Emax: Treatment B (high-dose CL-108) - Placebo||||<.0001
91067307|NCT02712554|182020766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||TA\_AUE0-8hr: Treatment C (low-dose M366) - Placebo||||<.0001
91067308|NCT02712554|182020766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||TA\_AUE0-8hr: Treatment D (high-dose M366) - Placebo||||<.0001
91067309|NCT02712554|182020766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4013|||||||ANOVA|||TA\_AUE0-8hr: Treatment A (low-dose CL-108) - Treatment C (low-dose M366)||||0.4013
91067310|NCT02712554|182020766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0736|||||||ANOVA|||TA\_AUE0-8hr: Treatment B (high-dose CL-108) - Treatment D (high-dose M366)||||0.0736
91067311|NCT02712554|182020766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||TA\_AUE0-8hr: Treatment A (low-dose CL-108) - Placebo||||<.0001
91067312|NCT02712554|182020766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||TA\_AUE0-8hr: Treatment B (high-dose CL-108) - Placebo||||<.0001
91067313|NCT02712554|182020767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Emax: Treatment C (low-dose M366) - Placebo||||<0.001
91067314|NCT02712554|182020767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Emax: Treatment D (high-dose M366) - Placebo||||<0.001
91067315|NCT02712554|182020767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2223|||||||ANOVA|||Emax: Treatment A (low-dose CL-108) - Treatment C (low-dose M366)||||0.2223
91067316|NCT02712554|182020767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1638|||||||ANOVA|||Emax: Treatment B (high-dose CL-108) - Treatment D (high-dose M366)||||0.1638
91067317|NCT02712554|182020767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0041|||||||ANOVA|||Emax: Treatment A (low-dose CL-108) - Placebo||||0.0041
91067318|NCT02712554|182020767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Emax: Treatment B (high-dose CL-108) - Placebo||||<0.001
91067319|NCT02712554|182020768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||TA\_AUE0-8hr: Treatment C (low-dose M366) - Placebo||||0.0001
91067320|NCT02712554|182020768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||TA\_AUE0-8hr: Treatment D (high-dose M366) - Placebo||||<0.0001
91067321|NCT02712554|182020768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2706|||||||ANOVA|||TA\_AUE0-8hr: Treatment A (low-dose CL-108) - Treatment C (low-dose M366)||||0.2706
91067322|NCT02712554|182020768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5507|||||||ANOVA|||TA\_AUE0-8hr: Treatment B (high-dose CL-108) - Treatment D (high-dose M366)||||0.5507
91067323|NCT02712554|182020768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0047|||||||ANOVA|||TA\_AUE0-8hr: Treatment A (low-dose CL-108) - Placebo||||0.0047
91067324|NCT02712554|182020768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||TA\_AUE0-8hr: Treatment B (high-dose CL-108) - Placebo||||<0.0001
91067325|NCT02712554|182020769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Emin: Treatment C (low-dose M366) - Placebo||||0.0001
91067326|NCT02712554|182020769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Emin: Treatment D (high-dose M366) - Placebo||||<0.0001
91067327|NCT02712554|182020769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0014|||||||ANOVA|||Emin: Treatment A (low-dose CL-108) - Treatment C (low-dose M366)||||0.0014
91067328|NCT02712554|182020769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.008|||||||ANOVA|||Emin: Treatment B (high-dose CL-108) - Treatment D (high-dose M366)||||0.0080
91067329|NCT02712554|182020769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Emin: Treatment A (low-dose CL-108) - Placebo||||<0.0001
91067330|NCT02712554|182020769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Emin: Treatment B (high-dose CL-108) - Placebo||||<0.0001
91067331|NCT02712554|182020770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0024|||||||ANOVA|||TA\_AUE0-8hr: Treatment C (low-dose M366) - Placebo||||0.0024
91067332|NCT02712554|182020770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0012|||||||ANOVA|||TA\_AUE0-8hr: Treatment D (high-dose M366) - Placebo||||0.0012
91067333|NCT02712554|182020770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0037|||||||ANOVA|||TA\_AUE0-8hr: Treatment A (low-dose CL-108) - Treatment C (low-dose M366)||||0.0037
91067334|NCT02712554|182020770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0011|||||||ANOVA|||TA\_AUE0-8hr: Treatment B (high-dose CL-108) - Treatment D (high-dose M366)||||0.0011
91067335|NCT02712554|182020770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||TA\_AUE0-8hr: Treatment A (low-dose CL-108) - Placebo||||<0.0001
91067336|NCT02712554|182020770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||TA\_AUE0-8hr: Treatment B (high-dose CL-108) - Placebo||||<0.0001
91067337|NCT02712554|182020771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Emax: Treatment C (low-dose M366) - Placebo||||<0.0001
91067338|NCT02712554|182020771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Emax: Treatment D (high-dose M366) - Placebo||||<0.0001
90827348|NCT03201419|181529734|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.0||||||Based on a Bayesian analysis of a sigmoidal dose-response relationship.||0.00|-0.15|
91067339|NCT02712554|182020771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.063|||||||ANOVA|||Emax: Treatment A (low-dose CL-108) - Treatment C (low-dose M366)||||0.0630
91067340|NCT02712554|182020771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4436|||||||ANOVA|||Emax: Treatment B (high-dose CL-108) - Treatment D (high-dose M366)||||0.4436
91067341|NCT02712554|182020771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Emax: Treatment A (low-dose CL-108) - Placebo||||<0.0001
90827349|NCT03201419|181529735|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.27||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.545|0.006||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.006|-0.545|0.0550
91067342|NCT02712554|182020771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Emax: Treatment B (high-dose CL-108) - Placebo||||<0.0001
91067343|NCT02712554|182020772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||TA\_AUE0-8hr: Treatment C (low-dose M366) - Placebo||||<0.0001
90827350|NCT03201419|181529735|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.7||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.066|-0.335||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||-0.335|-1.066|0.0002
90827351|NCT03201419|181529735|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.037||||0.844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.404|0.33||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.330|-0.404|0.8440
90827352|NCT03201419|181529735|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|0.041||||0.861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.417|0.498||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.498|-0.417|0.8610
91067344|NCT02712554|182020772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||TA\_AUE0-8hr: Treatment D (high-dose M366) - Placebo||||<0.0001
91067345|NCT02712554|182020772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2335|||||||ANOVA|||TA\_AUE0-8hr: Treatment A (low-dose CL-108) - Treatment C (low-dose M366)||||0.2335
91067346|NCT02712554|182020772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1808|||||||ANOVA|||TA\_AUE0-8hr: Treatment B (high-dose CL-108) - Treatment D (high-dose M366)||||0.1808
91067347|NCT02712554|182020772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||TA\_AUE0-8hr: Treatment A (low-dose CL-108) - Placebo||||<0.0001
91067348|NCT02712554|182020772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||TA\_AUE0-8hr: Treatment B (high-dose CL-108) - Placebo||||<0.0001
91067349|NCT02712554|182020775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||MPC: Treatment C (low-dose M366) - Placebo||||<0.0001
90827353|NCT03201419|181529735|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|0.036||||0.8871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.532||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.532|-0.460|0.8871
91067350|NCT02712554|182020775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Treatment D: M366 37.5 mg/1625 mg, Treatment E: Placebo||||<0.0001
91067351|NCT02712554|182020775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1268|||||||ANOVA|||MPC: Treatment A (low-dose CL-108) - Treatment C (low-dose M366)||||0.1268
91067352|NCT02712554|182020775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0014|||||||ANOVA|||MPC: Treatment B (high-dose CL-108) - Treatment D (high-dose M366)||||0.0014
91067353|NCT02712554|182020775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||MPC: Treatment A (low-dose CL-108) - Placebo||||<0.0001
91067354|NCT02712554|182020775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||MPC: Treatment B (high-dose CL-108) - Placebo||||<0.0001
91067355|NCT02712554|182020776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||TA\_AUE0-8hr: Treatment C (low-dose M366) - Placebo||||<0.0001
91067356|NCT02712554|182020776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||TA\_AUE0-8hr: Treatment D (high-dose M366) - Placebo||||<0.0001
91067357|NCT02712554|182020776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.012|||||||ANOVA|||TA\_AUE0-8hr: Treatment A (low-dose CL-108) - Treatment C (low-dose M366)||||0.0120
91067358|NCT02712554|182020776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||TA\_AUE0-8hr: Treatment B (high-dose CL-108) - Treatment D (high-dose M366)||||<0.0001
91067359|NCT02712554|182020776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||TA\_AUE0-8hr: Treatment A (low-dose CL-108) - Placebo||||<0.0001
91067360|NCT02712554|182020776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||TA\_AUE0-8hr: Treatment B (high-dose CL-108) - Placebo||||<0.0001
91067361|NCT01445730|182020777|OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.005
91067362|NCT01445730|182020778|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.04
91067363|NCT01445730|182020779|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.04
91067364|NCT01445730|182020780|OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.005
91067365|NCT01445730|182020781|OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.006
91067366|NCT01445730|182020782|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.01
91067367|NCT01445730|182020783|OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.008
91067368|NCT01367886|182020784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.53|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.88||0.19|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.19
91067369|NCT01367886|182020785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.39|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.87||0.0021|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0021
91067370|NCT01367886|182020786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.02||0.18|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.18
91067371|NCT01367886|182020787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.38|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.34||0.0025|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0025
91067372|NCT01938092|182020793|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.62
91067373|NCT01938092|182020794|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.66
91067374|NCT01938092|182020795|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.88
91067375|NCT00985504|182020801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38||||0.612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|"The Kenward-Roger approximation was used in the MMRM model."||||1.10|-1.87|0.612
91067376|NCT00985504|182020802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.504||95.0||||This is the p-value for Cognition Items Total Score.|Mixed Models Analysis|"The Kenward-Roger approximation was used in the MMRM model."||||||0.504
91067377|NCT00985504|182020802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.665||95.0||||This is the p-value for the Behavior Items Total Score.|Mixed Models Analysis|"The Kenward-Roger approximation was used in the MMRM model."||||||0.665
91067378|NCT00985504|182020802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.489||95.0||||This is the p-value for Emotional Items Total Score.|Mixed Models Analysis|"The Kenward-Roger approximation was used in the MMRM model."||||||0.489
91067379|NCT00985504|182020802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.945||95.0||||This is the p-value for Other Items Total Score.|Mixed Models Analysis|"The Kenward-Roger approximation was used in the MMRM model."||||||0.945
91067380|NCT00985504|182020803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.157||95.0||||This is the p-value for the Total Score.|Mixed Models Analysis|"The Kenward-Roger approximation was used in the MMRM model."||||||0.157
91067381|NCT00985504|182020803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.119||95.0||||This is the p-value for the Energy Level score.|Mixed Models Analysis|"The Kenward-Roger approximation was used in the MMRM model."||||||0.119
91067382|NCT00985504|182020803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.184||95.0||||This is the p-value for the Motivation and Interest score.|Mixed Models Analysis|"The Kenward-Roger approximation was used in the MMRM model."||||||0.184
91067383|NCT00985504|182020803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.226||95.0||||This is the p-value for the Cognitive Functioning score.|Mixed Models Analysis|"The Kenward-Roger approximation was used in the MMRM model."||||||0.226
91067384|NCT00985504|182020803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.059||95.0||||This is the p-value for the Weight Gain score.|Mixed Models Analysis|"The Kenward-Roger approximation was used in the MMRM model."||||||0.059
91067385|NCT00985504|182020803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.466||95.0||||This is the p-value for the Sleep score.|Mixed Models Analysis|"The Kenward-Roger approximation was used in the MMRM model."||||||0.466
91067386|NCT00985504|182020803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.822||95.0||||This is the p-value for the Sexual Functioning score.|Mixed Models Analysis|"The Kenward-Roger approximation was used in the MMRM model."||||||0.822
90827354|NCT03201419|181529735|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|0.013||||0.9396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.313|0.338||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.338|-0.313|0.9396
91067387|NCT00985504|182020803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.599||95.0||||This is the p-value for the Affect score.|Mixed Models Analysis|"The Kenward-Roger approximation was used in the MMRM model."||||||0.599
91067388|NCT00985504|182020804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.723||95.0||||This is the p-value for the PGI-I.|Mixed Models Analysis|"The Kenward-Roger approximation was used in the MMRM model."||||||0.723
91067389|NCT00985504|182020805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|"The Kenward-Roger approximation was used in the MMRM model."||||||0.410
91067390|NCT00985504|182020806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88||95.0||||This is the p-value for the Total Score.|Mixed Models Analysis|"The Kenward-Roger approximation was used in the MMRM model."||||||0.880
91067391|NCT00985504|182020806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.224||95.0||||This is the p-value for the Item 8 (Inability to Feel) score.|Mixed Models Analysis|"The Kenward-Roger approximation was used in the MMRM model."||||||0.224
91067392|NCT00985504|182020807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||This is the p-value for the Total Score.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA main effect F test||||||0.910
91067393|NCT00985504|182020807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.882||95.0||||This is the p-value for the Motivation/Interest/Enthusiasm Score.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA main effect F test||||||0.882
91067394|NCT00985504|182020807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.657||95.0||||This is the p-value for the Wakefulness/Alertness Score.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA main effect F test||||||0.657
91067395|NCT00985504|182020807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.457||95.0||||This is the p-value for the Energy Score.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA main effect F test||||||0.457
91067396|NCT00985504|182020807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.737||95.0||||This is the p-value for the Ability to Focus/Sustain Attention Score.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA main effect F test||||||0.737
91067397|NCT00985504|182020807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.404||95.0||||This is the p-value for the Ability to Remember/Recall Information Score.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA main effect F test||||||0.404
91067398|NCT00985504|182020807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.808||95.0||||This is the p-value for the Ability to Find Words Score.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA main effect F test||||||0.808
91067399|NCT00985504|182020807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.431||95.0||||This is the p-value for the Sharpness/Mental Acuity Score.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA main effect F test||||||0.431
91067400|NCT00985504|182020808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.821||95.0||||This is the p-value for the SDS Total Score.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA main effect F test||||||0.821
91067401|NCT00985504|182020808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.491||95.0||||This is the p-value for the Item 1 (Work) Score.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA main effect F test||||||0.491
91067402|NCT00985504|182020808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.451||95.0||||This is the p-value for the Item 2 (Family) Score.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA main effect F test||||||0.451
91067403|NCT00985504|182020808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.443||95.0||||This is the p-value for the Item 3 (Social) Score.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA main effect F test||||||0.443
91067404|NCT00985504|182020808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.719||95.0||||This is the p-value for the Item 4 (Days Lost) Score.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA main effect F test||||||0.719
91067405|NCT00985504|182020808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.517||95.0||||This is the p-value for the Item 5 (Days Underproductive) Score.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA main effect F test||||||0.517
91067406|NCT00985504|182020809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.776||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.776
91067407|NCT00985504|182020810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.691||95.0|||||Log Rank|||The log-rank test was conducted using Kaplan-Meier Product-Limit method.||||0.691
91067408|NCT00985504|182020811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.724||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.724
91067409|NCT03805412|182020818|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.694|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.694
91067410|NCT03711786|182020819|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|6.65|||Regression - GEE, logistic|From Wald z-statistic from generalized estimating equations (GEE) model with bias-corrected standard error|Enhanced arm (index) compared to basic arm (referent). GEE model with bias-corrected standard errors.|||6.65|0.22|0.836
91067411|NCT03711786|182020820|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|6.14|||Regression - GEE, logistic|From Wald z-statistic from GEE model with bias-corrected standard error|Enhanced arm (index) compared to basic arm (referent). GEE model with bias-corrected standard errors.|||6.14|0.12|0.877
91067412|NCT03711786|182020821|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|18.36||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.23|104.23|||Regression - GEE, logistic|From Wald z-statistic from GEE model with bias-corrected standard error|Enhanced arm (index) compared to basic arm (referent). GEE model with bias-corrected standard errors.|||104.23|3.23|0.001
91067413|NCT03711786|182020822|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.15||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|4.01|||Regression - GEE, logistic|From Wald z-statistic from GEE model with bias-corrected standard error|Enhanced arm (index) compared to basic arm (referent). GEE model with bias-corrected standard errors.|||4.01|1.15|0.017
91067414|NCT03711786|182020823|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.8|||Regression - GEE, logistic|From Wald z-statistic from GEE model with bias-corrected standard error|Enhanced arm (index) compared to basic arm (referent). GEE model with bias-corrected standard errors.|||1.80|0.45|0.759
91067415|NCT01465412|182020824|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To be considered equivalent the least squares mean (LSM) Ratio (HI/Healthy) is contained within the interval \[0.50, 2.00\].|LSM Ratio|1.075|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.695|1.662||||||The analysis was performed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model. Parameters were log-transformed (using the natural logarithm) prior to analysis. Study population (i.e., HI or Healthy) was included as a fixed effect with continuous covariates age, Body Mass Index (BMI) and a categorical covariate, gender. Gender was excluded from Part 1 analysis.||1.662|0.695|
91067416|NCT01465412|182020824|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To be considered equivalent the LSM Ratio (HI/Healthy) is contained within the interval \[0.50, 2.00\].|LSM Ratio|2.598|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.334|5.06||||||The analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model. Parameters were log-transformed (using the natural logarithm) prior to analysis. Study population (i.e., HI or Healthy) was included as a fixed effect with continuous covariates age, BMI and a categorical covariate, gender. Gender was included from Part 2 analysis.||5.060|1.334|
91067417|NCT01465412|182020825|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To be considered equivalent the LSM Ratio (HI/Healthy) is contained within the interval \[0.50, 2.00\].|LSM Ratio|1.305|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|2.027||||||The analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model. Parameters were log-transformed (using the natural logarithm) prior to analysis. Study population (i.e., HI or Healthy) was included as a fixed effect with continuous covariates age, BMI and a categorical covariate, gender. Gender was excluded from Part 1 analysis.||2.027|0.840|
91067418|NCT01465412|182020825|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To be considered equivalent the LSM Ratio (HI/Healthy) is contained within the interval \[0.50, 2.00\].|LSM Ratio|1.434|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.643|3.198||||||The analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model. Parameters were log-transformed (using the natural logarithm) prior to analysis. Study population (i.e., HI or Healthy) was included as a fixed effect with continuous covariates age, BMI and a categorical covariate, gender. Gender was included from Part 2 analysis.||3.198|0.643|
91067419|NCT01465412|182020826|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To be considered equivalent the LSM Ratio (HI/Healthy) is contained within the interval \[0.50, 2.00\].|LSM Ratio|1.852|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|4.234||||||The analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model. Parameters were log-transformed (using the natural logarithm) prior to analysis. Study population (i.e., HI or Healthy) was included as a fixed effect with continuous covariates age, BMI and a categorical covariate, gender. Gender was excluded from Part 1 analysis.||4.234|0.810|
91067420|NCT01465412|182020826|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To be considered equivalent the LSM Ratio (HI/Healthy) is contained within the interval \[0.50, 2.00\].|LSM Ratio|2.392|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.306|4.382||||||The analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model. Parameters were log-transformed (using the natural logarithm) prior to analysis. Study population (i.e., HI or Healthy) was included as a fixed effect with continuous covariates age, BMI and a categorical covariate, gender. Gender was included from Part 2 analysis.||4.382|1.306|
91067421|NCT01465412|182020827|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To be considered equivalent the LSM Ratio (HI/Healthy) is contained within the interval \[0.50, 2.00\].|LSM Ratio|1.548|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.918|2.61||||||The analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model. Parameters were log-transformed (using the natural logarithm) prior to analysis. Study population (i.e., HI or Healthy) was included as a fixed effect with continuous covariates age, BMI and a categorical covariate, gender. Gender was excluded from Part 1 analysis.||2.610|0.918|
91067422|NCT01465412|182020827|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To be considered equivalent the LSM Ratio (HI/Healthy) is contained within the interval \[0.50, 2.00\].|LSM Ratio|1.407|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.72|2.75||||||The analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model. Parameters were log-transformed (using the natural logarithm) prior to analysis. Study population (i.e., HI or Healthy) was included as a fixed effect with continuous covariates age, BMI and a categorical covariate, gender. Gender was included from Part 2 analysis.||2.750|0.720|
90827355|NCT03201419|181529736|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.475||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.806|-0.145||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||-0.145|-0.806|0.0050
91067423|NCT01465412|182020828|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To be considered equivalent the LSM Ratio (HI/Healthy) is contained within the interval \[0.50, 2.00\].|LSM Ratio|1.555|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.617|3.917||||||The analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model. Parameters were log-transformed (using the natural logarithm) prior to analysis. Study population (i.e., HI or Healthy) was included as a fixed effect with continuous covariates age, BMI and a categorical covariate, gender. Gender was excluded from Part 1 analysis.||3.917|0.617|
90827356|NCT03201419|181529736|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.405||||0.0665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.837|0.028||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.028|-0.837|0.0665
90827357|NCT03201419|181529736|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.149||||0.5245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.608|0.31||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.310|-0.608|0.5245
91067424|NCT01465412|182020828|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To be considered equivalent the LSM Ratio (HI/Healthy) is contained within the interval \[0.50, 2.00\].|LSM Ratio|4.806|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.77|8.335||||||The analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model. Parameters were log-transformed (using the natural logarithm) prior to analysis. Study population (i.e., HI or Healthy) was included as a fixed effect with continuous covariates age, BMI and a categorical covariate, gender. Gender was included from Part 2 analysis.||8.335|2.770|
91067425|NCT01465412|182020829|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To be considered equivalent the LSM Ratio (HI/Healthy) is contained within the interval \[0.50, 2.00\].|LSM Ratio|1.269|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.703|2.288||||||The analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model. Parameters were log-transformed (using the natural logarithm) prior to analysis. Study population (i.e., HI or Healthy) was included as a fixed effect with continuous covariates age, BMI and a categorical covariate, gender. Gender was excluded from Part 1 analysis.||2.288|0.703|
91067426|NCT01465412|182020829|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To be considered equivalent the LSM Ratio (HI/Healthy) is contained within the interval \[0.50, 2.00\].|LSM Ratio|1.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.316|2.977||||||The analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model. Parameters were log-transformed (using the natural logarithm) prior to analysis. Study population (i.e., HI or Healthy) was included as a fixed effect with continuous covariates age, BMI and a categorical covariate, gender. Gender was included from Part 2 analysis.||2.977|1.316|
91067427|NCT01465412|182020830|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To be considered equivalent the LSM Ratio (HI/Healthy) is contained within the interval \[0.50, 2.00\].|LSM Ratio|1.326|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.749|2.348||||||The analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model. Parameters were log-transformed (using the natural logarithm) prior to analysis. Study population (i.e., HI or Healthy) was included as a fixed effect with continuous covariates age, BMI and a categorical covariate, gender. Gender was excluded from Part 1 analysis.||2.348|0.749|
91067428|NCT01465412|182020830|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To be considered equivalent the LSM Ratio (HI/Healthy) is contained within the interval \[0.50, 2.00\].|LSM Ratio|4.041|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.46|11.187||||||The analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model. Parameters were log-transformed (using the natural logarithm) prior to analysis. Study population (i.e., HI or Healthy) was included as a fixed effect with continuous covariates age, BMI and a categorical covariate, gender. Gender was included from Part 2 analysis.||11.187|1.460|
91067429|NCT01465412|182020831|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To be considered equivalent the LSM Ratio (HI/Healthy) is contained within the interval \[0.50, 2.00\].|LSM Ratio|1.609|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.007|2.572||||||The analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model. Parameters were log-transformed (using the natural logarithm) prior to analysis. Study population (i.e., HI or Healthy) was included as a fixed effect with continuous covariates age, BMI and a categorical covariate, gender. Gender was excluded from Part 1 analysis.||2.572|1.007|
91067430|NCT01465412|182020831|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To be considered equivalent the LSM Ratio (HI/Healthy) is contained within the interval \[0.50, 2.00\].|LSM Ratio|2.231|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.844|5.896||||||The analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model. Parameters were log-transformed (using the natural logarithm) prior to analysis. Study population (i.e., HI or Healthy) was included as a fixed effect with continuous covariates age, BMI and a categorical covariate, gender. Gender was included from Part 2 analysis.||5.896|0.844|
91067431|NCT01611883|182020844|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Ezetimibe treatment group will be considered non-inferior to the placebo control group if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the between-treatment difference (ezetimibe minus placebo) in means for change in HbA1c from baseline to the end of treatment does not exceed 0.5%.|Difference in Least-squares Means|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.23|||Longitudinal analysis of covariance|"Treatment group, HbA1c level, insulin use, time, and time × treatment group interaction as factors, and baseline as covariate"|ezetimibe minus placebo|||0.23|-0.07|
90827358|NCT03201419|181529736|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.075||||0.7947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.642|0.492||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.492|-0.642|0.7947
90827359|NCT03201419|181529736|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.211||||0.4625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.777|0.355||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.355|-0.777|0.4625
91067432|NCT01611883|182020845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-squares Means|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.47|||Longitudinal analysis of covariance||ezetimibe minus placebo|||0.47|-0.47|
91067433|NCT01611883|182020846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-squares Means|-4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|2.5|||Longitudinal Analysis of Covariance||ezetimibe minus placebo|||2.5|-12.1|
91067434|NCT01611883|182020847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.779|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of percentage difference between ezetimibe and placebo||||0.779
91067435|NCT01611883|182020848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.365|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of percentage difference between ezetimibe and placebo||||0.365
91067436|NCT01611883|182020849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-squares Means|-21.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.06|-17.03|||Longitudinal analysis of covariance|"Treatment group, HbA1c level, insulin use, time, and time × treatment group interaction as factors, and baseline as covariate"|ezetimibe minus placebo|||-17.03|-25.06|<0.001
90827360|NCT03201419|181529736|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.014||||0.9465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.412|0.385||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.385|-0.412|0.9465
91067437|NCT01611883|182020850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-squares Means|-13.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.66|-10.42|||Longitudinal analysis of covariance|"Treatment group, HbA1c level, insulin use, time, and time × treatment group interaction as factors, and baseline as covariate"|ezetimibe minus placebo|||-10.42|-16.66|<0.001
91067438|NCT01611883|182020851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-squares Means|-11.36||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.27|-1.44|||Longitudinal Analysis of Covariance|"Treatment group, HbA1c level, insulin use, time, and time × treatment group interaction as factors, and baseline as covariate"|ezetimibe minus placebo|||-1.44|-21.27|0.025
90827361|NCT03201419|181529737|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.078|-0.383||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||-0.383|-1.078|<0.0001
90827362|NCT03201419|181529737|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.686||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.137|-0.236||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||-0.236|-1.137|0.0030
90827363|NCT03201419|181529737|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.045||||0.852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.517|0.427||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.427|-0.517|0.8520
90827364|NCT03201419|181529737|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.287||||0.3205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.856|0.281||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.281|-0.856|0.3205
91067439|NCT01611883|182020852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-squares Means|2.45||||0.246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|6.61|||Longitudinal Analysis of Covariance|"Treatment group, HbA1c level, insulin use, time, and time × treatment group interaction as factors, and baseline as covariate"|ezetimibe minus placebo|||6.61|-1.71|0.246
91067440|NCT01611883|182020853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-squares Means|-19.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.71|-15.43|||Longitudinal Analysis of Covariance|"Treatment group, HbA1c level, insulin use, time, and time × treatment group interaction as factors, and baseline as covariate"|ezetimibe minus placebo|||-15.43|-22.71|<0.001
91067441|NCT00030901|182020861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73||95.0||||P-value is adjusted for stratification factors age older than 60, African American, baseline PSA, and vitamin E supplementation.|Regression, Logistic|||With target sample size of 466 randomized patients (233 per arm), there is a 90% of power to detect a one-third reduction in the three-year incidence rate of prostate cancer. The alpha level is set at 0.025, one-sided.||||0.73
91067442|NCT01205776|182020871|NON_INFERIORITY|p-value and 95% CI of the Difference derived from the Com-Nougue Approach of non-inferiority for two Kaplan-Meier Failure rates with a non-inferiority margin of 2% at the 0.05 level of significance.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|-3.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value and 95% CI of the Difference derived from the Com-Nougue Approach of non-inferiority for two Kaplan-Meier Failure rates with a non-inferiority margin of 2% at the 0.05 level of significance.|Com-Nougue|||||||<0.0001
91067443|NCT01205776|182020883|NON_INFERIORITY|p-value and 95% CI of the Difference derived from the Com-Nougue Approach of non-inferiority for two Kaplan-Meier Failure rates with a non-inferiority margin of 8.4% at the 0.05 level of significance.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.0||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value and 95% CI of the Difference derived from the Com-Nougue Approach of non-inferiority for two Kaplan-Meier Failure rates with a non-inferiority margin of 8.4% at the 0.05 level of significance.|Com-Nougue Approach|||||||0.011
91067444|NCT07091916|182020980|OTHER|This objective was for the purpose of gathering data pertaining to device safety over the first 2 weeks post-implant. There were no pre-specified performance criteria or hypotheses for this objective.|Proportion|92.9|||||TWO_SIDED||||||descriptive statistics|||The first primary objective is to characterize the freedom from major complications related to the EV ICD System and/or procedure at 2 weeks post-implant. The endpoint is defined as a subject's first occurrence of a major complication related to the EV ICD System and/or procedure, as determined by an independent Clinical Events Committee (CEC), that occurs on or prior to 2 weeks (14 days) post-implant.||||
91067445|NCT07091916|182020981|OTHER|There were no hypotheses for this objective.|Proportion|100.0|||||||||||descriptive statistics|||The primary efficacy objective was to characterize the defibrillation efficacy at implant of the EV ICD System.||||
91067446|NCT00734162|182021055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||A p-value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis is the difference between treatment groups in the proportion of participants who met the outcome measure criterion, controlling for randomization age group.||||< 0.001
91067447|NCT05253573|182021092|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|2.83||||||The overall number of participants analyzed reflects the cancer survivors and/or independent caregivers. Participants are not represented separately (as cancer survivors or caregivers) for each Arm. This is because the originally proposed statistical data analysis plan did not aim to analyze the data by each group of caregivers versus cancer patients/survivors (because the statistical power would be very low for doing so||2.83|1.21|
91067448|NCT01754129|182021123|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Missing values were replaced using the Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF) technique for data of questionnaires. Missing data at Visit 3 was replaced with the (non-missing) data recorded at Visit 2.|Paired t-test|||Mean change from baseline to Visit 3||||<0.001
91067449|NCT01754129|182021123|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Paired t-test|||Change from baseline to Visit 2||||<0.001
90827365|NCT03201419|181529737|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.418||||0.1769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.026|0.19||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.190|-1.026|0.1769
91067450|NCT01085630|182021138|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2423|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2423
91067451|NCT02027545|182021140|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.491|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.491
91067452|NCT02027545|182021141|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.049|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.049
90827366|NCT03201419|181529737|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.1584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.717|0.118||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.118|-0.717|0.1584
90827367|NCT03201419|181529738|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.822|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|-0.424||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||-0.424|-1.220|<0.0001
91067453|NCT01017874|182021143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.13|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.13|0.63|0.217
91067454|NCT01017874|182021144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.31|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.31|0.68|0.788
91067455|NCT01017874|182021147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.14|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.14|0.63|0.252
90827368|NCT03201419|181529738|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.818||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.331|-0.306||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||-0.306|-1.331|0.0019
91067456|NCT01017874|182021148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.32|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.32|0.53|0.952
91077854|NCT02913105|182041136|OTHER|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.96||||0.0858|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.0|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Cholesterol: Day 7||1.00|0.92|0.0858
91077855|NCT02913105|182041136|OTHER|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.93||||0.0096|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|0.97|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Cholesterol: Day 14||0.97|0.88|0.0096
91067457|NCT01790984|182021162|OTHER||General linear mixed model|2.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Outcome measures were analysed as dependent variables in a general linear mixed model. All outcome variables in the model analysed were part of an priori hypothesis, and for this reason were not subject to adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model analysis was appropriate for testing differences between 2 Groups on 2 Diets (NAFLD, Control,high \& low sugar diets).|Details of our statistical approach are given below.|The sample size of the NAFDL \& Control groups was based on primary outcome measures for a trace-labelling study of VLDL kinetics (VLDL1 apo B \& TAG production rates). From the literature there was an 80% probability that our study will detect a difference in the production rates of VLDL1 apo B of 30% (α=39%), and 26% for VLDL1-TAG (α=33%). A paired comparison of two diets (5% level), gave sample sizes of n=15 for each group. Note: All reported P-values were calculated.|For outcome measures for which there were four samples from each participant (pre- and post-diets, for each period), the post-diet measurements were analysed as dependent variables in a general linear mixed model, with the following fixed categorical, non-random, explanatory effects: period, treatment (low and high sugar diet), period by treatment interaction (to detect carry-over effects), liver fat level (NAFLD and Control) and treatment by liver fat level interaction. The pre-diet measurements for each period, and bodyweights (pre- and post-diets) were included as covariates in the model, with participant as a model random effect. For outcome measures for which there were two samples for each participant (post-diets; end of each dietary intervention period only), each measurement for the combined groups (NAFLD and controls), for the 2-period cross-over, were analysed in a general linear mixed model with the same fixed categorical effects and bodyweights as covariates.|||<0.05
91067458|NCT01790984|182021163|OTHER||General linear mixed model|11.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Outcome measures were analysed as dependent variables in a general linear mixed model. All outcome variables in the model analysed were part of an priori hypothesis, and for this reason were not subject to adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model analysis was appropriate for testing the impact of 'Diet' (high and low sugar) and Group (NAFLD and Control) status on outcome variables.|Details of our statistical analyses are given below.|The sample size for NAFLD \& Control groups was based on primary outcome measures for a trace-labelling study of VLDL kinetics (VLDL1 apo B and triacylglycerol production rates). From the literature there was an 80% probability that our study will detect a difference in the production rates of VLDL1 apo B of 30% (α=39%), and 26% for VLDL1-TG (α=33%). A paired comparison of two diets (5% level) produced sample sizes of n=15 for each group. Note: All reported P-values were calculated.|For outcome measures for which there were four samples from each participant (pre- and post-diets, for each period), the post-diet measurements were analysed as dependent variables in a general linear mixed model, with the following fixed categorical, non-random, explanatory effects: period, treatment (low and high sugar diet), period by treatment interaction (to detect carry-over effects), liver fat level (NAFLD and Control) and treatment by liver fat level interaction. The pre-diet measurements for each period, and bodyweights (pre- and post-diets) were included as covariates in the model, with participant as a model random effect. For outcome measures for which there were two samples for each participant (post-diets; end of each dietary intervention period only), each measurement for the combined groups (NAFLD and controls), for the 2-period cross-over, were analysed in a general linear mixed model with the same fixed categorical effects and bodyweights as covariates.|||<0.05
90827369|NCT03201419|181529738|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|0.167||||0.551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.383|0.716||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.716|-0.383|0.5510
90827370|NCT03201419|181529738|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.038||||0.9086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.685|0.61||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.610|-0.685|0.9086
90827371|NCT03201419|181529738|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.812||||0.0185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.486|-0.138||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||-0.138|-1.486|0.0185
90827372|NCT03201419|181529738|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.106||||0.6537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.569|0.357||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.357|-0.569|0.6537
90827373|NCT03201419|181529739|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.146||||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.388|0.096||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.096|-0.388|0.2350
90827374|NCT03201419|181529739|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.377||||0.0215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.699|-0.056||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||-0.056|-0.699|0.0215
90827375|NCT03201419|181529739|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.218||||0.1818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.103||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.103|-0.540|0.1818
90827376|NCT03201419|181529739|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.05||||0.8063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.35||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.350|-0.450|0.8063
90827377|NCT03201419|181529739|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.176||||0.4414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.274|0.627||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.627|-0.274|0.4414
90827378|NCT03201419|181529739|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.126||||0.4179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.432|0.18||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.180|-0.432|0.4179
90827379|NCT03201419|181529740|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.061||||0.6042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.292||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.292|-0.170|0.6042
90827380|NCT03201419|181529740|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.127||||0.4114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.432|0.177||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.177|-0.432|0.4114
90827381|NCT03201419|181529740|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.099||||0.5394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.219|0.418||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.418|-0.219|0.5394
90827382|NCT03201419|181529740|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.149||||0.459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.246|0.544||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.544|-0.246|0.4590
90827383|NCT03201419|181529740|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.242||||0.2397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.163|0.647||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.647|-0.163|0.2397
90827384|NCT03201419|181529740|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.039||||0.7954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.332|0.254||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.254|-0.332|0.7954
90827385|NCT03201419|181529741|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.332||||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.576|-0.089||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||-0.089|-0.576|0.0077
90827386|NCT03201419|181529741|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.61||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.927|-0.293||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||-0.293|-0.927|0.0002
90827387|NCT03201419|181529741|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.026||||0.8778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.352|0.301||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.301|-0.352|0.8778
90827388|NCT03201419|181529741|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.157||||0.4309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.235|0.549||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.549|-0.235|0.4309
90827389|NCT03201419|181529741|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.017||||0.9392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.444|0.411||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.411|-0.444|0.9392
91067459|NCT01790984|182021164|OTHER||General linear mixed model|110.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Outcome measures were analysed as dependent variables in a general linear mixed model. All outcome variables in the model analysed were part of an priori hypothesis, and for this reason were not subject to adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model analysis was appropriate for testing the impact of 'Diet' (high and low sugar) and Group (NAFLD and Control) status on outcome variables.|Details of our statistical analyses are given below.|The sample size of the NAFDL \& Control groups was based on primary outcome measures for a trace-labelling study of VLDL kinetics (VLDL1 apo B \& TAG production rates). From the literature there was an 80% probability that our study will detect a difference in the production rates of VLDL1 apo B of 30% (α=39%), and 26% for VLDL1-TG (α=33%). A paired comparison of two diets (5% level), gave sample sizes of n=15 for each group. Note: All reported P-values were calculated.|For outcome measures for which there were four samples from each participant (pre- and post-diets, for each period), the post-diet measurements were analysed as dependent variables in a general linear mixed model, with the following fixed categorical, non-random, explanatory effects: period, treatment (low and high sugar diet), period by treatment interaction (to detect carry-over effects), liver fat level (NAFLD and Control) and treatment by liver fat level interaction. The pre-diet measurements for each period, and bodyweights (pre- and post-diets) were included as covariates in the model, with participant as a model random effect. For outcome measures for which there were two samples for each participant (post-diets; end of each dietary intervention period only), each measurement for the combined groups (NAFLD and controls), for the 2-period cross-over, were analysed in a general linear mixed model with the same fixed categorical effects and bodyweights as covariates.|||<0.05
91067460|NCT01790984|182021165|OTHER||General linear mixed model|0.26|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Outcome measures were analysed as dependent variables in a general linear mixed model. All outcome variables in the model analysed were part of an priori hypothesis, and for this reason were not subject to adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model analysis was appropriate for testing the impact of 'Diet' (high and low sugar) and Group (NAFLD and Control) status on outcome variables.|Details of our statistical approach are given below.|The sample size of the NAFDL \& Control groups was based on primary outcome measures for a trace-labelling study of VLDL kinetics (VLDL1 apo B \& TAG production rates). From the literature there was an 80% probability that our study will detect a difference in the production rates of VLDL1 apo B of 30% (α=39%), and 26% for VLDL1-TG (α=33%). A paired comparison of two diets (5% level), gave sample sizes of n=15 for each group. Note: All reported P-values were calculated.|For outcome measures for which there were four samples from each participant (pre- and post-diets, for each period), the post-diet measurements were analysed as dependent variables in a general linear mixed model, with the following fixed categorical, non-random, explanatory effects: period, treatment (low and high sugar diet), period by treatment interaction (to detect carry-over effects), liver fat level (NAFLD and Control) and treatment by liver fat level interaction. The pre-diet measurements for each period, and bodyweights (pre- and post-diets) were included as covariates in the model, with participant as a model random effect. For outcome measures for which there were two samples for each participant (post-diets; end of each dietary intervention period only), each measurement for the combined groups (NAFLD and controls), for the 2-period cross-over, were analysed in a general linear mixed model with the same fixed categorical effects and bodyweights as covariates.|||<0.05
91067461|NCT01790984|182021166|OTHER||General linear mixed model|10.0|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Outcome measures were analysed as dependent variables in a general linear mixed model. All outcome variables in the model analysed were part of an priori hypothesis, and for this reason were not subject to adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model analysis was appropriate for testing the impact of 'Diet' (high and low sugar) and Group (NAFLD and Control) status on outcome variables|Details of our statistical analyses are described below.|The sample size of the NAFDL \& Control groups was based on primary outcome measures for a trace-labelling study of VLDL kinetics (VLDL1 apo B \& TAG production rates). From the literature there was an 80% probability that our study will detect a difference in the production rates of VLDL1 apo B of 30% (α=39%), and 26% for VLDL1-TG (α=33%). A paired comparison of two diets (5% level), gave sample sizes of n=15 for each group. Note: All reported P-values were calculated.|For outcome measures for which there were four samples from each participant (pre- and post-diets, for each period), the post-diet measurements were analysed as dependent variables in a general linear mixed model, with the following fixed categorical, non-random, explanatory effects: period, treatment (low and high sugar diet), period by treatment interaction (to detect carry-over effects), liver fat level (NAFLD and Control) and treatment by liver fat level interaction. The pre-diet measurements for each period, and bodyweights (pre- and post-diets) were included as covariates in the model, with participant as a model random effect. For outcome measures for which there were two samples for each participant (post-diets; end of each dietary intervention period only), each measurement for the combined groups (NAFLD and controls), for the 2-period cross-over, were analysed in a general linear mixed model with the same fixed categorical effects and bodyweights as covariates.|||>0.05
91067462|NCT01790984|182021167|OTHER||General linear mixed model|0.28|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Outcome measures were analysed as dependent variables in a general linear mixed model. All outcome variables in the model analysed were part of an priori hypothesis, and for this reason were not subject to adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model analysis was appropriate for testing the impact of 'Diet' (high and low sugar) and Group (NAFLD and Control) status on outcome variables.|Details of our statistical analyses are given below.|The sample size of the NAFDL \& Control groups was based on primary outcome measures for a trace-labelling study of VLDL kinetics (VLDL1 apo B \& TAG production rates). From the literature there was an 80% probability that our study will detect a difference in the production rates of VLDL1 apo B of 30% (α=39%), and 26% for VLDL1-TG (α=33%). A paired comparison of two diets (5% level), gave sample sizes of n=15 for each group. Note: All reported P-values were calculated.|For outcome measures for which there were four samples from each participant (pre- and post-diets, for each period), the post-diet measurements were analysed as dependent variables in a general linear mixed model, with the following fixed categorical, non-random, explanatory effects: period, treatment (low and high sugar diet), period by treatment interaction (to detect carry-over effects), liver fat level (NAFLD and Control) and treatment by liver fat level interaction. The pre-diet measurements for each period, and bodyweights (pre- and post-diets) were included as covariates in the model, with participant as a model random effect. For outcome measures for which there were two samples for each participant (post-diets; end of each dietary intervention period only), each measurement for the combined groups (NAFLD and controls), for the 2-period cross-over, were analysed in a general linear mixed model with the same fixed categorical effects and bodyweights as covariates.|||<0.05
90827390|NCT03201419|181529741|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.213||||0.1734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.521|0.094||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.094|-0.521|0.1734
90827391|NCT03201419|181529742|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.328||||0.0133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.587|-0.069||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||-0.069|-0.587|0.0133
90827392|NCT03201419|181529742|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.484||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.819|-0.15||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||-0.150|-0.819|0.0048
90827393|NCT03201419|181529742|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.04||||0.8223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.395|0.314||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.314|-0.395|0.8223
91067463|NCT00789373|182021212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||6e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.79|||Log Rank|||900 patients were planned to be enrolled in order to randomize 558 pts to maintenance therapy. This trial was powered for the primary endpoint, PFS (90% power, assuming 238 events with 52% censoring and a PFS Hazard Ratio (HR)=0.65, alpha=0.05). This trial was also powered for a secondary endpoint, OS (93% power, assuming 390 events with 30% censoring and an OS HR=0.70). Alpha was controlled for both a preliminary analysis (alpha=0.0001) and final analysis of OS (alpha=0.0499).||0.79|0.49|0.00006
91067464|NCT00789373|182021213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.81|||Log Rank|||||0.81|0.51|0.0002
91067465|NCT00789373|182021214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.0195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.96||The predefined alpha for the final analysis of OS is 0.0498 for the unadjusted log-rank test.|Log Rank||Unadjusted HR from Cox model with treatment as the only cofactor.|Type 1 (alpha) error was controlled for the analyses of both PFS and OS in order to maintain an overall two-sided alpha level of 0.05 using a statistical gatekeeping and alpha spending scheme. The unconditional statistical power of the final OS analysis was 93%.||0.96|0.64|0.0195
91067466|NCT04994691|182021222|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.92||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|2.6|||Regression, Logistic||Standard Message vs. No Message|||2.60|1.38|0.000
91067467|NCT04994691|182021222|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.52||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.13|||Regression, Logistic||Tailored Message vs. No Message|||2.13|1.06|0.023
91067468|NCT04994691|182021222|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.26||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.66|||Regression, Logistic||Standard Message vs. Tailored Message|||1.66|0.94|0.124
91067469|NCT04994691|182021223|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.97||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|2.84|||Regression, Logistic||Standard Message vs. No Message|||2.84|1.32|0.001
91067470|NCT04994691|182021223|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.57||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|2.34|||Regression, Logistic||Tailored Message vs. No Message|||2.34|1.02|0.040
90827394|NCT03201419|181529742|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.215||||0.3083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.63||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.630|-0.200|0.3083
90827395|NCT03201419|181529742|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.315||||0.1556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.121||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.121|-0.750|0.1556
91067471|NCT04994691|182021223|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.26||||0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.74|||Regression, Logistic||Standard Message vs. Tailored Message|||1.74|0.88|0.202
91067472|NCT04244084|182021229|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.89||||0.0155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|-0.17|||ANCOVA|Site used as covariate||Mean differences (MMH-407 vs. Placebo) were compared||-0.17|-1.61|0.0155
91067473|NCT04244084|182021230|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1839|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1839
91067474|NCT04244084|182021231|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.064||||||Day used as independent strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0640
91067475|NCT04244084|182021232|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1927|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1927
91067476|NCT04244084|182021233|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0014||||||Day used as independent strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0014
91067477|NCT04244084|182021234|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2009|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"This analysis applies to Day 1 row."||||0.2009
90827396|NCT03201419|181529742|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.188||||0.2423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.504|0.128||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.128|-0.504|0.2423
91067478|NCT04244084|182021234|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4717|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"This analysis applies to Day 2 row."||||0.4717
91067479|NCT04244084|182021234|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5144|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"This analysis applies to Day 3 row."||||0.5144
91067480|NCT04244084|182021235|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.62
91067481|NCT04244084|182021237|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5981|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||"This analysis applies to Systolic blood pressure/Visit 1 row."||||0.5981
91067482|NCT04244084|182021237|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4913|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||"This analysis applies to Systolic blood pressure/Visit 2 row."||||0.4913
91067483|NCT04244084|182021237|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6441|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||"This analysis applies to Systolic blood pressure/Visit 3 row."||||0.6441
91067484|NCT04244084|182021237|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8186|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||"This analysis applies to Diastolic blood pressure/Visit 1 row."||||0.8186
91067485|NCT04244084|182021237|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8931|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||"This analysis applies to Diastolic blood pressure/Visit 2 row."||||0.8931
91067486|NCT04244084|182021237|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5887|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||"This analysis applies to Diastolic blood pressure/Visit 3 row."||||0.5887
91067487|NCT04244084|182021238|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4426|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||"This analysis applies to Heart rate/Visit 1 row."||||0.4426
91067488|NCT04244084|182021238|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5998|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||"This analysis applies to Heart rate/Visit 2 row."||||0.5998
91067489|NCT04244084|182021238|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.971|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||"This analysis applies to Heart rate/Visit 3 row."||||0.9710
91067490|NCT04244084|182021239|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6197|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||"This analysis applies to Breathing rate/Visit 1 row."||||0.6197
91067491|NCT04244084|182021239|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7042|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||"This analysis applies to Breathing rate/Visit 2 row."||||0.7042
91067492|NCT04244084|182021239|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7693|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||"This analysis applies to Breathing rate/Visit 3 row."||||0.7693
91067493|NCT04244084|182021240|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
91067494|NCT00232739|182021263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Primary analysis posterior probability|0.9926||||||||||The primary analysis of comparing Sirolimus stent with POBA using Bayesian regression model yields that Sirolimus is superior to POBA in reducing the BAR risk.|Bayesian regression model|Multi-level Bayesian regression model was used in the secondary analysis|Secondary analysis for comparing Sirolimus stent with BMS1 and BMS2 signified that Sirolimus stent is superior to POBA, BMS1 and BMS2 in reducing the BAR risk.|Historical control groups consist of propensity-scored matched cohorts (100 patients each, based on Reference Vessel Diameter, lesion length, diabetes, left anterior artery diseased vessel, and gender) of plain old balloon angioplasty (POBA), first generation (Palmaz-Schatz) bare metal stent (BMS1), and BX VELOCITY bare metal stent (BMS2). Study showed the risk of 6-month in-lesion binary angiographic restenosis (BAR) was much lower for the 2.25 Sirolimus stent compared with POBA, BMS1 or BMS2.||||
91067495|NCT03020992|182021315|OTHER||Rate ratio|0.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.116|0.281|||Poisson regression|||"The Poisson regression allowed for a comparison of event rates adjusting for differences in time between prestudy/on-study periods.~Event rates were based on a Poisson model with generalized estimating equations and a log-link, including an offset term for time interval length, and with period and disease duration of axSpA (\<2 years/≥2 years) as covariates. A repeated statement was included for participants and assumed an exchangeable correlation structure between prestudy and on-study flares."||0.281|0.116|<0.001
91067496|NCT05000164|182021347|SUPERIORITY||Least-square Mean|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|-0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|The upper limit of each 95% confidence interval was compared to 0.0 logMAR for distance.|Distance (4m)||-0.07|-0.17|
91067497|NCT05000164|182021347|SUPERIORITY||Least-square Mean|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|The upper limit of each 95% confidence interval was compared to 0.17 logMAR for intermediate.|Intermediate (64cm)||0.04|-0.06|
91067498|NCT05000164|182021347|SUPERIORITY||Least-square Mean|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|The upper limit of each 95% confidence interval was compared to 0.17 logMAR for near.|Near (40cm)||0.15|0.04|
91067499|NCT01006122|182021348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.747||0.418|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.81|1.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||One sided p-value was based on linear mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects, baseline MWT as a covariate and participant as random effect.||1.12|-0.81|0.418
91067500|NCT01006122|182021349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.457||0.054|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.32|-0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 5 (TP), P-value was based on linear mixed effects model with treatment, period, time and treatment by time interaction as fixed effects, baseline total score as a covariate and participant as random effect.||-0.15|-1.32|0.054
91067501|NCT01006122|182021349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.453||0.247|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.89|0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 10 (TP), P-value was based on linear mixed effects model with treatment, period, time and treatment by time interaction as fixed effects, baseline total score as a covariate and participant as random effect.||0.27|-0.89|0.247
91067502|NCT01006122|182021349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.457||0.095|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.19|-0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 15 (TP), P-value was based on linear mixed effects model with treatment, period, time and treatment by time interaction as fixed effects, baseline total score as a covariate and participant as random effect.||-0.01|-1.19|0.095
91067503|NCT01006122|182021349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.487||0.604|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.5|0.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 20 (TP), P-value was based on linear mixed effects model with treatment, period, time and treatment by time interaction as fixed effects, baseline total score as a covariate and participant as random effect.||0.75|-0.50|0.604
90827397|NCT03201419|181529743|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.079||||0.6381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.409|0.251||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.251|-0.409|0.6381
90827398|NCT03201419|181529743|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.502||||0.0221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.931|-0.073||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||-0.073|-0.931|0.0221
90827399|NCT03201419|181529743|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.177||||0.4112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.602|0.247||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.247|-0.602|0.4112
90827400|NCT03201419|181529743|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.112||||0.6761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.416|0.64||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.640|-0.416|0.6761
90827401|NCT03201419|181529743|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.224||||0.4898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.414|0.861||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.861|-0.414|0.4898
90827402|NCT03201419|181529743|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.194||||0.3311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.198|0.585||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.585|-0.198|0.3311
90827403|NCT03201419|181529744|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.23||||0.1583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.551|0.09||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.090|-0.551|0.1583
91067504|NCT01006122|182021349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.473||0.232|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.95|0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7 (SP), P-value was based on linear mixed effects model with treatment, period, time and treatment by time interaction as fixed effects, baseline total score as a covariate and participant as random effect.||0.26|-0.95|0.232
91067505|NCT01006122|182021349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.473||0.093|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.23|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14 (SP), P-value was based on linear mixed effects model with treatment, period, time and treatment by time interaction as fixed effects, baseline total score as a covariate and participant as random effect.||-0.02|-1.23|0.093
91067506|NCT01006122|182021349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.498||0.274|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.94|0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 21 (SP), P-value was based on linear mixed effects model with treatment, period, time and treatment by time interaction as fixed effects, baseline total score as a covariate and participant as random effect.||0.34|-0.94|0.274
91067507|NCT01006122|182021350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.244||0.121|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.6|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 5 (TP), P-value was based on linear mixed effects model with treatment, period, time and treatment by time interaction as fixed effects, baseline global score as a covariate and participant as random effect.||0.03|-0.60|0.121
91067508|NCT01006122|182021350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.243||0.394|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.38|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 10 (TP), P-value was based on linear mixed effects model with treatment, period, time and treatment by time interaction as fixed effects, baseline global score as a covariate and participant as random effect.||0.25|-0.38|0.394
91067509|NCT01006122|182021350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.244||0.073|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.67|-0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 15 (TP), P-value was based on linear mixed effects model with treatment, period, time and treatment by time interaction as fixed effects, baseline global score as a covariate and participant as random effect.||-0.04|-0.67|0.073
91067510|NCT01006122|182021350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.495|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.34|0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 20 (TP), P-value was based on linear mixed effects model with treatment, period, time and treatment by time interaction as fixed effects, baseline global score as a covariate and participant as random effect.||0.33|-0.34|0.495
91067511|NCT01006122|182021350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.253||0.711|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.18|0.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7 (SP), P-value was based on linear mixed effects model with treatment, period, time and treatment by time interaction as fixed effects, baseline global score as a covariate and participant as random effect.||0.46|-0.18|0.711
91067512|NCT01006122|182021350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.253||0.767|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.14|0.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14 (SP), P-value was based on linear mixed effects model with treatment, period, time and treatment by time interaction as fixed effects, baseline global score as a covariate and participant as random effect.||0.51|-0.14|0.767
91067513|NCT01006122|182021350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.266||0.698|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.2|0.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 21 (SP), P-value was based on linear mixed effects model with treatment, period, time and treatment by time interaction as fixed effects, baseline global score as a covariate and participant as random effect.||0.48|-0.20|0.698
91067514|NCT01006122|182021353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.142||0.127|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.34|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 5 (TP), One-sided p-value was based on linear mixed effects model with treatment, period, time and treatment by time interaction as fixed effects and participant as random effect.||0.02|-0.34|0.127
91067515|NCT01006122|182021353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141||0.303|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.25|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 10 (TP), One-sided p-value was based on linear mixed effects model with treatment, period, time and treatment by time interaction as fixed effects and participant as random effect.||0.11|-0.25|0.303
91067516|NCT01006122|182021353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.143||0.738|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.09|0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 15 (TP), One-sided p-value was based on linear mixed effects model with treatment, period, time and treatment by time interaction as fixed effects and participant as random effect.||0.27|-0.09|0.738
91067517|NCT01006122|182021353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.152||0.85|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.04|0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 20 (TP), One-sided p-value was based on linear mixed effects model with treatment, period, time and treatment by time interaction as fixed effects and participant as random effect.||0.35|-0.04|0.850
91067518|NCT01006122|182021353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.148||0.631|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.14|0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7 (SP), One-sided p-value was based on linear mixed effects model with treatment, period, time and treatment by time interaction as fixed effects and participant as random effect.||0.24|-0.14|0.631
91067519|NCT01006122|182021353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.147||0.16|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.34|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14 (SP), One-sided p-value was based on linear mixed effects model with treatment, period, time and treatment by time interaction as fixed effects and participant as random effect.||0.04|-0.34|0.160
91067520|NCT01006122|182021353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.156||0.541|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.18|0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 21 (SP), One-sided p-value was based on linear mixed effects model with treatment, period, time and treatment by time interaction as fixed effects and participant as random effect.||0.22|-0.18|0.541
91067521|NCT03493854|182021365|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis could be rejected and non-inferiority concluded if the lower bound of the 90% confidence interval of the geometric mean ratio was ≥0.8.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.14|1.31|||||The CtroughSC/CtroughIV geometric mean ratio was calculated as the SC dose of pertuzumab (Arm B) relative to the pertuzumab IV dose (Arm A).|The null hypothesis was that the pertuzumab Arm A SC dose is inferior to the pertuzumab Arm B IV dose (i.e., the CtroughSC/CtroughIV geometric mean ratio of the SC dose of pertuzumab relative to the IV dose is not greater than 0.8).||1.31|1.14|
91067522|NCT03493854|182021366|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis could be rejected and non-inferiority concluded if the lower bound of the 90% confidence interval of the geometric mean ratio was ≥0.8. Non-inferiority was tested in hierarchical order after the primary outcome measure, to adjust for multiple statistical testing and control the type I error at one sided 5% significance level.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.24|1.43|||||The CtroughSC/CtroughIV geometric mean ratio was calculated as the SC dose of trastuzumab (Arm B) relative to the trastuzumab IV dose (Arm A).|The null hypothesis was that the trastuzumab Arm B SC dose is inferior to the Arm A trastuzumab IV dose (i.e., the CtroughSC/CtroughIV geometric mean ratio of the SC dose of trastuzumab relative to the IV dose is not greater than 0.8).||1.43|1.24|
91067523|NCT03493854|182021367|OTHER|Descriptive analysis only. tpCR was analyzed outside of a hypothesis-testing framework and according to the methodology outlined in the outcome measure description.|Difference in tpCR Rate|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.67|8.97|||||Difference in tpCR rate was calculated as Arm B: PH FDC SC minus Arm A: P+H IV.|||8.97|-8.67|
91067524|NCT03493854|182021368|OTHER|Descriptive analysis only|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.5216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|2.11|||Log Rank|||||2.11|0.68|0.5216
91067525|NCT03493854|182021369|OTHER|Descriptive analysis only|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||0.5992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.97|||Log Rank|||||1.97|0.68|0.5992
90827404|NCT03201419|181529744|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.275||||0.1884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.685|0.136||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.136|-0.685|0.1884
90827405|NCT03201419|181529744|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.047||||0.8256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.463|0.369||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.369|-0.463|0.8256
91067526|NCT03493854|182021370|OTHER|Descriptive analysis only|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.4844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.98|||Log Rank|||||1.98|0.72|0.4844
91067527|NCT03493854|182021371|OTHER|Descriptive analysis only|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||0.5474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.88|||Log Rank|||||1.88|0.71|0.5474
91067528|NCT03493854|182021372|OTHER|Descriptive analysis only|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.6291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|2.24|||Log Rank|||||2.24|0.61|0.6291
91067529|NCT03493854|182021373|OTHER|Descriptive analysis only|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.26||||0.5609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.72|||Log Rank|||||2.72|0.58|0.5609
91067530|NCT02268916|182021416|SUPERIORITY|The study was powered based on a two-sample t-test of the primary outcomes, changes in physical activity or social participant over 6 months. Based on previous literature, in order to detect an effect size of 0.28 with at least 70% power, we aimed to recruit at least 35 participants in each treatment group.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.39|||=|0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|The outcome was adjusted for time of visit, visit x intervention group, age, gender, body mass index, insulin, depression, and time-up-and-go score.||We hypothesized that at the end of 6 months, the intervention group will have increased physical activity as measured by CHAMPS compared to the control group.||0.97|-0.18|=0.18
91067531|NCT02268916|182021417|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.2||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.45|1.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||We hypothesized that at the end of 6 months, intervention group will have improved participation as measured by satisfaction with participation in social roles.||1.06|-5.45|0.19
91067532|NCT02268916|182021417|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.02||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.53|2.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||We hypothesized that at the end of 6 months, intervention group will have improved participation as measured by satisfaction with participation in discretionary social activities.||2.48|-4.53|0.57
91067533|NCT02268916|182021417|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.44||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.52|0.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||We hypothesized that at the end of 6 months, intervention group will have improved participation as measured by the survey on the ability to participate in social roles and activities.||0.63|-5.52|0.12
91067534|NCT02268916|182021418|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.99|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.97|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||We hypothesized that at 6-month follow-up, the intervention group will have better performance than the control group in timed up and go test.||-0.02|-3.97|<0.05
91067535|NCT02268916|182021419|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.11||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||We hypothesized that at 6-month follow-up, the intervention group will have better performance than the control group in gait speed.||0.20|0.02|0.02
91067536|NCT02268916|182021420|SUPERIORITY||Slope|40.04||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.9|72.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||We hypothesized that at 6-month follow-up, the intervention group will have better performance than the control group in six-minute walk test.||72.17|7.90|0.02
91067537|NCT04830969|182021426|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||t-test, 2 sided|used generalized linear models adjusted for baseline CRP||||||0.16
91067538|NCT04830969|182021427|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|used generalized linear models adjusted for baseline CRP||||||0.08
91067539|NCT04830969|182021428|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||t-test, 2 sided|used generalized linear models adjusted for baseline CRP||Baseline to 3 months||||0.14
90827406|NCT03201419|181529744|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.059||||0.8198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.455|0.574||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.574|-0.455|0.8198
90827407|NCT03201419|181529744|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.431||||0.1793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.061|0.199||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.199|-1.061|0.1793
91067540|NCT04830969|182021428|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||t-test, 2 sided|used generalized linear models adjusted for baseline CRP||Baseline to 6 months||||0.8
91067541|NCT04830969|182021429|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|used generalized linear models adjusted for baseline CRP||Baseline to 3 months||||<0.01
91067542|NCT04830969|182021429|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|used generalized linear models adjusted for baseline CRP||||||0.09
91067543|NCT04830969|182021430|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|used generalized linear models adjusted for baseline CRP||Baseline to 3 months||||< 0.01
91067544|NCT04830969|182021430|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|used generalized linear models adjusted for baseline CRP||Baseline to 6 months||||0.03
91067545|NCT04830969|182021431|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|used generalized linear models adjusted for baseline CRP||Baseline to 3 months||||< 0.01
91067546|NCT04830969|182021431|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|used generalized linear models adjusted for baseline CRP||Baseline to 6 months||||0.09
91067547|NCT04830969|182021432|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 3 months||||0.01
91067548|NCT04830969|182021432|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||t-test, 2 sided|used generalized linear models adjusted for baseline CRP||Baseline to 3 months||||0.86
91067549|NCT04830969|182021432|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.047|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 6 months||||0.047
91067550|NCT04830969|182021432|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||t-test, 2 sided|used generalized linear models adjusted for baseline CRP||Baseline to 6 months||||0.75
91067551|NCT04830969|182021433|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 3 months||||0.44
91067552|NCT04830969|182021433|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||t-test, 2 sided|used generalized linear models adjusted for baseline CRP||Baseline to 3 months||||0.22
91067553|NCT04830969|182021433|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 6 months||||0.29
91067554|NCT04830969|182021433|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||t-test, 2 sided|used generalized linear models adjusted for baseline CRP||Baseline to 6 months||||0.15
91067555|NCT04830969|182021434|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 3 months||||<0.01
91067556|NCT04830969|182021434|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||t-test, 2 sided|used generalized linear models adjusted for baseline CRP||Baseline to 3 months||||0.31
91067557|NCT04830969|182021434|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 6 months||||0.08
91067558|NCT04830969|182021434|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||t-test, 2 sided|used generalized linear models adjusted for baseline CRP||Baseline to 6 months||||0.54
91067559|NCT04830969|182021435|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 3 months||||0.01
91067560|NCT04830969|182021435|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|used generalized linear models adjusted for baseline CRP||Baseline to 3 months||||0.04
91067561|NCT04830969|182021435|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 6 months||||0.03
91067562|NCT04830969|182021435|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||t-test, 2 sided|used generalized linear models adjusted for baseline CRP||Baseline to 6 months||||0.38
91067563|NCT04830969|182021436|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 3 months||||0.02
91067564|NCT04830969|182021436|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||t-test, 2 sided|used generalized linear models adjusted for baseline CRP||Baseline to 3 months||||0.18
91067565|NCT04830969|182021436|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 6 months||||0.08
91067566|NCT04830969|182021436|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||t-test, 2 sided|used generalized linear models adjusted for baseline CRP||Baseline to 6 months||||0.41
91067567|NCT04830969|182021437|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||t-test, 2 sided|used generalized linear models adjusted for baseline CRP||||||0.27
91067568|NCT04830969|182021438|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||t-test, 2 sided|used generalized linear models adjusted for baseline CRP||||||0.54
91067569|NCT04830969|182021439|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||t-test, 2 sided|used generalized linear models adjusted for baseline CRP||||||0.12
91067570|NCT04830969|182021440|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.20
91067571|NCT04830969|182021440|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||t-test, 2 sided|used generalized linear models adjusted for baseline CRP||||||0.07
91067572|NCT04830969|182021441|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.58
91067573|NCT04830969|182021441|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||t-test, 2 sided|used generalized linear models adjusted for baseline CRP||||||0.64
91067574|NCT04830969|182021442|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.46
90827408|NCT03201419|181529744|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.196||||0.3155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.581|0.189||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.189|-0.581|0.3155
90827409|NCT03201419|181529745|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.241||||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.596|0.114||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.114|-0.596|0.1830
90827410|NCT03201419|181529745|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.313||||0.1618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.751|0.126||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.126|-0.751|0.1618
90827411|NCT03201419|181529745|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.26||||0.2519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.706|0.186||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.186|-0.706|0.2519
90827412|NCT03201419|181529745|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.232||||0.4044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.316|0.781||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.781|-0.316|0.4044
90827413|NCT03201419|181529745|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.28||||0.4348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.986|0.426||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.426|-0.986|0.4348
90827414|NCT03201419|181529745|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.15||||0.4786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.565|0.266||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.266|-0.565|0.4786
91067575|NCT04830969|182021442|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||t-test, 2 sided|used generalized linear models adjusted for baseline CRP||||||0.11
91067576|NCT04830969|182021443|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||at baseline||||0.7
91067577|NCT04830969|182021443|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||6 months||||0.29
91067578|NCT04830969|182021444|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.53
91067579|NCT05682729|182021537|SUPERIORITY||Partial Eta Squared|0.03||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05. Wilks' Lambda F(3, 109) = .96, p = .41, ηp2 = .03.|ANCOVA|||We specifically compared the pre-to-post test change in accuracy on the FAM task across the four groups using a within-subjects ANCOVA and specifically a group by time (pre-to-post test) interaction. We controlled for age, gender, and children's executive function skills.||||.41
91067580|NCT05682729|182021537|SUPERIORITY||Partial Eta Squared|0.07||||0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Following the omnibus test, we conducted planned comparisons to compare pre-to-post test change within our experimental and control groups to test for significant positive change from pre-to-post test.||||.004
91067581|NCT05682729|182021537|SUPERIORITY||Partial Eta Squared|0.04||||0.031|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Following the omnibus test, we conducted planned comparisons to compare pre-to-post test change within our experimental and control groups to test for significant positive change from pre-to-post test.||||.031
91067582|NCT05682729|182021537|SUPERIORITY||Partial Eta Squared|0.01||||0.463|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Following the omnibus test, we conducted planned comparisons to compare pre-to-post test change within our experimental and control groups to test for significant positive change from pre-to-post test.||||.463
91067583|NCT05682729|182021537|SUPERIORITY||Partial Eta Squared|0.02||||0.186|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Following the omnibus test, we conducted planned comparisons to compare pre-to-post test change within our experimental and control groups to test for significant positive change from pre-to-post test.||||.186
91067584|NCT05682729|182021538|SUPERIORITY||Partial Eta Squared|0.02||||0.605|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||.605
91067585|NCT05682729|182021539|SUPERIORITY||Partial Eta Squared|0.02||||0.618|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||.618
91067586|NCT03100903|182021575|OTHER|The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale, accounting for the treatment group as a source of variation. The effect 'treatment group' was considered as fixed.|Geometric Mean ratio (%)|71.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.57|84.73|||||"gMean ratio = gMean of BI 655130 high dose SC/gMean of BI 655130 high dose IV.~Inter-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 23.7"|||84.73|60.57|
91067587|NCT03100903|182021576|OTHER|The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale, accounting for the treatment group as a source of variation. The effect 'treatment group' was considered as fixed.|Geometric Mean (gMean) Ratio %|29.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|24.27|35.35|||||"gMean ratio = gMean of BI 655130 high dose SC/gMean of BI 655130 high dose IV.~Inter-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 26.6"|||35.35|24.27|
91067588|NCT03100903|182021577|OTHER|The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale, accounting for the treatment group as a source of variation. The effect 'treatment group' was considered as fixed.|Geometric Mean (gMean) Ratio %|70.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|59.26|83.2|||||"gMean ratio = gMean of BI 655130 high dose SC/gMean of BI 655130 high dose IV.~Inter-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 23.9"|||83.20|59.26|
91067589|NCT04659993|182021578|SUPERIORITY|To test the change over the 8 weeks, a paired t-test (using the baseline and Visit 8 scores within the same patient) will be used; the expected difference in the CBI-B between the two scores would be no change. All statistical test used an alpha of 0.05.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.8||0.8036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|9.0||All statistical tests were performed with a significance level of 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||To test the change over the 8 weeks, a paired t-test (using the baseline and Visit 8 scores within the same patient) will be used; the expected difference in the CBI-B between the two scores would be no change. All statistical test used an alpha of 0.05.||9.0|-7.3|0.8036
91067590|NCT04659993|182021579|SUPERIORITY|Paired t-test for Coronavirus Anxiety Scale. Statistical significance using alpha of 0.05.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.4||0.3632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.3|-0.6|0.3632
91067591|NCT04659993|182021580|SUPERIORITY|Paired t-test of Purpose in life test. Statistical significance determine with alpha of 0.05.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.7||0.7918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|9.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||9.1|-11.3|0.7918
91067592|NCT04659993|182021581|SUPERIORITY|Paired t-test of The Mini-Mental Adjustment to Cancer Anxious preoccupation Subscale. Statistical significance determine with alpha of 0.05.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.3||0.7711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|4.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.9|-6.2|0.7711
91067593|NCT04659993|182021581|SUPERIORITY|Paired t-test of The Mini-Mental Adjustment to Cancer Cognitive avoidance Subscale. Statistical significance determine with alpha of 0.05.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.9||0.0772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|0.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.8|-11.5|0.0772
91067594|NCT04659993|182021581|SUPERIORITY|Paired t-test of The Mini-Mental Adjustment to Cancer Fatalism Subscale. Statistical significance determine with alpha of 0.05.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.6||0.2452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|8.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||||8.9|-2.9|0.2452
91067595|NCT04659993|182021581|SUPERIORITY|Paired t-test of The Mini-Mental Adjustment to Cancer Fighting spirit Subscale. Statistical significance determine with alpha of 0.05.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.3||0.6099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|6.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||||6.8|-10.5|0.6099
91067596|NCT04659993|182021581|SUPERIORITY|Paired t-test of The Mini-Mental Adjustment to Cancer Helplessness/hopelessness Subscale. Statistical significance determine with alpha of 0.05.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.5||0.0913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|0.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.7|-6.7|0.0913
91067597|NCT04850989|182021582|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.49|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.05
91067598|NCT04850989|182021583|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.54|STANDARD_DEVIATION|-1.23|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.05
91067599|NCT04850989|182021584|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.91|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.05
91067600|NCT04850989|182021585|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.91|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.05
91067601|NCT04850989|182021586|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.48|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.28|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||> 0.05
90827415|NCT03201419|181529746|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.223||||0.2412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.598|0.151||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.151|-0.598|0.2412
90827416|NCT03201419|181529746|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.48||||0.0501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.959|0.0||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.000|-0.959|0.0501
90827417|NCT03201419|181529746|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.069||||0.7788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.417|0.556||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.556|-0.417|0.7788
90827418|NCT03201419|181529746|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.111||||0.7111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.698|0.477||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.477|-0.698|0.7111
90827419|NCT03201419|181529746|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.205||||0.5816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.937|0.527||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.527|-0.937|0.5816
90827420|NCT03201419|181529746|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.152||||0.4981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.595|0.29||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.290|-0.595|0.4981
90827421|NCT03201419|181529747|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.313||||0.1733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.207|0.582||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.582|-3.207|0.1733
90827422|NCT03201419|181529747|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.375||||0.2538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.745|0.994||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.994|-3.745|0.2538
91067602|NCT03868930|182021596|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value indicates significance of T-test (α=0.05) for the STEP-Home group from Baseline (T1) to Post-Treatment (T2).|t-test, 2 sided|||"Hypothesis 1: Participants randomized into the STEP-Home Intervention will show improvement on reintegration (measured by the Military to Civilian Questionnaire).~Hypothesis 2: Treatment effects will be maintained at follow-up for both groups"||||<.0001
91067603|NCT03868930|182021596|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value indicates significance of T-test (α=0.05) for the STEP-Home group from Baseline (T1) to Follow-Up (T3).|t-test, 2 sided|||"Hypothesis 1: Participants randomized into the STEP-Home Intervention will show improvement on reintegration (measured by the Military to Civilian Questionnaire).~Hypothesis 2: Treatment effects will be maintained at follow-up for both groups"||||<.0001
91067604|NCT03868930|182021596|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value indicates significance of T-test (α=0.05) for the Present Centered Group Therapy group from Baseline (T1) to Post-Treatment (T2).|t-test, 2 sided|||"Hypothesis 1: Participants randomized into the STEP-Home Intervention will show improvement on reintegration (measured by the Military to Civilian Questionnaire).~Hypothesis 2: Treatment effects will be maintained at follow-up for both groups"||||<.0001
91067605|NCT03868930|182021596|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value indicates significance of T-test (α=0.05) for the Present Centered Group Therapy group from Baseline (T1) to Follow-Up (T3).|t-test, 2 sided|||"Hypothesis 1: Participants randomized into the STEP-Home Intervention will show improvement on reintegration (measured by the Military to Civilian Questionnaire).~Hypothesis 2: Treatment effects will be maintained at follow-up for both groups"||||<.0001
91067606|NCT03868930|182021597|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0044||||||P-value indicates significance of T-test (α=0.05) for the STEP-Home group from Baseline (T1) to Post-Treatment (T2).|t-test, 2 sided|||"Hypothesis 1: Participants randomized into the STEP-Home Intervention will show improvement on readjustment (measured by the Post Deployment Readjustment Inventory).~Hypothesis 2: Treatment effects will be maintained at follow-up for both groups~Statistical analysis reported on the total score only."||||0.0044
91067607|NCT03868930|182021597|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value indicates significance of T-test (α=0.05) for the STEP-Home group from Baseline (T1) to Follow-Up (T3).|t-test, 2 sided|||"Hypothesis 1: Participants randomized into the STEP-Home Intervention will show improvement on readjustment (measured by the Post Deployment Readjustment Inventory).~Hypothesis 2: Treatment effects will be maintained at follow-up for both groups~Statistical analysis reported on the total score only."||||<.0001
91067608|NCT03868930|182021597|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0162||||||P-value indicates significance of T-test (α=0.05) for the Present Centered Group Therapy group from Baseline (T1) to Post-Treatment (T2).|t-test, 2 sided|||"Hypothesis 1: Participants randomized into the STEP-Home Intervention will show improvement on readjustment (measured by the Post Deployment Readjustment Inventory).~Hypothesis 2: Treatment effects will be maintained at follow-up for both groups~Statistical analysis reported on the total score only."||||0.0162
91067609|NCT03868930|182021597|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0009||||||P-value indicates significance of T-test (α=0.05) for the Present Centered Group Therapy group from Baseline (T1) to Follow-Up (T3).|t-test, 2 sided|||"Hypothesis 1: Participants randomized into the STEP-Home Intervention will show improvement on readjustment (measured by the Post Deployment Readjustment Inventory).~Hypothesis 2: Treatment effects will be maintained at follow-up for both groups~Statistical analysis reported on the total score only."||||0.0009
91067610|NCT03868930|182021598|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014||||||P-value indicates significance of T-test (α=0.05) for the STEP-Home group from Baseline (T1) to Post-Treatment (T2) Trait Anger.|t-test, 2 sided|||"Hypothesis 1: Participants randomized into the STEP-Home Intervention will show improvement on anger as measured by the State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory (STAXI).~Hypothesis 2: Treatment effects will be maintained at follow-up for both groups"||||0.0140
91067611|NCT03868930|182021598|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1548||||||P-value indicates significance of T-test (α=0.05) for the STEP-Home group from Baseline (T1) to Post-Treatment (T2) State Anger.|t-test, 2 sided|||"Hypothesis 1: Participants randomized into the STEP-Home Intervention will show improvement on anger as measured by the State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory (STAXI).~Hypothesis 2: Treatment effects will be maintained at follow-up for both groups"||||0.1548
91067612|NCT03868930|182021598|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0302||||||P-value indicates significance of T-test (α=0.05) for the STEP-Home group from Baseline (T1) to Post-Treatment (T2) Anger Expression Index.|t-test, 2 sided|||"Hypothesis 1: Participants randomized into the STEP-Home Intervention will show improvement on anger as measured by the State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory (STAXI).~Hypothesis 2: Treatment effects will be maintained at follow-up for both groups"||||0.0302
91067613|NCT03868930|182021598|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0158||||||P-value indicates significance of T-test (α=0.05) for the Present Centered Group Therapy group from Baseline (T1) to Post-Treatment (T2) Trait Anger.|t-test, 2 sided|||"Hypothesis 1: Participants randomized into the STEP-Home Intervention will show improvement on anger as measured by the State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory (STAXI).~Hypothesis 2: Treatment effects will be maintained at follow-up for both groups"||||0.0158
91067614|NCT03868930|182021598|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0034||||||P-value indicates significance of T-test (α=0.05) for the Present Centered Group Therapy group from Baseline (T1) to Post-Treatment (T2) State Anger.|t-test, 2 sided|||"Hypothesis 1: Participants randomized into the STEP-Home Intervention will show improvement on anger as measured by the State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory (STAXI).~Hypothesis 2: Treatment effects will be maintained at follow-up for both groups"||||0.0034
91067615|NCT03868930|182021598|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8776||||||P-value indicates significance of T-test (α=0.05) for the Present Centered Group Therapy group from Baseline (T1) to Post-Treatment (T2) Anger Expression Index.|t-test, 2 sided|||"Hypothesis 1: Participants randomized into the STEP-Home Intervention will show improvement on anger as measured by the State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory (STAXI).~Hypothesis 2: Treatment effects will be maintained at follow-up for both groups"||||0.8776
91067616|NCT03868930|182021598|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002||||||P-value indicates significance of T-test (α=0.05) for the STEP-Home group from Baseline (T1) to Follow-Up (T3) Trait Anger.|t-test, 2 sided|||"Hypothesis 1: Participants randomized into the STEP-Home Intervention will show improvement on anger as measured by the State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory (STAXI).~Hypothesis 2: Treatment effects will be maintained at follow-up for both groups"||||0.0002
91067617|NCT03868930|182021598|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0198||||||P-value indicates significance of T-test (α=0.05) for the STEP-Home group from Baseline (T1) to Follow-Up (T3) State Anger.|t-test, 2 sided|||"Hypothesis 1: Participants randomized into the STEP-Home Intervention will show improvement on anger as measured by the State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory (STAXI).~Hypothesis 2: Treatment effects will be maintained at follow-up for both groups"||||0.0198
91067618|NCT03868930|182021598|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0013||||||P-value indicates significance of T-test (α=0.05) for the STEP-Home group from Baseline (T1) to Follow-Up (T3) Anger Expression Index.|t-test, 2 sided|||"Hypothesis 1: Participants randomized into the STEP-Home Intervention will show improvement on anger as measured by the State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory (STAXI).~Hypothesis 2: Treatment effects will be maintained at follow-up for both groups"||||0.0013
90827423|NCT03201419|181529747|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.353||||0.7782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.818|2.113||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||2.113|-2.818|0.7782
90827424|NCT03201419|181529747|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.151||||0.9218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.182|2.88||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||2.880|-3.182|0.9218
90827425|NCT03201419|181529747|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.767||||0.6823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.923|4.457||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||4.457|-2.923|0.6823
90827426|NCT03201419|181529747|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.095||||0.3436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.369|1.179||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||1.179|-3.369|0.3436
91067619|NCT03868930|182021598|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value indicates significance of T-test (α=0.05) for the Present Centered Group Therapy Group from Baseline (T1) to Follow-Up (T3) Trait Anger.|t-test, 2 sided|||"Hypothesis 1: Participants randomized into the STEP-Home Intervention will show improvement on anger as measured by the State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory (STAXI).~Hypothesis 2: Treatment effects will be maintained at follow-up for both groups"||||<.0001
90827427|NCT03201419|181529748|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.235||||0.2042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.146|0.676||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.676|-3.146|0.2042
91067620|NCT03868930|182021598|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0345||||||P-value indicates significance of T-test (α=0.05) for the Present Centered Group Therapy group from Baseline (T1) to Follow-Up (T3) State Anger.|t-test, 2 sided|||"Hypothesis 1: Participants randomized into the STEP-Home Intervention will show improvement on anger as measured by the State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory (STAXI).~Hypothesis 2: Treatment effects will be maintained at follow-up for both groups"||||.0345
91067621|NCT03868930|182021598|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5918||||||P-value indicates significance of T-test (α=0.05) for the Present Centered Group Therapy group from Baseline (T1) to Follow-Up (T3) Anger Expression Index.|t-test, 2 sided|||"Hypothesis 1: Participants randomized into the STEP-Home Intervention will show improvement on anger as measured by the State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory (STAXI).~Hypothesis 2: Treatment effects will be maintained at follow-up for both groups"||||0.5918
91067622|NCT06047366|182021611|OTHER|||||||0.18||||||p \< 0.05 was used as the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.18
91067623|NCT06047366|182021612|OTHER|||||||0.09||||||p \< 0.05 was used as the threshold for statistical significance|Log Rank|||||||0.09
91067624|NCT02151851|182021613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.899|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.382|6.382||Difference of CZP + MTX versus Placebo + MTX (and corresponding p-value) was estimated from a logistic regression model with factors for treatment and region.|Regression, Logistic|||||6.382|2.382|<0.001
91067625|NCT02151851|182021614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.641|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.57|16.352||Difference of CZP + MTX versus Placebo + MTX (and corresponding p-value) was estimated from a logistic regression model with factors for treatment and region.|Regression, Logistic|||||16.352|3.570|<0.001
91067626|NCT02151851|182021615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.248|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.209|23.786||Difference of CZP + MTX versus Placebo + MTX (and corresponding p-value) was estimated from a logistic regression model with factors for treatment and region.|Regression, Logistic|||||23.786|2.209|<0.001
91067627|NCT02640950|182021627|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Paired t test for pre and post treatment scores for all subjects|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test of pre and post treatment scores on MADRS||||<0.001
91067628|NCT02640950|182021628|OTHER|Descriptive Frequencies Analysis|||||||||||||||||A frequencies analysis was conducted to determine the number of participants that were diagnosed with BP I and BP II as well as the number of participants that developed an onset of maniac symptoms during the 7 week treatment period.|||
91067629|NCT00652626|182021642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio (%) of Geometric Means|98.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|64.0|151.3|||||Ratio of geometric means is calculated as Azacitidine 50 mg/m\^2 / Azacitidine 25 mg/m\^2 and expressed as a percentage.|Geometric means, ratio and 90% confidence interval (CI) of ratio of geometric means are from one way analysis of variance models on the nature log-transformed dose-normalized AUC0-t, obtained on Day 1. Azacitidine 25 mg/m\^2 is the reference group for comparisons||151.3|64.0|
91067630|NCT00652626|182021642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio (%) of Geometric Means|67.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|44.7|101.8|||||Ratio of geometric means is calculated as Azacitidine 75 mg/m\^2 / Azacitidine 25 mg/m\^2 and expressed as a percentage.|Geometric means, ratio and 90% CI of ratio of geometric means are from one way analysis of variance models on the nature log-transformed dose-normalized AUC0-t, obtained on Day 1. Azacitidine 25 mg/m\^2 is the reference group for comparisons||101.8|44.7|
91067631|NCT00652626|182021642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio (%) of Geometric Means|82.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|53.8|127.2|||||Ratio of geometric means is calculated as Azacitidine 100 mg/m\^2 / Azacitidine 25 mg/m\^2 and expressed as a percentage.|Geometric means, ratio and 90% CI of ratio of geometric means are from one way analysis of variance models on the nature log-transformed dose-normalized AUC0-t, obtained on Day 1. Azacitidine 25 mg/m\^2 is the reference group for comparisons||127.2|53.8|
90827428|NCT03201419|181529748|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.683||||0.1591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.031|0.665||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.665|-4.031|0.1591
90827429|NCT03201419|181529748|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.285||||0.8168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.708|2.138||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||2.138|-2.708|0.8168
90827430|NCT03201419|181529748|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.551||||0.7148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.517|2.416||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||2.416|-3.517|0.7148
90827431|NCT03201419|181529748|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.701||||0.7141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.066|4.468||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||4.468|-3.066|0.7141
90827432|NCT03201419|181529748|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.759||||0.5041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.995|1.477||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||1.477|-2.995|0.5041
91067632|NCT00652626|182021643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio (%) of Geometric Means|97.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|63.8|148.8|||||Ratio of geometric mean is calculated as Azacitidine 50 mg/m\^2 / Azacitidine 25 mg/m\^2 and expressed as a percentage.|Geometric means, ratio and 90% CI of ratio of geometric means are from one way analysis of variance models on the nature log-transformed dose-normalized AUC0-inf, obtained on Day 1. Azacitidine 25 mg/m\^2 is the reference group for comparisons.||148.8|63.8|
91067633|NCT00652626|182021643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio (%) of Geometric Means|68.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|45.7|102.7|||||Ratio of geometric mean is calculated as Azacitidine 75 mg/m\^2 / Azacitidine 25 mg/m\^2 and expressed as a percentage.|Geometric means, ratio and 90% CI of ratio of geometric means are from one way analysis of variance models on the nature log-transformed dose-normalized AUC0-inf, obtained on Day 1. Azacitidine 25 mg/m\^2 is the reference group for comparisons.||102.7|45.7|
91067634|NCT00652626|182021643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio (%) of Geometric Means|83.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|54.5|127.1|||||Ratio of geometric mean is calculated as Azacitidine 100 mg/m\^2 / Azacitidine 25 mg/m\^2 and expressed as a percentage.|Geometric means, ratio and 90% CI of ratio of geometric means are from one way analysis of variance models on the nature log-transformed dose-normalized AUC0-inf, obtained on Day 1. Azacitidine 25 mg/m\^2 is the reference group for comparisons.||127.1|54.5|
91067635|NCT00652626|182021644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio (%) of Geometric Means|127.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|66.3|245.7|||||Ratio of geometric means is calculated as Azacitidine 50 mg/m\^2 / Azacitidine 25 mg/m\^2 and expressed as a percentage.|Geometric means, ratio and 90% CI of ratio of geometric means are from one way analysis of variance models on the nature log-transformed dose-normalized Cmax, obtained on Day 1. Azacitidine 25 mg/m\^2 is the reference group for comparisons||245.7|66.3|
91067636|NCT00652626|182021644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio (%) of Geometric Means|84.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|45.3|158.5|||||Ratio of geometric means is calculated as Azacitidine 75 mg/m\^2 / Azacitidine 25 mg/m\^2 and expressed as a percentage.|Geometric means, ratio and 90% CI of ratio of geometric means are from one way analysis of variance models on the nature log-transformed dose-normalized Cmax, obtained on Day 1. Azacitidine 25 mg/m\^2 is the reference group for comparisons||158.5|45.3|
91067637|NCT00652626|182021644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio (%) of Geometric Means|107.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|55.9|207.0|||||Ratio of geometric means is calculated as Azacitidine 100 mg/m\^2 / Azacitidine 25 mg/m\^2 and expressed as a percentage.|Geometric means, ratio and 90% CI of ratio of geometric means are from one way analysis of variance models on the nature log-transformed dose-normalized Cmax, obtained on Day 1. Azacitidine 25 mg/m\^2 is the reference group for comparisons||207.0|55.9|
91067638|NCT00652626|182021647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio (%) of Geometric Means|101.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|71.2|143.6|||||Ratio of geometric mean is calculated as Azacitidine 50 mg/m\^2 / Azacitidine 25 mg/m\^2 and expressed as a percentage.|Geometric means, ratio and 90% CI of ratio of geometric means are from one way analysis of variance model on the nature log-transformed CL/F obtained on Day 1. Azacitidine 25 mg/m\^2 is the reference group for comparisons.||143.6|71.2|
91067639|NCT00652626|182021647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio (%) of Geometric Means|144.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.6|202.7|||||Ratio of geometric mean is calculated as Azacitidine 75 mg/m\^2 / Azacitidine 25 mg/m\^2 and expressed as a percentage.|Geometric means, ratio and 90% CI of ratio of geometric means are from one way analysis of variance model on the nature log-transformed CL/F obtained on Day 1. Azacitidine 25 mg/m\^2 is the reference group for comparisons.||202.7|103.6|
91067640|NCT00652626|182021647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio (%) of Geometric Means|101.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|71.4|143.9|||||Ratio of geometric mean is calculated as Azacitidine 100 mg/m\^2 / Azacitidine 25 mg/m\^2 and expressed as a percentage.|Geometric means, ratio and 90% CI of ratio of geometric means are from one way analysis of variance model on the nature log-transformed CL/F obtained on Day 1. Azacitidine 25 mg/m\^2 is the reference group for comparisons.||143.9|71.4|
91067641|NCT00652626|182021650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio (%) of Geometric Means|169.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|109.2|262.5|||||Ratio of geometric mean is calculated as Severe RI/Normal RF and expressed as a percentage.|"Comparison of AUC0-t after a single dose (Day 1) in participants with normal renal function and participants with severe renal impairment.~Geometric means, ratio and 90% CI of ratio of geometric means are from an analysis of variance model with renal function group (normal and severe), visit (Day 1 and Day 5), renal function group by visit interaction as fixed effect, and patient nested within renal function group as a random effect on the nature log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters"||262.5|109.2|
91067642|NCT00652626|182021650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio (%) of Geometric Means|140.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.6|217.7|||||Ratio of geometric mean is calculated as Severe RI/Normal RF and expressed as a percentage.|"Comparison of AUC0-t after multiple doses (Day 5) in participants with normal renal function and participants with severe renal impairment.~Geometric means, ratio and 90% CI of ratio of geometric means are from an analysis of variance model with renal function group (normal and severe), visit (Day 1 and Day 5), renal function group by visit interaction as fixed effect, and patient nested within renal function group as a random effect on the nature log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters."||217.7|90.6|
91067643|NCT00652626|182021651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio (%) of Geometric Means|166.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|108.6|254.6|||||Ratio of geometric mean is calculated as Severe RI/Normal RF and expressed as a percentage.|"Comparison of AUC0-inf after a single dose (Day 1) in participants with normal renal function and participants with severe renal impairment.~Geometric means, ratio and 90% CI of ratio of geometric means are from an analysis of variance model with renal function group (normal and severe), visit (Day 1 and Day 5), renal function group by visit interaction as fixed effect, and patient nested within renal function group as a random effect on the nature log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters."||254.6|108.6|
91067644|NCT00652626|182021651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio (%) of Geometric Means|141.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.2|216.2|||||Ratio of geometric mean is calculated as Severe RI/Normal RF and expressed as a percentage.|"Comparison of AUC0-inf after multiple doses (Day 5) in participants with normal renal function and participants with severe renal impairment.~Geometric means, ratio and 90% CI of ratio of geometric means are from an analysis of variance model with renal function group (normal and severe), visit (Day 1 and Day 5), renal function group by visit interaction as fixed effect, and patient nested within renal function group as a random effect on the nature log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters."||216.2|92.2|
91067645|NCT00652626|182021652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio (%) of Geometric Means|141.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|73.2|274.6|||||Ratio of geometric mean is calculated as Severe RI/Normal RF and expressed as a percentage.|"Comparison of Cmax after a single dose (Day 1) in participants with normal renal function and participants with severe renal impairment.~Geometric means, ratio and 90% CI of ratio of geometric means are from an analysis of variance model with renal function group (normal and severe), visit (Day 1 and Day 5), renal function group by visit interaction as fixed effect, and patient nested within renal function group as a random effect on the nature log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters."||274.6|73.2|
91067646|NCT00652626|182021652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio (%) of Geometric Means|105.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|54.5|204.6|||||Ratio of geometric mean is calculated as Severe RI/Normal RF and expressed as a percentage.|"Comparison of Cmax after multiple doses (Day 5) in participants with normal renal function and participants with severe renal impairment.~Geometric means, ratio and 90% CI of ratio of geometric means are from an analysis of variance model with renal function group (normal and severe), visit (Day 1 and Day 5), renal function group by visit interaction as fixed effect, and patient nested within renal function group as a random effect on the nature log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters."||204.6|54.5|
90827433|NCT03201419|181529749|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.129||||0.2896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.226|0.967||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.967|-3.226|0.2896
90827434|NCT03201419|181529749|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.652||||0.0498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.301|-0.003||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||-0.003|-5.301|0.0498
90827435|NCT03201419|181529749|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.323||||0.8159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.409|3.055||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||3.055|-2.409|0.8159
90827436|NCT03201419|181529749|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.485||||0.7719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.809|3.779||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||3.779|-2.809|0.7719
90827437|NCT03201419|181529749|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|1.676||||0.4193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.407|5.76||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||5.760|-2.407|0.4193
90827438|NCT03201419|181529749|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.23||||0.3333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.73|1.27||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||1.270|-3.730|0.3333
91067647|NCT00652626|182021653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.25||||0.1342|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.52|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Median difference is Severe RI - Normal RF.|Comparison of Tmax after a single dose (Day 1) in participants with normal renal function and participants with severe renal impairment.||0.52|0|0.1342
91067648|NCT00652626|182021653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.25||||0.1017|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.5|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Median difference is Severe RI - Normal RF.|Comparison of Tmax after multiple doses (Day 5) in participants with normal renal function and participants with severe renal impairment.||0.50|0|0.1017
91067649|NCT04003636|182021658|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.95|||Regression, Cox|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by geographic region, disease status, site of origin with small strata collapsed|HR=Arm A/Arm B|||0.95|0.72|0.0034
91067650|NCT04003636|182021659|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.0225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.0|||Regression, Cox|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by geographic region, disease status, site of origin with small strata collapsed|HR=Arm A/Arm B|||1.00|0.75|0.0225
91067651|NCT04003636|182021660|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|0.2||||0.4735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|5.6||One-sided p-value for testing. H0: difference in % = 0 versus H1: difference in % \> 0|Miettinen & Nurminen||Difference=Arm A minus Arm B|||5.6|-5.2|0.4735
91067652|NCT00915018|182021668|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.015||||0.8934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.813|1.269|||Log Rank|||||1.269|0.813|0.8934
91067653|NCT00915018|182021669|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.028||||0.5219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.048|0.105|||Mantel Haenszel|||||0.105|-0.048|0.5219
91067654|NCT00915018|182021670|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.974||||0.8431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.752|1.262|||Log Rank|||||1.262|0.752|0.8431
91067655|NCT00915018|182021671|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.032||||0.236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.093|0.029|||Mantel Haenszel|||||0.029|-0.093|0.2360
90827439|NCT03201419|181529750|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|41.8||||0.0853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|89.6||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||89.6|-5.9|0.0853
91067656|NCT00915018|182021672|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.449||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.259|0.78|||Log Rank|||||0.780|0.259|0.0036
91067657|NCT00457002|182021673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.87||||0.4364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.23|||Mantel Haenszel|||To conclude superiority of apixaban versus enoxaparin on the primary efficacy endpoint, the upper bound of the two-sided 95.004% confidence interval (CI) for the relative risk (pa/ pe) must be less than 1.||1.23|0.62|0.4364
91067658|NCT00457002|182021673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|0.59||||||||0.59|-1.37|
91067659|NCT00457002|182021674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.63||||||Formal testing of noninferiority for the key secondary efficacy endpoint was not performed since the superiority of the primary efficacy endpoint was not demonstrated.||1.63|0.69|
91067660|NCT00457002|182021674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.81||||||||0.81|-0.61|
91067661|NCT00457002|182021675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.71||||||||1.71|0.70|
91067662|NCT00457002|182021675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.85||||||||0.85|-0.57|
91067663|NCT00457002|182021676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.2||||||||1.20|0.78|
91067664|NCT00457002|182021676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|1.17||||||||1.17|-1.65|
91067665|NCT00457002|182021677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.22||||||||1.22|0.79|
91067666|NCT00457002|182021677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|1.29||||||||1.29|-1.52|
91067667|NCT00457002|182021678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.29||||||||1.29|0.65|
91067668|NCT00457002|182021678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|0.71||||||||0.71|-1.23|
91067669|NCT00457002|182021679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|4.05||||||||4.05|0.11|
91067670|NCT00457002|182021679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.1||||||||0.10|-0.16|
91067671|NCT00457002|182021680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.16||||||||1.16|0.68|
91067672|NCT00457002|182021680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|0.48||||||||0.48|-1.25|
90827440|NCT03201419|181529750|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|105.9||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.4|168.4||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||168.4|43.4|0.0010
90827441|NCT03201419|181529750|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|24.9||||0.4418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.8|88.6||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||88.6|-38.8|0.4418
90827442|NCT03201419|181529750|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|10.7||||0.7902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.2|89.6||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||89.6|-68.2|0.7902
91067673|NCT00457002|182021681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.96||||||||0.96|0.26|
91067674|NCT00457002|182021681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.03||||||||-0.03|-0.78|
91067675|NCT00457002|182021682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.28||||||||1.28|0.84|
91067676|NCT00457002|182021682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|1.73||||||||1.73|-1.18|
91067677|NCT00457002|182021683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|2.43||||||||2.43|0.32|
91067678|NCT00457002|182021683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.2||||||||0.20|-0.26|
91067679|NCT00457002|182021684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|2.43||||||||2.43|0.32|
91067680|NCT00457002|182021684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.2||||||||0.20|-0.26|
91067681|NCT00457002|182021685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.83||||||||0.83|0.11|
91067682|NCT00457002|182021685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.07||||||||-0.07|-0.62|
91067683|NCT00457002|182021686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.37||||||||1.37|0.65|
91067684|NCT00457002|182021686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|0.76||||||||0.76|-1.04|
91067685|NCT00457002|182021687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|-0.02||||||Note: Relative risk was not estimable (0.0); only risk difference could be estimated.||-0.02|-0.29|
91067686|NCT00457002|182021688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|1.16||||||||1.16|0.14|
91067687|NCT00457002|182021688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.03||||||||0.03|-0.47|
91067688|NCT00457002|182021689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference of event rates|0.29||||0.0437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.57||The Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factors will be used at the one-sided alpha=0.025 level.|Mantel Haenszel|||Adjusted difference of event rates takes the stratification factor into consideration: previous VTE (yes, no) and active or previous cancer (yes, no).||0.57|0.01|0.0437
91067689|NCT00457002|182021690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference of event rates|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|1.06||||||Adjusted difference of event rates takes the stratification factor into consideration: previous VTE (yes, no) and active or previous cancer (yes, no).||1.06|-0.33|
91067690|NCT00457002|182021691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjustted difference of event rates|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|1.33||||||Adjusted difference of event rates takes the stratification factor into consideration: previous VTE (yes, no) and active or previous cancer (yes, no).||1.33|-016|
91067691|NCT00457002|182021692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference of Event Rates|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|2.14||||||||2.14|-0.40|
91067692|NCT00457002|182021693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.61||||||||1.61|0.74|
91067693|NCT00457002|182021693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|1.07||||||||1.07|-0.66|
91067694|NCT00457002|182021702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Event rate difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.29|||||stratification factor: previous VTE (yes, no), and active or previous cancer (yes, no).|Adjusted difference in event rates in MI or stroke.||0.29|-0.30|
91067695|NCT00457002|182021702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted difference of event rates|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.3|||||stratification factor: previous VTE (yes, no), and active or previous cancer (yes, no).|Adjusted difference of event rates for myocardial infarction.||0.30|-0.11|
90827443|NCT03201419|181529750|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|1.8||||0.9664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.2|87.9||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||87.9|-84.2|0.9664
91067696|NCT00457002|182021702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted difference in event rates|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.12||||||Adjusted difference in event rates for stroke.||0.12|-0.32|
91067697|NCT00457002|182021702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted difference in event rates|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.28|||||stratification factor: previous VTE (yes, no), and active or previous cancer (yes, no).|Adjusted difference of event rates in thrombocytopenia.||0.28|-0.09|
91067698|NCT01234870|182021721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The MR images resulting from two different image acquisition techniques, including Non-Corrected Breath-Hold Shallow-Breathing and Motion-Corrected, were assessed independently by two radiologists (average of 7 years of experience in reading cardiac MRI) using the American Heart Association modified 16 segment model and were evaluated using a four point Likert scale (1 = poor, 2 = fair, 3 = good, and 4 = excellent) for image quality||||<0.001
91067699|NCT01262287|182021723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9
91067700|NCT01262287|182021724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9
91067701|NCT01262287|182021724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9
91067702|NCT02582242|182021754|OTHER||Treatment difference at week 24|-0.09||||0.2601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.06|||Mixed model for repeated measurements||Treatment difference at week 24: BIAsp 30 (TID) - BIAsp 30 (BID). Number of subjects contributed to the statistical analysis: N=217 for BIAsp 30 (TID) and N=213 for BIAsp 30 (BID).|The analysis was based on a mixed-effect model for repeated measures including changes from baseline in HbA1c at visit 6, 10, 14, 18, 22 and 26 (in week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24, respectively). The model included treatment, strata and region as fixed factors, subject as random effect, baseline HbA1c as covariate and interaction between all fixed effects and visit, and between the covariate and visit.||0.06|-0.23|0.2601
90827444|NCT03201419|181529750|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-29.8||||0.2977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-85.9|26.4||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||26.4|-85.9|0.2977
90827445|NCT03201419|181529751|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|14.3||||0.5523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.0|61.5||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||61.5|-33.0|0.5523
90827446|NCT03201419|181529751|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|60.8||||0.0556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|123.0||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||123.0|-1.5|0.0556
90827447|NCT03201419|181529751|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-17.9||||0.5837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-82.0|46.3||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||46.3|-82.0|0.5837
90827448|NCT03201419|181529751|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-60.7||||0.1363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-140.7|19.3||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||19.3|-140.7|0.1363
91067703|NCT00693498|182021775|OTHER||||||<|0.03||||||the reported value is for POD#1 assessment|Wald Wolfowitz|||||||<0.03
91067704|NCT00693498|182021775|OTHER|||||||0.29||||||for POD#2 assessment|Wald-Wolf|||||||0.29
91067705|NCT03150719|182021796|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|4.4||||||||4.4|1.0|
91067706|NCT03150719|182021797|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|10.9||||||||10.9|2.5|
91067707|NCT03150719|182021798|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|7.0||||||||7.0|-4.9|
91067708|NCT01050582|182021823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.447|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.674|||Regression, Linear|Covariates: weight (wt) divided expected wt for age and height (ht), age, use of concomitant medication with growth effects, preexposure ht z-score.|Slope associated with treatment dummy variable with 1 indicating risperidone and 0 indicating other atypical antipychotics.|Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the risperidone and other atypical antipsychotics groups in current height z-score.||0.674|0.220|<0.001
91067709|NCT01050582|182021824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.221|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.711|0.269|||Regression, Linear|Covariates: Tanner stage and gender|Slope associated with treatment dummy variable with 1 indicating risperidone and 0 indicating other atypical antipsychotics.|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the risperidone and other atypical antipsychotics groups in age (years) at current Tanner stage.||0.269|-0.711|0.378
91067710|NCT01050582|182021825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.865|||>|0.999||95.0|0.189|3.963|||Fisher Exact||Estimated OR is from a logistic regression model including factors for treatment arm, age, indication, and use of concomitant medication with growth effects.|Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the risperidone and other atypical antipsychotics groups in frequency of retrospectively reported potentially prolactin-related adverse events||3.963|0.189|>0.999
91067711|NCT01019694|182021826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.6|||<|0.0001||95.0|6.02|13.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Combivent Inhalation Aerosol||13.19|6.02|< 0.0001
91067712|NCT01019694|182021826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.2||||0.0009||95.0|2.57|9.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Atrovent + Albuterol Aerosols||9.91|2.57|0.0009
91067713|NCT01019694|182021827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.3||||0.0006||95.0|2.29|8.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Combivent Inhalation Aerosol||8.28|2.29|0.0006
91067714|NCT01019694|182021827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.4|||<|0.0001||95.0|4.41|10.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Atrovent + Albuterol Aerosols||10.39|4.41|< 0.0001
91067715|NCT01019694|182021828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.9|||<|0.0001||95.0|4.71|11.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Combivent Inhalation Aerosol||11.09|4.71|< 0.0001
91067716|NCT01019694|182021828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.6|||<|0.0001||95.0|6.44|12.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Atrovent + Albuterol Aerosols||12.83|6.44|< 0.0001
91067717|NCT01019694|182021829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.2|||<|0.0001||95.0|5.94|12.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Combivent Inhalation Aerosol||12.37|5.94|< 0.0001
91067718|NCT01019694|182021829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.7|||<|0.0001||95.0|4.44|10.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Atrovent + Albuterol Aerosols||10.96|4.44|< 0.0001
91067719|NCT01019694|182021830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.3|||<|0.0001||95.0|7.9|14.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Combivent Inhalation Aerosol||14.76|7.90|< 0.0001
91067720|NCT01019694|182021830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.7|||<|0.0001||95.0|4.23|11.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Atrovent + Albuterol Aerosols||11.23|4.23|< 0.0001
91067721|NCT01019694|182021832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.1167||95.0|-0.05|0.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Combivent Inhalation Aerosol||0.42|-0.05|0.1167
90827449|NCT03201419|181529751|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-28.2||||0.4938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-109.1|52.8||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||52.8|-109.1|0.4938
91067722|NCT01019694|182021832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.0026||95.0|0.13|0.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Atrovent + Albuterol Aerosols||0.59|0.13|0.0026
91067723|NCT01019694|182021833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.2826||95.0|-0.11|0.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Combivent Inhalation Aerosol||0.38|-0.11|0.2826
91067724|NCT01019694|182021833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.0013||95.0|0.16|0.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Atrovent + Albuterol Aerosols||0.66|0.16|0.0013
91067725|NCT01019694|182021834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.0023||95.0|0.13|0.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Combivent Inhalation Aerosol||0.59|0.13|0.0023
91067726|NCT01019694|182021834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.25|0.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Atrovent + Albuterol Aerosols||0.71|0.25|< 0.0001
91067727|NCT01019694|182021835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.0006||95.0|0.18|0.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Combivent Inhalation Aerosol||0.65|0.18|0.0006
91067728|NCT01019694|182021835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.0004||95.0|0.2|0.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Atrovent + Albuterol Aerosols||0.68|0.20|0.0004
91067729|NCT01019694|182021836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.0673||95.0|-0.02|0.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Combivent Inhalation Aerosol||0.47|-0.02|0.0673
91067730|NCT01019694|182021836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.0245||95.0|0.04|0.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Atrovent + Albuterol Aerosols||0.54|0.04|0.0245
91067731|NCT01019694|182021838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.5695||95.0|-0.24|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Combivent Inhalation Aerosol||0.13|-0.24|0.5695
91067732|NCT01019694|182021838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.3093||95.0|-0.28|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Atrovent + Albuterol Aerosols||0.09|-0.28|0.3093
91067733|NCT01019694|182021839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.3578||95.0|-0.31|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Combivent Inhalation Aerosol||0.11|-0.31|0.3578
91067734|NCT01019694|182021839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.7433||95.0|-0.18|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Atrovent + Albuterol Aerosols||0.25|-0.18|0.7433
91067735|NCT01019694|182021840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.524||95.0|-0.29|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Combivent Inhalation Aerosol||0.15|-0.29|0.524
91067736|NCT01019694|182021840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.3171||95.0|-0.34|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Atrovent + Albuterol Aerosols||0.11|-0.34|0.3171
91067737|NCT01019694|182021841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.2499||95.0|-0.38|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Combivent Inhalation Aerosol||0.10|-0.38|0.2499
91067738|NCT01019694|182021841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.6144||95.0|-0.31|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Atrovent + Albuterol Aerosols||0.18|-0.31|0.6144
91067739|NCT01019694|182021842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.5142||95.0|-0.16|0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Combivent Inhalation Aerosol||0.33|-0.16|0.5142
91067740|NCT01019694|182021842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.2691||95.0|-0.39|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Atrovent + Albuterol Aerosols||0.11|-0.39|0.2691
91067741|NCT01019694|182021844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.6236||95.0|-0.23|0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Combivent Inhalation Aerosol||0.14|-0.23|0.6236
91067742|NCT01019694|182021844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.3342||95.0|-0.28|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Atrovent + Albuterol Aerosols||0.09|-0.28|0.3342
91067743|NCT01019694|182021845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.1884||95.0|-0.36|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Combivent Inhalation Aerosol||0.07|-0.36|0.1884
91067744|NCT01019694|182021845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.6978||95.0|-0.17|0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Atrovent + Albuterol Aerosols||0.26|-0.17|0.6978
91067745|NCT01019694|182021846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.4197||95.0|-0.32|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Combivent Inhalation Aerosol||0.13|-0.32|0.4197
91067746|NCT01019694|182021846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.3949||95.0|-0.33|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Atrovent + Albuterol Aerosols||0.13|-0.33|0.3949
91067747|NCT01019694|182021847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.299||95.0|-0.38|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Combivent Inhalation Aerosol||0.12|-0.38|0.299
91067748|NCT01019694|182021847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.1404||95.0|-0.44|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Atrovent + Albuterol Aerosols||0.06|-0.44|0.1404
91067749|NCT01019694|182021848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.463||95.0|-0.36|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Combivent Inhalation Aerosol||0.16|-0.36|0.463
91067750|NCT01019694|182021848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.3824||95.0|-0.15|0.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Atrovent + Albuterol Aerosols||0.38|-0.15|0.3824
91067751|NCT01019694|182021849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.8282||95.0|-0.036|0.045|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Combivent Inhalation Aerosol||0.045|-0.036|0.8282
91067752|NCT01019694|182021849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.6587||95.0|-0.032|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Atrovent + Albuterol Aerosols||0.050|-0.032|0.6587
91067753|NCT01019694|182021850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.1185||95.0|-0.009|0.081|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Combivent Inhalation Aerosol||0.081|-0.009|0.1185
91067754|NCT01019694|182021850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.2651||95.0|-0.02|0.072|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Atrovent + Albuterol Aerosols||0.072|-0.020|0.2651
91067755|NCT01019694|182021851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.5852||95.0|-0.058|0.033|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Combivent Inhalation Aerosol||0.033|-0.058|0.5852
91067756|NCT01019694|182021851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.7242||95.0|-0.054|0.038|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Atrovent + Albuterol Aerosols||0.038|-0.054|0.7242
91067757|NCT01019694|182021852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.0328||95.0|0.005|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||||0.110|0.005|0.0328
91067758|NCT01019694|182021852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.8896||95.0|-0.058|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Atrovent + Albuterol Aerosols||0.050|-0.058|0.8896
91067759|NCT01019694|182021853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.402||95.0|-0.042|0.105|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Combivent Inhalation Aerosol||0.105|-0.042|0.402
91067760|NCT01019694|182021853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.659||95.0|-0.057|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Atrovent + Albuterol Aerosols||0.090|-0.057|0.659
91067761|NCT01019694|182021854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.0893||95.0|-0.01|0.139|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Combivent Inhalation Aerosol||0.139|-0.010|0.0893
91067762|NCT01019694|182021854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.5424||95.0|-0.052|0.099|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Atrovent + Albuterol Aerosols||0.099|-0.052|0.5424
91067763|NCT01019694|182021855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.6396||95.0|-0.104|0.064|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Combivent Inhalation Aerosol||0.064|-0.104|0.6396
91067764|NCT01019694|182021855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.6455||95.0|-0.106|0.066|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Atrovent + Albuterol Aerosols||0.066|-0.106|0.6455
91067765|NCT01019694|182021856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.2596||95.0|-0.038|0.141|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Combivent Inhalation Aerosol||0.141|-0.038|0.2596
91067766|NCT01019694|182021856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.6659||95.0|-0.112|0.071|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Atrovent + Albuterol Aerosols||0.071|-0.112|0.6659
91067767|NCT01019694|182021858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.476||95.0|-0.4|0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Combivent Inhalation Aerosol||0.19|-0.40|0.476
91067768|NCT01019694|182021858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.6976||95.0|-0.35|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Atrovent + Albuterol Aerosols||0.23|-0.35|0.6976
91067769|NCT01019694|182021859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.9506||95.0|-0.4|0.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Combivent Inhalation Aerosol||0.37|-0.40|0.9506
91067770|NCT01019694|182021859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.2362||95.0|-0.15|0.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Atrovent + Albuterol Aerosols||0.62|-0.15|0.2362
91067771|NCT01019694|182021860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.5645||95.0|-0.3|0.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Combivent Inhalation Aerosol||0.54|-0.30|0.5645
91067772|NCT01019694|182021860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.0163||95.0|0.1|0.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Atrovent + Albuterol Aerosols||0.95|0.10|0.0163
91067773|NCT01019694|182021861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.4339||95.0|-0.6|0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Combivent Inhalation Aerosol||0.26|-0.60|0.4339
91067774|NCT01019694|182021861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.4886||95.0|-0.28|0.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Atrovent + Albuterol Aerosols||0.59|-0.28|0.4886
91067775|NCT01019694|182021862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.7637||95.0|-0.5|0.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Combivent Inhalation Aerosol||0.37|-0.50|0.7637
91067776|NCT01019694|182021862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.3755||95.0|-0.24|0.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Atrovent + Albuterol Aerosols||0.65|-0.24|0.3755
91067777|NCT04278417|182021880|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of brolucizumab to PRP with respect to change from baseline in BCVA at Week 54, considering a non-inferiority margin of 4 ETDRS letters. Assuming that the BCVA changes follow a normal distribution with equal means between treatments, and a common standard deviation of 10 letters, for a one-sided alpha level of 0.025, with 300 subjects per arm there is \>99% power to reject the null hypothesis that brolucizumab 6 mg is inferior to PRP.|LS mean difference|4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|6.4|||ANCOVA|||1||6.4|2.4|<0.001
91067778|NCT04278417|182021880|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||2||||<0.001
91067779|NCT04278417|182021881|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % of Participants|39.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.0|46.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||46.8|32.0|< 0.001
91067780|NCT04278417|182021883|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % of Participants|-41.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.0|-34.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-34.2|-48.0|< 0.001
91067781|NCT04278417|182021886|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % of Participants|26.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.5|33.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 54||33.3|19.5|<0.001
91067782|NCT02748356|182021942|OTHER|1 sample t-test|||||=|0.351|||||||t-test, 2 sided|This is a single group comparison||||||=0.351
91067783|NCT02907177|182021972|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect (rate ratio)|1.27||||0.5252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.608|2.654|||Negative binomial regression||Rate ratio is ponesimod 20 mg / DMF versus placebo /DMF|||2.654|0.608|0.5252
91067784|NCT03482635|182021980|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.042|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.105|0.202|||||Unadjusted absolute risk difference to placebo, \[Treatment - Placebo\]. 95% CI for risk difference were calculated using the method of Newcombe.|||0.202|-0.105|
91067785|NCT03482635|182021980|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.087|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.069|0.268|||||Unadjusted absolute risk difference to placebo, \[Treatment - Placebo\]. 95% CI for risk difference were calculated using the method of Newcombe.|||0.268|-0.069|
91067786|NCT03482635|182021980|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.071|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.081|0.226|||||Unadjusted absolute risk difference to placebo, \[Treatment - Placebo\]. 95% CI for risk difference were calculated using the method of Newcombe.|||0.226|-0.081|
91067787|NCT03482635|182021981|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.051|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.276|0.176|||||Unadjusted absolute risk difference to placebo, \[Treatment - Placebo\]. 95% CI for risk difference were calculated using the method of Newcombe.|||0.176|-0.276|
91067788|NCT03482635|182021981|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.043|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.199|0.28|||||Unadjusted absolute risk difference to placebo, \[Treatment - Placebo\]. 95% CI for risk difference were calculated using the method of Newcombe.|||0.280|-0.199|
91067789|NCT03482635|182021981|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.033|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.204|0.252|||||Unadjusted absolute risk difference to placebo, \[Treatment - Placebo\]. 95% CI for risk difference were calculated using the method of Newcombe.|||0.252|-0.204|
91067790|NCT03482635|182021982|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.083|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.072|0.258|||||Unadjusted absolute risk difference to placebo, \[Treatment - Placebo\]. 95% CI for risk difference were calculated using the method of Newcombe.|||0.258|-0.072|
91067791|NCT03482635|182021982|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.087|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.069|0.268|||||Unadjusted absolute risk difference to placebo, \[Treatment - Placebo\]. 95% CI for risk difference were calculated using the method of Newcombe.|||0.268|-0.069|
91067792|NCT03482635|182021982|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.071|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.081|0.226|||||Unadjusted absolute risk difference to placebo, \[Treatment - Placebo\]. 95% CI for risk difference were calculated using the method of Newcombe.|||0.226|-0.081|
91067793|NCT03482635|182021983|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.083|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.072|0.258|||||Unadjusted absolute risk difference to placebo, \[Treatment - Placebo\].|||0.258|-0.072|
91067794|NCT03482635|182021983|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.043|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.104|0.21|||||Unadjusted absolute risk difference to placebo, \[Treatment - Placebo\].|||0.210|-0.104|
91067795|NCT03482635|182021983|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.036|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.177|||||Unadjusted absolute risk difference to placebo, \[Treatment - Placebo\].|||0.177|-0.110|
91067796|NCT03482635|182021984|OTHER||Difference of adjusted means|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.7||0.9776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.6|21.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach. The model included fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and stratification factors (prior biologic treatment failure and concomitant corticosteroid therapy at Visit 2/randomisation), as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline and baseline-by-visit interaction. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within-patient measurements.||21.0|-21.6|0.9776
91067797|NCT03482635|182021984|OTHER||Difference of adjusted means|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.6||0.894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.6|22.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach. The model included fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and stratification factors (prior biologic treatment failure and concomitant corticosteroid therapy at Visit 2/randomisation), as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline and baseline-by-visit interaction. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within-patient measurements.||22.4|-19.6|0.8940
91067798|NCT03482635|182021984|OTHER||Difference of adjusted means|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.6||0.9241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|22.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach. The model included fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and stratification factors (prior biologic treatment failure and concomitant corticosteroid therapy at Visit 2/randomisation), as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline and baseline-by-visit interaction. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within-patient measurements||22.1|-20.0|0.9241
91067799|NCT04681066|182021996|OTHER|The null hypothesis of flat dose-response relationship as compared to placebo for the primary efficacy endpoint was tested against the alternative hypothesis of a non-constant dose-response curve using a multiple contrast test as described in the gMCP-Mod methodology. The contrast test statistic is a linear combination of the optimal contrast coefficients corresponding to the dose-response curve model (Emax or sigEmax) with the hazard ratio obtained at each individual dose.|Hazard Ratio, log|0.0415||||0.3184|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test is based on significance level of one-sided 15%.The p-value shown here relates to the fit of the Emax curve model based on all 3 dosage data points, not just the 0.5mg/kg point presented here.|Mixed Models Analysis|See Statistical Analysis 2 and 3 for the other two data points (1.0mg/kg and 2.0mg/kg) that are part of this same curve and p-value analysis.||"The purpose of this analysis is to determine whether a dose-response relationship exists, with multiple possible models (Emax and sigEmax) being tested. gMCP-Mod analysis (Generalized Multiple Comparisons and Modeling) was performed in 3 steps as described in the SAP: 1) Hazard ratio (each dose vs placebo) using stratified Cox regression w/ stratification by sex and hematocrit (high/low HCT). 2) Multiple contrast test. 3) Find best-fit dose-response model.~Emax model analysis is shown here."||||0.3184
90827450|NCT03201419|181529751|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-54.7||||0.0535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-110.2|0.8||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.8|-110.2|0.0535
91067800|NCT04681066|182021996|OTHER|The null hypothesis of flat dose-response relationship as compared to placebo for the primary efficacy endpoint was tested against the alternative hypothesis of a non-constant dose-response curve using a multiple contrast test as described in the gMCP-Mod methodology. The contrast test statistic is a linear combination of the optimal contrast coefficients corresponding to the dose-response curve model (Emax or sigEmax) with the hazard ratio obtained at each individual dose.|Hazard Ratio, log|0.1225||||0.3184|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test is based on significance level of one-sided 15%.The p-value shown here relates to the fit of the Emax curve model based on all 3 dosage data points, not just the 1.0mg/kg point presented here.|Mixed Models Analysis|See Statistical Analysis 1 and 3 for the other two data points (0.5mg/kg and 2.0mg/kg) that are part of this same curve and p-value analysis.||"The purpose of this analysis is to determine whether a dose-response relationship exists, with multiple possible models (Emax and sigEmax) being tested. gMCP-Mod analysis (Generalized Multiple Comparisons and Modeling) was performed in 3 steps as described in the SAP: 1) Hazard ratio (each dose vs placebo) using stratified Cox regression w/ stratification by sex and hematocrit (high/low HCT). 2) Multiple contrast test. 3) Find best-fit dose-response model.~Emax model analysis is shown here."||||0.3184
90827451|NCT03201419|181529752|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.7||||0.9829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.2|60.9||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||60.9|-62.2|0.9829
90827452|NCT03201419|181529752|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|64.4||||0.1038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|142.1||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||142.1|-13.3|0.1038
90827453|NCT03201419|181529752|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|29.2||||0.4764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.4|109.8||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||109.8|-51.4|0.4764
90827454|NCT03201419|181529752|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-24.2||||0.6204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-120.5|72.0||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||72.0|-120.5|0.6204
90827455|NCT03201419|181529752|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|2.2||||0.966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.1|104.6||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||104.6|-100.1|0.9660
90827456|NCT03201419|181529752|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|3.3||||0.9275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.4|73.9||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||73.9|-67.4|0.9275
91067801|NCT04681066|182021996|OTHER|The null hypothesis of flat dose-response relationship as compared to placebo for the primary efficacy endpoint was tested against the alternative hypothesis of a non-constant dose-response curve using a multiple contrast test as described in the gMCP-Mod methodology. The contrast test statistic is a linear combination of the optimal contrast coefficients corresponding to the dose-response curve model (Emax or sigEmax) with the hazard ratio obtained at each individual dose.|Hazard Ratio, log|0.208||||0.3184|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test is based on significance level of one-sided 15%.The p-value shown here relates to the fit of the Emax curve model based on all 3 dosage data points, not just the 2.0mg/kg point presented here.|Mixed Models Analysis|See Statistical Analysis 1 and 2 for the other two data points (0.5mg/kg and 1.0mg/kg) that are part of this same curve and p-value analysis.||"The purpose of this analysis is to determine whether a dose-response relationship exists, with multiple possible models (Emax and sigEmax) being tested. gMCP-Mod analysis (Generalized Multiple Comparisons and Modeling) was performed in 3 steps as described in the SAP: 1) Hazard ratio (each dose vs placebo) using stratified Cox regression w/ stratification by sex and hematocrit (high/low HCT). 2) Multiple contrast test. 3) Find best-fit dose-response model.~Emax model analysis is shown here."||||0.3184
91067802|NCT04681066|182021996|OTHER|The null hypothesis of flat dose-response relationship as compared to placebo for the primary efficacy endpoint was tested against the alternative hypothesis of a non-constant dose-response curve using a multiple contrast test as described in the gMCP-Mod methodology. The contrast test statistic is a linear combination of the optimal contrast coefficients corresponding to the dose-response curve model (Emax or sigEmax) with the hazard ratio obtained at each individual dose.|Hazard Ratio, log|0.0415||||0.2265|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test is based on significance level of one-sided 15%.The p-value shown here relates to the fit of the sigEmax curve model based on data points for all 3 dosages, not just the 0.5mg/kg point presented here.|Mixed Models Analysis|See Statistical Analysis 5 and 6 for the other two data points (1.0mg/kg and 2.0mg/kg) that are part of this same curve and p-value analysis.||"The purpose of this analysis is to determine whether a dose-response relationship exists, with multiple possible models (Emax and sigEmax) being tested. gMCP-Mod analysis (Generalized Multiple Comparisons and Modeling) was performed in 3 steps as described in the SAP: 1) Hazard ratio (each dose vs placebo) using stratified Cox regression w/ stratification by sex and hematocrit (high/low HCT). 2) Multiple contrast test. 3) Find best-fit dose-response model.~sigEmax model analysis is shown here."||||0.2265
91067803|NCT04681066|182021996|OTHER|The null hypothesis of flat dose-response relationship as compared to placebo for the primary efficacy endpoint was tested against the alternative hypothesis of a non-constant dose-response curve using a multiple contrast test as described in the gMCP-Mod methodology. The contrast test statistic is a linear combination of the optimal contrast coefficients corresponding to the dose-response curve model (Emax or sigEmax) with the hazard ratio obtained at each individual dose.|Hazard Ratio, log|0.1225||||0.2265|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test is based on significance level of one-sided 15%.The p-value shown here relates to the fit of the sigEmax curve model based on data points for all 3 dosages, not just the 1.0mg/kg point presented here.|Mixed Models Analysis|See Statistical Analysis 4 and 6 for the other two data points (0.5mg/kg and 2.0mg/kg) that are part of this same curve and p-value analysis.||"The purpose of this analysis is to determine whether a dose-response relationship exists, with multiple possible models (Emax and sigEmax) being tested. gMCP-Mod analysis (Generalized Multiple Comparisons and Modeling) was performed in 3 steps as described in the SAP: 1) Hazard ratio (each dose vs placebo) using stratified Cox regression w/ stratification by sex and hematocrit (high/low HCT). 2) Multiple contrast test. 3) Find best-fit dose-response model.~sigEmax model analysis is shown here."||||0.2265
91067804|NCT04681066|182021996|OTHER|The null hypothesis of flat dose-response relationship as compared to placebo for the primary efficacy endpoint was tested against the alternative hypothesis of a non-constant dose-response curve using a multiple contrast test as described in the gMCP-Mod methodology. The contrast test statistic is a linear combination of the optimal contrast coefficients corresponding to the dose-response curve model (Emax or sigEmax) with the hazard ratio obtained at each individual dose.|Hazard Ratio, log|0.208||||0.2265|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test is based on significance level of one-sided 15%.The p-value shown here relates to the fit of the sigEmax curve model based on data points for all 3 dosages, not just the 2.0mg/kg point presented here.|Mixed Models Analysis|See Statistical Analysis 4 and 5 for the other two data points (0.5mg/kg and 1.0mg/kg) that are part of this same curve and p-value analysis.||"The purpose of this analysis is to determine whether a dose-response relationship exists, with multiple possible models (Emax and sigEmax) being tested. gMCP-Mod analysis (Generalized Multiple Comparisons and Modeling) was performed in 3 steps as described in the SAP: 1) Hazard ratio (each dose vs placebo) using stratified Cox regression w/ stratification by sex and hematocrit (high/low HCT). 2) Multiple contrast test. 3) Find best-fit dose-response model.~sigEmax model analysis is shown here."||||0.2265
91067805|NCT04681066|182021996|OTHER|The null hypothesis of flat dose-response relationship as compared to placebo for the primary efficacy endpoint was tested against the alternative hypothesis of a non-constant dose-response curve using a multiple contrast test as described in the gMCP-Mod methodology. The contrast test statistic is a linear combination of the optimal contrast coefficients corresponding to the dose-response curve model (Emax or sigEmax) with the hazard ratio obtained at each individual dose.|Hazard Ratio, log|0.2671||||0.0764|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test is based on significance level of one-sided 15%.The p-value shown here relates to the fit of the Emax curve model for high HCT based on all 3 dosage data points, not just the 0.5mg/kg point shown here.|Mixed Models Analysis|See Statistical Analysis 8 and 9 for the other two data points (1.0mg/kg and 2.0mg/kg) that are part of this same curve and p-value analysis.||The purpose of this analysis is to determine whether a dose-response relationship exists for only the subset of patients with high HCT. Multiple possible models (Emax and sigEmax) were tested. gMCP-Mod (Generalized Multiple Comparisons \& Modeling) analysis was performed in 3 steps as described in the SAP: 1) Hazard ratio (each dose vs placebo) using stratified Cox regression, stratification by sex 2) Multiple contrast test 3) Find best-fit dose-response model. Emax model analysis is shown here.||||0.0764
90827457|NCT03201419|181529753|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|15.7||||0.5964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.7|74.2||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||74.2|-42.7|0.5964
91067806|NCT04681066|182021996|OTHER|The null hypothesis of flat dose-response relationship as compared to placebo for the primary efficacy endpoint was tested against the alternative hypothesis of a non-constant dose-response curve using a multiple contrast test as described in the gMCP-Mod methodology. The contrast test statistic is a linear combination of the optimal contrast coefficients corresponding to the dose-response curve model (Emax or sigEmax) with the hazard ratio obtained at each individual dose.|Hazard Ratio, log|0.6561||||0.0764|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test is based on significance level of one-sided 15%.The p-value shown here relates to the fit of the Emax curve model for high HCT based on all 3 dosage data points, not just the 1.0mg/kg point shown here.|Mixed Models Analysis|See Statistical Analysis 7 and 9 for the other two data points (0.5mg/kg and 2.0mg/kg) that are part of this same curve and p-value analysis.||The purpose of this analysis is to determine whether a dose-response relationship exists for only the subset of patients with high HCT. Multiple possible models (Emax and sigEmax) were tested. gMCP-Mod (Generalized Multiple Comparisons \& Modeling) analysis was performed in 3 steps as described in the SAP: 1) Hazard ratio (each dose vs placebo) using stratified Cox regression, stratification by sex 2) Multiple contrast test 3) Find best-fit dose-response model. Emax model analysis is shown here.||||0.0764
91067807|NCT04681066|182021996|OTHER|The null hypothesis of flat dose-response relationship as compared to placebo for the primary efficacy endpoint was tested against the alternative hypothesis of a non-constant dose-response curve using a multiple contrast test as described in the gMCP-Mod methodology. The contrast test statistic is a linear combination of the optimal contrast coefficients corresponding to the dose-response curve model (Emax or sigEmax) with the hazard ratio obtained at each individual dose.|Hazard Ratio, log|0.4668||||0.0764|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test is based on significance level of one-sided 15%.The p-value shown here relates to the fit of the Emax curve model for high HCT based on all 3 dosage data points, not just the 2.0mg/kg point shown here.|Mixed Models Analysis|See Statistical Analysis 7 and 8 for the other two data points (0.5mg/kg and 1.0mg/kg) that are part of this same curve and p-value analysis.||The purpose of this analysis is to determine whether a dose-response relationship exists for only the subset of patients with high HCT. Multiple possible models (Emax and sigEmax) were tested. gMCP-Mod (Generalized Multiple Comparisons \& Modeling) analysis was performed in 3 steps as described in the SAP: 1) Hazard ratio (each dose vs placebo) using stratified Cox regression, stratification by sex 2) Multiple contrast test 3) Find best-fit dose-response model. Emax model analysis is shown here.||||0.0764
91067808|NCT04681066|182021996|OTHER|The null hypothesis of flat dose-response relationship as compared to placebo for the primary efficacy endpoint was tested against the alternative hypothesis of a non-constant dose-response curve using a multiple contrast test as described in the gMCP-Mod methodology. The contrast test statistic is a linear combination of the optimal contrast coefficients corresponding to the dose-response curve model (Emax or sigEmax) with the hazard ratio obtained at each individual dose.|Hazard Ratio, log|0.2671||||0.0574|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test is based on significance level of one-sided 15%.The p-value shown here relates to fit of the sigEmax curve model for high HCT based on all 3 dosage data points, not just the 0.5mg/kg point shown here.|Mixed Models Analysis|See Statistical Analysis 11 and 12 for the other two data points (1.0mg/kg and 2.0mg/kg) that are part of this same curve and p-value analysis.||The purpose of this analysis is to determine whether a dose-response relationship exists for the subset of patients with high HCT. Multiple possible models (Emax and sigEmax) were tested. gMCP-Mod (Generalized Multiple Comparisons \& Modeling) analysis was performed in 3 steps as described in the SAP: 1) Hazard ratio (each dose vs placebo) using stratified Cox regression, stratification by sex 2) Multiple contrast test 3) Find best-fit dose-response model. sigEmax model analysis is shown here.||||0.0574
91067809|NCT04681066|182021996|OTHER|The null hypothesis of flat dose-response relationship as compared to placebo for the primary efficacy endpoint was tested against the alternative hypothesis of a non-constant dose-response curve using a multiple contrast test as described in the gMCP-Mod methodology. The contrast test statistic is a linear combination of the optimal contrast coefficients corresponding to the dose-response curve model (Emax or sigEmax) with the hazard ratio obtained at each individual dose.|Hazard Ratio, log|0.6561||||0.0574|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test is based on significance level of one-sided 15%.The p-value shown here relates to fit of the sigEmax curve model for high HCT based on all 3 dosage data points, not just the 1.0mg/kg point shown here.|Mixed Models Analysis|See Statistical Analysis 10 and 12 for the other two data points (0.5mg/kg and 2.0mg/kg) that are part of this same curve and p-value analysis.||The purpose of this analysis is to determine whether a dose-response relationship exists for the subset of patients with high HCT. Multiple possible models (Emax and sigEmax) were tested. gMCP-Mod (Generalized Multiple Comparisons \& Modeling) analysis was performed in 3 steps as described in the SAP: 1) Hazard ratio (each dose vs placebo) using stratified Cox regression, stratification by sex 2) Multiple contrast test 3) Find best-fit dose-response model. sigEmax model analysis is shown here.||||0.0574
91077856|NCT02913105|182041136|OTHER|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.93||||0.0284|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|0.98|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Cholesterol: Day 28||0.98|0.88|0.0284
90827458|NCT03201419|181529753|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-2.8||||0.9418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.5|72.9||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||72.9|-78.5|0.9418
90827459|NCT03201419|181529753|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|18.0||||0.6452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.8|94.7||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||94.7|-58.8|0.6452
90827460|NCT03201419|181529753|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-51.3||||0.2565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-140.2|37.6||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||37.6|-140.2|0.2565
90827461|NCT03201419|181529753|OTHER||Mean Difference|-21.6||||0.6605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-118.6|75.4||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||75.4|-118.6|0.6605
90827462|NCT03201419|181529753|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|3.4||||0.9191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.6|69.4||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||69.4|-62.6|0.9191
90827463|NCT03201419|181529754|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|17.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.19|62.09||||||Based on a Bayesian analysis of a sigmoidal dose-response relationship.||62.09|-6.19|
91067810|NCT04681066|182021996|OTHER|The null hypothesis of flat dose-response relationship as compared to placebo for the primary efficacy endpoint was tested against the alternative hypothesis of a non-constant dose-response curve using a multiple contrast test as described in the gMCP-Mod methodology. The contrast test statistic is a linear combination of the optimal contrast coefficients corresponding to the dose-response curve model (Emax or sigEmax) with the hazard ratio obtained at each individual dose.|Hazard Ratio, log|0.4668||||0.0574|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test is based on significance level of one-sided 15%.The p-value shown here relates to fit of the sigEmax curve model for high HCT based on all 3 dosage data points, not just the 2.0mg/kg point shown here.|Mixed Models Analysis|See Statistical Analysis 10 and 11 for the other two data points (0.5mg/kg and 1.0mg/kg) that are part of this same curve and p-value analysis.||The purpose of this analysis is to determine whether a dose-response relationship exists for the subset of patients with high HCT. Multiple possible models (Emax and sigEmax) were tested. gMCP-Mod (Generalized Multiple Comparisons \& Modeling) analysis was performed in 3 steps as described in the SAP: 1) Hazard ratio (each dose vs placebo) using stratified Cox regression, stratification by sex 2) Multiple contrast test 3) Find best-fit dose-response model. sigEmax model analysis is shown here.||||0.0574
91067811|NCT04681066|182021997|OTHER|The null hypothesis of flat dose-response relationship as compared to placebo for the primary efficacy endpoint was tested against the alternative hypothesis of a non-constant dose-response curve using a multiple contrast test as described in the gMCP-Mod methodology. The contrast test statistic is a linear combination of the optimal contrast coefficients corresponding to the dose-response curve model (Emax or sigEmax) with the logit of rate of severe respiratory failure at each individual dose.|Odds Ratio, log|-2.3604||||0.2379|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test is based on significance level of one-sided 15%.The p-value shown here relates to fit of the Emax curve model based on all 4 dosage data points, not just the placebo data point shown here.|Mixed Models Analysis|See Statistical Analysis 2, 3, \& 4 for the other data points (0.5mg/kg, 1.0mg/kg, and 2.0mg/kg) that are part of this same curve and p-value analysis.||Analysis to determine whether a dose-response relationship exists. Multiple possible models (Emax and sigEmax) were tested using gMCP-Mod (Generalized Multiple Comparisons \& Modeling) analysis, performed in 3 steps as described in the SAP: 1) Odds ratio between each dose using logistic regression, with treatment, sex, and risk for organ failure (high/low HCT) as covariates 2) Multiple contrast test 3) Find best-fit dose-response model. Emax model analysis is shown here.||||0.2379
91067812|NCT04681066|182021997|OTHER|The null hypothesis of flat dose-response relationship as compared to placebo for the primary efficacy endpoint was tested against the alternative hypothesis of a non-constant dose-response curve using a multiple contrast test as described in the gMCP-Mod methodology. The contrast test statistic is a linear combination of the optimal contrast coefficients corresponding to the dose-response curve model (Emax or sigEmax) with the logit of rate of severe respiratory failure at each individual dose.|Odds Ratio, log|-2.5078||||0.2379|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test is based on significance level of one-sided 15%.The p-value shown here relates to fit of the Emax curve model based on all 4 dosage data points, not just the 0.5mg/kg data point shown here.|Mixed Models Analysis|See Statistical Analysis 1, 3, \& 4 for the other data points (placebo, 1.0mg/kg, \& 2.0mg/kg) that are part of this same curve and p-value analysis.||Analysis to determine whether a dose-response relationship exists. Multiple possible models (Emax and sigEmax) were tested using gMCP-Mod (Generalized Multiple Comparisons \& Modeling) analysis, performed in 3 steps as described in the SAP: 1) Odds ratio between each dose using logistic regression, with treatment, sex, and risk for organ failure (high/low HCT) as covariates 2) Multiple contrast test 3) Find best-fit dose-response model. Emax model analysis is shown here.||||0.2379
91067813|NCT04681066|182021997|OTHER|The null hypothesis of flat dose-response relationship as compared to placebo for the primary efficacy endpoint was tested against the alternative hypothesis of a non-constant dose-response curve using a multiple contrast test as described in the gMCP-Mod methodology. The contrast test statistic is a linear combination of the optimal contrast coefficients corresponding to the dose-response curve model (Emax or sigEmax) with the logit of rate of severe respiratory failure at each individual dose.|Odds Ratio, log|-4.834||||0.2379|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test is based on significance level of one-sided 15%.The p-value shown here relates to fit of the Emax curve model based on all 4 dosage data points, not just the 1.0mg/kg data point shown here.|Mixed Models Analysis|See Statistical Analysis 1, 2, \& 4 for the other data points (placebo, 0.5mg/kg, \& 2.0mg/kg) that are part of this same curve and p-value analysis.||Analysis to determine whether a dose-response relationship exists. Multiple possible models (Emax and sigEmax) were tested using gMCP-Mod (Generalized Multiple Comparisons \& Modeling) analysis, performed in 3 steps as described in the SAP: 1) Odds ratio between each dose using logistic regression, with treatment, sex, and risk for organ failure (high/low HCT) as covariates 2) Multiple contrast test 3) Find best-fit dose-response model. Emax model analysis is shown here.||||0.2379
90827464|NCT03201419|181529754|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|12.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|55.89||||||Based on a Bayesian analysis of a sigmoidal dose-response relationship.||55.89|-0.73|
90827465|NCT03201419|181529754|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|8.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|47.28||||||Based on a Bayesian analysis of a sigmoidal dose-response relationship.||47.28|-0.14|
90827466|NCT03201419|181529754|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|3.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|28.07||||||Based on a Bayesian analysis of a sigmoidal dose-response relationship.||28.07|-0.01|
90827467|NCT03201419|181529754|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|1.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|17.9||||||Based on a Bayesian analysis of a sigmoidal dose-response relationship.||17.90|-0.00|
90827468|NCT03201419|181529754|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|7.55||||||Based on a Bayesian analysis of a sigmoidal dose-response relationship.||7.55|-0.00|
90827469|NCT03201419|181529755|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.173||||0.0196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.318|-0.028||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||-0.028|-0.318|0.0196
90827470|NCT03201419|181529755|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.233||||0.0167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.423|-0.043||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||-0.043|-0.423|0.0167
90827471|NCT03201419|181529755|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.208||||0.0352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.401|-0.015||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||-0.015|-0.401|0.0352
91067814|NCT04681066|182021997|OTHER|The null hypothesis of flat dose-response relationship as compared to placebo for the primary efficacy endpoint was tested against the alternative hypothesis of a non-constant dose-response curve using a multiple contrast test as described in the gMCP-Mod methodology. The contrast test statistic is a linear combination of the optimal contrast coefficients corresponding to the dose-response curve model (Emax or sigEmax) with the logit of rate of severe respiratory failure at each individual dose.|Odds Ratio, log|-4.7657||||0.2379|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test is based on significance level of one-sided 15%.The p-value shown here relates to fit of the Emax curve model based on all 4 dosage data points, not just the 2.0mg/kg data point shown here.|Mixed Models Analysis|See Statistical Analysis 1, 2, \& 3 for the other data points (placebo, 0.5mg/kg, \& 1.0mg/kg) that are part of this same curve and p-value analysis.||Analysis to determine whether a dose-response relationship exists. Multiple possible models (Emax and sigEmax) were tested using gMCP-Mod (Generalized Multiple Comparisons \& Modeling) analysis, performed in 3 steps as described in the SAP: 1) Odds ratio between each dose using logistic regression, with treatment, sex, and risk for organ failure (high/low HCT) as covariates 2) Multiple contrast test 3) Find best-fit dose-response model. Emax model analysis is shown here.||||0.2379
91067815|NCT04681066|182021997|OTHER|The null hypothesis of flat dose-response relationship as compared to placebo for the primary efficacy endpoint was tested against the alternative hypothesis of a non-constant dose-response curve using a multiple contrast test as described in the gMCP-Mod methodology. The contrast test statistic is a linear combination of the optimal contrast coefficients corresponding to the dose-response curve model (Emax or sigEmax) with the logit of rate of severe respiratory failure at each individual dose.|Odds Ratio, log|-2.3604||||0.0291|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test is based on significance level of one-sided 15%.The p-value shown here relates to fit of the sigEmax curve model based on all 4 dosage data points, not just the placebo data point shown here.|Mixed Models Analysis|See Statistical Analysis 6, 7, \& 8 for the other data points (0.5mg/kg, 1.0mg/kg, and 2.0mg/kg) that are part of this same curve and p-value analysis.||Analysis to determine whether a dose-response relationship exists. Multiple possible models (Emax and sigEmax) were tested using gMCP-Mod (Generalized Multiple Comparisons \& Modeling) analysis, performed in 3 steps as described in the SAP: 1) Odds ratio between each dose using logistic regression, with treatment, sex, and risk for organ failure (high/low HCT) as covariates 2) Multiple contrast test 3) Find best-fit dose-response model. SigEmax model analysis is shown here.||||0.0291
91067816|NCT04681066|182021997|OTHER|The null hypothesis of flat dose-response relationship as compared to placebo for the primary efficacy endpoint was tested against the alternative hypothesis of a non-constant dose-response curve using a multiple contrast test as described in the gMCP-Mod methodology. The contrast test statistic is a linear combination of the optimal contrast coefficients corresponding to the dose-response curve model (Emax or sigEmax) with the logit of rate of severe respiratory failure at each individual dose.|Odds Ratio, log|-2.5078||||0.0291|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test is based on significance level of one-sided 15%.The p-value shown here relates to fit of the sigEmax curve model based on all 4 dosage data points, not just the 0.5mg/kg data point shown here.|Mixed Models Analysis|See Statistical Analysis 5, 7, \& 8 for the other data points (placebo, 1.0mg/kg, \& 2.0mg/kg) that are part of this same curve and p-value analysis.||Analysis to determine whether a dose-response relationship exists. Multiple possible models (Emax and sigEmax) were tested using gMCP-Mod (Generalized Multiple Comparisons \& Modeling) analysis, performed in 3 steps as described in the SAP: 1) Odds ratio between each dose using logistic regression, with treatment, sex, and risk for organ failure (high/low HCT) as covariates 2) Multiple contrast test 3) Find best-fit dose-response model. SigEmax model analysis is shown here.||||0.0291
91067817|NCT04681066|182021997|OTHER|The null hypothesis of flat dose-response relationship as compared to placebo for the primary efficacy endpoint was tested against the alternative hypothesis of a non-constant dose-response curve using a multiple contrast test as described in the gMCP-Mod methodology. The contrast test statistic is a linear combination of the optimal contrast coefficients corresponding to the dose-response curve model (Emax or sigEmax) with the logit of rate of severe respiratory failure at each individual dose.|Odds Ratio, log|-4.834||||0.0291|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test is based on significance level of one-sided 15%.The p-value shown here relates to fit of the sigEmax curve model based on all 4 dosage data points, not just the 1.0mg/kg data point shown here.|Mixed Models Analysis|See Statistical Analysis 5, 6, \& 8 for the other data points (placebo, 0.5mg/kg, \& 2.0mg/kg) that are part of this same curve and p-value analysis.||Analysis to determine whether a dose-response relationship exists. Multiple possible models (Emax and sigEmax) were tested using gMCP-Mod (Generalized Multiple Comparisons \& Modeling) analysis, performed in 3 steps as described in the SAP: 1) Odds ratio between each dose using logistic regression, with treatment, sex, and risk for organ failure (high/low HCT) as covariates 2) Multiple contrast test 3) Find best-fit dose-response model. SigEmax model analysis is shown here.||||0.0291
91077857|NCT02913105|182041136|OTHER|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.95||||0.133|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.89|1.01|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Cholesterol: Day 42||1.01|0.89|0.1330
90827472|NCT03201419|181529755|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.057||||0.6402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.295|0.182||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.182|-0.295|0.6402
90827473|NCT03201419|181529755|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.121||||0.3602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.381|0.139||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.139|-0.381|0.3602
90827474|NCT03201419|181529755|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|0.074||||0.4018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.099|0.247||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.247|-0.099|0.4018
90827475|NCT03201419|181529756|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.133||||0.1354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.308|0.042||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.042|-0.308|0.1354
90827476|NCT03201419|181529756|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.091||||0.4238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.315|0.133||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.133|-0.315|0.4238
91067818|NCT04681066|182021997|OTHER|The null hypothesis of flat dose-response relationship as compared to placebo for the primary efficacy endpoint was tested against the alternative hypothesis of a non-constant dose-response curve using a multiple contrast test as described in the gMCP-Mod methodology. The contrast test statistic is a linear combination of the optimal contrast coefficients corresponding to the dose-response curve model (Emax or sigEmax) with the logit of rate of severe respiratory failure at each individual dose.|Odds Ratio, log|-4.7657||||0.0291|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test is based on significance level of one-sided 15%.The p-value shown here relates to fit of the sigEmax curve model based on all 4 dosage data points, not just the 2.0mg/kg data point shown here.|Mixed Models Analysis|See Statistical Analysis 5, 6, \& 7 for the other data points (placebo, 0.5mg/kg, \& 1.0mg/kg) that are part of this same curve and p-value analysis.||Analysis to determine whether a dose-response relationship exists. Multiple possible models (Emax and sigEmax) were tested using gMCP-Mod (Generalized Multiple Comparisons \& Modeling) analysis, performed in 3 steps as described in the SAP: 1) Odds ratio between each dose using logistic regression, with treatment, sex, and risk for organ failure (high/low HCT) as covariates 2) Multiple contrast test 3) Find best-fit dose-response model. Emax model analysis is shown here.||||0.0291
91067819|NCT04681066|182022008|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0372|||||||Finkelstein-Schoenfeld|||||||0.0372
91067820|NCT04681066|182022008|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4918|||||||Finkelstein-Schoenfeld|||||||0.4918
91067821|NCT04681066|182022008|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6224|||||||Finkelstein-Schoenfeld|||||||0.6224
91067822|NCT00300885|182022042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||0.915||95.0|0.94|1.41||According to protocol specified O'Brien-Fleming type alpha spending function and 384 deaths at interim analysis (IA), one-sided alpha value for IA was 0.0046.|Log Rank||Two treatment groups compared using one-sided log-rank test (Sorafenib+C/P over Placebo+C/P) with overall alpha of 0.025 stratified by same stratification factors as randomization|Sample size based on primary efficacy endpoint of OS. Clinically meaningful improvement defined as 30% improvement in median OS (i.e. HR of 0.76923, Sorafenib+C/P over Placebo+C/P -Null: theta\>=1, Alternative: theta\<=0.76923). With overall one-sided alpha of 0.025, 90% power and randomization of 1:1, one formal interim analysis and one final analysis were planned using O'Brien-Fleming type error spending function, and a total of 614 events (deaths) were required.||1.41|0.94|0.915
91067823|NCT00300885|182022043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.433||95.0|0.84|1.16|||Log Rank|||Two treatment groups compared using one-sided log-rank test (Sorafenib+C/P over Placebo+C/P) with alpha of 0.025 stratified by same stratification factors at randomization||1.16|0.84|0.433
91067824|NCT00300885|182022044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in response rate (CR+PR rate)|-3.65||||0.1015||95.0|-9.18|1.89||no adjustments|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||difference in response rates (Complete Response (CR) + Partial Response (PR)) = Placebo+C/P - Sorafenib+C/P|Objective response rate (ie. CR+PR rate) was compared between treatment arms using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with one-side alpha 0.025 adjusting for same stratification factors as randomization||1.89|-9.18|0.1015
91067825|NCT01637922|182022048|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio (%)|118.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.4||0.1638|TWO_SIDED|90.0|107.06|130.32||p-value for ratio outside interval 80% to 125%|ANOVA|Log transformed endpoints were analyzed using an ANOVA model, including treatment as a fixed effect and subject as a random effect.|The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation|Methadone(MTD) + Faldaprevir(FDV) on Day 9 vs. Methadone(MTD) alone on Day 1||130.32|107.06|0.1638
91067826|NCT01637922|182022049|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio (%)|114.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.2||0.0391|TWO_SIDED|90.0|104.812|124.164||p-value for ratio outside interval 80% to 125%|ANOVA|Log transformed endpoints were analyzed using an ANOVA model, including treatment as a fixed effect and subject as a random effect.|The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation|Methadone(MTD) + Faldaprevir(FDV) on Day 9 vs. Methadone(MTD) alone on Day 1||124.164|104.812|0.0391
91067827|NCT01637922|182022050|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio (%)|111.79|STANDARD_DEVIATION|18.7||0.0603|TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.243|125.922||p-value for ratio outside interval 80% to 125%|ANOVA|Log transformed endpoints were analyzed using an ANOVA model, including treatment as a fixed effect and subject as a random effect.|The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation|Methadone(MTD) + Faldaprevir(FDV) on Day 9 vs. Methadone(MTD) alone on Day 1||125.922|99.243|0.0603
91067828|NCT01637922|182022051|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio (%)|117.65|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.0||0.1424|TWO_SIDED|90.0|106.89|129.5||p-value for ratio outside interval 80% to 125%|ANOVA|Log transformed endpoints were analyzed using an ANOVA model, including treatment as a fixed effect and subject as a random effect.|The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation|S-Methadone(MTD) + Faldaprevir(FDV) on Day 9 vs. S-Methadone(MTD) alone on Day 1||129.50|106.89|0.1424
90827477|NCT03201419|181529756|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.22||||0.0574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.446|0.007||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.007|-0.446|0.0574
90827478|NCT03201419|181529756|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|0.058||||0.6579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.199|0.315||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.315|-0.199|0.6579
91067829|NCT01637922|182022052|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio (%)|111.46|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.3||0.0367|TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.42|123.715||p-value for ratio outside interval 80% to 125%|ANOVA|Log transformed endpoints were analyzed using an ANOVA model, including treatment as a fixed effect and subject as a random effect.|The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation|S-Methadone(MTD) + Faldaprevir(FDV) on Day 9 vs. S-Methadone(MTD) alone on Day 1||123.715|100.420|0.0367
90827479|NCT03201419|181529756|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.17||||0.2337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.11||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.110|-0.450|0.2337
90827480|NCT03201419|181529756|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.136||||0.1639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.328|0.056||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.056|-0.328|0.1639
90827481|NCT03201419|181529757|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-87.2||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-173.2|-1.2|||MMRM|||||-1.2|-173.2|0.0470
90827482|NCT03201419|181529757|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-130.2||||0.0237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-242.9|-17.6|||MMRM|||||-17.6|-242.9|0.0237
91067830|NCT01637922|182022053|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio (%)|111.52|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.7||0.0488|TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.577|124.888||p-value for ratio outside interval 80% to 125%|ANOVA|Log transformed endpoints were analyzed using an ANOVA model, including treatment as a fixed effect and subject as a random effect.|The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation|S-Methadone(MTD) + Faldaprevir(FDV) on Day 9 vs. S-Methadone(MTD) alone on Day 1||124.888|99.577|0.0488
91067831|NCT01637922|182022054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|-0.01098|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.189801|0.16864||||||Pearson correlation of trough concentrations of R-methadone and OOWS||0.168640|-0.189801|
91067832|NCT01637922|182022054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|-0.10188|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.287471|0.092062||||||Pearson correlation of change from baseline for trough concentrations of R-methadone and OOWS||0.092062|-0.287471|
91067833|NCT01637922|182022054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|-0.03198|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.209893|0.148238||||||Pearson correlation of trough concentrations of S-methadone and OOWS||0.148238|-0.209893|
91067834|NCT01637922|182022054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|0.0026|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.189172|0.194156||||||Pearson correlation of change from baseline for trough concentrations of S-methadone and OOWS||0.194156|-0.189172|
91067835|NCT01637922|182022054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|-0.03364|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.214505|0.149733||||||Pearson correlation of trough concentrations of Buprenorphine and OOWS||0.149733|-0.214505|
91067836|NCT01637922|182022054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|-0.14703|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.404929|0.135425||||||Pearson correlation of change from baseline for trough concentrations of Buprenorphine and OOWS||0.135425|-0.404929|
91067837|NCT01637922|182022054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|-0.05431|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.240578|0.136305||||||Pearson correlation of trough concentrations of norbuprenorphine and OOWS||0.136305|-0.240578|
91067838|NCT01637922|182022054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|-0.09727|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.344024|0.163687||||||Pearson correlation of change from baseline for trough concentrations of norbuprenorphine and OOWS||0.163687|-0.344024|
91067839|NCT01637922|182022054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|0.36105|||||||||||||Confidence interval is not provided due to sparse data. There was only 1 patient for this analysis.|Pearson correlation of trough concentrations of naloxone and OOWS||||
91067840|NCT01637922|182022055|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio (%)|108.71|STANDARD_DEVIATION|36.1||0.1642|TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.14|138.8||p-value for ratio outside interval 80% to 125%|ANOVA|Log transformed endpoints were analyzed using an ANOVA model, including treatment as a fixed effect and subject as a random effect.|The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation|BUPRENORPHINE(BUP) + Faldaprevir(FDV) on Day 9 vs. BUPRENORPHINE(BUP) alone on Day 1||138.80|85.14|0.1642
90827483|NCT03201419|181529757|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-110.8||||0.0569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-224.9|3.3|||MMRM|||||3.3|-224.9|0.0569
91067841|NCT01637922|182022056|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio (%)|92.43|STANDARD_DEVIATION|33.7||0.142|TWO_SIDED|90.0|73.48|116.27||p-value for ratio outside interval 80% to 125%|ANOVA|Log transformed endpoints were analyzed using an ANOVA model, including treatment as a fixed effect and subject as a random effect.|The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation|BUPRENORPHINE(BUP) + Faldaprevir(FDV) on Day 9 vs. BUPRENORPHINE(BUP) alone on Day 1||116.27|73.48|0.1420
91067842|NCT01637922|182022057|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio (%)|108.36|STANDARD_DEVIATION|38.1||0.1915|TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.611|143.883||p-value for ratio outside interval 80% to 125%|ANOVA|Log transformed endpoints were analyzed using an ANOVA model, including treatment as a fixed effect and subject as a random effect.|The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation|BUPRENORPHINE(BUP) + Faldaprevir(FDV) on Day 9 vs. BUPRENORPHINE(BUP) alone on Day 1||143.883|81.611|0.1915
91067843|NCT01637922|182022058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|0.04783|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13275|0.224946||||||Pearson correlation of trough concentrations of R-methadone and SOWS||0.224946|-0.132750|
91067844|NCT01637922|182022058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|-0.39865|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.547072|-0.222288||||||Pearson correlation of change from baseline for trough concentrations of R-methadone and SOWS||-0.222288|-0.547072|
91067845|NCT01637922|182022058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|0.11175|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.069336|0.284848||||||Pearson correlation of trough concentrations of S-methadone and SOWS||0.284848|-0.069336|
91067846|NCT01637922|182022058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|-0.16815|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34787|0.025107||||||Pearson correlation of change from baseline for trough concentrations of S-methadone and SOWS||0.025107|-0.347870|
90827484|NCT03201419|181529757|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-23.9||||0.7383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-164.8|117.0|||MMRM|||||117.0|-164.8|0.7383
90827485|NCT03201419|181529757|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-71.0||||0.3626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-224.3|82.3|||MMRM|||||82.3|-224.3|0.3626
90827486|NCT03201419|181529757|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|23.4||||0.6524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.9|125.7|||MMRM|||||125.7|-78.9|0.6524
90827487|NCT03201419|181529758|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-49.5||||0.3273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-148.9|49.9||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||49.9|-148.9|0.3273
90827488|NCT03201419|181529758|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-74.6||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-202.0|52.9||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||52.9|-202.0|0.2500
91067847|NCT01637922|182022058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|0.0126|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17016|0.194417||||||Pearson correlation of trough concentrations of Buprenorphine and SOWS||0.194417|-0.170160|
91067848|NCT01637922|182022058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|0.02352|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.253932|0.29696||||||Pearson correlation of change from baseline for trough concentrations of Buprenorphine and SOWS||0.296960|-0.253932|
91067849|NCT01637922|182022058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|-0.05787|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24392|0.132819||||||Pearson correlation of trough concentrations of norbuprenorphine and SOWS||0.132819|-0.243920|
91067850|NCT01637922|182022058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|0.04052|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.218159|0.293233||||||Pearson correlation of change from baseline for trough concentrations of norbuprenorphine and SOWS||0.293233|-0.218159|
91067851|NCT01637922|182022058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|0.92231|||||||||||||Confidence interval is not provided due to sparse data. There was only 1 patient for this analysis.|Pearson correlation of trough concentrations of naloxone and SOWS||||
91067852|NCT01637922|182022059|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio (%)|138.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|50.7||0.6889|TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.2|195.92||p-value for ratio outside interval 80% to 125%|ANOVA|Log transformed endpoints were analyzed using an ANOVA model, including treatment as a fixed effect and subject as a random effect.|The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation|NORBUPRENORPHINE(BUP) + Faldaprevir(FDV) on Day 9 vs. NORBUPRENORPHINE(BUP) alone on Day 1||195.92|97.20|0.6889
91067853|NCT01637922|182022060|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio (%)|132.86|STANDARD_DEVIATION|51.1||0.6188|TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.32|189.16||p-value for ratio outside interval 80% to 125%|ANOVA|Log transformed endpoints were analyzed using an ANOVA model, including treatment as a fixed effect and subject as a random effect.|The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation|NORBUPRENORPHINE(BUP) + Faldaprevir(FDV) on Day 9 vs. NORBUPRENORPHINE(BUP) alone on Day 1||189.16|93.32|0.6188
91067854|NCT01637922|182022061|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio (%)|112.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|52.5||0.3152|TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.85|167.67||p-value for ratio outside interval 80% to 125%|ANOVA|Log transformed endpoints were analyzed using an ANOVA model, including treatment as a fixed effect and subject as a random effect.|The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation|NORBUPRENORPHINE(BUP) + Faldaprevir(FDV) on Day 9 vs. NORBUPRENORPHINE(BUP) alone on Day 1||167.67|74.85|0.3152
91067855|NCT01637922|182022062|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio (%)|98.94|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.6||0.0107|TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.81|114.076||p-value for ratio outside interval 80% to 125%|ANOVA|Log transformed endpoints were analyzed using an ANOVA model, including treatment as a fixed effect and subject as a random effect.|The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation|NALOXONE(BUP) + Faldaprevir(FDV) on Day 9 vs. NALOXONE(BUP) alone on Day 1||114.076|85.810|0.0107
91067856|NCT01637922|182022063|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio (%)|94.33|STANDARD_DEVIATION|27.6||0.0738|TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.017|114.054||p-value for ratio outside interval 80% to 125%|ANOVA|Log transformed endpoints were analyzed using an ANOVA model, including treatment as a fixed effect and subject as a random effect.|The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation|NALOXONE(BUP) + Faldaprevir(FDV) on Day 9 vs. NALOXONE(BUP) alone on Day 1||114.054|78.017|0.0738
91067857|NCT00638404|182022065|OTHER|correlation of anxiety, anticipated pain medication use and anticipated pain to 24 hour evoked pain measured|||||<|0.001|||||||Spearman Correlation|anxiety to evoked pain is 0.24 (P\<.001); anticipated pain to evoked pain is 0.33 (P\<.001); anticipated pain medication to evoked pain is 0.33(P\<.001).||||||<.001
91067858|NCT00638404|182022065|OTHER|correlation of anxiety to evoked pain at 24 hour|||||<|0.001|||||||Spearman Correlation|||||||<.001
91067859|NCT00638404|182022065|OTHER|correlation of anticipated pain medication 24 hour evoked pain measured|||||<|0.001|||||||Spearman Correlation|||||||<.001
91067860|NCT00638404|182022065|OTHER|correlation of anticipated pain to 24 hour evoked pain measured|||||<|0.001|||||||Spearman Correlation|||||||<.001
90827489|NCT03201419|181529758|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-93.5||||0.1537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-222.3|35.2||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||35.2|-222.3|0.1537
90827490|NCT03201419|181529758|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|33.6||||0.6515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-113.1|180.3||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||180.3|-113.1|0.6515
90827491|NCT03201419|181529758|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-75.7||||0.3506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-235.3|83.9||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||83.9|-235.3|0.3506
91067861|NCT00638404|182022066|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Spearman Correlation|||preoperative questionnaire evaluating anticipated amount of pain medication potentially needed postoperatively; 0= none at all up to 100=as much as possible||||<.001
91067862|NCT00638404|182022067|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Spearman Correlation|||||||<.001
91067863|NCT00638404|182022068|OTHER|Correlation of|||||<|0.001|||||||Spearman Correlation|||||||<.001
91067864|NCT00603902|182022069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio, log|2.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.31|3.13|||Regression, Logistic|Adjustments for baseline body weight.||||3.13|2.31|<0.0001
91067865|NCT00603902|182022070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.44|-2.56|||ANCOVA|||||-2.56|-3.44|<0.0001
91067866|NCT02282631|182022094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|"U=390.5 Z=-2.3 p=0.02~The mean and SD values are provided for descriptive purposes only."||||||0.02
91067867|NCT02282631|182022095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||||||"U=665.5 Z=-2.3 p=0.02~The mean and SD values are provided for descriptive purposes only."|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.02
91067868|NCT02282631|182022096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||||||"U=596.5 Z=-2.4 p=0.02~The mean and SD values are provided for descriptive purposes only."|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.02
91067869|NCT02282631|182022097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||||||"U=955.0 Z=-2.5 p=0.01~The mean and SD values are provided for descriptive purposes only."|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.01
91067870|NCT00459290|182022105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7912|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.7912
91067871|NCT00459290|182022106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1545|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.1545
91067872|NCT00459290|182022107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0648|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0648
91067873|NCT00687271|182022108|OTHER||Difference in Percentage Change|-10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|-5.5|||Longitudinal Data Analysis (LDA) model|LDA model includes factors for time, treatment, baseline triglyceride (TG) category, and time-by treatment interactions.||||-5.5|-14.6|
91067874|NCT00687271|182022108|OTHER||Difference in Percentage Change|-17.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.4|-12.5|||LDA model|LDA model includes factors for time, treatment, baseline triglyceride (TG) category, and time-by treatment interactions.||||-12.5|-23.4|
90827492|NCT03201419|181529758|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-85.4||||0.1255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-194.8|24.1||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||24.1|-194.8|0.1255
90827493|NCT02784171|181529760|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0372|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0372
90827494|NCT00369577|181529767|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.088||||||p-values (adjusted) using Dunnett's t-test in main effects ANCOVA model|ANCOVA|||||||0.0880
91067875|NCT00687271|182022111|OTHER||Difference in Percentage Change|-8.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|-4.4|||LDA model|LDA model includes factors for time, treatment, baseline triglyceride (TG) category, and time-by treatment interactions.||||-4.4|-12.7|
91067876|NCT00687271|182022111|OTHER||Diffence in Percentage Change|-13.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9|-8.9|||LDA model|LDA model includes factors for time, treatment, baseline triglyceride (TG) category, and time-by treatment interactions.||||-8.9|-18.9|
91067877|NCT00687271|182022112|OTHER||Difference in Percentage Change|-7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|-3.9|||LDA model|LDA model includes factors for time, treatment, baseline triglyceride (TG) category, and time-by treatment interactions.||||-3.9|-11.5|
91067878|NCT00687271|182022112|OTHER||Difference in Percentage Change|-12.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.8|-7.6|||LDA model|LDA model includes factors for time, treatment, baseline triglyceride (TG) category, and time-by treatment interactions.||||-7.6|-16.8|
91067879|NCT00687271|182022113|OTHER||Difference in Percentage Change|-7.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|-4.1|||LDA model|LDA model includes factors for time, treatment, baseline triglyceride (TG) category, and time-by treatment interactions.||||-4.1|-10.8|
91067880|NCT00687271|182022113|OTHER||Difference in Percentage Change|-11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.1|-7.0|||LDA model|LDA model includes factors for time, treatment, baseline triglyceride (TG) category, and time-by treatment interactions.||||-7.0|-15.1|
91067881|NCT00687271|182022114|OTHER||Dfferecne in Percentage Change|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|1.8|||LDA model|LDA model includes factors for time, treatment, baseline triglyceride (TG) category, and time-by treatment interactions.||||1.8|-6.6|
91067882|NCT00687271|182022114|OTHER||Difference in Percentage Change|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|4.4|||LDA model|LDA model includes factors for time, treatment, baseline triglyceride (TG) category, and time-by treatment interactions.||||4.4|-5.8|
91067883|NCT00687271|182022115|OTHER||Difference in Percentage Change|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|5.9|||LDA model|LDA model includes factors for time, treatment, baseline triglyceride (TG) category, and time-by treatment interactions.||||5.9|-7.7|
91067884|NCT00687271|182022115|OTHER||Difference in Percentage Change|5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|16.9|||LDA model|LDA model includes factors for time, treatment, baseline triglyceride (TG) category, and time-by treatment interactions.||||16.9|-4.6|
91067885|NCT02453334|182022116|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.51||||0.0143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.87|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.87|0.30|0.0143
91067886|NCT02453334|182022116|OTHER||Percentage difference|-15.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.01|-3.1||||||||-3.10|-28.01|
91067887|NCT02453334|182022118|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.04||||0.0097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|3.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.50|1.19|0.0097
90827495|NCT00369577|181529767|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002||||||p-values (adjusted) using Dunnett's t-test in main effects ANCOVA model|ANCOVA|||||||0.0002
91067888|NCT02453334|182022118|OTHER||Percentage difference|16.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.19|28.51||||||Percentage difference||28.51|4.19|
91067889|NCT02453334|182022119|OTHER||Percentage difference|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.85|7.45||||||||7.45|-12.85|
91067890|NCT02453334|182022119|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.5758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Placebo group was used as the denominator for odds ratio calculation.||1.60|0.43|0.5758
91067891|NCT02453334|182022120|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.2772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.56||Placebo group was used as the denominator for odds ratio calculation|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.56|0.76|0.2772
91067892|NCT02453334|182022120|OTHER||Percentage difference|5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.01|16.43||||||||16.43|-5.01|
91067893|NCT02453334|182022121|OTHER|||||||0.0011|||||||Log Rank|P-value was estimated using logrank test stratified by country||||||0.0011
91067894|NCT02453334|182022122|OTHER||Percentage difference|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|9.08||||||||9.08|-7.60|
90827496|NCT00369577|181529768|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0583|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0583
90827497|NCT00369577|181529768|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||< 0.0001
90827498|NCT00369577|181529769|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0067|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0067
90827499|NCT00369577|181529769|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0003
91067895|NCT02453334|182022122|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.8924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|2.29|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.29|0.49|0.8924
91067896|NCT02453334|182022123|OTHER||Percentage difference|-9.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.41|0.77||||||||0.77|-20.41|
91067897|NCT02453334|182022123|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.55||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Placebo group was used as the denominator for odds ratio calculation.||The odds ratio (95% \[CI) and P-value of treatment effect is based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi-squared test adjusting for country. Placebo group was used as the denominator for odds ratio calculation.||1.06|0.28|0.0740
91067898|NCT02453334|182022124|OTHER||Percentage difference|-12.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.31|-0.91||||||||-0.91|-23.31|
91067899|NCT02453334|182022124|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.51||||0.0446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.99||The odds ratio (95% \[CI) and P-value of treatment effect is based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi-squared test adjusting for country.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Placebo group was used as the denominator for odds ratio calculation||||0.99|0.26|0.0446
91067900|NCT02453334|182022125|OTHER||Percentage difference|-19.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.9|-8.69||||||||-8.69|-30.90|
91067901|NCT02453334|182022125|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.3||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.63||The odds ratio (95% \[CI) and P-value of treatment effect is based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi-squared test adjusting for country.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Placebo group was used as the denominator for odds ratio calculation.||||0.63|0.14|0.0010
91067902|NCT02453334|182022126|OTHER||Percentage difference|-21.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.22|-9.51||||||||-9.51|-33.22|
91067903|NCT02453334|182022126|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.29||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.61||The odds ratio (95% \[CI) and P-value of treatment effect is based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi-squared test adjusting for country|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Placebo group was used as the denominator for odds ratio calculation.|||0.61|0.13|0.0009
91067904|NCT02453334|182022127|OTHER||Percentage difference|-16.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.73|-4.26||||||||-4.26|-27.73|
91067905|NCT02453334|182022127|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.34||||0.0093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.79||The odds ratio (95% \[CI) and P-value of treatment effect is based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi-squared test adjusting for country.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Placebo group was used as the denominator for odds ratio calculation.|||0.79|0.14|0.0093
91067906|NCT02453334|182022128|OTHER||Percentage difference|-4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.37|6.57||||||||6.57|-15.37|
91067907|NCT02453334|182022128|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.4786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.89||The odds ratio (95% \[CI) and P-value of treatment effect is based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi-squared test adjusting for country.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Placebo group was used as the denominator for odds ratio calculation.|||1.89|0.26|0.4786
91067908|NCT02453334|182022129|OTHER||Percentage difference|-7.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.25|4.55||||||||4.55|-19.25|
90827500|NCT00369577|181529770|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0076|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0076
91067909|NCT02453334|182022129|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.54||||0.2084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.43||The odds ratio (95% \[CI) and P-value of treatment effect is based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi-squared test adjusting for country.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Placebo group was used as the denominator for odds ratio calculation.|||1.43|0.20|0.2084
91067910|NCT02453334|182022130|OTHER||Percentage difference|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.33|15.54||||||||15.54|-9.33|
91067911|NCT02453334|182022130|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.6508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|3.24|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The odds ratio (95% \[CI) and P-value of treatment effect is based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi-squared test adjusting for country.|Placebo group was used as the denominator for odds ratio calculation.|||3.24|0.48|0.6508
91067912|NCT02453334|182022132|OTHER|||||||0.0063||||||P-value was estimated using logrank test stratified by pooled sites.|Log Rank|||||||0.0063
91067913|NCT02362672|182022140|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.55||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED||||||z-test|||NKTR-181 (Double-blind Treatment Phase), Placebo (Double-blind Treatment Phase)||||0.0019
91067914|NCT05483686|182022146|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Regression, Logistic|||This analysis aims to detect a significant change (p = .05) in percentage of participants with HIV transmission risk between Shine Intervention participants and Control Videos participants from Baseline to Month 6.||||.19
91067915|NCT05483686|182022147|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.24|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis aims to detect a significant change (p = .05) in ART adherence between Shine Intervention participants and Control Videos participants from Baseline to Month 6.||||=.24
90827501|NCT00369577|181529770|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0001
90827502|NCT00699660|181529771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Comparison of CAPS/WHODAS vs Nonstructured Interview study arms: linear and logistic mixed effects regression with clinical examiner stratified by study group as a random effect and study group as a fixed effect.|Regression, Linear|Covariates included experience, use of template,tests,reviewing records,age,education, study site,reviewer, and expert reviewer by group interaction.||Our sample size calculation yielded 466 for a power of 0.80 to detect a 10% absolute difference in sensitivity and adjusted for intraclass correlation. The number of covariates in regression models was limited to ensure the effective sample size remained ten times greater than the degrees of freedom in the model.||||<.001
91067916|NCT05483686|182022148|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis aims to detect a significant change (p = .05) in condom use between Shine Intervention participants and Control Videos participants from Baseline to Month 6.||||.79
91067917|NCT05483686|182022149|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis aims to detect a significant change (p = .05) in barriers to ART use between Shine Intervention participants and Control Videos participants from Baseline to Month 6.||||.81
91067918|NCT05483686|182022150|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis aims to detect a significant change (p = .05) in barriers to PrEP use between Shine Intervention participants and Control Videos participants from Baseline to Month 6.||||.14
90827503|NCT00699660|181529772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<.01
91067919|NCT05483686|182022151|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis aims to detect a significant change (p = .05) in barriers to condom use between Shine Intervention participants and Control Videos participants from Baseline to Month 6.||||.81
91067920|NCT05483686|182022152|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis aims to detect a significant change (p = .05) in social support between Shine Intervention participants and Control Videos participants from Baseline to Month 6.||||.30
91067921|NCT05483686|182022153|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis aims to detect a significant change (p = .05) in gender identity comfort between Shine Intervention participants and Control Videos participants from Baseline to Month 6.||||.94
91067922|NCT01369030|182022188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.3||0|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.000
91067923|NCT06152224|182022191|EQUIVALENCE|"Power analysis was determined based on a 4.3 point improvement on the Vaizey score in both groups.~With an allowable difference of 1 point between randomized groups, standard deviation = 3, margin = 4.3, power = 0.8, alpha = 0.05, attrition = 25 percent."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.0||0.918|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|continuous outcome||change from baseline||||0.918
91067924|NCT06152224|182022196|EQUIVALENCE|Power analysis was determined based on a 3 point improvement on the Vaizey score in both groups. With an allowable difference of 1 point between randomized groups, type I error level = 0.05, power = 0.8, and standard deviation of outcome of 4.||||||0.801||||||a prior threshold 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|continuous outcome||change from baseline||||0.801
91067925|NCT06152224|182022196|EQUIVALENCE|Power analysis was determined based on a 3 point improvement on the Vaizey score in both groups. With an allowable difference of 1 point between randomized groups, type I error level = 0.05, power = 0.8, and standard deviation of outcome of 4.||||||0.317||||||a priori threshold 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|continuous outcome||change from baseline||||0.317
91067926|NCT06152224|182022197|EQUIVALENCE|Power analysis was determined based on a 3 point improvement on the Vaizey score in both groups. With an allowable difference of 1 point between randomized groups, type I error level = 0.05, power = 0.8, and standard deviation of outcome of 4.|||||<|0.001||||||a prior threshold 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|continuous outcome||change from baseline Brink Score: Pressure||||<0.001
91067927|NCT06152224|182022197|EQUIVALENCE|Power analysis was determined based on a 3 point improvement on the Vaizey score in both groups. With an allowable difference of 1 point between randomized groups, type I error level = 0.05, power = 0.8, and standard deviation of outcome of 4.|||||<|0.001||||||a prior threshold 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|continuous outcome||change from baseline in Brink Score: Pressure||||<0.001
91067928|NCT06152224|182022198|EQUIVALENCE|Power analysis was determined based on a 3 point improvement on the Vaizey score in both groups. With an allowable difference of 1 point between randomized groups, type I error level = 0.05, power = 0.8, and standard deviation of outcome of 4.|||||<|0.001||||||a prior threshold 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|continuous outcome||Change from baseline in Brink Score: Vertical Displacement||||<0.001
91067929|NCT06152224|182022198|EQUIVALENCE|Power analysis was determined based on a 3 point improvement on the Vaizey score in both groups. With an allowable difference of 1 point between randomized groups, type I error level = 0.05, power = 0.8, and standard deviation of outcome of 4.|||||<|0.001||||||a prior threshold 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|continuous outcome||change from baseline in Brink Score: Vertical Displacement||||<0.001
91067930|NCT06152224|182022199|EQUIVALENCE|Power analysis was determined based on a 3 point improvement on the Vaizey score in both groups. With an allowable difference of 1 point between randomized groups, type I error level = 0.05, power = 0.8, and standard deviation of outcome of 4.|||||<|0.001||||||a prior threshold 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|continuous outcome||change from baseline in Brink Score: Duration Contraction||||<0.001
91067931|NCT06152224|182022199|EQUIVALENCE|Power analysis was determined based on a 3 point improvement on the Vaizey score in both groups. With an allowable difference of 1 point between randomized groups, type I error level = 0.05, power = 0.8, and standard deviation of outcome of 4.|||||<|0.001||||||a prior threshold 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|continuous outcome||change from baseline in Brink Score: Duration Contraction||||<0.001
91067932|NCT06152224|182022209|EQUIVALENCE|Power analysis was determined based on a 3 point improvement on the Vaizey score in both groups. With an allowable difference of 1 point between randomized groups, type I error level = 0.05, power = 0.8, and standard deviation of outcome of 4.||||||0.035||||||a prior threshold 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|continuous outcome||Q1. The app was easy to use||||0.035
91067933|NCT06152224|182022209|EQUIVALENCE|Power analysis was determined based on a 3 point improvement on the Vaizey score in both groups. With an allowable difference of 1 point between randomized groups, type I error level = 0.05, power = 0.8, and standard deviation of outcome of 4.||||||0.063||||||a prior threshold 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|continuous outcome||Q2. It was easy for me to learn to use the app||||0.063
91067934|NCT06152224|182022209|EQUIVALENCE|Power analysis was determined based on a 3 point improvement on the Vaizey score in both groups. With an allowable difference of 1 point between randomized groups, type I error level = 0.05, power = 0.8, and standard deviation of outcome of 4.||||||0.587||||||a prior threshold 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|continuous outcome||Q11. I would use this app again||||0.587
91067935|NCT06152224|182022209|EQUIVALENCE|Power analysis was determined based on a 3 point improvement on the Vaizey score in both groups. With an allowable difference of 1 point between randomized groups, type I error level = 0.05, power = 0.8, and standard deviation of outcome of 4.||||||0.107||||||a prior threshold 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|continuous outcome||Q12. Overall, I am satisfied with this app||||0.107
90827504|NCT00699660|181529773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive statistics on mean and standard deviation.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>.05
91067936|NCT06152224|182022209|EQUIVALENCE|Power analysis was determined based on a 3 point improvement on the Vaizey score in both groups. With an allowable difference of 1 point between randomized groups, type I error level = 0.05, power = 0.8, and standard deviation of outcome of 4.||||||0.486||||||a prior threshold 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|continuous outcome||Q15. The app helped me manage my health effectively||||0.486
91067937|NCT03126630|182022214|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis that there are no differences between the classes in the population. The purpose of the test is to evaluate how likely the observed frequencies would be assuming the null hypothesis is true.||||||0.27541|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.27541
90827505|NCT00699660|181529774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|47.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.86||0.012|TWO_SIDED|||||0.05 level based on a two tailed test.|Regression, Linear|Covariates included years of experience, use of template, use of tests, age, education, study site.||Estimates of the influence on total time and tests of statistical significance were derived from multilevel mixed-effects linear regression (xtmixed in Stata)||||.012
91067938|NCT03126630|182022217|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.0||||0.1936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0||Not enough events||Log Rank||||||0.0|0.1936
91067939|NCT03126630|182022218|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.81||||0.1952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|4.51|||Log Rank|||||4.51|0.73|0.1952
91067940|NCT06028438|182022223|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.06|||=|0.822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.48|||ANCOVA|||||0.48|-0.60|=0.822
91067941|NCT02110758|182022284|OTHER|||||||0.025|||||||Regression, Logistic|||To estimate exposure to the intervention on the Access composite score, we used a difference-in-differences model with fixed effects for practices. The dependent variable was the composite score. The intervention effects were represented by the coefficient estimates for survey time period (pre or post) interacted with status (pilot or comparison).||||.025
91067942|NCT02110758|182022284|OTHER|||||||0.69|||||||Regression, Logistic|||To estimate exposure to the intervention on the Affective Communication composite score, we used a difference-in-differences model with fixed effects for practices. The dependent variable was the composite score. The intervention effects were represented by the coefficient estimates for survey time period (pre or post) interacted with status (pilot or comparison).||||0.69
91067943|NCT02110758|182022284|OTHER|||||||0.013|||||||Regression, Logistic|||To estimate exposure to the intervention on the Shared Decision-Making composite score, we used a difference-in-differences model with fixed effects for practices. The dependent variable was the composite score. The intervention effects were represented by the coefficient estimates for survey time period (pre or post) interacted with status (pilot or comparison).||||.013
91067944|NCT02110758|182022284|OTHER|||||||0.85|||||||Regression, Logistic|||To estimate exposure to the intervention on the Patient Self-Management composite score, we used a difference-in-differences model with fixed effects for practices. The dependent variable was the composite score. The intervention effects were represented by the coefficient estimates for survey time period (pre or post) interacted with status (pilot or comparison).||||0.85
91067945|NCT02110758|182022284|OTHER|||||||0.013|||||||Regression, Logistic|||To estimate exposure to the intervention on the Exchanging Information composite score, we used a difference-in-differences model with fixed effects for practices. The dependent variable was the composite score. The intervention effects were represented by the coefficient estimates for survey time period (pre or post) interacted with status (pilot or comparison).||||.013
91067946|NCT02110758|182022284|OTHER|||||||0.053|||||||Regression, Logistic|||To estimate exposure to the intervention on the Overall Rating of Treatment Team composite score, we used a difference-in-differences model with fixed effects for practices. The dependent variable was the composite score. The intervention effects were represented by the coefficient estimates for survey time period (pre or post) interacted with status (pilot or comparison).||||.053
91067947|NCT02110758|182022286|OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||Regression, Logistic|||To estimate exposure to the intervention on Per Member Per Month Hospitalizations, we used a difference-in-differences model with fixed effects for practices. The dependent variable was Per Member Per Month Hospitalizations. The intervention effects were represented by the coefficient estimates for utilization time period (baseline or follow-up) interacted with status (pilot or comparison).||||0.2
91067948|NCT02110758|182022286|OTHER|||||||0.62|||||||Regression, Logistic|||To estimate exposure to the intervention on Per Member Per Month Emergency Department (ED) Visits, we used a difference-in-differences model with fixed effects for practices. The dependent variable was Per Member Per Month ED Visits. The intervention effects were represented by the coefficient estimates for utilization time period (baseline or follow-up) interacted with status (pilot or comparison).||||0.62
91067949|NCT02110758|182022286|OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||Regression, Logistic|||To estimate exposure to the intervention on Per Member Per Month Primary Care Visits, we used a difference-in-differences model with fixed effects for practices. The dependent variable was Per Member Per Month Primary Care Visits. The intervention effects were represented by the coefficient estimates for utilization time period (baseline or follow-up) interacted with status (pilot or comparison).||||0.68
91067950|NCT02110758|182022286|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Regression, Logistic|||To estimate exposure to the intervention on Per Member Per Month Specialist Visits, we used a difference-in-differences model with fixed effects for practices. The dependent variable was Per Member Per Month Specialist Visits. The intervention effects were represented by the coefficient estimates for utilization time period (baseline or follow-up) interacted with status (pilot or comparison).||||0.03
91067951|NCT02074358|182022287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mixed effect model|425.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|219.8|630.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment B versus Treatment A|The ETP change from pre-PCC baseline was analyzed using a mixed effect model that included treatment, sequence, and period as main effects. A hierarchical analysis was conducted with comparisons beginning with the primary endpoint and continuing through secondary endpoints (ETP; TGA lag time; TGA time to peak; TGA peak; TGA velocity index; PT; INR; aPTT; AXA). If resulting p-value was \< 0.05, then the next comparison of interest was made until p\>0.05 at which point, comparisons ended.||630.7|219.8|<0.001
91067952|NCT02074358|182022287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mixed effect model|90.6||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.3|212.4||In the hierarchical analysis, no statistical inferences were drawn from the analysis results for any secondary endpoint since a non-significant treatment difference was observed for the primary endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment C versus Treatment A|ETP change from pre-PCC baseline was analyzed using mixed effect model, including treatment, sequence, and period as main effects. Hierarchical analysis was conducted with comparisons beginning with primary endpoint and continuing through secondary endpoints (ETP; TGA lag time; TGA time to peak; TGA peak; TGA velocity index; PT; INR; aPTT; AXA). If resulting p-value was \< 0.05, then the next comparison of interest was made until p\>0.05 at which point, comparisons ended.||212.4|-31.3|0.131
91067953|NCT02074358|182022288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mixed effect model|-0.21||||0.389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.3||In the hierarchical analysis, no statistical inferences were drawn from the analysis results for other secondary endpoints since a non-significant treatment difference was observed for this first secondary endpoint (TGA lag time).|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment B versus Treatment A|TGA Lag Time. ETP change from pre-PCC baseline was analyzed using a mixed effect model that included treatment, sequence, and period as main effects. A hierarchical analysis was conducted with comparisons beginning with the primary endpoint and continuing through secondary endpoints (ETP; TGA lag time; TGA time to peak; TGA peak; TGA velocity index; PT; INR; aPTT; AXA). If resulting p-value was \< 0.05, then the next comparison of interest was made until p\>0.05 at which point, comparisons ended.||0.30|-0.73|0.389
91067954|NCT02074358|182022288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mixed effect model|-0.16||||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.06||In the hierarchical analysis, no statistical inferences were drawn from the analysis results for this secondary endpoint since a non-significant treatment difference was observed for the primary endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment C versus Treatment A|Lag Time. ETP change from pre-PCC baseline was analyzed using mixed effect model, including treatment, sequence, and period as main effects. Hierarchical analysis was conducted with comparisons beginning with primary endpoint and continuing through secondary endpoints (ETP; TGA lag time; TGA time to peak; TGA peak; TGA velocity index; PT; INR; aPTT; AXA). If resulting p-value was \< 0.05, then the next comparison of interest was made until p\>0.05 at which point, comparisons ended.||0.06|-0.38|0.142
91067955|NCT02074358|182022288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mixed effect model|1.35||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|3.52||In the hierarchical analysis, no statistical inferences were drawn from the analysis results for this secondary endpoint since a non-significant treatment difference was observed for the first secondary endpoint (TGA lag time).|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment B versus Treatment A|Time to Peak. ETP change from pre-PCC baseline was analyzed using a mixed effect model that included treatment, sequence, and period as main effects. A hierarchical analysis was conducted with comparisons beginning with the primary endpoint and continuing through secondary endpoints (ETP; TGA lag time; TGA time to peak; TGA peak; TGA velocity index; PT; INR; aPTT; AXA). If resulting p-value was \< 0.05, then the next comparison of interest was made until p\>0.05 at which point, comparisons ended.||3.52|-0.81|0.200
91067956|NCT02074358|182022288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mixed effect model|4.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|6.44||In the hierarchical analysis, no statistical inferences were drawn from the analysis results for this secondary endpoint since a non-significant treatment difference was observed for the primary endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment C versus Treatment A|Time to Peak. ETP change from pre-PCC baseline was analyzed using mixed effect model, including treatment, sequence, and period as main effects. Hierarchical analysis was conducted with comparisons beginning with primary endpoint and continuing through secondary endpoints (ETP; TGA lag time; TGA time to peak; TGA peak; TGA velocity index; PT; INR; aPTT; AXA). If resulting p-value was \< 0.05, then the next comparison of interest was made until p\>0.05 at which point, comparisons ended.||6.44|2.80|<0.001
91077858|NCT02913105|182041136|OTHER|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.95||||0.2032|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.89|1.01|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Cholesterol: Day 56||1.01|0.89|0.2032
91067957|NCT02074358|182022289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mixed effect model|21.1||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|37.2||In the hierarchical analysis, no statistical inferences were drawn from the analysis results for this secondary endpoint since a non-significant treatment difference was observed for the first secondary endpoint (TGA lag time).|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment B versus Treatment A|The ETP change from pre-PCC baseline was analyzed using a mixed effect model that included treatment, sequence, and period as main effects. A hierarchical analysis was conducted with comparisons beginning with the primary endpoint and continuing through secondary endpoints (ETP; TGA lag time; TGA time to peak; TGA peak; TGA velocity index; PT; INR; aPTT; AXA). If resulting p-value was \< 0.05, then the next comparison of interest was made until p\>0.05 at which point, comparisons ended.||37.2|4.9|0.014
91067958|NCT02074358|182022289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mixed effect model|-6.4||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|0.8||In the hierarchical analysis, no statistical inferences were drawn from the analysis results for this secondary endpoint since a non-significant treatment difference was observed for the primary endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment C versus Treatment A|ETP change from pre-PCC baseline was analyzed using mixed effect model, including treatment, sequence, and period as main effects. Hierarchical analysis was conducted with comparisons beginning with primary endpoint and continuing through secondary endpoints (ETP; TGA lag time; TGA time to peak; TGA peak; TGA velocity index; PT; INR; aPTT; AXA). If resulting p-value was \< 0.05, then the next comparison of interest was made until p\>0.05 at which point, comparisons ended.||0.8|-13.5|0.076
91067959|NCT02074358|182022290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mixed effect model|0.0||||0.996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|5.6||In the hierarchical analysis, no statistical inferences were drawn from the analysis results for this secondary endpoint since a non-significant treatment difference was observed for the first secondary endpoint (TGA lag time).|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment B versus Treatment A|The ETP change from pre-PCC baseline was analyzed using a mixed effect model that included treatment, sequence, and period as main effects. A hierarchical analysis was conducted with comparisons beginning with the primary endpoint and continuing through secondary endpoints (ETP; TGA lag time; TGA time to peak; TGA peak; TGA velocity index; PT; INR; aPTT; AXA). If resulting p-value was \< 0.05, then the next comparison of interest was made until p\>0.05 at which point, comparisons ended.||5.6|-5.6|0.996
91067960|NCT02074358|182022290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mixed effect model|-6.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|-3.6||In the hierarchical analysis, no statistical inferences were drawn from the analysis results for this secondary endpoint since a non-significant treatment difference was observed for the primary endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment C versus Treatment A|ETP change from pre-PCC baseline was analyzed using mixed effect model, including treatment, sequence, and period as main effects. Hierarchical analysis was conducted with comparisons beginning with primary endpoint and continuing through secondary endpoints (ETP; TGA lag time; TGA time to peak; TGA peak; TGA velocity index; PT; INR; aPTT; AXA). If resulting p-value was \< 0.05, then the next comparison of interest was made until p\>0.05 at which point, comparisons ended.||-3.6|-9.5|<0.001
91067961|NCT02074358|182022291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mixed effect model|-1.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|-1.12||In the hierarchical analysis, no statistical inferences were drawn from the analysis results for this secondary endpoint since a non-significant treatment difference was observed for the first secondary endpoint (TGA lag time).|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment B versus Treatment A|PT (Neoplastin CI+). ETP change from pre-PCC baseline was analyzed using mixed effect model that included treatment, sequence, and period as main effects. Hierarchical analysis was conducted with comparisons beginning with primary endpoint and continuing through secondary endpoints (ETP; TGA lag time; TGA time to peak; TGA peak; TGA velocity index; PT; INR; aPTT; AXA). If resulting p-value was \< 0.05, then the next comparison of interest was made until p\>0.05 at which point, comparisons ended.||-1.12|-2.16|<0.001
91067962|NCT02074358|182022291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mixed effect model|-1.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|-0.99||In the hierarchical analysis, no statistical inferences were drawn from the analysis results for this secondary endpoint since a non-significant treatment difference was observed for the primary endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment C versus Treatment A|PT (Neoplastin CI+). ETP change from pre-PCC baseline was analyzed using mixed effect model, including treatment, sequence, and period as main effects. Hierarchical analysis was conducted with comparisons beginning with primary endpoint and continuing through secondary endpoints (ETP; TGA lag time; TGA time to peak; TGA peak; TGA velocity index; PT; INR; aPTT; AXA). If resulting p-value was \< 0.05, then the next comparison of interest was made until p\>0.05 at which point, comparisons ended.||-0.99|-1.95|<0.001
91067963|NCT02074358|182022291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mixed effect model|-2.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-1.89||In the hierarchical analysis, no statistical inferences were drawn from the analysis results for this secondary endpoint since a non-significant treatment difference was observed for the first secondary endpoint (TGA lag time).|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment B versus Treatment A|PT (Recombiplastin 2G). ETP change from pre-PCC baseline was analyzed using mixed effect model, including treatment, sequence, and period as main effects. Hierarchical analysis was conducted with comparisons beginning with primary endpoint and continuing through secondary endpoints (ETP; TGA lag time; TGA time to peak; TGA peak; TGA velocity index; PT; INR; aPTT; AXA). If resulting p-value was \< 0.05, then the next comparison of interest was made until p\>0.05 at which point, comparisons ended.||-1.89|-3.30|<0.001
90827506|NCT03160898|181529783|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean treatment difference|1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.003||0.1095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|3.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyzed by an MMRM with contrast (-5, -1, 3, 3) to reflect the assumed relationship for the 4 groups: placebo, 150, 300, and 450 mg twice daily.||"The statistical null hypothesis was as follows: there was no assumed dose-response relationship in percent predicted SVC change from baseline to Week 12 among all three active doses and placebo, expressed as:~H0: -5 x µ placebo - 1 x µ 150 mg twice daily + 3 x µ 300 mg twice daily + 3 x µ 450 mg twice daily = 0 where µ was the mean of the efficacy endpoint for the designated group."||3.58|-0.36|0.1095
90827507|NCT03160898|181529783|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.291||0.2501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|4.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.03|-1.05|0.2501
90827508|NCT03160898|181529783|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29||0.1549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|4.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.38|-0.7|0.1549
91067964|NCT02074358|182022291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mixed effect model|-1.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.59|-1.2||In the hierarchical analysis, no statistical inferences were drawn from the analysis results for this secondary endpoint since a non-significant treatment difference was observed for the primary endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment C versus Treatment A|PT (Recombiplastin 2G). ETP change from pre-PCC baseline was analyzed using mixed effect model, including treatment, sequence, and period as main effects. Hierarchical analysis was conducted with comparisons beginning with primary endpoint and continuing through secondary endpoints (ETP; TGA lag time; TGA time to peak; TGA peak; TGA velocity index; PT; INR; aPTT; AXA). If resulting p-value was \< 0.05, then the next comparison of interest was made until p\>0.05 at which point, comparisons ended.||-1.20|-2.59|<0.001
91067965|NCT02074358|182022291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mixed effect model|8.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.29|10.66||In the hierarchical analysis, no statistical inferences were drawn from the analysis results for this secondary endpoint since a non-significant treatment difference was observed for the first secondary endpoint (TGA lag time).|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment B versus Treatment A|aPTT. The ETP change from pre-PCC baseline was analyzed using a mixed effect model and included treatment, sequence, and period as main effects. Hierarchical analysis was conducted with comparisons beginning with primary endpoint and continuing through secondary endpoints (ETP; TGA lag time; TGA time to peak; TGA peak; TGA velocity index; PT; INR; aPTT; AXA). If resulting p-value was \< 0.05, then the next comparison of interest was made until p\>0.05 at which point, comparisons ended.||10.66|6.29|<0.001
91067966|NCT02074358|182022291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mixed effect model|2.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|3.32||In the hierarchical analysis, no statistical inferences were drawn from the analysis results for this secondary endpoint since a non-significant treatment difference was observed for the primary endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment C versus Treatment A|aPTT. ETP change from pre-PCC baseline was analyzed using mixed effect model, including treatment, sequence, and period as main effects. Hierarchical analysis was conducted with comparisons beginning with primary endpoint and continuing through secondary endpoints (ETP; TGA lag time; TGA time to peak; TGA peak; TGA velocity index; PT; INR; aPTT; AXA). If resulting p-value was \< 0.05, then the next comparison of interest was made until p\>0.05 at which point, comparisons ended.||3.32|1.28|<0.001
91067967|NCT02074358|182022292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mixed effect model|-0.198|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.266|-0.13||In the hierarchical analysis, no statistical inferences were drawn from the analysis results for this secondary endpoint since a non-significant treatment difference was observed for the first secondary endpoint (TGA lag time).|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment B versus Treatment A|INR (Neoplastin CI+). ETP change from pre-PCC baseline was analyzed using mixed effect model, including treatment, sequence, and period as main effects. Hierarchical analysis was conducted with comparisons beginning with primary endpoint and continuing through secondary endpoints (ETP; TGA lag time; TGA time to peak; TGA peak; TGA velocity index; PT; INR; aPTT; AXA). If resulting p-value was \< 0.05, then the next comparison of interest was made until p\>0.05 at which point, comparisons ended.||-0.130|-0.266|<0.001
91067968|NCT02074358|182022292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mixed effect model|-0.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.229|-0.111||In the hierarchical analysis, no statistical inferences were drawn from the analysis results for this secondary endpoint since a non-significant treatment difference was observed for the primary endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment C versus Treatment A|INR (Neoplastin CI+). ETP change from pre-PCC baseline was analyzed using mixed effect model, including treatment, sequence, and period as main effects. Hierarchical analysis was conducted with comparisons beginning with primary endpoint and continuing through secondary endpoints (ETP; TGA lag time; TGA time to peak; TGA peak; TGA velocity index; PT; INR; aPTT; AXA). If resulting p-value was \< 0.05, then the next comparison of interest was made until p\>0.05 at which point, comparisons ended.||-0.111|-0.229|<0.001
91067969|NCT02074358|182022292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mixed effect model|-0.239|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.305|-0.173||In the hierarchical analysis, no statistical inferences were drawn from the analysis results for this secondary endpoint since a non-significant treatment difference was observed for the first secondary endpoint (TGA lag time).|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment B versus Treatment A|INR (Recombiplastin 2G). ETP change from pre-PCC baseline was analyzed using mixed effect model, including treatment, sequence, and period as main effects. Hierarchical analysis was conducted with comparisons beginning with primary endpoint and continuing through secondary endpoints (ETP; TGA lag time; TGA time to peak; TGA peak; TGA velocity index; PT; INR; aPTT; AXA). If resulting p-value was \< 0.05, then the next comparison of interest was made until p\>0.05 at which point, comparisons ended.||-0.173|-0.305|<0.001
91067970|NCT02074358|182022292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mixed effect model|-0.176|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.242|-0.11||In the hierarchical analysis, no statistical inferences were drawn from the analysis results for this secondary endpoint since a non-significant treatment difference was observed for the primary endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment C versus Treatment A|INR (Recombiplastin 2G). ETP change from pre-PCC baseline was analyzed using mixed effect model, including treatment, sequence, and period as main effects. Hierarchical analysis was conducted with comparisons beginning with primary endpoint and continuing through secondary endpoints (ETP; TGA lag time; TGA time to peak; TGA peak; TGA velocity index; PT; INR; aPTT; AXA). If resulting p-value was \< 0.05, then the next comparison of interest was made until p\>0.05 at which point, comparisons ended.||-0.110|-0.242|<0.001
91067971|NCT02074358|182022293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mixed effect models|-0.239||||0.204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.625|0.146||In the hierarchical analysis, no statistical inferences were drawn from the analysis results for this secondary endpoint since a non-significant treatment difference was observed for the first secondary endpoint (TGA lag time).|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment B versus Treatment A|Anti-Xa Activity. ETP change from pre-PCC baseline was analyzed using mixed effect model, including treatment, sequence, and period as main effects. Hierarchical analysis was conducted with comparisons beginning with primary endpoint and continuing through secondary endpoints (ETP; TGA lag time; TGA time to peak; TGA peak; TGA velocity index; PT; INR; aPTT; AXA). If resulting p-value was \< 0.05, then the next comparison of interest was made until p\>0.05 at which point, comparisons ended.||0.146|-0.625|0.204
90827509|NCT03160898|181529783|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.274||0.1417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|4.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.38|-0.63|0.1417
90827510|NCT03160898|181529783|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.115||0.0964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|4.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.05|-0.33|0.0964
91067972|NCT02074358|182022293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mixed effect models|-0.17||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.389|0.048||In the hierarchical analysis, no statistical inferences were drawn from the analysis results for this secondary endpoint since a non-significant treatment difference was observed for the primary endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment C versus Treatment A|Anti-Xa Activity. ETP change from pre-PCC baseline was analyzed using mixed effect model, including treatment, sequence, and period as main effects. Hierarchical analysis was conducted with comparisons beginning with primary endpoint and continuing through secondary endpoints (ETP; TGA lag time; TGA time to peak; TGA peak; TGA velocity index; PT; INR; aPTT; AXA). If resulting p-value was \< 0.05, then the next comparison of interest was made until p\>0.05 at which point, comparisons ended.||0.048|-0.389|0.114
91067973|NCT02074358|182022303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mixed effect model|1.039|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.972|1.111|||||Treatment B versus Treatment A|Analysis used a linear mixed effect model including treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and within-participant measurements as repeated measures. Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for differences on the log scale were exponentiated to obtain estimates for ratios of geometric means on the original scale between each PCC treatment and placebo (ie, Treatment B versus Treatment A, and Treatment C versus Treatment A). No adjustment was made for multiplicity.||1.111|0.972|
91067974|NCT02074358|182022303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mixed effect model|1.021|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.938|1.112|||||Treatment C versus Treatment A|Analysis used a linear mixed effect model including treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and within-participant measurements as repeated measures. Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for differences on the log scale were exponentiated to obtain estimates for ratios of geometric means on the original scale between each PCC treatment and placebo (ie, Treatment C versus Treatment A). No adjustment was made for multiplicity.||1.112|0.938|
91067975|NCT02074358|182022305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mixed effect model|1.019|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.955|1.087|||||Treatment B versus Treatment A|Analysis used a linear mixed effect model including treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and within-participant measurements as repeated measures. Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for differences on the log scale were exponentiated to obtain estimates for ratios of geometric means on the original scale between each PCC treatment and placebo (ie, Treatment B versus Treatment A). No adjustment was made for multiplicity.||1.087|0.955|
91067976|NCT02074358|182022305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mixed effect model|1.018|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|1.102|||||Treatment C versus Treatment A|Analysis used a linear mixed effect model including treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and within-participant measurements as repeated measures. Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for differences on the log scale were exponentiated to obtain estimates for ratios of geometric means on the original scale between each PCC treatment and placebo (ie, Treatment C versus Treatment A). No adjustment was made for multiplicity.||1.102|0.940|
91067977|NCT01164579|182022322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares (LS) Mean|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.2696|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.58|0.31||2-sided p-value; alpha equals (=) 0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||0.31|-1.58|0.2696
91067978|NCT01164579|182022322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.3561|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.46|0.41||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||0.41|-1.46|0.3561
91067979|NCT01164579|182022323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.52|-0.58||2-sided p-value; alpha= 0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||-0.58|-2.52|0.0089
91067980|NCT01164579|182022323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.72|-0.76||2-sided p-value; alpha= 0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||-0.76|-2.72|0.0038
91067981|NCT01164579|182022324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.6576|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.19|0.69||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 1||0.69|-1.19|0.6576
91067982|NCT01164579|182022324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.7565|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.09|0.74||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 1||0.74|-1.09|0.7565
91067983|NCT01164579|182022324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.1038|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.89|0.01||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 6||0.01|-1.89|0.1038
90827511|NCT03160898|181529784|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.335||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|1.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyzed by an MMRM with contrast (-5, -1, 3, 3) to reflect the assumed relationship for the 4 groups: placebo, 150, 300, and 450 mg twice daily.||||1.22|-0.09|0.0930
91067984|NCT01164579|182022324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.0868|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.98|-0.04||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 6||-0.04|-1.98|0.0868
91067985|NCT01164579|182022324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.0103|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.62|-0.58||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 12||-0.58|-2.62|0.0103
91067986|NCT01164579|182022324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.435|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.53|0.55||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 12||0.55|-1.53|0.4350
91067987|NCT01164579|182022325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.489|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.36|0.56||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 1||0.56|-1.36|0.4890
91067988|NCT01164579|182022325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.8817|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.85|1.02||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 1||1.02|-0.85|0.8817
91067989|NCT01164579|182022325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.0351|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.21|-0.27||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 3||-0.27|-2.21|0.0351
91067990|NCT01164579|182022325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.0231|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.28|-0.37||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 3||-0.37|-2.28|0.0231
91067991|NCT01164579|182022325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.13|-1.08||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 12||-1.08|-3.13|0.0008
91067992|NCT01164579|182022325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-2.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.32|-1.25||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 12||-1.25|-3.32|0.0003
91067993|NCT01164579|182022326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.2689|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.96|0.19||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 1||0.19|-0.96|0.2689
91067994|NCT01164579|182022326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.9935|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.58|0.57||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 1||0.57|-0.58|0.9935
91067995|NCT01164579|182022326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.1086|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.15|0.01||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 3||0.01|-1.15|0.1086
91067996|NCT01164579|182022326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.8092|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.66|0.49||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 3||0.49|-0.66|0.8092
91067997|NCT01164579|182022326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.0463|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.29|-0.12||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 6||-0.12|-1.29|0.0463
91067998|NCT01164579|182022326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.0624|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.25|-0.08||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 6||-0.08|-1.25|0.0624
91067999|NCT01164579|182022326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.9|-0.69||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 12||-0.69|-1.90|0.0005
91068000|NCT01164579|182022326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.87|-0.65||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 12||-0.65|-1.87|0.0008
91068001|NCT01164579|182022327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.5019|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.68|0.71||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 6||0.71|-1.68|0.5019
91068002|NCT01164579|182022327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.1462|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.28|0.14||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 6||0.14|-2.28|0.1462
91068003|NCT01164579|182022327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.49|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.74|0.72||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 12||0.72|-1.74|0.4900
90827512|NCT03160898|181529784|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.427||0.0087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.97|0.29|0.0087
91068004|NCT01164579|182022327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.0459|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.76|-0.27|||mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 12||-0.27|-2.76|0.0459
91068005|NCT01164579|182022328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.5019|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.68|0.71||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 6||0.71|-1.68|0.5019
91068006|NCT01164579|182022328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.1462|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.28|0.14||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 6||0.14|-2.28|0.1462
91068007|NCT01164579|182022328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.49|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.74|0.72||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 12||0.72|-1.74|0.4900
91068008|NCT01164579|182022328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.0459|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.76|-0.27||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 12||-0.27|-2.76|0.0459
91068009|NCT01164579|182022329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.8959|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.89|0.76||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 6||0.76|-0.89|0.8959
91068010|NCT01164579|182022329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.4193|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.25|0.43||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 6||0.43|-1.25|0.4193
91068011|NCT01164579|182022329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.5764|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.13|0.56||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 12||0.56|-1.13|0.5764
91068012|NCT01164579|182022329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.1101|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.69|0.02||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 12||0.02|-1.69|0.1101
90827513|NCT03160898|181529784|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.0351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|1.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.75|0.06|0.0351
91068013|NCT01164579|182022330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.8959|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.89|0.76||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 6||0.76|-0.89|0.8959
91068014|NCT01164579|182022330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.4193|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.25|0.43||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 6||0.43|-1.25|0.4193
91068015|NCT01164579|182022330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.5764|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.13|0.56||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 12||0.56|-1.13|0.5764
91068016|NCT01164579|182022330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.1101|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.69|0.02||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 12||0.02|-1.69|0.1101
91068017|NCT01164579|182022331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.2351|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|0.16||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 6||0.16|-1.00|0.2351
91068018|NCT01164579|182022331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.0631|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.27|-0.08||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 6||-0.08|-1.27|0.0631
91068019|NCT01164579|182022331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.5369|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.83|0.38||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 12||0.38|-0.83|0.5369
91068020|NCT01164579|182022331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.062|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.31|-0.08||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 12||-0.08|-1.31|0.0620
91068021|NCT01164579|182022332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.2351|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|0.16||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 6||0.16|-1.00|0.2351
91068022|NCT01164579|182022332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.0631|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.27|-0.08||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 6||-0.08|-1.27|0.0631
91068023|NCT01164579|182022332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.5369|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.83|0.38||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 12||0.38|-0.83|0.5369
91068024|NCT01164579|182022332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.062|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.31|-0.08||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 12||-0.08|-1.31|0.0620
91068025|NCT01164579|182022333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.24||0.243|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.36|31.62|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 1||31.62|-5.36|0.2430
91068026|NCT01164579|182022333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.24||0.0147|TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.91|45.9|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 1||45.90|8.91|0.0147
91068027|NCT01164579|182022333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.25||0.0127|TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.51|46.54|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 2||46.54|9.51|0.0127
91068028|NCT01164579|182022333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.45||0.0724|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.73|39.41|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 2||39.41|1.73|0.0724
91068029|NCT01164579|182022333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.85||0.0086|TWO_SIDED|90.0|10.63|46.35|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 3||46.35|10.63|0.0086
91068030|NCT01164579|182022333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.55||0.2808|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.54|31.47|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 3||31.47|-6.54|0.2808
91068031|NCT01164579|182022333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.16||0.0115|TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.81|46.55|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 9||46.55|9.81|0.0115
90827514|NCT03160898|181529784|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.425||0.1642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|1.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.43|-0.24|0.1642
90827515|NCT03160898|181529784|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.371||0.0435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|1.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.48|0.02|0.0435
91068032|NCT01164579|182022333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.56||0.1921|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.94|34.12|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 9||34.12|-3.94|0.1921
91068033|NCT01164579|182022333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.16||0.0115|TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.81|46.55|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 12||46.55|9.81|0.0115
91068034|NCT01164579|182022333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.5||0.1203|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.05|36.79|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 12||36.79|-1.05|0.1203
91068035|NCT01164579|182022334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.58||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.68|32.62|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 1||32.62|7.68|0.0078
91068036|NCT01164579|182022334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.58||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.68|32.62|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 1||32.62|7.68|0.0078
91068037|NCT01164579|182022334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|29.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.37||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|90.0|12.43|46.56|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 2||46.56|12.43|0.0044
91068038|NCT01164579|182022334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.92||0.0845|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.79|33.43|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 2||33.43|0.79|0.0845
91068039|NCT01164579|182022334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.0||0.0275|TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.14|42.35|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 3||42.35|6.14|0.0275
90827516|NCT03160898|181529785|SUPERIORITY||Slope difference|0.0276|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02734||0.3134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0261|0.0813|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyzed by an MMRM with contrast (-5, -1, 3, 3) to reflect the assumed relationship for the 4 groups: placebo, 150, 300, and 450 mg twice daily.||||0.0813|-0.0261|0.3134
91068040|NCT01164579|182022334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.91||0.0186|TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.71|43.63|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 3||43.63|7.71|0.0186
91068041|NCT01164579|182022334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|35.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.75||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|90.0|17.82|53.22|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 6||53.22|17.82|0.0009
91068042|NCT01164579|182022334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.72||0.0169|TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.95|43.24|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 6||43.24|7.95|0.0169
91068043|NCT01164579|182022334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.24||0.0147|TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.91|45.9|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 9||45.90|8.91|0.0147
91068044|NCT01164579|182022334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.18||0.1882|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.68|33.11|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 9||33.11|-3.68|0.1882
91068045|NCT01164579|182022334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.24||0.0147|TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.91|45.9|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 12||45.90|8.91|0.0147
91068046|NCT01164579|182022334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.18||0.1882|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.68|33.11|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 12||33.11|-3.68|0.1882
91068047|NCT01164579|182022335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.73||0.07|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.78|16.35|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 1||16.35|0.78|0.0700
91068048|NCT01164579|182022335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.81||0.3102|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.77|7.48|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 1||7.48|-1.77|0.3102
91068049|NCT01164579|182022335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|26.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.68||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|90.0|11.73|40.3|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 2||40.30|11.73|0.0027
91068050|NCT01164579|182022335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.86||0.0324|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.88|29.75|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 2||29.75|3.88|0.0324
91068051|NCT01164579|182022335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.97||0.0969|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.13|29.67|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 3||29.67|0.13|0.0969
91068052|NCT01164579|182022335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.04||0.0606|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.09|31.84|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 3||31.84|2.09|0.0606
91068053|NCT01164579|182022335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|12.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.49||0.2276|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.6|29.93|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 6||29.93|-4.60|0.2276
91068054|NCT01164579|182022335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.23||0.3827|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.9|25.76|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 6||25.76|-7.90|0.3827
91068055|NCT01164579|182022335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.15||0.2177|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.18|29.2|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 9||29.20|-4.18|0.2177
91068056|NCT01164579|182022335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.15||0.1558|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.29|31.12|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 9||31.12|-2.29|0.1558
91068057|NCT01164579|182022335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.8||0.8997|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.89|17.36|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 12||17.36|-14.89|0.8997
91068058|NCT01164579|182022335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.36||0.2587|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.34|28.76|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 12||28.76|-5.34|0.2587
91068059|NCT01164579|182022336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.56|0.13||||||Baseline||0.13|-0.56|
91068060|NCT01164579|182022336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.19|0.43||||||Baseline||0.43|-0.19|
91068061|NCT01164579|182022336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.38|-0.5||||||Month 1||-0.50|-1.38|
91068062|NCT01164579|182022336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.01|-0.22||||||Month 1||-0.22|-1.01|
91068063|NCT01164579|182022336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.73|-0.7||||||Month 2||-0.70|-1.73|
91068064|NCT01164579|182022336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.2|-0.18||||||Month 2||-0.18|-1.20|
91068065|NCT01164579|182022336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.33|-0.29||||||Month 3||-0.29|-1.33|
91068066|NCT01164579|182022336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.94|0.12||||||Month 3||0.12|-0.94|
91068067|NCT01164579|182022336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.75|-0.61||||||Month 6||-0.61|-1.75|
91068068|NCT01164579|182022336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.73|-0.63||||||Month 6||-0.63|-1.73|
91068069|NCT01164579|182022336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.81|-0.61||||||Month 9||-0.61|-1.81|
91068070|NCT01164579|182022336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.33|-0.13||||||Month 9||-0.13|-1.33|
91068071|NCT01164579|182022336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.69|-0.51||||||Month 12||-0.51|-1.69|
91068072|NCT01164579|182022336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.51|-0.29||||||Month 12||-0.29|-1.51|
91068073|NCT01164579|182022337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.31|-0.45||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 1||-0.45|-1.31|0.0010
91068074|NCT01164579|182022337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.0102|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.1|-0.24||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 1||-0.24|-1.10|0.0102
91068075|NCT01164579|182022337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.52|-0.64||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 2||-0.64|-1.52|<0.0001
91068076|NCT01164579|182022337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.0175|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.08|-0.2||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 2||-0.20|-1.08|0.0175
91068077|NCT01164579|182022337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.0125|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.13|-0.23||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 3||-0.23|-1.13|0.0125
91068078|NCT01164579|182022337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.1457|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.84|0.05||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 3||0.05|-0.84|0.1457
91068079|NCT01164579|182022337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.48|-0.57||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 6||-0.57|-1.48|0.0003
91068080|NCT01164579|182022337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.49|-0.58||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 6||-0.58|-1.49|0.0002
91068081|NCT01164579|182022337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.63|-0.69||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 9||-0.69|-1.63|<0.0001
91068082|NCT01164579|182022337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.0196|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.14|-0.2||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 9||-0.20|-1.14|0.0196
91068083|NCT01164579|182022337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.5|-0.52||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 12||-0.52|-1.50|0.0007
91068084|NCT01164579|182022337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.32|-0.35||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 12||-0.35|-1.32|0.0049
91068085|NCT01164579|182022338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.53|0.15||||||Baseline||0.15|-0.53|
91068086|NCT01164579|182022338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.24|0.36||||||Baseline||0.36|-0.24|
91068087|NCT01164579|182022338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.4|-0.42||||||Month 1||-0.42|-1.40|
91068088|NCT01164579|182022338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.01|-0.14||||||Month 1||-0.14|-1.01|
91068089|NCT01164579|182022338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.82|-0.73||||||Month 2||-0.73|-1.82|
91068090|NCT01164579|182022338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.25|-0.13||||||Month 2||-0.13|-1.25|
91068091|NCT01164579|182022338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.55|-0.38||||||Month 3||-0.38|-1.55|
91068092|NCT01164579|182022338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.12|0.11||||||Month 3||0.11|-1.12|
91068093|NCT01164579|182022338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.13|-0.72||||||Month 6||-0.72|-2.13|
91068094|NCT01164579|182022338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.91|-0.57||||||Month 6||-0.57|-1.91|
91068095|NCT01164579|182022338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.84|-0.39||||||Month 9||-0.39|-1.84|
90827517|NCT03160898|181529785|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.0246||||0.4824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0442|0.0935|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.0935|-0.0442|0.4824
91068096|NCT01164579|182022338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.3|0.13||||||Month 9||0.13|-1.30|
91068097|NCT01164579|182022338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.84|-0.39||||||Month 12||-0.39|-1.84|
91068098|NCT01164579|182022338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.43|0.11||||||Month 12||0.11|-1.43|
91068099|NCT01164579|182022339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.32|-0.35||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 1||-0.35|-1.32|0.0046
91068100|NCT01164579|182022339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.0303|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.11|-0.15||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 1||-0.15|-1.11|0.0303
91068101|NCT01164579|182022339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.69|-0.68||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 2||-0.68|-1.69|0.0001
91068102|NCT01164579|182022339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.0255|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.17|-0.18||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 2||-0.18|-1.17|0.0255
91068103|NCT01164579|182022339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.39|-0.39||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 3||-0.39|-1.39|0.0035
91068104|NCT01164579|182022339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.0683|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.05|-0.05||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 3||-0.05|-1.05|0.0683
91068105|NCT01164579|182022339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.81|-0.78||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 6||-0.78|-1.81|<0.0001
91068106|NCT01164579|182022339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.59|-0.56||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 6||-0.56|-1.59|0.0006
91068107|NCT01164579|182022339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.67|-0.62||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 9||-0.62|-1.67|0.0004
91068108|NCT01164579|182022339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.0706|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.1|-0.05||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 9||-0.05|-1.10|0.0706
91068109|NCT01164579|182022339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.67|-0.58||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 12||-0.58|-1.67|0.0008
91068110|NCT01164579|182022339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.0466|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.21|-0.12||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 12||-0.12|-1.21|0.0466
91068111|NCT01164579|182022340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.04||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|90.0|14.34|50.68||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 1||50.68|14.34|0.0032
91068112|NCT01164579|182022340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.16||0.0115|TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.81|46.55||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 1||46.55|9.81|0.0115
91068113|NCT01164579|182022340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|34.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.48||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|18.81|50.02||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 2||50.02|18.81|0.0002
91068114|NCT01164579|182022340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.48||0.0231|TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.55|41.03||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 2||41.03|6.55|0.0231
91068115|NCT01164579|182022340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|34.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.48||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|18.81|50.02||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 3||50.02|18.81|0.0002
91068116|NCT01164579|182022340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.69||0.0493|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.43|38.61||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 3||38.61|3.43|0.0493
91068117|NCT01164579|182022340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|34.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.88||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|17.92|50.43||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 6||50.43|17.92|0.0005
91068118|NCT01164579|182022340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.73||0.027|TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.07|41.37||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 6||41.37|6.07|0.0270
91068119|NCT01164579|182022340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.73||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|90.0|15.8|51.12||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 9||51.12|15.80|0.0018
91068120|NCT01164579|182022340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.22||0.0363|TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.02|41.96||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 9||41.96|5.02|0.0363
91068121|NCT01164579|182022340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|36.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.48||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|19.16|53.64||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 12||53.64|19.16|0.0005
91068122|NCT01164579|182022340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|26.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.08||0.0177|TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.04|44.5||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 12||44.50|8.04|0.0177
91068123|NCT01164579|182022341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.66||0.0197|TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.62|38.42||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 1||38.42|6.62|0.0197
91068124|NCT01164579|182022341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.16||0.4379|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.09|19.76||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 1||19.76|-7.09|0.4379
91068125|NCT01164579|182022341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.92||0.0093|TWO_SIDED|90.0|10.4|46.34||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 2||46.34|10.40|0.0093
91068126|NCT01164579|182022341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.48||0.1669|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.75|31.73||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 2||31.73|-2.75|0.1669
91068127|NCT01164579|182022341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.92||0.0093|TWO_SIDED|90.0|10.4|46.34||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 3||46.34|10.40|0.0093
91068128|NCT01164579|182022341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.64||0.0596|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.53|37.55||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 3||37.55|2.53|0.0596
91068129|NCT01164579|182022341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|34.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.07||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|90.0|16.51|52.96||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 6||52.96|16.51|0.0017
91068130|NCT01164579|182022341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.04||0.0097|TWO_SIDED|90.0|10.36|46.69||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 6||46.69|10.36|0.0097
91068131|NCT01164579|182022341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|34.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.11||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|90.0|16.68|53.26||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 9||53.26|16.68|0.0016
90827518|NCT03160898|181529785|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.0146||||0.6787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0544|0.0835|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.0835|-0.0544|0.6787
90827519|NCT03160898|181529785|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.0488||||0.1604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0194|0.1171|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.1171|-0.0194|0.1604
91068132|NCT01164579|182022341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.13||0.0102|TWO_SIDED|90.0|10.28|46.91||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 9||46.91|10.28|0.0102
91068133|NCT01164579|182022341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|34.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.07||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|90.0|16.51|52.96||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 12||52.96|16.51|0.0017
91068134|NCT01164579|182022341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.07||0.0381|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.74|41.19||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 12||41.19|4.74|0.0381
91068135|NCT01164579|182022342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.67||0.0959|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.15|25.4||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 1||25.40|0.15|0.0959
91068136|NCT01164579|182022342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4||0.9544|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.58|9.19||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 1||9.19|-8.58|0.9544
91068137|NCT01164579|182022342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.34||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|90.0|11.81|42.55||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 2||42.55|11.81|0.0036
91068138|NCT01164579|182022342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.66||0.264|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.04|21.16||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 2||21.16|-4.04|0.2640
91068139|NCT01164579|182022342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.79||0.0544|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.72|34.95||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 3||34.95|2.72|0.0544
91068140|NCT01164579|182022342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.92||0.329|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.96|23.38||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 3||23.38|-5.96|0.3290
91068141|NCT01164579|182022342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|30.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.48||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|90.0|13.59|48.09||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 6||48.09|13.59|0.0032
91068142|NCT01164579|182022342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.92||0.0845|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.79|33.43||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 6||33.43|0.79|0.0845
91068143|NCT01164579|182022342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|31.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.72||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|90.0|13.44|48.72||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 9||48.72|13.44|0.0037
91068144|NCT01164579|182022342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.36||0.054|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.91|37.02||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 9||37.02|2.91|0.0540
91068145|NCT01164579|182022342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.24||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|16.7|50.39||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 12||50.39|16.70|0.0010
91068146|NCT01164579|182022342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.66||0.0401|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.92|35.71||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 12||35.71|3.92|0.0401
91068147|NCT01164579|182022343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|37.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.99||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|19.83|55.99||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 1||55.99|19.83|0.0005
91068148|NCT01164579|182022343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.09||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|90.0|14.87|51.38||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 1||51.38|14.87|0.0028
91068149|NCT01164579|182022343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.1||0.0105|TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.21|42.45||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 2||42.45|9.21|0.0105
91068150|NCT01164579|182022343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.13||0.37|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.33|28.3||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 2||28.30|-8.33|0.3700
91068151|NCT01164579|182022343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|39.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.54|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|24.11|55.53||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 3||55.53|24.11|<0.0001
91068152|NCT01164579|182022343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.24||0.1076|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|36.59||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 3||36.59|-0.40|0.1076
91068153|NCT01164579|182022343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.21||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|90.0|17.13|50.75||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 6||50.75|17.13|0.0008
91068154|NCT01164579|182022343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|26.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.74||0.0139|TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.74|44.1||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 6||44.10|8.74|0.0139
91068155|NCT01164579|182022343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|36.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.48||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|19.16|53.64||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 9||53.64|19.16|0.0005
91068156|NCT01164579|182022343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|26.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.08||0.0177|TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.04|44.5|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 9||44.50|8.04|0.0177
91068157|NCT01164579|182022343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.73||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|90.0|15.8|51.12||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 12||51.12|15.80|0.0018
91068158|NCT01164579|182022343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.22||0.0363|TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.02|41.96||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 12||41.96|5.02|0.0363
91068159|NCT01164579|182022344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.42||0.016|TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.66|30.1||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 1||30.10|5.66|0.0160
91068160|NCT01164579|182022344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.43||0.2798|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.06|14.8||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 1||14.80|-3.06|0.2798
91068161|NCT01164579|182022344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.34||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|90.0|11.81|42.55||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 2||42.55|11.81|0.0036
91068162|NCT01164579|182022344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.3||0.4287|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.23|17.79||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 2||17.79|-6.23|0.4287
91068163|NCT01164579|182022344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.79||0.0544|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.72|34.95||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 3||34.95|2.72|0.0544
91068164|NCT01164579|182022344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.51||0.0732|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.39|32.69||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 3||32.69|1.39|0.0732
91068165|NCT01164579|182022344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.61||0.036|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.79|39.72||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 6||39.72|4.79|0.0360
91068166|NCT01164579|182022344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.85||0.3688|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.35|25.07||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 6||25.07|-7.35|0.3688
91068167|NCT01164579|182022344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.67||0.0182|TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.63|42.76||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 9||42.76|7.63|0.0182
91068168|NCT01164579|182022344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.15||0.1558|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.29|31.12||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 9||31.12|-2.29|0.1558
91068169|NCT01164579|182022344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.49||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|90.0|16.51|51.05||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 12||51.05|16.51|0.0012
91068170|NCT01164579|182022344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|14.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.78||0.1426|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.74|30.42||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 12||30.42|-1.74|0.1426
91068171|NCT01164579|182022345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.03||0.1449|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.75|12.52||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 1||12.52|-0.75|0.1449
91068172|NCT01164579|182022345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.81||0.3102|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.77|7.48||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 1||7.48|-1.77|0.3102
91068173|NCT01164579|182022345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.06||0.0342|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.32|26.55||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 2||26.55|3.32|0.0342
91068174|NCT01164579|182022345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.65||0.54|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.8|10.51||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 2||10.51|-4.80|0.5400
91068175|NCT01164579|182022345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.19||0.2759|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.1|25.13||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 3||25.13|-5.10|0.2759
91068176|NCT01164579|182022345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.25||0.0859|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.02|-0.45||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 3||-0.45|-21.02|0.0859
91068177|NCT01164579|182022345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.62||0.0985|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.06|31.73||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 6||31.73|0.06|0.0985
91068178|NCT01164579|182022345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.05||0.9628|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.86|13.61||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 6||13.61|-12.86|0.9628
91068179|NCT01164579|182022345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.19||0.0612|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.31|35.84||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 9||35.84|2.31|0.0612
91068180|NCT01164579|182022345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.36||0.7807|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.08|11.43||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 9||11.43|-16.08|0.7807
91068181|NCT01164579|182022345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.79||0.0544|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.72|34.95||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 12||34.95|2.72|0.0544
91068182|NCT01164579|182022345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.66||0.4937|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.32|20.18||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 12||20.18|-8.32|0.4937
91068183|NCT01737710|182022405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|3.55||Null hypothesis: no difference in the percent of participants that were seroprotected against influenza B at Day 28 between the two groups.|Fisher Exact|||||3.55|0.92|0.082
91068184|NCT01737710|182022406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|2.56||Null hypothesis: no difference in the percent of participants that were seroprotected against influenza H1N1 at Day 28 between the two groups|Fisher Exact|||||2.56|0.26|0.801
91068185|NCT01737710|182022407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.02||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|5.71||Null hypothesis: no difference in the percentage of participants that were seroprotected against influenza H3N2 at Day 28 between the two groups.|Fisher Exact|||||5.71|0.75|0.177
91068186|NCT01737710|182022408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.25||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.61||Null hypothesis: the fold differences in geometric mean titers against influenza B are not different between the two groups.|ANCOVA|||||1.61|0.96|0.092
91068187|NCT01737710|182022409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.59||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.11||Null hypothesis: the fold differences in geometric mean titers against influenza H1N1 are not different between the two groups.|ANCOVA|||||1.11|0.32|0.103
91068188|NCT01737710|182022410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.04||||0.895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.8||Null hypothesis: the fold differences in geometric mean titers against influenza H3N2 are not different between the two groups.|ANCOVA|||||1.80|0.60|0.895
90827520|NCT03160898|181529785|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.0317||||0.2966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0279|0.0913|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.0913|-0.0279|0.2966
90827521|NCT04186871|181529844|SUPERIORITY|RESPONSE DIFFERENCE (95% CI) VS PLACEBO|Response Difference|-27.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.5|21.9||||||||21.9|-77.5|
90827522|NCT04186871|181529844|SUPERIORITY|ODDS RATIO (95% CI) VS PLACEBO|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.32||||0.3117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|2.73|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.73|0.04|0.3117
90827523|NCT04186871|181529845|SUPERIORITY|ADJUSTED MEAN DIFFERENCE VS PLACEBO|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|4.9||||||||4.9|-2.8|
90827524|NCT04186871|181529845|EQUIVALENCE|ADJUSTED MEAN DIFFERENCE AT WEEK 24|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|-5.0||||||||-5.0|-11.5|
91068189|NCT01737710|182022411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.97||Null hypothesis: no difference in the percentage of participants that were seroprotected against influenza B at Day 28 between the two groups.|Fisher Exact|||||1.97|0.54|>0.999
91068190|NCT01737710|182022412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.43||||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.63||Null hypothesis: no difference in the percentage of participants that were seroprotected against influenza H1N1 at Day 28 between the two groups.|Fisher Exact|||||1.63|0.09|0.253
91068191|NCT01737710|182022413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.36||||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|1.58||Null hypothesis: no difference in the percentage of participants that were seroprotected against influenza H3N2 at Day 28 between the two groups.|Fisher Exact|||||1.58|0.06|0.218
91068192|NCT01737710|182022414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.57||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.94||Null hypothesis: no difference in the percentage of participants that were seroconverted against influenza B at Day 28 between the two groups.|Fisher Exact|||||2.94|0.84|0.140
91068193|NCT01737710|182022415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.791|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|2.65||Null hypothesis: no difference in the percentage of participants that were seroconverted against influenza H1N1 at Day 28 between the two groups.|Fisher Exact|||||2.65|0.24|0.791
91068194|NCT01737710|182022416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|2.92||Null hypothesis: no difference in the percentage of participants that were seroconverted against influenza H3N2 at Day 28 between the two groups.|Fisher Exact|||||2.92|0.47|0.833
91068195|NCT01737710|182022417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.38||Null hypothesis: no difference in the percentage of participants that were seroconverted against influenza B at Day 28 between the two groups.|Fisher Exact|||||1.38|0.40|0.378
91068196|NCT01737710|182022418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77||||0.783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|2.62||Null hypothesis: no difference in the percentage of participants that were seroconverted against influenza H1N1 at Day 28 between the two groups.|Fisher Exact|||||2.62|0.21|0.783
91068197|NCT01737710|182022419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.45||||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.39|||Fisher Exact|Null hypothesis: no difference in the percentage of participants that were seroconverted against influenza H3N2 at Day 28 between the two groups.||||1.39|0.13|0.143
91068198|NCT03935425|182022433|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.11
91068199|NCT00885664|182022435|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.45
91068200|NCT00885664|182022436|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.003
91068201|NCT00885664|182022437|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.91
91068202|NCT00885664|182022438|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.81
91068203|NCT00885664|182022439|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.99
91068204|NCT00885664|182022440|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.95
91068205|NCT00885664|182022441|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.01
91068206|NCT00885664|182022442|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
90827525|NCT04186871|181529845|EQUIVALENCE|ADJUSTED MEAN DIFFERENCE AT WEEK 24|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|-5.2||||||||-5.2|-9.3|
90827526|NCT04186871|181529846|SUPERIORITY|RESPONSE DIFFERENCE VS PLACEBO|Response Difference|16.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.8|65.2||||||||65.2|-31.8|
91068207|NCT00885664|182022443|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
91068208|NCT00885664|182022444|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.06
91068209|NCT00885664|182022445|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.33
91068210|NCT01342770|182022446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank|||||||0.06
91068211|NCT00921557|182022464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of percent change from baseline to week 24||||<0.001
91068212|NCT00921557|182022464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of percent change from baseline to week 48||||<0.001
91068213|NCT00921557|182022465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.99||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Fisher Exact|||Comparison of percentage of participants experiencing primary safety outcome||||>0.99
91068214|NCT00463047|182022491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001||95.0|0.18|0.29|||Mixed effects ANOVA|Crossover analysis||The statistical hypothesis to be tested was:HO: µFBT = µOXY versus Ha: µFBT ≠ µoxy where µFBT and µOXY denote the mean PID15 for double-blind episodes for which patients use FBT and oxycodone (OXY), respectively. The primary variable was analyzed using a mixed effects ANOVA crossover model, with treatment as randomized (FBT or OXY), period, and treatment sequence (as randomized) as fixed factors and patient as a random factor, using compound symmetry for the variance-covariance matrix.||0.29|0.18|<0.0001
91068215|NCT00463047|182022492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.05||LS mean, SE of LS mean and p-value for treatment comparison are from ANOVA based on individual episodes with treatment as randomized, phase, and sequence as fixed factors and patient as random factor, using compound symmetry.|ANOVA|||The statistical hypothesis to be tested was: HO: µFBT = µOXY versus Ha: µFBT ≠ µoxy where µFBT and µOXY denote the mean PID5 for double-blind episodes for which patients use FBT and OXY, respectively. The primary variable was analyzed using a mixed effects ANOVA crossover model, with treatment as randomized (FBT or OXY), period, and treatment sequence (as randomized) as fixed factors and patient as a random factor, using compound symmetry for the variance-covariance matrix.||0.05|0.01|0.0081
91068216|NCT00463047|182022493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.13||LS mean, SE of LS mean and p-value for treatment comparison are from ANOVA based on individual episodes with treatment as randomized, phase, and sequence as fixed factors and patient as random factor, using compound symmetry.|ANOVA|||The statistical hypothesis to be tested was: HO: µFBT = µOXY versus Ha: µFBT ≠ µoxy where µFBT and µOXY denote the mean PID10 for double-blind episodes for which patients use FBT and OXY, respectively. The primary variable was analyzed using a mixed effects ANOVA crossover model, with treatment as randomized (FBT or OXY), period, and treatment sequence (as randomized) as fixed factors and patient as a random factor, using compound symmetry for the variance-covariance matrix.||0.13|0.05|<0.0001
91068217|NCT00463047|182022494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001||95.0|0.3|0.45||LS mean, SE of LS mean and p-value for treatment comparison are from ANOVA based on individual episodes with treatment as randomized, phase, and sequence as fixed factors and patient as random factor, using compound symmetry.|ANOVA|||The statistical hypothesis to be tested was: HO: µFBT = µOXY versus Ha: µFBT ≠ µoxy where µFBT and µOXY denote the mean PID10 for double-blind episodes for which patients use FBT and OXY, respectively. The primary variable was analyzed using a mixed effects ANOVA crossover model, with treatment as randomized (FBT or OXY), period, and treatment sequence (as randomized) as fixed factors and patient as a random factor, using compound symmetry for the variance-covariance matrix.||0.45|0.30|<0.0001
91068218|NCT00463047|182022495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.35||LS mean, SE of LS mean and p-value for treatment comparison are from ANOVA based on individual episodes with treatment as randomized, phase, and sequence as fixed factors and patient as random factor, using compound symmetry.|ANOVA|||The statistical hypothesis to be tested was: HO: µFBT = µOXY versus Ha: µFBT ≠ µoxy where µFBT and µOXY denote the mean PID45 for double-blind episodes for which patients use FBT and OXY, respectively. The primary variable was analyzed using a mixed effects ANOVA crossover model, with treatment as randomized (FBT or OXY), period, and treatment sequence (as randomized) as fixed factors and patient as a random factor, using compound symmetry for the variance-covariance matrix.||0.35|0.20|<0.0001
91077859|NCT02913105|182041136|OTHER|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.94||||0.1141|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|1.0|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Cholesterol: Day 84||1.00|0.87|0.1141
91068219|NCT00463047|182022496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.25||LS mean, SE of LS mean and p-value for treatment comparison are from ANOVA based on individual episodes with treatment as randomized, phase, and sequence as fixed factors and patient as random factor, using compound symmetry.|ANOVA|||The statistical hypothesis to be tested was: HO: µFBT = µOXY versus Ha: µFBT ≠ µoxy where µFBT and µOXY denote the mean PID60 for double-blind episodes for which patients use FBT and OXY, respectively. The primary variable was analyzed using a mixed effects ANOVA crossover model, with treatment as randomized (FBT or OXY), period, and treatment sequence (as randomized) as fixed factors and patient as a random factor, using compound symmetry for the variance-covariance matrix.||0.25|0.08|<0.0001
91068220|NCT00463047|182022503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001||95.0|0.39|0.58|||ANOVA|||||0.58|0.39|<0.0001
91068221|NCT00463047|182022504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.16|||ANOVA|||||1.16|0.70|<0.0001
91068222|NCT00463047|182022505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1966||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-value for the treatment comparison is from a one-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test.||||||0.1966
91068223|NCT00463047|182022506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0275||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-value for the treatment comparison is from a one-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test.||||||0.0275
91068224|NCT00463047|182022507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-value for the treatment comparison is from a one-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test.||||||0.0001
91068225|NCT00463047|182022508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-value for the treatment comparison is from a one-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test.||||||<0.0001
91068226|NCT00463047|182022509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-value for the treatment comparison is from a one-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test.||||||0.0004
91068227|NCT00463047|182022510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0074||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-value for the treatment comparison is from a one-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test.||||||0.0074
91068228|NCT00463047|182022511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001||95.0|0.55|0.83||LS mean, SE of LS mean and p-value for treatment comparison are from ANOVA based on individual episodes with treatment as randomized, phase, and sequence as fixed factors and patient as random factor, using compound symmetry.|ANOVA|||||0.83|0.55|<0.0001
91068229|NCT00463047|182022513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5054||||0.3022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|3.3|||Generalized estimating equation|||Analysis is based on a generalized estimating equation model with treatment as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect. A logit link function and compound symmetry working correlation were applied in this model.||3.3|0.7|0.3022
91068230|NCT00463047|182022514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4042||||0.0268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.9|||Generalized estimating equation|||Analysis is based on a generalized estimating equation model with treatment as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect. A logit link function and compound symmetry working correlation were applied in this model.||1.9|1.0|0.0268
91068231|NCT00463047|182022515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4631||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|1.8|||Generalized estimating equation|||Analysis is based on a generalized estimating equation model with treatment as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect. A logit link function and compound symmetry working correlation were applied in this model.||1.8|1.2|0.0008
91068232|NCT00463047|182022516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3184||||0.0084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.6|||Generalized estimating equation|||Analysis is based on a generalized estimating equation model with treatment as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect. A logit link function and compound symmetry working correlation were applied in this model.||1.6|1.1|0.0084
90827527|NCT04186871|181529846|SUPERIORITY|ODDS RATIO VS PLACEBO|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|18.04||||||||18.04|0.22|
90827528|NCT04186871|181529847|SUPERIORITY|RESPONSE DIFFERENCE (95% CI) VS PLACEBO|Response Difference|-11.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.1|33.3||||||||33.3|-57.1|
90827529|NCT04186871|181529847|SUPERIORITY|ODDS RATIO (95% CI) VS PLACEBO|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4||||0.593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|10.02|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.02|0.02|0.5930
90827530|NCT04186871|181529848|SUPERIORITY|RESPONSE DIFFERENCE VS PLACEBO|Response Difference|-14.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.9|7.7||||||||7.7|-36.9|
90827531|NCT04186871|181529848|SUPERIORITY|ODDS RATIO VS PLACEBO|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.46||||0.1639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.39|||Chi-squared|||||1.39|0.15|0.1639
91068233|NCT00463047|182022517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0788||||0.5283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.4|||Generalize estimating equation|||Analysis is based on a generalized estimating equation model with treatment as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect. A logit link function and compound symmetry working correlation were applied in this model.||1.4|0.9|0.5283
91068234|NCT00463047|182022518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9491||||0.711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.3|||Generalized estimating equation|||Analysis is based on a generalized estimating equation model with treatment as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect. A logit link function and compound symmetry working correlation were applied in this model.||1.3|0.7|0.7110
91068235|NCT00463047|182022519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5355||||0.3288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.9|||Generalized estimating equation|||Analysis is based on a generalized estimating equation model with treatment as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect. A logit link function and compound symmetry working correlation were applied in this model.||1.9|0.2|0.3288
91068236|NCT00463047|182022520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1485||||0.5145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.7|||Generalized estimating equation|||Analysis is based on a generalized estimating equation model with treatment as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect. A logit link function and compound symmetry working correlation were applied in this model.||1.7|0.8|0.5145
91068237|NCT00463047|182022521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4481||||0.0191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.0|||Generalized estimating equation|||Analysis is based on a generalized estimating equation model with treatment as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect. A logit link function and compound symmetry working correlation were applied in this model.||2.0|1.1|0.0191
91068238|NCT00463047|182022522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4396||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|1.8|||Generalized estimating equation|||Analysis is based on a generalized estimating equation model with treatment as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect. A logit link function and compound symmetry working correlation were applied in this model.||1.8|1.2|0.0006
91068239|NCT00463047|182022523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3426||||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.6|||Generalized estimating equation|||Analysis is based on a generalized estimating equation model with treatment as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect. A logit link function and compound symmetry working correlation were applied in this model.||1.6|1.1|0.0044
91068240|NCT00463047|182022524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1448||||0.2184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.4|||Generalized estimating equation|||Analysis is based on a generalized estimating equation model with treatment as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect. A logit link function and compound symmetry working correlation were applied in this model.||1.4|0.9|0.2184
91068241|NCT00463047|182022525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9249||||0.5808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.2|||Generalized estimating equation|||Analysis is based on a generalized estimating equation model with treatment as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect. A logit link function and compound symmetry working correlation were applied in this model.||1.2|0.7|0.5808
91068242|NCT00463047|182022526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8908|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|2.2|||Generalized estimating equation|||Analysis is based on a generalized estimating equation model with treatment as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect. A cumulative logit link function and independent working correlation were applied in this model. Treatment differences for each time point were measured across all categories of responses.||2.2|1.7|<0.0001
91068243|NCT00463047|182022527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5841|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|1.8|||Generalized estimating equation|||Analysis is based on a generalized estimating equation model with treatment as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect. A cumulative logit link function and independent working correlation were applied in this model. Treatment differences for each time point were measured across all categories of responses.||1.8|1.4|<0.0001
91068244|NCT01732458|182022580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage vs. Ondansetron|-16.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.0|2.0||||||The Miettinen and Nurminen method was used to provide 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for between-treatment differences in the percentage of participants with events.||2.0|-34.0|
91068245|NCT01732458|182022580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage vs. Ondansetron|-4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.9|14.3||||||The Miettinen and Nurminen method was used to provide 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for between-treatment differences in the percentage of participants with events.||14.3|-22.9|
91068246|NCT01732458|182022580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage vs. Ondansetron|-12.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.3|6.3||||||The Miettinen and Nurminen method was used to provide 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for between-treatment differences in the percentage of participants with events.||6.3|-30.3|
91068247|NCT05870371|182022582|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.37|||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Mastoid Process left algometric site. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above value corresponds to the Mastoid Process left algometric site.|Null hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the pain sensitivity assessed by the Pain Pressure Threshold (PPT) measured with the pressure algometer (Commander Algometer) in patients with chronic neck pain (main hypothesis).||||=0.002
91068248|NCT05870371|182022582|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.28|||=|0.018|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Mastoid Process right algometric site. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above value corresponds to the Mastoid Process right algometric site.|Null hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the pain sensitivity assessed by the Pain Pressure Threshold (PPT) measured with the pressure algometer (Commander Algometer) in patients with chronic neck pain (main hypothesis).||||=0.018
91068249|NCT05870371|182022582|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.32|||=|0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Bladder 10 left (BL 10) algometric site. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above value corresponds to the Bladder 10 left (BL 10) algometric site.|Null hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the pain sensitivity assessed by the Pain Pressure Threshold (PPT) measured with the pressure algometer (Commander Algometer) in patients with chronic neck pain (main hypothesis).||||=0.020
91068250|NCT05870371|182022582|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.39|||=|0.025|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Bladder 10 right (BL 10) algometric site. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above value corresponds to the Bladder 10 right (BL 10) algometric site.|Null hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the pain sensitivity assessed by the Pain Pressure Threshold (PPT) measured with the pressure algometer (Commander Algometer) in patients with chronic neck pain (main hypothesis).||||=0.025
91068251|NCT05870371|182022582|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Zygapophyseal Joint left algometric site. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above value corresponds to the Zygapophyseal Joint left algometric site.|Null hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the pain sensitivity assessed by the Pain Pressure Threshold (PPT) measured with the pressure algometer (Commander Algometer) in patients with chronic neck pain (main hypothesis).||||<0.001
90827532|NCT04186871|181529849|EQUIVALENCE|ADJUSTED MEAN DIFFERENCE WEEK 12|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|-1.11||||||||-1.110|-2.110|
91068252|NCT05870371|182022582|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Zygapophyseal Joint right algometric site. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above value corresponds to the Zygapophyseal Joint right algometric site.|Null hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the pain sensitivity assessed by the Pain Pressure Threshold (PPT) measured with the pressure algometer (Commander Algometer) in patients with chronic neck pain (main hypothesis).||||<0.001
90827533|NCT04186871|181529849|EQUIVALENCE|ADJUSTED MEAN DIFFERENCE AT WEEK 12|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.567|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.855|-1.28||||||||-1.280|-1.855|
90827534|NCT04186871|181529849|SUPERIORITY|ADJUSTED MEAN DIFFERENCE VS PLACEBO|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.043|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.534|0.62||||||||0.620|-0.534|
91068253|NCT05870371|182022582|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.36|||=|0.139|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Upper Trapezius Muscle left algometric site. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above value corresponds to the Upper Trapezius Muscle left algometric site.|Null hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the pain sensitivity assessed by the Pain Pressure Threshold (PPT) measured with the pressure algometer (Commander Algometer) in patients with chronic neck pain (main hypothesis).||||=0.139
91068254|NCT05870371|182022582|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|||=|0.011|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Upper Trapezius Muscle right algometric site. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above value corresponds to the Upper Trapezius Muscle right algometric site.|Null hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the pain sensitivity assessed by the Pain Pressure Threshold (PPT) measured with the pressure algometer (Commander Algometer) in patients with chronic neck pain (main hypothesis).||||=0.011
91068255|NCT05870371|182022582|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.67|||=|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Levator Scapulae Muscle left algometric site. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above value corresponds to the Levator Scapulae Muscle left algometric site.|Null hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the pain sensitivity assessed by the Pain Pressure Threshold (PPT) measured with the pressure algometer (Commander Algometer) in patients with chronic neck pain (main hypothesis).||||=0.010
91068256|NCT05870371|182022582|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.62|||=|0.06|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Levator Scapulae Muscle right algometric site. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above value corresponds to the Levator Scapulae Muscle right algometric site.|Null hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the pain sensitivity assessed by the Pain Pressure Threshold (PPT) measured with the pressure algometer (Commander Algometer) in patients with chronic neck pain (main hypothesis).||||=0.06
91068257|NCT05870371|182022582|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.51|||=|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Deltoid Muscle left algometric site. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above value corresponds to the Deltoid Muscle left algometric site.|Null hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the pain sensitivity assessed by the Pain Pressure Threshold (PPT) measured with the pressure algometer (Commander Algometer) in patients with chronic neck pain (main hypothesis).||||=0.050
91068258|NCT05870371|182022582|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.41|||=|0.068|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Deltoid Muscle right algometric site. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above value corresponds to the Deltoid Muscle right algometric site.|Null hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the pain sensitivity assessed by the Pain Pressure Threshold (PPT) measured with the pressure algometer (Commander Algometer) in patients with chronic neck pain (main hypothesis).||||=0.068
91068259|NCT05870371|182022582|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.59|||=|0.049|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Tibialis Anterior Muscle left algometric site. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above value corresponds to the Tibialis Anterior Muscle left algometric site.|Null hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the pain sensitivity assessed by the Pain Pressure Threshold (PPT) measured with the pressure algometer (Commander Algometer) in patients with chronic neck pain (main hypothesis).||||=0.049
91068260|NCT05870371|182022582|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.73|||=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Tibialis Anterior Muscle right algometric site. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above value corresponds to the Tibialis Anterior Muscle right algometric site.|Null hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the pain sensitivity assessed by the Pain Pressure Threshold (PPT) measured with the pressure algometer (Commander Algometer) in patients with chronic neck pain (main hypothesis).||||=0.004
91068261|NCT05870371|182022582|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|=|0.297|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Mastoid Process left algometric site. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05. The above value correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above values correspond to the Mastoid Process left algometric site. The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null hypothesis: The effect of applying ATM does not differ in reducing the pain sensitivity assessed by the Pain Pressure Threshold (PPT) measured with the pressure algometer (Commander Algometer) in patients with chronic neck pain from applying A-S (main hypothesis).||||=0.297
91068262|NCT05870371|182022582|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|-0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|=|0.855|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Mastoid Process right algometric site. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05. The above value correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above values correspond to the Mastoid Process right algometric site. The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null hypothesis: The effect of applying ATM does not differ in reducing the pain sensitivity assessed by the Pain Pressure Threshold (PPT) measured with the pressure algometer (Commander Algometer) in patients with chronic neck pain from applying A-S (main hypothesis).||||=0.855
91077860|NCT02913105|182041136|OTHER|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.94||||0.1342|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.01|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Cholesterol: Day 112 (EOS)||1.01|0.88|0.1342
90827535|NCT04186871|181529850|EQUIVALENCE|ADJUSTED MEAN DIFFERENCE AT WEEK 12|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.741|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.256|-1.226||||||||-1.226|-2.256|
91068263|NCT05870371|182022582|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|=|0.594|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Bladder 10 (BL 10) left algometric site. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05. The above value corresponds to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above values correspond to the Bladder 10 (BL 10) left algometric site. The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null hypothesis: The effect of applying ATM does not differ in reducing the pain sensitivity assessed by the Pain Pressure Threshold (PPT) measured with the pressure algometer (Commander Algometer) in patients with chronic neck pain from applying A-S (main hypothesis).||||=0.594
91068264|NCT05870371|182022582|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|=|0.929|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Bladder 10 (BL 10) right algometric site. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05. The above value corresponds to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above values correspond to the Bladder 10 (BL 10) right algometric site. The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null hypothesis: The effect of applying ATM does not differ in reducing the pain sensitivity assessed by the Pain Pressure Threshold (PPT) measured with the pressure algometer (Commander Algometer) in patients with chronic neck pain from applying A-S (main hypothesis).||||=0.929
91068265|NCT05870371|182022582|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|=|0.725|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Zygapophyseal Joint left algometric site. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05. The above value corresponds to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above values correspond to the Zygapophyseal Joint left algometric site. The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null hypothesis: The effect of applying ATM does not differ in reducing the pain sensitivity assessed by the Pain Pressure Threshold (PPT) measured with the pressure algometer (Commander Algometer) in patients with chronic neck pain from applying A-S (main hypothesis).||||=0.725
91068266|NCT05870371|182022582|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|=|0.725|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Zygapophyseal Joint right algometric site. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05. The above value corresponds to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above values correspond to the Zygapophyseal Joint right algometric site. The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null hypothesis: The effect of applying ATM does not differ in reducing the pain sensitivity assessed by the Pain Pressure Threshold (PPT) measured with the pressure algometer (Commander Algometer) in patients with chronic neck pain from applying A-S (main hypothesis).||||=0.725
91068267|NCT05870371|182022582|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|=|0.398|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Upper Trapezius Muscle left algometric site. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05. The above value corresponds to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above values correspond to the Upper Trapezius Muscle left algometric site. The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null hypothesis: The effect of applying ATM does not differ in reducing the pain sensitivity assessed by the Pain Pressure Threshold (PPT) measured with the pressure algometer (Commander Algometer) in patients with chronic neck pain from applying A-S (main hypothesis).||||=0.398
91068268|NCT05870371|182022582|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|=|0.186|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Mastoid Process right algometric site. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05. The above value corresponds to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above values correspond to the Upper Trapezius Muscle right algometric site. The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null hypothesis: The effect of applying ATM does not differ in reducing the pain sensitivity assessed by the Pain Pressure Threshold (PPT) measured with the pressure algometer (Commander Algometer) in patients with chronic neck pain from applying A-S (main hypothesis).||||=0.186
91068269|NCT05870371|182022582|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|=|0.833|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Levator Scapulae Muscle left algometric site. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05. The above value corresponds to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above values correspond to the Levator Scapulae Muscle left algometric site. The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null hypothesis: The effect of applying ATM does not differ in reducing the pain sensitivity assessed by the Pain Pressure Threshold (PPT) measured with the pressure algometer (Commander Algometer) in patients with chronic neck pain from applying A-S (main hypothesis).||||=0.833
91068270|NCT05870371|182022582|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|=|0.469|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Levator Scapulae Muscle right algometric site. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05. The above value corresponds to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above values correspond to the Levator Scapulae Muscle right algometric site. The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null hypothesis: The effect of applying ATM does not differ in reducing the pain sensitivity assessed by the Pain Pressure Threshold (PPT) measured with the pressure algometer (Commander Algometer) in patients with chronic neck pain from applying A-S (main hypothesis).||||=0.469
91078630|NCT01964716|182043067|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for a given antibody was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 97.5% confidence interval, computed using the Chan and Zhang procedure, for the difference in proportions (13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS) was greater than -0.10.|percent difference|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.7|1.6||||||Serotype 7F: Exact 2-sided confidence interval (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, 13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS, expressed as a percentage was analyzed.||1.6|-2.7|
90827536|NCT04186871|181529850|EQUIVALENCE|ADJUSTED MEAN DIFFERENCE AT WEEK 12|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.698|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.998|-1.399||||||||-1.399|-1.998|
91068271|NCT05870371|182022582|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|=|0.399|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Deltoid Muscle left algometric site. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05. The above value corresponds to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above values correspond to the Deltoid Muscle left algometric site. The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null hypothesis: The effect of applying ATM does not differ in reducing the pain sensitivity assessed by the Pain Pressure Threshold (PPT) measured with the pressure algometer (Commander Algometer) in patients with chronic neck pain from applying A-S (main hypothesis).||||=0.399
91068272|NCT05870371|182022582|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|=|0.752|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Deltoid Muscle right algometric site. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05. The above value corresponds to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above values correspond to the Deltoid Muscle right algometric site. The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null hypothesis: The effect of applying ATM does not differ in reducing the pain sensitivity assessed by the Pain Pressure Threshold (PPT) measured with the pressure algometer (Commander Algometer) in patients with chronic neck pain from applying A-S (main hypothesis).||||=0.752
91068273|NCT05870371|182022582|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Tibialis Anterior Muscle left algometric site. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05. The above value corresponds to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above values correspond to the Tibialis Anterior Muscle left algometric site. The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null hypothesis: The effect of applying ATM does not differ in reducing the pain sensitivity assessed by the Pain Pressure Threshold (PPT) measured with the pressure algometer (Commander Algometer) in patients with chronic neck pain from applying A-S (main hypothesis).||||=0.002
91068274|NCT05870371|182022582|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Tibialis Anterior Muscle right algometric site. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05. The above value corresponds to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above values correspond to the Tibialis Anterior Muscle right algometric site. The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null hypothesis: The effect of applying ATM does not differ in reducing the pain sensitivity assessed by the Pain Pressure Threshold (PPT) measured with the pressure algometer (Commander Algometer) in patients with chronic neck pain from applying A-S (main hypothesis).||||=0.003
91068275|NCT05870371|182022583|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.41|||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Rotation maximum. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above value corresponds to the Rotation maximum.|Null hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the cervical range of motion (ROM) recorded with the Moover three-dimensional (3D) Inertial Motion sensor in patients with chronic neck pain (secondary hypothesis).||||=0.002
91068276|NCT05870371|182022583|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.92|||=|0.046|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Rotation average. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above value corresponds to the Rotation average.|Null hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the cervical range of motion (ROM) recorded with the Moover three-dimensional (3D) Inertial Motion sensor in patients with chronic neck pain (secondary hypothesis).||||=0.046
91068277|NCT05870371|182022583|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Lateral Flexion maximum. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above value corresponds to the Lateral Flexion maximum.|Null hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the cervical range of motion (ROM) recorded with the Moover three-dimensional (3D) Inertial Motion sensor in patients with chronic neck pain (secondary hypothesis).||||<0.001
91068278|NCT05870371|182022583|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.57|||=|0.043|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Lateral Flexion average. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above value corresponds to the Lateral Flexion average.|Null hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the cervical range of motion (ROM) recorded with the Moover three-dimensional (3D) Inertial Motion sensor in patients with chronic neck pain (secondary hypothesis).||||=0.043
91068279|NCT05870371|182022583|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.52|||=|0.018|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Flexion maximum. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above value corresponds to the Flexion maximum.|Null hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the cervical range of motion (ROM) recorded with the Moover three-dimensional (3D) Inertial Motion sensor in patients with chronic neck pain (secondary hypothesis).||||=0.018
91068280|NCT05870371|182022583|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.45|||=|0.102|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Flexion average. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above value corresponds to the Flexion average.|Null hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the cervical range of motion (ROM) recorded with the Moover three-dimensional (3D) Inertial Motion sensor in patients with chronic neck pain (secondary hypothesis).||||=0.102
91068281|NCT05870371|182022583|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.85|||=|0.16|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Extension maximum. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above value corresponds to the Extension maximum.|Null hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the cervical range of motion (ROM) recorded with the Moover three-dimensional (3D) Inertial Motion sensor in patients with chronic neck pain (secondary hypothesis).||||=0.160
91068282|NCT05870371|182022583|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.48|||<|0.039|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Extension average. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above value corresponds to the Extension average.|Null hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the cervical range of motion (ROM) recorded with the Moover three-dimensional (3D) Inertial Motion sensor in patients with chronic neck pain (secondary hypothesis).||||<0.039
91068283|NCT05870371|182022583|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.51|=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p-value corresponds to the Rotation maximum. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above values correspond to the Rotation maximum. The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null hypothesis: The effect of the application of ATM does not differ in the improvement of the cervical ROM recorded with the Moover three-dimensional (3D) Inertial Motion sensor in patients with chronic neck pain from the application of A-S (secondary hypothesis).||||=0.001
91068284|NCT05870371|182022583|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.51|=|0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above values correspond to the Rotation average. The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null hypothesis: The effect of the application of ATM does not differ in the improvement of the cervical ROM recorded with the Moover three-dimensional (3D) Inertial Motion sensor in patients with chronic neck pain from the application of A-S (secondary hypothesis).||||=0.002
91068285|NCT05870371|182022583|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|-4.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6|=|0.048|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Lateral Flexion maximum. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05. The above value corresponds to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above values correspond to the Lateral Flexion maximum. The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null hypothesis: The effect of the application of ATM does not differ in the improvement of the cervical ROM recorded with the Moover three-dimensional (3D) Inertial Motion sensor in patients with chronic neck pain from the application of A-S (secondary hypothesis).||||=0.048
91068286|NCT05870371|182022583|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06|=|0.059|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Lateral Flexion average. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05. The above value corresponds to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above values correspond to the Lateral Flexion average. The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null hypothesis: The effect of the application of ATM does not differ in the improvement of the cervical ROM recorded with the Moover three-dimensional (3D) Inertial Motion sensor in patients with chronic neck pain from the application of A-S (secondary hypothesis).||||=0.059
91068287|NCT05870371|182022583|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|-0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.62|=|0.57|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Flexion maximum. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05. The above value corresponds to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above values correspond to the Flexion maximum. The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null hypothesis: The effect of the application of ATM does not differ in the improvement of the cervical ROM recorded with the Moover three-dimensional (3D) Inertial Motion sensor in patients with chronic neck pain from the application of A-S (secondary hypothesis).||||=0.57
91068288|NCT05870371|182022583|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.65|=|0.931|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Flexion average. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05. The above value corresponds to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above values correspond to the Flexion average. The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null hypothesis: The effect of the application of ATM does not differ in the improvement of the cervical ROM recorded with the Moover three-dimensional (3D) Inertial Motion sensor in patients with chronic neck pain from the application of A-S (secondary hypothesis).||||=0.931
91068289|NCT05870371|182022583|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|-1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.99|=|0.558|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Extension maximum. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05. The above value corresponds to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above values correspond to the Extension maximum . The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null hypothesis: The effect of the application of ATM does not differ in the improvement of the cervical ROM recorded with the Moover three-dimensional (3D) Inertial Motion sensor in patients with chronic neck pain from the application of A-S (secondary hypothesis).||||=0.558
91068290|NCT05870371|182022583|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.96|=|0.989|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Extension average. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05. The above value corresponds to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above values correspond to the Extension average. The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null hypothesis: The effect of the application of ATM does not differ in the improvement of the cervical ROM recorded with the Moover three-dimensional (3D) Inertial Motion sensor in patients with chronic neck pain from the application of A-S (secondary hypothesis).||||=0.989
91068291|NCT05870371|182022584|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.||Null hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the strength of deep neck flexor muscles as measured by the Chattanooga Stabilizer Pressure Biofeedback in patients with chronic pain in the cervical spine (secondary hypothesis).||||<0.001
91068292|NCT05870371|182022584|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01|=|0.437|TWO_SIDED|||||The above value corresponds to the comparison which is between groups at baseline. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null Hypothesis: The effect of applying ATM does not differ in improving the strength of deep neck flexor muscles measured by the Chattanooga Stabilizer Pressure Biofeedback in patients with chronic neck pain than applying A-S (secondary hypothesis).||||=0.437
91068293|NCT05870371|182022585|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|||=|0.919|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.||Null Hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the respiratory function assessed by the portable spirometer (MIR Spirodoc) in patients with chronic neck pain (secondary hypothesis).||||=0.919
91068294|NCT05870371|182022585|OTHER||Dependence coefficients (β)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|=|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||The above value corresponds to the comparison between groups at baseline. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The above value corresponds to the comparison between groups at baseline.|Null Hypothesis: The effect of the application of ATM does not differ in the improvement of the respiratory function in patients with chronic neck pain from the application of A-S (secondary hypothesis).||||=0.010
91068295|NCT05870371|182022586|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.09|||=|0.659|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.||Null Hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the respiratory function assessed by the portable spirometer (MIR Spirodoc) in patients with chronic neck pain (secondary hypothesis).||||=0.659
91068296|NCT05870371|182022586|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|=|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The above value correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above value correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null Hypothesis: The effect of the application of ATM does not differ in the improvement of the respiratory function in patients with chronic neck pain from the application of A-S (secondary hypothesis).||||=0.05
91068297|NCT05870371|182022587|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|10.28|||=|0.09|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.||Null Hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the respiratory function assessed by the portable spirometer (MIR Spirodoc) in patients with chronic neck pain (secondary hypothesis).||||=0.09
91068298|NCT05870371|182022587|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|=|0.005|TWO_SIDED|||||The above value correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above value correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null Hypothesis: The effect of the application of ATM does not differ in the improvement of the respiratory function in patients with chronic neck pain from the application of A-S (secondary hypothesis).||||=0.005
91068299|NCT05870371|182022588|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p-value corresponds to the Total McGill Score. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above value corresponds to the Total McGill Score.|Null Hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the pain in the cervical spine in terms of its intensity and quality, i.e., its sensory, emotional and behavioral dimensions using the McGill Pain Questionnaire-short form (SFMPQ) in patients with chronic neck pain (secondary hypothesis).||||<0.001
91068300|NCT05870371|182022588|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p-value corresponds to the Sensory Score. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above value corresponds to the Sensory Score.|Null Hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the pain in the cervical spine in terms of its intensity and quality, i.e., its sensory, emotional and behavioral dimensions using the McGill Pain Questionnaire-short form (SFMPQ) in patients with chronic neck pain (secondary hypothesis).||||<0.001
91068301|NCT05870371|182022588|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p-value corresponds to the Affective Score. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above value corresponds to the Affective Score.|Null Hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the pain in the cervical spine in terms of its intensity and quality, i.e., its sensory, emotional and behavioral dimensions using the McGill Pain Questionnaire-short form (SFMPQ) in patients with chronic neck pain (secondary hypothesis).||||<0.001
91068302|NCT05870371|182022588|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|=|0.996|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p-value corresponds to the Total McGill score. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models. The above p-value corresponds to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null Hypothesis: The effect of the application of ATM does not differ in the reduction of pain in terms of its intensity and quality in patients with chronic neck pain from the application of A-S (secondary hypothesis).||||=0.996
91068303|NCT05870371|182022588|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|=|0.968|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p-value corresponds to the Sensory Score. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models. The above p-value corresponds to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null Hypothesis: The effect of the application of ATM does not differ in the reduction of pain in terms of its intensity and quality in patients with chronic neck pain from the application of A-S (secondary hypothesis).||||=0.968
91068304|NCT05870371|182022588|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|=|0.854|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p-value corresponds to the Affective Score. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models. The above p-value corresponds to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null Hypothesis: The effect of the application of ATM does not differ in the reduction of pain in terms of its intensity and quality in patients with chronic neck pain from the application of A-S (secondary hypothesis).||||=0.854
91068305|NCT05870371|182022589|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.||||||<0.001
91068306|NCT05870371|182022589|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|=|0.952|TWO_SIDED|||||The above value corresponds to the comparison which is between groups at baseline. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|||||=0.952
91068307|NCT05870371|182022590|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.||||||<0.001
91068308|NCT05870371|182022590|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|=|0.989|TWO_SIDED|||||The above value corresponds to the comparison which is between groups at baseline. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|||||=0.989
91068309|NCT05870371|182022591|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.||Null Hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the functionality recorded with the Neck Disability Index (NDI) in patients with chronic pain in the cervical spine (secondary hypothesis).||||<0.001
91068310|NCT05870371|182022591|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|=|0.973|TWO_SIDED|||||The above value corresponds to the comparison which is between groups at baseline. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above value corresponds to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null Hypothesis: The effect of the application of ATM does not differ in the improvement of functionality recorded with the Neck Disability Index (NDI) in patients with chronic neck pain from the application of A-S (secondary hypothesis).||||=0.973
91068311|NCT05870371|182022592|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p-value corresponds to the Depression subscale of HADS. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above value corresponds to the Depression subscale of HADS.|Null Hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the anxiety and depression captured by the Hospital Anxiety \& Depression Scale (HADS) in patients with chronic neck pain (secondary hypothesis).||||<0.001
91068312|NCT05870371|182022592|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The above value corresponds to the Anxiety subscale of HADS. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above value corresponds to the Anxiety subscale of HADS.|Null Hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the anxiety and depression captured by the Hospital Anxiety \& Depression Scale (HADS) in patients with chronic neck pain (secondary hypothesis).||||<0.001
91068313|NCT05870371|182022592|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|=|0.305|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p-value corresponds to the Depression subscale of HADS. The above value corresponds to the comparison which is between groups at baseline. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above values correspond to the Depression subscale of HADS. The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null Hypothesis: The effect of the application of ATM does not differ in the reduction of anxiety and depression captured by the Hospital Anxiety \& Depression Scale (HADS) in patients with chronic pain in the cervical spine from the application of A-S (secondary hypothesis).||||=0.305
91068314|NCT05870371|182022592|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|=|0.137|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p-value corresponds to the Anxiety subscale of HADS. The above value corresponds to the comparison which is between groups at baseline. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above values correspond to the Anxiety subscale of HADS. The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null Hypothesis: The effect of the application of ATM does not differ in the reduction of anxiety and depression captured by the Hospital Anxiety \& Depression Scale (HADS) in patients with chronic pain in the cervical spine from the application of A-S (secondary hypothesis).||||=0.137
91068315|NCT05870371|182022593|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.||Null Hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the kinesiophobia as measured by the Tampa Scale Kinesiophobia (TSK\_GR) in patients with chronic neck pain (secondary hypothesis).||||<0.001
91068316|NCT05870371|182022593|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01|=|0.151|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05. The above value corresponds to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null Hypothesis: The effect of the application of ATM does not differ from the application of A-S in reducing kinesiophobia measured by the Tampa Scale Kinesiophobia (TSK\_GR) in patients with chronic neck pain (secondary hypothesis).||||=0.151
91068317|NCT05870371|182022593|OTHER||||||=|0.021||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|McNemar|||||||=0.021
91068318|NCT05870371|182022594|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.24|||=|0.006|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p-value corresponds to the FABQ\_physical subscale. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above value corresponds to the FABQ\_physical subscale.|Null Hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the perception of the fear and the effort to avoid pain in relation to physical and work activities assessed by the Fear Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire\_Greek version (FABQ\_GR) in patients with chronic neck pain (secondary hypothesis).||||=0.006
91068319|NCT05870371|182022594|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.24|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p-value corresponds to the FABQ\_work subscale. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above value corresponds to the FABQ\_work subscale.|Null Hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the perception of the fear and the effort to avoid pain in relation to physical and work activities assessed by the Fear Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire\_Greek version (FABQ\_GR) in patients with chronic neck pain (secondary hypothesis).||||=0.001
91068320|NCT05870371|182022594|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|=|0.197|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p-value corresponds to the FABQ\_work subscale. The above value corresponds to the comparison which is between groups at baseline. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above values correspond to the FABQ\_work subscale. The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null Hypothesis: The effect of the application of ATM does not differ in the improvement of perception of fear and effort to avoid pain in relation to physical and work activities assessed by the Fear Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire\_Greek version (FABQ\_GR) in patients with chronic neck pain from the application of A-S (secondary hypothesis).||||=0.197
91068321|NCT05870371|182022594|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|=|0.066|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p-value corresponds to the FABQ\_physical subscale. The above value corresponds to the comparison which is between groups at baseline. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above values correspond to the FABQ\_physical subscale. The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null Hypothesis: The effect of the application of ATM does not differ in the improvement of perception of fear and effort to avoid pain in relation to physical and work activities assessed by the Fear Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire\_Greek version (FABQ\_GR) in patients with chronic neck pain from the application of A-S (secondary hypothesis).||||=0.066
91068322|NCT05870371|182022595|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p-value corresponds to the Total PCS score. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above value corresponds to the Total PCS score.|Null Hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the degree of pain catastrophizing recorded by the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS) in patients with chronic neck pain (secondary hypothesis).||||<0.001
91068323|NCT05870371|182022595|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p-value corresponds to the Rumination subscale of PCS. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above value corresponds to the Rumination subscale of PCS.|Null Hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the degree of pain catastrophizing recorded by the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS) in patients with chronic neck pain (secondary hypothesis).||||<0.001
91068324|NCT05870371|182022595|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p-value corresponds to the Magnification subscale of PCS. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above value corresponds to the Magnification subscale of PCS.|Null Hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the degree of pain catastrophizing recorded by the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS) in patients with chronic neck pain (secondary hypothesis).||||<0.001
91068325|NCT05870371|182022595|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p-value corresponds to the Helplessness subscale of PCS. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above value corresponds to the Helplessness subscale of PCS.|Null Hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the degree of pain catastrophizing recorded by the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS) in patients with chronic neck pain (secondary hypothesis).||||<0.001
91068326|NCT05870371|182022595|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|=|0.871|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p-value corresponds to the Total PCS score. The above value corresponds to the comparison which is between groups at baseline. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above values correspond to the Total PCS score. The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null Hypothesis: The effect of the application of ATM does not differ from the application of A-S in reducing pain catastrophizing recorded by the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS) in patients with chronic neck pain (secondary hypothesis).|The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|||=0.871
91077861|NCT02913105|182041136|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.96||||0.0771|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.0|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Cholesterol: Day 7||1.00|0.92|0.0771
90827537|NCT04186871|181529850|SUPERIORITY|ADJUSTED MEAN DIFFERENCE VS PLACEBO|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.043|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.553|0.639||||||||0.639|-0.553|
90827538|NCT04186871|181529851|EQUIVALENCE|ADJUSTED MEAN DIFFERENCE AT WEEK 12|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.495|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.861|-14.128||||||||-14.128|-24.861|
90827539|NCT04186871|181529851|EQUIVALENCE|ADJUSTED MEAN DIFFERENCE AT WEEK 12|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.767|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.848|-15.686||||||||-15.686|-21.848|
90827540|NCT04186871|181529851|SUPERIORITY|ADJUSTED MEAN DIFFERENCE VS PLACEBO|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.728|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.463|6.919||||||||6.919|-5.463|
91068327|NCT05870371|182022595|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|=|0.887|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p-value corresponds to the Rumination subscale of PCS. The above value correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above values correspond to the Rumination subscale of PCS. The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null Hypothesis: The effect of the application of ATM does not differ from the application of A-S in reducing pain catastrophizing recorded by the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS) in patients with chronic neck pain (secondary hypothesis).||||=0.887
91068328|NCT05870371|182022595|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|=|0.879|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p-value corresponds to the Magnification subscale of PCS. The above value corresponds to the comparison which is between groups at baseline. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above values correspond to the Magnification subscale of PCS. The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null Hypothesis: The effect of the application of ATM does not differ from the application of A-S in reducing pain catastrophizing recorded by the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS) in patients with chronic neck pain (secondary hypothesis).||||=0.879
91068329|NCT05870371|182022595|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|=|0.961|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p-value corresponds to the Helplessness subscale of PCS. The above value corresponds to the comparison which is between groups at baseline. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above values correspond to the Helplessness subscale of PCS. The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null Hypothesis: The effect of the application of ATM does not differ from the application of A-S in reducing pain catastrophizing recorded by the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS) in patients with chronic neck pain (secondary hypothesis).||||=0.961
91068330|NCT05870371|182022596|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p-value corresponds to the Physical Component Summary/PCS subscale of SF-12. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above value corresponds to the Physical Component Summary/PCS subscale of SF-12.|Null Hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the quality of life as measured by the Short Form 12-item Health Survey (SF-12) in patients with chronic neck pain (secondary hypothesis).||||<0.001
91068331|NCT05870371|182022596|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p-value corresponds to the Mental Component Summary/MCS subscale of SF-12. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above value corresponds to the Mental Component Summary/MCS subscale of SF-12.|Null Hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the quality of life as measured by the Short Form 12-item Health Survey (SF-12) in patients with chronic neck pain (secondary hypothesis).||||<0.001
91068332|NCT05870371|182022596|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32|=|0.564|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p-value corresponds to the Physical Component Summary/PCS of SF-12. The above p-value corresponds to the comparison which is between groups at baseline. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above values correspond to the Physical Component Summary/PCS subscale of SF-12. The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null Hypothesis: The effect of the application of ATM does not differ in the improvement of quality of life measured by the Short Form 12-item Health Survey (SF-12) in patients with chronic pain in the cervical spine from the application of A-S (secondary hypothesis).||||=0.564
91068333|NCT05870371|182022596|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|-3.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.34|=|0.023|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p-value corresponds to Mental Component Summary/MCS of SF-12. The above p-value corresponds to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above values correspond to the Mental Component Summary/MCS of SF-12. The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null Hypothesis: The effect of the application of ATM does not differ in the improvement of quality of life measured by the Short Form 12-item Health Survey (SF-12) in patients with chronic pain in the cervical spine from the application of A-S (secondary hypothesis).||||=0.023
91068334|NCT05870371|182022597|OTHER||||||=|0.014||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||=0.014
91068335|NCT05870371|182022597|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91068336|NCT05870371|182022597|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91068337|NCT04495751|182022623|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.5|1.1||||||||1.1|-3.5|
91068338|NCT04495751|182022624|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1||||||||0.1|-0.5|
91068339|NCT04495751|182022625|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|2.0||||||||2.0|-0.7|
91068340|NCT04495751|182022626|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-973.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3500.0|1553.0||||||||1553|-3500|
91068341|NCT04495751|182022627|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.4|73.8||||||||73.8|-32.4|
91068342|NCT04495751|182022628|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|3.2||||||||3.2|-2.2|
91068343|NCT04495751|182022629|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.7||||||Quality of Life - Self-rate health||0.7|-0.2|
91068344|NCT04495751|182022629|SUPERIORITY|Quality of life - Ability to carry out social activities and roles|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.6||||||||0.6|-0.3|
91068345|NCT04495751|182022629|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|4.5||||||Physical health (t score)||4.5|-2.7|
90827541|NCT04186871|181529852|EQUIVALENCE|ADJUSTED MEAN AT DIFFERENCE WEEK 12|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.3|-14.1||||||||-14.1|-24.3|
91068346|NCT04495751|182022629|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|2.5||||||Global Mental health (t score||2.5|-5.4|
91068347|NCT04495751|182022630|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-99.7|101.9||||||||101.9|-99.7|
91068348|NCT04495751|182022631|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5||||||||0.5|-0.5|
91068349|NCT04873934|182022634|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-46.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-55.4|-38.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-38.5|-55.4|< 0.001
91068350|NCT04873934|182022635|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|3.29|8.91|||Regression, Logistic|||||8.91|3.29|< 0.001
91068351|NCT04873934|182022636|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-42.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.3|-36.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 90||-36.7|-47.3|< 0.001
91068352|NCT04873934|182022636|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-30.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.4|-24.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 270||-24.3|-37.4|< 0.001
91068353|NCT04873934|182022636|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-37.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.5|-31.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 330||-31.0|-44.5|< 0.001
91068354|NCT04873934|182022637|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-46.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.7|-40.8|||ANCOVA|||||-40.8|-52.7|< 0.001
91068355|NCT04873934|182022638|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-37.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.4|-32.2|||ANCOVA|||||-32.2|-42.4|< 0.001
91068356|NCT04873934|182022639|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.33|22.25|||Regression, Logistic|||||22.25|6.33|< 0.001
91068357|NCT04873934|182022640|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.92|9.99|||Regression, Logistic|||Achieving LDL-C \< 100 mg/dL||9.99|1.92|< 0.001
91068358|NCT04873934|182022640|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.97|13.65|||Regression, Logistic|||Achieving LDL-C \< 55 mg/dL||13.65|4.97|< 0.001
91068359|NCT04873934|182022641|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-37.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.8|-30.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Apolipoprotein B||-30.3|-44.8|< 0.001
91068360|NCT04873934|182022641|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-6.4||||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|3.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||VLDL Cholesterol||3.1|-16.0|0.188
91068361|NCT04873934|182022641|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-37.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.0|-31.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Non-HDL Cholesterol||-31.4|-44.0|< 0.001
91068362|NCT04873934|182022641|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-25.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.2|-20.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Total Cholesterol||-20.7|-30.2|< 0.001
91068363|NCT04873934|182022641|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-16.4||||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.4|5.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Lipoprotein(a)||5.7|-38.4|0.145
91068364|NCT04873934|182022641|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.5||||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|8.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||HDL Cholesterol||8.1|-1.2|0.141
91068365|NCT04873934|182022641|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-5.0||||0.339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|5.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Triglycerides||5.3|-15.2|0.339
91068366|NCT04873934|182022642|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-28.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.0|-23.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Apolipoprotein B||-23.9|-33.0|< 0.001
91068367|NCT04873934|182022642|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.1||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||VLDL Cholesterol||0.2|-4.5|0.078
91068368|NCT04873934|182022642|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-40.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.5|-32.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Non-HDL Cholesterol||-32.8|-47.5|< 0.001
91068369|NCT04873934|182022642|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-37.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.3|-30.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Total Cholesterol||-30.2|-45.3|< 0.001
91068370|NCT04873934|182022642|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.9||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|3.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||HDL Cholesterol||3.8|-0.1|0.065
91068371|NCT04873934|182022642|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-8.7||||0.222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.8|5.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Triglycerides||5.3|-22.8|0.222
91068372|NCT04873934|182022643|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-14.0||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.8|-4.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Lipoprotein(a)||-4.2|-23.8|0.005
91068373|NCT04873934|182022644|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.43||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.93|||proportional odds model|||||0.93|0.20|0.031
91068374|NCT04873934|182022645|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.039||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.077|-0.001|||ANCOVA|||||-0.001|-0.077|0.043
91068375|NCT04873934|182022646|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.35|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.35|0.43|0.346
91068376|NCT00708461|182022647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.125|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1202||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.46||Adjusted for age, educational attainment, race/ethnicity, and smoking status as individual, fixed-effect covariates. 95% confidence intervals and p-values derived from t-statistics with 4 degrees of freedom, reflecting the group-randomized design.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for age, educational attainment, race/ethnicity, and smoking status as individual, fixed-effect covariates.||"The null hypothesis was no effect of the environmental intervention. The following power assumptions were made:~* Intraclass correlation (ICC) of 0.016, estimated from an earlier study~* Variance of 118 kg, estimated from an earlier study~* Cohort N=400~* 15% attrition (by turnover) Using the external control and a worksite correlation of 0.2 gives a detectable difference of about 1.5 kg or 3 lb, or an effect size of 0.14. The effect size using internal control is 0.20."||0.46|-0.21|0.36
91068377|NCT04818034|182022709|OTHER|paired t-test|paired t-test|0.965|STANDARD_DEVIATION|37.0||0.965|ONE_SIDED|96.0|||||paired t-test|||||||0.965
91068378|NCT01515865|182022723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.8||||0.3145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.6|9.8|||Fisher Exact|||||9.8|-37.6|0.3145
91068379|NCT00507455|182022781|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference from placebo was less than 15 cmH2O for PdetQmax, then the treatment is non-inferior to the placebo in PdetQmax.|LS Mean Difference|-6.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.67|2.37|||||Least squares (LS) means were analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with the site and treatment group as the factors and the baseline value as the covariate.|A hierarchical step-down procedure was used to control for multiplicity. The comparison between solifenacin 6 mg + tamsulosin 0.4 mg and placebo was conducted first. If non-inferiority was demonstrated, solifenacin 9 mg + tamsulosin 0.4 mg was then compared to placebo. If the first comparison did not demonstrate non-inferiority, no further testing was performed. This procedure maintained the overall type I error of 1-sided 2.5%.||2.37|-14.67|
91077862|NCT02913105|182041136|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.96||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.01|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Cholesterol: Day 14||1.01|0.91|0.1510
91068380|NCT00507455|182022781|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference from placebo was less than 15 cmH2O for PdetQmax, then the treatment is non-inferior to the placebo in PdetQmax.|LS Mean Difference|-5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.85|3.84|||||Least squares (LS) means were analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with the site and treatment group as the factors and the baseline value as the covariate.|A hierarchical step-down procedure was used to control for multiplicity. The comparison between solifenacin 6 mg + tamsulosin 0.4 mg and placebo was conducted first. If non-inferiority was demonstrated, solifenacin 9 mg + tamsulosin 0.4 mg was then compared to placebo. If the first comparison did not demonstrate non-inferiority, no further testing was performed. This procedure maintained the overall type I error of 1-sided 2.5%.||3.84|-13.85|
91068381|NCT00507455|182022783|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference from placebo was greater than -3 mL/sec for Qmax, then the treatment is non-inferior to the placebo in Qmax.|LS Mean Difference|1.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.85|||||Least squares (LS) means were analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with the site and treatment group as the factors and the baseline value as the covariate.|A hierarchical step-down procedure was used to control for multiplicity. The comparison between solifenacin 6 mg + tamsulosin 0.4 mg and placebo was conducted first. If non-inferiority was demonstrated, solifenacin 9 mg + tamsulosin 0.4 mg was then compared to placebo. If the first comparison did not demonstrate non-inferiority, no further testing was performed. This procedure maintained the overall type I error of 1-sided 2.5%.||2.85|0.50|
91068382|NCT00507455|182022783|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference from placebo was greater than -3 mL/sec for Qmax, then the treatment is non-inferior to the placebo in Qmax.|LS Mean Difference|2.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|3.37|||||Least squares (LS) means were analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with the site and treatment group as the factors and the baseline value as the covariate.|A hierarchical step-down procedure was used to control for multiplicity. The comparison between solifenacin 6 mg + tamsulosin 0.4 mg and placebo was conducted first. If non-inferiority was demonstrated, solifenacin 9 mg + tamsulosin 0.4 mg was then compared to placebo. If the first comparison did not demonstrate non-inferiority, no further testing was performed. This procedure maintained the overall type I error of 1-sided 2.5%.||3.37|0.98|
91068383|NCT06110494|182022823|OTHER|Pairwise comparisons were done using Mann-Whitney U test of log10 transformed CFU reduction data to compare the antimicrobial effectiveness.||||||0.05||||||Pairwise comparisons were done using Mann-Whitney U test of log 10 transformed data to compare the antimicrobial effectiveness of Fer/H2O2 in comparison with the negative (saline) and positive (NaOCl) controls with P values set at \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The sample size estimate was calculated in Pass Software 2021, using a test that compares the ratio of two means from independent samples using data that has been log-normalized. An alpha of 0.05 and power of 80% was assumed, with means and standard deviations pulled from previous studies that employed similar methodology. This produced a required sample size of 16 for each group. Pairwise comparisons were done using Mann-Whitney U test to compare the antimicrobial effectiveness.||||0.05
91068384|NCT01605552|182022845|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||ANCOVA||||Cohen's d = 0.61|||.21
91068385|NCT01605552|182022846|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019|||||||ANCOVA||||Cohen's d = 1.33|||.019
91068386|NCT01605552|182022847|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||ANCOVA||||Cohen's d = 0.78|||.09
91068387|NCT01605552|182022848|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||ANCOVA||||Cohen's d = 0.43|||.43
91068388|NCT00911612|182022888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22||95.0||||Not adjusted since only one comparison was made.|ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance was used to compare drug with placebo adjusting for baseline geometric center at 24 hours , BMI, and 7 alpha CHO.||||0.22
91068389|NCT00911612|182022889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance was used to compare drug with placebo adjusting for BMI and 7 alpha HCO.||||0.02
91068390|NCT02560922|182022930|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.63||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of between group difference in change from baseline to 3 months||0.18|-1.45|0.128
91068391|NCT02560922|182022930|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.84||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of between group difference in change from baseline to 9 months||0.06|-1.73|0.068
91068392|NCT02560922|182022931|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.62||||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.01|0.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of between group difference in change from baseline to 3 months||0.77|-6.01|0.129
90827542|NCT04186871|181529852|EQUIVALENCE|ADJUSTED MEAN AT DIFFERENCE WEEK 12|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.4|-15.5||||||||-15.5|-21.4|
91068393|NCT02560922|182022931|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.31||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.07|0.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of between group difference in change from baseline to 9 months||0.44|-7.07|0.084
91068394|NCT02560922|182022932|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.61||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.14|0.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of between group difference in change from baseline to 3 months||0.91|-4.14|0.209
91068395|NCT02560922|182022932|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.03|0.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of between group difference in change from baseline to 9 months||0.63|-5.03|0.128
91068396|NCT02560922|182022933|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.83||||0.222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|0.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of between group difference in change from baseline to 3 months||0.51|-2.18|0.222
91068397|NCT02560922|182022933|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.14||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of between group difference in change from baseline to 9 months||0.33|-2.60|0.128
90827543|NCT04186871|181529852|SUPERIORITY|ADJUSTED MEAN DIFFERENCE VS PLACEBO|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|6.6||||||||6.6|-5.2|
90827544|NCT04186871|181529853|SUPERIORITY|RESPONSE DIFFERENCE VS PLACEBO|Response Difference|-4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.1|19.9||||||||19.9|-28.1|
90827545|NCT04186871|181529853|SUPERIORITY|ODDS RATIO VS PLACEBO|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|2.32||||||||2.32|0.31|
90827546|NCT04186871|181529854|SUPERIORITY|RESPONSE DIFFERENCE VS PLACEBO|Response Difference|-6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.8|9.9||||||||9.9|-22.8|
90827547|NCT04186871|181529854|SUPERIORITY|ODDS RATIO VS PLACEBO|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|2.34||||||||2.34|0.11|
90827548|NCT00549445|181529862|OTHER|Student t test||||||0.045||||||Threshold for significance is P-Value \< 0.05|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.045
91068398|NCT02560922|182022934|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.71||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|3.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of between group difference in change from baseline to 3 months||3.82|-0.40|0.111
91068399|NCT02560922|182022934|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.73||||0.502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|2.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of between group difference in change from baseline to 9 months||2.88|-1.42|0.502
91068400|NCT02560922|182022935|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.76||||0.433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|2.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of between group difference in change from baseline to 3 months||2.66|-1.15|0.433
91068401|NCT02560922|182022935|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.71||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|3.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of between group difference in change from baseline to 9 months||3.86|-0.45|0.120
91068402|NCT02560922|182022936|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.31||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.09|21.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of between group difference in change from baseline to 3 months||21.53|9.09|0.001
91068403|NCT02560922|182022936|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.08|18.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of between group difference in change from baseline to 9 months||18.27|5.08|<0.001
91068404|NCT02560922|182022937|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|0.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of between group difference in change from baseline to 3 months||0.57|-1.57|0.356
91068405|NCT02560922|182022937|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.02||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.19|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of between group difference in change from baseline to 9 months||0.15|-2.19|0.087
91068406|NCT02560922|182022938|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of between group difference in change from baseline to 3 months||1.41|0.61|<0.001
91068407|NCT02560922|182022938|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.67||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|1.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of between group difference in change from baseline to 9 months||1.09|0.24|0.002
91068408|NCT02560922|182022939|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of between-group difference in self-reported change in symptoms (from baseline) at 3 months||-0.95|-1.60|<0.001
91068409|NCT02560922|182022939|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|-0.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of between-group difference in self-reported change in symptoms (from baseline) at 9 months||-0.51|-1.24|<0.001
91068410|NCT00812981|182022974|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was defined as the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the GMT ratio of HI antibodies against the A/Indonesia/05/2005 strain between the two groups (1562902A CP Group over 1562902A NP Group), being below (\<) 2.0.|Adjusted GMT ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.99|||ANCOVA|||Difference in adjusted GMT ratio for HI antibodies: To demonstrate that the NP 1562902A vaccine was non-inferior to the CP 1562902A vaccine, with respect to HI antibody GMT against the A/Indonesia/05/2005 strain, 42 days following vaccination.||0.99|0.71|
91068411|NCT01422889|182023040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|||||A p-value was not calculated for the ION Registry 12 month cardiac events. For the protocol specified primary endpoint analysis including data pooled from the PERSEUS SV, PERSEUS WH and TE Prove patient populations please see the citations.||||2.2% (23/1028) of ION Registry subjects experienced CD/MI related to the ION stent at 12 months||||
91068412|NCT01422889|182023041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage|2.6|||||ONE_SIDED|||||A p-value was not calculated for the ION Registry 2 year cardiac events. For the protocol specified secondary endpoint analysis including data pooled from the PERSEUS SV, PERSEUS WH and TE Prove patient populations please see the citations.||||2.6% (27/1054) of ION Registry subjects experienced ARC ST Definite/Probable related to the ION stent at 2 years.||||
91068413|NCT00086138|182023043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.97|||Chi-squared|||The statistical analyses compared data collected from the CGIC of participants who received sertraline who had a score equal to or better than the CGIC of participants who received the placebo intervention.||1.97|0.52|0.98
91068414|NCT00086138|182023044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.06||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|5.04|||Chi-squared|||||5.04|0.84|0.11
91068415|NCT02589639|182023084|SUPERIORITY|The superiority of empagliflozin 10 mg against placebo was tested for change from baseline in HbA1c after 16 weeks of treatment at the level of α=0.05 (2-sided)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.73|||ANCOVA|Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) comparing the change from baseline in HbA1c after 16 weeks of treatment||"The statistical model was:~Change from baseline in HbA1c after 16 weeks = overall mean + baseline HbA1c + treatment + baseline renal function + type of insulin therapies + random error"|Adjusted Mean Difference calculated as (Empagliflozin 10 mg - Placebo)|-0.73|-1.11|<0.0001
91068416|NCT02589639|182023084|SUPERIORITY|The superiority of empagliflozin 25 mg against placebo was tested for change from baseline in HbA1c after 16 weeks of treatment at the level of α=0.05 (2-sided)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|-0.82|||ANCOVA|Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) comparing the change from baseline in HbA1c after 16 weeks of treatment|Adjusted Mean Difference calculated as (Empagliflozin 10 mg - Placebo)|The statistical model was: Change from baseline in HbA1c after 16 weeks = overall mean + baseline HbA1c + treatment + baseline renal function + type of insulin therapies + random error||-0.82|-1.18|<0.0001
91068417|NCT01014169|182023086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.34||||||||1.34|0.95|
91068418|NCT01014169|182023087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.25||||||||1.25|0.99|
91068419|NCT01014169|182023088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.12||||||95.0|1.0|1.25||||||||1.25|1.00|
91068420|NCT00953654|182023117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|The degrees of freedom were adjusted when the sphericity assumption was violated based on Mauchly's test.||Effects of RET and AET were compared to WL using a 3 condition by 3 time ANCOVA. An a priori statistical power analysis showed that a sample of 30 patients would provide a statistical power of .80 to detect a condition-by-time interaction for PSWQ scores assuming a two-tailed alpha value of 0.05, a correlation across repeated measures of 0.75 and a desire to detect a standardized effect size of 0.65.||||<0.05
91068421|NCT03517540|182023127|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|2.63|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.63|0.25|0.688
91068422|NCT03517540|182023127|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.99|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.99|0.51|0.985
91068423|NCT03517540|182023127|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.84|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.84|0.3|0.870
91068424|NCT03517540|182023127|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|3.61|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.61|0.41|0.710
91068425|NCT03517540|182023128|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.37||||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|1.61|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.61|0.08|0.136
91068426|NCT03517540|182023128|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|2.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.9|0.24|0.747
91068427|NCT03517540|182023128|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|3.63|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.63|0.18|0.784
91068428|NCT03517540|182023128|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|5.69|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.69|0.4|0.521
91068429|NCT02915705|182023129|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.45|||ANCOVA|||Least squares (LS) mean, standard error (SE), confidence interval (CI), and 2-sided p value per ANCOVA model, which included RGI-C as the dependent variable, treatment group and baseline age stratification factor as independent variables and baseline RSS score as a continuous covariate.||1.45|0.83|< 0.0001
91068430|NCT02915705|182023130|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|39.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.2|211.7||Odds ratio, CI, and 2-sided p-value were per logistic regression model, which included treatment group and baseline age stratification factor as independent variables and baseline RSS score as a continuous covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||211.7|7.2|< 0.0001
91068431|NCT02915705|182023131|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|34.1||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.6|206.3||Odds ratio, CI, and 2-sided p-value were per generalized linear mixed model, which includes treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline age stratification factor as factors, baseline RSS total score as a continuous covariate.|generalized linear mixed model|||||206.3|5.6|0.0002
91068432|NCT02915705|182023132|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|1.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.33|||GEE model|||Per generalized estimating equation (GEE) model, which included RGI-C as the dependent variable, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline age stratification factor as factors, baseline RSS score as a continuous covariate, with exchangeable covariate structure.||1.33|0.72|< 0.0001
91068433|NCT02915705|182023133|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|-0.94||LS mean, SE, CI, and 2-sided p value per ANCOVA model, which included treatment group and baseline age stratification factor as independent variables and baseline RSS score as a continuous covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-0.94|-1.74|< 0.0001
91068434|NCT02915705|182023134|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|-1.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|-0.83||LS mean, SE, CI, and 2-sided p value per GEE model, which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline age stratification factor as factors, baseline RSS score as a continuous covariate.|GEE model|||||-0.83|-1.59|< 0.0001
91068435|NCT02915705|182023135|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.0162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.72||LS mean, SE, CI, and 2-sided p value per GEE model, which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline age stratification factor as factors; and baseline RSS score as a continuous covariate.|GEE model|||||0.72|0.07|0.0162
91068436|NCT02915705|182023136|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|0.97|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.37||LS mean, SE, CI, and 2-sided p value per GEE model, which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline age stratification factor as factors; and baseline RSS score as a continuous covariate.|GEE model|||||1.37|0.57|< 0.0001
91068437|NCT02915705|182023137|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.12||||0.0408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.24|||GEE model|||LS mean, SE, CI, and 2-sided p value per GEE model, which included change from baseline for recumbent length/standing height Z score as the dependent variable, treatment group, visit, interaction between treatment group by visit and baseline RSS stratification as factors, age and baseline recumbent length/standing height Z score as continuous covariates, with exchangeable covariance structure.||0.24|0.01|0.0408
91068438|NCT02915705|182023138|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|0.14||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.29|||GEE model|||LS mean, SE, CI, and 2-sided p value per GEE model, which included change from baseline for recumbent length/standing height Z score as the dependent variable, treatment group, visit, interaction between treatment group by visit and baseline RSS stratification as factors, age and baseline recumbent length/standing height Z score as continuous covariates, with exchangeable covariance structure.||0.29|0.00|0.0490
91068439|NCT02915705|182023139|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|1.02||||0.0386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|1.99|||ANCOVA|||LS mean, SE, CI, and 2-sided p value per ANCOVA model, which included change from baseline for growth velocity Z score as the dependent variable, treatment group and baseline RSS total score stratification as factors, baseline Z score and age as continuous covariates.||1.99|0.06|0.0386
91068440|NCT02915705|182023140|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|1.12||||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.88|||ANCOVA|||LS mean, SE, CI, and 2-sided p value per ANCOVA model, which included change from baseline for growth velocity Z score as the dependent variable, treatment group and baseline RSS total score stratification as factors, baseline Z score and age as continuous covariates.||1.88|0.37|0.0047
91068441|NCT02915705|182023141|SUPERIORITY||difference|1.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.27|||GEE model||Difference (Burosumab - Oral Phosphate/Active Vitamin D)|Week 1||1.27|0.81|< 0.0001
91068442|NCT02915705|182023141|SUPERIORITY||difference|1.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.27|||GEE model||Difference (Burosumab - Oral Phosphate/Active Vitamin D)|Week 4||1.27|0.79|< 0.0001
91068443|NCT02915705|182023141|SUPERIORITY||difference|0.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.97|||GEE model||Difference (Burosumab - Oral Phosphate/Active Vitamin D)|Week 8||0.97|0.58|< 0.0001
91068444|NCT02915705|182023141|SUPERIORITY||difference|0.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.81|||GEE model||Difference (Burosumab - Oral Phosphate/Active Vitamin D)|Week 16||0.81|0.44|< 0.0001
91068445|NCT02915705|182023141|SUPERIORITY||difference|0.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.72|||GEE model||Difference (Burosumab - Oral Phosphate/Active Vitamin D)|Week 24||0.72|0.30|< 0.0001
91068446|NCT02915705|182023141|SUPERIORITY||difference|0.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.89|||GEE model|||Week 32||0.89|0.51|< 0.0001
91068447|NCT02915705|182023141|SUPERIORITY||difference|0.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.91|||GEE model||Difference (burosumab - Oral Phosphate/Active Vitamin D)|Week 40||0.91|0.51|< 0.0001
91068448|NCT02915705|182023141|SUPERIORITY||difference|0.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.82|||GEE model|||Week 52||0.82|0.39|< 0.0001
91068449|NCT02915705|182023141|SUPERIORITY||difference|0.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.9|||GEE model|||Week 64||0.90|0.49|< 0.0001
91068450|NCT02915705|182023143|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|0.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.91|||ANCOVA||Difference (KRN23 - Oral Phosphate/Active Vitamin D)|||0.91|0.58|< 0.0001
91068451|NCT02915705|182023146|SUPERIORITY||difference|48.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.53|60.02|||GEE model||Difference (Burosumab - Oral Phosphate/Active Vitamin D)|Week 1||60.02|36.53|< 0.0001
91068452|NCT02915705|182023146|SUPERIORITY||difference|21.09|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.01|30.16|||GEE model||Difference (Burosumab - Oral Phosphate/Active Vitamin D)|Week 4||30.16|12.01|< 0.0001
91068453|NCT02915705|182023146|SUPERIORITY||difference|15.75||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.35|25.15|||GEE model||Difference (Burosumab - Oral Phosphate/Active Vitamin D)|Week 8||25.15|6.35|0.0010
91068454|NCT02915705|182023146|SUPERIORITY||difference|12.97||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.41|22.53|||GEE model||Difference (Burosumab - Oral Phosphate/Active Vitamin D)|Week 16||22.53|3.41|0.0078
91068455|NCT02915705|182023146|SUPERIORITY||difference|10.89||||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.59|19.19|||GEE model||Difference (Burosumab - Oral Phosphate/Active Vitamin D)|Week 24||19.19|2.59|0.0101
91068456|NCT02915705|182023146|SUPERIORITY||difference|6.23||||0.1165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|14.02|||GEE model||Difference (Burosumab - Oral Phosphate/Active Vitamin D)|Week 32||14.02|-1.55|0.1165
91068457|NCT02915705|182023146|SUPERIORITY||difference|11.21||||0.0317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|21.44|||GEE model||Difference (Burosumab - Oral Phosphate/Active Vitamin D)|Week 40||21.44|0.98|0.0317
91068458|NCT02915705|182023146|SUPERIORITY||difference|5.01||||0.3044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.55|14.56|||GEE model||Difference (Burosumab - Oral Phosphate/Active Vitamin D)|Week 52||14.56|-4.55|0.3044
91068459|NCT02915705|182023146|SUPERIORITY||difference|8.7||||0.0145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|15.68|||GEE model||Difference (Burosumab - Oral Phosphate/Active Vitamin D|Week 64||15.68|1.72|0.0145
91068460|NCT02915705|182023148|SUPERIORITY||difference|1.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|2.02|||GEE model||Difference (Burosumab - Oral Phosphate/Active Vitamin D)|Week 4||2.02|1.28|< 0.0001
91068461|NCT02915705|182023148|SUPERIORITY||difference|1.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|1.64|||GEE model||Difference (Burosumab - Oral Phosphate/Active Vitamin D)|Week 8||1.64|1.19|< 0.0001
91068462|NCT02915705|182023148|SUPERIORITY||difference|1.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.48|||GEE model|||Week 16||1.48|0.84|< 0.0001
91068463|NCT02915705|182023148|SUPERIORITY||difference|1.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.41|||GEE model||Difference (Burosumab - Oral Phosphate/Active Vitamin D)|Week 24||1.41|0.80|< 0.0001
91068464|NCT02915705|182023148|SUPERIORITY||difference|1.24|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.51|||GEE model|||Week 32||1.51|0.98|< 0.0001
91068465|NCT02915705|182023148|SUPERIORITY||difference|1.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.6|||GEE model||Difference (Burosumab - Oral Phosphate/Active Vitamin D)|Week 40||1.60|1.10|< 0.0001
91068466|NCT02915705|182023148|SUPERIORITY||difference|1.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.54|||GEE model||Difference (Burosumab - Oral Phosphate/Active Vitamin D)|Week 52||1.54|0.97|< 0.0001
91068467|NCT02915705|182023148|SUPERIORITY||difference|1.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.54|||GEE model||Difference (Burosumab - Oral Phosphate/Active Vitamin D)|Week 64||1.54|0.96|< 0.0001
91068468|NCT02915705|182023150|SUPERIORITY||difference|-92.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-131.4|-53.66|||GEE model||Difference (Burosumab - Oral Phosphate/Active Vitamin D)|Week 16||-53.66|-131.40|< 0.0001
91068469|NCT02915705|182023150|SUPERIORITY||difference|-85.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-126.37|-44.76|||GEE model||Difference (Burosumab - Oral Phosphate/Active Vitamin D)|Week 24||-44.76|-126.37|< 0.0001
91068470|NCT02915705|182023150|SUPERIORITY||difference|-95.95|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-136.05|-55.84|||GEE model||Difference (Burosumab - Oral Phosphate/Active Vitamin D)|Week 40||-55.84|-136.05|< 0.0001
91068471|NCT02915705|182023150|SUPERIORITY||difference|-111.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-152.08|-70.49|||GEE model||Difference (Burosumab - Oral Phosphate/Active Vitamin D)|Week 52||-70.49|-152.08|< 0.0001
91068472|NCT02915705|182023150|SUPERIORITY||difference|-146.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-191.61|-101.52|||GEE model||Difference (Burosumab - Oral Phosphate/Active Vitamin D)|Week 64||-101.52|-191.61|< 0.0001
91068473|NCT02915705|182023153|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|-5.02||||0.0212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.29|-0.75|||GEE model|||Pain Interference Domain. 2-sided p value per GEE model, which included change from baseline for the parameter as the dependent variable, treatment group, visit, interaction between treatment group by visit, baseline age and baseline RSS stratification as factors, baseline parameter measure as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.||-0.75|-9.29|0.0212
91068474|NCT02915705|182023153|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|2.68||||0.1009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|5.89|||GEE model|||Physical Function Mobility Domain. 2-sided p value per GEE model, which included change from baseline for the parameter as the dependent variable, treatment group, visit, interaction between treatment group by visit, baseline age and baseline RSS stratification as factors, baseline parameter measure as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.||5.89|-0.52|0.1009
91068475|NCT02915705|182023153|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|-3.25||||0.1676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.86|1.37|||GEE model|||Fatigue Domain. 2-sided p value per GEE model, which included change from baseline for the parameter as the dependent variable, treatment group, visit, interaction between treatment group by visit, baseline age and baseline RSS stratification as factors, baseline parameter measure as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.||1.37|-7.86|0.1676
91068476|NCT02915705|182023154|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|-2.26||||0.3091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.61|2.09|||GEE model|||Pain Interference Domain. 2-sided p value per GEE model, which included change from baseline for the parameter as the dependent variable, treatment group, visit, interaction between treatment group by visit, baseline age and baseline RSS stratification as factors, baseline parameter measure as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.||2.09|-6.61|0.3091
91068477|NCT02915705|182023154|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|1.9||||0.3145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|5.59|||GEE model|||Physical Function Mobility Domain. 2-sided p value per GEE model, which included change from baseline for the parameter as the dependent variable, treatment group, visit, interaction between treatment group by visit, baseline age and baseline RSS stratification as factors, baseline parameter measure as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.||5.59|-1.80|0.3145
91068478|NCT02915705|182023154|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|-1.08||||0.681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.21|4.06|||GEE model|||Fatigue Domain. 2-sided p value per GEE model, which included change from baseline for the parameter as the dependent variable, treatment group, visit, interaction between treatment group by visit, baseline age and baseline RSS stratification as factors, baseline parameter measure as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.||4.06|-6.21|0.6810
91068479|NCT02915705|182023155|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|0.01||||0.9862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.8|||GEE model|||GEE model includes change from baseline for FPS-R as the dependent variable, treatment group, visit, interaction between treatment group by visit and baseline RSS stratification as factors, baseline FPS-R as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure. The LS Mean, SE, 95% CI and 2-sided p-value are from the GEE model.||0.80|-0.79|0.9862
91068480|NCT02915705|182023156|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|0.05||||0.8786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.68|||GEE model|||GEE model includes change from baseline for FPS-R as the dependent variable, treatment group, visit, interaction between treatment group by visit and baseline RSS stratification as factors, baseline FPS-R as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure. The LS Mean, SE, 95% CI and 2-sided p-value are from the GEE model.||0.68|-0.58|0.8786
91068481|NCT02915705|182023157|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|43.46||||0.0514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|87.17|||GEE model|||2-sided p value per GEE model, which included change from baseline for the parameter as the dependent variable, treatment group, visit, interaction between treatment group by visit, baseline age and baseline RSS stratification as factors, baseline parameter measure as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.||87.17|-0.26|0.0514
91068482|NCT02915705|182023158|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|45.55||||0.0399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.09|89.02|||GEE model|||2-sided p value per GEE model, which included change from baseline for the parameter as the dependent variable, treatment group, visit, interaction between treatment group by visit, baseline age and baseline RSS stratification as factors, baseline parameter measure as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.||89.02|2.09|0.0399
91068483|NCT02915705|182023159|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|6.72||||0.0633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|13.82|||GEE model|||2-sided p value per GEE model, which included change from baseline for the parameter as the dependent variable, treatment group, visit, interaction between treatment group by visit, baseline age and baseline RSS stratification as factors, baseline parameter measure as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.||13.82|-0.37|0.0633
91068484|NCT02915705|182023160|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|7.27||||0.0496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|14.52|||GEE model|||2-sided p value per GEE model, which included change from baseline for the parameter as the dependent variable, treatment group, visit, interaction between treatment group by visit, baseline age and baseline RSS stratification as factors, baseline parameter measure as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.||14.52|0.01|0.0496
91068485|NCT01022307|182023161|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power analysis showed that the effect size was small, with a 50% chance of detecting a p \< 0.05 effect requiring 247 subjects.|||||<|0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||F-test|Greenhouse Geisser correction.||F-test evaluating effects of Group||||< 0.04
91068486|NCT05763875|182023171|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-35.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.88|-29.86|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Policy Estimand||-29.86|-40.88|<0.0001
91068487|NCT05763875|182023171|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-47.91|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.62|-42.2|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Policy Estimand||-42.20|-53.62|<0.0001
91068488|NCT05763875|182023171|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-37.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.63|-32.26|||ANCOVA|||Monotherapy Estimand||-32.26|-42.63|<0.0001
91068489|NCT05763875|182023171|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-50.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.51|-45.28|||ANCOVA|||Monotherapy Estimand||-45.28|-56.51|<0.0001
91068490|NCT05763875|182023172|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-47.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.91|-40.72|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Policy Estimand||-40.72|-53.91|<0.0001
91068491|NCT05763875|182023172|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-63.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.28|-56.87|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Policy Estimand||-56.87|-70.28|<0.0001
91068492|NCT05763875|182023172|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-50.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.16|-43.94|||ANCOVA|||Monotherapy Estimand||-43.94|-56.16|<0.0001
91068493|NCT05763875|182023172|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-67.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.09|-60.92|||ANCOVA|||Monotherapy Estimand||-60.92|-74.09|<0.0001
91068494|NCT05763875|182023173|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-73.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-81.76|-64.56|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Policy Estimand||-64.56|-81.76|<0.0001
91068495|NCT05763875|182023173|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-74.94|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.51|-65.37|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Policy Estimand||-65.37|-84.51|<0.0001
91068496|NCT05763875|182023173|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-76.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-85.12|-68.62|||ANCOVA|||Monotherapy Estimand||-68.62|-85.12|<0.0001
91068497|NCT05763875|182023173|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-79.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-88.77|-70.17|||ANCOVA|||Monotherapy Estimand||-70.17|-88.77|<0.0001
91068498|NCT05763875|182023174|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-30.48|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.98|-25.98|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Policy Estimand||-25.98|-34.98|<0.0001
91068499|NCT05763875|182023174|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-42.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.83|-36.82|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Policy Estimand||-36.82|-47.83|<0.0001
91068500|NCT05763875|182023174|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-31.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.07|-27.89|||ANCOVA|||Monotherapy Estimand||-27.89|-36.07|<0.0001
91068501|NCT05763875|182023174|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-44.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.28|-39.44|||ANCOVA|||Monotherapy Estimand||-39.44|-50.28|<0.0001
91068502|NCT05763875|182023175|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-24.84|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.32|-19.36|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Policy Estimand||-19.36|-30.32|<0.0001
91068503|NCT05763875|182023175|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-33.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.27|-26.44|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Policy Estimand||-26.44|-41.27|<0.0001
91068504|NCT05763875|182023175|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-26.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.07|-21.09|||ANCOVA|||Monotherapy Estimand||-21.09|-32.07|<0.0001
91068505|NCT05763875|182023175|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-36.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.46|-28.67|||ANCOVA|||Monotherapy Estimand||-28.67|-43.46|<0.0001
91068506|NCT05763875|182023176|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-28.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.3|-24.65|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Policy Estimand||-24.65|-33.30|<0.0001
91068507|NCT05763875|182023176|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-36.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.1|-32.22|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Policy Estimand||-32.22|-41.10|<0.0001
91068508|NCT05763875|182023176|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-30.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.08|-26.23|||ANCOVA|||Monotherapy Estimand||-26.23|-34.08|<0.0001
91068509|NCT05763875|182023176|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-38.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.12|-34.43|||ANCOVA|||Monotherapy Estimand||-34.43|-43.12|<0.0001
91068510|NCT05763875|182023177|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-30.24|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.92|-23.57|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Policy Estimand||-23.57|-36.92|<0.0001
91068511|NCT05763875|182023177|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-35.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.18|-29.12|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Policy Estimand||-29.12|-41.18|<0.0001
91068512|NCT05763875|182023177|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-32.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.1|-25.59|||ANCOVA|||Monotherapy Estimand||-25.59|-39.10|<0.0001
91068513|NCT05763875|182023177|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-37.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.44|-31.31|||ANCOVA|||Monotherapy Estimand||-31.31|-43.44|<0.0001
91068514|NCT05763875|182023178|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric Mean|0.757||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.882|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Policy Estimand||0.882|0.650|0.0002
91068515|NCT05763875|182023178|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric Mean|0.748||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.622|0.898|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Policy Estimand||0.898|0.622|0.0010
91068516|NCT05763875|182023178|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric Mean|0.753|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.652|0.871|||ANCOVA|||Monotherapy Estimand||0.871|0.652|<0.0001
91068517|NCT05763875|182023178|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric Mean|0.746||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.622|0.893|||ANCOVA|||Monotherapy Estimand||0.893|0.622|0.0008
90827549|NCT01875159|181529891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||GEE gamma regression models|||\>80% probability of detecting at least a 36% reduction in intermittent hypoxia events/hour of recording and in sec/hour \<90% oxygen saturation/hour of recording||||<0.05
91068518|NCT04015518|182023187|OTHER|Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included'baseline' as a continuous covariate, and 'visit', 'treatment', 'region' (stratification according to Japan vs. non-Japan), 'visit\*treatment' and 'visit\*baseline' interaction as fixed effects as well as the random 'subject' effect. Covariance structure= Unstructured.|Difference of adjusted means|-10.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.5||0.2179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.4|6.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as Speso - placebo.|||6.3|-27.4|0.2179
91068519|NCT04015518|182023187|OTHER|Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included'baseline' as a continuous covariate, and 'visit', 'treatment', 'region' (stratification according to Japan vs. non-Japan), 'visit\*treatment' and 'visit\*baseline' interaction as fixed effects as well as the random 'subject' effect. Covariance structure= Unstructured.|Difference of adjusted means|-14.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.5||0.0883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.5|2.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as Speso - placebo.|||2.2|-31.5|0.0883
91068520|NCT04015518|182023187|OTHER|Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included'baseline' as a continuous covariate, and 'visit', 'treatment', 'region' (stratification according to Japan vs. non-Japan), 'visit\*treatment' and 'visit\*baseline' interaction as fixed effects as well as the random 'subject' effect. Covariance structure= Unstructured.|Difference of adjusted means|-12.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.5||0.1414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.4|4.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as Speso - placebo.|||4.3|-29.4|0.1414
91068521|NCT04015518|182023187|OTHER|Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included'baseline' as a continuous covariate, and 'visit', 'treatment', 'region' (stratification according to Japan vs. non-Japan), 'visit\*treatment' and 'visit\*baseline' interaction as fixed effects as well as the random 'subject' effect. Covariance structure= Unstructured.|Difference of adjusted means|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.0||0.4514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.1|8.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as Speso - placebo.|||8.6|-19.1|0.4514
91068522|NCT04015518|182023187|OTHER|Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included'baseline' as a continuous covariate, and 'visit', 'treatment', 'region' (stratification according to Japan vs. non-Japan), 'visit\*treatment' and 'visit\*baseline' interaction as fixed effects as well as the random 'subject' effect. Covariance structure= Unstructured.||||||0.212||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod linear model fit|||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of Spesolimab and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, Emax, exponential, logistic, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.2120
91068523|NCT04015518|182023187|OTHER|Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included'baseline' as a continuous covariate, and 'visit', 'treatment', 'region' (stratification according to Japan vs. non-Japan), 'visit\*treatment' and 'visit\*baseline' interaction as fixed effects as well as the random 'subject' effect. Covariance structure= Unstructured.||||||0.1057||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod Emax model fit|"Assumed 70% of the maximum effect was achieved at the low dose regimen."||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of Spesolimab and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, Emax, exponential, logistic, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.1057
90827550|NCT02981368|181529909|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1097|||||||Fisher Exact|||Tissue Site: Bone||||0.1097
90827551|NCT02981368|181529909|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1087|||||||Fisher Exact|||Tissue Site: Bone||||0.1087
90827552|NCT02981368|181529909|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1949|||||||Fisher Exact|||Tissue Site: Bone||||0.1949
90827553|NCT02981368|181529909|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1315|||||||Fisher Exact|||Tissue Site: Bone||||0.1315
90827554|NCT02981368|181529909|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1977|||||||Fisher Exact|||Tissue Site: Bone||||0.1977
90827555|NCT02981368|181529909|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2149|||||||Fisher Exact|||Tissue Site: Bone||||0.2149
90827556|NCT02981368|181529909|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2582|||||||Fisher Exact|||Tissue Site: Visceral/Soft tissue||||0.2582
91068524|NCT04015518|182023187|OTHER|Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included'baseline' as a continuous covariate, and 'visit', 'treatment', 'region' (stratification according to Japan vs. non-Japan), 'visit\*treatment' and 'visit\*baseline' interaction as fixed effects as well as the random 'subject' effect. Covariance structure= Unstructured.||||||0.5241||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod Exponential model fit|"Assumed 25% of the maximum effect was achieved at the medium-low dose regimen."||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of Spesolimab and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, Emax, exponential, logistic, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.5241
91068525|NCT04015518|182023187|OTHER|Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included'baseline' as a continuous covariate, and 'visit', 'treatment', 'region' (stratification according to Japan vs. non-Japan), 'visit\*treatment' and 'visit\*baseline' interaction as fixed effects as well as the random 'subject' effect. Covariance structure= Unstructured.||||||0.2773||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod Logistic model fit|"Assumed 20% of maximum effect was achieved at the low dose, 95% of maximum effect was achieved at medium high dose."||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of Spesolimab and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, Emax, exponential, logistic, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.2773
91068526|NCT04015518|182023187|OTHER|Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included'baseline' as a continuous covariate, and 'visit', 'treatment', 'region' (stratification according to Japan vs. non-Japan), 'visit\*treatment' and 'visit\*baseline' interaction as fixed effects as well as the random 'subject' effect. Covariance structure= Unstructured.||||||0.3867||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod Sigmoid Emax model fit|"Assumed 10% of the maximum effect was achieved at low dose, 80% of the maximum effect was achieved at the medium-high dose."||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of Spesolimab and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, Emax, exponential, logistic, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.3867
91068527|NCT04015518|182023188|OTHER|Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included'baseline' as a continuous covariate, and 'visit', 'treatment', 'region' (stratification according to Japan vs. non-Japan), 'visit\*treatment' and 'visit\*baseline' interaction as fixed effects as well as the random 'subject' effect. Covariance structure= Unstructured.|Difference of adjusted means|-6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.3|7.1|||||Difference was calculated as Speso - placebo.|||7.1|-19.3|
91068528|NCT04015518|182023188|OTHER|Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included'baseline' as a continuous covariate, and 'visit', 'treatment', 'region' (stratification according to Japan vs. non-Japan), 'visit\*treatment' and 'visit\*baseline' interaction as fixed effects as well as the random 'subject' effect. Covariance structure= Unstructured.|Difference of adjusted means|-5.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.8|8.0|||||Difference was calculated as Speso - placebo.|||8.0|-18.8|
91068529|NCT04015518|182023188|OTHER|Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included'baseline' as a continuous covariate, and 'visit', 'treatment', 'region' (stratification according to Japan vs. non-Japan), 'visit\*treatment' and 'visit\*baseline' interaction as fixed effects as well as the random 'subject' effect. Covariance structure= Unstructured.|Difference of adjusted means|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|9.7|||||Difference was calculated as Speso - placebo.|||9.7|-16.6|
91068530|NCT04015518|182023188|OTHER|Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included'baseline' as a continuous covariate, and 'visit', 'treatment', 'region' (stratification according to Japan vs. non-Japan), 'visit\*treatment' and 'visit\*baseline' interaction as fixed effects as well as the random 'subject' effect. Covariance structure= Unstructured.|Difference of adjusted means|-9.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.3|1.4|||||Difference was calculated as Speso - placebo.|||1.4|-20.3|
91068531|NCT04015518|182023189|OTHER|Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included'baseline' as a continuous covariate, and 'visit', 'treatment', 'region' (stratification according to Japan vs. non-Japan), 'visit\*treatment' and 'visit\*baseline' interaction as fixed effects as well as the random 'subject' effect. Covariance structure= Unstructured.|Difference of adjusted means|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.9||0.5595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|9.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as Speso - placebo.|||9.6|-17.7|0.5595
91068532|NCT04015518|182023189|OTHER|Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included'baseline' as a continuous covariate, and 'visit', 'treatment', 'region' (stratification according to Japan vs. non-Japan), 'visit\*treatment' and 'visit\*baseline' interaction as fixed effects as well as the random 'subject' effect. Covariance structure= Unstructured.|Difference of adjusted means|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.9||0.8968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|14.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as Speso - placebo.|||14.5|-12.7|0.8968
90827557|NCT02981368|181529909|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0009|||||||Fisher Exact|||Tissue Site: Visceral/Soft tissue||||0.0009
91077863|NCT02913105|182041136|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.94||||0.0744|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.89|1.0|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Cholesterol: Day 28||1.00|0.89|0.0744
90827558|NCT02981368|181529909|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3588|||||||Fisher Exact|||Tissue Site: Visceral/Soft tissue||||0.3588
90827559|NCT02981368|181529909|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8791|||||||Fisher Exact|||Tissue Site: Visceral/Soft tissue||||0.8791
90827560|NCT02981368|181529909|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9457|||||||Fisher Exact|||Tissue Site: Visceral/Soft tissue||||0.9457
91068533|NCT04015518|182023189|OTHER|Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included'baseline' as a continuous covariate, and 'visit', 'treatment', 'region' (stratification according to Japan vs. non-Japan), 'visit\*treatment' and 'visit\*baseline' interaction as fixed effects as well as the random 'subject' effect. Covariance structure= Unstructured.|Difference of adjusted means|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.9||0.5456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.9|9.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as Speso - placebo.|||9.5|-17.9|0.5456
91068534|NCT04015518|182023189|OTHER|Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included'baseline' as a continuous covariate, and 'visit', 'treatment', 'region' (stratification according to Japan vs. non-Japan), 'visit\*treatment' and 'visit\*baseline' interaction as fixed effects as well as the random 'subject' effect. Covariance structure= Unstructured.|Difference of adjusted means|-7.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7||0.1762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|3.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as Speso - placebo.|||3.5|-19.0|0.1762
91068535|NCT04015518|182023189|OTHER|Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included'baseline' as a continuous covariate, and 'visit', 'treatment', 'region' (stratification according to Japan vs. non-Japan), 'visit\*treatment' and 'visit\*baseline' interaction as fixed effects as well as the random 'subject' effect. Covariance structure= Unstructured.||||||0.1726||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod linear model fit|||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of Spesolimab and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, Emax, exponential, logistic, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.1726
91068536|NCT04015518|182023189|OTHER|Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included'baseline' as a continuous covariate, and 'visit', 'treatment', 'region' (stratification according to Japan vs. non-Japan), 'visit\*treatment' and 'visit\*baseline' interaction as fixed effects as well as the random 'subject' effect. Covariance structure= Unstructured.||||||0.2353||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod Emax model fit|"Assumed 70% of the maximum effect was achieved at the low dose regimen."||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of Spesolimab and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, Emax, exponential, logistic, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.2353
91068537|NCT04015518|182023189|OTHER|Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included'baseline' as a continuous covariate, and 'visit', 'treatment', 'region' (stratification according to Japan vs. non-Japan), 'visit\*treatment' and 'visit\*baseline' interaction as fixed effects as well as the random 'subject' effect. Covariance structure= Unstructured.||||||0.1346||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod Exponential model fit|"Assumed 25% of the maximum effect was achieved at the medium-low dose regimen."||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of Spesolimab and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, Emax, exponential, logistic, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.1346
91068538|NCT04015518|182023189|OTHER|Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included'baseline' as a continuous covariate, and 'visit', 'treatment', 'region' (stratification according to Japan vs. non-Japan), 'visit\*treatment' and 'visit\*baseline' interaction as fixed effects as well as the random 'subject' effect. Covariance structure= Unstructured.||||||0.195||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod Logistic model fit|"Assumed 20% of maximum effect was achieved at the low dose, 95% of maximum effect was achieved at medium high dose."||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of Spesolimab and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, Emax, exponential, logistic, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.1950
90827561|NCT02981368|181529909|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2705|||||||Fisher Exact|||Tissue Site: Visceral/Soft tissue||||0.2705
91068539|NCT04015518|182023189|OTHER|Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included'baseline' as a continuous covariate, and 'visit', 'treatment', 'region' (stratification according to Japan vs. non-Japan), 'visit\*treatment' and 'visit\*baseline' interaction as fixed effects as well as the random 'subject' effect. Covariance structure= Unstructured.||||||0.1681||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod Sigmoid Emax model fit|"Assumed 10% of the maximum effect was achieved at low dose, 80% of the maximum effect was achieved at the medium-high dose."||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of Spesolimab and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, Emax, exponential, logistic, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.1681
91068540|NCT04015518|182023190|OTHER|Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included'baseline' as a continuous covariate, and 'visit', 'treatment', 'region' (stratification according to Japan vs. non-Japan), 'visit\*treatment' and 'visit\*baseline' interaction as fixed effects as well as the random 'subject' effect. Covariance structure= Unstructured.|Difference of adjusted means|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.2812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as Speso - placebo.|||0.5|-1.8|0.2812
91068541|NCT04015518|182023190|OTHER|Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included'baseline' as a continuous covariate, and 'visit', 'treatment', 'region' (stratification according to Japan vs. non-Japan), 'visit\*treatment' and 'visit\*baseline' interaction as fixed effects as well as the random 'subject' effect. Covariance structure= Unstructured.|Difference of adjusted means|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.3357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as Speso - placebo.|||0.6|-1.7|0.3357
91068542|NCT04015518|182023190|OTHER|Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included'baseline' as a continuous covariate, and 'visit', 'treatment', 'region' (stratification according to Japan vs. non-Japan), 'visit\*treatment' and 'visit\*baseline' interaction as fixed effects as well as the random 'subject' effect. Covariance structure= Unstructured.|Difference of adjusted means|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.1809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as Speso - placebo.|||0.4|-2.0|0.1809
91068543|NCT04015518|182023190|OTHER|Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included'baseline' as a continuous covariate, and 'visit', 'treatment', 'region' (stratification according to Japan vs. non-Japan), 'visit\*treatment' and 'visit\*baseline' interaction as fixed effects as well as the random 'subject' effect. Covariance structure= Unstructured.|Difference of adjusted means|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.8322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as Speso - placebo.|||0.9|-1.1|0.8322
91068544|NCT04015518|182023190|OTHER|Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included'baseline' as a continuous covariate, and 'visit', 'treatment', 'region' (stratification according to Japan vs. non-Japan), 'visit\*treatment' and 'visit\*baseline' interaction as fixed effects as well as the random 'subject' effect. Covariance structure= Unstructured.||||||0.4035||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod linear model fit|||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of Spesolimab and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, Emax, exponential, logistic, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.4035
91068545|NCT04015518|182023190|OTHER|Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included'baseline' as a continuous covariate, and 'visit', 'treatment', 'region' (stratification according to Japan vs. non-Japan), 'visit\*treatment' and 'visit\*baseline' interaction as fixed effects as well as the random 'subject' effect. Covariance structure= Unstructured.||||||0.2563||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod Emax model fit|"Assumed 70% of the maximum effect was achieved at the low dose regimen."||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of Spesolimab and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, Emax, exponential, logistic, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.2563
91068546|NCT04015518|182023190|OTHER|Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included'baseline' as a continuous covariate, and 'visit', 'treatment', 'region' (stratification according to Japan vs. non-Japan), 'visit\*treatment' and 'visit\*baseline' interaction as fixed effects as well as the random 'subject' effect. Covariance structure= Unstructured.||||||0.681||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod Exponential model fit|"Assumed 25% of the maximum effect was achieved at the medium-low dose regimen."||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of Spesolimab and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, Emax, exponential, logistic, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.6810
90827562|NCT02981368|181529909|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||Tissue Type: Lymph nodes||||<0.0001
90827563|NCT02981368|181529909|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||Tissue Type: Lymph nodes||||<0.0001
90827564|NCT02981368|181529909|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||Tissue Type: Lymph nodes||||<0.0001
90827565|NCT02981368|181529909|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5933|||||||Chi-squared|||Tissue Type: Lymph nodes||||0.5933
90827566|NCT02981368|181529909|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7094|||||||Chi-squared|||Tissue Type: Lymph nodes||||0.7094
90827567|NCT02981368|181529909|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5424|||||||Chi-squared|||Tissue Type: Lymph nodes||||0.5424
90827568|NCT02981368|181529909|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||Tissue Site: Prostate Gland||||<0.0001
90827569|NCT02981368|181529909|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||Tissue Site: Prostate Gland||||<0.0001
91068547|NCT04015518|182023190|OTHER|Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included'baseline' as a continuous covariate, and 'visit', 'treatment', 'region' (stratification according to Japan vs. non-Japan), 'visit\*treatment' and 'visit\*baseline' interaction as fixed effects as well as the random 'subject' effect. Covariance structure= Unstructured.||||||0.4665||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod Logistic model fit|"Assumed 20% of maximum effect was achieved at the low dose, 95% of maximum effect was achieved at medium high dose."||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of Spesolimab and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, Emax, exponential, logistic, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.4665
91068548|NCT04015518|182023190|OTHER|Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included'baseline' as a continuous covariate, and 'visit', 'treatment', 'region' (stratification according to Japan vs. non-Japan), 'visit\*treatment' and 'visit\*baseline' interaction as fixed effects as well as the random 'subject' effect. Covariance structure= Unstructured.||||||0.5565||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod Sigmoid Emax model fit|"Assumed 10% of the maximum effect was achieved at low dose, 80% of the maximum effect was achieved at the medium-high dose."||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of Spesolimab and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, Emax, exponential, logistic, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.5565
91068549|NCT04015518|182023191|OTHER|Logistic regression with fixed classification effects included treatment and region (Japan vs. Non-Japan). In case 0 event are observed a penalized regression based on the Firth's bias reduction method was used. The estimates from the logistic regression are on the logit scale, the difference in proportions were calculated as the difference between the predicted probabilities in the treatment groups on the original scale.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.042|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.281|||||Confidence intervals were calculated using the cumulative distribution function method of Reeve. Difference was calculated as Speso - placebo.|||0.281|-0.170|
91068550|NCT04015518|182023191|OTHER|Logistic regression with fixed classification effects included treatment and region (Japan vs. Non-Japan). In case 0 event are observed a penalized regression based on the Firth's bias reduction method was used. The estimates from the logistic regression are on the logit scale, the difference in proportions were calculated as the difference between the predicted probabilities in the treatment groups on the original scale.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.195|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.048|0.432|||||Confidence intervals were calculated using the cumulative distribution function method of Reeve. Difference was calculated as Speso - placebo.|||0.432|-0.048|
91068551|NCT04015518|182023191|OTHER|Logistic regression with fixed classification effects included treatment and region (Japan vs. Non-Japan). In case 0 event are observed a penalized regression based on the Firth's bias reduction method was used. The estimates from the logistic regression are on the logit scale, the difference in proportions were calculated as the difference between the predicted probabilities in the treatment groups on the original scale.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.496|||||Confidence intervals were calculated using the cumulative distribution function method of Reeve. Difference was calculated as Speso - placebo.|||0.496|0.020|
91068552|NCT04015518|182023191|OTHER|Logistic regression with fixed classification effects included treatment and region (Japan vs. Non-Japan). In case 0 event are observed a penalized regression based on the Firth's bias reduction method was used. The estimates from the logistic regression are on the logit scale, the difference in proportions were calculated as the difference between the predicted probabilities in the treatment groups on the original scale.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.129|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.067|0.314|||||Confidence intervals were calculated using the cumulative distribution function method of Reeve. Difference was calculated as Speso - placebo.|||0.314|-0.067|
91068553|NCT04015518|182023191|OTHER|Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod, with fixed classification effects including treatment and region (Japan vs. Non-Japan). In case 0 event are observed a penalized regression based on the Firth's bias reduction method was used. The estimates from the logistic regression are on the logit scale, the difference in proportions were calculated as the difference between the predicted probabilities in the treatment groups on the original scale.||||||0.0613||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod linear model fit|||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of Spesolimab and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, Emax, exponential, logistic, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.0613
91068554|NCT04015518|182023191|OTHER|Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod, with fixed classification effects including treatment and region (Japan vs. Non-Japan). In case 0 event are observed a penalized regression based on the Firth's bias reduction method was used. The estimates from the logistic regression are on the logit scale, the difference in proportions were calculated as the difference between the predicted probabilities in the treatment groups on the original scale.||||||0.0628||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod Emax model fit|"Assumed 70% of the maximum effect was achieved at the low dose regimen."||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of Spesolimab and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, Emax, exponential, logistic, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.0628
91068555|NCT04015518|182023191|OTHER|Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod, with fixed classification effects including treatment and region (Japan vs. Non-Japan). In case 0 event are observed a penalized regression based on the Firth's bias reduction method was used. The estimates from the logistic regression are on the logit scale, the difference in proportions were calculated as the difference between the predicted probabilities in the treatment groups on the original scale.||||||0.1449||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod Exponential model fit|"Assumed 25% of the maximum effect was achieved at the medium-low dose regimen."||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of Spesolimab and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, Emax, exponential, logistic, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.1449
90827570|NCT02981368|181529909|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||Tissue Site: Prostate Gland||||<0.0001
90827571|NCT02981368|181529909|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0038|||||||Fisher Exact|||Tissue Site: Prostate Gland||||0.0038
90827572|NCT02981368|181529909|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0647|||||||Fisher Exact|||Tissue Site: Prostate Gland||||0.0647
90827573|NCT02981368|181529909|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0021|||||||Chi-squared|||Tissue Site: Prostate Gland||||0.0021
90827574|NCT02981368|181529909|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||Tissue Site: All||||<0.0001
90827575|NCT02981368|181529909|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||Tissue Site: All||||<0.0001
90827576|NCT02981368|181529909|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||Tissue Site: All||||<0.0001
90827577|NCT02981368|181529909|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0815|||||||Chi-squared|||Tissue Site: All||||0.0815
91068556|NCT04015518|182023191|OTHER|Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod, with fixed classification effects including treatment and region (Japan vs. Non-Japan). In case 0 event are observed a penalized regression based on the Firth's bias reduction method was used. The estimates from the logistic regression are on the logit scale, the difference in proportions were calculated as the difference between the predicted probabilities in the treatment groups on the original scale.||||||0.046||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod Logistic model fit|"Assumed 20% of maximum effect was achieved at the low dose, 95% of maximum effect was achieved at medium high dose."||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of Spesolimab and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, Emax, exponential, logistic, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.0460
91077864|NCT02913105|182041136|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.99||||0.8365|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|1.06|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Cholesterol: Day 42||1.06|0.93|0.8365
91068557|NCT04015518|182023191|OTHER|Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod, with fixed classification effects including treatment and region (Japan vs. Non-Japan). In case 0 event are observed a penalized regression based on the Firth's bias reduction method was used. The estimates from the logistic regression are on the logit scale, the difference in proportions were calculated as the difference between the predicted probabilities in the treatment groups on the original scale.||||||0.0677||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod Sigmoid Emax model fit|"Assumed 10% of the maximum effect was achieved at low dose, 80% of the maximum effect was achieved at the medium-high dose."||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of Spesolimab and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, Emax, exponential, logistic, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.0677
91068558|NCT04015518|182023192|OTHER|Logistic regression with fixed classification effects included treatment and region (Japan vs. Non-Japan). In case 0 event are observed a penalized regression based on the Firth's bias reduction method was used. The estimates from the logistic regression are on the logit scale, the difference in proportions were calculated as the difference between the predicted probabilities in the treatment groups on the original scale.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.063|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.069|0.256|||||Confidence intervals were calculated using the cumulative distribution function method of Reeve. Difference was calculated as Speso - placebo.|||0.256|-0.069|
91068559|NCT04015518|182023192|OTHER|Logistic regression with fixed classification effects included treatment and region (Japan vs. Non-Japan). In case 0 event are observed a penalized regression based on the Firth's bias reduction method was used. The estimates from the logistic regression are on the logit scale, the difference in proportions were calculated as the difference between the predicted probabilities in the treatment groups on the original scale.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.188|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.018|0.405|||||Confidence intervals were calculated using the cumulative distribution function method of Reeve. Difference was calculated as Speso - placebo.|||0.405|0.018|
91068560|NCT04015518|182023192|OTHER|Logistic regression with fixed classification effects included treatment and region (Japan vs. Non-Japan). In case 0 event are observed a penalized regression based on the Firth's bias reduction method was used. The estimates from the logistic regression are on the logit scale, the difference in proportions were calculated as the difference between the predicted probabilities in the treatment groups on the original scale.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.102|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.042|0.303|||||Confidence intervals were calculated using the cumulative distribution function method of Reeve. Difference was calculated as Speso - placebo.|||0.303|-0.042|
91068561|NCT04015518|182023192|OTHER|Logistic regression with fixed classification effects included treatment and region (Japan vs. Non-Japan). In case 0 event are observed a penalized regression based on the Firth's bias reduction method was used. The estimates from the logistic regression are on the logit scale, the difference in proportions were calculated as the difference between the predicted probabilities in the treatment groups on the original scale.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.113|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.018|0.25|||||Confidence intervals were calculated using the cumulative distribution function method of Reeve. Difference was calculated as Speso - placebo.|||0.250|-0.018|
91068562|NCT04015518|182023192|OTHER|Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod, with fixed classification effects including treatment and region (Japan vs. Non-Japan). In case 0 event are observed a penalized regression based on the Firth's bias reduction method was used. The estimates from the logistic regression are on the logit scale, the difference in proportions were calculated as the difference between the predicted probabilities in the treatment groups on the original scale.||||||0.0536||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod linear model fit|||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of Spesolimab and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, Emax, exponential, logistic, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.0536
91068563|NCT04015518|182023192|OTHER|Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod, with fixed classification effects including treatment and region (Japan vs. Non-Japan). In case 0 event are observed a penalized regression based on the Firth's bias reduction method was used. The estimates from the logistic regression are on the logit scale, the difference in proportions were calculated as the difference between the predicted probabilities in the treatment groups on the original scale.||||||0.0476||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod Emax model fit|"Assumed 70% of the maximum effect was achieved at the low dose regimen."||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of Spesolimab and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, Emax, exponential, logistic, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.0476
91068564|NCT04015518|182023192|OTHER|Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod, with fixed classification effects including treatment and region (Japan vs. Non-Japan). In case 0 event are observed a penalized regression based on the Firth's bias reduction method was used. The estimates from the logistic regression are on the logit scale, the difference in proportions were calculated as the difference between the predicted probabilities in the treatment groups on the original scale.||||||0.1076||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod Exponential model fit|"Assumed 25% of the maximum effect was achieved at the medium-low dose regimen."||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of Spesolimab and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, Emax, exponential, logistic, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.1076
91068565|NCT04015518|182023192|OTHER|Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod, with fixed classification effects including treatment and region (Japan vs. Non-Japan). In case 0 event are observed a penalized regression based on the Firth's bias reduction method was used. The estimates from the logistic regression are on the logit scale, the difference in proportions were calculated as the difference between the predicted probabilities in the treatment groups on the original scale.||||||0.0606||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod Logistic model fit|"Assumed 20% of maximum effect was achieved at the low dose, 95% of maximum effect was achieved at medium high dose."||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of Spesolimab and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, Emax, exponential, logistic, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.0606
91068566|NCT04015518|182023192|OTHER|Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod, with fixed classification effects including treatment and region (Japan vs. Non-Japan). In case 0 event are observed a penalized regression based on the Firth's bias reduction method was used. The estimates from the logistic regression are on the logit scale, the difference in proportions were calculated as the difference between the predicted probabilities in the treatment groups on the original scale.||||||0.0824||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod Sigmoid Emax model fit|"Assumed 10% of the maximum effect was achieved at low dose, 80% of the maximum effect was achieved at the medium-high dose."||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of Spesolimab and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, Emax, exponential, logistic, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.0824
91068567|NCT04015518|182023193|OTHER|Logistic regression with fixed classification effects included treatment and region (Japan vs. Non-Japan). In case 0 event are observed a penalized regression based on the Firth's bias reduction method was used. The estimates from the logistic regression are on the logit scale, the difference in proportions were calculated as the difference between the predicted probabilities in the treatment groups on the original scale.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.211|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.422|||||Confidence intervals were calculated using the cumulative distribution function method of Reeve. Difference was calculated as Speso - placebo.|||0.422|0.040|
91068568|NCT04015518|182023193|OTHER|Logistic regression with fixed classification effects included treatment and region (Japan vs. Non-Japan). In case 0 event are observed a penalized regression based on the Firth's bias reduction method was used. The estimates from the logistic regression are on the logit scale, the difference in proportions were calculated as the difference between the predicted probabilities in the treatment groups on the original scale.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.018|0.339|||||Confidence intervals were calculated using the cumulative distribution function method of Reeve. Difference was calculated as Speso - placebo.|||0.339|-0.018|
91068569|NCT04015518|182023193|OTHER|Logistic regression with fixed classification effects included treatment and region (Japan vs. Non-Japan). In case 0 event are observed a penalized regression based on the Firth's bias reduction method was used. The estimates from the logistic regression are on the logit scale, the difference in proportions were calculated as the difference between the predicted probabilities in the treatment groups on the original scale.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.125|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.022|0.328|||||Confidence intervals were calculated using the cumulative distribution function method of Reeve. Difference was calculated as Speso - placebo.|||0.328|-0.022|
91068570|NCT04015518|182023193|OTHER|Logistic regression with fixed classification effects included treatment and region (Japan vs. Non-Japan). In case 0 event are observed a penalized regression based on the Firth's bias reduction method was used. The estimates from the logistic regression are on the logit scale, the difference in proportions were calculated as the difference between the predicted probabilities in the treatment groups on the original scale.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.144|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.009|0.282|||||Confidence intervals were calculated using the cumulative distribution function method of Reeve. Difference was calculated as Speso - placebo.|||0.282|0.009|
91068571|NCT04015518|182023193|OTHER|Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod, with fixed classification effects including treatment and region (Japan vs. Non-Japan). In case 0 event are observed a penalized regression based on the Firth's bias reduction method was used. The estimates from the logistic regression are on the logit scale, the difference in proportions were calculated as the difference between the predicted probabilities in the treatment groups on the original scale.||||||0.0333||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod linear model fit|||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of Spesolimab and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, Emax, exponential, logistic, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.0333
91068572|NCT04015518|182023193|OTHER|Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod, with fixed classification effects including treatment and region (Japan vs. Non-Japan). In case 0 event are observed a penalized regression based on the Firth's bias reduction method was used. The estimates from the logistic regression are on the logit scale, the difference in proportions were calculated as the difference between the predicted probabilities in the treatment groups on the original scale.||||||0.0221||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod Emax model fit|"Assumed 70% of the maximum effect was achieved at the low dose regime"||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of Spesolimab and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, Emax, exponential, logistic, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.0221
91077865|NCT02913105|182041136|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.98||||0.6091|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.05|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Cholesterol: Day 56||1.05|0.92|0.6091
91068573|NCT04015518|182023193|OTHER|Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod, with fixed classification effects including treatment and region (Japan vs. Non-Japan). In case 0 event are observed a penalized regression based on the Firth's bias reduction method was used. The estimates from the logistic regression are on the logit scale, the difference in proportions were calculated as the difference between the predicted probabilities in the treatment groups on the original scale.||||||0.0707||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod Exponential model fit|"Assumed 25% of the maximum effect was achieved at the medium-low dose regimen."||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of Spesolimab and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, Emax, exponential, logistic, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.0707
91068574|NCT04015518|182023193|OTHER|Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod, with fixed classification effects including treatment and region (Japan vs. Non-Japan). In case 0 event are observed a penalized regression based on the Firth's bias reduction method was used. The estimates from the logistic regression are on the logit scale, the difference in proportions were calculated as the difference between the predicted probabilities in the treatment groups on the original scale.||||||0.0578||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod Logistic model fit|"Assumed 20% of maximum effect was achieved at the low dose, 95% of maximum effect was achieved at medium high dose."||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of Spesolimab and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, Emax, exponential, logistic, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.0578
91068575|NCT04015518|182023193|OTHER|Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod, with fixed classification effects including treatment and region (Japan vs. Non-Japan). In case 0 event are observed a penalized regression based on the Firth's bias reduction method was used. The estimates from the logistic regression are on the logit scale, the difference in proportions were calculated as the difference between the predicted probabilities in the treatment groups on the original scale.||||||0.0771||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod Sigmoid Emax model fit|"Assumed 10% of the maximum effect was achieved at low dose, 80% of the maximum effect was achieved at the medium-high dose."||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of Spesolimab and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, Emax, exponential, logistic, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.0771
91068576|NCT04015518|182023194|OTHER|Logistic regression with fixed classification effects included treatment and region (Japan vs. Non-Japan). In case 0 event are observed a penalized regression based on the Firth's bias reduction method was used. The estimates from the logistic regression are on the logit scale, the difference in proportions were calculated as the difference between the predicted probabilities in the treatment groups on the original scale.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.202|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|0.427|||||Confidence intervals were calculated using the cumulative distribution function method of Reeve. Difference was calculated as Speso - placebo.|||0.427|-0.005|
91068577|NCT04015518|182023194|OTHER|Logistic regression with fixed classification effects included treatment and region (Japan vs. Non-Japan). In case 0 event are observed a penalized regression based on the Firth's bias reduction method was used. The estimates from the logistic regression are on the logit scale, the difference in proportions were calculated as the difference between the predicted probabilities in the treatment groups on the original scale.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.032|0.401|||||Confidence intervals were calculated using the cumulative distribution function method of Reeve. Difference was calculated as Speso - placebo.|||0.401|-0.032|
91068578|NCT04015518|182023194|OTHER|Logistic regression with fixed classification effects included treatment and region (Japan vs. Non-Japan). In case 0 event are observed a penalized regression based on the Firth's bias reduction method was used. The estimates from the logistic regression are on the logit scale, the difference in proportions were calculated as the difference between the predicted probabilities in the treatment groups on the original scale.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.248|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.032|0.471|||||Confidence intervals were calculated using the cumulative distribution function method of Reeve. Difference was calculated as Speso - placebo.|||0.471|0.032|
91068579|NCT04015518|182023194|OTHER|Logistic regression with fixed classification effects included treatment and region (Japan vs. Non-Japan). In case 0 event are observed a penalized regression based on the Firth's bias reduction method was used. The estimates from the logistic regression are on the logit scale, the difference in proportions were calculated as the difference between the predicted probabilities in the treatment groups on the original scale.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.202|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.024|0.367|||||Confidence intervals were calculated using the cumulative distribution function method of Reeve. Difference was calculated as Speso - placebo.|||0.367|0.024|
91068580|NCT04015518|182023194|OTHER|Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod, with fixed classification effects including treatment and region (Japan vs. Non-Japan). In case 0 event are observed a penalized regression based on the Firth's bias reduction method was used. The estimates from the logistic regression are on the logit scale, the difference in proportions were calculated as the difference between the predicted probabilities in the treatment groups on the original scale.||||||0.0158||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod linear model fit|||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of Spesolimab and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, Emax, exponential, logistic, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.0158
91077866|NCT02913105|182041136|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.96||||0.3621|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.03|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Cholesterol: Day 84||1.03|0.90|0.3621
91068581|NCT04015518|182023194|OTHER|Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod, with fixed classification effects including treatment and region (Japan vs. Non-Japan). In case 0 event are observed a penalized regression based on the Firth's bias reduction method was used. The estimates from the logistic regression are on the logit scale, the difference in proportions were calculated as the difference between the predicted probabilities in the treatment groups on the original scale.||||||0.012||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod Emax model fit|"Assumed 70% of the maximum effect was achieved at the low dose regimen."||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of Spesolimab and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, Emax, exponential, logistic, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.0120
91068582|NCT04015518|182023194|OTHER|Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod, with fixed classification effects including treatment and region (Japan vs. Non-Japan). In case 0 event are observed a penalized regression based on the Firth's bias reduction method was used. The estimates from the logistic regression are on the logit scale, the difference in proportions were calculated as the difference between the predicted probabilities in the treatment groups on the original scale.||||||0.0429||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod Exponential model fit|"Assumed 25% of the maximum effect was achieved at the medium-low dose regimen."||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of Spesolimab and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, Emax, exponential, logistic, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.0429
91068583|NCT04015518|182023194|OTHER|Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod, with fixed classification effects including treatment and region (Japan vs. Non-Japan). In case 0 event are observed a penalized regression based on the Firth's bias reduction method was used. The estimates from the logistic regression are on the logit scale, the difference in proportions were calculated as the difference between the predicted probabilities in the treatment groups on the original scale.||||||0.0229||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod Logistic model fit|"Assumed 20% of maximum effect was achieved at the low dose, 95% of maximum effect was achieved at medium high dose."||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of Spesolimab and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, Emax, exponential, logistic, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.0229
91068584|NCT04015518|182023194|OTHER|Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod, with fixed classification effects including treatment and region (Japan vs. Non-Japan). In case 0 event are observed a penalized regression based on the Firth's bias reduction method was used. The estimates from the logistic regression are on the logit scale, the difference in proportions were calculated as the difference between the predicted probabilities in the treatment groups on the original scale.||||||0.03||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod Sigmoid Emax model fit|"Assumed 10% of the maximum effect was achieved at low dose, 80% of the maximum effect was achieved at the medium-high dose."||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of Spesolimab and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, Emax, exponential, logistic, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.0300
91068585|NCT04015518|182023195|OTHER|MMRM included 'baseline' as a continuous covariate, and 'visit', 'treatment', 'region' (stratification according to Japan vs. non-Japan), 'visit\*treatment' and 'visit\*baseline' interaction as fixed effects as well as the random 'subject' effect. Covariance structure= Unstructured.|Difference of adjusted means|-18.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.2|-0.2|||||Difference was calculated as Speso - placebo.|||-0.2|-37.2|
91068586|NCT04015518|182023195|OTHER|MMRM included 'baseline' as a continuous covariate, and 'visit', 'treatment', 'region' (stratification according to Japan vs. non-Japan), 'visit\*treatment' and 'visit\*baseline' interaction as fixed effects as well as the random 'subject' effect. Covariance structure= Unstructured.|Difference of adjusted means|-19.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.3|-0.2|||||Difference was calculated as Speso - placebo.|||-0.2|-38.3|
91068587|NCT04015518|182023195|OTHER|MMRM included 'baseline' as a continuous covariate, and 'visit', 'treatment', 'region' (stratification according to Japan vs. non-Japan), 'visit\*treatment' and 'visit\*baseline' interaction as fixed effects as well as the random 'subject' effect. Covariance structure= Unstructured.|Difference of adjusted means|-26.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.5|-7.8|||||Difference was calculated as Speso - placebo.|||-7.8|-45.5|
91068588|NCT04015518|182023195|OTHER|MMRM included 'baseline' as a continuous covariate, and 'visit', 'treatment', 'region' (stratification according to Japan vs. non-Japan), 'visit\*treatment' and 'visit\*baseline' interaction as fixed effects as well as the random 'subject' effect. Covariance structure= Unstructured.|Difference of adjusted means|-5.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.1|10.2|||||Difference was calculated as Speso - placebo.|||10.2|-21.1|
91068589|NCT00550745|182023196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.26||||||95.0|0.91|1.73|||||Relative risk (ZOSTAVAX™/placebo) of proportion of subjects reporting ≥ 1 serious AE through 42 Days postvaccination and 95% Confidence Interval were based on Miettinen and Nurminen \[Comparative analysis of two rates. Stat Med 1985;4:213-26\] method.|||1.73|0.91|
91068590|NCT00550745|182023197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.13||||||95.0|0.98|1.32|||||Relative risk (ZOSTAVAX™/placebo) of proportion of subjects reporting ≥ 1 serious AE through 6 months postvaccination and 95% Confidence Interval were based on Miettinen and Nurminen \[Comparative analysis of two rates. Stat Med 1985;4:213-26\] method.|||1.32|0.98|
91068591|NCT00764660|182023198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|2.4||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|8.2|||Repeated Measures Model||Repeated Measures Model with factors for treatment, pooled centers, assessment and assessment by treatment interaction.|||8.2|-3.4|0.41
90827578|NCT02981368|181529909|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7507|||||||Chi-squared|||Tissue Site: All||||0.7507
90827579|NCT02981368|181529909|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.562|||||||Chi-squared|||Tissue Site: All||||0.5620
91068592|NCT00764660|182023199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares (LS) Means|-1.9||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|1.7|||Repeated Measures Model||Repeated Measures Model with factors for treatment, pooled centers, assessment and assessment by treatment interaction.|||1.7|-5.5|0.30
91068593|NCT00764660|182023200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.33|||Chi-squared|Zero Inflated Negative Binomial (ZINB) Distribution with terms for treatment and region||||1.33|0.57|0.52
91068594|NCT00764660|182023201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.31|||Chi-squared|ZINB Distribution with terms for treatment and region||||1.31|0.71|0.81
91068595|NCT00764660|182023202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.31||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.12||Model with factors treatment and pooled centers as stratum.|Kaplan-Meier|||||2.12|0.81|0.26
91068596|NCT00764660|182023203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-2.1||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|5.7|||Repeated Measures Model|Repeated Measures Model with factors for treatment, pooled centers, assessment and assessment by treatment interaction.||||5.7|-9.9|0.59
91068597|NCT00764660|182023204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|3.43|||Regression, Logistic|An Odds Ratio (SCH 900435/Placebo) \>1 means SCH 900435 has a higher probability of achieving complete abstinence.||||3.43|0.65|0.34
91068598|NCT00764660|182023207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|2.88||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|12.06|||Contrained Longitudinal Data Analysis||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis (cLDA) Model with terms for treatment, pooled centers, assessment by treatment interaction.|||12.06|-6.30|0.54
91068599|NCT00764660|182023208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-3.1||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.35|6.15|||cLDA Model||cLDA Model with terms for treatment, pooled centers, assessment by treatment interaction.|||6.15|-12.35|0.51
91068600|NCT00764660|182023209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-9.17||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.27|-0.07|||cLDA Model||cLDA Model with terms for treatment, pooled centers, assessment by treatment interaction.|||-0.07|-18.27|0.05
91068601|NCT02186873|182023216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentage|47.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.18|58.99|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||58.99|35.18|<0.001
91068602|NCT01399047|182023241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.105||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.033|0.243|||Prescott's test||Mycophenolate was tolerated in 17/19 subjects (89.5%, 95% CI: 66.9% - 98.7%), while placebo was tolerated in 19/19 subjects (100%, 95% CI: 82.4% - 100%). The difference in tolerability rates was 10.5% (95% CI: -3.3% - 24.3%, p=0.21).|The primary outcome variable was tolerability, defined as the proportion of subjects able to complete 8 weeks on the assigned treatment. Tolerability was compared among the treatment groups using Prescott's test. A 95% confidence interval was computed for the tolerability of mycophenolate, placebo, and their difference.||0.243|-0.033|0.21
91068603|NCT01399047|182023242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.69||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.67|3.28|||Prescott's test|||||3.28|-4.67|0.72
91068604|NCT01399047|182023243|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Prescott's test|||||||0.78
91068605|NCT01399047|182023244|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||Prescott's test|||||||0.98
91068606|NCT01399047|182023245|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.26
91068607|NCT04532619|182023259|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.5||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.89||Computed p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||We used a multilevel models to produce regression estimates. We used multiple imputation. Intervention enrollment was coded as 1 and enrollment in the control arm was coded as 0. We accounted for baseline values and psychopathology.||0.89|0.10|0.014
91068608|NCT04532619|182023260|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.05||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.32||computed p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||We used a multilevel models to produce regression estimates. We used multiple imputation. Intervention enrollment was coded as 1 and enrollment in the control arm was coded as 0. We accounted for baseline values and psychopathology.||0.32|-0.41|0.80
91068609|NCT04532619|182023261|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.29||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.07||computed p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||We used a multilevel models to produce regression estimates. We used multiple imputation. Intervention enrollment was coded as 1 and enrollment in the control arm was coded as 0. We accounted for baseline values and psychopathology.||-0.07|-0.51|0.009
91068610|NCT04532619|182023262|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.17||||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.38||calculated p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||We used a multilevel models to produce regression estimates. We used multiple imputation. Intervention enrollment was coded as 1 and enrollment in the control arm was coded as 0. We accounted for baseline values and psychopathology.||0.38|-0.04|0.118
91068611|NCT04532619|182023263|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.24|TWO_SIDED|||||computed p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||We used a multilevel models to produce regression estimates. We used multiple imputation. Intervention enrollment was coded as 1 and enrollment in the control arm was coded as 0. We accounted for baseline values and psychopathology. A logistic link function was used for this binary outcome.||||.24
91068612|NCT04532619|182023264|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.33||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.64|1.98||computed p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||We used a multilevel models to produce regression estimates. We used multiple imputation. Intervention enrollment was coded as 1 and enrollment in the control arm was coded as 0. We accounted for baseline values and psychopathology.||1.98|-4.64|0.43
91068613|NCT04532619|182023265|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.06||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.27|0.15||computed p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||We used a multilevel models to produce regression estimates. We used multiple imputation. Intervention enrollment was coded as 1 and enrollment in the control arm was coded as 0. We accounted for baseline values and psychopathology.||0.15|-4.27|0.07
91068614|NCT00386360|182023270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.231||||0.7096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.995|1.458|||ANOVA|LS Means are least squares (adjusted) means from ANOVA model with fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||In Laib 1998, the mean and SD of the annual loss in distal radius BV/TV were reported to be 3.5% and 6.4%, respectively. Assuming the treatment difference and SD of the percent change in distal radius BV/TV for this study were the same, it required enrolling 52 patients for placebo and 104 for risedronate to ensure 80% power to achieve 0.05 level of significance. Sample size estimation based on 2-sided 2-sample t-test and assumed effective size of 0.54 and dropout rate of 20%.||1.458|-0.995|0.7096
91068615|NCT00386360|182023271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.543||||0.2973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.485|1.571|||ANOVA|LS Means are least squares (adjusted) means from ANOVA model with fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||In Laib 1998, the mean and SD of the annual loss in distal radius BV/TV were reported to be 3.5% and 6.4%, respectively. Assuming the treatment difference and SD of the percent change in distal radius BV/TV for this study were the same, it required enrolling 52 patients for placebo and 104 for risedronate to ensure 80% power to achieve 0.05 level of significance. Sample size estimation based on 2-sided 2-sample t-test and assumed effective size of 0.54 and dropout rate of 20%.||1.571|-0.485|0.2973
91068616|NCT00386360|182023272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.485||||0.1275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.141|1.11|||ANOVA|LS Means are least squares (adjusted) means from ANOVA model with fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||In Laib 1998, the mean and SD of the annual loss in distal radius BV/TV were reported to be 3.5% and 6.4%, respectively. Assuming the treatment difference and SD of the percent change in distal radius BV/TV for this study were the same, it required enrolling 52 patients for placebo and 104 for risedronate to ensure 80% power to achieve 0.05 level of significance. Sample size estimation based on 2-sided 2-sample t-test and assumed effective size of 0.54 and dropout rate of 20%.||1.110|-0.141|0.1275
91068617|NCT00386360|182023273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.664||||0.336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.697|2.025|||ANOVA|LS Means are least squares (adjusted) means from ANOVA model with fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||In Laib 1998, the mean and SD of the annual loss in distal radius BV/TV were reported to be 3.5% and 6.4%, respectively. Assuming the treatment difference and SD of the percent change in distal radius BV/TV for this study were the same, it required enrolling 52 patients for placebo and 104 for risedronate to ensure 80% power to achieve 0.05 level of significance. Sample size estimation based on 2-sided 2-sample t-test and assumed effective size of 0.54 and dropout rate of 20%.||2.025|-0.697|0.3360
91068618|NCT00386360|182023274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.334||||0.4565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.551|1.219|||ANOVA|LS Means are least squares (adjusted) means from ANOVA model with fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||In Laib 1998, the mean and SD of the annual loss in distal radius BV/TV were reported to be 3.5% and 6.4%, respectively. Assuming the treatment difference and SD of the percent change in distal radius BV/TV for this study were the same, it required enrolling 52 patients for placebo and 104 for risedronate to ensure 80% power to achieve 0.05 level of significance. Sample size estimation based on 2-sided 2-sample t-test and assumed effective size of 0.54 and dropout rate of 20%.||1.219|-0.551|0.4565
91068619|NCT00386360|182023275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.611||||0.0614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|1.252|||ANOVA|LS Means are least squares (adjusted) means from ANOVA model with fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||In Laib 1998, the mean and SD of the annual loss in distal radius BV/TV were reported to be 3.5% and 6.4%, respectively. Assuming the treatment difference and SD of the percent change in distal radius BV/TV for this study were the same, it required enrolling 52 patients for placebo and 104 for risedronate to ensure 80% power to achieve 0.05 level of significance. Sample size estimation based on 2-sided 2-sample t-test and assumed effective size of 0.54 and dropout rate of 20%.||1.252|-0.030|0.0614
91068620|NCT00386360|182023276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.06||||0.9212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.258|1.138|||ANOVA|LS means are least squares (adjusted) means from ANOVA model with fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||In Laib 1998, the mean and SD of the annual loss in distal radius BV/TV were reported to be 3.5% and 6.4%, respectively. Assuming the treatment difference and SD of the percent change in distal radius BV/TV for this study were the same, it required enrolling 52 patients for placebo and 104 for risedronate to ensure 80% power to achieve 0.05 level of significance. Sample size estimation based on 2-sided 2-sample t-test and assumed effective size of 0.54 and dropout rate of 20%.||1.138|-1.258|0.9212
91068621|NCT00386360|182023277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.231|4.31|||ANOVA|LS Means are least squares (adjusted) means from ANOVA model with fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||In Laib 1998, the mean and SD of the annual loss in distal radius BV/TV were reported to be 3.5% and 6.4%, respectively. Assuming the treatment difference and SD of the percent change in distal radius BV/TV for this study were the same, it required enrolling 52 patients for placebo and 104 for risedronate to ensure 80% power to achieve 0.05 level of significance. Sample size estimation based on 2-sided 2-sample t-test and assumed effective size of 0.54 and dropout rate of 20%.||4.310|2.231|<0.0001
91068622|NCT00386360|182023278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.444|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.748|2.14|||ANOVA|LS Means are least squares (adjusted) means from ANOVA model with fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||In Laib 1998, the mean and SD of the annual loss in distal radius BV/TV were reported to be 3.5% and 6.4%, respectively. Assuming the treatment difference and SD of the percent change in distal radius BV/TV for this study were the same, it required enrolling 52 patients for placebo and 104 for risedronate to ensure 80% power to achieve 0.05 level of significance. Sample size estimation based on 2-sided 2-sample t-test and assumed effective size of 0.54 and dropout rate of 20%.||2.140|0.748|<0.0001
91068623|NCT00386360|182023279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.408||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.469|2.348|||ANOVA|LS Means are least squares (adjusted) means from ANOVA model with fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||In Laib 1998, the mean and SD of the annual loss in distal radius BV/TV were reported to be 3.5% and 6.4%, respectively. Assuming the treatment difference and SD of the percent change in distal radius BV/TV for this study were the same, it required enrolling 52 patients for placebo and 104 for risedronate to ensure 80% power to achieve 0.05 level of significance. Sample size estimation based on 2-sided 2-sample t-test and assumed effective size of 0.54 and dropout rate of 20%.||2.348|0.469|0.0036
91068624|NCT00386360|182023280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.458||||0.0087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.375|2.541|||ANOVA|LS Means are least squares (adjusted) means from ANOVA model with fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||In Laib 1998, the mean and SD of the annual loss in distal radius BV/TV were reported to be 3.5% and 6.4%, respectively. Assuming the treatment difference and SD of the percent change in distal radius BV/TV for this study were the same, it required enrolling 52 patients for placebo and 104 for risedronate to ensure 80% power to achieve 0.05 level of significance. Sample size estimation based on 2-sided 2-sample t-test and assumed effective size of 0.54 and dropout rate of 20%.||2.541|0.375|0.0087
91068625|NCT00386360|182023281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-39.54||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.957|-19.123|||ANOVA|LS Means are least squares (adjusted) means from ANOVA model with fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||In Laib 1998, the mean and SD of the annual loss in distal radius BV/TV were reported to be 3.5% and 6.4%, respectively. Assuming the treatment difference and SD of the percent change in distal radius BV/TV for this study were the same, it required enrolling 52 patients for placebo and 104 for risedronate to ensure 80% power to achieve 0.05 level of significance. Sample size estimation based on 2-sided 2-sample t-test and assumed effective size of 0.54 and dropout rate of 20%.||-19.123|-59.957|0.0002
91068626|NCT00386360|182023282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-40.269|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.3|-29.238|||ANOVA|LS Means are least squares (adjusted) means from ANOVA model with fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||In Laib 1998, the mean and SD of the annual loss in distal radius BV/TV were reported to be 3.5% and 6.4%, respectively. Assuming the treatment difference and SD of the percent change in distal radius BV/TV for this study were the same, it required enrolling 52 patients for placebo and 104 for risedronate to ensure 80% power to achieve 0.05 level of significance. Sample size estimation based on 2-sided 2-sample t-test and assumed effective size of 0.54 and dropout rate of 20%.||-29.238|-51.300|<0.0001
91068627|NCT00386360|182023283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.092||||0.1385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.213|||ANOVA|LS Means are least squares (adjusted) means from ANOVA model with fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||In Laib 1998, the mean and SD of the annual loss in distal radius BV/TV were reported to be 3.5% and 6.4%, respectively. Assuming the treatment difference and SD of the percent change in distal radius BV/TV for this study were the same, it required enrolling 52 patients for placebo and 104 for risedronate to ensure 80% power to achieve 0.05 level of significance. Sample size estimation based on 2-sided 2-sample t-test and assumed effective size of 0.54 and dropout rate of 20%.||0.213|-0.030|0.1385
91068628|NCT01073605|182023301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02922|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values for the 3 treatment comparisons should be interpreted in line with the Bonferroni stepwise (Holm) testing procedure, to maintain the Type 1 error at p=0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.02922
91068629|NCT01073605|182023301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74299|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values for the 3 treatment comparisons should be interpreted in line with the Bonferroni stepwise (Holm) testing procedure, to maintain the Type 1 error at p=0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.74299
91068630|NCT01073605|182023301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.00467|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values for the 3 treatment comparisons should be interpreted in line with the Bonferroni stepwise (Holm) testing procedure, to maintain the Type 1 error at p=0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.00467
91068631|NCT01073605|182023303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.00125|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values for the 3 treatment comparisons should be interpreted in line with the Bonferroni stepwise (Holm) testing procedure, to maintain the Type 1 error at p=0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||1 year||||0.00125
91068632|NCT01073605|182023303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25995|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values for the 3 treatment comparisons should be interpreted in line with the Bonferroni stepwise (Holm) testing procedure, to maintain the Type 1 error at p=0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||1 year||||0.25995
91068633|NCT01073605|182023303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||8e-05|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values for the 3 treatment comparisons should be interpreted in line with the Bonferroni stepwise (Holm) testing procedure, to maintain the Type 1 error at p=0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||1 year||||0.00008
91068634|NCT01073605|182023303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03273|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values for the 3 treatment comparisons should be interpreted in line with the Bonferroni stepwise (Holm) testing procedure, to maintain the Type 1 error at p=0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||2 years||||0.03273
91068635|NCT01073605|182023303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68581|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values for the 3 treatment comparisons should be interpreted in line with the Bonferroni stepwise (Holm) testing procedure, to maintain the Type 1 error at p=0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||2 years||||0.68581
91068636|NCT01073605|182023303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values for the 3 treatment comparisons should be interpreted in line with the Bonferroni stepwise (Holm) testing procedure, to maintain the Type 1 error at p=0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||2 years||||0.00530
91068637|NCT01073605|182023303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57556|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values for the 3 treatment comparisons should be interpreted in line with the Bonferroni stepwise (Holm) testing procedure, to maintain the Type 1 error at p=0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||3 years||||0.57556
91068638|NCT01073605|182023303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63956|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values for the 3 treatment comparisons should be interpreted in line with the Bonferroni stepwise (Holm) testing procedure, to maintain the Type 1 error at p=0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||3 years||||0.63956
91068639|NCT01073605|182023303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16421|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values for the 3 treatment comparisons should be interpreted in line with the Bonferroni stepwise (Holm) testing procedure, to maintain the Type 1 error at p=0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||3 years||||0.16421
91068640|NCT01073605|182023307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values for the 3 treatment comparisons should be interpreted in line with the Bonferroni stepwise (Holm) testing procedure, to maintain the Type 1 error at p=0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||3 years||||0.0001
91068641|NCT01073605|182023307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58324|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values for the 3 treatment comparisons should be interpreted in line with the Bonferroni stepwise (Holm) testing procedure, to maintain the Type 1 error at p=0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||3 years||||0.58324
91068642|NCT01073605|182023307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values for the 3 treatment comparisons should be interpreted in line with the Bonferroni stepwise (Holm) testing procedure, to maintain the Type 1 error at p=0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||3 years||||<0.0001
91068643|NCT01073605|182023312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.67||||0.0681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|1.39||There is no adjustment for multiplicity of treatment comparisons.|ANCOVA|The Analysis of Covariance took into account the patient covariates age and gender.||||1.39|-0.05|0.0681
91068644|NCT01073605|182023312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.8971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.74||There is no adjustment for multiplicity of treatment comparisons.|ANCOVA|The Analysis of Covariance took into account the patient covariates age and gender.||||0.74|-0.65|0.8971
91068645|NCT01073605|182023312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.63||||0.0583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|0.02||There is no adjustment for multiplicity of treatment comparisons.|ANCOVA|The Analysis of Covariance took into account the patient covariates age and gender.||||0.02|-1.27|0.0583
91068646|NCT03491462|182023314|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6208|||||||Gehan's extended Wilcoxon's test|||||||0.6208
91068647|NCT03018080|182023318|OTHER|Estimation only.|Rate|0.238|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.082|0.472|||||Confidence interval estimated using the Clopper Pearson method.|The reported grade 3/4 toxicity rate with weekly paclitaxel was 0.35. If it became evident that the grade 3/4 treatment-related toxicity rate on either arm convincingly exceeded 0.35, the study arm would have been halted. Convincing evidence of exceeding 0.35 was based on Bayesian methods and continuous monitoring, where the stopping rule would have held enrollment if the posterior probability at any point exceeded 0.50 or higher.||0.472|0.082|
91068648|NCT03018080|182023318|OTHER|Estimation only.|Rate|0.316|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.126|0.566|||||Confidence interval estimated using the Clopper Pearson method.|The reported grade 3/4 toxicity rate with weekly paclitaxel was 0.35. If it became evident that the grade 3/4 treatment-related toxicity rate on either arm convincingly exceeded 0.35, the study arm would have been halted. Convincing evidence of exceeding 0.35 was based on Bayesian methods and continuous monitoring, where the stopping rule would have held enrollment if the posterior probability at any point exceeded 0.50 or higher.||0.566|0.126|
91068649|NCT03018080|182023319|OTHER|Estimation only|Rate|0.191|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.055|0.419|||||Confidence interval estimated using the Clopper Pearson method.|||0.419|0.055|
91068650|NCT03018080|182023319|OTHER|Estimation only.|Rate|0.421|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.203|0.665|||||Confidence interval estimated using the Clopper Pearson method|||0.665|0.203|
91068651|NCT03018080|182023320|OTHER|Estimation only|Median|4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|6.9|||||The Kaplan Meier method was used to estimate the median PFS(in months) for the population. The Greenwood method was used to estimate the confidence limits of the median progression free survival.|||6.9|1.4|
91068652|NCT03018080|182023320|OTHER|Estimation only|Median|3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|6.8|||||The Kaplan Meier method was used to estimate the median PFS(in months) for the population. The Greenwood method was used to estimate the confidence limits of the median progression free survival.|||6.8|1.4|
91068653|NCT03018080|182023321|OTHER|Estimation only|Median|27.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.7||Upper limit of the confidence interval is not reached due to censoring rate||||The Kaplan Meier method was used to estimate median OS (in months). The Greenwood method was used to estimate confidence limits of median overall survival.||||9.7|
91068654|NCT03018080|182023321|OTHER|Estimation only|Median|9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|14.0|||||The Kaplan Meier method was used to estimate median OS (in months). The Greenwood method was used to estimate confidence limits of median overall survival.|||14.0|6.8|
91068655|NCT03018080|182023322|OTHER|Estimation only.|Rate|0.667|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.854|||||Confidence interval estimated using the Clopper Pearson method|||0.854|0.430|
91068656|NCT03018080|182023322|OTHER|Estimation only|Rate|0.632|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.384|0.837|||||Confidence interval estimated using the Clopper Pearson method|||0.837|0.384|
91068657|NCT03018080|182023323|OTHER|Estimation only|Median|7.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.6|8.3|||||"The Kaplan Meier method was used to estimate median duration of response (in months).~The Greenwood method was used to estimate confidence limits of median duration of response."|||8.3|5.6|
91068658|NCT03018080|182023323|OTHER|Estimation only|Median|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|8.3|||||"The Kaplan Meier method was used to estimate median duration of response (in months).~The Greenwood method was used to estimate confidence limits of median duration of response."|||8.3|2.6|
91068659|NCT03612596|182023328|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.94
91068660|NCT03612596|182023329|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.88
91068661|NCT03612596|182023330|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.94
91068662|NCT03612596|182023331|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.58
91068663|NCT03612596|182023332|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.17
91068664|NCT03612596|182023333|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Please note that this analysis was not powered and was used to characterize effect size (d = 1.26) rather than test efficacy.||||||0.53
91068665|NCT03612596|182023334|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Please note that this analysis was not powered and was used to characterize effect size (d = 1.16) rather than test efficacy.||||||0.44
91068666|NCT03612596|182023335|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Please note that this analysis was not powered and was used to characterize effect size (d = 0.67) rather than test efficacy.||||||0.93
91068667|NCT03612596|182023336|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.29
91068668|NCT03612596|182023337|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.16
91068669|NCT03612596|182023338|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
91068670|NCT03612596|182023339|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.70
91068671|NCT03612596|182023340|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.71
91068672|NCT04632069|182023355|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.4||0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|repeated measures linear regression: time periods: -14 to Day 0, Day 1-18(independent variable); daily po volumes (Dependent Variable)||Daily change in po feeding volumes expressed as po ml/kg/d \[reported as the mean daily change from Day 1 to 18 during NAC/NAC+taVNS minus baseline mean daily change Day -14 to day 0 (before treatment)\] Null hypothesis: there will be no significant difference in daily change in po feeding volume (ml/kg/d) from baseline to during treatment Power analysis: Estimated +0.2 ml/kg/d before taVNS, and +3ml/kg/d during the 18days of NAC+taVNS treatment, requiring 10 infants with power of 80%, a=0.05.||||0.009
91068673|NCT04632069|182023356|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.08||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test|mean difference between \[GSH\] Day 4 of NAC and \[GSH\] at baseline|\[GSH\] at baseline compared with \[GSH\] at day 4 of NAC- by paired t-test in which each participant's \[GSH\] is compared at 2 time points Null hypothesis: the \[GSH\] in the basal ganglia will be no different after Day 4 of NAC than \[GSH\] at baseline Power calculation:With 80% power, alpha of 0.05, we would need 7 patients to show a significant change in basal ganglia \[GSH\] of 0.14 +/- 0.13mM from baseline to Day 4 of NAC (paired t-test).||||0.01
91068674|NCT02573181|182023357|OTHER|Difference in percentage with AEs|Difference|4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|15.8|||||Difference and 95% CI calculated based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||15.8|-7.4|
91068675|NCT02573181|182023359|OTHER|Difference in % with fatigue|Fatigue difference|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|8.8|||||Difference and 95% CI calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||8.8|-10.7|
91068676|NCT02573181|182023359|OTHER|Difference in % with arthralgia|Arthralgia difference|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|3.4|||||Difference and 95% CI calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||3.4|-10.2|
91068677|NCT02573181|182023359|OTHER|Difference in % with myalgia|Myalgia difference|4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|13.3|||||Difference and 95% CI calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||13.3|-3.9|
91068678|NCT02573181|182023359|OTHER|Difference in % with headache|Headache difference|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|6.4|||||Difference and 95% CI calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||6.4|-11.4|
91068679|NCT03412734|182023366|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.02|37.34||p-value is adjusted for baseline BV (Bacterial Vaginosis)|Regression, Logistic|||We hypothesized that chlorhexidine would have a lower bacterial count compared to iodine. Our sample size was calculated to be 71 patients per arm to detect a 22% difference in cultures defined as contaminated at 90 minutes from surgical preparation.||37.34|3.02|<0.001
91068680|NCT03777436|182023381|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference|20.1||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.2|30.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. 2-sided 95% CIs based on the stratified Newcombe method. Two-sided p-values were based on the CMH test.|||30.9|9.2|0.0003
91068681|NCT03777436|182023382|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference|15.2||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|23.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights. 2-sided 95% CIs based on the stratified Newcombe method. Two-sided p-values were based on the CMH test.|||23.6|6.9|0.0004
91068682|NCT03777436|182023383|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference|27.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.4|39.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights. 2-sided 95% CIs based on the stratified Newcombe method. Two-sided p-values were based on the CMH test.|||39.3|15.4|<0.0001
91068683|NCT03777436|182023384|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-3.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.942||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.18|-1.47|||MMRM||Based on MMRM model.|||-1.47|-5.18|0.0005
91068684|NCT03777436|182023385|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|-1.1|||MMRM||Based on MMRM model.|||-1.1|-4.2|0.0008
91068685|NCT03777436|182023386|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-15.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.3|-10.0|||MMRM||Based on MMRM model.|||-10.0|-20.3|<0.0001
91068686|NCT00402688|182023418|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin is a risk difference of 0.2.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.063||||||95.0|-0.089|0.215|||||Difference in success rates (levofloxacin 500mg for 4 weeks minus levofloxacin 750mg for 2 weeks ).|||0.215|-0.089|
91068687|NCT00402688|182023418|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin is a risk difference of 0.2.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.045||||||95.0|-0.106|0.195|||||Difference in success rates (levofloxacin 500mg for 4 weeks minus levofloxacin 750mg for 3 weeks).|||0.195|-0.106|
90827580|NCT05104450|181529929|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.64||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|treatment-by-time interaction|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed effects model including baseline and follow up outcome measures, time, treatment by time interaction, baseline covariates: age, gender, race, charlson comorbidity index, rurality, and randomization stratification variables: BMI (30-34.9 vs. 35-44.9kg/m2), OSA severity (mild vs. moderate to severe), and sleep related impairment T-score (\<60 vs. ≥ 60). The parameter of interest is treatment by time interaction coefficient, measuring the between group difference for change in outcome.||1.04|0.25|0.001
90827581|NCT05104450|181529930|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.06||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|-0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|treatment-by-time interaction|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed effects model including baseline and follow up outcome measures, time, treatment by time interaction, baseline covariates: age, gender, race, charlson comorbidity index, rurality, and randomization stratification variables: BMI (30-34.9 vs. 35-44.9kg/m2), OSA severity (mild vs. moderate to severe), and sleep related impairment T-score (\<60 vs. ≥ 60). The parameter of interest is treatment by time interaction coefficient, measuring the between group difference for change in outcome.||-0.06|-2.05|0.037
90827582|NCT05104450|181529931|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.37||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|treatment-by-time interaction|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed effects model including baseline and follow up outcome measures, time, treatment by time interaction, baseline covariates: age, gender, race, charlson comorbidity index, rurality, and randomization stratification variables: BMI (30-34.9 vs. 35-44.9kg/m2), OSA severity (mild vs. moderate to severe), and sleep related impairment T-score (\<60 vs. ≥ 60). The parameter of interest is treatment by time interaction coefficient, measuring the between group difference for change in outcome.||0.86|-0.12|0.135
91068688|NCT00927862|182023426|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Based on power calculations and feasibility, the minimum recruitment target for the randomized, PG-guided comparison was set at 500 patients. All qualifying parallel control patients were included, anticipated to number ≥1000. For hypothesis 1, the power to exclude inferiority of the modified PG arm vs standard PG arm at a margin (delta) of 5% with 250 patients per group at a 2-sided alpha \<0.05 is 87%, assuming a common standard deviation of 0.20.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.2|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Comparisons between groups for primary endpoints were made using the unpaired T-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparisons between groups for primary endpoints were made using the unpaired T-test. All consented, randomized patients who were successfully genotyped and received at least one dose of warfarin with at least one post-dose INR were included in efficacy analyses (modified intention to treat \[mITT\]).||||<0.05
91068689|NCT00820248|182023435|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.5|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio of panitumumab vs cisplatin|The log rank test stratified by the stratification factors at randomization was used to compare the difference in PFS between two treatment arms.||1.50|0.60|0.83
91068690|NCT00820248|182023436|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.89||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.48|||Log Rank||hazard ratio for panitumumab vs cisplatin|||1.48|0.54|0.66
91068691|NCT04157296|182023457|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.226|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||leftIFG (Change in Brain activity \[post minus pre\])||||
91068692|NCT04157296|182023457|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.309|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||rightIFG (Change in Brain activity \[post minus pre\])||||
91068693|NCT04157296|182023457|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.179|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||leftParietal (Change in Brain activity \[post minus pre\])||||
91068694|NCT04157296|182023457|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.324|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||rightParietal (Change in Brain activity \[post minus pre\])||||
91068695|NCT04157296|182023457|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||leftdACC (Change in Brain activity \[post minus pre\])||||
91068696|NCT04157296|182023457|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.067|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||rightdACC (Change in Brain activity \[post minus pre\])||||
91068697|NCT04157296|182023457|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.302|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||leftInsula (Change in Brain activity \[post minus pre\])||||
91068698|NCT04157296|182023457|SUPERIORITY|rightInsula (Change in Brain activity \[post minus pre\])|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.234|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||rightInsula (Change in Brain activity \[post minus pre\])||||
91068699|NCT04157296|182023457|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||TCN (Change in Connectivity \[post minus pre\])||||
91068700|NCT04157296|182023458|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.241|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.241
91068701|NCT04157296|182023459|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.233|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.233
91068702|NCT04157296|182023460|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.042|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.042
91068703|NCT04157296|182023461|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.349|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.349
91068704|NCT03980145|182023463|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.405||||||Statistical significance set at .05|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is no difference between the two groups||||.405
91068705|NCT03980145|182023463|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.133|||||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is no difference between pretest and posttest||||.133
91068706|NCT03980145|182023463|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Evaluated the difference between the pretest and posttest within the conventional physical therapy group||||.050
91068707|NCT03980145|182023463|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.015|0.124||p value was adjusted for multiple comparisons using a Bonferroni correction|ANOVA|||Evaluating the impact of whether comfortable walking speed for both groups combined resulted in a significant improvement in walking speed||.124|.015|.017
91068708|NCT03980145|182023464|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.369|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison of the impact between the two arms looking an improved walking endurance||||.369
90827583|NCT05104450|181529932|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.97||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.01|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|treatment-by-time interaction|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed effects model including baseline and follow up outcome measures, time, treatment by time interaction, baseline covariates: age, gender, race, charlson comorbidity index, rurality, and randomization stratification variables: BMI (30-34.9 vs. 35-44.9kg/m2), OSA severity (mild vs. moderate to severe), and sleep related impairment T-score (\<60 vs. ≥ 60). The parameter of interest is treatment by time interaction coefficient, measuring the between group difference for change in outcome.||0.07|-2.01|0.068
91068709|NCT03980145|182023464|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||ANOVA|||Evaluation of impact of end-effector robotic training alone||||.710
91068710|NCT03980145|182023464|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.682|||||||ANOVA|||Evaluating the impact of conventional therapy on walking endurance Null hypothesis is no difference between pretest and posttest||||.682
91068711|NCT03980145|182023464|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.568||||||p value adjusted for multiple comparisons - Bonferroni|ANOVA|||Evaluating the impact of whether both groups combined resulted in a significant change in walking distance||||.568
91068712|NCT03980145|182023465|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.594||||||Outcome specific to the physical domain|ANOVA|||Evaluation of the physical domain||||.594
91068713|NCT03980145|182023465|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.061|||||||ANOVA|||Pretest- Posttest End Effector Robotic Training Comparison for the Physical Domain||||.061
91068714|NCT03980145|182023465|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.812|||||||ANOVA|||Pretest posttest comparison of conventional training group for physical domain||||.812
91068715|NCT03980145|182023465|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.235|||||||ANOVA|||Combined conventional and end-effector training for outcomes in the physical domain||||.235
91068716|NCT03980145|182023465|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.465|||||||ANOVA|||Between group assessment of changes in the MFIS Cognitive domain||||.465
91068717|NCT03980145|182023465|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.165|||||||ANOVA|||Within group differences for the End Effector Robotic Training Group for the Cognitive Domain||||.165
91068718|NCT03980145|182023465|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.682|||||||ANOVA|||Within group assessment for the conventional group within the cognitive domain of the MFIS||||.682
91068719|NCT03980145|182023465|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.39||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|9.67||p value adjusted using a Bonferroni correction|ANOVA|||Combined group outcomes comparing pretest to posttest for the cognitive domain||9.67|1.12|.017
91068720|NCT03980145|182023465|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.052|||||||ANOVA|||Between group comparison for the MFIS Psychological Subscale||||.052
91068721|NCT03980145|182023465|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.483|||||||ANOVA|||Within group comparison for the end-effector robotic training group for the MFIS Psychological subscale||||.483
91068722|NCT03980145|182023465|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.056|||||||ANOVA|||Within group assessment for the conventional physical therapy group for the MFIS Psychological subscale||||.056
91068723|NCT03980145|182023465|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.313||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.016|2.619||p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using a Bonferroni correction|ANOVA|||Change in MFIS for all subjects from pre to posttest for the psychological subscale||2.619|.016|.048
91068724|NCT03980145|182023465|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Between group assessment of differences in total score||||.010
91068725|NCT03980145|182023465|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.089|||||||ANOVA|||Within assessment of change in total fatigue score||||.089
91068726|NCT03980145|182023465|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||ANOVA|||Within group assessment of change in total score||||.50
91068727|NCT03980145|182023465|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.464||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.678|16.251|||ANOVA|||Combined assessment of all subject improvement in total MFIS score||16.251|2.678|0.10
91068728|NCT03980145|182023466|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.071|||||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis set for no difference between groups Assessment of between group differences for the physical subscale||||.071
91068729|NCT03980145|182023466|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.84||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.02|23.66|||ANOVA|||With group assessment of change on the physical subscale of the MSIS||23.66|6.02|.005
91068730|NCT03980145|182023466|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.57||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.3|18.85|||ANOVA|||With group assessment of change on the physical subscale of the MSIS||18.85|8.30|.001
91068731|NCT03980145|182023466|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.21||||2.6e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.367|19.04||p value adjusted for multiple comparisons using Bonferroni|ANOVA|||Combined group assessment of change on the physical subscale of the MSIS||19.04|9.367|.000026
91068732|NCT03980145|182023466|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.084||||||Pretest measures were statistically different between the two groups|ANOVA|||Between group comparison for the psychological subscale for the MSIS||||.084
91068733|NCT03980145|182023466|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.412|||||||ANOVA|||Within group comparison for the psychological subscale for the MSIS||||.412
91068734|NCT03980145|182023466|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.22||||0.00018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.59|28.85|||ANOVA|||Within group comparison for the psychological subscale for the MSIS||28.85|15.59|.00018
91068735|NCT03980145|182023466|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.19||||0.00049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.013|19.38|||ANOVA|||Combined group comparison for the psychological subscale for the MSIS||19.38|7.013|.00049
91068736|NCT03980145|182023467|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.352|||||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is no difference between the two groups||||.352
91068737|NCT03980145|182023467|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.079|||||||ANOVA|||Within group assessment||||.079
91068738|NCT03980145|182023467|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.393|||||||ANOVA|||Within group assessment||||.393
91068739|NCT03980145|182023467|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.058||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.116|||ANOVA|Adjusted for multiple mean comparisons||Evaluating the impact of whether fast walking speed for both groups combined resulted in a significant improvement in walking speed||.116|.001|.048
91068740|NCT03980145|182023468|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.117|||||||ANOVA|||Between group assessment for the HADS Anxiety Subscale||||.117
91068741|NCT03980145|182023468|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.75||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.093|3.407|||ANOVA|||Within group assessment for HADS Anxiety Subscale||3.407|.093|.041
91068742|NCT03980145|182023468|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||ANOVA|||Within group assessment for HADS Anxiety Subscale||||.150
91068743|NCT03980145|182023468|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.518||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|2.646||p value adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|||Combined group assessment of HADS Anxiety Subscale||2.646|.390|.012
91068744|NCT03980145|182023469|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.239|||||||ANOVA|||||||.239
91068745|NCT03980145|182023469|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.667|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison between groups for differences in sensory pain score||||.667
91068746|NCT03980145|182023469|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||ANOVA|||Between group differences in affective pain||||.770
91068747|NCT03980145|182023470|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.136|||||||ANOVA|||Between group assessment of LLFDI Disability Frequency||||.136
91068748|NCT03980145|182023470|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.833|||||||ANOVA|||Combined group assessment of improvement in LLFDI Disability Frequency||||.833
91068749|NCT03980145|182023470|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.996||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.212|13.781|||ANOVA|||Between Group Assessment of improvement in LLFDI Disability Limitations||13.781|.212|.044
91068750|NCT03980145|182023470|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.212|||||||ANOVA|||Combined group assessment of improvement in LLFDI Disability Limitations||||.212
91068751|NCT03980145|182023471|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.338|||||||ANOVA|||Between group comparison for the LLDFI Function||||.338
91068752|NCT03980145|182023471|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.508||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.73|12.28|||ANOVA|||Within group assessment of LLFDI Function||12.28|2.73|.007
91068753|NCT03980145|182023471|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.067|||||||ANOVA|||Within group assessment for changes in LLFDI Function||||.067
91068754|NCT03980145|182023471|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.99||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|9.08||p value adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|||Combined group improvement in LLFDI Function||9.08|2.90|.001
91068755|NCT02088905|182023476|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of ECBI Problem Score between Week 18 scores, 1 sided test for Treatment Group Superiority||||.080
91068756|NCT02088905|182023476|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.026||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison of ECBI Intensity Score between Week 18 scores, 1 sided test for Treatment Group Superiority||||.026
91068757|NCT02088905|182023476|OTHER|Type III Tests of Fixed Effects|||||<|0.001||||||Mixed Model Analysis - Significance of Timepoint within the model in determining the effectiveness of assigned treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed Model Analysis of ECBI Intensity Scores, with variables of Timepoint, Treatment Assignment, and Timepoint\*Treatment Assignment interaction. Random intercept used.||||<.001
91068758|NCT02088905|182023476|OTHER|Type III Tests of Fixed Effects||||||0.182||||||Mixed Model Analysis - Significance of Treatment Assignment within the model in determining the effectiveness of assigned treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed Model Analysis of ECBI Intensity Scores, with variables of Timepoint, Treatment Assignment, and Timepoint\*Treatment Assignment interaction. Random intercept used.||||.182
91068759|NCT02088905|182023476|OTHER|Type III Tests of Fixed Effects||||||0.015||||||Mixed Model Analysis - Significance of Treatment Assignment and Timepoint Interaction Term within the model in determining the effectiveness of assigned treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed Model Analysis of ECBI Intensity Scores, with variables of Timepoint, Treatment Assignment, and Timepoint\*Treatment Assignment interaction. Random intercept used.||||.015
91068760|NCT02088905|182023477|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.203||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison of PSI Parental Distress between Week 18 scores, 1 sided test for Treatment Group Superiority||||.203
91068761|NCT02088905|182023477|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of PSI Parent-Child Dysfunctional Interaction between Week 18 scores, 1 sided test for Treatment Group Superiority||||0.17
91068762|NCT02088905|182023477|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.308||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison of PSI Difficult Child between Week 18 scores, 1 sided test for Treatment Group Superiority||||0.308
91068763|NCT02088905|182023477|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.413||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of PSI Total Score between Week 18 scores, 1 sided test for Treatment Group Superiority||||.413
91068764|NCT02088905|182023479|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.271||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison of SRS Total Score between Week 18 scores, 1 sided test for Treatment Group Superiority||||0.271
91068765|NCT02088905|182023479|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.434||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison of SRS Awareness Score between Week 18 scores, 1 sided test for Treatment Group Superiority||||.434
91068766|NCT02088905|182023479|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.298||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison of SRS Cognition Scores between Week 18 scores, 1 sided test for Treatment Group Superiority||||.298
91068767|NCT02088905|182023479|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.294||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison of SRS Communication Score between Week 18 scores, 1 sided test for Treatment Group Superiority||||.294
91068768|NCT02088905|182023479|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.441||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison of SRS Motivation between Week 18 scores, 1 sided test for Treatment Group Superiority||||.441
91068769|NCT02088905|182023479|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.204||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison of SRS Restricted and Repetitive Behavior Score between Week 18 scores, 1 sided test for Treatment Group Superiority||||.204
91068770|NCT02088905|182023481|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of DPICS Negative Skills between Week 18 scores, 1 sided test for Treatment Group Superiority||||<.001
91068771|NCT02088905|182023481|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison of DPICS Positive Skills between Week 18 scores, 1 sided test for Treatment Group Superiority. Data transformed using a square root transformation.||||<.001
91068772|NCT01562782|182023497|EQUIVALENCE|A P value \<0.05 was used to determine no equivalence between groups in the primary outcome- the mean fold change in plasma VLDL triglyceride palmitate, 0-4 hours. A power calculation was based on data obtained in 15 overweight subjects. Assuming a mean absolute difference of 2.7 in South Asians and 1.0 in Caucasians and a standard deviation of 2.0 for both, group sample sizes of 16 and 16 were expected to achieve 80% power to detect a difference of 1.7 using a 2-sided Mann-Whitney test.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.61||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The equivalence test was used to compare the fold change in plasma VLDL triglyceride palmitate in Caucasians and South Asians.||||0.05
91068773|NCT01562782|182023498|EQUIVALENCE|A P value \<0.05 was used to determine no equivalence between groups.|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The equivalence test was used to compare 1) the fold change in triglycerides in South Asians and Caucasians and 2) the fold change in VLDL triglycerides in South Asians and Caucasians.||||<0.05
91068774|NCT01562782|182023499|EQUIVALENCE|A P value \<0.05 was used to determine no equivalence between groups.|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The equivalence test is used to compare levels after the sugar beverage of 1) glucose at 1 hour 2) lactate at 1 hour 3) NEFA at 2 hours in South Asians vs Caucasians.||||<0.05
91068775|NCT01562782|182023500|EQUIVALENCE|A P value \<0.05 was used to determine no equivalence between groups.|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91068776|NCT01562782|182023501|EQUIVALENCE|A P value \<0.05 was used to determine no equivalence between groups.|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91068777|NCT01562782|182023502|EQUIVALENCE|A P value \<0.05 was used to determine no equivalence between groups.|||||<|0.05|||||||Pearson or Spearman's rank test|||The equivalence test was used to analyze the relationship between the primary outcome, fold change in VLDL TG palmitate, and the listed levels of biomarkers of carbohydrate and fat metabolism. The correlation analysis was performed on data from each study group separately.||||<0.05
91068778|NCT01562782|182023503|EQUIVALENCE|A P value \<0.05 was used to determine no equivalence between groups.|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91068779|NCT01562782|182023504|EQUIVALENCE|A P value \<0.05 was used to determine no equivalence between groups.|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91068780|NCT01562782|182023505|EQUIVALENCE|A P value \<0.05 was used to determine no equivalence between groups.|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91068781|NCT01562782|182023506|EQUIVALENCE|A P value \<0.05 was used to determine no equivalence between groups.|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91068782|NCT02308540|182023514|OTHER|GMC will be summarized by treatment group with corresponding two-sided 90% CIs based on the t-distribution to provide population estimates.|Pn IgG type 1 GMC Ratio|0.31||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.17|0.57|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.57|0.17|0.0025
91068783|NCT02308540|182023514|OTHER|GMC will be summarized by treatment group with corresponding two-sided 90% CIs based on the t-distribution to provide population estimates.|Pn IgG type 5 GMC Ratio|0.74||||0.454|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.38|1.45|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.45|0.38|0.4540
91068784|NCT02308540|182023514|OTHER|GMC will be summarized by treatment group with corresponding two-sided 90% CIs based on the t-distribution to provide population estimates.|Pn IgG type 6A GMC Ratio|4.69||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.46|8.94|||t-test, 2 sided|||||8.94|2.46|0.0003
91068785|NCT02308540|182023514|OTHER|GMC will be summarized by treatment group with corresponding two-sided 90% CIs based on the t-distribution to provide population estimates.|Pn IgG type 6B GMC Ratio|2.22||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.16|4.24|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.24|1.16|0.0460
91068786|NCT02308540|182023514|OTHER|GMC will be summarized by treatment group with corresponding two-sided 90% CIs based on the t-distribution to provide population estimates.|Pn IgG type 7F GMC Ratio|0.76||||0.3365|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.47|1.22|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.22|0.47|0.3365
91068787|NCT02308540|182023514|OTHER|GMC will be summarized by treatment group with corresponding two-sided 90% CIs based on the t-distribution to provide population estimates.|Pn IgG type 9V GMC Ratio|0.56||||0.0313|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.37|0.87|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.87|0.37|0.0313
91068788|NCT02308540|182023514|OTHER|GMC will be summarized by treatment group with corresponding two-sided 90% CIs based on the t-distribution to provide population estimates.|Pn IgG type 14 GMC Ratio|1.08||||0.806|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.65|1.79|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.79|0.65|0.8060
91068789|NCT02308540|182023514|OTHER|GMC will be summarized by treatment group with corresponding two-sided 90% CIs based on the t-distribution to provide population estimates.|Pn IgG type 19A GMC Ratio|1.74||||0.2044|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|3.58|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.58|0.84|0.2044
91068790|NCT02308540|182023514|OTHER|GMC will be summarized by treatment group with corresponding two-sided 90% CIs based on the t-distribution to provide population estimates.|Pn IgG type 19F GMC Ratio|1.67||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|3.02|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.02|0.93|0.1490
91068791|NCT02308540|182023514|OTHER|GMC will be summarized by treatment group with corresponding two-sided 90% CIs based on the t-distribution to provide population estimates.|Pn IgG type 23F GMC Ratio|1.13||||0.7565|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.59|2.15|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.15|0.59|0.7565
91068792|NCT02308540|182023515|OTHER|GMC will be summarized by treatment group with corresponding two-sided 90% CIs based on the t-distribution to provide population estimates. Due to distributional characteristics, confidence intervals around GMCs and treatment-group ratio are estimated using bootstrap resampling (10,000 bootstrap samples).|Pn IgG type 1 GMC Ratio|0.75||||0.2653|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.54|1.31|||Two-tailed from z-test|||||1.31|0.54|0.2653
91068793|NCT02308540|182023515|OTHER|GMC will be summarized by treatment group with corresponding two-sided 90% CIs based on the t-distribution to provide population estimates. Due to distributional characteristics, confidence intervals around GMCs and treatment-group ratio are estimated using bootstrap resampling (10,000 bootstrap samples).|Pn IgG type 5 GMC Ratio|0.69||||0.2059|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.45|1.2|||Two-tailed from z-test|||||1.20|0.45|0.2059
91068794|NCT02308540|182023515|OTHER|GMC will be summarized by treatment group with corresponding two-sided 90% CIs based on the t-distribution to provide population estimates. Due to distributional characteristics, confidence intervals around GMCs and treatment-group ratio are estimated using bootstrap resampling (10,000 bootstrap samples).|Pn IgG type 6A GMC Ratio|0.84||||0.5664|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.55|1.54|||Two-tailed from z-test|||||1.54|0.55|0.5664
91068795|NCT02308540|182023515|OTHER|GMC will be summarized by treatment group with corresponding two-sided 90% CIs based on the t-distribution to provide population estimates. Due to distributional characteristics, confidence intervals around GMCs and treatment-group ratio are estimated using bootstrap resampling (10,000 bootstrap samples).|Pn IgG type 6B GMC Ratio|0.82||||0.4456|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.57|1.31|||Two-tailed from z-test|||||1.31|0.57|0.4456
91068796|NCT02308540|182023515|OTHER|GMC will be summarized by treatment group with corresponding two-sided 90% CIs based on the t-distribution to provide population estimates. Due to distributional characteristics, confidence intervals around GMCs and treatment-group ratio are estimated using bootstrap resampling (10,000 bootstrap samples).|Pn IgG type 7F GMC Ratio|0.74||||0.2189|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.52|1.14|||Two-tailed from z-test|||||1.14|0.52|0.2189
91068797|NCT02308540|182023515|OTHER|GMC will be summarized by treatment group with corresponding two-sided 90% CIs based on the t-distribution to provide population estimates. Due to distributional characteristics, confidence intervals around GMCs and treatment-group ratio are estimated using bootstrap resampling (10,000 bootstrap samples).|Pn IgG type 9V GMC Ratio|0.6||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.38|1.03|||Two-tailed from z-test|||||1.03|0.38|0.0970
91068798|NCT02308540|182023515|OTHER|GMC will be summarized by treatment group with corresponding two-sided 90% CIs based on the t-distribution to provide population estimates. Due to distributional characteristics, confidence intervals around GMCs and treatment-group ratio are estimated using bootstrap resampling (10,000 bootstrap samples).|Pn IgG type 14 GMC Ratio|1.76||||0.0713|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.02|2.79|||Two-tailed from z-test|||||2.79|1.02|0.0713
91068799|NCT02308540|182023515|OTHER|GMC will be summarized by treatment group with corresponding two-sided 90% CIs based on the t-distribution to provide population estimates. Due to distributional characteristics, confidence intervals around GMCs and treatment-group ratio are estimated using bootstrap resampling (10,000 bootstrap samples).|Pn IgG type 19A GMC Ratio|0.71||||0.3443|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.42|1.35|||Two-tailed from z-test|||||1.35|0.42|0.3443
91068800|NCT02308540|182023515|OTHER|GMC will be summarized by treatment group with corresponding two-sided 90% CIs based on the t-distribution to provide population estimates. Due to distributional characteristics, confidence intervals around GMCs and treatment-group ratio are estimated using bootstrap resampling (10,000 bootstrap samples).|Pn IgG type 19F GMC Ratio|0.76||||0.3278|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.48|1.23|||Two-tailed from z-test|||||1.23|0.48|0.3278
91068801|NCT02308540|182023515|OTHER|GMC will be summarized by treatment group with corresponding two-sided 90% CIs based on the t-distribution to provide population estimates. Due to distributional characteristics, confidence intervals around GMCs and treatment-group ratio are estimated using bootstrap resampling (10,000 bootstrap samples).|Pn IgG type 23F GMC Ratio|0.65||||0.2039|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|1.16|||Two-tailed from z-test|||||1.16|0.40|0.2039
91068802|NCT02308540|182023516|OTHER|GMC will be summarized by treatment group with corresponding two-sided 90% CIs based on the t-distribution to provide population estimates.|Pn IgG type 1 GMC Ratio|0.89||||0.255|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.74|1.06|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.06|0.74|0.2550
91068803|NCT02308540|182023516|OTHER|GMC will be summarized by treatment group with corresponding two-sided 90% CIs based on the t-distribution to provide population estimates.|Pn IgG type 5 GMC Ratio|1.2||||0.0865|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.01|1.43|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.43|1.01|0.0865
91068804|NCT02308540|182023516|OTHER|GMC will be summarized by treatment group with corresponding two-sided 90% CIs based on the t-distribution to provide population estimates.|Pn IgG type 6A GMC Ratio|0.56||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.43|0.74|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.74|0.43|0.0006
91068805|NCT02308540|182023516|OTHER|GMC will be summarized by treatment group with corresponding two-sided 90% CIs based on the t-distribution to provide population estimates.|Pn IgG type 6B GMC Ratio|0.43|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.33|0.57|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.57|0.33|<0.0001
91068806|NCT02308540|182023516|OTHER|GMC will be summarized by treatment group with corresponding two-sided 90% CIs based on the t-distribution to provide population estimates.|Pn IgG type 7F GMC Ratio|0.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.47|0.68|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.68|0.47|<0.0001
91068807|NCT02308540|182023516|OTHER|GMC will be summarized by treatment group with corresponding two-sided 90% CIs based on the t-distribution to provide population estimates.|Pn IgG type 9V GMC Ratio|0.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.41|0.59|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.59|0.41|<0.0001
91068808|NCT02308540|182023516|OTHER|GMC will be summarized by treatment group with corresponding two-sided 90% CIs based on the t-distribution to provide population estimates.|Pn IgG type 14 GMC Ratio|1.11||||0.5234|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|1.45|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.45|0.85|0.5234
91068809|NCT02308540|182023516|OTHER|GMC will be summarized by treatment group with corresponding two-sided 90% CIs based on the t-distribution to provide population estimates.|Pn IgG type 19A GMC Ratio|0.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.22|0.36|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.36|0.22|<0.0001
91068810|NCT02308540|182023516|OTHER|GMC will be summarized by treatment group with corresponding two-sided 90% CIs based on the t-distribution to provide population estimates.|Pn IgG type 19F GMC Ratio|0.72||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6|0.87|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.87|0.60|0.0040
91068811|NCT02308540|182023516|OTHER|GMC will be summarized by treatment group with corresponding two-sided 90% CIs based on the t-distribution to provide population estimates.|Pn IgG type 23F GMC Ratio|0.58||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.46|0.73|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.73|0.46|0.0001
91068812|NCT02308540|182023518|OTHER|Treatment group differences were estimated by the difference in proportion of seroresponders, with 2-sided exact 90% CIs around the difference calculated using the unconditional exact method of Newcombe. Although inference regarding seroresponse was not of primary concern in this study, a 2-sided 90% CI that excluded 0 was indicative of statistically significant difference at p ≤ 0.10 not corrected for multiplicity analysis.|Absolute Difference for Type 1|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.13|2.66||||||||2.66|-5.13|
91068813|NCT02308540|182023518|OTHER|Treatment group differences were estimated by the difference in proportion of seroresponders, with 2-sided exact 90% CIs around the difference calculated using the unconditional exact method of Newcombe. Although inference regarding seroresponse was not of primary concern in this study, a 2-sided 90% CI that excluded 0 was indicative of statistically significant difference at p ≤ 0.10 not corrected for multiplicity analysis.|Absolute Difference for Type 5|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.1|7.95||||||||7.95|-1.10|
91068814|NCT02308540|182023518|OTHER|Treatment group differences were estimated by the difference in proportion of seroresponders, with 2-sided exact 90% CIs around the difference calculated using the unconditional exact method of Newcombe. Although inference regarding seroresponse was not of primary concern in this study, a 2-sided 90% CI that excluded 0 was indicative of statistically significant difference at p ≤ 0.10 not corrected for multiplicity analysis.|Absolute Difference for Type 6A|-12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.94|-2.97||||||||-2.97|-20.94|
91068815|NCT02308540|182023518|OTHER|Treatment group differences were estimated by the difference in proportion of seroresponders, with 2-sided exact 90% CIs around the difference calculated using the unconditional exact method of Newcombe. Although inference regarding seroresponse was not of primary concern in this study, a 2-sided 90% CI that excluded 0 was indicative of statistically significant difference at p ≤ 0.10 not corrected for multiplicity analysis.|Absolute Difference for Type 6B|-7.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.0|-1.01||||||||-1.01|-15.0|
91068816|NCT02308540|182023518|OTHER|Treatment group differences were estimated by the difference in proportion of seroresponders, with 2-sided exact 90% CIs around the difference calculated using the unconditional exact method of Newcombe. Although inference regarding seroresponse was not of primary concern in this study, a 2-sided 90% CI that excluded 0 was indicative of statistically significant difference at p ≤ 0.10 not corrected for multiplicity analysis.|Absolute Difference for Type 7F|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.95|1.1||||||||1.10|-7.95|
91068817|NCT02308540|182023518|OTHER|Treatment group differences were estimated by the difference in proportion of seroresponders, with 2-sided exact 90% CIs around the difference calculated using the unconditional exact method of Newcombe. Although inference regarding seroresponse was not of primary concern in this study, a 2-sided 90% CI that excluded 0 was indicative of statistically significant difference at p ≤ 0.10 not corrected for multiplicity analysis.|Absolute Difference for Type 9V|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.17|2.9||||||||2.90|-9.17|
91068818|NCT02308540|182023518|OTHER|Treatment group differences were estimated by the difference in proportion of seroresponders, with 2-sided exact 90% CIs around the difference calculated using the unconditional exact method of Newcombe. Although inference regarding seroresponse was not of primary concern in this study, a 2-sided 90% CI that excluded 0 was indicative of statistically significant difference at p ≤ 0.10 not corrected for multiplicity analysis.|Absolute Difference for Type 14|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.0|6.27||||||||6.27|-4.00|
91068819|NCT02308540|182023518|OTHER|Treatment group differences were estimated by the difference in proportion of seroresponders, with 2-sided exact 90% CIs around the difference calculated using the unconditional exact method of Newcombe. Although inference regarding seroresponse was not of primary concern in this study, a 2-sided 90% CI that excluded 0 was indicative of statistically significant difference at p ≤ 0.10 not corrected for multiplicity analysis.|Absolute Difference for Type 19A|-5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.38|0.17||||||||0.17|-12.38|
90827584|NCT05104450|181529933|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.83|-1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|treatment-by-time interaction|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed effects model including baseline and follow up outcome measures, time, treatment by time interaction, baseline covariates: age, gender, race, charlson comorbidity index, rurality, and randomization stratification variables: BMI (30-34.9 vs. 35-44.9kg/m2), OSA severity (mild vs. moderate to severe), and sleep related impairment T-score (\<60 vs. ≥ 60). The parameter of interest is treatment by time interaction coefficient, measuring the between group difference for change in outcome.||-1.60|-3.83|<0.001
91068820|NCT02308540|182023518|OTHER|Treatment group differences were estimated by the difference in proportion of seroresponders, with 2-sided exact 90% CIs around the difference calculated using the unconditional exact method of Newcombe. Although inference regarding seroresponse was not of primary concern in this study, a 2-sided 90% CI that excluded 0 was indicative of statistically significant difference at p ≤ 0.10 not corrected for multiplicity analysis.|Absolute Difference for Type 19F|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.22|4.33||||||||4.33|-4.22|
91068821|NCT02308540|182023518|OTHER|Treatment group differences were estimated by the difference in proportion of seroresponders, with 2-sided exact 90% CIs around the difference calculated using the unconditional exact method of Newcombe. Although inference regarding seroresponse was not of primary concern in this study, a 2-sided 90% CI that excluded 0 was indicative of statistically significant difference at p ≤ 0.10 not corrected for multiplicity analysis.|Absolute Difference for Type 23F|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.77|0.4||||||||0.40|-12.77|
91068822|NCT02308540|182023520|OTHER|Exact confidence intervals around treatment group differences are calculated based on Newcombe score. Calculation of difference and confidence interval around the difference is not possible when all subjects in both groups are responders|Absolute difference for MOPA type 1|9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.55|36.11||||||||36.11|-15.55|
91068823|NCT02308540|182023520|OTHER|Exact confidence intervals around treatment group differences are calculated based on Newcombe score. Calculation of difference and confidence interval around the difference is not possible when all subjects in both groups are responders|Absolute difference for MOPA type 5|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.56|18.56||||||||18.56|-18.56|
91068824|NCT02308540|182023520|OTHER|Exact confidence intervals around treatment group differences are calculated based on Newcombe score. Calculation of difference and confidence interval around the difference is not possible when all subjects in both groups are responders|Absolute difference for MOPA type 6B|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.35|22.97||||||||22.97|-12.35|
91068825|NCT02308540|182023520|OTHER|Exact confidence intervals around treatment group differences are calculated based on Newcombe score. Calculation of difference and confidence interval around the difference is not possible when all subjects in both groups are responders|Absolute difference for MOPA type 14|5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.15|24.01||||||||24.01|-12.15|
91068826|NCT02308540|182023520|OTHER|Exact confidence intervals around treatment group differences are calculated based on Newcombe score. Calculation of difference and confidence interval around the difference is not possible when all subjects in both groups are responders|Absolute difference for MOPA type 19A|-5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-26.41|11.01||||||||11.01|-26.41|
91068827|NCT02308540|182023520|OTHER|Exact confidence intervals around treatment group differences are calculated based on Newcombe score. Calculation of difference and confidence interval around the difference is not possible when all subjects in both groups are responders|Absolute difference for MOPA type 19F|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.64|22.97||||||||22.97|-11.64|
91068828|NCT02649439|182023531|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4852|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.4852
91068829|NCT02649439|182023532|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3269|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.3269
91068830|NCT02649439|182023535|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0255||||||The reported p-value is representative of the PBMCs in monocyte nonclassical between responders and non-responders.|Mann Whitney Test|||||||0.0255
91068831|NCT02649439|182023535|OTHER|||||||0.0021||||||The reported p-value is representative of the PBMCs in monocyte nonclassical PD-L1+ between responders and non-responders.|Mann Whitney Test|||||||0.0021
91068832|NCT02649439|182023535|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0486||||||The reported p-value is representative of the PBMCs in monocyte PD-1+ between responders and non-responders.|Mann Whitney Test|||||||0.0486
91068833|NCT02649439|182023536|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7317||||||The reported p-value is representative of the PBMCs in CD4 between responders and non-responders.|Mann Whitney Test|||||||0.7317
91068834|NCT02649439|182023536|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7545||||||The reported p-value is representative of the PBMCs in CD8 between responders and non-responders.|Mann Whitney Test|||||||0.7545
91068835|NCT02649439|182023536|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.531||||||The reported p-value is representative of the PBMCs in Treg between responders and non-responders.|Mann Whitney Test|||||||0.5310
91068836|NCT02649439|182023536|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8451||||||The reported p-value is representative of the PBMCs in NK between responders and non-responders.|Mann Whitney Test|||||||0.8451
91068837|NCT02649439|182023536|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9377||||||The reported p-value is representative of the PBMCs in MDSC between responders and non-responders.|Mann Whitney Test|||||||0.9377
91068838|NCT02649439|182023537|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2012||||||The reported p-value is representative of the % of CD4 in PBMCs at Day 1 and Day 29.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.2012
91068839|NCT02649439|182023537|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4891||||||The reported p-value is representative of the % of CD8 in PBMCs at Day 1 and Day 29.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.4891
91068840|NCT02649439|182023537|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4609||||||The reported p-value is representative of the % of Tregs in PBMCs at Day 1 and Day 29.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.4609
91068841|NCT02649439|182023537|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0012||||||The reported p-value is representative of the % of NK in PBMCs at Day 1 and Day 29.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0012
91068842|NCT02649439|182023537|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0825||||||The reported p-value is representative of the % of MDSC in PBMCs at Day 1 and Day 29.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0825
91068843|NCT02649439|182023537|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5988||||||The reported p-value is representative of the % of naïve CD4 in PBMCs at Day 1 and Day 29.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.5988
91068844|NCT02649439|182023537|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.592|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|The reported p-value is representative of the % of naïve CD8 in PBMCs at Day 1 and Day 29.||||||0.5920
91068845|NCT02649439|182023537|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6221||||||The reported p-value is representative of the % of CD4 in PBMCs at Day 1 and Day 29.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.6221
91068846|NCT02649439|182023537|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7334||||||The reported p-value is representative of the % of CD8 in PBMCs at Day 1 and Day 29.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.7334
91068847|NCT02649439|182023537|OTHER|||||||0.791||||||The reported p-value is representative of the % of Tregs in PBMCs at Day 1 and Day 29.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.7910
91068848|NCT02649439|182023537|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5186||||||The reported p-value is representative of the % of NK in PBMCs at Day 1 and Day 29.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.5186
91068849|NCT02649439|182023537|SUPERIORITY|The reported p-value is representative of the % of MDSC in PBMCs at Day 1 and Day 29.||||||0.5186|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.5186
91068850|NCT02649439|182023537|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9097||||||The reported p-value is representative of the % of naïve CD4 in PBMCs at Day 1 and Day 29.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.9097
91068851|NCT02649439|182023537|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7334||||||The reported p-value is representative of the % of naïve CD8 in PBMCs at Day 1 and Day 29.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.7334
91068852|NCT00945035|182023545|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Study Primary Hypothesis: The plasma etoricoxib AUC(0-∞) and Cmax values following a single-dose administration of the 120 mg etoricoxib (30%) URC formulation will be bioequivalent to the plasma AUC(0-∞) and Cmax of 120 mg etoricoxib (20%) in the FMI formulation following single-dose administration (geometric mean ratio \[GMR\] no less than 0.8 and no greater than 1.25).|Least-Squares Mean Ratio|1.02||||||90.0|0.97|1.07||||||Least-Squares Mean Ratio (B/A); A=FMI Formulation (20%), Final Market Image; B=URC Formulation (30%), Unmilled Roller Compaction||1.07|0.97|
91068853|NCT00945035|182023546|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Study Primary Hypothesis: The plasma etoricoxib AUC(0-∞) and Cmax values following a single-dose administration of the 120 mg etoricoxib (30%) URC formulation will be bioequivalent to the plasma AUC(0-∞) and Cmax of 120 mg etoricoxib (20%) in the FMI formulation following single-dose administration (geometric mean ratio \[GMR\] no less than 0.8 and no greater than 1.25).|Least-Squares Mean Ratio|1.03||||||90.0|0.95|1.11||||||Least-Squares Mean Ratio (B/A); A=FMI Formulation (20%), Final Market Image; B=URC Formulation (30%), Unmilled Roller Compaction||1.11|0.95|
91068854|NCT04468347|182023585|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|The two-way ANOVA included cognitive and amyloid status, and their interaction as fixed effects.||||||<0.0001
91068855|NCT04468347|182023585|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038||0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|The two-way ANOVA included cognitive and amyloid status, and their interaction as fixed effects.||||||0.0005
91068856|NCT04468347|182023585|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033||0.2161|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|The two-way ANOVA included cognitive and amyloid status, and their interaction as fixed effects.||||||0.2161
91068857|NCT04468347|182023586|OTHER|||||||0.1998|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1998
91068858|NCT04468347|182023587|OTHER|||||||0.0646|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0646
91068859|NCT00994461|182023592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by H. pylori status was employed for the comparison of celecoxib and loxoprofen with placebo. The multiplicity of test was not adjusted because these comparisons were for the secondary objective.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by H. pylori status was employed. Continuous correction was used.||Hypothesis testing was conducted with significant p-value level of under 0.05.||||<0.0001
91068860|NCT02505217|182023625|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.007
91068861|NCT00615550|182023634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.55||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.92|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.92|0.33|0.020
91068862|NCT00615550|182023635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical analysis presented for composite score data.||||0.048
91068863|NCT00615550|182023635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.39||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.92|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical analysis presented for RDS data.||0.92|0.17|0.026
91068864|NCT00615550|182023636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.5||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.97|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical analysis presented for births \<=27 6/7 weeks data.||0.97|0.25|0.036
91068865|NCT00615550|182023636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.62||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.92|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical analysis presented for \<= 34 6/7 weeks data.||0.92|0.42|0.016
91068866|NCT00615550|182023636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.89||||0.376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.16|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical analysis presented for \<36 weeks data.||1.16|0.68|0.376
91068867|NCT00615550|182023637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.57||||0.431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|2.35|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.35|0.14|0.431
91068868|NCT00615550|182023638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.47||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.85|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical analysis for birth weight \< 1500 grams data.||0.85|0.26|0.01
91068869|NCT00615550|182023638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.83||||0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.11|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical analysis for birth weight \< 2500 grams data.||1.11|0.62|0.213
91068870|NCT01408303|182023639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference relative to olive oil|-2.95|||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|p-value from ANCOVA with factors for treatment, statin use and potency, and baseline value as a covariate, and adjusted using Hommel's procedure.||||||<0.05
91068871|NCT01408303|182023639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference relative to olive oil|-6.0|||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|p-value from ANCOVA with factors for treatment, statin use and potency, and baseline value as a covariate, and adjusted using Hommel's procedure.||||||<0.0001
91068872|NCT02644668|182023640|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.9086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.11|-0.13|0.9086
91068873|NCT02644668|182023640|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.065||0.4361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.08|-0.18|0.4361
91068874|NCT02644668|182023641|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-2.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.749||0.5382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.43|6.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.55|-12.43|0.5382
91068875|NCT02644668|182023641|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.099||0.8464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.19|11.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.18|-9.19|0.8464
91068876|NCT02644668|182023642|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|11.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.506||0.0378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|22.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||22.70|0.68|0.0378
91068877|NCT02644668|182023642|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|13.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.913||0.0298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|24.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||24.97|1.33|0.0298
91068878|NCT02644668|182023643|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-4.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.56||0.5461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.69|10.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||10.52|-19.69|0.5461
91068879|NCT02644668|182023643|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-15.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.175||0.0672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.56|1.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.11|-31.56|0.0672
91068880|NCT02644668|182023644|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.928||0.6849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|1.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.48|-2.23|0.6849
91068881|NCT02644668|182023644|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98||0.3091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.96|0.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.95|-2.96|0.3091
91068882|NCT02644668|182023645|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.571||0.2878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|1.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.75|-0.53|0.2878
91068883|NCT02644668|182023645|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.616||0.8512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|1.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.11|-1.34|0.8512
91068884|NCT02644668|182023646|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.528||0.7612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.08|4.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.52|-6.08|0.7612
91068885|NCT02644668|182023646|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.231||0.3502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.91|3.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.70|-9.91|0.3502
91068886|NCT02644668|182023647|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|7.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.484||0.4684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.86|29.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||29.30|-13.86|0.4684
91068887|NCT02644668|182023647|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|24.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.55||0.0584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|50.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||50.74|-0.95|0.0584
91068888|NCT02644668|182023648|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.43||||0.1686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.43|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio of active vs placebo comparison of the patients' global assessment of better than pre-dose vs same or worse than pre-dose||1.43|0.13|0.1686
91068889|NCT02644668|182023648|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67||||0.5259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.3|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio of active vs placebo comparison of the patients' global assessment of better than pre-dose vs same or worse than pre-dose||2.30|0.20|0.5259
91068890|NCT02644668|182023649|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.7655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|4.4|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio of active vs placebo comparison of the patients' global assessment of better than pre-dose vs same or worse than pre-dose||4.40|0.34|0.7655
91068891|NCT02644668|182023649|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.61||||0.492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|6.25|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio of active vs placebo comparison of the patients' global assessment of better than pre-dose vs same or worse than pre-dose||6.25|0.41|0.4920
91068892|NCT02046005|182023652|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.23||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.51||We compared the PRE-RA group (PRE-RA arm and PRE-RA Plus arm combined) to the Comparison arm for the primary composite outcome at the 3 primary post-intervention time points using generalized estimating equations (GEE).|generalized estimating equations||PRE-RA group (combined PRE-RA arm and PRE-RA Plus arm) compared to Comparison arm (reference)|"In the primary analysis, we combined the PRE-RA and PRE-RA Plus arms into a single PRE-RA group and compared it to the Comparison arm (aka General Rheumatoid Arthritis Education)"||1.51|1.01|0.043
91068893|NCT00468481|182023757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|384.7|||<|0.0001||95.0|282.42|486.98|||ANCOVA|Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as factor and Baseline (RBC folate) as covariate|Difference = DRSP/EE/MTHF - YAZ|The null hypothesis was that the difference between DRSP/EE/MTHF and Yaz treatment groups in the RBC folate levels at week 24 was 0.||486.98|282.42|<0.0001
91068894|NCT00468481|182023758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.87|||<|0.0001||95.0|14.04|23.7|||ANCOVA|Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as factor and Baseline (plasma folate) as covariate|Difference =DRSP/EE/MTHF - YAZ|The null hypothesis was that the difference between DRSP/EE/MTHF and Yaz treatment groups in the plasma folate levels at week 24 was 0.||23.70|14.04|<0.0001
91068895|NCT01068730|182023829|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was concluded if the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the test-to-reference ratios (B/A) and (D/C) of geometric means were entirely contained within 80% to 125% for both Cmax and AUC0-inf.|Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Means|102.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.07|106.23|||||Ratio=Treatment B/Treatment A. Geometric least squares (LS) means values are presented in other statistical analysis entries.|If there was no difference between the bioavailabilities of metformin from the 500-mg or 1000-mg Glucophage tablets manufactured by BMS and 500-mg or 1000-mg Diabex tablets manufactured in Australia by Alphapharm, then 20 subjects would have provided 99% power to conclude bioequivalence (BE) with respect to Cmax and AUC0-inf. If there was a 5% difference, then 20 subjects would have provided 97% and 99% power to conclude BE with respect to Cmax and AUC0-inf, respectively.||106.23|99.07|
91068896|NCT01068730|182023829|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was concluded if the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the test-to-reference ratios (B/A) and (D/C) of geometric means were entirely contained within 80% to 125% for both Cmax and AUC0-inf.|Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Means|99.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.16|103.31|||||Ratio=Treatment D/Treatment C. Geometric LS means values are presented in other statistical analysis entries.|If there was no difference between the bioavailabilities of metformin from the 500-mg or 1000-mg Glucophage tablets manufactured by BMS and 500-mg or 1000-mg Diabex tablets manufactured in Australia by Alphapharm, then 20 subjects would have provided 99% power to conclude BE with respect to Cmax and AUC0-inf. If there was a 5% difference, then 20 subjects would have provided 97% and 99% power to conclude BE with respect to Cmax and AUC0-inf, respectively.||103.31|96.16|
91068897|NCT01068730|182023829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng*hr/mL)|7062.8||||||||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment A||||
91068898|NCT01068730|182023829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng*hr/mL)|7245.2||||||||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment B||||
90827585|NCT05104450|181529934|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.87||||0.401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|2.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|treatment-by-time interaction|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed effects model including baseline and follow up outcome measures, time, treatment by time interaction, baseline covariates: age, gender, race, Charlson comorbidity index, rurality, and randomization stratification variables: BMI (30-34.9 vs. 35-44.9kg/m2), OSA severity (mild vs. moderate to severe), and sleep related impairment T-score (\<60 vs. ≥ 60). The parameter of interest is treatment by time interaction coefficient, measuring the between group difference for change in outcome.||2.89|-1.16|0.401
91068899|NCT01068730|182023829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng*hr/mL)|11680.0||||||||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment C||||
91068900|NCT01068730|182023829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng*hr/mL)]|11641.0||||||95.0||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment D||||
91068901|NCT01068730|182023830|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was concluded if the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the test-to-reference ratios (B/A) and (D/C) of geometric means were entirely contained within 80% to 125% for both Cmax and AUC0-inf.|Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Means|101.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.36|106.11|||||Ratio=Treatment B/Treatment A. Geometric LS means values are presented in other statistical analysis entries.|If there was no difference between the bioavailabilities of metformin from the 500-mg or 1000-mg Glucophage tablets manufactured by BMS and 500-mg or 1000-mg Diabex tablets manufactured in Australia by Alphapharm, then 20 subjects would have provided 99% power to conclude BE with respect to Cmax and AUC0-inf. If there was a 5% difference, then 20 subjects would have provided 97% and 99% power to conclude BE with respect to Cmax and AUC0-inf, respectively.||106.11|96.36|
91068902|NCT01068730|182023830|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was concluded if the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the test-to-reference ratios (B/A) and (D/C) of geometric means were entirely contained within 80% to 125% for both Cmax and AUC0-inf.|Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Means|98.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.94|103.59|||||Ratio=Treatment B/Treatment A. Geometric LS means values are presented in other statistical analysis entries.|If there was no difference between the bioavailabilities of metformin from the 500-mg or 1000-mg Glucophage tablets manufactured by BMS and 500-mg or 1000-mg Diabex tablets manufactured in Australia by Alphapharm, then 20 subjects would have provided 99% power to conclude BE with respect to Cmax and AUC0-inf. If there was a 5% difference, then 20 subjects would have provided 97% and 99% power to conclude BE with respect to Cmax and AUC0-inf, respectively.||103.59|93.94|
91068903|NCT01068730|182023830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng/mL)|1013.6||||||||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment A||||
91068904|NCT01068730|182023830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng/mL)|1024.9||||||||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment B||||
91068905|NCT01068730|182023830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng/mL)|1643.8||||||||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment C||||
91068906|NCT01068730|182023830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng/mL)|1621.6||||||||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment D||||
91068907|NCT01068730|182023840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Means|103.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.75|106.75|||||Ratio=Treatment B/Treatment A. Geometric LS means values are presented in other statistical analysis entries.|||106.75|99.75|
91068908|NCT01068730|182023840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Means|99.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.08|102.92|||||Ratio=Treatment D/Treatment C. Geometric LS means values are presented in other statistical analysis entries.|||102.92|96.08|
91068909|NCT01068730|182023840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng*hr/mL)|6907.1||||||||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment A||||
91068910|NCT01068730|182023840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng*hr/mL)|7127.4||||||95.0||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment B||||
91068911|NCT01068730|182023840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng*hr/mL)|11391.0||||||||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment C||||
91068912|NCT01068730|182023840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||[Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng*hr/mL)|11327.0||||||||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment D||||
91068913|NCT02498444|182023868|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.29||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.64|||Poisson regression|Poisson regression model demonstrating associations between treatment groups and outcomes (chest tube duration in days and length of stay in days)||||1.64|1.02|0.03
91068914|NCT02498444|182023869|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.23||||0.0498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.51||Poisson regression model demonstrating associations between treatment groups and outcomes (chest tube duration in days and length of stay in days)|Poisson regression|||||1.51|1.00|0.0498
91068915|NCT02498444|182023870|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Unadjusted repeated measure analysis|||Between-group comparison at postoperative hour 0||||0.05
91068916|NCT02498444|182023870|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Unadjusted repeated measure analysis|||Between-group comparison at postoperative hour 12||||<0.01
91068917|NCT02498444|182023870|OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||Unadjusted repeated measure analysis|||Between-group comparison at postoperative hour 24||||0.14
91068918|NCT02498444|182023871|OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||Unadjusted repeated measure analysis|||Between-group comparison at postoperative hour 0||||0.23
91068919|NCT02498444|182023871|OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||Unadjusted repeated measure analysis|||Between-group comparison at postoperative hour 12||||0.27
91068920|NCT02498444|182023871|OTHER|||||||0.65|||||||Unadjusted repeated measure analysis|||Between-group comparison at postoperative hour 24||||0.65
91068921|NCT02498444|182023872|OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||Unadjusted repeated measure analysis|||Between-group comparison at postoperative hour 0||||0.37
91068922|NCT02498444|182023872|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Unadjusted repeated measure analysis|||Between-group comparison at postoperative hour 12||||<0.01
91068923|NCT02498444|182023872|OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||Unadjusted repeated measure analysis|||Between-group comparison at postoperative hour 24||||0.30
91068924|NCT03233529|182023877|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Crisaborole ointment 2% was superior to vehicle if p-value was \<0.05.||-1.7|-3.1|<0.0001
91068925|NCT03233529|182023878|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.9906|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48404||0.042|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Crisaborole ointment 2% was superior to vehicle if p-value was \<0.05.||||0.0420
91068926|NCT03233529|182023879|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.5446|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37855||0.1519|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Crisaborole ointment 2% was superior to vehicle if p-value was \<0.05.||||0.1519
91068927|NCT03233529|182023880|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.1273|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32552||0.0007|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Crisaborole ointment 2% was superior to vehicle if p-value was \<0.05.||||0.0007
91068928|NCT03233529|182023881|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.7612|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44266||0.0871|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Crisaborole ointment 2% was superior to vehicle if p-value was \<0.05.||||0.0871
91068929|NCT03233529|182023882|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.3641|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48603||0.0055|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Crisaborole ointment 2% was superior to vehicle if p-value was \<0.05.||||0.0055
91068930|NCT03233529|182023883|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.1246|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49359||0.0238|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Crisaborole ointment 2% was superior to vehicle if p-value was \<0.05.||||0.0238
91068931|NCT03233529|182023884|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.9913|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68659||0.0042|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Crisaborole ointment 2% was superior to vehicle if p-value was \<0.05.||||0.0042
91068932|NCT03233529|182023891|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Crisaborole 2% was superior to vehicle if p-value was \<0.05.||-1.4|-2.7|< 0.0001
91068933|NCT03233529|182023892|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||Comparison at Day 8|Crisaborole ointment 2% was superior to vehicle if p-value was \<0.05.||-0.6|-1.3|< 0.0001
91068934|NCT03233529|182023892|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||Comparison at Day 15|Crisaborole ointment 2% was superior to vehicle if p-value was \<0.05.||-0.8|-1.4|< 0.0001
91068935|NCT03233529|182023893|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.0188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Comparison at Day 2|Crisaborole ointment 2% was superior to vehicle if p-value was \<0.05.||-0.1|-1.6|0.0188
91068936|NCT03233529|182023893|SUPERIORITY||Least-Square Mean of Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||Comparison at Day 3|Crisaborole ointment 2% was superior to vehicle if p-value was \<0.05.||-0.4|-1.9|0.0014
91068937|NCT03233529|182023893|SUPERIORITY||Least-Square Mean of Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||Comparison at Day 4|Crisaborole ointment 2% was superior to vehicle if p-value was \<0.05.||-0.6|-2.0|0.0003
91068938|NCT03233529|182023893|SUPERIORITY||Least-Square Mean of Difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||Comparison at Day 5|Crisaborole ointment 2% was superior to vehicle if p-value was \<0.05.||-0.8|-2.2|< 0.0001
91068939|NCT03233529|182023893|SUPERIORITY||Least-Square Mean of Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||Comparison at Day 6|Crisaborole ointment 2% was superior to vehicle if p-value was \<0.05.||-0.6|-2.0|0.0003
91068940|NCT03233529|182023893|SUPERIORITY||Least-Square Mean of Difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||Comparison at Day 7|Crisaborole ointment 2% was superior to vehicle if p-value was \<0.05.||-0.8|-2.3|< 0.0001
91068941|NCT03233529|182023893|SUPERIORITY||Least-Square Mean of Difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Comparison at Day 8|Crisaborole ointment 2% was superior to vehicle if p-value was \<0.05.||-1.1|-2.5|< 0.0001
91068942|NCT03233529|182023893|SUPERIORITY||Least-Square Mean of Difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Comparison at Day 9|Crisaborole ointment 2% was superior to vehicle if p-value was \<0.05.||-1.2|-2.6|< 0.0001
91068943|NCT03233529|182023893|SUPERIORITY||Least-Square Mean of Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||Comparison at Day 10|Crisaborole ointment 2% was superior to vehicle if p-value was \<0.05.||-1.3|-2.7|< 0.0001
91068944|NCT03233529|182023893|SUPERIORITY||Least-Square Mean of Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||Comparison at Day 11|Crisaborole ointment 2% was superior to vehicle if p-value was \<0.05.||-0.9|-2.3|< 0.0001
91068945|NCT03233529|182023893|SUPERIORITY||Least-Square Mean of Difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||Comparison at Day 12|Crisaborole ointment 2% was superior to vehicle if p-value was \<0.05.||-1.5|-2.9|< 0.0001
91068946|NCT03233529|182023893|SUPERIORITY||Least-Square Mean of Difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Comparison at Day 13|Crisaborole ointment 2% was superior to vehicle if p-value was \<0.05.||-1.2|-2.6|< 0.0001
91068947|NCT03233529|182023893|SUPERIORITY||Least-Square Mean of Difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Comparison at Day 14|Crisaborole ointment 2% was superior to vehicle if p-value was \<0.05.||-1.0|-2.4|< 0.0001
91068948|NCT03233529|182023893|SUPERIORITY||Least-Square Mean of Difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Comparison at Day 15|Crisaborole ointment 2% was superior to vehicle if p-value was \<0.05.||-1.2|-2.7|< 0.0001
91068949|NCT01177293|182023896|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Natural log transformed AUC\[0- ∞\] of amlodipine was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.|Adjusted geometric means ratio|89.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.74|97.43||||||A sample size of 12 completers provided 90% confidence intervals for the difference between treatment of +/-0.1155 on the natural log scale for AUCinf with 90% coverage probability. These calculations were based on estimates of within-participant standard deviations of 0.1234 for loge AUCinf.||97.43|82.74|
91068950|NCT01177293|182023897|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Natural log transformed AUClast of amlodipine was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|99.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.1|116.87||||||||116.87|85.10|
91068951|NCT01177293|182023898|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Natural log transformed Cmax of amlodipine was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.|Adjusted geometric means ratio|86.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.57|94.42||||||A sample size of 12 completers provided 90% confidence intervals for the difference between treatment of +/-0.1278 on the natural log scale for Cmax with 90% coverage probability. These calculations were based on estimates of within-participant standard deviations of 0.1366 for loge Cmax.||94.42|79.57|
91068952|NCT00594100|182023901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Binomial Proportion|0.054|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.027|0.095|||One-Sample Binomial|Significance test was based on a one-sample binomial test|95% Confidence Interval is exact binomial using Clopper-Pearson method. Standard Error is from Normal approximation.|The EMPiRE Study tested the null hypothesis that the true MAE rate was greater than or equal to an Objective Performance Criterion (OPC) of 11.83% versus the alternative hypothesis that the true MAE rate was less than the OPC. The sample size was calculated based on 80% power and a Type I error rate of 0.025. The OPC was calculated from results of published carotid artery stenting studies that utilized distal embolic protection systems.||0.095|0.027|0.002
91068953|NCT01814696|182023942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.605||||||a prior threshold p\<0.05|Fisher Exact|||||||0.605
91068954|NCT01814696|182023943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.604|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Heart failure related ED visits||||0.604
91068955|NCT01814696|182023943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Non-heart failure related ED visits||||1.000
91068956|NCT01814696|182023943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.677|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||All cause ED visits||||0.677
91068957|NCT01814696|182023944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.341|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.341
91068958|NCT01814696|182023944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.042|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.042
91068959|NCT01814696|182023945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.497|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||All cause||||0.497
91068960|NCT01814696|182023945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.413|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Heart failure related||||0.413
91068961|NCT01814696|182023945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.944|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Non-heart failure ED visits||||0.944
91068962|NCT01814696|182023946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.057|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||All cause||||0.057
91068963|NCT01814696|182023946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.236|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Heart failure related||||0.236
91068964|NCT01814696|182023946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.236|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Non heart failure related||||0.236
91068965|NCT01814696|182023947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.034|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||All cause||||0.034
91068966|NCT01814696|182023947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.196|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Heart failure related||||0.196
91068967|NCT01814696|182023947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.21|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Non heart failure related||||0.210
91068968|NCT01814696|182023948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.002
91068969|NCT04922255|182023962|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.04
91068970|NCT04922255|182023963|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.50
91068971|NCT04922255|182023964|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.30
91068972|NCT04922255|182023965|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.70
91068973|NCT04922255|182023966|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.01
91068974|NCT00648115|182023974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson chi square|7.3|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
91068975|NCT02105987|182023992|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is -10%.|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|2.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel stratified analysis adjusting for the following Baseline stratification factor: Original ART third agent class (PI, NNRTI, or INI).|||2.4|-9.1|
91068976|NCT02105987|182023994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel stratified analysis adjusting for the following Baseline stratification factor: Original ART third agent class (PI, NNRTI, or INI).|||1.4|-2.0|
91068977|NCT02105987|182023999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.23|||ANCOVA||Statistical analysis of cholesterol is presented|||0.23|-0.02|0.096
91068978|NCT02105987|182023999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.18|||ANCOVA||Statistical analysis of LDL cholesterol is presented|||0.18|-0.03|0.167
91068979|NCT02105987|182023999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.06|||ANCOVA||Statistical analysis of HDL cholesterol is presented|||0.06|-0.02|0.317
91068980|NCT02105987|182023999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.27|||ANCOVA||Statistical analysis of triglycerides is presented|||0.27|-0.05|0.187
91068981|NCT02105987|182024000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.25|||ANCOVA||Statistical analysis of total cholesterol/HDL cholesterol ratio is presented|||0.25|-0.04|0.175
91068982|NCT02105987|182024001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|3.5|||ANCOVA||Statistical analysis for total score is presented|||3.5|1.3|<0.001
91068983|NCT02105987|182024001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.7|||ANCOVA||Statistical analysis for general satisfaction/clinical subscale score is presented|||1.7|0.4|0.002
91068984|NCT02105987|182024001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.8|||ANCOVA||Statistical analysis for lifestyle/ease subscale is presented|||1.8|0.8|<0.001
91068985|NCT02105987|182024002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.86|8.16|||ANCOVA|||||8.16|4.86|<0.001
91068986|NCT02105987|182024003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.64|-5.11|||ANCOVA|||||-5.11|-8.64|<0.001
91068987|NCT02105987|182024004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||||-0.10|-0.17|<0.001
91068988|NCT02105987|182024005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.12|||ANCOVA|||||0.12|-0.31|0.375
91068989|NCT02105987|182024006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|1.3|||ANCOVA|||||1.30|-0.93|0.749
91068990|NCT02105987|182024007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|0.9||Bone specific alkaline phosphatase|ANCOVA|||||0.90|0.82|<0.001
91068991|NCT02105987|182024007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.91||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|0.96||Osteocalcin|ANCOVA|||||0.96|0.85|0.002
91068992|NCT02105987|182024007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|-0.09||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|-0.04||Procollagen 1 n-terminal propeptide|ANCOVA|||||-0.04|-0.15|0.001
91068993|NCT02105987|182024007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.91||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|0.96||Type I collagen c-telopeptides|ANCOVA|||||0.96|0.86|0.001
91068994|NCT02105987|182024008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean ratio|0.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.72||Fatty acid binding protein 2|ANCOVA|||||0.72|0.57|<0.001
91068995|NCT02105987|182024008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean ratio|1.08||||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.24||Interleukin 6|ANCOVA|||||1.24|0.93|0.311
91068996|NCT02105987|182024008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean ratio|0.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|0.96||Soluble CD14|ANCOVA|||||0.96|0.89|<0.001
91068997|NCT02105987|182024008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean ratio|1.01||||0.742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.08||Soluble vasc cell adhesion molecule 1|ANCOVA|||||1.08|0.95|0.742
91068998|NCT02105987|182024009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.0||||0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.19|||ANCOVA|||||1.19|0.84|0.999
91068999|NCT02105987|182024010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.0||||0.981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.1|||ANCOVA|||||1.10|0.91|0.981
91069000|NCT02105987|182024011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.97||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.11|||ANCOVA|||||1.11|0.85|0.640
91069001|NCT02105987|182024012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.97||||0.645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.09|||ANCOVA|||||1.09|0.87|0.645
91069002|NCT02105987|182024013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.01||||0.577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.06|||ANCOVA|||||1.06|0.97|0.577
91069003|NCT02105987|182024014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.01||||0.687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.03|||ANCOVA|||||1.03|0.98|0.687
91069004|NCT01303172|182024060|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.54||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.87|||Log Rank|||The difference between the two treatment groups was tested with a two-sided log-rank test and a Cox regression model was used to estimate the hazard ratio (HR) and its 95% CI and associated p-value.||0.87|0.33|0.011
91069005|NCT02099110|182024086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-0.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.3||Constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-0.30|-0.63|<0.001
91069006|NCT02099110|182024086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-0.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.27||cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-0.27|-0.60|<0.001
91069007|NCT02099110|182024086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-0.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.27||cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-0.27|-0.61|<0.001
91069008|NCT02099110|182024086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-0.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.3||cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-0.30|-0.63|<0.001
91069009|NCT02099110|182024087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in % vs Ertugliflozin 5 mg|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|5.5|||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||5.5|-11.7|
91069010|NCT02099110|182024087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in % vs. Ertugliflozin 15 mg|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|6.8|||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||6.8|-10.6|
91069011|NCT02099110|182024087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in % vs. Sitagliptin 100 mg|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|10.1|||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||10.1|-7.4|
91069012|NCT02099110|182024087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in % vs. Sitagliptin 100 mg|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|7.0|||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||7.0|-10.5|
91069013|NCT02099110|182024088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in % vs. Ertugliflozin 5 mg|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|3.6|||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||3.6|-3.3|
91069014|NCT02099110|182024088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in % vs. Ertugliflozin 15 mg|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|4.0|||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||4.0|-3.0|
91069015|NCT02099110|182024088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in % vs. Sitagliptin 100 mg|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|3.9|||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||3.9|-2.9|
91069016|NCT02099110|182024088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in % vs. Sitagliptin 100 mg|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|4.4|||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||4.4|-2.5|
91069017|NCT02099110|182024089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-1.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|-1.22||cLDA model including fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-1.22|-2.48|<0.001
91069018|NCT02099110|182024089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-2.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-1.64||cLDA model including fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|Constrained logitudinal data analysis|||||-1.64|-2.90|<0.001
91069019|NCT02099110|182024090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-8.23||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.82|-2.65||cLDA model including fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|cLDA|||||-2.65|-13.82|0.004
91069020|NCT02099110|182024090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-11.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.35|-6.23||cLDA model including fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|cLDA|||||-6.23|-17.35|<0.001
91069021|NCT02099110|182024090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-18.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.03|-12.77||cLDA model including fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|cLDA|||||-12.77|-24.03|<0.001
91069022|NCT02099110|182024090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-23.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.76|-17.53||cLDA model including fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|cLDA|||||-17.53|-28.76|<0.001
91069023|NCT02099110|182024091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.68|6.4||Adjusted Odds Ratio using a logistic regression model fitted with fixed effects for treatment, covariates for baseline A1C and baseline eGFR.|Regression, Logistic|||||6.40|2.68|<0.001
91069024|NCT02099110|182024091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.68|3.83||Adjusted Odds Ratio using a logistic regression model fitted with fixed effects for treatment, covariates for baseline A1C and baseline eGFR.|Regression, Logistic|||||3.83|1.68|<0.001
91069025|NCT02099110|182024091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.92|4.54||Adjusted Odds Ratio using a logistic regression model fitted with fixed effects for treatment, covariates for baseline A1C and baseline eGFR.|Regression, Logistic|||||4.54|1.92|<0.001
91069026|NCT02099110|182024091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.69|3.89|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted Odds Ratio using a logistic regression model fitted with fixed effects for treatment, covariates for baseline A1C and baseline eGFR.||||3.89|1.69|<0.001
91069027|NCT02099110|182024092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|7.61||||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|18.13||cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||18.13|-2.90|0.155
91069028|NCT02099110|182024092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-4.87||||0.369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.54|5.8||cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||5.80|-15.54|0.369
91069029|NCT02099110|182024092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|1.81||||0.734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.66|12.27||cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||12.27|-8.66|0.734
91069030|NCT02099110|182024092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-9.59||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.17|0.98||cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|Difference in the least squares means|||||0.98|-20.17|0.075
91069031|NCT02099110|182024093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-2.76||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.69|-0.83||cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-0.83|-4.69|0.005
91069032|NCT02099110|182024093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-3.01||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.94|-1.09||cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-1.09|-4.94|0.002
91069033|NCT02064816|182024094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.5||0.277763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|1.56|||Mann-Whitney Non Parametric test|||||1.56|-0.46|0.277763
91069034|NCT02064816|182024095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) Mean difference|1.3492||||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3495|2.3489|||linear mixed model for repeated measures|||Week 4||2.3489|0.3495|0.0083
91069035|NCT02064816|182024095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|1.3367||||0.0079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3534|2.32|||linear mixed model for repeated measures|||Week 8||2.3200|0.3534|0.0079
91069036|NCT02064816|182024096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.4003||||0.4311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5992|1.3998|||linear mixed model for repeated measures|||ISRs subscale Week 4||1.3998|-0.5992|0.4311
91069037|NCT02064816|182024096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.08479||||0.8635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.885|1.0546|||linear mixed model for repeated measures|||ISRs subscale Week 8||1.0546|-0.8850|0.8635
91069038|NCT02064816|182024096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.3245||||0.5099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2927|0.6437|||linear mixed model for repeated measures|||ISRs subscale Week 12||0.6437|-1.2927|0.5099
91069039|NCT02064816|182024096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.07079||||0.8574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8452|0.7036|||linear mixed model for repeated measures|||Global side-effect subscale: Week 4||0.7036|-0.8452|0.8574
91069040|NCT02064816|182024096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.1897||||0.6338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5926|0.972|||linear mixed model for repeated measures|||Global side-effect subscale: Week 8||0.9720|-0.5926|0.6338
91069041|NCT02064816|182024096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.4097||||0.3042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3734|1.1929|||linear mixed model for repeated measures|||Global side-effect subscale: Week 12||1.1929|-0.3734|0.3042
91069042|NCT02064816|182024096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.4083||||0.1038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9008|0.08419|||linear mixed model for repeated measures|||Benefits: Week 4||0.08419|-0.9008|0.1038
91069043|NCT02064816|182024096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.1358||||0.594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.637|0.3653|||linear mixed model for repeated measures|||Benefits: Week 8||0.3653|-0.6370|0.5940
91069044|NCT02064816|182024096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.05809||||0.8217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5651|0.4489|||linear mixed model for repeated measures|||Benefits: Week 12||0.4489|-0.5651|0.8217
91069045|NCT02064816|182024096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.5909||||0.489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0873|2.269|||linear mixed model for repeated measures|||Description of pain: Week 4||2.2690|-1.0873|0.4890
91069046|NCT02064816|182024096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.7689||||0.3719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4607|0.9229|||linear mixed model for repeated measures|||Description of pain: Week 8||0.9229|-2.4607|0.3719
91069047|NCT02064816|182024096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.1422||||0.869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5521|1.8364|||linear mixed model for repeated measures|||Description of pain: Week 12||1.8364|-1.5521|0.8690
91069048|NCT02064816|182024096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.6544||||0.8328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4393|6.7482|||linear mixed model for repeated measures|||VAS: Week 4||6.7482|-5.4393|0.8328
91069049|NCT02064816|182024096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-2.2294||||0.4764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.38|3.9212|||linear mixed model for repeated measures|||VAS: Week 8||3.9212|-8.3800|0.4764
91069050|NCT02064816|182024096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-5.4196||||0.0852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5939|0.7547|||linear mixed model for repeated measures|||VAS: Week 12||0.7547|-11.5939|0.0852
91069051|NCT02064816|182024096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.006873||||0.9639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2918|0.3055|||linear mixed model for repeated measures|||Rating of pain: Week 4||0.3055|-0.2918|0.9639
91069052|NCT02064816|182024096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.08689||||0.5715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3886|0.2148|||linear mixed model for repeated measures|||Rating of pain: Week 8||0.2148|-0.3886|0.5715
91069053|NCT02064816|182024096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.2224||||0.1502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5256|0.0809|||linear mixed model for repeated measures|||Rating of pain: Week 12||0.08090|-0.5256|0.1502
91069054|NCT01757184|182024118|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0271|||||||Fisher Exact|Fisher's exact test at α=0.05.||A sample size of 50 randomized participants (approximately 25 participants per treatment group) provided 97% power to detect a statistically significant difference between sebelipase alfa and placebo, using Fisher's exact test at α=0.05.||||0.0271
91069055|NCT01757184|182024119|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91069056|NCT01757184|182024120|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91069057|NCT01757184|182024121|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0003
91069058|NCT01757184|182024122|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0375|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0375
91069059|NCT01757184|182024123|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91069060|NCT01757184|182024124|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91069061|NCT01757184|182024125|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4216|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4216
91069062|NCT01757184|182024126|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0068|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0068
91069063|NCT04586244|182024173|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0925|||||||paired t-test|The paired t-test used n-1 degrees of freedom, where n is the number of evaluable paired samples.||||||0.0925
91069064|NCT01779440|182024201|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65||||||The P-Value of 0.65 was calculated from the difference between groups for the above outcome variable.|Chi-squared|||||||0.65
91069065|NCT02986282|182024219|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.0600326|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0799661|-0.0449876|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||It was calculated that the study sample size of 79 subjects would be needed to detect a difference of 0.1 in the ABI measured in sinus rhythm and during atrial fibrillation, with a two-tailed α of 0.05 and a (1-β) of 0.90. Our initial estimate of sample size of 115 patients incorporated an assumption of dropout. Intra-observer variability was calculated using intra-class correlation coefficient.||-0.0449876|-0.0799661|<0.05
91069066|NCT02986282|182024220|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.0249837|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.039992|-0.0100226|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||-0.0100226|-0.039992|<0.05
91069067|NCT03467217|182024223|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.6|32.7|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline value of ALT.||||32.7|-30.6|.95
91069068|NCT03467217|182024224|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|6.0|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline value of GGT.||||6.0|-11.0|0.56
91069069|NCT03467217|182024225|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.7||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|19.8|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for the baseline AST value.||||19.8|-10.3|0.53
91069070|NCT03467217|182024226|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.4||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.8|37.5|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for the baseline ALT value.||||37.5|-20.8|0.57
91069071|NCT03467217|182024227|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for the baseline ALT value.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.6||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.7|36.7|||ANCOVA|||||36.7|9.7|0.25
91069072|NCT03467217|182024228|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.4||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|6.8|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for the baseline HOMA-IR value.||||6.8|0.0|0.05
91069073|NCT03467217|182024229|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.5|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for the baseline weight value.||||2.5|-1.5|0.64
91069074|NCT03467217|182024230|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.6|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for the baseline BMI value.||||0.6|-0.6|0.98
91069075|NCT03467217|182024231|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|5.3|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for the baseline waist circumference value.||||5.3|-0.5|0.10
91069076|NCT03467217|182024232|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.05|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for the baseline waist-to-hip ratio.||||0.05|0.00|0.08
91069077|NCT03467217|182024233|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.1||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|9.0|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for the baseline PedsQOL Physical Health score.||||9.0|-2.8|0.29
91069078|NCT03467217|182024234|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Exact conditional binomial test|||||||0.17
91069079|NCT03467217|182024235|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.6||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|8.7|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline total cholesterol value.||||8.7|-13.9|0.64
91069080|NCT03467217|182024236|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.0||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.6|39.7|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline triglyceride value.||||39.7|-25.6|0.67
91069081|NCT03467217|182024237|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|1.5|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline HDL cholesterol value.||||1.5|-3.4|0.45
91069082|NCT03467217|182024238|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|9.4|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline LDL cholesterol value.||||9.4|-10.3|0.93
91069083|NCT03467217|182024239|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.9||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|20.1|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline PedsQOL Psychosocial Health score.||||20.1|-2.5|0.29
91069084|NCT00769067|182024246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.657||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.472|0.914||2-Sided.|Log Rank|Adjusted for the stratification factors: EGFR status, KRAS status and baseline ECOG performance status.|The estimated HR was for the Dacomitinib arm versus the Erlotinib arm.|"Total 128 events (progression/death) provided 80% power to detect a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.45 (Erlotinib versus Dacomitinib arm) with 1-sided alpha=0.10.This represented a 45% improvement in true median PFS.~HR and 95% confidence interval estimated from stratified Cox Regression;2-sided p-value was based on stratified log-rank test with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) status, Kirsten Rat Sarcoma status (KRAS), baseline Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) as stratification factors"||0.914|0.472|0.012
91069085|NCT00769067|182024247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|||||2-Sided.|Chi-squared|Unadjusted.||||||0.011
91069086|NCT00769067|182024250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.822||||0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.587|1.151||2-Sided.|Log Rank|Adjusted by stratification factors: EGFR status, KRAS status and baseline ECOG performance status.|The estimated HR was for the Dacomitinib arm versus the Erlotinib arm.|HR and its 95% confidence interval were estimated from stratified Cox Regression and 2-sided p-value was based on the stratified log-rank test with EGFR status, KRAS status and baseline ECOG as stratification factors.||1.151|0.587|0.252
91069087|NCT05656534|182024330|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.1|||ANOVA|||||1.10|-0.20|.19
91069088|NCT05656534|182024331|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.38|||ANOVA|||We conducted a repeated measures analysis of variable with session (pre-treatment vs. post-treatment) as a within-subjects variable and treatment arm as a between-subjects variable. Standardized residual scores reflecting startle reactivity to unpredictable threat (\> no-threat) was the dependent variable.||1.38|0.07|0.03
91069089|NCT05656534|182024332|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.01
91069090|NCT05656534|182024333|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|1.2|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA modeling session (pre. vs. post) by treatment arm||A session (pre vs. post) by treatment arm (suvorexant vs. placebo) repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed. The effect of session was then probed within each treatment arm.||1.20|-0.01|<.05
91069091|NCT00302848|182024335|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size calculations for VTE risk showed that 50,000 patients should be sufficient to exclude a twofold risk.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||<|0.05||95.0|0.6|1.8|||Regression, Cox|||Null hypothesis: HR ≥ 2 (VTE of DRSP vs. LNG)||1.8|0.6|<0.05
91069092|NCT02801617|182024349|NON_INFERIORITY|it will be considered not inferior if they keep the IOP goal with differences of no more than 2 mmHg analysis by protocol||||||0.861|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.861
91069093|NCT02801617|182024349|NON_INFERIORITY|it will be considered not inferior if they keep the TIOP with differences of no more than 2 mmHg||||||0.89|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.890
91069094|NCT02801617|182024350|NON_INFERIORITY|intention-to-treat analysis (ITT)||||||0.329|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.329
91069095|NCT02801617|182024351|NON_INFERIORITY|it will be considered not inferior if they keep the percentage of ocular burning with differences of no more than 20%||||||0.388|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.388
91069096|NCT02801617|182024352|NON_INFERIORITY|it will be considered not inferior if they keep the percentage of ocular burning with differences of no more than 20%||||||0.125|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.125
91069097|NCT02801617|182024353|NON_INFERIORITY|it will be considered not inferior if they keep the percentage of ocular burning with differences of no more than 20%||||||0.434|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.434
91069098|NCT02801617|182024354|NON_INFERIORITY|it will be considered not inferior if they keep the percentage of ocular burning with differences of no more than 20%||||||0|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0
91069099|NCT02801617|182024355|NON_INFERIORITY|it will be considered not inferior if they keep the percentage of ocular burning with differences of no more than 20%||||||0.039|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.039
91069100|NCT03421210|182024370|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Differences in brain activation in response to personal smoking versus standard smoking cues were examined.||||0.001
91069101|NCT02237196|182024384|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5038||0.314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|0.49|||Longitudinal repeated measures analysis|Model adjusts for Site, Baseline TNSS AUC, and Baseline Cat exposure (low vs high)||||0.49|-1.51|0.314
91069102|NCT01057810|182024393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.3667|TWO_SIDED|95.87|0.88|1.39|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio = ipilimumab over placebo|||1.39|0.88|0.3667
91069103|NCT01057810|182024394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.8|||||HR = ipilimumab over placebo|||0.80|0.55|
91069104|NCT01057810|182024395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.87|0.52|0.83|||||HR = Ipilimumab over placebo|||0.83|0.52|
91069105|NCT01057810|182024396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.87|0.71|1.35|||||HR = Ipilimumab over placebo|||1.35|0.71|
91069106|NCT00267969|182024399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi square|Stratified by baseline weight \[≤ 90kg vs \> 90 kg)\].||||||<0.001
91069107|NCT00267969|182024399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||To control for the multiplicity for the primary endpoint analysis, the Holm's procedure was used at an overall significance level of 0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi square|Stratified by baseline weight \[≤ 90kg vs \> 90 kg)\].||Null Hypothesis: No difference between ustekinumab 90 mg or 45 mg and placebo at an overall significance level of 0.05. Sample Size: With 750 patients (250 in each treatment group), simulation studies were conducted to calculate the power to detect a treatment difference in the primary endpoint between ustekinumab groups and placebo using a CMH test stratified by baseline weight \[\<=90kg vs \> 90 kg). For all the scenarios evaluated, the power is \>99% at an overall significance level of 0.05.||||<0.001
91069108|NCT00267969|182024400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel(CMH) chi square|Stratified by baseline weight \[≤ 90kg vs \> 90 kg)\].||||||<0.001
91069109|NCT00267969|182024400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||To control the multiplicity for the primary and the secondary endpoint analyses, Holm's procedure was used but the two comparisons for the primary endpoint and the two comparisons for the 1st second endpoint analyses need to be significant first|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi square|Stratified by baseline weight \[≤ 90kg vs \> 90 kg)\].||Null Hypothesis: No difference between ustekinumab 90 mg or 45 mg and placebo at an overall significance level of 0.05.||||<0.001
90827586|NCT05104450|181529935|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.51||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|treatment-by-time interaction|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed effects model including baseline and follow up outcome measures, time, treatment by time interaction, baseline covariates: age, gender, race, charlson comorbidity index, rurality, and randomization stratification variables: BMI (30-34.9 vs. 35-44.9kg/m2), OSA severity (mild vs. moderate to severe), and sleep related impairment T-score (\<60 vs. ≥ 60). The parameter of interest is treatment by time interaction coefficient, measuring the between group difference for change in outcome.||-0.04|-0.98|0.034
91069110|NCT00267969|182024401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores|Treatment and patient's baseline weight (≤ 90kg vs \> 90 kg) as factors in the model||||||<0.001
91069111|NCT00267969|182024401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||To control the multiplicity for the primary and the secondary endpoint analyses, Holm's procedure was used but the two comparisons for the primary endpoint and the two comparisons for the 1st second endpoint analyses need to be significant first|ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores|Treatment and patient's baseline weight (≤ 90kg vs \> 90 kg) as factors in the model||Null Hypothesis: No difference between ustekinumab 90 mg or 45 mg and placebo at an overall significance level of 0.05.||||<0.001
91069112|NCT00267969|182024402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi square|Stratified by baseline weight \[≤ 90kg vs \> 90 kg)\].||||||<0.001
91069113|NCT00267969|182024402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi square|Stratified by baseline weight \[≤ 90kg vs \> 90 kg)\].||||||<0.001
91069114|NCT00267969|182024402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||To control the overall multiplicity, the combined groups was tested first and each dose will then be tested; but the primary and the 1st 2 secondary endpoint analyses need to be significant before this endpoint can be tested|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi square|Stratified by baseline weight \[≤ 90kg vs \> 90 kg)\].||Null Hypothesis: No difference between combined maintenance group and the combined withdrawal group, ustekinumab 90 mg maintenance group and the withdrawal group, ustekinumab 45 mg maintenance group and the withdrawal group at an overall significance level of 0.05.||||0.001
91069115|NCT00862823|182024403|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size was determined so there was an 80% chance that a 90% pairwise interval for 2 equivalent formulations would satifsy the FDA criteria for AUC and Cmax of log (0.8), log (1.2).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.97|||<|0.05||90.0||||Bioequivalent measurew were log-transformed|log transformation|||||||<0.05
91069116|NCT01309360|182024418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
91069117|NCT01309360|182024418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
91069118|NCT01309360|182024418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
91069119|NCT01309360|182024419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0
91069120|NCT01309360|182024420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.059||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.059
91069121|NCT01309360|182024420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91069122|NCT01309360|182024420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2
91069123|NCT01309360|182024421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.675||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.675
91069124|NCT01309360|182024421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.087||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.087
91069125|NCT01309360|182024421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.348||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.348
91069126|NCT01309360|182024422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.247||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.247
91069127|NCT01309360|182024422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91069128|NCT01309360|182024422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91069129|NCT01309360|182024423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.116||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.116
91069130|NCT01309360|182024423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.116||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.116
91069131|NCT01309360|182024423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
91069132|NCT02901067|182024425|SUPERIORITY|This is a secondary outcome thus no power analysis was done.|||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||We hypothesized that the experimental group would present less fibrinolysis shutdown than the control group in all times measured.||||>0.05
91069133|NCT02901067|182024430|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.05
91069134|NCT02901067|182024433|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Fisher Exact|||We hypothesized that the experimental group would have less pulmonary embolism events than the control group.||||0.10
91069135|NCT02901067|182024434|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046|||||||Fisher Exact|||We hypothesized that the experimental group would have a lower incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) than the control group.||||0.046
91069136|NCT00942890|182024440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
91069137|NCT00942890|182024446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
91069138|NCT01421225|182024507|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was that the number of hours would be the same (no effect of control).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical analysis was performed using a paired t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||We tested the number of nighttime (10 PM - 8 AM) hours glucose was in the target range (110-200 mg/dL) on each of the two nights for which the patient was followed (one night under Standard Insulin Pump Therapy; one night under Closed-loop Insulin Therapy)||||0.12
90827587|NCT05104450|181529936|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.11||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.37|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|one-time measures: Beta Estimates|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed effects model including each participant's outcome measure, baseline covariates: age, gender, race, charlson comorbidity index, rurality, and randomization stratification variables: BMI (30-34.9 vs. 35-44.9kg/m2), OSA severity (mild vs. moderate to severe), and sleep related impairment T-score (\<60 vs. ≥ 60).||0.15|-6.37|0.061
90827588|NCT05104450|181529937|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.46||||0.469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|0.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|treatment-by-time interaction|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed effects model including baseline and follow up outcome measures, time, treatment by time interaction, baseline covariates: age, gender, race, charlson comorbidity index, rurality, and randomization stratification variables: BMI (30-34.9 vs. 35-44.9kg/m2), OSA severity (mild vs. moderate to severe), and sleep related impairment T-score (\<60 vs. ≥ 60). The parameter of interest is treatment by time interaction coefficient, measuring the between group difference for change in outcome.||0.78|-1.69|0.469
90827589|NCT05104450|181529938|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|treatment-by-time interaction||Linear mixed effects model including baseline and follow up outcome measures, time, treatment by time interaction, baseline covariates: age, gender, race, charlson comorbidity index, rurality, and randomization stratification variables: BMI (30-34.9 vs. 35-44.9kg/m2), OSA severity (mild vs. moderate to severe), and sleep related impairment T-score (\<60 vs. ≥ 60). The parameter of interest is treatment by time interaction coefficient, measuring the between group difference for change in outcome.|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|1.13|0.42|<0.001
91069139|NCT02049814|182024511|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper limit of 95% CI of Least Square Mean (LS mean) of HbA1C Changes was less than 0.4%, it was considered that the non-inferiority was established.||||||0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.0001
91069140|NCT03515811|182024571|OTHER||Percentage and confidence interval|10.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|19.2|||||95% CI: 5.0%-19.2%|||19.2|5.0|
91069141|NCT03515811|182024571|OTHER||Percentage and confidence interval|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|7.0|||||95% CI: 0.0%-7.0%|||7.0|0.0|
91069142|NCT03515811|182024572|OTHER||Percentage and confidence interval|6.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|12.2|||||95% CI: 3.1%-12.2%|||12.2|3.1|
91069143|NCT01197534|182024583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|0.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.22||Week 24|Mantel Haenszel|Treatment difference in proportion of responders using a Mantel Haenszel approach stratified by background use of DMARD and pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of DMARD or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.22|0.08|<0.001
91069144|NCT01197534|182024584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportion|0.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.12|||Mantel Haenszel|95% confidence intervals and p-values are calculated using a Mantel Haenszel approach stratified by background use of DMARD and pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of DMARD or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.12|0.04|<0.001
91069145|NCT01197534|182024585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|0.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.18|||Mantel Haenszel|95% confidence intervals and p-values are calculated using a Mantel Haenszel approach stratified by background use of DMARD and pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of DMARD or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.18|0.07|<0.001
91069146|NCT01197534|182024585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|0.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.15|||Mantel Haenszel|95% confidence intervals and p-values are calculated using a Mantel Haenszel approach stratified by background use of DMARD and pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of DMARD or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.15|0.05|<0.001
91069147|NCT01197534|182024586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|0.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.1|||Mantel Haenszel|95% confidence intervals and p-values are calculated using a Mantel Haenszel approach stratified by background use of DMARD and pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of DMARD or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.10|0.03|<0.001
91069148|NCT01197534|182024586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|0.03||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.07|||Mantel Haenszel|95% confidence intervals and p-values are calculated using a Mantel Haenszel approach stratified by background use of DMARD and pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of DMARD or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.07|0.00|0.033
91069149|NCT01197534|182024587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Nominal p-value presented for treatment comparison. Outcome was not formally tested within the predefined multiplicity procedure. As this is a non-parametric test, p-values alone are presented rather than an estimated treatment difference.|Van Elteren|P-values are estimated using the Van Elteren test stratified by background use of DMARD and pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of DMARD or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||||<0.001
91069150|NCT01197534|182024587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Nominal p-value presented for treatment comparison. Outcome was not formally tested within the predefined multiplicity procedure. As this is a non-parametric test, p-values alone are presented rather than an estimated treatment difference.|Van Elteren|P-values are estimated using the Van Elteren test stratified by background use of DMARD and pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||||<0.001
91069151|NCT01197534|182024588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.42|14.8|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals calculated using Logistic Regression with treatment, background use of DMARD and pooled country as factors.|An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of DMARD or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||14.80|3.42|<0.001
91069152|NCT01197534|182024588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.88|8.65|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals calculated using Logistic Regression with treatment, background use of DMARD and pooled country as factors.|An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of DMARD or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||8.65|1.88|<0.001
91069153|NCT01197534|182024589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.23|16.65|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals calculated using Logistic Regression with treatment, background use of DMARD and pooled country as factors.|An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of DMARD or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||16.65|3.23|<0.001
91069154|NCT01197534|182024589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.81|14.71|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals calculated using Logistic Regression with treatment, background use of DMARD and pooled country as factors.|An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of DMARD or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||14.71|2.81|<0.001
91069155|NCT01197534|182024590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.06|3.91||Nominal p-value presented for treatment comparison. Outcome was not formally tested within the predefined multiplicity procedure.|Proportional odds model|No Response, moderate response and good response are included in the model, with treatment, background use of DMARD and pooled country as factors.|An odds ratio \> 1 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of DMARD or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||3.91|2.06|<0.001
91069156|NCT01197534|182024590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|3.37||Nominal p-value presented for treatment comparison. Outcome was not formally tested within the predefined multiplicity procedure.|Proportional odds model|No Response, moderate response and good response are included in the model, with treatment, background use of DMARD and pooled country as factors.|An odds ratio \> 1 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of DMARD or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||3.37|1.77|<0.001
91069157|NCT01197534|182024591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.73|3.46|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals calculated using Logistic Regression with treatment, background use of DMARD and pooled country as factors.|An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of DMARD or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||3.46|1.73|<0.001
91069158|NCT01197534|182024591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|2.94|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals calculated using Logistic Regression with treatment, background use of DMARD and pooled country as factors.|An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||2.94|1.46|<0.001
91069159|NCT01197534|182024592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.904||||||As this is a non-parametric test, p-values alone are presented rather than an estimated treatment difference.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Residuals from ANCOVA are analysed using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel approach, adjusting for the effects of pooled country and background use of DMARD.||This analysis is performed using an ANCOVA model on the ranks of the change from baseline, by pooled country and background use of DMARD, including a term for the ranks of the baseline score as a covariate.||||0.904
91069160|NCT01197534|182024592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.342||||||As this is a non-parametric test, p-values alone are presented rather than an estimated treatment difference.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Residuals from ANCOVA are analysed using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel approach, adjusting for the effects of pooled country and background use of DMARD.||This analysis is performed using an ANCOVA model on the ranks of the change from baseline, by pooled country and background use of DMARD, including a term for the ranks of the baseline score as a covariate.||||0.342
91069161|NCT01197534|182024593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|2.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|3.48||Nominal p-value presented for treatment comparison. Outcome was not formally tested within the predefined multiplicity procedure.|ANCOVA|Including terms for baseline as continuous covariate and treatment, background use of DMARD and pooled country as factors.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of DMARD or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||3.48|1.47|<0.001
91069162|NCT01197534|182024593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|1.64||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.65||Nominal p-value presented for treatment comparison. Outcome was not formally tested within the predefined multiplicity procedure.|ANCOVA|Including terms for baseline as continuous covariate and treatment, background use of DMARD and pooled country as factors.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of DMARD or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||2.65|0.63|0.001
91069163|NCT01197534|182024594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|2.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|3.2||Nominal p-value presented for treatment comparison. Outcome was not formally tested within the predefined multiplicity procedure.|ANCOVA|Including terms for baseline as continuous covariate and treatment, background use of DMARD and pooled country as factors.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of DMARD or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||3.20|0.97|<0.001
91069164|NCT01197534|182024594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|1.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|3.08||Nominal p-value presented for treatment comparison. Outcome was not formally tested within the predefined multiplicity procedure.|ANCOVA|Including terms for baseline as continuous covariate and treatment, background use of DMARD and pooled country as factors.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of DMARD or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||3.08|0.83|<0.001
91069165|NCT02593097|182024595|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||Hills-Armitage|||||||0.83
91069166|NCT02593097|182024596|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||McNemar|||||||0.16
91069167|NCT03627546|182024607|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.01
91069168|NCT03627546|182024608|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0007|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0007
91069169|NCT00961350|182024615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportions|3.8||||0.02||95.0|1.8|6.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by NSAID use=COX-2, other NSAID, or NSAID use=NO at randomization.|The proportion is from the PA32540 treatment group.|The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of subjects with gastric ulcers throughout 6 months of treatment. The primary endpoint was analyzed with the CMH test stratified by NSAID use (COX-2/Other NSAID/No) at randomization. A sample size of 250 subjects/treatment would provide 86% power to detect the difference of 8% between EC aspirin 325 mg (13%) and PA32540 (5%) with a 2-sided significance of 5%; and, provides adequate power to test the key secondary endpoints in sequential order.||6.8|1.8|0.020
91069170|NCT00961350|182024616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by NSAID use=COX-2, other NSAID, or NSAID use=NO at randomization.||The cumulative proportion of subjects developing gastric ulcers and/or duodenal ulcers at 6 months was analyzed using the CMH test stratified by NSAID use=COX-2, other NSAID, or NSAID use=NO at randomization.||||0.002
91069171|NCT00961350|182024617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by NSAID use=COX-2, other NSAID, or NSAID use=NO at randomization.||The cumulative proportion of subjects with Treatment Success was analyzed using the CMH test stratified by NSAID use=COX-2, other NSAID, or NSAID use=NO at randomization.||||<0.001
91069172|NCT00961350|182024618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by NSAID use=COX-2, other NSAID, or NSAID use=NO at randomization.||The cumulative proportion of subjects discontinuing from the study due to NSAID-associated upper GI adverse events was analyzed using the CMH test stratified by NSAID use=COX-2, other NSAID, or NSAID use=NO at randomization.||||0.002
90827590|NCT05104450|181529939|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.47||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|treatment-by-time interaction|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed effects model including baseline and follow up outcome measures, time, treatment by time interaction, baseline covariates: age, gender, race, charlson comorbidity index, rurality, and randomization stratification variables: BMI (30-34.9 vs. 35-44.9kg/m2), OSA severity (mild vs. moderate to severe), and sleep related impairment T-score (\<60 vs. ≥ 60). The parameter of interest is treatment by time interaction coefficient, measuring the between group difference for change in outcome.||0.89|0.04|0.031
91069173|NCT00961350|182024619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by NSAID use=COX-2, other NSAID, or NSAID use=NO and by baseline heartburn severity at randomization.||The proportion of subjects who had no heartburn at 6 months (regardless of the presence or absence of heartburn at baseline) was analyzed using the CMH test stratified by NSAID use=COX-2, other NSAID, or NSAID use=NO at randomization.||||<0.001
91069174|NCT03291431|182024621|OTHER|Chi-Square comparison of frequencies|Pearson Chi-Square|0.17||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|||||A p-value of \<0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Chi-squared|||||||0.99
91069175|NCT03291431|182024622|OTHER||Slope|-0.2||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||p \< .05 considered statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis||Rate of change compared between groups using linear mixed modeling.|Linear mixed modeling||||0.68
91069176|NCT03291431|182024623|OTHER|||||||0.34||||||p-value \< .05 considered statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.34
91069177|NCT03291431|182024624|OTHER|Linear mixed modeling|Slope|-1.99||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|||||p \< .05 considered statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis||Rate of change compared between groups using linear mixed modeling.|||||0.70
91069178|NCT03291431|182024625|OTHER||Slope|0.3||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|||||p \< .05 considered statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed modeling||||0.11
91069179|NCT06868654|182024626|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.56|||||Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox Proportional Hazards model stratified by the number of lines of prior therapy, prior bortezomib and revised international staging system (R-ISS) at screening, with a covariate of treatment.|||0.56|0.11|
91069180|NCT03867201|182024649|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.83|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.30|-2.83|0.015
91069181|NCT01113385|182024657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||||||p value reflects the difference in mean FSPF pre vs post galactose treatment.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.009
91069182|NCT00863343|182024700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Sensitivity|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.94|||Wilson score method||Parameter dispersion type is not applicable. Sensitivity is the proportion of the actual positives that are correctly identified as such by the MSD test.|||0.94|0.59|
91069183|NCT00863343|182024700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Specificity|0.987|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|0.99|||Wilson score method||Parameter dispersion type is not applicable. Sensitivity is the proportion of the actual positives that are correctly identified as such by the MSD test.|||0.99|0.97|
91069184|NCT00863343|182024701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Sensitivity|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.92|||Wilson score method||Parameter dispersion type is not applicable. Sensitivity is the proportion of the actual positives that are correctly identified as such by the MSD test.|||0.92|0.63|
91069185|NCT00863343|182024701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Specificity|0.997|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.0|||Wilson score method||Parameter dispersion type is not applicable. Sensitivity is the proportion of the actual positives that are correctly identified as such by the MSD test.|||1.0|0.98|
91069186|NCT00863343|182024702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Sensitivity|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.96|||Wilson score method||Parameter dispersion type is not applicable. Sensitivity is the proportion of the actual positives that are correctly identified as such by the MSD test.|||0.96|0.70|
91069187|NCT00863343|182024702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Specificity|0.997||||||95.0|0.98|1.0|||Wilson score method||Parameter dispersion type is not applicable. Sensitivity is the proportion of the actual positives that are correctly identified as such by the MSD test.|||1.0|0.98|
91069188|NCT00863343|182024703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Sensitivity|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.9|||Wilson score method||Parameter dispersion type is not applicable. Sensitivity is the proportion of the actual positives that are correctly identified as such by the MSD test.|||0.90|0.60|
91069189|NCT00863343|182024703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Specificity|0.997|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.0|||Wilson score method||Parameter dispersion type is not applicable. Sensitivity is the proportion of the actual positives that are correctly identified as such by the MSD test.|||1.0|0.98|
91069190|NCT02307279|182024718|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.24|-0.9|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for stratification factors, and baseline weight|Difference in adjusted mean taken for comparability between the two groups (treatment - placebo)|Simple Superiority, H0: μ (Placebo) -μ (Gelesis100) = 0||-0.90|-3.24|0.0007
91069191|NCT02307279|182024718|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1193|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for stratification factors, and baseline weight||Super-Superiority (\>3% difference), H0: μ(Placebo)-μ(Gelesis100) \< 3%||||0.1193
91069192|NCT02307279|182024719|SUPERIORITY|The performance goal for body weight responders was set at 35%.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Binomial Proportion Test|||H0: π (Gelesis100)\< 0.35||||<0.0001
91069193|NCT02307279|182024719|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.01||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|3.01|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for stratification factors and baseline weight||"OR-trt refers to the odds ratio of being a body weight responder for Gelesis100 vs. Placebo.~H0: OR-trt= 1."||3.01|1.34|0.0008
91069194|NCT02484456|182024726|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.68|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.68
91069195|NCT02484456|182024727|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.83|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.83
90827591|NCT05104450|181529940|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|one-time measures: Beta Estimates|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed effects model including each participant's outcome measure, baseline covariates: age, gender, race, charlson comorbidity index, rurality, and randomization stratification variables: BMI (30-34.9 vs. 35-44.9kg/m2), OSA severity (mild vs. moderate to severe), and sleep related impairment T-score (\<60 vs. ≥ 60).||0.02|-0.21|0.118
91069196|NCT02484456|182024728|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89||0.71|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.71
91069197|NCT02484456|182024729|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.25
91069198|NCT02484456|182024730|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.27||0.51|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.51
91069199|NCT02484456|182024731|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.58||0.26|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.26
91069200|NCT02484456|182024732|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02||0.67|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.67
91069201|NCT02484456|182024733|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.34||0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.99
91069202|NCT02484456|182024734|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.83|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.83
91069203|NCT02484456|182024735|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.51||0.51|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.51
91069204|NCT02484456|182024736|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.76||0.37|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.37
91069205|NCT02484456|182024737|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.89||0.29|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.29
91069206|NCT02484456|182024738|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.92||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.60
91069207|NCT02484456|182024739|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98||0.53|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.53
91069208|NCT02484456|182024740|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.88|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.88
91069209|NCT02484456|182024741|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91||0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.13
91069210|NCT02484456|182024742|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.38|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.38
91069211|NCT02484456|182024743|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.12
91069212|NCT02484456|182024744|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98||0.84|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.84
91069213|NCT02484456|182024745|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.23||0.97|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.97
91069214|NCT02484456|182024746|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.39||0.81|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.81
91069215|NCT02484456|182024747|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.31||0.47|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.47
91069216|NCT02484456|182024748|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.89||0.35|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.35
91069217|NCT02484456|182024749|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.12
91069218|NCT01908829|182024780|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.05||P values for pairwise comparisons were from the stratified rank ANCOVA model. P \< 0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|stratified rank ANCOVA|||Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group based on ANCOVA model. Means (LS means) and 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) are from an ANCOVA model with sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), geographic region, and 4-week incontinence episode reduction group as fixed factors and mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours at baseline as a covariate.||-0.05|-0.47|=0.001
91069219|NCT01908829|182024781|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.14||P values for pairwise comparisons are from the stratified rank ANCOVA model. P \< 0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|stratified rank ANCOVA|||Week 4 differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group based on ANCOVA model. Means (LS means) and 95% CIs are from an ANCOVA model with sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), geographic region, and 4-week incontinence episode reduction group as fixed factors and mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours at baseline as a covariate.||-0.14|-0.52|<0.001
91069220|NCT01908829|182024781|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.18||P values for pairwise comparisons are from the stratified rank ANCOVA model. P \< 0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|stratified rank ANCOVA|||Week 8 differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group based on ANCOVA model. Means (LS means) and 95% CIs are from an ANCOVA model with sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), geographic region, and 4-week incontinence episode reduction group as fixed factors and mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours at baseline as a covariate.||-0.18|-0.60|<0.001
91069221|NCT01908829|182024781|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.03||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from the stratified rank ANCOVA model. p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|stratified rank ANCOVA|||Week 12 differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group based on ANCOVA model. Means (LS means) and 95% CIs are from an ANCOVA model with sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), geographic region, and 4-week incontinence episode reduction group as fixed factors and mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours at baseline as a covariate.||-0.03|-0.46|=0.001
91069222|NCT01908829|182024782|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|=|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.06||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Week 4 adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs and p-value were generated from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||-0.06|-0.47|=0.010
91069223|NCT01908829|182024782|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.19||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Week 8 adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs and p-value were generated from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||-0.19|-0.65|<0.001
91069224|NCT01908829|182024782|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.23||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Week 12 adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs and p-value were generated from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||-0.23|-0.70|<0.001
91069225|NCT01908829|182024782|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.22||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||EoT adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs and p-value were generated from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||-0.22|-0.67|<0.001
91069226|NCT01908829|182024783|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|=|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.96||p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with lowest rate of incontinence episodes.|Mixed Effects Poisson|||Week 4 rate ratio, 95% CIs, \& p-value for number of incontinence episodes (IEs) during Week 4 3-day diary between combination \& solifenacin treatment was calculated from Mixed Effects Poisson (negative binomial) regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), geographic region \& 4-week IE reduction group as factors, log of (number of IEs/valid diary days) at baseline as covariate \& log of number of valid diary days as the offset variable.||0.96|0.79|=0.005
91069227|NCT01908829|182024783|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.86||p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with lowest rate of incontinence episodes.|Mixed Effects Poisson|||Week 8 rate ratio, 95% CIs, \& p-value for number of incontinence episodes (IEs) during Week 8 3-day diary between combination \& solifenacin treatment was calculated from Mixed Effects Poisson (negative binomial) regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), geographic region \& 4-week IE reduction group as factors, log of (number of IEs/valid diary days) at baseline as covariate \& log of number of valid diary days as the offset variable.||0.86|0.66|<0.001
91069228|NCT01908829|182024783|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|=|0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.97||p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with lowest rate of incontinence episodes.|Mixed Effects Poisson|||Week 12 rate ratio, 95% CIs, \& p-value for number of incontinence episodes (IEs) during Week 12 3-day diary between combination \& solifenacin treatment was calculated from Mixed Effects Poisson (negative binomial) regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), geographic region \& 4-week IE reduction group as factors, log of (number of IEs/valid diary days) at baseline as covariate \& log of number of valid diary days as the offset variable.||0.97|0.70|=0.021
91069229|NCT01908829|182024783|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|=|0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.96||p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with lowest rate of incontinence episodes.|Mixed Effects Poisson|||EoT rate ratio, 95% CIs, \& p-value for number of incontinence episodes (IEs) during EoT 3-day diary between combination \& solifenacin treatment was calculated from Mixed Effects Poisson (negative binomial) regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), geographic region \& 4-week IE reduction group as factors, log of (number of IEs/valid diary days) at baseline as covariate \& log of number of valid diary days as the offset variable.||0.96|0.71|=0.014
91069230|NCT01908829|182024784|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|3.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.19|<|0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|8.16||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Week 4 adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs and p-value were generated from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||8.16|-0.43|<0.078
91069231|NCT01908829|182024784|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|11.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.66|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.98|16.4||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Week 8 adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs and p-value were generated from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||16.40|5.98|<0.001
91069232|NCT01908829|182024784|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|12.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.92|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.65|18.12||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Week 12 adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs and p-value were generated from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||18.12|6.65|<0.001
91069233|NCT01908829|182024784|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|11.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.79|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.06|16.99||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||EoT adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs and p-value were generated from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||16.99|6.06|<0.001
91069234|NCT01908829|182024785|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.16||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs and p-value were generated from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||-0.16|-0.73|=0.003
91069235|NCT01908829|182024786|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.17||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from stratified rank ANCOVA model. p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|stratified rank ANCOVA|||Week 4 adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs were generated from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||-0.17|-0.54|<0.001
91069236|NCT01908829|182024786|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.25||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from stratified rank ANCOVA model. p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|stratified rank ANCOVA|||Week 8 djusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs were generated from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||-0.25|-0.65|<0.001
91069237|NCT01908829|182024786|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.05||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from stratified rank ANCOVA model. p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|stratified rank ANCOVA|||Week 12 adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs were generated from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||-0.05|-0.47|=0.004
91069238|NCT01908829|182024786|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.07||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from stratified rank ANCOVA model. p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|stratified rank ANCOVA|||EoT adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs were generated from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||-0.07|-0.47|=0.003
91069239|NCT01908829|182024787|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.94||p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with lowest rate of UI episodes.|Mixed Effects Poisson|||Week 4 rate ratio, 95% CIs, and p-value for number of UI episodes during Week 4 3-day diary between combination and solifenacin treatment was calculated from a Mixed Effects Poisson (negative binomial) regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), geographic region and 4-week incontinence episode reduction group as factors, log of (number of UI episodes/number of valid diary days) at baseline as covariate and log of number of valid diary as the offset variable.||0.94|0.76|=0.003
91069240|NCT01908829|182024787|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.86||p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with lowest rate of UI episodes.|Mixed Effects Poisson|||Week 8 rate ratio, 95% CIs, and p-value for number of UI episodes during Week 8 3-day diary between combination and solifenacin treatment was calculated from a Mixed Effects Poisson (negative binomial) regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), geographic region and 4-week incontinence episode reduction group as factors, log of (number of UI episodes/number of valid diary days) at baseline as covariate and log of number of valid diary as the offset variable.||0.86|0.63|<0.001
91069241|NCT01908829|182024787|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|=|0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.99||p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with lowest rate of UI episodes.|Mixed Effects Poisson|||Week 12 rate ratio, 95% CIs, and p-value for number of UI episodes during Week 12 3-day diary between combination and solifenacin treatment was calculated from a Mixed Effects Poisson (negative binomial) regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), geographic region and 4-week incontinence episode reduction group as factors, log of (number of UI episodes/number of valid diary days) at baseline as covariate and log of number of valid diary as the offset variable.||0.99|0.69|=0.038
91069242|NCT01908829|182024787|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|=|0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.97||p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with lowest rate of UI episodes.|Mixed Effects Poisson|||EoT rate ratio, 95% CIs, and p-value for number of UI episodes during EoT 3-day diary between combination and solifenacin treatment was calculated from a Mixed Effects Poisson (negative binomial) regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), geographic region and 4-week incontinence episode reduction group as factors, log of (number of UI episodes/number of valid diary days) at baseline as covariate and log of number of valid diary as the offset variable.||0.97|0.69|=0.022
91069243|NCT01908829|182024788|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.19||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Week 4 adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs were generated from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||-0.19|-0.72|=0.001
91069244|NCT01908829|182024788|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|-0.35||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Week 8 adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs were generated from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||-0.35|-0.93|<0.001
91069245|NCT01908829|182024788|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.22||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Week 12 adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs were generated from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||-0.22|-0.82|=0.001
91069246|NCT01908829|182024788|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.25||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||EoT adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs were generated from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||-0.25|-0.83|<0.001
91069247|NCT01908829|182024789|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|=|0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.07||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Week 4 adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs were generated from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group \& geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||-0.07|-0.46|=0.008
91069248|NCT01908829|182024789|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.13||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Week 8 adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs were generated from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group \& geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||-0.13|-0.55|=0.002
91069249|NCT01908829|182024789|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|=|0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.08||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Week 12 adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs were generated from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group \& geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||-0.08|-0.47|=0.006
91069250|NCT01908829|182024789|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.12||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||EoT adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs were generated from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group \& geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||-0.12|-0.51|=0.002
91069251|NCT01908829|182024790|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|=|0.545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.08||p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with lowest rate of pads used.|Mixed Effects Poisson|||Week 4 rate ratio, 95% CIs, and p-value for number of pads used during the 3-day diary between combination \& solifenacin treatment was calculated from a Mixed Effects Poisson (negative binomial) regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), geographic region and 4-week incontinence episode reduction group as factors, log of (number of pads used/number of valid diary days) at baseline as covariate and log of number of valid diary days as the offset variable.||1.08|0.87|=0.545
91069252|NCT01908829|182024790|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|=|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.95||p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with lowest rate of pads used.|Mixed Effects Poisson|||Week 8 rate ratio, 95% CIs, and p-value for number of pads used during the 3-day diary between combination \& solifenacin treatment was calculated from a Mixed Effects Poisson (negative binomial) regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), geographic region and 4-week incontinence episode reduction group as factors, log of (number of pads used/number of valid diary days) at baseline as covariate and log of number of valid diary days as the offset variable.||0.95|0.70|=0.010
91069253|NCT01908829|182024790|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|=|0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.94||p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with lowest rate of pads used.|Mixed Effects Poisson|||Week 12 rate ratio, 95% CIs, and p-value for number of pads used during the 3-day diary between combination \& solifenacin treatment was calculated from a Mixed Effects Poisson (negative binomial) regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), geographic region and 4-week incontinence episode reduction group as factors, log of (number of pads used/number of valid diary days) at baseline as covariate and log of number of valid diary days as the offset variable.||0.94|0.67|=0.007
91069254|NCT01908829|182024790|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.92||p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with lowest rate of pads used.|Mixed Effects Poisson|||EoT rate ratio, 95% CIs, and p-value for number of pads used during the 3-day diary between combination \& solifenacin treatment was calculated from a Mixed Effects Poisson (negative binomial) regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), geographic region and 4-week incontinence episode reduction group as factors, log of (number of pads used/number of valid diary days) at baseline as covariate and log of number of valid diary days as the offset variable.||0.92|0.66|=0.003
91069255|NCT01908829|182024791|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|=|0.836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.08||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Week 4 adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs and p-value were generated from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||0.08|-0.10|=0.836
91069256|NCT01908829|182024791|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|=|0.617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.07||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Week 8 adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs and p-value were generated from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||0.07|-0.12|=0.617
91069257|NCT01908829|182024791|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|=|0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.02||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Week 12 adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs and p-value were generated from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||0.02|-0.17|=0.134
91069258|NCT01908829|182024791|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|=|0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.03||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||EOT adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs and p-value were generated from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||0.03|-0.16|=0.174
91069259|NCT01908829|182024792|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|=|0.993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.08||p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with lowest rate of nocturia episodes.|Mixed Effects Poisson|||Week 4 rate ratio, 95% CIs, \& p-value for number of nocturia episodes during 3-day diary between combination \& solifenacin treatment calculated from a Mixed Effects Poisson (negative binomial) regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), geographic region \& 4-week incontinence episode reduction group as factors, log of (number of nocturia episodes/number of valid diary days) at baseline as covariate and log of number of valid diary days as the offset variable.||1.08|0.93|=0.993
91069260|NCT01908829|182024792|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|=|0.736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.07||p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with lowest rate of nocturia episodes.|Mixed Effects Poisson|||Week 8 rate ratio, 95% CIs, \& p-value for number of nocturia episodes during 3-day diary between combination \& solifenacin treatment calculated from a Mixed Effects Poisson (negative binomial) regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), geographic region \& 4-week incontinence episode reduction group as factors, log of (number of nocturia episodes/number of valid diary days) at baseline as covariate and log of number of valid diary days as the offset variable.||1.07|0.90|=0.736
91069261|NCT01908829|182024792|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|=|0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.02||p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with lowest rate of nocturia episodes.|Mixed Effects Poisson|||Week 12 rate ratio, 95% CIs, \& p-value for number of nocturia episodes during 3-day diary between combination \& solifenacin treatment calculated from a Mixed Effects Poisson (negative binomial) regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), geographic region \& 4-week incontinence episode reduction group as factors, log of (number of nocturia episodes/number of valid diary days) at baseline as covariate and log of number of valid diary days as the offset variable.||1.02|0.85|=0.121
91069262|NCT01908829|182024792|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|=|0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.03||p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with lowest rate of nocturia episodes.|Mixed Effects Poisson|||EoT rate ratio, 95% CIs, \& p-value for number of nocturia episodes during 3-day diary between combination \& solifenacin treatment calculated from a Mixed Effects Poisson (negative binomial) regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), geographic region \& 4-week incontinence episode reduction group as factors, log of (number of nocturia episodes/number of valid diary days) at baseline as covariate and log of number of valid diary days as the offset variable.||1.03|0.86|=0.172
91069263|NCT01908829|182024798|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-2.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91|=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.68|-1.1||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Week 4 adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs \& p-value were generated from ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors \& baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||-1.10|-4.68|=0.002
91069264|NCT01908829|182024798|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|-2.6||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Week 8 adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs \& p-value were generated from ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors \& baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||-2.60|-6.40|<0.001
91069265|NCT01908829|182024798|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-5.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.56|-3.62||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Week 12 adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs \& p-value were generated from ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors \& baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||-3.62|-7.56|<0.001
91069266|NCT01908829|182024798|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-4.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.88|-3.04||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||EoT adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs \& p-value were generated from ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors \& baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||-3.04|-6.88|<0.001
91069267|NCT01908829|182024799|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|1.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83|=|0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|3.55||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Week 4 adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs \& p-value were generated from ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors \& baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||3.55|0.29|=0.021
91069268|NCT01908829|182024799|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|2.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89|=|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|4.06||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Week 8 adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs \& p-value were generated from ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors \& baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||4.06|0.56|=0.010
91069269|NCT01908829|182024799|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|3.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|5.33||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Week 12 adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs \& p-value were generated from ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors \& baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||5.33|1.65|<0.001
91069270|NCT01908829|182024799|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|3.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.92|=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|4.95||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||EoT adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs \& p-value were generated from ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors \& baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||4.95|1.35|=0.001
91069271|NCT01908829|182024800|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96|=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|4.78||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Week 4 adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs \& p-value were generated from ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors \& baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||4.78|1.02|=0.003
91069272|NCT01908829|182024800|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|3.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05|=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|5.4||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Week 8 adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs \& p-value were generated from ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors \& baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||5.40|1.29|=0.001
91069273|NCT01908829|182024800|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|4.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.55|6.87||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Week 12 adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs \& p-value were generated from ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors \& baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||6.87|2.55|<0.001
91069274|NCT01908829|182024800|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|4.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|6.39||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||EoT adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs \& p-value were generated from ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors \& baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||6.39|2.20|<0.001
91069275|NCT01908829|182024801|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|1.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96|=|0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|3.83||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Week 4 adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs \& p-value were generated from ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors \& baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||3.83|0.05|=0.044
91069276|NCT01908829|182024801|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0|=|0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|4.46||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Week 8 adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs \& p-value were generated from ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors \& baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||4.46|0.55|=0.012
91069277|NCT01908829|182024801|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|3.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05|=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|5.67||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Week 12 adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs \& p-value were generated from ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors \& baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||5.67|1.54|=0.001
91069278|NCT01908829|182024801|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|3.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03|=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|5.29||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||EoT adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs \& p-value were generated from ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors \& baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||5.29|1.27|=0.001
91069279|NCT01908829|182024802|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96|=|0.575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|2.43||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Week 4 adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs \& p-value were generated from ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors \& baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||2.43|-1.35|=0.575
91069280|NCT01908829|182024802|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0|=|0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|3.58||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Week 8 adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs \& p-value were generated from ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors \& baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||3.58|-0.36|=0.109
91069281|NCT01908829|182024802|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|2.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05|=|0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|4.32||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Week 12 adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs \& p-value were generated from ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors \& baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||4.32|0.20|=0.032
91069282|NCT01908829|182024802|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|1.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02|=|0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|3.87||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||EoT adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs \& p-value were generated from ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors \& baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||3.87|-0.15|=0.069
91069283|NCT01908829|182024803|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|1.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83|=|0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|3.36||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Week 4 adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs \& p-value were generated from ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors \& baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||3.36|0.10|=0.037
91069284|NCT01908829|182024803|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85|=|0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|2.76||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Week 8 adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs \& p-value were generated from ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors \& baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||2.76|-0.57|=0.199
90827592|NCT05104450|181529941|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.93||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|6.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|treatment-by-time interaction|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed effects model including baseline and follow up outcome measures, time, treatment by time interaction, baseline covariates: age, gender, race, charlson comorbidity index, rurality, and randomization stratification variables: BMI (30-34.9 vs. 35-44.9kg/m2), OSA severity (mild vs. moderate to severe), and sleep related impairment T-score (\<60 vs. ≥ 60). The parameter of interest is treatment by time interaction coefficient, measuring the between group difference for change in outcome.||6.95|0.91|0.011
91069285|NCT01908829|182024803|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|2.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87|=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|4.31||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Week 12 adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs \& p-value were generated from ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors \& baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||4.31|0.92|=0.003
91069286|NCT01908829|182024803|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|2.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85|=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|4.15||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||EoT adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs \& p-value were generated from ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors \& baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||4.15|0.81|=0.004
91069287|NCT01908829|182024804|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.6||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Week 4 adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs and p-value were generated from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||0.6|0.2|<0.001
91069288|NCT01908829|182024804|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|=|0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.5||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Week 8 adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs and p-value were generated from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||0.5|0.0|=0.019
91069289|NCT01908829|182024804|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.7||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Week 12 adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs and p-value were generated from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||0.7|0.3|<0.001
91069290|NCT01908829|182024804|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.6||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||EoT adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs and p-value were generated from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||0.6|0.2|=0.001
91069291|NCT01908829|182024805|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.1||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Week 4 adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs and p-value were generated from ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate. Difference of adjusted mean was calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||-0.1|-0.4|<0.001
91069292|NCT01908829|182024805|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.1||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Week 8 adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs and p-value were generated from ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate. Difference of adjusted mean was calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||-0.1|-0.4|<0.001
91069293|NCT01908829|182024805|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.2||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Week 12 adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs and p-value were generated from ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate. Difference of adjusted mean was calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||-0.2|-0.4|<0.001
90827593|NCT05104450|181529942|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.44||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|treatment-by-time interaction|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed effects model including baseline and follow up outcome measures, time, treatment by time interaction, baseline covariates: age, gender, race, charlson comorbidity index, rurality, and randomization stratification variables: BMI (30-34.9 vs. 35-44.9kg/m2), OSA severity (mild vs. moderate to severe), and sleep related impairment T-score (\<60 vs. ≥ 60). The parameter of interest is treatment by time interaction coefficient, measuring the between group difference for change in outcome.||0.93|-0.04|0.074
91069294|NCT01908829|182024805|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.1||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||EoT adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs and p-value were generated from ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate. Difference of adjusted mean was calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||-0.1|-0.4|<0.001
91069295|NCT01908829|182024807|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|1.84||p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with highest response.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4 odds ratios, 95% Two sided CIs for Odds ratios and p-values were from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence episode reduction group, geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.||1.84|1.19|<0.001
91069296|NCT01908829|182024807|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|1.98||p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with highest response.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8 odds ratios, 95% Two sided CIs for Odds ratios and p-values were from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence episode reduction group, geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.||1.98|1.25|<0.001
91069297|NCT01908829|182024807|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.54|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|1.95||p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with highest response.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12 odds ratios, 95% Two sided CIs for Odds ratios and p-values were from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence episode reduction group, geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.||1.95|1.21|=0.001
91069298|NCT01908829|182024807|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|1.9||p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with highest response.|Regression, Logistic|||EoT odds ratios, 95% Two sided CIs for Odds ratios and p-values were from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence episode reduction group, geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.||1.90|1.20|<0.001
91069299|NCT01908829|182024808|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24|||=|0.119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.63||p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with highest response.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4 odds ratios, 95% Two sided CIs for Odds ratios and p-values were from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence episode reduction group, geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.||1.63|0.95|=0.119
91069300|NCT01908829|182024808|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|1.98||p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with highest response.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8 odds ratios, 95% Two sided CIs for Odds ratios and p-values were from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence episode reduction group, geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.||1.98|1.23|<0.001
91069301|NCT01908829|182024808|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44|||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.82||p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with highest response.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12 odds ratios, 95% Two sided CIs for Odds ratios and p-values were from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence episode reduction group, geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.||1.82|1.14|=0.002
91069302|NCT01908829|182024808|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|1.84||p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with highest response.|Regression, Logistic|||EoT odds ratios, 95% Two sided CIs for Odds ratios and p-values were from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence episode reduction group, geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.||1.84|1.17|=0.001
91069303|NCT01908829|182024809|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15|||=|0.305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.5||p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with highest response.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4 odds ratios, 95% Two sided CIs for Odds ratios and p-values were from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence episode reduction group, geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.||1.50|0.88|=0.305
91069304|NCT01908829|182024809|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37|||=|0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.76||p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with highest response.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8 odds ratios, 95% Two sided CIs for Odds ratios and p-values were from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence episode reduction group, geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.||1.76|1.06|=0.014
91069305|NCT01908829|182024809|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37|||=|0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.76||p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with highest response.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12 odds ratios, 95% Two sided CIs for Odds ratios and p-values were from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence episode reduction group, geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.||1.76|1.07|=0.012
91069306|NCT01908829|182024809|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29|||=|0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.64||p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with highest response.|Regression, Logistic|||EoT odds ratios, 95% Two sided CIs for Odds ratios and p-values were from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence episode reduction group, geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.||1.64|1.02|=0.036
91069307|NCT01908829|182024810|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|1.88||p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with highest response.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4 odds ratios, 95% Two sided CIs for Odds ratios and p-values were from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence episode reduction group, geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.||1.88|1.18|=0.001
91069308|NCT01908829|182024810|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|2.18||p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with highest response.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8 odds ratios, 95% Two sided CIs for Odds ratios and p-values were from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence episode reduction group, geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.||2.18|1.31|<0.001
91069309|NCT01908829|182024810|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|2.61||p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with highest response.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12 odds ratios, 95% Two sided CIs for Odds ratios and p-values were from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence episode reduction group, geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.||2.61|1.47|<0.001
91069310|NCT01908829|182024810|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|2.3||p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with highest response.|Regression, Logistic|||EoT odds ratios, 95% Two sided CIs for Odds ratios and p-values were from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence episode reduction group, geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.||2.30|1.34|<0.001
91069311|NCT01908829|182024811|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44|||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.82||p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with highest response.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4 odds ratios, 95% Two sided CIs for Odds ratios and p-values were from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence episode reduction group, geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.||1.82|1.14|=0.003
91069312|NCT01908829|182024811|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|1.93||p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with highest response.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8 odds ratios, 95% Two sided CIs for Odds ratios and p-values were from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence episode reduction group, geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.||1.93|1.18|=0.001
91069313|NCT01908829|182024811|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|2.13||p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with highest response.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12 odds ratios, 95% Two sided CIs for Odds ratios and p-values were from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence episode reduction group, geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.||2.13|1.27|<0.001
91069314|NCT01908829|182024811|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|1.91||p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with highest response.|Regression, Logistic|||EoT odds ratios, 95% Two sided CIs for Odds ratios and p-values were from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence episode reduction group, geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.||1.91|1.17|=0.001
91069315|NCT01908829|182024812|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42|||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|1.79||p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with highest response.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4 odds ratios, 95% Two sided CIs for Odds ratios and p-values were from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence episode reduction group, geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.||1.79|1.13|=0.003
91069316|NCT01908829|182024812|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44|||=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.84||p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with highest response.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8 odds ratios, 95% Two sided CIs for Odds ratios and p-values were from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence episode reduction group, geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.||1.84|1.12|=0.004
91069317|NCT01908829|182024812|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5|||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|1.96||p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with highest response.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12 odds ratios, 95% Two sided CIs for Odds ratios and p-values were from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence episode reduction group, geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.||1.96|1.15|=0.003
91069318|NCT01908829|182024812|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43|||=|0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|1.84||p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with highest response.|Regression, Logistic|||EoT odds ratios, 95% Two sided CIs for Odds ratios and p-values were from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence episode reduction group, geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.||1.84|1.11|=0.006
91069319|NCT01908829|182024813|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28|||=|0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.66|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4 odds ratios, 95% Two sided CIs for Odds ratios and p-values were from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence episode reduction group, geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.||1.66|0.99|=0.065
91069320|NCT01908829|182024813|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41|||=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|1.79|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8 odds ratios, 95% Two sided CIs for Odds ratios and p-values were from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence episode reduction group, geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.||1.79|1.11|=0.004
91069321|NCT01908829|182024813|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.07|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12 odds ratios, 95% Two sided CIs for Odds ratios and p-values were from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence episode reduction group, geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.||2.07|1.30|<0.001
91069322|NCT01908829|182024813|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|1.94|||Regression, Logistic|||EoT odds ratios, 95% Two sided CIs for Odds ratios and p-values were from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence episode reduction group, geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.||1.94|1.24|<0.001
91069323|NCT01339923|182024842|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority.|Vaccine group difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|3.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||Non-inferiority of MenC-CRM was determined following co-administration of MenC-CRM and rMenB+OMV NZ vs MenC-CRM control group at 1 month after 2nd vaccination for serogroup C.||3.9|-6.4|
91069324|NCT01339923|182024842|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority.|Vaccine group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|7.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||Non-inferiority of MenC-CRM was determined following co-administration of MenC-CRM and rMenB+OMV NZ vs MenC-CRM control group at 1 month after booster vaccination for serogroup C.||7.6|-5.2|
91069325|NCT01430403|182024862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.331||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.92|||Odds Ratio|Adjusted for Site, dosing group and treatment step|Placebo serves as the reference group. Values \< 1 represent more exacerbations in the placebo arm.|Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the arms. Power calculation is described in detail in the study protocol.||0.92|0.25|0.03
91069326|NCT01430403|182024863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.64|||Odds Ratio|Adjusted for Site, dosing group and treatment step|ICS Boost serves as the reference group. Values \< 1 represent more exacerbations in the ICS arm.|Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the arms. Power calculation is described in detail in the study protocol.||1.64|0.33|0.45
91069327|NCT01430403|182024864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.53|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.38|5.22|||Chi-squared||Adjusted for site|||5.22|2.38|<0.01
91069328|NCT01430403|182024865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Linear Regression|0.004||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.11|||F-Test|||||0.11|-0.10|0.94
91069329|NCT01430403|182024865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Linear Regression|-0.13||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.13|||F-Test|||||0.13|-0.40|0.33
91069330|NCT01430403|182024866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.31|||Chi-squared|||||1.31|0.87|0.552
91069331|NCT01430403|182024866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.44|||Chi-squared|||||1.44|0.87|0.37
91069332|NCT01430403|182024867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|0.07|||Regression, Linear|Adjustments for randomization CASI, site, dosing group and treatment group step (2-4 as one step and 5 separately)||||0.07|-1.11|0.09
91069333|NCT01430403|182024868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.34|||Regression, Linear|Adjustments for randomization CASI, site and dosing group||||0.34|-0.86|0.39
91069334|NCT01430403|182024869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.58||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.42|2.78|||Regression, Linear|Adjustments for randomization FEV1 % predicted, site, dosing group and treatment group step (2-4 as one step and 5 separately)||||2.78|-3.42|0.84
91069335|NCT01430403|182024870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|2.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.59||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|5.51|||Regression, Linear|Adjustments for randomization FEV1 % predicted, site and dosing group.||||5.51|-0.76|0.14
91069336|NCT01430403|182024871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|1.99|||Regression, Linear|Adjustments for randomization FEV1:FVCx100, site, dosing group and treatment group step (2-4 as one step and 5 separately)||||1.99|-1.49|0.78
91069337|NCT01430403|182024872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|2.91|||Regression, Linear|Adjustments for randomization FEV1:FVCx100, site and dosing group.||||2.91|-0.61|0.20
91069338|NCT01430403|182024873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.9|||Regression, Linear|Adjustments for randomization ACT, site, dosing group and treatment group step (2-4 as one step and 5 separately)||||1.90|0.32|0.006
91069339|NCT01430403|182024874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.86|||Regression, Linear|Adjustments for randomization ACT, site and dosing group.||||0.86|-0.76|0.89
91069340|NCT01430403|182024875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.41|||Regression, Linear|Adjustments for randomization C-ACT, site, dosing group and treatment group step (2-4 as one step and 5 separately)||||1.41|0.00|0.05
91069341|NCT01430403|182024876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|1.3|||Regression, Linear|Adjustments for randomization C-ACT, site and dosing group||||1.30|-0.15|0.12
91069342|NCT01430403|182024877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.72|||Negative Binomial Generalized Estimating|Adjustments for site, dosing group and treatment group step (2-4 as one step and 5 separately)||||0.72|0.19|0.63
91069343|NCT01430403|182024878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|3.46|||Negative Binomial Generalized Estimating|Adjustments for site and dosing group||||3.46|0.29|0.99
91069344|NCT01430403|182024879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.35|||Negative Binomial Generalized Estimating|Adjustments for site, dosing group and treatment group step (2-4 as one step and 5 separately)||||1.35|0.39|0.31
91069345|NCT01430403|182024880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.02|||Negative Binomial Generalized Estimating|Adjustments for site and dosing group||||1.02|0.23|0.06
91069346|NCT01430403|182024881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.48||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.08|2.72|||Regression, Linear|Adjustments for site, dosing group and treatment group step (2-4 as one step and 5 separately)||||2.72|-3.08|0.90
91069347|NCT01430403|182024882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.26|2.71|||Regression, Linear|Adjustments for site and dosing group.||||2.71|-3.26|0.86
91069348|NCT02677922|182024886|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.86||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.99|11.85|||Chi-squared|||||11.85|1.99|0.0003
91069349|NCT02677922|182024889|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.59||||0.1083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.13|||Log Rank|||||1.13|0.30|0.1083
91069350|NCT02677922|182024891|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.74|27.31|||Chi-squared|||||27.31|2.74|<0.001
91069351|NCT02677922|182024892|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77||||0.1943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|4.2|||Chi-squared|||||4.20|0.74|0.1943
91069352|NCT02677922|182024895|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.99||||0.972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.87|||Log Rank|Unstratified log-rank test|Cox proportional hazards regression model|||1.87|0.52|0.9720
91069353|NCT02677922|182024896|OTHER|Confidence interval of difference|Difference|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|22.5|||||The CI for the difference was derived using Greenwood's variance estimate.|||22.5|-17.3|
91069354|NCT00637000|182024911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Repeated measures model|The statistical method used was a group by time repeated measures model with a first-order autoregressive covariance structure||To test the primary study hypothesis that neither soluble film formulation would precipitate an opioid withdrawal syndrome, peak COWS score in the 23.5 hour period after the initial soluble film administration were compared to pre-administration baseline COWS scores (30 minutes prior to soluble film administration) using a group by time repeated measures model with a first-order autoregressive covariance structure.||||<0.0001
91069355|NCT00637000|182024912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|||||||Repeated measures model|Group by time repeated measures model with a first-order autoregressive covariance structure.||||||0.000
91069356|NCT00637000|182024913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Repeated measures model|Group by time repeated measures model with a first-order autoregressive covariance structure.||||||0.035
91069357|NCT00637000|182024914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures model|Group by time repeated measures model with a first-order autoregressive covariance structure.||||||<0.0001
91069358|NCT00637000|182024915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures model|Group by time repeated measures model with a first-order autoregressive covariance structure.||||||<0.0001
91069359|NCT00637000|182024916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Repeated measures model|Group by time repeated measures model with a first-order autoregressive covariance structure.||||||0.006
91069360|NCT00637000|182024917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Repeated measures model|Group by time repeated measures model with a first-order autoregressive covariance structure.||||||<0.0001
90827594|NCT05104450|181529943|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.71||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.82|-0.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|treatment-by-time interaction|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed effects model including baseline and follow up outcome measures, time, treatment by time interaction, baseline covariates: age, gender, race, charlson comorbidity index, rurality, and randomization stratification variables: BMI (30-34.9 vs. 35-44.9kg/m2), OSA severity (mild vs. moderate to severe), and sleep related impairment T-score (\<60 vs. ≥ 60). The parameter of interest is treatment by time interaction coefficient, measuring the between group difference for change in outcome.||-0.59|-2.82|0.003
90827595|NCT05104450|181529944|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|0.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|treatment-by-time interaction|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed effects model including baseline and follow up outcome measures, time, treatment by time interaction, baseline covariates: age, gender, race, charlson comorbidity index, rurality, and randomization stratification variables: BMI (30-34.9 vs. 35-44.9kg/m2), OSA severity (mild vs. moderate to severe), and sleep related impairment T-score (\<60 vs. ≥ 60). The parameter of interest is treatment by time interaction coefficient, measuring the between group difference for change in outcome.||0.44|-1.84|0.229
91069361|NCT00637000|182024918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Repeated measures model|Group by time repeated measures model with a first-order autoregressive covariance structure.||||||<0.0001
91069362|NCT00637000|182024919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.762||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Repeated measures model|Group by time repeated measures model with a first-order autoregressive covariance structure.||||||0.762
91069363|NCT00637000|182024920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Repeated measures model|Group by time repeated measures model with a first-order autoregressive covariance structure.||||||<0.0001
91069364|NCT00637000|182024921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.349||||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Repeated measures model|Group by time repeated measures model with a first-order autoregressive covariance structure.||||||0.349
91069365|NCT00637000|182024922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Repeated measures model|Group by time repeated measures model with a first-order autoregressive covariance structure.||||||0.028
91069366|NCT00637000|182024923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Repeated measures model|Group by time repeated measures model with a first-order autoregressive covariance structure.||||||<0.0001
91069367|NCT00637000|182024924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Repeated measures model|Group by time repeated measures model with a first-order autoregressive covariance structure.||||||<0.0001
91069368|NCT00637000|182024925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.117||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Repeated measures model|Group by time repeated measures model with a first-order autoregressive covariance structure.||||||0.117
91069369|NCT00637000|182024926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Repeated measures model|Group by time repeated measures model with a first-order autoregressive covariance structure.||||||<0.0001
91069370|NCT00637000|182024927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.238||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Repeated measures model|Group by time repeated measures model with a first-order autoregressive covariance structure.||||||0.238
91069371|NCT03660189|182024929|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.54
91069372|NCT03660189|182024929|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.44
91069373|NCT03660189|182024931|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
91069374|NCT03660189|182024934|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.91
91069375|NCT03660189|182024935|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.45
91069376|NCT03660189|182024939|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
91069377|NCT03660189|182024940|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
91069378|NCT04513080|182024941|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference comparing difference in average scores from baseline to week 6||||
91069379|NCT04513080|182024941|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference comparing difference in average scores from week 6 to week 12||||
91069380|NCT04513080|182024942|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference comparing difference in average scores from baseline to week 6||||
91069381|NCT04513080|182024942|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference comparing difference in average scores from week 6 to week 12||||
91069382|NCT04513080|182024942|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference comparing difference in average scores from baseline to week 6||||
91069383|NCT04513080|182024942|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference comparing difference in average scores from week 6 to week 12||||
91069384|NCT04513080|182024942|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference comparing difference in average scores from baseline to week 6||||
91069385|NCT04513080|182024942|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference comparing difference in average scores from week 6 to week 12||||
91069386|NCT00828568|182024960|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 90% confidence limit around the difference in proportion of patients considered a Treatment Success between test and reference products was calculated using Blackwelder's method with Yate's continuity correction. If the 90% confidence interval for the test to reference ratio for the primary endpoint was within -0.20 to +0.20, then the test product would have been declared therapeutically equivalent to the reference product.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.85||||||90.0|-5.37|15.08||||||||15.08|-5.37|
91069387|NCT00828568|182024962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
91069388|NCT00828568|182024962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<.0001
91069389|NCT00460811|182024964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||ANCOVA|||For each of the 4 active linaclotide groups, the null hypothesis was that there was no difference between placebo and the dose group in the change from baseline in the weekly normalized CSBM Rate. An observed cases (OC) approach to missing post-baseline data was applied: any missing data were not imputed.||||0.0002
91069390|NCT00460811|182024964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0036||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||For each of the 4 active linaclotide groups, the null hypothesis was that there was no difference between placebo and the dose group in the change from baseline in the weekly normalized CSBM Rate. An observed cases (OC) approach to missing post-baseline data was applied: any missing data were not imputed.||||0.0036
91069391|NCT00460811|182024964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||For each of the 4 active linaclotide groups, the null hypothesis was that there was no difference between placebo and the dose group in the change from baseline in the weekly normalized CSBM Rate. An observed cases (OC) approach to missing post-baseline data was applied: any missing data were not imputed.||||<0.0001
91069392|NCT00460811|182024964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0008||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||For each of the 4 active linaclotide groups, the null hypothesis was that there was no difference between placebo and the dose group in the change from baseline in the weekly normalized CSBM Rate. An observed cases (OC) approach to missing post-baseline data was applied: any missing data were not imputed.||||0.0008
91069393|NCT02811965|182025008|SUPERIORITY||||||<|5e-05||||||A priori threshold p \< 0.05|Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||<0.00005
91069394|NCT02811965|182025008|SUPERIORITY|||||||5e-05||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.00005
91069395|NCT02811965|182025008|SUPERIORITY||||||<|5e-05||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00005
91069396|NCT02811965|182025008|SUPERIORITY||||||<|5e-05||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00005
91069397|NCT02811965|182025008|SUPERIORITY||||||<|5e-05||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00005
91069398|NCT02811965|182025008|SUPERIORITY||||||<|5e-05||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00005
91069399|NCT02811965|182025008|SUPERIORITY||||||<|5e-05||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00005
91069400|NCT02811965|182025008|SUPERIORITY||||||<|5e-05||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00005
91069401|NCT02811965|182025008|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
91069402|NCT02811965|182025008|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0002
91069403|NCT02811965|182025008|SUPERIORITY||||||<|5e-05||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00005
91069404|NCT02811965|182025008|SUPERIORITY||||||<|5e-05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00005
91069405|NCT02811965|182025008|SUPERIORITY||||||<|5e-05||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00005
91069406|NCT02811965|182025008|SUPERIORITY||||||<|5e-05||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00005
91069407|NCT02811965|182025008|SUPERIORITY||||||<|5e-05||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00005
91069408|NCT02811965|182025008|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.24
91069409|NCT02811965|182025008|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.14
91069410|NCT02811965|182025008|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0093||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0093
91069411|NCT02811965|182025008|SUPERIORITY||||||<|5e-05||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00005
91069412|NCT02811965|182025008|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.14
91069413|NCT02811965|182025008|SUPERIORITY||||||<|5e-05||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00005
91069414|NCT02811965|182025008|SUPERIORITY||||||<|5e-05||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00005
91069415|NCT02811965|182025009|SUPERIORITY||||||<|5e-05||||||A priori threshold p\<0.05.|Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||<0.00005
91069416|NCT02811965|182025009|SUPERIORITY||||||<|5e-05||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00005
91069417|NCT02811965|182025009|SUPERIORITY||||||<|5e-05||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00005
91069418|NCT02811965|182025009|SUPERIORITY||||||<|5e-05||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00005
91069419|NCT02811965|182025009|SUPERIORITY||||||<|5e-05||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00005
91069420|NCT02811965|182025009|SUPERIORITY||||||<|5e-05||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00005
91069421|NCT02811965|182025009|SUPERIORITY||||||<|5e-05||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00005
91069422|NCT02811965|182025009|SUPERIORITY||||||<|5e-05||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00005
91069423|NCT02811965|182025009|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0011||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0011
91069424|NCT02811965|182025009|SUPERIORITY|||||||5e-05||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.00005
91069425|NCT02811965|182025009|SUPERIORITY||||||<|5e-05||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00005
91069426|NCT02811965|182025009|SUPERIORITY||||||<|5e-05||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00005
91069427|NCT02811965|182025009|SUPERIORITY||||||<|5e-05||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00005
91069428|NCT02811965|182025009|SUPERIORITY||||||<|5e-05||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00005
91069429|NCT02811965|182025009|SUPERIORITY||||||<|5e-05||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00005
91069430|NCT02811965|182025009|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.53
91069431|NCT02811965|182025009|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.092||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.092
91069432|NCT02811965|182025009|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0044|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0044
91069433|NCT02811965|182025009|SUPERIORITY||||||<|5e-05||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00005
91069434|NCT02811965|182025009|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.084||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.084
91069435|NCT02811965|182025009|SUPERIORITY||||||<|5e-05||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00005
91069436|NCT02811965|182025009|SUPERIORITY|||||||5e-05||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.00005
91069437|NCT01554527|182025010|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Intent to treat for controls vs. treatment (adherent/non-adherent)||||0.07
91069438|NCT01554527|182025011|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Intent to treat for controls vs. treatment (adherent/non-adherent)||||0.34
91069439|NCT01554527|182025012|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Intent to treat for controls vs. treatment (adherent/non-adherent)||||0.93
91069440|NCT01554527|182025013|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Intent to treat for controls vs. treatment (adherent/non-adherent)||||0.5
91069441|NCT01554527|182025014|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Intent to treat for controls vs. treatment (adherent/non-adherent)||||0.25
91069442|NCT01537042|182025045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratio|0.44||||0.0232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.88|||ANCOVA|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was performed for the log-transformed PLMI ratio with treatment and region as factors and Baseline as a covariate.||||0.88|0.22|0.0232
91069443|NCT02837731|182025060|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.37||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.53|0.21|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.21|-2.53|0.021
91069444|NCT02837731|182025061|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.124||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|-0.01|||Fisher Exact||Converted Estimated Value of -12.4% to decimal value of -0.124.|||-0.01|-0.27|0.042
91069445|NCT02837731|182025062|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1642||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.0|||Chi-squared||Converted Estimated Value of -16.42% to decimal value of -0.1642.|||0|-0.33|0.044
91069446|NCT02837731|182025063|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.91||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.67|0.85|||Fisher Exact|||||0.85|-6.67|0.113
91069447|NCT02837731|182025064|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-72.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-154.08|9.22|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||9.22|-154.08|
91069448|NCT02837731|182025065|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.91||||0.426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.5|22.68|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||22.68|-52.50|0.426
91069449|NCT02837731|182025066|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.52|||ANCOVA|||||0.52|-0.34|0.453
91069450|NCT01329380|182025074|OTHER|||||||0.0328|||||||Mann-Whitney U-test|||Age||||0.0328
91069451|NCT01329380|182025074|OTHER|||||||0.7128|||||||Fisher Exact|||Sex||||0.7128
91069452|NCT01329380|182025074|OTHER|||||||0.0465|||||||Mann-Whitney U-test|||Body mass index||||0.0465
91069453|NCT01329380|182025074|OTHER|||||||0.8872|||||||Mann-Whitney U-test|||Duration of illness||||0.8872
91069454|NCT01329380|182025074|OTHER|||||||0.0388|||||||Fisher Exact|||Smoking history||||0.0388
91069455|NCT01329380|182025074|OTHER|||||||0.4855|||||||Fisher Exact|||Complications||||0.4855
91069456|NCT01329380|182025074|OTHER|||||||0.663|||||||Fisher Exact|||Complications - Liver disorder||||0.6630
91069457|NCT01329380|182025074|OTHER|||||||0.2067|||||||Fisher Exact|||Complications - Renal disorder||||0.2067
91069458|NCT01329380|182025074|OTHER|||||||0.8749|||||||Fisher Exact|||Complications - Cardiovascular disorder||||0.8749
91069459|NCT01329380|182025074|OTHER|||||||0.482|||||||Fisher Exact|||Complications - Blood disorder||||0.4820
91069460|NCT01329380|182025074|OTHER|||||||0.6355|||||||Fisher Exact|||Complications - Respiratory disorder||||0.6355
91069461|NCT01329380|182025074|OTHER|||||||0.8193|||||||Fisher Exact|||Complications - Diabetes mellitus||||0.8193
91069462|NCT01329380|182025074|OTHER|||||||0.5723|||||||Fisher Exact|||Complications - Uveitis||||0.5723
91069463|NCT01329380|182025074|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Complications - Inflammatory bowel disease||||1.0000
91069464|NCT01329380|182025074|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Complications - Psoriasis||||1.0000
91069465|NCT01329380|182025074|OTHER|||||||0.0144|||||||Fisher Exact|||Past Illnesses||||0.0144
91069466|NCT01329380|182025074|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Allergy history||||1.0000
91069467|NCT01329380|182025074|OTHER|||||||0.3928|||||||Fisher Exact|||Adalimumab self-injection status||||0.3928
91069468|NCT01329380|182025074|OTHER|||||||0.2735|||||||Fisher Exact|||Prior medications - NSAIDs||||0.2735
91069469|NCT01329380|182025074|OTHER|||||||0.8875|||||||Fisher Exact|||Prior medications - Biological products||||0.8875
91069470|NCT01329380|182025074|OTHER|||||||0.254|||||||Fisher Exact|||Prior medications - Adrenal corticosteroids||||0.2540
91069471|NCT01329380|182025074|OTHER|||||||0.0226|||||||Fisher Exact|||Concomitant drugs||||0.0226
91069472|NCT01329380|182025074|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Concomitant drug: NSAIDs||||1.0000
91069473|NCT01329380|182025074|OTHER|||||||0.2481|||||||Fisher Exact|||Concomitant drugs - DMARDs||||0.2481
91069474|NCT01329380|182025074|OTHER|||||||0.1558|||||||Fisher Exact|||Concomitant drugs - Methotrexate||||0.1558
91069475|NCT01329380|182025074|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Concomitant drugs - salazosulfapyridine||||1.0000
91069476|NCT01329380|182025074|OTHER|||||||0.0094|||||||Fisher Exact|||Concomitant drugs - Adrenal corticosteroids||||0.0094
91069477|NCT01329380|182025074|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Concomitant therapy||||1.0000
91069478|NCT01329380|182025074|OTHER|||||||0.8836|||||||Fisher Exact|||Human leukocyte antigen B27 (HLA-B27) test result||||0.8836
91069479|NCT01329380|182025074|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||BASDAI at start of treatment||||1.0000
91069480|NCT01294241|182025103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.008||||||Post-hoc superiority analysis: Wounds that were either evaluated controversially (n=2) or as being equal (n=2) were excluded from the analysis of the primary efficacy variable.|Two-sided exact binomial test|||The intra-individual difference in reepithelialization of wound (halves) was tested using a two-sided exact binomial test. The test was performed at a significance level of 5% for the null-hypothesis of no difference δ = 0 against the hypotheses δ ≠ 0: H0: δ = 0 H1: δ ≠ 0||||=0.008
91069481|NCT01294241|182025104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.21||||||Post-hoc superiority analysis|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The intra-individual difference in median percentage of wound epithelialization was tested using a two-sided Wilcoxon test.||||=0.21
91069482|NCT01294241|182025105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33||||||Post-hoc superiority analysis|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The intra-individual difference in median percentage of wound epithelialization was tested using a two-sided Wilcoxon test.||||0.33
91069483|NCT02748213|182025119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Response Rates|2.2||||0.717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.17|14.56|||Chi-squared||The approximate 95% CI for the difference in response (CR or PR) rates was determined using the Hauck-Anderson correction.|||14.56|-10.17|0.717
91069484|NCT02748213|182025121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.0449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.99|||Log Rank||Hazard Ratio (HR) calculated using Herceptin + Taxotere arm as reference.|||0.99|0.53|0.0449
91069485|NCT02748213|182025123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.4758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.32|||Log Rank||HR calculated using Herceptin + Taxotere arm as reference.|||1.32|0.56|0.4758
91069486|NCT03850483|182025144|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.1641|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.71|0.43||Multiplicity adjustment comparing 6 different treatment arms was performed only for the primary endpoint using Hochberg step-up procedure to maintain overall familywise error rate at 5% level.|ANCOVA|||||0.43|-1.71|0.1641
91069487|NCT03850483|182025144|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.61|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.89|1.26||Multiplicity adjustment comparing 6 different treatment arms was performed only for the primary endpoint using Hochberg step-up procedure to maintain overall familywise error rate at 5% level.|ANCOVA|||||1.26|-0.89|0.6100
91069488|NCT03850483|182025144|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.1686|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.7|0.45||Multiplicity adjustment comparing 6 different treatment arms was performed only for the primary endpoint using Hochberg step-up procedure to maintain overall familywise error rate at 5% level.|ANCOVA|||||0.45|-1.70|0.1686
91069489|NCT03850483|182025144|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.1051|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.87|0.25||Multiplicity adjustment comparing 6 different treatment arms was performed only for the primary endpoint using Hochberg step-up procedure to maintain overall familywise error rate at 5% level.|ANCOVA|||||0.25|-1.87|0.1051
91069490|NCT03850483|182025144|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.3583|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.37|0.88||Multiplicity adjustment comparing 6 different treatment arms was performed only for the primary endpoint using Hochberg step-up procedure to maintain overall familywise error rate at 5% level.|ANCOVA|||||0.88|-1.37|0.3583
91069491|NCT03850483|182025144|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.1131|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.88|0.29||Multiplicity adjustment comparing 6 different treatment arms was performed only for the primary endpoint using Hochberg step-up procedure to maintain overall familywise error rate at 5% level.|ANCOVA|||||0.29|-1.88|0.1131
91069492|NCT03850483|182025144|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.1812|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.64|0.47||Multiplicity adjustment comparing 6 different treatment arms was performed only for the primary endpoint using Hochberg step-up procedure to maintain overall familywise error rate at 5% level.|ANCOVA|||||0.47|-1.64|0.1812
91069493|NCT03850483|182025145|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.4||||0.3747|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.6|17.9|||Chan and Zhang method|||||17.9|-10.6|0.3747
91069494|NCT03850483|182025145|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.5||||0.243|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.6|25.9|||Chan and Zhang method|||||25.9|-6.6|0.2430
91069495|NCT03850483|182025145|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.4||||0.3747|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.6|17.9|||Chan and Zhang method|||||17.9|-10.6|0.3747
91069496|NCT03850483|182025145|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.5||||0.0665|TWO_SIDED|0.0665|-1.3|31.5|||Chan and Zhang method|||||31.5|-1.3|0.0665
91069497|NCT03850483|182025145|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.1||||0.3423|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.1|25.5|||Chan and Zhang method|||||25.5|-12.1|0.3423
91069498|NCT03850483|182025145|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.9||||0.1271|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.7|30.9|||Chan and Zhang method|||||30.9|-4.7|0.1271
91069499|NCT03850483|182025145|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.2||||0.401|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.2|21.1|||Chan and Zhang method|||||21.1|-13.2|0.4010
91069500|NCT03850483|182025146|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1||||0.4225|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.2|10.4|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 1||10.4|-11.2|0.4225
91069501|NCT03850483|182025146|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.1||||0.7483|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.0|5.0|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 1||5.0|-14.0|0.7483
91069502|NCT03850483|182025146|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.1||||0.7539|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.0|4.8|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 1||4.8|-14.0|0.7539
91069503|NCT03850483|182025146|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.1||||0.7539|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.0|4.8|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 1||4.8|-14.0|0.7539
91069504|NCT03850483|182025146|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.4|8.9|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 1||8.9|-6.4|0.5000
91069505|NCT03850483|182025146|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.9||||0.2125|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.4|13.2|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 1||13.2|-3.4|0.2125
91069506|NCT03850483|182025146|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.7||||0.2267|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.5|12.2|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 1||12.2|-3.5|0.2267
91069507|NCT03850483|182025146|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.1||||0.7592|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.0|4.6|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 2||4.6|-14.0|0.7592
91069508|NCT03850483|182025146|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.1||||0.7299|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.0|5.5|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 2||5.5|-14.0|0.7299
91069509|NCT03850483|182025146|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.3||||0.4463|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.3|9.4|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 2||9.4|-11.3|0.4463
91069510|NCT03850483|182025146|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.1||||0.7539|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.0|4.8|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 2||4.8|-14.0|0.7539
91069511|NCT03850483|182025146|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.2||||0.7009|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.1|5.9|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 2||5.9|-10.1|0.7009
91069512|NCT03850483|182025146|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.0||||0.2507|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.5|15.6|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 2||15.6|-4.5|0.2507
91069513|NCT03850483|182025146|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.5||||0.2993|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.8|14.3|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 2||14.3|-4.8|0.2993
91069514|NCT03850483|182025146|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.1||||0.7363|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.0|5.5|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 4||5.5|-14.0|0.7363
91069515|NCT03850483|182025146|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.4||||0.5369|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.5|12.3|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 4||12.3|-10.5|0.5369
91069516|NCT03850483|182025146|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.1||||0.7483|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.0|5.0|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 4||5.0|-14.0|0.7483
91069517|NCT03850483|182025146|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.1||||0.7483|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.0|5.0|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 4||5.0|-14.0|0.7483
91069518|NCT03850483|182025146|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.2||||0.599|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.7|11.6|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 4||11.6|-13.7|0.5990
91069519|NCT03850483|182025146|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.9||||0.7926|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.4|4.9|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 4||4.9|-16.4|0.7926
91069520|NCT03850483|182025146|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.2||||0.3402|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.0|17.6|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 4||17.6|-9.0|0.3402
91069521|NCT03850483|182025146|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.2||||0.7364|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.4|5.7|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 6||5.7|-14.4|0.7364
91069522|NCT03850483|182025146|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.2||||0.3009|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.4|17.7|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 6||17.7|-7.4|0.3009
91069523|NCT03850483|182025146|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.2||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.1|15.9|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 6||15.9|-8.1|0.3400
91069524|NCT03850483|182025146|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.1||||0.1631|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.8|21.1|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 6||21.1|-4.8|0.1631
91069525|NCT03850483|182025146|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.2||||0.6214|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.8|13.0|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 6||13.0|-17.8|0.6214
91069526|NCT03850483|182025146|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.2||||0.6214|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.8|13.0|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 6||13.0|-17.8|0.6214
91069527|NCT03850483|182025146|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.5||||0.6413|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.9|11.7|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 6||11.7|-17.9|0.6413
91069528|NCT03850483|182025146|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.1|13.1|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 8||13.1|-13.1|0.5000
91069529|NCT03850483|182025146|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.7||||0.5134|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.6|15.2|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 8||15.2|-12.6|0.5134
91069530|NCT03850483|182025146|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.2||||0.4468|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.4|12.5|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 8||12.5|-13.4|0.4468
91069531|NCT03850483|182025146|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.6||||0.2778|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.8|23.9|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 8||23.9|-6.8|0.2778
91069532|NCT03850483|182025146|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.1||||0.4571|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.5|21.0|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 8||21.0|-14.5|0.4571
91069533|NCT03850483|182025146|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1||||0.4741|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.3|16.7|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 8||16.7|-15.3|0.4741
91069534|NCT03850483|182025146|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.4||||0.5153|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.8|16.7|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 8||16.7|-14.8|0.5153
91069535|NCT03850483|182025146|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.0||||0.8287|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.1|5.3|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 10||5.3|-21.1|0.8287
91069536|NCT03850483|182025146|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.3||||0.5675|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.8|14.2|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 10||14.2|-17.8|0.5675
91069537|NCT03850483|182025146|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.9||||0.2648|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.8|23.2|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 10||23.2|-9.8|0.2648
91069538|NCT03850483|182025146|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.9||||0.3792|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.8|20.8|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 10||20.8|-11.8|0.3792
91069539|NCT03850483|182025146|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.7||||0.4438|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.3|23.1|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 10||23.1|-16.3|0.4438
91069540|NCT03850483|182025146|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.5||||0.7014|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.3|9.4|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 10||9.4|-23.3|0.7014
91069541|NCT03850483|182025146|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.8||||0.5841|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-19.7|15.0|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 10||15.0|-19.7|0.5841
91069542|NCT03850483|182025146|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.3|15.3|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 12||15.3|-15.3|0.5000
91069543|NCT03850483|182025146|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.7||||0.5834|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.5|12.3|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 12||12.3|-17.5|0.5834
91069544|NCT03850483|182025146|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.3||||0.1534|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.4|27.2|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 12||27.2|-6.4|0.1534
91069545|NCT03850483|182025146|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.5||||0.272|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.8|24.9|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 12||24.9|-8.8|0.2720
91069546|NCT03850483|182025146|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.1||||0.6815|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-25.1|10.4|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 12||10.4|-25.1|0.6815
91069547|NCT03850483|182025146|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.5||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.4|22.0|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 12||22.0|-14.4|0.3900
91069548|NCT03850483|182025146|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.7||||0.5865|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.0|15.9|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 12||15.9|-20.0|0.5865
91069549|NCT03850483|182025146|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.2||||0.3087|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.2|18.9|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 14||18.9|-8.2|0.3087
91069550|NCT03850483|182025146|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.2||||0.3137|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.2|20.9|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 14||20.9|-8.2|0.3137
91069551|NCT03850483|182025146|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.0||||0.0245|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.7|34.8|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 14||34.8|2.7|0.0245
91069552|NCT03850483|182025146|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.8||||0.1119|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.0|26.0|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 14||26.0|-3.0|0.1119
91069553|NCT03850483|182025146|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.7||||0.414|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.2|20.4|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 14||20.4|-13.2|0.4140
91069554|NCT03850483|182025146|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.7||||0.2356|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.2|28.5|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 14||28.5|-7.2|0.2356
91069555|NCT03850483|182025146|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.5||||0.3638|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.5|21.5|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 14||21.5|-11.5|0.3638
91069556|NCT03850483|182025146|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.7||||0.1613|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.2|22.9|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 16||22.9|-5.2|0.1613
91069557|NCT03850483|182025146|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.9||||0.0557|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|31.4|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 16||31.4|-0.5|0.0557
91069558|NCT03850483|182025146|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.6||||0.0114|TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.6|38.3|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 16||38.3|5.6|0.0114
91069559|NCT03850483|182025146|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.9||||0.0753|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.8|28.1|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 16||28.1|-1.8|0.0753
91069560|NCT03850483|182025146|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.1||||0.5635|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.1|15.2|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 16||15.2|-20.1|0.5635
91069561|NCT03850483|182025146|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.6||||0.6201|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.3|14.5|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 16||14.5|-20.3|0.6201
91069562|NCT03850483|182025146|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.7||||0.4792|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.6|17.0|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 16||17.0|-17.6|0.4792
91069563|NCT03850483|182025147|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.8038|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.25|0.79|||MMRM|||Week 1: Mixed-effect model with repeated measures (MMRM) analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.79|-0.25|0.8038
91069564|NCT03850483|182025147|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.8267|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.22|0.81|||MMRM|||Week 1: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.81|-0.22|0.8267
91069565|NCT03850483|182025147|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.6039|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.43|0.6|||MMRM|||Week 1: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.60|-0.43|0.6039
91069566|NCT03850483|182025147|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.6339|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.41|0.62|||MMRM|||Week 1: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.62|-0.41|0.6339
91069567|NCT03850483|182025147|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.2666|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.68|0.31|||MMRM|||Week 1: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.31|-0.68|0.2666
91069568|NCT03850483|182025147|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.2257|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|0.26|||MMRM|||Week 1: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.26|-0.70|0.2257
91069569|NCT03850483|182025147|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.1306|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.81|0.15|||MMRM|||Week 1: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.15|-0.81|0.1306
91069570|NCT03850483|182025147|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.9704|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.09|1.31|||MMRM|||Week 2: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||1.31|0.09|0.9704
91069571|NCT03850483|182025147|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.889|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.16|1.09|||MMRM|||Week 2: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||1.09|-0.16|0.8890
91069572|NCT03850483|182025147|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.4506|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.66|0.57|||MMRM|||Week 2: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.57|-0.66|0.4506
91069573|NCT03850483|182025147|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.584|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.53|0.69|||MMRM|||Week 2: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.69|-0.53|0.5840
91069574|NCT03850483|182025147|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.0769|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.17|0.08|||MMRM|||Week 2: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.08|-1.17|0.0769
91069575|NCT03850483|182025147|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.0242|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.39|-0.13|||MMRM|||Week 2: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-0.13|-1.39|0.0242
91069576|NCT03850483|182025147|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.0127|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.49|-0.23|||MMRM|||Week 2: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-0.23|-1.49|0.0127
91069577|NCT03850483|182025147|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.6693|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.54|0.93|||MMRM|||Week 4: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.93|-0.54|0.6693
91069578|NCT03850483|182025147|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.6742|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.55|0.96|||MMRM|||Week 4: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.96|-0.55|0.6742
91069579|NCT03850483|182025147|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.4486|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.79|0.67|||MMRM|||Week 4: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.67|-0.79|0.4486
91069580|NCT03850483|182025147|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.3219|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.93|0.53|||MMRM|||Week 4: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.53|-0.93|0.3219
91069581|NCT03850483|182025147|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.0096|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.21|-0.39|||MMRM|||Week 4: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-0.39|-2.21|0.0096
91069582|NCT03850483|182025147|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.0862|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.64|0.15|||MMRM|||Week 4: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.15|-1.64|0.0862
91069583|NCT03850483|182025147|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.15|-0.36|||MMRM|||Week 4: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-0.36|-2.15|0.0111
91069584|NCT03850483|182025147|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.6107|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.68|0.97|||MMRM|||Week 6: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.97|-0.68|0.6107
91069585|NCT03850483|182025147|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.724|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.54|1.15|||MMRM|||Week 6: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||1.15|-0.54|0.7240
91069586|NCT03850483|182025147|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.43|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.91|0.74|||MMRM|||Week 6: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.74|-0.91|0.4300
91069587|NCT03850483|182025147|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.0501|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.66|0.0|||MMRM|||Week 6: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.00|-1.66|0.0501
91069588|NCT03850483|182025147|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.0157|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.23|-0.3|||MMRM|||Week 6: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-0.30|-2.23|0.0157
91069589|NCT03850483|182025147|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.0645|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.83|0.07|||MMRM|||Week 6: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.07|-1.83|0.0645
91069590|NCT03850483|182025147|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.0621|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.84|0.06|||MMRM|||Week 6: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.06|-1.84|0.0621
91069591|NCT03850483|182025147|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.2959|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.21|0.62|||MMRM|||Week 8: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.62|-1.21|0.2959
91069592|NCT03850483|182025147|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.9043|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.19|1.69|||MMRM|||Week 8: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||1.69|-0.19|0.9043
91069593|NCT03850483|182025147|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.2014|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.38|0.45|||MMRM|||Week 8: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.45|-1.38|0.2014
91069594|NCT03850483|182025147|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.0948|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.66|0.19|||MMRM|||Week 8: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.19|-1.66|0.0948
91069595|NCT03850483|182025147|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.0416|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.21|-0.06|||MMRM|||Week 8: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-0.06|-2.21|0.0416
91069596|NCT03850483|182025147|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.0454|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.14|-0.03|||MMRM|||Week 8: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-0.03|-2.14|0.0454
91069597|NCT03850483|182025147|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.0256|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.31|-0.2|||MMRM|||Week 8: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-0.20|-2.31|0.0256
91069598|NCT03850483|182025147|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.2326|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.36|0.53|||MMRM|||Week 10: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.53|-1.36|0.2326
91069599|NCT03850483|182025147|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.5141|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.95|0.99|||MMRM|||Week 10: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.99|-0.95|0.5141
91069600|NCT03850483|182025147|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.1124|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.64|0.25|||MMRM|||Week 10: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.25|-1.64|0.1124
91069601|NCT03850483|182025147|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.0983|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.7|0.21|||MMRM|||Week 10: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.21|-1.70|0.0983
91069602|NCT03850483|182025147|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.0412|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.46|-0.07|||MMRM|||Week 10: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-0.07|-2.46|0.0412
91069603|NCT03850483|182025147|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.034|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.47|-0.13|||MMRM|||Week 10: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-0.13|-2.47|0.0340
91069604|NCT03850483|182025147|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.0379|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.44|-0.09|||MMRM|||Week 10: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-0.09|-2.44|0.0379
91069605|NCT03850483|182025147|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.1291|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.91|0.36|||MMRM|||Week 12: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.36|-1.91|0.1291
91069606|NCT03850483|182025147|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.5776|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.03|1.3|||MMRM|||Week 12: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||1.30|-1.03|0.5776
91069607|NCT03850483|182025147|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.1044|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.0|0.27|||MMRM|||Week 12: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.27|-2.00|0.1044
91069608|NCT03850483|182025147|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.0608|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.23|0.07|||MMRM|||Week 12: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.07|-2.23|0.0608
91069609|NCT03850483|182025147|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.0309|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.84|-0.18|||MMRM|||Week 12: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-0.18|-2.84|0.0309
91069610|NCT03850483|182025147|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.0242|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.85|-0.26|||MMRM|||Week 12: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-0.26|-2.85|0.0242
91069611|NCT03850483|182025147|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.0394|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.69|-0.09|||MMRM|||Week 12: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-0.09|-2.69|0.0394
91069612|NCT03850483|182025149|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.09||0.6917|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.86|10.97|||MMRM|||Week 1: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||10.97|-5.86|0.6917
91069613|NCT03850483|182025149|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|7.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.07||0.9241|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.09|15.69|||MMRM|||Week 1: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||15.69|-1.09|0.9241
91069614|NCT03850483|182025149|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.03||0.8443|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.21|13.42|||MMRM|||Week 1: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||13.42|-3.21|0.8443
91069615|NCT03850483|182025149|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.04||0.6911|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.82|10.86|||MMRM|||Week 1: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||10.86|-5.82|0.6911
91069616|NCT03850483|182025149|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.79||0.3676|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.56|6.31|||MMRM|||Week 1: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||6.31|-9.56|0.3676
91069617|NCT03850483|182025149|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-6.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.72||0.0915|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.13|1.5|||MMRM|||Week 1: Week 1: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||1.50|-14.13|0.0915
91069618|NCT03850483|182025149|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-6.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.72||0.097|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.96|1.65|||MMRM|||Week 1: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||1.65|-13.96|0.0970
91069619|NCT03850483|182025149|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|9.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.91||0.9389|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.59|18.97|||MMRM|||Week 2: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||18.97|-0.59|0.9389
91069620|NCT03850483|182025149|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.07||0.9295|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.06|19.02|||MMRM|||Week 2: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors||19.02|-1.06|0.9295
91069621|NCT03850483|182025149|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.92||0.7308|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.15|13.45|||MMRM|||Week 2: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||13.45|-6.15|0.7308
91069622|NCT03850483|182025149|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.94||0.6199|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.01|11.64|||MMRM|||Week 2: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||11.64|-8.01|0.6199
91069623|NCT03850483|182025149|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.09||0.0699|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-19.13|1.04|||MMRM|||Week 2: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||1.04|-19.13|0.0699
91069624|NCT03850483|182025149|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-11.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.14||0.03|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.79|-1.48|||MMRM|||Week 2: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-1.48|-21.79|0.0300
91069625|NCT03850483|182025149|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-13.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.09||0.0168|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.15|-2.98|||MMRM|||Week 2: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-2.98|-23.15|0.0168
91069626|NCT03850483|182025149|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.61||0.7083|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.3|14.57|||MMRM|||Week 4: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||14.57|-7.30|0.7083
91069627|NCT03850483|182025149|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|8.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.77||0.8955|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.66|19.75|||MMRM|||Week 4: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||19.75|-2.66|0.8955
91069628|NCT03850483|182025149|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|6.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.56||0.8386|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.35|17.37|||MMRM|||Week 4: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||17.37|-4.35|0.8386
91069629|NCT03850483|182025149|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.58||0.4371|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.93|9.84|||MMRM|||Week 4: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||9.84|-11.93|0.4371
91069630|NCT03850483|182025149|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-20.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.91||0.0108|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-35.42|-5.92|||MMRM|||Week 4: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-5.92|-35.42|0.0108
91069631|NCT03850483|182025149|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-10.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.75||0.1066|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-25.43|3.55|||MMRM|||Week 4: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||3.55|-25.43|0.1066
91069632|NCT03850483|182025149|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-16.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.76||0.0344|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-30.54|-1.55|||MMRM|||Week 4: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-1.55|-30.54|0.0344
91069633|NCT03850483|182025149|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.29||0.6594|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.3|17.13|||MMRM|||Week 6: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||17.13|-10.30|0.6594
91069634|NCT03850483|182025149|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.52||0.7307|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.85|19.36|||MMRM|||Week 6: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||19.36|-8.85|0.7307
91069635|NCT03850483|182025149|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.28||0.5914|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.78|15.61|||MMRM|||Week 6: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||15.61|-11.78|0.5914
91069636|NCT03850483|182025149|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-12.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.34||0.0709|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-26.13|1.49|||MMRM|||Week 6: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||1.49|-26.13|0.0709
91069637|NCT03850483|182025149|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-18.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.53||0.0253|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-34.55|-3.01|||MMRM|||Week 6: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-3.01|-34.55|0.0253
91069638|NCT03850483|182025149|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-13.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.38||0.078|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-28.89|2.15|||MMRM|||Week 6: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||2.15|-28.89|0.0780
91069639|NCT03850483|182025149|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-9.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.36||0.1516|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-25.17|5.83|||MMRM|||Week 6: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||5.83|-25.17|0.1516
91069640|NCT03850483|182025149|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.14||0.4861|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.45|14.81|||MMRM|||Week 8: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||14.81|-15.45|0.4861
91069641|NCT03850483|182025149|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|11.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.38||0.8795|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.48|26.55|||MMRM|||Week 8: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||26.55|-4.48|0.8795
91069642|NCT03850483|182025149|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.11||0.2867|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.22|9.94|||MMRM|||Week 8: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||9.94|-20.22|0.2867
91069643|NCT03850483|182025149|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-10.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.23||0.1267|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-25.86|4.69|||MMRM|||Week 8: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||4.69|-25.86|0.1267
91069644|NCT03850483|182025149|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-17.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.49||0.0526|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-34.48|0.26|||MMRM|||Week 8: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.26|-34.48|0.0526
91069645|NCT03850483|182025149|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-14.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.25||0.0827|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-31.26|2.68|||MMRM|||Week 8: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||2.68|-31.26|0.0827
91069646|NCT03850483|182025149|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-16.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.26||0.0592|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-33.12|0.86|||MMRM|||Week 8: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.86|-33.12|0.0592
91069647|NCT03850483|182025149|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.03||0.4657|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.72|14.16|||MMRM|||Week 10: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||14.16|-15.72|0.4657
91069648|NCT03850483|182025149|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.3||0.6612|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.52|19.26|||MMRM|||Week 10: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||19.26|-11.52|0.6612
91069649|NCT03850483|182025149|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-8.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.03||0.1749|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.42|6.48|||MMRM|||Week 10: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||6.48|-23.42|0.1749
91069650|NCT03850483|182025149|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-9.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.12||0.1548|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-24.39|5.8|||MMRM|||Week 10: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||5.80|-24.39|0.1548
91069651|NCT03850483|182025149|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-21.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.89||0.04|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-40.67|-1.28|||MMRM|||Week 10: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-1.28|-40.67|0.0400
91069652|NCT03850483|182025149|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-22.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.6||0.0267|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-41.82|-3.39|||MMRM|||Week 10: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-3.39|-41.82|0.0267
91069653|NCT03850483|182025149|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-22.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.63||0.0295|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-41.42|-2.89|||MMRM|||Week 10: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-2.89|-41.42|0.0295
91069654|NCT03850483|182025149|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-9.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.38||0.1903|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-26.3|8.05|||MMRM|||Week 12: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||8.05|-26.30|0.1903
91069655|NCT03850483|182025149|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.65||0.553|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.21|19.06|||MMRM|||Week 12: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||19.06|-16.21|0.5530
90827596|NCT05104450|181529945|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.72|-1.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|treatment-by-time interaction|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed effects model including baseline and follow up outcome measures, time, treatment by time interaction, baseline covariates: age, gender, race, charlson comorbidity index, rurality, and randomization stratification variables: BMI (30-34.9 vs. 35-44.9kg/m2), OSA severity (mild vs. moderate to severe), and sleep related impairment T-score (\<60 vs. ≥ 60). The parameter of interest is treatment by time interaction coefficient, measuring the between group difference for change in outcome.||-1.29|-3.72|<0.001
91069656|NCT03850483|182025149|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-13.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.37||0.0933|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-30.92|3.4|||MMRM|||Week 12: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||3.40|-30.92|0.0933
91069657|NCT03850483|182025149|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-19.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.49||0.036|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-36.37|-1.65|||MMRM|||Week 12: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-1.65|-36.37|0.0360
91069658|NCT03850483|182025149|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-24.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.46||0.0354|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-46.85|-2.23|||MMRM|||Week 12: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-2.23|-46.85|0.0354
91069659|NCT03850483|182025149|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-26.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.07||0.0239|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-47.77|-4.46|||MMRM|||Week 12: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-4.46|-47.77|0.0239
91069660|NCT03850483|182025149|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-24.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.11||0.0342|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-45.84|-2.38|||MMRM|||Week 12: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-2.38|-45.84|0.0342
91069661|NCT03850483|182025151|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.3279|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.91|0.52|||MMRM|||Baseline: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.52|-0.91|0.3279
91069662|NCT03850483|182025151|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.3566|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.88|0.56|||MMRM|||Baseline: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.56|-0.88|0.3566
91069663|NCT03850483|182025151|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.1165|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.29|0.21|||MMRM|||Baseline: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.21|-1.29|0.1165
91069664|NCT03850483|182025151|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.3633|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.85|0.55|||MMRM|||Baseline: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.55|-0.85|0.3633
91069665|NCT03850483|182025151|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.3766|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.83|0.56|||MMRM|||Baseline: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.56|-0.83|0.3766
91069666|NCT03850483|182025151|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.1179|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.22|0.2|||MMRM|||Baseline: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.20|-1.22|0.1179
91069667|NCT03850483|182025151|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.8647|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.24|1.2|||MMRM|||Baseline: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||1.20|-0.24|0.8647
91069668|NCT03850483|182025151|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.3294|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.9|0.52|||MMRM|||Week 1: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.52|-0.90|0.3294
91069669|NCT03850483|182025151|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.1231|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.23|0.21|||MMRM|||Week 1: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.21|-1.23|0.1231
91069670|NCT03850483|182025151|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.0878|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.37|0.13|||MMRM|||Week 1: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.13|-1.37|0.0878
91069671|NCT03850483|182025151|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.1225|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.2|0.21|||MMRM|||Week 1: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.21|-1.20|0.1225
91069672|NCT03850483|182025151|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.3663|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.85|0.56|||MMRM|||Week 1: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.56|-0.85|0.3663
91069673|NCT03850483|182025151|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.0929|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.27|0.14|||MMRM|||Week 1: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.14|-1.27|0.0929
91069674|NCT03850483|182025151|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.3111|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.95|0.51|||MMRM|||Week 1: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.51|-0.95|0.3111
91069675|NCT03850483|182025151|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.4745|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.74|0.69|||MMRM|||Week 2: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.69|-0.74|0.4745
91069676|NCT03850483|182025151|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.2409|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.03|0.42|||MMRM|||Week 2: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.42|-1.03|0.2409
91069677|NCT03850483|182025151|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.2018|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.13|0.37|||MMRM|||Week 2: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.37|-1.13|0.2018
91069678|NCT03850483|182025151|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.3925|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.83|0.59|||MMRM|||Week 2: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.59|-0.83|0.3925
91069679|NCT03850483|182025151|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.5348|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.66|0.73|||MMRM|||Week 2: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.73|-0.66|0.5348
91069680|NCT03850483|182025151|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.0739|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.33|0.09|||MMRM|||Week 2: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.09|-1.33|0.0739
91069681|NCT03850483|182025151|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.4014|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.84|0.62|||MMRM|||Week 2: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.62|-0.84|0.4014
91069682|NCT03850483|182025151|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.6588|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.56|0.93|||MMRM|||Week 4: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.93|-0.56|0.6588
91069683|NCT03850483|182025151|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.2997|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|0.52|||MMRM|||Week 4: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.52|-1.00|0.2997
91069684|NCT03850483|182025151|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.2518|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.08|0.46|||MMRM|||Week 4:MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.46|-1.08|0.2518
91069685|NCT03850483|182025151|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.2634|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|0.45|||MMRM|||Week 4: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.45|-1.00|0.2634
91069686|NCT03850483|182025151|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.1999|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.11|0.36|||MMRM|||Week 4: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.36|-1.11|0.1999
91069687|NCT03850483|182025151|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.1847|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.13|0.33|||MMRM|||Week 4: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.33|-1.13|0.1847
91069688|NCT03850483|182025151|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.4569|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.81|0.71|||MMRM|||Week 4: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.71|-0.81|0.4569
91069689|NCT03850483|182025151|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.8536|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.27|1.22|||MMRM|||Week 6: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||1.22|-0.27|0.8536
91069690|NCT03850483|182025151|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.4812|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.79|0.74|||MMRM|||Week 6:MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.74|-0.79|0.4812
91069691|NCT03850483|182025151|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.2276|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.13|0.42|||MMRM|||Week 6: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.42|-1.13|0.2276
91069692|NCT03850483|182025151|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.0895|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.34|0.14|||MMRM|||Week 6: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.14|-1.34|0.0895
91069693|NCT03850483|182025151|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.0411|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.58|-0.04|||MMRM|||Week 6: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-0.04|-1.58|0.0411
91069694|NCT03850483|182025151|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.0928|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.4|0.15|||MMRM|||Week 6: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.15|-1.40|0.0928
91069695|NCT03850483|182025151|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.0799|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.48|0.12|||MMRM|||Week 6: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.12|-1.48|0.0799
91069696|NCT03850483|182025151|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.7872|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.39|1.11|||MMRM|||Week 8: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||1.11|-0.39|0.7872
91069697|NCT03850483|182025151|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.6294|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.61|0.92|||MMRM|||Week 8: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.92|-0.61|0.6294
91069698|NCT03850483|182025151|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.5174|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.76|0.8|||MMRM|||Week 8: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.80|-0.76|0.5174
91069699|NCT03850483|182025151|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.3136|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.98|0.53|||MMRM|||Week 8: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.53|-0.98|0.3136
91069700|NCT03850483|182025151|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.102|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.42|0.18|||MMRM|||Week 8: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.18|-1.42|0.1020
91069701|NCT03850483|182025151|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.1923|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.2|0.37|||MMRM|||Week 8: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.37|-1.20|0.1923
91069702|NCT03850483|182025151|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.0997|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.44|0.18|||MMRM|||Week 8: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.18|-1.44|0.0997
91069703|NCT03850483|182025151|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.2497|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.08|0.45|||MMRM|||Week 10: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.45|-1.08|0.2497
91069704|NCT03850483|182025151|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.2568|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.08|0.47|||MMRM|||Week 10: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.47|-1.08|0.2568
91069705|NCT03850483|182025151|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.373|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.95|0.64|||MMRM|||Week 10: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.64|-0.95|0.3730
91069706|NCT03850483|182025151|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.0137|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.76|-0.26|||MMRM|||Week 10: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-0.26|-1.76|0.0137
91069707|NCT03850483|182025151|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.06|-0.44|||MMRM|||Week 10: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-0.44|-2.06|0.0055
91069708|NCT03850483|182025151|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.0069|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.99|-0.4|||MMRM|||Week 10: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-0.40|-1.99|0.0069
91069709|NCT03850483|182025151|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.1648|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.34|0.34|||MMRM|||Week 10: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.34|-1.34|0.1648
91069710|NCT03850483|182025151|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.2931|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.02|0.51|||MMRM|||Week 12: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.51|-1.02|0.2931
91069711|NCT03850483|182025151|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.3047|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.01|0.53|||MMRM|||Week 12: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.53|-1.01|0.3047
91069712|NCT03850483|182025151|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.1924|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.22|0.38|||MMRM|||Week 12: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.38|-1.22|0.1924
91069713|NCT03850483|182025151|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.0465|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.52|-0.02|||MMRM|||Week 12: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-0.02|-1.52|0.0465
91069714|NCT03850483|182025151|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.08|-0.47|||MMRM|||Week 12: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-0.47|-2.08|0.0048
91069715|NCT03850483|182025151|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.0186|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.78|-0.21|||MMRM|||Week 12: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-0.21|-1.78|0.0186
91069716|NCT03850483|182025151|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.0675|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.61|0.08|||MMRM|||Week 12: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.08|-1.61|0.0675
91069717|NCT03850483|182025153|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.3232|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.69|0.39|||MMRM|||Week 1: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.39|-0.69|0.3232
91069718|NCT03850483|182025153|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.0736|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.03|0.07|||MMRM|||Week 1: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.07|-1.03|0.0736
91069719|NCT03850483|182025153|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.0743|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.07|0.07|||MMRM|||Week 1: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.07|-1.07|0.0743
91069720|NCT03850483|182025153|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.0641|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.03|0.04|||MMRM|||Week 1: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.04|-1.03|0.0641
90827597|NCT05104450|181529946|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.02||||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|treatment-by-time interaction|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed effects model including baseline and follow up outcome measures, time, treatment by time interaction, baseline covariates: age, gender, race, charlson comorbidity index, rurality, and randomization stratification variables: BMI (30-34.9 vs. 35-44.9kg/m2), OSA severity (mild vs. moderate to severe), and sleep related impairment T-score (\<60 vs. ≥ 60). The parameter of interest is treatment by time interaction coefficient, measuring the between group difference for change in outcome.||0.25|-2.30|0.116
91069721|NCT03850483|182025153|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.3887|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.71|0.5|||MMRM|||Week 1: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.50|-0.71|0.3887
91069722|NCT03850483|182025153|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.0767|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.15|0.08|||MMRM|||Week 1: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.08|-1.15|0.0767
91069723|NCT03850483|182025153|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.2529|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.89|0.38|||MMRM|||Week 1: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.38|-0.89|0.2529
91069724|NCT03850483|182025153|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.5304|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.61|0.67|||MMRM|||Week 2: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.67|-0.61|0.5304
91069725|NCT03850483|182025153|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.292|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.87|0.43|||MMRM|||Week 2: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.43|-0.87|0.2920
91069726|NCT03850483|182025153|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.2593|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|0.57|||MMRM|||Week 2: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.57|-0.70|0.2593
91069727|NCT03850483|182025153|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.431|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|0.57|||MMRM|||Week 2: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.57|-0.70|0.4310
90827598|NCT05104450|181529947|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|2.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|treatment-by-time interaction|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed effects model including baseline and follow up outcome measures, time, treatment by time interaction, baseline covariates: age, gender, race, charlson comorbidity index, rurality, and randomization stratification variables: BMI (30-34.9 vs. 35-44.9kg/m2), OSA severity (mild vs. moderate to severe), and sleep related impairment T-score (\<60 vs. ≥ 60). The parameter of interest is treatment by time interaction coefficient, measuring the between group difference for change in outcome.||2.45|-2.35|0.968
91069728|NCT03850483|182025153|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.5477|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.59|0.69|||MMRM|||Week 2: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.69|-0.59|0.5477
91069729|NCT03850483|182025153|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.0696|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.24|0.07|||MMRM|||Week 2: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.07|-1.24|0.0696
91069730|NCT03850483|182025153|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.3583|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.82|0.53|||MMRM|||Week 2: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.53|-0.82|0.3583
91069731|NCT03850483|182025153|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.6826|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.56|1.01|||MMRM|||Week 4: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||1.01|-0.56|0.6826
91069732|NCT03850483|182025153|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.457|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.84|0.74|||MMRM|||Week 4: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.74|-0.84|0.4570
91069733|NCT03850483|182025153|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.3265|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.03|0.59|||MMRM|||Week 4: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.59|-1.03|0.3265
91069734|NCT03850483|182025153|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.3039|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|0.53|||MMRM|||Week 4: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.53|-1.00|0.3039
91069735|NCT03850483|182025153|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.2086|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.23|0.42|||MMRM|||Week 4: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.42|-1.23|0.2086
91069736|NCT03850483|182025153|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.2172|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.22|0.44|||MMRM|||Week 4: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.44|-1.22|0.2172
91069737|NCT03850483|182025153|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.2855|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.16|0.57|||MMRM|||Week 4: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.57|-1.16|0.2855
91069738|NCT03850483|182025153|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.8372|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.34|1.36|||MMRM|||Week 6: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||1.36|-0.34|0.8372
91069739|NCT03850483|182025153|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.4792|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.89|0.84|||MMRM|||Week 6: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.84|-0.89|0.4792
91069740|NCT03850483|182025153|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.3331|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.12|0.65|||MMRM|||Week 6: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.65|-1.12|0.3331
91069741|NCT03850483|182025153|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.108|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.47|0.21|||MMRM|||Week 6: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.21|-1.47|0.1080
91069742|NCT03850483|182025153|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.0455|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.61|-0.02|||MMRM|||Week 6: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-0.02|-1.61|0.0455
91069743|NCT03850483|182025153|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.0761|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.49|0.1|||MMRM|||Week 6: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.10|-1.49|0.0761
91069744|NCT03850483|182025153|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.0273|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.8|-0.14|||MMRM|||Week 6: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-0.14|-1.80|0.0273
91069745|NCT03850483|182025153|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.7214|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.57|1.2|||MMRM|||Week 8: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||1.20|-0.57|0.7214
91069746|NCT03850483|182025153|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.6132|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.75|1.06|||MMRM|||Week 8: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||1.06|-0.75|0.6132
90827599|NCT05104450|181529948|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.84||||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|2.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|treatment-by-time interaction|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed effects model including baseline and follow up outcome measures, time, treatment by time interaction, baseline covariates: age, gender, race, charlson comorbidity index, rurality, and randomization stratification variables: BMI (30-34.9 vs. 35-44.9kg/m2), OSA severity (mild vs. moderate to severe), and sleep related impairment T-score (\<60 vs. ≥ 60). The parameter of interest is treatment by time interaction coefficient, measuring the between group difference for change in outcome.||2.17|-0.49|0.218
91069747|NCT03850483|182025153|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.5704|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.83|1.02|||MMRM|||Week 8: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||1.02|-0.83|0.5704
91069748|NCT03850483|182025153|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.3449|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.1|0.67|||MMRM|||Week 8: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.67|-1.10|0.3449
91069749|NCT03850483|182025153|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.0493|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.94|0.0|||MMRM|||Week 8: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.00|-1.94|0.0493
91069750|NCT03850483|182025153|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.149|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.55|0.35|||MMRM|||Week 8: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.35|-1.55|0.1490
91069751|NCT03850483|182025153|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.054|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.96|0.02|||MMRM|||Week 8: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.02|-1.96|0.0540
91069752|NCT03850483|182025153|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.3119|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.32|0.71|||MMRM|||Week 10: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.71|-1.32|0.3119
91069753|NCT03850483|182025153|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.3947|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.2|0.86|||MMRM|||Week 10: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.86|-1.20|0.3947
91069754|NCT03850483|182025153|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.4205|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.18|0.93|||MMRM|||Week 10: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.93|-1.18|0.4205
91069755|NCT03850483|182025153|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.0472|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.02|-0.02|||MMRM|||Week 10: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-0.02|-2.02|0.0472
91069756|NCT03850483|182025153|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.55|-0.6|||MMRM|||Week 10: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-0.60|-2.55|0.0044
91069757|NCT03850483|182025153|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.0098|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.32|-0.41|||MMRM|||Week 10: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-0.41|-2.32|0.0098
91069758|NCT03850483|182025153|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.1285|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.71|0.32|||MMRM|||Week 10: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.32|-1.71|0.1285
91069759|NCT03850483|182025153|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.3243|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.27|0.72|||MMRM|||Week 12: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.72|-1.27|0.3243
91069760|NCT03850483|182025153|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.3795|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.2|0.82|||MMRM|||Week 12: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.82|-1.20|0.3795
91069761|NCT03850483|182025153|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.307|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.35|0.72|||MMRM|||Week 12: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.72|-1.35|0.3070
91069762|NCT03850483|182025153|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.1014|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.74|0.22|||MMRM|||Week 12: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.22|-1.74|0.1014
91069763|NCT03850483|182025153|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.75|-0.69|||MMRM|||Week 12: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-0.69|-2.75|0.0033
91069764|NCT03850483|182025153|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.028|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.18|-0.17|||MMRM|||Week 12: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-0.17|-2.18|0.0280
91069765|NCT03850483|182025153|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.0781|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.98|0.15|||MMRM|||Week 12: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.15|-1.98|0.0781
91069766|NCT03850483|182025157|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1||||0.4216|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.4|9.1|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 1||9.1|-9.4|0.4216
91069767|NCT03850483|182025157|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1||||0.4216|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.4|9.1|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 1||9.1|-9.4|0.4216
91069768|NCT03850483|182025157|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.8||||0.7362|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.5|5.0|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 1||5.0|-12.5|0.7362
91069769|NCT03850483|182025157|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.8||||0.7417|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.5|4.7|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 1||4.7|-12.5|0.7417
91069770|NCT03850483|182025157|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.9|8.0|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 1||8.0|-5.9|0.5000
91069771|NCT03850483|182025157|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.7||||0.0714|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8|16.9|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 1||16.9|-0.8|0.0714
91069772|NCT03850483|182025157|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.3||||0.0813|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.1|15.7|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 1||15.7|-1.1|0.0813
91069773|NCT03850483|182025157|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.8||||0.7417|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.5|4.7|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 2||4.7|-12.5|0.7417
91069774|NCT03850483|182025157|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.8||||0.7417|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.5|4.7|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 2||4.7|-12.5|0.7417
91069775|NCT03850483|182025157|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.6|9.6|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 2||9.6|-9.6|0.5000
91069776|NCT03850483|182025157|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1||||0.4216|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.4|9.1|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 2||9.1|-9.4|0.4216
91069777|NCT03850483|182025157|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.0||||0.6894|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.4|5.9|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 2||5.9|-9.4|0.6894
91069778|NCT03850483|182025157|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.7||||0.2518|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.2|14.3|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 2||14.3|-4.2|0.2518
91069779|NCT03850483|182025157|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.5||||0.0565|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|20.3|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 2||20.3|-0.3|0.0565
91069780|NCT03850483|182025157|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.2||||0.4446|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.0|11.0|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 4||11.0|-11.0|0.4446
91069781|NCT03850483|182025157|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.6||||0.9001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.5|1.9|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 4||1.9|-16.5|0.9001
91069782|NCT03850483|182025157|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.0|11.0|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 4||11.0|-11.0|0.5000
91069783|NCT03850483|182025157|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.2||||0.4446|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.0|11.0|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 4||11.0|-11.0|0.4446
91069784|NCT03850483|182025157|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.2||||0.5054|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.5|12.5|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 4||12.5|-10.5|0.5054
91069785|NCT03850483|182025157|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.3||||0.3401|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.2|16.9|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 4||16.9|-8.2|0.3401
91069786|NCT03850483|182025157|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.9||||0.0489|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.1|27.5|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 4||27.5|0.1|0.0489
91069787|NCT03850483|182025157|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.9||||0.6349|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.8|8.4|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 6||8.4|-14.8|0.6349
91069788|NCT03850483|182025157|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.6||||0.8253|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.2|4.4|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 6||4.4|-17.2|0.8253
91069789|NCT03850483|182025157|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.5|12.5|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 6||12.5|-12.5|0.5000
91069790|NCT03850483|182025157|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.2||||0.2709|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.3|19.1|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 6||19.1|-8.3|0.2709
91069791|NCT03850483|182025157|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.2||||0.5054|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.5|12.5|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 6||12.5|-10.5|0.5054
91069792|NCT03850483|182025157|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.4||||0.6319|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.9|9.3|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 6||9.3|-12.9|0.6319
91069793|NCT03850483|182025157|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.0||||0.3199|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.4|18.1|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 6||18.1|-6.4|0.3199
91069794|NCT03850483|182025157|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.7||||0.7306|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-19.1|6.1|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 8||6.1|-19.1|0.7306
91069795|NCT03850483|182025157|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.7||||0.7306|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-19.1|6.1|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 8||6.1|-19.1|0.7306
91069796|NCT03850483|182025157|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.3||||0.8808|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.6|2.7|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 8||2.7|-20.6|0.8808
91069797|NCT03850483|182025157|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.3||||0.4644|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.7|13.7|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 8||13.7|-13.7|0.4644
91069798|NCT03850483|182025157|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.8||||0.1534|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.4|20.9|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 8||20.9|-3.4|0.1534
91069799|NCT03850483|182025157|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.4||||0.4867|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.0|11.4|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 8||11.4|-10.0|0.4867
91069800|NCT03850483|182025157|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.3||||0.0435|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|25.9|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 8||25.9|0.4|0.0435
91069801|NCT03850483|182025157|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.9||||0.6349|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.8|8.4|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 10||8.4|-14.8|0.6349
91069802|NCT03850483|182025157|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.2||||0.4565|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.6|12.5|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 10||12.5|-12.6|0.4565
91069803|NCT03850483|182025157|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.5|12.5|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 10||12.5|-12.5|0.5000
91069804|NCT03850483|182025157|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.9||||0.1765|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.7|21.8|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 10||21.8|-5.7|0.1765
91069805|NCT03850483|182025157|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.3||||0.5013|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.0|15.2|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 10||15.2|-14.0|0.5013
91069806|NCT03850483|182025157|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.8||||0.7969|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.7|5.9|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 10||5.9|-20.7|0.7969
91069807|NCT03850483|182025157|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.2||||0.6424|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.4|10.6|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 10||10.6|-16.4|0.6424
91069808|NCT03850483|182025157|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.7||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|23.6|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 14||23.6|-0.7|0.0620
91069809|NCT03850483|182025157|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.8||||0.3402|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.0|13.4|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 14||13.4|-7.0|0.3402
91069810|NCT03850483|182025157|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.8||||0.1743|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.5|17.6|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 14||17.6|-4.5|0.1743
91069811|NCT03850483|182025157|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.7||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|23.6|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 14||23.6|-0.7|0.0620
91069812|NCT03850483|182025157|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.6||||0.3534|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.8|15.4|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 14||15.4|-7.8|0.3534
91069813|NCT03850483|182025157|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.5||||0.2508|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.5|18.8|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 14||18.8|-5.5|0.2508
91069814|NCT03850483|182025157|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.9||||0.4238|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.2|13.6|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 14||13.6|-8.2|0.4238
91069815|NCT03850483|182025157|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.9||||0.2696|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.2|19.3|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 16||19.3|-6.2|0.2696
91069816|NCT03850483|182025157|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.0||||0.3648|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.6|15.3|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 16||15.3|-8.6|0.3648
91069817|NCT03850483|182025157|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.7||||0.1267|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.8|22.2|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 16||22.2|-3.8|0.1267
91069818|NCT03850483|182025157|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.7||||0.0832|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.5|24.4|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 16||24.4|-2.5|0.0832
91069819|NCT03850483|182025157|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.5||||0.2099|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.7|21.3|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 16||21.3|-5.7|0.2099
91069820|NCT03850483|182025157|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.6||||0.3474|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.0|17.4|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 16||17.4|-8.0|0.3474
91069821|NCT03850483|182025157|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.1||||0.2124|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.0|21.6|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 16||21.6|-4.0|0.2124
91069822|NCT03850483|182025158|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.7||||0.0544|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|27.9|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 1||27.9|-0.3|0.0544
91069823|NCT03850483|182025158|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.1||||0.2697|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.3|19.6|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 1||19.6|-6.3|0.2697
91069824|NCT03850483|182025158|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.5||||0.0286|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.0|31.0|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 1||31.0|2.0|0.0286
91069825|NCT03850483|182025158|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.8||||0.1512|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.7|20.8|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 1||20.8|-4.7|0.1512
91069826|NCT03850483|182025158|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.7||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.9|7.4|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 1||7.4|-21.9|0.7900
91069827|NCT03850483|182025158|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.3||||0.3137|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.5|24.0|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 1||24.0|-8.5|0.3137
91069828|NCT03850483|182025158|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.0||||0.3789|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.9|22.6|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 1||22.6|-10.9|0.3789
91069829|NCT03850483|182025158|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.7||||0.0636|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|28.5|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 2||28.5|-1.0|0.0636
91069830|NCT03850483|182025158|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.6||||0.1435|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.9|24.5|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 2||24.5|-4.9|0.1435
91069831|NCT03850483|182025158|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|25.7||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.9|42.4|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 2||42.4|8.9|0.0058
91069832|NCT03850483|182025158|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|22.9||||0.0112|TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.5|38.9|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 2||38.9|6.5|0.0112
91069833|NCT03850483|182025158|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.9||||0.3349|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.8|21.3|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 2||21.3|-10.8|0.3349
91069834|NCT03850483|182025158|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.6||||0.2065|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.1|27.7|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 2||27.7|-6.1|0.2065
91069835|NCT03850483|182025158|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.4||||0.1871|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.6|29.1|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 2||29.1|-5.6|0.1871
91069836|NCT03850483|182025158|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.4||||0.1245|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.9|31.4|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 4||31.4|-4.9|0.1245
91069837|NCT03850483|182025158|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.0||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.7|33.7|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 4||33.7|-4.7|0.1280
91069838|NCT03850483|182025158|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|32.9||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|12.4|50.5|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 4||50.5|12.4|0.0030
91069839|NCT03850483|182025158|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|22.6||||0.0235|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.1|40.6|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 4||40.6|3.1|0.0235
91069840|NCT03850483|182025158|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.9||||0.3728|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.6|24.1|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 4||24.1|-13.6|0.3728
91069841|NCT03850483|182025158|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|25.5||||0.0153|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.0|43.6|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 4||43.6|4.0|0.0153
91069842|NCT03850483|182025158|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.4||||0.2543|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.8|27.8|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 4||27.8|-8.8|0.2543
91069843|NCT03850483|182025158|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.9||||0.2785|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.2|26.4|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 6||26.4|-10.2|0.2785
91069844|NCT03850483|182025158|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.3||||0.1434|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.4|33.7|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 6||33.7|-7.4|0.1434
91069845|NCT03850483|182025158|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|36.1||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|90.0|12.8|54.1|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 6||54.1|12.8|0.0015
91069846|NCT03850483|182025158|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|24.1||||0.0242|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.4|43.9|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 6||43.9|3.4|0.0242
91069847|NCT03850483|182025158|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|35.1||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|90.0|10.0|54.1|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 6||54.1|10.0|0.0037
91069848|NCT03850483|182025158|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.6||||0.1037|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.9|36.7|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 6||36.7|-4.9|0.1037
91069849|NCT03850483|182025158|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.8||||0.4607|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.7|22.5|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 6||22.5|-17.7|0.4607
91069850|NCT03850483|182025158|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.2||||0.1725|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.0|31.9|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 8||31.9|-8.0|0.1725
91069851|NCT03850483|182025158|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|22.8||||0.0451|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.2|43.6|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 8||43.6|0.2|0.0451
91069852|NCT03850483|182025158|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|44.4||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|21.3|62.9|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 8||62.9|21.3|0.0003
91069853|NCT03850483|182025158|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|26.7||||0.0239|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.8|47.6|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 8||47.6|3.8|0.0239
91069854|NCT03850483|182025158|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.8||||0.0643|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.1|41.2|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 8||41.2|-2.1|0.0643
91069855|NCT03850483|182025158|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.0||||0.6676|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-25.9|15.9|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 8||15.9|-25.9|0.6676
91069856|NCT03850483|182025158|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.6||||0.0898|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.2|37.8|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 8||37.8|-4.2|0.0898
91069857|NCT03850483|182025158|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.8||||0.2707|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.1|32.9|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 10||32.9|-10.1|0.2707
91069858|NCT03850483|182025158|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.0||||0.2981|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.2|31.0|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 10||31.0|-14.2|0.2981
91069859|NCT03850483|182025158|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|31.0||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.0|51.4|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 10||51.4|8.0|0.0110
91069860|NCT03850483|182025158|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|33.3||||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.1|53.2|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 10||53.2|9.1|0.0083
91069861|NCT03850483|182025158|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.8||||0.4217|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.3|27.5|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 10||27.5|-18.3|0.4217
91069862|NCT03850483|182025158|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.3||||0.5152|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.8|23.2|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 10||23.2|-20.8|0.5152
91069863|NCT03850483|182025158|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-11.8||||0.7002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-33.1|11.7|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 10||11.7|-33.1|0.7002
91069864|NCT03850483|182025158|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|27.6||||0.0169|TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.2|47.9|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 12||47.9|5.2|0.0169
91069865|NCT03850483|182025158|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|25.9||||0.0283|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.2|46.2|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 12||46.2|3.2|0.0283
91069866|NCT03850483|182025158|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|37.9||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|14.3|57.1|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 12||57.1|14.3|0.0020
91069867|NCT03850483|182025158|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|31.4||||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.4|51.5|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 12||51.5|8.4|0.0095
91069868|NCT03850483|182025158|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.0||||0.0798|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.7|42.6|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 12||42.6|-2.7|0.0798
91069869|NCT03850483|182025158|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.9||||0.2848|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.3|31.8|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 12||31.8|-11.3|0.2848
91069870|NCT03850483|182025158|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.5||||0.5062|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.1|23.1|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 12||23.1|-21.1|0.5062
91069871|NCT03850483|182025158|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|36.9||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|90.0|16.7|55.3|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 14||55.3|16.7|0.0012
91069872|NCT03850483|182025158|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|38.7||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|17.3|57.4|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 14||57.4|17.3|0.0007
91069873|NCT03850483|182025158|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|47.0||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|24.6|65.1|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 14||65.1|24.6|0.0001
91069874|NCT03850483|182025158|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|29.9||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.5|48.7|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 14||48.7|9.5|0.0039
91069875|NCT03850483|182025158|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.5||||0.3895|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.5|26.5|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 14||26.5|-17.5|0.3895
91069876|NCT03850483|182025158|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.1||||0.2793|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.8|31.8|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 14||31.8|-11.8|0.2793
91069877|NCT03850483|182025158|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.5||||0.7027|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-28.4|12.2|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 14||12.2|-28.4|0.7027
91069878|NCT03850483|182025158|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|37.0||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|90.0|15.4|55.2|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 16||55.2|15.4|0.0009
91069879|NCT03850483|182025158|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|23.0||||0.0205|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.1|43.2|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 16||43.2|4.1|0.0205
90827600|NCT05104450|181529949|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.02||||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|2.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|treatment-by-time interaction|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed effects model including baseline and follow up outcome measures, time, treatment by time interaction, baseline covariates: age, gender, race, charlson comorbidity index, rurality, and randomization stratification variables: BMI (30-34.9 vs. 35-44.9kg/m2), OSA severity (mild vs. moderate to severe), and sleep related impairment T-score (\<60 vs. ≥ 60). The parameter of interest is treatment by time interaction coefficient, measuring the between group difference for change in outcome.||2.62|-0.58|0.212
91069880|NCT03850483|182025158|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|46.8||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|24.6|65.7|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 16||65.7|24.6|0.0001
91069881|NCT03850483|182025158|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|44.6||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|21.5|62.9|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 16||62.9|21.5|0.0002
91069882|NCT03850483|182025158|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-18.5||||0.9209|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-38.3|3.2|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 16||3.2|-38.3|0.9209
91069883|NCT03850483|182025158|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-13.9||||0.793|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-34.4|8.7|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 16||8.7|-34.4|0.7930
91069884|NCT03850483|182025158|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.1||||0.6156|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-28.0|20.1|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 16||20.1|-28.0|0.6156
91069885|NCT01270464|182025187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0507||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.259||The overall treatment effect for each reslizumab dose was compared to placebo using a 2-sided t-test at the a priori significance level of 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The primary variable was analyzed using a mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects (treatment, stratification factors, sex, visit, interaction of treatment and visit), covariates (height, baseline value), and patient as the random effect for the repeated measurements.||0.259|0.060|0.0018
91069886|NCT01270464|182025187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.115|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0508||0.0237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.016|0.215||The overall treatment effect for each reslizumab dose was compared to placebo using a 2-sided t-test at the a priori significance level of 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The primary variable was analyzed using a mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects (treatment, stratification factors, sex, visit, interaction of treatment and visit), covariates (height, baseline value), and patient as the random effect for the repeated measurements.||0.215|0.016|0.0237
91069887|NCT01270464|182025188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0543||0.0174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.023|0.237||The overall treatment effect for each reslizumab dose was compared to placebo using a 2-sided t-test at the a priori significance level of 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||As with the primary outcome, this respiratory test outcome was analyzed using a mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects (treatment, stratification factors, sex, visit, interaction of treatment and visit), covariates (height, baseline value), and patient as the random effect for the repeated measurements.||0.237|0.023|0.0174
91069888|NCT01270464|182025188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0543||0.3731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.058|0.155||The overall treatment effect for each reslizumab dose was compared to placebo using a 2-sided t-test at the a priori significance level of 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||As with the primary outcome, this respiratory test outcome was analyzed using a mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects (treatment, stratification factors, sex, visit, interaction of treatment and visit), covariates (height, baseline value), and patient as the random effect for the repeated measurements.||0.155|-0.058|0.3731
91069889|NCT01270464|182025189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.233|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1212||0.0552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|0.472||The overall treatment effect for each reslizumab dose was compared to placebo using a 2-sided t-test at the a priori significance level of 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||As with the primary outcome, this respiratory test outcome was analyzed using a mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects (treatment, stratification factors, sex, visit, interaction of treatment and visit), covariates (height, baseline value), and patient as the random effect for the repeated measurements.||0.472|-0.005|0.0552
91069890|NCT01270464|182025189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1215||0.802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.209|0.27||The overall treatment effect for each reslizumab dose was compared to placebo using a 2-sided t-test at the a priori significance level of 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||As with the primary outcome, this respiratory test outcome was analyzed using a mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects (treatment, stratification factors, sex, visit, interaction of treatment and visit), covariates (height, baseline value), and patient as the random effect for the repeated measurements.||0.270|-0.209|0.8020
91069891|NCT01270464|182025191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.359|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.111||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.577|-0.14||The overall treatment effect for each reslizumab dose was compared to placebo using a 2-sided t-test at the a priori significance level of 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||As with the primary outcome, this respiratory test outcome was analyzed using a mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects (treatment, stratification factors, sex, visit, interaction of treatment and visit), covariates (height, baseline value), and patient as the random effect for the repeated measurements.||-0.140|-0.577|0.0014
91069892|NCT01270464|182025191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.238|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1108||0.0329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.456|-0.019||The overall treatment effect for each reslizumab dose was compared to placebo using a 2-sided t-test at the a priori significance level of 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||As with the primary outcome, this respiratory test outcome was analyzed using a mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects (treatment, stratification factors, sex, visit, interaction of treatment and visit), covariates (height, baseline value), and patient as the random effect for the repeated measurements.||-0.019|-0.456|0.0329
91069893|NCT01270464|182025192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.359|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1582||0.0241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.047|0.67||The overall treatment effect for each reslizumab dose was compared to placebo using a 2-sided t-test at the a priori significance level of 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||As with the primary outcome, this respiratory test outcome was analyzed using a mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects (treatment, stratification factors, sex, visit, interaction of treatment and visit), covariates (height, baseline value), and patient as the random effect for the repeated measurements.||0.670|0.047|0.0241
91069894|NCT01270464|182025192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.278|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1591||0.0822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.036|0.591||The overall treatment effect for each reslizumab dose was compared to placebo using a 2-sided t-test at the a priori significance level of 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||As with the primary outcome, this respiratory test outcome was analyzed using a mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects (treatment, stratification factors, sex, visit, interaction of treatment and visit), covariates (height, baseline value), and patient as the random effect for the repeated measurements.||0.591|-0.036|0.0822
91069895|NCT01270464|182025193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.047|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0193||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.009|0.085||The overall treatment effect for each reslizumab dose was compared to placebo using a 2-sided t-test at the a priori significance level of 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||As with the primary outcome, this respiratory test outcome was analyzed using a mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects (treatment, stratification factors, sex, visit, interaction of treatment and visit), covariates (height, baseline value), and patient as the random effect for the repeated measurements.||0.085|0.009|0.0160
91069896|NCT01270464|182025193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.051|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0193||0.0094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.012|0.089||The overall treatment effect for each reslizumab dose was compared to placebo using a 2-sided t-test at the a priori significance level of 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||As with the primary outcome, this respiratory test outcome was analyzed using a mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects (treatment, stratification factors, sex, visit, interaction of treatment and visit), covariates (height, baseline value), and patient as the random effect for the repeated measurements.||0.089|0.012|0.0094
91069897|NCT01270464|182025194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.624|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2551||0.0151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.126|-0.121||The overall treatment effect for each reslizumab dose was compared to placebo using a 2-sided t-test at the a priori significance level of 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||As with the primary outcome, this respiratory test outcome was analyzed using a mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects (treatment, stratification factors, sex, visit, interaction of treatment and visit), covariates (height, baseline value), and patient as the random effect for the repeated measurements.||-0.121|-1.126|0.0151
91069898|NCT01270464|182025194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.648|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2559||0.0119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.152|-0.144||The overall treatment effect for each reslizumab dose was compared to placebo using a 2-sided t-test at the a priori significance level of 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||As with the primary outcome, this respiratory test outcome was analyzed using a mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects (treatment, stratification factors, sex, visit, interaction of treatment and visit), covariates (height, baseline value), and patient as the random effect for the repeated measurements.||-0.144|-1.152|0.0119
91069899|NCT01270464|182025195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.494|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0242||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.542|-0.447||The overall treatment effect for each reslizumab dose was compared to placebo using a 2-sided t-test at the a priori significance level of 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||As with the primary outcome, this respiratory test outcome was analyzed using a mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects (treatment, stratification factors, sex, visit, interaction of treatment and visit), covariates (height, baseline value), and patient as the random effect for the repeated measurements.||-0.447|-0.542|0.0000
91069900|NCT01270464|182025195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.323|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0243||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.275||The overall treatment effect for each reslizumab dose was compared to placebo using a 2-sided t-test at the a priori significance level of 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||As with the primary outcome, this respiratory test outcome was analyzed using a mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects (treatment, stratification factors, sex, visit, interaction of treatment and visit), covariates (height, baseline value), and patient as the random effect for the repeated measurements.||-0.275|-0.370|0.0000
91069901|NCT01222520|182025232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|9.14|||<|0.0001||95.0|7.09|11.18|||ANCOVA|||||11.18|7.09|<0.0001
91069902|NCT01222520|182025233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|14.88|||<|0.0001||95.0|11.82|17.94|||ANCOVA|||||17.94|11.82|<0.0001
91069903|NCT01222520|182025234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
91069904|NCT01222520|182025235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
91069905|NCT01222520|182025236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
91069906|NCT01222520|182025237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
91069907|NCT01222520|182025238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91069908|NCT04081610|182025239|NON_INFERIORITY|Compare the safety of the Lagricel® Ofteno multi-dose formulation against Lagricel® Ofteno unit doses manufactured by Sophia Laboratories S.A. of C.V. through the incidence of AD.|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.409|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.409
91069909|NCT04081610|182025240|NON_INFERIORITY|Compare the tolerability of the Lagricel® Ofteno multi-dose formulation against Lagricel® Ofteno unit-dose manufactured by Sophia Laboratories S.A. of C.V. using the ICO score.||||||0.442|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.442
91069910|NCT04081610|182025240|EQUIVALENCE|F=2.606, 15.926||||||0.009|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Final vs initial Eye Comfort Index||||0.009
91069911|NCT04081610|182025240|EQUIVALENCE|F=3.051, 19.336||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Final vs initial Eye Comfort Index||||0.002
91069912|NCT04081610|182025241|NON_INFERIORITY|Compare the safety of the Lagricel® Ofteno multi-dose formulation against Lagricel® Ofteno unit doses manufactured by Sophia Laboratories S.A. of C.V. through changes in BCVA.||||||0.904|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.904
91069913|NCT04081610|182025241|EQUIVALENCE|F=-1.414, 1.061||||||0.157|||||||Sign test|||Final vs initial VA||||0.157
91069914|NCT04081610|182025241|EQUIVALENCE|||||||1|||||||Sign test|||Final vs initial VA||||1.000
91069915|NCT04081610|182025242|NON_INFERIORITY|Compare the safety of the Lagricel® Ofteno multi-dose formulation against Lagricel® Ofteno unit doses manufactured by Sophia Laboratories S.A. of C.V. by changes in corneal and conjunctival staining with fluorescein.||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
91069916|NCT04081610|182025242|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared (2)= 6.400||||||0.041|||||||Chi-squared|||Final vs initial fluorescein staining||||0.041
91069917|NCT04081610|182025242|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared (2)=0.814||||||0.665|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.665
91069918|NCT04081610|182025243|NON_INFERIORITY|Compare the safety of the Lagricel® Ofteno multi-dose formulation against Lagricel® Ofteno unit doses manufactured by Sophia Laboratories S.A. of C.V. by changes of corneal and conjunctival staining with lysamine green.||||||0.713|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.713
91069919|NCT04081610|182025243|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared (3)=14.345||||||0.002|||||||Chi-squared|||Final vs initial lissamine green staining||||0.002
91069920|NCT04081610|182025243|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared (2)=0.506||||||0.777|||||||Chi-squared|||Final vs initial lissamine green staining||||0.777
91069921|NCT04081610|182025244|NON_INFERIORITY|Compare the safety of the Lagricel® Ofteno multi-dose formulation against Lagricel® Ofteno unit doses manufactured by Sophia Laboratories S.A. of C.V. by changes in conjunctival hyperemia.||||||1|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||1.000
91069922|NCT04081610|182025244|EQUIVALENCE|F=4.167, 1||||||0.031|||||||Fisher Exact|||Final vs initial conjunctival hyperemia||||0.031
91069923|NCT04081610|182025244|EQUIVALENCE|No significant change was observed.||||||1|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Final vs initial conjunctival hyperemia||||1.000
91069924|NCT01322490|182025246|SUPERIORITY|One-sided p-value is from a stratified log-rank test for PROSTVAC-V/F-TRICOM + GM-CSF placebo vs. Placebo Control with Treatment Arm included in model. Stratification is by randomization strata.||||||0.4742||||||The overall type-one error probability for the entire trial was designed as a one-sided P=0.025. There were two main overall comparisons, which necessitated a type-one error probability to 0.0125 for each comparison using a Bonferroni correction.|Log Rank|The primary analysis method was a stratified log-rank test, and was performed using the ITT Set analyzing data according to the randomized arm.||||||0.4742
91069925|NCT01322490|182025246|SUPERIORITY|One-sided p-value is from a stratified log-rank test for PROSTVAC-V/F-TRICOM + GM-CSF vs. Placebo Control with Treatment Arm included in model. Stratification is by randomization strata.||||||0.5885||||||The overall type-one error probability for the entire trial was designed as a one-sided P=0.025. There were two main overall comparisons, which necessitated a type-one error probability to 0.0125 for each comparison using a Bonferroni correction.|Log Rank|The primary analysis method was a stratified log-rank test, and was performed using the ITT Set analyzing data according to the randomized arm.||||||0.5885
91069926|NCT01322490|182025247|SUPERIORITY|Odds Ratio and Wald 95% CI estimates are for odds of alive without event for PROSTVAC-V/F-TRICOM + GM-CSF placebo vs. Placebo Control and are from a logistic regression model with Treatment Arm included in model stratified by randomization strata.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9588|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7144|1.2867|||||The Alive Without Event endpoint was analyzed using stratified logistic regression. The 95% CI on the odds ratio estimate was computed as the measure of the magnitude of effect.|||1.2867|0.7144|
91069927|NCT01322490|182025247|SUPERIORITY|Odds Ratio and Wald 95% CI estimates are for odds of alive without event for PROSTVAC-V/F-TRICOM + GM-CSF vs. Placebo Control and are from a logistic regression model with Treatment Arm included in model stratified by randomization strata.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8941|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6647|1.2026|||||The Alive Without Event endpoint was analyzed using stratified logistic regression. The 95% CI on the odds ratio estimate was computed as the measure of the magnitude of effect.|||1.2026|0.6647|
91069928|NCT00497289|182025248|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3654|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3654
91069929|NCT00497289|182025249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0264|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0264
91069930|NCT04606394|182025254|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.33|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Data outcome reported was the number and percentage of subject test days with DPI Failure in subjects in suboptimal PIF (\<60 L/min) versus normal PIF subjects. Statistical analysis performed was a comparison between rates of DPI Failure in the 2 groups.||||0.33
91069931|NCT04606394|182025255|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Data outcome reported was the number and percentage of subject test days with DPI Failure in subjects in suboptimal PIF (\<60 L/min) versus normal PIF subjects. Statistical analysis performed was a comparison between rates of DPI Failure in the 2 groups.||||0.04
91069932|NCT02016105|182025262|EQUIVALENCE|Adjusted response rates were estimated using a logistic regression model including treatment, body weight strata, region and prior systemic therapy. The 95% CI for the rate difference was derived based on the normal approximation and standard error computed using the delta method.To conclude equivalent efficacy, the 95% CI had to be entirely within the interval \[-18%, 18%\].|Risk Difference (RD)|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.75|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.46|11.15||||||||11.15|-7.46|
91069933|NCT02016105|182025263|EQUIVALENCE|"LS means, SE and 95% CI were estimated by a Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) model with treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, body weight strata, region and prior systemic therapy, as fixed factors and baseline PASI score as covariate.~Therapeutic equivalence in terms of the % change from baseline in PASI score was to be determined if the 95% CI for the difference between GP2017 and Humira treatment was contained within the interval \[-15%; 15%\]."|LS means difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.15|4.84||||||||4.84|-3.15|
91069934|NCT02016105|182025264|EQUIVALENCE|LSM, SE and 95% CI were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment, body weight strata, region and prior systemic therapy as fixed effects and baseline PASI score as covariate. Therapeutic equivalence in terms of the % change from baseline in PASI score was to be determined if the 95% CI for the difference between GP2017 and Humira was contained within the interval \[-15%; 15%\].|LS means difference|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|5.08||||||||5.08|-2.78|
91069935|NCT00839527|182025303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.68|||ANCOVA|||||-0.68|-1.07|<0.0001
91069936|NCT00839527|182025303|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The p-value is from a one-sided t-test testing at the 0.025 level of significance whether or not the difference of least square means (albiglutide - pioglitazone) is less than or equal to the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 0.3%.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.25||||0.2685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.4|||t-test, 1 sided|||||0.40|0.10|0.2685
91069937|NCT02751450|182025312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-1.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|-0.882|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline in Schiff Sensitivity Score as response and treatment as a factor and baseline Schiff as a covariate|Difference is first named dentifrice minus second named dentifrice such that a negative difference favours first named dentifrice.|All statistical analyses were conducted under the null hypothesis (H0) of no difference between treatments versus the alternate hypothesis (H1) of a difference between treatments.||-0.882|-1.150|<0.0001
91069938|NCT00937040|182025345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was determined by using an ANCOVA model with factors treatment and pooled study center, and covariate baseline AISRS total score. Change from baseline to endpoint uses the latest non-missing score after baseline for each subject.|ANCOVA|P-value for Change from baseline at endpoint. Each outcome involved with gate-keeping will be numbered with a Gate-Keeper-Sequence-Number from 01-16.||Gate-Keeper-Sequence#01. The primary efficacy was tested at the 0.05 level of significance. To control the overall Type I error at 0.05, the secondary efficacy endpoints were tested in a fixed sequence if the preceding null hypothesis was rejected. No further hypotheses could be tested when the preceding null hypothesis was not rejected. All nominal p-values were presented even though the formal testing procedure stopped at the primary endpoint. No unqualified statements can be made.||||<0.001
91069939|NCT00937040|182025346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.206||95.0||||P-value was determined by using an ANCOVA model with factors treatment and pooled study center, and covariate baseline score. Endpoint for extended day sites is the 4 hour timepoint and for other sites is the last non-missing value after baseline.|ANCOVA|P-value for Change from baseline at endpoint.||Gate-Keeper-Sequence-Number#02.||||0.206
91069940|NCT00937040|182025347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.348||95.0||||P-value was determined by using an ANCOVA model with factors treatment and pooled study center, and covariate baseline score. Endpoint for extended day sites is the 4 hour timepoint and for other sites is the last non-missing value after baseline.|ANCOVA|P-value for Change from baseline at endpoint.||Gate-Keeper-Sequence-Number#03.||||0.348
91069941|NCT00937040|182025348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.324||95.0||||P-value was determined by using an ANCOVA model with factors treatment and pooled study center, and covariate baseline score. Endpoint for extended day sites is the 4 hour timepoint and for other sites is the last non-missing value after baseline.|ANCOVA|P-value for Change from baseline at endpoint.||Gate-Keeper-Sequence-Number#04.||||0.324
91069942|NCT00937040|182025349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.631||95.0||||P-value was determined by using an ANCOVA model with factors treatment and pooled study center, and covariate baseline score. Endpoint for extended day sites is the 4 hour timepoint and for other sites is the last non-missing value after baseline.|ANCOVA|P-value for Change from baseline at endpoint.||Gate-Keeper-Sequence-Number#05.||||0.631
91069943|NCT00937040|182025350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value was determined by using an ANCOVA model with factors treatment and pooled study center, and covariate baseline score.|ANCOVA|P-value for Change from baseline at endpoint.||Gate-Keeper-Sequence-Number#06.||||<0.001
91069944|NCT00937040|182025351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value was determined by using an ANCOVA model with factors treatment and pooled study center, and covariate baseline score.|ANCOVA|P-value for Change from baseline at endpoint.||Gate-Keeper-Sequence-Number#07.||||<0.001
91069945|NCT00937040|182025352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0||||P-value was determined by using an ANCOVA model with factors treatment and pooled study center, and covariate baseline score.|ANCOVA|P-value for Change from baseline at endpoint.||Gate-Keeper-Sequence-Number#08.||||0.008
91069946|NCT00937040|182025353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.372||95.0||||P-value was determined by using an ANCOVA model with factors treatment and pooled study center, and covariate baseline score.|ANCOVA|P-value for Change from baseline at endpoint.||Gate-Keeper-Sequence-Number#09.||||0.372
91069947|NCT00937040|182025354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value was determined by using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) row mean scores controlling for center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value for Change from baseline at endpoint.||Gate-Keeper-Sequence-Number#10.||||<0.001
91069948|NCT00937040|182025355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0||||P-value was determined using CMH general association controlling for pooled center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value for Change from baseline at endpoint.||Gate-Keeper-Sequence-Number#11.||||0.008
91069949|NCT00937040|182025356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value was determined by using an ANCOVA model with factors treatment and pooled study center, and covariate baseline score.|ANCOVA|P-value for Change from baseline at endpoint.||Gate-Keeper-Sequence-Number#12.||||<0.001
91069950|NCT00937040|182025357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||P-value was determined by using an ANCOVA model with factors treatment and pooled study center, and covariate baseline score.|ANCOVA|P-value for Change from baseline at endpoint.||Gate-Keeper-Sequence-Number#13.||||0.003
91069951|NCT00937040|182025358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016||95.0||||P-value was determined by using an ANCOVA model with factors treatment and pooled study center, and covariate baseline score.|ANCOVA|P-value for Change from baseline at endpoint.||Gate-Keeper-Sequence-Number#14.||||0.016
91069952|NCT00937040|182025359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.092||95.0||||P-value was determined by using an ANCOVA model with factors treatment and pooled study center, and covariate baseline score.|ANCOVA|P-value for Change from baseline at endpoint.||Gate-Keeper-Sequence-Number#15.||||0.092
91069953|NCT00937040|182025360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.284||95.0||||P-value was determined by using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) row mean scores controlling for center. Missing/unknown responses are not included in the p-value.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value for Change from baseline at endpoint.||Gate-Keeper-Sequence-Number#16.||||0.284
91069954|NCT00937040|182025361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value was determined by using an ANCOVA model with factors treatment and pooled study center, and covariate baseline score.|ANCOVA|||P-value for Change from baseline at endpoint||||<0.001
91069955|NCT00937040|182025362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.319||95.0||||P-value was determined by using an ANCOVA model with factors treatment and pooled study center, and covariate baseline score.|ANCOVA|||P-value for Change from baseline at endpoint||||0.319
91069956|NCT00937040|182025363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0||||P-value was determined by using an ANCOVA model with factors treatment and pooled study center, and covariate baseline score.|ANCOVA|||P-value for Change from baseline at endpoint||||0.007
91069957|NCT02477826|182025364|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.93||||||||0.93|0.67|
91069958|NCT02477826|182025364|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.12||||||||1.12|0.81|
91069959|NCT02477826|182025364|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.99||||||||0.99|0.72|
91069960|NCT02477826|182025364|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.97||||||||0.97|0.60|
91069961|NCT02477826|182025364|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.93||||||||0.93|0.59|
91069962|NCT02477826|182025364|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.72||||||||0.72|0.52|
91069963|NCT02477826|182025364|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.89||||||||0.89|0.49|
91069964|NCT02477826|182025365|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.91||||||||0.91|0.67|
91069965|NCT02477826|182025365|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.05||||||||1.05|0.78|
91069966|NCT02477826|182025365|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.01||||||||1.01|0.74|
91069967|NCT02477826|182025365|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.79||||||||0.79|0.51|
91069968|NCT02477826|182025365|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.96||||||||0.96|0.63|
91069969|NCT02477826|182025365|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.87||||||||0.87|0.64|
91069970|NCT02477826|182025365|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.14||||||||1.14|0.64|
91069971|NCT01342523|182025371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.825|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.17||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Logistic|The logistic regression model included all 5 treatment main effects and the 10 two-way interactions as well as gender, race, and age as covariates.||Null hypothesis: No difference in 3-month abstinence rates for participants receiving CIS vs No CIS. We hypothesized that CIS would result in significantly higher abstinence rates compared to No CIS.||1.17|0.88|.825
91069972|NCT01342523|182025371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.36||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Logistic|The logistic regression model included all 5 treatment main effects and the 10 two-way interactions as well as gender, race, and age as covariates.||Null hypothesis: No difference in 3-month abstinence rates for participants receiving NRT vs No NRT. We hypothesized that NRT would result in significantly higher abstinence rates compared to No NRT.||1.36|1.02|.028
91069973|NCT01342523|182025371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.13||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Logistic|The logistic regression model included all 5 treatment main effects and the 10 two-way interactions as well as gender, race, and age as covariates.||Null hypothesis: No difference in 3-month abstinence rates for participants receiving Email Messaging vs No Email Messaging. We hypothesized that Email Messaging would result in significantly higher abstinence rates compared to No Email Messaging.||1.13|0.85|.755
91069974|NCT01342523|182025371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.996|1.33||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Logistic|The logistic regression model included all 5 treatment main effects and the 10 two-way interactions as well as gender, race, and age as covariates.||Null hypothesis: No difference in 3-month abstinence rates for participants receiving the Full SmokeFree.gov Website vs the Lite SmokeFree.gov Website . We hypothesized that the Full SmokeFree.gov Website would result in significantly higher abstinence rates compared to the LiteSmokeFree.gov Website .||1.33|0.996|.057
91069975|NCT01342523|182025371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.555||95.0|0.83|1.11||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Logistic|The logistic regression model included all 5 treatment main effects and the 10 two-way interactions as well as gender, race, and age as covariates.||Null hypothesis: No difference in 3-month abstinence rates for participants receiving the Full Cessation Booklet vs the Brief Cessation Booklet We hypothesized that the Full Cessation Booklet would result in significantly higher abstinence rates compared to the Brief Cessation Booklet.||1.11|0.83|.555
91069976|NCT00403481|182025379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments|One-sample t-test|||||||<0.0001
91069977|NCT00403481|182025380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||\<0.0001 for both daytime and nighttime. No multiplicity adjustments.|one-sample t-test|||||||<0.0001
91069978|NCT00403481|182025381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||One-sample t-test|||||||<0.0001
91069979|NCT00403481|182025382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments|one-sample t-test|||||||0.0001
91069980|NCT00403481|182025384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||one-sample t-test|||||||<0.0001
91069981|NCT00403481|182025385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||\<0.0001 applies to both the daytime and nighttime analyses|one-sample t-test|||||||<0.0001
91069982|NCT00403481|182025386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||one-sample t-test|||||||<0.0001
91069983|NCT00403481|182025387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||\<0.0001 applies to both 4 hour and 6 hour analyses|one-sample t-test|||||||<0.0001
91069984|NCT02477332|182025432|SUPERIORITY||Estimated target dose|32.5|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|60.0|27.5|42.5|||Regression, Logistic|Target dose was based on this estimated dose response. The 60% CI included the 20 - 80th percentile of target dose estimated in the bootstrap samples.|Min dose with effect size \>15%|||42.5|27.5|<.05
91069985|NCT02977572|182025458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||Based upon previous results, the investigators considered that the need for an intubation could be reduced by 15% \[19% in the CPAP group (control) vs. 4% in the NIV group (study)\]. The estimated sample size was 55 participants in each group (confidence interval \[1-α\] = 90% and power \[1-β\] = 85%).||||1.000
91069986|NCT01075256|182025468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.1||||0.3628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|2.46||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline, treatment and number of sensitive teeth and years of sensitivity|Difference was first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|The null hypothesis was no diference between treatments in comparison. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||2.46|-6.70|0.3628
91069987|NCT01075256|182025468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.2||||0.9361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.45|4.83||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline, treatment and number of sensitive teeth and years of sensitivity.|Difference was first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|The null hypothesis was no difference between treatments in comparison. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||4.83|-4.45|0.9361
91069988|NCT01075256|182025468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean difference|2.3||||0.3257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.31|6.92||No adustment was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline, treatment and number of sensitive teeth and years of sensitivity.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|The null hypothesis was no difference between treatments in comparison. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||6.92|-2.31|0.3257
91069989|NCT01075256|182025469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.0||||0.6674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.73|3.68||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline, treatment and number of sensitive teeth and years of sensitivity|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|The null hypothesis was no difference between treatments in comparison. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||3.68|-5.73|0.6674
91069990|NCT01075256|182025469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.0||||0.9888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.74|4.81||No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline, treatment and number of sensitive teeth and years of sensitivity|Difference is the high concentration minus placebo such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|The null hypothesis was no difference between treatments in comparison. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||4.81|-4.74|0.9888
91069991|NCT01075256|182025469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.1||||0.6599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.69|5.81||No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline, treatment and number of sensitive teeth and years of sensitivity|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|The null hypothesis was no difference between treatments in comparison. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||5.81|-3.69|0.6599
91069992|NCT01075256|182025470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.1||||0.9759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.34|6.54||No adjustments for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline, treatment and number of sensitive teeth and years of sensitivity|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|The null hypothesis was no difference between treatments in comparison. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||6.54|-6.34|0.9759
91069993|NCT01075256|182025470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.8903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.97|6.06||No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline, treatment and number of sensitive teeth and years of sensitivity|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|The null hypothesis was no difference between treatments in comparison. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||6.06|-6.97|0.8903
91069994|NCT01075256|182025470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.6||||0.8662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.04|5.93||No adjustments for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline, treatment and number of sensitive teeth and years of sensitivity|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.||5.93|-7.04|0.8662
91069995|NCT01075256|182025471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.8419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.93|5.66||No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline, treatment and number of sensitive teeth and years of sensitivity|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments in comparison. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||5.66|-6.93|0.8419
91069996|NCT01075256|182025471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.3||||0.9147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.03|6.72||No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline, treatment and number of sensitive teeth and years of sensitivity|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments in comparison. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||6.72|-6.03|0.9147
91069997|NCT01075256|182025471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.0||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.36|7.33||No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline, treatment and number of sensitive teeth and years of sensitivity|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments in comparison. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||7.33|-5.36|0.7600
91069998|NCT01075256|182025472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.5||||0.9124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.28|9.24||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline, treatment and number of sensitive teeth and years of sensitivity|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments in comparison. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||9.24|-8.28|0.9124
91069999|NCT01075256|182025472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.9083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.13|8.14||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline, treatment and number of sensitive teeth and years of sensitivity|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments in comparison. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level||8.14|-9.13|0.9083
91070000|NCT01075256|182025472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.0||||0.8231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.73|7.77||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline, treatment and number of sensitive teeth and years of sensitivity|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments in comparison. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||7.77|-9.73|0.8231
91070001|NCT01075256|182025473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|3.4||||0.5946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.32|16.09||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline, treatment and number of sensitive teeth and years of sensitivity|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments in comparison. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||16.09|-9.32|0.5946
91070002|NCT01075256|182025473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.0||||0.9944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.51|12.6||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline, treatment and number of sensitive teeth and years of sensitivity|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments in comparison. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||12.60|-12.51|0.9944
91070003|NCT01075256|182025473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-3.3||||0.5998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.06|9.38||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline, treatment and number of sensitive teeth and years of sensitivity|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments in comparison. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||9.38|-16.06|0.5998
91070004|NCT01075256|182025474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.2||||0.7952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.51|8.09||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline, treatment and number of sensitive teeth and years of sensitivity|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments in comparison. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||8.09|-10.51|0.7952
91070005|NCT01075256|182025474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.4||||0.601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.56|6.76||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline, treatment and number of sensitive teeth and years of sensitivity|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|The null hypothesis was no difference between treatments in comparison. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||6.76|-11.56|0.6010
91070006|NCT01075256|182025474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.2||||0.7976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.48|8.1||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline, treatment and number of sensitive teeth and years of sensitivity|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments in comparison. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||8.10|-10.48|0.7976
91070007|NCT01075256|182025475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.7||||0.906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.38|11.68||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline, treatment and number of sensitive teeth and years of sensitivity|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments in comparison. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||11.68|-10.38|0.9060
91070008|NCT01075256|182025475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.7||||0.7575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.63|9.25||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline, treatment and number of sensitive teeth and years of sensitivity|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments in comparison. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||9.25|-12.63|0.7575
91070009|NCT01075256|182025475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.3||||0.6727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.42|8.73||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline, treatment and number of sensitive teeth and years of sensitivity|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments in comparison. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||8.73|-13.42|0.6727
91070010|NCT02115581|182025478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.267||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.267
91070011|NCT02115581|182025479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.011
91070012|NCT01218087|182025493|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Following the first interim analysis of the first 40 infants, the sample size calculation was revised. A revised sample size of 62 infants (31 per treatment arm) was based on an observed reduction of 41% to 11% in the experimental group with a goal p value of 0.01.||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.03
91070013|NCT03307252|182025514|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio|100.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.84|114.15|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T1 vs. R1.||Digoxin, Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|114.15|88.84|
91070014|NCT03307252|182025514|OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio|93.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.12|102.06|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T1 vs. R1.||Furosemide, ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|102.06|86.12|
91070015|NCT03307252|182025514|OTHER||Adjusted gMean Ratio|82.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.96|89.46|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T1 vs. R1.||Metformin, ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|89.46|76.96|
91070016|NCT03307252|182025514|OTHER||Adjusted gMean Ratio|113.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.62|131.72|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T1 vs. R1.||Rosuvastatin, ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|131.72|97.62|
91070017|NCT03307252|182025515|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio|131.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|115.93|148.97|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T2 vs. R1.||Digoxin, Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|148.97|115.93|
91070018|NCT03307252|182025515|OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio|119.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|110.03|130.39|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T2 vs. R1.||Furosemide, ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|130.39|110.03|
91070019|NCT03307252|182025515|OTHER||Adjusted gMean Ratio|108.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.68|117.03|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T2 vs. R1.||Metformin, ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|117.03|100.68|
91070020|NCT03307252|182025515|OTHER||Adjusted gMean Ratio|348.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|299.64|404.31|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T2 vs. R1.||Rosuvastatin, ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|404.31|299.64|
91070021|NCT03307252|182025516|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio|125.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|113.99|138.43|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T3 vs. R1.||Digoxin, Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|138.43|113.99|
91070022|NCT03307252|182025516|OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio|101.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.59|108.3|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T3 vs. R1.||Furosemide, ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|108.30|94.59|
91070023|NCT03307252|182025516|OTHER||Adjusted gMean Ratio|130.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|119.82|143.1|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T3 vs. R1.||Metformin, ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|143.10|119.82|
91070024|NCT03307252|182025516|OTHER||Adjusted gMean Ratio|107.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.57|118.27|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T3 vs. R1.||Rosuvastatin, ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|118.27|97.57|
91070025|NCT03307252|182025517|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio|106.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.51|118.15|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T4 vs. R1.||Digoxin, Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|118.15|96.51|
91070026|NCT03307252|182025517|OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio|271.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|246.74|299.03|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T4 vs. R1.||Furosemide, ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|299.03|246.74|
91070027|NCT03307252|182025517|OTHER||Adjusted gMean Ratio|100.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.62|107.39|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T4 vs. R1.||Metformin, ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|107.39|94.62|
91070028|NCT03307252|182025517|OTHER||Adjusted gMean Ratio|223.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|203.79|244.55|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T4 vs. R1.||Rosuvastatin, ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|244.55|203.79|
91070029|NCT03307252|182025518|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio|121.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|27.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.43|147.33|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T1 vs. R1.||Digoxin, Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|147.33|100.43|
91070030|NCT03307252|182025518|OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio|95.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.03|109.11|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T1 vs. R1.||Furosemide, ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|109.11|83.03|
91070031|NCT03307252|182025518|OTHER||Adjusted gMean Ratio|80.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|73.01|88.08|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T1 vs. R1.||Metformin, ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|88.08|73.01|
91070032|NCT03307252|182025518|OTHER||Adjusted gMean Ratio|115.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|30.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.8|141.94|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T1 vs. R1.||Rosuvastatin, ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|141.94|93.80|
91070033|NCT03307252|182025519|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio|218.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|27.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|180.19|264.36|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T2 vs. R1.||Digoxin, Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|264.36|180.19|
91070034|NCT03307252|182025519|OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio|135.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|117.83|154.84|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T2 vs. R1.||Furosemide, ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|154.84|117.83|
91070035|NCT03307252|182025519|OTHER||Adjusted gMean Ratio|112.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.26|123.35|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T2 vs. R1.||Metformin, ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|123.35|102.26|
91070036|NCT03307252|182025519|OTHER||Adjusted gMean Ratio|1125.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|30.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|914.63|1384.0|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T2 vs. R1.||Rosuvastatin, ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|1384.00|914.63|
91070037|NCT03307252|182025520|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio|218.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|27.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|180.19|264.36|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T3 vs. R1.||Digoxin, Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|264.36|180.19|
91070038|NCT03307252|182025520|OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio|104.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.97|122.03|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T3 vs. R1.||Furosemide, ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|122.03|89.97|
91070039|NCT03307252|182025520|OTHER||Adjusted gMean Ratio|122.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|107.68|139.69|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T4 vs. R1.||Metformin, ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|139.69|107.68|
91070040|NCT03307252|182025520|OTHER||Adjusted gMean Ratio|116.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|105.07|130.03|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T3 vs. R1.||Rosuvastatin, ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|130.03|105.07|
91070041|NCT03307252|182025521|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio|87.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.08|99.64|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T4 vs. R1.||Digoxin, Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|99.64|76.08|
91070042|NCT03307252|182025521|OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio|122.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|110.25|137.09|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T4 vs. R1.||Furosemide, ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|137.09|110.25|
91070043|NCT03307252|182025521|OTHER||Adjusted gMean Ratio|101.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.65|109.7|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T4 vs. R1.||Metformin, ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|109.70|93.65|
91070044|NCT03307252|182025521|OTHER||Adjusted gMean Ratio|428.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|26.8|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|359.78|509.7|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T4 vs. R1.||Rosuvastatin, ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|509.70|359.78|
91070045|NCT03307252|182025522|OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio|92.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.28|99.76|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T1 vs. R1.||Furosemide, ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|99.76|85.28|
91070046|NCT03307252|182025522|OTHER||Adjusted gMean Ratio|83.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.32|90.08|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T1 vs. R1.||Metformin, ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|90.08|78.32|
91070047|NCT03307252|182025522|OTHER||Adjusted gMean Ratio|124.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|23.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|105.11|146.43|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T1 vs. R1.||Rosuvastatin, ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|146.43|105.11|
91070048|NCT03307252|182025523|OTHER||Adjusted gMean Ratio|112.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|104.23|121.92|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T2 vs. R1.||Furosemide, ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|121.92|104.23|
91070049|NCT03307252|182025523|OTHER||Adjusted gMean Ratio|108.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.22|116.43|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T2 vs. R1.||Metformin, ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|116.43|101.22|
91070050|NCT03307252|182025523|OTHER||Adjusted gMean Ratio|340.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|23.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|288.63|402.1|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T2 vs. R1.||Rosuvastatin, ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|402.10|288.63|
91078631|NCT01964716|182043067|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for a given antibody was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 97.5% confidence interval, computed using the Chan and Zhang procedure, for the difference in proportions (13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS) was greater than -0.10.|percent difference|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.8|2.8||||||Serotype 9V: Exact 2-sided confidence interval (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, 13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS, expressed as a percentage was analyzed.||2.8|-3.8|
91070051|NCT03307252|182025524|OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio|100.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.59|108.51|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T3 vs. R1.||Furosemide, ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|108.51|93.59|
91070052|NCT03307252|182025524|OTHER||Adjusted gMean Ratio|131.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|120.37|143.37|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T4 vs. R1.||Furosemide, ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|143.37|120.37|
91070053|NCT03307252|182025524|OTHER||Adjusted gMean Ratio|106.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.8|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.87|117.19|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T3 vs. R1.||Rosuvastatin, ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|117.19|96.87|
91070054|NCT03307252|182025525|OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio|260.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|237.96|284.32|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T4 vs. R1.||Furosemide, ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|284.32|237.96|
91070055|NCT03307252|182025525|OTHER||Adjusted gMean Ratio|101.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.15|107.66|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T4 vs. R1.||Metformin, ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|107.66|95.15|
91070056|NCT03307252|182025525|OTHER||Adjusted gMean Ratio|215.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|197.53|234.63|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T4 vs. R1.||Rosuvastatin, ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|234.63|197.53|
91070057|NCT01052480|182025526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.069|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.069
91070058|NCT01385137|182025554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.44|||Regression, Linear|||||0.44|-0.79|0.58
91070059|NCT01385137|182025556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.13||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|3.04|||Regression, Linear|||||3.04|-7.30|0.42
91070060|NCT01385137|182025557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.72||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.17|5.6|||Regression, Linear|||||5.60|-4.17|0.77
91070061|NCT01385137|182025558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.14||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|5.44|||Regression, Linear|||||5.44|-1.16|0.21
91070062|NCT02028767|182025618|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence test|Geometric mean ratio|98.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.024||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.662|102.639||The p-value relates to the null hypothesis of non-equivalence.|ANOVA||"The geometric mean ratio is the exponential of the estimated mean difference on the log-scale between 'FDC' and 'Separate tablets'.~ANOVA on the log scale: sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects; subjects within sequences as random effect"|||102.639|94.662|0.0000
91070063|NCT02028767|182025618|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence test|Geometric mean ratio|98.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.024|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.783|102.796||The p-value relates to the null hypothesis of non-equivalence.|ANOVA||"The geometric mean ratio is the exponential of the estimated mean difference on the log-scale between 'FDC' and 'Separate tablets'.~ANOVA on the log-scale: sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment as fixed effects"|Analysis with fixed effects for all terms||102.796|94.783|<0.0001
91070064|NCT02028767|182025619|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence test|Geometric mean ratio|98.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.019||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.856|102.107||The p-value relates to the null hypothesis of non-equivalence.|ANOVA||"The geometric mean ratio is the exponential of the estimated mean difference on the log-scale between 'FDC' and 'Separate tablets'.~ANOVA on the log-scale: sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects; subjects within sequences as random effect"|||102.107|95.856|0.0000
91070065|NCT02028767|182025619|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence test|Geometric mean ratio|98.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.019|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.877|102.15||The p-value relates to the null hypothesis of non-equivalence.|ANOVA||"The geometric mean ratio is the exponential of the estimated mean difference on the log-scale between 'FDC' and 'Separate tablets'.~ANOVA on the log-scale: sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment as fixed effects"|Analysis with fixed effects for all terms||102.150|95.877|<0.0001
91070066|NCT02028767|182025620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence test|Geometric mean ratio|98.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.023||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.549|102.156||The p-value relates to the null hypothesis of non-equivalence.|ANOVA||"The geometric mean ratio is the exponential of the estimated mean difference on the log-scale between 'FDC' and 'Separate tablets'.~ANOVA on the log-scale: sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects; subjects within sequences as random effect"|||102.156|94.549|0.0000
91070067|NCT02028767|182025620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence test|Geometric mean ratio|98.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.023|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.603|102.252|||ANOVA|The p-value relates to the null hypothesis of non-equivalence.|"The geometric mean ratio is the exponential of the estimated mean difference on the log-scale between 'FDC' and 'Separate tablets'.~ANOVA on the log-scale: sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment as fixed effects"|Analysis with fixed effects for all terms||102.252|94.603|<0.0001
91070068|NCT02347774|182025643|SUPERIORITY|A sample size of 215 subjects per treatment would give \~ 90% power to detect a treatment difference of 80 mL in the change from baseline in trough FEV1 at Week 12 between each of the 2 SUN-101 dose groups and placebo at alpha= 0.05, assuming a standard deviation of 255 mL and using a 2-sided test.|Least Mean Squared (SE)|0.0736|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01989||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0346|0.1127|||Least Mean Squared (SE)||In order to control the family-wise Type I error rate, the Hochberg procedure (a tree-structured gatekeeping procedure) was used for comparisons of the primary efficacy endpoints and the key secondary efficacy endpoints.|The change from baseline in trough FEV1 was analyzed using a mixed model repeated measures including terms for treatment, cardiovascular risk, background LABA use, visit week, visit week by treatment interaction, and baseline FEV1 as a covariate. An unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.1127|0.0346|0.0002
91070069|NCT02347774|182025643|SUPERIORITY|A sample size of 215 subjects per treatment would give \~ 90% power to detect a treatment difference of 80 mL in the change from baseline in trough FEV1 at Week 12 between each of the 2 SUN-101 dose groups and placebo at alpha= 0.05, assuming a standard deviation of 255 mL and using a 2-sided test.|Least Mean Squared (SE)|0.081|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02006||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0416|0.1204|||Least Mean Squared (SE)||In order to control the family-wise Type I error rate, the Hochberg procedure (a tree-structured gatekeeping procedure) was used for comparisons of the primary efficacy endpoints and the key secondary efficacy endpoints.|The change from baseline in trough FEV1 was analyzed using a mixed model repeated measures including terms for treatment, cardiovascular risk, background LABA use, visit week, visit week by treatment interaction, and baseline FEV1 as a covariate. An unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.1204|0.0416|0.0001
91070070|NCT02347774|182025644|SUPERIORITY||Least Mean Squared (SE)|0.082|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02055|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0417|0.1224||In order to control the family-wise Type I error rate, the Hochberg procedure (a tree-structured gatekeeping procedure) was used for comparisons of the primary efficacy endpoints and the key secondary efficacy endpoints.|Least Mean Squared (SE)|I||The change from baseline in trough FEV1 was analyzed using a mixed model repeated measures model including terms for treatment, cardiovascular risk, background LABA use, visit week, visit week by treatment interaction, and baseline FEV1 as a covariate. An unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.1224|0.0417|<0.0001
91070071|NCT02347774|182025644|SUPERIORITY||Least Mean Squared (SE)|0.084|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02069||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0433|0.1246||In order to control the family-wise Type I error rate, the Hochberg procedure (a tree-structured gatekeeping procedure) was used for comparisons of the primary efficacy endpoints and the key secondary efficacy endpoints.|Least Mean Squared (SE)|||The change from baseline in trough FEV1 was analyzed using a mixed model repeated measures model including terms for treatment, cardiovascular risk, background LABA use, visit week, visit week by treatment interaction, and baseline FEV1 as a covariate. An unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.1246|0.0433|0.0001
91070072|NCT00955955|182025676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Score Reduction|-5.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.7||0.05||95.0|||||SPCD|Sequential Parallel Comparison Design (SPCD)|These results reflect the mean score reduction for the pooled Deplin sample.|Hypothesis 1: There will be a statistically significant difference between the two groups in the degree of improvement, as measured by the change in the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D-17) score from baseline to endpoint, using the sequential parallel comparison design \[51\]; with a greater degree of reduction in HAM-D-17 scores in the 6(S)-5-MTHF 15 mg qd group than in the placebo group, with the change on placebo being estimated from Trials 1 and 2.||||.05
91070073|NCT02920008|182025693|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3287|||||||Stratified log-rank|||||||= 0.3287
91070074|NCT03852264|182025739|OTHER|90% credible interval for contrast between conditions|Mean Difference (Net)|2.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.29|6.38|||||Contrast reflecting Pet Dog Interaction - Toys Interaction|Bayesian multilevel model of area under the curve with respect to initial value (AUCi) as a function of experimental condition.||6.38|-1.29|
91070075|NCT03852264|182025739|OTHER|90% credible interval for contrast between conditions|Mean Difference (Net)|1.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.18|5.45|||||Contrast reflecting Unfamiliar Dog Interaction - Toys Interaction|Bayesian multilevel model of area under the curve with respect to initial value (AUCi) as a function of experimental condition.||5.45|-2.18|
91070076|NCT03852264|182025739|OTHER|90% credible interval for contrast between conditions|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.93|2.83|||||Contrast reflecting Unfamiliar Dog Interaction - Pet Dog Interaction|Bayesian multilevel model of area under the curve with respect to initial value (AUCi) as a function of experimental condition.||2.83|-4.93|
91070077|NCT03852264|182025740|OTHER|90% credible interval for contrast between conditions|Mean Difference (Net)|0.3482|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.476|1.211|||||Contrast reflecting Pet Dog Interaction - Toys Interaction|Bayesian multilevel model of area under the curve with respect to initial value (AUCi) as a function of experimental condition.||1.211|-0.476|
91070078|NCT03852264|182025740|OTHER|90% credible interval for contrast between conditions|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0635|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.931|0.803|||||Contrast reflecting Unfamiliar Dog Interaction - Toys Interaction|Bayesian multilevel model of area under the curve with respect to initial value (AUCi) as a function of experimental condition.||0.803|-0.931|
91070079|NCT03852264|182025740|OTHER|90% credible interval for contrast between conditions|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.422|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.319|0.445|||||Contrast reflecting Unfamiliar Dog Interaction - Pet Dog Interaction|Bayesian multilevel model of area under the curve with respect to initial value (AUCi) as a function of experimental condition.||0.445|-1.319|
91070080|NCT03852264|182025741|OTHER|90% credible interval for contrast between conditions|Mean Difference (Net)|0.468|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-101.0|99.5|||||Contrast reflecting Pet Dog Interaction - Toys Interaction|Bayesian multilevel model of area under the curve with respect to initial value (AUCi) as a function of experimental condition.||99.5|-101|
91070081|NCT03852264|182025741|OTHER|90% credible interval for contrast between conditions|Mean Difference (Net)|-115.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-225.0|-15.5|||||Contrast reflecting Unfamiliar Dog Interaction - Toys Interaction|Bayesian multilevel model of area under the curve with respect to initial value (AUCi) as a function of experimental condition.||-15.5|-225|
91070082|NCT03852264|182025741|OTHER|90% credible interval for contrast between conditions|Mean Difference (Net)|-115.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-223.0|-16.2|||||Contrast reflecting Unfamiliar Dog Interaction - Pet Dog Interaction|Bayesian multilevel model of area under the curve with respect to initial value (AUCi) as a function of experimental condition.||-16.2|-223|
91070083|NCT02411396|182025754|OTHER|In order to eliminate bias from the naïve estimation on the treatment effects due to the confounders, time varying propensity score model was developed. This balanced the covariates between the two arms at each single acute visit of each patient. A sub classification on the propensity scores was used to estimate the potential outcome for each arm and the average treatment effects (ATE). Bootstrapping was employed to estimate the standard error of ATE.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|124.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|118.3|130.9||||||This analysis is to compare outcome measure between ED or IC visits by using time varying propensity score method developed by our group to adjust imbalance of covariates between the two arms. Each patient can have multiple visits to the facility of choice.||130.9|118.3|
91070084|NCT02411396|182025755|OTHER|In order to eliminate bias from the naïve estimation on the treatment effects due to the confounders, time varying propensity score model was developed. This balanced the covariates between the two arms at each single acute visit of each patient. A sub classification on the propensity scores was used to estimate the potential outcome for each arm and the average treatment effects (ATE). Bootstrapping was employed to estimate the standard error of ATE.|Odds Ratio (OR)|5.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.13|6.41|||||VOC in patients with SCD whom went to EDs represents the numerator, VOC in patients with SCD whom went to ICs represents the denominator for Odds Ratio.|||6.41|4.13|
91070085|NCT02411396|182025756|OTHER|In order to eliminate bias from the naïve estimation on the treatment effects due to the confounders, time varying propensity score model was developed. This balanced the covariates between the two arms at each single acute visit of each patient. A sub classification on the propensity scores was used to estimate the potential outcome for each arm and the average treatment effects (ATE). Bootstrapping was employed to estimate the standard error of ATE.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.84|2.72|||||VOC in patients with SCD whom went to ICs represents the numerator, VOC in patients with SCD whom went to EDs represents the denominator for Odds Ratio.|||2.72|1.84|
91070086|NCT01631149|182025761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.4|<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The individual scores obtained during surgery were averaged.~The average values were compared using a t-test between treatments."||||<0.001
91070087|NCT03521115|182025778|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|b=-.91, controlling for condition (experimental vs. control) , IMR, baseline measure of outcome variable, teen gender, age, \& race.||6 month follow-up. Among those assigned to intervention, dosage was assigned as 0 for no exposure, 1 for completing only the communication, and 2 for completing the alcohol component. A probit analysis predicting completion was conducted from baseline measures and an instrumental variable, inverse Mills' ratio (IMR) representing the underlying selection processes was included as a covariate accounting for factors related to program completion. All controls were assigned 0 dosage.||||<0.01
91070088|NCT03521115|182025778|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.58|||<|0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic||Controlling for condition (experimental vs. control) , IMR, baseline measure of outcome variable, teen gender, age, \& race.|12 month follow-up. Among those assigned to intervention, dosage was assigned as 0 for no exposure, 1 for completing only the communication, and 2 for completing the alcohol component. A probit analysis predicting completion was conducted from baseline measures and an instrumental variable, inverse Mills' ratio (IMR) representing the underlying selection processes was included as a covariate accounting for factors related to program completion. All controls were assigned 0 dosage.||||<0.10
91070089|NCT03521115|182025778|SUPERIORITY||Chi-Square|5.129||||0.077|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||18 month follow-up. Among those assigned to intervention, dosage was assigned as 0 for no exposure, 1 for completing only the communication, and 2 for completing the alcohol component. All controls were assigned 0 dosage.||||.077
91070090|NCT03521115|182025779|SUPERIORITY||b|-0.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Controled for condition (experimental vs. control) , IMR, baseline measure of outcome variable, teen gender, age, \& race.||6 month follow-up. Among those assigned to intervention, dosage was assigned as 0 for no exposure, 1 for completing only the communication, and 2 for completing the alcohol component. A probit analysis predicting completion was conducted from baseline measures and an instrumental variable, inverse Mills' ratio (IMR) representing the underlying selection processes was included as a covariate accounting for factors related to program completion. All controls were assigned 0 dosage.||||<0.001
91070091|NCT03521115|182025779|SUPERIORITY||b|-0.97|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Controlled for condition (experimental vs. control) , IMR, baseline measure of outcome variable, teen gender, age, \& race.||12 month follow-up. Among those assigned to intervention, dosage was assigned as 0 for no exposure, 1 for completing only the communication, and 2 for completing the alcohol component. A probit analysis predicting completion was conducted from baseline measures and an instrumental variable, inverse Mills' ratio (IMR) representing the underlying selection processes was included as a covariate accounting for factors related to program completion. All controls were assigned 0 dosage.||||<0.01
91070092|NCT03521115|182025779|SUPERIORITY||F|0.85|||>|0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||18 month follow-up. Among those assigned to intervention, dosage was assigned as 0 for no exposure, 1 for completing only the communication, and 2 for completing the alcohol component. All controls were assigned 0 dosage.||||>0.10
91070093|NCT03521115|182025780|SUPERIORITY||b|-0.22|||<|0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||controlling for condition (experimental vs. control) , IMR, baseline measure of outcome variable, teen gender, age, \& race.|6 month follow-up. Among those assigned to intervention, dosage was assigned as 0 for no exposure, 1 for completing only the communication, and 2 for completing the alcohol component. A probit analysis predicting completion was conducted from baseline measures and an instrumental variable, inverse Mills' ratio (IMR) representing the underlying selection processes was included as a covariate accounting for factors related to program completion. All controls were assigned 0 dosage.||||<0.10
91070094|NCT03521115|182025780|SUPERIORITY||b|-0.24|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||controlling for condition (experimental vs. control) , IMR, baseline measure of outcome variable, teen gender, age, \& race.|12 month follow-up. Among those assigned to intervention, dosage was assigned as 0 for no exposure, 1 for completing only the communication, and 2 for completing the alcohol component. A probit analysis predicting completion was conducted from baseline measures and an instrumental variable, inverse Mills' ratio (IMR) representing the underlying selection processes was included as a covariate accounting for factors related to program completion. All controls were assigned 0 dosage.||||<0.05
91070095|NCT03521115|182025780|SUPERIORITY||F|0.43|||>|0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||18 month follow-up. Among those assigned to intervention, dosage was assigned as 0 for no exposure, 1 for completing only the communication, and 2 for completing the alcohol component. All controls were assigned 0 dosage.||||>0.10
91070096|NCT03521115|182025781|SUPERIORITY||b|-0.16|||<|0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Controlled for condition (experimental vs. control) , IMR, baseline measure of outcome variable, teen gender, age, \& race.||6 month follow-up. Among those assigned to intervention, dosage was assigned as 0 for no exposure, 1 for completing only the communication, and 2 for completing the alcohol component. A probit analysis predicting completion was conducted from baseline measures and an instrumental variable, inverse Mills' ratio (IMR) representing the underlying selection processes was included as a covariate accounting for factors related to program completion. All controls were assigned 0 dosage.||||<.10
91070097|NCT03521115|182025781|SUPERIORITY||b|-0.26|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Controlled for condition (experimental vs. control) , IMR, baseline measure of outcome variable, teen gender, age, \& race.||12 month follow-up. Among those assigned to intervention, dosage was assigned as 0 for no exposure, 1 for completing only the communication, and 2 for completing the alcohol component. A probit analysis predicting completion was conducted from baseline measures and an instrumental variable, inverse Mills' ratio (IMR) representing the underlying selection processes was included as a covariate accounting for factors related to program completion. All controls were assigned 0 dosage.||||<0.05
91070098|NCT03521115|182025781|SUPERIORITY||F|1.55|||>|0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||18 month follow-up. Among those assigned to intervention, dosage was assigned as 0 for no exposure, 1 for completing only the communication, and 2 for completing the alcohol component. All controls were assigned 0 dosage.||||>0.10
91070099|NCT03521115|182025782|SUPERIORITY||b|-0.35|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||controlling for condition (experimental vs. control) , IMR, baseline measure of outcome variable, teen gender, age, \& race.|6 month follow-up. Among those assigned to intervention, dosage was assigned as 0 for no exposure, 1 for completing only the communication, and 2 for completing the alcohol component. A probit analysis predicting completion was conducted from baseline measures and an instrumental variable, inverse Mills' ratio (IMR) representing the underlying selection processes was included as a covariate accounting for factors related to program completion. All controls were assigned 0 dosage.||||<0.05
91070100|NCT03521115|182025782|SUPERIORITY||b|-0.02|||>|0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||controlling for condition (experimental vs. control) , IMR, baseline measure of outcome variable, teen gender, age, \& race.|12 month follow-up. Among those assigned to intervention, dosage was assigned as 0 for no exposure, 1 for completing only the communication, and 2 for completing the alcohol component. A probit analysis predicting completion was conducted from baseline measures and an instrumental variable, inverse Mills' ratio (IMR) representing the underlying selection processes was included as a covariate accounting for factors related to program completion. All controls were assigned 0 dosage.||||>0.10
91070101|NCT03521115|182025783|SUPERIORITY||b|0.299|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||generalized estimating equations||controlling for condition (experimental vs. control) , IMR, baseline measure of outcome variable, teen gender, age, \& race.|Among those assigned to intervention, dosage was assigned as 0 for no exposure, 1 for completing some of the program, and 2 for completing the relationship component. A probit analysis predicting completion was conducted from baseline measures and an instrumental variable, inverse Mills' ratio (IMR) representing the underlying selection processes was included as a covariate accounting for factors related to program completion. All controls were assigned 0 dosage.||||<0.01
91070102|NCT03521115|182025784|SUPERIORITY||b|0.268|||<|0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||generalized estimating equations|||Among those assigned to intervention, dosage was assigned as 0 for no exposure, 1 for completing some of the program, and 2 for completing the relationship component. A probit analysis predicting completion was conducted from baseline measures and an instrumental variable, inverse Mills' ratio (IMR) representing the underlying selection processes was included as a covariate accounting for factors related to program completion. All controls were assigned 0 dosage.||||<.03
91070103|NCT03521115|182025785|SUPERIORITY||b|0.075|||>|0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||generalized estimating equations||controlling for condition (experimental vs. control) , IMR, baseline measure of outcome variable, teen gender, age, \& race.|Among those assigned to intervention, dosage was assigned as 0 for no exposure, 1 for completing some of the program, and 2 for completing the relationship component. A probit analysis predicting completion was conducted from baseline measures and an instrumental variable, inverse Mills' ratio (IMR) representing the underlying selection processes was included as a covariate accounting for factors related to program completion. All controls were assigned 0 dosage.||||>0.10
91070104|NCT03521115|182025786|SUPERIORITY||b|0.051|||>|0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||generalized estimating equations||controlling for condition (experimental vs. control) , IMR, baseline measure of outcome variable, teen gender, age, \& race.|Among those assigned to intervention, dosage was assigned as 0 for no exposure, 1 for completing some of the program, and 2 for completing the relationship component. A probit analysis predicting completion was conducted from baseline measures and an instrumental variable, inverse Mills' ratio (IMR) representing the underlying selection processes was included as a covariate accounting for factors related to program completion. All controls were assigned 0 dosage.||||>0.10
91070105|NCT03521115|182025787|SUPERIORITY||b|0.72|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||generalized estimating equations|||Among those assigned to intervention, dosage was assigned as 0 for no exposure, 1 for completing some of the program, and 2 for completing the relationship component. A probit analysis predicting completion was conducted from baseline measures and an instrumental variable, inverse Mills' ratio (IMR) representing the underlying selection processes was included as a covariate accounting for factors related to program completion. All controls were assigned 0 dosage.||||<0.05
91070106|NCT03521115|182025788|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.1|||||||Chi-squared|||Among those assigned to intervention, dosage was assigned as 0 for no exposure, 1 for completing some of the program, and 2 for completing the relationship component. A probit analysis predicting completion was conducted from baseline measures and an instrumental variable, inverse Mills' ratio (IMR) representing the underlying selection processes was included as a covariate accounting for factors related to program completion. All controls were assigned 0 dosage.||||>0.10
91070107|NCT01080118|182025795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|0.05||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.05|0.05|||t-test, 2 sided|||||.05|.05|.001
91070108|NCT01080118|182025795|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence||||||0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.001
91070109|NCT02295020|182025801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.181|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.181
91070110|NCT02295020|182025802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.232|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.232
91070111|NCT02295020|182025803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.311|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.311
91070112|NCT02295020|182025805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.449|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.449
91070113|NCT02295020|182025806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.860
91070114|NCT02295020|182025807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.735|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.735
91070115|NCT02295020|182025808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.479|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.479
91070116|NCT02295020|182025809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.323|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.323
91070117|NCT02295020|182025810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.878|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.878
91070118|NCT00943150|182025828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.001
91070119|NCT00943150|182025829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33||95.0|||||ANOVA|||CD3+ at 0 weeks||||0.33
90827601|NCT05104450|181529950|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.06||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|treatment-by-time interaction|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed effects model including baseline and follow up outcome measures, time, treatment by time interaction, baseline covariates: age, gender, race, charlson comorbidity index, rurality, and randomization stratification variables: BMI (30-34.9 vs. 35-44.9kg/m2), OSA severity (mild vs. moderate to severe), and sleep related impairment T-score (\<60 vs. ≥ 60). The parameter of interest is treatment by time interaction coefficient, measuring the between group difference for change in outcome.||0.57|-0.44|0.800
91070120|NCT00943150|182025829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||ANOVA|||CD3+ at 3 weeks||||0.02
91070121|NCT00943150|182025829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71||95.0|||||ANOVA|||CD3+ at 6 weeks||||0.71
91070122|NCT00943150|182025829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67||95.0|||||ANOVA|||CD68+ at 0 weeks||||0.67
91070123|NCT00943150|182025829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||ANOVA|||CD68+ at 3 weeks||||0.01
91070124|NCT00943150|182025829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48||95.0|||||ANOVA|||CD68+ at 6 weeks||||0.48
91070125|NCT00943150|182025830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1128||95.0|||||Exact Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.1128
91070126|NCT00943150|182025831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0898||95.0|||||Exact Wilcoxon test|||||||0.0898
91070127|NCT00943150|182025832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.076||95.0|||||Exact Wilcoxon test|||Intraoperative narcotic use comparison||||0.0760
91070128|NCT00943150|182025832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59||95.0|||||Exact Wilcoxon test|||Postoperative narcotic use comparison||||0.5900
91070129|NCT00943150|182025833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4589||95.0|||||Exact Wilcoxon test|||||||0.4589
91070130|NCT00943150|182025834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.999||95.0|||||Exact Wilcoxon test|||||||0.999
91070131|NCT00943150|182025835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0412||95.0|||||Exact Wilcoxon test|||||||0.0412
91070132|NCT04791319|182025836|SUPERIORITY||MH weights|7.1||||0.489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|26.2||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Chi-squared|||||26.2|-12.1|0.489
91070133|NCT04791319|182025836|SUPERIORITY||MH Weights|7.1||||0.448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|23.7|||Chi-squared|||||23.7|-9.4|0.448
91070134|NCT04791319|182025836|SUPERIORITY||MH Weights|42.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.9|61.1|||Chi-squared|||||61.1|22.9|0.001
91070135|NCT01704651|182025871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.34
91070136|NCT01704651|182025872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.17
91070137|NCT00791661|182025877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (fed/fasted)|0.92||||||95.0|||||Mixed-effect model|Based on mixed effect model with panel and treatment-within-panel as fixed effects and participant-within panel as a random effect.||||||
91070138|NCT00791661|182025879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (fed/fasted)|0.81||||||95.0|||||Mixed-effect model|Based on mixed effect model with panel and treatment-within-panel as fixed effects and participant-within panel as a random effect.||||||
91070139|NCT00791661|182025883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-8.1||||0.368|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.0|6.8||A step down procedure starting with the highest tolerated dose was implemented.|Mixed Models Analysis|Based on mixed effect model with glucose baseline, panel and treatment-within-panel as fixed effects and participant-within panel as a random effect.|The calculation used to determine the difference in least squares mean (LS mean) was LS mean for MK-1006 15 mg minus LS mean for placebo.|At one or more well tolerated single doses of MK-1006, the 24-hour weighted mean glucose concentration is expected to be at least 25 mg/dL lower than placebo.||6.8|-23.0|0.368
91070140|NCT00791661|182025883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-16.6||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-32.2|-1.1||A step down procedure starting with the highest tolerated dose was implemented.|Mixed Models Analysis|Based on mixed effect model with glucose baseline, panel and treatment-within-panel as fixed effects and participant-within panel as a random effect.|The calculation used to determine the difference in least squares mean (LS mean) was LS mean for MK-1006 30 mg minus LS mean for placebo.|At one or more well tolerated single doses of MK-1006, the 24-hour weighted mean glucose concentration is expected to be at least 25 mg/dL lower than placebo.||-1.1|-32.2|0.079
91070141|NCT00791661|182025883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-25.7||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-40.9|-10.5||A step down procedure starting with the highest tolerated dose was implemented.|Mixed Models Analysis|Based on mixed effect model with glucose baseline, panel and treatment-within-panel as fixed effects and participant-within panel as a random effect.|The calculation used to determine the difference in least squares mean (LS mean) was LS mean for MK-1006 45 mg minus LS mean for placebo.|At one or more well tolerated single doses of MK-1006, the 24-hour weighted mean glucose concentration is expected to be at least 25 mg/dL lower than placebo.||-10.5|-40.9|0.007
91070142|NCT00791661|182025883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diffrence in least squares mean|-36.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-52.0|-20.5||A step down procedure starting with the highest tolerated dose was implemented.|Mixed Models Analysis|Based on mixed effect model with glucose baseline, panel and treatment-within-panel as fixed effects and participant-within panel as a random effect.|The calculation used to determine the difference in least squares mean (LS mean) was LS mean for MK-1006 60 mg minus LS mean for placebo.|At one or more well tolerated single doses of MK-1006, the 24-hour weighted mean glucose concentration is expected to be at least 25 mg/dL lower than placebo.||-20.5|-52.0|<.001
91070143|NCT00791661|182025883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-19.7||||0.147|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-42.2|2.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Based on mixed effect model with glucose baseline, panel and treatment-within-panel as fixed effects and participant-within panel as a random effect.|The calculation used to determine the difference in least squares mean (LS mean) was LS mean for MK-1006 60 mg fed minus LS mean for placebo fed.|||2.7|-42.2|0.147
91070144|NCT00791661|182025883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|12.3||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|25.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Based on mixed effect model with glucose baseline, panel and treatment-within-panel as fixed effects and participant-within panel as a random effect.|Difference in least squares mean (LS mean) was calculated as LS mean for MK-1006 60 mg minus LS mean for MK-1006 60 mg fed.|||25.2|-0.5|0.114
91070145|NCT00791661|182025883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-28.9||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-49.9|-7.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|Based on mixed effect model with glucose baseline, panel and treatment-within-panel as fixed effects and participant-within panel as a random effect.|The calculation used to determine the difference in least squares mean (LS mean) was LS mean for placebo fed minus LS mean for placebo.|||-7.9|-49.9|0.026
91070146|NCT00791661|182025883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-57.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-73.3|-41.9||A step down procedure starting with the highest tolerated dose was implemented.|Mixed Models Analysis|Based on mixed effect model with glucose baseline, panel and treatment-within-panel as fixed effects and participant-within panel as a random effect.|The calculation used to determine the difference in least squares mean (LS mean) was LS mean for MK-1006 80 mg minus LS mean for placebo.|At one or more well tolerated single doses of MK-1006, the 24-hour weighted mean glucose concentration is expected to be at least 25 mg/dL lower than placebo.||-41.9|-73.3|<.001
91070147|NCT00791661|182025883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-15.3||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-30.5|-0.1||A step down procedure starting with the highest tolerated dose was implemented.|Mixed Models Analysis|Based on mixed effect model with glucose baseline, panel and treatment-within-panel as fixed effects and participant-within panel as a random effect.|The calculation used to determine the difference in least squares mean (LS mean) was LS mean for MK-1006 100 mg minus LS mean for placebo.|At one or more well tolerated single doses of MK-1006, the 24-hour weighted mean glucose concentration is expected to be at least 25 mg/dL lower than placebo.||-0.1|-30.5|0.099
91070148|NCT00791661|182025883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-43.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-60.8|-27.0||A step down procedure starting with the highest tolerated dose was implemented.|Mixed Models Analysis|Based on mixed effect model with glucose baseline, panel and treatment-within-panel as fixed effects and participant-within panel as a random effect.|The calculation used to determine the difference in least squares mean (LS mean) was LS mean for MK-1006 140 mg minus LS mean for placebo.|At one or more well tolerated single doses of MK-1006, the 24-hour weighted mean glucose concentration is expected to be at least 25 mg/dL lower than placebo.||-27.0|-60.8|<.001
91070149|NCT00791661|182025883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-59.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-75.1|-43.7||A step down procedure starting with the highest tolerated dose was implemented.|Mixed Models Analysis|Based on mixed effect model with glucose baseline, panel and treatment-within-panel as fixed effects and participant-within panel as a random effect.|The calculation used to determine the difference in least squares mean (LS mean) was LS mean for MK-1006 170 mg minus LS mean for placebo.|At one or more well tolerated single doses of MK-1006, the 24-hour weighted mean glucose concentration is expected to be at least 25 mg/dL lower than placebo.||-43.7|-75.1|<.001
91070150|NCT00520533|182026012|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.194|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Biological T1/2 at Week 1 and Week 5.||||0.194
91070151|NCT00520533|182026013|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.172|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Effective T1/2 at Week 1 and Week 5.||||0.172
91070152|NCT00305084|182026022|OTHER||MDT|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||All data regarding safety were registered and analyzed by descriptive analyses. Summary table were generated to document the safety|at least 3 patients per cohort had to be enrolled with expansion to 6 in presence of Dose Limiting Toxicity(DLT) (stop escalation if 2 or more DLTs at the same dose level). With a projection to achieve the highest level of NGR-hTNF, without significative toxicity (1.6 μg/m2) a planned sample of 20-25 patients was expected. DLTs were defined as: any severe toxicity clearly related to the administration of NGR-hTNF. The patient was defined assessable, according to the standard analysis, if he/she received at least one infusion of the investigational product. Maximal Tollerated Dose (MTD) was defined as the dose which produces DLTs in 2 or more patients out of 6 and will be recommended for phase II trials.|||
91070153|NCT00529373|182026067|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.53|||Generalized linear model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW vs Placebo. Generalized linear model for binary data with cloglog link and terms for time interval, treatment, stratum, and geographic region. cloglog link = complementary log log transformation of probability of an event up to the time-point.||0.53|0.40|<0.001
91070154|NCT00529373|182026068|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.71|||Regression, Cox|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW vs Placebo. The Cox proportional hazards model included terms for treatment, stratum and geographic region.||0.71|0.39|<0.001
91070155|NCT00529373|182026069|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.87|||Regression, Cox|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW vs Placebo. The Cox proportional hazards model included terms for treatment, stratum and geographic region.||0.87|0.68|<0.001
91070156|NCT00529373|182026070|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.55|||Generalized linear model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW vs Placebo. Generalized linear model for binary data with cloglog link and terms for time interval, treatment, stratum, and geographic region. cloglog link = complementary log log transformation of probability of an event up to the time-point.||0.55|0.42|<0.001
91070157|NCT00529373|182026071|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.67|||Regression, Cox|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW vs Placebo. The Cox proportional hazards model included terms for treatment, stratum and geographic region.||0.67|0.40|<0.001
91070158|NCT00529373|182026072|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.83|||Regression, Cox|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW vs Placebo. The Cox proportional hazards model included terms for treatment, stratum and geographic region.||0.83|0.66|<0.001
91070159|NCT00529373|182026073|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen|Difference in rates|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|4.07||||||||4.07|-2.3|
91070160|NCT00529373|182026074|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen|Difference in rates|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.37||||||||0.37|-0.16|
91070161|NCT00529373|182026078|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|8.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|13.93|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg vs Placebo||13.93|3.9|<0.001
91070162|NCT00529373|182026079|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|26.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.49|36.4|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg vs Placebo||36.40|16.49|<0.001
91070163|NCT00529373|182026080|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.09||||||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 12. Longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum (sarcopenia, non-sarcopenia), time and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for stratum size).||0.09|-0.14|
91070164|NCT00529373|182026080|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.12||||||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 24. Longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum (sarcopenia, non-sarcopenia), time and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for stratum size).||0.12|-0.12|
91070165|NCT00529373|182026080|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.09||||||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 36. Longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum (sarcopenia, non-sarcopenia), time and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for stratum size).||0.09|-0.17|
91070166|NCT00529373|182026080|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.08||||||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 48. Longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum (sarcopenia, non-sarcopenia), time and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for stratum size).||0.08|-0.50|
91070167|NCT00529373|182026081|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.38||||||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 12. Longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum (sarcopenia, non-sarcopenia), time and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for stratum size).||0.38|-0.16|
91070168|NCT00529373|182026081|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.44||||||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 24. Longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum (sarcopenia, non-sarcopenia), time and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for stratum size).||0.44|-0.15|
91070169|NCT00529373|182026081|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.54||||||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 36. Longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum (sarcopenia, non-sarcopenia), time and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for stratum size).||0.54|-0.15|
91070170|NCT00529373|182026081|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.62||||||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 48. Longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum (sarcopenia, non-sarcopenia), time and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for stratum size).||0.62|-0.24|
91070171|NCT00529373|182026082|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.15||||||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 12. Longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum (sarcopenia, non-sarcopenia), time and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for stratum size).||0.15|-0.08|
91070172|NCT00529373|182026082|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.21||||||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 24. Longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum (sarcopenia, non-sarcopenia), time and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for stratum size).||0.21|-0.06|
91070173|NCT00529373|182026082|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.17||||||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 36. Longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum (sarcopenia, non-sarcopenia), time and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for stratum size).||0.17|-0.12|
91070174|NCT00529373|182026082|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.28||||||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 48. Longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum (sarcopenia, non-sarcopenia), time and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for stratum size).||0.28|-0.09|
91070175|NCT00529373|182026083|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen|Difference in rates|1.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|4.84||||||||4.84|-1.8|
91070176|NCT00529373|182026084|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen|Difference in rates|0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.58||||||||0.58|-0.04|
91070177|NCT00529373|182026085|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.4|||Regression, Cox|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW vs Placebo. The Cox proportional hazards model included terms for treatment, stratum and geographic region.||0.40|0.19|<0.001
91070178|NCT00529373|182026086|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.01||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW versus Placebo. The mixed model contained fixed effects for treatment, region, stratum, treatment-year interaction and random effect intercept and slope (year) and unstructured covariance matrix.||0.03|0.00|0.041
91070179|NCT00529373|182026087|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|0.98|||Logistic model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW versus Placebo. Treatment comparison for height loss at any time during the treatment period. The logistic model contained terms for treatment, geographic region and stratum.||0.98|0.81|0.014
91070180|NCT00529373|182026088|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|1.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.75|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 6. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||1.75|0.90|<0.001
91070181|NCT00529373|182026088|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|2.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.37|2.61|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 12. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||2.61|2.37|<0.001
91070182|NCT00529373|182026088|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|4.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.31|4.62|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 24. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||4.62|4.31|<0.001
91070183|NCT00529373|182026088|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|6.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.25|6.64|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 36. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||6.64|6.25|<0.001
91070184|NCT00529373|182026088|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|8.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.11|9.12|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 48. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||9.12|8.11|<0.001
91070185|NCT00529373|182026088|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|9.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.7|10.29|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 60. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||10.29|8.70|<0.001
91070186|NCT00529373|182026089|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|2.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.47|3.46|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 6. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||3.46|2.47|<0.001
91070187|NCT00529373|182026089|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|4.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.93|4.22|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 12. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||4.22|3.93|<0.001
91070188|NCT00529373|182026089|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|6.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.87|6.23|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 24. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||6.23|5.87|<0.001
91070189|NCT00529373|182026089|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|7.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.62|8.06|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 36. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||8.06|7.62|<0.001
91070190|NCT00529373|182026089|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|9.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.16|10.27|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 48. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||10.27|9.16|<0.001
91070191|NCT00529373|182026089|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|11.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.23|12.23|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 60. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||12.23|10.23|<0.001
91070192|NCT00529373|182026090|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|1.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.03|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 6. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||2.03|0.95|<0.001
91070193|NCT00529373|182026090|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|2.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.05|2.37|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 12. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||2.37|2.05|<0.001
91070194|NCT00529373|182026090|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|4.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.19|4.57|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 24. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||4.57|4.19|<0.001
91070195|NCT00529373|182026090|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|6.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.24|6.68|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 36. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||6.68|6.24|<0.001
91070196|NCT00529373|182026090|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|8.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.82|9.02|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 48. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||9.02|7.82|<0.001
91070197|NCT00529373|182026090|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|8.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.54|9.53|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 60. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||9.53|7.54|<0.001
91070198|NCT00529373|182026091|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|1.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.46|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 6. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||2.46|1.03|<0.001
91070199|NCT00529373|182026091|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|3.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.31|3.7|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 12. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||3.70|3.31|<0.001
91070200|NCT00529373|182026091|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|6.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.17|6.65|||Longitudinal model|Includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size)||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 24||6.65|6.17|<0.001
91070201|NCT00529373|182026091|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|9.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.98|9.57|||Longitudinal model|Includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size)||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 36||9.57|8.98|<0.001
91070202|NCT00529373|182026091|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|12.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.66|13.22|||Longitudinal model|Includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size)||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 48||13.22|11.66|<0.001
91070203|NCT00529373|182026091|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|13.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.58|15.04|||Longitudinal model|Includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size)||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 60||15.04|12.58|<0.001
91070204|NCT00529373|182026092|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|1.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.55|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 12. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||1.55|0.67|<0.001
91070205|NCT00529373|182026092|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|1.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.84|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 24. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||1.84|0.85|<0.001
91070206|NCT00529373|182026092|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|1.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|2.47|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 36. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||2.47|1.38|<0.001
91070207|NCT00529373|182026092|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|2.2||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|3.51|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 48. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||3.51|0.89|0.001
91070208|NCT00529373|182026092|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|3.5||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|5.54|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 60. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||5.54|1.46|0.001
91070209|NCT00529373|182026093|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|5.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.37|6.2|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 12. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||6.2|5.37|<0.001
91070210|NCT00529373|182026093|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|4.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.67|4.37|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 24. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||4.37|3.67|<0.001
91070211|NCT00529373|182026093|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|7.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.11|8.13|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 36. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||8.13|7.11|<0.001
91070212|NCT00529373|182026093|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|9.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.96|11.06|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 48. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||11.06|7.96|<0.001
91070213|NCT00529373|182026094|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|2.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.11|2.68|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 12. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||2.68|2.11|<0.001
91070214|NCT00529373|182026094|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|4.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.84|4.57|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 24. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||4.57|3.84|<0.001
91070215|NCT00529373|182026094|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|5.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.41|6.3|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 36. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||6.30|5.41|<0.001
91070216|NCT00529373|182026094|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|8.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|10.09|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 48. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||10.09|7.00|<0.001
91070217|NCT00529373|182026095|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|2.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.83|2.59|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 12. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||2.59|1.83|<0.001
91070218|NCT00529373|182026095|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|4.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.87|4.78|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 24. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||4.78|3.87|<0.001
91070219|NCT00529373|182026095|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|6.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.56|6.62|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 36. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||6.62|5.56|<0.001
91070220|NCT00529373|182026095|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|9.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.97|11.19|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 48. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||11.19|6.97|<0.001
91070221|NCT00529373|182026096|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|3.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.98|3.9|||Longitudinal model|Includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size)||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 12||3.90|2.98|<0.001
91070222|NCT00529373|182026096|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|6.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.47|6.59|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 24. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||6.59|5.47|<0.001
91070223|NCT00529373|182026096|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|8.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.81|9.16|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 36. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||9.16|7.81|<0.001
91070224|NCT00529373|182026096|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|11.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.15|14.36|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 48. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||14.36|9.15|<0.001
91070225|NCT00529373|182026097|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|1.08||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|2.31|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 12. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||2.31|-0.14|0.083
91070226|NCT00529373|182026097|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|1.05||||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|2.4|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 24. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||2.40|-0.31|0.129
91070227|NCT00529373|182026097|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|1.21||||0.104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|2.67|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 36. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||2.67|-0.25|0.104
91070228|NCT00529373|182026097|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|1.55||||0.617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.92|8.02|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 48. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||8.02|-4.92|0.617
91070229|NCT00529373|182026098|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-58.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.68|-53.3|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 6.||-53.30|-64.68|<0.001
91070230|NCT00529373|182026098|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-60.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.4|-53.61|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 12.||-53.61|-66.40|<0.001
91070231|NCT00529373|182026098|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-46.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.23|-40.17|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 24.||-40.17|-53.23|<0.001
91070232|NCT00529373|182026098|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-44.67||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.62|-36.72|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 36.||-36.72|-52.62|0.050
91070233|NCT00529373|182026098|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-18.73||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.44|-0.01|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 48.||-0.01|-37.44|0.050
91070234|NCT00529373|182026099|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-51.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.11|-47.28|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 6.||-47.28|-56.11|<0.001
91070235|NCT00529373|182026099|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-53.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.39|-48.79|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 12.||-48.79|-58.39|<0.001
91070236|NCT00529373|182026099|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-56.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.52|-50.84|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 24.||-50.84|-62.52|<0.001
91070237|NCT00529373|182026099|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-59.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.04|-52.23|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 36.||-52.23|-66.04|<0.001
91070238|NCT00529373|182026099|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-44.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.72|-27.36|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 48.||-27.36|-61.72|<0.001
91070239|NCT00529373|182026100|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|-11.27|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 6. Longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects (LS Means weighted for region and stratum size).||-11.27|-17.00|<0.001
91070240|NCT00529373|182026100|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.22|-8.79|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 12. Longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects (LS Means weighted for region and stratum size).||-8.79|-15.22|<0.001
91070241|NCT00529373|182026100|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.45|-5.13|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 24. Longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects (LS Means weighted for region and stratum size).||-5.13|-13.45|<0.001
91070242|NCT00529373|182026100|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.87|-3.41|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 36. Longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects (LS Means weighted for region and stratum size).||-3.41|-11.87|<0.001
91070243|NCT00529373|182026100|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.77||||0.896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.34|10.79|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 48. Longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects (LS Means weighted for region and stratum size).||10.79|-12.34|0.896
91070244|NCT00529373|182026101|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.47|-25.39|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 6. Longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects (LS Means weighted for region and stratum size).||-25.39|-33.47|<0.001
91070245|NCT00529373|182026101|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.54|-21.34|||Longitudinal|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 12. Longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects (LS Means weighted for region and stratum size).||-21.34|-30.54|<0.001
91070246|NCT00529373|182026101|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.41|-11.12|||Longitudinal|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 24. Longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects (LS Means weighted for region and stratum size).||-11.12|-21.41|<0.001
91070247|NCT00529373|182026101|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.03|-6.19|||Longitudinal|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 36. Longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects (LS Means weighted for region and stratum size).||-6.19|-18.03|<0.001
91070248|NCT00529373|182026101|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.34||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.12|9.45|||Longitudinal|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 48. Longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects (LS Means weighted for region and stratum size).||9.45|-16.12|0.610
91070249|NCT00529373|182026102|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.34|||Regression, Cox|No adjustments for multiplicity were applied; p-value is unadjusted and therefore considered nominal.||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo||1.34|0.95|0.182
91070250|NCT00529373|182026103|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18||||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.55|||Regression, Cox|No adjustments for multiplicity were applied; all p-values reported were unadjusted and therefore considered nominal.||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo||1.55|0.9|0.235
91070251|NCT00529373|182026104|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.29|||Regression, Cox|No adjustments for multiplicity were applied; p-value is unadjusted and therefore considered nominal.||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo||1.29|0.97|0.127
91070252|NCT00529373|182026105|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.89|||Regression, Cox|No adjustments for multiplicity were applied; all p-values reported were unadjusted and therefore considered nominal.||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo||1.89|0.59|0.857
91070253|NCT00529373|182026106|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.59|||Regression, Cox|No adjustments for multiplicity were applied; all p-values reported were unadjusted and therefore considered nominal.||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo||1.59|0.76|0.606
91070254|NCT00529373|182026107|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.25||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.6|||Regression, Cox|No adjustments for multiplicity were applied; all p-values reported were unadjusted and therefore considered nominal.||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo||1.6|0.98|0.074
91070255|NCT00529373|182026108|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.29|||Regression, Cox|No adjustments for multiplicity were applied; all p-values reported were unadjusted and therefore considered nominal.||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo||1.29|0.97|0.127
91070256|NCT00529373|182026109|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||0.277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.52|||Regression, Cox|No adjustments for multiplicity were applied; all p-values reported were unadjusted and therefore considered nominal.||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo||1.52|0.89|0.277
91070257|NCT00529373|182026110|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.15|||Regression, Cox|No adjustments for multiplicity were applied; all p-values reported were unadjusted and therefore considered nominal.||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo||1.15|0.58|0.256
91070258|NCT00529373|182026111|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|2.57|||Regression, Cox|No adjustments for multiplicity were applied; all p-values reported were unadjusted and therefore considered nominal.||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo||2.57|0.29|0.794
91070259|NCT00529373|182026112|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.32||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.7|||Regression, Cox|No adjustments for multiplicity were applied; all p-values reported were unadjusted and therefore considered nominal.||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo||1.7|1.02|0.034
91070260|NCT00529373|182026113|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.91||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|3.97|||Regression, Cox|No adjustments for multiplicity were applied; all p-values reported were unadjusted and therefore considered nominal.||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo||3.97|0.93|0.081
91070261|NCT00529373|182026114|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|1.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.01|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 6. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||2.01|0.92|<0.001
91070262|NCT00529373|182026114|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|2.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.05|2.37|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 12. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||2.37|2.05|<0.001
91070263|NCT00529373|182026114|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|4.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|4.57|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 24. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||4.57|4.20|<0.001
91070264|NCT00529373|182026114|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|6.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.28|6.72|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 36. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||6.72|6.28|<0.001
91070265|NCT00529373|182026114|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|8.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.02|8.57|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 48. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||8.57|8.02|<0.001
91070266|NCT00529373|182026114|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|10.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.72|10.38|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 60. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||10.38|9.72|<0.001
91070267|NCT00529373|182026115|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|1.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.54|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 12. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||1.54|0.66|<0.001
91070268|NCT00529373|182026115|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|1.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.85|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 24. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||1.85|0.87|<0.001
91070269|NCT00529373|182026115|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|1.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|2.5|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 36. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||2.50|1.42|<0.001
91070270|NCT00529373|182026115|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|2.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|2.96|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 48. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||2.96|1.40|<0.001
91070271|NCT00529373|182026115|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|2.33||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|3.11|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 60. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||3.11|1.54|0.001
91070272|NCT00529373|182026116|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.45|||Regression, Cox|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW vs Placebo. the Cox proportional hazards model included terms for treatment, stratum and geographic region.||0.45|0.24|<0.001
91070273|NCT00529373|182026117|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.75|||Regression, Cox|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW vs Placebo. The Cox proportional hazards model included terms for treatment, stratum and geographic region.||0.75|0.60|<0.001
91070274|NCT00529373|182026118|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|1.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.74|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 6. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||1.74|0.94|<0.001
91070275|NCT00529373|182026118|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|2.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.38|2.62|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 12. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||2.62|2.38|<0.001
91070276|NCT00529373|182026118|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|4.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.31|4.62|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 24. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||4.62|4.31|<0.001
91070277|NCT00529373|182026118|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|6.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.26|6.65|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 36. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||6.65|6.26|<0.001
91070278|NCT00529373|182026118|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|8.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.24|8.73|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 48. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||8.73|8.24|<0.001
91070279|NCT00529373|182026118|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|10.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.99|10.59|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 60. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||10.59|9.99|<0.001
91070280|NCT00529373|182026119|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|1.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.42|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 6. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||2.42|1.06|<0.001
91070281|NCT00529373|182026119|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|3.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.31|3.7|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 12. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||3.70|3.31|<0.001
91070282|NCT00529373|182026119|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|6.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.16|6.65|||Longitudinal model|Includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size)||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 24||6.65|6.16|<0.001
91070283|NCT00529373|182026119|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|9.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.95|9.54|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 36. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||9.54|8.95|<0.001
91070284|NCT00529373|182026119|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|12.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.76|12.51|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 48. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||12.51|11.76|<0.001
91070285|NCT00529373|182026119|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|14.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.11|15.01|||Longitudinal model|Includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size)||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 60. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||15.01|14.11|<0.001
91070286|NCT00529373|182026120|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|2.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|3.39|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 6. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||3.39|2.40|<0.001
91070287|NCT00529373|182026120|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|4.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.87|4.15|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 12. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||4.15|3.87|<0.001
91070288|NCT00529373|182026120|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|5.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.75|6.11|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 24. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||6.11|5.75|<0.001
91070289|NCT00529373|182026120|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|7.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.48|7.91|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 36. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||7.91|7.48|<0.001
91070290|NCT00529373|182026120|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|9.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.08|9.61|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 48. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||9.61|9.08|<0.001
91070291|NCT00529373|182026120|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|10.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.55|11.19|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 48. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||11.19|10.55|<0.001
91070292|NCT00529373|182026129|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|2.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|4.1|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo||4.10|1.43|<0.001
91070293|NCT00529373|182026130|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|5.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.06|7.05|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo||7.05|4.06|<0.001
91070294|NCT00529373|182026131|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|2.79||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|4.72|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo||4.72|0.86|0.005
91070295|NCT00529373|182026132|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|3.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.35|4.9|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo||4.90|2.35|<0.001
91070296|NCT00529373|182026133|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|5.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.79|7.5|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo||7.50|3.79|<0.001
91070297|NCT00529373|182026134|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-62.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-79.99|-44.5|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo||-44.50|-79.99|<0.001
91070298|NCT00529373|182026135|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-26.7||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.56|-10.83|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo||-10.83|-42.56|0.001
91070299|NCT00529373|182026136|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|1.67||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|3.01|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo||3.01|0.32|0.016
91070300|NCT00529373|182026137|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-25.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.92|-14.12|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo||-14.12|-35.92|<0.001
91070301|NCT00529373|182026138|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-64.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-87.8|-41.07|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo||-41.07|-87.80|<0.001
91070302|NCT00529373|182026139|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|8.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.79|11.28|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo||11.28|5.79|<0.001
91070303|NCT00529373|182026140|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|11.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.41|13.74|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo||13.74|8.41|<0.001
91070304|NCT00529373|182026141|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|10.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.05|12.78|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo||12.78|8.05|<0.001
91070305|NCT00529373|182026142|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|9.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.91|13.06|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo||13.06|6.91|<0.001
91070306|NCT00529373|182026143|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|14.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.29|18.59|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo||18.59|11.29|<0.001
91070307|NCT00529373|182026144|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.33|||Regression, Cox|No adjustments for multiplicity were applied; all p-values reported were unadjusted and therefore considered nominal.||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo||1.33|0.47|0.366
91070308|NCT00529373|182026145|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.4|||Regression, Cox|No adjustments for multiplicity were applied; all p-values reported were unadjusted and therefore considered nominal.||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo||1.4|0.92|0.246
91070309|NCT00529373|182026146|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|2.03|||Regression, Cox|No adjustments for multiplicity were applied; all p-values reported were unadjusted and therefore considered nominal.||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo||2.03|0.32|0.638
91070310|NCT00529373|182026147|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.36|||Regression, Cox|No adjustments for multiplicity were applied; p-value is unadjusted and therefore considered nominal.||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo||1.36|1.02|0.029
91070311|NCT00529373|182026148|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.17|||Regression, Cox|No adjustments for multiplicity were applied; all p-values reported were unadjusted and therefore considered nominal.||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo||1.17|0.95|0.341
91070312|NCT00529373|182026149|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.23||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.68|||Regression, Cox|No adjustments for multiplicity were applied; all p-values reported were unadjusted and therefore considered nominal.||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo||1.68|0.9|0.198
91070313|NCT00529373|182026150|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.26|||Regression, Cox|No adjustments for multiplicity were applied; all p-values reported were unadjusted and therefore considered nominal.||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo||1.26|0.7|0.798
91070314|NCT00529373|182026151|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.37||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.71|||Regression, Cox|No adjustments for multiplicity were applied; all p-values reported were unadjusted and therefore considered nominal.||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo||1.71|1.1|0.005
91070315|NCT00529373|182026152|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.22||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.5|||Regression, Cox|No adjustments for multiplicity were applied; all p-values reported were unadjusted and therefore considered nominal.||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo||1.5|0.99|0.059
91070316|NCT00529373|182026153|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.61||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|2.9|||Regression, Cox|No adjustments for multiplicity were applied; all p-values reported were unadjusted and therefore considered nominal.||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo||2.9|0.89|0.114
91070317|NCT00529373|182026154|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.31|||Regression, Cox|No adjustments for multiplicity were applied; p-value is unadjusted and therefore considered nominal.||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo||1.31|0.99|0.159
91070318|NCT00529373|182026155|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.46|||Regression, Cox|No adjustments for multiplicity were applied; all p-values reported were unadjusted and therefore considered nominal.||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo||1.46|0.93|0.178
91070319|NCT00529373|182026156|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen|Difference in rates|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.09||||||||0.09|-0.01|
91070320|NCT00529373|182026157|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen|Difference in rates|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.05||||||||0.05|0.01|
91070321|NCT00529373|182026158|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen|Difference in rates|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.11||||||||0.11|0.03|
91070322|NCT00529373|182026159|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen|Difference in rates|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.06||||||||0.06|0.02|
91070323|NCT00251303|182026211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.959||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.959
91070324|NCT04075682|182026217|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus their not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|1.25||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the pre-specified H1 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing groups that received inserts (insert only AND insert + pictorial warnings) with the groups that did not (pictorial warning only AND control). We expected that the outcome would be higher in the insert groups than in the no insert groups.||1.25|-0.73|0.60
91070325|NCT04075682|182026217|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus their not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|0.66||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the pre-specified H3 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing the group that received inserts and pictorial warnings with the group that received inserts only. We expected that this outcome would be higher in the insert and pictorial warning group than in the insert only group.||0.66|-2.22|0.29
91070326|NCT04075682|182026217|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|1.16||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the pre-specified H4 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing the group that received inserts and pictorial warnings with the group that received pictorial warnings only. We expected that this outcome would be higher in the insert and pictorial warning group than in the pictorial warning only group.||1.16|-1.67|0.73
91070327|NCT04075682|182026217|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|1.74||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H1 assessment. We expected that the effect of inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) compared to no inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) on the outcome would be stronger for those with higher than lower education (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||1.74|-2.34|0.77
91070328|NCT04075682|182026217|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|2.88||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H1 assessment. We expected that the effect of inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) compared to no inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) on the outcome would be stronger for those with higher than lower literacy (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||2.88|-1.43|0.51
91070329|NCT04075682|182026217|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|2.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|4.01||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H1 assessment. We expected that the effect of inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) compared to no inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) on the outcome would be stronger for those with lower than higher delayed discounting (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||4.01|0.02|0.05
91070330|NCT04075682|182026217|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.49||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.84|2.02||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6b assessment, which evaluated whether the moderation of insert effects would vary by whether the inserts included pictorial warnings or not. We expected that moderation by baseline education would be stronger for insert only (vs control) than for inserts AND pictorial warnings (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||2.02|-3.84|0.54
91070331|NCT04075682|182026217|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|2.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.61||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|5.17||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6b assessment, which evaluated whether the moderation of insert effects would vary by whether the inserts included pictorial warnings or not. We expected that moderation by baseline literacy would be larger for insert only (vs control) than for inserts AND pictorial warnings (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||5.17|-1.13|0.21
91070332|NCT04075682|182026217|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.48||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.97|1.83||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6b assessment, which evaluated whether the moderation of insert effects would vary by whether the inserts included pictorial warnings or not. We expected that moderation by baseline delay discounting would be larger for insert only (vs control) than for inserts AND pictorial warnings (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||1.83|-3.97|0.47
91070333|NCT04075682|182026218|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|1.24||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the pre-specified H1 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing groups that received inserts (insert only AND insert + pictorial warnings) with the groups that did not (pictorial warning only AND control). We expected that the outcome would be higher in the insert groups than in the no insert groups.||1.24|-0.68|0.57
91070334|NCT04075682|182026218|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.63|0.14||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the pre-specified H3 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing the group that received inserts and pictorial warnings with the group that received inserts only. We expected that this outcome would be higher in the insert and pictorial warning group than in the insert only group.||0.14|-2.63|0.08
91078632|NCT01964716|182043067|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for a given antibody was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 97.5% confidence interval, computed using the Chan and Zhang procedure, for the difference in proportions (13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS) was greater than -0.10.|percent difference|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-4.3|2.5||||||Serotype 14: Exact 2-sided confidence interval (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, 13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS, expressed as a percentage was analyzed.||2.5|-4.3|
91070335|NCT04075682|182026218|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.97|0.77||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the pre-specified H4 assessment, comparing the group that received inserts and pictorial warnings with the group that received pictorial warnings only. We expected that this outcome would be higher in the insert and pictorial warning group than in the pictorial warning only group.||0.77|-1.97|0.39
91070336|NCT04075682|182026218|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|2.47||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H1 assessment. We expected that the effect of inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) compared to no inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) on the outcome would be stronger for those with higher than lower education (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||2.47|-1.45|0.61
91070337|NCT04075682|182026218|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.07||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|1.97||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H1 assessment. We expected that the effect of inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) compared to no inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) on the outcome would be stronger for those with higher than lower literacy (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||1.97|-2.23|0.90
91070338|NCT04075682|182026218|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|2.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|3.97||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H1 assessment. We expected that the effect of inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) compared to no inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) on the outcome would be stronger for those with lower than higher delayed discounting (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||3.97|0.13|0.04
91070339|NCT04075682|182026218|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.43||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.14|3.48||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6b assessment, which evaluated whether the moderation of insert effects would vary by whether the inserts included pictorial warnings or not. We expected that moderation by baseline education would be stronger for insert only (vs control) than for inserts AND pictorial warnings (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||3.48|-2.14|0.64
91070340|NCT04075682|182026218|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.56||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.91|3.2||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6b assessment, which evaluated whether the moderation of insert effects would vary by whether the inserts included pictorial warnings or not. We expected that moderation by baseline literacy would be larger for insert only (vs control) than for inserts AND pictorial warnings (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||3.20|-2.91|0.92
91070341|NCT04075682|182026218|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.41||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.02|0.52||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6b assessment, which evaluated whether the moderation of insert effects would vary by whether the inserts included pictorial warnings or not. We expected that moderation by baseline delay discounting would be larger for insert only (vs control) than for inserts AND pictorial warnings (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||0.52|-5.02|0.11
91070342|NCT04075682|182026219|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|0.82||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the pre-specified H2 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing groups that received pictorial warnings (pictorial warning only AND insert + pictorial warnings) with the groups that did not (insert only AND control). We expected that the outcome would be higher in the pictorial warning groups than in the no pictorial warning groups.||0.82|-1.48|0.57
91070343|NCT04075682|182026219|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.22|1.27||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H5a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H2 assessment. We expected that the effect of pictorial warnings (averaged over insert) vs no pictorial warnings (averaged over insert) on the outcome would be stronger for higher vs lower self-efficacy (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 4)||1.27|-3.22|0.39
91070344|NCT04075682|182026219|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.35|3.04||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H5b assessment, which evaluates whether moderation of pictorial warnings effects would vary by whether the pictorial warnings included inserts or not. We expected that moderation effects of baseline self-efficacy would be larger for pictorial warnings only (vs control) than for pictorial warnings AND inserts (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 4).||3.04|-3.35|0.92
91070345|NCT04075682|182026220|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|0.53||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the pre-specified H2 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing groups that received pictorial warnings (pictorial warning only AND insert + pictorial warnings) with the groups that did not (insert only AND control). We expected that the outcome would be higher in the pictorial warning groups than in the no pictorial warning groups.||0.53|-1.33|0.40
91070346|NCT04075682|182026220|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|1.86||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H5a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H2 assessment. We expected that the effect of pictorial health warning labels (HWLs) (averaged over insert) vs no pictorial HWLs (averaged over insert) on the outcome would be stronger for higher vs lower self-efficacy (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 4).||1.86|-1.83|0.99
91070347|NCT04075682|182026220|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.34||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|4.48||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H5b assessment, which evaluates whether moderation of pictorial warnings effects would vary by whether the pictorial warnings included inserts or not. We expected that moderation effects of baseline self-efficacy would be larger for pictorial warnings only (vs control) than for pictorial warnings AND inserts (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 4).||4.48|-0.78|0.17
91070348|NCT04075682|182026221|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|1.57||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the pre-specified H1 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing groups that received inserts (insert only AND insert + pictorial warnings) with the groups that did not (pictorial warning only AND control). We expected that the outcome would be higher in the insert groups than in the no insert groups.||1.57|-0.69|0.45
91070349|NCT04075682|182026221|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|0.66||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the pre-specified H2 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing groups that received pictorial warnings (pictorial warning only AND insert + pictorial warnings) with the groups that did not (insert only AND control). We expected that the outcome would be higher in the pictorial warning groups than in the no pictorial warning groups.||0.66|-1.61|0.41
91070350|NCT04075682|182026221|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.08|0.2||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the pre-specified H3 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing the group that received inserts and pictorial warnings with the group that received inserts only. We expected that this outcome would be higher in the insert and pictorial warning group than in the insert only group.||0.20|-3.08|0.08
91070351|NCT04075682|182026221|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.14|1.09||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the pre-specified H4 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing the group that received inserts and pictorial warnings with the group that received pictorial warnings only. We expected that this outcome would be higher in the insert and pictorial warning group than in the pictorial warning only group.||1.09|-2.14|0.52
91070352|NCT04075682|182026221|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|2.51||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H5a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H2 assessment. We expected that the effect of pictorial HWLs (averaged over insert) vs no pictorial HWLs (averaged over insert) on the outcome would be stronger for higher vs lower self-efficacy (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 4).||2.51|-1.82|0.75
91070353|NCT04075682|182026221|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.57||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.82|2.33||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H5b assessment, which evaluates whether moderation of pictorial warnings effects would vary by whether the pictorial warnings included inserts or not. We expected that moderation effects of baseline self-efficacy would be larger for pictorial warnings only (vs control) than for pictorial warnings AND inserts (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 4).||2.33|-3.82|0.64
91070354|NCT04075682|182026221|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.17|2.45||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H1 assessment. We expected that the effect of inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) compared to no inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) on the outcome would be stronger for those with higher than lower education (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||2.45|-2.17|0.91
90827602|NCT05104450|181529951|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.27||||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|treatment-by-time interaction|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed effects model including baseline and follow up outcome measures, time, treatment by time interaction, baseline covariates: age, gender, race, charlson comorbidity index, rurality, and randomization stratification variables: BMI (30-34.9 vs. 35-44.9kg/m2), OSA severity (mild vs. moderate to severe), and sleep related impairment T-score (\<60 vs. ≥ 60). The parameter of interest is treatment by time interaction coefficient, measuring the between group difference for change in outcome.||0.79|-0.26|0.317
90827603|NCT05104450|181529952|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|one-time measures: Beta Estimates|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed effects model including each participant's outcome measure, baseline covariates: age, gender, race, charlson comorbidity index, rurality, and randomization stratification variables: BMI (30-34.9 vs. 35-44.9kg/m2), OSA severity (mild vs. moderate to severe), and sleep related impairment T-score (\<60 vs. ≥ 60).||-0.17|-0.44|<0.001
91070355|NCT04075682|182026221|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.29|1.6||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H1 assessment. We expected that the effect of inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) compared to no inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) on the outcome would be stronger for those with higher than lower literacy (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||1.60|-3.29|0.50
91070356|NCT04075682|182026221|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|3.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|5.41||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H1 assessment. We expected that the effect of inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) compared to no inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) on the outcome would be stronger for those with lower than higher delayed discounting (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||5.41|0.86|0.007
91070357|NCT04075682|182026221|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.69||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|4.4||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6b assessment, which evaluated whether the moderation of insert effects would vary by whether the inserts included pictorial warnings or not. We expected that moderation by baseline education would be stronger for insert only (vs control) than for inserts AND pictorial warnings (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||4.40|-2.22|0.52
91070358|NCT04075682|182026221|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.82||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.89|3.23||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6b assessment, which evaluated whether the moderation of insert effects would vary by whether the inserts included pictorial warnings or not. We expected that moderation by baseline literacy would be larger for insert only (vs control) than for inserts AND pictorial warnings (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||3.23|-3.89|0.86
91070359|NCT04075682|182026221|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.68||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.15|2.43||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6b assessment, which evaluated whether the moderation of insert effects would vary by whether the inserts included pictorial warnings or not. We expected that moderation by baseline delay discounting would be larger for insert only (vs control) than for inserts AND pictorial warnings (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||2.43|-4.15|0.61
91070360|NCT04075682|182026222|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.96||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the pre-specified H1 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing groups that received inserts (insert only AND insert + pictorial warnings) with the groups that did not (pictorial warning only AND control). We expected that the outcome would be higher in the insert groups than in the no insert groups.||1.96|0.82|0.29
91070361|NCT04075682|182026222|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.85||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the pre-specified H2 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing groups that received pictorial warnings (pictorial warning only AND insert + pictorial warnings) with the groups that did not (insert only AND control). We expected that the outcome would be higher in the pictorial warning groups than in the no pictorial warning groups.||1.85|0.77|0.43
91078633|NCT01964716|182043067|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for a given antibody was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 97.5% confidence interval, computed using the Chan and Zhang procedure, for the difference in proportions (13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS) was greater than -0.10.|percent difference|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.6|4.5||||||Serotype 18C: Exact 2-sided confidence interval (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, 13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS, expressed as a percentage was analyzed.||4.5|-1.6|
91070362|NCT04075682|182026222|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.2||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the pre-specified H3 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing the group that received inserts and pictorial warnings with the group that received inserts only. We expected that this outcome would be higher in the insert and pictorial warning group than in the insert only group.||2.20|0.63|0.60
91070363|NCT04075682|182026222|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|2.33||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the pre-specified H4 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing the group that received inserts and pictorial warnings with the group that received pictorial warnings only. We expected that this outcome would be higher in the insert and pictorial warning group than in the pictorial warning only group.||2.33|0.67|0.48
91070364|NCT04075682|182026222|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.91||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H5a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H2 assessment. We expected that the effect of pictorial HWLs (averaged over insert) vs no pictorial HWLs (averaged over insert) on the outcome would be stronger for higher vs lower self-efficacy (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 4).||1.91|0.34|0.62
91070365|NCT04075682|182026222|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|10.52||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H5b assessment, which evaluates whether moderation of pictorial warnings effects would vary by whether the pictorial warnings included inserts or not. We expected that moderation effects of baseline self-efficacy would be larger for pictorial warnings only (vs control) than for pictorial warnings AND inserts (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 4).||10.52|0.88|0.079
91070366|NCT04075682|182026222|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|5.12||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H1 assessment. We expected that the effect of inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) compared to no inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) on the outcome would be stronger for those with higher than lower education (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||5.12|0.87|0.10
91077867|NCT02913105|182041136|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.97||||0.5031|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.04|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Cholesterol: Day 112 (EOS)||1.04|0.91|0.5031
90827604|NCT05104450|181529953|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|one-time measures: Beta Estimates|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed effects model including each participant's outcome measure, baseline covariates: age, gender, race, charlson comorbidity index, rurality, and randomization stratification variables: BMI (30-34.9 vs. 35-44.9kg/m2), OSA severity (mild vs. moderate to severe), and sleep related impairment T-score (\<60 vs. ≥ 60).||0.03|-0.27|0.107
90827605|NCT05104450|181529954|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.07||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|7.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|treatment-by-time interaction|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed effects model including baseline and follow up outcome measures, time, treatment by time interaction, baseline covariates: age, gender, race, charlson comorbidity index, rurality, and randomization stratification variables: BMI (30-34.9 vs. 35-44.9kg/m2), OSA severity (mild vs. moderate to severe), and sleep related impairment T-score (\<60 vs. ≥ 60). The parameter of interest is treatment by time interaction coefficient, measuring the between group difference for change in outcome.||7.27|0.86|0.013
90827606|NCT05104450|181529955|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.11||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|6.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|treatment-by-time interaction|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed effects model including baseline and follow up outcome measures, time, treatment by time interaction, baseline covariates: age, gender, race, charlson comorbidity index, rurality, and randomization stratification variables: BMI (30-34.9 vs. 35-44.9kg/m2), OSA severity (mild vs. moderate to severe), and sleep related impairment T-score (\<60 vs. ≥ 60). The parameter of interest is treatment by time interaction coefficient, measuring the between group difference for change in outcome.||6.42|-0.20|0.065
91070367|NCT04075682|182026222|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|3.61||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H1 assessment. We expected that the effect of inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) compared to no inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) on the outcome would be stronger for those with higher than lower literacy (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||3.61|0.52|0.52
91070368|NCT04075682|182026222|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|3.17||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H1 assessment. We expected that the effect of inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) compared to no inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) on the outcome would be stronger for those with lower than higher delayed discounting (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||3.17|0.55|0.54
91070369|NCT04075682|182026222|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|6.61||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6b assessment, which evaluated whether the moderation of insert effects would vary by whether the inserts included pictorial warnings or not. We expected that moderation by baseline education would be stronger for insert only (vs control) than for inserts AND pictorial warnings (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||6.61|0.53|0.33
91070370|NCT04075682|182026222|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|6.11||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6b assessment, which evaluated whether the moderation of insert effects would vary by whether the inserts included pictorial warnings or not. We expected that moderation by baseline literacy would be larger for insert only (vs control) than for inserts AND pictorial warnings (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||6.11|0.38|0.55
91070371|NCT04075682|182026222|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|2.14||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6b assessment, which evaluated whether the moderation of insert effects would vary by whether the inserts included pictorial warnings or not. We expected that moderation by baseline delay discounting would be larger for insert only (vs control) than for inserts AND pictorial warnings (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||2.14|0.18|0.44
91070372|NCT04075682|182026222|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.98||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the multiple imputation models for pre-specified H1 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing groups that received inserts (insert only AND insert + pictorial warnings) with the groups that did not (pictorial warning only AND control). We expected that the outcome would be higher in the insert groups than in the no insert groups.||1.98|0.84|0.2510
91070373|NCT04075682|182026222|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.2822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.95||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the multiple imputation model for the pre-specified H2 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing groups that received pictorial warnings (pictorial warning only AND insert + pictorial warnings) with the groups that did not (insert only AND control). We expected that the outcome would be higher in the pictorial warning groups than in the no pictorial warning groups.||1.95|0.82|0.2822
90827607|NCT05104450|181529956|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.63||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.11|-0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|one-time measures: Beta Estimates|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed effects model including each participant's outcome measure, baseline covariates: age, gender, race, charlson comorbidity index, rurality, and randomization stratification variables: BMI (30-34.9 vs. 35-44.9kg/m2), OSA severity (mild vs. moderate to severe), and sleep related impairment T-score (\<60 vs. ≥ 60).||-0.14|-7.11|0.041
91070374|NCT04075682|182026222|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.3558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.47||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for multiple imputation models for the pre-specified H3 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing the group that received inserts and pictorial warnings with the group that received inserts only. We expected that this outcome would be higher in the insert and pictorial warning group than in the insert only group.||2.47|0.72|0.3558
91070375|NCT04075682|182026222|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.3291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.51||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the multiple imputation model for the pre-specified H4 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing the group that received inserts and pictorial warnings with the group that received pictorial warnings only. We expected that this outcome would be higher in the insert and pictorial warning group than in the pictorial warning only group.||2.51|0.73|0.3291
91070376|NCT04075682|182026222|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.7818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|2.09||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are from the multiple imputation model for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H5a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H2 assessment. We expected that the effect of pictorial HWLs (averaged over insert) vs no pictorial HWLs (averaged over insert) on the outcome would be stronger for higher vs lower self-efficacy (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 4).||2.09|0.38|0.7818
91070377|NCT04075682|182026222|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.79||0.0912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|9.73||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are from the multiple imputation model for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H5b assessment, which evaluates whether moderation of pictorial warnings effects would vary by whether the pictorial warnings included inserts or not. We expected that moderation effects of baseline self-efficacy would be larger for pictorial warnings only (vs control) than for pictorial warnings AND inserts (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 4).||9.73|0.84|0.0912
91070378|NCT04075682|182026222|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.1361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|4.66||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are from the multiple imputation model for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H1 assessment. We expected that the effect of inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) compared to no inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) on the outcome would be stronger for those with higher than lower education (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||4.66|0.81|0.1361
91070379|NCT04075682|182026222|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|3.07||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the multiple imputation model for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H1 assessment. We expected that the effect of inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) compared to no inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) on the outcome would be stronger for those with higher than lower literacy (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||3.07|0.46|0.7200
91070380|NCT04075682|182026222|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.3737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|3.53||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are from the multiple imputation model for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H1 assessment. We expected that the effect of inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) compared to no inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) on the outcome would be stronger for those with lower than higher delayed discounting (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||3.53|0.62|0.3737
91070381|NCT04075682|182026222|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63||0.1345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|8.9||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are from the multiple imputation model for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6b assessment, which evaluated whether the moderation of insert effects would vary by whether the inserts included pictorial warnings or not. We expected that moderation by baseline education would be stronger for insert only (vs control) than for inserts AND pictorial warnings (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||8.90|0.75|0.1345
91070382|NCT04075682|182026222|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36||0.3318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|7.67||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are from the multiple imputation model for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6b assessment, which evaluated whether the moderation of insert effects would vary by whether the inserts included pictorial warnings or not. We expected that moderation by baseline literacy would be larger for insert only (vs control) than for inserts AND pictorial warnings (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||7.67|0.50|0.3318
91070383|NCT04075682|182026222|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.7017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|2.7||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are from the multiple imputation model for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6b assessment, which evaluated whether the moderation of insert effects would vary by whether the inserts included pictorial warnings or not. We expected that moderation by baseline delay discounting would be larger for insert only (vs control) than for inserts AND pictorial warnings (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||2.70|0.23|0.7017
91070384|NCT04075682|182026223|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|4.31||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the pre-specified H1 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing groups that received inserts (insert only AND insert + pictorial warnings) with the groups that did not (pictorial warning only AND control). We expected that the outcome would be higher in the insert groups than in the no insert groups.||4.31|1.42|0.001
91070385|NCT04075682|182026223|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|3.3||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the pre-specified H2 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing groups that received pictorial warnings (pictorial warning only AND insert + pictorial warnings) with the groups that did not (insert only AND control). We expected that the outcome would be higher in the pictorial warning groups than in the no pictorial warning groups.||3.30|1.09|0.025
91070386|NCT04075682|182026223|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|3.06||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the pre-specified H3 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing the group that received inserts and pictorial warnings with the group that received inserts only. We expected that this outcome would be higher in the insert and pictorial warning group than in the insert only group.||3.06|0.62|0.44
91070387|NCT04075682|182026223|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|3.97||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the pre-specified H4 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing the group that received inserts and pictorial warnings with the group that received pictorial warnings only. We expected that this outcome would be higher in the insert and pictorial warning group than in the pictorial warning only group.||3.97|0.81|0.15
91077868|NCT02913105|182041136|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.0||||0.9244|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.04|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Cholesterol: Day 7||1.04|0.96|0.9244
91070388|NCT04075682|182026223|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|3.58||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H5a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H2 assessment. We expected that the effect of pictorial HWLs (averaged over insert) vs no pictorial HWLs (averaged over insert) on the outcome would be stronger for higher vs lower self-efficacy (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 4).||3.58|0.39|0.76
91070389|NCT04075682|182026223|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|3.8||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H5b assessment, which evaluates whether moderation of pictorial warnings effects would vary by whether the pictorial warnings included inserts or not. We expected that moderation effects of baseline self-efficacy would be larger for pictorial warnings only (vs control) than for pictorial warnings AND inserts (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 4).||3.80|0.16|0.77
91070390|NCT04075682|182026223|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.23||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|6.61||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H1 assessment. We expected that the effect of inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) compared to no inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) on the outcome would be stronger for those with higher than lower education (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||6.61|0.72|0.17
91070391|NCT04075682|182026223|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|1.57||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H1 assessment. We expected that the effect of inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) compared to no inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) on the outcome would be stronger for those with higher than lower literacy (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||1.57|0.14|0.22
91070392|NCT04075682|182026223|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.94||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|10.37||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H1 assessment. We expected that the effect of inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) compared to no inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) on the outcome would be stronger for those with lower than higher delayed discounting (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||10.37|1.15|0.02
91070393|NCT04075682|182026223|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|5.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.4||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|26.53||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6b assessment, which evaluated whether the moderation of insert effects would vary by whether the inserts included pictorial warnings or not. We expected that moderation by baseline education would be stronger for insert only (vs control) than for inserts AND pictorial warnings (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||26.53|1.12|0.04
91070394|NCT04075682|182026223|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|3.47||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6b assessment, which evaluated whether the moderation of insert effects would vary by whether the inserts included pictorial warnings or not. We expected that moderation by baseline literacy would be larger for insert only (vs control) than for inserts AND pictorial warnings (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||3.47|0.10|0.56
91077869|NCT02913105|182041136|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.03||||0.236|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.99|1.08|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Cholesterol: Day 14||1.08|0.99|0.2360
91070395|NCT04075682|182026223|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|2.68||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6b assessment, which evaluated whether the moderation of insert effects would vary by whether the inserts included pictorial warnings or not. We expected that moderation by baseline delay discounting would be larger for insert only (vs control) than for inserts AND pictorial warnings (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||2.68|0.11|0.46
91070396|NCT04075682|182026223|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|4.27||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are from the multiple imputation model for the pre-specified H1 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing groups that received inserts (insert only AND insert + pictorial warnings) with the groups that did not (pictorial warning only AND control). We expected that the outcome would be higher in the insert groups than in the no insert groups.||4.27|1.56|0.0002
91070397|NCT04075682|182026223|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.0135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|3.12||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are from the multiple imputation model for the pre-specified H2 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing groups that received pictorial warnings (pictorial warning only AND insert + pictorial warnings) with the groups that did not (insert only AND control). We expected that the outcome would be higher in the pictorial warning groups than in the no pictorial warning groups.||3.12|1.14|0.0135
91070398|NCT04075682|182026223|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.2619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|3.12||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are from the multiple imputation model for the pre-specified H3 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing the group that received inserts and pictorial warnings with the group that received inserts only. We expected that this outcome would be higher in the insert and pictorial warning group than in the insert only group.||3.12|0.73|0.2619
91070399|NCT04075682|182026223|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.0474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|4.24||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are from the multiple imputation model for the pre-specified H4 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing the group that received inserts and pictorial warnings with the group that received pictorial warnings only. We expected that this outcome would be higher in the insert and pictorial warning group than in the pictorial warning only group.||4.24|1.01|0.0474
91070400|NCT04075682|182026223|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.8094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|3.07||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are from the multiple imputation model for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H5a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H2 assessment. We expected that the effect of pictorial HWLs (averaged over insert) vs no pictorial HWLs (averaged over insert) on the outcome would be stronger for higher vs lower self-efficacy (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 4).||3.07|0.42|0.8094
91070401|NCT04075682|182026223|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.7978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|3.44||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are from the multiple imputation model for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H5b assessment, which evaluates whether moderation of pictorial warnings effects would vary by whether the pictorial warnings included inserts or not. We expected that moderation effects of baseline self-efficacy would be larger for pictorial warnings only (vs control) than for pictorial warnings AND inserts (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 4).||3.44|0.20|0.7978
91077870|NCT02913105|182041136|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.01||||0.699|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.07|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Cholesterol: Day 28||1.07|0.96|0.6990
91070402|NCT04075682|182026223|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15||0.1016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|6.15||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are from the multiple imputation model for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H1 assessment. We expected that the effect of inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) compared to no inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) on the outcome would be stronger for those with higher than lower education (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||6.15|0.85|0.1016
91070403|NCT04075682|182026223|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.36||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are from the multiple imputation model for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H1 assessment. We expected that the effect of inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) compared to no inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) on the outcome would be stronger for those with higher than lower literacy (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||1.36|0.15|0.1570
91070404|NCT04075682|182026223|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.53||0.0297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|8.18||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are from the multiple imputation model for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H1 assessment. We expected that the effect of inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) compared to no inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) on the outcome would be stronger for those with lower than higher delayed discounting (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||8.18|1.11|0.0297
91070405|NCT04075682|182026223|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|5.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.81||0.0213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|21.73||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are from the multiple imputation model for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6b assessment, which evaluated whether the moderation of insert effects would vary by whether the inserts included pictorial warnings or not. We expected that moderation by baseline education would be stronger for insert only (vs control) than for inserts AND pictorial warnings (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||21.73|1.28|0.0213
91070406|NCT04075682|182026223|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.9648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|4.74||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are from the multiple imputation model for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6b assessment, which evaluated whether the moderation of insert effects would vary by whether the inserts included pictorial warnings or not. We expected that moderation by baseline literacy would be larger for insert only (vs control) than for inserts AND pictorial warnings (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||4.74|0.20|0.9648
91070407|NCT04075682|182026223|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.6512|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results from the multiple imputation model are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6b assessment, which evaluated whether the moderation of insert effects would vary by whether the inserts included pictorial warnings or not. We expected that moderation by baseline delay discounting would be larger for insert only (vs control) than for inserts AND pictorial warnings (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||||0.6512
91070408|NCT04075682|182026224|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|1.85||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the pre-specified H1 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing groups that received inserts (insert only AND insert + pictorial warnings) with the groups that did not (pictorial warning only AND control). We expected that the outcome would be higher in the insert groups than in the no insert groups.||1.85|-0.75|0.41
91070409|NCT04075682|182026224|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.55|0.21||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the pre-specified H3 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing the group that received inserts and pictorial warnings with the group that received inserts only. We expected that this outcome would be higher in the insert and pictorial warning group than in the insert only group.||0.21|-3.55|0.08
91070410|NCT04075682|182026224|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.42|1.29||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the pre-specified H4 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing the group that received inserts and pictorial warnings with the group that received pictorial warnings only. We expected that this outcome would be higher in the insert and pictorial warning group than in the pictorial warning only group.||1.29|-2.42|0.55
91070411|NCT04075682|182026224|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|3.86||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H1 assessment. We expected that the effect of inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) compared to no inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) on the outcome would be stronger for those with higher than lower education (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||3.86|-1.47|0.38
91070412|NCT04075682|182026224|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.44||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.35|2.28||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H1 assessment. We expected that the effect of inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) compared to no inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) on the outcome would be stronger for those with higher than lower literacy (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||2.28|-3.35|0.71
91070413|NCT04075682|182026224|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|3.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.34||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|5.83||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H1 assessment. We expected that the effect of inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) compared to no inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) on the outcome would be stronger for those with lower than higher delayed discounting (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||5.83|0.59|0.02
91070414|NCT04075682|182026224|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.94||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.85|3.76||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6b assessment, which evaluated whether the moderation of insert effects would vary by whether the inserts included pictorial warnings or not. We expected that moderation by baseline education would be stronger for insert only (vs control) than for inserts AND pictorial warnings (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||3.76|-3.85|0.98
91070415|NCT04075682|182026224|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.08||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|1.95||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6b assessment, which evaluated whether the moderation of insert effects would vary by whether the inserts included pictorial warnings or not. We expected that moderation by baseline literacy would be larger for insert only (vs control) than for inserts AND pictorial warnings (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||1.95|-6.2|0.31
91077871|NCT02913105|182041136|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.05||||0.159|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.99|1.11|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Cholesterol: Day 42||1.11|0.99|0.1590
91070416|NCT04075682|182026224|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.58|2.97||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6b assessment, which evaluated whether the moderation of insert effects would vary by whether the inserts included pictorial warnings or not. We expected that moderation by baseline delay discounting would be larger for insert only (vs control) than for inserts AND pictorial warnings (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||2.97|-4.58|0.68
91070417|NCT04075682|182026225|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.36||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the pre-specified H2 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing groups that received pictorial warnings (pictorial warning only AND insert + pictorial warnings) with the groups that did not (insert only AND control). We expected that the outcome would be higher in the pictorial warning groups than in the no pictorial warning groups.||0.36|-0.81|0.45
91070418|NCT04075682|182026225|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.5767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.7||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results from the multiple imputation model are for the pre-specified H2 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing groups that received pictorial warnings (pictorial warning only AND insert + pictorial warnings) with the groups that did not (insert only AND control). We expected that the outcome would be higher in the pictorial warning groups than in the no pictorial warning groups.||0.70|-0.64|0.5767
91070419|NCT04075682|182026226|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.36||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|These results are for the pre-specified H2 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing groups that received pictorial warnings (pictorial warning only AND insert + pictorial warnings) with the groups that did not (insert only AND control). We expected that the outcome would be higher in the pictorial warning groups than in the no pictorial warning groups.||0.36|-0.98|0.36
91070420|NCT04075682|182026226|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|0.99||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H5a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H2 assessment. We expected that the effect of pictorial HWLs (averaged over insert) vs no pictorial HWLs (averaged over insert) on the outcome would be stronger for higher vs lower self-efficacy (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 4).||0.99|-1.64|0.63
91070421|NCT04075682|182026226|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|2.12||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H5b assessment, which evaluates whether moderation of pictorial warnings effects would vary by whether the pictorial warnings included inserts or not. We expected that moderation effects of baseline self-efficacy would be larger for pictorial warnings only (vs control) than for pictorial warnings AND inserts (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 4).||2.12|-1.62|0.79
91070422|NCT04075682|182026226|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.4491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.37||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|These results from the multiple imputation model are for the pre-specified H2 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing groups that received pictorial warnings (pictorial warning only AND insert + pictorial warnings) with the groups that did not (insert only AND control). We expected that the outcome would be higher in the pictorial warning groups than in the no pictorial warning groups.||0.37|-0.84|0.4491
91070423|NCT04075682|182026226|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.8713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|1.06||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results from the multiple imputation model are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H5a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H2 assessment. We expected that the effect of pictorial HWLs (averaged over insert) vs no pictorial HWLs (averaged over insert) on the outcome would be stronger for higher vs lower self-efficacy (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 4).||1.06|-1.26|0.8713
91070424|NCT04075682|182026226|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|1.66||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results from the multiple imputation model are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H5b assessment, which evaluates whether moderation of pictorial warnings effects would vary by whether the pictorial warnings included inserts or not. We expected that moderation effects of baseline self-efficacy would be larger for pictorial warnings only (vs control) than for pictorial warnings AND inserts (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 4).||1.66|-1.66|0.99
91070425|NCT04075682|182026227|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|1.37||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the pre-specified H1 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing groups that received inserts (insert only AND insert + pictorial warnings) with the groups that did not (pictorial warning only AND control). We expected that the outcome would be higher in the insert groups than in the no insert groups.||1.37|0.02|0.04
91070426|NCT04075682|182026227|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|0.11||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the pre-specified H3 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing the group that received inserts and pictorial warnings with the group that received inserts only. We expected that this outcome would be higher in the insert and pictorial warning group than in the insert only group.||0.11|-1.85|0.08
91070427|NCT04075682|182026227|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|1.19||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the pre-specified H4 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing the group that received inserts and pictorial warnings with the group that received pictorial warnings only. We expected that this outcome would be higher in the insert and pictorial warning group than in the pictorial warning only group.||1.19|-0.74|0.65
91070428|NCT04075682|182026227|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|2.11||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H1 assessment. We expected that the effect of inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) compared to no inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) on the outcome would be stronger for those with higher than lower education (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||2.11|-0.66|0.30
91070429|NCT04075682|182026227|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|1.26||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H1 assessment. We expected that the effect of inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) compared to no inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) on the outcome would be stronger for those with higher than lower literacy (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||1.26|-1.68|0.78
91077872|NCT02913105|182041136|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.03||||0.4256|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.09|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Cholesterol: Day 56||1.09|0.97|0.4256
91070430|NCT04075682|182026227|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|2.83||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H1 assessment. We expected that the effect of inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) compared to no inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) on the outcome would be stronger for those with lower than higher delayed discounting (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||2.83|0.12|0.03
91070431|NCT04075682|182026227|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.01||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.92|2.04||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6b assessment, which evaluated whether the moderation of insert effects would vary by whether the inserts included pictorial warnings or not. We expected that moderation by baseline education would be stronger for insert only (vs control) than for inserts AND pictorial warnings (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||2.04|-1.92|0.95
91070432|NCT04075682|182026227|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.91|1.36||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6b assessment, which evaluated whether the moderation of insert effects would vary by whether the inserts included pictorial warnings or not. We expected that moderation by baseline literacy would be larger for insert only (vs control) than for inserts AND pictorial warnings (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||1.36|-2.91|0.48
91070433|NCT04075682|182026227|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.86|1.07||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6b assessment, which evaluated whether the moderation of insert effects would vary by whether the inserts included pictorial warnings or not. We expected that moderation by baseline delay discounting would be larger for insert only (vs control) than for inserts AND pictorial warnings (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||1.07|-2.86|0.37
91070434|NCT04075682|182026227|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.0192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|1.34||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results from the multiple imputation model are for the pre-specified H1 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing groups that received inserts (insert only AND insert + pictorial warnings) with the groups that did not (pictorial warning only AND control). We expected that the outcome would be higher in the insert groups than in the no insert groups.||1.34|0.12|0.0192
91070435|NCT04075682|182026227|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|0.29||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are from the multiple imputation model for the pre-specified H3 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing the group that received inserts and pictorial warnings with the group that received inserts only. We expected that this outcome would be higher in the insert and pictorial warning group than in the insert only group.||0.29|-1.48|0.1860
91070436|NCT04075682|182026227|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.3863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|1.26||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results from the multiple imputation model are for the pre-specified H4 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing the group that received inserts and pictorial warnings with the group that received pictorial warnings only. We expected that this outcome would be higher in the insert and pictorial warning group than in the pictorial warning only group.||1.26|-0.49|0.3863
91077873|NCT02913105|182041136|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.03||||0.4901|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.09|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Cholesterol: Day 84||1.09|0.96|0.4901
91070437|NCT04075682|182026227|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|1.61||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results from the multiple imputation model are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H1 assessment. We expected that the effect of inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) compared to no inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) on the outcome would be stronger for those with higher than lower education (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||1.61|-0.89|0.5710
91070438|NCT04075682|182026227|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.2797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|0.6||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results from the multiple imputation model are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H1 assessment. We expected that the effect of inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) compared to no inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) on the outcome would be stronger for those with higher than lower literacy (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||0.60|-2.06|0.2797
91070439|NCT04075682|182026227|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.0312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|2.55||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results from the multiple imputation model are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H1 assessment. We expected that the effect of inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) compared to no inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) on the outcome would be stronger for those with lower than higher delayed discounting (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||2.55|0.12|0.0312
91070440|NCT04075682|182026227|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91||0.5086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|2.39||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results from the multiple imputation model are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6b assessment, which evaluated whether the moderation of insert effects would vary by whether the inserts included pictorial warnings or not. We expected that moderation by baseline education would be stronger for insert only (vs control) than for inserts AND pictorial warnings (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||2.39|-1.19|0.5086
91070441|NCT04075682|182026227|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98||0.9474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|1.99||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are from the multiple imputation model for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6b assessment, which evaluated whether the moderation of insert effects would vary by whether the inserts included pictorial warnings or not. We expected that moderation by baseline literacy would be larger for insert only (vs control) than for inserts AND pictorial warnings (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||1.99|-1.86|0.9474
91070442|NCT04075682|182026227|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.5018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.36|1.16||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results from the multiple imputation model are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6b assessment, which evaluated whether the moderation of insert effects would vary by whether the inserts included pictorial warnings or not. We expected that moderation by baseline delay discounting would be larger for insert only (vs control) than for inserts AND pictorial warnings (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||1.16|-2.36|0.5018
91070443|NCT04075682|182026228|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|1.21||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the pre-specified H1 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing groups that received inserts (insert only AND insert + pictorial warnings) with the groups that did not (pictorial warning only AND control). We expected that the outcome would be higher in the insert groups than in the no insert groups.||1.21|-0.31|0.25
91070444|NCT04075682|182026228|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|0.57||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the pre-specified H3 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing the group that received inserts and pictorial warnings with the group that received inserts only. We expected that this outcome would be higher in the insert and pictorial warning group than in the insert only group.||0.57|-1.63|0.34
91070445|NCT04075682|182026228|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|0.92||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the pre-specified H4 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing the group that received inserts and pictorial warnings with the group that received pictorial warnings only. We expected that this outcome would be higher in the insert and pictorial warning group than in the pictorial warning only group.||0.92|-1.26|0.76
91070446|NCT04075682|182026228|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|2.63||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H1 assessment. We expected that the effect of inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) compared to no inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) on the outcome would be stronger for those with higher than lower education (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||2.63|-0.42|0.15
91070447|NCT04075682|182026228|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|1.66||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H1 assessment. We expected that the effect of inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) compared to no inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) on the outcome would be stronger for those with higher than lower literacy (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||1.66|-1.66|1.00
91070448|NCT04075682|182026228|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|3.43||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H1 assessment. We expected that the effect of inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) compared to no inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) on the outcome would be stronger for those with lower than higher delayed discounting (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||3.43|0.38|0.01
91070449|NCT04075682|182026228|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|2.8||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6b assessment, which evaluated whether the moderation of insert effects would vary by whether the inserts included pictorial warnings or not. We expected that moderation by baseline education would be stronger for insert only (vs control) than for inserts AND pictorial warnings (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||2.80|-1.56|0.58
91070450|NCT04075682|182026228|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.23||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.47|1.35||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6b assessment, which evaluated whether the moderation of insert effects would vary by whether the inserts included pictorial warnings or not. We expected that moderation by baseline literacy would be larger for insert only (vs control) than for inserts AND pictorial warnings (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||1.35|-3.47|0.39
91077874|NCT02913105|182041136|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.03||||0.3648|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.09|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Cholesterol: Day 112 (EOS)||1.09|0.97|0.3648
91070451|NCT04075682|182026228|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.05|1.35||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6b assessment, which evaluated whether the moderation of insert effects would vary by whether the inserts included pictorial warnings or not. We expected that moderation by baseline delay discounting would be larger for insert only (vs control) than for inserts AND pictorial warnings (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||1.35|-3.05|0.45
91070452|NCT04075682|182026228|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.1147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|1.21||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results from the multiple imputation model are for the pre-specified H1 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing groups that received inserts (insert only AND insert + pictorial warnings) with the groups that did not (pictorial warning only AND control). We expected that the outcome would be higher in the insert groups than in the no insert groups.||1.21|-0.13|0.1147
91070453|NCT04075682|182026228|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.3721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|0.53||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results from the multiple imputation model are for the pre-specified H3 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing the group that received inserts and pictorial warnings with the group that received inserts only. We expected that this outcome would be higher in the insert and pictorial warning group than in the insert only group.||0.53|-1.41|0.3721
91070454|NCT04075682|182026228|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.8827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|1.03||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are from the multiple imputation model for the pre-specified H4 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing the group that received inserts and pictorial warnings with the group that received pictorial warnings only. We expected that this outcome would be higher in the insert and pictorial warning group than in the pictorial warning only group.||1.03|-0.89|0.8827
91070455|NCT04075682|182026228|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.4335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.87||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results from the multiple imputation model are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H1 assessment. We expected that the effect of inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) compared to no inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) on the outcome would be stronger for those with higher than lower education (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||1.87|-0.80|0.4335
91070456|NCT04075682|182026228|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.4063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|0.84||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are from the multiple imputation model for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H1 assessment. We expected that the effect of inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) compared to no inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) on the outcome would be stronger for those with higher than lower literacy (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||0.84|-2.07|0.4063
91070457|NCT04075682|182026228|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.0132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|3.03||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results from the multiple imputation model are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H1 assessment. We expected that the effect of inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) compared to no inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) on the outcome would be stronger for those with lower than higher delayed discounting (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||3.03|0.35|0.0132
91070458|NCT04075682|182026228|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98||0.3949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|2.75||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results from the multiple imputation model are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6b assessment, which evaluated whether the moderation of insert effects would vary by whether the inserts included pictorial warnings or not. We expected that moderation by baseline education would be stronger for insert only (vs control) than for inserts AND pictorial warnings (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||2.75|-1.08|0.3949
91070459|NCT04075682|182026228|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08||0.7145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.72||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results from the multiple imputation model are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6b assessment, which evaluated whether the moderation of insert effects would vary by whether the inserts included pictorial warnings or not. We expected that moderation by baseline literacy would be larger for insert only (vs control) than for inserts AND pictorial warnings (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||1.72|-2.50|0.7145
91070460|NCT04075682|182026228|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98||0.6081|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results from the multiple imputation model are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6b assessment, which evaluated whether the moderation of insert effects would vary by whether the inserts included pictorial warnings or not. We expected that moderation by baseline delay discounting would be larger for insert only (vs control) than for inserts AND pictorial warnings (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||||0.6081
91070461|NCT04075682|182026229|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|0.64||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the pre-specified H2 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing groups that received pictorial warnings (pictorial warning only AND insert + pictorial warnings) with the groups that did not (insert only AND control). We expected that the outcome would be higher in the pictorial warning groups than in the no pictorial warning groups.||0.64|-1.15|0.58
91070462|NCT04075682|182026229|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|1.57||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H5a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H2 assessment. We expected that the effect of pictorial HWLs (averaged over insert) vs no pictorial HWLs (averaged over insert) on the outcome would be stronger for higher vs lower self-efficacy (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 4)||1.57|-1.98|0.82
91070463|NCT04075682|182026229|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.31||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|4.24||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H5b assessment, which evaluates whether moderation of pictorial warnings effects would vary by whether the pictorial warnings included inserts or not. We expected that moderation effects of baseline self-efficacy would be larger for pictorial warnings only (vs control) than for pictorial warnings AND inserts (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 4).||4.24|-0.90|0.20
91070464|NCT04075682|182026229|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.66||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results from the multiple imputation analysis are for the pre-specified H2 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing groups that received pictorial warnings (pictorial warning only AND insert + pictorial warnings) with the groups that did not (insert only AND control). We expected that the outcome would be higher in the pictorial warning groups than in the no pictorial warning groups.||0.66|-0.77|0.8800
91070465|NCT04075682|182026229|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Median Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.8864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.5||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results from the multiple imputation model are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H5a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H2 assessment. We expected that the effect of pictorial HWLs (averaged over insert) vs no pictorial HWLs (averaged over insert) on the outcome would be stronger for higher vs lower self-efficacy (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 4)||1.50|-1.30|0.8864
91070466|NCT04075682|182026229|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02||0.2748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|3.12||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results from the multiple imputation model are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H5b assessment, which evaluates whether moderation of pictorial warnings effects would vary by whether the pictorial warnings included inserts or not. We expected that moderation effects of baseline self-efficacy would be larger for pictorial warnings only (vs control) than for pictorial warnings AND inserts (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 4).||3.12|-0.89|0.2748
91070467|NCT04075682|182026230|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.7||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the pre-specified H1 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing groups that received inserts (insert only AND insert + pictorial warnings) with the groups that did not (pictorial warning only AND control). We expected that the outcome would be lower in the insert groups than in the no insert groups.||2.70|0.45|0.83
91070468|NCT04075682|182026230|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.34||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|7.18||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the pre-specified H2 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing groups that received pictorial warnings (pictorial warning only AND insert + pictorial warnings) with the groups that did not (insert only AND control). We expected that the outcome would be higher in the pictorial warning groups than in the no pictorial warning groups.||7.18|1.14|0.03
91070469|NCT04075682|182026230|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.44||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the pre-specified H4 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing the group that received inserts and pictorial warnings with the group that received pictorial warnings only. We expected that this outcome would be lower in the insert and pictorial warning group than in the pictorial warning only group.||1.44|0.15|0.18
91070470|NCT04075682|182026230|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|12.57||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H5a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H2 assessment. We expected that the effect of pictorial HWLs (averaged over insert) vs no pictorial HWLs (averaged over insert) on the outcome would be lower for higher vs lower self-efficacy (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 4).||12.57|0.08|0.99
91070471|NCT04075682|182026230|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|2.82||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.||These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H5b assessment, which evaluates whether moderation of pictorial warnings effects would vary by whether the pictorial warnings included inserts or not. We expected that moderation effects of baseline self-efficacy would be larger for pictorial warnings only (vs control) than for pictorial warnings AND inserts (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 4).||2.82|0.29|0.86
91070472|NCT04075682|182026230|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.8045|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results from the multiple imputation model are for the pre-specified H1 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing groups that received inserts (insert only AND insert + pictorial warnings) with the groups that did not (pictorial warning only AND control). We expected that the outcome would be lower in the insert groups than in the no insert groups.||||0.8045
91070473|NCT04075682|182026230|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.01||0.0205|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are from the multiple imputation model for the pre-specified H2 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing groups that received pictorial warnings (pictorial warning only AND insert + pictorial warnings) with the groups that did not (insert only AND control). We expected that the outcome would be higher in the pictorial warning groups than in the no pictorial warning groups.||||0.0205
91070474|NCT04075682|182026230|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.1918|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results from the multiple imputation model are for the pre-specified H4 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing the group that received inserts and pictorial warnings with the group that received pictorial warnings only. We expected that this outcome would be lower in the insert and pictorial warning group than in the pictorial warning only group.||||0.1918
91070475|NCT04075682|182026230|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12||0.99|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are from the multiple imputation model for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H5a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H2 assessment. We expected that the effect of pictorial HWLs (averaged over insert) vs no pictorial HWLs (averaged over insert) on the outcome would be lower for higher vs lower self-efficacy (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 4).||||0.99
91070476|NCT04075682|182026230|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.54||0.6873|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are from the multiple imputation model for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H5b assessment, which evaluates whether moderation of pictorial warnings effects would vary by whether the pictorial warnings included inserts or not. We expected that moderation effects of baseline self-efficacy would be larger for pictorial warnings only (vs control) than for pictorial warnings AND inserts (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 4).||||0.6873
91070477|NCT04075682|182026231|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|0.41||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the pre-specified H2 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing groups that received pictorial warnings (pictorial warning only AND insert + pictorial warnings) with the groups that did not (insert only AND control). We expected that the outcome would be higher in the pictorial warning groups than in the no pictorial warning groups.||0.41|-1.12|0.37
91070478|NCT04075682|182026232|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Rate ratio|0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.1||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Negative binomial regression|We estimated negative binomial regression models, as there is a single measure for each person and so there are no repeated measures.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the pre-specified H1 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing groups that received inserts (insert only AND insert + pictorial warnings) with the groups that did not (pictorial warning only AND control). We expected that the outcome would be higher in the insert groups than in the no insert groups.||1.10|0.90|0.92
91070479|NCT04075682|182026232|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Rate ratio|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.11||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Negative binomial regression|We estimated negative binomial regression models, as there is a single measure for each person and so there are no repeated measures.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the pre-specified H2 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing groups that received pictorial warnings (pictorial warning only AND insert + pictorial warnings) with the groups that did not (insert only AND control). We expected that the outcome would be higher in the pictorial warning groups than in the no pictorial warning groups.||1.11|0.90|0.95
91070480|NCT04075682|182026232|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Rate ratio|0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.14||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Negative binomial regression|We estimated negative binomial regression models, as there is a single measure for each person and so there are no repeated measures.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the pre-specified H3 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing the group that received inserts and pictorial warnings with the group that received inserts only. We expected that this outcome would be higher in the insert and pictorial warning group than in the insert only group.||1.14|0.85|0.85
91070481|NCT04075682|182026232|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Rate ratio|0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.13||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Negative binomial regression|We estimated negative binomial regression models, as there is a single measure for each person and so there are no repeated measures.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the pre-specified H4 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing the group that received inserts and pictorial warnings with the group that received pictorial warnings only. We expected that this outcome would be higher in the insert and pictorial warning group than in the pictorial warning only group.||1.13|0.84|0.75
91070482|NCT04075682|182026232|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Rate ratio|0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.2||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Negative binomial regression|We estimated negative binomial regression models, as there is a single measure for each person and so there are no repeated measures.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H5a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H2 assessment. We expected that the effect of pictorial HWLs (averaged over insert) vs no pictorial HWLs (averaged over insert) on the outcome would be stronger for higher vs lower self-efficacy (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 4)||1.20|0.78|0.78
91070483|NCT04075682|182026232|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Rate ratio|1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.82||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Negative binomial regression|We estimated negative binomial regression models, as there is a single measure for each person and so there are no repeated measures.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H5b assessment, which evaluates whether moderation of pictorial warnings effects would vary by whether the pictorial warnings included inserts or not. We expected that moderation effects of baseline self-efficacy would be larger for pictorial warnings only (vs control) than for pictorial warnings AND inserts (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 4).||1.82|0.94|0.11
91070484|NCT04075682|182026232|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Rate ratio|0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.22||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Negative binomial regression|We estimated negative binomial regression models, as there is a single measure for each person and so there are no repeated measures.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H1 assessment. We expected that the effect of inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) compared to no inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) on the outcome would be stronger for those with higher than lower education (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||1.22|0.80|0.93
91070485|NCT04075682|182026232|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Rate ratio|0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.23||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Negative binomial regression|We estimated negative binomial regression models, as there is a single measure for each person and so there are no repeated measures.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H1 assessment. We expected that the effect of inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) compared to no inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) on the outcome would be stronger for those with higher than lower literacy (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||1.23|0.78|0.86
91070486|NCT04075682|182026232|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Rate ratio|0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.22||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Negative binomial regression|We estimated negative binomial regression models, as there is a single measure for each person and so there are no repeated measures.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H1 assessment. We expected that the effect of inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) compared to no inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) on the outcome would be stronger for those with lower than higher delayed discounting (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||1.22|0.81|0.94
91070487|NCT04075682|182026232|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Rate ratio|1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.78||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Negative binomial regression|We estimated negative binomial regression models, as there is a single measure for each person and so there are no repeated measures.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6b assessment, which evaluated whether the moderation of insert effects would vary by whether the inserts included pictorial warnings or not. We expected that moderation by baseline education would be stronger for insert only (vs control) than for inserts AND pictorial warnings (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||1.78|0.93|0.13
91070488|NCT04075682|182026232|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Rate ratio|0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.41||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Negative binomial regression|We estimated negative binomial regression models, as there is a single measure for each person and so there are no repeated measures.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6b assessment, which evaluated whether the moderation of insert effects would vary by whether the inserts included pictorial warnings or not. We expected that moderation by baseline literacy would be larger for insert only (vs control) than for inserts AND pictorial warnings (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||1.41|0.70|0.96
91070489|NCT04075682|182026232|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Rate ratio|0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.36||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Negative binomial regression|We estimated negative binomial regression models, as there is a single measure for each person and so there are no repeated measures.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6b assessment, which evaluated whether the moderation of insert effects would vary by whether the inserts included pictorial warnings or not. We expected that moderation by baseline delay discounting would be larger for insert only (vs control) than for inserts AND pictorial warnings (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||1.36|0.72|0.95
91070490|NCT03423173|182026235|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between immune responses of 2 trial groups was established if the 95% CI of the corresponding geometric mean ratio was within pre-specified equivalence margins of 0.5 and 2.0.|Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) Ratio|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.04|||||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model was used for analysis, including natural logarithms of titers as a response variable and trial group as a factor.|DENV-1||1.04|0.46|
91070491|NCT03423173|182026235|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between immune responses of 2 trial groups was established if the 95% CI of the corresponding geometric mean ratio was within pre-specified equivalence margins of 0.5 and 2.0.|GMT Ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.38|||||ANOVA model was used for analysis, including natural logarithms of titers as a response variable and trial group as a factor.|DENV-1||1.38|0.60|
91070492|NCT03423173|182026235|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between immune responses of 2 trial groups was established if the 95% CI of the corresponding geometric mean ratio was within pre-specified equivalence margins of 0.5 and 2.0.|GMT Ratio|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.96|||||ANOVA model was used for analysis, including natural logarithms of titers as a response variable and trial group as a factor.|DENV-1||0.96|0.41|
91070493|NCT03423173|182026235|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between immune responses of 2 trial groups was established if the 95% CI of the corresponding geometric mean ratio was within pre-specified equivalence margins of 0.5 and 2.0.|GMT Ratio|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.71|||||ANOVA model was used for analysis, including natural logarithms of titers as a response variable and trial group as a factor.|DENV-2||1.71|0.98|
91070494|NCT03423173|182026235|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between immune responses of 2 trial groups was established if the 95% CI of the corresponding geometric mean ratio was within pre-specified equivalence margins of 0.5 and 2.0.|GMT Ratio|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.88|||||ANOVA model was used for analysis, including natural logarithms of titers as a response variable and trial group as a factor.|DENV-2||0.88|0.51|
91070495|NCT03423173|182026235|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between immune responses of 2 trial groups was established if the 95% CI of the corresponding geometric mean ratio was within pre-specified equivalence margins of 0.5 and 2.0.|GMT Ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.15|||||ANOVA model was used for analysis, including natural logarithms of titers as a response variable and trial group as a factor.|DENV-2||1.15|0.65|
91070496|NCT03423173|182026235|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between immune responses of 2 trial groups was established if the 95% CI of the corresponding geometric mean ratio was within pre-specified equivalence margins of 0.5 and 2.0.|GMT Ratio|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.78|||||ANOVA model was used for analysis, including natural logarithms of titers as a response variable and trial group as a factor.|DENV-3||1.78|0.91|
91070497|NCT03423173|182026235|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between immune responses of 2 trial groups was established if the 95% CI of the corresponding geometric mean ratio was within pre-specified equivalence margins of 0.5 and 2.0.|GMT Ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.33|||||ANOVA model was used for analysis, including natural logarithms of titers as a response variable and trial group as a factor.|DENV-3||1.33|0.68|
91070498|NCT03423173|182026235|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between immune responses of 2 trial groups was established if the 95% CI of the corresponding geometric mean ratio was within pre-specified equivalence margins of 0.5 and 2.0.|GMT Ratio|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.71|||||ANOVA model was used for analysis, including natural logarithms of titers as a response variable and trial group as a factor.|DENV-3||1.71|0.87|
91070499|NCT03423173|182026235|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between immune responses of 2 trial groups was established if the 95% CI of the corresponding geometric mean ratio was within pre-specified equivalence margins of 0.5 and 2.0.|GMT Ratio|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.82|||||ANOVA model was used for analysis, including natural logarithms of titers as a response variable and trial group as a factor.|DENV-4||0.82|0.46|
91070500|NCT03423173|182026235|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between immune responses of 2 trial groups was established if the 95% CI of the corresponding geometric mean ratio was within pre-specified equivalence margins of 0.5 and 2.0.|GMT Ratio|1.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|2.17|||||ANOVA model was used for analysis, including natural logarithms of titers as a response variable and trial group as a factor.|DENV-4||2.17|1.22|
91070501|NCT03423173|182026235|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between immune responses of 2 trial groups was established if the 95% CI of the corresponding geometric mean ratio was within pre-specified equivalence margins of 0.5 and 2.0.|GMT Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.35|||||ANOVA model was used for analysis, including natural logarithms of titers as a response variable and trial group as a factor.|DENV-4||1.35|0.75|
91070502|NCT03423173|182026236|OTHER||Seropositivity Rates Difference|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.99|6.06|||||95% CI for the differences in seropositivity rates between TDV lots were calculated using the Newcombe and Wilson method.|DENV-1 at Day 120||6.06|-4.99|
91070503|NCT03423173|182026236|OTHER||Seropositivity Rate Difference|-1.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|3.19|||||95% CI for the differences in seropositivity rates between TDV lots were calculated using the Newcombe and Wilson method.|DENV-1 at Day 120||3.19|-6.90|
91070504|NCT03423173|182026236|OTHER||Seropositivity Rate Difference|-2.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.45|2.69|||||95% CI for the differences in seropositivity rates between TDV lots were calculated using the Newcombe and Wilson method.|DENV-1 at Day 120||2.69|-7.45|
91070505|NCT03423173|182026236|OTHER||Seropositivity Rate Difference|7.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|15.3|||||95% CI for the differences in seropositivity rates between TDV lots were calculated using the Newcombe and Wilson method.|DENV-1 at Day 270||15.30|0.64|
91070506|NCT03423173|182026236|OTHER||Seropositivity Rate Difference|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.67|7.65|||||95% CI for the differences in seropositivity rates between TDV lots were calculated using the Newcombe and Wilson method.|DENV-1 at Day 270||7.65|-4.67|
91070507|NCT03423173|182026236|OTHER||Seropositivity Rate Difference|-6.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|1.04|||||95% CI for the differences in seropositivity rates between TDV lots were calculated using the Newcombe and Wilson method.|DENV-1 at Day 270||1.04|-14.00|
91070508|NCT03423173|182026236|OTHER||Seropositivity Rate Difference|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.87|5.29|||||95% CI for the differences in seropositivity rates between TDV lots were calculated using the Newcombe and Wilson method.|DENV-2 at Day 120||5.29|-3.87|
91070509|NCT03423173|182026236|OTHER||Seropositivity Rate Difference|-0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.24|3.17|||||95% CI for the differences in seropositivity rates between TDV lots were calculated using the Newcombe and Wilson method.|DENV-2 at Day 120||3.17|-5.24|
91070510|NCT03423173|182026236|OTHER||Seropositivity Rate Difference|-1.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.05|2.58|||||95% CI for the differences in seropositivity rates between TDV lots were calculated using the Newcombe and Wilson method.|DENV-2 at Day 120||2.58|-6.05|
91070511|NCT03423173|182026236|OTHER||Seropositivity Rate Difference|2.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|7.44|||||95% CI for the differences in seropositivity rates between TDV lots were calculated using the Newcombe and Wilson method.|DENV-2 at Day 270||7.44|-2.12|
91070512|NCT03423173|182026236|OTHER||Seropositivity Rate Difference|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.41|5.24|||||95% CI for the differences in seropositivity rates between TDV lots were calculated using the Newcombe and Wilson method.|DENV-2 at Day 270||5.24|-3.41|
91070513|NCT03423173|182026236|OTHER||Seropositivity Rate Difference|-1.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.67|3.17|||||95% CI for the differences in seropositivity rates between TDV lots were calculated using the Newcombe and Wilson method.|DENV-2 at Day 270||3.17|-6.67|
91070514|NCT03423173|182026236|OTHER||Seropositivity Rate Difference|2.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.07|9.06|||||95% CI for the differences in seropositivity rates between TDV lots were calculated using the Newcombe and Wilson method.|DENV-3 at Day 120||9.06|-3.07|
91070515|NCT03423173|182026236|OTHER||Seropositivity Rate Difference|-0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.17|4.44|||||95% CI for the differences in seropositivity rates between TDV lots were calculated using the Newcombe and Wilson method.|DENV-3 at Day 120||4.44|-6.17|
91070516|NCT03423173|182026236|OTHER||Seropositivity Rate Difference|-3.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.74|2.03|||||95% CI for the differences in seropositivity rates between TDV lots were calculated using the Newcombe and Wilson method.|DENV-3 at Day 120||2.03|-9.74|
91070517|NCT03423173|182026236|OTHER||Seropositivity Rate Difference|6.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|14.56|||||95% CI for the differences in seropositivity rates between TDV lots were calculated using the Newcombe and Wilson method.|DENV-3 at Day 270||14.56|-1.03|
91070518|NCT03423173|182026236|OTHER||Seropositivity Rate Difference|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.28|10.23|||||95% CI for the differences in seropositivity rates between TDV lots were calculated using the Newcombe and Wilson method.|DENV-3 at Day 270||10.23|-4.28|
91070519|NCT03423173|182026236|OTHER||Seropositivity Rate Difference|-3.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.97|4.39|||||95% CI for the differences in seropositivity rates between TDV lots were calculated using the Newcombe and Wilson method.|DENV-3 at Day 270||4.39|-11.97|
91070520|NCT03423173|182026236|OTHER||Seropositivity Rate Difference|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.68|1.55|||||95% CI for the differences in seropositivity rates between TDV lots were calculated using the Newcombe and Wilson method.|DENV-4 at Day 120||1.55|-7.68|
91070521|NCT03423173|182026236|OTHER||Seropositivity Rate Difference|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.47|5.62|||||95% CI for the differences in seropositivity rates between TDV lots were calculated using the Newcombe and Wilson method.|DENV-4 at Day 120||5.62|-5.47|
91070522|NCT03423173|182026236|OTHER||Seropositivity Rate Difference|2.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|7.81|||||95% CI for the differences in seropositivity rates between TDV lots were calculated using the Newcombe and Wilson method.|DENV-4 at Day 120||7.81|-1.52|
91070523|NCT03423173|182026236|OTHER||Seropositivity Rate Difference|-1.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.14|5.69|||||95% CI for the differences in seropositivity rates between TDV lots were calculated using the Newcombe and Wilson method.|DENV-4 at Day 270||5.69|-9.14|
91070524|NCT03423173|182026236|OTHER||Seropositivity Rate Difference|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|8.95|||||95% CI for the differences in seropositivity rates between TDV lots were calculated using the Newcombe and Wilson method.|DENV-4 at Day 270||8.95|-6.90|
91070525|NCT03423173|182026236|OTHER||Seropositivity Rate Difference|2.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.68|10.18|||||95% CI for the differences in seropositivity rates between TDV lots were calculated using the Newcombe and Wilson method.|DENV-4 at Day 270||10.18|-4.68|
91070526|NCT03423173|182026237|OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.42|||||ANOVA model was used for analysis, including natural logarithms of titers as a response variable and trial group as a factor.|DENV-1||1.42|0.56|
91070527|NCT03423173|182026237|OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.28|||||ANOVA model was used for analysis, including natural logarithms of titers as a response variable and trial group as a factor.|DENV-1||1.28|0.51|
91070528|NCT03423173|182026237|OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.16|||||ANOVA model was used for analysis, including natural logarithms of titers as a response variable and trial group as a factor.|DENV-1||1.16|0.46|
91070529|NCT03423173|182026237|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.86|||||ANOVA model was used for analysis, including natural logarithms of titers as a response variable and trial group as a factor.|DENV-2||1.86|1.02|
91070530|NCT03423173|182026237|OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.87|||||ANOVA model was used for analysis, including natural logarithms of titers as a response variable and trial group as a factor.|DENV-2||0.87|0.48|
91070531|NCT03423173|182026237|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.21|||||ANOVA model was used for analysis, including natural logarithms of titers as a response variable and trial group as a factor.|DENV-2||1.21|0.66|
91070532|NCT03423173|182026237|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.94|||||ANOVA model was used for analysis, including natural logarithms of titers as a response variable and trial group as a factor.|DENV-3||1.94|1.00|
91070533|NCT03423173|182026237|OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.21|||||ANOVA model was used for analysis, including natural logarithms of titers as a response variable and trial group as a factor.|DENV-3||1.21|0.64|
91070534|NCT03423173|182026237|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.71|||||ANOVA model was used for analysis, including natural logarithms of titers as a response variable and trial group as a factor.|DENV-3||1.71|0.88|
91070535|NCT03423173|182026237|OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.18|||||ANOVA model was used for analysis, including natural logarithms of titers as a response variable and trial group as a factor.|DENV-4||1.18|0.58|
91070536|NCT03423173|182026237|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|2.14|||||ANOVA model was used for analysis, including natural logarithms of titers as a response variable and trial group as a factor.|DENV-4||2.14|1.07|
91070537|NCT03423173|182026237|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.78|||||ANOVA model was used for analysis, including natural logarithms of titers as a response variable and trial group as a factor.|DENV-4||1.78|0.88|
91070538|NCT05338502|182026243|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Least Squares Mean (LSM) Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.797|1.02|||ANOVA|||Fasted State||1.02|0.797|
91070539|NCT05338502|182026243|SUPERIORITY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.876|1.12|||ANOVA|||Fed state||1.12|0.876|
91070540|NCT05338502|182026244|SUPERIORITY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.932|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.829|1.05|||ANOVA|||Fasted state||1.05|0.829|
91070541|NCT05338502|182026244|SUPERIORITY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.888|1.13|||ANOVA|||Fed State||1.13|0.888|
91070542|NCT05338502|182026246|SUPERIORITY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.818|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.68|0.985|||ANOVA|||Fasted State||0.985|0.680|
91070543|NCT05338502|182026246|SUPERIORITY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.782|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.645|0.949|||ANOVA|||Fed state||0.949|0.645|
91070544|NCT01062113|182026267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|38.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.3|56.1||The difference in the efficacy rates was tested using normal distribution at a significance level of 2-sided 5%. 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in the efficacy rates was calculated using normal approximation.|asymptotic z-test|||||56.1|20.3|<0.0001
91070545|NCT01062113|182026269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0003||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0003
91070546|NCT01062113|182026270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91070547|NCT03655470|182026298|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.30
91070548|NCT03063086|182026300|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.172|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.137|0.208|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.208|0.137|<0.0001
91070549|NCT03063086|182026300|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.159|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.123|0.195|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.195|0.123|<0.0001
91070550|NCT03063086|182026305|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.124|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.086|0.161|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.161|0.086|<0.0001
91070551|NCT05481125|182026330|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin = 0.1 logMAR|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0125|||ONE_SIDED|95.0||-0.024||Since a non-inferiority hypothesis is being tested, a p-value is not applicable. Confidence limit is being reported and compared to the non-inferiority margin.|||Mean difference (Clareon/Clareon Toric minus Eyhance/Eyhance Toric). Upper Confidence Limit is presented.|||-0.024||
91070552|NCT03702010|182026348|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.112|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline VAS||||0.112
91070553|NCT03702010|182026348|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.323|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||After first stimulation VAS||||0.323
91070554|NCT03702010|182026348|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||After second stimulation||||0.760
91070555|NCT03702010|182026348|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.624|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||End of Follow-up||||0.624
91070556|NCT03702010|182026349|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.589|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||After first stimulation||||0.589
91070557|NCT03702010|182026349|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.704|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||After second stimulation||||0.704
91070558|NCT03702010|182026349|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.908|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||End of Follow-up||||0.908
91070559|NCT03702010|182026350|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.231|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline||||0.231
91070560|NCT03702010|182026350|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.663|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||After first stimulation||||0.663
91070561|NCT03702010|182026350|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.998|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||After second stimulation||||0.998
91070562|NCT03702010|182026350|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.713|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||End of Follow-up||||0.713
91070563|NCT00554515|182026400|SUPERIORITY|Comparison against historical control ORR of 14%.||||||0.042|||||||exact binomial test|||||||0.042
91070564|NCT00554515|182026401|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Fisher Exact|||Objective response rates were compared between ISM good and poor risk subgroups. ISM good risk ORR reported under primary endpoint.||||0.39
91070565|NCT00554515|182026402|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0014|||||||exact binomial test|||Test against the historical ORR was conducted in the overall study population as secondary analyses.||||0.0014
91070566|NCT00554515|182026405|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|||||||Fisher Exact|||Objective response rates were compared between MSKCC subgroups.||||.89
91070567|NCT00554515|182026407|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||Fisher Exact|||Objective response rates were compared between tumor type subgroups||||.33
91070568|NCT00554515|182026408|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|||||||Fisher Exact|||Objective response rates were compared between clear cell histology subgroups||||.89
91070569|NCT00554515|182026409|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Fisher Exact|||Objective response rates were compared between CA-9 score subgroups||||.19
91070570|NCT00554515|182026410|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Fisher Exact|||Objective response rates were compared between PD-L1 tumor subgroups||||0.01
91070571|NCT00554515|182026411|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Fisher Exact|||Objective response rates were compared between B7-H3 tumor subgroups||||.08
91070572|NCT00554515|182026412|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Fisher Exact|||Objective response rates were compared between CA-9 SNP subgroups||||.28
91070573|NCT03139578|182026426|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of 0.625 was used. If the lower limit of 95% confidence interval was greater than a non-inferiority margin of 0.625, then non-inferiority of Test relative to Control was concluded.|Cumulative Odds Ratio|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|3.06|||Generalized linear mixed model|Simulation-based adjustment was utilized to address the multiple comparisons of different base curves.|Cumulative odds ratio was calculated as Test over Control.|||3.06|0.46|
91070574|NCT03139578|182026426|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of 0.625 was used. If the lower limit of 95% confidence interval was greater than a non-inferiority margin of 0.625, then non-inferiority of Test relative to Control was concluded.|Cumulative Odds Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|2.52|||Generalized linear mixed model|Simulation-based adjustment was utilized to address the multiple comparisons of different base curves.|Cumulative odds ratio was calculated as Test over Control.|||2.52|0.34|
91070575|NCT03139578|182026427|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin of 70% was used for no difference in lens power requirement.|Proportion (%)|93.8|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|81.1|98.1|||Wilson Method||Lens power requirement difference was calculated as Test minus Control. Then the proportion of eyes with similar lens power requirements (no difference or difference within ±0.25D) was calculated.|||98.1|81.1|
91070576|NCT03139578|182026427|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin of 70% was used for no difference in lens power requirement.|Proportion (%)|83.3|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|68.3|92.1|||Wilson Method||Lens power requirement difference was calculated as Test minus Control. Then the proportion of eyes with similar lens power requirements (no difference or difference within ±0.25D) was calculated.|||92.1|68.3|
91070577|NCT03139578|182026427|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin of 80% was used for the lens power requirement difference within ±0.25 D.|Proportion (%)|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|90.5|100.0|||Wilson Method||Lens power requirement difference was calculated as Test minus Control. Then the proportion of eyes with similar lens power requirements (no difference or difference within ±0.25D) was calculated.|||100|90.5|
91070578|NCT03139578|182026427|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin of 80% was used for the lens power requirement difference within ±0.25 D.|Proportion (%)|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|90.5|100.0|||Wilson Method||Lens power requirement difference was calculated as Test minus Control. Then the proportion of eyes with similar lens power requirements (no difference or difference within ±0.25D) was calculated.|||100.0|90.5|
91070579|NCT03139578|182026428|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of -1 was used. If the lower limit of 95% confidence interval was greater than a non-inferiority margin of -1, then non-inferiority of Test relative to Control was concluded.|Least square mean difference|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.7|||Linear mixed model|Simulation-based adjustment was used to address the multiple comparisons.||||0.7|-0.3|
91070580|NCT03139578|182026428|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of -1 was used. If the lower limit of 95% confidence interval was greater than a non-inferiority margin of -1, then non-inferiority of Test relative to Control was concluded.|Least square mean difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5|||Linear mixed model|Simulation-based adjustment was used to address the multiple comparisons.||||0.5|-0.5|
91070581|NCT03139578|182026429|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of -1 was used. If the lower limit of 95% confidence interval was greater than a non-inferiority margin of -1, then non-inferiority of Test relative to Control was concluded.|Least square mean difference|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.3|||Linear mixed model|Simulation-based adjustment was used to address the multiple comparisons.||||0.3|-0.4|
91070582|NCT03139578|182026429|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of -1 was used. If the lower limit of 95% confidence interval was greater than a non-inferiority margin of -1, then non-inferiority of Test relative to Control was concluded.|Least square mean difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.5|||Linear mixed model|Simulation-based adjustment was used to address the multiple comparisons.||||0.5|-0.2|
91070583|NCT03139578|182026430|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of -1 was used. If the lower limit of 95% confidence interval was greater than a non-inferiority margin of -1, then non-inferiority of Test relative to Control was concluded.|Least square mean difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.4|||Linear mixed model|Simulation-based adjustment was used to address the multiple comparisons.||||0.4|-0.1|
91070584|NCT03139578|182026430|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of -1 was used. If the lower limit of 95% confidence interval was greater than a non-inferiority margin of -1, then non-inferiority of Test relative to Control was concluded.|Least square mean difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.3|||Linear mixed model|Simulation-based adjustment was used to address the multiple comparisons.||||0.3|-0.2|
91070585|NCT03139578|182026431|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of -1 was used. If the lower limit of 95% confidence interval was greater than a non-inferiority margin of -1, then non-inferiority of Test relative to Control was concluded.|Least square mean difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5|||Linear mixed model|Simulation-based adjustment was used to address the multiple comparisons.||||0.5|-0.5|
91070586|NCT03139578|182026431|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of -1 was used. If the lower limit of 95% confidence interval was greater than a non-inferiority margin of -1, then non-inferiority of Test relative to Control was concluded.|Least square mean difference|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.4|||Linear mixed model|Simulation-based adjustment was used to address the multiple comparisons.||||0.4|-0.6|
91070587|NCT03139578|182026432|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of 0.1 was used. If the upper limit of 95% confidence interval was lower than a non-inferiority margin of 0.1, then non-inferiority of Test relative to Control was concluded.|Least square mean difference|0.002|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.009|0.012|||Linear mixed model|Simulation-based adjustment was used to address the multiple comparisons.||||0.012|-0.009|
91070588|NCT03139578|182026432|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of 0.1 was used. If the upper limit of 95% confidence interval was lower than a non-inferiority margin of 0.1, then non-inferiority of Test relative to Control was concluded.|Least square mean difference|-0.001|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.012|0.009|||Linear mixed model|Simulation-based adjustment was used to address the multiple comparisons.||||0.009|-0.012|
91070589|NCT02549287|182026433|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.55||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|1.2||Group by time interaction effect reported here.|Marginal Model (e.g., GEE)|||Intent-to-treat (ITT) framework (multiple imputation used), Multilevel model applied.||1.20|-0.11|0.12
91070590|NCT02549287|182026434|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.41||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.03||Group by time interaction effect reported here.|Marginal Model (e.g., GEE)|||Intent-to-treat (ITT) framework (multiple imputation used), Multilevel model applied.||1.03|-0.20|0.14
91070591|NCT02549287|182026435|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.44||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.07||Group by time interaction effect reported here.|Marginal Model (e.g., GEE)|||Intent-to-treat (ITT) framework (multiple imputation used), Multilevel model applied.||1.07|-0.20|0.20
91070592|NCT02549287|182026436|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|-0.07||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.43||Group by time interaction effect reported here.|Marginal Model (e.g., GEE)|||Intent-to-treat (ITT) framework (multiple imputation used), Multilevel model applied.||0.43|-0.58|0.77
91070593|NCT02549287|182026437|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.35||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.97|||Marginal Model (e.g., GEE)|||Intent-to-treat (ITT) framework (multiple imputation used), Multilevel model applied.||0.97|-0.27|0.29
91070594|NCT02549287|182026438|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.49||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|1.06||Other \[Marginal Model (e.g., GEE)\]|Marginal Model (e.g., GEE)|||Intent-to-treat (ITT) framework (multiple imputation used), Multilevel model applied.||1.06|-0.08|0.15
91070595|NCT02549287|182026439|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|-0.11||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.52||Group by time interaction effect reported here.|Marginal Model (e.g., GEE)|||Intent-to-treat (ITT) framework (multiple imputation used), Multilevel model applied.||0.52|-0.73|0.61
91070596|NCT02549287|182026440|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|-0.22||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.32||Group by time interaction effect reported here.|Marginal Model (e.g., GEE)|||Intent-to-treat (ITT) framework (multiple imputation used), Multilevel model applied.||0.32|-0.76|0.47
91070597|NCT02549287|182026441|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.75||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|2.2||Group by time interaction effect reported here.|Marginal Model (e.g., GEE)|||Intent-to-treat (ITT) framework (multiple imputation used), Multilevel model applied.||2.20|-3.70|0.65
91070598|NCT02549287|182026442|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.05||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.69||Group by time interaction effect reported here.|Marginal Model (e.g., GEE)|||Intent-to-treat (ITT) framework (multiple imputation used), Multilevel model applied.||0.69|-0.59|0.64
91070599|NCT02549287|182026443|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|-0.25||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.29||Group by time interaction effect reported here.|Marginal Model (e.g., GEE)|||Intent-to-treat (ITT) framework (multiple imputation used), Multilevel model applied.||0.29|-0.79|0.44
91070600|NCT02549287|182026444|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.25||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.89||Group by time interaction effect reported here.|Marginal Model (e.g., GEE)|||Intent-to-treat (ITT) framework (multiple imputation used), Multilevel model applied.||0.89|-0.39|0.47
91070601|NCT02549287|182026445|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.18||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.57|3.22||Group by time interaction effect reported here.|Marginal Model (e.g., GEE)|||Intent-to-treat (ITT) framework (multiple imputation used), Multilevel model applied.||3.22|-3.57|0.63
91070602|NCT03793842|182026446|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin 1 J/min||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.002
91070603|NCT03793842|182026447|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2
91070604|NCT03793842|182026448|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin 1 cm H20|Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.006
91070605|NCT03793842|182026449|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
91070606|NCT03793842|182026450|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.008
91070607|NCT01377922|182026529|OTHER|Estimated via a MMRM with change from baseline (Day 1, Part 2), Day 8, and Day 14 as the dependent variable and terms for treatment, time (Day 8, Day 14), treatment-by-time interaction, and double-blind baseline QMG score as fixed effects and patient as a random effect. The model assumed time effect to be random between patients.||||||0.0452|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Pairwise contrast at Day 14 from MMRM model.||||||0.0452
91070608|NCT01377922|182026530|OTHER|||||||0.0028||||||Pairwise contrast at Day 14 from MMRM model.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Estimated via a MMRM with change from baseline (Day 1, Part 2), Day 8, and Day 14 as the dependent variable and terms for treatment, time (Day 8, Day 14), treatment-by-time interaction, and double-blind baseline SGI score as fixed effects and patient as a random effect. The model assumed time effect to be random between patients||||0.0028
91070609|NCT01377922|182026531|OTHER|||||||0.6274|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Estimated via a MMRM with change from baseline (Day 1, Part 2), Day 8, and Day 14 as the dependent variable and terms for treatment, time (Day 8, Day 14), treatment-by-time interaction, and double-blind baseline T25FW walking speed as fixed effects and patient as a random effect. The model assumed time effect to be random between patients.||||0.6274
91070610|NCT01377922|182026532|OTHER|||||||0.0267|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Estimated via a MMRM with change from baseline (Day 1, Part 2), Day 8, and Day 14 as the dependent variable and terms for treatment, time (Day 8, Day 14), treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and patient as a random effect. The model assumed time effect to be random between patients||||0.0267
91070611|NCT00665431|182026534|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-Inferiority margin (NI) margin of 10mm between Arm 1 and Arm 2 (NI design uses confidence intervals, not p-values)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.94|3.34|||ANCOVA|||||3.34|-5.94|
91070612|NCT00665431|182026535|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-Inferiority (NI) margin of 10mm between Arm 1 and Arm 2 (NI design uses confidence intervals, not p-values)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.82|2.6|||ANCOVA|||||2.60|-6.82|
91070613|NCT00665431|182026536|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-Inferiority (NI) margin of 10mm between Arm 1 and Arm 2 (NI design uses confidence intervals, not p-values)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|8.31|||ANCOVA|||||8.31|-1.41|
91070614|NCT01578239|182026553|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.177|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.108|0.289||Derived from a two-sided test between the two groups|Log Rank||Hazard ratio is expressed as Lu-DOTA-Tyr-Octreotate / Octreotide LAR and estimated from the corresponding Cox model.|||0.289|0.108|<0.0001
91070615|NCT01578239|182026554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0141|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0141
91070616|NCT01578239|182026555|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.3039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.17|||Log Rank|||||1.17|0.60|0.3039
91070617|NCT01578239|182026556|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.84||||0.3039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.17|||Log Rank||Hazard Ratio of Lu-DOTA-Tyr-Octreotate vs. Octreotide LAR|||1.17|0.60|0.3039
91070618|NCT01578239|182026557|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.137|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.077|0.242|||Log Rank|||||0.242|0.077|<0.0001
91070619|NCT02347813|182026563|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.750
91070620|NCT02547220|182026579|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|2.6||||0.6857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.4|34.5|||Fisher Exact||Difference in percentage was calculated by the difference in percentage of new or worsening TG at 6 months between CINRYZE and placebo|||34.5|-29.4|0.6857
91070621|NCT03771560|182026616|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|6.4|||Paired Sample t-test|||The parent-reported change in mean ABC total score from baseline to week 12.||6.4|-11.3|0.56
91070622|NCT03771560|182026617|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|7.6|||Paired Sample t-test|||The teacher-reported change in mean ABC total score from baseline to week 12.||7.6|-5.2|0.68
91070623|NCT03771560|182026618|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.8||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|1.6|||Paired Sample t-test|||The parent-reported change in mean SRS total score from baseline to week 12.||1.6|-17.3|0.095
91070624|NCT03771560|182026619|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|13.5|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The teacher-reported change in mean SRS total score from baseline to week 12.||13.5|-7.0|0.95
91070625|NCT03771560|182026620|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|3.5|||Paired Sample t-test|||The parent-reported change in mean PedsQL total score from baseline to week 12.||3.5|-5.2|0.69
91070626|NCT02887183|182026621|OTHER||Least Squared Geometric Mean Ratio|0.632|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5865|0.681|||ANCOVA|||||0.6810|0.5865|<.0001
91070627|NCT02887183|182026622|OTHER||Least Squared Mean|-7.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.98|-7.15|||ANCOVA|||LAVi||-7.15|-7.98|<.0001
91070628|NCT02887183|182026622|OTHER||Least Squared Mean|-12.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.92|-11.58|||ANCOVA|||LVEDVi||-11.58|-12.92|<.0001
91070629|NCT02887183|182026622|OTHER||Least Squared Mean|-15.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.03|-14.55|||ANCOVA|||LVESVi||-14.55|-16.03|<.0001
91070630|NCT02887183|182026623|OTHER||Least Squared Mean|9.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.84|9.9|||ANCOVA|||||9.90|8.84|<.001
91070631|NCT02887183|182026624|OTHER|Pearson's Correlation|||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||LVESVi, LVEDVi, LAVi. LVEF||||<.0001
91070632|NCT02887183|182026625|OTHER|Pearson's Correlation|||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||LVESVi, LVEDVi, LAVi. LVEF||||<.0001
91070633|NCT02887183|182026626|OTHER|Pearson's Correlation|||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Subjects with new onset HF and/or RAAS naïve||||<.0001
91070634|NCT02887183|182026626|OTHER|Pearson's Correlation||||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Subjects with HFrEF and low NT-proBNP"||||0.0003
91070635|NCT02887183|182026626|OTHER|Pearson's Correlation||||||0.0956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Subjects not receiving target dose||||0.0956
91070636|NCT02887183|182026627|OTHER|Pearson's Correlation||||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Subjects with new onset HF and/or RAAS naïve||||0.0060
91070637|NCT02887183|182026627|OTHER|Pearson's Correlation||||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Subjects with HFrEF and low NT-proBNP"||||0.0012
91070638|NCT02887183|182026627|OTHER|Pearson's Correlation||||||0.0181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Subjects not receiving target dose||||0.0181
91070639|NCT02887183|182026628|OTHER|Pearson's Correlation||||||0.2498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Subjects with new onset HF and/or RAAS naïve||||0.2498
91070640|NCT02887183|182026628|OTHER|Pearson's Correlation||||||0.0495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Subjects with HFrEF and low NT-proBNP"||||0.0495
91070641|NCT02887183|182026628|OTHER|Pearson's Correlation||||||0.2685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Subjects not receiving target dose||||0.2685
91070642|NCT02887183|182026629|OTHER|Pearson's Correlation||||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Subjects with new onset HF and/or RAAS naïve||||0.0029
91070643|NCT02887183|182026629|OTHER|Pearson's Correlation||||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Subjects with HFrEF and low NT-proBNP"||||0.0011
91070644|NCT02887183|182026629|OTHER|Pearson's Correlation||||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Subjects not receiving target dose||||0.0012
91070645|NCT02887183|182026630|OTHER||Least Squared Mean|9.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.94|10.69|||ANCOVA|||||10.69|7.94|<.0001
91070646|NCT02703467|182026645|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||calculated|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91070647|NCT02702388|182026687|NON_INFERIORITY|Odds ratio of ORR as of Week 24 response (18 mg vs 24 mg) along with its 95% confidence interval (CI) using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method, stratified by the randomization stratification factors. The test was performed per the 95% CI using the noninferiority margin of 0.4. Noninferiority will be declared if the lower limit of the 95% CI for the odds ratio is greater than 0.4.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.96||||||||0.96|0.26|
91070648|NCT02729051|182026720|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval around the (FF/UMEC/VI versus FF/VI+UMEC) treatment difference is above -50 milliliter (mL) then FF/UMEC/VI was to be considered non-inferior to FF/VI+UMEC.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.018|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0161|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.013|0.05|||||MMRM method included covariates of Baseline FEV1, stratum (number of long-acting bronchodilators per day during the run-in: 0/1 or 2), visit, geographical region, treatment, visit by treatment and visit by Baseline interaction.|||0.050|-0.013|
91070649|NCT02729051|182026721|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.2|||||Analysis included covariates of treatment group, stratum (number of long-acting bronchodilators per day during the run-in: 0/1 or 2), geographical region, visit, Baseline, Baseline by visit and treatment by visit interactions.|||1.20|0.71|
91070650|NCT02729051|182026722|OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.906|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8327|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|0.728|||||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of Baseline SGRQ, stratum (number of long-acting bronchodilators per day during the run-in: 0/1 or 2), visit, geographical region, treatment, visit by treatment and visit by Baseline.|||0.728|-2.540|
91070651|NCT02729051|182026723|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.25|||||Include covariates of treatment group, stratum (number of long-acting bronchodilators/ day during the run-in: 0/1 or 2), geographical region, visit, Baseline dyspnea index (BDI) focal score, BDI focal score/ visit and treatment/ visit interactions.|||1.25|0.72|
91070652|NCT02729051|182026724|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.137|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1773|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.211|0.485|||||Analysis included covariates of BDI focal score, stratum (number of long-acting bronchodilators per day during the run-in: 0/1 or 2), visit, geographical region, treatment, visit by treatment and visit by BDI Focal score interactions.|||0.485|-0.211|
91070653|NCT02729051|182026725|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.12|||||Analysis was performed using a Cox proportional hazards model.|||1.12|0.68|
91070654|NCT01106677|182026738|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation: assuming a difference between canagliflozin and placebo of 0.5% and a common standard deviation of 1.0%, and using a 2-sample, 1-sided t-test with a Type I error rate of 0.05, it was estimated that 86 subjects per group would provide 90% power to demonstrate superiority of canagliflozin over placebo.|Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.071|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.758|-0.481|||ANCOVA|||||-0.481|-0.758|<0.001
91070655|NCT01106677|182026738|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation: assuming a difference between canagliflozin and placebo of 0.5% and a common standard deviation of 1.0%, and using a 2-sample, 1-sided t-test with a Type I error rate of 0.05, it was estimated that 86 subjects per group would provide 90% power to demonstrate superiority of canagliflozin over placebo.|Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.071|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.914|-0.636|||ANCOVA|||||-0.636|-0.914|<0.001
91070656|NCT01106677|182026738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.071|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.795|-0.516||No formal statistical comparison was conducted.|ANCOVA|||||-0.516|-0.795|
91070657|NCT01106677|182026739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|3.5|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.50|1.50|<0.001
91070658|NCT01106677|182026739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.85|6.77|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.77|2.85|<0.001
91070659|NCT01106677|182026740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-29.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.044|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.76|-23.81|||ANCOVA|||||-23.81|-35.76|<0.001
91070660|NCT01106677|182026740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-40.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.055|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.25|-34.26|||ANCOVA|||||-34.26|-46.25|<0.001
91070661|NCT01106677|182026740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-22.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.06|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.7|-16.69||No formal statistical comparison was conducted.|ANCOVA|||||-16.69|-28.70|
91070662|NCT01106677|182026741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-38.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.601|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.14|-27.16|||ANCOVA|||||-27.16|-49.14|<0.001
91070663|NCT01106677|182026741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-47.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.635|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.4|-36.29|||ANCOVA|||||-36.29|-58.40|<0.001
91070664|NCT01106677|182026741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-39.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.608|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.56|-28.55||No formal statistical comparison was conducted.|ANCOVA|||||-28.55|-50.56|
91070665|NCT01106677|182026742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-1.9|||ANCOVA|||||-1.9|-3.1|<0.001
91070666|NCT01106677|182026742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-2.3|||ANCOVA|||||-2.3|-3.5|<0.001
91070667|NCT01106677|182026742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.6||No formal statistical comparison was conducted.|ANCOVA|||||0.6|-0.6|
91070668|NCT01106677|182026743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-5.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.979|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.28|-3.439|||ANCOVA|||||-3.439|-7.280|<0.001
91070669|NCT01106677|182026743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-6.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.981|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.504|-4.653|||ANCOVA|||||-4.653|-8.504|<0.001
91070670|NCT01106677|182026743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-3.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.984|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.273|-1.413||No formal statistical comparison was conducted.|ANCOVA|||||-1.413|-5.273|
91070671|NCT01106677|182026744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.2||0.702||95.0|-9.9|6.7|||ANCOVA|||||6.7|-9.9|0.702
91070672|NCT01106677|182026744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3||0.274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|3.7|||ANCOVA|||||3.7|-13.0|0.274
91070673|NCT01106677|182026744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|6.1||No formal statistical comparison was conducted.|ANCOVA|||||6.1|-10.6|
91070674|NCT01106677|182026745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.6|9.7|||ANCOVA|||||9.7|3.6|<0.001
91070675|NCT01106677|182026745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|8.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.4|11.5|||ANCOVA|||||11.5|5.4|<0.001
91070676|NCT01106677|182026745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|4.4||No formal statistical comparison was conducted.|ANCOVA|||||4.4|-1.7|
91070677|NCT01106677|182026746|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assuming a discontinuation rate of 35% at Week 52, with a 2:2:2:1 treatment assignment ratio for canagliflozin 100 mg, canagliflozin 300 mg, sitagliptin 100 mg, or placebo, it was estimated that 360 subjects would need to be randomly assigned to each of the 3 active treatment groups and approximately 180 subjects to the placebo group to demonstrate non-inferiority with a non-inferiority margin of 0.3%.|Least-Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.119|0.122|||ANCOVA|||||0.122|-0.119|
91070678|NCT01106677|182026746|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assuming a discontinuation rate of 35% at Week 52, with a 2:2:2:1 treatment assignment ratio for canagliflozin 100 mg, canagliflozin 300 mg, sitagliptin 100 mg, or placebo, it was estimated that 360 subjects would need to be randomly assigned to each of the 3 active treatment groups and approximately 180 subjects to the placebo group to demonstrate non-inferiority with a non-inferiority margin of 0.3%.|Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.273|-0.031|||ANCOVA|||||-0.031|-0.273|
91070679|NCT01106677|182026747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-8.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.394|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.25|-3.857|||ANCOVA|||||-3.857|-13.25|<0.001
91070680|NCT01106677|182026747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-17.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.404|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.24|-12.81|||ANCOVA|||||-12.81|-22.24|<0.001
91070681|NCT01106677|182026748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-1.8|||ANCOVA|||||-1.8|-3.0|<0.001
91070682|NCT01106677|182026748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-2.3|||ANCOVA|||||-2.3|-3.4|<0.001
91070683|NCT01106677|182026749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-2.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.812|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.464|-1.276|||ANCOVA|||||-1.276|-4.464|<0.001
91070684|NCT01106677|182026749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-3.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.815|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.589|-2.389|||ANCOVA|||||-2.389|-5.589|<0.001
91070685|NCT01106677|182026750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2||0.466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|8.5|||ANCOVA|||||8.5|-3.9|0.466
91070686|NCT01106677|182026750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2||0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|9.4|||ANCOVA|||||9.4|-3.1|0.323
91070687|NCT01106677|182026751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|8.0|||ANCOVA|||||8.0|2.5|<0.001
91070688|NCT01106677|182026751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|7.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|10.1|||ANCOVA|||||10.1|4.5|<0.001
91070689|NCT00972816|182026753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 22|3.998|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.659|6.009||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||6.009|2.659|
91070690|NCT00972816|182026753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 22|1.222|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.813|1.838||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.838|0.813|
91070691|NCT00972816|182026753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 22|0.661|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.994||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.994|0.440|
91070692|NCT00972816|182026753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 22|2.178|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.449|3.276||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||3.276|1.449|
91070693|NCT00972816|182026753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 22|1.017|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.676|1.528||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.528|0.676|
91070694|NCT00972816|182026753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 22|0.673|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.448|1.012||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.012|0.448|
91070695|NCT00972816|182026753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 22|1.742|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.156|2.626||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||2.626|1.156|
91070696|NCT00972816|182026753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 22|0.306|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.204|0.458||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.458|0.204|
91070697|NCT00972816|182026753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 22|0.165|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.248||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.248|0.110|
91070698|NCT00972816|182026753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 22|0.545|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.363|0.818||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.818|0.363|
91070699|NCT00972816|182026753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 22|0.254|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.381||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.381|0.170|
91070700|NCT00972816|182026753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 22|0.168|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.112|0.252||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.252|0.112|
91070701|NCT00972816|182026753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 22|0.436|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.655||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.655|0.290|
91070702|NCT00972816|182026753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 22|0.541|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.361|0.811||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.811|0.361|
91077875|NCT02913105|182041136|OTHER|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.01||||0.8891|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.12|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Triglycerides: Day 7||1.12|0.91|0.8891
91070703|NCT00972816|182026753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 22|1.783|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.188|2.676||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||2.676|1.188|
91070704|NCT00972816|182026753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 22|0.832|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.555|1.246||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.246|0.555|
91070705|NCT00972816|182026753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 22|0.551|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.367|0.826||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.826|0.367|
91070706|NCT00972816|182026753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 22|1.426|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.14||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||2.140|0.950|
91070707|NCT00972816|182026753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 22|3.295|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.196|4.944||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||4.944|2.196|
91070708|NCT00972816|182026753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 22|1.538|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.026|2.303||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||2.303|1.026|
91070709|NCT00972816|182026753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 22|1.018|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.679|1.526||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.526|0.679|
91070710|NCT00972816|182026753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 22|2.635|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.754|3.959||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||3.959|1.754|
91070711|NCT00972816|182026753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 22|0.467|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.311|0.7||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.7|0.311|
91070712|NCT00972816|182026753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 22|0.309|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.206|0.463||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.463|0.206|
91070713|NCT00972816|182026753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 22|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.532|1.203||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other||1.203|0.532|
91070714|NCT00972816|182026753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 22|0.662|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.442|0.992||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.992|0.442|
91070715|NCT00972816|182026753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 22|1.714|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.142|2.572||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||2.572|1.142|
91070716|NCT00972816|182026753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.|Geometric mean ratio at day 22|2.589|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.723|3.889||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||3.889|1.723|
91070717|NCT00972816|182026753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|4.975|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.757|6.589||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||6.589|3.757|
91070718|NCT00972816|182026753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|1.168|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.881|1.547||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.547|0.881|
91070719|NCT00972816|182026753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.665|1.166||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.166|0.665|
91070720|NCT00972816|182026753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|3.219|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.43|4.264||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||4.264|2.430|
91070721|NCT00972816|182026753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.808|1.417||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.417|0.808|
91070722|NCT00972816|182026753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.544|0.954||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.954|0.544|
91070723|NCT00972816|182026753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|2.509|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.891|3.33||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||3.330|1.891|
91070724|NCT00972816|182026753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|0.235|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.178|0.31||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.310|0.178|
91070725|NCT00972816|182026753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|0.177|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.134|0.234||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.234|0.134|
91070726|NCT00972816|182026753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|0.647|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.489|0.856||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.856|0.489|
91070727|NCT00972816|182026753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|0.215|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.163|0.284||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.284|0.163|
91070728|NCT00972816|182026753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|0.145||||||95.0|0.109|0.191||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.191|0.109|
91070729|NCT00972816|182026753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|0.504|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.381|0.668||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.668|0.381|
91070730|NCT00972816|182026753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|0.754|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.997||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.997|0.570|
91070731|NCT00972816|182026753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|2.756|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.083|3.647||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||3.647|2.083|
91070732|NCT00972816|182026753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|0.916|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.694|1.211||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.211|0.694|
91070733|NCT00972816|182026753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|0.616|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.466|1.815||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.815|0.466|
91070734|NCT00972816|182026753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|2.149|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.624|2.843||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||2.843|1.624|
91070735|NCT00972816|182026753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|3.656|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.764|4.836||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||4.836|2.764|
91070736|NCT00972816|182026753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|1.216|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.606||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.606|0.920|
91070737|NCT00972816|182026753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|0.818|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.619|1.081||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.081|0.619|
91070738|NCT00972816|182026753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|2.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.152|3.773||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||3.773|2.152|
91070739|NCT00972816|182026753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|0.332|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.251|0.44||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.440|0.251|
91070740|NCT00972816|182026753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|0.224|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.169|0.296||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.296|0.169|
91070741|NCT00972816|182026753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.588|1.003||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.003|0.588|
91077876|NCT02913105|182041136|OTHER|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.95||||0.4817|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|1.07|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Triglycerides: Day 14||1.07|0.85|0.4817
91070742|NCT00972816|182026753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|0.673|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.509|0.889||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.889|0.509|
91070743|NCT00972816|182026753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|2.345|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.772|3.102||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||3.102|1.772|
91070744|NCT00972816|182026753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|3.485|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.633|4.614||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||4.614|2.633|
91070745|NCT00972816|182026753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 202|2.624|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.817|3.789||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||3.789|1.817|
91070746|NCT00972816|182026753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 202|1.096|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.58||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.580|0.760|
91070747|NCT00972816|182026753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 202|0.888|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.615|1.282||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.282|0.615|
91070748|NCT00972816|182026753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 202|2.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.473|3.052||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||3.052|1.473|
91070749|NCT00972816|182026753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 202|0.876|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.26||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.260|0.610|
91070750|NCT00972816|182026753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67|Geometric mean ratio at day 202|0.898|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.622|1.298||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.298|0.622|
91070751|NCT00972816|182026753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 202|1.451|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.105||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||2.105|1.000|
91077877|NCT02913105|182041136|OTHER|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.96||||0.6022|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|1.09|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Triglycerides: Day 28||1.09|0.84|0.6022
91070752|NCT00972816|182026753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 202|0.418|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.289|0.603||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.603|0.289|
91070753|NCT00972816|182026753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 202|0.338|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.235|0.487||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.487|0.235|
91070754|NCT00972816|182026753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 202|0.808|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.561|1.165||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.165|0.561|
91070755|NCT00972816|182026753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 202|0.334|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.233|0.479||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.479|0.233|
91070756|NCT00972816|182026753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 202|0.342|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.237|0.494||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.494|0.237|
91070757|NCT00972816|182026753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 202|0.553|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.382|0.801||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.801|0.382|
91070758|NCT00972816|182026753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 202|0.811|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.562|1.169||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.169|0.562|
91070759|NCT00972816|182026753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 202|1.935|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.347|2.78||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||2.780|1.347|
91070760|NCT00972816|182026753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 202|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.558|1.147||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.147|0.558|
91070761|NCT00972816|182026753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 202|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.568|1.184||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.184|0.568|
91077878|NCT02913105|182041136|OTHER|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.94||||0.447|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|1.07|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Triglycerides: Day 42||1.07|0.83|0.4470
91070762|NCT00972816|182026753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 202|1.324|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.915|1.917||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.917|0.915|
91070763|NCT00972816|182026753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 202|2.388|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.658|3.438||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||3.438|1.658|
91070764|NCT00972816|182026753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 202|0.987|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.688|1.416||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.416|0.688|
91070765|NCT00972816|182026753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 202|1.012|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.701|1.46||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.460|0.701|
91070766|NCT00972816|182026753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 202|1.634|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.128|2.366||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||2.366|1.128|
91070767|NCT00972816|182026753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 202|0.413|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.288|0.592||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.592|0.288|
91070768|NCT00972816|182026753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 202|0.424|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.294|0.61||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.610|0.294|
91070769|NCT00972816|182026753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 202|0.684|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.473|0.99||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.990|0.473|
91070770|NCT00972816|182026753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 202|1.025|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.714|1.473||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.473|0.714|
91070771|NCT00972816|182026753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 202|1.656|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|2.385||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||2.385|1.150|
91077879|NCT02913105|182041136|OTHER|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.94||||0.4342|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|1.07|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Triglycerides: Day 56||1.07|0.83|0.4342
91070772|NCT00972816|182026753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 202|1.615|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.115|2.339||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||2.339|1.115|
91070773|NCT00972816|182026753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 387|1.906|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.177|3.087||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||3.087|1.177|
91070774|NCT00972816|182026753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 387|0.945|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.583|1.533||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.533|0.583|
91070775|NCT00972816|182026753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 387|0.763|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.468|1.245||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.245|0.468|
91070776|NCT00972816|182026753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 387|1.818|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.119|2.956||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||2.956|1.119|
91070777|NCT00972816|182026753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 387|0.917|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.568|1.481||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.481|0.568|
91070778|NCT00972816|182026753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 387|0.855|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.524|1.396||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.396|0.524|
91070779|NCT00972816|182026753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 387|1.203|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.745|1.943||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.943|0.745|
91070780|NCT00972816|182026753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 387|0.496|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.794||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.794|0.310|
91070781|NCT00972816|182026753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 387|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.641||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.641|0.250|
91077880|NCT02913105|182041136|OTHER|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.85||||0.0891|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.73|0.99|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Triglycerides: Day 84||0.99|0.73|0.0891
91070782|NCT00972816|182026753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 387|0.954|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.596|1.528||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.528|0.596|
91070783|NCT00972816|182026753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 387|0.481|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.306|0.758||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.758|0.306|
91070784|NCT00972816|182026753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 387|0.449|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.279|0.722||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.722|0.279|
91070785|NCT00972816|182026753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 387|0.631|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.398|1.002||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.002|0.398|
91070786|NCT00972816|182026753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 387|0.807|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.304||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.304|0.500|
91070787|NCT00972816|182026753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 387|1.924|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.193|3.102||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||3.102|1.193|
91070788|NCT00972816|182026753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 387|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.611|1.541||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.541|0.611|
91070789|NCT00972816|182026753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 387|0.905|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.561|1.46||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.460|0.561|
91070790|NCT00972816|182026753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 387|1.273|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.798|2.03||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||2.030|0.798|
91070791|NCT00972816|182026753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 387|2.383|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.474|3.851||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||3.851|1.474|
91070792|NCT00972816|182026753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 387|1.202|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.754|1.915||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.915|0.754|
91070793|NCT00972816|182026753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 387|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.689|1.821||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.821|0.689|
91070794|NCT00972816|182026753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 387|1.576|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.987|2.516||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||2.516|0.987|
91070795|NCT00972816|182026753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 387|0.504|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.316|0.805||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.805|0.316|
91070796|NCT00972816|182026753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 387|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.293|0.754||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.754|0.293|
91070797|NCT00972816|182026753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 387|0.662|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.414|1.056||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.056|0.414|
91070798|NCT00972816|182026753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 387|0.932|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.583|1.492||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.492|0.583|
91070799|NCT00972816|182026753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 387|1.312|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.831|2.071||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||2.071|0.831|
91070800|NCT00972816|182026753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 387|1.407|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.249||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||2.249|0.880|
91070801|NCT00972816|182026753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric Mean Ratio at day 29|5.428|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|7.365||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||7.365|4|
91077881|NCT02913105|182041136|OTHER|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.89||||0.226|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.77|1.04|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Triglycerides: Day 112 (EOS)||1.04|0.77|0.2260
91070802|NCT00972816|182026753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric Mean Ratio at day 29|1.091|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.804|1.481||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.481|0.804|
91070803|NCT00972816|182026753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric Mean Ratio at day 29|0.759|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.559|1.031||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.031|0.559|
91070804|NCT00972816|182026753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric Mean Ratio at day 29|3.499|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.577|4.751||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other||4.751|2.577|
91070805|NCT00972816|182026753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric Mean Ratio at day 29|0.982|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.722|1.334||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.334|0.722|
91070806|NCT00972816|182026753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric Mean Ratio at day 29|0.699|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.513|0.95||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other||0.95|0.513|
91070807|NCT00972816|182026753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric Mean Ratio at day 29|2.513|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.846|3.421||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||3.421|1.846|
91070808|NCT00972816|182026753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric Mean Ratio at day 29|0.201|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.149|0.272||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.272|0.149|
91070809|NCT00972816|182026753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric Mean Ratio at day 29|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.103|0.189||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.189|0.103|
91070810|NCT00972816|182026753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric Mean Ratio at day 29|0.645|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.476|0.873||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.873|0.476|
91070811|NCT00972816|182026753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric Mean Ratio at day 29|0.181|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.134|0.245||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other||0.245|0.134|
91070812|NCT00972816|182026753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric Mean Ratio at day 29|0.129|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.095|0.174||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.174|0.095|
91070813|NCT00972816|182026753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67|Geometric Mean Ratio at day 29|0.463|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.341|0.628||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other||0.628|0.341|
91070814|NCT00972816|182026753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric Mean Ratio at day 29|0.696|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.514|0.943||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other||0.943|0.514|
91070815|NCT00972816|182026753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric Mean Ratio at day 29|3.207|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.368|4.343||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||4.343|2.368|
91070816|NCT00972816|182026753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric Mean Ratio at day 29|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.665|1.218||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.218|0.665|
91070817|NCT00972816|182026753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric Mean Ratio at day 29|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.472|0.868||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.868|0.472|
91070818|NCT00972816|182026753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric Mean Ratio at day 29|2.303|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|3.121||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||3.121|1.7|
91070819|NCT00972816|182026753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric Mean Ratio at day 29|4.608|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.398|6.249||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||6.249|3.398|
91070820|NCT00972816|182026753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric Mean Ratio at day 29|1.293|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.954|1.753||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.753|0.954|
91070821|NCT00972816|182026753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric Mean Ratio at day 29|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.677|1.249||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.249|0.677|
91077882|NCT02913105|182041136|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.87||||0.0324|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.78|0.97|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Triglycerides: Day 7||0.97|0.78|0.0324
91070822|NCT00972816|182026753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric Mean Ratio at day 29|3.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.436|4.496||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other||4.496|2.436|
91070823|NCT00972816|182026753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric Mean Ratio at day 29|0.281|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.207|0.38||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.38|0.207|
91070824|NCT00972816|182026753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric Mean Ratio at day 29|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.147|0.271||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.271|0.147|
91070825|NCT00972816|182026753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric Mean Ratio at day 29|0.718|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.529|0.975||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.975|0.529|
91070826|NCT00972816|182026753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric Mean Ratio at day 29|0.712|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.524|0.966||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.966|0.524|
91070827|NCT00972816|182026753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric Mean Ratio at day 29|2.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.886|3.474||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||3.474|1.886|
91070828|NCT00972816|182026753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric Mean Ratio at day 29|3.597|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.646|4.89||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other||4.89|2.646|
91070829|NCT03806933|182026761|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03|||=|0.881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.51||P-values were based on Wald Chi-Square tests for hazard ratios.|Wald Chi-square test||Hazard ratio (HR) was estimated using a Cox proportional hazards regression model. 95% CIs were calculated based on individual Wald tests.|||1.51|0.7|= 0.881
91070830|NCT03806933|182026761|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72|||=|0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.05||P-values were based on Wald Chi-Square tests for hazard ratios.|Wald Chi-square test||HR was estimated using a Cox proportional hazards regression model. 95% CIs were calculated based on individual Wald tests.|||1.05|0.49|= 0.089
91070831|NCT03806933|182026761|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.83|||Wald Chi-square test|P-values were based on Wald Chi-Square tests for hazard ratios.|HR was estimated using a Cox proportional hazards regression model. 95% CIs were calculated based on individual Wald tests.|||0.83|0.38|0.0035
91070832|NCT05088603|182026773|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.106|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.106
91070833|NCT05088603|182026774|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.99
91070834|NCT05088603|182026775|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.99
91070835|NCT05088603|182026777|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.529|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.529
91070836|NCT05088603|182026778|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.99
91070837|NCT05088603|182026779|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.502|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.502
91070838|NCT05088603|182026780|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.431|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.431
91070839|NCT05088603|182026781|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.434|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.434
91070840|NCT05088603|182026782|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.159|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.159
91070841|NCT05088603|182026783|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.051|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.051
91070842|NCT02162719|182026794|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (Stratified Analysis)|0.6||||0.0372|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|0.91||Stratification variables were adjuvant/neoadjuvant treatment including treatment with or without radiation, disease-free interval from last dose (\<=12 vs \>12 months vs. no prior chemotherapy), PTEN status of tumor (H-score 0, vs. 1 to 150, vs. \>150).|Log Rank|||||0.91|0.40|0.0372
91070843|NCT02162719|182026795|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (Stratified Analysis)|0.59||||0.1753|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.3|1.16||Stratification variables were adjuvant/neoadjuvant treatment including treatment with or without radiation, disease-free interval from last dose (\<=12 vs \>12 months vs. no prior chemotherapy), PTEN status of tumor (H-score 0, vs. 1 to 150, vs. \>150).|Log Rank|||||1.16|0.30|0.1753
91070844|NCT02162719|182026796|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (Unstratified Analysis)|0.76||||0.3636|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.46|1.27|||Log Rank|||||1.27|0.46|0.3636
91070845|NCT02162719|182026797|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (Stratified Analysis)|0.8||||0.3607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.28||Stratification variables were adjuvant/neoadjuvant treatment including treatment with/without radiation, disease-free interval from last dose (\<=12 vs \>12 months vs. no prior chemotherapy), PTEN status of tumor (H-score 0, vs. 1 to 150, vs. \>150).|Log Rank|||||1.28|0.50|0.3607
91070846|NCT02162719|182026798|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (Stratified Analysis)|0.73||||0.4422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.65||Stratification variables were adjuvant/neoadjuvant treatment including treatment with/without radiation, disease-free interval from last dose (\<=12 vs \>12 months vs. no prior chemotherapy), PTEN status of tumor (H-score 0, vs. 1 to 150, vs. \>150).|Log Rank|||||1.65|0.32|0.4422
91070847|NCT02162719|182026799|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (Unstratified Analysis)|1.13||||0.7599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|2.47|||Log Rank|||||2.47|0.52|0.7599
91070848|NCT03854370|182026837|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of all four groups prior to surgical scrub.||||0.23
91070849|NCT03854370|182026837|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of baby shampoo versus iodine post surgical scrub||||0.31
91070850|NCT03854370|182026837|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Chlorhexidine versus iodine post surgical scrub||||.35
91070851|NCT03854370|182026837|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of chloroxynel versus iodine post surgical scrub||||.61
90827608|NCT01584232|181529957|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper limit of the 95% Confidence Interval (CI) was \<0.4%, then LY2189265 was declared non-inferior to insulin glargine. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was \<0.0%, then LY2189265 was declared superior to insulin glargine.|LS Mean Difference|-0.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.41||P-value is from the pairwise comparison of LS means using a mixed effects model with repeated measurements (MMRM).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Approximately 360 participants were to be randomized in a 1:1 ratio to LY2189265 or insulin glargine (IG). Assuming no difference in HbA1c change from baseline at Week 26 between LY2189265 and IG, this sample size would provide approximately 90% power to confirm non-inferiority of LY2189265 to IG. This computation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 0.4% with a standard deviation of 1.1%, a 1-sided alpha level of 0.025, and an 11% dropout rate between randomization and Week 26.||-0.41|-0.67|<0.001
91070852|NCT03854370|182026838|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||Chi-squared|||comparison of all four groups prior to surgical scrub||||.59
91070853|NCT03854370|182026838|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of baby shampoo versus iodine post surgical scrub||||.05
91070854|NCT03854370|182026838|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of chlorhexidine versus iodine post surgical scrub||||.13
91070855|NCT03854370|182026838|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of chloroxynel versus iodine at post surgical scrub||||0.99
91070856|NCT03854370|182026839|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of all four groups prior to surgical scrub||||0.45
91070857|NCT03854370|182026839|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99||||||all groups were negative for cultures|Fisher Exact|||Comparison of baby shampoo versus iodine post surgical scrub||||0.99
91070858|NCT03854370|182026839|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99||||||All groups had negative cultures|Fisher Exact|||Comparison of chlorhexidine versus iodine at post surgical scrub||||0.99
91070859|NCT03854370|182026839|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99||||||All groups had negative cultures|Fisher Exact|||Comparison of chloroxynel versus iodine at post surgical scrub||||0.99
91070860|NCT03854370|182026840|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of baby shampoo versus iodine at post procedure||||0.61
91070861|NCT03854370|182026840|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of chlorhexidine versus iodine at post procedure||||0.99
91070862|NCT03854370|182026840|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of chloroxynel versus iodine at post procedure||||0.99
91070863|NCT03854370|182026841|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of baby shampoo versus iodine at post procedure||||0.32
91070864|NCT03854370|182026841|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of chlorhexidine versus iodine at post procedure||||0.99
91070865|NCT03854370|182026841|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of chloroxynel versus iodine at post procedure||||0.50
91070866|NCT03854370|182026842|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99||||||All groups had negative cultures|Fisher Exact|||Comparison of baby shampoo versus iodine at post procedure||||0.99
91070867|NCT03854370|182026842|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99||||||All groups had negative cultures|Fisher Exact|||comparison of chlorhexidine versus iodine at post procedure||||0.99
91070868|NCT03854370|182026842|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99||||||All groups had negative cultures|Fisher Exact|||Comparison of chloroxynel versus iodine at post procedure||||0.99
91070869|NCT00394836|182026865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of responders|13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|31.0|||||Response rate is calculated as the number of responses divided by the number of participants treated \* 100.|||31|4|
91070870|NCT00394836|182026865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of responders|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|19.0||||||||19|5|
91070871|NCT03692325|182026884|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.38
91070872|NCT01560234|182026917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.63|1.0|||Regression, Linear||AUC (nmol\*h/L) 5 to 30 μg|||1.00|0.63|
91070873|NCT01560234|182026918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.65|1.04|||Regression, Linear||AUC(0-t) (nmol\*h/L) 5 to 30 μg|||1.04|0.65|
91070874|NCT01560234|182026919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|1.04|||Regression, Linear||Cmax (nmol/L) 0.5 to 30 μg|||1.04|0.87|
91070875|NCT01560234|182026920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of Placebo|99.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.76|151.32|||ANCOVA||Cohort 1/0.15 ug vs Placebo|24 hour Plasma||151.32|65.76|
91070876|NCT01560234|182026920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of Placebo|92.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.21|141.27|||ANCOVA||Cohort 2/1.5ug vs Placebo|24 hour Plasma||141.27|61.21|
91070877|NCT01560234|182026920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of Placebo|145.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.11|221.28|||ANCOVA||Cohort 4/5 ug vs Placebo|24 hour Plasma||221.28|96.11|
91070878|NCT01560234|182026920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of Placebo|106.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|66.42|169.93|||ANCOVA||Cohort 3/1.5 ug vs Placebo|24 hour Plasma||169.93|66.42|
91070879|NCT01560234|182026920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of Placebo|223.76||||||95.0|144.98|345.35|||ANCOVA||Cohort 5/15 μg vs Placebo|24 hour plasma||345.35|144.98|
91070880|NCT01560234|182026920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of Placebo|228.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|150.36|346.41|||ANCOVA||Cohort 7/15 μg vs Placebo|24 hour plasma||346.41|150.36|
91070881|NCT01560234|182026920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of Placebo|684.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|495.31|944.65|||ANCOVA||Cohort 6 and 8/30 μg vs Placebo|24 hour plasma||944.65|495.31|
91070882|NCT01560234|182026921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of Placebo|95.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|72.7|126.28|||ANCOVA||Cohort 1/0.15 ug vs Placebo|48 hour plasma||126.28|72.70|
91070883|NCT01560234|182026921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of Placebo|91.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|69.53|121.0|||ANCOVA||Cohort 2/0.5 ug vs Placebo|48 hour plasma||121.00|69.53|
91070884|NCT01560234|182026921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of Placebo|112.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|82.3|153.35|||ANCOVA||Cohort 3/1.5 ug vs Placebo|48 hour Plasma||153.35|82.30|
91070885|NCT01560234|182026921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of Placebo|120.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.04|158.18|||ANCOVA||Cohort 4/5 ug vs Placebo|48 hour plasma||158.18|91.04|
91070886|NCT01560234|182026921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of Placebo|102.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|77.02|136.87|||ANCOVA||Cohort 5/15 ug vs Placebo|48 hour placebo||136.87|77.02|
91070887|NCT01560234|182026921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of Placebo|146.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|111.39|193.62|||ANCOVA||Cohort 7/15 ug vs Placebo|48 hour plasma||193.62|111.39|
91070888|NCT01560234|182026921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of Placebo|240.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|193.82|297.28|||ANCOVA||Cohort 6 and 8/30 ug|48 hour plasma||297.28|193.82|
91070889|NCT01560234|182026923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Comparison of Placebo|114.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.83|378.78|||ANCOVA||Cohort 1/0.15 ug vs Placebo|24 hour Sputum||378.78|34.83|
91070890|NCT01560234|182026923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Comparison of Placebo|81.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.96|268.7|||ANCOVA||Cohort 2/0.5 ug vs Placebo|24 hour Sputum||268.70|24.96|
91070891|NCT01560234|182026923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Comparison of Placebo|81.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.63|322.42|||ANCOVA||Cohort 3/1.5 ug vs Placebo|24 hour Sputum||322.42|20.63|
91070892|NCT01560234|182026923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Comparison of Placebo|304.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|76.61|1209.33|||ANCOVA||Cohort 4/5 ug vs Placebo|24 hour Sputum||1209.33|76.61|
91070893|NCT01560234|182026923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Comparison of Placebo|193.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.01|636.49|||ANCOVA||Cohort 5/15 μg vs Placebo|24 hour Sputum||636.49|59.01|
91070894|NCT01560234|182026923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Comparison of Placebo|467.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|142.77|1533.92|||ANCOVA||Cohort 7/15 μg vs Placebo|24 hour Sputum||1533.92|142.77|
91070895|NCT01560234|182026923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Comparison of Placebo|1087.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|317.19|3727.57|||ANCOVA||Cohort 6 and 8/30 μg vs Placebo|24 hour Sputum||3727.57|317.19|
91070896|NCT00083759|182026927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.089||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.089
91070897|NCT00083759|182026928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.171||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.171
91070898|NCT00083759|182026929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.526||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.526
91070899|NCT03567005|182026930|NON_INFERIORITY|The pre-specified non-inferiority margin is 0.05. With a sample size of 36 (18 per sequence group), there was approximately 80% power to reject the null hypothesis of inferiority in distance visual acuity with assumed standard deviation of 0.098 for paired difference (one-sided alpha=0.05).|Least Squares Mean (LSM) Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.008|||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.02||||||||0.02||
91070900|NCT03567005|182026931|NON_INFERIORITY|The pre-specified non-inferiority margin is 1.0. With a sample size of 48 (24 per sequence group), there was approximately 80% power to reject the null hypothesis of inferiority in subjective overall vision with assumed standard deviation of 2.29 for paired differences (one-sided alpha=0.05).|LSM Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.3||||||||||-0.3|
91070901|NCT01290679|182026996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions of SVR12|32.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.3|41.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The null hypothesis is there is no difference in proportions of SVR12 between the treatment groups.||41.2|23.3|<0.001
91070902|NCT01290679|182026997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions of SVRW72|29.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.2|38.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The null hypothesis is there is no difference in proportions of SVRW72 between the treatment groups.||38.5|20.2|<0.001
91070903|NCT01290679|182026998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions of SVR24|31.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.5|40.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The null hypothesis is there is no difference in proportions of SVR24 between the treatment groups.||40.5|22.5|<0.001
91070904|NCT01290679|182026999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions of SVR4|32.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.5|41.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The null hypothesis is there is no difference in proportions of SVR4 between the treatment groups.||41.0|23.5|<0.001
91070905|NCT01290679|182027026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean differences|-16.776|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.3081||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.1502|-4.4025|||Piecewise Linear Model|||Fatigue Severity Score AUC60||-4.4025|-29.1502|0.008
91070906|NCT01290679|182027026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean differences|-18.837|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.4715||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.4933|-4.1801|||Piecewise Linear Model|||Fatigue Severity Score AUC72||-4.1801|-33.4933|0.012
91070907|NCT01290679|182027027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean differences|-282.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|105.4927||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-489.1252|-75.1949|||Piecewise Linear Model|||Impairment in Work Productivity AUC60||-75.1949|-489.1252|0.008
91070908|NCT01290679|182027027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean differences|-324.363|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|124.026||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-567.708|-81.0182|||Piecewise Linear Model|||Impairment in Work Productivity AUC72||-81.0182|-567.7080|0.009
91070909|NCT01290679|182027028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Differences|-282.436|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|104.9894||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-488.415|-76.4566|||Piecewise linear model|||Impairment in Daily Activities AUC60||-76.4566|-488.4150|0.007
91070910|NCT01290679|182027028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean differences|-329.204|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|123.408||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-571.3389|-87.0695|||Piecewise Linear Model|||Impairment in Daily Activities AUC72||-87.0695|-571.3389|0.008
91070911|NCT01290679|182027029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean differences|-186.852|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|121.4741||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-425.4109|51.7059|||Piecewise linear model|||Time Missed from Work AUC60||51.7059|-425.4109|0.125
91070912|NCT01290679|182027029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean differences|-188.202|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|141.1702||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-465.507|89.104|||Piecewise linear model|||Time Missed from Work AUC72||89.1040|-465.5070|0.183
91070913|NCT01598090|182027031|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of Lambda/RBV/TVR to Alfa/RBV/TVR was not established because the lower limit of the 95% CI was less than the predefined non-inferiority margin of -12%. As a result, key secondary endpoints were not tested hierarchically to compare treatment groups.||||||0.0855||||||Non-inferiority testing is based on lower limit of confidence interval.|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.0855
91070914|NCT03628339|182027041|OTHER||% Ratio of Geometric Least square Mean|101.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.35|115.06||||||||115.06|89.35|
91070915|NCT03628339|182027042|OTHER||% Ratio of Geometric Least square Mean|101.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.24|114.66||||||||114.66|89.24|
91070916|NCT03628339|182027043|OTHER||% Ratio of Geometric Least square Mean|103.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.91|123.56||||||||123.56|86.91|
91070917|NCT04431908|182027054|OTHER|Sensitivity, specificity and accuracy was measured utilizing the true and false positives, as well as the true and false negatives. For a subject to have a true positive, the subject must have had a positive PCR test for COVID-19 as well as scored 0, 1 or 2 correct answers on the smell test. For a subject to have a true negative, the subject must have had a negative PCR test for COVID-19 as well as scored 3, 4 or 5 correct answers on the smell test.|Specificity|89.35|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91070918|NCT04431908|182027054|OTHER|Sensitivity, specificity and accuracy was measured utilizing the true and false positives, as well as the true and false negatives. For a subject to have a true positive, the subject must have had a positive PCR test for COVID-19 as well as scored 0, 1 or 2 correct answers on the smell test. For a subject to have a true negative, the subject must have had a negative PCR test for COVID-19 as well as scored 3, 4 or 5 correct answers on the smell test.|Sensitivity|42.55|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91070919|NCT04431908|182027054|OTHER|Sensitivity, specificity and accuracy was measured utilizing the true and false positives, as well as the true and false negatives. For a subject to have a true positive, the subject must have had a positive PCR test for COVID-19 as well as scored 0, 1 or 2 correct answers on the smell test. For a subject to have a true negative, the subject must have had a negative PCR test for COVID-19 as well as scored 3, 4 or 5 correct answers on the smell test.|Accuracy|87.24|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91070920|NCT04431908|182027056|OTHER|Sensitivity, specificity and accuracy was measured utilizing the true and false positives, as well as the true and false negatives. For a subject to have a true positive, the subject must have had a positive PCR test for COVID-19 as well as scored 0, 1 or 2 correct answers on the smell test. For a subject to have a true negative, the subject must have had a negative PCR test for COVID-19 as well as scored 3, 4 or 5 correct answers on the smell test.|Specificity|88.73|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
90827609|NCT01584232|181529958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison for HbA1c \<=6.5%.|Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
91070921|NCT04431908|182027056|OTHER|Sensitivity, specificity and accuracy was measured utilizing the true and false positives, as well as the true and false negatives. For a subject to have a true positive, the subject must have had a positive PCR test for COVID-19 as well as scored 0, 1 or 2 correct answers on the smell test. For a subject to have a true negative, the subject must have had a negative PCR test for COVID-19 as well as scored 3, 4 or 5 correct answers on the smell test.|Sensitivity|33.33|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91070922|NCT04431908|182027056|OTHER|Sensitivity, specificity and accuracy was measured utilizing the true and false positives, as well as the true and false negatives. For a subject to have a true positive, the subject must have had a positive PCR test for COVID-19 as well as scored 0, 1 or 2 correct answers on the smell test. For a subject to have a true negative, the subject must have had a negative PCR test for COVID-19 as well as scored 3, 4 or 5 correct answers on the smell test.|Accuracy|88.13|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91070923|NCT00355147|182027057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for site, strata, baseline score, randomized group, month and the group by month interaction|This score represents change from baseline to six months across the groups.|This is an analysis of the outcome, Stroke Specific Quality of Life Overall Total Score.||||0.69
91070924|NCT00355147|182027057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted for site, strata, baseline value, treatment group, month of assessment, treatment group x month, random subject effect|Mixed Models Analysis||This score represents change from baseline to three months across groups.|This is an analysis of the Perceived Energy Domain within the Stroke Specific Quality of Life Measure||||0.05
91070925|NCT00355147|182027058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12||||0.66|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted by site, strata, baseline score, treatment group, month and group by month interaction|The score is the change from baseline to six months between groups.|||||0.66
91070926|NCT00355147|182027059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.74||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|51.31|||Regression, Logistic|||||51.31|0.88|0.06
90827610|NCT01584232|181529958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison for HbA1c \<7%.|Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
90827611|NCT01584232|181529959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.5||||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|8.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.7|-1.7|0.183
90827612|NCT01584232|181529960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.16||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|9.56||Treatment comparison for pre-morning meal.|ANCOVA|||||9.56|0.76|0.022
91070927|NCT00355147|182027059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.45||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|10.96|||Regression, Logistic|||Within group Intervention Pre Post Comparison Compliance with Diabetes Medication||10.96|1.08|0.036
91070928|NCT00355147|182027059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.51||||0.407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.7|||Regression, Logistic|||Within Group attention control group intervention pre post comparison compliance with Diabetes Medication||2.70|0.10|0.407
91070929|NCT00355147|182027060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|4.48|||Regression, Logistic|||Between Group Intervention Pre Post Comparison Compliance with Statin Medication||4.48|0.54|0.05
91070930|NCT00355147|182027060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.98||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.81|12.76|||Regression, Logistic|||Within Group Intervention Pre Post Comparison Compliance with Statin Medication||12.76|2.81|0.0001
91070931|NCT00355147|182027060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.83||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.83|8.01|||Regression, Logistic|||Within Group Attention Control Pre Post Comparison Compliance with Statin Medication.||8.01|1.83|0.0004
91070932|NCT00355147|182027061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.34||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|6.4|||Regression, Logistic|||Between Group Intervention Pre Post Comparison Compliance with Hypertension Medication||6.40|0.86|0.096
91070933|NCT00355147|182027061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.68||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.81|7.48|||Regression, Logistic|||Within Group Intervention Pre Post Comparison Compliance with Hypertension Medication||7.48|1.81|0.0004
91070934|NCT00355147|182027061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.57||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|3.21|||Regression, Logistic|||Within Group Attention Group Pre Post Comparison Compliance with Hypertension Medication.||3.21|0.77|0.21
91070935|NCT01146379|182027068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||||||a prior threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P value was not corrected for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|||The primary analysis used hierarchical linear modeling to examine the rate of change in ARAT over time. The null hypothesis was that all groups would change at a similar rate.||||.01
91070936|NCT01146379|182027068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This analysis then asked which groups were different from the Low Movement Dose group||||.036
91070937|NCT01146379|182027068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.679|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This analysis asked if the Low Movement Dose group was different from the High Movement Dose group||||0.679
91070938|NCT01146379|182027068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.209|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This analysis tested if the Low Movement Dose group was different from the Individual Maximum High Movement Dose group||||0.209
91070939|NCT03557931|182027069|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02||0.858|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.51|1.88|||MMRM Method|||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis model is performed with change from baseline (least square (LS) Mean estimate for observed value from separate model using observed values) at week 12 as response; treatment, site (pooled where necessary), visit, treatment\*visit, and visit\*baseline as fixed effects, and baseline as a covariate.|Cohen's d Effect Size was defined as: (t-value for the least squares mean pairwise difference of ASP4345 50 mg vs placebo) \* sqrt(1/n\[PLACEBO\] + 1/n\[ASP4345\]). The Cohen's d Effect Size value for ASP4345 50 mg vs placebo is 0.035.|1.88|-1.51|0.858
91070940|NCT03557931|182027069|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.93|1.36|||0.775|||MMRM analysis model is performed with change from baseline (LS Mean estimate for observed value from separate model using observed values) at week 12 as response; treatment, site (pooled where necessary), visit, treatment\*visit, and visit\*baseline as fixed effects, and baseline as a covariate.|Cohen's d Effect Size was defined as: (t-value for the least squares mean pairwise difference of ASP4345 150 mg vs placebo) \* sqrt(1/n\[PLACEBO\] + 1/n\[ASP4345\]). The Cohen's d Effect Size value for ASP4345 150 mg vs placebo is - 0.053.|1.36|-1.93|
91070941|NCT03557931|182027075|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.639|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.9|3.41|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model is performed with change from baseline (LS Mean estimate for observed value from separate model using observed values) at the Week 12 timepoint as response, treatment and site (pooled where necessary) and baseline as a covariate.||3.41|-1.90|0.639
91070942|NCT03557931|182027075|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.54||0.721|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.11|2.01|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model is performed with change from baseline (LS Mean estimate for observed value from separate model using observed values) at the Week 12 timepoint as response, treatment and site (pooled where necessary) and baseline as a covariate.||2.01|-3.11|0.721
91070943|NCT00737204|182027077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91070944|NCT00737204|182027078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Repeated measure analysis||||.01
91070945|NCT00737204|182027079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>=|0.805||95.0|||||Paired t-tests|||Null hypothesis: CD4 levels for both the Armodafinil and Placebo groups will not change significantly between baseline and week 4.||||>=.805
91070946|NCT03605862|182027083|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4009|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon|Analysis was stratified by time from onset of symptoms, pre-enrollment symptom relief medication use, and presence of underlying lung conditions||||||0.4009
91070947|NCT03605862|182027084|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1923|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon|Analysis was stratified by time from onset of symptoms, pre-enrollment symptom relief medication use, and presence of underlying lung conditions||||||0.1923
91070948|NCT03605862|182027085|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2057|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2057
91070949|NCT03605862|182027086|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0712|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon|Analysis stratified by time from symptom onset at Baseline, pre-enrollment symptom relief medication use, and presence of underlying lung condition||||||0.0712
91070950|NCT03605862|182027087|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison for study day 2||||1.0000
91070951|NCT03605862|182027087|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9142|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison for study day 3||||0.9142
91070952|NCT03605862|182027087|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0132|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison for study day 7||||0.0132
91070953|NCT03605862|182027088|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1239|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison for day 2||||0.1239
91070954|NCT03605862|182027088|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1022|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison for day 3||||0.1022
91070955|NCT03605862|182027088|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46213|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison for day 7||||0.46213
91070956|NCT03605862|182027091|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon|Analysis stratified by time from symptom onset at first dose, pre-enrollment symptom relief medication use, and presence of underlying lung condition||||||0.0140
91070957|NCT03605862|182027092|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0112|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon|Analysis stratified by time from onset at first dose, pre-enrollment symptom relief medication use, and presence of underlying lung condition||||||0.0112
91070958|NCT03605862|182027093|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon|Analysis stratified by time from onset at first dose, pre-enrollment symptom relief medication use, and presence of underlying lung condition||||||<0.0001
91070959|NCT02805179|182027104|SUPERIORITY|Compared to historical controls||||||0.03|||||||1-sided binomial test|||||||0.03
91070960|NCT01582178|182027123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.89
91077883|NCT02913105|182041136|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.85||||0.0291|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.76|0.96|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Triglycerides: Day 14||0.96|0.76|0.0291
91070961|NCT02157376|182027143|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the lower bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference is larger than -0.05, the non-inferiority claim will be met.|Risk Difference (RD)|1.9||||0.393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|6.5|||Pearson's Chi-square||The difference in treatment group percentages is given by Cimetidine minus Esomeprazole.|Assuming a bleeding percent of 6.3% for the active comparator, a risk reduction of 3.7% for esomeprazole, and a 5% non-inferiority margin, 150 patients per treatment arm will provide 94% power to demonstrate non-inferiority. The null hypothesis is that the bleeding rate for iv esomeprazole 40 mg bid exceeds the rate for iv cimetidine by an amount at least as large as 5%.||6.5|-2.8|0.393
91070962|NCT01031680|182027154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0473|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.37||Significant at alpha=0.025 (2-sided). A hierarchical closed testing procedure was used to control Type I error across the primary \& key secondary objectives|ANCOVA|with treatment group and stratum as effects and baseline value as covariate for each endpoint|with stratum = age-by-insulin use-by-time from most recent qualifying CV event|H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-0.37|-0.56|<0.0001
91070963|NCT01031680|182027155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|9.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|12.9||Significant at alpha=0.025 (2-sided). A hierarchical closed testing procedure was used to control Type I error across the primary \& key secondary objectives|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|with age-by-insulin use-by-time from most recent qualifying CV event as stratum||H0: proportion(treat) minus proportion(placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: proportion(treat) minus proportion(placebo) =/= 0||12.9|7.0|<0.0001
91070964|NCT01031680|182027156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7898||0.0126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.52|-0.42||Significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure|ANCOVA|with treatment group and stratum as effects and baseline value as covariate|with stratum = age-by-insulin use-by-time from most recent qualifying CV event|H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-0.42|-3.52|0.0126
91070965|NCT01031680|182027157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.191|<|0.0001||95.0|-2.64|-1.89||Significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure|ANCOVA|with treatment group and stratum as effects and baseline value as covariate|with stratum = age-by-insulin use-by-time from most recent qualifying CV event|H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-1.89|-2.64|<0.0001
91070966|NCT01031680|182027158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8203||0.0174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.56|-0.34||Significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure|ANCOVA|with treatment group and stratum as effects and baseline value as covariate|with stratum = age-by-insulin use-by-time from most recent qualifying CV event|H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-0.34|-3.56|0.0174
91070967|NCT01031680|182027159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|12.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.126|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.3|16.6||Significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure|Regression, Logistic|Based on methodology of Zhang, Tsiatis \& Davidian and Davidian, Tsiatis, Zhang \& Lu, with adjustment for baseline value and stratum (gender)||H0: proportion(treat) minus proportion(placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: proportion(treat) minus proportion(placebo) =/= 0||16.6|8.3|<0.0001
91070968|NCT01921101|182027186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.29
91070969|NCT00150488|182027192|OTHER|Compared to baseline|||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91070970|NCT00596817|182027193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.01||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|3.21|||Cox-model|Cox-model using an exact method to handle ties||||3.21|1.26|0.0035
91070971|NCT00596817|182027194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.09||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|3.23||A nominal p-value is provided.|Cox-Model|||||3.23|1.35|0.0010
91070972|NCT00596817|182027195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.36|-0.77||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA|||||-0.77|-3.36|0.0020
91070973|NCT00596817|182027196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.0171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.39|-0.24||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA|||||-0.24|-2.39|0.0171
91070974|NCT00596817|182027197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.0612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.05||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA|||||0.05|-2.30|0.0612
91070975|NCT00596817|182027198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.18||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA|||||-0.18|-0.57|0.0002
91070976|NCT00596817|182027199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|6.35||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|11.56||A nominal p-value is provided.|Fisher Exact|||||11.56|1.13|0.025
91070977|NCT00596817|182027200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|12.13||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.73|19.52||A nominal p-value is provided.|Fisher Exact|||||19.52|4.73|0.002
91070978|NCT00596817|182027201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.3642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|0.78||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA|||||0.78|-2.12|0.3642
91070979|NCT00869622|182027203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0229|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0229
91070980|NCT01314872|182027223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares (LS) means|-0.46||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.01|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Constrained longitudinal data analysis model includes terms for time, region, part and interaction of time by treatment.||||0.01|-0.92|0.056
91070981|NCT01314872|182027223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|-0.45||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.03|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Constrained longitudinal data analysis model includes terms for time, region, part and interaction of time by treatment.||||0.03|-0.93|0.064
91070982|NCT01314872|182027223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|-0.64||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.18|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Constrained longitudinal data analysis model includes terms for time, region, part and interaction of time by treatment.||||-0.18|-1.11|0.007
91070983|NCT01314872|182027223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|-0.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|-0.44|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Constrained longitudinal data analysis model includes terms for time, region, part and interaction of time by treatment.||||-0.44|-1.37|< 0.001
91070984|NCT01314872|182027223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|-0.54||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.07|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Constrained longitudinal data analysis model includes terms for time, region, part and interaction of time by treatment.||||-0.07|-1.02|0.026
91070985|NCT01314872|182027228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|-0.28||||0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.12|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Constrained longitudinal data analysis model includes terms for time, region, and interaction of time by treatment.||||0.12|-0.68|0.167
91070986|NCT01314872|182027228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|-0.57||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.17|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Constrained longitudinal data analysis model includes terms for time, region, and interaction of time by treatment.||||-0.17|-0.97|0.005
91070987|NCT01314872|182027228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|-0.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.33|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Constrained longitudinal data analysis model includes terms for time, region, and interaction of time by treatment.||||-0.33|-1.11|< 0.001
91070988|NCT01314872|182027228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|-0.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.32|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Constrained longitudinal data analysis model includes terms for time, region, and interaction of time by treatment.||||-0.32|-1.10|< 0.001
91070989|NCT01314872|182027228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|-0.46||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.04|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Constrained longitudinal data analysis model includes terms for time, region, and interaction of time by treatment.||||-0.04|-0.87|0.030
91070990|NCT01314872|182027229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.18||||0.401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.25|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Constrained longitudinal data analysis model includes terms for time, region, and interaction of time by treatment.||||0.25|-0.61|0.401
91070991|NCT01314872|182027229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.48||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.05|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Constrained longitudinal data analysis model includes terms for time, region, and interaction of time by treatment.||||-0.05|-0.91|0.029
90827613|NCT01584232|181529960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-13.4||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.28|-4.52||Treatment comparison for 2 hours post-morning meal.|ANCOVA|||||-4.52|-22.28|0.003
91070992|NCT01314872|182027229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.6||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.18|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Constrained longitudinal data analysis model includes terms for time, region, and interaction of time by treatment.||||-0.18|-1.02|0.005
91070993|NCT01314872|182027229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.58||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.16|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Constrained longitudinal data analysis model includes terms for time, region, and interaction of time by treatment.||||-0.16|-1.01|0.007
91070994|NCT01314872|182027229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.34||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.11|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Constrained longitudinal data analysis model includes terms for time, region, and interaction of time by treatment.||||0.11|-0.78|0.140
90827614|NCT01584232|181529960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-8.22||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.37|-1.06||Treatment comparison for pre-midday meal.|ANCOVA|||||-1.06|-15.37|0.025
90827615|NCT01584232|181529960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-23.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.92|-14.51||Treatment comparison for 2 hours post-midday meal.|ANCOVA|||||-14.51|-31.92|<0.001
91070995|NCT01314872|182027230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|-0.18||||0.598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.49|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Constrained longitudinal data analysis model includes terms for time, region, and interaction of time by treatment.||||0.49|-0.84|0.598
91070996|NCT01314872|182027230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|-0.67||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|0.01|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Constrained longitudinal data analysis model includes terms for time, region, and interaction of time by treatment.||||0.01|-1.35|0.052
91070997|NCT01314872|182027230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|-0.76||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|-0.1|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Constrained longitudinal data analysis model includes terms for time, region, and interaction of time by treatment.||||-0.10|-1.43|0.024
91070998|NCT01314872|182027230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|-1.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.58|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Constrained longitudinal data analysis model includes terms for time, region, and interaction of time by treatment.||||-0.58|-1.90|< 0.001
91070999|NCT01314872|182027230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|-0.94||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|-0.26|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Constrained longitudinal data analysis model includes terms for time, region, and interaction of time by treatment.||||-0.26|-1.62|0.007
91071000|NCT01314872|182027231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|-0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.03||||||||0.03|-1.00|
91071001|NCT01314872|182027231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|-0.58||||||||-0.58|-1.62|
91071002|NCT01314872|182027232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|-0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.13||||||||0.13|-0.71|
91071003|NCT01314872|182027232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|-0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.21||||||||0.21|-0.64|
91071004|NCT01314872|182027233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|-0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.43||||||||0.43|-0.56|
91071005|NCT01314872|182027233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.51||||||||0.51|-0.48|
91071006|NCT01314872|182027234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|-0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|-0.08||||||||-0.08|-1.45|
91071007|NCT01314872|182027234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|-1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|-0.56||||||||-0.56|-1.93|
91071008|NCT03634033|182027235|SUPERIORITY|Examination of intensity of facilitation (IF vs IF+EF) on adoption and sustainability using an evidence-based intervention (CAPABLE).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.89|STANDARD_DEVIATION|18.17||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.27|29.05||A priori threshold for statistical significance was .05|t-test, 2 sided|16 degrees of freedom for the t-test comparing two independent groups, n=9 each.||Given 18 sites (9 in each arm) available in Michigan, in the comparison of site-level outcome of adoption and sustainability, the detectable effect size with power of 0.80 in two-sided tests at .05 level of significance was d=1.41.||29.05|-7.27|0.22
91071009|NCT03634033|182027236|SUPERIORITY|Examination of intensity of facilitation (IF vs IF+EF) on beneficiaries ADLs at exit using an evidence-based intervention (CAPABLE).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.73||A priori threshold for statistical significance was .05; no adjustments for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|F-test was used built into mixed models that adjusted for clustering via a random effect of site.|IF minus IF+EF|Adjusted means at month 9 were calculated adjusting for baseline value of the outcome and nesting of participants within sites.||0.73|-0.16|0.73
91071010|NCT03634033|182027237|SUPERIORITY|Examination of intensity of facilitation (IF vs IF+EF) needed on beneficiaries IADLs using an evidence-based intervention (CAPABLE).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.72||Threshold for statistical significance was .05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|F-test was used built into mixed models that adjusted for clustering.|IF minus IF+EF|Post-intervention means were compared adjusting for baseline values and nesting of participants within sites.||0.72|-0.11|0.15
91071011|NCT03634033|182027238|SUPERIORITY|Examination of intensity of facilitation (IF vs IF+EF) needed on beneficiaries pain at exit using an evidence-based intervention (CAPABLE).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.39||Threshold for statistical significance was.05; no adjustments for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|F-test was used built into mixed models that adjusted for clustering.|IF minus IF+EF|||0.39|-0.23|0.61
91071012|NCT03634033|182027239|SUPERIORITY|Examination of intensity of facilitation (IF vs IF+EF) needed on beneficiaries depression (baseline to exit) using an evidence-based intervention (CAPABLE).|LS Means|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.24|||F-test|F-test was used (related to the t-test arithmetically), built into mixed models that adjusted for clustering.||||0.24|0.01|0.04
91071013|NCT03634033|182027240|SUPERIORITY|Examination of intensity of facilitation (IF vs IF+EF) on beneficiaries fall rates at exit after an evidence-based intervention (CAPABLE).|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.45|0.93|0.18
91071014|NCT03634033|182027240|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.45||Threshold for statistical significance was .05; no adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis||Odds ratio for IF versus IF+EF|Occurrence of falls was analyzed with adjustment for baseline and nesting of participants within sites.||1.45|0.93|.18
91071015|NCT03634033|182027241|SUPERIORITY|Examination of intensity of facilitation (IF vs IF+EF) on beneficiaries ED Visits at exit after an evidence-based intervention (CAPABLE).|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.22||Threshold for statistical significance was .05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjustment for baseline and nesting of participants within sites.||||1.22|0.79|0.86
91071016|NCT03634033|182027242|SUPERIORITY|Examination of intensity of facilitation (IF vs IF+EF) needed on beneficiaries hospitalizations (baseline to exit) using an evidence-based intervention (CAPABLE).|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.01||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.42|||F-test|F-test was used (related to the t-test arithmetically), built into mixed models that adjusted for clustering.||||1.42|0.72|0.95
91071017|NCT03634033|182027243|SUPERIORITY|Examination of clinician attitude on facilitation (IF vs IF+EF) at exit when using an evidence-based intervention (CAPABLE).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.55||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|10.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed modeling was used to account for nesting of clinicians within sites.||10.14|0.09|0.05
91071018|NCT03634033|182027244|OTHER|Examination of clinician self-efficacy on facilitation (IF vs IF+EF) (baseline to exit) when using an evidence-based intervention (CAPABLE).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.97||Threshold for statistical significance was .05 with no adjustments for multiple testing.|Mixed Models Analysis|Nesting of clinicians within site was adjusted for as a random effect.||||0.97|-0.51|0.54
91071019|NCT03634033|182027247|SUPERIORITY|Pre-/post-intervention comparison.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.96|-1.42|||t-test, 2 sided||Pre minus post|Pain||-1.42|-3.96|<.01
91071020|NCT03634033|182027247|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|4.91||Threshold for statistical significance was .05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||ADL||4.91|-2.80|.58
91071021|NCT03634033|182027247|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|4.91||Threshold for statistical significance was .05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||IADL||4.91|-2.80|.44
91071022|NCT03634033|182027247|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|4.77||Threshold for statistical significance was .05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided||Pre minus post|Depression||4.77|-1.85|.38
91071023|NCT03634033|182027248|SUPERIORITY|Self-efficacy|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.81|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.11|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.6||Threshold for statistical significance was .05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided||Pre minus post|Self-efficacy change baseline (month-0) to exit (month-4).||-0.60|-1.02|<0.01
91071024|NCT03634033|182027249|OTHER|Score on scale.|Mean|8.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.6|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.01
91071025|NCT03634033|182027249|OTHER||Mean|7.55|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.06|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Satisfaction with format||||<.01
91071026|NCT03634033|182027249|OTHER||Mean|8.35|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.5|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Difference from zero|||Satisfaction with newness of content for caregiver||||<.01
91071027|NCT03634033|182027249|OTHER||Mean|7.85|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.92|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Difference from zero|||Satisfaction with newness of content for clinician||||<.01
91071028|NCT03634033|182027249|OTHER||Mean|7.85|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.92|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Difference from zero|||Intent to use new information||||<.01
91071029|NCT06366087|182027250|OTHER|Estimation only. Estimates are back-transformed and based on a random effects linear model with log10 numeric response variable, adjusting for study route received, dosing sequence, and period, with a random effect for subject nested within dosing sequence.|Ratio of geometric least-square means|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.67|0.724|||Mixed Models Analysis||Bioequivalence will be considered met if the 90% CI of the ratio for AUCinf lies within 80.00 to 125.00%.|||0.724|0.670|
91071030|NCT06366087|182027251|OTHER|Estimation only. Estimates are back-transformed and based on a random effects linear model with log10 numeric response variable, adjusting for study route received, dosing sequence, and period, with a random effect for subject nested within dosing sequence.|Ratio of geometric least-square means|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.64|0.697|||Mixed Models Analysis||Bioequivalence will be considered met if the 90% CI of the ratio for AUCt lies within 80.00 to 125.00%.|||0.697|0.640|
91071031|NCT06366087|182027252|OTHER|Estimation only. Estimates are back-transformed and based on a random effects linear model with log10 numeric response variable, adjusting for study route received, dosing sequence, and period, with a random effect for subject nested within dosing sequence.|Ratio of geometric least-square means|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.088|0.136|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.136|0.088|
91071032|NCT06366087|182027253|OTHER|Estimation only. Estimates are back-transformed and based on a random effects linear model with log10 numeric response variable, adjusting for study route received, dosing sequence, and period, with a random effect for subject nested within dosing sequence.|Ratio of geometric least-square means|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.12|0.189|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.189|0.120|
91071033|NCT06366087|182027254|OTHER|Estimation only. Estimates are back-transformed and based on a random effects linear model with log10 numeric response variable, adjusting for study route received, dosing sequence, and period, with a random effect for subject nested within dosing sequence.|Ratio of geometric least-square means|0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.217|0.309|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.309|0.217|
91071034|NCT06366087|182027255|OTHER|Estimation only. Estimates are back-transformed and based on a random effects linear model with log10 numeric response variable, adjusting for study route received, dosing sequence, and period, with a random effect for subject nested within dosing sequence.|Ratio of geometric least-square means|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.318|0.416|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.416|0.318|
91071035|NCT06366087|182027256|OTHER|Estimation only. Estimates are back-transformed and based on a random effects linear model with log10 numeric response variable, adjusting for study route received, dosing sequence, and period, with a random effect for subject nested within dosing sequence.|Ratio of geometric least-square means|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.396|0.492|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.492|0.396|
91071036|NCT06366087|182027257|OTHER|Estimation only. Estimates are back-transformed and based on a random effects linear model with log10 numeric response variable, adjusting for study route received, dosing sequence, and period, with a random effect for subject nested within dosing sequence.|Ratio of geometric least-square means|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.532|0.608|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.608|0.532|
91071037|NCT06366087|182027258|OTHER|Estimation only. Estimates are back-transformed and based on a random effects linear model with log10 numeric response variable, adjusting for study route received, dosing sequence, and period, with a random effect for subject nested within dosing sequence.|Ratio of geometric least-square means|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.524|0.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.620|0.524|
91071038|NCT00504725|182027293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39||95.0||||We will use two way ANOVA (looking for effects due to drug and time) with a p value of 0.05 indicative of statistical significance.|ANOVA|||IL-6||||0.39
91071039|NCT00504725|182027293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||95.0|||||ANOVA|||IL-8||||0.18
90827616|NCT01584232|181529960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-13.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.03|-6.24||Treatment comparison for pre-evening meal.|ANCOVA|||||-6.24|-21.03|<0.001
90827617|NCT01584232|181529960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-31.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.26|-23.0||Treatment comparison for 2 hours post-evening meal.|ANCOVA|||||-23.00|-39.26|<0.001
90827618|NCT01584232|181529960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-23.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.68|-15.79||Treatment comparison for bedtime.|ANCOVA|||||-15.79|-31.68|<0.001
91071040|NCT00504725|182027293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14||95.0|||||ANOVA|||IL-10||||0.14
91071041|NCT00504725|182027294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.37
91071042|NCT00504725|182027295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44||95.0||||Baseline Pain Level Score|Fisher Exact|||||||0.44
91071043|NCT00504725|182027295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2||95.0||||4 Hour Pain Level Score|Fisher Exact|||||||0.20
91071044|NCT00504725|182027295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37||95.0||||24 Hour Pain Level Score|Fisher Exact|||||||0.37
91071045|NCT00504725|182027295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15||95.0||||Pain Level Score at Discharge|Fisher Exact|||||||0.15
91071046|NCT01435018|182027296|NON_INFERIORITY|"Non-inferiority is defined as demonstrating that the 48-week PFS rate in ET+ART is within 15 percent of PTX+ART. The selection of the 15 percent non-inferiority margin was a combination of clinical judgment and statistical reasoning. A poll of the sites was conducted to derive the maximum treatment difference that is considered clinically relevant (i.e. largest acceptable difference in order to gain the advantages (e.g. cost) of the experimental chemotherapy)."|Cumulative rate difference|-30.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.3|-8.3|||||Confidence interval (CI) estimation was stratified by screening CD4 count using Greenwood's variance with the inverse of this variance used for the stratum weights. CI stratified by country was not performed due to small number of observations.|Treatment comparison was made using the difference (ET+ART - PTX+ART) in the stratified Kaplan-Meier estimate for the week 48 PFS rate with 95% two-sided confidence interval.||-8.3|-52.3|
91071047|NCT01435018|182027297|NON_INFERIORITY|"Non-inferiority is defined as demonstrating that the 48-week PFS rate in BV+ART is within 15 percent of PTX+ART. The selection of the 15 percent non-inferiority margin was a combination of clinical judgment and statistical reasoning. A poll of the sites was conducted to derive the maximum treatment difference that is considered clinically irrelevant (i.e. largest acceptable difference in order to gain the advantages (e.g. cost) of the experimental chemotherapy)."|Cumulative rate difference|-19.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.3|-7.4|||||Confidence interval estimation was stratified by screening CD4 count using Greenwood's variance with the inverse of this variance used for the stratum weights.|Treatment comparison was made using the difference (BV+ART - PTX+ART) in the stratified Kaplan-Meier estimate for the week 48 PFS rate with 95% two-sided confidence interval.||-7.4|-32.3|
91077884|NCT02913105|182041136|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.96||||0.5755|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|1.09|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Triglycerides: Day 28||1.09|0.84|0.5755
91071048|NCT01435018|182027297|NON_INFERIORITY|"Non-inferiority is defined as demonstrating that the 48-week PFS rate in BV+ART is within 15 percent of PTX+ART. The selection of the 15 percent non-inferiority margin was a combination of clinical judgment and statistical reasoning. A poll of the sites was conducted to derive the maximum treatment difference that is considered clinically irrelevant (i.e. largest acceptable difference in order to gain the advantages (e.g. cost) of the experimental chemotherapy)."|Cumulative rate difference|-20.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.2|-7.9|||||Confidence interval estimation was stratified by country using Greenwood's variance with the inverse of this variance used for the stratum weights.|Treatment comparison was made using the difference (BV+ART - PTX+ART) in the stratified Kaplan-Meier estimate for the week 48 cumulative PFS rate with 95% two-sided confidence interval.||-7.9|-32.2|
91071049|NCT01435018|182027298|OTHER||Cumulative rate difference|14.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|31.4|||||Confidence interval estimation was stratified by screening CD4 lymphocyte count using Greenwood's variance with the inverse of this variance used for the stratum weights.|Treatment comparison was made using the difference (ET+ART - PTX+ART) in the stratified Kaplan-Meier estimate for the week 48 cumulative rate of death with 95% two-sided confidence interval.||31.4|-1.9|
91071050|NCT01435018|182027299|OTHER||Cumulative rate difference|8.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|17.2|||||Confidence interval estimation was stratified by screening CD4 count using Greenwood's variance with the inverse of this variance used for the stratum weights.|Treatment comparison was made using the difference (BV+ART - PTX+ART) in the stratified Kaplan-Meier estimate for the week 48 cumulative rate of death with 95% two-sided confidence interval.||17.2|-0.4|
91071051|NCT01435018|182027301|OTHER||Cumulative rate difference|16.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|28.8||||||Treatment comparison was made using the difference (BV+ART - PTX+ART) in the stratified Kaplan-Meier estimate for the week 48 cumulative rate of IERC-confirmed KS progression with 95% two-sided confidence interval.|Confidence interval estimation was stratified by screening CD4 lymphocyte count using Greenwood's variance with the inverse of this variance used for the stratum weights.|28.8|3.7|
91071052|NCT01435018|182027302|OTHER||Cumulative rate difference|-15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.4|4.3|||||Confidence interval estimation was stratified by screening CD4 lymphocyte count using Greenwood's variance with the inverse of this variance used for the stratum weights.|Treatment comparison was made using the difference (ET+ART - PTX+ART) in the stratified Kaplan-Meier estimate for the week 48 cumulative rate of AIDS-defining events with 95% two-sided confidence interval.||4.3|-34.4|
91071053|NCT01435018|182027303|OTHER||Cumulative rate difference|-3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|6.6|||||Confidence interval estimation was stratified by screening CD4 lymphocyte count using Greenwood's variance with the inverse of this variance used for the stratum weights.|Treatment comparison was made using the difference (BV+ART - PTX+ART) in the stratified Kaplan-Meier estimate for the week 48 cumulative rate of AIDS-defining events with 95% two-sided confidence interval.||6.6|-13.3|
91071054|NCT01435018|182027304|OTHER||Cumulative rate difference|4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|10.6|||||Confidence interval estimation was stratified by screening CD4 lymphocyte count using Greenwood's variance with the inverse of this variance used for the stratum weights.|Treatment comparison was made using the difference (ET+ART - PTX+ART) in the stratified Kaplan-Meier estimate for the week 48 cumulative rate of HIV-1 RNA virologic failure with 95% two-sided confidence interval.||10.6|-1.9|
91071055|NCT01435018|182027305|OTHER||Cumulative rate difference|5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|11.0|||||Confidence interval estimation was stratified by screening CD4 lymphocyte count using Greenwood's variance with the inverse of this variance used for the stratum weights.|Treatment comparison was made using the difference (BV+ART - PTX+ART) in the stratified Kaplan-Meier estimate for the week 48 cumulative rate of HIV-1 RNA virologic failure with 95% two-sided confidence interval.||11.0|-0.1|
91071056|NCT01435018|182027308|OTHER||Cumulative rate difference|19.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|43.0|||||Confidence interval estimation was stratified by screening CD4 lymphocyte count using Greenwood's variance with the inverse of this variance used for the stratum weights.|Treatment comparison was made using the difference (ET+ART - PTX+ART) in the stratified Kaplan-Meier estimate for the week 48 cumulative rate of KS progression, death, or AIDS defining event.||43.0|-4.1|
91071057|NCT01435018|182027309|OTHER||Cumulative rate difference|14.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|27.0|||||Confidence interval estimation was stratified by screening CD4 lymphocyte count using Greenwood's variance with the inverse of this variance used for the stratum weights.|Treatment comparison was made using the difference (BV+ART - PTX+ART) in the stratified Kaplan-Meier estimate for the week 48 cumulative rate of KS progression, death, or AIDS defining event.||27.0|1.8|
91071058|NCT01435018|182027310|OTHER||Cumulative rate difference|24.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|47.4|||||Confidence interval estimation was stratified by screening CD4 lymphocyte count using Greenwood's variance with the inverse of this variance used for the stratum weights.|Treatment comparison was made using the difference (ET+ART - PTX+ART) in the stratified Kaplan-Meier estimate for the week 48 cumulative rate of KS progression, death, AIDS defining event, or virologic failure.||47.4|0.9|
91071059|NCT01435018|182027311|OTHER||Cumulative rate difference|18.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|31.3|||||Confidence interval estimation was stratified by screening CD4 lymphocyte count using Greenwood's variance with the inverse of this variance used for the stratum weights.|Treatment comparison was made using the difference (BV+ART - PTX+ART) in the stratified Kaplan-Meier estimate for the week 48 cumulative rate of KS progression, death, AIDS defining event, or virologic failure.||31.3|6.3|
91071060|NCT01435018|182027312|OTHER||Cumulative rate difference|24.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|47.4|||||Confidence interval estimation was stratified by screening CD4 lymphocyte count using Greenwood's variance with the inverse of this variance used for the stratum weights.|Treatment comparison was made using the difference (ET+ART - PTX+ART) in the stratified Kaplan-Meier estimate for the week 48 cumulative rate of KS progression, death, AIDS defining event, virologic failure, or KS-IRIS.||47.4|0.9|
91071061|NCT01435018|182027313|OTHER||Cumulative rate difference|17.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.2|29.3|||||Confidence interval estimation was stratified by screening CD4 lymphocyte count using Greenwood's variance with the inverse of this variance used for the stratum weights.|Treatment comparison was made using the difference (BV+ART - PTX+ART) in the stratified Kaplan-Meier estimate for the week 48 cumulative rate of KS progression, death, AIDS defining event, virologic failure, or KS-IRIS.||29.3|6.2|
91071062|NCT01435018|182027314|OTHER||Cumulative rate difference|37.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.6|61.4|||||Confidence interval estimation was stratified by screening CD4 lymphocyte count using Greenwood's variance with the inverse of this variance used for the stratum weights.|Treatment comparison was made using the difference (ET+ART - PTX+ART) in the stratified Kaplan-Meier estimate for the week 48 cumulative rate of change in KS treatment.||61.4|13.6|
91071063|NCT01435018|182027315|OTHER||Cumulative rate difference|11.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|22.7|||||Confidence interval estimation was stratified by screening CD4 lymphocyte count using Greenwood's variance with the inverse of this variance used for the stratum weights.|Treatment comparison was made using the difference (BV+ART - PTX+ART) in the stratified Kaplan-Meier estimate for the week 48 cumulative rate of change in KS treatment.||22.7|-0.4|
91071064|NCT01435018|182027316|OTHER||Cumulative rate difference|14.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|31.4|||||Confidence interval estimation was stratified by screening CD4 lymphocyte count using Greenwood's variance with the inverse of this variance used for the stratum weights.|Treatment comparison was made using the difference (ET+ART - PTX+ART) in the stratified Kaplan-Meier estimate for the cumulative rate of death with 95% two-sided confidence interval.||31.4|-1.9|
91071065|NCT01435018|182027317|OTHER||Cumulative rate difference|8.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|17.2|||||Confidence interval estimation was stratified by screening CD4 lymphocyte count using Greenwood's variance with the inverse of this variance used for the stratum weights.|Treatment comparison was made using the difference (BV+ART - PTX+ART) in the stratified Kaplan-Meier estimate for the cumulative rate of death with 95% two-sided confidence interval.||17.2|-0.4|
91071066|NCT01435018|182027318|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|3.4|||||Hazard ratio for ET+ART relative to PTX+ART adjusted for screening CD4 lymphocyte count.|||3.4|1.1|
91071067|NCT01435018|182027319|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.2|||||Hazard ratio for BV+ART relative to PTX+ART adjusted for screening CD4 lymphocyte count.|||2.2|1.1|
91071068|NCT01435018|182027320|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.7|||||Odds ratio for ET+ART relative to PTX+ART adjusted for screening CD4 lymphocyte count.|||0.7|0.1|
91071069|NCT01435018|182027321|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.3|||||Odds ratio for BV+ART relative to PTX+ART adjusted for screening CD4 lymphocyte count and country.|||1.3|0.5|
91071070|NCT03937908|182027341|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare pharmacokinetic and clearance parameters between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Asiatic acid||||0.01
90827619|NCT01584232|181529960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.21||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.92|10.5||Treatment comparison for second pre-morning meal.|ANCOVA|||||10.50|1.92|0.005
91071071|NCT03937908|182027341|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare pharmacokinetic and clearance parameters between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.23|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Caffeic acid||||0.23
91071072|NCT03937908|182027341|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare pharmacokinetic and clearance parameters between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.001||||||Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare pharmacokinetic and clearance parameters between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||Dihydrocaffeic acid||||0.001
91071073|NCT03937908|182027341|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare pharmacokinetic and clearance parameters between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Dihydroferulic acid||||0.05
91071074|NCT03937908|182027341|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare pharmacokinetic and clearance parameters between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.07|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Ferulic acid||||0.07
91071075|NCT03937908|182027341|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare pharmacokinetic and clearance parameters between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||3-(3-hydroxyphenyl)propionic acid||||0.09
91071076|NCT03937908|182027341|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare pharmacokinetic and clearance parameters between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Isoferulic acid||||0.003
91071077|NCT03937908|182027341|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare pharmacokinetic and clearance parameters between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Madecassic acid||||0.10
91071078|NCT03937908|182027341|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare pharmacokinetic and clearance parameters between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.11|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Monocaffeoylquinic acids||||0.11
91071079|NCT03937908|182027342|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare pharmacokinetic and clearance parameters between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.82|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Asiatic acid||||0.82
91071080|NCT03937908|182027342|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare pharmacokinetic and clearance parameters between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.4|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Caffeic acid||||0.40
91071081|NCT03937908|182027342|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare pharmacokinetic and clearance parameters between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.2|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Dihydrocaffeic acid||||0.20
91071082|NCT03937908|182027342|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare pharmacokinetic and clearance parameters between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.48|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Dihydroferulic acid||||0.48
91071083|NCT03937908|182027342|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare pharmacokinetic and clearance parameters between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.2|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Ferulic acid||||0.20
91071084|NCT03937908|182027342|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare pharmacokinetic and clearance parameters between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.32|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||3-(3-hydroxyphenyl)propionic acid||||0.32
91071085|NCT03937908|182027342|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare pharmacokinetic and clearance parameters between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.35|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Isoferulic acid||||0.35
91071086|NCT03937908|182027342|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare pharmacokinetic and clearance parameters between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.52|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Madecassic acid||||0.52
91071087|NCT03937908|182027342|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare pharmacokinetic and clearance parameters between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.13|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Monocaffeoylquinic acids||||0.13
91071088|NCT03937908|182027343|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare pharmacokinetic and clearance parameters between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.34|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Asiatic acid||||0.34
91071089|NCT03937908|182027343|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare pharmacokinetic and clearance parameters between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Dihydrocaffeic acid||||0.08
91071090|NCT03937908|182027343|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare pharmacokinetic and clearance parameters between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.23|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Dihydroferulic acid||||0.23
91071091|NCT03937908|182027343|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare pharmacokinetic and clearance parameters between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.14|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Ferulic acid||||0.14
91071092|NCT03937908|182027343|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare pharmacokinetic and clearance parameters between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.28|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||3-(3-hydroxyphenyl)propionic acid||||0.28
91071093|NCT03937908|182027343|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare pharmacokinetic and clearance parameters between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Isoferulic acid||||0.17
91071094|NCT03937908|182027343|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare pharmacokinetic and clearance parameters between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.98|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Madecassic acid||||0.98
91071095|NCT03937908|182027343|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare pharmacokinetic and clearance parameters between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.16|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Monocaffeoylquinic acids||||0.16
91071096|NCT03937908|182027344|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare pharmacokinetic and clearance parameters between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Asiatic acid||||0.04
91071097|NCT03937908|182027344|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare pharmacokinetic and clearance parameters between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Caffeic acid||||0.01
91071098|NCT03937908|182027344|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare pharmacokinetic and clearance parameters between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Dihydrocaffeic acid||||0.06
91071099|NCT03937908|182027344|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare pharmacokinetic and clearance parameters between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Dihydroferulic acid||||0.08
91071100|NCT03937908|182027344|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare pharmacokinetic and clearance parameters between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.56|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Dicaffeoylquinic acids||||0.56
91071101|NCT03937908|182027344|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare pharmacokinetic and clearance parameters between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.21|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Ferulic acid||||0.21
91071102|NCT03937908|182027344|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare pharmacokinetic and clearance parameters between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||3-(3-hydroxyphenyl)propionic acid||||0.05
91071103|NCT03937908|182027344|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare pharmacokinetic and clearance parameters between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Isoferulic acid||||0.05
91071104|NCT03937908|182027344|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare pharmacokinetic and clearance parameters between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.23|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Madecassic acid||||0.23
91071105|NCT03937908|182027344|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare pharmacokinetic and clearance parameters between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.16|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Monocaffeoylquinic acids||||0.16
91071106|NCT03937908|182027345|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare the ng/mL between the 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Asiatic acid||||0.7
91071107|NCT03937908|182027345|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare the ng/mL between the 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Madecassic acid||||0.09
91071108|NCT03937908|182027345|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare the ng/mL between the 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.4|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Asiaticoside||||0.4
91071109|NCT03937908|182027345|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare the ng/mL between the 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.6|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Madecassoside||||0.6
91071110|NCT03937908|182027345|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare the ng/mL between the 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.4|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Monocaffeoylquinic acids||||0.4
91071111|NCT03937908|182027345|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare the ng/mL between the 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Dicaffeoylquinic acids||||0.1
91071112|NCT03937908|182027345|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare the ng/mL between the 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.9|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||3-(3-hydroxyphenyl)propionic acid||||0.9
91071113|NCT03937908|182027345|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare the ng/mL between the 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Caffeic acid||||0.03
91071114|NCT03937908|182027345|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare the ng/mL between the 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.9|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Ferulic acid||||0.9
91071115|NCT03937908|182027345|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare the ng/mL between the 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.6|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Isoferulic acid||||0.6
91071116|NCT03937908|182027345|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare the ng/mL between the 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.4|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Dihydroferulic acid||||0.4
91071117|NCT03937908|182027345|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare the ng/mL between the 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.8|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Dihydrocaffeic acid||||0.8
91071118|NCT03937908|182027346|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare fold induction between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.1|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||1 hour||||0.1
91071119|NCT03937908|182027346|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare fold induction between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.1|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||2 hours||||0.1
91071120|NCT03937908|182027346|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare fold induction between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.3|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||3 hours||||0.3
91071121|NCT03937908|182027346|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare fold induction between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||4 hours||||0.5
91071122|NCT03937908|182027346|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare fold induction between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||6 hours||||0.5
91071123|NCT03875092|182027347|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.52|||||Based on unstratified Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate, due to small sample size.|||0.52|0.24|
91071124|NCT03875092|182027348|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.7|||||Based on unstratified Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate, due to small sample size.|||0.70|0.28|
91071125|NCT03875092|182027349|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|36.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.9|51.6|||||Based on unstratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method, due to small sample size.|||51.6|19.9|
91071126|NCT02163226|182027372|OTHER|2 sided p value||||||0.03|||||||Fisher Exact|||Pain Response Rates (CR+PR) at 2 weeks||||.03
91071127|NCT02163226|182027372|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Fisher Exact|||Pain Response Rates (CR+PR) at 1 month||||.19
91071128|NCT02163226|182027372|OTHER|2 sided p value||||||0.04|||||||Fisher Exact|||Pain Response Rates (CR+PR) at 3 months||||.04
91071129|NCT02163226|182027372|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|||||||Fisher Exact|||Pain Response Rates (CR+PR) at 6 months||||.89
91071130|NCT02163226|182027372|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Fisher Exact|||Pain Response Rates (CR+PR) at 9 months||||.07
91071131|NCT02163226|182027372|OTHER|2 sided p value||||||0.03|||||||Fisher Exact|||Pain Response Rates (CR+PR) at 2 weeks||||.03
91071132|NCT02163226|182027372|OTHER|2 sided p value||||||0.19|||||||Fisher Exact|||Pain Response Rates (CR+PR) at 1 month||||.19
91071133|NCT02163226|182027372|OTHER|2 sided p value||||||0.04|||||||Fisher Exact|||Pain Response Rates (CR+PR) at 3 months||||.04
91071134|NCT02163226|182027372|OTHER|2 sided p value||||||0.89|||||||Fisher Exact|||Pain Response Rates (CR+PR) at 6 months||||.89
91071135|NCT02163226|182027372|OTHER|2 sided p value||||||0.07|||||||Fisher Exact|||Pain Response Rates (CR+PR) at 9 months||||.07
91071136|NCT02163226|182027373|OTHER|2 sided p value||||||0.01|||||||Fisher Exact|||Pain response Rates (CR+PR) at 2 weeks||||.01
91071137|NCT02163226|182027373|OTHER|2 sided p value||||||0.15|||||||Fisher Exact|||Pain response Rates (CR+PR) at 1 month||||.15
90827620|NCT01584232|181529961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|-0.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.94|-1.89|<0.001
90827621|NCT01584232|181529962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91071138|NCT02163226|182027373|OTHER|2 sided p value||||||0.04|||||||Fisher Exact|||Pain response Rates (CR+PR) at 3 months||||.04
91071139|NCT02163226|182027373|OTHER|2 sided p valued||||||0.78|||||||Fisher Exact|||Pain response Rates (CR+PR) at 6 months||||.78
91071140|NCT02163226|182027373|OTHER|2 sided p valued||||||0.04|||||||Fisher Exact|||Pain response Rates (CR+PR) at 9 months||||.04
91071141|NCT02163226|182027373|OTHER|2 sided p valued||||||0.01|||||||Fisher Exact|||Pain response Rates (CR+PR) at 2 weeks||||.01
91071142|NCT02163226|182027373|OTHER|2 sided p value||||||0.15|||||||Fisher Exact|||Pain response Rates (CR+PR) at 1 month||||.15
91071143|NCT02163226|182027373|OTHER|2 sided p value||||||0.04|||||||Fisher Exact|||Pain response Rates (CR+PR) at 3 months||||.04
91071144|NCT02163226|182027373|OTHER|2 sided p value||||||0.78|||||||Fisher Exact|||Pain response Rates (CR+PR) at 6 months||||.78
91071145|NCT02163226|182027373|OTHER|2 sided p value||||||0.04|||||||Fisher Exact|||Pain response Rates (CR+PR) at 9 months||||.04
91071146|NCT01585324|182027376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8333|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) test for the efficacy of SVR achievement (Yes/No), treatment adjustment and baseline hemoglobin value was used.||||||0.8333
91071147|NCT01585324|182027378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0867|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0867
91071148|NCT01585324|182027380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6492|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.6492
91071149|NCT01585324|182027382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0333|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0333
91071150|NCT03625466|182027383|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|2.6||||||||2.6|-5.5|
91071151|NCT01058993|182027393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Student t-test-comparison means of normal subjects \& controls.||||||<0.05
91071152|NCT01058993|182027393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Ratio paired t-test|Ratio paired t-test for comparison of baselines and responses for each category of leukocytes||The patients' leukocyte counts before and after plerixafor were compared.||||<0.05
91071153|NCT03214380|182027442|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority Margin = 0.4 for HbA1c|Least Square Mean Difference (LSMean)|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.16||||||||0.16|-0.05|
91071154|NCT03214380|182027443|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.1|-5.5|||ANCOVA|||||-5.5|-18.1|<0.001
91071155|NCT03214380|182027444|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-17.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.3|-9.5|||ANCOVA|||||-9.5|-25.3|<0.001
91071156|NCT02230696|182027453|EQUIVALENCE|provides 85% power of success|Equivalence ratio|94.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.77|104.52|||Trial and Error approach|||||104.52|84.77|
91071157|NCT02230696|182027454|EQUIVALENCE|provides 85% power of success|Equivalence ratio|94.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.86|105.54|||Trial and Error approach|||||105.54|84.86|
91071158|NCT00614523|182027471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.05|||Anderson-Gill model|Anderson-Gill model using the model-based variance estimate and stratified by the randomization stratification factors|Romiplostim /Placebo|||1.05|0.66|0.13
91071159|NCT00614523|182027472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.766|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.88|||Poisson regression model|Poisson regression model with treatment and stratification factors as covariates.|Romiplostim /Placebo|||0.88|0.66|<0.001
91071160|NCT00614523|182027473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.922||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|0.99|||Poisson regression model|Poisson regression model with treatment and stratification factors as covariates.|Romiplostim /Placebo|||0.99|0.86|0.026
91071161|NCT00614523|182027474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.739|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.8|||Poisson Regression model|Poisson regression model with treatment and stratification factors as covariates|Romiplostim /Placebo|||0.8|0.68|<0.001
90827622|NCT01307319|181529963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM treatment difference from placebo|-0.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.3||a priori statistical significance is \<0.05.|mixed-model for repeated measures (MMRM)|The MMRM included covariate adjustment for baseline, day, treatment, and the treatment by day interaction.||||-0.3|-1.0|<0.001
91071162|NCT00614523|182027475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|15.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|51.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test controlling for stratification factors.|Romiplostim /Placebo|||51.8|4.7|<0.001
91071163|NCT00614523|182027476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.402||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.91|||Poisson regression model|Poisson regression model with treatment and stratification factors as covariates|Romiplostim /Placebo|||1.91|1.03|0.032
91071164|NCT00614523|182027480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.639|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.71|||Poisson regression model|Poisson regression model with treatment and stratification factors as covariates|Romiplostim /Placebo|||0.71|0.57|<0.001
91071165|NCT00748189|182027538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.72|||Log Rank||Hazard ratios are obtained using the Pike estimator.|||0.72|0.45|<0.001
91071166|NCT00748189|182027541|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.17|||Log Rank||hazard ratios are obtained using the Pike estimator. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with O+CHL treatment compared with chlorambucil|||1.17|0.65|0.363
91071167|NCT00748189|182027554|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Comparability of dose-normalized chlorambucil Cmax values with ofatumumab in current study and without ofatumumab in prior study|Ratio of Cmax/Dose|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.53|0.94|||||Ratio of Cmax/Dose is the ratio of dose-normalized chlorambucil Cmax values when given with ofatumumab in the current study and without ofatumumab in the prior study (LEUA1001).|||0.94|0.53|
91071168|NCT00748189|182027554|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Comparability of dose-normalized PAAM Cmax values with ofatumumab in current study and without ofatumumab in prior study|Ratio of Cmax/Dose|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.63|0.99|||||Ratio of Cmax/Dose is the ratio of dose-normalized PAAM Cmax values when given with ofatumumab in the current study and without ofatumumab in the prior study (LEUA1001).|||0.99|0.63|
91071169|NCT00748189|182027555|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Comparability of dose-normalized chlorambucil AUC(0-6) values with ofatumumab in current study and without ofatumumab in prior study|Ratio of AUC(0-6)/Dose|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.77|1.4|||||Ratio of AUC(0-6)/Dose is the ratio of dose-normalized chlorambucil AUC(0-6) values when given with ofatumumab in the current study and without ofatumumab in the prior study (LEUA1001).|||1.40|0.77|
91071170|NCT00748189|182027555|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Comparability of dose-normalized chlorambucil AUC(0-inf) values with ofatumumab in current study and without ofatumumab in prior study|Ratio of AUC(0-inf)/Dose|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.82|1.5|||||Ratio of AUC(0-inf)/Dose is the ratio of dose-normalized chlorambucil AUC(0-inf) values when given with ofatumumab in the current study and without ofatumumab in the prior study (LEUA1001).|||1.50|0.82|
91071171|NCT00748189|182027555|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Comparability of dose-normalized PAAM AUC(0-6) values with ofatumumab in current study and without ofatumumab in prior study|Ratio of AUC(0-6)/Dose|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.72|1.1|||||Ratio of AUC(0-6)/Dose is the ratio of dose-normalized PAAM AUC(0-6) values when given with ofatumumab in the current study and without ofatumumab in the prior study (LEUA1001).|||1.10|0.72|
91071172|NCT04481191|182027564|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was declared when the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference in percentages (Concomitant-use Group - Staggered-use Group) being \> -10 percentage points (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|0.9||One-sided p-value|Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference indicates Concomitant-use Group % - Staggered-use Group %||0.9|-4.0|< 0.001
91071173|NCT04481191|182027564|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was declared when the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference in percentages (Concomitant-use Group - Staggered-use Group) being \> -10 percentage points (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|1.5||One-sided p-value|Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference indicates Concomitant-use Group % - Staggered-use Group %||1.5|-4.3|< 0.001
91071174|NCT04481191|182027564|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was declared when the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference in percentages (Concomitant-use Group - Staggered-use Group) being \> -10 percentage points (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|3.0||One-sided p-value|Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference indicates Concomitant-use % - Staggered-use %||3.0|-1.6|< 0.001
91071175|NCT02579343|182027584|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||P-value above was calculated. Does not reference threshold for clinical significance.|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||||||.05
91071176|NCT02579343|182027585|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||||||.05
91071177|NCT04984278|182027586|SUPERIORITY||Combined least mean square difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.092|=|0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.10|-0.48|=0.0048
91071178|NCT05406479|182027637|NON_INFERIORITY|For the hypothesis testing of non-inferiority the confidence interval should be compared to the non-inferiority margin. More specifically, non-inferiority is established if the upper limit of a one-sided 95% confidence interval around the difference in means QTc 24 hours after treatment administration (BE-PEP - SDR-PEP) is below the non-inferiority limit of +10 ms. A two-sample t-test was used to compare the two groups, but the p-value returned should not be used to conclude non-inferiority.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.193|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.146|4.76||||||Adults||4.76|-5.146|
91071179|NCT05406479|182027637|NON_INFERIORITY|For the hypothesis testing of non-inferiority the confidence interval should be compared to the non-inferiority margin. More specifically, non-inferiority is established if the upper limit of a one-sided 95% confidence interval around the difference in means QTc 24 hours after treatment administration (BE-PEP - SDR-PEP) is below the non-inferiority limit of +10 ms. A two-sample t-test was used to compare the two groups, but the p-value returned should not be used to conclude non-inferiority.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.556|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.926|20.185||||||Adolescents (13-17)||20.185|0.926|
91071180|NCT05406479|182027637|NON_INFERIORITY|For the hypothesis testing of non-inferiority the confidence interval should be compared to the non-inferiority margin. More specifically, non-inferiority is established if the upper limit of a one-sided 95% confidence interval around the difference in means QTc 24 hours after treatment administration (BE-PEP - SDR-PEP) is below the non-inferiority limit of +10 ms. A two-sample t-test was used to compare the two groups, but the p-value returned should not be used to conclude non-inferiority.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.076|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.374|7.525||||||Children (5-12)||7.525|-3.374|
91071181|NCT04932655|182027659|EQUIVALENCE|Two one-sided t test procedure used to compare test versus reference. Equivalence demonstrated if 90% CI within 80% to 125%.|Test/Reference Ratio of Geometric Means|103.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.88|109.98||||||||109.98|96.88|
90827623|NCT01307319|181529963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM treatment difference from placebo|-0.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.4||a priori statistical significance is \<0.05.|mixed-model for repeated measures (MMRM)|The MMRM included covariate adjustment for baseline, day, treatment, and the treatment by day interaction.||||-0.4|-1.1|<0.001
91071182|NCT04932655|182027659|EQUIVALENCE|Two one-sided t test procedure used to compare test versus reference. Equivalence demonstrated if 90% CI within 80% to 125%.|Test/Reference Ratio of Geometric Means|109.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.9|116.82||||||||116.82|102.9|
91071183|NCT04932655|182027659|EQUIVALENCE|Two one-sided t test procedure used to compare test versus reference. Equivalence demonstrated if 90% CI within 80% to 125%.|Test/Reference Ratio of Geometric Means|102.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.57|109.64||||||||109.64|96.57|
91071184|NCT04932655|182027660|EQUIVALENCE|Two one-sided t test procedure used to compare test versus reference. Equivalence demonstrated if 90% CI within 80% to 125%.|Test/Reference Ratio of Geometric Means|98.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.33|100.65||||||||100.65|96.33|
91071185|NCT04932655|182027660|EQUIVALENCE|Two one-sided t test procedure used to compare test versus reference. Equivalence demonstrated if 90% CI within 80% to 125%.|Test/Reference Ratio of Geometric Means|98.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.74|101.07||||||||101.07|96.74|
91071186|NCT04932655|182027660|EQUIVALENCE|Two one-sided t test procedure used to compare test versus reference. Equivalence demonstrated if 90% CI within 80% to 125%.|Test/Reference Ratio of Geometric Means|100.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.15|102.54||||||||102.54|98.15|
91071187|NCT04932655|182027661|EQUIVALENCE|Two one-sided t test procedure used to compare test versus reference. Equivalence demonstrated if 90% CI within 80% to 125%.|Test/Reference Ratio of Geometric Means|98.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.33|100.71||||||||100.71|96.33|
91071188|NCT04932655|182027661|EQUIVALENCE|Two one-sided t test procedure used to compare test versus reference. Equivalence demonstrated if 90% CI within 80% to 125%.|Test/Reference Ratio of Geometric Means|99.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.85|101.26||||||||101.26|96.85|
91071189|NCT04932655|182027661|EQUIVALENCE|Two one-sided t test procedure used to compare test versus reference. Equivalence demonstrated if 90% CI within 80% to 125%.|Test/Reference Ratio of Geometric Means|100.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.05|102.5||||||||102.50|98.05|
91071190|NCT00379080|182027678|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Regression, Cox|||VEGFR2||||0.04
91071191|NCT00379080|182027678|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Regression, Cox|||PIGF||||0.04
91071192|NCT00379080|182027678|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Regression, Cox|||CAIX||||0.02
91071193|NCT00379080|182027678|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Regression, Cox|||sFLT\_1||||0.05
91071194|NCT00379080|182027678|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Regression, Cox|||sFLT\_1||||0.01
91071195|NCT00379080|182027678|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Regression, Cox|||VEGFR2||||0.05
91071196|NCT01089608|182027679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.01||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.28|-16.30|0.072
91071197|NCT01893281|182027688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91071198|NCT00910208|182027691|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.82
91071199|NCT00910208|182027692|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.47
91071200|NCT00910208|182027693|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.06
91071201|NCT00910208|182027694|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.033|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.033
91071202|NCT00910208|182027695|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.99
91071203|NCT00910208|182027696|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91071204|NCT00789698|182027697|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This is a non-inferiority analysis. Lurasidone will be declared as effective as quetiapine XR in preventing relapse if the upper bound of a 2-sided 95% confidence limit for the hazard ration of lurasidone vs. quetiapine is no greater than an equivalence hazard ratio margin of 1.93.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.728|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.295||There is no hypothesis tested. Since this was a non-inferiority study, the upper bound of the 95% CI for the hazard ratio was compared to the pre-specified margin of 1.93 to demonstrate the non-inferiority of lurasidone compared to Quetiapine XR.|COX Proportional Hazards Model|||Comparison of time to relapse of psychotic symptoms between LUR-LUR and QXR-QXR as analyzed using the Cox proportional-hazards model.||1.295|0.410|
91071205|NCT00860249|182027731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.017||95.0||||We used the Bonferroni calculation to adjust for the planned multiple comparisons among the three groups.|Chi-squared|||Please note that no analyses were performed as the trial was stopped due to low enrollment.||||<0.017
91071206|NCT00860249|182027732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.017||95.0||||We intended to use a Bonferroni calculation to adjust for multiple comparisons among study arms.|Chi-squared|||Please note that no analyses were performed as the trial was stopped due to low enrollment.||||<0.017
90827624|NCT01307319|181529964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM treatment difference from placebo|-0.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.3||a priori statistical significance is \<0.05.|mixed-model for repeated measures (MMRM)|The MMRM included covariate adjustment for baseline, day, treatment, and the treatment by day interaction.||The power calculation assumed the standard deviation (SD) for the change from baseline over two weeks in the average of AM and PM reflective TNSS is assumed to be 2.0. Using this standard deviation, 235 subjects per arm provides 90% power to detect a difference of 0.60 in TNSS change from baseline between treatment groups with a two-sided alpha level of 0.05.||-0.3|-1.1|<0.001
91071207|NCT01729338|182027746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45||||||Compared baseline to 3 months|paired t-test|||||||0.45
91071208|NCT01729338|182027746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||paired t-test|compares baseline to month 5||||||0.19
91071209|NCT01729338|182027747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1||||||baseline, 3 month|paired t-test|||||||0.1
91071210|NCT01729338|182027747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||paired t-test|baseline, month 5||||||0.09
91071211|NCT01669174|182027774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|106.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|104.64|107.58|||ANCOVA|||Week 4||107.58|104.64|<0.001
91071212|NCT01669174|182027774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|107.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|106.18|109.35|||ANCOVA|||Week 8||109.35|106.18|<0.001
91071213|NCT01669174|182027774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|108.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|106.31|111.0|||ANCOVA|||Week 16||111.00|106.31|<0.001
91071214|NCT01669174|182027774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|106.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|104.39|108.93|||ANCOVA|||Week 24||108.93|104.39|<0.001
91071215|NCT01953601|182027789|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean (LSM)|0.1||||0.6734|TWO_SIDED|97.51|-0.3|0.4|||Longitudinal ANCOVA||Difference in LSM = Arm A - Arm C||Analysis model includes categorical factors of geographic region, time, treatment, gender, APOE genotype, baseline use of Vitamin E, baseline use of AChEI, and the interaction of time by treatment, with baseline value, the interaction of baseline value and time, the baseline value of MMSE and the baseline value of age included as continuous covariates.|0.4|-0.3|0.6734
91071216|NCT01953601|182027789|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means (LSM)|0.4||||0.0141|TWO_SIDED|97.51|0.0|0.8|||Longitudinal ANCOVA||Difference in LSM = Arm B - Arm C||Analysis model includes categorical factors of geographic region, time, treatment, gender, APOE genotype, baseline use of Vitamin E, baseline use of AChEI, and the interaction of time by treatment, with baseline value, the interaction of baseline value and time, the baseline value of MMSE and the baseline value of age included as continuous covariates.|0.8|0.0|0.0141
91071217|NCT01953601|182027791|OTHER||Difference in % vs Placebo|4.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|8.31|||||Difference in % = Arm A - Arm C|||8.31|0.40|
91071218|NCT01953601|182027791|OTHER||Difference in % vs Placebo|5.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|9.09|||||Difference in % = Arm B - Arm C|||9.09|1.33|
91071219|NCT01953601|182027792|OTHER||Difference in % vs Placebo|2.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|5.1|||||Difference in % = Arm A - Arm C|||5.10|-0.84|
91071220|NCT01953601|182027792|OTHER||Difference in % vs Placebo|5.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.35|8.99|||||Difference in % = Arm B - Arm C|||8.99|2.35|
91071221|NCT01953601|182027793|OTHER||Difference in % vs Placebo|-6.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.16|2.68|||||Difference in % = Arm A - Arm C|||2.68|-16.16|
91071222|NCT01953601|182027793|OTHER||Difference in % vs Placebo|-10.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.16|-1.04|||||Difference in % = Arm B - Arm C|||-1.04|-20.16|
91071223|NCT01953601|182027794|OTHER||Difference in % vs Placebo|-2.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.03|0.61|||||Difference in % = Arm A - Arm C|||0.61|-6.03|
91071224|NCT01953601|182027794|OTHER||Difference in % vs Placebo|-2.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.01|0.71|||||Difference in % = Arm B - Arm C|||0.71|-6.01|
91071225|NCT01953601|182027795|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.301||||0.0222|TWO_SIDED|97.51|1.005|1.684|||Regression, Cox||HR = Arm A / Arm C||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment, background AD treatment (use, no use), sex, APOE4 status (carrier, non-carrier) and baseline use of Vitamin E as categorical covariates and age and baseline MMSE value as continuous covariates.|1.684|1.005|0.0222
91071226|NCT01953601|182027795|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.382||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|97.51|1.067|1.79|||Regression, Cox||HR = Arm B / Arm C||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment, background AD treatment (use, no use), sex, APOE4 status (carrier, non-carrier) and baseline use of Vitamin E as categorical covariates and age and baseline MMSE value as continuous covariates.|1.790|1.067|0.0050
91071227|NCT01953601|182027796|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean (LSM)|0.0||||0.9109|TWO_SIDED|97.51|-0.3|0.4|||Longitudinal ANCOVA||Difference in LSM = Arm A - Arm C||Analysis model includes categorical factors of geographic region, time, treatment, gender, APOE genotype, baseline use of Vitamin E, baseline use of AChEI, and the interaction of time by treatment, with baseline value, the interaction of baseline value and time, the baseline value of MMSE and the baseline value of age included as continuous covariates.|0.4|-0.3|0.9109
91071228|NCT01953601|182027796|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean (LSM)|0.3||||0.0824|TWO_SIDED|97.51|-0.1|0.7|||Longitudinal ANCOVA||Difference in LSM = Arm B - Arm C||Analysis model includes categorical factors of geographic region, time, treatment, gender, APOE genotype, baseline use of Vitamin E, baseline use of AChEI, and the interaction of time by treatment, with baseline value, the interaction of baseline value and time, the baseline value of MMSE and the baseline value of age included as continuous covariates.|0.7|-0.1|0.0824
91071229|NCT01953601|182027797|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean (LSM)|0.0||||0.951|TWO_SIDED|97.51|-0.2|0.2|||Longitudinal ANCOVA||Difference in LSM = Arm A - Arm C||Analysis model includes categorical factors of geographic region, time, treatment, gender, APOE genotype, baseline use of Vitamin E, baseline use of AChEI, and the interaction of time by treatment, with baseline value, the interaction of baseline value and time, the baseline value of MMSE and the baseline value of age included as continuous covariates.|0.2|-0.2|0.9510
91071230|NCT01953601|182027797|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean (LSM)|0.0||||0.9392|TWO_SIDED|97.51|-0.2|0.2|||Longitudinal ANCOVA||Difference in LSM = Arm B - Arm C||Analysis model includes categorical factors of geographic region, time, treatment, gender, APOE genotype, baseline use of Vitamin E, baseline use of AChEI, and the interaction of time by treatment, with baseline value, the interaction of baseline value and time, the baseline value of MMSE and the baseline value of age included as continuous covariates.|0.2|-0.2|0.9392
91071231|NCT01953601|182027798|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean (LSM)|-0.4||||0.1133|TWO_SIDED|97.51|-1.0|0.2|||Longitudinal ANCOVA||Difference in LSM = Arm A - Arm C||Analysis model includes categorical factors of geographic region, time, treatment, gender, APOE genotype, baseline use of Vitamin E, baseline use of AChEI, and the interaction of time by treatment, with baseline value, the interaction of baseline value and time, the baseline value of MMSE and the baseline value of age included as continuous covariates.|0.2|-1.0|0.1133
91071232|NCT01953601|182027798|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean (LSM)|-0.6||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|97.51|-1.2|0.0|||Longitudinal ANCOVA||Difference in LSM = Arm B - Arm C||Analysis model includes categorical factors of geographic region, time, treatment, gender, APOE genotype, baseline use of Vitamin E, baseline use of AChEI, and the interaction of time by treatment, with baseline value, the interaction of baseline value and time, the baseline value of MMSE and the baseline value of age included as continuous covariates.|0.0|-1.2|0.0310
91071233|NCT01953601|182027799|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean (LSM)|-0.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.51|-0.06|-0.04|||Longitudinal ANCOVA||Difference in LSM = Arm A - Arm C||Analysis model includes categorical factors of geographic region, time, treatment, gender, APOE genotype, baseline use of Vitamin E, baseline use of AChEI, and the interaction of time by treatment, with baseline value, the interaction of baseline value and time, the baseline value of MMSE and the baseline value of age included as continuous covariates.|-0.04|-0.06|<0.0001
91071234|NCT01953601|182027799|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean (LSM)|-0.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.51|-0.07|-0.05|||Longitudinal ANCOVA||Difference in LSM = Arm B - Arm C||Analysis model includes categorical factors of geographic region, time, treatment, gender, APOE genotype, baseline use of Vitamin E, baseline use of AChEI, and the interaction of time by treatment, with baseline value, the interaction of baseline value and time, the baseline value of MMSE and the baseline value of age included as continuous covariates.|-0.05|-0.07|<0.0001
91071235|NCT01953601|182027800|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean (LSM)|-1.0||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|97.51|-2.4|0.4|||Longitudinal ANCOVA||Difference in LSM = Arm A - Arm C||Analysis model includes categorical factors of geographic region, time, treatment, gender, APOE genotype, baseline use of Vitamin E, baseline use of AChEI, and the interaction of time by treatment, with baseline value, the interaction of baseline value and time, the baseline value of MMSE and the baseline value of age included as continuous covariates.|0.4|-2.4|0.0960
91071236|NCT01953601|182027800|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean (LSM)|-1.7||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|97.51|-3.2|-0.2|||Longitudinal ANCOVA||Difference in LSM = Arm B - Arm C||Analysis model includes categorical factors of geographic region, time, treatment, gender, APOE genotype, baseline use of Vitamin E, baseline use of AChEI, and the interaction of time by treatment, with baseline value, the interaction of baseline value and time, the baseline value of MMSE and the baseline value of age included as continuous covariates.|-0.2|-3.2|0.0110
91071237|NCT01246349|182027802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.616|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.373||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.871|23.103|||Regression, Linear|||Published results comprise baseline and follow-up means and standard deviations for both the MI and control group (reported above), as well as the absolute attributable effect of intervention (i.e., the difference in self-efficacy \[WEL\] change between the treatment and control groups from baseline to a 6 month follow-up).||23.103|-5.871|0.24
91071238|NCT01246349|182027803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.56|||||||Regression, Linear|||Results published comprise baseline and follow-up BMI z-score means and standard deviations for both the MI and control groups (reported above), as well as the attributable effect of intervention (i.e., the difference in BMI change between the treatment and control groups from baseline to a 6-month follow-up)||||0.56
91071239|NCT01246349|182027804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||Regression, Linear|||Results published comprise baseline and follow-up means and standard deviations for both the MI and control group (reported above), as well as the attributable effect of intervention (i.e., the difference in waist circumference change between the treatment and control groups from baseline to a 6-month follow-up).||||0.09
91071240|NCT01246349|182027806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.183|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.265||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.301|2.668|||Regression, Linear|||"Based on previous research , baseline CDSS means were expected between 5 - 6.5 with a SD of 3 - 4. It was hypothesized that an attributable effect of 1.5 would be detected.~Published results comprise baseline and follow-up means and standard deviations for both the MI and control group (reported above), as well as the absolute attributable effect of intervention (i.e., the difference in self-efficacy \[CDSS\] change between the treatment and control groups from baseline to a 6 month follow-up)."||2.668|-2.301|0.88
91071241|NCT02991729|182027807|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority limit was 1 point on the questionnaire scale.||||||0.929||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Wilcoxon rank-sum|||||||0.929
91071242|NCT02991729|182027808|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.369|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum|||Decisional conflict was measured in 2 separate time points in the experimental group - both prior to and following genetic counseling. This analysis compares decisional conflict in the routine care group (after counseling only) to the experimental group following decision aid completion but prior to genetic counseling (first row, second column in above table).||||0.369
91071243|NCT02991729|182027808|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum|||Decisional conflict was measured in 2 separate time points in the experimental group - both prior to and following genetic counseling. This analysis compares decisional conflict in the routine care group (after counseling only) to the experimental group following decision aid completion and genetic counseling (second row, second column in above table).||||0.003
91071244|NCT02991729|182027808|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank|||Decisional conflict was measured in 2 separate time points in the experimental group - both prior to and following genetic counseling. This analysis compares decisional conflict pre-genetic counseling/post-decision aid to post-genetic counseling.||||0.003
91071245|NCT05537441|182027811|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|0.64||||0.216|TWO_SIDED||||||2 proportion Z-test|||||||0.216
91071246|NCT05537441|182027812|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|-0.61||||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||2 proportion Z-test|||Previously vaccinated||||0.34
91071247|NCT05537441|182027812|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|-0.45||||0.247|TWO_SIDED||||||2 proportion Z-test|||Previously unvaccinated||||0.247
91071248|NCT01905553|182027813|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The magnitude effect of food on the pharmacokinetic parameters was evaluated by calculating the point estimate and 90% CIs between Treatment A (test treatment, fed) and Treatment B (reference treatment, fasted).|Ratio of Geometric LS Means|0.718|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.67|0.77||||||||0.770|0.670|
91071249|NCT01905553|182027814|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The magnitude effect of food on the pharmacokinetic parameters was evaluated by calculating the point estimate and 90% CIs between Treatment A (test treatment, fed) and Treatment B (reference treatment, fasted).|Ratio of Geometric LS Means|0.718|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.67|0.769||||||||0.769|0.670|
91071250|NCT01905553|182027815|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The magnitude effect of food on the pharmacokinetic parameters was evaluated by calculating the point estimate and 90% CIs between Treatment A (test treatment, fed) and Treatment B (reference treatment, fasted).|Ratio of Geometric LS Means|0.449|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.38|0.53||||||||0.530|0.380|
91071251|NCT05225298|182027819|OTHER|||||||0.9||||||A p-value of \< 0.05 would be considered statistically significant|log binomial model|||||||0.90
91071252|NCT05225298|182027820|OTHER|||||||0.94||||||A p-value of \< 0.05 would be considered statistically significant|log binomial model|||||||0.94
91071253|NCT05225298|182027821|OTHER|||||||0.053|||||||log binomial model|||||||0.053
91071254|NCT02877095|182027823|OTHER|||||||||||||||||All subjects on study received active drug.|Total count of events is provided.|||
91071255|NCT00722566|182027830|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assuming ORRs are 35.5% for both SC and IV, one-sided alpha level of 0.025, and approximately 80% power, approximately 216 subjects (144 SC:72 IV) are needed to show non-inferiority of SC to IV VELCADE.|ORR_SQ - 0.6 ORR_IV|16.8||||0.00201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.1|27.1|||Farrrington and Manning|CONOR P. FARRINGTON AND GODFREY MANNING STATISTICS IN MEDICINE, VOL. 9, 1447-1454(1990).||In this trial, non-inferiority is defined as retaining 60% of the IV (active control) treatment effect as measured by ORR. The non-inferiority hypothesis can be stated as: H0: ORRSC - 0.60 ORRIV \<0 vs. H1: ORRSC - 0.60 ORRIV ≥0 (non-inferiority).||27.1|6.1|0.00201
91071256|NCT02780713|182027853|SUPERIORITY||Percentage|17.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.79|24.58||||||||24.58|11.79|
91071257|NCT02780713|182027853|SUPERIORITY||Percentage|36.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.84|55.2||||||||55.20|23.84|
91071258|NCT02780713|182027853|SUPERIORITY||Percentage|24.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.84|34.48||||||||34.48|16.84|
91071259|NCT02780713|182027854|SUPERIORITY||Percentage|31.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.77|39.12||||||||39.12|25.77|
91071260|NCT02780713|182027854|SUPERIORITY||Percentage|54.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.16|69.6||||||||69.60|42.16|
90827625|NCT01307319|181529964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM treatment difference from placebo|-0.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.4||a priori statistical significance is \<0.05.|mixed-model for repeated measures (MMRM)|The MMRM included covariate adjustment for baseline, day, treatment, and the treatment by day interaction.||||-0.4|-1.1|<0.001
91071261|NCT02780713|182027854|SUPERIORITY||Pecentage|41.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.79|48.86||||||||48.86|34.79|
91071262|NCT01931475|182027872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.2||||||||-0.2|-0.80|
91071263|NCT01931475|182027873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.19||||||||-0.19|-0.54|
91071264|NCT01931475|182027874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.62|-1.35|||||Total Score|||-1.35|-5.62|
91071265|NCT01931475|182027874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|-0.21|||||Pain|||-0.21|-1.21|
91071266|NCT01931475|182027874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.95|-0.78|||||Physical Function|||-0.78|-3.95|
91071267|NCT01931475|182027874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.16|||||Stiffness|||-0.16|-0.62|
91071268|NCT01931475|182027875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.15||||||||-0.15|-0.41|
91071269|NCT01931475|182027876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.34|||||BPI Severity of Worst Pain|||-0.34|-1.07|
91071270|NCT01931475|182027876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.03|||||BPI Severity of Least Pain|||0.03|-0.60|
91071271|NCT01931475|182027876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.11|||||BPI Severity of Right Now Pain|||-0.11|-0.82|
91071272|NCT01931475|182027877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.02|||||BPI Interference Average Score|||-0.02|-0.53|
91071273|NCT01931475|182027877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.19|||||General activity|||-0.19|-0.94|
91071274|NCT01931475|182027877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.05|||||Mood|||-0.05|-0.74|
91071275|NCT01931475|182027877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.11|||||Walking ability|||-0.11|-0.82|
91071276|NCT01931475|182027877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.06|||||Normal work (includes both work outside the home and housework)|||0.06|-0.68|
91071277|NCT01931475|182027877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.21|||||Relations with other people|||0.21|-0.34|
91071278|NCT01931475|182027877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.14|||||Sleep|||0.14|-0.57|
91071279|NCT01931475|182027877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.27|||||Enjoyment of life|||0.27|-0.40|
91071280|NCT01931475|182027879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Total Effect|97.49||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Path analysis for the direct analgesic effect was used to test the null hypothesis that the change in BPI average pain severity depends on the improvement of HADS-D or HADS-A, versus the alternative that the improvement in BPI average pain severity is due to a direct analgesic effect of the treatment and not dependent upon the improvement in depression and anxiety symptoms.||||0.002
91071281|NCT06175026|182027889|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|1.37||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The null hypothesis was that the health messages would not elicit different levels of perceived message effectiveness compared to the neutral messages.||1.37|1.13|<0.001
91071282|NCT06175026|182027889|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.26||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a prior threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The null hypothesis was that the environment messages would not elicit different perceived message effectiveness than the control messages.||1.26|1.03|<.001
91071283|NCT06175026|182027889|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|1.41||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a prior threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The null hypothesis was that the health and environment messages would not elicit different perceived message effectiveness than the control messages.||1.41|1.17|<0.001
91071284|NCT06175026|182027889|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062||0.1892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.018|0.223||This p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons (considering 3 tests among intervention arms) using the Bonferroni Holm method.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||.223|-0.018|.1892
91071285|NCT06175026|182027889|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.08||This p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons (considering 3 tests among intervention arms) using the Bonferroni Holm method.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||.08|-.17|.47
91071286|NCT06175026|182027889|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|-0.03||This p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons (considering 3 tests among intervention arms) using the Bonferroni Holm method.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-.03|-.27|.051
91071287|NCT02821338|182027890|EQUIVALENCE|90% confidence interval falls within 80.00-125.00%|Test/Reference ratio|0.9863|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9598|1.0134||||||90% confidence interval of the geometric mean ratio of test/reference||1.0134|0.9598|
91071288|NCT02821338|182027891|EQUIVALENCE|90% confidence interval falls within 80.00-125.00%|Test/Reference Ratio|0.9785|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9484|1.0095||||||||1.0095|0.9484|
91071289|NCT02821338|182027892|EQUIVALENCE|90% confidence interval falls within 80.00-125.00%|Test/Reference Ratio|1.047|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0079|1.0877||||||||1.0877|1.0079|
91071290|NCT02225860|182027899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The analysis of the primary and secondary outcome was based on an intention to treat principle. Copeptin was measured in each subject at baseline and week 2 and the change from baseline to end point (delta) was calculated for all subjects. The delta copeptin between subjects in the intervention and control arms was compared with a two sample t test for independent groups. One sample t-tests of the delta were used to examine whether there was any change over time for each group separately."||||<0.01
91071291|NCT02225860|182027900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The analysis of the primary and secondary outcome was based on an intention to treat principle. Copeptin was measured in each subject at baseline and week 2 and the change from baseline to end point (delta) was calculated for all subjects. The delta copeptin between subjects in the intervention and control arms was compared with a two sample t test for independent groups. One sample t-tests of the delta were used to examine whether there was any change over time for each group separately."||||<0.01
91071292|NCT01028014|182027902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||P values comparing differences across groups, as well as within group changes, were all \>0.05.P-values were not adjusted for multiple testing; p\<0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Using difference in EMG amplitude as primary outcome, assuming standard deviation of 6, we had greater than 80% power to detect a 10-microvolt change in urethral muscle activity with sample size of 9 participants per group. Due to non-normality and small sample sizes, non-parametric tests were used and data presented as median (IQR). Kruskal-Wallis p-values are reported to compare median scores across groups. Wilcoxon sign-test p-values are reported to evaluate 2-week change within groups.||||>0.05
91071293|NCT01028014|182027903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||P values comparing differences across groups, as well as within group changes, were all \>0.05.P-values were not adjusted for multiple testing; p\<0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Using difference in EMG amplitude as primary outcome, assuming standard deviation of 6, we had greater than 80% power to detect a 10-microvolt change in urethral muscle activity with sample size of 9 participants per group. Due to non-normality and small sample sizes, non-parametric tests were used and data presented as median (IQR). Kruskal-Wallis p-values are reported to compare median scores across groups. Wilcoxon sign-test p-values are reported to evaluate 2-week change within groups.||||>0.05
91071294|NCT00425061|182027914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-5.2||||0.612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.6|15.2|||ANCOVA|||Day 112: Analysis of co-variance (ANCOVA) model was used with baseline as a covariate, long-acting beta-agonist (LABA) use (Inhaled Corticosteroid \[ICS\] only or ICS plus LABA) and treatment as two factors.||15.2|-25.6|0.612
91071295|NCT00425061|182027916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean Difference|0.0||||0.482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: ANCOVA model was used with baseline as a covariate, LABA use (ICS only or ICS plus LABA) and treatment as two factors.||0.1|-0.2|0.482
91071296|NCT00425061|182027916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.0||||0.492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Day 28: ANCOVA model was used with baseline as a covariate, LABA use (ICS only or ICS plus LABA) and treatment as two factors.||0.1|-0.2|0.492
91071297|NCT00425061|182027916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.1||||0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Day 56: ANCOVA model was used with baseline as a covariate, LABA use (ICS only or ICS plus LABA) and treatment as two factors.||0.1|-0.2|0.323
91071298|NCT00425061|182027916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.1||||0.226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Day 84: ANCOVA model was used with baseline as a covariate, LABA use (ICS only or ICS plus LABA) and treatment as two factors.||0.1|-0.2|0.226
91071299|NCT00425061|182027916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.1||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Day 112: ANCOVA model was used with baseline as a covariate, LABA use (ICS only or ICS plus LABA) and treatment as two factors.||0.1|-0.2|0.256
91071300|NCT00425061|182027917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.8||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|3.9|||ANCOVA|||Day 28: ANCOVA model was based on the log 2 transformed methacholine challenge test values with baseline as a covariate, LABA use (ICS only or ICS plus LABA) and treatment as two factors.||3.9|-0.3|0.090
91071301|NCT00425061|182027917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.1||||0.144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|5.0|||ANCOVA|||Day 112: ANCOVA model was based on the log 2 transformed methacholine challenge test values with baseline as a covariate, LABA use (ICS only or ICS plus LABA) and treatment as two factors.||5.0|-0.8|0.144
91071302|NCT00425061|182027919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.1||||0.354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: ANCOVA model was used with baseline as a covariate, LABA use (ICS only or ICS plus LABA) and treatment as two factors.||0.1|-0.4|0.354
91071303|NCT00425061|182027919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.0||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Day 28: ANCOVA model was used with baseline as a covariate, LABA use (ICS only or ICS plus LABA) and treatment as two factors.||0.4|-0.4|0.900
91071304|NCT00425061|182027919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.0||||0.921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Day 56: ANCOVA model was used with baseline as a covariate, LABA use (ICS only or ICS plus LABA) and treatment as two factors.||0.4|-0.4|0.921
91071305|NCT00425061|182027919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.2||||0.388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Day 84: ANCOVA model was used with baseline as a covariate, LABA use (ICS only or ICS plus LABA) and treatment as two factors.||0.6|-0.2|0.388
91071306|NCT00425061|182027919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.2||||0.249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Day 112: ANCOVA model was used with baseline as a covariate, LABA use (ICS only or ICS plus LABA) and treatment as two factors.||0.7|-0.2|0.249
91071307|NCT00425061|182027920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.267|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.267
91071308|NCT00425061|182027921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.029
91071309|NCT02111577|182027944|SUPERIORITY|Stratified by region (US vs other), prior abiraterone (Yes vs No), prior enzalutamide (Yes vs No) and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) score (0, 1 vs 2)|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.042||||0.596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.895|1.213|||Log Rank|||Stratified||1.213|0.895|0.596
91071310|NCT02111577|182027944|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.036||||0.648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.891|1.204|||Log Rank|||Unstratified||1.204|0.891|0.648
91071311|NCT02111577|182027945|SUPERIORITY|Stratified by region (US vs other), prior abiraterone (Yes vs No), prior enzalutamide (Yes vs No) and ECOG score (0, 1 vs 2)|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.908||||0.335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.746|1.105|||Log Rank|||Stratified||1.105|0.746|0.335
91071312|NCT02111577|182027945|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.879||||0.192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.725|1.067|||Log Rank|||Unstratified||1.067|0.725|0.192
91071313|NCT02111577|182027946|SUPERIORITY|Stratified by region (US vs other), prior enzalutamide (Yes vs No) and ECOG score (0, 1 vs 2)|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.312||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.976|1.762|||Log Rank|||Stratified||1.762|0.976|0.071
91071314|NCT02111577|182027946|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.283||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.961|1.712|||Log Rank|||Unstratified||1.712|0.961|0.09
91071315|NCT02111577|182027947|SUPERIORITY|Stratified by region (US vs other), prior abiraterone (Yes vs No) and ECOG score (0, 1 vs 2)|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.461||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.134|||Log Rank|||Stratified||2.134|1|0.049
91071316|NCT02111577|182027947|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.436||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.993|2.077|||Log Rank|||Unstratified||2.077|0.993|0.053
91071317|NCT02111577|182027948|SUPERIORITY|Stratified by region (US vs other) and ECOG score (0, 1 vs 2)|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.938||||0.501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.779|1.13|||Log Rank|||Stratified||1.13|0.779|0.501
91071318|NCT02111577|182027948|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.781|1.131|||Log Rank|||Unstratified||1.131|0.781|0.512
91071319|NCT02111577|182027949|SUPERIORITY|Stratified by region (US vs other), prior abiraterone (Yes vs No), prior enzalutamide (Yes vs No) and ECOG score (0, 1 vs 2)|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.863|1.136|||Log Rank|||Stratified||1.136|0.863|0.886
91071320|NCT02111577|182027949|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.001||||0.992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.875|1.145|||Log Rank|||Unstratified||1.145|0.875|0.992
91071321|NCT02111577|182027950|SUPERIORITY|Stratified by region (US vs other), prior abiraterone (Yes vs No), prior enzalutamide (Yes vs No) and ECOG score (0, 1 vs 2)|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.001||||0.994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.847|1.184|||Log Rank|||Stratified||1.184|0.847|0.994
91071322|NCT02111577|182027950|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.002||||0.982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.851|1.18|||Log Rank|||Unstratified||1.18|0.851|0.982
91071323|NCT02111577|182027951|SUPERIORITY|Stratified by region (US vs other), prior abiraterone (Yes vs No), prior enzalutamide (Yes vs No) and ECOG score (0, 1 vs 2)|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.077||||0.392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.909|1.277|||Log Rank|||Stratified||1.277|0.909|0.392
91071324|NCT02111577|182027951|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.068||||0.439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.905|1.262|||Log Rank|||Unstratified||1.262|0.905|0.439
91071325|NCT02111577|182027952|SUPERIORITY|Stratified by region (US vs other), prior abiraterone (Yes vs No), prior enzalutamide (Yes vs No) and ECOG score (0, 1 vs 2)|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.857|1.238|||Log Rank|||Stratified||1.238|0.857|0.754
91071326|NCT02111577|182027952|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.009||||0.924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.844|1.207|||Log Rank|||Unstratified||1.207|0.844|0.924
91071327|NCT02111577|182027953|SUPERIORITY|Stratified by region (US vs other), prior abiraterone (Yes vs No), prior enzalutamide (Yes vs No) and ECOG score (0, 1 vs 2)|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.918||||0.732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.563|1.497|||Log Rank|||Stratified||1.497|0.563|0.732
91071328|NCT02111577|182027953|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.913||||0.713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.561|1.485|||Log Rank|||Unstratified||1.485|0.561|0.713
91071329|NCT02111577|182027954|SUPERIORITY|Stratified by region (US vs other), prior abiraterone (Yes vs No), prior enzalutamide (Yes vs No) and ECOG score (0, 1 vs 2)|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.891||||0.694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.587|||Log Rank|||Stratified||1.587|0.5|0.694
91071330|NCT02111577|182027954|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.496|1.562|||Log Rank|||Unstratified||1.562|0.496|0.661
91071331|NCT02111577|182027955|SUPERIORITY|Stratified by region (US vs other), prior abiraterone (Yes vs No), prior enzalutamide (Yes vs No) and ECOG score (0, 1 vs 2)|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.895||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.781|1.027|||Log Rank|||Stratified||1.027|0.781|0.111
91071332|NCT02111577|182027955|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.913||||0.184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.798|1.044|||Log Rank|||Unstratified||1.044|0.798|0.184
91071333|NCT02111577|182027956|SUPERIORITY|Stratified by region (US vs other), prior abiraterone (Yes vs No), prior enzalutamide (Yes vs No) and ECOG score (0, 1 vs 2)|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.939||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.795|1.11|||Log Rank|||Stratified||1.11|0.795|0.46
91071334|NCT02111577|182027956|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.807|1.118|||Log Rank|||Unstratified||1.118|0.807|0.534
91071335|NCT02111577|182027957|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted by region (US vs other), prior abiraterone (Yes vs No), prior enzalutamide (Yes vs No) and ECOG score (0, 1 vs 2)|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.845||||0.485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.528|1.355|||Log binomial model|||Stratified||1.355|0.528|0.485
91071336|NCT02111577|182027958|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted by region (US vs other), prior abiraterone (Yes vs No), prior enzalutamide (Yes vs No) and ECOG score (0, 1 vs 2)|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.92||||0.768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.529|1.601|||Log binomial model|||Stratified||1.601|0.529|0.768
91071337|NCT04501640|182027959|OTHER||Geomteric Least Squares (LS) Mean Ratio|57.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|46.21|70.47|||||Ratios and confidence intervals are transformed back to raw scale \& values are expressed as percentages.|Assessment based on an analysis of variance (ANOVA) performed on natural log-transformed parameters with food condition and period as a fixed effects and participant as a random effect.||70.47|46.21|
91071338|NCT04501640|182027959|OTHER||Geometric LSMean Ratio|61.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|52.06|72.47|||||Ratios and confidence intervals are transformed back to raw scale \& values are expressed as percentages.|Assessment based on an ANOVA performed on natural log-transformed parameters with food condition and period as a fixed effects and participant as a random effect.||72.47|52.06|
91071339|NCT04501640|182027960|OTHER||Geomteric LSMean Ratio|53.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|43.02|66.05|||||Ratios and confidence intervals are transformed back to raw scale \& values are expressed as percentages.|Assessment based on an ANOVA performed on natural log-transformed parameters with food condition and period as a fixed effects and participant as a random effect.||66.05|43.02|
91071340|NCT04501640|182027960|OTHER||Geomteric LSMean Ratio|59.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|49.48|70.7|||||Ratios and confidence intervals are transformed back to raw scale \& values are expressed as percentages.|Assessment based on an ANOVA performed on natural log-transformed parameters with food condition and period as a fixed effects and participant as a random effect.||70.70|49.48|
91071341|NCT04501640|182027961|OTHER||Geometric LSMean Ratio|38.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|26.78|56.59|||||Ratios and confidence intervals are transformed back to raw scale \& values are expressed as percentages.|Assessment based on an ANOVA performed on natural log-transformed parameters with food condition and period as a fixed effects and participant as a random effect.||56.59|26.78|
91071342|NCT04501640|182027961|OTHER||Geometric LSMean Ratio|47.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|31.76|72.24|||||Ratios and confidence intervals are transformed back to raw scale \& values are expressed as percentages.|Assessment based on an ANOVA performed on natural log-transformed parameters with food condition and period as a fixed effects and participant as a random effect.||72.24|31.76|
91071343|NCT04590586|182027973|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.6672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.35|||Stratified log-rank test|Stratified by baseline score of 2 on the ordinal scale for clinical severity (yes/no), remdesivir use at baseline (yes/no), and geographic region.|Hazard ratio (Lanadelumab vs. placebo) from a Cox regression model including baseline clinical severity of 2 on the ordinal scale for clinical severity (yes/no), remdesivir use at baseline (yes/no), geographic region, and treatment arm as factors.|||2.35|0.59|0.6672
91071344|NCT04590586|182027974|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.8779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.24|||Stratified log-rank test|Stratified by baseline score of 2 on the ordinal scale for clinical severity (yes/no), remdesivir use at baseline (yes/no), and geographic region.|Hazard ratio (apremilast vs. placebo) from a Cox regression model including baseline clinical severity of 2 on the ordinal scale for clinical severity (yes/no), remdesivir use at baseline (yes/no), geographic region, and treatment arm as factors.|||1.24|0.77|0.8779
91071345|NCT04590586|182027986|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.0||||0.3773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|4.9|||Regression, Logistic||Risk difference is from a logistic regression including the baseline clinical severity of 2 on the ordinal scale for clinical severity (yes/no), remdesivir use at baseline (yes/no), geographic region, and treatment arm as factors.|||4.9|-12.9|0.3773
91071346|NCT04590586|182027986|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.28|||||Odds ratio (apremilast vs. placebo) is from a logistic regression including the baseline clinical severity of 2 on the ordinal scale for clinical severity (yes/no), remdesivir use at baseline (yes/no), geographic region, and treatment arm as factors.|||1.28|0.52|
91071347|NCT04590586|182027987|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.9||||0.4846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|5.3|||Regression, Logistic||Risk difference is from a logistic regression including baseline clinical severity of 2 on the ordinal scale for clinical severity (yes/no), remdesivir use at baseline (yes/no), geographic region, and treatment arm as factors.|||5.3|-11.2|0.4846
91071348|NCT04590586|182027987|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.37|||||Odds ratio (apremilast vs. placebo) is from a logistic regression including baseline clinical severity of 2 on the ordinal scale for clinical severity (yes/no), remdesivir use at baseline (yes/no), geographic region, and treatment arm as factors.|||1.37|0.51|
91071349|NCT04590586|182027988|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.2||||0.9665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|7.6|||Regression, Logistic||Risk difference is from a logistic regression including baseline clinical severity of 2 on the ordinal scale for clinical severity (yes/no), remdesivir use at baseline (yes/no), geographic region, and treatment arm as factors.|||7.6|-7.3|0.9665
91071350|NCT04590586|182027988|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.74|||||Odds ratio (apremilast vs. placebo) is from a logistic regression including the baseline clinical severity of 2 on the ordinal scale for clinical severity (yes/no), remdesivir use at baseline (yes/no), geographic region, and treatment arm as factors.|||1.74|0.59|
91071351|NCT04590586|182027989|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.9119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.46|||Proportional odds model||Odds ratio (Apremilast vs. Placebo) from a proportional odds model including the baseline clinical severity of 2 on the 8-point ordinal scale for clinical severity (yes/no), remdesivir use at baseline (yes/no), region, and treatment arm as factors.|Day 8||1.46|0.71|0.9119
91071352|NCT04590586|182027989|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.6475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.58|||Proportional odds model||Odds ratio (Apremilast vs. Placebo) from a proportional odds model including the baseline clinical severity of 2 on the 8-point ordinal scale for clinical severity (yes/no), remdesivir use at baseline (yes/no), region, and treatment arm as factors.|Day 15||1.58|0.75|0.6475
91071353|NCT04590586|182027989|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.9071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.48|||Proportional odds model||Odds ratio (Apremilast vs. Placebo) from a proportional odds model including the baseline clinical severity of 2 on the 8-point ordinal scale for clinical severity (yes/no), remdesivir use at baseline (yes/no), region, and treatment arm as factors.|Day 29||1.48|0.64|0.9071
91071354|NCT04590586|182027990|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.4507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.66|||Proportional odds model||Odds ratio (Apremilast vs. Placebo) from a proportional odds model including the baseline clinical severity of 2 on the 8-point ordinal scale for clinical severity (yes/no), remdesivir use at baseline (yes/no), region, and treatment arm as factors.|||1.66|0.80|0.4507
91071355|NCT04590586|182027991|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.9741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.53|||Proportional odds model||Odds ratio (Apremilast vs. Placebo) from a proportional odds model including the baseline clinical severity of 2 on the 8-point ordinal scale for clinical severity (yes/no), remdesivir use at baseline (yes/no), region, and treatment arm as factors.|||1.53|0.64|0.9741
91071356|NCT04590586|182027992|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.8754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.7|||Proportional odds model||Odds ratio (Apremilast vs. Placebo) from a proportional odds model including the baseline clinical severity of 2 on the 8-point ordinal scale for clinical severity (yes/no), remdesivir use at baseline (yes/no), region, and treatment arm as factors.|||1.70|0.64|0.8754
91071357|NCT04590586|182027993|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.2||||0.9695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|9.1|||Regression, Logistic||Risk difference is from a logistic regression including the baseline clinical severity of 2 on the ordinal scale for clinical severity (yes/no), remdesivir use at baseline (yes/no), geographic region, and treatment arm as factors.|Analysis of clinical recovery on Day 8||9.1|-8.7|0.9695
91071358|NCT04590586|182027993|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.59|||||Odds ratio (apremilast vs. placebo) is from a logistic regression including the baseline clinical severity of 2 on the ordinal scale for clinical severity (yes/no), remdesivir use at baseline (yes/no), geographic region, and treatment arm as factors.|Analysis of clinical recovery on Day 8||1.59|0.64|
91071359|NCT04590586|182027993|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.4||||0.6236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|7.1|||Regression, Logistic||Risk difference is from a logistic regression including the baseline clinical severity of 2 on the ordinal scale for clinical severity (yes/no), remdesivir use at baseline (yes/no), geographic region, and treatment arm as factors.|Analysis of clinical recovery on Day 15||7.1|-11.9|0.6236
91071360|NCT04590586|182027993|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.37|||||Odds ratio (apremilast vs. placebo) is from a logistic regression including the baseline clinical severity of 2 on the ordinal scale for clinical severity (yes/no), remdesivir use at baseline (yes/no), geographic region, and treatment arm as factors.|Analysis of clinical recovery on Day 15||1.37|0.59|
91071361|NCT04590586|182027993|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.2||||0.1664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|2.5|||Regression, Logistic||Risk difference is from a logistic regression including the baseline clinical severity of 2 on the ordinal scale for clinical severity (yes/no), remdesivir use at baseline (yes/no), geographic region, and treatment arm as factors.|Analysis of clinical recovery on Day 29||2.5|-14.9|0.1664
91071362|NCT04590586|182027993|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.15|||||Odds ratio (apremilast vs. placebo) is from a logistic regression including the baseline clinical severity of 2 on the ordinal scale for clinical severity (yes/no), remdesivir use at baseline (yes/no), geographic region, and treatment arm as factors.|Analysis of clinical recovery on Day 29||1.15|0.45|
91071363|NCT04590586|182027994|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.5||||0.9043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|8.3|||Regression, Logistic||Risk difference is from a logistic regression including the baseline clinical severity of 2 on the ordinal scale for clinical severity (yes/no), remdesivir use at baseline (yes/no), geographic region, and treatment arm as factors.|||8.3|-9.3|0.9043
91071364|NCT04590586|182027994|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.54|||||Odds ratio (apremilast vs. placebo) is from a logistic regression including the baseline clinical severity of 2 on the ordinal scale for clinical severity (yes/no), remdesivir use at baseline (yes/no), geographic region, and treatment arm as factors.|||1.54|0.62|
91071365|NCT00422695|182028014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
91071366|NCT00422695|182028014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91071367|NCT00778869|182028049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student t-test|||||||<0.05
91071368|NCT00570063|182028082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square (LS) mean difference|-1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.94||0.86|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.49|13.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value and 90 percent confidence interval (CI) were obtained from mixed effects repeated measures analysis using covariance structures spatial power covariance structure (SP\[POW\]) with participant as random effect, treatment, visit, and visit-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate.||13.27|-16.49|0.86
91071369|NCT00570063|182028083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.69||0.65|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.71|3.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value and 90 percent CI were obtained from mixed effects repeated measures analysis using covariance structures (SP\[POW\]) with participant as random effect, treatment, visit, and visit-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate.||3.24|-5.71|0.65
91071370|NCT00570063|182028084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.61||0.93|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.59|4.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value and 90 percent CI were obtained from mixed effects repeated measures analysis using covariance structures (SP\[POW\]) with participant as random effect, treatment, visit, and visit-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate.||4.10|-4.59|0.93
91071371|NCT00570063|182028085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.18||0.86|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.21|7.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value and 90 percent CI were obtained from mixed effects repeated measures analysis using covariance structures (SP\[POW\]) with participant as random effect, treatment, visit, and visit-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate.||7.69|-6.21|0.86
91071372|NCT00570063|182028086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.22||0.43|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.92|2.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value and 90 percent CI were obtained from mixed effects repeated measures analysis using covariance structures (SP\[POW\]) with participant as random effect, treatment, visit, and visit-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate.||2.79|-7.92|0.43
91071373|NCT00570063|182028087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.68||0.91|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.76|4.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value and 90 percent CI were obtained from mixed effects repeated measures analysis using covariance structures (SP\[POW\]) with participant as random effect, treatment, visit, and visit-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate.||4.16|-4.76|0.91
91071374|NCT00570063|182028088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.29||0.78|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.17|4.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value and 90 percent CI were obtained from mixed effects repeated measures analysis using covariance structures (SP\[POW\]) with participant as random effect, treatment, visit, and visit-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate.||4.43|-3.17|0.78
91071375|NCT00570063|182028089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.35||0.92|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.11|2.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value and 90 percent CI were obtained from mixed effects repeated measures analysis using covariance structures (SP\[POW\]) with participant as random effect, treatment, visit, and visit-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate.||2.39|-2.11|0.92
91071376|NCT00570063|182028090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.62||0.6|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.85|3.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value and 90 percent CI were obtained from mixed effects repeated measures analysis using covariance structures (SP\[POW\]) with participant as random effect, treatment, visit, and visit-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate.||3.54|-1.85|0.60
91071377|NCT00570063|182028091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86||0.81|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.65|3.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value and 90 percent CI were obtained from mixed effects repeated measures analysis using covariance structures (SP\[POW\]) with participant as random effect, treatment, visit, and visit-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate.||3.53|-2.65|0.81
91071378|NCT00570063|182028092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.93|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.84|0.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value and 90 percent CI were obtained from mixed effects repeated measures analysis using covariance structures (SP\[POW\]) with participant as random effect, treatment, visit, and visit-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate.||0.76|-0.84|0.93
91071379|NCT00570063|182028093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.99|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.13|1.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value and 90 percent CI were obtained from mixed effects repeated measures analysis using covariance structures (SP\[POW\]) with participant as random effect, treatment, visit, and visit-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.||1.14|-1.13|0.99
91071380|NCT00570063|182028094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.158|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.844|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.546|1.231||||||Change at Day 21: Cried||1.231|-1.546|
91071381|NCT00570063|182028094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.444|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.078|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.329|2.218||||||Change at Day 21: Felt blue or depressed||2.218|-1.329|
91071382|NCT00570063|182028094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.544|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.32|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.561|8.649||||||Change at Day 21: Irritability||8.649|-5.561|
91071383|NCT00570063|182028094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.573|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.955|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.287|5.433||||||Change at Day 21: Manifest psychosis||5.433|-4.287|
91071384|NCT00570063|182028094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.556|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.096|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.892|4.003||||||Change at Day 21: Personal neatness||4.003|-2.892|
91071385|NCT00570063|182028094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.327|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.532|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.202|0.547||||||Change at Day 21: Refused to speak||0.547|-1.202|
91071386|NCT00570063|182028094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.632|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.749|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.152|3.889||||||Change at Day 21: Retardation||3.889|-5.152|
91071387|NCT00570063|182028094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.572|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.11|0.771||||||Change at Day 21: Said he/she was no good||0.771|-1.110|
91071388|NCT00570063|182028094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.561|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.63|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.887|3.764||||||Change at Day 21: Social competence||3.764|-4.887|
91071389|NCT00570063|182028094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.62|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.447|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.934|6.694||||||Change at Day 21: Social interest||6.694|-7.934|
91071390|NCT00570063|182028095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.712|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.24|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.42|25.845||||||||25.845|-14.42|
91071391|NCT00570063|182028105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.849|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.23|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.807|6.109||||||||6.109|-7.807|
91071392|NCT00570063|182028106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.195|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.307|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-19.5|11.114||||||||11.114|-19.50|
91071393|NCT00570063|182028107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.273|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.488|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.01|5.465||||||Change at Day 21: Parkinsonism||5.465|-6.010|
91071394|NCT00570063|182028107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.182|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.008|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.13|4.766||||||Change at Day 21: Dyskinesia||4.766|-5.130|
91071395|NCT00570063|182028107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.932|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.425|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.275|1.411||||||Change at Day 21: Dystonia||1.411|-3.275|
91071396|NCT00570063|182028107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.705|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.652|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.013|3.422||||||Change at Day 21: Akathisia||3.422|-2.013|
91071397|NCT00570063|182028108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.291|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.203|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.27|1.688||||||Change at Day 4||1.688|-2.270|
91071398|NCT00570063|182028108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.327|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.349|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.892|2.547||||||Change at Day 7||2.547|-1.892|
91071399|NCT00570063|182028108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.436|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.448|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.946|2.817||||||Change at Day 14||2.817|-1.946|
91071400|NCT00570063|182028108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.133|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.763|1.963||||||Change at Day 21||1.963|-1.763|
91071401|NCT05129293|182028165|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.229|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for disease duration, SymptoMScreen depression and anxiety scores, and Test of Everyday Cognition baseline performance||||||0.229
91071402|NCT05129293|182028166|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for disease duration, SymptoMScreen depression and anxiety scores, and Test of Everyday Cognition baseline performance||||||0.040
91071403|NCT05129293|182028167|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.266|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for disease duration, SymptoMScreen depression and anxiety scores, and Test of Everyday Cognition baseline performance||||||0.266
91071404|NCT00519428|182028168|SUPERIORITY|Hypothesis: Dual Treatment (escitalopram + bupropion) will result in greater improvement over 12 weeks than either monotherapy (i.e., two analyses: 1) dual treatment will outperform escitalopram monotherapy; 2) dual treatment will outperform bupropion monotherapy).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.0||0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||"Each individual test will require the calculated p to be \< .0916 to declare that comparison to be significant. Since the hypothesis requires both comparisons to be significant, this produces an over-all alpha of .05."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Hypothesis: Dual Treatment (escitalopram + bupropion) will result in greater improvement over 12 weeks than either monotherapy (i.e., two analyses: 1) dual treatment will outperform escitalopram monotherapy; 2) dual treatment will outperform bupropion monotherapy). Therefore each analysis will be done twice and it will be required that both analyses be significant to declare the over-all study significant.||||.05
91071405|NCT00519428|182028170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.0||0.0916|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||escitalopram + bupropion vs. escitalopram: F(1,159) = 1.93, ns escitalopram + bupropion vs. bupropion: F (1,157) = 1.99, ns|ANCOVA|adjusting for baseline score and country||To test the hypothesis that escitalopram + bupropion would have superior efficacy relative to each monotherapy, the group receiving both medications was separately compared to each monotherapy group, covarying for baseline score and country||||.0916
91071406|NCT00688701|182028173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.123|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.785|-0.3||Stepwise testing procedure applied to control type 1 error: Lixisenatide (2-step titration) was compared with Placebo (combined), if found statistically significant, then Lixisenatide (1-step titration) arm compared with Placebo (combined).|ANCOVA|||"To detect a difference of 0.5% in change in HbA1c at Week 12 between 1 lixisenatide arm and placebo (combined), 120 patients per group would provide a power of 90% assuming common standard deviation of 1.2% with 2-sided test at 5% significance level.~Statistical testing: 2-sided at significance level=0.05. Analysis of co-variance (ANCOVA) included treatment arms, randomization strata of screening HbA1c (\<8.0,\>=8.0%), BMI (\<30,\>=30 kg/m\^2), country as fixed effects, baseline HbA1c as covariate."||-0.300|-0.785|<0.0001
91071407|NCT00688701|182028173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.122|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.903|-0.423||Stepwise testing procedure applied to control type 1 error: Lixisenatide (2-step titration) was compared with Placebo (combined), if found statistically significant, then Lixisenatide (1-step titration) arm compared with Placebo (combined).|ANCOVA|||"To detect a difference of 0.5% in change in HbA1c at Week 12 between 1 lixisenatide arm and placebo (combined), 120 patients per group would provide a power of 90% assuming common standard deviation of 1.2% with 2-sided test at 5% significance level.~Statistical testing: 2-sided at significance level=0.05. Analysis of co-variance (ANCOVA) included treatment arms, randomization strata of screening HbA1c (\<8.0,\>=8.0%), BMI (\<30,\>=30 kg/m\^2), country as fixed effects, baseline HbA1c as covariate."||-0.423|-0.903|<0.0001
91071408|NCT01953874|182028188|OTHER|The primary analysis was based on the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test and therefore the power calculation was approximated using the approach of Tang.||||||0.916|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The primary endpoint was a composite measure of global rank order response based on survival time, freedom from CV hospitalization, and improvement in functional capacity measured by percent change in 6MWD from baseline to 6 months. The plan was to randomize up to 215 subjects. However, due to safety issues observed in SERVE-HF, randomization was stopped at 126 subjects.||||0.916
91071409|NCT00653133|182028243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference in reported complications associated with the placement of continuous peripheral nerve block catheters between ultrasound imaging guided placement and nerve stimulator guided placement.||||<0.05
91071410|NCT03962790|182028319|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower bound of the credible interval (CrI) of the mean difference between Test and Control was greater than -5.|Posterior Mean Difference|0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.281|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.37|4.65|||||Posterior mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|Bayesian repeated measurement random-effects model was used to compare between Test and Control lenses.||4.65|-4.37|
91071411|NCT03962790|182028320|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is established if the lower limit of the 95% credible interval is above -5 points in CLUE Scale.|Posterior Mean Difference|-1.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.565|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.07|2.06|||||Posterior mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|Bayesian repeated measurement random-effects model was used to compare between Test and Control lenses.||2.06|-4.07|
91071412|NCT03962790|182028321|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was declared if the upper bound of the CrI of the mean difference between Test and Control was less than 0.05.|Posterior Mean Difference|-0.001|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0054|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.012|0.01|||||Posterior mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|Bayesian repeated measurement random-effects model was used to compare between Test and Control lenses.||0.010|-0.012|
91071413|NCT03962790|182028321|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was declared if the upper bound of the CrI of the mean difference between Test and Control was less than 0.05.|Posterior Mean Difference|-0.002|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0057|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.014|0.009|||||Posterior mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|Bayesian repeated measurement random-effects model was used to compare between Test and Control lenses.||0.009|-0.014|
91071414|NCT03962790|182028322|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower bound of the CrI of the mean difference between Test and Control was greater than -1.|Posterior Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.168|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.34|||||Posterior mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|Bayesian repeated measurement random-effects model was used to compare between Test and Control lenses.||0.34|-0.32|
91071415|NCT02223650|182028323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.75||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|-0.07||P-value is calculated for one-sided hypothesis test.|ANCOVA|Comparison of mean 8-wk distance control using ANCOVA adjusted for baseline distance control pre-study spectacle wear, and pre-study IXT treatment|Difference in mean distance control (overminus - observation) and 95% CI from ANCOVA model adjusting for baseline control, pre-study spectacle wear, and pre-study treatment for IXT. + difference suggests observation group worse than overminus group|||-0.07|-1.42|0.01
91071416|NCT02223650|182028324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.19||P-value is calculated for one-sided hypothesis test.|ANCOVA|Comparison of mean 8-wk near control using ANCOVA adjusted for baseline near control pre-study spectacle wear, and pre-study IXT treatment.|Comparison of mean 8-wk distance control using ANCOVA adjusted for baseline near control pre-study spectacle wear, and pre-study IXT treatment.|||0.19|-0.68|0.14
91071417|NCT02223650|182028327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|21.0||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|45.0||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Chi-squared|||||45|-6|0.07
91071418|NCT02223650|182028335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.001||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.0|24.0||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Chi-squared|||||24|-23|0.54
91071419|NCT01767506|182028337|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.6|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|11.9|||Regression, Logistic||||The null hypothesis was that we could further decrease infection to 1% or less in more of the communities in the surveillance intervention arm, compared to control communities.|11.9|0.56|>0.05
91071420|NCT01767506|182028338|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.9||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
91071421|NCT01608087|182028340|EQUIVALENCE|Commonly applied acceptance range for bioequivalence/biosimilarity is 80% to 125%.|gMean ratio|96.58|||||TWO_SIDED|93.93|88.54|105.35|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale including effects'treatment' and 'weight'.|(T/R1) \* 100||Least squares estimates of log-transformed PK endpoint for T and R1 were back transformed to original scale to get adjusted point estimator and interval estimates for the ratio of the geometric means for treatments.|105.35|88.54|
91071422|NCT01608087|182028340|EQUIVALENCE|Commonly applied acceptance range for bioequivalence/biosimilarity is 80% to 125%.|gMean ratio|91.68|||||TWO_SIDED|93.93|83.5|100.65|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale including effects'treatment' and 'weight'.|(T/R2) \* 100||Least squares estimates of log-transformed PK endpoint for T and R1 were back transformed to original scale to get adjusted point estimator and interval estimates for the ratio of the geometric means for treatments.|100.65|83.50|
91071423|NCT01608087|182028340|EQUIVALENCE|Commonly applied acceptance range for bioequivalence/biosimilarity is 80% to 125%.|gMean ratio|94.92|||||TWO_SIDED|93.93|87.14|103.4|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale including effects'treatment' and 'weight'.|(R1/R2) \* 100||Least squares estimates of log-transformed PK endpoint for T and R1 were back transformed to original scale to get adjusted point estimator and interval estimates for the ratio of the geometric means for treatments.|103.40|87.14|
91071424|NCT01608087|182028341|EQUIVALENCE|Commonly applied acceptance range for bioequivalence/biosimilarity is 80% to 125%.|gMean ratio|98.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.97|107.64|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale including effects'treatment' and 'weight'.|(T/R1) \* 100||Least squares estimates of log-transformed PK endpoint for T and R1 were back transformed to original scale to get adjusted point estimator and interval estimates for the ratio of the geometric means for treatments.|107.64|90.97|
91071425|NCT01608087|182028341|EQUIVALENCE|Commonly applied acceptance range for bioequivalence/biosimilarity is 80% to 125%.|gMean ratio|91.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.02|100.01|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale including effects'treatment' and 'weight'.|(T/R2) \* 100||Least squares estimates of log-transformed PK endpoint for T and R1 were back transformed to original scale to get adjusted point estimator and interval estimates for the ratio of the geometric means for treatments.|100.01|84.02|
91071426|NCT01608087|182028341|EQUIVALENCE|Commonly applied acceptance range for bioequivalence/biosimilarity is 80% to 125%.|gMean ratio|92.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.18|100.74|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale including effects'treatment' and 'weight'.|(R1/R2) \* 100||Least squares estimates of log-transformed PK endpoint for T and R1 were back transformed to original scale to get adjusted point estimator and interval estimates for the ratio of the geometric means for treatments.|100.74|85.18|
91071427|NCT01608087|182028342|EQUIVALENCE|Commonly applied acceptance range for bioequivalence/biosimilarity is 80% to 125%.|gMean ratio|101.53|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.74|111.14|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale including effects'treatment' and 'weight'.|(T/R1) \* 100||Least squares estimates of log-transformed PK endpoint for T and R1 were back transformed to original scale to get adjusted point estimator and interval estimates for the ratio of the geometric means for treatments.|111.14|92.74|
91071428|NCT01608087|182028342|EQUIVALENCE|Commonly applied acceptance range for bioequivalence/biosimilarity is 80% to 125%.|gMean ratio|93.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.12|99.81|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale including effects'treatment' and 'weight'.|(T/R2) \* 100||Least squares estimates of log-transformed PK endpoint for T and R1 were back transformed to original scale to get adjusted point estimator and interval estimates for the ratio of the geometric means for treatments.|99.81|87.12|
91071429|NCT01608087|182028342|EQUIVALENCE|Commonly applied acceptance range for bioequivalence/biosimilarity is 80% to 125%.|gMean ratio|91.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.91|100.54|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale including effects'treatment' and 'weight'.|(R1/R2) \* 100||Least square estimates of log-transformed PK endpoint for R1 and R2 were back transformed to original scale to get adjusted point estimator and interval estimates for the inter-subject ratio of the geometric means for treatments.|100.54|83.91|
91071430|NCT00908791|182028357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||McNemar|exact McNemar test for paired binary data.||||||0.003
91071431|NCT00908791|182028358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||McNemar|||||||0.41
91071432|NCT00908791|182028359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||bowker's test of symmetry|||||||0.48
91071433|NCT00908791|182028360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Sign test|||The Sign-Rank test for paired data.||||0.029
91071434|NCT00908791|182028361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.62
91071435|NCT00908791|182028362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Other|||||||>0.05
91071436|NCT00908791|182028363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Other|||||||>0.05
91071437|NCT00401544|182028431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|71.0||||||95.0|63.0|80.0|||||Binomial proportion with confidence limit calculation using the normal approximation, and converted to percentages.|||80|63|
91071438|NCT00401544|182028431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|63.0||||||95.0|54.0|72.0|||||Binomial proportion with confidence limit calculation using the normal approximation, and converted to percentages.|||72|54|
91071439|NCT00401544|182028432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|73.0||||||95.0|64.0|81.0|||||Binomial proportion with confidence limit calculation using the normal approximation, and converted to percentages.|||81|64|
91071440|NCT00401544|182028432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|62.0||||||95.0|54.0|71.0|||||Binomial proportion with confidence limit calculation using the normal approximation, and converted to percentages.|||71|54|
91071441|NCT00401544|182028437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|36.0||||||95.0|27.0|44.0|||||Binomial proportion with confidence limit calculation using the normal approximation, and converted to percentages.|||44|27|
91071442|NCT00401544|182028437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|38.0||||||95.0|29.0|47.0|||||Binomial proportion with confidence limit calculation using the normal approximation, and converted to percentages.|||47|29|
91071443|NCT00401544|182028438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|35.0||||||95.0|27.0|44.0|||||Binomial proportion with confidence limit calculation using the normal approximation, and converted to percentages.|||44|27|
91071444|NCT00401544|182028438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|39.0||||||95.0|30.0|47.0|||||Binomial proportion with confidence limit calculation using the normal approximation, and converted to percentages.|||47|30|
91071445|NCT00401544|182028439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|26.0||||||95.0|15.0|38.0|||||Binomial proportion with confidence limit calculation using the normal approximation, and converted to percentages.|||38|15|
91071446|NCT00401544|182028439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|31.0||||||95.0|19.0|42.0|||||Binomial proportion with confidence limit calculation using the normal approximation, and converted to percentages.|||42|19|
91071447|NCT00401544|182028439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|28.0||||||95.0|17.0|40.0|||||Binomial proportion with confidence limit calculation using the normal approximation, and converted to percentages.|||40|17|
91071448|NCT00401544|182028439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|25.0||||||95.0|14.0|36.0|||||Binomial proportion with confidence limit calculation using the normal approximation, and converted to percentages.|||36|14|
91071449|NCT00401544|182028440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|68.0||||||95.0|59.0|76.0|||||Binomial proportion with confidence limit calculation using the normal approximation, and converted to percentages.|||76|59|
91071450|NCT00401544|182028440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|59.0||||||95.0|50.0|68.0|||||Binomial proportion with confidence limit calculation using the normal approximation, and converted to percentages.|||68|50|
91071451|NCT00401544|182028441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|53.0||||||95.0|44.0|62.0|||||Binomial proportion with confidence limit calculation using the normal approximation, and converted to percentages.|||62|44|
91071452|NCT00401544|182028441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|74.0||||||95.0|66.0|82.0|||||Binomial proportion with confidence limit calculation using the normal approximation, and converted to percentages.|||82|66|
91071453|NCT01250873|182028446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.06|1.3|||ANOVA|||||1.30|1.06|
91071454|NCT01250873|182028447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.01|1.28|||ANOVA|||||1.28|1.01|
91071455|NCT01250873|182028448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.8281|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|1.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.00|-0.50|0.8281
91071456|NCT01250873|182028449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.17|1.39|||ANOVA|||||1.39|1.17|
91071457|NCT01250873|182028450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1|1.36|||ANOVA|||||1.36|1.10|
91071458|NCT01250873|182028451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.3125|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|2.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||2.00|0.00|0.3125
91071459|NCT00930774|182028457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.527|||||||ANOVA|df = 3,83; F=0.748||||||0.527
91071460|NCT00930774|182028458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.835|||||||ANOVA|df = 3,83; F=0.286||||||0.835
91071461|NCT00930774|182028459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.983|||||||ANOVA|df = 3,83; F=0.054||||||0.983
91071462|NCT00930774|182028460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.554||||||df = 3,83; F=0.701|ANOVA|||||||0.554
91071463|NCT00930774|182028461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.757||||||df = 3,83; F=0.395|ANOVA|||||||0.757
91071464|NCT00930774|182028462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.302|||||||ANOVA|df = 3,83; F=1.236||||||0.302
91071465|NCT00930774|182028463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||ANOVA|df = 3,83. F=6.343||||||0.001
91071466|NCT00930774|182028463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91071467|NCT00930774|182028464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013|||||||ANOVA|df = 3,83; F=3.797||||||0.013
91071468|NCT00930774|182028464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.05
91071469|NCT03200704|182028465|NON_INFERIORITY|90% power, 2.5% one-sided significance level,5% non-inferiority margin|||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||"Hypothesis:~H0: QT ≤ QC - 0.05 H1: QT \> QC - 0.05"||||<0.0001
91071470|NCT04967885|182028470|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.24
91071471|NCT01011465|182028472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.4||||0.03||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that both groups will have similar rise in SBP in response to stress.||||0.03
91071472|NCT01011465|182028472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0.89||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that both groups will have similar rise in SBP in response to stress.||||0.89
90827626|NCT02152631|181529989|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.968||||0.771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.768|1.219|||Stratified Log-Rank||Hazard Ratio (HR) was estimated based on Stratified Cox proportional hazard model.|The stratification factors used in the analysis were: number of prior chemotherapy regimens (1 versus 2), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance Score (PS) (0 versus 1), gender (male versus female), and kirsten rat sarcoma (KRAS) mutation (GLY12CYS \[G12C\] vs. all others)||1.219|0.768|0.771
90827627|NCT02152631|181529990|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Stratified by number of prior chemotherapy regimens (1 versus 2), ECOG PS (0 versus 1), gender (male versus female), and KRAS mutation (GLY12CYS \[G12C\] vs. all others)||||0.010
91071473|NCT01011465|182028472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.01||||0.52||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that both groups will have similar rise in SBP in response to stress.||||0.52
90827628|NCT02152631|181529991|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.583|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.723|||Stratified Log-Rank|||||0.723|0.470|<0.000001
90827629|NCT02152631|181529992|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Change Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyzed by Type 3 sums of squares, model covariates included Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Baseline.||Headache||0.29|-0.44|0.698
91071474|NCT01011465|182028473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.42||||0.43||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis states that both groups will have similar PANAS negative affect score change in response to stress.||||0.43
91071475|NCT01011465|182028473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.96||||0.08||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis states that both groups will have similar PANAS negative affect score change in response to stress.||||0.08
91071476|NCT01011465|182028473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.64||||0.25||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis states that both groups will have similar PANAS negative affect score change in response to stress.||||0.25
91071477|NCT01011465|182028474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.83||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis states that both groups had similar threat/challenge scores during the speech task.||||0.83
91071478|NCT01011465|182028474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.56||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis states that both groups had similar threat/challenge scores during the speech task.||||0.56
91071479|NCT01011465|182028474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.95||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis states that both groups had similar threat/challenge scores during the speech task.||||0.95
91071480|NCT02217410|182028488|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.095||||0.8976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.067|0.263|||Bayesian posterior probability|Posterior probability that the composite efficacy failure difference between CFZ533 and Tac is \< 20%.|Month 3|||0.263|-0.067|0.8976
91071481|NCT02217410|182028488|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.093||||0.8836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.084|0.271|||Bayesian posterior probability|Posterior probability that the composite efficacy failure difference between CFZ533 and Tac is \< 20%.|Month 6|||0.271|-0.084|0.8836
91071482|NCT02217410|182028488|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.093||||0.8822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.085|0.272|||Bayesian posterior probability|Posterior probability that the composite efficacy failure difference between CFZ533 and Tac is \< 20%.|Month 9|||0.272|-0.085|0.8822
91071483|NCT02217410|182028488|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.093||||0.8821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.087|0.273|||Bayesian posterior probability|Posterior probability that the composite efficacy failure difference between CFZ533 and Tac is \< 20%.|Month 12|||0.273|-0.087|0.8821
91071484|NCT00626821|182028496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.813|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.133|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.553|2.073|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.073|1.553|<0.0001
91071485|NCT03514485|182028568|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.25||||||Linear mixed effects models were then used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to Asthma Control. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.||0.25|-0.34|
91071486|NCT03514485|182028568|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.18||||||Linear mixed effects models were then used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to Asthma Control. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the COVID-19 pandemic.||0.18|-0.34|
91071487|NCT03514485|182028568|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.04||||||Linear mixed effects models were then used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to Asthma Control. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the COVID-19 pandemic.||0.04|-0.48|
91071488|NCT03514485|182028568|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.9||||||Linear mixed effects models were then used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to Asthma Control. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the COVID-19 pandemic.||0.9|-0.44|
91071489|NCT03514485|182028568|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.09||||||Linear mixed effects models were then used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to Asthma Control. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the COVID-19 pandemic.||0.09|-0.36|
91071490|NCT03514485|182028569|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.55||||||Mixed-effects generalized linear model with binomial family (n=14) was used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to Daytime Symptoms. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.||0.55|-0.39|
91071491|NCT03514485|182028569|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.88||||||Mixed-effects generalized linear model with binomial family (n=14) was used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to Daytime Symptoms. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.||0.88|0.04|
91071492|NCT03514485|182028569|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.23||||||Mixed-effects generalized linear model with binomial family (n=14) was used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to Daytime Symptoms. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.||-0.23|-1.06|
91071493|NCT03514485|182028569|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|-0.67||||||Mixed-effects generalized linear model with binomial family (n=14) was used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to Daytime Symptoms. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.||-0.67|-1.39|
91071494|NCT03514485|182028569|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.18||||||Mixed-effects generalized linear model with binomial family (n=14) was used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to Daytime Symptoms. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.||-0.18|-0.95|
91071495|NCT03514485|182028570|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.28||||||Mixed-effects generalized linear model with binomial family (n=14) was used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to Nighttime Symptoms. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.||0.28|-0.53|
91071496|NCT03514485|182028570|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.26||||||Mixed-effects generalized linear model with binomial family (n=14) was used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to Nighttime Symptoms. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.||0.26|-0.45|
91071497|NCT03514485|182028570|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.1||||||Mixed-effects generalized linear model with binomial family (n=14) was used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to Nighttime Symptoms. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.||0.10|-0.60|
91071498|NCT03514485|182028570|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.01||||||Mixed-effects generalized linear model with binomial family (n=14) was used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to Nighttime Symptoms. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.||0.01|-0.57|
91071499|NCT03514485|182028570|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.04||||||Mixed-effects generalized linear model with binomial family (n=14) was used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to Nighttime Symptoms. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.||-0.04|-0.72|
91071500|NCT03514485|182028571|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|4.19||||||Mixed-effects generalized linear model with binomial family (n=number of school-days \[varies per child\]) was used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to school absences. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.||4.19|0.58|
91071501|NCT03514485|182028571|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.54|6.43||||||Mixed-effects generalized linear model with binomial family (n=number of school-days \[varies per child\]) was used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to school absences. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.||6.43|2.54|
91071502|NCT03514485|182028571|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|0.84||||||Mixed-effects generalized linear model with binomial family (n=number of school-days \[varies per child\]) was used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to school absences. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.||0.84|-2.78|
91071503|NCT03514485|182028571|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.03|-1.12||||||Mixed-effects generalized linear model with binomial family (n=number of school-days \[varies per child\]) was used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to school absences. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.||-1.12|-5.03|
91071504|NCT03514485|182028571|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|3.31||||||Mixed-effects generalized linear model with binomial family (n=number of school-days \[varies per child\]) was used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to school absences. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.||3.31|-0.48|
91071505|NCT03514485|182028572|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.54||||||Mixed-effects negative binomial models were used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to number of ED visits. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.||0.54|-0.19|
91071506|NCT03514485|182028572|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.35||||||Mixed-effects negative binomial models were used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to number of ED visits. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.||0.35|-0.28|
91071507|NCT03514485|182028572|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.01||||||Mixed-effects negative binomial models were used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to number of ED visits. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.||-0.01|-0.68|
91071508|NCT03514485|182028572|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.08||||||Mixed-effects negative binomial models were used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to number of ED visits. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.||0.08|-0.48|
91071509|NCT03514485|182028572|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.14||||||Mixed-effects negative binomial models were used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to number of ED visits. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.||0.14|-0.48|
91071510|NCT03514485|182028573|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.29||||||Mixed-effects negative binomial models were used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to number of hospitalizations. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.||0.29|-0.11|
91071511|NCT03514485|182028573|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.34||||||Mixed-effects negative binomial models were used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to number of hospitalizations. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.||0.34|-0.03|
91071512|NCT03514485|182028573|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.001|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.18||||||Mixed-effects negative binomial models were used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to number of hospitalizations. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.||0.18|-0.19|
91071513|NCT03514485|182028573|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.09||||||Mixed-effects negative binomial models were used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to number of hospitalizations. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.||0.09|-0.23|
91071514|NCT03514485|182028573|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.26||||||Mixed-effects negative binomial models were used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to number of hospitalizations. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.||0.26|-0.09|
91071515|NCT03514485|182028574|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.65||||||Mixed-effects linear models with random intercepts for school and child were used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to QOL emotional functioning domain. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.||0.65|0.00|
91071516|NCT03514485|182028574|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.45||||||Mixed-effects linear models with random intercepts for school and child were used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to QOL emotional functioning domain. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.||0.45|-0.12|
91071517|NCT03514485|182028574|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.18||||||Mixed-effects linear models with random intercepts for school and child were used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to QOL emotional functioning domain. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.||0.18|-0.40|
91071518|NCT03514485|182028574|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.29||||||Mixed-effects linear models with random intercepts for school and child were used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to QOL emotional functioning domain. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.||0.29|-0.20|
91071519|NCT03514485|182028574|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.5||||||Mixed-effects linear models with random intercepts for school and child were used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to QOL emotional functioning domain. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.||0.50|-0.08|
91071520|NCT03514485|182028575|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.69||||||Mixed-effects linear models with random intercepts for school and child were used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to QOL activity limitations domain. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.||0.69|-0.19|
91071521|NCT03514485|182028575|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.63||||||Mixed-effects linear models with random intercepts for school and child were used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to QOL activity limitations domain. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.||0.63|-0.14|
91071522|NCT03514485|182028575|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.3||||||Mixed-effects linear models with random intercepts for school and child were used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to QOL activity limitations domain. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.||0.30|-0.49|
91071523|NCT03514485|182028575|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.24||||||Mixed-effects linear models with random intercepts for school and child were used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to QOL activity limitations domain. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.||0.24|-0.43|
91071524|NCT03514485|182028575|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.54||||||Mixed-effects linear models with random intercepts for school and child were used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to QOL activity limitations domain. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.||0.54|-0.24|
91071525|NCT03075891|182028579|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.032|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.032
91071526|NCT00926848|182028633|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.0|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>.05
91071527|NCT00926848|182028634|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.6|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>.05
91071528|NCT00926848|182028635|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>.05
90827630|NCT02152631|181529992|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Change Difference|0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|1.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyzed by Type 3 sums of squares, model covariates included Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Baseline.||Diarrhea||1.15|0.03|0.038
91071529|NCT00926848|182028636|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>.05
91071530|NCT00926848|182028637|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>.05
91071531|NCT00926848|182028638|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>.05
91071532|NCT01551264|182028639|OTHER|P-value by chi-square comparing the Kaplan-Meier recurrence-free survival probability at 1.2 years post treatment with robust estimate of standard error due to the a priori assumption that data from bilateral limbs are correlated.||||||0.03|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.03
91071533|NCT03482453|182028647|EQUIVALENCE|A linear mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed parameters was performed with regimen, sequence and period as a fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as a random effect. The least square means (LS means) for the log-transformed parameters were exponentiated to obtain the point estimates and 90 percent (%) Confidence Intervals (CIs) of the geometric LS mean ratio on the original scale.|Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.881|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7108|1.0921||||||||1.0921|0.7108|
91071534|NCT03482453|182028647|EQUIVALENCE|A linear mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed parameters was performed with regimen, sequence and period as a fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as a random effect. The LS means for the log-transformed parameters were exponentiated to obtain the point estimates and 90% CIs of the geometric LS mean ratio on the original scale.|Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.9637|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8361|1.1107||||||||1.1107|0.8361|
91071535|NCT03482453|182028648|EQUIVALENCE|A linear mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed parameters was performed with regimen, sequence and period as a fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as a random effect. The LS means for the log-transformed parameters were exponentiated to obtain the point estimates and 90% CIs of the geometric LS mean ratio on the original scale.|Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.9317|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8458|1.0263||||||||1.0263|0.8458|
91071536|NCT03482453|182028653|EQUIVALENCE|A linear mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed parameters was performed with regimen, sequence and period as a fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as a random effect. The LS means for the log-transformed parameters were exponentiated to obtain the point estimates and 90% CIs of the geometric LS mean ratio on the original scale.|Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.0153|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8977|1.1483||||||||1.1483|0.8977|
91071537|NCT03482453|182028653|EQUIVALENCE|A linear mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed parameters was performed with regimen, sequence and period as a fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as a random effect. The LS means for the log-transformed parameters were exponentiated to obtain the point estimates and 90% CIs of the geometric LS mean ratio on the original scale.|Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.9506|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.874|1.0339||||||||1.0339|0.8740|
91071538|NCT03482453|182028654|EQUIVALENCE|A linear mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed parameters was performed with regimen, sequence and period as a fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as a random effect. The LS means for the log-transformed parameters were exponentiated to obtain the point estimates and 90% CIs of the geometric LS mean ratio on the original scale.|Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.9603|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8861|1.0408||||||||1.0408|0.8861|
91071539|NCT04740827|182028697|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.426|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.27|-1.59|||MMRM||MMRM=baseline monthly migraine days as covariate, treatment group, visit, region and number of classes of failed prior treatments as fixed factors; treatment group and baseline-by-visit as interaction terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix.|||-1.59|-3.27|<0.0001
91071540|NCT04740827|182028698|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.425|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.19|-1.52|||MMRM||MMRM=baseline monthly migraine days as covariate, treatment group, visit, region and number of classes of failed prior treatments as fixed factors; treatment group and baseline-by-visit as interaction terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix.|||-1.52|-3.19|<0.0001
91071541|NCT04740827|182028699|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.02|8.79|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio and p-value are based on logistic regression with treatment group, region, baseline monthly migraine days, and number of classes of failed prior prophylactic treatments (2 and \>2) as explanatory variables.|||8.79|3.02|<0.0001
91071542|NCT04740827|182028700|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.85|8.14|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio and p-value are based on logistic regression with treatment group, region, baseline monthly migraine days, and number of classes of failed prior prophylactic treatments (2 and \>2) as explanatory variables.|||8.14|2.85|<0.0001
91071543|NCT04740827|182028701|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.15|-1.42|||MMRM||MMRM=baseline as covariate, treatment group, visit, region, number of classes of failed prior treatments, number of migraine days during baseline period as fixed factors; treatment group and baseline-by-visit with an unstructured covariance matrix.|||-1.42|-3.15|<0.0001
91071544|NCT04740827|182028702|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.439|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.05|-1.32|||MMRM||MMRM=baseline as covariate, treatment group, visit, region, number of classes of failed prior treatments, number of migraine days during baseline period as fixed factors; treatment group and baseline-by-visit with an unstructured covariance matrix.|||-1.32|-3.05|<0.0001
91071545|NCT04740827|182028703|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.381|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.43|-1.93|||MMRM||MMRM=baseline as covariate, treatment group, visit, region, number of classes of failed prior treatments, number of migraine days during baseline period as fixed factors; treatment group and baseline-by-visit with an unstructured covariance matrix.|||-1.93|-3.43|<0.0001
91071546|NCT04740827|182028704|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.36|-1.86|||MMRM||MMRM=baseline as covariate, treatment group, visit, region, number of classes of failed prior treatments, number of migraine days during baseline period as fixed factors; treatment group and baseline-by-visit with an unstructured covariance matrix.|||-1.86|-3.36|<0.0001
91071547|NCT04740827|182028705|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|17.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.348|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.05|22.3|||MMRM||MMRM=baseline as covariate, treatment group, visit, region, number of classes of failed prior treatments, number of migraine days during baseline period as fixed factors; treatment group and baseline-by-visit with an unstructured covariance matrix.|||22.30|13.05|<0.0001
91071548|NCT04740827|182028706|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|17.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.308|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.34|22.42|||MMRM||MMRM=baseline as covariate, treatment group, visit, region, number of classes of failed prior treatments, number of migraine days during baseline period as fixed factors; treatment group and baseline-by-visit with an unstructured covariance matrix.|||22.42|13.34|<0.0001
91071549|NCT04740827|182028707|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.844|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.37|-3.05|||MMRM||MMRM=baseline as covariate, treatment group, visit, region, number of classes of failed prior treatments, number of migraine days during baseline period as fixed factors; treatment group and baseline-by-visit with an unstructured covariance matrix.|||-3.05|-6.37|<0.0001
91071550|NCT04740827|182028708|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.786|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.94|-2.85|||MMRM||MMRM=baseline as covariate, treatment group, visit, region, number of classes of failed prior treatments, number of migraine days during baseline period as fixed factors; treatment group and baseline-by-visit with an unstructured covariance matrix.|||-2.85|-5.94|<0.0001
90827631|NCT02152631|181529992|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Change Difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.94|-1.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyzed by Type 3 sums of squares, model covariates included Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Baseline.||Rash||-1.86|-2.94|<.001
91071551|NCT04740827|182028709|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.912|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.22|-4.63|||MMRM||MMRM=baseline monthly migraine days as covariate, treatment group, visit, region and number of classes of failed prior treatments as fixed factors; treatment group and baseline-by-visit as interaction terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix.|||-4.63|-8.22|<0.0001
91071552|NCT02461524|182028726|OTHER||Percentage|2.9|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5||8.7|||Exact binomial test|||"The primary safety endpoint was tested against a predetermined safety Performance Goal (PG) using the following statistical hypotheses:~H0: p ≥ 20% vs. H1: p \< 20% where p is the proportion of subjects experiencing a Major Adverse Event (MAE) within 30 days of the index procedure in the target population of subjects treated with the Endurant Evo Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm (AAA) Stent graft system and 20% is the safety PG."||8.7||<0.001
91071553|NCT02461524|182028727|OTHER|Single-arm study with a hypothesis test comparing to performance goal|Percentage|100.0||||0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|95.8||||Based on exact binomial distribution|||"The primary effectiveness endpoint was tested against a predetermined effectiveness PG using following statistical hypotheses:~H0: q ≤ 80% vs. H1: q \> 80% where q is the proportion of subjects who have a successful aneurysm treatment in the target population of subjects treated with the Endurant Evo AAA Stent graft system and 80% is the effectiveness PG."|||95.8|0.001
91071554|NCT02278939|182028793|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||This was an intention to treat analysis using the Tukey-Kramer adjustment to account for unequal group sample sizes|ANOVA|||Hypothesis: the intervention group will have a significantly greater reduction in weight (kg) compared to the control from baseline to 3-months||||0.003
91071555|NCT02278939|182028794|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||This was an intention to treat analysis using the Tukey-Kramer adjustment to account for unequal group sample sizes|ANOVA|||Hypothesis: the intervention group will have a statistically greater reduction in percent weight compared to the control from baseline to 3-months||||.001
91071556|NCT02278939|182028795|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||This was an intention to treat analysis using the Tukey-Kramer adjustment to account for differences in group sample sizes|ANOVA|||Hypothesis: the intervention group will have a statistically greater reduction in BMI compared to the control from baseline to 3 months||||.002
91071557|NCT00712881|182028846|OTHER|||||||0.154||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|2-sided, binomial proportions|||||||0.154
91071558|NCT01680861|182028855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.32
91071559|NCT01680861|182028856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.99
91071560|NCT01680861|182028857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Log Rank|||||||1.0
91071561|NCT01680861|182028858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.06
91071562|NCT01680861|182028859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.18
90827632|NCT02152631|181529992|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Change Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyzed by Type 3 sums of squares, model covariates included Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Baseline.||Mean Core Symptom Severity||0.08|-0.56|0.142
91071563|NCT01680861|182028860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.65
91071564|NCT01683266|182028950|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Stepwise closed testing approach was used to assess non-inferiority and superiority sequentially:~1. Non-inferiority of HOE901-U300 vs Lantus: Upper bound of two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of difference between HOE901-U300 and Lantus on mITT population is \<0.4%.~2. Superiority (only if non-inferiority has been demonstrated): Upper bound of two-sided 95% CI for difference in mean change in HbA1c from baseline to endpoint between HOE901-U300 and Lantus on mITT population is \<0."|Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.072|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.098|0.185||||||Analysis was performed using mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM) with treatment groups, strata of screening HbA1c (\<8.0, \>=8.0%), geographical region (Non-Japan; Japan), visit and visit-by-treatment groups interaction as fixed categorical effects; baseline HbA1c and baseline HbA1c-by-visit interaction as continuous fixed covariates.||0.185|-0.098|
91071565|NCT01683266|182028953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.322|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.982|0.287||||||Change in pre-injection SMPG was analyzed using MMRM model with treatment groups, strata of screening HbA1c (\<8.0, \>=8.0%), geographical region (Non-Japan; Japan), visit and visit-by-treatment groups interaction as fixed categorical effects; pre-injection SMPG value and pre-injection SMPG value-by-visit interaction as continuous fixed covariates.||0.287|-0.982|
90827633|NCT02152631|181529992|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Change Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyzed by Type 3 sums of square, model covariates included Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Baseline.||Mean Interference||0.30|-0.59|0.514
90827634|NCT02152631|181529992|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Change Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyzed by Type 3 sums of squares, model covariates included Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Baseline.||Mean Lung Cancer||0.23|-0.37|0.646
91071566|NCT00090220|182028996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Relative Risk Reduction|88.7||||||95.0|78.1|94.8|||||Confidence Interval based on binomial tail probabilities and not from a dispersion parameter.|||94.8|78.1|
91071567|NCT00090220|182029022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Relative Risk Reduction|94.8||||||95.0|79.9|99.4|||||Confidence Interval based on binomial tail probabilities and not from a dispersion parameter.|||99.4|79.9|
91071568|NCT00090220|182029030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Relative Risk Reduction|84.7||||||95.0|67.5|93.7|||||Confidence Interval based on binomial tail probabilities and not from a dispersion parameter.|||93.7|67.5|
91071569|NCT01471340|182029045|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The projected sample size provided 90% power at a 2.5% alpha level (one-sided) to determine non-inferiority of MF/F and MF. For analysis of the first SAO in participants, MF/F MDI BID was considered non-inferior to MF MDI BID if the upper bound for the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the hazard ratio (HR) of MF/F MDI BID versus MF MDI BID was lower than 2.0 (noninferiority margin).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.22||||0.411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.94|||Cox proportional-hazard model||The HR and 95% CI were based on the Cox proportional-hazard model with covariates of treatment (MF/F or MF) and ICS dose level (200 or 400 mcg).|Pertains only to the First SAO; pooled MF/F treatments and pooled MF treatments||1.94|0.76|0.411
91071570|NCT01471340|182029046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.98|||Cox proportional-hazard model|Superiority of MF/F MDI BID vs MF MDI BID was determined if the HR was less than 1 and achieved statistical significance (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|The HR and 95% CI were based on the Cox proportional-hazard model with covariates of treatment (MF/F or MF) and ICS dose level (200 or 400 mcg).|Pertains only to the First SAEX; pooled MF/F treatments and pooled MF treatments||0.98|0.80|0.021
91071571|NCT03452488|182029048|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2437|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of data collected from baseline to 6 months, or baseline to 9 months due to pandemic.||||0.2437
91071572|NCT03452488|182029048|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of data collected from baseline to 6 months, or baseline to 9 months due to pandemic||||0.2000
91071573|NCT03452488|182029048|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Adjusted Bayesian Imputation|||Analysis of data collected from baseline to 6 months, or baseline to 9 months due to pandemic based on adjusted Bayesian Imputation||||0.3240
91071574|NCT03452488|182029048|SUPERIORITY|Gait Speed Based on Adjusted Bayesian Imputation||||||0.5123|||||||Adjusted Bayesian Imputation|||Analysis of data collected from baseline to 6 months, or baseline to 9 months due to pandemic based on adjusted Bayesian Imputation||||0.5123
91071575|NCT03452488|182029048|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.692|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of data collected from baseline to 6 months, or baseline to 9 months due to pandemic based on MI and Adjusted Bayesian Imputation||||0.6920
91071576|NCT03452488|182029048|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of data collected from baseline to 6 months, or baseline to 9 months due to pandemic based on MI and Adjusted Bayesian Imputation||||0.0850
91071577|NCT03452488|182029049|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9408|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of data collected from baseline to 6 months, or baseline to 9 months due to pandemic in Physical Function Domain (PF-10) Sub-score based on Mixed Model Analysis||||0.9408
91071578|NCT03452488|182029049|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of data collected from baseline to 6 months, or baseline to 9 months due to pandemic in Physical Function Domain (PF-10) Sub-score based on Mixed Model Analysis||||0.9485
91071579|NCT03452488|182029049|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9848|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of data collected from baseline to 6 months, or baseline to 9 months due to pandemic in Physical Function Domain (PF-10) Sub-Score Based on Adjusted Bayesian Imputation||||0.9848
91071580|NCT03452488|182029049|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5017|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of data collected from baseline to 6 months, or baseline to 9 months due to pandemic in Physical Function Domain (PF-10) Sub-Score Based on Adjusted Bayesian Imputation||||0.5017
91071581|NCT03452488|182029050|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||ANCOVA|||Analysis of data collected from baseline to 6 months, or baseline to 9 months due to pandemic in Handgrip Strength Test (dominant hand)||||0.5200
91071582|NCT03452488|182029050|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3577|||||||ANCOVA|||Analysis of data collected from baseline to 6 months, or baseline to 9 months due to pandemic in Handgrip Strength Test (dominant hand)||||0.3577
91071583|NCT03452488|182029050|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9237|||||||ANCOVA|||Analysis of data collected from baseline to 6 months, or baseline to 9 months due to pandemic in Handgrip Strength Test at Month 6 Based on Multiple Imputation (dominant hand)||||0.9237
91071584|NCT03452488|182029050|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7629|||||||ANCOVA|||Analysis of data collected from baseline to 6 months, or baseline to 9 months due to pandemic in Handgrip Strength Test at Month 6 Based on Multiple Imputation (dominant hand)||||0.7629
91071585|NCT03452488|182029050|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5695|||||||ANCOVA|||Analysis of data collected from baseline to 6 months, or baseline to 9 months due to pandemic in Change from Baseline in Handgrip Strength Test (left hand)||||0.5695
91071586|NCT03452488|182029050|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3523|||||||ANCOVA|||Analysis of data collected from baseline to 6 months, or baseline to 9 months due to pandemic in Handgrip Strength Test (Left hand)||||0.3523
91071587|NCT03452488|182029050|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5652|||||||ANCOVA|||Analysis of data collected from baseline to 6 months, or baseline to 9 months due to pandemic in Handgrip Strength Test (Right hand)||||0.5652
91071588|NCT03452488|182029050|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2472|||||||ANCOVA|||Analysis of data collected from baseline to 6 months, or baseline to 9 months due to pandemic in Handgrip Strength Test (Right hand)||||0.2472
91071589|NCT03452488|182029051|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9859||||||Statistical Analysis of Change from Baseline in ALM|ANCOVA|||||||0.9859
91071590|NCT03452488|182029051|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.404|||||||ANCOVA|||Statistical Analysis of Change from Baseline in ALM||||0.4040
91071591|NCT03452488|182029052|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1219|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.1219
91071592|NCT03452488|182029052|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.0520
91071593|NCT03452488|182029053|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8917|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.8917
91071594|NCT03452488|182029053|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.999|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.2172||0.6317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.777|16.778|||ANCOVA|||||16.778|-26.777|0.6317
91071595|NCT03452488|182029054|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3762|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.3762
91071596|NCT03452488|182029054|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0543|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0543
91071597|NCT03452488|182029055|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8824|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.8824
91071598|NCT03452488|182029055|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1578|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1578
91071599|NCT03452488|182029056|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0511|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0511
91071600|NCT03452488|182029056|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2771|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2771
91071601|NCT03452488|182029057|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8084|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8084
91071602|NCT03452488|182029057|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7266|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7266
91071603|NCT03452488|182029058|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2312|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2312
91071604|NCT03452488|182029058|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2701|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2701
91071605|NCT03452488|182029059|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8934|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.8934
91071606|NCT03452488|182029059|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3526|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3526
91071607|NCT03315286|182029060|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.8
91071608|NCT03315286|182029061|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
91071609|NCT03315286|182029062|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline results are reported here.||||0.6
91071610|NCT03315286|182029062|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||6 month data is reported here||||0.3
91071611|NCT03315286|182029063|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline data is reported here.||||0.2
91071612|NCT03315286|182029063|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||6 month data is reported here||||0.4
91071613|NCT03315286|182029064|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||baseline data is reported here||||0.07
91071614|NCT03315286|182029064|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||6 month data is reported here||||0.0002
91071615|NCT02989649|182029140|OTHER||Least Square Mean (LSM)|-1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.098|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|-1.05|||Regression, Linear||The LSM and CI are from Mixed effect Model Repeat Measurement (MMRM) model, that used visit as a predictor and baseline value as a covariate. For change from baseline, covariance structure=Unstructured.|Statistical analysis for data at Baseline compared to the data at Month 6||-1.05|-1.44|<0.001
91071616|NCT02989649|182029141|OTHER|||||||0.423|||||||Regression, Linear|||Statistical analysis for subgroup: Prior therapy of diabetes mellitus, Ever used or Never used||||0.423
91071617|NCT02989649|182029141|OTHER|||||||0.747|||||||Regression, Linear|||Statistical analysis for subgroup: Sex, Male or Female||||0.747
91071618|NCT02989649|182029141|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|||Statistical analysis for subgroup: Age, \<45 or \>=45 to \<65 years or \>=65 years||||<0.001
91071619|NCT02989649|182029141|OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||Regression, Linear|||Statistical analysis for subgroup: Cardiovascular risk group, Yes or No||||0.990
91071620|NCT02989649|182029141|OTHER|||||||0.841|||||||Regression, Linear|||Statistical analysis for subgroup: Therapy type, Monotherapy or Combined therapy||||0.841
91071621|NCT02989649|182029141|OTHER|||||||0.847|||||||Regression, Linear|||Statistical analysis for subgroup: Baseline BMI, \<25 or 25 to \<30 or \>=30 kg/m\^2||||0.847
91071622|NCT02989649|182029141|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|||Statistical analysis for subgroup: Initial glycemic control, \<7% or \>=7%||||<0.001
91071623|NCT02989649|182029144|OTHER||Least Square Mean (LSM)|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|-0.62|||||The LSM and CI are from Mixed effect Model Repeat Measurement (MMRM) model, that used visit as a predictor and baseline value as a covariate. For change from baseline, covariance structure=Unstructured.|Statistical analysis for data at Baseline compared to the data at Month 3||-0.62|-1.29|
91071624|NCT02989649|182029144|OTHER||Least Square Mean (LSM)|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.245|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|-0.39|||||The LSM and CI are from Mixed effect Model Repeat Measurement (MMRM) model, that used visit as a predictor and baseline value as a covariate. For change from baseline, covariance structure=Unstructured.|Statistical analysis for data at Baseline compared to the data at Month 6||-0.39|-1.36|
91071625|NCT02989649|182029145|OTHER||Least Square Mean (LSM)|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.117|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|-0.72|||||The LSM and CI are from Mixed effect Model Repeat Measurement (MMRM) model, that used visit as a predictor and baseline value as a covariate. For change from baseline, covariance structure=Unstructured.|Statistical analysis for data at Baseline compared to the data at Month 3||-0.72|-1.18|
90827635|NCT02152631|181529992|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Change Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyzed by Type 3 sums of squares, model covariates included Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Baseline.||Mean Core Plus Lung Cancer||0.10|-0.51|0.188
90827636|NCT02152631|181529994|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Change Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyzed By Type 3 sums of squares, Change from Baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Baseline.||||0.05|-0.05|0.951
91071626|NCT02989649|182029145|OTHER||Least Square Mean|-1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.098|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|-1.05|||||The LSM and CI are from Mixed effect Model Repeat Measurement (MMRM) model, that used visit as a predictor and baseline value as a covariate. For change from baseline, covariance structure=Unstructured.|Statistical analysis for data at Baseline compared to the data at Month 6||-1.05|-1.44|
91071627|NCT00281632|182029159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Reponse rate|31.0||||||95.0|16.3|48.1|||||50% Response Rate (Normalized and Non-Normalized)|||48.1|16.3|
91071628|NCT00281632|182029163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response rate|17.6||||||95.0|3.8|43.4|||||Response rate (CR+PR)|||43.4|3.8|
91071629|NCT00281632|182029163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response rate|21.1||||||95.0|6.1|45.6|||||Response rate (CR+PR)|||45.6|6.1|
90827637|NCT03776747|181529999|OTHER|Analysis of variance between lung inflation levels|||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||We hypothesized that the anisotropic deformation index (ADC) is dependent upon lung inflation level. (Thus, it is important to standardize lung inflation when using this method)||||<0.001
90827638|NCT03507036|181530097|OTHER||||||||||||||||||A paired t-test was performed for skin lab measurement and biopsies.|||
90827639|NCT02412098|181530102|OTHER||Geometric Least Square Mean (GLSM) Ratio|73.54|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|41.92|129.01|||||A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio of AUCinf in the hepatic impairment group versus matched control.|An analysis of variance (ANOVA) appropriate for a parallel design was fit to the natural logarithmic transformation of eleclazine AUCinf.||129.01|41.92|
91071630|NCT00281632|182029163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response rate|19.4||||||95.0|8.2|36.0|||||Response rate (CR+PR)|||36.0|8.2|
91071631|NCT00732758|182029234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|adjusting for baseline 25(OH)D, race, BMI, diet vitamin D, gender, pubertal status, and sunlight exposure.||||||0.003
91071632|NCT00732758|182029235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|unadjusted p-values||||||0.51
91071633|NCT00732758|182029236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.66
91071634|NCT00732758|182029237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.35
91071635|NCT00373958|182029238|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|-3.6||||||95.0|-7.3|-0.1||||||For serotype 4 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||-0.1|-7.3|
91071636|NCT00373958|182029238|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|-5.5||||||95.0|-10.9|-0.1||||||For serotype 6B the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||-0.1|-10.9|
91071637|NCT00373958|182029238|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|-7.9||||||95.0|-12.4|-4.0||||||For serotype 9V the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||-4.0|-12.4|
91071638|NCT00373958|182029238|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|0.4||||||95.0|-2.7|3.5||||||For serotype 14 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||3.5|-2.7|
91071639|NCT00373958|182029238|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|-1.6||||||95.0|-4.7|1.2||||||For serotype 18C the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||1.2|-4.7|
91071640|NCT00373958|182029238|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|0.4||||||95.0|-2.4|3.4||||||For serotype 19F the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||3.4|-2.4|
91071641|NCT00373958|182029238|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|-3.6||||||95.0|-8.5|1.2||||||For serotype 23F the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||1.2|-8.5|
91071642|NCT00373958|182029239|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.68||||||95.0|0.57|0.8||||||For serotype 4 the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||0.80|0.57|
91071643|NCT00373958|182029239|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.74||||||95.0|0.61|0.89||||||For serotype 6B the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||0.89|0.61|
91071644|NCT00373958|182029239|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.72||||||95.0|0.62|0.85||||||For serotype 9V the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||0.85|0.62|
91071645|NCT00373958|182029239|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.72||||||95.0|0.6|0.86||||||For serotype 14 the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||0.86|0.60|
91071646|NCT00373958|182029239|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.68||||||95.0|0.57|0.81||||||For serotype 18C the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||0.81|0.57|
91071647|NCT00373958|182029239|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|1.18||||||95.0|0.98|1.41||||||For serotype 19F the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.41|0.98|
91071648|NCT00373958|182029239|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.65||||||95.0|0.54|0.78||||||For serotype 23F the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||0.78|0.54|
91071649|NCT00373958|182029240|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was \> -10%.|Difference|0.1||||||95.0|-2.9|3.1||||||For Haemophilus influenzae type b the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.15μg/mL threshold was calculated.||3.1|-2.9|
91071650|NCT00373958|182029240|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was \> -10%.|Difference|-0.6||||||95.0|-8.3|7.0||||||For Haemophilus influenzae type b the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 1.0 μg/mL threshold was calculated.||7.0|-8.3|
91071651|NCT00373958|182029240|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was \> -10%.|Difference|-0.4||||||95.0|-4.3|3.5||||||For diphtheria toxoid the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.1 IU/mL threshold was calculated.||3.5|-4.3|
91071652|NCT00373958|182029240|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was \> -10%.|Difference|1.7||||||95.0|-2.1|5.6||||||For Pertussis FHA the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 40.5 EU/mL threshold was calculated.||5.6|-2.1|
91071653|NCT00373958|182029240|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was \> -10%.|Difference|-0.9||||||95.0|-5.2|3.4||||||For Pertussis PT the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 16.5 EU/mL threshold was calculated.||3.4|-5.2|
91071654|NCT00373958|182029240|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was \> -10%.|Difference|-2.1||||||95.0|-6.4|2.0||||||For Pertussis PRN the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 26 EU/mL threshold was calculated.||2.0|-6.4|
91071655|NCT00373958|182029241|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-1.6|1.7||||||For Haemophilus influenzae type b the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.15μg/mL threshold was calculated.||1.7|-1.6|
91071656|NCT00373958|182029241|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|-1.6||||||95.0|-7.1|3.8||||||For Haemophilus influenzae type b the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 1.0μg/mL threshold was calculated.||3.8|-7.1|
91071657|NCT00373958|182029241|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -5%.|Difference|-0.8||||||95.0|-4.5|2.9||||||For Measles the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at ≥1.10 I.V. threshold was calculated.||2.9|-4.5|
91071658|NCT00373958|182029241|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -5%.|Difference|3.6||||||95.0|-4.7|11.9||||||For Mumps the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at ≥1.10 I.V. threshold was calculated.||11.9|-4.7|
91071659|NCT00373958|182029241|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -5%.|Difference|1.2||||||95.0|-4.4|6.9||||||For Rubella the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at ≥15 IU/mL threshold was calculated.||6.9|-4.4|
91071660|NCT00373958|182029241|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|4.8||||||95.0|-3.4|13.0||||||For Varicella the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at ≥1.09 I.V. threshold was calculated.||13.0|-3.4|
91071661|NCT00373958|182029242|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.94||||||95.0|0.75|1.17||||||For Haemophilus influenzae type b (PRP) the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.17|0.75|
91071662|NCT00373958|182029243|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.08||||||For Measles the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.08|0.85|
91071663|NCT00373958|182029243|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.14||||||For Mumps the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.14|0.87|
91071664|NCT00373958|182029243|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.1||||||For Varicella the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.10|0.92|
91071665|NCT00373958|182029244|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.0||||||For Rubella the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.00|0.62|
91071666|NCT01552915|182029249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Mean|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15||0.0717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|0.2|||mixed effects model for repeated measure|||||0.2|-4.3|0.0717
91071667|NCT01552915|182029249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Mean|-12.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.1|-9.4|||mixed effects model for repeated measure|||||-9.4|-15.1|<0.0001
91071668|NCT01552915|182029249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Mean|-10.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.43|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|-7.3|||mixed effects model for repeated measure|||||-7.3|-13.0|<0.0001
91071669|NCT01552915|182029250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6165|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.6165
90827640|NCT02412098|181530102|OTHER||GLSM Ratio (%)|127.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|73.57|222.01|||||A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio of AUCinf in the hepatic impairment group versus matched control.|An analysis of variance (ANOVA) appropriate for a parallel design was fit to the natural logarithmic transformation of eleclazine AUCinf.||222.01|73.57|
91071670|NCT01552915|182029250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91071671|NCT01552915|182029250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91071672|NCT01777568|182029254|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.14|||GEE model||Relative Risk: 80% (numerator) vs. 30% (denominator)|||1.14|0.85|0.85
91071673|NCT01777568|182029255|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.8||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.01|||Chi-squared|||||1.01|0.66|0.047
91071674|NCT00282113|182029272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.5||95.0|||||Mixed-effects regression|||||||>0.5
91071675|NCT00282113|182029273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.06
91071676|NCT00282113|182029274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
91071677|NCT03382834|182029276|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||t-test, 1 sided|The hypothesis was that tamoxifen would enhance the HIV transcription effect of vorinostat (i.e., log10 change would be greater in Arm A than Arm B)||||||0.68
91071678|NCT03382834|182029278|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.73
91071679|NCT02120833|182029302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|One-sample t-test|Adjusted by study site.||The null hypothesis was no difference versus baseline. The alternative hypothesis was a difference versus baseline.||||<0.0001
91071680|NCT02120833|182029302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.436|TWO_SIDED|||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|One-sample t-test|Adjusted by study site.||The null hypothesis was no difference versus baseline. The alternative hypothesis was a difference versus baseline.||||0.4360
91071681|NCT02120833|182029302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|0.01||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and study site as factors, baseline score as covariate.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.01|-2.51|0.0510
91071682|NCT02120833|182029303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|One-sample t-test|Adjusted by study site.||The null hypothesis was no difference versus baseline. The alternative hypothesis was a difference versus baseline.||||0.0004
91071683|NCT02120833|182029303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0213|TWO_SIDED|||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|One-sample t-test|Adjusted by study site.||The null hypothesis was no difference versus baseline. The alternative hypothesis was a difference versus baseline.||||0.0213
91071684|NCT02120833|182029303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.7698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.37|||ANCOVA|The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.37|-0.50|0.7698
91071685|NCT02120833|182029304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|One-sample t-test|Adjusted by study site.||The null hypothesis was no difference versus baseline. The alternative hypothesis was a difference versus baseline.||||0.0003
91071686|NCT02120833|182029304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6063|TWO_SIDED|||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|One-sample t-test|Adjusted by study site.||The null hypothesis was no difference versus baseline. The alternative hypothesis was a difference versus baseline.||||0.6063
91071687|NCT02120833|182029304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.3686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|0.48||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and study site as factors, baseline score as covariate.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.48|-1.27|0.3686
91071688|NCT02120833|182029305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|One-sample t-test|Adjusted by study site.||The null hypothesis was no difference versus baseline. The alternative hypothesis was a difference versus baseline.||||<0.0001
91071689|NCT02120833|182029305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6118|TWO_SIDED|||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|One-sample t-test|Adjusted by study site.||The null hypothesis was no difference versus baseline. The alternative hypothesis was a difference versus baseline.||||0.6118
91071690|NCT02120833|182029305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.1485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|0.31||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and study site as factors, baseline score as covariate.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.31|-1.98|0.1485
91071691|NCT02120833|182029306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|One-sample t-test|Adjusted by study site.||The null hypothesis was no difference versus baseline. The alternative hypothesis was a difference versus baseline.||||<0.0001
91071692|NCT02120833|182029306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2447|TWO_SIDED|||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|One-sample t-test|Adjusted by study site.||The null hypothesis was no difference versus baseline. The alternative hypothesis was a difference versus baseline.||||0.2447
91071693|NCT02120833|182029306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67||0.0216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.95|-0.25||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and study site as factors, baseline score as covariate.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||-0.25|-2.95|0.0216
91071694|NCT02120833|182029307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|One-sample t-test|Adjusted by study site.||The null hypothesis was no difference versus baseline. The alternative hypothesis was a difference versus baseline.||||<0.0001
91071695|NCT02120833|182029307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0476|TWO_SIDED|||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|One-sample t-test|Adjusted by study site.||The null hypothesis was no difference versus baseline. The alternative hypothesis was a difference versus baseline.||||0.0476
91071696|NCT02120833|182029307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.2349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|0.64||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and study site as factors, baseline score as covariate.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.64|-2.52|0.2349
91071697|NCT02120833|182029308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7842|TWO_SIDED|||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|One-sample t-test|Adjusted by study site.||The null hypothesis was no difference versus baseline. The alternative hypothesis was a difference versus baseline.||||0.7842
91071698|NCT02120833|182029308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6083|TWO_SIDED|||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|One-sample t-test|Adjusted by study site.||The null hypothesis was no difference versus baseline. The alternative hypothesis was a difference versus baseline.||||0.6083
91071699|NCT02120833|182029308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.3599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.22||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and study site as factors, baseline score as covariate.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.22|-0.08|0.3599
91071700|NCT02120833|182029309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|One-sample t-test|Adjusted by study site.||The null hypothesis was no difference versus baseline. The alternative hypothesis was a difference versus baseline.||||0.0001
91071701|NCT02120833|182029309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0317|TWO_SIDED|||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|One-sample t-test|Adjusted by study site.||The null hypothesis was no difference versus baseline. The alternative hypothesis was a difference versus baseline.||||0.0317
91071702|NCT02120833|182029309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.8037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.33||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and study site as factors, baseline score as covariate.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.33|-0.42|0.8037
90827641|NCT02412098|181530103|OTHER||GLSM Ratio (%)|80.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|45.11|144.79|||||A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio of AUCinf in the hepatic impairment group versus matched control.|ANOVA appropriate for a parallel design was fit to the natural logarithmic transformation of GS-623134 AUCinf.||144.79|45.11|
91071703|NCT02120833|182029310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|One-sample t-test|Adjusted by study site.||The null hypothesis was no difference versus baseline. The alternative hypothesis was a difference versus baseline.||||<0.0001
91071704|NCT02120833|182029310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0244|TWO_SIDED|||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|One-sample t-test|Adjusted by study site.||The null hypothesis was no difference versus baseline. The alternative hypothesis was a difference versus baseline.||||0.0244
91071705|NCT02120833|182029310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.06||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and study site as factors, baseline score as covariate.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.06|-0.80|0.0900
91071706|NCT02120833|182029311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|One-sample t-test|Adjusted by study site.||The null hypothesis was no difference versus baseline. The alternative hypothesis was a difference versus baseline.||||<0.0001
91071707|NCT02120833|182029311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0065|TWO_SIDED|||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|One-sample t-test|Adjusted by study site.||The null hypothesis was no difference versus baseline. The alternative hypothesis was a difference versus baseline.||||0.0065
91071708|NCT02120833|182029311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.1561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|0.16||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and study site as factors, baseline score as covariate.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.16|-0.97|0.1561
91071709|NCT02120833|182029312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|One-sample t-test|Adjusted by study site.||The null hypothesis was no difference versus baseline. The alternative hypothesis was a difference versus baseline.||||<0.0001
91071710|NCT02120833|182029312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|One-sample t-test|Adjusted by study site.||The null hypothesis was no difference versus baseline. The alternative hypothesis was a difference versus baseline.||||0.0049
91071711|NCT02120833|182029312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.71||0.2409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.88|15.07||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and study site as factors, baseline score as covariate.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||15.07|-3.88|0.2409
91071712|NCT02120833|182029313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|One-sample t-test|Adjusted by study site.||The null hypothesis was no difference versus baseline. The alternative hypothesis was a difference versus baseline.||||<0.0001
91071713|NCT02120833|182029313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2386|TWO_SIDED|||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|One-sample t-test|Adjusted by study site.||The null hypothesis was no difference versus baseline. The alternative hypothesis was a difference versus baseline.||||0.2386
91071714|NCT02120833|182029313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.98||0.0241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|17.32||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and study site as factors, baseline score as covariate.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||17.32|1.28|0.0241
91071715|NCT02120833|182029314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|One-sample t-test|Adjusted by study site.||The null hypothesis was no difference versus baseline. The alternative hypothesis was a difference versus baseline.||||<0.0001
91071716|NCT02120833|182029314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0696|TWO_SIDED|||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|One-sample t-test|Adjusted by study site.||The null hypothesis was no difference versus baseline. The alternative hypothesis was a difference versus baseline.||||0.0696
91071717|NCT02120833|182029314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.23||0.0394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|17.52||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and study site as factors, baseline score as covariate.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||17.52|0.46|0.0394
91071718|NCT02120833|182029315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|One-sample t-test|Adjusted by study site.||The null hypothesis was no difference versus baseline. The alternative hypothesis was a difference versus baseline.||||<0.0001
90827642|NCT02412098|181530103|OTHER||GLSM Ratio (%)|73.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|47.83|113.02||ANOVA appropriate for a parallel design was fit to the natural logarithmic transformation of GS-623134 AUCinf.|||A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio of AUCinf in the hepatic impairment group versus matched control.|||113.02|47.83|
91071719|NCT02120833|182029315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0772|TWO_SIDED|||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|One-sample t-test|Adjusted by study site.||The null hypothesis was no difference versus baseline. The alternative hypothesis was a difference versus baseline.||||0.0772
91071720|NCT02120833|182029315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.54||0.0213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|15.63||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and study site as factors, baseline score as covariate.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||15.63|1.33|0.0213
91071721|NCT02120833|182029316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|One-sample t-test|Adjusted by study site.||The null hypothesis was no difference versus baseline. The alternative hypothesis was a difference versus baseline.||||<0.0001
91071722|NCT02120833|182029316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0172|TWO_SIDED|||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|One-sample t-test|Adjusted by study site.||The null hypothesis was no difference versus baseline. The alternative hypothesis was a difference versus baseline.||||0.0172
90827643|NCT02412098|181530104|OTHER||GLSM Ratio (%)|66.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|53.33|83.04|||||A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio of Cmax in the hepatic impairment group versus matched control.|ANOVA appropriate for a parallel design was fit to the natural logarithmic transformation of eleclazine Cmax.||83.04|53.33|
91071723|NCT02120833|182029316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.48||0.1968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.46|11.58||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and study site as factors, baseline score as covariate.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||11.58|-2.46|0.1968
91071724|NCT02120833|182029317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|One-sample t-test|Adjusted by study site.||The null hypothesis was no difference versus baseline. The alternative hypothesis was a difference versus baseline.||||<0.0001
91071725|NCT02120833|182029317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0712|TWO_SIDED|||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|One-sample t-test|Adjusted by study site.||The null hypothesis was no difference versus baseline. The alternative hypothesis was a difference versus baseline.||||0.0712
91071726|NCT02120833|182029317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.34||0.0313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|14.15||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and study site as factors, baseline score as covariate.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||14.15|0.70|0.0313
91071727|NCT02438826|182029377|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.8||||0.334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.77|1.17||Cui, Hung, Wang (CHW) procedure applied|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.17|-2.77|0.334
91071728|NCT02438826|182029378|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.297||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|2.028||Cui, Hung, Wang (CHW) procedure applied|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.028|0.830|0.170
91071729|NCT02438826|182029379|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.946||||||Chui, Hung, Wang (CHW) procedure applied)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.946
91071730|NCT02438826|182029380|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.987|2.309|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.309|0.987|0.057
91071731|NCT02438826|182029381|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.141||||0.713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.563|2.314|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.314|0.563|0.713
91071732|NCT02438826|182029382|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.008||||0.979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.548|1.856|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.856|0.548|0.979
91071733|NCT02438826|182029383|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.788||||0.437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.431|1.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.440|0.431|0.437
91071734|NCT02397122|182029391|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.259|||||||Mann-Whitney|||Baseline||||0.259
91071735|NCT02397122|182029391|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.097|||||||Mann-Whitney|||6 weeks||||0.097
91071736|NCT02397122|182029391|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07||||||\<0.05|Mann-Whitney U|||6 months||||0.070
91071737|NCT02397122|182029392|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.067|||||||Mann-Whitney|||Baseline||||0.067
91071738|NCT02397122|182029392|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Mann-Whitney|||6 weeks||||0.130
91071739|NCT02397122|182029392|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.128||||||\<0.05|Mann-Whitney U|||6 months||||0.128
91071740|NCT02397122|182029393|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.298|||||||Mann-Whitney|||Baseline||||0.298
91071741|NCT02397122|182029393|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.152|||||||Mann-Whitney|||6 weeks||||0.152
91071742|NCT02397122|182029393|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.317||||||\<0.05|Mann-Whitney U|||6 months||||0.317
91071743|NCT02397122|182029394|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.136|||||||Mann-Whitney|||Baseline||||0.136
91071744|NCT02397122|182029394|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.041|||||||Mann-Whitney|||6 weeks||||0.041
91071745|NCT02397122|182029394|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.064||||||\<0.05|Mann-Whitney U|||6 months||||0.064
91071746|NCT02397122|182029395|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.245|||||||Mann-Whitney|||Baseline||||0.245
91071747|NCT02397122|182029395|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.099|||||||Mann-Whitney|||6 weeks||||0.099
91071748|NCT02397122|182029395|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.077|||||||Mann-Whitney U|||||||0.077
91071749|NCT02397122|182029396|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.946|||||||Mann-Whitney|||Baseline||||0.946
91071750|NCT02397122|182029396|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Mann-Whitney|||6 weeks||||0.001
91071751|NCT02397122|182029396|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||\<0.05|Mann-Whitney U|||6 months||||0.001
91071752|NCT01500187|182029402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.636|||||||ANOVA|||Null Hypothesis: there is no intergroup difference (α=0.05) in DIAGNOdent reading at baseline||||0.636
91071753|NCT01500187|182029402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Null Hypothesis: there is no intergroup difference (α=0.05) in DIAGNOdent reading at three months||||0.001
91071754|NCT01500187|182029402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.423|||||||ANOVA|||Null Hypothesis: there is no intergroup difference (α=0.05) in DIAGNOdent reading at six months||||0.423
91071755|NCT02784613|182029403|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||Differences in pre- and post-treatment scores were compared using Wilcoxon signed-rank test for non-parametric matched pairs. All tests of significance were 2-tailed. All analyses were performed in Stata®, version 13.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
91071756|NCT00784550|182029406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91071757|NCT00784550|182029407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91071758|NCT00784550|182029408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.006
91071759|NCT00784550|182029409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91071760|NCT00784550|182029410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91071761|NCT00784550|182029411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.069||95.0||||Mastery domain|ANCOVA|||||||0.069
91071762|NCT00784550|182029411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47||95.0||||Fatigue domain|ANCOVA|||||||0.470
91071763|NCT00784550|182029411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.394||95.0||||Emotional function domain|ANCOVA|||||||0.394
91071764|NCT00784550|182029411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.879||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Dyspnea domain||||||0.879
91071765|NCT02715700|182029412|OTHER|Geometric mean ratio (GMR) of Methadone + Doravirine/Methadone Alone|GMR|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.01||||||||1.01|0.90|
91071766|NCT02715700|182029413|OTHER|GMR of Methadone + Doravirine/Methadone Alone|GMR|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.03||||||||1.03|0.88|
91071767|NCT02715700|182029414|OTHER|GMR of Methadone + Doravirine/Methadone Alone|GMR|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|1.03||||||||1.03|0.93|
91071768|NCT02715700|182029416|OTHER|Geometric mean ratio (GMR) of Methadone + Doravirine/Methadone Alone|GMR|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.06||||||||1.06|0.90|
91071769|NCT02715700|182029417|OTHER|GMR of Methadone + Doravirine/Methadone Alone|GMR|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.86|1.1||||||||1.10|0.86|
91071770|NCT02715700|182029418|OTHER|GMR of Methadone + Doravirine/Methadone Alone|GMR|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.04||||||||1.04|0.91|
91071771|NCT02715700|182029420|OTHER|Geometric mean ratio (GMR) of Methadone + Doravirine/Methadone Alone|GMR|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.03||||||||1.03|0.90|
91071772|NCT02715700|182029421|OTHER|GMR of Methadone + Doravirine/Methadone Alone|GMR|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|1.05||||||||1.05|0.87|
91071773|NCT02715700|182029422|OTHER|GMR of Methadone + Doravirine/Methadone Alone|GMR|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.03||||||||1.03|0.92|
91071774|NCT04166591|182029442|OTHER|The primary statistical analysis involves asking whether children look at the target significantly more than chance levels. Binomial tests are used to see if the number of children who do so is significantly greater than would be expected by chance.|||||<|0.01|||||||binomial test|||||||<0.01
91071775|NCT04166591|182029442|OTHER|The primary statistical analysis involves asking whether children look at the target significantly more than chance levels. Binomial tests are used to see if the number of children who do so is significantly greater than would be expected by chance.|||||<|0.01|||||||Binomial test|||||||<0.01
91071776|NCT04166591|182029442|OTHER|The primary statistical analysis involves asking whether children look at the target significantly more than chance levels. Binomial tests are used to see if the number of children who do so is significantly greater than would be expected by chance.|||||<|0.01|||||||Binomial test|||||||<0.01
91071777|NCT04166591|182029442|OTHER|The primary statistical analysis involves asking whether children look at the target significantly more than chance levels. Binomial tests are used to see if the number of children who do so is significantly greater than would be expected by chance.|||||<|0.01|||||||Binomial test|||||||<0.01
91071778|NCT04166591|182029443|OTHER|The primary statistical analysis involves asking whether children look at the target significantly more than chance levels. Binomial tests are used to see if the number of children who do so is significantly greater than would be expected by chance.|||||<|0.01|||||||Binomial test|||||||<0.01
91071779|NCT04166591|182029443|OTHER|The primary statistical analysis involves asking whether children look at the target significantly more than chance levels. Binomial tests are used to see if the number of children who do so is significantly greater than would be expected by chance.||||||0.12|||||||Binomial test|||||||0.12
91071780|NCT04166591|182029443|OTHER|The primary statistical analysis involves asking whether children look at the target significantly more than chance levels. Binomial tests are used to see if the number of children who do so is significantly greater than would be expected by chance.|||||<|0.01|||||||Binomial test|||||||<0.01
91071781|NCT04166591|182029443|OTHER|The primary statistical analysis involves asking whether children look at the target significantly more than chance levels. Binomial tests are used to see if the number of children who do so is significantly greater than would be expected by chance.|||||<|0.01|||||||Binomial test|||||||<0.01
91071782|NCT00601172|182029469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in percentage of participants|1.0||||0.7273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|6.6||p-value based on normal approximation to the binomial using a pooled Z test.|Pooled Z test||The parameter estimated was difference in percentage of participants with response.|Placebo vs Casopitant 90 mg||6.6|-4.6|0.7273
91071783|NCT00601172|182029470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|1.0||||0.4771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|3.8||p-value based on normal approximation to the binomial using a pooled Z test.|Pooled Z test||The parameter estimated was difference in percentage of participants with response.|Placebo vs Casopitant 90 mg||3.8|-1.8|0.4771
91071784|NCT00601172|182029471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|1.0||||0.7273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|6.6|||Pooled Z test|p-value based on normal approximation to the binomial using a pooled Z test.|The parameter estimated was difference in percentage of participants with response.|Placebo vs Casopitant 90 mg||6.6|-4.6|0.7273
91071785|NCT00601172|182029472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference (%)|6.0||||0.0317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|11.5||p-value based on normal approximation to the binomial using a pooled Z test.|Pooled Z test|||Placebo vs Casopitant 90 mg||11.5|0.5|0.0317
91071786|NCT00601172|182029473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.056|||||||Wilcoxon-rank sum test|||Placebo vs Casopitant 90 mg (0-120 hours)||||0.0560
91071787|NCT00601172|182029473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0443|||||||Wilcoxon-rank sum test|||Placebo vs Casopitant 90 mg (0-24 hours)||||0.0443
91071788|NCT00601172|182029473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1709|||||||Wilcoxon-rank sum test|||Placebo vs Casopitant 90 mg (24-120 hours)||||0.1709
91071789|NCT00601172|182029474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference (%)|-1.8||||0.3986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|2.3|||Chi-squared|||Placebo vs Casopitant 90 mg (0-120 hours)||2.3|-5.9|0.3986
91071790|NCT00601172|182029474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference (%)|-0.9||||0.3545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|1.0|||Chi-squared|||Placebo vs Casopitant 90 mg (0-24 hours)||1.0|-2.7|0.3545
91071791|NCT00601172|182029474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference (%)|-1.8||||0.3986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|2.3|||Chi-squared|||Placebo vs Casopitant 90 mg (24-120 hours)||2.3|-5.9|0.3986
91071792|NCT00601172|182029475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treament Difference (%)|-0.9||||0.6795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|3.5|||Chi-squared|||Placebo vs Casopitant 90 mg (0-120 hours)||3.5|-5.4|0.6795
91071793|NCT00601172|182029475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treament Difference (%)|-0.9||||0.4507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|1.4|||Chi-squared|||Placebo vs Casopitant 90 mg (0-24 hours)||1.4|-3.1|0.4507
90827644|NCT02412098|181530104|OTHER||GLSM Ratio (%)|102.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.03|125.45|||||A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio of Cmax in the hepatic impairment group versus matched control.|ANOVA appropriate for a parallel design was fit to the natural logarithmic transformation of eleclazine Cmax.||125.45|83.03|
91071794|NCT00601172|182029475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treament Difference (%)|-0.9||||0.6795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|3.5|||Chi-squared|||Placebo vs Casopitant 90 mg (24-120 hours)||3.5|-5.4|0.6795
91071795|NCT00601172|182029476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|2.1||||0.4846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|8.0|||Chi-squared||Difference in percentage of participants with response.|Placebo vs Casopitant 90 mg (0-120 hours)||8.0|-3.8|0.4846
91071796|NCT00601172|182029476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|0.8||||0.6101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|3.9|||Chi-squared||Difference in percentage of participants with response.|Placebo vs Casopitant 90 mg (0-24 hours)||3.9|-2.3|0.6101
91071797|NCT00601172|182029476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|2.1||||0.4846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|8.0|||Chi-squared||Difference in percentage of participants with response.|Placebo vs Casopitant 90 mg (24-120 hours)||8.0|-3.8|0.4846
91071798|NCT00601172|182029477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|3.8||||0.1356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|8.9|||Chi-squared||The parameter estimated was difference in percentage of participants with response.|Placebo vs Casopitant 90 mg (0-24 hours)||8.9|-1.2|0.1356
91071799|NCT00601172|182029477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|8.1||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|15.4|||Chi-squared||The parameter estimated was difference in percentage of participants with response.|Placebo vs Casopitant 90 mg (0-120 hours)||15.4|0.9|0.0280
91071800|NCT00601172|182029477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|8.1||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|15.4|||Chi-squared||The parameter estimated was difference in percentage of participants with response.|Placebo vs Casopitant 90 mg (24-120 hours)||15.4|0.9|0.0280
91071801|NCT00601172|182029478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|-0.9||||0.7799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|5.5|||Chi-squared||The parameter estimated was difference in percentage of participants with response.|Placebo vs Casopitant 90 mg (0-120 hours)||5.5|-7.3|0.7799
91071802|NCT00601172|182029478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|0.5||||0.7883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|4.2|||Chi-squared||The parameter estimated was difference in percentage of participants with response.|Placebo vs Casopitant 90 mg (0-24 hours)||4.2|-3.2|0.7883
91071803|NCT00601172|182029478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|-0.9||||0.7799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|5.5|||Chi-squared||The parameter estimated was difference in percentage of participants with response.|Placebo vs Casopitant 90 mg (24-120 hours)||5.5|-7.3|0.7799
91071804|NCT00601172|182029479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|-7.3||||0.0507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|0.0|||Chi-squared||The parameter estimated was difference in percentage of participants with response.|Placebo vs Casopitant 90 mg (0-120 hours)||0.0|-15|0.0507
91071805|NCT00601172|182029479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|-4.7||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|0.5|||Chi-squared||The parameter estimated was difference in percentage of participants with response.|Placebo vs Casopitant 90 mg (0-24 hours)||0.5|-9.9|0.0800
91071806|NCT00601172|182029479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|-7.3||||0.0507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|0.0|||Chi-squared||The parameter estimated was difference in percentage of participants with response.|Placebo vs Casopitant 90 mg (24-120 hours)||0.0|-15|0.0507
91071807|NCT00601172|182029480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-9.9|4.7|||||The parameter estimated was difference in percentage of participants with response.|Nausea Impact: Placebo vs. Casopitant 90 mg; Cycle 1 (0-120 hours)||4.7|-9.9|
91071808|NCT00601172|182029480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|0.7||||||97.5|-5.2|6.6|||||The parameter estimated was difference in percentage of participants with response.|Vomiting Impact: Placebo vs. Casopitant 90 mg; Cycle 1 (0-120 hours)||6.6|-5.2|
91071809|NCT00601172|182029481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1572|||||||Chi-squared|||Placebo vs. Casopitant 90 mg: (0-120 hours) in Cycle 1||||0.1572
91071810|NCT00601172|182029481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2908|||||||Chi-squared|||Placebo vs. Casopitant 90 mg: (0-24 hours) in Cycle 1||||0.2908
91071811|NCT00601172|182029481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1572|||||||Chi-squared|||Placebo vs. Casopitant 90 mg: (24-120 hours) in Cycle 1||||0.1572
91071812|NCT03535194|182029532|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|73.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.2|78.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||78.7|68.2|<0.001
91071813|NCT03535194|182029533|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|68.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.7|73.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||73.3|62.7|<0.001
91071814|NCT03535194|182029534|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|81.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|76.1|87.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||87.0|76.1|<0.001
91071815|NCT03535194|182029535|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|51.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.6|55.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||55.8|47.6|<0.001
91071816|NCT03535194|182029536|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|23.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.3|27.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||27.1|19.3|<0.001
91071817|NCT03535194|182029537|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|53.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.7|59.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||59.3|47.7|<0.001
91071818|NCT03535194|182029538|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-4.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.01|-2.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.88|-7.01|<0.001
91071819|NCT03535194|182029539|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-15.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.692|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.51|-13.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-13.80|-16.51|<0.001
91071820|NCT03535194|182029540|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-9.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.55|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.63|-6.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-6.55|-12.63|<0.001
90827645|NCT02412098|181530105|OTHER||GLSM Ratio (%)|76.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|50.65|114.77|||||A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio of Cmax in the hepatic impairment group versus matched control.|ANOVA appropriate for a parallel design was fit to the natural logarithmic transformation of GS-623134 Cmax.||114.77|50.65|
91071821|NCT03535194|182029541|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|3.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.642|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|4.72|||ANCOVA|||||4.72|2.20|<0.001
91071822|NCT03535194|182029542|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|3.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.711|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.56|5.35|||ANCOVA|||||5.35|2.56|<0.001
91071823|NCT03535194|182029543|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|65.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.3|70.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||70.8|59.3|<0.001
91071824|NCT03535194|182029545|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.255||0.826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.96|3.96|||ANCOVA|||||3.96|-4.96|0.826
91071825|NCT03535194|182029547|NON_INFERIORITY|10% non-inferiority margin was used.|Risk Difference (RD)|3.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|7.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||7.9|-1.4|<0.0001
91071826|NCT03535194|182029548|NON_INFERIORITY|10% non-inferiority margin was used.|Risk Difference (RD)|1.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|6.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||6.6|-3.4|<0.0001
91071827|NCT01665157|182029570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.435||||||Not significant|ANOVA|||||||0.435
91071828|NCT01665157|182029571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.046|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.046
91071829|NCT01665157|182029571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024|||||||Chi-squared|||"Null hypothesis: Low-residue diet package and 2L PEG vs. Self-controlled diet and 2L PEG provides same preparation quality."||||0.024
91071830|NCT01665157|182029571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.041|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.041
91071831|NCT01665157|182029574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.01
91071832|NCT01665157|182029575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.01
91071833|NCT01665157|182029576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.025
91071834|NCT04304235|182029580|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.22|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91071835|NCT00526669|182029594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1||95.0||||Biomarker: TS|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.10
91071836|NCT00526669|182029594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.097||95.0||||Biomarker: DPD|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.097
91071837|NCT00526669|182029594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1||95.0||||Biomarker: EGFR/HER1|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.10
91071838|NCT00526669|182029594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26||95.0||||Biomarker: HER2|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.26
91071839|NCT00526669|182029594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38||95.0||||Biomarker: HER3|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.38
91071840|NCT00526669|182029595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|17.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.6|29.2|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with complete response or partial response.|||29.2|9.6|
91071841|NCT00526669|182029596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|29.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.9|40.3|||||The estimated value reflects the percentage of participants who achieved progression-free survival.|||40.3|17.9|
91071842|NCT05875025|182029620|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|1.36||||0.442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28|4.99|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model, included treatment, subject, and period as fixed effects; PPR2 at baseline as a covariate.||||4.99|-2.28|0.442
91071843|NCT05875025|182029621|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.7||||0.553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|3.12|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model, included treatment, subject, and period as fixed effects; PPR4 at baseline as a covariate.||||3.12|-1.73|0.553
91071844|NCT01098500|182029623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Prevalence percentage|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|3.5|||||Prevalence percentage is the number of patients with an ALT \>=3 times ULN divided by all patients that were tested at baseline (30 days prior to initiation of TKI drug).|||3.5|0.9|
91071845|NCT01098500|182029624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate (IR)|6.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|9.0|||||Incidence rate (IR) is the number of patients with an ALT \>=3 times ULN after initiation of TKI divided by person time contributed by all patients with normal ALT (\<1 times ULN) at baseline. IR expressed per 100 person years.|||9.0|3.3|
91071846|NCT01098500|182029625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Prevalence percentage|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.4|||||Prevalence percentage is the number of patients with Hy's Law divided by all patients that were tested at baseline (30 days prior to initiation of TKI drug).|||1.4|0.1|
91071847|NCT01098500|182029626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate (IR)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.0|||||Incidence rate (IR) is the number of patients with Hy's Law after initiation of TKI divided by person time contributed by all patients with normal ALT, AST, ALP, and BIL (\< 1 times ULN) at baseline. IR is expressed per 100 person years.|||2.0|0.0|
91071848|NCT02218736|182029635|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0095|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0095
91071849|NCT02218736|182029636|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0345|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0345
91071850|NCT02218736|182029637|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.430
91071851|NCT04016779|182029645|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.28||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|-1.2|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||-1.2|-6.2|0.0040
91071852|NCT04016779|182029646|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.2|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||-0.2|-0.7|0.0023
91071853|NCT04016779|182029647|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of responders|5.6||||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|16.1|||Pearson's chi-squared test|||||16.1|-5.0|0.3030
91071854|NCT04016779|182029648|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||-0.1|-0.6|0.0076
91071855|NCT04016779|182029649|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of responders|10.7||||0.0744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|22.1|||Pearson's chi-squared test|||||22.1|-1.0|0.0744
91071856|NCT04016779|182029650|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.9205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.8|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.8|-0.9|0.9205
91071857|NCT04016779|182029651|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-0.9|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||-0.9|-4.0|0.0015
91071858|NCT04016779|182029652|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||-0.1|-2.7|0.0380
91071859|NCT04016779|182029653|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of responders|12.4||||0.0395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|23.8|||Pearson's chi-squared test|||||23.8|0.6|0.0395
91071860|NCT04016779|182029654|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of responders|6.4||||0.2736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|17.5|||Pearson's chi-squared test|||||17.5|-5.0|0.2736
91071861|NCT04016779|182029655|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.22||0.0468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.0|-4.8|0.0468
91071862|NCT04016779|182029656|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.4462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|1.3|||ANCOVA|||||1.3|-2.8|0.4462
91071863|NCT04016779|182029657|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|-0.8|||ANCOVA|||||-0.8|-5.9|0.0100
91071864|NCT04016779|182029658|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16||0.2186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|0.9|||ANCOVA|||||0.9|-3.7|0.2186
91071865|NCT04016779|182029659|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.0344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||||-0.2|-4.5|0.0344
91071866|NCT04016779|182029660|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99||0.368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.8|||ANCOVA|||||2.8|-1.1|0.3680
91071867|NCT04016779|182029661|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.6361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|1.6|||ANCOVA|||||1.6|-2.7|0.6361
91071868|NCT04016779|182029662|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.1708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|0.7|||ANCOVA|||||0.7|-4.0|0.1708
91071869|NCT04016779|182029663|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.0094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|-0.8|||ANCOVA|||||-0.8|-6.0|0.0094
91071870|NCT04016779|182029664|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.34||0.0104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|-0.8|||ANCOVA|||||-0.8|-6.1|0.0104
91071871|NCT04016779|182029665|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.13||0.0178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|-0.5|||ANCOVA|||||-0.5|-4.9|0.0178
91071872|NCT04016779|182029666|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.34||0.0187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|-0.5|||ANCOVA|||||-0.5|-5.8|0.0187
91071873|NCT01876784|182029671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.03||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Log Rank||Vandetanib 300 mg vs Placebo|A multiple testing procedure (MTP) with an alpha-exhaustive recycling strategy was employed to provide adequate control of type I error.||1.03|0.55|0.080
91071874|NCT01044290|182029690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|||<|0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for Palliative Performance Scale (low versus high) stratification variable.||Comparison at 5 weeks||.7|-1.1|<0.61
91071875|NCT01044290|182029690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.1|||<|0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for Palliative Performance Scale (low versus high) stratification variable.||Comparison at 5 weeks.||2.0|.2|<.02
91071876|NCT01044290|182029691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|||=|0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for Palliative Performance Scale (low versus high) stratification variable.||Comparison at 5 weeks||1.1|-1.2|=.9
91071877|NCT01044290|182029691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|||<|0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for Palliative Performance Scale (low versus high) stratification variable||Comparison at 5 weeks.||1.1|-1.2|<.97
91071878|NCT01044290|182029692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|||<|0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for Palliative Performance Scale (low versus high) stratification variable||Comparison at 5 weeks||1.5|-1.4|<.91
91071879|NCT01044290|182029692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6|||=|0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for Palliative Performance Scale (low versus high) stratification variable||Comparison at 5 weeks||0.9|-2.1|=.42
91071880|NCT01044290|182029693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6|||=|0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for Palliative Performance Scale (low versus high) stratification variable.||Comparison at 5 weeks||2.8|-1.5|=.58
91071881|NCT01044290|182029693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04|||<|0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for Palliative Performance Scale (low versus high) stratification variable.||Comparison at 5 weeks.||2.2|-2.1|<.97
91071882|NCT01044290|182029694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|2.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for Palliative Performance Scale (low versus high) stratification variable.||Comparison at 5 weeks||2.4|-.6|.25
91071883|NCT01044290|182029694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|3.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for Palliative Performance Scale (low versus high) stratification variable.||Comparison at 5 weeks||3.1|.05|<.05
91071884|NCT01044290|182029695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4|||<|0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for Palliative Performance Scale (low versus high) stratification variable. Sex item omitted from scale.||Comparison at 5 weeks.||1.8|-1.0|<.57
91071885|NCT01044290|182029695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.4|||=|0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|2.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for Palliative Performance Scale (low versus high) stratification variable. Sex item omitted from scale.||Comparison at 5 weeks.||2.7|-0.03|=0.055
91071886|NCT01967706|182029701|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|88.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.64|114.03|||ANOVA|The model included terms for sequence, subject nested within sequence, period, and product as fixed effect factors.|LS mean ratio (mTHS - Group 1:mCC - Group 1)|The objective of this study was to determine the point estimate and precision of the nicotine bioavailability (ratio of mTHS:mCC) for Cmax, therefore, there was no statistical hypothesis to be tested for this objective.||114.03|68.64|
91071887|NCT01967706|182029702|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|98.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|80.61|119.46|||ANOVA|The model included terms for sequence, subject nested within sequence, period, and product as fixed effect factors.|LS mean ratio (mTHS - Group 1:mCC - Group 1)|The objective of this study was to determine the point estimate and precision of the nicotine bioavailability (ratio of mTHS:mCC) for AUC(0-last), therefore, there was no statistical hypothesis to be tested for this objective.||119.46|80.61|
91071888|NCT00586820|182029729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.029
91071889|NCT00586820|182029730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change between the groups from immediate pre-PCI and 8 hours post PCI.||||0.019
91071890|NCT00586820|182029730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change between the groups from immediate pre-PCI and 16 hours post-PCI.||||0.007
91071891|NCT00688662|182029733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-15.6||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.0|-3.3||The primary analysis was conducted using a logistic regression model with treatment group as the factor of interest and clinical center and PSH status as covariates. A Wald test using a two-tailed significance level of 0.0499 was conducted.|Regression, Logistic|Adjusted and unadjusted risk differences with two-sided 95% confidence intervals are reported in the manuscript.|The unadjusted risk difference and confidence interval was -14.3% (-27.3%, -1.2%).|The trial was designed to test for an overall absolute difference of at least 30% in the primary outcome ('success') in patients treated with sphincterotomy compared to those treated with sham. Using a 2:1 allocation, an assumed 10% non-adherence rate, and one interim analysis for efficacy using O'Brien and Fleming boundaries and futility using conditional power, the study required 214 patients to be randomized to ensure greater than 90% likelihood of identifying this difference.||-3.3|-28.0|0.01
91071892|NCT00688662|182029734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.1|5.9||A confidence interval approach was used for examining this outcome.||||Only patients with abnormal manometry were included in this subgroup analysis.||5.9|-24.1|
91071893|NCT01483027|182029737|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.88|||Log Rank|||Analysis performed using a log-rank test||0.88|0.54|0.0013
91071894|NCT01483027|182029738|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.77|||Log Rank|||Analysis performed using a log-rank test.||0.77|0.46|<0.0001
91071895|NCT03010800|182029740|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0469||||||One subject experienced incontinence with the Yoni.Fit in place (#8) (9.2 g Pad Wt. Without and 17.3 g Pad Wt. With). This was attributed to incorrect Yoni.Fit sizing. This subject was not included in the p-value calculation.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Null hypothesis is that the pad weights With Yoni.Fit and Without Yoni.Fit are equivalent.~A one-sided Wilcoxson paired T-test of the group means will be performed. If the p-value is significant, the null hypothesis will be rejected."||||0.0469
91071896|NCT04463251|182029741|OTHER||Least square means ratio|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.91|||||"Least square means ratio with two-sided Dunnett's adjusted 95% CI for RPH-104 80 mg / Placebo.~Ratio was calculated instead of difference because log data transformation."|"The following (two-sided) hypotheses were tested:~* Null hypothesis H0: the ratio of the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-14) in RPH-104 group to the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-14) in the placebo group is equal to 1.~* Alternative hypothesis H1: the ratio of the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-14) in RPH-104 group to the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-14) in the placebo group is different from 1."||0.91|0.37|
91071897|NCT04463251|182029741|OTHER||Least square means ratio|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.91|||||"Least square means ratio with two-sided Dunnett's adjusted 95% CI for RPH-104 160 mg / Placebo.~Ratio was calculated instead of difference because log data transformation."|"The following (two-sided) hypotheses were tested:~* Null hypothesis H0: the ratio of the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-14) in RPH-104 group to the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-14) in the placebo group is equal to 1.~* Alternative hypothesis H1: the ratio of the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-14) in RPH-104 group to the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-14) in the placebo group is different from 1."||0.91|0.37|
91071898|NCT04463251|182029742|OTHER||Least square means ratio|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.87|||||"Least square means ratio with two-sided Dunnett's adjusted 95% CI for RPH-104 80 mg / Placebo.~Ratio was calculated instead of difference because log data transformation."|"The following (two-sided) hypotheses were tested:~* Null hypothesis H0: the ratio of the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-14) in RPH-104 group to the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-14) in the placebo group is equal to 1.~* Alternative hypothesis H1: the ratio of the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-14) in RPH-104 group to the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-14) in the placebo group is different from 1."||0.87|0.34|
91071899|NCT04463251|182029742|OTHER||Least square means ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.95|||||"Least square means ratio with two-sided Dunnett's adjusted 95% CI for RPH-104 160 mg / Placebo.~Ratio was calculated instead of difference because log data transformation."|"The following (two-sided) hypotheses were tested:~* Null hypothesis H0: the ratio of the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-14) in RPH-104 group to the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-14) in the placebo group is equal to 1.~* Alternative hypothesis H1: the ratio of the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-14) in RPH-104 group to the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-14) in the placebo group is different from 1."||0.95|0.37|
91071900|NCT04463251|182029743|OTHER||Least square means ratio|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.91|||||"Least square means ratio with two-sided Dunnett's adjusted 95% CI for RPH-104 80 mg / Placebo.~Ratio was calculated instead of difference because log data transformation"|"The following (two-sided) hypotheses were tested:~* Null hypothesis H0: the ratio of the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-14) in RPH-104 group to the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-14) in the placebo group is equal to 1.~* Alternative hypothesis H1: the ratio of the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-14) in RPH-104 group to the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-14) in the placebo group is different from 1."||0.91|0.34|
91071901|NCT04463251|182029743|OTHER||Least square means ratio|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.98|||||"Least square means ratio with two-sided Dunnett's adjusted 95% CI for RPH-104 160 mg / Placebo.~Ratio was calculated instead of difference because log data transformation."|"The following (two-sided) hypotheses were tested:~* Null hypothesis H0: the ratio of the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-14) in RPH-104 group to the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-14) in the placebo group is equal to 1.~* Alternative hypothesis H1: the ratio of the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-14) in RPH-104 group to the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-14) in the placebo group is different from 1."||0.98|0.38|
91071902|NCT04463251|182029744|OTHER||Least square means ratio|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.91|||||"Least square means ratio with two-sided Dunnett's adjusted 95% CI for RPH-104 80 mg / Placebo.~Ratio was calculated instead of difference because log data transformation"|"The following (two-sided) hypotheses were tested:~* Null hypothesis H0: the ratio of the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-14) in RPH-104 group to the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-14) in the placebo group is equal to 1.~* Alternative hypothesis H1: the ratio of the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-14) in RPH-104 group to the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-14) in the placebo group is different from 1."||0.91|0.34|
91071903|NCT04463251|182029744|OTHER||Least square means ratio|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.98|||||"Least square means ratio with two-sided Dunnett's adjusted 95% CI for RPH-104 160 mg / Placebo.~Ratio was calculated instead of difference because log data transformation."|"The following (two-sided) hypotheses were tested:~* Null hypothesis H0: the ratio of the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-14) in RPH-104 group to the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-14) in the placebo group is equal to 1.~* Alternative hypothesis H1: the ratio of the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-14) in RPH-104 group to the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-14) in the placebo group is different from 1."||0.98|0.38|
91071904|NCT04463251|182029745|OTHER||Least square means ratio|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.81||||||"The following (two-sided) hypotheses were tested:~Null hypothesis H0: the ratio of the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-28) in RPH-104 group to the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-28) in the placebo group is equal to 1.~Alternative hypothesis H1: the ratio of the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-28) in RPH-104 group to the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-28) in the placebo group is different from 1."|"Least square means ratio with two-sided Dunnett's adjusted 95% CI for RPH-104 80 mg / Placebo.~Ratio was calculated instead of difference because log data transformation."|0.81|0.34|
91071905|NCT04463251|182029745|OTHER||Least square means ratio|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.74|||||"Least square means ratio with two-sided Dunnett's adjusted 95% CI for RPH-104 160 mg / Placebo.~Ratio was calculated instead of difference because log data transformation."|"The following (two-sided) hypotheses were tested:~Null hypothesis H0: the ratio of the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-28) in RPH-104 group to the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-28) in the placebo group is equal to 1.~Alternative hypothesis H1: the ratio of the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-28) in RPH-104 group to the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-28) in the placebo group is different from 1."||0.74|0.31|
91071906|NCT04463251|182029746|OTHER||Least square means ratio|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.75|||||"Least square means ratio with two-sided Dunnett's adjusted 95% CI for RPH-104 80 mg / Placebo.~Ratio was calculated instead of difference because log data transformation."|"The following (two-sided) hypotheses were tested:~Null hypothesis H0: the ratio of the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-28) in RPH-104 group to the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-28) in the placebo group is equal to 1.~Alternative hypothesis H1: the ratio of the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-28) in RPH-104 group to the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-28) in the placebo group is different from 1."||0.75|0.29|
91071907|NCT04463251|182029746|OTHER||Least square means ratio|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.75|||||"Least square means ratio with two-sided Dunnett's adjusted 95% CI for RPH-104 160 mg / Placebo.~Ratio was calculated instead of difference because log data transformation."|"The following (two-sided) hypotheses were tested:~Null hypothesis H0: the ratio of the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-28) in RPH-104 group to the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-28) in the placebo group is equal to 1.~Alternative hypothesis H1: the ratio of the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-28) in RPH-104 group to the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-28) in the placebo group is different from 1."||0.75|0.30|
91071908|NCT00877487|182029827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.1|-11.4|||ANCOVA|||||-11.4|-19.1|<0.0001
91071909|NCT00877487|182029828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
91071910|NCT00877487|182029829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
91071911|NCT03425396|182029847|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.8|9.6|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||9.6|-16.8|
91071912|NCT03425396|182029847|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.4|1.2|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||1.2|-27.4|
91071913|NCT03425396|182029847|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-5.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.6|7.4|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||7.4|-19.6|
91071914|NCT03425396|182029847|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.1|14.7|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||14.7|-44.1|
91071915|NCT03425396|182029848|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|11.2|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||11.2|-14.3|
91071916|NCT03425396|182029848|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.8|9.0|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||9.0|-16.8|
91071917|NCT03425396|182029848|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|12.3|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||12.3|-12.3|
91071918|NCT03425396|182029848|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.1|14.7|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||14.7|-44.1|
91071919|NCT03425396|182029849|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.5|16.8|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||16.8|-22.5|
91071920|NCT03425396|182029849|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.3|14.2|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||14.2|-23.3|
91071921|NCT03425396|182029849|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|22.6|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||22.6|-13.0|
91071922|NCT03425396|182029849|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.4|28.9|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||28.9|-40.4|
91071923|NCT03425396|182029850|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|13.4|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||13.4|-10.0|
91071924|NCT03425396|182029850|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%|Treatment difference|-2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|9.7|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||9.7|-16.2|
91071925|NCT03425396|182029850|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%|Treatment Difference|7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|18.5|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||18.5|-0.3|
91071926|NCT03425396|182029850|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatm,ent difference|7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.9|20.6|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||20.6|-34.9|
91071927|NCT03425396|182029851|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%|Treatment difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|12.6|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||12.6|-12.6|
91071928|NCT03425396|182029851|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|10.2|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||10.2|-16.3|
91071929|NCT03425396|182029851|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|17.7|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated|||17.7|-4.5|
91071930|NCT03425396|182029851|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|8.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.3|20.7|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||20.7|-35.3|
91071931|NCT03425396|182029852|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%|Treatment difference|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.3|13.3|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||13.3|-27.3|
91071932|NCT03425396|182029852|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-10.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.2|8.6|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||8.6|-29.2|
91071933|NCT03425396|182029852|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment Difference|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|19.2|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||19.2|-19.0|
90827646|NCT02412098|181530105|OTHER||GLSM Ratio (%)|71.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|44.59|113.25|||||A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio of Cmax in the hepatic impairment group versus matched control.|ANOVA appropriate for a parallel design was fit to the natural logarithmic transformation of GS-623134 Cmax.||113.25|44.59|
90827647|NCT04170543|181530111|OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Percent Change|-2.85||||0.8338|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.61|21.94||Unadjusted two-sided p-value|MMRM||MEDI3506 30 mg - Placebo|||21.94|-22.61|0.8338
91071934|NCT03425396|182029852|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.4|28.9|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||28.9|-40.4|
91071935|NCT03425396|182029853|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.6|7.8|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||7.8|-18.6|
91071936|NCT03425396|182029853|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-14.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.6|-0.6|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||-0.6|-29.6|
91071937|NCT03425396|182029853|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-9.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.2|4.4|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||4.4|-23.2|
91071938|NCT03425396|182029853|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.1|14.7|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||14.7|-44.1|
91071939|NCT03425396|182029854|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|12.7|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||12.7|-13.1|
91071940|NCT03425396|182029854|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-5.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.7|7.8|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||7.8|-20.7|
91071941|NCT03425396|182029854|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.1|11.6|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||11.6|-15.1|
91071942|NCT03425396|182029854|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|8.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.3|20.7|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||20.7|-35.3|
91071943|NCT03425396|182029855|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.3|13.3|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated|||13.3|-27.3|
91071944|NCT03425396|182029855|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.4|5.9|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated|||5.9|-32.4|
91071945|NCT03425396|182029855|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.7|15.6|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated|||15.6|-25.7|
91071946|NCT03425396|182029855|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.4|28.9|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated|||28.9|-40.4|
91071947|NCT03425396|182029856|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-21.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.1|-1.0|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||-1.0|-44.1|
91071948|NCT03425396|182029856|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-13.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.2|4.9|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||4.9|-32.2|
91071949|NCT03425396|182029856|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-19.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.1|1.1|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||1.1|-43.1|
91071950|NCT03425396|182029856|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.8|23.2|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||23.2|-43.8|
91071951|NCT03425396|182029857|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-14.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.2|3.1|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||3.1|-37.2|
91071952|NCT03425396|182029857|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-15.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.3|1.2|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||1.2|-34.3|
91071953|NCT03425396|182029857|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-23.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.9|-4.3|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||-4.3|-46.9|
91071954|NCT03425396|182029857|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.5|19.7|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||19.7|-48.5|
91071955|NCT03425396|182029858|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-20.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.1|6.0|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||6.0|-45.1|
91071956|NCT03425396|182029858|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-17.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.2|5.9|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||5.9|-40.2|
91071957|NCT03425396|182029858|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-11.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.8|14.7|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||14.7|-36.8|
91071958|NCT03425396|182029858|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.0|33.2|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||33.2|-47.0|
91071959|NCT03425396|182029859|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-13.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.4|13.2|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||13.2|-40.4|
91071960|NCT03425396|182029859|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-9.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.7|14.6|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||14.6|-32.7|
91071961|NCT03425396|182029859|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-11.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.2|14.9|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||14.9|-38.2|
91071962|NCT03425396|182029859|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.3|30.9|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||30.9|-50.3|
91071963|NCT01082211|182029865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0002|||||||Chi-squared|||Assuming a 3-year rate of 25% using a chi-squared test, a sample size of 55 patients will ensure at least 90% probability of detecting a reduction in the 3-year ipsilateral in-breast recurrence rate from 25% to 9%, with a significance level of 0.05 (1-sided). In-breast recurrence will be estimated using the cumulative incidence method.||||0.0002
91071964|NCT01082211|182029873|OTHER||Effect size|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect sizes are interpreted as negligible: \< 0.3; small: 0.3 to \< 0.5; moderate: 0.5 to \< 0.7; and large ≥ 0.7|Functional status||||
91071965|NCT01082211|182029873|OTHER||Effect size|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect sizes are interpreted as negligible: \< 0.3; small: 0.3 to \< 0.5; moderate: 0.5 to \< 0.7; and large ≥ 0.7|Cosmetic||||
91071966|NCT01082211|182029873|OTHER||Effect size|0.34|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect sizes are interpreted as negligible: \< 0.3; small: 0.3 to \< 0.5; moderate: 0.5 to \< 0.7; and large ≥ 0.7|Breast-specific pain||||
91071967|NCT01082211|182029874|OTHER||Effect size|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect sizes are interpreted as negligible: \< 0.3; small: 0.3 to \< 0.5; moderate: 0.5 to \< 0.7; and large ≥ 0.7|Functional status||||
91071968|NCT01082211|182029874|OTHER||Effect size|0.32|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect sizes are interpreted as negligible: \< 0.3; small: 0.3 to \< 0.5; moderate: 0.5 to \< 0.7; and large ≥ 0.7|Cosmetic||||
91071969|NCT01082211|182029874|OTHER||Effect size|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect sizes are interpreted as negligible: \< 0.3; small: 0.3 to \< 0.5; moderate: 0.5 to \< 0.7; and large ≥ 0.7|Breast-specific pain||||
91071970|NCT01082211|182029876|OTHER|||||||0.054|||||||Spearman rank-order correlation test|||||||0.054
91071971|NCT01082211|182029876|OTHER|||||||0.044|||||||Spearman rank-order correlation test|||||||0.044
91071972|NCT01082211|182029876|OTHER|||||||0.087|||||||Spearman rank-order correlation test|||||||0.087
91071973|NCT03917472|182029881|SUPERIORITY|(1-sided)|LS mean difference|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|2.9|||ANOVA|||||2.9|-0.6|0.099
91071974|NCT03917472|182029881|NON_INFERIORITY|(4-letter margin) (1-sided)|||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91071975|NCT03917472|182029882|SUPERIORITY|(1-sided); Week 52|LS mean difference|-41.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.94|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.9|-23.8|||ANOVA|||||-23.8|-58.9|<0.001
91071976|NCT03917472|182029883|SUPERIORITY|(1-sided) Week 52|Difference - %|20.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.5|28.6|||Clopper-Pearson exact method.|||||28.6|12.5|<0.001
91071977|NCT03917472|182029890|OTHER|Descriptive|Difference - %|9.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|17.0|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||≥ 5 letters gain from baseline or BCVA ≥ 84 letters at Week 52||17.0|1.7|
91071978|NCT03917472|182029890|OTHER|Descriptive|Difference - %|7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|17.0|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||≥ 10 letters gain from baseline or BCVA ≥ 84 letters at Week 52||17.0|-1.5|
91071979|NCT03917472|182029890|OTHER|Descriptive|Difference - %|5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|14.3|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||≥ 15 letters gain from baseline or BCVA ≥ 84 letters at Week 52||14.3|-2.7|
91071980|NCT03917472|182029891|OTHER|descriptive; week 12|Difference - %|8.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|16.5|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||||16.5|0.2|
91071981|NCT03917472|182029891|OTHER|descriptive; week 24|Difference - %|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|14.9|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||||14.9|-3.0|
91071982|NCT03917472|182029891|NON_INFERIORITY|(10% margin); week 52|Difference - %|6.0||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|16.1||(10% margin) (1-sided)|Clopper-Pearson exact method|||||16.1|-3.9|0.002
91071983|NCT03917472|182029892|OTHER|descriptive; week 12|Difference - %|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|6.6|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||||6.6|-2.5|
91071984|NCT03917472|182029892|OTHER|descriptive; week 24|Difference - %|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|7.7|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||||7.7|-3.0|
91071985|NCT03917472|182029892|OTHER|descriptive; week 52|Difference - %|3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|9.8|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||||9.8|-2.0|
91071986|NCT01154296|182029896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted risk ratio (aRR)|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.33||In the statistical tests of all hypotheses and calculation of the presented risk ratios, we used multiple imputations of data sets with all 5012 cases. The aRRs reported are based on the multiply imputed data. Counts are based on the observed data.|Mantel Haenszel|||A total of 2039/2505 participants randomized to the counseling group and 2032/2507 to the information-only group had complete follow-up STI data. Cumulative STI incidence was 250/2039 (12.3%) in the counseling group and 226/2032 (11.1%) in the information-only group (aRR, 1.12; 95%CI, 0.94-1.33).||1.33|0.94|
91071987|NCT01154296|182029897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence rate ratio (IRR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.09|||||In the statistical tests of all hypotheses and calculation of the presented IRR, we used multiple imputations of data sets with all 5012 cases. The adjusted IRRs reported are based on multiply imputed data. Counts are based on the observed data.|Analyses of sexual risk behaviors used zero-inflated negative binomial regressions (ZINB) including treatment group, baseline level of the risk behavior, site, and randomization stratum. (ZINB regression was used instead of ANCOVA because the outcome variable had an excessive number of zeroes and over dispersion.) Adjusted incidence rate ratios (IRR) from the models are presented.||1.09|0.90|
91071988|NCT01154296|182029898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio (IRR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.13|||||In the statistical tests of all hypotheses and calculation of the presented IRR, we used multiple imputations of data sets with all 5012 cases. The adjusted IRRs reported are based on multiply imputed data. Counts are based on the observed data.|Analyses of sexual risk behaviors used zero-inflated negative binomial regressions (ZINB) including treatment group, baseline level of the risk behavior, site, and randomization stratum. (ZINB regression was used instead of ANCOVA because the outcome variable had an excessive number of zeroes and over dispersion.) Adjusted incidence rate ratios (IRR) from the models are presented.||1.13|0.86|
91071989|NCT01154296|182029899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio (IRR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|0.94|||||In the statistical tests of all hypotheses and calculation of the presented IRR, we used multiple imputations of data sets with all 5012 cases. The adjusted IRRs reported are based on multiply imputed data. Counts are based on the observed data.|Analyses of sexual risk behaviors used zero-inflated negative binomial regressions (ZINB) including treatment group, baseline level of the risk behavior, site, and randomization stratum. (ZINB regression was used instead of ANCOVA because the outcome variable had an excessive number of zeroes and over dispersion.) Adjusted incidence rate ratios (IRR) from the models are presented.||0.94|0.82|
91071990|NCT01154296|182029900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio (IRR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.05|||||In the statistical tests of all hypotheses and calculation of the presented IRR, we used multiple imputations of data sets with all 5012 cases. The adjusted IRRs reported are based on multiply imputed data. Counts are based on the observed data.|Analyses of sexual risk behaviors used zero-inflated negative binomial regressions (ZINB) including treatment group, baseline level of the risk behavior, site, and randomization stratum. (ZINB regression was used instead of ANCOVA because the outcome variable had an excessive number of zeroes and over dispersion.) Adjusted incidence rate ratios (IRR) from the models are presented.||1.05|0.90|
91071991|NCT01154296|182029901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Risk Ratio (aRR)|1.14||||||95.0|0.89|1.46||In the statistical tests of all hypotheses and calculation of the presented risk ratios, we used multiple imputations of data sets with all 5012 cases. The aRRs reported are based on the multiply imputed data. Counts are based on the observed data.|Mantel Haenszel|||||1.46|0.89|
91071992|NCT05896527|182029937|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.46||||0.4839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|2.37|||Fisher Exact||DC-806 200 mg BID compared to Placebo|||2.37|0.07|0.4839
91071993|NCT05896527|182029937|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76||||0.4111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|6.49|||Fisher Exact||DC-806 400 mg BID compared to Placebo|||6.49|0.51|0.4111
91071994|NCT05896527|182029937|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.7744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|4.99|||Fisher Exact||DC-806 600 mg QD compared to Placebo|||4.99|0.36|0.7744
91071995|NCT05896527|182029937|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.59||||0.0164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|12.37|||Fisher Exact||DC-806 800 mg BID compared to Placebo|||12.37|1.15|0.0164
91071996|NCT01279070|182029939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.43|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||In all the models,adjusted mean difference between the two groups,standardized treatment effect (ES) and confidence intervals were calculated.All the estimates obtained with these models remain unbiased under the missing at random (MAR)assumption.|To evaluate intervention efficacy on the BADS(Total score and Key search subtest),linear mixed-effects models were fitted using Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML.An unstructured correlation matrix was used to account for correlation among several observations for each subject.The dependent variable comprised the measures at 16 weeks while the baseline value of the BADS,intervention group(REPYFLEC group vs Leisure group),time and the interaction term (time×treatment)were included as covariates.||0.7|0.1|<0.05
91071997|NCT01279070|182029940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|0.42|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||In all the models,adjusted mean difference between the two groups,standardized treatment effect (ES) and confidence intervals were calculated.All the estimates obtained with these models remain unbiased under the missing at random (MAR)assumption.|To evaluate intervention efficacy on the BADS(Total score and Key search subtest),linear mixed-effects models were fitted using Restricted Maximum Likelihood(REML).An unstructured correlation matrix was used to account for correlation among several observations for each subject.The dependent variable comprised the measures at 40 weeks while the baseline value of the BADS,intervention group(REPYFLEC group vs Leisure group),time and the interaction term (time×treatment)were included as covariates.||0.7|0.1|<0.05
90827648|NCT04170543|181530111|OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Percent Change|-19.52||||0.1169|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-35.92|1.07||Unadjusted two-sided p-value|MMRM||MEDI3506 60 mg - Placebo|||1.07|-35.92|0.1169
90827649|NCT04170543|181530111|OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Percent Change|-17.47||||0.1774|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-34.71|4.32||Unadjusted two-sided p-value|MMRM||MEDI3506 120 mg - Placebo|||4.32|-34.71|0.1774
90827650|NCT04170543|181530111|OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Percent Change|-7.22||||0.5379|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-24.05|13.35||Unadjusted two-sided p-value|MMRM|||||13.35|-24.05|0.5379
91071998|NCT01279070|182029941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|0.33|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||In all the models,adjusted mean difference between the two groups,standardized treatment effect (ES) and confidence intervals were calculated.All the estimates obtained with these models remain unbiased under the missing at random (MAR)assumption.|To evaluate intervention efficacy on the LSP, linear mixed-effects models were fitted using Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML). An unstructured correlation matrix was used to account for correlation among several observations for each subject. The dependent variable comprised the measures at 16 weeks while the baseline value of the LSP, intervention group (REPYFLEC group vs Leisure group), time and the interaction term (time×treatment) were included as covariates.||0.6|0.06|<0.05
91071999|NCT01279070|182029942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|0.35|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||In all the models,adjusted mean difference between the two groups,standardized treatment effect (ES) and confidence intervals were calculated.All the estimates obtained with these models remain unbiased under the missing at random (MAR)assumption.|To evaluate intervention efficacy on the LSP, linear mixed-effects models were fitted using Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML). An unstructured correlation matrix was used to account for correlation among several observations for each subject. The dependent variable comprised the measures at 40 weeks while the baseline value of the LSP, intervention group (REPYFLEC group vs Leisure group), time and the interaction term (time×treatment) were included as covariates.||0.6|0.09|<0.05
91072000|NCT01279070|182029943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|0.3|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||In all the models,adjusted mean difference between the two groups,standardized treatment effect (ES) and confidence intervals were calculated.All the estimates obtained with these models remain unbiased under the missing at random (MAR)assumption.|To evaluate intervention efficacy on the PANSS, linear mixed-effects models were fitted using Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML). An unstructured correlation matrix was used to account for correlation among several observations for each subject. The dependent variable comprised the measures at 16 weeks while the baseline value of the PANSS, intervention group (REPYFLEC group vs Leisure group), time and the interaction term (time×treatment) were included as covariates.||0.7|0.01|<0.05
91072001|NCT01279070|182029944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|0.3|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||In all the models,adjusted mean difference between the two groups, standardized treatment effect (ES) and confidence intervals were calculated.All the estimates obtained with these models remain unbiased under the missing at random (MAR) assumption.|To evaluate intervention efficacy on the PANSS, linear mixed-effects models were fitted using Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML). An unstructured correlation matrix was used to account for correlation among several observations for each subject. The dependent variable comprised the measures at 40 weeks while the baseline value of the PANSS, intervention group (REPYFLEC group vs Leisure group), time and the interaction term (time×treatment) were included as covariates.||0.7|0.01|<0.05
91072002|NCT02651155|182029945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Values of CI|1.0||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.0|||Van Elteren Test|SBM was analyzed using Van Elteren Test stratified by center. Centers with less participants were pooled based on geographical proximity.|CI was estimated by inverting the hypothesis test.|||1.0|0.1|0.003
91072003|NCT00823043|182029951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
91072004|NCT00823043|182029952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.024
91072005|NCT00823043|182029953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.75
91072006|NCT00823043|182029954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.69
91072007|NCT04259424|182030068|OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.15
91072008|NCT01981954|182030103|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||From a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24 MCC Analysis||||<0.001
91072009|NCT01981954|182030105|OTHER|||||||0.003||||||From a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline=0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24 Analysis||||0.003
91072010|NCT01981954|182030106|OTHER|||||||0.744||||||From a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24 Analysis||||0.744
91072011|NCT01981954|182030107|OTHER|||||||0.352||||||From a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24 Analysis||||0.352
91072012|NCT01981954|182030108|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||From a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24 Analysis||||<0.001
91072013|NCT01981954|182030109|OTHER|||||||0.177||||||From a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24 Analysis||||0.177
90827651|NCT04170543|181530112|OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Percent Change|-13.02||||0.1929|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.08|3.75||Unadjusted two-sided p-value|MMRM||MEDI3506 30 mg - Placebo|||3.75|-27.08|0.1929
90827652|NCT04170543|181530112|OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Percent Change|-25.71||||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-37.83|-11.22||Unadjusted two-sided p-value|MMRM||MEDI3506 60 mg - Placebo|||-11.22|-37.83|0.0062
90827653|NCT04170543|181530112|OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Percent Change|-18.2||||0.0705|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-31.86|-1.81||Unadjusted two-sided p-value|MMRM||MEDI3506 120 mg - Placebo|||-1.81|-31.86|0.0705
91072014|NCT01981954|182030110|OTHER|||||||0.025||||||From a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24 Analyis||||0.025
91072015|NCT01981954|182030111|OTHER|||||||0.05||||||From a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24 Analysis||||0.050
91072016|NCT01981954|182030112|OTHER|||||||0.567||||||From a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24 Analysis||||0.567
91072017|NCT01981954|182030113|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||From a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24 Analysis||||0.001
91072018|NCT01981954|182030114|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||From a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24 Analysis||||<0.001
91072019|NCT01981954|182030115|OTHER|||||||0.004||||||From a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24 Analysis||||0.004
91072020|NCT01981954|182030116|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||From a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24 Analysis||||0.001
91072021|NCT01981954|182030117|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||From a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24 Analysis||||0.001
91072022|NCT01981954|182030134|OTHER|||||||0.688||||||From a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24 Analysis||||0.688
91072023|NCT01981954|182030135|OTHER|||||||0.61||||||From a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24 Analysis||||0.610
91072024|NCT01981954|182030136|OTHER|||||||0.562||||||From a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24 Analysis||||0.562
91072025|NCT01981954|182030137|OTHER|||||||0.657||||||From a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24 Analysis||||0.657
91072026|NCT01981954|182030138|OTHER|||||||0.631||||||From a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24 Analysis||||0.631
91072027|NCT01981954|182030139|OTHER|||||||0.41||||||From a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24 Analysis||||0.410
91072028|NCT01981954|182030140|OTHER|||||||0.94||||||From a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24 Analysis||||0.940
91072029|NCT01981954|182030141|OTHER|||||||1||||||From a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24 Analysis||||1.000
91072030|NCT01981954|182030142|OTHER|||||||0.575||||||From a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24 Analysis||||0.575
91072031|NCT01981954|182030143|OTHER|||||||0.031||||||From a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24 Analysis||||0.031
91072032|NCT01981954|182030144|OTHER|||||||0.721||||||From a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24 Analysis||||0.721
91072033|NCT01489254|182030145|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To conclude study sensitivity the combined active treatment groups Glatiramer 20 mg and Copaxone 20 mg needed to be superior to placebo.|Ratio (or Ratio of estimated means)|0.488|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.365|0.651|||||Ratio of combined Glatiramer 20 mg + Copaxone 20 mg to placebo and 95% confidence interval.|Estimates represent the mean total lesions during months 7 through 9 and were estimated from the fitted random effect generalized linear model (longitudinal model) with a negative binomial distribution and logaritmic link function. To assess study sensitivity, data of the active treatment groups and placebo were included in the model, resulting in the ratios and 95% CIs for the combined Glatiramer 20 mg and Copaxone 20 mg treatment group and the individual treatments over placebo.||0.651|0.365|
91072034|NCT01489254|182030145|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To conclude equivalence between Glatiramer 20 mg and Copaxone 20 mg, efficacy in the combined active treatment groups needed to be superior to placebo (confirming study sensitivity) and the 2-sided 95% CI for the estimated ratio of Glatiramer 20 mg to Copaxone 20 mg needed to be fully enclosed in the prespecified equivalence margin (0.727 - 1.375).|Ratio (or Ratio of estimated means)|1.095|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.883|1.36|||||Ratio of Glatiramer 20 mg to Copaxone 20 mg and 95% confidence interval.|Estimates represent the mean total lesions during months 7 through 9 and were estimated from the fitted random effect generalized linear model (longitudinal model) with a negative binomial distribution and logaritmic link function including Glatiramer 20 mg and Copaxone 20 mg treatment groups to assess study equivalence.||1.360|0.883|
91072035|NCT01945970|182030151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Subject as random factor, baseline same period and mean baseline in both periods as covariates, and treatment, operator, and period as fixed effects.|Effect of black tea adjusted for placebo|||0.40|-1.09|0.36
91072036|NCT01945970|182030152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.52||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|1.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|Subject as random factor, baseline same period and mean baseline in both periods as covariates, and treatment, operator, and period as fixed effects.|Effect of black tea adjusted for placebo|||1.28|-0.24|0.18
91072037|NCT01945970|182030153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.89||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|-0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|Subject as random factor, baseline same period and mean baseline in both periods as covariates, and treatment, operator, and period as fixed effects.|Effect of black tea adjusted for placebo|||-0.19|-1.59|0.014
90827654|NCT04170543|181530112|OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Percent Change|-15.56||||0.0764|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.82|-1.21||Unadjusted two-sided p-value|MMRM|||||-1.21|-27.82|0.0764
91072038|NCT01945970|182030154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.49||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|Subject as random factor, baseline same period and mean baseline in both periods as covariates, and treatment, operator, and period as fixed effects.|Effect of positive control adjusted for placebo|||0.31|-1.30|0.22
91072039|NCT01945970|182030155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.71||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|1.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|Subject as random factor, baseline same period and mean baseline in both periods as covariates, and treatment, operator, and period as fixed effects.|Effect of positive control adjusted for placebo|||1.53|-0.11|0.09
91072040|NCT01945970|182030156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|0.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|Subject as random factor, baseline same period and mean baseline in both periods as covariates, and treatment, operator, and period as fixed effects.|Effect of positive control adjusted for placebo|||0.37|-1.13|0.32
91072041|NCT01945970|182030157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.89||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|4.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|Subject as random factor and treatment and period as fixed effects.|Effect of black tea adjusted for placebo|||4.39|-0.61|0.14
91072042|NCT01945970|182030158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|1.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|Subject as random factor and treatment and period as fixed effects.|Effect of black tea adjusted for placebo|||1.62|-2.41|0.69
91072043|NCT01945970|182030159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.44||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|2.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|Subject as random factor and treatment and period as fixed effects|Effect of positive control adjusted for placebo|||2.95|-2.06|0.72
91072044|NCT01945970|182030160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.86||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|2.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|Subject as random factor and treatment and period as fixed effects|Effect of positive control adjusted for placebo|||2.88|-1.15|0.39
91072045|NCT01945970|182030161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|1.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|Subject as random factor, baseline same period and mean baseline in both periods as covariates, and treatment, operator, and period as fixed effects.|Effect of black tea adjusted for placebo|||1.24|-1.75|0.74
91072046|NCT01945970|182030162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|0.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|Subject as random factor, baseline same period and mean baseline in both periods as covariates, and treatment, operator, and period as fixed effects.|Effect of black tea adjusted for placebo|||0.88|-2.12|0.41
91072047|NCT01945970|182030163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|1.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|Subject as random factor, baseline same period and mean baseline in both periods as covariates, and treatment, operator, and period as fixed effects.|Effect of black tea adjusted for placebo|Subject as random factor, baseline same period and mean baseline in both periods as covariates, and treatment, operator, and period as fixed effects||1.54|-1.11|0.74
91072048|NCT01945970|182030164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|1.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|Subject as random factor, baseline same period and mean baseline in both periods as covariates, and treatment, operator, and period as fixed effects.|Effect of positive control adjusted for placebo|||1.17|-1.84|0.66
91072049|NCT01945970|182030165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Subject as random factor, baseline same period and mean baseline in both periods as covariates, and treatment, operator, and period as fixed effects.|Effect of positive control adjusted for placebo|||0.30|-2.70|0.11
91072050|NCT01945970|182030166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|1.73|||Mixed Models Analysis||Effect of positive control adjusted for placebo|||1.73|-0.93|0.55
91072051|NCT00979875|182030167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|2.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.7|2.55||Statistical testing was considered exploratory, with no adjustment for inflation of Type 1 error due to multiplicity of testing.|Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis performed using mixed model with fixed effect for treatment. A compound symmetry covariance matrix among repeated measurements was assumed.||||2.55|1.70|<0.0001
91072052|NCT00979875|182030167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Means Ratio|5.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.88|7.12||Statistical testing was considered exploratory, with no adjustment for inflation of Type 1 error due to multiplicity of testing.|Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis performed using mixed model with fixed effect for treatment. A compound symmetry covariance matrix among repeated measurements was assumed.||||7.12|3.88|<0.0001
91072053|NCT00979875|182030167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Means Ratio|4.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.05|5.6||Statistical testing was considered exploratory, with no adjustment for inflation of Type 1 error due to multiplicity of testing.|Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis performed using mixed model with fixed effect for treatment. A compound symmetry covariance matrix among repeated measurements was assumed.||||5.60|3.05|<0.0001
91072054|NCT00979875|182030168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-38.93|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-53.31|-24.55||Statistical testing was considered exploratory, with no adjustment for inflation of Type 1 error due to multiplicity of testing.|ANOVA|Analysis performed using mixed model with fixed effect for treatment. A compound symmetry covariance matrix among repeated measurements was assumed.||||-24.55|-53.31|<0.0001
91072055|NCT00979875|182030168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-26.43||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-40.81|-12.05||Statistical testing was considered exploratory, with no adjustment for inflation of Type 1 error due to multiplicity of testing.|ANOVA|Analysis performed using mixed model with fixed effect for treatment. A compound symmetry covariance matrix among repeated measurements was assumed.||||-12.05|-40.81|0.0032
91072056|NCT00979875|182030168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-42.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-56.53|-27.76||Statistical testing was considered exploratory, with no adjustment for inflation of Type 1 error due to multiplicity of testing.|ANOVA|Analysis performed using mixed model with fixed effect for treatment. A compound symmetry covariance matrix among repeated measurements was assumed.||||-27.76|-56.53|<0.0001
91072057|NCT02738879|182030181|NON_INFERIORITY|Hypothesis A: After 30 weeks, continuing sitagliptin is non-inferior relative to withdrawing sitagliptin on the change from baseline in A1C. Non-inferiority is declared if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference is less than 0.3%.|Between Group Difference in the LSM|-0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|-0.34|||LDA|||A longitudinal data analysis (LDA) model included terms for treatment, AHA treatment at screening (Met + DPP-4i, Met + DPP-4i + SU, Met + SU), time, and the interactions of time by treatment and of time by AHA treatment at screening. Least Squares Means = LSM||-0.34|-0.58|
91072058|NCT02738879|182030181|SUPERIORITY|Hypothesis B: After 30 weeks, continuing sitagliptin results in a greater reduction of A1C relative to withdrawing sitagliptin.|Between Group Difference in the LSM|-0.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|-0.34|||LDA|||A LDA model included terms for treatment, AHA treatment at screening (Met + DPP-4i, Met + DPP-4i + SU, Met + SU), time, and the interactions of time by treatment and of time by AHA treatment at screening.||-0.34|-0.58|< 0.001
91072059|NCT02738879|182030182|SUPERIORITY||Event Rate Ratio|0.73|||=|0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.98|||Negative Binomial Model|||Calculated via the Negative Binomial Model including terms for treatment, race (i.e., White and Other), region (i.e., Europe, North America, and Other), AHA treatment at screening, baseline A1C value and baseline body weight and an offset for follow-up time (on the natural log scale).||0.98|0.54|= 0.039
91072060|NCT02738879|182030183|OTHER|95% CI|Between Group Difference in Percentages|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||1.7|-2.3|
91072061|NCT02738879|182030184|SUPERIORITY||Between Group Difference in Percentages|-4.1|||=|0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|2.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||2.9|-11.2|= 0.250
91072062|NCT02738879|182030185|SUPERIORITY||Between Group Difference in the LSM|-8.0|||=|0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|-1.5|||LDA model|||The analysis is based on a LDA model including terms for treatment, AHA treatment at screening (Met + DPP-4i, Met + DPP-4i + SU, Met + SU), time, and the interactions of time by treatment and of time by AHA treatment at screening.||-1.5|-14.6|= 0.016
91072063|NCT02738879|182030186|SUPERIORITY||Event Rate Ratio|0.81|||=|0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.99|||Negative Binomial Model|||Negative Binomial Model including terms for treatment, race (i.e., White and Other), region (i.e., Europe, North America, and Other), AHA treatment at screening, baseline A1C value and baseline body weight and an offset for follow-up time (on the natural log scale).||0.99|0.67|= 0.041
91072064|NCT02738879|182030187|SUPERIORITY||Event Rate Ratio|0.83|||=|0.473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.37|||Negative Binomial Model|||Negative Binomial Model including terms for treatment, race (i.e., White and Other), region (i.e., Europe, North America, and Other), AHA treatment at screening, baseline A1C value and baseline body weight and an offset for follow-up time (on the natural log scale).||1.37|0.51|= 0.473
91072065|NCT02738879|182030188|SUPERIORITY||Between Group Difference in Percentages|-1.2|||=|0.624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|3.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Percentages and difference in percentages were calculated via the Miettinen and Nurminen stratified by AHA treatment at screening. Includes imputed events after participants discontinued from the study medication, using a Gamma frailty model. The bootstrap method was used to obtain the CI and p-value.||3.7|-6.2|= 0.624
91072066|NCT02738879|182030189|SUPERIORITY||Between Group Difference in Percentages|18.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.6|25.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||25.7|11.6|< 0.001
91072067|NCT02738879|182030190|SUPERIORITY||Between Group Difference in the LSM|-6.5|||=|0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|-1.0|||LDA|||Analysis was based on a LDA model including terms for treatment, AHA treatment at screening (Met + DPP-4i, Met + DPP-4i + SU, Met + SU), time, and the interactions of time by treatment and of time by AHA treatment at screening.||-1.0|-11.9|= 0.020
91072068|NCT02738879|182030191|OTHER|95% CI|Between Group Difference in Percentages|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|5.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||5.0|-9.1|
91072069|NCT02738879|182030192|SUPERIORITY||Event Rate Ratio|0.76|||=|0.394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.44|||Negative Binomial Model|||The analysis was calculated via the Negative Binomial Model including terms for treatment, race (i.e., White and Other), region (i.e., Europe, North America, and Other), AHA treatment at screening, baseline A1C value and baseline body weight and an offset for follow-up time (on the natural log scale).||1.44|0.40|= 0.394
91072070|NCT02738879|182030193|SUPERIORITY||Between Group Difference in Percentages|-1.2|||=|0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|5.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||The analysis included imputed events after participants discontinued from the study medication, using a Gamma frailty model. Proportions and difference in proportions were calculated via the Miettinen and Nurminen stratified by AHA treatment at screening. The bootstrap method was used to obtain the CI and p-value.||5.8|-8.2|= 0.740
91072071|NCT02738879|182030194|SUPERIORITY||Between Group Difference in Percentages|-0.7|||=|0.712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|3.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Percentages and difference in percentages were calculated via the Miettinen and Nurminen stratified by AHA treatment at screening. The analysis included imputed events after subjects discontinued from the study medication, using a Gamma frailty model. The bootstrap method was used to obtain the CI and p-value.||3.2|-4.7|= 0.712
91072072|NCT02738879|182030195|SUPERIORITY||Between Group Difference in Percentages|5.3|||=|0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|10.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||10.1|0.5|= 0.030
91072073|NCT03330262|182030197|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.018
91072074|NCT03330262|182030198|OTHER|Ho: mean change = 0||||||0.006|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.006
91072075|NCT03330262|182030198|OTHER|Ho: mean change = 0||||||0.869|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.869
91072076|NCT03330262|182030199|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.448|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.448
91072077|NCT03330262|182030200|OTHER|This test evaluated whether the change in ABC was significant for the BALCAP condition##. Ho: mean = 0||||||0.273|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.273
91072078|NCT03330262|182030200|OTHER|This test evaluated if the change in ABC score was significant for the control group.||||||0.796|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.796
91072079|NCT03330262|182030201|OTHER|Ho: Mean change in score = 0||||||0.189|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.189
91072080|NCT03330262|182030201|OTHER|Ho: mean change = 0||||||0.713|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.713
91072081|NCT01647516|182030205|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.262||||0.0482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.969|10.984|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by prior anti-tumor necrosing factor (anti-TNF) therapy experience, (yes or no).||||10.984|0.969|0.0482
91072082|NCT01647516|182030205|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.5||||0.1422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.722|8.661|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by prior anti-tumor necrosing factor (anti-TNF) therapy experience, (yes or no).||||8.661|0.722|0.1422
91072083|NCT01647516|182030206|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.158||||0.0207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.093|4.263|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by prior anti-tumor necrosing factor (anti-TNF) therapy experience, (yes or no).||||4.263|1.093|0.0207
91072084|NCT01647516|182030206|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.947||||0.0648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.961|3.946|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by prior anti-tumor necrosing factor (anti-TNF) therapy experience, (yes or no).||||3.946|0.961|0.0648
91072085|NCT01647516|182030207|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0042|||||||ANCOVA|The analysis of covariance model, adjusting for baseline Mayo score and prior anti-TNF (yes or no).||||||0.0042
91072086|NCT01647516|182030207|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1415|||||||ANCOVA|The analysis of covariance model, adjusting for baseline Mayo score and prior anti-TNF (yes or no).||||||0.1415
91072087|NCT01647516|182030208|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.861||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.572|9.484|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by prior anti-TNF therapy experience, (yes or no).||||9.484|1.572|0.0023
91072088|NCT01647516|182030208|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.647||||0.0348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.058|6.621|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by prior anti-TNF therapy experience, (yes or no).||||6.621|1.058|0.0348
91072089|NCT01647516|182030209|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.332||||0.0108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.323|14.186|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by prior anti-TNF therapy experience, (yes or no).||||14.186|1.323|0.0108
91072090|NCT01647516|182030209|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.443||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.706|17.365|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by prior anti-TNF therapy experience, (yes or no).||||17.365|1.706|0.0021
91072091|NCT01647516|182030210|SUPERIORITY|Stratified by prior anti-TNF therapy experience, (yes or no).|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.03||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.871|8.678|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||8.678|1.871|0.0002
91072092|NCT01647516|182030210|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.154||||0.0571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.974|4.763|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by prior anti-TNF therapy experience, (yes or no).||||4.763|0.974|0.0571
91072093|NCT01647516|182030211|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.557||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.444|8.762|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by prior anti-TNF therapy experience, (yes or no).||||8.762|1.444|0.0046
91072094|NCT01647516|182030211|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.428||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.384|8.494|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by prior anti-TNF therapy experience, (yes or no).||||8.494|1.384|0.0064
91072095|NCT03886519|182030237|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.03||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for correlation between 2 eyes of a participant and baseline trichiasis severity.||||1.03|0.52|0.07
91072096|NCT04964544|182030246|OTHER||Percentage|90.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|88.9|92.3|||||Proportion of participants|Proportion of participants with overall correct initial TASS assessment, with mitigations, worst case imputation (Self-Selection Population)||92.3|88.9|
91072097|NCT04964544|182030247|OTHER||Percentage|98.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|97.1|98.8|||||Proportion of participants|Proportion of participants with overall correct final TASS assessment, with mitigations, worst case imputation (Per Protocol Population)||98.8|97.1|
91072098|NCT04964544|182030248|OTHER||Mean percent change from paseline|-35.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.63|-34.33||||||||-34.33|-36.63|
91072099|NCT04143594|182030263|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-2.6||||0.7178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.4|13.2||P-value was from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) tests stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs \> 100,000 copies/mL).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference in percentage of participants between LEN-containing and the B/F/TAF groups, and its 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated based on the MH proportions adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||13.2|-18.4|0.7178
91072100|NCT04143594|182030263|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-7.1||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.4|9.3||P-value was from the CMH tests stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (\<= 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference in percentage of participants between LEN-containing treatment groups and the B/F/TAF group, and its 95% CI were calculated based on the MH proportions adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||9.3|-23.4|0.3900
91072101|NCT04143594|182030263|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-7.2||||0.3797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.5|9.1||P-value was from the CMH tests stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (\<= 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference in percentage of participants between LEN-containing treatment groups and the B/F/TAF group, and its 95% CI were calculated based on the MH proportions adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||9.1|-23.5|0.3797
91072102|NCT04143594|182030264|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-5.5||||0.2398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.9|4.8||P-value was from the CMH tests stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (\<= 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference in percentage of participants between LEN-containing treatment groups and the B/F/TAF group, and its 95% CI were calculated based on the MH proportions adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||4.8|-15.9|0.2398
91072103|NCT04143594|182030264|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-7.4||||0.1639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.3|3.4||P-value was from the CMH tests stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (\<= 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference in percentage of participants between LEN-containing treatment groups and the B/F/TAF group, and its 95% CI were calculated based on the MH proportions adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||3.4|-18.3|0.1639
91072104|NCT04143594|182030264|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-5.7||||0.2307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|4.9||P-value was from the CMH tests stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (\<= 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference in percentage of participants between LEN-containing treatment groups and the B/F/TAF group, and its 95% CI were calculated based on the MH proportions adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||4.9|-16.3|0.2307
91072105|NCT04143594|182030265|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-6.7||||0.3142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.7|7.3||P-value was from the CMH tests stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (\<= 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference in percentage of participants between LEN-containing treatment groups and the B/F/TAF group, and its 95% CI were calculated based on the MH proportions adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||7.3|-20.7|0.3142
91072106|NCT04143594|182030265|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-7.2||||0.3009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.3|6.8||P-value was from the CMH tests stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (\<= 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference in percentage of participants between LEN-containing treatment groups and the B/F/TAF group, and its 95% CI were calculated based on the MH proportions adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||6.8|-21.3|0.3009
91072107|NCT04143594|182030265|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-7.6||||0.2859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.8|6.7||P-value was from the CMH tests stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (\<= 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference in percentage of participants between LEN-containing treatment groups and the B/F/TAF group, and its 95% CI were calculated based on the MH proportions adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||6.7|-21.8|0.2859
91072108|NCT04143594|182030266|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-7.1||||0.3686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.2|9.0||P-value was from the CMH tests stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (\<= 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference in percentage of participants between LEN-containing treatment groups and the B/F/TAF group, and its 95% CI were calculated based on the MH proportions adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||9.0|-23.2|0.3686
91072109|NCT04143594|182030266|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-16.5||||0.0887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.0|1.0||P-value was from the CMH tests stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (\<= 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference in percentage of participants between LEN-containing treatment groups and the B/F/TAF group, and its 95% CI were calculated based on the MH proportions adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||1.0|-34.0|0.0887
90827655|NCT04170543|181530113|OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Percent Change|7.25||||0.5474|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.45|29.88||Unadjusted two-sided p-value|MMRM||MEDI3506 30 mg - Placebo|||29.88|-11.45|0.5474
90827656|NCT04170543|181530113|OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Percent Change|3.11||||0.792|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.83|24.82||Unadjusted two-sided p-value|MMRM||MEDI3506 60 mg - Placebo|||24.82|-14.83|0.7920
91072110|NCT04143594|182030266|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-5.4||||0.4949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.5|10.7||P-value was from the CMH tests stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (\<= 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference in percentage of participants between LEN-containing treatment groups and the B/F/TAF group, and its 95% CI were calculated based on the MH proportions adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||10.7|-21.5|0.4949
91072111|NCT04143594|182030267|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|0.08||||0.5755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.37||P-value was from analysis of variance (ANOVA) model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|ANOVA||Difference in least squares means (Diff in LSM), and its 95% CI were from ANOVA model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||0.37|-0.20|0.5755
91072112|NCT04143594|182030267|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|0.02||||0.8697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.29||P-value was from (ANOVA) model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|ANOVA||Difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were from ANOVA model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||0.29|-0.25|0.8697
91072113|NCT04143594|182030267|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|0.06||||0.7052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.35||P-value was from (ANOVA) model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|ANOVA||Difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were from ANOVA model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||0.35|-0.23|0.7052
91072114|NCT04143594|182030268|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|0.02||||0.8942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.3||P-value was from (ANOVA) model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|ANOVA||Difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were from ANOVA model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||0.30|-0.26|0.8942
91072115|NCT04143594|182030268|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-0.02||||0.9058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.25||P-value was from (ANOVA) model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|ANOVA||Difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were from ANOVA model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||0.25|-0.28|0.9058
91072116|NCT04143594|182030268|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|0.04||||0.8129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.35||P-value was from (ANOVA) model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|ANOVA||Difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were from ANOVA model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||0.35|-0.27|0.8129
91072117|NCT04143594|182030269|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|0.04||||0.7864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.33||P-value was from (ANOVA) model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|ANOVA||Difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were from ANOVA model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||0.33|-0.25|0.7864
91072118|NCT04143594|182030269|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-0.05||||0.7013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.21||P-value was from (ANOVA) model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|ANOVA||Difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were from ANOVA model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||0.21|-0.31|0.7013
91072119|NCT04143594|182030269|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|0.22||||0.2753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.62||P-value was from (ANOVA) model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|ANOVA||Difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were from ANOVA model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||0.62|-0.18|0.2753
91072120|NCT04143594|182030270|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|0.08||||0.564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.34||P-value was from (ANOVA) model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|ANOVA||Difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were from ANOVA model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||0.34|-0.19|0.5640
91072121|NCT04143594|182030270|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-0.01||||0.9555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.26||P-value was from (ANOVA) model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|ANOVA||Difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were from ANOVA model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||0.26|-0.28|0.9555
91072122|NCT04143594|182030270|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|0.14||||0.4025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.46||P-value was from (ANOVA) model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|ANOVA||Difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were from ANOVA model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||0.46|-0.19|0.4025
91072123|NCT04143594|182030271|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|12.0||||0.7751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.0|97.0||P-value was from (ANOVA) model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|ANOVA||Difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were from ANOVA model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||97|-73|0.7751
91072124|NCT04143594|182030271|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-2.0||||0.9549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-79.0|75.0||P-value was from (ANOVA) model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|ANOVA||Difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were from ANOVA model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||75|-79|0.9549
91072125|NCT04143594|182030271|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|44.0||||0.2603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.0|120.0||P-value was from (ANOVA) model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|ANOVA||Difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were from ANOVA model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||120|-33|0.2603
91072126|NCT04143594|182030272|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-31.0||||0.4827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-119.0|57.0||P-value was from (ANOVA) model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|ANOVA||Difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were from ANOVA model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||57|-119|0.4827
91072127|NCT04143594|182030272|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-12.0||||0.7963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-106.0|81.0||P-value was from (ANOVA) model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|ANOVA||Difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were from ANOVA model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||81|-106|0.7963
91072128|NCT04143594|182030272|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-22.0||||0.6169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-111.0|67.0||P-value was from (ANOVA) model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|ANOVA||Difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were from ANOVA model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||67|-111|0.6169
91072129|NCT04143594|182030273|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|21.0||||0.6614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.0|115.0||P-value was from (ANOVA) model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|ANOVA||Difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were from ANOVA model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||115|-73|0.6614
91072130|NCT04143594|182030273|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|20.0||||0.6791|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.0|115.0||P-value was from (ANOVA) model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|ANOVA||Difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were from ANOVA model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||115|-75|0.6791
91072131|NCT04143594|182030273|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|27.0||||0.5563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.0|120.0||P-value was from (ANOVA) model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|ANOVA||Difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were from ANOVA model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||120|-65|0.5563
91072132|NCT04143594|182030274|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|32.0||||0.5492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.0|140.0||P-value was from (ANOVA) model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|ANOVA||Difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were from ANOVA model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||140|-75|0.5492
91072133|NCT04143594|182030274|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|17.0||||0.722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.0|115.0||P-value was from (ANOVA) model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|Difference in LSM||Difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were from ANOVA model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||115|-80|0.7220
91072134|NCT04143594|182030274|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-4.0||||0.9486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-118.0|110.0||P-value was from (ANOVA) model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|ANOVA||Difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were from ANOVA model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||110|-118|0.9486
91072135|NCT01023256|182030298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.095||||||P values were derived from pairwise comparisons between each MOR103 group and the pooled placebo group based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model. P values \< 0.05 were considered significant.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included fixed effect terms for dose and the covariate C-reactive protein level at baseline.||||||0.095
91072136|NCT01023256|182030298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P values were derived from pairwise comparisons between each MOR103 group and the pooled placebo group based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model. P values \< 0.05 were considered significant.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included fixed effect terms for dose and the covariate C-reactive protein level at baseline.||||||<0.0001
90827657|NCT04170543|181530113|OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Percent Change|-3.4||||0.7711|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.59|17.51||Unadjusted two-sided p-value|MMRM||MEDI3506 120 mg - Placebo|||17.51|-20.59|0.7711
90827658|NCT04170543|181530113|OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Percent Change|5.27||||0.6163|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.08|24.62||Unadjusted two-sided p-value|MMRM|||||24.62|-11.08|0.6163
91072137|NCT01023256|182030298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||||||P values were derived from pairwise comparisons between each MOR103 group and the pooled placebo group based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model. P values \< 0.05 were considered significant.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included fixed effect terms for dose and the covariate C-reactive protein level at baseline.||||||0.003
91072138|NCT01023256|182030300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.421||||||P values were derived from pairwise comparisons between each MOR103 group and the pooled placebo group based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model. P values \< 0.05 were considered significant.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included fixed effect terms for dose and the covariate C-reactive protein level at baseline.||||||0.421
91072139|NCT01023256|182030300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||||||P values were derived from pairwise comparisons between each MOR103 group and the pooled placebo group based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model. P values \< 0.05 were considered significant.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included fixed effect terms for dose and the covariate C-reactive protein level at baseline.||||||0.003
91072140|NCT01023256|182030300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.065||||||P values were derived from pairwise comparisons between each MOR103 group and the pooled placebo group based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model. P values \< 0.05 were considered significant.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included fixed effect terms for dose and the covariate C-reactive protein level at baseline.||||||0.065
91072141|NCT01023256|182030301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.243||||||P values \<0.05 were considered to be statistically significant.|Fisher Exact|Patients with missing values were not included||||||0.243
91072142|NCT01023256|182030301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P values \< 0.05 were considered significant.|Fisher Exact|Patients with missing values were not included||||||<0.0001
91072143|NCT01023256|182030301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.135||||||P values \<0.05 were considered to be statistically significant.|Fisher Exact|Patients with missing values were not included.||||||0.135
91072144|NCT00308087|182030309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6182||95.0||||"Exact Conditional Test is stratified on the number~\> of prior therapies (1 or 2, 3 or more prior therapies)."|2-sided Exact Conditional Test|||||||0.6182
91072145|NCT00308087|182030312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5501||95.0|||||Log Rank|||Log rank analysis is a comparison between treatment groups of the distribution of time to first progressive disease or death.||||0.5501
91072146|NCT00308087|182030313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8217||95.0|||||Log Rank|||Log rank analysis is a comparison between treatment groups of the distribution of time to first progressive disease or death.||||0.8217
90827659|NCT04170543|181530115|OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Percent Change|2.43||||0.8537|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.35|26.95||Unadjusted two-sided p-value|MMRM||MEDI3506 30 mg - Placebo|||26.95|-17.35|0.8537
90827660|NCT04170543|181530115|OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Percent Change|-15.63||||0.1989|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-32.14|4.89||Unadjusted two-sided p-value|MMRM||MEDI3506 60 mg - Placebo|||4.89|-32.14|0.1989
90827661|NCT04170543|181530115|OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Percent Change|-17.96||||0.1346|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-34.01|1.99||Unadjusted two-sided p-value|MMRM||MEDI3506 120 mg - Placebo|||1.99|-34.01|0.1346
91072147|NCT02949843|182030330|OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||Fisher Exact|||Null Hypothesis is that each arm has equal rates of smoking history.||||0.6
91072148|NCT03613649|182030331|NON_INFERIORITY|Per ICH E14, an increase in the QTcF interval of 5 ms, as evidenced by the upper bound of a 95% one-sided confidence interval above 0.10, is the threshold for regulatory concern. Statistically, the test of prolongation is equivalent to a non-inferiority test versus placebo by crossover design, with an non-inferiority margin of 10 ms.|Least-Squares Mean Double Delta Value|-0.99|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.635||||||"Null Hypothesis: Zoliflodacin administered at a 2 g dose causes a prolongation of the QTcF interval 0.5 h post-dose that exceeds the criteria in the ICH Guidance E14 (5 ms).~Power Calculation:~Enrollment of 72 subjects would provide at least 84% power to conclude a negative effect, given that up to 16 subjects may withdraw early prior to beginning to replace subjects (at least 56 subjects evaluable), and assuming a standard deviation of ΔΔQTcF of 7 msec and an underlying effect of 5 msec."||0.635||
91072149|NCT03613649|182030331|NON_INFERIORITY|Per ICH E14, an increase in the QTcF interval of 5 ms, as evidenced by the upper bound of a 95% one-sided confidence interval above 0.10, is the threshold for regulatory concern.|Least-Squares Mean Double Delta Value|0.59|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||2.2||||||Null Hypothesis: Zoliflodacin administered at a 2 g dose causes a prolongation of the QTcF interval 1 h post-dose that exceeds the criteria in the ICH Guidance E14 (5 ms).||2.200||
91072150|NCT03613649|182030331|NON_INFERIORITY|Per ICH E14, an increase in the QTcF interval of 5 ms, as evidenced by the upper bound of a 95% one-sided confidence interval above 0.10, is the threshold for regulatory concern.|Least-Squares Mean Double Delta Value|0.17|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||1.795||||||Null Hypothesis: Zoliflodacin administered at a 2 g dose causes a prolongation of the QTcF interval 2 h post-dose that exceeds the criteria in the ICH Guidance E14 (5 ms).||1.795||
91072151|NCT03613649|182030331|NON_INFERIORITY|Per ICH E14, an increase in the QTcF interval of 5 ms, as evidenced by the upper bound of a 95% one-sided confidence interval above 0.10, is the threshold for regulatory concern.|Least-Squares Mean Double Delta Value|1.42|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||3.044||||||Null Hypothesis: Zoliflodacin administered at a 2 g dose causes a prolongation of the QTcF interval 3 h post-dose that exceeds the criteria in the ICH Guidance E14 (5 ms).||3.044||
91072152|NCT03613649|182030331|NON_INFERIORITY|Per ICH E14, an increase in the QTcF interval of 5 ms, as evidenced by the upper bound of a 95% one-sided confidence interval above 0.10, is the threshold for regulatory concern.|Least-Squares Mean Double Delta Value|1.17|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||2.792||||||Null Hypothesis: Zoliflodacin administered at a 2 g dose causes a prolongation of the QTcF interval 4 h post-dose that exceeds the criteria in the ICH Guidance E14 (5 ms).||2.792||
91072153|NCT03613649|182030331|NON_INFERIORITY|Per ICH E14, an increase in the QTcF interval of 5 ms, as evidenced by the upper bound of a 95% one-sided confidence interval above 0.10, is the threshold for regulatory concern.|Least-Squares Mean Double Delta Value|0.45|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||2.074||||||Null Hypothesis: Zoliflodacin administered at a 2 g dose causes a prolongation of the QTcF interval 6 h post-dose that exceeds the criteria in the ICH Guidance E14 (5 ms).||2.074||
91072154|NCT03613649|182030331|NON_INFERIORITY|Per ICH E14, an increase in the QTcF interval of 5 ms, as evidenced by the upper bound of a 95% one-sided confidence interval above 0.10, is the threshold for regulatory concern.|Least-Squares Mean Double Delta Value|-0.83|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.79||||||Null Hypothesis: Zoliflodacin administered at a 2 g dose causes a prolongation of the QTcF interval 8 h post-dose that exceeds the criteria in the ICH Guidance E14 (5 ms).||0.790||
91072155|NCT03613649|182030331|NON_INFERIORITY|Per ICH E14, an increase in the QTcF interval of 5 ms, as evidenced by the upper bound of a 95% one-sided confidence interval above 0.10, is the threshold for regulatory concern.|Least-Squares Mean Double Delta Value|0.03|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||1.65||||||Null Hypothesis: Zoliflodacin administered at a 2 g dose causes a prolongation of the QTcF interval 12 h post-dose that exceeds the criteria in the ICH Guidance E14 (5 ms).||1.650||
91072156|NCT03613649|182030331|NON_INFERIORITY|Per ICH E14, an increase in the QTcF interval of 5 ms, as evidenced by the upper bound of a 95% one-sided confidence interval above 0.10, is the threshold for regulatory concern.|Least-Squares Mean Double Delta Value|-0.53|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||1.131||||||Null Hypothesis: Zoliflodacin administered at a 2 g dose causes a prolongation of the QTcF interval 24 h post-dose that exceeds the criteria in the ICH Guidance E14 (5 ms).||1.131||
91072157|NCT03613649|182030331|NON_INFERIORITY|Per ICH E14, an increase in the QTcF interval of 5 ms, as evidenced by the upper bound of a 95% one-sided confidence interval above 0.10, is the threshold for regulatory concern.|Least-Squares Mean Double Delta Value|1.17|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||2.815||||||Null Hypothesis: Zoliflodacin administered at a 4 g dose causes a prolongation of the QTcF interval 0.5 h post-dose that exceeds the criteria in the ICH Guidance E14 (5 ms).||2.815||
91072158|NCT03613649|182030331|NON_INFERIORITY|Per ICH E14, an increase in the QTcF interval of 5 ms, as evidenced by the upper bound of a 95% one-sided confidence interval above 0.10, is the threshold for regulatory concern.|Least-Squares Mean Double Delta Value|2.36|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||3.997||||||Null Hypothesis: Zoliflodacin administered at a 4 g dose causes a prolongation of the QTcF interval 1 h post-dose that exceeds the criteria in the ICH Guidance E14 (5 ms).||3.997||
91072159|NCT03613649|182030331|NON_INFERIORITY|Per ICH E14, an increase in the QTcF interval of 5 ms, as evidenced by the upper bound of a 95% one-sided confidence interval above 0.10, is the threshold for regulatory concern.|Least-Squares Mean Double Delta Value|2.18|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||3.812||||||Null Hypothesis: Zoliflodacin administered at a 4 g dose causes a prolongation of the QTcF interval 2 h post-dose that exceeds the criteria in the ICH Guidance E14 (5 ms).||3.812||
91072160|NCT03613649|182030331|NON_INFERIORITY|Per ICH E14, an increase in the QTcF interval of 5 ms, as evidenced by the upper bound of a 95% one-sided confidence interval above 0.10, is the threshold for regulatory concern.|Least-Squares Mean Double Delta Value|2.59|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||4.228||||||Null Hypothesis: Zoliflodacin administered at a 4 g dose causes a prolongation of the QTcF interval 3 h post-dose that exceeds the criteria in the ICH Guidance E14 (5 ms).||4.228||
91072161|NCT03613649|182030331|NON_INFERIORITY|Per ICH E14, an increase in the QTcF interval of 5 ms, as evidenced by the upper bound of a 95% one-sided confidence interval above 0.10, is the threshold for regulatory concern.|Least-Squares Mean Double Delta Value|3.04|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||4.674||||||Null Hypothesis: Zoliflodacin administered at a 4 g dose causes a prolongation of the QTcF interval 4 h post-dose that exceeds the criteria in the ICH Guidance E14 (5 ms).||4.674||
91072162|NCT03613649|182030331|NON_INFERIORITY|Per ICH E14, an increase in the QTcF interval of 5 ms, as evidenced by the upper bound of a 95% one-sided confidence interval above 0.10, is the threshold for regulatory concern.|Least-Squares Mean Double Delta Value|1.63|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||3.259||||||Null Hypothesis: Zoliflodacin administered at a 4 g dose causes a prolongation of the QTcF interval 6 h post-dose that exceeds the criteria in the ICH Guidance E14 (5 ms).||3.259||
91072163|NCT03613649|182030331|NON_INFERIORITY|Per ICH E14, an increase in the QTcF interval of 5 ms, as evidenced by the upper bound of a 95% one-sided confidence interval above 0.10, is the threshold for regulatory concern.|Least-Squares Mean Double Delta Value|-0.07|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||1.566||||||Null Hypothesis: Zoliflodacin administered at a 4 g dose causes a prolongation of the QTcF interval 8 h post-dose that exceeds the criteria in the ICH Guidance E14 (5 ms).||1.566||
91072164|NCT03613649|182030331|NON_INFERIORITY|Per ICH E14, an increase in the QTcF interval of 5 ms, as evidenced by the upper bound of a 95% one-sided confidence interval above 0.10, is the threshold for regulatory concern.|Least-Squares Mean Double Delta Value|1.82|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||3.459||||||Null Hypothesis: Zoliflodacin administered at a 4 g dose causes a prolongation of the QTcF interval 12 h post-dose that exceeds the criteria in the ICH Guidance E14 (5 ms).||3.459||
91072165|NCT03613649|182030331|NON_INFERIORITY|Per ICH E14, an increase in the QTcF interval of 5 ms, as evidenced by the upper bound of a 95% one-sided confidence interval above 0.10, is the threshold for regulatory concern.|Least-Squares Mean Double Delta Value|1.72|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||3.415||||||Null Hypothesis: Zoliflodacin administered at a 4 g dose causes a prolongation of the QTcF interval 24 h post-dose that exceeds the criteria in the ICH Guidance E14 (5 ms).||3.415||
91072166|NCT03613649|182030336|NON_INFERIORITY|"According to ICH E14, the positive control should have an effect on the mean QT/QTc interval of about 5 ms. Comparison of the lower bound of the confidence interval to 5 ms for a 400 mg dose of moxifloxacin is standard practice for demonstrating assay sensitivity in thorough QT studies."|Least-Squares Mean Double Delta Value|10.19|||||ONE_SIDED|98.75|8.257|||||||Null Hypothesis: The trial does not have the sensitivity to detect an effect on QTcF of regulatory concern, as produced by 400 mg moxifloxacin 1 h after dose.|||8.257|
91072167|NCT03613649|182030336|NON_INFERIORITY|"According to ICH E14, the positive control should have an effect on the mean QT/QTc interval of about 5 ms. Comparison of the lower bound of the confidence interval to 5 ms for a 400 mg dose of moxifloxacin is standard practice for demonstrating assay sensitivity in thorough QT studies."|Least-Squares Mean Double Delta Value|10.79|||||ONE_SIDED|98.75|8.86|||||||Null Hypothesis: The trial does not have the sensitivity to detect an effect on QTcF of regulatory concern, as produced by 400 mg moxifloxacin 2 h after dose.|||8.860|
91072168|NCT03613649|182030336|NON_INFERIORITY|"According to ICH E14, the positive control should have an effect on the mean QT/QTc interval of about 5 ms. Comparison of the lower bound of the confidence interval to 5 ms for a 400 mg dose of moxifloxacin is standard practice for demonstrating assay sensitivity in thorough QT studies."|Least-Squares Mean Double Delta Value|10.62|||||ONE_SIDED|98.75|8.683|||||||Null Hypothesis: The trial does not have the sensitivity to detect an effect on QTcF of regulatory concern, as produced by 400 mg moxifloxacin 3 h after dose.|||8.683|
91072169|NCT03613649|182030336|NON_INFERIORITY|"According to ICH E14, the positive control should have an effect on the mean QT/QTc interval of about 5 ms. Comparison of the lower bound of the confidence interval to 5 ms for a 400 mg dose of moxifloxacin is standard practice for demonstrating assay sensitivity in thorough QT studies."|Least-Squares Mean Double Delta Value|10.63|||||ONE_SIDED|98.75|8.698|||||||Null Hypothesis: The trial does not have the sensitivity to detect an effect on QTcF of regulatory concern, as produced by 400 mg moxifloxacin 4 h after dose.|||8.698|
91072170|NCT02783729|182030367|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Geometric Mean(LSGM) Ratio|0.773|||=|0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.672|0.889||Based on mixed effect model repeated measurement (MMRM) model with log transformation of LPS and factors for age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 29/30), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline LPS as a covariate.|MMRM|||||0.889|0.672|= 0.0003
91072171|NCT02783729|182030367|SUPERIORITY||LSGM Ratio|0.723|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.628|0.832||Based on MMRM model with log transformation of LPS and factors for age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 29/30), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline LPS as a covariate.|MMRM|||||0.832|0.628|< 0.0001
91072172|NCT02783729|182030368|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean (LSM) Difference|7.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.746|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.61|8.54||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 29/30), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the baseline SE as a covariate.|MMRM|||||8.54|5.61|< 0.0001
91072173|NCT02783729|182030368|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|8.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.746|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.57|9.49||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 29/30), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the baseline SE as a covariate.|MMRM|||||9.49|6.57|< 0.0001
91072174|NCT02783729|182030369|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-23.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.068|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.98|-17.95||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 29/30), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the baseline WASO as a covariate.|MMRM|||||-17.95|-29.98|< 0.0001
91072175|NCT02783729|182030369|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-25.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.067|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.36|-19.34|||MMRM|||||-19.34|-31.36|< 0.0001
91072176|NCT02783729|182030370|SUPERIORITY|Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 29/30), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the baseline WASO2H as a covariate.|LSM Difference|-6.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.298|=|0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.15|-2.15|||MMRM|||||-2.15|-11.15|= 0.0038
91072177|NCT02783729|182030370|SUPERIORITY|Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 29/30), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the baseline WASO2H as a covariate.|LSM Difference|-8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.309|=|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.53|-3.47|||MMRM|||||-3.47|-12.53|= 0.0005
91072178|NCT02783729|182030371|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-9.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.029|=|0.0171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.53|-1.72||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 2/3), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the baseline posture stability of body sway as a covariate.|MMRM|||Zolpidem Tartrate Extended Release 6.25 mg v Lemborexant 5 mg||-1.72|-17.53|= 0.0171
90827662|NCT04170543|181530115|OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Percent Change|-6.38||||0.5683|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.59|13.23||Unadjusted two-sided p-value|MMRM|||||13.23|-22.59|0.5683
91072179|NCT02783729|182030371|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-10.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.04|=|0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.67|-2.81||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 2/3), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the baseline posture stability of body sway as a covariate.|MMRM|||Zolpidem Tartrate Extended Release 6.25 mg v Lemborexant 10 mg||-2.81|-18.67|= 0.008
91072180|NCT02783729|182030372|SUPERIORITY||LSGM Ratio|0.874|||=|0.0218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|0.981||Based on MMRM model with log transformation of LPS and factors for age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 1/2), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline LPS as a covariate.|MMRM|||LPS, Days 1/2: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 5 mg||0.981|0.78|= 0.0218
91072181|NCT02783729|182030372|OTHER||LSGM Ratio|0.818|||=|0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.729|0.917||Based on MMRM model with log transformation of LPS and factors for age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 1/2), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline LPS as a covariate.|MMRM|||LPS, Days 1/2: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 10 mg||0.917|0.729|= 0.0006
91072182|NCT02783729|182030372|SUPERIORITY||LSGM Ratio|0.634|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.556|0.724||Based on MMRM model with log transformation of LPS and factors for age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 29/30), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline LPS as a covariate.|MMRM|||LPS, Days 29/30: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 5 mg||0.724|0.556|< 0.0001
91072183|NCT02783729|182030372|SUPERIORITY||LSGM Ratio|0.594|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.521|0.677||Based on MMRM model with log transformation of LPS and factors for age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 29/30), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline LPS as a covariate.|MMRM|||LPS, Days 29/30: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 10 mg||0.677|0.521|< 0.0001
91072184|NCT02783729|182030372|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-6.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.544|=|0.0154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.15|-1.17||Based on MMRM model with factors for age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 1/2), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline WASO as a covariate.|MMRM|||WASO, Days 1/2: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 5 mg||-1.17|-11.15|= 0.0154
91072185|NCT02783729|182030372|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-15.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.542|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.01|-10.05||Based on MMRM model with factors for age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 1/2), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline WASO as a covariate.|MMRM|||WASO, Days 1/2: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 10 mg||-10.05|-20.01|< 0.0001
91072186|NCT02783729|182030372|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-7.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.876|=|0.0073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.36|-2.08||Based on MMRM model with factors for age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 29/30), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline WASO as a covariate.|MMRM|||WASO, Days 29/30: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 5 mg||-2.08|-13.36|= 0.0073
91072187|NCT02783729|182030372|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-9.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.883|=|0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.75|-3.45|||MMRM|||WASO, Days 29/30: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 10 mg||-3.45|-14.75|= 0.0016
91072188|NCT02783729|182030372|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|10.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.094|=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.18|16.32||Based on MMRM model with factors for age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 1/2), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline TST as a covariate.|MMRM|||TST, Days 1/2: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 5 mg||16.32|4.18|= 0.001
91072189|NCT02783729|182030372|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|23.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.085|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.04|29.15||Based on MMRM model with factors for age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 1/2), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline TST as a covariate.|MMRM|||TST, Days 1/2: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 10 mg||29.15|17.04|< 0.0001
91072190|NCT02783729|182030372|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|19.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.457|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.63|26.2||Based on MMRM model with factors for age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 29/30), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline TST as a covariate.|MMRM|||TST, Days 29/30: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 5 mg||26.2|12.63|< 0.0001
91072191|NCT02783729|182030372|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|24.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.456|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.32|30.88||Based on MMRM model with factors for age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 29/30), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline TST as a covariate.|MMRM|||TST, Days 29/30: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 10 mg||30.88|17.32|< 0.0001
91072192|NCT02783729|182030373|SUPERIORITY||LSGM Ratio|0.898|||=|0.0122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.825|0.977||Based on MMRM model model with log transformation of sSOL and factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (First 7 Nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline sSOL as a covariate.|MMRM|||sSOL, First 7 nights: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 5 mg||0.977|0.825|= 0.0122
91072193|NCT02783729|182030373|SUPERIORITY||LSGM Ratio|0.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.763|0.902||Based on MMRM model model with log transformation of sSOL and factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (First 7 Nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline sSOL as a covariate.|MMRM|||sSOL, First 7 nights: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 10 mg||0.902|0.763|< 0.0001
91072194|NCT02783729|182030373|SUPERIORITY||LSGM Ratio|0.882|||=|0.0176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.796|0.978||Based on MMRM model model with log transformation of sSOL and factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Last 7 Nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline sSOL as a covariate.|MMRM|||sSOL, Last 7 nights: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 5 mg||0.978|0.796|= 0.0176
91072195|NCT02783729|182030373|SUPERIORITY||LSGM Ratio|0.811|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.732|0.899||Based on MMRM model model with log transformation of sSOL and with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Last 7 Nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline sSOL as a covariate.|MMRM|||sSOL, Last 7 nights: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 10 mg||0.899|0.732|< 0.0001
91072196|NCT02783729|182030373|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|8.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.484|=|0.0706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|16.91||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (First 7 Nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline sWASO as a covariate.|MMRM|||sWASO, First 7 nights: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 5 mg||16.91|-0.68|= 0.0706
91072197|NCT02783729|182030373|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-5.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.481|=|0.1949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.61|2.98||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (First 7 Nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline sWASO as a covariate.|MMRM|||sWASO, First 7 nights: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 10 mg||2.98|-14.61|= 0.1949
91072198|NCT02783729|182030373|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|14.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.241|=|0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.16|24.73||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Last 7 Nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline sWASO as a covariate.|MMRM|||sWASO, Last 7 nights: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 5 mg||24.73|4.16|= 0.0059
91072199|NCT02783729|182030373|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|5.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.241|=|0.3064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.92|15.65||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Last 7 Nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline sWASO as a covariate.|MMRM|||sWASO, Last 7 nights: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 10 mg||15.65|-4.92|= 0.3064
91072200|NCT02783729|182030373|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-6.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.325|=|0.2174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.02|3.88||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (First 7 Nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baselines sTST as a covariate.|MMRM|||sTST, First 7 nights: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 5 mg||3.88|-17.02|= 0.2174
91072201|NCT02783729|182030373|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|8.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.313|=|0.0949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|19.31||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (First 7 Nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline sTST as a covariate.|MMRM|||sTST, First 7 nights: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 10 mg||19.31|-1.55|= 0.0949
91072202|NCT02783729|182030373|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-6.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.207|=|0.2718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.01|5.36||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Last 7 Nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline sTST as a covariate.|MMRM|||sTST, Last 7 nights: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 5 mg||5.36|-19.01|= 0.2718
91072203|NCT02783729|182030373|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|7.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.206|=|0.2317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.75|19.61||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Last 7 Nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline sTST as a covariate.|MMRM|||sTST, Last 7 nights: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 10 mg||19.61|-4.75|= 0.2317
91072204|NCT02783729|182030374|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.063|=|0.1963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.46|0.71||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (First 7 Nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline sSE as a covariate.|MMRM|||sSE, First 7 nights: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 5 mg||0.71|-3.46|= 0.1963
91072205|NCT02783729|182030374|SUPERIORITY|Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (First 7 Nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline sSE as a covariate|LSM Difference|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06|=|0.1093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|3.78|||MMRM|||sSE, First 7 nights: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 10 mg||3.78|-0.38|= 0.1093
91072206|NCT02783729|182030374|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.247|=|0.2196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.98|0.92||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Last 7 Nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline sSE as a covariate.|MMRM|||sSE, Last 7 nights: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 5 mg||0.92|-3.98|= 0.2196
91072207|NCT02783729|182030374|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.246|=|0.4013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|3.49||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Last 7 Nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline sSE as a covariate.|MMRM|||sSE, Last 7 nights: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 10 mg||3.49|-1.4|= 0.4013
91072208|NCT02783729|182030375|SUPERIORITY||LSGM Ratio|0.85|||=|0.0092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.752|0.961||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 1/2), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline LPS as a covariate.|MMRM|||LPS: Placebo, Lemborexant 5 mg||0.961|0.752|= 0.0092
91072209|NCT02783729|182030375|SUPERIORITY||LSGM Ratio|0.795|||=|0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.704|0.899||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Days1/2), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline LPS as a covariate.|MMRM|||LPS: Placebo, Lemborexant 10 mg||0.899|0.704|= 0.0002
91072210|NCT02783729|182030375|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-33.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.711|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.71|-28.09||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 1/2), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the baseline WASO as a covariate.|MMRM|||WASO: Placebo, Lemborexant 5 mg||-28.09|-38.71|< 0.0001
91072211|NCT02783729|182030375|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-42.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.705|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.57|-36.97||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 1/2), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the baseline WASO as a covariate.|MMRM|||WASO: Placebo, Lemborexant 10 mg||-36.97|-47.57|< 0.0001
91072212|NCT02783729|182030375|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-21.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.221|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.01|-17.3||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 1/2), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline WASO2H as a covariate.|MMRM|||WASO2H: Placebo, Lemborexant 5 mg||-17.3|-26.01|< 0.0001
91072213|NCT02783729|182030375|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-28.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.219|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.68|-23.98||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 1/2), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline WASO2H as a covariate.|MMRM|||WASO2H: Placebo, Lemborexant 10 mg||-23.98|-32.68|< 0.0001
91072214|NCT02783729|182030375|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|44.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.291|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.59|50.51||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 1/2), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the baseline TST as a covariate.|MMRM|||TST: Placebo, Lemborexant 5 mg||50.51|37.59|< 0.0001
91072215|NCT02783729|182030375|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|56.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.284|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.46|63.34||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 1/2), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the baseline TST as a covariate.|MMRM|||TST: Placebo, Lemborexant 10 mg||63.34|50.46|< 0.0001
90827663|NCT04170543|181530116|OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Percent Change|-7.93||||0.4226|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.3|9.1||Unadjusted two-sided p-value|MMRM||MEDI3506 30 mg - Placebo|||9.10|-22.30|0.4226
90827664|NCT04170543|181530116|OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Percent Change|-20.61||||0.0287|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-33.25|-5.58||Unadjusted two-sided p-value|MMRM||MEDI3506 60 mg - Placebo|||-5.58|-33.25|0.0287
91072216|NCT02783729|182030376|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|9.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.666|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|10.31||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 1/2), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline SE as a covariate.|MMRM|||SE: Placebo, Lemborexant 5 mg||10.31|7.7|< 0.0001
91072217|NCT02783729|182030376|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|11.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.664|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.3|12.9||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 1/2), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the baseline SE as a covariate.|MMRM|||SE: Placebo, Lemborexant 10 mg||12.9|10.3|< 0.0001
91072218|NCT02783729|182030377|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-16.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.457|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.23|-11.6||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 29/30), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the baseline WASO2H as a covariate.|MMRM|||WASO2H: Placebo, Lemborexant 5 mg||-11.6|-21.23|< 0.0001
91072219|NCT02783729|182030377|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-17.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.451|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.57|-12.96||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 29/30), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the baseline WASO2H as a covariate.|MMRM|||WASO2H: Placebo, Lemborexant 10 mg||-12.96|-22.57|< 0.0001
91072220|NCT02783729|182030377|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|34.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.673|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.95|41.36||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 29/30), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the baseline TST as a covariate.|MMRM|||TST: Placebo, Lemborexant 5 mg||41.36|26.95|< 0.0001
91072221|NCT02783729|182030377|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|38.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.672|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.64|46.05||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 29/30), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the baseline TST as a covariate.|MMRM|||TST: Placebo, Lemborexant 10 mg||46.05|31.64|< 0.0001
91072222|NCT02783729|182030378|SUPERIORITY||LSGM Ratio|0.815|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.745|0.891||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (First 7 Nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline sSOL as a covariate.|MMRM|||sSOL, First 7 nights: Placebo, Lemborexant 5 mg||0.891|0.745|< 0.0001
91072223|NCT02783729|182030378|SUPERIORITY||LSGM Ratio|0.753|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.689|0.823||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (First 7 Nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline sSOL as a covariate.|MMRM|||sSOL, First 7 nights: Placebo, Lemborexant 10 mg||0.823|0.689|< 0.0001
91072224|NCT02783729|182030378|SUPERIORITY||LSGM Ratio|0.75|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.671|0.837||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Last 7 Nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline sSOL as a covariate.|MMRM|||sSOL, Last 7 nights: Placebo, Lemborexant 5 mg||0.837|0.671|< 0.0001
91072225|NCT02783729|182030378|SUPERIORITY||LSGM Ratio|0.689|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.618|0.769||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Last 7 Nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline sSOL as a covariate.|MMRM|||sSOL, Last 7 nights: Placebo, Lemborexant 10 mg||0.769|0.618|< 0.0001
91072226|NCT02783729|182030378|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-12.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.764|=|0.0093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.76|-3.06||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (First 7 Nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline sWASO as a covariate.|MMRM|||sWASO, First 7 nights: Placebo, Lemborexant 5 mg||-3.06|-21.76|= 0.0093
91072227|NCT02783729|182030378|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-26.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.762|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.68|-16.99||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (First 7 Nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline sWASO as a covariate.|MMRM|||sWASO, First 7 nights: Placebo, Lemborexant 10 mg||-16.99|-35.68|< 0.0001
91072228|NCT02783729|182030378|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-11.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.573|=|0.0396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.42|-0.55||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Last 7 Nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline sWASO as a covariate.|MMRM|||sWASO, Last 7 nights: Placebo, Lemborexant 5 mg||-0.55|-22.42|= 0.0396
91072229|NCT02783729|182030378|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-20.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.574|=|0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.51|-9.63||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Last 7 Nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline sWASO as a covariate.|MMRM|||sWASO, Last 7 nights: Placebo, Lemborexant 10 mg||-9.63|-31.51|= 0.0002
91072230|NCT02783729|182030378|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|19.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.619|=|0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.03|30.08||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (First 7 Nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baselines sTST as a covariate.|MMRM|||sTST, First 7 nights: Placebo, Lemborexant 5 mg||30.08|8.03|= 0.0007
90827665|NCT04170543|181530116|OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Percent Change|-18.73||||0.0498|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-31.7|-3.3||Unadjusted two-sided p-value|MMRM||MEDI3506 120 mg - Placebo|||-3.30|-31.70|0.0498
91072231|NCT02783729|182030378|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|34.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.609|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.5|45.52||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (First 7 Nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baselines sTST as a covariate.|MMRM|||sTST, First 7 nights: Placebo, Lemborexant 10 mg||45.52|23.5|< 0.0001
91072232|NCT02783729|182030378|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|23.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.565|=|0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.68|36.45||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Last 7 Nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline sTST as a covariate.|MMRM|||sTST, Last 7 nights: Placebo, Lemborexant 5 mg||36.45|10.68|= 0.0003
91072233|NCT02783729|182030378|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|37.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.565|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.94|50.71||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Last 7 Nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline sTST as a covariate.|MMRM|||sTST, Last 7 nights: Placebo, Lemborexant 10 mg||50.71|24.94|< 0.0001
91072234|NCT02783729|182030379|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|3.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.122|=|0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|5.97||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (First 7 Nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline sSE as a covariate.|MMRM|||sSE, First 7 nights: Placebo, Lemborexant 5 mg||5.97|1.56|= 0.0008
91072235|NCT02783729|182030379|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|6.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.64|9.04||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (First 7 Nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline sSE as a covariate.|MMRM|||sSE, First 7 nights: Placebo, Lemborexant 10 mg||9.04|4.64|< 0.0001
91072236|NCT02783729|182030379|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|4.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.319|=|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|7.19||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Last 7 Nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline sSE as a covariate.|MMRM|||sSE, Last 7 nights: Placebo, Lemborexant 5 mg||7.19|2.02|= 0.0005
91072237|NCT02783729|182030379|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|7.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.319|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.6|9.77||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Last 7 Nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline sSE as a covariate.|MMRM|||sSE, Last 7 nights: Placebo, Lemborexant 10 mg||9.77|4.6|< 0.0001
91072238|NCT02783729|182030380|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Percentage|0.41|||=|0.9028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.22|7.04||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||LPS, Days 1/2: Placebo, Lemborexant 5 mg||7.04|-6.22|= 0.9028
91072239|NCT02783729|182030380|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Percentage|2.49|||=|0.4699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|9.18||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||LPS, Days 1/2: Placebo, Lemborexant 10 mg||9.18|-4.2|= 0.4699
91072240|NCT02783729|182030380|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Percentage|5.58|||=|0.0566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|11.31|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group.||LPS, Days 1/2: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 5 mg||11.31|-0.14|= 0.0566
91072241|NCT02783729|182030380|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Percentage|7.57|||=|0.0122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.71|13.44||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||LPS, Days 1/2: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 10 mg||13.44|1.71|= 0.0122
91072242|NCT02783729|182030380|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Percentage|4.42|||=|0.2176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|11.34||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||LPS, Days 29/30: Placebo, Lemborexant 5 mg||11.34|-2.5|= 0.2176
91072243|NCT02783729|182030380|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Percentage|6.47|||=|0.0773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|13.49||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||LPS, Days 29/30: Placebo, Lemborexant 10 mg||13.49|-0.55|= 0.0773
91072244|NCT02783729|182030380|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Percentage|8.85|||=|0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.68|15.02||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||LPS, Days 29/30: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 5 mg||15.02|2.68|= 0.0054
91072245|NCT02783729|182030380|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Percentage|10.89|||=|0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.61|17.17||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||LPS, Days 29/30: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 10 mg||17.17|4.61|= 0.0008
91072246|NCT02783729|182030380|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Percentage|6.9|||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.66|11.14||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||sSOL, First 7 nights: Placebo, Lemborexant 5 mg||11.14|2.66|= 0.003
91072247|NCT02783729|182030380|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Percentage|7.5|||=|0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.19|11.81||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||sSOL, First 7 nights: Placebo, Lemborexant 10 mg||11.81|3.19|= 0.0016
91072248|NCT02783729|182030380|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Percentage|2.22|||=|0.3643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.56|7.01||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||sSOL, First 7 nights: Zolpidem, Lemborexant 5 mg||7.01|-2.56|= 0.3643
90827666|NCT04170543|181530116|OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Percent Change|-13.27||||0.1236|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-25.51|0.98||Unadjusted two-sided p-value|MMRM|||||0.98|-25.51|0.1236
90827667|NCT03884790|181530142|OTHER|Descriptive statistical analysis|||||||||||||||||Descriptive statistical analysis|||
91072249|NCT02783729|182030380|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Percentage|2.82|||=|0.2553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|7.66||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||sSOL, First 7 nights: Zolpidem, Lemborexant 10 mg||7.66|-2.02|= 0.2553
91072250|NCT02783729|182030380|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Percentage|9.69|||=|0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.98|15.4||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||sSOL, Last 7 nights: Placebo, Lemborexant 5 mg||15.4|3.98|= 0.0016
91072251|NCT02783729|182030380|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Percentage|7.29|||=|0.0128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|12.79||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||sSOL, Last 7 nights: Placebo, Lemborexant 10 mg||12.79|1.8|= 0.0128
91072252|NCT02783729|182030380|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Percentage|8.16|||=|0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.51|13.81||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||sSOL, Last 7 nights: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 5 mg||13.81|2.51|= 0.0051
91072253|NCT02783729|182030380|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Percentage|5.76|||=|0.0389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|11.18||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||sSOL, Last 7nights: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 10 mg||11.18|0.34|= 0.0389
91072254|NCT02783729|182030380|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Percentage|34.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.46|42.06||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||WASO, Days 1/2: Placebo, Lemborexant 5 mg||42.06|26.46|< 0.0001
91072255|NCT02783729|182030380|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Percentage|47.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.02|55.13||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||WASO, Days 1/2: Placebo, Lemborexant 10 mg||55.13|40.02|< 0.0001
91072256|NCT02783729|182030380|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Percentage|4.89|||=|0.2534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.49|13.28||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||WASO, Days 1/2: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 5 mg||13.28|-3.49|= 0.2534
91072257|NCT02783729|182030380|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Percentage|18.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.1|26.4||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||WASO: Days 1/2: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 10 mg||26.4|10.1|< 0.0001
91072258|NCT02783729|182030380|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Percentage|22.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.06|30.35||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||WASO, Days 29/30: Placebo, Lemborexant 5 mg||30.35|14.06|< 0.0001
91072259|NCT02783729|182030380|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Percentage|24.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.16|32.1||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||WASO, Days 29/30: Placebo, Lemborexant 10 mg||32.1|16.16|< 0.0001
91072260|NCT02783729|182030380|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Percentage|9.59|||=|0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|17.81||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||WASO, Days 29/30: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 5 mg||17.81|1.36|= 0.023
91072261|NCT02783729|182030380|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Percentage|11.43|||=|0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.38|19.48||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||WASO, Days 29/30: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 10 mg||19.48|3.38|= 0.0058
91072262|NCT02783729|182030380|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Percentage|7.3|||=|0.0222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|13.33||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||sWASO, First 7 nights: Placebo, Lemborexant 5||13.33|1.27|= 0.0222
91072263|NCT02783729|182030380|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Percentage|10.84|||=|0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.57|17.11||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||sWASO, First 7 nights: Placebo, Lemborexant 10 mg||17.11|4.57|= 0.0013
91072264|NCT02783729|182030380|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Percentage|0.21|||=|0.9495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.17|6.58||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||sWASO, First 7 nights: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 5 mg||6.58|-6.17|= 0.9495
91072265|NCT02783729|182030380|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Percentage|3.72|||=|0.2708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.88|10.32||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||sWASO: First 7 nights: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 10 mg||10.32|-2.88|= 0.2708
91072266|NCT02783729|182030380|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Percentage|7.91|||=|0.0322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|14.96||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||sWASO, Last 7 nights: Placebo, Lemborexant 5 mg||14.96|0.86|= 0.0322
91072267|NCT02783729|182030380|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Percentage|7.69|||=|0.0363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|14.71||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||sWASO, Last 7 nights: Placebo, Lemborexant 10 mg||14.71|0.68|= 0.0363
91072268|NCT02783729|182030380|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Percentage|0.05|||=|0.9885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.14|7.24||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||sWASO, Last 7 nights: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 5 mg||7.24|-7.14|= 0.9885
90827668|NCT01236521|181530171|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.39|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.13||0.0385|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0385
91072269|NCT02783729|182030380|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Percentage|-0.16|||=|0.9651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.31|6.99||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||sWASO, Last 7 nights: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 10 mg||6.99|-7.31|= 0.9651
91072270|NCT02783729|182030381|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.319|=|0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|-0.47||Based on ANCOVA model with factors of age group, region, treatment and the baseline ISI as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Placebo, Lemborexant 5 mg||-0.47|-1.73|= 0.0006
91072271|NCT02783729|182030381|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32|=|0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|-0.46||Based on ANCOVA model with factors of age group, region, treatment and the baseline ISI as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Placebo, Lemborexant 10 mg||-0.46|-1.71|= 0.0007
90827669|NCT01236521|181530172|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.44|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.11||0.0067|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0067
90827670|NCT01236521|181530173|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.39|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.15||0.074|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0740
91072272|NCT02783729|182030381|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.301|=|0.2951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.91||Based on ANCOVA model with factors of age group, region, treatment and the baseline ISI as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 5 mg||0.91|-0.28|= 0.2951
91072273|NCT02783729|182030381|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.303|=|0.2744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.92||Based on ANCOVA model with factors of age group, region, treatment and the baseline ISI as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 10 mg||0.92|-0.26|= 0.2744
91072274|NCT02783729|182030382|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.063|=|0.2348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.35|0.82||Based on ANCOVA model with factors of age group, region, treatment and the baseline FSS as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Placebo, Lemborexant 5 mg||0.82|-3.35|= 0.2348
91072275|NCT02783729|182030382|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.067|=|0.2745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.26|0.93||Based on ANCOVA model with factors of age group, region, treatment and the baseline FSS as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Placebo, Lemborexant 10 mg||0.93|-3.26|= 0.2745
91072276|NCT02783729|182030382|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.005|=|0.711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|1.6||Based on ANCOVA model with factors of age group, region, treatment and the baseline ISI as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 5 mg||1.6|-2.35|= 0.711
91072277|NCT02783729|182030382|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.009|=|0.7854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|1.71||Based on ANCOVA model with factors of age group, region, treatment and the baseline ISI as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 10 mg||1.71|-2.26|= 0.7854
91072278|NCT02783729|182030383|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|30.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.505|=|0.0141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.23|55.31||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 2/3), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline POA as a covariate.|MMRM|||POA: Placebo, Lemborexant 5 mg||55.31|6.23|= 0.0141
91072279|NCT02783729|182030383|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|39.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.542|=|0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.05|64.29||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 2/3), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline POA as a covariate.|MMRM|||POA: Placebo, Lemborexant 10 mg||64.29|15.05|= 0.0016
91072280|NCT02783729|182030383|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-19.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.779|=|0.1031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.34|3.9||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 2/3), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline POA as a covariate.|MMRM|||POA: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 5 mg||3.9|-42.34|= 0.1031
91072281|NCT02783729|182030383|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-10.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.813|=|0.3825|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.5|12.86||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 2/3), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline POA as a covariate.|MMRM|||POA: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 10 mg||12.86|-33.5|= 0.3825
91072282|NCT02783729|182030383|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|28.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|60.626|=|0.6348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-90.18|147.8||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 2/3), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline SOMT as a covariate.|MMRM|||SOMT: Placebo, Lemborexant 5 mg||147.8|-90.18|= 0.6348
91072283|NCT02783729|182030383|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|50.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|60.702|=|0.4026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.3|169.97||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 2/3), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline SOMT as a covariate.|MMRM|||SOMT: Placebo, Lemborexant 10 mg||169.97|-68.3|= 0.4026
91072284|NCT02783729|182030383|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-203.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|57.171|=|0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-315.56|-91.15||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 2/3), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline SOMT as a covariate.|MMRM|||SOMT: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 5 mg||-91.15|-315.56|= 0.0004
91072285|NCT02783729|182030383|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-181.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|57.255|=|0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-293.71|-68.96||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 2/3), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline SOMT as a covariate.|MMRM|||SOMT: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 10 mg||-68.96|-293.71|= 0.0016
91072286|NCT02783729|182030384|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.141|=|0.9936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.16|8.09||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 2/3), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline QOM as a covariate.|MMRM|||QOM: Placebo, Lemborexant 5 mg||8.09|-8.16|= 0.9936
91072287|NCT02783729|182030384|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-5.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.154|=|0.1595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|2.3||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 2/3), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline QOM as a covariate.|MMRM|||QOM: Placebo, Lemborexant 10 mg||2.3|-14|= 0.1595
91072288|NCT02783729|182030384|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|12.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.894|=|0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.09|20.38||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 2/3), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline QOM as a covariate.|MMRM|||QOM: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 5 mg||20.38|5.09|= 0.0011
91072289|NCT02783729|182030384|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|6.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.913|=|0.0774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|14.6||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 2/3), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline QOM as a covariate.|MMRM|||QOM: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 10 mg||14.6|-0.76|= 0.0774
91072290|NCT02783729|182030384|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.393|=|0.3726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|1.12||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 2/3), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline COA as a covariate.|MMRM|||COA: Placebo, Lemborexant 5 mg||1.12|-0.42|= 0.3726
91072291|NCT02783729|182030384|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.394|=|0.2579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|0.33||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 2/3), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline COA as a covariate.|MMRM|||COA: Placebo, Lemborexant 10 mg||0.33|-1.22|= 0.2579
91072292|NCT02783729|182030384|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37|=|0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.11||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 2/3), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline COA as a covariate.|MMRM|||COA: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 5 mg||2.11|0.66|= 0.0002
91072293|NCT02783729|182030384|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.372|=|0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|1.32||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 2/3), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline COA as a covariate.|MMRM|||COA: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 10 mg||1.32|-0.14|= 0.112
91072294|NCT03421145|182030398|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91072295|NCT03421145|182030399|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91072296|NCT03421145|182030400|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91072297|NCT03421145|182030401|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91072298|NCT03421145|182030402|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
91072299|NCT00474201|182030404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Students paired, two-tailed T-test||"Null hypothesis: lopinavir-ritonavir does not alter gemfibrozil pharmacokinetics.~A sample size of 13 healthy subjects yielded 81% power to detect a clinically relevant change of 30% in gemfibrozil AUC with concomitant lopinavir-ritonavir (alpha = 0.05; beta = 0.2). Gemfibrozil pharmacokinetic parameters derived pre- and post lopinavir-ritonavir exposure (Days 1 and 14, respectively) were compared using a paired Students t test."||||<0.0001
91072300|NCT00750139|182030407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||||||The first primary efficacy analyses will use the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test after stratification by pooled clinical site. The test will be conducted with the FAS at a one-sided level of significance of α = 0.025.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"The first primary efficacy hypotheses tests are:~H01: p1 ≤ p01 vs. H1: p1 \> p01 where p01 and p1 denote the proportions of complete cure in the placebo 2wks and NAFT-500 groups, respectively."||||0.010
91072301|NCT00750139|182030407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||The second primary efficacy analyses will use the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test after stratification by pooled clinical site. The test will be conducted with the FAS at a one-sided level of significance of α = 0.025|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"The second primary efficacy hypotheses tests are:~H02: p2 ≤ P02 vs. H2: P2 \> p02 where p02 and p2 are denote proportions of complete cure in the placebo 4wks and Naftin 1% groups, respectively"||||0.001
91072302|NCT03085238|182030412|NON_INFERIORITY|The primary safety endpoint will be analyzed using a unilateral one sample test for binomial proportion at the 5% level.||||||0.1309|||||||unilateral one sample test for binomial|||H0: M-Trap freedom MAE incidence \<= 90% - Non-inferiority margin (25%)||||0.1309
91072303|NCT03085238|182030413|NON_INFERIORITY|The primary safety endpoint will be analyzed using a unilateral one sample test for binomial proportion at the 5% level.||||||0.0181|||||||unilateral one sample test for binomial|||H0: M-Trap freedom MAE incidence \<= 90% - Non-inferiority margin (25%)||||.0181
91072304|NCT00746564|182030455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of recordings|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|100.0|100.0||||||"The sensitivity was calculated for each recording and for each subject as follows:~Amount of time (sec) R waves recorded on surface ECG were detected on in-clinic recordings/Total amount of time (sec) R waves were recorded on surface ECG"||100|100|
91072305|NCT00746564|182030456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of clinical recordings|98.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|95.7|100.0||||||"The sensitivity was calculated for each recording during the treadmill test and for each subject as follows:~Amount of time (sec) R waves recorded on surface ECG were detected on in-clinic recordings/Total amount of time (sec) R waves were recorded on surface ECG"||100|95.7|
91072306|NCT00746564|182030457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of recordings|98.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|95.5|100.0||||||"The sensitivity was calculated for each recording and for each subject during the hand to hand and hand to shoulder maneuvers as follows:~Amount of time (sec) R waves recorded on surface ECG were detected on in-clinic recordings/Total amount of time (sec) R waves were recorded on surface ECG"||100|95.5|
91072307|NCT00746564|182030458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of recordings|98.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.7|100.0||||||"The positive predictive value (PPV) was calculated for each recording and for each subject during the in-clinic recording at rest as follows:~Amount of time (sec) R waves recorded on surface ECG were detected on in-clinic recording / Total amount of time (sec) R waves were recorded by device during in-clinic recording"||100|96.7|
91072308|NCT00746564|182030459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of recording|77.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.9|88.4||||||"The positive predictive value (PPV) was calculated for each recording and for each subject for the in-clinic recording during the treadmill exercise as follows:~Amount of time (sec) R waves recorded on surface ECG were detected on in-clinic recording / Total amount of time (sec) R waves were recorded by device during in-clinic recording"||88.4|65.9|
91072309|NCT00746564|182030460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of recordings|85.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.3|91.7||||||"The positive predictive value (PPV) was calculated for each recording and for each subject during Hand to Hand and Hand to Shoulder Maneuvers as follows:~Amount of time (sec) R waves recorded on surface ECG were detected on in-clinic recording / Total amount of time (sec) R waves were recorded by device during in-clinic recording"||91.7|78.3|
91072310|NCT00746564|182030461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of interpretable recording|99.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.5|100.0||||||"The proportion of recording time during which the device recording was interpretable was calculated for each weekly Patient Activator recording and for each subject as follows:~Duration (sec) of interpretable recording / Total duration of recording time (sec)"||100|98.5|
91072311|NCT00746564|182030462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of interpretable recording|92.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.9|92.6||||||"The proportion of recording time during which the device recording was interpretable for each automatically triggered/symptom driven recording and for each subject was calculated as follows:~Duration of interpretable recording / Total duration of recording time"||92.6|91.9|
91072312|NCT00746564|182030463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of inappropriate recordings|86.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|79.4|91.0||||||||91.0|79.4|
91072313|NCT00746564|182030464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of inappropriate recordings|63.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.1|76.2||||||||76.2|48.1|
91072314|NCT03386994|182030475|OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||ANOVA|Total annual IPF-related costs||||||0.0002
91072315|NCT03386994|182030475|OTHER|||||||0.0007|||||||ANOVA|Annual direct health IPF-related costs||||||0.0007
91072316|NCT03386994|182030475|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|Annual direct non-health IPF-related costs||||||<0.0001
91072317|NCT03386994|182030475|OTHER|||||||0.6839|||||||ANOVA|Annual indirect IPF-related costs||||||0.6839
91072318|NCT03386994|182030476|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|Timepoint: T0||||||0.0020
91072319|NCT03386994|182030476|OTHER|||||||0.1385|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|Timepoint: T6||||||0.1385
91072320|NCT03386994|182030476|OTHER|||||||0.0233|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|Timepoint: T12||||||0.0233
90827671|NCT02052752|181530183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.283||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The ANCOVA results for the primary endpoint with treatment group as a main effect and average baseline value as a covariate showed no statistically significant differences in the percentage change from baseline in swelling of the target lesions between the 3% BPO group and the vehicle control group at Day 4 for the ITT population||||0.283
90827672|NCT04661150|181530194|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|23.8||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.3|44.7|||Chi-squared|||||44.7|1.3|0.079
91072321|NCT03386994|182030477|OTHER|||||||0.156||||||Timepoint: T0|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.1560
91072322|NCT03386994|182030477|OTHER|||||||0.3144||||||Timepoint: T6|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.3144
91072323|NCT03386994|182030477|OTHER|||||||0.2019||||||Timepoint: T12|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.2019
91072324|NCT03386994|182030478|OTHER|||||||0.0075||||||Timepoint: T0|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0075
91072325|NCT03386994|182030478|OTHER|||||||0.0361||||||Timepoint: T6|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0361
91072326|NCT03386994|182030478|OTHER|||||||0.4794||||||Timepoint: T12|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.4794
91072327|NCT03386994|182030479|OTHER|||||||0.0333|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0333
91072328|NCT03386994|182030481|OTHER|||||||0.4711|||||||ANOVA|Total annual IPF-related costs||||||0.4711
91072329|NCT03386994|182030481|OTHER|||||||0.4095|||||||ANOVA|Annual direct health IPF-related costs||||||0.4095
91072330|NCT03386994|182030481|OTHER|||||||0.0435|||||||ANOVA|Annual direct non-health IPF-related costs||||||0.0435
91072331|NCT03386994|182030481|OTHER|||||||0.5479|||||||ANOVA|Annual indirect IPF-related costs||||||0.5479
91072332|NCT03386994|182030483|OTHER|||||||0.7486|||||||ANOVA|Total annual IPF-related costs||||||0.7486
91072333|NCT03386994|182030483|OTHER|||||||0.7652|||||||ANOVA|Annual direct health IPF-related costs||||||0.7652
91072334|NCT03386994|182030483|OTHER|||||||0.0037|||||||ANOVA|Annual direct non-health IPF-related costs||||||0.0037
91072335|NCT03386994|182030483|OTHER|||||||0.6119|||||||ANOVA|Annual indirect IPF-related costs||||||0.6119
91072336|NCT03386994|182030484|OTHER|||||||0.1581|||||||ANOVA|Total annual IPF-related costs||||||0.1581
91072337|NCT03386994|182030484|OTHER|||||||0.1581|||||||ANOVA|Annual direct health IPF-related costs||||||0.1581
91072338|NCT03386994|182030484|OTHER|||||||0.7165|||||||ANOVA|Annual direct non-health IPF-related costs||||||0.7165
91072339|NCT03386994|182030484|OTHER|||||||1|||||||ANOVA|Annual indirect IPF-related costs||||||1.0000
91072340|NCT03386994|182030485|OTHER|||||||0.0733|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0733
91072341|NCT03386994|182030487|OTHER|||||||0.0207|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0207
91072342|NCT03386994|182030488|OTHER|||||||0.0942|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0942
91072343|NCT03386994|182030489|OTHER|||||||0.0747|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0747
91072344|NCT03386994|182030491|OTHER|||||||0.1282|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.1282
91072345|NCT03386994|182030492|OTHER|||||||0.7471|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.7471
91072346|NCT03689374|182030519|NON_INFERIORITY|The responses were analyzed using an ANCOVA with treatment as fixed factor and baseline value as a covariate. Before analysis, missing data were multiple imputed using observed data from participants within the same group defined by randomized treatment, using a regression model including randomized treatment group and data from baseline and all previous visits as covariates. The prespecified non inferiority margin was 0.3%-point.|Treatment difference|-0.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.2|||t-distributed test|The non-inferiority p-value was calculated as two times the one-sided p-value from a t-distributed test.||||-0.20|-0.38|<0.0001
91072347|NCT00986921|182030555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.87||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.0|||t-test, 1 sided|Data was not distributed normally. After log transformation, the log values were distributed normally.||||3|0|0.05
91072348|NCT00986921|182030556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||A threshold value of p of 0.05 was considered significant.|Chi-squared|||The null hypothesis was that the groups would vary, with a p values of less than 0.05.||||0.49
91072349|NCT00986921|182030557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.001
91072350|NCT04445714|182030564|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|-1.03|||Paired t-test test|||Change from baseline||-1.03|-1.34|<.0001
91072351|NCT04445714|182030565|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.66|-1.51|||Paired t-test test|||Change from baseline||-1.51|-2.66|<.0001
91072352|NCT04445714|182030566|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.8416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|1.91|||Paired t-test test|||Change from baseline||1.91|-2.34|0.8416
90827673|NCT04661150|181530199|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-4.8||||0.739|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.9|18.9|||Chi-squared|||||18.9|-27.9|0.739
91072353|NCT04445714|182030567|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.4|-15.4|||Paired t-test test|||Change from baseline||-15.4|-33.4|<.0001
91072354|NCT02396420|182030575|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Statistical analysis was not performed as the sample size is insufficient to have confidence that the results would be meaningful for the overall target population.|||
91072355|NCT02396420|182030576|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Statistical analysis was not performed as the sample size is insufficient to have confidence that the results would be meaningful for the overall target population.|||
91072356|NCT02396420|182030577|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Statistical analysis was not performed as the sample size is insufficient to have confidence that the results would be meaningful for the overall target population.|||
91072357|NCT02396420|182030578|OTHER|Statistical analysis was not performed as this data was not available for any subjects in the analysis population.||||||||||||||||Statistical analysis was not performed as this data was not available for any subjects in the analysis population.|Statistical analysis was not performed as this data was not available for any subjects in the analysis population.|||
91072358|NCT02396420|182030579|OTHER|Statistical analysis was not performed as this data was not available for any subjects in the analysis population.||||||||||||||||Statistical analysis was not performed as this data was not available for any subjects in the analysis population.|Statistical analysis was not performed as this data was not available for any subjects in the analysis population.|||
90827674|NCT04661150|181530200|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|4.8|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.9|21.4|||Fisher Exact|||||21.4|-10.9|>0.999
91072359|NCT02396420|182030580|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Statistical analysis was not performed as the sample size is insufficient to have confidence that the results would be meaningful for the overall target population.|||
90827675|NCT02701283|181530226|NON_INFERIORITY|Absolute non-inferiority margin was 0.06|Posterior Median of the Difference|0.999|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The posterior probability of non-inferiority is \> 0.999. The posterior probability is the probability of the event rate by updating the prior probability distribution with observed data at the interim analysis using Bayes' Theorem.|Bayesian||95% Bayesian credible interval for the difference (TAVR-SAVR) was (-4.4%, 0.4%). The 95% credible interval is the 2.5th and 97.5th percentiles of the posterior distribution.|Primary Hypothesis: TAVR with the Medtronic TAVR system is non-inferior to SAVR for all-cause mortality or disabling stroke rate during a fixed follow-up of 24 months for the Randomized Controlled Trial||||
90827676|NCT04266795|181530259|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99|||=|0.477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.6|||Log Rank|P-value was comparison of EFS between treatment groups and was based on the 1-sided stratified log-rank test statistic.|Hazard ratio was based on an unadjusted stratified Cox proportional hazard regression model with stratification factors (randomization strata of age and AML subtype) and treatment as a factor in the model.|||1.60|0.61|=0.477
91072360|NCT02396420|182030581|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Statistical analysis was not performed as the sample size is insufficient to have confidence that the results would be meaningful for the overall target population.|||
91072361|NCT02396420|182030582|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Statistical analysis was not performed as the sample size is insufficient to have confidence that the results would be meaningful for the overall target population.|||
91072362|NCT02396420|182030583|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Statistical analysis was not performed as the sample size is insufficient to have confidence that the results would be meaningful for the overall target population.|||
91072363|NCT02396420|182030584|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Statistical analysis was not performed as the sample size is insufficient to have confidence that the results would be meaningful for the overall target population.|||
91072364|NCT02396420|182030585|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Statistical analysis was not performed as the sample size is insufficient to have confidence that the results would be meaningful for the overall target population.|||
91072365|NCT02396420|182030586|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Statistical analysis was not performed as the sample size is insufficient to have confidence that the results would be meaningful for the overall target population.|||
91072366|NCT02396420|182030587|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Statistical analysis was not performed as the sample size is insufficient to have confidence that the results would be meaningful for the overall target population.|||
91072367|NCT02396420|182030588|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Statistical analysis was not performed as the sample size is insufficient to have confidence that the results would be meaningful for the overall target population.|||
91072368|NCT02396420|182030589|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Statistical analysis was not performed as the sample size is insufficient to have confidence that the results would be meaningful for the overall target population.|||
91072369|NCT02396420|182030590|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Statistical analysis was not performed as the sample size is insufficient to have confidence that the results would be meaningful for the overall target population.|||
91072370|NCT02396420|182030591|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Statistical analysis was not performed as the sample size is insufficient to have confidence that the results would be meaningful for the overall target population.|||
91072371|NCT01273623|182030592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91072372|NCT01640379|182030595|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.09||Judged by type one error limit alpha = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||The odds ratio is for the difference in chlamydia or gonorrhea (CT/GC) rates between arms at ninety days after intervention.|A comparison of Chlamydia or Gonorrhea positivity at 90 days post intervention.||1.09|0.15|0.070
91072373|NCT01640379|182030595|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.98||Judged by type one error limit alpha = 0.05.|generalized estimating equations||The odds ratio is for the difference in rate of change over time between arms, so is the difference in the odds increment for those receiving TECH N intervention versus the control group.|"We used generalized estimating equations to test for a difference in the trend of chlamydia or gonorrhea (CT/GC) rates over the study period.~The null hypothesis is that rates of CT/GC for women in the intervention arm were changing over the study period similarly to CT/GC rates in the control arm."||0.98|0.39|0.043
91072374|NCT01640379|182030596|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|92.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.0|230.1|||Chi-squared|Adjusted for age, debut age, number of lifetime partners, baseline STI status (any vs none), insurance, and if woman had prior pregnancy.|Odds ratio is interpretable as the expected chance of having a 72 follow-up for intervention women compared to women in the control arm, given similar age, debut age, number of lifetime partners, baseline STI status, insurance, and pregnancy history.|H0: Women in TECHN arm had 72 hour visit with same frequency as women in control arm.||230.1|37.0|<0.001
91072375|NCT01640379|182030596|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.05|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for age, debut age, number of lifetime partners, pregnancy history, baseline STI status (any versus none), and insurance.|Odds ratio is for intervention arm relative to control.|H0: Women in TECHN arm reported complete adherence to medication regimen (yes or no) with same frequency as women in control arm.||1.05|0.36|0.084
91072376|NCT01640379|182030596|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|2.34|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for age, debut age, number of lifetime partners, pregnancy history, baseline STI status (any versus none), and insurance.|Odds ratio is for the chances of partner notification among TECH N recipients, relative to those in control arm.|H0: Women in TECHN arm notified their partners about their diagnoses more often than women in the control arm.||2.34|0.36|0.867
91072377|NCT01640379|182030596|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.19|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for age, debut age, number of lifetime partners, pregnancy history, baseline STI status (any versus none), and insurance.|Odds ratio is for partners of TECH-N recipients versus partners of women in control arm.|H0: Partners of women receiving the TECH-N intervention were treated more often than the partners of women in the control arm.||1.19|0.33|0.153
91072378|NCT01640379|182030596|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.06|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for age, debut age, number of lifetime partners, pregnancy history, baseline STI status (any versus none), and insurance.|Odds ratio is for women in the TECH-N arm relative to women in the control arm.|H0: Women in the TECHN arm practiced temporary sexual abstinence for two weeks after their diagnosis more often than those in the control arm.||1.06|0.86|0.351
91072379|NCT04223635|182030597|OTHER|Least squares (LS) means were calculated from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on log-transformed scale. The LS means for each treatment were back transformed from the log scale to provide estimates of the geometric means (GMS). The ratio (%) of GMS was calculated and 90% Confidence Interval (CIs) for the ratio (%) of GMS were presented.|Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Mean|92.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|54.38|157.69|||||For the comparison, moderate HI represents the numerator and normal HF represents the denominator.|||157.69|54.38|
91072380|NCT04223635|182030599|OTHER|Least squares means were calculated from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on log-transformed scale. The LS means for each treatment were back transformed from the log scale to provide estimates of the geometric means (GMS). The ratio (%) of GMS was calculated and 90% CIs for the ratio (%) of GMS were presented.|Ratio (%) of Geometric Least Square Mean|147.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.39|227.07|||||For the comparison, moderate HI represents the numerator and normal HF represents the denominator.|||227.07|95.39|
91072381|NCT04223635|182030600|OTHER|Least squares means were calculated from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on log-transformed scale. The LS means for each treatment were back transformed from the log scale to provide estimates of the geometric means (GMS). The ratio (%) of GMS was calculated and 90% CIs for the ratio (%) of GMS were presented.|Ratio (%) of Geometric Least Square Mean|142.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.21|223.79|||||For the comparison, moderate HI represents the numerator and normal HF represents the denominator.|||223.79|91.21|
91072382|NCT02122887|182030627|OTHER|χ² (1) =4.57, Cramer's V=.24|||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||we hypothesised that following intervention, those undergoing intervention will be more likely to see justice on both sides, compared to control group||||<0.05
91072383|NCT02122887|182030628|EQUIVALENCE|we compared participants levels of tension (in their interaction with an outgroup member in trail 2) in an interaction test between perspective-taking levels and group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.65|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|df=1||||||>0.05
91072384|NCT02122887|182030629|EQUIVALENCE|we compared participants levels of empathy (in their interaction with an outgroup member in trail 2) in an interaction test between perspective-taking levels and group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
91072385|NCT04338269|182030647|OTHER|Stratified Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.7844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.28|||Log Rank|Stratified|Hazard ratios were estimated by Cox regression. If at least one stratum has \<10 events at the time of analysis, the stratification factor that contains the level with the smallest number of patients will be removed from the stratified analysis.|||1.28|0.83|0.7844
91072386|NCT04338269|182030647|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.7195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.29|||Log Rank|Unstratified|Hazard ratios were estimated by Cox regression.|Cox Proportional Hazards Model||1.29|0.84|0.7195
91072387|NCT04338269|182030648|OTHER|Stratified Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.6902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.27|||Log Rank|Stratified|Hazard ratios were estimated by Cox regression. If at least one stratum has \<10 events at the time of analysis, the stratification factor that contains the level with the smallest number of patients will be removed from the stratified analysis.|||1.27|0.70|0.6902
91072388|NCT04338269|182030648|OTHER|Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.7853||95.0|0.71|1.27|||Log Rank|Unstratified|Hazard ratios were estimated by Cox regression.|||1.27|0.71|0.7853
91072389|NCT04338269|182030649|OTHER|Stratified Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.8037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.27|||Log Rank|Stratified|Hazard ratios were estimated by Cox regression. If at least one stratum has \<10 events at the time of analysis, the stratification factor that contains the level with the smallest number of patients will be removed from the stratified analysis.|||1.27|0.83|0.8037
91072390|NCT04338269|182030649|OTHER|Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.7894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.27|||Log Rank|Unstratified|Hazard ratios were estimated by Cox regression.|||1.27|0.83|0.7894
91072391|NCT04338269|182030650|OTHER|Difference in Overall Response Rates|Odds Ratio (OR)|-3.68||||0.4306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.45|5.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio 95% CI was constructed using the Wald method. If at least one stratum has \<10 events at the time of analysis, the stratification factor containing the level with the smallest number of patients will be removed from the stratified analysis|||5.10|-12.45|0.4306
91072392|NCT04338269|182030651|OTHER|Difference in Overall Response Rates|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.9893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.43|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio 95% CI was constructed using the Wald method. If at least one stratum has \<10 events at the time of analysis, the stratification factor containing the level with the smallest number of patients will be removed from the stratified analysis|||1.43|0.70|0.9893
91072393|NCT04338269|182030652|OTHER|Difference between Duration of Response (DOR) rates|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.0816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.05|||Log Rank|Stratified|Hazard ratios were estimated by Cox regression. If at least one stratum has \<10 events at the time of analysis, the stratification factor that contains the level with the smallest number of patients will be removed from the stratified analysis.|||1.05|0.47|0.0816
91072394|NCT04338269|182030652|OTHER|Difference between Duration of Response (DOR) rates|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.1099||95.0|0.49|1.08|||Log Rank|Unstratified|Hazard ratios were estimated by Cox regression. If at least one stratum has \<10 events at the time of analysis, the stratification factor that contains the level with the smallest number of patients will be removed from the stratified analysis.|||1.08|0.49|0.1099
91072395|NCT04338269|182030653|OTHER|Difference between Duration of Response (DOR) rates|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.8354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.54|||Log Rank|Stratified|Hazard ratios were estimated by Cox regression. If at least one stratum has \<10 events at the time of analysis, the stratification factor that contains the level with the smallest number of patients will be removed from the stratified analysis.|||1.54|0.70|0.8354
91072396|NCT04338269|182030653|OTHER|Difference between Duration of Response (DOR) rates|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.8159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.55|||Log Rank|Unstratified|Hazard ratios were estimated by Cox regression. If at least one stratum has \<10 events at the time of analysis, the stratification factor that contains the level with the smallest number of patients will be removed from the stratified analysis.|||1.55|0.71|0.8159
91072397|NCT00174967|182030654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Pairwise comparisons between placebo and each of the febuxostat treatment groups were performed using Fisher's exact test. Adjustment for multiple comparisons was made using Hochberg's procedure.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91072398|NCT00174967|182030654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Pairwise comparisons between placebo and each of the febuxostat treatment groups were performed using Fisher's exact test. Adjustment for multiple comparisons was made using Hochberg's procedure.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
90890495|NCT03086447|181645727|OTHER|It was deemed that a total of 135 subjects in the Test group is sufficient to demonstrate statistical acceptance of absolute rotation with a minimum of 90% statistical power using the reference incidence rate of 95% with a correlation of 0.8 between eyes.|Least square mean proportion|99.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|97.5|99.9||All primary hypotheses were simultaneously evaluated using a significance level of 0.05 following the intersection-union principal. All primary hypotheses must be met to claim success of the study objectives.|Linear mixed model with binomial dist.||Above 80% of eyes in the Test group had acceptable rotation.|Proportion of eyes with acceptable absolute rotation assessed at 15-minute upon insertion (fitting, visit 1) in the Test group was compared to the historical control rate of 80%. Lower 95% confidence limit was compared to 0.8.||99.9|97.5|
91072399|NCT00174967|182030654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Pairwise comparisons between placebo and each of the febuxostat treatment groups were performed using Fisher's exact test. Adjustment for multiple comparisons was made using Hochberg's procedure.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91072400|NCT00174967|182030655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Pairwise comparisons between placebo and each of the febuxostat treatment groups were performed using Fisher's exact test. Adjustment for multiple comparisons was made using Hochberg's procedure.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91072401|NCT00174967|182030655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Pairwise comparisons between placebo and each of the febuxostat treatment groups were performed using Fisher's exact test. Adjustment for multiple comparisons was made using Hochberg's procedure.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91072402|NCT00174967|182030655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Pairwise comparisons between placebo and each of the febuxostat treatment groups were performed using Fisher's exact test. Adjustment for multiple comparisons was made using Hochberg's procedure.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91072403|NCT00174967|182030656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Pairwise comparisons between placebo and each of the febuxostat treatment groups were performed using Fisher's exact test. Adjustment for multiple comparisons was made using Hochberg's procedure.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91072404|NCT00174967|182030656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Pairwise comparisons between placebo and each of the febuxostat treatment groups were performed using Fisher's exact test. Adjustment for multiple comparisons was made using Hochberg's procedure.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91072405|NCT00174967|182030656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Pairwise comparisons between placebo and each of the febuxostat treatment groups were performed using Fisher's exact test. Adjustment for multiple comparisons was made using Hochberg's procedure.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91072406|NCT00174967|182030657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Pairwise comparisons between placebo and each of the febuxostat treatment groups were performed using Fisher's exact test. Adjustment for multiple comparisons was made using Hochberg's procedure.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91072407|NCT00174967|182030657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Pairwise comparisons between placebo and each of the febuxostat treatment groups were performed using Fisher's exact test. Adjustment for multiple comparisons was made using Hochberg's procedure.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91072408|NCT00174967|182030657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Pairwise comparisons between placebo and each of the febuxostat treatment groups were performed using Fisher's exact test. Adjustment for multiple comparisons was made using Hochberg's procedure.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91072409|NCT00174967|182030658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Pairwise comparisons between placebo and each of the febuxostat treatment groups were performed using a t-test. Adjustment for multiple comparisons was made using Hochberg's procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91072410|NCT00174967|182030658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Pairwise comparisons between placebo and each of the febuxostat treatment groups were performed using a t-test. Adjustment for multiple comparisons was made using Hochberg's procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91072411|NCT00174967|182030658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Pairwise comparisons between placebo and each of the febuxostat treatment groups were performed using a t-test. Adjustment for multiple comparisons was made using Hochberg's procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91072412|NCT00174967|182030659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Pairwise comparisons between placebo and each of the febuxostat treatment groups were performed using a t-test. Adjustment for multiple comparisons was made using Hochberg's procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91072413|NCT00174967|182030659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Pairwise comparisons between placebo and each of the febuxostat treatment groups were performed using a t-test. Adjustment for multiple comparisons was made using Hochberg's procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91072414|NCT00174967|182030659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Pairwise comparisons between placebo and each of the febuxostat treatment groups were performed using a t-test. Adjustment for multiple comparisons was made using Hochberg's procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91072415|NCT00174967|182030660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Pairwise comparisons between placebo and each of the febuxostat treatment groups were performed using a t-test. Adjustment for multiple comparisons was made using Hochberg's procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91072416|NCT00174967|182030660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Pairwise comparisons between placebo and each of the febuxostat treatment groups were performed using a t-test. Adjustment for multiple comparisons was made using Hochberg's procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91072417|NCT00174967|182030660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Pairwise comparisons between placebo and each of the febuxostat treatment groups were performed using a t-test. Adjustment for multiple comparisons was made using Hochberg's procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91072418|NCT00174967|182030661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Pairwise comparisons between placebo and each of the febuxostat treatment groups were performed using a t-test. Adjustment for multiple comparisons was made using Hochberg's procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91072419|NCT00174967|182030661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Pairwise comparisons between placebo and each of the febuxostat treatment groups were performed using a t-test. Adjustment for multiple comparisons was made using Hochberg's procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91072420|NCT00174967|182030661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Pairwise comparisons between placebo and each of the febuxostat treatment groups were performed using a t-test. Adjustment for multiple comparisons was made using Hochberg's procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91072421|NCT00174967|182030662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Pairwise comparisons between placebo and each of the febuxostat treatment groups were performed using a t-test. Adjustment for multiple comparisons was made using Hochberg's procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91072422|NCT00174967|182030662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Pairwise comparisons between placebo and each of the febuxostat treatment groups were performed using a t-test. Adjustment for multiple comparisons was made using Hochberg's procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91072423|NCT00174967|182030662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Pairwise comparisons between placebo and each of the febuxostat treatment groups were performed using a t-test. Adjustment for multiple comparisons was made using Hochberg's procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91072424|NCT00174967|182030663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Pairwise comparisons between placebo and each of the febuxostat treatment groups were performed using a t-test. Adjustment for multiple comparisons was made using Hochberg's procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91072425|NCT00174967|182030663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Pairwise comparisons between placebo and each of the febuxostat treatment groups were performed using a t-test. Adjustment for multiple comparisons was made using Hochberg's procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91072426|NCT00174967|182030663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Pairwise comparisons between placebo and each of the febuxostat treatment groups were performed using a t-test. Adjustment for multiple comparisons was made using Hochberg's procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91072427|NCT02730377|182030666|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||Test for no treatment difference is based on using a generalised log-rank test for interval censored failure time data.||||<.0001
91072428|NCT04934189|182030707|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.295|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.184||0.08|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||A one-tailed paired samples T-test was conducted to determine whether the post-treatment (i.e., 3-month) mean was statistically different from the baseline mean.||||.08
91072429|NCT04934189|182030708|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.417|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.89||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||A one-tailed paired samples T-test was conducted to determine whether the post-treatment (i.e., 6-month follow-up mean) was statistically different from the baseline mean.||||.005
91072430|NCT04934189|182030710|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.103|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.5||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||A one-tailed paired samples T-test was conducted to determine whether the post-treatment (i.e., 3-month) mean was statistically different from the baseline mean.||||0.40
91072431|NCT04934189|182030711|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.08||0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||A one-tailed paired samples T-test was conducted to determine whether the post-treatment (i.e., 6-month follow-up) mean was statistically different from the baseline mean.||||.49
91072432|NCT04934189|182030713|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.195|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.41||0.21|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||A one-tailed paired samples T-test was conducted to determine whether the post-treatment (i.e., 3-month) mean was statistically different from the baseline mean.||||.21
91072433|NCT04934189|182030714|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.019|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.43||0.47|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||A one-tailed paired samples T-test was conducted to determine whether the post-treatment (i.e., 6-month followup) mean was statistically different from the baseline mean.||||.47
91072434|NCT04934189|182030716|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.175|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.02||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||A one-tailed paired samples T-test was conducted to determine whether the post-treatment (i.e., 3-month) mean was statistically different from the baseline mean.||||.16
91072435|NCT04934189|182030717|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0481|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.926||0.38|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||A one-tailed paired samples T-test was conducted to determine whether the post-treatment (i.e., 6-month followup) mean was statistically different from the baseline mean.||||.38
91072436|NCT04934189|182030719|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.179|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.73||0.35|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||A one-tailed paired samples T-test was conducted to determine whether the post-treatment (i.e., 3-month) mean was statistically different from the baseline mean.||||.35
91072437|NCT04934189|182030720|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.335|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.05||0.17|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||A one-tailed paired samples T-test was conducted to determine whether the post-treatment (i.e., 6-month followup) mean was statistically different from the baseline mean.||||.17
91072438|NCT04934189|182030724|OTHER|A one-tailed paired samples T-test was conducted to determine whether the post-treatment (i.e., 3-month followup) mean for gender nonaffirmation was statistically different from the baseline mean.|t-test|2.18||||0.02|ONE_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was \<.05|t-test, 1 sided|||||||.02
91072439|NCT04934189|182030724|OTHER|A one-tailed paired samples T-test was conducted to determine whether the post-treatment (i.e., 3-month followup) mean for internalized transphobia was statistically different from the baseline mean.|t-test|1.29||||0.1|ONE_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significant was p \<.05|t-test, 1 sided|||||||.10
91072440|NCT04934189|182030724|OTHER|A one-tailed paired samples T-test was conducted to determine whether the post-treatment (i.e., 3-month followup) mean for identity nondisclosure was statistically different from the baseline mean.|t-test|0.17||||0.43|ONE_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05|t-test, 1 sided|||||||.43
91072441|NCT04934189|182030724|OTHER|A one-tailed paired samples T-test was conducted to determine whether the post-treatment (i.e., 3-month followup) mean for negative expectations was statistically different from the baseline mean.|t-test|-0.68||||0.25|ONE_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05|t-test, 1 sided|||||||.25
91072442|NCT04934189|182030724|OTHER|A one-tailed paired samples T-test was conducted to determine whether the post-treatment (i.e., 3-month followup) mean for community connection was statistically different from the baseline mean.|t-test|-0.36||||0.36|ONE_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05|t-test, 1 sided|||||||.36
91072443|NCT04934189|182030724|OTHER|A one-tailed paired samples T-test was conducted to determine whether the post-treatment (i.e., 3-month followup) mean for pride was statistically different from the baseline mean.|t-test|-0.09||||0.47|ONE_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05|t-test, 1 sided|||||||.47
91072444|NCT04934189|182030725|OTHER|A one-tailed paired samples T-test was conducted to determine whether the post-treatment (i.e., 6-month followup) mean for gender nonaffirmation was statistically different from the baseline mean.|t-test|3.76|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05|t-test, 1 sided||||"A series of one-tailed paired samples T-test was conducted to determine whether the post-treatment (i.e., 6-month followup) mean was statistically different from the baseline mean for each of the five gender minority stress subscales measured. See below for T-scores and associated p-values for each statistical test.~Nonaffirmation (t = 3.76; p = .001) Internalized Transphobia (t = 2.01; p = .02) Negative Expectations (t = 2.06; p =.02) Community Connection (t = -0.82; p =.21) Pride (t = .01; p = .50 )"|||<.001
91072445|NCT04934189|182030725|OTHER|A one-tailed paired samples T-test was conducted to determine whether the post-treatment (i.e., 6-month followup) mean for internalized transphobia was statistically different from the baseline mean.|t-test|2.01||||0.02|ONE_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p \< .05|t-test, 1 sided|||||||.02
91072446|NCT04934189|182030725|OTHER|A one-tailed paired samples T-test was conducted to determine whether the post-treatment (i.e., 6-month followup) mean for identity nondisclosure was statistically different from the baseline mean.|t-test|1.61||||0.06|ONE_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05|t-test, 1 sided|||||||.06
91072447|NCT04934189|182030725|OTHER|A one-tailed paired samples T-test was conducted to determine whether the post-treatment (i.e., 6-month followup) mean for negative expectations was statistically different from the baseline mean.|t-test|2.06||||0.02|ONE_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05|t-test, 1 sided|||||||.02
91072448|NCT04934189|182030725|OTHER|A one-tailed paired samples T-test was conducted to determine whether the post-treatment (i.e., 6-month followup) mean for community connection was statistically different from the baseline mean.|t-test|-0.818||||0.21|ONE_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05|t-test, 1 sided|||||||.21
91072449|NCT04934189|182030725|OTHER|A one-tailed paired samples T-test was conducted to determine whether the post-treatment (i.e., 6-month followup) mean for pride was statistically different from the baseline mean.|t-test|0.009||||0.5|ONE_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05|t-test, 1 sided|||||||.50
91072450|NCT04934189|182030728|OTHER||Chi-squared|5.59||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \<.05|Chi-squared|||For this categorical data, chi-square tests of independence were performed to compare post-treatment (i.e., 3 month followup) vs 6 month followup numbers of participants reporting freedom from sexual victimization over a 6 month time period||||.04
91072451|NCT04934189|182030728|OTHER|For this categorical data, chi-square tests of independence were performed to compare post-treatment (i.e., 3 month followup) vs 6 month followup numbers of participants reporting any exposure to nonpenetrative sexual assault over a 6 month time period|Chi-squared|0.21||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05|Chi-squared|||||||.55
91072452|NCT04934189|182030728|OTHER|For this categorical data, chi-square tests of independence were performed to compare post-treatment (i.e., 3 month followup) vs 6 month followup numbers of participants reporting exposure to rape over a 6 month time period|Chi-squared|0.11||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05|Chi-squared|||||||.59
91072453|NCT04934189|182030730|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.68||0.38|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||A one-tailed paired samples T-test was conducted to determine whether the post-treatment (i.e., 3-month) mean was statistically different from the baseline mean.||||.38
91072454|NCT04934189|182030731|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.265|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.21||0.25|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||A one-tailed paired samples T-test was conducted to determine whether the post-treatment (i.e., 6-month) mean was statistically different from the baseline mean.||||.25
91072455|NCT03320850|182030732|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.635||0.0845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|2.35|||ANCOVA||Least square estimates and contrast t-test were used to compare specified treatment groups and were based on ANCOVA model with Baseline value as covariate and treatment group, sex (male, female) as factors.|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between each (BOTOX® and Hydrogel admixture group) and (placebo and Hydrogel admixture) in the mean change from Baseline in daily average number of UIEs at Week 12.||2.35|-0.15|0.0845
91072456|NCT03320850|182030732|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.633||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|3.08|||ANCOVA||Least square estimates and contrast t-test were used to compare specified treatment groups and were based on ANCOVA model with Baseline value as covariate and treatment group, sex (male, female) as factors.|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between each (BOTOX® and Hydrogel admixture group) and (placebo and Hydrogel admixture) in the mean change from Baseline in daily average number of UIEs at Week 12.||3.08|0.59|0.0041
91072457|NCT03320850|182030732|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.632||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|2.44|||ANCOVA||Least square estimates and contrast t-test were used to compare specified treatment groups and were based on ANCOVA model with Baseline value as covariate and treatment group, sex (male, female) as factors.|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between each (BOTOX® and Hydrogel admixture group) and (placebo and Hydrogel admixture) in the mean change from Baseline in daily average number of UIEs at Week 12.||2.44|-0.05|0.0600
91072458|NCT03320850|182030732|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.631||0.1702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|2.11|||ANCOVA||Least square estimates and contrast t-test were used to compare specified treatment groups and were based on ANCOVA model with Baseline value as covariate and treatment group, sex (male, female) as factors.|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between each (BOTOX® and Hydrogel admixture group) and (placebo and Hydrogel admixture) in the mean change from Baseline in daily average number of UIEs at Week 12.||2.11|-0.37|0.1702
91072459|NCT03320850|182030734|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean|0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.617||0.2361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|1.95|||ANCOVA||Least square estimates and contrast t-test were used to compare specified treatment groups and were based on ANCOVA model with Baseline value as covariate and treatment group, sex (male, female) as factors.|||1.95|-0.48|0.2361
91072460|NCT03320850|182030734|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean|0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.608||0.1985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|1.98|||ANCOVA||Least square estimates and contrast t-test were used to compare specified treatment groups and were based on ANCOVA model with Baseline value as covariate and treatment group, sex (male, female) as factors.|||1.98|-0.41|0.1985
91072461|NCT03320850|182030734|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean|0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.607||0.2923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|1.84|||ANCOVA||Least square estimates and contrast t-test were used to compare specified treatment groups and were based on ANCOVA model with Baseline value as covariate and treatment group, sex (male, female) as factors.|||1.84|-0.56|0.2923
91072462|NCT03320850|182030734|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean|0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.609||0.3769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|1.74|||ANCOVA||Least square estimates and contrast t-test were used to compare specified treatment groups and were based on ANCOVA model with Baseline value as covariate and treatment group, sex (male, female) as factors.|||1.74|-0.66|0.3769
91072463|NCT03320850|182030735|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean|-7.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.107||0.5911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.87|18.77|||ANCOVA||Least square estimates and contrast t-test were used to compare specified treatment groups and were based on ANCOVA model with Baseline value as covariate and treatment group, sex (male, female) as factors.|||18.77|-32.87|0.5911
91072464|NCT03320850|182030735|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean|-8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.956||0.5375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.52|17.52|||ANCOVA||Least square estimates and contrast t-test were used to compare specified treatment groups and were based on ANCOVA model with Baseline value as covariate and treatment group, sex (male, female) as factors.|||17.52|-33.52|0.5375
91072465|NCT03320850|182030735|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean|-1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.764||0.9173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.47|23.81|||ANCOVA||Least square estimates and contrast t-test were used to compare specified treatment groups and were based on ANCOVA model with Baseline value as covariate and treatment group, sex (male, female) as factors.|||23.81|-26.47|0.9173
91072466|NCT03320850|182030735|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean|9.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.981||0.473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.24|34.9|||ANCOVA||Least square estimates and contrast t-test were used to compare specified treatment groups and were based on ANCOVA model with Baseline value as covariate and treatment group, sex (male, female) as factors.|||34.90|-16.24|0.4730
91072467|NCT02002533|182030743|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999|||||||exact binomial test|The percentage is greater than or equal to 40%.||||||>0.9999
91072468|NCT02002533|182030744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.735|||||||exact binomial test|||||||0.7350
91072469|NCT02002533|182030745|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8075|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0845|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
91072470|NCT02002533|182030746|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21||0.1808|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA||The estimated value is BBT minus HEAL.|||||0.1808
91072471|NCT02002533|182030747|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.14|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA||Estimated value is BBT minus HEAL.|||||0.14
91072472|NCT02002533|182030748|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.404|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|For baseline of 0.7.||||||0.005
91072473|NCT02002533|182030748|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.077|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045||0.092|TWO_SIDED|||||At baseline 1.3.|ANCOVA|||||||0.092
91072474|NCT02002533|182030748|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.032|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053||0.556|TWO_SIDED|||||At baseline of 1.5.|ANCOVA|||||||0.556
91072475|NCT02002533|182030748|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.221||0.007|TWO_SIDED|||||Grouped by baseline interaction.|ANCOVA||The estimated value is grouped by baseline interaction parameter.|||||0.007
91072476|NCT02002533|182030749|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.000
91072477|NCT02002533|182030750|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.295|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.295
91072478|NCT02002533|182030751|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.573|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.573
91072479|NCT02002533|182030752|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.502|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.558||0.015|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA||Group difference (BBT - HEAL) in mean post-pre change.|||||0.015
91072480|NCT02002533|182030752|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.723|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.007||0.094|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA||Group difference (BBT - HEAL) in mean post-pre change.|||||0.094
91072481|NCT02002533|182030752|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.326||0.114|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA||Group difference (BBT - HEAL) in mean post-pre change.|||||0.114
91072482|NCT02002533|182030752|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.911|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.027|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA||This is an arm by baseline interaction parameter.|||||0.027
91072483|NCT03796442|182030756|NON_INFERIORITY|The study was designed to have 80% power to detect 1-year AVMPG of 12.6±4.3mmHg for the study prosthesis and 11.9±4.3mmHg for the control prosthesis, with a 1-sided type I error of 2.5% and a noninferiority margin of 3mmHg. The noninferiority margin was determined by the values of 15mmHg for AVMPG of clinically significant aortic stenosis and 12mmHg for AVMPG of the control prosthesis.||||||0.0004|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis was that the AvalusTM was inferior to the CEPME based on the AVMPG at 1-year echocardiographic follow-up, with a non-inferiority margin of 3mmHg. The result for the primary endpoint was presented with 97.5% one-sided confidence interval for mean difference between groups. The non-inferiority test was performed using a t-test which compared mean difference between groups with the non-inferiority margin under the one-sided significance level of 0.025.||||0.0004
91072484|NCT02031640|182030793|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean (LSM) Difference|0.034||||0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.027|0.095|||ANCOVA|||||0.095|-0.027|0.272
91072485|NCT02031640|182030793|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.045||||0.1415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.015|0.106|||ANCOVA|||||0.106|-0.015|0.1415
91072486|NCT02031640|182030793|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.015||||0.6356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.075|0.046|||ANCOVA|||||0.046|-0.075|0.6356
91072487|NCT02031640|182030793|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.04||||0.1932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.02|0.1932
91072488|NCT02031640|182030794|OTHER|The analysis of change from baseline in weekly average of daily trough morning (pre-dose and pre-rescue bronchodilator) PEF over the 12-week treatment period was performed using a repeated measures mixed model with effects due to baseline weekly average of daily trough morning PEF, sex, age, treatment, time, and time-by-treatment interaction.|LSM Difference|10.616||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.489|17.744|||Mixed Model for repeated measures|||||17.744|3.489|0.0036
91072489|NCT02031640|182030794|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|8.419||||0.0204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.309|15.53|||Mixed Model for repeated measures|||The analysis of change from baseline in weekly average of daily trough morning (pre-dose and pre-rescue bronchodilator) PEF over the 12-week treatment period was performed using a repeated measures mixed model with effects due to baseline weekly average of daily trough morning PEF, sex, age, treatment, time, and time-by-treatment interaction||15.53|1.309|0.0204
91072490|NCT02031640|182030794|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|6.004||||0.0984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.121|13.129|||Mixed Model for repeated measures|||The analysis of change from baseline in weekly average of daily trough morning (pre-dose and pre-rescue bronchodilator) PEF over the 12-week treatment period was performed using a repeated measures mixed model with effects due to baseline weekly average of daily trough morning PEF, sex, age, treatment, time, and time-by-treatment interaction||13.129|-1.121|0.0984
91072491|NCT02031640|182030794|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|12.512||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.435|19.589|||Mixed Model for repeated measures|||The analysis of change from baseline in weekly average of daily trough morning (pre-dose and pre-rescue bronchodilator) PEF over the 12-week treatment period was performed using a repeated measures mixed model with effects due to baseline weekly average of daily trough morning PEF, sex, age, treatment, time, and time-by-treatment interaction||19.589|5.435|0.0006
91072492|NCT02031640|182030795|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|9.147||||0.0139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.866|16.429|||Mixed Model for repeated measures|||||16.429|1.866|0.0139
91072493|NCT02031640|182030795|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|9.17||||0.0133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.914|16.425|||Mixed Model for repeated measures|||||16.425|1.914|0.0133
91072494|NCT02031640|182030795|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|4.088||||0.2704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.191|11.367|||Mixed Model for repeated measures|||||11.367|-3.191|0.2704
91072495|NCT02031640|182030795|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|10.301||||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.073|17.53|||Mixed Model for repeated measures|||||17.53|3.073|0.0053
91072496|NCT02031640|182030796|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.703|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.044|-0.363|||Mixed Model for repeated measures|||||-0.363|-1.044|<0.0001
91072497|NCT02031640|182030796|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.691|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.029|-0.352|||Mixed Model for repeated measures|||||-0.352|-1.029|<0.0001
91072498|NCT02031640|182030796|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.651||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.994|-0.309|||Mixed Model for repeated measures|||||-0.309|-0.994|0.0002
91072499|NCT02031640|182030796|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.801|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.138|-0.464|||Mixed Model for repeated measures|||||-0.464|-1.138|<0.0001
91072500|NCT02031640|182030797|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.149||||0.0119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.265|-0.033|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.033|-0.265|0.0119
91072501|NCT02031640|182030797|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.102||||0.0854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.217|0.014|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.014|-0.217|0.0854
91072502|NCT02031640|182030797|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.189||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.306|-0.072|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.072|-0.306|0.0016
91072503|NCT02031640|182030797|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.216||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.332|-0.101|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.101|-0.332|0.0003
91072504|NCT01194999|182030815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: No significant difference from baseline to final follow-up.||||0.001
91072505|NCT01895270|182030816|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.42|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.42
91072506|NCT02091375|182030822|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-22.79||||0.0123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.06|-5.43|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Calculated using the Hodges-Lehmann approach.|||-5.43|-41.06|0.0123
91072507|NCT02091375|182030823|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.0784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|4.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by age group (2-5 years, 6-12 years, and 13-18 years).||||4.30|0.93|0.0784
91072508|NCT03834974|182030850|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0286|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: There would be no difference in change in intent to tan outdoors 10 or more times in the next year.||||<0.0286
91072509|NCT03834974|182030850|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0937|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: There would be no difference in change in in intent to tan later in life.||||0.0937
91072510|NCT03834974|182030854|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: There would be no difference in tanning outside at follow-up||||<0.0002
91072511|NCT01369108|182030898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8|||||||ANOVA|||null hypothesis no difference in anatomic form||||0.8
91072512|NCT01369108|182030898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.89|||||||ANOVA|||null hypothesis no difference in margin adaptation||||0.89
91072513|NCT01369108|182030898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.79|||||||ANOVA|||null hypothesis no difference in margin discoloration||||0.79
91072514|NCT01369108|182030898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.18|||||||ANOVA|||null hypothesis no difference in surface integrity||||0.18
91072515|NCT01369108|182030898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.66|||||||ANOVA|||null hypothesis no difference in secondary caries||||0.66
91072516|NCT01369108|182030899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.522|||||||ANOVA|||null hypothesis no difference in sensitivity to cold||||0.522
91072517|NCT01369108|182030899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.449|||||||Chi-squared|||null hypothesis no difference in biting pressure||||.449
91072518|NCT01895608|182030900|OTHER|non-parametric statistic: Mann-Whitney U test for independent samples||||||0.562|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: There will not be a difference in improvement in walking under dual-task conditions following balance rehabilitation that incorporates dual-task practice compared to standard balance rehabilitation.||||0.562
91072519|NCT01895608|182030900|OTHER|||||||0.414|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|non-parametric statistical analysis: Mann Whitney U Test for independent samples||Null hypothesis: There will not be a difference in improvement in walking under dual-task conditions following cognitive training that incorporates speed of processing tasks compared to general cognitive training.||||0.414
91072520|NCT01895608|182030901|OTHER|non-parametric statistical analysis: Mann Whitney U Test for independent samples||||||0.181|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: There will not be a difference in improvement in walking under dual-task conditions following balance rehabilitation that incorporates dual-task practice compared to standard balance rehabilitation.||||0.181
91072521|NCT01895608|182030901|OTHER|non-parametric statistical analysis: Mann Whitney U Test for independent samples||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: There will not be a difference in improvement in walking under dual-task conditions following cognitive training that incorporates speed of processing tasks compared to general cognitive training.||||1.000
91072522|NCT01895608|182030902|OTHER|non-parametric statistical analysis: Mann Whitney U Test for independent samples||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: There will not be a difference in improvement in fall risk as measured by dynamic gait index following balance rehabilitation that incorporates dual-task practice compared to standard balance rehabilitation.||||1.000
91072523|NCT01895608|182030902|OTHER|non-parametric statistical analysis: Mann Whitney U Test for independent samples||||||0.662|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: There will not be a difference in improvement in fall risk as measured by dynamic gait index following cognitive training that incorporates speed of processing tasks compared to general cognitive training.||||0.662
91072524|NCT01895608|182030903|OTHER|non-parametric statistical analysis: Mann Whitney U Test for independent samples||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: There will not be a difference in improvement in static balance as measured by sensory organization test following balance rehabilitation that incorporates dual-task practice compared to standard balance rehabilitation.||||0.05
91072525|NCT01895608|182030903|OTHER|non-parametric statistical analysis: Mann Whitney U Test for independent samples||||||0.171|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: There will not be a difference in improvement in static balance as measured by sensory organization test following cognitive training that incorporates speed of processing tasks compared to general cognitive training.||||0.171
91072526|NCT01895608|182030904|OTHER|non-parametric statistical analysis: Mann Whitney U Test for independent samples||||||0.313|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: There will not be a difference in improvement in gait speed following balance rehabilitation that incorporates dual-task practice compared to standard balance rehabilitation.||||0.313
91072527|NCT01895608|182030904|OTHER|non-parametric statistical analysis: Mann Whitney U Test for independent samples||||||0.852|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: There will not be a difference in improvement in gait speed following cognitive training that incorporates speed of processing tasks compared to general cognitive training.||||0.852
91072528|NCT01895608|182030905|OTHER|non-parametric statistical analysis: Mann Whitney U Test for independent samples||||||0.263|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: There will not be a difference in improvement in balance confidence following balance rehabilitation that incorporates dual-task practice compared to standard balance rehabilitation.||||0.263
91072529|NCT01895608|182030905|OTHER|non-parametric statistical analysis: Mann Whitney U Test for independent samples||||||0.181|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: There will not be a difference in improvement in balance confidence following cognitive training that incorporates speed of processing tasks compared to general cognitive training.||||0.181
91072530|NCT01154088|182030957|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for non-inferiority: For each serogroup separately, the lower limit (LL) of the 2-sided standardised asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for the group difference (Nimenrix-A Group minus Mencevax Group) in the percentage of subjects with bactericidal vaccine response would be greater than or equal to (≥) the pre-defined clinical limit of -10%.|Difference in vaccine response rate|5.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|12.25||||||Demonstration of the non-inferiority of the vaccine response induced by Nimenrix conjugate vaccine (Nimenrix Lot A) when compared to the licensed Mencevax for Neisseria meningitidis (N. meningitidis) serogroups A as measured by serum bactericidal antibodies using baby rabbit complement (rSBA) at GSK.||12.25|-1.41|
91072531|NCT01154088|182030957|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for non-inferiority: For each serogroup separately, the lower limit (LL) of the 2-sided standardised asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for the group difference (Nimenrix-A Group minus Mencevax Group) in the percentage of subjects with bactericidal vaccine response would be greater than or equal to (≥) the pre-defined clinical limit of -10%.|Difference in vaccine response rate|-0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.11|3.25||||||Demonstration of the non-inferiority of the vaccine response induced by Nimenrix conjugate vaccine (Nimenrix Lot A) when compared to the licensed Mencevax for Neisseria meningitidis (N. meningitidis) serogroups C as measured by serum bactericidal antibodies using baby rabbit complement (rSBA) at GSK.||3.25|-4.11|
91072532|NCT01154088|182030957|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for non-inferiority: For each serogroup separately, the lower limit (LL) of the 2-sided standardised asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for the group difference (Nimenrix-A Group minus Mencevax Group) in the percentage of subjects with bactericidal vaccine response would be greater than or equal to (≥) the pre-defined clinical limit of -10%.|Difference in vaccine response rate|6.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.28|10.78||||||Demonstration of the non-inferiority of the vaccine response induced by Nimenrix conjugate vaccine (Nimenrix Lot A) when compared to the licensed Mencevax for Neisseria meningitidis (N. meningitidis) serogroups W-135 as measured by serum bactericidal antibodies using baby rabbit complement (rSBA) at GSK.||10.78|3.28|
91072533|NCT01154088|182030957|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for non-inferiority: For each serogroup separately, the lower limit (LL) of the 2-sided standardised asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for the group difference (Nimenrix-A Group minus Mencevax Group) in the percentage of subjects with bactericidal vaccine response would be greater than or equal to (≥) the pre-defined clinical limit of -10%.|Difference in vaccine response rate|7.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.63|11.58||||||Demonstration of the non-inferiority of the vaccine response induced by Nimenrix conjugate vaccine (Nimenrix Lot A) when compared to the licensed Mencevax for Neisseria meningitidis (N. meningitidis) serogroups Y as measured by serum bactericidal antibodies using baby rabbit complement (rSBA) at GSK.||11.58|2.63|
91072534|NCT01154088|182030958|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for non-inferiority: Non-inferiority of Nimenrix Lot B vs. Nimenrix Lot A in terms of non-inferiority would be demonstrated if the upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% CIs on the rSBA GMT ratios (GMTs of Nimenrix Lot B over the GMTs of the Nimenrix Lot A) would be below (\<) a limit of 2-fold for antibodies against all meningococcal serogroups.|Adjusted GMT ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.17||||||Demonstration of the comparability of the immunogenicity of Lot A to Lot B of Nimenrix conjugate vaccine with respect to rSBA geometric mean titres (GMTs) for N. meningitidis serogroups A, 1 month after vaccination as measured at GSK.||1.17|0.92|
91072535|NCT01154088|182030958|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for non-inferiority: Non-inferiority of Nimenrix Lot B vs. Nimenrix Lot A in terms of non-inferiority would be demonstrated if the upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% CIs on the rSBA GMT ratios (GMTs of Nimenrix Lot B over the GMTs of the Nimenrix Lot A) would be below (\<) a limit of 2-fold for antibodies against all meningococcal serogroups.|Adjusted GMT ratio|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.37||||||Demonstration of the comparability of the immunogenicity of Lot A to Lot B of Nimenrix conjugate vaccine with respect to rSBA geometric mean titres (GMTs) for N. meningitidis serogroups C, 1 month after vaccination as measured at GSK.||1.37|0.96|
91072536|NCT01154088|182030958|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for non-inferiority: Non-inferiority of Nimenrix Lot B vs. Nimenrix Lot A in terms of non-inferiority would be demonstrated if the upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% CIs on the rSBA GMT ratios (GMTs of Nimenrix Lot B over the GMTs of the Nimenrix Lot A) would be below (\<) a limit of 2-fold for antibodies against all meningococcal serogroups.|Adjusted GMT ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.04||||||Demonstration of the comparability of the immunogenicity of Lot A to Lot B of Nimenrix conjugate vaccine with respect to rSBA geometric mean titres (GMTs) for N. meningitidis serogroups W-135, 1 month after vaccination as measured at GSK.||1.04|0.8|
91072537|NCT01154088|182030958|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for non-inferiority: Non-inferiority of Nimenrix Lot B vs. Nimenrix Lot A in terms of non-inferiority would be demonstrated if the upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% CIs on the rSBA GMT ratios (GMTs of Nimenrix Lot B over the GMTs of the Nimenrix Lot A) would be below (\<) a limit of 2-fold for antibodies against all meningococcal serogroups.|Adjusted GMT ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|0.99||||||Demonstration of the comparability of the immunogenicity of Lot A to Lot B of Nimenrix conjugate vaccine with respect to rSBA geometric mean titres (GMTs) for N. meningitidis serogroups Y, 1 month after vaccination as measured at GSK.||0.99|0.78|
91072538|NCT05831644|182030977|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.124||||0.1925|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.285|0.037|||ANOVA|||The primary endpoint (RHI score) was compared between treatments using an analysis of variance model (ANOVA) with treatment and period as fixed effects and subjects as random effect.||0.037|-0.285|0.1925
91072539|NCT05831644|182030978|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.94||||0.1941|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.392|1.513|||ANOVA|||The secondary pharmacodynamic endpoint (AI) was analysed using a similar ANOVA model as for the primary endpoint.||1.513|-11.392|0.1941
91072540|NCT00977314|182031031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.0|<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The endpoint was the calculated difference between the HINT result for the unaided condition prior to the 30-day trial period (Day 1) and the HINT result using the SoundBite (aided) at the end of the 30-day trial period (Day 30).||||<0.001
91072541|NCT00288600|182031043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.765|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Need of Exchange transfusion following the AAP criteria||||0.765
91072542|NCT03600194|182031070|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Design\*Therapy interaction term||||||.019
91072543|NCT00792688|182031080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0062||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0062
91072544|NCT00792688|182031080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0331||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0331
91072545|NCT00556933|182031082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0004
91072546|NCT00556933|182031083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.45|TWO_SIDED||||||General Linear Model|||||||0.45
91072547|NCT00556933|182031084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.53|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.53
91072548|NCT00556933|182031085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.463|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.463
91072549|NCT00556933|182031086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.67|TWO_SIDED||||||Kaplan-Meier|||||||0.67
91072550|NCT00556933|182031087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.193|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.193
91072551|NCT00556933|182031088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.422|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.422
91072552|NCT00556933|182031089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.871|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.871
91072553|NCT00556933|182031090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.068|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.068
91072554|NCT00556933|182031091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.67|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.67
91072555|NCT00556933|182031092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.21|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.21
91072556|NCT00556933|182031093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.40
91072557|NCT02060058|182031114|OTHER|The evaluation of SVR rate was based on full-analysis-set (FAS) and modified intention-to-treat population (mITT). FAS population included subjects receiving ≥ 1 dose of any antiviral agents (boceprevir and/or PEG-IFN, and/or RBV). MITT population included subjects receiving ≥ 1 dose of boceprevir.||||||0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.01
91072558|NCT01871402|182031118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||"Treatment groups were compared with respect to the proportions of subjects with treatment success at Day 15 using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by analysis center."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Multiple imputation was used to impute missing data from the ITT population.||||||<0.001
91072559|NCT01871402|182031119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance (\<0.001) was achieved for each of the clinical signs of psoriasis (scaling, erythema, and plaque elevation).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Missing data was imputed as treatment failure.||Treatment groups were compared with respect to each of the clinical signs of psoriasis (scaling, erythema, and plaque elevation).||||<0.001
91072560|NCT01871402|182031120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91072561|NCT01871402|182031121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance (\<0.001) was achieved for each of the clinical signs of psoriasis (scaling, erythema, and plaque elevations).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment groups were compared with respect to each of the clinical signs of psoriasis (scaling, erythema, and plaque elevation).||||<0.001
91072562|NCT04594941|182031124|OTHER||Least Sqaure (LS) Mean Difference|-0.149|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.754||0.8452|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.431|1.133|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||"Median of Readers: SPE VS HPLC~Analysis was based on Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) model include the median SRS in each dosing period as the dependent variable, with manufacturing process, period, and dosing sequence as fixed effects, and participant nested within sequence as the random effect."||1.133|-1.431|0.8452
91072563|NCT04594941|182031124|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.109||0.989|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.899|1.868|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||"SPE VS HPLC: Reader 1~Analysis was based on Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) model include the median SRS in each dosing period as the dependent variable, with manufacturing process, period, and dosing sequence as fixed effects, and participant nested within sequence as the random effect."||1.868|-1.899|0.9890
91072564|NCT04594941|182031124|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.753|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.854||0.3852|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.204|0.698|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||"Reader 2: SPE VS HPLC~Reader 2: Analysis was based on Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) model include the median SRS in each dosing period as the dependent variable, with manufacturing process, period, and dosing sequence as fixed effects, and participant nested within sequence as the random effect."||0.698|-2.204|0.3852
91072565|NCT04594941|182031124|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.091|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.968||0.926|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.735|1.554|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||"Reader 3: SPE VS HPLC~Analysis was based on MMRM model include the median SRS in each dosing period as the dependent variable, with manufacturing process, period, and dosing sequence as fixed effects, and participant nested within sequence as the random effect."||1.554|-1.735|0.9260
91072566|NCT04594941|182031125|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.219|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.109||0.8452|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.104|1.667|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||"Median of Readers: SPE VS HPLC~Analysis was based on Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) model include the median SRS in each dosing period as the dependent variable, with manufacturing process, period, and dosing sequence as fixed effects, and participant nested within sequence as the random effect."||1.667|-2.104|0.8452
91072567|NCT04594941|182031125|OTHER||Least Square Mean (LSM) Difference|-0.023|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63||0.989|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.793|2.747|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||"Reader 1: SPE VS HPLC~Analysis was based on Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) model include the median SRS in each dosing period as the dependent variable, with manufacturing process, period, and dosing sequence as fixed effects, and participant nested within sequence as the random effect."||2.747|-2.793|0.9890
91072568|NCT04594941|182031125|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.107|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.256||0.3852|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.241|1.027|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||"Reader 2: SPE VS HPLC~Analysis was based on Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) model include the median SRS in each dosing period as the dependent variable, with manufacturing process, period, and dosing sequence as fixed effects, and participant nested within sequence as the random effect."||1.027|-3.241|0.3852
91072569|NCT04594941|182031125|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.133|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.424||0.926|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.552|2.285|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||"Reader 3: SPE VS HPLC~Analysis was based on Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) model include the median SRS in each dosing period as the dependent variable, with manufacturing process, period, and dosing sequence as fixed effects, and participant nested within sequence as the random effect."||2.285|-2.552|0.9260
91072570|NCT04594941|182031126|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Reader 1||||<0.0001
91072571|NCT04594941|182031126|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Reader 2||||<0.0001
91072572|NCT04594941|182031126|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Reader 3||||<0.0001
91072573|NCT04594941|182031126|OTHER|||||||0.0072|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Reader 1||||0.0072
91072574|NCT04594941|182031126|OTHER|||||||0.0051|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Reader 2||||0.0051
91072575|NCT04594941|182031126|OTHER|||||||0.0023|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Reader 3||||0.0023
91072576|NCT04594941|182031126|OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Reader 1||||0.0002
91072577|NCT04594941|182031126|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Reader 2||||<0.0001
91072578|NCT04594941|182031126|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Reader 3||||<0.0001
91072579|NCT04594941|182031127|OTHER|||||||0.0089|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Reader 1||||0.0089
91072580|NCT04594941|182031127|OTHER|||||||0.0207|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Reader 2||||0.0207
91072581|NCT04594941|182031127|OTHER|||||||0.0089|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Reader 3||||0.0089
91072582|NCT04594941|182031127|OTHER|||||||0.732|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Reader 1||||0.732
91072583|NCT04594941|182031127|OTHER|||||||0.0083|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Reader 2||||0.0083
91072584|NCT04594941|182031127|OTHER|||||||0.0412|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Reader 3||||0.0412
91072585|NCT04594941|182031127|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Reader 1||||0.0001
91072586|NCT04594941|182031127|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Reader 2||||<0.0001
91072587|NCT04594941|182031127|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Reader 3||||<0.0001
91072588|NCT04594941|182031129|OTHER||Kappa Statistics|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.0|||||Kappa statistics was assessed using Cohen's kappa statistics.|Reader 1||1.0000|1.0000|
91072589|NCT04594941|182031129|OTHER||Kappa Statistics|0.6957|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1696|1.0|||||Kappa statistics was assessed using Cohen's kappa statistics.|Reader 2||1.0000|0.1696|
91072590|NCT04594941|182031129|OTHER||Kappa Statistics|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.0|||||Kappa statistics was assessed using Cohen's kappa statistics.|Reader 3||1.0000|1.0000|
91072591|NCT04594941|182031129|OTHER||Kappa Statistics|0.4615|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0699|0.993|||||Kappa statistics was assessed using Cohen's kappa statistics.|Reader 1||0.9930|-0.0699|
91072592|NCT04594941|182031129|OTHER||Kappa Statistics|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.0|||||Kappa statistics was assessed using Cohen's kappa statistics.|Reader 2||1.0000|1.0000|
91072593|NCT04594941|182031129|OTHER||Kappa Statistics|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.0|||||Kappa statistics was assessed using Cohen's kappa statistics.|Reader 3||1.0000|1.0000|
91072594|NCT04594941|182031129|OTHER||Kappa Statistics|0.8811|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6567|1.0|||||Kappa statistics was assessed using Cohen's kappa statistics.|Reader 1||1.0000|0.6567|
91072595|NCT04594941|182031129|OTHER||Kappa Statistics|0.8828|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6614|1.0|||||Kappa statistics was assessed using Cohen's kappa statistics.|Reader 2||1.0000|0.6614|
91072596|NCT04594941|182031129|OTHER||Kappa Statistics|0.8811|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6567|1.0|||||Kappa statistics was assessed using Cohen's kappa statistics.|Reader 3||1.0000|0.6567|
91072597|NCT03408444|182031136|SUPERIORITY|Superiority is established if the adjusted upper confidence limit is below 0.|Mean Difference|-0.063|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0181|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.106|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward and Roger method was used for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|It was calculated that 160 participants randomized in a 1:1:1:1 fashion among the four arms would have at least 90% power to detect a 0.08 mm difference in mean axial elongation at the 6-month follow-up. The power analysis was conducted controlling 2-sided type I error of 0.05.||-0.020|-0.106|
91072598|NCT03408444|182031136|SUPERIORITY|Superiority is established if the adjusted upper confidence limit is below 0.|Mean Difference|-0.056|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0183|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|-0.013|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward and Roger method was used for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|It was calculated that 160 participants randomized in a 1:1:1:1 fashion among the four arms would have at least 90% power to detect a 0.08 mm difference in mean axial elongation at the 6-month follow-up. The power analysis was conducted controlling 2-sided type I error of 0.05.||-0.013|-0.100|
91072599|NCT03408444|182031136|SUPERIORITY|Superiority is established if the adjusted upper confidence limit is below 0.|Mean Difference|-0.105|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0184|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.149|-0.062|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward and Roger method was used for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|It was calculated that 160 participants randomized in a 1:1:1:1 fashion among the four arms would have at least 90% power to detect a 0.08 mm difference in mean axial elongation at the 6-month follow-up. The power analysis was conducted controlling 2-sided type I error of 0.05.||-0.062|-0.149|
91072600|NCT03408444|182031137|SUPERIORITY|Superiority is established if the adjusted lower confidence limit is above 0.|Mean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward and Roger method was for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|It was calculated that 160 participants randomized in a 1:1:1:1 fashion among the four arms would have at least 79% power to detect a 0.20 D difference in mean axial elongation at the 6-month follow-up. The power analysis was conducted controlling 2-sided type I error of 0.05.||0.21|-0.04|
91072601|NCT03408444|182031137|SUPERIORITY|Superiority is established if the adjusted lower confidence limit is above 0.|Mean Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward and Roger method was used for the denominator degrees of freedom|Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|It was calculated that 160 participants randomized in a 1:1:1:1 fashion among the four arms would have at least 79% power to detect a 0.20 D difference in mean axial elongation at the 6-month follow-up. The power analysis was conducted controlling 2-sided type I error of 0.05.||0.25|-0.01|
91072602|NCT03408444|182031137|SUPERIORITY|Superiority is established if the adjusted lower confidence limit is above 0.|Mean Difference|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward and Roger method was used for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|It was calculated that 160 participants randomized in a 1:1:1:1 fashion among the four arms would have at least 79% power to detect a 0.20 D difference in mean axial elongation at the 6-month follow-up. The power analysis was conducted controlling 2-sided type I error of 0.05.||0.35|0.09|
91072603|NCT00537316|182031161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.032||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.032
91072604|NCT00782184|182031176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|21.0|||Regression, Logistic|||COMPARISON BETWEEN GROUPS FOR NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS REACHING LDL-C GOAL OF \<70 MG/DL||21.0|3.4|<0.001
91072605|NCT00782184|182031177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-15.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.15|-8.84|||Longitudinal Data Analysis (LDA) Model|||||-8.84|-21.15|<0.001
91072606|NCT00782184|182031178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|13.9|||Regression, Logistic|||||13.9|3.3|<0.001
91072607|NCT00782184|182031179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|6.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.0|2.0|<0.001
91072608|NCT00782184|182031180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-8.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|-3.97|||LDA Model|||||-3.97|-12.50|<0.001
91072609|NCT00782184|182031181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|2.13||||0.593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.67|9.93|||LDA Model|||||9.93|-5.67|0.593
91072610|NCT00782184|182031182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|2.48||||0.211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|6.37|||LDA Model|||||6.37|-1.41|0.211
91072611|NCT00782184|182031183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-11.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.32|-5.92|||LDA Model|||||-5.92|-17.32|<0.001
91072612|NCT00782184|182031184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-16.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.77|-9.44|||LDA Model|||||-9.44|-22.77|<0.001
91072613|NCT00782184|182031185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-10.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.96|-5.08|||LDA Model|||||-5.08|-14.96|<0.001
91072614|NCT00782184|182031186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-13.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.83|-6.59|||LDA Model|||||-6.59|-19.83|<0.001
91072615|NCT00782184|182031187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-7.69||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|-2.88|||LDA Model|||||-2.88|-12.50|0.002
91072616|NCT00782184|182031188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|5.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.44|8.06|||LDA Model|||||8.06|2.44|<0.001
91072617|NCT00782184|182031189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-12.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.31|-7.52|||LDA Model|||||-7.52|-18.31|<0.001
91072618|NCT00782184|182031190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|2.68||||0.785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|21.86|||LDA Model|||||21.86|-16.50|0.785
91072619|NCT01730534|182031207|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.172||95.0|0.84|1.03|||Regression, Cox|||||1.03|0.84|0.172
91072620|NCT01730534|182031208|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.005||95.0|0.73|0.95|||Regression, Cox|||||0.95|0.73|0.005
91072621|NCT01730534|182031209|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76|||<|0.001||95.0|0.67|0.87|||Regression, Cox|||||0.87|0.67|<0.001
91072622|NCT01730534|182031210|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.198||95.0|0.82|1.04|||Regression, Cox|||||1.04|0.82|0.198
91072623|NCT02833844|182031246|SUPERIORITY||treatment difference|-56.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.36|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.55|-52.28||Multiplicity adjustment was based on the combination of sequential testing, the fallback procedure, and the Hochberg procedure.|repeated measures linear effects model|Per protocol, the adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Treatment difference uses placebo as the reference.|||-52.28|-61.55|< 0.0001
91072624|NCT02833844|182031247|SUPERIORITY||treatment difference|-75.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-82.1|-68.4||Multiplicity adjustment was based on the combination of sequential testing, the fallback procedure, and the Hochberg procedure.|repeated measures linear effects model|Per protocol, the adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Treatment difference uses placebo as the reference.|||-68.4|-82.1|< 0.0001
91072625|NCT02833844|182031248|SUPERIORITY||treatment difference|65.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.8|71.1||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by statin use stratification factor. For testing, nonachievement was imputed for participants with a missing value.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Per protocol, the adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Treatment difference uses placebo as reference.|Multiplicity adjustment was based on the combination of sequential testing, the fallback procedure, and the Hochberg procedure.||71.1|57.8|< 0.0001
91072626|NCT02833844|182031249|SUPERIORITY||treatment difference|71.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.7|76.7||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by statin use stratification factor. For testing, nonachievement was imputed for participants with a missing value.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Per protocol, the adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Treatment difference uses placebo as a reference.|Multiplicity adjustment was based on the combination of sequential testing, the fallback procedure, and the Hochberg procedure.||76.7|65.7|< 0.0001
91072627|NCT02833844|182031250|SUPERIORITY||treatment difference|-50.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.01|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.88|-46.99||Multiplicity adjustment was based on the combination of sequential testing, the fallback procedure, and the Hochberg procedure.|repeated measures linear effects model|Per protocol, the adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Treatment difference uses placebo as the reference.|||-46.99|-54.88|< 0.0001
91072628|NCT02833844|182031251|SUPERIORITY||treatment difference|-47.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.72|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.11|-44.35||Multiplicity adjustment was based on the combination of sequential testing, the fallback procedure, and the Hochberg procedure.|repeated measures linear effects model|Per protocol, the adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Treatment difference uses placebo as the reference.|||-44.35|-51.11|< 0.0001
91072629|NCT02833844|182031252|SUPERIORITY||treatment difference|-38.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.62|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.3|-34.94||Multiplicity adjustment was based on the combination of sequential testing, the fallback procedure, and the Hochberg procedure.|repeated measures linear effects model|Per protocol, the adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Treatment difference uses placebo as the reference.|||-34.94|-41.30|< 0.0001
91072630|NCT02833844|182031253|SUPERIORITY||treatment difference|-26.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.76|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.17|-19.4||Multiplicity adjustment was based on the combination of sequential testing, the fallback procedure, and the Hochberg procedure.|repeated measures linear effects model|Per protocol, the adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Treatment difference uses placebo as the reference.|||-19.40|-34.17|< 0.0001
91072631|NCT02833844|182031254|SUPERIORITY||treatment difference|-22.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.36|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.03|-13.88||Multiplicity adjustment was based on the combination of sequential testing, the fallback procedure, and the Hochberg procedure.|repeated measures linear effects model|Per protocol, the adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Treatment difference uses placebo as the reference.|||-13.88|-31.03|< 0.0001
91072632|NCT02833844|182031255|SUPERIORITY||treatment difference|8.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.83|11.89||Multiplicity adjustment was based on the combination of sequential testing, the fallback procedure, and the Hochberg procedure.|repeated measures linear effects model|Per protocol, the adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Treatment difference uses placebo as the reference.|||11.89|4.83|< 0.0001
91072633|NCT02833844|182031256|SUPERIORITY||treatment difference|-22.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.01|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.04|-14.26||Multiplicity adjustment was based on the combination of sequential testing, the fallback procedure, and the Hochberg procedure.|repeated measures linear effects model|Per protocol, the adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Treatment difference uses placebo as the reference.|||-14.26|-30.04|< 0.0001
91072634|NCT01646021|182031295|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.6|||Log Rank|||||0.60|0.35|< 0.0001
91072635|NCT01646021|182031297|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||=|0.0621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.02|||Log Rank|||||1.02|0.54|= 0.0621
91072636|NCT02347891|182031328|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.5||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|2.65|||ANOVA|||Definition of Improvement (DOI) at week 40||2.65|0.08|0.60
91072637|NCT02347891|182031328|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.6||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.82|||ANOVA|||Percent patients reaching Total improvement score of ≥40 at Week 40||1.82|0.16|0.61
91072638|NCT02347891|182031328|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.0||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.47|||ANOVA|||Percent of patient with major improvement TIS ≥60 at Week 40||1.47|0|0.23
91072639|NCT02347891|182031329|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||ANOVA|||Mean Total Improvement Score (TIS) during Randomized Phase at Week 40||||0.92
91072640|NCT02347891|182031330|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.0||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.47|||ANOVA|||Definition of Improvement (DOI) at Week 64||1.47|0|0.23
91072641|NCT02347891|182031330|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.75||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|2.51|||ANOVA|||Percent patients reaching Total improvement score of ≥40 at Week 64||2.51|0.19|0.99
91072642|NCT02347891|182031330|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.0||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.47|||ANOVA|||Percent of patient with major improvement TIS ≥60 at Week 64||1.47|0|0.23
91072643|NCT02347891|182031331|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||ANOVA|||Mean Total Improvement Score (TIS) after Open Label Phase at 64 Week||||0.62
91072644|NCT00614120|182031353|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is concluded if the two-sided upper limit of the 95% confidence interval for treatment difference in mean change in HbA1c between lira 1.8mg + met and glim + met is below 0.4%.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.06|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.23|0.11||Non-inferiority; \<.0001. In order to protect the overall Type I error rate when testing for non-inferiority of the three doses of lira + met to glim + met, the comparisons will be invoked sequentially for descending doses of liraglutide.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, country and previous treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as a covariate.|The p-values correspond to one-sided hypotheses of either superiority or non-inferiority. Statistical significance on a 2.5% level.|"Based on standard normal theory, the sample size needed in order to be able to show that lira + met is non-inferior to glim + met when using a 1:1 randomisation and a non-inferiority criteria of 0.4% with a power of at least 85%, is tabulated below using different SD of HbA1c.~Assuming a drop out rate of 25%, the total number of subjects to be randomised is 896 (224 for each dose of the liraglutide + metformin group and 224 subjects in metformin+glimepiride treatment group) with a SD of 1.2%."||0.11|-0.23|<0.0001
91072645|NCT00614120|182031353|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is concluded if the two-sided upper limit of the 95% confidence interval for treatment difference in mean change in HbA1c between lira 1.2mg + met and glim + met is below 0.4%.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|0.03|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.14|0.2||In order to protect the overall Type I error rate when testing for non-inferiority of the three doses of lira + met to glim + met, the comparisons will be invoked sequentially for descending doses of liraglutide.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, country and previous treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as a covariate.|The p-values correspond to one-sided hypotheses of either superiority or non-inferiority. Statistical significance on a 2.5% level.|"Based on standard normal theory, the sample size needed in order to be able to show that lira + met is non-inferior to glim + met when using a 1:1 randomisation and a non-inferiority criteria of 0.4% with a power of at least 85%, is tabulated below using different SD of HbA1c.~Assuming a drop out rate of 25%, the total number of subjects to be randomised is 896 (224 for each dose of the liraglutide + metformin group and 224 subjects in metformin+glimepiride treatment group) with a SD of 1.2%."||0.20|-0.14|<.0001
91072646|NCT00614120|182031353|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is concluded if the two-sided upper limit of the 95% confidence interval for treatment difference in mean change in HbA1c between lira 0.6mg + met and glim + met is below 0.4%.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|0.25||||0.0421||95.0|0.08|0.42||In order to protect the overall Type I error rate when testing for non-inferiority of the three doses of lira + met to glim + met, the comparisons will be invoked sequentially for descending doses of liraglutide.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, country and previous treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as a covariate.|The p-values correspond to one-sided hypotheses of either superiority or non-inferiority.|"Based on standard normal theory, the sample size needed in order to be able to show that lira + met is non-inferior to glim + met when using a 1:1 randomisation and a non-inferiority criteria of 0.4% with a power of at least 85%, is tabulated below using different SD of HbA1c.~Assuming a drop out rate of 25%, the total number of subjects to be randomised is 896 (224 for each dose of the liraglutide + metformin group and 224 subjects in metformin+glimepiride treatment group) with a SD of 1.2%."||0.42|0.08|0.0421
91072647|NCT02447497|182031366|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|4.1|||Paired t-test|||48 hours post treatment time point. The primary analysis used a modified intent to treat population. Subjects were excluded who did not meet the treatment day baseline requirement of greater than or equal to 3.0 log10 CFU/cm\^2 on the abdomen. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in log10 CFU/cm\^2 recovery between arms.||4.10|0.51|<0.0001
91072648|NCT02447497|182031366|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|5.75|||Paired t-test|||48 hours post treatment. The primary analysis used a modified intent to treat population. Subjects were excluded who did not meet the treatment day baseline requirement of greater than or equal to 3.0 log10 CFU/cm\^2 on the groin. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in log10 CFU/cm\^2 recovery between arms.||5.75|0.60|0.0001
91072649|NCT02447497|182031366|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|3.75|||Paired t-test|||72 hours post treatment. The primary analysis used a modified intent to treat population. Subjects were excluded who did not meet the treatment day baseline requirement of greater than or equal to 3.0 log10 CFUcm2 on the groin. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in log10 CFU/cm\^2 recovery between arms.||3.75|0.17|0.0001
91072650|NCT02447497|182031366|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|5.04|||Paired t-test|||72 hours post treatment. The primary analysis used a modified intent to treat population. Subjects were excluded who did not meet the treatment day baseline requirement of greater than or equal to 3.0 log10 CFUcm2 on the groin. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in log10 CFU/cm\^2 recovery between arms.||5.04|0.13|0.0001
91072651|NCT02017912|182031370|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5567||0.7208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.321|0.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.920|-1.321|0.7208
91072652|NCT02017912|182031371|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.881||0.641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.187|1.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.360|-2.187|0.6410
91072653|NCT00985959|182031390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Overall response rate (%)|69.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.9|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.9|79.2||Significance level 5% one-tailed. Threshold response rate 35%|Binominal test|||||79.2|58.9|<0.0001
91072654|NCT02235077|182031427|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.5688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.2|||Regression, Linear|||||0.20|-0.11|0.5688
91072655|NCT02235077|182031428|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25||||0.4155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.86|||Regression, Linear|||||0.86|-0.35|0.4155
91072656|NCT02235077|182031429|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.3039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.81|||Chi-squared|||||1.81|0.83|0.3039
91072657|NCT02235077|182031430|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.7673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.07|||Regression, Linear|||||0.07|-0.09|0.7673
91072658|NCT02235077|182031431|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|319.2||||0.5734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-797.4|1435.8|||Regression, Linear|||||1435.8|-797.4|0.5734
91072659|NCT02235077|182031432|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.02||||0.3528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.05|1.01|||Regression, Linear|||||1.01|-3.05|0.3528
91072660|NCT02235077|182031433|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.0846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.25|||Regression, Linear|||||0.25|-0.02|0.0846
91072661|NCT02235077|182031434|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.17||||0.0842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.98|1.65|||Regression, Linear|||||1.65|-25.98|0.0842
91072662|NCT02235077|182031435|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.7628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|2.23|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.23|0.56|0.7628
91072663|NCT02235077|182031436|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.04||||0.6102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.02|2.95|||Regression, Linear|||||2.95|-5.02|0.6102
91072664|NCT02235077|182031437|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.5818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.99|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.99|0.29|0.5818
91072665|NCT03852628|182031438|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.17||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|1.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|Modeled the probability of having a reduction in AUD||The Placebo arm served as the reference group.||1.22|0.02|0.08
91072666|NCT03852628|182031439|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|Modeled the probability of reduction in PTSD symptom.||The placebo arm served as the reference group.||2.97|0.20|0.690
91072667|NCT03852628|182031440|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.63||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|2.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|Modeled the probability of have both a reduction in PTSD and AUD||The Placebo arm served as the reference group.||2.66|0.15|0.52
91072668|NCT04257032|182031446|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means (T/R) %|105.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.94|113.35|||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale, considering the effects 'sequence', 'period' and 'treatment' as fixed and 'subjects within sequences' as random.|Intra-individual coefficient of variation (gCV %) = 9.9|Relative bioavailability||113.35|97.94|
91072669|NCT04257032|182031447|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means (T/R) %|114.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|104.22|125.81|||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale, considering the effects 'sequence', 'period' and 'treatment' as fixed and 'subjects within sequences' as random.|Intra-individual coefficient of variation (gCV %) = 14.0|Relative bioavailability||125.81|104.22|
91072670|NCT04257032|182031448|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means (T/R) %|108.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.26|116.73|||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale, considering the effects 'sequence', 'period' and 'treatment' as fixed and 'subjects within sequences' as random.|Intra-individual coefficient of variation (gCV %) = 11.3|Relative bioavailability||116.73|100.26|
91072671|NCT04257032|182031449|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means (T/R) %|108.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.84|118.76|||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale, considering the effects 'sequence', 'period' and 'treatment' as fixed and 'subjects within sequences' as random.|Intra-individual coefficient of variation (gCV %) = 12.9|Relative bioavailability||118.76|99.84|
91072672|NCT04257032|182031450|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means (T/R) %|104.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.34|112.23|||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale, considering the effects 'sequence', 'period' and 'treatment' as fixed and 'subjects within sequences' as random.|Intra-individual coefficient of variation (gCV %) = 10.6|Relative bioavailability||112.23|97.34|
91072673|NCT04257032|182031451|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means (T/R) %|108.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.37|117.12|||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale, considering the effects 'sequence', 'period' and 'treatment' as fixed and 'subjects within sequences' as random.|Intra-individual coefficient of variation (gCV %) = 11.5|Relative bioavailability||117.12|100.37|
91072674|NCT04064411|182031502|NON_INFERIORITY|"Noninferiority margin = 2.0% for abaloparatide-sMTS compared with abaloparatide-SC.~Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the estimated treatment difference (abaloparatide-sMTS minus abaloparatide-SC) in the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at 12 months was above -2.0% using a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis."|Least Squares Means (LSM) Difference|-3.721|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0089|-2.4331|||||LSM Difference = abaloparatide-sMTS minus abaloparatide-SC|||-2.4331|-5.0089|
91072675|NCT03395184|182031505|OTHER||Percentage risk difference|14.3||||0.0119|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.0|24.5|||Min risk weight method(Mehrotra-Railkar)||90% CI was calculated using minimum (min) risk weight method (Mehrotra-Railkar 2000)|||24.5|4.0|0.0119
91072676|NCT03395184|182031505|OTHER||Percentage risk difference|21.4||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|90.0|10.0|32.9|||Min risk weight method(Mehrotra-Railkar)||90% CI was calculated using minimum risk weight method (Mehrotra-Railkar, 2000).|||32.9|10.0|0.0012
91072677|NCT03395184|182031519|OTHER||Percentage risk difference|13.3||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|25.7|||Min risk weight method(Mehrotra-Railkar)||90% CI was calculated using minimum risk weight method (Mehrotra-Railkar, 2000).|||25.7|1.0|0.0390
91072678|NCT03395184|182031519|OTHER||Percentage risk difference|29.7||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|17.2|42.2|||Min risk weight method(Mehrotra-Railkar)||90% CI was calculated using minimum risk weight method (Mehrotra-Railkar, 2000).|||42.2|17.2|0.0001
91072679|NCT03395184|182031520|OTHER||LS mean difference|-3.0||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.55|-1.48|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment and baseline disease activity/extent as factors, and baseline SES-CD score as a covariate.||||-1.48|-4.55|0.0007
91072680|NCT03395184|182031520|OTHER||LS mean difference|-4.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.62|-3.26|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment and baseline disease activity/extent as factors, and baseline SES-CD score as a covariate.||||-3.26|-6.62|<.0001
91072681|NCT03395184|182031521|OTHER||Percentage risk difference|13.9||||0.0279|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.1|25.6|||Min risk weight method(Mehrotra-Railkar)||90% CI was calculated using using minimum risk weight method (Mehrotra-Railkar, 2000).|||25.6|2.1|0.0279
91072682|NCT03395184|182031521|OTHER||Percentage risk difference|31.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|19.1|43.9|||Min risk weight method(Mehrotra-Railkar)||90% CI was calculated using minimum risk weight method (Mehrotra-Railkar, 2000).|||43.9|19.1|<.0001
91072683|NCT03395184|182031522|OTHER||Percentage risk difference|2.5||||0.2922|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.3|9.3|||Min risk weight method(Mehrotra-Railkar)||90% CI was calculated using minimum risk weight method (Mehrotra-Railkar, 2000).|||9.3|-4.3|0.2922
91072684|NCT03395184|182031522|OTHER||Percentage risk difference|7.4||||0.0449|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|15.2|||Min risk weight method(Mehrotra-Railkar)||90% CI was calculated using minimum risk weight method (Mehrotra-Railkar, 2000).|||15.2|-0.4|0.0449
91072685|NCT03395184|182031523|OTHER||Percentage risk difference|5.8||||0.0998|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.6|13.3|||Min risk weight method(Mehrotra-Railkar)||90% CI was calculated using minimum risk weight method (Mehrotra-Railkar, 2000).|||13.3|-1.6|0.0998
91072686|NCT03395184|182031523|OTHER||Percentage risk difference|11.8||||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.8|20.9|||Min risk weight method(Mehrotra-Railkar)||90% CI was calculated using minimum risk weight method (Mehrotra-Railkar, 2000).|||20.9|2.8|0.0111
91072687|NCT01672710|182031540|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.9|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|14.2|||ANCOVA|||||14.2|-0.3|<0.05
91072688|NCT02017717|182031575|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.3791|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.36|||log-rank test stratified|||||1.36|0.89|0.3791
91072689|NCT02017717|182031576|SUPERIORITY||Difference of OS rates at 12 months|-0.5||||0.9208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|9.7|||Z test with variance estimation based on|Greenwood formula using log(-log) transformation||||9.7|-10.8|0.9208
91072690|NCT02017717|182031578|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|2.35||||||||2.35|1.50|
91072691|NCT02017717|182031579|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.59||||||||0.59|0.15|
91072692|NCT02017717|182031580|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.3791|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.36|||log-rank test stratified|||||1.36|0.89|0.3791
91072693|NCT00765895|182031611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.86|||||||Mantel Haenszel|Stratified by clinic||||||0.86
91072694|NCT00970632|182031612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-2.1||||0.001||||||The p-value associated with LS Mean difference of changes from baseline to Week 12 endpoint between tadalafil and placebo treatment groups was for the primary comparison and assessed for significance at a level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||||0.001
91072695|NCT00970632|182031612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.5||||0.023||||||The p-value associated with LS Mean difference of changes from baseline to Week 12 between tamsulosin and placebo treatment groups was secondary in nature and assessed for significance at a level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||||0.023
91072696|NCT00970632|182031613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-2.2|||<|0.001||||||The p-value associated with LS Mean difference of changes from baseline to Week 4 between tadalafil and placebo treatment groups was assessed for significance at a level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91072697|NCT00970632|182031613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-2.3|||<|0.001||||||The p-value associated with LS Mean difference of changes from baseline to Week 4 between tamsulosin and placebo treatment groups was assessed for significance at a level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91072698|NCT00970632|182031614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.6||||0.055||||||The p-value associated with LS Mean difference of changes from baseline to Week 12 between tadalafil versus placebo treatment groups was assessed for significance at a level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||||0.055
91072699|NCT00970632|182031614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.6||||0.055||||||The p-value associated with LS Mean difference of changes from baseline to Week 12 between tamsulosin versus placebo treatment groups was assessed for significance at a level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||||0.055
91072700|NCT00970632|182031615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.5|||<|0.001||||||The p-value associated with LS Mean difference of changes from baseline to Week 12 between tadalafil versus placebo treatment groups was assessed for significance at a level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91072701|NCT00970632|182031615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.0||||0.026||||||The p-value associated with LS Mean difference of changes from baseline to Week 12 between tamsulosin versus placebo treatment groups was assessed for significance at a level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||||0.026
91072702|NCT00970632|182031616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.2||||0.08||||||The p-value associated with LS Mean difference of changes from baseline to Week 12 between tadalafil versus placebo treatment groups was assessed for significance at a level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||||0.080
91072703|NCT00970632|182031616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.2||||0.118||||||The p-value associated with LS Mean difference of changes from baseline to Week 12 between tadalafil versus placebo treatment groups was assessed for significance at a level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||||0.118
91072704|NCT00970632|182031617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.3||||0.022||||||The p-value associated with LS Mean difference of changes from baseline to Week 12 between tadalafil versus placebo treatment groups was assessed for significance at a level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||||0.022
91072705|NCT00970632|182031617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.1||||0.546||||||The p-value associated with LS Mean difference of changes from baseline to Week 12 endpoint between tamsulosin versus placebo treatment groups was assessed for significance at a level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||||0.546
91072706|NCT00970632|182031618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.5||||0.003||||||The p-value associated with LS Mean difference of changes from baseline to Week 1 between tadalafil and placebo treatment groups was assessed for significance at a level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||||0.003
91072707|NCT00970632|182031618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.5||||0.005||||||The p-value associated with LS Mean difference of changes from baseline to Week 1 between tamsulosin and placebo treatment groups was assessed for significance at a level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||||0.005
91072708|NCT00970632|182031619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.8|||<|0.001||||||The p-value associated with LS Mean difference of changes from baseline to Week 4 between tadalafil and placebo treatment groups was assessed for significance at a level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91072709|NCT00970632|182031619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.9|||<|0.001||||||The p-value associated with LS Mean difference of changes from baseline to Week 4 between tamsulosin and placebo treatment groups was assessed for significance at a level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91072710|NCT00970632|182031620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.8||||0.003||||||The p-value associated with LS Mean difference of changes from baseline to Week 12 between tadalafil and placebo treatment groups was assessed for significance at a level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||||0.003
91072711|NCT00970632|182031620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.6||||0.026||95.0||||The p-value associated with LS Mean difference of changes from baseline to Week 12 endpoint between tamsulosin and placebo treatment groups was assessed for significance at a level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||||0.026
91072712|NCT00970632|182031621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||||||The p-value associated with difference between tadalafil versus placebo treatment groups within the 7 response categories was assessed for significance at a level of 0.05 with no adjustment for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysis used data only from these treatment arms and stratification of baseline LUTS severity (moderate \[total IPSS \<20\]; severe \[total IPSS ≥20\]).||||||0.001
91072713|NCT00970632|182031621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.114||95.0||||The p-value associated with difference between tamsulosin versus placebo treatment groups within the 7 response categories was assessed for significance at a level of 0.05 with no adjustment for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysis used data only from these treatment arms and stratification of baseline LUTS severity (moderate \[total IPSS \<20\]; severe \[total IPSS ≥20\]).||||||0.114
91072714|NCT00970632|182031622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||||||The p-value associated with difference between tadalafil versus placebo treatment groups within the 7 response categories was assessed for significance at a level of 0.05 with no adjustment for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysis used data only from these treatment arms and a stratification of baseline LUTS severity (moderate \[total IPSS \<20\]; severe \[total IPSS ≥20\]).||||||0.004
91072715|NCT00970632|182031622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.452||||||The p-value associated with difference between tamsulosin versus placebo treatment groups within the 7 response categories was assessed for significance at a level of 0.05 with no adjustment for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysis used data only from these treatment arms and stratification of baseline LUTS severity (moderate \[total IPSS \<20\]; severe \[total IPSS ≥20\]).||||||0.452
91072716|NCT00970632|182031623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median of Treatment Group Differences|-4.4||||0.005||||||The p-value associated with the testing for differences in medians between tadalafil versus placebo treatment groups was assessed for significance at a level of 0.05 with no adjustment for multiplicity.|Van Elteren Tests|P-values testing for differences of medians between placebo and active treatment were based on the Van Elteren test, stratifying by region.||||||0.005
91072717|NCT00970632|182031623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median of Treatment Group Differences|-2.2||||0.457||||||The p-value associated with the testing for differences in medians between tamsulosin versus placebo treatment groups was assessed for significance at a level of 0.05 without adjustments for multiplicity.|Van Elteren Tests|P-values testing for differences of medians between placebo and active treatment were based on the Van Elteren test, stratifying by region.||||||0.457
91072718|NCT00970632|182031624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|4.0|||<|0.001||||||The p-value associated with LS Mean difference of changes from baseline to Week 12 between tadalafil versus placebo treatment groups was assessed for significance at a level of 0.05 with no adjustment for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91072719|NCT00970632|182031624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.4||||0.699||||||The p-value associated with LS Mean difference of changes from baseline to Week 12 between tamsulosin versus placebo treatment groups was assessed for significance at a level of 0.05 with no adjustment for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||||0.699
91072720|NCT00970632|182031625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||||||The p-value associated with median difference of changes from baseline to Week 12 endpoint between tadalafil versus placebo treatment groups was assessed for significance at a level of 0.05 with no adjustment for multiplicity.|ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) using rank transformed data.||||||0.009
91072721|NCT00970632|182031625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014||||||The p-value associated with median difference of changes from baseline to Week 12 endpoint between tamsulosin versus placebo treatment groups was assessed for significance at a level of 0.05 with no adjustment for multiplicity.|ANOVA|ANOVA using rank transformed data.||||||0.014
91072722|NCT00970632|182031628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.303||||||The p-value associated with median difference of changes from baseline to Week 12 endpoint between tadalafil versus placebo treatment groups was assessed for significance at a level of 0.05 with no adjustment for multiplicity.|ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) using rank transformed data.||||||0.303
91072723|NCT00970632|182031628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.146||||||The p-value associated with median difference of changes from baseline to Week 12 endpoint between tamsulosin versus placebo treatment groups was assessed for significance at a level of 0.05 with no adjustment for multiplicity.|ANOVA|ANOVA using rank transformed data.||||||0.146
91072724|NCT03192995|182031629|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.91
91072725|NCT03192995|182031630|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.53
91072726|NCT03192995|182031631|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.32
91072727|NCT03192995|182031632|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.541|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.541
91072728|NCT03192995|182031633|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|3.82||||||||3.82|0.24|
91072729|NCT01286168|182031644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||McNemar|||Antisepsis and Control sides were compared.||||0.02
91072730|NCT01286168|182031645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||McNemar|||Antisepsis and Control sides were compared.||||0.03
91072731|NCT01286168|182031646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||McNemar|||Antisepsis and Control sides were compared.||||0.003
91072732|NCT01286168|182031647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||McNemar|||Antisepsis and Control sides were compared.||||0.13
91072733|NCT01286168|182031648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45|TWO_SIDED||||||McNemar|||Antisepsis and Control sides were compared.||||0.45
91072734|NCT01286168|182031649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Antisepsis and Control sides were compared. Unadjusted p-value from generalized linear mixed effect model accounting for correlation among multiple drains from the same patient.||||0.02
91072735|NCT01286168|182031649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Antisepsis and Control sides were compared. P-value from generalized linear mixed effect model accounting for correlation among multiple drains from the same patient. P-value was adjusted for side- and drain-specific variables: indication (cancer or prophylaxis), operation (mastectomy only, mastectomy+SLNB, mastectomy +ALND), and drain duration.||||0.02
91072736|NCT01286168|182031650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Likelihood-ratio test|||Antisepsis and Control sides were compared. Due to zero events in the antisepsis side for this endpoint, p-value was derived from likelihood-ratio test comparing the intercept only model to the model with intercept and treatment side included.||||0.004
91072737|NCT01286168|182031651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Antisepsis and Control sides were compared. Unadjusted p-value from generalized linear mixed effect model accounting for correlation among multiple drains from the same patient.||||0.003
91072738|NCT01286168|182031651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Antisepsis and Control sides were compared. P-value from generalized linear mixed effect model accounting for correlation among multiple drains from the same patient. P-value was adjusted for side- and drain-specific variables: indication (cancer or prophylaxis), operation (mastectomy only, mastectomy+SLNB, mastectomy +ALND), and drain duration.||||0.003
91072739|NCT02045862|182031805|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.21||The 2-sided P value was for pairwise comparisons between the combination therapy group and the corresponding monotherapy group from the stratified rank ANCOVA.|Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Mirabegron 50 mg: Difference of the adjusted mean (i.e., least squares mean) was calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the mirabegron monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.21|-0.69|<0.001
91072740|NCT02045862|182031805|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.11||The 2-sided P value was for pairwise comparisons between the combination therapy group and the corresponding monotherapy group from the stratified rank ANCOVA.|Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Solifenacin 5 mg: Difference of the adjusted mean (i.e., least squares mean) was calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the solifenacin monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.11|-0.37|0.002
91072741|NCT02045862|182031806|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.2||The 2-sided P value was for pairwise comparisons between the combination therapy group and the corresponding monotherapy group from the ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Mirabegron 50 mg: Difference of the adjusted mean (i.e., least squares mean) was calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the mirabegron monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.20|-0.77|<0.001
91072742|NCT02045862|182031806|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.13||The 2-sided P value was for pairwise comparisons between the combination therapy group and the corresponding monotherapy group from the ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Solifenacin 5 mg: Difference of the adjusted mean (i.e., least squares mean) was calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the solifenacin monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.13|-0.71|0.004
91072743|NCT02045862|182031807|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|15.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.49|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.99|22.69|||ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Mirabegron 50 mg: Difference of the adjusted mean (i.e., least squares mean) was calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the mirabegron monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||22.69|8.99|<0.001
91072744|NCT02045862|182031807|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|12.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.47|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.98|19.57|||ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Solifenacin 5 mg: Difference of the adjusted mean (i.e., least squares mean) was calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the solifenacin monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||19.57|5.98|<0.001
91072745|NCT02045862|182031808|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.05|-5.05|||ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Mirabegron 50 mg: Difference of the adjusted mean (i.e., least squares mean) was calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the mirabegron monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-5.05|-10.05|<0.001
91072746|NCT02045862|182031808|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.09|-2.12|||ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Solifenacin 5 mg: Difference of the adjusted mean (i.e., least squares mean) was calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the solifenacin monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-2.12|-7.09|<0.001
91072747|NCT02045862|182031809|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.82|||ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Mirabegron 50 mg: Difference of the adjusted mean (i.e., least squares mean) was calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the mirabegron monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.82|0.28|<0.001
91072748|NCT02045862|182031809|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.86|||ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Solifenacin 5 mg: Difference of the adjusted mean (i.e., least squares mean) was calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the solifenacin monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.86|0.32|<0.001
91072749|NCT02045862|182031811|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.84|||Mixed Effects Poisson-Negative Binomial|||Rate ratio of number of incontinence episodes during the EoT 7-day diary between the combination therapy group and the mirabegron monotherapy group was calculated from a negative binomial regression model incl. treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), geographic region and previous study history as factors, log(number of incontinence episodes divided by number of valid diary days) at baseline included as a covariate and number of valid diary day at EoT as the offset variable.||0.84|0.54|<0.001
91072750|NCT02045862|182031811|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.97|||Mixed Effects Poisson-Negative Binomial|||Rate ratio of number of incontinence episodes during the EoT 7-day diary between the combination therapy group and the solifenacin monotherapy group was calculated from a negative binomial regression model incl. treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), geographic region and previous study history as factors, log(number of incontinence episodes divided by number of valid diary days) at baseline included as a covariate and number of valid diary day at EoT as the offset variable.||0.97|0.61|0.029
91072751|NCT02045862|182031812|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.76|-1.49||The two-sided p-value is for pairwise comparisons between the combination therapy group and the mirabegron monotherapy group from stratified rank ANCOVA.|Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Mirabegron 50 mg (EoT): Difference of the adjusted mean is calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the mirabegron monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination therapy group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-1.49|-4.76|<0.001
91072752|NCT02045862|182031812|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.57|0.72||The two-sided p-value is for pairwise comparisons between the combination therapy group and the solifenacin monotherapy group from stratified rank ANCOVA.|Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Solifenacin 5 mg (EoT): Difference of the adjusted mean is calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the solifenacin monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination therapy group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.72|-2.57|<0.001
91072753|NCT02045862|182031813|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|2.01|||Overdispersed Binomial Regression|||Odds ratio vs. Mirabegron 50 mg (EoT): Odds ratio was from a overdispersed binomial regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as factors and log transformed baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours as a covariate||2.01|1.26|<0.001
91072754|NCT02045862|182031813|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.75|||Overdispersed Binomial Regression|||Odds ratio vs. Solifenacin 5 mg (EoT): Odds ratio was from a overdispersed binomial regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as factors and log transformed baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours as a covariate.||1.75|1.08|0.009
91072755|NCT02045862|182031814|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|2.05|||Overdispersed Binomial Regression|||Odds ratio vs. Mirabegron 50 mg (EoT): Odds ratio was from a overdispersed binomial regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as factors and log transformed baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours and baseline mean number of micturitions per 24 hours as a covariates.||2.05|1.26|<0.001
91072756|NCT02045862|182031814|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.85|||Overdispersed Binomial Regression|||Odds ratio vs. Solifenacin 5 mg (EoT): Odds ratio was from a overdispersed binomial regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as factors and log transformed baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours and baseline mean number of micturitions per 24 hours as a covariates.||1.85|1.14|0.002
91072757|NCT02045862|182031815|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.21||The two-sided p-value is for pairwise comparisons between the combination therapy group and the mirabegron monotherapy group from stratified rank ANCOVA.|Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Mirabegron 50 mg (EoT): Difference of the adjusted mean was calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the mirabegron monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination therapy group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.21|-0.65|<0.001
91072758|NCT02045862|182031815|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.09||The two-sided p-value is for pairwise comparisons between the combination therapy group and the solifenacin monotherapy group from stratified rank ANCOVA.|Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Solifenacin 5 mg (EoT): Difference of the adjusted mean was calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the solifenacin monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination therapy group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate||0.09|-0.36|0.009
91072759|NCT02045862|182031816|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.79|||Negative Binomial Regression|||Rate ratio of number of incontinence episodes during the EoT 7-day diary between the combination therapy group and the mirabegron monotherapy group was calculated from a negative binomial regression model incl. treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥65 years), geographic region and previous study history as factors, log(number of urgency incontinence episodes divided by number of valid diary days) included as a covariate and post baseline number of valid diary days at EoT as the offset variable||0.79|0.48|<0.001
91072760|NCT02045862|182031816|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.96|||Negative Binomial Regression|||Rate ratio of number of incontinence episodes during the EoT 7-day diary between the combination therapy group and the solifenacin monotherapy group is calculated from a negative binomial regression model incl. treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), geographic region and previous study history as factors, log(number of urgency incontinence episodes divided by number of valid diary days) included as a covariate and post baseline number of valid diary day at EoT as the offset variable||0.96|0.58|0.023
91072761|NCT02045862|182031817|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.51|-1.46||The two-sided p-value is for pairwise comparisons between the combination therapy group and the mirabegron monotherapy group from stratified rank ANCOVA.|Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Mirabegron 50 mg (EoT): Difference of the adjusted mean was calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the mirabegron monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination therapy group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-1.46|-4.51|<0.001
91072762|NCT02045862|182031817|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Rank ANCOVA|-0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.47|0.61||The two-sided p-value is for pairwise comparisons between the combination therapy group and the solifenacin monotherapy group from stratified rank ANCOVA.|Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Solifenacin 5 mg (EoT): Difference of the adjusted mean was calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the mirabegron monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination therapy group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.61|-2.47|0.006
91072763|NCT02045862|182031819|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.8|||Overdispersed Binomial Regression|||Odds ratio vs. Mirabegron 50 mg (EoT): Odds ratio was from a overdispersed binomial regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of micturitions per 24 hours as a covariate.||1.8|1.14|0.002
91072764|NCT02045862|182031819|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.73|||Overdispersed Binomial Regression|||Odds ratio vs. Solifenacin 5 mg (EoT): Odds ratio was from a overdispersed binomial regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of micturitions per 24 hours as a covariate.||1.73|1.09|0.007
91072765|NCT02045862|182031820|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|-0.41|||ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Mirabegron 50 mg (EoT): Difference of the adjusted mean was calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the mirabegron monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination therapy group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline mean number of micturitions per 24 hours as a covariate.||-0.41|-1.16|<0.001
91072766|NCT02045862|182031820|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Solifenacin 5 mg (EoT): Difference of the adjusted mean was calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the solifenacin monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination therapy group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline mean number of micturitions per 24 hours as a covariate.||-0.02|-0.77|0.037
91072767|NCT02045862|182031822|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.37|||ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Mirabegron 50 mg (EoT): Difference of the adjusted mean was calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the mirabegron monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination therapy group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.37|-1.10|<0.001
91072768|NCT02045862|182031822|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Solifenacin 5 mg (EoT): Difference of the adjusted mean was calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the solifenacin monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination therapy group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.03|-0.76|0.036
91072769|NCT02045862|182031823|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Mirabegron 50 mg (EoT): Difference of the adjusted mean was calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the mirabegron monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination therapy group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.00|-0.19|0.059
91072770|NCT02045862|182031823|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Solifenacin 5 mg (EoT): Difference of the adjusted mean was calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the solifenacin monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination therapy group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.01|-0.19|0.068
91072771|NCT02045862|182031824|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.01|||Negative Binomial Regression|||Rate ratio of number of nocturia episodes during the EoT 7-day diary between the combination therapy group and the mirabegron monotherapy group was calculated from a negative binomial regression model incl. treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), geographic region and previous study history as factors, log(number of nocturia episodes divided by number of valid diary days) included as a covariate and post baseline number of valid diary days as the offset variable||1.01|0.81|0.067
91072772|NCT02045862|182031824|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.131||95.0|0.82|1.03|||Negative Binomial Regression|||Rate ratio of number of nocturia episodes during the EoT 7-day diary between the combination therapy group and the solifenacin monotherapy group was calculated from a negative binomial regression model incl. treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), geographic region and previous study history as factors, log(number of nocturia episodes divided by number of valid diary days) included as a covariate and post baseline number of valid diary day as the offset variable.||1.03|0.82|0.131
91072773|NCT02045862|182031825|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Mirabegron 50 mg (EoT): Difference of the adjusted mean was calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the mirabegron monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination therapy group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.01|-1.34|0.055
91072774|NCT02045862|182031825|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Solifenacin 5 mg (EoT): Difference of the adjusted mean was calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the solifenacin monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination therapy group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.01|-1.39|0.048
91072775|NCT02045862|182031826|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.16|||ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Mirabegron 50 mg (EoT): Difference of the adjusted mean is calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the mirabegron monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination therapy group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.16|-0.69|0.002
91072776|NCT02045862|182031826|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Solifenacin 5 mg (EoT): Difference of the adjusted mean is calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the solifenacin monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination therapy group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.01|-0.55|0.039
91072777|NCT02045862|182031827|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.76|||Negative Binomial Regression|||Rate ratio vs. Mirabegron 50 mg (EoT): Rate ratio of number of pads during the EoT 7-day diary between the combination therapy group and the mirabegron monotherapy group is calculated from a negative binomial regression model incl. treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), geographic region and previous study history as factors, log(number of pads divided by number of valid diary days) included as a covariate and post baseline number of valid diary days as the offset variable.||0.76|0.45|<0.001
91072778|NCT02045862|182031827|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.99|||Negative Binomial Regression|||Rate ratio vs. Solifenacin 5 mg (EoT): Rate ratio of number of pads during the EoT 7-day diary between the combination therapy group and the solifenacin monotherapy group is calculated from a negative binomial regression model incl. treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), geographic region and previous study history as factors, log(number of pads divided by number of valid diary days) included as a covariate and post baseline number of valid diary days as the offset variable.||0.99|0.58|0.044
91072779|NCT02045862|182031828|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.92||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.78|-1.18|||ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Mirabegron 50 mg (EoT): Difference of the adjusted mean is calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the mirabegron monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination therapy group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-1.18|-4.78|0.001
91072780|NCT02045862|182031828|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.52|0.15|||ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Solifenacin 5 mg (EoT): Difference of the adjusted mean is calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the solifenacin monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination therapy group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.15|-3.52|0.072
91072781|NCT02045862|182031830|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|4.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.56|6.96|||ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Mirabegron 50 mg (EoT): Difference of the adjusted mean is calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the mirabegron monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination therapy group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||6.96|2.56|<0.001
91072782|NCT02045862|182031830|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|5.04|||ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Solifenacin 5 mg (EoT): Difference of the adjusted mean is calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the solifenacin monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination therapy group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||5.04|0.68|0.010
91072783|NCT02045862|182031831|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.33|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.99|8.2|||ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Mirabegron 50 mg (EoT): Difference of the adjusted mean is calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the mirabegron monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination therapy group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||8.20|2.99|<0.001
91072784|NCT02045862|182031831|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|5.6|||ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Solifenacin 5 mg (EoT): Difference of the adjusted mean is calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the solifenacin monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination therapy group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||5.60|0.43|0.022
91072785|NCT02045862|182031832|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|5.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.65|7.38|||ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Mirabegron 50 mg (EoT): Difference of the adjusted mean is calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the mirabegron monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination therapy group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||7.38|2.65|<0.001
91072786|NCT02045862|182031832|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|6.13|||ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Solifenacin 5 mg (EoT): Difference of the adjusted mean is calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the solifenacin monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination therapy group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||6.13|1.43|0.002
91072787|NCT02045862|182031833|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|5.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.47|7.83|||ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Mirabegron 50 mg (EoT): Difference of the adjusted mean is calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the mirabegron monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination therapy group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||7.83|2.47|<0.001
91072788|NCT02045862|182031833|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.35||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|5.93|||ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Solifenacin 5 mg (EoT): Difference of the adjusted mean is calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the solifenacin monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination therapy group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||5.93|0.62|0.016
91072789|NCT02045862|182031834|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|4.59|||ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Mirabegron 50 mg (EoT): Difference of the adjusted mean is calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the mirabegron monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination therapy group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||4.59|0.77|0.006
91072790|NCT02045862|182031834|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||0.287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|2.93|||ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Solifenacin 5 mg (EoT): Difference of the adjusted mean is calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the solifenacin monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination therapy group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||2.93|-0.87|0.287
91072791|NCT02045862|182031836|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.16|||ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Mirabegron 50 mg (EoT): Difference of the adjusted mean is calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the mirabegron monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination therapy group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.16|-0.47|<0.001
91072792|NCT02045862|182031836|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Solifenacin 5 mg (EoT): Difference of the adjusted mean is calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the solifenacin monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination therapy group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.05|-0.36|0.011
91072793|NCT02045862|182031848|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|2.15|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio was from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours during the last 3 days as a covariate.||2.15|1.26|<0.001
91072794|NCT02045862|182031848|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.67|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio was from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours during the last 3 days as a covariate.||1.67|0.97|0.080
91072795|NCT02045862|182031849|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.49|2.78|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio was from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as factors and baseline OAB-q subscale as a covariate.||2.78|1.49|<0.001
91072796|NCT02045862|182031849|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|2.57|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio was from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as factors and baseline OAB-q subscale as a covariate.||2.57|1.37|<0.001
91072797|NCT02045862|182031850|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|2.43|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio was from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as factors and baseline OAB-q subscale as a covariate.||2.43|1.36|<0.001
91072798|NCT02045862|182031850|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.92|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio was from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as factors and baseline OAB-q subscale as a covariate.||1.92|1.08|0.014
91072799|NCT02045862|182031851|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|2.41|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio was from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours as a covariate.||2.41|1.34|<0.001
91072800|NCT02045862|182031851|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.95|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio wa from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours as a covariate.||1.95|1.06|0.019
91072801|NCT02045862|182031852|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|2.19|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio was from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours as a covariate.||2.19|1.26|<0.001
91072802|NCT02045862|182031852|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.62|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio was from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours as a covariate.||1.62|0.94|0.133
91072803|NCT02045862|182031853|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|2.03|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio was from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of micturitions per 24 hours as a covariate.||2.03|1.18|0.002
91072804|NCT02045862|182031853|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.95|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio was from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of micturitions per 24 hours as a covariate.||1.95|1.12|0.006
91072805|NCT02045862|182031854|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|2.29|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio is from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as factors and baseline PPBC as a covariate.||2.29|1.24|<0.001
91072806|NCT02045862|182031854|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.77|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio was from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as factors and baseline PPBC as a covariate.||1.77|0.94|0.109
91072807|NCT02045862|182031855|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|2.25|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio was from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as factors and baseline PPBC as a covariate.||2.25|1.26|<0.001
91072808|NCT02045862|182031855|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|2.16|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio was from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as factors and baseline PPBC as a covariate.||2.16|1.22|<0.001
91072809|NCT02045862|182031856|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|2.62|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio was from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours and baseline OAB-q symptom bother scale as covariates.||2.62|1.50|<0.001
91072810|NCT02045862|182031856|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|2.36|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio is from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours and baseline OAB-q symptom bother scale as covariates.||2.36|1.35|<0.001
91072811|NCT02045862|182031857|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|2.54|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio was from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours and baseline OAB-q HRQL total score as covariates.||2.54|1.46|<0.001
91072812|NCT02045862|182031857|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.59||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.09|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio was from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours and baseline OAB-q HRQL total score as covariates.||2.09|1.20|0.001
91072813|NCT02045862|182031858|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|2.26|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio was from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours and baseline PPBC as covariates.||2.26|1.28|<0.001
91072814|NCT02045862|182031858|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.86|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio was from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours and baseline PPBC as covariates.||1.86|1.06|0.019
91072815|NCT02045862|182031859|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|2.46|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio was from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours, baseline OAB-q symptom bother scale and baseline PPBC as covariates.||2.46|1.40|<0.001
91072816|NCT02045862|182031859|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.58||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|2.09|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio was from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours, baseline OAB-q symptom bother scale and baseline PPBC as covariates.||2.09|1.19|0.001
91072817|NCT02045862|182031860|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|2.34|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio was from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours, baseline OAB-q HRQL total score and baseline PPBC as covariates.||2.34|1.33|<0.001
91072818|NCT02045862|182031860|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.89|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio was from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours, baseline OAB-q HRQL total score and baseline PPBC as covariates.||1.89|1.08|0.012
91072819|NCT02004886|182031895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.4|-13.3|||ANCOVA|Terms for treatment, prior AHA therapy status, and baseline 24-hour WMG value as a covariate.||||-13.3|-38.4|<0.001
91072820|NCT02004886|182031895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-53.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.1|-41.1|||ANCOVA|Terms for treatment, prior AHA therapy status, and baseline 24-hour WMG value as a covariate.||||-41.1|-66.1|<0.001
91072821|NCT02004886|182031895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.4|-13.6|||ANCOVA|Terms for treatment, prior AHA therapy status, and baseline 24-hour WMG value as a covariate.||||-13.6|-38.4|<0.001
91072822|NCT02004886|182031898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.3||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.7|-0.9|||ANCOVA|Relevant baseline efficacy measurements were the covariates.||||-0.9|-35.7|0.04
91072823|NCT02004886|182031898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-43.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.9|-26.3|||ANCOVA|Relevant baseline efficacy measurements were the covariates.||||-26.3|-60.9|<0.001
91072824|NCT02004886|182031898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.6||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.7|8.5|||ANCOVA|Relevant baseline efficacy measurements were the covariates.||||8.5|-25.7|0.320
91072825|NCT02004886|182031900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.9|||ANCOVA|||||0.9|-0.7|0.751
91072826|NCT02004886|182031900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.6|||ANCOVA|||||0.6|-1.0|0.581
91072827|NCT02004886|182031900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.8|||ANCOVA|||||0.8|-0.8|0.918
91072828|NCT02004886|182031902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.7||||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.1|5.6|||ANCOVA|||||5.6|-21.1|0.253
91072829|NCT02004886|182031902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.5||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.0|1.0|||ANCOVA|||||1.0|-26.0|0.070
91072830|NCT02004886|182031902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.5|-12.8|||ANCOVA|||||-12.8|-39.5|<0.001
91072831|NCT02004886|182031903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-89.9||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-145.6|-34.0|||ANCOVA|Relevant baseline efficacy measurements were the covariates.||||-34.0|-145.6|0.002
91072832|NCT02004886|182031903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-191.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-246.4|-135.9|||ANCOVA|Relevant baseline efficacy measurements were the covariates.||||-135.9|-246.4|<0.001
91072833|NCT02004886|182031903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-97.7||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-152.4|-42.9|||ANCOVA|Relevant baseline efficacy measurements were the covariates.||||-42.9|-152.4|0.001
91072834|NCT02004886|182031904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|3.7|||ANCOVA|||||3.7|-1.5|0.408
91072835|NCT02004886|182031904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|2.2|||ANCOVA|||||2.2|-3.1|0.741
91072836|NCT02004886|182031904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|2.5|||ANCOVA|||||2.5|-2.8|0.906
91072837|NCT02004886|182031905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5||||0.857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.4|25.3|||ANCOVA|||||25.3|-30.4|0.857
91072838|NCT02004886|182031905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.3|26.9|||ANCOVA|||||26.9|-30.3|0.906
91072839|NCT02004886|182031905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.6||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.0|20.8|||ANCOVA|||||20.8|-34.0|0.630
91072840|NCT05239494|182031908|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.001|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Shapiro-Wilks|||This study used a ±50 VAS scale, with values in the positive and negative range indicating that the contact lenses were comfortable or uncomfortable, respectively. A score of zero on this scale indicated neutral CL comfort.||||<0.001
91072841|NCT02822573|182031910|SUPERIORITY|Mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (RMANCOVA) models with covariates of treatment, time, time by treatment interaction, baseline outcome level, age stratification and an unstructured covariance matrix. The primary objective was assessed using a linear contrast of group effect at 24 weeks.||||||0.32|||||||ANCOVA|||With a sample size of 266, there was 90% power to detect a treatment difference of 2 words for HVLT-R total recall score (SD=4.26, effect size=0.47) with a two-sided 5% level of significance. This calculation assumed an ANCOVA model analysis with 25% dropout and 2% missing data at end of treatment. A single interim analysis for futility occurred after 138 participants, with stopping rule of two-sided p-value \< 0.0154. This design required 3.5% more than fixed design, increasing total to 276.||||0.32
91072842|NCT03155178|182031926|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.07|||Paired t-test|||"48-hours post-treatment time point. The primary analysis dataset used a modified Intent to Treat population. Subjects were excluded who did not meet the treatment day baseline requirements of greater than or equal to 3.0 log10 CFU/cm\^2 on the abdomen.~The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in log10 CFU /cm\^2 recovery between arms at 48-hours post-treatment."||0.07|-0.53|0.13
91072843|NCT03155178|182031926|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.3|||Paired t-test|||"72-hours post-treatment time point. The primary analysis dataset used a modified Intent to Treat population. Subjects were excluded who did not meet the treatment day baseline requirements of greater than or equal to 3.0 log10 CFU/cm\^2 on the abdomen.~The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in log10 CFU /cm\^2 recovery between arms at 72-hours post-treatment."||0.30|-0.23|0.78
91072844|NCT03155178|182031926|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.29|||Paired t-test|||"96-hours post-treatment time point. The primary analysis dataset used a modified Intent to Treat population. Subjects were excluded who did not meet the treatment day baseline requirements of greater than or equal to 3.0 log10 CFU/cm\^2 on the abdomen.~The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in log10 CFU /cm\^2 recovery between arms at 96-hours post-treatment."||0.29|-0.38|0.77
91072845|NCT03155178|182031926|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.17|||Paired t-test|||"48-hours post-treatment time point. The primary analysis dataset used a modified Intent to Treat population. Subjects were excluded who did not meet the treatment day baseline requirements of greater than or equal to 5.0 log10 CFU/cm\^2 on the inguinal.~The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in log10 CFU /cm\^2 recovery between arms at 48-hours post-treatment."||0.17|-0.45|0.37
91072846|NCT03155178|182031926|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.58|||Paired t-test|||"72-hours post-treatment time point. The primary analysis dataset used a modified Intent to Treat population. Subjects were excluded who did not meet the treatment day baseline requirements of greater than or equal to 5.0 log10 CFU/cm\^2 on the inguinal.~The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in log10 CFU /cm\^2 recovery between arms at 72-hours post-treatment."||0.58|-0.20|0.33
91072847|NCT03155178|182031926|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.39|||Paired t-test|||"96-hours post-treatment time point. The primary analysis dataset used a modified Intent to Treat population. Subjects were excluded who did not meet the treatment day baseline requirements of greater than or equal to 5.0 log10 CFU/cm\^2 on the inguinal.~The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in log10 CFU /cm\^2 recovery between arms at 96-hours post-treatment."||0.39|-0.25|0.65
91072848|NCT03155178|182031927|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.24|||Paired t-test|||"48-hours post-treatment time point. The primary analysis dataset used a modified Intent to Treat population. Subjects were excluded who did not meet the treatment day baseline requirements of greater than or equal to 3.0 log10 CFU/cm\^2 on the abdomen.~The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in log10 CFU /cm\^2 regrowth from the 10 minute time point between arms at 48-hours post-treatment."||0.24|-0.63|0.38
91072849|NCT03155178|182031927|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.45|||Paired t-test|||"72-hours post-treatment time point. The primary analysis dataset used a modified Intent to Treat population. Subjects were excluded who did not meet the treatment day baseline requirements of greater than or equal to 3.0 log10 CFU/cm\^2 on the abdomen.~The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in log10 CFU /cm\^2 regrowth from the 10 minute time point between arms at 72-hours post-treatment."||0.45|-0.30|0.68
91072850|NCT03155178|182031927|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.45|||Paired t-test|||"96-hours post-treatment time point. The primary analysis dataset used a modified Intent to Treat population. Subjects were excluded who did not meet the treatment day baseline requirements of greater than or equal to 3.0 log10 CFU/cm\^2 on the abdomen.~The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in log10 CFU /cm\^2 regrowth from the 10 minute time point between arms at 96-hours post-treatment."||0.45|-0.47|0.97
90827677|NCT03932760|181530286|OTHER|Mean differences at the tested timepoints between VCI and AC. Models were also examined with the covariates of medication use and pregnant/post-partum status.|Mean estimates by time|0.913|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.085||0.612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.228|3.055|||Mixed Models Analysis||Time was treated as a categorical variable to allow for non-linear change over time. We present group, time, and group\*time estimates and their associated SE and CIs below. AC group and baseline timepoint are the reference categories.|We used multilevel generalized mixed modeling under an intent-to-treat approach to compare the outcome measures of EPDS between group 1 (VCI) and Group 2 (AC) at 6 time points during pregnancy and postpartum controlling for screening EPDS score. We powered for the fixed effect of Intervention X Time using RMANOVA with alpha = 0.5, 6 time points, 0.3 for correlation between repeated measures, and a sample size of 192 total participants gives greater than 90% power to detect an effect size of 0.1.|"Overall test of significance for Fixed Effects. Higher EPDS scores signify worsened symptoms of depression. Time uses start of study as reference controlling for screen EPDS.~Group VCI (AC reference): F=0.260, p=0.612~Time (Baseline as reference): F=9.021, p\<0.001~Group\*Time: F=0.537, p=0.748~Estimates for group, time, and group\*time interactions~Group:~Estimate=0.913 (SE=1.085) \[CI LB=-1.228, UB=3.055\]~Time:~Post: estimate=-2.766 (0.853) \[-4.445, -1.087\]~2 months: estimate=-1.517 (0.862) \[-3.214, 0.180\]~4 months: estimate=-3.186 (0.862) \[-4.883, -1.489\]~6 months: estimate=-2.781 (0.872) \[-4.498, -1.065\]~8 months: estimate=-3.103 (0.872) \[-4.819, -1.386\]~Group\*Time:~Post: estimate=-1.157 (1.214) \[-3.547, 1.232\]~2 months: estimate=-1.361 (1.210) \[-3.742, 1.019\]~4 months: estimate= 0.183 (1.209) \[-2.196, 2.562\]~6 months: estimate=-0.508 (1.223) \[-2.914, 1.898\]~8 months: estimate=-0.127 (1.220) \[-2.529, 2.275\]"|3.055|-1.228|0.612
90890496|NCT03086447|181645728|OTHER|It was deemed that a total of 135 subjects per each study group is sufficient to demonstrate no statistical difference in the CS incidence rate between the Test and Control groups with a minimum of 80% statistical power using the reference incidence rate of 0.005% with a correlation of 0.3 between eyes within subject.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|1.437||All primary hypotheses were simultaneously evaluated using a significance level of 0.05 following the intersection-union principal. All primary hypotheses must be met to claim success of the study objectives.|Bayesian beta-binomial model|A 95% credible interval for the posterior estimate (Test over Control) was used to test no difference between the Test and Control groups.|odds ratio calculated as Test over Control|Proportion of eyes with unacceptable corneal staining (CS) throughout all planned and unplanned visits in the Test group was compared to that in the Control group.||1.437|0.004|
91072851|NCT03155178|182031927|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.65|||Paired t-test|||"48-hours post-treatment time point. The primary analysis dataset used a modified Intent to Treat population. Subjects were excluded who did not meet the treatment day baseline requirements of greater than or equal to 5.0 log10 CFU/cm\^2 on the inguinal.~The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in log10 CFU /cm\^2 regrowth from the 10 minute time point between arms at 48-hours post-treatment."||0.65|-0.27|0.40
91072852|NCT03155178|182031927|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|1.03||Using a Hochberg Step-up procedure the critical p value is 0.17|Paired t-test|||"72-hours post-treatment time point. The primary analysis dataset used a modified Intent to Treat population. Subjects were excluded who did not meet the treatment day baseline requirements of greater than or equal to 5.0 log10 CFU/cm\^2 on the inguinal.~The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in log10 CFU /cm\^2 regrowth from the 10 minute time point between arms at 72-hours post-treatment."||1.03|0.05|0.03
91072853|NCT03155178|182031927|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.87|||Paired t-test|||"96-hours post-treatment time point. The primary analysis dataset used a modified Intent to Treat population. Subjects were excluded who did not meet the treatment day baseline requirements of greater than or equal to 5.0 log10 CFU/cm\^2 on the inguinal.~The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in log10 CFU /cm\^2 regrowth from the 10 minute time point between arms at 96-hours post-treatment."||0.87|-0.03|0.07
91072854|NCT04789291|182031937|OTHER||Ratios of adjusted geometric means [%]|102.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.34|106.29|||||Ratio calculated as test/reference\*100. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 4.8.|Relative bioavailability of BI 1595043 administered in fed state (Test) compared with BI 1595043 administered in fasted state (Reference) was estimated by the ratios of the gMeans (Test/Reference). Their corresponding 2-sided 90% CIs were provided. This method corresponds to 2 one-sided t-test procedures, each at the 5% significance level.||106.29|99.34|
91072855|NCT04789291|182031938|OTHER||Ratios of adjusted geometric means [%]|77.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|69.77|86.76|||||Ratio calculated as test/reference\*100. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 15.5.|Relative bioavailability of BI 1595043 administered in fed state (Test) compared with BI 1595043 administered in fasted state (Reference) was estimated by the ratios of the gMeans (Test/Reference). Their corresponding 2-sided 90% CIs were provided. This method corresponds to 2 one-sided t-test procedures, each at the 5% significance level.||86.76|69.77|
91072856|NCT04789291|182031939|OTHER||Ratios of adjusted geometric means [%]|103.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.73|106.89|||||Ratio calculated as test/reference\*100. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 4.9.|Relative bioavailability of BI 1595043 administered in fed state (Test) compared with BI 1595043 administered in fasted state (Reference) was estimated by the ratios of the gMeans (Test/Reference). Their corresponding 2-sided 90% CIs were provided. This method corresponds to 2 one-sided t-test procedures, each at the 5% significance level.||106.89|99.73|
91072857|NCT02858180|182031952|OTHER||Proportion|86.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.5|98.3||||||||98.3|59.5|
91072858|NCT01820572|182031984|SUPERIORITY|difference between belatacept and CNI|Difference in proportions|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|10.4||||||||10.4|-8.6|
91072859|NCT01820572|182031985|SUPERIORITY|difference between belatacept and CNI|Difference in Proportions|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|9.0||||||||9.0|-9.9|
90827678|NCT03932760|181530287|OTHER|Mean differences at the tested timepoints between VCI and AC. Models were also examined with the covariates of medication use and pregnant/post-partum status.|Mean estimates by time|0.016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.859||0.558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.709|1.677|||Mixed Models Analysis||Time was treated as a categorical variable to allow for non-linear change over time. We present group, time, and group\*time estimates and their associated SE and CIs below. AC group and baseline timepoint are the reference categories.|We used multilevel generalized mixed modeling under an intent-to-treat approach to compare the outcome measures of GAD-7 between group 1 (VCI) and Group 2 (AC) at 6 time points during pregnancy and postpartum. We powered for the fixed effect of Intervention X Time using RMANOVA with alpha = 0.5, 6 time points, 0.3 for correlation between repeated measures, and a sample size of 192 total participants gives greater than 90% power to detect an effect size of 0.1.|"Overall test of significance for Fixed Effects. Higher GAD-7 scores signify worsened symptoms of depression.~Group VCI (AC reference): F=0.347, p=0.558~Time (Baseline as reference): F=4.973, p\<0.001~Group\*Time: F=0.417, p=0.837~Estimates for group, time, and group\*time interactions~Group:~Estimate=-0.0160 (SE=0.859) \[CI LB=-1.709, UB=1.677\]~Time:~Post: estimate=-1.780 (0.708) \[-3.173, -0.387\]~2 months: estimate=-0.615 (0.715) \[-2.023, 0.792\]~4 months: estimate=-1.416 (0.715) \[-2.824, -0.008\]~6 months: estimate=-1.625 (0.723) \[-3.049, -0.201\]~8 months: estimate=-1.542 (0.723) \[-2.966, -0.118\]~Group\*Time:~Post: estimate=-1.157 (1.214) \[-3.547, 1.232\]~2 months: estimate=-1.361 (1.210) \[-3.742, 1.019\]~4 months: estimate= 0.183 (1.209) \[-2.196, 2.562\]~6 months: estimate=-0.508 (1.223) \[-2.914, 1.898\]~8 months: estimate=-0.127 (1.220) \[-2.529, 2.275\]"|1.677|-1.709|0.558
90827679|NCT04437485|181530321|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA models were run on post-treatment outcome level adjusting for baseline somatic depressive symptoms group (a stratification variable).||||||0.64
90827680|NCT04437485|181530322|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA models were run on post-treatment outcome level adjusting for baseline somatic depressive symptoms group (a stratification variable).||||||0.046
91072860|NCT02105246|182032006|EQUIVALENCE|This analysis compared the proportion of eligible patients who participated in cardiac rehab after referral to home-based vs. referral to center-based programs.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98||||0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Null hypothesis = no difference in proportion of patients who participate in cardiac rehab after referral to home-based vs. facility-based programs||||0.80
91072861|NCT02105246|182032007|NON_INFERIORITY|This analysis compared Baseline to 3-month change in 6-minute walk test distance among subjects who participated in home-based cardiac rehab vs. subjects who participated in center-based cardiac rehab|Median Difference (Final Values)|196.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||This comparison was unadjusted.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: 3-month change in 6MWT distance is not inferior among participants enrolled in home-based vs. facility-based cardiac rehab.||||<0.001
91072862|NCT02105246|182032008|NON_INFERIORITY|This analysis compared 6-month change in 6-minute walk test distance among subjects who participated in home-based vs. center-based cardiac rehab.|Median Difference (Final Values)|159.0||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: 6-month change in 6MWT distance is not inferior among participants enrolled in home-based vs. facility-based cardiac rehab.||||0.03
91072863|NCT00387010|182032009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.6||||0.3223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.64|1.54|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.54|-4.64|0.3223
91072864|NCT05356533|182032027|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.08|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>.05
91072865|NCT05356533|182032027|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.08|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
91072866|NCT05356533|182032028|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.08|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>.05
91072867|NCT05356533|182032029|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.81|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>.05
91072868|NCT05356533|182032030|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.91|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.05
91072869|NCT05356533|182032031|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>.05
91072870|NCT05356533|182032032|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.11|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>.05
91072871|NCT01167881|182032033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-4.87|-4.05||The superiority tests performed at 104 weeks and the superiority tests performed at 52 weeks both used a nominal significance level of 2.5% to maintain the overall significance level of 5%.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment, geographical region, renal function at baseline as fixed effects and baseline weight, baseline HbA1c as linear covariates.||"Testing Hierarchy for main analysis (104 weeks):~1. Non-inferiority in HbA1c change from baseline at 104 weeks,~2. Superiority in body weight change from baseline at 104 weeks,~3. Superiority in occurrence of confirmed hypoglycaemic adverse events at 104 weeks,~4. Superiority in HbA1c change from baseline at 104 weeks,~5. Superiority in systolic blood pressure change from baseline at 104 weeks,~6. Superiority in diastolic blood pressure change from baseline at 104 weeks."||-4.05|-4.87|<0.0001
91072872|NCT01167881|182032034|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was tested through a two-sided 97.5% confidence interval for the treatment effect of empagliflozin minus the effect of glimepiride in change from baseline in HbA1c. The null-hypothesis of material inferiority of empagliflozin was rejected if the confidence interval is entirely below the non-inferiority margin 0.3%.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.2|-0.01|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment, geographical region, renal function at baseline as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as linear covariate.||"Testing Hierarchy for main analysis (104 weeks):~1. Non-inferiority in HbA1c change from baseline at 104 weeks,~2. Superiority in body weight change from baseline at 104 weeks,~3. Superiority in occurrence of confirmed hypoglycaemic adverse events at 104 weeks,~4. Superiority in HbA1c change from baseline at 104 weeks,~5. Superiority in systolic blood pressure change from baseline at 104 weeks,~6. Superiority in diastolic blood pressure change from baseline at 104 weeks."||-0.01|-0.20|<0.0001
91072873|NCT01167881|182032034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0153|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.2|-0.01||The superiority tests performed at 104 weeks and the superiority tests performed at 52 weeks both used a nominal significance level of 2.5% to maintain the overall significance level of 5%.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment, geographical region, renal function at baseline as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as linear covariate.||"Testing Hierarchy for main analysis (104 weeks):~1. Non-inferiority in HbA1c change from baseline at 104 weeks,~2. Superiority in body weight change from baseline at 104 weeks,~3. Superiority in occurrence of confirmed hypoglycaemic adverse events at 104 weeks,~4. Superiority in HbA1c change from baseline at 104 weeks,~5. Superiority in systolic blood pressure change from baseline at 104 weeks,~6. Superiority in diastolic blood pressure change from baseline at 104 weeks."||-0.01|-0.20|0.0153
91072874|NCT01167881|182032035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.102|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.06|0.173||The superiority tests performed at 104 weeks and the superiority tests performed at 52 weeks both used a nominal significance level of 2.5% to maintain the overall significance level of 5%.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for baseline HbA1c (\<8.5 / \>=8.5).||"Testing Hierarchy for main analysis (104 weeks):~1. Non-inferiority in HbA1c change from baseline at 104 weeks,~2. Superiority in body weight change from baseline at 104 weeks,~3. Superiority in occurrence of confirmed hypoglycaemic adverse events at 104 weeks,~4. Superiority in HbA1c change from baseline at 104 weeks,~5. Superiority in systolic blood pressure change from baseline at 104 weeks,~6. Superiority in diastolic blood pressure change from baseline at 104 weeks."||0.173|0.060|<0.0001
91072875|NCT01167881|182032036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-7.0|-4.2||The superiority tests performed at 104 weeks and the superiority tests performed at 52 weeks both used a nominal significance level of 2.5% to maintain the overall significance level of 5%.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment, geographical region, renal function at baseline as fixed effects and baseline SBP, baseline HbA1c as linear covariates.||"Testing Hierarchy for main analysis (104 weeks):~1. Non-inferiority in HbA1c change from baseline at 104 weeks,~2. Superiority in body weight change from baseline at 104 weeks,~3. Superiority in occurrence of confirmed hypoglycaemic adverse events at 104 weeks,~4. Superiority in HbA1c change from baseline at 104 weeks,~5. Superiority in systolic blood pressure change from baseline at 104 weeks,~6. Superiority in diastolic blood pressure change from baseline at 104 weeks."||-4.2|-7.0|<0.0001
91072876|NCT01167881|182032037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.5|-1.8||The superiority tests performed at 104 weeks and the superiority tests performed at 52 weeks both used a nominal significance level of 2.5% to maintain the overall significance level of 5%.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment, geographical region, renal function at baseline as fixed effects and baseline DBP, baseline HbA1c as linear covariates.||"Testing Hierarchy for main analysis (104 weeks):~1. Non-inferiority in HbA1c change from baseline at 104 weeks,~2. Superiority in body weight change from baseline at 104 weeks,~3. Superiority in occurrence of confirmed hypoglycaemic adverse events at 104 weeks,~4. Superiority in HbA1c change from baseline at 104 weeks,~5. Superiority in systolic blood pressure change from baseline at 104 weeks,~6. Superiority in diastolic blood pressure change from baseline at 104 weeks."||-1.8|-3.5|<0.0001
91077885|NCT02913105|182041136|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.92||||0.307|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|1.05|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Triglycerides: Day 42||1.05|0.80|0.3070
91072877|NCT01167881|182032038|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was tested through a two-sided 97.5% confidence interval for the treatment effect of empagliflozin minus the effect of glimepiride in change from baseline in HbA1c. The null-hypothesis of material inferiority of empagliflozin was rejected if the confidence interval is entirely below the non-inferiority margin 0.3%.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.16|0.02|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment, geographical region, renal function at baseline as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as linear covariate.||"Testing Hierarchy for first interim analysis (52 weeks):~1. Non-inferiority in HbA1c change from baseline at 52 weeks,~2. Superiority in body weight change from baseline at 52 weeks,~3. Superiority in occurrence of confirmed hypoglycaemic adverse events at 52 weeks,~4. Superiority in systolic blood pressure change from baseline at 52 weeks,~5. Superiority in diastolic blood pressure change from baseline at 52 weeks."||0.02|-0.16|<0.0001
91072878|NCT01167881|182032039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-5.16|-4.46||The superiority tests performed at 104 weeks and the superiority tests performed at 52 weeks both used a nominal significance level of 2.5% to maintain the overall significance level of 5%.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment, geographical region, renal function at baseline as fixed effects and baseline weight, baseline HbA1c as linear covariates.||"Testing Hierarchy for first interim analysis (52 weeks):~1. Non-inferiority in HbA1c change from baseline at 52 weeks,~2. Superiority in body weight change from baseline at 52 weeks,~3. Superiority in occurrence of confirmed hypoglycaemic adverse events at 52 weeks,~4. Superiority in systolic blood pressure change from baseline at 52 weeks,~5. Superiority in diastolic blood pressure change from baseline at 52 weeks."||-4.46|-5.16|<0.0001
91072879|NCT01167881|182032040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.077|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.04|0.148||The superiority tests performed at 104 weeks and the superiority tests performed at 52 weeks both used a nominal significance level of 2.5% to maintain the overall significance level of 5%.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for baseline HbA1c (\<8.5 / \>=8.5).||"Testing Hierarchy for first interim analysis (52 weeks):~1. Non-inferiority in HbA1c change from baseline at 52 weeks,~2. Superiority in body weight change from baseline at 52 weeks,~3. Superiority in occurrence of confirmed hypoglycaemic adverse events at 52 weeks,~4. Superiority in systolic blood pressure change from baseline at 52 weeks,~5. Superiority in diastolic blood pressure change from baseline at 52 weeks."||0.148|0.040|<0.0001
91072880|NCT01167881|182032041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-7.3|-4.4||The superiority tests performed at 104 weeks and the superiority tests performed at 52 weeks both used a nominal significance level of 2.5% to maintain the overall significance level of 5%.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment, geographical region, renal function at baseline as fixed effects and baseline SBP, baseline HbA1c as linear covariates.||"Testing Hierarchy for first interim analysis (52 weeks):~1. Non-inferiority in HbA1c change from baseline at 52 weeks,~2. Superiority in body weight change from baseline at 52 weeks,~3. Superiority in occurrence of confirmed hypoglycaemic adverse events at 52 weeks,~4. Superiority in systolic blood pressure change from baseline at 52 weeks,~5. Superiority in diastolic blood pressure change from baseline at 52 weeks."||-4.4|-7.3|<0.0001
91072881|NCT01167881|182032042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.7|-2.0||The superiority tests performed at 104 weeks and the superiority tests performed at 52 weeks both used a nominal significance level of 2.5% to maintain the overall significance level of 5%.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment, geographical region, renal function at baseline as fixed effects and baseline DBP, baseline HbA1c as linear covariates.||"Testing Hierarchy for first interim analysis (52 weeks):~1. Non-inferiority in HbA1c change from baseline at 52 weeks,~2. Superiority in body weight change from baseline at 52 weeks,~3. Superiority in occurrence of confirmed hypoglycaemic adverse events at 52 weeks,~4. Superiority in systolic blood pressure change from baseline at 52 weeks,~5. Superiority in diastolic blood pressure change from baseline at 52 weeks."||-2.0|-3.7|<0.0001
91072882|NCT03226769|182032113|OTHER|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two devices, TrueTear™ and Thermalon.||||||0.9788||||||Statistically significant (p \< 0.05) and trending significant (p \< 0.10) for within-group or between-group changes from baseline at Day 30. Between-group P-value was calculated using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Computer Usage||||0.9788
91072883|NCT03226769|182032113|OTHER|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two devices, TrueTear™ and Thermalon.||||||0.6571||||||Statistically significant (p \< 0.05) and trending significant (p \< 0.10) for within-group or between-group changes from baseline at Day 30. Between-group P-value was calculated using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Reading||||0.6571
91072884|NCT03226769|182032113|OTHER|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two devices, TrueTear™ and Thermalon.||||||0.471||||||Statistically significant (p \< 0.05) and trending significant (p \< 0.10) for within-group or between-group changes from baseline at Day 30. Between-group P-value was calculated using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Leisure Activities||||0.4710
91072885|NCT03226769|182032113|OTHER|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two devices, TrueTear™ and Thermalon.||||||0.736||||||Statistically significant (p \< 0.05) and trending significant (p \< 0.10) for within-group or between-group changes from baseline at Day 30. Between-group P-value was calculated using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Social Activities||||0.7360
91072886|NCT03226769|182032113|OTHER|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two devices, TrueTear™ and Thermalon.||||||0.4999||||||Statistically significant (p \< 0.05) and trending significant (p \< 0.10) for within-group or between-group changes from baseline at Day 30. Between-group P-value was calculated using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Driving||||0.4999
91072887|NCT03226769|182032113|OTHER|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two devices, TrueTear™ and Thermalon.||||||0.1159||||||Statistically significant (p \< 0.05) and trending significant (p \< 0.10) for within-group or between-group changes from baseline at Day 30. Between-group P-value was calculated using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Outdoor Activities||||0.1159
91072888|NCT03226769|182032113|OTHER|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two devices, TrueTear™ and Thermalon.||||||0.4567||||||Statistically significant (p \< 0.05) and trending significant (p \< 0.10) for within-group or between-group changes from baseline at Day 30. Between-group P-value was calculated using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Frequency of Outdoor Activities||||0.4567
91072889|NCT03226769|182032113|OTHER|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two devices, TrueTear™ and Thermalon.||||||0.3439||||||Statistically significant (p \< 0.05) and trending significant (p \< 0.10) for within-group or between-group changes from baseline at Day 30. Between-group P-value was calculated using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Time Spent to Take Care of Eyes||||0.3439
91072890|NCT03226769|182032113|OTHER|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two devices, TrueTear™ and Thermalon.||||||0.3331||||||Statistically significant (p \< 0.05) and trending significant (p \< 0.10) for within-group or between-group changes from baseline at Day 30. Between-group P-value was calculated using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Bothered With Amount of Time Taking Care of Eyes||||0.3331
91072891|NCT03226769|182032113|OTHER|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two devices, TrueTear™ and Thermalon.||||||0.4774||||||Statistically significant (p \< 0.05) and trending significant (p \< 0.10) for within-group or between-group changes from baseline at Day 30. Between-group P-value was calculated using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Bothered by Appearance||||0.4774
91072892|NCT03226769|182032114|OTHER|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two devices, TrueTear™ and Thermalon.||||||0.5457||||||Statistically significant (p \< 0.05) and trending significant (p \< 0.10) for within-group or between-group changes from baseline at Day 30. Between-group P-value was calculated using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Red Eyes||||0.5457
91072893|NCT03226769|182032114|OTHER|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two devices, TrueTear™ and Thermalon.||||||0.9786||||||Statistically significant (p \< 0.05) and trending significant (p \< 0.10) for within-group or between-group changes from baseline at Day 30. Between-group P-value was calculated using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Blurred Vision||||0.9786
91072894|NCT03226769|182032114|OTHER|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two devices, TrueTear™ and Thermalon.||||||0.3894||||||Statistically significant (p \< 0.05) and trending significant (p \< 0.10) for within-group or between-group changes from baseline at Day 30. Between-group P-value was calculated using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Dry Eyes||||0.3894
91072895|NCT03226769|182032114|OTHER|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two devices, TrueTear™ and Thermalon.||||||0.0591||||||Statistically significant (p \< 0.05) and trending significant (p \< 0.10) for within-group or between-group changes from baseline at Day 30. Between-group P-value was calculated using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Itchy Eyes||||0.0591
91072896|NCT03226769|182032114|OTHER|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two devices, TrueTear™ and Thermalon.||||||0.1818||||||Statistically significant (p \< 0.05) and trending significant (p \< 0.10) for within-group or between-group changes from baseline at Day 30. Between-group P-value was calculated using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Burning Eyes||||0.1818
91072897|NCT03226769|182032114|OTHER|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two devices, TrueTear™ and Thermalon.||||||0.4284||||||Statistically significant (p \< 0.05) and trending significant (p \< 0.10) for within-group or between-group changes from baseline at Day 30. Between-group P-value was calculated using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Gritty Eyes||||0.4284
91072898|NCT03226769|182032114|OTHER|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two devices, TrueTear™ and Thermalon.||||||0.1051||||||Statistically significant (p \< 0.05) and trending significant (p \< 0.10) for within-group or between-group changes from baseline at Day 30. Between-group P-value was calculated using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Painful Eyes||||0.1051
91072899|NCT03226769|182032114|OTHER|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two devices, TrueTear™ and Thermalon.||||||0.7998||||||Statistically significant (p \< 0.05) and trending significant (p \< 0.10) for within-group or between-group changes from baseline at Day 30. Between-group P-value was calculated using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Watery Eyes||||0.7998
91072900|NCT03226769|182032114|OTHER|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two devices, TrueTear™ and Thermalon.||||||0.1229||||||Statistically significant (p \< 0.05) and trending significant (p \< 0.10) for within-group or between-group changes from baseline at Day 30. Between-group P-value was calculated using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Swollen Eyelids||||0.1229
91072901|NCT03226769|182032114|OTHER|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two devices, TrueTear™ and Thermalon.||||||0.3907||||||Statistically significant (p \< 0.05) and trending significant (p \< 0.10) for within-group or between-group changes from baseline at Day 30. Between-group P-value was calculated using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Red Eyelids||||0.3907
91072902|NCT03226769|182032114|OTHER|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two devices, TrueTear™ and Thermalon.||||||0.0336||||||Statistically significant (p \< 0.05) and trending significant (p \< 0.10) for within-group or between-group changes from baseline at Day 30. Between-group P-value was calculated using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Crusty Eyelids||||0.0336
91072903|NCT01516008|182032122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|76.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.0|101.7||P-value adjusted for multiple treatment group comparisons using the Hochberg method.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group and center as factors and baseline pain intensity as covariate.|Difference is SPID48 in tapentadol IR group minus SPID48 in placebo group.|||101.7|51.0|<0.001
91072904|NCT01516008|182032122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|90.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.1|116.1||P-value is adjusted for multiple treatment group comparisons using the Hochberg method.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group and center as factors and baseline pain intensity as covariate.|Difference is SPID48 in tapentadol IR group minus SPID48 in placebo group.|||116.1|65.1|<0.001
91072905|NCT01516008|182032123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value adjusted for multiple treatment group comparisons using the Hochberg method.|Log Rank|Stratified by center||||||<0.001
91072906|NCT01516008|182032123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value adjusted for multiple treatment group comparisons using the Hochberg method.|Log Rank|Stratified by center||||||<0.001
91072907|NCT01516008|182032124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|Between-group comparison of cumulative distributions of percent reduction||12 hours||||<0.001
91072908|NCT01516008|182032124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|Between-group comparison of cumulative distributions of percent reduction||12 hours||||<0.001
91072909|NCT01516008|182032124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Log Rank|Between-group comparison of cumulative distributions of percent reduction||24 hours||||0.001
91072910|NCT01516008|182032124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|Between-group comparison of cumulative distributions of percent reduction||24 hours||||<0.001
91072911|NCT01516008|182032124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|Between-group comparison of cumulative distributions of percent reduction||48 hours||||<0.001
91072912|NCT01516008|182032124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|Between-group comparison of cumulative distributions of percent reduction||48 hours||||<0.001
91072913|NCT01516008|182032124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Log Rank|Between-group comparison of cumulative distributions of percent reduction||72 hours||||0.001
91072914|NCT01516008|182032124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|Between-group comparison of cumulative distributions of percent reduction||72 hours||||<0.001
91072915|NCT01516008|182032125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for center||12 hours||||0.001
91072916|NCT01516008|182032125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for center||12 hours||||<0.001
91072917|NCT01516008|182032125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for center||24 hours||||<0.001
91072918|NCT01516008|182032125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for center||24 hours||||<0.001
91072919|NCT01516008|182032125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for center||48 hours||||<0.001
91072920|NCT01516008|182032125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for center||48 hours||||<0.001
91072921|NCT01516008|182032125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for center||72 hours||||<0.001
91072922|NCT01516008|182032125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for center||72 hours||||<0.001
91072923|NCT01516008|182032126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for center||12 hours||||<0.001
91072924|NCT01516008|182032126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for center||12 hours||||<0.001
91072925|NCT01516008|182032126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for center||24 hours||||0.021
90827681|NCT04437485|181530323|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA models were run on post-treatment outcome level adjusting for baseline somatic depressive symptoms group (a stratification variable).||||||0.09
91072926|NCT01516008|182032126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for center||24 hours||||<0.001
91072927|NCT01516008|182032126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for center||48 hours||||<0.001
91072928|NCT01516008|182032126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for center||48 hours||||<0.001
91072929|NCT01516008|182032126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for center||72 hours||||<0.001
91072930|NCT01516008|182032126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for center||72 hours||||<0.001
91072931|NCT01516008|182032127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|16.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.1|22.0|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment group and center as factors and baseline pain intensity as covariate.|Difference is SPID12 in tapentadol IR group minus SPID12 in placebo group.|12 hours||22.0|11.1|<0.001
91072932|NCT01516008|182032127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|19.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.6|24.6|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment group and center as factors and baseline pain intensity as covariate.|Difference is SPID12 in tapentadol IR group minus SPID12 in placebo group.|12 hours||24.6|13.6|<0.001
91072933|NCT01516008|182032127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|34.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.2|46.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment group and center as factors and baseline pain intensity as covariate.|Difference is SPID24 in tapentadol IR group minus SPID24 in placebo group.|24 hours||46.2|23.2|<0.001
91072934|NCT01516008|182032127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|43.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.5|54.6|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment group and center as factors and baseline pain intensity as covariate.|Difference is SPID24 in tapentadol IR group minus SPID24 in placebo group.|24 hours||54.6|31.5|<0.001
91072935|NCT01516008|182032127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|122.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|81.8|162.9|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment group and center as factors and baseline pain intensity as covariate.|Difference is SPID72 in tapentadol IR group minus SPID72 in placebo group.|72 hours||162.9|81.8|<0.001
91072936|NCT01516008|182032127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|138.57|||<|0.001||95.0|97.8|179.4|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment group and center as factors and baseline pain intensity as covariate.|Difference is SPID72 in tapentadol IR group minus SPID72 in placebo group.|72 hours||179.4|97.8|<0.001
91072937|NCT01516008|182032128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|9.3|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA including treatment group and center as factors and baseline pain intenstidy as covariate|Difference is TOTPAR12 in tapentadol IR group minus TOTPAR12 in placebo group|12 hours||9.3|5.0|<0.001
91072938|NCT01516008|182032128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|9.3|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA including treatment group and center as factors and baseline pain intenstidy as covariate|Difference is TOTPAR12 in tapentadol IR group minus TOTPAR12 in placebo group|12 hours||9.3|4.9|<0.001
91072939|NCT01516008|182032128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|15.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.6|19.8|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA including treatment group and center as factors and baseline pain intenstidy as covariate|Difference is TOTPAR24 in tapentadol IR group minus TOTPAR24 in placebo group|24 hours||19.8|10.6|<0.001
91072940|NCT01516008|182032128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|15.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.9|20.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA including treatment group and center as factors and baseline pain intenstidy as covariate|Difference is TOTPAR24 in tapentadol IR group minus TOTPAR24 in placebo group|24 hours||20.2|10.9|<0.001
91072941|NCT01516008|182032128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|34.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.3|45.3|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA including treatment group and center as factors and baseline pain intenstidy as covariate|Difference is TOTPAR48 in tapentadol IR group minus TOTPAR48 in placebo group|48 hours||45.3|24.3|<0.001
91072942|NCT01516008|182032128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|33.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.0|44.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA including treatment group and center as factors and baseline pain intenstidy as covariate|Difference is TOTPAR48 in tapentadol IR group minus TOTPAR48 in placebo group|48 hours||44.2|23.0|<0.001
91072943|NCT01516008|182032128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|56.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.4|73.8|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA including treatment group and center as factors and baseline pain intenstidy as covariate|Difference is TOTPAR72 in tapentadol IR group minus TOTPAR72 in placebo group|72 hours||73.8|39.4|<0.001
91072944|NCT01516008|182032128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|53.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.2|70.8|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA including treatment group and center as factors and baseline pain intenstidy as covariate|Difference is TOTPAR72 in tapentadol IR group minus TOTPAR72 in placebo group|72 hours||70.8|36.2|<0.001
91072945|NCT01516008|182032129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|23.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.4|30.9|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment group and center as factors and baseline pain intensity as covariate|Difference is SPRID12 in the tapentadol IR group minus SPRID12 in the placebo group|12 hours||30.9|16.4|<0.001
91072946|NCT01516008|182032129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|26.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.9|33.6|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment group and center as factors and baseline pain intensity as covariate|Difference is SPRID12 in the tapentadol IR group minus SPRID12 in the placebo group|12 hours||33.6|18.9|<0.001
91072947|NCT01516008|182032129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|49.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.4|65.4|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment group and center as factors and baseline pain intensity as covariate|Difference is SPRID24 in the tapentadol IR group minus SPRID24 in the placebo group|24 hours||65.4|34.4|<0.001
91072948|NCT01516008|182032129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|58.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.0|74.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment group and center as factors and baseline pain intensity as covariate|Difference is SPRID24 in the tapentadol IR group minus SPRID24 in the placebo group|24 hours||74.2|43.0|<0.001
91072949|NCT01516008|182032129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|111.12|||<|0.001||95.0|76.3|145.9|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment group and center as factors and baseline pain intensity as covariate|Difference is SPRID48 in the tapentadol IR group minus SPRID48 in the placebo group|48 hours||145.9|76.3|<0.001
91072950|NCT01516008|182032129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|124.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.2|159.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment group and center as factors and baseline pain intensity as covariate|Difference is SPRID48 in the tapentadol IR group minus SPRID48 in the placebo group|48 hours||159.2|89.2|<0.001
91072951|NCT01516008|182032129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|178.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|122.4|235.4|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment group and center as factors and baseline pain intensity as covariate|Difference is SPRID72 in the tapentadol IR group minus SPRID72 in the placebo group|72 hours||235.4|122.4|<0.001
91072952|NCT01516008|182032129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|192.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|135.2|248.9|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment group and center as factors and baseline pain intensity as covariate|Difference is SPRID72 in the tapentadol IR group minus SPRID72 in the placebo group|72 hours||248.9|135.2|<0.001
91072953|NCT01516008|182032130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for center||||||<0.001
91072954|NCT01516008|182032130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for center||||||<0.001
91072955|NCT01217476|182032131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.4039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.8|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.80|0.66|0.4039
91072956|NCT01217476|182032132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.56|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.56|0.52|
91072957|NCT02778074|182032135|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
90827682|NCT05736874|181530361|SUPERIORITY|Decision rule based on Bayesian posterior probability of efficacy. The decision threshold was a posterior probability of 0.95. A prespecified skeptical prior for the treatment effect was used to preserve type I error below 0.05.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.12|||||The interval is a highest-density credible interval. Adjustment variables: randomization, age, sex, duration of symptoms prior to study drug, calendar time, vaccination status, geographic region, call center indicator, and baseline symptom severity.|||1.12|0.91|
91072958|NCT00356135|182032155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.91|||<|0.0001||95.0|-19.1|-8.73|||ANOVA|Treatment and study sites are fixed effects and MPA right before the randomization treatment period is a covariate in the model.|Mean Difference is for Prasugrel 10/10 mg arm minus Clopidogrel 75/75 mg arm.|||-8.73|-19.10|<0.0001
91072959|NCT00356135|182032155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.98|||<|0.0001||95.0|-19.26|-8.71|||ANCOVA|||||-8.71|-19.26|<0.0001
91072960|NCT00356135|182032156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.4||||0.4055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.22|3.35||P-value for 2 Hour (20 uM ADP). Mixed model with actual value at each timepoint as dependent variable, baseline value as covariate, treatment, catagorical timepoint, and time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, and subject as random effect.|Repeated Measures Analysis||Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel 10/10 mg minus Clopidogrel 75/75 mg.|||3.35|-8.22|0.4055
91072961|NCT00356135|182032156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-23.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.3|-17.51||P-value for 2 Hour (20 uM ADP). Mixed model with actual value at each timepoint as dependent variable, baseline value as covariate, treatment, catagorical timepoint, and time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, and subject as random effect.|Repeated Measures Analysis||Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel 60/10 mg minus Clopidogrel 75/75 mg.|||-17.51|-29.30|<0.0001
91072962|NCT00356135|182032156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.2||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.82|0.32||P-value for 24 Hour (20 uM ADP). Mixed model with actual value at each timepoint as dependent variable, baseline value as covariate, treatment, catagorical timepoint, and time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, and subject as random effect.|Repeated Measures Analysis||Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel 10/10 mg minus Clopidogrel 75/75 mg.|||0.32|-8.82|0.0680
91072963|NCT00356135|182032156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-29.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.2|-23.94||P-value for 24 Hour (20 uM ADP). Mixed model with actual value at each timepoint as dependent variable, baseline value as covariate, treatment, catagorical timepoint, and time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, and subject as random effect.|Repeated Measures Analysis||Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel 60/10 mg minus Clopidogrel 75/75 mg.|Comparison of MPA to 20 uM ADP at 24 hours||-23.94|-33.20|<0.0001
91072964|NCT00356135|182032156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-15.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.96|-9.65||P-value for 1 Week (20 uM ADP). Mixed model with actual value at each timepoint as dependent variable, baseline value as covariate, treatment, catagorical timepoint, and time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, and subject as random effect.|Repeated Measures Analysis||Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel 10/10 mg minus Clopidogrel 75/75 mg.|||-9.65|-19.96|<0.0001
91072965|NCT00356135|182032156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-15.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.87|-9.32||P-value for 1 Week (20 uM ADP). Mixed model with actual value at each timepoint as dependent variable, baseline value as covariate, treatment, catagorical timepoint, and time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, and subject as random effect.|Repeated Measures Analysis||Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel 60/10 mg minus Clopidogrel 75/75 mg.|||-9.32|-19.87|<0.0001
91072966|NCT00356135|182032156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-15.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.3|-9.22||P-value for 2 Week (20 uM ADP). Mixed model with actual value at each timepoint as dependent variable, baseline value as covariate, treatment, catagorical timepoint, and time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, and subject as random effect.|Repeated Measures Analysis||Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel 10/10 mg minus Clopidogrel 75/75 mg.|||-9.22|-20.30|<0.0001
91072967|NCT00356135|182032156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-15.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.59|-9.22||P-value for 2 Week (20 uM ADP). Mixed model with actual value at each timepoint as dependent variable, baseline value as covariate, treatment, catagorical timepoint, and time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, and subject as random effect.|Repeated Measures Analysis||Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel 60/10 mg minus Clopidogrel 75/75 mg.|||-9.22|-20.59|<0.0001
91072968|NCT00356135|182032156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.4||||0.5501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.85|3.14||P-value for 2 Hour (5 uM ADP). Mixed model with actual value at each timepoint as dependent variable, baseline value as covariate, treatment, catagorical timepoint, and time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, and subject as random effect.|Repeated Measures Analysis||Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel 10/10 mg minus Clopidogrel 75/75 mg.|||3.14|-5.85|0.5501
91072969|NCT00356135|182032156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-17.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.55|-12.37||P-value for 2 Hour (5 uM ADP). Mixed model with actual value at each timepoint as dependent variable, baseline value as covariate, treatment, catagorical timepoint, and time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, and subject as random effect.|Repeated Measures Analysis||Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel 60/10 mg minus Clopidogrel 75/75 mg.|||-12.37|-21.55|<0.0001
91072970|NCT00356135|182032156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.1||||0.0752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.58|0.42||P-value for 24 Hour (5 uM ADP). Mixed model with actual value at each timepoint as dependent variable, baseline value as covariate, treatment, catagorical timepoint, and time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, and subject as random effect.|Repeated Measures Analysis||Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel 10/10 mg minus Clopidogrel 75/75 mg.|||0.42|-8.58|0.0752
91072971|NCT00356135|182032156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-20.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.81|-15.64||P-value for 24 Hour (5 uM ADP). Mixed model with actual value at each timepoint as dependent variable, baseline value as covariate, treatment, catagorical timepoint, and time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, and subject as random effect.|Repeated Measures Analysis||Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel 60/10 mg minus Clopidogrel 75/75 mg.|||-15.64|-24.81|<0.0001
91072972|NCT00356135|182032156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-12.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.21|-7.5||P-value for 1 Week (5 uM ADP). Mixed model with actual value at each timepoint as dependent variable, baseline value as covariate, treatment, catagorical timepoint, and time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, and subject as random effect.|Repeated Measures Analysis||Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel 10/10 mg minus Clopidogrel 75/75 mg.|||-7.50|-17.21|<0.0001
91072973|NCT00356135|182032156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-11.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.79|-5.79||P-value for 1 Week (5 uM ADP). Mixed model with actual value at each timepoint as dependent variable, baseline value as covariate, treatment, catagorical timepoint, and time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, and subject as random effect.|Repeated Measures Analysis||Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel 60/10 mg minus Clopidogrel 75/75 mg.|||-5.79|-15.79|<0.0001
91072974|NCT00356135|182032156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-13.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.41|-7.72||P-value for 2 Week (5 uM ADP). Mixed model with actual value at each timepoint as dependent variable, baseline value as covariate, treatment, catagorical timepoint, and time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, and subject as random effect.|Repeated Measures Analysis||Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel 10/10 mg minus Clopidogrel 75/75 mg.|||-7.72|-17.41|<0.0001
91072975|NCT00356135|182032156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-12.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.8|-6.82||P-value for 2 Week (5 uM ADP). Mixed model with actual value at each timepoint as dependent variable, baseline value as covariate, treatment, catagorical timepoint, and time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, and subject as random effect.|Repeated Measures Analysis||Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel 60/10 mg minus Clopidogrel 75/75 mg.|||-6.82|-16.80|<0.0001
91072976|NCT00356135|182032157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1824|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The mean of MPA 20 uM ADP at the end of Clopidogrel open label of patients on chronic clopidogrel at the time of qualifying events was compared to the mean MPA of patients not using clopidogrel at this time.||||0.1824
91072977|NCT00356135|182032157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1101|||||||F-test|||The variance of MPA 20 uM ADP at the end of Clopidogrel open label of patients on chronic clopidogrel at the time of qualifying events was compared to the variance of MPA for patients not using clopidogrel at this time.||||0.1101
91072978|NCT00356135|182032158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.1||||0.3466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|3.37||P-value for 2 Hour (20 uM ADP). Mixed model with actual value at each timepoint as dependent variable, baseline value as covariate, treatment, catagorical timepoint, and time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, and subject as random effect.|Repeated Measures Analysis||Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel 10/10 mg minus Clopidogrel 75/75 mg.|||3.37|-9.50|0.3466
90827683|NCT05736874|181530362|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|4.68|||||Descriptive analysis is a maximum partial likelihood proportional hazards regression model. Low event rate precluded covariate adjustment.|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.||4.68|0.19|
91072979|NCT00356135|182032158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-27.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.4|-20.33||P-value for 2 Hour (20 uM ADP). Mixed model with actual value at each timepoint as dependent variable, baseline value as covariate, treatment, catagorical timepoint, and time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, and subject as random effect.|Repeated Measures Analysis||Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel 60/10 mg minus Clopidogrel 75/75 mg.|||-20.33|-33.40|<0.0001
91072980|NCT00356135|182032158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.3||||0.0127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.04|-1.6||P-value for 24 Hour (20 uM ADP). Mixed model with actual value at each timepoint as dependent variable, baseline value as covariate, treatment, catagorical timepoint, and time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, and subject as random effect.|Repeated Measures Analysis||Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel 10/10 mg minus Clopidogrel 75/75 mg.|||-1.60|-13.04|0.0127
91072981|NCT00356135|182032158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-34.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.99|-28.42||P-value for 24 Hour (20 uM ADP). Mixed model with actual value at each timepoint as dependent variable, baseline value as covariate, treatment, catagorical timepoint, and time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, and subject as random effect.|Repeated Measures Analysis||Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel 60/10 mg minus Clopidogrel 75/75 mg.|||-28.42|-39.99|<0.0001
91072982|NCT00356135|182032158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-18.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.58|-11.09||P-value for 1 Week (20 uM ADP). Mixed model with actual value at each timepoint as dependent variable, baseline value as covariate, treatment, catagorical timepoint, and time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, and subject as random effect.|Repeated Measures Analysis||Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel 10/10 mg minus Clopidogrel 75/75 mg.|||-11.09|-25.58|<0.0001
91072983|NCT00356135|182032158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-20.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.09|-12.26||P-value for 1 Week (20 uM ADP). Mixed model with actual value at each timepoint as dependent variable, baseline value as covariate, treatment, catagorical timepoint, and time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, and subject as random effect.|Repeated Measures Analysis||Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel 60/10 mg minus Clopidogrel 75/75 mg.|||-12.26|-27.09|<0.0001
91072984|NCT00356135|182032158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-22.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.42|-14.77||P-value for 2 Week (20 uM ADP). Mixed model with actual value at each timepoint as dependent variable, baseline value as covariate, treatment, catagorical timepoint, and time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, and subject as random effect.|Repeated Measures Analysis||Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel 10/10 mg minus Clopidogrel 75/75 mg.|||-14.77|-28.42|<0.0001
91072985|NCT00356135|182032158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-23.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.61|-15.63||P-value for 2 Week (20 uM ADP). Mixed model with actual value at each timepoint as dependent variable, baseline value as covariate, treatment, catagorical timepoint, and time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, and subject as random effect.|Repeated Measures Analysis||Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel 60/10 mg minus Clopidogrel 75/75 mg.|||-15.63|-29.61|<0.0001
91072986|NCT00356135|182032158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.6||||0.4954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.11|6.38||P-value for 2 Hour (5 uM ADP). Mixed model with actual value at each timepoint as dependent variable, baseline value as covariate, treatment, catagorical timepoint, and time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, and subject as random effect.|Repeated Measures Analysis||Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel 10/10 mg minus Clopidogrel 75/75 mg.|||6.38|-3.11|0.4954
91072987|NCT00356135|182032158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-11.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.92|-6.24||P-value for 2 Hour (5 uM ADP). Mixed model with actual value at each timepoint as dependent variable, baseline value as covariate, treatment, catagorical timepoint, and time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, and subject as random effect.|Repeated Measures Analysis||Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel 60/10 mg minus Clopidogrel 75/75 mg.|||-6.24|-15.92|<0.0001
91072988|NCT00356135|182032158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.3||||0.1971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.31|1.74||P-value for 24 Hour (5 uM ADP). Mixed model with actual value at each timepoint as dependent variable, baseline value as covariate, treatment, catagorical timepoint, and time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, and subject as random effect.|Repeated Measures Analysis||Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel 10/10 mg minus Clopidogrel 75/75 mg.|||1.74|-8.31|0.1971
91072989|NCT00356135|182032158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-16.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.98|-10.75||P-value for 24 Hour (5 uM ADP). Mixed model with actual value at each timepoint as dependent variable, baseline value as covariate, treatment, catagorical timepoint, and time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, and subject as random effect.|Repeated Measures Analysis||Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel 60/10 mg minus Clopidogrel 75/75 mg.|||-10.75|-20.98|<0.0001
91072990|NCT00356135|182032158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-13.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.81|-7.32||P-value for 1 Week (5 uM ADP). Mixed model with actual value at each timepoint as dependent variable, baseline value as covariate, treatment, catagorical timepoint, and time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, and subject as random effect.|Repeated Measures Analysis||Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel 10/10 mg minus Clopidogrel 75/75 mg.|||-7.32|-18.81|<0.0001
91072991|NCT00356135|182032158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-12.0||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.91|-6.09||P-value for 1 Week (5 uM ADP). Mixed model with actual value at each timepoint as dependent variable, baseline value as covariate, treatment, catagorical timepoint, and time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, and subject as random effect.|Repeated Measures Analysis||Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel 60/10 mg minus Clopidogrel 75/75 mg.|||-6.09|-17.91|0.0001
91072992|NCT00356135|182032158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-11.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.64|-6.32||P-value for 2 Week (5 uM ADP). Mixed model with actual value at each timepoint as dependent variable, baseline value as covariate, treatment, catagorical timepoint, and time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, and subject as random effect.|Repeated Measures Analysis||Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel 10/10 mg minus Clopidogrel 75/75 mg.|||-6.32|-15.64|<0.0001
91072993|NCT00356135|182032158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.67|-5.09||P-value for 2 Week (5 uM ADP). Mixed model with actual value at each timepoint as dependent variable, baseline value as covariate, treatment, catagorical timepoint, and time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, and subject as random effect.|Repeated Measures Analysis||Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel 60/10 mg minus Clopidogrel 75/75 mg.|||-5.09|-14.67|<0.0001
91072994|NCT00356135|182032159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005||95.0||||P-value for MPA (20 uM ADP) at 1 week.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||||||0.0005
91072995|NCT00356135|182032159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||P-value for RPA (20 uM ADP) at 1 week.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||||||<0.0001
91072996|NCT00356135|182032159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015||95.0||||P-value for MPA (20 uM ADP) at 1 week.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||||||0.0150
91072997|NCT00356135|182032159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0152||95.0||||P-value for RPA (20 uM ADP) at 1 week.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||||||0.0152
91072998|NCT00356135|182032159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0153||95.0||||P-value for MPA (20 uM ADP) at 1 week.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||||||0.0153
91072999|NCT00356135|182032159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0018||95.0||||P-value for RPA (20 uM ADP) at 1 week.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||||||0.0018
91073000|NCT03963232|182032161|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.32|-1.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.32|-2.32|<.0001
91073001|NCT03963232|182032162|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.674|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.01|3.557|||GLIMMIX|||30% responder||3.557|2.010|<.0001
91073002|NCT03963232|182032162|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.481|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.869|3.293|||GLIMMIX|||50% responder||3.293|1.869|<.0001
91073003|NCT03963232|182032162|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.824|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.007|3.972|||GLIMMIX|||75% responder||3.972|2.007|<.0001
91073004|NCT03963232|182032162|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.309|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.989|5.504|||GLIMMIX|||100% responder||5.504|1.989|<.0001
91073005|NCT03963232|182032163|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|7.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.95|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.2|8.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.95|5.20|<.0001
91073006|NCT03963232|182032164|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|-1.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.31|-2.25|<.0001
91073007|NCT03963232|182032165|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|-1.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.29|-2.35|<.0001
91073008|NCT03963232|182032166|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.92|4.81|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.81|1.92|<.0001
91073009|NCT03963232|182032167|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|-0.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.62|-1.15|<.0001
91073010|NCT03963232|182032168|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-18.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.21|-14.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-14.56|-23.21|<.0001
91073011|NCT03963232|182032169|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-19.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.29|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.73|-14.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-14.75|-23.73|<.0001
91073012|NCT03963232|182032170|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.10|-0.22|<.0001
91073013|NCT03963232|182032171|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.224|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1021||0.0284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||||-0.02|-0.43|0.0284
91073014|NCT03963232|182032172|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-12.429|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2484||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.81|-6.05|||ANCOVA|||||-6.05|-18.81|0.0001
91073015|NCT05270395|182032189|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.02||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|46.69|||Regression, Logistic|||We conducted logistic regression to predict knowledge of palliative care (as measured by ten items in the Health Information National Trends Survey Palliative Care Knowledge and Perceptions Questionnaire) in the mPal intervention arm and in the standard of care arm at 1-month post-intervention, adjusting for baseline value of each item, age, and sex.||46.69|1.38|0.02
91073016|NCT05270395|182032190|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|4.56|||Regression, Logistic|||We conducted logistic regression to predict knowledge of palliative care (as measured by ten items in the Health Information National Trends Survey Palliative Care Knowledge and Perceptions Questionnaire) in the mPal intervention arm and in the standard of care arm at 1-month post-intervention, adjusting for baseline value of each item, age, and sex.||4.56|0.40|0.63
91073017|NCT05270395|182032191|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.29||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|1.46|||Regression, Logistic|||We conducted logistic regression to predict knowledge of palliative care (as measured by ten items in the Health Information National Trends Survey Palliative Care Knowledge and Perceptions Questionnaire) in the mPal intervention arm and in the standard of care arm at 1-month post-intervention, adjusting for baseline value of each item, age, and sex.||1.46|0.06|0.13
91073018|NCT05270395|182032192|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.54||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|2.24|||Regression, Logistic|||We conducted logistic regression to predict knowledge of palliative care (as measured by ten items in the Health Information National Trends Survey Palliative Care Knowledge and Perceptions Questionnaire) in the mPal intervention arm and in the standard of care arm at 1-month post-intervention, adjusting for baseline value of each item, age, and sex.||2.24|0.13|0.40
91073019|NCT05270395|182032193|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.22||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|9.62|||Regression, Logistic|||We conducted logistic regression to predict knowledge of palliative care (as measured by ten items in the Health Information National Trends Survey Palliative Care Knowledge and Perceptions Questionnaire) in the mPal intervention arm and in the standard of care arm at 1-month post-intervention, adjusting for baseline value of each item, age, and sex.||9.62|0.51|0.29
91073020|NCT05270395|182032194|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.55||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|14.32|||Regression, Logistic|||We conducted logistic regression to predict knowledge of palliative care (as measured by ten items in the Health Information National Trends Survey Palliative Care Knowledge and Perceptions Questionnaire) in the mPal intervention arm and in the standard of care arm at 1-month post-intervention, adjusting for baseline value of each item, age, and sex.||14.32|0.88|0.07
91073021|NCT05270395|182032195|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.93||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|18.89|||Regression, Logistic|||We conducted logistic regression to predict knowledge of palliative care (as measured by ten items in the Health Information National Trends Survey Palliative Care Knowledge and Perceptions Questionnaire) in the mPal intervention arm and in the standard of care arm at 1-month post-intervention, adjusting for baseline value of each item, age, and sex.||18.89|0.82|0.09
91073022|NCT05270395|182032196|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|6.43|||Regression, Logistic|||We conducted logistic regression to predict knowledge of palliative care (as measured by ten items in the Health Information National Trends Survey Palliative Care Knowledge and Perceptions Questionnaire) in the mPal intervention arm and in the standard of care arm at 1-month post-intervention, adjusting for baseline value of each item, age, and sex.||6.43|0.46|0.42
91073023|NCT05270395|182032197|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.86||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|9.42|||Regression, Logistic|||We conducted logistic regression to predict knowledge of palliative care (as measured by ten items in the Health Information National Trends Survey Palliative Care Knowledge and Perceptions Questionnaire) in the mPal intervention arm and in the standard of care arm at 1-month post-intervention, adjusting for baseline value of each item, age, and sex.||9.42|0.87|0.08
91073024|NCT05270395|182032198|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.29||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.99|34.49|||Regression, Logistic|||We conducted logistic regression to predict knowledge of palliative care (as measured by ten items in the Health Information National Trends Survey Palliative Care Knowledge and Perceptions Questionnaire) in the mPal intervention arm and in the standard of care arm at 1-month post-intervention, adjusting for baseline value of each item, age, and sex.||34.49|1.99|0.004
91073025|NCT03055494|182032199|OTHER|Statistical hypothesis tests were not performed in this study|difference in percentages|76.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.3|88.8|||95% confidence interval|"Statistical analysis of no response of skin histology/K16 expression to treatment at Week 12"|||"A patient with missing assessment was considered as having a yes response of skin histology/K16 expression to treatment regardless of the reason for missing data (eg, premature study discontinuation, missed visit, administrative issues). However, missing baseline value was not imputed."|88.8|63.3|
91073026|NCT03055494|182032200|OTHER|Statistical hypothesis tests were not performed in this study|difference in percentages|55.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.3|69.3|||95% confidence interval|||||69.3|42.3|
91073027|NCT04507256|182032246|OTHER|Bioavailability|Ratio of geometric mean AUCinf|68.69|||||||||||||The bioavailability of AZD7442 Dose 1 administered by IM was, calculated as the ratio of geometric mean AUCinf after IM to IV, for mAb AZD8895.|Bioavailability of AZD8895 at the end of study (Day 361)||||
91073028|NCT04507256|182032246|OTHER|Bioavailability|Ratio of geometric mean AUCinf|65.02|||||||||||||The bioavailability of AZD7442 Dose 1 administered by IM was, calculated as the ratio of geometric mean AUCinf after IM to IV, for mAb AZD1061.|Bioavailability of AZD1061 at the end of study (Day 361)||||
91073029|NCT02195310|182032271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7007|||||||Fisher Exact Test (2-sided)|||||||0.7007
91073030|NCT00834639|182032279|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The pharmacokinetic parameters were evaluated statistically by an analysis of variance (ANOVA) appropriate for the experimental design of this study.|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|97.36||||||90.0|93.68|101.18|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||101.18|93.68|
91073031|NCT00834639|182032280|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The pharmacokinetic parameters were evaluated statistically by an analysis of variance (ANOVA) appropriate for the experimental design of this study.|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|100.59||||||90.0|97.07|104.24|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||104.24|97.07|
91073032|NCT00834639|182032281|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The pharmacokinetic parameters were evaluated statistically by an analysis of variance (ANOVA) appropriate for the experimental design of this study.|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|100.36||||||90.0|97.35|103.46|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||103.46|97.35|
91073033|NCT05010512|182032299|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority in distance VA was declared if the least squares means difference upper confidence limit was less than 0.05.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.004|||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.01||Since a noninferiority hypothesis is being tested, a p-value is not applicable. Confidence limit is being reported and compared to the noninferiority margin.|||LSM results based on mixed effects repeated measures model with terms for lens, period and sequence as fixed effects, subject as a random effect. Difference = DT1 minus Infuse|||0.01||
91073034|NCT00805870|182032300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.271|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|26.298|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.521|46.978|||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that no difference is observed in quadriceps muscle strength between the fish oil and control groups.||46.978|-63.521|>0.05
91073035|NCT00805870|182032301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.845|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.417|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.823|1.132|||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the amount of force applied to the quadriceps to elicit pain or discomfort between the fish oil and control groups.||1.132|-4.823|>0.05
91073036|NCT00805870|182032302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-57.015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|47.093|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-156.373|42.344|||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in creatine kinase activity between the fish oil and the control groups.||42.344|-156.373|>0.05
91073037|NCT00805870|182032303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.188|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.374|0.417|||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in interleukin-6 concentration between the fish oil and control groups.||0.417|-0.374|>0.05
91073038|NCT00380081|182032328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Treatment effect|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91073039|NCT00380081|182032329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Treatment effect|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91073040|NCT00380081|182032330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Treatment effect|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91073041|NCT00380081|182032331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Treatment effect|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91073042|NCT00380081|182032332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Treatment effect|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91073043|NCT00380081|182032333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Treatment effect|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91073044|NCT00380081|182032334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Treatment effect|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The outcome noted above reflects the all-night sleep quality rating of study subjects who had a scheduled awakening after approximately 4 hours of sleep, were kept awake for 30 minutes and then allowed to return to bed and to sleep. After 4 hours, they were awakened again and disconnected from the PSG apparatus. Morning testing was conducted that included the Sleep Quality questionnaire. Evaluation of the results should reflect the nature of the study and the scheduled sleep disturbance.||||<0.001
91073045|NCT00380081|182032335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.004||95.0||||Treatment effect|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.004
91073046|NCT00380081|182032336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||95.0||||Treatment effect|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.012
91073047|NCT00380081|182032337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Treatment effect|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91073048|NCT00380081|182032338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Treatment effect|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91073049|NCT00380081|182032339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79||95.0||||Treatment effect|ANCOVA|||||||0.790
91073050|NCT00380081|182032340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.083||95.0||||Treatment effect|ANCOVA|||||||0.083
91073051|NCT00380081|182032341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.072||95.0||||Treatment effect|ANCOVA|||||||0.072
91073052|NCT00380081|182032341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Period effect|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91073053|NCT00380081|182032342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017||95.0||||Treatment effect|ANCOVA|||||||0.017
91073054|NCT02231879|182032344|SUPERIORITY|This is a two-sided test, with the null hypothesis that the distribution of the difference scores is the same in both arms.||||||0.65||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons, since this is the only pre-specified primary analysis. P\<=0.05 is considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This was a pre-specified primary analysis plan, and the two arms are compared with a Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test on the primary outcome. This is non-standard (since both arms contain both treatment groups), however, it is a valid test by randomization since it is a permutation test. The statistic of TISS in Period 1 minus TISS in Period 2 was chosen so that even if there are carry-over effects this will give a valid test.||||0.65
91073055|NCT02231879|182032344|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons, one-sided test, a priori significance set at 0.025|McNemar|||Maintenance of absolute lymphocyte count greater than 1000 cells/microliter measured 3 hours after a dose for plerixafor as compared to G-CSF||||<0.0001
91073056|NCT02231879|182032344|NON_INFERIORITY|Pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 0.40 which was estimated to be about 50% of the effect size of G-CSF versus placebo.||||||0.023||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons, one-sided test, a priori significance set at 0.025|McNemar|||Maintenance of absolute neutrophil counts \>500 cells/microliter for G-CSF versus plerixafor measured as the proportion of successes (75% of measured) while on G-CSF minus the proportion on plerixafor||||0.023
91073057|NCT00459706|182032345|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The non-inferiority test was performed using the 95 percent (%) two-sided confidence interval (CI) of the difference (AI minus PFS) of mean subject satisfactions (α = 2.5%).~Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI \> -1."|Mean Difference (Net)|1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.5|||ANOVA|ANOVA=analysis of variance||Non-inferiority of autoinjector (AI) over prefilled syringe (PFS) was assessed on the primary endpoint. Hypothesis tested was H0: AI minus PFS less than or equal to (≤) -1. The alternate hypothesis was H1: AI minus PFS greater than (\>) -1.||1.50|0.71|<0.001
91073058|NCT00459706|182032346|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The non-inferiority test was performed using the 95% two-sided CI of the difference (AI minus PFS) of mean subject satisfactions (α = 2.5%).~Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI \> -1."|Mean Difference (Net)|1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.64|||ANOVA|||"Non-inferiority of AI over PFS was assessed on the primary endpoint. The hypotheses tested was as follows:~H0: AI - PFS ≤ -1 H1: AI - PFS \> -1"||1.64|0.85|<0.001
91073059|NCT00459706|182032347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|3.05|||GEE Model+Logit Link+Binomial Distributn|GEE=Generalized estimating equation Distribn=distribution||||3.05|0.98|0.058
91073060|NCT00459706|182032348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.96||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|3.43|||GEE Model+Logit Link+Binomial Distributn|||||3.43|1.12|0.019
91073061|NCT00459706|182032349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|0.11||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.27|||Regression, Linear|||All categories||0.27|-0.04|0.160
91073062|NCT00459706|182032350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficients|-0.75||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.29|||Regression, Linear|||Female versus male (reference).||-0.29|-1.20|0.001
91073063|NCT00459706|182032351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|-0.18||||0.676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.26|||Regression, Linear|||Participants at High School/Baccalaureate Level versus participants with only Reading/Writing Capacity (reference).||0.26|-0.62|0.676
91073064|NCT00459706|182032351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|0.0||||0.676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.6|||Regression, Linear|||Participants at University Level versus participants with only Reading/Writing Capacity (reference).||0.60|-0.59|0.676
91073065|NCT00459706|182032352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|-0.28||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.05|||Regression, Linear|||All categories||-0.05|-0.52|0.020
91073066|NCT00459706|182032353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|-0.35||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.09|||Regression, Linear|||All categories||-0.09|-0.61|0.008
91073067|NCT00459706|182032354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|0.17||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.32|||Regression, Linear|||All categories||0.32|0.02|0.030
91073068|NCT00459706|182032355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|-0.6||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.18|||Regression, Linear|||Self-injection Experience versus No Self-injection Experience (reference).||-0.18|-1.03|0.006
91073069|NCT00459706|182032356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|0.06||||0.278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.18|||Regression, Linear|||All categories||0.18|-0.05|0.278
91073070|NCT00459706|182032357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|0.03||||0.749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.21|||Regression, Linear|||All categories||0.21|-0.15|0.749
91073071|NCT00459706|182032358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|-0.08||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.02|||Regression, Linear|||All categories||0.02|-0.18|0.105
91073072|NCT00459706|182032359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|0.01||||0.819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.12|||Regression, Linear|||All categories||0.12|-0.10|0.819
91073073|NCT00459706|182032360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|-0.39||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.09|||Regression, Linear|||All categories, by 1-unit increments.||-0.09|-0.69|0.012
91073074|NCT00459706|182032361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|-0.1||||0.541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.32|||Regression, Linear|||2 DMARDs versus 1 DMARD (reference).||0.32|-0.52|0.541
91073075|NCT00459706|182032361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|-0.14||||0.541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|0.68|||Regression, Linear|||3 DMARDs versus 1 DMARD (reference).||0.68|-0.97|0.541
91073076|NCT00459706|182032361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|1.72||||0.541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|4.25|||Regression, Linear|||At least 4 DMARDs versus 1 DMARD (reference).||4.25|-0.82|0.541
91073077|NCT00459706|182032362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|-0.15||||0.465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.25|||Regression, Linear|||Prior Injection Experience versus No Prior Injection Experience (reference)||0.25|-0.55|0.465
91073078|NCT00459706|182032363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|0.15|||ANOVA|||||0.15|-0.97|0.154
91073079|NCT00459706|182032364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.56|||ANOVA|||||0.56|-0.12|0.212
91073080|NCT00459706|182032365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.37|||ANOVA|||||0.37|-0.39|0.965
91073081|NCT00459706|182032366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.5|||ANOVA|||||0.50|-0.25|0.519
91073082|NCT00459706|182032367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|2.57|||GEE model+logit link+multinomial distrib|||Day 84||2.57|1.33|<0.001
91073083|NCT00459706|182032368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.61||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|2.29|||GEE model+logit link+multinomial distrib|||||2.29|1.14|0.007
91073084|NCT00459706|182032369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.92||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|2.92|||GEE model+logit link+multinomial distrib|||||2.92|1.26|0.002
91073085|NCT00459706|182032370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|3.46|||GEE model+logit link+multinomial distrib|||||3.46|1.65|<0.001
91073086|NCT00459706|182032371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|2.83|||GEE model+logit link+multinomial distrib|||||2.83|1.50|<0.001
91073087|NCT00459706|182032372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|2.78|||GEE model+logit link+multinomial distrib|||||2.78|1.44|<0.001
91073088|NCT00459706|182032373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.72|||GEE model+logit link+multinomial distrib|||||1.72|0.90|0.184
91073089|NCT00459706|182032374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.85|||GEE model+logit link+multinomial distrib|||||1.85|0.94|0.106
91073090|NCT00459706|182032375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.96|||GEE model+logit link+multinomial distrib|||||1.96|0.93|0.112
91073091|NCT00459706|182032376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.65||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|2.24|||GEE model+logit link+multinomial distrib|||||2.24|1.21|0.002
91073092|NCT00459706|182032377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.78|||GEE model+logit link+multinomial distrib|||||0.78|0.41|<0.001
91073093|NCT00459706|182032378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.94|||GEE model+logit link+multinomial distrib|||||0.94|0.47|0.022
91073094|NCT00459706|182032379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.64||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.89|||GEE model+logit link+multinomial distrib|||||0.89|0.46|0.009
91073095|NCT00459706|182032380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.63||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.88|||GEE model+logit link+multinomial distrib|||||0.88|0.45|0.007
91073096|NCT00459706|182032381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.66||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.92|||GEE model+logit link+multinomial distrib|||||0.92|0.47|0.014
91073097|NCT00459706|182032382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|2.88|||GEE model+logit link+multinomial distrib|||||2.88|1.53|<0.001
91073098|NCT00459706|182032383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|2.91|||GEE model+logit link+multinomial distrib|||||2.91|1.57|<0.001
91073099|NCT00459706|182032384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.23|4.25|||GEE model+logit link+multinomial distrib|||||4.25|2.23|<0.001
91073100|NCT00459706|182032385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|2.62|||GEE model+logit link+multinomial distrib|||||2.62|1.35|<0.001
91073101|NCT00459706|182032386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.34|||GEE model+logit link+multinomial distrib|||||0.34|0.18|<0.001
91073102|NCT00459706|182032387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.36|||GEE model+logit link+multinomial distrib|||||0.36|0.19|<0.001
91073103|NCT00459706|182032388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.36|||GEE model+logit link+multinomial distrib|||||0.36|0.20|<0.001
91073104|NCT00459706|182032389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.11|||GEE model+logit link+multinomial distrib|||||1.11|0.61|0.196
91073105|NCT00459706|182032390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|2.42|||GEE model+logit link+multinomial distrib|||||2.42|1.25|0.001
91073106|NCT00459706|182032391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.42|||GEE model+logit link+multinomial distrib|||||0.42|0.21|<0.001
91073107|NCT00459706|182032392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.56|||GEE model+logit link+multinomial distrib|||||0.56|0.29|<0.001
91073108|NCT00459706|182032393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.896|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Autoinjector group||||0.896
91073109|NCT00459706|182032393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.166|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Prefilled Syringe group||||0.166
91073110|NCT00459706|182032394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.069||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Autoinjector group||||0.069
91073111|NCT00459706|182032394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Prefilled Syringe group||||0.015
91073112|NCT00459706|182032395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.069||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Autoinjector group||||0.069
91073113|NCT00459706|182032395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Prefilled Syringe group||||0.015
91073114|NCT00459706|182032396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.652||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Autoinjector group||||0.652
91073115|NCT00459706|182032396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.459||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Prefilled Syringe group||||0.459
91073116|NCT00459706|182032397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.652||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Autoinjector group||||0.652
91073117|NCT00459706|182032397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.459||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Prefilled Syringe group||||0.459
91073118|NCT00459706|182032398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.652||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Autoinjector group||||0.652
91073119|NCT00459706|182032398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.459||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Prefilled Syringe group||||0.459
91073120|NCT00459706|182032399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Autoinjector group||||0.023
91073121|NCT00459706|182032399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Prefilled Syringe group||||<0.001
91073122|NCT00459706|182032400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Autoinjector group||||0.038
91073123|NCT00459706|182032400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Prefilled Syringe group||||<0.001
91073124|NCT00459706|182032401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018||95.0|||||ANOVA|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Autoinjector group||||0.018
91073125|NCT00459706|182032401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019||95.0|||||ANOVA|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Prefilled Syringe group||||0.019
91073126|NCT00459706|182032402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Autoinjector group||||0.049
91073127|NCT00459706|182032402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.736||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Prefilled Syringe group||||0.736
91073128|NCT00459706|182032403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Autoinjector group||||0.033
91073129|NCT00459706|182032403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Prefilled Syringe group||||0.730
91073130|NCT00459706|182032404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.838||95.0|||||ANOVA|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Autoinjector group||||0.838
91073131|NCT00459706|182032404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.483||95.0|||||ANOVA|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Prefilled Syringe group||||0.483
91073132|NCT00459706|182032405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.466||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Autoinjector group||||0.466
91073133|NCT00459706|182032405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Prefilled Syringe group||||0.035
91073134|NCT00459706|182032406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.784||95.0|||||ANOVA|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Autoinjector group||||0.784
91073135|NCT00459706|182032406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0|||||ANOVA|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Prefilled Syringe group||||0.006
91073136|NCT00459706|182032407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.843||95.0|||||ANOVA|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Autoinjector group||||0.843
91073137|NCT00459706|182032407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.461||95.0|||||ANOVA|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Prefilled Syringe group||||0.461
91073138|NCT00459706|182032408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Autoinjector group||||0.150
91073139|NCT00459706|182032408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Prefilled Syringe group||||0.002
91073140|NCT00459706|182032409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.934||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Autoinjector group||||0.934
91073141|NCT00459706|182032409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.656||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Prefilled Syringe group||||0.656
91073142|NCT00459706|182032410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.934||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Autoinjector group||||0.934
91073143|NCT00459706|182032410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.656||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Prefilled Syringe group||||0.656
91073144|NCT00459706|182032411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.934||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Autoinjector group||||0.934
91073145|NCT00459706|182032411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.656||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Prefilled Syringe group||||0.656
91073146|NCT00459706|182032412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Autoinjector group||||<0.001
91073147|NCT00459706|182032412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Prefilled Syringe group||||<0.001
91073148|NCT01322035|182032431|EQUIVALENCE|95% confidence limits from standard deviation of the mean were used as the equivalence.|||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|95% confidence limits from standard deviation||||||<0.05
91073149|NCT00535847|182032439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.703|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.259|37.884||||||Stratified Analysis (Mantel-Haenszel)- The Mantel-Haenszel estimator provides an estimate of the common odds ratio for the association between eRVR and SVR across the prior response strata.||37.884|4.259|
91077886|NCT02913105|182041136|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.98||||0.7752|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.86|1.12|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Triglycerides: Day 56||1.12|0.86|0.7752
91073150|NCT00715728|182032459|EQUIVALENCE|Our primary outcome was the rate of core rewarming during the surgery. Groups were compared on mean rewarming rate in a linear mixed effects regression model with within-subject change of core temperature over time as random effect. Using those model results, equivalence on the mean rate of rewarming for the resistive and warm air systems was assessed with the 2 one-tailed tests equivalence testing approach and equivalence delta of 0.2 degrees C/hours.||||||0.91||||||Two 1-tailed tests were conducted. P-value for lower delta was 0.91. Equivalence will be claimed if p-values for upper and lower delta are both lower than 0.05 ⁄ 2 = 0.025.|t-test, 1 sided|"Two 1-tailed tests were conducted to assess equivalence. See  Type of Statistical Test."||A total of 46 patients (23 per group) were needed to have 90% power to demonstrate equivalence of the two warming methods on final intra-operative temperature at the 0.05 significance level using the 2 one-tailed tests equivalence testing technique and an equivalence region of 0.5 degrees C per hour, assuming a SD of 0.5 degrees C/hour for each group and zero true difference.||||0.91
91073151|NCT00715728|182032459|EQUIVALENCE|Our primary outcome was the rate of core rewarming during the surgery. Groups were compared on mean rewarming rate in a linear mixed effects regression model with within-subject change of core temperature over time as random effect. Using those model results, equivalence on the mean rate of rewarming for the resistive and warm air systems was assessed with the 2 one-tailed tests equivalence testing approach and equivalence delta of 0.2 degrees C/hours.|||||<|0.001||||||Two 1-tailed tests were conducted. P-value for lower delta was 0.91. Equivalence will be claimed if p-values for upper and lower delta are both lower than 0.05 ⁄ 2 = 0.025.|t-test, 1 sided|||A total of 46 patients (23 per group) were needed to have 90% power to demonstrate equivalence of the two warming methods on final intra-operative temperature at the 0.05 significance level using the 2 one-tailed tests equivalence testing technique and an equivalence region of 0.5 degrees C per hour, assuming a SD of 0.5 degrees C/hour for each group and zero true difference.||||<0.001
91073152|NCT00715728|182032460|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is defined as 0.5 °C. Non-inferiority at the 0.025 significance level will be claimed if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval is higher than the -0.5 °C.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.14||P-value was adjusted for preoperative oral temperature and ASA physical status.|t-test, 1 sided||Non-inferiority will be established, at the 0.025 significance level, if the lower limit of a 95% confidence interval for the difference is above -0.5 °C.|Null hypothesis is the Hot dog resistive heating system is inferior to the Bair Hugger forced air system. Mean difference (95% CI) of the intraoperative TWA temperature between the groups (resistive heating versus forced-air) will be adjusting for preoperative oral temperature and ASA physical status.||0.14|-0.37|0.018
91073153|NCT00844480|182032483|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.03
91073154|NCT03197870|182032488|SUPERIORITY|The primary hypotheses was tested in the modified intent-to-treat population using a Fisher's Exact Test with a 2-sided 5% significance level. razuprotafib 15 mg twice daily was tested first. If this was found to be statistically significant, then razuprotafib 15 mg once daily will be tested for statistical significance, at the same significance level.||||||0.495||||||Missing data was imputed using last observation carried forward; baseline values were not carried forward.|Fisher Exact|||The primary hypotheses tested was that razuprotafib 15 mg twice daily and razuprotafib 15 mg once daily will be superior to placebo in the improvement of diabetic retinopathy as measured by the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study severity scale change from baseline at 48 weeks.||||0.495
91073155|NCT01508130|182032518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.08||||0.6451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.49|||Wald residual chi-square test||Due to the non-interventional study design, the Cox model included a propensity score as a covariate (incorporated important demographics and baseline characteristics) to account for the potential imbalance between treatment groups.|||1.49|0.78|0.6451
91073156|NCT01508130|182032518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.02||||0.8826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.34|||Wald residual chi-square test||Without Propensity Score as a Covariate.|||1.34|0.78|0.8826
91073157|NCT01508130|182032519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.7695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.49|||Multiple Logistic Regression||A multiple logistic regression model including a propensity score as a covariate (incorporated important demographics and baseline characteristics) was used for the treatment comparison.|||1.49|0.58|0.7695
91073158|NCT01508130|182032519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.2594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.92|||Multiple Logistic Regression||Without Propensity Score as a Covariate|||1.92|0.84|0.2594
91073159|NCT01508130|182032526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.03||||0.9156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.64|||Wald residual chi-square test||95% CI for median was computed using the method of Brookmeyer and Crowley.|||1.64|0.64|0.9156
91073160|NCT01508130|182032527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.88||||0.5649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.36|||Wald residual chi-square test||95% CI for median was computed using the method of Brookmeyer and Crowley.|||1.36|0.57|0.5649
91073161|NCT03403751|182032553|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.649|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.649
91073162|NCT03403751|182032556|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.871|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.871
91073163|NCT03403751|182032557|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.420
91073164|NCT03403751|182032558|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.448|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.448
91073165|NCT03403751|182032559|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.579|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.579
91073166|NCT03403751|182032560|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.227|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.227
91073167|NCT03403751|182032563|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91073168|NCT03403751|182032564|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
91073169|NCT03403751|182032565|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91073170|NCT03403751|182032566|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.007
91073171|NCT01623037|182032569|OTHER||sucess proportion|71.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.7|83.6||||||||83.6|55.7|
91073172|NCT04442269|182032594|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|0.201||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0768|0.3256|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.3256|0.0768|0.0022
91073173|NCT03559868|182032612|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|Ordinary one-way ANOVA Bartlett's test||For IL10||||<0.01
91073174|NCT02294175|182032741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA. The interaction effect is controlling for any potential main effects of treatment arm (SDT vs LDT) and time (days 0, 4, 8).|Repeated Measures ANOVA|Greenhouse-Geisser corrections were applied to the F test degrees of freedom due to violation of the sphericity assumption (p\<.05 for Mauchly's W).||Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (RMANOVA) to test for effects of treatment arm, time, and treatment-by-time interaction. The effect of interest is the treatment-by-time interaction, i.e, whether the reduction of bacterial CFUs over time varies according to treatment arm.||||.029
91073175|NCT02294175|182032742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.037||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA. This interaction effect is controlling for any potential main effects of treatment arm (SDT vs LDT) and time (days 0, 4, 8).|Repeated Measures ANOVA|Greenhouse-Geisser corrections were applied to the F test degrees of freedom due to violation of the sphericity assumption (p\<.05 for Mauchly's W).||Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (RMANOVA) to test for effects of treatment arm, time, and treatment-by-time interaction. The effect of interest is the treatment-by-time interaction, i.e, whether the reduction of bacterial CFUs over time varies according to treatment arm.||||.037
91073176|NCT02294175|182032743|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA. This interaction effect is controlling for any potential main effects of treatment arm (SDT vs LDT) and time (days 0, 4, 8).|Repeated Measures ANOVA|||Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (RMANOVA) to test for effects of treatment arm, time, and treatment-by-time interaction. The effect of interest is the treatment-by-time interaction, i.e, whether the reduction of bacterial CFUs over time varies according to treatment arm.||||.012
91073177|NCT02294175|182032744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.397|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.397
91073178|NCT02294175|182032745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.661||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA. The interaction effect is controlling for any potential main effects of treatment arm (SDT vs LDT) and time (days 0, 4, 8).|Repeated Measures ANOVA|||Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (RMANOVA) to test for effects of treatment arm, time, and treatment-by-time interaction. The effect of interest is the treatment-by-time interaction, i.e, whether change in MMP-9 over time varies according to treatment arm.||||.661
91073179|NCT02294175|182032746|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.979||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA. The interaction effect is controlling for any potential main effects of treatment arm (SDT vs LDT) and time (days 0, 4, 8).|Repeated Measures ANOVA|||Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (RMANOVA) to test for effects of treatment arm, time, and treatment-by-time interaction. The effect of interest is the treatment-by-time interaction, i.e, whether change in IL6 over time varies according to treatment arm.||||.979
91073180|NCT02294175|182032747|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999|||||||Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z|||Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z test was used as a non-parametric test to compare rank scores between treatment arms (similar to Mann-Whitney, but potentially more powerful).||||.999
91073181|NCT02294175|182032748|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.415|||||||Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z|||Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z test was used as a non-parametric test to compare rank scores between treatment arms (similar to Mann-Whitney, but potentially more powerful).||||.415
91073182|NCT02294175|182032749|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.993|||||||Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z|||Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z test was used as a non-parametric test to compare rank scores between treatment arms (similar to Mann-Whitney, but potentially more powerful).||||.993
91073183|NCT02294175|182032750|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z|||Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z test was used as a non-parametric test to compare rank scores between treatment arms (similar to Mann-Whitney, but potentially more powerful).||||.990
91073184|NCT02548351|182032759|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.814||||0.1028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.635|1.043|||Log Rank|||||1.043|0.635|0.1028
91073185|NCT02548351|182032759|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.772||||0.0444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.994|||Log Rank|||||0.994|0.600|0.0444
91073186|NCT02548351|182032760|OTHER||Difference in percentages|7.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.6|10.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.6|3.6|<0.0001
91073187|NCT02548351|182032760|OTHER||Treatment difference|9.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.8|13.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||13.0|5.8|<0.0001
91073188|NCT02548351|182032761|OTHER||Treatment difference|6.7||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|10.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.4|3.0|0.0004
91073189|NCT02548351|182032761|OTHER||Treatment difference|9.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.2|12.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||12.8|5.2|<0.0001
91073190|NCT02805660|182032764|SUPERIORITY|An exact test for single proportion was performed to test null hypothesis (H0): ORR \<= 5% against alternative hypothesis (H1): ORR \> 5% for Cohorts 1, 3, and 4 and to test H0: ORR \<= 27% against H1: ORR \> 27% for Cohort 2.||||||0.537|||||||Exact Test|||||||0.537
91073191|NCT02805660|182032764|SUPERIORITY|An exact test for single proportion was performed to test null hypothesis (H0): ORR \<= 5% against alternative hypothesis (H1): ORR \> 5% for Cohorts 1, 3, and 4 and to test H0: ORR \<= 27% against H1: ORR \> 27% for Cohort 2.|||||>|0.999|||||||Exact Test|||||||>0.999
91073192|NCT02805660|182032764|SUPERIORITY|An exact test for single proportion was performed to test null hypothesis (H0): ORR \<= 5% against alternative hypothesis (H1): ORR \> 5% for Cohorts 1, 3, and 4 and to test H0: ORR \<= 27% against H1: ORR \> 27% for Cohort 2.||||||0.283|||||||Exact Test|||||||0.283
91073193|NCT02805660|182032764|SUPERIORITY|An exact test for single proportion was performed to test null hypothesis (H0): ORR \<= 5% against alternative hypothesis (H1): ORR \> 5% for Cohorts 1, 3, and 4 and to test H0: ORR \<= 27% against H1: ORR \> 27% for Cohort 2.||||||0.025|||||||Exact Test|||||||0.025
91073194|NCT02572076|182032775|OTHER|Pilot study- no sample size was calculated|number of subjects with adequate cleansi|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|66.0|100.0||||||patients had partial bowel preparation to mimic poor bowel cleansing before the colonoscopy procedure at baseline, MCS was used during the procedure to clean the colon.||100|66|
91073195|NCT00197002|182032776|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The two-sided standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in seropositivity rates \[Havrix+Prevnar Group minus Havrix Group\] was computed. The anti-HAV seropositivity rates in the Havrix+Prevnar Group were considered as non-inferior to the seropositivity rates in the Havrix Group, if the lower limit of the 95% CI was not lower (≥) than -5%.~The non-inferiority was concluded if both non-inferiority criteria (for seropositivity rates and GMCs) were met."|Difference in seropositivity rate|-1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.78|2.45||||||"Difference in seropositivity rates for anti-HAV:~To demonstrate the non-inferiority of Havrix® vaccine co-administered with Prevnar™ vaccine (Havrix+Prevnar Group), compared to Havrix® vaccine administered alone (Havrix Group), in terms of seropositivity rates and geometric mean concentrations (GMCs) for anti-HAV antibody, one month after Dose 2 of Havrix® vaccine (Month 7-10)."||2.45|-5.78|
91073196|NCT00197002|182032777|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The standardized two-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (Havrix+Prevnar Group divided by Havrix Group) was computed. The anti-HAV GMC in the Havrix+Prevnar Group was considered as non-inferior to the anti-HAV GMC in the Havrix Group if the lower limit of the 95% CI was not lower than (≥) 0.5.~The non-inferiority of the anti-HAV immune response in Havrix+Prevnar Group compared to Havrix Group was concluded if both non-inferiority criteria (for seropositivity rates and GMCs) were met."|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.31|||ANCOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of Havrix® vaccine co-administered with Prevnar™ vaccine (Havrix+Prevnar Group), compared to Havrix® vaccine administered alone (Havrix Group), in terms of seropositivity rates and geometric mean concentrations (GMCs) for anti-HAV antibody, one month after Dose 2 of Havrix® vaccine (Month 7-10).||1.31|0.63|
91073197|NCT02759055|182032795|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.003|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.998|1.008|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.008|0.998|<0.05
91073198|NCT01424514|182032805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.36||||||Placebo vs SB-705498 12 mg for 1 h in WM 0-60 TSS||0.36|-0.60|
91073199|NCT01424514|182032805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.51||||||Placebo vs SB-705498 12 mg for 24 h in WM 0-60 TSS||0.51|-0.45|
91073200|NCT01424514|182032805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.51||||||Placebo vs SB-705498 12 mg for 1 h in Maximum TSS||0.51|-0.58|
91073201|NCT01424514|182032805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.72||||||Placebo vs SB-705498 12 mg for 24 h in Maximum TSS||0.72|-0.51|
91073202|NCT01424514|182032807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.54||||||Placebo vs SB-705498 12 mg for WM 0-60 TSS||0.54|-0.30|
91073203|NCT01424514|182032807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.57||||||Placebo vs SB-705498 12 mg for Maximum TSS||0.57|-0.39|
91073204|NCT01424514|182032811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.08||||||Placebo vs SB-705498 12 mg for Day 1, 1 h in WM 0-60 sneezing||0.08|-0.14|
91073205|NCT01424514|182032811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.09||||||Placebo vs SB-705498 12 mg for Day 14, 1 h in WM 0-60 sneezing||0.09|-0.13|
91073206|NCT01424514|182032811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.11||||||Placebo vs SB-705498 12 mg for Day 14, 24 h in WM 0-60 sneezing||0.11|-0.20|
91073207|NCT01424514|182032811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.14||||||Placebo vs SB-705498 12 mg for Day 1, 1 h in Maximum sneezing||0.14|-0.28|
91073208|NCT01424514|182032811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.13||||||Placebo vs SB-705498 12 mg for Day 14, 1 h in Maximum sneezing||0.13|-0.15|
91073209|NCT01424514|182032811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.16||||||Placebo vs SB-705498 12 mg for Day 1, 24 h in Maximum sneezing||0.16|-0.20|
91073210|NCT01424514|182032812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.07||||||Placebo vs SB-705498 12 mg for Day 1, 2 h in AR||0.07|-0.03|
91073211|NCT01424514|182032812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|-0.02||||||Placebo vs SB-705498 12 mg for Day 14, 2 h in AR||-0.02|-0.13|
91073212|NCT01424514|182032812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.08||||||Placebo vs SB-705498 12 mg for Day 14, 25 h in AR||0.08|-0.04|
91073213|NCT01424514|182032813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.26||||||Placebo vs SB-705498 12 mg for Day 14 in AR||0.26|-0.36|
91073214|NCT01424514|182032814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.6||||||Placebo vs SB-705498 12 mg for Day 1, 1 h in WM 0-60 TOSS||0.60|-0.06|
91073215|NCT01424514|182032814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.53||||||Placebo vs SB-705498 12 mg for Day 14, 1 h in WM 0-60 TOSS||0.53|-0.32|
91073216|NCT01424514|182032814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.63||||||Placebo vs SB-705498 12 mg for Day 14, 24 h in WM 0-60 TOSS||0.63|-0.22|
91073217|NCT01424514|182032814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.68||||||Placebo vs SB-705498 12 mg for Day 1, 1 h in Maximum TOSS||0.68|-0.30|
91073218|NCT01424514|182032814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.86||||||Placebo vs SB-705498 12 mg for Day 14, 1 h in Maximum TOSS||0.86|-0.34|
91073219|NCT01424514|182032814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.73||||||Placebo vs SB-705498 12 mg for Day 14, 24 h in Maximum TOSS||0.73|-0.15|
91073220|NCT02653170|182032824|SUPERIORITY||difference-in-differences (DID) p-value|0.025||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value represents the test of the interaction term for a difference-in-differences (DID) model \[i.e., 2 degree freedom test of the interaction between intervention group\*time\]|Mixed Models Analysis|PROC MIXED MODEL including main effects of intervention group (UC, SWSCM, SWSCM+VSSP website) and time (7-day and 90-day) plus the interaction term|The DID estimates contrasting the 90-day minus 7-day differences in each group are as follows: SWSCM vs Usual Care = 0.970 (p=0.335), SWSCM+VSSP vs Usual Care = 3.370 (p\<0.001), SWSCM+VSSP vs SWSCM = 2.400 (p=0.016)|Data were analyzed as the change over time between treatment groups (i.e., 90-day least square mean minus 7-day least square mean) using a difference-in-differences (DID) analysis that involves a group \* time interaction term.||||0.025
91077887|NCT02913105|182041136|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.88||||0.1803|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.75|1.03|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Triglycerides: Day 84||1.03|0.75|0.1803
91073221|NCT02653170|182032825|SUPERIORITY||difference-in-differences (DID) p-value|0.562||||0.562|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value represents the test of the interaction term for a difference-in-differences (DID) model \[i.e., 2 degree freedom test of the interaction between intervention group\*time\]|Mixed Models Analysis|PROC MIXED MODEL including main effects of intervention group (UC, SWSCM, SWSCM+VSSP website) and time (7-day and 90-day) plus the interaction term|The DID estimates contrasting the 90-day minus 7-day differences in each group are as follows: SWSCM vs Usual Care = -1.064 (p=0.422), SWSCM+VSSP vs Usual Care = 0.258 (p=0.844), SWSCM+VSSP vs SWSCM = 1.322 (p=0.309)|Data were analyzed as the change over time between treatment groups (i.e., 90-day least square mean minus 7-day least square mean) using a difference-in-differences (DID) analysis that involves a group \* time interaction term.||||0.562
91073222|NCT02653170|182032826|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.789||||||P-value represents the test of the interaction term for a difference-in-differences (DID) model \[i.e., 2 degree freedom test of the interaction between intervention group\*time\]|Mixed Models Analysis|||Data were analyzed as the change over time between treatment groups (i.e., 90-day least square mean minus 7-day least square mean) using a difference-in-differences (DID) analysis that involves a group \* time interaction term.||||0.789
91073223|NCT02653170|182032827|SUPERIORITY||difference-in-differences (DID) p-value|0.042||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value represents the test of the interaction term for a difference-in-differences (DID) model \[i.e., 2 degree freedom test of the interaction between intervention group\*time\]|Mixed Models Analysis||The DID estimates contrasting the 90-day minus 7-day differences in each group are as follows: SWSCM vs Usual Care = -1.651 (p=0.558), SWSCM+VSSP vs Usual Care = 5.023 (p=0.073), SWSCM+VSSP vs SWSCM = 6.674 (p=0.016)|Data were analyzed as the change over time between treatment groups (i.e., 90-day least square mean minus 7-day least square mean) using a difference-in-differences (DID) analysis that involves a group \* time interaction term.||||0.042
91073224|NCT02653170|182032828|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.993||||||P-value represents the test of the interaction term for a difference-in-differences (DID) model \[i.e., 2 degree freedom test of the interaction between intervention group\*time\]|Mixed Models Analysis|||Data were analyzed as the change over time between treatment groups (i.e., 90-day least square mean minus 7-day least square mean) using a difference-in-differences (DID) analysis that involves a group \* time interaction term.||||0.993
91073225|NCT05027048|182032850|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|211.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.0|410.0||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|inverse Gaussian distribution and log li|Inverse Gaussian distribution and log link fit to estimate the effect size and 95% CIs|Inverse gaussian regression with a log link was used to calculate the mean reduction in blood loss in the calcium group relative to placebo group.|||410|-33|<0.05
91073226|NCT05027048|182032851|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.03|||Regression (poisson with robust SE)|||||1.03|0.48|
91073227|NCT05027048|182032852|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.23|||Poisson regression with robust SE|||||1.23|0.46|
91073228|NCT05027048|182032853|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.56||||||||1.56|0.2|
91073229|NCT05027048|182032854|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|0.2|||Regression, Linear|Data were log transformed to approximate a normal distribution prior to linear regression.||||0.2|-3.6|
91073230|NCT05027048|182032856|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.415|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.415
91073231|NCT05027048|182032857|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.566|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.566
91073232|NCT05027048|182032859|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.348|||||||ANOVA|||Repeated measures ANOVA used to analyze differences between groups.||||0.348
91073233|NCT05027048|182032860|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA.||Repeated measures ANOVA used to assess for difference between groups in the % change from baseline heart rate.||||0.011
91073234|NCT05027048|182032862|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.25
91073235|NCT05027048|182032863|OTHER||||||||||||||||||"Note: a two-compartment pharmacokinetic model was generated in NONMEM using 6 venous blood ionized calcium measurements per participant at random times. The change in ionized calcium was defined as a measured value minus the measured baseline for the patient.~Once the two-compartment pharmacokinetic model was generated, NONMEM was used to generate a predicted ionized calcium concentration at 10 minutes (Tmax) for each participant to generate mean and 95% confidence interval."|||
91073236|NCT05027048|182032865|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|356.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|159.0|515.0|||Inverse Gaussian regression, log link||Reduction in blood loss was calculated by inverse Gaussian regression with a log link as detailed in the description of statistical methods for the primary outcome.|||515|159|<0.05
91073237|NCT03051516|182032884|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|||||||Chi-squared|||This p-value compares HPV16 persistence by study arm.||||0.89
91073238|NCT03051516|182032884|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||Chi-squared|||This p-value compares HPV18/45 persistence by study arm.||||0.65
91073239|NCT03051516|182032884|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.056|||||||Chi-squared|||This p-value compares HPV31/33/52/58 persistence by study arm.||||0.056
91073240|NCT03051516|182032884|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||Chi-squared|||This p-value compares HPV35/39/51/56/59 persistence by study arm.||||0.38
91073241|NCT03051516|182032884|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33||||||This p-value compares overall HPV persistence and is not specific to HPV genotype.|Chi-squared|||||||0.33
91073242|NCT03051516|182032885|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.54
91073243|NCT03051516|182032886|OTHER|Descriptive analysis||||||0.135|||||||Chi-squared|||This comparison is specific to the incidence of fever or chills.||||0.135
91073244|NCT03051516|182032886|OTHER|Descriptive analysis||||||0.64|||||||Chi-squared|||This comparison is specific to the incidence of headache.||||0.640
91073245|NCT03051516|182032886|OTHER|Descriptive analysis||||||0.838|||||||Chi-squared|||This comparison is specific to the incidence of fatigue.||||0.838
91073246|NCT03051516|182032886|OTHER|Descriptive analysis||||||0.917|||||||Chi-squared|||This comparison is specific to the incidence of muscle aches.||||0.917
91073247|NCT03051516|182032886|OTHER|Descriptive analysis||||||0.005|||||||Chi-squared|||This comparison is specific to the incidence of pain at injection site.||||0.005
91073248|NCT03051516|182032886|OTHER|Descriptive analysis||||||0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||This comparison is specific to the incidence of tenderness at injection site.||||0.001
91073249|NCT03051516|182032886|OTHER|Descriptive analysis||||||0.004|||||||Chi-squared|||This comparison is specific to the incidence of swelling at injection site.||||0.004
91073250|NCT03051516|182032886|OTHER|Descriptive analysis||||||0.133|||||||Chi-squared|||This comparison is specific to the incidence of medical attention/medication required.||||0.133
91073251|NCT03051516|182032887|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93|||||||Log Rank|||This p-value compares HSIL recurrence and presence of HPV16, in Arm I (Vaccine)||||0.93
91073252|NCT03051516|182032887|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||Log Rank|||This p-value compares HSIL recurrence and presence of HPV18, in Arm I (Vaccine)||||0.77
91073253|NCT03051516|182032887|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||Log Rank|||This p-value compares HSIL recurrence and presence of HPV31, in Arm I (Vaccine)||||0.57
91073254|NCT03051516|182032887|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||Log Rank|||This p-value compares HSIL recurrence and presence of HPV33, in Arm I (Vaccine)||||0.73
91073255|NCT03051516|182032887|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.998|||||||Log Rank|||This p-value compares HSIL recurrence and presence of HPV45, in Arm I (Vaccine)||||0.998
91073256|NCT03051516|182032887|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93|||||||Log Rank|||This p-value compares HSIL recurrence and presence of HPV52, in Arm I (Vaccine)||||0.93
91073257|NCT03051516|182032887|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Log Rank|||This p-value compares HSIL recurrence and presence of HPV58, in Arm I (Vaccine)||||0.95
91073258|NCT03051516|182032887|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91|||||||Log Rank|||This p-value compares HSIL recurrence and presence of any HPV type, in Arm I (Vaccine)||||0.91
91073259|NCT03051516|182032887|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||Log Rank|||This p-value compares HSIL recurrence and presence of HPV16, in Arm II (Placebo)||||0.22
91073260|NCT03051516|182032887|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||Log Rank|||This p-value compares HSIL recurrence and presence of HPV18, in Arm II (Placebo)||||0.27
91073261|NCT03051516|182032887|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||Log Rank|||This p-value compares HSIL recurrence and presence of HPV31, in Arm II (Placebo)||||0.72
91073262|NCT03051516|182032887|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||Log Rank|||This p-value compares HSIL recurrence and presence of HPV33, in Arm II (Placebo)||||0.71
91073263|NCT03051516|182032887|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Log Rank|||This p-value compares HSIL recurrence and presence of HPV45, in Arm II (Placebo)||||0.11
91073264|NCT03051516|182032887|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||Log Rank|||This p-value compares HSIL recurrence and presence of HPV52, in Arm II (Placebo)||||0.58
91073265|NCT03051516|182032887|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||Log Rank|||This p-value compares HSIL recurrence and presence of HPV58, in Arm II (Placebo)||||0.81
91073266|NCT03051516|182032887|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||Log Rank|||This p-value compares HSIL recurrence and presence of any HPV type, in Arm II (Placebo)||||0.73
91073267|NCT01473394|182032890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-5.117|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.886|-3.347|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||-3.347|-6.886|<0.00001
91073268|NCT01473394|182032891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.622|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.845|-0.399|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||-0.399|-0.845|<0.00001
91073269|NCT01473394|182032892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.2||||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|17.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The Mean Difference (Final Values), as well as the 95% Confidence Interval, are in units of percentage.|||17.4|3.0|0.0047
91073270|NCT05139303|182032935|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
91073271|NCT03875482|182032956|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|59.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.4|69.6|||Chi-squared|||The variable was analyzed using the Chi-square test. Both null hypotheses corresponding to the co-primary endpoints must be rejected simultaneously under a two-sided significance level of 0.05.||69.6|48.4|<0.001
91073272|NCT03875482|182032957|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|68.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.2|79.7|||Chi-squared|||The variable was analyzed using the Chi-square test. Both null hypotheses corresponding to the co-primary endpoints must be rejected simultaneously under a two-sided significance level of 0.05.||79.7|57.2|<0.001
91073273|NCT03875482|182032958|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|36.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.2|46.2|||Chi-squared|||The ranked secondary efficacy endpoints at Week 16 were to be tested between the risankizumab and placebo treatment groups among the ITT Population in a hierarchical order only if the null hypotheses for both primary endpoints had been rejected.||46.2|26.2|<0.001
91073274|NCT03875482|182032959|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|37.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.1|47.2|||Chi-squared|||The ranked secondary efficacy endpoints at Week 16 were to be tested between the risankizumab and placebo treatment groups among the ITT Population in a hierarchical order only if the null hypotheses for both primary endpoints and for the first secondary endpoint had been rejected.||47.2|27.1|<0.001
91073275|NCT03875482|182032960|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-36.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.956|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.936|-26.346|||Mixed-effect Model Repeat Measurements||Risankizumab - placebo|"Risankizumab vs placebo at Week 4~Mixed-effect Model Repeat Measurements (MMRM): The repeated measures analysis was conducted using a mixed model including the baseline value and observed measurements at all post-baseline visits. The mixed model included the categorical fixed effects of treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as covariates."||-26.346|-45.936|<0.001
91073276|NCT03875482|182032960|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-59.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.326|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.501|-49.439|||Mixed-effect Model Repeat Measurements||Risankizumab - placebo|"Risankizumab vs placebo at Week 16~Mixed-effect Model Repeat Measurements (MMRM): The repeated measures analysis was conducted using a mixed model including the baseline value and observed measurements at all post-baseline visits. The mixed model included the categorical fixed effects of treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as covariates."||-49.439|-70.501|<0.001
91073277|NCT04777201|182032964|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.7702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|1.54|||Paired t-test||Difference is the result of study eye minus fellow eye.|No formal hypothesis testing was planned for this study. The paired t-tests were for reference purposes and thus not considered formal. The test was 2-sided, with the null hypothesis of no difference in percent change from baseline between the study eye and fellow eye in each patient.||1.54|-1.14|0.7702
91073278|NCT04777201|182032965|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27||||0.6305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|1.38|||Paired t-test||Difference is the result of study eye minus fellow eye.|No formal hypothesis testing was planned for this study. The paired t-tests were for reference purposes and thus not considered formal. The test was 2-sided, with the null hypothesis of no difference in percent change from baseline between the study eye and fellow eye in each patient.||1.38|-0.84|0.6305
91073279|NCT00507819|182032975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.73
91073280|NCT00507819|182032976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.37
91073281|NCT00507819|182032977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.05
91073282|NCT00507819|182032978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.04
91073283|NCT02357706|182032987|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|"We are testing the Hypothesis that there is a significant difference between CPAP A and CPAP B~The Null Hypothesis is H0 = One CPAP is inferior to the other CPAP The Alternate Hypothesis is H1 = There is no significant difference between the CPAPs"|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.24||||0.537|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||"Comparison of AHI/ oxygen desaturation index (ODI) of Device A compared with Device B.~Efficacy is defined as a residual AHI and ODI on each night of the trial. PSG scored AHI and ODI will be collected on both trial nights (excluding the ramp period); and compared using the Paired T test"||||0.537
91073284|NCT02357706|182032987|NON_INFERIORITY|"We are testing the Hypothesis that there is a significant difference between CPAP A and CPAP B~The Null Hypothesis is H0 = One CPAP is inferior to the other CPAP The Alternate Hypothesis is H1 = There is no significant difference between the CPAPs~The expected difference mu is 0 events/hr The Non-Inferiority Margin delta is 0.75 events/hr (A difference of 1 event per hour is seen as clinically significant. 0.75 has been chosen to ensure any AHI change is seen)."|Mean Difference (Net)|1.24||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.05
91073285|NCT02357706|182032988|NON_INFERIORITY|"We are testing the Hypothesis that there is a significant difference between CPAP A and CPAP B~The Null Hypothesis is H0 = One CPAP is inferior to the other CPAP The Alternate Hypothesis is H1 = There is no significant difference between the CPAPs~The expected difference mu is 0 events/hr The Non-Inferiority Margin delta is 0.75 events/hr (A difference of 1 event per hour is seen as clinically significant. 0.75 has been chosen to ensure any AHI change is seen)."|Mean Difference (Net)|2.69||||0.205|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.205
91073286|NCT02357706|182032988|NON_INFERIORITY|"We are testing the Hypothesis that there is a significant difference between CPAP A and CPAP B~The Null Hypothesis is H0 = One CPAP is inferior to the other CPAP The Alternate Hypothesis is H1 = There is no significant difference between the CPAPs~The expected difference mu is 0 events/hr The Non-Inferiority Margin delta is 0.75 events/hr (A difference of 1 event per hour is seen as clinically significant. 0.75 has been chosen to ensure any AHI change is seen)."|Mean Difference (Net)|2.69||||0.134|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.134
91073287|NCT02275780|182033005|NON_INFERIORITY|Doravirine is concluded to be non-inferior to darunavir + ritonavir if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference in percent response is above -10 percentage points.|Treatment Difference|3.913|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|9.415|||||Stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method with the difference weighted by the harmonic mean of sample size per arm for each stratum.|||9.415|-1.590|
91073288|NCT02275780|182033006|NON_INFERIORITY|Doravirine is concluded to be non-inferior to darunavir + ritonavir if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference in percent response is above -10 percentage points.|Treatment Difference|7.082|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.508|13.656|||||Stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method with the difference weighted by the harmonic mean of sample size per arm for each stratum.|||13.656|0.508|
91073289|NCT02275780|182033007|OTHER||Mean treatment difference|7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.8|35.0|||||Stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method with the difference weighted by the harmonic mean of sample size per arm for each stratum.|||35.0|-20.8|
91073290|NCT02275780|182033008|OTHER||Mean treatment difference|17.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|49.3|||||Stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method with the difference weighted by the harmonic mean of sample size per arm for each stratum.|||49.3|-14.5|
91073291|NCT02275780|182033009|OTHER||Treatment Difference (mg/dL)|-14.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.15|-11.06|||ANCOVA|Terms for Baseline lipid level and treatment group||||-11.06|-18.15|<0.0001
91073292|NCT02275780|182033010|OTHER||Treatment Difference (mg/dL)|-19.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.33|-15.35|||ANCOVA|Terms for Baseline lipid level and treatment group||||-15.35|-23.33|<0.0001
91073293|NCT02275780|182033019|OTHER||Treatment Difference|4.169|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.404|9.743|||||Stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method with the difference weighted by the harmonic mean of sample size per arm for each stratum.|||9.743|-1.404|
91073294|NCT02275780|182033020|OTHER||Treatment Difference|7.606|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|14.232|||||Stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method with the difference weighted by the harmonic mean of sample size per arm for each stratum.|||14.232|0.980|
91073295|NCT03960866|182033021|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12||||0.89|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.89
91073296|NCT03369067|182033025|OTHER|||||||0.01||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.010
91073297|NCT03369067|182033025|OTHER|||||||0.089||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.089
91073298|NCT03369067|182033025|OTHER|||||||0.024||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.024
91073299|NCT03369067|182033026|OTHER|||||||0.095||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.095
91073300|NCT03369067|182033026|OTHER|||||||0.104||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.104
91073301|NCT03369067|182033026|OTHER|||||||0.042||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.042
91073302|NCT03369067|182033027|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91073303|NCT03369067|182033027|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
91073304|NCT03369067|182033027|OTHER|||||||0.065||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.065
91073305|NCT03369067|182033028|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
91073306|NCT03369067|182033028|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
91073307|NCT03369067|182033028|OTHER|||||||0.063||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.063
91073308|NCT03369067|182033029|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
91073309|NCT03369067|182033029|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
91073310|NCT03369067|182033029|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
91073311|NCT03369067|182033030|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
91073312|NCT03369067|182033030|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
91073313|NCT03369067|182033030|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
91073314|NCT03369067|182033031|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
91073315|NCT03369067|182033031|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
91073316|NCT03369067|182033031|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
91073317|NCT03369067|182033032|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
91073318|NCT03369067|182033032|OTHER|||||||0.062||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.062
91073319|NCT03369067|182033032|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
91073320|NCT03369067|182033033|OTHER|||||||0.015||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.015
91073321|NCT03369067|182033033|OTHER|||||||0.199||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.199
91073322|NCT03369067|182033033|OTHER|||||||0.025||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.025
91073323|NCT03369067|182033034|OTHER|||||||0.059||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.059
91073324|NCT03369067|182033034|OTHER|||||||0.064||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.064
91073325|NCT03369067|182033034|OTHER|||||||0.017||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.017
91073326|NCT03369067|182033035|OTHER|||||||0.034||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.034
91073327|NCT03369067|182033035|OTHER|||||||0.074||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.074
91073328|NCT03369067|182033035|OTHER|||||||0.034||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.034
91073329|NCT03369067|182033036|OTHER|||||||0.023||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.023
91073330|NCT03369067|182033036|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
91073331|NCT03369067|182033036|OTHER|||||||0.016||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.016
91073332|NCT03369067|182033037|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
91073333|NCT03369067|182033037|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
91073334|NCT03369067|182033037|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
91073335|NCT03369067|182033038|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
91073336|NCT03369067|182033038|OTHER|||||||0.081||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.081
91073337|NCT03369067|182033038|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
91073338|NCT03369067|182033039|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
91073339|NCT03369067|182033039|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
91073340|NCT03369067|182033039|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
91073341|NCT03369067|182033040|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
91073342|NCT03369067|182033040|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
91073343|NCT03369067|182033040|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
91073344|NCT03369067|182033041|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
91073345|NCT03369067|182033041|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
91073346|NCT03369067|182033041|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
91073347|NCT03369067|182033042|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
91073348|NCT03369067|182033042|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
91073349|NCT03369067|182033042|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
91073350|NCT03369067|182033043|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
91073351|NCT03369067|182033043|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
91073352|NCT03369067|182033043|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
91073353|NCT03369067|182033044|OTHER|||||||0.124||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.124
91073354|NCT03369067|182033044|OTHER|||||||0.187||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.187
91073355|NCT03369067|182033044|OTHER|||||||0.04||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.040
91073356|NCT03369067|182033045|OTHER|||||||0.108||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.108
91073357|NCT03369067|182033045|OTHER|||||||0.053||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.053
91073358|NCT03369067|182033045|OTHER|||||||0.01||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.010
91073359|NCT03369067|182033046|OTHER|||||||0.08||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.080
91073360|NCT03369067|182033046|OTHER|||||||0.038||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.038
91073361|NCT03369067|182033046|OTHER|||||||0.016||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.016
91073362|NCT03369067|182033047|OTHER|||||||0.111||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.111
91073363|NCT03369067|182033047|OTHER|||||||0.13||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.130
91073364|NCT03369067|182033047|OTHER|||||||0.017||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.017
91073365|NCT03369067|182033048|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
91073366|NCT03369067|182033048|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
91073367|NCT03369067|182033048|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
91073368|NCT03369067|182033049|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
91073369|NCT03369067|182033049|OTHER|||||||0.044||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.044
91073370|NCT03369067|182033049|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
91073371|NCT03369067|182033050|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
91073372|NCT03369067|182033050|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
91073373|NCT03369067|182033050|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
91073374|NCT03369067|182033051|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
91073375|NCT03369067|182033051|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
91073376|NCT03369067|182033051|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
91073377|NCT03369067|182033052|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
91073378|NCT03369067|182033052|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
91073379|NCT03369067|182033052|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
91073380|NCT03369067|182033053|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
91073381|NCT03369067|182033053|OTHER|||||||0.141||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.141
91073382|NCT03369067|182033053|OTHER|||||||0.149||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.149
91073383|NCT03369067|182033054|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
91073384|NCT03369067|182033054|OTHER|||||||0.094||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.094
91073385|NCT03369067|182033054|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
91073386|NCT03369067|182033055|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91073387|NCT03369067|182033055|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
91073388|NCT03369067|182033055|OTHER|||||||0.033||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.033
91073389|NCT03369067|182033056|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.001
91073390|NCT03369067|182033056|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
91073391|NCT03369067|182033056|OTHER|||||||0.111||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.111
91073392|NCT03369067|182033057|OTHER|||||||0.118||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.118
91073393|NCT03369067|182033057|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
91073394|NCT03369067|182033057|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
91073395|NCT03369067|182033058|OTHER|||||||0.116||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.116
91073396|NCT03369067|182033058|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
91073397|NCT03369067|182033058|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
91073398|NCT03369067|182033059|OTHER|||||||0.005||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.005
91073399|NCT03369067|182033059|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
91073400|NCT03369067|182033059|OTHER|||||||0.193||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.193
91073401|NCT03369067|182033060|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
91073402|NCT03369067|182033060|OTHER|||||||0.106||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.106
91073403|NCT03369067|182033060|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
91073404|NCT03369067|182033061|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
91073405|NCT03369067|182033061|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
91073406|NCT03369067|182033061|OTHER|||||||0.157||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.157
91073407|NCT03369067|182033062|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
91073408|NCT03369067|182033062|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
91073409|NCT03369067|182033062|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
91073410|NCT03369067|182033063|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
91073411|NCT03369067|182033063|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
91073412|NCT03369067|182033063|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
91073413|NCT03369067|182033064|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
91073414|NCT03369067|182033064|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
91073415|NCT03369067|182033064|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
91073416|NCT03369067|182033065|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
91073417|NCT03369067|182033065|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
91073418|NCT03369067|182033065|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
91073419|NCT03369067|182033066|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
91073420|NCT03369067|182033066|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
91073421|NCT03369067|182033066|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
91073422|NCT03369067|182033067|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
91073423|NCT03369067|182033067|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
91073424|NCT03369067|182033067|OTHER|||||||0.073||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.073
91073425|NCT03369067|182033068|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
91073426|NCT03369067|182033068|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
90827684|NCT05736874|181530365|SUPERIORITY|Statistical analysis was a Bayesian proportional hazards regression model with covariate adjustment and weakly informative priors.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|3.5|||||The interval is a highest-density credible interval. Adjustment variables: randomization, age, sex, duration of symptoms prior to study drug, calendar time, vaccination status, geographic region, call center indicator, and baseline symptom severity.|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.||3.5|0.8|
91073427|NCT03369067|182033068|OTHER|||||||0.064||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.064
91073428|NCT03369067|182033069|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
91073429|NCT03369067|182033069|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
91073430|NCT03369067|182033069|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
91073431|NCT03369067|182033070|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
91073432|NCT03369067|182033070|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
91073433|NCT03369067|182033070|OTHER|||||||0.104||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.104
91073434|NCT03369067|182033071|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
91073435|NCT03369067|182033071|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
91073436|NCT03369067|182033071|OTHER|||||||0.198||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.198
91073437|NCT03369067|182033072|OTHER|||||||0.105||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.105
91073438|NCT03369067|182033072|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.001
91073439|NCT03369067|182033072|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
91073440|NCT03369067|182033073|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
91073441|NCT03369067|182033073|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
91073442|NCT03369067|182033073|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
91073443|NCT05129475|182033087|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|120.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|109.3|133.74|||||Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|||133.74|109.30|
91073444|NCT05129475|182033088|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|119.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|108.75|131.68|||||Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|||131.68|108.75|
91073445|NCT05129475|182033089|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|161.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|139.05|186.44|||||Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|||186.44|139.05|
91073446|NCT01899742|182033098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.088|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.045|0.131|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.131|0.045|<0.001
91073447|NCT01899742|182033099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.073||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.024|0.122|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.122|0.024|0.004
91073448|NCT00135798|182033100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0477||95.0||||One-sided test|Fisher Exact|||ITT analysis of pTVR: 0/13 Standard care vs. 11/46 Combined LADR-treated groups||||0.0477
91073449|NCT00135798|182033100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.609||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||ITT analysis of LADR-treated: 5/24 Genotypes 1,4,6 vs 6/22 Genotypes 2,3||||0.6090
91073450|NCT00135798|182033101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2014||95.0||||One-sided test|Fisher Exact|||ITT analysis of CVR: 1/16 Standard care vs. 12/63 Combined LADR-treated groups||||0.2014
91073451|NCT00135798|182033101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9513||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||ITT analysis of LADR-treated: 6/31 Genotypes 1,4,6 vs 6/32 Genotypes 2,3||||0.9513
91073452|NCT00135798|182033102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0274||95.0||||One-sided test|Fisher Exact|||PP analysis of pTVR: 0/13 Standard care vs. 11/44 Combined LADR-treated groups||||0.0274
91073453|NCT00135798|182033102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6011||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||PP analysis of LADR-treated: 5/23 G1,4,6 vs 6/21 G2,3||||0.6011
91073454|NCT00135798|182033103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0153||95.0||||One-sided test|Fisher Exact|||PP analysis of CVR: 0/20 Standard care vs. 13/59 Combined LADR-treated groups||||0.0153
91073455|NCT00135798|182033103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8065||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||PP analysis of LADR-treated: 7/30 G1,4,6 vs 6/29 G2,3||||0.8065
91073456|NCT01663779|182033215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.0|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|7.0|||Chi-squared|||||7|3|<0.01
91073457|NCT01041976|182033227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91073458|NCT01041976|182033228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
91073459|NCT00574249|182033245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.086||||||Level of significance 5%; no adjustment for multiple comparisons necessary.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Two-sided CMH test stratified by country at the alpha level 0.05. Centers were pooled by country (Sweden and Finland pooled due to few participants).||Comparison of the proportion of participants in the adalimumab + calcipotriol/betamethasone group vs. the adalimumab + placebo group.||||0.086
91073460|NCT00574249|182033246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.565||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.565
91073461|NCT00574249|182033247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.002
91073462|NCT00574249|182033248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.003
91073463|NCT00574249|182033249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.004
91073464|NCT00574249|182033250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.011
91073465|NCT00574249|182033251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.74||||0.204||95.0|-5.3|24.78|||ANOVA|One-way ANOVA. For confidence interval and difference estimate, adalimumab + calcipotriol/betamethasone minus adalimumab + placebo was used.||||24.78|-5.30|0.204
91073466|NCT00574249|182033252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-17.55||||0.272||95.0|-48.92|13.82|||ANOVA|One-way ANOVA. Confidence interval and difference estimated from adalimumab + calcipotriol/betamethasone minus adalimumab + placebo.||||13.82|-48.92|0.272
91073467|NCT00574249|182033253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.413||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.413
91073468|NCT00574249|182033254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
91073469|NCT00574249|182033255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.028
91073470|NCT00574249|182033256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.228||95.0|||||ANOVA|One-way ANOVA.||||||0.228
91073471|NCT00574249|182033257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|One-way ANOVA.||||||< 0.001
91073472|NCT00574249|182033258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|One-way ANOVA.||||||0.001
91073473|NCT00574249|182033259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.764||95.0|||||ANOVA|One-way ANOVA.||||||0.764
91073474|NCT00574249|182033260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.437||95.0|||||ANOVA|One-way ANOVA.||||||0.437
91073475|NCT00574249|182033261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74||95.0|||||ANOVA|One-way ANOVA.||||||0.740
91073476|NCT00574249|182033262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.634||95.0|||||ANOVA|One-way ANOVA.||||||0.634
91073477|NCT01542034|182033263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|3.702|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.808|4.88|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method stratified by pooled study center.|A risk ratio greater than 1 favors deoxycholic acid injection treatment, and between 0 and 1 favors placebo.|The primary analysis was satisfied if both null hypotheses (there is no treatment difference in 1-grade or 2-grade response rate) were rejected in favor of the two-tailed alternative at the 0.05 level of significance for both primary efficacy endpoints, and the response rates were higher for the deoxycholic acid injection treatment group than the placebo group. Because both hypotheses must be rejected, the type I error was preserved when testing the primary endpoints.||4.880|2.808|<0.001
91073478|NCT01542034|182033264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH method stratified by pooled study center.||The primary analysis was satisfied if both null hypotheses (there is no treatment difference in 1-grade or 2-grade response rate) were rejected in favor of the two-tailed alternative at the 0.05 level of significance for both primary efficacy endpoints, and the response rates were higher for the deoxycholic acid injection treatment group than the placebo group. Because both hypotheses must be rejected, the type I error was preserved when testing the primary endpoints.||||<0.001
91073479|NCT01542034|182033265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|8.541|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.62|20.148|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH method stratified by pooled study center|A risk ratio greater than 1 favors deoxycholic acid injection treatment, and between 0 and 1 favors placebo.|If both primary endpoints were statistically significant, testing continued to the 2 secondary endpoints using the Bonferroni-Holm method. The smaller of the 2 p-values for the treatment difference was tested at the 0.025 level. If significant, testing proceeded for the remaining secondary endpoint at the 0.05 level. If the smaller p-value was \> 0.025, the null hypothesis for the associated variable would not be rejected, and testing of the second endpoint would not proceed.||20.148|3.620|<0.001
91073480|NCT01542034|182033266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model included treatment and Baseline PR-SMFIS total scale score.||If both primary endpoints were statistically significant, testing continued to the 2 secondary endpoints using the Bonferroni-Holm method. The smaller of the 2 p-values for the treatment difference was tested at the 0.025 level. If significant, testing proceeded for the remaining secondary endpoint at the 0.05 level. If the smaller p-value was \> 0.025, the null hypothesis for the associated variable would not be rejected, and testing of the second endpoint would not proceed.||||<0.001
91073481|NCT02612610|182033267|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.25||||0.0971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.05|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||Estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using a mixed effect repeated measures (MMRM) model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value (on log scale) as a covariate.||0.05|-0.54|0.0971
91073482|NCT02612610|182033267|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.25||||0.0928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.04|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||Estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value (on log scale) as a covariate.||0.04|-0.54|0.0928
91073483|NCT02612610|182033267|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.46||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.16|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||Estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value (on log scale) as a covariate.||-0.16|-0.76|0.0027
91073484|NCT02612610|182033268|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.19||||0.1914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.09|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 28 24-hour Cough Frequency: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 28 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value (on log scale) as a covariate."||0.09|-0.47|0.1914
91073485|NCT02612610|182033268|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.05||||0.7099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.23|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 28 24-hour Cough Frequency: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 28 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value (on log scale) as a covariate."||0.23|-0.33|0.7099
91073486|NCT02612610|182033268|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.52||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.24|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 28 24-hour Cough Frequency: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 28 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value (on log scale) as a covariate."||-0.24|-0.80|0.0003
91073487|NCT02612610|182033269|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.0099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.1|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 56 24-hour Cough Frequency: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 56 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value (on log scale) as a covariate."||-0.10|-0.71|0.0099
91073488|NCT02612610|182033269|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.28||||0.0695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.02|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 56 24-hour Cough Frequency: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 56 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value (on log scale) as a covariate."||0.02|-0.58|0.0695
91073489|NCT02612610|182033269|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.62||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|-0.31|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 56 24-hour Cough Frequency: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 56 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value (on log scale) as a covariate."||-0.31|-0.93|0.0001
91073490|NCT02612610|182033270|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.24||||0.0991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.04|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 84 24-hour Cough Frequency: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 84 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value (on log scale) as a covariate."||0.04|-0.52|0.0991
91073491|NCT02612610|182033270|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.25||||0.0811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.03|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 84 24-hour Cough Frequency: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 84 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value (on log scale) as a covariate."||0.03|-0.53|0.0811
91073492|NCT02612610|182033270|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.47||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.19|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 84 24-hour Cough Frequency: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 84 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value (on log scale) as a covariate."||-0.19|-0.76|0.0014
91073493|NCT02612610|182033271|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.21||||0.1468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.07|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 28 Awake Cough Frequency: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 28 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value (on log scale) as a covariate. ."||0.07|-0.50|0.1468
91073494|NCT02612610|182033271|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.08||||0.5874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.2|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 28 Awake Cough Frequency: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 28 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value (on log scale) as a covariate."||0.20|-0.36|0.5874
91073495|NCT02612610|182033271|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.49||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.21|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 28 24-hour Cough Frequency: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 28 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value (on log scale) as a covariate."||-0.21|-0.78|0.0008
91073496|NCT02612610|182033272|OTHER||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|-0.39||||0.0177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.07|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 56 Awake Cough Frequency: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 56 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value (on log scale) as a covariate."||-0.07|-0.70|0.0177
91073497|NCT02612610|182033272|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.32||||0.0498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.0|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 56 Awake Cough Frequency: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 56 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value (on log scale) as a covariate."||-0.00|-0.63|0.0498
91073498|NCT02612610|182033272|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.59||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|-0.27|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 56 Awake Cough Frequency: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 56 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value (on log scale) as a covariate."||-0.27|-0.92|0.0004
91073499|NCT02612610|182033274|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.4||||0.1318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|1.9|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 28 Cough Severity VAS: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 28 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||1.9|-14.8|0.1318
91073500|NCT02612610|182033274|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.9||||0.4917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|5.4|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 28 Cough Severity VAS: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 28 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||5.4|-11.3|0.4917
91073501|NCT02612610|182033274|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-9.8||||0.0228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.2|-1.4|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 28 Cough Severity VAS: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 28 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||-1.4|-18.2|0.0228
91073502|NCT02612610|182033275|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.6||||0.554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|6.2|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 56 Cough Severity VAS: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 56 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||6.2|-11.5|0.5540
91073503|NCT02612610|182033275|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.2||||0.4702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|5.6|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 56 Cough Severity VAS: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 56 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||5.6|-12.0|0.4702
91073504|NCT02612610|182033275|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-10.7||||0.0197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.8|-1.7|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 56 Cough Severity VAS: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 56 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||-1.7|-19.8|0.0197
91073505|NCT02612610|182033276|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.4||||0.302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|4.0|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 84 Cough Severity VAS: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 84 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||4.0|-12.9|0.3020
91073506|NCT02612610|182033276|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.4||||0.1365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|2.0|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 84 Cough Severity VAS: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 84 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||2.0|-14.8|0.1365
91073507|NCT02612610|182033276|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-11.2||||0.0108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|-2.6|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 84 Cough Severity VAS: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 84 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||-2.6|-19.7|0.0108
91073508|NCT02612610|182033277|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.0||||0.3509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|4.4|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 85/Early Termination Cough Severity VAS: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 85/Early Termination estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||4.4|-12.3|0.3509
91073509|NCT02612610|182033277|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-8.2||||0.0519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|0.1|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 85/Early Termination Cough Severity VAS: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 85/Early Termination estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.1|-16.6|0.0519
91073510|NCT02612610|182033277|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-15.9||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.3|-7.5|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 85/Early Termination Cough Severity VAS: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 85/Early Termination estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||-7.5|-24.3|0.0003
91073511|NCT02612610|182033278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1387|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 28: ≥70% Change: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.1387
91073512|NCT02612610|182033278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7238|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 28: ≥70% Change: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.7238
91073513|NCT02612610|182033278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0144|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 28: ≥70% Change: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.0144
91073514|NCT02612610|182033278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0922|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 28: ≥50% Change: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.0922
91073515|NCT02612610|182033278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3812|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 28: ≥50% Change: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.3812
91073516|NCT02612610|182033278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0088|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 28: ≥50% Change: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.0088
91073517|NCT02612610|182033278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0653|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 28: ≥30% Change: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.0653
91073518|NCT02612610|182033278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6443|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 28: ≥30% Change: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.6443
91073519|NCT02612610|182033278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1511|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 28: ≥30% Change: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.1511
91073520|NCT02612610|182033279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0045|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 56: ≥70% Change: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.0045
91073521|NCT02612610|182033279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0947|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 56: ≥70% Change: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.0947
91073522|NCT02612610|182033279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.008|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 56: ≥70% Change: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.0080
91073523|NCT02612610|182033279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0283|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 56: ≥50% Change: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.0283
91073524|NCT02612610|182033279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1493|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 56: ≥50% Change: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.1493
91073525|NCT02612610|182033279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0026|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 56: ≥50% Change: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.0026
91073526|NCT02612610|182033279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0652|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 56: ≥30% Change: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.0652
91073527|NCT02612610|182033279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3601|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 56: ≥30% Change: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.3601
91073528|NCT02612610|182033279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0086|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 56: ≥30% Change: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.0086
91073529|NCT02612610|182033280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3893|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 84: ≥70% Change: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.3893
91073530|NCT02612610|182033280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2803|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 84: ≥70% Change: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.2803
91073531|NCT02612610|182033280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0427|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 84: ≥70% Change: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.0427
91073532|NCT02612610|182033280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0209|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 84: ≥50% Change: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.0209
91073533|NCT02612610|182033280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3401|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 84: ≥50% Change: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.3401
91073534|NCT02612610|182033280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0031|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 84: ≥50% Change: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.0031
91073535|NCT02612610|182033280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0283|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 84: ≥30% Change: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.0283
91073536|NCT02612610|182033280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6233|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 84: ≥30% Change: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.6233
91073537|NCT02612610|182033280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 84: ≥30% Change: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.0001
91073538|NCT02612610|182033281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4925|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 98: ≥70% Change: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.4925
91073539|NCT02612610|182033281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9007|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 98: ≥70% Change: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.9007
91073540|NCT02612610|182033281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1602|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 98: ≥70% Change: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.1602
91073541|NCT02612610|182033281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.344|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 98: ≥50% Change: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.3440
91073542|NCT02612610|182033281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9876|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 98: ≥50% Change: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.9876
91073543|NCT02612610|182033281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0993|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 98: ≥50% Change: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.0993
91073544|NCT02612610|182033281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5968|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 98: ≥30% Change: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.5968
91073545|NCT02612610|182033281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8726|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 98: ≥30% Change: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.8726
91073546|NCT02612610|182033281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4092|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 98: ≥30% Change: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.4092
91073547|NCT02612610|182033282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0781|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 28: ≥70% Change: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.0781
91073548|NCT02612610|182033282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7098|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 28: ≥70% Change: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.7098
91073549|NCT02612610|182033282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0068|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 28: ≥70% Change: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.0068
91073550|NCT02612610|182033282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1284|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 28: ≥50% Change: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.1284
91073551|NCT02612610|182033282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.267|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 28: ≥50% Change: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.2670
91073552|NCT02612610|182033282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0013|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 28: ≥50% Change: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.0013
91073553|NCT02612610|182033282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4343|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 28: ≥30% Change: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.4343
91073554|NCT02612610|182033282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5384|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 28: ≥30% Change: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.5384
91073555|NCT02612610|182033282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0822|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 28: ≥30% Change: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.0822
91073556|NCT02612610|182033283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0006|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 56: ≥70% Change: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.0006
91073557|NCT02612610|182033283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0223|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 56: ≥70% Change: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.0223
91073558|NCT02612610|182033283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 56: ≥70% Change: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.0001
91073559|NCT02612610|182033283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0165|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 56: ≥50% Change: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.0165
91073560|NCT02612610|182033283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6255|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 56: ≥50% Change: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.6255
91073561|NCT02612610|182033283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0085|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 56: ≥50% Change: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.0085
91073562|NCT02612610|182033283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0722|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 56: ≥30% Change: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.0722
91073563|NCT02612610|182033283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3577|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 56: ≥30% Change: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.3577
91073564|NCT02612610|182033283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0006|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 56: ≥30% Change: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.0006
91073565|NCT02612610|182033284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3845|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 84: ≥70% Change: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.3845
91073566|NCT02612610|182033284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1177|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 84: ≥70% Change: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.1177
91073567|NCT02612610|182033284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0236|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 84: ≥70% Change: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.0236
91073568|NCT02612610|182033284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0192|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 84: ≥50% Change: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.0192
91073569|NCT02612610|182033284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3301|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 84: ≥50% Change: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.3301
91073570|NCT02612610|182033284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0008|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 84: ≥50% Change: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.0008
91073571|NCT02612610|182033284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0285|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 84: ≥30% Change: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.0285
91073572|NCT02612610|182033284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3856|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 84: ≥30% Change: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.3856
91073573|NCT02612610|182033284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 84: ≥30% Change: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.0001
91073574|NCT02612610|182033285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2441|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 98: ≥70% Change: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.2441
91073575|NCT02612610|182033285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5055|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 98: ≥70% Change: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.5055
91073576|NCT02612610|182033285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1602|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 98: ≥70% Change: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.1602
91073577|NCT02612610|182033285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2721|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 98: ≥50% Change: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.2721
91073578|NCT02612610|182033285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9763|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 98: ≥50% Change: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.9763
91073579|NCT02612610|182033285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0993|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 98: ≥50% Change: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.0993
90827685|NCT05736874|181530366|SUPERIORITY|Statistical analysis was a Bayesian cumulative probability ordinal regression model with covariate adjustment and weakly informative priors.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.63|||||The interval is a highest-density credible interval on the log relative odds scale. Odds ratio estimate from a Bayesian cumulative probability ordinal regression model with weakly informative priors.|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.||1.63|0.62|
91073580|NCT02612610|182033285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4575|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 98: ≥30% Change: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.4575
91073581|NCT02612610|182033285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9706|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 98: ≥30% Change: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.9706
91073582|NCT02612610|182033285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3258|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 98: ≥30% Change: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.3258
91073583|NCT02612610|182033286|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.9858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.54|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 28 Sleep Cough Frequency: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 28 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value (on log scale) as a covariate."||0.54|-0.53|0.9858
91073584|NCT02612610|182033286|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.01||||0.9813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.52|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 28 Sleep Cough Frequency: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 28 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value (on log scale) as a covariate."||0.52|-0.53|0.9813
91073585|NCT02612610|182033286|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.11||||0.6746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.42|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 28 Sleep Cough Frequency: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 28 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value (on log scale) as a covariate."||0.42|-0.65|0.6746
91073586|NCT02612610|182033287|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.32||||0.2583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.24|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 56 Sleep Cough Frequency: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 56 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value (on log scale) as a covariate."||0.24|-0.88|0.2583
91073587|NCT02612610|182033287|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.01||||0.9826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.56|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 56 Sleep Cough Frequency: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 56 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value (on log scale) as a covariate."||0.56|-0.55|0.9826
91073588|NCT02612610|182033287|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.1672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.17|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 56 Sleep Cough Frequency: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 56 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value (on log scale) as a covariate."||0.17|-0.98|0.1672
91073589|NCT02612610|182033288|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.14||||0.6102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.68|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 84 Sleep Cough Frequency: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 84 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value (on log scale) as a covariate."||0.68|-0.4|0.6102
91073590|NCT02612610|182033288|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.08||||0.7782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.61|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 84 Sleep Cough Frequency: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 84 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value (on log scale) as a covariate."||0.61|-0.46|0.7782
91073591|NCT02612610|182033288|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.28||||0.3167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.83|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 84 Sleep Cough Frequency: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 84 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value (on log scale) as a covariate."||0.83|-0.27|0.3167
91073592|NCT02612610|182033289|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.1545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.7|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 1 CSD Total Score: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 1 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.7|-0.1|0.1545
91073593|NCT02612610|182033289|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.2013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.7|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 1 CSD Total Score: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 1 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.7|-0.1|0.2013
91073594|NCT02612610|182033289|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.9962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 1 CSD Total Score: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 1 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.4|-0.4|0.9962
91073595|NCT02612610|182033290|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.7328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.6|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 2 CSD Total Score: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 2 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.6|-0.4|0.7328
91073596|NCT02612610|182033290|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.7635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.6|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 2 CSD Total Score: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 2 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.6|-0.4|0.7635
91073597|NCT02612610|182033290|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.0951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.1|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 2 CSD Total Score: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 2 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.1|-0.9|0.0951
91073598|NCT02612610|182033291|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.5797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.4|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 3 CSD Total Score: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 3 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.4|-0.7|0.5797
91073599|NCT02612610|182033291|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.2499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.2|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 3 CSD Total Score: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 3 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.2|-0.9|0.2499
91073600|NCT02612610|182033291|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.0612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.0|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 3 CSD Total Score: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 3 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.0|-1.1|0.0612
91073601|NCT02612610|182033292|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.5358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.4|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 4 CSD Total Score: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 4 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.4|-0.7|0.5358
91073602|NCT02612610|182033292|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.3129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.3|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 4 CSD Total Score: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 4 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.3|-0.8|0.3129
90827686|NCT05736874|181530367|SUPERIORITY|Statistical analysis was a Bayesian cumulative probability ordinal regression model with covariate adjustment and weakly informative priors.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.5|||||The interval is a highest-density credible interval on the log relative odds scale. Odds ratio estimate from a Bayesian cumulative probability ordinal regression model with weakly informative priors.|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.||1.50|0.42|
91073603|NCT02612610|182033292|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.1046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.1|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 4 CSD Total Score: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 4 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.1|-1.0|0.1046
91073604|NCT02612610|182033293|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.5796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.4|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 5 CSD Total Score: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 5 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.4|-0.7|0.5796
91073605|NCT02612610|182033293|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.1|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 5 CSD Total Score: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 5 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.1|-1.0|0.1430
91073606|NCT02612610|182033293|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.7||||0.0221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.1|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 5 CSD Total Score: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 5 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||-0.1|-1.2|0.0221
90827687|NCT05736874|181530368|SUPERIORITY|Statistical analysis was a Bayesian cumulative probability ordinal regression model with covariate adjustment and weakly informative priors|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|5.94|||||The interval is a highest-density credible interval on the log relative odds scale. Odds ratio estimate from a Bayesian cumulative probability ordinal regression model with weakly informative priors.|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.||5.94|0.50|
91073607|NCT02612610|182033294|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.1562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.2|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 6 CSD Total Score: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 6 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.2|-1.0|0.1562
91073608|NCT02612610|182033294|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.0|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 6 CSD Total Score: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 6 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.0|-1.1|0.0710
91073609|NCT02612610|182033294|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.7||||0.0274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.1|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 6 CSD Total Score: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 6 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||-0.1|-1.2|0.0274
91073610|NCT02612610|182033295|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.4464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.4|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 7 CSD Total Score: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 7 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.4|-0.8|0.4464
91073611|NCT02612610|182033295|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.3|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 7 CSD Total Score: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 7 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.3|-0.9|0.3320
91073612|NCT02612610|182033295|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.0792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.1|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 7 CSD Total Score: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 7 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.1|-1.1|0.0792
91073613|NCT02612610|182033296|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.4716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.4|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 8 CSD Total Score: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 8 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.4|-0.8|0.4716
91073614|NCT02612610|182033296|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.4371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.4|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 8 CSD Total Score: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 8 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.4|-0.8|0.4371
91073615|NCT02612610|182033296|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.1907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.2|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 8 CSD Total Score: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 8 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.2|-1.0|0.1907
91073616|NCT02612610|182033297|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.2772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.3|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 9 CSD Total Score: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 9 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.3|-0.9|0.2772
91073617|NCT02612610|182033297|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.1132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.1|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 9 CSD Total Score: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 9 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.1|-1.1|0.1132
91073618|NCT02612610|182033297|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.0737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.1|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 9 CSD Total Score: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 9 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.1|-1.2|0.0737
91073619|NCT02612610|182033298|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.6266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.5|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 10 CSD Total Score: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 10 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.5|-0.8|0.6266
91073620|NCT02612610|182033298|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.1769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.2|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 10 CSD Total Score: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 10 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.2|-1.0|0.1769
91073621|NCT02612610|182033298|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.7||||0.0313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.1|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 10 CSD Total Score: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 10 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||-0.1|-1.3|0.0313
91073622|NCT02612610|182033299|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.2058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.2|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 11 CSD Total Score: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 11 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.2|-1.0|0.2058
91073623|NCT02612610|182033299|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.0665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.0|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 11 CSD Total Score: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 11 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.0|-1.2|0.0665
91073624|NCT02612610|182033299|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.8||||0.0155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.1|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 11 CSD Total Score: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 11 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||-0.1|-1.4|0.0155
91073625|NCT02612610|182033300|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.2458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.3|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 12 CSD Total Score: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 12 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.3|-1.0|0.2458
91073626|NCT02612610|182033300|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.0662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.0|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 12 CSD Total Score: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 12 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.0|-1.2|0.0662
91073627|NCT02612610|182033300|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.7||||0.0197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.1|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 12 CSD Total Score: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 12 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||-0.1|-1.4|0.0197
91073628|NCT02612610|182033301|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.1921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.8|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 1 DCS Total Score: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 1 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.8|-0.2|0.1921
91073629|NCT02612610|182033301|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.2428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.8|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 1 DCS Total Score: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 1 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.8|-0.2|0.2428
91073630|NCT02612610|182033301|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.7383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.4|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 1 DCS Total Score: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 1 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.4|-0.6|0.7383
91073631|NCT02612610|182033302|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.4033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.9|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 2 DCS Total Score: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 2 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.9|-0.4|0.4033
91073632|NCT02612610|182033302|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.4599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.9|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 2 DCS Total Score: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 2 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.9|-0.4|0.4599
91073633|NCT02612610|182033302|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.2837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.3|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 2 DCS Total Score: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 2 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.3|-1.0|0.2837
91073634|NCT02612610|182033303|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.8084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.8|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 3 DCS Total Score: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 3 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.8|-0.6|0.8084
91073635|NCT02612610|182033303|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.6108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.5|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 3 DCS Total Score: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 3 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.5|-0.8|0.6108
91073636|NCT02612610|182033303|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.4|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 3 DCS Total Score: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 3 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.4|-0.9|0.4220
91073637|NCT02612610|182033304|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.8457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.6|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 4 DCS Total Score: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 4 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.6|-0.7|0.8457
91073638|NCT02612610|182033304|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.4044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.4|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 4 DCS Total Score: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 4 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.4|-0.9|0.4044
91073639|NCT02612610|182033304|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.3031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.3|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 4 DCS Total Score: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 4 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.3|-1.0|0.3031
91073640|NCT02612610|182033305|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.9126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.6|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 5 DCS Total Score: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 5 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.6|-0.7|0.9126
91073641|NCT02612610|182033305|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.1136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.1|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 5 DCS Total Score: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 5 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.1|-1.2|0.1136
91073642|NCT02612610|182033305|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.7||||0.0352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.0|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 5 DCS Total Score: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 5 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||-0.0|-1.4|0.0352
91073643|NCT02612610|182033306|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.1718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.2|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 6 DCS Total Score: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 6 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.2|-1.1|0.1718
91073644|NCT02612610|182033306|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.0651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.0|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 6 DCS Total Score: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 6 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.0|-1.3|0.0651
91073645|NCT02612610|182033306|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.0848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.1|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 6 DCS Total Score: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 6 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.1|-1.2|0.0848
91073646|NCT02612610|182033307|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.6715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.5|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 7 DCS Total Score: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 7 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.5|-0.8|0.6715
91073647|NCT02612610|182033307|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.3514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.4|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 7 DCS Total Score: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 7 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.4|-1.0|0.3514
91073648|NCT02612610|182033307|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.2809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.3|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 7 DCS Total Score: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 7 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.3|-1.1|0.2809
91073649|NCT02612610|182033308|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.6022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.5|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 8 DCS Total Score: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 8 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.5|-0.9|0.6022
91073650|NCT02612610|182033308|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.4456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.4|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 8 DCS Total Score: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 8 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.4|-1.0|0.4456
91073651|NCT02612610|182033308|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.4629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.4|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 8 DCS Total Score: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 8 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.4|-1.0|0.4629
91073652|NCT02612610|182033309|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.3749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.4|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 9 DCS Total Score: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 9 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.4|-1.0|0.3749
91073653|NCT02612610|182033309|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.0854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.1|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 9 DCS Total Score: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 9 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.1|-1.3|0.0854
91073654|NCT02612610|182033309|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.2672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.3|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 9 DCS Total Score: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 9 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.3|-1.1|0.2672
91073655|NCT02612610|182033310|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.7255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.6|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 10 DCS Total Score: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 10 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.6|-0.8|0.7255
91073656|NCT02612610|182033310|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.0918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.1|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 10 DCS Total Score: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 10 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.1|-1.3|0.0918
91073657|NCT02612610|182033310|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.1263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.2|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 10 DCS Total Score: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 10 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.2|-1.2|0.1263
91073658|NCT02612610|182033311|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.4058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.4|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 11 DCS Total Score: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 11 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.4|-1.0|0.4058
91073659|NCT02612610|182033311|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.0828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.1|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 11 DCS Total Score: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 11 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.1|-1.3|0.0828
91073660|NCT02612610|182033311|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.7||||0.0575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.0|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 11 DCS Total Score: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 11 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.0|-1.4|0.0575
91073661|NCT02612610|182033312|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.4163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.4|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 12 DCS Total Score: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 12 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.4|-1.0|0.4163
91073662|NCT02612610|182033312|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.0882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.1|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 12 DCS Total Score: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 12 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.1|-1.3|0.0882
91073663|NCT02612610|182033312|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.0961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.1|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 12 DCS Total Score: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 12 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.1|-1.4|0.0961
91073664|NCT02612610|182033313|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.8||||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.9|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 28 LCQ Total Score: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 28 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||1.9|-0.3|0.1630
91073665|NCT02612610|182033313|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.7601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.3|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 28 LCQ Total Score: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 28 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||1.3|-1.0|0.7601
91073666|NCT02612610|182033313|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.1||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|3.2|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 28 LCQ Total Score: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 28 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||3.2|0.9|0.0004
91073667|NCT02612610|182033314|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.0||||0.0941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|2.3|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 56 LCQ Total Score: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 56 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||2.3|-0.2|0.0941
91073668|NCT02612610|182033314|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.9||||0.1321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|2.2|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 56 LCQ Total Score: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 56 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||2.2|-0.3|0.1321
91073669|NCT02612610|182033314|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.5||||0.0192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.7|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 56 LCQ Total Score: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 56 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||2.7|0.2|0.0192
91073670|NCT02612610|182033315|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.2||||0.0626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|2.4|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 85/Early Termination LCQ Total Score: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 85/Early Termination estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||2.4|-0.1|0.0626
91073671|NCT02612610|182033315|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.0||||0.0967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|2.3|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 85/Early Termination LCQ Total Score: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 85/Early Termination estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||2.3|-0.2|0.0967
91073672|NCT02612610|182033315|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.9||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|3.1|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 85/Early Termination LCQ Total Score: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 85/Early Termination estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||3.1|0.7|0.0028
91073673|NCT02612610|182033316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3182|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 28 PGIC: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~The distribution of responses were compared between each of the gefapixant treatment groups and placebo using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country). P-values calculated using CMH test."||||0.3182
91073674|NCT02612610|182033316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5021|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 28 PGIC: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~The distribution of responses were compared between each of the gefapixant treatment groups and placebo using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country). P-values calculated using CMH test."||||0.5021
91073675|NCT02612610|182033316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0665|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 28 PGIC: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~The distribution of responses were compared between each of the gefapixant treatment groups and placebo using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country). P-values calculated using CMH test."||||0.0665
91073676|NCT02612610|182033317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0872|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 56 PGIC: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~The distribution of responses were compared between each of the gefapixant treatment groups and placebo using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country). P-values calculated using CMH test."||||0.0872
91073677|NCT02612610|182033317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0994|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 56 PGIC: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~The distribution of responses were compared between each of the gefapixant treatment groups and placebo using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country). P-values calculated using CMH test."||||0.0994
91073678|NCT02612610|182033317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0009|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 56 PGIC: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~The distribution of responses were compared between each of the gefapixant treatment groups and placebo using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country). P-values calculated using CMH test."||||0.0009
91073679|NCT02612610|182033318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0037|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 85/Early Termination PGIC: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~The distribution of responses were compared between each of the gefapixant treatment groups and placebo using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country). P-values calculated using CMH test."||||0.0037
91073680|NCT02612610|182033318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0166|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 85/Early Termination PGIC: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~The distribution of responses were compared between each of the gefapixant treatment groups and placebo using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country). P-values calculated using CMH test."||||0.0166
91073681|NCT02612610|182033318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 85/Early Termination: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~The distribution of responses were compared between each of the gefapixant treatment groups and placebo using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country). P-values calculated using CMH test."||||<0.0001
91073682|NCT02612610|182033319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0396|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 85/Early Termination CGIC: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~The distribution of responses were compared between each of the gefapixant treatment groups and placebo using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country). P-values calculated using CMH test."||||0.0396
91073683|NCT02612610|182033319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0751|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 85/Early Termination CGIC: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~The distribution of responses were compared between each of the gefapixant treatment groups and placebo using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country). P-values calculated using CMH test."||||0.0751
90827688|NCT05736874|181530369|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.11|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||1.11|0.69|
91073684|NCT02612610|182033319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 85/Early Termination CGIC: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~The distribution of responses were compared between each of the gefapixant treatment groups and placebo using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country). P-values calculated using CMH test."||||0.0010
91073685|NCT02612610|182033320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8464|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"1 Year Acceptability: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~The distribution of Extremely likely responses was compared between each of the gefapixant treatment groups and placebo using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country). P-values calculated for the gefapixant vs. placebo using CMH test."||||0.8464
91073686|NCT02612610|182033320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7687|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"1 Year Acceptability: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~The distribution of Extremely likely responses was compared between each of the gefapixant treatment groups and placebo using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country). P-values calculated for gefapixant vs. placebo using CMH test."||||0.7687
91073687|NCT02612610|182033320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4364|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"1 Year Acceptability: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~The distribution of Extremely likely responses was compared between each of the gefapixant treatment groups and placebo using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country). P-values calculated for gefapixant vs. placebo using CMH test."||||0.4364
91073688|NCT02612610|182033321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9966|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"6 Month Acceptability: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~The distribution of Extremely likely responses were compared between each of the gefapixant treatment groups and placebo using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country). P-values calculated for gefapixant vs. placebo using CMH test."||||0.9966
91073689|NCT02612610|182033321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6372|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"6 Month Acceptability: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~The distribution of Extremely likely responses were compared between each of the gefapixant treatment groups and placebo using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country). P-values calculated for gefapixant vs. placebo using CMH test."||||0.6372
91073690|NCT02612610|182033321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2155|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"6 Month Acceptability: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~The distribution of Extremely likely responses were compared between each of the gefapixant treatment groups and placebo using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country). P-values calculated for gefapixant vs. placebo using CMH test."||||0.2155
91073691|NCT02612610|182033322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7559|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"4 Week Acceptability: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~The distribution of Extremely likely responses were compared between each of the gefapixant treatment groups and placebo using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country). P-values calculated for gefapixant vs. placebo using CMH test."||||0.7559
91073692|NCT02612610|182033322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5091|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"4 Week Acceptability: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~The distribution of Extremely likely responses were compared between each of the gefapixant treatment groups and placebo using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country). P-values calculated for gefapixant vs. placebo using CMH test."||||0.5091
91073693|NCT02612610|182033322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.279|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"4 Week Acceptability: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~The distribution of Extremely likely responses were compared between each of the gefapixant treatment groups and placebo using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country). P-values calculated for gefapixant vs. placebo using CMH test."||||0.2790
91073694|NCT02612610|182033323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3887|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Twice Daily Acceptability: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~The distribution of Extremely likely responses were compared between each of the gefapixant treatment groups and placebo using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country). P-values calculated for gefapixant vs. placebo using CMH test."||||0.3887
91073695|NCT02612610|182033323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2333|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Twice Daily Acceptability: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~The distribution of Extremely likely responses were compared between each of the gefapixant treatment groups and placebo using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country). P-values calculated for gefapixant vs. placebo using CMH test."||||0.2333
91073696|NCT02612610|182033323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0534|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Twice Daily Acceptability: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~The distribution of Extremely likely responses were compared between each of the gefapixant treatment groups and placebo using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country). P-values calculated for gefapixant vs. placebo using CMH test."||||0.0534
91073697|NCT02612610|182033324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6115|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Taste Effect Frequency: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~The distribution of No Taste Effect Noted or Never responses were compared between each of the gefapixant treatment groups and placebo using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country). P-values calculated for gefapixant vs. placebo using CMH test."||||0.6115
91073698|NCT02612610|182033324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Taste Effect Frequency: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~The distribution of No Taste Effect Noted or Never responses were compared between each of the gefapixant treatment groups and placebo using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country). P-values calculated for gefapixant vs. placebo using CMH test."||||<0.0001
90827689|NCT05736874|181530369|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.34|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.34|0.78|
91073699|NCT02612610|182033324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Taste Effect Frequency: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~The distribution of No Taste Effect Noted or Never responses were compared between each of the gefapixant treatment groups and placebo using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country). P-values calculated for gefapixant vs. placebo using CMH test."||||<0.0001
91073700|NCT02612610|182033325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0||||||"A p-value of zero was calculated if all participants (100%) had No Taste Effect Noted or Not at All responses in both comparison groups."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Taste Effect Frequency: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~The distribution of No Taste Effect Noted or Not at All responses were compared between each of the gefapixant treatment groups and placebo using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country). P-values calculated for gefapixant vs. placebo using CMH test."||||0
91073701|NCT02612610|182033325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Taste Effect Frequency: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~The distribution of No Taste Effect Noted or Not at All responses were compared between each of the gefapixant treatment groups and placebo using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country). P-values calculated for gefapixant vs. placebo using CMH test."||||<0.0001
91073702|NCT02612610|182033325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Taste Effect Frequency: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~The distribution of No Taste Effect Noted or Not at All responses were compared between each of the gefapixant treatment groups and placebo using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country). P-values calculated for gefapixant vs. placebo using CMH test."||||<0.0001
91073703|NCT01260272|182033326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.033||||||Apriori threshold for statistical significance was \<=0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.033
91073704|NCT01260272|182033327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.0468||||||Apriori threshold for statistical significance was \<=0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.0468
91073705|NCT01260272|182033328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.2114||||||Apriori threshold for statistical significance was \<=0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.2114
91073706|NCT01260272|182033329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.1727||||||Apriori threshold for statistical significance was \<=0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.1727
91073707|NCT01260272|182033330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.7498||||||Apriori threshold for statistical significance was \<=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||=0.7498
91073708|NCT01260272|182033331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.2615||||||Apriori threshold for statistical significance was \<=0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.2615
91073709|NCT01260272|182033332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.6915||||||Apriori threshold for statistical significance was \<=0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.6915
91073710|NCT01260272|182033333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.106||||||Apriori threshold for statistical significance was \<=0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1060
91073711|NCT01546571|182033336|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
91073712|NCT00478699|182033348|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.946||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.689|1.298|||Log Rank|||Based on the relevant clinical evidence of the prognostic and predictive value of BRCA1, proposes the present study with which it is intended to demonstrate that adjuvant chemotherapy Individualized based on BRCA1 expression (Experimental arm), it is more effective than chemotherapy without individualize based (Control arm) in patients with completely resected stage II-IIIA NSCLC.||1.298|0.689|0.73
91073713|NCT00478699|182033349|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|79.3||||0.753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.5|95.1|||Log Rank|||Control Arm v Experimental Arm||95.1|63.5|0.753
91073714|NCT00478699|182033349|SUPERIORITY|The initial hyphotesis were the disease free survival were longest under 65 vs upper 65.|Median Difference (Final Values)|38.7||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.0|38.7|||Log Rank|||Control Arm v Experimental Arm||38.7|28|0.025
91073715|NCT01817582|182033395|OTHER||Least square (LS) mean difference|0.3||||0.6199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.3||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was performed using MMRM method.||1.3|-0.7|0.6199
91073716|NCT01817582|182033395|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.1||||0.807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.2||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was performed using MMRM method.||1.2|-0.9|0.8070
91073717|NCT01817582|182033395|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.1||||0.8068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.9||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was performed using MMRM method.||0.9|-1.1|0.8068
91073718|NCT01817582|182033396|OTHER||LS mean difference|-4.4||||0.2296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|2.8||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was performed using MMRM method.||2.8|-11.6|0.2296
91073719|NCT01817582|182033396|OTHER||LS mean difference|-4.9||||0.189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|2.5||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was performed using MMRM method.||2.5|-12.3|0.1890
91073720|NCT01817582|182033396|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.5||||0.8836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|6.7||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was performed using MMRM method.||6.7|-7.7|0.8836
90827690|NCT05736874|181530369|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.45|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||1.45|0.78|
91073721|NCT03053063|182033419|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|1.9||||0.5572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|8.2||Difference between SEL 18 mg vs Placebo, 95% confidence interval (CI) and p-value were obtained by stratified Mantel-Haenszel method adjusting for baseline (BL) diabetes mellitus status and BL Enhanced Liver Fibrosis (ELF) score (\<11.27 vs ≥11.27).|Mantel Haenszel|||||8.2|-4.4|0.5572
91073722|NCT03053063|182033419|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|0.3||||0.9272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|6.5||Difference between SEL 6 mg vs Placebo, 95% CI and p-value were obtained by stratified Mantel-Haenszel method adjusting for BL diabetes mellitus status and BL ELF score (\<11.27 vs ≥11.27).|Mantel Haenszel|||||6.5|-6.0|0.9272
90827691|NCT05736874|181530369|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.53|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.53|0.79|
91073723|NCT03053063|182033422|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|3.8||||0.285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|10.6||Difference between SEL 18 mg vs Placebo, 95% CI and p-value were obtained by stratified Mantel-Haenszel method adjusting for BL diabetes mellitus status and BL ELF score (\<11.27 vs ≥11.27).|Mantel Haenszel|||||10.6|-3.1|0.2850
91073724|NCT03053063|182033422|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|1.5||||0.6731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|8.2||Difference between SEL 6 mg vs Placebo, 95% CI and p-value were obtained by stratified Mantel-Haenszel method adjusting for BL diabetes mellitus status and BL ELF score (\<11.27 vs ≥11.27).|Mantel Haenszel|||||8.2|-5.3|0.6731
91073725|NCT03053063|182033424|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|-1.7||||0.365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|2.0||Difference between SEL 18 mg vs Placebo, 95% CI and p-value were obtained by stratified Mantel-Haenszel method adjusting for BL diabetes mellitus status and BL ELF score (\<11.27 vs ≥11.27).|Mantel Haenszel|||||2.0|-5.5|0.3650
91073726|NCT03053063|182033424|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|-0.4||||0.8557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|3.6||Difference between SEL 6 mg vs Placebo, 95% CI and p-value were obtained by stratified Mantel-Haenszel method adjusting for BL diabetes mellitus status and BL ELF score (\<11.27 vs ≥11.27).|Mantel Haenszel|||||3.6|-4.3|0.8557
91073727|NCT03569293|182033449|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|63.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.1|69.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||69.8|57.1|<0.001
91073728|NCT03569293|182033449|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|53.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.4|60.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||60.2|46.4|<0.001
91073729|NCT03569293|182033450|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|53.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.2|60.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response rate difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||60.0|47.2|<0.001
91073730|NCT03569293|182033450|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|39.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.2|46.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response rate difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||46.4|33.2|<0.001
91073731|NCT03569293|182033451|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|48.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.3|55.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||55.0|41.3|<0.001
91073732|NCT03569293|182033451|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|40.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.5|47.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||47.5|33.5|<0.001
91073733|NCT03569293|182033452|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|57.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.5|64.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||64.1|51.5|<0.001
91073734|NCT03569293|182033452|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|45.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.6|51.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||51.7|38.6|<0.001
91073735|NCT03569293|182033453|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|62.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.3|68.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||68.3|56.3|<0.001
91073736|NCT03569293|182033453|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|47.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.7|53.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||53.4|40.7|<0.001
91073737|NCT03569293|182033454|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|43.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.7|50.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||50.0|37.7|<0.001
91073738|NCT03569293|182033454|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|34.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.6|40.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||40.5|28.6|<0.001
91073739|NCT03569293|182033455|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|19.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.6|23.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||23.9|14.6|<0.001
91073740|NCT03569293|182033455|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|14.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.3|18.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||18.8|10.3|<0.001
91073741|NCT03569293|182033456|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|8.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|12.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||12.5|3.8|<0.001
91073742|NCT03569293|182033457|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|13.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.1|17.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||17.8|8.1|<0.001
91073743|NCT03569293|182033458|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|-25.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.3|-20.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-20.1|-30.3|<0.001
91073744|NCT03569293|182033458|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|-24.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.3|-18.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-18.9|-29.3|<0.001
91073745|NCT03569293|182033459|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|52.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.2|60.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||60.6|45.2|<0.001
91073746|NCT03569293|182033459|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|41.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.9|49.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||49.7|33.9|<0.001
91073747|NCT03569293|182033460|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|48.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.0|56.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||56.1|41.0|<0.001
91073748|NCT03569293|182033460|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|38.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.9|46.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||46.5|30.9|<0.001
91073749|NCT03569293|182033461|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|52.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.4|60.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||60.3|45.4|<0.001
91073750|NCT03569293|182033461|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|38.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.4|46.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||46.2|30.4|<0.001
91073751|NCT03569293|182033462|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|52.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.7|60.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||60.4|44.7|<0.001
91073752|NCT03569293|182033462|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|42.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.4|50.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||50.9|34.4|<0.001
91073753|NCT03569293|182033463|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|53.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.9|61.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||61.3|44.9|<0.001
91073754|NCT03569293|182033463|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|44.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.2|53.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||53.2|36.2|<0.001
91073755|NCT03569293|182033464|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|25.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.0|30.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||30.6|20.0|<0.001
91073756|NCT03569293|182033464|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|15.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.4|19.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||19.6|10.4|<0.001
91073757|NCT03569293|182033465|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer. This endpoint was a multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoint for European Union (EU)/European Medicines Agency (EMA) regulatory purposes only.|Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-45.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.549|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.82|-33.15|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|Mixed-effect model repeat measurement with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Baseline vIGA-AD category and age in the model.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-33.15|-58.82|<0.001
91073758|NCT03569293|182033465|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer. This endpoint was a multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes only.|LS Mean Difference|-36.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.66|-23.81|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|Mixed-effect model repeat measurement with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Baseline vIGA-AD category and age in the model.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-23.81|-49.66|<0.001
91073759|NCT03569293|182033466|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer. This endpoint was a multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes only.|LS Mean Difference|-47.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.716|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.37|-41.7|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|Mixed-effect model repeat measurement with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Baseline vIGA-AD category and age in the model.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-41.70|-52.37|<0.001
91073760|NCT03569293|182033466|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer. This endpoint was a multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes only.|LS Mean Difference|-39.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.738|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.91|-34.15|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|Mixed-effect model repeat measurement with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Baseline vIGA-AD category and age in the model.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-34.15|-44.91|<0.001
91073761|NCT03569293|182033467|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer. This endpoint was a multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes only.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|58.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.9|65.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||65.3|51.9|<0.001
91073762|NCT03569293|182033467|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer. This endpoint was a multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes only.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|52.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.2|59.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||59.4|45.2|<0.001
91073763|NCT03569293|182033468|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer. This endpoint was a multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes only.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|53.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.9|60.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||60.5|45.9|<0.001
91073764|NCT03569293|182033468|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer. This endpoint was a multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes only.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|46.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.0|54.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||54.4|39.0|<0.001
91073765|NCT03569293|182033469|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer. This endpoint was a multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes only.|LS Mean Difference|-40.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.732|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.75|-35.03|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|Mixed-effect model repeat measurement with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Baseline vIGA-AD category and age in the model.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-35.03|-45.75|<0.001
91073766|NCT03569293|182033469|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer. This endpoint was a multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes only.|LS Mean Difference|-33.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.758|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.44|-27.61|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|Mixed-effect model repeat measurement with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Baseline vIGA-AD category and age in the model.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-27.61|-38.44|<0.001
91073767|NCT03569293|182033470|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer. This endpoint was a multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes only.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|34.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.8|45.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||45.1|24.8|<0.001
91073768|NCT03569293|182033470|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer. This endpoint was a multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes only.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|31.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.4|41.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||41.6|21.4|<0.001
91073769|NCT03569293|182033471|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer. This endpoint was a multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes only.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|37.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.8|43.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||43.8|30.8|<0.001
91073770|NCT03569293|182033471|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer. This endpoint was a multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes only.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|25.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.7|32.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||32.1|19.7|<0.001
90827692|NCT05736874|181530370|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.09|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||1.09|0.72|
91073771|NCT03569293|182033472|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|66.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.8|79.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||79.4|53.8|<0.001
91073772|NCT03569293|182033472|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|62.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.6|75.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||75.4|48.6|<0.001
91073773|NCT03569293|182033473|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|57.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.6|70.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||70.2|44.6|<0.001
91073774|NCT03569293|182033473|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|39.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.6|52.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||52.6|25.6|<0.001
91073775|NCT03569293|182033474|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|46.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.6|60.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||60.6|32.6|<0.001
91073776|NCT03569293|182033474|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|38.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.3|53.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||53.1|24.3|<0.001
91073777|NCT03569293|182033475|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|63.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.8|75.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||75.9|51.8|<0.001
91073778|NCT03569293|182033475|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|43.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.9|56.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||56.7|30.9|<0.001
91073779|NCT03569293|182033476|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|54.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.7|67.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||67.8|41.7|<0.001
90827693|NCT05736874|181530370|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.27|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.27|0.84|
90827694|NCT05736874|181530370|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.2|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||1.20|0.76|
91073780|NCT03569293|182033476|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|45.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.0|58.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||58.3|32.0|<0.001
90827695|NCT05736874|181530370|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.32|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.32|0.84|
91073781|NCT03569293|182033477|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|47.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.0|60.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||60.2|34.0|<0.001
91073782|NCT03569293|182033477|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|35.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.2|48.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||48.6|23.2|<0.001
91073783|NCT03569293|182033478|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|21.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|31.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||31.1|11.0|<0.001
91073784|NCT03569293|182033478|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|9.4||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|16.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||16.4|2.5|0.008
90827696|NCT05736874|181530371|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.93|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||0.93|0.58|
91073785|NCT03569293|182033479|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|11.0||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|19.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||19.9|2.1|0.015
91073786|NCT03569293|182033479|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|6.5||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|13.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||13.9|-0.9|0.086
91073787|NCT03569293|182033480|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|10.8||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|21.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||21.4|0.2|0.045
91073788|NCT03569293|182033480|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|11.0||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|21.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||21.5|0.5|0.040
91073789|NCT03569293|182033481|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|-22.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.6|-11.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-11.5|-32.6|<0.001
91073790|NCT03569293|182033481|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|-22.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.7|-11.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-11.5|-32.7|<0.001
91073791|NCT03569293|182033482|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|53.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.7|69.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||69.4|37.7|<0.001
91073792|NCT03569293|182033482|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|34.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.1|51.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||51.4|18.1|<0.001
91073793|NCT03569293|182033483|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|56.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.0|71.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||71.1|42.0|<0.001
91073794|NCT03569293|182033483|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|32.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.9|48.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||48.1|16.9|<0.001
91073795|NCT03569293|182033484|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|50.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.1|66.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||66.7|35.1|<0.001
91073796|NCT03569293|182033484|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|35.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.8|52.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||52.6|18.8|<0.001
91073797|NCT03569293|182033485|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|54.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.4|71.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||71.3|37.4|<0.001
91073798|NCT03569293|182033485|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|38.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.8|56.4|||Chi-squared, Corrected|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||56.4|19.8|<0.001
90827697|NCT05736874|181530371|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.32|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.32|0.76|
90827698|NCT05736874|181530371|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.25|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||1.25|0.71|
90827699|NCT05736874|181530371|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.64|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.64|0.89|
91073799|NCT03569293|182033486|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|51.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.3|69.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||69.1|33.3|<0.001
91073800|NCT03569293|182033486|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|28.1||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|48.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||48.2|8.0|0.006
91073801|NCT03569293|182033487|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|31.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.9|42.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||42.5|19.9|<0.001
91073802|NCT03569293|182033487|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|15.8||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|24.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||24.6|6.9|0.001
91073803|NCT03569293|182033488|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-42.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.16|-28.68|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|Mixed-effect model repeat measurement with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and Baseline vIGA-AD category in the model.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-28.68|-56.16|<0.001
91073804|NCT03569293|182033488|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-33.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.76|-19.99|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|Mixed-effect model repeat measurement with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and Baseline vIGA-AD category in the model.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-19.99|-47.76|<0.001
91073805|NCT03569293|182033489|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-41.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.09|-31.58|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and Baseline vIGA-AD category in the model.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-31.58|-52.09|<0.001
91073806|NCT03569293|182033489|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-37.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.17|-27.52|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and Baseline vIGA-AD category in the model.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-27.52|-48.17|<0.001
91073807|NCT03569293|182033490|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|54.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.3|69.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||69.4|40.3|<0.001
91073808|NCT03569293|182033490|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|50.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.8|65.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||65.3|34.8|<0.001
91073809|NCT03569293|182033491|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|45.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.0|69.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||69.2|21.0|<0.001
91073810|NCT03569293|182033491|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|49.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.7|72.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||72.5|26.7|<0.001
91073811|NCT03569293|182033492|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-38.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.54|-28.31|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|Mixed-effect model repeat measurement with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and Baseline vIGA-AD category|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-28.31|-49.54|<0.001
91073812|NCT03569293|182033492|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-32.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.44|-21.96|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|Mixed-effect model repeat measurement with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and Baseline vIGA-AD category|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-21.96|-43.44|<0.001
91073813|NCT03569293|182033493|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|51.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.7|71.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||71.8|31.7|<0.001
91073814|NCT03569293|182033493|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|44.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.7|62.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||62.8|26.7|<0.001
91073815|NCT03569293|182033494|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|25.1||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.3|43.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||43.0|7.3|0.006
91073816|NCT03569293|182033494|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|15.8||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|34.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||34.2|-2.6|0.093
91073817|NCT05072106|182033496|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Least-squares geometric mean ratio|96.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.09|115.62|||||The reported results are the same as the ones reported in the CSR of the trial.|||115.62|81.09|
91073818|NCT05072106|182033497|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Least-squares geometric mean ratio|79.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|64.78|98.32||||||||98.32|64.78|
91073819|NCT05072106|182033498|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Least-squares geometric mean ratio|79.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|64.12|97.82||||||||97.82|64.12|
91073820|NCT05072106|182033499|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Least-squares geometric mean ratio|125.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.71|154.36||||||||154.36|101.71|
91073821|NCT05072106|182033500|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Least-squares geometric mean ratio|106.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.63|152.8||||||||152.8|74.63|
91073822|NCT05072106|182033501|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Least-squares geometric mean ratio|104.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|69.49|158.44||||||||158.44|69.49|
91073823|NCT05072106|182033502|OTHER|bioequivalence|Least-squares geometric mean ratio|88.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|65.62|119.19||||||||119.19|65.62|
91073824|NCT05072106|182033503|OTHER|bioequivalence|Least-squares geometric mean ratio|81.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|54.8|119.96||||||||119.96|54.8|
91073825|NCT05072106|182033504|OTHER|bioequivalence|Least-squares geometric mean ratio|80.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|54.26|118.72||||||||118.72|54.26|
91073826|NCT05072106|182033505|OTHER|bioequivalence|Least-squares geometric mean ratio|123.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.36|182.49||||||||182.49|83.36|
91073827|NCT05072106|182033506|OTHER|bioequivalence|Least-squares geometric mean ratio|120.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|64.79|224.13||||||||224.13|64.79|
91073828|NCT05072106|182033507|OTHER|bioequivalence|Least-squares geometric mean ratio|120.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|64.79|224.13||||||||224.13|64.79|
91073829|NCT05072106|182033508|OTHER|bioequivalence|Least-squares geometric mean ratio|188.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|132.93|266.26||||||PK parameter used was the log-transformed metabolite/parent ratio (MPR) of M1 dose-normalized Cmax.||266.26|132.93|
91073830|NCT05072106|182033509|OTHER|bioequivalence|Least-squares geometric mean ratio|245.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|133.4|451.65||||||PK parameter used was the log-transformed metabolite/parent ratio (MPR) of M1 dose-normalized AUC0-t.||451.65|133.4|
91073831|NCT05072106|182033510|OTHER|bioequivalence|Least-squares geometric mean ratio|104.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.07|117.05||||||PK parameter used was the log-transformed metabolite/parent ratio (MPR) of M4 dose-normalized Cmax.||117.05|94.07|
91073832|NCT05072106|182033511|OTHER|bioequivalence|Least-squares geometric mean ratio|91.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|71.39|116.04||||||PK parameter used was the log-transformed metabolite/parent ratio (MPR) of M4 dose-normalized AUC0-t.||116.04|71.39|
91073833|NCT03036098|182033523|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.97|||Log Rank|Stratified weighted log-rank test||||0.97|0.64|0.0032
91073834|NCT03036098|182033530|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.88|||Log Rank|Stratified weighted log-rank test||||0.88|0.59|0.0018
91073835|NCT03036098|182033531|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.0171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.96|||Log Rank|Stratified weighted log-rank test||||0.96|0.63|0.0171
91073836|NCT02276053|182033565|OTHER||Retention rate|86.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|79.0|93.1|||||"Confidence intervals for the 6-month retention rate were calculated using Greenwood's formula.~Addition of a note: Not all patients had an Observation Period of 6 months."|The retention rate was derived using Kaplan-Meier methodology where patients who completed the study were censored at the date of last administration of LCM in the study.||93.1|79.0|
91073837|NCT01632904|182033576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.82||||0.139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|4.04|||Chi-squared|||||4.04|0.82|0.139
91073838|NCT02059434|182033580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.104|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.149||All statistical comparisons were two-sided hypothesis tests, and the significance level was set at 0.05 without multiplicity adjustment|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline to trough FEV1 was analyzed by means of an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) for cross-over designs with sequence, treatment group and period as fixed effect factors, subject within sequence as random effect, and screening and baseline FEV1 value of each period as covariates||0.149|0.060|<0.0001
91073839|NCT02059434|182033580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.178|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.133|0.223||All statistical comparisons were two-sided hypothesis tests, and the significance level was set at 0.05 without multiplicity adjustment|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline to trough FEV1 was analyzed by means of an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) for cross-over designs with sequence, treatment group and period as fixed effect factors, subject within sequence as random effect, and screening and baseline FEV1 value of each period as covariates||0.223|0.133|<0.0001
91073840|NCT00771264|182033587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0||||P-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|Mean values were analyzed for significant change using a 2-sided paired t-test and proportions were analyzed using chi-square methodology.||Mean values were analyzed for significant change using a 2-sided paired t test and proportions were analyzed using chi-square methodology. Median values were analyzed using a Wilcoxon signed rank test with p\<0.05 considered statistically significant. A sample size estimate of 214 subjects, 107 per arm, was calculated using a 2-sided Fisher's exact binomial test based on an estimated 60% responder rate in the PTNS group and a 40% in the sham group with a 5% significance level and 80% power.||||0.05
91073841|NCT02928770|182033592|OTHER|||||||0.0559|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Comparison between baseline and experimental (Nastent) conditions||||||0.0559
91073842|NCT04769466|182033616|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||T-Test||||0.020
91073843|NCT04769466|182033617|OTHER|||||||0.223|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||T-Test||||0.223
91073844|NCT04769466|182033618|OTHER|||||||0.036|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-Test||||0.036
91073845|NCT04769466|182033619|OTHER|||||||0.131|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.131
91073846|NCT04769466|182033620|OTHER|||||||0.351|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.351
91073847|NCT04769466|182033621|OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.08
91073848|NCT04769466|182033622|OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||T-Test||||0.400
91073849|NCT04769466|182033624|OTHER|||||||0.011|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.011
90827700|NCT05736874|181530372|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.15|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||1.15|0.70|
91073850|NCT04769466|182033626|OTHER|||||||0.459|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.459
91073851|NCT04769466|182033627|OTHER|||||||0.033|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.033
91073852|NCT04769466|182033628|OTHER|||||||0.103|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.103
91073853|NCT04769466|182033629|OTHER|||||||0.494|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.494
91073854|NCT04769466|182033630|OTHER|||||||0.214|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.214
91073855|NCT04769466|182033631|OTHER|||||||0.199|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.199
91073856|NCT04769466|182033634|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
91073857|NCT04769466|182033635|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
91073858|NCT03339726|182033640|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.205|0.662||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline nasal congestion score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.662|-0.205|0.300
91073859|NCT03339726|182033640|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.222||0.569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.311|0.564||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline nasal congestion score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.564|-0.311|0.569
91073860|NCT03339726|182033640|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.537|0.333||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline nasal congestion score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.333|-0.537|0.645
91073861|NCT03339726|182033641|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.267|0.759||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline nasal congestion score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.759|-0.267|0.346
91073862|NCT03339726|182033641|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.263||0.938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.498|0.539||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline nasal congestion score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.539|-0.498|0.938
91073863|NCT03339726|182033641|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.261||0.389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.741|0.289||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline nasal congestion score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.289|-0.741|0.389
91073864|NCT03339726|182033642|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.57|||ANOVA|Treatment and baseline nasal congestion score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.57|-0.33|0.607
91073865|NCT03339726|182033642|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.232||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.86||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline nasal congestion score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.86|-0.06|0.085
91073866|NCT03339726|182033642|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.74||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline nasal congestion score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.74|-0.17|0.220
91073867|NCT03339726|182033643|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.271||0.633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.66||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline nasal congestion score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.66|-0.40|0.633
91073868|NCT03339726|182033643|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.273||0.952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.56||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline nasal congestion score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.56|-0.52|0.952
91073869|NCT03339726|182033643|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.272||0.678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.42||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline nasal congestion score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.42|-0.65|0.678
91073870|NCT03339726|182033644|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.88||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline nasal congestion score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.88|-0.11|0.126
91073871|NCT03339726|182033644|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.253||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.78||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline nasal congestion score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.78|-0.22|0.270
91073872|NCT03339726|182033644|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.251||0.676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.39||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline nasal congestion score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.39|-0.60|0.676
91073873|NCT03339726|182033645|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.264||0.421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.73||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline nasal congestion score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.73|-0.31|0.421
91073874|NCT03339726|182033645|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.266||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.52||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline nasal congestion score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.52|-0.54|0.970
91073875|NCT03339726|182033645|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.265||0.401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.3||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline nasal congestion score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.30|-0.74|0.401
91073876|NCT03339726|182033646|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.272||0.257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.85||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline nasal congestion score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.85|-0.23|0.257
91073877|NCT03339726|182033646|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.275||0.877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.58||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline nasal congestion score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.58|-0.50|0.877
90827701|NCT05736874|181530372|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.29|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.29|0.75|
90827702|NCT05736874|181530372|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.26|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||1.26|0.72|
90827703|NCT05736874|181530372|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.61|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.61|0.92|
91073878|NCT03339726|182033646|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.273||0.329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.27||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline nasal congestion score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.27|-0.80|0.329
91073879|NCT03339726|182033647|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.298||0.469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.8||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline nasal congestion score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.80|-0.37|0.469
91073880|NCT03339726|182033647|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.301||0.924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.62||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline nasal congestion score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.62|-0.57|0.924
91073881|NCT03339726|182033647|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.299||0.532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.4||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline nasal congestion score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.40|-0.78|0.532
91073882|NCT03339726|182033648|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.309||0.579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.44||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline nasal congestion score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.44|-0.78|0.579
91073883|NCT03339726|182033648|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.312||0.394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.35||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline nasal congestion score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.35|-0.88|0.394
91073884|NCT03339726|182033648|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.52||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline nasal congestion score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.52|-0.71|0.760
91073885|NCT03339726|182033649|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.218||0.616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.539||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline sinus pressure/tenderness score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.539|-0.320|0.616
91073886|NCT03339726|182033649|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.359|0.508||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline sinus pressure/tenderness score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.508|-0.359|0.734
91073887|NCT03339726|182033649|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.218||0.874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.465|0.395||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline sinus pressure/tenderness score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.395|-0.465|0.874
91073888|NCT03339726|182033650|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.38||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline sinus pressure/tenderness score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.38|-0.53|0.750
91073889|NCT03339726|182033650|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.232||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.66||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline sinus pressure/tenderness score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.66|-0.26|0.390
91073890|NCT03339726|182033650|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.73||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline sinus pressure/tenderness score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.73|-0.18|0.236
91073891|NCT03339726|182033651|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.267||0.707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.43||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline sinus pressure/tenderness score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.43|-0.63|0.707
90827704|NCT05736874|181530373|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.28|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||1.28|0.81|
90827705|NCT05736874|181530373|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.99|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||0.99|0.60|
91073892|NCT03339726|182033651|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.269||0.839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.48||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline sinus pressure/tenderness score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.48|-0.59|0.839
90827706|NCT05736874|181530373|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.23|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||1.23|0.74|
91073893|NCT03339726|182033651|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.267||0.864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.57||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline sinus pressure/tenderness score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.57|-0.48|0.864
91073894|NCT03339726|182033652|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.255||0.794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.57||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline sinus pressure/tenderness score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.57|-0.44|0.794
91073895|NCT03339726|182033652|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.257||0.628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.63||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline sinus pressure/tenderness score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.63|-0.38|0.628
91073896|NCT03339726|182033652|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.255||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.56||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline sinus pressure/tenderness score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.56|-0.45|0.820
91073897|NCT03339726|182033653|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.266||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.79||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline sinus pressure/tenderness score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.79|-0.27|0.330
91073898|NCT03339726|182033653|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.269||0.631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.66||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline sinus pressure/tenderness score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.66|-0.40|0.631
91073899|NCT03339726|182033653|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.266||0.625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.4||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline sinus pressure/tenderness score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.40|-0.66|0.625
91073900|NCT03339726|182033654|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.275||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.87||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline sinus pressure/tenderness score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.87|-0.22|0.240
91073901|NCT03339726|182033654|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.278||0.865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.6||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline sinus pressure/tenderness score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.60|-0.50|0.865
91073902|NCT03339726|182033654|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.275||0.316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.27||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline sinus pressure/tenderness score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.27|-0.82|0.316
91073903|NCT03339726|182033655|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.284||0.529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.74||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline sinus pressure/tenderness score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.74|-0.38|0.529
91073904|NCT03339726|182033655|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.287||0.997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.57||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline sinus pressure/tenderness score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.57|-0.56|0.997
91073905|NCT03339726|182033655|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.285||0.532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.38||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline sinus pressure/tenderness score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.38|-0.74|0.532
91073906|NCT03339726|182033656|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.309||0.468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.38||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline sinus pressure/tenderness score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.38|-0.83|0.468
91073907|NCT03339726|182033656|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.312||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.23||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline sinus pressure/tenderness score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.23|-1.00|0.218
91073908|NCT03339726|182033656|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.309||0.604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.45||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline sinus pressure/tenderness score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.45|-0.77|0.604
91073909|NCT04542499|182033657|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|1.103|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.553|1.653||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and confidence intervals are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, and treatment by visit interaction and baseline as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||||1.653|0.553|<0.0001
91073910|NCT04542499|182033658|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.943|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.271||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.475|-0.41||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and confidence intervals are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, and treatment by visit interaction and baseline as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||||-0.410|-1.475|0.0006
91073911|NCT04542499|182033659|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.188||0.2216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.139||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and confidence intervals are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, and treatment by visit interaction and baseline as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 2||0.139|-0.600|0.2216
91073912|NCT04542499|182033659|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.099|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.211||0.6379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.316|0.515||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and confidence intervals are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, and treatment by visit interaction and baseline as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 5||0.515|-0.316|0.6379
91073913|NCT04542499|182033659|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.582|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.234||0.0132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.122|1.042||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and confidence intervals are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, and treatment by visit interaction and baseline as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 8||1.042|0.122|0.0132
91073914|NCT04542499|182033659|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.358|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.236||0.1299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.106|0.821||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and confidence intervals are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, and treatment by visit interaction and baseline as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 11||0.821|-0.106|0.1299
91073915|NCT04542499|182033659|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.698|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.257||0.0068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.194|1.202||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and confidence intervals are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, and treatment by visit interaction and baseline as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 14||1.202|0.194|0.0068
91073916|NCT04542499|182033659|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.969|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.254||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.469|1.469||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and confidence intervals are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, and treatment by visit interaction and baseline as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 18||1.469|0.469|0.0002
91073917|NCT04542499|182033659|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.879|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.259||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.369|1.389||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and confidence intervals are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, and treatment by visit interaction and baseline as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 22||1.389|0.369|0.0008
91073918|NCT04542499|182033659|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|1.103|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.553|1.653||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and confidence intervals are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, and treatment by visit interaction and baseline as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 26||1.653|0.553|<0.0001
91073919|NCT04542499|182033660|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.108|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.5471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.245|0.461||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and confidence intervals are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, and treatment by visit interaction and baseline as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 2||0.461|-0.245|0.5471
91073920|NCT04542499|182033660|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.237|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.205||0.2488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.166||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and confidence intervals are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, and treatment by visit interaction and baseline as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 5||0.166|-0.640|0.2488
91073921|NCT04542499|182033660|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.818|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.221||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.252|-0.384||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and confidence intervals are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, and treatment by visit interaction and baseline as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 8||-0.384|-1.252|0.0002
91073922|NCT04542499|182033660|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.753|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.227||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.199|-0.307||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and confidence intervals are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, and treatment by visit interaction and baseline as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 11||-0.307|-1.199|0.0010
91073923|NCT04542499|182033660|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.904|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.254||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.403|-0.405||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and confidence intervals are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, and treatment by visit interaction and baseline as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 14||-0.405|-1.403|0.0004
91073924|NCT04542499|182033660|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.256|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.528|-0.52||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and confidence intervals are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, and treatment by visit interaction and baseline as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 18||-0.520|-1.528|<0.0001
91073925|NCT04542499|182033660|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.979|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.261||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.493|-0.465||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and confidence intervals are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, and treatment by visit interaction and baseline as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 22||-0.465|-1.493|0.0002
91073926|NCT04542499|182033660|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.943|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.271||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.475|-0.41||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and confidence intervals are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, and treatment by visit interaction and baseline as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 26||-0.410|-1.475|0.0006
91073927|NCT04542499|182033661|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.3265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.2||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and confidence intervals are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, and treatment by visit interaction and baseline as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Part I||1.2|-0.4|0.3265
90827707|NCT05736874|181530373|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.5|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.50|0.89|
91073928|NCT04542499|182033661|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.0203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.2||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and confidence intervals are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, and treatment by visit interaction and baseline as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Part II||-0.2|-2.2|0.0203
91073929|NCT04542499|182033661|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96||0.0118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|-0.5||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and confidence intervals are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, and treatment by visit interaction and baseline as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Part III||-0.5|-4.3|0.0118
91073930|NCT04281784|182033701|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0421||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0047|0.0777||two-sided test, no adjustment for multiple comparisons|Regression, Linear|Occurrence of discussion regressed on randomization condition, adjusted for ADRD status, hospital, and time between study start \& randomization date.|Robust standard error|Usual care = reference group; intervention arm = comparison group||0.0777|0.0047|0.027
91073931|NCT04281784|182033703|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.078|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.246||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.404|||Regression, Linear|Outcome (days alive and out of ICU) regressed on Arm/Group (0=usual care, 1=intervention), adjusted for hospital and ADRD status|Robust (HC3) standard error|Superior outcome for Group 2||0.404|-0.560|0.750
91073932|NCT04281784|182033704|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.361|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.357||0.312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|0.338|||Regression, Linear|Outcome (days alive and out of hospital) regressed on Arm/Group (0=usual care, 1=intervention), adjusted for hospital and ADRD status|Robust (HC3) standard error|Superior outcome for Group 2||0.338|-1.060|0.312
91073933|NCT04281784|182033705|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.012||||0.475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.043||two-sided test, no adjustment for multiple comparisons|Regression, Linear|Readmission (0, 1) regressed on randomization condition (0=usual care, 1=intervention), adjusted for ADRD status, and hospital site.|Robust standard error|Usual care = reference group; intervention arm = comparison group||0.043|-0.020|0.475
91073934|NCT04281784|182033706|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.009||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.043|0.025||two-sided test, no adjustment for multiple comparisons|Regression, Linear|ICU care (0,1) regressed on randomization condition (0=usual care, 1=intervention), adjusted for ADRD status, and hospital site.|Robust standard error|Usual care = reference group; intervention arm = comparison group||0.025|-0.043|0.610
91073935|NCT04281784|182033707|SUPERIORITY|Higher cost indicates worse outcome. Missing if cost data unavailable from Finance Office.|Slope|0.022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.058||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.092|0.135|||other type of regression|Generalized linear model (gamma family, log link); Outcome on study arm (0=control, 1=intervention) adjusted for hospital and ADRD status, robust SEs.|Robust standard error|Superior outcome for Group 2||0.135|-0.092|0.710
91073936|NCT04281784|182033708|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.487|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.899||0.588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.275|2.249||two-sided test, no adjustment for multiple comparisons|Regression, Linear|Died within 30 days after randomization regressed on randomization condition (0=usual care, 1=intervention) adjusted for hospital and ADRD status|Robust standard error|Usual care=reference group; intervention arm = comparison group||2.249|-1.275|0.588
91073937|NCT04281784|182033709|SUPERIORITY|Higher cost indicates worse outcome. Missing if cost data unavailable from Finance Office.|Slope|-0.028|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.069||0.685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.162|0.107|||other type of regression|Generalized linear model (gamma family, log link); Outcome on study arm (0=control, 1=intervention) adjusted for hospital and ADRD status, robust SEs.|Robust standard error|Superior outcome for Group 2||0.107|-0.162|0.685
91073938|NCT04322539|182033721|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio|0.662|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.549|0.8||Raw unadjusted p-value was obtained by using a stratified log-rank test accounting for the randomization schedule stratification factors.|stratified log-rank test||The HR between 2 treatment groups (fruquintinib vs placebo), together with its 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI), was calculated from a stratified Cox proportional hazards model accounting for the randomization schedule stratification factors.|||0.800|0.549|< .001
91073939|NCT04322539|182033722|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.321|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.267|0.386||Raw unadjusted p-value was obtained by using a stratified log-rank test accounting for the randomization schedule stratification factors.|stratified log-rank test||The HR between the 2 treatment groups (fruquintinib vs placebo), together with its 95% CI, was calculated from a stratified Cox proportional hazards model accounting for the randomization schedule stratification factors.|||0.386|0.267|< .001
91073940|NCT04322539|182033723|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference|1.5||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.7||p-value was calculated from a stratified Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test accounting for the randomization schedule stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The adjusted difference and its 95% CI were calculated using the Wald method from Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test to account for the randomization schedule stratification factors.|||2.7|0.4|.059
91073941|NCT04322539|182033724|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference|39.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.8|46.0||p-value was calculated from a stratified Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test accounting for the randomization schedule stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The adjusted difference and its 95% CI were calculated using the Wald method from Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test to account for the randomization schedule stratification factors.|||46.0|32.8|<.001
91073942|NCT04322539|182033730|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||Wald test|||CminSS Based on the Starting Dose for OS Exposure-Response Analyses||||0.0600
91073943|NCT04322539|182033730|OTHER|||||||0.8065|||||||Wald test|||CminSS Based on the Adjusted RDI for OS Exposure-Response Analyses||||0.8065
91073944|NCT04322539|182033731|OTHER|||||||0.265|||||||Wald test|||CmaxSS for Gr Dermatological toxicity for Exposure-Response Analyses.||||0.265
91073945|NCT04322539|182033731|OTHER|||||||0.0159|||||||Wald test|||CmaxSS for Gr3+ Dermatological Toxicity for Exposure-Response Analyses.||||0.0159
91073946|NCT04322539|182033731|OTHER|||||||0.484|||||||Wald test|||CmaxSS for Gr Proteinuria for Exposure-Response Analyses.||||0.484
91073947|NCT04322539|182033731|OTHER|||||||0.642|||||||Wald test|||CmaxSS for Gr3+ Proteinuria for Exposure-Response Analyses.||||0.642
91073948|NCT04322539|182033731|OTHER|||||||0.166|||||||Wald test|||CmaxSS for Gr Hemorrhage for Exposure-Response Analyses.||||0.166
91073949|NCT02111746|182033737|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.934|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.934
91073950|NCT02111746|182033738|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.036
91073951|NCT02111746|182033739|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.014
91073952|NCT02111746|182033740|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.512|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.512
91073953|NCT02111746|182033741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.449|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.449
91073954|NCT02111746|182033742|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1
91073955|NCT02111746|182033743|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.774|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.774
91073956|NCT02111746|182033744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.188|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.188
91073957|NCT02111746|182033745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.202|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.202
91073958|NCT05845567|182033835|SUPERIORITY||ratio of the Geometric LSmeans|139.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|129.73|149.86||||||||149.86|129.73|
91073959|NCT05845567|182033836|SUPERIORITY||ratio of the Geometric LSmeans|117.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|112.24|124.0||||||||124.00|112.24|
91073960|NCT05845567|182033837|SUPERIORITY||ratio of the Geometric LSmeans|117.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|112.13|123.92||||||||123.92|112.13|
91073961|NCT01869699|182033870|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.18|||ANCOVA|||We estimated that 20 patients per group would provide 80% power for detecting a difference in means of 0.6 degrees Celsius, with a pooled SD of 0.67 degrees, using a two group t test and a two sided alpha level of 0.05. A previous RCT of IV acetaminophen in healthy male volunteers with induced fever found a core temperature difference of 0.60 degrees with a common SD of 0.67 degrees Celsius.||-0.18|-0.76|0.002
91073962|NCT01869699|182033871|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.0||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|-1.0|||ANCOVA|||||-1|-10|0.03
91073963|NCT01869699|182033872|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.0|-8.0|||ANCOVA|||||-8|-25|<0.001
91073964|NCT01869699|182033873|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|12.0|||ANCOVA|||||12|-4|0.42
91073965|NCT01869699|182033874|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||||-0.3|-1|0.002
91073966|NCT01869699|182033875|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.0|-10.0|||ANCOVA|||||-10|-38|0.001
91073967|NCT01869699|182033876|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.0||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|-1.0|||ANCOVA|||||-1|-15|0.02
91073968|NCT01252563|182033962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||Week 4|t-test, 1 sided|A one-sided paired t-test was performed to test the hypothesis.||The null hypothesis was that the mean change in ambulatory SBP from the baseline was equal to 0.||||<0.001
91073969|NCT01252563|182033962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||Week 8|t-test, 1 sided|A one-sided paired t-test was performed to test the hypothesis.||The null hypothesis was that the mean change in ambulatory SBP from the baseline was equal to 0.||||<0.001
91073970|NCT01252563|182033962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||Week 12|t-test, 1 sided|A one-sided paired t-test was performed to test the hypothesis.||The null hypothesis was that the mean change in ambulatory SBP from the baseline was equal to 0.||||<0.001
91073971|NCT01252563|182033962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||Last Day|t-test, 1 sided|A one-sided paired t-test was performed to test the hypothesis.||The null hypothesis was that the mean change in ambulatory SBP from the baseline was equal to 0.||||<0.001
91073972|NCT01252563|182033963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Week 4|t-test, 1 sided|A one-sided paired t-test was performed to test the hypothesis.||The null hypothesis was that the mean change in ambulatory DBP from the baseline was equal to 0.||||<0.001
90827708|NCT05736874|181530374|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.06|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||1.06|0.69|
91073973|NCT01252563|182033963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||Week 8|t-test, 1 sided|A one-sided paired t-test was performed to test the hypothesis.||The null hypothesis was that the mean change in ambulatory DBP from the baseline was equal to 0.||||<0.001
91073974|NCT01252563|182033963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||Week 12|t-test, 1 sided|A one-sided paired t-test was performed to test the hypothesis.||The null hypothesis was that the mean change in ambulatory DBP from the baseline was equal to 0.||||<0.001
91073975|NCT01252563|182033963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||Last Day|t-test, 1 sided|A one-sided paired t-test was performed to test the hypothesis.||The null hypothesis was that the mean change in ambulatory DBP from the baseline was equal to 0.||||<0.001
91073976|NCT01252563|182033966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was Complication. The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between participants with complication(s) and participants without complication in the frequency of treatment-related adverse events."||||<0.001
91073977|NCT01252563|182033967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was Gender. The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between male and female in the frequency of treatment-related adverse events."||||<0.001
91073978|NCT01252563|182033968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.036|||||||Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was angina pectoris as a complication. The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between participants with angina pectoris and participants without angina pectoris in the frequency of treatment-related adverse events."||||0.036
91073979|NCT01252563|182033969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.02|||||||Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was dyslipidaemia as a complication. The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between participants with dyslipidaemia and participants without dyslipidaemia in the frequency of treatment-related adverse events."||||0.020
91073980|NCT01252563|182033970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.049|||||||Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was antihypertensive as a concomitant drug. The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between participants receiving antihypertensive and participants receiving no antihypertensive in the frequency of treatment-related adverse events."||||0.049
91073981|NCT01252563|182033971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.043|||||||Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was ARB as a concomitant drug. The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between participants receiving ARB and participants receiving no ARB in the frequency of treatment-related adverse events."||||0.043
91073982|NCT01252563|182033972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was diabetes mellitus as a complication. The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between participants with diabetes mellitus and participants without diabetes mellitus in the efficacy."||||<0.001
91073983|NCT01252563|182033973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was chronic kidney disease as a complication. The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between participants with chronic kidney disease and participants without chronic kidney disease in the efficacy."||||<0.001
91073984|NCT01252563|182033974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.039|||||||Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was myocardial infarction as a complication. The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between participants with myocardial infarction and participants without myocardial infarction in the efficacy."||||0.039
91073985|NCT01252563|182033975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was metabolic syndrome as a complication. The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between participants with metabolic syndrome and participants without metabolic syndrome in the efficacy."||||<0.001
91073986|NCT01252563|182033976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was ambulatory SBP at baseline. The null hypothesis was that there was no association between ambulatory SBP at baseline and the number of participants who achieved the target blood pressure specified in the guidelines."||||<0.001
91073987|NCT01252563|182033978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||Week 4|t-test, 1 sided|A one-sided paired t-test was performed to test the hypothesis.||The null hypothesis was that the mean change in home SBP from the baseline was equal to 0.||||<0.001
91073988|NCT01252563|182033978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||Week 8|t-test, 1 sided|A one-sided paired t-test was performed to test the hypothesis.||The null hypothesis was that the mean change in home SBP from the baseline was equal to 0.||||<0.001
91073989|NCT01252563|182033978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||Week 12|t-test, 1 sided|A one-sided paired t-test was performed to test the hypothesis.||The null hypothesis was that the mean change in home SBP from the baseline was equal to 0.||||<0.001
91073990|NCT01252563|182033978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||Last Day|t-test, 1 sided|A one-sided paired t-test was performed to test the hypothesis.||The null hypothesis was that the mean change in home SBP from the baseline was equal to 0.||||<0.001
91073991|NCT01252563|182033979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||Week 4|t-test, 1 sided|A one-sided paired t-test was performed to test the hypothesis.||The null hypothesis was that the mean changes in home DBP from the baseline are equal to 0.||||<0.001
91073992|NCT01252563|182033979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||Week 8|t-test, 1 sided|A one-sided paired t-test was performed to test the hypothesis.||The null hypothesis was that the mean changes in home DBP from the baseline are equal to 0.||||<0.001
91073993|NCT01252563|182033979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||Week 12|t-test, 1 sided|A one-sided paired t-test was performed to test the hypothesis.||The null hypothesis was that the mean changes in home DBP from the baseline are equal to 0.||||<0.001
91073994|NCT01252563|182033979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||Last Day|t-test, 1 sided|A one-sided paired t-test was performed to test the hypothesis.||The null hypothesis was that the mean changes in home DBP from the baseline are equal to 0.||||<0.001
91073995|NCT02951533|182034074|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
91073996|NCT05174949|182034118|SUPERIORITY|We performed a linear regression analysis (generalized estimating equations) in which we compared both intervention groups to the sham group and added a time interaction term|Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.58|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|8.4||Anode compared to sham: p = 0.0516 Cathode compared to sham: p \<.0001 . Anode change over time compared to sham p=0.0255 Cathode change over time compared to sham p\<.0001|Generalized Estimating Equations||Anode mean change = 4.13 std = 4.29 CLM = 0.5-7.7 Cathode mean change = 5.38 std = 3.58 CLM=2.4-8.4|We will report first anode compared to sham and then cathode compared to sham||8.4|2.4|<0.0001
91073997|NCT05174949|182034119|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.5||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.2|-16.2||anode compared to sham p= 0.0020 cathode compared to sham p = 0.0088 anode over time anode compared to sham p \<.0001 Cathode over time compared to sham p \<.0001|Regression, Cox||anode -24.2 (-32.2, -16.2) cathode -22.2 (-30.6, -13.8)|We compared anode to sham We compared cathode to sham We compared the change over time of anode to sham We compared the change over time of cathode to shal||-16.2|-32.2|0.0020
91073998|NCT05174949|182034120|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.077||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.1||Compare anode to sham p= 0.0001 Compare cathode to sham p=0.1073 Compare anode change in time to sham p=0.0938 Compare cathode change in time to sham 0.0068|Regression, Linear|Using generalized estimating equations with group and time component|Anode = 0.077 (0.00, 0.10) Cathode = -.0.125 (-0.32 0.07 )|e compare anode to sham We compare cathode to sham||0.10|0.00|0.0001
90827709|NCT05736874|181530374|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.3|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.30|0.82|
90827710|NCT05736874|181530374|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.32|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||1.32|0.80|
91073999|NCT01537068|182034151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test of Within-subjects effects|2.95||||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated Measures of ANOVA||||||0.09
91074000|NCT01537068|182034153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-squared|6.32||||0.025|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.025
91074001|NCT01565369|182034156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Fleiss' kappa|0.8547|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0282|<|0.0001||95.0||||evaluated at the .05 significance level|Fleiss' kappa|||Fleiss' kappa||||<0.0001
91074002|NCT03681990|182034229|OTHER|Mixed Model ANOVA with subject as a random effect.||||||0.34||||||F test|ANOVA|||||||0.34
91074003|NCT04488497|182034233|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.005
91074004|NCT04488497|182034234|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.60
91074005|NCT04488497|182034235|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.40
91074006|NCT04488497|182034236|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.60
91074007|NCT04488497|182034237|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.50
91074008|NCT04488497|182034238|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.90
91074009|NCT04488497|182034239|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.20
91074010|NCT01702532|182034240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-4.9||||0.0141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|-0.99||The comparison between treatments was conducted in a hierarchical order; consequently no adjustment of the significance level (5%) for multiplicity was needed.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model contains pre-provocation baseline, pre-dosing post-provocation craving score, and the terms treatment groups and center as fixed|Comment: The confidence interval is for the difference between treatments groups|Null hypotheses considered change in craving score means from pre-dose post-provocation at 50 seconds to be equal for the two treatment groups.||-0.99|-8.80|0.0141
91074011|NCT03617861|182034242|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Healthy Controls Secretin vs Healthy Controls Placebo||||0.12
91074012|NCT03617861|182034242|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Functional Dyspepsia Secretin vs Functional Dyspepsia Placebo||||0.65
91074013|NCT03617861|182034242|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0574|||||||ANCOVA|||Healthy Controls vs Functional Dyspepsia||||0.0574
91074014|NCT03617861|182034243|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Healthy Controls Secretin vs Healthy Controls Placebo||||0.85
91074015|NCT03617861|182034243|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Functional Dyspepsia Secretin vs Functional Dyspepsia Placebo||||0.82
91074016|NCT03617861|182034243|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1451|||||||ANCOVA|||Healthy Controls vs Functional Dyspepsia||||0.1451
91074017|NCT03617861|182034244|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Healthy Controls Secretin vs Healthy Controls Placebo||||0.85
91074018|NCT03617861|182034244|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Functional Dyspepsia Secretin vs Functional Dyspepsia Placebo||||1.0
91074019|NCT03617861|182034244|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4233|||||||ANCOVA|||Healthy Controls vs Functional Dyspepsia||||0.4233
91074020|NCT03617861|182034245|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Healthy Controls Secretin vs Healthy Controls Placebo||||0.92
91074021|NCT03617861|182034245|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Functional Dyspepsia Secretin vs Functional Dyspepsia Placebo||||1.0
91074022|NCT03617861|182034245|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3891|||||||ANCOVA|||Healthy Controls vs Functional Dyspepsia||||0.3891
91074023|NCT03617861|182034246|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Healthy Secretin vs Healthy Placebo||||0.004
90827711|NCT05736874|181530374|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.29|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.29|0.75|
91074024|NCT03617861|182034246|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Functional Dyspepsia Secretin vs Functional Dyspepsia Placebo||||0.03
90827712|NCT05736874|181530375|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.93|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||0.93|0.62|
91074025|NCT03617861|182034246|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0355|||||||ANCOVA|||Healthy vs Functional Dyspepsia||||0.0355
91074026|NCT03617861|182034247|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Nausea: Healthy Controls Secretin vs Healthy Controls Placebo||||0.5
91074027|NCT03617861|182034247|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Nausea: Functional Dyspepsia Secretin vs Functional Dyspepsia Placebo||||0.16
91074028|NCT03617861|182034247|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0016|||||||ANCOVA|||Nausea: Healthy Controls vs Functional Dyspepsia||||0.0016
91074029|NCT03617861|182034247|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Fullness: Healthy Controls Secretin vs Healthy Controls Placebo||||0.10
91074030|NCT03617861|182034247|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Fullness: Functional Dyspepsia Secretin vs Functional Dyspepsia Placebo||||0.30
91074031|NCT03617861|182034247|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||ANCOVA|||Fullness: Healthy Controls vs Functional Dyspepsia||||0.0002
91074032|NCT03617861|182034247|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Bloating: Healthy Controls Secretin vs Healthy Controls Placebo||||0.41
91074033|NCT03617861|182034247|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Bloating Functional Dyspepsia Secretin vs Functional Dyspepsia Placebo||||0.67
91074034|NCT03617861|182034247|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.033|||||||ANCOVA|||Bloating: Healthy Controls vs Functional Dyspepsia||||0.0330
91074035|NCT03617861|182034247|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Abdominal Pain: Healthy Controls Secretin vs Healthy Controls Placebo||||0.25
91074036|NCT03617861|182034247|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Abdominal Pain: Functional Dyspepsia Secretin vs Functional Dyspepsia Placebo||||0.57
91074037|NCT03617861|182034247|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2375|||||||ANCOVA|||Abdominal Pain: Healthy Controls vs Functional Dyspepsia||||0.2375
91074038|NCT03409107|182034350|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|1.56|||ANCOVA|One-sided p-value based on test of null hypothesis: (Daprodustat - Placebo) \<= 0 versus alternative: difference \> 0.|Treatment group comparisons were based on a ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, Baseline hemoglobin, and region.|||1.56|1.23|<0.0001
91074039|NCT03409107|182034351|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response rate|0.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.63||One-sided p-value was based on test of null hypothesis: (Daprodustat - Placebo) \<=0 versus alternative: difference \> 0|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Treatment group comparisons were based on a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for treatment group and region.|||0.63|0.49|<0.0001
91074040|NCT03409107|182034352|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.36||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.17|8.56||One-sided p-value based on test of null hypothesis:(Daprodustat-Placebo) \<= 0 vs alternative: difference \> 0.|ANCOVA||Treatment group comparisons were based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, Baseline score, and region.|||8.56|2.17|0.0005
91074041|NCT03409107|182034353|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response rate|0.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.52||One-sided p-value was based on test of null hypothesis: (Daprodustat-Placebo) \<=0 versus alternative: difference \>0.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Treatment group comparisons are based on a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for treatment group, and region|||0.52|0.37|<0.0001
91074042|NCT03409107|182034354|SUPERIORITY||Difference in treatment effect|38.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.0|54.55|||Hodges-Lehmann Estimate|Hodges-Lehmann Estimate of treatment difference has been reported.||||54.55|25.00|
91074043|NCT03409107|182034355|SUPERIORITY||Difference in treatment effect|0.768|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.729|0.806||One-sided superiority p-value from the van Elteren test|van Elteren test||Mann-Whitney estimate of the treatment difference stratified by region has been presented.|||0.806|0.729|<0.0001
91074044|NCT03409107|182034356|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|1.36|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|1.55||One-sided superiority p-value from the MMRM model|MMRM||Treatment group comparisons were based on MMRM fitted from Baseline up to Week 28, with factors for treatment, time, region, Baseline Hb and Baseline Hb by time and treatment by time interactions.|||1.55|1.16|<0.0001
91074045|NCT03409107|182034357|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.07||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.3||One-sided p-value was based on Wald test of null hypothesis: (Daprodustat/Placebo) \>=1 versus alternative: ratio\<1.|Wald test||Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model adjusted for treatment group and region.|||0.30|0.02|0.0002
91074046|NCT03409107|182034358|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.91|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.83|9.0||One-sided p-value was based on test of null hypothesis: (Daprodustat-Placebo) \<=0 versus alternative: difference \>0.|MMRM||Analysis was performed by MMRM with factors for treatment, time, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions for Tired/Low Energy/Weak domain.|||9.00|2.83|<0.0001
91074047|NCT03409107|182034358|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.93||||0.0152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|5.57||One-sided p-value was based on test of null hypothesis: (Daprodustat-Placebo) \<=0 versus alternative: difference \>0.|MMRM||Analysis was performed by MMRM with factors for treatment, time, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions for Chest Pain/Shortness of Breath Domain.|||5.57|0.28|0.0152
91074048|NCT03409107|182034358|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.79||||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|6.63||One-sided p-value was based on test of null hypothesis: (Daprodustat-Placebo) \<=0 versus alternative: difference \>0.|MMRM||Analysis was performed by MMRM with factors for treatment, time, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions for Cognitive Domain.|||6.63|0.95|0.0045
91074049|NCT03409107|182034358|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.61||||0.1267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|7.09||One-sided p-value was based on test of null hypothesis: (Daprodustat-Placebo) \<=0 versus alternative: difference \>0.|MMRM||Analysis was performed by MMRM with factors for treatment, time, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions for Difficulty Sleeping|||7.09|-1.87|0.1267
91074050|NCT03409107|182034358|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.64||||0.0203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|9.09||One-sided p-value was based on test of null hypothesis: (Daprodustat-Placebo) \<=0 versus alternative: difference \>0.|MMRM||Analysis was performed by MMRM with factors for treatment, time, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions for Difficulty Standing for Long Periods of Time|||9.09|0.20|0.0203
91074051|NCT03409107|182034358|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.68||||0.0266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|5.39||One-sided p-value was based on test of null hypothesis: (Daprodustat-Placebo) \<=0 versus alternative: difference \>0.|MMRM||Analysis was performed by MMRM with factors for treatment, time, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions for Severity of Shortness of Breath While Sitting or Resting|||5.39|-0.04|0.0266
91074052|NCT03409107|182034358|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.01||||0.0907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|4.96||One-sided p-value was based on test of null hypothesis: (Daprodustat-Placebo) \<=0 versus alternative: difference \>0.|MMRM||Analysis was performed by MMRM with factors for treatment, time, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions for Time with Shortness of Breath While not Doing an Activity|||4.96|-0.94|0.0907
91074053|NCT03409107|182034359|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13||||0.0391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.02||One-sided p-value was based on test of null hypothesis: (Daprodustat-rhEPO) \>=0 versus alternative: difference \<0|MMRM||MMRM fitted from Baseline up to Week 28 with factors for treatment, time, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.02|-0.28|0.0391
91074054|NCT03409107|182034360|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.57||||0.0858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|6.26||One sided p-value was based on test of null hypothesis: (Daprodustat-Placebo) \<=0 vs. alternative: difference \>0.|MMRM||MMRM fitted from Baseline up to Week 28 with factors for treatment, time, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||6.26|-1.12|0.0858
91074055|NCT03409107|182034361|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17||||0.0357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.36||One sided p-value based on test of null hypothesis: (Daprodustat-Placebo) \<=0 versus alternative: difference \>0.|MMRM||MMRM fitted from Baseline up to Week 28 with factors for treatment, time, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions for Did you feel full of life?.|||0.36|-0.02|0.0357
91074056|NCT03409107|182034361|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17||||0.0328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.35||One-sided p-value based on test of null hypothesis: (Daprodustat-Placebo) \<=0 versus alternative: difference \>0.|MMRM||MMRM fitted from Baseline up to Week 28 with factors for treatment, time, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions for Did you have a lot of energy?.|||0.35|-0.01|0.0328
91074057|NCT03409107|182034361|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.18||||0.0252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.37||One-sided p-value based on test of null hypothesis: (Daprodustat-Placebo) \<=0 versus alternative: difference \>0.|MMRM||MMRM fitted from Baseline up to Week 28 with factors for treatment, time, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions for Did you feel worn out?.|||0.37|0.00|0.0252
90827713|NCT05736874|181530375|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.18|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.18|0.78|
91074058|NCT03409107|182034361|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.26||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.42||One-sided p-value based on test of null hypothesis: (Daprodustat-Placebo) \<=0 versus alternative: difference \>0.|MMRM||MMRM fitted from Baseline up to Week 28 with factors for treatment, time, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions for Did you feel tired?.|||0.42|0.10|0.0010
91074059|NCT03409107|182034368|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03||||0.1098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.07||One-sided p-value was based on test of null hypothesis: (Daprodustat-Placebo) \<=0 versus. alternative: difference \>0.|MMRM||Based on MMRM model fitted from Baseline up to Week 28 with factors for treatment, time, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.07|-0.02|0.1098
91074060|NCT03409107|182034369|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.5||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|8.4||One-sided p-value was based on test of null hypothesis: (Daprodustat-Placebo) \<=0 vs. alternative: difference \>0.|MMRM||MMRM model fitted from Baseline up to Week 28 with factors for treatment, time, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||8.40|0.60|0.0120
91074061|NCT03409107|182034370|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4||||0.6106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.42|3.22||"One-sided p-value was based on test of null hypothesis: (Daprodustat - Placebo) \>= 0 versus alternative:~difference \<0"|MMRM||MMRM model fitted from Baseline up to Week 28, with factors for treatment, time, region, Baseline SBP and Baseline SBP by time and treatment by time interactions.|||3.22|-2.42|0.6106
91074062|NCT03409107|182034370|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.8||||0.9819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|3.49||"One-sided p-value was based on test of null hypothesis: (Daprodustat - Placebo) \>= 0 versus alternative:~difference \< 0"|MMRM||MMRM model fitted from Baseline up to Week 28, with factors for treatment, time, region, Baseline DBP and Baseline DBP by time and treatment by time interactions.|||3.49|0.12|0.9819
91074063|NCT03409107|182034370|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.31||||0.9215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|3.13||"One-sided p-value was based on test of null hypothesis: (Daprodustat - Placebo) \>= 0 versus alternative:~difference \<0"|MMRM||MMRM model fitted from Baseline up to Week 28, with factors for treatment, time, region, Baseline MAP and Baseline MAP by time and treatment by time interactions.|||3.13|-0.51|0.9215
91074064|NCT03409107|182034371|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response rate|0.06||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.13||One-sided p-value based on test of null hypothesis: (Daprodustat - Placebo) \<= 0 versus alternative: difference \> 0.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was performed for treatment group comparison.|||0.13|-0.02|0.0680
91074065|NCT05007041|182034402|NON_INFERIORITY|The one-sided non-inferiority test with the alpha level set at 0.025 and non-inferiority margin of 10%, stratified by site.|Difference in proportions|-0.96||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.94|7.1|||Difference in proportions|The upper bound of a site-stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.||The null hypothesis is simultaneous vaccination with RZV and allV4 is inferior (i.e., RZV and allV4 will have a higher proportion) to RZV and HD-IIV4 with regard to the proportion of adults with at least one severe (Grade 3) solicited local or systemic reactogenicity event on days 1-8 after RZV dose||7.10|-8.94|0.0037
91074066|NCT05007041|182034403|OTHER|Difference in proportions|Difference in proportions|-7.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.22|4.69||||||||4.69|-20.22|
91074067|NCT05007041|182034404|OTHER|Difference in proportions|Difference in proportions|2.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.29|12.47||||||||12.47|-7.29|
91074068|NCT05007041|182034405|NON_INFERIORITY|The one-sided non-inferiority test with the alpha level set at 0.025 and non-inferiority margin of 10%, stratified by site.|Difference in proportions|1.74||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.04|7.77||The upper bound of a site-stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Difference in proportions|||Number of Participants With at Least One Severe (Grade 3) Solicited Local Reactogenicity Event After SHINGRIX® Dose 1 in Each Study Group||7.77|-4.04|0.0031
91074069|NCT05007041|182034406|OTHER|Difference in proportions|Difference in proportions|-6.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|0.6|||Difference in proportions|||||0.60|-13.10|
91074070|NCT05007041|182034407|OTHER|Difference in proportions|Difference in proportions|5.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|13.11|||Difference in proportions|||||13.11|-1.32|
91074071|NCT05007041|182034408|NON_INFERIORITY|The one-sided non-inferiority test with the alpha level set at 0.025 and non-inferiority margin of 10%, stratified by site.|Difference in proportions|-4.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|2.47|||Difference in proportions|The upper bound of a site-stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.||||2.47|-10.90|<0.0001
91074072|NCT05007041|182034409|OTHER|Difference in proportions|Difference in proportions|-5.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.64|6.28|||Difference in proportions|||||6.28|-17.64|
91074073|NCT05007041|182034410|OTHER|Difference in proportions|Difference in proportions|-3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|3.89|||Difference in proportions|||||3.89|-10.50|
91074074|NCT05007041|182034411|OTHER|Difference in proportions|Difference in proportions|-0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|0.7|||Difference in proportions|||||0.70|-2.16|
91074075|NCT05007041|182034412|OTHER|The proportion and 95% exact binomial confidence interval between vaccine groups.|Difference in proportions|-2.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.36|0.6|||Difference in proportions|||||0.60|-6.36|
91074076|NCT01258075|182034440|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.5494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.29|||ANCOVA|Based on a mixed effect ANCOVA model with treatment and previous type 2 diabetes treatment stratum as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.29|-0.54|0.5494
91074077|NCT05870956|182034484|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|932.88||||0.516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1880.17|3745.94|||ANOVA||"The net difference was calculated as:~Comparator - Reference~where High nintedanib adherence group was used as reference."|||3745.94|-1880.17|0.516
91074078|NCT05870956|182034484|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4902.02||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|767.6|9036.43|||ANOVA||"The net difference was calculated as:~Comparator - Reference~where High nintedanib adherence group was used as reference."|||9036.43|767.60|0.020
91074079|NCT05870956|182034484|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2727.38||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|323.48|5131.27|||ANOVA||"The net difference was calculated as:~Comparator - Reference~where High nintedanib adherence group was used as reference."|||5131.27|323.48|0.026
91074080|NCT05870956|182034484|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5462.41||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2520.93|8403.9|||ANOVA||"The net difference was calculated as:~Comparator - Reference~where High nintedanib adherence group was used as reference."|||8403.90|2520.93|0.000
91074081|NCT05870956|182034485|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-303.94||||0.439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1074.77|466.9|||ANOVA||"The net difference was calculated as:~Comparator - Reference~where High nintedanib adherence group was used as reference."|||466.90|-1074.77|0.439
91074082|NCT05870956|182034485|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2772.06||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|422.1|5122.02|||ANOVA||"The net difference was calculated as:~Comparator - Reference~where High nintedanib adherence group was used as reference."|||5122.02|422.10|0.021
91074083|NCT05870956|182034485|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|456.79||||0.328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-458.64|1372.21|||ANOVA||"The net difference was calculated as:~Comparator - Reference~where High nintedanib adherence group was used as reference."|||1372.21|-458.64|0.328
91074084|NCT05870956|182034485|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|620.87||||0.382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-771.77|2013.51|||ANOVA||"The net difference was calculated as:~Comparator - Reference~where High nintedanib adherence group was used as reference."|||2013.51|-771.77|0.382
91074085|NCT05870956|182034486|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.4||||0.463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|8.9|||Chi-squared||"The net difference was calculated as:~Comparator - Reference~where High nintedanib adherence group was used as reference."|||8.9|-4.0|0.463
91074086|NCT05870956|182034486|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.6||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|16.8|||Chi-squared||"The net difference was calculated as:~Comparator - Reference~where High nintedanib adherence group was used as reference."|||16.8|2.5|0.008
91074087|NCT05870956|182034486|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.1||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|15.3|||Chi-squared||"The net difference was calculated as:~Comparator - Reference~where High nintedanib adherence group was used as reference."|||15.3|2.8|0.005
91074088|NCT05870956|182034486|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.4||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|11.7|||Chi-squared||"The net difference was calculated as:~Comparator - Reference~where High nintedanib adherence group was used as reference."|||11.7|1.1|0.019
91074089|NCT05870956|182034487|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6||||0.801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|5.5|||Chi-squared||"The net difference was calculated as:~Comparator - Reference~where High nintedanib adherence group was used as reference."|||5.5|-4.3|0.801
91074090|NCT05870956|182034487|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.7||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|14.8|||Chi-squared||"The net difference was calculated as:~Comparator - Reference~where High nintedanib adherence group was used as reference."|||14.8|2.7|0.005
91074091|NCT05870956|182034487|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.4||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|8.2|||Chi-squared||"The net difference was calculated as:~Comparator - Reference~where High nintedanib adherence group was used as reference."|||8.2|-1.4|0.170
91074092|NCT05870956|182034487|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.4||||0.489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|5.4|||Chi-squared||"The net difference was calculated as:~Comparator - Reference~where High nintedanib adherence group was used as reference."|||5.4|-2.6|0.489
91074093|NCT03724877|182034504|OTHER||Adjusted hazard ratio (HR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.38|||Regression, Cox||After matching on high-dimensional propensity scores, sex prior severe exacerbation, prior maintenance treatment and calendar time, adjusted further for the deciles of propensity score and percent predicted forced expiratory volume1 (FEV1).|||1.38|0.79|
91074094|NCT03724877|182034505|OTHER||Adjusted HR|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.09|||Regression, Cox||After matching on high-dimensional propensity scores, sex prior severe exacerbation, prior maintenance treatment and calendar time, adjusted further for the deciles of propensity score and percent predicted FEV1.|||1.09|0.87|
91074095|NCT03724877|182034506|OTHER||Adjusted HR|1.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.07|||Regression, Cox||After matching on high-dimensional propensity scores, sex prior severe exacerbation, prior maintenance treatment and calendar time, adjusted further for the deciles of propensity score and percent predicted FEV1.|||2.07|1.03|
91074096|NCT03724877|182034507|OTHER||Adjusted rate ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.04|||Negative binomial regression model||After matching on high-dimensional propensity scores, sex prior severe exacerbation, prior maintenance treatment and calendar time, adjusted further for the deciles of propensity score and percent predicted FEV1.|Moderate/ sever exacerbation||1.04|0.83|
91074097|NCT03724877|182034507|OTHER||Adjusted rate ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.28|||Negative binomial regression model||After matching on high-dimensional propensity scores, sex prior severe exacerbation, prior maintenance treatment and calendar time, adjusted further for the deciles of propensity score and percent predicted FEV1.|Severe exacerbation||1.28|0.70|
90827714|NCT05736874|181530375|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.12|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||1.12|0.74|
90827715|NCT05736874|181530375|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.56|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.56|1.02|
90827716|NCT05736874|181530376|SUPERIORITY||Difference in model estimate time unwell|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.26|||||The interval is a highest-density credible interval.|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.||0.26|-0.45|
91074098|NCT04017832|182034508|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.1||Unadjusted two-sided p-value|Mixed model for repeated measurements|||||-0.1|-0.3|0.0078
91074099|NCT04017832|182034508|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.6||Unadjusted two-sided p-value|Mixed model for repeated measurements|||||-0.6|-0.8|<0.0001
91074100|NCT04017832|182034508|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.8||Unadjusted two-sided p-value|Mixed model for repeated measurements|||||-0.8|-1.1|< 0.0001
91074101|NCT02091986|182034580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline FEV1, Treatment group, Region, Age were all included as explanatory variables in the linear predictor.||||||0.006
91074102|NCT02091986|182034580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.063|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline FEV1, Treatment group, Region, Age were all included as explanatory variables in the linear predictor.||||||0.063
91074103|NCT02091986|182034580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.373|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline FEV1, Treatment group, Region, Age were all included as explanatory variables in the linear predictor.||||||0.373
91074104|NCT02091986|182034581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline lung function assessment, Treatment group, Region, Age were all included as explanatory variables in the linear predictor.||||||0.001
91074105|NCT02091986|182034581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.195|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline lung function assessment, Treatment group, Region, Age were all included as explanatory variables in the linear predictor.||||||0.195
91074106|NCT02091986|182034581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.032|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline lung function assessment, Treatment group, Region, Age were all included as explanatory variables in the linear predictor.||||||0.032
91074107|NCT02091986|182034582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline lung function assessment, Treatment group, Region, Age were all included as explanatory variables in the linear predictor.||||||<0.001
91074108|NCT02091986|182034582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline lung function assessment, Treatment group, Region, Age were all included as explanatory variables in the linear predictor.||||||0.005
91074109|NCT02091986|182034582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.326|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline lung function assessment, Treatment group, Region, Age were all included as explanatory variables in the linear predictor.||||||0.326
91074110|NCT02091986|182034583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.276|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline lung function assessment, Treatment group, Region, Age were all included as explanatory variables in the linear predictor.||||||0.276
91074111|NCT02091986|182034583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.759|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline lung function assessment, Treatment group, Region, Age were all included as explanatory variables in the linear predictor.||||||0.759
91074112|NCT02091986|182034583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.165|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline lung function assessment, Treatment group, Region, Age were all included as explanatory variables in the linear predictor.||||||0.165
91074113|NCT02091986|182034584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.724|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline lung function assessment, Treatment group, Region, Age were all included as explanatory variables in the linear predictor.||||||0.724
91074114|NCT02091986|182034584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.909|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline lung function assessment, Treatment group, Region, Age were all included as explanatory variables in the linear predictor.||||||0.909
91074115|NCT02091986|182034584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.811|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline lung function assessment, Treatment group, Region, Age were all included as explanatory variables in the linear predictor.||||||0.811
91074116|NCT02091986|182034585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.134|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline lung function assessment, Treatment group, Region, Age were all included as explanatory variables in the linear predictor.||||||0.134
91074117|NCT02091986|182034585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.985|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline lung function assessment, Treatment group, Region, Age were all included as explanatory variables in the linear predictor.||||||0.985
91074118|NCT02091986|182034585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.128|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline lung function assessment, Treatment group, Region, Age were all included as explanatory variables in the linear predictor.||||||0.128
91074119|NCT02091986|182034586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.684|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline lung function assessment, Treatment group, Region, Age were all included as explanatory variables in the linear predictor.||||||0.684
91074120|NCT02091986|182034586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.621|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline lung function assessment, Treatment group, Region, Age were all included as explanatory variables in the linear predictor.||||||0.621
90827717|NCT05736874|181530377|SUPERIORITY||Difference in model estimated means|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.58|||||The interval is a highest-density credible interval.|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.||0.58|-0.28|
90827718|NCT00527735|181530400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.806||||0.1302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.553|1.174|||1-sided log rank|||||1.174|0.553|0.1302
90827719|NCT00527735|181530400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.724||||0.0473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.495|1.059|||1-sided log rank|||||1.059|0.495|0.0473
91074121|NCT02091986|182034586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.929|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline lung function assessment, Treatment group, Region, Age were all included as explanatory variables in the linear predictor.||||||0.929
91074122|NCT02091986|182034587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.664|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline lung function assessment, Treatment group, Region, Age were all included as explanatory variables in the linear predictor.||||||0.664
91074123|NCT02091986|182034587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.747|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline lung function assessment, Treatment group, Region, Age were all included as explanatory variables in the linear predictor.||||||0.747
91074124|NCT02091986|182034587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.913|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline lung function assessment, Treatment group, Region, Age were all included as explanatory variables in the linear predictor.||||||0.913
91074125|NCT02091986|182034588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||ANCOVA|Baseline lung function assessment, Treatment group, Region, Age were all included as explanatory variables in the linear predictor.||||||0.015
91074126|NCT02091986|182034588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.342|||||||ANCOVA|Baseline lung function assessment, Treatment group, Region, Age were all included as explanatory variables in the linear predictor.||||||0.342
91074127|NCT02091986|182034588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.138|||||||ANCOVA|Baseline lung function assessment, Treatment group, Region, Age were all included as explanatory variables in the linear predictor.||||||0.138
91074128|NCT02091986|182034592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.098|||||||ANCOVA|The explanatory variables included in the model are: treatment group, baseline overall PAQLQ(S) score, region and age group||||||0.098
91074129|NCT02091986|182034592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.367|||||||ANCOVA|The explanatory variables included in the model are: treatment group, baseline overall PAQLQ(S) score, region and age group||||||0.367
91074130|NCT02091986|182034592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.449|||||||ANCOVA|The explanatory variables included in the model are: treatment group, baseline overall PAQLQ(S) score, region and age group||||||0.449
91074131|NCT00125242|182034599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||effect size|7.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.1|||TWO_SIDED||||||||the reported effect size is a d-index value|Effect sizes were calculated - this is a comparison of perfomance in baseline (repeated measurements prior to treatment) relative to peformance following treatment||||
91074132|NCT01340027|182034678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.44||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|14.9|||ANCOVA|||"Statistical comparisons were made using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was performed.~The ANCOVA model for all pairwise comparisons includes the 2 main factors mirabegron dose and solifenacin succinate dose and their interaction, sex, age group and geographic region as fixed factors and Baseline value as a covariate.~Least squares (LS) mean differences were calculated by subtracting Solifenacin 5 mg/Placebo from the comparison treatment group."||14.9|-14.3|0.97
91074133|NCT01340027|182034678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.15||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|15.5|||ANCOVA|||||15.5|-8.6|0.58
90827720|NCT00527735|181530401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.882||||0.2502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.612|1.271|||One-sided log rank|||||1.271|0.612|0.2502
90827721|NCT00527735|181530401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.691||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.478|0.999|||One-sided log rank|||||0.999|0.478|0.0240
90827722|NCT00527735|181530402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.988||||0.4759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.669|1.46|||1-sided log rank|||||1.460|0.669|0.4759
90827723|NCT00527735|181530402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.866||||0.234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.587|1.278|||1-sided log rank|||||1.278|0.587|0.2340
90827724|NCT00527735|181530409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.751||||0.1098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.475|1.188|||1-sided log rank|||||1.188|0.475|0.1098
91074134|NCT01340027|182034678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.13||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|18.0|||ANCOVA|||||18.0|-6.1|0.33
91074135|NCT01340027|182034678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|17.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.2||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.4|29.8|||ANCOVA|||||29.8|5.4|0.005
91074136|NCT01340027|182034678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|18.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.1||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.2|30.2|||ANCOVA|||||30.2|6.2|0.003
91074137|NCT01340027|182034678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|21.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.37||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.2|36.1|||ANCOVA|||||36.1|7.2|0.003
91074138|NCT01340027|182034678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|26.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.32|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.9|40.7|||ANCOVA|||||40.7|11.9|<0.001
91074139|NCT01340027|182034678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|11.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.46||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|27.6|||ANCOVA|||||27.6|-5.6|0.20
91074140|NCT01340027|182034678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|20.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.43||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|37.1|||ANCOVA|||||37.1|4.0|0.015
91074141|NCT01340027|182034678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|22.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.43||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.9|39.0|||ANCOVA|||||39.0|5.9|0.008
91074142|NCT01340027|182034678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|22.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.32||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.6|36.3|||ANCOVA|||||36.3|7.6|0.003
91074143|NCT01340027|182034678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|22.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.46||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.6|38.8|||ANCOVA|||||38.8|5.6|0.009
91074144|NCT01340027|182034678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|25.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.35|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|39.8|||ANCOVA|||||39.8|11.0|<0.001
90827725|NCT00527735|181530409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64||||0.0282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.403|1.1016|||1-sided log rank|||||1.1016|0.403|0.0282
90827726|NCT00527735|181530418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.933||||0.3846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.588|1.481|||1-sided Log Rank|||||1.481|0.588|0.3846
91074145|NCT01340027|182034678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|27.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.34|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.5|42.3|||ANCOVA|||||42.3|13.5|<0.001
91074146|NCT01340027|182034678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|39.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.39|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.1|54.1|||ANCOVA|||||54.1|25.1|<0.001
91074147|NCT01340027|182034678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean DIfference|40.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.31|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.8|54.5|||ANCOVA|||||54.5|25.8|<0.001
91074148|NCT01340027|182034678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|43.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.42|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.1|60.1|||ANCOVA|||||60.1|27.1|<0.001
91074149|NCT01340027|182034678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|48.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.35|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.9|64.7|||ANCOVA|||||64.7|31.9|<0.001
91074150|NCT01340027|182034679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.366||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.03|||ANCOVA|||"Statistical comparisons were made using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was performed.~The ANCOVA model for all pairwise comparisons includes the 2 main factors mirabegron dose and solifenacin succinate dose and their interaction, sex, age group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline measurement as a covariate.~LS Mean Differences were calculated by subtracting Solifenacin 5 mg/Placebo from the comparison treatment group."||0.03|-1.40|0.062
91074151|NCT01340027|182034679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.302||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.56|||ANCOVA|||||0.56|-0.63|0.91
91074152|NCT01340027|182034679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.302||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.2|||ANCOVA|||||0.20|-0.98|0.20
91074153|NCT01340027|182034679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.305||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.58|||ANCOVA|||||0.58|-0.62|0.96
91074154|NCT01340027|182034679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|-0.22|||ANCOVA|||||-0.22|-1.39|0.007
91074155|NCT01340027|182034679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.363||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|-0.16|||ANCOVA|||||-0.16|-1.59|0.016
91074156|NCT01340027|182034679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|-0.27|||ANCOVA|||||-0.27|-1.68|0.007
91074157|NCT01340027|182034679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.417||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.77|||ANCOVA|||||0.77|-0.87|0.91
91074158|NCT01340027|182034679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.415||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.69|||ANCOVA|||||0.69|-0.94|0.76
91074159|NCT01340027|182034679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.416||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.81|||ANCOVA|||||0.81|-0.82|0.99
91074160|NCT01340027|182034679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.361||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.6|||ANCOVA|||||0.60|-0.82|0.77
91074161|NCT01340027|182034679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.417||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|0.03|||ANCOVA|||||0.03|-1.61|0.058
91074162|NCT01340027|182034679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.362||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.57|||ANCOVA|||||0.57|-0.85|0.69
91074163|NCT01340027|182034679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.362||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|0.21|||ANCOVA|||||0.21|-1.21|0.17
91074164|NCT01340027|182034679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.364||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.59|||ANCOVA|||||0.59|-0.84|0.73
91074165|NCT01340027|182034679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.361||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||||-0.20|-1.62|0.012
90827727|NCT00527735|181530418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.927||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.591|1.453|||1-sided Log Rank|||||1.453|0.591|0.3700
90827728|NCT00527735|181530421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.947||||0.4132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.585|1.536|||1-sided Log Rank|||||1.536|0.585|0.4132
90827729|NCT00527735|181530421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.753||||0.1287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.461|1.232|||1-sided Log Rank|||||1.232|0.461|0.1287
90827730|NCT02271698|181530447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.052||||||6 hour pain at rest|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.052
91074166|NCT01340027|182034679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.414||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.17|||ANCOVA|||||-0.17|-1.80|0.018
91074167|NCT01340027|182034679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.412||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|-0.28|||ANCOVA|||||-0.28|-1.89|0.009
91074168|NCT01340027|182034680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.82||Statistical comparisons were made using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was performed.|Stratified Rank ANCOVA|P-values are from pairwise comparisons of the combination/active treatment groups vs. solifenacin 5 mg/placebo within a stratified rank ANCOVA model.||The ANCOVA model including the 2 main factors mirabegron dose and solifenacin dose and their interaction, sex, age group and geographic region as fixed factors and Baseline measurement as a covariate was used to calculate point estimates and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for change from Baseline within each treatment group and for differences between combination treatment groups and solifenacin 5 mg as well as for differences between active treatment groups and placebo.||0.82|-1.00|0.51
91074169|NCT01340027|182034680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.355||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.83|||Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||||0.83|-0.57|0.21
91074170|NCT01340027|182034680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.361||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.74|||Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||||0.74|-0.68|0.89
91074171|NCT01340027|182034680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.365||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|0.38||P values were calculated from a pairwise comparison of the combination treatment groups vs solifenacin succinate 5 mg or placebo within the ANCOVA model.|Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||||0.38|-1.06|0.001
91074172|NCT01340027|182034680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.397||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|0.52|||Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||||0.52|-1.04|0.058
91074173|NCT01340027|182034680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.395||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|1.38|||Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||||1.38|-0.17|0.15
91074174|NCT01340027|182034680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.417||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.73|||Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||||0.73|-0.91|0.41
91074175|NCT01340027|182034680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.554||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|1.3|||Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||||1.30|-0.88|0.44
91074176|NCT01340027|182034680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.505||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|1.04|||Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||||1.04|-0.95|0.85
91074177|NCT01340027|182034680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.533||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|0.74|||Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||||0.74|-1.36|0.83
91074178|NCT01340027|182034680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.444||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.95|||Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||||0.95|-0.80|0.56
91074179|NCT01340027|182034680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.534||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|1.03|||Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||||1.03|-1.07|0.48
91074180|NCT01340027|182034680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.443||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|1.07|||Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||||1.07|-0.67|0.13
91074181|NCT01340027|182034680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.448||0.62|TWO_SIDED|2.0|-0.78|0.99|||Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||||0.99|-0.78|0.62
91074182|NCT01340027|182034680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.454||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.63|||Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||||0.63|-1.16|0.34
91074183|NCT01340027|182034680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.472||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|0.74|||Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||||0.74|-1.12|0.24
91074184|NCT01340027|182034680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.475||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|1.61|||Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||||1.61|-0.26|0.88
91074185|NCT01340027|182034680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.494||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.95|||Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||||0.95|-0.99|0.83
91074186|NCT01340027|182034683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|2.39|||Regression, Logistic|||"All statistical comparisons are for End of Treatment using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was performed.~The logistic regression model includes the 2 main factors mirabegron dose and solifenacin dose and their interaction, sex, age group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline measurement as a covariate."||2.39|0.69|0.42
91074187|NCT01340027|182034683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.00|0.72|0.48
91074188|NCT01340027|182034683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.83|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.83|0.67|0.69
91074189|NCT01340027|182034683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.69|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.69|0.61|0.95
91074190|NCT01340027|182034683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.91||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|3.21|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.21|1.14|0.015
91074191|NCT01340027|182034683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.06||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|3.84|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.84|1.11|0.023
91074192|NCT01340027|182034683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.54||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.84|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.84|0.84|0.16
91074193|NCT01340027|182034683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.76|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.76|0.45|0.73
91074194|NCT01340027|182034683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.72|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.72|0.45|0.70
91074195|NCT01340027|182034683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|2.99|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.99|0.74|0.26
91074196|NCT01340027|182034683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.04|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.04|0.63|0.69
91074197|NCT01340027|182034683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.89|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.89|0.73|0.29
91074198|NCT01340027|182034683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.45|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.45|0.75|0.31
91074199|NCT01340027|182034683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.25|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.25|0.70|0.45
91074200|NCT01340027|182034683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|2.07|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.07|0.64|0.64
91074201|NCT01340027|182034683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.16||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|3.94|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.94|1.18|0.013
91074202|NCT01340027|182034683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.33||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|4.66|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.66|1.16|0.017
91074203|NCT01340027|182034683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|3.45|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.45|0.88|0.11
91074204|NCT01340027|182034685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.64||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|2.56|||Regression, Logistic|||"All statistical comparisons are for End of Treatment using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was performed.~The logistic regression model includes the 2 main factors mirabegron dose and solifenacin dose and their interaction, sex, age group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline measurement as a covariate."||2.56|0.16|0.52
91074205|NCT01340027|182034685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.99|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.99|0.23|0.48
91074206|NCT01340027|182034685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|2.81|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.81|0.32|0.93
91074207|NCT01340027|182034685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.12||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|25.6|||Regression, Logistic|||||25.60|1.47|0.013
91074208|NCT01340027|182034685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.49||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|25.77|||Regression, Logistic|||||25.77|1.17|0.031
91074209|NCT01340027|182034685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.84||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|15.58|||Regression, Logistic|||||15.58|0.95|0.059
91074210|NCT01340027|182034685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.91||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|7.58|||Regression, Logistic|||||7.58|0.48|0.36
91074211|NCT01340027|182034685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.34||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|2.17|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.17|0.05|0.26
91074212|NCT01340027|182034685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.43||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|2.31|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.31|0.08|0.33
91074213|NCT01340027|182034685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|6.68|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.68|0.17|0.94
91074214|NCT01340027|182034685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.44||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|2.02|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.02|0.09|0.29
91074215|NCT01340027|182034685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.28||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|1.6|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.60|0.05|0.15
91074216|NCT01340027|182034685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.29||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|1.34|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.34|0.06|0.11
91074217|NCT01340027|182034685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.41||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.89|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.89|0.09|0.26
91074218|NCT01340027|182034685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.67||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|16.17|||Regression, Logistic|||||16.17|0.44|0.28
91074219|NCT01340027|182034685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.39||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|15.46|||Regression, Logistic|||||15.46|0.37|0.36
91074220|NCT01340027|182034685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|9.72|||Regression, Logistic|||||9.72|0.29|0.56
91074221|NCT01340027|182034685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|4.76|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.76|0.15|0.84
91074222|NCT01340027|182034686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.61||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|2.38|||Regression, Logistic|||"All statistical comparisons are for End of Treatment using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was performed.~The logistic regression model includes the 2 main factors mirabegron dose and solifenacin dose and their interaction, sex, age group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline measurement as a covariate."||2.38|0.16|0.48
91074223|NCT01340027|182034686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|2.17|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.17|0.25|0.58
91074224|NCT01340027|182034686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|3.28|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.28|0.34|0.93
91074225|NCT01340027|182034686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.16||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|105.3|||Regression, Logistic|||||105.30|1.40|0.023
91074226|NCT01340027|182034686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.48||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|83.24|||Regression, Logistic|||||83.24|1.08|0.042
91074227|NCT01340027|182034686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.03||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|79.19|||Regression, Logistic|||||79.19|1.03|0.047
91074228|NCT01340027|182034686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.79||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|14.9|||Regression, Logistic|||||14.90|0.52|0.23
91074229|NCT01340027|182034686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.1||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|1.08|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.08|0.01|0.058
91074230|NCT01340027|182034686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.18||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|1.87|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.87|0.02|0.15
91074231|NCT01340027|182034686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.46||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|5.99|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.99|0.04|0.55
91074232|NCT01340027|182034686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.16||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|1.48|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.48|0.02|0.11
91074233|NCT01340027|182034686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.1||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|1.05|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.05|0.01|0.054
91074234|NCT01340027|182034686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.12||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|1.08|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.08|0.01|0.059
91074235|NCT01340027|182034686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.17||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|1.58|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.58|0.02|0.12
91074236|NCT01340027|182034686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|35.46|||Regression, Logistic|||||35.46|0.11|0.64
91074237|NCT01340027|182034686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|27.42|||Regression, Logistic|||||27.42|0.09|0.76
91074238|NCT01340027|182034686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|26.47|||Regression, Logistic|||||26.47|0.08|0.79
91074239|NCT01340027|182034686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.46||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|5.77|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.77|0.04|0.55
91074240|NCT01340027|182034687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.495||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|0.71||All statistical comparisons are for change from Baseline to End of Treatment using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was performed.|Stratified Rank ANCOVA|P-values are from pairwise comparisons of the combination/active treatment groups vs. solifenacin 5 mg/placebo within a stratified rank ANCOVA model.||The ANCOVA model including the 2 main factors mirabegron dose and solifenacin dose and their interaction, sex, age group and geographic region as fixed factors and Baseline measurement as a covariate was used to calculate point estimates and 95% confidence intervals for change from Baseline within each treatment group and for differences between combination treatment groups and solifenacin 5 mg as well as for differences between active treatment groups and placebo.||0.71|-1.24|0.25
91074241|NCT01340027|182034687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.383||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.81|||Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||||0.81|-0.70|0.35
91074242|NCT01340027|182034687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.371||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.72|||Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||||0.72|-0.74|1.0
91074243|NCT01340027|182034687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.377||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|0.41|||Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||||0.41|-1.08|0.003
91074244|NCT01340027|182034687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.413||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|0.59|||Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||||0.59|-1.04|0.12
91074245|NCT01340027|182034687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.405||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|1.38|||Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||||1.38|-0.21|0.24
91074246|NCT01340027|182034687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.435||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.78|||Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||||0.78|-0.94|0.54
91074247|NCT01340027|182034687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.22|||Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||||1.22|-1.10|0.95
91074248|NCT01340027|182034687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.552||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|1.07|||Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||||1.07|-1.11|0.74
91074249|NCT01340027|182034687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|0.82|||Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||||0.82|-1.43|0.89
90827731|NCT02271698|181530447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.064||||||6 hour pain with movement|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.064
90827732|NCT02271698|181530447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.139|||||||t-test, 2 sided|12 hour pain at rest||||||0.139
90827733|NCT02271698|181530447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35||||||12 hour pain at rest|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.350
91074250|NCT01340027|182034687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.487||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.96|||Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||||0.96|-0.96|0.82
91074251|NCT01340027|182034687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.593||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|0.9|||Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||||0.90|-1.44|0.58
91074252|NCT01340027|182034687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|1.04|||Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||||1.04|-0.93|0.46
91074253|NCT01340027|182034687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|0.96|||Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||||0.96|-0.97|0.95
91074254|NCT01340027|182034687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.499||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|0.65|||Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||||0.65|-1.32|0.18
91074255|NCT01340027|182034687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.517||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|0.8|||Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||||0.80|-1.24|0.21
91074256|NCT01340027|182034687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.516||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|1.6|||Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||||1.60|-0.43|0.72
91074257|NCT01340027|182034687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.541||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|0.98|||Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||||0.98|-1.15|0.92
91074258|NCT01340027|182034688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.412||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|-0.45|||ANCOVA|||"All statistical comparisons are for change from Baseline to End of Treatment using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was performed.~The ANCOVA model includes the 2 main factors mirabegron dose and solifenacin dose and their interaction, sex, age group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline measurement as a covariate.~LS Mean Differences were calculated by subtracting Solifenacin 5 mg/Placebo from the comparison treatment group."||-0.45|-2.06|0.002
91074259|NCT01340027|182034688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|0.19|||ANCOVA|||||0.19|-1.15|0.16
91074260|NCT01340027|182034688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|-0.57|||ANCOVA|||||-0.57|-1.91|<0.001
91074261|NCT01340027|182034688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.343||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.46|||ANCOVA|||||-0.46|-1.80|0.001
91074262|NCT01340027|182034688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.338|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.03|-0.7|||ANCOVA|||||-0.70|-2.03|<0.001
91074263|NCT01340027|182034688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.409||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|-0.18|||ANCOVA|||||-0.18|-1.78|0.017
90827734|NCT02271698|181530447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021||||||18 hour pain at rest|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.021
90827735|NCT02271698|181530447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.198||||||18 hour pain with movement|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.198
90827736|NCT02271698|181530447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.806|||||||t-test, 2 sided|24 hour pain at rest||||||0.806
90827737|NCT02271698|181530447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.228||||||24 hour pain with movement|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.228
90827738|NCT02271698|181530447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.457||||||36 hour pain at rest|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.457
90827739|NCT02271698|181530447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.394||||||36 hour pain with movement|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.394
90827740|NCT02271698|181530448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.181||||||6 hours|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.181
90827741|NCT02271698|181530448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.364||||||12 hours|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.364
91074264|NCT01340027|182034688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.405||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|-0.39|||ANCOVA|||||-0.39|-1.98|0.004
91074265|NCT01340027|182034688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.469||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|1.22|||ANCOVA|||||1.22|-0.63|0.53
91074266|NCT01340027|182034688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.468||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|1.01|||ANCOVA|||||1.01|-0.83|0.85
91074267|NCT01340027|182034688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.468||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|0.83|||ANCOVA|||||0.83|-1.01|0.84
91074268|NCT01340027|182034688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.406||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.59|||ANCOVA|||||1.59|-0.00|0.050
91074269|NCT01340027|182034688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.469||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|0.46|||ANCOVA|||||0.46|-1.38|0.33
91074270|NCT01340027|182034688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.407||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|1.12|||ANCOVA|||||1.12|-0.48|0.44
91074271|NCT01340027|182034688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.408||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|0.36|||ANCOVA|||||0.36|-1.24|0.28
91074272|NCT01340027|182034688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|0.47|||ANCOVA|||||0.47|-1.14|0.42
91074273|NCT01340027|182034688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.406||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|0.23|||ANCOVA|||||0.23|-1.37|0.16
91074274|NCT01340027|182034688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.467||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.73|||ANCOVA|||||0.73|-1.10|0.70
91074275|NCT01340027|182034688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.464||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.52|||ANCOVA|||||0.52|-1.30|0.40
90827742|NCT02271698|181530448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.605|||||||t-test, 2 sided|18 hours||||||0.605
91074276|NCT01340027|182034689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.079||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.01|||ANCOVA|||"All statistical comparisons are for change from Baseline to End of Treatment using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was performed.~The ANCOVA model includes the 2 main factors mirabegron dose and solifenacin dose and their interaction, sex, age group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline measurement as a covariate.~LS Mean Differences were calculated by subtracting Solifenacin 5 mg/Placebo from the comparison treatment group."||0.01|-0.30|0.062
91074277|NCT01340027|182034689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.065||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.03|||ANCOVA|||||0.03|-0.22|0.15
91074278|NCT01340027|182034689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.065||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||||-0.05|-0.30|0.007
91074279|NCT01340027|182034689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||||-0.03|-0.29|0.017
91074280|NCT01340027|182034689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.065|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||||-0.10|-0.35|<0.001
91074281|NCT01340027|182034689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.078|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||||-0.11|-0.41|<0.001
91074282|NCT01340027|182034689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.077||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.01|||ANCOVA|||||0.01|-0.29|0.070
91074283|NCT01340027|182034689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.31|||ANCOVA|||||0.31|-0.05|0.15
91074284|NCT01340027|182034689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.089||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.23|||ANCOVA|||||0.23|-0.12|0.57
91074285|NCT01340027|182034689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.089||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.19|||ANCOVA|||||0.19|-0.16|0.89
91074286|NCT01340027|182034689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.077||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.29|||ANCOVA|||||0.29|-0.02|0.086
91074287|NCT01340027|182034689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.16|||ANCOVA|||||0.16|-0.19|0.88
91074288|NCT01340027|182034689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.078||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.19|||ANCOVA|||||0.19|-0.11|0.61
91074289|NCT01340027|182034689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.078||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.11|||ANCOVA|||||0.11|-0.20|0.58
91074290|NCT01340027|182034689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.078||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.13|||ANCOVA|||||0.13|-0.18|0.76
90827743|NCT02271698|181530448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.733|||||||t-test, 2 sided|24 hours||||||0.733
90827744|NCT02271698|181530448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6||||||36 hours|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.600
91074291|NCT01340027|182034689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.077||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.06|||ANCOVA|||||0.06|-0.25|0.23
91074292|NCT01340027|182034689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.089||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.05|||ANCOVA|||||0.05|-0.30|0.15
91074293|NCT01340027|182034689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.088||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.17|||ANCOVA|||||0.17|-0.18|0.94
91074294|NCT01340027|182034690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.3|||ANCOVA|||"All statistical comparisons are for change from Baseline to End of Treatment using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was performed.~The ANCOVA model includes the 2 main factors mirabegron dose and solifenacin dose and their interaction, sex, age group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline measurement as a covariate.~LS Mean Differences were calculated by subtracting Solifenacin 5 mg/Placebo from the comparison treatment group."||0.30|-0.99|0.29
91074295|NCT01340027|182034690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.239||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.82|||ANCOVA|||||0.82|-0.12|0.15
91074296|NCT01340027|182034690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.248||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.49|||ANCOVA|||||0.49|-0.48|0.99
91074297|NCT01340027|182034690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.239||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.4|||ANCOVA|||||0.40|-0.54|0.76
91074298|NCT01340027|182034690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.238||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.22|||ANCOVA|||||0.22|-0.71|0.30
91074299|NCT01340027|182034690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.262||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.31|||ANCOVA|||||0.31|-0.72|0.43
91074300|NCT01340027|182034690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.296||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.33|||ANCOVA|||||0.33|-0.83|0.40
91074301|NCT01340027|182034690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.343||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|0.27|||ANCOVA|||||0.27|-1.08|0.24
91074302|NCT01340027|182034690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.36|||ANCOVA|||||0.36|-0.98|0.36
91074303|NCT01340027|182034690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.348||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|-0.13|||ANCOVA|||||-0.13|-1.49|0.020
91074304|NCT01340027|182034690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.293||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.18|||ANCOVA|||||-0.18|-1.33|0.011
91074305|NCT01340027|182034690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.377||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|-0.36|||ANCOVA|||||-0.36|-1.84|0.004
91074306|NCT01340027|182034690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.301||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.19|||ANCOVA|||||0.19|-1.00|0.18
91074307|NCT01340027|182034690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.308||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|-0.14|||ANCOVA|||||-0.14|-1.35|0.015
91074308|NCT01340027|182034690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.301||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|-0.23|||ANCOVA|||||-0.23|-1.41|0.006
91074309|NCT01340027|182034690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|-0.41|||ANCOVA|||||-0.41|-1.59|<0.001
91074310|NCT01340027|182034690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|-0.33|||ANCOVA|||||-0.33|-1.59|0.003
91074311|NCT01340027|182034690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.348||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|-0.31|||ANCOVA|||||-0.31|-1.68|0.004
91074312|NCT01340027|182034691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.177||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.09|||ANCOVA|||"All statistical comparisons are for change from Baseline to End of Treatment using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was performed.~The ANCOVA model includes the 2 main factors mirabegron dose and solifenacin dose and their interaction, sex, age group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline measurement as a covariate.~LS Mean Differences were calculated by subtracting Solifenacin 5 mg/Placebo from the comparison treatment group."||0.09|-0.60|0.15
91074313|NCT01340027|182034691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.146||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.25|||ANCOVA|||||0.25|-0.33|0.78
91074314|NCT01340027|182034691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.146||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.21|||ANCOVA|||||0.21|-0.37|0.58
91074315|NCT01340027|182034691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.147||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.21|||ANCOVA|||||0.21|-0.37|0.60
91074316|NCT01340027|182034691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.06|||ANCOVA|||||-0.06|-0.63|0.017
91074317|NCT01340027|182034691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.176||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.10|-0.60|0.16
91074318|NCT01340027|182034691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.175||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.08|||ANCOVA|||||0.08|-0.61|0.13
91074319|NCT01340027|182034691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.201||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.44|||ANCOVA|||||0.44|-0.35|0.81
91074320|NCT01340027|182034691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.199||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.31|||ANCOVA|||||0.31|-0.48|0.67
91074321|NCT01340027|182034691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.45|||ANCOVA|||||0.45|-0.33|0.77
91074322|NCT01340027|182034691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.38|||ANCOVA|||||0.38|-0.30|0.81
91074323|NCT01340027|182034691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.201||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.18|||ANCOVA|||||0.18|-0.60|0.30
91074324|NCT01340027|182034691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.174||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.34|||ANCOVA|||||0.34|-0.34|0.99
91074325|NCT01340027|182034691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.175||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.3|||ANCOVA|||||0.30|-0.38|0.82
91074326|NCT01340027|182034691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.175||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.31|||ANCOVA|||||0.31|-0.38|0.84
91074327|NCT01340027|182034691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.173||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.04|||ANCOVA|||||0.04|-0.64|0.080
91074328|NCT01340027|182034691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.18|||ANCOVA|||||0.18|-0.60|0.30
91074329|NCT01340027|182034691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.199||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.17|||ANCOVA|||||0.17|-0.62|0.26
91074330|NCT01340027|182034692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.2|||ANCOVA|||"Statistical comparisons were made using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was performed.~The ANCOVA model for all pairwise comparisons includes the 2 main factors mirabegron dose and solifenacin succinate dose and their interaction, sex, age group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline measurement as a covariate.~LS Mean Differences were calculated by subtracting Solifenacin 5 mg/Placebo from the comparison treatment group."||0.2|-0.5|0.38
91074331|NCT01340027|182034692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3|||ANCOVA|||||0.3|-0.3|0.85
91074332|NCT01340027|182034692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||-0.0|-0.6|0.024
91074333|NCT01340027|182034692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||||-0.1|-0.7|0.005
91074334|NCT01340027|182034692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||||-0.1|-0.7|0.003
91074335|NCT01340027|182034692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||||-0.2|-0.8|0.004
91074336|NCT01340027|182034692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.6|0.15
91074337|NCT01340027|182034692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4|||ANCOVA|||||0.4|-0.4|0.99
91074338|NCT01340027|182034692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.3|||ANCOVA|||||0.3|-0.5|0.67
91074339|NCT01340027|182034692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.2|||ANCOVA|||||0.2|-0.5|0.44
91074340|NCT01340027|182034692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.4|||ANCOVA|||||0.4|-0.3|0.88
91074341|NCT01340027|182034692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.3|||ANCOVA|||||0.3|-0.5|0.53
91074342|NCT01340027|182034692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3|||ANCOVA|||||0.3|-0.3|1.0
91074343|NCT01340027|182034692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.0|-0.6|0.084
90827745|NCT01507688|181530454|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Models adjusted for: VA vs Non Va, admission diagnosis (transient ischemic attack vs stroke), sex (male vs female), white vs nonwhite, and baseline total Stroke Specific Quality of life score.|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measurements of change GEE analyses of Total Stroke Specific Quality of Life score change at 6 months from baseline.|The adjusted positive mean (standard error) change at 6 months from baseline was higher in the intervention arm compared to in the control arm. Intervention group had 0.14 (SE 0.17) higher improvement compared to the control group.|"All the sample size calculations were powered at 80% with a 5% Type I error. We estimated based on our pilot study a change difference of 0.25 on Total Stroke Specific Quality of Life in the intervention group compared to no change in the control group at 6 months. Our power calculations estimated a sample of 226 (113) per group was needed to detect this effect. We used primary outcome row Mean Change from 0 to 6 months for this analysis."||||0.0500
91074344|NCT01340027|182034692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||-0.0|-0.7|0.030
91074345|NCT01340027|182034692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||||-0.1|-0.7|0.020
91074346|NCT01340027|182034692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||||-0.1|-0.8|0.017
91074347|NCT01340027|182034692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.2|||ANCOVA|||||0.2|-0.6|0.26
91074348|NCT01340027|182034693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.26||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|4.95|||Regression, Logistic|||"All statistical comparisons are for End of Treatment using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was performed.~The logistic regression model includes the 2 main factors mirabegron dose and solifenacin dose and their interaction, sex, age group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline measurement as a covariate."||4.95|1.04|0.040
91074349|NCT01340027|182034693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.92|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.92|0.63|0.73
91074350|NCT01340027|182034693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.82||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|3.3|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.30|1.00|0.050
91074351|NCT01340027|182034693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.59|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.59|0.81|0.21
91074352|NCT01340027|182034693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.02||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|3.66|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.66|1.11|0.021
91074353|NCT01340027|182034693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.64||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|3.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.40|0.79|0.19
91074354|NCT01340027|182034693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|2.19|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.19|0.57|0.74
91074355|NCT01340027|182034693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.71|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.71|0.58|0.57
91074356|NCT01340027|182034693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|3.64|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.64|0.77|0.19
91074357|NCT01340027|182034693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.79|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.79|0.41|0.69
91074358|NCT01340027|182034693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.99|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.99|0.55|0.90
91074359|NCT01340027|182034693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.36||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|5.55|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.55|1.01|0.048
91074360|NCT01340027|182034693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.22|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.22|0.60|0.67
91074361|NCT01340027|182034693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|3.78|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.78|0.95|0.070
91074362|NCT01340027|182034693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.98|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.98|0.77|0.23
91074363|NCT01340027|182034693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.11||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|4.19|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.19|1.06|0.034
91074364|NCT01340027|182034693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|3.84|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.84|0.76|0.20
91074365|NCT01340027|182034693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|2.49|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.49|0.55|0.68
91074366|NCT01340027|182034694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|2.12|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.12|0.64|0.62
91074367|NCT01340027|182034694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|2.17|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.17|0.82|0.25
91074368|NCT01340027|182034694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|2.41|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.41|0.91|0.11
91074369|NCT01340027|182034694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.81||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.97|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.97|1.10|0.020
91074370|NCT01340027|182034694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.87||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|3.05|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.05|1.15|0.012
91074371|NCT01340027|182034694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|3.1|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.10|0.95|0.072
91074372|NCT01340027|182034694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.44|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.44|0.77|0.29
91074373|NCT01340027|182034694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.93|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.93|0.49|0.94
91074374|NCT01340027|182034694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.81|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.81|0.46|0.80
91074375|NCT01340027|182034694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.28|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.28|0.59|0.67
91074376|NCT01340027|182034694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.8|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.80|0.55|1.0
91074377|NCT01340027|182034694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.31|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.31|0.59|0.66
91074378|NCT01340027|182034694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.40|0.73|0.35
91074379|NCT01340027|182034694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|2.67|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.67|0.82|0.19
91074380|NCT01340027|182034694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|3.28|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.28|0.99|0.054
91074381|NCT01340027|182034694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.87||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|3.38|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.38|1.04|0.038
91074382|NCT01340027|182034694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|3.39|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.39|0.87|0.12
91074383|NCT01340027|182034694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.67|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.67|0.70|0.36
91074384|NCT01340027|182034695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|2.43|||Regression, Logistic|||"All statistical comparisons are for End of Treatment using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was performed.~The logistic regression model includes the 2 main factors mirabegron dose and solifenacin dose and their interaction, sex, age group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline measurement as a covariate."||2.43|0.06|0.32
91074385|NCT01340027|182034695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|2.61|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.61|0.21|0.65
91074386|NCT01340027|182034695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.54||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|2.19|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.19|0.13|0.39
91074387|NCT01340027|182034695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.41||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.67|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.67|0.10|0.22
91074388|NCT01340027|182034695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.22||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|1.22|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.22|0.04|0.082
91074389|NCT01340027|182034695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.36||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|3.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.20|0.04|0.36
91074390|NCT01340027|182034695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|5.71|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.71|0.42|0.51
91074391|NCT01340027|182034695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|5.36|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.36|0.19|0.99
91074392|NCT01340027|182034695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|4.59|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.59|0.24|0.96
91074393|NCT01340027|182034695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.62||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|3.3|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.30|0.12|0.57
91074394|NCT01340027|182034695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|3.95|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.95|0.28|0.93
91074395|NCT01340027|182034695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.42||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|2.79|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.79|0.06|0.37
91074396|NCT01340027|182034695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|3.13|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.13|0.20|0.74
91074397|NCT01340027|182034695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.57||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|2.59|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.59|0.12|0.46
91074398|NCT01340027|182034695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.44||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.96|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.96|0.10|0.28
91074399|NCT01340027|182034695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.23||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|1.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.40|0.04|0.11
91074400|NCT01340027|182034695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.38||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|3.66|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.66|0.04|0.40
91074401|NCT01340027|182034695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.64||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|6.85|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.85|0.39|0.50
91074402|NCT01340027|182034696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.47||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|1.7|||ANCOVA|||"Statistical comparisons were made using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was performed.~The ANCOVA model for all pairwise comparisons includes the 2 main factors mirabegron dose and solifenacin succinate dose and their interaction, sex, age group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline measurement as a covariate.~LS Mean Differences were calculated by subtracting Solifenacin 5 mg/Placebo from the comparison treatment group."||1.7|-8.0|0.21
91074403|NCT01340027|182034696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.03||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|2.7|||ANCOVA|||||2.7|-5.2|0.54
91074404|NCT01340027|182034696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.03||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|-0.9|||ANCOVA|||||-0.9|-8.9|0.016
91074405|NCT01340027|182034696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.05||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|-1.2|||ANCOVA|||||-1.2|-9.3|0.011
91074406|NCT01340027|182034696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.03|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|-2.8|||ANCOVA|||||-2.8|-10.7|<0.001
91074407|NCT01340027|182034696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.43||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|-2.0|||ANCOVA|||||-2.0|-11.6|0.005
91074408|NCT01340027|182034696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.44||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-9.4|0.056
91074409|NCT01340027|182034696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.81||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|3.9|||ANCOVA|||||3.9|-7.1|0.56
91074410|NCT01340027|182034696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|3.5|||ANCOVA|||||3.5|-7.5|0.48
91074411|NCT01340027|182034696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|1.2|||ANCOVA|||||1.2|-9.8|0.13
91074412|NCT01340027|182034696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.42||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|3.5|||ANCOVA|||||3.5|-6.0|0.61
91074413|NCT01340027|182034696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.81||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|1.2|||ANCOVA|||||1.2|-9.9|0.12
91074414|NCT01340027|182034696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.44||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|2.3|||ANCOVA|||||2.3|-7.3|0.31
91074415|NCT01340027|182034696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.44||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|-1.3|||ANCOVA|||||-1.3|-10.9|0.012
91074416|NCT01340027|182034696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-6.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.46||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|-1.7|||ANCOVA|||||-1.7|-11.3|0.008
90827746|NCT01507688|181530454|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.26|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted least square means (standard errors) adjusted for treatment (Intervention vs control), time of outcome from baseline (3, 6, 12 months), baseline SSQoL, Site (VA vs NonVA), Stroke/TIA diagnosis, sex (m vs f) and race (white vs nonwhite).|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted intervention arm's positive change (regression coefficient with standard error) in Total Stroke Specific Quality of Life was not significantly different at 12 months compared to the control group.|"We evaluated the mean difference on Total Stroke Specific Quality of Life compared to baseline between the intervention and control groups at 12 months using repeated measures ANCOVA models. We used primary outcome row Mean change from 0 to 12 months for this analysis."||||0.26
91074417|NCT01340027|182034696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.44||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|-3.2|||ANCOVA|||||-3.2|-12.8|0.001
91074418|NCT01340027|182034696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.78||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|-2.6|||ANCOVA|||||-2.6|-13.5|0.004
91074419|NCT01340027|182034696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.79||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||||-0.4|-11.4|0.035
91074420|NCT01340027|182034697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|3.2|||Regression, Logistic|||"All statistical comparisons are for End of Treatment using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was performed.~The logistic regression model includes the 2 main factors mirabegron dose and solifenacin dose and their interaction, sex, age group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline measurement as a covariate."||3.20|0.63|0.40
91074421|NCT01340027|182034697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.97|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.97|0.55|0.89
91074422|NCT01340027|182034697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.33|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.33|0.63|0.57
91074423|NCT01340027|182034697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.66|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.66|0.70|0.36
91074424|NCT01340027|182034697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.66||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|3.32|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.32|0.83|0.15
91074425|NCT01340027|182034697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|3.59|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.59|0.67|0.31
91074426|NCT01340027|182034697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.95|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.95|0.42|0.81
91074427|NCT01340027|182034697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.75||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|4.08|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.08|0.75|0.19
91074428|NCT01340027|182034697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|2.77|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.77|0.56|0.59
91074429|NCT01340027|182034697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.97||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|4.71|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.71|0.83|0.13
91074430|NCT01340027|182034697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.57||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|3.16|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.16|0.78|0.20
91074431|NCT01340027|182034697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.24||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|5.34|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.34|0.94|0.070
91074432|NCT01340027|182034697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.64||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|3.33|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.33|0.81|0.17
91074433|NCT01340027|182034697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|3.92|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.92|0.92|0.084
91074434|NCT01340027|182034697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.14||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|4.48|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.48|1.02|0.043
91074435|NCT01340027|182034697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.61||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|5.58|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.58|1.22|0.013
91074436|NCT01340027|182034697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.43||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|5.97|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.97|0.99|0.053
91074437|NCT01340027|182034697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|3.26|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.26|0.63|0.39
91074438|NCT01340027|182034698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.55||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|7.9|||ANCOVA|||"Statistical comparisons were made using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was performed.~The ANCOVA model for all pairwise comparisons includes the 2 main factors mirabegron dose and solifenacin succinate dose and their interaction, sex, age group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline measurement as a covariate.~LS Mean Differences were calculated by subtracting Solifenacin 5 mg/Placebo from the comparison treatment group."||7.9|-2.1|0.26
91074439|NCT01340027|182034698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|6.0|||ANCOVA|||||6.0|-2.3|0.38
91074440|NCT01340027|182034698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differrence|4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|8.9|||ANCOVA|||||8.9|0.7|0.022
91074441|NCT01340027|182034698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|5.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.12||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|9.7|||ANCOVA|||||9.7|1.3|0.010
91074442|NCT01340027|182034698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.09||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|10.5|||ANCOVA|||||10.5|2.3|0.002
91074443|NCT01340027|182034698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.52||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|11.6|||ANCOVA|||||11.6|1.7|0.008
91074444|NCT01340027|182034698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.52||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|10.2|||ANCOVA|||||10.2|0.3|0.037
91074445|NCT01340027|182034698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|3.7|||ANCOVA|||||3.7|-7.7|0.50
91074446|NCT01340027|182034698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.89||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|7.0|||ANCOVA|||||7.0|-4.4|0.65
91074447|NCT01340027|182034698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.88||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|8.9|||ANCOVA|||||8.9|-2.4|0.25
91074448|NCT01340027|182034698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.51||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|4.1|||ANCOVA|||||4.1|-5.7|0.76
91074449|NCT01340027|182034698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.91||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|7.8|||ANCOVA|||||7.8|-3.6|0.47
91074450|NCT01340027|182034698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.52||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|6.0|||ANCOVA|||||6.0|-3.9|0.67
90827747|NCT02107703|181530455|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.553|||<|1e-07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.449|0.681||This is two sided P value and it is statistically significant.|Log Rank|Log rank test is stratified by endocrine sensitivity and natural of disease by interactive web response system (IWRS).||The final analysis was planned at 378 PFS events, which would provide approximately 90% power assuming a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.703 at a one-sided α of 0.025.||0.681|0.449|<0.0000001
91074451|NCT01340027|182034698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.52||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|9.0|||ANCOVA|||||9.0|-0.9|0.11
91074452|NCT01340027|182034698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.54||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|9.7|||ANCOVA|||||9.7|-0.2|0.062
91074453|NCT01340027|182034698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.52||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|10.6|||ANCOVA|||||10.6|0.7|0.025
91074454|NCT01340027|182034698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.88||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|11.5|||ANCOVA|||||11.5|0.2|0.041
91074455|NCT01340027|182034698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.88||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|10.1|||ANCOVA|||||10.1|-1.2|0.12
91074456|NCT01340027|182034699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|2.08|||Regression, Logistic|||"All statistical comparisons were made using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was performed.~The logistic regression model includes the 2 main factors mirabegron dose and solifenacin dose and their interaction, sex, age group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline measurement as a covariate."||2.08|0.52|0.92
91074457|NCT01340027|182034699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.77|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.77|0.58|0.98
91074458|NCT01340027|182034699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.23|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.23|0.70|0.45
91074459|NCT01340027|182034699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.53|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.53|0.79|0.24
91074460|NCT01340027|182034699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.21||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|4.09|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.09|1.19|0.012
91074461|NCT01340027|182034699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.9|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.90|0.70|0.32
91074462|NCT01340027|182034699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|3.14|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.14|0.72|0.27
91074463|NCT01340027|182034699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|1.04|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.04|0.24|0.064
91074464|NCT01340027|182034699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.61|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.61|0.59|0.57
91074465|NCT01340027|182034699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.68|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.68|0.59|0.55
91074466|NCT01340027|182034699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.13|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.13|0.58|0.75
91074467|NCT01340027|182034699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|2.49|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.49|0.53|0.72
91074468|NCT01340027|182034699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.15|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.15|0.58|0.74
91074469|NCT01340027|182034699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.71|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.71|0.71|0.34
91074470|NCT01340027|182034699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.57||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|3.07|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.07|0.80|0.19
91074471|NCT01340027|182034699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.45||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|4.94|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.94|1.22|0.012
91074472|NCT01340027|182034699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.59||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|3.47|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.47|0.72|0.25
91074473|NCT01340027|182034699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|3.75|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.75|0.74|0.21
91074474|NCT01340027|182034707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.376||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.92|||ANCOVA|||"Statistical comparisons were made using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was performed.~The ANCOVA model for all pairwise comparisons includes the 2 main factors mirabegron dose and solifenacin succinate dose and their interaction, sex, age group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline measurement as a covariate.~LS Mean Differences were calculated by subtracting Solifenacin 5 mg/Placebo from the comparison treatment group."||0.92|-0.56|0.63
91074475|NCT01340027|182034707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.79|||ANCOVA|||||0.79|-0.43|0.56
91074476|NCT01340027|182034707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.308||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|1.06|||ANCOVA|||||1.06|-0.15|0.14
91074477|NCT01340027|182034707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.313||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|1.3|||ANCOVA|||||1.30|0.08|0.027
91074478|NCT01340027|182034707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.308||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|1.07|||ANCOVA|||||1.07|-0.14|0.13
91074479|NCT01340027|182034707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.371||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.46|||ANCOVA|||||1.46|0.00|0.049
91074480|NCT01340027|182034707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.368||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.66|||ANCOVA|||||1.66|0.22|0.011
91074481|NCT01340027|182034707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.428||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|1.01|||ANCOVA|||||1.01|-0.67|0.70
91074482|NCT01340027|182034707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.423||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.56|||ANCOVA|||||1.56|-0.10|0.084
91074483|NCT01340027|182034707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.425||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|1.49|||ANCOVA|||||1.49|-0.18|0.12
91074484|NCT01340027|182034707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.369||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|1.06|||ANCOVA|||||1.06|-0.39|0.36
91074485|NCT01340027|182034707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.428||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|1.36|||ANCOVA|||||1.36|-0.32|0.23
91074486|NCT01340027|182034707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.371||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|1.25|||ANCOVA|||||1.25|-0.21|0.16
91074487|NCT01340027|182034707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.371||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.52|||ANCOVA|||||1.52|0.07|0.032
91074488|NCT01340027|182034707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.373||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.76|||ANCOVA|||||1.76|0.30|0.006
91074489|NCT01340027|182034707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.369||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.52|||ANCOVA|||||1.52|0.07|0.031
91074490|NCT01340027|182034707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.423||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|1.9|||ANCOVA|||||1.90|0.24|0.012
91074491|NCT01340027|182034707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.421||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.1|||ANCOVA|||||2.10|0.45|0.002
91074492|NCT03518619|182034713|OTHER|This is a single group design. Paired-samples t-tests were conducted.|||||<|0.05||||||This is a calculated p-value.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.05
91074493|NCT03518619|182034714|OTHER|This is a single group design. Paired-samples t-tests were conducted.|||||<|0.01||||||This is a calculated p-value.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.01
91074494|NCT03728985|182034729|NON_INFERIORITY|Performance Goal 80%|Absolute Percentage with Success|77.5||||0.5908|TWO_SIDED|90.0|69.6|84.1|||Fisher Exact||The lower estimated confidence interval above the Performance Goal of 80% would be considered success.|||84.1|69.6|0.5908
91074495|NCT03728985|182034730|NON_INFERIORITY|Performance Goal 68%|Percentage with Success|70.6||||0.7017|TWO_SIDED|90.0|61.4|78.7|||Fisher Exact|||||78.7|61.4|0.7017
91074496|NCT02417961|182034767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|98.2||||||95.0|93.81|99.79|||Clopper-pearson Exact CI|One sample Confidence Interval (Week 12)|Percentage of patients who successfully administered benralizumab with an APFS at home (Week 12)|||99.79|93.81|
91074497|NCT02417961|182034767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|99.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.99|99.98|||Clopper-pearson Exact CI|One sample Confidence Interval (Week 16)|Percentage of patients who successfully administered benralizumab with an APFS at home (Week 16)|||99.98|94.99|
91074498|NCT02417961|182034767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|93.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.64|96.92|||Clopper-pearson Exact CI|One sample Confidence Interval (Week 12 and 16)|Percentage of patients who successfully administered benralizumab with an APFS at home (Week 12 and 16)|||96.92|86.64|
91074499|NCT02417961|182034768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|99.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|95.21|99.98|||Clopper-pearson Exact CI|One sample Confidence Interval (Week 12)|Percentage of patients returned functional APFS administered at home (Week 12)|||99.98|95.21|
91074500|NCT02417961|182034768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|99.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.99|99.98|||Clopper Pearson Exact CI|One sample confidence interval (Week 16)|Percentage of patients returned functional APFS administered at home (Week 16)|||99.98|94.99|
91074501|NCT02417961|182034769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.13|||Clopper-pearson Exact CI|One sample Confidence Interval (Week 0)|Percentage of mulfunctioning APFS used to administer benralizumab at home or clinic (Week 0)|||3.13|0.00|
91074502|NCT02417961|182034769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|4.67|||Clopper-pearson Exact CI|One sample Confidence Interval (Week 4)|Percentage of malfunctioning APFS used to administer benralizumab at home or clinic (Week 4)|||4.67|0.02|
91074503|NCT02417961|182034769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.16|||Clopper-pearson Exact CI|One sample Confidence Interval (Week 8)|Percentage of malfunctioning APFS used to administer benralizumab at home or clinic (Week 8)|||3.16|0.00|
91074504|NCT02417961|182034769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.13|||Clopper-pearson Exact CI|One sample Confidence Interval (Week 12)|Percentage of malfunctioning APFS used to administer benralizumab at home or clinic (Week 12)|||3.13|0.00|
91074505|NCT02417961|182034769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.33|||Clopper-Pearson Exact CI|One sample Confidence Interval (Week 16)|Percentage of malfunctioning APFS used to administer benralizumab at home or clinic (Week 16)|||3.33|0|
91074506|NCT02417961|182034769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|1.59|||Clopper-pearson Exact CI|One sample Confidence Interval (Week 0 to 8)|Percentage of malfunctioning APFS used to administer benralizumab at home or clinic (Week 0 to 8)|||1.59|0.01|
91074507|NCT02417961|182034769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.63|||Clopper-pearson Exact CI|One sample Confidence Interval (Week 12 to 16)|Percentage of malfunctioning APFS used to administer benralizumab at home or clinic (Week 12 to 16)|||1.63|0.00|
91074508|NCT02417961|182034769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.97|||Clopper-pearson Exact CI|One sample Confidence Interval (Week 0 to 16)|Percentage of malfunctioning APFS used to administer benralizumab at home or clinic (Week 0 to 16)|||0.97|0.00|
91074509|NCT01390428|182034774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.73|2.01|||||Mild Hepatic Impairment (HI)/Healthy Matched to Mild HI|Day 1||2.01|0.73|
91074510|NCT01390428|182034774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|1.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.05|2.61|||||Mild HI/Healthy Matched to Mild HI|Day 10||2.61|1.05|
91074511|NCT01390428|182034774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|5.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.19|11.56|||||Moderate HI/Healthy Matched to Moderate HI|Day 1||11.56|2.19|
91074512|NCT01390428|182034774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|4.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.6|8.93|||||Moderate HI/Healthy Matched to Moderate HI|Day 10||8.93|2.60|
91074513|NCT01390428|182034774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|19.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.11|48.51|||||Severe HI/Healthy Matched to Severe HI|Day 1||48.51|8.11|
91074514|NCT01390428|182034774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|11.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.1|22.35|||||Severe HI/Healthy Matched to Severe HI|Day 10||22.35|6.10|
91074515|NCT01390428|182034775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.35|2.01|||||Mild HI/Healthy Matched to Mild HI|Day 1||2.01|0.35|
91074516|NCT01390428|182034775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|1.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|2.27|||||Mild HI/Healthy Matched to Mild HI|Day 10||2.27|0.83|
91074517|NCT01390428|182034775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|7.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.74|21.27|||||Moderate HI/Healthy Matched to Moderate HI|Day 1||21.27|2.74|
91074518|NCT01390428|182034775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|5.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.84|12.57|||||Moderate HI/Healthy Matched to Moderate HI|Day 10||12.57|2.84|
91074519|NCT01390428|182034775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|15.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.02|38.25|||||Severe HI/Healthy Matched to Severe HI|Day 1||38.25|6.02|
91074520|NCT01390428|182034775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|13.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.0|28.21|||||Severe HI/Healthy Matched to Severe HI|Day 10||28.21|6.00|
91074521|NCT01390428|182034777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|1.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.54|2.24|||||Mild HI/Healthy Matched to Mild HI|||2.24|1.54|
91074522|NCT01390428|182034777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|2.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.31|6.82|||||Moderate HI/Healthy Matched to Moderate HI|||6.82|1.31|
91074523|NCT01390428|182034779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|1.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.4|2.63|||||Mild HI/Healthy Matched to Mild HI|||2.63|1.40|
91074524|NCT01390428|182034779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|3.59|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.81|7.11|||||Moderate HI/Healthy Matched to Moderate HI|||7.11|1.81|
91074525|NCT01390428|182034779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|9.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.98|17.51|||||Severe HI/Healthy Matched to Severe HI|||17.51|4.98|
91074526|NCT05897827|182034801|OTHER|We calculated the mean and 95% confidence interval using a one sample two-sided t-test against the a priori benchmark of success, which was \> 3.75.|Mean|3.93||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.73|4.13||Threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||4.13|3.73|0.074
91074527|NCT05897827|182034802|OTHER|We calculated the mean and 95% confidence interval using a one sample two-sided t-test against the a priori benchmark of success, which was \> 75.|Mean|75.47||||0.827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.12|79.83||Threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||79.83|71.12|0.827
91074528|NCT05897827|182034803|OTHER|We calculated the mean and 95% confidence interval using a one sample two-sided t-test against the a priori benchmark of success, which was \> 3.75.|Mean|4.01||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.84|4.17||Threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||4.17|3.84|0.003
91074529|NCT05897827|182034804|OTHER|We calculated the mean and 95% confidence interval using a one sample two-sided t-test against the a priori benchmark of success, which was \> 3.75.|Mean|4.01||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.85|4.18||Threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||4.18|3.85|0.002
91074530|NCT05897827|182034808|OTHER|To test for within-arm statistical significance, we used linear mixed models accounting for within-person clustering using random effects. We reported the beta coefficients and 95% confidence intervals.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.22||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.42||Threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.42|0.03|0.03
91074531|NCT05897827|182034808|OTHER|To test for within-arm statistical significance, we used linear mixed models accounting for within-person clustering using random effects. We reported the beta coefficients and 95% confidence intervals.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.38||Threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.38|-0.36|0.95
91074532|NCT05897827|182034809|OTHER|To test for within-arm statistical significance of the change in Self-Efficacy in LGBTQ+ Inclusivity, Awareness, and Advocacy, we used linear mixed models accounting for within-person clustering using random effects. We reported the beta coefficients and 95% confidence intervals.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.95||Threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.95|0.46|<0.001
91074533|NCT05897827|182034809|OTHER|To test for within-arm statistical significance of the change in Self-Efficacy in LGBTQ+ Inclusivity, Awareness, and Advocacy, we used linear mixed models accounting for within-person clustering using random effects. We reported the beta coefficients and 95% confidence intervals.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.45||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.8||Threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.80|0.10|0.01
91074534|NCT05897827|182034809|OTHER|To test for within-arm statistical significance of the change in Self-Efficacy in Identity-Affirming Practices, we used linear mixed models accounting for within-person clustering using random effects. We reported the beta coefficients and 95% confidence intervals.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.26||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.41||Threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.41|0.11|0.001
91074535|NCT05897827|182034809|OTHER|To test for within-arm statistical significance of the change in Self-Efficacy in Identity-Affirming Practices, we used linear mixed models accounting for within-person clustering using random effects. We reported the beta coefficients and 95% confidence intervals.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.13||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.24||Threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.24|0.03|0.01
91074536|NCT05897827|182034809|OTHER|To test for within-arm statistical significance of the change in Self-Efficacy in Inclusivity in Restrooms and Changing Options, we used linear mixed models accounting for within-person clustering using random effects. We reported the beta coefficients and 95% confidence intervals.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.43||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.68||Threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.68|0.18|0.001
91074537|NCT05897827|182034809|OTHER|To test for within-arm statistical significance of the change in Self-Efficacy in Inclusivity in Restrooms and Changing Options, we used linear mixed models accounting for within-person clustering using random effects. We reported the beta coefficients and 95% confidence intervals.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.44||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.86||Threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.86|0.02|0.04
91074538|NCT05897827|182034810|OTHER|To test for within-arm statistical significance of the change in Notice the Event, we used linear mixed models accounting for within-person clustering using random effects. We reported the beta coefficients and 95% confidence intervals.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.23||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.04||Threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.04|-0.50|0.10
91074539|NCT05897827|182034810|OTHER|To test for within-arm statistical significance of the change in Notice the Event, we used linear mixed models accounting for within-person clustering using random effects. We reported the beta coefficients and 95% confidence intervals.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.24||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.07||Threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.07|-0.55|0.14
91074540|NCT05897827|182034810|OTHER|To test for within-arm statistical significance of the change in Interpret the Event as an Emergency, we used linear mixed models accounting for within-person clustering using random effects. We reported the beta coefficients and 95% confidence intervals.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.19||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.01||Threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.01|-0.39|0.07
91074541|NCT05897827|182034810|OTHER|To test for within-arm statistical significance of the change in Interpret the Event as an Emergency, we used linear mixed models accounting for within-person clustering using random effects. We reported the beta coefficients and 95% confidence intervals.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.02||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.22||Threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.22|-0.18|0.85
91074542|NCT05897827|182034810|OTHER|To test for within-arm statistical significance of the change in Accept Responsibility for Intervening, we used linear mixed models accounting for within-person clustering using random effects. We reported the beta coefficients and 95% confidence intervals.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.01||Threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.01|-0.30|0.06
91074543|NCT05897827|182034810|OTHER|To test for within-arm statistical significance of the change in Accept Responsibility for Intervening, we used linear mixed models accounting for within-person clustering using random effects. We reported the beta coefficients and 95% confidence intervals.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.07||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.28||Threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.28|-0.14|0.51
91074544|NCT05897827|182034810|OTHER|To test for within-arm statistical significance of the change in Know How to Intervene, we used linear mixed models accounting for within-person clustering using random effects. We reported the beta coefficients and 95% confidence intervals.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.33||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.53||Threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.53|0.13|0.001
91074545|NCT05897827|182034810|OTHER|To test for within-arm statistical significance of the change in Know How to Intervene, we used linear mixed models accounting for within-person clustering using random effects. We reported the beta coefficients and 95% confidence intervals.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.28||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.55||Threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.55|0.01|0.04
91074546|NCT05897827|182034810|OTHER|To test for within-arm statistical significance of the change in Implement Intervention Decisions, we used linear mixed models accounting for within-person clustering using random effects. We reported the beta coefficients and 95% confidence intervals.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.07||Threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.07|-0.19|0.36
91074547|NCT05897827|182034810|OTHER|To test for within-arm statistical significance of the change in Implement Intervention Decisions, we used linear mixed models accounting for within-person clustering using random effects. We reported the beta coefficients and 95% confidence intervals.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.1||Threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.10|-0.16|0.62
91074548|NCT05897827|182034811|OTHER|To test for within-arm statistical significance of the change in Notice the Event, we used linear mixed models accounting for within-person clustering using random effects. We reported the beta coefficients and 95% confidence intervals.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.02||Threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.02|-0.32|0.08
91074549|NCT05897827|182034811|OTHER|To test for within-arm statistical significance of the change in Notice the Event, we used linear mixed models accounting for within-person clustering using random effects. We reported the beta coefficients and 95% confidence intervals.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.21||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.12||Threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.12|-0.55|0.20
91074550|NCT05897827|182034811|OTHER|To test for within-arm statistical significance of the change in Interpret the Event as an Emergency, we used linear mixed models accounting for within-person clustering using random effects. We reported the beta coefficients and 95% confidence intervals.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.1||Threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.10|-0.14|0.74
91074551|NCT05897827|182034811|OTHER|To test for within-arm statistical significance of the change in Interpret the Event as an Emergency, we used linear mixed models accounting for within-person clustering using random effects. We reported the beta coefficients and 95% confidence intervals.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.23||Threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.23|-0.12|0.55
91074552|NCT05897827|182034811|OTHER|To test for within-arm statistical significance of the change in Accept Responsibility for Intervening, we used linear mixed models accounting for within-person clustering using random effects. We reported the beta coefficients and 95% confidence intervals.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.09||Threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.09|-0.22|0.40
91074553|NCT05897827|182034811|OTHER|To test for within-arm statistical significance of the change in Accept Responsibility for Intervening, we used linear mixed models accounting for within-person clustering using random effects. We reported the beta coefficients and 95% confidence intervals.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.13||Threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.13|-0.37|0.36
91074554|NCT05897827|182034811|OTHER|To test for within-arm statistical significance of the change in Know How to Intervene, we used linear mixed models accounting for within-person clustering using random effects. We reported the beta coefficients and 95% confidence intervals.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.6||Threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.60|0.18|<0.001
91074555|NCT05897827|182034811|OTHER|To test for within-arm statistical significance of the change in Know How to Intervene, we used linear mixed models accounting for within-person clustering using random effects. We reported the beta coefficients and 95% confidence intervals.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.12||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.39||Threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.39|-0.16|0.41
91074556|NCT05897827|182034811|OTHER|To test for within-arm statistical significance of the change in Implement Intervention Decisions, we used linear mixed models accounting for within-person clustering using random effects. We reported the beta coefficients and 95% confidence intervals.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.2||Threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.20|-0.22|0.92
91074557|NCT05897827|182034811|OTHER|To test for within-arm statistical significance of the change in Implement Intervention Decisions, we used linear mixed models accounting for within-person clustering using random effects. We reported the beta coefficients and 95% confidence intervals.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.14||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.44||Threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.44|-0.16|0.37
91074558|NCT05897827|182034812|OTHER|To test for within-arm statistical significance, we used linear mixed models accounting for within-person clustering using random effects. We reported the beta coefficients and 95% confidence intervals.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.59||Threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.59|0.28|<0.001
91074559|NCT05897827|182034812|OTHER|To test for within-arm statistical significance, we used linear mixed models accounting for within-person clustering using random effects. We reported the beta coefficients and 95% confidence intervals.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.69||Threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.69|0.29|<0.001
91074560|NCT01752634|182034814|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.32||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|4.73|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.73|1.14|0.0200
91074561|NCT01752634|182034814|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.52|||<|1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.25|13.08|||Regression, Logistic|||||13.08|3.25|<0001
91074562|NCT01752634|182034814|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.42|13.56|||Regression, Logistic|||||13.56|3.42|<.0001
91074563|NCT01752634|182034815|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.07||||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|5.81|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.81|0.74|0.1650
91074564|NCT01752634|182034815|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.7||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.12|15.34|||Regression, Logistic|||||15.34|2.12|0.0006
91074565|NCT01752634|182034815|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.48|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.33|27.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||27.00|3.33|<.0001
91074566|NCT01752634|182034816|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.6421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|5.36|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.36|0.36|0.6421
91074567|NCT01752634|182034816|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.36||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.89|21.47|||Regression, Logistic|||||21.47|1.89|0.0029
91074568|NCT01752634|182034816|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.74||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.13|36.84|||Regression, Logistic|||||36.84|3.13|0.0002
91074569|NCT01752634|182034817|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.16||||0.3763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.20|-0.53|0.3763
91074570|NCT01752634|182034817|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.62||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.26|-0.98|0.0008
91074571|NCT01752634|182034817|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.65||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.29|-1.02|0.0004
91074572|NCT01752634|182034818|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.42||||0.0482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|4.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.83|0.02|0.0482
91074573|NCT01752634|182034818|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.44||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.05|6.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.83|2.05|0.0003
91074574|NCT01752634|182034818|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.91|7.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.69|2.91|<0.0001
91074575|NCT01752634|182034819|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.9195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.15|-0.16|0.9195
91074576|NCT01752634|182034819|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17||||0.0278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.02|-0.32|0.0278
91074577|NCT01752634|182034819|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.25||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.10|-0.40|0.0013
91074578|NCT01752634|182034820|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.91||||0.0245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|7.36|||Regression, Logistic|||||7.36|1.15|0.0245
91074579|NCT01752634|182034820|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.11|18.25|||Regression, Logistic|||||18.25|3.11|<.0001
91074580|NCT01752634|182034820|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.97|17.22|||Regression, Logistic|||||17.22|2.97|<.0001
91074581|NCT01752634|182034821|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.51||||0.3149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.91|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.91|0.13|0.3149
91074582|NCT01752634|182034821|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.16||||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.58|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.58|0.04|0.0056
91074583|NCT01752634|182034821|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.14||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.5|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.50|0.04|0.0021
91074584|NCT01752634|182034822|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.58||||0.1678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.26|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.26|0.26|0.1678
91074585|NCT01752634|182034822|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.36||||0.0108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.79|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.79|0.17|0.0108
91074586|NCT01752634|182034822|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.29||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.65|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.65|0.13|0.0025
91074587|NCT00308750|182034839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.40
91074588|NCT00308750|182034839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.19|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.19
91074589|NCT00308750|182034843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.96||||||P-value is for the change in Total FACT-L at Cycle 1 (Week 3).|ANCOVA|||||||0.96
91074590|NCT00308750|182034843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.15||||||P-value is for the change in Total FACT-L at Cycle 1 (Week 3).|ANCOVA|||||||0.15
91074591|NCT00308750|182034843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.92||||||P-value is for the change in Total FACT-L at Cycle 2 (Week 6).|ANCOVA|||||||0.92
91074592|NCT00308750|182034843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.97||||||P-value is for the change in Total FACT-L at Cycle 2 (Week 6).|ANCOVA|||||||0.97
91074593|NCT00308750|182034843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.71||||||P-value is for the change in Total FACT-L at Cycle 3 (Week 9).|ANCOVA|||||||0.71
91074594|NCT00308750|182034843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.66||||||P-value is for the change in Total FACT-L at Cycle 3 (Week 9).|ANCOVA|||||||0.66
91074595|NCT00308750|182034843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.93||||||P-value is for the change in Total FACT-L at Cycle 4 (Week 12).|ANCOVA|||||||0.93
91074596|NCT00308750|182034843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.33||||||P-value is for the change in Total FACT-L at Cycle 4 (Week 12).|ANCOVA|||||||0.33
91074597|NCT00308750|182034843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.19||||||P-value is for the change in Total FACT-L at Cycle 5 (Week 15).|ANCOVA|||||||0.19
91074598|NCT00308750|182034843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4||||||P-value is for the change in Total FACT-L at Cycle 5 (Week 15).|ANCOVA|||||||0.40
91074599|NCT00308750|182034843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.63||||||P-value is for the change in Total FACT-L at Cycle 6 (Week 18).|ANCOVA|||||||0.63
91074600|NCT00308750|182034843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.55||||||P-value is for the change in Total FACT-L at Cycle 6 (Week 18).|ANCOVA|||||||0.55
91074601|NCT00308750|182034844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.93||||||P-value is for the change in Total FACT-Taxane at Cycle 1 (Week 3).|ANCOVA|||||||0.93
91074602|NCT00308750|182034844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.86||||||P-value is for the change in Total FACT-Taxane at Cycle 1 (Week 3).|ANCOVA|||||||0.86
91074603|NCT00308750|182034844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.69||||||P-value is for the change in Total FACT-Taxane at Cycle 2 (Week 6).|ANCOVA|||||||0.69
91074604|NCT00308750|182034844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.77||||||P-value is for the change in Total FACT-Taxane at Cycle 2 (Week 6).|ANCOVA|||||||0.77
91074605|NCT00308750|182034844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.83||||||P-value is for the change in Total FACT-Taxane at Cycle 3 (Week 9).|ANCOVA|||||||0.83
91074606|NCT00308750|182034844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.78||||||P-value is for the change in Total FACT-Taxane at Cycle 3 (Week 9).|ANCOVA|||||||0.78
91074607|NCT00308750|182034844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1||||||P-value is for the change in Total FACT-Taxane at Cycle 4 (Week 12).|ANCOVA|||||||1.00
91074608|NCT00308750|182034844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.91||||||P-value is for the change in Total FACT-Taxane at Cycle 4 (Week 12).|ANCOVA|||||||0.91
91074609|NCT00308750|182034844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.49||||||P-value is for the change in Total FACT-Taxane at Cycle 5 (Week 15).|ANCOVA|||||||0.49
91074610|NCT00308750|182034844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.53||||||P-value is for the change in Total FACT-Taxane at Cycle 5 (Week 15).|ANCOVA|||||||0.53
91074611|NCT00308750|182034844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8||||||P-value is for the change in Total FACT-Taxane at Cycle 6 (Week 18).|ANCOVA|||||||0.80
91074612|NCT00308750|182034844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.85||||||P-value is for the change in Total FACT-Taxane at Cycle 6 (Week 18).|ANCOVA|||||||0.85
91074613|NCT00308750|182034845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.87|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.87
91074614|NCT00308750|182034845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.05|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.05
91074615|NCT00308750|182034848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.71|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.71
91074616|NCT00308750|182034848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.04|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.04
91074617|NCT01911780|182034849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean, comparison|-7.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|-5.3|||LOCF-ANCOVA|Last observation carried forward (LOCF) was used as the imputation method|Model includes baseline DBP as a linear covariate, and treatment and center as fixed effects.|||-5.3|-9.7|<0.0001
91074618|NCT01911780|182034850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean, comparison|-8.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|-4.5||Additional information, the p-value is not adjusted for multiplicity.|LOCF-ANCOVA||Model includes baseline SBP as a linear covariate, and treatment and center as fixed effects.|||-4.5|-12.7|<0.0001
91074619|NCT01911780|182034851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.1||||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|7.1||Additional information, the p-value is not adjusted for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|Non-completers considered failures (NCF) was used as the imputation method.|Exact 95 % confidence interval by Clopper and Pearson. Logistic regression includes treatment and center.|||7.1|1.4|0.0052
91074620|NCT01911780|182034853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|2.3|||mixed-effects model repeated measures||As a linear covariate, and treatment and visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value by visit interaction as fixed effects.|||2.3|-3.1|
91074621|NCT01911780|182034854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|6.1|||mixed-effects model repeated measures||Model includes baseline SBP as a linear covariate, and treatment and visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value by visit interaction as fixed effects.|||6.1|-1.5|
91074622|NCT03687372|182034877|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.22||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.67|6.22||P-Value test comparing the Patients Cleared of All Baseline Warts in the Active (A-101 45%) and vehicle groups.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A summary of the wart clearance at Visit 10.||6.22|1.67|0.0003
91074623|NCT03687372|182034878|SUPERIORITY|P-Value test comparing the Patients Cleared of All Baseline Warts in the Active (A-101 45%) and vehicle groups.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.14||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|3.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.52|1.30|0.0024
91074624|NCT03687372|182034879|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.5|20.8|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||20.8|7.5|<0.0001
91074625|NCT03687372|182034880|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.22||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|6.65|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||6.65|1.55|0.0009
91074626|NCT03687372|182034881|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
91074627|NCT01152359|182034899|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|2.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.9|-0.8|<0.05
91074628|NCT01152359|182034900|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|3.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.1|-4.9|0.66
91074629|NCT01152359|182034901|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|2.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.6|-4.1|0.65
91074630|NCT02901275|182034923|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61||||||No covariate or correction for multiple comparisons. a priori statistical threshold is p\<.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.61
91074631|NCT02901275|182034924|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||No covariates or correction for multiple comparisons. a priori threshold is p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.0001
91074632|NCT02901275|182034925|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51||||||No covariate or correction for multiple comparisons. a priori threshold for significance is p\<.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.51
91074633|NCT00640653|182034956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.67||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.96||The significance criterion was set at alpha = .05.|generalized linear regression|Log link was specified|Treatment was coded as 1 vs health control coded as 0.|With alpha = .05, 2-tailed, and 37.4% of the control group initiating sexual intercourse by 24-month follow-up, a total sample size of 563 participants completing the trial was projected to provide power of 80% to detect a difference of 16.8% in self-reported sexual intercourse between an HIV intervention condition and the health promotion control condition.||0.96|0.48|.03
91074634|NCT02938949|182034961|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
91074635|NCT02938949|182034962|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.2|||||||ANOVA|||||||> 0.20
91074636|NCT02938949|182034963|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.2|||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.20
91074637|NCT00195494|182034994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|22.0|||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact||E+M (49.8%) - M (27.8%) creates the risk difference estimated value.|||||<0.001
91074638|NCT00195494|182034995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|21.0|||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact||E+M (79.7%) - M (58.7%) creates the risk difference estimated value.|||||<0.001
91074639|NCT01203826|182035008|OTHER|||||||0.0005|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|P-value based on Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||Change is relative to Baseline in Study ENB-006-09 (NCT00952484). The RGI-C score represents evaluations of skeletal X-rays at each post-treatment study timepoint in Study ENB-008-10 compared with pre-treatment X-rays from Study ENB-006-09, using an ordinal scale. Therefore, no Baseline data for RGI-C are available.||||0.0005
91074640|NCT00606554|182035037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.60
91074641|NCT00606554|182035041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.06
91074642|NCT00606554|182035044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.90
91074643|NCT00915876|182035045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
91074644|NCT01662791|182035046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison between the groups for \>12 ppm.||||1.0
91074645|NCT01662791|182035047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.235|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison between groups for mobility sub-scale.||||0.235
90827748|NCT00964496|181530467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Differences in proportions|0.677||||1.3e-07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.547|0.807||P\<0.05 was considered as statistical different, while P\>0.05 was considered as no statistical significance between two groups. All reported P values are two-sided.|Fisher Exact|||"Null hypothesis (H0): Thalidomide 100 mg per day is equivalence to iron 400 mg per day with regard to the participants whose rebleeds decreased from baseline by ≥ 50% at 12 months.~Alternative hypothesis (Ha): Thalidomide 100 mg per day is non-equivalent to iron 400 mg per day with regard to the participants whose rebleeds decreased from baseline by ≥ 50% at 12 months.~Comparisons were performed with the use of the chi-square test, Fisher's exact test."||0.807|0.547|0.00000013
91074646|NCT01662791|182035047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.206|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison between groups for activities of daily living sub-scale.||||0.206
91074647|NCT01662791|182035047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.641|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison between groups for emotional well-being sub-scale.||||0.641
91074648|NCT01662791|182035047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.446|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison between groups for stigma sub-scale.||||0.446
91074649|NCT01662791|182035047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.466|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison between groups for social support sub-scale.||||0.466
91074650|NCT01662791|182035047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.205|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison between groups for cognition sub-scale.||||0.205
91074651|NCT01662791|182035047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.153|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison between groups for communication sub-scale.||||0.153
91074652|NCT01662791|182035047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison between groups for bodily discomfort sub-scale.||||0.730
91074653|NCT01662791|182035047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.334|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison between groups for summary index sub-scale.||||0.334
91074654|NCT01662791|182035048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.167|||||||McNemar|||Comparison in case group between baseline and 3 months for mobility sub-scale.||||0.167
91074655|NCT01662791|182035048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.159|||||||McNemar|||Comparison in case group between baseline and 3 months for activities of daily living sub-scale.||||0.159
91074656|NCT01662791|182035048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.041|||||||McNemar|||Comparison in case group between baseline and 3 months for emotional well-being sub-scale.||||0.041
91074657|NCT01662791|182035048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||McNemar|||Comparison in case group between baseline and 3 months for stigma sub-scale.||||0.190
91074658|NCT01662791|182035048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||Comparison in case group between baseline and 3 months for social support sub-scale.||||1.0
91074659|NCT01662791|182035048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||McNemar|||Comparison in case group between baseline and 3 months for cognition sub-scale.||||0.160
91074660|NCT01662791|182035048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.276|||||||McNemar|||Comparison in case group between baseline and 3 months for communication sub-scale.||||0.276
91074661|NCT01662791|182035048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.351|||||||McNemar|||Comparison in case group between baseline and 3 months for bodily discomfort sub-scale.||||0.351
91074662|NCT01662791|182035048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.186|||||||McNemar|||Comparison in case group between baseline and 3 months for summary index sub-scale.||||0.186
91074663|NCT01662791|182035049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.303|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison between groups for constipation sub-scale.||||0.303
91074664|NCT01662791|182035049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.518|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison between groups for dyspepsia sub-scale.||||0.518
91074665|NCT01662791|182035049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison between groups for abdominal discomfort sub-scale.||||0.800
91074666|NCT01662791|182035049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.736|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison between groups for diarrhea sub-scale.||||0.736
91074667|NCT01662791|182035049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison between groups for GERD sub-scale.||||0.570
91074668|NCT01662791|182035049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.394|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison between groups for nausea and vomiting sub-scale.||||0.394
91074669|NCT01662791|182035050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.056|||||||McNemar|||Comparison in case group between baseline and 3 months for constipation sub-scale.||||0.056
91074670|NCT01662791|182035050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||McNemar|||Comparison in case group between baseline and 3 months for dyspepsia sub-scale.||||0.380
91074671|NCT01662791|182035050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.244|||||||McNemar|||Comparison in case group between baseline and 3 months for abdominal discomfort sub-scale.||||0.244
91074672|NCT01662791|182035050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.279|||||||McNemar|||Comparison in case group between baseline and 3 months for diarrhea sub-scale.||||0.279
91074673|NCT01662791|182035050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.554|||||||McNemar|||Comparison in case group between baseline and 3 months for GERD sub-scale.||||0.554
91074674|NCT01662791|182035050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.351|||||||McNemar|||Comparison in case group between baseline and 3 months for nausea and vomiting sub-scale.||||0.351
91074675|NCT01662791|182035051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.872|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison between the two groups at baseline for depression||||0.872
91074676|NCT01662791|182035051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.835|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison between the two groups at baseline for anxiety.||||0.835
91074677|NCT02496091|182035062|OTHER||95% confidence interval (using the exact|92.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|88.8|95.5||||||Only descriptive statistics The implant success rate is analyzed on an implant level (i.e. percent of successful implants) as well as subject level (i.e. percentage of subjects with no unsuccessful implants). This proportion is presented together with a 95% confidence interval (using the exact Binomial approach) and an average follow-up time.||95.5|88.8|
91074678|NCT02272842|182035068|SUPERIORITY|The study had 80% power to detect a standardized effect size of 0.22 and had 90% power to detect an effect size of 0.28. In these calculations, we assumed a loss to follow-up of 10%. Details on the samples size calculations are also presented in the previously published protocol paper.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35|>|0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.87||The main analysis was the change in cognitive scores from baseline until the end of the intervention.|t-test, 2 sided||This is the P-value for the effect on the cognitive scores.|||.87|-.54|>.16
91074679|NCT02272842|182035078|SUPERIORITY|the means were compared using Students t-test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|||>|0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.97|0.94||"Mean difference -0.5 points in the Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence - Fourth Edition.~95 % Confidence Interval of the mean difference: (-1.97, 0.94)"|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparing mean differences between the two study arms||0.94|-1.97|>.3
90827749|NCT00964496|181530468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.02|-2.13||P\<0.05 was considered as statistical different, while P\>0.05 was considered as no statistical significance between two groups. All reported P values are two-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||"Null hypothesis (H0): Thalidomide 100 mg per day is equivalence to iron 400 mg per day with regard to the change from baseline in hemoglobin level at 12 months.~Alternative hypothesis (Ha): Thalidomide 100 mg per day is non-equivalent to iron 400 mg per day with regard to the change from baseline in hemoglobin level at 12 months.~Comparisons were performed with the use of the independent-samples t test."||-2.13|-4.02|<0.001
91074680|NCT04464720|182035086|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Ranked Sum|||comparing pre and post intervention PM2.5||||0.050
91074681|NCT04464720|182035089|OTHER|||||||0.043|||||||Wilcoxon Ranked Sum|||comparing pre v post intervention NO2||||0.043
91074682|NCT04464720|182035092|OTHER|||||||0.056|||||||Wilcoxon Ranked Sum|||comparing FVC pre and post intervention||||0.056
91074683|NCT04464720|182035093|OTHER|||||||0.058|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank|||Comparing FEV1 pre and post intervention||||0.058
91074684|NCT04464720|182035095|OTHER|||||||0.058|||||||Wilcoxon Ranked Sum|||comparing FeNO pre v post intervention||||0.058
91074685|NCT02156895|182035109|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.1244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.24|||Regression, Logistic|Multiple logistic regression including total duration of treatment with Inlyta as factor||||1.24|0.97|0.1244
91074686|NCT02156895|182035115|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.0109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.2|||Regression, Logistic|Multiple logistic regression including total duration of treatment with Inlyta as factor||||1.2|1.02|0.0109
91074687|NCT04599933|182035126|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.916|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.663|5.113|||Regression, Logistic|||All treatment comparisons for primary and secondary endpoints related to BDCVA were conducted with a logistic regression model including fixed effects of baseline BDCVA at 40 cm as a covariate and treatment.||5.113|1.663|<0.01
91074688|NCT04599933|182035127|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.035|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.736|5.305|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.305|1.736|<0.01
91074689|NCT04599933|182035128|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.751|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.694|8.379|||Regression, Logistic|||||8.379|2.694|<0.01
91074690|NCT04599933|182035129|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.422|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.923|6.09|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.090|1.923|<0.01
91074691|NCT01643798|182035153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91074692|NCT01643798|182035153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.04
91074693|NCT01643798|182035154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||.0003
91074694|NCT01643798|182035154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.794||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.794
91074695|NCT05014815|182035159|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.4698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.33||1-sided p-value|Log Rank|Stratified by PD-L1 expression (\<1% of tumor cells (TC) vs 1-49% TC vs \>= 50% TC) and histology (squamous vs non-squamous).|The HR and its 95% confidence interval (CI) was estimated using a Cox regression model stratified by PD-L1 expression (\<1% of tumor cells (TC) vs 1-49% TC vs \>= 50% TC) and histology (squamous vs non-squamous).|||1.33|0.74|0.4698
91074696|NCT05014815|182035160|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.26|||||The Mantel-Haenszel common OR and its 95% CI were estimated using a normal approximation of the log odds ratio and the Robins-Breslow-Greenland variance, stratified by PD-L1 expression and histology.|||1.26|0.47|
91074697|NCT05014815|182035162|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.34|||||The HR and its 95% confidence interval (CI) was estimated using a Cox regression model stratified by PD-L1 expression (\<1% of tumor cells (TC) vs 1-49% TC vs \>= 50% TC) and histology (squamous vs non-squamous).|||1.34|0.67|
91074698|NCT03833804|182035171|NON_INFERIORITY|The investigators conducted a noninferiority analysis using a prespecified margin of 0.5%. The noninferiority margin was selected based on expert input from addiction medicine clinicians and implementation scientists, who agreed that a 0.5% absolute difference in the composite intervention rate would be clinically acceptable given the workflow and scalability benefits of automation. The margin was chosen to reflect a reasonable balance between clinical impact and operational gain.|z-test|0.86||||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||One-sided independent samples z-test|||||||0.20
91074699|NCT02677896|182035210|SUPERIORITY||Cox hazard ratio|0.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.5||Stratified by volume of disease (low vs high) and prior docetaxel use (yes vs no) during screening period.|Log Rank||Stratified by volume of disease (low vs high) and prior docetaxel use (yes vs no) during screening period.|rPFS Treatment Comparison||0.50|0.30|<0.0001
91074700|NCT02677896|182035211|SUPERIORITY||Cox proportional hazards model|0.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.5|||Log Rank|||rPFS Treatment Comparision||0.50|0.30|<0.0001
91074701|NCT02677896|182035212|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.81|||Log Rank|P-value from stratified log-rank test.|Significance level is 0.04. Hazard ratio and 95 % CI are estimated by cox proportional hazards model.|||0.81|0.53|<0.0001
91074702|NCT02677896|182035213|SUPERIORITY||Cox hazard ratio|0.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.26||Stratified by volume of disease (low vs high) and prior docetaxel use (yes vs no) during screening period.|Log Rank||Stratified by volume of disease (low vs high) and prior docetaxel use (yes vs no) during screening period.|Time to PSA Progression Treatment Comparison||0.26|0.13|<0.0001
91074703|NCT02677896|182035214|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.48|||||Hazard ratio and 95 % CI are estimated by cox proportional hazards model.|||0.48|0.31|
91074704|NCT02677896|182035215|SUPERIORITY||Difference in rate|50.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.3|55.7||Stratified by volume of disease (low vs high) and prior docetaxel use (yes vs no) during screening period.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||PSA Undetectable Rate Treatment Comparison||55.7|45.3|<0.0001
91074705|NCT02677896|182035216|SUPERIORITY||Difference in rate|19.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.4|28.2||Stratified by volume of disease (low vs high) and prior docetaxel use (yes vs no) during screening period.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||ORR Treatment Comparison||28.2|10.4|<0.0001
91074706|NCT02677896|182035217|SUPERIORITY||Cox hazard ratio|0.88||||0.2162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.08||Stratified by volume of disease (low vs high) and prior docetaxel use (yes vs no) during screening period.|Log Rank||Stratified by volume of disease (low vs high) and prior docetaxel use (yes vs no) during screening period.|Time to Deterioration of Urinary Symptoms Treatment Comparison||1.08|0.72|0.2162
91074707|NCT02677896|182035218|SUPERIORITY||Cox hazard ratio|0.52||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.8|||Log Rank|||Time to SSE Treatment Comparison||0.80|0.33|0.0026
91074708|NCT02677896|182035219|SUPERIORITY||Cox hazard ratio|0.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.36|||Log Rank|||Time to Castration Resistance Treatment Comparison||0.36|0.22|<0.0001
91074709|NCT02677896|182035220|SUPERIORITY||Cox hazard ratio|0.96||||0.6548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.14|||Log Rank|||Time to Deterioration of QoL in FACT-P Treatment Comparison||1.14|0.81|0.6548
90827750|NCT00964496|181530469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.95|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|9.9||P\<0.05 was considered as statistical different, while P\>0.05 was considered as no statistical significance between two groups. All reported P values are two-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||"Null hypothesis (H0): Thalidomide 100 mg per day is equivalence to iron 400 mg per day with regard to the change from baseline in bleeding episodes at 12 months.~Alternative hypothesis (Ha): Thalidomide 100 mg per day is non-equivalent to iron 400 mg per day with regard to the change from baseline in bleeding episodes at 12 months.~Comparisons were performed with the use of the independent-samples t test."||9.90|6.00|<0.01
91074710|NCT02677896|182035221|SUPERIORITY||Cox hazard ratio|0.92||||0.2715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.07|||Log Rank|||Time to Pain Progression Based on BPI-SF Treatment Comparison||1.07|0.78|0.2715
91074711|NCT02729038|182035230|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.507|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.902|2.519|||||AUC (0-inf) for participants with normal renal function Vs participants with moderate renal function has been presented.|||2.519|0.902|
91074712|NCT02729038|182035230|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.924|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.151|3.215|||||AUC (0-inf) for participants with normal renal function Vs participants with Severe/ESRD not on hemodialysis|||3.215|1.151|
91074713|NCT02729038|182035231|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|2.375|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.421|3.969|||||AUC (0-inf) for participants with normal renal function Vs ESRD on hemodialysis (before hemodialysis)|||3.969|1.421|
91074714|NCT02729038|182035231|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|4.075|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.438|6.81|||||AUC (0-inf) for participants with normal renal function Vs ESRD on hemodialysis (after hemodialysis)|||6.810|2.438|
91074715|NCT02729038|182035232|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.179|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.467|2.977|||||Cmax for participants with normal renal function Vs participants with moderate renal function has been presented.|||2.977|0.467|
91074716|NCT02729038|182035232|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.575|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.624|3.975|||||Cmax for participants with normal renal function Vs .participants with Severe/ESRD not on hemodialysis|||3.975|0.624|
91074717|NCT02729038|182035233|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|2.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.891|5.681|||||Cmax for participants with normal renal function Vs ESRD on hemodialysis (before hemodialysis)|||5.681|0.891|
91074718|NCT02729038|182035233|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|5.966|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.363|15.062|||||Cmax for participants with normal renal function Vs ESRD on hemodialysis (after hemodialysis)|||15.062|2.363|
91074719|NCT02729038|182035255|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.501|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.894|2.52|||||Normal Vs Moderate|||2.520|0.894|
91074720|NCT02729038|182035255|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.912|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.139|3.212|||||Normal Vs Severe/ESRD not on hemodialysis|||3.212|1.139|
91074721|NCT02729038|182035256|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|2.375|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.414|3.989|||||Normal Vs ESRD on hemodialysis (before hemodialysis)|||3.989|1.414|
91074722|NCT02729038|182035256|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|4.068|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.422|6.831|||||Normal Vs ESRD on hemodialysis (after hemodialysis)|||6.831|2.422|
91074723|NCT01482962|182035289|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.08||P-value was stratified using disease type, International Prognostic Index (IPI) Score and region as stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.08|0.33|0.038
91074724|NCT01482962|182035290|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.637|1.178|||Stratified Log Rank||Hazard ratio (HR) was based on a stratified Cox's proportional hazard regression model with stratification factors: disease type, IPI Score and region with treatment as a factor in the model.|||1.178|0.637|0.177
91074725|NCT01482962|182035291|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.707|1.369|||Stratified Log-rank Test||Hazard ratio (HR) was based on a stratified Cox's proportional hazard regression model with stratification factors: disease type, IPI Score and region with treatment as a factor in the model.|||1.369|0.707|0.338
91074726|NCT01482962|182035296|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.679|1.329|||Stratified Log Rank||Hazard ratio was based on a stratified Cox's proportional hazard regression model with stratification factors: disease type, IPI Score and region with treatment as a factor in the model.|||1.329|0.679|0.362
91074727|NCT01210495|182035354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.907||||0.2872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.646|1.274||For the overall stratified analysis the p-value is from a 1-sided log-rank test of treatment stratified by tumor invasion and geographic region.|Log Rank||Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than (\<) 1 indicated reduction in hazard rate to favor Axitinib; hazard ratio greater than (\>) 1 indicated reduction to favor Placebo.|The study was designed to test the null hypothesis that the true median OS was 5 months vs. the alternative hypothesis that the true median OS was at least 8.3 months (i.e., 66 percent \[%\] improvement in median OS).||1.274|0.646|0.2872
91074728|NCT01210495|182035355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.618||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.438|0.871||For the overall stratified analysis the p-value is from a 1-sided log-rank test of treatment stratified by tumor invasion and geographic region.|Log Rank||Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio \<1 indicated a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Axitinib; a hazard ratio \>1 indicated a reduction in favor of Placebo.|||0.871|0.438|0.0039
91074729|NCT01210495|182035356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|3.172||||0.0914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.759|13.265||ORR for the 2 treatment arms was compared with a significance level of 0.025 using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test for stratified analyses.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk ratio and confidence interval (CI) were based on the Mantel-Haenszel estimator; risk ratio was adjusted for geographical region and vascular invasion and extra hepatic spread.|||13.265|0.759|0.0914
91074730|NCT01210495|182035357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.621||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.434|0.889||For the overall stratified analysis the p-value is from a 1-sided log-rank test of treatment stratified by tumor invasion and geographic region.|Log Rank||Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio \<1 indicated a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Axitinib; a hazard ratio \>1 indicated a reduction in favor of Placebo.|||0.889|0.434|0.006
90827751|NCT00964496|181530470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.4||||0.0002474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.15|6.64||P\<0.05 was considered as statistical different, while P\>0.05 was considered as no statistical significance between two groups. All reported P values are two-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||"Null hypothesis (H0): Thalidomide 100 mg per day is equivalence to iron 400 mg per day with regard to the change from baseline in bleeding duration at 12 months.~Alternative hypothesis (Ha): Thalidomide 100 mg per day is non-equivalent to iron 400 mg per day with regard to the change from baseline in bleeding duration at 12 months.~Comparisons were performed with the use of the independent-samples t test."||6.64|2.15|0.00024740
90827752|NCT00964496|181530471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Differences in proportions|-0.374||||0.00298881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.563|-0.185||P\<0.05 was considered as statistical different, while P\>0.05 was considered as no statistical significance between two groups. All reported P values are two-sided.|Fisher Exact|||"Null hypothesis (H0): Thalidomide 100 mg per day is equivalence to iron 400 mg per day with regard to the participants dependent on blood transfusions.~Alternative hypothesis (Ha): Thalidomide 100 mg per day is non-equivalent to iron 400 mg per day with regard to the participants dependent on blood transfusions.~Comparisons were performed with the use of the chi-square test, Fisher's exact test."||-0.185|-0.563|0.00298881
91074731|NCT01210495|182035359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.65||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.319|5.326||For the overall stratified analysis the p-value is from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test of treatment stratified by geographical region and vascular invasion and extra hepatic spread.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk Ratio and CI based on the Mantel-Haenszel estimator; risk ratio was adjusted for geographical region and vascular invasion and extra hepatic spread.|||5.326|1.319|0.0025
91074732|NCT01210495|182035368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.89||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.7|-5.08||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons.|Longitudinal mixed effect analysis|||Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||-5.08|-18.70|0.0006
91074733|NCT01210495|182035369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.6||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.27|-2.94||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons.|Longitudinal mixed effect analysis|||Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||-2.94|-12.27|0.0014
91074734|NCT01210495|182035370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.76|-1.78||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons.|Longitudinal mixed effect analysis|||Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||-1.78|-4.76|<0.0001
91074735|NCT01210495|182035371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.26|-2.21||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons.|Longitudinal mixed effect analysis|||Analysis presented above is for FACT-G PWB. Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||-2.21|-5.26|<0.0001
91074736|NCT01210495|182035371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.27||||0.1642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.07|0.52||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons.|Longitudinal mixed effect analysis|||Analysis presented above is for FACT-G SWB. Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||0.52|-3.07|0.1642
91074737|NCT01210495|182035371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48||||0.4759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.84||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons.|Longitudinal mixed effect analysis|||Analysis presented above is for FACT-G EWB. Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||0.84|-1.80|0.4759
91074738|NCT01210495|182035371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.07||||0.0288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.92|-0.21||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons.|Longitudinal mixed effect analysis|||Analysis presented above is for FACT-G FWB. Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||-0.21|-3.92|0.0288
91074739|NCT01210495|182035372|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.96||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.93|-1.99||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons.|Longitudinal mixed effect analysis|||Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||-1.99|-7.93|0.0011
91074740|NCT01210495|182035373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.49|-5.42||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons.|Longitudinal mixed effect analysis|||Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||-5.42|-15.49|<0.0001
91074741|NCT01210495|182035374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.252||||0.9182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.923|1.698||The p-value is from a 1-sided log-rank test.|1-sided, unstratified log-rank test||Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio \<1 indicates reduction in hazard rate to favor Axitinib, hazard ratio \>1 indicates reduction to favor Placebo.|||1.698|0.923|0.9182
91074742|NCT01210495|182035375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|-0.04|||Longitudinal mixed effect analysis|||Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||-0.04|-0.20|0.0024
91074743|NCT01210495|182035376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.03||||0.0193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.91|-1.15|||Longitudinal mixed effect analysis|||Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||-1.15|-12.91|0.0193
91074744|NCT01500213|182035438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.1||To control for multiplicity, analyses were performed hierarchically. For the CR delayed the threshold for statistical significance was 0.05; no further adjustment for multiplicity were required for the primary endpoint.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test was stratified by sex. Missing data were imputed as treatment failures.||||2.1|1.0|0.043
91074745|NCT01500213|182035439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.0||To control for multiplicity, analyses were performed hierarchically. CR-acute was tested only if the result for the primary endpoint, CR delayed, was statistically significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test was stratified by sex. Missing data were imputed as treatment failures.||||2.0|0.8|0.233
90890497|NCT03086447|181645729|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of -5 points was used. This margin is based on a 10% shift in the distribution of CLUE score.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.39|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|11.5|||Linear mixed model|A 95% confidence interval for the least square mean difference was used to demonstrate non-inferiority of the Test relative to the Control groups.|Mean difference was calculated as Test minus Control|Sample size calculation was performed considering the effect size of 5 (Test minus Control) to achieve a minimum statistical power of 90% at a 5% significance level.||11.5|2.1|
91074746|NCT01500213|182035440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.9||To control for multiplicity, analyses were performed hierarchically. CR overall was tested only if both CR delayed and CR acute were statistically significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test was stratified by sex. Missing data were imputed as treatment failures.||||1.9|1.0|0.084
91074747|NCT04027075|182035449|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|2.02|||Chi-squared||The odds ratio applies to the group comparison (Intervention vs. Services as Usual) at 3-months. Group was coded 1 = Intervention and 0 = Services as Usual.|||2.02|0.51|.962
91074748|NCT04027075|182035450|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.47||||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.18|||Chi-squared||The odds ratio applies to the group comparison (Intervention vs. Services as Usual) at 3-months. Group was coded 1 = Intervention and 0 = Services as Usual.|||1.18|0.19|.109
91074749|NCT04027075|182035451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.58||||0.227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|3.29|||Chi-squared||The odds ratio applies to the group comparison (Intervention vs. Services as Usual) at 3-months. Group was coded 1 = Intervention and 0 = Services as Usual.|||3.29|0.75|.227
91074750|NCT04027075|182035452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.87|||Chi-squared||The odds ratio applies to the group comparison (Intervention vs. Services as Usual) at 3-months. Group was coded 1 = Intervention and 0 = Services as Usual.|||2.87|0.50|.681
91074751|NCT04027075|182035453|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.42|||Chi-squared||The odds ratio applies to the group comparison (Intervention vs. Services as Usual) at 3-months. Group was coded 1 = Intervention and 0 = Services as Usual.|||2.42|0.58|.650
91074752|NCT04027075|182035454|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.73|||Chi-squared||The odds ratio applies to the group comparison (Intervention vs. Services as Usual) at 3-months. Group was coded 1 = Intervention and 0 = Services as Usual.|||2.73|0.73|.304
91074753|NCT04027075|182035455|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|3.0|||Chi-squared||The odds ratio applies to the group comparison (Intervention vs. Services as Usual) at 3-months. Group was coded 1 = Intervention and 0 = Services as Usual.|||3.00|0.69|0.97
91074754|NCT04027075|182035456|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||The mean difference applies to the group comparison (Intervention vs. Services as Usual) in trajectory differences from baseline through 3-months. Group was coded 1 = Intervention and 0 = Services as Usual.|||||.005
91074755|NCT04027075|182035457|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09||0.46|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||The mean difference applies to the group comparison (Intervention vs. Services as Usual) in trajectory differences from baseline through 3-months. Group was coded 1 = Intervention and 0 = Services as Usual.|||||.460
91074756|NCT04027075|182035458|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.851|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||The mean difference applies to the group comparison (Intervention vs. Services as Usual) in trajectory differences from baseline through 3-months. Group was coded 1 = Intervention and 0 = Services as Usual.|||||.851
91074757|NCT04027075|182035459|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.977|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||The mean difference applies to the group comparison (Intervention vs. Services as Usual) in trajectory differences from baseline through 3-months. Group was coded 1 = Intervention and 0 = Services as Usual.|||||.977
91074758|NCT04027075|182035460|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.456|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||The mean difference applies to the group comparison (Intervention vs. Services as Usual) in trajectory differences from baseline through 3-months. Group was coded 1 = Intervention and 0 = Services as Usual.|||||.456
91074759|NCT04027075|182035461|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.874|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||The mean difference applies to the group comparison (Intervention vs. Services as Usual) in trajectory differences from baseline through 3-months. Group was coded 1 = Intervention and 0 = Services as Usual.|||||.874
91074760|NCT04027075|182035462|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.069|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||The mean difference applies to the group comparison (Intervention vs. Services as Usual) in trajectory differences from baseline through 3-months. Group was coded 1 = Intervention and 0 = Services as Usual.|||||.069
91074761|NCT04027075|182035463|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.658|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||The mean difference applies to the group comparison (Intervention vs. Services as Usual) in trajectory differences from baseline through 3-months. Group was coded 1 = Intervention and 0 = Services as Usual.|||||.658
91074762|NCT04027075|182035464|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.783|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||The mean difference applies to the group comparison (Intervention vs. Services as Usual) in trajectory differences from baseline through 3-months. Group was coded 1 = Intervention and 0 = Services as Usual.|||||.783
91074763|NCT00628095|182035478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent difference|-0.0221||||0.591|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.17|0.13|||Normal Approximation method|No adjustments for multiple comparisons were performed.|Power of 80% and a Type I error at 0.10 in a 1-sided test was calculated. Null hypothesis stated that there was no difference between the CE-224,535 and placebo arm groups, on the percentage of ACR 20 responders at Week 12.|Treatment effect was estimated by the difference of percentages between the treatment groups, and tested using the normal approximation method.||0.13|-0.17|0.591
91074764|NCT00628095|182035479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent difference|-0.1232||||0.941|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.22|-0.02|||Normal Approximation method|||Week 2: Treatment effect was estimated by the difference of percentages between the treatment groups, and tested using the normal approximation method.||-0.02|-0.22|0.941
91074765|NCT00628095|182035479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent difference|-0.0622||||0.742|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.18|0.05|||Normal Approximation method|||Week 4: Treatment effect was estimated by the difference of percentages between the treatment groups, and tested using the normal approximation method.||0.05|-0.18|0.742
91074766|NCT00628095|182035479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent difference|0.004||||0.482|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.11|0.12|||Normal Approximation method|||Week 8: Treatment effect was estimated by the difference of percentages between the treatment groups, and tested using the normal approximation method.||0.12|-0.11|0.482
91074767|NCT00628095|182035480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent difference|-0.0072||||0.989|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.08|0.06|||Barnard exact test|||Week 2: Treatment effect was estimated by the difference of percentages between the treatment groups, and tested using the Barnard exact test.||0.06|-0.08|0.989
91074768|NCT00628095|182035480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent difference|-0.0096||||0.957|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.08|0.07|||Barnard exact test|||Week 4: Treatment effect was estimated by the difference of percentages between the treatment groups, and tested using the Barnard exact test.||0.07|-0.08|0.957
91074769|NCT00628095|182035480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent difference|0.0044||||0.473|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.08|0.09|||Normal Approximation method|||Week 8: Treatment effect was estimated by the difference of percentages between the treatment groups, and tested using the normal approximation method.||0.09|-0.08|0.473
91074770|NCT00628095|182035480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent difference|-0.057||||0.793|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.15|0.03|||Normal Approximation method|||Week 12: Treatment effect was estimated by the difference of percentages between the treatment groups, and tested using the normal approximation method.||0.03|-0.15|0.793
91074771|NCT00628095|182035481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent difference|0.0377||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.0|0.09|||Barnard exact test|||Week 2: Treatment effect was estimated by the difference of percentages between the treatment groups, and tested using the Barnard exact test.||0.09|-0.00|0.121
91074772|NCT00628095|182035481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent difference|0.0141||||0.421|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.05|0.07|||Barnard exact test|||Week 4: Treatment effect was estimated by the difference of percentages between the treatment groups, and tested using the Barnard exact test.||0.07|-0.05|0.421
91074773|NCT00628095|182035481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent difference|0.0566||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.01|0.12|||Barnard exact test|||Week 8: Treatment effect was estimated by the difference of percentages between the treatment groups, and tested using the Barnard exact test.||0.12|0.01|0.058
91074774|NCT00628095|182035481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent difference|0.0377||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.0|0.09|||Barnard exact test|||Week 12: Treatment effect was estimated by the difference of percentages between the treatment groups, and tested using the Barnard exact test.||0.09|-0.00|0.121
91074775|NCT00628095|182035489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Barnard exact test|||Week 2: p-value was analyzed using Barnard Exact Test.||||1.0000
91074776|NCT00628095|182035489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Barnard exact test|||Week 4: p-value was analyzed using Barnard Exact Test.||||1.0000
91074777|NCT00628095|182035489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Barnard exact test|||Week 8: p-value was analyzed using Barnard Exact Test.||||1.0000
91074778|NCT00628095|182035489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0637|TWO_SIDED||||||Barnard exact test|||Week 12: p-value was analyzed using Barnard Exact Test.||||0.0637
91074779|NCT00628095|182035489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0637|TWO_SIDED||||||Barnard exact test|||Week 14: p-value was analyzed using Barnard Exact Test.||||0.0637
91074780|NCT01005888|182035500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Observed number of attacks.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91074781|NCT01005888|182035500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Normalized number of attacks.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
91074782|NCT01005888|182035501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.999||95.0||||Period 1.|Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
91074783|NCT01005888|182035501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.999||95.0||||Period 2.|Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
91074784|NCT01005888|182035502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0008||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0008
91074785|NCT01005888|182035503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0004||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0004
91074786|NCT01005888|182035504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91074787|NCT01005888|182035505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91074788|NCT01005888|182035506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Visit 1 change at 1 hour post-infusion.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91074789|NCT01005888|182035506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Week 4 change at 1 hour post-infusion.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91074790|NCT01005888|182035506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0001||95.0||||Week 8 change at 1 hour post-infusion.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0001
91074791|NCT01005888|182035506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0028||95.0||||Week 12 change at 1 hour post-infusion.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0028
91074792|NCT01005888|182035507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Visit 1 percent change at 1 hour post-infusion.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91074793|NCT01005888|182035507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Week 4 percent change at 1 hour post-infusion.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91074794|NCT01005888|182035507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Week 8 percent change at 1 hour post-infusion.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91074795|NCT01005888|182035507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0002||95.0||||Week 12 percent change at 1 hour post-infusion.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0002
91074796|NCT01043705|182035508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||One sided Fisher's exact test.|0.0044||||0.0023|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.009|||Fisher Exact|||||0.009||0.0023
91074797|NCT01043705|182035508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||1-sided Fisher's Exact Text|0.002||||0.0052|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.01|||Fisher Exact|||||0.01||0.0052
91074798|NCT01043705|182035508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||1-sided Fisher's Exact Test|0.006||||0.0176|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.014|||Fisher Exact|||||0.014||0.0176
91074799|NCT01043705|182035508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Fisher's Exact Test|0.7||||0.3764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.3764
91074800|NCT01043705|182035509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate compared to performance goal|4.4||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|5.8|||1-sided Chi-square|||||5.8|3.3|0.0005
91074801|NCT01043705|182035509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate compared to a performance goal|3.1||||0.0444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|5.1|||1-sided Chi-square test|||||5.1|1.7|0.0444
91074802|NCT01043705|182035509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||rate compared to performance goal|5.4||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|5.4|||1-sided Chi-squared test|||All types of mechanical complications combined.||5.4|3.8|0.0006
91074803|NCT01043705|182035509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Descriptive|5.4||||0.0745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|7.5|||Chi-squared|||All mechanical complications, retrospective, non-TYRX cohort||7.5|3.7|0.0745
91074804|NCT02635542|182035512|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.00
91074805|NCT02635542|182035513|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
91074806|NCT02003963|182035515|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.05
91074807|NCT02880865|182035567|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was achieved if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in percentages of participants with seropositivity between the two groups (concurrent administration minus separate administration) at 56 days post-vaccination was \> -10% for both measles and rubella results.|Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.2||||||The primary hypotheses evaluated the non-inferiority of the concomitant administration of MMR and CD-JEV vaccines (Group 1) to MMR and CD-JEV vaccines given 2 months apart (Group 2) in children 9 months of age at 56 days in terms of percentage of participants achieving seropositivity to measles and rubella assuming a non-inferiority margin of 10%.||2.2|-2.1|
91074808|NCT02880865|182035568|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was achieved if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages of participants with seropositivity between the two groups (concurrent administration minus separate administration) at 56 days post-vaccination was \> -10% for both measles and rubella results.|Difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.0||||||The primary hypotheses evaluated the non-inferiority of the concomitant administration of MMR and CD-JEV vaccines (Group 1) to MMR and CD-JEV vaccines given 2 months apart (Group 2) in children 9 months of age at 56 days in terms of percentage of participants achieving seropositivity to measles and rubella assuming a non-inferiority margin of 10%.||1.0|-0.3|
91074809|NCT02880865|182035569|NON_INFERIORITY|The percentage of participants with seropositivity for mumps at 56 days post-vaccination between Group 1 and Group 2 were compared using a non-inferiority test. Non-inferiority of Group 1 to Group 2 in terms of seropositivity for mumps was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference of seropositivity rates between the two groups (concurrent administration minus separate administration) at 56 days post-vaccination was \> -10%.|Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|2.1||||||||2.1|-2.0|
91074810|NCT02880865|182035570|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.2|||||Group 1/Group 2 ratio obtained using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with log10-transformed antibody concentration as dependent variable and treatment group as the explanatory variable adjusted for log10-transformed baseline antibody concentration.|||1.2|0.9|
91074811|NCT02880865|182035571|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.1|||||Group 1/Group 2 ratio obtained using an ANCOVA method with log 10-transformed antibody concentration as dependent variable and treatment group as explanatory variable adjusted for log 10-transformed baseline antibody concentration.|||1.1|0.9|
91074812|NCT02880865|182035572|OTHER||Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.2|||||Group 1 - Group 2|||2.2|-2.1|
91074813|NCT02880865|182035573|OTHER||Difference|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|4.9|||||Group 1 - Group 2|||4.9|-1.8|
91074814|NCT02880865|182035574|OTHER||Difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.0|||||Group 1 - Group 2|||1.0|-0.3|
91074815|NCT02880865|182035575|OTHER||Difference|4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|11.3||||||||11.3|-3.1|
91074816|NCT02880865|182035576|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.4|||||Group 1 / Group 2 ratio obtained using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) method with log 10-transformed antibody concentration as dependent variable and treatment group as explanatory variable adjusted for log 10-transformed baseline antibody titer.|||1.4|1.0|
91074817|NCT03379753|182035583|OTHER||U statistic|984.5||||0.57|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.57
91074818|NCT00347919|182035584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage difference|2.7||||0.3724||90.0|-11.0|16.3|||Chi-squared||Difference in the percentage of independently-evaluated PD between lapatinib and combination therapy (lapatinib plus pazopanib)|||16.3|-11.0|0.3724
91074819|NCT00347919|182035584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage difference|5.4||||0.2578||90.0|-8.4|19.2|||Chi-squared||Difference in the percentage of investigator-evaluated PD between lapatinib and combination therapy (lapatinib plus pazopanib)|||19.2|-8.4|0.2578
91074820|NCT00347919|182035585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7488||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.7488
91074821|NCT04687072|182035611|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-3.5||||0.5081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|7.0||The p-value was calculated using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test used in the hierarchical testing procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The adjusted difference in percentages and 95% confidence interval (CI) (Klingenberg approach) were presented.|||7.0|-14.7|0.5081
91074822|NCT04687072|182035612|SUPERIORITY||Location shift|0.0||||0.4925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||The p-value was calculated using the stratified Mann-Whitney test used in the hierarchical testing procedure.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The Hodges-Lehmann estimator of the treatment difference and 95% CI are presented.|||0.000|0.000|0.4925
91074823|NCT04687072|182035613|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-0.5||||0.9314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|10.0||The p-value was calculated using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test used in the hierarchical testing procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The adjusted difference in percentages and 95% CI (Klingenberg approach) were presented.|||10.0|-11.7|0.9314
90827753|NCT00964496|181530472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1557.14|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1294.53|1819.76||P\<0.05 was considered as statistical different, while P\>0.05 was considered as no statistical significance between two groups. All reported P values are two-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||"Null hypothesis (H0): Thalidomide 100 mg per day is equivalence to iron 400 mg per day with regard to the change from baseline in total transfused red cell requirements at 12 months.~Alternative hypothesis (Ha): Thalidomide 100 mg per day is non-equivalent to iron 400 mg per day with regard to the change from baseline in total transfused red cell requirements at 12 months.~Comparisons were performed with the use of the independent-samples t test."||1819.76|1294.53|<0.01
91074824|NCT04687072|182035614|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-1.7||||0.7379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|8.2||The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test p-value was used in the hierarchical testing procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The adjusted difference in percentage and 95% CI (Klingenberg approach) are presented.|||8.2|-12.4|0.7379
91074825|NCT04687072|182035615|OTHER||Difference in percentage|4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|16.8|||||||The 95% Agresti-Min CIs are presented.|16.8|-9.3|
91074826|NCT04687072|182035616|SUPERIORITY||Location shift|0.0||||0.726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||The p-value was calculated using the stratified Mann-Whitney test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The Hodges-Lehmann estimator of the treatment difference and 95% CI are presented.|||0.000|0.000|0.7260
91074827|NCT04687072|182035617|OTHER||Difference in percentage|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|13.0|||||The 95% Agresti-Min CIs are presented.|||13.0|-9.6|
91074828|NCT04687072|182035620|SUPERIORITY||Location shift|0.0||||0.2929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.0||The p-value was calculated using the stratified Mann-Whitney test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The Hodges-Lehmann estimator of the treatment difference and 95% CI are presented.|||1.000|0.000|0.2929
91074829|NCT04687072|182035621|SUPERIORITY||Location shift|0.0||||0.1475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.0||The p-value was calculated using the stratified Mann-Whitney test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The Hodges-Lehmann estimator of the treatment difference and 95% CI are presented.|||1.000|0.000|0.1475
91074830|NCT04687072|182035622|SUPERIORITY||Location shift|0.0||||0.7677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|2.0||The p-value was calculated using the stratified Mann-Whitney test used in the hierarchical testing procedure.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The Hodges-Lehmann estimator of the treatment difference and 95% CI are presented.|WHO Classified Bleeding Event Grade ≥1||2.000|-2.000|0.7677
91074831|NCT04687072|182035623|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|7.3|||||The 95% Agresti-Min CIs are presented.|IWG Complete Response||7.3|-11.8|
91074832|NCT04687072|182035623|OTHER||Difference in percentage|8.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|20.2|||||The 95% Agresti-Min CIs are presented.|IWG Response||20.2|-4.6|
91074833|NCT04687072|182035623|OTHER||Difference in percentage|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|13.3|||||The 95% Agresti-Min CIs are presented.|Initial Response||13.3|-9.7|
91074834|NCT04687072|182035625|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.6|5.7|||||The 95% Agresti-Min CIs are presented.|||5.7|-15.6|
91074835|NCT04545567|182035637|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.004
91074836|NCT04545567|182035638|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.26
91074837|NCT04545567|182035639|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2
91074838|NCT04545567|182035640|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.01
91074839|NCT04545567|182035641|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1
91074840|NCT04545567|182035642|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.21
91074841|NCT04545567|182035643|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.73||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
91074842|NCT04545567|182035644|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91074843|NCT04545567|182035645|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.41
91074844|NCT04545567|182035646|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.54
91074845|NCT04545567|182035647|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.003
91074846|NCT04545567|182035648|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.52
91074847|NCT04545567|182035649|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.28
91074848|NCT04545567|182035650|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.05
91074849|NCT04545567|182035651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.007
91074850|NCT04545567|182035652|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.14
91074851|NCT04545567|182035653|OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.22
91074852|NCT04545567|182035654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
91074853|NCT04545567|182035655|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.49
91074854|NCT04545567|182035656|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
91074855|NCT01187498|182035667|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A power analysis indicated that a sample size of 70 per group would provide 80% power with a one-sided alpha of 0.05 to declare two means equivalent, assuming a mean voiding frequency of 8.2 for behavioral treatment, a mean voiding frequency of 8.0 for drug therapy, and a standard deviation of 2.3 for both groups. Equivalence was defined as ±15% of the drug therapy posttreatment mean.|Difference of the Means|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.346||0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||The estimated parameter of dispersion is the standard error of the regression coefficient which measured the adjusted difference of the group means.|The primary analysis was an equivalence analysis to compare the two treatment groups on posttreatment 24- hour voiding frequency using a margin of ±15% of the drug group mean. Schuirmann's two one-sided tests (TOST) approach was used first to examine completers and then repeated using last observation carried forward to include participants who did not complete therapy. Adjusting the test to regression, the analyses were repeated using baseline voiding frequency as a covariate.||||.001
91074856|NCT01187498|182035668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of the Means|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.188||0.05||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||The estimated parameter of dispersion represents the standard error for the difference of the group means.|Standard regression methods adjusting for baseline values||||.05
91074857|NCT01187498|182035669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of Group Means|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.091||0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided||The estimated parameter of dispersion represents the standard error for the difference of the group means.|Standard regression methods adjusting for baseline values||||.05
91074858|NCT01187498|182035670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Group Means|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.091||0.33||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided||The estimated parameter of dispersion represents the standard error for the difference of the group means.|Standard regression methods adjusting for baseline values||||.33
91074859|NCT01187498|182035671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.924||0.84||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided||The estimated parameter of dispersion represents the standard error for the difference of the group means.|Standard regression methods adjusting for baseline values||||.84
91074860|NCT01187498|182035672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Weighted Group Means|-0.0563|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1249||0.69||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The estimated parameter of dispersion represents the standard error for the difference of the weighted group means.|Cochran Mantel-Haenszel procedure used to account for the ordinal nature of responses.||||.69
91074861|NCT01187498|182035673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between Group Weighted Means|-0.1563|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1009||0.16||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The estimated parameter of dispersion represents the standard error for the difference of the weighted group means.|Cochran Mantel-Haenszel procedure used to account for the ordinal nature of responses.||||.16
91074862|NCT01187498|182035674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Weighted Group Means|0.1079|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1625||0.56||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The estimated parameter of dispersion represents the standard error for the difference of the weighted group means.|Cochran Mantel-Haenszel procedure used to account for the ordinal nature of responses.||||.56
91074863|NCT01187498|182035675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Weighted Group Means|0.054|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1265||0.65||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The estimated parameter of dispersion represents the standard error for the difference of the weighted group means.|Cochran Mantel-Haenszel procedure used to account for the ordinal nature of responses.||||.65
91074864|NCT01187498|182035676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Cochran Mantel-Haenszel procedure used to account for the ordinal nature of responses.||||.01
91074865|NCT01187498|182035677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Group Proportions|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.086||0.02||95.0|||||Chi-squared||The estimated parameter of dispersion represents the standard error for the difference of the group proportions.|Cochran Mantel-Haenszel procedure.||||.02
91074866|NCT01970475|182035678|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis was tested by comparing the 2-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) of the RR of ACR20 at week 24 between ABP 501 and adalimumab with an equivalence margin of (0.738, 1/0.738).|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.039|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.954|1.133|||||Based on a generalized linear model adjusted for geographic region and prior biological use for RA as covariates in the model.|The study hypothesis was that there were no clinically meaningful differences between ABP 501 and adalimumab in risk ratio (RR) of ACR20 at week 24.||1.133|0.954|
90827754|NCT00964496|181530473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Differences in proportions|0.464||||3.962e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.649|||Fisher Exact|||"Null hypothesis (H0): Thalidomide 100 mg per day is equivalence to iron 400 mg per day with regard to the cessation of bleeding.~Alternative hypothesis (Ha): Thalidomide 100 mg per day is non-equivalent to iron 400 mg per day with regard to the cessation of bleeding.~Comparisons were performed with the use of the chi-square test, Fisher's exact test."||0.649|0.28|0.00003962
91074867|NCT03495154|182035748|OTHER|This was not a comparative endpoint.|Percentage and confidence interval|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|8.5||||||Number of participants with hernia recurrence within 12 months following Parietene™ DS Composite Mesh use in ventral hernia repair||8.5|1.0|
91074868|NCT03495154|182035749|OTHER|Statistical Analysis is based on number of participants with incidence of with ADEs at discharge. Adverse Device Effects (ADE) is inclusive of both procedure and/or device related AEs.|Number of Subjects with ADEs|14.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91074869|NCT03495154|182035749|OTHER|Statistical Analysis is based on number of participants with incidence of ADEs within 1 month. Adverse Device Effects (ADE) is inclusive of both procedure and/or device related AEs.|Number of Subjects with ADEs|31.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91074870|NCT03495154|182035749|OTHER|Statistical Analysis is based on number of participants with incidence of ADEs within 3 months. Adverse Device Effects (ADE) is inclusive of both procedure and/or device related AEs.|Number of Subjects with ADEs|34.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91074871|NCT03495154|182035749|OTHER|Statistical Analysis is based on number of participants with incidence of ADEs within 12 months. Adverse Device Effects (ADE) is inclusive of both procedure and/or device related AEs.|Number of Subjects with ADEs|40.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91074872|NCT03495154|182035749|OTHER|Statistical Analysis is based on number of participants with incidence of ADEs within 24 months. Adverse Device Effects (ADEs) are inclusive of both procedure and device related AEs.|Number of Subjects with ADEs|42.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
91074873|NCT03495154|182035750|OTHER|This was not a comparative endpoint.|% of Subjects with Recurrence within 1M|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.9||||||||2.9|0|
91074874|NCT03495154|182035750|OTHER|This was not a comparative endpoint.|% of Subjects with Recurrence within 3M|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.0||||||||3.0|0|
91074875|NCT03495154|182035750|OTHER|This was not a comparative endpoint.|% of Subjects with Recurrence within 24M|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|9.6||||||||9.6|1.2|
91074876|NCT05633992|182035772|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 12 serotypes common to both V116 and PPSV23, a conclusion of non-inferiority of V116 to PPSV23 requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the OPA GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) to be \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|Day 30 GMT Ratio|0.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.17|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|cLDA model with terms for vaccination group, time, interaction of time-by-vaccination, age stratum at baseline, and interaction of time-by-age stratum|Ratio is V116/PPSV23. GMT ratio and confidence interval estimated from the cLDA model. The cLDA model-based ratio includes estimated data for participants who had baseline data available but no day 30 measurement.|Serotype 3||1.17|0.75|<0.001
91074877|NCT05633992|182035772|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 12 serotypes common to both V116 and PPSV23, a conclusion of non-inferiority of V116 to PPSV23 requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the OPA GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) to be \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|Day 30 GMT Ratio|1.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.33|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|cLDA model with terms for vaccination group, time, interaction of time-by-vaccination, age stratum at baseline, and interaction of time-by-age stratum|Ratio is V116/PPSV23. GMT ratio and confidence interval estimated from the cLDA model. The cLDA model-based ratio includes estimated data for participants who had baseline data available but no day 30 measurement.|Serotype 7F||1.33|0.88|<0.001
91074878|NCT05633992|182035772|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 12 serotypes common to both V116 and PPSV23, a conclusion of non-inferiority of V116 to PPSV23 requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the OPA GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) to be \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|Day 30 GMT Ratio|1.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.36|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|cLDA model with terms for vaccination group, time, interaction of time-by-vaccination, age stratum at baseline, and interaction of time-by-age stratum|Ratio is V116/PPSV23. GMT ratio and confidence interval estimated from the cLDA model. The cLDA model-based ratio includes estimated data for participants who had baseline data available but no day 30 measurement.|Serotype 8||1.36|0.93|<0.001
91074879|NCT05633992|182035772|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 12 serotypes common to both V116 and PPSV23, a conclusion of non-inferiority of V116 to PPSV23 requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the OPA GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) to be \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|Day 30 GMT Ratio|1.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.29|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|cLDA model with terms for vaccination group, time, interaction of time-by-vaccination, age stratum at baseline, and interaction of time-by-age stratum|Ratio is V116/PPSV23. GMT ratio and confidence interval estimated from the cLDA model. The cLDA model-based ratio includes estimated data for participants who had baseline data available but no day 30 measurement.|Serotype 9N||1.29|0.86|<0.001
91074880|NCT05633992|182035772|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 12 serotypes common to both V116 and PPSV23, a conclusion of non-inferiority of V116 to PPSV23 requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the OPA GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) to be \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|Day 30 GMT Ratio|1.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|2.14|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|cLDA model with terms for vaccination group, time, interaction of time-by-vaccination, age stratum at baseline, and interaction of time-by-age stratum|Ratio is V116/PPSV23. GMT ratio and confidence interval estimated from the cLDA model. The cLDA model-based ratio includes estimated data for participants who had baseline data available but no day 30 measurement.|Serotype 10A||2.14|1.28|<0.001
91074881|NCT05633992|182035772|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 12 serotypes common to both V116 and PPSV23, a conclusion of non-inferiority of V116 to PPSV23 requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the OPA GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) to be \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|Day 30 GMT Ratio|1.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|1.92|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|cLDA model with terms for vaccination group, time, interaction of time-by-vaccination, age stratum at baseline, and interaction of time-by-age stratum|Ratio is V116/PPSV23. GMT ratio and confidence interval estimated from the cLDA model. The cLDA model-based ratio includes estimated data for participants who had baseline data available but no day 30 measurement.|Serotype 11A||1.92|1.20|<0.001
91074882|NCT05633992|182035772|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 12 serotypes common to both V116 and PPSV23, a conclusion of non-inferiority of V116 to PPSV23 requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the OPA GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) to be \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|Day 30 GMT Ratio|1.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|2.72|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|cLDA model with terms for vaccination group, time, interaction of time-by-vaccination, age stratum at baseline, and interaction of time-by-age stratum|Ratio is V116/PPSV23. GMT ratio and confidence interval estimated from the cLDA model. The cLDA model-based ratio includes estimated data for participants who had baseline data available but no day 30 measurement.|Serotype 12F||2.72|1.43|<0.001
91074883|NCT05633992|182035772|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 12 serotypes common to both V116 and PPSV23, a conclusion of non-inferiority of V116 to PPSV23 requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the OPA GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) to be \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|Day 30 GMT Ratio|1.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|2.0|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|cLDA model with terms for vaccination group, time, interaction of time-by-vaccination, age stratum at baseline, and interaction of time-by-age stratum|Ratio is V116/PPSV23. GMT ratio and confidence interval estimated from the cLDA model. The cLDA model-based ratio includes estimated data for participants who had baseline data available but no day 30 measurement.|Serotype 17F||2.00|1.28|<0.001
90827755|NCT03609177|181530474|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.8|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|10.8|||binomial regression with identity link|||||10.8|2.8|<0.05
90827756|NCT03609177|181530475|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.6|||binomial regression with identity link|||||0.6|-0.7|<0.05
90827757|NCT03609177|181530476|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.7|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.9|||binomial regression with identity link|||||1.90|-0.5|<0.05
91074884|NCT05633992|182035772|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 12 serotypes common to both V116 and PPSV23, a conclusion of non-inferiority of V116 to PPSV23 requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the OPA GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) to be \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|Day 30 GMT Ratio|1.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.45|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|cLDA model with terms for vaccination group, time, interaction of time-by-vaccination, age stratum at baseline, and interaction of time-by-age stratum|Ratio is V116/PPSV23. GMT ratio and confidence interval estimated from the cLDA model. The cLDA model-based ratio includes estimated data for participants who had baseline data available but no day 30 measurement.|Serotype 19A||1.45|0.93|<0.001
91074885|NCT05633992|182035772|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 12 serotypes common to both V116 and PPSV23, a conclusion of non-inferiority of V116 to PPSV23 requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the OPA GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) to be \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|Day 30 GMT Ratio|1.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|1.77|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|cLDA model with terms for vaccination group, time, interaction of time-by-vaccination, age stratum at baseline, and interaction of time-by-age stratum|Ratio is V116/PPSV23. GMT ratio and confidence interval estimated from the cLDA model. The cLDA model-based ratio includes estimated data for participants who had baseline data available but no day 30 measurement.|Serotype 20A||1.77|1.18|<0.001
91074886|NCT05633992|182035772|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 12 serotypes common to both V116 and PPSV23, a conclusion of non-inferiority of V116 to PPSV23 requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the OPA GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) to be \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|Day 30 GMT Ratio|1.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.76|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|cLDA model with terms for vaccination group, time, interaction of time-by-vaccination, age stratum at baseline, and interaction of time-by-age stratum|Ratio is V116/PPSV23. GMT ratio and confidence interval estimated from the cLDA model. The cLDA model-based ratio includes estimated data for participants who had baseline data available but no day 30 measurement.|Serotype 22F||1.76|1.10|<0.001
91074887|NCT05633992|182035772|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 12 serotypes common to both V116 and PPSV23, a conclusion of non-inferiority of V116 to PPSV23 requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the OPA GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) to be \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|Day 30 GMT Ratio|0.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.12|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|cLDA model with terms for vaccination group, time, interaction of time-by-vaccination, age stratum at baseline, and interaction of time-by-age stratum|Ratio is V116/PPSV23. GMT ratio and confidence interval estimated from the cLDA model. The cLDA model-based ratio includes estimated data for participants who had baseline data available but no day 30 measurement.|Serotype 33F||1.12|0.68|<0.001
91074888|NCT05633992|182035772|NON_INFERIORITY|For serotype 15B, a conclusion of non-inferiority of V116 to PPSV23 requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the OPA GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) to be \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|Day 30 GMT Ratio|1.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.89|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|cLDA model with terms for vaccination group, time, interaction of time-by-vaccination, age stratum at baseline, and interaction of time-by-age stratum|Ratio is V116/PPSV23. GMT ratio and confidence interval estimated from the cLDA model. The cLDA model-based ratio includes estimated data for participants who had baseline data available but no day 30 measurement.|Serotype 15B||1.89|1.07|<0.001
91074889|NCT05633992|182035772|SUPERIORITY|For serotype 15C, a conclusion of superiority of V116 to PPSV23 requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the OPA GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) to be \>1.0 (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|Day 30 GMT Ratio|2.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|2.7|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|cLDA model with terms for vaccination group, time, interaction of time-by-vaccination, age stratum at baseline, and interaction of time-by-age stratum|Ratio is V116/PPSV23. GMT ratio and confidence interval estimated from the cLDA model. The cLDA model-based ratio includes estimated data for participants who had baseline data available but no day 30 measurement.|Serotype 15C||2.70|1.56|<0.001
91074890|NCT05633992|182035773|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority of V116 to PPSV23 requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the difference (V116-PPSV23) between the percentage of participants to be \>0 percentage points (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|Difference in Percent|27.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.8|36.9|||Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen||Estimated difference and confidence interval are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Serotype 6A||36.9|17.8|<0.001
91074891|NCT05633992|182035773|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority of V116 to PPSV23 requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the difference (V116-PPSV23) between the percentage of participants to be \>0 percentage points (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|Difference in Percent|33.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.6|43.0|||Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen||Estimated difference and confidence interval are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Serotype 15A||43.0|23.6|<0.001
91074892|NCT05633992|182035773|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority of V116 to PPSV23 requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the difference (V116-PPSV23) between the percentage of participants to be \>0 percentage points (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|Difference in Percent|38.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.8|46.4|||Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen||Estimated difference and confidence interval are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Serotype 16F||46.4|29.8|<0.001
91074893|NCT05633992|182035773|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority of V116 to PPSV23 requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the difference (V116-PPSV23) between the percentage of participants to be \>0 percentage points (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|Difference in Percent|29.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.4|40.6|||Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen||Estimated difference and confidence interval are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Serotype 23A||40.6|17.4|<0.001
91074894|NCT05633992|182035773|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority of V116 to PPSV23 requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the difference (V116-PPSV23) between the percentage of participants to be \>0 percentage points (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|Difference in Percent|38.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.3|46.7|||Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen||Estimated difference and confidence interval are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Serotype 23B||46.7|29.3|<0.001
90827758|NCT03609177|181530477|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.3|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.0|||binomial regression with identity link|||||1.0|-0.4|<0.05
90827759|NCT04308941|181530485|OTHER|The mean and standard deviation was analyzed.||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.07
91074895|NCT05633992|182035773|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority of V116 to PPSV23 requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the difference (V116-PPSV23) between the percentage of participants to be \>0 percentage points (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|Difference in Percent|27.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.3|35.6|||Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen||Estimated difference and confidence interval are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Serotype 24F||35.6|18.3|<0.001
91074896|NCT05633992|182035773|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority of V116 to PPSV23 requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the difference (V116-PPSV23) between the percentage of participants to be \>0 percentage points (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|Difference in Percent|57.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.3|64.4|||Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen||Estimated difference and confidence interval are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Serotype 31||64.4|49.3|<0.001
91074897|NCT05633992|182035773|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority of V116 to PPSV23 requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the difference (V116-PPSV23) between the percentage of participants to be \>0 percentage points (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|Difference in Percent|47.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.5|54.1|||Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen||Estimated difference and confidence interval are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Serotype 35B||54.1|39.5|<0.001
91074898|NCT00715104|182035780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Subjects with 2-fold increase|16.2||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|30.7||Bonferroni-adjusted p-values will be reported to alleviate the multiple testing problem; pbon = minimum of p\*3 and 1 (p = the nominal p-value from the test, pbon = the Bonferroni-adjusted p-value). Confidence intervals will be adjusted similarly.|Chi-squared|||A 2-fold increase in CD3+ T cell counts from biopsy to post-RP was considered a positive response. The number of infiltrating CD3+ T cells/μm2 was coded as binary with each subject categorized as having at least a 2-fold increase from baseline or not. One sample Chi-square test for a binary response, with a null hypothesis of 15% was implemented. The tests were done using post-treatment post-RP benign tissue, tumor tissue, and tumor interface compared to the biopsy benign tissue.||30.7|1.7|1.000
91074899|NCT00715104|182035780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Subjects with 2-fold increase|18.9||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|34.3||Bonferroni-adjusted p-values will be reported to alleviate the multiple testing problem; pbon = minimum of p\*3 and 1 (p = the nominal p-value from the test, pbon = the Bonferroni-adjusted p-value). Confidence intervals will be adjusted similarly.|Chi-squared|||A 2-fold increase in CD3+ T cell counts from biopsy to post-RP was considered a positive response. The number of infiltrating CD3+ T cells/μm2 was coded as binary with each subject categorized as having at least a 2-fold increase from baseline or not. One sample Chi-square test for a binary response, with a null hypothesis of 15% was implemented. The tests were done using post-treatment post-RP benign tissue, tumor tissue, and tumor interface compared to the biopsy benign tissue.||34.3|3.5|1.000
91074900|NCT00715104|182035780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Subjects with 2-fold increase|70.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.3|88.3||Bonferroni-adjusted p-values will be reported to alleviate the multiple testing problem; pbon = minimum of p\*3 and 1 (p = the nominal p-value from the test, pbon = the Bonferroni-adjusted p-value). Confidence intervals will be adjusted similarly.|Chi-squared|||A 2-fold increase in CD3+ T cell counts from biopsy to post-RP was considered a positive response. The number of infiltrating CD3+ T cells/μm2 was coded as binary with each subject categorized as having at least a 2-fold increase from baseline or not. One sample Chi-square test for a binary response, with a null hypothesis of 15% was implemented. The tests were done using post-treatment post-RP benign tissue, tumor tissue, and tumor interface compared to the biopsy benign tissue.||88.3|52.3|<0.001
91074901|NCT00715104|182035781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% subjects with 2-fold increase|20.6||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|37.2||Bonferroni-adjusted p-values will be reported to alleviate the multiple testing problem; pbon = minimum of p\*3 and 1 (p = the nominal p-value from the test, pbon = the Bonferroni-adjusted p-value). Confidence intervals will be adjusted similarly.|Chi-squared|||A 2-fold increase in CD4+ T cell counts from biopsy to post-RP was considered a positive response. The number of infiltrating CD4+ T cells/μm2 was coded as binary with each subject categorized as having at least a 2-fold increase from baseline or not. One sample Chi-square test for a binary response, with a null hypothesis of 15% was implemented. The tests were done using post-treatment post-RP benign tissue, tumor tissue, and tumor interface compared to the biopsy benign tissue.||37.2|4.0|1.000
91074902|NCT00715104|182035781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% subjects with 2-fold increase|32.4||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.1|51.6||Bonferroni-adjusted p-values will be reported to alleviate the multiple testing problem; pbon = minimum of p\*3 and 1 (p = the nominal p-value from the test, pbon = the Bonferroni-adjusted p-value). Confidence intervals will be adjusted similarly.|Chi-squared|||A 2-fold increase in CD4+ T cell counts from biopsy to post-RP was considered a positive response. The number of infiltrating CD4+ T cells/μm2 was coded as binary with each subject categorized as having at least a 2-fold increase from baseline or not. One sample Chi-square test for a binary response, with a null hypothesis of 15% was implemented. The tests were done using post-treatment post-RP benign tissue, tumor tissue, and tumor interface compared to the biopsy benign tissue.||51.6|13.1|0.014
90827760|NCT02230566|181530486|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-64.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.66|-59.98||P-values are from GEE model including baseline value, and the post UX003 Treatment Week as a categorical variable. The covariance structure within participants was assumed to be exchangeable.|GEE|||||-59.98|-69.66|< 0.0001
90827761|NCT02230566|181530487|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0527|||||||t-test|"P value from t-test of no change (0 change) from baseline"||||||0.0527
90827762|NCT02230566|181530488|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|20.8||||0.2137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|53.7||P-values are from GEE model including baseline value, and the post UX003 Treatment Week as a categorical variable. The covariance structure within participants was assumed to be exchangeable.|GEE|||||53.7|-12.0|0.2137
90827763|NCT02230566|181530491|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-6.5||||0.1778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.1|3.0|||GEE|||Shoulder Flexion - Left||3.0|-16.1|0.1778
90827764|NCT02230566|181530491|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-1.5||||0.7632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|8.0|||GEE|||Shoulder Extension - Left||8.0|-10.9|0.7632
90827765|NCT02230566|181530491|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-1.8||||0.6034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|5.1|||GEE|||Shoulder Flexion - Right||5.1|-8.8|0.6034
90827766|NCT02230566|181530491|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-3.4||||0.3332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|3.4|||GEE|||Shoulder Extension - Right||3.4|-10.2|0.3332
91074903|NCT00715104|182035781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% subjects with 2-fold increase|79.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.8|96.0||Bonferroni-adjusted p-values will be reported to alleviate the multiple testing problem; pbon = minimum of p\*3 and 1 (p = the nominal p-value from the test, pbon = the Bonferroni-adjusted p-value). Confidence intervals will be adjusted similarly.|Chi-squared|||A 2-fold increase in CD4+ T cell counts from biopsy to post-RP was considered a positive response. The number of infiltrating CD4+ T cells/μm2 was coded as binary with each subject categorized as having at least a 2-fold increase from baseline or not. One sample Chi-square test for a binary response, with a null hypothesis of 15% was implemented. The tests were done using post-treatment post-RP benign tissue, tumor tissue, and tumor interface compared to the biopsy benign tissue.||96.0|62.8|<0.001
91074904|NCT00715104|182035782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% subjects with 2-fold increase|35.1||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.3|53.9||Bonferroni-adjusted p-values will be reported to alleviate the multiple testing problem; pbon = minimum of p\*3 and 1 (p = the nominal p-value from the test, pbon = the Bonferroni-adjusted p-value). Confidence intervals will be adjusted similarly.|Chi-squared|||A 2-fold increase in CD8+ T cell counts from biopsy to post-RP was considered a positive response. The number of infiltrating CD8+ T cells/μm2 was coded as binary with each subject categorized as having at least a 2-fold increase from baseline or not. One sample Chi-square test for a binary response, with a null hypothesis of 15% was implemented. The tests were done using post-treatment post-RP benign tissue, tumor tissue, and tumor interface compared to the biopsy benign tissue.||53.9|16.3|0.002
91074905|NCT00715104|182035782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% subjects with 2-fold increase|29.7||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.7|47.7||Bonferroni-adjusted p-values will be reported to alleviate the multiple testing problem; pbon = minimum of p\*3 and 1 (p = the nominal p-value from the test, pbon = the Bonferroni-adjusted p-value). Confidence intervals will be adjusted similarly.|Chi-squared|||A 2-fold increase in CD8+ T cell counts from biopsy to post-RP was considered a positive response. The number of infiltrating CD8+ T cells/μm2 was coded as binary with each subject categorized as having at least a 2-fold increase from baseline or not. One sample Chi-square test for a binary response, with a null hypothesis of 15% was implemented. The tests were done using post-treatment post-RP benign tissue, tumor tissue, and tumor interface compared to the biopsy benign tissue.||47.7|11.7|0.036
91074906|NCT00715104|182035782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% subjects with 2-fold increase|83.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|69.3|98.3||Bonferroni-adjusted p-values will be reported to alleviate the multiple testing problem; pbon = minimum of p\*3 and 1 (p = the nominal p-value from the test, pbon = the Bonferroni-adjusted p-value). Confidence intervals will be adjusted similarly.|Chi-squared|||A 2-fold increase in CD8+ T cell counts from biopsy to post-RP was considered a positive response. The number of infiltrating CD8+ T cells/μm2 was coded as binary with each subject categorized as having at least a 2-fold increase from baseline or not. One sample Chi-square test for a binary response, with a null hypothesis of 15% was implemented. The tests were done using post-treatment post-RP benign tissue, tumor tissue, and tumor interface compared to the biopsy benign tissue.||98.3|69.3|<0.001
91074907|NCT00715104|182035783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P value is for the visit effect in the mixed model|Mixed Models Analysis|Randomization groups, visits (up to 12-weeks Post-RP), and randomization groups × visits interaction were included in the mixed model.||The change over time was evaluated by using repeated measure analysis of variance (ANOVA) methods with a mixed model approach. The ranked data were used in the statistical model.||||<0.001
91074908|NCT00715104|182035784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.173|TWO_SIDED|||||P value is for the visit effect in the mixed model|Mixed Models Analysis|Randomization groups, visits (up to 12-weeks Post-RP), and randomization groups × visits interaction were included in the mixed model.||Repeated measure analysis of variance (ANOVA) methods with a mixed model approach was used. The ranked data were used in the statistical model.||||0.173
91074909|NCT00715104|182035785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.667|TWO_SIDED|||||P value compares 24 week post-RP to pre-booster (12 weeks post RP)|Mixed Models Analysis|||The change over time was evaluated by using repeated measure analysis of variance (ANOVA) methods with a mixed model approach to allow for a varying number of follow-up measurements. The ranked data were used in the statistical model.||||0.667
91074910|NCT00715104|182035785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.191|TWO_SIDED|||||P value compares 48 week post-RP to pre-booster (12 weeks post RP)|Mixed Models Analysis|||The change over time was evaluated by using repeated measure analysis of variance (ANOVA) methods with a mixed model approach to allow for a varying number of follow-up measurements. The ranked data were used in the statistical model.||||0.191
91074911|NCT00715104|182035785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.699|TWO_SIDED|||||P value compares 72 week post-RP to pre-booster (12 weeks post RP)|Mixed Models Analysis|||The change over time was evaluated by using repeated measure analysis of variance (ANOVA) methods with a mixed model approach to allow for a varying number of follow-up measurements. The ranked data were used in the statistical model.||||0.699
91074912|NCT00715104|182035786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|||||P value compares 24 week post-RP to pre-booster (12 weeks post RP)|Mixed Models Analysis|||The change over time was evaluated by using repeated measure analysis of variance (ANOVA) methods with a mixed model approach to allow for a varying number of follow-up measurements. The ranked data were used in the statistical model.||||0.086
91074913|NCT00715104|182035786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.432|TWO_SIDED|||||P value compares 48 week post-RP to pre-booster (12 weeks post RP)|Mixed Models Analysis|||The change over time was evaluated by using repeated measure analysis of variance (ANOVA) methods with a mixed model approach to allow for a varying number of follow-up measurements. The ranked data were used in the statistical model.||||0.432
91074914|NCT00715104|182035786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.249|TWO_SIDED|||||P value compares 72 week post-RP to pre-booster (12 weeks post RP)|Mixed Models Analysis|||The change over time was evaluated by using repeated measure analysis of variance (ANOVA) methods with a mixed model approach to allow for a varying number of follow-up measurements. The ranked data were used in the statistical model.||||0.249
90827767|NCT02230566|181530491|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-9.4||||0.0415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.4|-0.4|||GEE|||Tighter Shoulder Flexion||-0.4|-18.4|0.0415
90827768|NCT02230566|181530491|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-6.7||||0.0563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|0.2|||GEE|||Tighter Shoulder Extension||0.2|-13.6|0.0563
90827769|NCT02230566|181530492|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|1.0||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|2.2|||GEE|||for the left eye||2.2|-0.2|0.1140
90827770|NCT02230566|181530492|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.9||||0.0906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.8|||GEE|||for the right eye||1.8|-0.1|0.0906
91074915|NCT00715104|182035787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|||||P value is based on the treatment effect in the mixed model|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model includes randomization group, visit, and randomization group × visit interaction, with subject as a random effect.||The change over time was evaluated by using repeated measure analysis of variance (ANOVA) methods with a mixed model approach. The ranked data were used in the statistical model.||||0.950
91074916|NCT00715104|182035788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|||||P value is based on the treatment effect in the mixed model|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model includes randomization group, visit, and randomization group × visit interaction, with subject as a random effect||The change over time was evaluated by using repeated measure analysis of variance (ANOVA) methods with a mixed model approach. The ranked data were used in the statistical model.||||0.048
91074917|NCT02339155|182035808|NON_INFERIORITY|If the upper bound of the 90% confidence interval (CI) or the ratio of anti-PA Ab (attributable to AVA) GMCs between the AVA and the AVA + raxibacumab groups at Week 4 is less than 1.5, non-inferiority was to be established.|Ratio|1.18||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.03|1.35|||t-test, 1 sided|||||1.35|1.03|0.0016
91074918|NCT02339155|182035809|OTHER||Ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|1.22|||t-test, 1 sided||Week 8|||1.22|0.98|
91074919|NCT02339155|182035809|OTHER||Ratio|0.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.89|1.07|||t-test, 1 sided||Week 26|||1.07|0.89|<0.0001
91074920|NCT02102100|182035846|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9436|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Least square means and standard errors were calculated to describe the patterns of means for each outcome. Effect slices were tested to explain significant interactions in the models. Pairwise comparisons of least square means were used to describe significant main effects.||||<.0001
91074921|NCT02634268|182035889|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|42.3||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.93|76.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|Difference in average six minute walk test distance at 12 months between control and intervention groups.|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed model analysis, including participants with a measurement at baseline and/or 12 months, comparing the average 12-month six minute walk test distance between control and intervention groups. Our analysis controlled for smoking and before/during the COVID-19 pandemic with fixed effects, while random effects were used for multiple measurement on individuals and study sites.||76.6|7.93|.02
91074922|NCT02634268|182035890|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|Difference in average Modified Borg Scale score at 12 months between control and intervention groups.|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed model analysis, including participants with a measurement at baseline and/or 12 months, comparing the average 12-month Modified Borg Scale score between control and intervention groups. Our analysis controlled for smoking and before/during the COVID-19 pandemic with fixed effects, while random effects were used for multiple measurement on individuals and study sites.||-0.09|-0.63|.0008
91074923|NCT02634268|182035891|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.34||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|-0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|Difference in average body weight at 12 months between control and intervention groups.|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed model analysis, including participants with a measurement at baseline and/or 12 months, comparing the average 12-month body weight between control and intervention groups. Our analysis controlled for smoking and before/during the COVID-19 pandemic with fixed effects, while random effects were used for multiple measurement on individuals and study sites.||-0.34|-2.33|0.0008
91074924|NCT02634268|182035892|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.48||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|2.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|Difference in average SF-12 PCS at 12 months between control and intervention groups.|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed model analysis, including participants with a measurement at baseline and/or 12 months, comparing the average 12-month SF-12 PCS between control and intervention groups. Our analysis controlled for smoking and before/during the COVID-19 pandemic with fixed effects, while random effects were used for multiple measurement on individuals and study sites.||2.60|0.35|0.01
91074925|NCT02634268|182035893|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.53||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|1.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|Difference in average SF-12 MCS at 12 months between control and intervention groups.|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed model analysis, including participants with a measurement at baseline and/or 12 months, comparing the average 12-month SF-12 MCS between control and intervention groups. Our analysis controlled for smoking and before/during the COVID-19 pandemic with fixed effects, while random effects were used for multiple measurement on individuals and study sites.||1.89|-0.84|0.45
91074926|NCT02634268|182035894|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Difference in average Framingham Risk Score at 12 months between control and intervention groups.||Linear mixed model analysis, including participants with a measurement at baseline and/or 12 months, comparing the average 12-month Framingham Risk Score between control and intervention groups. Our analysis controlled for smoking and before/during the COVID-19 pandemic with fixed effects, while random effects were used for multiple measurement on individuals and study sites.||-0.10|-0.71|0.009
90827771|NCT02230566|181530493|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.8||||0.0883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.7|||GEE|||Scale-BALANCE||1.7|-0.1|0.0883
90827772|NCT02230566|181530493|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.2||||0.3528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.2|||GEE|||Scale: FINE MOTOR PRECISION||0.2|-0.7|0.3528
91078634|NCT01964716|182043067|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for a given antibody was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 97.5% confidence interval, computed using the Chan and Zhang procedure, for the difference in proportions (13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS) was greater than -0.10.|percent difference|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.6|3.6||||||Serotype 19A: Exact 2-sided confidence interval (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, 13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS, expressed as a percentage was analyzed.||3.6|-1.6|
90827773|NCT02230566|181530493|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.2||||0.4094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.6|||GEE|||Scale-MANUAL DEXTERITY||0.6|-0.2|0.4094
90827774|NCT02230566|181530493|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.2||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.4|||GEE|||Scale-RUNNING SPEED AND AGILITY||0.4|0.0|0.1020
90827775|NCT02230566|181530494|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|3.4||||0.1953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|8.6|||GEE|||||8.6|-1.8|0.1953
90827776|NCT02230566|181530496|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-1.2||||0.2022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|0.6|||GEE|||||0.6|-3.0|0.2022
91074927|NCT02634268|182035895|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.93||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|Difference in average waist circumference at 12 months between control and intervention groups.|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed model analysis, including participants with a measurement at baseline and/or 12 months, comparing the average 12 month waist circumference between control and intervention groups. Our analysis controlled for smoking and before/during the COVID-19 pandemic with fixed effects, while random effects were used for multiple measurement on individuals and study sites.||0.26|-2.12|0.13
91074928|NCT02634268|182035896|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.02|1.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|Difference in average 12 month systolic blood at 12 months between control and intervention groups|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed model analysis, including participants with a measurement at baseline and/or 12 months, comparing the average 12-month systolic blood pressure between control and intervention groups. Our analysis controlled for smoking and before/during the COVID-19 pandemic with fixed effects, while random effects were used for multiple measurement on individuals and study sites.||1.84|-3.02|0.64
91074929|NCT02634268|182035897|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|Difference in average BMI at 12 months between control and intervention groups.|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed model analysis, including participants with a measurement at baseline and/or 12 months, comparing the average 12-month BMI between control and intervention groups. Our analysis controlled for smoking and before/during the COVID-19 pandemic with fixed effects, while random effects were used for multiple measurement on individuals and study sites.||-0.17|-0.85|0.004
91074930|NCT02634268|182035898|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.25||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.87|0.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|Difference in average SGRQ-C Symptom score at 12 months between control and intervention groups.||Linear mixed model analysis, including participants with a measurement at baseline and/or 12 months, comparing the average 12 month SGRQ-C Symptom score between control and intervention groups. Our analysis controlled for smoking and before/during the COVID-19 pandemic with fixed effects, while random effects were used for multiple measurement on individuals and study sites.|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|0.36|-4.87|0.09
91074931|NCT02634268|182035899|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.31||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.19|0.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|Difference in average SGRQ-C Activity score at 12 months between control and intervention groups.|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed model analysis, including participants with a measurement at baseline and/or 12 months, comparing the average 12 month SGRQ-C Activity score between control and intervention groups. Our analysis controlled for smoking and before/during the COVID-19 pandemic with fixed effects, while random effects were used for multiple measurement on individuals and study sites.||0.56|-5.19|0.12
91074932|NCT02634268|182035900|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.72||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.19|-0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|Difference in average SGRQ-C Impact score at 12 months between control and intervention groups.|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed model analysis, including participants with a measurement at baseline and/or 12 months, comparing the average 12 month SGRQ-C Impact score between control and intervention groups. Our analysis controlled for smoking and before/during the COVID-19 pandemic with fixed effects, while random effects were used for multiple measurement on individuals and study sites.||-0.25|-5.19|0.03
91074933|NCT02634268|182035901|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.42||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.55|-0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|Difference in average SGRQ-C Total score at 12 months between control and intervention groups.|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed model analysis, including participants with a measurement at baseline and/or 12 months, comparing the average 12-month SGRQ-C Total score between control and intervention groups. Our analysis controlled for smoking and before/during the COVID-19 pandemic with fixed effects, while random effects were used for multiple measurement on individuals and study sites.||-0.28|-4.55|0.03
91074934|NCT02961062|182035919|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0.005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.54|-4.71|||Kenward-Roger method|||||-4.71|-17.54|0.005
91074935|NCT02961062|182035920|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-8.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.37||0.017|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.29|-2.83|||Kenward-Roger method|||||-2.83|-14.29|0.017
91074936|NCT01629823|182035936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.81||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.5||Comparison of 5cm group to control. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||Both the 5 and 10cm groups were compared to the control group, \<1cm H₂O||1.50|0.44|0.51
91074937|NCT01629823|182035936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.84||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.52|||Regression, Linear|||||1.52|0.47|0.57
91074938|NCT00455520|182035938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001||95.0|-1.7|-0.92|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance Model with factors of treatment, country, prior opioid use, and baseline dose level and start of DB pain score as factors.||-0.92|-1.7|<0.001
91074939|NCT01323010|182035946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.689|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.689
91074940|NCT01323010|182035947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.591|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.591
91074941|NCT01323010|182035948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Method: ANOVA with repetead measures for non parametric data proposed by Brunner and Piri.||||||0.150
91074942|NCT01323010|182035949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.042|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.042
91074943|NCT01323010|182035950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.108|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.108
91074944|NCT01323010|182035952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.122|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.122
91074945|NCT01323010|182035954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.164|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Method: ANOVA with repetead measures for non paramteric data proposed by Brunner and Piri.||||||0.164
90827777|NCT01126723|181530511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.15||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set to 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.15
90827778|NCT03901144|181530514|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.026|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.562|-5.489|||ANCOVA|||Summary of TEWL (g/m2h) change from day 29 to day 31||-5.489|-12.562|<0.001
91074946|NCT01323010|182035955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.165|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.165
91074947|NCT01323010|182035956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.436|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.436
91074948|NCT01323010|182035957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.046|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.046
91074949|NCT01323010|182035958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.723|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.723
91074950|NCT01323010|182035959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.235|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.235
91074951|NCT01323010|182035960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.284|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.284
91074952|NCT01323010|182035961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.905|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.905
91074953|NCT01323010|182035964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.892|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.892
91074954|NCT01323010|182035965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.195|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.195
91074955|NCT01323010|182035966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.203|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.203
91074956|NCT01323010|182035967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.03
91074957|NCT04601103|182035977|OTHER|Generalized Fisher's Exact Test was used to detect an association between the 3 treatment groups and the incidence of sloughing||||||0.916|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.916
91074958|NCT01785849|182036009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|32.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.71|56.31|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by screening PTH category (\< 600, ≥ 600 to ≤ 1000, and \> 1000 pg/mL), recent cinacalcet use within 8 weeks before randomization (yes and no), and region (North America and non-North America) was used to compare the primary endpoint of proportion of participants with \> 30% reduction from baseline in PTH during the EAP between etelcalcetide and placebo.||56.31|18.71|<0.001
91074959|NCT01785849|182036010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|22.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.47|42.48|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by screening PTH category, recent cinacalcet use within 8 weeks before randomization, and region.||||42.48|11.47|<0.001
91074960|NCT01785849|182036011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|-71.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.39|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.77|-64.46|||Repeated Measures Mixed Effects Model|Repeated measures mixed-effects model included treatment, stratification factors, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as covariates.|Etelcalcetide - Placebo|||-64.46|-77.77|<0.001
91074961|NCT01785849|182036012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|-8.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.52|-7.23|||Repeated Measures Mixed Effects Model|Repeated measures mixed-effects model included treatment, stratification factors, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as covariates.|Etelcalcetide - Placebo|||-7.23|-9.52|<0.001
91074962|NCT01785849|182036013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|-14.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.41|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.73|-10.25|||Repeated Measures Mixed Effects Model|Repeated measures mixed-effects model included treatment, stratification factors, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as covariates.|Etelcalcetide - Placebo|||-10.25|-19.73|<0.001
91074963|NCT01785849|182036014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|-7.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.47||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.31|-2.59|||Repeated Measures Mixed Effects Model|Repeated measures mixed-effects model included treatment, stratification factors, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as covariates.|Etelcalcetide - Placebo|||-2.59|-12.31|0.003
91074964|NCT01032239|182036066|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann|-0.667||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.1|-1.0|-0.1667|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||To test the null hypothesis the sample size needed was 44 evaluable patient (22 per arm) with a power of 80 %.||-0.1667|-1.000|0.0140
90827779|NCT03901144|181530514|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.194||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.76|-0.629|||ANCOVA|||Summary of TEWL (g/m2h) change from day 29 to day 31||-0.629|-7.760|0.021
90827780|NCT03901144|181530514|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.021|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.602|-5.44|||ANCOVA|||Summary of TEWL (g/m2h) change from day 29 to day 31||-5.440|-12.602|<0.001
91074965|NCT01032239|182036067|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann|-0.6||||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.2|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||-0.2000|-1.0000|0.0042
91074966|NCT01032239|182036068|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.054|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0540
91074967|NCT01032239|182036069|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6256|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6256
91074968|NCT01032239|182036070|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3676|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3676
91074969|NCT01032239|182036071|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Actual Pain||||0.0380
91074970|NCT01032239|182036071|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0136|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Least Pain||||0.0136
91074971|NCT01032239|182036071|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2427|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Worst Pain||||0.2427
91074972|NCT01032239|182036072|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7661|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.7661
91074973|NCT01032239|182036073|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0197|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Utility Score||||0.0197
91074974|NCT01032239|182036073|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3807|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||VAS||||0.3807
91074975|NCT01032239|182036074|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1068|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||PCS||||0.1068
91074976|NCT01032239|182036074|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6824|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||MCS||||0.6824
91074977|NCT01032239|182036075|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2105|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2105
91074978|NCT01056198|182036094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.208||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The BWAT-m scores were compared at each of the 4 treatment weeks and at the end of the follow-up using a mixed-effects ANCOVA for the intent-to-treat population. Treatment and treatment week, as well as their interaction, were defined as fixed effects with subject as a random effect. The BWAT-m score at baseline was used as a covariate.||||=0.208
91074979|NCT01056198|182036095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.2737||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis: no differences between the 2 treatments with the alternative of non-zero differences. 48 evaluable subjects is sufficient to detect an effect size of 0.80.||||=0.2737
91074980|NCT01056198|182036096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.2741||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis: no differences between the 2 treatments with the alternative of non-zero differences. 48 evaluable subjects is sufficient to detect an effect size of 0.80.||||=0.2741
91074981|NCT01056198|182036097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.0164||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test, 2-sided, alpha = 0.05||||=0.0164
91074982|NCT01056198|182036098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.9392||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test, 2-sided, alpha = 0.05||||=0.9392
91074983|NCT02426749|182036102|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
91074984|NCT04450407|182036130|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is 0.4%. Non-inferiority is achieved if the upper limit of the 90% CI (Confidence Interval) is below 0.4.|LS Mean Difference|0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.01|0.32||||||||0.32|0.01|
91074985|NCT00794040|182036148|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.7||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|68.16||priori threshold p\<0.05|Multilevel growth curve model|||||68.16|2.00|0.006
91074986|NCT00794040|182036149|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|0.09||priori threshold \<0.05|Multilevel growth curve model|||||0.09|-1.32|0.085
91074987|NCT00794040|182036150|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.72||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|10.74||priori threshold p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||10.74|-1.30|0.124
91074988|NCT00794040|182036151|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.76|4.8||priori threshold p\<0.05|Multilevel growth curve model|||||4.80|-4.76|0.993
91074989|NCT00794040|182036152|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.02||||0.598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.23|2.19||priori threshold p\<0.05|Multilevel growth curve model|||||2.19|-4.23|0.598
91074990|NCT02754674|182036157|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.008
91074991|NCT02754674|182036158|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
91074992|NCT02754674|182036159|SUPERIORITY|Student's t-test or the Mann-Whitney U-test was used to analyze intergroup differences. The paired t-test or Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to analyze differences between pre- and postoperative values. The statistical significance level was set at .05.|||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We used the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test to assess the normality of the data distribution. Student's t-test or the Mann-Whitney U-test was used to analyze intergroup differences. The paired t-test or Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to analyze differences between pre- and postoperative values. Pearson's Chi-square test or Fisher's exact test was used to analyze categorical variables between groups. The statistical significance level was set at .05.||||>0.05
91074993|NCT02754674|182036160|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91074994|NCT02754674|182036161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.054|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.054
91074995|NCT03626363|182036162|SUPERIORITY|We sought to have up to 20 participants complete each group so that we could have a statistical power of 0.89 to detect about a 4 burst per minute difference with an alpha of 0.05. We would have had sympathetic nerve data on up to 18 more of the 21 participants that we were not allowed to post-test in the spring of 2020 due to COVID-19 restrictions.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.0||||0.51|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Repeated measures analysis of variance with 2 groups (MBSR and SME) and 2 time points (Pre vs. Post). Outcome data reported is the change in the mean number of bursts per minute of muscle sympathetic nerve activity (MSNA) from pre to post.||||0.51
91074996|NCT03626363|182036163|SUPERIORITY|To detect a 0.5 meter per second change in carotid-to-femoral pulse wave velocity with at least 80% power with an alpha of 0.05 we should have had at least 12 participants complete measurements in each group (MBSR and SME). We fell a little short of that in the MBSR group and met the 12 participants in the SME group. The number of participants we were able to study from pre to post was limited by COVID-19 restrictions.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Repeated measures analysis of variance with 2 groups (MBSR and SME) and 2 time points (Pre vs. Post). Outcome data reported is the change in carotid-to-femoral pulse wave velocity in meters per second from pre to post. We had 21 participants in the spring of 2020 that were were not allowed to bring into the laboratory for post testing during COVID-19 restrictions which led to our limited sample size.||||0.25
91074997|NCT02100670|182036225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS mean|-9.23||||0.4144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.45|12.98||P-value from multiple comparisons using t-test in Proc Mixed|ANCOVA|Least squares (LS) means from mixed model analysis of covariance with treatment, site as fixed effects, pain intensity at baseline as a covariates.|Difference of LS mean of first named treatment minus second named treatment. Lower values of LS mean favours a better response because of lower pain intensity over time. 95% Confidence intervals of difference between LS means.|||12.98|-31.45|0.4144
91074998|NCT02100670|182036226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.58||||0.8761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.34|21.5||P-value from multiple comparisons using t-test in Proc Mixed|ANCOVA|Least squares (LS) means from mixed model analysis of covariance with treatment, site as fixed effects, pain intensity at baseline as a covariates.|Difference of LS mean of first named treatment minus second named treatment. Lower values of LS mean favours a better response because of lower pain intensity over time. 95% Confidence intervals of difference between LS means.|||21.50|-18.34|0.8761
91074999|NCT02100670|182036226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.61||||0.8164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.46|24.67||P-value from multiple comparisons using t-test in Proc Mixed|ANCOVA|Least squares (LS) means from mixed model analysis of covariance with treatment, site as fixed effects, pain intensity at baseline as a covariates.|Difference of LS mean of first named treatment minus second named treatment. Lower values of LS mean favours a better response because of lower pain intensity over time. 95% Confidence intervals of difference between LS means.|||24.67|-19.46|0.8164
91075000|NCT02100670|182036226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.03||||0.9279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.27|23.33||P-value from multiple comparisons using t-test in Proc Mixed|ANCOVA|Least squares (LS) means from mixed model analysis of covariance with treatment, site as fixed effects, pain intensity at baseline as a covariates.|Difference of LS mean of first named treatment minus second named treatment. Lower values of LS mean favours a better response because of lower pain intensity over time. 95% Confidence intervals of difference between LS means.|||23.33|-21.27|0.9279
91075001|NCT02100670|182036226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-10.81||||0.3442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.26|11.64||P-value from multiple comparisons using t-test in Proc Mixed.|ANCOVA|Least squares (LS) means from mixed model analysis of covariance with treatment, site as fixed effects, pain intensity at baseline as a covariates.|Difference of LS mean of first named treatment minus second named treatment. Lower values of LS mean favours a better response because of lower pain intensity over time. 95% Confidence intervals of difference between LS means.|||11.64|-33.26|0.3442
91075002|NCT02100670|182036231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox proportional hazard ratio|1.1||||0.5404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.48||P-value from chi-square test of survival analysis|chi-square test of survival analysis||Cox proportional hazard ratio of survival time, i.e. time to reach perceptible pain relief. The 95% confidence intervals of cox proportional hazard ratio.|||1.48|0.81|0.5404
90827781|NCT03901144|181530515|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.538|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.114|-1.962|||ANCOVA|||Summary of Objective Erythema (2D Skin Imaging) change from day 29 to day 31||-1.962|-5.114|<0.001
91075003|NCT02100670|182036231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox proportional hazard ratio|0.9||||0.4639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.2||P-value from chi-square test of survival analysis.|chi-square test of survival analysis||Cox proportional hazard ratio of survival time, i.e. time to reach perceptible pain relief. The 95% confidence intervals of cox proportional hazard ratio.|||1.20|0.67|0.4639
91075004|NCT02100670|182036231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox proportional hazard ratio|1.09||||0.5118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.43||P-value from chi-square test of survival analysis.|chi-square test of survival analysis||Cox proportional hazard ratio of survival time, i.e. time to reach perceptible pain relief. The 95% confidence intervals of cox proportional hazard ratio.|||1.43|0.84|0.5118
91075005|NCT02100670|182036232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox proportional hazard ratio|0.93||||0.6918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.31||P-value from chi-square test of survival analysis.|chi-square test of survival analysis||Cox proportional hazard ratio of survival time, i.e. time to reach perceptible pain relief. The 95% confidence intervals of cox proportional hazard ratio.|||1.31|0.67|0.6918
91075006|NCT02100670|182036232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox proportional hazard ratio|1.23||||0.2389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.73||P-value from chi-square test of survival analysis.|chi-square test of survival analysis||Cox proportional hazard ratio of survival time, i.e. time to reach perceptible pain relief. The 95% confidence intervals of cox proportional hazard ratio.|||1.73|0.87|0.2389
91075007|NCT02100670|182036232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox proportional hazard ratio|1.0||||0.9817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.37||P-value from chi-square test of survival analysis.|chi-square test of survival analysis||Cox proportional hazard ratio of survival time, i.e. time to reach perceptible pain relief. The 95% confidence intervals of cox proportional hazard ratio.|||1.37|0.74|0.9817
91075008|NCT02100670|182036233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox proportional hazard ratio|1.06||||0.7003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.43||P-value from chi-square test of survival analysis|chi-square test of survival analysis||Cox proportional hazard ratio of survival time, i.e. time to cooling sensation. The 95% confidence intervals of cox proportional hazard ratio.|||1.43|0.79|0.7003
91075009|NCT02100670|182036233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox proportional hazard ratio|1.01||||0.9565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.35||P-value from chi-square test of survival analysis.|chi-square test of survival analysis||Cox proportional hazard ratio of survival time, i.e. time to cooling sensation. The 95% confidence intervals of cox proportional hazard ratio.|||1.35|0.75|0.9565
91075010|NCT02100670|182036233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox proportional hazard ratio|1.07||||0.6216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.4||P-value from chi-square test of survival analysis.|chi-square test of survival analysis||Cox proportional hazard ratio of survival time, i.e. time to cooling sensation. The 95% confidence intervals of cox proportional hazard ratio.|||1.40|0.82|0.6216
91075011|NCT02100670|182036237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox proportional hazard ratio|2.43||||0.0408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|5.7||P-value from chi-square test of survival analysis.|chi-square test of survival analysis||Cox proportional hazard ratio of survival time, i.e. time to complete pain relief. The 95% confidence intervals of cox proportional hazard ratio.|||5.70|1.04|0.0408
91075012|NCT02100670|182036237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox proportional hazard ratio|1.31||||0.4507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|2.65||P-value from chi-square test of survival analysis.|chi-square test of survival analysis||Cox proportional hazard ratio of survival time, i.e. time to complete pain relief. The 95% confidence intervals of cox proportional hazard ratio.|||2.65|0.65|0.4507
91075013|NCT02100670|182036237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox proportional hazard ratio|1.38||||0.315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.61||P-value from chi-square test of survival analysis.|chi-square test of survival analysis||Cox proportional hazard ratio of survival time, i.e. time to complete pain relief. The 95% confidence intervals of cox proportional hazard ratio.|||2.61|0.73|0.3150
91075014|NCT01668966|182036266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.101|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 12||||0.101
91075015|NCT01668966|182036266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.139|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 24||||0.139
91075016|NCT01668966|182036266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.116|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 36||||0.116
91075017|NCT01668966|182036266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.167|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 48||||0.167
91075018|NCT01668966|182036266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 56||||0.210
91075019|NCT01668966|182036266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.343|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 68||||0.343
91075020|NCT01668966|182036266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.533|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 80||||0.533
91075021|NCT01668966|182036266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.593|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 92||||0.593
91075022|NCT01668966|182036266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.044|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 104||||0.044
91075023|NCT01668966|182036266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.243|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Follow-up visit 1||||0.243
91075024|NCT01668966|182036266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Follow-up visit 2||||0.009
91075025|NCT01668966|182036267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1853|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 12||||0.1853
91075026|NCT01668966|182036267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2992|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 24||||0.2992
91075027|NCT01668966|182036267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2249|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 36||||0.2249
91075028|NCT01668966|182036267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3102|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 48||||0.3102
91075029|NCT01668966|182036267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2164|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 56||||0.2164
91075030|NCT01668966|182036267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8822|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 68||||0.8822
91075031|NCT01668966|182036267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7649|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 80||||0.7649
91075032|NCT01668966|182036267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.605|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 92||||0.6050
91075033|NCT01668966|182036267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4478|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 104||||0.4478
91075034|NCT01668966|182036267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4821|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Follow-up visit 1||||0.4821
91075035|NCT01668966|182036267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0522|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Follow-up visit 2||||0.0522
91075036|NCT01668966|182036268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0624|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 12||||0.0624
91075037|NCT01668966|182036268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0616|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 24||||0.0616
91075038|NCT01668966|182036268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.248|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 36||||0.2480
91075039|NCT01668966|182036268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5393|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 48||||0.5393
91075040|NCT01668966|182036268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1401|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 56||||0.1401
91075041|NCT01668966|182036268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0679|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 68||||0.0679
91075042|NCT01668966|182036268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6017|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 80||||0.6017
91075043|NCT01668966|182036268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4772|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 92||||0.4772
91075044|NCT01668966|182036268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4877|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 104||||0.4877
91075045|NCT01668966|182036268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0624|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Follow-up visit 1||||0.0624
91075046|NCT01668966|182036268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Follow-up visit 2||||<0.0001
91075047|NCT01668966|182036269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2388|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 12||||0.2388
91075048|NCT01668966|182036269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1084|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 24||||0.1084
91075049|NCT01668966|182036269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0321|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 36||||0.0321
91075050|NCT01668966|182036269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0203|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 48||||0.0203
91075051|NCT01668966|182036269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0193|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 56||||0.0193
90827782|NCT03901144|181530515|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.748||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.332|-0.164|||ANCOVA|||Summary of Objective Erythema (2D Skin Imaging) change from day 29 to day 31||-0.164|-3.332|0.031
91075052|NCT01668966|182036269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6235|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 68||||0.6235
91075053|NCT01668966|182036269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2814|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 80||||0.2814
91075054|NCT01668966|182036269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3391|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 92||||0.3391
91075055|NCT01668966|182036269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1605|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 104||||0.1605
91075056|NCT01668966|182036269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4312|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Follow-up visit 2||||0.4312
91075057|NCT01668966|182036272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.934|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 12||||0.934
91075058|NCT01668966|182036272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.624|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 24||||0.624
91075059|NCT01668966|182036272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.642|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 36||||0.642
91075060|NCT01668966|182036272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.952|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 48||||0.952
91075061|NCT01668966|182036272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.928|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 56||||0.928
91075062|NCT01668966|182036272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.832|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 68||||0.832
91075063|NCT01668966|182036272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.315|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 80||||0.315
91075064|NCT01668966|182036272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.485|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 92||||0.485
91075065|NCT01668966|182036272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.246|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 104||||0.246
91075066|NCT01668966|182036272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.375|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Follow-up visit 1||||0.375
91075067|NCT01668966|182036272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.185|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Follow-up visit 2||||0.185
91075068|NCT01668966|182036273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.445|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 12||||0.445
91075069|NCT01668966|182036273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.414|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 24||||0.414
91075070|NCT01668966|182036273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.401|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 36||||0.401
91075071|NCT01668966|182036273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 48||||0.920
91075072|NCT01668966|182036273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.834|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 56||||0.834
91075073|NCT01668966|182036273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.539|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 68||||0.539
91075074|NCT01668966|182036273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.246|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 80||||0.246
91075075|NCT01668966|182036273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.602|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 92||||0.602
91075076|NCT01668966|182036273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.218|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 104||||0.218
91075077|NCT01668966|182036273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.208|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Follow-up visit 1||||0.208
91075078|NCT01668966|182036273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.101|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Follow-up visit 2||||0.101
91075079|NCT01668966|182036274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.565|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 12||||0.565
91075080|NCT01668966|182036274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.637|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 24||||0.637
91075081|NCT01668966|182036274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.594|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 36||||0.594
91075082|NCT01668966|182036274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.788|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 48||||0.788
91075083|NCT01668966|182036274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.329|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 56||||0.329
91075084|NCT01668966|182036274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.716|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 68||||0.716
91075085|NCT01668966|182036274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.119|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 80||||0.119
91075086|NCT01668966|182036274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.201|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 92||||0.201
91075087|NCT01668966|182036274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.087|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 104||||0.087
91075088|NCT01668966|182036274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.116|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Follow-up visit 1||||0.116
91075089|NCT01668966|182036274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Follow-up visit 2||||0.070
91075090|NCT01668966|182036275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3299|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 12||||0.3299
91075091|NCT01668966|182036275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9247|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 24||||0.9247
91075092|NCT01668966|182036275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9602|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 36||||0.9602
91075093|NCT01668966|182036275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2773|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 48||||0.2773
91075094|NCT01668966|182036275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5031|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 56||||0.5031
91075095|NCT01668966|182036275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8109|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 68||||0.8109
91075096|NCT01668966|182036275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.254|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 80||||0.2540
91075097|NCT01668966|182036275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3794|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 92||||0.3794
91075098|NCT01668966|182036275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8687|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 104||||0.8687
91075099|NCT01668966|182036275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4685|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Follow-up visit 1||||0.4685
91075100|NCT01668966|182036275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0511|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Follow-up visit 2||||0.0511
91075101|NCT01573767|182036276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.4||||0.227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|11.4||Inference for VI 12.5 µg versus (vs) placebo was dependent upon statistical significance (SS) having first been achieved for VI 25 µg vs placebo; inference for VI 6.25 µg vs placebo was dependent on SS having been achieved for VI 12.5 µg vs placebo.|ANCOVA|||||11.4|-2.7|0.227
91075102|NCT01573767|182036276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.4||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|13.5|||ANCOVA|||||13.5|-0.6|0.073
90827783|NCT03901144|181530515|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.744|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.332|-3.156|||ANCOVA|||Summary of Objective Erythema (2D Skin Imaging) change from day 29 to day 31||-3.156|-6.332|<0.001
90827784|NCT03901144|181530516|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.077||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.325|-6.829|||ANCOVA|||Summary of Redness-Mexameter change from day 29 to day 31||-6.829|-31.325|0.002
91075103|NCT01573767|182036276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.5||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|12.5|||ANCOVA|||||12.5|-1.6|0.127
91075104|NCT01573767|182036277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.057|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.138|0.024||||||||0.024|-0.138|
91075105|NCT01573767|182036277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.017|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.063|0.096||||||||0.096|-0.063|
91075106|NCT01573767|182036277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.051||||||||0.051|-0.110|
91075107|NCT01573767|182036278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|6.0||||||||6.0|-10.5|
91075108|NCT01573767|182036278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|9.6||||||||9.6|-6.9|
91075109|NCT01573767|182036278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|17.0||||||||17.0|0.4|
91075110|NCT01573767|182036279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|12.3||||||||12.3|-1.2|
91075111|NCT01573767|182036279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|14.2||||||||14.2|0.7|
91075112|NCT01573767|182036279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.2||||||95.0|0.4|14.0||||||||14.0|0.4|
91075113|NCT01573767|182036280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|13.1||||||||13.1|-6.1|
91075114|NCT01573767|182036280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|17.4||||||||17.4|-1.8|
91075115|NCT01573767|182036280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|14.9||||||||14.9|-4.4|
91075116|NCT01573767|182036281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|15.6||||||||15.6|-3.7|
91075117|NCT01573767|182036281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|19.3||||||||19.3|0.0|
91075118|NCT01573767|182036281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.0||||||95.0|-2.7|16.7||||||||16.7|-2.7|
91075119|NCT01573767|182036282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|7.5||||||||7.5|-7.2|
91075120|NCT01573767|182036282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|15.7||||||||15.7|1.0|
91075121|NCT01573767|182036282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|17.2||||||||17.2|2.3|
91075122|NCT02122770|182036286|SUPERIORITY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|98.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.6|118.05||||||Natural-log transformed pharmacokinetic parameters were fit using a mixed effects model with study day as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect. Geometric least square (LS) means and geometric LS mean ratio were back-transformed least squares mean and treatment mean difference.||118.05|82.60|
91075123|NCT02122770|182036287|SUPERIORITY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|110.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.34|118.69||||||Natural-log transformed pharmacokinetic parameters were fit using a mixed effects model with study day as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect. Geometric LS means and geometric LS mean ratio were back-transformed least squares mean and treatment mean difference.||118.69|102.34|
91075124|NCT02122770|182036288|SUPERIORITY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|110.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.53|119.43||||||Natural-log transformed pharmacokinetic parameters were fit using a mixed effects model with study day as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect. Geometric LS means and geometric LS mean ratio were back-transformed least squares mean and treatment mean difference.||119.43|102.53|
91075125|NCT02122770|182036289|SUPERIORITY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|113.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.35|149.74||||||Natural-log transformed pharmacokinetic parameters were fit using a mixed effects model with study day as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect. Geometric LS means and geometric LS mean ratio were back-transformed least squares mean and treatment mean difference.||149.74|85.35|
91075126|NCT02122770|182036289|SUPERIORITY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|159.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.97|282.96||||||Natural-log transformed pharmacokinetic parameters were fit using a mixed effects model with study day as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect. Geometric LS means and geometric LS mean ratio were back-transformed least squares mean and treatment mean difference||282.96|89.97|
91075127|NCT02122770|182036289|SUPERIORITY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|77.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|55.19|108.17||||||Natural-log transformed pharmacokinetic parameters were fit using a mixed effects model with study day as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect. Geometric LS means and geometric LS mean ratio were back-transformed least squares mean and treatment mean difference.||108.17|55.19|
91075128|NCT02122770|182036290|SUPERIORITY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|121.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|110.92|133.24||||||Natural-log transformed pharmacokinetic parameters were fit using a mixed effects model with study day as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect. Geometric LS means and geometric LS mean ratio were back-transformed least squares mean and treatment mean difference.||133.24|110.92|
91075129|NCT02122770|182036290|SUPERIORITY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|130.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|106.99|158.35||||||Natural-log transformed pharmacokinetic parameters were fit using a mixed effects model with study day as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect. Geometric LS means and geometric LS mean ratio were back-transformed least squares mean and treatment mean difference||158.35|106.99|
91075130|NCT02122770|182036290|SUPERIORITY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|101.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.72|113.23||||||Natural-log transformed pharmacokinetic parameters were fit using a mixed effects model with study day as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect. Geometric LS means and geometric LS mean ratio were back-transformed least squares mean and treatment mean difference.||113.23|90.72|
91075131|NCT02122770|182036291|SUPERIORITY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|122.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|112.13|134.82||||||Natural-log transformed pharmacokinetic parameters were fit using a mixed effects model with study day as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect. Geometric LS means and geometric LS mean ratio were back-transformed least squares mean and treatment mean difference.||134.82|112.13|
91075132|NCT02122770|182036291|SUPERIORITY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|130.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|106.99|158.35||||||Natural-log transformed pharmacokinetic parameters were fit using a mixed effects model with study day as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect. Geometric LS means and geometric LS mean ratio were back-transformed least squares mean and treatment mean difference||158.35|106.99|
91075133|NCT02122770|182036291|SUPERIORITY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|100.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.14|111.68||||||Natural-log transformed pharmacokinetic parameters were fit using a mixed effects model with study day as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect. Geometric LS means and geometric LS mean ratio were back-transformed least squares mean and treatment mean difference.||111.68|91.14|
91075134|NCT00767039|182036339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Tested null hypothesis. T-test and Generalized Linear Model was used to assess respiratory support parameters (mean airway pressure and percent fraction of inspiratory oxygen x mean airway pressure).|t-test, 2 sided|||Respiratory support were compared using a t-test for individual time points and Generalized Linear Model to account for correlations among repeated measures. Patient who survive \>/= 3 days were included in the analysis.||||< 0.05
91075135|NCT00767039|182036340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.43|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.95|||Mantel Haenszel|||||0.95|0.19|<0.05
91075136|NCT00767039|182036341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Tested null hypothesis. T-test and Generalized Linear Model was used to assess respiratory support parameters (mean airway pressure and percent fraction of inspiratory oxygen x mean airway pressure).||||<0.05
91075137|NCT00767039|182036342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.49|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.96|||Mantel Haenszel|||||0.96|0.25|<0.05
91075138|NCT00767039|182036343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.38|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|4.38|||Mantel Haenszel|||||4.38|1.29|<0.01
91075139|NCT00767039|182036344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91075140|NCT00767039|182036345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Tested null hypothesis. T-test and Generalized Linear Model was used to assess respiratory support parameters (mean airway pressure and percent fraction of inspiratory oxygen x mean airway pressure).||||<0.05
91075141|NCT00767039|182036346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Tested null hypothesis. T-test and Generalized Linear Model was used to assess respiratory support parameters (mean airway pressure and percent fraction of inspiratory oxygen x mean airway pressure).||||<0.05
91075142|NCT00767039|182036347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
91075143|NCT00767039|182036348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.44|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.89|||Mantel Haenszel|||||2.89|0.71|>0.05
91075144|NCT00767039|182036349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.48|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|2.63|||Mantel Haenszel|||||2.63|0.84|>0.05
91075145|NCT01472757|182036350|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.013
91075146|NCT01472757|182036350|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Calculated p-value was less than 0.001.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91075147|NCT01472757|182036350|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Calculated p-value was less than 0.001.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91075148|NCT01472757|182036351|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.001
91075149|NCT01472757|182036351|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.006
91075150|NCT01472757|182036351|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.011
91075151|NCT01472757|182036352|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.002
91075152|NCT01472757|182036352|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.002
91075153|NCT01472757|182036352|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.008
91075154|NCT02505334|182036365|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of liraglutide 1.8 mg/day vs. liraglutide 0.9 mg/day was to be considered confirmed if the 95% confidence interval for the treatment difference (liraglutide 1.8 mg/day minus liraglutide 0.9 mg/day) for change from baseline in HbA1c (% of HbA1c) was entirely below 0%, equivalent to a one-sided test with significance level of 2.5%.|Treatment difference|-0.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||Missing data was imputed using the LOCF method. The change from baseline in the response after 26 weeks of treatment was analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline response as a covariate.||-0.24|-0.55|<0.0001
91075155|NCT03747302|182036447|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.003
91075156|NCT03747302|182036448|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in mean scores for behavioral intent to vaccine: negative values: smaller values indicate more likely to vaccinate.||||>.05
91075157|NCT00738062|182036455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.438|||||||Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel statistic comparing treatment groups based on rank statistics adjusted for the covariate OHSA Item 1 value at randomization.||||||0.438
91075158|NCT00738062|182036456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.554|||||||Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel statistic comparing treatment groups based on rank statistics adjusted for the covariate OHDAS Composite value at randomization.||||||0.554
91075159|NCT00738062|182036457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.198|||||||Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel statistic comparing treatment groups based on rank statistics adjusted for the covariate OHSA Composite value at baseline.||||||0.198
91075160|NCT00738062|182036458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.286|||||||Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel statistic comparing treatment groups based on rank statistics adjusted for the covariate OHSA Item 1 value at randomization.||||||0.286
91075161|NCT00738062|182036459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.251|||||||Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel statistic comparing treatment groups based on rank statistics adjusted for the covariate OHSA Item 1 value at randomization.||||||0.251
91075162|NCT00738062|182036460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.708|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.708
91075163|NCT00738062|182036461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.873|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.873
91075164|NCT00738062|182036462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.252|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.252
91075165|NCT00738062|182036463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.330
91075166|NCT00033657|182036472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.48
91075167|NCT05127304|182036492|OTHER|||||||0.639|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Ambulatory visits||||0.639
91075168|NCT05127304|182036492|OTHER|||||||0.535|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Office visits||||0.535
91075169|NCT05127304|182036492|OTHER|||||||0.337|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Outpatient visits||||0.337
91075170|NCT05127304|182036492|OTHER|||||||0.058|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Emergency room visits||||0.058
91075171|NCT05127304|182036492|OTHER|||||||0.192|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Inpatient visits||||0.192
91075172|NCT05127304|182036492|OTHER|||||||0.176|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Other medical visits||||0.176
91075173|NCT05127304|182036493|OTHER|||||||0.313|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||||||0.313
91075174|NCT05127304|182036494|OTHER|||||||0.021|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||||||0.021
91075175|NCT05127304|182036495|OTHER|||||||0.022|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Ambulatory visits||||0.022
91075176|NCT05127304|182036495|OTHER|||||||0.124|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Office visits||||0.124
91075177|NCT05127304|182036495|OTHER|||||||0.043|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Outpatient visits||||0.043
90827785|NCT03901144|181530516|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.493||||0.471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.787|7.801|||ANCOVA|||||7.801|-16.787|0.471
91075178|NCT05127304|182036495|OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Emergency room visits||||0.990
91075179|NCT05127304|182036495|OTHER|||||||0.039|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Inpatient visits||||0.039
91075180|NCT05127304|182036495|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Other medical visits||||<0.001
91075181|NCT05127304|182036496|OTHER|||||||0.163|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||||||0.163
91075182|NCT05127304|182036497|OTHER|||||||0.037|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||||||0.037
91075183|NCT05127304|182036498|OTHER|||||||0.017|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Ambulatory visits||||0.017
91075184|NCT05127304|182036498|OTHER|||||||0.098|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Office visits||||0.098
91075185|NCT05127304|182036498|OTHER|||||||0.036|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Outpatient visits||||0.036
91075186|NCT05127304|182036498|OTHER|||||||0.894|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Emergency room visits||||0.894
91075187|NCT05127304|182036498|OTHER|||||||0.036|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Inpatient visits||||0.036
91075188|NCT05127304|182036498|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Other medical visits||||0.001
91075189|NCT05127304|182036499|OTHER|||||||0.162|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||||||0.162
91075190|NCT05127304|182036500|OTHER|||||||0.037|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||||||0.037
91075191|NCT05127304|182036501|OTHER|||||||0.065|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Ambulatory visits||||0.065
91075192|NCT05127304|182036501|OTHER|||||||0.102|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Office visits||||0.102
91075193|NCT05127304|182036501|OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Outpatient visits||||0.100
91075194|NCT05127304|182036501|OTHER|||||||0.189|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Emergency room visits||||0.189
91075195|NCT05127304|182036501|OTHER|||||||0.024|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Inpatient visits||||0.024
91075196|NCT05127304|182036501|OTHER|||||||0.767|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Other medical visits||||0.767
91075197|NCT05127304|182036502|OTHER|||||||0.357|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||||||0.357
91075198|NCT05127304|182036503|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Ambulatory visits||||0.002
91075199|NCT05127304|182036503|OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Office visits||||0.420
91075200|NCT05127304|182036503|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Outpatient visits||||0.002
91075201|NCT05127304|182036503|OTHER|||||||0.304|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Emergency room visits||||0.304
91075202|NCT05127304|182036503|OTHER|||||||0.326|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Inpatient visits||||0.326
91075203|NCT05127304|182036503|OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Other medical visits||||0.007
91075204|NCT05127304|182036504|OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||||||0.520
91075205|NCT05127304|182036505|OTHER|||||||0.037|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||||||0.037
91075206|NCT05127304|182036506|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Medical costs||||0.060
91075207|NCT05127304|182036506|OTHER|||||||0.177|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Ambulatory costs||||0.177
91075208|NCT05127304|182036506|OTHER|||||||0.834|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Office visits costs||||0.834
91075209|NCT05127304|182036506|OTHER|||||||0.121|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Outpatient visits costs||||0.121
91075210|NCT05127304|182036506|OTHER|||||||0.159|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Emergency room visits costs||||0.159
91075211|NCT05127304|182036506|OTHER|||||||0.289|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Inpatient stay costs||||0.289
91075212|NCT05127304|182036506|OTHER|||||||0.055|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Other medical costs||||0.055
91075213|NCT05127304|182036506|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Pharmacy costs||||<0.001
91075214|NCT05127304|182036506|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Total (medical + pharmacy) costs||||<0.001
91075215|NCT05127304|182036507|OTHER|||||||0.066|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Medical costs||||0.066
91075216|NCT05127304|182036507|OTHER|||||||0.193|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Ambulatory costs||||0.193
91075217|NCT05127304|182036507|OTHER|||||||0.117|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Office visits costs||||0.117
91075218|NCT05127304|182036507|OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Outpatient visits costs||||0.250
91075219|NCT05127304|182036507|OTHER|||||||0.431|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Emergency room visits costs||||0.431
91075220|NCT05127304|182036507|OTHER|||||||0.129|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Inpatient stay costs||||0.129
91075221|NCT05127304|182036507|OTHER|||||||0.236|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Other medical costs||||0.236
91075222|NCT05127304|182036507|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Pharmacy costs||||<0.001
91075223|NCT05127304|182036507|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Total (medical + pharmacy) costs||||<0.001
91075224|NCT05127304|182036508|OTHER|||||||0.057|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Medical costs||||0.057
91075225|NCT05127304|182036508|OTHER|||||||0.182|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Ambulatory costs||||0.182
91075226|NCT05127304|182036508|OTHER|||||||0.083|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Office visits costs||||0.083
91075227|NCT05127304|182036508|OTHER|||||||0.245|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Outpatient visits costs||||0.245
91075228|NCT05127304|182036508|OTHER|||||||0.386|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Emergency room visits costs||||0.386
91075229|NCT05127304|182036508|OTHER|||||||0.115|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Inpatient stay costs||||0.115
91075230|NCT05127304|182036508|OTHER|||||||0.237|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Other medical costs||||0.237
91075231|NCT05127304|182036508|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Pharmacy costs||||<0.001
91075232|NCT05127304|182036508|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Total (medical + pharmacy) costs||||<0.001
90827786|NCT03901144|181530516|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.035|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.372|-14.698|||ANCOVA|||Summary of Redness - Mexameter change from day 29 to day 31||-14.698|-39.372|<0.001
91075233|NCT05127304|182036509|OTHER|||||||0.189|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Medical costs||||0.189
91075234|NCT05127304|182036509|OTHER|||||||0.314|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Ambulatory costs||||0.314
91075235|NCT05127304|182036509|OTHER|||||||0.203|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Office visits costs||||0.203
91075236|NCT05127304|182036509|OTHER|||||||0.379|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Outpatient visits costs||||0.379
91075237|NCT05127304|182036509|OTHER|||||||0.815|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Emergency room visits costs||||0.815
90827787|NCT03901144|181530518|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.354|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.558|-0.15|||ANCOVA|||Summary of Visual Redness at day 31||-0.150|-0.558|<0.001
90827788|NCT03901144|181530518|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.089||||0.392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.292|0.115|||ANCOVA|||Summary of Visual Redness at day 31||0.115|-0.292|0.392
91075238|NCT05127304|182036509|OTHER|||||||0.205|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Inpatient stay costs||||0.205
91075239|NCT05127304|182036509|OTHER|||||||0.556|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Other medical costs||||0.556
91075240|NCT05127304|182036509|OTHER|||||||0.189|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Total (medical + pharmacy) costs||||0.189
91075241|NCT05127304|182036510|OTHER|||||||0.483|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Medical costs||||0.483
91075242|NCT05127304|182036510|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Ambulatory costs||||0.002
91075243|NCT05127304|182036510|OTHER|||||||0.123|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Office visits costs||||0.123
91075244|NCT05127304|182036510|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Outpatient visits costs||||0.003
91075245|NCT05127304|182036510|OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Emergency room visits costs||||0.170
91075246|NCT05127304|182036510|OTHER|||||||0.582|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Inpatient stay costs||||0.582
91075247|NCT05127304|182036510|OTHER|||||||0.887|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Other medical costs||||0.887
91075248|NCT05127304|182036510|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Pharmacy costs||||<0.001
91075249|NCT05127304|182036510|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Total (medical + pharmacy) costs||||<0.001
91075250|NCT05127304|182036511|OTHER|||||||0.205|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Any COPD exacerbation||||0.205
91075251|NCT05127304|182036511|OTHER|||||||0.454|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Severe COPD exacerbation||||0.454
91075252|NCT05127304|182036512|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||Rao-Scott test|||||||0.060
91075253|NCT02719938|182036536|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.415|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.415
91075254|NCT02719938|182036537|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.521|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.521
91075255|NCT02719938|182036538|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.409|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.409
91075256|NCT02719938|182036539|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.019
91075257|NCT02719938|182036540|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91075258|NCT02719938|182036541|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91075259|NCT02719938|182036542|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.516|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.516
91075260|NCT00955968|182036543|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|2.4||5% alpha level and 2-sided test|Log Rank||HR reflects Continue HAART : Stop HAART|||2.40|0.19|0.54
91075261|NCT00955968|182036544|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|4.01||5% alpha level and 2-sided test|Log Rank||HR reflects Continue HAART : Stop HAART|||4.01|0.11|0.66
91075262|NCT00955968|182036546|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|2.81||5% alpha level and 2-sided test|Log Rank||HR reflects Continue HAART : Stop HAART|||2.81|0.09|0.44
91075263|NCT00955968|182036547|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.6||5% alpha level and 2-sided test|Log Rank||HR reflects Continue HAART : Stop HAART|||1.60|0.54|0.79
91075264|NCT00955968|182036548|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.52||5% alpha level and 2-sided test|Log Rank||HR reflects Continue HAART : Stop HAART|||1.52|0.54|0.71
91075265|NCT00955968|182036549|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.8||5% alpha level and 2-sided test|Log Rank||HR reflects Continue HAART : Stop HAART|||0.80|0.42|<0.001
91075266|NCT00955968|182036550|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.03||5% alpha level and 2-sided test|Log Rank|||||1.03|0.72|0.10
91075267|NCT04713592|182036584|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|17.2|||=|0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|29.3||P-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for Baseline ppIGA and Baseline BSA categories for comparison of treatment groups based on non-responder imputation incorporating multiple imputation to handle missing data due to COVID-19.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference: Risankizumab - Placebo|Risankizumab vs Placebo at Week 16||29.3|5.0|=0.006
91075268|NCT04713592|182036586|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|27.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.4|39.7||P-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for Baseline ppIGA and Baseline BSA categories for comparison of treatment groups based on non-responder imputation incorporating multiple imputation to handle missing data due to COVID-19.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference: Risankizumab - Placebo|Risankizumab vs Placebo at Week 16||39.7|15.4|<0.001
91075269|NCT04713592|182036587|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|21.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.5|32.1||P-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for Baseline ppIGA and Baseline BSA categories for comparison of treatment groups based on non-responder imputation incorporating multiple imputation to handle missing data due to COVID-19.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference: Risankizumab - Placebo|Risankizumab vs Placebo at Week 16||32.1|11.5|<0.001
91075270|NCT04713592|182036588|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|20.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.1|32.2||P-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for Baseline ppIGA and Baseline BSA categories for comparison of treatment groups based on non-responder imputation incorporating multiple imputation to handle missing data due to COVID-19.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference: Risankizumab - Placebo|Risankizumab vs Placebo at Week 16||32.2|9.1|<0.001
91075271|NCT04713592|182036589|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|16.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.2|24.3||P-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for Baseline ppIGA and Baseline BSA categories for comparison of treatment groups based on non-responder imputation incorporating multiple imputation to handle missing data due to COVID-19.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference: Risankizumab - Placebo|Risankizumab vs Placebo at Week 16||24.3|8.2|<0.001
91075272|NCT02431806|182036603|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.38||||0.8035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.41|2.64|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Estimates and p-values are based on MMRM with treatment group, pooled study center, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and baseline and baseline-by-visit as covariates using an unstructured covariance matrix.|||2.64|-3.41|0.8035
91075273|NCT02431806|182036603|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.26||||0.8681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|3.31|||MMRM||Estimates and p-values are based on MMRM with treatment group, pooled study center, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and baseline and baseline-by-visit as covariates using an unstructured covariance matrix.|||3.31|-2.80|0.8681
91075274|NCT02431806|182036603|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-1.47||||0.3439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.52|1.58|||MMRM||Estimates and p-values are based on MMRM with treatment group, pooled study center, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and baseline and baseline-by-visit as covariates using an unstructured covariance matrix.|||1.58|-4.52|0.3439
91075275|NCT02431806|182036604|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.02||||0.8788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.29|||MMRM||Estimates and p-values are based on MMRM with treatment group, pooled study center, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and baseline and baseline-by-visit as covariates using an unstructured covariance matrix.|||0.29|-0.25|0.8788
91075276|NCT02431806|182036604|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.01||||0.923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.29|||MMRM||Estimates and p-values are based on MMRM with treatment group, pooled study center, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and baseline and baseline-by-visit as covariates using an unstructured covariance matrix.|||0.29|-0.26|0.9230
91075277|NCT02431806|182036604|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.15||||0.2895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.13|||MMRM||Estimates and p-values are based on MMRM with treatment group, pooled study center, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and baseline and baseline-by-visit as covariates using an unstructured covariance matrix.|||0.13|-0.42|0.2895
91075278|NCT00742508|182036609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.449|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.75|24.51|||||The mean treatment difference is calculated as SK\&F-105517-D minus CRV-IR for the 24 h assessment.|||24.51|-5.75|
90827789|NCT03901144|181530518|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.447|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.652|-0.242|||ANCOVA|||Summary of Visual Redness at day 31||-0.242|-0.652|<0.001
90827790|NCT02021565|181530519|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.973||||||alpha = 0.025|ANOVA|Repeated measures||Analysis 1 is for the caregiver reported confidence that Veteran care recipient can perform 10 transfer tasks with assistance from the informal caregiver.||||0.973
91075279|NCT00742508|182036609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|7.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.849|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.68|23.79|||||The mean treatment difference is calculated as SK\&F-105517-D minus CRV-IR for the Morning assessment.|||23.79|-8.68|
91075280|NCT00742508|182036609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.645|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.04|8.2|||||The mean treatment difference is calculated as SK\&F-105517-D minus CRV-IR for the Afternoon assessment.|||8.20|-12.04|
91075281|NCT00742508|182036609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|14.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.361|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.45|31.87|||||The mean treatment difference is calculated as SK\&F-105517-D minus CRV-IR for the Night assessment.|||31.87|-3.45|
91075282|NCT00742508|182036609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.79|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.12|10.92|||||The mean treatment difference is calculated as SK\&F-105517-D minus CRV-IR for the Waking assessment.|||10.92|-10.12|
91075283|NCT00742508|182036609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|25.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.281|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.16|36.93|||||The mean treatment difference is calculated as SK\&F-105517-D minus CRV-IR for the Sleeping assessment.|||36.93|13.16|
91075284|NCT00742508|182036609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.62||||95.0|-29.94|29.03|||||The mean treatment difference is calculated as SK\&F-105517-D minus CRV-IR for the PDmax assessment.|||29.03|-29.94|
91075285|NCT00742508|182036609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.194|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.67|28.28|||||The mean treatment difference is calculated as SK\&F-105517-D minus CRV-IR for the PDmin assessment.|||28.28|-11.67|
91075286|NCT00742508|182036609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.142|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.15|||||The mean treatment difference is calculated as SK\&F-105517-D minus CRV-IR for the PDmax/PDmin assessment.|||0.15|-0.63|
91075287|NCT00742508|182036629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.833|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|15.63|||||The mean treatment difference is calculated as SK\&F-105517-D minus CRV-IR for the 24 h assessment.|||15.63|-11.20|
91075288|NCT00742508|182036629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.265|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.95|16.84|||||The mean treatment difference is calculated as SK\&F-105517-D minus CRV-IR for the Morning assessment.|||16.84|-17.95|
91075289|NCT00742508|182036629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.885|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.71|5.86|||||The mean treatment difference is calculated as SK\&F-105517-D minus CRV-IR for the Afternoon assessment.|||5.86|-15.71|
91075290|NCT00742508|182036629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.07|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.11|26.59|||||The mean treatment difference is calculated as SK\&F-105517-D minus CRV-IR for the Night assessment.|||26.59|-7.11|
91075291|NCT00742508|182036629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.08|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.78|7.88|||||The mean treatment difference is calculated as SK\&F-105517-D minus CRV-IR for the Waking assessment.|||7.88|-14.78|
91075292|NCT00742508|182036629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|18.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.694|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.36|22.76|||||The mean treatment difference is calculated as SK\&F-105517-D minus CRV-IR for the Sleeping assessment.|||22.76|13.36|
91075293|NCT00742508|182036629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.902|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.17|17.26|||||The mean treatment difference is calculated as SK\&F-105517-D minus CRV-IR for the PDmax assessment.|||17.26|-32.17|
91075294|NCT00742508|182036629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.297|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.61|15.8|||||The mean treatment difference is calculated as SK\&F-105517-D minus CRV-IR for the PDmin assessment.|||15.80|-13.61|
91075295|NCT00742508|182036629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.152|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.3|||||The mean treatment difference is calculated as SK\&F-105517-D minus CRV-IR for the PDmax/PDmin assessment.|||0.30|-0.54|
91075296|NCT00742508|182036630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.187|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.84|4.86|||||The mean treatment difference is calculated as SK\&F-105517-D minus CRV-IR for the 24 h assessment.|||4.86|-12.84|
91075297|NCT00742508|182036630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.962|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|2.95|||||The mean treatment difference is calculated as SK\&F-105517-D minus CRV-IR for the Morning assessment.|||2.95|-13.50|
91075298|NCT00742508|182036630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.209|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.89|6.94|||||The mean treatment difference is calculated as SK\&F-105517-D minus CRV-IR for the Afternoon assessment.|||6.94|-10.89|
91075299|NCT00742508|182036630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.665|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.32|6.03|||||The mean treatment difference is calculated as SK\&F-105517-D minus CRV-IR for the Night assessment.|||6.03|-14.32|
91075300|NCT00742508|182036630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.047|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.45|5.47|||||The mean treatment difference is calculated as SK\&F-105517-D minus CRV-IR for the Waking assessment.|||5.47|-11.45|
91075301|NCT00742508|182036630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.686|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.12|9.89|||||The mean treatment difference is calculated as SK\&F-105517-D minus CRV-IR for the Sleeping assessment.|||9.89|-16.12|
91075302|NCT00742508|182036630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.749|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.41|0.41|||||The mean treatment difference is calculated as SK\&F-105517-D minus CRV-IR for the PDmax assessment.|||0.41|-20.41|
91075303|NCT00742508|182036630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.249|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|13.15|||||The mean treatment difference is calculated as SK\&F-105517-D minus CRV-IR for the PDmin assessment.|||13.15|-16.00|
91075304|NCT00742508|182036630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.133|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.03|||||The mean treatment difference is calculated as SK\&F-105517-D minus CRV-IR for the PDmax/PDmin assessment.|||0.03|-0.71|
91075305|NCT02484651|182036667|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.651|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Sample size calculation was performed with a power of 0.80 and an α of 0.05, considering the primary hypothesis of a reduction in the BIS variability (measured as the standard deviation). A 25% reduction on the BIS variability (standard deviation) was considered clinically relevant, and gave a minimum sample size of 26 per group.||||0.651
91075306|NCT02484651|182036668|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This statistical analysis applies to the propofol effect-site concentration. Sample size calculation was performed with a power of 0.80 and an α of 0.05 also a reduction in the propofol drug consumption (measured as the average effect-site concentration) during maintenance of anesthesia. A reduction on propofol mean effect-site concentration of 20% was considered clinically relevant, giving a minimum of 34 patients per group||||<0.001
91075307|NCT02484651|182036668|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.245|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"This statistical analysis applies to the remifentanil effect-site concentration.~Sample size calculation was performed with a power of 0.80 and an α of 0.05 also a reduction in the remifentanil drug consumption (measured as the average effect-site concentration) during maintenance of anesthesia. A reduction on on remifentanil average effect-site concentration of 20% was considered clinically relevant, giving a minimum of 24 patients per group"||||0.245
91075308|NCT02484651|182036669|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.419|||||||Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis was that PQRS overall recovery at 15 minutes was independent from the study group.||||0.419
91075309|NCT02484651|182036669|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.107|||||||Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis was that PQRS overall recovery at 40 minutes was independent from the study group.||||0.107
91075310|NCT02484651|182036670|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.669|||||||Chi-squared|||The null hypothesis was that PQRS satisfaction with anesthetic care was independent of the study group.||||0.669
91075311|NCT04972968|182036679|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.49||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.273|0.878||P-value \<= 0.05|Log Rank|Stratified by baseline randomization stratification factors \[Glucocorticoid use at Baseline (\>= 10 mg/day; \< 10 mg/day prednisone equivalent)\].||||0.878|0.273|0.012
91075312|NCT04972968|182036679|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.443||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.248|0.794||P-value \<= 0.01|Log Rank|Stratified by baseline randomization stratification factors \[Glucocorticoid use at Baseline (\>= 10 mg/day; \< 10 mg/day prednisone equivalent)\]||||0.794|0.248|0.004
91075313|NCT04972968|182036679|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.198|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.094|0.419||P-value \<= 0.001|Log Rank|Stratified by baseline randomization stratification factors \[Glucocorticoid use at Baseline (\>= 10 mg/day; \< 10 mg/day prednisone equivalent)\]||||0.419|0.094|<0.001
91075314|NCT04972968|182036680|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|18.7||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|41.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||From Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for baseline randomization stratification factors \[Glucocorticoid (GC) use at baseline (≥ 10 mg/day; \< 10 mg/day prednisone equivalent); Length of prior GC treatment for PMR (≤ 1 year; \> 1 year)\].|||41.4|-4.0|0.107
91075315|NCT04972968|182036680|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|18.9||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|41.0||P-value ≤ 0.1|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for baseline randomization stratification factors \[Glucocorticoid use at baseline (≥ 10 mg/day; \< 10 mg/day prednisone equivalent); Length of prior GC treatment for PMR (≤ 1 year; \> 1 year)\].|||41.0|-3.1|0.092
91075316|NCT04972968|182036680|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|41.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.4|62.3||P-value ≤ 0.001|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for baseline randomization stratification factors \[Glucocorticoid use at baseline (≥ 10 mg/day; \< 10 mg/day prednisone equivalent); Length of prior GC treatment for PMR (≤ 1 year; \> 1 year)\].|||62.3|21.4|< 0.001
91075317|NCT04972968|182036681|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-88.67||||0.144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-208.04|30.71|||ANCOVA|P-value based on an Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model adjusting for baseline randomization stratification factors.|95% CI based on an Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model adjusting for baseline randomization stratification factors \[GC use at baseline (≥ 10 mg/day; \< 10 mg/day prednisone equivalent);|||30.71|-208.04|0.144
91075318|NCT04972968|182036681|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-164.76||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-283.62|-45.89||P-value ≤ 0.01|ANCOVA||P-value and 95% CI are based on an Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model adjusting for baseline randomization stratification factors \[Glucocorticoid use at baseline (≥ 10 mg/day; \< 10 mg/day prednisone\] equivalent);|||-45.89|-283.62|0.007
91075319|NCT04972968|182036681|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-182.55||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-300.52|-64.58||P-value ≤ 0.01|ANCOVA||P-value and 95% CI based on an Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model adjusting for baseline randomization stratification factors \[Glucocorticoid use at baseline (≥ 10 mg/day; \< 10 mg/day prednisone equivalent)|||-64.58|-300.52|0.003
91075320|NCT04972968|182036682|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.58||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.08|-0.08||P-value \<= 0.05|ANCOVA|P-value based on ANCOVA adjusting for baseline randomization stratification factors (GC use at baseline)||||-0.08|-3.08|0.039
91075321|NCT04972968|182036682|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.15|-1.16||P-value \<= 0.001|ANCOVA|P-value based on an ANCOVA model adjusting for baseline randomization stratification factors (GC use at baseline)|95% CI based on an ANCOVA model adjusting for baseline randomization stratification factors (GC use at baseline)|||-1.16|-4.15|<0.001
91075322|NCT04972968|182036682|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.49|-1.52||P-value \<= 0.001|ANCOVA|P-value based on an ANCOVA model adjusting for baseline randomization stratification factors (GC use at baseline)|95% CI based on an ANCOVA model adjusting for baseline randomization stratification factors (GC use at baseline)|||-1.52|-4.49|<0.001
90827791|NCT02021565|181530519|SUPERIORITY|Alpha = .025||||||0.223|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis 2 is for the caregiver reported confidence that Veteran care recipient can perform 10 transfer tasks independently.||||0.223
90827792|NCT02021565|181530520|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.547|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis 1 is for the Veteran care recipient reported task efficacy||||0.547
90827793|NCT02021565|181530520|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.891|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis 2 is for the Veteran reported confidence that he/she can perform 10 transfer tasks independently.||||0.891
90827794|NCT02021565|181530521|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.729|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.729
90827795|NCT01332994|181530534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1648|TWO_SIDED|||||Exact one-sided binomial test on single proportions with a significance level of alpha equals (=) 0.025. Null hypothesis: Proportion of participants reaching DAS28 remission (\<2.6) at Week 16 is ≤45 percent (%).|Exact one-sided binomial test|||||||0.1648
90827796|NCT01332994|181530570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7559|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Naive B-cell compartment||||0.7559
90827797|NCT01332994|181530570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8961|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Transitional B-cells||||0.8961
91075323|NCT03649178|182036689|OTHER|||||||0.55|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.55
91075324|NCT03649178|182036690|OTHER|||||||0.76|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.76
91075325|NCT03649178|182036691|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.02
91075326|NCT04120584|182036692|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|5.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91075327|NCT04120584|182036693|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
91075328|NCT03660475|182036705|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.967|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.967
91075329|NCT03660475|182036706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.836|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.836
91075330|NCT03660475|182036707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.166|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.166
91075331|NCT03660475|182036708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.638|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.638
91075332|NCT03660475|182036709|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.122|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.122
91075333|NCT03660475|182036710|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.200
91075334|NCT03660475|182036711|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.085|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.085
91075335|NCT03660475|182036713|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.903|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.903
91075336|NCT03660475|182036714|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.898|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.898
91075337|NCT03660475|182036715|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.221|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.221
91075338|NCT03660475|182036716|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.459|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.459
91075339|NCT03979807|182036722|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.17|||||Cox proportional hazard model. 'Treatment' is the only Independent variable used to estimate the hazard ratios. Umeclidinium/Vilanterol is Reference Group.|||1.17|1.06|
91075340|NCT03197324|182036749|EQUIVALENCE|The acceptance range for bioequivalence is 80.0 - 125.00%.|Ratio of Geometric LSM|100.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.49|116.56|||||Digoxin group is the denominator and Digoxin with Bexagliflozin is the numerator. Confidence interval from ANOVA with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and subjects as a random effect.|Geometric LS Mean was used as PK parameters||116.56|86.49|
91075341|NCT03197324|182036752|SUPERIORITY|Compare if co-administration of digoxin with bexagliflozin had significant impact on the PK of digoxin|Ratio of Geometric LSM|106.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.82|117.53|||||Digoxin group is the denominator and Digoxin with Bexagliflozin is the numerator. Confidence interval from ANOVA with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and subjects as a random effect.|Geometric LS Mean was used as PK parameters||117.53|95.82|
91075342|NCT00710684|182036763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.5|||mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)|The MMRM model included fixed categorical terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and country.||SB-742457 15mg versus placebo at Week 24||0.5|-1.9|0.279
91075343|NCT00710684|182036763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.5||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.3|||MMRM|The MMRM model included fixed categorical terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and country.||SB-742457 35mg versus placebo at Week 24||-0.3|-2.7|0.012
91075344|NCT00710684|182036764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.3|||MMRM|The MMRM model included fixed categorical terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and country.||SB-742457 15 mg versus placebo at Week 24||0.3|-0.4|0.711
91075345|NCT00710684|182036764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.2|||MMRM|The MMRM model included fixed categorical terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and country.||SB-742457 35 mg versus placebo at Week 24||0.2|-0.5|0.462
91075346|NCT00710684|182036765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.4||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|1.1|||MMRM|The MMRM model included fixed categorical terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and country.||SB-742457 15 mg versus placebo at Week 24||1.1|-5.8|0.174
91075347|NCT00710684|182036765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|2.7|||MMRM|The MMRM model included fixed categorical terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and country.||SB-742457 35 mg versus placebo at Week 24||2.7|-3.6|0.776
91075348|NCT00710684|182036766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.7|||MMRM|The MMRM model included fixed categorical terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and country.||SB-742457 15 mg versus placebo at Week 12||0.7|-1.2|0.631
91075349|NCT00710684|182036766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.4|||MMRM|The MMRM model included fixed categorical terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and country.||SB-742457 35 mg versus placebo at Week 12||-0.4|-2.2|0.006
91075350|NCT00710684|182036766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.2|||MMRM|The MMRM model included fixed categorical terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and country.||SB-742457 15 mg versus placebo at Week 36||1.2|-1.3|0.947
90827798|NCT01332994|181530570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7915|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Naive B-cells||||0.7915
91075351|NCT00710684|182036766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.0|||MMRM|The MMRM model included fixed categorical terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and country.||SB-742457 35 mg versus placebo at Week 36||0.0|-2.5|0.057
91075352|NCT00710684|182036766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.5|||MMRM|The MMRM model included fixed categorical terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and country.||SB-742457 15 mg versus placebo at Week 48||1.5|-1.6|0.925
91075353|NCT00710684|182036766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.6||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-0.2|||MMRM|The MMRM model included fixed categorical terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and country.||SB-742457 35 mg versus placebo at Week 48||-0.2|-3.1|0.024
91075354|NCT00710684|182036767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1|||MMRM|The MMRM model included fixed categorical terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and country.||SB-742457 15 mg versus placebo at Week 12||0.1|-0.4|0.387
91075355|NCT00710684|182036767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.1|||MMRM|||SB-742457 35 mg versus placebo at Week 12||-0.1|-0.5|0.018
91075356|NCT00710684|182036767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.6|||MMRM|The MMRM model included fixed categorical terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and country.||SB-742457 15 mg versus placebo at Week 36||0.6|-0.3|0.439
91075357|NCT00710684|182036767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.2|||MMRM|The MMRM model included fixed categorical terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and country.||SB-742457 35 mg versus placebo at Week 36||0.2|-0.6|0.336
91075358|NCT00710684|182036767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.8|||MMRM|The MMRM model included fixed categorical terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and country.||SB-742457 15 mg versus placebo at Week 48||0.8|-0.2|0.190
91075359|NCT00710684|182036767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.4|||MMRM|The MMRM model included fixed categorical terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and country.||SB-742457 35 mg versus placebo at Week 48||0.4|-0.5|0.787
91075360|NCT00710684|182036768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3||||0.337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|1.4|||MMRM|The MMRM model included fixed categorical terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and country.||SB-742457 15 mg versus placebo at Week 12||1.4|-4.0|0.337
91075361|NCT00710684|182036768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6||||0.596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|3.0|||MMRM|The MMRM model included fixed categorical terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and country.||SB-742457 35 mg versus placebo at Week 12||3.0|-1.7|0.596
91075362|NCT00710684|182036768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9||||0.634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|2.7|||MMRM|The MMRM model included fixed categorical terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and country.||SB-742457 15 mg versus placebo at Week 36||2.7|-4.4|0.634
91075363|NCT00710684|182036768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.1||||0.238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|5.6|||MMRM|The MMRM model included fixed categorical terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and country.||SB-742457 35 mg versus placebo at Week 36||5.6|-1.4|0.238
91075364|NCT00710684|182036768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.1||||0.292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|1.8|||MMRM|The MMRM model included fixed categorical terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and country.||SB-742457 15 mg versus placebo at Week 48||1.8|-6.0|0.292
91075365|NCT00710684|182036768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.6||||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|6.2|||MMRM|The MMRM model included fixed categorical terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and country.||SB-742457 35 mg versus placebo at Week 48||6.2|-1.0|0.161
91075366|NCT00710684|182036769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6||||0.396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|2.1|||MMRM|The MMRM model included fixed categorical terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and country.||SB-742457 15 mg versus placebo at Week 12||2.1|-0.8|0.396
91075367|NCT00710684|182036769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.7||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.2|||MMRM|The MMRM model included fixed categorical terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and country.||SB-742457 35 mg versus placebo at Week 12||3.2|0.3|0.019
91075368|NCT00710684|182036769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.4||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|3.2|||MMRM|The MMRM model included fixed categorical terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and country.||SB-742457 15 mg versus placebo at Week 24||3.2|-0.3|0.110
91075369|NCT00710684|182036769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.0||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.7|||MMRM|The MMRM model included fixed categorical terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and country.||SB-742457 35 mg versus placebo at Week 24||3.7|0.3|0.024
91075370|NCT00710684|182036769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.0|||MMRM|The MMRM model included fixed categorical terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and country.||SB-742457 15 mg versus placebo ate Week 36||2.0|-2.1|0.944
91075371|NCT00710684|182036769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.9||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|3.8|||MMRM|The MMRM model included fixed categorical terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and country.||SB-742457 35 mg versus placebo at Week 36||3.8|0.1|0.037
91075372|NCT00710684|182036769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5||||0.705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|2.9|||MMRM|The MMRM model included fixed categorical terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and country.||SB-742457 15 mg versus placebo at Week 48||2.9|-1.9|0.705
91075373|NCT00710684|182036769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.9||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|4.2|||MMRM|The MMRM model included fixed categorical terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and country.||SB-742457 35 mg versus placebo at Week 48||4.2|-0.3|0.088
91075374|NCT00710684|182036770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.6|||MMRM|The MMRM model included fixed categorical terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and country.||SB-742457 15 mg versus placebo at Week 24||0.6|-0.6|0.962
91075375|NCT00710684|182036770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.0|||MMRM|The MMRM model included fixed categorical terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and country.||SB-742457 35 mg versus placebo at Week 24||1.0|-0.1|0.134
91075376|NCT00710684|182036770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.7|||MMRM|The MMRM model included fixed categorical terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and country.||SB-742457 15 mg versus placebo at Week 48||0.7|-1.0|0.782
91075377|NCT00710684|182036770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4||||0.268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.2|||MMRM|The MMRM model included fixed categorical terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and country.||SB-742457 35 mg versus placebo at Week 48||1.2|-0.3|0.268
91075378|NCT02832375|182036781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|-0.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.577|-0.319|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model with change from baseline in Schiff Sensitivity Score as response and treatment and baseline Schiff sensitivity score as covariates.|Difference is first named dentifrice minus second named dentifrice such that a negative difference favours first named dentifrice.|H0= no difference between experimental dentifrice and control dentifrice H1= a difference between experimental dentifrice and control dentifrice||-0.319|-0.577|<0.0001
91075379|NCT00514904|182036784|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority criterion: Lower limit \[LL\] of the 2-sided standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval \[CI\] greater than or equal to (≥) -10%.|Difference in percentage|14.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.26|20.23||||||||20.23|10.26|
91075380|NCT00514904|182036784|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority criterion: Lower limit \[LL\] of the 2-sided standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval \[CI\] ≥-10%.|Difference in percentage|24.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.52|31.87||||||||31.87|17.52|
91075381|NCT00514904|182036784|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority criterion: Lower limit \[LL\] of the 2-sided standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval \[CI\] ≥-10%.|Difference in percentage|6.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.68|11.08|||Difference in percentage|||||11.08|2.68|
91075382|NCT00514904|182036784|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority criterion: Lower limit \[LL\] of the 2-sided standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval \[CI\] ≥-10%.|Difference in percentage|23.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.02|30.3||||||||30.3|18.02|
91075383|NCT00514904|182036785|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for assessment: upper limit of the two-sided standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for the ratio between Nimenrix Group and Mencevax ACWY Group being lower than or equal to the pre-defined clinical limit ratio of 3.0 in the percentage of subjects with any grade 3 general symptoms.|Risk Ratio (RR)|3.34||||0.2202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|20.25|||Chi-squared|||||20.25|0.56|0.2202
91075384|NCT00084318|182036799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.06|||Log Rank|Historical control data (RTOG-9501/NCT00002670): n=202, two-year disease-free survival rate of 54.8% (47.9% to 61.7%).||Using the method of Dixon and Simon, 104 analyzable patients per arm were needed to detect a ≥ 33 reduction in the hazard rate for disease-free survival compared to historical control data (the chemoradiation arm of study RTOG-9501/NCT00002670) with 80% power and one-sided log-rank test at the 0.05 level. Two-year rates were estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method. \[RTOG = Radiation Therapy Oncology Group\]||1.06|0.54|0.05
91075385|NCT00084318|182036799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.96|||Log Rank|Historical control data (RTOG-9501/NCT00002670): n=202, two-year disease-free survival rate of 54.8% (47.9% to 61.7%).||Using the method of Dixon and Simon, 104 analyzable patients per arm were needed to detect a ≥ 33 reduction in the hazard rate for disease-free survival compared to historical control data (the chemoradiation arm of study RTOG-9501/NCT00002670) with 80% power and one-sided log-rank test at the 0.05 level. Two-year rates were estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method.||0.96|0.50|0.01
91075386|NCT00084318|182036800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.03|||Log Rank|Historical control data (RTOG-9501/NCT00002670): n=202, two-year survival rate of 64.7% (58.1% to 71.3%).|Reference arm = historical control|Two-year rates were estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method. RTOG 0234 results were compared to historical control data (the chemoradiation arm of study RTOG-9501/NCT00002670) by 1-sided log-rank test. Hazard ratios were estimated by Cox model. \[RTOG = Radiation Therapy Oncology Group\]||1.03|0.5|0.04
91075387|NCT00084318|182036800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.82|||Log Rank|Historical control data (RTOG-9501/NCT00002670): n=202, two-year survival rate of 64.7% (58.1% to 71.3%).|Reference arm = historical control|Two-year rates were estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method. RTOG 0234 results were compared to historical control data (the chemoradiation arm of study RTOG-9501/NCT00002670) by 1-sided log-rank test. Hazard ratios were estimated by Cox model.||0.82|0.39|0.001
91075388|NCT00084318|182036804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.76|||Gray's test|Historical control data (RTOG-9501/NCT00002670): n=202, two-year failure rate of 19.9% (12.2% to 27.5%)|Reference arm = historical control|Two-year failure rates were estimated by the cumulative incidence method. RTOG 0234 results were compared to historical control data (the chemoradiation arm of study RTOG-9501/NCT00002670) by 1-sided Gray's test. Hazard ratios were estimated by Cox model. \[RTOG = Radiation Therapy Oncology Group\]||1.76|0.63|0.66
91075389|NCT00084318|182036804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.87|||Gray's test|Historical control data (RTOG-9501/NCT00002670): n=202, two-year failure rate of 19.9% (12.2% to 27.5%)|Reference arm = historical control|Two-year failure rates were estimated by the cumulative incidence method. RTOG 0234 results were compared to historical control data (the chemoradiation arm of study RTOG-9501/NCT00002670) by 1-sided Gray's test. Hazard ratios were estimated by Cox model.||1.87|0.72|0.86
91075390|NCT05537792|182036808|OTHER|Paired t-tests were used to compare the offline forward estimation error of each adapted forward estimator with the baseline during overground walking.||||||0.579|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.579
91075391|NCT05537792|182036808|OTHER|Paired t-tests were used to compare the offline forward estimation error of each adapted forward estimator with the baseline during overground walking.||||||0.0008|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0008
91075392|NCT05537792|182036808|OTHER|Paired t-tests were used to compare the offline forward estimation error of each adapted forward estimator with the baseline during overground walking.||||||0.5513|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.5513
91075393|NCT05537792|182036808|OTHER|Paired t-tests were used to compare the offline forward estimation error of each adapted forward estimator with the baseline during overground walking.||||||0.00034|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.00034
91075394|NCT01556997|182036836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025|ONE_SIDED|||||The statistical model was an analysis of covariance model with treatment as the main effect and baseline DBP (\<100 mmHg versus ≥100 mmHg), current type 2 diabetes status (yes versus no), and race (black versus non-black) as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||||0.025
91075395|NCT01556997|182036837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|||||The statistical model was an analysis of covariance model with treatment as the main effect and baseline DBP (\<100 mmHg versus ≥100 mmHg), current type 2 diabetes status (yes versus no), and race (black versus non-black) as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||||0.025
91075396|NCT05459558|182036838|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||p-value adjusted for multiplicity using Graphical Approach.|Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Test for non-zero within group change from Baseline.||||<0.0001
91075397|NCT05459558|182036838|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||p-value adjusted for multiplicity using Graphical Approach.|Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Test for non-zero within group change from Baseline.||||<0.0001
91075398|NCT05459558|182036839|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models with Repeated Measures|||Test for non-zero within group change from Baseline.||||<0.0001
91075399|NCT05459558|182036839|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Test for non-zero within group change from Baseline.||||<0.0001
91075400|NCT05459558|182036840|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|-1.62|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Week 4||-1.62|-1.88|<0.0001
91075401|NCT05459558|182036840|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|-1.61|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Week 4||-1.61|-1.87|<0.0001
91075402|NCT05459558|182036840|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.069|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.08|-1.81||p-value adjusted for multiplicity using Graphical Approach.|Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Week 8||-1.81|-2.08|<0.0001
91075403|NCT05459558|182036840|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.069|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|-1.9||p-value adjusted for multiplicity using Graphical Approach.|Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Week 8||-1.90|-2.18|<0.0001
91075404|NCT05459558|182036841|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.097|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.62|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Week 4||-0.62|-1.00|<0.0001
91075405|NCT05459558|182036841|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.097|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.41|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Week 4||-0.41|-0.79|<0.0001
91075406|NCT05459558|182036841|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|-1.31||p-value adjusted for multiplicity using Graphical Approach.|Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Week 8||-1.31|-2.06|<0.0001
91075407|NCT05459558|182036841|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.191|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.19|-1.44||p-value adjusted for multiplicity using Graphical Approach.|Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Week 8||-1.44|-2.19|<0.0001
91075408|NCT05459558|182036842|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.092|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|-2.05|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Gingival Sites, Week 4||-2.05|-2.41|<0.0001
91075409|NCT05459558|182036842|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.092|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|-2.05|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Gingival Sites, Week 4||-2.05|-2.41|<0.0001
91075410|NCT05459558|182036842|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.095|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.69|-2.31|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Gingival Sites, Week 8||-2.31|-2.69|<0.0001
91075411|NCT05459558|182036842|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.095|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.81|-2.44|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Gingival Sites, Week 8||-2.44|-2.81|<0.0001
91075412|NCT05459558|182036842|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.079|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|-1.91|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Interproximal Sites, Week 4||-1.91|-2.22|<0.0001
91075413|NCT05459558|182036842|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.079|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-1.89|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Interproximal Sites, Week 4||-1.89|-2.20|<0.0001
91075414|NCT05459558|182036842|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.081|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.45|-2.13|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Interproximal Sites, Week 8||-2.13|-2.45|<0.0001
91075415|NCT05459558|182036842|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.082|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.57|-2.25|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Interproximal Sites, Week 8||-2.25|-2.57|<0.0001
91075416|NCT05459558|182036842|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.5|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Body Sites, Week 4||-0.50|-0.76|<0.0001
91075417|NCT05459558|182036842|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.51|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Body Sites, Week 4||-0.51|-0.77|<0.0001
91075418|NCT05459558|182036842|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.57|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Body Sites, Week 8||-0.57|-0.81|<0.0001
91075419|NCT05459558|182036842|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.57|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Body Sites, Week 8||-0.57|-0.81|<0.0001
90827799|NCT01332994|181530570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8081|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Memory B-cells||||0.8081
90827800|NCT01332994|181530570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6574|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Pre-switch memory B-cells||||0.6574
90827801|NCT01332994|181530570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4553|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Post-switch memory B-cells||||0.4553
90827802|NCT01332994|181530570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2215|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||IgG-positive class-switched B-cells||||0.2215
90827803|NCT01332994|181530570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.886|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||IgA-positive class-switched B-cells||||0.8860
91075420|NCT05459558|182036843|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.82|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Area, Week 4||-0.82|-0.97|<0.0001
91075421|NCT05459558|182036843|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.79|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Area, Week 4||-0.79|-0.95|<0.0001
91075422|NCT05459558|182036843|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|-1.01|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Area, Week 8||-1.01|-1.15|<0.0001
91075423|NCT05459558|182036843|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|-1.07|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Area, Week 8||-1.07|-1.22|<0.0001
91075424|NCT05459558|182036843|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|-0.8|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Intensity, Week 4||-0.80|-0.93|<0.0001
91075425|NCT05459558|182036843|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|-0.8|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Intensity, Week 4||-0.80|-0.93|<0.0001
91075426|NCT05459558|182036843|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|-0.9|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Intensity, Week 8||-0.90|-1.04|<0.0001
91075427|NCT05459558|182036843|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.95|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Intensity, Week 8||-0.95|-1.08|<0.0001
91075428|NCT05175131|182036884|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.8|||ANCOVA||Mean difference of Mebeverine+Simethicone combination to Mebeverine. Adjusted least squares mean (difference between Mebeverine+Simethicone combination and Mebeverine) from ANCOVA is presented here|ANCOVA was used for primary end point analysis. The model included the change from baseline of the NRS\_11 score as dependent variable and treatment and site as independent factors, and baseline NRS-11 as covariate.||1.8|0.3|0.0042
91075429|NCT05175131|182036884|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.4|||ANCOVA||Adjusted least squares mean (difference between Mebeverine+Simethicone combination and Mebeverine) from ANCOVA is presented here|Mean difference of Mebeverine+Simethicone combination to Simethicone. ANCOVA was used for primary end point analysis. The model included the change from baseline of the NRS\_11 score as dependent variable and treatment and site as independent factors, and baseline NRS-11 as covariate.||2.4|0.9|<0.0001
91078635|NCT01964716|182043067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage difference|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-4.4|3.5||||||Serotype 19F: Exact 2-sided confidence interval (based on Chan \& Zhang) for the difference in proportions, 13vPnC multidose vial (MDV) - 13vPnC single-dose syringe (SDS), expressed as a percentage was analyzed.||3.5|-4.4|
91075430|NCT05711381|182036889|OTHER|PK parameters of HM15912 from the severe renal impairment group (Cohort 2) were to be estimated and compared to the control group (Cohort 1, normal renal function). A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was to be used to compare log transformed PK parameters. The estimates of mean difference and corresponding 90% CIs, as well as each exponentiation of estimates, were to be presented to provide the estimates of GMR.|Geometric mean ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.59|1.41||||||||1.41|0.59|
91075431|NCT05711381|182036890|OTHER|PK parameters of HM15912 from the severe renal impairment group (Cohort 2) were to be estimated and compared to the control group (Cohort 1, normal renal function). A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was to be used to compare log transformed PK parameters. The estimates of mean difference and corresponding 90% CIs, as well as each exponentiation of estimates, were to be presented to provide the estimates of GMR.|Geometric mean ratio|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|1.68||||||||1.68|0.93|
91075432|NCT02407132|182036892|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038||||||The p-value above reflects results of between-arms analysis of mean change in HbA1c from baseline to immediate post-intervention. 6 months between-arms p-value = 0.139; 12 months between-arms p-value = 0.013. Analyses do not include imputed values.|Linear mixed effects regression|Adjusted for baseline sex, age, education, marital status, employment, use of diabetes medication, and households containing multiple participants.||The outcome variable for these analyses is Change in mean HbA1c from baseline to immediate post-intervention, 6 months post-intervention, and 12 months post-intervention.||||0.038
91075433|NCT02407132|182036893|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.234||||||The p-value above reflects results of between-arms analysis of change in mean BMI from baseline to immediate post-intervention. 6 months between-arms p-value = 0.552; 12 months between-arms p-value = 0.447. Analyses do not include imputed values.|Linear mixed effects regression|Adjusted for baseline sex, age, education, marital status, employment, use of diabetes medication, and households containing multiple participants.||The outcome variable for these analyses is Change in mean BMI from baseline to immediate post-intervention, 6 months post-intervention, and 12 months post-intervention.||||0.234
91075434|NCT02407132|182036894|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019||||||The p-value above reflects results of between-arms analysis of change in mean total chol from baseline to immediate post-intervention. 6 months between-arms p-value=0.598; 12 months between-arms p-value=0.073. Analyses do not include imputed values.|Linear mixed effects regression|Adjusted for baseline sex, age, education, marital status, employment, use of diabetes medication, and households containing multiple participants.||The outcome variable for these analyses is Change in mean Total Cholesterol (mg/dL) from baseline to immediate post-intervention, 6 months post-intervention, and 12 months post-intervention.||||0.019
91075435|NCT02407132|182036895|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.186||||||The p-value above reflects results of between-arms analysis of mean change in HDL from baseline to immediate post-intervention. 6 months between-arms p-value=0.009; 12 months between-arms p-value=0.201. Analyses do not include imputed values.|Linear mixed effects regression|Adjusted for baseline sex, age, education, marital status, employment, use of diabetes medication, and households containing multiple participants.||The outcome variable for these analyses is Change in mean HDL (mg/dL) from baseline to immediate post-intervention, 6 months post-intervention, and 12 months post-intervention.||||0.186
91075436|NCT02407132|182036896|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||The p-value above represents results of analysis of the between-arm changes in probability of performing the self-care behavior from baseline to 12 months post-intervention. Analyses do not include imputed values.|Mixed effects logistic regression|Adjusted for baseline sex, age, education, marital status, employment, use of diabetes medication, and households containing multiple participants.||To facilitate interpretation of regression coefficients, estimates obtained in the logit scale (log odds) were transformed into probability scale.||||0.040
91075437|NCT02407132|182036897|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.312||||||The p-value above represents results of analysis of the between-arm changes in probability of performing the self-care behavior from baseline to 12 months post-intervention. Analyses do not include imputed values.|Mixed Effects Logistic Regression|Adjusted for baseline sex, age, education, marital status, employment, use of diabetes medication, and households containing multiple participants.||To facilitate interpretation of regression coefficients, estimates obtained in the logit scale (log odds) were transformed into probability scale.||||0.312
91075438|NCT02407132|182036898|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.622||||||The p-value above represents results of analysis of the between-arm changes in probability of performing the self-care behavior from baseline to 12 months post-intervention. Analyses do not include imputed values.|Mixed effects logistic regression|Adjusted for baseline sex, age, education, marital status, employment, use of diabetes medication, and households containing multiple participants.||To facilitate interpretation of regression coefficients, estimates obtained in the logit scale (log odds) were transformed into probability scale.||||0.622
90827804|NCT01332994|181530570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8693|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Double-negative B-cells||||0.8693
90827805|NCT01332994|181530570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9564|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Plasmablasts||||0.9564
90827806|NCT01332994|181530571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9993|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 16, Naive B-cell compartment||||0.9993
90827807|NCT01332994|181530571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3596|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 16, Transitional B-cells||||0.3596
90827808|NCT01332994|181530571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7435|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 16, Naive B-cells||||0.7435
90827809|NCT01332994|181530571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7671|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 16, Memory B-cells||||0.7671
90827810|NCT01332994|181530571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7912|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 16, Pre-switch memory B-cells||||0.7912
91075439|NCT02407132|182036899|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.957||||||The p-value above represents results of analysis of the between-arm changes in probability of performing the self-care behavior from baseline to 12 months post-intervention. Analyses do not include imputed values.|Mixed effects logistic regression|Adjusted for baseline sex, age, education, marital status, employment, use of diabetes medication, and households containing multiple participants.||To facilitate interpretation of regression coefficients, estimates obtained in the logit scale (log odds) were transformed into probability scale.||||0.957
91075440|NCT02407132|182036900|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.147||||||The p-value above represents results of analysis of the between-arm changes in probability of performing the self-care behavior from baseline to 12 months post-intervention. Analyses do not include imputed values.|Mixed effects logistic regression|Adjusted for baseline sex, age, education, marital status, employment, use of diabetes medication, and households containing multiple participants.||To facilitate interpretation of regression coefficients, estimates obtained in the logit scale (log odds) were transformed into probability scale.||||0.147
91075441|NCT02407132|182036901|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.326||||||The p-value above represents results of analysis of the between-arm changes in probability of performing the self-care behavior from baseline to 12 months post-intervention. Analyses do not include imputed values.|Mixed effects logistic regression|Adjusted for baseline sex, age, education, marital status, employment, use of diabetes medication, and households containing multiple participants.||To facilitate interpretation of regression coefficients, estimates obtained in the logit scale (log odds) were transformed into probability scale.||||0.326
91075442|NCT01458951|182036912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage difference|13.0||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.1|17.9|||CMH Chi-square Test|||P-value based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel (CMH) chi-square test stratified by prior treatment with anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF), steroid use at baseline and geographic region. Percentage difference and its 95% CI was based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using non-responder imputation (NRI).||17.9|8.1|0.0005
91075443|NCT01458951|182036913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage difference|16.8||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.5|24.1|||CMH Chi-square Test|||P-value was based on CMH chi-square test stratified by prior treatment with anti-TNF, steroid use at baseline and geographic region. Percentage difference and its 95% CI was based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||24.1|9.5|0.0002
91075444|NCT01458951|182036914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage difference|26.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.8|36.0|||CMH Chi-square Test|||P-value was based on CMH chi-square test stratified by prior treatment with anti-TNF, steroid use at baseline and geographic region. Percentage difference and its 95% CI was based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||36.0|16.8|<0.0001
91075445|NCT01458951|182036915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage difference|5.2||||0.0425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|8.6|||CMH Chi-square Test|||P-value was based on CMH chi-square test stratified by prior treatment with anti-TNF, steroid use at baseline and geographic region. Percentage difference and its 95% CI was based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||8.6|1.8|0.0425
91075446|NCT01458951|182036916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|13.2||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.3|18.1|||CMH Chi-square Test|||P-value was based on CMH chi-square test stratified by prior treatment with anti-TNF, steroid use at baseline and geographic region. Difference in its percentage and its 95% CI was based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||18.1|8.3|0.0004
91075447|NCT01458951|182036917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage difference|8.0||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|12.2|||CMH Chi-square Test|||P-value was based on CMH chi-square test stratified by prior treatment with anti-TNF, steroid use at baseline and geographic region. Percentage difference and its 95% CI was based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||12.2|3.9|0.0090
91075448|NCT01458951|182036918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage difference|3.3||||0.1408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|6.6|||CMH Chi-square Test|||P-value was based on CMH chi-square test stratified by prior treatment with anti-TNF, steroid use at baseline and geographic region. Percentage difference and its 95% CI was based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||6.6|0.1|0.1408
91075449|NCT01458951|182036920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 2: The change from baseline was analyzed using mixed effect model with treatment group, prior treatment with antiTNF, steroid use at baseline, geographic region, visit and visit by treatment group all as fixed effects, and subjects as a random effect.||-0.6|-1.4|<0.0001
90827811|NCT01332994|181530571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5595|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 16, Post-switch memory B-cells||||0.5595
91075450|NCT01458951|182036920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 4: The change from baseline was analyzed using mixed effect model with treatment group, prior treatment with antiTNF, steroid use at baseline, geographic region, visit and visit by treatment group all as fixed effects, and subjects as a random effect.||-0.7|-1.6|<0.0001
91075451|NCT01458951|182036920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 8: The change from baseline was analyzed using mixed effect model with treatment group, prior treatment with antiTNF, steroid use at baseline, geographic region, visit and visit by treatment group all as fixed effects, and subjects as a random effect.||-0.9|-1.7|<0.0001
91075452|NCT01458951|182036921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-1.0|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline at Week 8 was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group, prior treatment with anti-TNF, steroid use at baseline and geographic region as factors and baseline as a covariate based on the observed-case data.||-1.0|-2.2|<0.0001
91075453|NCT00585013|182036922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value applies to all time points for all variables.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
91075454|NCT00585013|182036923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||This applies for measurements at preoperative and 0 h time points.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
91075455|NCT00585013|182036923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||This applies to measurements at time points 12 h, 24 h, and 48 h.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91075456|NCT00585013|182036924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||This applies to measurements at preoperative, 0 h, and 48 h time points.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
91075457|NCT00585013|182036924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||This applies to time points at 12 h and 24 h.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
91075458|NCT00585013|182036925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Applies to all time points.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
91075459|NCT01846221|182036927|OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.38
91075460|NCT04076059|182036960|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.076|0.222|||Log Rank||Stratified by volume of disease (low vs high) and prior docetaxel use (yes vs no) during screening period.|||0.222|0.076|<0.0001
91075461|NCT04076059|182036961|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.196|0.556|||Log Rank|Stratified by volume of disease (low vs high) and prior docetaxel use (yes vs no) during screening period.||||0.556|0.196|<0.0001
91075462|NCT04076059|182036962|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.789||||0.7279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.208|2.998|||Log Rank|Stratified by volume of disease (low vs high) and prior docetaxel use (yes vs no) during screening period.||||2.998|0.208|0.7279
91075463|NCT04076059|182036963|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.172|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.107|0.276|||Log Rank|Stratified by volume of disease (low vs high) and prior docetaxel use (yes vs no) during screening period.||||0.276|0.107|<0.0001
90827812|NCT01332994|181530571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3817|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 16, IgG-positive class-switched B-cells||||0.3817
90827813|NCT01332994|181530571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3623|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 16, IgA-positive class-switched B-cells||||0.3623
91075464|NCT04076059|182036964|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by volume of disease and previous docetaxel use during screening period. Parameter estimate: Difference in percentage||||||0.0036
91075465|NCT04076059|182036965|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by volume of disease and previous docetaxel use during screening period. Parameter estimate: Difference in percentage||||||<0.0001
91075466|NCT04076059|182036966|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.797||||0.5899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.819|||Log Rank|Stratified by volume of disease (low vs high) and prior docetaxel use (yes vs no) during screening period.||||1.819|0.350|0.5899
90827814|NCT01332994|181530571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7108|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 16, Double-negative B-cells||||0.7108
91075467|NCT04076059|182036967|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|53.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.1|66.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by volume of disease and previous docetaxel use during screening period. Parameter estimate: Difference in percentage||||66.9|40.1|<0.0001
91075468|NCT04076059|182036968|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|-5.2||||0.8312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.4|14.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by volume of disease and previous docetaxel use during screening period. Parameter estimate: Difference in percentage||||14.9|-25.4|0.8312
91075469|NCT04186806|182036969|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin was 1.5 cm|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3426|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2601|0.5749||The conclusion of the non-inferiority test is based on the 95% confidence interval and not on a p value. A p value was not computed.|Mixed Models Analysis||Non-inferiority testing was carried out using 95% confidence intervals.|||0.5749|-1.2601|
91075470|NCT02720744|182037028|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.52|8.75||Each outcome measure for the 9.0 g, 7.5 g, and 6.0 g doses were tested at the 2-sided α level of 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|P-values were estimated using an MMRM with change from baseline (or its log transformation).|Difference from placebo was defined by the FT218 mean value minus placebo value.|||8.75|3.52|<0.001
91075471|NCT02720744|182037029|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.76|11.23||Each outcome measure for the 9.0 g, 7.5 g, and 6.0 g doses were tested at the 2-sided α level of 0.05.|GLIMMIX model|P-values estimated with categorized CGI-Improvement response (very much or much improved versus other category) at the specific visit.||||11.23|2.76|<0.001
91075472|NCT02720744|182037030|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.32|-3.98||Each outcome measure for the 9.0 g, 7.5 g, and 6.0 g doses were tested at the 2-sided α level of 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|P-values were estimated using an MMRM with change from baseline to the end of the respective treatment period.||||-3.98|-9.32|<0.001
91075473|NCT01892085|182037059|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015|||||||Marginalized two part model|||||||0.015
91075474|NCT01892085|182037059|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.339|||||||Marginalized two part model|||||||0.339
91075475|NCT01892085|182037060|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024|||||||Marginalized two part model|||||||0.024
91075476|NCT01892085|182037060|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.317|||||||Marginalized two part model|||||||0.317
91075477|NCT01892085|182037061|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.031|||||||Marginalized two part model|||||||0.031
91075478|NCT01892085|182037061|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.298|||||||Marginalized two part model|||||||0.298
91075479|NCT01892085|182037062|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Marginalized two part model|||||||0.05
91075480|NCT01892085|182037062|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||Marginalized 2 part model|||||||0.27
91075481|NCT01892085|182037063|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.069|||||||Marginalized two part model|||||||0.069
91075482|NCT01892085|182037063|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.244|||||||Marginalized two part model|||||||0.244
91075483|NCT01892085|182037064|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.094|||||||Marginalized two part model|||||||0.094
91075484|NCT01892085|182037064|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.235|||||||Marginalized 2 part model|||||||0.235
91075485|NCT01892085|182037065|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.123|||||||Marginalized two part model|||||||0.123
91075486|NCT01892085|182037065|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||Marginalized two part model|||||||0.210
91075487|NCT01892085|182037066|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.143|||||||Marginalized two part model|||||||0.143
91075488|NCT01892085|182037066|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.196|||||||Marginalized two part model|||||||0.196
91075489|NCT01892085|182037067|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.185|||||||Marginalized two part model|||||||0.185
91075490|NCT01892085|182037067|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.183|||||||Marginalized two part model|||||||0.183
91075491|NCT01892085|182037068|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.229|||||||Marginalized two part model|||||||0.229
91075492|NCT01892085|182037068|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Marginalized two part model|||||||0.170
91075493|NCT01892085|182037069|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.314|||||||Marginalized two part model|||||||0.314
91075494|NCT01892085|182037069|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.162|||||||Marginalized two part model|||||||0.162
91075495|NCT01892085|182037070|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.377|||||||Marginalized two part model|||||||0.377
91075496|NCT01892085|182037070|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.149|||||||Marginalized two part model|||||||0.149
91075497|NCT01892085|182037071|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.08
91075498|NCT01892085|182037072|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.82
91075499|NCT01892085|182037073|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||Chi-squared|||||||00.22
91075500|NCT01892085|182037074|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.87
91075501|NCT01892085|182037075|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.27
90827815|NCT01332994|181530571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0639|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 16, Plasmablasts||||0.0639
90827816|NCT01332994|181530571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0186|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 24, Naive B-cell compartment||||0.0186
91075502|NCT01892085|182037076|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.77
91075503|NCT01892085|182037077|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.31
91075504|NCT01892085|182037078|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.90
91075505|NCT01892085|182037079|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.36
91075506|NCT00480493|182037080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.36||0.468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.32|9.24|||t-test, 2 sided||Confidence scores were also compared using random-effect, mixed regression models to determine whether changes over time differed significantly between groups.|A 2 sided t-test was used to determine if the change in Confidence score was significantly different between the groups.||9.24|-4.32|0.468
91075507|NCT00480493|182037081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.05||0.634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.47|25.11|||t-test, 2 sided||Concern scores were also compared using random-effect, mixed regression models to determine whether changes over time differed significantly between groups.|A 2 sided t-test was used to determine if there were significant differences in Concern between the two groups at 12 months.||25.11|-15.47|0.634
91075508|NCT00480493|182037082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.12||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.76|3.8|||t-test, 2 sided||We also used a random-effect, mixed regression models to look for between group changes over time.|The difference in the Worry score at 12 months was compared between the groups using a 2 sided t-test.||3.80|-8.76|0.430
91075509|NCT01683422|182037105|SUPERIORITY|The reported p-value was calculated, and is not attempting to indicate the threshold for statistical significance.||||||0.1|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||In the RTOG 9812 (NCT00003591) for unresectable pancreatic cancer, a one-year survival rate of 43% was observed. There were 109 analyzable patients on NCT00003591 with 61 still at risk for death at one year. Using the method of Dixon and Simon, a sample size of 39 analyzable patients followed over 12 months will ensure at least 90% probability of detecting a minimum of 17% improvement in the one-year survival rate compared to NCT00003591 at the 0.10 significance level (with a one-sided test).||||0.1
91075510|NCT02945254|182037111|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011||||||P\<0.05 considered statistically significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.011
91075511|NCT02945254|182037112|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13||||||P\<0.05 considered statistically significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.13
91075512|NCT00783224|182037113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0001
91075513|NCT00783224|182037113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0001
91075514|NCT01711619|182037114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Nominal alpha of 4% was predefined for the final analysis.|Fisher Exact|||Subjects with missing information were considered in the test and computation of the proportion for ITT.||||<0.0001
91075515|NCT01711619|182037115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Nominal alpha of 5% was pre-defined for the final analysis.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.0001
91075516|NCT01711619|182037116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||||||Nominal alpha of 5% was pre-defined for the final analysis.|Fisher Exact|||Subjects with missing information were considered in the test and computation for ITT.||||0.0002
91075517|NCT01711619|182037117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Nominal alpha of 5% was pre-defined for the final analysis.|Fisher Exact|||Subjects with missing information were considered in the test and computation for ITT.||||<0.0001
91075518|NCT03422159|182037118|NON_INFERIORITY|Based on the results of the preliminary study of Marik et al, 5 we projected that the combination of ascorbic acid, thiamine, and hydrocortisone could reduce time to vasopressor discontinuation from 54 (+/-30 hours) vs 30 hours. For the additional primary outcome, we projected a greater change of SOFA score of 4 (+/-3) vs 2. Assuming a type 1 error of 5% (alpha of 0.05) and a power of 80%, this study would require a sample size of 94 patients.|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
91075519|NCT01432275|182037152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Binomial test|Comparison to 27 participants that preferred their usual method to FreeStyle InsuLinx. Twelve(12) participants did not have a preference.||||||<0.0001
91075520|NCT01935700|182037160|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was defined as no statistically significant difference (P value \> 0.05) in median survival between the colchicine group and the sorafenib treated group.||||||0.4593|||||||Mann-Whitney U test|||||||0.4593
91075521|NCT01935700|182037160|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was defined as no statistically significant difference (P value \> 0.05) in survival between the colchicine group and the sorafenib treated group.||||||0.329|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.3290
91075522|NCT01935700|182037161|EQUIVALENCE|The threshold for statistically significant difference in incidence was P = 0.05.||||||0.0552||||||The threshold for statistically significant difference in incidence was P = 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Comparison the incidence of grade III adverse event of pneumonia between two groups||||0.0552
91075523|NCT01935700|182037161|EQUIVALENCE|The threshold for statistically significant difference in incidence was P = 0.05.||||||0.0184||||||The threshold for statistically significant difference in incidence was P = 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Comparison the incidence of grade III adverse event of biliary tract obstruction between two groups||||0.0184
91075524|NCT01935700|182037161|EQUIVALENCE|The threshold for statistically significant difference in incidence was P = 0.05.||||||0.0931||||||The threshold for statistically significant difference in incidence was P = 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Comparison the incidence of grade III adverse event of cholangitis between two groups||||0.0931
91075525|NCT01935700|182037161|EQUIVALENCE|The threshold for statistically significant difference in incidence was P = 0.05.||||||0.0506||||||The threshold for statistically significant difference in incidence was P = 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Comparison the incidence of grade III adverse event of peritonitis between two groups||||0.0506
91075526|NCT01935700|182037161|EQUIVALENCE|The threshold for statistically significant difference in incidence was P = 0.05.||||||1||||||The threshold for statistically significant difference in incidence was P = 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Comparison the incidence of grade III adverse event of sepsis between two groups||||1
91075527|NCT01935700|182037161|EQUIVALENCE|The threshold for statistically significant difference in incidence was P = 0.05.||||||0.5374||||||The threshold for statistically significant difference in incidence was P = 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Comparison the incidence of grade III adverse event of diarrhea between two groups||||0.5374
91075528|NCT01935700|182037161|EQUIVALENCE|The threshold for statistically significant difference in incidence was P = 0.05.||||||0.14||||||The threshold for statistically significant difference in incidence was P = 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Comparison the incidence of grade III adverse event of anorexia between two groups||||0.14
91075529|NCT01935700|182037161|EQUIVALENCE|The threshold for statistically significant difference in incidence was P = 0.05.||||||0.4584||||||The threshold for statistically significant difference in incidence was P = 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Comparison the incidence of grade III adverse event of abdominal pain between two groups||||0.4584
91075530|NCT01935700|182037161|EQUIVALENCE|The threshold for statistically significant difference in incidence was P = 0.05.||||||1||||||The threshold for statistically significant difference in incidence was P = 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Comparison the incidence of grade III adverse event of skin rash between two groups||||1
91075531|NCT01935700|182037161|EQUIVALENCE|The threshold for statistically significant difference in incidence was P = 0.05.||||||1||||||The threshold for statistically significant difference in incidence was P = 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Comparison the incidence of grade III adverse event of palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome between two groups||||1
91075532|NCT01935700|182037161|EQUIVALENCE|The threshold for statistically significant difference in incidence was P = 0.05.||||||1||||||The threshold for statistically significant difference in incidence was P = 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Comparison the incidence of grade III adverse event of hypertension between two groups||||1
91075533|NCT01935700|182037161|EQUIVALENCE|The threshold for statistically significant difference in incidence was P = 0.05.||||||0.5958||||||The threshold for statistically significant difference in incidence was P = 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Comparison the incidence of grade III adverse event of hemorrhage between two groups||||0.5958
91075534|NCT01935700|182037161|EQUIVALENCE|The threshold for statistically significant difference in incidence was P = 0.05.||||||0.14||||||The threshold for statistically significant difference in incidence was P = 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Comparison the incidence of grade III adverse event of hypoglycemia between two groups||||0.14
91075535|NCT01935700|182037161|EQUIVALENCE|The threshold for statistically significant difference in incidence was P = 0.05.||||||1||||||The threshold for statistically significant difference in incidence was P = 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Comparison the incidence of grade III adverse event of hyperglycemia between two groups||||1
91075536|NCT01935700|182037161|EQUIVALENCE|The threshold for statistically significant difference in incidence was P = 0.05.||||||1||||||The threshold for statistically significant difference in incidence was P = 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Comparison the incidence of grade III adverse event of hypocalcemia between two groups||||1
91075537|NCT01935700|182037161|EQUIVALENCE|The threshold for statistically significant difference in incidence was P = 0.05.||||||1||||||The threshold for statistically significant difference in incidence was P = 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Comparison the incidence of grade III adverse event of pleural effusion between two groups||||1
91075538|NCT00475878|182037167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.24|||Chi-squared|||||1.24|.33|.19
91075539|NCT00475878|182037168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.16||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.79|5.84|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.84|-2.79|.18
91075540|NCT01225289|182037189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
91075541|NCT01162122|182037193|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 95% CIs of GMT ratios for the pairwise lot-to-lot group comparisons should fall within the equivalence range of 0.67 to 1.5.|GMT ratio (H1N1 strain)|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.24||||||||1.24|1|
91075542|NCT01162122|182037193|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 95% CIs of GMT ratios for the pairwise lot-to-lot group comparisons should fall within the equivalence range of 0.67 to 1.5.|GMT ratio (H1N1 strain)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.17||||||||1.17|0.95|
91075543|NCT01162122|182037193|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 95% CIs of GMT ratios for the pairwise lot-to-lot group comparisons should fall within the equivalence range of 0.67 to 1.5.|GMT ratio (H1N1 strain)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.05||||||||1.05|0.85|
91075544|NCT01162122|182037193|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 95% CIs of GMT ratios for the pairwise lot-to-lot group comparisons should fall within the equivalence range of 0.67 to 1.5.|GMT ratio (H3N2 strain)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.11||||||||1.11|0.92|
91075545|NCT01162122|182037193|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 95% CIs of GMT ratios for the pairwise lot-to-lot group comparisons should fall within the equivalence range of 0.67 to 1.5.|GMT ratio (H3N2 strain)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.08||||||||1.08|0.9|
91075546|NCT01162122|182037193|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 95% CIs of GMT ratios for the pairwise lot-to-lot group comparisons should fall within the equivalence range of 0.67 to 1.5.|GMT ratio (H3N2 strain)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.07||||||||1.07|0.89|
91075547|NCT01162122|182037193|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 95% CIs of GMT ratios for the pairwise lot-to-lot group comparisons should fall within the equivalence range of 0.67 to 1.5.|GMT ratio (B strain)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.1||||||||1.1|0.91|
91075548|NCT01162122|182037193|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 95% CIs of GMT ratios for the pairwise lot-to-lot group comparisons should fall within the equivalence range of 0.67 to 1.5.|GMT ratio (B strain)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.05||||||||1.05|0.87|
91075549|NCT01162122|182037193|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 95% CIs of GMT ratios for the pairwise lot-to-lot group comparisons should fall within the equivalence range of 0.67 to 1.5.|GMT ratio (B strain)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.05||||||||1.05|0.87|
91075550|NCT01162122|182037194|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 vaccine group GMT ratios for all 3 homologous strains was \>0.67.|GMT ratio (H1N1 strain)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|1.49||||||||1.49|1.32|
91075551|NCT01162122|182037194|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 vaccine group GMT ratios for all 3 homologous strains was \>0.67.|GMT ratio (H3N2 strain)|1.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|1.7||||||||1.7|1.52|
91075552|NCT01162122|182037194|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 vaccine group GMT ratios for all 3 homologous strains was \>0.67.|GMT ratio (B strain)|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.21||||||||1.21|1.08|
91075553|NCT01162122|182037195|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 differences in seroconversion rates for all 3 homologous strains was ≥-10%.|Group difference (H1N1 strain)|9.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.1|11.3||||||||11.3|7.1|
91075554|NCT01162122|182037195|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 differences in seroconversion rates for all 3 homologous strains was ≥-10%.|Group difference (H3N2 strain)|12.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.5|14.9||||||||14.9|10.5|
91075555|NCT01162122|182037195|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 differences in seroconversion rates for all 3 homologous strains was ≥-10%.|Group difference (B strain)|5.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|7.4||||||||7.4|3.0|
91075556|NCT01162122|182037196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio (H1N1 strain)|1.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|1.46||||||Superiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 vaccine group GMT ratios for at least 2 homologous strains was \>1.5.||1.46|1.29|
91075557|NCT01162122|182037196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio (H3N2 strain)|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|1.68||||||Superiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 vaccine group GMT ratios for at least 2 homologous strains was \>1.5.||1.68|1.51|
90827817|NCT01332994|181530571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 24, Transitional B-cells||||0.0050
90827818|NCT01332994|181530571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0463|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 24, Naive B-cells||||0.0463
90827819|NCT01332994|181530571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1919|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 24, Memory B-cells||||0.1919
91075558|NCT01162122|182037196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio (B strain)|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.2||||||Superiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 vaccine group GMT ratios for at least 2 homologous strains was \>1.5.||1.2|1.08|
91075559|NCT01162122|182037197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Group difference (H1N1 strain)|8.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|10.9||||||Superiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 differences in seroconversion rates for at least 2 homologous strains was \>10%.||10.9|6.9|
91075560|NCT01162122|182037197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Group difference (H3N2 strain)|12.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.6|14.8||||||Superiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 differences in seroconversion rates for at least 2 homologous strains was \>10%.||14.8|10.6|
91075561|NCT01162122|182037197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Group difference (B strain)|5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|7.2||||||Superiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 differences in seroconversion rates for at least 2 homologous strains was \>10%.||7.2|2.9|
91075562|NCT01162122|182037201|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 vaccine group GMT ratios for all 3 homologous strains was \>0.67.|GMT ratio (H1N1 strain)|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|1.52||||||||1.52|1.25|
91075563|NCT01162122|182037201|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 vaccine group GMT ratios for all 3 homologous strains was \>0.67.|GMT ratio (H3N2 strain)|1.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|1.72||||||||1.72|1.44|
91075564|NCT01162122|182037201|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 vaccine group GMT ratios for all 3 homologous strains was \>0.67.|GMT ratio (B strain)|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.21||||||||1.21|1.03|
91075565|NCT01162122|182037202|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 differences in seroconversion rates for all 3 homologous strains was ≥-10%|Group difference (H1N1 strain)|11.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.5|14.6||||||||14.6|7.5|
91075566|NCT01162122|182037202|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 differences in seroconversion rates for all 3 homologous strains was ≥-10%|Group difference (H3N2 strain)|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.8|17.2||||||||17.2|9.8|
91075567|NCT01162122|182037202|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 differences in seroconversion rates for all 3 homologous strains was ≥-10%|Group difference (B strain)|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|8.5||||||||8.5|1.4|
91075568|NCT01162122|182037203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio (H1N1 strain)|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|1.45||||||Superiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 vaccine group GMT ratios for at least 2 homologous strains was \>1.5.||1.45|1.2|
90827820|NCT01332994|181530571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3071|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 24, Pre-switch memory B-cells||||0.3071
91075569|NCT01162122|182037203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio (H3N2 strain)|1.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|1.68||||||Superiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 vaccine group GMT ratios for at least 2 homologous strains was \>1.5.||1.68|1.42|
91075570|NCT01162122|182037203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio (B strain)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.21||||||Superiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 vaccine group GMT ratios for at least 2 homologous strains was \>1.5.||1.21|1.03|
91075571|NCT01162122|182037207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Group difference (H1N1 strain)|9.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.4|13.3||||||Superiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 differences in seroconversion rates for at least 2 homologous strains was \>10%.||13.3|6.4|
91075572|NCT01162122|182037207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Group difference (H3N2 strain)|13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.5|16.6||||||Superiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 differences in seroconversion rates for at least 2 homologous strains was \>10%.||16.6|9.5|
91075573|NCT01162122|182037207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Group difference (B strain)|4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|8.3||||||Superiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 differences in seroconversion rates for at least 2 homologous strains was \>10%.||8.3|1.5|
91075574|NCT01162122|182037208|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 vaccine group GMT ratios for all 3 heterologous strains was \>0.67.|GMT Ratio (H3N2/Brisbane-overall)|1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|1.63||||||||1.63|1.29|
91075575|NCT01162122|182037208|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 vaccine group GMT ratios for all 3 heterologous strains was \>0.67.|GMT Ratio (H3N2/Wisconsin-overall)|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|1.5||||||||1.5|1.23|
91075576|NCT01162122|182037208|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 vaccine group GMT ratios for all 3 heterologous strains was ≥0.67.|GMT Ratio (B strain-overall)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.21||||||||1.21|0.98|
91075577|NCT01162122|182037208|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 vaccine group GMT ratios for all 3 heterologous strains was \>0.67.|GMT Ratio(H3N2/Brisbane-high risk group)|1.35||||||95.0|1.13|1.61||||||||1.61|1.13|
91075578|NCT01162122|182037208|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 vaccine group GMT ratios for all 3 heterologous strains was \>0.67.|GMT Ratio(H3N2/Wisconsin-high risk group|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.5||||||||1.5|1.1|
91075579|NCT01162122|182037208|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 vaccine group GMT ratios for all 3 heterologous strains was \>0.67.|GMT Ratio (B strain-high risk group)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.3||||||||1.3|0.95|
91075580|NCT01162122|182037209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio (H3N2/Brisbane-overall)|1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|1.67||||||Superiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 vaccine group GMT ratios for at least 2 heterologous strains was \>1.5.||1.67|1.33|
91075581|NCT01162122|182037209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio(H3N2/Wisconsin-overall)|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|1.52||||||Superiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 vaccine group GMT ratios for at least 2 heterologous strains was \>1.5.||1.52|1.25|
91075582|NCT01162122|182037209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio (B strain-overall)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.21||||||Superiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 vaccine group GMT ratios for at least 2 heterologous strains was \>1.5.||1.21|0.99|
91075583|NCT01162122|182037209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio (H3N2/Brisbane-high risk)|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|1.61||||||Superiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 vaccine group GMT ratios for at least 2 heterologous strains was \>1.5.||1.61|1.15|
91075584|NCT01162122|182037209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio(H3N2/Wisconsin-high risk)|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.48||||||Superiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 vaccine group GMT ratios for at least 2 heterologous strains was \>1.5.||1.48|1.1|
91075585|NCT01162122|182037209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio (B strain-high risk)|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.31||||||Superiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 vaccine group GMT ratios for at least 2 heterologous strains was \>1.5.||1.31|0.97|
91075586|NCT01162122|182037210|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 differences in seroconversion rates for all 3 heterologous strains was ≥-10%.|Group difference (H3N2/Brisbane-overall)|11.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.7|15.9||||||||15.9|6.7|
91075587|NCT01162122|182037210|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 differences in seroconversion rates for all 3 heterologous strains was ≥-10%.|Group difference(H3N2/Wisconsin-overall)|11.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.3|16.6||||||||16.6|7.3|
91075588|NCT01162122|182037210|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 differences in seroconversion rates for all 3 homologous strains was ≥-10%.|Slope|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|8.4||||||||8.4|-0.4|
91075589|NCT01162122|182037210|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 differences in seroconversion rates for all 3 heterologous strains was ≥-10%.|Group difference(H3N2/Brisbane-high risk|12.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.8|19.9||||||||19.9|4.8|
91075590|NCT01162122|182037210|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 differences in seroconversion rates for all 3 homologous strains was ≥-10%.|Group difference(H3N2Wisconsin-high risk|12.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|20.2||||||||20.2|5.0|
91075591|NCT01162122|182037210|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 differences in seroconversion rates for all 3 heterologous strains was ≥-10%.|Group difference (B strain-high risk)|4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|11.8||||||||11.8|-2.1|
91075592|NCT01162122|182037211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Group difference (H3N2/Brisbane-overall)|12.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.1|16.9||||||Superiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 differences in seroconversion rates for at least 2 heterologous strains was \>10%.||16.9|8.1|
91075593|NCT01162122|182037211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Group difference(H3N2/Wisconsin-overall)|12.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.1|17.1||||||Superiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 differences in seroconversion rates for at least 2 heterologous strains was \>10%.||17.1|8.1|
91075594|NCT01162122|182037211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Group difference (B strain-overall)|4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|8.8||||||Superiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 differences in seroconversion rates for at least 2 heterologous strains was \>10%.||8.8|0.4|
91075595|NCT01162122|182037211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Group difference(H3N2/Brisbane-high risk|12.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.2|19.6||||||Superiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 differences in seroconversion rates for at least 2 heterologous strains was \>10%.||19.6|5.2|
91075596|NCT01162122|182037211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Group difference(H3N2/Wisconsin-highrisk|13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.8|20.3||||||Superiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 differences in seroconversion rates for at least 2 heterologous strains was \>10%.||20.3|5.8|
91075597|NCT01162122|182037211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Group difference (B strain-high risk)|5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|11.8||||||Superiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 differences in seroconversion rates for at least 2 heterologous strains was \>10%.||11.8|-1.6|
91075598|NCT02419612|182037228|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for for treatment, baseline HbA1c, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline HbA1c-by-visit interaction.||||-0.18|-0.57|<0.001
91075599|NCT02419612|182037229|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.397|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.84|-3.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for for treatment, baseline body weight, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline body weight-by-visit interaction.||||-3.28|-4.84|<0.001
91075600|NCT02419612|182037230|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.044||95.0|1.01|2.29|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline HbA1c value||||2.29|1.01|0.044
91075601|NCT02419612|182037231|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.35||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|-1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for treatment, baseline SBP, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline SBP-by-visit interaction||||-1.0|-6.3|0.007
91075602|NCT02419612|182037232|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.15||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.5||This endpoint did not meet the required number of events (n=10) in each treatment arm, hence was excluded from sequential testing.|Regression, Cox Proportional Hazards|||Time to treatment intensification was analyzed using a Cox proportional hazards model.||0.50|0.04|0.002
91075603|NCT02419612|182037233|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.68|||Regression, Cox Proportional Hazards|||Time to treatment intensification was analyzed using a Cox proportional hazards model.||0.68|0.39|<0.001
91075604|NCT02419612|182037234|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|3.42|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline HbA1c value.||||3.42|1.23|0.006
91075605|NCT02419612|182037235|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.68|||Regression, Cox Proportional Hazards|||||0.68|0.39|<0.001
91075606|NCT02135107|182037240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|P-value was calculated using chi-square test at two-sided significance level of alpha = 0.05.||||||<0.001
91075607|NCT02135107|182037241|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|P-value was calculated using chi-square test at a two-sided significance level of alpha = 0.05.||Comparison at Week 12||||<0.001
91075608|NCT02135107|182037241|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|P-value was calculated using chi-square test at two-sided significance level of alpha = 0.05.||Comparison at Week 24||||<0.001
91075609|NCT02135107|182037242|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.49|||Log Rank|||||0.49|0.23|<0.001
91075610|NCT02135107|182037243|SUPERIORITY||Group difference|-15.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.5|-6.8|||Chi-squared|P-value was calculated using chi-square test at two-sided significance level of alpha = 0.05.|Group difference (percentage of participants) = Arm D (percentage of participants) - Arm C (percentage of participants) 95% CI was calculated based on normal approximation.|||-6.8|-23.5|<0.001
91075611|NCT02135107|182037246|SUPERIORITY||Group difference|0.0|||=|0.992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|3.5||P-value was calculated using chi-square test at two-sided significance level of alpha = 0.05.|Chi-squared||Group difference (percentage of participants) = Arm D (percentage of participants) - Arm C (percentage of participants) 95% CI was calculated based on normal approximation.|||3.5|-3.5|=0.992
91075612|NCT00474045|182037249|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority can only be declared if the non-inferiority criterion was fulfilled for both (FAS and Per-protocol) analysis sets. Non-inferiority was declared if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the estimated treatment difference was below 0.4%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.074||0.4||95.0|-0.21|0.08||P-value for superiority was calculated.|Regression, Linear|Treatment, country, pregnancy (preg.) status at randomisation (random.)-fixed. HbA1c at rand.(covariate) \& at rand. by preg. status (interaction)|Estimated treatment differences for IDet versus NPH at Visit P4 with the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated. Non-inferiority was established but superiority was not established.|Non-inferiority analysis with a null hypothesis stated that the difference between treatments, IDet-NPH, was equal to or larger than the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 0.4%. In case non-inferiority was established it was also investigated if IDet was superior to NPH with a null hypothesis stating that the difference between IDet and NPH treatment groups is equal to or greater than 0.||0.08|-0.21|0.400
91075613|NCT00474045|182037250|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority can only be declared if the non-inferiority criterion was fulfilled for both (FAS and Per-protocol) analysis sets. Non-inferiority was declared if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the estimated treatment difference was below 0.4%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.096||0.122||95.0|-0.34|0.04||P-value for superiority was calculated|Regression, Linear|Treatment, country, preg. status at rand.(fixed factors),HbA1c at rand.(covariate),HbA1c at rand. by preg. status (interaction)|Estimated treatment differences for IDet versus NPH at Visit P4 with the corresponding 95% CI was calculated. Non-inferiority was established but superiority was not established.|Non-inferiority analysis with a null hypothesis stated that the difference between treatments, IDet-NPH, was equal to or larger than the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 0.4%. In case non-inferiority was established it was also investigated if IDet was superior to NPH with a null hypothesis stating that the difference between IDet and NPH treatment groups is equal to or greater than 0.||0.04|-0.34|0.122
91075614|NCT02278120|182037340|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio, log|0.553|||<|1e-07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.441|0.694|||Log Rank|||||0.694|0.441|<0.0000001
91075615|NCT02278120|182037341|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.712||||0.00973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.535|0.948||One-sided stratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||||0.948|0.535|0.00973
91075616|NCT02278120|182037342|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.00098|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.000980
91075617|NCT02278120|182037343|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.002
91075618|NCT02266472|182037350|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based on 2-sided 90% CIs for the ratios (test to reference treatment) of the adjusted gMeans of the primary endpoints, with acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00 %.|ratio of the adjusted means|99.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.4|101.89|||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including random effects for 'subjects within sequences' \& fixed effect for 'sequence', 'period' \& 'treatment'.|Relative bioavailability of empagliflozin was estimated by the adjusted gMean ratio of Fed 10mg+1000mg FDC divided by Fed 10mg+1000mg Single. Standard deviation is actually intraindividual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|||101.89|96.40|<0.0001
91075619|NCT02266472|182037351|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based on 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios (test to reference treatment) of the adjusted geometric means (gMeans) of the primary endpoints,using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00 %.|ratio of the adjusted means|101.25|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.7|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.54|106.19|||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including random effects for 'subjects within sequences' \& fixed effect for 'sequence', 'period' \& 'treatment'.|Relative bioavailability of metformin was estimated by the adjusted gMean ratio of Fed 10mg+1000mg FDC divided by Fed 10mg+1000mg Single. Standard deviation is actually intraindividual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|||106.19|96.54|<0.0001
91075620|NCT02266472|182037352|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based on 2-sided 90% CIs for the ratios (test to reference treatment) of the adjusted gMeans of the primary endpoints, with acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|ratio of the adjusted means|99.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.9|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.69|104.87|||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including random effects for 'subjects within sequences' \& fixed effect for 'sequence', 'period' \& 'treatment'.|Relative bioavailability of empagliflozin was estimated by the adjusted gMean ratio of Fed10mg+1000mg FDC divided by Fed10mg+1000mg Single. Standard deviation is actually intraindividual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|||104.87|93.69|<0.0001
91075621|NCT02266472|182037353|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based on 2-sided 90% CIs for the ratios (test to reference treatment) of the adjusted gMeans of the primary endpoints, with acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|ratio of the adjusted means|108.58|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|104.17|113.17|||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including random effects for 'subjects within sequences' \& fixed effect for 'sequence', 'period' \& 'treatment'.|Relative bioavailability of metformin was estimated by the adjusted gMean ratio of Fed10mg+1000mg FDC divided by Fed10mg+1000mg Single. Standard deviation is actually intraindividual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|||113.17|104.17|<0.0001
91075622|NCT02266472|182037354|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based on 2-sided 90% CIs for the ratios (test to reference treatment) of the adjusted gMeans of the primary endpoints, with acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|ratio of the adjusted means|98.89|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.18|101.67|||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including random effects for 'subjects within sequences' \& fixed effect for 'sequence', 'period' \& 'treatment'.|Relative bioavailability of empagliflozin was estimated by the adjusted gMean ratio of Fed10mg+1000mg FDC divided by Fed10mg+1000mg Single. Standard deviation is actually intraindividual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|||101.67|96.18|
91075623|NCT02266472|182037355|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based on 2-sided 90% CIs for the ratios (test to reference treatment) of the adjusted gMeans of the primary endpoints, with acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|ratio of the adjusted means|101.37|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.53|106.45|||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including random effects for 'subjects within sequences' \& fixed effect for 'sequence', 'period' \& 'treatment'.|Relative bioavailability of metformin was estimated by the adjusted gMean ratio of Fed10mg+1000mg FDC divided by Fed10mg+1000mg Single. Standard deviation is actually intraindividual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|||106.45|96.53|
91075624|NCT00808639|182037357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pathologic response rate|49.0|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|38.0|61.0||||||This study used a Simon's optimal two-stage design. Of 39 eligible patients, if 18 achieved PaR, the treatment would be declared effective. A two-sided 80% CI was estimated considering the two-stage design based on Atkinson and Brown methods.||61|38|
91075625|NCT00224406|182037360|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.022||||0.8541|ONE_SIDED|95.0||50.26|||t-test, 1 sided|||Repeated Measurements Analysis of PaO2/FiO2 ratio corrected for the altitude at 0 and 24hours after ICU admission using a one-sided test excluding missing data. Herein analysis at ICU Admission (Time 0).||50.26||0.8541
91075626|NCT00224406|182037360|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.426||||0.6996|ONE_SIDED|95.0||55.17|||t-test, 1 sided|||Repeated Measurements Analysis of PaO2/FiO2 ratio corrected for the altitude at 0 and 24hours after ICU admission using a one-sided test excluding missing data. Herein analysis at 24 Hours Post ICU Admission.||55.17||0.6996
91075627|NCT00224406|182037361|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.377||||0.8654|ONE_SIDED|95.0||47.15|||t-test, 1 sided|||ICU Admission (Time 0)||47.15||0.8654
91075628|NCT00224406|182037361|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|13.386||||0.6789|ONE_SIDED|95.0||66.91|||t-test, 1 sided|||24 Hours Post ICU Admission||66.91||0.6789
91075629|NCT00224406|182037361|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.968||||0.6345|ONE_SIDED|95.0||49.56|||t-test, 1 sided|||48 Hours Post ICU Admission||49.56||0.6345
91075630|NCT00224406|182037361|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.908||||0.9858|ONE_SIDED|95.0||85.49|||t-test, 1 sided|||72 Hours Post ICU Admission||85.49||0.9858
91075631|NCT00224406|182037362|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.867||||0.7985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.727|11.302|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio is Repertaxin:Placebo ratio of PGD scores 0-2:PGD score 3 odds|Analysis of PGD score was performed separately at time 0, and at 24, 48, 72 hours after ICU admission. Herein analysis at ICU Admission (Time 0). One patient of placebo group is excluded from analysis of PGD score because the cause of graft dysfunction is Cardiogenic pulmonary edema.||11.302|0.727|0.7985
91075632|NCT00224406|182037362|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.837||||0.5606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.226|3.092|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio is Repertaxin:Placebo ratio of PGD scores 0-2:PGD score 3 odds|Analysis of PGD score was performed separately at time 0, and at 24, 48, 72 hours after ICU admission. Herein analysis at 24h post-ICU admission. One patient of placebo group is excluded from analysis of PGD score because the cause of graft dysfunction is Cardiogenic pulmonary edema.||3.092|0.226|0.5606
91075633|NCT00224406|182037362|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.716||||0.8786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.531|5.552|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio is Repertaxin:Placebo ratio of PGD scores 0-2:PGD score 3 odds|Analysis of PGD score was performed separately at time 0, and at 24, 48, 72 hours after ICU admission. Herein analysis at 48h post-ICU admission. One patient of placebo group is excluded from analysis of PGD score because the cause of graft dysfunction is Cardiogenic pulmonary edema.||5.552|0.531|0.8786
91075634|NCT00224406|182037362|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.337||||0.8499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.352|5.072|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio is Repertaxin:Placebo ratio of PGD scores 0-2:PGD score 3 odds|Analysis of PGD score was performed separately at time 0, and at 24, 48, 72 hours after ICU admission. Herein analysis at 72h post-ICU admission. One patient of placebo group is excluded from analysis of PGD score because the cause of graft dysfunction is Cardiogenic pulmonary edema.||5.072|0.352|0.8499
91075635|NCT00224406|182037363|SUPERIORITY|at 24 hrs from mechanical ventilation|difference in event probability|0.0091||||0.7076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1867|0.2049|||Log Rank|||||0.2049|-0.1867|0.7076
91075636|NCT00224406|182037363|SUPERIORITY||difference in event probability|-0.0316||||0.7076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2092|0.146|||Log Rank|||at 48 hrs from mechanical ventilation||0.1460|-0.2092|0.7076
91075637|NCT00224406|182037363|SUPERIORITY||difference in event probability|-0.0661||||0.7076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2314|0.0993|||Log Rank|||at 72 hrs from mechanical ventilation||0.0993|-0.2314|0.7076
91075638|NCT00224406|182037364|SUPERIORITY||Difference in event probability|-0.0364||||0.9632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0858|0.0131|||Log Rank|||Analysis at 24 hours||0.0131|-0.0858|0.9632
91075639|NCT00224406|182037364|SUPERIORITY||Difference in event probability|0.0352||||0.9632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1458|0.2162|||Log Rank|||Analysis at 48 h||0.2162|-0.1458|0.9632
91075640|NCT00224406|182037364|SUPERIORITY||Difference in event probability|-0.0179||||0.9632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2143|0.1785|||Log Rank|||analysis at 72 h||0.1785|-0.2143|0.9632
91075641|NCT00224406|182037369|SUPERIORITY||Difference in event probability|-0.0566||||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1188|0.0056|||Log Rank|||Herein analysis up to month 3 was reported.||0.0056|-0.1188|0.0111
91075642|NCT00224406|182037369|SUPERIORITY||Difference in event probability|-0.0943||||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.173|-0.0156|||Log Rank|||Herein analysis up to month 6 was reported.||-0.0156|-0.1730|0.0111
91075643|NCT00224406|182037369|SUPERIORITY||Difference in event probability|-0.1132||||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1985|-0.0279|||Log Rank|||Herein analysis up to month 9 was reported.||-0.0279|-0.1985|0.0111
91075644|NCT00224406|182037369|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.1334||||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2254|-0.0413|||Log Rank|||Herein analysis up to month 12 was reported.||-0.0413|-0.2254|0.0111
91075645|NCT01010009|182037372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Data was analysed by omnibus ANOVA with a priori planned comparisons utilizing the mean squares error term from this ANOVA.||||>0.05
91075646|NCT01010009|182037372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Data was analysed by omnibus ANOVA with a priori planned comparisons utilizing the mean squares error term from this ANOVA.||||<0.05
91075647|NCT01010009|182037373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Performance on each cognitive task was assessed via omnibus ANOVA with a priori planned comparisons.||||>0.05
91075648|NCT01010009|182037373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Performance on each cognitive task was assessed via omnibus ANOVA with a priori planned comparisons.||||>0.05
91075649|NCT01010009|182037374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||An omnibus ANOVA was carried out with a priori planned comparisons using the mean squares error term from this ANOVA.||||<0.05
91075650|NCT01010009|182037374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||An omnibus ANOVA was carried out with a priori planned comparisons using the mean squares error term from this ANOVA.||||<0.05
91075651|NCT04676412|182037379|OTHER|Percent difference and 95% CI were calculated using Miettinen and Nurminen method with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 versus 1), geographic region of the enrolling site (East Asia versus non-East Asia), and baseline PD-L1 status (1-49% versus ≥50%).|Difference in percentage|-8.4||||0.79262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.4|11.9|||Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen|One-sided p-value for testing. H0: difference in percentage =0 versus H1: difference in percentage \> 0||||11.9|-27.4|0.79262
91075652|NCT04676412|182037382|OTHER|Difference in LS means and 95% CI were calculated using the Constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction \& stratified by ECOG performance status (0 versus 1) and baseline PD-L1 Status (1% to 49% versus \>=50%).|Difference in Least Square (LS) Means|-0.25||||0.9519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.59|8.09|||cLDA model|Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction; stratified by ECOG and baseline PDL-1.||||8.09|-8.59|0.9519
91075653|NCT04676412|182037383|OTHER|Difference in LS means and 95% CI were calculated using the cLDA model with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction \& stratified by ECOG performance status (0 versus 1) and baseline PD-L1 Status (1% to 49% versus \>=50%).|Difference in LS Means|8.81||||0.0628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|18.11|||cLDA model|Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction; stratified by ECOG and baseline PDL-1.||||18.11|-0.49|0.0628
91075654|NCT04676412|182037384|OTHER|Difference in LS means and 95% CI were calculated using the cLDA model with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction \& stratified by ECOG performance status (0 versus 1) and baseline PD-L1 Status (1% to 49% versus \>=50%).|Difference in LS Means|3.59||||0.3298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|10.87|||cLDA model|Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction; stratified by ECOG and baseline PDL-1.||||10.87|-3.70|0.3298
91075655|NCT04676412|182037385|OTHER|Difference in LS means and 95% CI were calculated using the cLDA model with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction \& stratified by ECOG performance status (0 versus 1) and baseline PD-L1 Status (1% to 49% versus \>=50%).|Difference in LS Means|-0.28||||0.9594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.32|10.75|||cLDA model|Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction; stratified by ECOG and baseline PDL-1.||||10.75|-11.32|0.9594
91075656|NCT04676412|182037386|OTHER|Difference in LS means and 95% CI were calculated using the cLDA model with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction \& stratified by ECOG performance status (0 versus 1) and baseline PD-L1 Status (1% to 49% versus \>=50%).|Difference in LS Means|-5.53||||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.37|2.31|||cLDA model|Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction; stratified by ECOG and baseline PDL-1.||||2.31|-13.37|0.1620
91075657|NCT04676412|182037387|OTHER|HR and 95% CI were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 versus 1) and baseline PD-L1 status (1-49% versus ≥50%).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.9419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|2.26|||Stratified Log Rank|Two-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG performance status and baseline PD-L1 status.||||2.26|0.47|0.9419
91075658|NCT04676412|182037388|OTHER|HR and 95% CI were calculated using Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 versus 1) and baseline PD-L1 status (1-49% versus ≥50%).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.9789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|2.38|||Stratified Log Rank|Two-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG performance status and baseline PD-L1 status.||||2.38|0.43|0.9789
91075659|NCT04676412|182037389|OTHER|HR and 95% CI were calculated using Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 versus 1) and baseline PD-L1 status (1-49% versus ≥50%).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.8856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|3.28|||Stratified Log Rank|Two-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG performance status and baseline PD-L1 status.||||3.28|0.36|0.8856
91075660|NCT04676412|182037390|OTHER|HR and 95% CI were calculated using Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 versus 1) and baseline PD-L1 status (1-49% versus ≥50%).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.55||||0.3264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|3.75|||Stratified Log Rank|Two-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG performance status and baseline PD-L1 status.||||3.75|0.64|0.3264
91075661|NCT04676412|182037391|OTHER|HR and 95% CI were calculated using Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 versus 1) and baseline PD-L1 status (1-49% versus ≥50%).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.31||||0.4068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.46|||Stratified Log Rank|Two-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG performance status and baseline PD-L1 status.||||2.46|0.70|0.4068
91075662|NCT04676412|182037392|OTHER|HR and 95% CI were calculated using Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 versus 1) and baseline PD-L1 status (1-49% versus ≥50%).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|7.81||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.71|35.62|||Stratified Log Rank|Two-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG performance status and baseline PD-L1 status.||||35.62|1.71|0.0020
91075663|NCT04676412|182037393|OTHER|Hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 versus 1), geographic region of the enrolling site (East Asia versus non-East Asia), and baseline PD-L1 status (1-49% versus ≥50%).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18||||0.71084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|2.25|||Stratified Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG performance status, geographic region of enrolling site and baseline PD-L1 status.||||2.25|0.61|0.71084
91075664|NCT04676412|182037394|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.53||||0.8197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|3.87|||Stratified Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG performance status, geographic region of enrolling site and baseline PD-L1 status.||HR and 95% CIs were calculated using Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 versus 1), geographic region of the enrolling site (East Asia versus non-East Asia), and baseline PD-L1 status (1-49% versus ≥50%).||3.87|0.61|0.81970
91075665|NCT03315455|182037424|SUPERIORITY||ABR Ratio|0.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.016|0.084||Statistical significance was controlled at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05. Hierarchical testing was used to account for multiple comparisons.|Stratified Wald test||The ABR ratio was calculated as Arm A vs. Arm C.|H0 (null hypothesis): ABR Ratio = 1; versus, H1 (alternative hypothesis): ABR Ratio ≠ 1||0.084|0.016|<0.0001
91075666|NCT03315455|182037424|SUPERIORITY||ABR Ratio|0.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.015|0.082||Statistical significance was controlled at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05. Hierarchical testing was used to account for multiple comparisons.|Stratified Wald test||The ABR ratio was calculated as Arm B vs. Arm C.|H0 (null hypothesis): ABR Ratio = 1; versus, H1 (alternative hypothesis): ABR Ratio ≠ 1||0.082|0.015|<0.0001
91075667|NCT03315455|182037427|SUPERIORITY||ABR Ratio|0.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.026|0.084||Statistical significance was controlled at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05. Hierarchical testing was used to account for multiple comparisons.|Stratified Wald test||The ABR ratio was calculated as Arm A vs. Arm C.|H0 (null hypothesis): ABR Ratio = 1; versus, H1 (alternative hypothesis): ABR Ratio ≠ 1||0.084|0.026|<0.0001
91075668|NCT03315455|182037427|SUPERIORITY||ABR Ratio|0.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.028|0.092||Statistical significance was controlled at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05. Hierarchical testing was used to account for multiple comparisons.|Stratified Wald test||The ABR ratio was calculated as Arm B vs. Arm C.|H0 (null hypothesis): ABR Ratio = 1; versus, H1 (alternative hypothesis): ABR Ratio ≠ 1||0.092|0.028|<0.0001
91075669|NCT03315455|182037430|SUPERIORITY||ABR Ratio|0.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.006|0.053||Statistical significance was controlled at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05. Hierarchical testing was used to account for multiple comparisons.|Stratified Wald test||The ABR ratio was calculated as Arm A vs. Arm C.|H0 (null hypothesis): ABR Ratio = 1; versus, H1 (alternative hypothesis): ABR Ratio ≠ 1||0.053|0.006|<0.0001
90827821|NCT01332994|181530571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1714|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 24, Post-switch memory B-cells||||0.1714
90827822|NCT01332994|181530571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1746|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 24, IgG-positive class-switched B-cells||||0.1746
91075670|NCT03315455|182037430|SUPERIORITY||ABR Ratio|0.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.007|0.059||Statistical significance was controlled at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05. Hierarchical testing was used to account for multiple comparisons.|Stratified Wald test||The ABR ratio was calculated as Arm B vs. Arm C.|H0 (null hypothesis): ABR Ratio = 1; versus, H1 (alternative hypothesis): ABR Ratio ≠ 1||0.059|0.007|<0.0001
91075671|NCT03315455|182037433|SUPERIORITY||ABR Ratio|0.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.017|0.102||Statistical significance was controlled at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05. Hierarchical testing was used to account for multiple comparisons.|Stratified Wald test||The ABR ratio was calculated as Arm A vs. Arm C.|H0 (null hypothesis): ABR Ratio = 1; versus, H1 (alternative hypothesis): ABR Ratio ≠ 1||0.102|0.017|<0.0001
91075672|NCT03315455|182037433|SUPERIORITY||ABR Ratio|0.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.013|0.084||Statistical significance was controlled at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05. Hierarchical testing was used to account for multiple comparisons.|Stratified Wald test||The ABR ratio was calculated as Arm B vs. Arm C.|H0 (null hypothesis): ABR Ratio = 1; versus, H1 (alternative hypothesis): ABR Ratio ≠ 1||0.084|0.013|<0.0001
91075673|NCT03315455|182037436|SUPERIORITY||ABR Ratio|0.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.016|0.163||Not controlled for Type I error|Stratified Wald test||The ABR ratio was calculated as Arm A vs. Arm C.|||0.163|0.016|<0.0001
91075674|NCT03315455|182037436|SUPERIORITY||ABR Ratio|0.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.011|0.122||Not controlled for Type I error|ABR Ratio||The ABR ratio was calculated as Arm B vs. Arm C.|||0.122|0.011|<0.0001
91075675|NCT03315455|182037441|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|14.68||||0.0515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|29.46||Type I error controlled|ANCOVA|Means were adjusted for baseline score, treatment group, and treatment by baseline interaction term.|The difference in adjusted means was calculated as Arm C minus Arm A.|||29.46|-0.10|0.0515
91075676|NCT03315455|182037441|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|18.33||||0.0204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.97|33.68||Type I error controlled|ANCOVA|Means were adjusted for baseline score, treatment group, and treatment by baseline interaction term.|The difference in adjusted means was calculated as Arm C minus Arm B.|||33.68|2.97|0.0204
91075677|NCT03315455|182037443|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|6.06||||0.3281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.27|18.4||Not controlled for Type I error|ANCOVA|Means were adjusted for baseline score, treatment group, and treatment by baseline interaction term.|The difference in adjusted means was calculated as Arm C minus Arm A.|||18.40|-6.27|0.3281
91075678|NCT03315455|182037443|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|14.01||||0.0297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|26.59||Not controlled for Type I error|ANCOVA|Means were adjusted for baseline score, treatment group, and treatment by baseline interaction term.|The difference in adjusted means was calculated as Arm C minus Arm B.|||26.59|1.44|0.0297
91075679|NCT03315455|182037446|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-3.46||||0.6165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.23|10.31||Not controlled for Type I error|ANCOVA|Means were adjusted for baseline score, treatment group, and treatment by baseline interaction term.|The difference in adjusted means was calculated as Arm C minus Arm A.|||10.31|-17.23|0.6165
91075680|NCT03315455|182037446|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-7.58||||0.2797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.48|6.33||Not controlled for Type I error|ANCOVA|Means were adjusted for baseline score, treatment group, and treatment by baseline interaction term.|The difference in adjusted means was calculated as Arm C minus Arm B.|||6.33|-21.48|0.2797
91075681|NCT03315455|182037448|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.05||||0.489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.09||Not controlled for Type I error|ANCOVA|Means were adjusted for baseline score, treatment group, and treatment by baseline interaction term.|The difference in adjusted means was calculated as Arm C minus Arm A.|||0.09|-0.18|0.4890
91075682|NCT03315455|182037448|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.08||||0.2454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.06||Not controlled for Type I error|ANCOVA|Means were adjusted for baseline score, treatment group, and treatment by baseline interaction term.|The difference in adjusted means was calculated as Arm C minus Arm B.|||0.06|-0.22|0.2454
91075683|NCT04765722|182037467|SUPERIORITY||% change relative to placebo|18.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.4|160.1||The model included treatment group, week, the interaction between treatment group and week, and baseline log-transformed 24-hour cough frequency as fixed effects.|Generalized estimating equations|Hypothesis tests were two-sided, a p\<0.05 indicated statistical significance. We made no adjustments for multiple comparisons across outcomes.||The primary outcome was the change from baseline in log-transformed 24-hour cough frequency (coughs/hour) at week 14.||160.1|-46.4|0.99
91075684|NCT02304380|182037491|OTHER||Difference in differences|-0.0064|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0469|0.034|||||Linear model difference in incidences.|||0.0340|-0.0469|
91075685|NCT02304380|182037492|OTHER||Difference in Differences|0.0506|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.029|0.0722|||||Linear model difference in incidences.|||0.0722|0.0290|
91075686|NCT02304380|182037493|OTHER||Difference in Differences|-0.0005|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0109|0.0099|||||Linear model difference in incidences.|||0.0099|-0.0109|
91075687|NCT02304380|182037494|OTHER||Difference in differences|-0.0207|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0318|0.0096||||||||0.0096|-0.0318|
91075688|NCT02304380|182037495|OTHER||Difference in differences|0.0163|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0036|0.0289|||||Linear model difference in incidences.|||0.0289|0.0036|
91075689|NCT02304380|182037496|OTHER||Difference in differences|0.0046|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.002|0.0111|||||||Linear model difference in incidences.|0.0111|-0.0020|
91075690|NCT02304380|182037497|OTHER||Difference in differences|0.0151|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0129|0.0431|||||Linear model difference in incidences.|||0.0431|-0.0129|
91075691|NCT02304380|182037498|OTHER||Difference in Differences|-0.0066|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0328|0.0197|||||Linear model difference in incidences.|||0.0197|-0.0328|
91075692|NCT02304380|182037499|OTHER||Difference in Differences|-0.0105|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0374|0.0163|||||Linear model difference in incidences.|||0.0163|-0.0374|
91075693|NCT02304380|182037500|OTHER||Difference in Differences|0.0006|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0031|0.0044|||||Linear model difference in incidences.|||0.0044|-0.0031|
91075694|NCT02304380|182037501|OTHER||Difference in Differences|-0.0293|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1025|0.044||||Linear model difference in incidences.||||0.0440|-0.1025|
91075695|NCT02304380|182037502|OTHER||Difference in Differences|-0.0579|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1492|0.0116|||||Linear model difference in incidences.|||0.0116|-0.1492|
91075696|NCT02304380|182037503|OTHER||Difference in differences|0.0072|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.0134|||||Linear model difference in incidences.|||0.0134|0.0010|
91075697|NCT02304380|182037504|OTHER||Difference in Differences|0.0058|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0009|0.0107||||||||0.0107|0.0009|
91075698|NCT02304380|182037505|OTHER||Difference in Differences|0.0054|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0001|0.0106|||||Linear model difference in incidences.|||0.0106|0.0001|
91075699|NCT02304380|182037506|OTHER||Difference in Differences|-0.0039|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0096|0.0017|||||Linear model difference in incidences.|||0.0017|-0.0096|
91075700|NCT02304380|182037507|OTHER||Difference in Differences|-0.011|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0178|-0.0043|||||Linear model difference in incidences.|||-0.0043|-0.0178|
91075701|NCT02304380|182037508|OTHER||Difference in Differences|0.0026|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0036|0.0086|||||Linear model difference in incidences.|||0.0086|-0.0036|
91075702|NCT02304380|182037509|OTHER||Difference in differences|0.0197|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.011|0.0284|||||Linear model difference in incidences.|||0.0284|0.0110|
91075703|NCT00328094|182037513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.29||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.97|||Chi-squared|||||1.97|0.85|0.23
91075704|NCT01349322|182037515|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is defined as a hazard ratio upper limit of 2.12.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.32||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|2.05|||Regression, Cox||Cause-specific hazard ratio; reference level = Arm 1.|"Assuming Arm 1 5-year IBR of 1.59%, for hypothesized upper bound hazard ratio (HR) of 2.12 (Arm 2 5-year IBR of 3.33%), 46 IBR events provide \>80% power to conclude non-inferiority with one-sided significance level = 0.05. Null hypothesis: HR ≥ 2.12 (inferior). Alternative hypothesis: HR \< 2.12 (non-inferior). See Limitations and Caveats section."||2.05|0.84|0.039
91075705|NCT01349322|182037516|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96||||||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Log Rank|||||||0.96
91075706|NCT01349322|182037517|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14||||||Two-sided significance level = 0.05.|Log Rank|||||||0.14
91075707|NCT01349322|182037518|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34||||||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Log Rank|||||||0.34
91075708|NCT01349322|182037520|NON_INFERIORITY|Null hypothesis (H0) of inferiority: the mean change in cosmetic subscale score in Arm 2 will be at least 0.4 standard deviations worse than in Arm 1. If H0 is rejected, then non-inferiority can be concluded.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.026|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.62|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.13||One-side significance level = 0.025|t-test, 1 sided|||||0.13|-0.08|<0.0001
91075709|NCT02453282|182037525|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|97.54|0.564|1.019||The 2-sided p-value was calculated using a stratified log-rank test adjusting for histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Log Rank||The HR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Durvalumab Monotherapy Vs SoC Chemotherapy||1.019|0.564|0.036
91075710|NCT02453282|182037525|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.202|TWO_SIDED|98.77|0.611|1.173||The 2-sided p-value was calculated using a stratified log-rank test adjusting for histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Log Rank||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs SoC Chemotherapy||1.173|0.611|0.202
91075711|NCT02453282|182037526|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.705|TWO_SIDED|99.5|0.722|1.534||The analysis was performed using stratified log-rank test adjusting for histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Log Rank||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs SoC Chemotherapy||1.534|0.722|0.705
91075712|NCT02453282|182037527|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.836|1.421||The 2-sided p-value was calculated using a stratified log-rank test adjusting for histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Log Rank||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Durvalumab Monotherapy||1.421|0.836|0.523
91075713|NCT02453282|182037528|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.725|1.067||The 2-sided p-value was calculated using a stratified log-rank test adjusting for PD-L1 status (\>=25% Vs \<25%) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Log Rank||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for PD-L1 status (\>=25% Vs \<25%) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Durvalumab Monotherapy Vs SoC Chemotherapy||1.067|0.725|0.194
91075714|NCT02453282|182037528|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.834|1.213||The 2-sided p-value was calculated using a stratified log-rank test adjusting for PD-L1 status (\>=25% Vs \<25%) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Log Rank||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for PD-L1 status (\>=25% Vs \<25%) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs SoC Chemotherapy||1.213|0.834|0.952
91075715|NCT02453282|182037528|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.931|1.371||The 2-sided p-value was calculated using a stratified log-rank test adjusting for PD-L1 status (\>=25% Vs \<25%) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Log Rank||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for PD-L1 status (\>=25% Vs \<25%) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Durvalumab Monotherapy||1.371|0.931|0.218
91075716|NCT02453282|182037529|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.812|1.128||The 2-sided p-value was calculated using a stratified log-rank test adjusting for PD-L1 status (\>=25% Vs \<25%) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Log Rank||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for PD-L1 status (\>=25% Vs \<25%) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Durvalumab Monotherapy Vs SoC Chemotherapy||1.128|0.812|0.602
91075717|NCT02453282|182037529|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.794|1.103||The 2-sided p-value was calculated using a stratified log-rank test adjusting for PD-L1 status (\>=25% Vs \<25%) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Log Rank||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for PD-L1 status (\>=25% Vs \<25%) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs SoC Chemotherapy||1.103|0.794|0.430
91075718|NCT02453282|182037529|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.828|1.157||The 2-sided p-value was calculated using a stratified log-rank test adjusting for PD-L1 status (\>=25% Vs \<25%) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Log Rank||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for PD-L1 status (\>=25% Vs \<25%) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Durvalumab Monotherapy||1.157|0.828|0.802
91075719|NCT02453282|182037530|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.667|1.143||The analysis was performed using stratified log-rank test adjusting for histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Log Rank||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Durvalumab Monotherapy Vs SoC Chemotherapy||1.143|0.667|0.324
91075720|NCT02453282|182037530|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18||||0.207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.911|1.541||The analysis was performed using stratified log-rank test adjusting for histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Log Rank||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Durvalumab Monotherapy||1.541|0.911|0.207
91075721|NCT02453282|182037531|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.894|1.339||The analysis was performed using stratified log-rank test adjusting for PD-L1 status (\>=25% Vs \<25%) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Log Rank||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for PD-L1 status (\>=25% Vs \<25%) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Durvalumab Monotherapy Vs SoC Chemotherapy||1.339|0.894|0.383
91075722|NCT02453282|182037531|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.38||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.136|1.678||The analysis was performed using stratified log-rank test adjusting for PD-L1 status (\>=25% Vs \<25%) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Log Rank||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for PD-L1 status (\>=25% Vs \<25%) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs SoC Chemotherapy||1.678|1.136|0.001
91075723|NCT02453282|182037531|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.954|1.403||The analysis was performed using stratified log-rank test adjusting for PD-L1 status (\>=25% Vs \<25%) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Log Rank||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for PD-L1 status (\>=25% Vs \<25%) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Durvalumab Monotherapy||1.403|0.954|0.138
91075724|NCT02453282|182037532|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.24||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.043|1.475||The analysis was performed using stratified log-rank test adjusting for PD-L1 status (\>=25% Vs \<25%) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Log Rank||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for PD-L1 status (\>=25% Vs \<25%) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Durvalumab Monotherapy Vs SoC Chemotherapy||1.475|1.043|0.015
91075725|NCT02453282|182037532|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.25||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.054|1.485||The analysis was performed using stratified log-rank test adjusting for PD-L1 status (\>=25% Vs \<25%) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Log Rank||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for PD-L1 status (\>=25% Vs \<25%) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs SoC Chemotherapy||1.485|1.054|0.010
91075726|NCT02453282|182037532|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.845|1.179||The analysis was performed using stratified log-rank test adjusting for PD-L1 status (\>=25% Vs \<25%) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Log Rank||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for PD-L1 status (\>=25% Vs \<25%) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Durvalumab Monotherapy||1.179|0.845|0.984
91075727|NCT02453282|182037533|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.582|1.437||P-value is based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from the addition of a treatment factor to the model.|Regression, Logistic||The analysis was performed using logistic regression adjusting for histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with 95% CI calculated by profile likelihood.|Durvalumab Monotherapy Vs SoC Chemotherapy||1.437|0.582|0.698
91075728|NCT02453282|182037533|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.549|1.363||P-value is based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from the addition of a treatment factor to the model.|Regression, Logistic||The analysis was performed using logistic regression adjusting for histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with 95% CI calculated by profile likelihood.|Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs SoC Chemotherapy||1.363|0.549|0.534
91075729|NCT02453282|182037533|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.601|1.496||P-value is based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from the addition of a treatment factor to the model.|Regression, Logistic||The analysis was performed using logistic regression adjusting for histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with 95% CI calculated by profile likelihood.|Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Durvalumab Monotherapy||1.496|0.601|0.820
91075730|NCT02453282|182037534|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.0||P-value is based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from the addition of a treatment factor to the model.|Regression, Logistic||The analysis was performed using logistic regression adjusting for histology (squamous Vs non squamous) and PD-L1 status (\>=25% Vs \<25%), with 95% CI calculated by profile likelihood.|Durvalumab Monotherapy Vs SoC Chemotherapy||1.000|0.480|0.050
91075731|NCT02453282|182037534|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.464|0.959||P-value is based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from the addition of a treatment factor to the model.|Regression, Logistic||The analysis was performed using logistic regression adjusting for histology (squamous Vs non squamous) and PD-L1 status (\>=25% Vs \<25%), with 95% CI calculated by profile likelihood.|Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs SoC Chemotherapy||0.959|0.464|0.029
91075732|NCT02453282|182037534|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.661|1.43||P-value is based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from the addition of a treatment factor to the model.|Regression, Logistic||The analysis was performed using logistic regression adjusting for histology (squamous Vs non squamous) and PD-L1 status (\>=25% Vs \<25%), with 95% CI calculated by profile likelihood.|Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Durvalumab Monotherapy||1.430|0.661|0.887
91075733|NCT02453282|182037535|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.462|0.908||P-value is based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from the addition of a treatment factor to the model.|Regression, Logistic||The analysis was performed using logistic regression adjusting for histology (squamous Vs non squamous) and PD-L1 status (\>=25% Vs \<25%), with 95% CI calculated by profile likelihood.|Durvalumab Monotherapy Vs SoC Chemotherapy||0.908|0.462|0.012
91075734|NCT02453282|182037535|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.543|1.048||P-value is based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from the addition of a treatment factor to the model.|Regression, Logistic||The analysis was performed using logistic regression adjusting for histology (squamous Vs non-squamous) and PD-L1 status (\>=25% Vs \<25%), with 95% CI calculated by profile likelihood.|Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs SoC Chemotherapy||1.048|0.543|0.093
91075735|NCT02453282|182037535|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.818|1.647||P-value is based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from the addition of a treatment factor to the model.|Regression, Logistic||The analysis was performed using logistic regression adjusting for histology (squamous Vs non-squamous) and PD-L1 status (\>=25% Vs \<25%), with 95% CI calculated by profile likelihood.|Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Durvalumab Monotherapy||1.647|0.818|0.406
91075736|NCT02453282|182037542|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.597|0.975||The 2-sided p-value was calculated using a stratified log-rank test adjusting for histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Log Rank||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Durvalumab Monotherapy Vs SoC Chemotherapy||0.975|0.597|0.030
91075737|NCT02453282|182037542|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.606|0.994||The 2-sided p-value was calculated using a stratified log-rank test adjusting for histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Log Rank||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs SoC Chemotherapy||0.994|0.606|0.045
91075738|NCT02453282|182037543|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.746|1.08||The 2-sided p-value was calculated using a stratified log-rank test adjusting for PD-L1 status (\>=25% Vs \<25%) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Log Rank||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for PD-L1 status (\>=25% Vs \<25%) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Durvalumab Monotherapy Vs SoC Chemotherapy||1.080|0.746|0.255
91075739|NCT02453282|182037543|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.787|1.132||The 2-sided p-value was calculated using a stratified log-rank test adjusting for PD-L1 status (\>=25% Vs \<25%) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Log Rank||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for PD-L1 status (\>=25% Vs \<25%) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs SoC Chemotherapy||1.132|0.787|0.534
91075740|NCT02453282|182037544|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.824|1.131||The 2-sided p-value was calculated using a stratified log-rank test adjusting for PD-L1 status (\>=25% Vs \<25%) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Log Rank||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for PD-L1 status (\>=25% Vs \<25%) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Durvalumab Monotherapy Vs SoC Chemotherapy||1.131|0.824|0.663
91075741|NCT02453282|182037544|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.746|1.027||The 2-sided p-value was calculated using a stratified log-rank test adjusting for PD-L1 status (\>=25% Vs \<25%) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Log Rank||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for PD-L1 status (\>=25% Vs \<25%) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs SoC Chemotherapy||1.027|0.746|0.103
91075742|NCT00985426|182037561|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is achieved if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI was greater than -10%.|SPR Difference (%)|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|14.3|||||SPR difference = SPR for HEPLISAV-B minus SPR for Engerix-B.|Two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of the difference in seroprotection rates (SPR) between the HEPLISAV-B group and the Engerix-B group at 28 weeks was computed using the Newcombe score method with continuity correction.||14.3|1.7|
91075743|NCT00985426|182037561|SUPERIORITY|Superiority is achieved if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI was greater than 0%.|SPR Difference (%)|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|14.3||||||Two-sided 95% CIs of the difference in SPR between the HEPLISAV-B group and the Engerix-B group at 28 weeks was computed using the Newcombe score method with continuity correction.||14.3|1.7|
91075744|NCT00985426|182037566|SUPERIORITY|Superiority is achieved if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI was greater than 0%.|SPR Difference (%)|12.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|21.2||||||Two-sided 95% CIs of the difference in SPRs between the HEPLISAV group and the Engerix-B group at 28 weeks was computed using the Newcombe score method with continuity correction.||21.2|4.4|
91075745|NCT02327013|182037584|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.9723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|3.5|||weighed z-score|Equally weighed LS z-score, combining results from stagewise MMRM, was compared to standard normal distribution.||The mean difference between treatment groups was estimated based on LS means for the treatment-by-visit interaction in stagewise MMRM analyses. In each stage, the REML-based MMRM model included site ID (stage 1 only), visit, treatment (placebo, vortioxetine 10mg, vortioxetine 20mg), baseline (for the stage) AISRS total score, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline (stage) AISRS total score-by-visit interaction, with an unstructured covariance structure to model the within-patient errors.||3.5|-3.6|0.9723
91075746|NCT02327013|182037584|SUPERIORITY|The mean difference between treatment groups was estimated based on LS means for the treatment-by-visit interaction in stagewise MMRM analyses. In each stage, the REML-based MMRM model included site ID (stage 1 only), visit, treatment (placebo, vortioxetine 10mg, vortioxetine 20mg), baseline (for the stage) AISRS total score, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline (stage) AISRS total score-by-visit interaction, with an unstructured covariance structure to model the within-patient errors.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.9||0.601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|4.8|||weighed z-score|Equally weighed LS z-score, combining results from stagewise MMRM, was compared to standard normal distribution.||||4.8|-2.8|0.6010
91075747|NCT02380859|182037627|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||ANOVA|||Group (real, sham) x Time (pre, 1d post) x Stepping Direction (forward, backward) ANOVA||||0.005
91075748|NCT01661933|182037641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.693|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.693
91075749|NCT01661933|182037642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.837|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.837
91075750|NCT01661933|182037643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.99|ONE_SIDED||||||Binomial distribution|||The null hypothesis was that irrespective of hookworm infection, GC-1g would result in a 2-point or more deterioration in the Marsh score. A binomial (yes=deterioration or no=no deterioration) distribution was applied to pre- and post-GC-1g paired biopsies.||||=0.99
91075751|NCT01661933|182037644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed effects model.|||||||=0.005
91075752|NCT00001656|182037648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Covariate is baseline score||Analysis of covariance with baseline score as covariate||||.04
91075753|NCT00001656|182037649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Covariate is baseline score||Analysis of covariance with baseline score as covariate||||0.21
91075754|NCT00001656|182037650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance with baseline score as covariate||||0.35
91075755|NCT00001656|182037651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Covariate is baseline score||Analysis of covariance with baseline score as covariate||||0.19
91075756|NCT00001656|182037652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Covariate is baseline score||Analysis of covariance with baseline score as covariate||||0.59
91075757|NCT00001656|182037653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance with baseline score as covariate||||0.72
91075758|NCT00001656|182037654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Covariate is baseline score||Analysis of covariance with baseline score as covariate||||0.27
91075759|NCT00001656|182037655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Covariate is baseline score||||||0.11
90827823|NCT01332994|181530571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1626|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 24, IgA-positive class-switched B-cells||||0.1626
90827824|NCT01332994|181530571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6304|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 24, Double-negative B-cells||||0.6304
91075760|NCT00001656|182037656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.96
91075761|NCT00001656|182037657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.76
91075762|NCT00001656|182037659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.73
91075763|NCT00550862|182037684|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Initial Phase 2 study: no a priori estimate of treatment effect available. Effect size estimated.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Hierarchical model applied and pairwise comparisons of the 10mg treatment group versus the placebo group, then 25 mg and 50 mg were performed.||All tests: Descriptive methods were used with nominal p values provided and 95% confidence intervals.||||<0.0001
91075764|NCT00550862|182037684|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Initial Phase 2 study: no a priori estimate of treatment effect available. Effect size estimated.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Hierarchical model applied and pairwise comparisons of the 10mg treatment group versus the placebo group, then 25 mg and 50 mg were performed.||All tests: Descriptive methods were used with nominal p values provided and 95% confidence intervals.||||<0.0001
91075765|NCT00550862|182037684|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Initial Phase 2 study: no a priori estimate of treatment effect available. Effect size estimated.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Hierarchical model applied and pairwise comparisons of the 10mg treatment group versus the placebo group, then 25 mg and 50 mg were performed.||All tests: Descriptive methods were used with nominal p values provided and 95% confidence intervals||||<0.0001
91075766|NCT00550862|182037685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
91075767|NCT00550862|182037686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0005||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0005
91075768|NCT02248974|182037722|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The model uses a general linear mixed model with fixed effects for baseline Knowledge Scale score, time (discrete), arm, and a time-arm interaction term. The matrix of correlated residual terms assumes an unstructured format.||||0.01
91075769|NCT02248974|182037723|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The model uses a general linear mixed model with fixed effects for baseline KS score, time (discrete), arm, and a time-arm interaction term. The matrix of correlated residual terms assumes an unstructured format.||||0.47
91075770|NCT02248974|182037724|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Used Wilcoxon 2-sample test to see if DA group had significantly better (i.e. lower) Decisional Conflict Scores than no-DA (Control) group.||||0.12
91075771|NCT02248974|182037725|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Used Wilcoxon 2-sample test to see if DA group had significantly better (i.e. lower) Decisional Conflict Scores than no-DA (Control) group.||||0.79
91075772|NCT02248974|182037726|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.99
91075773|NCT02248974|182037727|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.94
91075774|NCT02248974|182037728|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.00
91075775|NCT02248974|182037729|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.95
91075776|NCT02248974|182037730|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.13
91075777|NCT02248974|182037731|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.006
91075778|NCT02248974|182037732|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.27
91075779|NCT02248974|182037734|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.65
91075780|NCT02248974|182037735|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.74
91075781|NCT02248974|182037739|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.60
91075782|NCT02248974|182037740|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.27
91075783|NCT02248974|182037741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.45
91075784|NCT02248974|182037742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.006
91075785|NCT02248974|182037743|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.01
91075786|NCT02248974|182037744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
91075787|NCT02248974|182037746|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.77
91075788|NCT02248974|182037747|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.74
91075789|NCT02248974|182037748|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.12
91075790|NCT02248974|182037755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.98
91075791|NCT02248974|182037756|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.20
91075792|NCT01438814|182037776|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|One-sided test relative to 0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.12|||ANCOVA|||||0.12|-0.13|<0.0001
91075793|NCT01438814|182037776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.8924||95.0|-0.13|0.12|||ANCOVA|||||0.12|-0.13|0.8924
91075794|NCT01438814|182037777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.8201||95.0|0.672|1.37|||Regression, Logistic|Model includes treatment and continuous baseline HbA1c||||1.370|0.672|0.8201
91075795|NCT01438814|182037778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.022||||0.9397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.582|1.796|||Regression, Logistic|Model includes treatment and baseline HbA1c.||||1.796|0.582|0.9397
91075796|NCT01438814|182037779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.3352||95.0|-2.1|6.1|||ANCOVA|||||6.1|-2.1|0.3352
91075797|NCT01438814|182037780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0308|||||||Fisher Exact|Fishers exact p-value presented due to small cell counts||||||0.0308
91075798|NCT01438814|182037781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.0545||95.0|0.0|1.0|||ANCOVA|||||1.0|-0.0|0.0545
91075799|NCT01438814|182037782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.997||||0.9886||95.0|0.689|1.445|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.445|0.689|0.9886
91075800|NCT01438814|182037783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.797||||0.2108||95.0|0.558|1.137|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.137|0.558|0.2108
91075801|NCT01438814|182037784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.999||||0.9972||95.0|0.712|1.402|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.402|0.712|0.9972
91075802|NCT01438814|182037785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.832||||0.2816||95.0|0.594|1.163|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.163|0.594|0.2816
91075803|NCT01438814|182037786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0011||95.0|0.25|0.98|||ANCOVA|||||0.98|0.25|0.0011
91075804|NCT01438814|182037787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.951||||0.7682||95.0|0.681|1.328|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.328|0.681|0.7682
91075805|NCT03887429|182037798|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.009|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||It was hypothesized that treatment with SXC-2023 would reduce impulsivity as measured by SSRT in chronic cigarette smokers abstaining from nicotine for 5 days.||||=.009
91075806|NCT03887429|182037799|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.015|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||It was hypothesized that 5 days of nicotine abstinence in chronic cigarette smokers would result in increased risk taking behavior as measured using DAVT in subjects receiving placebo as treatment.||||=.015
91075807|NCT03887429|182037799|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.1|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||It was hypothesized that 5 days of nicotine abstinence in chronic cigarette smokers would not result in increased risk taking behavior as measured using DAVT in subjects treated with SXC-2023.||||>.1
91075808|NCT00435487|182037810|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The test of non-inferiority was based on whether the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the treatment group difference was less than or equal to 10%, the non-inferiority margin specified in the protocol.|Difference in proportion|-2.6||||||95.0|-8.59|3.4|||upper limit of 95% CI <= 10%||95% confidence interval (CI) is for difference in proportion using normal approximation to binomial. Non-inferiority was concluded if the upper boundary of the 95% CI for the Dalteparin - Unfractioned Heparin difference was less than or equal to 10%.|Death after receiving 48 hours of study medication (Event date - First dose date) and on or before day 30 from baseline. Difference in proportion (Dalteparin-UFH)(%).||3.40|-8.59|
91075809|NCT00435487|182037810|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The test of non-inferiority was based on whether the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the treatment group difference was less than or equal to 10%, the non-inferiority margin specified in the protocol.|Difference in proportion|1.25||||||95.0|-3.02|5.52|||upper limit of 95% CI <= 10%||95% CI is for difference in proportion using normal approximation to binomial. Non-inferiority was concluded if the upper boundary of the 95% CI for the Dalteparin - Unfractioned Heparin difference was less than or equal to 10%.|Non-fatal Myocardial Infarction after receiving 48 hours of study medication (Event date - First dose date) and on or before day 30 from baseline. Difference in proportion (Dalteparin-UFH)(%).||5.52|-3.02|
91075810|NCT00435487|182037810|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The test of non-inferiority was based on whether the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the treatment group difference was less than or equal to 10%, the non-inferiority margin specified in the protocol.|Difference in proportion|-1.35||||||95.0|-8.62|5.93|||upper limit of 95% CI <= 10%||95% CI is for difference in proportion using normal approximation to binomial. Non-inferiority was concluded if the upper boundary of the 95% CI for the Dalteparin - Unfractioned Heparin difference was less than or equal to 10%.|Death or Non-fatal Myocardial Infarction after receiving 48 hours of study medication (Event date - First dose date) and on or before day 30 from baseline. Difference in proportion (Dalteparin-UFH)(%).||5.93|-8.62|
91075811|NCT00435487|182037811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|1.27||||1||95.0|-1.2|3.73|||Chi-squared||95% CI is for difference in proportion using normal approximation to binomial.|Difference in proportion (Dalteparin-UFH)(%).||3.73|-1.20|1.0000
91075812|NCT00435487|182037812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-0.05||||1||95.0|-6.05|5.95|||Chi-squared||95% CI is for difference in proportion using normal approximation to binomial.|Difference in proportion (Dalteparin-UFH)(%).||5.95|-6.05|1.0000
91075813|NCT00435487|182037813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-0.05||||1||95.0|-6.05|5.95|||Chi-squared||95% CI is for difference in proportion using normal approximation to binomial.|Difference in proportion (Dalteparin-UFH)(%).||5.95|-6.05|1.0000
91075814|NCT02537431|182037823|OTHER||Mean|-54.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.64|-39.72||The null hypothesis of no mean percent change from baseline is tested using t-test.|t-test|||||-39.72|-68.64|< 0.0001
91075815|NCT02537431|182037824|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value is for testing the proportion of participants achieving the mean serum phosphorus levels above the LLN (2.5 mg/dL \[0.81 mmol/L\]) against 0% from the binomial test.|binomial test|||||||<0.0001
91075816|NCT02537431|182037825|OTHER||Mean|-32.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.25|-24.17||The null hypothesis of no mean percent change from baseline is tested using t-test.|t-test|||||-24.17|-40.25|<0.0001
91075817|NCT02537431|182037826|OTHER||Mean|-26.0||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.08|-15.91||The null hypothesis of no mean percent change from baseline is tested using t-test.|t-test|||||-15.91|-36.08|0.0002
91075818|NCT02537431|182037827|OTHER||Mean|-52.24||||0.0199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-94.08|-10.41||The null hypothesis of no mean percent change from baseline is tested using t-test.|t-test|||||-10.41|-94.08|0.0199
91075819|NCT02537431|182037839|OTHER||Least Squares Mean (GEE)|107.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|76.46|139.03|||||From the generalized estimation equation (GEE) model which includes change from baseline for 1, 25 (OH)2 D as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of 1, 25 (OH)2 D as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 1||139.03|76.46|
91075820|NCT02537431|182037839|OTHER||LS Mean|48.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.91|62.91|||||From the GEE model which includes the change from baseline for 1, 25 (OH)2 D as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of 1, 25 (OH)2 D as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 2||62.91|33.91|
91075821|NCT02537431|182037839|OTHER||LS Mean|13.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.85|20.31|||||From the GEE model which includes the change from baseline for 1, 25 (OH)2 D as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of 1, 25 (OH)2 D as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 4||20.31|6.85|
91075822|NCT02537431|182037839|OTHER||LS Mean|-1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.43|5.75|||||From the GEE model which includes the change from baseline for 1, 25 (OH)2 D as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of 1, 25 (OH)2 D as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 20||5.75|-8.43|
91075823|NCT02537431|182037839|OTHER||LS Mean|31.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.49|42.0|||||From the GEE model which includes the change from baseline for 1, 25 (OH)2 D as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of 1, 25 (OH)2 D as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 21||42.00|21.49|
91075824|NCT02537431|182037839|OTHER||LS Mean|11.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.54|19.46|||||From the GEE model which includes the change from baseline for 1, 25 (OH)2 D as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of 1, 25 (OH)2 D as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 22||19.46|3.54|
91075825|NCT02537431|182037839|OTHER||LS Mean|-3.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.62|6.55|||||From the GEE model which includes the change from baseline for 1, 25 (OH)2 D as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of 1, 25 (OH)2 D as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 24||6.55|-12.62|
91075826|NCT02537431|182037839|OTHER||LS Mean|-1.72||||0.6821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.93|6.5|||GEE model||From the GEE model which includes the change from baseline for 1, 25 (OH)2 D as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of 1, 25 (OH)2 D as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 48||6.50|-9.93|0.6821
91075827|NCT02537431|182037839|OTHER||LS mean|-5.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.38|0.92|||||From the GEE model which includes the change from baseline for 1, 25 (OH)2 D as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of 1, 25 (OH)2 D as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 60||0.92|-12.38|
91075828|NCT02537431|182037839|OTHER||LS mean|3.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.45|11.18|||||From the GEE model which includes the change from baseline for 1, 25 (OH)2 D as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of 1, 25 (OH)2 D as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 70||11.18|-4.45|
91075829|NCT02537431|182037839|OTHER||LS mean|-5.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.22|0.13|||||From the GEE model which includes the change from baseline for 1, 25 (OH)2 D as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of 1, 25 (OH)2 D as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 72||0.13|-11.22|
91075830|NCT02537431|182037839|OTHER||LS mean|-5.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.35|0.26|||||From the GEE model which includes the change from baseline for 1, 25 (OH)2 D as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of 1, 25 (OH)2 D as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 84||0.26|-11.35|
91075831|NCT02537431|182037839|OTHER||LS mean|9.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|17.94|||||From the GEE model which includes the change from baseline for 1, 25 (OH)2 D as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of 1, 25 (OH)2 D as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 94||17.94|1.33|
91075832|NCT02537431|182037839|OTHER||LS mean|-6.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|-1.38||||||Week 96||-1.38|-10.80|
91075833|NCT02537431|182037839|OTHER||LS mean|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.22|9.26|||||From the GEE model which includes the change from baseline for 1, 25 (OH)2 D as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of 1, 25 (OH)2 D as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 108||9.26|-9.22|
91075834|NCT02537431|182037839|OTHER||LS mean|1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.77|9.68|||||From the GEE model which includes the change from baseline for 1, 25 (OH)2 D as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of 1, 25 (OH)2 D as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 120||9.68|-6.77|
91075835|NCT02537431|182037839|OTHER||LS mean|-1.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|2.21|||||From the GEE model which includes the change from baseline for 1, 25 (OH)2 D as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of 1, 25 (OH)2 D as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 132||2.21|-5.60|
91075836|NCT02537431|182037840|OTHER||LS Mean|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.35|||||From the GEE model; includes change from baseline from baseline for 24-Hour urinary phosphorus as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of 24-Hour urinary phosphorus as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 12||0.35|-0.15|
91075837|NCT02537431|182037840|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.11|||||From the GEE model; includes change from baseline from baseline for 24-Hour urinary phosphorus as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of 24-Hour urinary phosphorus as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 24||0.11|-0.19|
91075838|NCT02537431|182037840|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.11|||||From the GEE model; includes change from baseline from baseline for 24-Hour urinary phosphorus as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of 24-Hour urinary phosphorus as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 36||0.11|-0.12|
91075839|NCT02537431|182037840|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.04||||0.6021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.11|||GEE model||From the GEE model; includes change from baseline from baseline for 24-Hour urinary phosphorus as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of 24-Hour urinary phosphorus as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 48||0.11|-0.19|0.6021
91075840|NCT02537431|182037840|OTHER||LS mean|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.19|||||From the GEE model; includes change from baseline from baseline for 24-Hour urinary phosphorus as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of 24-Hour urinary phosphorus as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 72||0.19|-0.19|
91075841|NCT02537431|182037840|OTHER||LS mean|-0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.03|||||From the GEE model; includes change from baseline from baseline for 24-Hour urinary phosphorus as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of 24-Hour urinary phosphorus as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 96||0.03|-0.29|
91075842|NCT02537431|182037840|OTHER||LS mean|-0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.26|||||From the GEE model; includes change from baseline from baseline for 24-Hour urinary phosphorus as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of 24-Hour urinary phosphorus as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|EOS II||0.26|-0.41|
91075843|NCT02537431|182037841|OTHER||LS Mean|1.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.49|2.03|||||From the GEE model, which includes the change from baseline for TmP/GFR as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of TmP/GFR as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 2||2.03|1.49|
91075844|NCT02537431|182037841|OTHER||LS Mean|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.97|||||From the GEE model, which includes the change from baseline for TmP/GFR as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of TmP/GFR as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 4||0.97|0.59|
91075845|NCT02537431|182037841|OTHER||LS Mean|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.82|||||From the GEE model, which includes the change from baseline for TmP/GFR as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of TmP/GFR as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 12||0.82|0.34|
91075846|NCT02537431|182037841|OTHER||LS Mean|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.99|||||From the GEE model, which includes the change from baseline for TmP/GFR as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of TmP/GFR as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 22||0.99|0.74|
91075847|NCT02537431|182037841|OTHER||LS Mean|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.64|||||From the GEE model, which includes the change from baseline for TmP/GFR as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of TmP/GFR as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 24||0.64|0.24|
91075848|NCT02537431|182037841|OTHER||LS Mean|0.2||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.38|||GEE model||From the GEE model, which includes the change from baseline for TmP/GFR as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of TmP/GFR as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 48||0.38|0.01|0.0430
91075849|NCT02537431|182037841|OTHER||LS mean|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.64|||||From the GEE model, which includes the change from baseline for TmP/GFR as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of TmP/GFR as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 60||0.64|-0.04|
91075850|NCT02537431|182037841|OTHER||LS mean|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.52|||||From the GEE model, which includes the change from baseline for TmP/GFR as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of TmP/GFR as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 72||0.52|0.03|
91075851|NCT02537431|182037841|OTHER||LS mean|0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.66|||||From the GEE model, which includes the change from baseline for TmP/GFR as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of TmP/GFR as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 84||0.66|0.13|
91075852|NCT02537431|182037841|OTHER||LS mean|0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.48|||||From the GEE model, which includes the change from baseline for TmP/GFR as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of TmP/GFR as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 96||0.48|0.10|
91075853|NCT02537431|182037841|OTHER||LS mean|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.34|||||From the GEE model, which includes the change from baseline for TmP/GFR as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of TmP/GFR as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|EOSII||0.34|0.08|
91075854|NCT02537431|182037842|OTHER||LS Mean|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.08|||||From the GEE model, which includes the change from baseline or percent change from baseline for TRP as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of TRP as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 2||0.08|0.06|
91075855|NCT02537431|182037842|OTHER||LS Mean|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.06|||||From the GEE model which includes the change from baseline or percent change from baseline for TRP as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of TRP as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 4||0.06|0.01|
91075856|NCT02537431|182037842|OTHER||LS Mean|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.04|||||From the GEE model which includes the change from baseline or percent change from baseline for TRP as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of TRP as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 12||0.04|-0.01|
91075857|NCT02537431|182037842|OTHER||LS Mean|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.05|||||From the GEE model which includes the change from baseline or percent change from baseline for TRP as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of TRP as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 22||0.05|0.02|
91075858|NCT02537431|182037842|OTHER||LS Mean|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.04||||||Week 24||0.04|-0.02|
91075859|NCT02537431|182037842|OTHER||LS Mean|0.0||||0.8377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.04|||GEE model||From the GEE model which includes the change from baseline or percent change from baseline for TRP as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of TRP as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 48||0.04|-0.05|0.8377
90827825|NCT01332994|181530571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3449|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 24, Plasmablasts||||0.3449
91075860|NCT02537431|182037842|OTHER||LS mean|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.06|||||From the GEE model which includes the change from baseline or percent change from baseline for TRP as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of TRP as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 60||0.06|-0.00|
91075861|NCT02537431|182037842|OTHER||LS mean|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.05|||||From the GEE model which includes the change from baseline or percent change from baseline for TRP as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of TRP as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 72||0.05|-0.09|
91075862|NCT02537431|182037842|OTHER||LS mean|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.06|||||From the GEE model which includes the change from baseline or percent change from baseline for TRP as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of TRP as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 84||0.06|-0.01|
91075863|NCT02537431|182037842|OTHER||LS mean|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.05|||||From the GEE model which includes the change from baseline or percent change from baseline for TRP as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of TRP as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 96||0.05|-0.01|
91075864|NCT02537431|182037842|OTHER||LS mean|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.03|||||From the GEE model which includes the change from baseline or percent change from baseline for TRP as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of TRP as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|EOSII||0.03|-0.01|
91075865|NCT02537431|182037843|OTHER||LS Mean|99.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|76.83|121.53|||||From the GEE model, which includes the change from baseline for P1NP as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of P1NP as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 12||121.53|76.83|
91075866|NCT02537431|182037843|OTHER||LS Mean|104.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|82.47|126.19|||||From the GEE model, which includes the change from baseline for P1NP as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of P1NP as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 24||126.19|82.47|
91075867|NCT02537431|182037843|OTHER||LS Mean|52.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.84|75.13|||GEE model||From the GEE model, which includes the change from baseline for P1NP as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of P1NP as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 48||75.13|29.84|< 0.0001
91075868|NCT02537431|182037843|OTHER||LS mean|37.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.19|61.38|||||From the GEE model, which includes the change from baseline for P1NP as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of P1NP as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 72||61.38|13.19|
91075869|NCT02537431|182037843|OTHER||LS mean|29.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.18|55.4|||||From the GEE model, which includes the change from baseline for P1NP as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of P1NP as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 96||55.40|3.18|
91075870|NCT02537431|182037843|OTHER||LS mean|2.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.67|21.94|||||From the GEE model, which includes the change from baseline for P1NP as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of P1NP as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|EOSII||21.94|-17.67|
91075871|NCT02537431|182037844|OTHER||LS Mean|133.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|106.26|159.89|||||From the GEE model, which includes the percent change from baseline for P1NP as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of P1NP as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 12||159.89|106.26|
91075872|NCT02537431|182037844|OTHER||LS Mean|137.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|106.95|168.65|||||From the GEE model, which includes the percent change from baseline for P1NP as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of P1NP as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 24||168.65|106.95|
91075873|NCT02537431|182037844|OTHER||LS Mean|76.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.2|104.53|||GEE model||From the GEE model, which includes the percent change from baseline for P1NP as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of P1NP as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 48||104.53|49.20|< 0.0001
91075874|NCT02537431|182037844|OTHER||LS mean|50.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.69|77.23|||||From the GEE model, which includes the percent change from baseline for P1NP as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of P1NP as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 72||77.23|23.69|
91075875|NCT02537431|182037844|OTHER||LS mean|41.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.69|64.03|||||From the GEE model, which includes the percent change from baseline for P1NP as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of P1NP as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 96||64.03|18.69|
91075876|NCT02537431|182037844|OTHER||LS mean|26.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.76|45.64|||||From the GEE model, which includes the percent change from baseline for P1NP as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of P1NP as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|EOSII||45.64|6.76|
91075877|NCT02537431|182037845|OTHER||LS Mean|464.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|343.92|585.77|||||From the GEE model which includes the change from baseline for CTx as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of CTx as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 12||585.77|343.92|
91075878|NCT02537431|182037845|OTHER||LS Mean|404.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|294.47|513.78|||||From the GEE model which includes the change from baseline for CTx as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of CTx as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 24||513.78|294.47|
91075879|NCT02537431|182037845|OTHER||LS Mean|175.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|88.85|261.41|||GEE model||From the GEE model which includes the change from baseline for CTx as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of CTx as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 48||261.41|88.85|< 0.0001
91075880|NCT02537431|182037845|OTHER||LS mean|143.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.2|324.41|||||From the GEE model which includes the change from baseline for CTx as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of CTx as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 72||324.41|-38.20|
91075881|NCT02537431|182037845|OTHER||LS mean|76.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.62|189.22|||||From the GEE model which includes the change from baseline for CTx as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of CTx as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 96||189.22|-35.62|
91075882|NCT02537431|182037845|OTHER||LS mean|-41.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-204.28|121.64|||||From the GEE model which includes the change from baseline for CTx as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of CTx as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|EOSII||121.64|-204.28|
91075883|NCT02537431|182037846|OTHER||LS Mean|89.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.58|115.78|||||From the GEE model which includes the percent change from baseline for CTx as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of CTx as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 12||115.78|63.58|
91075884|NCT02537431|182037846|OTHER||LS Mean|70.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.9|90.44|||||From the GEE model which includes the percent change from baseline for CTx as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of CTx as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 24||90.44|49.90|
91075885|NCT02537431|182037846|OTHER||LS Mean|35.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.37|50.36|||GEE model||From the GEE model which includes the percent change from baseline for CTx as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of CTx as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 48||50.36|21.37|< 0.0001
91075886|NCT02537431|182037846|OTHER||LS mean|34.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.53|61.47|||||From the GEE model which includes the percent change from baseline for CTx as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of CTx as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 72||61.47|6.53|
91075887|NCT02537431|182037846|OTHER||LS mean|25.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.27|42.44|||||From the GEE model which includes the percent change from baseline for CTx as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of CTx as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 96||42.44|9.27|
91075888|NCT02537431|182037846|OTHER||LS mean|17.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|36.07|||||From the GEE model which includes the percent change from baseline for CTx as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of CTx as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|EOSII||36.07|-0.32|
91075889|NCT02537431|182037847|OTHER||LS Mean|10.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.98|17.89|||||From the GEE model, which includes the change from baseline for Bone ALP as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of Bone ALP as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 12||17.89|3.98|
91075890|NCT02537431|182037847|OTHER||LS Mean|5.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|11.66|||||From the GEE model, which includes the change from baseline for Bone ALP as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of Bone ALP as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 24||11.66|-0.02|
91075891|NCT02537431|182037847|OTHER||LS Mean|4.5||||0.2592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.32|12.32|||GEE model||From the GEE model, which includes the change from baseline for Bone ALP as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of Bone ALP as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 48||12.32|-3.32|0.2592
91075892|NCT02537431|182037847|OTHER||LS mean|3.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|7.9|||||From the GEE model, which includes the change from baseline for Bone ALP as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of Bone ALP as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 72||7.90|-1.64|
91075893|NCT02537431|182037847|OTHER||LS mean|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.84|5.11|||||From the GEE model, which includes the change from baseline for Bone ALP as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of Bone ALP as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 96||5.11|-2.84|
91075894|NCT02537431|182037847|OTHER||LS mean|-5.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.46|0.85|||||From the GEE model, which includes the change from baseline for Bone ALP as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of Bone ALP as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|EOSII||0.85|-12.46|
91075895|NCT02537431|182037848|OTHER||LS Mean|52.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.18|83.9|||||From the GEE model, which includes the percent change from baseline for Bone ALP as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of Bone ALP as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 12||83.90|21.18|
91075896|NCT02537431|182037848|OTHER||LS Mean|31.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.23|54.51|||||From the GEE model, which includes the percent change from baseline for Bone ALP as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of Bone ALP as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 24||54.51|8.23|
91075897|NCT02537431|182037848|OTHER||l|24.35||||0.1672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|58.9|||GEE model||From the GEE model, which includes the percent change from baseline for Bone ALP as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of Bone ALP as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 48||58.90|-10.20|0.1672
91075898|NCT02537431|182037848|OTHER||LS mean|15.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.19|41.46|||||From the GEE model, which includes the percent change from baseline for Bone ALP as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of Bone ALP as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 72||41.46|-11.19|
91075899|NCT02537431|182037848|OTHER||LS mean|6.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.44|27.28|||||From the GEE model, which includes the percent change from baseline for Bone ALP as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of Bone ALP as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 96||27.28|-13.44|
91075900|NCT02537431|182037848|OTHER||LS mean|-27.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.33|-2.28|||||From the GEE model, which includes the percent change from baseline for Bone ALP as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of Bone ALP as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|EOSII||-2.28|-52.33|
91075901|NCT05238025|182037849|OTHER|Vaccine Efficacy (VE) is defined as 1 minus the hazard ratio resulting from a Cox proportional hazards regression model stratified by age group. It is demonstrated if the lower limit (LL) of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for VE is above 20%|Vaccine Efficacy|42.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.1|71.9||||||||71.9|-16.1|
91075902|NCT05238025|182037850|OTHER|Vaccine Efficacy (VE) is defined as 1 minus the hazard ratio resulting from a Cox proportional hazards regression model stratified by age group. It is demonstrated if the first primary outcome is met and the lower limit (LL) of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for VE is above 20%|Vaccine Efficacy|59.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.7|74.3|||||Not formally tested, since the first primary outcome was not met|||74.3|34.7|
91075903|NCT05238025|182037851|OTHER|Vaccine Efficacy (VE) is defined as 1 minus the hazard ratio resulting from a Cox proportional hazards regression model stratified by age group. It is demonstrated if both primary outcomes are met and the lower limit (LL) of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for VE is above 20%|Vaccine Efficacy|48.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.8|64.7|||||Not formally tested, since the first primary outcome was not met|||64.7|25.8|
91075904|NCT00191282|182037865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.866||95.0|||||Log Rank|||To achieve 80% power, 490 pts need to experience primary combined CV outcome to detect diff. between treatments, assuming: \>=18.5% reduction in incidence of outcomes, 18 mo. pt recruitment, 18 mo. pt follow-up, 10% annual drop-out rate, 2-yr outcome incidence rate of \>=40% (pts in least efficacious treatment), and nominal 2-sided signif. of 0.045.||||0.866
91075905|NCT00191282|182037866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.715||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.715
91075906|NCT00191282|182037867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.914||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.914
91075907|NCT00191282|182037868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.706||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.706
91075908|NCT00191282|182037869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.982||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.982
91075909|NCT00191282|182037870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.816||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.816
91075910|NCT00191282|182037871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.948||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.948
91075911|NCT00191282|182037872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.581||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.581
91075912|NCT00191282|182037873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.647||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.647
91075913|NCT00191282|182037874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.525||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.525
91075914|NCT00191282|182037875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.8||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.800
91075915|NCT00191282|182037876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.662||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.662
91075916|NCT00191282|182037877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.863||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.863
91075917|NCT00191282|182037878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.471||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.471
91075918|NCT00191282|182037879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7168||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7168
91075919|NCT00191282|182037881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.086||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0860
91075920|NCT00191282|182037883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1424||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1424
91075921|NCT00191282|182037886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1957||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1957
91075922|NCT00191282|182037888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2434||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2434
91075923|NCT00191282|182037890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2617||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2617
91075924|NCT06350461|182037937|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is -3.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.324|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.6||One-sided test for non-inferiority|ANOVA|Adjusted for four dichotomous randomization strata.|Direction of difference is Discontinue - Continue.|The non-inferiority test was a priori designed to be conducted on the per-protocol (PP) population.||0.6|-1.3|<0.0001
91075925|NCT06350461|182037938|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4|||ANOVA|Adjusted for four dichotomous randomization strata.|Direction of difference is Discontinue - Continue|||0.4|-0.4|0.733
91075926|NCT06350461|182037939|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.52||||0.226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|0.9|||ANOVA|Adjusted for four dichotomous randomization strata.|Direction of difference is Discontinue - Continue.|||0.9|-4.1|0.226
91075927|NCT06350461|182037940|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|2.1|||ANOVA|Adjusted for four dichotomous randomization strata|Direction of the difference is Discontinue - Continue|||2.1|-1.8|0.857
91075928|NCT06350461|182037941|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.64||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|1.54|||t-test, 2 sided||Direction of the difference is Discontinue - Continue|||1.54|-0.25|0.16
91075929|NCT06350461|182037942|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|0.57|||t-test, 2 sided||Direction of the difference is Discontinue - Continue|||0.57|-1.04|0.56
91075930|NCT06350461|182037943|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % Participants|1.1||||0.653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|6.1|||Fisher Exact||Confidence interval calculated using the Newcombe-Wilson method without continuity correction. Direction of difference is Discontinue - Continue.|Null hypothesis: proportion of participants initiating acute antibiotics is the same in the Discontinue and Continue arms||6.1|-3.7|0.653
91075931|NCT06350461|182037944|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % Participants|0.5||||0.622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|3.4|||Fisher Exact||Confidence interval calculated using the Newcombe-Wilson method without continuity correction. Direction of difference is Discontinue - Continue.|Null hypothesis: proportion of participants with at least one hospitalization is the same in Discontinue and Continue arms.||3.4|-2.0|0.622
91075932|NCT06350461|182037945|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % Participants|-1.1||||0.623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|1.6|||Fisher Exact||Confidence interval calculated using the Newcombe-Wilson method without continuity correction. Direction of difference is Discontinue - Continue.|Null hypothesis: proportion of participants with at least one protocol-defined pulmonary exacerbation is the same in Discontinue and Continue arms.||1.6|-4.1|0.623
91075933|NCT06350461|182037946|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % Participants|11.7||||0.0165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|20.7|||Fisher Exact||Confidence interval calculated using the Newcombe-Wilson method without continuity correction. Direction of difference is Discontinue - Continue.|Null hypothesis: proportion of participants with at least one AE is the same in Discontinue and Continue arms.||20.7|2.4|0.0165
90827826|NCT01332994|181530571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0919|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 32, Naive B-cell compartment||||0.0919
91075934|NCT06350461|182037947|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|1.29||||0.0958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.74|||Poisson Regression|||Rate ratio, confidence interval, and p-value calculated using Poisson Regression with an offset for the log of follow-up time in weeks. The total number of follow-up weeks in the HS-discontinue and HS-continue arms are 1135.7 and 1163.9 weeks, respectively. Ratio is Discontinue / Continue.||1.74|0.96|0.0958
91075935|NCT06350461|182037948|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % Participants|2.17||||0.1215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|5.7|||Fisher Exact||Confidence interval calculated using the Newcombe-Wilson method without continuity correction. Direction of difference is Discontinue - Continue.|Null hypothesis: proportion of participants changing assigned regimen is the same in Discontinue and Continue arms.||5.7|-0.7|0.1215
90827827|NCT01332994|181530571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2189|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 32, Transitional B-cells||||0.2189
91075936|NCT02584998|182037952|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||In our power and sample size analysis, we assumed 15% screening rate in usual care, 25% with invitation, and 40% with mailed-FIT. A sample size of 500 (250/arm) will give 80% power for UC vs. screening invitation-reminder, and 152/arm will give a power of 80% for the screening invitation-reminder vs. mailed-FIT. Accounting for the possibility that up to 20% of participants could be ineligible post-randomization, we concluded that we should enroll 783 patients, 261 per arm, for this trial.||||<0.001
91075937|NCT04216589|182037986|OTHER|This was a single arm trial.|Mean Difference (Net)|-4.24|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.05|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.41|-3.06|||Regression, Linear|||The study was powered to detect an absolute IHTG change of -5% assuming a null change of 0%, a standard deviation of absolute IHTG change of 9%, and 37 evaluable participants.||-3.06|-5.41|<0.001
91075938|NCT04216589|182037987|OTHER|This was a single arm trial.|Mean Difference (Net)|-31.33|STANDARD_DEVIATION|26.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.04|-23.62||No adjustment for multiple comparisons|Regression, Linear|||||-23.62|-39.04|<0.001
91075939|NCT04216589|182037991|OTHER|This was a single arm trial.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.77|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.05|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.36|-2.17||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||||-2.17|-3.36|<0.001
91075940|NCT04216589|182037992|OTHER|This was a single arm trial.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.38|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.55|-1.75||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Linear|||||-1.75|-2.55|<0.001
91075941|NCT04216589|182037993|OTHER|This was a single arm trial.|Mean Difference (Net)|-7.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.77|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.48|-6.13||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Linear|||||-6.13|-9.48|<0.001
91075942|NCT04216589|182037994|OTHER|This was a single arm trial.|Mean Difference (Net)|-6.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.96|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|-5.03||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Linear|||||-5.03|-7.30|<0.001
91075943|NCT04216589|182037995|OTHER|This was a single arm trial.|Mean Difference (Net)|-6.66|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.47|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.54|-4.78||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Linear|||||-4.78|-8.54|<0.001
91075944|NCT04216589|182037996|OTHER|This was a single arm trial.|Mean Difference (Net)|-5.53|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.07|-3.99||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Linear|||||-3.99|-7.07|<0.001
91075945|NCT04216589|182037997|OTHER|This was a single arm trial.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.46|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.82||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.17|0.25||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Linear|||||0.25|-3.17|0.092
91075946|NCT04216589|182037999|OTHER|This was a single arm trial.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.25|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.259|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|-0.17||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Linear|||||-0.17|-0.32|< 0.001
91075947|NCT04216589|182038000|OTHER|This was a single arm trial.|Mean Difference (Net)|-9.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|-5.09||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Linear|||||-5.09|-14.70|<0.001
90827828|NCT01332994|181530571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1386|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 32, Naive B-cells||||0.1386
91075948|NCT04216589|182038001|OTHER|This was a single arm trial.|Mean Difference (Net)|-8.87|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.26|-5.48||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Linear|||||-5.48|-12.26|<0.001
91075949|NCT04216589|182038002|OTHER|This was a single arm trial.|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.98|STANDARD_DEVIATION|23.1||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.84|2.89||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Linear|||||2.89|-10.84|0.25
91075950|NCT04216589|182038003|OTHER|This was a single arm trial.|Mean Difference (Net)|-11.93|STANDARD_DEVIATION|26.4||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.79|-4.08||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Linear|||||-4.08|-19.79|0.004
91075951|NCT04216589|182038004|OTHER|This was a single arm trial.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|20.5||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.14|5.05||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Linear|||||5.05|-7.14|0.73
91075952|NCT04216589|182038005|OTHER|This was a single arm trial.|Mean Difference (Net)|-6.91|STANDARD_DEVIATION|23.1||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.85|0.03||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Linear|||||0.03|-13.85|0.051
91075953|NCT04216589|182038006|OTHER|This was a single arm trial.|Mean Difference (Net)|2.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.96||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|4.11||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Linear|||||4.11|-0.02|0.053
91075954|NCT04216589|182038007|OTHER|This was a single arm trial.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.78|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.66||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.76|1.2||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Linear|||||1.20|-2.76|0.43
91075955|NCT04216589|182038008|OTHER|This was a single arm trial.|Mean Difference (Net)|-26.78|STANDARD_DEVIATION|64.8||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.04|-7.53||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Linear|||||-7.53|-46.04|0.007
91075956|NCT04216589|182038009|OTHER|This was a single arm trial.|Mean Difference (Net)|-18.65|STANDARD_DEVIATION|49.3||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.29|-4.01||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Linear|||||-4.01|-33.29|0.014
91075957|NCT04216589|182038010|OTHER|This was a single arm trial.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.72||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.94||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|GEE model for repeated binary outcomes|The GEE model used a log link and an unstructured correlation.|The risk ratio is comparing the estimated risk at Week 12 (0.55; 95% CI: 0.43, 0.72) to estimated risk at Baseline (0.77; 95% CI: 0.67, 0.90).|Comparison between Baseline and Week 12.||0.94|0.55|0.016
91075958|NCT04216589|182038010|OTHER|This was a single arm trial.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.75||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.98||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|GEE model for repeated binary outcomes|The GEE model used a log link and an unstructured correlation.|The risk ratio is comparing the estimated risk at Week 24 (0.58; 95% CI: 0.46, 0.74) to estimated risk at Baseline (0.77; 95% CI: 0.67, 0.90).|Comparison between Baseline and Week 24.||0.98|0.58|0.033
91075959|NCT02921750|182038058|NON_INFERIORITY|In this non-inferiority study the primary efficacy analysis included constructing a two sided 95% confidence interval, using Fisher's non-parametric permutation test, for between-treatment differences (Exufiber - Aquacel Extra) in the mean percentage area change from baseline to 6 weeks. This means that if the lower limit of this confidence interval was found to be greater than 12%, non-inferiority will be established.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.4||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.5|3.2|||Fisher Exact|||||3.2|-63.5|0.093
91075960|NCT03309696|182038068|EQUIVALENCE|A p value of \<.0.05 is taken as evidence of nonequivalence.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.59||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|||||The p value is not adjusted because it was a planned contrast.|Mixed Models Analysis||Active tDCS - sham tDCS.|Examines the effect of tDCS preconditioning on P100 amplitudes. The effect size for this comparison was .33 (Cohen's).||||.055
91075961|NCT03309696|182038068|EQUIVALENCE|A p value of \<.05 is taken as evidence of nonequivalence.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.36||||0.0418|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons because it was a planned contrast.|Mixed Models Analysis||Sham tDCS - Sham tDCS and Active rTMS|Examines the effect of rTMS on the P100 amplitude. The calculated effect size is .35 (Cohen's).||||0.0418
91075962|NCT03309696|182038068|EQUIVALENCE|A p value less than 0.05 is taken as evidence of nonequivalence.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.19||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|||||The p value is not adjusted as this was a planned contrast.|Mixed Models Analysis||Effect of tDCS preconditioning on active rTMS: active tDCS preconditioning of active rTMS - sham tDCS preconditioning of active rTMS.|Examines the additive effect of tDCS preconditioning on the P100 amplitude after rTMS. The effect size for this comparison was 0.14.||||0.40
91075963|NCT03309696|182038068|EQUIVALENCE|A p value less than 0.05 is taken as evidence of nonequivalence.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.48||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|||||The p value was not adjusted for this planned contrast.|Mixed Models Analysis||Active tDCS and Active rTMS - Sham tDCS and Sham rTMS.|Examines the combined effect of tDCS and rTMS on the P100 amplitude. The effect size for this comparison was .29 (Cohen's).||||.086
91075964|NCT05070468|182038073|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.618|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.618
91075965|NCT05070468|182038074|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.483|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.483
91075966|NCT05070468|182038075|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.571|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.571
91075967|NCT02368210|182038076|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||"Treatment groups were compared with respect to the proportions of subjects with treatment success at Day 15 using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by analysis center."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Missing data was imputed as treatment failure.||||||<0.001
91075968|NCT02368210|182038077|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The pre-specified threshold for statistical significance was ≤0.05. The reported P-Value applies to the clinical sign of psoriasis: Scaling.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Missing data was imputed as treatment failure.||Treatment groups were compared with respect to each of the clinical signs of psoriasis (scaling, erythema and plaque elevation).||||<0.001
91075969|NCT02368210|182038077|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The pre-specified threshold for statistical significance was ≤0.05. The reported P-Value applies to the clinical sign of psoriasis: erythema.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Missing data was imputed as treatment failure.||Treatment groups were compared with respect to each of the clinical signs of psoriasis (scaling, erythema and plaque elevation).||||<0.001
91075970|NCT02368210|182038077|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The pre-specified threshold for statistical significance was ≤0.05. The reported P-Value applies to the clinical sign of psoriasis: Plaque Elevation.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Missing data was imputed as treatment failure.||Treatment groups were compared with respect to each of the clinical signs of psoriasis (scaling, erythema and plaque elevation).||||<0.001
90827829|NCT01332994|181530571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6199|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 32, Memory B-cells||||0.6199
90827830|NCT01332994|181530571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1019|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 32, Pre-switch memory B-cells||||0.1019
90827831|NCT01332994|181530571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4353|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 32, Post-switch memory B-cells||||0.4353
91075971|NCT00078949|182038082|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The literature has suggested that the ORR is approximately 50% for this patient population treated with DHAP. The treatment difference is defined as the response rate for the DHAP arm minus that of GDP arm. We would consider GDP to be non-inferior to DHAP if we are 95% sure that the true difference is less than 10%. In order to rule out that the 10% difference with 80% power, we need to accrue a total of 630 eligible patients. The actual sample size for this final analysis is 619 patients.|Risk Difference (RD)|-1.2||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|6.7||p-value for non-inferiority|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||6.7|-9.0|0.005
91075972|NCT00078949|182038083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.1||||0.55||95.0|-10.0|5.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.8|-10.0|0.55
91075973|NCT00078949|182038084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.12|||Log Rank|||It was estimated that 240 patients will be eligible for the maintenance question, and randomized with a 1:1 ratio to either rituximab or observation. It is expected that the 2-year event-free survival will be 50% on the observation arm. In order to detect a 15% difference in the 2-year event-free survival with an 80% power using a two-sided 5% level test, 142 events are required to detect an HR of 0.622.||1.12|0.52|0.17
91075974|NCT00577005|182038086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.05425|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03211||0.09|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value \<0.05 considered statistically significant|Mixed Models Analysis|We modeled the the change in thrice weekly cocaine urines using a mixed-effect ordinal regression approach with MIXOR.|Group x time interaction: Z=-1.68950 p = 0.09112|||||0.09
91075975|NCT00577005|182038087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.0257|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04369||0.55|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value \<0.05 considered statistically significant|Mixed Models Analysis|We modeled the the change in thrice weekly opioid urines using a mixed-effect ordinal regression approach with MIXOR.|Group x time interaction: Z= 0.58823 p = 0.55638|||||0.55
91075976|NCT00577005|182038088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67||||||p-value \<0.05 considered statistically significant|Log Rank|Chi-Square 0.175. df = 1, p=0.676||||||0.67
91075977|NCT00577005|182038089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.1557||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|||||Significant p-value \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Interaction of time x group: Z = -1.5671, p = 0.11708|||||0.11
91075978|NCT02063178|182038141|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This randomized clinical trial was designed to have 90% power to detect a 4% weight loss percent difference at 12 months between the two study arms.||||<0.001
91075979|NCT02063178|182038142|OTHER|Correlation|||||<|0.0001|||||||Correlation|||The association between weight change percent and attendance was described using Spearman rank correlation.||||<0.0001
91075980|NCT02063178|182038143|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Correlation|||||||<0.0001
91075981|NCT02063178|182038144|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Correlation|||||||<0.0001
91075982|NCT01313494|182038160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|0.071|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.046|0.095|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|Independent variables: treatment, baseline value of pre-bronchodilator FEV1, time and a treatment-by-time interaction.||The primary endpoint was tested in a confirmatory manner with a 2-sided significance level of 5%.||0.095|0.046|<0.0001
91075983|NCT01928797|182038191|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.37
91075984|NCT01928797|182038192|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.33
91075985|NCT03436199|182038194|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.064||||0.0811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.008|0.136|||Farrington-Manning score test|The Miettinen-Nurminen method was used to obtain the 95% confidence intervals.||||0.136|-0.008|0.0811
91075986|NCT03436199|182038194|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.098||||0.0104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.023|0.174|||Farrington-Manning score test|The Miettinen-Nurminen method was used to obtain the 95% confidence intervals.||||0.174|0.023|0.0104
91075987|NCT03436199|182038195|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.0162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed models analysis with repeated measures||||0.21|0.02|0.0162
91075988|NCT03436199|182038195|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.0142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed models analysis with repeated measures||||0.22|0.02|0.0142
91075989|NCT03436199|182038196|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.538||0.1424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed models analysis with repeated measures||||0.27|-1.85|0.1424
91075990|NCT03436199|182038196|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.9467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|1.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed models analysis with repeated measures||||1.06|-1.14|0.9467
91075991|NCT03436199|182038197|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.143|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7389||0.0176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.726|7.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed models analysis with repeated measures||||7.560|0.726|0.0176
91075992|NCT03436199|182038197|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.529|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8196||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.046|7.104|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed models analysis with repeated measures||||7.104|-0.046|0.0530
91075993|NCT01886781|182038202|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To determine an effect size of 0.64 with 80% power, a sample size of 27 for each group (D-IBS, C-IBS and controls), with a type 1 error of 5% using a two sided test was sufficient. Sample size based on expected behaviour of primary outcome measure. The minimally clinically important difference based on the primary outcome measure with the instrument used was 50 points.|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||An intention-to -treat (ITT) analysis was performed on all patients who underwent randomization (n = 81). The results of the ITT analysis are presented. Changes in Severity Score was examined using the mixed model for analysis of variance to account for missing data. This model used group (treatment vs control) \& time as factors.||||<0.05
91075994|NCT00231283|182038206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|97.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.71||||95.0|91.5|99.4|||Qualitative Comparison|Reported in qualitative/semi-quantitative comparitive fashion due to study design.||||99.4|91.5|
91075995|NCT00231283|182038207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|3.0||||||95.0|0.6|8.6|||No formal statistical testing|||||8.6|0.6|
91075996|NCT00231283|182038208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|3.0||||||95.0|0.6|8.5|||Descriptive statistics|||||8.5|0.6|
91075997|NCT00231283|182038209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|10.4||||||95.0|5.1|18.3|||Descriptive statistics|||||18.3|5.1|
91075998|NCT00772005|182038210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8514||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.8514
91075999|NCT00772005|182038210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6995||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.6995
91076000|NCT00772005|182038210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9766||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.9766
91076001|NCT00772005|182038211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7596||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.7596
91076002|NCT00772005|182038211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.562||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.5620
91076003|NCT00772005|182038211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6688||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.6688
91076004|NCT00772005|182038212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1894||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.1894
91076005|NCT00772005|182038212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4582||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.4582
91076006|NCT00772005|182038212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0327||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0327
91076007|NCT00772005|182038213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3275||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.3275
91076008|NCT00772005|182038213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2597||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.2597
91076009|NCT00772005|182038213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0039||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0039
91076010|NCT00772005|182038214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0713||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0713
91076011|NCT00772005|182038214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0431||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0431
91076012|NCT00772005|182038214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0063||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0063
91076013|NCT00772005|182038215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0619||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0619
91076014|NCT00772005|182038215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1137||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.1137
91076015|NCT00772005|182038215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0598||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0598
91076016|NCT00772005|182038216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7093||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.7093
91076017|NCT00772005|182038216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5129||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.5129
91076018|NCT00772005|182038216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1097||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.1097
91076019|NCT00772005|182038217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4291||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.4291
91076020|NCT00772005|182038217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3195||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.3195
91076021|NCT00772005|182038217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1591||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.1591
91076022|NCT00772005|182038218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7768||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.7768
91076023|NCT00772005|182038218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4014||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.4014
91076024|NCT00772005|182038218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4016||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.4016
91076025|NCT00772005|182038219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5612||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.5612
91076026|NCT00772005|182038219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9704||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.9704
91076027|NCT00772005|182038219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2424||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.2424
91076028|NCT00772005|182038220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8847||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.8847
91076029|NCT00772005|182038220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2958||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.2958
91076030|NCT00772005|182038220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.266||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.2660
91076031|NCT00772005|182038221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0524||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0524
91076032|NCT00772005|182038221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0328||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0328
91076033|NCT00772005|182038221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0084||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0084
91076034|NCT00772005|182038222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3651||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.3651
91076035|NCT00772005|182038222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0096||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0096
91076036|NCT00772005|182038222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0327||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0327
91076037|NCT00772005|182038223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2091||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.2091
91076038|NCT00772005|182038223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0706||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0706
91076039|NCT00772005|182038223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3052||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.3052
91076040|NCT00772005|182038224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.996||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.9960
91076041|NCT00772005|182038224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3604||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.3604
91076042|NCT00772005|182038224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9528||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.9528
91076043|NCT00772005|182038225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9797||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.9797
91076044|NCT00772005|182038225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6173||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.6173
91076045|NCT00772005|182038225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5415||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.5415
91076046|NCT00772005|182038226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3547||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.3547
91076047|NCT00772005|182038226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6642||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.6642
91076048|NCT00772005|182038226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7395||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.7395
91076049|NCT00772005|182038227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8124||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.8124
91076050|NCT00772005|182038227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8961||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.8961
91076051|NCT00772005|182038227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4999||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.4999
91076052|NCT00772005|182038237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.454||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.4540
91076053|NCT00772005|182038237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.358||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.3580
91076054|NCT00772005|182038237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6271||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.6271
91076055|NCT00772005|182038238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1459||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.1459
91076056|NCT00772005|182038238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6004||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.6004
91076057|NCT00772005|182038238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0192||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0192
91076058|NCT00772005|182038239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8455||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.8455
91076059|NCT00772005|182038239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8715||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.8715
91076060|NCT00772005|182038239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0309||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0309
91076061|NCT00772005|182038240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2664||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.2664
91076062|NCT00772005|182038240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3528||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.3528
91076063|NCT00772005|182038240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0380
91076064|NCT00772005|182038241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3316||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.3316
91076065|NCT00772005|182038241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.349||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.3490
91076066|NCT00772005|182038241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0926||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0926
91076067|NCT00772005|182038242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8835||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.8835
91076068|NCT00772005|182038242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9748||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.9748
91076069|NCT00772005|182038242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0883||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0883
91076070|NCT00772005|182038243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6948||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.6948
91076071|NCT00772005|182038243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3345||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.3345
91076072|NCT00772005|182038243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2447||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.2447
91076073|NCT00772005|182038244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6115||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.6115
91076074|NCT00772005|182038244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2233||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.2233
91076075|NCT00772005|182038244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2343||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.2343
91076076|NCT00772005|182038245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8228||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.8228
91076077|NCT00772005|182038245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9373||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.9373
91076078|NCT00772005|182038245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.319||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.3190
91076079|NCT00772005|182038246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9769||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.9769
91076080|NCT00772005|182038246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8374||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.8374
91076081|NCT00772005|182038246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7061||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.7061
91076082|NCT00772005|182038247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9577||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.9577
91076083|NCT00772005|182038247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5106||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.5106
91076084|NCT00772005|182038247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2655||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.2655
91076085|NCT00772005|182038248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3825||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.3825
91076086|NCT00772005|182038248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2003||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.2003
91076087|NCT00772005|182038248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0625||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0625
91076088|NCT00772005|182038249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2981||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.2981
91076089|NCT00772005|182038249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0104||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0104
90827832|NCT01332994|181530571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3934|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 32, IgG-positive class-switched B-cells||||0.3934
91076090|NCT00772005|182038249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0150
90827833|NCT01332994|181530571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4196|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 32, IgA-positive class-switched B-cells||||0.4196
91076091|NCT00772005|182038250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4608||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.4608
91076092|NCT00772005|182038250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0807||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0807
90827834|NCT01332994|181530571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5546|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 32, Double-negative B-cells||||0.5546
91076093|NCT00772005|182038250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2959||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.2959
91076094|NCT00772005|182038251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6759||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.6759
91076095|NCT00772005|182038251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2418||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.2418
91076096|NCT00772005|182038251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9808||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.9808
91076097|NCT00772005|182038252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7599||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.7599
91076098|NCT00772005|182038252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4543||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.4543
91076099|NCT00772005|182038252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.604||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.6040
91076100|NCT00772005|182038253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2476||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.2476
91076101|NCT00772005|182038253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.949||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.9490
91076102|NCT00772005|182038253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9035||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.9035
91076103|NCT00772005|182038254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9472||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.9472
91076104|NCT00772005|182038254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8335||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.8335
91076105|NCT00772005|182038254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5674||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.5674
91076106|NCT00772005|182038255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3536||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.3536
91076107|NCT00772005|182038255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.194||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.1940
91076108|NCT00772005|182038255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2129||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.2129
91076109|NCT00772005|182038256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.584||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.5840
91076110|NCT00772005|182038256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6028||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.6028
91076111|NCT00772005|182038256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1426||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.1426
91076112|NCT00772005|182038257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5989||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.5989
91076113|NCT00772005|182038257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7411||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.7411
91076114|NCT00772005|182038257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1566||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.1566
91076115|NCT00772005|182038258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.261||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.2610
91076116|NCT00772005|182038258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4457||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.4457
91076117|NCT00772005|182038258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1342||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.1342
91076118|NCT00772005|182038259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0974||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0974
91076119|NCT00772005|182038259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.664||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.6640
91076120|NCT00772005|182038259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1507||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.1507
91076121|NCT00772005|182038260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7649||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.7649
91076122|NCT00772005|182038260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4866||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.4866
91076123|NCT00772005|182038260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5002||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.5002
91076124|NCT00772005|182038261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2076||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.2076
91076125|NCT00772005|182038261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9355||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.9355
91076126|NCT00772005|182038261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.189||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.1890
91076127|NCT00772005|182038262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.632||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.6320
91076128|NCT00772005|182038262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8777||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.8777
91076129|NCT00772005|182038262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4378||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.4378
91076130|NCT00772005|182038263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5544||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.5544
91076131|NCT00772005|182038263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4446||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.4446
91076132|NCT00772005|182038263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4483||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.4483
91076133|NCT00772005|182038264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1914||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.1914
91076134|NCT00772005|182038264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2543||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.2543
91076135|NCT00772005|182038264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9748||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.9748
91076136|NCT00772005|182038265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5312||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.5312
91076137|NCT00772005|182038265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7522||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.7522
91076138|NCT00772005|182038265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3183||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.3183
91076139|NCT00772005|182038266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5879||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.5879
91076140|NCT00772005|182038266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.891||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.8910
91076141|NCT00772005|182038266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1795||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.1795
91076142|NCT00772005|182038267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6378||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.6378
91076143|NCT00772005|182038267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8679||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.8679
91076144|NCT00772005|182038267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5489||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.5489
91076145|NCT00772005|182038268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9337||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.9337
91076146|NCT00772005|182038268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9428||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.9428
91076147|NCT00772005|182038268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5895||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.5895
91076148|NCT00772005|182038269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8695||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.8695
91076149|NCT00772005|182038269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6637||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.6637
91076150|NCT00772005|182038269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3152||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.3152
91076151|NCT00772005|182038270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7472||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.7472
91076152|NCT00772005|182038270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4503||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.4503
91076153|NCT00772005|182038270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3127||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.3127
91076154|NCT00772005|182038271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9193||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.9193
91076155|NCT00772005|182038271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4814||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.4814
91076156|NCT00772005|182038271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6097||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.6097
91076157|NCT00772005|182038272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8594||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.8594
91076158|NCT00772005|182038272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6157||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.6157
91076159|NCT00772005|182038272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4846||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.4846
91076160|NCT00772005|182038273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6076||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.6076
91076161|NCT00772005|182038273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5827||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.5827
91076162|NCT00772005|182038273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7865||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.7865
91076163|NCT00772005|182038274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3045||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.3045
91076164|NCT00772005|182038274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0617||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0617
91076165|NCT00772005|182038274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.058||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0580
91076166|NCT00772005|182038275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0194||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0194
91076167|NCT00772005|182038275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.227||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.2270
91076168|NCT00772005|182038275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1181||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.1181
91076169|NCT00772005|182038276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1348||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.1348
91076170|NCT00772005|182038276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0419||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0419
91076171|NCT00772005|182038276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0146||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0146
91076172|NCT00772005|182038277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1292||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.1292
91076173|NCT00772005|182038277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3773||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.3773
91076174|NCT00772005|182038277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1348||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.1348
91076175|NCT00772005|182038278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9642||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.9642
91076176|NCT00772005|182038278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7814||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.7814
91076177|NCT00772005|182038278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1455||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.1455
91076178|NCT00772005|182038279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5722||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.5722
91076179|NCT00772005|182038279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1352||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.1352
90827835|NCT01332994|181530571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7695|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 32, Plasmablasts||||0.7695
91076180|NCT00772005|182038279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.063||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0630
91076181|NCT00772005|182038280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4607||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.4607
91076182|NCT00772005|182038280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2538||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.2538
91076183|NCT00772005|182038280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3406||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.3406
91076184|NCT00772005|182038281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8116||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.8116
91076185|NCT00772005|182038281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.687||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.6870
90827836|NCT01332994|181530572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6551|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 16, Naive B-cell compartment||||0.6551
91076186|NCT00772005|182038281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8112||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.8112
91076187|NCT00772005|182038282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9786||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.9786
91076188|NCT00772005|182038282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5879||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.5879
91076189|NCT00772005|182038282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3973||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.3973
91076190|NCT00772005|182038283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.403||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.4030
91076191|NCT00772005|182038283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3777||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.3777
91076192|NCT00772005|182038283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6493||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.6493
91076193|NCT00772005|182038284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9871||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.9871
91076194|NCT00772005|182038284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5859||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.5859
90827837|NCT01332994|181530572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6905|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 16, Transitional B-cells||||0.6905
90827838|NCT01332994|181530572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9678|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 16, Naive B-cells||||0.9678
91076195|NCT00772005|182038284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0328||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0328
91076196|NCT00772005|182038285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2318||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.2318
91076197|NCT00772005|182038285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6211||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.6211
91076198|NCT00772005|182038285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3125||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.3125
91076199|NCT00772005|182038286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2425||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.2425
91076200|NCT00772005|182038286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6597||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.6597
91076201|NCT00772005|182038286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4753||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.4753
91076202|NCT00772005|182038287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1715||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.1715
91076203|NCT00772005|182038287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3056||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.3056
91076204|NCT00772005|182038287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0083||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0083
91076205|NCT00772005|182038288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2681||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.2681
91076206|NCT00772005|182038288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1475||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.1475
90827839|NCT01332994|181530572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.208|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 16, Memory B-cells||||0.2080
91076207|NCT00772005|182038288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0647||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0647
91076208|NCT00772005|182038289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.167||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.1670
91076209|NCT00772005|182038289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1737||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.1737
90827840|NCT01332994|181530572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4778|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 16, Pre-switch memory B-cells||||0.4778
91076210|NCT00772005|182038289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.372||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.3720
91076211|NCT00772005|182038290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3547||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.3547
91076212|NCT00772005|182038290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6043||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.6043
91076213|NCT00772005|182038290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0463||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0463
91076214|NCT00772005|182038291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9258||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.9258
91076215|NCT00772005|182038291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9116||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.9116
90827841|NCT01332994|181530572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8526|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 16, Post-switch memory B-cells||||0.8526
90827842|NCT01332994|181530572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7266|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 16, IgG-positive class-switched B-cells||||0.7266
91076216|NCT00772005|182038291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4848||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.4848
91076217|NCT00772005|182038292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7612||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.7612
91076218|NCT00772005|182038292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5761||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.5761
91076219|NCT00772005|182038292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1576||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.1576
91076220|NCT00772005|182038293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9565||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.9565
91076221|NCT00772005|182038293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9178||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.9178
91076222|NCT00772005|182038293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1491||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.1491
91076223|NCT00772005|182038294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7056||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.7056
90827843|NCT01332994|181530572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2011|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 16, IgA-positive class-switched B-cells||||0.2011
91076224|NCT00772005|182038294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5179||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.5179
91076225|NCT00772005|182038294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4585||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.4585
91076226|NCT00772005|182038295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.069||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0690
91076227|NCT00772005|182038295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5324||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.5324
91076228|NCT00772005|182038295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0946||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0946
91076229|NCT00772005|182038296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1878||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.1878
91076230|NCT00772005|182038296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4294||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.4294
91076231|NCT00772005|182038296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6504||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.6504
91076232|NCT00772005|182038297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4022||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.4022
91076233|NCT00772005|182038297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6246||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.6246
91076234|NCT00772005|182038297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8655||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.8655
91076235|NCT00772005|182038298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5676||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.5676
91076236|NCT00772005|182038298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5239||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.5239
90827844|NCT01332994|181530572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7872|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 16, Double-negative B-cells||||0.7872
91076237|NCT00772005|182038298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4092||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.4092
91076238|NCT00772005|182038299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5195||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.5195
91076239|NCT00772005|182038299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1732||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.1732
91076240|NCT00772005|182038299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7455||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.7455
91076241|NCT00772005|182038300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6885||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.6885
91076242|NCT00772005|182038300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5443||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.5443
90827845|NCT01332994|181530572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5377|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 16, Plasmablasts||||0.5377
91076243|NCT00772005|182038300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9343||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.9343
91076244|NCT00772005|182038301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9093||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.9093
91076245|NCT00772005|182038301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4701||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.4701
91076246|NCT00772005|182038301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9764||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.9764
91076247|NCT00772005|182038302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8115||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.8115
91076248|NCT00772005|182038302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5378||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.5378
91076249|NCT00772005|182038302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9144||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.9144
91076250|NCT00772005|182038303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9812||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.9812
91076251|NCT00772005|182038303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5464||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.5464
91076252|NCT00772005|182038303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8811||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.8811
91076253|NCT00772005|182038304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6487||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.6487
91076254|NCT00772005|182038304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4204||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.4204
91076255|NCT00772005|182038304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6955||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.6955
91076256|NCT00772005|182038305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6042||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.6042
90827846|NCT01332994|181530572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6238|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 48, Naive B-cell compartment||||0.6238
91076257|NCT00772005|182038305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9783||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.9783
91076258|NCT00772005|182038305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9739||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.9739
91076259|NCT00772005|182038306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3466||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.3466
91076260|NCT00772005|182038306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8469||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.8469
91076261|NCT00772005|182038306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5439||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.5439
91076262|NCT00772005|182038307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6059||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.6059
90827847|NCT01332994|181530572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2848|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 48, Transitional B-cells||||0.2848
91076263|NCT00772005|182038307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7474||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.7474
91076264|NCT00772005|182038307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4424||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.4424
91076265|NCT00772005|182038308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4874||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.4874
91076266|NCT00772005|182038308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8243||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.8243
91076267|NCT00772005|182038308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9562||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.9562
91076268|NCT00772005|182038309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3686||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.3686
91076269|NCT00772005|182038309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0270
91076270|NCT00772005|182038309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7322||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.7322
91076271|NCT00772005|182038310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4646||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.4646
91076272|NCT00772005|182038310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8783||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.8783
91076273|NCT00772005|182038310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4213||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.4213
91076274|NCT00772005|182038311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6597||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.6597
91076275|NCT00772005|182038311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0262||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0262
91076276|NCT00772005|182038311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6652||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.6652
91076277|NCT00772005|182038312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3355||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.3355
91076278|NCT00772005|182038312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0953||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0953
91076279|NCT00772005|182038312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9235||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.9235
91076280|NCT00772005|182038313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4164||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.4164
91076281|NCT00772005|182038313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3003||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.3003
91076282|NCT00772005|182038313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6907||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.6907
91076283|NCT00772005|182038314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2518||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.2518
90827848|NCT01332994|181530572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6238|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 48, Naive B-cells||||0.6238
91076284|NCT00772005|182038314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0739||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0739
91076285|NCT00772005|182038314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5644||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.5644
91076286|NCT00772005|182038315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4305||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.4305
91076287|NCT00772005|182038315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8299||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.8299
91076288|NCT00772005|182038315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7283||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.7283
91076289|NCT00772005|182038316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.761||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.7610
91076290|NCT00772005|182038316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6091||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.6091
91076291|NCT00772005|182038316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3368||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.3368
91076292|NCT00772005|182038317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8457||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.8457
90827849|NCT01332994|181530572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2848|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 48, Pre-switch memory B-cells||||0.2848
90827850|NCT01332994|181530572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7471|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 48, Post-switch memory B-cells||||0.7471
91076293|NCT00772005|182038317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4531||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.4531
91076294|NCT00772005|182038317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6867||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.6867
91076295|NCT00772005|182038318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9705||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.9705
90827851|NCT01332994|181530572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7471|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 48, IgG-positive class-switched B-cells||||0.7471
91076296|NCT00772005|182038318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0021||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0021
91076297|NCT00772005|182038318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5013||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.5013
91076298|NCT00772005|182038319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.733||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.7330
91076299|NCT00772005|182038319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0068||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0068
91076300|NCT00772005|182038319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.104||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.1040
91076301|NCT00772005|182038320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.822||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.8220
90827852|NCT01332994|181530572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.391|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 48, IgA-positive class-switched B-cells||||0.3910
90827853|NCT01332994|181530572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8729|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 48, Plasmablasts||||0.8729
90827854|NCT01332994|181530572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7261|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 66, Naive B-cell compartment||||0.7261
90827855|NCT01332994|181530572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9338|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 66, Transitional B-cells||||0.9338
91076302|NCT00772005|182038320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0144||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0144
91076303|NCT00772005|182038320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9464||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.9464
91076304|NCT03280225|182038380|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.82|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratios were estimated using GEE to control for clustering within VAMCs. Fixed effects included a time-dependent variable (pre-post) as well an independent variable of time to account for improvement due to secular trends.|Odds Ratio of eligible Veterans being assigned a coordinator during the 6 month period following implementation compared to eligible Veterans being assigned a coordinator in the 6 month period prior to implementation.||2.82|0.73|.302
91076305|NCT03280225|182038381|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.93|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratios were estimated using GEE to control for clustering within VAMCs. Fixed effects included a time-dependent variable (pre-post) as well an independent variable of time to account for improvement due to secular trends.|Odds Ratio of eligible Veterans being assigned a provider during the 6 month period following implementation compared to eligible Veterans being assigned a provider in the 6 month period prior to implementation.||1.93|0.86|0.226
91076306|NCT03280225|182038382|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.7|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratios were estimated using GEE to control for clustering within VAMCs. Fixed effects included a time-dependent variable (pre-post) as well an independent variable of time to account for improvement due to secular trends.|Odds Ratio of eligible Veterans receiving a care evaluation during the 6 month period following implementation compared to eligible Veterans receiving a care evaluation in the 6 month period prior to implementation.||1.70|0.90|0.199
91076307|NCT03280225|182038383|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.76|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratios were estimated using GEE to control for clustering within VAMCs. Fixed effects included a time-dependent variable (pre-post) as well an independent variable of time to account for improvement due to secular trends.|Odds Ratio of eligible Veterans where outreach was attempted during the 6 month period following implementation compared to eligible Veterans where outreach was attempted in the 6 month period prior to implementation.||1.76|1.08|0.011
91076308|NCT03280225|182038384|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018|||||||ANOVA|F (4, 158) = 3.08||Program Needs||||.018
90827856|NCT01332994|181530572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9074|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 66, Naive B-cells||||0.9074
91076309|NCT03280225|182038384|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.136|||||||ANOVA|F (4, 158) = 1.78||Training Needs||||.136
91076310|NCT03280225|182038384|SUPERIORITY|Pressure for Change||||||0.812|||||||ANOVA|F (4, 158) = 0.39||||||.812
91076311|NCT03280225|182038384|SUPERIORITY|Staffing||||||0.358|||||||ANOVA|F (4, 158) = 1.10||||||.358
91076312|NCT03280225|182038384|SUPERIORITY|Mission||||||0.748|||||||ANOVA|F (4, 158) = 0.48||||||.748
91076313|NCT03280225|182038384|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.748|||||||ANOVA|F (4, 158) = 0.48||Cohesion||||.748
91076314|NCT03280225|182038384|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||ANOVA|F (4, 158) = 3.88||Autonomy||||.005
91076315|NCT03280225|182038384|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.224|||||||ANOVA|F (4, 158) = 1.44||Communication||||.224
90827857|NCT01332994|181530572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 66, Memory B-cells||||<0.0001
90827858|NCT01332994|181530572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9338|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 66, Pre-switch memory B-cells||||0.9338
90827859|NCT01332994|181530572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6515|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 66, Post-switch memory B-cells||||0.6515
90827860|NCT01332994|181530572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8413|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 66, IgG-positive class-switched B-cells||||0.8413
90827861|NCT01332994|181530572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7244|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 66, IgA-positive class-switched B-cells||||0.7244
90827862|NCT01332994|181530572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 66, Double-negative B-cells||||<0.0001
90827863|NCT01332994|181530572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3848|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 66, Plasmablasts||||0.3848
90827864|NCT00279916|181530587|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.18
90827865|NCT00279916|181530588|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.24
90827866|NCT00731679|181530604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.01|||||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value was obtained from a logistic regression model with fixed effects for treatment arm and analysis center.||||||0.01
90827867|NCT00731679|181530605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.005|||||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value was obtained from a logistic regression model with fixed effects for treatment arm and analysis center.||||||0.005
90827868|NCT01598922|181530606|OTHER|Intent-to-treat (ITT) analyses following multiple imputation. Generalized Linear Models (GENLIN) predicting post-treatment HRSD scores in the imputed dataset. Covarying for pre-treatment HRSD scores, age and sex.|Odds Ratio (OR)|6.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.68|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.814|9.403|||GENLIN|||||9.403|2.814|<0.0001
90827869|NCT01598922|181530607|OTHER||Cohen's d measure of effect size|-0.79||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|-0.32||Hierarchical Linear Modeling (HLM) was applied to PHQ-9 data, adjusting for baseline PHQ-9 score. Group x Time interactions tested for between-group differences in slope of improvement of PHQ-9 scores.|hierarchical linear modeling|Age and sex were covariates. Cohen's d effect sizes are reported.||||-0.32|-1.25|.024
90827870|NCT01598922|181530608|OTHER|Hierarchical Linear Modeling (HLM) was applied to K-10 data, adjusting for baseline K-10 score. Group x Time interactions tested for between-group differences in slope of improvement of K-10 scores.|Cohen's d measure of effect size|-0.95||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|-0.48|||HLM|||The Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K-10) is a 10-item scale with total scores that can range from 0 to 50. Higher scores represent worse (more severe) psychological distress.||-0.48|-1.42|.003
90827871|NCT04184297|181530656|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.96|||Regression, Cox|The method was used to calculate hazard ratios with 95% confidence intervals.|Hazard ratio of Tiotropium+Olodaterol versus LABA/LAMA/ICS.|Cox proportional hazard regression models were used to assess the effect of Tiotropium + Olodaterol combination versus the Long-acting beta agonist / inhaled corticosteroid (LABA/LAMA/ICS) therapy combination on the risk of first COPD exacerbation for overall population.||0.96|0.76|
90827872|NCT04184297|181530657|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.07|||Regression, Cox|This method was used to calculate hazard ratios with 95% confidence intervals.|Hazard ratio of Tiotropium+Olodaterol versus LABA/LAMA/ICS.|Cox proportional hazard regression models were used to assess the effect of Tiotropium + Olodaterol combination versus the Long-acting beta agonist / inhaled corticosteroid (LABA/LAMA/ICS) therapy combination on the risk of a hospitalization for community-acquired pneumonia for overall population.||1.07|0.64|
90827873|NCT04184297|181530658|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.19|||Regression, Cox|The method was used to calculate hazard ratios with 95% confidence intervals.|Hazard ratio of Tiotropium+Olodaterol versus LABA/LAMA/ICS.|Cox proportional hazard regression models were used to assess the effect of Tiotropium + Olodaterol combination versus the Long-acting beta agonist / inhaled corticosteroid (LABA/LAMA/ICS) therapy combination on the risk of first COPD exacerbation for overall population.||1.19|0.91|
90827874|NCT03089580|181530659|SUPERIORITY|Paired, Student's t-test was used to contrast the outcome variable of TBUT in the treated eye versus the sham eye from visit 1 to visit 5. The null hypothesis to be tested is one of no change from pre- to post treatment, with a Type I error probability of 0.05 for the primary outcome assessment. The pattern of change over the 4 treatment visits in these continuous variables will be assessed using mixed, linear regression. SAS version 9.4 statistical software (SAS Institute, Cary, NC) was used.||||||0.3|||||||paired t test|||The primary study outcome of pre to post change in TBUT within the treated eye and also the untreated, control eye dictated the use of a paired statistical approach to sample size estimation. Clinically relevant pre to post TBUT increase of 3 seconds with a standard deviation of 4.5 seconds was used. Type I and II error estimates used were standard for a non-pivotal study, 0.05 \& 0.20. The estimated the sample size needed detect this difference in TBUT is 27 subjects.||||0.3
91076316|NCT03280225|182038384|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.043|||||||ANOVA|F (4, 158) = 2.52||Stress||||.043
90827875|NCT03089580|181530660|SUPERIORITY|The p-value results from a test of the hypothesis that the change in OSDI from visit 1 does not differ from zero. Change distributions that met normal distribution test criteria (Shapiro-Wilk p-value \>0.05) were tested with the paired Student's t-test; non-normal change distributions (at visits 2 \& 4) were tested with the non-parametric Wilcoxon signed rank test.||||||0.2026|||||||paired t test|||||||0.2026
91076317|NCT03280225|182038384|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.096|||||||ANOVA|F (4, 158) = 2.01||Change||||.096
90827876|NCT03087513|181530661|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||In all cases of motor evoked potential changes, a P-value of 0.05 was considered significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|As the amplitude values were non-normally distributed, the Mann-Whitney U test was performed to compare the two groups.||In total, 40 patients were randomised for the study. Data from 2 patients were excluded as the crossover arm could not be completed due to intraoperative MEP change (n=1) and the equipment malfunction (n=1). The data distributions were tested for normality with the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test.||||<0.01
90827877|NCT03043872|181530738|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.591|0.909||Analysis was performed using the stratified log-rank test, adjusting for planned platinum therapy in Cycle 1 (carboplatin or cisplatin), and using the rank tests of association approach.|Log Rank||The HR and confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for planned platinum therapy in Cycle 1 (carboplatin or cisplatin), and ties handled by Efron approach.|D + EP vs EP. The global cohort interim analysis of OS was based on a Lan-DeMets alpha spending function with O'Brien Fleming type boundary, using the actual number of events observed as a proportion of the planned total. Boundary for declaring statistical significance was 0.0178 for a 4% overall alpha. Hazard Ratio (HR) \<1 favors D + EP to be associated with a longer OS than EP.||0.909|0.591|0.0047
90827878|NCT03043872|181530739|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.625|0.91||Analysis was performed using the stratified log-rank test, adjusting for planned platinum therapy in Cycle 1 (carboplatin or cisplatin), and using the rank tests of association approach.|Log Rank||The HR and CIs were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for planned platinum therapy in Cycle 1 (carboplatin or cisplatin), and ties handled by Efron approach.|D + EP vs EP. HR \<1 favors D + EP to be associated with a longer OS than EP.||0.910|0.625|0.0032
90827879|NCT03043872|181530739|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.0451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.682|0.995||Analysis was performed using the stratified log-rank test, adjusting for planned platinum therapy in Cycle 1 (carboplatin or cisplatin), and using the rank tests of association approach.|Log Rank||The HR and CIs were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for planned platinum therapy in Cycle 1 (carboplatin or cisplatin), and ties handled by Efron approach.|"D + T + EP vs EP. The alpha level applied at the global cohort final analysis was adjusted (using a generalized Haybittle-Peto method) to account for actual alpha spent at the interim analysis based on the actual final total number of events, and thus maintain control of overall Type I error. Boundary for declaring statistical significance was 0.0418 for a 5% overall alpha.~HR \<1 favors D + T + EP to be associated with a longer OS than EP."||0.995|0.682|0.0451
90827880|NCT03043872|181530740|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||0.0664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.414|1.029||Analysis was performed using the stratified log-rank test, adjusting for planned platinum therapy in Cycle 1 (carboplatin or cisplatin), and using the rank tests of association approach.|Log Rank||The HR and CIs were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for planned platinum therapy in Cycle 1 (carboplatin or cisplatin), and ties handled by Efron approach.|D + EP vs EP. HR \<1 favors D + EP to be associated with a longer OS than EP. The study was not designed or powered to show statistical significance for efficacy endpoints in the China cohort, so all statistical analyses for the China cohort were considered exploratory.||1.029|0.414|0.0664
90827881|NCT03043872|181530741|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.1455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.504|1.106||Analysis was performed using the stratified log-rank test, adjusting for planned platinum therapy in Cycle 1 (carboplatin or cisplatin), and using the rank tests of association approach.|Log Rank||The HR and CIs were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for planned platinum therapy in Cycle 1 (carboplatin or cisplatin), and ties handled by Efron approach.|D + EP vs EP. HR \<1 favors D + EP to be associated with a longer OS than EP. The study was not designed or powered to show statistical significance for efficacy endpoints in the China cohort, so all statistical analyses for the China cohort were considered exploratory.||1.106|0.504|0.1455
90827882|NCT03043872|181530741|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||0.0314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.439|0.964||Analysis was performed using the stratified log-rank test, adjusting for planned platinum therapy in Cycle 1 (carboplatin or cisplatin), and using the rank tests of association approach.|Log Rank||The HR and CIs were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for planned platinum therapy in Cycle 1 (carboplatin or cisplatin), and ties handled by Efron approach.|D + T + EP vs EP. HR \<1 favors D + T + EP to be associated with a longer OS than EP. The study was not designed or powered to show statistical significance for efficacy endpoints in the China cohort, so all statistical analyses for the China cohort were considered exploratory.||0.964|0.439|0.0314
90827883|NCT03043872|181530742|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.4352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.309||Analysis was performed using the stratified log-rank test, adjusting for planned platinum therapy in Cycle 1 (carboplatin or cisplatin), and using the rank tests of association approach.|Log Rank||The HR and CIs were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for planned platinum therapy in Cycle 1 (carboplatin or cisplatin), and ties handled by Efron approach.|D + T + EP vs D + EP. HR \<1 favors D + T + EP to be associated with a longer OS than D + EP.||1.309|0.890|0.4352
90827884|NCT03043872|181530743|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.0157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.665|0.959||Analysis was performed using the stratified log-rank test, adjusting for planned platinum therapy in Cycle 1 (carboplatin or cisplatin), and using the rank tests of association approach.|Log Rank||The HR and CIs were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for planned platinum therapy in Cycle 1 (carboplatin or cisplatin), and ties handled by Efron approach.|D + EP vs EP. HR \<1 favors D + EP to be associated with a longer PFS than EP.||0.959|0.665|0.0157
90827885|NCT03043872|181530743|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.0568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.696|1.005||Analysis was performed using the stratified log-rank test, adjusting for planned platinum therapy in Cycle 1 (carboplatin or cisplatin), and using the rank tests of association approach.|Log Rank||The HR and CIs were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for planned platinum therapy in Cycle 1 (carboplatin or cisplatin), and ties handled by Efron approach.|D + T + EP vs EP. HR \<1 favors D + T + EP to be associated with a longer PFS than EP.||1.005|0.696|0.0568
91076318|NCT01273155|182038390|OTHER|Belinostat|Kendall's Tau|0.096||||0.327|TWO_SIDED||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra|||Effects of liver dysfunction on PK parameter values were evaluated with SPSS 22.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL), using the Jonckheere-Terpstra and Kendall's Tau test. Data were considered significantly different when p\<0.05.||||0.327
90827886|NCT03043872|181530743|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.857|1.235||Analysis was performed using the stratified log-rank test, adjusting for planned platinum therapy in Cycle 1 (carboplatin or cisplatin), and using the rank tests of association approach.|Log Rank||The HR and CIs were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for planned platinum therapy in Cycle 1 (carboplatin or cisplatin), and ties handled by Efron approach.|D + T + EP vs D + EP. HR \<1 favors D + T + EP to be associated with a longer PFS than D + EP.||1.235|0.857|0.7540
90827887|NCT03043872|181530744|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.61||||0.0177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.086|2.401||Analysis was performed using a logistic regression model, adjusting for planned platinum therapy in Cycle 1 (carboplatin or cisplatin). P-value is based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from addition of a treatment factor to the model.|Regression, Logistic|||D + EP vs EP. An odds ratio \>1 favors D + EP.||2.401|1.086|0.0177
90827888|NCT03043872|181530744|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.3611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.817|1.746||Analysis was performed using a logistic regression model, adjusting for planned platinum therapy in Cycle 1 (carboplatin or cisplatin). P-value is based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from addition of a treatment factor to the model.|Regression, Logistic|||D + T + EP vs EP. An odds ratio \>1 favors D + T + EP.||1.746|0.817|0.3611
90827889|NCT03043872|181530756|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.574|1.277||Analysis was performed using the stratified log-rank test, adjusting for planned platinum therapy in Cycle 1 (carboplatin or cisplatin), and using the rank tests of association approach.|Log Rank||The HR and CIs were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for planned platinum therapy in Cycle 1 (carboplatin or cisplatin), and ties handled by Efron approach.|D + T + EP vs D + EP. HR \<1 favors D + T + EP to be associated with a longer OS than D + EP. The study was not designed or powered to show statistical significance for efficacy endpoints in the China cohort, so all statistical analyses for the China cohort were considered exploratory.||1.277|0.574|0.4470
90827890|NCT03043872|181530757|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.8934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.661|1.437||Analysis was performed using the stratified log-rank test, adjusting for planned platinum therapy in Cycle 1 (carboplatin or cisplatin), and using the rank tests of association approach.|Log Rank||The HR and CIs were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for planned platinum therapy in Cycle 1 (carboplatin or cisplatin), and ties handled by Efron approach.|D + EP vs EP. HR \<1 favors D + EP to be associated with a longer PFS than EP. The study was not designed or powered to show statistical significance for efficacy endpoints in the China cohort, so all statistical analyses for the China cohort were considered exploratory.||1.437|0.661|0.8934
90827891|NCT03043872|181530757|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.1035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.487|1.068||Analysis was performed using the stratified log-rank test, adjusting for planned platinum therapy in Cycle 1 (carboplatin or cisplatin), and using the rank tests of association approach.|Log Rank||The HR and CIs were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for planned platinum therapy in Cycle 1 (carboplatin or cisplatin), and ties handled by Efron approach.|D + T + EP vs EP. HR \<1 favors D + T + EP to be associated with a longer PFS than EP. The study was not designed or powered to show statistical significance for efficacy endpoints in the China cohort, so all statistical analyses for the China cohort were considered exploratory.||1.068|0.487|0.1035
90827892|NCT03043872|181530757|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.1673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.522|1.116||Analysis was performed using the stratified log-rank test, adjusting for planned platinum therapy in Cycle 1 (carboplatin or cisplatin), and using the rank tests of association approach.|Log Rank||The HR and CIs were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for planned platinum therapy in Cycle 1 (carboplatin or cisplatin), and ties handled by Efron approach.|D + T + EP vs D + EP. HR \<1 favors D + T + EP to be associated with a longer PFS than D + EP. The study was not designed or powered to show statistical significance for efficacy endpoints in the China cohort, so all statistical analyses for the China cohort were considered exploratory.||1.116|0.522|0.1673
90827893|NCT03043872|181530758|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|3.244||Analysis was performed using a logistic regression model, adjusting for planned platinum therapy in Cycle 1 (carboplatin or cisplatin). P-value is based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from addition of a treatment factor to the model.|Regression, Logistic|||D + EP vs EP. An odds ratio \>1 favors D + EP. The study was not designed or powered to show statistical significance for efficacy endpoints in the China cohort, so all statistical analyses for the China cohort were considered exploratory.||3.244|0.610|0.4320
90827894|NCT03043872|181530758|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.07||||0.0986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.874|5.118||Analysis was performed using a logistic regression model, adjusting for planned platinum therapy in Cycle 1 (carboplatin or cisplatin). P-value is based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from addition of a treatment factor to the model.|Regression, Logistic|||D + T + EP vs EP. An odds ratio \>1 favors D + T + EP. The study was not designed or powered to show statistical significance for efficacy endpoints in the China cohort, so all statistical analyses for the China cohort were considered exploratory.||5.118|0.874|0.0986
90827895|NCT02777827|181530770|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean|0.2221|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0453|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1324|0.3118|||ANCOVA|||||0.3118|0.1324|<0.0001
90827896|NCT02777827|181530770|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean|0.4042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0453|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3146|0.4938|||ANCOVA|||||0.4938|0.3146|<0.0001
90827897|NCT02777827|181530770|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean|0.1056|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0451||0.0207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0164|0.1949|||ANCOVA|||||0.1949|0.0164|0.0207
90827898|NCT02777827|181530770|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean|0.1701|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.081|0.2592|||ANCOVA|||||0.2592|0.0810|0.0002
90827899|NCT02777827|181530770|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean|0.4062|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0451|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.317|0.4955|||ANCOVA|||||0.4955|0.3170|<0.0001
90827900|NCT04551066|181530794|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.4224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.26||calculated from Cochran Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline platelet count ≥100 x 10\^9/Liters versus 50 to \<100 x 10\^9/Liters inclusive|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.26|0.71|0.4224
90827901|NCT04551066|181530795|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.5728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.53||calculated from Cochran Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline platelet count ≥100 x 10\^9/Liters versus 50 to \<100 x 10\^9/Liters inclusive|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.53|0.46|0.5728
90827902|NCT04551066|181530797|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.949||||||calculated from log-rank test stratified by Baseline platelet count ≥100 × 10\^9/Liters versus 50 to \<100 × 10\^9/Liters inclusive|Log Rank|||||||0.9490
90827903|NCT04551066|181530801|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1085||||||calculated from log-rank test stratified by Baseline platelet count ≥100 × 10\^9/Liters versus 50 to \<100 × 10\^9/Liters inclusive|Log Rank|||||||0.1085
90827904|NCT04551066|181530802|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6127||||||calculated from log-rank test stratified by Baseline platelet count ≥100 × 10\^9/Liters versus 50 to \<100 × 10\^9/Liters inclusive|Log Rank|||||||0.6127
90827905|NCT04491136|181530803|OTHER||||||>|0.9999|||||||McNemar|||At least one SVT occurred||||>0.9999
90827906|NCT04491136|181530803|OTHER|||||||0.7905|||||||McNemar|||At least one NSVT occurred||||0.7905
90827907|NCT04491136|181530803|OTHER|||||||0.625|||||||McNemar|||At least one PVC occurred||||0.6250
90827908|NCT04491136|181530805|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.653||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|3.7|||Wilcoxon signed-rank|||||3.70|1.11|0.0008
90827909|NCT04491136|181530806|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028||0.5733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.04|||Ridit analysis|||||0.04|-0.07|0.5733
90827910|NCT04491136|181530807|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-231.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|93.03||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-415.9|-47.02|||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||-47.02|-415.90|0.0006
90827911|NCT04491136|181530809|OTHER||||||>|0.9999|||||||McNemar|||Occurrence of at least one shock||||>0.9999
90827912|NCT04491136|181530809|OTHER|||||||0.0654|||||||McNemar|||Occurrence of at least one ATP event||||0.0654
90827913|NCT00064792|181530815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The primary outcome variable will be the serum cholesterol/total sterol ratio.||||0.002
90827914|NCT00064792|181530816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.22
90827915|NCT01712204|181530842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.113||0.1356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.07|||Possion regression|||||1.07|0.62|0.1356
90827916|NCT01059318|181530847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|76.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.0|196.0|||Bayesian analysis|A Bayesian posterior distribution of the treatment effect at 26 weeks was evaluated using a non-informative prior.|MILES study and current study had different study designs, so change from baseline to 26 weeks in MILES study was estimated from the publicly reported rate of change per month in order to provide a meaningful comparison based on Bayesian analysis.|"Proof of Concept was proposed as follows:~* 90% level of proof that difference in FVC change from baseline everolimus vs. Historical Placebo Control arm from MILES study \> 0 mL~* 50% level of proof that difference in FVC change from baseline everolimus vs. Historical Placebo Control arm from MILES study \>= 100 mL~Historical data from 43 patients treated with placebo from the MILES study were down weighted to an effective sample size of 18 for comparison."||196|-45|
90827917|NCT01059318|181530848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|186.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.0|279.0|||Bayesian analysis|A Bayesian posterior distribution of the treatment effect at 26 weeks was evaluated using a non-informative prior.|MILES study and current study had different study designs, so change from baseline to 26 weeks in MILES study was estimated from the publicly reported rate of change per month in order to provide a meaningful comparison based on Bayesian analysis.|"Proof of Concept was proposed as follows:~* 90% level of proof that difference in FEV1 change from baseline everolimus vs. Historical Placebo Control arm from MILES study \> 0 mL~* 50% level of proof that difference in FEV1 change from baseline everolimus vs. Historical Placebo Control arm from MILES study \>= 100 mL~Historical data from 43 patients treated with placebo from the MILES study were down weighted to an effective sample size of 18 for comparison."||279|93|
90827918|NCT01025830|181530890|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was defined as a 90% Confidence Interval of the geometric mean ratio between 0.8 and 1.25. Differences between treatments with respect to the outcome and intra- and inter-subject variances were assessed using the mixed effects model. Bootstrapped random errors were used.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.1||||||90.0|0.87|1.38||p value not required for this analysis. What counts is the 90% confidence interval of the geometric mean ratio between the two formulation parameters.|Non-compartmental model|Mixed random effects model was used to assess difference between treatments and intra- and inter-subject variances.|the generic is the numerator while the brand is the denominator|The null hypothesis was that there is a difference in the relative bioavailability of Triomune and brand-name stavudine/lamivudine/nevirapine in HIV-infected Africans. 18 participants were required to provide 80% power to detect approximately a 20% difference on a log scale in AUC0-12h between the brand formulation and the generic formulation. Alpha level of 0.05.||1.38|0.87|
91076319|NCT01273155|182038390|OTHER|Belinostat glucuronide|Kendall's Tau|-0.178||||0.063|TWO_SIDED||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra|||Effects of liver dysfunction on PK parameter values were evaluated with SPSS 22.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL), using the Jonckheere-Terpstra and Kendall's Tau test. Data were considered significantly different when p\<0.05.||||0.063
90827919|NCT01025830|181530890|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was defined as a 90% Confidence Interval of the geometric mean ratio between 0.8 and 1.25. Differences between treatments with respect to the outcome and intra- and inter-subject variances were assessed using the mixed effects model. Bootstrapped random errors were used.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.1||||||90.0|0.95|1.31||p value not required for this analysis. What counts is the 90% confidence interval of the geometric mean ratio between the two formulation parameters.|Non-compartmental model|Mixed random effects model was used to assess difference between treatments and intra- and inter-subject variances.|the generic is the numerator while the brand is the denominator|The null hypothesis was that there is a difference in the relative bioavailability of Triomune and brand-name stavudine/lamivudine/nevirapine in HIV-infected Africans. 18 participants were required to provide 80% power to detect approximately a 20% difference on a log scale in AUC0-12h between the brand formulation and the generic formulation. Alpha level of 0.05.||1.31|0.95|
90890498|NCT03086447|181645730|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of -5 points was used. This margin is based on a 10% shift in the distribution of CLUE score.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.04|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|0.9|||Linear mixed model|A 95% confidence interval for the least square mean difference was used to demonstrate non-inferiority of the Test relative to the Control groups.|Mean difference was calculated as Test minus Control|Sample size calculation was performed considering the effect size of 5 (Test minus Control) to achieve a minimum statistical power of 90% at a 5% significance level.||0.9|-7.2|
91076320|NCT01273155|182038390|OTHER|Methyl belinostat|Kendall's Tau|0.382|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra|||Effects of liver dysfunction on PK parameter values were evaluated with SPSS 22.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL), using the Jonckheere-Terpstra and Kendall's Tau test. Data were considered significantly different when p\<0.05.||||<0.001
90827920|NCT01025830|181530890|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was defined as a 90% Confidence Interval of the geometric mean ratio between 0.8 and 1.25. Differences between treatments with respect to the outcome and intra- and inter-subject variances were assessed using the mixed effects model. Bootstrapped random errors were used.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.8||||||90.0|0.65|0.99||p value not required for this analysis. What counts is the 90% confidence interval of the geometric mean ratio between the two formulation parameters.|Non-compartmental model|Mixed random effects model was used to assess difference between treatments and intra- and inter-subject variances.|the generic is the numerator while the brand is the denominator|The null hypothesis was that there is a difference in the relative bioavailability of Triomune and brand-name stavudine/lamivudine/nevirapine in HIV-infected Africans. 18 participants were required to provide 80% power to detect approximately a 20% difference on a log scale in AUC0-12h between the brand formulation and the generic formulation. Alpha level of 0.05.||0.99|0.65|
90827921|NCT01025830|181530891|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|same as for AUC|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.3||||||90.0|0.99|1.71||same as for AUC|Non-compartmental model|same as for AUC|same as AUC|Same as for AUC||1.71|0.99|
90827922|NCT01025830|181530891|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|same for all three drugs.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.1||||||90.0|0.95|1.23||Same for all three drugs.|Non-compartmental model|Same for all three drugs.|Same for all three drugs.|Same for all three drugs.||1.23|0.95|
90827923|NCT01025830|181530891|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Same for all three drugs.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.8||||||90.0|0.63|0.98||Same for all three drugs.|Non-compartmental model|Same for all three drugs.|Same for all three drugs.|Same for all three drugs.||0.98|0.63|
90827924|NCT02267538|181530894|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.62||||0.341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.65|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.65|0.23|0.341
90827925|NCT02267538|181530895|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|||||MMSE|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.830
90827926|NCT02267538|181530895|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.405|TWO_SIDED|||||m-TICS|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.405
90827927|NCT02267538|181530896|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.19|||Regression, Logistic|||Incidence of total non-delirium complications within 30 days after surgery||1.19|0.47|0.214
90827928|NCT02267538|181530896|OTHER|stroke|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|5.08|||Regression, Logistic|||Incidence of stroke within 30 days after surgery||5.08|0.20|0.993
90827929|NCT02267538|181530896|OTHER|New onset arrythmia|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.25|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.25|0.46|0.274
90827930|NCT02267538|181530896|OTHER|Pulmonary complications|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.51||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.00|0.26|0.050
90827931|NCT02267538|181530896|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5||||0.423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|2.75||Upper gastrointestinal bleeding|Regression, Logistic|||||2.75|0.09|0.423
90827932|NCT02267538|181530896|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|5.08||Surgical bleeding|Regression, Logistic|||||5.08|0.20|0.993
90827933|NCT02267538|181530896|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|4.34||Wound dehiscence or infection|Regression, Logistic|||||4.34|0.61|0.326
90827934|NCT02267538|181530896|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.33||Acute kidney injur|Regression, Logistic|||||1.33|0.47|0.378
90827935|NCT02267538|181530896|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.48||||0.156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.32||IABP assistance|Regression, Logistic|||||1.32|0.18|0.156
90827936|NCT02267538|181530897|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||this statistical analysis applies to the first row in Outcome 4, i.e., Pain score in Day 1 after surgery, at rest between DEX Group and CTRL group||0|-1|0.596
90827937|NCT02267538|181530897|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||this statistical analysis applies to the second row in Outcome 4, i.e., Pain score in Day 2 after surgery, at rest between DEX Group and CTRL group||0|-1|0.743
90827938|NCT02267538|181530897|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||this statistical analysis applies to the third row in Outcome 4, i.e., Pain score in Day 3 after surgery, at rest between DEX Group and CTRL group||0|-1|0.282
90827939|NCT02267538|181530897|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||this statistical analysis applies to the fourth row in Outcome 4, i.e., Pain score in Day 4 after surgery, at rest between DEX Group and CTRL group||0|0|0.368
90827940|NCT02267538|181530897|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||this statistical analysis applies to the fifth row in Outcome 4, i.e., Pain score in Day 5 after surgery, at rest between DEX Group and CTRL group||0|0|0.397
90827941|NCT02267538|181530897|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||this statistical analysis applies to the sixth row in Outcome 4, i.e., Pain score in Day 1 after surgery, with coughing between DEX Group and CTRL group||0|-1|0.486
90827942|NCT02267538|181530897|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||this statistical analysis applies to the seventh row in Outcome 4, i.e., Pain score in Day 2 after surgery, with coughing between DEX Group and CTRL group||0|-1|0.414
90827943|NCT02267538|181530897|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||this statistical analysis applies to the eighth row in Outcome 4, i.e., Pain score in Day 3 after surgery, with coughing between DEX Group and CTRL group||0|-1|0.187
90827944|NCT02267538|181530897|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||this statistical analysis applies to the ninth row in Outcome 4, i.e., Pain score in Day 4 after surgery, with coughing between DEX Group and CTRL group||0|-1|0.127
90827945|NCT02267538|181530897|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||this statistical analysis applies to the tenth row in Outcome 4, i.e., Pain score in Day 5 after surgery, with coughing between DEX Group and CTRL group||0|0|0.378
90827946|NCT02267538|181530898|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||this statistical analysis applies to the first row in Outcome 5, i.e., subjective sleep quality in Day 1 after surgery, between DEX Group and CTRL group||0|0|0.777
90827947|NCT02267538|181530898|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||this statistical analysis applies to the second row in Outcome 5, i.e., subjective sleep quality in Day 2 after surgery, between DEX Group and CTRL group||1|-1|0.919
90827948|NCT02267538|181530898|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||this statistical analysis applies to the third row in Outcome 5, i.e., subjective sleep quality in Day 3 after surgery, between DEX Group and CTRL group||0|0|0.835
90827949|NCT02267538|181530898|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||this statistical analysis applies to the fourth row in Outcome 5, i.e., subjective sleep quality in Day 4 after surgery, between DEX Group and CTRL group||0|0|0.321
90827950|NCT02267538|181530898|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||this statistical analysis applies to the fifth row in Outcome 5, i.e., subjective sleep quality in Day 5 after surgery, between DEX Group and CTRL group||0|0|0.174
90827951|NCT02267538|181530899|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.31|||Log Rank|||||1.31|0.82|0.788
90827952|NCT02267538|181530900|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.23|||Log Rank|||||1.23|0.77|0.826
90827953|NCT01223183|181530908|EQUIVALENCE|alpha=0.05|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparing DTPA absorption after hypertonic saline inhalation to DTPA absorption after isotonic saline inhalation||||<0.001
90827954|NCT01223183|181530910|EQUIVALENCE|alpha=0.05||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparing mucociliary clearance after isotonic saline inhalation to mucociliary clearance after hypertonic saline inhalation||||0.003
90827955|NCT01454791|181530912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.45|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.45
90827956|NCT01454791|181530913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16||||0.6059|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||not significant|||||0.6059
90827957|NCT01454791|181530914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.705|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||not significant|||||0.705
90827958|NCT02719171|181530915|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.0||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.3|38.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The 90% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in response rates between the groups and the 2-sided p-value are calculated using the Cochran Mantel-Haenszel method, stratified by prior tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) use and concurrent methotrexate use.||38.7|9.3|0.007
90827959|NCT02719171|181530916|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.0||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|23.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The 90% CI for the difference in response rates between the groups and the 2-sided p-value are calculated using the Cochran Mantel-Haenszel method, stratified by prior TNFi use and concurrent methotrexate use.||23.0|1.0|0.074
90827960|NCT02719171|181530916|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.0||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.4|30.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The 90% CI for the difference in response rates between the groups and the 2-sided p-value are calculated using the Cochran Mantel-Haenszel method, stratified by prior TNFi use and concurrent methotrexate use.||30.6|7.4|0.007
90827961|NCT02719171|181530917|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.3||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.1|16.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The 90% CI for the difference in response rates between the groups and the 2-sided p-value are calculated using the Cochran Mantel-Haenszel method, stratified by prior TNFi use and concurrent methotrexate use.||16.4|4.1|0.006
90827962|NCT02719171|181530917|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.5|22.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The 90% CI for the difference in response rates between the groups and the 2-sided p-value are calculated using the Cochran Mantel-Haenszel method, stratified by prior TNFi use and concurrent methotrexate use.||22.9|8.5|<0.001
90827963|NCT02719171|181530918|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.0|2.5|||mixed model repeated measures model|||The 2-sided p-value is calculated using a mixed model repeated measures model with categorical fixed effects of treatment, stratification factors, week, and treatment-by-week interaction and the continuous fixed baseline measurement, with subject as a random effect.||2.5|-4.0|0.690
90827964|NCT02719171|181530918|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.3|1.0|||mixed model repeated measures model|||The 2-sided p-value is calculated using a mixed model repeated measures model with categorical fixed effects of treatment, stratification factors, week, and treatment-by-week interaction and the continuous fixed baseline measurement, with subject as a random effect.||1.0|-5.3|0.260
90827965|NCT02719171|181530919|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.791|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.1|1.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The 2-sided p-value is calculated using a mixed model repeated measures model with categorical fixed effects of treatment, stratification factors, week, and treatment-by-week interaction and the continuous fixed baseline measurement, with subject as a random effect.||1.5|-2.1|0.791
91076321|NCT01273155|182038390|OTHER|M21|Kendall's Tau|0.253||||0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra|||Effects of liver dysfunction on PK parameter values were evaluated with SPSS 22.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL), using the Jonckheere-Terpstra and Kendall's Tau test. Data were considered significantly different when p\<0.05.||||0.009
90827966|NCT02719171|181530919|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.8|0.7|||mixed model repeated measures model|||The 2-sided p-value is calculated using a mixed model repeated measures model with categorical fixed effects of treatment, stratification factors, week, and treatment-by-week interaction and the continuous fixed baseline measurement, with subject as a random effect.||0.7|-2.8|0.320
90827967|NCT02719171|181530920|OTHER||mixed model repeated measures model|-0.082||||0.341|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.225|0.06|||mixed model repeated measures model|||The 2-sided p-value is calculated using a mixed model repeated measures model with categorical fixed effects of treatment, stratification factors, week, and treatment-by-week interaction and the continuous fixed baseline measurement, with subject as a random effect.||0.060|-0.225|0.341
90827968|NCT02719171|181530920|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.114||||0.181|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.254|0.027|||mixed model repeated measures model|||The 2-sided p-value is calculated using a mixed model repeated measures model with categorical fixed effects of treatment, stratification factors, week, and treatment-by-week interaction and the continuous fixed baseline measurement, with subject as a random effect.||0.027|-0.254|0.181
90827969|NCT02719171|181530921|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.36|3.77|||mixed model repeated measures model|||The 2-sided p-value is calculated using a mixed model repeated measures model with categorical fixed effects of treatment, stratification factors, week, and treatment-by-week interaction and the continuous fixed baseline measurement, with subject as a random effect.||3.77|-0.36|0.174
90827970|NCT02719171|181530921|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.35||||0.284|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.73|3.44|||mixed model repeated measures model|||The 2-sided p-value is calculated using a mixed model repeated measures model with categorical fixed effects of treatment, stratification factors, week, and treatment-by-week interaction and the continuous fixed baseline measurement, with subject as a random effect.||3.44|-0.73|0.284
90827971|NCT02719171|181530922|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.59||||0.718|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.12|3.3|||mixed model repeated measures model|||The 2-sided p-value is calculated using a mixed model repeated measures model with categorical fixed effects of treatment, stratification factors, week, and treatment-by-week interaction and the continuous fixed baseline measurement, with subject as a random effect.||3.30|-2.12|0.718
90827972|NCT02719171|181530922|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.06||||0.204|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.61|4.74|||mixed model repeated measures model|||The 2-sided p-value is calculated using a mixed model repeated measures model with categorical fixed effects of treatment, stratification factors, week, and treatment-by-week interaction and the continuous fixed baseline measurement, with subject as a random effect.||4.74|-0.61|0.204
90827973|NCT02719171|181530923|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2||||0.243|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|2.8|||mixed model repeated measures model|||The 2-sided p-value is calculated using a mixed model repeated measures model with categorical fixed effects of treatment, stratification factors, week, and treatment-by-week interaction and the continuous fixed baseline measurement, with subject as a random effect.||2.8|-0.5|0.243
90827974|NCT02719171|181530923|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.906|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|1.1|||mixed model repeated measures model|||The 2-sided p-value is calculated using a mixed model repeated measures model with categorical fixed effects of treatment, stratification factors, week, and treatment-by-week interaction and the continuous fixed baseline measurement, with subject as a random effect.||1.1|-1.0|0.906
90827975|NCT02719171|181530924|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.325|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.8|0.5|||mixed model repeated measures model|||The 2-sided p-value is calculated using a mixed model repeated measures model with categorical fixed effects of treatment, stratification factors, week, and treatment-by-week interaction and the continuous fixed baseline measurement, with subject as a random effect.||0.5|-1.8|0.325
90827976|NCT02719171|181530924|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.1|0.2|||mixed model repeated measures model|||The 2-sided p-value is calculated using a mixed model repeated measures model with categorical fixed effects of treatment, stratification factors, week, and treatment-by-week interaction and the continuous fixed baseline measurement, with subject as a random effect.||0.2|-2.1|0.160
90827977|NCT02719171|181530925|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.453|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.0|1.5|||mixed model repeated measures model|||The 2-sided p-value is calculated using a mixed model repeated measures model with categorical fixed effects of treatment, stratification factors, week, and treatment-by-week interaction and the continuous fixed baseline measurement, with subject as a random effect.||1.5|-4.0|0.453
90827978|NCT02719171|181530925|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.8||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.7|0.1|||mixed model repeated measures model|||The 2-sided p-value is calculated using a mixed model repeated measures model with categorical fixed effects of treatment, stratification factors, week, and treatment-by-week interaction and the continuous fixed baseline measurement, with subject as a random effect.||0.1|-5.7|0.111
90827979|NCT02719171|181530926|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|53.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|35.9|71.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The 90% CI for the difference in response rates between the groups and the 2-sided p-value are calculated using the Cochran Mantel-Haenszel method, stratified by prior TNFi use and concurrent methotrexate use.||71.1|35.9|<0.001
90827980|NCT02719171|181530926|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|48.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|33.1|64.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The 90% CI for the difference in response rates between the groups and the 2-sided p-value are calculated using the Cochran Mantel-Haenszel method, stratified by prior TNFi use and concurrent methotrexate use.||64.5|33.1|<0.001
90827981|NCT05298202|181530927|SUPERIORITY|time x treatment ANOVA||||||0.284||||||difference between treatment and control|ANOVA|||||||0.284
90827982|NCT05298202|181530928|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.177|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.177
90827983|NCT05298202|181530929|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.122|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.122
90827984|NCT05298202|181530930|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038|||||||ANOVA|time x treatment anova||||||.038
90827985|NCT05298202|181530931|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.976|||||||ANOVA|||||||.976
90827986|NCT05298202|181530932|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.747|||||||ANOVA|||||||.747
91076322|NCT01273155|182038390|OTHER|M24|Kendall's Tau|-0.278||||0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra|||Effects of liver dysfunction on PK parameter values were evaluated with SPSS 22.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL), using the Jonckheere-Terpstra and Kendall's Tau test. Data were considered significantly different when p\<0.05.||||0.004
90827987|NCT02831764|181530941|NON_INFERIORITY|Treatment with DTG+ 3TC was to be declared non-inferior to treatment with DTG+TDF/FTC if the lower end of a two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference between the two groups in response rates at Week 48 was greater than -10%.|Adjusted difference in proportion|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|2.9|||||Difference in proportion was based on CMH stratified analysis adjusting for Baseline stratification factors: Plasma HIV-1 RNA (\<= vs. \>100,000 copies per milliliter) and CD4+ cell count (\<= vs. \>200 cells per cubic millimeter \[cells/mm\^3\]).|||2.9|-4.3|
90827988|NCT02831764|181530942|NON_INFERIORITY|Treatment with DTG+ 3TC was to be declared non-inferior to treatment with DTG+TDF/FTC if the lower end of a two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference between the two groups in response rates at Week 24 was greater than -10%.|Adjusted difference in proportion|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|3.6|||||Difference in proportion was based on CMH stratified analysis adjusting for Baseline stratification factors: Plasma HIV-1 RNA (\<= vs. \>100,000 c/mL) and CD4+ cell count (\<= vs. \>200 cells/mm\^3).|||3.6|-3.4|
90827989|NCT02831764|181530943|OTHER||Adjusted difference in proportion|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|2.7|||||Week 96. Difference in proportion was based on CMH stratified analysis adjusting for Baseline stratification factors: Plasma HIV-1 RNA (\<= vs. \>100,000 c/mL) and CD4+ cell count (\<= vs. \>200 cells/mm\^3).|||2.7|-6.4|
90827990|NCT02831764|181530944|OTHER||Adjusted difference in proportion|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|5.3|||||Week 144. Difference in proportion was based on CMH stratified analysis adjusting for Baseline stratification factors: Plasma HIV-1 RNA (\<= vs. \>100,000 c/mL) and CD4+ cell count (\<= vs. \>200 cells/mm\^3).|||5.3|-5.3|
90827991|NCT02831764|181530945|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.19||The generalised Wilcoxon procedure was used to estimate a p-value for detecting a difference in cumulative incidence curves between treatment groups.|Generalised Wilcoxon procedure||Hazard ratios were estimated using the Cox proportional hazard regression model.|||1.19|0.88|0.797
90827992|NCT02831764|181530949|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|25.6||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|50.4|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Week 24. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: treatment, visit, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, treatment and visit interaction and Baseline CD4+ cell count and visit interaction with visit as the repeated factor.|||50.4|0.8|0.043
90827993|NCT02831764|181530949|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.5||||0.523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|34.8|||MMRM||Week 48. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: treatment, visit, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, treatment and visit interaction and Baseline CD4+ cell count and visit interaction with visit as the repeated factor.|||34.8|-17.7|0.523
90827994|NCT02831764|181530950|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.4||||0.635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.2|38.0|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Week 96. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: treatment, visit, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, treatment and visit interaction and Baseline CD4+ cell count and visit interaction with visit as the repeated factor.|||38.0|-23.2|0.635
90827995|NCT02831764|181530951|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.1||||0.777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.9|40.0|||MMRM||Week 144.Following covariates/factors were adjusted: treatment, visit, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, treatment and visit interaction and Baseline CD4+ cell count and visit interaction with visit as the repeated factor.|||40.0|-29.9|0.777
90827996|NCT02831764|181530962|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|-0.02|||MMRM||Week 24. Serum Cystatin C.|||-0.02|-0.05|<0.001
90827997|NCT02831764|181530962|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.0|||MMRM||Week 48. Serum Cystatin C.|||0.00|-0.03|0.022
90827998|NCT02831764|181530962|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.1|||MMRM||Week 24. Serum RBP|||1.1|-1.4|0.797
90827999|NCT02831764|181530962|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.7||||0.258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.9|||MMRM||Week 48. Serum RBP|||1.9|-0.5|0.258
90828000|NCT02831764|181530963|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.0|||MMRM||Week 96. Serum Cystatin C.|||0.00|-0.03|0.034
90828001|NCT02831764|181530964|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|-0.01|||MMRM||Week 144. Serum Cystatin C.|||-0.01|-0.04|0.006
90828002|NCT02831764|181530967|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|5.4|||MMRM||Week 24. GFR Cystatin C adjusted.|||5.4|1.8|<0.001
90828003|NCT02831764|181530967|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.7||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.5|||MMRM||Week 48. GFR Cystatin C adjusted.|||3.5|0.0|0.056
90828004|NCT02831764|181530967|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|5.2|||MMRM||Week 24. GFR creatinine adjusted.|||5.2|1.7|<0.001
90828005|NCT02831764|181530967|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|5.0|||MMRM||Week 48. GFR creatinine adjusted.|||5.0|1.6|<0.001
90828006|NCT02831764|181530970|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.49|-1.55|||MMRM||Week 24. Serum or Plasma Creatinine|||-1.55|-4.49|<0.001
90828007|NCT02831764|181530970|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.59|-1.65|||MMRM||Week 48. Serum or Plasma creatinine|||-1.65|-4.59|<0.001
91076323|NCT01273155|182038390|OTHER|M26|Kendall's Tau|0.098||||0.312|TWO_SIDED||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra|||Effects of liver dysfunction on PK parameter values were evaluated with SPSS 22.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL), using the Jonckheere-Terpstra and Kendall's Tau test. Data were considered significantly different when p\<0.05.||||0.312
90828008|NCT02831764|181530971|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.56|-1.53|||MMRM||Week 96. Serum or Plasma creatinine|||-1.53|-4.56|<0.001
90828009|NCT02831764|181530972|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.52|-1.19|||MMRM||Week 144. Serum or Plasma creatinine|||-1.19|-4.52|<0.001
90828010|NCT02831764|181530973|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.917|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.893|0.941|||MMRM||Week 24. Serum B2M.|||0.941|0.893|<0.001
90828011|NCT02831764|181530973|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.914|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|0.939|||MMRM||Week 48. Serum B2M.|||0.939|0.890|<0.001
90828012|NCT02831764|181530973|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.748||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.621|0.901|||MMRM||Week 24. Urine B2M.|||0.901|0.621|0.002
90828013|NCT02831764|181530973|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.693||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.538|0.892|||MMRM||Week 48. Urine B2M.|||0.892|0.538|0.005
90828014|NCT02831764|181530973|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.889||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.796|0.992|||MMRM||Week 24. Urine Albumin/Creatinine.|||0.992|0.796|0.036
90828015|NCT02831764|181530973|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.938||||0.308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.061|||MMRM||Week 48. Urine Albumin/Creatinine.|||1.061|0.830|0.308
90828016|NCT02831764|181530973|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.781||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.654|0.934|||MMRM||Week 24. Urine B2M/Urine Creatinine.|||0.934|0.654|0.007
90828017|NCT02831764|181530973|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.742||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.588|0.935|||MMRM||Week 48. Urine B2M/Urine Creatinine.|||0.935|0.588|0.012
90828018|NCT02831764|181530973|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.979||||0.728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.868|1.104|||MMRM||Week 24. Urine Phosphate.|||1.104|0.868|0.728
90828019|NCT02831764|181530973|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|1.062||||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.945|1.194|||MMRM||Week 48. Urine Phosphate.|||1.194|0.945|0.311
90828020|NCT02831764|181530973|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.826|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.769|0.887|||MMRM||Week 24. Urine Protein/Creatinine.|||0.887|0.769|<0.001
90828021|NCT02831764|181530973|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.795|0.93|||MMRM||Week 48. Urine Protein/Creatinine.|||0.930|0.795|<0.001
90828022|NCT02831764|181530973|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.796||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.683|0.927|||MMRM||Week 24. Urine RBP 4|||0.927|0.683|0.003
90828023|NCT02831764|181530973|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.903||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.773|1.056|||MMRM||Week 48. Urine RBP 4|||1.056|0.773|0.200
90828024|NCT02831764|181530973|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.826||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.728|0.936|||MMRM||Week 24. Urine RBP 4/Urine Creatinine|||0.936|0.728|0.003
90828025|NCT02831764|181530973|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.888||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.787|1.001|||MMRM||Week 48. Urine RBP 4/Urine Creatinine|||1.001|0.787|0.052
90828026|NCT02831764|181530974|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.942||||0.338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.833|1.065|||MMRM||Week 96. Urine Albumin/Creatinine.|||1.065|0.833|0.338
90828027|NCT02831764|181530974|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.671|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.545|0.826|||MMRM||Week 96. Urine B2M/Urine Creatinine.|||0.826|0.545|<0.001
90828028|NCT02831764|181530974|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|1.082||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.966|1.213|||MMRM||Week 96. Urine Phosphate.|||1.213|0.966|0.174
90828029|NCT02831764|181530974|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.873|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.806|0.946|||MMRM||Week 96. Urine Protein/Creatinine.|||0.946|0.806|<0.001
90828030|NCT02831764|181530974|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.716|0.894|||MMRM||Week 96. Urine RBP 4/Urine Creatinine|||0.894|0.716|<0.001
90828031|NCT02831764|181530975|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.971||||0.658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.852|1.107|||MMRM||Week 144. Urine Albumin/Creatinine.|||1.107|0.852|0.658
90828032|NCT02831764|181530975|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.584|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.483|0.706|||MMRM||Week 144. Urine B2M/Urine Creatinine.|||0.706|0.483|<0.001
90828033|NCT02831764|181530975|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|1.0||||0.993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.892|1.12|||MMRM||Week 144. Urine Phosphate.|||1.120|0.892|0.993
90828034|NCT02831764|181530975|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.847|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.785|0.913|||MMRM||Week 144. Urine Protein/Creatinine.|||0.913|0.785|<0.001
90828035|NCT02831764|181530975|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.739|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.667|0.819|||MMRM||Week 144. Urine RBP 4/Urine Creatinine|||0.819|0.667|<0.001
90828036|NCT02831764|181530976|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.25|-2.08|||MMRM||Week 24, Bone ALP|||-2.08|-3.25|<0.001
90828037|NCT02831764|181530976|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.75|-2.44|||MMRM||Week 48, Bone ALP|||-2.44|-3.75|<0.001
90828038|NCT02831764|181530976|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.63|-3.71|||MMRM||Week 28, Serum Osteocalcin|||-3.71|-5.63|<0.001
90828039|NCT02831764|181530976|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.89|-4.91|||MMRM||Week 48, Serum Osteocalcin|||-4.91|-6.89|<0.001
90828040|NCT02831764|181530976|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|-10.6|||MMRM||Week 24, Serum PINP|||-10.6|-16.4|<0.001
90828041|NCT02831764|181530976|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|-10.2|||MMRM||Week 48, Serum PINP|||-10.2|-15.4|<0.001
90828042|NCT02831764|181530976|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.127|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.164|-0.09|||MMRM||Week 24, CTX-1|||-0.0900|-0.1640|<0.001
90828043|NCT02831764|181530976|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2043|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2532|-0.1554|||MMRM||Week 48, CTX-1|||-0.1554|-0.2532|<0.001
90828044|NCT02831764|181530977|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.72|-1.54|||MMRM||Week 96, Bone ALP|||-1.54|-2.72|<0.001
90828045|NCT02831764|181530977|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.69|-2.85|||MMRM||Week 96, Serum Osteocalcin|||-2.85|-4.69|<0.001
90828046|NCT02831764|181530977|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.8|-8.3|||MMRM||Week 96, Serum PINP|||-8.3|-16.8|<0.001
90828047|NCT02831764|181530977|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1183|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1529|-0.0838|||MMRM||Week 96, CTX-1|||-0.0838|-0.1529|<0.001
90828048|NCT02831764|181530978|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.74|-1.53|||MMRM||Week 144, Bone ALP|||-1.53|-2.74|<0.001
90828049|NCT02831764|181530978|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.87|-2.91|||MMRM||Week 144, Serum Osteocalcin|||-2.91|-4.87|<0.001
90828050|NCT02831764|181530978|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|-6.2|||MMRM||Week 144, Serum PINP|||-6.2|-12.8|<0.001
90828051|NCT02831764|181530978|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1364|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1739|-0.0988|||MMRM||Week 144, CTX-1|||-0.0988|-0.1739|<0.001
90828052|NCT02831764|181530979|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.2||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|-0.8|||MMRM||Week 24|||-0.8|-7.5|0.015
90828053|NCT02831764|181530979|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|2.6|||MMRM||Week 48|||2.6|-2.8|0.960
91076324|NCT01273155|182038391|OTHER|Belinostat|Kendall's Tau|0.215||||0.025|TWO_SIDED||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra|||Effects of liver dysfunction on PK parameter values were evaluated with SPSS 22.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL), using the Jonckheere-Terpstra and Kendall's Tau test. Data were considered significantly different when p\<0.05.||||0.025
91076325|NCT01273155|182038391|OTHER|Methyl belinostat|Kendall's Tau|0.426|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra|||Effects of liver dysfunction on PK parameter values were evaluated with SPSS 22.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL), using the Jonckheere-Terpstra and Kendall's Tau test. Data were considered significantly different when p\<0.05.||||<0.001
90828054|NCT02831764|181530980|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.0||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|0.0|||MMRM||Week 96, Serum Vitamin D|||0.0|-5.9|0.048
90828055|NCT02831764|181530981|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|3.1|||MMRM||Week 144, Serum Vitamin D|||3.1|-3.6|0.887
90828056|NCT02831764|181530988|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|5.6|||Fisher Exact||Week 24|||5.6|1.5|<0.001
90828057|NCT02831764|181530988|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|5.4|||Fisher Exact||Week 48|||5.4|0.2|0.037
90828058|NCT02831764|181530989|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.1||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|6.1|||Fisher Exact||Week 96|||6.1|0.2|0.045
90828059|NCT02831764|181530990|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.6||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|6.0|||Fisher Exact||Week 144|||6.0|-0.8|0.160
90828060|NCT02831764|181530995|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|37.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.98|65.62|||||Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA,\<=100000. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA, and treatment and relevant Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA interaction.|||65.62|9.98|
90828061|NCT02831764|181530995|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-26.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-82.72|29.1|||||Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA,\>100000. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA, and treatment and Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA interaction.|||29.10|-82.72|
90828062|NCT02831764|181530995|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|61.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.94|150.39|||||Baseline CD4+ cell count,\<=200. Following covariates were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, and treatment and Baseline CD4+ cell count interaction.|||150.39|-26.94|
90828063|NCT02831764|181530995|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|22.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.42|48.55|||||Baseline CD4+ cell count,\>200. Following covariates were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, and treatment and Baseline CD4+ cell count interaction.|||48.55|-3.42|
90828064|NCT02831764|181530995|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|38.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.88|72.09|||||Age Group,\<35. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, age, and treatment and age interaction.|||72.09|5.88|
90828065|NCT02831764|181530995|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.1|33.3|||||Age Group,35 to \<50. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, age, and treatment and age interaction.|||33.30|-53.10|
90828066|NCT02831764|181530995|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|65.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.43|145.5|||||Age Group,\>=50. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, age, and treatment and age interaction.|||145.50|-14.43|
90828067|NCT02831764|181530995|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|59.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.62|127.94|||||Female. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, gender, and treatment and gender interaction.|||127.94|-8.62|
90828068|NCT02831764|181530995|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|19.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.65|46.1|||||Male. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, gender, and treatment and gender interaction.|||46.10|-7.65|
90828069|NCT02831764|181530995|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|19.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.06|49.13|||||Race group-white. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, race, and treatment and race interaction.|||49.13|-11.06|
90828070|NCT02831764|181530995|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|43.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.59|117.09|||||Race group-African Am/African H. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, race, and treatment and race interaction.|||117.09|-30.59|
90828071|NCT02831764|181530995|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|12.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.14|97.73|||||Race group-Asian. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, race, and treatment and race interaction.|||97.73|-72.14|
90828072|NCT02831764|181530995|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|62.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.09|140.12|||||Race group-Other. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, race, and treatment and race interaction.|||140.12|-16.09|
90828073|NCT02831764|181530996|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.7|36.6|||||Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA,\<=100000. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA, and treatment and relevant Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA interaction.|||36.6|-22.7|
90828074|NCT02831764|181530996|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|13.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.8|73.2|||||Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA,\>100000. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA, and treatment and Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA interaction.|||73.2|-46.8|
90828075|NCT02831764|181530996|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|57.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.2|152.5|||||Baseline CD4+ cell count,\<=200. Following covariates were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, and treatment and Baseline CD4+ cell count interaction.|||152.5|-37.2|
90828076|NCT02831764|181530996|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.5|31.7|||||Baseline CD4+ cell count,\>200. Following covariates were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, and treatment and Baseline CD4+ cell count interaction.|||31.7|-23.5|
90828077|NCT02831764|181530996|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|32.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|67.7|||||Age Group-1,\<35. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, age, and treatment and age interaction.|||67.7|-2.7|
90828078|NCT02831764|181530996|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-31.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.1|14.2|||||Age Group-1,35 to \<50. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, age, and treatment and age interaction.|||14.2|-77.1|
90828079|NCT02831764|181530996|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-81.4|91.8|||||Age Group-1,\>=50. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, age, and treatment and age interaction.|||91.8|-81.4|
90828080|NCT02831764|181530996|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|36.5|||||Age Group-2, \<50. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, age, and treatment and age interaction.|||36.5|-19.4|
90828081|NCT02831764|181530996|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-82.3|91.3|||||Age Group-2, \>=50. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, age, and treatment and age interaction.|||91.3|-82.3|
90828082|NCT02831764|181530996|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-27.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.8|46.1|||||Female. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, gender, and treatment and gender interaction.|||46.1|-100.8|
90828083|NCT02831764|181530996|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|12.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.7|41.2|||||Male. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, gender, and treatment and gender interaction.|||41.2|-15.7|
90828084|NCT02831764|181530996|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|11.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.4|43.1|||||Race group-white. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, race, and treatment and race interaction.|||43.1|-20.4|
90828085|NCT02831764|181530996|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-37.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-119.6|44.0|||||Race group-African Am/African H. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, race, and treatment and race interaction.|||44.0|-119.6|
90828086|NCT02831764|181530996|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|15.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.4|105.7|||||Race group-Asian. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, race, and treatment and race interaction.|||105.7|-74.4|
91076326|NCT01273155|182038391|OTHER|M21|Kendall's Tau|0.337|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra|||Effects of liver dysfunction on PK parameter values were evaluated with SPSS 22.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL), using the Jonckheere-Terpstra and Kendall's Tau test. Data were considered significantly different when p\<0.05.||||<0.001
90828087|NCT02831764|181530996|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|37.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.4|120.5|||||Race group-Other. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, race, and treatment and race interaction.|||120.5|-45.4|
90828088|NCT02831764|181530997|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.1|35.0|||||Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA,\<=100000. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA, and treatment and relevant Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA interaction.|||35.0|-34.1|
90828089|NCT02831764|181530997|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|14.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.6|84.9|||||Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA,\>100000. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA, and treatment and Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA interaction.|||84.9|-55.6|
90828090|NCT02831764|181530997|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|26.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-87.3|140.3|||||Baseline CD4+ cell count,\<=200. Following covariates were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, and treatment and Baseline CD4+ cell count interaction.|||140.3|-87.3|
90828091|NCT02831764|181530997|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.4|35.1|||||Baseline CD4+ cell count,\>200. Following covariates were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, and treatment and Baseline CD4+ cell count interaction.|||35.1|-29.4|
90828092|NCT02831764|181530997|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.5|49.1|||||Age Group,\<35. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, age, and treatment and age interaction.|||49.1|-32.5|
90828093|NCT02831764|181530997|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.6|41.1|||||Age Group,35 to \<50. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, age, and treatment and age interaction.|||41.1|-67.6|
90828094|NCT02831764|181530997|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|32.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.5|133.9|||||Age Group,\>=50. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, age, and treatment and age interaction.|||133.9|-68.5|
90828095|NCT02831764|181530997|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.7|90.8|||||Female. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, gender, and treatment and gender interaction.|||90.8|-80.7|
90828096|NCT02831764|181530997|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.1|35.3|||||Male. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, gender, and treatment and gender interaction.|||35.3|-31.1|
90828097|NCT02831764|181530997|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|13.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.2|50.6|||||Race group-white. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, race, and treatment and race interaction.|||50.6|-23.2|
90828098|NCT02831764|181530997|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-57.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-155.3|40.4|||||Race group-African Am/African H. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, race, and treatment and race interaction.|||40.4|-155.3|
90828099|NCT02831764|181530997|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-40.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-144.2|64.0|||||Race group-Asian. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, race, and treatment and race interaction.|||64.0|-144.2|
90828100|NCT02831764|181530997|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|33.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.3|129.6|||||Race group-Other. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, race, and treatment and race interaction.|||129.6|-63.3|
90828101|NCT02831764|181530998|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.1|49.2|||||Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA,\<=100000. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA, and treatment and relevant Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA interaction.|||49.2|-31.1|
90828102|NCT02831764|181530998|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-98.9|65.8|||||Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA,\>100000. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA, and treatment and Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA interaction.|||65.8|-98.9|
90828103|NCT02831764|181530998|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|56.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.2|189.1|||||Baseline CD4+ cell count,\<=200. Following covariates were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, and treatment and Baseline CD4+ cell count interaction.|||189.1|-77.2|
90828104|NCT02831764|181530998|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.2|39.9|||||Baseline CD4+ cell count,\>200. Following covariates were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, and treatment and Baseline CD4+ cell count interaction.|||39.9|-35.2|
90828105|NCT02831764|181530998|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|25.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.3|74.0|||||Age Group,\<35. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, age, and treatment and age interaction.|||74.0|-22.3|
90828106|NCT02831764|181530998|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-36.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-98.6|25.8|||||Age Group,35 to \<50. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, age, and treatment and age interaction.|||25.8|-98.6|
90828107|NCT02831764|181530998|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|24.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-89.0|137.2|||||Age Group,\>=50. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, age, and treatment and age interaction.|||137.2|-89.0|
90828108|NCT02831764|181530998|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-26.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-125.9|72.2|||||Female. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, gender, and treatment and gender interaction.|||72.2|-125.9|
90828109|NCT02831764|181530998|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.3|46.5|||||Male. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, gender, and treatment and gender interaction.|||46.5|-30.3|
90828110|NCT02831764|181530998|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.4|46.3|||||Race group-white. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, race, and treatment and race interaction.|||46.3|-39.4|
90828111|NCT02831764|181530998|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-121.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-237.2|-5.1|||||Race group-African Am/African H. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, race, and treatment and race interaction.|||-5.1|-237.2|
90828112|NCT02831764|181530998|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|13.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-106.4|132.6|||||Race group-Asian. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, race, and treatment and race interaction.|||132.6|-106.4|
90828113|NCT02831764|181530998|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|114.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.6|224.0|||||Race group-Other. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, race, and treatment and race interaction.|||224.0|4.6|
90828114|NCT02831764|181530999|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0019||||0.759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0137|0.01|||MMRM||Week 4. Covariates adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA , Baseline CD4+ cell count , and Baseline EQ-5D utility, treatment\*visit and Baseline EQ-5D utility\*visit as factors and covariate, with visit as the repeated factor.|||0.0100|-0.0137|0.759
90828115|NCT02831764|181530999|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0003||||0.943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0088|0.0095|||MMRM||Week 24. Covariates adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA , Baseline CD4+ cell count , and Baseline EQ-5D utility, treatment\*visit and Baseline EQ-5D utility\*visit as factors and covariate, with visit as the repeated factor.|||0.0095|-0.0088|0.943
90828116|NCT02831764|181530999|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0019||||0.703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0117|0.0079|||MMRM||Week 48. Covariates adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA , Baseline CD4+ cell count , and Baseline EQ-5D utility, treatment\*visit and Baseline EQ-5D utility\*visit as factors and covariate, with visit as the repeated factor.|||0.0079|-0.0117|0.703
90828117|NCT02831764|181531000|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0003||||0.957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.011|0.0104|||MMRM||Week 96. Covariates adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA, Baseline CD4+ cell count, and Baseline EQ-5D utility, treatment\*visit and Baseline EQ-5D utility\*visit as factors and covariate, with visit as the repeated factor.|||0.0104|-0.0110|0.957
90828118|NCT02831764|181531001|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0079||||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0032|0.0189|||MMRM||Week 144. Covariates adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA, Baseline CD4+ cell count, and Baseline EQ-5D utility, treatment\*visit and Baseline EQ-5D utility\*visit as factors and covariate, with visit as the repeated factor.|||0.0189|-0.0032|0.162
90828119|NCT02831764|181531002|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.0|||MMRM||Week 4. Covariates adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA, Baseline CD4+ cell count and Baseline EQ-5D utility, treatment\*visit and Baseline EQ-5D utility\*visit as factors and covariate, with visit as the repeated factor.|||0.0|-2.6|0.045
90828120|NCT02831764|181531002|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.7|||MMRM||Week 24. Covariates adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA, Baseline CD4+ cell count and Baseline EQ-5D utility, treatment\*visit and Baseline EQ-5D utility\*visit as factors and covariate, with visit as the repeated factor.|||0.7|-1.9|0.358
90828121|NCT02831764|181531002|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.6|||MMRM||Week 48. Covariates adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA, Baseline CD4+ cell count, and Baseline EQ-5D utility, treatment\*visit and Baseline EQ-5D utility\*visit as factors and covariate, with visit as the repeated factor.|||0.6|-1.9|0.328
90828122|NCT02831764|181531003|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.7|||MMRM||Week 96. Covariates adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA, Baseline CD4+ cell count and Baseline EQ-5D utility, treatment\*visit and Baseline EQ-5D utility\*visit as factors and covariate, with visit as the repeated factor.|||0.7|-2.1|0.318
90828123|NCT02831764|181531004|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.6|||MMRM||Week 144. Covariates adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA, Baseline CD4+ cell count and Baseline EQ-5D utility, treatment\*visit and Baseline EQ-5D utility\*visit as factors and covariate, with visit as the repeated factor.|||1.6|-1.0|0.674
90828124|NCT02796677|181531013|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.084|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.051|0.117|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||||0.117|0.051|<0.0001
90828125|NCT02796677|181531014|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.055||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.023|0.088|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||||0.088|0.023|0.0009
90828126|NCT02796677|181531015|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was established by showing that the lower bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for change from baseline in morning pre-dose (trough) FEV1 at week 24 when compared AB 400 μg versus TIO 18 μg was higher than -50 mL (non-inferiority limit).|LS mean difference|0.007||||0.6377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.021|0.035|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||||0.035|-0.021|0.6377
90828127|NCT02796677|181531016|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.075|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.043|0.107|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||||0.107|0.043|<0.0001
90828128|NCT02796677|181531016|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.087|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.052|0.122|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||||0.122|0.052|<0.0001
90828129|NCT02796677|181531017|SUPERIORITY||Odds ratio|0.96||||0.8714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.51|||Logistic random-effect model|||||1.51|0.61|0.8714
90828130|NCT02796677|181531017|SUPERIORITY||Odds ratio|0.97||||0.8873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.58|||Logistic random-effect model|||||1.58|0.59|0.8873
90828131|NCT00181363|181531072|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
90828132|NCT00181363|181531073|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
90828133|NCT00181363|181531074|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
90828134|NCT00181363|181531075|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
90828135|NCT00181363|181531076|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
90828136|NCT00754377|181531085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
90828137|NCT00754377|181531086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
90828138|NCT01276639|181531093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.46|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|15.03||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for pooled investigator sites was used for the analysis. Each hypothesis was tested against placebo at significance level of 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For primary endpoint, step-down procedure used to preserve Type I error, sequential order of testing: PGA response for CP-690,550 10 mg versus (vs) placebo at Week 16; Psoriasis Area and Severity Index 75 (PASI75) response for CP-690,550 10 mg vs placebo at Week 16; PGA response for CP-690,550 5 mg vs placebo at Week 16; PASI75 response for CP-690,550 5 mg vs placebo at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, only then subsequent comparisons were significant.||15.03|4.40|<0.0001
90828139|NCT01276639|181531093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.01|31.88||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for pooled investigator sites was used for the analysis. Each hypothesis was tested against placebo at significance level of 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For primary endpoint, step-down procedure used to preserve Type I error, sequential order of testing: PGA response for CP-690,550 10 mg versus (vs) placebo at Week 16; Psoriasis Area and Severity Index 75 (PASI75) response for CP-690,550 10 mg vs placebo at Week 16; PGA response for CP-690,550 5 mg vs placebo at Week 16; PASI75 response for CP-690,550 5 mg vs placebo at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, only then subsequent comparisons were significant.||31.88|9.01|<0.0001
90828140|NCT01276639|181531093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|17.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.66|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.11|24.47|||Normal approximation|||||24.47|10.11|<0.0001
90828141|NCT01276639|181531094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.93|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.25|21.84||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for pooled investigator sites was used for the analysis. Each hypothesis was tested against placebo at significance level of 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For primary endpoint, step-down procedure used to preserve Type I error, sequential order of testing: PGA response for CP-690,550 10 mg versus (vs) placebo at Week 16; Psoriasis Area and Severity Index 75 (PASI75) response for CP-690,550 10 mg vs placebo at Week 16; PGA response for CP-690,550 5 mg vs placebo at Week 16; PASI75 response for CP-690,550 5 mg vs placebo at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, only then subsequent comparisons were significant.||21.84|5.25|<0.0001
90828142|NCT01276639|181531094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|20.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.9|49.86||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for pooled investigator sites was used for the analysis. Each hypothesis was tested against placebo at significance level of 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For primary endpoint, step-down procedure used to preserve Type I error, sequential order of testing: PGA response for CP-690,550 10 mg versus (vs) placebo at Week 16; Psoriasis Area and Severity Index 75 (PASI75) response for CP-690,550 10 mg vs placebo at Week 16; PGA response for CP-690,550 5 mg vs placebo at Week 16; PASI75 response for CP-690,550 5 mg vs placebo at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, only then subsequent comparisons were significant.||49.86|11.90|<0.0001
90828143|NCT01276639|181531094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|19.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.65|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.07|26.37|||Normal approximation|||||26.37|12.07|<0.0001
90828144|NCT01276639|181531095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-53.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.34|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.08|-45.04||Mixed model analysis with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction,baseline value and repeated measures for visit. Unstructured covariance matrix was used. Each hypothesis was tested at significance level of 0.025 (2-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|||For key secondary endpoint, family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error. Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16,PASI90 response at Week 16, change in Dermatology Life Quality Index(DLQI) total score at Week 16,PGA response at Week 4,PASI75 at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in Nail Psoriasis Severity Index(NAPSI) score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, then subsequent comparisons were significant.||-45.04|-62.08|<0.0001
90828145|NCT01276639|181531095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-68.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.34|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.33|-60.31||Mixed model analysis with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction,baseline value and repeated measures for visit. Unstructured covariance matrix was used. Each hypothesis was tested at significance level of 0.025 (2-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|||For key secondary endpoint, family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error. Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16,PASI90 response at Week 16, change in Dermatology Life Quality Index(DLQI) total score at Week 16,PGA response at Week 4,PASI75 at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in Nail Psoriasis Severity Index(NAPSI) score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, then subsequent comparisons were significant.||-60.31|-77.33|<0.0001
90828146|NCT01276639|181531095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-15.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.46|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.04|-8.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean difference was derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value and repeated measures for visit. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-8.48|-22.04|<0.0001
90828147|NCT01276639|181531096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|34.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.46|1786.9||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for pooled investigator sites was used for the analysis. Each hypothesis was tested at significance level of 0.025 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For key secondary endpoint, family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error. Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16, PASI90 response at Week 16, change in DLQI total score at Week 16, PGA response at Week 4, PASI75 response at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in NAPSI score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, then subsequent comparisons were significant.||1786.9|7.46|<0.0001
90828148|NCT01276639|181531096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|98.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.49|5689.8||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for pooled investigator sites was used for the analysis. Each hypothesis was tested at significance level of 0.025 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For key secondary endpoint, family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error. Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16, PASI90 response at Week 16, change in DLQI total score at Week 16, PGA response at Week 4, PASI75 response at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in NAPSI score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, then subsequent comparisons were significant.||5689.8|23.49|<0.0001
90828149|NCT01276639|181531096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|19.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.32|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.1|26.11|||Normal approximation|||||26.11|13.10|<0.0001
90890499|NCT03086447|181645731|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 0.5 was used. This margin is based on a 10% difference in the distribution between the Test and Control groups.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|3.22|||Generalized LMM w/ binomial dist.||Odds ratio of Test over Control was calculated.|Proportion of eyes with optimal VA assessed at fitting in the Test group was compared to the Control group.||3.22|0.98|
90890500|NCT00435370|181645746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
90828150|NCT01276639|181531098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.75|-3.05||Mixed model analysis with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction,baseline value and repeated measures for visit. Unstructured covariance matrix was used. Each hypothesis was tested at significance level of 0.025 (2-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week4: For key secondary endpoint, family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error. Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16, PASI90 response at Week 16, change in DLQI total score at Week 16, PGA response at Week 4, PASI75 response at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in NAPSI score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, then subsequent comparisons were significant.||-3.05|-4.75|<0.0001
90828151|NCT01276639|181531098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-4.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.56|-3.86||Mixed model analysis with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction,baseline value and repeated measures for visit. Unstructured covariance matrix was used. Each hypothesis was tested at significance level of 0.025 (2-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: For key secondary endpoint, family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error. Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16, PASI90 response at Week 16, change in DLQI total score at Week 16, PGA response at Week 4, PASI75 response at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in NAPSI score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, then subsequent comparisons were significant.||-3.86|-5.56|<0.0001
90828152|NCT01276639|181531098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.0212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: LS mean difference was derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value and repeated measures for visit. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.12|-1.50|0.0212
90828153|NCT01276639|181531098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-4.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.02|-3.95||Mixed model analysis with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction,baseline value and repeated measures for visit. Unstructured covariance matrix was used. Each hypothesis was tested at significance level of 0.025 (2-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: For key secondary endpoint, family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error. Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16, PASI90 response at Week 16, change in DLQI total score at Week 16, PGA response at Week 4, PASI75 response at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in NAPSI score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, then subsequent comparisons were significant.||-3.95|-6.02|<0.0001
90828154|NCT01276639|181531098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-6.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|-5.94||Mixed model analysis with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction,baseline value and repeated measures for visit. Unstructured covariance matrix was used. Each hypothesis was tested at significance level of 0.025 (2-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: For key secondary endpoint, family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error. Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16, PASI90 response at Week 16, change in DLQI total score at Week 16, PGA response at Week 4, PASI75 response at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in NAPSI score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, then subsequent comparisons were significant.||-5.94|-8.00|<0.0001
90828155|NCT01276639|181531098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-1.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: LS mean difference was derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value and repeated measures for visit. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-1.17|-2.80|<0.0001
90828156|NCT01276639|181531099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.23|35.12||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for pooled investigator sites was used for the analysis. Each hypothesis was tested at significance level of 0.025 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For key secondary endpoint, family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error. Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16, PASI90 response at Week 16, change in DLQI total score at Week 16, PGA response at Week 4, PASI75 response at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in NAPSI score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, then subsequent comparisons were significant.||35.12|3.23|<0.0001
90828157|NCT01276639|181531099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.06|54.42||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for pooled investigator sites was used for the analysis. Each hypothesis was tested at significance level of 0.025 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For key secondary endpoint, family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error. Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16, PASI90 response at Week 16, change in DLQI total score at Week 16, PGA response at Week 4, PASI75 response at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in NAPSI score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, then subsequent comparisons were significant.||54.42|5.06|<0.0001
90828158|NCT01276639|181531099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|5.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.97||0.0443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|11.8|||Normal approximation|||||11.80|0.15|0.0443
90828159|NCT01276639|181531100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.76||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.11|35.77||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for pooled investigator sites was used for the analysis. Each hypothesis was tested at significance level of 0.025 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For key secondary endpoint, family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error. Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16, PASI90 response at Week 16, change in DLQI total score at Week 16, PGA response at Week 4, PASI75 response at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in NAPSI score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, then subsequent comparisons were significant.||35.77|2.11|0.0003
90828160|NCT01276639|181531100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.64|59.98||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for pooled investigator sites was used for the analysis. Each hypothesis was tested at significance level of 0.025 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For key secondary endpoint, family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error. Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16, PASI90 response at Week 16, change in DLQI total score at Week 16, PGA response at Week 4, PASI75 response at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in NAPSI score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, then subsequent comparisons were significant.||59.98|3.64|<0.0001
90828161|NCT01276639|181531100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|5.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.0415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|9.98|||Normal approximation|||||9.98|0.19|0.0415
90828162|NCT01276639|181531101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-69.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-104.27|-35.13||Mixed model analysis with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction,baseline value and repeated measures for visit. Unstructured covariance matrix was used. Each hypothesis was tested at significance level of 0.025 (2-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|||For key secondary endpoint, family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error. Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16, PASI90 response at Week 16, change in DLQI total score at Week 16, PGA response at Week 4, PASI75 response at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in NAPSI score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, then subsequent comparisons were significant.||-35.13|-104.27|<0.0001
90828163|NCT01276639|181531101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-97.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.47|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-131.35|-62.72||Mixed model analysis with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction,baseline value and repeated measures for visit. Unstructured covariance matrix was used. Each hypothesis was tested at significance level of 0.025 (2-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|||For key secondary endpoint, family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error. Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16, PASI90 response at Week 16, change in DLQI total score at Week 16, PGA response at Week 4, PASI75 response at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in NAPSI score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, then subsequent comparisons were significant.||-62.72|-131.35|<0.0001
90828164|NCT01276639|181531101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-27.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.22||0.0391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.29|-1.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean difference was derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value and repeated measures for visit. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-1.37|-53.29|0.0391
90828165|NCT01276639|181531105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
90828166|NCT01276639|181531105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
90828167|NCT01276639|181531105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
90828168|NCT01276639|181531106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
90828169|NCT01276639|181531106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
90828170|NCT01276639|181531106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
90828171|NCT01276639|181531107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
90828172|NCT01276639|181531107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
90828173|NCT01276639|181531107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
90828174|NCT04057807|181531173|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||unpaired t-tests (continuous variables)|||||||0.14
90828175|NCT04057807|181531174|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||univariate linear regression analysis|two-tailed P value was obtained from a univariate linear regression analysis||||||0.82
90828176|NCT03170661|181531175|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||GEEGLM|Effects of GEEGLM covariates: surgeon, p = 0.24; surgery length, p= 0.73 and body mass index, p= 0.22).||||||0.94
90828177|NCT01217463|181531222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.4109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.43|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.43|0.60|0.4109
90828178|NCT01217463|181531223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.4|0.78|
90828179|NCT04532034|181531261|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.067||||0.95|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.95
90828180|NCT03775486|181531396|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.02|||Log Rank|||||1.02|0.57|0.074
90828181|NCT03775486|181531396|OTHER||Median|7.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|7.9||||||Median progression-free survival (months)||7.9|5.3|
90828182|NCT03775486|181531396|OTHER||Median|5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|5.8||||||Median progression-free survival (months)||5.8|3.7|
90828183|NCT03775486|181531397|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.36|||Log Rank|||||1.36|0.59|0.604
90828184|NCT03775486|181531397|OTHER||Median|17.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.1||NA = insufficient number of participants with events|||||Median overall survival (months)|||14.1|
90828185|NCT03775486|181531397|OTHER||Median overall survival (months)|11.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.8||NA = insufficient number of participants with events||||The CI lower limit is included as the estimated value as there was an insufficient number of participants with events to calculate a median value|Median overall survival (months)|||11.8|
90828186|NCT03775486|181531399|OTHER|Median duration of response (months)|Median duration of response|6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5||NA = insufficient number of participants with events||||The CI lower limit is included as the estimated value as there was an insufficient number of participants with events to calculate a median value||||6.5|
90828187|NCT03775486|181531399|OTHER|Median duration of response (months)|Median duration of response|3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8||NA = insufficient number of participants with events||||The CI lower limit is included as the estimated value as there was an insufficient number of participants with events to calculate a median value||||3.8|
90828188|NCT03775486|181531400|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|2.0||||||||2.00|0.07|
90828189|NCT03775486|181531400|OTHER||Median (months)|3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7||NA = insufficient number of participants with events|||||Median progression-free survival (months)|||1.7|
90828190|NCT03775486|181531400|OTHER||Median (months)|3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|16.6||||||Median progression-free survival (months)||16.6|1.2|
90828191|NCT03775486|181531402|OTHER||Estimated difference in adjusted mean|-0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.47|3.46||||||EORTC QLQ-LC13: Dyspnoea Estimated difference in adjusted mean change from baseline.||3.46|-4.47|
90828192|NCT03775486|181531402|OTHER||Estimated difference in adjusted mean|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.81|6.71||||||EORTC QLQ-LC13: Coughing Estimated difference in adjusted mean change from baseline.||6.71|-4.81|
90828193|NCT03775486|181531402|OTHER||Estimated difference in adjusted mean|-2.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.39|1.88||||||EORTC QLQ-LC13: Pain in chest Estimated difference in adjusted mean change from baseline.||1.88|-6.39|
90828194|NCT03775486|181531404|OTHER||Estimated difference in adjusted mean|1.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|5.47||||||EORTC QLQ-C30: Fatigue Estimated difference in adjusted mean change from baseline.||5.47|-2.20|
90828195|NCT03775486|181531404|OTHER||Estimated difference in adjusted mean|3.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|7.9||||||EORTC QLQ-C30: Appetite loss Estimated difference in adjusted mean change from baseline.||7.90|-1.46|
90828196|NCT05214768|181531413|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-223.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|74.98||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-370.2|-76.3|||ANCOVA|||||-76.3|-370.2|0.003
90828197|NCT00291486|181531470|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.144|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison of CL between initial infusion and therapy infusion||||0.144
90828198|NCT00291486|181531471|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.361|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.361
90828199|NCT03270943|181531499|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.02
90828200|NCT03270943|181531500|OTHER|within group|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.06|3.84|||||Difference between score at 8 weeks and score at baseline.|||3.84|-6.06|
90828201|NCT03270943|181531500|OTHER|within group|Mean Difference (Net)|-4.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.05|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|-0.22|||||Difference between score at 8 weeks and score at baseline.|||-0.22|-8.70|
90828202|NCT03270943|181531501|OTHER|within group change|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.72|0.2|||||Difference between score at 8 weeks and score at baseline.|||0.2|-2.72|
90828203|NCT03270943|181531501|OTHER|within group change|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|0.16|||||Difference between score at 8 weeks and score at baseline.|||0.16|-3.60|
90828204|NCT03270943|181531502|OTHER|Within group change|Mean Difference (Net)|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.61|||||Difference between score at 8 weeks and score at baseline.|||0.61|-0.15|
90828205|NCT03270943|181531502|OTHER|within group change|Mean Difference (Net)|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.63|||||Difference between score at 8 weeks and score at baseline.|||0.63|0.07|
90828206|NCT01116401|181531508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.007
90828207|NCT01116401|181531509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.01
90828208|NCT00669214|181531510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|0.163||||0.1054||95.0|-0.063|0.393|||Fisher Exact|The p-value was based on the Fisher exact test for a 2x2 contingency table.||||0.393|-0.063|0.1054
90828209|NCT00669214|181531512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|0.155||||0.2404||95.0|-0.072|0.388|||Fisher Exact|The p-value was based on the Fisher exact test for a 2x2 contingency table.||||0.388|-0.072|0.2404
90828210|NCT00669214|181531514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|0.228||||0.0366||95.0|0.003|0.452|||Fisher Exact|The p-value was based on the Fisher exact test for a 2x2 contingency table.||||0.452|0.003|0.0366
90828211|NCT00669214|181531516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from Day 0|3.33||||0.1816||95.0|-2.811|9.471|||Student T-test|||||9.471|-2.811|0.1816
90828212|NCT00669214|181531518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from Day 0|1.19||||0.0435||95.0|-0.161|2.532|||Student T-test|||||2.532|-0.161|0.0435
90828213|NCT00669214|181531520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0224||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank sum|||||||0.0224
90828214|NCT00346216|181531522|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non inferiority required a hazard ratio of 1.12 or lower, as well as an upper 95% confidence limit of 1.33 or lower in the ITT population and of 1.40 or lower in the MITT population.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.13||Non inferiority P value, α=0.025|Regression, Cox|||ITT Population||1.13|0.76|0.0002
90828215|NCT00346216|181531522|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority requires the hazard ratio does not exceed 1.12, and the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the hazard ratio estimate does not exceed 1.40|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.14||Non inferiority P value, α=0.025|Regression, Cox|||MITT Population||1.14|0.72|0.0001
90828216|NCT00346216|181531522|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority requires the hazard ratio does not exceed 1.12, and the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the hazard ratio estimate does not exceed 1.33|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.04||Non inferiority P value, α=0.025|Regression, Cox|||ITT Population||1.04|0.70|<0.0001
90828217|NCT00346216|181531522|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority requires the hazard ratio does not exceed 1.12, and the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the hazard ratio (HR) estimate does not exceed 1.40|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.02||Non-inferiority P-value, α=0.025|Regression, Cox|||MITT Population||1.02|0.64|<0.0001
90828218|NCT00346216|181531522|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority requires the hazard ratio does not exceed 1.12, and the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the hazard ratio (HR) estimate does not exceed 1.33|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.0182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.31||Non-inferiority P-value, α=0.025|Regression, Cox|||ITT Population||1.31|0.89|0.0182
90828219|NCT00346216|181531522|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority requires the hazard ratio does not exceed 1.12, and the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the hazard ratio (HR) estimate does not exceed 1.40|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.4||Non-inferiority P-value, α=0.025|Regression, Cox|||MITT Population||1.40|0.89|0.0250
90828220|NCT00346216|181531523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.6427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.12|||Regression, Cox|||ITT Population||1.12|0.83|0.6427
90828221|NCT00346216|181531523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.0597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.01|||Regression, Cox|||ITT Population||1.01|0.75|0.0597
90828222|NCT00346216|181531523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.1481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.29|||Regression, Cox|||ITT Population||1.29|0.96|0.1481
90828223|NCT00346216|181531523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.5758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.13|||Regression, Cox|||MITT Population||1.13|0.80|0.5758
90828224|NCT00346216|181531523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.0204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.97|||Regression, Cox|||MITT Population||0.97|0.69|0.0204
90828225|NCT00346216|181531523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.0751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.38|||Regression, Cox|||MITT Population||1.38|0.98|0.0751
90828226|NCT00346216|181531524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.8576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.4|||Regression, Cox|||ITT Population||1.40|0.67|0.8576
90828227|NCT00346216|181531524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.1202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.08|||Regression, Cox|||ITT Population||1.08|0.53|0.1202
90828228|NCT00346216|181531524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.27||||0.1734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.81|||Regression, Cox|||ITT Population||1.81|0.90|0.1734
90828229|NCT00346216|181531524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51||||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.81|||Regression, Cox|||MITT Population||0.81|0.32|0.0041
90828230|NCT00346216|181531524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.43||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.68|||Regression, Cox|||MITT Population||0.68|0.27|0.0003
90828231|NCT00346216|181531524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||0.4243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.69|||Regression, Cox|||MITT Population||1.69|0.80|0.4243
90828232|NCT00346216|181531525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|2.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 1 (ITT)||2.53|1.01|<0.0001
90828233|NCT00346216|181531525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.0373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|1.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 1 (ITT)||1.56|0.05|0.0373
90828234|NCT00346216|181531525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 1 (ITT)||1.72|0.20|0.0129
90828235|NCT00346216|181531525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|1.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 2 (ITT)||1.29|-0.25|0.1830
90828236|NCT00346216|181531525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.7777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 2 (ITT)||0.66|-0.88|0.7777
90828237|NCT00346216|181531525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.1072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 2 (ITT)||1.40|-0.14|0.1072
90828238|NCT00346216|181531525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.8237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|1.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 4 (ITT)||1.46|-0.12|0.8237
90828239|NCT00346216|181531525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.8237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 4 (ITT)||0.70|-0.88|0.8237
90828240|NCT00346216|181531525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.0587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|1.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 4 (ITT)||1.55|-0.03|0.0587
90828241|NCT00346216|181531525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.3129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|1.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 8 (ITT)||1.23|-0.39|0.3129
90828242|NCT00346216|181531525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.6526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 8 (ITT)||1.00|-0.63|0.6526
91076327|NCT01273155|182038391|OTHER|M24|Kendall's Tau|-0.061||||0.524|TWO_SIDED||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra|||Effects of liver dysfunction on PK parameter values were evaluated with SPSS 22.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL), using the Jonckheere-Terpstra and Kendall's Tau test. Data were considered significantly different when p\<0.05.||||0.524
90828243|NCT00346216|181531525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.5774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|1.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 8 (ITT)||1.05|-0.58|0.5774
90828244|NCT00346216|181531525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.0632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|1.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 12 (ITT)||1.62|-0.04|0.0632
90828245|NCT00346216|181531525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|1.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 12 (ITT)||1.15|-0.52|0.4540
90828246|NCT00346216|181531525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.2705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 12 (ITT)||1.30|-0.37|0.2705
90828247|NCT00346216|181531525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.5225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|1.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 18 (ITT)||1.14|-0.58|0.5225
90828248|NCT00346216|181531525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.5996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 18 (ITT)||0.63|-1.10|0.5996
90828249|NCT00346216|181531525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.2461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|1.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 18 (ITT)||1.38|-0.35|0.2461
90828250|NCT00346216|181531525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.8127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 24 (ITT)||1.00|-0.79|0.8127
90828251|NCT00346216|181531525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.9641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 24 (ITT)||0.87|-0.92|0.9641
90828252|NCT00346216|181531525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.7784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|1.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 24 (ITT)||1.03|-0.77|0.7784
90828253|NCT00346216|181531525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.2105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|1.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 30 (ITT)||1.56|-0.34|0.2105
90828254|NCT00346216|181531525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.2909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|1.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 30 (ITT)||1.46|-0.44|0.2909
90828255|NCT00346216|181531525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.8459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|1.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 30 (ITT)||1.05|-0.86|0.8459
90828256|NCT00346216|181531525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.1116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|1.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 36 (ITT)||1.80|-0.19|0.1116
90828257|NCT00346216|181531525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.9751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|1.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 36 (ITT)||1.01|-0.98|0.9751
90828258|NCT00346216|181531525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.1202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|1.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 36 (ITT)||1.79|-0.21|0.1202
90828259|NCT00346216|181531525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.3767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|1.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 42 (ITT)||1.48|-0.56|0.3767
90828260|NCT00346216|181531525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.1123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 42 (ITT)||0.19|-1.85|0.1123
90828261|NCT00346216|181531525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.0137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|2.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 42 (ITT)||2.31|0.26|0.0137
90828262|NCT00346216|181531525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|2.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from Baseline to Month 1 (MITT)||2.47|1.07|<0.0001
90828263|NCT00346216|181531525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.0197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from Baseline to Month 1 (MITT)||1.54|0.13|0.0197
90828264|NCT00346216|181531525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.0094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from Baseline to Month 1 (MITT)||1.64|0.23|0.0094
90828265|NCT00346216|181531525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.1247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|1.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 2 (MITT)||1.31|-0.16|0.1247
90828266|NCT00346216|181531525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.8278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 2 (MITT)||0.65|-0.81|0.8278
90828267|NCT00346216|181531525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.0802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|1.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 2 (MITT)||1.39|-0.08|0.0802
90828268|NCT00346216|181531525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.0822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|1.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 4 (MITT)||1.46|-0.09|0.0822
90828269|NCT00346216|181531525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.8314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 4 (MITT)||0.69|-0.86|0.8314
90828270|NCT00346216|181531525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.0516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|1.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 4 (MITT)||1.54|-0.01|0.0516
90828271|NCT00346216|181531525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.3202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 8 (MITT)||1.24|-0.40|0.3202
90828272|NCT00346216|181531525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.5893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 8 (MITT)||1.05|-0.60|0.5893
90828273|NCT00346216|181531525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|1.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 8 (MITT)||1.01|-0.63|0.6510
90828274|NCT00346216|181531525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.0796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|1.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 12 (MITT)||1.62|-0.09|0.0796
90828275|NCT00346216|181531525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.5061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|1.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 12 (MITT)||1.15|-0.57|0.5061
90828276|NCT00346216|181531525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.2796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|1.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 12 (MITT)||1.33|-0.38|0.2796
90828277|NCT00346216|181531525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.6725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|1.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 18 (MITT)||1.08|-0.69|0.6725
90828278|NCT00346216|181531525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.6381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 18 (MITT)||0.67|-1.10|0.6381
90828279|NCT00346216|181531525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.3737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|1.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 18 (MITT)||1.29|-0.49|0.3737
90828280|NCT00346216|181531525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.9139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 24 (MITT)||0.97|-0.87|0.9139
90828281|NCT00346216|181531525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.9998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 24 (MITT)||0.92|-0.92|0.9998
90828282|NCT00346216|181531525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.9144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 24 (MITT)||0.98|-0.88|0.9144
90828283|NCT00346216|181531525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|1.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 30 (MITT)||1.61|-0.38|0.2250
90828284|NCT00346216|181531525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.2758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|1.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 30 (MITT)||1.55|-0.44|0.2758
90828285|NCT00346216|181531525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|1.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 30 (MITT)||1.06|-0.94|0.9030
90828286|NCT00346216|181531525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|1.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 36 (MITT)||1.94|-0.14|0.0910
90828287|NCT00346216|181531525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.7668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 36 (MITT)||1.20|-0.88|0.7668
90828288|NCT00346216|181531525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.1653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|1.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 36 (MITT)||1.78|-0.31|0.1653
90828289|NCT00346216|181531525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.4323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|1.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 42 (MITT)||1.52|-0.65|0.4323
90828290|NCT00346216|181531525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.1439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 42 (MITT)||0.28|-1.89|0.1439
90828291|NCT00346216|181531525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.0251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|2.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 42 (MITT)||2.33|0.16|0.0251
90828292|NCT03985761|181531554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.182|||||||ANOVA|||||||.182
90828293|NCT03985761|181531555|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.296|||||||ANOVA|||||||.296
90828294|NCT03985761|181531556|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.483|||||||ANOVA|||||||.483
90828295|NCT03985761|181531557|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.995|||||||ANOVA|||||||.995
90828296|NCT03985761|181531558|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||ANOVA|||||||.220
90828297|NCT03985761|181531559|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.538|||||||ANOVA|||||||.538
90828298|NCT03985761|181531562|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.121|||||||ANOVA|||||||.121
90828299|NCT03246789|181531688|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.15||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|6.39|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12||6.39|-2.09|0.31
90828300|NCT03246789|181531689|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.47||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.22|1.28|||t-test, 2 sided|||Domain #1, Week 12||1.28|-4.22|0.28
90828301|NCT03246789|181531689|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.87||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.48|1.74|||t-test, 2 sided|||Domain #2, Week 12||1.74|-3.48|0.50
90828302|NCT03246789|181531689|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.58||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.88|-0.28|||t-test, 2 sided|||Domain #3, Week 12||-0.28|-2.88|0.02
90828303|NCT03246789|181531689|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.63|3.53|||t-test, 2 sided|||Domain 4, Week 12||3.53|-3.63|0.98
90828304|NCT03246789|181531690|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.58|||t-test, 2 sided|||Domain #1, Week 12||0.58|-0.64|0.92
90828305|NCT03246789|181531690|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.33|||t-test, 2 sided|||Domain #2, Week 12||0.33|-0.69|0.48
90828306|NCT03246789|181531690|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.69|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.69|-0.33|0.48
90828307|NCT03101566|181531691|OTHER||||||||||||||||||PFS at 6 months was estimated for this trial using the product-limit method of Kaplan and Meier with 95% confidence intervals calculated using Greenwood's formula. All statistical analyses were completed using the SAS System, v9.4 \[Cary, NC, USA\].|||
90828308|NCT01292187|181531717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0265|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0265
90828309|NCT01292187|181531718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0340
90828310|NCT02366195|181531723|OTHER|||||||0.387|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.387
90828311|NCT02366195|181531724|OTHER|Primary completion data.||||||0.056|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.056
90828312|NCT02366195|181531724|OTHER|Final analysis data.||||||0.222|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.222
90828313|NCT02366195|181531725|OTHER|Primary completion data||||||0.335|||||||Cox proportional hazards|||||||0.335
90828314|NCT02366195|181531725|OTHER|Final analysis data||||||0.597|||||||Cox proportional hazards|||||||0.597
90828315|NCT02366195|181531726|OTHER|Primary completion||||||0.82|||||||Fisher's Z transformation|||||||0.82
90828316|NCT02366195|181531726|OTHER|Final analysis data||||||0.9|||||||Fisher's Z transformation|||||||0.90
90828317|NCT02366195|181531727|OTHER|Primary completion data||||||0.66|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.660
90828318|NCT02366195|181531727|OTHER|Final analysis data||||||0.881|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.881
90828319|NCT02366195|181531728|OTHER|Primary completion data||||||0.974|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.974
90828320|NCT02366195|181531728|OTHER|Final analysis data||||||0.612|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.612
90828321|NCT02366195|181531729|OTHER|Primary completion data||||||0.626|||||||Cox proportional hazards|||||||0.626
90828322|NCT02366195|181531729|OTHER|Final analysis data||||||0.579|||||||Cox proportional hazards|||||||0.579
90828323|NCT02366195|181531730|OTHER|Primary completion data||||||0.18|||||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||||||0.18
90828324|NCT02366195|181531730|OTHER|Final analysis data||||||0.14|||||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||||||0.14
90828325|NCT00113841|181531738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.16
90828326|NCT00721396|181531743|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Immune response of Group B+R246 was considered non-inferior to response of Group B246\_R357, if at one month after the third rMenB+OMV NZ injection the 2-sided 95% lower confidence interval of the difference in the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:5 was greater than -10% for each of the 3 strains.|Difference % (B+R246 minus B246_R357)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||Non-inferiority of immune responses against 44/76-SL strain when rMenB+OMV NZ vaccine was administered concomitantly with routine infant vaccines as compared to when rMenB+OMV NZ vaccine and routine vaccines were given separately.||1|-1|
90828327|NCT00721396|181531743|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Immune response of Group B+R246 was considered non-inferior to response of Group B246\_R357, if at one month after the third rMenB+OMV NZ injection the 2-sided 95% lower confidence limit of the difference in the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥5 was greater than -10% for each of the 3 strains.|Difference %(B+R246 minus B246_R357)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||Non-inferiority of immune responses against 5/99 strain when rMenB+OMV NZ vaccine was administered concomitantly with routine infant vaccines as compared to when rMenB+OMV NZ vaccine and routine vaccines were given separately.||1|-1|
90890501|NCT02625623|181645781|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.8078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.41|||Log Rank|The treatment arms were compared using a stratified, 1-sided, log rank Test. The stratification factor was region (Asia versus non Asia).||||1.41|0.88|0.8078
90828328|NCT00721396|181531743|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Immune response of Group B+R246 was considered non-inferior to response of Group B246\_R357, if at one month after the third rMenB+OMV NZ injection the 2-sided 95% lower confidence limit of the difference in the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥5 was greater than -10% for each of the 3 strains.|Difference % (B+R246 minus B246_R357)|-8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|-4.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||Non-inferiority of immune responses against NZ98/254 strain when rMenB+OMV NZ vaccine was administered concomitantly with routine infant vaccines as compared to when rMenB+OMV NZ vaccine and routine vaccines were given separately.||-4|-12|
90828329|NCT00721396|181531744|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Immune response of Group B+R234 was considered non-inferior to response of Group R234, if at one month after the third injection the 2-sided 95% lower confidence limit for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response greater than the pre-specified cut off of for diphtheria (≥0.1 IU/mL) was \>-10%.|Difference %(B+R234 minus R234)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||Non-inferiority of immune responses against Diphtheria antigen when routine vaccine was administered concomitantly with rMenB+OMV NZ vaccine to when only routine vaccines were administered.||2|-1|
90828330|NCT00721396|181531744|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Immune response of Group B+R234 was considered non-inferior to response of Group R234, if at one month after the third injection the 2-sided 95% lower confidence limit for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response greater than the pre-specified cut off of for tetanus toxoid (≥0.1 IU/mL) was \>-10%.|Difference %(B+R234 minus R234)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Non-inferiority of immune response to Tetanus antigens when routine vaccines are administered concomitantly with rMen+OMV NZ vaccine.||2|-1|
90828331|NCT00721396|181531749|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Group B+R234 was to be considered non-inferior to Group R234 if the 2-sided 95% lower confidence limit of this difference at 30 days after the last injection was greater than -10% for each of the antigens of the routine vaccinations.|Difference %(B+R234 minus R234)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|4.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||Non-inferiority of immune responses against Pertussis antigen FHA when routine vaccine was administered concomitantly with rMenB+OMV NZ vaccine to when only routine vaccines were administered.||4|-5|
90828332|NCT00721396|181531749|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Group B+R234 was to be considered non-inferior to Group R234 if the 2-sided 95% lower confidence limit of this difference at 30 days after the last injection was greater than -10% for each of the antigens of the routine vaccinations.|Difference %(B+R234 minus R234)|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|2.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||Non-inferiority of immune responses against Pertussis antigen pertactin antigen when routine vaccine was administered concomitantly with rMenB+OMV NZ vaccine to when only routine vaccines were administered.||2|-7|
90828333|NCT00721396|181531749|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Group B+R234 was to be considered non-inferior to Group R234 if the 2-sided 95% lower confidence limit of this difference at 30 days after the last injection was greater than -10% for each of the antigens of the routine vaccinations.|Difference %(B+R234 minus R234)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|2.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||Non-inferiority of immune responses against Pertussis antigen PT when routine vaccine was administered concomitantly with rMenB+OMV NZ vaccine to when only routine vaccines were administered.||2|-4|
90828334|NCT00430716|181531764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|24.15||||0.011|ONE_SIDED|97.5|3.37||||ANOVA|||An analysis of variance (ANOVA) model followed by the Williams trend test (one-sided, at the 2.5% level of significance) was used. The Williams trend test firstly determined if there was a significant downward trend in response for the descending doses, and then subsequently determined the highest dose that was statistically inferior to 20 mg (known to be an effective dose of sildenafil). A corresponding 97.5% lower confidence limit for the difference was presented.|||3.37|0.011
90828335|NCT00430716|181531764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.17||||0.545|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-21.48||||ANOVA|||ANOVA model followed by the Williams trend test (one-sided, at the 2.5% level of significance) was used. The Williams trend test firstly determined if there was a significant downward trend in response for the descending doses, and then subsequently determined the highest dose that was statistically inferior to 20 mg (known to be an effective dose of sildenafil). A corresponding 97.5% lower confidence limit for the difference was presented.|||-21.48|0.545
90828336|NCT00430716|181531765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.51||||0.278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.07|2.05|||ANCOVA|||The analysis of change from baseline in week 12 mean PAP used Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA), with etiology and baseline walking distance category (\<325m or \>=325m) and baseline score as the covariates. The mean difference and corresponding two-sided 95% CI for the comparisons of sildenafil 20 mg against the lower sildenafil dose (1 mg) was presented along with the p-value for the test.||2.05|-7.07|0.278
90828337|NCT00430716|181531765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.44||||0.846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.98|4.09|||ANCOVA|||The analysis of change from baseline in week 12 mean PAP used ANCOVA, with etiology and baseline walking distance category (\<325m or \>=325m) and baseline score as the covariates. The mean difference and corresponding two-sided 95% CI for the comparisons of sildenafil 20 mg against the lower sildenafil dose (5 mg) was presented along with the p-value for the test.||4.09|-4.98|0.846
90828338|NCT00430716|181531767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|4.78|||Regression, Logistic|||The analysis of the week 12 PAH functional class was done with etiology, baseline walking distance category (\<325m or \>=325m) and baseline score as the covariates.The odds ratio and corresponding two-sided 95% CI for the odds ratio for the treatment comparisons was presented along with the p-value for the tests.||4.78|0.50|0.448
90828339|NCT00430716|181531767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|3.32|||Regression, Logistic|||The analysis of the week 12 PAH functional class was done with etiology, baseline walking distance category (\<325m or \>=325m) and baseline score as the covariates.The odds ratio and corresponding two-sided 95% CI for the odds ratio for the treatment comparisons was presented along with the p-value for the tests.||3.32|0.35|0.897
90828340|NCT00430716|181531768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-104.8||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-177.44|-32.16|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA method was used with etiology, baseline walking distance category (\<325m or \>=325m) and baseline score as the covariates. The mean difference and corresponding two-sided 95% CI for the comparisons of sildenafil 20 mg against the lower sildenafil dose (1 mg) was presented along with the p-value for the test.||-32.16|-177.44|0.005
90828341|NCT00430716|181531768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-25.0||||0.496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-97.5|47.5|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA method was used with etiology, baseline walking distance category (\<325m or \>=325m) and baseline score as the covariates. The mean difference and corresponding two-sided 95% CI for the comparisons of sildenafil 20 mg against the lower sildenafil dose (5 mg) was presented along with the p-value for the test.||47.50|-97.50|0.496
90828342|NCT00430716|181531769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-462.12||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-807.53|-116.71|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA method was used with etiology, baseline walking distance category (\<325m or \>=325m) and baseline score as the covariates. The mean difference and corresponding two-sided 95% CI for the comparisons of sildenafil 20 mg against the lower sildenafil dose (1 mg) was presented along with the p-value for the test.||-116.71|-807.53|0.009
90828343|NCT00430716|181531769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Net)|-141.45||||0.414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-483.48|200.58|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA method was used with etiology, baseline walking distance category (\<325m or \>=325m) and baseline score as the covariates. The mean difference and corresponding two-sided 95% CI for the comparisons of sildenafil 20 mg against the lower sildenafil dose (5 mg) was presented along with the p-value for the test.||200.58|-483.48|0.414
90828344|NCT00430716|181531770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.15|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA method was used with etiology, baseline walking distance category (\<325m or \>=325m) and baseline score as the covariates. The mean difference and corresponding two-sided 95% CI for the comparisons of sildenafil 20 mg against the lower sildenafil dose (1 mg) was presented along with the p-value for the test.||0.15|-0.17|0.890
90828345|NCT00430716|181531770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.04|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA method was used with etiology, baseline walking distance category (\<325m or \>=325m) and baseline score as the covariates. The mean difference and corresponding two-sided 95% CI for the comparisons of sildenafil 20 mg against the lower sildenafil dose (5 mg) was presented along with the p-value for the test.||0.04|-0.29|0.124
90828346|NCT00430716|181531771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Van-Elteren)|||A stratified Wilcoxon test (Van-Elteren) was used. The stratified median difference and corresponding two-sided 95% CI (calculated using the Hodges-Lehmann estimator) was presented along with the p-value for the test.||0.00|-1.00|0.382
90828347|NCT00430716|181531771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon (Van-Elteren)|||A stratified Wilcoxon test (Van-Elteren) was used. The stratified median difference and corresponding two-sided 95% CI (calculated using the Hodges-Lehmann estimator) was presented along with the p-value for the test.||1.00|0.00|0.141
90828348|NCT02927392|181531778|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
90828349|NCT03628976|181531863|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0096|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0096
90828350|NCT03628976|181531864|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.764|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.764
90828351|NCT03628976|181531865|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.446|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.446
90828352|NCT00851786|181531867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.69||The p-value was adjusted for baseline gpELISA titer, measurement time (week 6 vs. week 12), CD4 stratum and age.|Linear mixed effect model|Natural log transformed gpELISA titers after one or two doses of vaccine was modeled.||Null hypothesis: VZV antibody titer measured by gpELISA, after 1 or 2 doses of ZOSTAVAX/placebo is the same between ZOSTAVAX arm and the placebo arm||0.69|0.45|<.001
90828353|NCT04177212|181531872|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value for testing null-hypothesis that response of Pooled Group was less or equal to 50 percent (%).|One-sided binomial test|||Between Groups calculation were not done because comparing Groups A and B was not part of the objective of this investigation.||||< 0.0001
90828354|NCT04177212|181531873|OTHER|||||||0.0003||||||P-value for testing null-hypothesis that response of Pooled Group was less or equal to 50%.|One-sided binomial test|||Between Groups calculation were not done because comparing Groups A and B was not part of the objective of this investigation.||||0.0003
90828355|NCT01279681|181531887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.03||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|2.17|||Regression, Cox|||||2.17|0.49|0.93
90828356|NCT01790594|181531905|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.088||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.067|15.242|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The p-value compares Investigational arm and control arm.||15.242|-11.067|0.750
90828357|NCT02341235|181531963|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||ANCOVA|||All analyses were adjusted for baseline values, age, race, ethnicity, and time since diagnosis.||||.35
90828358|NCT02341235|181531964|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||ANCOVA|||All analyses were adjusted for baseline values, age, race, ethnicity, and time since diagnosis.||||0.22
90828359|NCT02341235|181531965|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||ANCOVA|||All analyses were adjusted for baseline values, age, race, ethnicity, and time since diagnosis.||||.97
90828360|NCT02341235|181531966|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||ANCOVA|||All analyses were adjusted for baseline values, age, race, ethnicity, and time since diagnosis.||||.98
90828361|NCT02341235|181531967|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||ANCOVA|||All analyses were adjusted for baseline values, age, race, ethnicity, and time since diagnosis.||||.83
90828362|NCT02341235|181531968|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.055|||||||ANCOVA|||All analyses were adjusted for baseline values, age, race, ethnicity, and time since diagnosis.||||.055
90828363|NCT02341235|181531969|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||ANCOVA|||All analyses were adjusted for baseline values, age, race, ethnicity, and time since diagnosis.||||.71
90828364|NCT02341235|181531970|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||ANCOVA|||All analyses were adjusted for baseline values, age, race, ethnicity, and time since diagnosis.||||.33
90828365|NCT02341235|181531971|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||ANCOVA|||All analyses were adjusted for baseline values, age, race, ethnicity, and time since diagnosis.||||.94
90828366|NCT02341235|181531972|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||ANCOVA|||All analyses were adjusted for baseline values, age, race, ethnicity, and time since diagnosis.||||.57
90828367|NCT02341235|181531973|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||ANCOVA|||All analyses were adjusted for baseline values, age, race, ethnicity, and time since diagnosis.||||.30
90828368|NCT02341235|181531974|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||ANCOVA|||All analyses were adjusted for baseline values, age, race, ethnicity, and time since diagnosis.||||.44
90828369|NCT02341235|181531975|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||ANCOVA|||All analyses were adjusted for baseline values, age, race, ethnicity, and time since diagnosis.||||.62
90828370|NCT02341235|181531976|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||ANCOVA|||All analyses were adjusted for baseline values, age, race, ethnicity, and time since diagnosis.||||.70
90828371|NCT02341235|181531977|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||ANCOVA|||All analyses were adjusted for baseline values, age, race, ethnicity, and time since diagnosis.||||.41
90828372|NCT02341235|181531978|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||ANCOVA|||All analyses were adjusted for baseline values, age, race, ethnicity, and time since diagnosis.||||.72
90828373|NCT02341235|181531985|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.084|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.084
90828374|NCT02341235|181531987|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.580
90828375|NCT02341235|181531995|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.461|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.461
90828376|NCT02341235|181531997|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.934|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.934
90828377|NCT02163824|181531999|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % of responders|16.1||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.9|26.4|||Chi-squared||Estimated Value is the between-group difference for % of responders and is expressed as a percentage.|"All statistical tests of hypotheses performed for the pairwise comparison of means were two-sided.~All statistical tests employed a level of significance of alpha = 0.05."||26.4|5.9|.0024
90828378|NCT02163824|181531999|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % of responders|22.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.7|32.6|||Chi-squared||Estimated Value is the between-group difference for % of responders and is expressed as a percentage.|"All statistical tests of hypotheses performed for the pairwise comparison of means were two-sided.~All statistical tests employed a level of significance of alpha = 0.05."||32.6|11.7|<.0001
90828379|NCT02163824|181532000|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % of responders|19.5||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|31.5|||Chi-squared||Estimated Value is the between-group difference for % of responders and is expressed as a percentage.|"All statistical tests of hypotheses performed for the pairwise comparison of means were two-sided.~All statistical tests employed a level of significance of alpha = 0.05."||31.5|7.4|.0019
90828380|NCT02163824|181532000|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % of responders|22.5||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.6|34.4|||Chi-squared||Estimated Value is the between-group difference for % of responders and is expressed as a percentage.|"All statistical tests of hypotheses performed for the pairwise comparison of means were two-sided.~All statistical tests employed a level of significance of alpha = 0.05."||34.4|10.6|.0003
91076328|NCT01273155|182038391|OTHER|M26|Kendall's Tau|0.246||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra|||Effects of liver dysfunction on PK parameter values were evaluated with SPSS 22.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL), using the Jonckheere-Terpstra and Kendall's Tau test. Data were considered significantly different when p\<0.05.||||0.010
90828381|NCT02163824|181532001|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA||Estimated value is the between-group difference in mean AC grade at Day 8.|||||0.0007
90828382|NCT02163824|181532001|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.044|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA||Estimated value is the between-group difference in mean grade AC at Day 8.|||||0.0440
90828383|NCT02163824|181532002|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.0391|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA||Estimated value is the between-group difference in mean AC grade at Day 15.|||||0.0391
90828384|NCT02163824|181532002|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.1811|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA||Estimated value is the between-group difference in mean AC grade at Day 15.|||||0.1811
90828385|NCT02163824|181532003|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.1953|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA||Estimated value is the between-group difference in mean ocular pain grade at Day 8.|||||0.1953
90828386|NCT02163824|181532003|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.0307|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA||Estimated value is the between group difference of mean ocular pain grade at Day 8.|||||0.0307
90828387|NCT02163824|181532004|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.2589|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA||Estimated value is the between-group difference on mean ocular pain score at Day 15.|||||0.2589
90828388|NCT02163824|181532004|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.2132|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA||Estimated value is the between-group difference in mean ocular pain score at Day 15.|||||0.2132
90828389|NCT01794000|181532020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate Ratio|0.83||||0.117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.05|||Andersen-Gill model||The rate ratio and 2-sided 95% Confidence Interval (CI) were estimated from the Andersen-Gill model.|The time to a recurrent episode of VOC was analyzed using Andersen-Gill model. A robust variance estimate was used, with treatment, hydroxyurea use at baseline and age group included as factors in the model.||1.05|0.66|.117
91076329|NCT01273155|182038392|OTHER||Kendall's Tau|0.057||||0.548|TWO_SIDED||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra|||Effects of liver dysfunction on PK parameter values were evaluated with SPSS 22.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL), using the Jonckheere-Terpstra and Kendall's Tau test. Data were considered significantly different when p\<0.05.||||0.548
90828390|NCT01794000|181532021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.242||||0.912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.564|4.079||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) included fixed effects of treatment, baseline value of the pain-diary outcome measure, hydroxyurea use, age group, time and treatment-by-time interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis||The Least Square (LS) Mean difference of prasugrel minus placebo and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI were estimated from the MMRM model.|||4.079|-4.564|.912
90828391|NCT01794000|181532022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.0968||||0.365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1132|0.3068||MMRM model included fixed effects of treatment, baseline value of the pain-diary outcome measure, hydroxyurea use, age group, time and treatment-by-time interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis||The LS Mean difference of prasugrel minus placebo and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI were estimated from the MMRM model.|||0.3068|-0.1132|.365
90828392|NCT01794000|181532023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate Ratio|0.82||||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.04||The time to a recurrent episode of painful crisis was analyzed using Andersen-Gill model.|Andersen-Gill Model|A robust variance estimate was used, with treatment, hydroxyurea use at baseline and age group included as factors in the model.|The rate ratio and 2-sided 95% CI were estimated from the Andersen-Gill model.|||1.04|0.65|.109
90828393|NCT01794000|181532024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate Ratio|0.94||||0.759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.37||The time to a recurrent episode of hospitalization was analyzed using Andersen-Gill model.|Andersen-Gill model|A robust variance estimate was used, with treatment, hydroxyurea use at baseline and age group included as factors in the model.|The rate ratio and 2-sided 95% CI were estimated from the Andersen-Gill model.|||1.37|0.65|.759
90828394|NCT01794000|181532025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate Ratio|0.96||||0.916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.93||The time to a recurrent episode of acute chest syndrome was analyzed using Andersen-Gill model.|Andersen-Gill model|A robust variance estimate was used, with treatment, hydroxyurea use at baseline and age group included as factors in the model.|The rate ratio and 2-sided 95% CI were estimated from the Andersen-Gill model.|||1.93|0.48|.916
90828395|NCT01794000|181532026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate Ratio|1.17||||0.544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.91||The time to a recurrent episode of RBC transfusion was analyzed using Andersen-Gill model.|Andersen-Gill model|A robust variance estimate was used, with treatment, hydroxyurea use at baseline and age group included as factors in the model.|The rate ratio and 2-sided 95% CI were estimated from the Andersen-Gill model.|||1.91|0.71|.544
90828396|NCT01794000|181532027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|1.513||||0.602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.186|7.213||The MMRM model included the fixed effects of treatment, the baseline value of the pain-diary measure, hydroxyurea use, age group, time and treatment-by-time interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis||The Least Square Mean difference of prasugrel minus placebo and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI were estimated from the MMRM model.|||7.213|-4.186|.602
90828397|NCT01794000|181532028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|1.272||||0.459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.109|4.652||The MMRM model included the fixed effects of treatment, the baseline value of the pain-diary measure, hydroxyurea use, age group, time and treatment-by-time interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis||The LS Mean difference of prasugrel minus placebo and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI were estimated from the MMRM model.|||4.652|-2.109|.459
90828398|NCT01794000|181532030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.94||||0.662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.31|5.19||The ANCOVA model included the factors of treatment, hydroxyurea use, age group, and length of follow-up.|ANCOVA||The LS Mean difference of prasugrel minus placebo and 2-sided 95% CI were estimated from the ANCOVA model.|||5.19|-3.31|.662
90828399|NCT01794000|181532031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.317|||||||Log Rank|A stratified log-rank test were performed with hydroxyurea use and age group as the stratification factors.||Time from Randomization to the First VOC||||.317
90828400|NCT01794000|181532031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.133|||||||Log Rank|A stratified log-rank test were performed with hydroxyurea use and age group as the stratification factors.||Time from Randomization to the Second VOC||||.133
90828401|NCT01794000|181532032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.638|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.638
90828402|NCT00796666|181532033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.8616||||0.5416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.602|1.233|||Log Rank|||||1.233|0.602|0.5416
90828403|NCT00796666|181532034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on the analysis of covariance on change from baseline with B1321003 treatment, B1321001 (NCT00795639) treatment, B1321003 Baseline WHO Functional Class (FC) as fixed effects and baseline 6 Minute Walk Distance (6MWD) as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Baseline to Week 12||||0.0049
91076330|NCT01273155|182038393|OTHER|Belinostat|Kendall's Tau|0.091||||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra|||Effects of liver dysfunction on PK parameter values were evaluated with SPSS 22.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL), using the Jonckheere-Terpstra and Kendall's Tau test. Data were considered significantly different when p\<0.05.||||0.340
91076331|NCT01273155|182038393|OTHER|Belinostat glucuronide|Kendall's Tau|-0.216||||0.023|TWO_SIDED||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra|||Effects of liver dysfunction on PK parameter values were evaluated with SPSS 22.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL), using the Jonckheere-Terpstra and Kendall's Tau test. Data were considered significantly different when p\<0.05.||||0.023
90828404|NCT00796666|181532035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8223|TWO_SIDED|||||Missing values at Week 12 and Week 24 were imputed with the last non-missing WHO FC based on the last observation carried forward (LOCF) method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test used modified ridit scores and the p-value corresponding to the ANCOVA (row mean scores) statistic was reported.||Baseline to Week 12||||0.8223
90828405|NCT00796666|181532036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.13|1.2|||||Least squared (LS) mean and p-value based on analysis of covariance on change from baseline with B1321003 treatment, B1321001 (NCT00795639) treatment, B1321003 Baseline WHO FC as fixed effects and baseline Physical Functioning Score as a covariate.|Baseline to Week 12||1.20|-3.13|
90828406|NCT00796666|181532036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|4.36|||||Least squared (LS) mean and p-value based on analysis of covariance on change from baseline with B1321003 treatment, B1321001 (NCT00795639) treatment, B1321003 Baseline WHO FC as fixed effects and baseline Physical Functioning Score as a covariate.|Baseline to Week 12||4.36|0.31|
90828407|NCT00796666|181532036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0094|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value based on analysis of covariance on change from baseline with B1321003 treatment, B1321001 (NCT00795639) treatment, B1321003 Baseline WHO FC as fixed effects and baseline Physical Functioning Score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Baseline to Week 12||||0.0094
90828408|NCT00796666|181532037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.92|1.2|||||LS mean based on analysis of covariance on change from baseline with B1321003 treatment, B1321001 (NCT00795639) treatment, B1321003 Baseline WHO FC as fixed effects and baseline Role Limitations Due to Physical Health Problems Score as a covariate.|Baseline to Week 12||1.20|-3.92|
90828409|NCT00796666|181532037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.19|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|4.35|||||LS mean based on analysis of covariance on change from baseline with B1321003 treatment, B1321001 (NCT00795639) treatment, B1321003 Baseline WHO FC as fixed effects and baseline Role Limitations Due to Physical Health Problems Score as a covariate.|Baseline to Week 12||4.35|-0.38|
90828410|NCT00796666|181532037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0244|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value based on analysis of covariance on change from baseline with B1321003 treatment, B1321001 (NCT00795639) treatment, B1321003 Baseline WHO FC as fixed effects and baseline Role Limitations Due to Physical Health Problems Score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Baseline to Week 12||||0.0244
90828411|NCT00796666|181532038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.46|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.78|2.04|||||LS mean based on analysis of covariance on change from baseline with B1321003 treatment, B1321001 (NCT00795639) treatment, B1321003 Baseline WHO FC as fixed effects and baseline Bodily Pain Score as a covariate.|Baseline to Week 12||2.04|-3.78|
90828412|NCT00796666|181532038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.34|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|4.9|||||LS mean based on analysis of covariance on change from baseline with B1321003 treatment, B1321001 (NCT00795639) treatment, B1321003 Baseline WHO FC as fixed effects and baseline Bodily Pain Score as a covariate.|Baseline to Week 12||4.90|-0.41|
90828413|NCT00796666|181532038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0624|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value based on analysis of covariance on change from baseline with B1321003 treatment, B1321001 (NCT00795639) treatment, B1321003 Baseline WHO FC as fixed effects and baseline Bodily Pain Score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Baseline to Week 12||||0.0624
90828414|NCT00796666|181532039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.57|2.06|||||LS mean based on analysis of covariance on change from baseline with B1321003 treatment, B1321001 (NCT00795639) treatment, B1321003 Baseline WHO FCvas fixed effects and baseline General Health Score as a covariate.|Baseline to Week 12||2.06|-2.57|
90828415|NCT00796666|181532039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|4.82|||||LS mean based on analysis of covariance on change from baseline with B1321003 treatment, B1321001 (NCT00795639) treatment, B1321003 Baseline WHO FC as fixed effects and baseline General Health Score as a covariate.|Baseline to Week 12||4.82|0.48|
90828416|NCT00796666|181532039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0324|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value based on analysis of covariance on change from baseline with B1321003 treatment, B1321001 (NCT00795639) treatment, B1321003 Baseline WHO FC as fixed effects and baseline General Health Score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Baseline to Week 12||||0.0324
90828417|NCT00796666|181532040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.28|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.97|||||LS mean based on analysis of covariance on change from baseline with B1321003 treatment, B1321001 (NCT00795639) treatment, B1321003 Baseline WHO FC as fixed effects and baseline Vitality Score as a covariate.|Baseline to Week 12||2.97|-2.10|
90828418|NCT00796666|181532040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.19|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.74|6.45|||||LS mean based on analysis of covariance on change from baseline with B1321003 treatment, B1321001 (NCT00795639) treatment, B1321003 Baseline WHO FC as fixed effects and baseline Vitality Score as a covariate.|Baseline to Week 12||6.45|1.74|
90828419|NCT00796666|181532040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0136|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value based on analysis of covariance on change from baseline with B1321003 treatment, B1321001 (NCT00795639) treatment, B1321003 Baseline WHO FC as fixed effects and baseline Vitality Score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Baseline to Week 12||||0.0136
90828420|NCT00796666|181532041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|3.23|||||LS mean based on analysis of covariance on change from baseline with B1321003 treatment, B1321001 (NCT00795639) treatment, B1321003 Baseline WHO FC as fixed effects and baseline Social Functioning Score as a covariate.|Baseline to Week 12||3.23|-2.33|
90828421|NCT00796666|181532041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.31|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|5.32|||||LS mean based on analysis of covariance on change from baseline with B1321003 treatment, B1321001 (NCT00795639) treatment, B1321003 Baseline WHO FC as fixed effects and baseline Social Functioning Score as a covariate.|Baseline to Week 12||5.32|0.14|
90828422|NCT00796666|181532041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1582|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value based on analysis of covariance on change from baseline with B1321003 treatment, B1321001 (NCT00795639) treatment, B1321003 Baseline WHO FC as fixed effects and baseline Social Functioning Score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Baseline to Week 12||||0.1582
91076332|NCT01273155|182038393|OTHER|Methyl belinostat|Kendall's Tau|0.268||||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra|||Effects of liver dysfunction on PK parameter values were evaluated with SPSS 22.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL), using the Jonckheere-Terpstra and Kendall's Tau test. Data were considered significantly different when p\<0.05.||||0.005
90828423|NCT00796666|181532042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.58|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|3.18|||||LS mean based on analysis of covariance on change from baseline with B1321003 treatment, B1321001 (NCT00795639) treatment, B1321003 Baseline WHO FC as fixed effects and baseline Role Limitation Due to Emotional Problems Score as a covariate.|Baseline to Week 12||3.18|-3.09|
90828424|NCT00796666|181532042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.46|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|5.16|||||LS mean based on analysis of covariance on change from baseline with B1321003 treatment, B1321001 (NCT00795639) treatment, B1321003 Baseline WHO FC as fixed effects and baseline Role Limitation Due to Emotional Problems Score as a covariate.|Baseline to Week 12||5.16|-0.62|
90828425|NCT00796666|181532042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2161|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value based on analysis of covariance on change from baseline with B1321003 treatment, B1321001 (NCT00795639) treatment, B1321003 Baseline WHO FC as fixed effects and baseline Role Limitation Due to Emotional Problems Score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Baseline to Week 12||||0.2161
90828426|NCT00796666|181532043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.54|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|4.5|||||LS mean based on analysis of covariance on change from baseline with B1321003 treatment, B1321001 (NCT00795639) treatment, B1321003 Baseline WHO FC as fixed effects and baseline Mental Health Score as a covariate.|Baseline to Week 12||4.50|-1.61|
90828427|NCT00796666|181532043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.43|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|6.5|||||LS mean based on analysis of covariance on change from baseline with B1321003 treatment, B1321001 (NCT00795639) treatment, B1321003 Baseline WHO FC as fixed effects and baseline Mental Health Score as a covariate.|Baseline to Week 12||6.50|0.82|
90828428|NCT00796666|181532043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2087|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value based on analysis of covariance on change from baseline with B1321003 treatment, B1321001 (NCT00795639) treatment, B1321003 Baseline WHO FC as fixed effects and baseline Mental Health Score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Baseline to Week 12||||0.2087
90828429|NCT00796666|181532044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|3.58|||||LS mean based on analysis of covariance on change from baseline with B1321003 treatment, B1321001 (NCT00795639) treatment, B1321003 Baseline WHO FC as fixed effects and baseline Composite Mental Health Score as a covariate.|Baseline to Week 12||3.58|-1.21|
90828430|NCT00796666|181532044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|5.05|||||LS mean based on analysis of covariance on change from baseline with B1321003 treatment, B1321001 (NCT00795639) treatment, B1321003 Baseline WHO FC as fixed effects and baseline Composite Mental Health Score as a covariate.|Baseline to Week 12||5.05|0.37|
90828431|NCT00796666|181532044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2897|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value based on analysis of covariance on change from baseline with B1321003 treatment, B1321001 (NCT00795639) treatment, B1321003 Baseline WHO FC as fixed effects and baseline Composite Mental Health Score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Baseline to Week 12||||0.2897
90828432|NCT00796666|181532045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|1.38|||||LS mean based on analysis of covariance on change from baseline with B1321003 treatment, B1321001 (NCT00795639) treatment, B1321003 Baseline WHO FC as fixed effects and baseline Composite Physical Health Score as a covariate.|Baseline to Week 12||1.38|-2.05|
90828433|NCT00796666|181532045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|3.82|||||LS mean based on analysis of covariance on change from baseline with B1321003 treatment, B1321001 (NCT00795639) treatment, B1321003 Baseline WHO FC as fixed effects and baseline Composite Physical Health Score as a covariate.|Baseline to Week 12||3.82|0.46|
90828434|NCT00796666|181532045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0179|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value based on analysis of covariance on change from baseline with B1321003 treatment, B1321001 (NCT00795639) treatment, B1321003 Baseline WHO FC as fixed effects and baseline Composite Physical Health Score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Baseline to Week 12||||0.0179
90828435|NCT00255190|181532055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.042||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level. All statistical tests were two-sided and the p-values were rounded to 3 decimal places prior to determining statistical significance.|ANOVA|||||||0.042
90828436|NCT00255190|181532056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level. All statistical tests were two-sided and the p-values were rounded to 3 decimal places prior to determining statistical significance.|ANOVA|||||||0.006
90828437|NCT00255190|181532057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.204||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level. All statistical tests were two-sided and the p-values were rounded to 3 decimal places prior to determining statistical significance.|ANCOVA|Comparisons were made using a one-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the factor and baseline score as the covariate.||||||0.204
90828438|NCT00255190|181532058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.109||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level. All statistical tests were two-sided and the p-values were rounded to 3 decimal places prior to determining statistical significance.|ANCOVA|Comparisons were made using an ANCOVA model with treatment as the factor and baseline score as the covariate.||||||0.109
90828439|NCT00255190|181532059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level. All statistical tests were two-sided and the p-values were rounded to 3 decimal places prior to determining statistical significance.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90828440|NCT00255190|181532060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.494||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level. All statistical tests were two-sided and the p-values were rounded to 3 decimal places prior to determining statistical significance.|ANOVA|||||||0.494
91076333|NCT01273155|182038393|OTHER|M21|Kendall's Tau|0.242||||0.011|TWO_SIDED||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra|||Effects of liver dysfunction on PK parameter values were evaluated with SPSS 22.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL), using the Jonckheere-Terpstra and Kendall's Tau test. Data were considered significantly different when p\<0.05.||||0.011
90828441|NCT00255190|181532061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level. All statistical tests were two-sided and the p-values were rounded to 3 decimal places prior to determining statistical significance.|ANOVA|||||||0.026
90828442|NCT00255190|181532062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level. All statistical tests were two-sided and the p-values were rounded to 3 decimal places prior to determining statistical significance.|ANOVA|||||||0.220
90828443|NCT00255190|181532063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.843||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level. All statistical tests were two-sided and the p-values were rounded to 3 decimal places prior to determining statistical significance.|ANOVA|||||||0.843
90828444|NCT00255190|181532064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.923||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level. All statistical tests were two-sided and the p-values were rounded to 3 decimal places prior to determining statistical significance.|ANOVA|||||||0.923
90828445|NCT00255190|181532065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level. All statistical tests were two-sided and the p-values were rounded to 3 decimal places prior to determining statistical significance.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
90828446|NCT00255190|181532066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.758||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level. All statistical tests were two-sided and the p-values were rounded to 3 decimal places prior to determining statistical significance.|ANOVA|||||||0.758
90828447|NCT00255190|181532067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.737||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level. All statistical tests were two-sided and the p-values were rounded to 3 decimal places prior to determining statistical significance.|ANOVA|||||||0.737
90828448|NCT00255190|181532068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.673||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level. All statistical tests were two-sided and the p-values were rounded to 3 decimal places prior to determining statistical significance.|ANOVA|||||||0.673
90828449|NCT00255190|181532069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.817||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level. All statistical tests were two-sided and the p-values were rounded to 3 decimal places prior to determining statistical significance.|ANOVA|||||||0.817
90828450|NCT00255190|181532070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.601||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level. All statistical tests were two-sided and the p-values were rounded to 3 decimal places prior to determining statistical significance.|ANOVA|||||||0.601
90828451|NCT00255190|181532071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.065||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level. All statistical tests were two-sided and the p-values were rounded to 3 decimal places prior to determining statistical significance.|ANOVA|||||||0.065
90828452|NCT00255190|181532072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.319||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level. All statistical tests were two-sided and the p-values were rounded to 3 decimal places prior to determining statistical significance.|ANOVA|||||||0.319
90828453|NCT00255190|181532073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level. All statistical tests were two-sided and the p-values were rounded to 3 decimal places prior to determining statistical significance.|ANOVA|||||||0.011
90828454|NCT00255190|181532074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.207||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level. All statistical tests were two-sided and the p-values were rounded to 3 decimal places prior to determining statistical significance.|ANOVA|||||||0.207
90828455|NCT00255190|181532075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.286||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level. All statistical tests were two-sided and the p-values were rounded to 3 decimal places prior to determining statistical significance.|ANCOVA|Comparisons were made using an ANCOVA model with treatment as the factor and baseline score as the covariate.||||||0.286
90828456|NCT00255190|181532076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.102||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level. All statistical tests were two-sided and the p-values were rounded to 3 decimal places prior to determining statistical significance.|ANCOVA|Comparisons were made using an ANCOVA model with treatment as the factor and baseline score as the covariate.||||||0.102
90828457|NCT00255190|181532077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.656||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level. All statistical tests were two-sided and the p-values were rounded to 3 decimal places prior to determining statistical significance.|ANCOVA|Comparisons were made using an ANCOVA model with treatment as the factor and baseline score as the covariate.||||||0.656
90828458|NCT00255190|181532078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.176||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level. All statistical tests were two-sided and the p-values were rounded to 3 decimal places prior to determining statistical significance.|ANCOVA|Comparisons were made using an ANCOVA model with treatment as the factor and baseline score as the covariate.||||||0.176
90828459|NCT00255190|181532079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level. All statistical tests were two-sided and the p-values were rounded to 3 decimal places prior to determining statistical significance.|ANCOVA|Comparisons were made using an ANCOVA model with treatment as the factor and baseline score as the covariate.||||||0.030
90828460|NCT00255190|181532080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.243||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level. All statistical tests were two-sided and the p-values were rounded to 3 decimal places prior to determining statistical significance.|ANCOVA|Comparisons were made using an ANCOVA model with treatment as the factor and baseline score as the covariate.||||||0.243
90828461|NCT00255190|181532081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level. All statistical tests were two-sided and the p-values were rounded to 3 decimal places prior to determining statistical significance.|ANCOVA|Comparisons were made using an ANCOVA model with treatment as the factor and baseline score as the covariate.||||||0.005
91076334|NCT01273155|182038393|OTHER|M24|Kendall's Tau|-0.114||||0.231|TWO_SIDED||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra|||Effects of liver dysfunction on PK parameter values were evaluated with SPSS 22.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL), using the Jonckheere-Terpstra and Kendall's Tau test. Data were considered significantly different when p\<0.05.||||0.231
90828462|NCT00255190|181532082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.469||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level. All statistical tests were two-sided and the p-values were rounded to 3 decimal places prior to determining statistical significance.|ANCOVA|Comparisons were made using an ANCOVA model with treatment as the factor and baseline score as the covariate.||||||0.469
90828463|NCT00628030|181532085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||.008
90828464|NCT00628030|181532086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.041|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||.041
90828465|NCT00628030|181532087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||.61
90828466|NCT00628030|181532088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.13
90828467|NCT00628030|181532089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||.024
90828468|NCT03367858|181532129|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0173||||||At 12 month follow up.|ANCOVA|||We conducted a repeated measures ANCOVA of Time (Post-Treatment: 3, 6, 12 months) × Treatment (MI, BAM) with the covariate of pre-treatment problem drinking.||||.0173
90828469|NCT02485561|181532150|SUPERIORITY||F-value|1.019||||0.362|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.362
90828470|NCT02485561|181532151|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.098||0.024|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.024
90828471|NCT02485561|181532151|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.074||0.75|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.75
90828472|NCT02485561|181532152|SUPERIORITY||F-value|6.482||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.002
90828473|NCT02485561|181532152|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.91|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.91
90828474|NCT02485561|181532152|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.716|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.182|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
90828475|NCT02485561|181532153|SUPERIORITY||F-value|0.608||||0.55|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.55
90828476|NCT02485561|181532154|SUPERIORITY||F-value|16.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<.001
90828477|NCT02485561|181532154|SUPERIORITY||F-value|2.0||||0.14|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.14
90828478|NCT02485561|181532155|SUPERIORITY||F-value|1.68||||0.19|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.19
90828479|NCT02485561|181532155|SUPERIORITY||F-value|0.021||||0.98|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.98
90828480|NCT02485561|181532155|SUPERIORITY||F-value|0.312||||0.73|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.73
90828481|NCT02485561|181532155|SUPERIORITY||F-value|0.702||||0.496|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.496
90828482|NCT02485561|181532155|SUPERIORITY||F-value|1.88||||0.154|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.154
90828483|NCT02485561|181532155|SUPERIORITY||F-value|0.667||||0.514|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.514
90828484|NCT02485561|181532155|SUPERIORITY||F-value|0.666||||0.514|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.514
90828485|NCT02485561|181532156|SUPERIORITY||F-value|0.59||||0.56|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.56
90828486|NCT02485561|181532157|SUPERIORITY||F-value|0.18||||0.84|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.84
90828487|NCT02485561|181532158|SUPERIORITY||F-value|1.16||||0.31|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.31
90828488|NCT02485561|181532159|SUPERIORITY||F-value|1.17||||0.31|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.31
90828489|NCT02485561|181532159|SUPERIORITY||F-value|0.056||||0.95|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.95
90828490|NCT00101686|181532192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.433||||0.0152||95.0|1.09|1.89||p-value corresponds to the log-rank test for comparing Kaplan-Meier survival curves.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio \[mIRI:FOLFIRI\] is from the Cox Proportional Hazard Model using treatment (FOLFIRI, mIRI, CapeIRI), age (\<=70 vs \>70), performance status (0 vs 1), aspirin (Yes vs No), celecoxib (Yes or No) as the covariates.|||1.89|1.09|0.0152
90828491|NCT00101686|181532193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.512||||0.0042||95.0|1.16|1.97|||Log Rank|||||1.97|1.16|0.0042
90828492|NCT00101686|181532193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.368||||0.0156||95.0|1.04|1.8|||Log Rank|||||1.80|1.04|0.0156
90828493|NCT00101686|181532193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.057||||0.4659||95.0|0.81|1.38|||Log Rank|||||1.38|0.81|0.4659
90828494|NCT00101686|181532194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||F-distribution method|47.2||||||95.0|38.85|55.71|||||Exact confidence interval for binomial proportion using the F-distribution method (unit: %)|||55.71|38.85|
90828495|NCT00101686|181532194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||F-distribution method|43.3||||||95.0|34.95|51.86|||||Exact confidence interval for binomial proportion using the F-distribution method (unit: %)|||51.86|34.95|
90828496|NCT00101686|181532194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||F-distribution method|38.6||||||95.0|30.66|47.06|||||Exact confidence interval for binomial proportion using the F-distribution method (unit: %)|||47.06|30.66|
90828497|NCT00101686|181532194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4751|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4751
90828498|NCT00101686|181532194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1591|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1591
90828499|NCT00101686|181532194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4395|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4395
90828500|NCT00101686|181532195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.268||||0.0879||95.0|0.96|1.68|||Log Rank|||||1.68|0.96|0.0879
90828501|NCT00101686|181532195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19||||0.2765||95.0|0.9|1.58|||Log Rank|||||1.58|0.90|0.2765
91076335|NCT01273155|182038393|OTHER|M26|Kendall's Tau|0.22||||0.021|TWO_SIDED||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra|||Effects of liver dysfunction on PK parameter values were evaluated with SPSS 22.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL), using the Jonckheere-Terpstra and Kendall's Tau test. Data were considered significantly different when p\<0.05.||||0.021
90828502|NCT00101686|181532195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.049||||0.9364||95.0|0.8|1.38|||Log Rank|||||1.38|0.80|0.9364
90828503|NCT00101686|181532197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.068||||0.7163||95.0|0.86|1.33|||Log Rank|||||1.33|0.86|0.7163
90828504|NCT00101686|181532198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||F-distribution method|39.4||||||95.0|32.83|46.34|||||confidence interval for binomial proportion using the F-distribution method (unit: %)|||46.34|32.83|
90828505|NCT00101686|181532198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||F-distribution method|46.5||||||95.0|39.76|53.42|||||confidence interval for binomial proportion using the F-distribution method (unit: %)|||53.42|39.76|
90828506|NCT00101686|181532198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1559|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1559
90828507|NCT00101686|181532199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.5316||95.0|0.86|1.36|||Log Rank|||||1.36|0.86|0.5316
90828508|NCT00101686|181532200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.269||||0.2835||95.0|0.75|2.15|||Log Rank|||||2.15|0.75|0.2835
90828509|NCT00101686|181532201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||F-distribution method|57.9||||||95.0|44.08|70.86|||||Exact confidence interval for binomial proportion using the F-distribution method (unit: %)|||70.86|44.08|
90828510|NCT00101686|181532201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||F-distribution method|53.3||||||95.0|40.0|66.33|||||Exact confidence interval for binomial proportion using the F-distribution method (unit: %)|||66.33|40.00|
90828511|NCT00101686|181532201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7388|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.7388
90828512|NCT00101686|181532203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.794||||0.037||95.0|1.12|2.88|||Log Rank|||||2.88|1.12|0.0370
90828513|NCT02119871|181532231|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|14.0||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.00
90828514|NCT02119871|181532232|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|10.0||||0.656|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.656
90828515|NCT02119871|181532233|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|4.0||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1
90828516|NCT00479713|181532269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.72|<=|0.001||95.0|-14.1|-7.33|||ANOVA|Model terms: treatment, stratum, baseline (categorized based on quartiles) and center||||-7.33|-14.10|<=0.001
90828517|NCT00479713|181532270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1|||<=|0.001||95.0|1.5|3.0|||Regression, Logistic|Model terms: treatment, stratum and baseline LDL-C (continuous)||Percentage of Participants who Attained Target LDL-C Goal of \< 100 mg/dL (2.59 mmol/L)||3.0|1.5|<=0.001
90828518|NCT00479713|181532270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.8|||<=|0.001||95.0|1.8|4.4|||Regression, Logistic|Model terms: treatment, stratum and baseline LDL-C (continuous)||Percentage of Participants who Attained Target LDL-C Goal of \< 70 mg/dL (1.81 mmol/L)||4.4|1.8|<=0.001
90828519|NCT00479713|181532271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<=|0.001||95.0|-9.56|-4.84|||ANOVA|Model terms: treatment, stratum, baseline (categorized based on quartiles) and center||||-4.84|-9.56|<=0.001
90828520|NCT00479713|181532272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-5.06||||0.056||95.0|-9.56|-0.3|||Nonparametric ANOVA|ANOVA model based on Tukey's normalized ranks with term for treatment, stratum, baseline (categorized based on quartiles) and center.|The median difference between treatments is based on the Hodges-Lehmann estimates of shift with a corresponding distribution-free Confidence Interval (CI) based on Wilcoxon's rank.|||-0.30|-9.56|0.056
90828521|NCT00479713|181532273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17||0.433||95.0|-3.21|1.38|||ANOVA|Model terms: treatment, stratum, baseline (categorized based on quartiles) and center.||||1.38|-3.21|0.433
90828522|NCT00479713|181532274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.58|<=|0.001||95.0|-12.5|-6.31|||ANOVA|Model terms: treatment, stratum, baseline (categorized based on quartiles) and center.||||-6.31|-12.50|<=0.001
90828523|NCT00479713|181532275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.98|<=|0.001||95.0|-13.49|-5.69|||ANOVA|Model terms: treatment, stratum, baseline (categorized based on quartiles) and center.||||-5.69|-13.49|<=0.001
90828524|NCT00479713|181532276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.44|<=|0.001||95.0|-9.07|-3.43|||ANOVA|Model terms: treatment, stratum, baseline (categorized based on quartiles) and center.||||-3.43|-9.07|<=0.001
90828525|NCT00479713|181532277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.43|<=|0.001||95.0|-10.91|-5.3|||ANOVA|Model terms: treatment, stratum, baseline (categorized based on quartiles) and center||||-5.30|-10.91|<=0.001
90828526|NCT00479713|181532278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.67||||0.172||95.0|-16.67|2.87|||Nonparametric ANOVA|ANOVA model based on Tukey's normalized ranks with term for treatment, stratum, baseline (categorized based on quartiles) and center|The median difference between treatments is based on the Hodges-Lehmann estimates of shift with a corresponding distribution-free CI based on Wilcoxon's rank|||2.87|-16.67|0.172
90828527|NCT00141102|181532293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Life Table Extension|Stratified by history of GD ulceration and by region.||||||<0.0001
90828528|NCT00141102|181532294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.93|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Life Table Extension|Stratified by history of GD ulceration and by region.||||||<0.0001
90828529|NCT00141102|181532295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023||0.4146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.03|||ANCOVA|Fixed effects of region and history of GD ulceration with Baseline covariate.||||0.03|-0.06|0.4146
90828530|NCT00141102|181532296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.29||||0.1132|TWO_SIDED||||||Life Table Extension|Stratified by history of GD ulceration and by region.||||||0.1132
90828531|NCT00141102|181532298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.0495|TWO_SIDED||||||Life Table Extension|Stratified by history of GD ulceration and by region.||||||0.0495
90828532|NCT00141102|181532299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.52||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED||||||Life Table Extension|Stratified by history of GD ulceration and by region.||||||0.0006
90828533|NCT00141102|181532300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.406|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.45|||ANCOVA|Fixed effects of region and history of GD ulceration with Baseline covariate.||||0.45|0.36|<0.0001
90828534|NCT00141102|181532301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.069|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.25|||ANCOVA|Fixed effects of region and history of GD ulceration with Baseline covariate.||||1.25|0.98|<0.0001
90828535|NCT00141102|181532302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Relative Risk|2.748|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.96|3.84|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by history of GD ulceration and by region.||||3.84|1.96|<0.0001
91076336|NCT01273155|182038394|OTHER||Kendall's Tau|-0.216||||0.023|TWO_SIDED||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra|||Effects of liver dysfunction on PK parameter values were evaluated with SPSS 22.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL), using the Jonckheere-Terpstra and Kendall's Tau test. Data were considered significantly different when p\<0.05.||||0.023
90828536|NCT00141102|181532303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Relative Risk|3.329|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.156|5.141|||Fisher Exact|||GGT||5.141|2.156|<0.0001
90828537|NCT00141102|181532303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Relative Risk|1.509||||0.3809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.618|3.684|||Fisher Exact|||AST||3.684|0.618|0.3809
90828538|NCT00141102|181532303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Relative Risk|2.089||||0.0264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.081|4.038|||Fisher Exact|||ALT||4.038|1.081|0.0264
90828539|NCT00141102|181532304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-10.144|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.697|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.51|-8.78|||ANCOVA|||GGT||-8.78|-11.51|<0.0001
90828540|NCT00141102|181532304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-2.391|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.281|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.94|-1.84|||ANCOVA|||AST||-1.84|-2.94|<0.0001
91076337|NCT01273155|182038395|OTHER||Kendall's Tau|0.06||||0.531|TWO_SIDED||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra|||Effects of liver dysfunction on PK parameter values were evaluated with SPSS 22.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL), using the Jonckheere-Terpstra and Kendall's Tau test. Data were considered significantly different when p\<0.05.||||0.531
90828541|NCT00141102|181532304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-6.364|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.428|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|-5.52|||ANCOVA|||ALT||-5.52|-7.20|<0.0001
90828542|NCT00141102|181532305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.565|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.366||0.6795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|3.24|||ANCOVA|Fixed effects of region and history of GD ulceration with Baseline covariate.||||3.24|-2.11|0.6795
90828543|NCT00141102|181532306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.406|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.624||0.592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.55|3.74|||ANCOVA|Fixed effects of region and history of GD ulceration with Baseline covariate.||||3.74|-6.55|0.5920
90828544|NCT00141102|181532307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038||0.6819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.06|||ANCOVA|Fixed effects of region and history of GD ulceration with Baseline covariate.||||0.06|-0.09|0.6819
90828545|NCT05274958|181532365|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Patient measures for both groups were first summarized descriptively with means and standard deviations. To compare the two groups, a t-test was used.||||<0.05
90828546|NCT02756572|181532389|OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.18
90828547|NCT02756572|181532390|OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.18
90828548|NCT02756572|181532391|OTHER|||||||0.049|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.049
90828549|NCT02756572|181532392|OTHER|||||||0.77|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.77
90828550|NCT02679287|181532413|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in percentage of time \<70 mg/dL in SAP vs. evening-overnight CLC session. Change in HbA1c during study sessions was used as a covariate of the model.||2.4|1.2|<0.0001
90828551|NCT03956550|181532422|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2978|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2978
90828552|NCT03956550|181532422|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.689|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.6890
90828553|NCT03956550|181532423|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1973|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1973
90828554|NCT03956550|181532423|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.942|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.9420
90828555|NCT03956550|181532424|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1597|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1597
90828556|NCT03956550|181532424|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9719|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.9719
90828557|NCT03956550|181532425|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1365|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1365
90828558|NCT03956550|181532425|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0604|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0604
90828559|NCT03956550|181532426|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0989|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0989
90828560|NCT03956550|181532426|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5487|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.5487
90828561|NCT03956550|181532427|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3572|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3572
90828562|NCT03956550|181532427|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5747|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.5747
90828563|NCT04244253|181532453|SUPERIORITY||Difference of score|-1.1||||0.288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|1.0|||Mixed-model repeated measures|MMRM included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline, and baseline-by-visit interaction using an unstructured covariance matrix.||The statistical analysis was performed at Week 6 to compare the OPC-64005 20-mg group and placebo group.||1.0|-3.3|0.288
90828564|NCT04244253|181532454|OTHER||Difference in response rate|5.6||||0.329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|16.8|||χ2 test|The MADRS response rate in the OPC-64005 20-mg group and the placebo group were compared using the χ2 test in the LOCF dataset.||The statistical analysis was performed at Week 6 to compare the OPC-64005 20-mg group and placebo group.||16.8|-5.6|0.329
90828565|NCT04244253|181532455|OTHER||Difference of Proportion|1.5||||0.731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|10.3|||χ2 test|The MADRS remission rate in the OPC-64005 20-mg group and placebo group were compared using the χ2 test in the LOCF dataset.||The statistical analysis was performed at Week 6 to compare the OPC-64005 20-mg group and placebo group.||10.3|-7.2|0.731
90828566|NCT01544920|181532456|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 95% CI of the difference in SVR24 % exceeded -10%.|Difference in SVR24% in Arm 2 vs. Arm 1|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|6.5||||||Difference in percentage of participants achieving SVR24||6.5|-3.2|
90828567|NCT01544920|181532457|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The observed lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference was 2.5% (which exceeds 0) for BOC added to peg-IFN + RBV in contrast to peg-IFN + RBV alone.|Difference in SVR24%|10.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|18.1||||||||18.1|2.5|
90828568|NCT00411749|181532463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90828569|NCT00411749|181532464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90828570|NCT00411749|181532465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
91076338|NCT01273155|182038396|OTHER|Belinostat glucuronide/belinostat|Kendall's Tau|-0.224||||0.023|TWO_SIDED||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra|||Effects of liver dysfunction on PK parameter values were evaluated with SPSS 22.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL), using the Jonckheere-Terpstra and Kendall's Tau test. Data were considered significantly different when p\<0.05.||||0.023
90828571|NCT00411749|181532466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
90828572|NCT00411749|181532467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean|155.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|126.2|190.9||||||||190.9|126.2|
90828573|NCT00411749|181532467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean|198.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|160.9|244.2||||||||244.2|160.9|
90828574|NCT00411749|181532467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean|617.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|491.7|774.5||||||||774.5|491.7|
90828575|NCT00411749|181532467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean|90.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.8|117.8||||||||117.8|68.8|
90828576|NCT03001557|181532482|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean (LSM) difference|3.177||||0.1099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.741|7.096||Based on a mixed model for repeated measure (MMRM) analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||7.096|-0.741|0.1099
90828577|NCT03001557|181532482|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|2.802||||0.1576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.119|6.723||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||6.723|-1.119|0.1576
90828578|NCT03001557|181532482|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.96||||0.616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.777|2.857||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||2.857|-4.777|0.6160
90828579|NCT03001557|181532482|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.713||||0.7135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.16|4.585||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||4.585|-3.160|0.7135
90828580|NCT03001557|181532486|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-5.098||||0.1582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.24|2.045||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||2.045|-12.240|0.1582
90828581|NCT03001557|181532486|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-6.105||||0.0961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.332|1.122||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||1.122|-13.332|0.0961
90828582|NCT03001557|181532486|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.68||||0.8449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.262|7.623||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||7.623|-6.262|0.8449
90828583|NCT03001557|181532486|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-3.14||||0.3747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.178|3.897||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||3.897|-10.178|0.3747
90828584|NCT03001557|181532490|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|1.932||||0.3966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.601|6.465||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||6.465|-2.601|0.3966
90828585|NCT03001557|181532490|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|3.386||||0.1381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.125|7.897||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||7.897|-1.125|0.1381
90828586|NCT03001557|181532490|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|1.337||||0.5487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.104|5.778||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||5.778|-3.104|0.5487
90828587|NCT03001557|181532490|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|4.32||||0.0581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.153|8.793||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||8.793|-0.153|0.0581
90828588|NCT03001557|181532494|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-3.437||||0.1777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.481|1.608||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||1.608|-8.481|0.1777
90828589|NCT03001557|181532494|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|1.458||||0.563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.564|6.479||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||6.479|-3.564|0.5630
90828590|NCT03001557|181532494|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-4.994||||0.0482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.946|-0.041||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||-0.041|-9.946|0.0482
90828591|NCT03001557|181532494|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-2.593||||0.3036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.599|2.413||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||2.413|-7.599|0.3036
90828592|NCT03001557|181532498|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|4.845||||0.1991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.624|12.313||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||12.313|-2.624|0.1991
90828593|NCT03001557|181532498|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-3.872||||0.2982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.263|3.518||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||3.518|-11.263|0.2982
90828594|NCT03001557|181532498|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|6.776||||0.0664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.474|14.025||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||14.025|-0.474|0.0664
90828595|NCT03001557|181532498|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|3.017||||0.4148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.344|10.379||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||10.379|-4.344|0.4148
90828596|NCT03001557|181532502|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.063||||0.9599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.452|2.579||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||2.579|-2.452|0.9599
90828597|NCT03001557|181532502|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.238||||0.8541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.817|2.342||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, Visit and treatment by Visit interaction.|MMRM|||||2.342|-2.817|0.8541
90828598|NCT03001557|181532502|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.293||||0.8117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.745|2.16||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||2.160|-2.745|0.8117
90828599|NCT03001557|181532502|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.557||||0.2274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.113|1.0||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||1.000|-4.113|0.2274
90828600|NCT03001557|181532506|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.086||||0.2421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.232||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||0.232|-0.060|0.2421
90828601|NCT03001557|181532506|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.012||||0.8661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.155|0.131||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||0.131|-0.155|0.8661
90828602|NCT03001557|181532506|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.057||||0.4251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.085|0.199||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||0.199|-0.085|0.4251
90828603|NCT03001557|181532506|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.025||||0.7248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.116|0.166||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||0.166|-0.116|0.7248
91076339|NCT01273155|182038396|OTHER|Methyl belinostat/belinostat|Kendall's Tau|0.295||||0.011|TWO_SIDED||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra|||Effects of liver dysfunction on PK parameter values were evaluated with SPSS 22.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL), using the Jonckheere-Terpstra and Kendall's Tau test. Data were considered significantly different when p\<0.05.||||0.011
90828604|NCT03001557|181532510|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.032||||0.2991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.094|0.029||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||0.029|-0.094|0.2991
90828605|NCT03001557|181532510|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.033||||0.2861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.028|0.095||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||0.095|-0.028|0.2861
90828606|NCT03001557|181532510|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.052||||0.0938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.113|0.009||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||0.009|-0.113|0.0938
90828607|NCT03001557|181532510|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.005||||0.8618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.055|0.066||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||0.066|-0.055|0.8618
90828608|NCT03001557|181532514|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-389.873||||0.0294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-739.177|-40.569||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||-40.569|-739.177|0.0294
90828609|NCT03001557|181532514|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-402.994||||0.0243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-751.67|-54.319||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||-54.319|-751.670|0.0243
90828610|NCT03001557|181532514|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-141.026||||0.4209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-489.805|207.752||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||207.752|-489.805|0.4209
90828611|NCT03001557|181532514|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-367.845||||0.0398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-717.87|-17.82||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||-17.820|-717.870|0.0398
90828612|NCT03001557|181532518|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1276.18||||0.1162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2878.587|326.226||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||326.226|-2878.587|0.1162
90828613|NCT03001557|181532518|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|227.464||||0.7781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1382.85|1837.777||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||1837.777|-1382.850|0.7781
90828614|NCT03001557|181532518|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-620.581||||0.4255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2170.342|929.179||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||929.179|-2170.342|0.4255
90828615|NCT03001557|181532518|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-577.82||||0.4672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2160.337|1004.697||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||1004.697|-2160.337|0.4672
90828616|NCT03001557|181532522|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-839.088||||0.2984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2440.854|762.678||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||762.678|-2440.854|0.2984
90828617|NCT03001557|181532522|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|651.922||||0.4218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-962.835|2266.678||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||2266.678|-962.835|0.4218
90828618|NCT03001557|181532522|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-447.245||||0.5655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1998.44|1103.95||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||1103.950|-1998.440|0.5655
90828619|NCT03001557|181532522|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-130.603||||0.8686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1706.478|1445.272||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||1445.272|-1706.478|0.8686
90828620|NCT03001557|181532526|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.02||||0.4638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.034|0.074||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||0.074|-0.034|0.4638
90828621|NCT03001557|181532526|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.06||||0.0322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.005|0.115||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||0.115|0.005|0.0322
90828622|NCT03001557|181532526|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.003||||0.9144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.051|0.056||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||0.056|-0.051|0.9144
90828623|NCT03001557|181532526|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.057||||0.0364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|0.11||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction|MMRM|||||0.110|0.004|0.0364
90828624|NCT01272232|181532532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment contrast|-3.97|||<|0.0001||95.0|-4.84|-3.11||Superiority was established only if all preceding hypotheses had been rejected. p values are 2-sided; 5% pre-defined significance level.|ANCOVA|||The 3 co-primary endpoints (Outcome Measures 1, 2 and 3) were ranked (#1, 2, 3); hypotheses of no difference were tested in a hierarchical manner. Fixed factors: treatment, country, sex, background treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum, background treatment/HbA1c-stratum-interaction; covariate: baseline value.||-3.11|-4.84|<0.0001
90828625|NCT01272232|181532532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment contrast|-2.62|||<|0.0001||95.0|-3.63|-1.62||Superiority was established only if all preceding hypotheses had been rejected. p values are 2-sided; 5% pre-defined significance level.|ANCOVA|||The 3 co-primary endpoints (Outcome Measures 1, 2 and 3) were ranked (#1, 2, 3); hypotheses of no difference were tested in a hierarchical manner. Fixed factors: treatment, country, sex, background treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum, background treatment/HbA1c-stratum-interaction; covariate: baseline value.||-1.62|-3.63|<0.0001
90828626|NCT01272232|181532532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment contrast|-1.35||||0.0024||95.0|-2.23|-0.48||Superiority was established only if all preceding hypotheses had been rejected. p values are 2-sided; 5% pre-defined significance level.|ANCOVA|||The 3 co-primary endpoints (Outcome Measures 1, 2 and 3) were ranked (#1, 2, 3); hypotheses of no difference were tested in a hierarchical manner. Fixed factors: treatment, country, sex, background treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum, background treatment/HbA1c-stratum-interaction; covariate: baseline value.||-0.48|-2.23|0.0024
90828627|NCT01272232|181532533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.81|||<|0.0001||95.0|4.34|10.68||Superiority was established only if all preceding hypotheses had been rejected. p values are 2-sided; 5% pre-defined significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||The 3 co-primary endpoints (Outcome Measures 1, 2 and 3) were ranked (#1, 2, 3); hypotheses of no difference were tested in a hierarchical manner. Fixed factors: treatment, country, sex, background treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum, background treatment/HbA1c-stratum-interaction; covariate: baseline value.||10.68|4.34|<0.0001
90828628|NCT01272232|181532533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.69|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.24|6.09||Superiority was established only if all preceding hypotheses had been rejected. p values are 2-sided; 5% pre-defined significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||The 3 co-primary endpoints (Outcome Measures 1, 2 and 3) were ranked (#1, 2, 3); hypotheses of no difference were tested in a hierarchical manner. Fixed factors: treatment, country, sex, background treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum, background treatment/HbA1c-stratum-interaction; covariate: baseline value.||6.09|2.24|<0.0001
90828629|NCT01272232|181532533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.84||||0.0008||95.0|1.29|2.64||Superiority was established only if all preceding hypotheses had been rejected. p values are 2-sided; 5% pre-defined significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||The 3 co-primary endpoints (Outcome Measures 1, 2 and 3) were ranked (#1, 2, 3); hypotheses of no difference were tested in a hierarchical manner. Fixed factors: treatment, country, sex, background treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum, background treatment/HbA1c-stratum-interaction; covariate: baseline value.||2.64|1.29|0.0008
90828630|NCT01272232|181532534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.1|||<|0.0001||95.0|3.48|14.48||Superiority was established only if all preceding hypotheses had been rejected. p values are 2-sided; 5% pre-defined significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||The 3 co-primary endpoints (Outcome Measures 1, 2 and 3) were ranked (#1, 2, 3); hypotheses of no difference were tested in a hierarchical manner. Fixed factors: treatment, country, sex, background treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum, background treatment/HbA1c-stratum-interaction; covariate: baseline value.||14.48|3.48|<0.0001
90828631|NCT01272232|181532534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.84||||0.0008||95.0|1.75|8.41||Superiority was established only if all preceding hypotheses had been rejected. p values are 2-sided; 5% pre-defined significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||The 3 co-primary endpoints (Outcome Measures 1, 2 and 3) were ranked (#1, 2, 3); hypotheses of no difference were tested in a hierarchical manner. Fixed factors: treatment, country, sex, background treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum, background treatment/HbA1c-stratum-interaction; covariate: baseline value.||8.41|1.75|0.0008
90828632|NCT01272232|181532534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.85||||0.0099||95.0|1.16|2.95||Superiority was established only if all preceding hypotheses had been rejected. p values are 2-sided; 5% pre-defined significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||The 3 co-primary endpoints (Outcome Measures 1, 2 and 3) were ranked (#1, 2, 3); hypotheses of no difference were tested in a hierarchical manner. Fixed factors: treatment, country, sex, background treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum, background treatment/HbA1c-stratum-interaction; covariate: baseline value.||2.95|1.16|0.0099
91076340|NCT01273155|182038396|OTHER|M21/belinostat|Kendall's Tau|0.335||||0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra|||Effects of liver dysfunction on PK parameter values were evaluated with SPSS 22.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL), using the Jonckheere-Terpstra and Kendall's Tau test. Data were considered significantly different when p\<0.05.||||0.004
90828633|NCT01272232|181532535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment contrast|-0.93|||<|0.0001||95.0|-1.08|-0.78||p values are 2-sided; 5% pre-defined significance level.|ANCOVA|||Test of no difference. Fixed factors: treatment, country, sex, background treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum, background treatment/HbA1c-stratum-interaction; covariate: baseline value.||-0.78|-1.08|<0.0001
90828634|NCT01272232|181532535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment contrast|-0.74|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.91|-0.57||p values are 2-sided; 5% pre-defined significance level.|ANCOVA|||Test of no difference. Fixed factors: treatment, country, sex, background treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum, background treatment/HbA1c-stratum-interaction; covariate: baseline value.||-0.57|-0.91|<0.0001
90890502|NCT02625623|181645782|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.73||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|2.21|||Log Rank|The treatment arms were compared using a stratified, 1-sided, log rank Test. The stratification factor was region (Asia versus non Asia).||||2.21|1.36|1.0000
90828635|NCT01272232|181532535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment contrast|-0.19||||0.0125||95.0|-0.34|-0.04||p values are 2-sided; 5% pre-defined significance level.|ANCOVA|||Test of no difference. Fixed factors: treatment, country, sex, background treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum, background treatment/HbA1c-stratum-interaction; covariate: baseline value.||-0.04|-0.34|0.0125
90828636|NCT01272232|181532536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.79|||<|0.0001||95.0|5.74|13.4||p values are 2-sided; 5% pre-defined significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||Test of no difference. Fixed factors: treatment, country, sex, background treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum, background treatment/HbA1c-stratum-interaction; covariate: baseline value.||13.4|5.74|<0.0001
90828637|NCT01272232|181532536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.71|||<|0.0001||95.0|4.76|12.51||p values are 2-sided; 5% pre-defined significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||Test of no difference. Fixed factors: treatment, country, sex, background treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum, background treatment/HbA1c-stratum-interaction; covariate: baseline value.||12.51|4.76|<0.0001
90828638|NCT01272232|181532536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.5319||95.0|0.76|1.71||p values are 2-sided; 5% pre-defined significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||Test of no difference. Fixed factors: treatment, country, sex, background treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum, background treatment/HbA1c-stratum-interaction; covariate: baseline value.||1.71|0.76|0.5319
90828639|NCT01272232|181532537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.61|||<|0.0001||95.0|6.05|15.26||p values are 2-sided; 5% pre-defined significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||Test of no difference. Fixed factors: treatment, country, sex, background treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum, background treatment/HbA1c-stratum-interaction; covariate: baseline value.||15.26|6.05|<0.0001
90828640|NCT01272232|181532537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.98|||<|0.0001||95.0|3.59|9.97||p values are 2-sided; 5% pre-defined significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||Test of no difference. Fixed factors: treatment, country, sex, background treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum, background treatment/HbA1c-stratum-interaction; covariate: baseline value.||9.97|3.59|<0.0001
90828641|NCT01272232|181532537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.61||||0.0142||95.0|1.1|2.34||p values are 2-sided; 5% pre-defined significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||Test of no difference. Fixed factors: treatment, country, sex, background treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum, background treatment/HbA1c-stratum-interaction; covariate: baseline value.||2.34|1.10|0.0142
90828642|NCT01272232|181532538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment contrast|-3.22|||<|0.0001||95.0|-4.2|-2.23||p values are 2-sided; 5% pre-defined significance level.|ANCOVA|||Test of no difference. Fixed factors: treatment, country, sex, background treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum, background treatment/HbA1c-stratum-interaction; covariate: baseline value.||-2.23|-4.20|<0.0001
90828643|NCT01272232|181532538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment contrast|-2.06||||0.0004||95.0|-3.2|-0.92||p values are 2-sided; 5% pre-defined significance level.|ANCOVA|||Test of no difference. Fixed factors: treatment, country, sex, background treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum, background treatment/HbA1c-stratum-interaction; covariate: baseline value.||-0.92|-3.20|0.0004
90828644|NCT01272232|181532538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment contrast|-1.16||||0.0224||95.0|-2.16|-0.16||p values are 2-sided; 5% pre-defined significance level.|ANCOVA|||Test of no difference. Fixed factors: treatment, country, sex, background treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum, background treatment/HbA1c-stratum-interaction; covariate: baseline value.||-0.16|-2.16|0.0224
90828645|NCT01272232|181532539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment contrast|-2.17||||0.0002||95.0|-3.32|-1.02||p values are 2-sided; 5% pre-defined significance level.|ANCOVA|||Test of no difference. Fixed factors: treatment, country, sex, background treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum, background treatment/HbA1c-stratum-interaction; covariate: baseline value.||-1.02|-3.32|0.0002
90828646|NCT01272232|181532539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment contrast|-1.2||||0.0725||95.0|-2.51|0.11||p values are 2-sided; 5% pre-defined significance level.|ANCOVA|||Test of no difference. Fixed factors: treatment, country, sex, background treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum, background treatment/HbA1c-stratum-interaction; covariate: baseline value.||0.11|-2.51|0.0725
91076341|NCT01273155|182038396|OTHER|M24/belinostat|Kendall's Tau|-0.24||||0.037|TWO_SIDED||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra|||Effects of liver dysfunction on PK parameter values were evaluated with SPSS 22.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL), using the Jonckheere-Terpstra and Kendall's Tau test. Data were considered significantly different when p\<0.05.||||0.037
90828647|NCT01272232|181532539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment contrast|-0.97||||0.0717||95.0|-2.02|0.09||p values are 2-sided; 5% pre-defined significance level.|ANCOVA|||Test of no difference. Fixed factors: treatment, country, sex, background treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum, background treatment/HbA1c-stratum-interaction; covariate: baseline value.||0.09|-2.02|0.0717
90828648|NCT01272232|181532541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment contrast|-2.49|||<|0.0001||95.0|-3.75|-1.24||p values are 2-sided; 5% pre-defined significance level.|ANCOVA|||Test of no difference. Fixed factors: treatment, country, sex, background treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum, background treatment/HbA1c-stratum-interaction; covariate: baseline value.||-1.24|-3.75|<0.0001
90828649|NCT01272232|181532541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment contrast|-1.47||||0.0457||95.0|-2.92|-0.03||p values are 2-sided; 5% pre-defined significance level.|ANCOVA|||Test of no difference. Fixed factors: treatment, country, sex, background treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum, background treatment/HbA1c-stratum-interaction; covariate: baseline value.||-0.03|-2.92|0.0457
90828650|NCT01272232|181532541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment contrast|-1.02||||0.0961||95.0|-2.22|0.18||p values are 2-sided; 5% pre-defined significance level.|ANCOVA|||Test of no difference. Fixed factors: treatment, country, sex, background treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum, background treatment/HbA1c-stratum-interaction; covariate: baseline value.||0.18|-2.22|0.0961
90828651|NCT01147666|181532588|OTHER|||||||1||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
90828652|NCT01147666|181532588|OTHER|||||||0.0698||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.0698
90828653|NCT01147666|181532588|OTHER|||||||0.1534||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.1534
90828654|NCT01147666|181532588|OTHER|||||||0.2657||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.2657
90828655|NCT01147666|181532589|OTHER|||||||1||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
90828656|NCT02748863|181532607|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|717.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.0|7569.56|||Regression, Logistic|||||7569.56|68.00|< 0.0001
90828657|NCT02748863|181532608|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|168.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.2|1337.22|||Regression, Logistic|||||1337.22|21.20|< 0.0001
90828658|NCT02748863|181532609|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|38.75|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.41|50.09|||t-test, 2 sided|||||50.09|27.41|< 0.0001
90828659|NCT02748863|181532609|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|36.48|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.19|47.76|||t-test, 2 sided|||||47.76|25.19|< 0.0001
90828660|NCT02748863|181532611|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|400.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.48|3379.99|||Regression, Logistic|||||3379.99|47.48|< 0.0001
90828661|NCT01135134|181532629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
90828662|NCT01135134|181532630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
90828663|NCT03865446|181532631|OTHER||Geometric Means Ratio|130.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.03|199.22|||||The model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with unequal variance assumption and hepatic impairment group as fixed effect. Values were back-transformed from the log scale.|||199.22|86.03|
90828664|NCT03865446|181532632|OTHER||Geometric Means Ratio|104.41|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|72.12|151.16|||||The model was an ANOVA model with unequal variance assumption and hepatic impairment group as fixed effect. Values are back-transformed from the log scale.|||151.16|72.12|
90828665|NCT01329978|181532644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.4||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|9.4||The p-value is based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by randomization stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference in proportions and its 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated based on stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel (MH) proportions.|The analyses was stratified by IL28B (CC versus any T allele) and plasma HCV RNA (\< 800,000 IU/mL versus ≥ 800,000 IU/mL). Only participants with genotype 1 were included in the comparison due to the fact that participants with genotype 4 and 6 were only enrolled in the SOF+PEG+RBV 24 weeks group.||9.4|-12.2|0.77
90828666|NCT01329978|181532644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.4||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|9.9||The p-value is based on the CMH test stratified by randomization stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The difference in proportions and its 95% CI were calculated based on stratum-adjusted MH proportions.||The analyses was stratified by IL28B (CC versus any T allele) and plasma HCV RNA (\< 800,000 IU/mL versus ≥ 800,000 IU/mL).||9.9|-10.8|0.93
90828667|NCT03324802|181532666|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Log Rank|||||||1.0
90828668|NCT03324802|181532667|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Log Rank|||||||1.0
91076342|NCT01273155|182038396|OTHER|M26/belinostat|Kendall's Tau|0.127||||0.275|TWO_SIDED||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra|||Effects of liver dysfunction on PK parameter values were evaluated with SPSS 22.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL), using the Jonckheere-Terpstra and Kendall's Tau test. Data were considered significantly different when p\<0.05.||||0.275
91076343|NCT01273155|182038396|OTHER|M24/M26|Kendall's Tau|-0.308||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra|||Effects of liver dysfunction on PK parameter values were evaluated with SPSS 22.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL), using the Jonckheere-Terpstra and Kendall's Tau test. Data were considered significantly different when p\<0.05.||||0.002
90828669|NCT03324802|181532669|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.320
90828670|NCT03324802|181532670|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.163|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.163
90828671|NCT03324802|181532671|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.97
90828672|NCT03324802|181532672|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Gray Test P-value|||||||0.5
90828673|NCT03324802|181532673|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.54
90828674|NCT00287716|181532692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.95|||Log Rank|||The null hypothesis is that there is no treatment difference between the pirfenidone 2403 mg/day treatment group and the placebo treatment group.||0.95|0.44|0.023
90828675|NCT00287716|181532698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.42|||Log Rank|||The null hypothesis is that there is no treatment difference between the pirfenidone 2403-mg/d treatment group and the placebo treatment group.||1.42|0.50|0.515
90828676|NCT02294058|181532701|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.518|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.405|0.663||To account for multiple comparisons, each of the 2 treatment comparisons was tested at the alpha = 0.025 level.|Poisson regression model|Adjusted for region, Baseline age, number of gadolinium enhancing (GdE) lesions and included the natural log transformation of time as an offset term.||||0.663|0.405|<0.0001
90828677|NCT02294058|181532701|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.688||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.547|0.864||To account for multiple comparisons, each of the 2 treatment comparisons was tested at the alpha = 0.025 level.|Poisson Regression Model|Adjusted for region, Baseline age and the number of GdE lesions, and included the natural log transformation of time on study as an offset term.||||0.864|0.547|0.0013
90828678|NCT02294058|181532702|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.517|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.427|0.625||To account for multiple comparisons, each of the 2 treatment comparisons was tested at the alpha = 0.05 level.|Negative Binomial Regression Model|Adjusted for region, Baseline age and GdE lesions; included the natural log transformation of available MRI scans over 12 months as an offset term.|Rate Ratio = Ozanimod / IFN β-1a|||0.625|0.427|<0.0001
90828679|NCT02294058|181532702|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.754||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.625|0.91||To account for multiple comparisons, each of the 2 treatment comparisons was tested at the alpha = 0.05 level.|Negative binomial regression model|Adjusted for region, Baseline age and GdE lesions; included the natural log transformation of available MRI scans over 12 months as an offset term.|Rate Ratio = Ozanimod / IFN β-1a|||0.910|0.625|0.0032
90828680|NCT02294058|181532703|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.256|0.536||To account for multiple comparisons, each of the 2 treatment comparisons was tested at the alpha = 0.05 level.|Negative Binomial Regression Model|Adjusted for region, Baseline age and GdE lesions; included the natural log transformation of available MRI scans as an offset term.||||0.536|0.256|<0.0001
90828681|NCT02294058|181532703|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.662||||0.0182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.471|0.932||To account for multiple comparisons, each of the 2 treatment comparisons was tested at the alpha = 0.05 level.|Negative binomial regression model|Adjusted for region, Baseline age and GdE lesions; included the natural log transformation of available MRI scans as an offset term.||||0.932|0.471|0.0182
90828682|NCT02294058|181532704|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||0.3055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.402|||Cox proportional hazards model|Based on the Cox proportional hazard model with factors for treatment group, adjusted for region, Baseline age, and Baseline EDSS score|Hazard Ratio (Ozanimod / IFN β-1a)|||1.402|0.340|0.3055
90890503|NCT02625623|181645784|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.709||||0.8764|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The treatment arms were compared by 1-sided CMH test. The stratification factor was region (Asia versus non Asia).||||||0.8764
90828683|NCT02294058|181532704|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.886||||0.7163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.705|||Cox proportional hazards model|Based on the Cox proportional hazard model with factors for treatment group, adjusted for region, Baseline age and Baseline EDSS score|Hazard Ratio (Ozanimod / IFN β-1a)|||1.705|0.460|0.7163
90828684|NCT02294058|181532705|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.238||||0.6725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|3.337|||Cox proportional hazards model|Based on the Cox proportional hazard model with factors for treatment group, adjusted for region, Baseline age and Baseline EDSS score|Hazard Ratio (Ozanimod / IFN β-1a)|||3.337|0.460|0.6725
90828685|NCT02294058|181532705|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.535||||0.3755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.595|3.963|||Cox proportional hazard model|Based on the Cox proportional hazard model with factors for treatment group, adjusted for region, Baseline age and Baseline EDSS score|Hazard Ratio (Ozanimod / IFN β-1a)|||3.963|0.595|0.3755
90828686|NCT02294058|181532706|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|10.88||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.84|16.92|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on the CMH test stratified by region and EDSS category per Interactive Voice Response System (IVRS)||||16.92|4.84|0.0006
90828687|NCT02294058|181532706|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|5.12||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|11.32|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on the CMH test stratified by region and EDSS category per IVRS.||||11.32|-1.07|0.1130
90828688|NCT02294058|181532707|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|4.53||||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|10.24|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on the CMH test stratified by region and EDSS Scale category per IVRS.||||10.24|-1.19|0.1180
90828689|NCT02294058|181532707|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|2.95||||0.3023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|8.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on the CMH test stratified by region and EDSS Scale category per IVRS.||||8.60|-2.70|0.3023
90828690|NCT02294058|181532708|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Rank ANCOVA|Adjusted for region and EDSS category per IVRS||Due to the non-normal distribution of the data for brain volume loss, the analyses for percent change from baseline in normalized brain volume were compared using rank-ANCOVA, adjusted for region (Eastern Europe vs Rest of World), and EDSS category per IVRS, with the dependent variable as the residual of the rank of brain volume at Baseline regressed on rank of percent change.||||<0.0001
90828691|NCT02294058|181532708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0615|||||||Rank ANCOVA|Adjusted for region and EDSS Scale per IVRS||Due to the non-normal distribution of the data for brain volume loss, the analyses for percent change from baseline in normalized brain volume were compared using rank-ANCOVA, adjusted for region (Eastern Europe vs Rest of World), and EDSS category per IVRS, with the dependent variable as the residual of the rank of brain volume at Baseline regressed on rank of percent change.||||0.0615
90828692|NCT02294058|181532709|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.034||||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.077|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for region, EDSS category per IVRS and the Baseline MSFC score.||||0.077|-0.010|0.1290
90828693|NCT02294058|181532709|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.015||||0.4942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.028|0.059|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for region, EDSS category per IVRS and the Baseline MSFC score||||0.059|-0.028|0.4942
90828694|NCT02294058|181532710|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.642||||0.0364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.104|3.18|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for region, EDSS category per IVRS, and the Baseline summary score.||Analysis of Physical Health Composite Summary||3.180|0.104|0.0364
90828695|NCT02294058|181532710|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.024||||0.1905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|2.559|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for region, EDSS category per IVRS, and the Baseline summary score.||Analysis of Physical Health Composite Summary||2.559|-0.510|0.1905
90828696|NCT02294058|181532710|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.356||||0.7104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.523|2.234|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for region, EDSS category per IVRS, and the Baseline summary score.||Analysis of Mental Health Composite Summary||2.234|-1.523|0.7104
90828697|NCT02294058|181532710|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.8587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.045|1.705|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for region, EDSS category per IVRS, and the Baseline summary score.||Analysis of Mental Health Composite Summary||1.705|-2.045|0.8587
90828698|NCT02673918|181532742|EQUIVALENCE|Differences (the number of participants in each of the three categories) between baseline and follow-up was calculated using a Wilcoxon signed-rank test. This was a feasibility test and no power calculation was performed.||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
90828699|NCT02673918|181532743|EQUIVALENCE|Differences (the number of participants in each of the three categories) between baseline and follow-up was calculated using a Wilcoxon signed-rank test. This was a feasibility test and no power calculation was performed.||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
90828700|NCT01708317|181532755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.0|||<|0.001||||||We used a cutoff of P\<0.05 as statistically significant.|Chi-squared|3 degrees of freedom to compare 4 time periods.||We compared testing in the 4 time frames described, including the time frame in which we enrolled patients in the ACASI.||||<.001
90828701|NCT01787461|181532764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|0.14||||0.358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.44|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 24: Analysis was performed using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||0.44|-0.16|0.358
90828702|NCT01787461|181532765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted Gamma Statistic|0.037||||0.568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.27|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with modified ridit scores, controlling for Glogau classification of photoaging and site.||0.27|-0.19|0.568
90828703|NCT01787461|181532766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.04||||0.797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.33|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||0.33|-0.25|0.797
90828704|NCT01787461|181532767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.01||||0.965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.3|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 12, Fine lines/wrinkles (Periocular area): Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||0.30|-0.29|0.965
90828705|NCT01787461|181532767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.05||||0.674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.3|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 12, Fine lines/wrinkles (Perioral area): Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||0.30|-0.20|0.674
90828706|NCT01787461|181532767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.02||||0.916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.32|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 12, Under eye dark circles or bags: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||0.32|-0.35|0.916
90828707|NCT01787461|181532767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.02||||0.915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.35|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 12, Mottled hyperpigmentation: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||0.35|-0.39|0.915
90828708|NCT01787461|181532767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.07||||0.672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.26|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 12, Sallowness/yellowing: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||0.26|-0.40|0.672
90828709|NCT01787461|181532767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.08||||0.655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.43|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 12, Roughness/texture: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||0.43|-0.27|0.655
90828710|NCT01787461|181532767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.43|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 24, Fine lines/wrinkles(Periocular area): Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||0.43|-0.23|0.561
90828711|NCT01787461|181532767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.13||||0.356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.4|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 24, Fine lines/wrinkles(Perioral area): Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||0.40|-0.14|0.356
90828712|NCT01787461|181532767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.08||||0.669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.43|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 24, Under eye dark circles or bags: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||0.43|-0.28|0.669
90828713|NCT01787461|181532767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.01||||0.954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.34|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 24, Mottled hyperpigmentation: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||0.34|-0.32|0.954
90828714|NCT01787461|181532767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.06||||0.684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.22|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 24, Sallowness/yellowing: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||0.22|-0.34|0.684
90828715|NCT01787461|181532767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.02||||0.886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.3|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 24, Roughness/texture: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||0.30|-0.35|0.886
90828716|NCT01787461|181532768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.02||||0.901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.37|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 12, Decolletage-Crepyness: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau cassification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||0.37|-0.33|0.901
90828717|NCT01787461|181532768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.14||||0.399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.47|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 12, Decolletage-Mottled Hyperpigmentation: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau cassification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||0.47|-0.19|0.399
90828718|NCT01787461|181532768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.03||||0.875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.32|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 12, Back of Hands-Crepyness: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau cassification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||0.32|-0.38|0.875
90828719|NCT01787461|181532768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.43||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.73|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 12, Back of Hands-Mottled Hyperpigmentation: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau cassification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||0.73|0.13|0.005
90828720|NCT01787461|181532768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.03||||0.876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.38|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 24, Decolletage-Crepyness: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau cassification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||0.38|-0.33|0.876
90828721|NCT01787461|181532768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.05||||0.789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.38|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 24, Decolletage-Mottled Hyperpigmentation: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau cassification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||0.38|-0.29|0.789
90828722|NCT01787461|181532768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.04||||0.901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.38|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 24, Back of Hands- Crepyness: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau cassification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||0.38|-0.31|0.901
90828723|NCT01787461|181532768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.38||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.72|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 24, Back of Hands - Mottled Hyperpigmentation: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau cassification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||0.72|0.04|0.027
90828724|NCT01787461|181532769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted Gamma Statistic|0.083||||0.688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.27|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Improvement Week 12, Overall appearance of facial skin: Analysis was performed using CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for Glogau Classification of Photoaging, site, and baseline.||0.27|-0.10|0.688
90828725|NCT01787461|181532769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted Gamma Statistic|0.121||||0.445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.33|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Improvement Week 12, Fine lines/wrinkles: Analysis was performed using CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for Glogau Classification of Photoaging, site, and baseline.||0.33|-0.08|0.445
90828726|NCT01787461|181532769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted Gamma Statistic|0.205||||0.318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Improvement Week 12, Under eye dark circles or bags: Analysis was performed using CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for Glogau Classification of Photoaging, site, and baseline.||0.40|0.01|0.318
90828727|NCT01787461|181532769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted Gamma Statistic|-0.012||||0.633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.12|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Improvement Week 12, Discoloration: Analysis was performed using CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for Glogau Classification of Photoaging, site, and baseline.||0.12|-0.15|0.633
90828728|NCT01787461|181532769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted Gamma Statistic|-0.018||||0.996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.19|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Improvement Week 12, Complexion/Glow: Analysis was performed using CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for Glogau Classification of Photoaging, site, and baseline.||0.19|-0.23|0.996
90828729|NCT01787461|181532769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted Gamma Statistic|0.059||||0.432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.25|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Improvement Week 12, Smoothness: Analysis was performed using CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for Glogau Classification of Photoaging, site, and baseline.||0.25|-0.13|0.432
90828730|NCT01787461|181532769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted Gamma Statistic|0.03||||0.833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.19|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Improvement Week 24, Overall appearance of facial skin: Analysis was performed using CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for Glogau Classification of Photoaging, site, and baseline.||0.19|-0.13|0.833
90828731|NCT01787461|181532769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted Gamma Statistic|0.226||||0.171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.39|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Improvement Week 24, Fine lines/wrinkles: Analysis was performed using CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for Glogau Classification of Photoaging, site, and baseline.||0.39|0.06|0.171
90828732|NCT01787461|181532769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted Gamma Statistic|-0.02||||0.796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.12|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Improvement Week 24, Under eye dark circles or bags: Analysis was performed using CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for Glogau Classification of Photoaging, site, and baseline.||0.12|-0.16|0.796
90828733|NCT01787461|181532769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted Gamma Statistic|-0.033||||0.942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.16|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Improvement Week 24, Discoloration: Analysis was performed using CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for Glogau Classification of Photoaging, site, and baseline.||0.16|-0.23|0.942
90828734|NCT01787461|181532769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted Gamma Statistic|0.118||||0.405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.28|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Improvement Week 24, Complexion/Glow: Analysis was performed using CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for Glogau Classification of Photoaging, site, and baseline.||0.28|-0.05|0.405
90828735|NCT01787461|181532769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted Gamma Statistic|0.061||||0.687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.26|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Improvement Week 24, Smoothness: Analysis was performed using CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for Glogau Classification of Photoaging, site, and baseline.||0.26|-0.14|0.687
90828736|NCT01787461|181532770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted Gamma Statistic|0.384||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.54|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Improvement Week 12, Decolletage-Overall: Analysis was performed using CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for Glogau Classification of Photoaging, site, and baseline.||0.54|0.23|0.017
90828737|NCT01787461|181532770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted Gamma Statistic|0.248||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Improvement Week 12, Decolletage-Wrinkling/crinkling: Analysis was performed using CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for Glogau Classification of Photoaging, site, and baseline.||0.40|0.09|0.073
91076344|NCT01273155|182038396|OTHER|M26/M21|Kendall's Tau|-0.159||||0.095|TWO_SIDED||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra|||Effects of liver dysfunction on PK parameter values were evaluated with SPSS 22.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL), using the Jonckheere-Terpstra and Kendall's Tau test. Data were considered significantly different when p\<0.05.||||0.095
90828738|NCT01787461|181532770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted Gamma Statistic|0.057||||0.117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.22|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Improvement Week 12, Decolletage-Discoloration: Analysis was performed using CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for Glogau Classification of Photoaging, site, and baseline.||0.22|-0.11|0.117
90828739|NCT01787461|181532770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted Gamma Statistic|-0.096||||0.662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.12|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Improvement Week 12, Back of Hands-Overall: Analysis was performed using CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for Glogau Classification of Photoaging, site, and baseline.||0.12|-0.31|0.662
90828740|NCT01787461|181532770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted Gamma Statistic|0.1||||0.373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.25|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Improvement Week 12, Back of Hands - Fine lines/wrinkles: Analysis was performed using CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for Glogau Classification of Photoaging, site, and baseline.||0.25|-0.05|0.373
90828741|NCT01787461|181532770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted Gamma Statistic|-0.031||||0.294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.12|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Improvement Week 12, Back of Hands - Discoloration: Analysis was performed using CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for Glogau Classification of Photoaging, site, and baseline.||0.12|-0.19|0.294
90828742|NCT01787461|181532770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted Gamma Statistic|-0.035||||0.857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.13|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Improvement Week 12, Body - Dryness Overall: Analysis was performed using CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for Glogau Classification of Photoaging, site, and baseline.||0.13|-0.20|0.857
90828743|NCT01787461|181532770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted Gamma Statistic|0.206||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.39|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Improvement Week 24, Decolletage-Overall: Analysis was performed using CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for Glogau Classification of Photoaging, site, and baseline.||0.39|0.02|0.088
90828744|NCT01787461|181532770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted Gamma Statistic|0.193||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.41|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Improvement Week 24, Decolletage-Wrinkling/crinkling: Analysis was performed using CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for Glogau Classification of Photoaging, site, and baseline.||0.41|-0.02|0.110
90828745|NCT01787461|181532770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted Gamma Statistic|0.205||||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.34|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Improvement Week 24, Decolletage-Discoloration: Analysis was performed using CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for Glogau Classification of Photoaging, site, and baseline.||0.34|0.07|0.112
90828746|NCT01787461|181532770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted Gamma Statistic|0.003||||0.614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.13|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Improvement Week 24, Back of Hands-Overall: Analysis was performed using CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for Glogau Classification of Photoaging, site, and baseline.||0.13|-0.13|0.614
90828747|NCT01787461|181532770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted Gamma Statistic|-0.011||||0.693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.16|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Improvement Week 24, Back of Hands - Fine lines/wrinkles: Analysis was performed using CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for Glogau Classification of Photoaging, site, and baseline.||0.16|-0.18|0.693
90828748|NCT01787461|181532770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted Gamma Statistic|0.079||||0.762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.22|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Improvement Week 24, Back of Hands - Discoloration: Analysis was performed using CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for Glogau Classification of Photoaging, site, and baseline.||0.22|-0.06|0.762
90828749|NCT01787461|181532770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted Gamma Statistic|-0.013||||0.662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.13|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Improvement Week 24, Body - Dryness Overall: Analysis was performed using CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for Glogau Classification of Photoaging, site, and baseline.||0.13|-0.16|0.662
90828750|NCT01787461|181532771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.93||||0.587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.32|18.18|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 6, Left Cheek: Analysis was performed using ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||18.18|-10.32|0.587
90828751|NCT01787461|181532771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.08||||0.814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.49|12.32|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 12, Left Cheek: Analysis was performed using ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||12.32|-14.49|0.814
90828752|NCT01787461|181532771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.57||||0.453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.14|8.99|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 18, Left Cheek: Analysis was performed using ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||8.99|-16.14|0.453
90828753|NCT01787461|181532771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-9.16||||0.191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.92|4.61|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 24, Left Cheek: Analysis was performed using ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||4.61|-22.92|0.191
90828754|NCT01787461|181532771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.61||||0.685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.07|15.28|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 6, Left Inner Arm: Analysis was performed using ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||15.28|-10.07|0.685
90828755|NCT01787461|181532771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.74||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.67|23.15|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 12, Left Inner Arm: Analysis was performed using ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||23.15|-11.67|0.480
90828756|NCT01787461|181532771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.98||||0.299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.29|5.34|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 18, Left Inner Arm: Analysis was performed using ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||5.34|-17.29|0.299
90828757|NCT01787461|181532771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-9.07||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.04|1.9|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 24, Left Inner Arm: Analysis was performed using ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||1.90|-20.04|0.107
90828758|NCT01787461|181532771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.82||||0.776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.39|10.76|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 6, Left Outer Arm: Analysis was performed using ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||10.76|-14.39|0.776
90828759|NCT01787461|181532771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.33||||0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.96|9.29|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 12, Left Outer Arm: Analysis was performed using ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||9.29|-15.96|0.603
90828760|NCT01787461|181532771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.82||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.23|7.6|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 18, Left Outer Arm: Analysis was performed using ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||7.60|-15.23|0.510
90828761|NCT01787461|181532771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.75||||0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|4.2|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 24, Left Outer Arm: Analysis was performed using ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||4.20|-17.70|0.225
90828762|NCT01787461|181532772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.78||||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|2.02|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 6, Left Cheek: Analysis was performed using ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||2.02|-0.46|0.214
90828763|NCT01787461|181532772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.1||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|2.09|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 12, Left Cheek: Analysis was performed using ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||2.09|0.12|0.027
90828764|NCT01787461|181532772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.99||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|1.96|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 18, Left Cheek: Analysis was performed using ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||1.96|0.01|0.049
90828765|NCT01787461|181532772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.17||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.14|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 24, Left Cheek: Analysis was performed using ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||2.14|0.20|0.019
90828766|NCT01787461|181532772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.22||||0.449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.8|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 6, Left Inner Arm: Analysis was performed using ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||0.80|-0.36|0.449
90828767|NCT01787461|181532772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.37||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.8|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 12, Left Inner Arm: Analysis was performed using ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||0.80|-0.07|0.105
90828768|NCT01787461|181532772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.27||||0.205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.68|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 18, Left Inner Arm: Analysis was performed using ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||0.68|-0.14|0.205
90828769|NCT01787461|181532772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.35||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.77|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 24, Left Inner Arm: Analysis was performed using ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||0.77|-0.06|0.100
90828770|NCT01787461|181532772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.25||||0.244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.66|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 6, Left Outer Arm: Analysis was performed using ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||0.66|-0.17|0.244
90828771|NCT01787461|181532772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.12||||0.594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.56|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 12, Left Outer Arm: Analysis was performed using ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||0.56|-0.32|0.594
90828772|NCT01787461|181532772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.22||||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.63|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 18, Left Outer Arm: Analysis was performed using ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||0.63|-0.20|0.317
90828773|NCT01787461|181532772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.24||||0.264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.64|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 24, Left Outer Arm: Analysis was performed using ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||0.64|-0.17|0.264
90828774|NCT01787461|181532773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-25.16||||0.266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.63|19.31|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 6, Left Cheek: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||19.31|-69.63|0.266
90828775|NCT01787461|181532773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-28.79||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.99|16.41|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 12, Left Cheek: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||16.41|-73.99|0.210
90828776|NCT01787461|181532773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.78||||0.753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.55|40.99|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 18, Left Cheek: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||40.99|-56.55|0.753
90828777|NCT01787461|181532773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-14.9||||0.632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.32|46.51|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 24, Left Cheek: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||46.51|-76.32|0.632
90828778|NCT01787461|181532773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.54||||0.715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.94|29.01|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 6, Left Inner Arm: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||29.01|-19.94|0.715
91076345|NCT01273155|182038397|OTHER|Belinostat glucuronide/belinostat|Kendall's Tau|-0.055||||0.568|TWO_SIDED||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra|||Effects of liver dysfunction on PK parameter values were evaluated with SPSS 22.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL), using the Jonckheere-Terpstra and Kendall's Tau test. Data were considered significantly different when p\<0.05.||||0.568
90828779|NCT01787461|181532773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.35||||0.648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.04|33.75|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 12, Left Inner Arm: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||33.75|-21.04|0.648
90828780|NCT01787461|181532773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-16.49||||0.315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.81|15.83|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 18, Left Inner Arm: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||15.83|-48.81|0.315
90828781|NCT01787461|181532773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|14.42||||0.402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.5|48.34|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 24, Left Inner Arm: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||48.34|-19.50|0.402
90828782|NCT01787461|181532773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|12.43||||0.381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.49|40.35|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 6, Left Outer Arm: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||40.35|-15.49|0.381
90828783|NCT01787461|181532773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.49||||0.916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.44|29.43|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 12, Left Outer Arm: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||29.43|-26.44|0.916
90828784|NCT01787461|181532773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-9.88||||0.566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.81|24.05|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 18, Left Outer Arm: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||24.05|-43.81|0.566
90828785|NCT01787461|181532773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|8.58||||0.667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.78|47.94|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 24, Left Outer Arm: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||47.94|-30.78|0.667
91076346|NCT01273155|182038397|OTHER|Methyl belinostat/belinostat|Kendall's Tau|0.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra|||Effects of liver dysfunction on PK parameter values were evaluated with SPSS 22.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL), using the Jonckheere-Terpstra and Kendall's Tau test. Data were considered significantly different when p\<0.05.||||<0.001
90828786|NCT01787461|181532774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|1.0|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 6, Left Cheek: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||1.00|-2.21|0.458
90828787|NCT01787461|181532774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.53||||0.497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|1.01|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 12, Left Cheek: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||1.01|-2.07|0.497
90828788|NCT01787461|181532774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.36||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.05|0.33|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 18, Left Cheek: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||0.33|-3.05|0.113
90828789|NCT01787461|181532774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.34||||0.708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|1.44|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 24, Left Cheek: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||1.44|-2.11|0.708
90828790|NCT01787461|181532774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.24||||0.495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|4.82|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 6, Left Inner Arm: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||4.82|-2.34|0.495
90828791|NCT01787461|181532774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.85||||0.243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.96|1.27|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 12, Left Inner Arm: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||1.27|-4.96|0.243
90828792|NCT01787461|181532774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.36||||0.453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.96|2.23|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 18, Left Inner Arm: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||2.23|-4.96|0.453
90828793|NCT01787461|181532774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.55||||0.745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.79|3.89|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 24, Left Inner Arm: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||3.89|-2.79|0.745
90828794|NCT01787461|181532774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.02||||0.987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|2.48|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 6, Left Outer Arm: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||2.48|-2.44|0.987
90828795|NCT01787461|181532774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.42||||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.69|0.85|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 12, Left Outer Arm: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||0.85|-3.69|0.218
90828796|NCT01787461|181532774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.67||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.41|2.08|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 18, Left Outer Arm: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||2.08|-3.41|0.630
90828797|NCT01787461|181532774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.81||||0.576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|3.68|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 24, Left Outer Arm: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||3.68|-2.06|0.576
90828798|NCT03259555|181532784|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|0.14|||=|0.8797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|2.03|||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measure|"An unstructured covariance was used."|"Comparison between treatment groups was carried out using MMRM, with study center, treatment group, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction as factor and baseline-by-visit interaction as a covariate. An unstructured covariance was used."|||2.03|-1.74|=0.8797
90828799|NCT00607087|181532791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.039||97.5||||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons. Each comparison is performed at the alpha level=2.5% (instead of 5%). Consequently a difference between 2 treatments is statistically significant if the corresponding p-value is \<0.025|McNemar|||||||0.039
90828800|NCT00607087|181532791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031||97.5||||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons. Each comparison is performed at the alpha level=2.5% (instead of 5%). Consequently a difference between 2 treatments is statistically significant if the corresponding p-value is \<0.025.|McNemar|||||||0.031
90828801|NCT00607087|181532792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||97.5||||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons. Each comparison is performed at the alpha level=2.5% (instead of 5%). Consequently a difference between 2 treatments is statistically significant if the corresponding p-value is \<0.025|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
90828802|NCT00607087|181532792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||97.5||||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons. Each comparison is performed at the alpha level=2.5% (instead of 5%). Consequently a difference between 2 treatments is statistically significant if the corresponding p-value is \<0.025|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
90828803|NCT00607087|181532793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08||97.5||||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons. Each comparison is performed at the alpha level=2.5% (instead of 5%). Consequently a difference between 2 treatments is statistically significant if the corresponding p-value is \<0.025|McNemar|||||||0.080
90828804|NCT00607087|181532793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.107||97.5||||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons. Each comparison is performed at the alpha level=2.5% (instead of 5%). Consequently a difference between 2 treatments is statistically significant if the corresponding p-value is \<0.025|McNemar|||||||0.107
90828805|NCT00607087|181532794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||97.5||||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons. Each comparison is performed at the alpha level=2.5% (instead of 5%). Consequently a difference between 2 treatments is statistically significant if the corresponding p-value is \<0.025|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
90828806|NCT00607087|181532794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||97.5||||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons. Each comparison is performed at the alpha level=2.5% (instead of 5%). Consequently a difference between 2 treatments is statistically significant if the corresponding p-value is \<0.025|McNemar|||||||<0.001
90828807|NCT00607087|181532795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.079||97.5||||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons. Each comparison is performed at the alpha level=2.5% (instead of 5%). Consequently a difference between 2 treatments is statistically significant if the corresponding p-value is \<0.025|McNemar|||||||0.079
90828808|NCT00607087|181532795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.063||97.5||||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons. Each comparison is performed at the alpha level=2.5% (instead of 5%). Consequently a difference between 2 treatments is statistically significant if the corresponding p-value is \<0.025|McNemar|||||||0.063
90828809|NCT00607087|181532796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015||97.5||||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons. Each comparison is performed at the alpha level=2.5% (instead of 5%). Consequently a difference between 2 treatments is statistically significant if the corresponding p-value is \<0.025|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.015
90828810|NCT00607087|181532796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.073||97.5||||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons. Each comparison is performed at the alpha level=2.5% (instead of 5%). Consequently a difference between 2 treatments is statistically significant if the corresponding p-value is \<0.025|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.073
90828811|NCT00607087|181532797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017||97.5||||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons. Each comparison is performed at the alpha level=2.5% (instead of 5%). Consequently a difference between 2 treatments is statistically significant if the corresponding p-value is \<0.025|McNemar|||||||0.017
90828812|NCT00607087|181532797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.032||97.5||||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons. Each comparison is performed at the alpha level=2.5% (instead of 5%). Consequently a difference between 2 treatments is statistically significant if the corresponding p-value is \<0.025|McNemar|||||||0.032
90828813|NCT00607087|181532798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||97.5||||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons. Each comparison is performed at the alpha level=2.5% (instead of 5%). Consequently a difference between 2 treatments is statistically significant if the corresponding p-value is \<0.025|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.009
90828814|NCT00607087|181532798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019||97.5||||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons. Each comparison is performed at the alpha level=2.5% (instead of 5%). Consequently a difference between 2 treatments is statistically significant if the corresponding p-value is \<0.025|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.019
90828815|NCT00607087|181532799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||97.5||||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons. Each comparison is performed at the alpha level=2.5% (instead of 5%). Consequently a difference between 2 treatments is statistically significant if the corresponding p-value is \<0.025|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.008
90828816|NCT00607087|181532799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||97.5||||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons. Each comparison is performed at the alpha level=2.5% (instead of 5%). Consequently a difference between 2 treatments is statistically significant if the corresponding p-value is \<0.025|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
90828817|NCT00607087|181532800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.563||97.5||||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons. Each comparison is performed at the alpha level=2.5% (instead of 5%). Consequently a difference between 2 treatments is statistically significant if the corresponding p-value is \<0.025|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.563
90828818|NCT00607087|181532800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.186||97.5||||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons. Each comparison is performed at the alpha level=2.5% (instead of 5%). Consequently a difference between 2 treatments is statistically significant if the corresponding p-value is \<0.025|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.186
91076347|NCT01273155|182038397|OTHER|M21/belinostat|Kendall's Tau|0.315||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra|||Effects of liver dysfunction on PK parameter values were evaluated with SPSS 22.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL), using the Jonckheere-Terpstra and Kendall's Tau test. Data were considered significantly different when p\<0.05.||||0.001
90828819|NCT00607087|181532801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||97.5||||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons. Each comparison is performed at the alpha level=2.5% (instead of 5%). Consequently a difference between 2 treatments is statistically significant if the corresponding p-value is \<0.025|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
90828820|NCT00607087|181532801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||97.5||||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons. Each comparison is performed at the alpha level=2.5% (instead of 5%). Consequently a difference between 2 treatments is statistically significant if the corresponding p-value is \<0.025|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
90828821|NCT00607087|181532802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||97.5||||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons. Each comparison is performed at the alpha level=2.5% (instead of 5%). Consequently a difference between 2 treatments is statistically significant if the corresponding p-value is \<0.025|McNemar|||||||1.000
90828822|NCT00607087|181532802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.701||97.5||||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons. Each comparison is performed at the alpha level=2.5% (instead of 5%). Consequently a difference between 2 treatments is statistically significant if the corresponding p-value is \<0.025|McNemar|||||||0.701
90828823|NCT00607087|181532805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.078||97.5||||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons. Each comparison is performed at the alpha level=2.5% (instead of 5%). Consequently a difference between 2 treatments is statistically significant if the corresponding p-value is \<0.025|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted on HbA1c value at the start of the first period||||||0.078
90828824|NCT00607087|181532805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.938||97.5||||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons. Each comparison is performed at the alpha level=2.5% (instead of 5%). Consequently a difference between 2 treatments is statistically significant if the corresponding p-value is \<0.025|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted on HbA1c level at the start of the first period||||||0.938
90828825|NCT02717494|181532810|OTHER||% with grade 3+ AEs, up to week 4 Step 1|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|5.0|||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|||5|0|
90828826|NCT02717494|181532810|OTHER||% with grade 3+ AEs, up to week 4 Step 1|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|7.0|||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|||7|1|
90828827|NCT02717494|181532810|OTHER||% with grade 3+ AEs up to week 4, Step 1|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|8.0|||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|||8|1|
91076348|NCT01273155|182038397|OTHER|M24/belinostat|Kendall's Tau|-0.205||||0.037|TWO_SIDED||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra|||Effects of liver dysfunction on PK parameter values were evaluated with SPSS 22.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL), using the Jonckheere-Terpstra and Kendall's Tau test. Data were considered significantly different when p\<0.05.||||0.037
90828828|NCT02717494|181532810|OTHER||% with grade 4+ AEs after week 4, Step 1|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|4.0|||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|||4|0|
90828829|NCT02717494|181532810|OTHER||% with grade 4+ AEs after week 4, Step 1|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|5.0|||||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|5|0|
90828830|NCT02717494|181532810|OTHER||% with grade 4+ AEs, after week 4 Step 1|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|8.0|||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|||8|1|
90828831|NCT02717494|181532810|OTHER||% with Grade 3+ related to treatment|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|4.0|||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|||4|0|
90828832|NCT02717494|181532810|OTHER||% with Grade 3+ related to treatment|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|4.0|||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|||4|0|
90828833|NCT02717494|181532810|OTHER||% with Grade 3+ related to treatment|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|4.0|||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|||4|0|
90828834|NCT02717494|181532811|OTHER||% with grade 3+ AEs, up to week 4 Step 2|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|5.0|||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|||5|0|
90828835|NCT02717494|181532811|OTHER||% with grade 3+ AEs, up to week 4 Step 2|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|5.0|||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|||5|0|
90828836|NCT02717494|181532812|OTHER||% infants with grade 3+ AEs|21.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|14.0|28.0|||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|||28|14|
91076349|NCT01273155|182038397|OTHER|M26/belinostat|Kendall's Tau|0.218||||0.033|TWO_SIDED||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra|||Effects of liver dysfunction on PK parameter values were evaluated with SPSS 22.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL), using the Jonckheere-Terpstra and Kendall's Tau test. Data were considered significantly different when p\<0.05.||||0.033
90828837|NCT02717494|181532812|OTHER||% infants with grade 3+ AEs|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|14.0|27.0|||||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|27|14|
90828838|NCT02717494|181532812|OTHER||% infants with grade 3+ AEs|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|14.0|27.0|||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|||27|14|
90828839|NCT02717494|181532812|OTHER||% infants with congenital anomalies|17.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|11.0|24.0|||||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|24|11|
90828840|NCT02717494|181532812|OTHER||% infants with congenital anomalies|22.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|15.0|29.0|||||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|29|15|
90828841|NCT02717494|181532812|OTHER||% infants with congenital anomalies|13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.0|19.0|||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|||19|8|
90828842|NCT02717494|181532812|OTHER||% infants with HIV infection|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|3.0|||||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|3|0|
90828843|NCT02717494|181532812|OTHER||% infants with HIV infection|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|3.0|||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|||3|0|
90828844|NCT02717494|181532812|OTHER||% infants with HIV infection|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|2.0|||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|||2|0|
90828845|NCT02717494|181532812|OTHER||% with pneumonia, meningitis or IPD|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.0|9.0|||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|||9|2|
90828846|NCT02717494|181532812|OTHER||% with pneumonia, meningitis or IPD|7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.0|12.0|||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|||12|3|
90828847|NCT02717494|181532812|OTHER||% with pneumonia, meningitis or IPD|7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.0|12.0|||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|||12|3|
90828848|NCT02717494|181532813|SUPERIORITY|This is the test to compare the two vaccine arms with respect to proportion of participants with \>=2 fold increase at day 28.||||||0.44||||||The threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Fisher Exact|Fisher's exact test was used because 50% of the cells had expected counts less than 5.||||||0.44
90828849|NCT02717494|181532813|SUPERIORITY|This is the test to compare the two vaccine arms with respect to proportion of participants with values \>=0.35ug/mL at day 28.||||||0.49||||||The threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Fisher Exact|Fisher's exact test was used because 50% of the cells had expected counts less than 5.||||||0.49
90828850|NCT02717494|181532813|OTHER||% vaccinees with >=2fold increase|96.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.0|99.0|||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|||99|91|
90828851|NCT02717494|181532813|OTHER||% vaccinees with >=2fold increase|98.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.0|100.0|||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|||100|94|
90828852|NCT02717494|181532813|OTHER||% with >=2 fold increase|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|12.0|||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|||12|3|
90828853|NCT02717494|181532813|OTHER||% vaccinees with >=0.35ug/mL at day 28|99.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|95.0|100.0|||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|||100|95|
90828854|NCT02717494|181532813|OTHER||% vaccinees with >=0.35ug/mL at day 28|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|97.0|100.0|||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|||100|97|
90828855|NCT02717494|181532813|OTHER||% with >=0.35ug/mL at day 28|94.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|88.0|97.0|||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|||97|88|
90828856|NCT02717494|181532814|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29||||||The threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.29
90828857|NCT02717494|181532815|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08||||||The threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.08
90828858|NCT02717494|181532816|SUPERIORITY|This is the test to compare the two vaccine arms with respect to proportion of participants with \>=2 fold increase at labor and delivery.||||||0.37||||||The threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.37
90828859|NCT02717494|181532816|SUPERIORITY|This is the test to compare the two vaccine arms with respect to proportion of participants with \>=2 fold increase at 24 weeks post partum.||||||0.21|||||||Fisher Exact|Fisher's exact test was used because 50% of the cells had expected counts less than 5.||||||0.21
90828860|NCT02717494|181532817|OTHER||% vaccinees with >=2fold increase|96.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.0|99.0||The threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|||99|91|
90828861|NCT02717494|181532817|OTHER||% vaccinees with >=2fold increase|98.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.0|100.0|||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|||100|89|
90828862|NCT02717494|181532818|OTHER||% vaccinees with >=2fold increase|98.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.0|100.0|||||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|100|94|
90828863|NCT02717494|181532818|OTHER||% vaccinees with >=2fold increase|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.0|100.0|||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|||100|93|
90828864|NCT02717494|181532819|OTHER||% infants with >=0.35ug/mL at week 16|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.0|100.0|||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|||100|96|
90828865|NCT02717494|181532819|OTHER||% infants with >=0.35ug/mL at week 16|98.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.0|100.0|||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|||100|93|
90828866|NCT02717494|181532819|OTHER||% infants with >=0.35ug/mL at week 16|97.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.0|99.0|||||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|99|91|
90828867|NCT02717494|181532819|OTHER||% infants with >=0.35ug/mL at week 24|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.0|100.0|||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|||100|96|
90828868|NCT02717494|181532819|OTHER||% infants with >=0.35ug/mL at week 24|99.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|95.0|100.0|||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|||100|95|
90828869|NCT02717494|181532819|OTHER||% infants with >=0.35ug/mL at week 24|98.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.0|100.0|||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|||100|93|
90828870|NCT01774799|181532826|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.69||||||||1.69|0.69|
90828871|NCT01774799|181532827|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.2||||||||2.20|0.66|
90828872|NCT01774799|181532828|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.58||||||||1.58|0.58|
90828873|NCT01774799|181532829|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|2.82||||||||2.82|1.13|
90828874|NCT01774799|181532830|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.32
90828875|NCT02586623|181532831|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.04||||0.803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.62|||Log Rank||Droxidopa / Placebo|||1.62|0.67|0.803
90828876|NCT00965250|181532913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Kaplan Meier|||||||<0.0001
90828877|NCT00965250|181532914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Kaplan Meier|||||||<0.0001
91076350|NCT01273155|182038397|OTHER|M24/M26|Kendall's Tau|-0.309||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra|||Effects of liver dysfunction on PK parameter values were evaluated with SPSS 22.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL), using the Jonckheere-Terpstra and Kendall's Tau test. Data were considered significantly different when p\<0.05.||||0.001
90828878|NCT05051579|181532926|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-6.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|-4.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.2|-8.9|<0.001
90828879|NCT05051579|181532926|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-9.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|-6.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-6.9|-11.5|<0.001
90828880|NCT05051579|181532926|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-10.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|-8.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.0|-12.4|<0.001
90828881|NCT05051579|181532926|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-10.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|-8.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.4|-12.7|<0.001
90828882|NCT05051579|181532927|OTHER||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-7.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|-4.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.2|-9.9|<0.001
90828883|NCT05051579|181532927|OTHER||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-10.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|-7.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-7.3|-12.9|<0.001
90828884|NCT05051579|181532927|OTHER||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-11.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|-8.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.4|-13.8|<0.001
90828885|NCT05051579|181532927|OTHER||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-12.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|-9.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-9.6|-15.0|<0.001
90828886|NCT05051579|181532928|OTHER||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-6.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|-4.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.4|-9.3|<0.001
90828887|NCT05051579|181532928|OTHER||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-10.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|-7.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-7.8|-12.5|<0.001
90828888|NCT05051579|181532928|OTHER||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-10.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|-8.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.5|-13.1|<0.001
90828889|NCT05051579|181532928|OTHER||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-11.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|-8.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.9|-13.5|<0.001
90828890|NCT05051579|181532929|OTHER||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-7.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|-4.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.3|-10.4|<0.001
90828891|NCT05051579|181532929|OTHER||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-11.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.2|-8.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.3|-14.2|<0.001
90828892|NCT05051579|181532929|OTHER||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-11.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|-9.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-9.0|-14.7|<0.001
90828893|NCT05051579|181532929|OTHER||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-13.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.8|-10.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-10.2|-15.8|<0.001
90828894|NCT05051579|181532930|OTHER||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-4.4||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|-1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.6|-7.2|0.002
90828895|NCT05051579|181532930|OTHER||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-5.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|-2.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.4|-8.0|<0.001
90828896|NCT05051579|181532930|OTHER||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-6.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|-3.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.8|-9.2|<0.001
90828897|NCT05051579|181532930|OTHER||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-8.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|-6.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-6.0|-11.3|<0.001
90828898|NCT05051579|181532931|OTHER||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-5.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|-2.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.4|-8.8|<0.001
90828899|NCT05051579|181532931|OTHER||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-7.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|-4.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.0|-10.3|<0.001
90828900|NCT05051579|181532931|OTHER||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-6.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|-3.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.6|-9.7|<0.001
90828901|NCT05051579|181532931|OTHER||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-9.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|-6.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-6.6|-12.7|<0.001
90828902|NCT05051579|181532932|OTHER||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-2.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.6|-3.2|<0.001
90828903|NCT05051579|181532932|OTHER||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-3.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|-2.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.6|-4.3|<0.001
90828904|NCT05051579|181532932|OTHER||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-3.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|3.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.0|-4.6|<0.001
90828905|NCT05051579|181532932|OTHER||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-3.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|-3.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.1|-4.7|<0.001
90828906|NCT05051579|181532933|OTHER||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-2.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|-1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.5|-3.6|<0.001
90828907|NCT05051579|181532933|OTHER||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-3.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|-2.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.8|-4.8|<0.001
90828908|NCT05051579|181532933|OTHER||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-4.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|-3.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.2|-5.2|<0.001
90828909|NCT05051579|181532933|OTHER||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-4.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|-3.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.6|-5.6|<0.001
90828910|NCT05051579|181532934|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.61|27.44|||Regression, Logistic|||||27.44|3.61|<0.001
90828911|NCT05051579|181532934|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|27.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.15|96.01|||Regression, Logistic|||||96.01|8.15|<0.001
90828912|NCT05051579|181532934|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|27.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.71|85.91|||Regression, Logistic|||||85.91|8.71|<0.001
90828913|NCT05051579|181532934|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|23.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.65|72.77|||Regression, Logistic|||||72.77|7.65|<0.001
90828914|NCT05051579|181532935|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|19.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.47|114.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||114.40|3.47|<0.001
90828915|NCT05051579|181532935|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|39.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.95|224.83|||Regression, Logistic|||||224.83|6.95|<0.001
90828916|NCT05051579|181532935|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|74.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.16|427.18|||Regression, Logistic|||||427.18|13.16|<0.001
90828917|NCT05051579|181532935|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|72.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.62|413.21|||Regression, Logistic|||||413.21|12.62|<0.001
90828918|NCT05051579|181532936|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|20.92|||Regression, Logistic|||||20.92|2.90|<0.001
90828919|NCT05051579|181532936|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|25.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.49|83.91|||Regression, Logistic|||||83.91|7.49|<0.001
91076351|NCT01273155|182038397|OTHER|M26/M21|Kendall's Tau|-0.205||||0.032|TWO_SIDED||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra|||Effects of liver dysfunction on PK parameter values were evaluated with SPSS 22.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL), using the Jonckheere-Terpstra and Kendall's Tau test. Data were considered significantly different when p\<0.05.||||0.032
90828920|NCT05051579|181532936|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|34.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.17|147.86|||Regression, Logistic|||||147.86|8.17|<0.001
90828921|NCT05051579|181532936|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|28.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.15|96.29|||Regression, Logistic|||||96.29|8.15|<0.001
90828922|NCT05051579|181532937|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.59|26.45|||Regression, Logistic|||||26.45|2.59|<0.001
90828923|NCT05051579|181532937|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|15.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.83|50.68|||Regression, Logistic|||||50.68|4.83|<0.001
90828924|NCT05051579|181532937|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|27.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.39|88.38|||Regression, Logistic|||||88.38|8.39|<0.001
90828925|NCT05051579|181532937|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|20.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.59|66.17|||Regression, Logistic|||||66.17|6.59|<0.001
90828926|NCT06172348|181532956|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|21.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|19.31|24.8|||||Ratios (Test/Reference) and 90 percent (%) confidence intervals were expressed as percentages. Test = MR1 capsule; Reference = Oral solution.|A mixed effect model was used with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant with sequence as a random effect.||24.80|19.31|
90828927|NCT06172348|181532956|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|12.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|11.21|14.27|||||Ratios (Test/Reference) and 90% confidence intervals were expressed as percentages. Test = MR2 capsule; Reference = Oral solution.|A mixed effect model was used with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant with sequence as a random effect.||14.27|11.21|
90828928|NCT06172348|181532957|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|86.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.11|94.54|||||Ratios (Test/Reference) and 90% confidence intervals were expressed as percentages. Test = MR1 capsule; Reference = Oral solution.|A mixed effect model was used with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant with sequence as a random effect.||94.54|79.11|
90828929|NCT06172348|181532957|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|76.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.65|83.9|||||Ratios (Test/Reference) and 90% confidence intervals were expressed as percentages. Test = MR2 capsule; Reference = Oral solution.|A mixed effect model was used with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant with sequence as a random effect.||83.90|70.65|
90828930|NCT06172348|181532958|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|123.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|105.16|146.02|||||Ratios (Test/Reference) and 90% confidence intervals were expressed as percentages. Test = MR1 capsule (fed); Reference = MR1 capsule (fasted).|A mixed effect model was used with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant with sequence as a random effect.||146.02|105.16|
90828931|NCT06172348|181532958|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|129.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|111.51|151.06|||||Ratios (Test/Reference) and 90% confidence intervals were expressed as percentages. Test = MR2 capsule (fed); Reference = MR2 capsule (fasted).|A mixed effect model was used with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant with sequence as a random effect.||151.06|111.51|
90828932|NCT06172348|181532959|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|107.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.46|119.76|||||Ratios (Test/Reference) and 90% confidence intervals were expressed as percentages. Test = MR1 capsule (fed); Reference = MR1 capsule (fasted).|A mixed effect model was used with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant with sequence as a random effect.||119.76|96.46|
90828933|NCT06172348|181532959|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|109.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.19|121.17|||||Ratios (Test/Reference) and 90% confidence intervals were expressed as percentages. Test = MR2 capsule (fed); Reference = MR2 capsule (fasted).|A mixed effect model was used with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant with sequence as a random effect.||121.17|99.19|
90828934|NCT03799341|181532964|OTHER|||||||0.177|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.177
90828935|NCT03799341|181532965|OTHER|||||||0.033|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.033
90828936|NCT03799341|181532966|OTHER|||||||0.126|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.126
90828937|NCT03799341|181532967|OTHER|||||||0.384|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.384
90828938|NCT03799341|181532968|OTHER|||||||0.308|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.308
90828939|NCT03799341|181532969|OTHER|||||||0.976|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.976
90828940|NCT03799341|181532970|OTHER|||||||0.92|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.920
90828941|NCT03799341|181532971|OTHER|||||||0.873|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.873
90828942|NCT03799341|181532972|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Due to violations of normality assumptions, a non-parametric Aligned Rank Transform ANOVA was conducted, which does not permit inclusion of covariates. A median split approach was therefore used to examine the influence of Contingency Management session attendance. The design included 4 factors: time (2 levels), stimulus condition (3 levels), electrode pair (4 levels), and median split group membership (2 levels). Reported results reflect the interaction between time and median split group.||||<0.001
90828943|NCT03799341|181532972|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Due to violations of normality assumptions, a non-parametric Aligned Rank Transform ANOVA was conducted, which does not permit covariates. A median split approach was therefore used to examine the influence of self-reported cocaine abstinence during treatment. The design included 4 factors: time (2 levels), stimulus condition (3 levels), electrode pair (4 levels), and median split group membership (2 levels). Reported results reflect the interaction between time and median split group.||||<0.001
90828944|NCT03799341|181532972|OTHER|||||||0.022|||||||ANOVA|||Due to violations of normality assumptions, a non-parametric Aligned Rank Transform ANOVA was conducted, which does not permit inclusion of covariates. A median split approach was therefore used to examine the influence of Contingency Management session attendance. The design included 4 factors: time (2 levels), response accuracy (2 levels), electrode pair (4 levels), and median split group membership (2 levels). Reported results reflect the interaction between time and median split group.||||0.022
90828945|NCT03799341|181532972|OTHER|||||||0.024|||||||ANOVA|||Due to violations of normality assumptions, a non-parametric Aligned Rank Transform ANOVA was conducted, which does not permit covariates. A median split approach was therefore used to examine the influence of self-reported cocaine abstinence during treatment. The design included 4 factors: time (2 levels), response accuracy (2 levels), electrode pair (4 levels), and median split group membership (2 levels). Reported results reflect the interaction between time and median split group.||||0.024
90828946|NCT03799341|181532973|OTHER|||||||0.973|||||||ANOVA|||No violations of normality assumptions were identified. A repeated measures ANOVA was conducted. To maintain consistency with other outcome measures, a median split approach was used to examine the potential influence of Contingency Management session attendance. The design included two factors: time (2 levels) and median split group membership (2 levels). Reported results reflect the interaction between time and median split group.||||0.973
90828947|NCT03799341|181532973|OTHER|||||||0.662|||||||ANOVA|||No violations of normality assumptions were identified. A repeated measures ANOVA was conducted. To maintain consistency with other outcome measures, a median split approach was used to examine the potential influence of self-reported cocaine abstinence during the 12-week treatment interval. The design included two factors: time (2 levels) and median split group membership (2 levels). Reported results reflect the interaction between time and median split group.||||0.662
90828948|NCT03799341|181532974|OTHER|||||||0.878|||||||ANOVA|||Due to violations of normality assumptions, a non-parametric Aligned Rank Transform ANOVA was conducted, which does not permit inclusion of covariates. A median split approach was therefore used to examine the potential influence of Contingency Management session attendance. The design included 3 factors: time (2 levels), condition (2 levels), and median split group membership (2 levels). Reported results reflect the interaction between time, condition, and median split group.||||0.878
90828949|NCT03799341|181532974|OTHER|||||||0.645|||||||ANOVA|||Due to violations of normality assumptions, a non-parametric Aligned Rank Transform ANOVA was conducted, which does not permit inclusion of covariates. A median split approach was therefore used to examine the potential influence of self-reported cocaine abstinence during treatment. The design included 3 factors: time (2 levels), condition (2 levels), and median split group membership (2 levels). Reported results reflect the interaction between time, condition, and median split group.||||0.645
90828950|NCT04037891|181532989|SUPERIORITY||Difference of percentage of participants|16.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.57|72.99||||||||72.99|-53.57|
90828951|NCT04037891|181532989|SUPERIORITY||Difference of percentage of participants|33.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.45|78.39||||||Comparison of incidence of ocular TEAE in all patients receiving rVA576 (part 1 and 2) vs placebo||78.39|-25.45|
90828952|NCT04194944|181532998|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.465||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.309|0.699|||Log Rank|||||0.699|0.309|0.0002
90828953|NCT04194944|181532999|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.482||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.331|0.7|||Log Rank|||||0.700|0.331|0.0001
91076352|NCT04908475|182038449|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|50.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.3|60.1||Adjusted for strata (baseline body weight \[≤ 100 kg, \> 100 kg\] and prior exposure to any systemic and/or biologic treatment for psoriasis \[0, ≥ 1\]) for the comparison of 2 treatment groups.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||60.1|41.3|< 0.001
90828954|NCT04194944|181533000|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.3996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|3.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.4|0.7|0.3996
90828955|NCT04194944|181533001|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|3.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.6|0.9|0.1390
90828956|NCT04194944|181533004|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.7||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|5.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.1|1.4|0.0028
90828957|NCT04194944|181533005|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.9||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|5.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.2|1.6|0.0003
90828958|NCT04194944|181533006|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.377||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.224|0.633|||Log Rank|||||0.633|0.224|0.0001
90828959|NCT04194944|181533007|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.418||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.256|0.684|||Log Rank|||||0.684|0.256|0.0004
90828960|NCT04194944|181533010|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.2||||0.1809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|12.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||12.8|0.8|0.1809
90828961|NCT04194944|181533011|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.2||||0.0167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|19.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||19.6|1.4|0.0167
90828962|NCT03400475|181533023|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.088||||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.90
90828963|NCT03400475|181533024|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.59||||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.90
90828964|NCT03400475|181533025|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.596||||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.90
90828965|NCT03400475|181533026|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.083||||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.90
90828966|NCT03400475|181533027|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.581||||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.90
90828967|NCT03400475|181533028|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.029||||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.90
90828968|NCT03400475|181533029|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-64.696||||0.86|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.86
90828969|NCT03400475|181533030|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|111.03||||0.86|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.86
90828970|NCT03400475|181533031|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|213.314||||0.86|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.86
90828971|NCT03400475|181533032|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|37.356||||0.41|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.41
90828972|NCT03400475|181533033|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6537||||0.41|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.41
90828973|NCT03400475|181533034|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.552||||0.41|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.41
90828974|NCT03400475|181533035|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.071|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.071
90828975|NCT03400475|181533036|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.071|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.071
90828976|NCT03400475|181533037|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
90828977|NCT03400475|181533038|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.062|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.062
90828978|NCT03400475|181533039|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.54
90828979|NCT03400475|181533040|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.34
91076353|NCT04908475|182038450|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|56.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.7|66.0||Adjusted for strata (baseline body weight \[≤ 100 kg, \> 100 kg\] and prior exposure to any systemic and/or biologic treatment for psoriasis \[0, ≥ 1\]) for the comparison of 2 treatment groups.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||66.0|47.7|< 0.001
90890504|NCT01316926|181645800|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This is a bioequivalence study. The study was performed to fulfill an official requirement of the Brazilian Regulatory Agency - ANVISA - upon manufacturing a site change.|Ratio T formulation/R formulation|0.9204|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8556|0.99|||||Coefficient Variation (intra-individual). The ratio between the geometric means of the test and reference formulations was calculated.|||0.9900|0.8556|
90890505|NCT01316926|181645801|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This is a bioequivalence study. The study was performed to fulfill an official requirement of the Brazilian Regulatory Agency - ANVISA - upon manufacturing a site change.|Ratio T formulation/R formulation|0.941|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.846|1.0467|||||Coefficient Variation (intra-individual). The ratio between the geometric means of the test and reference formulations was calculated.|||1.0467|0.8460|
90890506|NCT01316926|181645802|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This is a bioequivalence study. The study was performed to fulfill an official requirement of the Brazilian Regulatory Agency - ANVISA - upon manufacturing a site change.|Ratio T formulation/R formulation|0.9333|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8502|1.0246|||||Coefficient Variation (intra-individual). The ratios between the geometric means of the test and reference formulations was calculated.|||1.0246|0.8502|
90890507|NCT02298192|181645816|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was tested against the alternative hypothesis of non-inferiority as given by H0: D ≥0.30% against HA: D \<0.30%.|Treatment Contrast|0.12||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The null hypothesis was tested against the alternative hypothesis of non-inferiority as given by H0: D ≥0.30% against HA: D \<0.30%.||0.28|-0.04|0.012
90890508|NCT02352948|181645824|OTHER|Sub-study A was not powered and thus no formal statistical comparisons were performed.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.93|||||Hazard ratio and CI are estimated from a stratified Cox proportional hazards model with Breslow method to control for ties, stratification factors SoC therapy, and histology in strata statement, and CI is calculated using profile likelihood approach.|For sub-study A: durvalumab monotherapy treatment arm was compared with SoC.||0.93|0.42|
90890509|NCT02352948|181645824|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.05|||Log Rank|The P-value arises from a stratified log-rank test adjusting for SoC therapy and histology, with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Hazard ratio and CI are estimated from a stratified Cox proportional hazards model with Breslow method to control for ties, stratification factors SoC therapy, and histology in strata statement, and CI is calculated using profile likelihood approach.|For sub-study B: durvalumab plus tremelimumab treatment arm was compared with SoC.||1.05|0.61|0.109
90890510|NCT02352948|181645825|OTHER|Sub-study A was not powered and thus no formal statistical comparisons were performed.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.04|||||Hazard ratio and CI are estimated from a stratified Cox proportional hazards model with Breslow method to control for ties, stratification factors SoC therapy, and histology in strata statement, and CI is calculated using profile likelihood approach.|For sub-study A: durvalumab monotherapy treatment arm was compared with SoC.||1.04|0.49|
90890511|NCT02352948|181645825|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.01|||Log Rank|The P-value arises from a stratified log-rank test adjusting for SoC therapy and histology, with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Hazard ratio and CI are estimated from a stratified Cox proportional hazards model with Breslow method to control for ties, stratification factors SoC therapy, and histology in strata statement, and CI is calculated using profile likelihood approach.|For sub-study B: durvalumab plus tremelimumab treatment arm was compared with SoC.||1.01|0.59|0.056
91076354|NCT04908475|182038451|SUPERIORITY||Difference|69.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.5|80.0|||Chi-squared|||||80.0|59.5|< 0.001
90890512|NCT02352948|181645826|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.3|||Log Rank|The P-value arises from a stratified log-rank test adjusting for SoC therapy and histology, with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Hazard ratio and CI are estimated from a stratified Cox proportional hazards model with Breslow method to control for ties, stratification factors SoC therapy, and histology in strata statement, and CI is calculated using profile likelihood approach.|As part of the contribution of components analysis for sub-study B, durvalumab plus tremelimumab treatment arm was compared with durvalumab monotherapy.||1.30|0.74|0.885
90890513|NCT02352948|181645826|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.11|||Log Rank|The P-value arises from a stratified log-rank test adjusting for SoC therapy and histology, with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Hazard ratio and CI are estimated from a stratified Cox proportional hazards model with Breslow method to control for ties, stratification factors SoC therapy, and histology in strata statement, and CI is calculated using profile likelihood approach.|As part of the contribution of components analysis for sub-study B, durvalumab plus tremelimumab treatment arm was compared with tremelimumab monotherapy.||1.11|0.56|0.153
90890514|NCT02352948|181645827|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.063||||||The z-test statistic is the ratio of log-transformed ratio of the cumulative hazards in the 2 treatment arms divided by square root of the variance.|z-test|The variance is estimated using the delta method and Greenwood's formula.||For sub-study B: durvalumab plus tremelimumab treatment arm was compared with SoC.||||0.063
90890515|NCT02352948|181645828|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.12|||Log Rank|The P-value arises from a stratified log-rank test adjusting for SoC therapy and histology, with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Hazard ratio and CI are estimated from a stratified Cox proportional hazards model with Breslow method to control for ties, stratification factors SoC therapy, and histology in strata statement, and CI is calculated using profile likelihood approach.|As part of the contribution of components analysis for sub-study B, durvalumab plus tremelimumab treatment arm was compared with durvalumab monotherapy.||1.12|0.68|0.282
90890516|NCT02352948|181645828|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.92|||Log Rank|The P-value arises from a stratified log-rank test adjusting for SoC therapy and histology, with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Hazard ratio and CI are estimated from a stratified Cox proportional hazards model with Breslow method to control for ties, stratification factors SoC therapy, and histology in strata statement, and CI is calculated using profile likelihood approach.|As part of the contribution of components analysis for sub-study B, durvalumab plus tremelimumab treatment arm was compared with tremelimumab monotherapy.||0.92|0.49|0.011
90890517|NCT02352948|181645829|OTHER|Sub-study A was not powered and thus no formal statistical comparisons were performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.61|10.1|||||The analysis was performed using logistic regression adjusting for SoC therapy (gemcitabine/vinorelbine versus erlotinib) and histology (squamous versus all other histology types), with 95% CI calculated by profile likelihood.|For sub-study A: durvalumab monotherapy treatment arm was compared with SoC.||10.10|1.61|
90890518|NCT02352948|181645829|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.43||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|5.94|||Regression, Logistic||The analysis was performed using logistic regression adjusting for SoC therapy (gemcitabine/vinorelbine versus erlotinib) and histology (squamous versus all other histology types), with 95% CI calculated by profile likelihood.|For sub-study B: durvalumab plus tremelimumab treatment arm was compared with SoC.||5.94|1.10|0.037
90890519|NCT02352948|181645829|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.89|||Regression, Logistic||The analysis was performed using logistic regression adjusting for SoC therapy (gemcitabine/vinorelbine versus erlotinib) and histology (squamous versus all other histology types), with 95% CI calculated by profile likelihood.|For sub-study B: durvalumab plus tremelimumab treatment arm was compared with durvalumab monotherapy.||1.89|0.51|0.923
90890520|NCT02352948|181645829|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.46||||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|8.61|||Regression, Logistic||The analysis was performed using logistic regression adjusting for SoC therapy (gemcitabine/vinorelbine versus erlotinib) and histology (squamous versus all other histology types), with 95% CI calculated by profile likelihood.|For sub-study B: durvalumab plus tremelimumab treatment arm was compared with tremelimumab monotherapy.||8.61|0.91|0.109
90890521|NCT02352948|181645833|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.85|||Log Rank|The P-value arises from a stratified log-rank test adjusting for SoC therapy and histology, with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Hazard ratio and CI are estimated from a stratified Cox proportional hazards model with Breslow method to control for ties, stratification factors SoC therapy, and histology in strata statement, and CI is calculated using profile likelihood approach.|For sub-study B: durvalumab plus tremelimumab treatment arm was compared with SoC.||0.85|0.49|0.002
90890522|NCT05054816|181645893|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons between three conditions: investigative feature, comparative feature 1, comparative feature 2|ANOVA|The data were protected against deviations from sphericity by modifying degrees of freedom using Greenhouse-Geisser corrections.||Previous research with subjective ratings has repeatedly shown that data collected with 15-25 participants can yield significant results.||||<0.05
90890523|NCT05054816|181645894|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons between three conditions: investigative feature, comparative feature 1, comparative feature 2|ANOVA|The data were protected against deviations from sphericity by modifying degrees of freedom using Greenhouse-Geisser corrections||Previous research with subjective ratings has repeatedly shown that data collected with 15-25 participants can yield significant results.||||<0.05
90890524|NCT05054816|181645895|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons between three conditions: investigative feature, comparative feature 1, comparative feature 2|ANOVA|The data were protected against deviations from sphericity by modifying degrees of freedom using Greenhouse-Geisser corrections||Previous research with subjective ratings has repeatedly shown that data collected with 15-25 participants can yield significant results.||||<0.05
90890525|NCT05054816|181645896|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons between two conditions: investigative feature, comparative feature 1|ANOVA|The data were protected against deviations from sphericity by modifying degrees of freedom using Greenhouse-Geisser corrections||Previous research with subjective ratings has repeatedly shown that data collected with 15-25 participants can yield significant results.||||<0.05
90890526|NCT05054816|181645897|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons between three conditions: investigative feature, comparative feature 1, comparative feature 2|ANOVA|The data were protected against deviations from sphericity by modifying degrees of freedom using Greenhouse-Geisser corrections||Previous research with subjective ratings has repeatedly shown that data collected with 15-25 participants can yield significant results.||||<0.05
90890527|NCT02010060|181645900|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.074|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.074
90890528|NCT02010060|181645900|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.684|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in waist circumference between AERO and CON||||0.684
90890529|NCT02010060|181645900|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between the AERO group and the AERO-PA group||||0.180
90890530|NCT02010060|181645901|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in body fat between the AERO-PA group and the CON group||||0.011
90890531|NCT02010060|181645901|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.16
90890532|NCT02010060|181645901|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.258|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in body fat between the AERO and AERO-PA group||||0.258
90890533|NCT02010060|181645902|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.104|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison of body weight between the CON and AERO-PA groups||||0.104
90890534|NCT02010060|181645902|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.578|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in body weight between the CON and AERO groups||||0.578
90890535|NCT02010060|181645902|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in body weight between the AERO and AERO-PA groups||||0.300
90890536|NCT02010060|181645903|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in cardiorespiratory fitness (L/min) between the AERO and AERO-PA groups||||0.002
90890537|NCT02010060|181645903|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.314|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in cardiorespiratory fitness (L/min) AERO and CON groups||||0.314
90890538|NCT02010060|181645903|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.041|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in cardiorespiratory fitness (L/min) between the AERO and AERO-PA groups||||0.041
90890539|NCT02010060|181645904|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.891|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in insulin sensitivity between the CON and AERO-PA groups||||0.891
90890540|NCT02010060|181645904|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.417|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in insulin sensitivity between the CON and AERO groups||||0.417
90890541|NCT02010060|181645904|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.484|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in insulin sensitivity between the AERO and AERO-PA groups||||0.484
90890542|NCT02010060|181645905|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.274|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in Low density lipoprotein (LDL) between the CON and the AERO groups||||0.274
90890543|NCT02010060|181645905|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.461|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in Low density lipoprotein (LDL) between the CON and AERO groups||||0.461
90890544|NCT02010060|181645905|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.739|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in Low density lipoprotein (LDL) between AERO and AERO-PA groups||||0.739
90890545|NCT02010060|181645906|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.837|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in high density lipoprotein (HDL) between the CON and AERO-PA group||||0.837
90890546|NCT02010060|181645906|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.895|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in high density lipoprotein (HDL) between the CON and AERO groups||||0.895
90890547|NCT02010060|181645906|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.744|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.744
90890548|NCT02010060|181645907|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.067|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in total cholesterol (mg/dL)||||0.067
90890549|NCT02010060|181645907|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.254|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in total cholesterol (mg/dL) between the CON and AERO groups||||0.254
90890550|NCT02010060|181645907|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.501|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in total cholesterol (mg/dL) between AERO and AERO-PA groups||||0.501
90890551|NCT02010060|181645908|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.456|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in triglyceride level between the AERO-PA and CON groups||||0.456
90890552|NCT02010060|181645908|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.422|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in triglyceride level between the CON and AERO groups||||0.422
90890553|NCT02010060|181645908|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.136|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in triglyceride level between the AERO and AERO-PA groups||||0.136
90890554|NCT02010060|181645909|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.483|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in glucose level between the CON and AERO-PA groups||||0.483
90890555|NCT02010060|181645909|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.274|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in glucose between the CON and AERO groups||||0.274
90890556|NCT02010060|181645909|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.685|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in glucose level between the AERO and AERO-PA groups||||0.685
90890557|NCT02010060|181645910|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.489|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in systemic inflammation between CON and AERO-PA groups||||0.489
90890558|NCT02010060|181645910|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.652|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in systemic inflammation between the CON and AERO groups||||0.652
90890559|NCT02010060|181645910|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.822|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in systemic inflammation between the AERO and AERO-PA groups||||0.822
90890560|NCT02010060|181645911|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||Changes in steps between the CON group and the AERO-PA group||||<0.001
90890561|NCT02010060|181645911|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.648|||||||ANCOVA|||Changes in steps between the CON and the AERO group||||0.648
90890562|NCT02010060|181645911|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||Changes in steps between the AERO and AERO-PA groups||||<0.001
90890563|NCT02010060|181645912|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.226|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in kilocalories (dietary intake) between CON and AERO-PA group||||0.226
90890564|NCT02010060|181645912|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.215|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in caloric intake between the CON and the AERO groups||||0.215
90890565|NCT02010060|181645912|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.957|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in caloric intake (kilocalories) between the AERO and AERO-PA groups||||0.957
90890566|NCT02010060|181645913|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.337|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in insulin concentration between the CON and AERO-PA group||||0.337
90890567|NCT02010060|181645913|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in insulin level between the AERO and CON groups||||0.770
90890568|NCT02010060|181645913|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.515|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in insulin concentration between AERO and AERO-PA groups||||0.515
90890569|NCT04414696|181645914|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|1.5|||||Multivariable linear regression|||1.5|-3.3|
90890570|NCT04414696|181645915|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.5|14.5|||||Multivariable linear regression|||14.5|-23.5|
90890571|NCT04414696|181645916|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|9.5||||||||9.5|-1.9|
90890572|NCT04414696|181645917|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9|21.5|||||Multivariable linear regression|||21.5|-18.9|
90890573|NCT04414696|181645918|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|1.1|||||Multivariable linear regression|||1.1|-3.7|
90890574|NCT04414696|181645919|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|4.2|||||Multivariable linear regression|||4.2|-7.7|
90890575|NCT04414696|181645920|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|2.1|||||Multivariable linear regression|||2.1|-1.2|
90890576|NCT04414696|181645921|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.1|||||Multivariable linear regression|||1.1|-1|
90890577|NCT04414696|181645922|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|1.2|||||Multivariable linear regression|||1.2|-3.4|
90890578|NCT04414696|181645923|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|1.3|||||Multivariable linear regression|||1.3|-4.9|
91076355|NCT04908475|182038452|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|65.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.6|73.9||Adjusted for strata (baseline body weight \[≤ 100 kg, \> 100 kg\] and prior exposure to any systemic and/or biologic treatment for psoriasis \[0, ≥ 1\] for the comparison of 2 treatment groups.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||73.9|57.6|< 0.001
90890579|NCT01292603|181645955|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A standard non-inferiority margin of 0.8 for the ratio of Ctrough was used. The non-inferiority limit corresponds to a maximal 20 percent (%) loss in Ctrough which is considered acceptable given the high variability and range of Ctrough data, with an 80% power and a one-sided alpha of 0.05.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|1.533|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.269|1.852|||||Ratio based on geometric scale and adjusted for the covariate tumor load at baseline.|||1.852|1.269|
90890580|NCT01292603|181645956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|1.102|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.979|1.242|||||Ratio based on geometric scale and adjusted for the covariate tumor load at baseline.|||1.242|0.979|
90890581|NCT01292603|181645957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|0.719|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.653|0.792|||||Ratio based on geometric scale and adjusted for the covariate tumor load at baseline.|||0.792|0.653|
90890582|NCT01292603|181645958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|14.884|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|11.215|19.755|||||Ratio based on geometric scale and adjusted for the covariate tumor load at baseline.|||19.755|11.215|
90890583|NCT01292603|181645959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.895|1.139|||||Ratio based on geometric scale and adjusted for the covariate tumor load at baseline.|||1.139|0.895|
90890584|NCT02120027|181645969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.986||||0.949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.53|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.53|0.64|0.949
90890585|NCT02120027|181645970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28||||0.193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.86|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.86|0.88|0.193
90890586|NCT02120027|181645971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.032||||0.872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.53|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.53|0.70|0.872
90890587|NCT02120027|181645972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.339||||0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.26|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.26|0.79|0.272
90890588|NCT02120027|181645973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.153||||0.567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.81|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.81|0.73|0.567
90890589|NCT04162769|181645990|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-10.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.605|=|0.1198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.228|2.674|||ANCOVA|||Week 12||2.674|-23.228|=0.1198
91076356|NCT04908475|182038453|SUPERIORITY||Difference|71.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.9|82.3|||Chi-squared|||||82.3|60.9|< 0.001
91076357|NCT04908475|182038454|SUPERIORITY||Difference|69.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.6|80.2|||Chi-squared|||||80.2|58.6|< 0.001
90890590|NCT04162769|181645990|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-8.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.515|=|0.1783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.544|4.002|||ANCOVA|||Week 12||4.002|-21.544|=0.1783
90890591|NCT04162769|181645991|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.34|=|0.9826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.52|18.11|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||18.11|-18.52|=0.9826
90890592|NCT04162769|181645991|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|13.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.78|=|0.1891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.12|32.21|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||32.21|-6.12|=0.1891
90890593|NCT04162769|181645992|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.38|=|0.7694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.29|16.64|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||16.64|-12.29|=0.7694
91076358|NCT02584959|182038455|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-2.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.895|-1.744|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The LS means, 95% CIs, and p-values were based on a mixed effect linear model with period, sequence ,use of prophylactic therapy with C1 INH at randomization, and treatment as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||-1.744|-2.895|<0.0001
91076359|NCT02584959|182038457|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-2.323|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.969|-1.677|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The LS means, 95% CIs, and p-values were based on a mixed effect linear model with period, sequence ,use of prophylactic therapy with C1 INH at randomization, and treatment as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||-1.677|-2.969|<0.0001
90890594|NCT04162769|181645992|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|17.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.47|=|0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|34.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||34.00|0.79|=0.0450
90890595|NCT04162769|181645993|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-14.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.295|=|0.0558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.406|0.352|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12||0.352|-28.406|=0.0558
90890596|NCT04162769|181645993|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-10.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.134|=|0.1363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.737|3.397|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12||3.397|-24.737|=0.1363
90890597|NCT04162769|181645994|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.33|=|0.7143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|26.41|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||26.41|-18.00|=0.7143
90890598|NCT04162769|181645994|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.09|=|0.6488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.62|26.87|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||26.87|-16.62|=0.6488
90890599|NCT04162769|181645995|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|8.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.22|=|0.3981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.27|28.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||28.80|-11.27|=0.3981
90890600|NCT04162769|181645995|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|15.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.17|=|0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.72|35.15|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||35.15|-4.72|=0.1410
90890601|NCT04162769|181645996|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|8.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.65|=|0.269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.61|23.38|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||23.38|-6.61|=0.2690
90890602|NCT04162769|181645996|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.09|=|0.5428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.56|18.25|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||18.25|-9.56|=0.5428
90890603|NCT04162769|181645997|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-2.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.721|=|0.7163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.089|12.466|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12||12.466|-18.089|=0.7163
90890604|NCT04162769|181645997|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-13.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.602|=|0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.284|1.805|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12||1.805|-28.284|=0.0840
90890605|NCT00845663|181646017|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Use of the 80-125 % bioequivalence range. If 90% confidence interval for ratio of geometric LS Means (percent) is included within these limits, the devices are considered bioequivalent.|ratio of geometric LS Means (percent)|101.33||||||90.0|92.84|110.58|||ANOVA|ANOVA for log-transformed values with treatment as factor has been used as the basis for calculation of estimated value and confidence interval.|Ratio is Auto-injection device/Pre-filled syringe|Bioequivalence testing by using the 90% Confidence Interval||110.58|92.84|
90890606|NCT00845663|181646018|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Use of the 80-125% bioequivalence range. If 90% confidence interval for ratio of geometric LS Means (percent) is included within these limits, the devices are considered bioequivalent.|ratio of geometric LS Means (percent)|97.7||||||90.0|89.06|107.19|||ANOVA|ANOVA for log-transformed values with treatment as factor was taken as the basis for calculation of estimated value and confidence interval.|Ratio is Auto-injection device/Pre-filled syringe|Bioequivalence testing by using the 90% Confidence Interval||107.19|89.06|
90890607|NCT00845663|181646019|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Use of the 80-125 % bioequivalence range. If 90% confidence interval for ratio of geometric LS Means (percent) is included within these limits, the devices are considered bioequivalent.|ratio of geometric LS Means (percent)|97.54||||||90.0|87.33|108.94|||ANOVA|ANOVA for log-transformed values with treatment as factor was taken as a basis for calculation of estimated value and the confidence interval.|Ratio is Auto-injection device/Pre-filled syringe|Bioequivalence testing by using the 90% Confidence Interval||108.94|87.33|
90890608|NCT01043432|181646039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regressions were utilized to model the outcomes of interest as a function of SA, TBI group, and the interaction between the two groups.||||>.05
90890609|NCT04307004|181646041|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.1|||Paired T Test, 2-sided||Mean difference in systolic blood pressure = mean systolic blood pressure when attended - mean systolic blood pressure when not attended (i.e., unattended).|||1.1|0.5|< 0.0001
90890610|NCT04307004|181646041|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.7||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Paired T Test, 2-sided||Mean difference in diastolic blood pressure = mean diastolic blood pressure when attended - mean diastolic blood pressure when not attended (i.e., unattended)|||0.7|0.3|< 0.0001
90890611|NCT04307004|181646042|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-1.5||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Paired T Test, 2-sided||Mean difference in systolic blood pressure = mean systolic blood pressure on ambulatory blood pressure monitoring - mean systolic blood pressure on home blood pressure monitoring.|||-1.5|-3.0|< 0.0001
90890612|NCT04307004|181646042|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-1.4||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Paired T Test, 2-sided||Mean difference in diastolic blood pressure = mean diastolic blood pressure on ambulatory blood pressure monitoring - mean diastolic blood pressure on home blood pressure monitoring.|||-1.4|-2.5|< 0.0001
90890613|NCT04307004|181646044|OTHER|Independent variable - Attended systolic blood pressure. Dependent variable - Left ventricular mass index.|beta coefficient|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.55|||Regression, Linear|||We determined the association between attended systolic blood pressure and left ventricular mass index (LVMI). This analysis included 587 participants with attended office blood pressure measurements and valid LVMI measurements. This analysis combined across study arms as prespecified in the Study Protocol and Statistical Analysis Plan.||0.55|0.32|< 0.001
90890614|NCT04307004|181646044|OTHER|Independent variable - attended diastolic blood pressure. Dependent variable - left ventricular mass index.|beta coefficient|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.6|||Regression, Linear|||We determined the association between attended diastolic blood pressure measurements and left ventricular mass index (LVMI). This analysis included 587 with attended office blood pressure measurements and valid LVMI measurements. This analysis combined across study arms as prespecified in the Study Protocol and Statistical Analysis Plan.||0.60|0.24|< 0.001
90890615|NCT04307004|181646044|OTHER|Independent variable - unattended systolic blood pressure. Dependent variable - left ventricular mass index.|beta coefficient|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.56|||Regression, Linear|||We determined the association between unattended systolic blood pressure and left ventricular mass index (LVMI). This analysis included 587 participants with unattended office blood pressure measurements and valid LVMI measurements. This analysis combined across study arms as prespecified in the Study Protocol and Statistical Analysis Plan.||0.56|0.33|< 0.001
90890616|NCT04307004|181646044|OTHER|Independent variable - unattended diastolic blood pressure. Dependent variable - left ventricular mass index.|beta coefficient|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.55|||Regression, Linear|||We determined the association between unattended diastolic blood pressure and left ventricular mass index (LVMI). This analysis included 587 participants with unattended office blood pressure measurements and valid LVMI measurements. This analysis combined across study arms as prespecified in the Study Protocol and Statistical Analysis Plan.||0.55|0.19|< 0.001
90890617|NCT04307004|181646044|OTHER|Independent variable - awake systolic blood pressure on ABPM Dependent variable - left ventricular mass index.|beta coefficient|0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.74|||Regression, Linear|||We determined the association between awake systolic blood pressure from ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) and left ventricular mass index (LVMI). This analysis included 554 participants with out-of-office blood pressure measurements and valid LVMI measurements. This analysis combined across study arms as prespecified in the Study Protocol and Statistical Analysis Plan.||0.74|0.47|< 0.001
90890618|NCT04307004|181646044|OTHER|Independent variable - awake diastolic blood pressure on ABPM. Dependent variable - left ventricular mass index.|beta coefficient|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.66|||Regression, Linear|||We determined the association between awake diastolic blood pressure on ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) and left ventricular mass index (LVMI). This analysis included 554 participants with out-of-office blood pressure measurements and valid LVMI measurements. This analysis combined across study arms as prespecified in the Study Protocol and Statistical Analysis Plan.||0.66|0.25|< 0.001
90890619|NCT04307004|181646044|OTHER|Independent variable - asleep systolic blood pressure on HBPM. Dependent variable - left ventricular mass index.|beta coefficient|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.44|||Regression, Linear|||We determined the association between asleep systolic blood pressure on home blood pressure monitoring (HBPM) and left ventricular mass index (LVMI). This analysis included 533 participants with HBPM data and valid LVMI. This analysis combined across study arms as prespecified in the Study Protocol and Statistical Analysis Plan.||0.44|0.19|< 0.001
90890620|NCT04307004|181646044|OTHER|Independent variable - asleep diastolic blood pressure on HBPM Dependent variable - left ventricular mass index|beta coefficient|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.4|||Regression, Linear|||We determined the association between asleep diastolic blood pressure on home blood pressure monitoring (HBPM) and left ventricular mass index (LVMI). This analysis included 533 participants with data on HBPM and valid LVMI. This analysis combined across study arms as prespecified in the Study Protocol and Statistical Analysis Plan.||0.40|0.05|0.01
90890621|NCT04307004|181646044|OTHER|Independent variable - asleep systolic blood pressure on ABPM. Dependent variable - left ventricular mass index.|beta coefficient|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.59|||Regression, Linear|||We determined the association between asleep systolic blood pressure on ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) and left ventricular mass index (LVMI). This analysis included 533 participants with data on ABPM and valid LVMI. This analysis combined across study arms as prespecified in the Study Protocol and Statistical Analysis Plan.||0.59|0.32|< 0.001
90890622|NCT04307004|181646044|OTHER|Independent variable - asleep diastolic blood pressure on ABPM Dependent variable - left ventricular mass index.|beta coefficient|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.55|||Regression, Linear|||We determined the association between asleep diastolic blood pressure on ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) and left ventricular mass index (LVMI). This analysis included 533 participants with data on ABPM and valid LVMI. This analysis combined across study arms as prespecified in the Study Protocol and Statistical Analysis Plan.||0.55|0.16|< 0.001
90890623|NCT04307004|181646045|OTHER|Independent variable - attended systolic blood pressure. Dependent variable - urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio.|beta coefficient|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.08|||Regression, Linear|||We determined the association between attended systolic blood pressure and urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR). This analysis included 555 participants with complete data on attended office blood pressure and UACR. This analysis combined across study arms as prespecified in the Study Protocol and Statistical Analysis Plan.||0.08|-0.47|0.17
90890624|NCT04307004|181646045|OTHER|Independent variable - attended diastolic blood pressure. Dependent variable - urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio.|beta coefficient|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.15|||Regression, Linear|||We determined the association between attended diastolic blood pressure and urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR). This analysis included 555 participants with complete data on attended office blood pressure and UACR. This analysis combined across study arms as prespecified in the Study Protocol and Statistical Analysis Plan.||0.15|-0.70|0.20
90890625|NCT04307004|181646045|OTHER|Independent variable - unattended systolic blood pressure. Dependent variable - urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio.|beta coefficient|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.02|||Regression, Linear|||We determined the association between unattended systolic blood pressure and urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR). This analysis included 555 participants with complete data on unattended blood pressure and UACR. This analysis combined across study arms as prespecified in the Study Protocol and Statistical Analysis Plan.||0.02|-0.55|0.07
90890626|NCT04307004|181646045|OTHER|Independent variable - unattended diastolic blood pressure. Dependent variable - urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio.|beta coefficient|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.06|||Regression, Linear|||We determined the association between unattended diastolic blood pressure and urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR). This analysis included 555 participants with complete data on unattended diastolic blood pressure and UACR. This analysis combined across study arms as prespecified in the Study Protocol and Statistical Analysis Plan.||0.06|-0.80|0.09
90890627|NCT04307004|181646045|OTHER|"Independent variable - awake systolic blood pressure on ambulatory blood pressure monitoring.~Dependent variable - urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio."|beta coefficient|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.31|||Regression, Linear|||We determined the association between awake systolic blood pressure on ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) and urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR). This analysis included 523 participants with complete data on ABPM and UACR. This analysis combined across study arms as prespecified in the Study Protocol and Statistical Analysis Plan.||0.31|-0.29|0.94
90890628|NCT04307004|181646045|OTHER|"Independent variable - awake diastolic blood pressure on ambulatory blood pressure monitoring.~Dependent variable - urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio."|beta coefficient|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.66|||Regression, Linear|||We determined the association between awake diastolic blood pressure on ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) and urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR). This analysis included 523 participants with complete data on ABPM and UACR. This analysis combined across study arms as prespecified in the Study Protocol and Statistical Analysis Plan.||0.66|-0.21|0.31
90890629|NCT04307004|181646045|OTHER|Independent variable - asleep systolic blood pressure on HBPM. Dependent variable - urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio.|beta coefficient|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.26|||Regression, Linear|||We determined the association between asleep systolic blood pressure on home blood pressure monitoring (HBPM) and urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR). This analysis included 505 participants with complete HBPM and UACR data. This analysis combined across study arms as prespecified in the Study Protocol and Statistical Analysis Plan.||0.26|-0.28|0.94
90890630|NCT04307004|181646045|OTHER|Independent variable - asleep diastolic blood pressure on HBPM. Dependent variable - urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio.|beta coefficient|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.36|||Regression, Linear|||We determined the association between asleep diastolic blood pressure on home blood pressure monitoring (HBPM) and urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR). This analysis included 505 participants with complete HBPM and UACR data. This analysis combined across study arms as prespecified in the Study Protocol and Statistical Analysis Plan.||0.36|-0.40|0.93
91076360|NCT02584959|182038460|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-4.881|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.113|-3.649|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The LS means, 95% CIs, and p-values were based on a mixed effect linear model with period, sequence ,use of prophylactic therapy with C1 INH at randomization, and treatment as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||-3.649|-6.113|<0.0001
91076361|NCT02584959|182038461|OTHER||Difference in LS means|5.435|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.981|6.889|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.889|3.981|<0.0001
91076362|NCT02584959|182038462|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-2.175|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.75|-1.599|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.599|-2.750|<0.0001
90890631|NCT04307004|181646045|OTHER|Independent variable - asleep systolic blood pressure on ABPM. Dependent variable - urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio.|beta coefficient|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.4|||Regression, Linear|||We determined the association between asleep systolic blood pressure on ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) and urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR). This analysis included 505 participants with complete ABPM and UACR data. This analysis combined across study arms as prespecified in the Study Protocol and Statistical Analysis Plan.||0.40|-0.21|0.54
90890632|NCT04307004|181646045|OTHER|Independent variable - asleep diastolic blood pressure on ABPM. Dependent variable - urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio.|beta coefficient|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.68|||Regression, Linear|||We determined the association between asleep diastolic blood pressure on ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) and urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR). This analysis included 505 participants with complete ABPM and UACR data. This analysis combined across study arms as prespecified in the Study Protocol and Statistical Analysis Plan.||0.68|-0.16|0.23
90890633|NCT05585307|181646077|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated from two-sided t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90890634|NCT05585307|181646077|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated from two-sided t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90890635|NCT05585307|181646077|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0013||||||P-value was calculated from two-sided t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0013
90890636|NCT05585307|181646077|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated from two-sided t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90890637|NCT05585307|181646077|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated from two-sided t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90890638|NCT05585307|181646077|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated from two-sided t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90890639|NCT05585307|181646077|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated from two-sided t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90890640|NCT05585307|181646077|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated from two-sided t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90890641|NCT05585307|181646078|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated from two-sided t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90890642|NCT05585307|181646078|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated from two-sided t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
91076363|NCT02584959|182038477|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-31.735||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.696|-20.773|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The Least Square means, 95% confidence intervals and p-values are based on mixed effect linear model with period, sequence, use of prophylactic therapy with C1 INH at randomization and treatment as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||-20.773|-42.696|0.0001
90890643|NCT05585307|181646078|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated from two-sided t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90890644|NCT05585307|181646078|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated from two-sided t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90890645|NCT05585307|181646078|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated from two-sided t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90890646|NCT05585307|181646078|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated from two-sided t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90890647|NCT05585307|181646078|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated from two-sided t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90890648|NCT05585307|181646078|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated from two-sided t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
90890649|NCT01972841|181646098|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|-0.01||Nominal p-value|Stratified rank ANCOVA|No adjustment for multiplicity was needed for testing combination therapy vs. its 2 monotherapy components.|Adjustment for multiplicity across primary and the first secondary endpoint as well as across the 2 combination doses was made using a sequential Bonferroni-based testing procedure.|Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the solifenacin 5 mg monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous overactive bladder medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.01|-0.49|0.072
90890650|NCT01972841|181646098|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.04||Nominal p-value|Stratified rank ANCOVA|No adjustment for multiplicity was needed for testing combination therapy vs. its 2 monotherapy components.|Adjustment for multiplicity across primary and the first secondary endpoint as well as across the 2 combination doses was made using a sequential Bonferroni-based testing procedure.|Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the solifenacin 5 mg monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous overactive bladder medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.04|-0.44|0.033
90890651|NCT01972841|181646098|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|-0.1|||Stratified rank ANCOVA||Adjustment for multiplicity across primary and the first secondary endpoint as well as across the 2 combination doses was made using a sequential Bonferroni-based testing procedure.|Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the mirabegron 25 mg monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous overactive bladder medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.10|-0.58|0.001
90890652|NCT01972841|181646098|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.01|||Stratified rank ANCOVA|No adjustment for multiplicity was needed for testing combination therapy vs. its 2 monotherapy components.|Adjustment for multiplicity across primary and the first secondary endpoint as well as across the 2 combination doses was made using a sequential Bonferroni-based testing procedure.|Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the mirabegron 50 mg monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous overactive bladder medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.01|-0.47|0.052
91076364|NCT00926536|182038482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|71.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Decrease in DAP in C-arm CT +DSA group when compared to DSA only|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.001
90890653|NCT01972841|181646099|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.01||Nominal p-value|ANCOVA|No adjustment for multiplicity was needed for testing combination therapy vs. its 2 monotherapy components.|Adjustment for multiplicity across primary and the first secondary endpoint as well as across the 2 combination doses was made using a sequential Bonferroni-based testing procedure.|Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the solifenacin 5 mg monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous overactive bladder medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.01|-0.57|0.040
90890654|NCT01972841|181646099|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.11||Nominal p-value|ANCOVA|No adjustment for multiplicity was needed for testing combination therapy vs. its 2 monotherapy components.|Adjustment for multiplicity across primary and the first secondary endpoint as well as across the 2 combination doses was made using a sequential Bonferroni-based testing procedure.|Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the solifenacin 5 mg monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous overactive bladder medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.11|-0.67|0.006
90890655|NCT01972841|181646099|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.21||Nominal p-value|ANCOVA|No adjustment for multiplicity was needed for testing combination therapy vs. its 2 monotherapy components.|Adjustment for multiplicity across primary and the first secondary endpoint as well as across the 2 combination doses was made using a sequential Bonferroni-based testing procedure.|Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the mirabegron 25 mg monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous overactive bladder medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.21|-0.76|0.001
90890656|NCT01972841|181646099|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.28||Nominal p-value|ANCOVA|No adjustment for multiplicity was needed for testing combination therapy vs. its 2 monotherapy components.|Adjustment for multiplicity across primary and the first secondary endpoint as well as across the 2 combination doses was made using a sequential Bonferroni-based testing procedure.|Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the mirabegron 50 mg monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous overactive bladder medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.28|-0.84|<0.001
90890657|NCT01972841|181646100|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|3.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.13||0.219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|10.0||Nominal p-value|ANCOVA|No adjustment for multiplicity was needed for testing combination therapy vs. its 2 monotherapy components.|Adjustment for multiplicity across primary and the first secondary endpoint as well as across the 2 combination doses was made using a sequential Bonferroni-based testing procedure.|Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the solifenacin 5 mg monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous overactive bladder medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||10.00|-2.29|0.219
90890658|NCT01972841|181646100|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|8.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.13||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.61|14.89||Nominal p-value|ANCOVA|No adjustment for multiplicity was needed for testing combination therapy vs. its 2 monotherapy components.|Adjustment for multiplicity across primary and the first secondary endpoint as well as across the 2 combination doses was made using a sequential Bonferroni-based testing procedure.|Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the solifenacin 5 mg monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous overactive bladder medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||14.89|2.61|0.005
90890659|NCT01972841|181646100|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|21.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.35|27.68||Nominal p-value|ANCOVA|No adjustment for multiplicity was needed for testing combination therapy vs. its 2 monotherapy components.|Adjustment for multiplicity across primary and the first secondary endpoint as well as across the 2 combination doses was made using a sequential Bonferroni-based testing procedure.|Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the mirabegron 25 mg monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous overactive bladder medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||27.68|15.35|<0.001
90890660|NCT01972841|181646100|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|17.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.58|23.9||Nominal p-value|ANCOVA|No adjustment for multiplicity was needed for testing combination therapy vs. its 2 monotherapy components.|Adjustment for multiplicity across primary and the first secondary endpoint as well as across the 2 combination doses was made using a sequential Bonferroni-based testing procedure.|Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the mirabegron 50 mg monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous overactive bladder medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||23.90|11.58|<0.001
91076365|NCT00926536|182038483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|158.3||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|||||Decrease in CD in C-arm CT +DSA group when compared to DSA only|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.017
90890661|NCT01972841|181646101|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-4.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.98|-2.27|||ANCOVA|No adjustment for multiplicity was made for this comparison.||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the solifenacin 5 mg monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous overactive bladder medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-2.27|-6.98|<0.001
90890662|NCT01972841|181646101|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.17|-3.44|||ANCOVA|No adjustment for multiplicity was made for this comparison.||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the solifenacin 5 mg monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous overactive bladder medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-3.44|-8.17|<0.001
90890663|NCT01972841|181646101|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-7.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|-4.76|||ANCOVA|No adjustment for multiplicity was made for this comparison.||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the mirabegron 25 mg monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous overactive bladder medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-4.76|-9.50|<0.001
90890664|NCT01972841|181646101|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.46|-3.74|||ANCOVA|No adjustment for multiplicity was made for this comparison.||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the mirabegron 50 mg monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous overactive bladder medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-3.74|-8.46|<0.001
90890665|NCT01972841|181646102|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.52|||ANCOVA|No adjustment for multiplicity was made for this comparison.||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the solifenacin 5 mg monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous overactive bladder medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.52|-0.03|0.077
90890666|NCT01972841|181646102|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.55|||ANCOVA|No adjustment for multiplicity was made for this comparison.||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the solifenacin 5 mg monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous overactive bladder medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.55|0.00|0.050
90890667|NCT01972841|181646102|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.65|||ANCOVA|No adjustment for multiplicity was made for this comparison.||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the mirabegron 25 mg monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous overactive bladder medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.65|0.10|0.008
90890668|NCT01972841|181646102|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.65|||ANCOVA|No adjustment for multiplicity was made for this comparison.||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the mirabegron 50 mg monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous overactive bladder medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.65|0.10|0.007
90890669|NCT01972841|181646103|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.04|||Negative binomial regression|||Rate ratio of number of incontinence episodes during the 7-day diary between the given combination group and the given monotherapy group calculated from a negative binomial regression model incl. treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, ≥65 years), geographic region and previous OAB medication (yes, no) as factors, log(number of incontinence episodes used divided by number of valid diary days) at baseline included as a covariate and number of valid diary days at EoT as the offset variable.||1.04|0.72|0.135
90890670|NCT01972841|181646103|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.09|||Negative binomial regression|||Rate ratio of number of incontinence episodes during the 7-day diary between the given combination group and the given monotherapy group calculated from a negative binomial regression model incl. treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, ≥65 years), geographic region and previous OAB medication (yes, no) as factors, log(number of incontinence episodes used divided by number of valid diary days) at baseline included as a covariate and number of valid diary days at EoT as the offset variable.||1.09|0.75|0.282
91076366|NCT01267201|182038487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|92.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.23|96.15||||||Natural log transformed AUC (0 - ∞) of methylprednisolone was analyzed using mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||96.15|88.23|
91076367|NCT01267201|182038487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|90.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.49|94.11||||||Natural log transformed AUC (0 - ∞) of methylprednisolone was analyzed using mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||94.11|86.49|
90890671|NCT01972841|181646103|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.85|||Negative binomial regression|||Rate ratio of number of incontinence episodes during the 7-day diary between the given combination group and the given monotherapy group calculated from a negative binomial regression model incl. treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, ≥65 years), geographic region and previous OAB medication (yes, no) as factors, log(number of incontinence episodes used divided by number of valid diary days) at baseline included as a covariate and number of valid diary days at EoT as the offset variable.||0.85|0.59|<0.001
90890672|NCT01972841|181646103|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.06|||Negative binomial regression|||Rate ratio of number of incontinence episodes during the 7-day diary between the given combination group and the given monotherapy group calculated from a negative binomial regression model incl. treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, ≥65 years), geographic region and previous OAB medication (yes, no) as factors, log(number of incontinence episodes used divided by number of valid diary days) at baseline included as a covariate and number of valid diary days at EoT as the offset variable.||1.06|0.73|0.172
90890673|NCT01972841|181646104|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean difference|-1.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.27|-0.01|||Stratified rank ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the solifenacin 5 mg monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.offset variable.||-0.01|-3.27|0.074
90890674|NCT01972841|181646104|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.96|0.3|||Stratified rank ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the solifenacin 5 mg monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.30|-2.96|0.025
90890675|NCT01972841|181646104|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|-2.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-0.73|||Stratified rank ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the mirabegron 25 mg monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.73|-4.00|<0.001
90890676|NCT01972841|181646104|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-1.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.23|0.05|||Stratified rank ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the mirabegron 50 mg monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.05|-3.23|0.024
90890677|NCT01972841|181646108|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.76|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (solifenacin 5 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline mean number of micturitions per 24 hours as a covariate.||0.76|-0.39|0.520
90890678|NCT01972841|181646108|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.34|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (solifenacin 5 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline mean number of micturitions per 24 hours as a covariate.||0.34|-0.82|0.413
90890679|NCT01972841|181646108|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.34|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (mirabegron 25 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline mean number of micturitions per 24 hours as a covariate.||-0.34|-1.50|0.002
90890680|NCT01972841|181646108|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean diffrence|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (mirabegron 50 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline mean number of micturitions per 24 hours as a covariate.||0.02|-1.13|0.060
90890681|NCT01972841|181646109|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.04|||Negative binomial regression|||Rate ratio of number of urgency incontinence episodes during the 7-day diary bet. the given combination group \& the given monotherapy group calculated from a negative binomial regression model incl. treatment group, sex, age group (\<65,≥ 65 years), geographic region and previous OAB medication (yes, no) as factors, baseline log(number of urgency incontinence episodes used divided by number of valid diary days) included as a covariate \& postbaseline number of valid diary days as offset variable.||1.04|0.70|0.110
91076368|NCT01267201|182038488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|94.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.06|101.98||||||Natural log transformed Cmax of methylprednisolone was analyzed using mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||101.98|88.06|
90890682|NCT01972841|181646109|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.1|||Negative binomial regression|||Rate ratio of number of urgency incontinence episodes during the 7-day diary bet. the given combination group \& the given monotherapy group calculated from a negative binomial regression model incl. treatment group, sex, age group (\<65,≥ 65 years), geographic region and previous OAB medication (yes, no) as factors, baseline log(number of urgency incontinence episodes used divided by number of valid diary days) included as a covariate \& postbaseline number of valid diary days as offset variable.||1.10|0.73|0.288
90890683|NCT01972841|181646109|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.79|||Negative binomial regression|||Rate ratio of number of urgency incontinence episodes during the 7-day diary bet. the given combination group \& the given monotherapy group calculated from a negative binomial regression model incl. treatment group, sex, age group (\<65,≥ 65 years), geographic region and previous OAB medication (yes, no) as factors, baseline log(number of urgency incontinence episodes used divided by number of valid diary days) included as a covariate \& postbaseline number of valid diary days as offset variable.||0.79|0.53|<0.001
90890684|NCT01972841|181646109|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.02|||Negative binomial regression|||Rate ratio of number of urgency incontinence episodes during the 7-day diary bet. the given combination group \& the given monotherapy group calculated from a negative binomial regression model incl. treatment group, sex, age group (\<65,≥ 65 years), geographic region and previous OAB medication (yes, no) as factors, baseline log(number of urgency incontinence episodes used divided by number of valid diary days) included as a covariate \& postbaseline number of valid diary days as offset variable.||1.02|0.68|0.084
90890685|NCT01972841|181646110|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|-0.13|||Stratified rank ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (solifenacin 5 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.13|-3.09|0.114
90890686|NCT01972841|181646110|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-1.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-0.13|||Stratified rank ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (solifenacin 5 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.13|-3.10|0.034
90890687|NCT01972841|181646110|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-2.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.09|-1.12|||Stratified rank ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (mirabegron 25 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-1.12|-4.09|<0.001
90890688|NCT01972841|181646110|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-2.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|-0.71|||Stratified rank ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (mirabegron 50 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.71|-3.70|0.012
90890689|NCT01972841|181646111|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.02|||Stratified rank ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (solifenacin 5 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.02|-0.46|0.134
90890690|NCT01972841|181646111|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.02|||Stratified rank ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (solifenacin 5 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.02|-0.45|0.043
90890691|NCT01972841|181646111|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean diffeence|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.15|||Stratified rank ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (mirabegron 25 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.15|-0.59|<0.001
90890692|NCT01972841|181646111|SUPERIORITY||Standard Error of the Mean|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.019|TWO_SIDED|5.0|-0.54|-0.1|||Stratified rank ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (mirabegron 50mg ) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.10|-0.54|0.019
91076369|NCT01267201|182038488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|83.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.06|90.17||||||Natural log transformed Cmax of methylprednisolone was analyzed using mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||90.17|78.06|
91076370|NCT00483704|182038491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|3.58|||Regression, Logistic|Computed using a logistic regression model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age.|An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first treatment group of the corresponding pairwise comparison.|||3.58|1.80|<0.001
90890693|NCT01972841|181646112|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (solifenacin 5 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.03|-0.69|0.074
90890694|NCT01972841|181646112|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.09|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (solifenacin 5 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.09|-0.82|0.014
90890695|NCT01972841|181646112|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.28|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (mirabegron 25 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.28|-1.01|<0.001
90890696|NCT01972841|181646112|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|0.51|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (mirabegron 50 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.51|-1.24|<0.001
90890697|NCT01972841|181646113|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|0.96|||Negative binomial regression|||Rate ratio of number of incontinence episodes during the 7-day diary between the given combination group and the given monotherapy group calculated from a negative binomial regression model incl. treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), geographic region and previous OAB medication (yes, no) as factors, baseline log(number of nocturia episodes used divided by number of valid diary days) included as a covariate and postbaseline number of valid diary days as offset variable.||0.96|0.81|0.006
90890698|NCT01972841|181646113|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.88|||Negative binomial regression|||Rate ratio of number of incontinence episodes during the 7-day diary between the given combination group and the given monotherapy group calculated from a negative binomial regression model incl. treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), geographic region and previous OAB medication (yes, no) as factors, baseline log(number of nocturia episodes used divided by number of valid diary days) included as a covariate and postbaseline number of valid diary days as offset variable.||0.88|0.74|<0.001
90890699|NCT01972841|181646113|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.0|||Negative binomial regression|||Rate ratio of number of incontinence episodes during the 7-day diary between the given combination group and the given monotherapy group calculated from a negative binomial regression model incl. treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), geographic region and previous OAB medication (yes, no) as factors, baseline log(number of nocturia episodes used divided by number of valid diary days) included as a covariate and postbaseline number of valid diary days as offset variable.||1.00|0.84|0.049
90890700|NCT01972841|181646113|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.94|||Negative binomial regression|||Rate ratio of number of incontinence episodes during the 7-day diary between the given combination group and the given monotherapy group calculated from a negative binomial regression model incl. treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), geographic region and previous OAB medication (yes, no) as factors, baseline log(number of nocturia episodes used divided by number of valid diary days) included as a covariate and postbaseline number of valid diary days as offset variable.||0.94|0.79|0.001
90890701|NCT01972841|181646114|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (solifenacin 5 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.06|-1.28|0.073
90890702|NCT01972841|181646114|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-1.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|-0.48|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (solifenacin 5 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.48|-1.83|0.001
90890703|NCT01972841|181646114|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (mirabegron 25 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.17|-1.18|0.140
91076371|NCT00483704|182038491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.15|4.27|||Regression, Logistic|Computed using a logistic regression model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age.|An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first treatment group of the corresponding pairwise comparison.|||4.27|2.15|<0.001
91076372|NCT00483704|182038492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.35|3.9|||Regression, Logistic|Computed using a logistic regression model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age.|An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first treatment group of the corresponding pairwise comparison.|||3.90|2.35|<0.001
90890704|NCT01972841|181646114|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|-0.54|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (mirabegron 50 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.54|-1.88|<0.001
90890705|NCT01972841|181646115|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (solifenacin 5 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.01|-0.19|0.065
90890706|NCT01972841|181646115|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|-0.07|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (solifenacin 5 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.07|-0.26|0.001
90890707|NCT01972841|181646115|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (mirabegron 25 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.02|-0.18|0.100
90890708|NCT01972841|181646115|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|-0.07|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (mirabegron 50 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.07|-0.26|0.001
90890709|NCT01972841|181646116|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.27|||Negative binomial regression|||Rate ratio of number of incontinence episodes during the 7-day diary between the given combination group and the given monotherapy group calculated from a negative binomial regression model incl. treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), geographic region and previous OAB medication (yes, no) as factors, baseline log(number of pads used divided by number of valid diary days) included as a covariate and postbaseline number of valid diary days as offset variable.||1.27|0.80|0.938
90890710|NCT01972841|181646116|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.25|||Negative binomial regression|||Rate ratio of number of incontinence episodes during the 7-day diary between the given combination group and the given monotherapy group calculated from a negative binomial regression model incl. treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), geographic region and previous OAB medication (yes, no) as factors, baseline log(number of pads used divided by number of valid diary days) included as a covariate and postbaseline number of valid diary days as offset variable.||1.25|0.79|0.967
90890711|NCT01972841|181646116|SUPERIORITY||Standard Error of the Mean|0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.92|||Negative binomial regression|||Rate ratio of number of incontinence episodes during the 7-day diary between the given combination group and the given monotherapy group calculated from a negative binomial regression model incl. treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), geographic region and previous OAB medication (yes, no) as factors, baseline log(number of pads used divided by number of valid diary days) included as a covariate and postbaseline number of valid diary days as offset variable.||0.92|0.58|0.008
91076373|NCT00483704|182038492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.17|3.61|||Regression, Logistic|Computed using a logistic regression model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age.|An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first treatment group of the corresponding pairwise comparison.|||3.61|2.17|<0.001
90890712|NCT01972841|181646116|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.02|||Negative binomial regression|||Rate ratio of number of incontinence episodes during the 7-day diary between the given combination group and the given monotherapy group calculated from a negative binomial regression model incl. treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), geographic region and previous OAB medication (yes, no) as factors, baseline log(number of pads used divided by number of valid diary days) included as a covariate and postbaseline number of valid diary days as offset variable.||1.02|0.64|0.069
90890713|NCT01972841|181646117|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86||0.958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|1.64|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (solifenacin 5 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||1.64|-1.73|0.958
90890714|NCT01972841|181646117|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.27|1.11|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (solifenacin 5 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||1.11|-2.27|0.500
90890715|NCT01972841|181646117|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-1.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.62|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (mirabegron 25 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.20|-3.62|0.028
90890716|NCT01972841|181646117|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-1.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.13|0.31|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (mirabegron 50 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.31|-3.13|0.108
90890717|NCT01972841|181646118|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.25|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (solifenacin 5 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.25|-0.25|0.993
90890718|NCT01972841|181646118|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (solifenacin 5 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.19|-0.30|0.650
90890719|NCT01972841|181646118|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (mirabegron 25 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.02|-0.52|0.035
90890720|NCT01972841|181646118|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (mirabegron 50 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate||0.08|-0.43|0.169
90890721|NCT01972841|181646119|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|1.68|||Overdispersed binomial regression|||Odds ratio from a overdispersed binomial regression model (Williams' method) including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline logarithm of mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours as a covariate.||1.68|1.11|0.003
90890722|NCT01972841|181646119|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|1.68|||Overdispersed binomial regression|||Odds ratio from a overdispersed binomial regression model (Williams' method) including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline logarithm of mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours as a covariate.||1.68|1.11|0.004
90890723|NCT01972841|181646119|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|1.95|||Overdispersed binomial regression|||Odds ratio from a overdispersed binomial regression model (Williams' method) including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline logarithm of mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours as a covariate.||1.95|1.29|<0.001
90890724|NCT01972841|181646119|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.68|||Overdispersed binomial regression|||Odds ratio from a overdispersed binomial regression model (Williams' method) including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline logarithm of mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours as a covariate.||1.68|1.10|0.004
90890725|NCT01972841|181646120|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.5|||Overdispersed binomial regression|||Odds ratio from a overdispersed binomial regression model (Williams' method) including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of micturitions per 24 hours as a covariate.||1.50|1.01|0.039
90890726|NCT01972841|181646120|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.59|||Overdispersed binomial regression|||Odds ratio from a overdispersed binomial regression model (Williams' method) including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of micturitions per 24 hours as a covariate.||1.59|1.07|0.009
90890727|NCT01972841|181646120|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|1.77|||overdispersed binomial regression|||Odds ratio from a overdispersed binomial regression model (Williams' method) including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of micturitions per 24 hours as a covariate.||1.77|1.19|<0.001
90890728|NCT01972841|181646120|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|1.84|||Overdispersed binomial regression|||Odds ratio from a overdispersed binomial regression model (Williams' method) including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of micturitions per 24 hours as a covariate||1.84|1.23|<0.001
90890729|NCT01972841|181646121|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.64|||Overdispersed binomial regression|||Odds ratio from a overdispersed binomial regression model (Williams' method) including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of micturitions per 24 hours as a covariate.||1.64|1.07|0.011
90890730|NCT01972841|181646121|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.75|||Overdispersed binomial regression|||Odds ratio from a overdispersed binomial regression model (Williams' method) including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of micturitions per 24 hours as a covariate.||1.75|1.14|0.002
91076374|NCT00483704|182038493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.05|7.23|||Regression, Logistic|Computed using a logistic regression model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age.|An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first treatment group of the corresponding pairwise comparison.|||7.23|2.05|<0.001
90890731|NCT01972841|181646121|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|2.06|||Overdispersed binomial regression|||Odds ratio from a overdispersed binomial regression model (Williams' method) including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of micturitions per 24 hours as a covariate.||2.06|1.32|<0.001
90890732|NCT01972841|181646121|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|2.07|||Overdispersed binomial regression|||Odds ratio from a overdispersed binomial regression model (Williams' method) including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of micturitions per 24 hours as a covariate.||2.07|1.33|<0.001
90890733|NCT01972841|181646122|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (solifenacin 5 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.11|-0.41|<0.001
91076375|NCT00483704|182038493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.36|11.39|||Regression, Logistic|Computed using a logistic regression model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age.|An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first treatment group of the corresponding pairwise comparison.|||11.39|3.36|<0.001
91076376|NCT00483704|182038494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.96|3.51|||Regression, Logistic|Computed using a logistic regression model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age.|An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first treatment group of the corresponding pairwise comparison.|||3.51|1.96|<0.001
91076377|NCT00483704|182038494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.41|4.34|||Regression, Logistic|Computed using a logistic regression model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age.|An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first treatment group of the corresponding pairwise comparison.|||4.34|2.41|<0.001
91076378|NCT00483704|182038495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.11|||Regression, Logistic|Computed using a logistic regression model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age.|An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first treatment group of the corresponding pairwise comparison.|||2.11|1.30|<0.001
91076379|NCT00483704|182038495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|2.14|||Regression, Logistic|Computed using a logistic regression model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age.|An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first treatment group of the corresponding pairwise comparison.|||2.14|1.31|<0.001
91076380|NCT00483704|182038496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|2.22|||Regression, Logistic|Computed using a logistic regression model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age.|An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first treatment group of the corresponding pairwise comparison.|||2.22|1.36|<0.001
91076381|NCT00483704|182038496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|2.06|||Regression, Logistic|Computed using a logistic regression model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age.|An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first treatment group of the corresponding pairwise comparison.|||2.06|1.26|<0.001
90890734|NCT01972841|181646122|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.25|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (solifenacin 5 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.25|-0.54|<0.001
91076382|NCT00483704|182038497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|2.17|||Regression, Logistic|Computed using a logistic regression model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age.|An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first treatment group of the corresponding pairwise comparison.|||2.17|1.28|<0.001
91076383|NCT00483704|182038497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|2.04|||Regression, Logistic|Computed using a logistic regression model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age.|An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first treatment group of the corresponding pairwise comparison.|||2.04|1.21|<0.001
91076384|NCT00483704|182038500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|4.07|||Regression, Logistic|Computed using a logistic regression model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age.|An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first treatment group of the corresponding pairwise comparison.|||4.07|1.78|<0.001
91076385|NCT00483704|182038500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|5.19|||Regression, Logistic|Computed using a logistic regression model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age.|An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first treatment group of the corresponding pairwise comparison.|||5.19|2.30|<0.001
91076386|NCT00483704|182038501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|3.69|||Regression, Logistic|Computed using a logistic regression model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age.|An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first treatment group of the corresponding pairwise comparison.|||3.69|1.56|<0.001
91076387|NCT00483704|182038501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.22|5.12|||Regression, Logistic|Computed using a logistic regression model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age.|An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first treatment group of the corresponding pairwise comparison.|||5.12|2.22|<0.001
91076388|NCT00483704|182038502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|3.38|||Regression, Logistic|Computed using a logistic regression model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age.|An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first treatment group of the corresponding pairwise comparison.|||3.38|1.65|<0.001
91076389|NCT00483704|182038502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.97|4.01|||Regression, Logistic|Computed using a logistic regression model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age.|An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first treatment group of the corresponding pairwise comparison.|||4.01|1.97|<0.001
91076390|NCT00483704|182038503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|3.54|||Regression, Logistic|Computed using a logistic regression model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age.|An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first treatment group of the corresponding pairwise comparison.|||3.54|1.52|<0.001
91076391|NCT00483704|182038503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|4.56|||Regression, Logistic|Computed using a logistic regression model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age.|An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first treatment group of the corresponding pairwise comparison.|||4.56|2.00|<0.001
91076392|NCT01037127|182038518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.1|37.8|||||The estimated value reflects the percentage of particpants with CR and PR.|||37.8|14.1|
91076393|NCT01037127|182038519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|17.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|48.4|||||The estimated value reflects the percentage of particpants with CR and PR.|||48.4|2.1|
91076394|NCT01037127|182038519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|27.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.6|41.9|||||The estimated value reflects the percentage of particpants with CR and PR.|||41.9|14.6|
91076395|NCT01037127|182038519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|26.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.3|41.4|||||The estimated value reflects the percentage of particpants with CR and PR.|||41.4|14.3|
91076396|NCT01037127|182038519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|28.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.2|45.2|||||The estimated value reflects the percentage of particpants with CR and PR.|||45.2|14.2|
91076397|NCT01037127|182038520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|20.0||||||95.0|7.7|38.6|||||The estimated value reflects the percentage of particpants with CR and PR.|||38.6|7.7|
91076398|NCT01254851|182038549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized test statistic (z-score)|0.39||||0.7|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.70
91076399|NCT02326298|182038550|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|28.962|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|6.968|120.371||The p-value for the primary analysis was evaluated at a 2-sided significance level of 0.025 for each CZP dose versus (vs) PBO.|Regression, Logistic|Estimated responder rate, odds ratios, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.||The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||120.371|6.968|<0.0001
91076400|NCT02326298|182038550|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|45.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|10.657|195.634||The p-value for the primary analysis was evaluated at a 2-sided significance level of 0.025 for each CZP dose vs PBO.|Regression, Logistic|Estimated responder rate, odds ratios, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.||The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||195.634|10.657|<0.0001
91076401|NCT02326298|182038550|SUPERIORITY||Estimated difference in responder rate|60.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.92|72.17|||Regression, Logistic|Estimated responder rate, odds ratios, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.|Estimate and 95% CI for difference in proportion of responders for CZP 200 mg Q2W (RS) versus Placebo Q2W (RS).|The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||72.17|47.92|
91076402|NCT02326298|182038550|SUPERIORITY||Estimated difference in responder rate|69.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.65|80.99|||Regression, Logistic|Estimated responder rate, odds ratios, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.|Estimate and 95% CI for difference in proportion of responders for CZP 400 mg Q2W (RS) versus Placebo Q2W (RS).|The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||80.99|57.65|
91076403|NCT02326298|182038551|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|20.116|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|3.699|109.399||The p-value for the primary analysis was evaluated at a 2-sided significance level of 0.025 for each CZP dose vs PBO.|Regression, Logistic|Estimated responder rate, odds ratios, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.||The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||109.399|3.699|<0.0001
91076404|NCT02326298|182038551|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|31.143|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|5.687|170.548||The p-value for the primary analysis was evaluated at a 2-sided significance level of 0.025 for each CZP dose vs PBO.|Regression, Logistic|Estimated responder rate, odds ratios, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.||The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||170.548|5.687|<0.0001
91076405|NCT02326298|182038551|SUPERIORITY||Estimated difference in responder rate|42.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.7|54.86|||Regression, Logistic|Estimated responder rate, odds ratios, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.|Estimate and 95% CI for difference in proportion of responders for CZP 200 mg Q2W (RS) versus Placebo Q2W (RS).|The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||54.86|30.70|
91076406|NCT02326298|182038551|SUPERIORITY||Estimated difference in responder rate|53.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.33|65.94|||Regression, Logistic|Estimated responder rate, odds ratios, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.|Estimate and 95% CI for difference in proportion of responders for CZP 400 mg Q2W (RS) versus Placebo Q2W (RS).|The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||65.94|41.33|
91076407|NCT02326298|182038552|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|36.668|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|5.717|235.193||The p-value for this analysis as used in the fixed sequence testing procedure was evaluated at a 2-sided significance level of 0.025 for each CZP dose vs PBO.|Regression, Logistic|Estimated responder rate, odds ratios, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment,region, prior biologic exposure.||The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||235.193|5.717|<0.0001
91076408|NCT02326298|182038552|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|50.606|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|7.88|324.988||The p-value for this analysis as used in the fixed sequence testing procedure was evaluated at a 2-sided significance level of 0.025 for each CZP dose vs PBO.|Regression, Logistic|Estimated responder rate, odds ratios, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.||The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||324.988|7.880|<0.0001
91076409|NCT02326298|182038552|SUPERIORITY||Estimated difference in responder rate|35.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.85|49.87|||Regression, Logistic|Estimated responder rate, odds ratios, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.|Estimate and 95% CI for difference in proportion of responders for CZP 200 mg Q2W (RS) versus Placebo Q2W (RS).|The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||49.87|20.85|
91076410|NCT02326298|182038552|SUPERIORITY||Estimated difference in responder rate|43.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.56|58.71|||Regression, Logistic|Estimated responder rate, odds ratios, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.|Estimate and 95% CI for difference in proportion of responders for CZP 400 mg Q2W (RS) versus Placebo Q2W (RS).|The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||58.71|27.56|
90890735|NCT01972841|181646122|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (mirabegron 25 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.20|-0.50|<0.001
90890736|NCT01972841|181646122|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (mirabegron 50 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.20|-0.50|<0.001
90890737|NCT01972841|181646124|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|3.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.69|5.94|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (solifenacin 5 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||5.94|1.69|<0.001
90890738|NCT01972841|181646124|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|4.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.03|6.29|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (solifenacin 5 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||6.29|2.03|<0.001
90890739|NCT01972841|181646124|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|5.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.88|7.15|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (mirabegron 25 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||7.15|2.88|<0.001
90890740|NCT01972841|181646124|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|5.43|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (mirabegron 50 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||5.43|1.17|0.002
91076411|NCT02326298|182038553|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Treatment Differences|-6.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-8.18|-3.81||P-value obtained for each treatment group comparison tested at a significance level of 0.025 in the fixed sequence testing procedure.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model of change from Baseline DLQI score with treatment group, region, prior biologic exposure as factors; Baseline DLQI score as a covariate.||The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||-3.81|-8.18|<0.0001
90890741|NCT01972841|181646125|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|4.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|6.65|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (solifenacin 5 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||6.65|1.60|0.001
90890742|NCT01972841|181646125|SUPERIORITY||Lest squares mean difference|4.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.34|7.4|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (solifenacin 5 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||7.40|2.34|<0.001
91076412|NCT02326298|182038553|SUPERIORITY||Ajusted Mean Treatment Differences|-6.84|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-9.05|-4.62||P-value obtained for each treatment group comparison tested at a significance level of 0.025 in the fixed sequence testing procedure.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model of change from Baseline DLQI score with treatment group, region, prior biologic exposure as factors; Baseline DLQI score as a covariate.||The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||-4.62|-9.05|<0.0001
91076413|NCT02889835|182038556|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.686|||||||Log Rank|||Kaplan-Meier analysis was performed to assess survival over 36 months. Test of survival distributions for the three arms were calculated using Log Rank (Mantel-Cox). Sample size is based on guidelines of the American Dental Association for obtaining approval as an amalgam replacement for posterior restorations - minimum of 40 restorations in a minimum of 20 subjects at 18 months. Sample size is based by taking subject attrition into account over the 36 month clinical evaluation.||||0.686
91076414|NCT02889835|182038557|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.701|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.701
91076415|NCT02889835|182038558|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.812|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.812
91076416|NCT02889835|182038559|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.104|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.104
91076417|NCT02889835|182038560|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.440
91076418|NCT02889835|182038561|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.676|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.676
91076419|NCT02889835|182038562|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||1.000
91076420|NCT02889835|182038563|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.764|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.764
91076421|NCT02889835|182038564|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.323|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.323
91076422|NCT02889835|182038565|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.714|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.714
91076423|NCT02889835|182038566|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.846|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.846
91076424|NCT02889835|182038567|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||1.000
91076425|NCT02889835|182038568|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.424|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.424
91076426|NCT02987972|182038570|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical criterion for non-inferiority corresponds to the lower bound of the adjusted 95% CI of the proportion difference (V114 minus Prevnar 13™) being greater than -0.15 for each of the 13 shared serotypes.|Difference in Percentages|-0.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|3.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Difference in Response Rate calculated as Percentage V114 Lot 1 minus Percentage Prevnar 13™|Type 1||3.0|-3.3|< 0.001
91076427|NCT02987972|182038570|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical criterion for non-inferiority corresponds to the lower bound of the adjusted 95% CI of the proportion difference (V114 minus Prevnar 13™) being greater than -0.15 for each of the 13 shared serotypes.|Difference in Percentages|24.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.7|30.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Difference in Response Rate calculated as Percentage V114 Lot 1 minus Percentage Prevnar|Type 3||30.0|18.7|< 0.001
91076428|NCT02987972|182038570|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical criterion for non-inferiority corresponds to the lower bound of the adjusted 95% CI of the proportion difference (V114 minus Prevnar 13™) being greater than -0.15 for each of the 13 shared serotypes.|Difference in Percentages|3.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|6.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Difference in Response Rate calculated as Percentage V114 Lot 1 minus Percentage Prevnar 13™|Type 4||6.4|0.0|< 0.001
91076429|NCT02987972|182038570|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical criterion for non-inferiority corresponds to the lower bound of the adjusted 95% CI of the proportion difference (V114 minus Prevnar 13™) being greater than -0.15 for each of the 13 shared serotypes.|Difference in Percentages|-0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|2.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Difference in Response Rate calculated as Percentage V114 Lot 1 minus Percentage Prevnar 13™|Type 5||2.8|-3.9|< 0.001
91076430|NCT02987972|182038570|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical criterion for non-inferiority corresponds to the lower bound of the adjusted 95% CI of the proportion difference (V114 minus Prevnar 13™) being greater than -0.15 for each of the 13 shared serotypes.|Difference in Percentages|-5.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|-1.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Difference in Response Rate calculated as Percentage V114 Lot 1 minus Percentage Prevnar 13™|Type 6A||-1.6|-10.0|< 0.001
91076431|NCT02987972|182038570|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical criterion for non-inferiority corresponds to the lower bound of the adjusted 95% CI of the proportion difference (V114 minus Prevnar 13™) being greater than -0.15 for each of the 13 shared serotypes.|Difference in Percentages|-0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|4.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Difference in Response Rate calculated as Percentage V114 Lot 1 minus Percentage Prevnar 13™|Type 6B||4.0|-5.7|< 0.001
91076432|NCT02987972|182038570|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical criterion for non-inferiority corresponds to the lower bound of the adjusted 95% CI of the proportion difference (V114 minus Prevnar 13™) being greater than -0.15 for each of the 13 shared serotypes.|Difference in Percentages|0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Difference in Response Rate calculated as Percentage V114 Lot 1 minus Percentage Prevnar 13™|Type 7F||2.7|-1.1|< 0.001
91076433|NCT02987972|182038570|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical criterion for non-inferiority corresponds to the lower bound of the adjusted 95% CI of the proportion difference (V114 minus Prevnar 13™) being greater than -0.15 for each of the 13 shared serotypes.|Difference in Percentages|1.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|4.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Difference in Response Rate calculated as Percentage V114 Lot 1 minus Percentage Prevnar 13™|Type 9V||4.6|-1.9|< 0.001
91076434|NCT02987972|182038570|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical criterion for non-inferiority corresponds to the lower bound of the adjusted 95% CI of the proportion difference (V114 minus Prevnar 13™) being greater than -0.15 for each of the 13 shared serotypes.|Difference in Percentages|2.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|4.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Difference in Response Rate calculated as Percentage V114 Lot 1 minus Percentage Prevnar 13™|Type 14||4.7|-0.2|< 0.001
91076435|NCT02987972|182038570|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical criterion for non-inferiority corresponds to the lower bound of the adjusted 95% CI of the proportion difference (V114 minus Prevnar 13™) being greater than -0.15 for each of the 13 shared serotypes.|Difference in Percentages|1.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|4.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Difference in Response Rate calculated as Percentage V114 Lot 1 minus Percentage Prevnar 13™|Type 18C||4.7|-2.1|< 0.001
91076436|NCT02987972|182038570|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical criterion for non-inferiority corresponds to the lower bound of the adjusted 95% CI of the proportion difference (V114 minus Prevnar 13™) being greater than -0.15 for each of the 13 shared serotypes.|Difference in Percentages|0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|2.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Difference in Response Rate calculated as Percentage V114 Lot 1 minus Percentage Prevnar 13™|Type 19A||2.6|-1.9|< 0.001
91076437|NCT02987972|182038570|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical criterion for non-inferiority corresponds to the lower bound of the adjusted 95% CI of the proportion difference (V114 minus Prevnar 13™) being greater than -0.15 for each of the 13 shared serotypes.|Difference in Percentages|0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Difference in Response Rate calculated as Percentage V114 Lot 1 minus Percentage Prevnar 13™|Type 19F||1.9|-1.0|< 0.001
91076438|NCT02987972|182038570|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical criterion for non-inferiority corresponds to the lower bound of the adjusted 95% CI of the proportion difference (V114 minus Prevnar 13™) being greater than -0.15 for each of the 13 shared serotypes.|Difference in Percentages|1.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|6.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Difference in Response Rate calculated as Percentage V114 Lot 1 minus Percentage Prevnar 13™|Type 23F||6.5|-2.9|< 0.001
91076439|NCT02987972|182038570|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical criterion for non-inferiority corresponds to the lower bound of the adjusted 95% CI of the proportion difference (V114 minus Prevnar 13™) being greater than -0.15 for each of the 13 shared serotypes.|Difference in Percentages|0.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|3.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Difference in Response Rate calculated as Percentage V114 Lot 2 minus Percentage Prevnar 13™|Type 1||3.9|-2.0|< 0.001
91076440|NCT02987972|182038570|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical criterion for non-inferiority corresponds to the lower bound of the adjusted 95% CI of the proportion difference (V114 minus Prevnar 13™) being greater than -0.15 for each of the 13 shared serotypes.|Difference in Percentages|22.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.5|28.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Difference in Response Rate calculated as Percentage V114 Lot 2 minus Percentage Prevnar 13™|Type 3||28.3|16.5|< 0.001
91076441|NCT02987972|182038570|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical criterion for non-inferiority corresponds to the lower bound of the adjusted 95% CI of the proportion difference (V114 minus Prevnar 13™) being greater than -0.15 for each of the 13 shared serotypes.|Difference in Percentages|1.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|5.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Difference in Response Rate calculated as Percentage V114 Lot 2 minus Percentage Prevnar 13™|Type 4||5.4|-1.4|< 0.001
91076442|NCT02987972|182038570|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical criterion for non-inferiority corresponds to the lower bound of the adjusted 95% CI of the proportion difference (V114 minus Prevnar 13™) being greater than -0.15 for each of the 13 shared serotypes.|Difference in Percentages|-0.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|2.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Difference in Response Rate calculated as Percentage V114 Lot 2 minus Percentage Prevnar 13™|Type 5||2.7|-4.1|< 0.001
91076443|NCT02987972|182038570|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical criterion for non-inferiority corresponds to the lower bound of the adjusted 95% CI of the proportion difference (V114 minus Prevnar 13™) being greater than -0.15 for each of the 13 shared serotypes.|Difference in Percentages|-0.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|2.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Difference in Response Rate calculated as Percentage V114 Lot 2 minus Percentage Prevnar 13™|Type 6A||2.8|-4.2|< 0.001
91076444|NCT02987972|182038570|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical criterion for non-inferiority corresponds to the lower bound of the adjusted 95% CI of the proportion difference (V114 minus Prevnar 13™) being greater than -0.15 for each of the 13 shared serotypes.|Difference in Percentages|0.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|5.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Difference in Response Rate calculated as Percentage V114 Lot 2 minus Percentage Prevnar 13™|Type 6B||5.6|-3.7|< 0.001
91076445|NCT02987972|182038570|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical criterion for non-inferiority corresponds to the lower bound of the adjusted 95% CI of the proportion difference (V114 minus Prevnar 13™) being greater than -0.15 for each of the 13 shared serotypes.|Difference in Percentages|0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|2.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Difference in Response Rate calculated as Percentage V114 Lot 2 minus Percentage Prevnar 13™|Type 7F||2.4|-1.7|< 0.001
91076446|NCT02987972|182038570|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical criterion for non-inferiority corresponds to the lower bound of the adjusted 95% CI of the proportion difference (V114 minus Prevnar 13™) being greater than -0.15 for each of the 13 shared serotypes.|Difference in Percentages|2.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|5.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Difference in Response Rate calculated as Percentage V114 Lot 2 minus Percentage Prevnar 13™|Type 9V||5.2|-1.1|< 0.001
91076447|NCT02987972|182038570|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical criterion for non-inferiority corresponds to the lower bound of the adjusted 95% CI of the proportion difference (V114 minus Prevnar 13™) being greater than -0.15 for each of the 13 shared serotypes.|Difference in Percentages|0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|3.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Difference in Response Rate calculated as Percentage V114 Lot 2 minus Percentage Prevnar 13™|Type 14||3.1|-2.8|< 0.001
91076448|NCT02987972|182038570|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical criterion for non-inferiority corresponds to the lower bound of the adjusted 95% CI of the proportion difference (V114 minus Prevnar 13™) being greater than -0.15 for each of the 13 shared serotypes.|Difference in Percentages|2.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|5.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Difference in Response Rate calculated as Percentage V114 Lot 2 minus Percentage Prevnar 13™|Type 18C||5.9|-0.3|< 0.001
91076449|NCT02987972|182038570|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical criterion for non-inferiority corresponds to the lower bound of the adjusted 95% CI of the proportion difference (V114 minus Prevnar 13™) being greater than -0.15 for each of the 13 shared serotypes.|Difference in Percentages|-0.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|2.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Difference in Response Rate calculated as Percentage V114 Lot 2 minus Percentage Prevnar 13™|Type 19A||2.2|-2.5|< 0.001
91076450|NCT02987972|182038570|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical criterion for non-inferiority corresponds to the lower bound of the adjusted 95% CI of the proportion difference (V114 minus Prevnar 13™) being greater than -0.15 for each of the 13 shared serotypes.|Difference in Percentages|-0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|0.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Difference in Response Rate calculated as Percentage V114 Lot 2 minus Percentage Prevnar 13™|Type 19F||0.9|-2.9|< 0.001
91076451|NCT02987972|182038570|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical criterion for non-inferiority corresponds to the lower bound of the adjusted 95% CI of the proportion difference (V114 minus Prevnar 13™) being greater than -0.15 for each of the 13 shared serotypes.|Difference in Percentages|4.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|8.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Difference in Response Rate calculated as Percentage V114 Lot 2 minus Percentage Prevnar 13™|Type 23F||8.7|-0.1|< 0.001
91076452|NCT02987972|182038571|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.81|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 1||0.81|0.64|
91076453|NCT02987972|182038571|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.75|2.23|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 3||2.23|1.75|
91076454|NCT02987972|182038571|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.16|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 4||1.16|0.92|
91076455|NCT02987972|182038571|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.89|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 5||0.89|0.68|
91076456|NCT02987972|182038571|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.63|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 6A||0.63|0.47|
91076457|NCT02987972|182038571|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.26|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 6B||1.26|0.84|
91076458|NCT02987972|182038571|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.92|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 7F||0.92|0.73|
91076459|NCT02987972|182038571|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.0|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 9V||1.00|0.77|
91076460|NCT02987972|182038571|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.03|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 14||1.03|0.75|
91076461|NCT02987972|182038571|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.84|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 18C||0.84|0.66|
91076462|NCT02987972|182038571|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.92|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 19A||0.92|0.73|
91076463|NCT02987972|182038571|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.98|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 19F||0.98|0.79|
91076464|NCT02987972|182038571|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.13|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 23F||1.13|0.84|
91076465|NCT02987972|182038571|OTHER||GMC Ratio|92.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|80.84|104.81|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 22F||104.81|80.84|
91076466|NCT02987972|182038571|OTHER||GMC Ratio|34.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.5|41.54|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 33F||41.54|28.50|
91076467|NCT02987972|182038571|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.94|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 1||0.94|0.74|
91076468|NCT02987972|182038571|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.71|2.18|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 3||2.18|1.71|
91076469|NCT02987972|182038571|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.14|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 4||1.14|0.90|
91076470|NCT02987972|182038571|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.94|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 5||0.94|0.72|
91076471|NCT02987972|182038571|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.66|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 6A||0.66|0.49|
91076472|NCT02987972|182038571|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.1|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 6B||1.10|0.74|
91076473|NCT02987972|182038571|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.91|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 7F||0.91|0.72|
91076474|NCT02987972|182038571|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.22|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 9V||1.22|0.94|
91076475|NCT02987972|182038571|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.97|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 14||0.97|0.71|
91076476|NCT02987972|182038571|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.12|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 18C||1.12|0.88|
91076477|NCT02987972|182038571|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.92|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 19A||0.92|0.73|
91076478|NCT02987972|182038571|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.01|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 19F||1.01|0.81|
91076479|NCT02987972|182038571|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.37|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 23F||1.37|1.01|
90890743|NCT01972841|181646125|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|6.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.55|8.63|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (mirabegron 25 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||8.63|3.55|<0.001
90890744|NCT01972841|181646125|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|6.33|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (mirabegron 50 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||6.33|1.27|0.003
90890745|NCT01972841|181646126|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|4.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.22||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.84|6.63|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (solifenacin 5 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||6.63|1.84|0.001
90890746|NCT01972841|181646126|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|4.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.22|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.42|7.22|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (solifenacin 5 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||7.22|2.42|<0.001
90890747|NCT01972841|181646126|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|5.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.23|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.93|7.75|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (mirabegron 25 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||7.75|2.93|<0.001
90890748|NCT01972841|181646126|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|4.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.22|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.01|6.81|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (mirabegron 50 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||6.81|2.01|<0.001
90890749|NCT01972841|181646127|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|4.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.98|6.85|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (solifenacin 5 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||6.85|1.98|<0.001
90890750|NCT01972841|181646127|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|4.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.98|6.86|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (solifenacin 5 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||6.86|1.98|<0.001
90890751|NCT01972841|181646127|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|4.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.42|7.32|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (mirabegron 25 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||7.32|2.42|<0.001
90890752|NCT01972841|181646127|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|3.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.24||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|5.72|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (mirabegron 50 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||5.72|0.84|0.008
90890753|NCT01972841|181646128|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|2.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|4.21|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (solifenacin 5 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||4.21|0.33|0.022
90890754|NCT01972841|181646128|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|2.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|4.19|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (solifenacin 5 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||4.19|0.31|0.023
90890755|NCT01972841|181646128|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|4.74|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (mirabegron 25 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||4.74|0.85|0.005
90890756|NCT01972841|181646128|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99||0.337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|2.89|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (mirabegron 50 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||2.89|-0.99|0.337
90890757|NCT01972841|181646141|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.69|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours during the last 3 days as a covariate.||1.69|1.02|0.035
90890758|NCT01972841|181646141|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.81|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours during the last 3 days as a covariate.||1.81|1.09|0.009
90890759|NCT01972841|181646141|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|1.93|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours during the last 3 days as a covariate.||1.93|1.16|0.002
90890760|NCT01972841|181646141|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.73|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours during the last 3 days as a covariate.||1.73|1.04|0.023
91076480|NCT02987972|182038571|OTHER||GMC Ratio|80.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|70.3|91.24|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 22F||91.24|70.30|
91076481|NCT02987972|182038571|OTHER||GMC Ratio|32.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.25|39.78|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 33F||39.78|27.25|
91076482|NCT02987972|182038572|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|3.2||||||Difference in percentages calculated as V114 Lot 1 minus Prevnar 13™. Confidence intervals based on Miettinen and Nurminen method.||3.2|-3.1|
91076483|NCT02987972|182038572|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|5.0||||||Difference in percentages calculated as V114 Lot 2 minus Prevnar 13™. Confidence intervals based on Miettinen and Nurminen method.||5.0|-0.7|
91076484|NCT02987972|182038573|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.6||||||Difference in percentages calculated as V114 Lot 1 minus Prevnar 13™. Confidence intervals based on Miettinen and Nurminen method.||1.6|-0.8|
91076485|NCT02987972|182038573|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.6||||||Difference in percentages calculated as V114 Lot 2 minus Prevnar 13™. Confidence intervals based on Miettinen and Nurminen method.||1.6|-0.8|
91076486|NCT02987972|182038574|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|12.8|||||Difference in percentages calculated as V114 Lot 1 minus Prevnar 13™.|||12.8|-0.3|
91076487|NCT02987972|182038574|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|12.9|||||Difference in percentages calculated as V114 Lot 2 minus Prevnar 13™.|||12.9|-0.2|
91076488|NCT02987972|182038575|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.7||||0.772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|5.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Difference in percentages calculated as V114 Lot 1 minus Prevnar 13™.|||5.2|-3.9|0.772
91076489|NCT02987972|182038575|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|2.6||||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|7.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Difference in percentages calculated as V114 Lot 2 minus Prevnar 13™.|||7.0|-1.7|0.235
91076490|NCT02987972|182038576|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.76|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 1||0.76|0.62|
90890761|NCT01972841|181646142|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.69|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline OAB-q subscale as a covariate.||1.69|0.88|0.224
90890762|NCT01972841|181646142|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.96|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline OAB-q subscale as a covariate.||1.96|1.02|0.037
91076491|NCT02987972|182038576|OTHER||GMC Ratio|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.75|2.28|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 3||2.28|1.75|
91076492|NCT02987972|182038576|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.07|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 4||1.07|0.86|
91076493|NCT02987972|182038576|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|0.96|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 5||0.96|0.78|
91076494|NCT02987972|182038576|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.65|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 6A||0.65|0.50|
91076495|NCT02987972|182038576|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.39|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 6B||1.39|1.06|
91076496|NCT02987972|182038576|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.82|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 7F||0.82|0.67|
91076497|NCT02987972|182038576|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.95|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 9V||0.95|0.74|
90890763|NCT01972841|181646142|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|2.67|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline OAB-q subscale as a covariate.||2.67|1.47|<0.001
90890764|NCT01972841|181646142|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.65||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|2.26|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline OAB-q subscale as a covariate.||2.26|1.21|0.002
90890765|NCT01972841|181646143|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.72|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline OAB-q subscale as a covariate.||1.72|0.97|0.077
90890766|NCT01972841|181646143|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.53|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline OAB-q subscale as a covariate.||1.53|0.87|0.321
90890767|NCT01972841|181646143|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|2.53|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline OAB-q subscale as a covariate.||2.53|1.46|<0.001
90890768|NCT01972841|181646143|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.53|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline OAB-q subscale as a covariate.||1.53|0.88|0.294
90890769|NCT01972841|181646144|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.53|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours during the last 3 days as a covariate.||1.53|0.89|0.251
90890770|NCT01972841|181646144|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.64|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours during the last 3 days as a covariate.||1.64|0.95|0.107
90890771|NCT01972841|181646144|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|2.07|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours during the last 3 days as a covariate.||2.07|1.23|<0.001
90890772|NCT01972841|181646144|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.85|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours during the last 3 days as a covariate.||1.85|1.08|0.012
90890773|NCT01972841|181646145|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.67|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of micturitions per 24 hours as a covariate.||1.67|1.01|0.044
90890774|NCT01972841|181646145|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|1.84|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of micturitions per 24 hours as a covariate.||1.84|1.11|0.006
90890775|NCT01972841|181646145|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|1.9|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of micturitions per 24 hours as a covariate.||1.90|1.13|0.004
90890776|NCT01972841|181646145|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|2.08|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of micturitions per 24 hours as a covariate.||2.08|1.23|<0.001
90890777|NCT01972841|181646146|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|1.92|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours as a covariate.||1.92|1.13|0.004
90890778|NCT01972841|181646146|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|2.11|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours as a covariate.||2.11|1.24|<0.001
90890779|NCT01972841|181646146|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.59||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|2.07|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours as a covariate.||2.07|1.22|0.001
90890780|NCT01972841|181646146|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.57||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|2.04|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours as a covariate.||2.04|1.21|0.001
90890781|NCT01972841|181646147|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.78|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline PPBC as a covariate.||1.78|0.98|0.065
90890782|NCT01972841|181646147|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|2.27|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline PPBC as a covariate.||2.27|1.24|0.001
90890783|NCT01972841|181646147|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|2.36|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline PPBC as a covariate.||2.36|1.32|<0.001
90890784|NCT01972841|181646147|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|2.04|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline PPBC as a covariate.||2.04|1.12|0.007
90890785|NCT01972841|181646148|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|1.87|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline PPBC as a covariate.||1.87|1.11|0.007
90890786|NCT01972841|181646148|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|2.17|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline PPBC as a covariate.||2.17|1.28|<0.001
90890787|NCT01972841|181646148|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|2.3|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline PPBC as a covariate.||2.30|1.34|<0.001
90890788|NCT01972841|181646148|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|2.19|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline PPBC as a covariate.||2.19|1.29|<0.001
90890789|NCT01972841|181646149|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.45|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors, and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours and baseline OAB-q symptom bother scale as covariates.||1.45|0.87|0.381
90890790|NCT01972841|181646149|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.7|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors, and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours and baseline OAB-q symptom bother scale as covariates.||1.70|1.01|0.040
90890791|NCT01972841|181646149|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|2.0|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors, and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours and baseline OAB-q symptom bother scale as covariates.||2.00|1.21|0.001
90890792|NCT01972841|181646149|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.57||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|2.03|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors, and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours and baseline OAB-q symptom bother scale as covariates.||2.03|1.21|0.001
90890793|NCT01972841|181646150|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.59|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors, and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours and baseline OAB-q HRQL total score as covariates.||1.59|0.96|0.095
90890794|NCT01972841|181646150|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.62|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors, and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours and baseline OAB-q HRQL total score as covariates.||1.62|0.98|0.073
90890795|NCT01972841|181646150|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|2.13|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors, and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours and baseline OAB-q HRQL total score as covariates.||2.13|1.29|<0.001
91076498|NCT02987972|182038576|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.76|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 14||0.76|0.58|
90890796|NCT01972841|181646150|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.63|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors, and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours and baseline OAB-q HRQL total score as covariates.||1.63|0.98|0.067
90890797|NCT01972841|181646151|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.52|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors, and baseline mean number of lncontinence episodes per 24 hours and baseline PPBC as covariates.||1.52|0.91|0.210
90890798|NCT01972841|181646151|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|1.89|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors, and baseline mean number of lncontinence episodes per 24 hours and baseline PPBC as covariates.||1.89|1.13|0.004
90890799|NCT01972841|181646151|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|2.06|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors, and baseline mean number of lncontinence episodes per 24 hours and baseline PPBC as covariates.||2.06|1.23|<0.001
90890800|NCT01972841|181646151|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|2.05|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors, and baseline mean number of lncontinence episodes per 24 hours and baseline PPBC as covariates.||2.05|1.23|<0.001
90890801|NCT01972841|181646152|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.46|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors, and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours, baseline OAB-q symptom bother scale and baseline PPBC as covariates.||1.46|0.88|0.335
90890802|NCT01972841|181646152|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.81|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors, and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours, baseline OAB-q symptom bother scale and baseline PPBC as covariates.||1.81|1.09|0.009
90890803|NCT01972841|181646152|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|2.02|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors, and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours, baseline OAB-q symptom bother scale and baseline PPBC as covariates.||2.02|1.21|0.001
90890804|NCT01972841|181646152|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|2.21|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors, and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours, baseline OAB-q symptom bother scale and baseline PPBC as covariates.||2.21|1.33|<0.001
90890805|NCT01972841|181646153|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.43|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors, and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours, baseline OAB-q HRQL total score and baseline PPBC as covariates.||1.43|0.86|0.416
90890806|NCT01972841|181646153|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.59|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors, and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours, baseline OAB-q HRQL total score and baseline PPBC as covariates.||1.59|0.96|0.105
90890807|NCT01972841|181646153|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|2.16|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors, and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours, baseline OAB-q HRQL total score and baseline PPBC as covariates.||2.16|1.28|<0.001
90890808|NCT01972841|181646153|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.87|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors, and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours, baseline OAB-q HRQL total score and baseline PPBC as covariates.||1.87|1.12|0.005
90890809|NCT02085408|181646175|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.3|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio : clofarabine/(daunorubicin \& cytarabine)|||1.30|0.94|
91076499|NCT02987972|182038576|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.9||||||Type 18C|IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|0.90|0.72|
91076500|NCT02987972|182038576|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.91|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 19A||0.91|0.69|
90890810|NCT02085408|181646176|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.94
90890811|NCT03317977|181646194|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.43
90890812|NCT00688636|181646197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.0005
90890813|NCT01572727|181646202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.68||||||||1.68|0.82|
90890814|NCT04053764|181646210|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|7.14||||||||7.14|0.53|
90890815|NCT04053764|181646212|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|2.31||||||||2.31|0.23|
90890816|NCT04053764|181646213|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|3.02||||||PCR Improvement||3.02|0.29|
90890817|NCT04053764|181646213|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|3.2||||||Stable PCR||3.20|0.18|
90890818|NCT04053764|181646214|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.53|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.53|4.65||||||From baseline to 3 months||4.65|-5.53|
90890819|NCT04053764|181646214|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.32|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|11.4||||||From baseline to 6 months||11.40|-2.02|
90890820|NCT04053764|181646214|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.77|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.58|11.68||||||From baseline to 9 months||11.68|-3.58|
90890821|NCT04053764|181646214|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.17|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.28|13.67||||||From baseline to 12 months||13.67|-3.28|
90890822|NCT04053764|181646217|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.21||||||||1.21|0.09|
90890823|NCT02935062|181646222|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.001
90890824|NCT02935062|181646223|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.011
90890825|NCT02890381|181646254|OTHER||% vaccine recipients with solicited AEs|64.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|35.0|86.0||||||||86|35|
90890826|NCT02890381|181646254|OTHER||% placebo recipients with solicited AEs|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|61.0|100.0||||||||100|61|
90890827|NCT02890381|181646255|OTHER||% vaccinees with unsolicited AEs|36.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|14.0|65.0||||||||65|14|
91076501|NCT02987972|182038576|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.85|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 19F||0.85|0.65|
90890828|NCT02890381|181646255|OTHER||% placebo with unsolicited AEs|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|15.0|85.0||||||||85|15|
90890829|NCT02890381|181646260|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64||||||Since the sample sizes are unequal, at the suggestion of the DSMB statistician, a 1-sided Fisher's exact test was used to test the hypothesis that the proportions of \>=4-fold rises were higher in the vaccinated group than in the placebo group.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.64
90890830|NCT02890381|181646261|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73||||||The threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Log Rank|||||||0.73
90890831|NCT01483924|181646270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9048|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||The difference in change in PASI score from baseline to Week 12 was compared all active treatment groups and the placebo group||||0.9048
90890832|NCT01483924|181646271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1975|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Armitage trend test|||||||0.1975
90890833|NCT01483924|181646272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6349|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.6349
90890834|NCT01483924|181646273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6212|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.6212
90890835|NCT02195986|181646291|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was established for the primary endpoint if the 90% confidence interval for the difference of responder rates (test - reference) from baseline to Day 8 for the primary endpoint is contained within \[-0.20, 0.20\], using the per-protocol population.|Difference|-0.0062|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1209|0.1084||||||The compound hypothesis to test was: H0: PT -PR \< -.20 or PT -PR \> .20 versus HA : -.20 ≤ PT -PR ≤ .20 Where PT = cure rate of test treatment, and PR = cure rate of reference treatment.||0.1084|-0.1209|
90890836|NCT02195986|181646292|SUPERIORITY|Superiority test of test product vs placebo|Difference|0.3766|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2743|0.479|||Chi-squared|||Both the test and reference products should both be statistically superior to placebo (p\<0.05, two-sided) using the Chi squared test with Yate's correction for the primary endpoint responder rate, using the ITT study population and last observation carried forward. The compound hypothesis to test was: H0: PT - PP ≤ 0 versus HA: PT - PP \> 0; Where PT = cure rate of test treatment, and PP = cure rate of placebo.||0.4790|0.2743|<0.0001
90890837|NCT02195986|181646292|SUPERIORITY|Superiority test of reference product vs placebo|Difference|0.3542|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.257|0.4514|||Chi-squared|||Both the test and reference products should both be statistically superior to placebo (p\<0.05, two-sided) using the Chi squared test with Yate's correction for the primary endpoint responder rate, using the ITT study population and last observation carried forward. The compound hypothesis to test was: H0: PT - PP ≤ 0 versus HA: PT - PP \> 0; Where PT = cure rate of test treatment, and PP = cure rate of placebo.||0.4514|0.2570|<0.0001
90890838|NCT02195986|181646293|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was established for the secondary endpoint if the 90% confidence interval for the difference of responder rates (test - reference) from baseline to Day 8 for the secondary endpoint is contained within \[-0.20, 0.20\], using the per-protocol population.|Difference|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0687|0.1686||||||||0.1686|-0.0687|
90890839|NCT02195986|181646294|SUPERIORITY|Superiority test of test product vs placebo|Difference|0.1387||||0.1092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.028|0.3054|||Chi-squared|||Both the test and reference products should both be statistically superior to placebo (p\<0.05, two-sided) using the Chi squared test with Yate's correction for the secondary endpoint responder rate, using the ITT study population and last observation carried forward. The compound hypothesis to test was: H0: PT - PP ≤ 0 versus HA: PT - PP \> 0; Where PT = cure rate of test treatment, and PP = cure rate of placebo.||0.3054|-0.0280|0.1092
90890840|NCT02195986|181646294|SUPERIORITY|Superiority test of reference product vs placebo|Difference|0.1196||||0.1805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0491|0.2883|||Chi-squared|||Both the test and reference products should both be statistically superior to placebo (p\<0.05, two-sided) using the Chi squared test with Yate's correction for the secondary endpoint responder rate, using the ITT study population and last observation carried forward. The compound hypothesis to test was: H0: PT - PP ≤ 0 versus HA: PT - PP \> 0; Where PT = cure rate of test treatment, and PP = cure rate of placebo.||0.2883|-0.0491|0.1805
90890841|NCT00395876|181646340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|36.6||||0.0002||95.0|18.4|54.8||Stratified by baseline weight (\< 30 kg, ≥ 30 kg)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||54.8|18.4|0.0002
90890842|NCT00395876|181646341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.4||||0.1385||95.0|-3.1|25.8||Stratified by baseline weight (\< 30 kg, ≥ 30 kg)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||25.8|-3.1|0.1385
90890843|NCT00395876|181646342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.9||||0.0093||95.0|7.1|42.6||Stratified by baseline weight (\< 30 kg, ≥ 30 kg)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||42.6|7.1|0.0093
90890844|NCT02270450|181646351|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3||0.5|TWO_SIDED|||||A p-value less than 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for treatment, pathway, admitting attending physician specialty, Zubrod performance status, baseline albumin, and primary cancer site.|Comparing surgery to non-surgical management.|"A linear regression model was applied to the combined data from the randomized and Patient Choice (non-randomized) pathways, using the intention to treat principle with a treatment indicator variable (surgical vs non-surgical management) based on assignment. The model compares the number of good days between patients assigned to surgery and patients assigned to non-surgical management."||||0.50
90890845|NCT02270450|181646352|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.09||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|||||For all secondary analyses, p-values should be interpreted cautiously as no adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for treatment, pathway, admitting attending physician specialty, Zubrod performance status, baseline albumin, and primary cancer site.|Comparing surgery to non-surgical management.|A linear regression model was applied to the combined data from the randomized and Patient Choice (non-randomized) pathways, using the intention to treat principle with a treatment indicator variable (surgical vs non-surgical management) based on assignment. The model compares the length of the initial hospital stay between patients assigned to surgery and patients and patients assigned to non-surgical management. An interaction term between treatment and pathway was included.||||0.64
90890846|NCT02270450|181646353|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|||||For all secondary analyses, p-values should be interpreted cautiously as no adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for treatment, pathway, admitting attending physician specialty, Zubrod performance status, baseline albumin, and primary cancer site.|Comparing surgery to non-surgical management.|A parallel logistic regression model was applied to the combined data from the randomized and Patient Choice (non-randomized) pathways, using the intention to treat principle with a treatment indicator variable (surgical vs non-surgical management) based on assignment. The model compares NG tube use vs no NG tube use between patients assigned to surgery and patients assigned to non-surgical management.||||0.60
90890847|NCT02270450|181646354|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.64||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|||||For all secondary analyses, p-values should be interpreted cautiously as no adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for treatment, pathway, admitting attending physician specialty, Zubrod performance status, baseline albumin, and primary cancer site.|Comparing surgery to non-surgical management.|A linear regression model was applied to the combined data from the randomized and Patient Choice (non-randomized) pathways, using the intention to treat principle with a treatment indicator variable (surgical vs non-surgical management) based on assignment. The model compares the number of days of NG tube use between patients assigned to surgery and patients and patients assigned to non-surgical management.||||0.47
90890848|NCT02270450|181646355|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.1||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||For all secondary analyses, p-values should be interpreted cautiously as no adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for treatment, pathway, admitting attending physician specialty, Zubrod performance status, baseline albumin, and primary cancer site.|Comparing surgery to non-surgical management.|A linear regression model was applied to the combined data from the randomized and Patient Choice (non-randomized) pathways, using the intention to treat principle with a treatment indicator variable (surgical vs non-surgical management) based on assignment. The model compares the MDASI-GI Symptom Assessment score for nausea severity between patients assigned to surgery and patients and patients assigned to non-surgical management. An interaction term between treatment and pathway was included.||||0.001
90890849|NCT02270450|181646355|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.63||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|||||For all secondary analyses, p-values should be interpreted cautiously as no adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for treatment, pathway, admitting attending physician specialty, Zubrod performance status, baseline albumin, and primary cancer site.|Comparing surgery to non-surgical management.|A linear regression model was applied to the combined data from the randomized and Patient Choice (non-randomized) pathways, using the intention to treat principle with a treatment indicator variable (surgical vs non-surgical management) based on assignment. The model compares the MDASI-GI Symptom Assessment score for vomiting severity between patients assigned to surgery and patients and patients assigned to non-surgical management.||||0.008
90890850|NCT02270450|181646355|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.31||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||For all secondary analyses, p-values should be interpreted cautiously as no adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for treatment, pathway, admitting attending physician specialty, Zubrod performance status, baseline albumin, and primary cancer site.|Comparing surgery to non-surgical management.|A linear regression model was applied to the combined data from the randomized and Patient Choice (non-randomized) pathways, using the intention to treat principle with a treatment indicator variable (surgical vs non-surgical management) based on assignment. The model compares the MDASI-GI Symptom Assessment score for bloating severity between patients assigned to surgery and patients and patients assigned to non-surgical management.||||0.04
90890851|NCT02270450|181646355|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.6||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||For all secondary analyses, p-values should be interpreted cautiously as no adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for treatment, pathway, admitting attending physician specialty, Zubrod performance status, baseline albumin, and primary cancer site.|Comparing surgery to non-surgical management.|A linear regression model was applied to the combined data from the randomized and Patient Choice (non-randomized) pathways, using the intention to treat principle with a treatment indicator variable (surgical vs non-surgical management) based on assignment. The model compares the MDASI-GI Symptom Assessment score for pain severity between patients assigned to surgery and patients and patients assigned to non-surgical management. An interaction term between treatment and pathway was included.||||0.01
90890852|NCT02270450|181646355|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.9||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|||||For all secondary analyses, p-values should be interpreted cautiously as no adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for treatment, pathway, admitting attending physician specialty, Zubrod performance status, baseline albumin, and primary cancer site.|Comparing surgery to non-surgical management.|A linear regression model was applied to the combined data from the randomized and Patient Choice (non-randomized) pathways, using the intention to treat principle with a treatment indicator variable (surgical vs non-surgical management) based on assignment. The model compares the MDASI-GI Symptom Assessment score for constipation severity between patients assigned to surgery and patients and patients assigned to non-surgical management.||||0.007
90890853|NCT02270450|181646356|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.64||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|||||For all secondary analyses, p-values should be interpreted cautiously as no adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for treatment, admitting attending physician specialty, Zubrod performance status, baseline albumin, and primary cancer site.|Comparing surgery to non-surgical management.|A parallel logistic regression model was applied to the combined data from the randomized and Patient Choice (non-randomized) pathways, using the intention to treat principle with a treatment indicator variable (surgical vs non-surgical management) based on assignment. The model compares ability to eat between patients assigned to surgery and patients and patients assigned to non-surgical management.||||0.52
90890854|NCT02270450|181646357|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.09|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for treatment, pathway, admitting attending physician specialty, Zubrod performance status, baseline albumin, and primary cancer site.|Comparing surgery to non-surgical management.|A Cox proportional hazards regression model stratified by pathway (randomized vs Patient Choice) was used to estimate the effect of treatment assignment (surgery vs non-surgical management) on overall survival.||1.09|0.45|0.12
90890855|NCT02081846|181646371|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.047|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.047
90890856|NCT02081846|181646372|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.32
90890857|NCT02081846|181646373|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||censored Poisson model|||||||0.82
90890858|NCT02081846|181646374|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Poisson model|||||||<0.01
90890859|NCT02081846|181646375|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.08
90890860|NCT02081846|181646376|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.052|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.052
91076502|NCT02987972|182038576|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.07|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 23F||1.07|0.79|
90890861|NCT02081846|181646377|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.12
90890862|NCT03265600|181646378|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.91||||0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||Unadjusted bivariate logistic regression|||||||0.006
90890863|NCT03265600|181646379|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Cohen's d: -0.25||||||0.19
90890864|NCT03265600|181646380|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Cohen's d: -0.36||||||0.12
90890865|NCT03265600|181646381|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Cohen's d: -0.34||||||0.08
90890866|NCT03265600|181646382|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Cohen's d: 0.57||||||<0.001
90890867|NCT03265600|181646383|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Cohen's d: 0.41||||||0.03
90890868|NCT03265600|181646384|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Cohen's d: 0.15||||||0.31
90890869|NCT03265600|181646385|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Cohen's d: 0.22||||||0.26
90890870|NCT03265600|181646386|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Cohen's d: -0.58||||||<0.001
91076503|NCT02987972|182038576|OTHER||GMC Ratio|27.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.64|31.4|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|type 22F||31.40|24.64|
90890871|NCT03265600|181646387|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Cohen's d: 0.75||||||<0.001
90890872|NCT00535730|181646388|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The power for the noninferiority hypothesis of VZV antibody titers is 92%. The noninferiority margin is the lower bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval on the VZV antibody GMT ratio\[concomitant/nonconcomitant\] being \>0.67.||||||0.244||95.0||||The threshold for statistical significance is 0.025. There is no adjustment for multiple comparisons.|longitudinal regression model|Week 4 postvac, estimated responses, GMT ratio, 95% CI, p-value based on a longitudinal regression model adjusting for prevac titers and age (years)||The hypothesis was that the GMT of the VZV antibody responses at 4 weeks postvaccination in subjects who receive ZOSTAVAX™ concomitantly with PNEUMOVAX™ 23 will be noninferior to that in subjects who receive ZOSTAVAX™ nonconcomitantly||||0.244
90890873|NCT00535730|181646390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The threshold for statistical significance is 0.025. There is no adjustment for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 1 sided|The one-sided p-value for testing acceptability for GMFR is computed based on t-test. CI is computed based on the t distribution||The hypothesis was that ZOSTAVAX™ elicits an acceptable VZV antibody response when administered concomitantly with PNEUMOVAX™ 23.||||<0.001
90890874|NCT00535730|181646391|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The power for the noninferiority hypothesis regarding PnPs antibody titer is \~99%. The noninferiority margin is the lower bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the PnPs antibody GMT ratio \[concomitant/nonconcomitant\] being \>05.|||||<|0.001||95.0||||The threshold for statistical significance is 0.025. There is no adjustment for multiple comparisons.|longitudinal regression model|Week 4 postvac, estimated responses, GMT ratio, 95% CI, p-value based on a longitudinal regression model adjusting for prevac titers and age (years)||"The hypothesis was that the GMT of the PnPs antibody response to serotype 3 at 4 weeks postvaccination in subjects who receive ZOSTAVAX™ concomitantly with PNEUMOVAX™ 23 will be noninferior to those in subjects who~receive ZOSTAVAX™ nonconcomitantly."||||<0.001
90890875|NCT00535730|181646392|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The power for the noninferiority hypothesis regarding PnPs antibody titer is \~99%. The noninferiority margin is the lower bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the PnPs antibody GMT ratio \[concomitant/nonconcomitant\] being \>05.|||||<|0.001||95.0||||The threshold for statistical significance is 0.025. There is no adjustment for multiple comparisons.|longitudinal regression model|Week 4 postvac, estimated responses, GMT ratio, 95% CI, p-value based on a longitudinal regression model adjusting for prevac titers and age (years)||The hypothesis was that the GMT of the PnPs antibody responses to serotype 14 at 4 weeks postvaccination in subjects who receive ZOSTAVAX™ concomitantly with PNEUMOVAX™ 23 will be noninferior to those in subjects who receive ZOSTAVAX™ nonconcomitantly.||||<0.001
90890876|NCT00535730|181646393|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The power for the noninferiority hypothesis regarding PnPs antibody titer is \~99%. The noninferiority margin is the lower bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the PnPs antibody GMT ratio \[concomitant/nonconcomitant\] being \>05.|||||<|0.001||95.0||||The threshold for statistical significance is 0.025. There is no adjustment for multiple comparisons.|longitudinal regression model|Week 4 postvac, estimated responses, GMT ratio, 95% CI, p-value based on a longitudinal regression model adjusting for prevac titers and age (years)||The hypothesis was that the GMT of the PnPs antibody responses to serotype 19A at 4 weeks postvaccination in subjects who receive ZOSTAVAX™ concomitantly with PNEUMOVAX™ 23 will be noninferior to those in subjects who receive ZOSTAVAX™ nonconcomitantly.||||<0.001
90890877|NCT00535730|181646394|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The power for the noninferiority hypothesis regarding PnPs antibody titer is \~99%. The noninferiority margin is the lower bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the PnPs antibody GMT ratio \[concomitant/nonconcomitant\] being \>05.|||||<|0.001||95.0||||The threshold for statistical significance is 0.025. There is no adjustment for multiple comparisons.|longitudinal regression model|Week 4 postvac, estimated responses, GMT ratio, 95% CI, p-value based on a longitudinal regression model adjusting for prevac titers and age (years)||The hypothesis was that the GMT of the PnPs antibody responses to serotype 22F at 4 weeks postvaccination in subjects who receive ZOSTAVAX™ concomitantly with PNEUMOVAX™ 23 will be noninferior to those in subjects who receive ZOSTAVAX™ nonconcomitantly.||||<0.001
90890878|NCT00936858|181646395|OTHER||6 month PFS probability|0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||We will declare the trial a success after observing 7 or more patients with PFS within 6 months. The study will have alpha = 0.092 and power =0.970, assuming a 6 month PFS probability of 0.12 for the null and a PFS probability of 0.35 as the alternative hypothesis.||||
90890879|NCT02522715|181646411|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||two-sided exact binomial test|||One-sample binomial test with null hypothesis that the percentage of participants with PSA response 1 is equal to 25%.||||<0.01
91076504|NCT02987972|182038576|OTHER||GMC Ratio|25.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.61|28.92|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 33F||28.92|22.61|
91076505|NCT02987972|182038576|OTHER||GMC ratio|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.85|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 1||0.85|0.69|
90890880|NCT03387852|181646444|SUPERIORITY||Odds ratio|0.423|||=|0.0214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.203|0.88|||Regression, Logistic||SAR440340 300 mg vs. Placebo|Odds ratio, 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value derived from logistic regression with treatment, baseline eosinophil strata, region, background ICS dose level at randomization and number of exacerbation events (defined as required use of systemic \[oral and/or parenteral\] steroid treatment, or required hospitalization or emergency room visit) within 1 year prior to screening.||0.88|0.203|=0.0214
90890881|NCT03387852|181646444|SUPERIORITY||Odds ratio|0.52|||=|0.0709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.256|1.057|||Regression, Logistic||SAR440340 + Dupilumab vs. Placebo|Odds ratio, 95% CI, and p-value derived from logistic regression with treatment, baseline eosinophil strata, region, background ICS dose level at randomization and number of exacerbation events (defined as required use of systemic \[oral and/or parenteral\] steroid treatment, or required hospitalization or emergency room visit) within 1 year prior to screening.||1.057|0.256|=0.0709
90890882|NCT02194621|181646457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||>0.05
90890883|NCT02194621|181646458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||<0.001
90890884|NCT02194621|181646459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||>0.05
90890885|NCT02194621|181646460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.002
90890886|NCT00809757|181646471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.412|0.342|||||Difference is Placebo MDI minus Levalbuterol UDV|195 subjects were randomized in order to achieve 150 subjects completing the study. The sample size was set based on FDA requirements, and was outside of statistical considerations.||0.342|-1.412|
90890887|NCT00809757|181646471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.714|0.335|||||Difference is Levalbuterol UDV minus Levalbuterol MDI|195 subjects were randomized in order to achieve 150 subjects completing the study. The sample size was set based on FDA requirements, and was outside of statistical considerations||0.335|-1.714|
90890888|NCT00809757|181646471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|0.771|||||Difference is Levalbuterol UDV minus Levalbuterol MDI|195 subjects were randomized in order to achieve 150 subjects completing the study. The sample size was set based on FDA requirements, and was outside of statistical considerations.||0.771|-1.080|
90890889|NCT00234065|181646520|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper 95% CI limit for the HR of cilostazol to aspirin was 1.33 (4/3) or lower , cilostazol would be non-inferior to aspirin.|Hazard Ratio, log|0.743||||0.0357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.564|0.981||The log-rank test was used to verify the superiority of CLZ to ASA only if non-inferiority was verified. The adjusted significance level for the superiority test of the endpoint was set at 0.0471 (two-tailed) according to the O'Brien-Fleming method.|Log Rank|||Statistical Analysis 1 for Number of Patients With First Occurrence of Stroke||0.981|0.564|0.0357
90890890|NCT00234065|181646521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio, log|0.88||||0.4189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.645|1.2|||Log Rank|||Analyses were done using the full analysis set (FAS) of patients, as predetermined in the protocol. The full analysis set excluded patients who failed to satisfy inclusion criteria and those who violated exclusion criteria.||1.200|0.645|0.4189
90890891|NCT00234065|181646522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.898||||0.4582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.675|1.194|||Log Rank|||Analyses were done using the full analysis set (FAS) of patients, as predetermined in the protocol. The full analysis set excluded patients who failed to satisfy inclusion criteria and those who violated exclusion criteria.||1.194|0.675|0.4582
90890892|NCT00234065|181646523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.072||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.497|2.313|||Log Rank|||Analyses were done using the full analysis set (FAS) of patients, as predetermined in the protocol. The full analysis set excluded patients who failed to satisfy inclusion criteria and those who violated exclusion criteria.||2.313|0.497|0.8600
90890893|NCT00234065|181646524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.799||||0.0437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.643|0.994|||Log Rank|||Analyses were done using the full analysis set (FAS) of patients, as predetermined in the protocol. The full analysis set excluded patients who failed to satisfy inclusion criteria and those who violated exclusion criteria.||0.994|0.643|0.0437
90890894|NCT00234065|181646525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.458||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.296|0.711|||Log Rank|||Analyses were done using the full analysis set (FAS) of patients, as predetermined in the protocol. The full analysis set excluded patients who failed to satisfy inclusion criteria and those who violated exclusion criteria.||0.711|0.296|0.0004
90890895|NCT00126438|181646526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.36||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.73||At 0.025 level of significance.|Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||"Analysis based on Reader A readings. Data analysis to assess the relative hazard of an adverse cardiac event was performed using a Cox proportional hazards model. Hazard (risk) of an event for a participant with low H/M at time t was expressed as Hl (t)/ Hh (t) = Ψ, where Hl (t) and Hh (t) denote the hazard of an event at time t for participants with low H/M and high H/M respectively."||0.73|0.18|0.001
90890896|NCT00126438|181646526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.36||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.72||At 0.025 level of significance.|Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||"Analysis based on Reader B readings. Data analysis to assess the relative hazard of an adverse cardiac event was performed using a Cox proportional hazards model. Hazard (risk) of an event for a participant with low H/M at time t was expressed as Hl (t)/ Hh (t) = Ψ, where Hl (t) and Hh (t) denote the hazard of an event at time t for participants with low H/M and high H/M respectively."||0.72|0.18|0.001
91076506|NCT02987972|182038576|OTHER||GMC Ratio|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.84|2.39|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 3||2.39|1.84|
90890897|NCT00126438|181646526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.35||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.72||At 0.025 level of significance.|Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||"Analysis based on Reader C readings. Data analysis to assess the relative hazard of an adverse cardiac event was performed using a Cox proportional hazards model. Hazard (risk) of an event for a participant with low H/M at time t was expressed as Hl (t)/ Hh (t) = Ψ, where Hl (t) and Hh (t) denote the hazard of an event at time t for participants with low H/M and high H/M respectively."||0.72|0.17|0.001
90890898|NCT00785291|181646621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.45||Tests were stratified by prior taxane therapy (yes/no) and hormone receptor status (positive/negative). P-values are for a test of inferiority 2-sided and are unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|||Stratified log-rank tests are used for the two primary comparisons of PFS within an experimental arm relative to PFS within the control arm. The family-wise error rate will be controlled at a one-sided 0.025 level. This is achieved in a 3-arm trial with a common control group by conducting the marginal log-rank tests with a one-sided α = 0.0135. Sample size calculations are based on having high power to detect a hazard ratio of 1.36, in the control arm as compared to the experimental arms.||1.45|1.00|0.054
90890899|NCT00785291|181646621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|1.87||Tests were stratified by prior taxane therapy (yes/no) and hormone receptor status (positive/negative). P-values are for a test of inferiority 2-sided and are unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|||Stratified log-rank tests are used for the two primary comparisons of PFS within an experimental arm relative to PFS within the control arm. The family-wise error rate will be controlled at a one-sided 0.025 level. This is achieved in a 3-arm trial with a common control group by conducting the marginal log-rank tests with a one-sided α = 0.0135. Sample size calculations are based on having high power to detect a hazard ratio of 1.36, in the control arm as compared to the experimental arms.||1.87|1.28|<0.0001
90890900|NCT00785291|181646625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.47||Tests were stratified by prior taxane therapy (yes/no) and hormone receptor status (positive/negative).|Log Rank|||||1.47|0.92|0.20
90890901|NCT00785291|181646625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.28||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.61||Tests were stratified by prior taxane therapy (yes/no) and hormone receptor status (positive/negative).|Log Rank|||||1.61|1.01|0.038
90890902|NCT05183022|181646643|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.07
90890903|NCT01270347|181646793|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the LS mean difference 95% CI for relative change from Baseline to Day 28 in FEV1 percent predicted was \> -4%.|LSMean difference|1.86||||0.1481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|4.39|||ANCOVA||Estimates were determined from an analysis of covariance model with terms for treatment, region (US, non-US), and age (12 to 18 years, \> 18 years), and Baseline FEV1 (\< 55%, . 55%).|||4.39|-0.66|0.1481
90890904|NCT01270347|181646794|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the LS mean difference 95% CI for relative change from baseline to Day 28 in FEV1 percent predicted is \> -4%.|LSMean difference|4.968||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.653|10.59|||ANCOVA||Estimates are determined from an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, region (US, non-US), age (12-18 years, \>18 years), baseline FEV1 (\<55%, \>=55%), \& baseline as a covariate.|||10.590|-0.653|0.0830
90890905|NCT01270347|181646795|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the LS mean difference 95% CI for relative change from baseline to Day 28 in FEV1 percent predicted is \> -4%.|LSMean difference|1.57||||0.0945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.272|3.411|||ANCOVA||Estimates are determined from a repeated measures model with terms for treatment, visit, the interaction between treatment group and visit, region (US, non-US), age (12-18 years, \>18 years), baseline FEV1 (\<55%, \>=55%), and baseline as a covariate.|||3.411|-0.272|0.0945
90890906|NCT01270347|181646798|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the LS mean difference 95% CI for relative change from baseline to Day 28 in Pseudomonas Aeruginosa Sputum Density is \> -4%|LSMean difference|0.44||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.88|||ANCOVA||Estimates are determined from an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, region (US, non-US), age (12-18 years, \>18 years), baseline FEV1 (\<55%, \>=55%), and baseline organism log density.|||0.88|-0.01|0.0530
90890907|NCT01270347|181646800|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the LS mean difference 95% CI for relative change from baseline to Day 28 in Respiratory Domain of the CFQ-R is \> -4%|LSMean difference|3.19||||0.0463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|6.32|||ANCOVA||Estimates are determined from an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, region (US, non-US), age (12-18 years, \>18 years), baseline FEV1 (\<55%, \>=55%), and baseline value.|||6.32|0.05|0.0463
90890908|NCT02486328|181646811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
90890909|NCT02486328|181646812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
90890910|NCT02486328|181646813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
90890911|NCT02486328|181646814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.001
90890912|NCT02486328|181646815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.001
90890913|NCT02486328|181646816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.001
90890914|NCT02491671|181646925|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.219||||0.171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.891|1.583|||Chi-squared|||||1.583|0.891|0.171
90890915|NCT02491671|181646926|SUPERIORITY||z|0.288|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||"Wilcoxon rank-sum (Mann-Whitney) test Unadjusted variance 274999.00 Adjustment for ties --21069.78 Adjusted variance 253929.22 z = 0.288; Prob \> \|z\| = 0.7735"|||||>0.05
90890916|NCT02491671|181646927|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.351||||0.307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.657|1.879|||Chi-squared|||||1.879|0.657|0 .307
90890917|NCT02251990|181646930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The p-value was based on a one-sided asymptotic test for a binomial proportion. A one-sided p-value \<0.0125 was considered supportive of a conclusion that the true SVR12 is \>73%.|one-sided asymptotic test|||A one-sided Wald test was used to test the null hypothesis, which was that the SVR12 rate for the ITG was ≤ the historical reference rate of 73%. The historical reference SVR rate for treatment-naive genotype 1 predominantly Asian participants treated with pegylated interferon/ribavirin was derived from 2 studies (PMCID: PMC417, PMCID: PMC3644280) after adjusting for an expected improved safety profile related to an interferon-free regimen.||||<0.001
90890918|NCT02251990|181646931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|9.6||||||Estimates and 95% CIs were calculated for between-treatment differences (ITG minus DTG) in the percentage of participants with events using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||9.6|-10.6|
90890919|NCT02251990|181646932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|0.9||||||Estimates and 95% CIs were calculated for between-treatment differences (ITG minus DTG) in the percentage of participants with events using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||0.9|-4.2|
90890920|NCT00567242|181646988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2801|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1077|<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0||-0.0709|||t-test, 1 sided|||"H1: The Intention Group will show a significant rightward shift in lateral frontal laterality from pre-treatment to post-treatment.~H0: The Intention Group will show no shift in lateral frontal laterality from pre-treatment to post-treatment.~Since this is a repeated measures t test, the data are presented as the mean and standard deviation for for the post-treatment laterality index minus the pre-treatment laterality index."||-0.0709||<.05
90890921|NCT00567242|181646988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1832|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2768|<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.3546|||t-test, 1 sided|||"H1: The Control Group will show a significant rightward shift in lateral frontal lateral indices from pre-treatment to post-treatment.~H0: The Control group will show no shift in lateral frontal laterality indices from pre-treatment to post-treatment.~Since the analysis to test these hypotheses is a repeated-measures t-test, the mean and standard deviation are given for post-treatment laterality index minus pre-treatment laterality index."||0.3546||<.05
90890922|NCT00567242|181646989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88|<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-1.81||||t-test, 1 sided|||"H1: The Intention Group would show more improvement across treatment than the Control Group.~H0: The Intention Group and the Control Group would not show any difference in improvement across treatment."|||-1.81|<.05
90890923|NCT00567242|181646990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73|<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.26||||t-test, 1 sided|||"H1: The Intention Group would show more improvement across treatment than the Control Group.~H0: The Intention Group and the Control Group would not show any difference in improvement across treatment."|||0.26|<.05
90890924|NCT01201057|181646991|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.006
90890925|NCT01201057|181646992|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
90890926|NCT01201057|181646993|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.025|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.025
90890927|NCT00683644|181646999|OTHER|The observed power in THQ for zinc is 0.16, and that for placebo is 0.06.|||||>|0.05||||||Threshold for significance is 0.05|Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
90890928|NCT00683644|181647000|OTHER|||||||0.89||||||Threshold for significance is 0.05|paired t test|||||||0.89
90890929|NCT00683644|181647000|OTHER|||||||0.36||||||Threshold for significance is 0.05|paired t test|||||||0.36
90890930|NCT00683644|181647001|OTHER|||||||0.64||||||Threshold for significance is 0.05|paired t test|||||||0.64
90890931|NCT00683644|181647001|OTHER|||||||0.93||||||Threshold for significance is 0.05|paired t test|||||||0.93
90890932|NCT03240692|181647009|OTHER|||||||0.036||||||False Discovery Corrected (FDR) p value. A p-value of ≤ 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of subgenual Anterior Cingulate Cortex (sgACC) and frontal Default Mode Network (fDMN) functional connectivity||||0.036
90890933|NCT03240692|181647009|OTHER|||||||0.008||||||False Discovery Corrected (FDR) p value. A p-value of ≤ 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of subgenual Anterior Cingulate Cortex (sgACC) and medial Default Mode Network (mDMN) functional connectivity||||0.008
90890934|NCT03240692|181647009|OTHER|||||||0.06||||||False Discovery Corrected (FDR) p value. A p-value of ≤ 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of subgenual Anterior Cingulate Cortex (sgACC) and left Default Mode Network (lDMN) functional connectivity.||||0.06
90890935|NCT03240692|181647009|OTHER|||||||0.017||||||False Discovery Corrected (FDR) p value. A p-value of ≤ 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of subgenual Anterior Cingulate Cortex (sgACC) and right Default Mode Network (rDMN) functional connectivity.||||0.017
90890936|NCT00622167|181647031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0||0.0|||||Not done|||Plaque characteristics including plaque cross-sectional diameter, area measurements, plaque volume, and plaque morphology would be compared between IBIVUS, DSCT and angiography.||||0
91076507|NCT02987972|182038576|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.05|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 4||1.05|0.85|
90890937|NCT03858803|181647033|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||MANOVA|||||||<.05
90890938|NCT03858803|181647034|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||MANOVA|||||||<.05
90890939|NCT03858803|181647035|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||MANOVA|||||||<.05
90890940|NCT03858803|181647036|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||MANOVA|||||||<.05
90890941|NCT03858803|181647037|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||MANOVA|||||||<.05
90890942|NCT03858803|181647038|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||MANOVA|||||||<.05
90890943|NCT03858803|181647039|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||MANOVA|||||||<.05
90890944|NCT03858803|181647040|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||MANOVA|||||||<.05
90890945|NCT03858803|181647041|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||MANOVA|||||||<.05
90890946|NCT03858803|181647042|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||MANOVA|||||||<.05
90890947|NCT03858803|181647043|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||MANOVA|||||||<.05
90890948|NCT03762135|181647071|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.044||||||This relates to the entirety of the 6-week period.|GEE Linear Regression|Generalized Estimation Equation Linear Regression||||||0.044
90890949|NCT02474927|181647116|OTHER|Descriptive (Pre-Post)||||||0.36|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank|||||||0.36
90890950|NCT02474927|181647117|OTHER|Descriptive (pre-post)||||||0.16|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank|||||||0.16
90890951|NCT00866840|181647127|OTHER|||||||||||||||||No objective responses were seen in the first phase and accrual was stopped.|No objective responses were seen in the first phase and accrual was stopped.|||
90890952|NCT02621931|181647190|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.46|-1.15||0.05 level of significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Due to the deviation from the normal distribution assumption of the data, the primary analysis was conducted using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test as outlined in the statistical analysis plan (SAP).||-1.15|-2.46|<0.0001
90890953|NCT02621931|181647190|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.76|-1.45||0.05 level of significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Due to the deviation from the normal distribution assumption of the data, the primary analysis was conducted using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test as outlined in the SAP.||-1.45|-2.76|<0.0001
90890954|NCT02621931|181647192|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|-0.97||0.05 level of significance|ANCOVA|||||-0.97|-2.48|<0.0001
90890955|NCT02621931|181647192|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|-1.09||0.05 level of significance|ANCOVA|||||-1.09|-2.61|<0.0001
90890956|NCT02621931|181647193|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||0.05 level of significance. P-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline preventive medication use.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Month 1: Active 675/placebo/placebo to Placebo||||<0.0001
90890957|NCT02621931|181647193|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||0.05 level of significance. P-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline preventive medication use.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Month 1: Active 675/225/225 to Placebo||||<0.0001
90890958|NCT02621931|181647193|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||0.05 level of significance. P-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline preventive medication use.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Month 2||||<0.0001
90890959|NCT02621931|181647193|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||0.05 level of significance. P-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline preventive medication use.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Month 2||||<0.0001
90890960|NCT02621931|181647193|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||0.05 level of significance. P-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline preventive medication use.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Month 3||||<0.0001
90890961|NCT02621931|181647193|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||0.05 level of significance. P-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline preventive medication use.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Month 3||||<0.0001
90890962|NCT02621931|181647193|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||0.05 level of significance. P-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline preventive medication use.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Overall||||<0.0001
90890963|NCT02621931|181647193|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||0.05 level of significance. P-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline preventive medication use.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Overall||||<0.0001
90890964|NCT02621931|181647194|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||0.05 level of significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Due to the deviation from the normal distribution assumption of the data, the primary analysis was conducted using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test as outlined in the SAP.||||<0.0001
90890965|NCT02621931|181647194|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||0.05 level of significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Due to the deviation from the normal distribution assumption of the data, the primary analysis was conducted using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test as outlined in the SAP.||||<0.0001
90890966|NCT02621931|181647195|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.95|-1.73||0.05 level of significance|ANCOVA|||||-1.73|-2.95|<0.0001
90890967|NCT02621931|181647196|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||0.05 level of significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Due to the deviation from the normal distribution assumption of the data, the primary analysis was conducted using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test as outlined in the SAP.||||<0.0001
90890968|NCT02621931|181647196|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||0.05 level of significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Due to the deviation from the normal distribution assumption of the data, the primary analysis was conducted using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test as outlined in the SAP.||||<0.0001
90890969|NCT02621931|181647197|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004||||||0.05 level of significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Due to the deviation from the normal distribution assumption of the data, the primary analysis was conducted using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test as outlined in the SAP.||||0.0004
90890970|NCT02621931|181647197|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||0.05 level of significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Due to the deviation from the normal distribution assumption of the data, the primary analysis was conducted using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test as outlined in the SAP.||||<0.0001
90890971|NCT00920426|181647205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.547|-1.632||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as fixed effect, and Baseline HIV-1 RNA as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-1.632|-2.547|<0.001
90890972|NCT00920426|181647231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.804|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.173|-1.436||ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect, and baseline HIV-1 RNA as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-1.436|-2.173|<0.001
90890973|NCT00920426|181647232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
90890974|NCT01466985|181647242|SUPERIORITY|Doravirine was declared superior to placebo when the upper bound of the 90% CI was \<-1.|Least squares (LS) mean difference|-1.37|||<|0.001||90.0|-1.6|-1.02|||ANCOVA|||||-1.02|-1.60|<0.001
90890975|NCT01466985|181647242|SUPERIORITY|Doravirine was declared superior to placebo when the upper bound of the 90% CI was \<-1.|LS mean difference|-1.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.51|-1.02|||ANCOVA|||||-1.02|-1.51|<0.001
90890976|NCT00886340|181647249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08||95.0||||controlled for site, income, race/ethnicity|Mixed Models Analysis|||pilot test, used 20% of sample required for a full test of the hypothesis||||0.08
90890977|NCT02985866|181647253|SUPERIORITY|The first co-primary end point was superiority of CLC over SAP in terms of CGM-measured time below 70 mg/dL. The treatment groups were compared using linear models while adjusting for age, corresponding baseline value, previous CGM use, and a random center effect. Missing baseline data were handled by direct likelihood method. Model residuals were confirmed to be approximately normally distributed.|||||<|0.0001||||||To address the issue of multiple comparisons with 2 primary outcomes, the intervention was considered effective only if both co-primary outcomes were statistically significant at 5% level. P value for noninferiority NI (prespecified NI limit = 5%).|Mixed Models Analysis|The groups were compared using linear models while adjusting for age, corresponding baseline value, previous CGM use, and a random center effect.||Statistical analyses were performed on an intention-to-treat basis, and all participants with any amount of post randomization data were included in all analyses.||||<0.0001
90890978|NCT02985866|181647254|NON_INFERIORITY|The second co-primary end point was noninferiority in CGM-measured time above 180 mg/dL, with a noninferiority limit of 5%. The treatment groups were compared using linear models while adjusting for age, corresponding baseline value, previous CGM use, and a random center effect. Missing baseline data were handled by direct likelihood method. Model residuals were confirmed to be approximately normally distributed.|||||<|0.0001||||||To address the issue of multiple comparisons with 2 primary outcomes, the intervention was considered effective only if both co-primary outcomes were statistically significant at 5% level. P value for noninferiority NI (prespecified NI limit = 5%).|Mixed Models Analysis|The groups were compared using linear models while adjusting for age, corresponding baseline value, previous CGM use, and a random center effect.||Statistical analyses were performed on an intention-to-treat basis, and all participants with any amount of post randomization data were included in all analyses.||||<0.0001
90890979|NCT02985866|181647255|SUPERIORITY|Same as for primary outcome 1|||||<|0.05||||||All secondary analyses were corrected for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate at a 10% level for statistical significance. All secondary P values reported are two-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|The groups were compared using linear models while adjusting for age, corresponding baseline value, previous CGM use, and a random center effect.||Same as for the primary outcomes||||<0.05
90890980|NCT02985866|181647256|SUPERIORITY|Same as for primary outcome 1|||||<|0.05||||||All secondary analyses were corrected for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate at a 10% level for statistical significance. All secondary P values reported are two-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|The groups were compared using linear models while adjusting for age, corresponding baseline value, previous CGM use, and a random center effect.||Same as for the primary outcomes||||<0.05
90890981|NCT02985866|181647257|SUPERIORITY|Same as for primary outcome 1|||||<|0.05||||||All secondary analyses were corrected for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate at a 10% level for statistical significance. All secondary P values reported are two-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|The groups were compared using linear models while adjusting for age, corresponding baseline value, previous CGM use, and a random center effect.||Same as for the primary outcomes||||<0.05
90890982|NCT02985866|181647258|SUPERIORITY|Same as for primary outcome 1|||||<|0.05||||||All secondary analyses were corrected for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate at a 10% level for statistical significance. All secondary P values reported are two-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|The groups were compared using linear models while adjusting for age, corresponding baseline value, previous CGM use, and a random center effect.||Same as for the primary outcomes||||<0.05
90890983|NCT02985866|181647259|SUPERIORITY|Same as for primary outcome 1|||||<|0.05||||||All secondary analyses were corrected for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate at a 10% level for statistical significance. All secondary P values reported are two-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|The groups were compared using linear models while adjusting for age, corresponding baseline value, previous CGM use, and a random center effect.||Same as for the primary outcomes||||<0.05
90890984|NCT02985866|181647260|SUPERIORITY|Same as for primary outcome 1|||||<|0.05||||||All secondary analyses were corrected for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate at a 10% level for statistical significance. All secondary P values reported are two-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|The groups were compared using linear models while adjusting for age, corresponding baseline value, previous CGM use, and a random center effect.||Same as for the primary outcomes||||<0.05
90890985|NCT02985866|181647261|SUPERIORITY|Same as for primary outcome 1|||||<|0.05||||||All secondary analyses were corrected for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate at a 10% level for statistical significance. All secondary P values reported are two-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|The groups were compared using linear models while adjusting for age, corresponding baseline value, previous CGM use, and a random center effect.||Same as for the primary outcomes||||<0.05
90890986|NCT00686166|181647277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|TWO_SIDED||||||Exact binomal test|||||||0.18
90890987|NCT00985725|181647280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.0||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|-3.3|||ANCOVA|||||-3.3|-12.7|0.0009
90890988|NCT00985725|181647281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||0.0465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.0|-3.7|0.0465
90890989|NCT00985725|181647282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.1||||0.0181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|-0.9|||ANCOVA|||Behavioral recognition index||-0.9|-9.4|0.0181
90890990|NCT00985725|181647282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.2||||0.0204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|-0.7|||ANCOVA|||Inhibit subscale||-0.7|-7.7|0.0204
90890991|NCT00985725|181647282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.6||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|-1.4|||ANCOVA|||Shift subscale||-1.4|-9.8|0.0090
90890992|NCT00985725|181647282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.7||||0.0793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Emotional control subscale||0.4|-7.9|0.0793
90890993|NCT00985725|181647282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.2||||0.1014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Self-monitor subscale||0.6|-7.0|0.1014
90890994|NCT00985725|181647282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.0||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|-4.3|||ANCOVA|||Metacognition index||-4.3|-13.7|0.0002
90890995|NCT00985725|181647282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.6||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|-4.2|||ANCOVA|||Initiate subscale||-4.2|-12.9|0.0002
90890996|NCT00985725|181647282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.1||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|-4.5|||ANCOVA|||Working memory subscale||-4.5|-13.7|0.0001
90890997|NCT00985725|181647282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.5||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|-3.1|||ANCOVA|||Plan/Organize subscale||-3.1|-11.9|0.0010
90890998|NCT00985725|181647282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.9||||0.0357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||Task monitor subscale||-0.3|-9.4|0.0357
90890999|NCT00985725|181647282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.0||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|-2.8|||ANCOVA|||Organization of materials subscale||-2.8|-11.1|0.0012
90891000|NCT00985725|181647287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.4||||0.1731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|2.0|||ANCOVA|||||2.0|-10.9|0.1731
90891001|NCT00993655|181647295|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.065|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|adjusting for stratification factors at randomization||Assume that the 9-month PD rate in IV arm (Arm 1) will be 40% (based on experience with data from NCIC CTG OV.16 and that of NCRI UK). The target sample size of 200 will enable the detection of a 19% difference between Arms 1 and 3 in 9 month progression disease rate post randomization with 80% power at two-sided 0.05 level.||||0.065
90891002|NCT00993655|181647296|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.22||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.75|||Log Rank|Adjusting for stratification factors at randomization||||1.75|0.85|0.27
90891003|NCT00993655|181647297|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.25||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|2.13|||Log Rank|Adjusting for stratification factors at randomization||||2.13|0.74|0.40
91076508|NCT02987972|182038576|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.95|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 5||0.95|0.77|
91076509|NCT02987972|182038576|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.74|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 6A||0.74|0.57|
90891004|NCT02314624|181647298|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.734||||||Analyses were performed on each subscale individually. This is the p-value for the Depression subscale.|Chi-squared|GEE Type III chi squared distribution with 3 degrees of freedom was used to examine between-condition change over time from baseline.||We used the Generalized Linear Model to examine the between-condition change over time on study outcomes. We computed the design effects due to this nested design to determine the extent to which the intraclass correlation due to clustering and size of the cluster affected the analyses. Design effects ranged up to 1.8. Because all were under 2.0, we did not adjust analyses to account for clustering effects.||||.734
90891005|NCT02314624|181647298|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27||||||Analyses were performed on each subscale individually. This is the p-value for the Anxiety subscale.|Chi-squared|GEE Type III chi squared distribution with 3 degrees of freedom was used to examine between-condition change over time from baseline||We used a Generalized Linear Model to examine the between-condition change over time on study outcomes. We computed the design effects due to this nested design to determine the extent to which the intraclass correlation due to clustering and size of the cluster affected the analyses. Design effects ranged up to 1.8. Because all were under 2.0, we did not adjust analyses to account for clustering effects.||||.27
90891006|NCT02314624|181647298|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75||||||Analyses were performed on each subscale individually. This is the p-value for the Stress subscale.|Chi-squared|GEE Type III chi squared distribution with 3 degrees of freedom was used to examine between-condition change over time from baseline||We used a Generalized Linear Model to examine the between-condition change over time on study outcomes. We computed the design effects due to this nested design to determine the extent to which the intraclass correlation due to clustering and size of the cluster affected the analyses. Design effects ranged up to 1.8. Because all were under 2.0, we did not adjust analyses to account for clustering effects.||||.75
90891007|NCT02314624|181647298|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.812||||||Analyses were performed on each subscale individually. This is the p-value for the Suicide subscale.|Chi-squared|GEE Type III chi squared distribution with 3 degrees of freedom was used to examine between-condition change over time from baseline.||We used the Generalized Linear Model to examine the between-condition change over time on study outcomes. We computed the design effects due to this nested design to determine the extent to which the intraclass correlation due to clustering and size of the cluster affected the analyses. Design effects ranged up to 1.8. Because all were under 2.0, we did not adjust analyses to account for clustering effects.||||.812
90891008|NCT02314624|181647299|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036|||||||Chi-squared|GEE Type III chi squared distribution with 3 degrees of freedom was used to examine between-condition change over time from baseline.||We used the Generalized Linear Model to examine the between-condition change over time. We computed the design effects due to this nested design to determine the extent to which the intraclass correlation due to clustering and size of the cluster affected the analyses. Design effects ranged up to 1.8. Because all were under 2.0, we did not adjust analyses to account for clustering effects.||||.036
90891009|NCT02314624|181647300|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.664|||||||Chi-squared|GEE Type III chi squared distribution with 3 degrees of freedom was used to examine between-condition change over time from baseline||We used the Generalized Linear Model to examine the between-condition change over time on study outcomes. We computed the design effects due to this nested design to determine the extent to which the intraclass correlation due to clustering and size of the cluster affected the analyses. Design effects ranged up to 1.8. Because all were under 2.0, we did not adjust analyses to account for clustering effects.||||.664
90891010|NCT02314624|181647301|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.764|||||||Chi-squared|GEE Type III chi squared distribution with 3 degrees of freedom was used to examine between-condition change over time from baseline.||We used the Generalized Linear Model to examine the between-condition change over time on study outcomes. We computed the design effects due to this nested design to determine the extent to which the intraclass correlation due to clustering and size of the cluster affected the analyses. Design effects ranged up to 1.8. Because all were under 2.0, we did not adjust analyses to account for clustering effects.||||.764
90891011|NCT02314624|181647302|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||Chi-squared|GEE Type III chi squared distribution with 3 degrees of freedom was used to examine between-condition change over time from baseline.||We used the Generalized Linear Model to examine the between-condition change over time on study outcomes. We computed the design effects due to this nested design to determine the extent to which the intraclass correlation due to clustering and size of the cluster affected the analyses. Design effects ranged up to 1.8. Because all were under 2.0, we did not adjust analyses to account for clustering effects.||||.440
90891012|NCT02314624|181647303|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||Chi-squared|GEE Type III chi squared distribution with 2 degrees of freedom was used to examine between-condition change over time.||We used the Generalized Linear Model to examine the between-condition change over time on study outcomes. We computed the design effects due to this nested design to determine the extent to which the intraclass correlation due to clustering and size of the cluster affected the analyses. Design effects ranged up to 1.8. Because all were under 2.0, we did not adjust analyses to account for clustering effects.||||.09
90891013|NCT02314624|181647304|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Chi-squared|GEE Type III chi squared distribution with 2 degrees of freedom was used to examine between-condition change over time from baseline.||We used the Generalized Linear Model to examine the between-condition change over time on study outcomes. We computed the design effects due to this nested design to determine the extent to which the intraclass correlation due to clustering and size of the cluster affected the analyses. Design effects ranged up to 1.8. Because all were under 2.0, we did not adjust analyses to account for clustering effects.||||.19
90891014|NCT02314624|181647305|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Chi-squared|GEE Type III chi squared distribution with 1 degrees of freedom was used to examine between-condition change over time from baseline.||We used the Generalized Linear Model to examine the between-condition change over time on study outcomes. We computed the design effects due to this nested design to determine the extent to which the intraclass correlation due to clustering and size of the cluster affected the analyses. Design effects ranged up to 1.8. Because all were under 2.0, we did not adjust analyses to account for clustering effects.||||.15
91076510|NCT02987972|182038576|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.28|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 6B||1.28|0.97|
90891015|NCT02314624|181647306|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|GEE Type III chi squared distribution with 1 degrees of freedom was used to examine between-condition change over time from baseline.||We used the Generalized Linear Model to examine the between-condition change over time on study outcomes. We computed the design effects due to this nested design to determine the extent to which the intraclass correlation due to clustering and size of the cluster affected the analyses. Design effects ranged up to 1.8. Because all were under 2.0, we did not adjust analyses to account for clustering effects.||||<.001
90891016|NCT02314624|181647307|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||Chi-squared|GEE Type III chi squared distribution with 3 degrees of freedom was used to examine between-condition change over time from baseline.||We used the Generalized Linear Model to examine the between-condition change over time on study outcomes. We computed the design effects due to this nested design to determine the extent to which the intraclass correlation due to clustering and size of the cluster affected the analyses. Design effects ranged up to 1.8. Because all were under 2.0, we did not adjust analyses to account for clustering effects.||||.14
90891017|NCT02314624|181647308|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||Chi-squared|GEE Type III chi squared distribution with 3 degrees of freedom was used to examine between-condition change over time from baseline.||We used the Generalized Linear Model to examine the between-condition change over time on study outcomes. We computed the design effects due to this nested design to determine the extent to which the intraclass correlation due to clustering and size of the cluster affected the analyses. Design effects ranged up to 1.8. Because all were under 2.0, we did not adjust analyses to account for clustering effects.||||.22
90891018|NCT02314624|181647309|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|GEE Type III chi squared distribution with 3 degrees of freedom was used to examine between-condition change over time from baseline.||We used the Generalized Linear Model to examine the between-condition change over time on study outcomes. We computed the design effects due to this nested design to determine the extent to which the intraclass correlation due to clustering and size of the cluster affected the analyses. Design effects ranged up to 1.8. Because all were under 2.0, we did not adjust analyses to account for clustering effects.||||<.001
90891019|NCT02314624|181647310|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Chi-squared|GEE Type III chi squared distribution with 3 degrees of freedom was used to examine between-condition change over time from baseline.||We used the Generalized Linear Model to examine the between-condition change over time on study outcomes. We computed the design effects due to this nested design to determine the extent to which the intraclass correlation due to clustering and size of the cluster affected the analyses. Design effects ranged up to 1.8. Because all were under 2.0, we did not adjust analyses to account for clustering effects.||||.001
90891020|NCT02314624|181647311|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Chi-squared|GEE Type III chi squared distribution with 2 degrees of freedom was used to examine between-condition change over time from baseline.||We used the Generalized Linear Model to examine the between-condition change over time on study outcomes. We computed the design effects due to this nested design to determine the extent to which the intraclass correlation due to clustering and size of the cluster affected the analyses. Design effects ranged up to 1.8. Because all were under 2.0, we did not adjust analyses to account for clustering effects.||||.99
90891021|NCT03912259|181647317|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|22.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.37|32.65||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was derived by the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline disease severity (IGA=3 vs. IGA=4).||||32.65|11.37|<.0001
90891022|NCT02131272|181647349|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was considered fulfilled if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference between detemir and NPH was below or equal to 0.4%. The sample size was set to ensure 80% power for the full analysis set (FAS). However, efficacy conclusions cannot be drawn from the analysis due to low number of subjects included in the trial.|Least squares mean difference|0.17||||0.3075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|1.09||p value is reported for 1 sided test|Mixed Models Analysis|||HbA1c measurements were analysed with a mixed model for repeated measurements with an unstructured covariance matrix. The model included treatment, visit, age group, prior antidiabetic therapy and interaction between prior antidiabetic therapy and age group as fixed factors and the HbA1c baseline value as covariate. Interactions between visit and all factors and covariates were also included in the model.||1.09|-0.74|0.3075
90891023|NCT00464815|181647362|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for non-inferiority: the lower limit (LL) of the 2-sided standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for the group difference (Nimenrix Group minus Mencevax ACWY Group) in the percentage of subjects with bactericidal vaccine response was greater than or equal to (≥) the pre-defined clinical limit of -10%.|Rate difference|7.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.63|14.87||||||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of Nimenrix vaccine versus Mencevax ACWY vaccine in term of rSBA-MenA vaccine response, the standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the difference in rSBA vaccine response rate for the meningococcal serogroup A (Nimenrix Group rate minus Mencevax ACWY Group rate) one month after vaccination was computed.||14.87|1.63|
90891024|NCT00464815|181647362|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for non-inferiority: the lower limit (LL) of the 2-sided standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval for the group difference \[Nimenrix Group minus Mencevax ACWY Group\] in the percentage of subjects with bactericidal vaccine response was greater than or equal to (≥) the pre-defined clinical limit of -10%.|Rate Difference|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|4.18||||||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of Nimenrix vaccine versus Mencevax ACWY vaccine in term of rSBA-MenC vaccine response, the standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the difference in rSBA vaccine response rate for the meningococcal serogroup C (Nimenrix Group rate minus Mencevax ACWY Group rate) one month after vaccination was computed.||4.18|-1.65|
90891025|NCT00464815|181647362|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for non-inferiority: the lower limit (LL) of the 2-sided standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval for the group difference \[Nimenrix Group minus Mencevax ACWY Group\] in the percentage of subjects with bactericidal vaccine response was greater than or equal to (≥) the pre-defined clinical limit of -10%.|Rate difference|8.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.78|14.14||||||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of Nimenrix vaccine versus Mencevax ACWY vaccine in term of rSBA-MenW-135 vaccine response, the standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the difference in rSBA vaccine response rate for the meningococcal serogroup W-135 (Nimenrix Group rate minus Mencevax ACWY Group rate) one month after vaccination was computed.||14.14|4.78|
91076511|NCT02987972|182038576|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.86|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 7F||0.86|0.70|
90891026|NCT00464815|181647362|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for non-inferiority: the lower limit (LL) of the 2-sided standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for the group difference \[Nimenrix Group minus Mencevax ACWY Group\] in the percentage of subjects with bactericidal vaccine response was greater than or equal to (≥) the pre-defined clinical limit of -10%.|Rate difference|15.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.89|21.37||||||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of Nimenrix vaccine versus Mencevax ACWY vaccine in term of rSBA-MenY vaccine response, the standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the difference in rSBA vaccine response rate for the meningococcal serogroup Y (Nimenrix Group rate minus Mencevax ACWY Group rate) one month after vaccination was computed.||21.37|9.89|
90891027|NCT00464815|181647363|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for non-inferiority: the upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the ratio of the percentages of subjects with any Grade 3 general symptom was lower than or equal to (≤) the pre-defined clinical limit of 3.0.|Risk Ratio (RR)|4.02||||0.1456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|24.6|||Chi-squared|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of Nimenrix™ vaccine versus Mencevax™ vaccine in terms of incidence of any Grade 3 general (solicited and unsolicited) symptom, the 2-sided standardised asymptotic 95% CI for the ratio between Nimenrix and Mencevax groups (Nimenrix over Mencevax) in the percentage of subjects with any grade 3 general symptom within 4 days after vaccination was computed for the safety analysis in study MenACWY-TT-036.||24.6|0.68|0.1456
90891028|NCT00483184|181647397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.404||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Results were expressed as mean or number. Normal distributed data among the treatment groups were compared by One-way ANOVA test, non-normal distributed data were compared by Kruskal Wallis test, and then Bonferroni post-hoc test was used for multiple comparisons. Differences from baseline within treatment groups were evaluated by repeated measures ANOVA test for normal distributed data, Freidman test for non-normal distributed data.||||0.404
90891029|NCT01992380|181647399|OTHER||ICC|0.971|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.935|0.988|||||Assessed the agreement between the test and retest imaging of the combination VOI SUVr|Intraclass correlation coefficient \[ICC(2,1)\] analysis from Shrout and Fleiss||0.988|0.935|
90891030|NCT01992380|181647400|OTHER||ICC|0.968|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.926|0.986|||||Assessed the agreement between the test and retest imaging of the combination VOI SUVr|Intraclass correlation coefficient \[ICC(2,1)\] analysis from Shrout and Fleiss||0.986|0.926|
90891031|NCT02071173|181647403|SUPERIORITY|Single group test comparison to a performance goal of 87%. Lower one-sided 97.5% confidence limit was compared to the performance goal. If lower confidence limit exceeded performance goal, null hypothesis was rejected.|Percent|98.5|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|97.0|||||||Ho: The Implant through 6-month lead-related complication-free rate ≤ 87%, Ha: The Implant through 6-month lead-related complication-free rate \> 87%|||97.0|
90891032|NCT02071173|181647404|SUPERIORITY|Single group test comparison to a performance goal of 85%. Lower one-sided 95% confidence limit was compared to the performance goal. If lower confidence limit exceeded performance goal, null hypothesis was rejected.|Percent|96.5|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|93.8|||||||Ho: The Implant through 6-month lead-related complication-free rate ≤ 85%, Ha: The Implant through 6-month lead-related complication-free rate \> 85%|||93.8|
90891033|NCT02071173|181647405|SUPERIORITY|Single group test comparison to a performance goal of 75%. Lower one-sided 97.5% confidence limit was compared to the performance goal. If lower confidence limit exceeded performance goal, null hypothesis was rejected.|Percent|94.0|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|92.0|||||||Ho: Percentage of PCT less than or equal to 2.5V ≤ 75%, Ha: Percentage of PCT less than or equal to 2.5V \> 75%|||92.0|
90891034|NCT02071173|181647406|SUPERIORITY|Single group test comparison to a performance goal of 75%. Lower one-sided 97.5% confidence limit was compared to the performance goal. If lower confidence limit exceeded performance goal, null hypothesis was rejected.|Percent|91.1|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|88.2|||||||Ho: Percentage of PCT less than or equal to 2.5V ≤ 75%, Ha: Percentage of PCT less than or equal to 2.5V \> 75%|||88.2|
90891035|NCT02071173|181647407|SUPERIORITY|Single group test comparison to a performance goal of 93%. Lower one-sided 95% confidence limit was compared to the performance goal. If lower confidence limit exceeded performance goal, null hypothesis was rejected.|Percent|98.2|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|97.5|||||||Ho: The Implant through 3-month lead-related complication-free rate ≤ 93%, Ha: The Implant through 3-month lead-related complication-free rate \> 93%|||97.5|
90891036|NCT02071173|181647408|SUPERIORITY|Single group test comparison to a performance goal of 94%. Lower one-sided 95% confidence limit was compared to the performance goal. If lower confidence limit exceeded performance goal, null hypothesis was rejected.|Percent|99.3|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|98.8|||||||Ho: The 3- through 24-month lead-related complication-free rate ≤ 94%, Ha: The 3- through 24-month lead-related complication-free rate \> 94%|||98.8|
90891037|NCT02071173|181647409|SUPERIORITY|Single group test comparison to a performance goal of 1.5 Volts. Upper one-sided 95% confidence limit was compared to the performance goal. If upper confidence limit was lower than the performance goal, null hypothesis was rejected.|Mean|0.56|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.58||||||Ho: The 3-month mean PCT ≥ 1.5 Volts, Ha: The 3-month mean PCT \< 1.5 Volts||0.58||
90891038|NCT02071173|181647410|SUPERIORITY|Single group test comparison to a performance goal of 3 mV. Lower one-sided 95% confidence limit was compared to the performance goal. If lower confidence limit was greater than the performance goal, null hypothesis was rejected.|Mean|17.4|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|16.7|||||||Ho: The 3-month mean sensed amplitude ≤ 3 mV, Ha: The 3-month mean sensed amplitude \> 3 mV|||16.7|
90891039|NCT02071173|181647411|SUPERIORITY|Single group test comparison to a performance goal of 3 mV. Lower one-sided 95% confidence limit was compared to the performance goal. If lower confidence limit was greater than the performance goal, null hypothesis was rejected.|Mean|16.1|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|15.1|||||||Ho: The 3-month mean sensed amplitude ≤ 3 mV, Ha: The 3-month mean sensed amplitude \> 3 mV|||15.1|
90891040|NCT02071173|181647412|SUPERIORITY|Single group test comparison to a performance goal of 300 ohms. Lower one-sided 95% confidence limit was compared to the performance goal. If lower confidence limit was greater than the performance goal, null hypothesis was rejected.|Mean|776.0|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|753.0|||||||Ho: The 3-month mean pacing impedance ≤ 300 ohms, Ha: The 3-month mean pacing impedance \> 300 ohms|||753|
90891041|NCT02071173|181647413|SUPERIORITY|Single group test comparison to a performance goal of 300 ohms. Lower one-sided 95% confidence limit was compared to the performance goal. If lower confidence limit was greater than the performance goal, null hypothesis was rejected.|Mean|805.0|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|763.0|||||||Ho: The 3-month mean pacing impedance ≤ 300 ohms, Ha: The 3-month mean pacing impedance \> 300 ohms|||763|
91076512|NCT02987972|182038576|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.97|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 9V||0.97|0.76|
90891042|NCT02071173|181647414|SUPERIORITY|Single group test comparison to a performance goal of 4.5 seconds. Upper one-sided 95% confidence limit was compared to the performance goal. If upper confidence limit was lower than the performance goal, null hypothesis was rejected.|Mean|3.14|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||3.2||||||Ho: The mean detection time ≥ 4.5 seconds, Ha: The mean detection time \< 4.5 seconds||3.20||
90891043|NCT02071173|181647415|SUPERIORITY|Single group test comparison to a performance goal of 5 mV. Lower one-sided 95% confidence limit was compared to the performance goal. If lower confidence limit was greater than the performance goal, null hypothesis was rejected.|Mean|18.3|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|6.2|||||||Ho: The 3-month mean sensed amplitude ≤ 5 mV, Ha: The 3-month mean sensed amplitude \> 5 mV|||6.2|
90891044|NCT02071173|181647416|OTHER|Two one-sided tests (TOST) were performed.|Mean|468.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|463.0|472.0||||||Ho: Pacing impedance ≤ 300 Ω or pacing impedance ≥ 1200 Ω, Ha: 300 Ω \< Pacing impedance \< 1200 Ω||472|463|
90891045|NCT02071173|181647417|OTHER|Two one-sided tests (TOST) were performed.|Mean|702.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|659.0|744.0||||||Ho: Pacing impedance ≤ 300 Ω or pacing impedance ≥ 1200 Ω, Ha: 300 Ω \< Pacing impedance \< 1200 Ω||744|659|
90891046|NCT02071173|181647418|SUPERIORITY|Single group test comparison to a performance goal of 93%. Lower one-sided 95% confidence limit was compared to the performance goal. If lower confidence limit was greater than the performance goal, null hypothesis was rejected.|Percent|99.5|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|98.4|||||||Ho: Percent of successful conversion ≤ 93%, Ha: Percent of successful conversion \> 93%|||98.4|
90891047|NCT00515502|181647428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.31|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|2.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.2|-3.0|
90891048|NCT00515502|181647428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.9|-2.1|
90891049|NCT00515502|181647428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.77|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|5.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.7|-1.4|
90891050|NCT00515502|181647428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.79|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.9|-6.2|
90891051|NCT00515502|181647428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.78|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|5.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.8|-1.3|
90891052|NCT00515502|181647428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.89|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|6.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.9|-0.7|
90891053|NCT00515502|181647428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.46|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|9.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.7|-0.1|
90891054|NCT00515502|181647429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.844|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.47|0.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.92|-2.47|
90891055|NCT00515502|181647429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.798|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|2.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.64|-0.57|
90891056|NCT00515502|181647429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.151|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|4.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.26|-0.35|
90891057|NCT00515502|181647429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.193|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.11|0.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.67|-4.11|
90891058|NCT00515502|181647429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.19|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|3.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.33|-1.44|
90891059|NCT00515502|181647429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.257|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|5.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.28|0.24|
90891060|NCT00515502|181647429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.67|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|7.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.02|0.34|
90891061|NCT00515502|181647430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|3.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.4|-5.0|
90891062|NCT00515502|181647430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.6|-7.6|
90891063|NCT00515502|181647430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.74|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|8.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.7|-2.2|
90891064|NCT00515502|181647430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|7.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.2|-4.7|
90891065|NCT00515502|181647430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.83|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|3.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.6|-7.7|
90891066|NCT00515502|181647430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.6|-11.2|
90891067|NCT00515502|181647430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|10.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||10.0|-5.9|
90891068|NCT00515502|181647431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.902|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.23|1.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.39|-6.23|
90891069|NCT00515502|181647431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.834|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.56|1.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.79|-5.56|
90891070|NCT00515502|181647431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.474|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.82|6.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.07|-3.82|
90891071|NCT00515502|181647431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.697|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.07|5.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.69|-5.07|
90891072|NCT00515502|181647431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.562|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.84|2.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.38|-7.84|
90891073|NCT00515502|181647431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.898|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.97|3.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.59|-7.97|
90891074|NCT00515502|181647431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.618|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.39|8.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.02|-6.39|
90891075|NCT00515502|181647432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.31|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.2|-5.1|
90891076|NCT00515502|181647432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.4|-4.6|
90891077|NCT00515502|181647432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.67|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|6.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.6|-0.0|
90891078|NCT00515502|181647432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.77|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.2|-5.9|
90891079|NCT00515502|181647432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.71|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|3.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.3|-3.5|
90891080|NCT00515502|181647432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|4.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.1|-3.5|
90891081|NCT00515502|181647432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.35|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|10.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||10.4|1.0|
90891082|NCT00515502|181647433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.051|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.08|-0.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.87|-5.08|
90891083|NCT00515502|181647433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.006|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.53|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.50|-3.53|
90891084|NCT00515502|181647433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.335|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|4.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.88|-0.46|
90891085|NCT00515502|181647433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.409|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.13|-0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.50|-6.13|
90891086|NCT00515502|181647433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.366|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.38|3.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.07|-2.38|
90891087|NCT00515502|181647433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.514|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|4.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.82|-1.22|
90891088|NCT00515502|181647433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.867|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.81|9.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.25|1.81|
90891089|NCT00515502|181647434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.256|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.82|3.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.21|-9.82|
90891090|NCT00515502|181647434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.193|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|8.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.09|-4.70|
90891091|NCT00515502|181647434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.268|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.06|6.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.98|-10.06|
90891092|NCT00515502|181647434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.347|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.84|3.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.50|-13.84|
90891093|NCT00515502|181647434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.264|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.65|10.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||10.37|-6.65|
90891094|NCT00515502|181647434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.622|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|16.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||16.08|-2.35|
90891095|NCT00515502|181647434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.634|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.59|14.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||14.85|-7.59|
90891096|NCT00515502|181647435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.298|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3297|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.961|4.365|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.365|-4.961|
90891097|NCT00515502|181647435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.066|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2776|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.495|5.627|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.627|-3.495|
90891098|NCT00515502|181647435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.062|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0952|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.247|4.122|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.122|-8.247|
90891099|NCT00515502|181647435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.362|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1891|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.003|6.726|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.726|-6.003|
90891100|NCT00515502|181647435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1121|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.873|5.554|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.554|-6.873|
90891101|NCT00515502|181647435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.704|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3916|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.064|7.473|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.473|-6.064|
90891102|NCT00515502|181647435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.424|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.2233|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.84|5.993|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.993|-10.84|
90891103|NCT00515502|181647436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.542|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.98|5.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.15|-4.98|
90891104|NCT00515502|181647436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.507|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.65|6.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.34|-3.65|
90891105|NCT00515502|181647436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.182|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.49|5.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.19|-7.49|
90891106|NCT00515502|181647436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.296|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.89|6.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.24|-6.89|
90891107|NCT00515502|181647436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.279|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.13|6.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.94|-6.13|
90891108|NCT00515502|181647436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.516|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.34|8.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.67|-5.34|
90891109|NCT00515502|181647436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.087|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.97|7.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.32|-8.97|
90891110|NCT00515502|181647437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.464|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9766|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.492|5.419|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.419|-2.492|
90891111|NCT00515502|181647437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.248|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9457|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.647|4.144|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.144|-3.647|
90891112|NCT00515502|181647437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.645|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5254|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.687|2.396|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.396|-7.687|
90891113|NCT00515502|181647437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.585|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6352|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.671|7.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.840|-2.671|
90891114|NCT00515502|181647437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.121|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5993|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.308|4.067|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.067|-6.308|
90891115|NCT00515502|181647437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.336|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8164|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.952|3.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.280|-7.952|
90891116|NCT00515502|181647437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3802|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.96|1.504|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.504|-11.96|
90891117|NCT00515502|181647438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.24|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|-0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.7|-9.7|
90891118|NCT00515502|181647438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.15|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.3|-8.9|
90891119|NCT00515502|181647438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.91|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|-1.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.8|-13.5|
90891120|NCT00515502|181647438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.21|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.1|-11.8|
90891121|NCT00515502|181647438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|6.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.4|-6.1|
90891122|NCT00515502|181647438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.38|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|7.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.5|-6.1|
90891123|NCT00515502|181647438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.29|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|6.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.2|-10.9|
90891124|NCT00515502|181647439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.0|-3.6|
90891125|NCT00515502|181647439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.4|-2.0|
90891126|NCT00515502|181647439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.8|-3.9|
90891127|NCT00515502|181647439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.6|-3.6|
90891128|NCT00515502|181647439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.7|-3.3|
90891129|NCT00515502|181647439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.37|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|3.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.4|-2.0|
90891130|NCT00515502|181647439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.74|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|2.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.9|-4.1|
90891131|NCT03252587|181647461|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.8||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|5.1|||Regression, Logistic|1-sided||BMS-986165 3 mg vs Placebo||5.1|1.5|0.0006
90891132|NCT03252587|181647461|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|3.4|||Regression, Logistic|1-sided||BMS-986165 6 mg vs Placebo||3.4|1.0|0.0210
90891133|NCT03252587|181647461|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6||||0.0781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.9|||Regression, Logistic|1-sided||BMS-986165 12 mg vs Placebo||2.9|0.8|0.0781
90891134|NCT03252587|181647462|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.6||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|4.8|||Regression, Logistic|1-sided||BMS-986165 3 mg vs Placebo||4.8|1.4|0.0011
90891135|NCT03252587|181647462|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.0434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|3.1|||Regression, Logistic|1-sided||BMS-986165 6 mg vs Placebo||3.1|0.9|0.0434
90891136|NCT03252587|181647462|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.0439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|3.1|||Regression, Logistic|1-sided||BMS-986165 12 mg vs Placebo||3.1|0.9|0.0439
90891137|NCT03252587|181647463|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.7||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|5.1|||Regression, Logistic|1-sided||BMS-986165 3 mg vs Placebo||5.1|1.4|0.0012
90891138|NCT03252587|181647463|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6||||0.0795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|3.0|||Regression, Logistic|1-sided||BMS-986165 6 mg vs Placebo||3.0|0.8|0.0795
90891139|NCT03252587|181647463|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6||||0.0673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|3.2|||Regression, Logistic|1-sided||BMS-986165 12 mg vs Placebo||3.2|0.9|0.0673
90891140|NCT03252587|181647464|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.0||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|8.5|||Regression, Logistic|1-sided||BMS-986165 3 mg vs Placebo||8.5|1.9|0.0002
90891141|NCT03252587|181647464|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.0371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|4.5|||Regression, Logistic|1-sided||BMS-986165 6 mg vs Placebo||4.5|0.9|0.0371
90891142|NCT03252587|181647464|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3||||0.0168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|5.1|||Regression, Logistic|1-sided||BMS-986165 12 mg vs Placebo||5.1|1.1|0.0168
90891143|NCT03252587|181647465|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.5||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|43.0|||Regression, Logistic|1-sided||BMS-986165 3 mg vs Placebo||43.0|2.5|0.0006
90891144|NCT03252587|181647465|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.7||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|22.0|||Regression, Logistic|1-sided||BMS-986165 6 mg vs Placebo||22.0|1.5|0.0058
90891145|NCT03252587|181647465|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.2||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|31.0|||Regression, Logistic|1-sided||BMS-986165 12 mg vs Placebo||31.0|2.2|0.0009
90891146|NCT03252587|181647466|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.0131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|-0.3|||Longitudinal Repeated Measures|||Tender BMS-986165 3 mg vs Placebo||-0.3|-4.4|0.0131
90891147|NCT03252587|181647466|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.4156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.8|||Longitudinal Repeated Measures|||Tender BMS-986165 6 mg vs Placebo||1.8|-2.3|0.4156
90891148|NCT03252587|181647466|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09||0.0151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|-0.2|||Longitudinal Repeated Measures|||Tender BMS-986165 12 mg vs Placebo||-0.2|-4.5|0.0151
90891149|NCT03252587|181647466|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.4|||Longitudinal Repeated Measures|||Swollen BMS-986165 3 mg vs Placebo||-0.4|-2.2|0.0029
90891150|NCT03252587|181647466|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.0516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.2|||Longitudinal Repeated Measures|||Swollen BMS-986165 6 mg vs Placebo||0.2|-1.6|0.0516
90891151|NCT03252587|181647466|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.0298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.0|||Longitudinal Repeated Measures|||Swollen BMS-986165 12 mg vs Placebo||0.0|-1.8|0.0298
90891152|NCT03252587|181647466|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.5|||Longitudinal Repeated Measures|||Tender + Swollen BMS-986165 3 mg vs Placebo||-0.5|-2.0|0.0010
90891153|NCT03252587|181647466|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.0343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.1|||Longitudinal Repeated Measures|||Tender + Swollen BMS-986165 6 mg vs Placebo||0.1|-1.5|0.0343
90891154|NCT03252587|181647466|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.3|||Longitudinal Repeated Measures|||Tender + Swollen BMS-986165 12 mg vs Placebo||-0.3|-1.9|0.0050
90891155|NCT03945188|181647494|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|19.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.88|26.63|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||26.63|12.88|<0.001
90891156|NCT03945188|181647495|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|25.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.42|32.36|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||32.36|18.42|<0.001
90891157|NCT03945188|181647496|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.03|29.32|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||29.32|13.03|<0.001
90891158|NCT03945188|181647497|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|26.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.99|34.39|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||34.39|18.99|<0.001
90891159|NCT03945188|181647498|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|24.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.46|33.63|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||33.63|15.46|<0.001
90891160|NCT03945188|181647499|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|24.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.17|33.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||33.60|16.17|<0.001
90891161|NCT03945188|181647500|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.78|22.98|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||22.98|10.78|<0.001
90891162|NCT03945188|181647501|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.39|25.39|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||25.39|11.39|<0.001
90891163|NCT03945188|181647502|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|25.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.42|32.36|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||32.36|18.42|<0.001
90891164|NCT03945188|181647503|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.66|21.03|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.03|10.66|<0.001
90891165|NCT03945188|181647504|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|28.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.51|38.02|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||38.02|18.51|<0.001
90891166|NCT03945188|181647505|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|24.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.79|34.07|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||34.07|15.79|<0.001
90891167|NCT03945188|181647506|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|26.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.48|34.84|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||34.84|17.48|<0.001
90891168|NCT03945188|181647507|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.49|16.14|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||16.14|6.49|<0.001
90891169|NCT03945188|181647508|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.73|15.73|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||15.73|4.73|<0.001
91076513|NCT02987972|182038576|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.7|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 14||0.70|0.53|
90891170|NCT03945188|181647509|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.79|26.98|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||26.98|13.79|<0.001
90891171|NCT03945188|181647510|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.93|13.38|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||13.38|4.93|<0.001
90891172|NCT03945188|181647511|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.49|||=|0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|12.95|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||12.95|0.02|=0.049
90891173|NCT03945188|181647511|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.32|22.74|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||22.74|7.32|<0.001
90891174|NCT03945188|181647511|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.06|25.63|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||25.63|8.06|<0.001
90891175|NCT03945188|181647511|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.71|30.61|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||30.61|12.71|<0.001
90891176|NCT03945188|181647511|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|23.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.98|32.51|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||32.51|14.98|<0.001
90891177|NCT03945188|181647511|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.83|30.24|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||30.24|11.83|<0.001
90891178|NCT03945188|181647511|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|25.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.08|34.56|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 32||34.56|17.08|<0.001
90891179|NCT03945188|181647511|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|23.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.8|32.14|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40||32.14|14.80|<0.001
90891180|NCT03945188|181647511|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|26.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.92|34.82|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48||34.82|17.92|<0.001
90891181|NCT03945188|181647512|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.59|||=|0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|7.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||7.30|-0.11|=0.057
90891182|NCT03945188|181647512|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.88|||=|0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.86|11.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||11.90|1.86|=0.007
90891183|NCT03945188|181647512|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.14|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.09|16.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||16.20|4.09|=0.001
90891184|NCT03945188|181647512|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.89|22.83|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||22.83|9.89|<0.001
90891185|NCT03945188|181647512|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.23|21.52|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||21.52|9.23|<0.001
90891186|NCT03945188|181647512|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.85|23.75|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||23.75|11.85|<0.001
90891187|NCT03945188|181647512|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.45|21.04|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||21.04|7.45|<0.001
90891188|NCT03945188|181647512|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.25|25.81|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 32||25.81|14.25|<0.001
90891189|NCT03945188|181647512|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.91|21.35|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40||21.35|8.91|<0.001
90891190|NCT03945188|181647512|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.16|22.87|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48||22.87|12.16|<0.001
90891191|NCT03945188|181647512|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|19.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.75|25.98|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52||25.98|13.75|<0.001
90891192|NCT03945188|181647513|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.83|||=|0.336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.01|14.68|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||14.68|-5.01|=0.336
91076514|NCT02987972|182038576|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.34|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 18C||1.34|1.07|
90891193|NCT03945188|181647513|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.06|27.15|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||27.15|7.06|<0.001
90891194|NCT03945188|181647513|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.15|30.19|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||30.19|10.15|<0.001
90891195|NCT03945188|181647513|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|23.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.45|33.43|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||33.43|13.45|<0.001
90891196|NCT03945188|181647513|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|25.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.67|34.83|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||34.83|15.67|<0.001
90891197|NCT03945188|181647513|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|29.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.77|38.64|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||38.64|19.77|<0.001
90891198|NCT03945188|181647513|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|26.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.47|35.69|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||35.69|16.47|<0.001
90891199|NCT03945188|181647513|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|28.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.35|38.02|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 32||38.02|19.35|<0.001
90891200|NCT03945188|181647513|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|28.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.3|37.55|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40||37.55|19.30|<0.001
90891201|NCT03945188|181647513|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|29.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.55|38.64|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48||38.64|20.55|<0.001
90891202|NCT03945188|181647513|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|26.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.18|35.68|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52||35.68|17.18|<0.001
90891203|NCT03945188|181647514|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.93|||=|0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.96|15.81|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||15.81|-3.96|=0.240
90891204|NCT03945188|181647514|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.48|27.53|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||27.53|7.48|<0.001
90891205|NCT03945188|181647514|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.92|30.94|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||30.94|10.92|<0.001
90891206|NCT03945188|181647514|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|24.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.15|34.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||34.10|14.15|<0.001
90891207|NCT03945188|181647514|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|24.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.89|34.13|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||34.13|14.89|<0.001
90891208|NCT03945188|181647514|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|29.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.13|39.01|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||39.01|20.13|<0.001
90891209|NCT03945188|181647514|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|26.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.88|36.02|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||36.02|16.88|<0.001
90891210|NCT03945188|181647514|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|29.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.01|38.68|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 32||38.68|20.01|<0.001
90891211|NCT03945188|181647514|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|28.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.71|37.95|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40||37.95|19.71|<0.001
90891212|NCT03945188|181647514|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|30.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.97|39.03|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48||39.03|20.97|<0.001
90891213|NCT03945188|181647514|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|26.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.6|36.07|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52||36.07|17.60|<0.001
90891214|NCT03945188|181647515|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|23.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.2|35.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||35.90|10.20|<0.001
90891215|NCT03945188|181647516|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|31.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.45|45.28|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||45.28|18.45|<0.001
90891216|NCT05098054|181647533|OTHER||Geometric Least-squares mean(GLSM) Ratio|214.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.47|446.45|||||"Geometric least-squares means (LSMs) were calculated by exponentiating the LSMs from the mixed effects model.~Geometric LSM Ratio (GMR) = 100\*(Moderate HI/Normal Hepatic Function (Matched to Moderate HI)"|||446.45|103.47|
90891217|NCT05098054|181647533|OTHER||GLSM Ratio|145.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.18|273.98|||||"Geometric LSMs were calculated by exponentiating the LSMs from the mixed effects model.~Geometric LSM Ratio (GMR) = 100\*(Mild HI/Normal Hepatic Function (Matched to Mild HI)"|||273.98|77.18|
90891218|NCT05098054|181647534|OTHER||GLSM Ratio|299.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|111.75|801.17|||||"Geometric LSMs were calculated by exponentiating the LSMs from the mixed effects model.~Geometric LSM Ratio (GMR) = 100\*(Moderate HI/Normal Hepatic Function (Matched to Moderate HI)"|||801.17|111.75|
90891219|NCT05098054|181647534|OTHER||GLSM Ratio|130.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.02|220.26|||||"Geometric LSMs were calculated by exponentiating the LSMs from the mixed effects model.~Geometric LSM Ratio (GMR) = 100\*(Mild HI/Normal Hepatic Function (Matched to Mild HI)"|||220.26|77.02|
90891220|NCT05098054|181647535|OTHER||GLSM Ratio|316.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|117.68|849.97|||||"Geometric LSMs were calculated by exponentiating the LSMs from the mixed effects model.~Geometric LSM Ratio (GMR) = 100\*(Moderate HI/Normal Hepatic Function (Matched to Moderate HI)"|||849.97|117.68|
90891221|NCT05098054|181647535|OTHER||GLSM Ratio|135.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.22|200.57|||||"Geometric LSMs were calculated by exponentiating the LSMs from the mixed effects model.~Geometric LSM Ratio (GMR) = 100\*(Mild HI/Normal Hepatic Function (Matched to Mild HI)"|||200.57|91.22|
90891222|NCT01618162|181647542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference|-1.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|-0.87|||ANCOVA|||Superiority of IDegLira versus placebo therapy would be concluded if the 95% CI for the treatment differences for change in HbA1c lied entirely below 0%; implying that the two-sided p-value calculated by the ANCOVA model for testing the hypothesis of no difference between treatments was less than 5%.||-0.87|-1.18|< 0.001
90891223|NCT04794803|181647549|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.02164|||||||Log Rank|||||||= 0.02164
90891224|NCT04794803|181647549|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.20043|||||||Log Rank|||Sensitivity analysis of time to event for each single component of the primary endpoint: Supplemental oxygen requirement based on PaO2/FiO2||||= 0.20043
90891225|NCT04794803|181647549|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.30215|||||||Log Rank|||Sensitivity analysis of time to event for each single component of the primary endpoint: time to first invasive mechanical ventilation||||= 0.30215
90891226|NCT04794803|181647549|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5637|||||||Log Rank|||Sensitivity analysis of time to event for each single component of the primary endpoint: time to first admission to ICU||||0.56370
90891227|NCT04794803|181647549|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.00132|||||||Log Rank|||Sensitivity analysis of time to event for each single component of the primary endpoint: time to first use of a rescue medication for any reason||||= 0.00132
90891228|NCT04794803|181647550|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.731|||||||Fisher Exact|||comparison at week 1||||0.731
90891229|NCT04794803|181647550|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||at EOT||||1.000
90891230|NCT04794803|181647550|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||at EOS||||1.000
90891231|NCT04794803|181647551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.353|||||||Fisher Exact|||at baseline||||0.353
90891232|NCT04794803|181647551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.401|||||||Fisher Exact|||At Day 1||||0.401
90891233|NCT04794803|181647551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.066|||||||Fisher Exact|||At Day 2||||0.066
90891234|NCT04794803|181647551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.102|||||||Fisher Exact|||At week 1||||0.102
90891235|NCT04794803|181647551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.314|||||||Fisher Exact|||at EOT||||0.314
90891236|NCT04794803|181647551|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||at EOS||||1.000
90891237|NCT04794803|181647552|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Wilcoxon test for differences in the change of VAS scale.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 1 vs baseline||||>0.999
90891238|NCT04794803|181647552|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Wilcoxon test for differences in the change of VAS scale.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 2 vs baseline||||>0.999
90891239|NCT04794803|181647552|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Wilcoxon test for differences in the change of VAS scale.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||week 1 vs baseline||||0.050
90891240|NCT04794803|181647552|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0227||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Wilcoxon test for differences in the change of VAS scale.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EOT vs baseline||||0.0227
90891241|NCT04794803|181647553|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.122|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||At Day 1||||0.122
90891242|NCT04794803|181647553|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.985|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||At Day 2||||0.985
91076515|NCT02987972|182038576|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.94|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 19A||0.94|0.71|
90891243|NCT04794803|181647553|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.857|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||at week 1||||0.857
90891244|NCT04794803|181647553|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.436|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||at EOT||||0.436
90891245|NCT04794803|181647553|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||At EOS||||0.350
90891246|NCT04794803|181647554|SUPERIORITY|p-values are referred to a two-sided Fisher's Exact test for worsening||||||0.596|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 1||||0.596
90891247|NCT04794803|181647554|SUPERIORITY|p-values are referred to a two-sided Fisher's Exact test for worsening||||||0.667|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 2||||0.667
90891248|NCT04794803|181647554|SUPERIORITY|p-values are referred to a two-sided Fisher's Exact test for worsening||||||0.037|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 1||||0.037
90891249|NCT04794803|181647554|SUPERIORITY|p-values are referred to a two-sided Fisher's Exact test for worsening||||||0.293||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Fisher's Exact test for worsening|Fisher Exact|||EOT||||0.293
90891250|NCT04794803|181647555|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.539||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Fisher's Exact test for worsening and|Fisher Exact|||Day 1||||0.539
90891251|NCT04794803|181647555|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Fisher's Exact test for worsening|Fisher Exact|||Day 2||||1.000
90891252|NCT04794803|181647555|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.102||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Fisher's Exact test for worsening|Fisher Exact|||Week 1||||0.102
90891253|NCT04794803|181647555|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.119||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Fisher's Exact test for worsening|Fisher Exact|||EOT||||0.119
90891254|NCT04794803|181647555|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.515||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Fisher's Exact test for worsening|Fisher Exact|||EOS||||0.515
90891255|NCT04794803|181647556|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.366||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Wilcoxon test for cumulative duration.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 1||||0.366
90891256|NCT04794803|181647556|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.489||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Wilcoxon test for cumulative duration.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EOT||||0.489
90891257|NCT04794803|181647556|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.486||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Wilcoxon test for cumulative duration.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EOS||||0.486
90891258|NCT04794803|181647557|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Wilcoxon test for cumulative quantity|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 1||||0.790
90891259|NCT04794803|181647557|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.961||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Wilcoxon test for cumulative quantity|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EOT||||0.961
90891260|NCT04794803|181647557|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.619||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Wilcoxon test for cumulative quantity|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EOS||||0.619
90891261|NCT04794803|181647558|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Fisher's Exact test for proportion|Fisher Exact|||Baseline||||1.000
90891262|NCT04794803|181647558|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Fisher's Exact test for proportion|Fisher Exact|||Day 1||||1.000
90891263|NCT04794803|181647558|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.678||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Fisher's Exact test for proportion|Fisher Exact|||Day 2||||0.678
90891264|NCT04794803|181647558|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Fisher's Exact test for proportion|Fisher Exact|||Week 1||||1.000
90891265|NCT04794803|181647558|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Fisher's Exact test for proportion|Fisher Exact|||EOT||||1.000
90891266|NCT04794803|181647558|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Fisher's Exact test for proportion|Fisher Exact|||EOS||||1.000
90891267|NCT04794803|181647559|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.696||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Wilcoxon test for cumulative duration|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 1||||0.696
90891268|NCT04794803|181647559|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999||||||p-values are referred to a-sided Wilcoxon test for cumulative duration|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EOT||||>0.999
90891269|NCT04794803|181647559|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.596||||||p-values are referred to a-sided Wilcoxon test for cumulative duration|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EOS||||0.596
90891270|NCT04794803|181647560|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Fisher's Exact test for proportion|Fisher Exact|||Baseline||||1.000
90891271|NCT04794803|181647560|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|p-values are referred to a two-sided Fisher's Exact test for proportion||Day 1||||1.000
90891272|NCT04794803|181647560|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|p-values are referred to a two-sided Fisher's Exact test for proportion||Day 2||||1.000
91076516|NCT02987972|182038576|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.94|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 19F||0.94|0.73|
90891273|NCT04794803|181647560|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|p-values are referred to a two-sided Fisher's Exact test for proportion||week 1||||1.000
90891274|NCT04794803|181647560|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Fisher's Exact test for proportion|Fisher Exact|||EOT||||1.000
90891275|NCT04794803|181647562|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Wilcoxon test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||baseline||||0.760
90891276|NCT04794803|181647562|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.394||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Wilcoxon test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 1||||0.394
90891277|NCT04794803|181647562|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.141||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Wilcoxon test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EOT||||0.141
90891278|NCT04794803|181647562|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Wilcoxon test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EOS||||>0.999
90891279|NCT04794803|181647563|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Wilcoxon test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||baseline||||0.500
90891280|NCT04794803|181647563|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.112||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Wilcoxon test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||week 1||||0.112
90891281|NCT04794803|181647563|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.277||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Wilcoxon test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EOT||||0.277
90891282|NCT04794803|181647563|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Wilcoxon test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EOS||||>0.999
90891283|NCT04794803|181647564|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2027||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Wilcoxon test for differences in the change|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 1 vs baseline||||0.2027
90891284|NCT04794803|181647564|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Wilcoxon test for differences in the change|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 2 vs baseline||||1.0000
90891285|NCT04794803|181647564|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4469||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Wilcoxon test for differences in the change|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 1 vs baseline||||0.4469
90891286|NCT04794803|181647564|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2466||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Wilcoxon test for differences in the change|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EOT vs baseline||||0.2466
91076517|NCT02987972|182038576|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.35|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 23F||1.35|0.99|
90891287|NCT04794803|181647564|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1752||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Wilcoxon test for differences in the change|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EOS vs baseline||||0.1752
90891288|NCT04794803|181647565|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6441||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Wilcoxon test for differences in the change.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 1 vs baseline||||0.6441
90891289|NCT04794803|181647565|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3529||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Wilcoxon test for differences in the change.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 2 vs baseline||||0.3529
90891290|NCT04794803|181647565|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3581||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Wilcoxon test for differences in the change.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||week 1 vs baseline||||0.3581
90891291|NCT04794803|181647565|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1666||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Wilcoxon test for differences in the change.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EOT vs baseline||||0.1666
90891292|NCT04794803|181647565|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0851||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Wilcoxon test for differences in the change.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EOS vs baseline||||0.0851
90891293|NCT04794803|181647566|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3359||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Wilcoxon test for differences in the change|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 1 vs baseline||||0.3359
90891294|NCT04794803|181647566|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3136||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Wilcoxon test for differences in the change|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 2 vs baseline||||0.3136
90891295|NCT04794803|181647566|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0441||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Wilcoxon test for differences in the change|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||week 1 vs baseline||||0.0441
90891296|NCT04794803|181647566|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0965||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Wilcoxon test for differences in the change|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EOT vs baseline||||0.0965
90891297|NCT04794803|181647566|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0519||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Wilcoxon test for differences in the change|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EOS vs baseline||||0.0519
90891298|NCT04794803|181647567|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Wilcoxon test for differences in the change.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 1 vs baseline||||0.470
90891299|NCT04794803|181647567|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.425||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Wilcoxon test for differences in the change.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 2 vs baseline||||0.425
90891300|NCT04794803|181647567|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.086||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Wilcoxon test for differences in the change.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||week 1 vs baseline||||0.086
90891301|NCT04794803|181647567|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Wilcoxon test for differences in the change.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EOT vs baseline||||0.600
90891302|NCT04794803|181647567|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.717||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Wilcoxon test for differences in the change.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EOS vs baseline||||0.717
90891303|NCT04149405|181647568|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.01
90891304|NCT04149405|181647569|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.05
90891305|NCT04149405|181647570|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.05
90891306|NCT04149405|181647571|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.05
90891307|NCT04124926|181647572|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority of vonoprazan to lansoprazole was evaluated with a Farrington and Manning test with a noninferiority margin of 10 percentage points for the difference in EE rates between treatments (vonoprazan minus lansoprazole).|difference in percentage|8.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.49|12.23||2-sided p-value.|Farrington and Manning test||The 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the difference in EE healing rates between vonoprazan 20 mg and lansoprazole 30 mg was calculated via the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||12.23|4.49|<0.0001
91076518|NCT02987972|182038576|OTHER||GMC Ratio|26.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.31|29.68|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 22F||29.68|23.31|
91076519|NCT02987972|182038576|OTHER||GMC Ratio|24.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.32|27.25|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 33F||27.25|21.32|
90891308|NCT04124926|181647573|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority of each dose group of vonoprazan to lansoprazole was evaluated with a Farrington and Manning test with a noninferiority margin of 10 percentage points for the difference in maintenance of healing rates between treatments (vonoprazan minus lansoprazole).|difference in percentage|8.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|15.53||2-sided p-value.|Farrington and Manning test||The 2-sided 95% CI of the difference in EE maintenance rates between each vonoprazan group and lansoprazole group was calculated via the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||15.53|1.80|<0.0001
90891309|NCT04124926|181647573|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority of each dose group of vonoprazan to lansoprazole was evaluated with a Farrington and Manning test with a noninferiority margin of 10 percentage points for the difference in maintenance of healing rates between treatments (vonoprazan minus lansoprazole).|difference in percentage|7.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|14.09||2-sided p-value.|Farrington and Manning test||The 2-sided 95% CI of the difference in EE maintenance rates between each vonoprazan group and lansoprazole group was calculated via the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||14.09|0.21|<0.0001
90891310|NCT04124926|181647573|SUPERIORITY|The superiority of the vonoprazan 20 mg group to lansoprazole group p-value was evaluated with a Farrington and Manning test with the null hypothesis difference ≤0 versus the alternative hypothesis difference \>0.||||||0.0136||||||2-sided p-value.|Farrington and Manning test|||||||0.0136
90891311|NCT04124926|181647573|SUPERIORITY|The superiority of the vonoprazan 10 mg group to lansoprazole group p-value was evaluated with a Farrington and Manning test with the null hypothesis difference ≤0 versus the alternative hypothesis difference \>0.||||||0.0436||||||2-sided p-value.|Farrington and Manning test|||||||0.0436
90891312|NCT04124926|181647574|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the CI was greater than -15%, noninferiority would be concluded.|difference in mean percentage|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|7.03|||||The 2-sided 95% CI of the difference in mean percentage of 24-hour heartburn-free days between vonoprazan 20 mg and lansoprazole 30 mg was calculated from Welch's t-test.|||7.03|-1.60|
90891313|NCT04124926|181647575|SUPERIORITY|The superiority of the vonoprazan 20 mg group to lansoprazole group p-value was evaluated with a Farrington and Manning test with the null hypothesis difference ≤0 versus the alternative hypothesis difference \>0.|difference in percentage|17.6||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.44|27.43||2-sided p-value.|Farrington and Manning test||The 2-sided 95% CI of the difference in EE healing rates between vonoprazan 20 mg and lansoprazole 30 mg was calculated via the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||27.43|7.44|0.0008
90891314|NCT04124926|181647576|SUPERIORITY|The superiority of the vonoprazan 20 mg group to lansoprazole group p-value was evaluated with a Farrington and Manning test with the null hypothesis difference ≤0 versus the alternative hypothesis difference \>0.|difference in percentage|2.3||||0.4392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|8.04||2-sided p-value.|Farrington and Manning test||The 2-sided 95% CI of the difference in sustained resolution rates between vonoprazan 20 mg and lansoprazole 30 mg was calculated via the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||8.04|-3.50|0.4392
90891315|NCT04124926|181647577|SUPERIORITY|Observed p-value and not a formal test per the preplanned fixed-sequence testing procedure. The superiority of the vonoprazan 20 mg group to lansoprazole group p-value was evaluated with a Farrington and Manning test with the null hypothesis difference ≤0 versus the alternative hypothesis difference \>0.|difference in percentage|19.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.84|27.58||2-sided p-value.|Farrington and Manning test||The 2-sided 95% CI of the difference in EE healing rates between vonoprazan 20 mg and lansoprazole 30 mg was calculated via the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||27.58|11.84|<0.0001
90891316|NCT04124926|181647578|SUPERIORITY|Observed p-value and not a formal test per the preplanned fixed-sequence testing procedure. The superiority of the vonoprazan 20 mg group to lansoprazole group p-value was evaluated with a Farrington and Manning test with the null hypothesis difference ≤0 versus the alternative hypothesis difference \>0.|difference in percentage|6.1||||0.0348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|11.6||2-sided p-value.|Farrington and Manning test||The 2-sided 95% CI of the difference in EE healing rates between vonoprazan 20 mg and lansoprazole 30 mg was calculated via the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||11.60|0.53|0.0348
90891317|NCT04124926|181647579|SUPERIORITY|The superiority of the vonoprazan 20 mg group to lansoprazole group p-value was evaluated with a Farrington and Manning test with the null hypothesis difference ≤0 versus the alternative hypothesis difference \>0.|difference in percentage|15.7||||0.0196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|28.44||2-sided p-value.|Farrington and Manning test||The 2-sided 95% CI of the difference in maintenance rates between each vonoprazan group and lansoprazole 15 mg group was calculated via the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||28.44|2.50|0.0196
90891318|NCT04124926|181647579|SUPERIORITY|The superiority of the vonoprazan 10 mg group to lansoprazole group p-value was evaluated with a Farrington and Manning test with the null hypothesis difference ≤0 versus the alternative hypothesis difference \>0.|difference in percentage|13.3||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|26.14||2-sided p-value.|Farrington and Manning test||The 2-sided 95% CI of the difference in maintenance rates between each vonoprazan group and lansoprazole 15 mg group was calculated via the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||26.14|0.02|0.0490
90891319|NCT04124926|181647580|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the CI was greater than -15%, noninferiority would be concluded.|difference in mean percentage|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.63|6.72|||||The 2-sided 95% CI of the difference in mean percentage of 24-hour heartburn-free days between each vonoprazan group and the lansoprazole group was calculated from Welch's t-test.|||6.72|-2.63|
90891320|NCT04124926|181647580|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the CI was greater than -15%, noninferiority would be concluded.|difference in mean percentage|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.27|6.84|||||The 2-sided 95% CI of the difference in mean percentage of 24-hour heartburn-free days between each vonoprazan group and the lansoprazole group was calculated from Welch's t-test.|||6.84|-2.27|
90891321|NCT02167074|181647591|OTHER|The chi-square test (with Yates' correction when appropriate) or the Fisher exact test was used to compare the two needle types|||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
90891322|NCT01654549|181647595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.94
90891323|NCT01654549|181647595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.78
90891324|NCT01654549|181647595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||<0.01
90891325|NCT01654549|181647595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||<0.01
90891326|NCT01654549|181647595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.10
90891327|NCT02013622|181647606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) method with model terms: baseline, visit, and baseline by visit interaction.||The null hypothesis of zero in mean change from Baseline in PANSS Total Score at Week 16 was tested at significance level of 0.05. Since this is an exploratory trial, no methods to control type I error rate were performed.||||<0.0001
90891328|NCT02013622|181647607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method with model terms: baseline, visit, and baseline by visit interaction.||Statistical analysis at Week 16||||<0.0001
90891329|NCT02013622|181647608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method with model terms: baseline, visit, and baseline by visit interaction.||Statistical analysis at Week 16||||<0.0001
90891330|NCT02013622|181647611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method with model terms: baseline, visit, and baseline by visit interaction.||Statistical analysis at Week 16||||0.0003
90891331|NCT02013622|181647612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method with model terms: baseline, visit, and baseline by visit interaction.||Statistical analysis at Week 16||||0.0002
90891332|NCT02013622|181647613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0177|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method with model terms: baseline, visit, and baseline by visit interaction.||Statistical analysis at Week 16||||0.0177
90891333|NCT02013622|181647614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method with model terms: baseline, visit, and baseline by visit interaction.||Statistical analysis at Week 16 in TSQM-14 effectiveness||||<0.0001
90891334|NCT02013622|181647614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method with model terms: baseline, visit, and baseline by visit interaction.||Statistical analysis at Week 16 in TSQM-14 side effects||||0.0031
90891335|NCT02013622|181647614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method with model terms: baseline, visit, and baseline by visit interaction.||Statistical analysis at Week 16 in TSQM-14 convenience||||0.0005
90891336|NCT02013622|181647614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method with model terms: baseline, visit, and baseline by visit interaction.||Statistical analysis at Week 16 in TSQM-14 global satisfaction||||<0.0001
90891337|NCT02013622|181647615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5133|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis at Week 16 in Go/No-go task p-inhibition failures (go cues)||||0.5133
90891338|NCT02013622|181647615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3774|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis at Week 16 in Go/No-go task p-inhibition failures (no-go cues)||||0.3774
90891339|NCT02013622|181647616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8897|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis at Week 16 in Go/No-go task mean reaction time (go cues)||||0.8897
90891340|NCT02013622|181647616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3401|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis at Week 16 in Go/No-go task mean reaction time (no-go cues)||||0.3401
90891341|NCT02013622|181647617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4265|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis at Week 16 in DDT||||0.4265
90891342|NCT02013622|181647618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2923|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis at Week 16 in DPDT for Delay Discounting Task k value||||0.2923
90891343|NCT02013622|181647618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9416|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis at Week 16 in DPDT for Probability Discounting Task h value||||0.9416
90891344|NCT02013622|181647619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1815|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis at Week 16 in DRT||||0.1815
90891345|NCT02013622|181647620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6648|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis at Week 16 in AUC for food||||0.6648
90891346|NCT02013622|181647620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9812|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis at Week 16 in AUC for money||||0.9812
90891347|NCT02013622|181647622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0306|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis at Week 16||||0.0306
90891348|NCT04009291|181647645|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2635|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Fisher's exact test is used to compare differences in the proportion of subjects meeting the composite primary endpoint in the TransCon PTH versus pooled placebo group||||= 0.2635
90891349|NCT04009291|181647645|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.6999|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Fisher's exact test is used to compare differences in the proportion of subjects meeting the composite primary endpoint in the TransCon PTH versus pooled placebo group||||= 0.6999
90891350|NCT04009291|181647645|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1394|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Fisher's exact test is used to compare differences in the proportion of subjects meeting the composite primary endpoint in the TransCon PTH versus pooled placebo group||||= 0.1394
90891351|NCT04009291|181647646|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1281|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Fisher's exact test is used to compare differences in the proportion of subjects meeting the composite primary endpoint in the TransCon PTH versus pooled placebo group||||= 0.1281
90891352|NCT04009291|181647646|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Fisher's exact test is used to compare differences in the proportion of subjects meeting the composite primary endpoint in the TransCon PTH versus pooled placebo group||||> 0.9999
90891353|NCT04009291|181647646|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0604|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Fisher's exact test is used to compare differences in the proportion of subjects meeting the composite primary endpoint in the TransCon PTH versus pooled placebo group||||= 0.0604
90891354|NCT01181050|181647668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.02||||0.9334||95.0|-0.54|0.5|||Mixed effect model repeated measures|||||0.50|-0.54|0.9334
90891355|NCT01181050|181647669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.06||||0.8293||95.0|-0.46|0.58|||Mixed effect model repeated measures|||||0.58|-0.46|0.8293
90891356|NCT01181050|181647670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.04||||0.8867||95.0|-0.65|0.56|||Mixed effect model repeated measures|||||0.56|-0.65|0.8867
90891357|NCT01680328|181647815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-0.1||||||95.0|-2.9|2.8||||||Though the sample size was not based on any formal sample size or power calculations as no statistical tests were pre-specified to address the endpoints, a sample size of 80 completers was derived from a simulation study. Mean Difference in injection pain on VAS after injection of different volumes was calculated as least square mean estimate of the mean difference in injection pain.||2.8|-2.9|
91076520|NCT02987972|182038577|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.81|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 1||0.81|0.62|
90891358|NCT01680328|181647815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|3.5||||||95.0|0.4|6.6||||||Though the sample size was not based on any formal sample size or power calculations as no statistical tests were pre-specified to address the endpoints, a sample size of 80 completers was derived from a simulation study. Mean Difference in injection pain on VAS after injection of different volumes was calculated as least square mean estimate of the mean difference in injection pain.||6.6|0.4|
91076521|NCT02987972|182038577|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|1.63|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 3||1.63|1.27|
91076522|NCT02987972|182038577|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.02|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 4||1.02|0.76|
91076523|NCT02987972|182038577|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.84|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 5||0.84|0.63|
91076524|NCT02987972|182038577|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.82|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 6A||0.82|0.62|
91076525|NCT02987972|182038577|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.22|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 6B||1.22|0.93|
91076526|NCT02987972|182038577|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.77|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 7F||0.77|0.59|
91076527|NCT02987972|182038577|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.79|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 9V||0.79|0.60|
91076528|NCT02987972|182038577|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.02|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 14||1.02|0.76|
91076529|NCT02987972|182038577|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.08|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 18C||1.08|0.81|
91076530|NCT02987972|182038577|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.01|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 19A||1.01|0.78|
91076531|NCT02987972|182038577|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.1|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 19F||1.10|0.85|
91076532|NCT02987972|182038577|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.87|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 23F||0.87|0.64|
91076533|NCT02987972|182038577|OTHER||GMC Ratio|149.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|130.23|172.06|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 22F||172.06|130.23|
91076534|NCT02987972|182038577|OTHER||GMC Ratio|90.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|79.93|102.12|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 33F||102.12|79.93|
90891359|NCT01680328|181647815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|7.2||||||95.0|4.6|9.7||||||Though the sample size was not based on any formal sample size or power calculations as no statistical tests were pre-specified to address the endpoints, a sample size of 80 completers was derived from a simulation study. Mean Difference in injection pain on VAS after injection of different volumes was calculated as least square mean estimate of the mean difference in injection pain.||9.7|4.6|
91076535|NCT02987972|182038577|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.93|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 1||0.93|0.71|
91076536|NCT02987972|182038577|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|1.68|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 3||1.68|1.31|
91076537|NCT02987972|182038577|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.94|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 4||0.94|0.70|
91076538|NCT02987972|182038577|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.79|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 5||0.79|0.60|
91076539|NCT02987972|182038577|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.76|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 6A||0.76|0.58|
91076540|NCT02987972|182038577|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.95|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 6B||0.95|0.72|
91076541|NCT02987972|182038577|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.81|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 7F||0.81|0.62|
91076542|NCT02987972|182038577|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.88|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 9V||0.88|0.67|
91076543|NCT02987972|182038577|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.98|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 14||0.98|0.73|
91076544|NCT02987972|182038577|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.24|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 18C||1.24|0.93|
90891360|NCT01680328|181647815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|3.6||||||95.0|0.4|6.7||||||Though the sample size was not based on any formal sample size or power calculations as no statistical tests were pre-specified to address the endpoints, a sample size of 80 completers was derived from a simulation study. Mean Difference in injection pain on VAS after injection of different volumes was calculated as least square mean estimate of the mean difference in injection pain.||6.7|0.4|
90891361|NCT01680328|181647815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|7.2||||||95.0|4.4|10.0||||||Though the sample size was not based on any formal sample size or power calculations as no statistical tests were pre-specified to address the endpoints, a sample size of 80 completers was derived from a simulation study. Mean Difference in injection pain on VAS after injection of different volumes was calculated as least square mean estimate of the mean difference in injection pain.||10.0|4.4|
90891362|NCT01680328|181647815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|3.7||||||95.0|0.6|6.7||||||Though the sample size was not based on any formal sample size or power calculations as no statistical tests were pre-specified to address the endpoints, a sample size of 80 completers was derived from a simulation study. Mean Difference in injection pain on VAS after injection of different volumes was calculated as least square mean estimate of the mean difference in injection pain.||6.7|0.6|
90891363|NCT01680328|181647815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|0.4||||||95.0|-2.1|2.9||||||Though the sample size was not based on any formal sample size or power calculations as no statistical tests were pre-specified to address the endpoints, a sample size of 80 completers was derived from a simulation study. Mean difference in injection pain on VAS after injection at different speeds was calculated as least square mean estimate of the mean difference in injection pain on a VAS after injection at different speeds.||2.9|-2.1|
90891364|NCT01680328|181647815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-0.4||||||95.0|-2.7|1.9||||||Though the sample size was not based on any formal sample size or power calculations as no statistical tests were pre-specified to address the endpoints, a sample size of 80 completers was derived from a simulation study. Mean difference in injection pain on VAS after injection at different speeds was calculated as least square mean estimate of the mean difference in injection pain on a VAS after injection at different speeds.||1.9|-2.7|
90891365|NCT01680328|181647815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|9.0||||||95.0|6.7|11.3||||||Though the sample size was not based on any formal sample size or power calculations as no statistical tests were pre-specified to address the endpoints, a sample size of 80 completers was derived from a simulation study. The mean difference in injection pain on a VAS (mm) between the thighs and abdomen was calculated as the least square mean estimate of the mean difference in injection pain on a VAS (mm) between the thighs and abdomen.||11.3|6.7|
90891366|NCT01680328|181647816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||||95.0|0.5|1.4|||Odds ratio (OR)|||Acceptance of pain was rated subjectively as yes or no by the subject after each injection. The odds are calculated as 'no versus yes', and 'larger volume versus smaller', so that an odds ratio above 1 corresponds to a higher frequency of unacceptable pain for the larger volume - i.e. a worse condition. The odd ratios for unacceptable injection pain are based on a statistical model for all acceptance pain data.||1.4|0.5|
90891367|NCT01680328|181647816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1||||||95.0|1.2|3.5||||||Acceptance of pain was rated subjectively as yes or no by the subject after each injection. The odds are calculated as 'no versus yes', and 'larger volume versus smaller', so that an odds ratio above 1 corresponds to a higher frequency of unacceptable pain for the larger volume - i.e. a worse condition. The odd ratios for unacceptable injection pain are based on a statistical model for all acceptance pain data.||3.5|1.2|
90891368|NCT01680328|181647816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1||||||95.0|1.4|3.0||||||Acceptance of pain was rated subjectively as yes or no by the subject after each injection. The odds are calculated as 'no versus yes', and 'larger volume versus smaller', so that an odds ratio above 1 corresponds to a higher frequency of unacceptable pain for the larger volume - i.e. a worse condition. The odd ratios for unacceptable injection pain are based on a statistical model for all acceptance pain data.||3.0|1.4|
90891369|NCT01680328|181647816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.6||||||95.0|1.4|4.8||||||Acceptance of pain was rated subjectively as yes or no by the subject after each injection. The odds are calculated as 'no versus yes', and 'larger volume versus smaller', so that an odds ratio above 1 corresponds to a higher frequency of unacceptable pain for the larger volume - i.e. a worse condition. The odd ratios for unacceptable injection pain are based on a statistical model for all acceptance pain data.||4.8|1.4|
90891370|NCT01680328|181647816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.6||||||95.0|1.4|4.6||||||Acceptance of pain was rated subjectively as yes or no by the subject after each injection. The odds are calculated as 'no versus yes', and 'larger volume versus smaller', so that an odds ratio above 1 corresponds to a higher frequency of unacceptable pain for the larger volume - i.e. a worse condition. The odd ratios for unacceptable injection pain are based on a statistical model for all acceptance pain data.||4.6|1.4|
90891371|NCT01680328|181647816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||||95.0|0.7|1.5||||||Acceptance of pain was rated subjectively as yes or no by the subject after each injection. The odds are calculated as 'no versus yes', and 'larger volume versus smaller', so that an odds ratio above 1 corresponds to a higher frequency of unacceptable pain for the larger volume - i.e. a worse condition. The odd ratios for unacceptable injection pain are based on a statistical model for all acceptance pain data.||1.5|0.7|
90891372|NCT01680328|181647817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||||95.0|0.7|1.8||||||Acceptance of pain was rated subjectively as yes or no by the subject after each injection. The odds are calculated as 'no versus yes', and 'higher speed versus lower', so that an odds ratio above 1 corresponds to a higher frequency of unacceptable pain for the higher speed - i.e. a worse condition. The odd ratios for unacceptable injection pain are based on a statistical model for all acceptance pain data.||1.8|0.7|
90891373|NCT01680328|181647817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||||95.0|0.6|1.2||||||Acceptance of pain was rated subjectively as yes or no by the subject after each injection. The odds are calculated as 'no versus yes', and 'higher speed versus lower', so that an odds ratio above 1 corresponds to a higher frequency of unacceptable pain for the higher speed - i.e. a worse condition. The odd ratios for unacceptable injection pain are based on a statistical model for all acceptance pain data.||1.2|0.6|
90891374|NCT01680328|181647818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.7||||||95.0|2.4|5.5|||Odds ratio (OR)|||Acceptance of pain was rated subjectively as yes or no by the subject after each injection. The odds are calculated as 'no versus yes', so that an odds ratio above 1 corresponds to a higher frequency of unacceptable pain in the thighs - i.e. a worse condition.||5.5|2.4|
90891375|NCT01680328|181647819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|0.6||||||95.0|-0.6|1.8||||||Backflow (absorbed amount of liquid 2 minutes (±30 sec) after the injection with filter-paper rated according to the liquid scale) was analysed using a mixed ANOVA approach and calculated as the mean differences in backflow in the abdomen at different volume and speed combinations.||1.8|-0.6|
90891376|NCT01680328|181647819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|0.4||||||95.0|-0.8|1.6||||||Backflow (absorbed amount of liquid 2 minutes (±30 sec) after the injection with filter-paper rated according to the liquid scale) was analysed using a mixed ANOVA approach and calculated as the mean differences in backflow in the abdomen at different volume and speed combinations.||1.6|-0.8|
90891377|NCT01680328|181647819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|0.9||||||95.0|-0.4|2.1||||||Backflow (absorbed amount of liquid 2 minutes (±30 sec) after the injection with filter-paper rated according to the liquid scale) was analysed using a mixed ANOVA approach and calculated as the mean differences in backflow in the abdomen at different volume and speed combinations.||2.1|-0.4|
90891378|NCT01680328|181647819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|0.5||||||95.0|-0.8|1.7||||||Backflow (absorbed amount of liquid 2 minutes (±30 sec) after the injection with filter-paper rated according to the liquid scale) was analysed using a mixed ANOVA approach and calculated as the mean differences in backflow in the abdomen at different volume and speed combinations.||1.7|-0.8|
90891379|NCT01680328|181647819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|0.5||||||95.0|-0.8|1.7||||||Backflow (absorbed amount of liquid 2 minutes (±30 sec) after the injection with filter-paper rated according to the liquid scale) was analysed using a mixed ANOVA approach and calculated as the mean differences in backflow in the abdomen at different volume and speed combinations.||1.7|-0.8|
90891380|NCT01680328|181647819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|0.5||||||95.0|-0.7|1.8||||||Backflow (absorbed amount of liquid 2 minutes (±30 sec) after the injection with filter-paper rated according to the liquid scale) was analysed using a mixed ANOVA approach and calculated as the mean differences in backflow in the abdomen at different volume and speed combinations.||1.8|-0.7|
90891381|NCT01680328|181647819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|0.9||||||95.0|-0.3|2.1||||||Backflow (absorbed amount of liquid 2 minutes (±30 sec) after the injection with filter-paper rated according to the liquid scale) was analysed using a mixed ANOVA approach and calculated as the mean differences in backflow in the abdomen at different volume and speed combinations.||2.1|-0.3|
90891382|NCT01680328|181647819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|0.8||||||95.0|-0.4|2.0||||||Backflow (absorbed amount of liquid 2 minutes (±30 sec) after the injection with filter-paper rated according to the liquid scale) was analysed using a mixed ANOVA approach and calculated as the mean differences in backflow in the abdomen at different volume and speed combinations.||2.0|-0.4|
90891383|NCT01680328|181647819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|1.1||||||95.0|-0.1|2.3||||||Backflow (absorbed amount of liquid 2 minutes (±30 sec) after the injection with filter-paper rated according to the liquid scale) was analysed using a mixed ANOVA approach and calculated as the mean differences in backflow in the abdomen at different volume and speed combinations.||2.3|-0.1|
90891384|NCT01680328|181647819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|2.3||||||95.0|1.0|3.5||||||Backflow (absorbed amount of liquid 2 minutes (±30 sec) after the injection with filter-paper rated according to the liquid scale) was analysed using a mixed ANOVA approach and calculated as the mean differences in backflow in the abdomen at different volume and speed combinations.||3.5|1.0|
90891385|NCT01680328|181647819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|1.4||||||95.0|0.2|2.6||||||Backflow (absorbed amount of liquid 2 minutes (±30 sec) after the injection with filter-paper rated according to the liquid scale) was analysed using a mixed ANOVA approach and calculated as the mean differences in backflow in the abdomen at different volume and speed combinations.||2.6|0.2|
90891386|NCT01680328|181647819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|0.6||||||95.0|-0.6|1.8||||||Backflow (absorbed amount of liquid 2 minutes (±30 sec) after the injection with filter-paper rated according to the liquid scale) was analysed using a mixed ANOVA approach and calculated as the mean differences in backflow in the abdomen at different volume and speed combinations.||1.8|-0.6|
90891387|NCT01680328|181647820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|0.3||||||95.0|-0.9|1.5||||||Backflow (absorbed amount of liquid 2 minutes (±30 sec) after the injection with filter-paper rated according to the liquid scale) was analysed using a mixed ANOVA approach and calculated as the mean differences in backflow in the thigh at different volume and speed combinations.||1.5|-0.9|
90891388|NCT01680328|181647820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|0.8||||||95.0|-0.4|2.1||||||Backflow (absorbed amount of liquid 2 minutes (±30 sec) after the injection with filter-paper rated according to the liquid scale) was analysed using a mixed ANOVA approach and calculated as the mean differences in backflow in the thigh at different volume and speed combinations.||2.1|-0.4|
90891389|NCT01680328|181647820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|1.6||||||95.0|0.3|2.8||||||Backflow (absorbed amount of liquid 2 minutes (±30 sec) after the injection with filter-paper rated according to the liquid scale) was analysed using a mixed ANOVA approach and calculated as the mean differences in backflow in the thigh at different volume and speed combinations.||2.8|0.3|
90891390|NCT01680328|181647820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|4.9||||||95.0|3.7|6.1||||||Backflow (absorbed amount of liquid 2 minutes (±30 sec) after the injection with filter-paper rated according to the liquid scale) was analysed using a mixed ANOVA approach and calculated as the mean differences in backflow in the thigh at different volume and speed combinations.||6.1|3.7|
90891391|NCT01680328|181647820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|1.7||||||95.0|0.5|2.9||||||Backflow (absorbed amount of liquid 2 minutes (±30 sec) after the injection with filter-paper rated according to the liquid scale) was analysed using a mixed ANOVA approach and calculated as the mean differences in backflow in the thigh at different volume and speed combinations.||2.9|0.5|
91076545|NCT02987972|182038577|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.93|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 19A||0.93|0.72|
91076546|NCT02987972|182038577|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.03|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 19F||1.03|0.79|
91076547|NCT02987972|182038577|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.08|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 23F||1.08|0.79|
91076548|NCT02987972|182038577|OTHER||GMC Ratio|131.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|114.05|151.0|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 22F||151.00|114.05|
91076549|NCT02987972|182038577|OTHER||GMC Ratio|78.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|69.82|89.36|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 33F||89.36|69.82|
91076550|NCT01726036|182038590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.457|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.457
91076551|NCT01047332|182038591|OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.530
91076552|NCT01047332|182038592|OTHER|||||||0.997|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.997
91076553|NCT03521817|182038595|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.231|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.231
91076554|NCT00778102|182038629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Resection Rate|12.3||||0.2707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|35.5|||Chi-squared||Confidence interval calculated for difference based on Hauck-Anderson method.|Difference between groups in the collective percentage of participants with R0, R1, or R2.||35.5|-11.0|0.2707
91076555|NCT00778102|182038632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Response Rate|-4.8||||0.7817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.0|33.5|||Chi-squared||Confidence interval calculated for difference based on Hauck-Anderson method.|Difference between groups in the collective percentage of participants with complete or major histopathological response.||33.5|-43.0|0.7817
91076556|NCT00778102|182038639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Response Rate (CR or PR)|18.9||||0.0612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|40.0|||Chi-squared||Confidence interval calculated for difference based on Hauck-Anderson method.|Difference between groups in the collective percentage of participants with confirmed best overall response of CR or PR.||40.0|-2.1|0.0612
91076557|NCT01066793|182038691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.527||||0.0211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.306|0.908|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Gamma-Glutamyl Transferase (Gamma-GT) in log10 international units per liter (IU/L) at BL. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week \[Wk\]12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.908|0.306|0.0211
91076558|NCT01066793|182038691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.078|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.065|1.092|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for treatment duration after VR in weeks. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.092|1.065|<0.0001
91076559|NCT01066793|182038691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.061|1.403|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for cumulative ribavirin dose per 10000 mg, during the first 12 weeks. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.403|1.061|0.0053
91076560|NCT01066793|182038691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.464||||0.0079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.264|0.818|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Platelets x 10\*\*9/L at BL (\< 140 vs \>=180). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.818|0.264|0.0079
91076561|NCT01066793|182038691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.737||||0.1808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.471|1.153|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Platelets x 10\*\*9/L at BL (\>=140 - \< 180 vs \>=180). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.153|0.471|0.1808
91076562|NCT01066793|182038691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.082|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.069|1.095|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for treatment duration after VR in weeks. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.095|1.069|<0.0001
91076563|NCT01066793|182038691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.676||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.542|0.844|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Weight per 10 kilogram (kg). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.844|0.542|0.0005
91076564|NCT01066793|182038691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.573||||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.392|0.838|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for HCV RNA at BL in log10 (IU/mL). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.838|0.392|0.0041
91076565|NCT01066793|182038691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.094|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.048|1.142|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for treatment duration after VR in weeks. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.142|1.048|<0.0001
91076566|NCT01066793|182038691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.945||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.013|31.359|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for cumulative PEG-IFN alfa-2a dose per 1000 ug, first 12 weeks. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||31.359|2.013|0.0031
91076567|NCT01066793|182038691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.844|0.959|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for body mass index (BMI) in kilogram per square meter (kg/m\^2). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.959|0.844|0.0012
91076568|NCT01066793|182038691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.619||||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.433|0.885|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for HCV RNA at BL in log10 (IU/mL). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.885|0.433|0.0085
91076569|NCT01066793|182038691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.087|1.174|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for treatment duration after VR in weeks. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.174|1.087|<0.0001
91076570|NCT01066793|182038691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.784||||0.0341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.626|0.982|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Weight per 10 kg. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.982|0.626|0.0341
91076571|NCT01066793|182038691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.575||||0.0443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.335|0.986|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for aspartate aminotransferase (AST) ratio at BL (\> 1.5 vs \<=1.5). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.986|0.335|0.0443
91076572|NCT01066793|182038691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.057|1.144|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for treatment duration after VR in weeks. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.144|1.057|<0.0001
91076573|NCT01066793|182038691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|22.867||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.73|191.56|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for cumulative PEG-IFN alfa-2a dose per 1000 ug, during the first 12 weeks. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||191.56|2.730|0.0039
91076574|NCT01066793|182038691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78||||0.0244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.628|0.968|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Weight per 10 kg. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a||0.968|0.628|0.0244
91076575|NCT01066793|182038691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.128|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.086|1.172|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for treatment duration after VR in weeks. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.172|1.086|<0.0001
91076576|NCT01066793|182038691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.547||||0.0453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.303|0.987|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for HCV RNA at BL in log10 (IU/mL). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2b.||0.987|0.303|0.0453
91076577|NCT01066793|182038691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.133||||0.0184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.025|0.712|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Gamma-GT in log10 (IU/L) at BL. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2b.||0.712|0.025|0.0184
91076578|NCT01066793|182038691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.103|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.072|1.134|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for treatment duration after VR in Weeks. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2b.||1.134|1.072|<0.0001
91076579|NCT01066793|182038691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.543||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.798|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for weight per 10 kg. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2b.||0.798|0.370|0.0019
91076580|NCT01066793|182038691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.359||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.189|0.679|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for HCV RNA at BL in log10 (IU/mL). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2b.||0.679|0.189|0.0017
91076581|NCT01066793|182038691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.047|1.114|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for treatment duration after VR in weeks. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2b.||1.114|1.047|<0.0001
91076582|NCT01066793|182038691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.093||||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.029|1.162|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for cumulative ribavirin dose per 10000 mg. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2b.||1.162|1.029|0.0042
91076583|NCT01066793|182038691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.535||||0.0168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.893|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Gamma-GT in log10 (IU/L) at BL. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.893|0.320|0.0168
91076584|NCT01066793|182038691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.501||||0.0128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.291|0.864|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Platelets x 10\*\*9/L at BL (\< 140 vs \>=180). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.864|0.291|0.0128
91076585|NCT01066793|182038691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.853||||0.4634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.558|1.305|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Platelets x 10\*\*9/L at BL (\>=140 - \< 180 vs \>=180). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.305|0.558|0.4634
91076586|NCT01066793|182038691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|19.655|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.725|39.722|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for On-treatment response (Rapid Virological Response \[RVR\] vs No RVR/EVR \[Early Virological Response\]). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||39.722|9.725|<0.0001
91076587|NCT01066793|182038691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.569|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.408|16.658|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for on-treatment response (cEVR \[Complete Early Virological Response\] vs No RVR/EVR). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||16.658|4.408|<0.0001
91076588|NCT01066793|182038691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.519||||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|5.034|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for on-treatment response (pEVR \[Partial Early Virological Response\] vs No RVR/EVR). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||5.034|1.260|0.0089
91076589|NCT01066793|182038691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.908||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.851|0.969|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for BMI in kg/m\^2. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.969|0.851|0.0037
91076590|NCT01066793|182038691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.553||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.379|0.805|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for HCV RNA at BL in log10 (IU/mL). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.805|0.379|0.0020
91076591|NCT01066793|182038691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.537||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.654|74.849|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for On-treatment response (RVR vs No RVR/EVR). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a||74.849|3.654|0.0003
91076592|NCT01066793|182038691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.386||||0.0733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|22.114|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for on-treatment response (cEVR vs No RVR/EVR). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||22.114|0.870|0.0733
91076593|NCT01066793|182038691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.352||||0.3478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.394|14.031|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for on-treatment response (pEVR vs No RVR/EVR). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||14.031|0.394|0.3478
91076594|NCT01066793|182038691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.729||||0.0264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.552|0.964|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for age per 10 years. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.964|0.552|0.0264
91076595|NCT01066793|182038691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.658||||0.0096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.586|27.946|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for on-treatment response (RVR vs No RVR/EVR). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||27.946|1.586|0.0096
91076596|NCT01066793|182038691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.734||||0.0421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.057|21.203|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for on-treatment response (cEVR vs No RVR/EVR). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||21.203|1.057|0.0421
91076597|NCT01066793|182038691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.602||||0.6004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|4.014|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for on-treatment response (pEVR vs No RVR/EVR). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||4.014|0.090|0.6004
91076598|NCT01066793|182038691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.715||||0.0418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.517|0.988|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for age per 10 years. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2b.||0.988|0.517|0.0418
91076599|NCT01066793|182038691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.198||||0.0279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.047|0.839|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Gamma-GT in log10 (IU/L) at BL. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2b.||0.839|0.047|0.0279
91076600|NCT01066793|182038691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|40.88|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.474|223.61|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for on-treatment response (RVR vs No RVR/EVR). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2b.||223.61|7.474|<0.0001
91076601|NCT01066793|182038691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|42.395|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.724|206.02|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for on-treatment response (cEVR vs No RVR/EVR). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2b.||206.02|8.724|<0.0001
91076602|NCT01066793|182038691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.247||||0.0087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.704|39.908|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for on-treatment response (pEVR vs No RVR/EVR). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2b.||39.908|1.704|0.0087
91076603|NCT01066793|182038705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.957||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.383|2.77|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for HCV RNA at BL in log10 (IU/mL). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||2.770|1.383|0.0002
91076604|NCT01066793|182038705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.337||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.661|6.705|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Platelets x 10\*\*9/L at BL (\< 140 vs \>=180). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||6.705|1.661|0.0007
91076605|NCT01066793|182038705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.305||||0.3611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.737|2.312|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Platelets x 10\*\*9/L at BL (\>=140 - \< 180 vs \>=180). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||2.312|0.737|0.3611
91076606|NCT01066793|182038705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.943|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.929|0.958|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for treatment duration after VR in weeks. The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.958|0.929|<0.0001
91076607|NCT01066793|182038705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.743||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.615|0.897|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for cumulative ribavirin dose per 10000 mg, during the first 12 weeks. The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.897|0.615|0.0020
91076608|NCT01066793|182038705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.864||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.322|2.628|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for HCV RNA at BL in log10 (IU/mL). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||2.628|1.322|0.0004
91076609|NCT01066793|182038705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.124||||0.0386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|4.338|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for mode of infection (other vs injection drug U). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||4.338|1.040|0.0386
91076610|NCT01066793|182038705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.398||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.722|6.706|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Platelets x 10\*\*9/L at BL (\< 140 vs \>=180). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||6.706|1.722|0.0004
91076611|NCT01066793|182038705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.372||||0.2769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.776|2.428|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Platelets x 10\*\*9/L at BL (\>=140 - \< 180 vs \>=180). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||2.428|0.776|0.2769
91076612|NCT01066793|182038705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.945|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.931|0.96|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for treatment duration after VR in weeks. The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.960|0.931|<0.0001
91076613|NCT01066793|182038705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.163||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.078|1.256|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for BMI in kg/m\^2. The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.256|1.078|0.0001
91076614|NCT01066793|182038705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.788||||0.0213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.091|2.932|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for HCV RNA at BL in log10 (IU/mL). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||2.932|1.091|0.0213
91076615|NCT01066793|182038705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.903||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.856|0.953|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for treatment duration after VR in weeks. The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.953|0.856|0.0002
91076616|NCT01066793|182038705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.723||||0.0306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.538|0.97|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for cumulative ribavirin dose per 10000 mg, first 12 weeks. The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.970|0.538|0.0306
91076617|NCT01066793|182038705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.145||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.061|1.236|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for BMI in kg/m\^2. The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.236|1.061|0.0005
91076618|NCT01066793|182038705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.907||||0.0122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.151|3.158|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for HCV RNA at BL in log10 (IU/mL). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||3.158|1.151|0.0122
91076619|NCT01066793|182038705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.175||||0.0956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.872|5.424|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Platelets x 10\*\*9/L at BL (\< 140 vs \>=180). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||5.424|0.872|0.0956
91076620|NCT01066793|182038705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.267||||0.0846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|1.197|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Platelets x 10\*\*9/L at BL (\>=140 - \< 180 vs \>=180). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.197|0.060|0.0846
91076621|NCT01066793|182038705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.897|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.852|0.945|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for treatment duration after VR in weeks. The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.945|0.852|<0.0001
91076622|NCT01066793|182038705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.996||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.259|3.165|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for age per 10 years. The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||3.165|1.259|0.0033
91076623|NCT01066793|182038705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.035|1.277|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for BMI in kg/m\^2. The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.277|1.035|0.0095
91076624|NCT01066793|182038705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.155||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.045|0.533|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for liver fibrosis (no cirrhosis vs cirrhosis). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.533|0.045|0.0031
91076625|NCT01066793|182038705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.364||||0.0645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.125|1.063|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for liver fibrosis (not assessed/missing vs cirrhosis). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.063|0.125|0.0645
91076626|NCT01066793|182038705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.895||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.846|0.948|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for treatment duration after VR in weeks. The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.948|0.846|0.0001
91076627|NCT01066793|182038705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.996||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.259|3.165|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for age per 10 years. The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||3.165|1.259|0.0033
91076628|NCT01066793|182038705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.035|1.277|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for BMI in kg/m\^2. The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.277|1.035|0.0095
91076629|NCT01066793|182038705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.155||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.045|0.533|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for liver fibrosis (no cirrhosis vs cirrhosis). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.533|0.045|0.0031
91076630|NCT01066793|182038705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.364||||0.0645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.125|1.063|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for liver fibrosis (not assessed/missing vs cirrhosis). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.063|0.125|0.0645
91076631|NCT01066793|182038705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.895||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.846|0.948|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for treatment duration after VR in weeks. The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.948|0.846|0.0001
91076632|NCT01066793|182038705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.266||||0.0182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.041|1.541|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for age per 10 years. The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.541|1.041|0.0182
91076633|NCT01066793|182038705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.59||||0.0092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.122|2.254|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for HCV RNA at BL in log10 (IU/mL). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||2.254|1.122|0.0092
91076634|NCT01066793|182038705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.974||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.488|5.942|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Platelets x 10\*\*9/L at BL (\< 140 vs \>=180). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||5.942|1.488|0.0020
91076635|NCT01066793|182038705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.142||||0.6524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.641|2.035|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Platelets x 10\*\*9/L at BL (\>=140 - \< 180 vs \>=180). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||2.035|0.641|0.6524
91076636|NCT01066793|182038705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.108|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.037|0.311|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for on-treatment response (RVR vs No RVR/EVR). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.311|0.037|<0.0001
91076637|NCT01066793|182038705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.389||||0.0429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.156|0.97|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for on-treatment response (cEVR vs No RVR/EVR). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.970|0.156|0.0429
91076638|NCT01066793|182038705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.523|3.38|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for on-treatment response (pEVR vs No RVR/EVR). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||3.380|0.523|0.5490
91076639|NCT01066793|182038705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.136||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.054|1.224|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for BMI in kg/m\^2. The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.224|1.054|0.0008
91076640|NCT01066793|182038705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.855||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.133|3.037|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for HCV RNA at BL in log10 (IU/mL). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||3.037|1.133|0.0140
91076641|NCT01066793|182038705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.126||||0.0575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.015|1.068|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for on-treatment response (RVR vs No RVR/EVR). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.068|0.015|0.0575
91076642|NCT01066793|182038705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.66||||0.7128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.072|6.025|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for on-treatment response (cEVR vs No RVR/EVR). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||6.025|0.072|0.7128
91076643|NCT01066793|182038705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.505||||0.596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|6.318|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for on-treatment response (pEVR vs No RVR/EVR). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||6.318|0.040|0.5960
91076644|NCT01066793|182038705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.051||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|3.311|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for age per 10 years. The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||3.311|1.270|0.0033
91076645|NCT01066793|182038705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.113||||0.0452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.002|1.236|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for BMI in kg/m\^2. The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.236|1.002|0.0452
91076646|NCT01066793|182038705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.154||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.043|0.551|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for liver fibrosis (no cirrhosis vs cirrhosis). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.551|0.043|0.0040
91076647|NCT01066793|182038705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.393||||0.0833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.137|1.131|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for liver fibrosis (not assessed/missing vs cirrhosis). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a||1.131|0.137|0.0833
91076648|NCT01066793|182038705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.141||||0.1439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|1.951|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for on-treatment response (RVR vs No RVR/EVR). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.951|0.010|0.1439
91076649|NCT01066793|182038705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.35||||0.4457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.024|5.194|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for on-treatment response (cEVR vs No RVR/EVR). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||5.194|0.024|0.4457
91076650|NCT01066793|182038705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.142||||0.6258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|45.801|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for on-treatment response (pEVR vs No RVR/EVR). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||45.801|0.100|0.6258
91076651|NCT04643964|182038716|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||ANCOVA|||In this model, the condition included the following levels: entrée, sampler, and control. No covariates were included.||||.54
91076652|NCT04643964|182038717|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||ANCOVA|||In this model, the condition included the following levels: entrée, sampler, and control. There was one covariate in this model: QIDS at Time 1.||||.92
91076653|NCT04643964|182038718|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||ANCOVA|||In this model, the condition included the following levels: entrée, sampler, and control. There were three covariates in this model: QIDS at Time 1, gender, and COVID interference.||||.37
91076654|NCT04643964|182038719|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||ANCOVA|||In this model, the condition included the following levels: entrée, sampler, and control. There was one covariate in this model: QIDS at Time 1.||||.87
91076655|NCT02539134|182038735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.06||||0.757|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.741|1.374|||Power model|||Day 1: For groups with QD dosing, dose proportionality for TAK-935 plasma exposure on Day 1 was assessed using the power model. For Day 1, the criteria for dose proportionality was the 90 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) for the slope within (0.875, 1.125) for the dose range of 100 mg to 600 mg.||1.374|0.741|0.757
91076656|NCT02539134|182038735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.37||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.078|1.664|||Power model|||Day 14: For groups with QD dosing, dose proportionality for TAK-935 plasma exposure on Day 14 was assessed using the power model. For Day 14, the criteria for dose proportionality was the 90% CI for the slope within (0.839, 1.161) for the dose range of 100 mg to 400 mg.||1.664|1.078|0.042
91076657|NCT02539134|182038736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.2||||0.191|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.946|1.45|||Power model|||Day 1: For groups with QD dosing, dose proportionality for TAK-935 plasma exposure on Day 1 was assessed using the power model. For Day 1, the criteria for dose proportionality was the 90% CI for the slope within (0.875, 1.125) for the dose range of 100 mg to 600 mg.||1.450|0.946|0.191
91076658|NCT02539134|182038736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.37||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.089|1.657|||Power model|||Day 14: For groups with QD dosing, dose proportionality for TAK-935 plasma exposure on Day 14 was assessed using the power model. For Day 14, the criteria for dose proportionality was the 90% CI for the slope within (0.839, 1.161) for the dose range of 100 mg to 400 mg.||1.657|1.089|0.036
91076659|NCT02539134|182038737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.19||||0.288|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.89|1.489|||Power model|||Day 1: For groups with QD dosing, dose proportionality for TAK-935 plasma exposure on Day 1 was assessed using the power model. For Day 1, the criteria for dose proportionality was the 90% CI for the slope within (0.875, 1.125) for the dose range of 100 mg to 600 mg.||1.489|0.890|0.288
91076660|NCT02539134|182038738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.36||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.08|1.642|||Power model|||Day 14: For groups with QD dosing, dose proportionality for TAK-935 plasma exposure on Day 14 was assessed using the power model. For Day 14, the criteria for dose proportionality was the 90% CI for the slope within (0.839, 1.161) for the dose range of 100 mg to 400 mg.||1.642|1.080|0.039
91076661|NCT04068688|182038830|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.00
91076662|NCT04068688|182038830|OTHER|||||||0.914|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.914
91076663|NCT04068688|182038831|OTHER|||||||0.655|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.655
91076664|NCT04068688|182038831|OTHER|||||||0.564|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.564
91076665|NCT04068688|182038832|OTHER|||||||0.014|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.014
91076666|NCT04068688|182038832|OTHER|||||||0.705|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.705
91076667|NCT04068688|182038833|OTHER|||||||0.096|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.096
91076668|NCT04068688|182038833|OTHER|||||||0.732|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.732
91076669|NCT04068688|182038834|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.00
91076670|NCT04068688|182038834|OTHER|||||||0.705|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.705
91076671|NCT04068688|182038835|OTHER|||||||0.442|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.442
91076672|NCT04068688|182038835|OTHER|||||||0.458|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.458
91076673|NCT04068688|182038836|OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.35
91076674|NCT04068688|182038836|OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.68
91076675|NCT04068688|182038840|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.004
91076676|NCT04068688|182038841|OTHER|||||||0.084|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.084
91076677|NCT04068688|182038842|OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.42
91076678|NCT04068688|182038842|OTHER|||||||0.171|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.171
91076679|NCT04068688|182038843|OTHER|||||||0.011|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.011
91076680|NCT04068688|182038843|OTHER|||||||0.049|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.049
91076681|NCT04068688|182038847|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.003
91076682|NCT04068688|182038847|OTHER|||||||0.139|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.139
91076683|NCT04679051|182038852|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Two-tailed paired t-tests were used to compare variables between time in bed conditions.||||0.36
91076684|NCT04679051|182038853|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test comparing the two time in bed protocols.||||0.51
91076685|NCT04679051|182038854|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test comparing peak forearm blood flow between sleep protocols.||||0.03
91076686|NCT04679051|182038855|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test used to compare carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity (index of arterial stiffness) between sleep protocols.||||0.29
91076687|NCT04679051|182038856|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of spatial ability following one day of aerobic exercise. The ANOVA test was performed with a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|||A two-way repeated measures ANOVA was used to evaluate the main effect of exercise (before vs. after exercise) on Manikin throughput scores.||||<0.001
91076688|NCT04679051|182038857|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in the change of executive function following one day of aerobic exercise. The ANOVA test was performed with a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|||A two-way repeated measures ANOVA was used to evaluate the main effect of exercise (before vs. after exercise) on the number of correct answers during a Stroop color-word test.||||0.04
91076689|NCT04679051|182038858|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of spatial ability following one day of aerobic exercise. The ANOVA test was performed with a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|||A two-way repeated measures ANOVA was used to evaluate the main effect of exercise (before vs. after exercise) on throughput scores from a Switching task.||||0.02
91076690|NCT01075399|182038871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson's Correlation Coefficient|0.883|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.802|0.929||Significance of probability for no association between the first and second pre-treatment uptake.|Pearson's correlation|||"Primary Tumor SUV max:~The reproducibility of \[F-18\]HX4 uptake in primary tumors was assessed by comparing SUV max of the 1st and 2nd \[F18\]HX4 PET/CT scan.~Estimated power for a range of coefficients of variation (CVs) postulated for the paired differences in SUV values, and for establishing reproducibility within ±20% or ±25%."||0.929|0.802|<0.001
91076691|NCT01075399|182038871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson's Correlation Coefficient|0.887|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.792|0.925||Significance of probability for no association between the first and second pre-treatment uptake.|Pearson's correlation|||"Primary Tumor SUV mean:~The reproducibility of \[F-18\]HX4 uptake in primary tumors was assessed by comparing SUV mean of the 1st and 2nd \[F18\]HX4 PET/CT scan.~Estimated power for a range of coefficients of variation (CVs) postulated for the paired differences in SUV values, and for establishing reproducibility within ±20% or ±25%."||0.925|0.792|<0.001
91078636|NCT01964716|182043067|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for a given antibody was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 97.5% confidence interval, computed using the Chan and Zhang procedure, for the difference in proportions (13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS) was greater than -0.10.|percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-4.3|4.4||||||Serotype 23F: Exact 2-sided confidence interval (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, 13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS, expressed as a percentage was analyzed.||4.4|-4.3|
91076692|NCT01075399|182038871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson's Correlation Coefficient|0.945|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.904|0.967||Significance of probability for no association between the first and second pre-treatment uptake.|Pearson's correlation|||"Primary Tumor to background SUV ratio:~The reproducibility of \[F-18\]HX4 uptake in primary tumors was assessed by comparing tumor to background SUV ratio (T/B) of the 1st and 2nd \[F18\]HX4 PET/CT scan.~Estimated power for a range of coefficients of variation (CVs) postulated for the paired differences in T/B values, and for establishing reproducibility within ±20% or ±25%."||0.967|0.904|<0.001
91076693|NCT01393132|182038873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0108|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of fluorescein staining score between the placebo and Thymosin beta 4 groups||||0.0108
91076694|NCT01393132|182038874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0141|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Ocular Discomfort Index score between the placebo and Thymosin beta 4 groups||||0.0141
91076695|NCT01393132|182038875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0162|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Tear Film Break up Time between the placebo and Thymosin beta 4 groups.||||0.0162
91076696|NCT00334802|182038876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.169||95.0||||P-value for Dose Level 1 Responders (Complete Response + Partial Response)|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.169
91076697|NCT00334802|182038876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||P-value for Dose Level 2 Responders (Complete Response + Partial Response)|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
91076698|NCT00551161|182038915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||Due to the exploratory nature of these analyses, no adjustment for multiple testing was made. Although it would have been preferable to carry out an omnibus analysis, due to the small sample size, the descriptive approach described above was used.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to examine whether the change between t0 and t1 differed from the change between t1 and t2 \[(t2 - t1) - (t1 - t0)\] for each of the metabolites and ratios, in order to examine whether the rate of change differed while on monotherapy as compared with combination therapy.||||<0.05
91076699|NCT01256385|182038946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.73
91076700|NCT01256385|182038947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.87
91076701|NCT01256385|182038948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.20
91076702|NCT01256385|182038949|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||Chi-squared|||PFS at 4 months in Arm A was compared with a 4-month historical control rate of 21.4%, using a one-sided test at the 0.05 significant level. The historical data appear in two publications, an ASCO abstract: Abidoye, ASCO Annual Meeting 2006: 5568, and de Souza, Davis, et al, Clin Cancer Res 2012; 18(8):2336-2343 (see Figure 1).||||0.006
91076703|NCT01256385|182038949|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.037||||||1-sided.|Chi-squared|||PFS at 4 months in Arm B was compared with a 4-month historical control rate of 21.4%, using a one-sided test at the 0.05 significant level. The historical data appear in two publications, an ASCO abstract: Abidoye, ASCO Annual Meeting 2006: 5568, and de Souza, Davis, et al, Clin Cancer Res 2012; 18(8):2336-2343 (see Figure 1).||||0.037
91076704|NCT01256385|182038950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.59
91076705|NCT03301740|182038991|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin is the standard error of the estimated differences between UF and standard treatment from the repeated measure mixed model.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.7||Statistically significant p-value is \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis = no difference in intradialytic hypotension between UF profiling and conventional HD. Likelihood ratio tests were performed using repeated measure logistic regression with the binary treatment indicator as a fixed effect predictor and assigning each subject a random intercept term. A likelihood ratio test assessed the significance of whether the coefficient corresponding to the binary treatment indicator equals to zero.||1.7|0.8|0.5
91076706|NCT03301740|182038992|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin is the standard error of the estimated differences between UF and standard treatment from the repeated measure mixed model.|Beta coefficient|-2.8||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|1.4||Statistically significant p-value is \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis = no difference in troponin T change between UF profiling and conventional HD. Repeated measure linear regression was performed, giving each subject a random intercept term. The coefficient is the difference in the outcome between UF profiling and conventional HD.||1.4|-6.9|0.2
91076707|NCT03301740|182038993|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin is the standard error of the estimated differences between UF and standard treatment from the repeated measure mixed model.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.3||Statistically significant p-value is \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis = no difference in troponin T rise between UF profiling and conventional HD. Likelihood ratio tests were performed using repeated measure logistic regression with the binary treatment indicator as a fixed effect predictor and assigning each subject a random intercept term. A likelihood ratio test assessed the significance of whether the coefficient corresponding to the binary treatment indicator equals to zero.||1.3|0.2|0.1
91076708|NCT03301740|182038994|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin is the standard error of the estimated differences between UF and standard treatment from the repeated measure mixed model.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.5||Statistically significant p-value is \<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis = no difference in left ventricular GLS change between UF profiling and conventional HD. Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney) tests were performed assessing the difference of the endpoint between the 2 treatment groups.||0.5|-2.0|0.2
91076709|NCT03301740|182038995|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin is the standard error of the estimated differences between UF and standard treatment from the repeated measure mixed model.|Beta coefficient|-0.2||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.7||Statistically significant p-value is \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis = no difference in nadir systolic BP between UF profiling and conventional HD. Repeated measure linear regression was performed, giving each subject a random intercept term. The coefficient is the difference in the outcome between UF profiling and conventional HD.||1.7|-2.0|0.9
91076710|NCT03301740|182038996|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin is the standard error of the estimated differences between UF and standard treatment from the repeated measure mixed model.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.3||Statistically significant p-value is \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis = no difference in failed target weight achievement between UF profiling and conventional HD. Likelihood ratio tests were performed using repeated measure logistic regression with the binary treatment indicator as a fixed effect predictor and assigning each subject a random intercept term. A likelihood ratio test assessed the significance of whether the coefficient corresponding to the binary treatment indicator equals to zero.||1.3|0.7|0.8
91076711|NCT03301740|182038997|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin is the standard error of the estimated differences between UF and standard treatment from the repeated measure mixed model.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.1||Statistically significant p-value is \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis = no difference in clinically important cramping between UF profiling and conventional HD. Likelihood ratio tests were performed using repeated measure logistic regression with the binary treatment indicator as a fixed effect predictor and assigning each subject a random intercept term. A likelihood ratio test assessed the significance of whether the coefficient corresponding to the binary treatment indicator equals to zero.||2.1|0.4|0.9
91076712|NCT03301740|182038998|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin is the standard error of the estimated differences between UF and standard treatment from the repeated measure mixed model.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.2||Statistically significant p-value is \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis = no difference in clinically important nausea/upset stomach between UF profiling and conventional HD. Likelihood ratio tests were performed using repeated measure logistic regression with the binary treatment indicator as a fixed effect predictor and assigning each subject a random intercept term. A likelihood ratio test assessed the significance of whether the coefficient corresponding to the binary treatment indicator equals to zero.||2.2|0.2|0.5
91076713|NCT03301740|182038999|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin is the standard error of the estimated differences between UF and standard treatment from the repeated measure mixed model.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|16.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis = no difference in clinically important Vomiting/throwing up score between UF profiling and conventional HD. Likelihood ratio tests were performed using repeated measure logistic regression with the binary treatment indicator as a fixed effect predictor and assigning each subject a random intercept term. A likelihood ratio test assessed the significance of whether the coefficient corresponding to the binary treatment indicator equals to zero.||16.0|0.1|1.0
91076714|NCT03301740|182039000|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin is the standard error of the estimated differences between UF and standard treatment from the repeated measure mixed model.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.2||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.9||Statistically significant p-value is \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis = no difference in clinically important dizziness/lightheadedness between UF profiling and conventional HD. Likelihood ratio tests were performed using repeated measure logistic regression with the binary treatment indicator as a fixed effect predictor and assigning each subject a random intercept term. A likelihood ratio test assessed the significance of whether the coefficient corresponding to the binary treatment indicator equals to zero.||0.9|0.1|0.04
91076715|NCT03301740|182039001|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin is the standard error of the estimated differences between UF and standard treatment from the repeated measure mixed model.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.1||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|32.4||Statistically significant p-value is \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis = no difference in clinically important racing heart/heart palpitations between UF profiling and conventional HD. Likelihood ratio tests were performed using repeated measure logistic regression with the binary treatment indicator as a fixed effect predictor and assigning each subject a random intercept term. A likelihood ratio test assessed the significance of whether the coefficient corresponding to the binary treatment indicator equals to zero.||32.4|0.3|0.3
91076716|NCT03301740|182039002|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin is the standard error of the estimated differences between UF and standard treatment from the repeated measure mixed model.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|6.0||Statistically significant p-value is \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis = no difference in clinically important chest pain between UF profiling and conventional HD. Likelihood ratio tests were performed using repeated measure logistic regression with the binary treatment indicator as a fixed effect predictor and assigning each subject a random intercept term. A likelihood ratio test assessed the significance of whether the coefficient corresponding to the binary treatment indicator equals to zero.||6.0|0.2|1.0
91076717|NCT03301740|182039003|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin is the standard error of the estimated differences between UF and standard treatment from the repeated measure mixed model.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|6.5||Statistically significant p-value is \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis = no difference in clinically important shortness of breath between UF profiling and conventional HD. Likelihood ratio tests were performed using repeated measure logistic regression with the binary treatment indicator as a fixed effect predictor and assigning each subject a random intercept term. A likelihood ratio test assessed the significance of whether the coefficient corresponding to the binary treatment indicator equals to zero.||6.5|0.3|0.7
91076718|NCT03301740|182039004|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin is the standard error of the estimated differences between UF and standard treatment from the repeated measure mixed model.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.2||Statistically significant p-value is \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis = no difference in clinically important thirst/dry mouth between UF profiling and conventional HD. Likelihood ratio tests were performed using repeated measure logistic regression with the binary treatment indicator as a fixed effect predictor and assigning each subject a random intercept term. A likelihood ratio test assessed the significance of whether the coefficient corresponding to the binary treatment indicator equals to zero.||1.2|0.3|0.2
91076719|NCT03301740|182039005|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin is the standard error of the estimated differences between UF and standard treatment from the repeated measure mixed model.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.3||Statistically significant p-value is \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis = no difference in clinically important headache between UF profiling and conventional HD. Likelihood ratio tests were performed using repeated measure logistic regression with the binary treatment indicator as a fixed effect predictor and assigning each subject a random intercept term. A likelihood ratio test assessed the significance of whether the coefficient corresponding to the binary treatment indicator equals to zero.||2.3|0.4|0.8
91076720|NCT03301740|182039006|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin is the standard error of the estimated differences between UF and standard treatment from the repeated measure mixed model.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.8||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|6.6||Statistically significant p-value is \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis = no difference in clinically important itching between UF profiling and conventional HD. Likelihood ratio tests were performed using repeated measure logistic regression with the binary treatment indicator as a fixed effect predictor and assigning each subject a random intercept term. A likelihood ratio test assessed the significance of whether the coefficient corresponding to the binary treatment indicator equals to zero.||6.6|1.2|0.02
91076721|NCT03301740|182039007|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin is the standard error of the estimated differences between UF and standard treatment from the repeated measure mixed model.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.6||Statistically significant p-value is \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis = no difference in clinically important restless legs/difficulty keeping legs still between UF profiling and conventional HD. Likelihood ratio tests were performed using repeated measure logistic regression with the binary treatment indicator as a fixed effect predictor and assigning each subject a random intercept term. A likelihood ratio test assessed the significance of whether the coefficient corresponding to the binary treatment indicator equals to zero.||2.6|0.5|0.7
91076722|NCT03301740|182039008|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin is the standard error of the estimated differences between UF and standard treatment from the repeated measure mixed model.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.4||Statistically significant p-value is \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis = no difference in clinically important tingling/feeling of pins and needles between UF profiling and conventional HD. Likelihood ratio tests were performed using repeated measure logistic regression with the binary treatment indicator as a fixed effect predictor and assigning each subject a random intercept term. A likelihood ratio test assessed the significance of whether the coefficient corresponding to the binary treatment indicator equals to zero.||2.4|0.2|0.5
91076723|NCT02847182|182039009|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.14||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|3.86|||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: The mean of the 6-month change in VABS-II Socialization Subscale Standard Score is the same for the Cord Blood and Placebo groups.||3.86|-1.58|0.83
91076724|NCT03191864|182039047|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.001
91076725|NCT03191864|182039047|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91076726|NCT03191864|182039047|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91076727|NCT03191864|182039047|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
91076728|NCT03191864|182039049|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.28||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.29|-0.26|||ANCOVA|||Least-squares Mean differences, 90% confidence intervals and 1-sided p-values for comparisons of each APT-1011 dose group to Placebo at Week 12 are from an ANCOVA model||-0.26|-2.29|0.020
91076729|NCT03191864|182039049|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.07|-1.1|||ANCOVA|||Least-squares Mean differences, 90% confidence intervals and 1-sided p-values for comparisons of each APT-1011 dose group to Placebo at Week 12 are from an ANCOVA model||-1.10|-3.07|<0.001
91076730|NCT03191864|182039049|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.23|-1.26|||ANCOVA|||Least-squares Mean differences, 90% confidence intervals and 1-sided p-values for comparisons of each APT-1011 dose group to Placebo at Week 12 are from an ANCOVA model||-1.26|-3.23|<0.001
91076731|NCT03191864|182039049|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.59||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.59|-0.59|||ANCOVA|||Least-squares Mean differences, 90% confidence intervals and 1-sided p-values for comparisons of each APT-1011 dose group to Placebo at Week 12 are from an ANCOVA model||-0.59|-2.59|0.005
91076732|NCT03191864|182039051|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.19||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.49|0.12|||ANCOVA|||Least-squares Mean differences, 90% confidence intervals and 1-sided p-values for comparison of each APT-1011 dose group to placebo at Week 12 are from an ANCOVA model.||0.12|-2.49|0.067
91076733|NCT03191864|182039051|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34||||0.672|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.91|1.59|||ANCOVA|||Least-squares Mean differences, 90% confidence intervals and 1-sided p-values for comparison of each APT-1011 dose group to placebo at Week 12 are from an ANCOVA model.||1.59|-0.91|0.672
91076734|NCT03191864|182039051|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.28||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.55|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||Least-squares Mean differences, 90% confidence intervals and 1-sided p-values for comparison of each APT-1011 dose group to placebo at Week 12 are from an ANCOVA model.||-0.01|-2.55|0.048
91076735|NCT03191864|182039051|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31||||0.653|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.98|1.59|||ANCOVA|||Least-squares Mean differences, 90% confidence intervals and 1-sided p-values for comparison of each APT-1011 dose group to placebo at Week 12 are from an ANCOVA model.||1.59|-0.98|0.653
91076736|NCT03191864|182039053|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.81||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-19.06|1.45|||ANCOVA|||EEsAI Total Score Change from Baseline Week 12||1.45|-19.06|0.079
91076737|NCT03191864|182039053|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.18||||0.195|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.14|4.78|||ANCOVA|||EEsAI Total Score Change from Baseline Week 12||4.78|-15.14|0.195
91076738|NCT03191864|182039053|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.56||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.55|-2.58|||ANCOVA|||EEsAI Total Score Change from Baseline Week 12||-2.58|-22.55|0.020
91076739|NCT03191864|182039053|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.61||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.74|-0.48|||ANCOVA|||EEsAI Total Score Change from Baseline Week 12||-0.48|-20.74|0.043
91076740|NCT03191864|182039054|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21||||0.459|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.49|3.08|||ANCOVA|||VDQ Score Change from Baseline Week 12||3.08|-3.49|0.459
91076741|NCT03191864|182039054|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.58||||0.617|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.65|3.8|||ANCOVA|||VDQ Score Change from Baseline Week 12||3.80|-2.65|0.617
91076742|NCT03191864|182039054|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.87||||0.167|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.07|1.33|||ANCOVA|||VDQ Score Change from Baseline Week 12||1.33|-5.07|0.167
91076743|NCT03191864|182039054|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.63||||0.373|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.88|2.61|||ANCOVA|||VDQ Score Change from Baseline Week 12||2.61|-3.88|0.373
91076744|NCT03191864|182039054|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.66||||0.203|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.96|1.64|||ANCOVA|||AMS Score Change from Baseline Week 12||1.64|-4.96|0.203
91076745|NCT03191864|182039054|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.33||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.54|-1.13|||ANCOVA|||AMS Score Change from Baseline Week 12||-1.13|-7.54|0.014
91076746|NCT03191864|182039054|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.02||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.23|0.2|||ANCOVA|||AMS Score Change from Baseline Week 12||0.20|-6.23|0.061
91076747|NCT03191864|182039054|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.57||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.83|0.69|||ANCOVA|||AMS Score Change from Baseline Week 12||0.69|-5.83|0.097
91076748|NCT02044874|182039068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.02||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|6.22|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.22|1.47|0.0027
91076749|NCT02044874|182039068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6||||0.2427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|3.51|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.51|0.73|0.2427
91076750|NCT02044874|182039068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.89||||0.0477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|3.56|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.56|1.01|0.0477
91076751|NCT02044874|182039069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.84||||0.0784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|9.08|||Regression, Logistic|||||9.08|0.89|0.0784
91076752|NCT02044874|182039069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.78||||0.365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|6.17|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.17|0.51|0.3650
91076753|NCT02044874|182039069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6||||0.3438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|4.21|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.21|0.61|0.3438
91076754|NCT02044874|182039070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.92||||0.0379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|3.55|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.55|1.04|0.0379
91076755|NCT02044874|182039070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.8628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|2.09|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.09|0.54|0.8628
91076756|NCT02044874|182039070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.81||||0.0556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|3.31|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.31|0.99|0.0556
91076757|NCT02044874|182039071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.92||||0.0219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|3.35|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.35|1.10|0.0219
91076758|NCT02044874|182039071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.18|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.18|0.66|0.5450
91076759|NCT02044874|182039071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6||||0.0868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|2.72|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.72|0.93|0.0868
91076760|NCT02044874|182039072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.97||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|-0.43|||Mixed-effects repeated measures|||||-0.43|-1.51|0.0004
91076761|NCT02044874|182039072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.34||||0.2268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.21|||mixed effects repeated measures|||||0.21|-0.89|0.2268
91076762|NCT02044874|182039072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.63||||0.0217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|-0.09|||mixed effects repeated measures|||||-0.09|-1.17|0.0217
91076763|NCT00415597|182039078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: Percent change from baseline = 0||||<0.0001
91076764|NCT00415597|182039079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: Percent change from baseline = 0||||<0.0001
91076765|NCT02172040|182039085|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin definition: lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for amlodipine + celecoxib arm did not cross the 50% value for the amlodipine arm.|||||=|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||A serial gatekeeping strategy was used for the primary efficacy endpoint analysis. The primary comparison was a two-sample t-test to test the one-sided hypothesis that treatment with amlodipine + celecoxib was non-inferior to half of the effect achieved with amlodipine.||||= 0.001
91076766|NCT02172040|182039085|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.491|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||A serial gatekeeping strategy was used for the primary efficacy endpoint analysis. The secondary comparison was a two-sample t-test to test the one-sided hypothesis that treatment with placebo was superior to treatment with celecoxib. This was only to be performed if statistical significance was achieved for the primary comparison.||||= 0.491
91076767|NCT02172040|182039086|OTHER||||||=|0.166|||||||Chi-squared|||||||= 0.166
91076768|NCT02172040|182039087|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.177|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.177
91076769|NCT02172040|182039087|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
91076770|NCT02172040|182039087|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
91076771|NCT02172040|182039087|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
91076772|NCT02172040|182039087|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
91076773|NCT02172040|182039087|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.719|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||= 0.719
91076774|NCT02172040|182039088|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.069|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||= 0.069
91076775|NCT02172040|182039088|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||= 0.001
91076776|NCT02172040|182039088|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
91076777|NCT02172040|182039088|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.097|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||= 0.097
91076778|NCT02172040|182039088|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.064|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||= 0.064
91076779|NCT02172040|182039088|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.924|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||= 0.924
91076780|NCT02172040|182039089|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.038|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||= 0.038
91076781|NCT02172040|182039089|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
91076782|NCT02172040|182039089|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
91076783|NCT02172040|182039089|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
91076784|NCT02172040|182039089|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
91076785|NCT02172040|182039089|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.562|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||= 0.562
91076786|NCT02172040|182039090|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.104|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||= 0.104
91076787|NCT02172040|182039090|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
91076788|NCT02172040|182039090|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
91076789|NCT02172040|182039090|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.002|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||= 0.002
91076790|NCT02172040|182039090|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
91076791|NCT02172040|182039090|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.419|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||= 0.419
91076792|NCT02172040|182039091|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.028|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||= 0.028
91076793|NCT02172040|182039091|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
91076794|NCT02172040|182039091|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
91076795|NCT02172040|182039091|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.051|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||= 0.051
91076796|NCT02172040|182039091|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.074|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||= 0.074
91076797|NCT02172040|182039091|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.878|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||= 0.878
91076798|NCT02172040|182039092|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
91076799|NCT02172040|182039093|OTHER||||||=|0.977|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||= 0.977
91076800|NCT02172040|182039094|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
91076801|NCT02172040|182039095|OTHER||||||=|0.527|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||= 0.527
91076802|NCT02172040|182039096|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
91076803|NCT02172040|182039096|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
91076804|NCT02172040|182039096|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
91076805|NCT02172040|182039096|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||= 0.001
91076806|NCT04908202|182039099|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.67|3.13|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.13|1.67|<0.0001
91076807|NCT04908202|182039100|SUPERIORITY||ADJUSTED MEAN DIFFERENCE|-0.5051|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6709|-0.3392|||ANCOVA|||||-0.3392|-0.6709|<0.0001
91076808|NCT04908202|182039101|SUPERIORITY||ADJUSTED MEAN DIFFERENCE|-0.1688|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2442|-0.0933|||ANCOVA|||||-0.0933|-0.2442|<0.0001
91076809|NCT04908202|182039102|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.19|27.59|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||27.59|7.19|<0.0001
91076810|NCT04908202|182039103|SUPERIORITY||ADJUSTED MEAN DIFFERENCE|6.631|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.481|9.781|||ANCOVA|||||9.781|3.481|<0.0001
91076811|NCT04908202|182039104|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.5699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.75|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.75|0.74|0.5699
91076812|NCT04908202|182039105|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.08||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|3.26|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.26|1.33|0.0012
91076813|NCT04908202|182039106|SUPERIORITY||ADJUSTED MEAN DIFFERENCE|2.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|3.9|||ANCOVA|||||3.9|1.4|<0.0001
91076814|NCT04908202|182039107|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|3.03|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.03|1.07|0.0270
91076815|NCT04908202|182039108|SUPERIORITY||ADJUSTED MEAN DIFFERENCE|0.1596||||0.7194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7114|1.0306|||ANCOVA|||||1.0306|-0.7114|0.7194
91076816|NCT02294461|182039182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Unstratified Cox Proportional Hazards|0.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.52|||Hazard Ratio|||P-value is based on an unstratified log-rank test. Hazard ratio calculated using unstratified Cox Proportional Hazards model with treatment as the only covariate for enzalutamide group versus placebo group.||0.52|0.27|<0.0001
91076817|NCT02294461|182039183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.0208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.95||P-value is based on an unstratified log-rank test.|Unstratified log-rank test|||Participants who were not known to have had died at the analysis date were censored at date last known alive. Hazard ratio calculated using unstratified Cox Proportional Hazards model with treatment as the only covariate for enzalutamide group versus placebo group.||0.95|0.51|0.0208
91076818|NCT02294461|182039184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.31|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.2|0.46||P-value is based on an unstratified log-rank test.|Unstratified log-rank test|||Participants who were not known to have had an rPFS event were censored at the date of the last assessment showing no objective evidence of rPFS prior to scan modality change, new antineoplastic treatment, initiation of radiation therapy for prostate cancer, skeletal-related event (SRE) and 2 or more consecutive missed tumor assessments. Hazard ratio calculated using unstratified Cox Proportional Hazards model with treatment as the only covariate for enzalutamide.||0.46|0.20|<0.0001
91076819|NCT02294461|182039185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56||||0.2501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.52||P-value was based on an unstratified log-rank test.|Unstratified log-rank test|||Participants who did not have an SRE were censored at the date of the last assessment indicating no evidence of SRE. Hazard ratio calculated using unstratified Cox Proportional Hazards model with treatment as the only covariate for enzalutamide group versus placebo group.||1.52|0.21|0.2501
91076820|NCT02294461|182039186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.28||||0.002||95.0|0.12|0.66||P-value is based on an unstratified log-rank test.|Unstratified log-rank test|||Participants who did not start cytotoxic chemotherapy were censored at the date of the last assessment indicating no evidence of cytotoxic chemotherapy usage. Hazard ratio calculated using unstratified Cox Proportional Hazards model with treatment as the only covariate for enzalutamide group versus placebo group.||0.66|0.12|0.0020
91076821|NCT02294461|182039187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference of response rate|55.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.4|64.2||P-value is based on unstratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel mean score test.|Unstratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel %|||||64.2|47.4|<0.0001
91076822|NCT02294461|182039188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in objective response rate|26.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.7|37.4||P-value is based on unstratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel mean score test.|Unstratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||When deriving the response category, it was based on the target, non-target and new lesions without confirming CR, PR, and Progressive disease (PD). Participants with no post baseline assessment were included in the category of Nonevaluable (NE). The best overall soft tissue objective response was defined as PR or CR based on the investigator assessments of target, non-target and new lesions while on the study treatment.||37.4|14.7|<0.0001
91076823|NCT03030118|182039246|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||Regression, Logistic|||For the primary outcome (SLICC classification criteria count \[SLICC score\]), measured every 12 weeks over a 96-week period, we used an ordinal logistic regression model to compare the estimated slopes over time for the intervention (HCQ) and placebo groups. The model accounted for the ordinal and non-decreasing properties of the SLICC score. Our null hypothesis was that the intervention slope equaled the placebo slope, with a corresponding hypothesis that the slopes were not equal.||||0.72
91076824|NCT03030118|182039247|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||Regression, Cox|||Progression to SLE was defined as the number of subjects in whom a SLICC score of 4 was recorded, up to 96 weeks.||||0.81
91076825|NCT03030118|182039248|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||Regression, Logistic|||"For the SLEDAI score, we combined responses to model the following groups:~* Score of 0 or 1~* Score of 2 or 3~* Score of 4, 6, or 8"||||0.74
91076826|NCT03030118|182039249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||Regression, Logistic|Ordinal logistic regression||"For analysis, we combined responses ≥3 to model the following groups:~* Score of 0~* Score of 1~* Score of 2~* Score of 3 or higher"||||0.77
91076827|NCT03030118|182039250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.386|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.386
91076828|NCT03030118|182039251|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.497|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.497
91076829|NCT03030118|182039252|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Regression, Logistic|Ordinal logistic regression||||||0.99
91076830|NCT03030118|182039253|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
91076831|NCT03030118|182039254|NON_INFERIORITY|Outcome with hydroxychloroquine is hypothesized to be not inferior to outcome with placebo.|||||>|0.5|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.5
91076832|NCT03030118|182039255|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
91076833|NCT03030118|182039256|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
91076834|NCT02607280|182039263|OTHER||LS mean change from baseline at Week 14|-1.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.45|-1.14||||||||-1.14|-2.45|
91076835|NCT02607280|182039263|OTHER||LS mean change from baseline at Week 14|-2.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.77|-0.36||||||||-0.36|-3.77|
91076836|NCT02052596|182039279|NON_INFERIORITY|Criteria for non-inferiority: At one month after the last vaccine dose (Month 3 or Month 5), the upper limit (UL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the anti-gE antibodies GMC ratio between the Control Group and the GSK1437173A Group had to be below (\<) 1.5,|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.21||||Adjustment for baseline concentration and age - pooled variance.||Demonstration of non-inferiority of the humoral immune response to two doses of the GSK1437173A vaccine when Boostrix vaccine was co-administered with the first GSK1437173A vaccine dose compared to two doses of GSK1437173A vaccine (administered separately from Boostrix vaccine), one month after the last vaccine dose.||1.21|1.02|
91076837|NCT02052596|182039280|NON_INFERIORITY|Criteria for non-inferiority: At one month after the first vaccine dose (Month 1), the upper limit (UL) of the 95% confidence interval for the GMC ratio for anti-PT antibodies of the Control Group over the GSK1437173A Group had to be \< 1.5.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.36||||Ancova model: adjustment for baseline concentration - pooled variance.||Demonstration of non-inferiority of the humoral immune response to Boostrix vaccine when co-administered with GSK1437173A vaccine at first vaccination dose compared to Boostrix vaccine (administered separately from GSK1437173A) for pertussis toxoid (PT), one month after the vaccine dose.||1.36|1.00|
91076838|NCT02052596|182039280|NON_INFERIORITY|Criteria for non-inferiority: At one month after the first vaccine dose (Month 1), the upper limit (UL) of the 95% confidence interval for the GMC ratio for anti-FHA antibodies of the Control Group over the GSK1437173A Group had to be \< 1.5.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.44||||Adjustment for baseline concentration - pooled variance.||Demonstration of non-inferiority of the humoral immune response to Boostrix vaccine when co-administered with GSK1437173A vaccine at first vaccination dose compared to Boostrix vaccine (administered separately from GSK1437173A) for filamentous hemagglutinin (FHA) antigen, one month after the vaccine dose.||1.44|1.07|
91076839|NCT02052596|182039280|NON_INFERIORITY|Criteria for non-inferiority: At one month after the first vaccine dose (Month 1), the upper limit (UL) of the 95% confidence interval for the GMC ratio for anti-PRN antibodies of the Control Group over the GSK1437173A Group had to be \< 1.5.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.58||||Adjustment for baseline concentration - pooled variance.||Demonstration of non-inferiority of the humoral immune response to Boostrix vaccine when co-administered with GSK1437173A vaccine at first vaccination dose compared to Boostrix vaccine (administered separately from GSK1437173A) for pertactin (PRN) antigen, one month after the vaccine dose.||1.58|1.02|
91076840|NCT02052596|182039281|NON_INFERIORITY|Criteria for non-inferiority: At one month after the first vaccine dose (Month 1), the upper limit (UL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in the percentages of subjects with anti-diphtheria (anti-D) concentrations ≥ 1.0 IU/mL of the Control Group minus the GSK1437173A Group had to be \< 10%.|Difference in seropositivity rate|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.03|2.85||||||Demonstration of non-inferiority of the humoral immune response to Boostrix vaccine when co-administered with GSK1437173A vaccine at first vaccination dose compared to Boostrix vaccine (administered separately from GSK1437173A) for diphteria (D) antigen, one month after the vaccine dose.||2.85|-3.03|
91076841|NCT02052596|182039281|NON_INFERIORITY|Criteria for non-inferiority: At one month after the first vaccine dose (Month 1), the upper limit (UL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in the percentages of subjects with anti-tetanus (anti-T) concentrations ≥ 1.0 IU/mL of the Control Group minus the GSK1437173A Group had to be \< 10%.|Difference in seropositivity rate|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|1.27||||||Demonstration of non-inferiority of the humoral immune response to Boostrix vaccine when co-administered with GSK1437173A vaccine at first vaccination dose compared to Boostrix vaccine (administered separately from GSK1437173A) for tetanus (T) antigen, one month after the vaccine dose.||1.27|-1.18|
91076842|NCT04526574|182039351|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority (NI) for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR of the (SIIV+20vPnC)/saline group to the (SIIV+saline)/20vPnC group was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion) for that serotype.|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.84||||||Serotype 1: GMR (ratio of GMTs \[SIIV+20vPnC\]/saline to \[SIIV+saline\]/20vPnC) and 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference of least square (LS) means for OPA titers and corresponding CIs based on regression model adjusted with vaccine group, sex, smoking status, age at Vaccination 1 in years, baseline log-transformed OPA titers, and prior pneumococcal vaccination status.||0.84|0.65|
91076843|NCT04526574|182039351|NON_INFERIORITY|NI for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR of the (SIIV+20vPnC)/saline group to the (SIIV+saline)/20vPnC group was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion) for that serotype.|GMR|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|0.9||||||Serotype 3: GMR (ratio of GMTs \[SIIV+20vPnC\]/saline to \[SIIV+saline\]/20vPnC) and 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference of LS means for OPA titers and corresponding CIs based on regression model adjusted with vaccine group, sex, smoking status, age at Vaccination 1 in years, baseline log-transformed OPA titers, and prior pneumococcal vaccination status.||0.90|0.75|
91076844|NCT04526574|182039351|NON_INFERIORITY|NI for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR of the (SIIV+20vPnC)/saline group to the (SIIV+saline)/20vPnC group was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion) for that serotype.|GMR|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.02||||||Serotype 4: GMR (ratio of GMTs \[SIIV+20vPnC\]/saline to \[SIIV+saline\]/20vPnC) and 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference of LS means for OPA titers and corresponding CIs based on regression model adjusted with vaccine group, sex, smoking status, age at Vaccination 1 in years, baseline log-transformed OPA titers, and prior pneumococcal vaccination status.||1.02|0.77|
91076845|NCT04526574|182039351|NON_INFERIORITY|NI for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR of the (SIIV+20vPnC)/saline group to the (SIIV+saline)/20vPnC group was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion) for that serotype.|GMR|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.98||||||Serotype 5: GMR (ratio of GMTs \[SIIV+20vPnC\]/saline to \[SIIV+saline\]/20vPnC) and 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference of LS means for OPA titers and corresponding CIs based on regression model adjusted with vaccine group, sex, smoking status, age at Vaccination 1 in years, baseline log-transformed OPA titers, and prior pneumococcal vaccination status.||0.98|0.79|
91077888|NCT02913105|182041136|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.89||||0.2414|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.76|1.05|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Triglycerides: Day 112 (EOS)||1.05|0.76|0.2414
91076846|NCT04526574|182039351|NON_INFERIORITY|NI for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR of the (SIIV+20vPnC)/saline group to the (SIIV+saline)/20vPnC group was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion) for that serotype.|GMR|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.88||||||Serotype 6A: GMR (ratio of GMTs \[SIIV+20vPnC\]/saline to \[SIIV+saline\]/20vPnC) and 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference of LS means for OPA titers and corresponding CIs based on regression model adjusted with vaccine group, sex, smoking status, age at Vaccination 1 in years, baseline log-transformed OPA titers, and prior pneumococcal vaccination status.||0.88|0.65|
91076847|NCT04526574|182039351|NON_INFERIORITY|NI for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR of the (SIIV+20vPnC)/saline group to the (SIIV+saline)/20vPnC group was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion) for that serotype.|GMR|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.94||||||Serotype 6B: GMR (ratio of GMTs \[SIIV+20vPnC\]/saline to \[SIIV+saline\]/20vPnC) and 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference of LS means for OPA titers and corresponding CIs based on regression model adjusted with vaccine group, sex, smoking status, age at Vaccination 1 in years, baseline log-transformed OPA titers, and prior pneumococcal vaccination status.||0.94|0.71|
91076848|NCT04526574|182039351|NON_INFERIORITY|NI for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR of the (SIIV+20vPnC)/saline group to the (SIIV+saline)/20vPnC group was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion) for that serotype.|GMR|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|0.99||||||Serotype 7F: GMR (ratio of GMTs \[SIIV+20vPnC\]/saline to \[SIIV+saline\]/20vPnC) and 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference of LS means for OPA titers and corresponding CIs based on regression model adjusted with vaccine group, sex, smoking status, age at Vaccination 1 in years, baseline log-transformed OPA titers, and prior pneumococcal vaccination status.||0.99|0.83|
91076849|NCT04526574|182039351|NON_INFERIORITY|NI for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR of the (SIIV+20vPnC)/saline group to the (SIIV+saline)/20vPnC group was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion) for that serotype.|GMR|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.93||||||Serotype 8: GMR (ratio of GMTs \[SIIV+20vPnC\]/saline to \[SIIV+saline\]/20vPnC) and 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference of LS means for OPA titers and corresponding CIs based on regression model adjusted with vaccine group, sex, smoking status, age at Vaccination 1 in years, baseline log-transformed OPA titers, and prior pneumococcal vaccination status.||0.93|0.70|
91076850|NCT04526574|182039351|NON_INFERIORITY|NI for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR of the (SIIV+20vPnC)/saline group to the (SIIV+saline)/20vPnC group was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion) for that serotype.|GMR|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.07||||||Serotype 9V: GMR (ratio of GMTs \[SIIV+20vPnC\]/saline to \[SIIV+saline\]/20vPnC) and 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference of LS means for OPA titers and corresponding CIs based on regression model adjusted with vaccine group, sex, smoking status, age at Vaccination 1 in years, baseline log-transformed OPA titers, and prior pneumococcal vaccination status.||1.07|0.82|
91076851|NCT04526574|182039351|NON_INFERIORITY|NI for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR of the (SIIV+20vPnC)/saline group to the (SIIV+saline)/20vPnC group was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion) for that serotype.|GMR|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.96||||||Serotype 10A: GMR (ratio of GMTs \[SIIV+20vPnC\]/saline to \[SIIV+saline\]/20vPnC) and 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference of LS means for OPA titers and corresponding CIs based on regression model adjusted with vaccine group, sex, smoking status, age at Vaccination 1 in years, baseline log-transformed OPA titers, and prior pneumococcal vaccination status.||0.96|0.71|
91076852|NCT04526574|182039351|NON_INFERIORITY|NI for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR of the (SIIV+20vPnC)/saline group to the (SIIV+saline)/20vPnC group was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion) for that serotype.|GMR|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.84||||||Serotype 11A: GMR (ratio of GMTs \[SIIV+20vPnC\]/saline to \[SIIV+saline\]/20vPnC) and 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference of LS means for OPA titers and corresponding CIs based on regression model adjusted with vaccine group, sex, smoking status, age at Vaccination 1 in years, baseline log-transformed OPA titers, and prior pneumococcal vaccination status.||0.84|0.60|
91076853|NCT04526574|182039351|NON_INFERIORITY|NI for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR of the (SIIV+20vPnC)/saline group to the (SIIV+saline)/20vPnC group was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion) for that serotype.|GMR|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.97||||||Serotype 12F: GMR (ratio of GMTs \[SIIV+20vPnC\]/saline to \[SIIV+saline\]/20vPnC) and 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference of LS means for OPA titers and corresponding CIs based on regression model adjusted with vaccine group, sex, smoking status, age at Vaccination 1 in years, baseline log-transformed OPA titers, and prior pneumococcal vaccination status.||0.97|0.69|
91076854|NCT04526574|182039351|NON_INFERIORITY|NI for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR of the (SIIV+20vPnC)/saline group to the (SIIV+saline)/20vPnC group was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion) for that serotype.|GMR|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.96||||||Serotype 14: GMR (ratio of GMTs \[SIIV+20vPnC\]/saline to \[SIIV+saline\]/20vPnC) and 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference of LS means for OPA titers and corresponding CIs based on regression model adjusted with vaccine group, sex, smoking status, age at Vaccination 1 in years, baseline log-transformed OPA titers, and prior pneumococcal vaccination status.||0.96|0.76|
91076855|NCT04526574|182039351|NON_INFERIORITY|NI for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR of the (SIIV+20vPnC)/saline group to the (SIIV+saline)/20vPnC group was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion) for that serotype.|GMR|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.86||||||Serotype 15B: GMR (ratio of GMTs \[SIIV+20vPnC\]/saline to \[SIIV+saline\]/20vPnC) and 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference of LS means for OPA titers and corresponding CIs based on regression model adjusted with vaccine group, sex, smoking status, age at Vaccination 1 in years, baseline log-transformed OPA titers, and prior pneumococcal vaccination status.||0.86|0.57|
91076856|NCT04526574|182039351|NON_INFERIORITY|NI for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR of the (SIIV+20vPnC)/saline group to the (SIIV+saline)/20vPnC group was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion) for that serotype.|GMR|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.04||||||Serotype 18C: GMR (ratio of GMTs \[SIIV+20vPnC\]/saline to \[SIIV+saline\]/20vPnC) and 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference of LS means for OPA titers and corresponding CIs based on regression model adjusted with vaccine group, sex, smoking status, age at Vaccination 1 in years, baseline log-transformed OPA titers, and prior pneumococcal vaccination status.||1.04|0.77|
91076857|NCT04526574|182039351|NON_INFERIORITY|NI for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR of the (SIIV+20vPnC)/saline group to the (SIIV+saline)/20vPnC group was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion) for that serotype.|GMR|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|0.98||||||Serotype 19A: GMR (ratio of GMTs \[SIIV+20vPnC\]/saline to \[SIIV+saline\]/20vPnC) and 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference of LS means for OPA titers and corresponding CIs based on regression model adjusted with vaccine group, sex, smoking status, age at Vaccination 1 in years, baseline log-transformed OPA titers, and prior pneumococcal vaccination status.||0.98|0.78|
91076858|NCT04526574|182039351|NON_INFERIORITY|NI for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR of the (SIIV+20vPnC)/saline group to the (SIIV+saline)/20vPnC group was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion) for that serotype.|GMR|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.01||||||Serotype 19F: GMR (ratio of GMTs \[SIIV+20vPnC\]/saline to \[SIIV+saline\]/20vPnC) and 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference of LS means for OPA titers and corresponding CIs based on regression model adjusted with vaccine group, sex, smoking status, age at Vaccination 1 in years, baseline log-transformed OPA titers, and prior pneumococcal vaccination status.||1.01|0.78|
91076859|NCT04526574|182039351|NON_INFERIORITY|NI for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR of the (SIIV+20vPnC)/saline group to the (SIIV+saline)/20vPnC group was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion) for that serotype.|GMR|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.9||||||Serotype 22F: GMR (ratio of GMTs \[SIIV+20vPnC\]/saline to \[SIIV+saline\]/20vPnC) and 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference of LS means for OPA titers and corresponding CIs based on regression model adjusted with vaccine group, sex, smoking status, age at Vaccination 1 in years, baseline log-transformed OPA titers, and prior pneumococcal vaccination status.||0.90|0.62|
91076860|NCT04526574|182039351|NON_INFERIORITY|NI for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR of the (SIIV+20vPnC)/saline group to the (SIIV+saline)/20vPnC group was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion) for that serotype.|GMR|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.92||||||Serotype 23F: GMR (ratio of GMTs \[SIIV+20vPnC\]/saline to \[SIIV+saline\]/20vPnC) and 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference of LS means for OPA titers and corresponding CIs based on regression model adjusted with vaccine group, sex, smoking status, age at Vaccination 1 in years, baseline log-transformed OPA titers, and prior pneumococcal vaccination status.||0.92|0.66|
91076861|NCT04526574|182039351|NON_INFERIORITY|NI for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR of the (SIIV+20vPnC)/saline group to the (SIIV+saline)/20vPnC group was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion) for that serotype.|GMR|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.83||||||Serotype 33F: GMR (ratio of GMTs \[SIIV+20vPnC\]/saline to \[SIIV+saline\]/20vPnC) and 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference of LS means for OPA titers and corresponding CIs based on regression model adjusted with vaccine group, sex, smoking status, age at Vaccination 1 in years, baseline log-transformed OPA titers, and prior pneumococcal vaccination status.||0.83|0.62|
91076862|NCT04526574|182039352|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR of the (SIIV+20vPnC)/saline group to the (SIIV+saline)/20vPnC group was greater than 0.67 (1.5-fold criterion).|GMR|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.17||||||A/H1N1: GMRs (ratio of GMTs \[SIIV+20vPnC\]/saline to \[SIIV+saline\]/20vPnC) and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference of LS means for the HAI titers and the corresponding CIs based on the regression model adjusted with vaccine group, sex, smoking status, age at Vaccination 1 in years, baseline log-transformed HAI titers, and prior pneumococcal vaccination status.||1.17|0.97|
91076863|NCT04526574|182039352|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR of the (SIIV+20vPnC)/saline group to the (SIIV+saline)/20vPnC group was greater than 0.67 (1.5-fold criterion).|GMR|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.08||||||A/H3N2: GMRs (ratio of GMTs \[SIIV+20vPnC\]/saline to \[SIIV+saline\]/20vPnC) and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference of LS means for the HAI titers and the corresponding CIs based on the regression model adjusted with vaccine group, sex, smoking status, age at Vaccination 1 in years, baseline log-transformed HAI titers, and prior pneumococcal vaccination status.||1.08|0.89|
91076864|NCT04526574|182039352|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR of the (SIIV+20vPnC)/saline group to the (SIIV+saline)/20vPnC group was greater than 0.67 (1.5-fold criterion).|GMR|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.08||||||B/Victoria: GMRs (ratio of GMTs \[SIIV+20vPnC\]/saline to \[SIIV+saline\]/20vPnC) and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference of LS means for the HAI titers and the corresponding CIs based on the regression model adjusted with vaccine group, sex, smoking status, age at Vaccination 1 in years, baseline log-transformed HAI titers, and prior pneumococcal vaccination status.||1.08|0.93|
91076865|NCT04526574|182039352|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR of the (SIIV+20vPnC)/saline group to the (SIIV+saline)/20vPnC group was greater than 0.67 (1.5-fold criterion).|GMR|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.03||||||B/Phuket: GMRs (ratio of GMTs \[SIIV+20vPnC\]/saline to \[SIIV+saline\]/20vPnC) and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference of LS means for the HAI titers and the corresponding CIs based on the regression model adjusted with vaccine group, sex, smoking status, age at Vaccination 1 in years, baseline log-transformed HAI titers, and prior pneumococcal vaccination status.||1.03|0.87|
91076866|NCT01032070|182039356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.22||95.0||||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||The study was not powered for this comparison due to small sample size.||||0.2200
91076867|NCT02332239|182039370|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.11||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed effects longitudinal regression||d=0.37|BDI Score where baseline \>=20: 8 week||||0.07
91076868|NCT02332239|182039371|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-7.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.62||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||quantile regression models|Controlled for baseline and gender|d=0.46|CTS Score where baseline \>=4: 8 week||||0.01
91076869|NCT02332239|182039374|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.33
91076870|NCT01541839|182039377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|327.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|70.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided||The mean time for closure with septal stapler was 35 +/-22 seconds versus 7 minutes +/- 1 minute 10 seconds for suture closure. The mean net difference between groups was 327 seconds, or 6 minutes 27 seconds.|The operative time required for closure and NOSE questionnaire scores were analyzed with unpaired and paired t-tests respectively. Chi-squared testing was used for post-operative complication rates. The mean closure time for septoplasty was estimated to be 10 minutes +/- 4 minutes. It was assumed that the septal stapler would take 5 minutes +/- 4 minutes. Assuming a one-sided test, an alpha of 0.05 and a power of 0.8, a total of 16 patients were needed.||||<0.0001
91076871|NCT00396877|182039387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk Reduction (%)|11.1||||0.434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.2|33.6||The a-priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.035 reflecting the adjustment for interim analyses. No other adjustment for multiplicity was made.|Log Rank|A two-sided log-rank test was used.|The Relative Risk Reduction (Clopidogrel versus placebo) and its corresponding 95% confidence interval were estimated using Cox's proportional hazards model.|"Due to the limited knowledge in this population, 3 interim analyses were performed at approximatively 40%, 60%, 80% and 100% of of the maximum number of 172 required primary efficacy events to evaluate the effect of Clopidogrel on the primary endpoint with the potential to end the trial in case of a clear efficacy advantage for Clopidogrel.~The study was designed with 80% power and an overall type I error rate of 5%."||33.6|-19.2|0.4340
91076872|NCT00336323|182039390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0|||||Least squares regression|Adjusted for baseline values||Comparison of central subfield thickness at the 3 week visit between the laser only treatment group to the 1.25 mg injection at baseline and at 6 weeks treatment group||||0.009
91076873|NCT00336323|182039390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Least squares regression|Adjusted for baseline values||Comparison of central subfield thickness at the 3 week visit between the laser only treatment group to the 2.5mg injection at baseline and 6 weeks treatment group||||<0.001
91076874|NCT00336323|182039390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66||95.0||||Adjusted for baseline values|Least squares regression|||Comparison of the reduction in central subfield thickening in the 1.25mg injection at baseline and at 6 weeks treatment group with the 2.5mg injection at baseline and 6 weeks treatment group at the 3 week visit||||0.66
91076875|NCT00336323|182039390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49||95.0||||Adjusted for baseline values|Least squares regression|||Comparison of the reduction in central subfield thickening in the 1.25mg injection at baseline and at 6 weeks treatment group with the 2.5mg injection at baseline and 6 weeks treatment group at the 6 week visit||||0.49
91076876|NCT00336323|182039390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45||95.0||||Adjusted for baseline values|Least squares regression|||Comparison of the reduction in central subfield thickening in the 1.25mg injection at baseline and at 6 weeks treatment group with the 2.5mg injection at baseline and 6 weeks treatment group at the 9 week visit||||0.45
91076877|NCT00336323|182039390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9||95.0|||||Least squares regression|Adjusted for baseline values||Comparison of the reduction in central subfield thickening in the 1.25mg injection at baseline and at 6 weeks treatment group with the 2.5mg injection at baseline and 6 weeks treatment group at the 12 week visit||||0.90
91076878|NCT00336323|182039391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42||95.0|||||Least squares regression|Adjusted for baseline values||Comparison of improvement in visual acuity between the 1.25mg injection at baseline and at 6 weeks treatment group and the 2.5mg injection at baseline and 6 weeks treatment group at the 3 week visit||||0.42
91076879|NCT00336323|182039391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67||95.0|||||Least squares regression|Adjusted for baseline values||Comparison of improvement in visual acuity between the 1.25mg injection at baseline and at 6 weeks treatment group and the 2.5mg injection at baseline and 6 weeks treatment group at the 6 week visit||||0.67
91076880|NCT00336323|182039391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48||95.0|||||Least squares regression|Adjusted for baseline values||Comparison of improvement in visual acuity between the 1.25mg injection at baseline and at 6 weeks treatment group and the 2.5mg injection at baseline and 6 weeks treatment group at the 9 week visit||||0.48
91076881|NCT00336323|182039391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82||95.0|||||Least squares regression|||Comparison of improvement in visual acuity between the 1.25mg injection at baseline and at 6 weeks treatment group and the 2.5mg injection at baseline and 6 weeks treatment group at the 12 week visit||||0.82
91076882|NCT00336323|182039391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||Least squares regression|Adjusted for baseline values||Comparison of improvement in visual acuity through the 12 week visit between the laser only treatment group and the 1.25mg injection at baseline and at 6 weeks treatment group||||0.01
91076883|NCT00336323|182039391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||Least squares regression|Adjusted for baseline values||Comparison of improvement in visual acuity through the 12 week visit between the laser only treatment group and the 2.5mg injection at baseline and at 6 weeks treatment group||||0.003
91076884|NCT00336323|182039394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Least squares regression|Adjusted for baseline values||Comparison of central subfield thickness (microns) change from baseline to the 3 week visit between eyes that had baseline central subfield thickness of \<400 microns compared to those that had baseline central subfield thickness of ≥400 microns. Eyes included all of those from the pooled Bevacizumab group.||||<0.0001
91076885|NCT00336323|182039395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31||95.0|||||Least squares regression|Adjusted for baseline score||Comparison of central subfield thickness (microns) change from baseline to the 3 week visit between eyes that had baseline visual acuity letter score that was \<65 letters compared to those that had baseline visual acuity letter score that was ≥65 letters. Eyes included all of those from the pooled Bevacizumab group.||||0.31
91076886|NCT00336323|182039396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44||95.0|||||Least squares regression|||Comparison of central subfield thickness (microns) change from baseline to the 3 week visit between those that were ≤66 years old compared to those that were \>66 years old at baseline. Eyes included all of those from the pooled Bevacizumab group.||||0.44
91076887|NCT00336323|182039397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55||95.0|||||Least squares regression|||Comparison of central subfield thickness (microns) change from baseline to the 3 week visit between females and males. Eyes included all of those from the pooled Bevacizumab group.||||0.55
91076888|NCT00336323|182039398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16||95.0|||||Least squares regression|Adjusted for baseline values||Comparison of central subfield thickness (microns) change from baseline to the 3 week visit between eyes that had no history of treatment for diabetic macular edema compared to those that had history or treatment for diabetic macular edema. Eyes included all of those from the pooled Bevacizumab group.||||0.16
91076889|NCT00336323|182039399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53||95.0|||||Least squares regression|||Comparison of central subfield thickness (microns) change from baseline to the 3 week visit between eyes that had baseline retinopathy severity that was \<severe nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy (NPDR) compared to those that had baseline retinopathy severity that was proliferative diabetic retinopathy or severe NPDR. Eyes included all of those from the pooled Bevacizumab group.||||0.53
91076890|NCT00336323|182039400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93||95.0|||||Least squares regression|Adjusted for baseline values||Comparison of central subfield thickness (microns) change from baseline to the 3 week visit between eyes that had baseline clinical diabetic macular edema characterized as typical/predominantly focal, neither predominantly focal or diffuse, or typical/predominantly diffuse. Eyes included all of those from the pooled Bevacizumab group.||||0.93
91076891|NCT00336323|182039401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52||95.0|||||Least squares regression|Adjusted for baseline values||Comparison of central subfield thickness (microns) change from baseline to the 3 week visit between eyes that had baseline subretinal fluid that was definite/questionable compared to eyes that had no evidence of subretinal fluid at baseline. Eyes included all of those from the pooled Bevacizumab group.||||0.52
91076892|NCT00336323|182039402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22||95.0|||||Least squares regression|Adjusted for baseline values||Comparison of change in visual acuity letter score from baseline to the 3 week visit between eyes that had baseline central subfield thickness of \<400 microns compared to eyes that had baseline central subfield thickness of ≥400 microns. Eyes included all of those from the pooled Bevacizumab group.||||0.22
91076893|NCT00336323|182039403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0|||||Least squares regression|Adjusted for baseline values||Comparison of change in visual acuity letter score from baseline to the 3 week visit between eyes that had a baseline visual acuity letter score of \<65 letters compared to eyes that had baseline visual acuity letter score of ≥65 letters. Eyes included all of those from the pooled Bevacizumab group.||||0.006
91076894|NCT00336323|182039404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23||95.0|||||Least squares regression|||Comparison of change in visual acuity letter score from baseline to the 3 week visit between eyes that were ≤66 years old at baseline compared to eyes that were \>66 years old at baseline. Eyes included all of those from the pooled Bevacizumab group.||||0.23
91076895|NCT00336323|182039405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37||95.0|||||Least squares regression|||Comparison of change in visual acuity letter score from baseline to the 3 week visit between females and males. Eyes included all of those from the pooled Bevacizumab group.||||0.37
91076896|NCT00336323|182039406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||Least squares regression|||Comparison of change in visual acuity letter score from baseline to the 3 week visit between eyes that did not have a prior history of treatment for diabetic macular edema compared to eyes that did have a prior history of treatment for diabetic macular edema. Eyes included all of those from the pooled Bevacizumab group.||||0.04
91076897|NCT00336323|182039407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38||95.0|||||Least squares regression|||Comparison of change in visual acuity letter score from baseline to the 3 week visit between eyes that had a baseline retinopathy severity of \<severe nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy (NPDR) compared to eyes that had baseline retinopathy severity of proliferative diabetic retinopathy or severe NPDR. Eyes included all of those from the pooled Bevacizumab group.||||0.38
91076898|NCT00336323|182039408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45||95.0|||||Least squares regression|||Comparison of change in visual acuity letter score from baseline to the 3 week visit between eyes that had a baseline clinical diabetic macular edema (DME) characterization of typical/predominantly focal compared to neither predominantly focal or diffuse characterization at baseline and compared to typical/predominantly diffuse characterization at baseline. Eyes included all of those from the pooled Bevacizumab group.||||0.45
91076899|NCT00336323|182039409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0|||||Least squares regression|||Comparison of change in visual acuity letter score from baseline to the 3 week visit between eyes that had a baseline subretinal fluid presence that was definite/questionable compared to eyes that there was no evidence of subretinal fluid at baseline. Eyes included all of those from the pooled Bevacizumab group.||||0.06
91076900|NCT02273908|182039425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.949|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.459|-0.439|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.439|-1.459|<0.001
91076901|NCT02273908|182039426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.259|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.131|-1.387|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis on the mean difference between two groups with the change from baseline at Week 8.||-1.387|-3.131|<0.001
91076902|NCT02273908|182039426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.887|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.704|-1.071|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis on the mean difference between two groups with the change from baseline at Week 4.||-1.071|-2.704|<0.001
91076903|NCT02273908|182039427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.3018|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4903|5.1133|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis on the mean difference between two groups with the change from baseline at Week 8.||5.1133|1.4903|<0.001
91076904|NCT02273908|182039427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least square mean difference|2.729||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9047|4.5533|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis on the mean difference between two groups with the change from baseline at Week 4.||4.5533|0.9047|0.004
91076905|NCT02273908|182039428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.301|-0.359|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis on the mean difference between two groups with the change from baseline at Week 8.||-0.359|-1.301|<0.001
91076906|NCT02273908|182039428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.674||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.125|-0.223|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis on the mean difference between two groups with the change from baseline at Week 4.||-0.223|-1.125|0.004
91076907|NCT02273908|182039429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0204||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0091|0.0499|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis on the mean difference between two groups with the change from baseline at Week 8.||0.0499|-0.0091|0.175
91076908|NCT02273908|182039429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0329||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0058|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis on the mean difference between two groups with the change from baseline at Week 4.||0.0600|0.0058|0.017
91076909|NCT02273908|182039430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.697||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.552|8.842|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis on the mean difference between two groups with the change from baseline at Week 8.||8.842|0.552|0.026
91076910|NCT02273908|182039430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.292||||0.477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.282|4.866|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis on the mean difference between two groups with the change from baseline at Week 4.||4.866|-2.282|0.477
91076911|NCT02273908|182039431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Modified Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91076912|NCT02273908|182039432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Modified Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
91076913|NCT03301844|182039446|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.071|||||||Chi-squared||||"Patient preference for one of the two treatments at Visit 3 was presented overall in terms of number and percentage of patients preferring the standard or the study treatment.~Patient preference was compared between the standard and the study treatment with a Chi-Square test for equal proportion."|||0.071
91076914|NCT03301844|182039447|OTHER|||||||0.7353|||||||Chi-squared||||"The incidence of all the treatment-emergent systemic Adverse Events recorded in the eCRF was presented overall at patient level; the incidence of all the treatment-emergent ocular Adverse Events recorded in eCRF was presented by treatment group at eye level.~Incidence of treatment-emergent ocular Adverse Events was compared between treatment groups by means of a Chi-square test."|||0.7353
91076915|NCT00501059|182039449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.597|||||||Log Rank|||Primary efficacy analysis of time to the composite endpoint was conducted via a 2-sided log-rank test stratified for treatment, country, and sex. Results would be considered statistically significant and the primary objective of the study will have been met if the 2-sided P value is ≤0.05.||||0.597
91076916|NCT00501059|182039450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6125|||||||Log Rank|||Statistics for time to the composite endpoint was conducted via a 2-sided log-rank test stratified for treatment, country, and sex. Results would be considered statistically significant if the 2-sided P value is ≤0.05.||||0.6125
91076917|NCT00501059|182039451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4505|||||||Log Rank|||Statistics for time to non-fatal MI was conducted via a 2-sided log-rank test stratified for treatment, country, and sex. Results would be considered statistically significant if the 2-sided P value is ≤0.05.||||0.4505
91076918|NCT00501059|182039451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.229|||||||Log Rank|||Statistics for time to total MI was conducted via a 2-sided log-rank test stratified for treatment, country, and sex. Results would be considered statistically significant if the 2-sided P value is ≤0.05.||||0.229
91076919|NCT00501059|182039451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3947|||||||Log Rank|||Statistics for time to total non-fatal stroke was conducted via a 2-sided log-rank test stratified for treatment, country, and sex. Results would be considered statistically significant if the 2-sided P value is ≤0.05.||||0.3947
91076920|NCT00501059|182039451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5125|||||||Log Rank|||Statistics for time to total stroke was conducted via a 2-sided log-rank test stratified for treatment, country, and sex. Results would be considered statistically significant if the 2-sided P value is ≤0.05.||||0.5125
91076921|NCT00501059|182039452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9544|||||||Log Rank|||Analysis of time to all-cause mortality was conducted via a 2-sided log-rank test stratified for treatment, country, and sex. Results would be considered statistically significant if the 2-sided P value is ≤0.05.||||0.9544
91076922|NCT00501059|182039452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4422|||||||Log Rank|||Analysis of time to the first occurrence of all cancers excluding non-melanoma skin cancer was conducted via a 2-sided log-rank test stratified for treatment, country, and sex. Results would be considered statistically significant if the 2-sided P value is ≤0.05.||||0.4422
91076923|NCT00501059|182039452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.611|||||||Log Rank|||Analysis of time to the first occurence colon cancer was conducted via a 2-sided log-rank test stratified for treatment, country, and sex. Results would be considered statistically significant if the 2-sided P value is ≤0.05.||||0.611
91076924|NCT00501059|182039453|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.99||||0.9459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.24|||Log Rank|||Analysis of incidence of all-cause mortality was conducted via a 2-sided log-rank test. Results would be considered statistically significant if the 2-sided P value is ≤0.05.||1.24|0.80|0.9459
91076925|NCT00501059|182039454|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.85||||0.2325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.11|||Log Rank|||Analysis of incidence of MI was conducted via a 2-sided log-rank test. Results would be considered statistically significant if the 2-sided P value is ≤0.05.||1.11|0.64|0.2325
91076926|NCT00501059|182039454|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.12||||0.5072||95.0|0.8|1.55|||Log Rank|||Analysis of incidence of stroke was conducted via a 2-sided log-rank test. Results would be considered statistically significant if the 2-sided P value is ≤0.05.||1.55|0.80|0.5072
91076927|NCT00501059|182039454|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.97||||0.901||95.0|0.62|1.52|||Log Rank|||Analysis of incidence of cardiovascular death was conducted via a 2-sided log-rank test. Results would be considered statistically significant if the 2-sided P value is ≤0.05.||1.52|0.62|0.9010
91076928|NCT00501059|182039454|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.0||||0.9979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.86|||Log Rank|||Analysis of incidence of UA was conducted via a 2-sided log-rank test. Results would be considered statistically significant if the 2-sided P value is ≤0.05.||1.86|0.54|0.9979
91076929|NCT00501059|182039454|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.93||||0.7455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.42|||Log Rank|||Analysis of incidence of TIA was conducted via a 2-sided log-rank test. Results would be considered statistically significant if the 2-sided P value is ≤0.05.||1.42|0.61|0.7455
91076930|NCT00501059|182039456|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.96||||0.6038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.13|||Log Rank|||Analysis of incidence of composite outcome of MI, stroke, CV death, UA or TIA was conducted via a 2-sided log-rank test. Results would be considered statistically significant if the 2-sided P value is ≤0.05.||1.13|0.81|0.6038
91076931|NCT00501059|182039456|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.95||||0.619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.15|||Log Rank|||Analysis of incidence of composite outcome of MI, stroke or CV death was conducted via a 2-sided log-rank test. Results would be considered statistically significant if the 2-sided P value is ≤0.05.||1.15|0.79|0.6190
91076932|NCT00501059|182039456|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.9||||0.4562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.2|||Log Rank|||Analysis of incidence of non-fatal MI was conducted via a 2-sided log-rank test. Results would be considered statistically significant if the 2-sided P value is ≤0.05.||1.20|0.67|0.4562
91076933|NCT00501059|182039457|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.81||||0.0756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.02|||Log Rank|||Analysis of incidence of composite outcome of MI, stroke, CV death, UA or TIA was conducted via a 2-sided log-rank test. Results would be considered statistically significant if the 2-sided P value is ≤0.05.||1.02|0.64|0.0756
91076934|NCT00501059|182039457|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.79||||0.0661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.02|||Log Rank|||Analysis of incidence of composite outcome of MI, stroke or CV death was conducted via a 2-sided log-rank test. Results would be considered statistically significant if the 2-sided P value is ≤0.05.||1.02|0.61|0.0661
91076935|NCT00501059|182039457|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.53||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.79|||Log Rank|||Analysis of incidence of MI was conducted via a 2-sided log-rank test. Results would be considered statistically significant if the 2-sided P value is ≤0.05.||0.79|0.36|0.0014
91076936|NCT00501059|182039457|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.55||||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.84|||Log Rank|||Analysis of incidence of non-fatal MI was conducted via a 2-sided log-rank test. Results would be considered statistically significant if the 2-sided P value is ≤0.05.||0.84|0.36|0.0056
91076937|NCT00501059|182039457|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.12||||0.6291||95.0|0.71|1.75|||Log Rank|||Analysis of incidence of stroke was conducted via a 2-sided log-rank test. Results would be considered statistically significant if the 2-sided P value is ≤0.05.||1.75|0.71|0.6291
91076938|NCT00501059|182039457|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.03||||0.9161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.77|||Log Rank|||Analysis of incidence of CV death was conducted via a 2-sided log-rank test. Results would be considered statistically significant if the 2-sided P value is ≤0.05.||1.77|0.60|0.9161
91076939|NCT00501059|182039457|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.75||||0.538||95.0|0.3|1.87|||Log Rank|||Analysis of incidence of UA was conducted via a 2-sided log-rank test. Results would be considered statistically significant if the 2-sided P value is ≤0.05.||1.87|0.30|0.5380
91076940|NCT00501059|182039457|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.03||||0.9181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.95|||Log Rank|||Analysis of incidence of TIA was conducted via a 2-sided log-rank test. Results would be considered statistically significant if the 2-sided P value is ≤0.05.||1.95|0.55|0.9181
91076941|NCT00501059|182039457|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.1||||0.4796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.45|||Log Rank|||Analysis of incidence of all-cause mortality was conducted via a 2-sided log-rank test. Results would be considered statistically significant if the 2-sided P value is ≤0.05.||1.45|0.84|0.4796
91076942|NCT02124759|182039459|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired T-test||Null hypothesis is that high fat diet will have no effect on M value, the measure of insulin sensitivity for each intervention as assessed by clamp.||||>0.05
91076943|NCT04250298|182039462|OTHER|||||||0.031|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.031
91076944|NCT04250298|182039463|OTHER|||||||0.267|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.267
91076945|NCT04250298|182039464|OTHER|||||||0.228|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.228
91076946|NCT04250298|182039465|OTHER|||||||0.267|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.267
91076947|NCT04250298|182039466|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
91076948|NCT04250298|182039467|OTHER|||||||0.318|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.318
91076949|NCT04250298|182039468|OTHER|||||||0.348|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.348
91076950|NCT04250298|182039469|OTHER|||||||0.548|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.548
91076951|NCT04250298|182039470|OTHER|||||||0.401|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.401
91076952|NCT04250298|182039471|OTHER|||||||0.506|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.506
91076953|NCT04250298|182039472|OTHER|||||||0.506|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.506
91076954|NCT04250298|182039478|OTHER|Mann-Whitney U test, Fisher Exact, Chi-Squared, Kolmogorv-Smirnow||||||0.919|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"sub-population 1 vs. sub-population 2: Parametric and nonparametric univariate tests: t-test for independent samples, Mann-Whitney-U test, Fisher's exact test, chi-square homogeneity test; normal distribution check by Kolmogorov-Smirnov test with Lilliefors -significance correction, type I error = 10%).~Estimate the true effect size:~Two-sided 95% confidence intervals (depending on the nature of the data sets: parametric, non-parametric or Clopper-Pearson) are calculated for all parameters."||||0.919
91076955|NCT04250298|182039480|OTHER|||||||0.033|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.033
91076956|NCT04250298|182039481|OTHER|||||||0.585|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.585
91076957|NCT04250298|182039482|OTHER|||||||0.676|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.676
91076958|NCT04250298|182039483|OTHER|||||||0.314|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.314
91076959|NCT04250298|182039488|OTHER|||||||0.031|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.031
91076960|NCT04250298|182039489|OTHER|||||||0.862|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.862
91076961|NCT04250298|182039490|OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.250
91076962|NCT04250298|182039491|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
91076963|NCT04250298|182039492|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.001
91076964|NCT04250298|182039493|OTHER|||||||0.055|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.055
91076965|NCT04250298|182039494|OTHER|||||||0.111|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.111
91076966|NCT04250298|182039495|OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.100
91076967|NCT04250298|182039498|OTHER|||||||0.111|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.111
91076968|NCT04250298|182039499|OTHER|||||||0.213|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.213
91076969|NCT00725101|182039534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0074||95.0||||P-value for age over 65.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.0074
91076970|NCT00725101|182039534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0028||95.0||||P-value for female physicians.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.0028
91076971|NCT00725101|182039534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||P-value for Rheumatology versus PCP.|Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.0001
91076972|NCT00725101|182039534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||P-value for other specialty versus PCP.|Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.0001
91076973|NCT00725101|182039534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0064||95.0||||P-value for use of opioids.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.0064
91076974|NCT00725101|182039534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||P-value for use of NSAIDs.|Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.0001
91076975|NCT00725101|182039534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||P-value for number of medications participants were taking.|Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.0001
91076976|NCT00725101|182039535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026||95.0||||P-value for GAD-7 score.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.026
91076977|NCT00725101|182039535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021||95.0||||P-value for pregabalin use.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.021
91076978|NCT00725101|182039535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0||||P-value for NSAID use.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.050
91076979|NCT05727306|182039581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|1.46|||||Calculated as the odds of having a depressive episode in participants diagnosed of Alopecia Areata vs. participants without Alopecia Areata. Odds Ratio adjusted for sociodemographic, clinical characteristics and major comorbidities.|||1.46|1.25|
91076980|NCT05727306|182039582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|1.58|||||Calculated as the odds of having recurrent depressive disorder in participants diagnosed of Alopecia Areata vs. participants without Alopecia Areata. Odds Ratio adjusted for sociodemographic, clinical characteristics and major comorbidities.|||1.58|1.32|
91076981|NCT05727306|182039583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|1.51|||||Calculated as the odds of having anxiety in participants diagnosed of Alopecia Areata vs. participants without Alopecia Areata. Odds Ratio adjusted for sociodemographic, clinical characteristics and major comorbidities.|||1.51|1.30|
91076982|NCT05727306|182039584|OTHER||Incidence rate ratio (IRR)|1.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|1.46|||||Calculated as the incidence rate of attending primary care in participants diagnosed of Alopecia Areata vs. participants without Alopecia Areata. Incidence rate ratio adjusted for sociodemographic, clinical characteristics and major comorbidities.|||1.46|1.37|
91076983|NCT05727306|182039585|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|8.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.55|9.04|||||Calculated using Cox Proportional Hazard model.Reflects a comparison of incidence rates between participants diagnosed with Alopecia Areata (AA) and those without AA. Adjusted for sociodemographic,clinical characteristics and major comorbidities.|||9.04|7.55|
91076984|NCT05727306|182039586|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|1.57|||||Calculated using Cox Proportional Hazard model.Reflects a comparison of incidence rates between participants diagnosed with Alopecia Areata (AA) and those without AA. Adjusted for sociodemographic,clinical characteristics and major comorbidities.|||1.57|1.17|
91076985|NCT05727306|182039587|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.87|||||Calculated using Cox Proportional Hazard model.Reflects a comparison of incidence rates between participants diagnosed with Alopecia Areata (AA) and those without AA. Adjusted for sociodemographic,clinical characteristics and major comorbidities.|||1.87|1.14|
91076986|NCT05727306|182039588|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|1.61|||||Calculated using Cox Proportional Hazard model.Reflects a comparison of incidence rates between participants diagnosed with Alopecia Areata (AA) and those without AA. Adjusted for sociodemographic,clinical characteristics and major comorbidities.|||1.61|1.38|
91076987|NCT00819780|182039605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.871||||0.3531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.651|1.166|||Stratified Cox proportional hazards|The Cox proportional hazard model is stratified by prior adjuvant oxaliplatin therapy|A hazard ratio \< 1.0 favors panitumumab|||1.166|0.651|0.3531
91076988|NCT00819780|182039606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.723||||0.1386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.111|||Stratified Cox proportional hazards|The Cox proportional hazard model is stratified by prior adjuvant oxaliplatin therapy|A hazard ratio \< 1.0 favors panitumumab|||1.111|0.470|0.1386
91076989|NCT00819780|182039607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.5497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.95|||Stratified exact test|Stratified by prior adjuvant oxaliplatin therapy|The odds ratio is defined as the odds of having an objective response in the panitumumab plus mFOLFOX6 arm relative to the odds in the bevacizumab plus mFOLFOX6 arm.|||1.95|0.72|0.5497
91076990|NCT00819780|182039609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.874||||0.3861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.645|1.185|||Stratified Cox proportional hazards|The Cox proportional hazard model is stratified by prior adjuvant oxaliplatin therapy|A hazard ratio \< 1.0 favors panitumumab|||1.185|0.645|0.3861
91076991|NCT00819780|182039612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.651||||0.0286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.444|0.956|||Stratified Cox proportional hazards|The Cox proportional hazard model is stratified by prior adjuvant oxaliplatin therapy|A hazard ratio \< 1.0 favors panitumumab|||0.956|0.444|0.0286
91076992|NCT00819780|182039613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.579||||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.386|0.869|||Stratified Cox proportional hazards|The Cox proportional hazard model is stratified by prior adjuvant oxaliplatin therapy|A hazard ratio \< 1.0 favors panitumumab|||0.869|0.386|0.0083
91076993|NCT00819780|182039614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.606||||0.0934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.337|1.088|||Stratified Cox proportional hazards|The Cox proportional hazard model is stratified by prior adjuvant Oxaliplatin therapy|A hazard ratio \< 1.0 favors panitumumab|||1.088|0.337|0.0934
91076994|NCT00819780|182039615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.465||||0.0235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.239|0.902|||Stratified Cox proportional hazards|The Cox proportional hazard model is stratified by prior adjuvant oxaliplatin therapy|A hazard ratio \< 1.0 favors panitumumab|||0.902|0.239|0.0235
91076995|NCT00819780|182039616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.9426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|2.12|||Stratified exact test|Stratified by prior exposure to oxaliplatin|The odds ratio is defined as the odds of having an objective response in the panitumumab plus mFOLFOX6 arm relative to the odds in the bevacizumab plus mFOLFOX6 arm.|||2.12|0.55|0.9426
91076996|NCT00819780|182039617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|2.15|||Stratified exact test|Stratified by prior exposure to oxaliplatin|The odds ratio is defined as the odds of having an objective response in the panitumumab plus mFOLFOX6 arm relative to the odds in the bevacizumab plus mFOLFOX6 arm.|||2.15|0.52|1.0000
91076997|NCT00962091|182039747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.52|2.37|||||The CIs are calculated for the difference in the LS means of the ln-transformed Day 1 Cmax values (difference=OS-PIC). Antilogs of the confidence limits for the difference are taken to construct the CIs for the ratio of the geometric means.|||2.37|1.52|
91076998|NCT00962091|182039748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.08|1.78|||||The CIs are calculated for the difference in the LS means of the ln-transformed Day 1 AUClast values (difference=OS-PIC). Antilogs of the confidence limits for the difference are taken to construct the CIs for the ratio of the geometric means.|||1.78|1.08|
91076999|NCT00962091|182039754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.66|1.06|||||The CIs are calculated for the difference in the LS means of the ln-transformed Day 1 Cmax values (difference=Fed-Fasted). Antilogs of the confidence limits for the difference are taken to construct the CIs for the ratio of the geometric means.|||1.06|0.66|
91077000|NCT00962091|182039755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|1.34|||||The CIs are calculated for the difference in the LS means of the ln-transformed Day 1 AUClast values (difference=Fed-Fasted). Antilogs of the confidence limits for the difference are taken to construct the CIs for the ratio of the geometric means.|||1.34|0.80|
91077001|NCT00962091|182039756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.68|1.32|||||The CIs are calculated for the difference in the LS means of the ln-transformed Day 1 AUC values (difference=Fed-Fasted). Antilogs of the confidence limits for the difference are taken to construct the CIs for the ratio of the geometric means.|||1.32|0.68|
91077002|NCT02086682|182039765|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.79
91077003|NCT04231396|182039766|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1456||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.012|0.279|||t-test, 1 sided|||The SNR Loss scores computed the means per client and week (1-12), with a smoothing method: isotonic regression (isoreg, via R). The slopes (lsfit, via R) calculated of the smoothed means separately per client, per 7-9 weeks (early training weeks), and per 10-12 weeks (final training weeks). This created slope differences, per client.||.279|.012|.037
91077004|NCT03976323|182039795|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.8721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.36||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) at pre-randomization visit, response at randomization and baseline PD-L1 status.|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling and with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG at pre-randomization visit, response at randomization and baseline PD-L1 status.|||1.36|0.92|0.8721
91077005|NCT03976323|182039796|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.6649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.25||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG at pre-randomization visit, response at randomization and baseline PD-L1 status.|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling and with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG at pre-randomization visit, response at randomization and baseline PD-L1 status.|||1.25|0.87|0.6649
91077006|NCT03976323|182039799|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares (LS) Means|-1.9||||0.2533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.16|1.36||Two-sided p-value based on t test.|t-test, 2 sided||Based on constrained longitudinal data analysis model (cLDA) model with PRO scores as response variable with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors, response at randomization and baseline PD-L1 expression as covariates.|||1.36|-5.16|0.2533
91077007|NCT03976323|182039800|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.8125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.24||Two-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG at pre-randomization visit, response at randomization, and baseline PD-L1 expression.|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG at pre-randomization visit, response at randomization, and baseline PD-L1 expression.|||1.24|0.76|0.8125
91077008|NCT03976323|182039801|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.16||||0.9364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.02|3.71||Two-sided p-value based on t test.|t-test, 2 sided||Based on cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors, response at randomization, and baseline PD-L1 expression as covariates.|||3.71|-4.02|0.9364
91077009|NCT03976323|182039802|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.3782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.17||Two-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG at pre-randomization visit, response at randomization, and baseline PD-L1 expression.|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG at pre-randomization visit, response at randomization, and baseline PD-L1 expression.|||1.17|0.66|0.3782
91077010|NCT03976323|182039803|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.35||||0.8285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.54|2.83||Two-sided p-value based on t test.|t-test, 2 sided||Based on cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors, response at randomization, and baseline PD-L1 expression as covariates.|||2.83|-3.54|0.8285
91077011|NCT03976323|182039804|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.6272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.51||Two-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG at pre-randomization visit, response at randomization, and baseline PD-L1 expression.|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG at pre-randomization visit, response at randomization, and baseline PD-L1 expression.|||1.51|0.78|0.6272
91077012|NCT03976323|182039805|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.51||||0.4422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.38|2.35||Two-sided p-value based on t test.|t-test, 2 sided||Based on cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors, response at randomization, and baseline PD-L1 expression as covariates.|||2.35|-5.38|0.4422
91077013|NCT03976323|182039806|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.9156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.31||Two-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG at pre-randomization visit, response at randomization, and baseline PD-L1 expression.|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG at pre-randomization visit, response at randomization, and baseline PD-L1 expression.|||1.31|0.74|0.9156
91077014|NCT03976323|182039807|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.01||||0.9962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.94|2.93||Two-sided p-value based on t test.|t-test, 2 sided||Based on cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors, response at randomization, and baseline PD-L1 expression as covariates.|||2.93|-2.94|0.9962
91077015|NCT03976323|182039808|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.5517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.4||Two-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG at pre-randomization visit, response at randomization, and baseline PD-L1 expression.|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG at pre-randomization visit, response at randomization, and baseline PD-L1 expression.|||1.40|0.83|0.5517
91077016|NCT03334422|182039813|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.58||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|5.92|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.92|1.12|0.026
91077017|NCT03334422|182039813|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.64||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.64|8.05|||Regression, Logistic|||||8.05|1.64|0.001
91077018|NCT03334422|182039814|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.13||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|5.02|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.02|0.90|0.085
91077019|NCT03334422|182039815|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.35||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|4.93|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.93|1.12|0.024
91077020|NCT03334422|182039815|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.73|7.04|||Regression, Logistic|||||7.04|1.73|<0.001
91077021|NCT03334422|182039815|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.22|8.76|||Regression, Logistic|||||8.76|2.22|<0.001
91077022|NCT03334422|182039816|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.8||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|7.97|||Regression, Logistic|||||7.97|0.99|0.053
91077023|NCT03334422|182039816|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.87||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|10.41|||Regression, Logistic|||||10.41|1.44|0.007
91077024|NCT03334422|182039816|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.42|15.91|||Regression, Logistic|||||15.91|2.42|<0.001
91077025|NCT03334422|182039817|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.81||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.19|0.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.66|-26.19|0.062
91077026|NCT03334422|182039817|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-25.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.54|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.78|-12.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-12.99|-38.78|<0.001
91077027|NCT03334422|182039817|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-25.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.29|-13.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-13.65|-38.29|<0.001
91077028|NCT03334422|182039818|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.9||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|9.76|||Regression, Logistic|||||9.76|0.86|0.086
91077029|NCT03334422|182039818|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.95||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|15.49|||Regression, Logistic|||||15.49|1.58|0.006
91077030|NCT03334422|182039818|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.51|21.83|||Regression, Logistic|||||21.83|2.51|<0.001
91077031|NCT03334422|182039819|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|3.87|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.87|0.51|0.505
91077032|NCT03334422|182039819|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.64||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|8.27|||Regression, Logistic|||||8.27|1.60|0.002
91077033|NCT03334422|182039819|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.22|10.86|||Regression, Logistic|||||10.86|2.22|<0.001
91077034|NCT03334422|182039820|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.03|-0.57|0.074
91077035|NCT03334422|182039820|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.09|-0.68|0.011
91077036|NCT03334422|182039820|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.26|-0.84|<0.001
91077037|NCT03334422|182039821|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|0.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.59|-1.05|0.580
91077038|NCT03334422|182039821|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|-0.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.96|-2.54|<0.001
91077039|NCT03334422|182039821|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.37|-0.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.87|-2.37|<0.001
91077040|NCT03334422|182039822|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|3.04|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.04|0.92|0.094
91077041|NCT03334422|182039822|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|5.11|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.11|1.65|<0.001
91077042|NCT03334422|182039822|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|5.51|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.51|1.80|<0.001
91077043|NCT03334422|182039823|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.57||||0.528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|6.31|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.31|0.39|0.528
91077044|NCT03334422|182039823|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.56||||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|8.95|||Regression, Logistic|||||8.95|0.73|0.142
91077045|NCT03334422|182039823|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.68||||0.123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|9.37|||Regression, Logistic|||||9.37|0.77|0.123
91077046|NCT03334422|182039824|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-6.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.63||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.03|0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.28|-14.03|0.059
91077047|NCT03334422|182039824|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-14.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.47|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.32|-7.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-7.63|-21.32|<0.001
91077048|NCT03334422|182039824|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-14.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.32|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.69|-7.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-7.61|-20.69|<0.001
91077049|NCT03334422|182039825|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.55||||0.193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|10.45|||Regression, Logistic|||||10.45|0.62|0.193
91077050|NCT03334422|182039825|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.1||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|16.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||16.03|1.05|0.042
91077051|NCT03334422|182039825|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.89||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|14.57|||Regression, Logistic|||||14.57|1.04|0.044
91077052|NCT03334422|182039826|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-6.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.23||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.53|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.21|-12.53|0.058
91077053|NCT03334422|182039826|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-9.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.42|-3.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.18|-15.42|0.003
91077054|NCT03334422|182039826|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-11.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.98|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.03|-5.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.30|-17.03|<0.001
91077055|NCT03334422|182039827|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.189|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.189
91077056|NCT03334422|182039827|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
91077057|NCT03334422|182039827|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.383|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.383
91077058|NCT03334422|182039828|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-14.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.46||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.45|1.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.85|-31.45|0.081
91077059|NCT03334422|182039828|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-30.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.11|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.62|-14.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-14.70|-46.62|<0.001
91077060|NCT03334422|182039828|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-30.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.63|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.29|-15.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-15.27|-45.29|<0.001
91077061|NCT03334422|182039829|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.97|0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.24|-4.97|0.075
91077062|NCT03334422|182039829|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-5.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.07|-3.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.08|-8.07|<0.001
91077063|NCT03334422|182039829|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-6.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.47|-3.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.68|-8.47|<0.001
91077064|NCT03334422|182039830|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.08|-0.61|0.130
91077065|NCT03334422|182039830|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.28|-0.94|<0.001
91077066|NCT03334422|182039830|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.38|-1.00|<0.001
91077067|NCT03334422|182039831|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||HADS Anxiety.||0.07|-1.95|0.067
91077068|NCT03334422|182039831|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||HADS Anxiety.||0.04|-1.89|0.060
91077069|NCT03334422|182039831|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|-0.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||HADS Anxiety.||-0.38|-2.23|0.006
91077070|NCT03334422|182039831|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||HADS Depression.||0.49|-1.50|0.321
91077071|NCT03334422|182039831|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||HADS Depression.||0.24|-1.67|0.143
91077072|NCT03334422|182039831|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|-0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||HADS Depression.||-0.26|-2.11|0.012
91077073|NCT03334422|182039832|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.67|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.15|-3.67|0.071
91077074|NCT03334422|182039832|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-4.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.92|-2.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.26|-5.92|<0.001
91077075|NCT03334422|182039832|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-4.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.98|-2.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.45|-5.98|<0.001
91077076|NCT03334422|182039833|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.17||0.861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.16|9.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Percentage of Absenteeism Change from Baseline||9.34|-11.16|0.861
91077077|NCT03334422|182039833|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.03||0.841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.94|10.97||Absenteeism|Mixed Models Analysis|||Percentage of Absenteeism Change from Baseline||10.97|-8.94|0.841
91077078|NCT03334422|182039833|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|5.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.6||0.264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.95|14.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Percentage of Absenteeism Change from Baseline||14.26|-3.95|0.264
91077079|NCT03334422|182039833|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-3.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.63||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.26|8.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Percentage of Presenteeism (Reduced Productivity While at Work) Change from Baseline||8.02|-14.26|0.580
91077080|NCT03334422|182039833|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-13.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.5||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.45|-2.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Percentage of Presenteeism (Reduced Productivity While at Work) Change from Baseline||-2.86|-24.45|0.015
91077081|NCT03334422|182039833|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-13.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.08||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.2|-3.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Percentage of Presenteeism (Reduced Productivity While at Work) Change from Baseline||-3.06|-23.20|0.011
91077082|NCT03334422|182039833|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.71||0.788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.12|11.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Work Productivity Loss (Percentage Overall Work Impairment/Absenteeism Plus Presenteeism) Change from Baseline||11.49|-15.12|0.788
91077083|NCT03334422|182039833|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-9.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.57||0.152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.51|3.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Work Productivity Loss (Percentage Overall Work Impairment/Absenteeism Plus Presenteeism) Change from Baseline||3.55|-22.51|0.152
91077084|NCT03334422|182039833|SUPERIORITY|Overall Work Impairment|LSMean Difference|-9.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.07||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.17|2.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Work Productivity Loss (Percentage Overall Work Impairment/Absenteeism Plus Presenteeism) Change from Baseline||2.90|-21.17|0.135
91077085|NCT03334422|182039833|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.25||0.595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.65|6.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Percentage of Activity Impairment Change from Baseline||6.12|-10.65|0.595
91077086|NCT03334422|182039833|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-14.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.43|-6.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Percentage of Activity Impairment Change from Baseline||-6.17|-22.43|<0.001
91077087|NCT03334422|182039833|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-14.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.88|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.11|-6.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Percentage of Activity Impairment Change from Baseline||-6.83|-22.11|<0.001
91077088|NCT03334422|182039834|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Health State Index Score (US Algorithm)||0.07|-0.02|0.295
91077089|NCT03334422|182039834|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Health State Index Score (US Algorithm)||0.12|0.03|0.001
91077090|NCT03334422|182039834|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Health State Index Score (US Algorithm)||0.12|0.03|<0.001
91077091|NCT03334422|182039834|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Health State Index Score (UK Algorithm)||0.10|-0.03|0.334
91077092|NCT03334422|182039834|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Health State Index Score (UK Algorithm)||0.17|0.04|0.001
91077093|NCT03334422|182039834|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Health State Index Score (UK Algorithm)||0.17|0.05|<0.001
91077094|NCT03334422|182039835|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.47||0.907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.44|7.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EQ-5D-5L VAS Score||7.25|-6.44|0.907
91077095|NCT03334422|182039835|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|8.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.33||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.63|14.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EQ-5D-5L VAS Score||14.76|1.63|0.015
91077096|NCT03334422|182039835|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|8.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.14||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.62|15.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EQ-5D-5L VAS Score||15.01|2.62|0.006
91077097|NCT03334422|182039836|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.93|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.93|0.30|0.905
91077098|NCT03334422|182039836|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.37||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|5.92|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.92|0.95|0.064
91077099|NCT03334422|182039836|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.25|11.74|||Regression, Logistic|||||11.74|2.25|<0.001
91077100|NCT00454818|182039871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.078||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was P \< 0.2. There were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.078
91077101|NCT00454818|182039871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.515||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was P \< 0.2. There were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.515
91077102|NCT00454818|182039871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.098||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was P \< 0.2. There were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.098
91077103|NCT00766467|182039889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3
91077104|NCT00676572|182039893|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||calculated p values|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
91077105|NCT00662558|182039907|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Differences in treatment proportions and the 95% confidence interval (CI) around the difference were estimated by calculating the risk difference between the treatment arms using a generalized linear model with treatment and center as factors. A lower 95% CI for the risk difference greater than -0.10 would demonstrate that celecoxib 200 mg BID is not inferior to tramadol hydrochloride 50 mg QID.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.091||||||95.0|0.0255|0.1565||||||||0.1565|0.0255|
91077106|NCT00662558|182039907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.008||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||If celecoxib 200 mg BID was found to be non-inferior to tramadol hydrochloride 50 mg QID then the second step was to test the superiority of celecoxib 200 mg BID over tramadol hydrochloride 50 mg QID using a two-sided test of proportions. Differences in proportions were tested using the General Association Test of the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) procedure stratified by center.||||0.008
91077107|NCT00662558|182039908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.234||95.0|-0.53|0.13|||ANCOVA||The mean difference reported is the least squares (LS) mean difference.|The change from Baseline was compared between the two treatment groups using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), with treatment and center as factors, and Baseline value as a covariate.||0.13|-0.53|0.234
91077108|NCT00662558|182039909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.76||0.595||95.0|-4.39|2.52|||ANCOVA||The mean difference reported is the LS mean difference.|The change from Baseline was compared between the two treatment groups using ANCOVA, with treatment and center as factors, and Baseline value as a covariate.||2.52|-4.39|0.595
91077109|NCT00662558|182039910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.829||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH tests using row mean score and adjusted for center was used to compare the two treatment groups.||||0.829
91077110|NCT00662558|182039911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.47||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH tests using row mean score and adjusted for center was used to compare the two treatment groups.||||0.470
91077111|NCT00662558|182039912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.339||95.0|-0.95|0.33|||ANCOVA||The mean difference reported is the LS mean difference.|The change from Baseline was compared between the two treatment groups using ANCOVA, with treatment and center as factors, and Baseline value as a covariate.||0.33|-0.95|0.339
91077112|NCT00662558|182039913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.741||95.0|-0.36|0.25|||ANCOVA||The mean difference reported is the LS mean difference.|How Much Pain Now. The change from Baseline was compared between the two treatment groups using ANCOVA, with treatment and center as factors, and Baseline value as a covariate.||0.25|-0.36|0.741
91077113|NCT00662558|182039913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.796||95.0|-0.38|0.29|||ANCOVA||The mean difference reported is the LS mean difference.|Worst Pain in Past 24 Hours. The change from Baseline was compared between the two treatment groups using ANCOVA, with treatment and center as factors, and Baseline value as a covariate.||0.29|-0.38|0.796
91077114|NCT00662558|182039913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.492||95.0|-0.41|0.2|||ANCOVA||The mean difference reported is the LS mean difference.|Average Pain in Past 24 Hours. The change from Baseline was compared between the two treatment groups using ANCOVA, with treatment and center as factors, and Baseline value as a covariate.||0.20|-0.41|0.492
91077115|NCT00662558|182039913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.893||95.0|-0.28|0.33|||ANCOVA||The mean difference reported is the LS mean difference.|Pain Interfered With General Activity. The change from Baseline was compared between the two treatment groups using ANCOVA, with treatment and center as factors, and Baseline value as a covariate.||0.33|-0.28|0.893
91077116|NCT00662558|182039913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.618||95.0|-0.4|0.24|||ANCOVA||The mean difference reported is the LS mean difference.|Pain Interfered With Mood. The change from Baseline was compared between the two treatment groups using ANCOVA, with treatment and center as factors, and Baseline value as a covariate.||0.24|-0.40|0.618
91077117|NCT00662558|182039913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.44||95.0|-0.19|0.43|||ANCOVA||The mean difference reported is the LS mean difference.|Pain Interfered With Walking Activity. The change from Baseline was compared between the two treatment groups using ANCOVA, with treatment and center as factors, and Baseline value as a covariate.||0.43|-0.19|0.440
91077118|NCT00662558|182039913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.806||95.0|-0.25|0.32|||ANCOVA||The mean difference reported is the LS mean difference.|Pain Interfered With Relations With Others. The change from Baseline was compared between the two treatment groups using ANCOVA, with treatment and center as factors, and Baseline value as a covariate.||0.32|-0.25|0.806
91077119|NCT00662558|182039913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.739||95.0|-0.38|0.27|||ANCOVA||The mean difference reported is the LS mean difference.|Pain Interfered With Sleep. The change from Baseline was compared between the two treatment groups using ANCOVA, with treatment and center as factors, and Baseline value as a covariate.||0.27|-0.38|0.739
91077120|NCT00662558|182039913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.992||95.0|-0.32|0.33|||ANCOVA||The mean difference reported is the LS mean difference.|Pain Interfered With Normal Work. The change from Baseline was compared between the two treatment groups using ANCOVA, with treatment and center as factors, and Baseline value as a covariate.||0.33|-0.32|0.992
91077121|NCT00662558|182039913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.793||95.0|-0.28|0.36|||ANCOVA||The mean difference reported is the LS mean difference.|Pain Interfered With Enjoyment of Life. The change from Baseline was compared between the two treatment groups using ANCOVA, with treatment and center as factors, and Baseline value as a covariate.||0.36|-0.28|0.793
91077122|NCT00662558|182039913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.973||95.0|-0.27|0.28|||ANCOVA||The mean difference reported is the LS mean difference.|Pain Interference Subscale. The change from Baseline was compared between the two treatment groups using ANCOVA, with treatment and center as factors, and Baseline value as a covariate.||0.28|-0.27|0.973
91077123|NCT00662558|182039914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.51||0.392||95.0|-4.26|1.67|||ANCOVA||The mean difference reported is the LS mean difference.|Sleep Disturbance. The change from Baseline was compared between the two treatment groups using ANCOVA, with treatment and center as factors, and Baseline value as a covariate.||1.67|-4.26|0.392
91077124|NCT00662558|182039914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.67||0.691||95.0|-3.94|2.61|||ANCOVA||The mean difference reported is the LS mean difference.|Snoring. The change from Baseline was compared between the two treatment groups using ANCOVA, with treatment and center as factors, and Baseline value as a covariate.||2.61|-3.94|0.691
91077125|NCT00662558|182039914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45||0.549||95.0|-3.7|1.97|||ANCOVA||The mean difference reported is the LS mean difference.|Awaken Shortness of Breath or Headache. The change from Baseline was compared between the two treatment groups using ANCOVA, with treatment and center as factors, and Baseline value as a covariate.||1.97|-3.70|0.549
91077126|NCT00662558|182039914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.336||95.0|-0.67|0.23|||ANCOVA||The mean difference reported is the LS mean difference.|Quantity of Sleep. The change from Baseline was compared between the two treatment groups using ANCOVA, with treatment and center as factors, and Baseline value as a covariate.||0.23|-0.67|0.336
91077127|NCT00662558|182039914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.69||0.37||95.0|-4.83|1.8|||ANCOVA||The mean difference reported is the LS mean difference.|Sleep Adequacy. The change from Baseline was compared between the two treatment groups using ANCOVA, with treatment and center as factors, and Baseline value as a covariate.||1.80|-4.83|0.370
91077128|NCT00662558|182039914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.34||0.341||95.0|-3.9|1.35|||ANCOVA||The mean difference reported is the LS mean difference.|Somnolence. The change from Baseline was compared between the two treatment groups using ANCOVA, with treatment and center as factors, and Baseline value as a covariate.||1.35|-3.90|0.341
91077129|NCT00662558|182039914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15||0.604||95.0|-2.85|1.66|||ANCOVA||The mean difference reported is the LS mean difference.|Sleep Problem Index I. The change from Baseline was compared between the two treatment groups using ANCOVA, with treatment and center as factors, and Baseline value as a covariate.||1.66|-2.85|0.604
91077130|NCT00662558|182039914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14||0.547||95.0|-2.92|1.55|||ANCOVA||The mean difference reported is the LS mean difference.|Sleep Problem Index II. The change from Baseline was compared between the two treatment groups using ANCOVA, with treatment and center as factors, and Baseline value as a covariate.||1.55|-2.92|0.547
91077131|NCT00662558|182039915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.196||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Optimal sleep was analyzed using CMH general association test.||||0.196
91077132|NCT00662558|182039916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91||0.252||95.0|-1.56|5.94|||ANCOVA||The mean difference reported is the LS mean difference.|Time Scale. The change from Baseline was compared between the two treatment groups using ANCOVA, with treatment and center as factors, and Baseline value as a covariate.||5.94|-1.56|0.252
91077133|NCT00662558|182039916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.88||0.798||95.0|-3.21|4.17|||ANCOVA||The mean difference reported is the LS mean difference.|Physical Scale. The change from Baseline was compared between the two treatment groups using ANCOVA, with treatment and center as factors, and Baseline value as a covariate.||4.17|-3.21|0.798
91077134|NCT00662558|182039916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.92||0.7||95.0|-3.03|4.51|||ANCOVA||The mean difference reported is the LS mean difference.|Output Scale. The change from Baseline was compared between the two treatment groups using ANCOVA, with treatment and center as factors, and Baseline value as a covariate.||4.51|-3.03|0.700
91077135|NCT00662558|182039916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.72||0.902||95.0|-3.16|3.59|||ANCOVA||The mean difference reported is the LS mean difference.|Mental-Interpersonal Scale. The change from Baseline was compared between the two treatment groups using ANCOVA, with treatment and center as factors, and Baseline value as a covariate.||3.59|-3.16|0.902
91077136|NCT00662558|182039916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.581||95.0|-0.65|1.16|||ANCOVA||The mean difference reported is the LS mean difference.|Index Scale. The change from Baseline was compared between the two treatment groups using ANCOVA, with treatment and center as factors, and Baseline value as a covariate.||1.16|-0.65|0.581
91077137|NCT00662558|182039917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.614||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value reported is the overall p-value for Week 1.||||0.614
91077138|NCT00662558|182039917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.786||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value reported is the overall p-value for Week 3.||||0.786
91077139|NCT00662558|182039917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.044||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value reported is the overall p-value for Week 6/ET.||||0.044
91077140|NCT00662558|182039918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.87||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH tests using row mean score and adjusted for center was used to compare the two treatment groups.||||0.870
91077141|NCT00662558|182039919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.545||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH tests using row mean score and adjusted for center was used to compare the two treatment groups.||||0.545
91077142|NCT00662558|182039920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.218||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH test adjusted for center was used to compare the two treatment groups.||||0.218
91077143|NCT00987402|182039943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||generalized estimating equation|||Power calculations assumed a 2-sided alpha error of 0.05 and a power of 80%. We performed power calculations using a statistical model for a cluster-randomized trial with 8, 10 or 12 clusters including 6 operating rooms each, with different levels of reduction (10%, 30%, 50%) in surgical site infection rates in the active intervention period. By reaching a sample size of 3133 patients, the study was powered to detect a 30% reduction effect in SSI rates, from 10% to 7%.||||<0.05
91077144|NCT03000530|182039998|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|-3.9|||Mixed Effect Model for Repeated Measures|The Mixed Effect Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) included the change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit as the dependent variables.||||-3.9|-10.2|< 0.0001
91077145|NCT03000530|182040065|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99||0.0223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|-0.3|||Mixed Effect Model for Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit as the dependent variables.||Day 2||-0.3|-4.3|0.0223
91077146|NCT03000530|182040065|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|-1.7|||Mixed Effect Model for Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit as the dependent variables.||Day 3||-1.7|-6.4|0.0010
91077147|NCT03000530|182040065|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.27||0.0233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|-0.4|||Mixed Effect Model for Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit as the dependent variables.||Day 4||-0.4|-5.5|0.0233
91077148|NCT03000530|182040065|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.37||0.0066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|-1.1|||Mixed Effect Model for Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit as the dependent variables.||Day 5||-1.1|-6.6|0.0066
91077149|NCT03000530|182040065|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|-1.7|||Mixed Effect Model for Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit as the dependent variables.||Day 6||-1.7|-7.3|0.0019
91077150|NCT03000530|182040065|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.53||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|-1.5|||Mixed Effect Model for Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit as the dependent variables.||Day 7||-1.5|-7.6|0.0043
91077151|NCT03000530|182040065|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.54||0.0318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|-0.3|||Mixed Effect Model for Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit as the dependent variables.||Day 8||-0.3|-6.4|0.0318
91077152|NCT03000530|182040065|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|-3.9|||Mixed Effect Model for Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit as the dependent variables.||Day 15||-3.9|-10.2|< 0.0001
91077153|NCT03000530|182040065|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.76||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|-1.4|||Mixed Effect Model for Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit as the dependent variables.||Day 21||-1.4|-8.4|0.0064
91077154|NCT03000530|182040065|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.77||0.0243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|-0.5|||Mixed Effect Model for Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit as the dependent variables.||Day 28||-0.5|-7.6|0.0243
91077155|NCT03000530|182040065|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86||0.2285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|1.4|||Mixed Effect Model for Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit as the dependent variables.||Day 35||1.4|-6.0|0.2285
91077156|NCT03000530|182040065|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|1.4|||Mixed Effect Model for Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit as the dependent variables.||Day 42||1.4|-6.0|0.2120
91077157|NCT03000530|182040066|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.4||||0.0884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|24.1|||Generalized Estimating Equation|Statistics are from a generalized estimating equation (GEE) method including the HAM-D response at each visit as the dependent variables.|For the model parameters estimation, the exchangeable working correlation structure was used.|Day 2||24.1|0.8|0.0884
91077158|NCT03000530|182040066|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.4||||0.0732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|6.4|||Generalized Estimating Equation|Statistics are from a GEE method including the HAM-D response at each visit as the dependent variables.|For the model parameters estimation, the exchangeable working correlation structure was used.|Day 8||6.4|0.9|0.0732
91077159|NCT03000530|182040066|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.6||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|31.6|||Generalized Estimating Equation|Statistics are from a GEE method including the HAM-D response at each visit as the dependent variables.|For the model parameters estimation, the exchangeable working correlation structure was used.|Day 15||31.6|2.9|0.0002
91077160|NCT03000530|182040066|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.7||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|19.7|||Generalized Estimating Equation|Statistics are from a GEE method including the HAM-D response at each visit as the dependent variables.|For the model parameters estimation, the exchangeable working correlation structure was used.|Day 21||19.7|2.3|0.0006
91077161|NCT03000530|182040066|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.1||||0.0379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|8.9|||Generalized Estimating Equation|Statistics are from a GEE method including the HAM-D response at each visit as the dependent variables.|For the model parameters estimation, the exchangeable working correlation structure was used.|Day 28||8.9|1.1|0.0379
91077162|NCT03000530|182040066|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.0||||0.0468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|9.0|||Generalized Estimating Equation|Statistics are from a GEE method including the HAM-D response at each visit as the dependent variables.|For the model parameters estimation, the exchangeable working correlation structure was used.|Day 35||9.0|1.0|0.0468
91077163|NCT03000530|182040066|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.2208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|5.6|||Generalized Estimating Equation|Statistics are from a GEE method including the HAM-D response at each visit as the dependent variables.|For the model parameters estimation, the exchangeable working correlation structure was used.|Day 42||5.6|0.7|0.2208
91077164|NCT03000530|182040067|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.7|||Generalized Estimating Equation|Statistics are from a GEE method including the HAM-D remission at each visit as the dependent variables.|For the model parameters estimation, the exchangeable working correlation structure was used.|Day 8||3.7|0.6|0.4300
91077165|NCT03000530|182040067|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.3||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|13.3|||Generalized Estimating Equation|Statistics are from a GEE method including the HAM-D remission at each visit as the dependent variables.|For the model parameters estimation, the exchangeable working correlation structure was used.|Day 15||13.3|2.1|0.0005
91077166|NCT03000530|182040067|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.1||||0.0172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|8.0|||Generalized Estimating Equation|Statistics are from a GEE method including the HAM-D remission at each visit as the dependent variables.|For the model parameters estimation, the exchangeable working correlation structure was used.|Day 21||8.0|1.2|0.0172
91077167|NCT03000530|182040067|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.9||||0.0221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|7.3|||Generalized Estimating Equation|Statistics are from a GEE method including the HAM-D remission at each visit as the dependent variables.|For the model parameters estimation, the exchangeable working correlation structure was used.|Day 28||7.3|1.2|0.0221
91077168|NCT03000530|182040067|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.4139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.5|||Generalized Estimating Equation|Statistics are from a GEE method including the HAM-D remission at each visit as the dependent variables.|For the model parameters estimation, the exchangeable working correlation structure was used.|Day 35||3.5|0.6|0.4139
91077169|NCT03000530|182040067|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.2332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|4.3|||Generalized Estimating Equation|Statistics are from a GEE method including the HAM-D remission at each visit as the dependent variables.|For the model parameters estimation, the exchangeable working correlation structure was used.|Day 42||4.3|0.7|0.2332
91077170|NCT03000530|182040068|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38||0.0836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|0.3|||Mixed Effect Model for Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the change from baseline in MADRS total score at each visit as the dependent variable.||Day 2||0.3|-5.1|0.0836
91077171|NCT03000530|182040068|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.32||0.0864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|0.6|||Mixed Effect Model for Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the change from baseline in MADRS total score at each visit as the dependent variable.||Day 8||0.6|-8.6|0.0864
91077172|NCT03000530|182040068|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.38||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|-2.8|||Mixed Effect Model for Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the change from baseline in MADRS total score at each visit as the dependent variable.||Day 15||-2.8|-12.3|0.0021
91077173|NCT03000530|182040068|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.69||0.0157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|-1.3|||Mixed Effect Model for Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the change from baseline in MADRS total score at each visit as the dependent variable.||Day 21||-1.3|-12.0|0.0157
91077174|NCT03000530|182040068|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.69||0.0533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|0.1|||Mixed Effect Model for Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the change from baseline in MADRS total score at each visit as the dependent variable.||Day 28||0.1|-10.6|0.0533
91077175|NCT03000530|182040068|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.87||0.2878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|2.6|||Mixed Effect Model for Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the change from baseline in MADRS total score at each visit as the dependent variable.||Day 35||2.6|-8.8|0.2878
91077176|NCT03000530|182040068|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7||0.4664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|3.4|||Mixed Effect Model for Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the change from baseline in MADRS total score at each visit as the dependent variable.||Day 42||3.4|-7.4|0.4664
91077177|NCT03000530|182040071|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.0391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|-0.1|||Mixed Effect Model for Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the change from baseline in HAM-A total score at each visit as the dependent variable.||Day 2||-0.1|-3.6|0.0391
91077178|NCT03000530|182040071|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29||0.0516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|0.0|||Mixed Effect Model for Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the change from baseline in HAM-A total score at each visit as the dependent variable.||Day 8||0.0|-5.1|0.0516
91077179|NCT03000530|182040071|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|-2.0|||Mixed Effect Model for Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the change from baseline in HAM-A total score at each visit as the dependent variable.||Day 15||-2.0|-7.3|0.0008
91077180|NCT03000530|182040071|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.54||0.0282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|-0.4|||Mixed Effect Model for Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the change from baseline in HAM-A total score at each visit as the dependent variable.||Day 21||-0.4|-6.5|0.0282
91077181|NCT03000530|182040071|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.56||0.1686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|0.9|||Mixed Effect Model for Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the change from baseline in HAM-A total score at each visit as the dependent variable.||Day 28||0.9|-5.3|0.1686
91077182|NCT03000530|182040071|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.75||0.2488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|1.5|||Mixed Effect Model for Repeated Measures|||Day 35||1.5|-5.5|0.2488
91077183|NCT03000530|182040071|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.76||0.2037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|1.2|||Mixed Effect Model for Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the change from baseline in HAM-A total score at each visit as the dependent variable.||Day 42||1.2|-5.7|0.2037
91077184|NCT03000530|182040072|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.5||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|17.9|||Generalized Estimating Equation|Statistics are from a GEE method including the CGI-I response at each visit as the dependent variable.|For the model parameters estimation, the exchangeable working correlation structure was used.|Day 8||17.9|1.7|0.0048
91077185|NCT03000530|182040072|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.6||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|29.5|||Generalized Estimating Equation|Statistics are from a GEE method including the CGI-I response at each visit as the dependent variable.|For the model parameters estimation, the exchangeable working correlation structure was used.|Day 15||29.5|2.5|0.0007
91077186|NCT03000530|182040072|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.4||||0.0113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|13.6|||Generalized Estimating Equation|Statistics are from a GEE method including the CGI-I response at each visit as the dependent variable.|For the model parameters estimation, the exchangeable working correlation structure was used.|Day 21||13.6|1.4|0.0113
91077187|NCT03000530|182040072|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.9||||0.0227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|12.8|||Generalized Estimating Equation|Statistics are from a GEE method including the CGI-I response at each visit as the dependent variable.|For the model parameters estimation, the exchangeable working correlation structure was used.|Day 28||12.8|1.2|0.0227
91077188|NCT03000530|182040072|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3||||0.1516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|7.2|||Generalized Estimating Equation|Statistics are from a GEE method including the CGI-I response at each visit as the dependent variable.|For the model parameters estimation, the exchangeable working correlation structure was used.|Day 35||7.2|0.7|0.1516
91077189|NCT03000530|182040072|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.7||||0.0793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|8.3|||Generalized Estimating Equation|Statistics are from a GEE method including the CGI-I response at each visit as the dependent variable.|For the model parameters estimation, the exchangeable working correlation structure was used.|Day 42||8.3|0.9|0.0793
91077190|NCT01672294|182040073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5376|||<|0.511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0776|2.1528||Between Outlook Intervention and Attention Control caregivers at 5 weeks|Mixed Models Analysis|||Note- missing the first follow up at 5 weeks did not prohibit an individual from participating at the second follow up at 8 weeks.||2.1528|-1.0776|<0.511
91077191|NCT01672294|182040073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4275||||0.6348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3505|2.2055||Between Outlook Intervention and Attention Control caregivers at 8 weeks|Mixed Models Analysis|||Note- missing the first follow up at 5 weeks did not prohibit an individual from participating at the second follow up at 8 weeks.||2.2055|-1.3505|0.6348
91077192|NCT01672294|182040074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6836||||0.5225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4278|2.795|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison at 5 weeks Note- missing the first follow up at 5 weeks did not prohibit an individual from participating at the second follow up at 8 weeks.||2.7950|-1.4278|0.5225
91077193|NCT01672294|182040074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2764||||0.1972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6728|3.2257|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison at 8 weeks. Note-missing the first follow up at 5 weeks did not prohibit an individual from participating at the second follow up at 8 weeks.||3.2257|-0.6728|0.1972
91077194|NCT01672294|182040075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9358|||<|0.3332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9726|2.8443|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Between Outlook Intervention caregivers and active control caregivers at 5 weeks Note- missing the first follow up at 5 weeks did not prohibit an individual from participating at the second follow up at 8 weeks.||2.8443|-0.9726|<0.3332
91077195|NCT01672294|182040075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6929||||0.3842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8783|2.2642||Note-missing the first follow up at 5 weeks did not prohibit an individual from participating at the second follow up at 8 weeks|Mixed Models Analysis|||Between Outlook Intervention caregivers and active control caregivers at 8 weeks Note - Missing the first follow up at 5 weeks did not prohibit an individual from participating at the second follow up at 8 weeks||2.2642|-0.8783|0.3842
91077196|NCT01672294|182040076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||expected change in difference in logs|0.0593||||0.8748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6784|0.797|||Standard negative binomial with offset||The expected change in the difference of the logs of expected Days in VA inpatient care or ED.|||0.797|-0.6784|0.8748
91077197|NCT01672294|182040077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01777||||0.7687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1372|0.1017||Between Caregiver Outlook - Caregiver and Relaxation Meditation - Caregiver at 5 weeks|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Between Outlook Intervention caregivers and active control caregivers at 5 weeks.~Note- missing the first follow up at 5 weeks did not prohibit an individual from participating at the second follow up at 8 weeks."||0.1017|-0.1372|0.7687
91077198|NCT01672294|182040077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.00087||||0.9863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1003|0.09861||Between Caregiver Outlook - Caregiver and Relaxation Meditation - Caregiver at 8 weeks|Mixed Models Analysis|||Between Outlook Intervention caregivers and active control caregivers at 8 weeks Note- missing the first follow up at 5 weeks did not prohibit an individual from participating at the second follow up at 8 weeks.||0.09861|-0.1003|0.9863
91077199|NCT01672294|182040078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01166||||0.9221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2475|0.2241|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At 5 weeks - Completion subscale||0.2241|-0.2475|0.9221
91077200|NCT01672294|182040078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1154||||0.3249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3466|0.1158||Between Caregiver Outlook - Caregiver and Relaxation Meditation - Caregiver at 8 weeks|Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison at 8 week time point Note- Missing first follow up at 5 weeks did not prohibit an individual from participating at the second follow up at 8 week.||0.1158|-0.3466|0.3249
91077201|NCT03379792|182040088|OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.24
91077202|NCT03379792|182040088|OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.22
91077203|NCT03379792|182040088|OTHER|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||1.0
91077204|NCT01606202|182040123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.08||||0.708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.35|||ANCOVA|||The change in the pain Numerical Rating Scale score from baseline to End of Treatment was compared between treatment groups using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). The model included treatment and centre as factors and baseline Numerical Rating Scale pain mean score as a covariate.||0.35|-0.51|0.708
91077205|NCT01606202|182040124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.57||||0.852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.62|5.48|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to End of Treatment in the percentage of days on which escape medication was used was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment and centre as factors and percentage of days on which escape medication was used as a covariate.||5.48|-6.62|0.852
91077206|NCT01606202|182040125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|0.05||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.65|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to End of Treatment in the Spasm severity Numerical Rating Scale score was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment and centre as factors and the Spasm severity Numerical Rating Scale score as a covariate.||0.65|-0.54|0.860
91077207|NCT01606202|182040126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.64||||0.873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.56|7.27|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to End of Treatment in the percentage of days on which spasm was experienced was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment and centre as factors and the Spasm percentage of days on which spasm was experienced as a covariate.||7.27|-8.56|0.873
91077208|NCT01606202|182040127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|0.07||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.75|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to End of Treatment in the spasticity severity Numerical Rating Scale score was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment and centre as factors and the baseline spasticity severity Numerical Rating Scale score as a covariate.||0.75|-0.61|0.830
91077209|NCT01606202|182040128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|0.4||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.08|4.88|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to End of Treatment in the percentage of days on which spasticity was experienced was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment and centre as factors and the percentage of days on which spasticity was experienced as a covariate.||4.88|-4.08|0.860
91077210|NCT01606202|182040129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.14||||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.05|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to End of Treatment in the Modified Ashworth scale score was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment and centre as factors and the Modified Ashworth scale score as a covariate.||0.05|-0.33|0.142
91077211|NCT01606202|182040130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.11||||0.824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|0.9|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline in the mean Short Orientation Memory Concentration score, was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment and centre as factors and baseline Short Orientation Memory Concentration test score as a covariate.||0.90|-1.13|0.824
91077212|NCT01606202|182040131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.04||||0.847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.4|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to End of Treatment in the Spitzer Quality of Life Index score was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment and centre as factors and the Spitzer Quality of Life Index score as a covariate.||0.40|-0.49|0.847
91077213|NCT01606202|182040132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-1.29||||0.287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.74|1.16|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to End of Treatment in the Caregiver Strain Index score was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment and centre as factors and the baseline Caregiver Strain Index score as a covariate.||1.16|-3.74|0.287
91077214|NCT01606202|182040133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|33.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.07|50.64|||Fisher Exact|||The proportion of subjects who considered their condition 'Very Much Improved', 'Much Improved' or 'Minimally Improved' was compared between treatment groups using Fisher's Exact Test.||50.64|17.07|<0.001
91077215|NCT01606202|182040134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-1.93||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.69|-0.16|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to End of Treatment in the Brief Pain Inventory score was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment and centre as factors and baseline Brief Pain Inventory score as a covariate.||-0.16|-3.69|0.032
91077216|NCT00306787|182040137|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The estimated power for non-inferiority test (90%) was based on the non-inferiority margin of 1.0 day.|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.6|||Hodges-Lehman|||Difference in time to healing= time to healing for famciclovir- time to healing for valacyclovir.||0.60|-0.15|
91077217|NCT00337779|182040159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0732|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1013||0.4859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8799|1.309|||Regression, Poisson||980 subjects randomized into two arms provide approximately 90% power to detect significant difference between groups of 30% or more in rate of confirmed relapses.|||1.3090|0.8799|0.4859
91077218|NCT01593254|182040164|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.005
91077219|NCT00586508|182040208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3375||||||P-value is for Physical Well-Being Cycle 1.|ANCOVA|P-value of treatment effect from an Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) for change from baseline. Covariates include: treatment and baseline value.||||||0.3375
91077220|NCT00586508|182040208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.516||||||P-value is for Physical Well-Being Cycle 2.|ANCOVA|P-value of treatment effect from an ANCOVA for change from baseline. Covariates include: treatment and baseline value.||||||0.516
91077221|NCT00586508|182040208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.786||||||P-value is for Physical Well-Being Cycle 3.|ANCOVA|P-value of treatment effect from an ANCOVA for change from baseline. Covariates include: treatment and baseline value.||||||0.786
91077222|NCT00586508|182040208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1496||||||P-value is for Physical Well-Being Cycle 4.|ANCOVA|P-value of treatment effect from an ANCOVA for change from baseline. Covariates include: treatment and baseline value.||||||0.1496
91077223|NCT00586508|182040208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8428||||||P-value is for Physical Well-Being Cycle 5.|ANCOVA|P-value of treatment effect from an ANCOVA for change from baseline. Covariates include: treatment and baseline value.||||||0.8428
91077224|NCT00586508|182040208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7345||||||P-value is for Physical Well-Being Cycle 6.|ANCOVA|P-value of treatment effect from an ANCOVA for change from baseline. Covariates include: treatment and baseline value.||||||0.7345
91077225|NCT00586508|182040208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8928||||||P-value is for Physical Well-Being Cycle 7.|ANCOVA|P-value of treatment effect from an ANCOVA for change from baseline. Covariates include: treatment and baseline value.||||||0.8928
91077226|NCT00586508|182040208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7343||||||P-value is for Physical Well-Being Cycle 8.|ANCOVA|P-value of treatment effect from an ANCOVA for change from baseline. Covariates include: treatment and baseline value.||||||0.7343
91077227|NCT00586508|182040208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8798||||||P-value is for Social/Family Well-Being Cycle 1.|ANCOVA|P-value of treatment effect from an ANCOVA for change from baseline. Covariates include: treatment and baseline value.||||||0.8798
91077228|NCT00586508|182040208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6837||||||P-value is for Social/Family Well-Being Cycle 2.|ANCOVA|P-value of treatment effect from an ANCOVA for change from baseline. Covariates include: treatment and baseline value.||||||0.6837
91077229|NCT00586508|182040208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7226||||||P-value is for Social/Family Well-Being Cycle 3.|ANCOVA|P-value of treatment effect from an ANCOVA for change from baseline. Covariates include: treatment and baseline value.||||||0.7226
91077230|NCT00586508|182040208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.641||||||P-value is for Social/Family Well-Being Cycle 4.|ANCOVA|P-value of treatment effect from an ANCOVA for change from baseline. Covariates include: treatment and baseline value.||||||0.641
91077231|NCT00586508|182040208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.478||||||P-value is for Social/Family Well-Being Cycle 5.|ANCOVA|P-value of treatment effect from an ANCOVA for change from baseline. Covariates include: treatment and baseline value.||||||0.478
91077232|NCT00586508|182040208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9367||||||P-value is for Social/Family Well-Being Cycle 6.|ANCOVA|P-value of treatment effect from an ANCOVA for change from baseline. Covariates include: treatment and baseline value.||||||0.9367
91077233|NCT00586508|182040208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5108||||||P-value is for Social/Family Well-Being Cycle 7.|ANCOVA|P-value of treatment effect from an ANCOVA for change from baseline. Covariates include: treatment and baseline value.||||||0.5108
91077234|NCT00586508|182040208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8976||||||P-value is for Social/Family Well-Being Cycle 8.|ANCOVA|P-value of treatment effect from an ANCOVA for change from baseline. Covariates include: treatment and baseline value.||||||0.8976
91077235|NCT00586508|182040208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8193||||||P-value is for Emotional Well-Being Cycle 1.|ANCOVA|P-value of treatment effect from an ANCOVA for change from baseline. Covariates include: treatment and baseline value.||||||0.8193
91077236|NCT00586508|182040208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1695||||||P-value is for Emotional Well-Being Cycle 2.|ANCOVA|P-value of treatment effect from an ANCOVA for change from baseline. Covariates include: treatment and baseline value.||||||0.1695
91077237|NCT00586508|182040208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4021||||||P-value is for Emotional Well-Being Cycle 3.|ANCOVA|P-value of treatment effect from an ANCOVA for change from baseline. Covariates include: treatment and baseline value.||||||0.4021
91077238|NCT00586508|182040208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3603||||||P-value is for Emotional Well-Being Cycle 4.|ANCOVA|P-value of treatment effect from an ANCOVA for change from baseline. Covariates include: treatment and baseline value.||||||0.3603
91077239|NCT00586508|182040208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5169||||||P-value is for Emotional Well-Being Cycle 5.|ANCOVA|P-value of treatment effect from an ANCOVA for change from baseline. Covariates include: treatment and baseline value.||||||0.5169
91077240|NCT00586508|182040208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1642||||||P-value is for Emotional Well-Being Cycle 6.|ANCOVA|P-value of treatment effect from an ANCOVA for change from baseline. Covariates include: treatment and baseline value.||||||0.1642
91077241|NCT00586508|182040208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6354||||||P-value is for Emotional Well-Being Cycle 7.|ANCOVA|P-value of treatment effect from an ANCOVA for change from baseline. Covariates include: treatment and baseline value.||||||0.6354
91077242|NCT00586508|182040208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3517||||||P-value is for Emotional Well-Being Cycle 8.|ANCOVA|P-value of treatment effect from an ANCOVA for change from baseline. Covariates include: treatment and baseline value.||||||0.3517
91077243|NCT00586508|182040208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7605||||||P-value is for Functional Well-Being Cycle 1.|ANCOVA|P-value of treatment effect from an ANCOVA for change from baseline. Covariates include: treatment and baseline value.||||||0.7605
91077244|NCT00586508|182040208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3747||||||P-value is for Functional Well-Being Cycle 2.|ANCOVA|P-value of treatment effect from an ANCOVA for change from baseline. Covariates include: treatment and baseline value.||||||0.3747
91077245|NCT00586508|182040208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8379||||||P-value is for Functional Well-Being Cycle 3.|ANCOVA|P-value of treatment effect from an ANCOVA for change from baseline. Covariates include: treatment and baseline value.||||||0.8379
91077246|NCT00586508|182040208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1179||||||P-value is for Functional Well-Being Cycle 4.|ANCOVA|P-value of treatment effect from an ANCOVA for change from baseline. Covariates include: treatment and baseline value.||||||0.1179
91077247|NCT00586508|182040208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7412||||||P-value is for Functional Well-Being Cycle 5.|ANCOVA|P-value of treatment effect from an ANCOVA for change from baseline. Covariates include: treatment and baseline value.||||||0.7412
91077248|NCT00586508|182040208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3773||||||P-value is for Functional Well-Being Cycle 6.|ANCOVA|P-value of treatment effect from an ANCOVA for change from baseline. Covariates include: treatment and baseline value.||||||0.3773
91077249|NCT00586508|182040208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7402||||||P-value is for Functional Well-Being Cycle 7.|ANCOVA|P-value of treatment effect from an ANCOVA for change from baseline. Covariates include: treatment and baseline value.||||||0.7402
91077250|NCT00586508|182040208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2671||||||P-value is for Functional Well-Being Cycle 8.|ANCOVA|P-value of treatment effect from an ANCOVA for change from baseline. Covariates include: treatment and baseline value.||||||0.2671
91077251|NCT01592292|182040222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3037||||||Change in DAS28 at Month 6 was performed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline DAS28 score and rheumatoid factor (RF) status as covariate values.|ANCOVA|||||||0.3037
91077252|NCT01592292|182040223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0951||||||Change in DAS28 at Month 6 was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline DAS28 score and rheumatoid factor status as covariate values.|ANCOVA|||||||0.0951
91077253|NCT01592292|182040224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.239||||||Change in DAS28 at Month 12 was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline DAS28 score and rheumatoid factor status as covariate values.|ANCOVA|||||||0.2390
91077254|NCT01592292|182040225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3212||||||Change in TJC at Month 6 was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline TJC and baseline rheumatoid factor status as covariate values.|ANCOVA|||||||0.3212
91077255|NCT01592292|182040225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7097||||||Change in TJC at Month 12 was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline TJC and baseline rheumatoid factor status as covariate values.|ANCOVA|||||||0.7097
91077256|NCT01592292|182040226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2444||||||Change in TJC at Month 6 was performed using ANCOVA with baseline TJC and baseline rheumatoid factor status as covariate values.|ANCOVA|||||||0.2444
91077257|NCT01592292|182040226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3903||||||Change in TJC at Month 12 was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline TJC and baseline rheumatoid factor status as covariate values.|ANCOVA|||||||0.3903
91077258|NCT01592292|182040227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5306||||||Change in SJC at Month 6 was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline SJC and baseline rheumatoid factor status as covariate values.|ANCOVA|||||||0.5306
91077259|NCT01592292|182040227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2542||||||Change in SJC at Month 12 was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline SJC and baseline rheumatoid factor status as covariate values.|ANCOVA|||||||0.2542
91077260|NCT01592292|182040228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2549||||||Change in SJC at Month 6 was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline SJC and baseline rheumatoid factor status as covariate values.|ANCOVA|||||||0.2549
91077261|NCT01592292|182040228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7644||||||Change in SJC at Month 12 was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline SJC and baseline rheumatoid factor status as covariate values.|ANCOVA|||||||0.7644
91077262|NCT01592292|182040229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8987||||||Change in ESR at Month 6 was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline ESR and rheumatoid factor status as covariate values.|ANCOVA|||||||0.8987
91077263|NCT01592292|182040229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5808||||||Change in ESR at Month 12 was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline ESR and rheumatoid factor status as covariate values.|ANCOVA|||||||0.5808
91077264|NCT01592292|182040230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2282||||||Change in ESR at Month 6 was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline ESR and baseline rheumatoid factor status as covariate values.|ANCOVA|||||||0.2282
91077265|NCT01592292|182040230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5849||||||Change in ESR at Month 12 was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline ESR and baseline rheumatoid factor status as covariate values.|ANCOVA|||||||0.5849
91077266|NCT01592292|182040231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49||||||Change in CRP at Month 6 was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline CRP and baseline rheumatoid factor status as covariate values.|ANCOVA|||||||0.4900
91077267|NCT01592292|182040231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1826||||||Change in CRP at Month 12 was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline CRP and baseline rheumatoid factor status as covariate values.|ANCOVA|||||||0.1826
91077268|NCT01592292|182040232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1894||||||Change in CRP at Month 6 was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline CRP and baseline rheumatoid factor status as covariate values.|ANCOVA|||||||0.1894
91077269|NCT01592292|182040232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1805||||||Change in CRP at Month 12 was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline CRP and baseline rheumatoid factor status as covariate values.|ANCOVA|||||||0.1805
91077270|NCT01592292|182040233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0568||||||Change in HAQ-DI at Month 6 was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline rheumatoid factor status as covariate value.|ANCOVA|||||||0.0568
91077271|NCT01592292|182040234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1167||||||Change in HAQ-DI at Month 6 was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline rheumatoid factor status as covariate value.|ANCOVA|||||||0.1167
91077272|NCT02923245|182040248|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|49.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.4|77.2|||||These confidence intervals correspond to the bootstrap analysis|||77.2|23.4|
91077273|NCT02923245|182040249|OTHER||Difference in percentages|15.3||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|25.0|||Test of proportions|||||25.0|5.3|0.006
91077274|NCT00793624|182040276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.151|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001||95.0|0.11|0.193|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.193|0.110|<0.0001
91077275|NCT00793624|182040276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.165|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001||95.0|0.124|0.206|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.206|0.124|<0.0001
91077276|NCT00793624|182040276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.177|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001||95.0|0.136|0.218|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.218|0.136|<0.0001
91077277|NCT00793624|182040277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.078|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021||0.0002||95.0|0.037|0.118|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.118|0.037|0.0002
91077278|NCT00793624|182040277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.085|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001||95.0|0.044|0.125|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.125|0.044|<0.0001
91077279|NCT00793624|182040277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.054|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021||0.0088||95.0|0.014|0.095|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.095|0.014|0.0088
91077280|NCT00793624|182040278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.188|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.343||0.5843||95.0|-0.485|0.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.860|-0.485|0.5843
91077281|NCT00793624|182040278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.345||0.9494||95.0|-0.656|0.699|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.699|-0.656|0.9494
91077282|NCT00793624|182040278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.288|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.346||0.5099||95.0|-0.908|0.451|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.451|-0.908|0.5099
91077283|NCT00793624|182040279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.442|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.401||0.0816||95.0|-5.19|0.307|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.307|-5.190|0.0816
91077284|NCT00793624|182040279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.394|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.0155||95.0|-6.141|-0.648|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.648|-6.141|0.0155
91077285|NCT00793624|182040279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.952|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.396||0.4954||95.0|-3.691|1.787|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||1.787|-3.691|0.4954
91077286|NCT00793624|182040280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.785|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.387||0.045||95.0|-5.507|-0.063|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.063|-5.507|0.0450
91077287|NCT00793624|182040280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.144|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.386||0.0002||95.0|-7.864|-2.425|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-2.425|-7.864|0.0002
91077288|NCT00793624|182040280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.754|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.386||0.2061||95.0|-4.474|0.966|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.966|-4.474|0.2061
91077289|NCT00793624|182040281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.871|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.419||0.1878||95.0|-4.655|0.914|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.914|-4.655|0.1878
91077290|NCT00793624|182040281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.565|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.427||0.0126||95.0|-6.364|-0.767|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.767|-6.364|0.0126
91077291|NCT00793624|182040281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.426||0.9913||95.0|-2.782|2.814|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||2.814|-2.782|0.9913
91077292|NCT00793624|182040282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.846|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.972||0.0034||95.0|-4.751|-0.94|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo||-0.940|-4.751|0.0034
91077293|NCT00793624|182040282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.434|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.973||0.0004||95.0|-5.343|-1.525|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo||-1.525|-5.343|0.0004
91077294|NCT00793624|182040282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.248|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.976||0.2009||95.0|-3.161|0.665|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 10 mcg qd minus Placebo||0.665|-3.161|0.2009
91077295|NCT00793624|182040283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.186|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.146|0.226|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.226|0.146|<0.0001
91077296|NCT00793624|182040283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.166|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.126|0.206|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.206|0.126|<0.0001
91077297|NCT00793624|182040283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.206|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.166|0.246|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.246|0.166|<0.0001
91077298|NCT00793624|182040284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.176|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001||95.0|0.136|0.217|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.217|0.136|<0.0001
91077299|NCT00793624|182040284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001||95.0|0.119|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.200|0.119|<0.0001
91077300|NCT00793624|182040284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.192|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001||95.0|0.152|0.233|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.233|0.152|<0.0001
91077301|NCT00793624|182040285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.178|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001||95.0|0.137|0.219|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.219|0.137|<0.0001
91077302|NCT00793624|182040285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001||95.0|0.129|0.211|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.211|0.129|<0.0001
91077303|NCT00793624|182040285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.185|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001||95.0|0.144|0.226|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.226|0.144|<0.0001
91077304|NCT00793624|182040286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.145|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001||95.0|0.103|0.186|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.186|0.103|<0.0001
91077305|NCT00793624|182040286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.146|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001||95.0|0.105|0.188|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.188|0.105|<0.0001
91077306|NCT00793624|182040286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.172|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001||95.0|0.13|0.214|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.214|0.130|<0.0001
91077307|NCT00793624|182040287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.087|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.048|0.126|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.126|0.048|<0.0001
91077308|NCT00793624|182040287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.079|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.04|0.118|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.118|0.040|<0.0001
91077309|NCT00793624|182040287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.04|0.119|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.119|0.040|<0.0001
91077310|NCT00793624|182040288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.086|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.047|0.125|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.125|0.047|<0.0001
91077311|NCT00793624|182040288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.078|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.0001||95.0|0.038|0.117|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.117|0.038|0.0001
91077312|NCT00793624|182040288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.079|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.039|0.119|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.119|0.039|<0.0001
91077313|NCT00793624|182040289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.083|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.043|0.123|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.123|0.043|<0.0001
91077314|NCT00793624|182040289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.075|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.0002||95.0|0.035|0.114|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.114|0.035|0.0002
91077315|NCT00793624|182040289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.059|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.0037||95.0|0.019|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.100|0.019|0.0037
91077316|NCT00793624|182040290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.065|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.0016||95.0|0.025|0.105|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.105|0.025|0.0016
91077317|NCT00793624|182040290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.0276||95.0|0.005|0.085|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.085|0.005|0.0276
91077318|NCT00793624|182040290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021||0.0426||95.0|0.001|0.082|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.082|0.001|0.0426
91077319|NCT00793624|182040291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.047|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021||0.0237||95.0|0.006|0.087|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.087|0.006|0.0237
91077320|NCT00793624|182040291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.049|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021||0.0175||95.0|0.009|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.090|0.009|0.0175
91077321|NCT00793624|182040291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.044|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021||0.0339||95.0|0.003|0.085|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.085|0.003|0.0339
91077322|NCT00793624|182040292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021||0.0537||95.0|-0.001|0.081|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.081|-0.001|0.0537
91077323|NCT00793624|182040292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.037|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021||0.0808||95.0|-0.004|0.078|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.078|-0.004|0.0808
91077324|NCT00793624|182040292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021||0.2579||95.0|-0.017|0.065|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.065|-0.017|0.2579
91077325|NCT00793624|182040293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.068|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021||0.0011||95.0|0.027|0.109|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.109|0.027|0.0011
91077326|NCT00793624|182040293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.059|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021||0.0069||95.0|0.018|0.101|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.101|0.018|0.0069
91077327|NCT00793624|182040293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.04|0.119|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.119|0.040|<0.0001
91077328|NCT00793624|182040294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.177|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.135|0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.220|0.135|<0.0001
91077329|NCT00793624|182040294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.108|0.193|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.193|0.108|<0.0001
91077330|NCT00793624|182040294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.148|0.233|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.233|0.148|<0.0001
91077331|NCT00793624|182040295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.166|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.124|0.209|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.209|0.124|<0.0001
91077332|NCT00793624|182040295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.152|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.109|0.195|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.195|0.109|<0.0001
91077333|NCT00793624|182040295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.182|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.139|0.226|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.226|0.139|<0.0001
91077334|NCT00793624|182040296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.165|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.122|0.208|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.208|0.122|<0.0001
91077335|NCT00793624|182040296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.159|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.116|0.203|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.203|0.116|<0.0001
91077336|NCT00793624|182040296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.174|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.13|0.218|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.218|0.130|<0.0001
91077337|NCT00793624|182040297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.148|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.104|0.191|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.191|0.104|<0.0001
91077338|NCT00793624|182040297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.167|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.112|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.200|0.112|<0.0001
91077339|NCT00793624|182040297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.167|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.123|0.211|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.211|0.123|<0.0001
91077340|NCT00793624|182040298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.139|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001||95.0|0.095|0.183|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.183|0.095|<0.0001
91077341|NCT00793624|182040298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001||95.0|0.095|0.184|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.184|0.095|<0.0001
91077342|NCT00793624|182040298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.162|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001||95.0|0.117|0.206|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.206|0.117|<0.0001
91077343|NCT00793624|182040299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.223|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038|<|0.0001||95.0|0.149|0.297|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.297|0.149|<0.0001
91077344|NCT00793624|182040299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.235|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038|<|0.0001||95.0|0.161|0.309|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.309|0.161|<0.0001
91077345|NCT00793624|182040299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.307|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038|<|0.0001||95.0|0.233|0.381|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.381|0.233|<0.0001
91077346|NCT00793624|182040300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.236|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038|<|0.0001||95.0|0.161|0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.310|0.161|<0.0001
91077347|NCT00793624|182040300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.249|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038|<|0.0001||95.0|0.175|0.324|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.324|0.175|<0.0001
91077348|NCT00793624|182040300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038|<|0.0001||95.0|0.235|0.384|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.384|0.235|<0.0001
91077349|NCT00793624|182040301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038|<|0.0001||95.0|0.135|0.285|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.285|0.135|<0.0001
91077350|NCT00793624|182040301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.254|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038|<|0.0001||95.0|0.179|0.329|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.329|0.179|<0.0001
91077351|NCT00793624|182040301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.276|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|<|0.0001||95.0|0.201|0.352|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.352|0.201|<0.0001
91077352|NCT00793624|182040302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.182|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|<|0.0001||95.0|0.107|0.258|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.258|0.107|<0.0001
91077353|NCT00793624|182040302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.215|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|<|0.0001||95.0|0.139|0.291|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.291|0.139|<0.0001
91077354|NCT00793624|182040302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.242|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|<|0.0001||95.0|0.166|0.318|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.318|0.166|<0.0001
91077355|NCT00793624|182040303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.179|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|<|0.0001||95.0|0.103|0.256|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.256|0.103|<0.0001
91077356|NCT00793624|182040303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.203|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|<|0.0001||95.0|0.126|0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.280|0.126|<0.0001
91077357|NCT00793624|182040303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.243|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|<|0.0001||95.0|0.166|0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.320|0.166|<0.0001
91077358|NCT00793624|182040304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.068|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.0781||95.0|-0.008|0.143|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.143|-0.008|0.0781
91077359|NCT00793624|182040304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.077|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.0455||95.0|0.002|0.153|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.153|0.002|0.0455
91077360|NCT00793624|182040304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.085|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.029||95.0|0.009|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.160|0.009|0.0290
91077361|NCT00793624|182040305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.0043||95.0|0.035|0.186|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.186|0.035|0.0043
91077362|NCT00793624|182040305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.131|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.0007||95.0|0.055|0.207|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.207|0.055|0.0007
91077363|NCT00793624|182040305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.136|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.0005||95.0|0.06|0.212|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.212|0.060|0.0005
91077364|NCT00793624|182040306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.097|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.0136||95.0|0.02|0.173|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.173|0.020|0.0136
91077365|NCT00793624|182040306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.105|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.0076||95.0|0.028|0.182|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.182|0.028|0.0076
91077366|NCT00793624|182040306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.086|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.0294||95.0|0.009|0.163|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.163|0.009|0.0294
91077367|NCT00793624|182040307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.8674||95.0|-0.071|0.084|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.084|-0.071|0.8674
91077368|NCT00793624|182040307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.018|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.6487||95.0|-0.06|0.096|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.096|-0.060|0.6487
91077369|NCT00793624|182040307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.9267||95.0|-0.074|0.081|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.081|-0.074|0.9267
91077370|NCT00793624|182040308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.056|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.1603||95.0|-0.022|0.134|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.134|-0.022|0.1603
91077371|NCT00793624|182040308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.082|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0399||95.0|0.004|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.160|0.004|0.0399
91077372|NCT00793624|182040308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.6328||95.0|-0.059|0.098|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.098|-0.059|0.6328
91077373|NCT00793624|182040309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.061|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.127||95.0|-0.017|0.139|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.139|-0.017|0.1270
91077374|NCT00793624|182040309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.064|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.1076||95.0|-0.014|0.143|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.143|-0.014|0.1076
91077375|NCT00793624|182040309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.058|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.1492||95.0|-0.021|0.137|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.137|-0.021|0.1492
91077376|NCT00793624|182040310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.083|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0385||95.0|0.004|0.162|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.162|0.004|0.0385
91077377|NCT00793624|182040310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.059|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.142||95.0|-0.02|0.138|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.138|-0.020|0.1420
91077378|NCT00793624|182040310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.067|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0965||95.0|-0.012|0.147|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.147|-0.012|0.0965
91077379|NCT00793624|182040311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.059|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.1394||95.0|-0.019|0.138|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.138|-0.019|0.1394
91077380|NCT00793624|182040311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.058|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.1532||95.0|-0.022|0.137|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.137|-0.022|0.1532
91077381|NCT00793624|182040311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041||0.5511||95.0|-0.055|0.104|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.104|-0.055|0.5511
91077382|NCT00793624|182040312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.186|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001||95.0|0.108|0.264|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.264|0.108|<0.0001
91077383|NCT00793624|182040312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.206|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001||95.0|0.128|0.284|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.284|0.128|<0.0001
91077384|NCT00793624|182040312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.283|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001||95.0|0.205|0.361|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.361|0.205|<0.0001
91077385|NCT00793624|182040313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.209|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001||95.0|0.131|0.288|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.288|0.131|<0.0001
91077386|NCT00793624|182040313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.231|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001||95.0|0.153|0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.310|0.153|<0.0001
91077387|NCT00793624|182040313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.265|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001||95.0|0.187|0.344|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.344|0.187|<0.0001
91077388|NCT00793624|182040314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.188|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001||95.0|0.108|0.267|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.267|0.108|<0.0001
91077389|NCT00793624|182040314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.238|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041|<|0.0001||95.0|0.159|0.318|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.318|0.159|<0.0001
91077390|NCT00793624|182040314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.256|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041|<|0.0001||95.0|0.177|0.336|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.336|0.177|<0.0001
91077391|NCT00793624|182040315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.173|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041|<|0.0001||95.0|0.092|0.253|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.253|0.092|<0.0001
91077392|NCT00793624|182040315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.207|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041|<|0.0001||95.0|0.127|0.288|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.288|0.127|<0.0001
91077393|NCT00793624|182040315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.217|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041|<|0.0001||95.0|0.137|0.298|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.298|0.137|<0.0001
91077394|NCT00793624|182040316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041||0.0003||95.0|0.07|0.231|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.231|0.070|0.0003
91077395|NCT00793624|182040316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.178|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041|<|0.0001||95.0|0.096|0.259|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.259|0.096|<0.0001
91077396|NCT00793624|182040316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.223|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.042|<|0.0001||95.0|0.141|0.304|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.304|0.141|<0.0001
91077397|NCT00793624|182040317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.067|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.639||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.962|24.173|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||Comparison for Weekly mean morning PEFR||24.173|5.962|0.0012
91077398|NCT00793624|182040317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.999|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.611||0.0012||95.0|5.949|24.049|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||Comparison for Weekly mean morning PEFR||24.049|5.949|0.0012
91077399|NCT00793624|182040317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.642|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.601||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.61|26.673|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||Comparison for Weekly mean morning PEFR||26.673|8.610|0.0001
91077400|NCT00793624|182040317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.721|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.606||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.68|26.762|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||Comparison for Weekly mean evening PEFR||26.762|8.680|0.0001
91077401|NCT00793624|182040317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.471|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.579|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.484|27.458|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||Comparison for Weekly mean evening PEFR||27.458|9.484|<0.0001
91077402|NCT00793624|182040317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.873|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.548|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.947|26.799|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||Comparison for Weekly mean evening PEFR||26.799|8.947|<0.0001
91077403|NCT00793624|182040318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.403|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.133||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.665|-0.141|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||Comparison for weekly mean daytime rescue use||-0.141|-0.665|0.0026
91077404|NCT00793624|182040318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.327|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.133||0.0141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.587|-0.066|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||Comparison for weekly mean daytime rescue use||-0.066|-0.587|0.0141
91077405|NCT00793624|182040318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.147|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.132||0.2677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.406|0.113|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||Comparison for weekly mean daytime rescue use||0.113|-0.406|0.2677
91077406|NCT00793624|182040318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.602|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.171||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.939|-0.266|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||Comparison for weekly mean nighttime rescue use||-0.266|-0.939|0.0005
91077407|NCT00793624|182040318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.914|-0.247|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||Comparison for weekly mean nighttime rescue use||-0.247|-0.914|0.0007
91077408|NCT00793624|182040318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.169||0.0391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.683|-0.018|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||Comparison for weekly mean nighttime rescue use||-0.018|-0.683|0.0391
91077409|NCT00793624|182040318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.991|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.269||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.518|-0.464|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||Comparison for weekly mean daily (24h) rescue use||-0.464|-1.518|0.0002
91077410|NCT00793624|182040318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.902|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.267||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.426|-0.378|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||Comparison for weekly mean daily (24h) rescue use||-0.378|-1.426|0.0008
91077411|NCT00793624|182040318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.473|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.266||0.0758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.994|0.049|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||Comparison for weekly mean daily (24h) rescue use||0.049|-0.994|0.0758
91077412|NCT00793624|182040319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0003||95.0|-0.6|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.2|-0.6|0.0003
91077413|NCT00793624|182040319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0073||95.0|-0.5|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.1|-0.5|0.0073
91077414|NCT00793624|182040319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0017||95.0|-0.5|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||-0.1|-0.5|0.0017
91077415|NCT00793624|182040320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0021||95.0|-0.5|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.1|-0.5|0.0021
91077416|NCT00793624|182040320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.6|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.2|-0.6|<0.0001
91077417|NCT00793624|182040320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0121||95.0|-0.5|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||-0.1|-0.5|0.0121
91077418|NCT00793624|182040321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.032||95.0|-0.4|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.0|-0.4|0.0320
91077419|NCT00793624|182040321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0447||95.0|-0.4|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.0|-0.4|0.0447
91077420|NCT00793624|182040321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.1332||95.0|-0.4|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.0|-0.4|0.1332
91077421|NCT00793624|182040322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.4105||95.0|-0.3|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.1|-0.3|0.4105
91077422|NCT00793624|182040322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0584||95.0|-0.4|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.0|-0.4|0.0584
91077423|NCT00793624|182040322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.1006||95.0|-0.4|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.0|-0.4|0.1006
91077424|NCT00793624|182040323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.571|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.335||0.0882||95.0|-0.085|1.227|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.227|-0.085|0.0882
91077425|NCT00793624|182040323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.664|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.336||0.0484||95.0|0.005|1.324|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.324|0.005|0.0484
91077426|NCT00793624|182040323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.758|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.338||0.0252||95.0|0.094|1.421|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||1.421|0.094|0.0252
91077427|NCT00793624|182040324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.381|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.2625||95.0|-0.285|1.047|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.047|-0.285|0.2625
91077428|NCT00793624|182040324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.543|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.341||0.1109||95.0|-0.125|1.211|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.211|-0.125|0.1109
91077429|NCT00793624|182040324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.394|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.343||0.2507||95.0|-0.278|1.066|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||1.066|-0.278|0.2507
91077430|NCT00793624|182040325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.232|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.342||0.4895||95.0|-0.439|0.902|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.902|-0.439|0.4895
91077431|NCT00793624|182040325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.434|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.344||0.2073||95.0|-0.24|1.107|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.107|-0.240|0.2073
91077432|NCT00793624|182040325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.023|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.345||0.9462||95.0|-0.653|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.700|-0.653|0.9462
91077433|NCT00793624|182040326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.166|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.345||0.6309||95.0|-0.511|0.842|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.842|-0.511|0.6309
91077434|NCT00793624|182040326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.034|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.348||0.9227||95.0|-0.717|0.649|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.649|-0.717|0.9227
91077435|NCT00793624|182040326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.234|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.349||0.503||95.0|-0.451|0.919|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.919|-0.451|0.5030
91077436|NCT00793624|182040327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.112|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.347||0.7459||95.0|-0.793|0.568|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.568|-0.793|0.7459
91077437|NCT00793624|182040327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.065|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.351||0.8534||95.0|-0.753|0.623|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.623|-0.753|0.8534
91077438|NCT00793624|182040327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.377|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.352||0.5099||95.0|-1.068|0.314|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.314|-1.068|0.5099
91077439|NCT00793624|182040328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.095|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.348||0.785||95.0|-0.587|0.777|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.777|-0.587|0.7850
91077440|NCT00793624|182040328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.383|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.352||0.2755||95.0|-0.306|1.073|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.073|-0.306|0.2755
91077441|NCT00793624|182040328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.107|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.353||0.7618||95.0|-0.584|0.798|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.798|-0.584|0.7618
91077442|NCT00793624|182040329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.162|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.3424||95.0|0.843|1.603|||Log Rank|Model included a stratification factor for tiotropium use stratum and a covariate for treatment group|Comparison of Olo 5 mcg qd to placebo across stratum|||1.603|0.843|0.3424
91077443|NCT00793624|182040329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.186|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.195||0.3023||95.0|0.859|1.636|||Log Rank|Model included a stratification factor for tiotropium use stratum and a covariate for treatment group|Comparison of Olo 10 mcg qd to placebo across stratum|||1.636|0.859|0.3023
91077444|NCT00793624|182040329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.854|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.3589||95.0|0.605|1.205|||Log Rank|Model included a stratification factor for tiotropium use stratum and a covariate for treatment group|Comparison of Form 12 mcg to placebo across stratum|||1.205|0.605|0.3589
91077445|NCT00793624|182040330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.818|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.841||0.191||95.0|0.734|4.503|||Log Rank|Model included a stratification factor for tiotropium use stratum and a covariate for treatment group|Comparison of Olo 5 mcg qd to placebo across stratum|||4.503|0.734|0.1910
91077446|NCT00793624|182040330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.743|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.817||0.2274||95.0|0.695|4.369|||Log Rank|Model included a stratification factor for tiotropium use stratum and a covariate for treatment group|Comparison of Olo 10 mcg qd to placebo across stratum|||4.369|0.695|0.2274
91077447|NCT00793624|182040330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.346|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.664||0.5538||95.0|0.512|3.538|||Log Rank|Model included a stratification factor for tiotropium use stratum and a covariate for treatment group|Comparison of Form 12 mcg to placebo across stratum|||3.538|0.512|0.5538
91077448|NCT00793624|182040331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.101|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.195||0.5577||95.0|0.778|1.557|||Log Rank|Model included a stratification factor for tiotropium use stratum and a covariate for treatment group|Comparison of Olo 5 mcg qd to placebo across stratum|||1.557|0.778|0.5577
91077449|NCT00793624|182040331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.017|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.184||0.9423||95.0|0.714|1.448|||Log Rank|Model included a stratification factor for tiotropium use stratum and a covariate for treatment group|Comparison of Olo 10 mcg qd to placebo across stratum|||1.448|0.714|0.9423
91077450|NCT00793624|182040331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.735|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.143||0.1097||95.0|0.502|1.076|||Log Rank|Model included a stratification factor for tiotropium use stratum and a covariate for treatment group|Comparison of Form 12 mcg to placebo across stratum|||1.076|0.502|0.1097
91077451|NCT00793624|182040332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|1.2521|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2064||0.1729||95.0|0.906|1.7304|||Negative binomial regression|Regression of treatment effect using tiotropium strata as a covariate, a log link function and log(exposure) as offset.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.7304|0.9060|0.1729
91077452|NCT00793624|182040332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|1.222|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2039||0.2297||95.0|0.8808|1.6954|||Negative binomial regression|Regression of treatment effect using tiotropium strata as a covariate, a log link function and log(exposure) as offset.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.6954|0.8808|0.2297
91077453|NCT00793624|182040332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|0.8968|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1575||0.5354||95.0|0.6353|1.2659|||Negative binomial regression|Regression of treatment effect using tiotropium strata as a covariate, a log link function and log(exposure) as offset.|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||1.2659|0.6353|0.5354
91077454|NCT00793624|182040333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|1.8821|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0358||0.2508||95.0|0.6391|5.543|||Negative binomial regression|Regression of treatment effect using tiotropium strata as a covariate, a log link function and log(exposure) as offset.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||5.5430|0.6391|0.2508
91077455|NCT00793624|182040333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|2.3877|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3119||0.1135||95.0|0.8122|7.0194|||Negative binomial regression|Regression of treatment effect using tiotropium strata as a covariate, a log link function and log(exposure) as offset.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||7.0194|0.8122|0.1135
91077456|NCT00793624|182040333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|1.0289|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6013||0.9611||95.0|0.3268|3.2395|||Negative binomial regression|Regression of treatment effect using tiotropium strata as a covariate, a log link function and log(exposure) as offset.|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||3.2395|0.3268|0.9611
91077457|NCT00793624|182040334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|1.1621|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2075||0.4002||95.0|0.8187|1.6497|||Negative binomial regression|Regression of treatment effect using tiotropium strata as a covariate, a log link function and log(exposure) as offset.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.6497|0.8187|0.4002
91077458|NCT00793624|182040334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|1.0733|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1957||0.6983||95.0|0.7503|1.5352|||Negative binomial regression|Regression of treatment effect using tiotropium strata as a covariate, a log link function and log(exposure) as offset.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.5352|0.7503|0.6983
91077459|NCT00793624|182040334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|0.781|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1516||0.2033||95.0|0.5336|1.1433|||Negative binomial regression|Regression of treatment effect using tiotropium strata as a covariate, a log link function and log(exposure) as offset.|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||1.1433|0.5336|0.2033
91077460|NCT00793624|182040337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.509|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.027||95.0|0.058|0.96|||pattern mixture model|See Hogan, et. al. Hogan JW, Roy J, Korkontzelou C Tutorial in biostatistics:handling drop-out in longitudinal studies. Stat Med 23,1455-1497(2004)|"Based on a pattern mixture model with four patterns based on time of dropout (i.e., day of last observed data)~1\) day 43 or day 85, 2) day 127 or day 169, 3) day 225 or day 281, 4) day 337"|Olo 5mcg minus placebo||0.960|0.058|0.0270
91077461|NCT00793624|182040337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.525|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.226||0.0203||95.0|0.082|0.967||See Hogan, et. al. Hogan JW, Roy J, Korkontzelou C Tutorial in biostatistics:handling drop-out in longitudinal studies. Stat Med 23,1455-1497(2004)|pattern mixture model||"Based on a pattern mixture model with four patterns based on time of dropout (i.e., day of last observed data)~1\) day 43 or day 85, 2) day 127 or day 169, 3) day 225 or day 281, 4) day 337"|Olo 10 mcg minus placebo||0.967|0.082|0.0203
91077462|NCT00793624|182040337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.355|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.226||0.1166||95.0|-0.088|0.799|||pattern mixture model|See Hogan, et. al. Hogan JW, Roy J, Korkontzelou C Tutorial in biostatistics:handling drop-out in longitudinal studies. Stat Med 23,1455-1497(2004)|"Based on a pattern mixture model with four patterns based on time of dropout (i.e., day of last observed data)~1\) day 43 or day 85, 2) day 127 or day 169, 3) day 225 or day 281, 4) day 337"|Form 12mcg minus placebo||0.799|-0.088|0.1166
91077463|NCT01650545|182040375|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.03
91077464|NCT01313221|182040388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.99|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|35.82|||||Adjusted for treatment in a mixed model|||35.82|-3.50|
91077465|NCT01313221|182040389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.31|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.13|27.6||||||Difference in change from Week 12 to Week 16||27.60|-5.13|
91077466|NCT01313221|182040389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.53|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|35.32||||||Difference in change from Week 12 to Week 20||35.32|-2.21|
91077467|NCT03246061|182040418|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Interim Analysis p-value for significance of \<0.025 for an overall alpha of 0.05|ANCOVA|||Estimates and p-value from an ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline ODI score. Values have been adjusted for multiple imputation. Note: 3 month visit is computed as post-treatment for the RF Ablation Arm, and post-randomization for the Control Arm.||||<0.001
91077468|NCT03246061|182040419|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Estimates and p-value from ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline VAS score.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
91077469|NCT03282591|182040440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|31.4||||0.9942|ONE_SIDED|95.0||56.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||56.9||0.9942
91077470|NCT01716520|182040516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.121|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.085|0.157||Analysis was performed using an Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with covariates of treatment, period, mean Baseline, period Baseline, response type and treatment by response type interaction.|ANCOVA||Responders to UMEC=responders to UMEC or to both monotherapies, as defined by a participant with an increase from Baseline of \>=12% and 200 milliliters (mL) at \>=1 time point over 0-6 hours post-dose in FEV1 on Day 1.|||0.157|0.085|<0.001
91077471|NCT01716520|182040516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.135|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.171||Analysis was performed using an Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with covariates of treatment, period, mean Baseline, period Baseline, response type and treatment by response type interaction.|ANCOVA||Responders to UMEC=responders to UMEC or to both monotherapies, as defined by a participant with an increase from Baseline of \>=12% and 200 mL at \>=1 time point over 0-6 hours post-dose in FEV1 on Day 1.|||0.171|0.100|<0.001
91077472|NCT01716520|182040516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.142|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.174||Analysis was performed using an Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with covariates of treatment, period, mean Baseline, period Baseline, response type and treatment by response type interaction.|ANCOVA||Responders to VI=responders to VI or to both monotherapies, as defined by a participant with an increase from Baseline of \>=12% and 200 mL at \>=1 time point over 0-6 hours post-dose in FEV1 on Day 1.|||0.174|0.110|<0.001
91077473|NCT01716520|182040516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.098|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.067|0.13||Analysis was performed using an Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with covariates of treatment, period, mean Baseline, period Baseline, response type and treatment by response type interaction.|ANCOVA||Responders to VI=responders to VI or to both monotherapies, as defined by a participant with an increase from Baseline of \>=12% and 200 mL at \>=1 time point over 0-6 hours post-dose in FEV1 on Day 1.|||0.130|0.067|<0.001
91077474|NCT01716520|182040516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.052||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.104||Analysis was performed using an Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with covariates of treatment, period, mean Baseline, period Baseline, response type and treatment by response type interaction.|ANCOVA||Responders to Neither=responders to neither UMEC nor VI, as defined by a participant with at least one FEV1 assessment over 0-6 hours post-dose on Day 1 but no increase from Baseline of \>=12% and 200 mL at any assessment(s).|||0.104|0.001|0.047
91077475|NCT01716520|182040516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.073||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.021|0.124||Analysis was performed using an Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with covariates of treatment, period, mean Baseline, period Baseline, response type and treatment by response type interaction.|ANCOVA||Responders to Neither=responders to neither UMEC nor VI, as defined by a participant with at least one FEV1 assessment over 0-6 hours post-dose on Day 1 but no increase from Baseline of \>=12% and 200 mL at any assessment(s).|||0.124|0.021|0.006
91077476|NCT02635009|182040523|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Fisher Exact|one-sided significance level = 0.05||Proportion of participants with deterioration in HVLT-R delayed recall score at six months: Null hypothesis = No difference between the arms; Alternative hypothesis = Arm 2 will have less deterioration than Arm 1. Ninety-eight evaluable participants per arm at six months provides 80% statistical power to detect a 14.5% absolute difference between the arms in proportion of participants with deterioration at six months using a one-sided Fisher's exact test.||||0.28
91077477|NCT02635009|182040524|NON_INFERIORITY|Null hypothesis: Proportion of participants with relapse on Arm 2 - Arm 1 \> 20%; Alternative hypothesis: Proportion of participants with relapse on Arm 2 - Arm 1 = 4.5%. Using a non-inferiority margin of 20% and an assumed difference in proportions of 4.5% under the alternative, a 2-sample test of difference in proportions with a 1-sided alpha of 0.1 requires 164 patients to achieve 85% statistical power. (Statistically significant p-value indicates non-inferiority.)||||||0.003|||||||Test of binomial proportions|||||||0.0030
91077478|NCT02635009|182040525|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0598|||||||Gray's test|||||||0.0598
91077479|NCT02635009|182040526|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Chi-squared|||3 months||||0.78
91077480|NCT02635009|182040526|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||Chi-squared|||6 months||||0.63
91077481|NCT02635009|182040526|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||Chi-squared|||12 months||||0.84
91077482|NCT02635009|182040528|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||Chi-squared|||3 months||||0.56
91077483|NCT02635009|182040528|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||Chi-squared|||12 months||||0.75
91077484|NCT02635009|182040530|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||Chi-squared|||3 months||||0.81
91077485|NCT02635009|182040530|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93|||||||Chi-squared|||6 months||||0.93
91077486|NCT02635009|182040530|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||Chi-squared|||12 months||||0.35
91077487|NCT02635009|182040532|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Chi-squared|||3 months||||0.54
91077488|NCT02635009|182040532|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||Chi-squared|||6 months||||0.43
91077489|NCT02635009|182040532|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Chi-squared|||12 months||||0.25
91077490|NCT02635009|182040534|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||Chi-squared|||3 months||||0.71
91077491|NCT02635009|182040534|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.079|||||||Chi-squared|||6 months||||0.079
91077492|NCT02635009|182040534|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||Chi-squared|||12 months||||0.85
91077493|NCT02635009|182040536|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.043|||||||Chi-squared|||3 months||||0.043
91077494|NCT02635009|182040536|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017|||||||Fisher Exact|||6 months||||0.017
91077495|NCT02635009|182040536|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.057|||||||Chi-squared|||12-month||||0.057
91077496|NCT02635009|182040539|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Chi-squared|||3 months||||0.10
91077497|NCT02635009|182040539|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||Chi-squared|||6 months||||0.33
91077498|NCT02635009|182040539|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||Chi-squared|||12 months||||0.29
91077499|NCT02635009|182040541|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0021|||||||Chi-squared|||3 months||||0.0021
91077500|NCT02635009|182040541|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Chi-squared|||6 months||||0.0070
91077501|NCT02635009|182040541|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||Chi-squared|||12 months||||0.35
91077502|NCT02635009|182040543|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||Chi-squared|||3 months||||0.55
91077503|NCT02635009|182040543|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.062|||||||Chi-squared|||6 months||||0.062
91077504|NCT02635009|182040543|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Chi-squared|||12 months||||0.32
91077505|NCT02635009|182040545|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Chi-squared|||3 months||||0.70
91077506|NCT02635009|182040545|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||Chi-squared|||6 months||||0.52
91077507|NCT02635009|182040545|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||Chi-squared|||12 months||||0.73
91077508|NCT02635009|182040547|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Chi-squared|||3 months||||0.28
91077509|NCT02635009|182040547|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.094|||||||Chi-squared|||6 months||||0.094
91077510|NCT02635009|182040547|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.61
91077511|NCT02635009|182040549|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Chi-squared|||3 months.||||0.16
91077512|NCT02635009|182040549|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017|||||||Chi-squared|||6 months. Assuming 50% of patients experience deterioration at 6 months, based on a prior study (RTOG-0212), a sample size of 198 participants per arm provides 94% power to detect a 50% relative reduction (50% on Arm 1 vs. 25% on Arm 2) in decline at 6 months using Fisher's exact test with a two-sided alpha=0.05.||||0.017
91077513|NCT02635009|182040549|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||Chi-squared|||12-month||||0.56
91077514|NCT02635009|182040551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.44
91077515|NCT02635009|182040551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.45
91077516|NCT02635009|182040551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.25
91077517|NCT02635009|182040553|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||Chi-squared|||3 months||||0.35
91077518|NCT02635009|182040553|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Chi-squared|||6 months||||0.99
91077519|NCT02635009|182040553|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||Chi-squared|||12 months||||0.94
91077520|NCT02635009|182040557|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79||||||Two-side significance level = 0.05|Log Rank|||||||0.79
91077521|NCT02635009|182040558|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93|||||||Gray's test|||||||0.93
91077522|NCT04105010|182040562|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Binomial test against a null|||||||<0.0001
91077523|NCT01211483|182040577|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.978|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.674|1.42||||||||1.420|0.674|
91077524|NCT01211483|182040577|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.523|1.131||||||||1.131|0.523|
91077525|NCT01211483|182040578|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.369||||0.0185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.161|0.846|||Cox proportional hazard|||||0.846|0.161|0.0185
91077526|NCT01211483|182040578|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.288||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.125|0.663|||Cox proportional hazard|||||0.663|0.125|0.0034
91077527|NCT01211483|182040579|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.006||||0.9879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.458|2.212|||Cox proportional hazard|||||2.212|0.458|0.9879
91077528|NCT01211483|182040579|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.222||||0.6276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.544|2.746|||Cox proportional hazard|||||2.746|0.544|0.6276
91077529|NCT01149421|182040615|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If non-inferiority was confirmed, then superiority analysis was pursued.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.3|-4.58|-1.0||P-value reported for non-inferior to Placebo. The adjustment for multiplicity was based on a tree-gatekeeping testing strategy.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.00|-4.58|<0.001
91077530|NCT01149421|182040615|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If non-inferiority was confirmed, then superiority analysis was pursued.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.3|-2.83|0.68||P-value reported for non-inferior to Placebo. The adjustment for multiplicity was based on a tree-gatekeeping testing strategy.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.68|-2.83|<0.001
91077531|NCT01149421|182040615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Since non-inferiority was confirmed, superiority analysis was pursued. P-value reported for superior to Placebo. The adjustment for multiplicity was based on a tree-gatekeeping testing strategy.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91077532|NCT01149421|182040615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.149||||||Since non-inferiority was confirmed, superiority analysis was pursued. P-value reported for superior to Placebo. The adjustment for multiplicity was based on a tree-gatekeeping testing strategy.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.149
91077533|NCT01149421|182040616|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If non-inferiority was confirmed, then superiority analysis was pursued.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.3|-4.53|-0.79||P-value reported for non-inferior to Placebo. The adjustment for multiplicity was based on a tree-gatekeeping testing strategy.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.79|-4.53|<0.001
91077534|NCT01149421|182040616|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If non-inferiority was confirmed, then superiority analysis was pursued.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.3|-3.54|0.12||P-value reported for non-inferior to Placebo. The adjustment for multiplicity was based on a tree-gatekeeping testing strategy.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.12|-3.54|<0.001
91077535|NCT01149421|182040616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||||||Since non-inferiority was confirmed, superiority analysis was pursued. P-value reported for superior to Placebo. The adjustment for multiplicity was based on a tree-gatekeeping testing strategy.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.002
91077536|NCT01149421|182040616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36||||||Since non-inferiority was confirmed, superiority analysis was pursued. P-value reported for superior to Placebo. The adjustment for multiplicity was based on a tree-gatekeeping testing strategy.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.36
91077537|NCT01149421|182040617|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If non-inferiority was confirmed, then superiority analysis was pursued.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.3|-0.8|1.43||Treatment comparison at 16 weeks. P-value reported for non-inferior to Placebo. The adjustment for multiplicity was based on a tree-gatekeeping testing strategy.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.43|-0.80|<0.001
91077538|NCT01149421|182040617|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If non-inferiority was confirmed, then superiority analysis was pursued.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.3|-0.67|1.52||Treatment comparison at 16 weeks. P-value reported for non-inferior to Placebo. The adjustment for multiplicity was based on a tree-gatekeeping testing strategy.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.52|-0.67|<0.001
91077539|NCT01149421|182040617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87||||||Treatment comparison at 16 weeks. Since non-inferiority was confirmed, superiority analysis was pursued. P-value reported for superior to Placebo. The adjustment for multiplicity was based on a tree-gatekeeping testing strategy.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.870
91077540|NCT01149421|182040617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.915||||||Treatment comparison at 16 weeks. Since non-inferiority was confirmed, superiority analysis was pursued. P-value reported for superior to Placebo. The adjustment for multiplicity was based on a tree-gatekeeping testing strategy.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.915
91077541|NCT01149421|182040617|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If non-inferiority was confirmed, then superiority analysis was pursued.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.3|-0.68|1.68||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks. P-value reported for non-inferior to Placebo. The adjustment for multiplicity was based on a tree-gatekeeping testing strategy.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.68|-0.68|<0.001
91077542|NCT01149421|182040617|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If non-inferiority was confirmed, then superiority analysis was pursued.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.3|-1.0|1.31||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks. P-value reported for non-inferior to Placebo. The adjustment for multiplicity was based on a tree-gatekeeping testing strategy.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.31|-1.00|<0.001
91077543|NCT01149421|182040617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.929||||||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks. Since non-inferiority was confirmed, superiority analysis was pursued. P-value reported for superior to Placebo. The adjustment for multiplicity was based on a tree-gatekeeping testing strategy.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.929
91077544|NCT01149421|182040617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.776||||||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks. Since non-inferiority was confirmed, superiority analysis was pursued. P-value reported for superior to Placebo. The adjustment for multiplicity was based on a tree-gatekeeping testing strategy.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.776
91077545|NCT01149421|182040618|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If non-inferiority was confirmed, then superiority analysis was pursued.|Least Squares Mean Difference|2.84||||0.556|TWO_SIDED|97.3|1.52|4.16||Treatment comparison at 16 weeks. P-value reported for non-inferior to Placebo. The adjustment for multiplicity was based on a tree-gatekeeping testing strategy.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.16|1.52|0.556
91077546|NCT01149421|182040618|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If non-inferiority was confirmed, then superiority analysis was pursued.|Least Squares Mean Difference|1.62||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|97.3|0.32|2.92||Treatment comparison at 16 weeks. P-value reported for non-inferior to Placebo. The adjustment for multiplicity was based on a tree-gatekeeping testing strategy.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.92|0.32|0.018
91077547|NCT01149421|182040618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||Treatment comparison at 16 weeks. Since non-inferiority was confirmed, superiority analysis was pursued. P-value reported for superior to Placebo. The adjustment for multiplicity was based on a tree-gatekeeping testing strategy.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||1.00
91077548|NCT01149421|182040618|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If non-inferiority was confirmed, then superiority analysis was pursued.|Least Squares Mean Difference|3.5||||0.904|TWO_SIDED|97.3|2.1|4.91||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks. P-value reported for non-inferior to Placebo. The adjustment for multiplicity was based on a tree-gatekeeping testing strategy.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.91|2.10|0.904
91077549|NCT01149421|182040618|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If non-inferiority was confirmed, then superiority analysis was pursued.|Least Squares Mean Difference|1.26||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|97.3|-0.13|2.64||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks. P-value reported for non-inferior to Placebo. The adjustment for multiplicity was based on a tree-gatekeeping testing strategy.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.64|-0.13|0.005
91077550|NCT01149421|182040618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.996||||||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks. Since non-inferiority was confirmed, superiority analysis was pursued. P-value reported for superior to Placebo. The adjustment for multiplicity was based on a tree-gatekeeping testing strategy.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.996
91077551|NCT01149421|182040619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-2.09||Treatment comparison at 16 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.09|-4.00|<0.001
91077552|NCT01149421|182040619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.58||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|-0.64||Treatment comparison at 16 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.64|-2.51|0.001
91077553|NCT01149421|182040619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|-2.09||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.09|-4.10|<0.001
91077554|NCT01149421|182040619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.98|-1.0||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.00|-2.98|<0.001
91077555|NCT01149421|182040620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71||||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|0.42||Treatment comparison at 16 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.42|-1.84|0.218
91077556|NCT01149421|182040620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|1.06||Treatment comparison at 16 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.06|-1.16|0.931
91077557|NCT01149421|182040620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.58||||0.315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|0.55||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.55|-1.72|0.315
91077558|NCT01149421|182040620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42||||0.465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|0.7||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.70|-1.54|0.465
91077559|NCT01149421|182040621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.04|-1.61||Treatment comparison of mean daytime systolic blood pressure (SBP) at 16 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.61|-5.04|<0.001
91077560|NCT01149421|182040621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.23||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.91|0.46||Treatment comparison of mean daytime systolic blood pressure (SBP) at 16 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.46|-2.91|0.153
91077561|NCT01149421|182040621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.87||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.66|-1.09||Treatment comparison of mean daytime systolic blood pressure (SBP) at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.09|-4.66|0.002
91077562|NCT01149421|182040621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.82||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.57|-0.07||Treatment comparison of mean daytime systolic blood pressure (SBP) at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.07|-3.57|0.042
91077563|NCT01149421|182040621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.24||||0.221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.23|0.75||Treatment comparison of mean nighttime systolic blood pressure (SBP) at 16 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.75|-3.23|0.221
91077564|NCT01149421|182040621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.81||Treatment comparison of mean nighttime systolic blood pressure (SBP) at 16 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.81|-2.10|0.884
91077565|NCT01149421|182040621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.35||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.31|-0.39||Treatment comparison of mean nighttime systolic blood pressure (SBP) at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.39|-4.31|0.19
91077566|NCT01149421|182040621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.38||||0.159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.31|0.54||Treatment comparison of mean nighttime systolic blood pressure (SBP) at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.54|-3.31|0.159
91077567|NCT01149421|182040621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.122||||||Treatment comparison of mean clinic systolic blood pressure (SBP) at 16 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.122
91077568|NCT01149421|182040621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.601||||||Treatment comparison of mean clinic systolic blood pressure (SBP) at 16 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.601
91077569|NCT01149421|182040621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||||||Treatment comparison of mean clinic systolic blood pressure (SBP) at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.012
91077570|NCT01149421|182040621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.274||||||Treatment comparison of mean clinic systolic blood pressure (SBP) at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.274
91077571|NCT01149421|182040622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||0.717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|1.32||Treatment comparison of mean daytime diastolic blood pressure (DBP) at 16 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.32|-0.91|0.717
91077572|NCT01149421|182040622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44||||0.427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|1.54||Treatment comparison of mean daytime diastolic blood pressure (DBP) at 16 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.54|-0.65|0.427
91077573|NCT01149421|182040622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|1.73||Treatment comparison of mean daytime diastolic blood pressure (DBP) at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.73|-0.53|0.300
91077574|NCT01149421|182040622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|1.26||Treatment comparison of mean daytime diastolic blood pressure (DBP) at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.26|-0.96|0.788
91077575|NCT01149421|182040622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.08||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|2.37||Treatment comparison of mean nighttime diastolic blood pressure (DBP) at 16 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.37|-0.20|0.098
91077576|NCT01149421|182040622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.82||||0.203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|2.08||Treatment comparison of mean nighttime diastolic blood pressure (DBP) at 16 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.08|-0.44|0.203
91077577|NCT01149421|182040622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47||||0.493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|1.82||Treatment comparison of mean nighttime diastolic blood pressure (DBP) at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.82|-0.88|0.493
91077578|NCT01149421|182040622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27||||0.692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|1.6||Treatment comparison of mean nighttime diastolic blood pressure (DBP) at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.60|-1.06|0.692
91077579|NCT01149421|182040622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99||||||Treatment comparison of mean clinic diastolic blood pressure (DBP) at 16 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.990
91077580|NCT01149421|182040622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.173||||||Treatment comparison of mean clinic diastolic blood pressure (DBP) at 16 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.173
91077581|NCT01149421|182040622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.972||||||Treatment comparison of mean clinic diastolic blood pressure (DBP) at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.972
91077582|NCT01149421|182040622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.904||||||Treatment comparison of mean clinic diastolic blood pressure (DBP) at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.904
91077583|NCT01149421|182040623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|3.8||Treatment comparison of mean daytime heart rate (HR) at 16 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.80|1.17|<0.001
91077584|NCT01149421|182040623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.15||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|2.45||Treatment comparison of mean daytime heart rate (HR) at 16 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.45|-0.14|0.080
91077585|NCT01149421|182040623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.23|4.91||Treatment comparison of mean daytime heart rate (HR) at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.91|2.23|<0.001
91077586|NCT01149421|182040623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.92||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|2.24||Treatment comparison of mean daytime heart rate (HR) at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.24|-0.39|0.168
91077587|NCT01149421|182040623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.62|5.28||Treatment comparison of mean nighttime heart rate (HR) at 16 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.28|2.62|<0.001
91077588|NCT01149421|182040623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|4.09||Treatment comparison of mean nighttime heart rate (HR) at 16 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.09|1.47|<0.001
91077589|NCT01149421|182040623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.49|5.47||Treatment comparison of mean nighttime heart rate (HR) at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.47|2.49|<0.001
91077590|NCT01149421|182040623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.24||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|3.7||Treatment comparison of mean nighttime heart rate (HR) at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.70|0.78|0.003
91077591|NCT01149421|182040623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison of mean clinic heart rate (HR) at 16 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91077592|NCT01149421|182040623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014||||||Treatment comparison of mean clinic heart rate (HR) at 16 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.014
91077593|NCT01149421|182040623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison of mean clinic heart rate (HR) at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91077594|NCT01149421|182040623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||||||Treatment comparison of mean clinic heart rate (HR) at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.005
91077595|NCT01149421|182040624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|-2.43||Treatment comparison of mean daytime pulse pressure (PP) at 16 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.43|-4.50|<0.001
91077596|NCT01149421|182040624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.79|-0.75||Treatment comparison of mean daytime pulse pressure (PP) at 16 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.75|-2.79|<0.001
91077597|NCT01149421|182040624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.52|-2.28||Treatment comparison of mean daytime pulse pressure (PP) at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.28|-4.52|<0.001
91077598|NCT01149421|182040624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.23|-1.03||Treatment comparison of mean daytime pulse pressure (PP) at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.03|-3.23|<0.001
91077599|NCT01149421|182040624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.43|-1.07||Treatment comparison of mean nighttime pulse pressure (PP) at 16 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.07|-3.43|<0.001
91077600|NCT01149421|182040624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.93||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|0.22||Treatment comparison of mean nighttime pulse pressure (PP) at 16 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.22|-2.09|0.113
91077601|NCT01149421|182040624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.86|-1.62||Treatment comparison of mean nighttime pulse pressure (PP) at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.62|-3.86|<0.001
91077602|NCT01149421|182040624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.61||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.72|-0.51||Treatment comparison of mean nighttime pulse pressure (PP) at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.51|-2.72|0.004
91077603|NCT01149421|182040625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.97||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|0.28||Treatment comparison of mean daytime mean arterial pressure (MAP) at 16 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.28|-2.22|0.128
91077604|NCT01149421|182040625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|1.13||Treatment comparison of mean daytime mean arterial pressure (MAP) at 16 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.13|-1.32|0.883
91077605|NCT01149421|182040625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|0.72||Treatment comparison of mean daytime mean arterial pressure (MAP) at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.72|-1.84|0.390
91077606|NCT01149421|182040625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47||||0.463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|0.79||Treatment comparison of mean daytime mean arterial pressure (MAP) at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.79|-1.72|0.463
91077607|NCT01149421|182040625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31||||0.671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|1.76||Treatment comparison of mean nighttime mean arterial pressure (MAP) at 16 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.76|-1.13|0.671
91077608|NCT01149421|182040625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.52||||0.471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.95||Treatment comparison of mean nighttime mean arterial pressure (MAP) at 16 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.95|-0.90|0.471
91077609|NCT01149421|182040625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46||||0.543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|1.03||Treatment comparison of mean nighttime mean arterial pressure (MAP) at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.03|-1.95|0.543
91077610|NCT01149421|182040625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26||||0.728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|1.2||Treatment comparison of mean nighttime mean arterial pressure (MAP) at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.20|-1.72|0.728
91077611|NCT01149421|182040638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison at 16 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91077612|NCT01149421|182040638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||||||Treatment comparison at 16 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.005
91077613|NCT01149421|182040638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
91077614|NCT01149421|182040638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||||||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.012
91077615|NCT04108988|182040644|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.248|||||||Chi-squared|||P value at 4 months||||0.248
91077616|NCT04108988|182040644|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022|||||||Chi-squared|||P value at 1 month||||0.022
91077617|NCT04108988|182040644|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.193|||||||Chi-squared|||P value at baseline||||0.193
91077618|NCT04108988|182040645|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.246|||||||Chi-squared|||P value at 4 months||||0.246
91077619|NCT04108988|182040645|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.467|||||||Chi-squared|||P value at 1 month||||0.467
91077620|NCT04108988|182040645|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||Chi-squared|||P value at baseline||||0.550
91077621|NCT04108988|182040646|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.596|||||||Chi-squared|||P value at month 4||||0.596
91077622|NCT04108988|182040646|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.974|||||||Chi-squared|||P value at 1 month||||0.974
91077623|NCT04108988|182040646|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.651|||||||Chi-squared|||P value at baseline.||||0.651
91077624|NCT04108988|182040647|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.089|||||||ANOVA|Test for the interaction between treatment and time.||Test for the interaction between treatment and time.||||0.089
91077625|NCT04108988|182040648|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.095|||||||ANOVA|Test for the interaction between treatment and time.||Test for the interaction between treatment and time.||||0.095
91077626|NCT04108988|182040649|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.136|||||||ANOVA|Test for the interaction between treatment and time.||Test for the interaction between treatment and time.||||0.136
91077627|NCT04108988|182040650|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.133|||||||ANOVA|Test for the interaction between treatment and time.||Test for the interaction between treatment and time.||||0.133
91077628|NCT04108988|182040651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||ANOVA|Test for the interaction between treatment and time.||Test for the interaction between treatment and time.||||0.210
91077629|NCT04108988|182040652|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.392|||||||ANOVA|Test for the interaction between treatment and time.||Test for the interaction between treatment and time.||||0.392
91077630|NCT04108988|182040653|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.411|||||||ANOVA|Test for the interaction between treatment and time.||Test for the interaction between treatment and time.||||0.411
91077631|NCT04108988|182040654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.294|||||||ANOVA|Test for the interaction between treatment and time.||Test for the interaction between treatment and time.||||0.294
91077632|NCT04108988|182040655|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.031|||||||ANOVA|Test for the interaction between treatment and time.||Test for the interaction between treatment and time.||||0.031
91077633|NCT04108988|182040656|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.262|||||||ANOVA|Test for the interaction between treatment and time||Test of interaction with treatment and time.||||0.262
91077634|NCT04108988|182040657|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.116|||||||ANOVA|Test for the interaction between treatment and time.||Test for the interaction between treatment and time.||||0.116
91077635|NCT04108988|182040658|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016|||||||ANOVA|Test for the interaction between treatment and time.||Test for the interaction between treatment and time.||||0.016
91077636|NCT04108988|182040659|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.667|||||||ANOVA|Test for the interaction between treatment and time.||Test for the interaction between treatment and time.||||0.667
91077637|NCT04108988|182040660|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||Chi-squared|||P value at month 4||||0.09
91077638|NCT04108988|182040660|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||Chi-squared|||P value 1 month||||0.72
91077639|NCT04108988|182040660|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||Chi-squared|||P value at baseline||||0.97
91077640|NCT04108988|182040661|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53|||||||Chi-squared|||P value at month 4||||0.53
91077641|NCT04108988|182040661|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.303|||||||Chi-squared|||P value at month 1||||0.303
91077642|NCT04108988|182040661|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.042|||||||Chi-squared|||P value at baseline.||||0.042
91077643|NCT04108988|182040662|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.246|||||||Chi-squared|||P value at month 4.||||0.246
91077644|NCT04108988|182040662|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.467|||||||Chi-squared|||P value at month 1.||||0.467
91077645|NCT04108988|182040662|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||Chi-squared|||P value at baseline.||||0.55
91077646|NCT04108988|182040663|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.987|||||||Chi-squared|||P value at month 4.||||0.987
91077647|NCT04108988|182040663|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.898|||||||Chi-squared|||P value at month 1.||||0.898
91077648|NCT04108988|182040663|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.238|||||||Chi-squared|||P value at baseline.||||0.238
91077649|NCT04108988|182040664|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.148|||||||Chi-squared|||P value at month 4.||||0.148
91077650|NCT04108988|182040664|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.557|||||||Chi-squared|||P value at month 1.||||0.557
91077651|NCT04108988|182040665|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.653|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.653
91077652|NCT04108988|182040666|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.977|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.977
91077653|NCT04108988|182040667|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.735|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||P value at month 4.||||0.735
91077654|NCT04108988|182040667|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.159|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||P value at month 1.||||0.159
91077655|NCT04108988|182040668|SUPERIORITY|||||||3.19|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||P value at month 4.||||3.19
91077656|NCT04108988|182040668|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.487|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||P value at month 1.||||0.487
91077657|NCT04108988|182040668|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.165|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||P value at baseline.||||0.165
91077658|NCT04108988|182040669|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.473|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||P value at month 4.||||0.473
91077659|NCT04108988|182040669|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.316|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||P value at month 1.||||0.316
91077660|NCT04108988|182040669|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.345|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||P value at baseline.||||0.345
91077661|NCT04108988|182040670|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.141|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||P value at month 4.||||0.141
91077662|NCT04108988|182040670|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.314|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||P value at month 1.||||0.314
91077663|NCT04108988|182040670|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.444|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||P value at baseline.||||0.444
91077664|NCT04007107|182040830|OTHER|Comparison|Estimated treatment difference|30.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.6|34.8|||ANOVA|||The intensity of pain was analysed by a fixed analysis of variance model with VAS score as the dependent variable, and product, injection side (right side, left side), injection number (first injection, second injection), and participant as fixed effects.||34.8|26.6|<0.0001
91077665|NCT00426660|182040854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||75th percentile (median)|169.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|135.0|178.0||||||||178.0|135.0|
91077666|NCT00426660|182040854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||50th percentile (median)|86.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|82.0|92.0||||||||92.0|82.0|
91077667|NCT00426660|182040854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||25th percentile (median)|58.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.0|62.0||||||||62.0|57.0|
91077668|NCT00006305|182040859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.005||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.031|0.02||A separate test with alpha=0.05 was conducted for each treatment comparison of the main effects in the 2x2 factorial design.|Log Rank||Risk difference of all-cause mortality for Revascularization compared with Medical therapy|||0.020|-0.031|0.97
91077669|NCT00006305|182040859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.003||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.029|0.022||A separate test with alpha=0.05 was conducted for each treatment comparison of the main effects in the 2x2 factorial design.|Log Rank||Risk difference of all-cause mortality for Insulin Sensitizing glycemic control strategy compared with Insulin Providing glycemic control strategy|||0.022|-0.029|0.89
91078052|NCT00869557|182041388|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"A total sample size of 75 participants randomized in a 2:1 ratio had 26% power to evaluate noninferiority with respect to the response rate of HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL at Week 24 if a response rate of 84% for both treatment groups and a noninferiority margin of 0.12 were assumed.~A total of 71 participants were enrolled in the study (4 fewer than planned)."|Difference in the response rates (%)|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|20.1|||||The 95% confidence interval was computed using normal approximation stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|The null hypothesis was that the response rate (proportion of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL at Week 24) in the Stribild group was at least 12% worse than the response rate in Atripla group; the alternative hypothesis was that the response rate in the Stribild group was less than 12% worse than that in the Atripla group.||20.1|-14.5|
91078053|NCT01472939|182041398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.06||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.743|13.862|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||||13.862|-1.743|0.128
91078054|NCT01472939|182041398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.42||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.378|15.212|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||||15.212|-0.378|0.062
91078055|NCT01472939|182041398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.83||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|9.765|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||||9.765|-6.100|0.650
91078056|NCT01472939|182041399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.75||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.344|14.85|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||||14.850|-1.344|0.102
91078057|NCT01472939|182041399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.92||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.814|17.021|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||||17.021|0.814|0.031
91078058|NCT01472939|182041399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.71||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|13.957|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||||13.957|-2.540|0.175
91078059|NCT01472939|182041400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.47||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.087|0.141|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||||0.141|-5.087|0.064
91078060|NCT01472939|182041400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.2||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.818|-0.573|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||||-0.573|-5.818|0.017
91078061|NCT01472939|182041400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.15||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.813|0.519|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||||0.519|-4.813|0.114
91078062|NCT01492101|182041415|OTHER|Two-sided log-rank test, stratified by geographic region, prior use of eribulin, and receptor status.|Hazard Ratio, log|0.872|||=|0.0835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.747|1.019|||Log Rank|||||1.019|0.747|= 0.0835
91078063|NCT01492101|182041416|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.926|||=|0.3017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.798|1.075|||Log Rank|||||1.075|0.798|= 0.3017
91078064|NCT01492101|182041421|EQUIVALENCE|\[2\] - Analysis of variance with change from baseline in linear transformed score at the last visit as the dependent variable and treatment arm, geographic region, prior use of eribulin, and receptor status as fixed effects.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.65|4.33|||F-test|||Global health status/QoL: change from baseline to last assessment (Week 56)||4.33|-2.65|0.635
91078065|NCT01492101|182041421|EQUIVALENCE|\[3\] - Analysis of variance with change from baseline in linear transformed score at the last visit as the dependent variable and treatment arm, geographic region, prior use of eribulin, and receptor status as fixed effects.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1||||0.1656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|5.14|||F-test|||||5.14|-0.88|0.1656
91078066|NCT01492101|182041421|EQUIVALENCE|\[4\] - Analysis of variance with change from baseline in linear transformed score at the last visit as the dependent variable and treatment arm, geographic region, prior use of eribulin, and receptor status as fixed effects.|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.8356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|4.82|||F-test|||||4.82|-3.9|0.8356
91078067|NCT01492101|182041421|EQUIVALENCE|\[5\] - Analysis of variance with change from baseline in linear transformed score at the last visit as the dependent variable and treatment arm, geographic region, prior use of eribulin, and receptor status as fixed effects.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.7727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.88|3.88|||F-test|||||3.88|-2.88|0.7727
91078068|NCT01492101|182041421|EQUIVALENCE|\[6\] - Analysis of variance with change from baseline in linear transformed score at the last visit as the dependent variable and treatment arm, geographic region, prior use of eribulin, and receptor status as fixed effects.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.7446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.56|3.59|||F-test|||||3.59|-2.56|0.7446
91078069|NCT01492101|182041421|EQUIVALENCE|\[7\] - Analysis of variance with change from baseline in linear transformed score at the last visit as the dependent variable and treatment arm, geographic region, prior use of eribulin, and receptor status as fixed effects.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.9169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|4.45|||F-test|||||4.45|-4.0|0.9169
91078070|NCT01492101|182041421|EQUIVALENCE|\[8\] - Analysis of variance with change from baseline in linear transformed score at the last visit as the dependent variable and treatment arm, geographic region, prior use of eribulin, and receptor status as fixed effects.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.9731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.66|3.79|||F-test|||||3.79|-3.66|0.9731
91078071|NCT01492101|182041421|EQUIVALENCE|\[9\] - Analysis of variance with change from baseline in linear transformed score at the last visit as the dependent variable and treatment arm, geographic region, prior use of eribulin, and receptor status as fixed effects.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.88|10.67|||F-test|||||10.67|3.88|<0.0001
91078072|NCT01492101|182041421|EQUIVALENCE|\[10\] - Analysis of variance with change from baseline in linear transformed score at the last visit as the dependent variable and treatment arm, geographic region, prior use of eribulin, and receptor status as fixed effects.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.8||||0.1252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.59|0.93|||F-test|||||0.93|-7.59|0.1252
91078073|NCT01492101|182041421|EQUIVALENCE|\[11\] - Analysis of variance with change from baseline in linear transformed score at the last visit as the dependent variable and treatment arm, geographic region, prior use of eribulin, and receptor status as fixed effects.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.8||||0.1717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.83|1.22|||F-test|||||1.22|-6.83|0.1717
91078074|NCT01492101|182041421|EQUIVALENCE|\[12\] - Analysis of variance with change from baseline in linear transformed score at the last visit as the dependent variable and treatment arm, geographic region, prior use of eribulin, and receptor status as fixed effects.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0.5513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.95|3.18|||F-test|||||3.18|-5.95|0.5513
91078187|NCT00703326|182041874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.1||The gate-keeping strategy used to control overall type 1 error 0.05 (2-sided) or 0.025 (1-sided) to analyze progression-free survival (PFS) and OS. At final PFS analysis only if primary PFS test was significant would analysis of OS be inferential.|Stratified Log Rank (SLR)|SLR used Interactive Web Response System (IWRS) factors: prior taxane therapy, visceral metastasis, hormone receptor status and geographical regions.|HR with 95% confidence interval (CI) was estimated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model using the IWRS stratification factors.|||1.10|0.81|0.487
91078188|NCT00703326|182041875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.99|||Stratified Log Rank (SLR)|SLR used Interactive Web Response System (IWRS) factors: prior taxane therapy, visceral metastasis, hormone receptor status and geographical regions.|HR with 95% confidence interval (CI) was estimated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model using the IWRS stratification factors.|||0.99|0.73|0.033
91078189|NCT00703326|182041876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.71|||Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel(SCMH)|SCMH used Interactive Web Response System (IWRS) factors: prior taxane therapy, visceral metastasis, hormone receptor status and geographical regions.|Stratified odds ratio was calculated considering the IWRS stratification factors.|||1.71|1.03|0.027
91078190|NCT00703326|182041877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.06|||Stratified Log Rank (SLR)|SLR used Interactive Web Response System (IWRS) factors: prior taxane therapy, visceral metastasis, hormone receptor status and geographical regions.|HR with 95% confidence interval (CI) was estimated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model using the IWRS stratification factors.|||1.06|0.67|0.150
91078191|NCT00703326|182041878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.539||||||P-value is for end of therapy. Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) adjusted for baseline score was used to compare the 2 treatment arms.|ANCOVA|||||||0.539
91078192|NCT03052920|182041905|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was \<=0.05|t-test, 2 sided|t(35) = 11.29||Mean difference in percent correct for CNC words at 6 months post-implant and pre-implant is reported.||||<0.001
91078193|NCT03052920|182041906|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was \<=0.05|t-test, 2 sided|t(35) = 16.947||Mean difference in Soundfield thresholds (averaged across the frequency range in dB HL) at 6 months post-implant and pre-implant is reported.||||<0.001
91078194|NCT03052920|182041907|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The threshold for statistical significance was \<= 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|t(35) = 2.14||Mean difference in degrees RMS error at 6 months post-implant and pre-implant is reported.||||<0.05
91078195|NCT03052920|182041908|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was \<= 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|t(35) = 4.02||Mean difference in percentage of understanding (words correct) at 6 months post-implant and pre-implant is reported.||||<0.001
91078196|NCT03052920|182041909|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The threshold for statistical significance was \<= 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|t(35) = 2.58||Mean difference in AzBio sentence scores in noise at 6 months post-implant and pre-implant is reported.||||<0.05
91078197|NCT03052920|182041910|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for statistical significance was \<= 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|t(35) = 3.16||Mean difference in dB SNR for BKB-SIN sentences with noise to the better ear at 6-months post-implant and pre-implant is reported.||||<0.01
91078198|NCT03052920|182041911|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was \<= 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|t(35) = 10.42||Mean difference in AzBio sentence scores at 60 dB SPL for the poor ear alone at 6 months post-implant and pre-implant is reported.||||<0.001
91078199|NCT03052920|182041912|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was \<= 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|t(38) = 7.15||Mean difference in HHIE reported scores at 6-months post-implant and pre-implant is reported.||||<0.001
91078200|NCT03052920|182041913|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was \<= 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|t(38) = 4.34||Mean difference in HUI3 ratings at 6 months post-implant and pre-implant is reported.||||<0.001
91078201|NCT03052920|182041914|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was \<= 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|t(38) = 7.71||Mean difference in ratings for the SSQ total score at 6 months post-implant and pre-implant is reported.||||<0.001
91078202|NCT03052920|182041915|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was \<= 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|t(38) = 7.90||Mean difference in SSQ ratings at 12 months post-implant and pre-implant is reported.||||<0.001
91078203|NCT03052920|182041916|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The threshold for statistical significance was \<= 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|t(38) = 2.31||Mean difference in SADL scores at 6 months post-implant and pre-implant are reported.||||<0.05
91078204|NCT03052920|182041917|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was \<= 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|t(25) = 7.27||Mean difference in the CPHI scores at 6 months post-implant and pre-implant are reported.||||<0.001
91078205|NCT03052920|182041918|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was \<= 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|t(25) = 7.65||Mean difference in HII-SOP scores at 6 months post-implant and pre-implant is reported.||||<0.001
91078206|NCT03052920|182041919|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The threshold for statistical significance was \<= 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|t(35) = 2.34||Mean difference in the dB SNR scores for BKB-SIN sentences at 6 months post-implant minus pre-implant is reported.||||<0.05
91078207|NCT04591015|182041966|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0626|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0626
91078208|NCT04591015|182041967|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0496|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Only includes participants who completed a 90-day lab||||0.0496
91078209|NCT04591015|182041968|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0651|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Only includes participants who completed a 180-day lab||||0.0651
91078210|NCT04591015|182041969|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8739|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.8739
91078211|NCT04591015|182041970|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4702|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4702
91078212|NCT04591015|182041971|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1258|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1258
91078213|NCT04591015|182041972|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8635|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.8635
91078214|NCT04591015|182041973|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0471|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0471
91078215|NCT04591015|182041974|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0218|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0218
91078216|NCT04591015|182041975|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.509|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5090
91078217|NCT04591015|182041976|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4034|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4034
91078218|NCT04591015|182041977|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0175|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0175
91078228|NCT02290925|182042014|OTHER|general linear model (GLM) with repeated measures|Mean Difference (Net)|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Box's M tests was used. Mauchly's test was used to verify that the error covariance matrix of the orthonormalized-transformed dependent variables is proportional to an identity matrix.||"We used intention to treat analysis. Since the missing data were more than 5%, we examined the dataset to determine whether it shows missing completely at random (MCAR) not missing at random (NMAR) or data missing at random (MAR). A sensitivity analysis was done to determine whether multiple imputations are required. It included complete case analysis, best-worst case and worst best case scenario with group mean±1SD."|||
91078229|NCT01973335|182042024|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|30.0||||0.515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.0|123.0||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|t-test, 2 sided|||2x2 factorial design: both acetazolamide groups together are compared with both high-dose loop diuretic groups together||123|-63|0.515
91078230|NCT01973335|182042025|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.2||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Fisher Exact|||2x2 factorial design: analysis according to spironolactone use||||0.270
91078231|NCT00388297|182042058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimate|0.0||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|2.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||2|-3|0.71
91078232|NCT00388297|182042058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimate|-1.0||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1|-4|0.30
91078233|NCT00388297|182042059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.57
91078234|NCT00388297|182042059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.46
91078235|NCT00388297|182042060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81|||||||Chi-squared|||Analysis for \< 34 weeks||||0.81
91078236|NCT00388297|182042060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47|||||||Chi-squared|||Analysis for \<34 weeks||||0.47
91078237|NCT00388297|182042060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44|||||||Chi-squared|||Analysis for \<37 weeks||||0.44
91078238|NCT00388297|182042060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||Chi-squared|||Analysis for \< 37 weeks||||0.11
91078239|NCT00388297|182042060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann|0.0||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.0|||Chi-squared|||Bayley-III Motor (24 months)||3|0|0.31
91078240|NCT00388297|182042060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann|0.0||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.0|||Chi-squared|||Bayley-II Language (24 months)||3|0|0.30
91078241|NCT00388297|182042060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann|0.0||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Chi-squared|||Bayley-III Cognitive (12 months)||0|0|0.89
91078242|NCT00388297|182042060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann|0.0||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.0|||Chi-squared|||Bayley-III Motor (12 months)||3|0|0.54
91078243|NCT00388297|182042060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann|0.0||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|3.0|||Chi-squared|||Bayley-III Language (12 months)||3|-3|0.92
91078244|NCT00388297|182042060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann|0.0||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Chi-squared|||Bayley-III Cognitive (24 months)||0|0|0.70
91078245|NCT00388297|182042060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann|0.0||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|0.0|||Chi-squared|||Bayley-III Motor (24 months)||0|-3|0.20
91078246|NCT00388297|182042060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann|0.0||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|2.0|||Chi-squared|||Bayley-II Language (24 months)||2|-3|0.71
91078247|NCT00388297|182042061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann|0.0||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|2.0|||Chi-squared|||||2|-3|0.89
91078248|NCT00388297|182042061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann|-1.0||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|2.0|||Chi-squared|||||2|-3|0.48
91078249|NCT00388297|182042062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann|0.0||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|3.0|||Chi-squared|||||3|-2|0.90
91078250|NCT00388297|182042062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann|-1.0||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|2.0|||Chi-squared|||||2|-3|0.64
91078251|NCT00388297|182042063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann|0.0||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|7.0|||Chi-squared|||Analysis for recall of digits forward||7|-5|0.60
91078252|NCT00388297|182042063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann|0.0||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|0.0|||Chi-squared|||Analysis for recall of digits forward||0|-8|0.22
91078253|NCT00388297|182042063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann|0.0||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|0.0|||Chi-squared|||Analysis for Recognition of Pictures||0|-6|0.52
91078254|NCT00388297|182042063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann|0.0||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|0.0|||Chi-squared|||Analysis for Recognition of Pictures||0|-4|0.91
91078255|NCT00388297|182042064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann|0.0||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Chi-squared|||Bayley II Cognitive (12 months)||0|0|0.63
91078256|NCT00388297|182042064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann|0.0||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.0|||Chi-squared|||Bayley II Motor (12 mo)||3|0|0.83
91078257|NCT00388297|182042064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann|0.0||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.0|||Chi-squared|||Bayley-III Language (12 months)||3|0|0.48
91078258|NCT00388297|182042064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann|0.0||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Chi-squared|||Bayley-III Cognitive (24 months)||0|0|0.59
91078259|NCT00388297|182042065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann|0.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|2.0|||Chi-squared|||CBCL at 36 months||2|-2|0.99
91078260|NCT00388297|182042065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann|0.0||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|2.0|||Chi-squared|||CBCL at 60 months||2|-2|0.96
91078261|NCT00388297|182042065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann|0.0||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|2.0|||Chi-squared|||CBCL at 36 months||2|-2|0.65
91078262|NCT00388297|182042065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann|-1.0||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|1.0|||Chi-squared|||CBCL at 60 months||1|-3|0.44
91078263|NCT00388297|182042066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann|0.0||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.0|||Chi-squared|||||2|-1|0.37
91078264|NCT00388297|182042066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann|0.0||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|2.0|||Chi-squared|||||2|-2|0.98
91078265|NCT00388297|182042067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.12
91078266|NCT00388297|182042067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.00
91078267|NCT00388297|182042068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.69
91078268|NCT00388297|182042068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.51
91078269|NCT00388297|182042069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.76
91078270|NCT00388297|182042069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.64
91078271|NCT00388297|182042070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.66
91078272|NCT00388297|182042070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.62
91078323|NCT02284568|182042101|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.325|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2679||0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.2||significance at 0.05. The p-value for ranked change from baseline values was from a repeated measures analysis of covariance with trt group, week, treatment group by week interaction, rank of T25FW score at baseline, and country as fixed effects.|Repeated Measures ANCOVA||Laquinimod 0.6 mg vs. placebo treatment effect|placebo n=121 Laquinimod 0.6 mg n=108 The estimate of parameter, standard error, and 95% confidence intervals for change from baseline was from a Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon Test using Hodges-Lehmann estimates.||0.2000|-0.8500|0.248
91078324|NCT02284568|182042102|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.69||significance at 0.05|negative binomial regression model||Laquinimod 0.6 mg vs. placebo risk ratio|This analysis was performed using baseline adjusted negative binomial regression model (SAS® PROC GENMOD) in which 1 contrast for comparing laquinimod 0.6 mg to placebo was constructed. In addition to the treatment group, the natural logarithm of T2 lesion volume at baseline, age at baseline and country/geographical region (CGR) were used as covariates.||0.69|0.26|0.001
91078325|NCT00980174|182042114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|5.6|||ANCOVA|Adjusted by level of baseline bone mineral density T-score|Denosumab - Placebo|||5.6|4.0|<0.0001
91078326|NCT00980174|182042115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|2.6||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons by Hochberg method|ANCOVA|Adjusted by level of baseline bone mineral density T-score|Denosumab - Placebo|||2.6|1.5|<0.0001
91078327|NCT00980174|182042116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|3.0||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons by Hochberg method|ANCOVA|Adjusted by level of baseline bone mineral density T-score|Denosumab - Placebo|||3.0|1.3|<0.0001
91078328|NCT00980174|182042117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|3.2||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons by Hochberg method|ANCOVA|Adjusted by level of baseline bone mineral density T-score|Denosumab - Placebo|||3.2|1.4|<0.0001
91078329|NCT00980174|182042118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.9||||0.0144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.6||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons by Hochberg method|ANCOVA|Adjusted by level of baseline bone mineral density T-score|Denosumab - Placebo|||1.6|0.2|0.0144
91078330|NCT00980174|182042119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons by Hochberg method|Van Elteren Rank Test|Adjusted by level of baseline bone mineral density T-score||||||<0.0001
91078331|NCT01546038|182042123|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.569||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.441|0.734||1-sided p-value from the log-rank test stratified by prognosis stratum according to Interactive Voice Response System (IVRS).|Log Rank||Based on the Cox proportional hazards model stratified by prognosis stratum according to IVRS.|||0.734|0.441|0.0020
91078332|NCT01546038|182042127|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.2755||||0.0112|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.3057|13.9994|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Based on the Cox proportional hazards model stratified by prognosis stratum according to IVRS.|||13.9994|1.3057|0.0112
91078333|NCT00424021|182042193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|46.93|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|17.3||||||The small sample size, nonrandomized dose group assignments, and the potential for dose adjustments precluded meaningful comparisons between the dose groups. Therefore, efficacy results are only presented for the combined ambrisentan group.||17.3|-8.3|
91078334|NCT00424021|182042194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|73.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.3|9.7||||||The small sample size, nonrandomized dose group assignments, and the potential for dose adjustments precluded meaningful comparisons between the dose groups. Therefore, efficacy results are only presented for the combined ambrisentan group.||9.7|-30.3|
91078335|NCT00424021|182042195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|83.08|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.4|18.0||||||The small sample size, nonrandomized dose group assignments, and the potential for dose adjustments precluded meaningful comparisons between the dose groups. Therefore, efficacy results are only presented for the combined ambrisentan group.||18.0|-27.4|
91078336|NCT00424021|182042196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|77.04|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.9|7.1||||||The small sample size, nonrandomized dose group assignments, and the potential for dose adjustments precluded meaningful comparisons between the dose groups. Therefore, efficacy results are only presented for the combined ambrisentan group.||7.1|-34.9|
91078337|NCT00424021|182042198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.323|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.57||||||The small sample size, nonrandomized dose group assignments, and the potential for dose adjustments precluded meaningful comparisons between the dose groups. Therefore, efficacy results are only presented for the combined ambrisentan group.||0.57|-0.15|
91078338|NCT00424021|182042199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.46|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.659|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.92||||||The small sample size, nonrandomized dose group assignments, and the potential for dose adjustments precluded meaningful comparisons between the dose groups. Therefore, efficacy results are only presented for the combined ambrisentan group.||0.92|0.01|
91078339|NCT00424021|182042200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.888|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|1.02||||||The small sample size, nonrandomized dose group assignments, and the potential for dose adjustments precluded meaningful comparisons between the dose groups. Therefore, efficacy results are only presented for the combined ambrisentan group.||1.02|-0.02|
91078340|NCT00424021|182042201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.46|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.721|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.93||||||The small sample size, nonrandomized dose group assignments, and the potential for dose adjustments precluded meaningful comparisons between the dose groups. Therefore, efficacy results are only presented for the combined ambrisentan group.||0.93|-0.01|
91078341|NCT00424021|182042208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.41|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|4.7||||||The small sample size, nonrandomized dose group assignments, and the potential for dose adjustments precluded meaningful comparisons between the dose groups. Therefore, efficacy results are only presented for the combined ambrisentan group.||4.7|-5.9|
91078342|NCT00424021|182042209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|25.79|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|-0.3||||||The small sample size, nonrandomized dose group assignments, and the potential for dose adjustments precluded meaningful comparisons between the dose groups. Therefore, efficacy results are only presented for the combined ambrisentan group.||-0.3|-14.4|
91078441|NCT03003000|182042833|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.156||||0.3446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.168|0.48||No adjustment for multiplicity issues was made for this comparison. The level of significance was 0.05.|Mixed effect Model Repeated Measurement||Adjusted mean change from baseline ibuprofen and caffeine - Adjusted mean change from baseline placebo. A positive result favors the treatment with ibuprofen and caffeine|Superiority of ibuprofen and caffeine versus ibuprofen as well as ibuprofen and caffeine versus placebo had to be shown to reject the overall null hypothesis that there is no difference in change in POMWP between baseline and Day 2 (morning, 2 h after drug intake) between patients treated with ibuprofen/caffeine and patients treated with placebo.|Mixed effect model for repeated measures analysis (MMRM) includes fixed, categorical effects of treatment, country, worst procedure site, time and interaction terms for treatment-by-time, treatment-by-stratum-by-time, treatment-by-stratum and stratum-by-time interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline POMwp and baseline-by-time interaction, using unstructured covariance matrix.|0.480|-0.168|0.3446
91078442|NCT03003000|182042833|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.129||||0.3358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.392|0.134||No adjustment for multiplicity issues was made for this comparison. The level of significance was 0.05.|Mixed effect Model Repeat Measurement||Adjusted mean change from baseline ibuprofen and caffeine - Adjusted mean change from baseline ibuprofen. A positive result favors the treatment with ibuprofen and caffeine|Superiority of ibuprofen and caffeine versus ibuprofen as well as ibuprofen and caffeine versus placebo had to be shown to reject the overall null hypothesis that there is no difference in change in POMWP between baseline and Day 2 (morning, 2 h after drug intake) between patients treated with ibuprofen/caffeine and patients treated with ibuprofen.|Mixed effect model for repeated measures analysis (MMRM) includes fixed, categorical effects of treatment, country, worst procedure site, time and interaction terms for treatment-by-time, treatment-by-stratum-by-time, treatment-by-stratum and stratum-by-time interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline POMwp and baseline-by-time interaction, using unstructured covariance matrix|0.134|-0.392|0.3358
91078443|NCT03003000|182042834|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.288||||0.0474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.572|-0.003||No adjustment for multiplicity issues was made for this comparison. The level of significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, country, and worst procedure site as fixed effects and baseline POMwp as a continuous covariate.|Adjusted mean ibuprofen and caffeine - Adjusted mean placebo. A negative result favors ibuprofen and caffeine|||-0.003|-0.572|0.0474
91078444|NCT03003000|182042834|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.051||||0.6658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.282||No adjustment for multiplicity issues was made for this comparison. The level of significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA included treatment, country, and worst procedure site as fixed effects and baseline POMwp as a continuous covariate.|Adjusted mean ibuprofen and caffeine - Adjusted mean ibuprofen. A negative result favors ibuprofen and caffeine.|||0.282|-0.180|0.6658
91078445|NCT03003000|182042835|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.399||||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.698|-0.1||No adjustment for multiplicity issues was made for this comparison. The level of significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA included treatment, country, and worst procedure site as fixed effects and baseline POMwp as a continuous covariate.|Adjusted mean ibuprofen and caffeine - Adjusted mean placebo. A negative result favors ibuprofen and caffeine|||-0.100|-0.698|0.0091
91078446|NCT03003000|182042835|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.058||||0.6387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.185|0.302||No adjustment for multiplicity issues was made for this comparison. The level of significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA included treatment, country, and worst procedure site as fixed effects and baseline POMwp as a continuous covariate.|Adjusted mean ibuprofen and caffeine - Adjusted mean ibuprofen. A negative result favors ibuprofen and caffeine|||0.302|-0.185|0.6387
91078447|NCT03003000|182042836|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.559||||0.4398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.861|1.979||No adjustment for multiplicity issues was made for this comparison. The level of significance was 0.05.|Mixed effect model for repeated measures||Adjusted mean change ibuprofen and caffeine - Adjusted mean change placebo. A negative result favors ibuprofen and caffeine.|Mixed effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) includes fixed, categorical effects of treatment, country, worst procedure site, time and interaction terms for treatment-by-time as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline pressure algometry and baseline-by-time interaction, using unstructured covariance matrix.||1.979|-0.861|0.4398
91078448|NCT03003000|182042836|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.156||||0.7911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.002|1.314||No adjustment for multiplicity issues was made for this comparison. The level of significance was 0.05.|Mixed effect Model Repeat Measurement||Adjusted mean change ibuprofen and caffeine - Adjusted mean change ibuprofen. A negative result favors ibuprofen and caffeine.|MMRM includes fixed, categorical effects of treatment, country, worst procedure site, time and interaction terms for treatment-by-time as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline pressure algometry and baseline-by-time interaction, using unstructured covariance matrix.||1.314|-1.002|0.7911
91078449|NCT03003000|182042837|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.777||||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.195|2.642||No adjustment for multiplicity issues was made for this comparison. The level of significance was 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|An ordinal logistic regression model adjusting for country and worst procedure site.|An odds ratio \>1 indicates better efficacy for ibuprofen and caffeine than for the comparator|||2.642|1.195|0.0045
91078450|NCT03003000|182042837|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.008||||0.9603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.732|1.389||No adjustment for multiplicity issues was made for this comparison. The level of significance was 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|An ordinal logistic regression model adjusting for country and worst procedure site.|An odds ratio \>1 indicates better efficacy for ibuprofen and caffeine than for the comparator|||1.389|0.732|0.9603
91078451|NCT03003000|182042838|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.028||||0.9022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.663|1.592||No adjustment for multiplicity issues was made for this comparison. The level of significance was 0.05.|likelihood-ratio test|The likelihood-ratio test was used to test treatment differences for patients with a decrease of ≥30%.|An odds ratio \>1 indicates better efficacy for ibuprofen and caffeine than for the comparator.||Results are based on the Logistic regression. Logistic regression model was adjusted for the categorical covariates country and worst procedure site.|1.592|0.663|0.9022
91078665|NCT01964716|182043078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.39||||||Serotype 4: Ratio of GMTs, MDV to SDS, was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS).||1.39|0.89|
91078602|NCT01253174|182043002|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A sample size of 6 volunteers per sequence was considered sufficient to establish bioequivalence, id est the 90%-confidence interval for the mean ratio is located completely within the equivalence interval limits of 80% and 125%.|mean ratio|102.26||||||90.0|96.65|108.2||The equivalence test was done using a 90% confidence interval, no p-value was to be calculated.|ANOVA||Point estimate for the ratio \[(EE30/DRSP/L-5-MTHF Ca) / Yasmin\]. Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval fall within the equivalence interval limits of 80-125%|41 volunteers qualified for statistical analysis of BE whereas all 42 volunteers with valid concentration time profiles were included in the pharmacokinetic (PK) analysis||108.20|96.65|
91078603|NCT01253174|182043003|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A sample size of 6 volunteers per sequence was considered sufficient to establish bioequivalence, id est the 90%-confidence interval for the mean ratio is located completely within the equivalence interval limits of 80% and 125%.|mean ratio|101.13||||||90.0|97.65|104.75||The equivalence test was done using a 90% confidence interval, no p-value was to be calculated.|ANOVA||Point estimate for the ratio \[(EE30/DRSP/L-5-MTHF Ca) / Yasmin\]. Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval fall within the equivalence interval limits of 80-125%|41 volunteers qualified for statistical analysis of BE whereas all 42 volunteers with valid concentration time profiles were included in the pharmacokinetic (PK) analysis||104.75|97.65|
91078604|NCT01253174|182043004|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A sample size of 6 volunteers per sequence was considered sufficient to establish bioequivalence, id est the 90%-confidence interval for the mean ratio is located completely within the equivalence interval limits of 80% and 125%.|mean ratio|98.66||||||90.0|93.37|104.24||The equivalence test was done using a 90% confidence interval, no p-value was to be calculated.|ANOVA||Point estimate for the ratio \[(EE30/DRSP/L-5-MTHF Ca) / Yasmin\]. Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval fall within the equivalence interval limits of 80-125%|39 volunteers qualified for statistical analysis of BE whereas all 40 volunteers with valid concentration time profiles were included in the pharmacokinetic (PK) analysis||104.24|93.37|
91078605|NCT01253174|182043005|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A sample size of 6 volunteers per sequence was considered sufficient to establish bioequivalence, id est the 90%-confidence interval for the mean ratio is located completely within the equivalence interval limits of 80% and 125%.|mean ratio|99.45||||||90.0|96.7|102.28||The equivalence test was done using a 90% confidence interval, no p-value was to be calculated.|ANOVA||Point estimate for the ratio \[(EE30/DRSP/L-5-MTHF Ca) / Yasmin\]. Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval fall within the equivalence interval limits of 80-125%|39 volunteers qualified for statistical analysis of BE whereas all 40 volunteers with valid concentration time profiles were included in the pharmacokinetic (PK) analysis||102.28|96.70|
91078606|NCT01253174|182043006|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A sample size of 6 volunteers per sequence was considered sufficient to establish bioequivalence, id est the 90%-confidence interval for the mean ratio is located completely within the equivalence interval limits of 80% and 125%.|mean ratio|106.19||||||90.0|99.18|113.68||The equivalence test was done using a 90% confidence interval, no p-value was to be calculated.|ANOVA||Point estimate for the ratio \[(EE30/DRSP/L-5-MTHF Ca) / Metafolin\]. Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval fall within the equivalence interval limits of 80-125%|41 volunteers qualified for statistical analysis of BE whereas all 41 (EE30/DRSP/L-5-MTHF Ca) and 43 (Metafolin) volunteers with valid concentration time profiles were included in the pharmacokinetic (PK) analysis||113.68|99.18|
91078607|NCT01253174|182043007|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A sample size of 6 volunteers per sequence was considered sufficient to establish bioequivalence, id est the 90%-confidence interval for the mean ratio is located completely within the equivalence interval limits of 80% and 125%.|mean ratio|97.98||||||90.0|94.19|101.93||The equivalence test was done using a 90% confidence interval, no p-value was to be calculated.|ANOVA||Point estimate for the ratio \[(EE30/DRSP/L-5-MTHF Ca) / Metafolin\]. Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval fall within the equivalence interval limits of 80-125%|41 volunteers qualified for statistical analysis of BE whereas all 41 (EE30/DRSP/L-5-MTHF Ca) and 43 (Metafolin) volunteers with valid concentration time profiles were included in the pharmacokinetic (PK) analysis||101.93|94.19|
91078608|NCT01253174|182043008|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A sample size of 6 volunteers per sequence was considered sufficient to establish bioequivalence, id est the 90%-confidence interval for the mean ratio is located completely within the equivalence interval limits of 80% and 125%.|mean ratio|104.9||||||90.0|98.83|111.34||The equivalence test was done using a 90% confidence interval, no p-value was to be calculated.|ANOVA||Point estimate for the ratio \[(EE30/DRSP/L-5-MTHF Ca) / Metafolin\]. Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval fall within the equivalence interval limits of 80-125%|41 volunteers qualified for statistical analysis of BE whereas all 41 (EE30/DRSP/L-5-MTHF Ca) and 43 (Metafolin) volunteers with valid concentration time profiles were included in the pharmacokinetic (PK) analysis||111.34|98.83|
91078609|NCT01253174|182043009|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A sample size of 6 volunteers per sequence was considered sufficient to establish bioequivalence, id est the 90%-confidence interval for the mean ratio is located completely within the equivalence interval limits of 80% and 125%.|mean ratio|99.63||||||90.0|95.73|103.69||The equivalence test was done using a 90% confidence interval, no p-value was to be calculated.|ANOVA||Point estimate for the ratio \[(EE30/DRSP/L-5-MTHF Ca) / Metafolin\]. Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval fall within the equivalence interval limits of 80-125%|41 volunteers qualified for statistical analysis of BE whereas all 41 (EE30/DRSP/L-5-MTHF Ca) and 43 (Metafolin) volunteers with valid concentration time profiles were included in the pharmacokinetic (PK) analysis||103.69|95.73|
91078610|NCT01253174|182043011|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A sample size of 6 volunteers per sequence was considered sufficient to establish bioequivalence, id est the 90%-confidence interval for the mean ratio is located completely within the equivalence interval limits of 80% and 125%.|mean ratio|99.57||||||90.0|97.32|101.87||The equivalence test was done using a 90% confidence interval, no p-value was to be calculated.|ANOVA||Point estimate for the ratio \[(EE30/DRSP/L-5-MTHF Ca) / Yasmin\]. Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval fall within the equivalence interval limits of 80-125%|38 volunteers qualified for statistical analysis of BE whereas all 40 volunteers with valid concentration time profiles were included in the pharmacokinetic (PK) analysis||101.87|97.32|
91078611|NCT02267135|182043014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference between percentages|51.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.0|65.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|adjusted for body weight (\< 90 kg, ≥ 90 kg)||||65|37|<0.001
91078612|NCT01937884|182043057|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.57
91078646|NCT01964716|182043068|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for a given antibody serotype was declared if lower bound of the 2-sided, 97.5% confidence interval for the geometric mean concentration ratio (GMC MDV /GMC SDS) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMC Ratio|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.09|1.49||||||Serotype 18C: Ratio of GMCs, MDV to SDS, was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale; CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS).||1.49|1.09|
91078647|NCT01964716|182043068|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for a given antibody serotype was declared if lower bound of the 2-sided, 97.5% confidence interval for the geometric mean concentration ratio (GMC MDV /GMC SDS) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMC Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.82|1.24||||||Serotype 19A: Ratio of GMCs, MDV to SDS, was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale; CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS).||1.24|0.82|
91078648|NCT01964716|182043068|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for a given antibody serotype was declared if lower bound of the 2-sided, 97.5% confidence interval for the geometric mean concentration ratio (GMC MDV /GMC SDS) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMC Ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.85|1.26||||||Serotype 19F: Ratio of GMCs, MDV to SDS, was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale; CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS).||1.26|0.85|
91078649|NCT01964716|182043068|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for a given antibody serotype was declared if lower bound of the 2-sided, 97.5% confidence interval for the geometric mean concentration ratio (GMC MDV /GMC SDS) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMC Ratio|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.98|1.48||||||Serotype 23F: Ratio of GMCs, MDV to SDS, was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale; CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS).||1.48|0.98|
91078650|NCT01964716|182043077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|-7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.2|1.9||||||Serotype 1: Exact 2-sided confidence interval (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, 13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS, expressed as a percentage was analyzed.||1.9|-17.2|
91078651|NCT01964716|182043077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|1.1||||||Serotype 3: Exact 2-sided confidence interval (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, 13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS, expressed as a percentage was analyzed.||1.1|-4.4|
91078652|NCT01964716|182043077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|2.3||||||Serotype 4: Exact 2-sided confidence interval (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, 13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS, expressed as a percentage was analyzed.||2.3|-2.3|
91078653|NCT01964716|182043077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|5.7||||||Serotype 5: Exact 2-sided confidence interval (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, 13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS, expressed as a percentage was analyzed.||5.7|-10.6|
91078654|NCT01964716|182043077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|2.8||||||Serotype 6A: Exact 2-sided confidence interval (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, 13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS, expressed as a percentage was analyzed.||2.8|-2.9|
91078655|NCT01964716|182043077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|4.6||||||Serotype 6B: Exact 2-sided confidence interval (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, 13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS, expressed as a percentage was analyzed.||4.6|-4.5|
91078656|NCT01964716|182043077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|2.3||||||Serotype 7F: Exact 2-sided confidence interval (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, 13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS, expressed as a percentage was analyzed.||2.3|-2.3|
91078657|NCT01964716|182043077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|14.1||||||Serotype 9V: Exact 2-sided confidence interval (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, 13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS, expressed as a percentage was analyzed.||14.1|-4.5|
91078658|NCT01964716|182043077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|-7.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.8|0.0||||||Serotype 14: Exact 2-sided confidence interval (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, 13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS, expressed as a percentage was analyzed.||-0.0|-15.8|
91078659|NCT01964716|182043077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|2.9||||||Serotype 18C: Exact 2-sided confidence interval (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, 13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS, expressed as a percentage was analyzed.||2.9|-2.9|
91078660|NCT01964716|182043077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|2.4||||||Serotype 19A: Exact 2-sided confidence interval (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, 13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS, expressed as a percentage was analyzed.||2.4|-6.6|
91078661|NCT01964716|182043077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|4.9||||||Serotype 19F: Exact 2-sided confidence interval (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, 13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS, expressed as a percentage was analyzed.||4.9|-6.3|
91078662|NCT01964716|182043077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|3.0||||||Serotype 23F: Exact 2-sided confidence interval (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, 13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS, expressed as a percentage was analyzed.||3.0|-5.8|
91078663|NCT01964716|182043078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.2||||||Serotype 1: Ratio of GMTs, MDV to SDS, was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS).||1.20|0.70|
91078664|NCT01964716|182043078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.93||||||Serotype 3: Ratio of GMTs, MDV to SDS, was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS).||0.93|0.69|
91078678|NCT02603107|182043111|NON_INFERIORITY|A sample size of 520 participants (260 participants per treatment group) would provide at least 90% power to establish a non-inferiority margin of 4% in the Week 48 response rate (HIV-1 RNA ≥ 50 copies/mL) between the 2 treatment groups. Sample size was based on the assumptions that both treatment groups have 2% of participants with HIV-1 RNA ≥ 50 copies/mL (based on Gilead Genvoya and Stribild studies) and that the significance level of the test is at a 1-sided 0.025 level.|Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.002|-2.5|2.5|||||The difference in percentages and its 95.002% confidence interval (CI) were calculated based on an unconditional exact method using 2 inverted 1-sided tests.|The null hypothesis was that the percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA ≥ 50 copies/mL at Week 48 in the B/F/TAF group was at least 4% higher than the rate in the SBR group; the alternative hypothesis was that the percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA ≥ 50 copies/mL in the B/F/TAF group was less than 4% higher than that in the SBR group.||2.5|-2.5|
91078679|NCT02603107|182043111|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
91078680|NCT02603107|182043112|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority of B/F/TAF would be established if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95.002% CI of the difference between the treatment groups (B/F/TAF group - SBR group) in the percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL is greater than -10%.|Difference in Percentages|3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.002|-1.6|8.2|||||The difference in percentages and its 95.002% confidence interval (CI) were calculated based on an unconditional exact method using 2 inverted 1-sided tests.|||8.2|-1.6|
91078681|NCT02603107|182043112|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.20
91078682|NCT02603107|182043113|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means (LSM)|25.0||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|52.0|||ANOVA|||||52|-2|0.068
91078683|NCT01887678|182043146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square|-6.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.06||0.0383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|-0.35|||ANCOVA||A negative value of the Least Square mean difference indicates a result in favor of Traumeel-Zeel.|||-0.35|-12.40|0.0383
91078684|NCT01887678|182043147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares|-2.15||||0.3715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.89|2.58|||ANCOVA|||Day 8±1||2.58|-6.89|0.3715
91078685|NCT01887678|182043147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square|-5.87||||0.0293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.15|-0.6|||ANCOVA|||Day 15±1||-0.60|-11.15|0.0293
91078686|NCT01887678|182043147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares|-5.24||||0.0686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.88|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Day 29±3||0.40|-10.88|0.0686
91078687|NCT01887678|182043147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares|-7.25||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.08|-1.42|||ANCOVA|||Day 43±3||-1.42|-13.08|0.0150
91078688|NCT01887678|182043147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares|-7.56||||0.0134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.54|-1.58|||ANCOVA|||Day 57±3||-1.58|-13.54|0.0134
91078689|NCT01887678|182043147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares|-7.6||||0.0121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.52|-1.68|||Least Squares|||Day 71±3||-1.68|-13.52|0.0121
91078690|NCT01887678|182043147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares|-6.32||||0.0376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.28|-0.37|||ANCOVA|||Day 85±3||-0.37|-12.28|0.0376
91078691|NCT01887678|182043148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares|-4.76||||0.1373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.05|1.53|||ANCOVA|||||1.53|-11.05|0.1373
91078692|NCT01887678|182043149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares|-4.24||||0.1715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.33|1.85|||ANCOVA|||||1.85|-10.33|0.1715
91078693|NCT01887678|182043150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares|-4.77||||0.1211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.82|1.27|||ANCOVA|||||1.27|-10.82|0.1211
91078694|NCT01887678|182043155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares|-4.97||||0.1128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.12|1.18|||ANCOVA|||Day 8±1||1.18|-11.12|0.1128
91078695|NCT01887678|182043155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares|-10.49||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.85|-4.13|||ANCOVA|||Day 15±1||-4.13|-16.85|0.0013
91078696|NCT01887678|182043155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares|-6.89||||0.0472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.69|-0.09|||ANCOVA|||Day 29±3||-0.09|-13.69|0.0472
91078697|NCT01887678|182043155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares|-8.82||||0.0109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.6|-2.05|||ANCOVA|||Day 43±3||-2.05|-15.60|0.0109
91078698|NCT01887678|182043155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares|-8.88||||0.0123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.8|-1.95|||ANCOVA|||Day 57±3||-1.95|-15.80|0.0123
91078699|NCT01887678|182043155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares|-6.88||||0.0425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.52|-0.23|||ANCOVA|||Day 71±3||-0.23|-13.52|0.0425
91078700|NCT01887678|182043155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares|-5.51||||0.1199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.47|1.45|||ANCOVA|||Day 85±3||1.45|-12.47|0.1199
91078701|NCT01887678|182043155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares|-4.96||||0.1575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.86|1.93|||ANCOVA|||Day 119±3||1.93|-11.86|0.1575
91078702|NCT01887678|182043156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares|-0.28||||0.6346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|0.89|||ANCOVA|||Day 8±1||0.89|-1.45|0.6346
91078703|NCT01887678|182043156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares|-0.28||||0.6458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|0.92|||ANCOVA|||Day 15±1||0.92|-1.49|0.6458
91078704|NCT01887678|182043156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares|-0.18||||0.7581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|0.99|||ANCOVA|||Day 29±3||0.99|-1.35|0.7581
91078705|NCT01887678|182043156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares|-0.49||||0.335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|0.51|||ANCOVA|||Day 43±3||0.51|-1.48|0.3350
91078706|NCT01887678|182043156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares|-0.4||||0.4419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|0.63|||ANCOVA|||Day 57±3||0.63|-1.44|0.4419
91078707|NCT01887678|182043156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares|-0.37||||0.446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|0.58|||ANCOVA|||Day 71±3||0.58|-1.32|0.4460
91078708|NCT01887678|182043156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares|0.25||||0.6552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|1.33|||ANCOVA|||Day 85±3||1.33|-0.84|0.6552
91078709|NCT01887678|182043156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares|-0.19||||0.7443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|0.95|||ANCOVA|||Day 119±3||0.95|-1.33|0.7443
91078710|NCT01887678|182043161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2164|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|Results of Kaplan-Meier Analysis with p-value from 2-sided log-rank test for equality of survival functions||After first injection of study drug||||0.2164
91078711|NCT01887678|182043161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1651|TWO_SIDED|||||Results of Kaplan-Meier Analysis with p-value from 2-sided log-rank test for equality of survival functions|Log Rank|||After second injection of study drug||||0.1651
91078712|NCT01887678|182043161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.222|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|Results of Kaplan-Meier Analysis with p-value from 2-sided log-rank test for equality of survival functions||After third injection of study drug||||0.2220
91078713|NCT01887678|182043162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0264|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|For equality of survival functions||After first injection of study drug||||0.0264
91078714|NCT01887678|182043162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0346|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|For equality of survival functions||After second injection of study drug||||0.0346
91078802|NCT02503254|182043349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS Mean Reduction|82.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.79|86.09||The primary endpoints were tested using a multiple testing procedure to preserve the overall alpha level by simultaneously testing the endpoints using a closed procedure with each test performed at a two-sided alpha level of 5%.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on MHBMA levels with product, sex, cigarette consumption, and baseline value as covariates.|"Geometric LS Mean Reduction = 100 - (CHTP 1.0 : CC ratio)~Expressed as %"|"The hypothesis to be tested is that the geometric mean level on Day 5 of the biomarker of exposure for CHTP 1.0 is lower relative to CC.~Analysis of the BoExp was conducted on the natural log scale in order to test the following hypothesis (one sided test with 2.5% type I error probability):~* Null hypothesis (H0): m1≥m2~* Alternative hypothesis (H1): m1\<m2 Where m1 and m2 are the geometric means of the BoExp levels on Day 5 for CHTP 1.0 and CC, respectively."||86.09|78.79|<.001
91078803|NCT02503254|182043350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS Mean Reduction|63.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.55|67.12||The primary endpoints were tested using a multiple testing procedure to preserve the overall alpha level by simultaneously testing the endpoints using a closed procedure with each test performed at a two-sided alpha level of 5%.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on 3-HPMA levels with product, sex, cigarette consumption, and baseline value as covariates.|"Geometric LS Mean Reduction = 100 - (CHTP 1.0 : CC ratio)~Expressed as %"|"The hypothesis to be tested is that the geometric mean level on Day 5 of the biomarker of exposure for CHTP 1.0 is lower relative to CC.~Analysis of the BoExp was conducted on the natural log scale in order to test the following hypothesis (one sided test with 2.5% type I error probability):~* Null hypothesis (H0): m1≥m2~* Alternative hypothesis (H1): m1\<m2 Where m1 and m2 are the geometric means of the BoExp levels on Day 5 for CHTP 1.0 and CC, respectively"||67.12|59.55|<0.001
91078804|NCT02503254|182043351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS Mean Reduction|88.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.46|89.62||The primary endpoints were tested using a multiple testing procedure to preserve the overall alpha level by simultaneously testing the endpoints using a closed procedure with each test performed at a two-sided alpha level of 5%.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on MHBMA levels with product, sex, cigarette consumption, and baseline value as covariates|"Geometric LS Mean Reduction = 100 - (CHTP 1.0 : CC ratio)~Expressed as %"|"The hypothesis to be tested is that the geometric mean level on Day 5 of the biomarker of exposure for CHTP 1.0 is lower relative to CC.~Analysis of the BoExp was conducted on the natural log scale in order to test the following hypothesis (one sided test with 2.5% type I error probability):~* Null hypothesis (H0): m1≥m2~* Alternative hypothesis (H1): m1\<m2 Where m1 and m2 are the geometric means of the BoExp levels on Day 5 for CHTP 1.0 and CC, respectively."||89.62|86.46|<.001
91078805|NCT02503254|182043352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|58.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.3|66.56||The primary endpoints were tested using a multiple testing procedure to preserve the overall alpha level by simultaneously testing the endpoints using a closed procedure with each test performed at an alpha level of 2.5% one sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on COHb levels with product, sex, cigarette consumption, and baseline value as covariates.|"Geometric LS Mean Reduction = 100 - (CHTP 1.0 : CC ratio)~Expressed as %"|"The hypothesis to be tested is that the geometric mean level on Day 5 of the biomarker of exposure for CHTP 1.0 is lower relative to CC.~Analysis of the BoExp was conducted on the natural log scale in order to test the following hypothesis (one sided test with 2.5% type I error probability):~* Null hypothesis (H0): m1≥m2~* Alternative hypothesis (H1): m1\<m2 Where m1 and m2 are the geometric means of the BoExp levels on Day 5 for CHTP 1.0 and CC respectively."||66.56|49.30|<.001
91078806|NCT03434249|182043354|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||"According to the results of a previous trial that looked at a probiotic's effect on infants with CI, it was estimated that when the sample size in each group is 33, the study has 80% power to detect an absolute difference of 35% in the treatment success rate (15% in the Placebo group and 50% in the treatment group) with a 0,05 alpha level.~The number of infants that was included in the study was 80, with an expected maximum dropout rate of 20%."||||0.0001
91078807|NCT03434249|182043355|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
91078808|NCT03434249|182043357|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
91078809|NCT04877535|182043371|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.12|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.12|-0.24|0.524
91078810|NCT04877535|182043371|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.16|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.16|-0.4|0.403
91078811|NCT04877535|182043372|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|2.38|||Fisher Exact|||||2.38|0.47|1.00
91078812|NCT04877535|182043373|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.81|11.13|||Fisher Exact|||||11.13|1.81|<0.001
91078813|NCT04877535|182043373|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|4.19|||Fisher Exact|||||4.19|0.23|1.00
91078814|NCT04877535|182043374|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.94|39.25|||Fisher Exact|||||39.25|1.94|<0.001
91078815|NCT04877535|182043374|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|14.86|||Fisher Exact|||||14.86|0.13|0.630
91078816|NCT04907227|182043388|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|2.46|||||HR based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|||2.46|0.32|
91078817|NCT04907227|182043389|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|3.67|||||HR based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|||3.67|0.68|
91078818|NCT04907227|182043390|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.5|||||HR based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|||1.50|0.45|
91078819|NCT04907227|182043392|OTHER||Percent Difference|4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.1|31.2|||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||31.2|-24.1|
91078820|NCT04907227|182043394|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.99|||||HR based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|||1.99|0.17|
91078821|NCT04907227|182043395|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|18.24|||||HR based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|||18.24|0.15|
91078822|NCT04907227|182043396|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.46|||||HR based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|||1.46|0.41|
91078823|NCT04907227|182043397|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|3.17|||||HR based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|||3.17|0.43|
91078829|NCT03646305|182043444|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze main effect of Intervention. Null: On average, the experimental conditions and control conditions would have equal believability scores||||>0.05
91078830|NCT03646305|182043444|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze main effect of Activity. Null: On average, singing and verbal repetition would have equal believability scores||||>0.05
91078831|NCT03646305|182043444|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Twenty-eight participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post-intervention, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze Intervention x Activity interaction. Null: On average, all four conditions were equivalent in believability scores||||>0.05
91078832|NCT03646305|182043444|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at a significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2 (Intervention: experimental, control) × 3 (Time: baseline, post-intervention, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to measure Time x Intervention interactions. Null: experimental and control conditions have equivalent believability scores across time.||||>0.05
91078833|NCT03646305|182043444|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha.05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze Time x Activity interaction. Null: Across time, there would be no difference between singing and verbal repetition on believability scores||||>0.05
91078834|NCT03646305|182043444|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha.05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze Time x Intervention x Activity interaction. Null: Across time, there would be no significant difference between 4 conditions on believability||||>0.05
91078835|NCT03646305|182043445|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to measure main effect of time. Null: Across the sample, appraisal of target thought were equivalent across time.||||<0.001
91078836|NCT03646305|182043445|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||=|0.005|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at a significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2 (Intervention: experimental, control) × 3 (Time: baseline, post-intervention, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to measure Time x Intervention interactions. Null: experimental and control conditions are equivalent across time.||||=0.005
91078837|NCT03646305|182043445|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||=|0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired sample t-tests was conducted to measure differences in negativity from baseline to post-intervention. Null hypothesis: the control conditions would have no significant difference in negativity from baseline to post-intervention||||=0.002
91078838|NCT03646305|182043445|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired sample t-tests was conducted to measure differences in negativity from post-intervention to follow-up. Null hypothesis: the control conditions would have no significant difference in negativity from post-intervention to follow-up.||||<0.001
91078839|NCT03646305|182043445|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.025|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A paired sample t-test was conducted to measure differences in negativity from baseline to post-intervention. Null hypothesis: there would be no significant difference in negativity scores from baseline to post-intervention in the experimental conditions||||>0.025
91078840|NCT03646305|182043445|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.025|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired sample t-tests was conducted to measure differences in negativity from post-intervention to follow-up. Null hypothesis: the experimental conditions would have no significant difference in negativity scores from post-intervention to follow-up.||||>0.025
91078841|NCT03646305|182043445|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance alpha .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post-intervention, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze main effect of Intervention. Null: On average, the experimental conditions and control conditions would have equal negativity scores||||>0.05
91078842|NCT03646305|182043445|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze main effect of Activity. Null: On average, singing and verbal repetition would have equal negativity scores||||>0.05
91078843|NCT03646305|182043445|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Twenty-eight participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post-intervention, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze Intervention x Activity interaction. Null: On average, all four conditions were equivalent in negativity scores||||>0.05
91078844|NCT03646305|182043445|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha.05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze Time x Activity interaction. Null: Across time, there would be no difference between singing and verbal repetition on negativity scores||||>0.05
91078900|NCT03646305|182043452|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A paired sample t-test was conducted to measure the difference in state body image satisfaction from post intervention to follow-up. Null hypothesis: there would be no significant differences in state body image satisfaction from post-intervention to follow-up.||||<0.001
91078845|NCT03646305|182043445|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha.05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze Time x Intervention x Activity interaction. Null: Across time, there would be no difference between four conditions on negativity scores||||>0.05
91078846|NCT03646305|182043446|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Twenty-eight participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at p\< .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post-intervention, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to measure main effect of time. Null: Across the sample, levels of discomfort were equivalent across time.||||<0.001
91078847|NCT03646305|182043446|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired sample t-tests was conducted to measure differences in levels of discomfort from baseline to post-intervention. Null hypothesis: there would have no significant differences in discomfort levels from baseline to post-intervention across samples||||<0.001
91078848|NCT03646305|182043446|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired sample t-tests was conducted to measure differences in levels of discomfort from post-intervention to follow-up. Null hypothesis: there would be no significant differences in discomfort levels from post-intervention to follow-up across samples||||<0.001
91078849|NCT03646305|182043446|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze main effect of Intervention. Null: On average, the experimental conditions and control conditions would have equal levels of discomfort||||>0.05
91078850|NCT03646305|182043446|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze main effect of Activity. Null: On average, singing and verbal repetition would have equal levels of discomfort||||>0.05
91078851|NCT03646305|182043446|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post-intervention, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze Intervention x Activity interaction. Null: On average, all four conditions were equivalent in levels of discomfort||||>0.05
91078852|NCT03646305|182043446|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at a significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2 (Intervention: experimental, control) × 3 (Time: baseline, post-intervention, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to measure Time x Intervention interactions. Null: experimental and control conditions are equivalent in levels of discomfort across time||||>0.05
91078853|NCT03646305|182043446|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha.05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze Time x Activity interaction. Null: Across time, there would be no difference between singing and verbal repetition on levels of discomfort||||>0.05
91078854|NCT03646305|182043446|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha.05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA used to analyze Time x Intervention x Activity interaction. Null: Across time, there would be no significant difference between 4 conditions on discomfort levels||||>0.05
91078855|NCT03646305|182043447|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to measure main effect of time. Null: Across the sample, willingness to engage with target thought were equivalent across time||||<0.001
91078856|NCT03646305|182043447|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired sample t-tests was conducted to measure differences in willingness to engage with target thought from baseline to post-intervention. Null hypothesis: there would be no difference in willingness scores from baseline to post-intervention||||<0.001
91078857|NCT03646305|182043447|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||=|0.053|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired sample t-tests was conducted to measure differences in willingness to engage with target thought from post-intervention to follow-up. Null hypothesis: there would be no significant difference in willingness scores from post-intervention to follow-up.||||=0.053
91078858|NCT03646305|182043447|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze main effect of Intervention. Null: On average, the experimental conditions and control conditions would have equal willingness scores||||>0.05
91078859|NCT03646305|182043447|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze main effect of Activity. Null: On average, singing and verbal repetition would result in equal willingness to engage with the target thought||||>0.05
91078860|NCT03646305|182043447|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Twenty-eight participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post-intervention, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze Intervention x Activity interaction. Null: On average, all 4 conditions were equivalent in willingness to engage||||>0.05
91078861|NCT03646305|182043447|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at a significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2 (Intervention: experimental, control) × 3 (Time: baseline, post-intervention, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to measure Time x Intervention interactions. Null: experimental and control conditions are equivalent in willingness to engage with the target thought across time.||||>0.05
91078862|NCT03646305|182043447|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha.05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze Time x Activity interaction. Null: Across time, there would be no difference between singing and verbal repetition on willingness to engage||||>0.05
91078863|NCT03646305|182043447|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha.05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze Time x Intervention x Activity interaction. Null: Across time, there would be no difference between 4 conditions on willingness to engage||||>0.05
91078864|NCT03646305|182043448|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to measure main effect of time. Null: Across the sample, avoidance of target thought were equivalent across time||||<0.01
91078865|NCT03646305|182043448|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired sample t-tests was conducted to measure differences in avoidance of target thought from baseline to post-intervention. Null hypothesis: there would be no significant differences in avoidance from baseline to post-intervention||||>0.05
91078866|NCT03646305|182043448|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired sample t-tests was conducted to measure differences in avoidance of target thought from post-intervention to follow-up. Null hypothesis: there would be no significant differences in avoidance from post-intervention to follow-up.||||<0.05
91078867|NCT03646305|182043448|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA used to analyze main effect of Intervention. Null: On average, the experimental conditions and control conditions would show equal avoidance of target thought||||>0.05
91078868|NCT03646305|182043448|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze main effect of Activity. Null: On average, singing and verbal repetition would result in equal avoidance of target thought||||>0.05
91078869|NCT03646305|182043448|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post-intervention, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze Intervention x Activity interaction. Null: On average, all 4 conditions were equivalent in avoidance of target thought||||>0.05
91078870|NCT03646305|182043448|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at a significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2 (Intervention: experimental, control) × 3 (Time: baseline, post-intervention, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to measure Time x Intervention interactions. Null: experimental and control conditions are equivalent in avoidance of target thought across time.||||>0.05
91078871|NCT03646305|182043448|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha.05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA used to analyze Time x Activity interaction. Null: Across time, there would be no difference between singing and verbal repetition on avoidance of target thought||||>0.05
91078872|NCT03646305|182043448|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha.05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA used to analyze Time x Intervention x Activity interaction. Null: Across time, there would be no difference between 4 conditions on avoidance of target thought||||>0.05
91078873|NCT03646305|182043449|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to measure main effect of time. Null: Across the sample, cognitive delusion were equivalent across time||||>0.05
91078874|NCT03646305|182043449|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA used to analyze main effect of Intervention. Null: On average, the experimental conditions and control conditions would have equal levels of cognitive defusion||||>0.05
91078875|NCT03646305|182043449|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze main effect of Activity. Null: On average, singing and verbal repetition would have equal levels of cognitive defusion||||>0.05
91078909|NCT03646305|182043453|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired sample t-tests was conducted to measure differences in anxious mood from post-intervention to follow-up. Null hypothesis: there would be no significant difference in anxious mood from post-intervention to follow-up||||>0.05
91078876|NCT03646305|182043449|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post-intervention, follow-up) mixed ANOVA used to analyze Intervention x Activity interaction. Null: On average, all four conditions were equivalent in levels of cognitive defusion||||>0.05
91078877|NCT03646305|182043449|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at a significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2 (Intervention: experimental, control) × 3 (Time: baseline, post-intervention, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to measure Time x Intervention interactions. Null: experimental and control conditions are equivalent in levels of cognitive defusion across time.||||>0.05
91078878|NCT03646305|182043449|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance alpha level .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA used to analyze Time x Activity interaction. Null: Across time, there would be no difference between singing and verbal repetition on levels of cognitive defusion||||>0.05
91078879|NCT03646305|182043449|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance alpha level .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA used to analyze Time x Intervention x Activity interaction. Null: Across time, there would be no difference between four conditions on levels of cognitive defusion||||>0.05
91078880|NCT03646305|182043450|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to measure main effect of time. Null: Across the sample, weight dissatisfaction were equivalent across time.||||<0.001
91078881|NCT03646305|182043450|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired sample t-tests was conducted to measure differences in weight dissatisfaction from baseline to post-intervention. Null hypothesis: there would be no significant differences in weight dissatisfaction from baseline to post-intervention||||<0.001
91078882|NCT03646305|182043450|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A paired sample t-test was conducted to measure differences in weight dissatisfaction from post-intervention to follow-up. Null: there would be no differences in weight dissatisfaction from post-intervention to follow-up||||<0.05
91078883|NCT03646305|182043450|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze main effect of Intervention. Null: On average, the experimental conditions and control conditions would have equal weight dissatisfaction||||>0.05
91078884|NCT03646305|182043450|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze main effect of Activity. Null: On average, singing and verbal repetition would have equal weight dissatisfaction scores||||>0.05
91078885|NCT03646305|182043450|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Twenty-eight participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post-intervention, follow-up) mixed ANOVA used to analyze Intervention x Activity interaction. Null: On average, all 4 conditions were equivalent in weight dissatisfaction||||>0.05
91078886|NCT03646305|182043450|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at a significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2 (Intervention: experimental, control) × 3 (Time: baseline, post-intervention, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to measure Time x Intervention interactions. Null: experimental and control conditions are equivalent in weight dissatisfaction across time.||||>0.05
91078887|NCT03646305|182043450|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha.05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze Time x Activity interaction. Null: Across time, there would be no difference between singing and verbal repetition on weight dissatisfaction||||>0.05
91078888|NCT03646305|182043450|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA used to analyze Time x Intervention x Activity interaction. Null: Across time, there would be no difference between four conditions on weight dissatisfaction||||>0.05
91078889|NCT03646305|182043451|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to measure main effect of time. Null: Across the sample, appearance dissatisfaction were equivalent across time.||||<0.001
91078890|NCT03646305|182043451|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired sample t-tests was conducted to measure differences in appearance dissatisfaction from baseline to post-intervention. Null hypothesis: the control conditions would have no significant difference in appearance dissatisfaction from baseline to post-intervention||||>0.05
91078891|NCT03646305|182043451|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired sample t-tests was conducted to measure differences in appearance dissatisfaction from post-intervention to follow-up. Null hypothesis: the control conditions would have no significant difference in appearance dissatisfaction from post-intervention to follow-up.||||<0.001
91078892|NCT03646305|182043451|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA used to analyze main effect of Intervention. Null: On average, the experimental conditions and control conditions would have equal appearance dissatisfaction||||>0.05
91078893|NCT03646305|182043451|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze main effect of Activity. Null: On average, singing and verbal repetition would result in equal appearance dissatisfaction scores||||>0.05
91078894|NCT03646305|182043451|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post-intervention, follow-up) mixed ANOVA used to analyze Intervention x Activity interaction. Null: On average, all four conditions were equivalent in appearance dissatisfaction||||>0.05
91078895|NCT03646305|182043451|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at a significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2 (Intervention: experimental, control) × 3 (Time: baseline, post-intervention, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to measure Time x Intervention interactions. Null: experimental and control conditions are equivalent in appearance dissatisfaction across time.||||>0.05
91078896|NCT03646305|182043451|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha.05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA used to analyze Time x Activity interaction. Null: Across time, there would be no difference between singing and verbal repetition on appearance dissatisfaction||||>0.05
91078897|NCT03646305|182043451|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha.05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA used to analyze Time x Intervention x Activity interaction. Null: Across time, there would be no difference between four conditions on appearance dissatisfaction||||>0.05
91078898|NCT03646305|182043452|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to measure main effect of time. Null: Across the sample, body state image satisfaction were equivalent across time||||<0.001
91078899|NCT03646305|182043452|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A paired sample t-test was conducted to measure the difference in state body image satisfaction from baseline to post intervention. Null hypothesis: there would be no significant differences in state body image satisfaction from baseline to post intervention.||||<0.05
91078901|NCT03646305|182043452|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA used to analyze main effect of Intervention. Null: On average, the experimental conditions and control conditions would have equal body state image satisfaction||||>0.05
91078902|NCT03646305|182043452|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze main effect of Activity. Null: On average, singing and verbal repetition would result in equal state body satisfaction scores||||>0.05
91078903|NCT03646305|182043452|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post-intervention, follow-up) mixed ANOVA used to analyze Intervention x Activity interaction. Null: On average, all four conditions were equivalent in state body image satisfaction||||>0.05
91078904|NCT03646305|182043452|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at a significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2 (Intervention: experimental, control) × 3 (Time: baseline, post-intervention, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to measure Time x Intervention interactions. Null: experimental and control conditions are equivalent in state body image satisfaction across time.||||>0.05
91078905|NCT03646305|182043452|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance alpha level .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA used to analyze Time x Activity interaction. Null: Across time, there would be no difference between singing and verbal repetition on state body image satisfaction||||>0.05
91078906|NCT03646305|182043452|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance alpha level.05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA used to analyze Time x Intervention x Activity interaction. Null: Across time, there would be no difference between four conditions on state body image satisfaction||||>0.05
91078907|NCT03646305|182043453|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to measure main effect of time. Null: Across the sample, state body image satisfaction were equivalent across time.||||<0.001
91078908|NCT03646305|182043453|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A paired sample t-test was conducted to measure differences in anxious mood from baseline to post-intervention. Null hypothesis: there would be no significant difference in anxious mood from baseline to post-intervention.||||<0.001
91078910|NCT03646305|182043453|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze main effect of Intervention. Null: On average, the experimental conditions and control conditions would have equal levels of anxiety||||>0.05
91078911|NCT03646305|182043453|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze main effect of Activity. Null: On average, singing and verbal repetition would have equal levels of anxiety||||>0.05
91078912|NCT03646305|182043453|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Twenty-eight participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post-intervention, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze Intervention x Activity interaction. Null: On average, all four conditions were equivalent in levels of anxiety||||>0.05
91078913|NCT03646305|182043453|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at a significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2 (Intervention: experimental, control) × 3 (Time: baseline, post-intervention, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to measure Time x Intervention interactions. Null: experimental and control conditions are equivalent in levels of anxiety across time||||>0.05
91078914|NCT03646305|182043453|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha.05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze Time x Activity interaction. Null: Across time, there would be no difference between singing and verbal repetition on levels of anxiety||||>0.05
91078915|NCT03646305|182043453|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha.05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze Time x Intervention x Activity interaction. Null: Across time, there would be no difference between the four conditions on levels of anxiety||||>0.05
91078916|NCT03646305|182043454|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to measure main effect of time. Null: Across the sample, levels of depressive mood were equivalent across time.||||<0.001
91078917|NCT03646305|182043454|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired sample t-tests was conducted to measure differences in depressive mood from depressive mood from baseline to post-intervention||||<0.001
91078918|NCT03646305|182043454|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired sample t-tests was conducted to measure differences in depressive mood from post-intervention to follow-up. Null hypothesis: there would be no significant differences in depressive mood from post-intervention to follow-up.||||>0.05
91078919|NCT03646305|182043454|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA used to analyze main effect of Intervention. Null: On average, the experimental conditions and control conditions would have equal levels of depressive mood||||>0.05
91078920|NCT03646305|182043454|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze main effect of Activity. Null: On average, singing and verbal repetition would result in equal levels of depressive mood||||>0.05
91078921|NCT03646305|182043454|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post-intervention, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze Intervention x Activity interaction. Null: On average, all four conditions were equivalent in levels of depressive mood||||>0.05
91078922|NCT03646305|182043454|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at a significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2 (Intervention: experimental, control) × 3 (Time: baseline, post-intervention, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to measure Time x Intervention interactions. Null: experimental and control conditions are equivalent in levels of depressive mood across time||||>0.05
91078923|NCT03646305|182043454|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha.05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA used to analyze Time x Activity interaction. Null: Across time, there would be no difference between singing and verbal repetition on levels of depressive mood||||>0.05
91078924|NCT03646305|182043454|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha.05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze Time x Intervention x Activity interaction. Null: Across time, there would be no difference between 4 conditions on levels of depressive mood||||>0.05
91078925|NCT03646305|182043455|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to measure main effect of time. Null: Across the sample, levels of happiness were equivalent across time||||>0.05
91078926|NCT03646305|182043455|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze main effect of Intervention. Null: On average, the experimental conditions and control conditions would have equal levels of happiness||||>0.05
91078927|NCT03646305|182043455|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze main effect of Activity. Null: On average, singing and verbal repetition would have equal levels of happiness||||>0.05
91078928|NCT03646305|182043455|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post-intervention, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze Intervention x Activity interaction. Null: On average, all four conditions were equivalent in levels of happiness||||>0.05
91078929|NCT03646305|182043455|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at a significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2 (Intervention: experimental, control) × 3 (Time: baseline, post-intervention, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to measure Time x Intervention interactions. Null: experimental and control conditions are equivalent in levels of happiness across time.||||>0.05
91078930|NCT03646305|182043455|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha.05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze Time x Activity interaction. Null: Across time, there would be no difference between singing and verbal repetition on levels of happiness||||>0.05
91078931|NCT03646305|182043455|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha.05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze Time x Intervention x Activity interaction. Null: Across time, there would be no differences between four conditions on levels of happiness||||>0.05
91078932|NCT03646305|182043456|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to measure main effect of time. Null: Across the sample, levels of confidence were equivalent across time.||||>0.05
91078949|NCT03646305|182043459|OTHER|Thought-shape fusion was examined as a potential moderator of the relationship between intervention condition and outcome measures.|||||<|0.001||||||No other outcome measure was moderated by thought-shape fusion scores.|Moderation Analyses|||All moderation analyses were conducted using the PROCESS SPSS macro version 3.2 (Hayes, 2018). We tested model 1, which includes one outcome variable, one predictor, and one moderator. Thought-shape fusion was examined as a potential moderator of the relationship between intervention condition and outcome measures. Null: thought-shape fusion does not significantly moderate the relationship between intervention condition and state self-esteem||||<0.001
91078933|NCT03646305|182043456|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze main effect of Intervention. Null: On average, the experimental conditions and control conditions would have equal levels of confidence||||>0.05
91078934|NCT03646305|182043456|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze main effect of Activity. Null: On average, singing and verbal repetition would result in equal levels of confidence||||>0.05
91078935|NCT03646305|182043456|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post-intervention, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze Intervention x Activity interaction. Null: On average, all four conditions were equivalent in levels of confidence||||>0.05
91078936|NCT03646305|182043456|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at a significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2 (Intervention: experimental, control) × 3 (Time: baseline, post-intervention, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to measure Time x Intervention interactions. Null: experimental and control conditions are equivalent in levels of confidence across time.||||>0.05
91078937|NCT03646305|182043456|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha.05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze Time x Activity interaction. Null: Across time, there would be no difference between singing and verbal repetition on levels of happiness||||>0.05
91078938|NCT03646305|182043456|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha.05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze Time x Intervention x Activity interaction. Null: Across time, there would be no differences between four conditions on levels of happiness||||>0.05
91078939|NCT03646305|182043457|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to measure main effect of time. Null: Across the sample, level of self-esteem were equivalent across time.||||<0.05
91078940|NCT03646305|182043457|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired sample t-tests was conducted to measure differences in self-esteem from post-intervention to follow-up. Null hypothesis: there would be no significant differences in self-esteem from post-intervention to follow-up.||||<0.001
91078941|NCT03646305|182043457|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze main effect of Intervention. Null: On average, the experimental conditions and control conditions would have equal levels of self-esteem||||>0.05
91078942|NCT03646305|182043457|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze main effect of Activity. Null: On average, singing and verbal repetition would result in equal levels of self-esteem||||>0.05
91078943|NCT03646305|182043457|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Twenty-eight participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post-intervention, follow-up) mixed ANOVA used to analyze Intervention x Activity interaction. Null: On average, all four conditions have equivalent levels of self-esteem||||>0.05
91078944|NCT03646305|182043457|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at a significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2 (Intervention: experimental, control) × 3 (Time: baseline, post-intervention, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to measure Time x Intervention interactions. Null: experimental and control conditions have equivalent levels of self-esteem across time.||||>0.05
91078945|NCT03646305|182043457|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha.05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze Time x Activity interaction. Null: Across time, there would be no difference between singing and verbal repetition on levels of self-esteem||||>0.05
91078946|NCT03646305|182043457|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha.05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze Time x Intervention x Activity interaction. Null: Across time, there would be no differences between four conditions on levels of self-esteem||||>0.05
91078947|NCT03646305|182043458|OTHER|Mediation Analysis that examined whether greater homework adherence strengthened the relationship between condition and outcome|||||>|0.05|||||||Mediation Analyses|||All mediation analyses were conducted using the PROCESS SPSS macro version 3.2 (Hayes, 2018). We tested model 4, which includes one outcome variable, one predictor, one mediator, and room for covariates. We examined the meditational effect of homework adherence on the relationship between intervention and each outcome measure. Null: homework adherence does not mediate any relationships between intervention condition and outcome measures.||||>0.05
91078948|NCT03646305|182043458|OTHER|Mediation Analysis that examined whether greater homework adherence strengthened the relationship between condition and outcome|||||>|0.05|||||||Mediation Analyses|||All mediation analyses were conducted using the PROCESS SPSS macro version 3.2 (Hayes, 2018). We tested model 4, which includes one outcome variable, one predictor, one mediator, and room for covariates. We examined the meditational effect of homework adherence on the relationship between activity and each outcome measure. Null: homework adherence does not mediate any relationships between activity condition and outcome measures.||||>0.05
91078971|NCT03053427|182043483|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.838|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.3|||ANCOVA|||LSM difference (gabapentin enacarbil group minus placebo group) of the changes in RLS pain score from baseline was calculated by visit, using the ANCOVA model with the baseline value as a covariate.||0.3|-0.4|0.838
91078950|NCT01554176|182043460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.7||||0.679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|2.5||cLDA model included terms for treatment, time, the interaction of time by treatment, severity of disease (Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, 17-items \[HAM-D17\] ≤20, \>20) and insomnia severity index (ISI ≤14, \>14).|cLDA|||Number of participants included for calculation of mean ± SD baseline and mean ± SD change from baseline MADRS Total Score is 119. Constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model uses efficacy Full Analysis Set (FAS) population (number of participants: filorexant 10 mg - 64, placebo - 64; total number of participants in cLDA analysis - 128).||2.5|-3.8|0.679
91078951|NCT01554176|182043461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.3||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|2.5||cLDA model included terms for treatment, time, the interaction of time by treatment, severity of disease (Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, 17-items \[HAM-D17\] ≤20, \>20) and insomnia severity index (ISI ≤14, \>14).|cLDA|||Pairwise Comparison: Filorexant 10 mg vs. Placebo||2.5|-3.2|0.820
91078952|NCT01554176|182043462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.3||||0.701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.3||cLDA model included terms for treatment, time, the interaction of time by treatment, severity of disease (Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, 17-items \[HAM-D17\] ≤20, \>20) and insomnia severity index (ISI ≤14, \>14).|cLDA|||Pairwise Comparison: Filorexant 10 mg vs. Placebo||1.3|-1.9|0.701
91078953|NCT01554176|182043463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Odds Ratio|2.5||||0.0965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|7.3||Generalized linear mixed effects model included terms for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction.|Generalized Linear Mixed Effects Model|||Pairwise Comparison: Filorexant 10 mg vs. Placebo||7.3|0.8|0.0965
91078954|NCT01554176|182043464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage incidence|15.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|31.4||||Between-group comparison of AE incident rate||Estimated parameter is between-group difference in percentage of participants with an AE = percentage (filorexant 10 mg) - percentage (placebo) for participants with one or more AE.||31.4|-0.9|
91078955|NCT01554176|182043465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage incidence|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|7.0||||Between-group comparison of incidence rate of drug discontinuation due to AE||Estimated parameter is between-group difference in percentage of participants discontinued from study drug due to an AE = percentage (filorexant 10 mg) - percentage (placebo).||7|-7|
91078956|NCT02436031|182043468|OTHER|||||||0.049|||||||Wilcoxon Matched-Pairs Signed-Rank Test|||Active Pcrit||||0.049
91078957|NCT02436031|182043468|OTHER|||||||0.135|||||||Wilcoxon Matched-Pairs Signed-Rank Test|||Passive Pcrit||||0.135
91078958|NCT03053427|182043477|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.2|||Mixed Model of Repeated Measurements|||MMRM with compound symmetry as the covariance structure was used. The explanatory variables of the model included treatment group, IRLS score at baseline, age category, estimated creatinine clearance category, time point, and interaction of treatment group and time point.||0.2|-2.6|0.088
91078959|NCT03053427|182043478|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.0|||ANCOVA|Time frame: week 1||LMS difference (gabapentin enacarbil group minus placebo group) of the changes in IRLS score from baseline was calculated by visit, using ANCOVA model with the baseline value as a covariate.||0.0|-2.2|0.051
91078960|NCT03053427|182043478|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-0.2|||ANCOVA|Time frame: week 2||LMS difference (gabapentin enacarbil group minus placebo group) of the changes in IRLS score from baseline was calculated by visit, using ANCOVA model with the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.2|-2.8|0.020
91078961|NCT03053427|182043478|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-0.2|||ANCOVA|Time frame: week 4||LMS difference (gabapentin enacarbil group minus placebo group) of the changes in IRLS score from baseline was calculated by visit, using ANCOVA model with the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.2|-2.9|0.028
91078962|NCT03053427|182043478|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|0.0|||ANCOVA|Time frame: week 6||LMS difference (gabapentin enacarbil group minus placebo group) of the changes in IRLS score from baseline was calculated by visit, using ANCOVA model with the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.0|-2.9|0.043
91078963|NCT03053427|182043478|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.5|||ANCOVA|Time frame: week 8||LMS difference (gabapentin enacarbil group minus placebo group) of the changes in IRLS score from baseline was calculated by visit, using ANCOVA model with the baseline value as a covariate.||0.5|-2.4|0.184
91078964|NCT03053427|182043478|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-0.2|||ANCOVA|Time frame: week 10||LMS difference (gabapentin enacarbil group minus placebo group) of the changes in IRLS score from baseline was calculated by visit, using ANCOVA model with the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.2|-3.1|0.027
91078965|NCT03053427|182043478|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|0.2|||ANCOVA|Time frame: week 12||LMS difference (gabapentin enacarbil group minus placebo group) of the changes in IRLS score from baseline was calculated by visit, using ANCOVA model with the baseline value as a covariate.||0.2|-3.0|0.087
91078966|NCT03053427|182043478|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.8|||ANCOVA|Time frame: EoT||LMS difference (gabapentin enacarbil group minus placebo group) of the changes in IRLS score from baseline was calculated by visit, using ANCOVA model with the baseline value as a covariate.||0.8|-2.4|0.312
91078967|NCT03053427|182043479|SUPERIORITY||difference|4.2||||0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|14.8|||Fisher Exact|||||14.8|-6.4|0.467
91078968|NCT03053427|182043480|SUPERIORITY||difference|5.8||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|16.5|||Fisher Exact|||||16.5|-4.8|0.300
91078969|NCT03053427|182043481|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5|||ANCOVA|||LMS difference (gabapentin enacarbil group minus placebo group) of the changes in PSQI component and global scores from baseline was calculated by visit, using the ANCOVA model with the baseline value as a covariate.||0.5|-0.5|0.877
91078970|NCT03053427|182043482|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.7|||ANCOVA|||LSM difference (gabapentin enacarbil group minus placebo group) of the changes in total score of Athens insomnia scale from baseline was calculated by visit, using the ANCOVA model with the baseline value as a covariate.||0.7|-0.7|0.975
91079072|NCT00497770|182043787|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A pre-specified logistic regression was used to assess non-inferiority of DCR in African American participants compared with Caucasian participants. The DCR for African Americans was to be considered non-inferior to the DCR for Caucasians if the upper bound of the confidence interval (CI) of the odds ratio (OR) for African American versus Caucasian was \<1.78 which corresponds to a difference in proportions of approximately 14% assuming the DCR in the reference group to be 50%.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.821|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.427|1.58||Adjusted:baseline characteristics, income, marital/insurance status, comorbid, time between end of 1st line therapy and start of pemetrexed, prior platinum- or Paclitaxel-containing regimen, number of cycles and best response during 1st line therapy.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.580|0.427|
91079073|NCT01080391|182043801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.834||Analysis was stratified by β2 microglobulin levels (\< 2.5 mg/L vs. ≥ 2.5 mg/L), prior bortezomib (no vs. yes), and prior lenalidomide (no vs. yes)|Log Rank|The stopping boundary for this analysis was 0.0127 based on 1-sided significance level (O'Brien-Fleming with Lan-DeMets spending function).||||0.834|0.570|< 0.0001
91079074|NCT01080391|182043802|SUPERIORITY|The stopping boundary for this analysis was 0.0231 based on 1-sided significance level (O'Brien-Fleming with Lan-DeMets spending function).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.794||||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.667|0.945|||Log Rank|Analysis was stratified by β2 microglobulin levels (\< 2.5 mg/L vs. ≥ 2.5 mg/L), prior bortezomib (no vs. yes), and prior lenalidomide (no vs. yes).||The final analysis of OS was to be performed after 510 deaths occur. A total of 510 deaths would provide 85% power to detect, with a 1-sided significance level of 0.025, a hazard ratio of 0.765 corresponding to a 23.5% reduction in risk for death for CRd versus Rd (39.2 vs. 30.0 months, respectively).||0.945|0.667|0.0045
91079075|NCT01080391|182043803|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.472|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.411|5.001|||Cochran-Mantel Haenszel chi-square test|Cochran-Mantel Haenszel chi-square test with β2 macroglobulin level, prior bortezomib, and prior lenalidomide as stratification factors.|The odds ratio and 95% CI were estimated using the Mantel-Haenszel method.|||5.001|2.411|< 0.0001
91079076|NCT01080391|182043804|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.897||||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|3.08|||Cochran-Mantel Haenszel chi-square test|Cochran-Mantel Haenszel chi-square test with β2 macroglobulin level, prior bortezomib, and prior lenalidomide as stratification factors.|The odds ratio and 95% CI were estimated using the Mantel-Haenszel method.|||3.08|1.17|0.0044
91079077|NCT02117713|182043847|EQUIVALENCE|Student's t-test used to test if mean change is statistically significant; null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is equal to zero.|Mean Difference (Net)|-28.59|STANDARD_DEVIATION|89.456||0.1157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.72|7.54|||Student's t-test||Difference is only calculated in participants who had baseline and week 48 values for n= 26|||7.54|-64.72|0.1157
91079078|NCT02117713|182043848|EQUIVALENCE|Student's t-test used to test if mean change is statistically significant; null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is equal to zero.|Mean Difference (Net)|-45.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|89.934||0.1469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-109.48|19.19|||Student's t-test||||Difference is only calculated in participants who had baseline and week 216 values for n=10|19.19|-109.48|0.1469
91079079|NCT02117713|182043849|EQUIVALENCE|Student's t-test was used to test if mean change was statistically significant (null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is equal to zero).|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.353|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.7124||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.101|-1.606|||Student's t-test||Difference is only calculated in participants who had baseline and week 218 values for n=6|||-1.606|-3.101|0.005
91079080|NCT02117713|182043850|EQUIVALENCE|Student's t-test was used to test if mean change was statistically significant (null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is equal to zero).|Mean Difference (Net)|56.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|119.32||0.2607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.4|166.4|||Student's t-test||Difference is only calculated in participants who had baseline and week 216 values for n=7|||166.4|-54.4|0.2607
91079081|NCT02117713|182043851|EQUIVALENCE|Student's t-test was used to test if mean change was statistically significant (null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is equal to zero).|Mean Difference (Net)|-141.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|216.25||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-341.6|58.4|||Student's t-test||Difference is only calculated in participants who had baseline and week 216 values for n=7|||58.4|-341.6|0.1340
91079082|NCT02117713|182043852|EQUIVALENCE|Student's t-test was used to test if mean change was statistically significant (null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is equal to zero).|Mean Difference (Net)|47.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|75.68||0.1474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.4|117.6|||Student's t-test||Difference is only calculated in participants who had baseline and week 216 values for n=7|||117.6|-22.4|0.1474
91079083|NCT02117713|182043853|EQUIVALENCE|Student's t-test was used to test if mean change was statistically significant (null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is equal to zero).|Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.58||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5|||Student's t-test||Difference is only calculated in participants who had baseline and week 216 values for n=7|||0.5|-0.5|1.00
91079084|NCT02117713|182043854|EQUIVALENCE|Student's t-test used to test if mean change is statistically significant (null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is equal to zero).|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.38||0.0167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-0.4|||Student's t-test||Difference is only calculated in participants who had baseline and week 216 values for n=7|||-0.4|-3|0.0167
91079085|NCT02117713|182043855|EQUIVALENCE|Student's t-test was used to test if mean change was statistically significant (null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is equal to zero).|Mean Difference (Net)|10.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|245.92||0.9108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-216.6|238.3|||Student's t-test||Difference is only calculated in participants who had baseline and week 216 values for n=7|||238.3|-216.6|0.9108
91079086|NCT02117713|182043856|EQUIVALENCE|Student's t-test was used to test if mean change was statistically significant(null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is equal to zero).|Mean Difference (Net)|0.1207|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.882||0.1207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.03|0.45|||Student's t-test||Difference is only calculated in participants who had baseline and week 216 values for n=7|||0.45|-3.03|0.1207
91079087|NCT02117713|182043857|EQUIVALENCE|Student's t-test was used to test if mean change was statistically significant (null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is equal to zero).|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.943|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.2488||0.0927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.098|0.212|||Student's t-test||Difference is only calculated in participants who had baseline and week 216 values for n=7|||0.212|-2.098|0.0927
91079172|NCT02607306|182043993|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure is used to control the overall type I error on a two sided 5% level. If and only if non-inferiority of IDegLira vs. IDeg and superiority of IDegLira vs. Lira are confirmed in the primary analysis (change in HbA1c), the three secondary confirmatory tests are performed for superiority of IDegLira versus IDeg with a fixed sequence (1. change in body weight, 2. number of treatment emergent severe or BG confirmed hypoglycaemic episodes and 3. change in HbA1c).|Treatment contrast|-1.19||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.59||p-value for superiority of IDegLira vs IDeg is presented|ANCOVA|||The change from baseline in response after 52 weeks were analysed using an ANCOVA method with treatment and pre-trial OAD treatment as fixed factors and baseline body weight as covariate.||-0.59|-1.80|0.0001
91079173|NCT02607306|182043994|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure is used to control the overall type I error on a two sided 5% level. If and only if non-inferiority of IDegLira vs. IDeg and superiority of IDegLira vs. Lira are confirmed in the primary analysis (change in HbA1c), the three secondary confirmatory tests are performed for superiority of IDegLira versus IDeg with a fixed sequence (1. change in body weight, 2. number of treatment emergent severe or BG confirmed hypoglycaemic episodes and 3. change in HbA1c).|Treatment contrast|0.48|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.68||p-value for superiority of IDegLira vs IDeg is presented|Negative binomial regression|||The number of events is analysed using a negative binomial regression model (log link) with the logarithm of the treatment emergent exposure time (100 years) as offset. The model includes treatment and pre-trial OAD treatment as fixed factors.||0.68|0.35|<0.0001
91079174|NCT02607306|182043995|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure is used to control the overall type I error on a two sided 5% level. If and only if non-inferiority of IDegLira vs. IDeg and superiority of IDegLira vs. Lira are confirmed in the primary analysis (change in HbA1c), the three secondary confirmatory tests are performed for superiority of IDegLira versus IDeg with a fixed sequence (1. change in body weight, 2. number of treatment emergent severe or BG confirmed hypoglycaemic episodes and 3. change in HbA1c).|Treatment contrast|-0.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.52||p-value for superiority of IDegLira vs IDeg is presented|ANCOVA|||The change from baseline in response after 52 weeks are analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment, pre-trial OAD as fixed factors and corresponding baseline HbA1c value as covariate.||-0.52|-0.75|<0.0001
91079175|NCT03240406|182044038|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06||||0.259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.04||Test of the between arm difference in the global composite at Burst 2, adjusted for the study arm, baseline (Burst 1) global composite, and the randomization stratification factors (baseline sex, age, and years of education)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA of Burst 2 composite adjusted for arm, Burst 1 composite, sex, age, and education. Missing/invalid data were multiply imputed using MICE|Mean Difference of MHD Arm compared to control|||0.04|-0.15|0.259
91079176|NCT03240406|182044039|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.64||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.27||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|ANCOVA|MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|||-0.27|-1.02|0.001
91079177|NCT03240406|182044040|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|-0.54||Estimated from ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline value, age, sex, and years of education at baseline.|ANCOVA|MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education.|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|||-0.54|-1.34|<0.001
91079178|NCT03240406|182044041|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.24||||0.904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.63|4.11||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|ANCOVA|MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|||4.11|-3.63|0.904
91079179|NCT03240406|182044042|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12||||0.721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.52||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, and education; tocopherol biomarker values additionally adjusted for Burst 1 and Burst 2 levels of HDL, LDL, and triglycerides|ANCOVA|Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education; Burst 1 and Burst 2 levels of HDL, LDL and triglycerides|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|||0.52|-0.76|0.721
91079180|NCT03240406|182044043|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.01||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, and education; carotenoid biomarker values additionally adjusted for Burst 1 and Burst 2 levels of HDL, LDL, and triglycerides|ANCOVA|Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education; Burst 1 and Burst 2 levels of HDL, LDL and triglycerides|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|||0.01|-0.01|0.769
91079181|NCT03240406|182044044|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.37||||0.978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.13|97.4||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|ANCOVA|MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|||97.4|-100.13|0.978
91079182|NCT03240406|182044045|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.15||||0.395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.51||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|ANCOVA|MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|Statistical Analysis results for Monounsaturated Fat||0.51|-0.2|0.395
91079183|NCT03240406|182044045|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|-0.02||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|ANCOVA|MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|Statistical Analysis results for Long Chain Saturated Fat||-0.02|-0.21|0.019
91079184|NCT03240406|182044045|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12||||0.201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.31||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|ANCOVA|MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|Statistical Analysis results for EPA||0.31|-0.07|0.201
